Datasets:

ArmelR

/

the-pile-splitted

like 21

--- abstract: 'We study how trading costs are reflected in equilibrium returns. To this end, we develop a tractable continuous-time risk-sharing model, where heterogeneous mean-variance investors trade subject to a quadratic transaction cost. The corresponding equilibrium is characterized as the unique solution of a system of coupled but linear forward-backward stochastic differential equations. Explicit solutions are obtained in a number of concrete settings. The sluggishness of the frictional portfolios makes the corresponding equilibrium returns mean-reverting. Compared to the frictionless case, expected returns are higher if the more risk-averse agents are net sellers or if the asset supply expands over time.' author: - 'Bruno Bouchard[^1]' - 'Masaaki Fukasawa[^2]' - 'Martin Herdegen[^3]' - 'Johannes Muhle-Karbe[^4]' bibliography: - 'mms.bib' title: 'Equilibrium Returns with Transaction Costs[^5]' --- **Mathematics Subject Classification (2010):** 91G10, 91G80. **JEL Classification:** C68, D52, G11, G12. **Keywords:** equilibrium, transaction costs, FBSDEs. Introduction ============ It is empirically well documented that asset returns depend on liquidity [@amihud.mendelson.86; @brennan.96; @pastor.03]. To understand the theoretical underpinning of such “liquidity premia”, we study a continuous-time risk-sharing equilibrium with transaction costs.[^6] For tractability, we assume (local) mean-variance preferences and quadratic trading costs, levied on the agents’ trading rates. Then, both the *unique* equilibrium return that clears the market and the corresponding optimal trading strategies can be characterized by a system of coupled but linear forward-backward stochastic differential equations (FBSDEs). These equations can be solved explicitly in terms of matrix power series, leading to closed-form expressions for the liquidity premia compared to the frictionless benchmark. If the risk aversions of all agents are homogenous and the asset supply remains constant over time, then the frictionless price dynamics still clear the market. As a consequence, illiquidity only affects trading strategies but not equilibrium prices in this case. By contrast, if the asset supply expands over time, positive liquidity premia are necessary to compensate the agents for the trading costs incurred when purchasing these additional shares. Nontrivial liquidity premia also arise with heterogenous preferences. Then, the more risk averse agents have a stronger motive to trade and therefore have to provide additional compensation to the less risk-averse ones. This leads to positive liquidity premia when the more risk averse agents are net sellers. With heterogenous preferences, illiquidity also makes expected returns mean reverting. This result does not depend on mean-reverting fundamentals, but is instead induced by the sluggishness of the frictional portfolios. With trading costs, allocations do not move directly to their stationary allocation but only gradually adjust over time, leading to autocorrelated return dynamics. For example, if endowment exposures have independent increments, then the liquidity premia have Ornstein-Uhlenbeck dynamics. If the agents exogenous trading needs are also mean-reverting, they enter the liquidity premium as a stochastic mean-reversion level. Illiquidity in turn determines the fluctuations of the actual equilibrium return around this value. From a mathematical perspective, our analysis is based on the study of systems of coupled but linear FBSDEs. Since their forward components are degenerate, general FBSDE theory as in [@delarue.02] only yields local existence in this context. As we need global existence and uniqueness results, we provide a direct argument. Using the theory of primary matrix functions, we extend the univariate results of Bank, Soner, and Voß [@bank.al.17] to the multivariate settings needed to analyze the interaction of multiple agents trading several assets. In order to cover tractable stationary models as a special case, we also show how to extend this analysis to infinite time horizons under suitable transversality conditions. #### Related Literature Equilibrium models with transaction costs are notoriously intractable, because trading costs severely complicate the agents’ individual optimization problems. Moreover, representative agents cannot be used to simplify the analysis since they abstract from the trades between the individual market participants. Accordingly, most of the literature on equilibrium asset pricing with transaction costs has focused either on numerical methods or on models with very particular simplifying assumptions. For example, [@heaton.lucas.96; @buss.al.13; @buss.dumas.15] propose algorithms for the numerical approximation of equilibrium dynamics in discrete-time, finite-state models. In contrast, [@lo.al.04; @vayanos.vila.99; @weston.17] obtain explicit formulas in continuous-time models but focus on settings with deterministic asset prices for tractability. Garleanu and Pedersen [@garleanu.pedersen.16] solve for the equilibrium returns in a model with a single rational agent and noise traders. For exogenous mean-reverting demands, they also obtain mean-reverting returns like in our model.[^7] Our more general results show that this effect persists even in the absence of mean-reverting fundamentals, as the sluggishness of optimal portfolios with transaction costs already suffices to generate this effect. A similar observation is made by Sannikov and Skrzypacz [@sannikov.skrzypacz.16]. Like us, they study a model with several rational mean-variance investors. However, by making information about trading targets private, they also strive to endogenize the price impact. If trades are implemented by means of a “conditional double auction”, where each agent observes all others’ supply and demand schedules, then linear, stationary equilibria can be characterized by a coupled system of algebraic equations. However, this system generally admits multiple solutions and these are not available in closed form except in the case of (almost) homogenous risk aversions. #### Outline of the paper This article is organized as follows. Section \[s:model\] describes the model, both in its frictionless baseline version and with quadratic trading costs. In Section 3, we derive the frictionless equilibrium, before turning to individual optimality with transaction costs (and given exogenous returns) in Section \[s:indopt\]. Section \[s:eqopt\] in turn contains our main results, on existence, uniqueness, and an explicit characterization of the equilibrium return, complemented by several examples. Section \[sec:conclusion\] concludes. Appendix \[a:FBSDE\] contains the existence and uniqueness results for linear FBSDEs that are used in Section  \[s:indopt\] and \[s:eqopt\]. Appendix B summarizes some material on primary matrix functions that is needed in Appendix \[a:FBSDE\]. #### Notation Throughout, we fix a filtered probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},(\mathcal{F}_t)_{t \in \scr{T}},P)$, where either $\scr{T} = [0, T]$ for $T \in (0, \infty)$ (“finite time horizon") or $\scr{T} = [0, \infty)$ for $T = +\infty$ (“infinite time horizon"). To treat models with a finite and infinite time horizon in a unified manner, we fix a constant $\delta \geq 0$,[^8] and say that an $\mathbb{R}^\ell$-valued progressively measurable process $(X_t)_{t \in \scr{T}}$ belongs to $\scr{L}^{p}_\delta$, $p \geq 1$, if $E[\int_0^Te^{-\delta t}\Vert X_t\Vert^p dt] < \infty$, where $\Vert \cdot \Vert$ is any norm on $\mathbb{R}^\ell$. Likewise, an $\mathbb{R}^\ell$-valued local martingale $(M_t)_{t \in \scr{T}}$ belongs to $\scr{M}^{p}_\delta$, $p \geq 1$, if $E[\Vert \int_0^T e^{-2 \delta s} d[M]_s \Vert^{p/2}] < \infty$. Here, $\Vert \cdot \Vert$ denotes any matrix norm on $\mathbb{R}^{\ell \times \ell}$. Model {#s:model} ===== Financial Market ---------------- We consider a financial market with $1+d$ assets. The first one is safe, and normalized to one for simplicity. The other $d$ assets are risky, with dynamics driven by $d$-dimensional Brownian motion $(W_t)_{t \in \scr{T}}$: $$\label{eq:price} dS_t=\mu_t dt+\sigma dW_t.$$ Here, the $\mathbb{R}^{d}$-valued expected return process $(\mu_t)_{t\in \scr{T}} \in \scr{L}^2_\delta$ is to be determined in equilibrium, whereas the constant $\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$-valued volatility matrix $\sigma$ is given exogenously. Throughout, we write $\Sigma= \sigma \sigma^\top$ and assume that this infinitesimal covariance matrix is nonsingular. Since our goal is to obtain a model with maximal tractability, it is natural to assume that the exogenous volatility matrix $\sigma$ is constant.[^9] However, stochastic volatilities are bound to appear naturally in more general models where they are determined *endogenously*. Such extensions of the current setting are an important direction for further research. Endowments, Preferences, and Trading Costs ------------------------------------------ A finite number of agents $n=1,\ldots,N$ receive (cumulative) random endowments $(Y^n_t)_{t \in \scr{T}}$ with dynamics $$\label{eq:endow} dY^n_t=d A^n_t +(\zeta^n_t)^\top \sigma dW_t +dM_t^{\perp,n}, \quad n=1,\ldots,N.$$ Here, the $\mathbb{R}$-valued adapted process $(A^n_t)_{t \in \scr{T}}$ with $E[\int_0^T e^{-\delta s} d \vert A \vert_s] < \infty$ denotes the finite variation component of Agent $n$’s endowment; it may contain lump-sum payments as well as absolutely continuous cash-flows. The $\mathbb{R}^{d}$-valued process $\zeta^n \in \scr{L}^2_\delta$ describes the exposure of the endowment to asset price shocks. Finally, the orthogonal $\mathbb{R}$-valued martingale $M^{\perp,n} \in \scr{M}^2_{\delta/2}$ models unhedgeable shocks. Without trading costs, the goal of Agent $n$ is to choose an $\mathbb{R}^{d}$-valued progressively measurable trading strategy $\varphi \in \scr{L}^2_\delta$ (the number of shares held in each risky asset) to maximize the (discounted) expected changes of her wealth, penalized for the quadratic variation of wealth changes as in, e.g., [@garleanu.pedersen.13; @garleanu.pedersen.16]: $$\begin{aligned} &E\left[\int_0^T e^{-\delta t}\left(\varphi _t^\top dS_t+dY^n_t- \frac{\gamma^n}{2}d\left\langle \textstyle\int_0^\cdot \varphi_s^\top dS_s+Y^n\right\rangle_t \right)\right] \notag\\ &=E\bigg[ \int_0^T e^{-\delta t} \left(\varphi_t^\top \mu_t - \frac{\gamma^n}{2} (\varphi_t+\zeta^n_t)^\top \Sigma (\varphi_t+\zeta^n_t) \right)dt \notag \\ &\qquad\quad+ \int_0^T e^{-\delta t} \left(d A^n_t -\frac{\gamma^n}{2} d\langle M^{\perp,n} \rangle_t \right) \bigg] \to \max! \label{eq:frictionless}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\gamma^n>0$ and $\delta \geq 0$ are Agent $n$’s risk aversion and the (common) discount rate, respectively. We assume without loss of generality that $$\gamma^N = \max(\gamma^1, \ldots, \gamma^N),$$ so that Agent $N$ has the highest risk aversion among all agents. For simplicity, we also suppose that the initial stock position $\varphi^n_{0-}$ of each agent is zero. A strictly positive discount rate allows to postpone the planning horizon indefinitely to obtain stationary infinite-horizon solutions as in [@martin.schoeneborn.11; @martin.12; @garleanu.pedersen.13; @garleanu.pedersen.16]. In that case, $\varphi \in \scr{L}^2_\delta$ is an appropriate transversality condition that ensures that the problem is well posed. The solution of the frictionless problem is readily determined by pointwise optimization as $$\label{eq:flopt} \varphi^n_t=\frac{\Sigma^{-1}\mu_t}{\gamma^n}-\zeta^n_t.$$ The first term is the classical (myopic) Merton portfolio; the second is the mean-variance hedge for the replicable part of the endowment. As in [@almgren.chriss.01; @grinold.06; @garleanu.pedersen.13; @cartea.jaimungal.16; @garleanu.pedersen.16; @almgren.li.16; @guasoni.weber.15a; @moreau.al.15; @bank.voss.16; @bank.al.17] we now assume that trades incur costs proportional to the square of the order flow $\dot{\varphi}_t=\frac{d}{dt}\varphi_t$.[^10] This trading friction can either be interpreted as temporary price impact proportional to both trade size and trade speed, or as a (progressive) transaction tax or trading fee. For the first interpretation it is natural to assume that trades also move the prices of correlated securities (compare [@schied.al.10; @garleanu.pedersen.13; @garleanu.pedersen.16; @guasoni.weber.15c]), and each agent’s trades also affect the others’ execution prices. In contrast, a tax as in [@subrahmanyam.98] or the fee charged by an exchange affects trades in each asset and by each agent separately. We focus on the second specification here, which simplifies the analysis by avoiding a coupling of the agents’ optimization problems through common price impact. To wit, $\lambda^m > 0$, $m=1,\ldots,d$, describes the quadratic costs levied separately on each agent’s order flow for asset $m$ and we denote by $\Lambda \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d}$ the diagonal matrix with diagonal entries $\lambda^1, \ldots, \lambda^d$.[^11] With this notation, Agent $n$’s optimization problem then reads as follows: $$\begin{aligned} J^n(\dot{\varphi}):=& E\left[ \int_0^T e^{-\delta t}\left(\varphi_t^\top \mu_t - \frac{\gamma^n}{2} (\varphi_t+\zeta^n_t)^\top \Sigma (\varphi_t+\zeta^n_t) - \dot{\varphi}_t^\top \Lambda \dot{\varphi}_t dt\right)dt\right]\notag\\ &\quad +E\left[ \int_0^T e^{-\delta t} \left(d A^n_t -\frac{\gamma^n}{2} d\langle M^{n\perp} \rangle_t\right) \right] \to \max! \label{eq:goal}\end{aligned}$$ In order to avoid infinite transaction costs, all trading rates (as well as the corresponding trading strategies themselves) naturally have to belong to $\scr{L}^2_\delta$. The goal now is to solve for the equilibrium excess return that matches the agents’ (and, potentially, noise traders’) supply and demand. A similar model with a single strategic agent and noise traders with a particular parametric demand is analyzed in [@garleanu.pedersen.16 Section 4]. Conversely, [@zitkovic.12; @choi.larsen.15; @kardaras.al.15; @xinZit17] study models of the above form without noise traders (and with exponential rather than mean-variance preferences). Frictionless Equilibrium {#s:fless} ======================== For later comparison to the frictional case, we first consider the model without trading costs. To clear the market, the expected return process $(\mu_t)_{t \in \scr{T}}$ needs to be chosen so that the demand of the strategic agents and the exogenous demand of a group of noise traders matches the total supply of zero at all times. To wit, modeling the noise trader demand by an exogenous process $\psi \in \scr{L}^2_\delta$ `with \psi_{0-} = 0`, the clearing condition reads as $$0=\varphi^1_t+\ldots+\varphi^N_t+\psi_t.$$ (Alternatively, one can interpret $-\psi$ as the exogenous supply of the risky assets.) In view of , the frictionless equilibrium expected return therefore is $$\label{eq:mcapm} \mu_t=\frac{\Sigma(\zeta^1_t+\zeta^2_t+\ldots+\zeta^N_t-\psi_t)}{1/\gamma^1+1/\gamma^2+\ldots+1/\gamma^N}.$$ The interpretation is that the investment demand induced by the equilibrium return needs to offset the difference between the noise trading volume and the strategic agents’ total hedging demand. Whence, the equilibrium return scales with the (exogenous) covariance matrix of the risky assets, relative to the total risk tolerance. In this simple model, equilibrium dynamics and strategies are known in closed form, rather than only being characterized via martingale representation [@karatzas.shreve.98] or BSDEs [@kardaras.al.15]. This makes the model an ideal point of departure for analyzing the impact of transaction costs on the equilibrium return. Individual Optimality with Transaction Costs {#s:indopt} ============================================ As a first step towards our general equilibrium analysis in Section \[s:eqopt\], we now consider each Agent $n$’s individual optimization problem with transaction costs , taking an expected return process $\mu \in \scr{L}^2_\delta$ as exogenously given. A multidimensional generalization of the calculus of variations argument of [@bank.al.17] leads to the following representation of the optimal strategy in terms of a coupled but linear system of forward-backward stochastic differential equations (henceforth FBSDEs): \[thm:indopt1\] Let $\varphi^n_t =\frac{\Sigma^{-1}\mu_t}{\gamma^n}-\zeta^n_t$ be the frictionless optimizer from . Then the frictional optimization problem for Agent $n$ has a unique solution, characterized by the following FBSDE: $$\label{eq:FBSDE} \begin{split} d\varphi^{\Lambda, n}_t &=\dot{\varphi}^{\Lambda, n}_t dt, \quad \varphi^{\Lambda, n}_0 =0, \\ d\dot \varphi^{\Lambda, n}_t &= dM^n_t+\frac{\gamma^n \Lambda^{-1}\Sigma}{2}(\varphi^{\Lambda, n}_t-\varphi^n_t)dt + \delta \dot \varphi^{\Lambda, n}_t dt. \end{split}$$ Here, $\varphi^{\Lambda, n}_t, \dot \varphi^{\Lambda, n}_t \in \scr{L}^2_\delta$, and the $\mathbb{R}^d$-valued square-integrable martingale $M^n$ needs to be determined as part of the solution. If $T < \infty$, the dynamics  are complemented by the terminal condition[^12] $$\label{eq:FBSDE:terminal condition} \dot \varphi^{\Lambda, n}_T = 0.$$ For $T=\infty$, Agent $n$’s unique individually optimal strategy $\varphi^{\Lambda,n}$ has the explicit representation ; the corresponding optimal trading rate $\dot{\varphi}^{\Lambda,n}$ is given in feedback form by . For $T<\infty$, the corresponding formulas are provided in and , respectively. Since the goal functional  is strictly convex, has a unique solution if and only if there exists a (unique) solution to the following first-order condition [@ekeland.temam.99]: $$\label{eq:gateaux} \left\langle J'\left(\dot \varphi \right),\dot{\vartheta}\right\rangle=0, \quad \mbox{for all } \vartheta \text{ with } \vartheta_0 = 0 \text{ and } \vartheta, \dot \vartheta \in \scr{L}^2_\delta.$$ Here, the Gâteaux derivative of $J$ in the direction $\dot{\vartheta}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} \left\langle J'\left(\dot \varphi \right),\dot{\vartheta}\right\rangle &= \lim_{\rho \to 0} \frac{J(\dot \varphi +\rho\dot{\vartheta})-J(\dot \varphi)}{\rho}\\ &=E\left[\int_0^T e^{-\delta t}\left( (\mu^\top_t-\gamma^n (\varphi_t+\zeta^n_t)^\top \Sigma) \left(\int_0^t \dot{\vartheta}_s ds\right)- 2\left(\dot \varphi_t\right)^\top \Lambda \dot{\vartheta}_t\right) dt\right].\end{aligned}$$ By Fubini’s theorem, $$\begin{aligned} \int_0^T &\left(e^{-\delta t}(\mu^\top_t -\gamma^n\left(\varphi_t+\zeta^n_t\right)^\top \Sigma) \left(\int_0^t \dot{\vartheta}_s ds \right)\right)dt \\ &=\int_0^T \left(\int_s^T e^{-\delta t}\left(\mu^\top_t -\gamma^n\left(\varphi_t+\zeta^n_t\right)^\top \Sigma\right) dt \right) \dot{\vartheta}_s ds.\end{aligned}$$ Together with the tower property of the conditional expectation, this allows to rewrite the first-order condition as $$0= E\left[\int_0^T \left( E\left[\int_t^T e^{-\delta s}\left(\mu^\top_s -\gamma^n\left(\varphi_s+\zeta^n_s\right)^\top \Sigma\right)ds \Big|\mathcal{F}_t\right] - 2e^{-\delta t} \left(\dot\varphi \right)^\top \Lambda \right) \dot{\vartheta}_t dt\right].$$ Since this has to hold for any perturbation $\dot{\vartheta}$,   has a (unique) solution $\dot \varphi^{\Lambda, n}$ if and only if $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:rep} \dot \varphi^{\Lambda, n}_t &= \frac{\gamma^n \Lambda^{-1}\Sigma}{2} e^{\delta t} E\left[\int_t^T e^{-\delta s}\left(\frac{\Sigma^{-1}\mu_s}{\gamma^n} -\zeta^n_s -\varphi^{\Lambda, n}_s\right)ds \Big|\mathcal{F}_t\right]\end{aligned}$$ has a a (unique) solution. Now, assume that has a (unique) solution $\dot \varphi^{\Lambda, n}$. Note that if $T < \infty$, is satisfied. Define the square-integrable martingale $\tilde{M}_t=\frac{\gamma^n \Lambda^{-1} \Sigma}{2} E\big[\int_0^T e^{-\delta s}(\varphi^n_s -\varphi^{\Lambda, n}_s)ds|\mathcal{F}_t\big]$, $t \in \scr{T}$. Integration by parts then allows to rewrite as $$d\dot{\varphi}^{\Lambda,n}_t =e^{\delta t} d\tilde{M}_t- \frac{\gamma^n\Lambda^{-1}\Sigma}{2} (\varphi^n_t-\varphi^{\Lambda, n}_t)dt+\delta \dot \varphi^{\Lambda, n}_t dt.$$ Together with the definition $d\varphi_t^{\Lambda, n}= \dot{\varphi}_t^{\Lambda, n} dt$, this yields the claimed FBSDE representation . Conversely, assume that has a (unique) solution $(\varphi^{\Lambda, n}, \dot \varphi^{\Lambda, n}, M^n)$, where $\varphi^{\Lambda, n}, \dot \varphi^{\Lambda, n} \in \scr{L}^2_\delta$ and $M^n$ is an $\mathbb{R}^\ell$-valued martingale with finite second moments. First note that, for $t \in \scr{T}$ with $t < \infty$, integration by parts gives $$\label{eq:pf:thm:indopt1:int parts} e^{-\delta t} \dot \varphi^{\Lambda, n}_t = \dot \varphi^{\Lambda, n}_0 + \int_0^t e^{-\delta s} dM^n_s + \int_0^t e^{-\delta s}\frac{\gamma^n \Lambda^{-1}\Sigma}{2}(\varphi^{\Lambda, n}_s-\varphi^n_t)ds.$$ Next, we claim that $$\label{eq:pf:thm:indopt1:claim} \dot \varphi^{\Lambda, n}_0 = - \int_0^T e^{-\delta s} dM^n_s - \int_0^T e^{-\delta s}\frac{\gamma^n \Lambda^{-1}\Sigma}{2}(\varphi^{\Lambda, n}_s-\varphi^n_t)ds.$$ If $T < \infty$, this follows from for $t = T$ together with the terminal condition . If $T = \infty$, we argue as follows: since $\dot \varphi^{\Lambda, n} \in \scr{L}^2_\delta$, there exists an increasing sequence $(t_k)_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ with $\lim_{k \to \infty} t_k = \infty$ along which the left-hand side of converges a.s. to zero. Moreover, Proposition \[prop:BSDE:martingale\], the martingale convergence theorem and $\varphi^{\Lambda, n} ,\varphi^n \in \scr{L}^2_\delta$ show that the right-hand side of converges (along $t_k$) a.s. to $$\dot \varphi^{\Lambda, n}_0 + \int_0^\infty e^{-\delta s} dM^n_s + \int_0^\infty e^{-\delta s}\frac{\gamma^n \Lambda^{-1}\Sigma}{2}(\varphi^{\Lambda, n}_s-\varphi^n_t)ds.$$ Hence, holds also in this case. Inserting into , taking conditional expectations and rearranging in turn yields . It remains to show that the FBSDE has a (unique) solution $(\varphi^{\Lambda, n}, \dot \varphi^{\Lambda, n}, M^n)$. Since the matrix $\frac{\gamma^n}{2} \Lambda^{-1}\Sigma$ has only positive eigenvalues (because it is the product of two symmetric positive definite matrices, cf. [@serre.10 Proposition 6.1]), this follows from Theorem \[thm:fbsde:infinite\] (for $T=\infty$) or Theorem \[thm:fbsde\] (for $T<\infty$), respectively. Equilibrium with Transaction Costs {#s:eqopt} ================================== Equilibrium Returns ------------------- We now use the above characterization of individually optimal strategies to determine the *equilibrium return* $(\mu_t)_{t \in \scr{T}}$, for which the agents’ individually optimal demands match the zero net supply of the risky asset at all times. As each agent’s trading rate is now constrained to be absolutely continuous, the same needs to hold for the exogenous noise-trading volume: $$d\psi_t=\dot{\psi}_tdt,$$ where $d\dot{\psi}_t=\mu^\psi_tdt+ dM_t^\psi$ for $\mu^\psi \in \scr{L}^2_\delta$ and a local martingale $M^\psi$. We also assume that $\psi, \dot \psi \in \scr{L}^2_\delta$. The key ingredient for the equilibrium return is the solution of another system of coupled but linear FBSDEs: \[lem:FBSDE2\] There exists a unique solution $(\varphi^\Lambda,\dot \varphi^\Lambda)=(\varphi^{\Lambda,1},\ldots,\varphi^{\Lambda, N-1},\dot{\varphi}^{\Lambda,1},\ldots,\dot{\varphi}^{\Lambda,N-1})$ of the following FBSDE: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:FBSDE3} \begin{split} d\varphi^\Lambda_t &=\dot{\varphi}^\Lambda_t dt, \quad \varphi_0=0,\\ d\dot{\varphi}^\Lambda_t&=dM_t +\left(B\varphi^\Lambda_t+\delta\dot{\varphi}^\Lambda_t-A\zeta_t+\chi_t\right) dt, \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ satisfying the terminal condition $\dot \varphi^\Lambda_T = 0$ if $T < \infty$. Here, $M$ is an $\mathbb{R}^{d(N-1)}$-valued martingale with finite second moments, $\zeta=((\zeta^1)^\top,\ldots,(\zeta^N)^\top)^\top$, $$\begin{aligned} B&= \begin{pmatrix} \left(\frac{\gamma^N-\gamma^1}{N}+\gamma^1\right) \frac{\Lambda^{-1}\Sigma}{2} & \cdots &\frac{\gamma^{N}-\gamma^{N-1}}{N} \frac{\Lambda^{-1}\Sigma}{2} \\ \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ \frac{\gamma^N-\gamma^1}{N} \frac{\Lambda^{-1}\Sigma}{2} & \cdots & \left(\frac{\gamma^{N}-\gamma^{N-1}}{N}+\gamma^{N-1} \right) \frac{\Lambda^{-1}\Sigma}{2} \end{pmatrix} \in \mathbb{R}^{d (N-1)\times d (N-1)},\\ A&=\begin{pmatrix} \left(\frac{\gamma^1}{N}-\gamma^1\right) \frac{\Lambda^{-1}\Sigma}{2} & \cdots &\frac{\gamma^{N-1}}{N} \frac{\Lambda^{-1}\Sigma}{2} & \frac{\gamma^N}{N} \frac{\Lambda^{-1}\Sigma}{2} \\ \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots \\ \frac{\gamma^1}{N} \frac{\Lambda^{-1}\Sigma}{2} & \cdots & \left(\frac{\gamma^{N-1}}{N}-\gamma^{N-1}\right) \frac{\Lambda^{-1}\Sigma}{2} & \frac{\gamma^N}{N} \frac{\Lambda^{-1}\Sigma}{2} \end{pmatrix} \in \mathbb{R}^{d(N-1)\times d N},\end{aligned}$$ and $$\chi_t=\frac{1}{N}\left(\left(\frac{\gamma^N\Lambda^{-1}\Sigma}{2}\psi_t+\delta\dot{\psi}_t-\mu^\psi_t\right)^\top,\ldots,\left(\frac{\gamma^N\Lambda^{-1}\Sigma}{2}\psi_t+\delta\dot{\psi}_t-\mu^\psi_t\right)^\top\right)^\top \in \mathbb{R}^{d(N-1)}.$$ Lemma \[lem:eigen\] shows that all eigenvalues of the matrix $B$ are real and positive; in particular, $B$ is invertible. The assertion in turn follows from Theorem \[thm:fbsde:infinite\] for $T = \infty$ and from Theorem \[thm:fbsde\] for $T < \infty$ because $\zeta, \chi \in \scr{L}^2_\delta$. We can now state our main result: \[thm:main\] The unique frictional equilibrium return is $$\label{eq:mu} \mu^\Lambda_t =\sum_{n=1}^{N-1} \frac{(\gamma^n-\gamma^N)\Sigma}{N} \varphi^{\Lambda,n}_t+\sum_{n=1}^N \frac{\gamma^n\Sigma}{N} \zeta^n_t-\frac{\gamma_N \Sigma}{N}\psi_t+ \frac{2\Lambda}{N}(\mu^\psi_t-\delta\dot{\psi}_t).$$ The corresponding individually optimal trading strategies of Agents $n=1,\ldots,N$ are $\varphi^{\Lambda,1},\ldots,\varphi^{\Lambda, N-1}$ from Lemma \[lem:FBSDE2\] and $\varphi^{\Lambda,N}=-\sum_{n=1}^{N-1}\varphi^{\Lambda,n}-\psi$. Let $\nu \in \scr{L}^2_\delta$ be *any* equilibrium return and denote by $\vartheta^\Lambda=(\vartheta^{\Lambda,1},\ldots,\vartheta^{\Lambda,N})$ the corresponding individually optimal trading strategies. Then, market clearing implies that not only the positions of the agents but also their trading rates must sum to zero, $0=\sum_{n=1}^N \dot{\vartheta}^{\Lambda,n}+\dot{\psi}$. Together with the FBSDEs describing each agent’s optimal trading rate, it follows that $$0=dM_t +\sum_{n=1}^N \frac{\Lambda^{-1}}{2} \big(\gamma^n \Sigma \vartheta^{\Lambda,n}_t -(\nu_t -\gamma^n \Sigma \zeta^n_t) \big)dt+\sum_{n=1}^N \delta \dot{\vartheta}^{\Lambda,n}_t dt+d\dot{\psi}_t,$$ for a local martingale $M$. Market clearing implies $\vartheta^{\Lambda,N}=-\sum_{n=1}^{N-1} \vartheta^{\Lambda,n}-\psi$, and so this gives $$0=dM_t + \frac{\Lambda^{-1}}{2} \left(\sum_{n=1}^{N-1}(\gamma^n-\gamma^N) \Sigma \vartheta^{\Lambda,n}_t -\sum_{n=1}^N (\nu_t -\gamma^n \Sigma \zeta^n_t)-\gamma_N \Sigma \psi_t \right)dt-\delta \dot{\psi}_t dt+\mu_t^\psi dt + dM^\psi_t.$$ Since any continuous local martingale of finite variation is constant, it follows that $$\label{eq:drift} \nu_t =\sum_{n=1}^{N-1} \frac{(\gamma^n-\gamma^N)\Sigma}{N} \vartheta^{\Lambda,n}_t+\sum_{n=1}^N \frac{\gamma^n\Sigma}{N} \zeta^n_t-\frac{\gamma_N \Sigma}{N}\psi_t+ \frac{2\Lambda}{N}(\mu^\psi_t-\delta\dot{\psi}_t).$$ Plugging this expression for $\nu_t$ back into Agent $n=1,\ldots,N-1$’s individual optimality condition , we deduce that $$\begin{aligned} d\dot{\vartheta}^{\Lambda,n}_t = dM^n_t &+\frac{\Lambda^{-1}\Sigma}{2}\left(\gamma^n\vartheta^{\Lambda,n}_t +\sum_{m=1}^{N-1}\frac{\gamma^N-\gamma^m}{N} \vartheta^{\Lambda,m}_t+\gamma^n\zeta_t^n -\sum_{m=1}^N \frac{\gamma^m}{N}\zeta^m_t\right)dt\\ &+\frac{1}{N} \left(\frac{\gamma_N\Lambda^{-1}\Sigma}{2}\psi_t+\delta\dot{\psi}_t-\mu^\psi_t\right)dt, \qquad n=1,\ldots,N-1.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $(\vartheta^{\Lambda,1},\ldots,\vartheta^{\Lambda,N-1},\dot{\vartheta}^{\Lambda,1},\ldots,\dot{\vartheta}^{\Lambda,N-1})$ solves the FBSDE  and therefore coincides with its *unique* solution from Lemma \[lem:FBSDE2\]. Market clearing in turn shows $\vartheta^{\Lambda,N}=\varphi^{\Lambda,N}$, and implies that the equilibrium return coincides with . This establishes that if an equilibrium exists, then it has to be of the proposed form. To verify that the proposed returns process and trading strategies indeed form an equilibrium, we revert the above arguments. Market clearing holds by definition of $\varphi^{\Lambda,N}$, so it remains to check that $\varphi^{\Lambda,n}$ is indeed optimal for agent $n=1,\ldots,N$. To this end, it suffices to show that the individual optimality conditions  are satisfied for $n=1,\ldots,N$. After inserting the definitions of $\mu^\Lambda$, one first realises that for $n =1, \ldots, N-1$, coincides with the respective equation in , and for $n=N$, this follows from market clearing. This completes the proof. Equilibrium Liquidity Premia ---------------------------- Let us now discuss the *equilibrium liquidity premia* implied by Theorem \[thm:main\], i.e., the differences between the frictional equilibrium returns and their frictionless counterparts . To this end, denote by $\bar \varphi^n$, $n=1,\ldots,N$, the frictionless optimal strategy from for Agent $n$, corresponding to the frictionless equilibrium return : $$\bar \varphi^n_t = \frac{1/\gamma_n \left(\sum_{m=1}^N \zeta^m_t - \psi_t \right)}{\sum_{m=1}^N 1/\gamma^m} - \zeta^n_t.$$ With this notation, the frictionless equilibrium return $\mu$ can be written as $$\label{eq:mu frictionless rewritten} \mu_t = \sum_{n=1}^N \frac{\gamma_n \Sigma}{N} (\bar \varphi^n_t + \zeta^n_t).$$ Now subtract  from the frictional equilibrium return , use that $- \sum_{n =1}^{N-1} \varphi^{\Lambda, n} = \varphi^{\Lambda_N} + \psi_t$ by the frictional clearing condition, and note that $\sum_{n=1}^N ( \varphi_t^{\Lambda,n} - \bar \varphi_t^n) = (-\psi_t + \psi_t) = 0$ by frictional and frictionless market clearing. This yields the following expression for the liquidity premium: $$\begin{aligned} \mathrm{LiPr}_t := \mu^\Lambda_t - \mu_t &= \sum_{n=1}^{N} \frac{\gamma^n\Sigma}{N} \varphi^{\Lambda,n}_t+\sum_{n=1}^N \frac{\gamma^n\Sigma}{N} \zeta^n_t + \frac{2\Lambda}{N}(\mu^\psi_t-\delta\dot{\psi}_t) - \sum_{n=1}^N \frac{\gamma_n \Sigma}{N} (\bar \varphi^n_t + \zeta_t) \notag \\ &=\frac{\Sigma}{N} \sum_{n=1}^N \gamma^n ( \varphi_t^{\Lambda,n} - \bar \varphi_t^n) + \frac{2\Lambda}{N}(\mu^\psi_t-\delta\dot{\psi}_t) \notag \\ &=\frac{\Sigma}{N} \sum_{n=1}^N (\gamma^n -\bar \gamma)( \varphi_t^{\Lambda,n} - \bar \varphi_t^n) + \frac{2\Lambda}{N}(\mu^\psi_t-\delta\dot{\psi}_t), \label{eq:LiPrM}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar \gamma = \sum_{n =1}^N \frac{\gamma_n}{N}$ denotes the average risk aversion of the strategic agents. Let us now interpret this result. A first observation is that if all agents are strategic and have the same risk aversion, then the frictionless equilibrium returns also clear the market with transaction costs: \[cor:homo\] Suppose there are no noise traders and all strategic agents have the same risk aversion $\bar \gamma=\gamma^1=\ldots= \gamma^N$. Then there are no liquidity premia. A similar result has been established for exponential investors in the limit for small transaction costs by [@herdegen.muhlekarbe.17]. In the present quadratic context, this result holds true exactly. A result in the same spirit in a static model is [@anthropelos.17 Corollary 4.12], where incompleteness also only affects strategies but not equilibrium prices for mean-variance investors with homogenous risk aversions. Another related result is [@sannikov.skrzypacz.16 Proposition 12], where homogeneous risk aversion imply that the frictional equilibrium converges to the frictionless one as the horizon grows. However, this result no longer remains true in the presence of noise traders: \[cor:homo2\] Suppose that all strategic agents have the same risk aversion $\bar \gamma=\gamma^1=\ldots= \gamma^N$. Then: $$\mathrm{LiPr}_t = \frac{2\Lambda}{N}(\mu^\psi_t-\delta \dot{\psi}_t).$$ To illustrate the intuition behind this result, consider the simplest case where the noise traders simply sell at a constant rate, $\dot{\psi}<0$. Put differently, the number of risky shares available for trading expands linearly. Then $\mathrm{LiPr}_t = -\frac{2\Lambda}{N}\delta \dot{\psi}>0$. This illustrates how market growth can lead to positive liquidity premia even for homogenous agents. If there is only one strategy agent ($N =1$), we are always in the setting of Corollary \[cor:homo2\]. An example is the model of Garleanu and Pedersen [@garleanu.pedersen.16 Section 4] with a single risky asset ($d=1$), a single strategic agent without random endowment ($\zeta=0$) and exogenous noise traders, whose positions $\psi_t$ are mean-reverting around a stochastic mean:[^13] $$d\psi_t=\kappa_\psi(X_t-\psi_t)dt,$$ where $X$ is an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process driven by a Brownian motion $W^X$: $$dX_t=-\kappa_X X_t dt+\sigma_X dW^X_t.$$ In the notation from Section \[s:eqopt\], we then have $\dot{\psi}_t=\kappa_\psi (X_t-\psi_t)$ and $$\mu^\psi_t=-\kappa_\psi \kappa_X X_t - \kappa_\psi \dot{\psi}_t=-\kappa_\psi \kappa_X X_t - \kappa^2_\psi (X_t-\psi_t) = \kappa_\psi^2 \psi_t -\kappa_\psi(\kappa_\psi+\kappa_X)X_t.$$ We therefore recover the nontrivial liquidity premia of [@garleanu.pedersen.16 Proposition 9], to which we also refer for a discussion of the corresponding comparative statics. To obtain nontrivial liquidity premia in a model with only strategic agents and a fixed supply of risky assets, one needs to consider agents with heterogeneous risk aversions. To ease notation and interpretation, suppose there are no noise traders ($\psi=0$). Then, the liquidity premium  is simplifies to $$\mathrm{LiPr}_t= \frac{\Sigma}{N} \sum_{n=1}^N (\gamma^n - \bar \gamma)( \varphi_t^{\Lambda,n} - \bar \varphi_t^n).$$ This means that the liquidity premium is the sample covariance between the vector $(\gamma^1,\ldots,\gamma^N)$ of risk aversions and the current deviations $(\varphi^{\Lambda,1}_t-\bar \varphi^1_t,\ldots,\varphi^{\Lambda,N}_t-\bar \varphi^N_t)$ between the agents’ actual positions and their frictionless targets. Hence, the liquidity premium is positive if and only if sensitivity and excess exposure to risk are positively correlated, i.e., if the more risk averse agents hold larger risky positions than in the (efficient) frictionless equilibrium. Then, these agents will tend to be net sellers and, as their trading motive is stronger than for the net buyers, a positive liquidity premium is needed to clear the market. To shed further light on the dynamics of liquidity premia induced by heterogenous risk aversions, we now consider some concrete examples where the aggregate of the agents’ endowments is zero as in [@lo.al.04]. First, we consider the simplest case where endowment exposures have independent, stationary increments: \[cor:OU 1\] Let the time horizon be infinite and consider two strategic agents with risk aversions $\gamma_1 < \gamma_2$, discount rate $\delta>0$, and endowment volatilities following arithmetic Brownian motions: $$\label{eq:zeta} \zeta^1_t=at+N_t, \qquad \zeta^2_t =-\zeta^1_t,$$ for an $\mathbb{R}^d$-valued Brownian motion $N$ and $a \in \mathbb{R}^d$. Then, the frictionless equilibrium return vanishes. The equilibrium return with transaction costs has Ornstein-Uhlenbeck dynamics: $$d\mu^\Lambda_t =\left(\sqrt{\frac{\gamma_1+\gamma_2}{2}\frac{\Sigma \Lambda^{-1}}{2}+\frac{\delta^2}{4}I_d}-\frac{\delta}{2}I_d\right) \left(2\frac{\gamma_1-\gamma_2}{\gamma_1+\gamma_2}\delta \Lambda a-\mu^\Lambda_t\right)dt +\frac{(\gamma_1-\gamma_2)\Sigma}{2}dN_t.$$ The frictionless equilibrium return vanishes by . In view of Theorem \[thm:main\] and since $\zeta^2 =-\zeta^1$, its frictional counterpart is given by $$\label{eq:eqmu} \mu^\Lambda_t= \frac{(\gamma^1-\gamma^2)\Sigma}{2} (\varphi^{\Lambda,1}_t+\zeta^1_t).$$ By Lemma \[lem:FBSDE2\] as well as Theorem \[thm:fbsde:infinite\] (with $B=\frac{\gamma_1+\gamma_2}{2}\frac{\Lambda^{-1}\Sigma}{2}$ and $\xi_t=-\zeta^1_t$) and the representation from its proof, Agent 1’s optimal trading rate is $$\label{eq:ex:trading rate} \dot{\varphi}^{\Lambda,1}_t=\bar{\xi}^1_t- \left(\sqrt{\Delta}- \frac{\delta}{2}I_d\right)\varphi^{\Lambda,1}_t,$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \Delta &= \frac{\gamma_1+\gamma_2}{2}\frac{\Lambda^{-1}\Sigma}{2}+\frac{\delta^2}{4}I_d, \\ \bar{\xi}^1_t &= -\left(\sqrt{\Delta} -\tfrac{\delta}{2}I_d \right) E\left[\int_t^\infty \left(\sqrt{\Delta} +\tfrac{\delta}{2} I_d \right) e^{-(\sqrt{\Delta}+\frac{\delta}{2}I_d)(u-t)}(a u+N_u) d u\Big|\mathcal{F}_t\right] \\ &= -\left(\sqrt{\Delta} - \frac{\delta}{2}I_d\right) \left(\zeta^1_t+(\sqrt{\Delta}+\tfrac{\delta}{2}I_d)^{-1}a\right). \end{aligned}$$ Here, we have used an elementary integration and the martingale property of $N$ for the last equality. Plugging this back into yields $$\dot{\varphi}^{\Lambda,1}_t=-\left(\sqrt{\Delta} - \frac{\delta}{2}I_d\right)\left(\varphi^{\Lambda,1}_t + \zeta^1_t+(\sqrt{\Delta} + \tfrac{\delta}{2}I_d)^{-1}a\right).$$ Inserting this into in turn leads to the asserted Ornstein-Uhlenbeck dynamics: $$\begin{aligned} d \mu^\Lambda_t &= \tfrac{(\gamma^1-\gamma^2)\Sigma}{2} (\dot \varphi^{\Lambda,1}_t dt+d\zeta^1_t) \\ &= \tfrac{(\gamma^1-\gamma^2)\Sigma}{2} \left(\left(-\left(\sqrt{\Delta} - \tfrac{\delta}{2}I_d\right)\Big(\varphi^{\Lambda,1}_t + \zeta^1_t+(\sqrt{\Delta}+\tfrac{\delta}{2}I_d)^{-1}a\Big) + a\right) dt+d N_t\right) \\ &= \left(\tfrac{(\gamma^1-\gamma^2)\Sigma}{2} \left(\sqrt{\Delta} - \tfrac{\delta}{2}I_d\right) (\Delta -\tfrac{\delta^2}{4}I_d)^{-1}\delta a) - \Sigma \left(\sqrt{\Delta} - \tfrac{\delta}{2}I_d\right) \Sigma^{-1}\mu_t^\Lambda\right) dt + \tfrac{(\gamma^1-\gamma^2)\Sigma}{2} dN_t \\ &= \left(2\tfrac{\gamma^1-\gamma^2}{\gamma_1+\gamma_2} \Sigma \left(\sqrt{\Delta} - \tfrac{\delta}{2}I_d\right) \Sigma^{-1} \delta \Lambda a - \Sigma \left(\sqrt{\Delta} - \tfrac{\delta}{2}I_d\right) \Sigma^{-1}\mu_t^\Lambda\right) dt + \tfrac{(\gamma^1-\gamma^2)\Sigma}{2} dN_t \\ &= \Sigma \left(\sqrt{\Delta} - \tfrac{\delta}{2}I_d\right) \Sigma^{-1} \left(2\tfrac{\gamma^1-\gamma^2}{\gamma_1+\gamma_2}\delta \Lambda a- \mu^\Lambda_t\right) dt + \tfrac{(\gamma^1-\gamma^2)\Sigma}{2} dN_t \\ &= \left(\sqrt{\tfrac{\gamma_1+\gamma_2}{2}\tfrac{\Sigma \Lambda^{-1}}{2}+\tfrac{\delta^2}{4}I_d}-\tfrac{\delta}{2}I_d\right) \left(2\tfrac{\gamma_1-\gamma_2}{\gamma_1+\gamma_2}\delta \Lambda a-\mu^\Lambda_t\right)dt +\tfrac{(\gamma_1-\gamma_2)\Sigma}{2}dN_t, \end{aligned}$$ where we have used Lemma \[lem:matrix function:properties\](b) in the last equality. Let us briefly discuss the comparative statics of the above formula. In line with Corollary \[cor:homo\], the average liquidity premium $2\frac{\gamma_1-\gamma_2}{\gamma_1+\gamma_2}\delta \Lambda a$ and the corresponding volatility both vanish if the agents’ risk aversions coincide. More generally, its size is proportional to the degree of heterogenity, measured by $\frac{\gamma_1-\gamma_2}{\gamma_1+\gamma_2}$, multiplied by the discount rate $\delta$, the trading cost $\Lambda$, and the trend $a$ of Agent $1$’s position. To understand the intuition behind this result, suppose that $a < 0$ so that Agent 1 is a net buyer and Agent 2 is a net seller. Since $\gamma_1 < \gamma_2$, Agent’s 2 motive to sell dominates Agent’s 1 motive to buy and hence an additional positive drift is required to clear the market with friction. Since these readjustments do not happen immediately but only gradually over time, the size of these effects is multiplied by the discount rate $\delta$: a higher demand for immediacy forces the more risk averse agent to pay a larger premium. Even for correlated assets, the *average* liquidity premium only depends on the trading cost for the respective asset and the corresponding imbalance in Agent 1 and 2’s demands. The linear scaling in the trading cost also shows that for small costs, the average value of the liquidity premium is much smaller than its standard deviations (which then scale with the square-root of the liquidity premium). Finally, note that liquidity premia are mean reverting here even though the agents’ endowments are not stationary. The reason is the sluggishness of the agents’ portfolios with transaction costs: the stronger trading need of the more risk-averse agent is not realized immediately but only gradually. This endogenously leads to autocorrelated returns like in the reduced-form models from the frictionless portfolio choice literature [@kim.omberg.96; @wachter.02]. Next, we turn to a stationary model where endowment exposures are also mean-reverting as in [@christensen.larsen.14; @garleanu.pedersen.16]. This generates an additional state variable, that appears in the corresponding liquidity premia as a stochastic mean-reversion level: \[cor:OU 2\] Let the time horizon be infinite and consider two strategic agents with risk aversions $\gamma_1 < \gamma_2$, discount rate $\delta>0$, and endowment volatilities with Ornstein-Uhlenbeck dynamics: $$\label{eq:zeta2} d\zeta^1_t=-\kappa \zeta^1_t dt +dN_t, \qquad d\zeta^2_t =-d\zeta^1_t, \quad \zeta^1_0=\zeta^2_0=0,$$ for an $\mathbb{R}^d$-valued Brownian motion $N$ and a positive-definite mean-reversion matrix $\kappa \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d}$. Then, the frictionless equilibrium return vanishes. The equilibrium return with transaction costs has Ornstein-Uhlenbeck-type dynamics with a stochastic mean-reversion level that is a constant multiple of the endowment levels: $$\begin{aligned} d\mu^\Lambda_t &=\Sigma \left(\sqrt{\Delta} - \frac{\delta}{2}I_d\right) \Sigma^{-1} \left(\frac{(\gamma^1-\gamma^2) \Sigma}{2} \Big(\kappa (\sqrt{\Delta}+\tfrac{\delta}{2} I_d +\kappa)^{-1}-(\sqrt{\Delta}-\tfrac{\delta}{2} I_d)^{-1}\kappa\Big)\zeta^1_t-\mu^\Lambda_t\right)dt \\ &\quad+\frac{(\gamma^1-\gamma^2)\Sigma}{2}dN_t,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\Delta = \frac{\gamma_1+\gamma_2}{2}\frac{\Lambda^{-1}\Sigma}{2}+\frac{\delta^2}{4}I_d.$$ As in Corollary \[cor:OU 1\], the frictionless equilibrium return vanishes by , its frictional counterpart is given by , and Agent 1’s optimal trading rate is . The only change is the target process $\bar{\xi}^1$, which can be computed as follows in the present context: $$\begin{aligned} \bar{\xi}^1_t &= -\left(\sqrt{\Delta} -\tfrac{\delta}{2}I_d \right) \int_t^\infty \left(\sqrt{\Delta} +\tfrac{\delta}{2} I_d \right) e^{-(\sqrt{\Delta}+\frac{\delta}{2}I_d)(u-t)}E[\zeta^1_u|\mathcal{F}_t] du \\ &= -\left(\sqrt{\Delta} - \tfrac{\delta}{2}I_d\right) (\sqrt{\Delta}+\tfrac{\delta}{2}I_d) (\sqrt{\Delta}+\tfrac{\delta}{2}I_d+\kappa)^{-1} \zeta^1_t. \end{aligned}$$ Here, we have used the expectation $E[\zeta^1_u|\mathcal{F}_t]=e^{-\kappa(u-t)}\zeta^1_t$ of Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes and an elementary integration for the last equality. Plugging this back into yields $$\dot{\varphi}^{\Lambda,1}_t=-\left(\sqrt{\Delta} - \tfrac{\delta}{2}I_d\right)\left(\varphi^{\Lambda,1}_t + (\sqrt{\Delta}+\tfrac{\delta}{2}I_d) (\sqrt{\Delta}+\tfrac{\delta}{2}I_d+\kappa)^{-1} \zeta^1_t\right).$$ Inserting this in turn leads to the asserted Ornstein-Uhlenbeck dynamics: $$\begin{aligned} d \mu^\Lambda_t &= \tfrac{(\gamma^1-\gamma^2)\Sigma}{2} (\dot \varphi^{\Lambda,1}_t dt+d\zeta^1_t) \\ &= \tfrac{(\gamma^1-\gamma^2)\Sigma}{2} \left(\left(-\left(\sqrt{\Delta} - \tfrac{\delta}{2}I_d\right)\Big(\varphi^{\Lambda,1}_t + (\sqrt{\Delta}+\tfrac{\delta}{2}I_d) (\sqrt{\Delta}+\tfrac{\delta}{2}I_d+\kappa)^{-1} \zeta^1_t\Big)-\kappa \zeta^1_t\right) dt+d N_t\right)\\ &=\Sigma \left(\sqrt{\Delta} - \tfrac{\delta}{2}I_d\right) \Sigma^{-1} \left(\tfrac{(\gamma^1-\gamma^2) \Sigma}{2} \Big(\kappa (\sqrt{\Delta}+\tfrac{\delta}{2} I_d +\kappa)^{-1}-(\sqrt{\Delta}-\tfrac{\delta}{2} I_d)^{-1}\kappa\Big)\zeta^1_t-\mu^\Lambda_t\right)dt \\ &\quad +\tfrac{(\gamma^1-\gamma^2)\Sigma}{2}dN_t. \qedhere \end{aligned}$$ For a single risky asset ($d=1$), the mean-reversion level of the liquidity premium in Corollary \[cor:OU 2\] can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned} \frac{(\gamma^2-\gamma^1) \Sigma \kappa(\delta+\kappa)}{2(\sqrt{\Delta}+\tfrac{\delta}{2} I_d +\kappa)(\sqrt{\Delta}-\tfrac{\delta}{2} I_d)}\zeta^1_t =2 \frac{\gamma_2 - \gamma_1}{\gamma^1+ \gamma_2} \Lambda \kappa (\kappa + \delta) \left(1 - \frac{\kappa}{\sqrt{\Delta}+\tfrac{\delta}{2} I_d +\kappa} \right) \zeta^1_t.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\gamma_1 < \gamma_2$, the coefficient of $\zeta^1_t$ in this expression is positive, so that the sign of the liquidity premium depends on Agent 1’s risky exposure $\zeta^1_t$. If $\zeta^1_t>0$, mean-reversion implies that Agent 1’s exposure will tend to decrease, so that this agent will want to buy back part of her negative hedging position in the risky asset. Conversely, Agent 2 will tend to sell risky shares. Since Agent 2 is more risk averse, her selling motive dominates and needs to be offset by an additional positive expected return to clear the market, in line with the sign of the above expression. Conclusion {#sec:conclusion} ========== In this paper, we develop a tractable risk-sharing model that allows to study how trading costs are reflected in expected returns. In a continuous-time model populated by heterogenous mean-variance investors, we characterize the unique equilibrium by a system of coupled but linear FBSDEs. This system can be solved in terms of matrix power series, and leads to fully explicit equilibrium dynamics in a number of concrete settings. If all agents are homogenous, positive liquidity premia are obtained if the asset supply expands over time. For a fixed asset supply but heterogenous agents, the sign of the liquidity premia compared to the frictionless case is determined by the trading needs of the more risk averse agents. Since these have a stronger motive to trade, they need to compensate their more risk-tolerant counterparties accordingly. The sluggishness of illiquid portfolios also introduces autocorrelation into the corresponding equilibrium expected returns even for fundamentals with independent increments. Several extensions of the present model are intriguing directions for further research. One important direction concerns more general specifications of preferences (e.g., exponential rather than quadratic utilities) or trading costs (e.g., proportional instead of quadratic). Such variations are bound to destroy the linearity of the corresponding optimality conditions, but might still lead to tractable results in the small-cost limit similarly as for models with exogenous prices [@soner.touzi.13; @moreau.al.15; @kallsen.muhlekarbe.17]. Another important direction for further research concerns extensions where the price volatility is no longer assumed to be exogenously given, but is instead determined as an output of the equilibrium. However, even the simplest versions of such models are also bound to lead to nonlinear FBSDEs. Existence and Uniqueness of Linear FBSDEs {#a:FBSDE} ========================================= For the determination of both individually optimal trading strategies in Section \[s:indopt\] and equilibrium returns in Section \[s:eqopt\], this appendix develops existence and uniqueness results for systems of coupled but linear FBSDEs:[^14] $$\begin{aligned} d\varphi_t &=\dot{\varphi}_t dt, \quad \varphi_0=0, \quad t \in \scr{T}, \label{eq:fbsde1}\\ d\dot{\varphi}_t&=dM_t +B\left(\varphi_t-\xi_t\right)dt + \delta \dot \varphi_t dt, \quad t \in \scr{T}, \label{eq:fbsde2}\end{aligned}$$ where $B \in \mathbb{R}^{\ell \times \ell}$ has only positive eigenvalues, $\delta \geq 0$, and $\xi \in \scr{L}^2_\delta$. If $T<\infty$, is complemented by the *terminal condition* $$\label{eq:fbsde3:terminal} \dot \varphi_T = 0.$$ If $T = \infty$, we assume that $\delta > 0$ and the terminal condition is replaced by the *transversality conditions* implicit in $\varphi, \dot \varphi \in \scr{L}^2_\delta$ for $\delta>0$. A *solution* of (\[eq:fbsde1\]–\[eq:fbsde2\]) is a triple $(\varphi, \dot \varphi, M)$ for which $\varphi, \dot \varphi \in \scr{L}^2_\delta$ and $M$ is a martingale on $\scr{T}$ with finite second moments. We first consider the infinite time-horizon case. In this case, the linear FBSDEs (\[eq:fbsde1\]-\[eq:fbsde2\]) can be solved using matrix exponentials similarly as in [@garleanu.pedersen.16]. To this end, we first establish a technical result stating that the martingale $M$ appearing in the solution of the FBSDE (\[eq:fbsde1\]–\[eq:fbsde2\]) automatically belongs to $\scr{M}^2_\delta$: \[prop:BSDE:martingale\] Let $T = \infty$. If $(\varphi, \dot \varphi, M)$ is a solution to the FBSDE (\[eq:fbsde1\]–\[eq:fbsde2\]), then $M \in \scr{M}^2_\delta$. Let $(\varphi, \dot \varphi, M)$ be a solution to the FBSDE (\[eq:fbsde1\]–\[eq:fbsde2\]), where $\varphi, \dot \varphi \in \scr{L}^2_\delta$ and $M$ is a martingale on $[0, \infty)$ with finite second moments. Fix $t \in (0, \infty)$. Then integration by parts yields $$\label{eq:pf:prop:BSDE:martingale:int parts} e^{-\delta t} \dot \varphi_t = \dot \varphi_0 + \int_0^t e^{-\delta s} dM_s + \int_0^t e^{-\delta s} B (\varphi_s - \xi_s) ds.$$ Let $\Vert \cdot \Vert_2$ be the Euclidean norm in $\mathbb{R}^{\ell}$ and $\Vert \cdot \Vert_{\max}$ the maximum norm on $\mathbb{R}^{\ell \times \ell}$. Rearranging and using subsequently the elementary inequality $(a + b + c)^2 \leq 3(a^2 + b^2 + c^2)$ for $a, b, c \in \mathbb{R}$, the elementary estimate $\Vert A x \Vert_2 \leq \sqrt{\ell} \Vert A \Vert_{\max} \Vert x \Vert_2$, and Jensen’s inequality gives $$\begin{aligned} \left\Vert \int_0^t e^{-\delta s} dM_s \right\Vert_2^2 &\leq 3 \left(\Vert \dot \varphi_0 \Vert_2^2 + e^{- 2 \delta t} \Vert \dot \varphi_t \Vert^2_2 + \left(\int_0^t e^{-\delta s} \sqrt{\ell} \Vert B \Vert_{\max} \Vert \varphi_s-\xi_s \Vert_2 ds\right)^2 \right) \notag \\ &\leq 3 \left(\Vert \dot \varphi_0 \Vert_2^2 + e^{- \delta t} \Vert \dot \varphi_t \Vert^2_2 + \frac{\ell}{\delta} \Vert B \Vert^2_{\max} \int_0^t e^{-\delta s} \Vert \varphi_s-\xi_s \Vert^2_2 ds \right). \label{eq:pf:prop:BSDE:martingale:estimate 1}\end{aligned}$$ The definitions of the maximum and Euclidean norms, the estimate $|[N^1, N^2 ]| \leq \tfrac{1}{2} ([N^1 ]+ [N^2])$ for real-valued local martingales $N^1$ and $N^2$, and Itô’s isometry give, for $t \in (0, \infty)$, $$\begin{aligned} E\left[\Big\Vert \int_0^t e^{-2 \delta s } d[M]_s \Big \Vert_{\max} \right] &= E\left[ \max_{i, j \in \{1, \ldots, \ell\}} \int_0^t e^{-2 \delta s } d[M^i, M^j]_s \right] \notag \\ &\leq \frac{1}{2} E\left[ \max_{i \in \{1, \ldots, \ell\}} \int_0^t e^{-2 \delta s } d[M^i]_s + \max_{j \in \{1, \ldots, \ell\}} \int_0^t e^{-2 \delta s } d[M^j]_s \right] \notag \\ &= E\left[ \max_{i \in \{1, \ldots, \ell\}} \int_0^t e^{-2 \delta s } d[M^i]_s \right] \leq E\left[ \sum_{i =1}^\ell \int_0^t e^{-2 \delta s } d[M^i]_s \right] \notag \\ &= E\left[ \sum_{i =1}^\ell \left(\int_0^t e^{-\delta s } dM^i_s\right)^2 \right] = E\left[\left\Vert \int_0^t e^{-\delta s} dM_s \right\Vert_2^2\right]. \label{eq:pf:prop:BSDE:martingale:estimate 2}\end{aligned}$$ Since $\dot \varphi \in \scr{L}^2_\delta$, there exists an increasing sequence $(t_k)_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ with $\lim_{k \to \infty} t_k =\infty$ such that $$\label{eq:pf:prop:BSDE:martingale:limit} \lim_{n \to \infty} E\left[e^{- \delta t_k} \Vert \dot \varphi_{t_k} \Vert^2_2 \right] = 0.$$ Monotone convergence, (\[eq:pf:prop:BSDE:martingale:estimate 1\]-\[eq:pf:prop:BSDE:martingale:limit\]) and $\varphi, \xi \in \scr{L}^2_\delta$ in turn yield $$\begin{aligned} E\left[\Big\Vert \int_0^\infty e^{-2 \delta s } d[M]_s \Big \Vert_{\max} \right] &= \lim_{k \to \infty} E\left[\Big\Vert \int_0^{t_k} e^{-2 \delta s } d[M]_s \Big\Vert_{\max} \right] \leq \lim_{k \to \infty} E\left[\left\Vert \int_0^{t_k} e^{-\delta s} dM_s \right\Vert_2^2\right] \\ &\leq 3 \ell \left(\Vert \dot \varphi_0 \Vert_2^2 + \frac{\ell}{\delta} \Vert B \Vert^2_{\max} E\left[ \int_0^\infty e^{-\delta s} \Vert \varphi_s-\xi_s \Vert^2_2 ds \right] \right) < \infty.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $M \in \scr{M}^2_\delta$ as claimed. \[thm:fbsde:infinite\] Suppose that $T = \infty$, $\delta > 0$, and the matrix $B$ from has only positive eigenvalues. Set $\Delta = B + \frac{\delta^2}{4} I_\ell$. Then, the unique solution of the FBSDE (\[eq:fbsde1\]–\[eq:fbsde2\]) is given by $$\label{eq:varphi:infinite} \varphi_t= \int_0^t \left(e^{-(\sqrt{\Delta} - \frac{\delta}{2} I_\ell)(t-s)} \bar{\xi}_s \right)ds,$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \label{def:bar xi:infinite} \bar{\xi}_t &=\left(\sqrt{\Delta} - \tfrac{\delta}{2} I_\ell\right) E\left[\int_t^\infty \left(\sqrt{\Delta} + \tfrac{\delta}{2} I_\ell\right) e^{-(\sqrt{\Delta}+ \frac{\delta}{2} I_\ell) (s-t)}\xi_s ds\,\Big|\, \mathcal{F}_t\right]. \end{aligned}$$ Let $(\varphi,\dot \varphi, M)$ be a solution to the FBSDE (\[eq:fbsde1\]–\[eq:fbsde2\]) and define $$\tilde \varphi_t := e^{-\frac{\delta}{2}t} \varphi_t.$$ Using that $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:changevar:infinite} \dot {\tilde\varphi}_t &= -\tfrac{\delta}{2} \tilde \varphi_t + e^{-\frac{\delta}{2} t} \dot \varphi_t, \qquad d \dot {\tilde\varphi}_t = -\tfrac{\delta}{2} \dot {\tilde \varphi}_t dt + e^{-\frac{\delta}{2} t} d \dot \varphi_t -\tfrac{\delta}{2} e^{-\frac{\delta}{2} t} \dot \varphi_t dt \end{aligned}$$ and the FBSDE (\[eq:fbsde1\]-\[eq:fbsde2\]) for $(\varphi,\dot{\varphi})$, it follows that $(\tilde \varphi,\dot{\tilde \varphi})$ solves the FBSDE $$\begin{aligned} d\tilde \varphi_t &=\dot{\tilde \varphi}_t dt, \quad \tilde \varphi_0=0, \quad t \in \scr{T}, \label{eq:fbsde tilde 1:infinite}\\ d\dot{\tilde \varphi}_t&=d\tilde M_t +B\left(\tilde \varphi_t- \tilde \xi_t\right)dt + \tfrac{\delta^2}{4} \tilde \varphi_t dt, \quad t \in \scr{T}, \label{eq:fbsde tilde 2} \end{aligned}$$ where $d\tilde M_t = e^{-\frac{\delta}{2} t} dM_t$ and $\tilde \xi_t = e^{-\frac{\delta}{2} t} \xi_t$. In matrix notation, this equation can be rewritten as $$d(\tilde \varphi_t,\dot{\tilde \varphi}_t)^\top=C_1d\tilde M_t+C_2(\tilde \varphi_t,\dot{\tilde \varphi}_t)^\top dt-C_3\tilde \xi_tdt,$$ with $$C_1=\begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ I_\ell \end{pmatrix}, \quad C_2=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & I_\ell \\ \Delta & 0 \end{pmatrix}, \quad C_3=\begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ B \end{pmatrix}.$$ Integration by parts shows $$d(e^{-C_2 t}(\tilde \varphi_t,\dot{\tilde \varphi}_t)^\top)=e^{-C_2 t}C_1d\tilde M_t-e^{-C_2 t}C_3\tilde \xi_t dt,$$ and in turn $$\label{eq:inter:infinite:A} e^{-C_2 u}\begin{pmatrix} \tilde \varphi_u \\ \dot{\tilde \varphi}_u \end{pmatrix}= e^{-C_2 t}\begin{pmatrix} \tilde \varphi_t \\ \dot{\tilde \varphi}_t \end{pmatrix}+\int_t^u e^{-C_2 s}C_1d \tilde M_s -\int_t^u e^{-C_2 s}C_3\tilde \xi_s ds, \quad \mbox{for $t< u < \infty$.}$$ Multiplying by the matrix $$\tilde C_2=\begin{pmatrix} I_\ell & \sqrt{\Delta}^{-1} \\ \sqrt{\Delta} & I_\ell \end{pmatrix}$$ and setting $H(t)=\tilde C_2 e^{-C_2 t}$ yields $$\label{eq:inter:infinite} H(u) \begin{pmatrix} \tilde \varphi_u \\ \dot{\tilde \varphi}_u \end{pmatrix}= H(t)\begin{pmatrix} \tilde \varphi_t \\ \dot{\tilde \varphi}_t \end{pmatrix}+\int_t^u H(s)C_1d \tilde M_s -\int_t^u \tilde H(s) C_3\tilde \xi_s ds, \quad \mbox{for $t< u < \infty$.}$$ It follows by induction that $$\tilde C_2 (- C_2 t)^{2n} =\begin{pmatrix} \Delta^n & \Delta^{n - \tfrac{1}{2}} \\ \Delta^{n + \tfrac{1}{2}} & \Delta^n \end{pmatrix} t^{2n}, \quad \tilde C_2 (- C_2 t)^{2n+1} =-\begin{pmatrix} \Delta^{n+\frac{1}{2}} & \Delta^{n } \\ \Delta^{n+1} & \Delta^{n+\frac{1}{2}} \end{pmatrix} t^{2n +1}, \quad n \geq 0.$$ Now, the power series for the exponential function allows to deduce $$H(t)=\begin{pmatrix} e^{- \sqrt{\Delta} t} & \sqrt{\Delta}^{-1} e^{- \sqrt{\Delta} t}\\ \sqrt{\Delta} e^{- \sqrt{\Delta} t} & e^{- \sqrt{\Delta} t} \end{pmatrix}.$$ Together with , it follows that $$\begin{aligned} \sqrt{\Delta} e^{- \sqrt{\Delta} u}\tilde \varphi_u + e^{- \sqrt{\Delta} u} \dot{\tilde \varphi}_u &= \sqrt{\Delta}e^{- \sqrt{\Delta} t} \tilde \varphi_t + e^{- \sqrt{\Delta} t} \dot{\tilde \varphi}_t \notag \\ &\quad +\int_t^u e^{- \sqrt{\Delta} s} d\tilde M_s -\int_t^u e^{- \sqrt{\Delta} s} B \tilde \xi_s ds, \quad \mbox{for $t< u < \infty$.} \label{eq:pf:fbsde:infinite:prelimit}\end{aligned}$$ By the assumption that $\varphi, \dot \varphi \in \scr{L}^1_\delta \subset \scr{L}^2_\delta$, and the fact that all eigenvalues of $\sqrt{\Delta}$ are greater or equal than $\delta/2$ (because $B$ has only nonnegative eigenvalues), there exists an increasing sequence $(u_k)_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ with $\lim_{k \to \infty} u_k = + \infty$ along which the left-hand side of converges a.s. to zero. Moreover, since $M \in \scr{M}^2_\delta$ by Proposition \[prop:BSDE:martingale\] and $\tilde \xi \in \scr{L}^2_\delta$, the martingale convergence theorem and monotone convergence (together with Jensen’s inequality) – also using that all eigenvalues of $\sqrt{\Delta}$ are greater or equal than $\delta/2$ – imply that for $u \to \infty$ (and a fortiori along $(u_k)_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$) the right hand side of converges a.s. to $$\label{eq:pf:fbsde:infinite:limit} \sqrt{\Delta}e^{- \sqrt{\Delta} t} \tilde \varphi_t + e^{- \sqrt{\Delta} t} \dot{\tilde \varphi}_t +\int_t^\infty e^{- \sqrt{\Delta} s} d\tilde M_s -\int_t^\infty e^{- \sqrt{\Delta} s} B \tilde \xi_s ds.$$ Together, these two limits show that vanishes. Multiplying by $e^{\sqrt{\Delta} t}$, rearranging, and taking conditional expectations (using again that all eigenvalues of $\sqrt{\Delta}$ are larger than or equal to $\delta/2$) we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \dot {\tilde \varphi}_t &= E\left[\int_t^\infty e^{-\sqrt{\Delta} (s-t)} B e^{-\frac{\delta}{2} s} \xi_s ds\Big| \mathcal{F}_t\right] - \sqrt{\Delta} \tilde \varphi_t. \end{aligned}$$ Now, and rearranging give $$\begin{aligned} \dot \varphi_t = E\left[\int_t^\infty e^{-\sqrt{\Delta} (s-t)} B e^{-\frac{\delta}{2} (s-t)} \xi_s ds\Big| \mathcal{F}_t\right] - \left(\sqrt{\Delta} - \tfrac{\delta}{2} I_\ell\right) \varphi_t. \end{aligned}$$ Finally, since $B$ commutes with $e^{-\sqrt{\Delta} (s-t)}$ (as $B = (\sqrt{\Delta} - \frac{\delta}{2} I_\ell)(\sqrt{\Delta} + \frac{\delta}{2} I_\ell) $ and by Lemma \[lem:matrix function:properties\](a)) it follows that $$\label{eq:ODE:infinite} \dot {\varphi}_t = \bar{\xi}_t- \left(\sqrt{\Delta} - \tfrac{\delta}{2} I_\ell\right) \varphi_t.$$ By the variations of constants formula, this linear (random) ODE has the unique solution . If a solution of the FBSDE (\[eq:fbsde1\]-\[eq:fbsde2\]) exists, it therefore must be of the form . It remains to verify that indeed solves the FBSDE (\[eq:fbsde1\]-\[eq:fbsde2\]). To this end, we first show that $\bar \xi \in \scr{L}^2_\delta$. Indeed, denote by $\Vert \cdot \Vert_2$ both the Euclidean norm in $\mathbb{R}^{\ell}$ and the spectral norm in $\mathbb{R}^{\ell \times \ell}$. Since all eigenvalues of $B$ are positive, there is $\varepsilon > 0$ such that all eigenvalues of $\sqrt{\Delta} + \tfrac{\delta}{2} I_\ell$ are greater or equal that $\delta + \varepsilon$. Hence, by Lemma \[lem:matrix function:properties\](c) and the definition of the spectral norm, it follows that $$\left \Vert e^{-(\sqrt{\Delta} + \tfrac{\delta}{2} I_\ell)t} \right \Vert_2 \leq e^{-(\delta + \varepsilon) t}, \quad t \in [0, \infty).$$ Thus, by the definition of $\bar \xi$ in , the fact that $B = (\sqrt{\Delta} - \frac{\delta}{2} I_\ell)(\sqrt{\Delta} + \frac{\delta}{2} I_\ell) $, Jensen’s inequality and Fubini’s theorem, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} E\left[\int_0^\infty e^{-\delta t} \Vert \bar \xi_t \Vert^2_2 d t\right] &\leq \frac{\Vert B \Vert^2_2}{\delta + \epsilon} \int_0^\infty e^{-\delta t} \int_t^\infty e^{-(\delta + \varepsilon) (s-t)} E\left[\Vert\xi_s \Vert^2_2\right] ds dt \\ &\leq \frac{\Vert B \Vert^2_2}{\delta + \varepsilon} \int_0^\infty \left(\int_0^s e^{ \varepsilon t} dt \right) e^{-(\delta + \varepsilon) s} E\left[\Vert\xi_s \Vert^2_2\right] ds \notag \\ &\leq \frac{\Vert B \Vert^2_2}{\epsilon(\delta + \varepsilon)} \int_0^\infty e^{-\delta s} E\left[\Vert\xi_s \Vert^2_2\right] ds < \infty. \end{aligned}$$ Next, we show that $\varphi \in \scr{L}^2_\delta$. Arguing similarly as above, we have $$\left \Vert e^{-(\sqrt{\Delta} - \tfrac{\delta}{2} I_\ell)t} \right \Vert_2 \leq e^{-\varepsilon t}, \quad t \in [0, \infty).$$ Thus, by the definition of $\varphi$ in , Jensen’s inequality and Fubini’s theorem and since $\bar \xi \in \scr{L}^2_\delta$ by the above arguments, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} E\left[\int_0^\infty e^{-\delta t} \Vert \varphi_t \Vert^2_2 d t\right] &\leq \frac{1}{\varepsilon} \int_0^\infty e^{-\delta t} \int_0^t e^{-\epsilon (t -s)} E\left[\Vert \bar \xi_s \Vert^2_2\right] ds dt \\ &\leq \frac{1}{\epsilon} \int_0^\infty \left(\int_s^\infty e^{ -(\delta + \varepsilon) t} dt \right) e^{ \varepsilon s} E\left[\Vert \bar \xi_s \Vert^2_2\right] ds \notag \\ &= \frac{1}{\epsilon(\epsilon \delta + \epsilon)} \int_0^\infty e^{-\delta s} E\left[\Vert \bar \xi_s \Vert^2_2\right] ds < \infty. \end{aligned}$$ By definition, we have $\varphi_0=0$. Next, integration by parts shows that $\dot{\varphi}$ satisfies the ODE , and this yields $\dot{\varphi} \in \scr{L}^2_\delta$ (because $\varphi, \bar \xi \in \scr{L}^2_\delta$). Define the $\mathbb{R}^\ell$-valued square-integrable martingale $(\bar{M}_t)_{t \in [0, \infty)}$ by[^15] $$\bar{M}_t= E\left[\int_0^\infty e^{-\sqrt{\Delta} s} B \tilde \xi_s ds\Big| \mathcal{F}_t\right],$$ where $\tilde \varphi_t := e^{-\frac{\delta}{2}t} \varphi_t$ and $\tilde \xi_t := e^{-\frac{\delta}{2}t} \xi_t$ as before. Then multiplying by the matrix $e^{-(\sqrt{\Delta} + \frac{\delta}{2}I_\ell)t}$ and using as well as $\Delta - \frac{\delta^2}{4} I_\ell = B$ gives, after some rearrangement, $$\begin{aligned} e^{-\sqrt{\Delta} t} \dot {\tilde \varphi}_t &= \bar M_t - \int_0^t e^{-\sqrt{\Delta} s} B \tilde \xi_s ds - \sqrt{\Delta} e^{-\sqrt{\Delta} t} \tilde \varphi_t. \end{aligned}$$ Taking differentials, we therefore obtain $$-\sqrt{\Delta} e^{-\sqrt{\Delta} t} \dot {\tilde \varphi}_t dt + e^{-\sqrt{\Delta} t} d \dot{\tilde \varphi}_t = d \bar M_t - e^{-\sqrt{\Delta} t} B \tilde \xi_t dt -\sqrt{\Delta} e^{-\sqrt{\Delta} t} \dot {\tilde \varphi}_t dt + \Delta e^{-\sqrt{\Delta} t} \tilde \varphi_t dt.$$ Rearranging, multiplying by $e^{\sqrt{\Delta} t}$ and using that $\sqrt{\Delta}$ and $e^{\sqrt{\Delta} t}$ commute, it follows that $$\begin{aligned} d\dot{\tilde \varphi}_t = e^{\sqrt{\Delta} t} d \bar M_t - B \tilde \xi_t dt + \Delta \tilde \varphi_t dt.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, again taking into account  and defining the martingale $M$ (which has finite second moments) by $$d M_t = e^{(\sqrt{\Delta} + \frac{\delta}{2} I_\ell) t} d \bar M_t, \quad M_0 = \bar M_0,$$ we obtain that $\varphi$ from indeed satisfies (\[eq:fbsde1\]–\[eq:fbsde2\]). Let us briefly sketch the financial interpretation of the solution; cf. [@garleanu.pedersen.16] for more details. In the context of individually optimal trading strategies (cf. Lemma \[thm:indopt1\]), the ODE describes the optimal trading rate. It prescribes to trade with a constant *relative* speed $\sqrt{\Delta} - \tfrac{\delta}{2} I_\ell$ towards the *target portfolio* $$(\sqrt{\Delta} - \tfrac{\delta}{2} I_\ell)^{-1} \bar{\xi}_t = E\left[\int_t^\infty \left(\sqrt{\Delta} + \tfrac{\delta}{2} I_\ell\right) e^{-(\sqrt{\Delta}+ \frac{\delta}{2} I_\ell) (s-t)}\xi_s ds\,\Big|\, \mathcal{F}_t\right].$$ In the context of Lemma \[thm:indopt1\], this is an average of the future values of the frictionless optimal trading strategy $\xi$, computed using an exponential discounting kernel. As the trading costs tend to zero, the discount rate tends to infinity, and the target portfolio approaches the current value of the frictionless optimizer, in line with the small-cost asymptotics of [@moreau.al.15]. We now turn to the finite-horizon case. In order to satisfy the terminal condition $\dot{\varphi}_T=0$, the exponentials from Theorem \[thm:fbsde:infinite\] need to be replaced by appropriate hyperbolic functions in the one-dimensional case [@bank.al.17]. In the present multivariate context, this remains true if these hyperbolic functions are used to define the corresponding “primary matrix functions” in the sense of Definition \[def:matrix function\]. The first step to make this precise is the following auxiliary result, which is applied for $\Delta =B+\frac{\delta^2}{4}I_\ell$ in Theorem \[thm:fbsde\] below: \[lem:G\] Let $\Delta \in \mathbb{R}^{\ell \times \ell}$. The matrix-valued function $$G(t) = \sum_{n = 0}^\infty \frac{1}{(2n)!} \Delta^{n} (T - t)^{2n} \label{eq:G}$$ is twice differentiable on $\mathbb{R}$ with derivative $$\dot{G}(t)=-\sum_{n = 0}^\infty \frac{1}{(2n+1)!} \Delta^{n+1} (T - t)^{2n+1},$$ and solves the following ODE: $$\label{eq:ODEG} \ddot{G}(t)=\Delta G(t), \quad \mbox{with } G(T)=I_d \mbox{ and } \dot{G}(T)=0.$$ Moreover, if the matrix $\Delta$ has only positive eigenvalues then, in the sense of Definition \[def:matrix function\], $$G(t) = \cosh(\sqrt{\Delta} (T-t)), \qquad \dot G(t) = -\sqrt{\Delta}\sinh(\sqrt{\Delta} (T-t));$$ for $\delta \geq 0$, the matrix $\Delta G(t) - \frac{\delta}{2} \dot{G}(t)$ is invertible for any $t \in [0, T]$ and, for any matrix norm $\Vert \cdot \Vert$, $$\label{eq:lem:G:uniform} \sup_{t \in [0, T]} \left\Vert \Big(\Delta G(t) - \frac{\delta}{2} \dot{G}(t)\Big)^{-1} \right\Vert < \infty. \qedhere$$ Note that $\sum_{n = 0}^\infty \frac{1}{(2n)!} \Vert \Delta \Vert^n (T - t)^{2n} < \infty$ for any matrix norm $\Vert \cdot \Vert$. Whence, $G(t)$ is well defined for each $t \in \mathbb{R}$. By twice differentiating term by term, and estimating the resulting power series in the same way, it is readily verified that $G$ is twice continuously differentiable on $\mathbb{R}$, has the stated derivative, and is a solution of . Suppose now that $\Delta$ has only positive eigenvalues and $\delta \geq 0$. Then the first two additional claims follow from Definition \[def:matrix function\] via the fact that $B = (\sqrt{B})^2$ and the series representation of the smooth functions $\cosh$ and $\sinh$. The final claim follows from Lemma \[lem:matrix function:properties\](c) and (d) since, for fixed $x \in (0,\infty)$, $$\inf_{t \in [0, T]} x \cosh(x (T -t)) + \tfrac{\delta}{2} x \sinh(x (T -t)) \geq x > 0.$$ The unique solution of our FBSDE can now be characterized using the function $G(t)$ from Lemma \[lem:G\] as follows: \[thm:fbsde\] Suppose that $T < \infty$ and that the matrix $\Delta=B + \frac{\delta^2}{4} I_\ell$ has only positive eigenvalues. Then, the unique solution of the FBSDE (\[eq:fbsde1\]-\[eq:fbsde2\]) with terminal condition is given by $$\label{eq:varphi} \varphi_t= \int_0^t \left(e^{-\int_s^t F(u)du} \bar{\xi}_s \right)ds,$$ where[^16] $$\begin{aligned} F(t) &=-\left(\Delta G(t) -\frac{\delta}{2} \dot G(t)\right)^{-1}\ B \dot G(t)\label{eq:Fdef},\\ \bar{\xi}_t &=\left(\Delta G(t) -\frac{\delta}{2} \dot G(t)\right)^{-1}E\left[\int_t^T \left(\Delta G(s) - \frac{\delta}{2} \dot G(s) \right) B e^{-\frac{\delta}{2} (s-t)}\xi_s ds\Big| \mathcal{F}_t\right].\end{aligned}$$ Let $(\varphi,\dot{\varphi})$ be a solution of the FBSDE (\[eq:fbsde1\]–\[eq:fbsde2\]) with terminal condition and set $$\tilde \varphi_t := e^{-\frac{\delta}{2}t} \varphi_t.$$ Using that $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:changevar} \dot {\tilde\varphi}_t &= -\tfrac{\delta}{2} \tilde \varphi_t + e^{-\frac{\delta}{2} t} \dot \varphi_t, \quad d \dot {\tilde\varphi}_t = -\tfrac{\delta}{2} \dot {\tilde \varphi}_t dt + e^{-\frac{\delta}{2} t} d \dot \varphi_t -\tfrac{\delta}{2} e^{-\frac{\delta}{2} t} \dot \varphi_t dt\end{aligned}$$ and the FBSDE (\[eq:fbsde1\]–\[eq:fbsde2\]) for $(\varphi,\dot{\varphi})$ with , it follows that $(\tilde \varphi,\dot{\tilde \varphi})$ solves the FBSDE $$\begin{aligned} d\tilde \varphi_t &=\dot{\tilde \varphi}_t dt, \quad \tilde \varphi_0=0, \quad t \in [0, T]\label{eq:fbsde tilde 1:finite}\\ d\dot{\tilde \varphi}_t&=d\tilde M_t +B\left(\tilde \varphi_t- \tilde \xi_t\right)dt + \tfrac{\delta^2}{4} \tilde \varphi_t dt, \quad t \in [0, T],\end{aligned}$$ with terminal condition $$\label{eq:pf:fbsde:terminal} \dot{\tilde \varphi}_T=-\tfrac{\delta}{2} \tilde \varphi_T.$$ Here $d\tilde M_t =e^{-\frac{\delta}{2} t} dM_t$ is a square-integrable martingale (because $M$ is) and $\tilde \xi_t = e^{-\frac{\delta}{2} t} \xi_t$. In matrix notation, this equation can be rewritten as $$d(\tilde \varphi_t,\dot{\tilde \varphi}_t)^\top=C_1d\tilde M_t+C_2(\tilde \varphi_t,\dot{\tilde \varphi}_t)^\top dt-C_3\tilde \xi_tdt,$$ with $$C_1=\begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ I_\ell \end{pmatrix}, \quad C_2=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & I_\ell \\ \Delta & 0 \end{pmatrix}, \quad C_3=\begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ B \end{pmatrix}.$$ Integration by parts shows $$d(e^{C_2(T-t)}(\tilde \varphi_t,\dot{\tilde \varphi}_t)^\top)=e^{C_2(T-t)}C_1d\tilde M_t-e^{C_2(T-t)}C_3\tilde \xi_t dt,$$ and in turn $$\label{eq:inter} \begin{pmatrix} \tilde \varphi_T \\ \dot{\tilde \varphi}_T \end{pmatrix}= e^{C_2(T-t)}\begin{pmatrix} \tilde \varphi_t \\ \dot{\tilde \varphi}_t \end{pmatrix}+\int_t^T e^{C_2(T-s)}C_1d \tilde M_s -\int_t^T e^{C_2(T-s)}C_3\tilde \xi_s ds.$$ Set $H(t)=e^{C_2(T-t)}$ and note that $$H(t)=\begin{pmatrix} G(t) & -\Delta^{-1}\dot G(t)\\ -\dot G(t) & G(t)\end{pmatrix},$$ for the function $G(t)$ from Lemma \[lem:G\], as is readily verified by induction. Together with , it follows that $$\begin{aligned} \tilde \varphi_T &= G(t) \tilde \varphi_t -\Delta^{-1} \dot G(t) \dot{\tilde \varphi}_t - \int_t^T \Delta^{-1} \dot G(s) d\tilde M_s + \int_t^T \Delta^{-1} \dot G(s) B \tilde \xi_s ds, \\ \dot{\tilde \varphi}_T &= -\dot{G}(t) \tilde \varphi_t + G(t) \dot{\tilde \varphi}_t +\int_t^T G(s) d\tilde M_s -\int_t^T G(s) B \tilde \xi_s ds.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\dot{\tilde \varphi}_T=-\frac{\delta}{2} \tilde \varphi_T$ by , this in turn yields $$\begin{aligned} 0 = &\left(\tfrac{\delta}{2} G(t) - \dot G(t) \right) \tilde \varphi_t + \left(-\tfrac{\delta}{2} \Delta^{-1} \dot G(t) + G(t) \right) \dot {\tilde \varphi}_t +\int_t^T \left(-\tfrac{\delta}{2} \Delta^{-1} \dot G(s) + G(s) \right) d\tilde M_s \\ &+ \int_t^T \left(\tfrac{\delta}{2} \Delta^{-1} \dot G(s) - G(s)\right) B \tilde \xi_s ds.\end{aligned}$$ Multiplying this equation by $\Delta$ and taking conditional expectations gives $$\begin{aligned} \left(\Delta G(t) -\tfrac{\delta}{2} \dot G(t)\right) \dot {\tilde \varphi}_t &= E\left[\int_t^T \left(\Delta G(s) - \tfrac{\delta}{2} \dot G(s) \right) B \tilde \xi_s ds\Big| \mathcal{F}_t\right] +\left(\Delta \dot G(t) -\tfrac{\delta}{2} \Delta G(t)\right) \tilde \varphi_t.\end{aligned}$$ Now, using and rearranging, it follows that $$\begin{aligned} \left(\Delta G(t) -\tfrac{\delta}{2} \dot G(t)\right) e^{-\frac{\delta}{2} t} \dot \varphi_t &= E\left[\int_t^T \left(\Delta G(s) - \tfrac{\delta}{2} \dot G(s) \right) B e^{-\frac{\delta}{2} s} \xi_s ds\Big| \mathcal{F}_t\right] \\ &\quad+\left(\Delta - \tfrac{\delta^2}{4} I_\ell\right) \dot G(t) e^{-\frac{\delta}{2} t} \varphi_t.\end{aligned}$$ After multiplying with the inverse of $\left(\Delta G(t) -\frac{\delta}{2} \dot G(t)\right)$ (which exists by Lemma \[lem:G\]) and using that $\Delta - \frac{\delta^2}{4} I_\ell = B$, this leads to $$\label{eq:ODE} \dot {\varphi}_t = \bar{\xi}_t-F(t)\varphi_t.$$ By the variations of constants formula, this linear (random) ODE has the unique solution . If a solution of the FBSDE (\[eq:fbsde1\]-\[eq:fbsde2\]) exists, it therefore must be of the form . It remains to verify that indeed solves the FBSDE (\[eq:fbsde1\]-\[eq:fbsde2\]). First, note that $\bar \xi \in \scr{L}^2_\delta$ by the fact that $\xi \in \scr{L}^2_\delta$ and the estimate , and in turn $\varphi \in \scr{L}^2_\delta$. Moreover, by definition, we have $\varphi_0=0$. Next, integration by parts shows that $\dot{\varphi}$ satisfies the ODE , and this yields $\dot{\varphi} \in \scr{L}^2_\delta$ (because $\varphi, \bar \xi \in \scr{L}^2_\delta$) and $\dot{\varphi}_T=0$ (because $G(T)=I$ and $\dot{G}(T)=0$). Define the $\mathbb{R}^\ell$-valued square-integrable martingale $(\bar{M}_t)_{t \in [0, T]}$ by $$\bar{M}_t= E\left[\int_0^T \left(\Delta G(s) - \tfrac{\delta}{2} \dot G(s) \right) B \tilde \xi_s ds\,\Big|\, \mathcal{F}_t\right],$$ where $\tilde \varphi_t := e^{-\frac{\delta}{2}t} \varphi_t$ and $\tilde \xi_t := e^{-\frac{\delta}{2}t} \xi_t$ as before. Then, multiplying by $\left(\Delta G(t) -\tfrac{\delta}{2} \dot G(t)\right)$ and using as well as $\Delta - \frac{\delta^2}{4} I_\ell = B$ gives, after some rearrangement, $$\begin{aligned} \left(\Delta G(t) -\tfrac{\delta}{2} \dot G(t)\right) \dot {\tilde \varphi}_t &= \bar M_t - \int_0^t \left(\Delta G(s) - \tfrac{\delta}{2} \dot G(s) \right) B \tilde \xi_s ds +\left(\Delta \dot G(t) -\tfrac{\delta}{2} \Delta G(t)\right) \tilde \varphi_t.\end{aligned}$$ Taking differentials, we therefore obtain $$\begin{aligned} &\left(\Delta \dot G(t) -\tfrac{\delta}{2} \ddot{G}(t)\right) \dot {\tilde \varphi}_t dt + \left(\Delta G(t) -\tfrac{\delta}{2} \dot{G}(t)\right) d \dot{\tilde \varphi}_t \\ &\qquad= d \bar M_t - \left(\Delta G(t) - \tfrac{\delta}{2} \dot G(t) \right) B \tilde \xi_t dt +\left(\Delta \dot G(t) -\tfrac{\delta}{2} \Delta G(t)\right) \dot{\tilde \varphi}_t dt + \left(\Delta \ddot G(t) -\tfrac{\delta}{2} \Delta \dot G(t)\right) \tilde \varphi_t dt.\end{aligned}$$ Using that $\ddot{G}(t) = \Delta G(t)$ by the ODE and taking into account that $\Delta$ commutes with both $G(t)$ and $\dot G(t)$ by Lemma \[lem:matrix function:properties\](a), it follows that $$\begin{aligned} \left(\Delta G(t) -\tfrac{\delta}{2} \dot{G}(t)\right) d \dot{\tilde \varphi}_t = d \bar M_t - \left(\Delta G(t) - \tfrac{\delta}{2} \dot G(t) \right) B \tilde \xi_t dt + \left(\Delta G(t) -\tfrac{\delta}{2} G(t)\right) \Delta \tilde \varphi_t dt.\end{aligned}$$ Now, multiplying with the inverse of $\left(\Delta G(t) -\frac{\delta}{2} \dot G(t)\right)$ (which exists by Lemma \[lem:G\]) and using that $\Delta = B + \frac{\delta^2}{4} I_\ell$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} d \dot{\tilde \varphi}_t = \left(\Delta G(t) - \tfrac{\delta}{2} \dot G(t) \right)^{-1} d \bar M_t + B\left(\tilde \varphi_t- \tilde \xi_t\right)dt + \tfrac{\delta^2}{4} \tilde \varphi_t dt.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, again taking into account  and defining the square-integrable martingale $M$ by $$d M_t = e^{\frac{\delta}{2} t} \left(\Delta G(t) - \tfrac{\delta}{2} \dot G(t) \right)^{-1} d \bar M_t, \quad M_0 = \bar M_0,$$ we obtain that $\varphi$ from indeed satisfies the FBSDE dynamics (\[eq:fbsde1\]-\[eq:fbsde2\]) with terminal condition . Let us again briefly comment on the financial interpretation of this result in the context of Lemma \[thm:indopt1\]. The basic interpretation is the same as in the infinite-horizon case studied in Theorem \[thm:fbsde:infinite\]. However, to account for the terminal condition that the trading speed needs to vanish, the optimal relative trading speed in is no longer constant. Instead, it interpolates between this terminal condition and the stationary long-run value from Theorem \[thm:fbsde:infinite\], that is approached if the time horizon is distant. Analogously, the exponential discounting kernel used to compute the target portfolio in Theorem \[thm:fbsde:infinite\] is replaced by a more complex version here; compare [@bank.al.17] for a detailed discussion in the one-dimensional case. To apply Theorems \[thm:fbsde:infinite\] and \[thm:fbsde\] to characterize the equilibrium in Theorem \[thm:main\] it remains to verify that the matrix $B$ appearing there only has real, positive eigenvalues, since this implies that the matrix $\Delta := B + \frac{\delta^2}{4} I_\ell$ has only real eigenvalues greater than $\delta^2/4 \geq 0$. \[lem:eigen\] Let $\Lambda \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d}$ be a diagonal matrix with positive entries $\lambda^1, \ldots, \lambda^d > 0$, $\Sigma \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d}$ a symmetric, positive definite matrix and $\gamma^1,\ldots,\gamma^N>0$ with $\gamma^N = \max(\gamma^1,\ldots,\gamma^N)$. Then, the matrix $$B= \begin{pmatrix} \frac{\gamma^N-\gamma^1}{N} \frac{\Lambda^{-1} \Sigma}{2} & \cdots &\frac{\gamma^{N}-\gamma^{N-1}}{N} \frac{\Lambda^{-1} \Sigma}{2} \\ \vdots & \cdots & \vdots \\ \frac{\gamma^N-\gamma^1}{N} \frac{\Lambda^{-1} \Sigma}{2} & \cdots & \frac{\gamma^{N}-\gamma^{N-1}}{N} \frac{\Lambda^{-1} \Sigma}{2} \end{pmatrix} + \begin{pmatrix} \gamma^1 \frac{\Lambda^{-1} \Sigma}{2} & &0 \\ & \ddots & \\ 0 & & \gamma^{N-1} \frac{\Lambda^{-1} \Sigma}{2} \end{pmatrix} \in \mathbb{R}^{d (N-1)\times d (N-1)}$$ has only real, positive eigenvalues. First, recall that two matrices that are similar have the same eigenvalues. Since the matrix $\frac{\Lambda^{-1} \Sigma}{2}$ has only positive eigenvalues (because it is the product of two symmetric positive definite matrices, cf. [@serre.10 Proposition 6.1]), there is an invertible matrix $P \in \mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$ and a diagonal matrix $U \in \mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$ with positive diagonal entries $u^1, \ldots, u^d$ such that $\frac{\Lambda^{-1} \Sigma}{2} = P U P^{-1}$. Now, define the matrix $$Q = \begin{pmatrix} P & & 0 \\ & \ddots & \\ 0 & & P \end{pmatrix} \in \mathbb{R}^{d (N-1)\times d (N-1)}.$$ A direct computation shows that $Q$ is invertible with inverse $$Q^{-1} = \begin{pmatrix} P^{-1} & & 0 \\ & \ddots & \\ 0 & & P^{-1} \end{pmatrix} \in \mathbb{R}^{d (N-1)\times d (N-1)}.$$ Whence $B$ is similar to $\bar B := P^{-1} B P$, and $$\bar B = \begin{pmatrix} \frac{\gamma^N-\gamma^1}{N} U& \cdots &\frac{\gamma^{N}-\gamma^{N-1}}{N} U \\ \vdots & \cdots & \vdots \\ \frac{\gamma^N-\gamma^1}{N} U & \cdots & \frac{\gamma^{N}-\gamma^{N-1}}{N} U \end{pmatrix} + \begin{pmatrix} \gamma^1 U& &0 \\ & \ddots & \\ 0 & & \gamma^{N-1} U \end{pmatrix}.$$ To prove that $\bar B$ (and hence $B$) only has real and positive eigenvalues, we calculate the determinant of $V(x) = xI_{d (N-1)} - \bar B$ for $x \in \mathbb{C} \setminus (0, \infty)$ and show that $\det(V(x)) \neq 0$. So let $x \in \mathbb{C} \setminus (0, \infty)$. Denote by $\mathcal{R}_d$ the commutative subring of all diagonal matrices in $\mathbb{C}^{d\times d}$ and let $\aleph^1, \ldots, \aleph^{N-1}, \gimel^1(x), \ldots \gimel^{N-1}(x) \in \mathcal{R}_d$ be given by $$\aleph^n = - \frac{\gamma^N - \gamma^n}{N} U \quad \text{and} \quad \gimel^n(x) = x I_d - \gamma^n U.$$ With this notation, the $\mathbb{R}^{d(N-1) \times d (N-1)}$-valued matrix $V(x)$ can also be understood as an element of $\mathcal{R}_d^{(N-1)\times(N-1)}$ (the $(N-1)\times(N-1)$ matrices with elements from the diagonal matrices in $\mathbb{R}^{d \times d }$) and we have $$V(x) = \begin{pmatrix} \aleph^1 +\gimel^1(x) & \aleph^2 & \cdots &\aleph^{n-2} &\aleph^{N-1} \\ \aleph^1 & \aleph^2 +\gimel^2(x) & \ddots & \vdots &\vdots \\ \vdots & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots &\vdots \\ \vdots & \vdots & \ddots &\aleph^{N-2}+\gimel^{N-2}(x) &\aleph^{N-1} \\ \aleph^1 & \aleph^2 & \cdots &\aleph^{N-2} &\aleph^{N-1} + \gimel^{N-1}(x) \end{pmatrix}.$$ Now use that by [@silvester.00 Theorem 1], $\det (V (x)) = \det( \mathfrak{det}(V(x)))$, where $ \mathfrak{det}: \mathcal{R}_d^{(N-1)\times(N-1)} \to \mathcal{R}_d$ is the determinant map on the commutative ring $\mathcal{R}_d$. By subtracting the last row (in $\mathcal{R}_d$) of $V(x)$ from the other rows, the problem boils down to calculating the determinant of $$\bar V(x) := \begin{pmatrix} \gimel^1(x) & 0 & \cdots &0 &- \gimel^{N-1}(x) \\ 0 & \gimel^2(x) & \ddots & \vdots &\vdots \\ \vdots & \ddots & \ddots & 0 &\vdots \\ 0 & \cdots &0 &\gimel^{N-2}(x) &- \gimel^{N-1}(x) \\ \aleph^1 & \aleph^2 & \cdots &\aleph^{N-2} &\aleph^{N-1} + \gimel^{N-1}(x) \end{pmatrix}.$$ As $x \in \mathbb{C} \setminus (0, \infty)$ and for $n \in \{1, \ldots, N-1\}$, the eigenvalues of $\gamma^n U$ are $\gamma^n u^1, \ldots, \gamma^n u^d \in (0, \infty)$, it follows that $\det(\gimel^n (x)) \neq 0$ and hence $\gimel^n (x)$ is invertible for each $n$. Now, subtracting $\aleph^n (\gimel^n(x))^{-1}$-times the $n$-th row from the last row for $n = 1, \ldots, N-2$, the problem simplifies to calculating the determinant of $$\hat V(x) := \begin{pmatrix} \gimel^1(x) & 0 &0 &- \gimel^{N-1}(x) \\ 0 & \ddots & 0 &\vdots \\ 0 & \ddots &\gimel^{N-2}(x) &- \gimel^{N-1}(x) \\ 0 & \cdots &0 &\gimel^{N-1}(x)\left(I_d + \sum_{n =1}^{N-1} \aleph^n (\gimel^n(x))^{-1}\right) \end{pmatrix}.$$ As a result: $$\mathfrak{det}(\hat V(x)) = \left(\prod_{n = 1}^{N-1} \gimel^n(x) \right) \left(I_d+ \sum_{n =1}^{N-1} \aleph^n (\gimel^n(x))^{-1}\right),$$ and in turn $$\det (V(x)) = \det \Big( \mathfrak{det}(\hat V(x)) \Big) = \left(\prod_{n = 1}^{N-1} \det(\gimel^n(x))\right) \det\left(I_d + \sum_{n =1}^{N-1} \aleph^n (\gimel^n(x))^{-1}\right).$$ It therefore remains to show that $ \det\left(I_d + \sum_{n =1}^{N-1} \aleph^n (\gimel^n(x))^{-1}\right) \neq 0$. As $I_d + \sum_{n =1}^{N-1} \aleph^n (\gimel^n(x))^{-1}$ is a diagonal matrix, we have $$\det\left(I_d + \sum_{n =1}^{N-1} \aleph^n (\gimel^n(x))^{-1}\right) = \prod_{i = 1}^d \left(1 + \sum_{n =1}^{N-1} \alpha^n u^i \frac{1}{x - \gamma^n u^i}\right),$$ where $\alpha^n = -\frac{\gamma^N -\gamma^n}{N}$, $n \in \{1, \ldots, N-1\}$. As $\gamma^N = \max(\gamma^1, \ldots, \gamma^{N})$, we have $\alpha^n \leq 0$ for each $n \in \{1, \ldots, N-1\}$. It suffices to show that for $i \in \{1, \ldots, d\}$, $$\label{eqn:eigenvalue:01} 1 + \sum_{n =1}^{N-1} \alpha^n u^i \frac{1}{x - \gamma^n u^i} \neq 0.$$ Writing $x = \Re(x) + \mathrm{i} \Im(x)$ and expanding each fraction in by $\Re(x) - \Im(x) \mathrm{i} - \gamma^n u^i$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} 1 + \sum_{n =1}^{N-1} \alpha^n u^i \frac{1}{x - \gamma^n u^i} &= 1 + \sum_{n =1}^{N-1} \alpha^n u^i \frac{\Re(x) - \gamma^n u^i - \Im(x) \mathrm{i}}{(\Re(x) - \gamma^n u^i)^2 + \Im(x)^2} \notag \\ &= 1 + \Re(x) \sum_{n =1}^{N-1} \alpha^n u^i \frac{1}{(\Re(x) - \gamma^n u^i)^2 + \Im(x)^2} \\ &\quad\quad + \sum_{n =1}^{N-1} \alpha^n u^i \frac{- \gamma^n u^i}{(\Re(x) - \gamma^n u^i)^2 + \Im(x)^2} \notag \\ &\quad \quad - \Im(x) \mathrm{i} \sum_{n =1}^{N-1} \alpha^n u^i \frac{1}{(\Re(x) - \gamma^n u^i)^2 + \Im(x)^2}\notag \\ &= 1 + \Re(x) c^i(x) + d^i(x) - \Im(x) \mathrm{i} c^i(x) \notag \\ &= 1 + d^i(x) + c^i(x) \overline{x},\end{aligned}$$ where $\overline{x}$ is the complex conjugate of $x$ and $$\begin{aligned} c^i(x) &= \sum_{n =1}^{N-1} \alpha^n u^i \frac{1}{(\Re(x) - \gamma^n u^i)^2 + \Im(x)^2}, \\ d^i(x) &= \sum_{n =1}^{N-1} \alpha^n u^i \frac{- \gamma^n u^i}{(\Re(x) - \gamma^n u^i)^2 + \Im(x)^2}.\end{aligned}$$ As each $\alpha^n$ is nonpositive, $d^i(x)$ is nonnegative and $c^i(x)$ is nonpositive. Combining this with $\overline{x} \in \mathbb{C} \setminus (0, \infty)$, it follows that $1 + d^i(x) + c^i(x) \overline{x} \neq 0$ so that all eigenvalues of the matrix $B$ are indeed real and positive. Primary Matrix Functions ======================== In this appendix, we collect some facts about matrix functions from the textbook [@higham.08] that are used in Appendix \[a:FBSDE\]. First, we recall the definition of a (primary) matrix function: \[def:matrix function\] Let $A \in \mathbb{C}^{\ell \times \ell}$ be a matrix with distinct eigenvalues $\lambda_1, \dots, \lambda_m$, $m \leq \ell$. Denote by $n_i$ the algebraic multiplicity of $\lambda_i$, $i \in \{1, \ldots, m\}$. Let $O$ be an open neighbourhood of $\lambda_1, \dots, \lambda_m$ in $\mathbb{C}$ and $f: O \to \mathbb{C}$ a function.[^17] 1. The function $f$ is said to be *defined on the spectrum of $A$* if it is $n_i-1$-times differentiable at $\lambda_i$, $i \in \{1, \ldots, m\} $. 2. If $f$ is defined on the spectrum of $A$, then the *primary matrix function* $f(A)$ is defined by $$f(A) := p(A),$$ where $p: \mathbb{C} \to \mathbb{C}$ is the unique Hermite interpolating polynomial satisfying $p^{(k)}(\lambda_i) = f^{(k)}(\lambda_i)$ for $k \in \{0, \ldots, n_i-1\}$ and $i \in \{1, \ldots, s\}$.[^18] As a prime example, note that the exponential function is defined on the spectrum of all matrices $A \in \mathbb{C}^{\ell \times \ell}$ and $\exp(A)$ is just the matrix exponential. We recall some elementary properties of (primary) matrix functions: \[lem:matrix function:properties\] Let $A \in \mathbb{C}^{\ell \times \ell}$ be a matrix with distinct eigenvalues $\lambda_1, \dots, \lambda_m$, $m \leq \ell$ and $f: \mathbb{C} \to \mathbb{C}$ a function defined on the spectrum of $A$. Then: 1. If $P \in \mathbb{C}^{\ell \times \ell}$ commutes with $A$, then $f(A)$ and $P$ also commute. 2. If $P \in \mathbb{C}^{\ell \times \ell}$ is invertible, then $P f(A) P^{-1} = f(P A P^{-1})$. 3. The eigenvalues of $f(A)$ are $f(\lambda_1), \ldots, f(\lambda_m)$. 4. $f(A)$ is invertible if and only if $f(\lambda_i) \neq 0$ for all $i \in \{1, \ldots, m\}$. Assertions (a), (b) and (c) are parts of [@higham.08 Theorem 1.13]. Finally, (d) follows from (c) and the fact that $f(A)$ is invertible if and only if zero is not an eigenvalue. Finally, we recall a result on the principal square root [@higham.08 Theorem 1.29]: \[lem:principal square root\] Let $A \in \mathbb{R}^{\ell \times \ell}$ be a matrix whose eigenvalues are all real and positive. Then there exists a unique matrix $P \in \mathbb{R}^{\ell \times \ell}$ with positive eigenvalues such that $P^2 = A$. It is given by the primary matrix function $P = \sqrt{A}$ in the sense of Definition \[def:matrix function\]. [^1]: Université Paris-Dauphine, PSL, CNRS, UMR \[7534\], CEREMADE, 75016 Paris, France, email `[email protected]`. [^2]: Osaka University, Graduate School of Engineering Science, 1-3 Machikayama, Toyonaka, Osaka, Japan, email: `[email protected]` and Tokyo Metropolitan University, Graduate School of Social Sciences. Support from KAKENHI Grant number 25245046 is gratefully acknowledged. [^3]: University of Warwick, Department of Statistics, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK, email `[email protected]`. Partly supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) under grant 150101. [^4]: Carnegie Mellon University, Department of Mathematical Sciences, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA, email `[email protected]`. Parts of this paper were written while this author was visiting ETH Zürich; he is grateful to the Forschungsinstitut für Mathematik and H.M. Soner for their hospitality. [^5]: We are grateful to Michalis Anthropelos, Peter Bank, Paolo Guasoni, and Felix Kübler for stimulating discussions and detailed comments. Moreover, we thank an anonymous referee for his or her careful reading and pertinent remarks. [^6]: Liquidity premia with exogenous asset prices are studied by [@constantinides.86; @jang.al.07; @lynch.tan.11; @gerhold.al.14; @dai.al.16], for example. [^7]: Mean-reverting fundamentals also drive the mean-reverting dynamics in the overlapping-generations model with linear costs studied in [@vayanos.98], for example. [^8]: This will be the time-discount rate below; for infinite horizon models, it needs to be strictly positive. [^9]: If one instead assumes that the volatility follows some (sufficiently integrable) stochastic process $(\sigma_t)_{t \in \scr{T}}$, then the subsequent characterization of individually optimal strategies and equilibrium returns in terms of coupled but linear FBSDEs as in – still applies. However, the stochastic volatility then appears in the coefficients of this equation, so that the solution can no longer be characterized (semi-)explicitly in terms of matrix power series. Instead, a “backward stochastic Riccati differential equation” appears as a crucial new ingredient already in the one-dimensional models with exogenous price dynamics studied by [@kohlmann.tang.02; @bank.voss.16]. [^10]: The assumption of quadratic rather than proportional costs is made for tractability. However, buoyed by the results from the partial equilibrium literature, we expect the qualitative properties of our results to be robust across different *small* transaction costs, compare with the discussion in [@moreau.al.15]. [^11]: More general specifications do no seem natural for the tax interpretation of the model. Note, however, that the mathematical analysis below only uses that $\Lambda$ is symmetric and positive definite. [^12]: This means that agents stop trading near maturity, when there is not enough time left to recuperate the costs of further transactions. If $T=\infty$, this terminal condition is replaced by the transversality conditions implicit in $\varphi^{\Lambda, n}_t, \dot \varphi^{\Lambda, n}_t \in \scr{L}^2_\delta$ for $\delta>0$. [^13]: Several groups of noise traders with different mean positions as considered in [@garleanu.pedersen.16 Section 4] can be treated analogously. [^14]: Due to the degeneracy of the forward component , general FBSDE theory as in [@delarue.02] only yields local existence. However, the direct arguments developed below allow to establish global existence and also lead to explicit representations of the solution in terms of matrix power series. [^15]: Note that $\int_0^\infty e^{-\sqrt{\Delta} s} B \tilde \xi_s ds$ is square integrable because $\xi \in \scr{L}^2_\delta$ and all eigenvalues of $\sqrt{\Delta}$ are greater than $\delta/2$. [^16]: Note that the inverses are well defined by Lemma \[lem:G\]. [^17]: If $A \in \mathbb{R}^{\ell \times \ell}$ and all eigenvalues of $A$ are real, $O$ can be taken as an open neighbourhood of $\lambda_1, \dots, \lambda_m$ in $\mathbb{R}$, provided that $f$ is also real valued. [^18]: If $A$, $\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_m$, $O$ and $f$ are all real valued and $f$ defined on the spectrum of $A$, the Hermite interpolating polynomial is also real valued.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'Let $Z = (Z_t)_{t \geq 0}$ be the Rosenblatt process with Hurst index $H \in (1/2, 1)$. We prove joint continuity for the local time of $Z$, and establish Hölder conditions for the local time. These results are then used to study the irregularity of the sample paths of $Z$. Based on analogy with similar known results in the case of fractional Brownian motion, we believe our results are sharp. A main ingredient of our proof is a rather delicate spectral analysis of arbitrary linear combinations of integral operators, which arise from the representation of the Rosenblatt process as an element in the second chaos.' address: - 'University of Luxembourg, Department of Mathematics, Luxembourg' - 'University of Luxembourg, Department of Mathematics, Luxembourg' - 'University of Helsinki, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Finland' - 'Aalto University School of Business, Department of Information and Service Management, Finland' author: - George Kerchev - Ivan Nourdin - Eero Saksman - Lauri Viitasaari title: Local times and sample path properties of the Rosenblatt process --- [**Mathematics Subject Classifications (2010)**]{}: Primary 60G18; Secondary 60J55. [**Keywords:**]{} Rosenblatt process, Local times, Fourier transform, Hilbert-Schmidt operator. Introduction ============ The Rosenblatt process $Z = (Z_t)_{t \geq 0}$ is a self-similar stochastic process with long-range dependence and heavier tails than those of the normal distribution. It depends on a parameter $H \in (\frac12, 1)$ which is fixed in what follows. The process $Z$ belongs to the family of Hermite processes that naturally arise as limits of normalized sums of long-range dependent random variables [@Dobrushin-Major-1979]. The first Hermite process is the fractional Brownian motion, which is Gaussian and thus satisfies many desirable properties. The Rosenblatt process is the second Hermite process: it is no longer Gaussian and was introduced by Rosenblatt in [@Rosenblatt-1961]. Although less popular than fractional Brownian motion, the Rosenblatt process is attracting increasing interest in the literature, mainly due to its self-similarity, stationarity of increments[,]{} and long-range dependence properties. See for example [@Aurzada-Monch-2018; @Chronopoulou-Viens-Tudor-2009; @Gu-Bal-2012; @Nourdin-Tran-2019] for recent studies on different aspects of this process. The Rosenblatt process $(Z_t)_{t \geq 0}$ admits the following stochastic representation, also known as the spectral representation: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:rosen_rep_kernel} Z_t = \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} H_t(x, y) Z_G(dx) Z_G(dy).\end{aligned}$$ In (\[eq:rosen\_rep\_kernel\]), the double Wiener-Itô integral is taken over $x \neq \pm y$ [ and]{} $Z_G(dx)$ is a complex-valued random white noise with control measure $G$ satisfying $G(tA) = |t|^{1 - H} G(A)$ for all $t \in {\mathbb R}$ and Borel sets $A \in {\mathbb R}$ and $G(dx) = |x|^{-H} dx$[. The]{} kernel $H_t(x, y)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:rosen_kernel} H_t(x, y) = \frac{e^{i t (x + y) } -1 }{i (x + y)},\end{aligned}$$ and is a complex valued Hilbert-Schmidt kernel satisfying $H_t(x, y) = H_t(y, x) = \overline{H_t(-x, -y)}$ and $\int_{\mathbb{R}^2} |H_t(x, y)|^2 G(dx) G(dy)< \infty$. In particular, the spectral theorem applies, see [@Dobrushin-Major-1979], and allows one to write $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:rosenblatt_spectral_dec} Z_t \overset{d}{=} \sum_{k =1 }^{\infty} \lambda_k (X_k^2 -1 ), \end{aligned}$$ where $(X_k)_{k \geq 1}$ is a sequence of independent standard Gaussian random variables and $(\lambda_k)_{k \geq 1}$ are the eigenvalues[^1] [(repeated according to the possible multiplicity)]{} of the [self-adjoint]{} operator $A:L_G^2 (\mathbb{R}) \to L_G^2 (\mathbb{R})$, given by $$\begin{aligned} \notag (Af) (x) \coloneqq \int_{\mathbb{R}} H_t(x, -y) h(y) G(dy) = \int_{\mathbb{R}} H_t(x, -y) h(y) |y|^{-H} dy. \end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, $\sum_{k \geq 1} \lambda_k^2 < \infty$ and thus  converges. The goal of the present paper is to study the occupation density (also known as [the]{} local time) $L(x, I)$ of $Z$[,]{} where $x \in \mathbb{R}$ and $I \subset [0, \infty)$ is a finite interval. Recall that for a deterministic function $f: \mathbb{R}_+ \to \mathbb{R}$, the occupation measure of $f$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned} \notag \nu(A, B) = \mu(B \cap f^{-1}(A)), \end{aligned}$$ where $A\subset{\mathbb R}$ and $B\subset{\mathbb R}_+$ are Borel sets and $\mu$ is the Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb{R}_+$. Observe that $\nu(A,B)$ represents the amount of time during a period $B$ where $f$ takes value in $A$. Then, when $\nu(\cdot, B)$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\mu$, the occupation density (or local time) is given by the Radon-Nikodym derivative $$\begin{aligned} \notag L(x, B) = \frac{d \nu}{d \mu}(x, B).\end{aligned}$$ We study the local time via the analytic approach [initiated by]{} Berman [@Berman-1969]. The idea is to relate properties of $L(x, B)$ with the integrability properties of the Fourier transform of $f$. Recall the following key result [@Dozzi-2003]: \[prop:dozzi\] The function $f$ has an occupation density $L(x, B)$ for $x \in\mathbb{R}, B \in \mathcal{B}([u,U])$ which is square integrable in $x$ for every fixed $B$ iff $$\begin{aligned} \notag \int_{\mathbb{R}} \left| \int_u^U \exp (i \xi f(t) )dt \right|^2 d \xi < \infty.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, in this case, the occupation density can be represented as $$\begin{aligned} \notag L(x, B) = \frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_{\mathbb R}\int_B \exp ( i \xi (x- f(s)) ) d\xi ds.\end{aligned}$$ The deterministic function $f(t)$ can be chosen to be the single path of a stochastic process $(X_t)_{t\geq 0}$. To show almost sure existence and square integrability of $L(x,B)$ in that case, it will be enough to show that $$\begin{aligned} \notag \mathbb{E} \left[ \int_{\mathbb{R}} \left| \int_u^U \exp (i \xi X_t )dt \right|^2 d \xi \right] < \infty,\end{aligned}$$ or equivalently $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:bound_fourier_ex} \int_{\mathbb{R}} \int_u^U \int_u^U {\mathbb E}[ \exp (i \xi (X_s - X_t){\textcolor{black}}{)} ] ds dt d \xi < \infty.\end{aligned}$$ If $(X_t)_{t \geq 0}$ is Gaussian, then one can evaluate ${\mathbb E}[ \exp {\textcolor{black}}{(i \xi (X_s - X_t))} ]$ explicitly to establish . It leads to the well-known Gaussian criterion: Suppose that $X$ is Gaussian and centered, and satisfies $$\begin{aligned} \notag \int_{[u,U]^2} \Delta(s,t)^{-1/2} ds dt < \infty, \end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta(s,t) = {\mathbb E}[ (X_s - X_t)^2]$. Then $(X_t)_{t \geq 0}$ has an occupation density $L = L(x, B, \omega)$ which, for $B$ fixed, is $P-$a.s. square integrable in $x$. In our setting $(X_t)_{t \geq 0} = (Z_t)_{t \geq 0}$ is the Rosenblatt process which is not Gaussian. Nevertheless, a careful [analysis of]{} ${\mathbb E}[{\textcolor{black}}{\exp (i \xi (Z_s - Z_t))} ] $ via  yields . This is the approach in [@Shevchenko-2010] where existence of the local time of the Rosenblatt process was first established. In this paper we show a [considerably more involved]{} bound on the Fourier transform which in turn will yield deeper results regarding the irregularity properties of the sample paths. The following is the key result of our paper: \[prop:int\_fourier\] Let $n \in \mathbb{N}$ and $0 \leq \eta {\textcolor{black}}{<} \frac{1-H}{2H}$. Then, for any times $0 {\textcolor{black}}{\leq} u < U$, the Rosenblatt process satisfies $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:bound_fourier} \int_{[u, U]^n} \int_{\mathbb{R}^n} \prod_{j =1}^n |\xi_j|^{\eta} \left| \mathbb{E} \exp \left( i \sum_{j = 1}^n \xi_j Z_{t_j} \right) \right| d\xi dt \leq C^n n^{2nH(1 + \eta)} (U - u)^{(1 - H(1 + \eta) ) n},\end{aligned}$$ where the constant $C > 0$ depends only on $H$ and $\eta$. Proposition \[prop:int\_fourier\] can be applied to obtain the following Hölder conditions on $L(x,B)$. \[thm:main\] Let $(Z_t)_{t\geq 0}$ be a Rosenblatt process with $H\in\left(\frac12,1\right)$. The local time [ $ (x,t) \mapsto L(x, [0,t]) $]{} is [almost surely]{} jointly continuous and has finite moments. For a finite closed interval $I \subset (0, \infty)$, let $L^*(I) = \sup_{x\in{\mathbb R}}L(x,I)$. There exist constants $C_1$ and $C_2$ such that, almost surely, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:main-fixed-s} \limsup_{r\to 0} \frac{L^*([s-r,s+r])}{r^{1-H}(\log\log r^{-1})^{{2H}}} \leq C_1,\end{aligned}$$ for any $s \in I$ and $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:main-sup-s} \limsup_{r\to 0}\sup_{s\in I} \frac{L^*([s-r,s+r])}{r^{1-H}(\log r^{-1})^{{2H}}} \leq C_2.\end{aligned}$$ In particular, the local time $L(x,I)$ is well defined for any fixed $x$ and interval $I\subset(0,\infty)$. [Explicit estimates for the moments of the local time are provided in Theorem \[thm:moment0-bound\] below.]{} As a direct corollary we obtain: \[cor:fixed-point\] For any finite closed interval $I \subset (0,\infty)$ there exists [constants $C_1$ and $C_2$]{}, independent of $x$ and $t$, such that[, almost surely,]{} for every $t\in I$ and every $x\in {\mathbb R}$ $$\begin{aligned} \notag \limsup_{r\to 0} \frac{L(x,[t-r,t+r])}{r^{1-H}(\log\log r^{-1})^{{2H}}} \leq C_1,\end{aligned}$$ [and for every $x\in {\mathbb R}$ $$\begin{aligned} \notag \limsup_{r\to 0}\sup_{t\in I} \frac{L(x,[t-r,t+r])}{r^{1-H}(\log r^{-1})^{{2H}}} \leq C_2.\end{aligned}$$ ]{} Moreover, we get the following for a particular Hausdorff measure: \[cor:hausdorff\] Let $I \subset (0, \infty)$ be a finite closed interval. There exists a constant $C$ such that for every $x\in {\mathbb R}$ we have $$\begin{aligned} \notag {\textcolor{black}}{{\mathcal H}_\phi}(Z^{-1}(x) \cap I) \geq CL(x,I), \quad \text{ a.s., } \end{aligned}$$ where [${\mathcal H}_\phi$]{} denotes $\phi$-Hausdorff measure with $\phi(r) = r^{1-H}(\log \log r^{-1})^{{2H}}$. Furthermore, we can get a result on the behavior of the trajectories of [$Z$]{}. \[cor:non-differentiable\] Let $I \subset (0, \infty)$ be a finite closed interval. There exists a constant $C> 0$ such that for every $s\in I$ we have, almost surely, $$\begin{aligned} \notag \liminf_{r\to 0} \sup_{s-r<t<s+r} \frac{|Z_t-Z_s|}{r^H (\log \log r^{-1})^{-{2H}}} \geq C,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \notag \liminf_{r\to 0}\inf_{s\in I} \sup_{s-r<t<s+r} \frac{|Z_t-Z_s|}{r^H (\log \log r^{-1})^{-{2H}}} \geq C.\end{aligned}$$ In particular, $Z$ is almost surely nowhere differentiable. In Section \[sec:int\_fourier\] we establish our main result Proposition \[prop:int\_fourier\]. [As we are dealing with a second order Hermite process, we are forced to control from below singular values of somewhat unwieldy operators (see Remark \[rem:operator\] below). For this purpose we need to introduce several technical lemmas exhibiting tools from operator theory and harmonic analysis, including the theory of weighted integrals. Their]{} proofs are postponed [into]{} Section \[sec:lemmas\_proofs\]. Section \[sec:moments\] is dedicated to some results regarding the existence and joint continuity of the local time. In particular, bounds on the moments of $L(x, B)$ are obtained. Finally, in Section \[sec:proofs\][,]{} Theorem \[thm:main\] and Corollaries \[cor:fixed-point\]-\[cor:non-differentiable\] are established. Integrability of the Fourier transform {#sec:int_fourier} ====================================== The purpose of this section is to provide a proof of Proposition \[prop:int\_fourier\]. We first outline the main steps as Lemmas \[lem:part\_eval\]-\[lem:alku\] and then we establish . The proofs of the lemmas are carried out in Section \[sec:lemmas\_proofs\]. We use the following normalization for the Fourier transform $$\begin{aligned} \notag \widehat{f}(\xi) \coloneqq \int_{\mathbb{R}} e^{- i \xi x} f(x) dx, \end{aligned}$$ for $\xi \in \mathbb{R}$ and $f \in C_0^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})$. The norm in the weighted space $L^2_G$ is defined as $\|f\|_{L^2_G}^2:=\int_{\mathbb R}|f(x)|^2G(x)dx.$ First, we obtain a representation of the left-hand side of  using the eigenvalues of an integral operator. \[lem:part\_eval\] Let $t \in {\mathbb R}_+^n$, $\xi \in \mathbb{R}^n$, and let $A_{t, \xi} : L^2_G(\mathbb{R}) \to L^2_G(\mathbb{R})$, be the operator given by $$\begin{aligned} \notag (A_{t, \xi} f)(x) = \int_{\mathbb{R}} \sum_{j = 1}^n \xi_j \frac{e^{i t_j (x - y) } -1 }{i (x - y)} f(y) |y|^{-{\textcolor{black}}{H}}dy \end{aligned}$$ Let $(\lambda_k)_{k \geq 1}$ be [the sequence of the singular values]{}[^2] of $A_{t, \xi}$. Then, $$\begin{aligned} \notag \left| \mathbb{E} \exp \left( i \sum_{j = 1}^n \xi_j Z_{t_j} \right) \right| = \prod_{k \geq 1} \frac{1}{( 1 + 4 \lambda_k{\textcolor{black}}{^2})^{1/4}}.\end{aligned}$$ Next, instead of studying the properties of $\lambda_k$, defined as in Lemma \[lem:part\_eval\], we introduce an operator that is unitarily equivalent to $A_{t, \xi}$, and obtain estimates for its singular values. \[lem:part\_new\_operator\] The operator $A_{t, \xi}$ is unitarily equivalent to $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:b_operator} B_{t, \xi} \coloneqq c(H) K_{H/2} M_g K_{H/2}\; {\textcolor{black}}{: \L L^2({\mathbb R})\to L^2({\mathbb R})}\end{aligned}$$ where $g(x) = \sum_{j = 1}^n \xi_j \chi_{[0, t_j]}(x)$, $M_g$ is the multiplication operator $(M_g f) (x) \coloneqq g(x) f(x)$ and $K_{\alpha}$ is a convolution operator defined [via the Fourier transform]{}: $$\begin{aligned} \notag (\widehat{K_{\alpha} f}) (x) \coloneqq |x|^{- \alpha} \widehat{f}(x),\end{aligned}$$ for $\alpha \in (-1/2, 1/2)$. Furthermore, if $t_0 = 0 < t_1 < \cdots < t_n \leq 1$, [and we set $\xi_0=0$]{}, the $n$th singular value $\mu_n$ of $B_{t, \xi}$ $($and then also of $A_{t, \xi})$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:bound_svalue} \mu_n ( B_{t, \xi}) {\textcolor{black}}{\; \geq \;} C(H) (\max_{1 \leq j \leq n} |\xi_j - \xi_{j-1} | | t_j - t_{j-1}|^H ) \tilde{\mu}_n^2, \end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{\mu}_n\; \sim\; c(H)n^{- H/2}$, and $c(H), C(H) > 0$ are constants that only depends on $H$. The next step is to provide bounds on integrals involving expressions like on the right-hand side of . First, the following result holds. \[lem:int\_svalue\] Define for $ s \in \mathbb{R}$, the function $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:gproduct} G(s) \coloneqq \prod_{k = 1}^{\infty} (1 + 4 s^2 \tilde{\mu}_k^4)^{-1/4}.\end{aligned}$$ Then the product  converges and $G(s) > 0$ for $s > 0$. [Moreover, there is a constants $c_3=C_3(H)$]{} such that, for all $\beta \geq 1$, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:gbound} \int_0^{\infty} s^{\beta -1} G(s) ds \leq c_3^{\beta H}\Gamma(\beta H),\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma$ is the Gamma function. The next technical result gives an expression for an integral of a function similar to the maximum term appearing in . In particular, let $f_0: {\mathbb R}_+^n \times {\mathbb R}^n \to {\mathbb R}_+$ be given by $$\label{eq:special} f_0(t, y) \coloneqq t_1^H |y_1| \vee t_2^H |y_2| \vee \cdots \vee t_n^H |y_n|.$$ Then the following holds: \[lem:alku\]Assume that $\gamma_j \in [0, H^{-1} - 1)$ for each $j$ where $H \in (0, 1)$, and write $\gamma_{av} =n^{-1} \sum_{j =1}^n \gamma_j$. Then, $$\begin{aligned} \notag \int_{S^{n-1}} & \int_{\substack{ t_1 + \cdots + t_n \leq 1 \\ t_1, \ldots, t_n \geq 0}} \prod_{j =1}^n |y_j|^{\gamma_j} (f_0(t, y))^{-n ( 1 + \gamma_{av})} dt \mathcal{H}^{n-1} (dy) \\ \label{eq:alku} = & \quad \frac{n^{1/2} (1 + \gamma_{av} ) \prod_{j =1}^n \left[ \frac{2}{1 + \gamma_j} \Gamma( 1 - H(1 + \gamma_j) ) \right]}{\Gamma(n (1 - H(1 + \gamma_{av})) + 1)},\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{H}^{n-1}(dy)$ is [the $(n-1)$-dimensional Hausdorff measure]{}. Now that the main technical steps are outlined, we present the proof of Proposition \[prop:int\_fourier\]. Note first that[,]{} by Lemma \[lem:part\_eval\][,]{} $$\begin{aligned} &&\int_{[u,U]^n}\int_{{\mathbb R}^n}\prod_{j=1}^n|\xi_j|^\eta\left\vert{\mathbb E}\exp\left(i\sum_{j=1}^n \xi_jZ_{t_j}\right)\right\vert d\xi dt \\ &=&\int_{t\in [u,U]^n}\int_{\xi\in{\mathbb R}^n}\prod_{j=1}^n |\xi_j|^{\eta}\prod_{k=1}^\infty \big(1+4\mu_k(A_{t,\xi})^2)\big)^{-1/4}d\xi dt \;=:\; I.\end{aligned}$$ We first perform a reduction to the case $u=0$. For that purpose recall that Lemma \[lem:part\_new\_operator\] verifies that the operator $A_{t,\xi}$ is unitarily equivalent to the operator $c(H/2)\sum_{j=1}^n\xi_jK_{H/2} M_{\chi_{[0,t_j]}}K_{H/2} $. Next, assuming that $t_j\geq u$ for all $j\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$, Lemma \[le:piecing\] yields that, for every $k \geq 1$, $$\begin{aligned} &&\mu_k\big(\sum_{j=1}^n\xi_jK_{H/2} M_{\chi_{[u,t_j]}}K_{H/2} \big) = \mu_k\big(U_{{H/2} ,[u,\infty)}\sum_{j=1}^n \xi_jK_{H/2} M_{\chi_{[0,t_j]}}K_{H/2} \big) \\ &\leq& {R}\mu_k(A_{t,\xi}),\end{aligned}$$ where we used the Minimax principle (see [@Bhatia-1997 Corollary III.1.2]) and ${R}\coloneqq \|U_{H/2,[u,\infty)}\|$[.]{} On the other hand, by the translation invariance of the Fourier-multipliers $K_\alpha$ we see that, for every $k \geq 1$, $$\mu_k\big(\sum_{j=1}^n \xi_jK_{H/2} M_{\chi_{[u,t_j]}}K_{H/2} \big)= \mu_k\big(\sum_{j=1}^n\xi_jK_{H/2} M_{\chi_{[0,t_j-u]}}K_{H/2} \big).$$ Then, $\mu_k(A_{t,\xi})\geq {R}^{-1}\mu_k(A_{t-ue,\xi})$, where $ e = (1,\ldots ,1)$, and hence a change of variables in the integral $I$ yields $$\label{eq:draw} I\leq \int _{t\in [U-u]^n}\int_{\xi\in{\mathbb R}^n}\prod_{j=1}^n |\xi_j|^{\eta}\prod_{k=1}^\infty \big(1+4A^{-1}\mu_k(A_{t,\xi})^2)\big)^{-1/4}d\xi dt :=I'.$$ Above, $I'$ is our integral $I$ reduced to the case $u=0$ up to a constant ${R}$ in the integrand. We then assume that $u=0$ and consider the integral $I'$. By symmetry, $I'$ equals $n!$ times the same integral restricted to the ordered set $\{0\leq t_1< \cdots < t_n \leq U-u\}.$ Again, $A_{t,\xi}$ is unitarily equivalent to $K_{H/2} M_gK_{H/2},$ where $$g=\sum_{j=1}^n \xi_j\chi_{[0,t_j]}=\sum_{j=1}^n\xi'_j\chi_{I_j},$$ where $I_j=[t_{j-1},t_j]$ with $t_0:=0$ and $\xi'_j \coloneqq \sum_{\ell=j}^n\xi_j$, $j=1,\ldots ,n$. For notational purposes we set $\xi'_{n+1} = 0$ We also make the change of variables $t'_j=t_j-t_{j-1}$, $j=1,\ldots ,n$. Both changes of variables have Jacobian equal to 1. According to  of Lemma \[lem:part\_new\_operator\] and Lemma \[lem:int\_svalue\]: $$I'\leq n!\int _{\substack{t'_1+\ldots +t'_n\leq U\\ t'_1,\ldots, t'_n >0}}\int_{\xi' \in{\mathbb R}^n}\prod_{j=1}^n |\xi'_j-\xi'_{j+1}|^{\eta}G(c'f_0(t',\xi'))dt'd\xi'$$ where $c'>0$ (which also incorporates the constant ${R}$) and $f_0$ [is as in ]{}. Next, note that for every $\eta{\textcolor{black}}{\geq0}$, $|\xi'_j-\xi'_{j+1}|^{\eta}\leq 2^{(\eta-1)\vee 0}(|\xi'_j|^\eta+|\xi'_{j+1}|^\eta)$ and thus $$\prod_{j=1}^n |\xi'_j-\xi'_{j+1}|^{\eta}\leq c''^n \sum \prod |\xi'_j|^{\gamma_j},$$ where $c'' \coloneqq 2^{(\eta-1)\vee 0}$ and the exponents in each term of the sum satisfy $\gamma_j\in \{0,\eta,2\eta\}$, and ${\gamma_{\rm av}}:=n^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^n \gamma_j=\eta.$ The number of summands is $2^{n-1}$, since $\xi'_{n+1}=0$. For any fixed exponent sequence $(\gamma_1,\ldots ,\gamma_n)$ we switch to polar coordinates $|\xi'|=r'$, $\xi'/r=w'$: $$\begin{aligned} &&\int _{\substack{t'_1+\ldots +t'_n\leq U\\ t'_1,\ldots, t'_n >0}}\int_{\xi' \in{\mathbb R}^n}\prod_{j=1}^n |\xi'_j|^{\gamma_j}G(c'f_0(t',\xi'))dt'd\xi'\\ &=&\int _{\substack{t'_1+\ldots +t'_n\leq U\\ t'_1,\ldots, t'_n >0}}\int_{|w'|=1}\int_0^\infty r'^{n-1}r'^{n\eta}\prod_{j=1}^n |w'_j|^{\gamma_j}G(c'r'f_0(t',w'))dr'\mathcal{H}^{n-1}(dw') dt'\\ &=&(c')^{-n(1+\eta)}\Big(\int_0^\infty R^{n(1+\eta)-1}G(R)dR\Big)\times\\ &&\phantom{kukkuukukkuu}\times\int _{\substack{t'_1+\ldots +t'_n\leq U\\ t'_1,\ldots, t'_n >0}}\int_{|w'|=1}\prod_{j=1}^n |w'_j|^{\gamma_j}(f_0(t',w'))^{-n(1+\eta)}\mathcal{H}^{n-1}(dw') dt',\end{aligned}$$ where $R \coloneqq c' r' f_0(t', w')$. Apply Lemma \[lem:int\_svalue\] to estimate the $R$-integral and set $t'= Uv$. By the $H$-homogeneity of $f_0$ in the $t$-variable the previous integral is upper bounded by $$\begin{aligned} && c_3^{ n(1+\eta)H} (c')^{-n(1+\eta)}\Gamma(n(1+\eta)H)\times\\ &&\phantom{kukkuu}\times U^{(1-H(1+\eta))n}\int _{\substack{v_1+\ldots +v_n\leq 1\\ v_1,\ldots, v_n >0}}\int_{|w'|=1}\prod_{j=1}^n |w'_j|^{\gamma_j}(f_0(v,w'))^{-n(1+\eta)}\mathcal{H}^{n-1}(dw)dv\end{aligned}$$ for some constant $c_3=C_3(H)>0$. Next, by Lemma \[lem:alku\] the above is further bounded by $$\begin{aligned} &C(H,n) U^{(1-H(1+\eta))n}\Gamma(n(1+\eta)H) \frac{n^{1/2}(1+\eta)\prod_{j=1}^n\Big[\frac{2}{1+\gamma_j}\Gamma(1-H(1+\gamma_j))\Big]}{(c')^{n(1+\eta)} \Gamma(n(1-H(1+\eta))+1)}\\ \leq\;\; & C(H,n) U^{(1-H(1+\eta))n}\Big(\frac{2}{c'^{1+\eta}}\Gamma (1-H (1+2\eta))\Big)^n\frac{\Gamma(nH(1+\eta)+1)}{n^{1/2}\Gamma(n(1-H(1+\eta))+1)},\end{aligned}$$ where $C(H,n) := (c_3/c')^{- n(1+\eta)H} $ and we used the fact that the Gamma function is decreasing on $(0,1)$ and $\gamma_j \leq 2 \eta$. Summing over the $2^{n-1}$ different exponent sequences $(\gamma_1,\ldots ,\gamma_n)$ and recalling the $n!$ factor introduced in the beginning of the proof yields $$\begin{aligned} \notag I \leq & C(H) U^{(1-H(1+\eta))n}\Big(\frac{4}{c'^{1+\eta}}\Gamma (1-H (1+2\eta))\Big)^n\frac{\Gamma(n+1)\Gamma(nH(1+\eta)+1)}{\Gamma(n(1-H(1+\eta))+1)} \\ \notag = & U^{(1-H(1+\eta))n} C^n \frac{\Gamma(n+1)\Gamma(nH(1+\eta)+1)}{\Gamma(n(1-H(1+\eta))+1)},\end{aligned}$$ where $C > 0$ depends only on $H$ and $\eta$. Finally, an application of Stirling’s formula establishes : $$\begin{aligned} \notag I \leq C^n n^{2nH(1 + \eta)} {\textcolor{black}}{U}^{(1 - H(1 + \eta) ) n},\end{aligned}$$ for a different $C > 0$ depending only on $H$ and $\eta$ [(recall that we reduced to the case $u=0$)]{}. Proposition \[prop:int\_fourier\] establishes integrability properties of the Fourier transform of the local time and leads to good moment estimates for the local time in next section. In turn, Section \[sec:proofs\] uses the moment estimates to deduce several important results regarding the asymptotic behavior of the local time. Joint continuity of the local times [and moment estimates]{} {#sec:moments} ============================================================ [In the present section we apply Proposition \[prop:int\_fourier\] to produce moment estimates for the local time, that are of some independent interest.]{} Let $t > 0$ and $x \in{\mathbb R}$. We recall from [@Shevchenko-2010] that the local time $L(x, t) \coloneqq L(x, [0,t])$ for the Rosenblatt process $Z$ exists and admits the representation[^3] $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:local_rep} L(x, t) = \frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_{\mathbb R}\int_0^t e^{i \xi (x - Z_s) } ds d\xi.\end{aligned}$$ Our next step is to show that $L(x, t)$ is Hölder-continuous both in time and space, and also to establish bounds on its moments. \[thm:moment0-bound\] For every $0 \leq s < t$ and $x \in {\mathbb R}$, $$\label{eq:mom3} {\mathbb E}|L(x,t)-L(x,s)|^n \leq c^n n^{n{2H}}|t-s|^{(1-H)n}.$$ Moreover, for any $0\leq \gamma<\frac{1-H}{2H}$ and [$y \in {\mathbb R}$]{}, we have $$\label{eq:mom4} \left| {\mathbb E}(L(x+y,[s,t])-L(x,[s,t]))^{n} \right| \leq c^n n^{n {2H(1+\gamma)}}|t-s|^{(1-H-\gamma H)n}|y|^{\gamma n}.$$ In both inequalities the constant $c$ depends only on $\gamma$ and $H$. First, by , $$\begin{aligned} \notag & {\mathbb E}\big(L (x+y,[s,t])-L(x,[s,t])\big)^{n} \\ \notag = & (2 \pi)^{-n} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \int_{[s, t]^n} \left( \prod_{j =1}^n ( \exp ( i \xi_j (x+ y) ) - \exp( i \xi_j x) ) \right){\mathbb E}\exp\left( - i \sum_{j = 1}^n \xi_j Z_{v_j} \right) dv d\xi \end{aligned}$$ Next, since $\gamma \in [0,1 )$ (recall that $H > 1/2$), we have $$\begin{aligned} \notag & \prod_{j =1}^n | \exp ( i \xi_j y ) - 1 | \leq 2^n \prod_{j =1}^n (|y| |\xi_j| \wedge 1) \leq 2^n \prod_{j =1}^n (( |y| |\xi_j| )^{\gamma} \wedge 1) \leq 2^n |y|^{\gamma n} \prod_{j =1}^n |\xi_j|^\gamma,\end{aligned}$$ where we have used that $|e^{ix} - 1| \leq |x| \wedge 2 \leq 2 ( |x| \wedge 1)$, for all $x$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned} \notag & \left| {\mathbb E}\big(L (x+y,[s,t])-L(x,[s,t])\big)^{n} \right| \\ \notag \leq & \pi^{-n} |y|^{\gamma n} \int_{{\mathbb R}^n} \int_{[s, t]^n} \prod_{j =1}^n |\xi_j|^\gamma \left| {\mathbb E}\exp\left( - i \sum_{j = 1}^n \xi_j Z_{v_j} \right)\right| dv d\xi. \end{aligned}$$ Now, Proposition \[prop:int\_fourier\] with $\eta = \gamma$ yields: $$\begin{aligned} \notag & \left| {\mathbb E}\big(L (x+y,[s,t])-L(x,[s,t])\big)^{n} \right| \leq C^n |y|^{\gamma n} (t - s)^{1 - H(1 + \gamma) n} n^{2 n H( 1 + \gamma) },\end{aligned}$$ where $C > 0$ is a function of $H$ and $\gamma$ and  is established. Similarly, by , using $L(x, s) \leq L(x, t)$ for $0 \leq s < t$, $$\begin{aligned} & & {\mathbb E}|L(x,t)-L(x,s)|^n \\ & = & \left((2\pi)^{-n}\int_{[s,t]^n}\int_{{\mathbb R}^n}\exp\left(ix\sum_{j=1}^n \xi_j\right){\mathbb E}\exp\left(-i\sum_{j=1}^n \xi_j Z_{u_j}\right)d\xi du\right) \\ &\leq& (2\pi)^{-n}\int_{[s,t]^n}\int_{{\mathbb R}^n}\left\vert{\mathbb E}\exp\left(-i\sum_{j=1}^n \xi_j Z_{u_j}\right)\right\vert d\xi du\\ &\leq& \Big(\frac{C}{2\pi}\Big)^nn^{2nH}(t-s)^{(1-H)n},\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality follows from Proposition \[prop:int\_fourier\] with $\eta = 0$, and $C > 0$ is a function of $H$ and $\gamma$. As an immediate consequence of the above moment bounds and Kolmogorov criterion (see e.g. [@Kallenberg-2002 Theorem 3.23]) we obtain: \[cor:holder\] Almost surely, the local time $L(x,t)$ is jointly Hölder continuous in $t$ and $x$. The next theorem is a modification of Theorem \[thm:moment0-bound\], where one shifts the process in the $x$-direction by the value $Z_a$, where $a$ is a fixed point. \[thm:moment\] [Let $s<t$ and let $a > 0$ satisfy $a \leq s$ or $a\geq t$]{}. Then, $$\label{eq:mom3-shift} {\mathbb E}|L(x+Z_a,t)-L(x+Z_a,s)|^n \leq c^n (n)^{n{2H}}|t-s|^{(1-H)n}.$$ Moreover, for any $0\leq \gamma<(H^{-1}-1)/2$, $$\label{eq:mom4-shift} \left| {\mathbb E}(L(x+y+Z_a,[s,t])-L(x+Z_a,[s,t]))^{n} \right| \leq c^n (n)^{n{2H(1+\gamma)}}|t-s|^{(1-H-\gamma H)n}|y|^{\gamma n}.$$ In both cases the constant $c > 0$ depends only on $\gamma$ and $H$. Let $Y_t = Z_t - Z_a$. The occupation measure of $Y$ is just the occupation measure of $Z_t$ translated by the (random) constant $Z_a$. Since the occupation measure of $Z_t$ has a continuous density, the occupation measure of $Y_t$ has also a continuous density given by $L_Y(t,x) = L_Z(t,x+Z_a)$. Thus, in order to prove the claim, it suffices to show the estimates for $L_Y(t,x)$. For the first claim, we then proceed as before, noting that, again, $L_Y(x, s) \leq L_Y(x, t)$, $$\begin{aligned} &&{\mathbb E}|L_Y(x,t)-L_Y(x,s)|^n \\&= &(2\pi)^{-n}\int_{[s,t]^n}\int_{{\mathbb R}^n}\exp\left(ix\sum_{j=1}^n \xi_j\right){\mathbb E}\exp\left(i\sum_{j=1}^n \xi_j Y_{u_j}\right)d\xi du\\ &\leq& (2\pi)^{-n} \int_{[s,t]^n}\int_{{\mathbb R}^n}\left\vert{\mathbb E}\exp\left(i\sum_{j=1}^n y_j Y_{u_j}\right)\right\vert dydu.\end{aligned}$$ [Let first $a\leq s$.]{} By stationarity of the increments, we have $$\begin{split} &{\mathbb E}\exp\left(i\sum_{j=1}^n y_j Y_{u_j}\right) \;=\; {\mathbb E}\exp\left(i\sum_{j=1}^n y_j (Z_{u_j}-Z_a)\right) \;=\;{\mathbb E}\exp\left(i\sum_{j=1}^n y_j Z_{u_j-a}\right). \end{split}$$ Thus change of variable $v_j=u_j-a$ gives $$\int_{[s,t]^n}\int_{{\mathbb R}^n}\left\vert{\mathbb E}\exp\left(i\sum_{j=1}^n y_j Y_{u_j}\right)\right\vert dydu = \int_{[s-a,t-a]^n}\int_{{\mathbb R}^n}\left\vert{\mathbb E}\exp\left(i\sum_{j=1}^n y_j Z_{v_j}\right)\right\vert dydv$$ from which the claim follows by Proposition \[prop:int\_fourier\] just as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:moment0-bound\] with $\eta = 0$, and $C > 0$ is a function of $H$ and $\gamma$. [Similarly, for $a\geq t$ stationarity of increments imply $$\begin{split} &{\mathbb E}\exp\left(i\sum_{j=1}^n y_j Y_{u_j}\right) \;=\; {\mathbb E}\exp\left(-i\sum_{j=1}^n y_j (Z_a-Z_{u_j})\right) \;=\;{\mathbb E}\exp\left(-i\sum_{j=1}^n y_j Z_{a-u_j}\right). \end{split}$$ This can be treated exactly the same way by using first change of variable $v_j = a-u_j$. This concludes the proof.]{} The moment bounds obtained above translate into the following tail estimates. Their proof is a standard application of Chebychev’s inequality, and hence we omit the proof. \[cor:tail1\] [(i)]{}For any finite closed interval $I\subset (0, \infty)$, $$\label{eq:tail-L0} \mathbb{P}(L(x,I)\geq |I|^{1-H}u^{{2H}}) \leq C_1\exp(-c_1u)$$ and $$\label{eq:tail-inc0} \mathbb{P}(|L(x,I)-L(y,I)|\geq |I|^{1-H-\gamma H}|x-y|^{\gamma}u^{{2H(1+\gamma)}}) \leq C_2\exp(-c_2u).$$ [(ii)]{}[For $I = [a,a+r]$ or $I=[a-r,a]$, we have]{} $$\label{eq:tail-L} \mathbb{P}(L(x+Z_a,I)\geq r^{1-H}u^{{2H}}) \leq C_1\exp(-c_1u)$$ and $$\label{eq:tail-inc} \mathbb{P}(|L(x+Z_a,I)-L(y+Z_a,I)|\geq r^{1-H-\gamma H}|x-y|^{\gamma}u^{{2H(1+\gamma)}}) \leq C_2\exp(-c_2u).$$ Proofs of main theorems {#sec:proofs} ======================= [In this section we present proofs to our main results, namely Theorem \[thm:main\] and Corollaries \[cor:fixed-point\]-\[cor:non-differentiable\].]{} We start with two auxiliary lemmas. \[le:eta\] There exists $\eta>0$ such that $${\mathbb E}e^{\eta|Z_1|} < \infty.$$ This follows by observing that by Lemma \[lem:part\_eval\] the characteristic function of $Z_1$ has a bounded analytic extension to a strip $\{|{\rm Im}\, \theta |<\delta_0\}$ for some $\delta_0>0$. \[prop:sup-tail\] Let $(Z_t)_{t \geq 0}$ be the Rosenblatt process and set [$I = [s-h,s+h]$]{}, where $h\leq 1$ and $s > 0$. Then, $$\mathbb{P}(\sup_{t\in I}|Z_t-Z_s|\geq u) \leq C\exp\left(-\frac{u}{c_1h^{H}}\right),$$ where $c_1$ and $C$ are constants that depend only on $H$. By stationarity of increments and self-similarity we have the distributional equality $ {\textcolor{black}}{(|Z_r-Z_v|)_{r\in I} \sim ( |h|^{H}|Z_r|)_{r\in [0,1].}} $ Hence it is enough to consider case $s=0$ and $h=1$. At this point we recall the Garsia-Rodemich-Rumsey inequality [@Garsia-Rodemich-Rumsey-1970]. Let $\Psi(u)$ be a non-negative even function on $(- \infty, \infty)$ and $p(u)$ be a non-negative even function on $[-1,1]$. Assume both $p(u)$ and $\Psi(u)$ are non decreasing for $u \geq 0$. Let $f(x)$ be continuous on $[0, 1]$ and suppose that $$\begin{aligned} \notag \int_0^1 \int_0^1 \Psi\left( \frac{f(x) - f(y) }{p(x - y)} \right)dx dy \leq B < \infty.\end{aligned}$$ Then, for all $s, t \in [0, 1]$, $$\begin{aligned} \notag |f({\textcolor{black}}{s}) - f(t) | \leq 8 \int_0^{|s - t|} \Psi^{-1} \left( \frac{4B}{u^2} \right) dp(u).\end{aligned}$$ In particular[^4], if $\Psi(u) = |u|^p$ and $p(u) = |u|^{\alpha + 1/p}$ where $\alpha \geq 1/p$ and $p \geq 1$, then for any continuous $f$ and $t \in [0,1]$, $$|f(t)-f(0)|^p \leq C_{\alpha,p}t^{\alpha p -1}\int_{[0,1]^2}|f(r)-f(v)|^p |r-v|^{-\alpha p - 1}dr dv.$$ Here the constant $C_{\alpha,p}$ is given by $ C_{\alpha,p} = {\textcolor{black}}{4\cdot 8^p\big(\alpha + p^{-1}\big)^{p}\big(\alpha -p^{-1}\big)^{-p}}. $ Thus, for fixed $\alpha$ and large enough $p$, we have $ C_{\alpha,p} \leq \tilde{C}^p, $ where $\tilde{C}$ depends on the chosen $\alpha$. We apply this to $f(t) = Z_t$ and choose $\alpha = \frac{H}{2}$, in order to obtain for $p>4/H$: $$\sup_{t\in [0,1]}|Z_t|^p \leq C'^p \int_{[0,1]^2}|Z_r-Z_v|^p |r-v|^{-Hp/2 - 1}dr dv.$$ By stationarity of increments and self-similarity we have ${\mathbb E}|Z_r-Z_v|^p = |r-v|^{Hp}{\mathbb E}|Z_1|^p,$ which leads to $$\begin{split} {\mathbb E}\sup_{t\in [0,1]}|Z_t|^p &\leq\; C'^p {\mathbb E}|Z_1|^p\int_{[0,1]^2} |r-v|^{Hp/2 - 1}dr dv \; \leq \; c_2C'^p{\mathbb E}|Z_1|^p\\ &\leq\; C^p{\mathbb E}|Z_1|^p. \end{split}$$ By Lemma \[le:eta\] we may choose $\eta>0 $ such that $ {\mathbb E}e^{\eta|Z_1|} <\infty. $ Then we have $$\begin{split} {\mathbb E}e^{\eta C^{-1} \sup_{t\in [0,1]}|Z_t|} & = \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{(\eta C^{-1})^k{\mathbb E}\sup_{t\in [0,1]}|Z_t|^k}{k!} \; \leq \;\sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{\eta^k{\mathbb E}|Z_1|^k}{k!}\\ &= {\mathbb E}\sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{\eta^k|Z_1|^k}{k!} \; = \; {\mathbb E}e^{\eta|Z_1|} <\infty \end{split}$$ The claim follows easily from this by Chebyshev’s inequality. We are now in position to prove Theorem \[thm:main\]. After we have the moment and tail estimates from Section \[sec:moments\] at our disposal, the remaining ideas of the proof follow closely those of [@xiao-et-al Theorem 4.3]. The main difference is that in our case, we do not have Gaussian structures at our disposal leading to some modifications. We divide the proof into five steps. In the first four steps we prove . The proof of will then be established in step 5. Throughout steps 1-4 we denote $g(r) = r^{1-H}(\log \log r^{-1})^{{2H}}$, where $r<e$, and $C^{{\textcolor{black}}{+}}_n := [s,s+2^{-n}]$[, $C_n^- := [s-2^{-n},s]$]{}. It actually suffices to prove $$\limsup_{n\to\infty} \frac{L^*(C^{{\textcolor{black}}{\pm}}_n)}{g(2^{-n})} \leq C$$ almost surely. [Moreover, it suffices to consider only the interval $C_n^+$, as $C_n^-$ can be treated by exactly the same arguments and by considering the interval $[a-r,a]$ in Corollary \[cor:tail1\].]{} Throughout the proof, we denote by $c_i,i=1,2,\ldots$ generic constants that varies throughout the proof. [We also write simply $C_n = [s,s+2^{-n}]$ instead of $C_n^+$.]{} **Step 1:** Set $u= 2c_12^{-nH}\log n$, where $c_1$ is given in Proposition \[prop:sup-tail\]. Then Proposition \[prop:sup-tail\] gives $$\mathbb{P}\left(\sup_{t\in C_n}|Z_t-Z_s|\geq 2c_12^{-nH}\log n\right) \leq c_2\exp(-2\log n) = c_2n^{-2}.$$ Hence Borel-Cantelli lemma implies that there exists $n_1 = n_1(\omega)$ such that for $n\geq n_1$ we have $$\sup_{t\in C_n}|Z_t-Z_s|\leq 2c_12^{-nH}\log n.$$ **Step 2:** Set $\theta_n = 2^{-nH}(\log \log 2^n)^{-{2H}}$ and define $$G_n =\{x \in {\mathbb R}: |x|\leq 2c_12^{-nH}\log n, x= \theta_n p, \text{ for some }p \in {\mathbb Z}\}.$$ Then $$\# G_n \leq c_3 (\log n)^{1+{2H}}$$ and implies $$\mathbb{P}(\max_{x\in G_n} L(x+Z_s,C_n) \geq c_4 g(2^{-n})) \leq c_5 (\log n)^{1+{2H}}n^{-c_6b_1}$$ which is summable by choosing $c_4$ large enough which in turn forces $c_6$ large. Thus Borel-Cantelli gives for large enough $n\geq n_2(\omega)\geq n_1(\omega)$ that $$\label{eq:max-L-bounded} \max_{x\in G_n} L(x+Z_s,C_n) \leq c_4 g(2^{-n})).$$ **Step 3:** Given integers $n,k\geq 1$ and $x\in G_n$ we set $$F(n,k,x) = \{ y = x + \theta_n \sum_{j=1}^k \varepsilon_j2^{-j} \;:\; \varepsilon_j \in \{0,1\}, 1\leq j \leq k\}.$$ Pair of points $y_1,y_2 \in F(n,k,x)$ is said to be linked if $y_2-y_1 = \theta_n \varepsilon 2^{-k}$ for $\varepsilon \in\{0,1\}$. Next fix $0<\gamma< \frac{\frac{1}{H}-1}{2}$ and choose positive $\delta$ such that $\delta {2H(1+\gamma)}< \gamma$. Set $$B_n = \bigcup_{x\in G_n}\bigcup_{k=1}^\infty \bigcup_{y_1,y_2} \{|L(y_1+Z_s,C_n)-L(y_2+Z_s,C_n)| \geq 2^{-n(1-H-\gamma H)}|y_1-y_2|^{\gamma}(c_72^{\delta k}\log n)^{{2H(1+\gamma)}}\}$$ where $\cup_{y_1,y_2}$ is the union over all linked pairs $y_1,y_2\in F(n,k,x)$. Now with $u = c_72^{\delta k}\log n$ implies $$\mathbb{P}(B_n) \leq c_3(\log n)^{1+ {2H}}\sum_{k=1}^\infty 4^{k}\exp\left(-c_82^{\delta k}\log n\right).$$ Here we have used the fact $\# G_n \leq C(\log n)^{1+{2H}}$ and that for given $k$ there exists less than $4^k$ linked pairs $y_1,y_2$. Now, again by choosing $c_7$ large enough which makes $c_8$ large, we get $$\sum_{n=2}^\infty(\log n)^{1+ {2H}}\sum_{k=1}^\infty 4^{k}\exp\left(-c_82^{\delta k}\log n\right) < \infty.$$ This further implies, again by Borel-Cantelli lemma, that $B_n$ occurs only finitely many times. **Step 4:** Let $n$ be a fixed and assume that $y \in {\mathbb R}$ satisfies $|y| \leq 2c_12^{-nH}\log n$. Then we may represent $y$ as $y = \lim_{k\to\infty} y_k$ with $$y_k = x + \theta_n \sum_{j=1}^k \varepsilon_j 2^{-j},$$ where $y_0= x \in G_n$ and $\varepsilon_j \in \{0,1\}$. On the event $B_n^c$ we have $$\begin{split} |L(x+Z_s,C_n)-L(y+Z_s,C_n)| & \leq \sum_{k=1}^\infty |L(y_k+Z_s,C_n)-L(y_{k-1}+Z_s,C_n)| \\ &\leq \sum_{k=1}^\infty 2^{-n(1-H-\gamma H)}|y_k-y_{k-1}|^{\gamma}(c_72^{\delta k}\log n)^{{2H(1+\gamma)}} \\ &\leq \sum_{k=1}^\infty 2^{-n(1-H-\gamma H)}\theta_n^{\gamma}2^{-k\gamma}(c_72^{\delta k}\log n)^{{2H(1+\gamma)}} \\ & \leq c_9 2^{-n(1-H)} \sum_{k=1}^\infty (\log \log 2^n)^{-\gamma{2H}}2^{-k\gamma}(c_72^{\delta k}\log n)^{{2H(1+\gamma)}} \\ & \leq c_{10} 2^{-n(1-H)} (\log \log 2^n)^{{2H}} \sum_{k=1}^\infty 2^{(\delta {2H(1+\gamma)}- \gamma)k} \\ & \leq c_{11}g(2^{-n}), \end{split}$$ where the last inequality follows from $\delta {2H(1+\gamma)}< \gamma$. Combining this with then yields $$\sup_{|x|\leq 2c_12^{-nH} \log n} L(x+Z_s,C_n) \leq c_{12} g(2^{-n})$$ or in other words, $$\sup_{|x-Z_s|\leq 2c_12^{-nH}\log n} L(x,C_n) \leq c_{12}g(2^{-n}).$$ Claim now follows from Step 1 and the fact $L^*(C_n) = \sup\{L(x,C_n):x\in \overline{Z(C_n)}\}$. **Step 5:** It remains to prove . However, for this the arguments are similar to above and to the Gaussian case (for detailed proof in the case of the fractional Brownian motion, we refer to [@xiao-ptrf]). Thus we present only the key arguments here. We choose $\tilde{\theta}_n = 2^{-nH} (\log 2^n)^{-{2H}}$ and $$\tilde{G}_n =\{x \in {\mathbb R}: |x|\leq n, x= \tilde{\theta}_n p, \text{ for some }p \in {\mathbb Z}\}.$$ If $\mathcal{D}_n$ is the dyadic partition of the interval $I$, then the arguments of Step 2 together with gives that, for $n\geq n_1(\omega)$ and a suitable constant $c_{13}$, we have $$\label{eq:loctime-bounded} L(x,B) \leq c_{13}2^{-n(1-H)}(\log 2^n)^{{2H}}$$ for all $B \in \mathcal{D}_n$ and $x\in \tilde{G}_n$. Similarly, in Step 3 and Step 4 we replace $F(n,k,x)$ with $\tilde{F}(n,k,x)$ where $G_n$ and $\theta_n$ are replaced with $\tilde{G}_n$ and $\tilde{\theta}_n$, and instead of $B_n$ we consider the event $$\begin{split} \tilde{B}_n &= \left\{|L(y_1,B)-L(y_2,B)| \geq 2^{-n(1-H-\gamma H)}|y_1-y_2|^\gamma (c_{14}k \log 2^n)^{{2H(1+\gamma)}} :\right. \\ &\left. \text{for some }B\in \mathcal{D}_n, y_1,y_2 \in \tilde{F}(n,k,x) \text{ linked} \right\} \end{split}$$ for suitably chosen $\gamma$ and constant $c_{14}$. As in Step 3, then gives that $\tilde{B}_n$ occurs only finitely many times. In the complement $\tilde{B}_n^c$ we can apply and proceed as in Step 4 to conclude that for all $B \in \mathcal{D}_n$ $$L(x,B) \leq c_{15}2^{-n(1-H)}(\log 2^n)^{{2H}}.$$ This completes Step 5 and thus the whole proof. Proofs of corollaries \[cor:fixed-point\] to \[cor:non-differentiable\] follows essentially from Theorem \[thm:main\] and the arguments presented in [@xiao-et-al]. Thus we simply state the key arguments and leave the details to the reader. This follows directly from Theorem \[thm:main\] and the fact that $$L(x,[t-r,t+r]) \leq L^*([t-r,t+r]).$$ As the proof [of [@xiao-ptrf Theorem 4.1]]{}, the claim follows from Corollary \[cor:fixed-point\] and the upper density theorem of [@roger-taylor]. We omit the details. This claim follows again from Theorem \[thm:main\] by applying exactly the same arguments as in the proof of Theorem 4.5 of [@xiao-et-al Theorem 4.5]. We omit the details. Technical results {#sec:lemmas_proofs} ================= Spectral estimates {#sec:spectral} ------------------ Note that by  and , $$\begin{aligned} \notag \sum_{j =1}^n \xi_j Z_{t_j} = \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} H_t(x, y) Z_G(dx) Z_G(dy), \end{aligned}$$ where the integral is taken over $x \neq \pm y$, $t = (t_1, \ldots, t_n) \in {\mathbb R}_+^n$ and $$\begin{aligned} \notag H_t(x, y) = \sum_{j = 1}^n \xi_j \frac{e^{i t_j (x + y) } -1 }{i (x + y)},\end{aligned}$$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt kernel. Then the operator $A_{t, \xi}$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned} \notag (A_{t, \xi} f)(x) = \int_{\mathbb{R}} H_t(x, -y) f(y) G(dy) = \int_{\mathbb{R}} \sum_{j = 1}^n \xi_j \frac{e^{i t_j (x - y) } -1}{i (x - y)} f(y) |y|^{-H} dy.\end{aligned}$$ [Similarly]{} to , for all $\xi \in \mathbb{R}^n$, $$\begin{aligned} \notag \sum_{j =1}^n \xi_j Z_{t_j} \overset{d}{=} \sum_{k =1}^{\infty} \lambda_k (X_k^2 -1),\end{aligned}$$ where $(X_k)_{k \geq 1}$ is a sequence of independent Gaussian random variables and $(\lambda_k)_{k \geq 1}$ are the eigenvalues of the operator $A_{t, \xi}$. Then, the characteristic function (evaluated at $1$) of $\sum_{j =1}^n \xi_j Z_{t_j} $ is $$\begin{aligned} \notag \mathbb{E} \exp \left( i \sum_{j = 1}^n \xi_j Z_{t_j} \right) = \prod_{k \geq 1} \frac{e^{- i \lambda_k} }{ \sqrt{1 - 2i \lambda_k}},\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the expression for the characteristic function of a $\chi^2$ distribution and independence. Note, that the product converges since $\sum \lambda_k^2 < \infty$. Furthermore, $$\begin{aligned} \notag \left| \mathbb{E} \exp \left( i \sum_{j = 1}^n \xi_j Z_{t_j} \right) \right| = \prod_{k \geq 1} \frac{1}{( 1 + 4 \lambda_k{\textcolor{black}}{^2})^{1/4}},\end{aligned}$$ as desired. Before we present the proof of Lemma \[lem:part\_new\_operator\] we will establish some properties of the convolution $K_{\alpha}$ defined via $\widehat{K_{\alpha} f}(\xi) = |\xi|^{- \alpha} \widehat{f} (\xi)$ for [ $\alpha \in [0, 1/2)$]{}. An alternative representation that [is]{} useful for the proof of Lemma \[lem:part\_new\_operator\] is $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:ka_conv} K_{\alpha} f(x) = \int_R h(x - y) f(y) dy = \int_R k(x, y) f(y) dy{\textcolor{black}}{,}\end{aligned}$$ where $h(x - y) = k(x, y) = d_{\alpha} |x - y|^{\alpha -1}$ for some constant $d_{\alpha}$ (see e.g. [@Gr1 Theorem 2.4.6]). Moreover, $K_{\alpha}$ can be extended to a bounded operator from $L^2(J)$ to $L^2(\mathbb{R})$ where $J \subset \mathbb{R}$ is compact. [Let first $f \in C_c^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})$ and recall]{} that the smooth compactly supported functions are dense in $L^2(J)$. [Since $f$ is a Schwartz function,]{} $\widehat{f}$ is bounded and decays at any polynomial rate. Then $\int_{\mathbb{R} } |\widehat{K_{\alpha} f} (\xi)|^2 d\xi < \infty$, and by [Plancherel’s]{} theorem $\int_{\mathbb{R}} |K_{\alpha} f(x)|^2 dx < \infty$. We are left to show that when $f \in L^2(J)$, $\int_{\mathbb{R} }| K_{\alpha} f(x)|^2 dx < C(J) ||f||_{L^2(J)}^2$, for some constant $C(J) > 0$ depending only on $J$. By [Plancherel’s]{} theorem [$$\begin{aligned} \|K_\alpha f\|_{L^2({\mathbb R})}^2 =& \; \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{|\xi| \leq 1} |\xi|^{ - 2 \alpha} |\widehat{f}(\xi)|^2 d \xi + \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{|\xi| >1} |\xi|^{ - 2 \alpha} |\widehat{f}(\xi)|^2 d \xi \notag\\ \label{eq:ka_1} \leq & \;\; \int_{|\xi| \leq 1} |\xi|^{ - 2 \alpha} |\widehat{f}(\xi)|^2 d \xi + ||f||_{L^2(J)}^2, \end{aligned}$$ ]{} To bound the first integral, note that by definition, for every $\xi \in \mathbb{R}$, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:ka_2} |\widehat{f}(\xi)| = \left|\int_{J} e^{- i \xi x} f(x) dx \right| \leq \int_{J} |f(x)| dx \leq |J|^{1/2} \left(\int_J |f(x)|^2\right)^{1/2} dx, \end{aligned}$$ where we have applied the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, and $|J|$ is the Lebesgue measure of the compact set $J$. Therefore, combining  and , yields $$\begin{aligned} {\textcolor{black}}{\|K_\alpha f\|_{L^2({\mathbb R})}^2} \leq ||f||_{L^2(J)}^2 \left( |J| \int_{-1}^1 |\xi|^{- 2\alpha} d\xi + 1\right) = C(J) ||f||_{L^2(J)}^2 < \infty, \end{aligned}$$ where $C(J) > 0$ is some constant depending only on $J$. This establishes that $K_{\alpha}$ extends to a bounded operator from $L^2 (J)$ to $L^2(\mathbb{R})$. [If $g$ is a bounded, compactly supported function and $M_g$ is the multiplication operator given by $M_g f (x) = g(x) f(x)$, then $M_g:L^2({\mathbb R})\to L^2({\mathbb R})$ is obviously bounded and its (Hilbert space adjoint) equals $M_{\overline{g}}$. Our previous observation on $K_\alpha$ then implies that $K_\alpha M_{g}$ extends to a bounded operator on $L^2({\mathbb R})$. Let us check that the adjoint of $K_\alpha M_{g}$ equals $M_{\overline{g}}K_\alpha $ (we need to be cautious since $K_\alpha$ is not bounded on the whole of $L^2({\mathbb R})$): for any $f,h\in C_0^\infty({\mathbb R})$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \notag \int_{\mathbb{R}} K_{\alpha} M_g f (x)& \overline{h(x)} dx\; =\;\; \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}} \widehat{(K_{\alpha} M_g f)} (\xi) \overline{\widehat{h}(\xi)} d\xi \notag \; = \; \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}} \widehat{g} * \widehat{f} (\xi) \overline{|\xi|^{-\alpha} \widehat h(\xi)} d \xi\\ =\; &\frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{\mathbb{R}}\int_{\mathbb{R}} \widehat{g}(\xi - t) \widehat{f}(t) dt \overline{\widehat{K_{\alpha} h}(\xi)}d \xi \;=\; \int_{\mathbb{R}} g(x)f(x)\overline{K_{\alpha} h(x)} dx\notag \\ \notag = \;& \int_{\mathbb{R}} f(x) \overline{M_{\bar{g}} K_{\alpha} h(x)} dx.\end{aligned}$$ ]{} Therefore, $M_{\overline{g}}K_{\alpha}$ extends to a bounded operator from $L^2(\mathbb{R})$ to $L^2(\mathbb{R})$, and by extension, so does $K_{\alpha} M_g K_{\alpha}$, since $K_{\alpha} M_g K_{\alpha} = K_{\alpha} M_g (K_{\alpha} M_{\chi_J})^*$, where $J \subset \mathbb{R}$ is a compact [interval]{} containing the support of $g$. Let ${\textcolor{black}}{T} : L^2(|y|^{-{\textcolor{black}}{H}} dy) \to L^2 (\mathbb{R})$ be given by $({\textcolor{black}}{T} f)(x) = |x|^{-H/2} f(x)$. Note that ${\textcolor{black}}{T}$ is an isometric isomorphism. Hence, the operator $A_{t, \xi}$ is isometrically isomorphic to $V_{t, \xi} \coloneqq {\textcolor{black}}{T} A_{t, \xi} {\textcolor{black}}{T}^{-1} : L^2(\mathbb{R}) \to L^2(\mathbb{R})$, that satisfies $$\begin{aligned} \notag V_{t, \xi}f(x) = |x|^{-H/2} \int_{\mathbb{R}} \sum_{j = 1}^n \xi_j \frac{e^{i t_j (x - y) } -1}{i (x - y)} f(y) |y|^{-H/2}dy.\end{aligned}$$ Next, recall that the Fourier transform $\mathcal{F}$ provides an isometric isomorphism $L^2(\mathbb{R}) \to L^2(\mathbb{R})$, up to a constant, and transforms multiplication to convolution. Since $$\begin{aligned} \notag {\textcolor{black}}{(\mathcal{F} g)(x)} = \left( \sum_{j =1}^n \xi_j \mathcal{F} \chi_{[0, t_j]} \right) (x) = \sum_{j =1}^n \xi_j \frac{e^{-i t_j x} - 1}{- i x},\end{aligned}$$ it follows that $$\begin{aligned} \notag \mathcal{F}^3 ( K_{H/2} M_g K_{H/2} f)(x) = & 2\pi \mathcal{F} ( K_{H/2} M_g K_{H/2} f)(-x) \;=\; {\textcolor{black}}{|x|^{-H/2} \left( (\mathcal{F} g) \ast \widehat{K_{H/2} f} \right) (-x)} \\ \notag = & 2\pi |x|^{-H/2} \int_{\mathbb{R}} \sum_{j = 1}^n \xi_j \frac{e^{-i t_j (-x - y) } - 1 }{- i (-x - y)} \widehat{f}(y) |y|^{-H/2}dy, \\ \notag = & 2\pi|x|^{-H/2} \int_{\mathbb{R}} \sum_{j = 1}^n \xi_j \frac{e^{i t_j (x - y) } - 1 }{i (x - y)} \widehat {f}(-y) |y|^{-H/2}dy, \\ \notag = & |x|^{-H/2} \int_{\mathbb{R}} \sum_{j = 1}^n \xi_j \frac{e^{i t_j (x - y) } - 1 }{i (x - y)} (\mathcal{F}^3{f})(y) |y|^{-H/2}dy, \\ \notag = & (V_{t, \xi} \mathcal{F}^3 f)( x). \end{aligned}$$ where $\ast$ denotes convolution, and we have used that $\mathcal{F}^3 f (x) = 2\pi\widehat f(-x)$. Therefore, there is a constant $c(H)$ depending only on $H$, such that $A_{t, \xi}$ and $B(t, \xi) \coloneqq c(H) K_{H/2} M_g K_{H/2}$ are unitarily equivalent. In particular, since $A_{t, \xi}$ is self-adjoint, so is $B(t, \xi)$, although this can be easily seen also from the definition of $B$. Moreover, the two operators have the same eigenvalues, [and, more importantly, their singular value sequences coincide]{}. In order to establish  we need two technical results. First, a key Lemma \[le:piecing\] compares the singular values of $B_{t, \xi}$ to $B_{t_1, \xi_1} = c(H) \xi_1 K_{H/2} \chi_{[0, t_1]} K_{H/2} $. Then, Lemma \[le:jelppi\], establishes asymptotics for the singular values of a related operator. \[le:piecing\] Let $\alpha\in (0,1/2)$ and $I\subset{\mathbb R}$ be an interval. Then, there is a bounded operator $U_{\alpha,I}$ on $L^2({\mathbb R})$, [whose norm is bounded by a finite constant that depends only on $\alpha$]{}, so that for any compactly supported $f\in L^2({\mathbb R})$: $$\label{eq:U} K_\alpha(M_{\chi_I}f)=U_{\alpha,I}K_\alpha f.$$ We have shown that if $f \in L^2(\mathbb{R})$ is compactly supported, then $K_{\alpha} f \in L^2(\mathbb{R})$. Therefore, we need to show that for all $h \in L^2(\mathbb{R})$, the operator $U_{\alpha, I}$, [defined a priori only on $C_0^\infty({\mathbb R})$]{} $$\begin{aligned} \notag U_{\alpha,I}h \coloneqq K_\alpha M_{\chi_I}K_{-\alpha}h, \end{aligned}$$ extends to a well defined bounded operator from $L^2(\mathbb{R})$ to $L^2(\mathbb{R})$ [(note that the factor $K_{-\alpha}$ alone does not have this property, but $K_{-\alpha}f\in L^{2}({\mathbb R})$ for $f\in C_0^\infty({\mathbb R}))$. ]{} Again we use that $C_c^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})$ is dense in $L^2(\mathbb{R})$. Let $h \in C_c^{\infty} (\mathbb{R})$. Then, as before, by the Paley-Wiener theorem and the [Plancherel’s]{} theorem, $U_{\alpha, I}$ is a [well-defined operator]{} from $C_c^{\infty}({\mathbb R})$ to $L^2({\mathbb R})$, and  holds. To extend it to all of $L^2({\mathbb R})$, we show the following a priori norm bound $$\label{eq:U2} \int_{\mathbb R}|K_\alpha M_{\chi_I}K_{-\alpha}h |^2 \leq c(\alpha)\int_{\mathbb R}|h|^2$$ for $h = K_{\alpha} f$, where [$f \in C_0^\infty ({\mathbb R})$ – such functions are clearly dense in $L^2({\mathbb R}).$]{} Note, that $f = K_{-\alpha} h$. From Parseval identity we get $$\begin{aligned} \notag \int_{\mathbb R}|K_\alpha M_{\chi_I}K_{-\alpha} f|^2 = \int_{\mathbb R}|K_\alpha M_{\chi_I} f|^2 = (2\pi)^{-1}\int_{\mathbb R}|\xi|^{-2\alpha}|\widehat{M_{\chi_I} f} (\xi)|^2 d\xi,\end{aligned}$$ and, by the convolution theorem, $$\begin{aligned} \notag \widehat{M_{\chi_I} f} =(2\pi)^{-1}\widehat{\chi_I} * \widehat{f},\end{aligned}$$ so everything is well-defined as $\widehat f$ decays at any polynomial rate. The right-hand side of  can be written as $$\begin{aligned} \notag \int_{\mathbb R}|h|^2 =\int_{{\mathbb R}} |K_\alpha f|^2 = \int_{\mathbb R}|\xi|^{-2\alpha}|\widehat{f}(\xi)|^2 d\xi.\end{aligned}$$ To establish , we need to show $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:U3} \int_{\mathbb R}|\xi|^{-2\alpha}|\widehat{M_{\chi_I} f} (\xi)|^2 d\xi \leq c(\alpha) \int_{\mathbb R}|\xi|^{-2\alpha}|\widehat{f}(\xi)|^2 d\xi.\end{aligned}$$ We recall some properties of the Hilbert transform (see [@Gr1], [@Duo-2001]), [defined (at least) for test functions as the singular value integral]{} $$\begin{aligned} \notag \mathcal{H} g (x) \coloneqq \lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0} \frac{1}{\pi} \int_{|x - y | \geq {\varepsilon}} \frac{g(y)}{x - y} dy,\end{aligned}$$ where $g \in L^2({\mathbb R})$. [First, the Hilbert transform has a bounded extension to $L^2({\mathbb R})$. The boundedness is most easily seen by the fact that it is]{} a multiplier operator with bounded [symbol:]{} $$\begin{aligned} \notag \mathcal{F} ( \mathcal{H} g ) (\xi) = ( - i \text{sgn}(\xi) ) \widehat{g}(\xi).\end{aligned}$$ Moreover (see [@Duo-2001 Section 3.5]), $$\begin{aligned} \notag \mathcal{F} \left(\frac{i}{2} (N_a \mathcal{H} N_{-a} - N_b \mathcal{H} N_{-b} ) g\right)(\xi) = \chi_{(a,b)} (\xi) \widehat{g}(\xi),\end{aligned}$$ where $N_a$ is the isometric multiplication operator given by [$N_a = M_{e^{i a x}}$]{}. Applying $\mathcal{F}^{-1}$ to the above (and recalling that [$\mathcal{F}^{-1} f (\xi) = \frac{1}{2\pi}\widehat{f} (-\xi)$) yields]{} $$\begin{aligned} \notag \left(\frac{i}{2} (N_a \mathcal{H} N_{-a} - N_b \mathcal{H} N_{-b} ) g\right)(\xi) & = {\textcolor{black}}{\frac{1}{2\pi}} \int_{{\mathbb R}} \widehat{\chi_{(a,b)}} (-y) g(x -y) dy \\ \notag & = {\textcolor{black}}{\frac{1}{2\pi} \widehat{\chi_{(-b,a)}} }* g (\xi).\end{aligned}$$ In particular, if $I=(-b,-a)$, we obtain up to an absolute constant, $$\begin{aligned} \notag \left|\left(\frac{i}{2} (N_a \mathcal{H} N_{-a} - N_b \mathcal{H} N_{-b} ) \widehat{f}\right)(\xi)\right|^2 = {\textcolor{black}}{c}|\widehat{M_{\chi_I} f }(\xi)|^2.\end{aligned}$$ Then, since $N_a$ is isometric [in the weighted space]{}, in order to establish  it suffices to show that $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:U4} \int_{{\mathbb R}} |\mathcal{H} \widehat{f}(\xi)|^2 |\xi|^{-2\alpha} d \xi \leq c(\alpha) \int_{{\mathbb R}} |\widehat{f}(\xi)|^2 |\xi|^{-2 \alpha} d \xi. \end{aligned}$$ At this point we recall a more general result due to Hunt et al [@Hunt-1973]. If $1 < p < \infty$ and $W(x)$ is nonnegative, the following are equivalent. 1. There is a constant $C$ independent of $I$, such that for every interval $I$, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:ap_weight} \left[ \frac{1}{|I|} \int_I W(x) dx \right] \left[ \frac{1}{|I|} \int_I W(x)^{-1 / (p-1)}dx\right]^{p-1} \leq C.\end{aligned}$$ 2. There is a constant $C$, independent of $f$, such that $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:hil_norm_weight} \int_{- \infty}^{\infty} |\mathcal{H} f (x)|^p W(x) dx \leq C \int_{- \infty}^{\infty} |f(x)|^p W(x) dx. \end{aligned}$$ Nonnegative functions $W(x)$ that satisfy  are called $A_p$ weights. We can apply  in order to establish  provided that $|x|^{-2 \alpha}$ is an $A_2$ weight. This fact is established for $\alpha \in (0, 1/2)$ in, e.g., [@Gr2 Example 9.1.7.] \[rem:operator\][The previous lemma is crucial in our estimation of the singular values, since it verifies that the singular values will dominate those of any *localization* of the multiplier $g$. This is not at all obvious, since $g$ typically changes sign in our situation, and a potential cancellation phenomenon could prevent the needed estimate.]{} We now state the second technical lemma. \[le:jelppi\] Let $\alpha\in (0,1/2)$ and $J\subset {\mathbb R}$ be a finite interval. Then the operator $\mathcal{M}_{\alpha, J}: = M_{\chi_J}K_\alpha M_{\chi_J}$ is [bounded, self-adjoint, and positive]{}, and its singular value sequence is of the form $(|J|^\alpha\widetilde \mu_k)_{k\geq1}$, where $(\widetilde \mu_k)_{k\geq 1}$ is the singular value sequence of $\mathcal{M}_{\alpha, [0,1]}$. Moreover, $\widetilde \mu_k>0$ for all $k\geq 1$, and $$\begin{aligned} \notag\widetilde\mu_k\sim ck^{-\alpha}\quad\textrm{as}\quad k\to\infty.\end{aligned}$$ Recall that $K_{\alpha} M_{\chi_J}$ is bounded since $J$ is a finite interval, and note that$M_{\chi_J}$ is an orthogonal projection and has norm $1$, especially $M_{\chi_J}^2=M_{\chi_J}$ and $M_{\chi_J}^*=M_{\overline{\chi_J}}=M_{\chi_J}.$ Thus $\mathcal{M}_{\alpha, J}$ is bounded. Finally, by [Plancherel’s]{} theorem, for any $f,g\in L^2({\mathbb R})$ $$\begin{aligned} \notag \int_{\mathbb R}(M_{\chi_J}K_\alpha M_{\chi_J}f)(x) {\textcolor{black}}{\overline{g(x)}}dx = & \int_{\mathbb R}(K_\alpha M_{\chi_J}f)(x) {\textcolor{black}}{\overline{M_{\chi_J}g(x)}} dx \\ \notag = &\int_{\mathbb R}|\xi|^{-\alpha} \widehat{M_{\chi_J}f} (\xi) {\textcolor{black}}{\overline{\widehat{M_{\chi_J}g} (\xi)} }d\xi.\end{aligned}$$ This shows that $\mathcal{M}_{\alpha, J}$ is self-adjoint and positive (take $g = f$ above). To establish the relation of the singular values of $\mathcal{M}_{\alpha, J}$ to the ones of $\mathcal{M}_{\alpha, J}$ we will use the fact that the spectrum of two unitarily equivalent operators is identical. First, assume $J = [b, c]$ and let $\tau_b f (x) \coloneqq f(x -b)$ be the translation by $b$. The operator $\tau_b$ is unitary with an adjoint given by $\tau_{-b} f(x) = f(x + b)$. Then, note that $$\begin{aligned} \notag \tau_{-b} \mathcal{M}_{\alpha, [b,c]} \tau_b f (x) = & \chi_{[b,c]} (x + b) \int_{\mathbb R}h( x + b - y) \chi_{[b,c]} (y) f(y - b) dy \\ \notag = & \chi_{[0, c-b]} (x) \int_{\mathbb R}h(x - y') \chi_{[0, c-b]} (y') f(y') dy' \\ \notag = & \mathcal{M}_{\alpha, [0, c-b]}(x).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the singular values of $\mathcal{M}_{\alpha, [b,c]}$ are the same as the ones of $\mathcal{M}_{\alpha, [0, c-b]}$. Next, set $J = [0, b]$ and consider the rescaling unitary operator $\mu_b f (x) \coloneqq \sqrt{b} f(bx)$ with an inverse given by ${\textcolor{black}}{\mu_{b}^{-1}} f(x) = f(x/b) / \sqrt{b}$. Now, $$\begin{aligned} \notag \mu_{b} \mathcal{M}_{\alpha, [0,b]}{\textcolor{black}}{ \mu_{b}^{-1}} f (x) = & {\textcolor{black}}{\sqrt{b}}\chi_{[0,b]} (bx) \int_{\mathbb R}h( bx - y) \chi_{[0,b]} (y) f(y/b)/\sqrt{b} dy \\ \notag = & \chi_{[0, 1]} (x) \int_{\mathbb R}h(b(x - y')) \chi_{[0, 1]} (y') f(y'){\textcolor{black}}{b} dy' \\ \notag = & b^{\alpha} \mathcal{M}_{\alpha, [0, 1]}(x),\end{aligned}$$ where we have used that $h(bz) = b^{\alpha -1} h(z)$. Thus, the correspondence between the singular values of $\mathcal{M}_{\alpha, J} $ and $\mathcal{M}_{\alpha, [0,1]}$ is established. Next, for the proof of the decay of the singular values of $\mathcal{M}_{\alpha, [0,1]}$, we need to show that $\mathcal{M}_{\alpha, J}$ is a compact operator. Recall : $$\begin{aligned} \notag K_{\alpha} f (x) = \int_{\mathbb R}h(x - y) f(y) dy = \int_{\mathbb R}k(x, y) f(y) dy. \end{aligned}$$ Integral operators are compact if $\int_{{\textcolor{black}}{{\mathbb R}^2}} |k(x, y)|^2 dx dy < \infty$. However, for the operator $\mathcal{M}_{\alpha, J}$ one only needs to show that $\int_{{\textcolor{black}}{J^2}} |k(x, y)|^2 dx dy < \infty$ which is indeed the case for $k(x, y) = d_{\alpha} |x- y|^{\alpha -1}$ [with $\alpha>1/2.$]{} To finish the proof, recall a result by Dostanic [@Dostanic-1998 Theorem 1] where the decay of the singular values is established for $ \mathcal{M}_{\alpha, [-1,1]} / d_{\alpha}$. Let $A : L^2(-1,1) \to L^2 (-1,1)$ be the [self-adjoint operator]{} defined by $$\begin{aligned} \notag Af (x) = \int_{-1}^1 |x - y|^{\alpha -1} f(y) dy, \quad \quad 0 < \alpha < 1.\end{aligned}$$ Then, the eigenvalues of $A$ [are simple]{} and satisfy $\lambda_n (A) \sim cn^{-\alpha}$ with a constant $c=c(alpha)>0$. Next, we finish the proof of . We have $t_0 = 0 < t_1 < \cdots < t_n \leq 1$. Set $I_j=[t_{j-1},t_j]$ for $1 \leq j \leq n$. Then $g(x) = \sum_{j =1}^n (\xi_j - \xi_{j-1} )\chi_{I_j}$. Fix $j \in [1, n]$ and let $ {\textcolor{black}}{ (\|U_{\alpha,I_{j}}\|)^{-1}\geq C(\alpha)>0}$ with $U_{\alpha,I_{j}}$ as in Lemma \[le:piecing\]. Recall that if $A$ and $B$ are bounded operators on $L^2({\mathbb R})$, then by the Minimax principle [@Bhatia-1997 Corollary III.1.2], $$\begin{aligned} \notag \mu_n(AB) = \max_{\substack{M \subset L^2({\mathbb R}) \\ \dim M = n}} \min_{\substack{ x \in M \\ ||x|| = 1}}{\textcolor{black}}{\| AB x\|}\end{aligned}$$ and then $\mu_n(AB) \leq \Vert A\Vert \mu_n(B)$ and $\mu_n(AB) \leq \Vert B\Vert \mu_n(A)$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned} \notag \mu_n(K_\alpha M_gK_\alpha) \geq (\|U_{\alpha,I_{j}}\|)^{-1} \mu_n(U_{\alpha,I_{j}}K_\alpha M_gK_\alpha)= C(\alpha) \mu_n(K_\alpha M_{\chi_{I_{j}}}M_gK_\alpha).\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $$\begin{aligned} \notag \mu_n(K_\alpha M_{\chi_{I_{j}}}M_gK_\alpha) = \mu_n(K_\alpha ( (\xi_{j} - \xi_{j-1}) M_{\chi_{I_{j}}})K_\alpha) =|\xi_{j} - \xi_{j-1}|\mu_n(K_\alpha M_{\chi_{I_{j}}}K_\alpha). \end{aligned}$$ Then, since $\Vert M_{\chi_{I_{j}}} \Vert = 1$ and $ M_{\chi_{I_{j}}} ^2= M_{\chi_{I_{j}}} $ we have $$\begin{aligned} \notag \mu_n(K_\alpha M_{\chi_{I_{j}}}K_\alpha) \geq \mu_n(M_{\chi_{I_{j}}} K_\alpha M_{\chi_{I_{j}}}K_\alpha M_{\chi_{I_{j}}}) = \mu_n\left((M_{\chi_{I_{j}}}K_\alpha M_{\chi_{I_{j}}})^2\right). \end{aligned}$$ Next, by Lemma \[le:jelppi\] $$\begin{aligned} \notag \mu_n\left((M_{\chi_{I_{j}}}K_\alpha M_{\chi_{I_{j}}})^2\right) = \mu_n(M_{\chi_{I_{j}}}K_\alpha M_{\chi_{I_{j}}})^2 = |t_j - t_{j-1}|^{2 \alpha} (\widetilde \mu_n)^2,\end{aligned}$$ where we have used that if $A$ is self-adjoint, $\mu_n(A^2) = \mu_n (A)^2$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned} \notag \mu_n(K_\alpha M_gK_\alpha) \geq C(\alpha) \max_{1 \leq j \leq n} |\xi_{j} - \xi_{j-1}| |t_j - t_{j-1}|^{2 \alpha} (\widetilde \mu_n)^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $\widetilde \mu_n \sim n^{-\alpha}$. Finally,  follows with $\alpha = H/2$. Integral estimates ------------------ Note, that for any $N > 0$, $$\begin{aligned} \notag 1 + \sum_{k = 1}^N 4s^2 \widetilde \mu_k^4 \leq \prod_{k = 1}^N (1 + 4s^2 \widetilde \mu_k^4) \leq {\textcolor{black}}{\exp( \sum_{k=1}^N 4s^2 \widetilde \mu_k^4 ).}\end{aligned}$$ By Lemma \[le:jelppi\], $\widetilde\mu_k^4\; {\textcolor{black}}{\approx} \; k^{-2H}$ and $\sum_{k = 1}^{\infty} 4s^2 \widetilde \mu_k^4 < \infty$ since $H \in (1/2 ,1 )$. Therefore, $G(s)$ converges and also $G(s) > 0$. Next, let $ a > 0$ be such that $4\widetilde\mu_k^4 \geq a k^{-2H}$ for all $k \geq 1$ and set $z = as^2$. Then, the elementary inequality $\log(1+x)\geq x/2$ for $x\in [0,1)$ yields for $z\geq 1$ that $$\begin{aligned} -8\log G(s)&=&2\sum_{k=1}^\infty \log (1+ 4s^2\widetilde \mu_k^4)\geq 2\sum_{k=1}^\infty \log (1+ zk^{-2H})\geq z\sum_{ k\geq z^{1/2H}}k^{-2H}\\ &\geq& z\int_{2z^{1/2H}}x^{-2H}= 2^{1-2H}(2H-1)^{-1}z^{1/2H}\geq c_0z^{1/2H},\end{aligned}$$ where $c_0 > 0$, and in general $-8\log G(s)\geq c_0(z^{1/2H}-1) $. Thus, $G(s)\leq c_2\exp(-c_1s^{1/H})$, where $c_1, c_2 > 0$, and we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \notag \int_0^\infty s^{\beta-1}G(s)ds \leq & \int_0^\infty c_2\exp(-c_1s^{1/H})s^{\beta-1}ds \;= \; c_2 H \int_0^{\infty} \exp( -c_1 x) x^{\beta H - 1} dx \\ \notag = & c_2 H c_1^{- \beta H} \Gamma(\beta H) {\textcolor{black}}{\;\leq\; c_3^{\beta H} \Gamma(\beta H) }.\end{aligned}$$ as desired. Our goal is to estimate the integral $$\begin{aligned} \notag I_0 \coloneqq \int_{S^{n-1}}\int_{\substack{t_1+t_2+\ldots +t_n\leq 1\\ t_1,\ldots, t_n\geq 0}}\prod_{j=1}^n |y_j|^{\gamma_j}(f(t,y))^{-n(1+{\gamma_{\rm av}})}dt\mathcal{H}^{n-1}(dy), \end{aligned}$$ where $f: {\mathbb R}_+^n \times {\mathbb R}^n \to (0, \infty)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} \notag f(t, y) = t_1^H |y_1| \vee t_2^H |y_2| \vee \cdots \vee t_n^H |y_n|,\end{aligned}$$ and ${\gamma_{\rm av}}:=n^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^n\gamma_n$ for $\gamma_1,\ldots \gamma_n \geq 0$. First note that $f$ is $H$-homogeneous with respect to $t$ and 1-homogeneous with respect to $y$: $$\label{eq:ehto} f(t,y)=|t|^H |y|f(t^0,y^0),$$ where $y^0\coloneqq y/|y|$ and $t^0 \coloneqq t/|\sum_{j=1}^n t_j|$. Observe that we use the standard Euclidean norm for the $y$-variable and the $\ell^1$-norm for the $t$-variable. Next, introduce the related integral $$\begin{aligned} \notag I_1\coloneqq \int_{S^{n-1}}\int_{\substack{t_1+t_2+\ldots +t_n=1\\ t_1,\ldots, t_n\geq 0}}\prod_{j=1}^n |y_j|^{\gamma_j}(f(t,y))^{-n(1+{\gamma_{\rm av}})}\mathcal{H}^{n-1}(dt)\mathcal{H}^{n-1}(dy),\end{aligned}$$ Using the $H$-homogeneity of $f$ with respect to $t$ and noting that the distance of the origin from the hyperplane $t_1+\ldots + t_n=1$ equals $n^{-1/2}$, we obtain the following relation between $I_0$ and $I_1$: $$\begin{aligned} \notag I_0=& I_1\int_0^{n^{-1/2}} (u/n^{-1/2})^{-n(1+{\gamma_{\rm av}})H}(u/n^{-1/2})^{n-1}du,\end{aligned}$$ where the term $(u/n^{-1/2})^{n-1}$ arises from the Jacobian and the rescaling. The above can be further simplified: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:kaali} I_0 = I_1n^{-1/2}\int_0^1v^{n(1-H(1+{\gamma_{\rm av}}))-1}dv = (1-H(1+{\gamma_{\rm av}}))^{-1}n^{-3/2}I_1,\end{aligned}$$ where one naturally needs to assume that $H(1+{\gamma_{\rm av}})<1$. We proceed by showing the following more general result. \[le:helppi10\] Assume that $f:{\mathbb R}_+^n\times{\mathbb R}^n\to (0,\infty)$ satisfies . Let $H\in (0,1)$ and $\gamma \coloneqq (\gamma_1, \ldots , \gamma_n) \in {\mathbb R}$ with $0\leq \gamma_j <H^{-1}-1$ for every $j=1,\ldots , n$. Set ${\gamma_{\rm av}}:=n^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^n\gamma_j$. Then $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:jelppi100} I_0 = C(n, \gamma, H) \int_{({\mathbb R}_+)^n\times{\mathbb R}^n}e^{-f(t,y)}e^{-(t_1+\ldots +t_n)}\prod_{j=1}^n|y_j|^{\gamma_j}dydt \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \notag C(n, \gamma, H) \coloneqq \frac{1}{n^{1/2}\Gamma (n(1+{\gamma_{\rm av}}))\Gamma(n(1-H(1+{\gamma_{\rm av}})+1)}.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, if $f$ is such that $$\begin{aligned} \notag f(y,t)=g(t_1^H |y_1|,\ldots, t_n^H |y_n|), \end{aligned}$$ where $g$ is $1-$homogeneous, then $$\label{eq:jelppi200} I_0 = C(n, \gamma, H) \prod_{j=1}^n\Gamma(1-H(1+\gamma_j)) \int_{{\mathbb R}^n}e^{-g(|y_1|,\ldots, |y_n|)}|y_1|^{\gamma_1}\cdots |y_n|^{\gamma_n}dy.$$ We first compute $I_1$ by moving to radial variables in $y$ and $t$. Thus, let $r:=|y|$, $w:=y/r,$ $s:=t_1+t_2+\ldots + t_n$ and $u:=t/s$ and note as a first step that $$\begin{aligned} &&\int_{({\mathbb R}_+)^n\times{\mathbb R}^n}e^{-f(t,y)}e^{-(t_1+\ldots +t_n)}|y_1|^{\gamma_1}\cdots |y_n|^{\gamma_n}dydt\\ &=&\int_{|w|=1} \int_{\substack{u_1+u_2+\ldots +u_n=1\\ u_1,\ldots, u_n\geq 0}} \int_0^\infty\int_0^\infty e^{-rs^H f(u,w)} e^{-s} |w_1|^{\gamma_1}\cdots |w_n|^{\gamma_n} r^{n {\gamma_{\rm av}}} \\ &&\phantom{kukkuukukkuukaukana}s^{n-1}r^{n-1}dr ds\mathcal{H}^{n-1}(du)\mathcal{H}^{n-1}(dw)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We compute first the integral with respect to $r$ by making a change of variables $r':=rs^H f(u,t)$ and then with respect to $s$ to obtain $$\begin{aligned} &&\int_0^\infty\int_0^\infty e^{-rs^H f(u,w)}e^{-s}s^{n-1}dsr^{n(1+{\gamma_{\rm av}})-1}dr\\ & = & \int_0^\infty e^{-s} (f(u,w))^{- n ( 1 + {\gamma_{\rm av}})} s^{n (1 - H ( 1 + {\gamma_{\rm av}}) )-1} \int_0^\infty e^{-r'} (r')^{n ( 1 + {\gamma_{\rm av}}) -1} dr' ds \\ &=& \Gamma(n(1+{\gamma_{\rm av}})) (f(u,w))^{-n(1+{\gamma_{\rm av}})} \int_0^\infty e^{-s}s^{n(1-H(1+{\gamma_{\rm av}}))-1}ds\\& = &\Gamma(n(1+{\gamma_{\rm av}}))\Gamma ((1-H(1+{\gamma_{\rm av}}))n) (f(u,w))^{-n(1+{\gamma_{\rm av}})} .\end{aligned}$$ Next, recall that $I_1$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} \notag I_1 = \int_{|w|=1} \int_{\substack{u_1+u_2+\ldots +u_n=1\\ u_1,\ldots, u_n\geq 0}} |w_1|^{\gamma_1}\cdots |w_n|^{\gamma_n} (f(u,w))^{-n(1+{\gamma_{\rm av}})}\mathcal{H}^{n-1}(du)\mathcal{H}^{n-1}(dw).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned} \notag & \int_{({\mathbb R}_+)^n\times{\mathbb R}^n}e^{-f(t,y)}e^{-(t_1+\ldots +t_n)}|y_1|^{\gamma_1}\cdots |y_n|^{\gamma_n}dydt \\ \notag = & \Gamma(n(1+{\gamma_{\rm av}}))\Gamma ((1-H(1+{\gamma_{\rm av}}))n) I_1\\ \notag = & \Gamma(n(1+{\gamma_{\rm av}}))\Gamma ((1-H(1+{\gamma_{\rm av}}))n) (1-H(1+{\gamma_{\rm av}})) n^{3/2} I_0 \\ \notag = & C(n, \gamma, H)^{-1} I_0,\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the relation . To establish  note that with the change of variables $y_j = u_j / t_j^H$, $$\begin{aligned} \notag & \int_{({\mathbb R}_+)^n\times{\mathbb R}^n}e^{-g({\textcolor{black}}{t_1^H |y_1|,\ldots, t_n^H |y_n|})}e^{-(t_1+\ldots +t_n)}|y_1|^{\gamma_1}\cdots |y_n|^{\gamma_n}dydt \\ \notag = & \int_{({\mathbb R}_+)^n\times{\mathbb R}^n}e^{-g({\textcolor{black}}{|u_1|, \ldots, |u_n|})}e^{-(t_1+\ldots +t_n)}|u_1|^{\gamma_1}\cdots |u_n|^{\gamma_n} \prod_{j = 1}^n t_j^{- H(1 + \gamma_j)} dudt \\ \notag = &\prod_{j = 1}^n \Gamma(1 - H(1 + \gamma_j)) \int_{{\mathbb R}^n}e^{-g({\textcolor{black}}{|u_1|, \ldots, |u_n|)}} |u_1|^{\gamma_1}\cdots |u_n|^{\gamma_n} \prod_{j = 1}^n t_j^{- H(1 + \gamma_j)} du,\end{aligned}$$ and the conclusion follows after an application of . Finally, we establish . By homogeneity, $$\begin{aligned} \notag \int_{\partial([-u,u])}\prod_{j=1}^n |y_j|^{\gamma_j}\mathcal{H}^{n-1}(dy) = u^{n {\gamma_{\rm av}}} u^{n-1} \int_{\partial([-1,1]^n)}\prod_{j=1}^n|y_j|^{\gamma_j}\mathcal{H}^{n-1}(dy).\end{aligned}$$ Next, by Fubini theorem, $$\begin{aligned} \notag \int_{[-1,1]^n}\prod_{j=1}^n|y_j|^{\gamma_j}dy=\frac{1}{n(1+{\gamma_{\rm av}})} \int_{\partial([-1,1]^n)}\prod_{j=1}^n|y_j|^{\gamma_j}\mathcal{H}^{n-1}(dy) \eqqcolon \frac{A}{n ( 1 + {\gamma_{\rm av}})},\end{aligned}$$ where $A$ is the integral over the boundary. Moreover, $$\begin{aligned} \notag \int_{[-1,1]^n}\prod_{j=1}^n|y_j|^{\gamma_j}dy = \prod_{j =1 }^n \int_{[-1, 1]} |y_j|^{\gamma_j} dy_j = \prod_{j =1}^n \frac{2}{1 + \gamma_j}.\end{aligned}$$ Next, consider $$\begin{aligned} \notag & \int_{{\mathbb R}^n}e^{-\max_{1\leq j\leq n}|y_j|}\prod_{j=1}^n|y_j|^{\gamma_j}dy \\ \notag = & \int_0^\infty \int_{\partial([-u,u])}e^{-\max_{1\leq j\leq n}|y_j|} \prod_{j=1}^n |y_j|^{\gamma_j}\mathcal{H}^{n-1}(dy) du \\ \notag = & \int_0^\infty e^{-u} \int_{\partial([-u,u])} \prod_{j=1}^n |y_j|^{\gamma_j}\mathcal{H}^{n-1}(dy) du \\ \notag = & \int_0^\infty e^{-u}A u^{n-1}u^{n{\gamma_{\rm av}}}du \\ \label{eq:jelppi300} = & n(1+{\gamma_{\rm av}})\Gamma (n(1+{\gamma_{\rm av}}))\prod_{j=1}^n\frac{2}{1+\gamma_j}.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, applying  in  with $g(|y_1|, \ldots , |y_n|) = \max_{1\leq j\leq n}|y_j|$ yields $$\begin{aligned} \notag & \int_{S^{n-1}}\int_{\substack{t_1+t_2+\ldots +t_n\leq 1\\ t_1,\ldots, t_n\geq 0}}\prod_{j=1}^n |y_j|^{\gamma_j}(f(t,y))^{-n(1+{\gamma_{\rm av}})}dt\mathcal{H}^{n-1}(dy) \\ \notag = & \frac{n^{1/2}(1+{\gamma_{\rm av}})}{\Gamma(n(1-H(1+{\gamma_{\rm av}})+1)} \prod_{j=1}^n \left[ \frac{2}{1+\gamma_j} \Gamma(1 - H(1 + \gamma_j))\right] \end{aligned}$$ where $f: {\mathbb R}_+^n \times {\mathbb R}^n \to (0, \infty)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} \notag f(t, y) = t_1^H |y_1| \vee t_2^H |y_2| \vee \cdots \vee t_n^H |y_n|,\end{aligned}$$ and  is established. [**Acknowledgments.**]{} G. Kerchev and I. Nourdin are supported by the FNR OPEN grantAPOGee at Luxembourg University. [99]{} F. Aurzada and C. Mönch (2018): Persistence probabilities and a decorrelation inequality for the [R]{}osenblatt process and [H]{}ermite processes. [*Teor. Veroyatn. Primen*]{} [**63**]{}, no. 4, pp. 817-826 A. Ayache, D. Wu and Y. Xiao (2008): Joint continuity of the local times of fractional [B]{}rownian sheets. [*Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Probab. Statist.*]{} [**44**]{}, no. 4, pp. 727-748. S.M. Berman (1969): Local times and sample function properties of stationary [G]{}aussian processes. [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**137**]{}, pp. 277-299. R. Bhatia (1997): Matrix analysis. Volume 169 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, New York. A. Chronopoulou, F.G. Viens and C.A. Tudor (2009): Variations and [H]{}urst index estimation for a [R]{}osenblatt process using longer filters. [*Electron. J. Stat.*]{} [**3**]{}, pp. 1393-1435. R.L. Dobrushin and P. Major (1979): Non-central limit theorems for nonlinear functionals of [G]{}aussian fields. [*Z. Wahrsch. Verw. Gebiete*]{} [**50**]{}, pp. 27-52. M.R. Dostanić (1998): Spectral properties of the operator of [R]{}iesz potential type. [*Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**126**]{}, pp. 2291-2297. M. Dozzi (2003): Occupation density and sample path properties of $N$-parameter processes. In [*Topics in spatial stochastic processes*]{} ([M]{}artina [F]{}ranca, 2001), volume 1802 of [*Lecture Notes in Math.*]{}, pp. 127-166. Springer, Berlin, 2003. J. Duoandikoetxea (2001): [*Fourier analysis*]{}, volume [**29**]{} of [*Graduate Studies in Mathematics*]{}, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI. Translated and revised from the 1995 Spanish original by David Cruz-Uribe. A. M. Garsia, E. Rodemich and H. Rumsey Jr. (1970): A real variable lemma and the continuity of paths of some [G]{}aussian processes. [*Indiana Univ. Math. J.*]{} [**20**]{}, pp. 565-578. L. Grafakos (2008): [*Classical Fourier Analysis*]{}, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer, New York. L. Grafakos (2009): [*Modern Fourier Analysis*]{}, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer, New York. Y. Gu and G. Bal (2012): Random homogenization and convergence to integrals with respect to the [R]{}osenblatt process. [*J. Differential Equations*]{} [**253**]{}, no. 4, pp. 1069-1087. R. Hunt, B. Muckenhoupt and R. Wheeden (1973): Weighted norm inequalities for the conjugate function and [H]{}ilbert transform. [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**176**]{}, pp. 227-251. O. Kallenberg (2002): [*Foundations of modern probability*]{}. Probability and its Applications (New York), 2nd edition. Springer-Verlag, New York. I. Nourdin and D. Tran (2019): Statistical inference for [V]{}asicek-type model driven by [H]{}ermite processes. [*Stochastic Process. Appl.*]{} [**129**]{}, no. 10, pp. 3774-3791. M. Reed and B. Simon (1980): [*Methods of modern mathematical physics. [I]{}*]{}. Academic Press, Inc. \[Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers\], New York. Second edition. C.A. Rogers and S.J. Taylor (1961). [Functions continuous and singular with respect to a [H]{}ausdorff measure]{}, [*Mathematika*]{} [**8**]{}, pp. 1-31. M. Rosenblatt (1961): Independence and dependence. In [*Proc. 4th [B]{}erkeley [S]{}ympos. [M]{}ath. [S]{}tatist. and [P]{}rob., [V]{}ol. [II]{}*]{}, pp. 431–443. Univ. California Press, Berkeley, Calif. G. Shevchenko (2010): Properties of trajectories of the multifractional [R]{}osenblatt process. [*Teor. Ĭmovīr. Mat. Stat.*]{} [**83**]{}, pp. 138-147. Y. Xiao (1997): Hölder conditions for the local times and the [H]{}ausdorff measure of the level sets of [G]{}aussian random fields. [*Probab. Theory Rel. Fields*]{} [**109**]{}, pp. 129-157. [^1]: [We shall actually later work more with the singular value sequence, which for a compact self-adjoint operator coincides with sequence of the absolute values of the eigenvalues in a decreasing order, and each one repeated according to multiplicity. Singular values have the advantage that they can be defined also for non-self-adjoint operators and satisfy very handy inequalities.]{} [^2]: [Note that for a self-adjoint operator $T$ the singular value sequence consists of absolute values of the eigenvalues, repeated according to multiplicity. For later purposes it is useful to speak of singular values since some of the results we will be using in Section \[sec:spectral\] are valid only for singular values.]{} [^3]: [A priori, after [@Shevchenko-2010], the occupation density is defined only as an $L^2$-density, and hence they are not necessarily well-defined for fixed $x$. Thus some of our computations below might seem unfounded. However, one may use Proposition \[prop:int\_fourier\] to first prove uniform regularity bounds for suitable mollifications, which justifies for any fixed $x$ and our computations later on.]{} [^4]: [Actually, this special case can also be obtained from a standard trace theorem for Besov spaces.]{}

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'The notion of geometric phase has been recently introduced to analyze the quantum phase transitions of many-body systems from the geometrical perspective. In this work, we study the geometric phase of the ground state for an inhomogeneous period-two anisotropic $XY$ model in a transverse field. This model encompasses a group of familiar spin models as its special cases and shows a richer critical behavior. The exact solution is obtained by mapping on a fermionic system through the Jordan-Wigner transformation and constructing the relevant canonical transformation to realize the diagonalization of the Hamiltonian coupled in the $k$-space. The results show that there may exist more than one quantum phase transition point at some parameter regions and these transition points correspond to the divergence or extremum properties of the Berry curvature.' author: - 'Yu-Quan Ma and Shu Chen' title: 'Geometric phase and quantum phase transition in an inhomogeneous periodic $XY$ spin-1/2 model' --- Introduction ============ Since the existence of the adiabatic geometric phase that was first revealed in pioneer work of Berry [@Berry], the concepts of geometric phases have been extensively generalized along many directions [@Simon; @Aharonov; @Samuel], and now the applications of geometric phases can be found in various physical fields [@Shapere; @Bohm; @Thouless; @Morpurgo; @Zanardi]. Recently, the close relation between geometric phases and quantum phase transitions (QPTs) has been revealed gradually [@Carollo; @Zhu; @Hamma] and increasing interest has been drawn to the role of geometric phases in detecting QPTs for various many-body systems [@chengang]. Essentially, quantum phase transitions happened at zero temperature are characterized by the dramatic changes in the ground-state properties of a many-body system. Unlike classical phase transitions driven by thermal fluctuations, QPTs are driven by pure quantum fluctuations. Traditionally, QPTs are analyzed by resorting to notions such as the order parameter and symmetry breaking within the Landau-Ginzburg paradigm, however, this scheme cannot give a complete description of properties of the ground state in many-body systems. In the past few years, a lot of efforts have been devoted to the study of QPTs from other perspectives, such as quantum order or topological order [@Wen], entanglement measures [@Gu; @Nielsen], and quantum fidelity based on the concept of quantum information [Sun,ZanardiPRL,chenshu,Gu08]{}. Generally, in the vicinity of QPTs, the changes in the ground state driven by external parameters of the Hamiltonian will lead to an energy-level crossing or avoided energy-level crossing between the ground state and the excited state [@Sachdev], and the features of level structures can be captured by the geometric phase of the ground state because the features of energy-levels crossing or avoided crossing correspond to the divergence or extremum property of the Berry curvature. From the geometrical perspective, the geometric phase is a reflection of the global curvature in the parameter space of the Hamiltonian. In the present work, we shall use the geometric phase of ground state to detect the QPTs for a period-two inhomogeneous anisotropic $XY$ spin-$\frac{1% }{2}$ chain in a transverse field, in which the nearest-neighbor interactions and the degree of anisotropy will take alternating parameters between the neighbor sites [@Tong; @Feldman; @Lima; @Derzhko; @Tong02; @Ge]. To the best of our knowledge, the previous studies of geometric phase as a witness of QPTs mainly concerned homogeneous spin chains for simplicity [Carollo,Zhu,Hamma]{}. On the other hand, inhomogeneous systems will exhibit rich phase diagrams and it would be interesting to investigate whether the geometric phase is able to characterize the quantum phase transition in these more complicate systems. So far, many methods have been introduced to investigate the inhomogeneous spin chains in different limited conditions [@Tong; @Feldman; @Lima; @Derzhko; @Tong02; @Ge; @Derzhko2]; however an explicit expression of the ground state, which is necessary for the derivation of the geometric phase, is still lacking. In our scheme, by mapping the spin Hamiltonian on a fermionic system through the Jordan-Wigner transformation and the Fourier transformation, we derive a general canonical transformation to realize the diagonalization of the fermionic system Hamiltonian coupled in the $k$- space and construct the exact expression of the ground state. Our results show that there exist more than one critical points at some parameter region and the critical points correspond to the divergence or extremum property of the Berry curvature of the Hamiltonian parameter space. Model ===== The system under consideration is an inhomogeneous periodic anisotropic $XY$ spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ chain [@Tong; @Feldman; @Lima; @Derzhko; @Tong02; @Ge], which consists of $N$ cells with two sites in each cell, and in an external magnetic field. Its Hamiltonian is given by $$\begin{aligned} \mathscr{H}=&-&\sum\limits_{l=1}^{N}[J_{a}(1+% \gamma_{a})S_{l,a}^{x}S_{l,b}^{x} +J_{a}(1-\gamma_{a})S_{l,a}^{y}S_{l,b}^{y} \notag \\ &+&J_{b}(1+\gamma_{b})S_{l,b}^{x}S_{l+1,a}^{x} +J_{b}(1- \gamma_{b})S_{l,b}^{y}S_{l+1,a}^{y} \notag \\ &+&h(S_{l,a}^{z}+S_{l,b}^{z})], \label{spinham}\end{aligned}$$ where $S_{l,m}^{\alpha} (\alpha=x,\ y,\ z;\ m=a,\ b)$ are the local spin operators, $J_{m}$ is the exchange coupling, $\gamma_{m}$ is the anisotropy in the in-plane interaction on the $m$ site in the $l$th cell and $h$ is the external field. We assume periodic boundary conditions and choose $N$ to be odd for convenience. This model encompasses a group of other well-known spin models as its special cases [@Lieb], such as quantum Ising model in a transverse field for $\gamma_{a}=\gamma_{b}=1$ and $J_{a}=J_{b}$, the transverse field $XX$ model for $\gamma_{a}=\gamma_{b}=0$ and $J_{a}=J_{b}$, and the uniform transverse field anisotropic $XY$ model for $% \gamma_{a}=\gamma_{b}$ and $J_{a}=J_{b}$. In order to obtain the geometric phase in this system, we consider rotating this model by applying a rotation of angle $\varphi $ about the $z$ axis to each spin [@Carollo], i.e., $\mathscr{D}_{z}\left( \varphi \right) =\prod_{l=1}^{N}\exp [i\varphi (S_{l,a}^{z}+S_{l,b}^{z})]$, and then we have $\mathscr{H}\left( \varphi \right) =\mathscr{D}_{z}^{\dagger }\left( \varphi \right) \mathscr{H}\mathscr{D}_{z}\left( \varphi \right) $, in which $% \mathscr{D}_{z}\left( \varphi \right) $ is the relevant rotation operator and we have set $\hbar =1$ for simplicity. It can be verified that $% \mathscr{H}(0)=\mathscr{H}(\pi )$, and $\mathscr{H}(\varphi )$ is $\pi $ periodic in $\varphi $ because the quadratic form about the $x$ and $y$ axes appears symmetric in Eq. (\[spinham\]). Considering the unitarity of the rotation operator $U\left( \varphi \right) $ , the critical behavior and energy spectrum of the family of Hamiltonians parametrized by $\varphi $ are obviously $\varphi $ independent. The spin Hamiltonian can be mapped exactly on a spinless fermion model through the Jordan-Wigner transformation $$\begin{aligned} S_{l,a}^{+}\! &=&\!\exp \left[ i\pi \!\!\sum_{l^{\prime }=1}^{l-1}\!\sum_{m^{\prime }=a,b}C_{l^{\prime },m^{\prime }}^{\dag }C_{l^{\prime },m^{\prime }}\right] \,C_{l,a}^{\dag }, \notag \\ S_{l,b}^{+}\! &=&\!\exp \left[ i\pi \!\!\left( \sum_{l^{\prime }=1}^{l-1}\!\sum_{m^{\prime }=a,b}C_{l^{\prime },m^{\prime }}^{\dag }C_{l^{\prime },m^{\prime }}+C_{l,a}^{\dag }C_{l,a}\right) \right] \,C_{l,b}^{\dag }, \notag \\ &&\end{aligned}$$where $S_{l,m}^{\pm }=S_{l,m}^{x}\pm iS_{l,m}^{x}$ are the spin ladder operators and $c_{l,m}^{\dag }$ and $c_{l,m}$ are the fermion creation and annihilation operators. The original Hamiltonian $\mathscr{H}(\varphi )$ is transformed into $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{H}(\varphi )=- &&\sum_{l=1}^{N}[\frac{J_{a}}{2}(C_{l,a}^{\dag }C_{l,b}+C_{l,b}^{\dag }C_{l,a})+\frac{J_{b}}{2}(C_{l,b}^{\dag }C_{l+1,a} \notag \\ &+&C_{l+1,a}^{\dag }C_{l,b})+(\frac{J_{a}\gamma _{a}}{2}e^{-i2\varphi }C_{l,a}^{\dag }C_{l,b}^{\dag }+H.C.) \notag \\ &+&(\frac{J_{b}\gamma _{b}}{2}e^{-i2\varphi }C_{l,b}^{\dag }C_{l+1,a}^{\dag }+H.C.) \notag \\ &+&h(C_{l,a}^{\dag }C_{l,a}+C_{l,b}^{\dag }C_{l,b}-1)]\ .\end{aligned}$$In the fermion case, the periodic boundary conditions $S_{N+1,m}^{\alpha }=S_{1,m}^{\alpha }$,$(\alpha =x,y,z;\ m=a,b)$ on the spin degrees of freedom imply that $C_{N+1,m}=\exp [i\pi \sum_{l^{\prime }=1}^{N}\sum_{m^{\prime }=a}^{b}C_{l^{\prime },m^{\prime }}^{\dag }C_{l^{\prime },m^{\prime }}]C_{1,m}$, in which ($\sum_{l^{\prime }=1}^{N}\sum_{m^{\prime }=a}^{b}C_{l^{\prime },m^{\prime }}^{\dag }C_{l^{\prime },m^{\prime }}$) is just the total fermion number $N_{F}$. Thus the boundary conditions on the fermionic system are $C_{N+1,m}=e^{i\pi N_{F}}C_{1,m}$, and the fermionic system will obey periodic or antiperiodic conditions depending on whether $N_{F}$ is even or odd [@Fradkin]. However, the differences between the two boundary conditions are negligible in the thermodynamic limit where the second-order QPTs occur [@Lieb; @Zhu]. Without loss of generality, we assume the periodic boundary condition on the fermionic system, which means that $N_{F}$ is always even and $% C_{N+1,m}=C_{1,m}$. This periodic boundary condition enables us to introduce a Fourier transformation, $$\begin{aligned} C_{l,a} &=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{k}e^{ikR_{la}}\,a_{k}\ , \notag \\ C_{l,b} &=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{k}e^{ik\left( R_{la}+a\right) }\,b_{k}\end{aligned}$$to the Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}(\varphi )$, in which $k=(2\pi /2aN)n$ and $% n=-\frac{N-1}{2},-\frac{N-1}{2}+1,...,\frac{N-1}{2}$. Here $R_{la}$ ($% R_{lb}=R_{la}+a$) is defined as the coordinate of site $a$ ($b$) on the $l$th cell in the one-dimensional lattice with the lattice parameter $2a$. Hence, the Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}(\varphi )$ transformed into the momentum space is given by $$\begin{aligned} H_{\varphi }\!\!=\!\!\! &-&\!\!\!\sum_{k}\{h(a_{k}^{\dag }a_{k}+b_{k}^{\dag }b_{k}-1)\!+[(\frac{J_{a}}{2}e^{ika}+\frac{J_{b}}{2}e^{-ika})a_{k}^{\dag }b_{k} \notag \\ &+&H.C.]-[(\frac{J_{a}\gamma _{a}}{2}e^{2i\varphi +ika}-\frac{J_{b}\gamma _{b}}{2}e^{2i\varphi -ika})a_{-k}b_{k} \notag \\ &+&H.C.]\}\ .\end{aligned}$$This Hamiltonian has a quadratic form in fermion operators and can be exactly diagonalized. We note that the Hamiltonian $H_{\varphi }$ can be expressed as $H_{\varphi }\!\!=\sum_{k}(\Gamma _{k}^{\dagger }M_{k}\Gamma _{k}+h)$ with matrix $\Gamma _{k}^{\dagger }=(a_{k}^{\dagger },a_{-k},b_{k}^{\dag },b_{-k})$ and $M_{k}$ is a $4\times 4$ Hermitian matrix. Therefore, we can always find a unitary transformation matrix $U$ which can be inserted in the Hamiltonian as $H_{\varphi }\!\!=\sum_{k}(\Gamma _{k}^{\dagger }U_{k}^{\dagger }U_{k}M_{k}U_{k}^{\dagger }U_{k}\Gamma _{k}+h)$ and then transform the matrix $M_{k}$ into a diagonal matrix $U_{k}M_{k}U_{k}^{\dagger }$. That is to say, the term $U_{k}\Gamma _{k}$ is equivalent to introducing the following canonical transformation and define a set of new operators, i.e., $$\begin{aligned} \gamma _{k} &=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(e^{2i\varphi }\cos \frac{\theta _{k}}{2}% a_{k}+e^{i\delta _{k}}e^{-i\sigma _{k}}\sin \frac{\theta _{k}}{2}% a_{-k}^{\dag } \notag \\ &-&e^{2i\varphi }e^{i\delta _{k}}\cos \frac{\theta _{k}}{2}b_{k}+e^{i\sigma _{k}}\sin \frac{\theta _{k}}{2}b_{-k}^{\dag })\ , \notag \\ \eta _{k} &=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(-e^{-i\delta _{k}}e^{i\sigma {k}}\sin \frac{% \theta _{k}}{2}a_{k}+e^{-2i\varphi }\cos \frac{\theta _{k}}{2}a_{-k}^{\dag } \notag \\ &+&e^{i\sigma _{k}}\sin \frac{\theta _{k}}{2}b_{k}+e^{-2i\varphi }e^{-i\delta _{k}}e^{2i\sigma _{k}}\cos \frac{\theta _{k}}{2}b_{-k}^{\dag })\ , \notag \\ \mu _{k} &=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(e^{2i\varphi }\cos \frac{\beta _{k}}{2}% a_{k}-e^{i\delta _{k}}e^{-i\sigma _{k}}\sin \frac{\beta _{k}}{2}a_{-k}^{\dag } \notag \\ &+&e^{2i\varphi }e^{i\delta _{k}}\cos \frac{\beta _{k}}{2}b_{k}+e^{i\sigma _{k}}\sin \frac{\beta _{k}}{2}b_{-k}^{\dag })\ , \notag \\ \nu _{k} &=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(e^{-i\delta _{k}}e^{i\sigma _{k}}\sin \frac{% \beta _{k}}{2}a_{k}+e^{-2i\varphi }\cos \frac{\beta _{k}}{2}a_{-k}^{\dag } \notag \\ &+&e^{i\sigma _{k}}\sin \frac{\beta _{k}}{2}b_{k}-e^{-2i\varphi }e^{-i\delta _{k}}e^{2i\sigma _{k}}\cos \frac{\beta _{k}}{2}b_{-k}^{\dag })\ , \label{cantran}\end{aligned}$$where $$\begin{aligned} \delta _{k} &=&\arg \left( J_{a}e^{ika}+J_{b}e^{-ika}\right) , \notag \\ \sigma _{k} &=&\arg \left( J_{a}\gamma _{a}e^{ika}-J_{b}\gamma _{b}e^{-ika}\right) , \notag \\ \zeta _{k} &=&\sqrt{J_{a}^{2}+J_{b}^{2}+2J_{a}J_{b}\cos 2ka}\ , \notag \\ \xi _{k} &=&\sqrt{J_{a}^{2}\gamma _{a}^{2}+J_{b}^{2}\gamma _{b}^{2}-2J_{a}J_{b}\gamma _{a}\gamma _{b}\cos 2ka}\ ,\end{aligned}$$and $$\begin{aligned} \cos \theta _{k} &=&\frac{h-\frac{\zeta _{k}}{2}}{\sqrt{(h-\frac{\zeta _{k}}{% 2})^{2}+(\frac{\xi _{k}}{2})^{2}}}\ , \notag \\ \cos \beta _{k} &=&\frac{h+\frac{\zeta _{k}}{2}}{\sqrt{(h+\frac{\zeta _{k}}{2% })^{2}+(\frac{\xi _{k}}{2})^{2}}}\ .\end{aligned}$$Using the set of quasiparticle operators $\gamma _{k},\eta _{k},\mu _{k}$ and $\nu _{k}$, we can write the Hamiltonian $H_{\varphi }$ in the explicit diagonal form as $$H_{\varphi }=\sum_{q=\gamma ,\eta ,\mu ,\nu }\sum_{k}\Lambda _{q,k}\left( q_{k}^{\dag }q_{k}-\frac{1}{2}\right) \ , \label{diagham}$$where $\Lambda _{q,k}\ (q=\gamma ,\eta ,\mu ,\nu )$ are the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian matrix $M_{k}$, and now, they are the relevant quasiparticle energy spectrums as follows: $$\begin{aligned} \Lambda _{\gamma k} &=&-\frac{1}{2}(h-\frac{\zeta _{k}}{2})-\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{% (h-\frac{\zeta _{k}}{2})^{2}+(\frac{\xi _{k}}{2})^{2}}\ , \notag \\ \Lambda _{\eta k} &=&-\frac{1}{2}(h-\frac{\zeta _{k}}{2})+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{% (h-\frac{\zeta _{k}}{2})^{2}+(\frac{\xi _{k}}{2})^{2}}\ , \notag \\ \Lambda _{\mu k} &=&-\frac{1}{2}(h+\frac{\zeta _{k}}{2})-\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{(h+% \frac{\zeta _{k}}{2})^{2}+(\frac{\xi _{k}}{2})^{2}}\ , \notag \\ \Lambda _{\nu k} &=&-\frac{1}{2}(h+\frac{\zeta _{k}}{2})+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{(h+% \frac{\zeta _{k}}{2})^{2}+(\frac{\xi _{k}}{2})^{2}}\ . \label{egspre}\end{aligned}$$Furthermore, it can be verified that the general canonical transformation Eq. (\[cantran\]) can be reduced to the familiar Bogoliubov transformation in the case of the uniform anisotropic $XY$ model. Geometric Phase and Quantum Phase Transition ============================================ Now, let us focus on the geometric phase of the ground state. We have introduced the family of Hamiltonians parameterized by $\varphi$, and this family of Hamiltonians $\mathcal{H}(\varphi)$ can be described as a result of adiabatic rotation of the physical system. The geometric phase of the ground state will be accumulated when the system finish a cyclic evolution, corresponding to varying the angle $\varphi$ from 0 to $\pi$ \[$\mathscr{H}% (\varphi)$ is $\pi$ periodic in $\varphi$\]. The Hamiltonian $H_{\varphi }$ in Eq. (\[diagham\]) has been diagonalized in the set of quasiparticle number operators, which allows us to determine all the eigenvalues and eigenvectors. We note that the energy spectrums $% \Lambda _{\eta k}\geq 0$, $\Lambda _{\nu k}\geq 0$ and $\Lambda _{\gamma k}\leq 0$, $\Lambda _{\mu k}\leq 0$. The ground state, denoted as $% |g(\varphi )\rangle $, corresponds to the state with the lowest energy, which consists of state with no $\eta $ and $\nu $ fermions occupied but with $\gamma $ and $\mu $ fermions occupied. Explicitly, the ground state can be constructed as follows $$\left\vert g\left( \varphi \right) \right\rangle =\mathcal{C}^{-\frac{1}{2}% }\prod_{k>0}\left( \gamma _{-k}^{\dag }\gamma _{k}^{\dag }\mu _{-k}^{\dag }\mu _{k}^{\dag }\eta _{-k}\eta _{k}\nu _{-k}\nu _{k}\right) |0\rangle _{a}\otimes |0\rangle _{b}, \label{GS}$$where $\mathcal{C}^{-1/2}$ is the normalized factor and $|0\rangle _{a}$ and $|0\rangle _{b}$ are the vacuum states of the sublattices $a$ and $b$, respectively. It is easy to check that $\eta _{k}|g(\varphi )\rangle =0$, $% \nu _{k}|g(\varphi )\rangle =0$ and $\gamma _{k}^{\dag }|g(\varphi )\rangle =0$, $\mu _{k}^{\dag }|g(\varphi )\rangle =0$ for all $k$. The corresponding ground-state energy $E_{g}$ is $$E_{g}=\sum_{k}\left( \Lambda _{\gamma k}+\Lambda _{\mu k}+h\right) .$$The geometric phase of the ground state, denoted $\mathscr{B}_{g}$, is given by $$\mathscr{B}_{g}=\int_{0}^{\pi }\left\langle g\left( \varphi \right) \left\vert \,i\frac{\partial }{\partial \varphi }\,\right\vert g\left( \varphi \right) \right\rangle \ d\varphi \ . \label{Bg}$$Substituting Eq. (\[GS\]) into Eq. (\[Bg\]), we have $$\begin{aligned} &&\mathscr{B}_{g}=\frac{1}{2\mathcal{C}}\int_{0}^{\pi }\!\!\!\phantom{}% _{a}\langle 0|\otimes \phantom{}_{b}\langle 0|\prod_{k>0}\!\left( \nu _{k}^{\dag }\nu _{-k}^{\dag }\eta _{k}^{\dag }\eta _{-k}^{\dag }\mu _{k}\mu _{-k}\gamma _{k}\gamma _{-k}\right) \notag \\ &&i\frac{\partial }{\partial \varphi }\prod_{k>0}\!\left( \gamma _{-k}^{\dag }\gamma _{k}^{\dag }\mu _{-k}^{\dag }\mu _{k}^{\dag }\eta _{-k}\eta _{k}\nu _{-k}\nu _{k}\right) |0\rangle _{a}\otimes |0\rangle _{b}\ d\varphi .\end{aligned}$$The factor of $\frac{1}{2}$ before the normalized factor $\mathcal{C}^{-1}$ is due to the repeated calculations about the $k$ and $-k$ operators. Straightforward calculation is tedious. Nevertheless the result can be derived concisely from the following consideration. We note that for each term of $\gamma _{k}\frac{\partial }{\partial \varphi }\gamma _{k}^{\dag }$ and $\gamma _{-k}\frac{\partial }{\partial \varphi }\gamma _{-k}^{\dag }$ in the integrand yield the same results of $-2i\cos ^{2}\frac{\theta _{k}}{2}$. In the same way, the terms of $\mu _{k}\frac{\partial }{\partial \varphi }% \mu _{k}^{\dag }$ and $\mu _{-k}\frac{\partial }{\partial \varphi }\mu _{-k}^{\dag }$ yield the results of $-2i\cos ^{2}\frac{\beta _{k}}{2}$, the terms of $\eta _{k}^{+}\frac{\partial }{\partial \varphi }\eta _{k}$ and $% \eta _{-k}^{\dag }\frac{\partial }{\partial \varphi }\eta _{-k}$ yield the results of $-2i\cos ^{2}\frac{\theta _{k}}{2}$, and the terms of $\nu _{k}^{\dag }\frac{\partial }{\partial \varphi }\nu _{k}$ and $\nu _{-k}^{\dag }\frac{\partial }{\partial \varphi }\nu _{-k}$ yield the results of $-2i\cos ^{2}\frac{\beta _{k}}{2}$. Finally, the overall result is $$\begin{aligned} \mathscr{B}_{g} &=&\frac{i}{2}\int\nolimits_{0}^{\pi }\sum_{k>0}8(-i\cos ^{2}% \frac{\theta _{k}}{2}-i\cos ^{2}\frac{\beta _{k}}{2})\ d\varphi \notag \\ &=&2\pi \left[ \left( N-1\right) +\sum_{k>0}\left( \cos \theta _{k}+\cos \beta _{k}\right) \right] \ \notag \\ &=&2\pi \sum_{k>0}\left( \cos \theta _{k}+\cos \beta _{k}\right) .\end{aligned}$$To study the quantum criticality, we are interested in the properties under the thermodynamic limit when the size of the spin lattice $N\rightarrow \infty $. In this case, we introduce the notation of the geometric phase density as $\beta _{g}=\lim_{N\rightarrow \infty }\mathscr{B}_{g}/N$, thus, we have $$\begin{aligned} \beta _{g} &=&\lim_{N\rightarrow \infty }\frac{2\pi }{N}\sum_{k>0}\left( \cos \theta _{k}+\cos \beta _{k}\right) \notag \\ &=&\int_{0}^{\pi }\left( \cos \theta _{k}+\cos \beta _{k}\right) dk\ .\end{aligned}$$In this case, the summation $\frac{2\pi }{N}\sum_{k>0}$ has been replaced by the integral $\int_{0}^{\pi }dk$ with $dk=\lim_{N\rightarrow \infty }\frac{% 2\pi }{N}$. To better understand the QPTs of this inhomogeneous periodic model and how the geometric phase of the ground state is used as a witness to detect them, we present numerical results for the derivative of its geometric phase $% \partial _{h}\beta _{g}$ as a function of different parameters ($% J_{a},J_{b},\gamma _{a},\gamma _{b}$) in the Hamiltonian. In Fig.1, we plot it as a function of $\alpha =J_{b}/J_{a}$ and $h$ with fixed parameters $J_{a}=1$ and $\gamma _{a}=\gamma _{b}=1$, which describes an inhomogeneous periodic Ising model in a transverse field $h$. {width="3.3in"} {width="3.3in"} {width="3.3in"} As shown in Fig.1, the peak of curves for $\partial _{h}\beta _{g}(\alpha ,h) $ becomes sharp with the increasing of the lattice size $N$. A notable feature is that the divergence of the curve in the thermodynamic limit only exists in the parameter region of $J_{b}/J_{a}=1$ and $\gamma _{a}=\gamma _{b}=1$, which correspond to the case of the uniform quantum Ising model, while in the other parameters regions, the curves only show extremum points. In Fig.2, we illustrate the derivative of the geometric phase of the ground state in various cases of inhomogeneous periodic systems. An interesting thing is that there may exist two quantum phase transition points in some parameter regions for the inhomogeneous period-two systems. The number of transition points and the corresponding divergence or extremum properties of curves are dependent on the parameters of the Hamiltonian, which is quite different from those of the quantum Ising model and anisotropic $XY$ model in a transverse field [@Carollo; @Zhu]. As shown in Figs. 2(a) and 2(c), the derivatives of the geometric phase only display the extremum instead of the divergence properties even under the thermodynamic limit condition. On the other hand, in Figs. 2(b) and 2(d), the extremum and divergence properties can coexist in some parameter regions. In order to further understand the divergence or extremum property of $\partial _{h}\beta _{g}(\alpha ,h)$, we choose a section of Fig. 2(c) plotted in Fig. 3, in which the Hamiltonian parameter takes $J_{a}=1$, $J_{b}=2$, $\gamma _{a}=0.05$ and $\gamma _{b}=0.08$. In this case, the transition point of QPT is characterized by the extremum point. As shown in Fig. 3, there is no real divergence even in the thermodynamic limit but it tends to two extremum points with the increasing of the lattice size $N$. The transition points in the thermodynamic limit can also be obtained by the finite-size analysis of positions of extremum points for different size systems. Our results show that the position of the first extremum point approaches the first QPT point $h_{c1}$ in a way of $% h_{m}=h_{c1}(1-constN^{-1.004})$ with the transition point $h_{c1}=0.559908$ and the second one approaches as $h_{m}=h_{c2}(1-constN^{-1.017})$ with the transition point $h_{c2}=1.47561$. Discussions and Conclusions =========================== As shown above, the geometry phase can be used as a detector for the more complicated QPTs in the inhomogeneous system. This is because there exists an intrinsic connection between the geometric phase and the energy-level structure. Furthermore, similar connection is also reflected in the fidelity. The relation between the fidelity and Berry phase has been unveiled in terms of geometric tensors [@ZanardiPRL]. The intrinsic relationship between the fidelity and the characterization of QPTs has also been studied in Ref. [@chenshu]. For a general Hamiltonian of the quantum many-body system undergoing QPTs given by $$H(\lambda )=H_{0}+\lambda H_{1}\ , \label{Hlambda}$$ where $H_{1}$ is supposed to be the driving term with $\lambda $ as the control parameter, the second derivative of the ground-state energy can be expressed as [@chenshu] $$\frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial \lambda ^{2}}E_{g}\left( \lambda \right) =\sum_{n\neq g}\frac{2\left\vert \left\langle n(\lambda )\right\vert H_{1}\left\vert g(\lambda )\right\rangle \right\vert ^{2}}{ E_{g}(\lambda )-E_{n}(\lambda )}\ . \label{2dE}$$ Here $E_{g}$ is the ground-state energy, $n(\lambda) $ are the eigenstates of $H(\lambda )$, and $g(\lambda)$ is the ground state. On the other hand, the geometric phase of the system can be obtained by introducing another parameter $\mathbf{R}$ to the Hamiltonian Eq. (\[Hlambda\]), i.e., $$H(\mathbf{R},\lambda)=H_{0}(\mathbf{R})+\lambda H_{1}(\mathbf{R})\ . \label{HRlambda}$$ which is generated by a unitary transformation $H(\mathbf{R},\lambda)=% \mathscr{U}(\mathbf{R}) H(\lambda)\mathscr{U}^{\dag}(\mathbf{R})$. Here, $% \mathscr{U}(\mathbf{R})$ is unitary and satisfies $[\mathscr{U}(\mathbf{R}% ),H(\lambda )]\neq 0$ to ensure the nontrivial transformation. Obviously, such a transformation keeps the energy-level structures invariant and the critical behavior of the system is thus $\mathbf{R}$ independent. The eigenvalues are only characterized by the parameter $\lambda$. On the other hand, we note that the geometric phase adiabatically undergoing a closed path $C_{\mathbf{R},\lambda}$ in the $\mathbf{R}$ space can be expressed as $$\beta_g\left(C_{\mathbf{R},\lambda}\right)=-\iint_{S\left(C_{\mathbf{R}% ,\lambda}\right)} \Omega_g (\mathbf{R},\lambda)\cdot d\mathbf{S},$$ where $\Omega_g (\mathbf{R},\lambda)$ is the Berry curvature given by $$\label{Curvature} \Omega_g (\mathbf{R},\lambda)\!=\!Im\!\sum_{n \not= g}\!\frac{\langle g_{% \mathbf{R},\lambda}|\nabla_{\mathbf{R}} H|n_{\mathbf{R},\lambda}\rangle\! \times\! \langle n_{\mathbf{R},\lambda}|\nabla_{\mathbf{R}} H|g_{\mathbf{R}% ,\lambda}\rangle}{(E_n(\lambda)-E_g(\lambda))^2}.$$ From the expressions of Eqs. (\[2dE\]) and (\[Curvature\]), it is not hard to find that for both of them the singularities may come from the vanishing energy gap in the thermodynamic limit. In the inhomogeneous $XY$ model, we find that a gapless excitation occurs only when $\Lambda _{\eta k}\rightarrow0$ or $\Lambda _{\nu k}\rightarrow0$, which demands $% \xi_k\rightarrow0$. Hence, this condition can be achieved only in the thermodynamic limit $N\rightarrow\infty$ and for the appropriate parameters of the Hamiltonian, i.e., $J_a \gamma_a=J_b \gamma_b$. Apart from these special cases, there exist no solution for $\Lambda _{\eta k}=0$ or $\Lambda _{\nu k}=0$ and a non-zero energy gap opened. Consequently, the Berry curvature in the thermodynamic limit only develops extremum points instead of divergence. In summary, we present an exact diagonalization approach for an inhomogeneous periodic anisotropic $XY$ model in a transverse field. By introducing a general canonical transformation, we construct an explicit expression for the ground state, and based on this, we study the geometric phase of the ground state and QPTs for this model. Different from the Ising chain and anisotropic $XY$ chain in a transverse field, the inhomogeneous periodic spin chains exhibit a richer behavior of QPTs. Our results show that there may exist more than one phase transition point at some parameter regions. In the language of geometric phase, detecting the QPTs of a many-body system driven by the external parameter $\lambda$ is equivalent to finding a path $C_{\mathbf{R},\lambda}$ in the parameter space of the Hamiltonian, in which the Berry curvature comes to the divergence or extremum points[@Hartle:1983ai]. This work is supported by NSF of China, National Program for Basic Research of MOST China, and programs of CAS. [99]{} M. V. Berry, Proc. R. Soc. London A **392**, 45 (1984). B. Simon, Phys. Rev. Lett. **51**, 2167 (1983). Y. Aharonov and J. Anandan, Phys. Rev. Lett. **58**, 1593 (1987); Y. S. Wu and H. Z. Li, Phys. Rev. B **38**, 11907 (1988). J. Samuel and R. Bhandari, Phys. Rev. Lett. **60**, 2339 (1988). *Geometric Phases in Physics*, edited by A. Shapere and F. Wilczek (World Scientific, Singapore, 1989). A. Bohm et al., *The Geometric Phase in Quantum Systems* (Springer, New York, 2003). D. J. Thouless, P. Ao, and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. Lett. **76**, 3758 (1996); D. Arovas, J. R. Schrieffer, and F. Wilczek, *ibid.*, **53**, 722 (1984); R. Resta, Rev. Mod. Phys. **66**, 899 (1994). A. F. Morpurgo et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. **80**, 1050 (1998); S. L. Zhu and Z. D. Wang, *ibid*., **85**, 1076 (2000). P. Zanardi and M. Rasetti, Phys. Lett. A **264**, 94 (1999); J. Pachos, P. Zanardi and M. Rasetti, Phys. Rev. A **61**, 010305(R) (1999); J. A. Jones et al., Nature **403**, 869 (2000); L. M. Duan, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Science **292**, 1695 (2001); S. L. Zhu and Z. D. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. **89**, 097902 (2002); *ibid.*,**91** 187902 (2003). A. C. M. Carollo and J. K. Pachos, Phys. Rev. Lett. **95**, 157203 (2005). S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. **96**, 077206 (2006); S. L. Zhu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B **22**, 561 (2008). A. Hamma, quant-ph/0602091 (2006). G. Chen, J. Li, and J.-Q. Liang, Phys. Rev. A **74**, 054101 (2006); X. X. Yi and W. Wang, *ibid*. **75**, 032103 (2007); H. T. Cui and J. Yi, *ibid*. **78**, 022101 (2008); A. I. Nesterov and S. G. Ovchinnikov, Phys. Rev. E **78**, 015202 (R) (2008). X. G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B **40**, 007387 (1989); X. G. Wen and Q. Niu, *ibid*. **41**, 009377 (1990); X. G. Wen, *Quantum Field Theory of Many-body Systems* (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004). T. J. Osborne and M. A. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. A **66**, 032110 (2002); A. Osterloh L. Amico, G. Falci, and R. Fazio, Nature (London), **416**, 608 (2002); G. Vidal J. I. Latorre, E. Rico, and A. Kitaev Phys. Rev. Lett.**90**, 227902 (2003). S. J. Gu, S. S. Deng, Y. Q. Li, and H. Q. Lin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **93**, 086402 (2004); Y. Chen, P. Zanardi, Z. D. Wang, and F. C. Zhang, New J. Phys. **8**, 97 (2006). H. T. Quan, Z. Song, X. F. Liu, P. Zanardi, and C. P. Sun, Phys. Rev. Lett. **96**, 140604 (2006); P. Zanardi and N. Paunkovic, Phys. Rev. E **74**, 031123 (2006). L. Campos Venuti and P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. Lett. **99**, 095701 (2007). S. Chen, L. Wang, Y. Hao, and Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. A **77**, 032111 (2008). S. J. Gu, H. M. Kwok, W. Q. Ning and H. Q. Lin, Phys. Rev. B **77**, 245109 (2008); W. L. You, Y. W. Li, and S. J. Gu, Phys. Rev. E **76**, 022101 (2007); S. Chen, L. Wang, S. J. Gu and Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. E **76**, 061108 (2007). S. Sachdev, *Quantum Phase Transitions*, (Cambridge University Press, 1999). P. Tong and M. Zhong, Physica B **304**, 91 (2001); P. Tong and X. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. **97**, 017201 (2006). K. E. Feldman, J. Phys. A **39**, 1039 (2006). J. P. de Lima, L. L. Goncalves, and T. F. A. Alves, Phys. Rev. B **75**, 214406 (2007). O. Derzhko, J. Phys. A **33**, 8627 (2000); O. Derzhko, J. Richter, T. Krokhmalskii, and O. Zaburannyi, Phys. Rev. B **66**, 144401 (2002). P. Tong and M. Zhong, Phys. Rev. B **65**, 064421 (2002). M. G. Hu, K. Xue, and M. L. Ge, Phys. Rev. A **78**, 052324 (2008). O. Derzhko and J. Richter, Phys. Rev. B **55**, 14298 (1997). E. Lieb, T. Schultz, and D. Mattis, Ann. Phys. **16**, 407 (1961); E. Barouch and B. McCoy, Phys. Rev. A **3**, 786 (1971); P. Pfeuty, Ann. Phys. **57**, 79 (1970). E. Fradkin, *Field Theories of Condensed Matter Systems* (Addison-Wesley, MA, 1991). J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D **28**, 2960 (1983).

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'In this [*Letter*]{}, we investigate the environmental dependence of dark matter halos in theories which attempt to explain the accelerated expansion of the Universe by modifying general relativity (GR). Using high-resolution $N$-body simulations in $f(R)$ gravity models which recover GR in dense environments by virtue of the chameleon mechanism, we find a significant difference, which depends on the environments, between the lensing and dynamical masses of dark matter halos. This environmental dependence of the halo properties can be used as a smoking gun to test GR observationally.' author: - 'Gong-Bo Zhao' - Baojiu Li - Kazuya Koyama title: Testing Gravity using the Environmental Dependence of Dark Matter Halos --- One of the biggest challenges in cosmology is to explain the recently observed accelerated expansion of the universe. The acceleration might originate from either “dark energy" within the framework of GR, or from a large-scale modification to GR without introducing new matter species. It could be difficult to distinguish between these two scenarios by merely measuring the expansion rate of the Universe, and one has to study the growth of structure formation in the Universe to break the degeneracy. On large scales, it is possible to perform model independent tests of GR by combining various cosmological observations [@Song:2008vm; @Zhao:2009fn; @Jain:2010ka], but information on linear scales is limited due to theoretical degeneracies as well as statistical and systematic uncertainties in observations. There is ample information available about cluster-scale structure formation, but it is difficult to predict the observables on non-linear scales in modified gravity (MG) models. If GR is modified on large scales, there may appear in gravity new scalar degree of freedoms, (dubbed [*scalaron*]{}), modifying GR even on cluster scales. In order to evade the stringent constraints on deviations from GR in the solar system, we need a mechanism to recover GR on small scales by screening this scalar mode. In such a mechanism,  the chameleon mechanism in $f(R)$ gravity [@Khoury:2003rn; @Li:2007], the mass of this scalar mode depends on the local density of matter, becoming heavier in denser environments and thereby suppressing the scalar interaction. This environmental dependence can provide us with a smoking gun for alternative theories to GR [@Hui:2009kc; @Jain:2011fv]. In this [*Letter*]{} we investigate and quantify for the first time the environmental dependence of the difference between lensing and dynamical masses for dark matter halos. Our analysis is based on our high-resolution $N$-body simulations for the $f(R)$ gravity model [@Zhao:2010qy], where the Einstein-Hilbert action in GR is extended to be a general function of the Ricci scalar [@fR_review].  In the Newtonian gauge in a general perturbed Friedmann-Roberston-Walker universe, the line element can be written as ${\rm d}s^2=a^2(\eta)[(1+2\Phi){\rm d}\eta^2-(1-2\Psi){\rm d}\vec{x}^2]$ where $\eta$ is the conformal time, $a(\eta)$ is the scale factor, $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ are the gravitational potential and the spatial curvature perturbation respectively. The Poisson equation reads \[eq:poisson\] \^2= 4a\^2\_[eff]{}, where $G$ is Newton’s constant, and $\delta\rho_{\rm eff}$ is the perturbed total effective energy density, which contains contributions from matter and modifications to the Einstein tensor due to MG. The dynamical mass $M_D(r)$ of a halo is defined as the mass contained within a radius $r$, inferred from the gravitational potential felt by a test particle at $r$. It is given by $ M_{D}\equiv\int{a^2}\delta\rho_{\rm eff}dV$, in which the integral is over the extension of the body. Under the assumption of spherical symmetry, the Poisson equation can be integrated once to give \[eq:M\_D\] M\_D(r) d(r)/dr. To measure $M_D$ from our N-body simulation we use the force acting on particles to infer the force acting on each halo as a function of the halo radius and $M_D$ can be obtained using Eq. (\[eq:M\_D\]). Observationally, $M_D$ can be estimated from measurements such as velocity dispersions of galaxies. In $f(R)$ gravity $M_D$ includes the contribution from the scalaron, which mediates the finite-ranged fifth force within the Compton wavelength. The mass of the scalaron depends on the local density of matter, resulting in the environmentally-dependent modifications to $M_D$. On the other hand, the lensing mass is determined by the lensing potential $\Phi_+\equiv(\Phi+\Psi)/2$. In $f(R)$ gravity for example, $\Phi_+$ satisfies $\nabla^2\Phi_+=4\pi G{a^2}\delta\rho_{\rm M}$, where $\delta \rho_M$ is the matter density fluctuation if we assume that the background cosmology is close to that for $\Lambda$CDM. This is the same equation as in GR, since the scalar mode does not couple to photons and it does not modify light propagation [@Oyaizu:2008sr]. The lensing mass is defined as $M_{L}\equiv\int{a^2}\delta\rho_{\rm M}dV$, and is the actual measured halo mass in our simulations. Thus we will use $M_L$ to represent the halo mass throughout. For a spherically symmetric body we have \[eq:M\_L\] M\_L(r) d\_+(r)/[dr]{}. The lensing mass and the dynamical mass are the same in GR, but they can be significantly different in MG scenarios. To quantify the difference, we calculate the relative difference $\Delta_M$ between $M_{L}$ and $M_{D}$ for each halo, $ \Delta_M\equiv M_{D}/M_{L}-1$. Similar quantity, $\mathscr{g}=\Delta_M+1$, was introduced in Ref. [@Schmidt:2010jr]. Combining Eqs (\[eq:M\_D\]) and (\[eq:M\_L\]), we can rewrite $\Delta_M$ as, \[eq:dM\] \_M(r)=-1, In GR $\Delta_M(r)=0$, while in MG models $\Delta_M(r)$ varies depending on the local density. We have chosen $f(R)$ gravity as a working example to investigate how $\Delta_M(r)$ correlates with both the halo mass and the environment, and propose a new method to test GR based on this correlation. For the analysis we shall use the high-resolution $N$-body simulation catalogue [@Zhao:2010qy] for a $f(R)$ gravity model, $f(R)=\alpha{R}/(\beta{R}+\gamma)$ [@Hu:2007nk] where $\alpha=-m^2{c_1},\beta={c_2},\gamma=-m^2,m^2=H_0^2\Omega_{\rm M}$ and $c_1,c_2$ are free parameters. The expansion rate of the universe in this $f(R)$ model is determined by $c_1/c_2$, and the structure formation depends on $|f_{R0}|$, which is the value of $|df/dR|$ at $z=0$, and is proportional to $c_1/c_2^2$. We tune $c_1/c_2$ to obtain the same expansion history as that in a $\Lambda$CDM model, and choose values for $|f_{R0}|$ so that those models cannot be ruled out by current solar system tests. To satisfy these requirements, we set $c_1/c_2=6\Omega_{\Lambda}/\Omega_{\rm M}$ and simulate three models with $|f_{R0}|=10^{-4},10^{-5},10^{-6}$. ![The contour plots between halo mass $M_L$ and $D$ for $f(R)$ and GR models on a log-log scale. The shaded colour stands for the number density rescaled by the average number density of halos in each pixel on the $M_L$-$D$ plane. []{data-label="fig:cont"}](cont.eps)  In $f(R)$ gravity, the effective matter density $\delta\rho_{\rm eff}$ in Eq (\[eq:poisson\]) is given by $\delta\rho_{\rm eff}=\frac{4}{3}\delta\rho_{\rm M}+\frac{1}{24\pi{G}}\delta{R}({f_{R}})$ where $\delta R$ is the perturbation of the Ricci scalar $\delta{R}({f_{R}})=-8\pi{G}\delta\rho_{\rm M}-\frac{3\nabla^2{{\delta}f_{R}}}{a^2}$ and ${{\delta}f_{R}}$ is the fluctuation of $f_R\equiv{df/dR}$. We can see that when the scalar mode vanishes,  ${{\delta}f_{R}}=0$, we recover the GR relation between curvature and matter, $\delta{R}=-8\pi{G}\delta\rho_{\rm M}$ and $\Delta_M=0$. This happens in the dense region where the chameleon has an effect, but in the underdense region where $\delta{R}$ can be ignored, $\delta\rho_{\rm eff}=\frac{4}{3}\delta\rho_{\rm M}$ so $\Delta_M = 1/3$. One expects a strong correlation between $\Delta_M$ and $M_L$ since halos with large $M_L$ should be ‘screened’ against the modified gravity influence, and GR be locally restored. This has been confirmed by the previous analysis [@Schmidt:2010jr; @Zhao:2010qy]. The mass threshold for the screening can be estimated theoretically [@Schmidt:2010jr]. Interestingly, we find that the small halos with masses below the screening mass threshold can also be well screened if they live in dense environments. This effect is shown visually in Fig. \[fig:3D\]. In panel (A) we show the 3-D map of the halo distribution in the $f(R)$ model with $|f_{R0}|=10^{-6}$ where the size of the bubbles is proportional to $M_L$, while in panels (B, C) the bubble size is proportional to $|\log_{10}\Delta_M|$. In other words, a larger bubble means a more massive halo in (A), while it means a better screened halo, in which GR is better restored, in (B, C). In all the panels, the pink and blue bubbles illustrate the isolated halos (log$_{10}D>1$), and the halos living in the dense environment (log$_{10}D<1$) respectively, and these two subsets of halos are complimentary (See Eq. (\[eq:D\]) for the definition of $D$, which quantifies the environment). Panels A and B look almost the same in pattern, meaning that more massive halos are better screened, and the halo mass is the only factor affecting the screening. This is natural since the environmental effect is removed in panel B by design. On the other hand, in panel C, halos living in dense environments are shown, and the environmental effect is the dominating factor for the screening, so that halos with mass below the screening mass threshold can also be efficiently screened. The difference between the panels (A, C) indicates a clear environmental dependence of $\Delta_M$ – small halos can be well screened by their neighbouring halos. This implies that $\Delta_M$ correlates with not only $M_L$, but also the environment. The environment effect was also noticed by Schmidt [@Schmidt:2010jr]. In this [*Letter*]{}, we shall quantify this effect for the first time. The environmental dependence of $\Delta_M$ provides valuable information for testing GR, which compliments the information of the mass-dependence of $\Delta_M$. The amount of information can be maximised if the estimates of the halo mass and environment are uncorrelated. The ‘environment’ can be defined such that it suits the physical set-up of the problem, facilitates ease of observations, or both [@Haas:2011mt]. For our purpose, we need an environment indicator which can represent the local density well, but with least correlation with $M_L$. Such a quantity was found in Ref. [@Haas:2011mt], \[eq:D\] D\_[N,f]{}, which is defined for a halo with mass $M_L$ as the distance $d$ to the $N$th nearest neighbouring halo whose mass is at least $f$ times as large as that of the halo under consideration, rescaled by the virialised radius $r_{\rm NB}$ of that neighbouring halo. Clearly, a large value of $D_{N,f}$ indicates a scarcity of nearby halos, meaning that the considered halo lives in a low-density environment. It is found that in GR, $D_{1,1}$ is almost uncorrelated with the halo mass, and represents the local density well [@Haas:2011mt]. To test the mass-independence of $D_{1,1}$ in the context of modified gravity, we select the resolved halos from our high-resolution $f(R)$ and GR simulations with boxsize $B=64$ Mpc$/h$ [@Zhao:2010qy]. In our simulations, the halo mass is measured using $M_L\equiv4 \pi \times N \rho_{\rm crit} r_{N}^3/3$ where $r_{N}$ is the radius when the density reaches $N$ times of the critical density of the Universe $\rho_{\rm crit}$, and we choose $N=340$ [@Zhao:2010qy]. To be conservative, we only select the well-resolved halos from our simulations,  halos more massive than $10^{12} h^{-1}M_{\odot}$. In Fig. \[fig:cont\], we show the contour plots between $M_L$ and $D$, (we will use $D$ to represent $D_{1,1}$ hereafter for brevity), for three $f(R)$ models in comparison with the $\Lambda$CDM model simulated using the same initial conditions. The darkness of the shaded colour quantifies the number density of the halos in each pixel on the $M_L$-$D$ plane. We follow Ref. [@Haas:2011mt] to use the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient $\rho$, which is the correlation coefficient between the ranked variables and varies from $-1$ to $1$, to quantify the correlation between $M_L$ and $D$. As we can see, they are almost uncorrelated in all cases since the absolute value of the correlation coefficient $\rho$ is much less than unity. This means that the information of the $\Delta_M$-$D$ relation is highly complimentary to that of the $\Delta_M$-$M_L$ relation, which provides us with a new means of testing gravity observationally. Fig. \[fig:dM\] shows $\Delta_M(r_{\rm 340})$ as functions of $M_L$ and $D$ for two $f(R)$ models. To further disentangle the residual correlation between $M_L$ and $D$, we divide the samples into three subsamples in both cases. In the $A$ panels the halos are divided according to their ordered $D$ values. Halos with $D$ values in the top third of the group (log$_{10}D\gtrsim1$) are classified as halos in an ‘Underdense Environment’ ($A1,A3$), while those with $D$ values in the lowest third (log$_{10}D\in[-1,0.65]$) are viewed as halos in an ‘Overdense Environment’ ($A2,A4$). In the $B$ panels, the halos are separated according to their mass, namely, the halos whose mass is in the top third ($M_L\gtrsim10^{12.7}M_\odot/h$ ) are called ‘Large Halos’ ($B2,B4$), and the third with smallest mass ($M_L\in[10^{12},10^{12.3}]M_\odot/h$) are labeled as ‘Small Halos’ ($B1,B3$). The horizontal blue dashed line shows $\Delta_M(r_{340})=1/3$, which is the threshold of $\Delta_M$ in $f(R)$ gravity. ![The profile of log$_{10}\Delta_M$ as a function of the rescaled halo radius $r/r_{340}$ for the $|f_{R0}|=10^{-6}$ model. We show the profile with $1-\sigma$ error bars for the halos divided into four categories as illustrated in the legend. The red dashed line shows $\Delta_M(r_{\rm 340})=1/3$.[]{data-label="fig:prof"}](prof.eps) As can be seen from Fig. \[fig:dM\], for the $|f_{R0}|=10^{-6}$ model, $\Delta_M(r_{\rm 340})$ decreases when $M_L$ increases, as expected. Note that this anti-correlation is stronger ($\rho=-0.74$) in the underdense regions (panel $A1$), as the environmental effect can be safely ignored in these cases, and $\Delta_M(r_{\rm 340})$ is mainly determined by $M_L$. In the overdense environment ($A2$ for the $|f_{R0}|=10^{-6}$ case) for the halos with $D$ values in the lowest third, the effect of external environment becomes important – many halos less massive than $10^{12.3} M_\odot/h$ get screened thanks to the boundary conditions set by neighbouring halos. An interesting observation is that some small halos are better screened than the big ones in this case. This is because many small halos reside in overdense environments, surrounded by many neighbouring halos or inside very big halos, while large halos are more likely to be isolated so that their screening is mainly determined by their mass. For the $|f_{R0}|=10^{-4}$ model, the halos are very weakly screened in all cases, and $\Delta_M(r_{\rm 340})$ is close to $1/3$, which is the maximum relative mass difference in $f(R)$ gravity. The $|f_{R0}|=10^{-5}$ case is somewhere in between, and is not shown here. The environmental effect can be seen more clearly in the $\Delta_M(r_{\rm 340})$-$D$ plot (panels $B1$-$B4$ in Fig. \[fig:dM\]). For the $|f_{R0}|=10^{-6}$ case, we see a strong correlation between the two, and this correlation is largely insensitive to $M_L$ ($\rho\sim0.7$) in both mass bins. Again, we see that the screening is very efficient in dense regions even for the least massive halos. The correlation between $\Delta_M(r_{\rm 340})$ and $D$ for the $|f_{R0}|=10^{-4}$ case is much weaker, which is because essentially none of the halos are screened by either their own masses or the environment. We show the profile of the mass difference as a function of rescaled radius for the $|f_{R0}|=10^{-6}$ model in Fig \[fig:prof\]. To see the environment effect on the profile, we split the samples according to both the halo mass and $D$ parameter. As we can see, small halos in the underdense region are hardly screened at all, while the halos with similar mass in the dense region are efficiently screened, and the screening effect is stronger in the core of the halos. For large halos, the innermost part is well screened regardless of external environment due to the high matter density there, but the part close to the edge shows a clear environmental dependence, and the difference can be as large as 3 orders of magnitude in $\Delta_M$ in different environments. This is because in this region the external environment plays an important role. The lensing mass and the dynamical mass can be measured using strong lensing and the peculiar velocity dispersion measurements, respectively, and there has been some effort to test GR by comparing the two observationally [@Bolton:2006yz; @Smith:2009fn]. However, the measurements of the absolute values of $\Delta_M$ are likely to be contaminated by systematics. Fortunately, the strong environmental dependence of $\Delta_M$ due to the scalar mode in modified gravity theories may provide a way to ameliorate this problem. Observationally, one could divide the galaxy samples into different groups using $D$, and measure the difference of $\Delta_M$ among those subsamples. If a $\Delta_M$-$D$ correlation is found, then it can be viewed as a smoking gun of a modified gravity signal, which can be independently tested using the $\Delta_M$-$M_L$ correlation. In this [*Letter*]{}, we focus on the Chameleon mechanism to recover GR on small scales. There are different classes of mechanism to achieve the screening, such as the Vainshtein mechanism [@Vainshtein:1972sx] and the symmetron mechanism [@Hinterbichler:2010es]. In the case of the Vainshtein mechanism, it was found that the screening of halos is almost independent of the environment [@Schmidt:2010jr]. Thus the method we proposed provides not only a new independent test of GR on fully nonlinear scales but also a way to distinguish between different screening mechanisms. It is extremely interesting to perform this test using the high-quality observational data from the upcoming large-scale structure surveys. We thank T. Clemson, R. Crittenden, B. Jain, R. Nichol, L. Pogosian, F. Schmidt and A. Silvestri for discussions. GBZ and KK are supported by STFC grant ST/H002774/1. BL is supported by Queens’ College and DAMTP of University of Cambridge. KK acknowledges supports from the ERC and the Leverhulme trust. [99]{} Y. -S. Song, K. Koyama, JCAP [**0901**]{}, 048 (2009). G. B. Zhao, L. Pogosian, A. Silvestri and J. Zylberberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.  [**103**]{} (2009) 241301. B. Jain, J. Khoury, Annals Phys.  [**325**]{}, 1479-1516 (2010). J. Khoury and A. Weltman, Phys. Rev.  D [**69**]{} (2004) 044026. B. Li and J. D. Barrow, Phys. Rev.  D [**75**]{} (2007) 084010. L. Hui, A. Nicolis, C. Stubbs, Phys. Rev.  [**D80**]{}, 104002 (2009). B. Jain, \[arXiv:1104.0415 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. G. B. Zhao, B. Li and K. Koyama, Phys. Rev.  D [**83**]{} (2011) 044007. T. P. Sotiriou, V. Faraoni, Rev. Mod. Phys.  [**82** ]{} (2010) 451-497; A. De Felice, S. Tsujikawa, Living Rev. Rel.  [**13** ]{} (2010) 3. W. Hu, I. Sawicki, Phys. Rev.  [**D76** ]{} (2007) 064004. F. Schmidt, Phys. Rev.  D [**81**]{} (2010) 103002. F. Schmidt, M. V. Lima, H. Oyaizu, W. Hu, Phys. Rev.  [**D79** ]{} (2009) 083518. M. R. Haas, J. Schaye and A. Jeeson-Daniel, arXiv:1103.0547 \[astro-ph.CO\]. A. S. Bolton, S. Rappaport and S. Burles, Phys. Rev.  D [**74**]{} (2006) 061501. T. L. Smith, arXiv:0907.4829 \[astro-ph.CO\]. A. I. Vainshtein, Phys. Lett.  [**B39**]{}, 393-394 (1972). K. Hinterbichler, J. Khoury, Phys. Rev. Lett.  [**104**]{}, 231301 (2010).

ArXiv

--- abstract: | Pitch is the perceptual correlate of sound’s periodicity and a fundamental property of the auditory sensation. The interaction of two or more pitches gives rise to a sensation that can be characterized by its degree of consonance or dissonance, an essential element in the perception of highly complex sound patterns. In the current study, we investigated the neuromagnetic representations of consonant and dissonant musical dyads using a new model of cortical activity, in an effort to assess the possible involvement of pitch-specific neural mechanisms in consonance processing at early cortical stages. In the first step of the study, we developed a novel model of cortical pitch processing designed to explain the morphology of the pitch onset response (POR), a pitch-specific subcomponent of the auditory evoked N100 component in the human auditory cortex. The model explains the neural mechanisms underlying the generation of the POR and quantitatively accounts for the relation between its peak latency and the perceived pitch. Furthermore, we applied magnetoencephalography (MEG) to record the POR as elicited by six consonant and dissonant dyads. The peak latency of the POR was strongly modulated by the degree of consonance within the stimuli; specifically, the most dissonant dyad exhibited a POR with a latency that was $\sim$30ms longer than that of the most consonant dyad, an effect that greatly exceeds the expected latency difference induced by a single pitch sound. Our model was able to predict the POR latency pattern observed in the neuromagnetic data, and to generalize this prediction to additional dyads that were not included in the MEG experiment. These results indicate that the neural mechanisms responsible for pitch processing exhibit an intrinsic differential response to concurrent consonant and dissonant pitch combinations, suggesting that the perception of consonance and dissonance might be an emergent property of the pitch processing system in human auditory cortex. author: - Alejandro Tabas - Martin Andermann - Valeria Sebold - Helmut Riedel - 'Emili Balaguer-Ballester' - André Rupp bibliography: - 'bib.bib' title: Early processing of consonance and dissonance in human auditory cortex --- Introduction ============ Pitch is the perceptual correlate of the periodicity in a sound’s waveform. It is a fundamental attribute of auditory sensation that forms the basis of both music and speech perception; consequently, understanding the neural foundations of pitch is a major challenge in auditory neuroscience. A combination of two sounds that simultaneously elicits two different pitches is referred to as a dyad, and the pitch interactions within a dyad give rise to a sensation that can be characterized by its *consonance* or *dissonance*. Loudness, timbre, and the absolute fundamental frequencies of the sounds can have subtle effects on whether a dyad is perceived as consonant or dissonant; however, the dominant factor in determining the degree of consonance is the *relationship* between the fundamental periods of the sounds that make up the dyad [@Kameoka1969a]: Simple periodicity ratios result in more consonant sensations; on the other hand, sensation becomes more and more dissonant as the complexity of the periodicity ratio increases [@Helmholtz1863; @Krueger1913; @Plomp1965]. Previously, it was argued that dissonance correlates with the beating, or *roughness* sensation that is elicited by the interfering regularities of the involved sounds [@Helmholtz1863; @Krueger1913; @Plomp1965]. However, listeners that showed impaired pitch perception but were sensitive to beating and roughness have been reported to be unable to differentiate between consonant and dissonant dyads [@Cousineau2012; @Tramo2006]. This suggests that pitch- rather than roughness-related auditory processing is responsible for the emergence of consonance. Neurophysiological evidence for a tight link between consonance and pitch has recently been provided by Bidelman and colleagues [@Bidelman2014]; they showed, using electroencephalography (EEG), that the amplitude of the cortical pitch onset response (POR) is strongly modulated by a dyad’s perceived consonance. The POR is a pitch-selective component of the transient auditory evoked potential/field (AEP/AEF) that occurs within the time range of the well-known N100 wave [@Naatanen1987; @Alain1997], around 100 ms after pitch onset. The morphology of the POR is strongly correlated with the perceived pitch in single tones: its latency scales linearly with the period of the sound, and its amplitude increases with the strength of the pitch percept [@Krumbholz2003; @Ritter2005; @Tabas2016]. The neural sources of the POR are located in the anterolateral section of Heschl’s gyrus (alHG) in auditory cortex [@Krumbholz2003; @Ritter2005; @Bidelman2014], consistently with the anatomical location of pitch-selective neurons in non-human primates (e.g., [@Bendor2006; @Bendor2010; @Bizley2013; @Feng2017]), and with pitch-selective regions that were reported for human listeners [@Griffiths2001; @Penagos2004; @Brugge2009; @Norman2013; @Moerel2012]. Further experiments in humans have demonstrated that the dyad-evoked frequency-following response in the brainstem is predictive for the perceived consonance of a dyad [@Bidelman2009; @Bidelman2011; @Bidelman2013]; also, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies showing selective activation to consonance/dissonance contrasts in the superior temporal gyrus [@Peretz2001] and in frontal cortex [@Minati2009] lead the auditory community to link neural representations of consonance and dissonance with higher, cognitive processes [@Seger2013]. In this study, we used a combined experimental and theoretical approach to assess whether consonance and pitch share similar processing mechanisms in human auditory cortex. Towards this goal, we first developed an innovative, realistic model of cortical ensemble responses to pitch, specifically designed to understand the mesoscopic representation of pitch in alHG. The model can account, mechanistically, for the latency effects in the POR that have been robustly reported for decades in multiple experimental settings [@Krumbholz2003; @Ritter2005; @Gutschalk2004] but, up to now, remained poorly understood. Second, we recorded the AEF elicited by consonant and dissonant dyads using magnetoencephalography (MEG); here, our experimental results revealed a strong correlation between POR latency and the degree of consonance, extending previous EEG findings [@Bidelman2014]. Finally, we aimed to replicate the results from our MEG experiment using our model. If the hypothesis that consonance and pitch are processed by similar mechanisms in cortex is correct, we would expect the model to explain the dependence of POR latency on the degree of consonance *without* the inclusion of higher processing stages within the auditory hierarchy [@Peretz2001; @Minati2009]. In line with this hypothesis, the model provided a quantitative, mechanistic explanation for the relationship between POR dynamics and consonance, suggesting that consonance and dissonance perception might be linked to the pitch processing sub-regions of the auditory cortex. Results ======= Neural mechanisms underlying pitch processing in auditory cortex ---------------------------------------------------------------- #### Model overview We introduced a model of cortical pitch processing designed to explain the morphology of the POR as elicited by the onset of consonant and dissonant dyads (see full description in Methods). The model consists of three processing stages located at different levels of the auditory hierarchy. In the first stage, an array of idealized coincidence detector units extracts periodicities from the auditory nerve activity in response to the target stimulus [@Meddis2006; @Balaguer2008]. Subsequently, the second and third stages, putatively located at adjacent locations within alHG, generate a stable pitch characterization from the first stage, previous representation. Auditory nerve responses were generated by a recent model of the auditory periphery [@Zilany2014; @Zilany2009]; periodicity detection was implemented using the principles of the autocorrelation models of pitch [@Licklider1951; @Meddis1997; @Meddis2006; @Balaguer2008]. At this stage, the representation of the stimulus shows a harmonic shape along the periodicity axis, with prominent peaks of activation at the neurons which encode the pitch of the stimulus and its lower harmonics (see Figure \[fig:mod:diagram\]e). ![**Basic schematics of the model.** a) Average response across populations of the excitatory ensembles of the decoder network, accounting for the evoked fields in the cortical sources of the POR, in response to three stimuli with different pitches. Stimuli were iterated rippled noises (16 iterations, bandpass filtered between 0.8 and 3.2kHz) with pitches: 250Hz, 125Hz, and 83Hz. b) Excitatory activation, averaged between 150 and 200ms after sound onset, in the different ensembles of the decoder network elicited by the same stimuli as above. c) Model architecture. d) Connectivity weights between excitatory and inhibitory ensembles in the decoder network. e) Typical input to the decoder corresponding to the three IRN stimuli used above, averaged between 150 and 200ms after sound onset (see also [Supplementary Video S1]{}).[]{data-label="fig:mod:diagram"}](./diagramMute.eps){width="100.00000%"} The array of periodicity detectors provides excitatory input to a first cortical processing stage, termed the *decoder* network in this study. The *decoder* network is putatively located in alHG and effectively extracts the pitch value(s) from the subcortical input. The decoder network connects to a second cortical ensembles network, termed *sustainer*; this stage integrates the decoder network output and modulates it through cortico-cortical top-down efferents. The *sustainer* reinforces and sustains the decoder mechanism, reminiscent to recent models of perceptual decision making [@Wimmer2015]. Both decoder and sustainer comprise a network of cortical microcolumns, each of which is tuned to a specific pitch value along the human perceptual range (see Methods for details). Pitch is encoded in the active pitch-selective populations of the processing network (see Figure \[fig:mod:diagram\]b), in agreement with cortical recordings in non-human mammals [@Wang2012; @Bizley2013; @Gao2016]. Microcolumns in the cortical networks are modelled as blocks comprising an excitatory and inhibitory neural ensemble (see Figure \[fig:mod:diagram\]c). Ensembles communicate with each other through realistic synapses. Connectivity weights between populations in the decoder network (see Figure \[fig:mod:diagram\]e) are specifically tuned to facilitate the inhibition of the lower harmonics elicited in the periodicity detectors (see Figure \[fig:mod:dec\]; a video detailing the integration process is available in [Supplementary Video S1]{}). Similar connectivity patterns have been consistently found in the mammalian auditory cortex (see [@Wang2013] for a review); moreover, neurons mapping harmonic templates to a pitch-selective representation like those introduced in this model have been recently reported in the primate auditory cortex [@Feng2017]. The detailed formulation of the model allows us to perform quantitative predictions regarding the neuromagnetic field that are elicited by the activation of each of the cortical networks within the model (Figure \[fig:mod:diagram\]b). More specifically, the equivalent dipole moment elicited by each of the networks is monotonically related to the aggregated excitatory activation of its ensembles [@Kiebel2008] (see Methods for details), while the characteristic period of the excitatory population with the largest activity in the network corresponds to the perceived pitch (see Figures \[fig:mod:IRNs\]b and c). Below, we will argue that the characteristic responses of the decoder network during pitch processing can be identified with the responses of the neural sources of the POR. #### Dynamics of the decoder network Figure \[fig:mod:dec\] illustrates an example of the model dynamics in response to a stimulus with a pitch corresponding to $T = 4\,$ms (i.e., $f = 250\,$Hz; details are shown in [Supplementary Video S1]{}). In a first step, periodicity detectors, tuned to $T \simeq 4\,$ms, become active after $t_1 \sim 1.25\,T$ [@Wiegrebe2001] (see the top prominent horizontal line at $T = 4$ms in Figure \[fig:mod:dec\]a). These active neurons provide the bottom-up excitatory input to the excitatory ensemble in the corresponding decoder network column (see Figure \[fig:mod:dec\]b). Likewise, the harmonics of the stimulus’ period (i.e., $2\,T$, $3\,T$ etc.) are subsequently represented in the subcortical model after $t_2 = 2\,t_1$, $t_3 = 3\,t_1$ etc., and provide the input to the corresponding excitatory populations in the decoder network (see Figure \[fig:mod:dec\]b). ![**Illustration of the decoding process.** The plots show the evolution of key variables of the model during the processing of the first 200ms of an iterated rippled noise with a fundamental period of $T = 4\,$ms (parameters were as in Figure \[fig:mod:diagram\]). a)–e) Evolution of the model neural ensembles encoding characteristic periods between 0.5ms and 15ms. a) Activity of periodicity detectors within the first stage of the model. b) and c) Activity of excitatory and inhibitory ensembles in the decoder network. d) and e) Activity of excitatory and inhibitory activities in the sustainer network. f) Aggregated excitatory activity in the decoder. Detailed dynamics of the process are illustrated in an animation in [Supplementary Video S1]{}.[]{data-label="fig:mod:dec"}](./decoding.eps){width="100.00000%"} Excitatory ensembles characterized by the periods of the harmonic series $\{T, 2\,T 3\,T\, \dots\}$ are connected to inhibitory neural populations identified by the fundamental period $T$ (see Figure \[fig:mod:diagram\]). Synaptic efficacy is tuned such that the inhibitory drive is strong enough to elicit activity only when a sufficient number of excitatory inputs (typically 3) are simultaneously active, thus providing robustness to the upcoming decoding process. Thus, the inhibitory population characterized by $T \simeq 4$ms becomes active only when it receives simultaneous synaptic drive from the excitatory ensembles characterizing the periods $T = 4\,$ms, $2T = 8\,$ms, and $3T = 12\,$ms (see Figure \[fig:mod:dec\]C). Correspondingly, the inhibitory ensemble associated with the period $T$ is connected to the excitatory populations encoding the lower harmonics $\{2\,T, 3\,T, 4\,T, \dots\}$ (see Figure \[fig:mod:diagram\]). Thus, when active, the inhibitory activity progressively silences populations that are activated by the periodicity detectors but that do not correspond to the fundamental period of the stimulus (see the shunting process in the decoder excitatory network between 60ms and 100ms in Figure \[fig:mod:dec\]b). The processing dynamics described above explains the neural mechanisms underlying the morphology of the POR. The aggregated excitatory activity in the decoder, monotonically related to the neuromagnetic fields elicited by this network, is shown in Figure \[fig:mod:dec\]f. The accumulation of excitatory activity corresponding to the harmonic series of the period of the stimulus $T$ results in the increase of the simulated field magnitude observed between 10ms and 65ms in Figure \[fig:mod:dec\]f. The subsequent decay of the model collective excitatory response between 70ms and 120ms in the figure, is similarly caused by the action of the most activated inhibitory ensemble on the excitatory populations encoding the lower harmonics. We identify the maximum in the aggregated excitatory activity, corresponding to the time point in which the model performs a perceptual decision about the pitch of the stimulus, with the POR latency (further details regarding this correspondence are shown in [Supplementary Video S1]{}). The proposed mechanism also explains, quantitatively, the dependence of the POR latency with the period of the stimulus. A periodicity detector tuned to $T$ needs $\gtrsim1.25\,T$ to robustly detect a periodicity $T$ in the auditory nerve activity [@Wiegrebe2001]. Thus, the arrival of sufficient excitatory drive to activate an inhibitory ensemble shows a dependence with several periods of the stimulus. This result also provides a mechanistic explanation for the minimum stimulus duration required for robust pitch discrimination, which is around four times the period of the stimulus [@Krumbholz2003]. #### Dynamics of the sustainer network The dynamics of the decoder network are sufficient to explain how the harmonic representations held in the first step of the model are transformed into the final representations shown in Figures \[fig:mod:diagram\]b and \[fig:mod:diagram\]c. However, after the transformation has taken place, the excitatory ensembles corresponding to the lower harmonics of the stimulus’ pitch are no longer active, and hence the inhibitory population silencing them loses its drive. Thus, without top-down control, the decoder network would rapidly reset and need to repeatedly extract the pitch from the harmonic representation, eliciting a series of PORs; this, however, does not reflect the experimental observations (Figure \[fig:mod:diagram\]a). The role of the sustainer network is to regulate the dynamics of the decoder network once the pitch value has been extracted from the harmonic representation, in order to effectively *sustain* the perceptual decision until a significant change is produced in the cortical input. In the absence of external input, the sustainer network rests at equilibrium, with a steady activation in the inhibitory populations and complete deactivation of the excitatory populations (see Figures \[fig:mod:dec\]d and e). Excitatory/inhibitory ensembles in the sustainer receive direct input from their respective excitatory/inhibitory counterparts in the decoder (see Figure \[fig:mod:diagram\]d). Thus, a significantly active inhibitory population in the decoder effectively silences the steady activity of the analogous inhibitory population in the sustainer. If this afferent drive coincides with a strong activation of the corresponding excitatory population in the decoder, the combined bottom-up input results in a strong activation in the equivalent excitatory population within the sustainer (see Figures \[fig:mod:dec\]d and \[fig:mod:dec\]e). Top-down efferents connect each excitatory population in the sustainer with its inhibitory counterpart in the decoder network (see \[fig:mod:diagram\]b), compensating for the loss of excitatory drive of the silenced populations for as long as the subcortical input remains unchanged (the behaviour of the network under pitch changes is described in [Supplementary Figure S9]{}). #### Model predictions The POR is defined as the subcomponent of the N100 transient that responds selectively to pitch onset and pitch changes [@Krumbholz2003; @Ritter2005; @Seither2006]. In order to isolate the POR from other subcomponents of the N100 like, e.g., the energy onset response (EOR), experimental setups use iterated rippled noise (IRN) preceded by a noise burst of the same energy and bandwidth [@Krumbholz2003; @Ritter2005; @Bidelman2014]; the POR is then measured as the transient elicited at the transition between noise and IRN (i.e., at the pitch onset). Thus, we tested the predictive power of our model using IRN stimuli with different pitch values (an isolated POR can be elicited using energy-balanced stimuli, but see [Supplementary Figure S6]{}for an example of how more general predictions could be drawn for other stimuli.) Latency predictions of the POR elicited by IRN stimuli are compared with experimental data in Figures \[fig:mod:IRNs\]a and \[fig:mod:IRNs\]b. Results show that the model replicates the relation between the POR latency and the period of the stimuli as typically reported in the MEG literature [@Krumbholz2003; @Ritter2005]. Replication of these results for IRN stimuli with different parametrisations are shown in [Supplementary Figure S4]{}. ![**Model predictions for iterated rippled noise pitch.** a)–b) Latency predictions for iterated rippled noise compared with experimental data obtained by a previous study [@Krumbholz2003] for the same stimuli. c) Comparison of the collective activation of the excitatory ensembles in the decoder (computed as an average across populations) with the equivalent dipole moment elicited at the generator of the POR; stimulus was an IRN of 16 iterations and a delay of 8ms. d)–h) Averaged responses at: (d) periodicity detectors, (e/f) excitatory/inhibitory ensembles in the decoder, (g/h) excitatory/inhibitory ensembles in the sustainer.[]{data-label="fig:mod:IRNs"}](./modIRNs.eps){width="100.00000%"} To ensure that the model is correctly representing the pitch of the IRN stimuli used in the experiment, we also plotted the average activation in the different ensembles in Figures \[fig:mod:IRNs\]d–h. Since periodicity detectors and excitatory neurons at the decoder do not show selective activation with pitch (e.g., neurons representing harmonics of the actual pitch value also activate during the decoding process), the perceptual readout of the model can only be robustly measured in the inhibitory populations in the decoder and the populations in the sustainer. Perceptual results in Figures \[fig:mod:IRNs\] and [Supplementary Figure S4]{}indicate that the model is able to robustly represent the pitch of the stimulus when at least two harmonics are present in the cortical input (since we only consider periodicity detectors tuned to periods under $T_{\max} = 30$ms, the highest period robustly extracted by the model is $T_{\max} / 2 = 15$ms; a larger pitch range could be easily achieved by increasing $T_{\max}$). Robust pitch extraction is shown for IRN stimuli with different parametrisations, pure tones, harmonic complex tones and click trains in [Supplementary Figure S3]{}. Neuromagnetic correlates of consonance and dissonance in auditory cortex ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Next, we recorded neuromagnetic fields evoked by six different dyads from 37 normal hearing subjects. Data were preprocessed using standard MEG procedures, and equivalent current dipoles were fitted, independently, for the POR for each subject and hemisphere, pooled over conditions (see Methods). Dipole locations in Talairach space are plotted in Figure \[fig:aefs\]b. Dyads consisted of two IRN sounds. The lower note pitch was 160Hz; the pitch of the upper note was adjusted accordingly to form either a consonant dyad (unison, P1; perfect fifth, P5; major third, M3) or a dissonant dyad (tritone, TT; minor seventh, m7; minor second, m2). To dissociate the EOR in Planum temporale from the POR in alHG, the dyads were preceded by an energy-balanced noise segment, cross-faded with the dyad to avoid discontinuous waveforms (like for the single IRN sounds analyzed in the previous section; see Methods). Figure \[fig:aefs\]A presents the MEG grand-mean source waveforms, for both hemispheres, in response to the six stimulus conditions. The noise onset from silence (depicted in grey below the source waveforms) was followed by a transient P1m-N1m-P2m AEF complex. Since the first stimulus segment did not vary between conditions, we did not expect to find any significant differences in the corresponding neuromagnetic activity at this point. ![**Auditory fields evoked at dyad onset.** a) MEG grand-mean source waveforms in response to the pooled stimulus conditions. The course of the stimuli is shown in grey (noise) and black (IRN) below the source waveforms; note the prominent negative POR deflection (N1m) at the transition from the first to the second stimulus segment. BL = baseline. b) Projection of the dipole locations (means and 99,% Bootstrap confidence intervals) onto the axial view of auditory cortex as suggested by Leonard et al. [@Leonard1998]. c) Morphology of the POR in response to the dyad onset in the single experimental conditions (second stimulus segment), pooled over hemispheres. d) 99% Bootstrap confidence intervals for the POR amplitudes and latencies in the single experimental conditions. In subplots, b) and d), confidence intervals are bias-corrected and accelerated, as recommended by Efron and Tibshirani [@Efron1993].[]{data-label="fig:aefs"}](./aefs.eps){width="100.00000%"} In contrast, the transition to the second stimulus segment (IRN dyads; black signal below the source waveforms) elicited prominent POR waves, and the morphology of the POR varied considerably between conditions. Figure \[fig:aefs\]C show close-up views of the POR. Consonant dyads (pooled conditions \[P1+P5+M3\]) elicited a much earlier ($p < .0001$) and larger ($p < .0001$) POR than dissonant dyads (pooled conditions \[m7+TT+m2\]). Figure \[fig:aefs\]D depicts 99% bootstrap confidence intervals for the POR amplitudes and latencies, pooled over hemispheres, in response to the experimental conditions; the activity pattern observed here also points to a close relationship between the degree of a dyad’s consonance and the morphology of the respective POR. When pooling across conditions, we found a noticeable difference between the left and the right hemisphere in the POR amplitude ($p = .01$), but not in the POR latency ($p = .36$); also, the difference between the neuromagnetic responses to consonant or dissonant dyads did not significantly vary between hemispheres (latency: $p = .58$; amplitude: $p = .48$). Neural mechanisms underlying the responses of auditory cortex to consonance and dissonance ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The difference in POR latency in response to consonant and dissonant dyads in alGH suggests that consonance and dissonance are computed at relatively early stages of the cortical auditory hierarchy. We used our model of cortical pitch processing, designed to reproduce the neuromagnetic responses elicited by iterated rippled noises, to test this interpretation. If the differential responses to consonance and dissonance in alHG were intrinsic to pitch processing, we would expect our prospective mechanism to be able to reproduce this behaviour. First, we verified that the model’s was able to provide a representation of the individual pitches of the two tones comprised in dyads; results are shown in Figure \[fig:mod:dyads\]a–c (see [Supplementary Figure S6]{}for additional perceptual results obtained with different families of dyads). It should be emphasized that even phenomenological (i.e., non-mechanistic) models of pitch perception are generally unable to perform correct perceptual predictions for sounds with concurrent pitches (e.g. [@Balaguer2009; @Patterson1994a]; see [@DeCheveigne2005b] for a review). ![**Model responses to the IRN dyads used in the MEG experiment.** a)–c) Neural representation of the dyads at different levels of the model: (a) periodicity detectors, (b/c) excitatory/inhibitory ensembles in the decoder network; each row shows the activity elicited by each dyad. Excitatory and inhibitory ensembles in the sustainer are precisely correlated to the decoder-inhibitory heatmap. Note that, unlike in the perceptual results for simple IRNs, the neural activity representing the pitch of the second note shifts toward the left because dyads are arranged in ascending order. d)–i) Examples of the collective excitatory activity at the decoder network (monotonically related to the equivalent dipole moment elicited by the network) in comparison with the elicited dipole moment measured during the experimentation in the neural generator of the POR. The scale of the field derived for the unison dyad was adjusted to account for the comparatively smaller effect on the network of the unison input, which effectively activates half of the populations than the other dyads. j) Latency predictions for IRN dyads compared with the experimental results reported in the previous section. k) Latency predictions for the remaining dyads in the chromatic scale. Strongly consonant dyads are represented with a green triangle, whilst strongly dissonant dyads are represented with a red triangle; dissonance was assessed according to Helmholtz [@Helmholtz1863], Table on Fig. 61. Dyads were generated using the same parameters as in the experimental procedures: the lower note pitch was set to 160Hz and the chromatic scale was generated using the *just intonation* [@Helmholtz1863].[]{data-label="fig:mod:dyads"}](./modDyads.eps){width="100.00000%"} Figure \[fig:mod:dyads\]j shows the latency predictions of the model are compared with the experimental data for the respective dyads. Although the model predicted a slightly shorter POR latency for the semitone (m2) dyad than observed (see discussion), latency predictions faithfully reproduced the experimental trend; moreover, the differential response to consonant (P1, M3, P5) and dissonant (m2, TT, m7) dyads found in the MEG data was perfectly reproduced by the model (latency of P1 and P5 $<$ latency of dissonant dyads: $p<10^{-7}$, $U > 5150$; latency of M3 $<$ latency of m2: $p = 0.005$, $U = 4120$; latency of M3 $<$ latency of TT: $p = 0.63$, $U = 3571$; latency of M3 $<$ latency of m7: $p = 0.06$, $U = 3927$); according to pair-wise single-tailed Wilcoxon rank-sum tests performed over the results of $n = 60$ runs). The temporal dynamics of the dipole moment predicted by the model is shown in Figures \[fig:mod:dyads\]d–i. Last, we extended the POR latency predictions of the model to include all 13 dyads within the chromatic scale (see Figure \[fig:mod:dyads\]), and tested if the differential responses to consonance and dissonance were generalizable to additional dyads. Following Helmholtz [@Helmholtz1863], we considered an extended set of consonant dyads, including the octave (P8) and the perfect fourth (P4); and an extended set of dissonant dyads, including the major seventh (M7) and the major second (M2). Once again, consonant dyads produced longer latencies than dissonant dyads (latencies of P1, P4, P5 and P8 $<$ latencies of the extended set of dissonant dyads: $p<0.0003$, $U > 4290$; latency of M3 $<$ latency of M2: $p < 10^{-5}$, $U = 4497$; latency of M3 $<$ latency of M7: $p = 0.54$, $U = 3610$); according to pair-wise single-tailed Wilcoxon rank-sum tests performed over the results of 60 runs of the model). These results, fully in line with previous findings, reveal that the differential response of our model to consonance and dissonance in dyads is a general phenomenon caused by the fundamental relationships between the periodicities of the two dyad components. These analyses are extended to further families of dyads in [Supplementary Figure S7]{}, yielding similar results. The model provides a mechanistic explanation of how the harmonic relationships between the components of the dyads modulate processing time. Consonant dyads consist of tones that share a larger number of lower harmonics than the ones in dissonant dyads. For instance, in the just intonation, the perfect fifth of a given fundamental shares one in every two harmonics with that fundamental, whilst only one in 16 harmonics are shared by a minor second and its fundamental. Our model suggests that cortical pitch processing is triggered by the joint activation of, at least, three periodicity detectors characterizing a specific harmonic series. Consonant dyads elicit a dramatically larger signal-to-noise ratio in the periodicity detectors tuned to their common harmonics, resulting in a collaborative effort towards pitch extraction that effectively speeds up processing dynamics (an animation of this process is depicted in [Supplementary Video S2]{}). Discussion ========== This work combines new theoretical and experimental methods to study how the auditory cortex representations of a sounds’ pitch also generate the sensation of consonance and dissonance. First, we introduced a novel ensemble model of pitch designed to understand the neuromagnetic fields elicited in alHG during pitch processing. The model proposes a mechanistic explanation of the POR morphology and the dependence of its peak latency with the perceived pitch, a phenomenon that has been robustly observed for over two decades [@Krumbholz2003; @Ritter2005; @Seither2006], yet remained poorly understood. Thereafter, we designed an MEG protocol to investigate whether the POR properties are influenced by the degree of consonance or dissonance, as elicited by different dyads from common Western music. Results revealed a strong correlation between the POR peak latency and the degree of dissonance elicited by each dyad, extending previous EEG results that have also reported a modulation of the POR amplitude by consonance [@Bidelman2013]. Last, we showed that our model, originally designed to explain pitch processing in IRN stimuli with a single pitch, can quantitatively account for the correlation between POR latency and the degree of consonance and dissonance. The model can explain the shorter POR latencies in response to consonant dyads as an effect of harmonic facilitation during pitch extraction. Combined, our results indicate that the neural mechanisms accounting for pitch processing show a differential response to consonant and dissonant dyads, suggesting that the sensation of consonance and dissonance might be elicited as a result of pitch processing in alHG. The POR latency reflects pitch processing time ---------------------------------------------- The dynamics of the decoder network proposes a new mechanistic interpretation for the POR latency in the sense that it might reflect the amount of time that is necessary for the network to stabilize in an unequivocal pitch (see Figure \[fig:mod:dec\]). Although an association between POR latency and processing time has been hypothesized previously in experiments (e.g., [@Alain1997; @Krumbholz2003; @Ritter2005; @Seither2006]) and a in a model [@Balaguer2009], a biophysical understanding of this phenomenon was still lacking. Our model identifies the magnitude of the POR with the instant in which the net inhibition at the decoder network exceeds the excitatory activity from the periodicity detectors; from a dynamic system perspective, this is equivalent to the instant in which the trajectory in the phase-space is unequivocally directed towards the attractor state dominated by the neural ensemble that is characterized by the perceived pitch (see animation in [Supplementary Video S1]{}). The model suggests that a robust perceptual decision concerning stimulus pitch is made after the cortical system identifies, typically, three peaks from the harmonic series of the stimulus’ period in the representation of the periodicity detectors. This accounts for the relation between the POR latency and the stimulus period [@Krumbholz2003; @Ritter2005]; moreover, it also may explain why pitch identification is only robust when the stimulus duration exceeds four times the pitch periodicity [@Krumbholz2003]. Previous studies have postulated that cortical pitch processing mechanisms must integrate along several period cycles in order to make a perceptual decision [@DeCheveigne2010; @Gutschalk2004; @Krumbholz2003]; however, a specific mechanism for such an integration has not been proposed up to now. Moreover, since phase-locked activity is not robustly present above 50–200Hz in cortex [@Brugge2009], integration along several repetition cycles was only possible in subcortical areas. The decoder network in our model takes advantage of the input harmonic representations provided by an autocorrelation model that does not require phase-locking to transmit information concerning several repetition cycles [@Meddis1997], and thus provides a parsimonious solution to this problem. Effect of consonance and dissonance on cortical processing time --------------------------------------------------------------- Combined, our results suggest that cortical processing of dissonant dyads is slower than the processing of consonant dyads, in the sense that it requires a longer processing time. The model provides a physical rationale for this phenomenon: cortical extraction of consonance is based on the accumulation of activity in the columns with preferred periods characterizing the lower harmonics of the target sound; thus, concurrent pitch frequencies sharing common lower harmonics contribute to the build-up of each other’s representation, thereby speeding up the stabilization of the network. Since consonant dyads are characterized by simpler frequency ratios, they comprise tones sharing a larger number of lower harmonics than dissonant dyads. Early phenomenological models based on Helmholtz’s *roughness* theory described dissonance as the beating sensation produced by tones with fundamental frequencies that were not harmonically related [@Helmholtz1863; @Krueger1913; @Plomp1965; @Kameoka1969a; @Sethares1993]. More recent explanations of consonance, based on pitch processing, have linked the regularity of the autocorrelation harmonic patterns elicited by dyads to their evoked consonance and dissonance percepts [@Bidelman2009; @Bidelman2011; @Bidelman2013; @Ebeling2008; @Tramo2006]. Thus, in one way or another, previous phenomenological models of consonance have consistently related perceived consonance with the amount of harmonics shared between the tones comprising the dyad. The present model confirms that assumption and introduces a potential explanation for its underlying biophysical rationale. Although our modelling results generally show a good fit with the data from the MEG experiment, the model prediction falls around 5ms short when explaining the POR latency evoked by the minor second dyad. This relatively small underestimation might result from the limited number of harmonics considered during the integration step in the decoder network: dissonant dyads, whose components do not share any common harmonic within the first three peaks of their harmonic series, present comparable processing times. An adaptive mechanism adjusting the number of harmonics required to trigger the decoding process according to the degree of overlap of the peaks in the input could potentially yield more accurate results. This adaptive mechanism would be necessary to explain how humans can differentiate dyads that differ in a quarter of a semitone. Our study did not evaluate, however, if the general (yet not universal [@Plantinga2014; @Mcdermott2016]) association between consonance and pleasantness might be a consequence of differential processing in alHG. Future work should investigate whether this link could be due to different processing times, as described above, or whether it can be better explained by processes at higher levels of the auditory hierarchy that might be more sensitive to cultural and background modulations. Experimental discussion and comparison with results of the literature --------------------------------------------------------------------- Our neuromagnetic findings concerning the POR morphology in response to consonant and dissonant dyads resemble and extend recent EEG data reported by Bidelman and Grall [@Bidelman2014], and by Proverbio et al. [@Proverbio2016]. Specifically, Bidelman and Grall [@Bidelman2014] applied EEG in a smaller sample ($N$ = 9) of musically trained listeners and revealed a close relation between their subject’s consonance/dissonance ratings and the morphology of the POR that was elicited by the respective dyads in alHG. In their study, the POR latency difference between consonant and dissonant dyads (cf. their figure4B) appears to have non-significant ($p = 0.22$) effect size, smaller than the results that were obtained in our study by means of MEG. One reason for this might be that Bidelman and Grall [@Bidelman2014] applied shorter IRN stimuli with a higher number of iterations, resulting in an increased saliency of the pitch percept; moreover, they employed a dichotic stimulation paradigm in which each ear was presented with only one dyad component, whereas in our experiment, sounds were delivered diotically to the listeners. On the other hand, the POR was found to originate from very similar locations in alHG, in both our MEG experiment and the work of Bidelman and Grall [@Bidelman2014]; this is consistent with earlier fMRI [@Patterson2002] and intracranial [@Schoenwiesner2008] studies, as well as with other MEG studies that have linked subcomponents of the N100 wave to pitch processing (e.g., [@Gutschalk2004; @Ritter2005; @Andermann2014; @Andermann2017]). Relation to previous models of pitch processing ----------------------------------------------- Previous studies have introduced a wide range of phenomenological models that were originally designed to predict the pitch of complex sounds (e.g., [@Licklider1951; @Patterson1994a; @Meddis1997; @DeCheveigne1998; @Balaguer2007; @Balaguer2008; @Balaguer2009], see [@DeCheveigne2005b] for a review). The correlation between pitch and cortical AEFs was previously addressed by the Auditory Image Model’s *buffer* [@Patterson1994a] and its derivative [@Gutschalk2007]; and the derivative of the activation in the population encoding the pitch in [@Balaguer2009; @Tabas2016]. However, these models do not provide the biophysical mechanisms underlying the generation of the POR, or its latency dependence with pitch. Other models, designed to explain the precise biophysical mechanisms of pitch perception, were primarily focused on subcortical or early processing. Two of these models describe how neurons, mainly in subcortical nuclei, might process periodicities from the auditory nerve activity: Meddis and O’Mard’s model [@Meddis2006] proposes a biophysical implementation of the summary autocorrelation function [@Licklider1951; @Meddis1997], based on the joint action of chopper neurons in the cochlear nucleus and coincidence detectors in the inferior colliculus. More recently, Huang and Rinzel [@Huang2016] describe the neural implementation of a coincidence detector which is able to detect periodicities by comparing neural activity across different cochlear channels. Despite their mechanistic differences, both models present a spectral output comparable to that of the autocorrelation function [@Huang2016]. The model presented here is downstream, with respect to Meddis’ and Huang’s models, with its focus on explaining how pitch-related information is extracted from spectral patterns in alHG. Neurons implementing this transformation have been recently observed in the primary auditory cortex of marmosets [@Feng2017]. Relation to previous models of sensory integration -------------------------------------------------- The decoder network dynamics can be understood as an extension of the decision making model of the well-known winner-take-all ensemble competition [@Wang2002; @Wong2006]: excitatory populations in the decoding network compete with each other, whilst the inhibitory ensemble that is arbitrating this selective competition is in the column sensitive to the fundamental (see the inhibitory connections in Figure \[fig:mod:diagram\]). Since competition is restricted to harmonically related populations, multiple fundamentals can be simultaneously processed by the decoder network in cases where the input presents concurrent pitch values (e.g., Figure \[fig:mod:dyads\]). The hierarchical structure of our model is inspired by a recent model that was designed to explain sensory integration in the medial temporal area of the macaque monkey [@Wimmer2015]. In that model, perceptual decisions are first transiently computed in a *sensory circuit* that follows winner-take-all dynamics; after convergence, the decision then propagates to an *integration circuit*, that further modulates the dynamics of the sensory circuit, thus ensuring stability until a significant change occurs in the input to the cortex. Similarly, once a pitch value has been extracted in the decoder network of our model, the activity of the winner column is reinforced by the sustainer network (rather than being repeatedly decoded) until a new change in the subcortical input triggers a new decoding process (see [Supplementary Figure S9]{}). The sustaining strategy is also reminiscent of *predictive coding* [@Auksztulewicz2017; @Friston2005; @Friston2009] and reversed hierarchical strategies [@Hochstein2002; @Balaguer2009], where top-down efferents convey expectations about the input (here: expectations regarding its harmonic structure), whereas bottom-up afferents convey prediction error (peaks not corresponding to the expected harmonic series) [@Rauss2013]. Additional top-down expectations could coexist at higher cognitive levels based on, for instance, prior knowledge, experience, or focused attention. Such biases could modulate the sustaining network by increasing the baseline activity of the inhibitory ensembles that characterize the target pitch values, thereby facilitating the extraction of that *privileged* pitch in the decoder. To summarize, in this study we have introduced a novel model designed to understand the neural mechanisms of cortical pitch processing. The model proposes a mechanistic link between the latency of the POR subcomponent of the N100 wave and the processing time required for the system to achieve convergence, explaining the classical result that tones with a lower pitch elicit PORs with longer latencies. Moreover, our modelling and experimental results indicate that processing time varies with the degree of consonance in dyads, suggesting that the sensation of consonance and dissonance might directly stem from cortical pitch processing. Methods ======= Experimentation --------------- ### Participants Thirty-seven normal-hearing adults (22 female, 2 left-handed; mean age: 29.1 $\pm$ 8.3 years) participated in the experiment. None of the subjects reported any history of central or peripheral hearing impairments or any neurological or psychiatric disorders. The study and the experimental procedures were approved by the ethics committee of the Heidelberg University’s Medical School, and were conducted with written informed consent of each listener. ### Stimuli All stimuli were generated on-line using MATLAB 7.1 (The MathWorks, Inc., USA) and a sampling rate of 48000Hz. The basic stimulus was a 750ms long IRN segment, bandpass-filtered at 125–2000Hz, with eight iterations and gain for the delay-and-add filter $g_f = 1$. The delay of the IRN was varied between experimental conditions in an effort to build three consonant and three dissonant musical intervals, as classified by Western music theory. The delay of the lower note was always 6.25ms, corresponding to a pitch of 160Hz; the delay of the upper note was adjusted accordingly to form either a consonant dyad (unison, P1; perfect fifth, P5; major third, M3) or a dissonant dyad (tritone, TT; minor seventh, m7; minor second, m2). Table \[tab:expCond\] presents an overview of the six experimental conditions. In order to separate the dyad-specific neuromagnetic responses from the cortical activity associated with the onset of sound energy [@Biermann2000; @Gutschalk2002], each IRN dyad was preceded by a 750ms long, energy-balanced noise segment (bandpass-filtered at 125–2000Hz). There were 10ms Hanning windows at stimulus onset and offset; moreover, between the first (noise) and the second (IRN) segment of a stimulus, signals were cross-faded for a duration of 10ms in an effort to avoid discontinuous waveforms. The overall stimulation level was set to 80dB SPL. ### Data acquisition and processing Gradients of the magnetic field were acquired with a Neuromag-122 whole-head MEG system (Elekta Neuromag Oy, Helsinki, Finland) inside a magnetically shielded room (IMEDCO, Hägendorf, Switzerland). Raw data were acquired at a sampling rate of 1000Hz and low-pass filtered at 330Hz. Prior to the recordings, the nasion, two pre-auricular points and 32 surface points were measured as anatomical landmarks, individually for each participant, using a Polhemus 3D-Space Isotrack2 systems. In an effort to keep vigilance stable, participants watched a silent movie of their own choice during data acquisition, and they were asked to direct their attention to the movie and ignore the sounds in the earphones. The IRN dyads were delivered to the subjects via Etymotic Research (ER3) earphones with 90cm plastic tubes and foam earpieces. Sounds were presented using a 24-bit sound card (RME ADI 8DS AD/DA interface), an attenuator (Tucker-Davis Technologies PA-5) and a headphone buffer (Tucker-Davis Technologies HB-7). 250 sweeps per stimulus condition were played during the MEG recording, diotically and in pseudo-randomized order. The inter-stimulus interval was 1000ms. The total duration of the measurement was 62 minutes. ### Data analysis Data were analyzed off-line using the BESA 5.2 software package (BESA GmbH, Germany) with a spherical head model and a homogeneous volume conductor. After visual inspection of the raw data, noisy channels and sweeps with amplitudes greater than 8000fT/cm or gradients exceeding 800fT/cm/ms were excluded from further analyses. About 235 sweeps per subject and condition remained after artifact rejection; they were averaged, trigger-synchronously, in the epoch from 500ms before to 3000ms after stimulus onset. The baseline was defined as the average level in the interval of -100ms to 0ms, relative to stimulus onset. After pre-processing, we applied spatio-temporal source models [@Scherg1989; @Scherg1990; @Scherg1991] in BESA, in an effort to study the POR component in response to the second stimulus segment, i.e., at the transition from noise to IRN dyads. In this source localization approach, the intracortical sources of the activity observed at the scalp are modeled as equivalent current dipoles, and their spatial position and orientation is varied iteratively until a maximum amount of variance is explained in the scalp data. The source model includes both the spatial information for each dipole, and its physiological activity across time (source waveform). We calculated source models with one dipole per hemisphere for the POR component in the second stimulus segment. Dipole fits were based on pooled conditions \[P1+P5+M3+TT+m7+m2\]. The fitting interval covered about 30ms around its peak, and MEG data were zero-phase filtered 2–20Hz. Individual fits at the AEF components were successful for 36 subjects. In ten participants we included a symmetry constraint in the model to stabilize the individual dipole fits. One participant failed to show stable fits in the dipole model, and was excluded from subsequent analyses. Aside from symmetry, no further constraints were made concerning the orientation and location of the dipoles. The average maximum of explained variance within the fitting window was 64.1% (SD: 18.9) for the POR dipole model. After fitting, this dipole model was used as spatio-temporal filter, i.e., the source waveforms corresponding to the model were extracted separately for each condition and each subject. Finally, the source waveforms were exported from BESA to MATLAB for statistical analysis. The statistical evaluation of the MEG source waveforms was conducted using the bootstrap method [@Efron1993]. Here, the distribution of a test statistic is approximated by repeated random drawing, with replacement, from the original dataset; based on the resulting bootstrap distribution, confidence intervals can then be derived for that test statistic. Contrary to most standard techniques, the bootstrap method is well-suited for neurophysiological data where peaks cannot be clearly identified for each participant in every condition. Prior to statistical analyses, each source waveform of the POR model was adjusted to the baseline calculated as the average of the last 100ms before the transition. Modelling --------- ### Peripheral model and periodicity detectors Neural activity at the auditory nerve was simulated using a recent biophysically realistic model of the auditory periphery [@Zilany2009; @Zilany2014]. Peripheral parameters were chosen as in [@Meddis2006], considering 40 cochlear channels with centre frequencies between 125Hz and 10kHz. Periodicity detectors were modeled according to the summarized autocorrelation function (SACF) of the auditory nerve activity [@Meddis1997; @Meddis2006; @Balaguer2008]. This highly idealized model yields a harmonic neural representation of pitch-related information (see Figure \[fig:mod:diagram\]e), often connected to subcortical processing. The SACF was chosen for its comparably low computational complexity, but more detailed biophysical models yielding similar representations (e.g. [@Meddis2006; @Huang2016]) should produce comparable results. The SACF used here follows the same formulation as the first stage in the cascade autocorrelation model [@Balaguer2008]. The $n$th component $A_n(t)$ of the SACF represents a measure of the regularity of the auditory nerve activity with respect to a fixed period $\delta t_n$. The model considers $N = 250$ components $A_n(t)$ with characteristic periods uniformly spaced between $\delta t_1 = 0.5\,$ms, a conservative estimation of the phase-locking limit of the auditory nerve [@Bendor2012a], up to the lower limit of melodic pitch, $\delta t_N = 30$ms [@Pressnitzer2001]. The output is further regularized through a procedure $A_n(t) \rightarrow \hat{A}_n(t)$ that reduces the dependence of the SACF with stimulus intensity level and minimizes signal-to-noise variations within sounds with the same pitch but different timbre. The regularization procedure makes use of the principles of neural normalization [@Carandini2012] (see details in Supplementary Methods). ### Ensemble dynamics Neural ensembles follow mean-field dynamics characterised by their instantaneous firing rate $H^e_n(t)$ (excitatory) and $H^i_n(t)$ (inhibitory), at each cortical column $n$. Evolution dynamics were adapted from [@Wong2006]: $$\tau^{\text{pop}} \, \dot{H}^{e,i}_n(t) = - H^{e,i}_n(t) + \phi^{e,i}(I^{e,i}_n(t)) \label{eq:Hei}$$ with transfer functions $\phi^{e,i}(I^{e,i}_n(t))$ [@Wong2006]: $$\phi^{e,i}(I) = \frac{a^{e,i} I - b^{e,i}}{1 - e^{-d^{e,i} (a^{e,i} I - b^{e,i})}} \label{eq:transfer}$$ Realistic parameters of the excitatory and inhibitory transfer functions ($a^e$, $b^e$ and $d^e$ for the excitatory; $a^i$, $b^i$ and $d^i$ for the inhibitory) were taken from the literature [@Brunel2001; @Wong2006]. The total synaptic inputs $I^e_n(t)$ and $I^i_n(t)$ are defined below. Numerically simulations were performed using the Euler’s method with a time step $\Delta t = 1$ms. Dynamics of excitatory and inhibitory ensembles at the *decoder* and *sustainer* networks follow the same formulation. In order to differentiate between the two cortical networks, we use $H^{e,i}_n(t)$ and $I^{e,i}_n(t)$ to characterize populations and synaptic inputs of the decoder layer, and $\hat{H}^{e, i}_n(t)$ and $\hat{I}^{e,i}_n(t)$ for the populations and synaptic inputs of the sustainer layer. Population effective time constants $\tau^{\text{pop}}$ are adaptive and depend on the activity of the population [@Ostojic2011; @Gerstner2014]: $$\tau^{\text{pop}}(H(t)) = \tau^{\text{pop}}_0 \, \Delta_T \frac{\phi'(I(t))}{H(t)} \label{eq:taupop}$$ where $\phi'(I(t))$ is the slope of the transfer function (see Equation \[eq:transfer\]) and $\Delta_T$ is the sharpness of the action potential initiation. The mean-field dynamics of the populations in our model was based on a LIF neuron [@Wong2006] that approximates the action potential initiation as instantaneous [@Fourcaud2003]; thus, we used a small $\Delta_T \ll 1 = 0.05$mV. ### Synaptic dynamics Ensemble connectivity is mediated through realistic AMPA, NMDA and GABA$_\text{A}$ synapses [@Brunel2001; @Wang2002; @Wong2006; @Deco2013]. Synaptic dynamics were modelled according to Brunel and Wang formulation [@Brunel2001]: $$\begin{aligned} \dot{S}_n^{\text{AMPA}}(t) & = & - \frac{S_n^{\text{AMPA}}(t)}{\tau_{\text{AMPA}}} + H_n^e(t) + \sigma \nu_n(t) \label{eq:Sampa} \\ \dot{S}_n^{\text{GABA}}(t) & = & - \frac{S_n^{\text{GABA}}(t)}{\tau_{\text{GABA}}} + H_n^i(t) + \sigma \nu_n(t) \label{eq:Sgaba} \\ \dot{S}_n^{\text{NMDA}}(t) & = & - \frac{S_n^{\text{NMDA}}(t)}{\tau_{\text{NMDA}}} + \gamma \left(1 - S_{\text{NMDA}}(t)\right) H_n^e(t) + \sigma \nu_n(t) \label{eq:Snmda} \end{aligned}$$ NMDA time constant was set to $\tau_{\text{NMDA}} = 30\,$ms; GABA and AMPA time constants $\tau_{\text{GABA}} = 2\,$ms and $\tau_{\text{AMPA}} = 5\,$ms, and the coupling parameter $\gamma = 0.641$, were all taken from the literature [@Wong2006; @Brunel2001]. Gating variables at the sustainer and decoder layers $\hat{S}_n^{\text{NMDA, AMPA, GABA}}(t)$, $\hat{H}^{e,i}_n(t)$ follow similar dynamics. ### Synaptic inputs Total synaptic inputs to populations $I^{i,e}_n(t)$ and $\hat{I}^{i,e}_n(t)$ consist of three different contributions: internal input $I_{\text{int}}$, accounting for inputs from populations within the same network; external input $I_{\text{ext}}$, exerted by sources from other networks; and a constant input drive $I_0$: $$\begin{aligned} I^{i,e}_n(t) & = & I^{i,e}_{n, \text{int}}(t) + I^{i,e}_{n, \text{ext}}(t) + I^{i,e}_{n, 0}(t) \label{eq:totalI:dec} \\ \hat{I}^{i,e}_n(t) & = & \hat{I}^{i,e}_{n, \text{int}}(t) + \hat{I}^{i,e}_{n, \text{ext}}(t) + \hat{I}^{i,e}_{n, 0}(t) \label{eq:totalI:sus} \end{aligned}$$ #### Internal input Connectivity weights between any two ensembles in the decoder network are provided by the matrices $C^{ee}, C^{ei}, C^{ie}, C^{ii}$. $C^{ei}$ and $C^{ie}$. $C^{ei}$ and $C^{ie}$ present a harmonic structure inspired in connectivity patterns reported in the mammal auditory cortex (see [@Wang2013] for a review); this matrices are plotted in Figure \[fig:mod:diagram\]d. $C^{ee}$ is the identity matrix, and $C^{ii}$ has a similar diagonal structure: $C^{ii}_{\alpha\beta} = (1 - c^{ie}_0) \delta_{\alpha\beta} + c^{ie}_0$, where $c^{ie}_0$ is the baseline inhibitory weight $c^{ie}_0 = 0.1$ and $\delta_{\alpha\beta}$ is the Kronecker delta. Altogether, the internal inputs at the decoder $I_{\text{int}}(t)$ are defined as follows: $$\begin{aligned} I^e_{n, \text{int}}(t) & = & \sum_k C^{ee}_{nk} \left( J^{ee}_{\text{NMDA}} \, S_k^{\text{NMDA}}(t) + J^{ee}_{\text{AMPA}} \, S_k^{\text{AMPA}}(t) \right) - \sum_k C^{ie}_{nk} J^{ie}_{\text{GABA}} \, S_k^{\text{GABA}}(t) \label{eq:Iint:edec} \\ I^i_{n, \text{int}}(t) & = & \sum_k C^{ei}_{nk} \left( J^{ie}_{\text{NMDA}} \, S_k^{\text{NMDA}}(t) + J^{ei}_{\text{AMPA}} \, S_k^{\text{AMPA}}(t) \right) - \sum_k C^{ii}_{nk} J^{ii}_{\text{GABA}} \, S_k^{\text{GABA}}(t) \label{eq:Iint:idec} \end{aligned}$$ Ensembles ni the sustainer network only communicate internally with ensembles within the same block: $$\begin{aligned} \hat{I}^e_{n, \text{int}}(t) & = & \hat{J}^{ee}_{\text{NMDA}} \, \hat{S}_n^{\text{NMDA}}(t) + \hat{J}^{ee}_{\text{AMPA}} \, \hat{S}_n^{\text{AMPA}}(t) - \hat{J}^{ie}_{\text{GABA}} \, \hat{S}_n^{\text{GABA}}(t) \label{eq:Iint:esus} \\ \hat{I}^i_{n, \text{int}}(t) & = & \hat{J}^{ei}_{\text{NMDA}} \, \hat{S}_n^{\text{NMDA}}(t) + \hat{J}^{ei}_{\text{AMPA}} \, \hat{S}_n^{\text{AMPA}}(t) - \hat{J}^{ii}_{\text{GABA}} \, \hat{S}_n^{\text{GABA}}(t) \label{eq:Iint:isus} \end{aligned}$$ Conductivities $J_{\text{NMDA}, \text{AMPA}, \text{GABA}}$ and $\hat{J}_{\text{NMDA}, \text{AMPA}, \text{GABA}}$ (see Table \[tab:pars\]) were initialized to typical values in the literature $J \simeq 0.15\,$nA [@Wong2006], and fine-tuned within a range of realistic values to ensure the convergence of the ensembles activity to match perceptual results in iterated rippled noises [@Krumbholz2003]. Model’s final parameters are listed in Table \[tab:pars\]. [The Last column specifies the source of the parameter value; entries with the label *fitted* were tuned according to the indications described in the main text; entries with the label *fixed* were selected to a fixed value according to theoretical considerations (see main text).]{} \[tab:pars\] #### External input Excitatory ensembles in the decoder network receive bottom-up input $\hat{A}_n(t)$ via AMPA-driven synapses, according to previous studies in perceptual integration [@Wong2006]: $$I^e_{n, \text{ext}}(t) = J^{th}_{\text{AMPA}} \, S_n^{th, \text{AMPA}}(t) \label{eq:Iext:esus}$$ The conductivity $J^{th}_{\text{AMPA}}$ was adjusted to ensure a smooth and robust propagation of the activity in the periodicity detectors to the decoder’s excitatory populations. The corresponding gating variables $S_n^{th, \text{AMPA}}(t)$ follow AMPA-like dynamics: $$\dot{S}_n^{th, \text{AMPA}}(t) =- \frac{S_n^{th, \text{AMPA}}(t)} {\tau_{\text{AMPA}}} + A_n(t) \label{eq:SampaTh}$$ Inhibitory ensembles in the decoder receive efferent external input from the sustainer network. Top-down excitatory processes in cortex are typically dominated by NMDA dynamics [@Friston2005]; thus, efferent AMPA synapses were not considered: $$I^i_{n, \text{ext}}(t) = J^{e}_{\text{NMDA}} \, \hat{S}_n^{th, \text{NMDA}}(t) \label{eq:isus}$$ The efferent conductivity $J^{e}_{\text{NMDA}}$ (Table \[tab:pars\]) was tuned to enable the top-down enhancement of the inhibitory ensembles at the decoder once the lower harmonics that have been inhibited after the decoding process (see *Dynamics of the decoder network* in Results). Sustainer’s external inputs are sourced in the decoder network, driven by inhibitory GABAergic and excitatory AMPAergic synapses [@Wong2006; @Friston2005]: $$\begin{aligned} \hat{I}^e_{n, \text{ext}}(t) & = & \hat{J}^{a}_{\text{AMPA}} \, S_n^{\text{AMPA}}(t) \label{eq:hIext:esus} \\ \hat{I}^i_{n, \text{ext}}(t) & = & \hat{J}^{a}_{\text{GABA}} \, S_n^{\text{GABA}}(t) \label{eq:hIext:isus} \end{aligned}$$ Afferent conductivities $\hat{J}^{a}_{\text{AMPA, GABA}}$ (Table \[tab:pars\]) were set to make the sustainer both sensitive to decoded decisions, yet robust to spurious activations. #### Constant input drive Constant inputs to the decoder $I^e_{n, 0}(t) = I^e_0$ and $I^i_{n, 0}(t) = I^i_0$ (Table \[tab:pars\]) were selected to enable the system to be reactive to external input, yet silent in absence of a significant input. An additional constant drive $I^{\text{sus}}_0 = 0.24\,$nA was applied to the populations at the sustainer (see *Dynamics of the sustainer network* in Results). ### Derivation of the evoked fields Assuming that all microcolumns within each of the two cortical networks present similar orientations, the total dipolar moment representing the neuromagnetic field elicit by each network is monotonicallt related to the collective excitatory activity in the network [@Kiebel2008; @Kerr2008; @Bruyns2016]: $$m(t) = \sum_n H^e_n(t + \Delta t_{\text{subcort}})$$ The subcortical delay $\Delta t$ accounts for the time elapsed from tone onset until the signal first arrives in the decoder network. This delay reflects not only propagation time, but also processing time of secondary processes like the regularization of the output of the periodicity detectors. The delay was fixed to $\Delta t = 75\,$ms, according to the experimentally observed latency of the POR elicited by an IRN with a delay of 8ms. We used a longer $\Delta t^{\text{dyads}} = 95\,$ms in dyads to compensate for a systematic 20ms delay of the experimental observations, most likely due to the different rescaling factors used for the regularized SACF of simple tones and dyads (see Supplementary Methods for details).

ArXiv

--- author: - | $^1$[^1], $^1$[^2], $^1$, $^1$,\ $^2$, $^3$, $^3$, $^4$, $^4$, $^4$, $^5$, and $^1$ title: 'Magnetic State of [[the]{}]{} Geometrically Frustrated Quasi-One-Dimensional Spin System Cu$_3$Mo$_2$O$_9$ Studied by Thermal Conductivity' --- Introduction ============ [[The]{}]{} thermal conductivity in [[low-dimensional]{}]{} quantum spin systems has attracted [[great]{}]{} interest[[,]{}]{} because [[a large amount of]{}]{} [[thermal conductivity due to [[spins, namely,]{}]{} magnetic excitations, $\kappa_{\rm spin}$, has been observed]{}]{} along the direction where [[the]{}]{} antiferromagnetic (AF) exchange interaction is strong. [[In the AF spin-chain systems Sr$_2$CuO$_3$[@Takahashi_2006; @Kawamata_2008; @Sologubenko_2001] and SrCuO$_2$[@Sologubenko_2001; @Kawamata_2010] and the two-leg spin-ladder system Sr$_{14}$Cu$_{24}$O$_{41}$ [@Kudo:JLTP117:1999:1689; @Kudo:JPSJ70:2001:437; @Sologubenko:PRL84:2000:2714; @Hess:PRB64:2001:184305; @Naruse:SSC154:2013:60], for example, the thermal conductivity due to spinons and magnons, which are magnetic excitations in these systems, has been observed, respectively.]{}]{} In addition, the thermal conductivity [[has attracted considerable interest, because it is closely related to the magnetic state.]{}]{} [[That is, the thermal conductivity exhibits a marked change according to the change in the magnetic state, owing to the marked change in the scattering of heat carriers by magnetic excitations]{}]{}. [[In the spin-Peierls system CuGeO$_3$ [@Ando_1998; @Salce1998:127] and the two-dimensional spin-dimer system SrCu$_2$(BO$_3$)$_2$ [@Kudo_2001; @Hofmann_2001], the [[thermal conductivity due to phonons]{}]{}, $\kappa_{\rm phonon}$, has been [[found to be enhanced at low temperatures]{}]{} below [[the]{}]{} temperature [[comparable]{}]{} to [[the]{}]{} spin-gap [[energy owing to the reduction in the phonon-spin scattering rate]{}]{} and [[to be]{}]{} suppressed by the application of a magnetic field]{}]{} because of the [[reduction]{}]{} in the spin gap [@Kudo_2001; @Hofmann_2001]. Furthermore, [[a marked enhancement of the thermal conductivity has been observed at low temperatures below [[the]{}]{} AF transition temperature, [[$T_{\mathrm{N}}$]{}]{}, in several AF spin systems [@Slack1958; @Slack1961; @Aring1967; @Lewis1973; @Kudo_2003; @Sologubenko2003a; @Zhao2012].]{}]{} [[In [[the]{}]{} frustrated spin system Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$, [[recently, the thermal conductivity has been found to be]{}]{} affected by [[the]{}]{} change in [[the]{}]{} state of magnetic monopoles, which are magnetic excitations in this system.[@Kolland_2013; @Fan_2013]]{}]{} [[Accordingly]{}]{}, the thermal conductivity is [[recognized as a]{}]{} very useful [[probe to detect a]{}]{} change in [[the]{}]{} magnetic state and [[a]{}]{} phase transition. ![(Color online) (a) [[Crystal structure of Cu$_3$Mo$_2$O$_9$.]{}]{} [[Distorted]{}]{} tetrahedral spin-chain[[s]{}]{} run along the $b$-axis. (b) [[Crystal structure]{}]{} viewed from the $b$-axis. [[Dashed lines]{}]{} indicate the unit cell [[containing two distorted tetrahedral spin-chains]{}]{}. []{data-label="fig01"}](67142Fig1.eps){width="0.7\linewidth"} [[The compound Cu$_3$Mo$_2$O$_9$ is a [[quasi-one-dimensional]{}]{} spin system with the quantum spin number $S = 1/2$ of Cu$^{2+}$ ions.]{}]{} [[As shown in Fig. 1(a),]{}]{} [[distorted tetrahedral spin-chains composed of spin chains of Cu1 and spin dimers of Cu2 and Cu3 run along the $b$-axis.]{}]{} [[The spin chains are arranged in the $ac$-plane as shown in Fig. \[fig01\](b). ]{}]{} [[Cu$^{2+}$]{}]{} [[spins]{}]{} interact [[with]{}]{} one another by AF [[superexchange]{}]{} interactions, [[whose]{}]{} magnitude has been estimated from the inelastic [[neutron-]{}]{}scattering [[experiment]{}]{} as follows [@Kuroe_2010; @Kuroe_2011_PRB]. [[ Both the interaction between Cu1 and Cu2, [[ $J _{\mathrm{1}} ^{\mathrm{}} $]{}]{}, and that between Cu1 and Cu3, [[ $J _{\mathrm{2}} ^{\mathrm{}} $]{}]{}, are $\sim 19$ K. [[The intradimer interaction between Cu2 and Cu3, [[ $J _{\mathrm{3}} ^{\mathrm{}} $]{}]{}, which is equal to the spin-gap energy, $\Delta$, of the spin dimers, is $\sim 67$ K.]{}]{} The intrachain interaction between Cu1’s, [[ $J _{\mathrm{4}} ^{\mathrm{}} $]{}]{}, is $\sim 46$ K.]{}]{} [[The]{}]{} interchain interaction [[is as negligibly weak as]{}]{} $\sim$ 2.2 K. [[The]{}]{} [[magnetization and specific heat measurements]{}]{} [[have revealed that]{}]{} Cu$_3$Mo$_2$O$_9$ undergoes [[an]{}]{} AF [[transition]{}]{} accompanied by weak ferromagnetism (WF) due to [[the]{}]{} Dzyaloshinsky-Moriya interaction at 8 K [@Hamasaki_2008]. [[In the AF ordered state]{}]{}, [[ the dispersion branch [[of magnetic excitations of]{}]{} the spin [[dimers]{}]{} remains together with that [[of]{}]{} the AF order [@Kuroe_2010; @Kuroe_2011_PRB] and]{}]{} the direction of Cu1 spins is [[almost]{}]{} parallel to the $b$-axis [[but]{}]{} is slightly canted from the $b$-axis [@Hamasaki_2008]. [[Although]{}]{} [[canted [[components of the]{}]{} magnetic moments [[are in disorder in zero field, they are ordered]{}]{} by the application of ]{}]{} [[a]{}]{} magnetic field of 0.1 T along the $a$-axis and of 0.8 T along the $c$-axis. [[In the AF ordered state, furthermore,]{}]{} [[it has been found from dielectric constant and magnetization measurements that]{}]{} Cu$_3$Mo$_2$O$_9$ shows magnetic and ferroelectric [[orders simultaneously]{}]{} without any magnetic superlattice formation,[[[@Kuroe_2011_JPSJ]]{}]{} [[which has been understood as being due to]{}]{} the [[possible]{}]{} charge redistribution in [[a]{}]{} frustrated Mott insulator [@Kuroe_2011_JPSJ; @Bulaevskii_2008; @Khomskii_2010]. The direction of [[the]{}]{} spontaneous electric polarization changes [[from the $c$-axis to the $a$-axis by the application of ]{}]{} [[a]{}]{} magnetic field of [[$\sim$ 8 T]{}]{} along the $c$-axis,[[[@Kuroe_2011_JPSJ]]{}]{} [[which]{}]{} [[has been also observed in [[the]{}]{} electron-spin-resonance spectrum [[of]{}]{} the powder sample[@Okubo_2010]. ]{}]{} [[At present, the phase diagram of Cu$_3$Mo$_2$O$_9$ in magnetic fields at low temperatures is as shown in Fig. 2.[@Hamasaki_2010; @Kuroe_2011_JPSJ; @Hosaka_2012] ]{}]{} Nevertheless, the magnetic state of Cu$_3$Mo$_2$O$_9$ has not [[yet]{}]{} been clarified completely. Accordingly, we have measured the thermal conductivity [[of single-crystal Cu$_3$Mo$_2$O$_9$ in magnetic fields,]{}]{} in order to investigate the magnetic state of Cu$_3$Mo$_2$O$_9$ [[as well as the existence of [[$\kappa_{\mathrm{spin}}$]{}]{}]{}]{}. Experimental ============ Single crystals of Cu$_3$Mo$_2$O$_9$ were grown by the continuous solid-state crystallization method [@Oka_2011]. Thermal conductivity measurements were carried out by the conventional steady-state method. One side of a rectangular single-crystal, whose typical dimensions were about 5 $\times$ 1 $\times$ 1 mm$^3$, was anchored on [[a]{}]{} heat sink [[of copper]{}]{} with indium solder. A chip-resistance of 1 k$\Omega$ (Alpha Electronics MP1K000) was attached as a heater to the opposite side of the single crystal with GE7031 vanish. The temperature difference across the crystal (0.03–0.4 K) was measured with two Cernox thermometers (Lake Shore Cryotronics CX-1050-SD). The accuracy of the absolute value of the thermal conductivity was $\pm$10$\%$ mainly due to the uncertainty of the sample geometry. Magnetic field[[s]{}]{} up to 14 T were applied parallel to the principal crystallographic axes. ![(Color online) [[Phase diagram of Cu$_3$Mo$_2$O$_9$ in magnetic fields along the principal crystallographic axes at low temperatures.[@Hamasaki_2010; @Kuroe_2011_JPSJ; @Hosaka_2012] ]{}]{} [[AFM, PM, FE, and PE indicate the antiferromagnetic, paramagnetic, ferroelectric, and paraelectric phases, respectively. $P_{\mathrm{s}}$ indicates the spontaneous electric polarization. Triangles, squares, and circles were determined from the dielectric constant measurements along the $a$- and $c$-axes and specific heat measurements, respectively. Open and solid symbols were obtained from the data of magnetic-field and temperature dependences, respectively. ]{}]{}[]{data-label="PD"}](67142Fig2.eps){width="1.0\linewidth"} Results and Discussion ====================== ![(Color online) Temperature dependence of the thermal conductivity along the $a$-, $b$-, and $c$-axes, $\kappa_{a}$, $\kappa_{b}$, and $\kappa_{c}$, for [[Cu$_3$Mo$_2$O$_9$]{}]{} single crystals [[in zero field, respectively]{}]{}. [[The inset shows the temperature dependences of [$\kappa _{a}$]{}, [$\kappa _{b}$]{} and [$\kappa _{c}$]{} in a wide temperature-range up to 150 K. The arrow indicates the antiferromagnetic transition temperature, [[$T_{\mathrm{N}}$]{}]{}. ]{}]{} []{data-label="fig02"}](67142Fig3.eps){width="0.4\linewidth"} Figure \[fig02\] shows the temperature [[dependence]{}]{} of the thermal conductivity along the $a$-, $b$-, and $c$-axes, $\kappa_{a}$, $\kappa_{b}$, and $\kappa_{c}$, [[of Cu$_3$Mo$_2$O$_9$, respectively]{}]{}. [[It is found that $\kappa_{a}$ and $\kappa_{c}$ perpendicular to the spin chains]{}]{} [[are]{}]{} similar [[to each other]{}]{} [[and monotonically ]{}]{} decrease with decreasing temperature [[[[down]{}]{} to]{}]{} [[$T_{\rm N}~=~8$ K]{}]{}. [[Although $\kappa_{b}$ parallel to the spin chains also decreases with decreasing temperature [[down]{}]{} to $\sim 20$ K, ]{}]{} [[on the other hand,]{}]{} [[$\kappa_{b}$ ]{}]{} increases with decreasing temperature [[from $\sim 20$ K down]{}]{} [[to $T_{\rm N}$]{}]{}. [[Both]{}]{} $\kappa_{a}$, $\kappa_{b}$ and $\kappa_{c}$ increase suddenly [[just below [[$T_{\mathrm{N}}$]{}]{} with decreasing temperature]{}]{} and exhibit [[a]{}]{} peak at approximately 5 K. [[In nonmagnetic insulators, [[$\kappa_{\rm phonon}$ typically increases with decreasing temperature from room temperature]{}]{} and shows a peak at [[a low temperature]{}]{} around 10 K.]{}]{} [[In spin-gap systems, moreover, thermal conductivity typically increases with decreasing temperature at low temperatures below the temperature comparable to the spin-gap energy.]{}]{} [[Taking into account the observation of the dispersion branch of magnetic excitations of the spin dimers,[@Kuroe_2010; @Kuroe_2011_PRB]]{}]{} [[therefore, the monotonic decrease with decreasing temperature [[at high temperatures]{}]{} implies ]{}]{} that the mean free path of phonons, $l_{\rm phonon}$, is [[strongly]{}]{} suppressed [[probably]{}]{} [[by magnetic fluctuations due to the spin frustration.]{}]{} [[The]{}]{} sudden increases [[in]{}]{} [[$\kappa_{a}$, $\kappa_{b}$, and $\kappa_{c}$ [[just]{}]{} below $T_{\rm N}$]{}]{} are inferred to be due to the increase in $l_{\rm phonon}$ [[owing to the marked reduction in the phonon-spin scattering rate caused by the development of the [[AF]{}]{} long-range order, ]{}]{} [[as observed in several antiferromagnets [@Slack1958; @Slack1961; @Aring1967; @Lewis1973; @Kudo_2003; @Sologubenko2003a; @Zhao2012]. ]{}]{} [[It is found that]{}]{} the magnitude of $\kappa_{b}$ is larger than [[those]{}]{} of $\kappa_{a}$ and $\kappa_{c}$. Furthermore, [[only $\kappa_{b}$ [[increases with decreasing temperature at temperatures between $\sim$]{}]{} 20 K [[and]{}]{} $T_{\rm N}$]{}]{}, [[which can hardly be explained as being due to]{}]{} the anisotropy of $\kappa_{\rm phonon}$. [[Therefore, [[these]{}]{} anisotropic [[behaviors]{}]{} of the thermal conductivity [[are reasonably attributed to the]{}]{} contribution of $\kappa_{\rm spin}$ to $\kappa_{b}$,]{}]{} [[because magnetic excitations can carry heat along the $b$-axis where the magnetic correlation is developed at low temperatures below [[ $J _{\mathrm{4}} ^{\mathrm{}} $]{}]{}.]{}]{} [[Such anisotropic contribution of $\kappa_{\rm spin}$ has been observed in several low-dimensional spin systems.[@Takahashi_2006; @Kawamata_2008; @Sologubenko_2001; @Kawamata_2010; @Kudo:JLTP117:1999:1689; @Kudo:JPSJ70:2001:437; @Sologubenko:PRL84:2000:2714; @Hess:PRB64:2001:184305; @Naruse:SSC154:2013:60; @Miike_1975; @Nakamura_1991; @Matsuoka_2014; @Sologubenko2003a; @Parfen_2004; @Uesaka_2010; @Kawamata_2014] ]{}]{} ![ (Color online) Temperature dependence of the thermal conductivity along the $a$- and $b$-axes, $\kappa_a$ and $\kappa_b$, [[respectively,]{}]{} for [[Cu$_3$Mo$_2$O$_9$]{}]{} single crystals in magnetic fields [[parallel to the (a) $a$-, (b) $b$-, and (c) $c$-axes. ]{}]{}[]{data-label="fig03"}](67142Fig4.eps){width="1.0\linewidth"} [[Figure \[fig03\] shows]{}]{} the temperature [[dependences]{}]{} of $\kappa_{a}$ and $\kappa_{b}$ [[of Cu$_3$Mo$_2$O$_9$]{}]{} in magnetic fields along the $a$-, $b$-, and $c$-axes, [[[$H _{\parallel a}$]{}, [$H _{\parallel b}$]{}, and [$H _{\parallel c}$]{}, respectively]{}]{}. [[It is found that]{}]{} [[both]{}]{} $\kappa_{a}$ and $\kappa_{b}$ decrease with increasing field [[at low temperatures]{}]{} [[below]{}]{} [[$\sim$]{}]{} 40 K. The decrease [[in]{}]{} $\kappa_{a}$ [[by the application of a magnetic field ]{}]{} indicates the [[decrease]{}]{} [[in]{}]{} $l_{\rm phonon}$ [[due to [[the]{}]{} increase in [[the phonon-spin scattering rate, namely, the enhancement of]{}]{} the scattering ]{}]{} [[of phonons]{}]{} by magnetic excitations, [[because [[the]{}]{} contribution of $\kappa_{\rm phonon}$ is dominant in $\kappa_{a}$ perpendicular to [[the]{}]{} spin chains]{}]{} [[and the contribution of [[$\kappa_{\mathrm{spin}}$]{}]{} is negligible.]{}]{} [[It is [[known]{}]{} in spin-gap systems that]{}]{} $\kappa_{\rm phonon}$ is enhanced [[below [[the]{}]{} temperature comparable to [[the]{}]{} spin-gap energy]{}]{}, [[owing to the marked decrease in the number of magnetic excitations.]{}]{} [[Moreover, the enhancement of $\kappa_{\rm phonon}$ is suppressed by the application of a magnetic field [@Ando_1998; @Kudo_2001; @Hofmann_2001],]{}]{} [[owing to the increase in the number of magnetic excitations because of the reduction in the spin gap.]{}]{} In the magnetic dispersion of Cu$_3$Mo$_2$O$_9$, there is a [[flat branch]{}]{} of magnetic excitations of the spin dimers [@Kuroe_2010; @Kuroe_2011_PRB]. [[Such a flat magnetic]{}]{} branch is expected to scatter phonons strongly, because the momentum conservation law is easily satisfied in the phonon-spin scattering process. [[Surely, [[$\kappa_{\mathrm{phonon}}$]{}]{} is suppressed owing to the disorder of the AF correlation induced by the application of the magnetic field in AF spin-chain systems.]{}]{} [[However, since the magnetic dispersion branch in AF spin-chain systems is dispersive, it is not easy to satisfy both the momentum and energy conservation laws in the phonon-spin scattering process.]{}]{} [[Therefore, magnetic excitations of the spin dimers are expected to scatter phonons stronger than those of the AF spin chains.]{}]{} [[Furthermore, considering that ]{}]{} the temperature below which the suppression by the application of a magnetic field [[is observed]{}]{} is comparable to $\Delta = {{67}}$ K [[[@Kuroe_2010; @Kuroe_2011_PRB]]{}]{}, the suppression of not only [$\kappa _{a}$]{} but also [$\kappa _{b}$]{} by the application of a magnetic field is interpreted as being caused by the enhancement of the phonon-spin scattering due to the reduction in the spin gap. [[However, [[neither]{}]{} enhancement of [[[$\kappa _{a}$]{}, [$\kappa _{b}$]{}, nor [$\kappa _{c}$]{}]{}]{} is observed [[in zero field below $\sim 40$ K [[comparable to $\Delta$]{}]{}.]{}]{}]{}]{} [[This may indicate that phonon[[s are]{}]{} strongly scattered by magnetic fluctuations due to [[the]{}]{} spin frustration even [[at low temperatures]{}]{} [[below $\Delta$]{}]{}.]{}]{} [[Furthermore,]{}]{} the decrease [[in]{}]{} $\kappa_{b}$ [[by the application of a magnetic field]{}]{} is [[more marked]{}]{} than that in $\kappa_{a}$. This indicates that not only $\kappa_{\rm phonon}$ but also $\kappa_{\rm spin}$ decrease[[s]{}]{} [[by [[the]{}]{} application of a magnetic field, ]{}]{} [[because [[there exists the contribution of]{}]{} $\kappa_{\rm spin}$ to $\kappa_{b}$ parallel to [[the]{}]{} spin chains [[in zero field as described above]{}]{}. ]{}]{} [[It is reasonable that [[$\kappa_{\mathrm{spin}}$]{}]{} is affected by magnetic fields up to 14 T, because ${{ \ensuremath{J _{\mathrm{4}} ^{\mathrm{}} }}} \sim 46$ K is not much larger than the energy of a magnetic field of 14 T.]{}]{} [[Namely, magnetic excitations carrying heat are scattered by the disorder of the antiferromagnetic correlation along the $b$-axis induced by the application of a magnetic field. ]{}]{} [[In fact, it has been reported that [[$\kappa_{\mathrm{spin}}$]{}]{}]{}]{} in the [[quasi-one-dimensional]{}]{} spin system Sr$_2$V$_3$O$_9$ [[with the intrachain interaction of 82 K is suppressed by the application of a magnetic field of 14 T.]{}]{}[@Uesaka_2010; @Kawamata_2014] [[As for]{}]{} the behavior of [[the]{}]{} [[thermal conductivity in magnetic fields [[at low temperatures]{}]{} below $T_{\rm N}$[[, it]{}]{} is]{}]{} slightly [[complicated]{}]{}. ![ (Color online) [[(a)–(d)]{}]{} Magnetic-field dependence of the thermal conductivity along the $a$- and $b$-axes normalized by the value in zero field, $\kappa_{a}(H)/\kappa_{a}(0)$ and $\kappa_{b}(H)/\kappa_{b}(0)$, respectively, for Cu$_3$Mo$_2$O$_9$ single crystals in magnetic fields parallel to the $a$-, $b$-, and $c$-axes at 3 and 10 K. [[(e)–(h) Schematic diagrams of the magnetic-field dependence of the thermal conductivity due to magnetic excitations, [[$\kappa_{\mathrm{spin}}$]{}]{}, and phonons, [[$\kappa_{\mathrm{phonon}}$]{}]{}. (e) [[$\kappa_{\mathrm{spin}}$]{}]{} suppressed by the reduction in the spin gap. (f) [[$\kappa_{\mathrm{phonon}}$]{}]{} enhanced by the appearance of the long-range order of the canted components in the weak ferromagnetic state. (g) [[$\kappa_{\mathrm{phonon}}$]{}]{} suppressed by the reduction in the spin gap. (h) [[$\kappa_{\mathrm{phonon}}$]{}]{} enhanced in high magnetic fields. ]{}]{}[]{data-label="fig04"}](67142Fig5.eps){width="0.8\linewidth"} Figures \[fig04\](a)–\[fig04\](d) show [[the]{}]{} [[magnetic-field dependences of]{}]{} $\kappa_{a}$($H$)[[/$\kappa_{a}$(0)]{}]{}, and $\kappa_{b}$($H$)[[/$\kappa_{b}$(0)]{}]{} [[of Cu$_3$Mo$_2$O$_9$, normalized by the value in zero field, in [$H _{\parallel a}$]{}, [$H _{\parallel b}$]{} and [$H _{\parallel c}$]{}]{}]{} at 3 and 10 K. [[First, we [[compare]{}]{} $\kappa_{a}$($H$)[/$\kappa_{a}$(0)]{} and $\kappa_{b}$($H$)[/$\kappa_{b}$(0)]{}. ]{}]{} [[It is found that both $\kappa_{a}$($H$)[/$\kappa_{a}$(0)]{} and $\kappa_{b}$($H$)[/$\kappa_{b}$(0)]{} show [[a complicated but similar behavior in general terms, but]{}]{} $\kappa_{b}$($H$)/$\kappa_{b}$(0) tends to decrease with increasing field [[more]{}]{} than $\kappa_{a}$($H$)/$\kappa_{a}$(0). ]{}]{} [[Here, $\kappa_{b}$ parallel to [[the]{}]{} spin chains is described as the sum of [[$\kappa_{\mathrm{phonon}}$]{}]{} and [[$\kappa_{\mathrm{spin}}$]{}]{}, while $\kappa_{a}$ perpendicular to [[the]{}]{} spin chains is [[given by]{}]{} only [[$\kappa_{\mathrm{phonon}}$]{}]{}. ]{}]{} Therefore, it is inferred that the complicated field-dependence of the thermal conductivity is due to [[$\kappa_{\mathrm{phonon}}$]{}]{}, while [[$\kappa_{\mathrm{spin}}$]{}]{} monotonically decreases with increasing field, [[as shown in Fig. \[fig04\](e)]{}]{}. [[Next, we discuss [[the]{}]{} magnetic-field dependence of $\kappa_{a}$($H$)[/$\kappa_{a}$(0)]{} in order to investigate [[the]{}]{} magnetic and dielectric states, because]{}]{} the behavior of $\kappa_{a}(H){{/\kappa_{a}(0)}}$ [[originating from]{}]{} [[only [[$\kappa_{\mathrm{phonon}}$]{}]{}]{}]{} is expected to reflect [[these]{}]{} states [[through]{}]{} [[the scattering of phonons more simply than that of $\kappa_{b}(H)/\kappa_{b}(0)$]{}]{}. [[It is found that [[the field dependence of]{}]{} $\kappa_{a}(H)/\kappa_{a}(0)$]{}]{} at 3 K [[is very]{}]{} different [[depending on]{}]{} the [[applied-field-]{}]{}direction, as shown in Fig. \[fig04\](a). [[In low magnetic fields, $\kappa_{a}(H)/\kappa_{a}(0)$ increase[[s]{}]{} [[up to]{}]{} $\sim {{2}}$ T [[with increasing fields]{}]{} of [$H _{\parallel a}$]{} and [$H _{\parallel c}$]{}, while [[it]{}]{} decrease[[s up to $\sim 5$ T with increasing field of [$H _{\parallel b}$]{}]{}]{}.]{}]{} [[Since the long-range order of [[canted components of the magnetic moments in]{}]{} WF appear[[s]{}]{} above ${\ensuremath{H _{\parallel a}}}\sim 0.1$ T and ${\ensuremath{H _{\parallel c}}}\sim 0.8$ T but it does not in [$H _{\parallel b}$]{} [@Kuroe_2011_JPSJ], the increase [[in]{}]{} $\kappa_{a}(H)/\kappa_{a}(0)$ [[with increasing fields of]{}]{} [$H _{\parallel a}$]{} and [$H _{\parallel c}$]{} is [[explained as being]{}]{} caused by the appearance of the long-range order of [[the canted components in WF leading to the suppression of the phonon[[-spin]{}]{} scattering.]{}]{}]{}]{} [[Therefore, there is an enhanced component of [[$\kappa_{\mathrm{phonon}}$]{}]{} in both [$H _{\parallel a}$]{} and [$H _{\parallel c}$]{}, as shown in Fig. \[fig04\](f)]{}]{}. [[The decrease [[in]{}]{} $\kappa_{a}(H)/\kappa_{a}(0)$ in [$H _{\parallel b}$]{} is [[explained as being]{}]{} caused by the [[increase]{}]{} in the phonon[[-spin]{}]{} scattering [[rate]{}]{} due to the [[reduction]{}]{} in [[the]{}]{} spin gap by [[the]{}]{} application of a magnetic field.]{}]{} [[Furthermore, [[it is found that]{}]{} $\kappa_{a}(H)/\kappa_{a}(0)$ start[[s]{}]{} to decrease [[above]{}]{} $\sim 2$ T with increasing fields [[of [$H _{\parallel a}$]{} and [$H _{\parallel c}$]{}]{}]{}, [[which is interpreted as being caused by both the]{}]{} saturation of the enhancement of $\kappa_{a}(H)/\kappa_{a}(0)$ by [[the]{}]{} appearance of [[the]{}]{} long-range order of [[the canted components in]{}]{} WF, [[as shown in Fig. \[fig04\](f)]{}]{}, and [[the]{}]{} decrease [[in]{}]{} $\kappa_{a}(H)/\kappa_{a}(0)$ [[due to]{}]{} the [[reduction]{}]{} in [[the]{}]{} spin gap]{}]{}, [[as shown in Fig. \[fig04\](g)]{}]{}. [[In high magnetic fields, $\kappa_{a}(H)/\kappa_{a}(0)$ [[tends to]{}]{} increase [[above $\sim 7$ T with increasing fields of [$H _{\parallel a}$]{}, [$H _{\parallel b}$]{}, and [$H _{\parallel c}$]{}]{}]{}, as shown in Fig. \[fig04\](a).]{}]{} [[In particular, [[it is remarkable that]{}]{} there is a kink in $\kappa_{a}$($H$)/$\kappa_{a}$(0) at [$H _{\parallel c}$]{} $\sim$7.5 T, where the phase transition occurs, that is, the direction of the spontaneous electric polarization changes from the $c$-axis to the $a$-axis with increasing field, as shown in Fig. 2[@Kuroe_2011_JPSJ]. ]{}]{} [[A similar kink is also observed in $\kappa_{b}(H)/\kappa_{b}(0)$ at ${\ensuremath{H _{\parallel c}}} \sim 7.5$ T.]{}]{} [[In [$H _{\parallel a}$]{} and [$H _{\parallel b}$]{}, on the other hand, no anomaly suggesting any phase transitions has been observed at around 7 T in the specific heat [@Hamasaki_2010] and magnetization [@Hamasaki_2009] measurements.]{}]{} [[However, since]{}]{} the differential magnetization [[has shown]{}]{} a kink at [$H _{\parallel b}$]{} = 6 T at 2 K, the enhancement of [[$\kappa_{a}(H)/\kappa_{a}(0)$]{}]{} [[above $\sim 7$ T]{}]{} may be caused by [[an unknown]{}]{} field-induced order [[and/or [[a]{}]{} change in [[the]{}]{} magnetic state]{}]{}. [[Accordingly, there is an enhanced component of [[$\kappa_{\mathrm{phonon}}$]{}]{} in [$H _{\parallel a}$]{}, [$H _{\parallel b}$]{}, and [$H _{\parallel c}$]{}, as shown in Fig. \[fig04\](h)]{}]{}. [[The [[enhancement of $\kappa_{a}(H)/\kappa_{a}(0)$ above]{}]{} $\sim 7$ T is [[also]{}]{} observed at 10 K above $T_{\rm N}$, as shown in Fig. \[fig04\](c).]{}]{} ![ (Color online) Schematic diagram of [[spin]{}]{} chiralities and spontaneous current[[s]{}]{} caused by [[the break]{}]{} of [[dimers of]{}]{} Cu2 and Cu3 in Cu$_3$Mo$_2$O$_9$. (a) In the case [[that]{}]{} spins of Cu2 and Cu3 form [[a spin-]{}]{}singlet dimer, there is no chirality in [[the]{}]{} spin chain. Rounded rectangles and arrows indicate [[spin]{}]{}-singlet dimer[[s]{}]{} and spins [[on [[the Cu1]{}]{} site]{}]{}, respectively. (b) In [[a]{}]{} magnetic field along the $b$-axis, [[spontaneous currents [[run]{}]{} along triangles [[composed of]{}]{} three Cu [[spins, owing to the break of spin-singlet dimers.]{}]{}]{}]{} Open ovals and arrows indicate spontaneous currents and spins, respectively. []{data-label="fig05"}](67142Fig6.eps){width="0.5\linewidth"} Here, [[it is noted that]{}]{} the enhancement of [[$\kappa_{a}(H)/\kappa_{a}(0)$]{}]{} above $\sim 7$ T means the increase of [[$l_{\mathrm{phonon}}$]{}]{}, because [[both]{}]{} the specific heat and velocity of phonons are usually almost independent [[of]{}]{} magnetic field. In other word[[s]{}]{}, [[it means that]{}]{} the scattering [[rate of phonons]{}]{} decreases with increasing field, corresponding to the decrease in magnetic excitations and/or [[the]{}]{} development of [[a]{}]{} magnetic order. According to the calculation of the magnetic dispersion in magnetic fields by Matsumoto *et al*.[@Matsumoto_2012_JPSJ], [[no anomaly]{}]{} such as [[any]{}]{} change in the ground state [[has been suggested]{}]{} at $\sim 7$ T. [[Here,]{}]{} in order to [[explain]{}]{} the enhancement of $\kappa_{\rm phonon}$ [[above $\sim 7$ T]{}]{}, we introduce the theory [[proposed by Bulaevskii and Batista [@Bulaevskii_2008] and Khomskii [@Khomskii_2010]]{}]{} concerning spontaneous currents [[and charge redistribution]{}]{} in [[a Mott insulator regarded as a]{}]{} geometrically frustrated spin system. Since the ferroelectricity in Cu$_3$Mo$_2$O$_9$ has been [[understood]{}]{} on the basis of the charge redistribution [@Kuroe_2011_JPSJ], the spontaneous currents may be useful to [[explain]{}]{} the enhancement of $\kappa_{\rm phonon}$. In [[a]{}]{} geometrically frustrated Mott insulator, [[the]{}]{} exchange interaction [[between three spins forming a triangle]{}]{} cause[[s a]{}]{} spontaneous current running along the triangle. This spontaneous current only appear[[s in a]{}]{} non-coplanar spin-state [[and is proportional to ]{}]{} [[the]{}]{} scalar spin-chirality [[given by ${\boldsymbol S}_1 \cdot ({\boldsymbol S}_2 \times {\boldsymbol S}_3)$, where ${\boldsymbol S}_i$ ${{(i = 1, 2, 3)}}$ is a spin angular momentum on [[the]{}]{} site $i$]{}]{}. In the case [[that]{}]{} the spins of Cu2 and Cu3 form [[a spin-]{}]{}singlet dimer, [[distorted]{}]{} tetrahedral spin-chains can be regarded as simple spin-chains composed [[of only]{}]{} Cu1 spins and there is no chirality in [[the]{}]{} spin chain[[,]{}]{} as shown in Fig. \[fig05\](a). [[In the case that [[spin-]{}]{}singlet dimers are [[broken]{}]{} by the application of a magnetic field,]{}]{} [[on the other hand, finite values of spin chirality]{}]{} appear [[in the triangles]{}]{}, because [[[[spins revive on the]{}]{} Cu2 and Cu3 sites, as shown]{}]{} in Fig. \[fig05\](b). [[Therefore, it is possible that]{}]{} the enhancement of $\kappa_{\rm phonon}$ [[above $\sim 7$ T is]{}]{} caused by the ordering [[of spin chiralities]{}]{}, because the ordering [[is able to]{}]{} be [[brought about]{}]{} by [[the]{}]{} magnetic interaction even in the absence of [[any]{}]{} magnetic[[ally]{}]{} ordered state. ![ (Color online) Schematic diagram of the development of the [[spin-]{}]{}chirality order [[in Cu$_3$Mo$_2$O$_9$]{}]{}. Open ovals and the length of arrows indicate excitations of [[spin-singlet]{}]{} dimers and [[the]{}]{} mean free path of phonons, $l_{\rm phonon}$, respectively. (a) [[In zero field, ]{}]{} the magnitude of $l_{\rm phonon}$ is limited by magnetic excitations [[generated by thermal fluctuations]{}]{}. (b) In [[low]{}]{} magnetic fields [[below $\sim 7$ T]{}]{}, the number of magnetic excitations increases [[with increasing field]{}]{} because of the [[reduction]{}]{} in the spin gap[[, so that]{}]{} $l_{\rm phonon}$ is [[shortened]{}]{} because of the [[increase]{}]{} in the phonon scattering [[rate]{}]{}. (c) The [[spin-]{}]{}chirality order [[is developed]{}]{} above [[$\sim 7$ T]{}]{}[[, so that]{}]{} $l_{\rm phonon}$ extends because of the [[decrease]{}]{} in the phonon scattering [[rate]{}]{}. Filled ovals indicate [[areas of the spin-chirality order]{}]{}.[]{data-label="fig06"}](67142Fig7.eps){width="1.0\linewidth"} [[Finally, the magnetic-field dependence of $\kappa_{a}(H)/\kappa_{a}(0)$ at low temperatures below $\sim 40$ K is summarized as follows, on the basis of the scenario adopting the spin-chirality ordering.]{}]{} In zero field, a few excitations [[of spin-singlet dimers in the spin-gap state]{}]{} due to thermal fluctuation[[s]{}]{} [[scatter phonons, as shown in]{}]{} Fig. \[fig06\](a). [[Since]{}]{} the number of magnetic excitations increases [[with increasing field below $\sim 7$ T]{}]{} by the [[reduction]{}]{} in the spin gap, $l_{\rm phonon}$ [[is shortened]{}]{} because of the [[increase]{}]{} in the phonon scattering [[rate,]{}]{} [[as shown in]{}]{} Fig. \[fig06\](b). [[In]{}]{} [[high]{}]{} magnetic fields above [[$\sim 7$ T]{}]{}, [[the]{}]{} order of magnetic excitations[[, namely, the order of spin chiralities, is developed,]{}]{} [[as shown in ]{}]{} Fig. \[fig06\](c), [[so that]{}]{} [[$\kappa_{\rm phonon}$ [[increases owing to the]{}]{} decrease in [[the]{}]{} phonon scattering [[rate]{}]{}.]{}]{} The reason why [[the]{}]{} [[enhancement of]{}]{} [[$\kappa_{a}(H)/\kappa_{a}(0)$]{}]{} [[is [[different depending on the applied-field-]{}]{}direction is as follows.]{}]{} Spontaneous currents [[along [[the]{}]{} triangles [[composed of three spins]{}]{} induce ]{}]{} orbital moments, which [[are]{}]{} coupled [[with]{}]{} the magnetic field. Therefore, [[the magnitude of]{}]{} [[the]{}]{} scalar spin-chirality [[might be related to]{}]{} the magnetic field [[penetrating]{}]{} the triangles. [[Accordingly,]{}]{} [[since]{}]{} the area[[s]{}]{} of the triangles viewed from the $b$-axis [[are]{}]{} [[homogeneous]{}]{}, the chirality order may [[be]{}]{} homogeneous in [[[$H _{\parallel b}$]{}, leading [[to]{}]{} the large enhancement of $\kappa_{\rm phonon}$]{}]{}. [[On the other hand, since]{}]{} the area[[s]{}]{} of the triangles viewed from the $a$- and $c$-axes [[are]{}]{} [[inhomogeneous]{}]{}, the chirality order may [[be]{}]{} inhomogeneous in [[[$H _{\parallel a}$]{} and [$H _{\parallel c}$]{},]{}]{} [[leading [[to]{}]{} the small enhancement of $\kappa_{\rm phonon}$]{}]{}. [[To confirm]{}]{} this [[scenario adopting the spin-chirality]{}]{} order, further experimental and theoretical investigations [[are necessary]{}]{}. [[Summary]{}]{} =============== In order to investigate the magnetic state [[and the existence of [[$\kappa_{\mathrm{spin}}$]{}]{}]{}]{}, we have measured [[[$\kappa _{a}$]{}, [$\kappa _{b}$]{}, and [$\kappa _{c}$]{}]{}]{} of [[Cu$_3$Mo$_2$O$_9$]{}]{} single crystals in magnetic fields [[up to 14 T]{}]{}. [[In zero field, it has been found that]{}]{} [[[$\kappa _{a}$]{}, [$\kappa _{b}$]{}, and [$\kappa _{c}$]{} are suppressed at high temperatures probably by magnetic fluctuations due to the spin frustration, while they are enhanced just below [[$T_{\mathrm{N}}$]{}]{} as in the case of several antiferromagnets.]{}]{} [[By the application of a magnetic field, ]{}]{} [[[$\kappa _{a}$]{}, [$\kappa _{b}$]{}, and [$\kappa _{c}$]{} [[have been found to be]{}]{} suppressed at low temperatures below $\sim 40$ K ]{}]{} and this [[has been explained as being due to]{}]{} [[the reduction in [[the]{}]{} spin gap [[originating from]{}]{} the [[spin-]{}]{}singlet dimer[[s of]{}]{} Cu2 and Cu3. ]{}]{} [[Since it has been found that the magnitude of [$\kappa _{b}$]{} parallel to the spin chains is larger than those of [$\kappa _{a}$]{} and [$\kappa _{c}$]{} and that the decrease in [$\kappa _{b}$]{} by the application of a magnetic field is more marked than that in [$\kappa _{a}$]{}, it is concluded that there exists a contribution of [[$\kappa_{\mathrm{spin}}$]{}]{} to [$\kappa _{b}$]{}.]{}]{} [[Furthermore, [[it has been found that]{}]{} the magnetic-field dependences of [$\kappa _{a}$]{} and [$\kappa _{b}$]{} at 3 and 10 K are [[complicated]{}]{} and different]{}]{} [[depending on the applied-field-direction]{}]{}. [[In low magnetic fields below $\sim 7$ T, both [$\kappa _{a}$]{} and [$\kappa _{b}$]{} have been found to decrease with increasing field due to the reduction in the spin gap. Moreover, [$\kappa _{a}$]{} at 3 K has been found to markedly change in [$H _{\parallel a}$]{} and [$H _{\parallel c}$]{} in correspondence to the appearance of the long-range order of the canted components in WF. In high magnetic fields above $\sim 7$ T, on the other hand, both [$\kappa _{a}$]{} and [$\kappa _{b}$]{} at 3 K have been found to tend to increase with increasing field. In [$H _{\parallel c}$]{}, a kink has been observed at $\sim 7.5$ T in both [$\kappa _{a}$]{} and [$\kappa _{b}$]{}, owing to the field-induced phase transition. In [$H _{\parallel b}$]{}, it has been found that the increase in [$\kappa _{a}$]{} above $\sim 7$ T is most marked and is observed even at 10 K above [[$T_{\mathrm{N}}$]{}]{} in spite of the absence of any phase transition, suggesting the existence of a novel field-induced spin state. ]{}]{} [[A]{}]{} possible [[state]{}]{} is the [[ordered one of the spin]{}]{} chirality in [[a]{}]{} frustrated Mott insulator. Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered} ============== The thermal conductivity measurements were performed at the High Field Laboratory for Superconducting Materials, Institute for Materials Research, Tohoku University. [[Figure 1 was drawn using VESTA [@Momma_2011]. ]{}]{} This work was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan. [9]{} [[A. V. Sologubenko, K. Giann[ó]{}, and H. R. Ott, Phys. Rev. B **64**, 054412 (2001).]{}]{} N. Takahashi, T. Kawamata, T. Adachi, T. Noji, and Y. Koike, AIP Conf. Proc. [**850**]{}, 1265 (2006). T. Kawamata, N. Takahashi, T. Adachi, T. Noji, K. Kudo, N. Kobayashi, and T. Koike, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**77**]{}, 034607 (2008). T. Kawamata, N. Kaneko, M. Uesaka, M. Sato, and Y. Koike, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. [**200**]{}, 022023 (2010). [[ K. Kudo, S. Ishikawa, T. Noji, T. Adachi, Y. Koike, K. Maki, S. Tsuji, and K. Kumagai, J. Low. Temp. Phys. **117**, 1689 (1999). A. V. Sologubenko, K. Giann[ó]{}, H. R. Ott, U. Ammerahl, and A. Revcolevschi, Phys. Rev. Lett. **84**, 2714 (2000). C. Hess, C. Baumann, U. Ammerahl, B. B[ü]{}chner, F. Heidrich-Meisner, W. Brenig, and A. Revcolevschi, Phys. Rev. B **64**, 184305 (2001). K. Kudo, S. Ishikawa, T. Noji, T. Adachi, Y. Koike, K. Maki, S. Tsuji, and K. Kumagai, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **70**, 437 (2001). ]{}]{} [[ K. Naruse, T. Kawamata, M. Ohno, Y. Matsuoka, K. Kumagai, and Y. Koike, Solid State Commun. **154**, 60 (2013). ]{}]{} Y. Ando, J. Takeya, D. L. Sisson, S. G. Doettinger, I. Tanaka, R. S. Feigelson, and A. Kapitulnik, Phys. Rev. B [**58**]{}, R2913 (1998). [[ B. Salce, L. Devoille, R. Calemczuk, A. I. Buzdin, G. Dhalenne, and A. Revcolevschi, Phys. Lett. A [**245**]{}, 127 (1998). ]{}]{} K. Kudo, T. Noji, Y. Koike, T. Nishizaki, and N. Kobayashi, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**70**]{}, 1448 (2001). M. Hofmann, T. Lorenz, G. S. Uhrig, H. Kierspel, O. Zabara, A. Freimuth, H. Kageyama, and Y. Ueda, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 047202 (2001). [[ G. A. Slack and R. Newman, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**1**]{}, 359 (1958). G. A. Slack, Phys. Rev. [**122**]{}, 1451 (1961). K. Aring and A. J. Sievers, J. Appl. Phys. [**38**]{}, 1496 (1967). F. B. Lewis and N. H. Saunders, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. [**6**]{}, 2525 (1973). K. Kudo, T. Noji, T. Sakon, M. Motokawa, T. Nishizaki, and N. Kobayashi, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**72**]{}, 569 (2003). A. V. Sologubenko, H. R. Ott, G. Dhalenne, and A. Revcolevschi, Europhys. Lett. [**62**]{}, 540 (2003). Z. Y. Zhao, X. G. Liu, Z. Z. He, X. M. Wang, C. Fan, W. P. Ke, Q. J. Li, L. M. Chen, X. Zhao, and X. F. Sun, Phys. Rev. B [**85**]{}, 134412 (2012). ]{}]{} G. Kolland, M. Valldor, M. Hiertz, J. Frielingsdorf, and T. Lorentz, Phys. Rev. B [**88**]{}, 054406 (2013). C. Fan, Z. Y. Zhao, H. D. Zhou, X. M. Wang, Q. J. Li, F. B. Zhang, X. Zhao, and X. F. Sun, Phys. Rev. B [**87**]{}, 144404 (2013). H. Kuroe, T. Hamasaki, T. Sekine, M. Hase, K. Oka, T. Ito, H. Eisaki, and M. Matsuda, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. [**200**]{}, 022028 (2010). H. Kuroe, T. Hamasaki, T. Sekine, M. Hase, K. Oka, T. Ito, H. Eisaki, K. Kaneko, N. Metoki, M. Matsuda, and K. Kakurai, Phys. Rev. B [**83**]{}, 184423 (2011). T. Hamasaki, T. Ide, H. Kuroe, T. Sekine, M. Hase, I. Tsukada, and T. Sakakibara, Phys. Rev. B [**77**]{} (2008) 134419. H. Kuroe, T. Hosaka, S. Hachiuma, T. Sekine, M. Hase, K. Oka, T. Ito, H. Eisaki, M. Fujisawa, S. Okubo, and H. Ohta, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**80**]{}, 083705 (2011). L. N. Bulaevskii and C. D. Batista, Phys. Rev. B [**78**]{}, 124402 (2008). D. I. Khomskii, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**22**]{}, 164209 (2010). [[ S. Okubo, T. Yoshida, M. Fujisawa, T. Sakurai, H. Ohta, T. Hamasaki, H. Kuroe, T. Sekine, M. Hase, K. Oka, T. Ito, and H. Eisaki, J. Low Temp. Phys. [**159**]{}, 32 (2010).]{}]{} T. Hamasaki, H. Kuroe, T. Sekine, M. Aoki, H. Kuwahara, and M. Hase, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. [**200**]{}, 022013 (2010). T. Hosaka, S. Hachiuma, H. Kuroe, T. Sekine, M. Hase, K. Oka, T. Ito, H. Eisaki, M. Fujisawa, S. Okubo, and H. Ohta, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. [**400**]{}, 032022 (2012). K. Oka, T. Ito, H. Eisaki, M. Hase, T. Hamasaki, H. Kuroe, and T. Sekine, J. Cryst. Growth [**334**]{}, 108 (2011). [[ H. Miike and K. Hirakawa, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**38**]{}, 1279 (1975). Y. Nakamura, S. Uchida, T. Kimura, N. Motohira, K. Kishio, K. Kitazawa, T. Arima, and Y. Tokura, Physica C [**185–189**]{}, 1409 (1991). L. S. Parfen’eva, I. A. Smirnov, H. Misiorek, J. Mucha, A. Jezowski, A. V. Prokof’ev, and W. Assmus, Phys. Solid State [**46**]{}, 357 (2004). ]{}]{} M. Uesaka, T. Kawamata, N. Kaneko, M. Sato, K. Kudo, N. Kobayashi, and Y. Koike, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. [**200**]{}, 022068 (2010). T. Kawamata, M. Uesaka, M. Sato, K. Naruse, K. Kudo, N. Kobayashi, and Y. Koike, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**83**]{}, 054601 (2014). [[ Y. Matsuoka, T. Kawamata, K. Naruse, M. Ohno, Y. Nishiwaki, T. Kato, T. Sasaki, and Y. Koike, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**83**]{}, 064603 (2014). ]{}]{} T. Hamasaki, H. Kuroe, T. Sekine, M. Hase, and H. Kitazawa, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. [**150**]{}, 042047 (2009). [[ M. Matsumoto, H. Kuroe, T. Sekine, and M. Hase, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**81**]{}, 024711 (2012).]{}]{} K. Momma and F. Izumi, J. Appl. Crystallogr. [**44**]{}, 1272 (2011). [^1]: Present address: Institute for Materials Research (IMR), Tohoku University, Sendai 980-8577, Japan [^2]: E-mail: [email protected]

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'In this paper, we analyze the throughput performance of two co-existing downlink multiuser underlay secondary networks that use fixed-rate transmissions. We assume that the interference temperature limit (ITL) is apportioned to accommodate two concurrent transmissions using an interference temperature apportioning parameter so as to ensure that the overall interference to the primary receiver does not exceed the ITL. Using the derived analytical expressions for throughput, when there is only one secondary user in each network, or when the secondary networks do not employ opportunistic user selection (use round robin scheduling for example), there exists a critical fixed-rate below which sum throughput with co-existing secondary networks is higher than the throughput with a single secondary network. We derive an expression for this critical fixed-rate. Below this critical rate, we show that careful apportioning of the ITL is critical to maximizing sum throughput of the co-existing networks. We derive an expression for this apportioning parameter. Throughput is seen to increase with increase in number of users in each of the secondary networks. Computer simulations demonstrate accuracy of the derived expressions.' author: - - bibliography: - 'IEEEabrv.bib' - 'references\_lit.bib' title: 'Performance Optimization of Co-Existing Underlay Secondary Networks' --- at (current page.south) ; Introduction ============ A rapid increase in wireless devices and services in the past decade or so has led to a demand for very high data rates over the wireless medium. With such prolific increase in data traffic, mitigating spectrum scarcity and more efficient utilization of under-utilized spectrum has drawn attention of researchers both in academia and in the industry. Cognitive radios (CR) are devices that have shown promise in alleviating these problems of spectrum scarcity and low spectrum utilization efficiencies. In underlay mode of operation of cognitive radios, both secondary (unlicensed) and primary (licensed) users co-exist and transmit in parallel such that the total secondary interference caused to the primary user is below a predetermined threshold [@LeHossain2008] referred to as the interference temperature limit (ITL). This ensures that primary performance in terms of throughput or outage is maintained at a desired level. Most of the analysis to date in underlay CR literature is confined to one secondary node transmitting with full permissible power and catering to its own set of receivers, while maintaining service quality of the primary network. For such secondary networks, performance improvement is achieved by exploiting diversity techniques [@LeeWangAndrewsHong2011; @YeohElkashlanKimDuongKaragiannidis2016], resource allocation [@HeckeFiorentinoLotticiGiannettiVandendorpeMoeneclaey2017], increasing the number of hops [@BoddapatiBhatnagarPrakriya2016], etc. Cognitive radios have attracted research interest due to the possibility of great increase in spectrum utilization efficiency. Researchers have proposed the idea of concurrent secondary transmissions to further increase throughput (and therefore spectrum utilization efficiency), where two or more cognitive femtocells reuse the spectrum of a macrocell either in a overlay, interweave or underlay manner [@ChengAoTsengChen2012]. By deploying femtocells, operators can reduce the traffic on macro base stations and also improve data quality among femtocell mobile stations due to short range communication. To implement such an underlay scheme, the major hindrance is mitigation of interferences among inter-femtocell users and careful handling of interferences from femtocell transmitters to the users of the macro cell [@ChengLienChuChen2011]. A comprehensive survey of such heterogeneous networks, their implementation and future goals can be found in [@PengWangLiXiangLau2015] (and references therein). In this paper, we consider two co-existing downlink multiuser underlay networks. We show that throughput with two co-existing secondary networks is larger than with one secondary network in some situations. Since throughput performance is ensured, this implies the possibility of increase in spectrum utilization efficiency. The main contributions of our paper are as follows: 1. Unlike other works on co-existing secondary networks that focus on optimization [@XingMathurHaleemChandramouliSubbalakshmi2007] and game theoretic approaches [@KangZhangMotani2012], we present an analytical closed form sum throughput expression for two co-existing secondary multiuser downlink networks using fixed-rate transmissions by the secondary nodes. 2. We evaluate analytically the maximum secondary fixed rate by sources that yields higher throughput with concurrent transmissions in two co-existing secondary networks. Beyond this rate, switching to a single secondary transmission is better. 3. We propose an optimal ITL apportioning parameter to further improve the sum throughput performance when two secondary sources transmit at the same time. 4. We show that sum throughput improves with user selection in individual secondary networks. The derived expressions and insights are a useful aid to system designers. System Model and Problem Formulation ==================================== We consider two cognitive underlay downlink networks[^1], where two secondary transmitters $S_1$ and $S_2$ transmit symbols concurrently in the range of a primary network by selecting their best receivers $R_{1i^{*}}$ (among $R_{1i}$ receivers, $i \in [1,L]$) and $R_{2i^{*}}$ (among $R_{2i}$ receivers, $i \in [1,M]$) respectively, from their cluster of users (Fig. \[fig:sysmod\]). We assume that the two secondary networks are located relatively far apart so that the same frequency can be reused by $S_1$ and $S_2$ concurrently. We ensure that the total secondary interference caused to the primary receiver $R_{P}$ is below ITL by careful apportioning of power between $S_1$ and $S_2$. All channels are assumed to be independent, and of quasi-static Rayleigh fading type. The channels between $S_1$ and $R_{1i}$ are denoted by $h_{1i}\sim {\cal CN}\left(0,1/\lambda_{11}\right)$, $i \in [1,L]$. The channels between $S_2$ and $R_{2i}$ are denoted by $h_{2i}\sim {\cal CN}\left(0,1/\lambda_{22}\right)$, $i \in [1,M]$. Due to concurrent secondary transmissions, each transmitter interferes with the receivers of the other cluster. The interference channels between $S_1$ and $R_{2i}$ are denoted by $g_{1i}\sim {\cal CN}\left(0,1/\mu_{12}\right)$, $i \in [1,M]$, with $g_{1i^{*}}$ being the channel to the intended receiver $R_{2i^{*}}$. The interference channels between $S_2$ and $R_{1i}$ are denoted by $g_{2i}\sim {\cal CN}\left(0,1/\mu_{21}\right)$, $i \in [1,L]$, with $g_{2i^{*}}$ being the channel to the intended receiver $R_{1i^{*}}$. The channels to $R_{P}$ from $S_1$ and $S_2$ are denoted by $g_{1P}\sim {\cal CN}\left(0,1/\mu_{1P}\right)$ and $g_{2P}\sim {\cal CN}\left(0,1/\mu_{2P}\right)$ respectively. We neglect primary interference at the secondary nodes assuming the primary transmitter to be located far away from the secondary receivers, which is a common assumption in CR literature, and well justified on information theoretic grounds [@JovicicViswanath2009], [@VuDevroyeTarokh2009]. Zero-mean additive white Gaussian noise of variance $\sigma_n^2$ is assumed at all terminals. As in all underlay networks, it is assumed that $S_1$ and $S_2$ can estimate $|g_{1P}|^{2}$ and $|g_{2P}|^{2}$ respectively by observing the primary reverse channel, or using pilots transmitted by $R_{P}$. In every signaling interval, $S_1$ transmits unit energy symbols $x$ with power $P_{S1} = \alpha I_P/|g_{1P}|^{2}$ and $S_2$ transmits unit energy symbols $z$ with power $P_{S2} = (1-\alpha) I_P/|g_{2P}|^{2}$, where $I_P$ denotes the ITL, and $0<\alpha<1$ denotes the power allocation parameter which apportions $I_P$ between $S_1$ and $S_2$ respectively. We use peak interference type of power control at $S_1$ and $S_2$ instead of limiting the transmit powers with a peak power due to the following reasons:\ 1. It is well known that the performance of CR networks exhibits an outage floor after a certain peak power and does not improve beyond a point when transmit powers are limited by interference constraints. 2. Since sufficient peak power is typically available, this assumption is quite reasonable. It is in this regime where cognitive radios are expected to operate. Such an assumption is also common in prior underlay CR literature [@DuongCostaElkashlanBao2012; @TourkiQaraqeAlouini2013; @ChakrabortyPrakriya2017]. 3. It keeps the analysis tractable, leading to precise performance expressions that offer useful insights. It also allows us to derive expressions for important parameters of practical interest in the normal range of operation of secondary networks, and can yield insights of interest to system designers. The received signals ($y_{R_{1i}}$ and $y_{R_{2i}}$) at $R_{1i}$ and $R_{2i}$ can be written as follows: [rCl]{} y\_[R\_[1i]{}]{} &=& h\_[1i]{}x + g\_[2i]{}z + n\_[R\_[1i]{}]{}, i\ y\_[R\_[2i]{}]{} &=& h\_[2i]{}z + g\_[1i]{}x + n\_[R\_[2i]{}]{}, i ,\ \[eq: signals\] where $n_{R_{1i}},n_{R_{2i}}\sim {\cal CN}(0,\sigma^{2}_{n})$ are additive white Gaussian noise samples at $R_{1i}$ and $R_{2i}$ respectively. When transmitters $S_1$ and $S_2$ select the receivers $R_{1i^{*}}$ and $R_{2i^{*}}$ with strongest link to them in their individual cluster, the instantaneous signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratios (SINRs) $\Gamma_{1}$ and $\Gamma_{2}$ at $R_{1i^{*}}$ and $R_{2i^{*}}$ can be written as follows:\ [rCl]{} \_[1]{} &=&\ \_[2]{} &=& . \[eq: SINRS\_main\] We note that the random variables $|h_{ij}|^2$ and $|g_{ij}|^2$ in follow the exponential distribution with mean values $1/\lambda_{ii}$ and $1/\mu_{ij}$ respectively. In the following section, we derive sum throughput expression for this co-existing secondary network. It gives a measure of spectrum utilization with or without concurrent transmissions by sources in co-existing secondary networks. Sum Throughput of the Secondary Network for Fixed Rate Transmission Scheme ========================================================================== When secondary nodes transmit with a fixed rate $R$, the sum throughput $\tau_{sum}$ is given by: [rCl]{} \_[sum]{} &=& (1-p\_[out\_1]{})R + (1-p\_[out\_2]{})R, \[eq: sum\_th\_fixed\_rate\_def\] where $p_{out_1}$ and $p_{out_2}$ are outage probabilities of the two secondary user pairs $S_1$-$R_{1i^{*}}$ and $S_2$-$R_{2i^{*}}$ respectively. Derivation of $p_{out_1}$: -------------------------- The outage probability $p_{out_1}$ is defined as follows: [rCl]{} p\_[out\_1]{} &=& {\_1 &lt; \_[th]{}}, \[eq: p\_OS1\_def\] where $\gamma_{th} = 2^{R}-1$. For notational convenience, we define random variable $X = \displaystyle \max_{i \in [1,L]}[|h_{1i}|^2]$. Clearly, it has cumulative distribution function (CDF) $F_X(x) = (1 - e^{\lambda_{11}x})^L$. Thus, $p_{out_1}$ can be rewritten and evaluated as under: [rCl]{} p\_[out\_1]{} &=& {X &lt; ()\_[th]{}|g\_[2i\^[\*]{}]{}|\^2 + |g\_[1P]{}|\^2 } [rCl]{} &=&\ &=& , \[eq: p\_OS1\_1\] where $\mathbb{E}[.]$ denotes the expectation over random variables $|g_{1P}|^2$, $|g_{2P}|^2$ and $|g_{2i^{*}}|^2$. We evaluate $p_{out_1}$ by successive averaging over random variables $|g_{2i^{*}}|^2$, $|g_{2P}|^2$ and $|g_{1P}|^2$ using standard integrals [@gradshteyn2007 eq.(3.353.5)] and [@geller1969table eq.(4.2.17)]. A final closed form expression for $p_{out_1}$ can be derived as follows (details omitted due to space limitations): [rCl]{} p\_[out\_1]{} &=& 1 - \_[j=1]{}\^[L]{}(-1)\^[j+1]{} . \[eq: p\_OS1\_final\] Derivation of $p_{out_2}$: -------------------------- The outage probability $p_{out_2}$ is defined as follows: [rCl]{} p\_[out\_2]{} &=& {\_2 &lt; \_[th]{}}. \[eq: p\_OS2\_def\] Due to the identical nature of SINR-s of $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$, $p_{out_2}$ in can be derived in the same manner as $p_{out_1}$, whose final closed form expression is shown as follows: [rCl]{} p\_[out\_2]{} &=& 1 - \_[k=1]{}\^[M]{}(-1)\^[k+1]{} . \[eq: p\_OS2\_final\] Optimal Power Allocation and Critical Target Rate ================================================= Our objective is to find the optimum $\alpha$ (denoted by $\alpha^{*}$) that maximizes $\tau_{sum}$. From , it is clear that $\alpha^{*} = \arg \displaystyle \max_{\alpha}(\tau_{sum})$. In normal mode of operation, the interference channel variances are small ($\mu_{1P}$ and $\mu_{2P}$ are large) so that $\lambda_{11}<<\mu_{1P}I_P$ and $\lambda_{22}<<\mu_{2P}I_P$. Hence, the terms $\frac{\lambda_{11}j\gamma_{th}\sigma_n^2}{\mu_{1P}\alpha I_P}$ and $\frac{\lambda_{22}k\gamma_{th}\sigma_n^2}{\mu_{2P}(1-\alpha) I_P}$ in and respectively are small quantities for practical values of target rates and can be ignored. (Computing $\alpha^{*}$ for high target rates is not required, as would become apparent in subsequent discussions.) Thus $p_{out_1}$ and $p_{out_2}$ reduce to the following form with $x = \frac{\mu_{2P}\lambda_{11}}{\mu_{1P}\mu_{21}}(\frac{1-\alpha}{\alpha})$ and $y = \frac{\mu_{1P}\lambda_{22}}{\mu_{2P}\mu_{12}}(\frac{\alpha}{1-\alpha})$: [rCl]{} p\_[out\_1]{} && \_[j=1]{}\^[L]{}(-1)\^[j+1]{}\_[th]{} xj,\ && p\_[out\_2]{} \_[k=1]{}\^[M]{}(-1)\^[k+1]{}\_[th]{} yk.\ \[eq: IP\_approx\_asymptote\] Using the first order rational approximation for logarithm [@Topsoe] $\ln(z)\approx \frac{2(z-1)}{(z+1)}$ in , which is close to (or follows) the logarithm function for a large range of $z$ (and also used in underlay literature [@ChakrabortyPrakriya2017]), $z\frac{(z-\ln(z)-1)}{(1-z)^2}\approx\frac{z}{z+1}$. Hence, $p_{out_i}, i \in \{1,2\}$ in can further be approximated as: [rCl]{} p\_[out\_1]{} && 1 - \_[j=1]{}\^[L]{}(-1)\^[j+1]{},\ && p\_[out\_2]{} 1- \_[k=1]{}\^[M]{}(-1)\^[k+1]{}. \[eq: IP\_and\_log\_approx\_asymptote\] Obtaining $\alpha^{*}$ for general $L$ and $M$ is mathematically tedious, and can be evaluated offline by numerical search[^2]. However, we present a closed form $\alpha^{*}$ for the special case when $L=M=1$. By taking the first derivative of $\tau_{sum}$ with respect to $\alpha$ using $p_{out_1}$ and $p_{out_2}$ in , and equating it to zero, a closed form $\alpha^{*}$ can be obtained[^3] with the root in \[0,1\] being: [rCl]{} \^[\*]{} && . \[eq: alpha\_opt\] By taking the second derivative of $\tau_{sum}$ with respect to $\alpha$, and upon substitution of $\alpha^{*}$ from , an expression is obtained, which can either be positive or negative depending on the value of $\gamma_{th}$ (details are omitted due to space constraints). By equating the expression to zero and solving for $\gamma_{th}$ (or equivalently for $R$), a closed form expression of critical target rate $R=R_{c}$ (for $L=M=1$) can be obtained$^3$ as: [rCl]{} R\_[c]{} && \_[2]{}(1 + ). \[eq: critical\_rate\] When $R<R_c$, $\tau_{sum}$ is concave with respect to $\alpha$ and concurrent transmission offers higher throughput. When $R>R_c$, switching to single secondary transmission is optimal, as $\tau_{sum}$ is convex with respect to $\alpha$. For a generalized $L$ and $M$ users, $R_c$ and $\alpha^{*}$ can be evaluated by an offline numerical search$^2$. For larger $L$ and $M$ (multiple secondary users in each network), when a round robin scheduling scheme is used, the channel characteristics are exponential (same as when $L=M=1$), and (\[eq: alpha\_opt\]) and (\[eq: critical\_rate\]) are valid for $\alpha^{*}$ and $R_{c}$. We emphasize that $R_c$ and $\alpha^{*}$ both depend only on statistical channel parameters and do not require real-time computation. Simulation Results ================== In this section, we present simulation results to validate the derived expressions and bring out useful insights. We assume $\mathbb{E}[|h_{ij}|^2] \propto d_{ii}^{-\phi}$, $d_{ii}$ being the normalized distance between the transmitter and intended receiver in cluster $i$, where $i \in \{1,2\}$ and $j \in \{L,M\}$. Again, $\mathbb{E}[|g_{ij}|^2] \propto r_{ij}^{-\phi}$ is assumed, where $r_{ij}$ is the normalized distance between the transmitter of cluster $i$ to the receiver of cluster $j$, where, $i \in \{1,2\}$ and $j \in \{L,M,P\}$. The pass-loss exponent is denoted by $\phi$ (assumed to be $3$ in this paper). In Fig. 2 we plot $\tau_{sum}$ vs $\alpha$ for different target rates. The system parameters chosen are as follows: $d_{11} = 2$ units, $d_{22} = 1$ unit, $r_{1P} = r_{2P} = 3$ units, $r_{12} = 4$ units, $r_{21} = 3$ units. $L=M=1$ and $I_P = 20 dB$ is assumed. When target rates are below $R_c=3.9724$ (as calculated from ), there is an improvement in sum throughput of the order of $1$ bpcu when optimum $\alpha$ is chosen using concurrent transmission. If $R$ exceeds $R_c$, switching to single secondary network is best. This happens because with high target rates, both user pairs suffer link outages, and mutual interferences further degrades performance. Switching to a single network not only improves transmit power, but also nullifies the interference from the other network, which cumulatively improve outage and throughput performance. In Fig. 3 we plot $\tau_{sum}$ vs $\alpha$ assuming $L=M=1$ for varying channel parameters, target rates and ITL to show that $\alpha^{*}$ as evaluated in gives a fairly accurate and robust measure of optimal ITL apportioning between $S_1$ and $S_2$, and improves sum throughput performance. The system parameters chosen for the first plot are as follows: $d_{11} = 1$ unit, $d_{22} = 2$ units, $r_{1P} = 4$ units, $r_{2P} = 3$ units, $r_{12} = 3$ units, $r_{21} = 3.5$ units and $I_P$ is chosen as $10 dB$. $R=1$ is assumed to ensure that $R<R_c=3.7037$ (so that concurrent transmission is advantageous). $\alpha^{*}=0.1058$ is obtained from . In the second plot, we assume the following parameters: $d_{11} = 2$ unit, $d_{22} = 1$ units, $r_{1P} = 3$ units, $r_{2P} = 4$ units, $r_{12} = 4$ units, $r_{21} = 3$ units and $I_P$ is chosen as $25 dB$. $R=2$ is assumed to ensure that $R<R_c=3.9724$ (so that concurrent transmission is advantageous). $\alpha^{*}=0.9117$ is obtained from . We note, for symmetric channel conditions, $ie$ $\lambda_{11}=\lambda_{22}$, $\mu_{12}=\mu_{21}$ and $\mu_{1P}=\mu_{2P}$, $\alpha^{*}=0.5$, implying equal resource allocation between $S_1$ and $S_2$. In addition we have the following observations: 1) $\alpha$ decreases when the ratio $\frac{\mu_{1P}}{\mu_{2P}}$ increases, or when $S_2$ is closer to the primary than $S_1$. This implies throughput can be maximized if more power is allocated to $S_2$ (thereby improving its outage), as $S_1$ has a weaker channel to primary (has more available power) and can meet its outage requirement with less transmit power. 2) $\alpha$ decreases with increase in $\frac{\lambda_{22}}{\lambda_{11}}$. In other words, when $S_1$-$R_{1i^{*}}$ channel is better than $S_2$-$R_{2i^{*}}$, $S_1$ is able to meet its outage requirement with less power, and more power needs to be allocated to $S_2$ to improve performance. 3) $\alpha$ decreases with the ratio $\frac{\mu_{21}}{\mu_{12}}$, or when the channel between $S_1$ to $R_{2i^{*}}$ is better than the channel between $S_2$ to $R_{1i^{*}}$. Thus, allocating more power to $S_2$ causes less interference to users of $S_1$, which improves the overall throughput. In Fig. 4, we plot $\tau_{sum}$ in vs $R$ and show the effect of number of users in the two networks on sum throughput performance with concurrent transmissions. We choose parameters as follows: $d_{11} = d_{22} = 1$ unit, $r_{1P} = r_{2P} = 3$ units and $r_{12} = r_{21} = 3$ units. $\alpha=0.5$ and $I_P = 20 dB$ is chosen. Clearly, $\tau_{sum}$ increases with $L$ and $M$. From , it is also clear that $R_c$ increases with user selection (this $R_c$ refers to a network having generalized $L$ and $M$ users, which is not derived in this paper. However, intuitively it is clear that user selection statistically improves the main channels, thereby increasing $R_c$ as in ), which causes a rightward shift of the peaks of $\tau_{sum}$. As also evident from earlier discussions, $\tau_{sum}$ first increases and then decreases after a certain critical rate as both $S_1$-$R_{1i^{*}}$ and $S_2$-$R_{2i^{*}}$ links start to suffer from outages, thereby decreasing the overall throughput performance with concurrent transmissions. Conclusion ========== In this paper we analyze the sum throughput performance of two co-existing underlay multiuser secondary downlink networks utilizing fixed-rate transmissions. In the single user scenario, or in a multiuser scenario without opportunistic user selection, we establish that there exists a fixed critical rate beyond which co-existing secondary networks results in lower throughput. During concurrent secondary transmissions, we establish that user selection as well as judicious interference temperature apportioning, can increase throughput performance. Acknowledgment ============== This work was supported by Information Technology Research Academy through sponsored project ITRA/15(63)/Mobile/MBSSCRN/01. The authors thank Dr. Chinmoy Kundu for his inputs on this work. [^1]: Although primary and secondary networks are often assumed to be licensed and unlicensed users respectively, this need not always be the case. They can indeed be users of the same network transmitting concurrently to increase spectrum utilization efficiency. The same logic extends to two co-existing secondary networks. This eliminates most of the difficulties associated with interference channel estimation, security, etc. [^2]: We note that there is no dependence on instantaneous channel estimates. [^3]: We will present a detailed proof in the extended version of this paper.

ArXiv

--- abstract: | Forbidden characterizations may sometimes be the most natural way to describe families of graphs, and yet these characterizations are usually very hard to exploit for enumerative purposes. By building on the work of Gioan and Paul (2012) and Chauve et al. (2014), we show a methodology by which we constrain a split-decomposition tree to avoid certain patterns, thereby avoiding the corresponding induced subgraphs in the original graph. We thus provide the grammars and full enumeration for a wide set of graph classes: ptolemaic, block, and variants of cactus graphs (2,3-cacti, 3-cacti and 4-cacti). In certain cases, no enumeration was known (ptolemaic, 4-cacti); in other cases, although the enumerations were known, an abundant potential is unlocked by the grammars we provide (in terms of asymptotic analysis, random generation, and parameter analyses, etc.). We believe this methodology here shows its potential; the natural next step to develop its reach would be to study split-decomposition trees which contain certain prime nodes. This will be the object of future work. author: - 'Maryam Bahrani[^1]' - Jérémie Lumbroso bibliography: - 'article2.bib' title: | Enumerations, Forbidden Subgraph Characterizations,\ and the Split-Decomposition --- Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered} ============ Many important families of graphs can be defined (sometimes exclusively) through a *forbidden graph characterization*. These characterizations exist in several flavors: 1. *Forbidden minors*, in which we try to avoid certain subgraphs from appearing after arbitrary edge contractions and vertex deletion. 2. *Forbidden subgraphs*, in which we try to avoid certain subgraphs from appearing as subsets of the vertices and edges of a graph. 3. *Forbidden induced subgraphs*, in which we try to avoid certain induced subgraphs from appearing (that is we pick a subset of vertices, and use all edges with both endpoints in that subset). As far as we know, while these notions are part and parcel of the work of graph theorists, they are usually not exploited by analytic combinatorists. For forbidden minors, there is the penetrating article of Bousquet-Mélou and Weller [@BoWe14]. For forbidden subgraphs or forbidden induced subgraphs, we know of few papers, except because of the simple nature of graphs [@RaTh01], or because some other, alternate property is used instead [@CaWo03], or only asymptotics are determined [@RaTh04]. We are concerned, in this paper, with *forbidden induced subgraphs*. Split-decomposition and forbidden induced subgraphs. {#split-decomposition-and-forbidden-induced-subgraphs. .unnumbered} ---------------------------------------------------- Chauve  [@ChFuLu14] observed that relatively well-known graph decomposition, called the *split-decomposition*, could be a fruitful means to enumerate a certain class called *distance-hereditary graphs*, of which the enumeration had until then not been known (since the best known result was the bound from Nakano  [@NaUeUn09], which stated that there are at most $\cramped{2^{\lfloor 3.59n\rfloor}}$ unlabeled distance-hereditary graphs on $n$ vertices). In addition, the reformulated version of this split-decomposition introduced by Paul and Gioan, with internal graph labels, considerably improved the legibility of the split-decomposition tree. We have discovered, and we try to showcase in this paper, that the split-decomposition is a very convenient tool by which to find induced subpatterns: although various connected portions of the graphs may be broken down into far apart blocks in the split-decomposition tree, the property that there is an *alternated path* between any two vertices that are connected in the original graph is very powerful, and as we show in Section \[sec:forbidden\] of this paper, allows to deduce constraints following the appearance of an induced pattern or subgraph. Outline of paper. {#outline-of-paper. .unnumbered} ----------------- In Section \[sec:preliminaries\], we introduce all the definitions and preliminary notions that we need for this paper to be relatively self-contained (although it is based heavily in work introduced by Chauve  [@ChFuLu14]). In Section \[sec:forbidden\], we introduced a collection of bijective lemmas, which translate several forbidden patterns (a cycle with 4 vertices, a diamond, cliques, a pendant vertex and a bridge, all illustrated in Figure \[fig:forbidden\]) into constraints on the split-decomposition tree of a graph. In each of the subsequent setions, we show how these constraints can be used to express a formal symbolic grammar that describes the constrained tree—and by so doing, we obtain grammar for the associated class of graphs. We start by studying block graphs in Section \[sec:block\], because their structure is sufficiently constrained as to yield a relatively simple grammar. We then study ptolemaic graphs in Section \[sec:ptolemaic\] (which allows us to showcase how to use the symbolic grammar to save “state” information, since we have to remember the provenance of the hierarchy of each node to determine whether it has a center as a starting point). And we finally look at some varieties of cactus graphs in Section \[sec:cactus\]. Finally, in Section \[sec:conclusion\], we conclude and introduce possible future directions in which to continue this work.      Definitions and Preliminaries\[sec:preliminaries\] ================================================== In this rather large section, we introduce standard definitions from graph theory (\[subs:def-graph\] to \[subs:split\]) and analytic combinatorics (\[subs:FS\]), and then present a summary of the work of Chauve  [@ChFuLu14] (\[subs:split-grammars\]), as well as summary of how they used the dissymmetry theorem, introduced by Bergeron  [@BeLaLe98] (\[subs:dissymmetry\]). Graph definitions.\[subs:def-graph\] ------------------------------------ For a graph $G$, we denote by $V(G)$ its vertex set and $E(G)$ its edge set. Moreover, for a vertex $x$ of a graph $G$, we denote by $N(x)$ the neighbourhood of $x$, that is the set of vertices $y$ such that $\{x,y\}\in E(G)$; this notion extends naturally to vertex sets: if $\cramped{V_1}\subseteq V(G)$, then $N(\cramped{V_1})$ is the set of vertices defined by the (non-disjoint) union of the neighbourhoods of the vertices in $\cramped{V_1}$. Finally, the subgraph of $G$ induced by a subset $\cramped{V_1}$ of vertices is denoted by $G[\cramped{V_1}]$. Given a graph $G$ and vertices $(u,v) \in \cramped{V(G)^2}$ in the same connected component of $G$, the distance between $u$ and $v$ denoted by $\cramped{d_G}(u, v)$ is defined as the length of the shortest path between $u$ and $v$. A graph on $n$ vertices is *labeled* if its vertices are identified with the set $\{1,\dots,$ $n\}$, with no two vertices having the same label. A graph is *unlabeled* if its vertices are indistinguishable. A clique on $k$ vertices, denoted $\cramped{K_k}$ is the complete graph on $k$ vertices (*i.e.*, there exists an edge between every pair of vertices). A star on $k$ vertices, denoted $\cramped{S_k}$, is the graph with one vertex of degree $k-1$ (the *center* of the star) and $k-1$ vertices of degree $1$ (the *extremities* of the star). Special graph classes.\[subs:graph-classes\] -------------------------------------------- The following two graph classes are important because they are supersets of the classes we study in this paper. \[def:graph-dh\] A connected graph $G$ is *distance-hereditary* if for every induced subgraph $H$ and every $(u,v) \in \cramped{V(H)^2}$, $\cramped{d_G}(u,v) = \cramped{d_H}(u,v)$. \[def:graph-chordal\] A connected graph is *chordal*, or *triangulated*, or $\cramped{C_{\geqslant 4}}$-free, if every cycle of length at least 4 has a chord. Split-decomposition.\[subs:split\] ---------------------------------- We first introduce the notion of *graph-labeled tree*, due to Gioan and Paul [@GiPa12], then define the split-decomposition and finally give the characterization of a *reduced* split-decomposition tree, described as a graph-labeled tree. \[def:glt\] A graph-labeled tree $(T,\cls{F})$ is a tree $T$ in which every internal node $v$ of degree $k$ is labeled by a graph $\cramped{G_v} \in \cls{F} $ on $k$ vertices, called *marker vertices*, such that there is a bijection $\cramped{\rho_v}$ from the edges of $T$ incident to $v$ to the vertices of $\cramped{G_v}$. For example, in Figure \[fig:ex-split\] the internal nodes of $T$ are denoted with large circles, the marker vertices are denoted with small hollow circles, the leaves of $T$ are denoted with small solid circles, and the bijection $\cramped{\rho_v}$ is denoted by each edge that crosses the boundary of an internal node and ends at a marker vertex. Importantly, the graph labels of these internal nodes are for convenience alone—indeed the split-decomposition tree itself is unlabeled. However as we will see in this paper, these graph-labeled trees are a powerful tool by which to look at the structure of the original graph they describe. Some elements of terminology have been summarized in Figure \[fig:split-terminology\], as these are frequently referenced in the proofs of Section \[sec:forbidden\]. Let $(T, \cls{F})$ be a graph-labeled tree and let $\ell, \ell'\in V(T)$ be leaves of $T$. We say that there is an *alternated path* between $\ell$ and $\ell'$, if there exists a path from $\ell$ to $\ell'$ in $T$ such that for any adjacent edges $e = \uedge{u,v}$ and $e' = \uedge{v,w}$ on the path, ${\ensuremath{(\cramped{\rho_v}(e),\cramped{\rho_v}(e'),\in)}} E(\cramped{G_v})$. \[def:split-originalgraph\] The *original graph*, also called *accessibility graph*, of a graph-labeled tree $(T, \cls{F})$ is the graph $G = G(T, \cls{F})$ where $V(G)$ is the leaf set of $T$ and, for $x, y\in V(G)$, $(x,y)\in E(G)$ iff $x$ and $y$ are accessible in $(T, \cls{F})$. Figures \[fig:ex-split\] and \[fig:split-terminology\] illustrate the concept of alternated path: it is, more informally, a path that only ever uses at most one interior edge of graph-label. \[def:split\] A *split* [@Cunningham82] of a graph $G$ with vertex set $V$ is a bipartition $(\cramped{V_1},\cramped{V_2})$ of $V$ (*i.e.*, $V=\cramped{V_1}\cup V_2$, $\cramped{V_1}\cap \cramped{V_2}=\emptyset$) such that 1. $|V_1|\geqslant 2$ and $|V_2|\geqslant 2$; 2. every vertex of $N(V_1)$ is adjacent to every of $N(V_2)$. A graph without any split is called a *prime* graph. A graph is *degenerate* if any partition of its vertices without a singleton part is a split: cliques and stars are the only such graphs. Informally, the split-decomposition of a graph $G$ consists in finding a split $(\cramped{V_1}, \cramped{V_2})$ in $G$, followed by decomposing $G$ into two graphs $\cramped{G_1}=G[\cramped{V_1}\cup \{\cramped{x_1}\}]$ where $\cramped{x_1}\in N(\cramped{V_1})$ and $\cramped{G_2}=G[\cramped{V_2}\cup \{\cramped{x_2}\}]$ where $\cramped{x_1}\in N(\cramped{V_2})$ and then recursively decomposing $\cramped{G_1}$ and $\cramped{G_2}$. This decomposition naturally defines an unrooted tree structure of which the internal vertices are labeled by degenerate or prime graphs and whose leaves are in bijection with the vertices of $G$, called a *split-decomposition tree*. A split-decomposition tree $(T,\mathcal{F})$ with $\mathcal{F}$ containing only cliques with at least three vertices and stars with at least three vertices is called a *clique-star tree*[^2] It can be shown that the split-decomposition tree of a graph might not be unique (*i.e.*, several sequences of decompositions of a given graph can lead to different split-decomposition trees), but following Cunningham [@Cunningham82], we obtain the following uniqueness result, reformulated in terms of graph-labeled trees by Gioan and Paul [@GiPa12]. \[thm:cunningham\] For every connected graph $G$, there exists a unique split-decomposition tree such that: 1. every non-leaf node has degree at least three; 2. no tree edge links two vertices with clique labels; 3. no tree edge links the center of a star-node to the extremity of another star-node. Such a tree is called *reduced*, and this theorem establishes a one-to-one correspondence between graphs and their reduced split-decomposition trees. So enumerating the split-decomposition trees of a graph class provides an enumeration for the corresponding graph class, and we rely on this property in the following sections. Figure \[fig:reduced\] demonstrates the *star-join* and *clique-join* operations which respectively allow trees that do not verify conditions (b) and (c) to be further reduced—in terms of number of internal nodes. \[lem:dh-split-characterization\] A graph is *distance-hereditary* if and only its split-decomposition tree is a clique-star tree. For this reason, distance-hereditary graphs are called *totally decomposable* with respect to the split-decomposition. Decomposable structures.\[subs:FS\] ----------------------------------- In order to enumerate classes of split-decomposition trees, we use the framework of decomposable structures, described by Flajolet and Sedgewick [@FlSe09]. We refer the reader to this book for details and outline below the basic idea. We denote by $\clsAtom$ the combinatorial family composed of a single object of size $1$, usually called *atom* (in our case, these refer to a leaf of a split-decomposition tree, *i.e.*, a vertex of the corresponding graph). Given two disjoint families $\cls{A}$ and $\cls{B}$ of combinatorial objects, we denote by $\cls{A} + \cls{B}$ the *disjoint union* of the two families and by $\cls{A} \times \cls{B}$ the *Cartesian product* of the two families. Finally, we denote by $\Set{\cls{A}}$ (resp. $\cramped{\Set[\geqslant k]{\cls{A}}}$, $\cramped{\Set[k]{\cls{A}}}$) the family defined as all sets (resp. sets of size at least $k$, sets of size exactly $k$) of objects from ${\cls{A}}$, and by $\cramped{\Seq[\geqslant k]{\cls{A}}}$, the family defined as all sequences of at least $k$ objects from ${\cls{A}}$. Split-decomposition trees expressed symbolically. \[subs:split-grammars\] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- While approaching graph enumeration from the perspective of tree decomposition is not a new idea (the recursively decomposable nature of trees makes them well suited to enumeration), Chauve  [@ChFuLu14] brought specific focus to Cunningham’s split-decomposition. Their way of describing constrained split-decomposition trees with decomposable grammars is the starting point of this paper, so we briefly outline their method here. #### Example Let us consider the split-decomposition tree of Figure \[fig:ex-split-glt\], and illustrate how this tree[^3] can be expressed recursively as a rooted tree. Suppose the tree is rooted at vertex 5. Assigning a root immediately defines a direction for all tree edges, which can be thought of as oriented away from the root. Starting from the root, we can set out to traverse the tree in the direction of the edges, one internal node at a time. We start at the root, vertex 5. The first internal node we encounter is a star-node, and since we are entering it from the star’s center, we have to describe what is on each of its two remaining extremities. On one of the extremities there is a leaf, 6; on the other, there is another split-decomposition subtree, of which the first internal node we encounter happens to be another star-node. This time, we enter the star-node through one of its extremity. So we must describe what is connected to its center and its remaining extremities (of which there is only one). Both of these are connected to smaller split-decomposition trees: the extremity is connected itself to a clique-node, which we enter through one of its undistinguished edges (leaving the two other to go to leaves, 7 and 8); the center of the star-node is connected to a prime node, and so on. #### Grammar description Now, to describe this tree symbolically, let’s consider the rule for star-nodes (assuming we are, unlike in the tree of Figure \[fig:ex-split-glt\], in a clique-star tree that has no prime internal nodes). First assume like at the beginning of our example, that we enter a star-node through its center: we have to describe what the extremities can be connected to. According to Cunningham’s Theorem: we know that there are at least two extremities (since every non-leaf node has degree at least three); and we know that the star-node’s extremities *cannot* be connected to the center of another star-node. We call $\cramped{\cls[C]{S}}$ a split-decomposition tree that is traversed starting at a star-node entered through its center. We have $$\begin{aligned} \cls[C]{S} = \Set[\geqslant 2]{\clsAtom + \cls{K} + \cls[X]{S}}\end{aligned}$$ because indeed, we have at least two extremities, which are not ordered—so $\cramped{\Set[\geqslant 2]{\ldots}}$—and each of these extremities can either lead to a leaf, $\clsAtom$, a clique-node entered through any edge, $\cls{K}$, and a star-node *entered through one of its extremities*, $\cramped{\cls[X]{S}}$. For a star-node entered through its extremity, we have a similar definition, with a twist, $$\begin{aligned} \cls[X]{S} &= \left(\clsAtom +\cls{K}+\cls[C]{S}\right)\times \Set[\geqslant 1]{\clsAtom + \cls{K} + \cls[X]{S}}\end{aligned}$$ because the center—which can lead to a leaf, $\clsAtom$, a clique-node, $\cls{K}$, or a star-node entered through its center, $\cramped{\cls[C]{S}}$—is distinct from the extremities (which, from the perspective of the star-node itself, are undistinguishable). We thus express the subtree connected through the center as separate from those connected through the extremities: this is the reason for the Cartesian product (rather than strictly using non-ordered constructions such as $\Set$). #### Conventions As explained above, we use rather similar notations to describe the combinatorial classes that arise from decomposing split-decomposition trees. These notations are summarized in Table \[tab:symbols\], and the most frequently used are: - $\cls{K}$ is a clique-node entered through one of its edges; - $\cramped{\cls[C]{S}}$ is a star-node entered through its center; - $\cramped{\cls[X]{S}}$ is a star-node entered through one of its extremities. Furthermore because we provide grammars for tree classes that are both rooted and unrooted, we use some notation for clarity. In particular, we use $\cramped{\clsAtom_{\bullet}}$ to denote the *rooted vertex*, although this object does not differ in any way from any other atom $\clsAtom$. #### Terminology In the rest of this paper, we describe the combinatorial class $\cramped{\cls[X]{S}}$ as representing a “*a star-node entered through an extremity*”, but others may have alternate descriptions: such as “*a star-node linked to its parent by an extremity*”; or such as Iriza [@Iriza15], “*a star-node with the subtree incident to one of its extremities having been removed*”—all these descriptions are equivalent (but follow different viewpoints). The dissymmetry theorem.\[subs:dissymmetry\] -------------------------------------------- All the grammars produced by this methodology are *rooted* grammars: the trees are described as starting at a root, and branching out to leaves—yet the split-decomposition trees are not rooted, since they decompose graphs which are themselves not rooted. If we were limiting ourselves to *labeled* objects[^4], it would be simple to move from a rooted object to an unrooted one, because there are exactly $n$ ways to root a tree with $n$ labeled leaves. But because we allow the graphs (and associated split-decomposition trees) to be *unlabeled*, some symmetries make the transition to unrooted objects less straightforward. While this problem has received considerable attention since Pólya [@Polya37; @PoRe87], Otter [@Otter48] and others [@HaUh53], we choose to follow the lead of Chauve  [@ChFuLu14], and appeal to a more recent result, the *dissymmetry theorem*. This theorem was introduced by Bergeron  [@BeLaLe98] in terms of ordered and unordered pairs of trees, and was eventually reformulated in a more elegant manner, for instance by Flajolet and Sedgewick [@FlSe09 VII.26 p. 481] or Chapuy  [@ChFuKaSh08 §3]. It states $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:dissymmetry} \cls{A} + {\cls{A}}_{\mDEdge} \simeq {\cls{A}}_{\mNode} + {\cls{A}}_{\mEdge}\end{aligned}$$ where $\cls{A}$ is the unrooted class of trees, and $\cramped{{\cls{A}}_{\mNode}}$, $\cramped{{\cls{A}}_{\mEdge}}$, $\cramped{{\cls{A}}_{\mDEdge}}$ are the rooted classes of trees respectively where only the root is distinguished, an edge from the root is distinguished, and a directed, outgoing edge from the root is distinguished. The proof is straightforward, see Drmota [@HoECDrmota15 §4.3.3, p. 293], and involves the notion of *center* of a tree.   \    For more details on the dissymmetry theorem, see Chauve  [@ChFuLu14 §2.2 and §3]. We will content ourselves with some summary remarks: - The process of applying the dissymmetry theorem involves *rerooting* the trees described by a grammar in every possible way. Indeed, the trees obtained from our methodology will initially be rooted at their *leaves*. For the dissymmetry theorem, we re-express the grammar of the tree in all possible ways it can be rooted. - A particularity of the dissymmetry theorem is that in this rerooting process, we can completely ignore leaves [@ChFuLu14 Lemma 1], as the effect of doing this cancels out in the subtraction of Eq. : \[lem:no-leaves\] In the dissymmetry theorem for trees, when rerooting at the nodes (or atoms) of a combinatorial tree-like class $\cls{A}$, leaves can be ignored. - In terms of notation, we systematically refer to $\cls[\omega]{T}$ as trees re-rooted in a node (or edge) of type $\omega$. Often these rerooted trees present the distinct characteristic that, unlike the trees described in the rooted grammars, they are not “missing a subtree.” Thus the combinatorial class $\cramped{\cls[S]{T}}$ refers to a split-decomposition tree (of some graph family) that is rerooted at star-nodes: in this context, we must account both for the center, and at least two extremities. - This is a relatively simple theorem to apply; the downside is that it only yields an equality of the coefficient, but it loses the symbolic meaning of a grammar. This is a problem when using the tools of analytic combinatorics [@FlSe09], in particular those having to do with random generation [@FlZiVa94; @DuFlLoSc04; @FlFuPi07]. - An alternate tool to unroot combinatorial classes, *cycle-pointing* [@BoFuKaVi11], does not have this issue: it is a combinatorial operation (rather than algebraic one), and it allows for the creation of random samplers for a class. However it is more complex to use, though Iriza [@Iriza15] has already applied it to the distance-hereditary and 3-leaf power grammars of Chauve  [@ChFuLu14]. Characterization & Forbidden Subgraphs\[sec:forbidden\] ======================================================= In this section, we provide a set of bijective lemmas that characterize the split-decomposition tree of a graph that avoids any of the forbidden induced subgraphs of Figure \[fig:forbidden\]. Elementary lemmas. ------------------ We first provide three simple lemmas, which essentially have to do with the fact that the split-decomposition tree is a *tree*. Their proofs are provided in Appendix \[app:proof-tree-lemmas\], and notably are still valid in the presence of prime nodes (*i.e.*, these elementary lemmas would still apply to a split-decomposition tree that while reduced, is not purely a clique-star tree—even though those are the only trees that we work with in the context of this paper). \[lem:alternated-paths\] Let $G$ be a totally decomposable graph with the reduced clique-star split-decomposition tree $T$, any maximal[^5] alternated path starting from any node in $V(T)$ ends in a leaf. \[lem:alternated-paths-disjoint\] Let $G$ be a totally decomposable graph with the reduced clique-star split-decomposition tree $T$ and let $u\in V(T)$ be an internal node. Any two maximal alternated paths $P$ and $Q$ that start at distinct marker vertices of $u$ but contain no interior edges from $\cramped{G_u}$ end at distinct leaves. \[lem:split-induced-clique\] Let $G$ be a totally decomposable graph with the reduced clique-star split-decomposition tree $T$. If $T$ has a clique-node of degree $n$, then $G$ has a corresponding induced clique on (at least) $n$ vertices. Forbidden subgraphs lemmas -------------------------- \[def:center-center\] Let $G$ be a totally decomposable graph with the reduced clique-star split-decomposition tree $T$. A *center-center path* in $T$ is an alternated path $P$, such that the endpoints of $P$ are centers of star-nodes $(u, v) \in \cramped{V(T)^2}$ and $P$ does not contain any interior edge of either star-node. \[lem:split-characterization-c4\] Let $G$ be a totally decomposable graph with the reduced clique-star split-decomposition tree $T$. $G$ does not have any induced $\cramped{C_4}$ if and only if $T$ does not have any center-center paths. [\[$\Rightarrow$\]]{}  Let $T$ be a clique-star tree with a center-center path $P$ between the centers of two star-nodes $u,v\in V(T)$; we will show that the accessibility graph $G(T)$ has an induced $\cramped{C_4}$. Let $\cramped{c_u}\in\cramped{G_u}$ and $\cramped{c_v}\in\cramped{G_v}$ be the endpoints of $P$. Since $T$ is assumed to be a reduced split-decomposition tree (Theorem \[thm:cunningham\]), $u$ and $v$ have degree at least three and thus $\cramped{G_u}$ and $\cramped{G_u}$ have at least two extremities. Therefore, there are at least two maximal alternated paths out of $u$ (resp. $v$), each beginning at an extremity of $\cramped{G_u}$ (resp. $\cramped{G_v}$) and not using any interior edges of $\cramped{G_u}$ (resp. $\cramped{G_v}$). By Lemma \[lem:alternated-paths-disjoint\], these paths end at distinct leaves $a,b\in V(T)$ (resp. $c,d\in V(T)$), as shown in Figure \[fig:split-subpattern-C4\]. Now consider the accessibility graph $G$ of $T$. First, we observe that the pairs[^6] $(a,c)$, $(a,d)$, $(b,c)$, $(b,d)$ all belong to the edge set of $G$. We will show this for the edge $(a,c)$ by extending $P$ into an alternated path in $T$ from $a$ to $c$. The argument extends symmetrically to the other three edges. Let $\cramped{P_a}$ be the alternated path between $a$ and an extremity of $\cramped{G_u}$, and let $\cramped{P_c}$ be the alternated path between $c$ and an extremity of $\cramped{G_v}$. To show $(a,c)\in E(G)$, we extend $P$ into the following alternated path: $$\begin{aligned} P_a, c_u, P, c_v, P_c \end{aligned}$$ We next observe that $(a,b)$ and symmetrically $(c,d)$ cannot belong to the edge set of G. Since $T$ is a tree, there is a unique path in $T$ between $a$ and $b$, which passes through $u$. This unique path must use two interior edges within $\cramped{G_u}$ and therefore cannot be alternated. Consequently, $(a,b)\not\in E(G)$. It can be shown by a similar argument that $(c,d)\not\in E(G)$. Therefore, the induced subgraph of $G$ consisting of $a,b,c,d$ is a $\cramped{C_4}$ illustrated in Figure \[fig:split-subpattern-C4\].  [\[$\Leftarrow$\]]{}  Let $G$ be a totally decomposable graph with an induced $\cramped{C_4}$ with its vertices arbitrarily labeled $(a,c,b,d)\in V(G)$ as in Figure \[fig:split-subpattern-C4\]. We will show that the reduced split-decomposition tree $T$ of $G$ has a center-center path. First, we will show that there is a star-node $v\in V(T)$ that has alternated paths out of its extremities ending in $c$ and $d$. Since $(a,c),(a,d)\in E(G)$, there must exist alternated paths $\cramped{P_{a,c}}$ and $\cramped{P_{a,d}}$, which begin at the leaf $a$ and end at the leaf $c$ or $d$ respectively. Let $v\in V(T)$ be the internal node that both $\cramped{P_{a,c}}$ and $\cramped{P_{a,d}}$ enter via the same edge $\cramped{\rho_{c_v}}$ but exit via different edges $\cramped{\rho_{x_c}}$ and $\cramped{\rho_{x_d}}$ respectively. We claim that $v$ must be a star-node, such that $\cramped{c_v}$ is its center and $\cramped{x_c}$ and $\cramped{x_d}$ are two of its extremities. It is sufficient to show $(\cramped{x_c},\cramped{x_d})\not\in E(\cramped{G_v})$, which is indeed true because otherwise, we could use that edge and the disjoint parts of $\cramped{P_{a,c}}$ and $\cramped{P_{a,d}}$ to construct the alternated path between $c$ and $d$, contradicting the fact that $(c,d)\not\in E(G)$. Next, we will show that there is a star-node $u\in V(T)$ that has alternated paths out of its extremities ending in $a$ and $b$ and forms a center-center path with $v$. Consider this time the alternated path $\cramped{P_{b,c}}$ between leaves $b$ and $c$, as well as $\cramped{P_{a,c}}$ defined above. Similar to the argument above, let $u\in V(T)$ be the internal node that both $\cramped{P_{a,c}}$ and $\cramped{P_{b,c}}$ enter via the same edge $\cramped{\rho_{c_u}}$ but exit via different edges $\cramped{\rho_{x_a}}$ and $\cramped{\rho_{x_b}}$ respectively. With the same argument outlined above, $u$ must be a star-node, such that $\cramped{c_u}$ is its center and $\cramped{x_a}$ and $\cramped{x_b}$ are two of its extremities. It remains to show that $u$ and $v$ form a center-center path. Suppose $u$ and $v$ do not form a center-center path. Then $u$ must be on the common part of $\cramped{P_{a,c}}$ and $\cramped{P_{b,c}}$ between $\cramped{x_c}$ and $c$. However, in this case, both $u$ and $v$ lie on the unique path $\cramped{P_{b,d}}$ in $T$ between $b$ and $d$, in such a way that $\cramped{P_{b,d}}$ must use two interior edges of both $\cramped{G_u}$ and $\cramped{G_v}$, which is a contradiction since $(b,d)\in E(G)$ (see Figure \[fig:split-subpattern-center-center-C4\]).  Importantly, a *center-center path* is defined as being an alternated path between the centers of two star-nodes, as reflected in Figure \[fig:split-subpattern-center-center-C4\]. In this manner, the definition excludes the possibility that, somewhere on the path between the $\cramped{c_u}$ and $\cramped{c_v}$ marker vertices, there is a star (or for that matter a prime node) which *breaks* the alternating path—in the sense that it requires taking at least two interior edges. But while the definition excludes it, it is a very real possibility to keep in mind when decomposing the grammar of the tree. As we will see in Section \[sec:ptolemaic\] on ptolemaic graphs, specifically for the case of the clique-node $\cls{K}$, we may need to engineer the grammar in such a way that it keeps track of whether a path between two nodes is alternated (or not). \[clique-center\] Let $G$ be a totally decomposable graph with the reduced clique-star split-decomposition tree $T$. A *clique-center path* in $T$ is an alternated path $P$, such that the endpoints of $P$ are the center of a star-node $u\in V(T)$ and a marker vertex of a clique-node $v\in V(T)$ and $P$ does not contain any interior edge of the clique-node or the star-node. \[lem:split-characterization-diamond\] Let $G$ be totally decomposable graph with the reduced clique-star split-decomposition tree $T$. $G$ does not have any induced diamonds if and only if $T$ does not have any induced clique-center paths. [\[$\Rightarrow$\]]{}  Let $T$ be a clique-star tree containing a clique-center path $P$ between the center of a star-node $u\in V(T)$ and a marker vertex of a clique-node $v\in V(T)$. We will show that the accessibility graph $G(T)$ has an induced diamond. Let $\cramped{c_u}\in\cramped{G_u}$ and $\cramped{c_v}\in\cramped{G_v}$ be the endpoints of $P$. By an argument similar to the one in the proof of Lemma \[lem:split-characterization-c4\], it follows from Lemma \[lem:alternated-paths-disjoint\] that there must be at least two disjoint maximal alternated paths out of $u$, each beginning at an extremity of $\cramped{G_u}$ and ending at leaves $a,b\in V(T)$. Similarly, there must be at least two disjoint maximal alternated paths out of the clique-node $v$ ending at leaves $c,d\in V(T)$ (Figure \[fig:split-subpattern-diamond\]). We can now show that this clique-center path translates to an induced diamond in the accessibility graph $G$ of $T$. Given this established labeling of the leaves $a,b,c,d$ and internal nodes $u,v$, the exact same argument outlined in the proof of Lemma \[lem:split-characterization-c4\] directly applies here, showing that $(a,c), (a,d), (b,c), (b,d) \in E(G)$. Similarly, it can be shown that $(a,b)\not\in E(G)$. Where this proof diverges from the proof of Lemma \[lem:split-characterization-c4\] is in the existence of the edge $(c,d)\in E(G)$. This is easy to show: Let $\cramped{x_c},\cramped{x_d}\in V(\cramped{G_v})$ be the marker vertices of the clique-node $v$ that mark the end points of the paths out of $v$ to the leaves $c$ and $d$ respectively[^7]. We have $(c,d)\in E(G)$ by tracing the following alternated path: $c, \cramped{x_c}, \cramped{x_d}, d$ (see Figure \[fig:split-subpattern-diamond\]).  [\[$\Leftarrow$\]]{}  Let $G$ be a totally decomposable graph with an induced diamond on vertices $(a,c,b,d)\in V(G)$ labeled as illustrated in Figure \[fig:split-subpattern-diamond\]. We need to show that the reduced split-decomposition tree $T$ of $G$ has a clique-center path. It can be shown by a similar argument to the proof of Lemma \[lem:split-characterization-c4\] that there must exist a star node $u\in V(T)$ that has alternated paths $\cramped{P_{a,c}}$ and $\cramped{P_{b,c}}$ out of its extremities ending in $a$ and $b$ respectively. Let $\cramped{c_u}\in\cramped{G_u}$ be the center of this star-node. Similarly, we can show that there is a clique-node out of which maximal alternated paths lead to $c$ and $d$. Let $\cramped{P_{a,d}}$ be the unique path in $T$ between leaves $a$ and $d$, and consider the node $v\in V(T)$ where $\cramped{P_{a,c}}$ and $\cramped{P_{a,d}}$ branch apart. Let $\cramped{c_v}\in V(\cramped{G_v})$ denote the marker vertex in common between the two paths, and let $\cramped{x_c}, \cramped{x_d}\in V(\cramped{G_v})$ be the marker vertices out of which $\cramped{P_{a,c}}$ and $\cramped{P_{a,d}}$ exit $v$ respectively. Since $(c,d)\in E(G)$, there must be an alternated path in $T$ between $c$ and $d$ that uses at most one interior edge from $\cramped{G_v}$, so we must have $(\cramped{x_c}, \cramped{x_d})\in E(\cramped{G_v})$. Therefore, $\cramped{G_v}$ has an induced $\cramped{K_3}$ on the marker vertices $\cramped{x_c}$, $\cramped{x_d}$, and $\cramped{c_v}$. Since $T$ is a clique-star tree and $v$ cannot be a star-node, it has to be a clique node. Finally, we need to show that $u$ and $v$ form a clique-center path. This is indeed the case since, if the path $P$ between $u$ and $v$ connected to either extremity of $\cramped{G_u}$, one of the following cases would occur: - $P$ connects to the extremity of $u$ ending in $a$, which implies $(b,c),(b,d)\not\in E(G)$; - $P$ connects to the extremity of $u$ ending in $b$, which implies $(a,c),(a,d)\not\in E(G)$; - $P$ connects to another extremity of $u$ (if one exists), which implies $(a,c),(a,d),(b,c),(b,d)\not\in E(G)$. Since all the above cases contradict the fact that $\set{a,b,c,d}$ induces a diamond in $G$, $P$ must be a clique-center path between $u$ and $v$. \[lem:split-characterization-K4\] Let $G$ be totally decomposable graph with the reduced clique-star split-decomposition tree $T$. $G$ does not contain any induced $\cramped{K_{\geqslant4}}$ subgraphs if and only if $T$ does not have: - any clique-nodes of degree 4 or more; - any alternated paths between different clique-nodes. [\[$\Rightarrow$\]]{}  We will show that for any clique-star tree $T$ breaking either of the conditions of this lemma, the accessibility graph $G(T)$ must have an induced clique on at least 4 vertices as a subgraph. First, suppose $T$ has a clique-node of degree 4 or more. It follows from Lemma \[lem:split-induced-clique\] that $G(T)$ must have an induced $\cramped{K_{\geqslant4}}$ subgraph. Second, suppose there are two clique-nodes $u,v\in V(T)$ connected via an alternated path $P$. Each of $\cramped{G_u}$ and $\cramped{G_v}$ must have at least three marker vertices, one of which belongs to $P$. Therefore, $u$ and $v$ each have at least two marker vertices with outgoing maximal alternated paths that end in two distinct leaves by Lemma \[lem:alternated-paths-disjoint\]. The four leaves at the end of these alternated paths are pairwise adjacent in $G$, thus inducing a $\cramped{K_4}$. [\[$\Leftarrow$\]]{}  Let $G$ be a totally decomposable graph with an induced clique subgraph on 4 or more vertices, including $a,b,c,d\in V(G)$. We will show that the split-decomposition tree $T$ of $G$ breaks at least one the conditions listed in this lemma, i.e. either $T$ has a clique-node of degree 4 or more, or it has two clique-nodes (of degree 3) connected via an alternated path. Consider the alternated paths $\cramped{P_{a,b}}$, $\cramped{P_{a,c}}$, and $\cramped{P_{a,d}}$ between the pairs of leaves $\{a,b\}$, $\{a,c\}$, and $\{a,d\}$ respectively. Let $\cramped{u_{b,c}}\in \cramped{P_{a,b}}\cap \cramped{P_{a,c}}$ be the closest internal node to $a$ in common between $\cramped{P_{a,b}}$ and $\cramped{P_{a,c}}$. We observe that $\cramped{u_{b,c}}$ must be a clique-node. This is the case because if $\cramped{u_{b,c}}$ were a star-node, at least two of the alternated paths would have to enter $\cramped{u_{b,c}}$ at two extremities and use two interior edges of the graph label $\cramped{g_{u_{b,c}}}$. In this case, the leaves at the end of those two paths could not be adjacent in $G$. By a symmetric argument, it can be shown that $\cramped{u_{b,d}}$, the closest internal node to $a$ in common between $\cramped{P_{a,b}}$ and $\cramped{P_{a,c}}$, must also be a clique-node. Depending on whether or not $\cramped{u_{b,c}}$ and $\cramped{u_{b,d}}$ are distinct nodes, one of the conditions of the lemma is contradicted: - if $\cramped{u_{b,c}}$ and $\cramped{u_{b,d}}$ are the same clique node, there are four disjoint outgoing alternated paths out it, implying that it must have a degree of at least four, contradiction the first condition of the lemma; - if $\cramped{u_{b,c}}$ and $\cramped{u_{b,d}}$ are distinct clique nodes, they are connected by an alternated path that is a part of $\cramped{P_{a,b}}$ between them, contradicting the second condition of the lemma. \[lem:split-characterization-pendant\] Let $G$ be totally decomposable graph with the reduced clique-star split-decomposition tree $T$. $G$ does not have any pendant edges if and only if $T$ does not have any star-node with its center and an extremity adjacent to leaves. [\[$\Rightarrow$\]]{}  Let $T$ be a clique-star tree, and let $u\in V(T)$ be a star-node, such that its center $\cramped{c_u}$ is adjacent to a leaf $a\in V(T)$ and one of its extremities $\cramped{x_b}$ is adjacent to a leaf $b\in V(T)$. We will show that $b$ does not have any neighbors beside $a$ in the accessibility graph $G(T)$ and thus, the edge $(a,b)$ is a pendant edge of $G(T)$. Suppose, on the contrary, that $b$ has a neighbor $c\in V(G(T))$, $c \neq a$. Then there must be an alternated path $P$ in $T$ that connects $b$ and $c$. Note that $P$ must go through $u$, entering it at an extremity $\cramped{x_c}\in V(\cramped{G_u})$. The path $P$ must thus use two interior edges $(\cramped{x_b},\cramped{c_u})$ and $(\cramped{c_u},\cramped{x_c})$ and cannot be alternated (Figure \[fig:split-subpattern-pendant\]).  [\[$\Leftarrow$\]]{}  Let $G$ be a totally decomposable graph with a pendant edge $(a,b)\in E(G)$ such that $b$ has degree 1 (Figure \[fig:split-subpattern-pendant\]). We will show that the corresponding leaves $a$ and $b$ in the reduced clique-star tree $T$ of $G$ are attached to a star-node $u$, with its center adjacent to $a$ and one of its extremities adjacent to $b$. Let $u\in V(T)$ be the internal node to which $b$ is attached, and let $\cramped{x_b}\in V(\cramped{G_u})$ be the marker vertex adjacent to $b$. First, we will show that $u$ is indeed a star-node and $\cramped{x_b}$ is one of its extremities. To do so, it suffices to show that $\cramped{x_b}$ has degree 1 in $\cramped{G_u}$. Suppose, on the contrary, that there are two marker vertices $y,z\in V(\cramped{G_u})$ that are adjacent to $\cramped{x_b}$, and consider two maximal alternated paths out of $y$ and $z$. By Lemma \[lem:alternated-paths-disjoint\], these paths end at two distinct leaves of $T$, both of which much be adjacent to $b$ in $G$, contradicting the assumption that $b$ has degree 1. Next, we will show that $a$ must be attached to the center $\cramped{c_u}$ of $\cramped{G_u}$. Otherwise, one of the following cases will occur: - *$\cramped{c_u}$ is adjacent to a leaf $c\in V(T)$*.   In this case, we have the alternated path $b, \cramped{x_b}, \cramped{c_u}, c$, implying $(b,c)\in E(G)$, contradicting the assumption that $b$ has degree 1. - *$\cramped{c_u}$ is adjacent to a clique-node $v\in V(T)$*.   With an argument similar to the previous case, it can be shown that in this case, there must exist at least two alternated paths out of $v$ that lead to leaves, all of which must be adjacent to $b$. - *$\cramped{c_u}$ is adjacent to the center of a star-node $v\in V(T)$*.   Similar to the previous case, there must exist at least two alternated paths out extremities of $v$ that lead to leaves, all of which must be adjacent to $b$. - *$\cramped{c_u}$ is adjacent to an extremity of a star-node $v\in V(T)$*.   This case never happens, since $T$ is assumed to be a *reduced* clique-star tree. Therefore, $a$ must be attached to the center of $\cramped{G_u}$, so $u$ is a star-node with $a$ adjacent to its center and $b$ adjacent to one of its extremities. \[lem:split-characterization-bridge\] Let $G$ be totally decomposable graph with the reduced clique-star split-decomposition tree $T$. $G$ does not have any bridges if and only if $T$ does not have: - any star-node with its center and an extremity adjacent to leaves; - any two star-nodes adjacent via their extremities, with their centers adjacent to leaves. We distinguish between two kinds of bridges: pendant edges and other bridges, which we will call *internal* bridges. Lemma \[lem:split-characterization-pendant\] states that a star-node with its center and an extremity adjacent to leaves in $T$ corresponds to a pendant edge in $G$. Therefore, it suffices to show $G$ has no internal bridges if and only if the second condition holds in $T$. [\[$\Rightarrow$\]]{}  Let $T$ be a clique-star tree, and let $u,v\in V(T)$ be two star-nodes, with the center $\cramped{c_u}\in\cramped{G_u}$ adjacent to a leaf $a\in V(T)$, the center $\cramped{c_v}\in\cramped{G_v}$ adjacent to a leaf $b\in V(T)$, and two of their extremities $\cramped{x_u}\in\cramped{G_u}$ and $\cramped{x_v}\in\cramped{G_v}$ adjacent to each other. We will show that $(a,b)$ is an internal bridge in $G(T)$. First, let us define the following partition of the leaves of $T$ into two sets: Since every edge in a tree is a bridge, removing $(u,v)$ from $T$ breaks $T$ into two connected components. Let $\cramped{V_u}, \cramped{V_v}\in V(T)$ be the leaves of these components respectively, and note that $a\in\cramped{V_u}$ and $b\in\cramped{V_v}$ (Figure \[fig:split-subpattern-bridge\]). Next, note that $(a,b)\in E(G(T))$ by tracing the alternated path $a, \cramped{c_u}, \cramped{x_u}, \cramped{x_v}, \cramped{c_v}, b$. To show that $(a,b)$ must be an internal bridge, it suffices We will show that the edge $(a,b)$ is a bridge in $G(T)$ by showing it does not belong to any cycles. We will then confirm that $(a,b)$ must be an *internal* bridge. Suppose, on the contrary, that there $G(T)$ has a cycle $C$ of vertices $(\cramped{x_1}=a,\cramped{x_2},\dots,\cramped{x_{k-1}},\cramped{x_k}=b)\in \cramped{V(G(T))^k}$ for some $k\geqslant3$. Clearly, $\cramped{x_1}=a\in \cramped{V_u}$. Additionally, for every edge $(\cramped{x_i},\cramped{x_{i+1}})\in E(G(T))$, $i=1\dots k-1$, there must be an alternated path $\cramped{P_i}$ in $T$ between leaves $\cramped{x_i}$ and $\cramped{x_{i+1}}$. Furthermore, if $\cramped{x_i}\in\cramped{V_u}$, we must also have $\cramped{x_{i+1}}\in\cramped{V_u}$, since otherwise, $\cramped{P_i}$ must use the only edge crossing the cut $\cramped{V_u}, \cramped{V_v}$; this requires $\cramped{P_i}$ to enter and exit $u$ via two extremities of $\cramped{G_u}$, which requires using two interior edges from $\cramped{G_u}$. Applying a similar argument for every edge $(\cramped{x_i},\cramped{x_{i+1}})$ of $C$ up to $b$ implies that $b\in\cramped{V_u}$. Therefore, we must have $b\in\cramped{V_u}\cap\cramped{V_v}$, contradicting the fact that $\cramped{V_u}$ and $\cramped{V_v}$ are disjoint. Finally, we can show via Lemma \[lem:alternated-paths-disjoint\] that $(a,b)$ must be an *internal* bridge, by showing that $a$ and $b$ must have neighbors besides each other in $G(T))$. We will confirm this for $a$, and the argument applies symmetrically to $b$. Since $T$ is reduced, $u$ has degree at least three, so there is at least one alternating path out of an extremity of $\cramped{G_u}$ other than $\cramped{x_u}$ ending in a leaf of $T$ other than $b$, implying that $a$ must be adjacent to that leaf in $G(T)$. Similarly, $b$ must have a neighbor in $G(T)$ other than $a$. Therefore, $(a,b)$ cannot be a pendant edge and must be an internal bridge.  [\[$\Leftarrow$\]]{}  Let $G$ be a totally decomposable graph with an internal bridge $(a,b)\in E(G)$ (Figure \[fig:split-subpattern-bridge\]). We show that the corresponding leaves $a$ and $b$ in the reduced clique-star tree $T$ of $G$ are respectively attached to centers of two star-node $u$ and $v$ adjacent via their extremities. Let $u\in V(T)$ be the internal node to which $a$ is attached, and let $\cramped{c_u}\in V(\cramped{G_u})$ be the marker vertex adjacent to $a$. Similarly, let $v\in V(T)$ be the internal node to which $b$ is attached, and let $\cramped{c_v}\in V(\cramped{G_v})$ be the marker vertex adjacent to $b$. Now, we show that $u$ and $v$ are star-nodes. Suppose, on the contrary, that $u$ is a clique-node, and note that $\cramped{G_u}$ must have at least two other marker vertices besides $\cramped{c_u}$. Consider the two maximal alternated paths $\cramped{P_x}$ and $\cramped{P_y}$ out of these two marker vertices, respectively ending in leaves $x,y\in V(T)$ by Lemma \[lem:alternated-paths-disjoint\]. We first observe that $(a,x)\in E(G)$ by the union of the alternated path $\cramped{P_x}$ and the interior edge of $\cramped{G_u}$ between $\cramped{c_u}$ and the marker vertex at the end of $\cramped{P_x}$. Similarly, we have $(a,y)\in E(G)$. Furthermore, $(x,y)\in E(G)$ by the union of the two alternated paths $\cramped{P_x}$ and $\cramped{P_y}$ and the interior edge of $\cramped{G_u}$ between the ends of these paths.The trio of vertices $a,x,y\in V(G)$ thus induces a $\cramped{C_3}$ in $G$, contradicting the assumption that $(a,b)$ is a bridge. Next, we will show that $u$ and $v$ are adjacent to each other via their extremities $\cramped{x_u}$ and $\cramped{x_v}$. Otherwise, since no star centers are adjacent to extremities of other star-nodes in a reduced split-decomposition tree, $u$ and $v$ would have to be adjacent via their centers. This would constitute a center-center path, which would, by Lemma \[lem:split-characterization-c4\], imply that $(a,b)$ belongs to a $\cramped{C_4}$ and cannot be a bridge. Finally, we confirm that $\cramped{c_u}$ and $\cramped{c_v}$, the marker vertices to which $a$ and $b$ are attached, are the centers of $\cramped{G_u}$ and $\cramped{G_v}$ respectively. It suffices to show this claim for $a$, as the argument symmetrically applies to $b$ as well. If, on the contrary, $a$ were attached to an extremity of $\cramped{G_u}$, the only path in $T$ between $a$ and $b$ would have to use two interior edges of $\cramped{G_u}$, one from $\cramped{c_u}$ to the center of $\cramped{G_u}$ and one from the center to $\cramped{x_u}$. This would imply $(a,b)\not\in E(G)$, a contradiction.    Block graphs\[sec:block\] ========================= In this section, we analyze a class of graphs called block graphs. After providing a general definition of this class, we present its well-known forbidden induced subgraph characterization, and using a lemma we proved in Section \[sec:forbidden\], we deduce a characterization of the split-decomposition tree of graphs in this class. Block graphs are the (weakly geodetic) subset of ptolemaic graphs—themselves the (chordal) subset of distance-hereditary graphs. Thus, their split-decomposition tree is a more constrained version of that of ptolemaic graphs. As such, we use block graphs as a case study to prepare for ptolemaic graphs, for which the grammar is a bit more complicated. Characterization. ----------------- For any graph $G$, a vertex $v$ is a *cut vertex* if the number of connected components is increased after removing $v$, and a *block* is a maximal connected subgraph without any cut vertex. A graph is then called a *block graph* [@Harary63] if and only if its blocks are complete graphs (or cliques) and the intersection of two blocks is either empty or a cut vertex. Block graphs are the intersection of ptolemaic graphs and weakly geodetic graphs, as was shown by Kay and Chartrand [@KaCh65]. \[def:weakly-geodetic\] A graph is *weakly geodetic* if for every pair of vertices of distance 2 there is a unique common neighbour of them. It is relatively intuitive to figure out from this definition, that weakly geodetic graphs are exactly ($\cramped{C_4}$, diamond)-free graphs, but surprisingly we were only able to find this result mentioned relatively recently [@EsHoSpSr11]. A graph is weakly geodetic if and only if it contains no induced $\cramped{C_4}$ or diamond subgraphs. [\[$\Rightarrow$\]]{}  We show a weakly geodetic graph is ($\cramped{C_4}$, diamond)-free by arguing that graphs with induced $\cramped{C_4}$ subgraphs and diamonds as induced subgraphs are not weakly geodetic. This is illustrated in Figure \[fig:weakly-geodetic-subgraphs\], in which the highlighted pairs of vertices in a $\cramped{C_4}$ and a diamond are of distance 2 and have more than one neighbor in common. [\[$\Leftarrow$\]]{}  Let $G$ be a ($\cramped{C_4}$, diamond)-free, and let $a,b\in V(G)$ be vertices of distance 2 with two neighbors $c,d \in V(G)$ in common. Since $a,b$ have distance 2, $(a,b) \not\in E(G)$. Depending on whether or not $(c,d)$ belongs to the edge set of $G$, we have $\{a,b,c,d\}$ inducing a diamond (Figure \[fig:weakly-geodetic-diamond\]) or a $\cramped{C_4}$ (Figure \[fig:weakly-geodetic-c4\]) respectively. Since we have established that block graphs are the subset of totally decomposable (distance-hereditary) graphs which are also ($\cramped{C_4}$, diamond)-free, we can now characterize their split-decomposition tree by applying our two lemmas from Section \[sec:forbidden\] and deducing the overall constraint on the split-decomposition trees that these imply. \[thm:split-characterization-block\] A graph $G$ with the reduced split-decomposition tree $(T,\mathcal{F})$ is a block graph if and only if 1. $T$ is a clique-star tree; 2. the centers of all star-nodes are attached to leaves. We have introduced block graphs as being the intersection class of ptolemaic graphs and weakly geodetic graphs. As we will see again in Section \[sec:ptolemaic\], Howorka [@Howorka81 §2] has shown that ptolemaic graphs are the intersection class of distance-hereditary graphs and chordal (triangulated) graphs. A chordal graph is a graph in which any cycle of size larger than 3 has a chord; because distance-hereditary graphs are themselves $\cramped{C_{\geqslant 5}}$-free, chordal distance-hereditary (ptolemaic) graphs are the $\cramped{C_4}$-free distance-hereditary graphs. The additional constraint that comes with being weakly geodetic, implies that block graphs are the ($\cramped{C_4}$, diamond)-free distance-hereditary graphs[^8]. The first condition in this theorem is due to the total decomposability of block graphs as a subset of distance-hereditary graphs. The second condition forbids having any center-center or clique-center paths, which, by Lemma \[lem:split-characterization-c4\] and Lemma \[lem:split-characterization-diamond\] respectively, ensures that $G$ does not have any induced $\cramped{C_4}$ or diamond. Rooted grammar. \[subs:block-rooted-grammar\] --------------------------------------------- Using the split-decomposition tree characterization derived above, we can provide a symbolic grammar that can be used to enumerate labeled and unlabeled block graphs. [\[thm:rooted-grammar-block\]]{} The class $\clsBGrl$ of block graphs rooted at a vertex is specified by $$\begin{aligned} \clsBGrl &= \clsAtom_{\mLeaf} \times (\cls[C]{S}+\cls[X]{S}+\cls{K})\\ \cls{K} &= \Set[\geqslant2]{\clsAtom+\cls[X]{S}}\\ \cls[C]{S} &= \Set[\geqslant2]{\clsAtom+\cls{K}+\cls[X]{S}}\\ \cls[X]{S} &= \clsAtom\times\Set[\geqslant1]{\clsAtom+\cls{K}+\cls[X]{S}}\text{.} \end{aligned}$$ This grammar is similar to that of distance-hereditary graphs [@ChFuLu14]. The constraint that the centers of all star-nodes are attached to leaves means essential that the rule $\cramped{\cls[C]{S}}$ can only be reached as a starting point when we are describing what the root vertex might be connected to (from the initial rule, $\clsBGrl$). For the sake of comprehensiveness, we give this proof in full detail. However since the following proofs are fairly similar, we will tend to abbreviate them. We begin with the rule for a star-node entered by its center, $$\begin{aligned} \cls[C]{S} = \Set[\geqslant2]{\clsAtom+\cls{K}+\cls[X]{S}}\text{.} \end{aligned}$$ This equation specifies that a subtree rooted at a star-node, linked to its parent by its center, has at least 2 unordered children attached to the extremities of the star-node: each extremity can either lead to a leaf, a regular clique-node, or another star-node entered through an extremity (but not another star-node entered through its center since the tree is reduced). The lower bound of 2 children is due to the fact that in a reduced split-decomposition tree, every internal node has degree at least 3, one of which is the star-node’s center. Next, $$\begin{aligned} \cls[X]{S} = \clsAtom\times\Set[\geqslant1]{\clsAtom+\cls{K}+\cls[X]{S}}\text{,} \end{aligned}$$ corresponding to a subtree rooted at a star-node, linked to its parent by an extremity. This star-node can be be exited either via its center and lead to a leaf $\clsAtom$ (the only type of element the center of a star-node can be connected to, following Theorem \[thm:split-characterization-block\]), or via some extremity and lead to a leaf, a regular clique-node, or another star-node entered through an extremity (but not another star-node entered through its center, as that is forbidden in reduced trees). Next, the equation corresponding to a clique-node, $$\begin{aligned} \cls{K} = \Set[\geqslant2]{\clsAtom+\cls[X]{S}}\text{.} \end{aligned}$$ A clique-node has a degree of at least three, so a clique-rooted subtree can be exited from a set of at least two children and reach a leaf or a star-node through its extremity. It cannot reach another clique-node since the tree is reduced, and it cannot enter a star-node through its center since, again according to Theorem \[thm:split-characterization-block\], star centers are only adjacent to leaves. Finally, this equation $$\begin{aligned} \clsBGrl = \clsAtom_{\mLeaf} \times (\cls[C]{S}+\cls[X]{S}+\cls{K})\text{,} \end{aligned}$$ combines the previously introduced terms into a specification for rooted split-decomposition trees of block graphs, which are combinatorially equivalent to the class of rooted block graphs. It states that a rooted split-decomposition tree of a block graph consists of a distinguished leaf $\cramped{\clsAtom_{\mLeaf}}$, which is attached to an internal node. The internal node could be a clique-node, or a star-node entered through either its center or an extremity. With this symbolic specification, and a computer algebra system, we may extract an arbitrary long enumeration (we’ve easily extracted 10000 terms). Unrooted grammar. \[subs:block-unrooted-grammar\] ------------------------------------------------- Applying the dissymmetry theorem to the internal nodes and edges of split-decomposition trees for block graphs gives the following grammar. [\[thm:unrooted-grammar-block\]]{} The class $\clsBG$ of unrooted block graphs is specified by $$\begin{aligned} \clsBG &= \cls[K]{T} +\cls[S]{T} + \cls[S-S]{T} - \cls[S\rightarrow S]{T} - \cls[S-K]{T} \label{eq:dissymmetry-simplified-block}\\[0.4em] \cls[K]{T} &= \Set[\geqslant3]{\clsAtom+\cls[X]{S}}\\ \cls[S]{T} &= \clsAtom\times\cls[C]{S} \\ \cls[S-S]{T} &= \Set[2]{\cls[X]{S}}\\ \cls[S\rightarrow S]{T} &= \cls[X]{S}\times\cls[X]{S}\\ \cls[S-K]{T} &= \cls{K}\times\cls[X]{S}\\[0.4em] \cls[C]{S} &= \Set[\geqslant2]{\clsAtom+\cls{K}+\cls[X]{S}}\\ \cls[X]{S} &= \clsAtom\times\Set[\geqslant1]{\clsAtom+\cls{K}+\cls[X]{S}}\\ \cls{K} &= \Set[\geqslant2]{\clsAtom+\cls[X]{S}}\end{aligned}$$ As noted in Subsection \[subs:dissymmetry\], in the unrooted specification, the classes denoted by $\cramped{\cls[\ldots]{T}}$ correspond to trees introduced by the dissymmetry theorem, whereas the specification of all other classes is identical to the rooted grammar for block graph split-decomposition trees given in Theorem \[thm:rooted-grammar-block\]. From the dissymmetry theorem, we have the following bijection linking rooted and unrooted split-decomposition trees of block graphs, $$\begin{aligned} \clsBG &= {{\clsBG}_{\mNode}} + {{\clsBG}_{\mEdge}} - {{\clsBG}_{\mDEdge}}\text{.} \end{aligned}$$ Lemma \[lem:no-leaves\] allows us to consider only internal nodes for the rooted terms. Since block graphs are totally-decomposable into star-nodes and clique-nodes, we have the following symbolic equation for split-decomposition trees of block graphs rooted at an internal node, $$\begin{aligned} {\clsBG}_{\mNode} &= \cls[K]{T} + \cls[S]{T}\text{.} \end{aligned}$$ Additionally, when rooting split-decomposition trees of block graphs at an undirected edge between internal nodes, the edge could either connect two star-nodes or a star-node and a clique-node (recall that clique-nodes cannot be adjacent in reduced trees by Theorem \[thm:cunningham\]), which yields the following symbolic equation for block graph split-decomposition trees rooted at an internal undirected edge, $$\begin{aligned} {{\clsBG}_{\mEdge}} &= \cls[S-S]{T} + \cls[S-K]{T}\text{.} \end{aligned}$$ Finally, when rooting split-decomposition trees of block graphs at a directed edge between internal nodes, the edge could either go from a star-node to a clique-node, a clique-node to a star-node, or a star-node to another star-node (again, there are no adjacent clique-nodes by Theorem \[thm:cunningham\] of reduced trees), giving the following symbolic equation for block graph split-decomposition trees rooted at an internal directed edge, $$\begin{aligned} {{\clsBG}_{\mDEdge}} &= \cls[S\rightarrow K]{T} + \cls[K\rightarrow S]{T} + \cls[S\rightarrow S]{T} \text{.} \end{aligned}$$ Combining the above equations with the dissymmetry equation for block graph split-decomposition trees gives $$\begin{aligned} \clsBG &= \cls[K]{T} + \cls[S]{T}\\ &+ \cls[S-S]{T} + \cls[S-K]{T}\\ &- \cls[S\rightarrow K]{T} - \cls[K\rightarrow S]{T} - \cls[S\rightarrow S]{T} \text{.} \end{aligned}$$ We next observe the following bijection between ptolemaic trees rooted at an edge between a clique-node and a star-node, $\cls[S\rightarrow K]{T} \simeq \cls[K\rightarrow S]{T}$ $ \simeq \cls[S-K]{T}$. This due to the fact that star- and clique-nodes are distinguishable, so an edge connecting a star-node and a clique-node bears an implicit direction. (One can, for example, define the direction to always be out of the clique-node into the star-node.) Simplifying accordingly, we arrive at Equation , $$\begin{aligned} \clsPG &= \cls[K]{T} +\cls[S]{T} + \cls[S-S]{T} - \cls[S\rightarrow S]{T} - \cls[S-K]{T} \end{aligned}$$ We will now discuss the symbolic equations for rooted split-decomposition trees of block graphs, starting with the following equation, $$\begin{aligned} \cls[K]{T} = \Set[\geqslant3]{\clsAtom+\cls[X]{S}}\text{.} \end{aligned}$$ This equation states that the split-decomposition tree of a block graph rooted at a clique-node can be specified as a set of at least three subtrees (since internal nodes in reduced split-decomposition trees have degree $\geqslant3$), each of which can lead to either a leaf or a star-node entered through its center; they cannot lead to clique-nodes as there are no adjacent clique-nodes in reduced split-decomposition trees, and they cannot lead to star-nodes through their centers, as centers of star-nodes in block graph split-decomposition trees only connect to leaves. Next, we will consider the equation, $$\begin{aligned} \cls[S]{T} = \clsAtom\times\cls[C]{S}\text{.} \end{aligned}$$ which specifies a block graph split-decomposition tree rooted at a star-node. The specification of the subtrees of the distinguished star-node depends on whether they are connected to the center or an extremity of the root. The center of the root can only be attached to a leaf, while the subtrees connected to the extremities of the distinguished star-node are exactly those specified by an $\cls[C]{S}$. The other three rooted tree equations follow from with the same logic. Ptolemaic graphs\[sec:ptolemaic\] =================================  Ptolemaic graphs were introduced by Kay and Chartrand [@KaCh65] as the class of graph that satisfied the same properties as a ptolemaic space. Later, it was shown by Howorka [@Howorka81] that these graphs are exactly the intersection of distance-hereditary graphs and chordal graphs; beyond that, relatively little is known about ptolemaic graphs [@UeUn09], and in particular, their enumeration was hitherto unknown. Characterization. ----------------- \[def:graph-ptolemaic\] A graph $G$ is *ptolemaic* if any four vertices $u,v,w,x$ in the same connected component satisfy the ptolemaic inequality [@KaCh65]: $$\begin{aligned} d_G(u,v) \cdot d_G(w,x) &\leqslant d_G(u,w) \cdot d_G(v,x) \\ &{}\quad + d_G(u,x) \cdot d_G(v,w). \end{aligned}$$ Equivalently, ptolemaic graphs are graphs that are both chordal and distance-hereditary [@Howorka81 §2]. This second characterization is the one that we will use: indeed, by a reasoning similar to that provided in the proof of Theorem \[thm:split-characterization-block\], we have that distance-hereditary graphs do not contain any $\cramped{C_{\geqslant 5}}$, and chordal graphs do not contain any $\cramped{C_{\geqslant 4}}$; by virtue of being a distance-hereditary graph (described by a clique-star tree), we thus need only worry about the forbidden $\cramped{C_4}$ induced subgraphs. As it so happens, we already have a characterization of a split-decomposition tree which avoids such cycles. \[thm:split-characterization-ptol\] A graph $G$ with the reduced split-decomposition tree $(T,\mathcal{F})$ is ptolemaic if and only if 1. $T$ is a clique-star tree; 2. there are no center-center paths in $T$. Ptolemaic graphs are exactly the intersection of distance-hereditary graphs and chordal graphs. The first condition in this theorem addresses the fact that distance-hereditary graphs are exactly the class of totally decomposable with respect to the split-decomposition, and the second condition reflects the fact that, by Lemma \[lem:split-characterization-c4\], center-center paths correspond to induced $\cramped{C_4}$ subgraphs, the defining forbidden subgraphs for chordal graphs. Rooted grammar. \[subs:ptolemaic-rooted-grammar\] ------------------------------------------------- Equipped with the characterization of a bijective split-decomposition tree representation of ptolemaic graphs, we are now ready to enumerate ptolemaic graphs. In this subsection, we begin by providing a grammar for rooted split-decomposition trees of ptolemaic graphs, which can be used to enumerate labeled ptolemaic graphs. Next, we derive the unlabeled enumeration. [\[thm:rooted-grammar\]]{} The class $\clsPGrl$ of ptolemaic graphs rooted at a vertex is specified by $$\begin{aligned} \clsPGrl &= \clsAtom_{\mLeaf} \times (\cls[C]{S}+\cls[X]{S}+\cls{K})\\ \cls[C]{S} &= \Set[\geqslant2]{\clsAtom+\cls{K}+\cls[X]{S}}\\ \cls[X]{S} &= (\clsAtom+\cls{\bar{K}})\times\Set[\geqslant1]{\clsAtom+\cls{K}+\cls[X]{S}}\\ \cls{K} &= \cls[C]{S}\times\Set[\geqslant1]{\clsAtom+\cls[X]{S}}+\Set[\geqslant2]{\clsAtom+\cls[X]{S}}\\ \cls{\bar{K}} &= \Set[\geqslant2]{\clsAtom+\cls[X]{S}} \end{aligned}$$ The interesting part of this grammar is that, to impose the restriction on center-center paths (condition (b) of Theorem  \[thm:split-characterization-ptol\]), we must distinguish between two classes of clique-nodes, depending on the path through which we have reached them in the rooted tree: - $\cls{\bar{K}}$: these are clique-nodes for which the most recent star-node on their ancestorial path has been exited through its center; we call these clique-nodes *prohibitive* to indicate that they cannot be connected to the center of a star-node; - $\cls{K}$: all other clique-nodes, which we by contrast call *regular*. Recall that the split-decomposition tree of ptolemaic graphs must, overall, satisfy the following constraints: 1. center-center paths are forbidden (Theorem \[thm:split-characterization-ptol\]); 2. internal nodes must have degree at least 3 (Thm. \[thm:cunningham\]); 3. the center of a star-node cannot be incident to the extremity of another star-node (Theorem \[thm:cunningham\]); 4. two clique-nodes cannot be adjacent (Theorem \[thm:cunningham\]). We can now prove the correctness of the grammar. We begin with the following equation $$\begin{aligned} \cls[C]{S} = \Set[\geqslant 2]{\clsAtom+\cls{K}+\cls[X]{S}}\end{aligned}$$ which specifies that a subtree rooted at a star-node, linked to its parent by its center, has at least 2 unordered children as the extremities of the star-node: each extremity can either lead to a leaf, a regular clique-node, or another star-node entered through an extremity. The children subtrees cannot be star-nodes entered through their center, since the tree is reduced. The lower bound of two children is due to the first condition of reduced split-decomposition trees (Theorem \[thm:cunningham\]), which specifies that every internal node has degree at least 3. We now consider the next equation $$\begin{aligned} \cls[X]{S} = (\clsAtom+\cls{\bar{K}})\times\Set[\geqslant1]{\clsAtom+\cls{K}+\cls[X]{S}}\end{aligned}$$ The disjoint union in this equation indicates that a subtree rooted at a star-node, linked to its parent by an extremity, can be exited in two ways, either through the center, or through another extremity. If the star-node is exited through its center, it can either enter a leaf or a prohibitive clique-node. It cannot enter a $\cls[X]{S}$ by the third condition of reduced split-decomposition trees (Theorem \[thm:cunningham\]), and it cannot enter a $\cls[C]{S}$ as that would be a center-center path. Furthermore, it has to enter a prohibitive clique-node $\cls{\bar{K}}$ rather than a regular clique-node $\cls{K}$ to keep track of the fact that a star-node has been exited from its center on the current path and ensure that no another star-node will not be entered through its center. If the star-node entered from an extremity is exited through an extremity, it has a set of at least one other extremity to choose from. Each of those extremities can lead to a either a leaf, a clique-node, or another star-node entered through its center. It cannot lead to an $\cls[C]{S}$, as that would be a center-center path. We next discuss the equation $$\begin{aligned} \cls{K} = \cls[C]{S}\times\Set[\geqslant1]{\clsAtom+\cls[X]{S}}+\Set[\geqslant2]{\clsAtom+\cls[X]{S}}\end{aligned}$$ The disjoint union specifies that a subtree rooted at a regular clique-node can have exactly zero or one $\cls[C]{S}$ as a child. First, a regular-clique-rooted subtree is allowed to have a $\cls[C]{S}$ as a child, since regular clique-nodes are by definition not on potential center-center paths. However, a regular-clique-rooted subtree cannot have more than one $\cls[C]{S}$ child, since otherwise there would be a center-center path between the $\cls[C]{S}$ children through the clique-node. The first summand corresponds to the case where the regular clique-node has exactly one $\cls[C]{S}$ as a child, which can be used to exit the tree. Additionally, the clique-node can be exited via any of the other children besides $\cls[C]{S}$ and reach either a leaf or a star-node entered through an extremity. Note that the clique-node cannot be exited into another clique-node of any kind by the second condition of reduced split-decomposition trees (Theorem \[thm:cunningham\]), which indicates that no two clique-nodes are adjacent in a reduced split-decomposition tree. The second summand corresponds to the case where the regular clique-node has no $\cls[C]{S}$ children. In this case, the regular clique-node can be exited via any of the remaining two or more subtrees that have not been used to enter it. After exiting the clique-node, one arrives at either a leaf or a star-node entered through its extremity. As explained above, is not possible to arrive at a clique-node, since there are no adjacent clique-nodes in reduced split-decomposition trees. We now take a look at the equation specifying subtrees rooted at prohibitive clique-nodes $$\begin{aligned} \cls{\bar{K}} = \Set[\geqslant2]{\clsAtom+\cls[X]{S}}\end{aligned}$$ A subtree rooted at a prohibitive clique-node can be exited via any of its set of at least two children and either enter a leaf or enter a star-node through its extremity. Since a prohibitive clique-nodes lies on a path from the center of a star-node, it cannot enter a $\cls[C]{S}$. Additionally, it cannot enter another clique-node of any kind since reduced clique-nodes cannot be adjacent. Finally, the following equation $$\begin{aligned} \clsPGrl = \clsAtom_{\mLeaf}\times(\cls[X]{S}+\cls[C]{S}+\cls{K})\end{aligned}$$ combines all pieces into a symbolic specification for rooted ptolemaic graphs. It states that a rooted ptolemaic graph consists of a distinguished leaf $\cramped{\clsAtom_{\mLeaf}}$, which is attached to an internal node. The internal node could be star-node entered through either its center or an extremity, or it could be a regular clique-node. Given this grammar for ptolemaic graphs, we can produce the exact enumeration for rooted labeled ptolemaic graphs using a computer algebraic system. Furthermore, we can derive the enumeration of *unrooted* labeled ptolemaic graphs by normalizing the counting sequence by the number of possible ways to distinguish a vertex as the root. This normalization is easy for labeled graphs, since the labels prevent the formation of symmetries. Therefore, since each vertex is equally likely to be chosen as the root, the number of *unrooted* labeled graphs of size $n$ is simply the number of *rooted* labeled graphs divided by $n$. Unrooted grammar. \[subs:ptolemaic-unrooted-grammar\] ----------------------------------------------------- [\[thm:unrooted-grammar-ptol\]]{} The class $\clsPG$ of unrooted ptolemaic graphs is specified by $$\begin{aligned} \clsPG &= \cls[K]{T} +\cls[S]{T} + \cls[S-S]{T} - \cls[S\rightarrow S]{T} - \cls[S-K]{T} \label{eq:dissymmetry-simplified-ptol}\\ \cls[K]{T} &= \cls[C]{S}\times\Set[\geqslant2]{\clsAtom+\cls[X]{S}} + \Set[\geqslant3]{\clsAtom+\cls[X]{S}}\\ \cls[S]{T} &= \cls[C]{S}\times(\clsAtom+\cls{\bar{K}}) \\ \cls[S-S]{T} &= \Set[2]{\cls[X]{S}}\\ \cls[S\rightarrow S]{T} &= \cls[X]{S}\times\cls[X]{S}\\ \cls[S-K]{T} &= \cls{K}\times\cls[X]{S} + \cls{\bar{K}}\times\cls[C]{S}\\ \cls[C]{S} &= \Set[\geqslant 2]{\clsAtom+\cls{K}+\cls[X]{S}}\\ \cls[X]{S} &= (\clsAtom+\cls{\bar{K}})\times\Set[\geqslant1]{\clsAtom+\cls{K}+\cls[X]{S}}\\ \cls{K} &= \cls[C]{S}\times\Set[\geqslant1]{\clsAtom+\cls[X]{S}}+\Set[\geqslant2]{\clsAtom+\cls[X]{S}}\\ \cls{\bar{K}} &= \Set[\geqslant2]{\clsAtom+\cls[X]{S}}\end{aligned}$$ Applying the dissymmetry theorem in a similar manner to the proof of the unrooted grammar of block graphs, we obtain the following formal equation: $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} \clsPG &= \cls[K]{T} + \cls[S]{T} + \cls[S-S]{T} + \cls[S-K]{T}\\ &- \cls[S\rightarrow K]{T} - \cls[K\rightarrow S]{T} - \cls[S\rightarrow S]{T}\text{.} \end{split} \end{aligned}$$ Notably, even though we distinguish between prohibitive $\cls{\bar{K}}$ and regular $\cls{K}$ clique-nodes in the rooted grammar, this distinction disappears when rerooting the trees for the dissymmetry theorem. This is because the prohibitive or regular nature of a clique-node depends on an *implicitly directed* path leading to it from the root; however when rerooting the tree, the clique-node in question becomes the new root, and all (implicitly directed) paths originate from it[^9]. We can then simplify the dissymmetry theorem equation above in the same manner as for block graphs: $$\begin{aligned} \clsPG &= \cls[K]{T} +\cls[S]{T} + \cls[S-S]{T} - \cls[S\rightarrow S]{T} - \cls[S-K]{T}\text{.} \end{aligned}$$ We then discuss the rerooted terms of the grammar, starting with the following equation, $$\begin{aligned} \cls[K]{T} &= \cls[C]{S}\times\Set[\geqslant2]{\clsAtom+\cls[X]{S}} + \Set[\geqslant3]{\clsAtom+\cls[X]{S}}\text{.} \end{aligned}$$ The disjoint union translates the fact that in a ptolemaic tree rerooted at a clique-node, the root can have either zero or one $\cls[C]{S}$ as a subtree. (A clique-node having more than one $\cls[C]{S}$ subtree would induce a center-center path, which cannot exist in ptolemaic split-decomposition trees by Theorem \[thm:split-characterization-ptol\].) The first summand corresponds to the case where the clique-node at which the split-decomposition tree is rooted has one $\cls[C]{S}$ as a subtree. The clique-node root can have a set of at least two other subtrees, each of which can lead to either a leaf or a star-node entered from an extremity. The second summand corresponds to the case where the clique-node at which the split-decomposition tree is rooted has no $\cls[C]{S}$ subtrees, in which case it can have a set of at least three other subtrees leading to leaves or $\cls[X]{S}$ nodes, but not clique-nodes or $\cls[C]{S}$ as explained. Next, we will consider the equation, $$\begin{aligned} \cls[S]{T} &= \cls[C]{S}\times(\clsAtom+\cls{\bar{K}}) \end{aligned}$$ which specifies a ptolemaic split-decomposition tree rooted at a star-node. The specification of the subtrees of the distinguished star-node depends on whether they are connected to the center or an extremity of the star-node. The subtrees connected to the extremities of the distinguished star-node are exactly those specified by an $\cls[C]{S}$, and the subtree attached to the center of the distinguished star-node can lead to either a leaf or a prohibitive clique-node. The other three rooted tree equations follow from with the same logic. The first few terms of the enumeration of unlabeled, unrooted ptolemaic graphs (among others) are available in the Table \[tab:enum-block-ptol\] at the end of this paper. 2,3-Cactus, 3-Cactus and 4-Cactus Graphs \[sec:cactus\] ======================================================= The definition of *cactus graphs* is similar to that of a block graphs. Yet whereas in block graphs (discussed in Section \[sec:block\]), the blocks[^10] are cliques, in a cactus graph the blocks are cycles. Thus, just as block graphs can be called clique trees, cacti can be seen as “*cycle trees*”[^11]. An alternate definition: A *cactus* is a connected graphs in which every edge belongs to at most one cycle [@HaPa73] We can also conjure further variations on this definition, with cactus graphs having as blocks, cycles that have size constrained to a set of positive integers; thus given a set of integers $\Omega$, an $\Omega$-cactus graph[^12] is the class of cactus graphs of which the cycles have size $m \in \Omega$. In this section, we discuss cactus graphs for the sets: $\Omega = \set{2,3}$, $\Omega = \set{3}$ and $\Omega = \set{4}$, following an article by Harary and Uhlenbeck [@HaUh53], who use dissimilarity characteristics derived from Otter’s theorem [@Otter48]. 2,3-Cactus Graphs.\[subs:2-3-cactus\] ------------------------------------- In this section, we enumerate the family of cactus graphs with $\Omega=\{2,3\}$. The class of 2,3-cactus graphs is equivalent to the intersection of block graphs and of cactus graphs[^13], not to be confused with the class of block-cactus graphs (which are the *union* of block graphs and cactus graphs [@RaVo98]). [\[thm:2-3-cactus-split-characterization\]]{} A graph $G$ with the reduced split-decomposition tree $(T,\mathcal{F})$ is a block-cactus graph if and only if 1. $T$ is a clique-star tree; 2. every clique-node has degree 3; 3. the center of all star-nodes are attached to leaves; This split-decomposition tree characterization is identical to the characterization for 3-cactus graphs, except the last condition in the characterization of 3-cacti (stating that leaves cannot be attached to extremities of star-nodes) is missing here. As we outlined in the proof of the characterization of 3-cacti, a leaf attached to a an extremity of an star-node corresponds to a vertex of degree 1 in the original graph. Unlike with 3-cacti, which required that all vertices be in some cycle of size 3, having such a vertex of degree 1 here corresponds to a $\cramped{C_2}$ and is allowed. Therefore, the correctness of this characterization follows from the proof of the characterization for 3-cactus graphs. [\[thm:rooted-grammar-2-3-cactus\]]{} The class $\clsTTCGrl$ of 2,3-cactus graphs rooted at a vertex is specified by $$\begin{aligned} \clsTTCGrl &= \clsAtom_{\mLeaf} \times (\cls[C]{S}+\cls[X]{S}+\cls{K})\\ \cls[C]{S} &= \Set[\geqslant2]{\clsAtom+\cls{K}+\cls[X]{S}}\\ \cls[X]{S} &= \clsAtom\times\Set[\geqslant1]{\clsAtom+\cls{K}+\cls[X]{S}}\\ \cls{K} &= \Set[=2]{\clsAtom+\cls[X]{S}} \end{aligned}$$ [\[thm:unrooted-grammar-2-3-cactus\]]{} The class $\clsTTCG$ of unrooted 2,3-cactus graphs is specified by $$\begin{aligned} \clsTTCG &= \cls[K]{T} +\cls[S]{T} + \cls[S-S]{T} - \cls[S\rightarrow S]{T} - \cls[S-K]{T} \\ \cls[K]{T} &= \Set[=3]{\clsAtom+\cls[X]{S}}\\ \cls[S]{T} &= \clsAtom\times\cls[C]{S} \\ \cls[S-S]{T} &= \Set[2]{\cls[X]{S}}\\ \cls[S\rightarrow S]{T} &= \cls[X]{S}\times\cls[X]{S}\\ \cls[S-K]{T} &= \cls{K}\times\cls[X]{S}\\ \cls[C]{S} &= \Set[\geqslant2]{\clsAtom+\cls{K}+\cls[X]{S}}\\ \cls[X]{S} &= \clsAtom\times\Set[\geqslant1]{\clsAtom+\cls{K}+\cls[X]{S}}\\ \cls{K} &= \Set[=2]{\clsAtom+\cls[X]{S}}\end{aligned}$$ 3-Cactus Graphs\[subs:3-cactus\] -------------------------------- We now enumerate the family of cactus graph that is constrained to $\Omega=\{3\}$, which we refer to as the family as 3-cacti or $\emph{triangular}$ cacti.  \[lem:forbidden-characterization-3cactus\] A graph $G$ is a triangular cactus if and only if $G$ is a block graph with no bridges or induced $\cramped{K_{\geqslant4}}$. [\[$\Rightarrow$\]]{}  Given a triangular cactus $G$, we will show that $G$ is a block graph and does not have any bridges or induced $\cramped{K_{\geqslant4}}$. We first note that $G$ is a block graphs by showing that it is ($\cramped{C_{\geqslant4}}$, diamond)-free. There cannot be any induced $\cramped{C_{\geqslant4}}$ in $G$, because every edge of a 3-cactus is in exactly one triangle and no other cycle. There cannot be any induced diamonds in a $G$ because diamonds have an edge in common between two cycles[^14]. We next observe that $G$ cannot have bridges, as a bridge is by definition not part of any cycles, including triangles. Furthermore, $G$ cannot have any induced cliques on 4 or more vertices, as such a clique would involve edges shared between triangles. Therefore, $G$ must be a block graph and with no pendant edges or induced $\cramped{K_{\geqslant4}}$. [\[$\Leftarrow$\]]{}  Given a block graph $G$ without any bridges or induced $\cramped{K_{\geqslant4}}$, we need to show that $G$ is a 3-cactus. We do so by showing that every edge $(a,b)\in E(G)$ is in exactly one triangle and no other cycle. First, since $(a,b)$ cannot be a bridge, it must lie on some cycle $C$. Since $G$ is a block graph and thus $\cramped{C_{\geqslant4}}$-free, $C$ must be a triangle.Furthermore, if $(a,b)$ belonged to another cycle $C'$, by the same argument, $C'$ would also be a triangle. Let $c$ be the third vertex of $C$ other than $a$ and $b$, and let $c'$ the third vertex of $C'$. Depending on the adjacency of $c$ and $c'$, we have one of the following two cases: - $(c,c')\in E(G)$, in which case $\set{a,c,b,c'}$ induces a $\cramped{K_4}$, which we assumed $G$ does not include; - $(c,c')\not\in E(G)$, in which case $\set{a,c,b,c'}$ induces a diamond, which $G$, as a block graph, cannot contain. Therefore, no such cycle $C'$ can exist, implying that $(a,b)$ belongs to one and exactly one triangle in $G$ and no other cycle. Extending this argument to all edges of $G$ ensures that $G$ is a 3-cactus. \[thm:split-characterization-3cacti\] A graph $G$ with the reduced split-decomposition tree $(T,\mathcal{F})$ is a triangular cactus graph if and only if 1. $T$ is a clique-star tree; 2. the centers of all star-nodes are attached to leaves; 3. the extremities of star-nodes are only attached to clique-nodes; 4. every clique-node has degree 3. By Lemma \[lem:forbidden-characterization-3cactus\], we know that 3-cacti can be described exactly as the class of block graphs with no bridges or induced $\cramped{K_\geqslant4}$. The first and second conditions of this theorem duplicate the split-decomposition tree characterization of block graphs outlined in Theorem \[thm:split-characterization-block\]. The third condition uses Lemma \[lem:split-characterization-bridge\] to forbid bridges. Since by the second condition, all star centers in $T$ are adjacent to leaves, a star extremity adjacent to a leaf of $T$ would correspond to a bridge in the form of a pendant edge in $G$, and a star extremity adjacent to another star extremity would correspond to a non-pendant bridge in $G$. Finally, the last condition applies Lemma \[lem:split-characterization-K4\] to disallow $\cramped{K_\geqslant4}$, the last set of forbidden induced subgraphs for 3-cactus. The split-decomposition tree characterization of 3-cacti derived in the previous section naturally defines the following symbolic grammar for rooted block graphs. [\[thm:rooted-grammar-3cactus\]]{} The class $\clsTCGrl$ of triangular cactus graphs rooted at a vertex is specified by $$\begin{aligned} \clsTCGrl &= \clsAtom_{\mLeaf} \times (\cls[C]{S}+\cls{K})\\ \cls[C]{S} &= \Set[\geqslant2]{\cls{K}}\\ \cls[X]{S} &= \clsAtom\times\Set[\geqslant1]{\cls{K}}\\ \cls{K} &= \Set[=2]{\clsAtom+\cls[X]{S}} \end{aligned}$$ [\[thm:unrooted-grammar-3cactus\]]{} The class $\clsTCG$ of unrooted triangular cactus graphs is specified by $$\begin{aligned} \clsTCG &= \cls[K]{T} +\cls[S]{T} - \cls[S-K]{T} \\ \cls[K]{T} &= \Set[=3]{\clsAtom+\cls[X]{S}}\\ \cls[S]{T} &= \clsAtom\times\cls[C]{S} \\ \cls[S-K]{T} &= \cls{K}\times\cls[X]{S}\\ \cls[C]{S} &= \Set[\geqslant2]{\cls{K}}\\ \cls[X]{S} &= \clsAtom\times\Set[\geqslant1]{\cls{K}}\\ \cls{K} &= \Set[\geqslant2]{\clsAtom+\cls[X]{S}}\end{aligned}$$ Conclusion\[sec:conclusion\] ============================ In this paper, we follow the ideas of Gioan and Paul [@GiPa12] and Chauve  [@ChFuLu14], and provide full analyses of several important subclasses of distance-hereditary graph. Some of these analyses have lead us to uncover previously unknown enumerations (ptolemaic graphs, ...), while for other classes for which enumerations were already known (block graphs, 2,3-cactus and 3-cactus graphs), we have provided symbolic grammars which are a more powerful starting point for future work: such as parameter analyses, exhaustive and random generation and the empirical analyses that the latter enables, etc.. For instance, Iriza [@Iriza15 §7] provided a nice tentative preview of the type of results unlocked by these grammars, when he empirically observed the linear growth of clique-nodes and star-nodes in the split-decomposition tree of a random distance-hereditary graph. Our main idea is encapsulated in Section \[sec:forbidden\]: we think that the split-decomposition, coupled with analytic combinatorics, is a powerful way to analyze classes of graphs specified by their forbidden induced subgraph. This is remarkably noteworthy, because forbidden characterizations are relatively common, and yet they generally are very difficult to translate to specifications. What we show is that this can be (at least for subclasses of distance-hereditary graphs which are totally decomposable by the split-decomposition) fairly automatic, in keeping with the spirit of analytic combinatorics: 1. identify forbidden induced subgraphs; 2. translate each forbidden subgraph into constraints on the (clique-star) split-decomposition tree; 3. describe rooted grammar, apply unrooting, etc.. This allows us to systematically derive the grammar of a number of well-studied classes of graphs, and to compute full enumerations, asymptotic estimates, etc.. In Figure \[fig:ratios-subsets\], for instance, we have used the results from this paper to provide some intuition as to the relative “density” of these graph classes. A fairly attainable goal would be to use the asymptotics estimates which can be derived automatically from the grammars, to compute the asymptotic probability that a random block graph is also a 2,3-cactus graph. Naturally, this raises a number of interesting questions, but possibly the most natural one to ask is: can we expand this methodology beyond distance-hereditary graphs, to classes for which the split-decomposition tree contains *prime nodes* (which are neither clique-nodes nor star-nodes). Beyond distance-hereditary graphs, another perfect (pun intended) candidate is the class of *parity graphs*: these are the graphs whose split-decomposition tree has prime nodes that are bipartite graphs. But while bipartite graphs have been enumerated by Hanlon [@Hanlon79], and more recently Gainer-Dewar and Gessel [@GaGe14], it is unclear whether this is sufficient to derive a grammar for parity graphs. Indeed, the advantage of the degenerate nodes (clique-nodes and star-nodes) is that their symmetries are fairly uncomplicated (all the vertices of a clique are undistinguished; all the vertices of a star, save the center, are undistinguished), as is in fact their enumeration (for each given size, there is only one clique or one star). An empirical study by Shi [@ShLu15] showed that lower and upper bounds can be derived by plugging in the enumeration as an artificial generating function—either assuming all vertices of a bipartite prime node to be distinguished or undistinguished. Other classes present a similar challenge, in that the subset of allowable prime nodes is itself too challenging. A likely more fruitful direction to pursue this work is to first start with classes of graphs which have small, predictable subsets of prime nodes. We discovered one such family of classes in a paper by Harary and Uhlenbeck [@HaUh53]; in this paper, they discuss the enumeration of unlabeled and unrooted 3-cactus graphs and 4-cactus graphs (which we studied and enumerated using a radically different methodology in this paper), while suggesting that they would have liked to provide some general methodology to obtain the enumeration of $m$-cactus graphs, for generalized polygons on $m$ sides[^15]. There is some evidence to suggest that $m$-cactus graphs would yield split-decomposition trees with prime nodes that are undirected cycles of size $m$; likewise the split-decomposition tree of a general cactus graph (in which the blocks are cycles of any size larger than 3) would likely have prime nodes that are undirected cycles. In the same vein, block-cactus graphs (which are the union of the block graphs enumerated in Section \[sec:block\], and of generalized cactus graphs) would likely also have the same type of prime nodes. All of these are more manageable subset, and it is likely that the various intersection classes with cactus graphs would be a more promising avenue by which to determine whether the split-decomposition can be reliably used for the enumeration of supersets of distance-hereditary graphs. **Graph Class** **Number** ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- General [@Sloane A000088] $2.86 \times \cramped{10^{685}}$ General Connected [@Sloane A001349] $2.86 \times \cramped{10^{685}}$ Distance-Hereditary [@ChFuLu14] $3.38 \times \cramped{10^{56}}$ 3-Leaf Power [@ChFuLu14] $8.40 \times \cramped{10^{37}}$ Ptolemaic $3.78 \times \cramped{10^{50}}$ Block $1.44 \times \cramped{10^{40}}$ 2,3-Cacti $1.55 \times \cramped{10^{38}}$ 3-Cacti $9.13 \times \cramped{10^{16}}$ 4-Cacti $5.73 \times \cramped{10^{14}}$   [0.84]{}[cW]{} **Symbol**&**Explanation**\ $\cls{K}$ &[a clique-node entered from one of its vertices (and missing the corresponding subtree)]{}\ $\cls[C]{S}$ &[a star-node entered through its *center* (and missing the corresponding subtree)]{}\ $\cls[X]{S}$ &[a star-node entered through one of its (at least two) *extremities* (and missing the corresponding subtree)]{}\ $\clsAtom$ &[a leaf of the split-decomposition tree (an atom with unit size)]{}\ $\clsAtom_\mLeaf$ &[the *rooted* leaf of the [split-decomposition tree]{} (an atom with unit size)]{}\ $\cls[K]{T}$ &[a [split-decomposition tree]{} rerooted at a clique-node (all subtrees are present)]{}\ $\cls[S]{T}$ &[a [split-decomposition tree]{} rerooted at a star-node (all subtrees are present)]{}\ $\cls[K-S]{T}$ &[a [split-decomposition tree]{} rerooted at an *edge* connecting a clique-node to a star-node (the edge can either connect the clique-node to the star-node’s center or an extremity; the edge accounts for one subtree of the clique-node and one subtree of the star-node)]{}\ $\cls[S-S]{T}$ &[a [split-decomposition tree]{} rerooted at an *edge* connecting two star-nodes; in the general case this can either be a center-center edge, or an extremity-extremity edge; some classes, such as ptolemaic graphs, may restrict this (and as before the edge accounts for a subtree of each of the nodes)]{}\ $\cls[S\rightarrow S]{T}$ &[a [split-decomposition tree]{} rerooted at a *directed edge*; similar to $\cramped{\cls[S-S]{T}}$, except there is a direction to the edge—and thus an order to the star-nodes]{}\ $\cls{\bar{K}}$ &[a *prohibitive* clique-node—used in the grammar for ptolemaic graphs—entered through an edge (and missing the corresponding subtree) that is on a path that is connected to the center of a star; this clique-node disallows outgoing connections to a star-node’s center, to avoid the formation of a *center-center path*, as stated by Lemma \[lem:split-characterization-c4\]]{}\ $\cls[C]{Q}$ &[a *“quadrilateral” star-node*, as introduced in the grammars for 4-cactus graphs of Appendix \[app:4-cactus\]; this is one half of a group of two star-nodes, each with two extremities, and linked at their center as illustrated in Figure \[fig:split-subpattern-C4\]; here we are entering one such star-node from the center (or equivalently the center of star-node is the subtree that is missing), which means the parent node/missing subtree is the other part of the two star-node group]{}\ $\cls[X]{Q}$ &[a “quadrilateral” star-node, entered from an extremity (or with a subtree rooted at an extremity missing), which means that we must now connect the center to a matching “quadralateral” star-node, and the remaining extremity to something else]{}\ Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered} ============== We would like to thank Christophe Paul, for his help in understanding the split-decomposition tree characterization of ptolemaic graphs. All of the figures in this article were created in OmniGraffle 6 Pro. Some were borrowed from Iriza [@Iriza15], and others were redone from original figures by Gioan and Paul [@GiPa12] (notably Figures \[fig:ex-split\] and \[fig:reduced\]). 4-Cactus Graphs\[app:4-cactus\] =============================== While investigating block graphs and the related class of 3-cactus graphs, we found an article by Harary and Uhlenbeck [@HaUh53] in which they investigate both 3-cactus graphs and 4-cactus graphs. This prompted us to enumerate 4-cactus graphs. This enumeration appears in appendix because it does not involve forbidden induced subgraphs, and so is somewhat of a non-sequitur as far as the point we would like to make in this paper. The appeal of this enumeration is that it revisits a trick that is similar to that used to enumerate ptolemaic graphs. In Section \[sec:ptolemaic\], we introduced two symbols to express clique-nodes, $\cramped{\cls{K}}$ and $\cramped{\cls{\bar{K}}}$. These two symbols were used to keep track of whether, in the rooted decomposition of the split-decomposition tree, we were traveling down an alternated path starting at the center of a star-node or not. This “state” information was essential to prevent the formation of center-center paths that induce $\cramped{C_4}$. In this grammar for triangular cacti, we use a similar idea. The quadrilaterals of these graphs translate to a very specific pattern in the split-decomposition tree: two star-nodes of size 3, connected at their center. We could well translate this in the grammar as a “meta” internal node that is just those star-nodes combined. Instead, we define the two symbols $\cramped{\cls[C]{Q}}$ and $\cramped{\cls[X]{Q}}$ to denote these special star-nodes; and because they always come in pairs connected at their centers, we know that if we encounter $\cramped{\cls[C]{Q}}$ we are “inside” the pattern, and if we encounter $\cramped{\cls[X]{Q}}$ we are entering this pattern from the outside. The class $\clsFCGrl$ of 4-cactus graphs rooted at a vertex is specified by $$\begin{aligned} \clsFCGrl &= \clsAtom_{\mLeaf} \times (\cls[X]{Q}+\cls[C]{S})\\ \cls[C]{Q} &= \Set[=2]{\clsAtom+\cls[X]{S}}\\ \cls[X]{Q} &= \cls[C]{Q}\times(\clsAtom+\cls[X]{S})\\ \cls[C]{S} &= \Set[\geqslant2]{\cls[X]{Q}}\\ \cls[X]{S} &= \clsAtom\times\Set[\geqslant1]{\cls[X]{Q}} \end{aligned}$$ We first note that 4-cacti’s property of not having any induced clique-nodes of 3 or more vertices, by Lemma \[lem:split-characterization-K4\], translates to the split-decomposition tree of 4-cacti having no clique-nodes. Therefore, the only internal nodes to consider are star-nodes. Furthermore, by Lemma \[lem:split-characterization-c4\], every $\cramped{C_4}$ in a 4-cactus corresponds to a center-center path in the split-decomposition tree. Since we already ruled out the existence of clique-nodes, the only possible center-center paths in the split-decomposition tree of 4-cacti are two star-nodes adjacent via their centers, corresponding to an induced $\cramped{C_4}$ in the accessibility graph. Along this line, we distinguish between two types of star-nodes, with $\cls{Q}$ (for quadrilateral) representing star-nodes with their center adjacent to another star-node (another $\cls{Q}$) and $\cls{S}$ representing all other star-nodes, which we refer to as *regular* star-nodes. We next observe that the centers of all regular star-nodes must be attached to leaves. They cannot be attached to extremities of other star nodes as that would allow for a star-join operation, and they cannot be attached to centers of other star-nodes since otherwise, they would be considered quadrilateral star-nodes instead of regular ones. Additionally, we note that extremities of regular star-nodes must be attached to quadrilateral star-nodes. First, these extremities cannot be attached to centers of other star-nodes to avoid star-join operations. Furthermore, as we already established that the centers of these regular star-node are attached to leaves, having their extremities adjacent to leaves or extremities of other star-nodes would induce bridges in the accessibility graph by Lemma \[lem:split-characterization-bridge\] (a pendant bridge in the former case, and an internal bridge in latter). However, every edge in a 4-cactus graph belongs to a $\cramped{C_4}$ and thus cannot be a bridge. Finally, we show that every quadrilateral star-node must have exactly two extremities. This is because there are no edges in an accessibility graph between the leaves at the ends of maximal alternated paths out of any star-node, as an alternated path between two such leaves would require using two interior edges from that star-node. Therefore, if two adjacent quadrilateral star-nodes respectively have $\cramped{x_1}$ and $\cramped{x_2}$ extremities, then the corresponding leaves in their subtrees would induce a $\cramped{K_{x_1, x_2}}$ in the accessibility graph. We have $\cramped{x_1}, \cramped{x_2}\geq2$ since the split-decomposition tree is assumed to be reduced. In a 4-cactus graph, the only allowed complete bipartite induced subgraph, where each side of the bipartition has size at least 2, is a $\cramped{K_{2,2}}$, i.e. $\cramped{C_4}$, implying that every quadrilateral node must have exactly two extremities. The class $\clsFCG$ of unrooted 4-cactus graphs is specified by $$\begin{aligned} \clsFCG &= \cls[Q]{T} +\cls[S]{T} + \cls[Q-Q]{T} - \cls[Q\rightarrow Q]{T} - \cls[Q-S]{T} \\[0.4em] \cls[Q]{T} &= \cls[C]{Q}\times\cls[C]{Q}\\ \cls[S]{T} &= \clsAtom\times\cls[C]{S} \\ \cls[Q-Q]{T} &= \Set[2]{\cls[C]{Q}}\\ \cls[Q\rightarrow Q]{T} &= \cls[C]{Q}\times\cls[C]{Q}\\ \cls[Q-S]{T} &= \cls[X]{Q}\times\cls[X]{S}\\[0.4em] \cls[C]{Q} &= \Set[=2]{\clsAtom+\cls[X]{S}}\\ \cls[X]{Q} &= \cls[C]{Q}\times(\clsAtom+\cls[X]{S})\\ \cls[C]{S} &= \Set[\geqslant2]{\cls[X]{Q}}\\ \cls[X]{S} &= \clsAtom\times\Set[\geqslant1]{\cls[X]{Q}} \end{aligned}$$ The first few terms of the enumeration of unlabeled, unrooted 4-cactus graphs are available in the Table \[tab:enum-cacti\] at the end of this paper. Proof of Lemmas \[lem:alternated-paths\], \[lem:alternated-paths-disjoint\], and \[lem:split-induced-clique\]\[app:proof-tree-lemmas\] ====================================================================================================================================== We here restate and provide the full proof of two straight-forward lemmas, which Let $G$ be a totally decomposable graph with the reduced clique-star split-decomposition tree $T$, any maximal[^16] alternated path starting from any node in $V(T)$ ends in a leaf. Let $P$ be a maximal alternated path of length $\ell$ (edges) originating from a node $u\in V(T)$, and suppose $P$ does not end in a leaf. Let $v$ be the internal node that $P$ ends in, and let $x\in V(\cramped{G_v})$ be the marker vertex attached to the edge in $P$ that enters $v$. Note that since $P$ is an alternated path, it can include at most one edge from $E(\cramped{G_v})$, so the part of $P$ going from $u$ to $x$ has length at least $\ell-1$ edges. Depending on the structure of $\cramped{G_v}$, we have the following cases: - *$\cramped{G_v}$ is a clique-node*.   Since $T$ is reduced, $v$ has degree at least 3. Therefore, $x$ has at least two neighbors in $V(\cramped{G_v})$. Let $y$ be one of these neighbors, and let $\cramped{\rho_y}$ connect $y$ to $z$ ($z$ is either a leaf or a marker vertex in a different internal node than $v$). We can construct a new path $P'$ of length $\ell+1$ from $P$ by cutting off the part of $P$ that follows $x$ and adding $(x,y)$ and $(y,z)$ to the end of $P$, contradicting the maximality of $P$. - *$\cramped{G_v}$ is a star-node and $x$ is its center*.   Similarly to the previous case, $\cramped{G_v}$ has degree at least 3 and thus at least two extremities. Let $y\in V(\cramped{G_v})$ be one of these extremities and repeat the same argument in the previous case. - *$\cramped{G_v}$ is a star-node and $x$ is one of its extremities*.   Let $y\in V(\cramped{G_v})$ be the center of the star-node $v$, and the same argument given for the previous two cases applies. Let $G$ be a totally decomposable graph with the reduced clique-star split-decomposition tree $T$ and let $u\in V(T)$ be an internal node. Any two maximal alternated paths $P$ and $Q$ that start at distinct marker vertices of $u$ but contain no interior edges from $\cramped{G_u}$ end at distinct leaves. Let $P$ and $Q$ be two such maximal alternated paths, starting at marker vertices $p,q\in V(\cramped{G_u})$ respectively. We will show that $P$ and $Q$ are disjoint, and the result follows. Note that $P$ and $Q$ are indeed disjoint in $\cramped{G_u}$, since they begin at different marker vertices and leave $u$ immediately from there. Suppose $P$ and $Q$ are not disjoint, and let $v\in V(T)$ be the first such common node encountered when tracing $P$ and $Q$ out of $u$. Since $P$ and $Q$ are disjoint before reaching $v$, the part of $P$ and $Q$ between $u$ and $v$ form a simple cycle in $T$, which cannot happen in a tree. Therefore, no such common node $v$ can exist, implying $P\cap Q = \{\}$. Let $G$ be a totally decomposable graph with the reduced clique-star split-decomposition tree $T$. If $T$ has a clique-node of degree $n$, then $G$ has a corresponding induced clique on (at least) $n$ vertices. Let $u\in V(T)$ be a clique-node of degree $n$. For every marker vertex $\cramped{v_i}\in V(\cramped{G_u})$, $i = 1\dots n$, fix some maximal alternated path $\cramped{P_{v_i}}$ that starts at the marker vertex $\cramped{v_i}$, uses no interior edges of $\cramped{G_u}$, and ends at leaf $\cramped{a_i}$. Note that the $\cramped{a_i}$ are all distinct, by Lemma \[lem:alternated-paths-disjoint\], and pairwise adjacent, since every pair of leaves $\cramped{a_i}, \cramped{a_j}$ are connected in $T$ via the alternated path consisting of $\cramped{P_{v_i}}$, $\cramped{P_{v_j}}$, and the edge $(\cramped{v_i},\cramped{v_j})\in E(\cramped{G_u})$, thus inducing a clique of size (at least[^17]) $n$ in $G$. ![\[fig:clique-node-not-clique\] While the two clique-nodes of size 3 guarantee the presence of two corresponding induced cliques (one involving vertices 1 and 2, the other involving vertices 4 and 5), they do not allow us to rule out the existence of larger clique. This illustrates that, unlike many of our lemmas, the property presented in Lemma \[lem:split-induced-clique\] is not bijective, and only works in one direction.](./images/clique-counterexample-vertical.pdf) [.9]{}[c c c c W]{} **Graph Class**&**Rooted**&**Labeled**&**EIS**&**Enumeration**\ Block graphs & & &[**A035051**]{} &[1, 2, 12, 116, 1555, 26682, 558215, 13781448, 392209380, 12641850510, 455198725025, 18109373455164, 788854833679549, …]{}\ Block graphs & & &[**A030019**]{} &[1, 1, 4, 29, 311, 4447, 79745, 1722681, 43578820, 1264185051, 41381702275, 1509114454597, 60681141052273,…]{}\ Block graphs & & &[**A007563**]{} &[1, 1, 3, 8, 25, 77, 258, 871, 3049, 10834, 39207, 143609, 532193, 1990163, 7503471, 28486071, 108809503, 417862340,…]{}\ Block graphs & & &[**A035053**]{} &[1, 1, 2, 4, 9, 22, 59, 165, 496, 1540, 4960, 16390, 55408, 190572, 665699, 2354932, 8424025, 30424768, 110823984,…]{}\ Ptolemaic graphs & & & &[1, 2, 12, 140, 2405, 54252, 1512539, 50168456, 1928240622, 84240029730, 4121792058791, 223248397559376, …]{}\ Ptolemaic graphs & & & &[1, 1, 4, 35, 481, 9042, 216077, 6271057, 214248958, 8424002973, 374708368981, 18604033129948, 1019915376831963, …]{}\ Ptolemaic graphs & & & &[1, 1, 3, 10, 40, 168, 764, 3589, 17460, 86858, 440507, 2267491, 11819232, 62250491, 330794053, 1771283115, 9547905381, …]{}\ Ptolemaic graphs & & & &[1, 1, 2, 5, 14, 47, 170, 676, 2834, 12471, 56675, 264906,1264851, 6150187, 30357300, 151798497, 767573729, 3919462385, …]{}\ [.9]{}[c c c c W]{} **Graph Class**&**Rooted**&**Labeled**&**EIS**&**Enumeration**\ 2,3-cactus graphs & & &[**A091481**]{} &[1, 2, 12, 112, 1450, 23976, 482944, 11472896, 314061948, 9734500000, 336998573296,12888244482048, …]{}\ 2,3-cactus graphs & & &[**A091485**]{} &[1, 1, 4, 28, 290, 3996, 68992, 1434112, 34895772, 973450000, 30636233936, 1074020373504, 41510792057176, …]{}\ 2,3-cactus graphs & & &[**A091486**]{} &[1, 1, 3, 7, 21, 60, 190, 600, 1977, 6589, 22408, 77050, 268178, 941599, 3333585, 11882427, 42615480,153653039, …]{}\ 2,3-cactus graphs & & &[**A091487**]{} &[1, 1, 2, 3, 7, 16, 41, 106, 304, 880, 2674, 8284, 26347, 85076, 279324, 928043, 3118915, 10580145, 36199094, 124774041, …]{}\ 3-cactus graphs & & &[**A034940**]{} &[0, 0, 3, 0, 75, 0, 5145, 0, 688905, 0, 152193195, 0, 50174679555, 0, 23089081640625, 0, …]{}\ 3-cactus graphs & & &[**A034941**]{} &[0, 0, 1, 0, 15, 0, 735, 0, 76545, 0, 13835745, 0, 3859590735, 0, 1539272109375, 0, 831766748637825, 0, …]{}\ 3-cactus graphs & & &[**A003080**]{} &[0, 0, 1, 0, 2, 0, 5, 0, 13, 0, 37, 0, 111, 0, 345, 0, 1105, 0, 3624, 0, 12099, 0, 41000, 0, 140647, 0, 487440, 0, 1704115, 0, …]{}\ 3-cactus graphs & & &[**A003081**]{} &[0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 2, 0, 4, 0, 8, 0, 19, 0, 48, 0, 126, 0, 355, 0, 1037, 0, 3124, 0, 9676, 0, 30604, 0, 98473, 0, 321572, 0, 1063146, 0, …]{}\ 4-cactus graphs & & & &[0, 0, 0, 12, 0, 0, 4410, 0, 0, 7560000, 0, 0, 35626991400, 0, 0, 357082280755200, 0, 0, 6536573599765809600, 0, 0, …]{}\ 4-cactus graphs & & & &[0, 0, 0, 3, 0, 0, 630, 0, 0, 756000, 0, 0, 2740537800, 0, 0, 22317642547200, 0, 0, 344030189461358400, 0, 0, …]{}\ 4-cactus graphs & & & &[0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 3, 0, 0, 11, 0, 0, 46, 0, 0, 208, 0, 0, 1002, 0, 0, 5012, 0, 0, 25863, 0, 0, 136519, 0, 0, 733902, 0, 0, …]{}\ 4-cactus graphs & & & &[0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 3, 0, 0, 7, 0, 0, 25, 0, 0, 88, 0, 0, 366, 0, 0, 1583, 0, 0, 7336, 0, 0, 34982, 0, 0, 172384, 0, 0, …]{}\ [^1]: Department of Computer Science, Princeton University, 35 Olden Street, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA. and [^2]: In this paper, we only consider split-decomposition trees which are clique-star trees. As such the family $\mathcal{F}$, to which our graph labels belong, is understood to only contain cliques and stars: we thus omit $\mathcal{F}$, and simply refer to clique-star trees as $T$. [^3]: Figure \[fig:ex-split-glt\] is not a clique-star tree because it contains a prime node—the leftmost internal node that does not have any splits. We illustrate the method for this more general split-decomposition tree, noting that the process would be identical in the case of a clique-star tree. [^4]: Labeled objects are composed of atoms (think of atoms as being vertices in a graph, or leaves in a tree) that are each uniquely distinguished by an integer between 1 and $n$, the size of the object; each of these integer is called a *label*. [^5]: A maximal alternated path is one that cannot be extended to include more edges while remaining alternated. [^6]: Out of what is, perhaps, notational abuse, we refer to both vertices of the accessibility graph, and leaves of the split-decomposition tree as the same objects. [^7]: We chose here to use the same notation as the proof of Lemma \[lem:split-characterization-c4\] in referring to marker vertices of the clique-node $v$ by names that might be reminiscent of the center and extremities of a star-node. This notation is not meant to imply that $v$ is a star-node, but rather aims to highlight the parallelism between the two proofs, hinting at the ease by which our methods can be generalized to derive split-decomposition tree characterizations for different classes of graphs defined in terms of forbidden subgraphs. [^8]: Alternatively block graphs can be characterized as the class of ($\cramped{C_{\geqslant4}}$, diamond)-free graphs. Since block graphs are also distance-hereditary, and since distance-hereditary graphs do not have any induced $\cramped{C_{\geqslant5}}$, we conclude again that block graphs can be thought of as ($\cramped{C_4}$, diamond)-free distance-hereditary graphs. [^9]: This notion is implicitly used in the unrooted grammar for block graphs—and previously by Chauve  [@ChFuLu14], for distance-hereditary and 3-leaf power graphs—in which we only reroot at a star-node $\cls{S}$ without distinguishing whether it was entered by its center or an extremity, precisely because it is the new root, and therefore all paths lead away from it. [^10]: Recall that a block, or *biconnected component*, is a maximal subgraph in which every two vertex, or every edge belongs to a simple cycle. [^11]: Although cactus graphs have been known by many different names, including *Husimi Trees* (a term that grew contentious because the graphs are not in fact trees [@HaPa73 § 3.4]—although this seems not to have been an issue for $k$-trees and related classes!), they have not generally been known by the name “*cycle trees*”, except in a non-graph theoretical publication, which rediscovered the concept [@FrJo83]. [^12]: Note that it makes no sense for 1 to be in $\Omega$ given this definition. We can however have $2\in\Omega$, in which case we treat an edge as a cycle of size 2. For example, if $2\not\in\Omega$, every vertex must be part of a cycle. [^13]: Block graphs can be thought of as a set of cliques sharing at most one vertex pairwise, and cactus graphs can be thought of as a set of cycles sharing at most one vertex pairwise. The intersection of cycles and cliques are those of sizes 1, 2, and 3; however, in the case of one vertex, adding a single vertex in this manner to a connected block or cactus graph does not change the size of the graph, contradicting the requirement that in a combinatorial class, there must be a finite number of objects of any fixed size. Therefore, the intersection of block graphs and cactus graphs is the family of 2,3-cactus graphs. [^14]: Here is another way to see why 3-cacti are a subset of block graphs. Block graphs can be thought of a set of cliques sharing at most one vertex pairwise, and cactus graphs can be thought of a set of cycles sharing at most one vertex pairwise. Since triangles are both cycles and cliques, a pairwise edge-disjoint collection of them is both a cactus graph and block graph. [^15]: It seemsthat Harary and Uhlenbeck have never published such a paper; and it appears that the closest there is in terms of a general enumeration of $m$-cactus graphs is by Bona  [@BoBoLaLe99]—yet they enumerate graphs which are embedded in the plane, while we seek to enumerate the non-plane, unlabeled and unrooted $m$-cactus graphs. [^16]: A maximal alternated path is one that cannot be extended to include more edges while remaining alternated. [^17]: Note that this clique of size $n$ might be part of a larger clique, as illustrated in Figure \[fig:clique-node-not-clique\].

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'A model linking the molecular-scale dynamics of fluids confined to nano-pores to nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) relaxation rates is proposed. The model is fit to experimental NMR dispersions for water and oil in an oil shale assuming that each fluid is characterised by three time constants and Lévy statistics. Results yield meaningful and consistent intra-pore dynamical time constants, insight into diffusion mechanisms and pore morphology. The model is applicable to a wide range of porous systems and advances NMR dispersion as a powerful tool for measuring nano-porous fluid properties.' author: - 'D. A. Faux' - 'P. J. McDonald' bibliography: - 'References.bib' title: Explicit calculation of nuclear magnetic resonance relaxation rates in small pores to elucidate molecular scale fluid dynamics --- Understanding molecular-scale fluid dynamics in micro- and meso-porous materials is central to understanding a wide range of industrially-important materials and processes: rocks for petroleum engineering; zeolites for catalysis; calcium-silicate-hydrates for concrete construction; bio-polymers for food production to name but a few. A molecular-scale model of fluid in a pore is depicted in Fig. \[Fig1\_model\]. In this general picture, one considers fluid within the body of the pore and a surface layer of fluid at the pore wall. The pore body fluid behaves much as a bulk fluid, free to diffuse in three dimensions with motion characterised by a correlation time $\tau_{{\textrm{\tiny b}}}$. The surface layer diffuses in just two dimensions (2D) with motion characterised by a slower correlation time $\tau_{{\textrm{{\tiny $\ell$}}}}$. Molecular exchange is envisaged between the surface layer and the bulk fluid characterised by a desorption time $\tau_{{\textrm{\tiny d}}}$ and a corresponding adsorption time linked to $\tau_{{\textrm{\tiny d}}}$ by the requirements of mass balance. This model therefore simplifies the complex intra-pore dynamics of real fluids to three characteristic time constants,$\tau_{{\textrm{\tiny b}}}$, $\tau_{{\textrm{{\tiny $\ell$}}}}$ and $\tau_{{\textrm{\tiny d}}}$. Aspects of this general model, henceforth referred to as the $3\tau$ model, are widely used throughout literature [@Zavada.1999; @Kimmich.2002; @Barberon.2003; @McDonald.2005; @Korb.2011; @Korb.2014; @Faux.2013; @Faux.2015]. Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) relaxation analysis is a uniquely powerful tool to access molecular correlation times of fluids in porous media [@Zavada.1999; @Kimmich.2002; @Barberon.2003; @McDonald.2005; @Korb.2011; @Korb.2014; @Faux.2013; @Faux.2015; @Fleury.2016]. It is rivalled only by small-angle scattering techniques, especially with neutrons, but has the advantage of being widely available using laboratory-scale equipment. Two NMR relaxation methods are especially valuable. NMR relaxation dispersion (NMRD) measurement of the frequency dependence of the nuclear (usually $^1$H) spin-lattice relaxation time ($T_1$) of fluid molecules in the low-frequency range (kHz to MHz) is sensitive to fluid correlation times. Second, the $T_1$–$T_2$ correlation experiment measures the ratio of $T_1$ to the nuclear spin-spin relaxation time $T_2$. This is especially sensitive to different relaxation mechanisms. However, for the NMR methods to be useful, a model is required to link fluid molecular dynamics in pores to NMR relaxation rates. Several models have been proposed (for example, [@Zavada.1999; @Kimmich.2002; @Godefroy.2001; @Faux.2013; @Korb.2014]) but that which builds most successfully on the general dynamics of the model illustrated in Fig. \[Fig1\_model\] in terms of fitting experimental data is due to Korb and co-workers [@Godefroy.2001; @Barberon.2003; @McDonald.2005; @Korb.2011; @Korb.2014]. Korb’s model reproduces the fundamental form of the $T_1$ dispersion curve at low frequency in most systems and predicts the $T_1/T_2$ ratio. The model supposes that the dominant relaxation mechanism involves repeated encounters of the diffusing surface layer molecules with static surface relaxation sites, most typically paramagnetic impurities. Korb’s model identifies 3 key parameters: two are the correlation times $\tau_{{\textrm{{\tiny $\ell$}}}}$ and $\tau_{{\textrm{\tiny d}}}$ of the general model (Fig. \[Fig1\_model\]); the third is a frequency-independent bulk-fluid spin-lattice relaxation time $T_{1,\textrm{\tiny b}}$. It is roughly linked to $\tau_{{\textrm{\tiny b}}}$. From these parameters Korb produces, first, an approximate surface-diffusion-driven temporal nuclear magnetic correlation function $G(t)$ and, second, the relaxation rates. With time and varied application, two limitations of the Korb model have become apparent. The first is that the physical parameters $\tau_{{\textrm{{\tiny $\ell$}}}}$ and $\tau_{{\textrm{\tiny d}}}$ required to fit experimental data are remarkably uniform, typically about 1 ns and 1–10 $\mu$s, respectively. A lack of sensitivity to the diversity of experimental systems studied seems to imply an underlying problem. The second is that it is very hard to justify the correlation times in terms of physics and chemistry. Surface molecules must undergo $10^3$–$10^5$ surface hops across the pore surface [*without desorbing*]{}. That the molecules must be both “sticky" and “non-sticky" at the same time is seemingly contradictory. In this letter, we propose a model of NMR relaxation of fluids in pores that: (i) [*preserves*]{} the presumed fluid dynamics captured in the 3$\tau$ model (Fig. \[Fig1\_model\]); (ii) achieves [*improved*]{} fits to experimental data [*and*]{} (iii) predicts physically-realistic parameters. The model has exactly the same number of adjustable parameters as the Korb model. The model also retains the essential relaxation mechanism of Korb (surface interactions). However, three advances conspire to have critical and profound effect on the outcomes. The three key advances included in our model are as follows. First, we assume that the paramagnetic relaxation centres are embedded [*in*]{} the pore wall whereas the Korb model assumes them to reside [*on*]{} the pore wall. From this the correlation function $G(t)$ is calculated explicitly and found to vary as $t^{-2}$ in the long-time limit. The Korb model has the functional form $t^{-1}$ in the long-time limit due to mobile spins and paramagnetic impurities lying in the same 2D plane. In the Korb model, an [*approximate*]{} construction for $G(t)$ is obtained by combining this long-time dependence with an assumption that molecules desorb from the surface (and do not return). This ensures that the mathematics is tractable but leads to physically-unrealistic desorption times when data is fit. By contrast, we admit full Lévy walk statistics into the model to capture re-adsorption of desorbed molecules. Finally, we integrate $G(t)$ across the full width of the pore in order to properly calculate the frequency dependence of $T_{1,\textrm{\tiny b}}$. This corresponds to recognising that $\tau_{{\textrm{\tiny b}}}$ is the proper constant of the bulk fluid dynamics, not $T_{1,\textrm{\tiny b}}$. \ We have applied our model to varied published experimental data sets of interest to different user communities. We find that best fit parameters vary between experimental systems in a coherent fashion. Here we exemplify the model with analysis of data from an oil shale: a complex two-fluid system of topical interest. The model is most profound here: Korb’s model interprets the data as showing that the shale is [*water*]{} wetting; our model predicts [*oil*]{} wetting. A theoretical analysis is now presented which determines $T_1^{-1}$ and $T_2^{-1}$ based on $3\tau$ dynamics (Fig. \[Fig1\_model\]). $P({\bf r},t \cap {\bf r}_0)$ is the probability density function describing the probability that a spin (either in the surface layer or bulk) is located at ${\bf r}_0$ relative to an electronic paramagnetic spin at $t\!=\!0$ and ${\bf r}$ at time $t$, as in Fig. \[Fig1\_model\]. $P({\bf r},t \cap {\bf r}_0)$ may be written using cylindrical coordinates as $$\begin{aligned} P({\bf r},t \:\cap \: {\bf r}_0) & = & N \: P(\pmb{\rho},t \: | \: \pmb{\rho}_0) \: P(z,t \: | \: z_0) \label{Prho}\end{aligned}$$ where $N$ is the number of paramagnetic spins per unit volume, $P(\pmb{\rho},t \: | \: \pmb{\rho}_0)$ describes the probability that a spin pair has an in-plane displacement $\pmb{\rho}$ at time $t$ [*given*]{} the displacement was $\pmb{\rho}_0$ at $t\!=\!0$ and is described by Lévy walk statistics via the transform $$\begin{aligned} P(\pmb{\rho},t \: | \: \pmb{\rho}_0) & = & \frac{1}{4 \pi^2} \int e^{-Dtk^\alpha} e^{ i {\bf k} \cdot \pmb{\rho} } e^{-i {\bf k} \cdot \pmb{\rho_0}} d^2 {\bf k} \label{eq:fourierintegral}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf k}$ is an in-plane Fourier variable and $0\!<\!\alpha \!\leq\! 2$ is the Lévy parameter. If $\alpha\!=\!2$, Eq. (\[eq:fourierintegral\]) represents the transform of a Gaussian function and normal Fickian diffusion is recovered. If $\alpha\!<\!2$, the probability distribution possesses power-law tails providing enhanced probability density in the wings of the distribution. $P(z,t \: | \: z_0)$ is obtained as a solution to the diffusion equation with reflective boundaries as [@Bickel.2007] $$\begin{aligned} \!\!\!\!\!\! P(z,t \:| \:z_0) & =& \frac{1}{h} \left[1+2 \: \sum_{p=1}^\infty e^{-D p^2 \pi^2 t/h^2} c_p(z) \: c_p(z_0) \right] \label{Pzeta}\end{aligned}$$ where $c_p(z)\!=\!\cos(p\pi(z\!-\!d)/h)$ and the mobile spins are confined to the region $d\!<z\!<d\!+\!h$ as in Fig. \[Fig1\_model\]. The dipolar correlation function $G(t)$ is [@Faux.2013; @Abragam] $$\begin{aligned} G(t) & = & \frac{4 \pi}{5} \int \!\!\! \int \sum_{M=-2}^{2} \frac{Y_{{{\textrm{\tiny 2M}}}}(\rho_0, \phi_0, z_0) \: Y^*_{{{\textrm{\tiny 2M}}}}(\rho, \phi, z)}{ (\rho^2_0 + z_0^2)^{3/2} \: (\rho^2 + z^2)^{3/2}} \nonumber \\[1mm] && \times \: P({\bf r},t \:\cap \: {\bf r}_0) \: \:d^3 {\bf r}_0 \:\: d^3 {\bf r} \label{eqn:G2}\end{aligned}$$ where the $Y$ are the spherical harmonic functions of degree 2 where the asterisk represents the complex conjugate. The powder average has been taken reflecting the (assumed) uniform random orientation of pores in experimental samples [@Abragam; @Faux.2013]. Substitution of Eqs. (\[Prho\])–(\[Pzeta\]) into Eq. (\[eqn:G2\]), application of the Jacobi-Anger expression followed by volume integrations finally yields $$\begin{aligned} \!\!\!\!G(t) & = & \frac{2 N}{5 \delta^3 \Delta} \int_0^\infty \!\!\!\! e^{-t \kappa^\alpha/6 \tau} \kappa \Big[ H(\kappa)\! +\! 2 \sum_{p=1}^\infty e_p (t,\kappa) \Big] d \kappa \label{eqn:G4}\end{aligned}$$ where $\kappa\!=\!k\delta$ is a dimensionless Fourier variable and $$\begin{aligned} H(\kappa) & = & \frac{5 \pi}{3} \left( e^{\kappa \Delta} - 1 \right)^2 e^{-2\kappa (\Delta+\eta)} \label{eqn:Hkappa} \\[2mm] \!\!\!\!e_p(t,\kappa) & = & \frac{5 \pi \kappa^4 \Delta^4 \; \left[ e^{\kappa \Delta} \!-\! (-1)^p \right]^2 }{3 \; \left[\kappa^2 \Delta^2 + p^2 \pi^2 \right]^2 \: e^{2\kappa (\Delta+\eta)}} e^{-p^2 \pi^2 t/6 \Delta^2 \tau}. \label{eqn:Ckappa}\end{aligned}$$ The dimensionless distances $\eta$ and $\Delta$ are $d/\delta$ and $h/\delta$ respectively where $\delta$ is a convenient molecular-scale distance taken as 0.27 nm, the approximate inter-molecular spin-spin distance in water. $\delta$ also links $\tau_{{\textrm{{\tiny $\ell$}}}}$ and $\tau_{{\textrm{\tiny b}}}$ to their diffusion coefficient via $D\!=\!\delta^2/6\tau$. Finally, the spectral density function $J(\omega)$ is obtained from the Fourier transformation of $G(t)$ allowing $T_1^{-1}$ and $T_2^{-1}$ to be found as follows [@Abragam; @McDonald.2005] $$\begin{aligned} J(\omega) & = & 2 \int^\infty_{0} \!\! G(t) \: \cos \omega t \: dt \label{Jeqn} \\[2mm] T_1^{-1} = && \frac{1}{3} \beta \left[ 7 J(\omega_\sigma) + 3 J(\omega_p)\right] \label{T1sigma} \\[2mm] T_2^{-1} = && \frac{1}{6} \beta \left[ 4 J(0) + 13 J(\omega_\sigma) + 3 J(\omega_p)\right]. \label{T2sigma}\end{aligned}$$ Here $ \beta\!=\!\left( \mu_0 / 4\pi \right)^2 \gamma_p^2 \gamma_\sigma^2 \: \hbar^2 S(S+1)$, $\gamma_\sigma$ ($\gamma_p$) is the gyromagnetic ratio for the paramagnetic impurity (proton) and $S \!= \!\frac{5}{2}$ for Mn$^{2+}$ or Fe$^{3+}$. $\omega_p$ is the Larmor frequency of a proton in the applied static field and $\omega_\sigma \!= \! 658.21 \omega_p$. The model is now fit to the $T_1^{-1}$ dispersions from the first (and only to date) experimental study of an oil shale due to Korb and co-workers [@Korb.2014]. The separate oil and water dispersions are presented in Figs. \[Fig2:shale\_oil\] and \[Fig3:shale\_water\]. Notice how the two data sets have different functional dependence on frequency indicating different distributions within the pore. Spin relaxation in this oil shale is due to the interaction of $^1$H in the water and oil with Mn$^{2+}$ ions identified as the dominant paramagnetic species by electron spin resonance [@Korb.2014]. Fits are undertaken by varying $\tau_{{\textrm{\tiny b}}}$, $\tau_{{\textrm{{\tiny $\ell$}}}}$ and $\tau_{{\textrm{\tiny d}}}$ with fit quality assessed using a simple least-squares measure. \ The pore surface is found to be [*oil*]{} wetting. Contributions to $T_{{\textrm{\tiny 1,oil}}}^{-1}$ are due to the interaction of Mn$^{2+}$ impurities in the pore walls with surface oil ($T_{{\textrm{\tiny 1,$\ell$-oil}}}^{-1}$) and bulk oil ($T_{{\textrm{\tiny 1,b-oil}}}^{-1}$). $G_{{\textrm{\tiny b-oil}}}(t)$ is calculated from Eq. (\[eqn:G4\]) using the parameters for bulk oil in Table \[table\] and $G_{{\textrm{{\tiny $\ell$-oil}}}}(t)$ may be written $$\begin{aligned} G_{{\textrm{{\tiny $\ell$-oil}}}}(t) & = & f\:G(t) + (1\!-\!f)\: G(t) \:e^{-t/\tau_{{\textrm{\tiny d}}}} \label{eqn:Gshaleoilsurf} \label{Goilsurf}\end{aligned}$$ where $G(t)$ is calculated using Eq. (\[eqn:G4\]) using tabulated parameters for surface oil. Eq. (\[Goilsurf\]) could arise if a fraction $f$ of the surface comprises a mono-layer of oil where no desorption occurs over the time scale of $T_1$ or $T_2$. This would arise with droplets of oil occupying $(1-f)$ of the surface area or in pits (Fig. \[Fig4\_schematic\_oil+water\]). $T_{{\textrm{\tiny 1,oil}}}^{-1}$ is then found via $$\begin{aligned} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!T_{{\textrm{\tiny 1,oil}}}^{-1}(\tau_{{\textrm{{\tiny $\ell$}}}}, \tau_{{\textrm{\tiny b}}}, \tau_{{\textrm{\tiny d}}}) & = & x \: T_{{\textrm{\tiny 1,$\ell$-oil}}}^{-1}(\tau_{{\textrm{{\tiny $\ell$}}}}, \tau_{{\textrm{\tiny d}}}) + (1\!-\!x)\: T_{{\textrm{\tiny 1,b-oil}}}^{-1} (\tau_{{\textrm{\tiny b}}}) \label{eqn:T1shaleoil}\end{aligned}$$ where the explicit dependence on the $\tau$ parameters is indicated. The quantity $x$ represents the fraction of oil in the surface layer and Eq. (\[eqn:T1shaleoil\]) is justified if $\min (T_1,T_2)\! \gg \! \max (\tau_{{\textrm{{\tiny $\ell$}}}},\tau_{{\textrm{\tiny d}}},\tau_{{\textrm{\tiny b}}})$, the so-called fast-diffusion limit. Parameters and fit outcomes are listed in Table \[table\]. Satisfactory fits [*cannot*]{} be obtained using the experimental Mn$^{2+}$ spin density of $N \! \approx \! 0.5$/nm$^{3}$ [@Korb.2014]. It is found that the effective Mn$^{2+}$ density is about $N/20$. This is not unexpected, a non-linear relationship between relaxation rate and impurity density is well known. The impact of the Mn$^{2+}$ impurities is reduced due to clustering in the rock and, as would appear here, desorption of Mn$^{2+}$ at pore walls into the pore fluid. Results show that $\tau_{{\textrm{\tiny d}}}\! \approx \! \tau_{{\textrm{{\tiny $\ell$}}}}$ suggesting that surface diffusion and desorption of oil molecules are linked processes, very different from the Korb model. A mechanism consistent with this result allows a surface molecule to depart the surface, the vacancy filled by a second surface molecule (rather than by a bulk molecule whose passage is blocked) leaving a second vacancy which is either filled by the desorbed molecule (exchange), a bulk molecule or a another surface molecule. The mechanism is illustrated in Fig. \[Fig1\_model\]. It is noted that since surface molecules only execute a few hops before desorbing, the surface only needs to be locally flat for the pore model of Fig. \[Fig1\_model\] to be valid. $T_{{\textrm{\tiny 1,$\ell$-oil}}}^{-1}$ was explored for different values of the Lévy parameter $\alpha$. For $\alpha\!=\!0.5$, $T_{{\textrm{\tiny 1,$\ell$-oil}}}^{-1}$ differs by at most 10% over the frequency range of fits but overall fit quality is unchanged compared to Fickian statistics with $\alpha\!=\!2$. This is because the dominant contribution to $T_{{\textrm{\tiny 1,$\ell$-oil}}}^{-1}$ arises for surface spins which make just a few hops on the surface prior to desorption. This contribution is adequately described by Fickian dynamics. Whilst surface spin diffusion is almost certainly a Lévy process, the difference between Fickian and Lévy dynamics does not in practice reveal itself in fits to this set of dispersion data.\ Parameter    Oil             Water      -------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- -------------- $f$ 0.1–0.2 – $d_{{\textrm{{\tiny $\ell$}}}}/d_{{\textrm{\tiny b}}}$ 2$\delta /3 \delta$ –/3$\delta$ $h_{{\textrm{{\tiny $\ell$}}}}/h_{{\textrm{\tiny b}}}$ $\delta/18 \delta$ –/18$\delta$ $\alpha$ 2 – $\tau_{{\textrm{\tiny b}}}$ 20–40 ps 10–40 ps $\tau_{{\textrm{{\tiny $\ell$}}}}$ 0.1–0.5 $\mu$s – $\tau_{{\textrm{\tiny d}}}$ 0.2–0.3$~\mu$s – : List of model parameters required to fit to the $T_1^{-1}$ dispersion [@Korb.2014] for oil and water in oil shale. $\delta\!=\!0.27$ nm. \[table\] The bulk oil correlation time $\tau_{{\textrm{\tiny b}}}$ lies in the range 20-40 ps, consistent with, but slightly longer than, typical pure alkanes (15 ps) [@Blanco.2008]. The $T_{{\textrm{\tiny 1,oil}}}/T_{{\textrm{\tiny 2,oil}}}$ ratio, which ranges from 5 to 10 experimentally [@Korb.2014], is found to be a strong function of $\tau_{{\textrm{{\tiny $\ell$}}}}$ with $\tau_{{\textrm{{\tiny $\ell$}}}}\!=\!0.1\mu$s corresponding to $T_{{\textrm{\tiny 1,oil}}}/T_{{\textrm{\tiny 2,oil}}}\!\approx\!5$ and $\tau_{{\textrm{{\tiny $\ell$}}}}\!=\!0.5\mu$s to $T_{{\textrm{\tiny 1,oil}}}/T_{{\textrm{\tiny 2,oil}}}\!\approx\!10$. This result suggests that the $T_{{\textrm{\tiny 1,oil}}}/T_{{\textrm{\tiny 2,oil}}}$ ratio might provide a direct measure of surface affinity. Combined with peak-spread information, it may be possible to infer oil chain length and surface affinity from $T_1$–$T_2$ maps. With down-bore $T_1$–$T_2$ mapping a possibility in the future, the significance of this result is obvious. Analysis of the $T_{{\textrm{\tiny 1,wat}}}^{-1}$ dispersion for water, that is a different shape to oil, reveals that $T_{{\textrm{\tiny 1,$\ell$-wat}}}^{-1}$ does not contribute to the measured dispersion and therefore water is [*not*]{} located on the pore surface – an independent observation compatible with an oil-wetting shale. Yet the magnitude of the experimental $T_{{\textrm{\tiny 1,wat}}}^{-1}$ dispersion provides unequivocal evidence of interaction with Mn$^{2+}$ ions. It is therefore proposed that Mn$^{2+}$ ions are present in the bulk water. This conclusion is supported by the earlier observation that Mn$^{2+}$ impurities are depleted at the pore surfaces, presumably having desorbed over millennia into the bulk water. It is noted that Mn$^{2+}$ was not found in the oil where it is insoluble. It is noted that $T_{{\textrm{\tiny 1,wat}}}/T_{{\textrm{\tiny 2,wat}}}$ for water in oil shale is typically $\approx 2$ [@Fleury.2016], close to that for MnCl$_2$ solution [@Pykett.1983]. \ The contribution $T_{{\textrm{\tiny 1,aq}}}^{-1}$ due to aqueous Mn$^{2+}$ is estimated from the expression obtained for bulk water [@Abragam; @Faux.1986] adapted to describe the relative motion of water spins with respect to a Mn$^{2+}$ ion assumed to be static. Therefore $$\begin{aligned} T_{{\textrm{\tiny 1,wat}}}^{-1}(\tau_{{\textrm{\tiny b}}}) & = & T_{{\textrm{\tiny 1,b-wat}}}^{-1} (\tau_{{\textrm{\tiny b}}}) + T_{{\textrm{\tiny 1,aq}}}^{-1} (\tau_{{\textrm{\tiny b}}}) \label{eqn:T1shalewater}\end{aligned}$$ which has a single fit parameter, $\tau_{{\textrm{\tiny b}}}$. Optimum fits (Fig. \[Fig3:shale\_water\]) are obtained for $\tau_{{\textrm{\tiny b}}}\approx$ 10–40 ps, longer than for pure water at room temperature (5.3 ps) but consistent with a reduction of the diffusion coefficient due to dissolved ions and molecules. The aqueous Mn$^{2+}$ density is found from the fits to be 5–7.5 mM, a factor 100-150 more dilute than the measured equivalent density in the solid. Assuming pores are mostly water-filled and that all surface Mn$^{2+}$ has desorbed, the mean pore thickness is estimated at 50–80 nm. \ In summary, a general model is proposed which captures the molecular dynamics of fluids in porous solids. The theory is presented which translates the model to $T_1^{-1}$ dispersions and is tested by fitting to NMRD measurements on an oil shale. The analysis yields a wealth of physically-reasonable time constants which are consistent between the two co-existing fluids, provides insight into diffusion mechanisms and pore morphology. The 3$\tau$ model and theoretical results are applicable to any porous systems containing $^1$H spins in motion relative to fixed paramagnetic impurities and establishes NMRD as a powerful experimental tool for measuring the dynamical properties of fluids in porous solids.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We construct an indecomposable reflexive Banach space $X_{ius}$ such that every infinite dimensional closed subspace contains an unconditional basic sequence. We also show that every operator $T\in \mathcal{B}(X_{ius})$ is of the form $\lambda I+S$ with $S$ a strictly singular operator.' address: - 'S.A. ArgyrosDepartment of Mathematics, National Technical University of Athens' - 'A. ManoussakisDepartment of Sciences, Section of Mathematics, Technical University of Crete' author: - 'Spiros A. Argyros' - Antonis Manoussakis title: An Indecomposable and unconditionally saturated Banach space --- Introduction ============ The aim of this paper is to present a Banach space which is not the sum of two infinite dimensional closed subspaces $Y$, $Z$ with $Y\cap Z=\{0\}$ and every closed subspace of it contains an unconditional basic sequence. We shall denote this space as $X_{ius}$. W.T. Gowers’ famous dichotomy, [@G3], provides an alternative description of this space. Namely $X_{ius}$ is an Indecomposable Banach space not containing any Hereditarily Indecomposable (H.I.) subspace. The problem of the existence of such spaces was posed by H.P. Rosenthal and it is stated in [@G2]. The interest for such spaces arises from the coexistence of conditional (indecomposable) and unconditional (unconditionally saturated) structure on them. This is a free translation of W.T.Gowers’ comments before stating the problem of the existence of such spaces in [@G2] (Problem 5.11). We should mention that Indecomposable spaces which are not H.I. are already known. For example, [@AF] provides reflexive H.I. spaces $X$ such that $X^{*}$ contains an unconditional basic sequence. The methods used in [@AF] do not seem to be able to provide H.I. spaces $X$ with $X^{*}$ unconditionally saturated. The space presented in this paper is built following ideas used for the construction of H.I. Banach spaces. The method we follow is an adaptation of [@AD] constructions as they were extended in [@AT]. Both are variations of the fundamental discovery of W.T. Gowers and B. Maurey, [@GM]. In our case we use as an unconditional frame a mixed Tsirelson space $T[({{\mathcal A}}_{n_{j}},\frac{1}{m_{j}})_{j}]$ which is a space sharing similar properties with Th. Schlumprecht’s space $S$, [@Sh]. The norming set $K$ of the space $X_{ius}$ is a subset of the unit ball of the dual of $T[({{\mathcal A}}_{n_{j}},\frac{1}{m_{j}})_{j}]$. The only difference that the space $X_{ius}$ has from a corresponding construction of a H.I. space concerns the definition of the special functionals. The key observation that changing the special functionals one could obtain interesting non H.I. spaces is due to W.T.Gowers and it was used for the solution of important and long standing problems in the theory of Banach space, [@G]. For the space $X_{ius}$ we need the special functionals to be defined such that the following geometric property holds in the space. For every $Y=\langle e_{n}\rangle_{n\in M}$, $M\in [\mathbb{N}]$, and $(e_{n})_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ the natural basis of $X_{ius}$, the quotient map $Q:X_{ius}\to X_{ius}/Y$ is strictly singular. This is equivalent to say that $dist(S_{Z}, S_{Y})=0$ for all $Z$ infinite dimensional subspace of $X_{ius}$. This property clearly holds in the case of H.I. spaces. In our case we define the special functionals such that the aforementioned property holds and on the other hand we have attempted to keep the dependence inside of each special functional as small as possible. Thus going deeper in the structure of any subspace of $X_{ius}$ the action of the special functionals becomes negligible, which permits us to find unconditional basic sequences. Another property of the space $X_{ius}$ concerns the bounded linear operators. Namely every $T: X_{ius}\to X_{ius}$ is of the form $T=\lambda I+S$, where $S$ is strictly singular. Thus $X_{ius}$ is not isomorphic to any of its proper subspaces. Definition of the space $X_{ius}$ ================================= We shall use the standard notation. Thus $c_{00}$ denotes the linear space of all eventually zero sequences and for $x\in c_{00}$ we denote by $\text{supp}x=\{n: x(n)\not=0\}$ and by $\text{range}(x)$ the minimal interval of $\mathbb{N}$ containing $\text{supp}x$. Also for $x,y\in c_{00}$ by $x<y$ we mean that $\max\text{supp}x<\min\text{supp}y$. We shall also use the standard results from the theory of bases of Banach spaces as they are described in [@LT]. We choose two strictly increasing sequences $(n_{j})_{j}$, $(m_{j})_{j}$ of positive integers, such that 1. $m_{1}=2$ and $m_{j+1}= m_{j}^{5}$ 2. $n_{1}=4$ and $n_{j+1}=(4n_{j})^{s_{j}}$ where $2^{s_{j}}\geq m_{j+1}^{3}$. Let $\mathbf{Q}$ be the set of scalars sequences with finite nonempty support, rational coordinates and maximum at most $1$ in modules. We also set $$\begin{aligned} \mathbf{Q_s} = \big\{(x_1,f_1,&\ldots,x_n,f_n):\; x_i,f_i\in\mathbf{Q},\;i=1,\ldots,n \\ & \textrm{range}(x_{i})\cup\textrm{range}(f_{i})< \textrm{range}(x_{i+1})\cup\textrm{range}(f_{i+1}) \;\forall i<n \big\}.\end{aligned}$$ We consider a coding function $\sigma$ (i.e. $\sigma$ is an injection) from $\mathbf{Q_s}$ to the set $\{2j :j\in\mathbb{N}\}$ such that for every $\phi=(x_{1},f_{1},\ldots, x_{n},f_{n})\in\mathbf{Q_s}$ $$\begin{aligned} & \sigma (x_{1},f_{1},\ldots, x_{n-1},f_{n-1}) <\sigma (x_{1},f_{1},\ldots, x_{n},f_{n})\label{es2} \\ & \max\{\text{range}(x_n)\cup\text{range}(f_n)\} \le m_{\sigma(\phi)}^{\frac{1}{2}} \label{es1}\end{aligned}$$ Although $x_i,f_i$ are elements of $c_{00}$ their role in the space $X_{ius}$ we shall define is quite different. Namely $x_i$ will be elements of the space itself and $f_i$ elements of its dual $X_{ius}^*$. For similar reasons we shall denote the standard basis of $c_{00}$ either by $(e_n)_n$ or $(e_n^*)_n$. \[21\] A sequence $\phi=(x_{1},f_{1},\ldots, x_{2k},f_{2k})\in\mathbf{Q_s}$ is said to be a [**special sequence of length**]{} $\mathbf{2k}$ provided that $$\label{co1} x_{1}=\frac{1}{n_{2j}}\sum_{l=1}^{n_{2j}}e_{1,l},\qquad f_{1}=\frac{1}{m_{2j}}\sum_{l=1}^{n_{2j}}e^{*}_{1,l},\,\, \text{for some}\,\,j\in\mathbb{N}, \, \text{such that}\,\,\,m^{1/2}_{2j}>2k,$$ where $(e_{1,l})_{l=1}^{n_{2j}}$ is a subset of the standard basis of $c_{00}$ of cardinality $n_{2j}$, and for every $1\leq i\leq k$, setting $\phi_{i}=(x_{1},f_{1},\ldots,x_{i},f_{i})$ $${\Vert f_{2i}\Vert}_{\infty}\leq \frac{1}{m_{\sigma(\phi_{2i-1})}},\quad |f_{2i}(x_{2i})|\le \frac{1}{m_{\sigma(\phi_{2i-1})}},\label{co3}$$ $$\label{c02} \text{if } i<k \text{ then } x_{2i+1}=\frac{1}{n_{\sigma(\phi_{2i})}} \sum_{l=1}^{n_{\sigma(\phi_{2i})}}e_{2i+1,l},\quad f_{2i+1} = \frac{1}{m_{\sigma(\phi_{2i})}} \sum_{l=1}^{n_{\sigma(\phi_{2i})}} e^{*}_{2i+1,l},$$ where for every $i\geq 1$, $(e_{2i+1,l})_{l=1}^{n_{\sigma(\phi_{2i})}}$ is a subset of the standard basis of $c_{00}$ of cardinality $n_{\sigma(\phi_{2i})}$. **The norming set of the space $X_{ius}$.** The norming set $K$ will be equal to the union $\cup_{n=0}^{\infty}K_{n}$ and the sequence $(K_{n})_{n}$ is increasing and inductively defined. The inductive definition of $K_{n}$ goes as follows: We set $$K_{0}^{0}=K_{0}=\{\pm e_{n}^*:n\in\mathbb{N}\}\,\,\text{and}\,\,\, K^{j}_{0}=\emptyset\,\,\text{for}\,\,j=1,2,\ldots\, .$$ Assume that $K_{n-1}=\cup_{j}K_{n-1}^{j}$ has been defined. Then we set, \(a) for $j\in\mathbb{N}$ $$K_{n}^{2j}=K_{n-1}^{2j}\cup \{\frac{1}{m_{2j}}\sum_{i=1}^{d}f_{i}: d\leq n_{2j},\,f_{1}<\ldots<f_{d},\, f_{i}\in K_{n-1}\}\,.$$ \(b) For $j\in\mathbb{N}$ and every $\phi=(x_{1},f_{1},\ldots,x_{n_{2j+1}},f_{n_{2j+1}})$ special sequence of length $n_{2j+1}$, (see Definition \[21\]), such that $f_{2i}\in K_{n-1}^{\sigma(\phi_{2i-1})}$ for $i=1,\ldots,n_{2j+1}/2$ (where $\phi_{2i-1}=(x_1,f_1,\ldots,x_{2i-1},f_{2i-1})$) we define the set $$\begin{aligned} \label{ek0} K_{n,\phi}^{2j+1}=\Bigl\{\frac{\pm 1}{m_{2j+1}}& E(\lambda_{f^{\prime}_{2}}f_{1}+f^{\prime}_{2}+\ldots+ \lambda_{f^{\prime}_{n_{2j+1}}}f_{n_{2j+1}-1}+f^{\prime}_{n_{2j+1}}) \,: \\ &E\,\,\text{interval of}\,\,\mathbb{N},\,\, \text{supp}f^{\prime}_{2i}=\text{supp}f_{2i},\,\, f^{\prime}_{2i}\in K_{n-1}^{\sigma(\phi_{2i-1})},\,\, \\ & |g(x_{2i})|\le\frac{1}{m_{\sigma(\phi_{2i-1})}}\,\,\textrm{for all}\,\,g\in K_{n-1}^{\sigma(\phi_{2i-1})} \notag \\ & \lambda_{f^{\prime}_{2i}}= f^{\prime}_{2i}(m_{\sigma(\phi_{2i-1})}x_{2i})\,\,\, \, \text{if}\,\,f^{\prime}_{2i}(x_{2i})\not= 0,\,\,\,\,\, \frac{\pm 1}{n^{2}_{2j+1}}\,\, \text{otherwise}\Bigr\}\,.\notag\end{aligned}$$ We define $$\begin{aligned} \label{ek1} K_{n}^{2j+1}=\cup\{K_{n,\phi}^{2j+1}: \phi\,\,\text{is a special sequence of length $n_{2j+1}$}\}\cup K_{n-1}^{2j+1}\,,\end{aligned}$$ and finally we set $$K_{n}=\cup_{j}K_{n}^{j}\,.$$ This completes the inductive definition of $K_{n}$ and we set, $$K=\cup_{n}K_{n}\,.$$ Let us observe that the set $K$ satisfies the following properties 1. It is symmetric and for each $f\in K$, $\|f\|_{\infty}\le 1$. 2. It is closed under interval projections (i.e. it is closed in the restriction of its elements on intervals). 3. It is closed under the $(\mathcal{A}_{n_{2j}},\frac{1}{m_{2j}})$ operations (i.e. for $f_1<f_2<\cdots<f_d$ in $K$ with $d\le n_{2j}$ we have that $\frac{1}{m_{2j}}\sum\limits_{l=1}^df_l\in K)$. 4. If $f\in K$ then either $f=\pm e_n^*$ or $f\in K_n^j$ for $n\ge 1$, $j\in \mathbb{N}$. In the later case we define the [**weight**]{} of $f$ as $w(f)=m_j$. Note that $w(f)$ is not necessarily unique. The space $X_{ius}$ is the completion of the space $(c_{00},{\Vert \cdot\Vert}_K)$ where $${\Vert x\Vert}_K=\sup\{\langle f,x\rangle : f\in K\}\,.$$ From the definition of the norming set $K$ it follows easily that $(e_{n})_n$ is a bimonotone basis of $X_{ius}$. Also it is easy to see, using (iii), that the basis $(e_n)_n$ is boundedly complete. Indeed, for $x\in c_{00}$ and $E_1<E_2<\cdots<E_{n_{2j}}$ intervals of $\mathbb{N}$ it follows from property (iii) of the norming set that, $${\Vert x\Vert}\geq \frac{1}{m_{2j}}\sum_{i=1}^{n_{2j}}{\Vert E_i x\Vert}\,\,.$$ Also from the choice of the sequences $(n_{i})_{i}$, $(m_{i})_{i}$ it follows that $\frac{n_{2j}}{m_{2j}}$ increases to infinity. These observations easily yield that the basis is boundedly complete. To prove that the space $X_{ius}$ is reflexive we need to show that the basis is shrinking. This requires some further work and we will present the argument later. Let $\phi=(x_{1},f_{1},\ldots,x_{n_{2j+1}},f_{n_{2j+1}})$ be a special sequence of length $n_{2j+1}$ such that: 1. $\{f_i:\; i=1,\ldots,n_{2j+1}\}\subset K$ and for $i\ge 2$, $w(f_i)=m_{\sigma(\phi_{i-1})}$. 2. For $1\le i\le n_{2j+1}/2$, ${\Vert w(f_{2i})x_{2i}\Vert}\leq 1.$ Then there exists $n\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $K_{n,\phi}^{2j+1}$ is nonempty. *Notation.* For every $\phi$ special sequence of length $n_{2j+1}$ such that $K_{n,\phi}^{2j+1}\neq \emptyset$ for some $n$ we define $K_{\phi}=\cup_{n}K_{n,\phi}^{2j+1}$. Let us point out that in the definition of the special sequences we have attempted to connect averages of the basis with block vectors that are quite freely chosen. This will be used to show that the quotient map from the space to the space $X_{ius}/\langle e_{n}\rangle_{n\in M}$ is a strictly singular operator. Moreover we keep the dependence only between $f_{2i-1}$ and the family $\{g\in K:\;w(g)=w(f_{2i}),\;\operatorname{supp}(g)=\operatorname{supp}(f_{2i})\}$ to ensure that the space $X_{ius}$ is unconditionally saturated. \[24\] Let $f\in K$. We call *tree* of $f$ (or tree corresponding to the analysis of $f$) every finite family $\mathcal{T}_{f} =(f_{\alpha})_{\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}}$ indexed by a finite tree ${{\mathcal A}}$ with a unique root $0\in{{\mathcal A}}$ such that the following conditions are satisfied: 1\) $f_0=f$ and $f_{\alpha}\in K$ for each $\alpha\in \mathcal{A}$. 2\) If $\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}$ is terminal node then $f_{\alpha}\in K_{0}$. 3\) For every $\alpha\in {{\mathcal A}}$ which is not terminal, denoting by $S_{\alpha}$ the set of the immediate successors of $\alpha$, exclusively one of the following two holds: 1. $S_{\alpha}=\{\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_d\}$ with $f_{\beta_1}<\cdots<f_{\beta_d}$ and there exists $j\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $d\leq n_{2j}$, and $f_{\alpha}=\frac{1}{m_{2j}}\sum\limits_{i=1}^d f_{\beta_i}$. 2. There exists a special sequence $\phi=(x_{1},f_{1}\ldots,x_{n_{2j+1}},f_{n_{2j+1}})$ of length $n_{2j+1}$, an interval $E$ and $\varepsilon\in\{-1,1\}$ such that $f_{\alpha}=\frac{\varepsilon}{m_{2j+1}} \sum\limits_{i=1}^{n_{2j+1}/2} E(\lambda_{f^{\prime}_{2i}}f_{2i-1}+f^{\prime}_{2i})\in K_{\phi}$ and $\{f_\beta:\;\beta\in S_{\alpha}\}= \{Ef_{2i-1}:\;Ef_{2i-1}\neq 0\}\cup \{Ef_{2i}^{\prime}:\;Ef_{2i}^{\prime}\neq 0\}$. It follows from the inductive definition of $K$ that every $f\in K$ admits a tree, not necessarily unique. The space $X_{ius}$ is unconditionally saturated ================================================ This section is devoted to show that the space $X_{ius}$ is unconditionally saturated. We start with the following: We set $$\widetilde{K}=\{\pm e_{n},\,\frac{1}{m_{2j}} \sum_{i\in F}\pm e_{i}: \# F\leq n_{2j},\, j\in\mathbb{N}\}\cup\{0\}\,\,.$$ Clearly $\widetilde{K}$ is a subset of the norming set $K$ and it is easily checked that $\widetilde{K}$ is a countable and compact set (in the pointwise topology). It is well known that the space $C(\widetilde{K})$ is $c_{0}-$saturated. Observe also that ${\Vert \cdot\Vert}_{\widetilde{K}}\leq {\Vert \cdot\Vert}_{X_{ius}}$ and hence the identity operator $$I:(c_{00},{\Vert \cdot\Vert}_{X_{ius}})\to (c_{00},{\Vert \cdot\Vert}_{\widetilde{K}})$$ is bounded. Since the basis $(e_{n})_{n}$ of $X_{ius}$ is boundedly complete, the space $X_{ius}$ does not contains $c_{0}$, therefore the operator $I$ is also strictly singular. These observations yield that every block subspace $Y$ of $X_{ius}$ contains a further block sequence $(y_{n})$ such that ${\Vert y_{n}\Vert}_{X_{ius}}=1$ and ${\Vert y_{n}\Vert}_{\widetilde{K}} \stackrel{n}{\longrightarrow}0$. Our intention is to show the following: \[31\] Let $(x_{\ell})_{\ell}$ be a normalized block sequence in $X_{ius}$ such that ${\Vert x_{\ell}\Vert}_{\widetilde{K}}\to 0$. Then there exists a subsequence $(x_{\ell})_{\ell\in M}$ of $(x_{\ell})$ which is an unconditional basic sequence. The proof of this proposition requires certain steps and we attempt a sketch of the main ideas. First we assume, passing to a subsequence, that ${\Vert x_\ell\Vert}_{\widetilde{K}}<\sigma_\ell$ with $\sum\sigma_\ell<\frac{1}{8}$ and we claim that $(x_\ell)_{\ell\in\mathbb{N}}$ is an unconditional basic sequence. Indeed, consider a norm one combination $\sum\limits_{\ell=1}^db_\ell x_\ell$ and let $(\varepsilon_\ell)_{\ell=1}^d\in\{-1,1\}^d$. We shall show that ${\Vert \sum\limits_{\ell=1}^d\varepsilon_\ell b_\ell x_\ell\Vert}>\frac{1}{4}$. Choose any $f\in K$ with $f(\sum\limits_{\ell=1}^db_\ell x_\ell)>\frac{3}{4}$ and we are seeking a $g\in K$ such that $g(\sum\limits_{\ell=1}^d\varepsilon_\ell b_\ell x_\ell)\ge\frac{1}{4}$. To find such a $g$ a normal procedure is to consider a tree $(f_\alpha)_{\alpha\in\mathcal{A}}$ of the functional $f$ and then inductively to produce a functional $g$ with a tree $(g_\alpha)_{\alpha\in\mathcal{A}}$ such that $$\label{sk} |f(x_\ell)-g(\varepsilon_{\ell}x_{\ell})|<2\sigma_{\ell}$$ which easily yields the desired result. In most of the cases, the choice for producing $g_{\alpha}$ from $f_{\alpha}$ is straightforward. Essentially there exists only one case where we need to be careful. That is when $f_{\alpha}\in K_{\phi}$ for some special sequence $\phi$. (i.e. $f_{\alpha}=\frac{\pm 1}{m_{2j+1}}E(\lambda_{f_2^{\prime}}f_1 +f_2^{\prime}+\cdots+\lambda_{f^{\prime}_{n_{2j+1}-1}}f_{n_{2j+1}-1} +f_{n_{2j+1}}))$ and for some $i\le n_{2j+1}/2$ and $\ell<d$ we have $$\max\operatorname{supp}x_{\ell-1}< \min\operatorname{supp}(f_{2i-1}) \le\max\operatorname{supp}x_\ell$$ $$\max\operatorname{supp}f_{2i}^{\prime} \ge \min\operatorname{supp}x_{\ell+1} .$$ In this case we produce $g_{\alpha}$ from $f_{\alpha}$ such that $g_{\alpha}\in K_{\phi}$. The form of $f_{\alpha}$ and hence $g_{\alpha}$ permits us to show that $|f_{\alpha}(x_\ell)-g_{\alpha}(\varepsilon_{\ell}x_{\ell})|<2 \sigma_{\ell}$. We pass now to present the proof and we start with the next notation and definitions. *Notation.* Let $f\in K$ and $(f_{\alpha})_{\alpha\in\mathcal{A}}$ a tree of $f$. Then for every non terminal node $\alpha\in\mathcal{A}$ we order the set $S_{\alpha}$ following the natural order of $\{\operatorname{supp}f_\beta\}_{\beta\in S_{\alpha}}$. Hence for $\beta\in S_{\alpha}$ we denote by $\beta^+$ the immediate successor of $\beta$ in the above order if such an object exists. Let $f\in K$ and $(f_{\alpha})_{\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}}$ be a tree of $f$. A couple of functionals $f_{\alpha}$, $f_{\alpha^{+}}$ is said to be a [**depended couple with respect to**]{} $\mathbf{f}$, (w.r.t. $f$), if there exists $\beta\in{{\mathcal A}}$ such that $\alpha,\alpha^{+}\in S_{\beta}$, $f_{\beta}=\frac{\varepsilon}{m_{2j+1}} E(\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n_{2j+1}/2} \lambda_{f_{2i}^{\beta}}f_{2i-1}^{\beta}+f_{2i}^{\beta})$, $f_{\alpha}=Ef_{2i-1}^{\beta}$ and $f_{\alpha^{+}}=Ef_{2i}^{\beta}$ for some $i\le n_{2j+1}/2$. Let $(x_{k})_{k}$ be a normalized block sequence, $f\in K$ and $\mathcal{T}_{f}=(f_{\alpha})_{\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}}$ be a tree of $f$. For $k\in \mathbb{N}$, a couple of functionals $f_{\alpha}$, $f_{\alpha^{+}}$ is said to be [**depended couple with respect to**]{} $\mathbf{f}$ [**and** ]{}$\mathbf{x_{k}}$ (w.r.t.) if $f_{\alpha}$, $f_{\alpha^{+}}$ is a depended couple w.r.t. $f$ and moreover $$\max\operatorname{supp}x_{k-1}< \min\operatorname{supp}f_{\alpha} \le\max\operatorname{supp}x_k$$ $$\,\,\,\text{and}\,\,\, \max\operatorname{supp}f_{\alpha^{+}}\geq\min\operatorname{supp}x_{k+1}.$$ We also set $$\label{s2e1} \mathcal{F}_{f,x_{k}}= \{\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}: f_{\alpha}, f_{\alpha^{+}}\,\,\,\text{is a depended couple w.r.t.} \,\,f\,\text{and}\,\,x_{k}\}\,.$$ and $$\label{100} \mathcal{F}_{f}=\bigcup\limits_k \mathcal{F}_{f,x_{k}}\,.$$ \[34\] Let $(x_{k})$ be a block sequence in $X_{ius}$, $f\in K$ and $(f_{\alpha})_{\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}}$ be a tree of $f$. 1\. It is easy to see that for every $k\in\mathbb{N}$ and every non terminal node $\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}$ the set $S_{\alpha}\cap \mathcal{F}_{f,x_{k}}$ has at most one element. 2\. As consequence of this, we obtain that for every $k$ and $\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2}\in\mathcal{F}_{f,x_{k}}$ with $\alpha_{1}\not=\alpha_{2}$ we have that $\alpha_1,\alpha_2$ are incomparable and $\vert\alpha_{1}\vert\not=\vert\alpha_{2}\vert$, where we denote by $\vert\alpha\vert$ the order of $\alpha$ as a member of the finite tree ${{\mathcal A}}$. 3\. It is also easy to see that for $\alpha_1,\alpha_2\in \mathcal{F}_f$ with $\alpha_{1}\neq \alpha_2$, $\alpha_1,\alpha_2$ are incomparable and hence $\text{range} (f_{\alpha_{1}})\cap\text{range}(f_{\alpha_{2}})=\emptyset$. \[l1.5\] Let $(x_{k})_{k}$ be a block sequence in $X_{ius}$ such that ${\Vert x_{k}\Vert}_{\widetilde{K}}\leq\sigma_{k}$, $f\in K$ and $(f_{\alpha})_{\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}}$ be a tree of $f$. We set $y_{k}= x_{k}|_{\cup_{\alpha\in \mathcal{F}_f}\operatorname{supp}(f_{\alpha})}$. Then we have that $$\label{101} \vert f(y_{k})\vert\leq 2\sigma_{k}\,\,.$$ Let us first observe that for each $q\in\mathbb{N}$ the set $\{\text{range} (f_{\alpha}):\; |\alpha|=q\}$ consists of pairwise disjoint sets. Therefore from the preceding remark we obtain that for each $k$ and each $q$ the set $$\{\alpha\in \mathcal{F}_f:\; |\alpha|=q,\;\text{range}(f_{\alpha})\cap \text{range}(x_k) \neq \emptyset\}$$ contains at most two elements (one of them belongs to $\mathcal{F}_{f,x_{k}}$ and the other to $\mathcal{F}_{f,x_{\ell}}$ for some $\ell\leq k-1$). Therefore $$\begin{aligned} \vert f(y_{k})\vert & \leq & \sum_{\alpha\in\mathcal{F}_{f}} \bigl( \prod_{0\preceq\gamma\prec\alpha}\frac{1}{w(f_{\gamma})} \bigr)\vert f_{\alpha}(x_{k})\vert \\ & = & \sum\limits_i\sum\limits_{\alpha\in \mathcal{F}_f\,, |\alpha|=i} \bigl(\prod_{0\preceq\gamma\prec\alpha}\frac{1}{w(f_{\gamma})} \bigr)\vert f_{\alpha}(x_{k})\vert\leq 2\sigma_{k}\sum_{i}\frac{1}{m^{i}_{1}}\leq 2\sigma_{k}\,\,. \end{aligned}$$ The following lemma is the crucial step for the proof of the main result of this section. \[l1.6\] Let $(x_{k})_{k}$ be a block sequence in $X_{ius}$, $f\in K$ and $(f_{\alpha})_{\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}}$ be a tree of $f$. For every $k\in\mathbb{N}$ we set $y_{k}= x_{k}|_{\cup_{\alpha\in\mathcal{F}_{f}} \operatorname{supp}(f_{\alpha})}$. Then for every choice of signs $(\varepsilon_{k})_{k}$ there exists a functional $g\in K$ with a tree $(g_{\alpha})_{\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}}$ such that 1. $f(x_{k}-y_{k})=g(\varepsilon_{k}(x_{k}-y_{k}))$ 2. For every $\alpha\in\mathcal{A}$, $\operatorname{supp}(f_{\alpha})= \operatorname{supp}(g_{\alpha})$ 3. $\mathcal{F}_{f,x_{k}}=\mathcal{F}_{g,x_{k}}$ for every $k=1,2,\ldots$. For the given tree $(f_{\alpha})_{\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}}$ of $f$, we define $$\begin{aligned} D=\{\beta\in{{\mathcal A}}:\, & \text{range}(f_{\beta})\cap\text{range}(x_{k})\not= \emptyset\,\,\text{for at most one $k$} \\ &\text{and if}\,\,\beta\in S_{\alpha}\,\text{then range}(f_{\alpha})\cap\text{range}(x_{i})\not=\emptyset\,\,\text{for at least two}\,\,\,x_{i}\}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Let us observe that for every branch $b$ of ${{\mathcal A}}$, $b\cap D$ is a singleton. Furthermore, for $\beta\in D$ and $\gamma\in\mathcal{A}$ with $\beta\prec \gamma$ we have that $\gamma\not\in \mathcal{F}_f$. The definition of $(g_\alpha)_{\alpha\in\mathcal{A}}$ requires the following three steps.\ *Step 1.* First we define the set $\{g_\beta:\; \beta\in D\}$ as follows. \(a) If $\beta\in D$ and there exists $\alpha\in \mathcal{A}$ with $\alpha\preceq \beta$ and $f_{\alpha},f_{\alpha^+}$ is a depended couple w.r.t. $f$ we set $g_\beta=f_\beta$. \(b) If $\beta\in D$ does not belong to the previous case and there exists a (unique) $k$ such that $\operatorname{range}(f_\beta)\cap\operatorname{range}(x_k)\neq \emptyset$ then we set $g_\beta=\varepsilon_k f_\beta$. \(c) If $\beta\in D$ does not belong to case (a) and $\operatorname{range}(f_{\beta})\cap\operatorname{range}(x_k)=\emptyset$ for all $k$ then we set $g_\beta=\varepsilon_k f_\beta$ where $$k=\max\{l:\; \operatorname{range}(x_l)<\operatorname{range}(f_\beta)\}.$$ (We have assumed that $\min\operatorname{range}(x_1)\le \min\operatorname{range}(f)$.) Let us comment the case (a) in the above definition. First we observe that the unique $\alpha\in\mathcal{A}$ witnessing that $\beta$ belongs to the case (a) satisfies the following: either $\alpha=\beta$ or $|\alpha|=|\beta|-1$. Moreover if this $\alpha$ does not belong to $\mathcal{F}_f$ then $\alpha=\beta$, $\alpha^{+}\in D$. In this case, if we assume that there exists a (unique) $k$ such that $\operatorname{range}(f_{\alpha})\cap\operatorname{range}(x_k)\neq \emptyset$ then $g_{\alpha^{+}}$ is defined by cases (b) or (c) and $g_{\alpha^{+}}=\varepsilon_k f_{\alpha^{+}}$ for the specific $k$. All these are straightforward consequences of the corresponding definitions.\ *Step 2.* We set $$D^+=\{\gamma\in\mathcal{A}:\; \mbox{ there exists } \beta\in D \mbox{ with } \beta\prec \gamma \}.$$ For $\gamma \in D^+$ we set $g_{\gamma}=\varepsilon_{\beta}f_{\gamma}$ where $\beta$ is the unique element of $D$ with $\beta\prec\gamma$ and $\varepsilon_\beta\in\{-1,1\}$ is such that $g_{\beta}=\varepsilon_{\beta}f_{\beta}$. Clearly for every $\beta\in D\cup D^+$, $(g_{\gamma})_{\beta\preceq\gamma}$ is a tree of the functional $g_{\beta}$. Furthermore for $\alpha\in D\cup D^+$ the following properties hold: 1. $\text{supp}(f_{\alpha})=\text{supp}(g_{\alpha})$ 2. $w(f_{\alpha})=w(g_{\alpha})$ *Step 3.* We set $$D^{-}=\{\alpha\in\mathcal{A}:\; \mbox{ there exists } \beta\in D \mbox{ with } \alpha\prec \beta \}.$$ Observe that $\mathcal{A}=D\cup D^+\cup D^-$ and using backward induction, for all $\alpha\in D^-$ we shall define $g_{\alpha}$ such that the above (1) and (2) hold and additionally the following two properties will be established. 1. For $\alpha\in D^-$, $f_{\alpha}(x_{k}-y_{k})= g_{\alpha}(\varepsilon_{k}(x_{k}-y_{k}))$ for all $k$. 2. For $\alpha\in D^-$ and each $k$ we have that $\mathcal{F}_{f_{\alpha},x_{k}}= \mathcal{F}_{g_{\alpha},x_{k}}$. Observe that for every $\alpha\in D^-$ we have that $f_{\alpha}\not\in K_{0}$ and furthermore for every $\beta\in D$ $\mathcal{F}_{f_\beta}=\emptyset$. We pass now to construct inductively $g_{\alpha}$, $\alpha\in D^-$ and to establish properties (1)–(4). Let assume that $\alpha\in D^-$ and for every $\beta\in S_{\alpha}$ either $\beta\in D$ or $g_\beta$ has been defined and properties (1)–(4) have been established. We consider the following three cases. *Case 1.* $w(f_{\alpha})=m_{2j}$ and $\alpha\in \mathcal{F}_f$.\ That means that $f_{\alpha}=\frac{1}{m_{2j}}\sum\limits_{\beta\in S_{\alpha}}f_{\beta}$ and each $f_\beta=e_{\ell}^*$ for some $\ell\in\mathbb{N}$. Then $S_{\alpha}\subset D$ and from Step 1(a) we conclude that $g_{\beta}=f_{\beta}$ for all $\beta\in S_{\alpha}$. We set $$g_{\alpha}= \frac{1}{m_{2j}}\sum\limits_{\beta\in S_{\alpha}}g_{\beta}= f_{\alpha}.$$ Furthermore for each $k$ we have that $\operatorname{supp}(g_{\alpha})\cap \operatorname{supp}(x_k)\subset \operatorname{supp}(y_k)$. Hence $$g_{\alpha}(\varepsilon_k(x_k-y_k))=f_{\alpha}(x_k-y_k)=0$$ and also $\mathcal{F}_{g_{\alpha}}=\mathcal{F}_{f_{\alpha}}=\emptyset$. Thus properties (3) and (4) hold while (1) and (2) are obvious. Before passing to the next case let us notice that there is no $\alpha\in D^-$ such that $f_{\alpha},f_{\alpha^{+}}$ is a depended couple w.r.t. $f$ and $\alpha\not\in\mathcal{F}_{f}$. (See the comments after Step 1.) *Case 2.* $w(f_{\alpha})=m_{2j}$ and $\alpha\not\in \mathcal{F}_f$.\ From the previous observation we obtain that $\alpha\neq \beta$ for each $\beta\in\mathcal{A}$ with $f_{\beta},f_{\beta^+}$ depended couple w.r.t. $f$, and we set $$g_{\alpha}=\frac{1}{m_{2j}}\sum\limits_{\beta\in S_{\alpha}}g_\beta.$$ Our inductive assumptions yield properties (1) and (2). To establish property (3) let $k\in\mathbb{N}$ and $\beta\in D\cap S_{\alpha}$ be such that $\operatorname{range}(x_k)\cap \operatorname{range}(f_\beta)\neq \emptyset$. Then $g_\beta=\varepsilon_k f_{\beta}$ hence $$g_{\beta}(\varepsilon_{k}(x_{k}-y_{k})) =\varepsilon_{k}g_{\beta}(x_{k}-y_{k})=f_{\beta}(x_{k}-y_{k}).$$ If $\beta\in D^-\cap S_{\alpha}$ by the inductive assumption for each $k$ we have $$g_{\beta}(\varepsilon_{k}(x_{k}-y_{k}))=f_{\beta}(x_{k}-y_{k}).$$ Therefore $$g_{\alpha}(\varepsilon_{k}(x_{k}-y_{k}))=f_{\alpha}(x_{k}-y_{k}).$$ Finally, for each $k$ $$\mathcal{F}_{f_{\alpha},x_k} =\bigcup\limits_{\beta\in S_{\alpha}}\mathcal{F}_{f_{\beta},x_k} =\bigcup\limits_{\beta\in S_{\alpha}\cap D^-}\mathcal{F}_{f_{\beta},x_k} =\bigcup\limits_{\beta\in S_{\alpha}\cap D^-}\mathcal{F}_{g_{\beta},x_k} =\mathcal{F}_{g_{\alpha},x_k}$$ which establishes property (4). *Case 3.* $f_{\alpha} = \frac{\varepsilon}{m_{2j+1}} E(\lambda_{f_{2}^{\alpha}}f_{1}^{\alpha}+ f_{2}^{\alpha}+\ldots+ \lambda_{f_{n_{2j+1}}^{\alpha}}f_{n_{2j+1}-1}^{\alpha} + f_{n_{2j+1}}^{\alpha})\in K_{\phi}$ where $\{f_\beta:\;\beta\in S_{\alpha}\}=\{Ef^{\alpha}_i: Ef^{\alpha}_{i}\not=0,\;1\leq i\leq n_{2j+1}\}$, $\varepsilon\in\{-1,1\}$, $E$ is an interval and $\phi$ is a special sequence of length $n_{2j+1}$. Let $\phi=(z_{1},f_{1},\ldots, z_{n_{2j+1}},f_{n_{2j+1}})$. Without loss of generality we assume that $E=\mathbb{N}$ and $\varepsilon=1$. Let us observe that the definition of $\{g_\beta:\beta\in D\}$ and the inductive assumptions yield that for $i\le n_{2j+1}/2$, 1. $f_{2i-1}=f^{\alpha}_{2i-1}=g^{\alpha}_{2i-1}$. 2. $w(f_{2i})=w(f^{\alpha}_{2i})=w(g^{\alpha}_{2i})$. 3. $\operatorname{supp}(f_{2i})=\operatorname{supp}(f^{\alpha}_{2i})=\operatorname{supp}(g^{\alpha}_{2i})$. We define $$g_{\alpha}=\frac{1}{m_{2j+1}}\left(\lambda_{g^{\alpha}_2}f_1+ g^{\alpha}_2+ \lambda_{g^{\alpha}_4}f_3+g^{\alpha}_4+\cdots +\lambda_{g^{\alpha}_{n_{2j+1}}}f_{n_{2j+1}-1}+ g^{\alpha}_{n_{2j+1}}\right)$$ where $\{g_\beta:\;\beta\in S_{\alpha}\}=\{g^{\alpha}_i:\;1\le i\le n_{2j+1}\}$ while $\lambda_{g^{\alpha}_{2i}}$ are defined as follows:\ (5) If $g^{\alpha}_{2i}(z_{2i})\neq 0$ then $\lambda_{g^{\alpha}_{2i}}= g^{\alpha}_{2i}(m_{\sigma(\phi_{2i-1})}z_{2i})$.\ (6) If $g^{\alpha}_{2i}(z_{2i})= 0$ and $f^{\alpha}_{2i-1}=f_{\beta}$, there are two cases 1. If $\beta\in \mathcal{F}_f$ or $\beta\not\in \mathcal{F}_f$ and $\operatorname{range}(f_{\beta})\cap\operatorname{range}(x_k)=\emptyset$ for all $k$ we set $\lambda_{g^{\alpha}_{2i}}=\frac{1}{n_{2j+1}^2}$. 2. If $\beta\not\in \mathcal{F}_f$ and there exists (unique) $k$ such that $\operatorname{range}(f_{\beta})\cap\operatorname{range}(x_k)\neq\emptyset$ then we set $\lambda_{g^{\alpha}_{2i}}=\varepsilon_k \lambda_{f^{\alpha}_{2i}}$. Let us observe that in the case (6) b), as follows from the comments after Step 1, $g_{\beta^+}=\varepsilon_k f_{\beta^+}$ hence $f_{\beta^+}(z_{2i})=0$ if and only if $g_{\beta^+}(z_{2i})=0$. From the above definition of $\lambda_{g^{\alpha}_{2i}}$, $1\le i\le n_{2j+1}/2$ and (i),(ii),(iii), we obtain that the functional $g_{\alpha}$ belongs to $K_{\phi}\subset K$. Properties (1) and (2) are obvious for $g_{\alpha}$ and we check the rest. First we establish property (4). Let $k$ be given. From Remark \[34\] (1) it follows that there exists at most one depended couple $f^{\alpha}_{2i-1}, f^{\alpha}_{2i}$ w.r.t. $f$ and $x_{k}$. Moreover if such a depended couple, $f^{\alpha}_{2i-1}, f^{\alpha}_{2i}$, exists then for every $i^{\prime}\neq i$ it holds that $\mathcal{F}_{f^{\alpha}_{2i^{\prime}},x_k}=\emptyset$. Therefore in this case we have that $$\label{g1} \mathcal{F}_{f_{\alpha},x_k}=\mathcal{F}_{f^{\alpha}_{2i},x_k} \cup\{\beta\}$$ where $f^{\alpha}_{2i-1}=f_\beta$. In the case that no such depended couple exists, it follows that $\mathcal{F}_{f_{2i}^{\alpha},x_{k}}\not=\emptyset$ for at most one $i$. This is a consequence of the definitions and the fact that the functionals $(f_{i}^{\alpha})_{i}$ are successive. If such an $i$ exists then $$\label{g2} \mathcal{F}_{f_{\alpha},x_k}=\mathcal{F}_{f^{\alpha}_{2i},x_k}$$ The last alternative is that $\mathcal{F}_{f_{\alpha},x_k}=\emptyset$. This description of $\mathcal{F}_{f_{\alpha},x_k}$ and the inductive assumptions easily yield property (4). Namely, either $\mathcal{F}_{g_{\alpha}, x_{k}}=\mathcal{F}_{g^{\alpha}_{2i}, x_{k}}\cup\{\beta\}$ if holds, $\mathcal{F}_{g_{\alpha}, x_{k}}=\mathcal{F}_{g^{\alpha}_{2i}, x_{k}}$ if holds, or $\mathcal{F}_{g_{\alpha}, x_{k}}=\emptyset$. Finally we check property (3). Fix a number $k$ and $i\le n_{2j+1}/2$. If $g^{\alpha}_{2i}=g_{\beta}$ and $\beta\in D^-$ the inductive assumption provides $$\label{102} g^{\alpha}_{2i}(\varepsilon_k(x_k-y_k))=f^{\alpha}_{2i}(x_k-y_k).$$ If $\beta\in D$ and $\operatorname{range}(f^{\alpha}_{2i})\cap \operatorname{range}(x_k)\neq \emptyset$ then $g^{\alpha}_{2i}=\varepsilon_k f^{\alpha}_{2i}$ which yields (\[102\]). Also if $\operatorname{range}(f^{\alpha}_{2i})\cap \operatorname{range}(x_k)= \emptyset$ equality (\[102\]) trivially holds. In the case $g^{\alpha}_{2i-1}=g_{\beta}$, $\beta\in S_{\alpha}$ we distinguish two subcases. First assume that $\beta\in \mathcal{F}_{f}$. Then $\operatorname{supp}(g^{\alpha}_{2i-1})=\operatorname{supp}(f^{\alpha}_{2i-1})$ and $\operatorname{supp}(f^{\alpha}_{2i-1})\cap \operatorname{supp}(x_k-y_k)=\emptyset$ therefore $$g^{\alpha}_{2i-1}(\varepsilon_k (x_k-y_k))=0= f^{\alpha}_{2i-1}(x_k-y_k).$$ The second subcase is $\beta\not\in \mathcal{F}_{f}$. As we have explained in the comments after Step 1 that means that either $\operatorname{range}(f_\beta)\cap \operatorname{range}(x_k)= \emptyset$, hence everything trivially holds, or $\beta,{\beta}^{+}\in D$, $g_{{\beta}^{+}}=\varepsilon_k f_{{\beta}^{+}}$ and $\lambda_{g^{\alpha}_{2i}}=\varepsilon_k\lambda_{f^{\alpha}_{2i}}$. From these observations we conclude that $$\lambda_{g^{\alpha}_{2i}}g^{\alpha}_{2i-1}(\varepsilon_k(x_k-y_k))= \lambda_{f^{\alpha}_{2i}}f^{\alpha}_{2i-1}(x_k-y_k).$$ All these derive the desired equality, namely $$g_{\alpha}(\varepsilon_k(x_k-y_k))=f_{\alpha}(x_k-y_k).$$ The inductive construction and the entire proof of the lemma is complete. Let $(\sigma_{\ell})_{\ell}$ be a decreasing sequence of positive numbers such that $\sum_{\ell}\sigma_{\ell}\leq 1/8$. For each $\ell\in\mathbb{N}$ we select $k_{\ell}$ such that ${\Vert x_{k_{\ell}}\Vert}_{\widetilde{K}}<\sigma_{\ell}$. For simplicity we assume that the entire sequence $(x_{\ell})$ satisfies the above condition. Let $\sum_{\ell=1}^{d}b_{\ell}x_{\ell}$ be a finite linear combination which maximizes the norm of all vectors of the form $\sum_{\ell=1}^{d}c_{\ell}x_{\ell}$ with $\vert c_{\ell}\vert=\vert b_{\ell}\vert$. Assume furthermore that ${\Vert \sum_{\ell=1}^{d}b_{\ell}x_{\ell}\Vert}=1$ and let $f\in K$ with $f(\sum_{\ell=1}^{d}b_{\ell}x_{\ell})\geq 3/4$. Choose $\{\varepsilon_{\ell}\}_{\ell=1}^{d}\in \{-1,1\}^{d}$ and consider the vector $\sum_{\ell=1}^{d}\varepsilon_{\ell}b_{\ell}x_{\ell}$. Lemma \[l1.6\] yields that there exists $g\in K$ and that for each $\ell=1,\ldots,d$, there exists a vector $y_{\ell}$ such that $$\label{e5} g(\sum_{\ell=1}^{d}\varepsilon_{\ell}b_{\ell}(x_{\ell}-y_{\ell}))= f(\sum_{\ell=1}^{d}b_{\ell}(x_{\ell}-y_{\ell}))\,.$$ Also Lemma \[l1.5\] and Lemma \[l1.6\](2) and (3) yield that $$\vert g(y_{\ell})\vert\leq 2\sigma_{\ell}\quad \text{and}\quad \vert f(y_{\ell})\vert\leq 2\sigma_{\ell}\,\,\,\text{for all}\,\,\ell=1,\ldots,d.$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned} {\Vert \sum_{\ell=1}^{d}\varepsilon_{\ell}b_{\ell}x_{\ell}\Vert}& \geq \vert g(\sum_{\ell=1}^{d}\varepsilon_{\ell}b_{\ell}x_{\ell})\vert \geq \vert g(\sum_{\ell=1}^{d}\varepsilon_{\ell}b_{\ell}(x_{\ell}-y_{\ell}))\vert- \sum_{\ell=1}^{d}\vert g(y_{\ell})\vert\\ &\geq \vert f(\sum_{\ell=1}^{d}b_{\ell}x_{\ell})\vert- \sum_{\ell=1}^{d}\vert g(y_{\ell})\vert- \sum_{\ell=1}^{d}\vert f(y_{\ell})\vert\geq 3/4-2/4=1/4\,. \end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof of the proposition. The space $X_{ius}$ is indecomposable ===================================== In the last section we shall show that the space $X_{ius}$ is indecomposable. This will be a consequence of a stronger result concerning the structure of the space $\mathcal{B}(X_{ius})$ of the bounded linear operators acting on $X_{ius}$. The proof adapts techniques related to H.I. spaces as they were presented in [@AT]. Thus we will first consider the auxiliary space $X_u$ and we will estimate the norm of certain averages of its basis. Next we will use the basic inequality to reduce upper estimation on certain averages to the previous results. Finally we shall compute the norms of linear combinations related to special sequences. [**The auxiliary spaces $X_u$, $X_{u,k}$**]{} We begin with the definition of the space $X_{u}$ which will be used to provide us upper estimations for certain averages in the space $X_{ius}$. The space $X_{u}$ is the mixed Tsirelson space $T[({{\mathcal A}}_{4n_{j}},\frac{1}{m_{j}})_{j=1}^{\infty}]$. The norming set $W$ of $X_{u}$ is defined in a similar manner as the set $K$. We set $W^{j}_{0}=\{\pm e_{n}^*: n\in\mathbb{N}\}\cup \{0\}$, for $j\in\mathbb{N}$ , $W_{0}=\cup_{j}W^{j}_{0}$. In the general inductive step we define $$W_{n}^{j}=W_{n-1}^{j}\cup \{\frac{1}{m_{j}}\sum_{i=1}^{d}f_{i}: d\leq 4n_{j}, f_{1}<\ldots<f_{d}\in W_{n-1}\}$$ and $W_{n}=\cup_{j}W_{n}^{j}$. Finally let $W=\cup_{n}W_{n}$. The space $X_{u}$ is the completion of $(c_{00},{\Vert \cdot\Vert}_W)$ where $${\Vert x\Vert}_{W}=\sup\{\langle f,x\rangle: f\in W\}\,.$$ It is clear that the norming set $K$ of the space $X_{ius}$ is a subset of the convex hull of $W$. Hence we have that ${\Vert x\Vert}_{K}\leq{\Vert x\Vert}_{W}$ for every $x\in c_{00}$. We also need the spaces $X_{u,k}=T[({{\mathcal A}}_{4n_{j}},\frac{1}{m_{j}})_{j=1}^{k}]$. The norm of such a space is denoted by ${\Vert \cdot\Vert}_{u,k}$ and it is defined in a similar manner as the norm of $X_u$. Namely we define $W_n^j$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $1\le j\le k$ as above and $W_n^{(k)}=\bigcup\limits_{j=1}^kW_n^j$. The norming set is $W^{(k)}=\bigcup\limits_{n=0}^{\infty}W_n^{(k)}$. Spaces of this form have been studied in [@BD] and it has been shown that such a space is either isomorphic to some $\ell_p$, $1<p<\infty$, or to $c_0$. Before stating the next lemma we introduce some notations. For each $k\in\mathbb{N}$ we set $q_k=\frac{1}{\log_{4n_k}m_k}$. and $p_k=\frac{1}{1-\log_{4n_k}m_k}$ its conjugate. \[103\] For the sequences $(m_j)_j$, $(n_j)_j$ used in the definition of $X_{ius}$ and $X_u$, $X_{u,k}$ the following hold: 1. The sequence $(q_j)_j$ strictly increases to infinity. 2. For $x=\sum a_{\ell} e_{\ell}\in c_{00}$, ${\Vert x\Vert}_{u,k}\le {\Vert x\Vert}_{p_k}$. 3. ${\Vert \frac{1}{n_{k+1}}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n_{k+1}}e_i\Vert}_{p_k} \leq\frac{1}{m_{k+1}^3}$. \(1) Using that $m_{j+1}=m_j^5$ and $n_{j+1}=(4n_j)^{s_j}$ and the fact that $s_j$ increases to infinity we have that $$q_{j+1}=\frac{1}{\log_{4n_{j+1}}m_{j+1}} = \frac{1}{\log_{4(4n_j)^{s_j}}m_j^5}> \frac{1}{\frac{5}{s_j}\log_{4n_j}m_j}=\frac{s_j}{5}q_j$$ hence $(q_j)_j$ strictly increases to infinity. \(2) We inductively show that for $f\in W_n^{(k)}$ $$|f(\sum a_{\ell} e_{\ell})|\le{\Vert \sum a_{\ell} e_{\ell}\Vert}_{p_k}.$$ For $n=0$ it is trivial. The general inductive step goes as follows: for $f\in W_{n+1}^{(k)}$ $$f(\sum a_{\ell} e_{\ell})=\frac{1}{m_j}\sum\limits_{i=1}^df_i (\sum a_{\ell} e_{\ell})$$ where $f_1<f_2<\cdots< f_d$, $d\le 4n_j$ for some $j\le k$. We set $E_i=\operatorname{range}(f_i)$ and from our inductive assumption and Hölder inequality we obtain that $$|f(\sum a_{\ell} e_{\ell})|\le \frac{1}{m_j}\sum\limits_{i=1}^d {\Vert \sum\limits_{\ell\in E_i}a_{\ell}e_{\ell}\Vert}_{p_k} \le\frac{d^{\frac{1}{q_j}}}{m_j} \big(\sum\limits_{i=1}^d {\Vert \sum\limits_{\ell\in E_i}a_{\ell}e_{\ell}\Vert}_{p_k}^{p_j}\big)^{\frac{1}{p_j}}\,.$$ Using that $p_k\le p_j$ and $m_j=(4n_j)^{\frac{1}{q_j}}$ we obtain inequality (2). \(3) $${\Vert \frac{1}{n_{k+1}}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n_{k+1}}e_i\Vert}_{p_k} \le \frac{1}{n_{k+1}^\frac{1}{q_k}}=\frac{1}{(4n_k)^{\frac{s_k}{q_k}}} =\frac{1}{m_k^{s_k}}\le \frac{1}{m_{k+1}^3} .$$ (Recall that $2^{s_k}\ge m_{k+1}^3$). The tree $\mathcal{T}_{f}$ of $f\in W$ is defined in a similar manner as for $f\in K$. \[42\] Let $f\in W$ and $j\in\mathbb{N}$. Then $$\label{basise1} \vert f(\frac{1}{n_{j}}\sum_{i=1}^{n_{j}}e_{k_{i}})\vert \leq \begin{cases} \frac{2}{w(f)\cdot m_{j}},\quad &\text{if}\,\,\,w(f)<m_{j}\\ \frac{1}{w(f)},\quad &\text{if}\,\,\,w(f)\geq m_{j}\,. \end{cases}$$ If moreover we assume that there exists a tree $(f_{\alpha})_{\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}}$ of $f$, such that $w(f_{\alpha})\not= m_{j}$ for every $\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}$, we have that $$\label{basise2} \vert f(\frac{1}{n_{j}}\sum_{i=1}^{n_{j}}e_{k_{i}})\vert \leq\frac{2}{m_{j}^{3}}\,.$$ In particular the above upper estimations holds for every $f\in K$. If $w(f)\geq m_{j}$ the estimation is an immediate consequence of the fact that ${\Vert f\Vert}_{\infty}\leq 1/w(f)$. Let $w(f)<m_{j}$ and $(f_{\alpha})_{\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}}$ be a tree of $f$. We set $$B=\{i:\text{there exists}\,\,\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}\,\,\text{with}\,\, k_{i}\in\text{supp}f_{\alpha}\,\,\text{and}\,\,w(f_{\alpha})\geq m_{j}\}$$ Then we have that $$\label{eb1} \vert f(\frac{1}{n_{j}}\sum_{i\in B}e_{k_{i}})\vert\leq \frac{1}{w(f)m_{j}}\,\,\,.$$ To estimate $|f(\frac{1}{n_{j}}\sum_{i\in B^{c}}e_{k_{i}})|$, we observe that $f|_{\{k_i:\;i\in B^c\}}\in W^{(j-1)}$ (the norming set of $X_{u,j-1}$) hence Lemma \[103\] yields that $$\label{eb2} \vert f(\frac{1}{n_{j}}\sum_{i\in B^{c}}e_{k_{i}})\vert \leq \frac{1}{m_{j}^{3}}\,.$$ Combining and we obtain . To see (\[basise2\]) we define the set $$B=\{i:\text{there exists}\,\,\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}\,\,\text{with}\,\, k_{i}\in\text{supp}f_{\alpha}\,\,\text{and}\,\,w(f_{\alpha})\geq m_{j+1}\}$$ and we conclude that $$\label{104} | f(\frac{1}{n_j}\sum\limits_{i\in B}e_{k_i})|\le \frac{1}{m_{j+1}} <\frac{1}{m_j^3}\,\,.$$ Furthermore from our assumption $w(f_{\alpha})\neq m_j$ for every $\alpha\in\mathcal{A}$ we conclude that $f|_{\{k_i:\;i\in B^c\}}\in W^{(j-1)}$. This yields that the corresponding of (\[eb2\]) remains valid and combining (\[eb2\]) and (\[104\]) we obtain (\[basise2\]). [**The basic inequality and its consequences**]{} Next we state and prove the basic inequality which is an adaptation of the corresponding result from [@AT]. Actually the proof of the present statement is easier than the original one, due mainly to the low complexity of the family $\mathcal{A}_n$ (in [@AT] are studied spaces defined with use of the Schreier families $(\mathcal{S}_{\xi})_{\xi<\omega_1}$) and also since the definition of the norming set $K$ does not involve convex combinations. The role of this result is important since it includes most of the necessary computations (unconditional or conditional). Recall that $K$ and $W$ denote the norming sets of $X_{ius}$ and $X_u$ respectively. \[bin\](Basic inequality) Let $(x_{k})$ be a block sequence in $X_{ius}$, $(j_{k})$ be a strictly increasing sequence of positive integers, $(b_{k})\in c_{00}$, $C\geq 1$ and $\varepsilon>0$ such that $a)$ ${\Vert x_{k}\Vert}\leq C$ for every $k$. $b)$ For every $k\geq 1$,$\#(\text{supp}x_{k})\frac{1}{m_{j_{k+1}}} \leq\varepsilon$. $c)$ For every $k\geq 1$, for all $f\in K$ with $w(f)<m_{j_{k}}$, we have that $\vert f(x_{k})\vert\leq\frac{C}{w(f)}$. Then for every $f\in K$ there exists $g_{1}$ such that $g_{1}=h_{1}$ or $g_{1}=e^{*}_{t}+h_{1}$ where $t\not\in\text{supp}h_{1}$, $h_{1}\in W$, $w(h_1)=w(f)$, and $g_{2}\in c_{00}$ with $\Vert g_{2}\Vert_{\infty}\leq \varepsilon$ such that $$\vert f(\sum b_{k}x_{k})\vert \leq C(g_{1}+g_{2})(\sum\vert b_{k}\vert e_{k})\,\,,$$ and $\text{supp}g_{1}$, $\text{supp}g_{2}$ are contained in $\{k:\text{supp}(f)\cap\text{range}(x_{k})\not=\emptyset\}$. $d)$ If we additionally assume that for some $j_{0}\in\mathbb{N}$ we have that $$\vert f(\sum\limits_{k\in E} b_{k}x_{k})\vert \leq C(\max_{k\in E}\vert b_{k}\vert+\varepsilon\sum_{k\in E}\vert b_{k}\vert)\,\,,$$ for every interval $E$ of positive integers and every $f\in K$ with $w(f)=m_{j_{0}}$, then $h_{1}$ may be selected to have a tree $(h_{\alpha})_{\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}_{1}}$ such that $w(h_{\alpha})\not=m_{j_{0}}$ for every $\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}_{1}$. Our intention is to apply the above inequality in order to obtain upper estimations for $\ell_{1}-$averages of rapidly increasing sequences. Observe that the above proposition reduces this problem to the estimations of the functionals $g_1,g_2$ on a corresponding average of the basis in the space $X_{u}$. The proof in the general case, assuming only $a),b), c)$, and in the special case, where additionally $d)$ is assumed, is the same. We will make the proof only in the special case. The proof in the general case arises by omitting any reference to the question whether a functional has weight $m_{j_0}$ or not. For the rest of the proof we assume that there exists $j_0\in\mathbb{N}$ such that condition d) in the statement of Proposition is fulfilled. Let $f\in K$ and let ${{\mathcal T}}_{f}=(f_{\alpha})_{\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}}$ be a tree of $f$. For every $k$ such that $\text{supp}(f)\cap\text{range}(x_{k})\not=\emptyset$ we define the set $A_{k}$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned} A_{k}=\Big\{\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}:&\,\,(i)\,\, \text{supp}f_{\alpha} \cap\text{range}(x_{k})= \text{supp}(f)\cap\text{range}(x_{k}), \\ & (ii)\,\, \text{ for all}\, \gamma\prec\alpha,\,\,w(f_{\gamma})\not=m_{j_{0}}\,, \\ & (iii)\,\, \text{there is no}\,\,\beta\in S_{\alpha}\,\, \text{such that} \\ &\qquad \text{supp}(f_{\alpha})\cap\text{range}(x_{k})= \text{supp}(f_{\beta})\cap\text{range}(x_{k})\,\, \text{if}\,\, w(f_{\alpha})\not=m_{j_{0}} \Big\}\,.\end{aligned}$$ From the definition, it follows easily that for every $k$ such that $\text{supp}(f)\cap\text{range}(x_{k})\not=\emptyset$ $A_{k}$ is a singleton. We recursively define sets $(D_{\alpha})_{\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}}$ as follows. For every terminal node $\alpha$ of the tree we set $D_{\alpha}=\{k:\alpha\in A_{k}\}$. For every non terminal node $\alpha$ we define, $$D_{\alpha}=\{k:\alpha\in A_{k}\}\cup \cup_{\beta\in S_{\alpha}}D_{\beta}\,\,.$$ The following are easy consequences of the definition. 1. If $\beta\prec\alpha$, $D_{\alpha}\subset D_{\beta}$. 2. If $w(f_{\alpha})=m_{j_{0}}$, then $D_{\beta}=\emptyset$ for all $\beta\succ\alpha$. 3. If $w(f_{\alpha})\not=m_{j_{0}}$, then for every $ \{ \{k\}:k\in D_{\alpha}\setminus \cup_{\beta\in S_{\alpha}}D_{\beta}\}\cup\{D_{\beta}: \beta\in S_{\alpha}\}$ is a family of successive subsets of $\mathbb{N}$. 4. If $w(f_{\alpha})\not=m_{j_{0}}$, for every $k\in D_{\alpha}\setminus\cup_{\beta\in S_{\alpha}}D_{\beta}$ there exists $\beta\in S_{\alpha}$ such that $\min\text{supp}x_{k}< \min\text{supp}f_{\beta}\leq\max\text{supp}x_{k} $ and for $k^{\prime}\in D_{\alpha}\setminus \cup_{\beta\in S_{\alpha}}D_{\beta}$ different form $k$ the corresponding $\beta^{\prime}$ is different from $\beta$. Inductively for every $\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}$ we define $g_{\alpha}^{1}$ and $g_{\alpha}^{2}$ such that 1. For every $\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}$, $\text{supp}g_{\alpha}^{1}$ and $\text{supp}g_{\alpha}^{2}\subset D_{\alpha}$. 2. If $w(f_{\alpha})=m_{j_{0}}$, $g_{\alpha}^{1}=e^{*}_{k_{\alpha}}$, where $\vert b_{k_{\alpha}}\vert= \max_{k\in D_{\alpha}}\vert b_{k}\vert$ and $g_{\alpha}^{2}=\varepsilon\sum_{k\in D_{\alpha}}e^{*}_{k}$. 3. If $w(f_{\alpha})\not=m_{j_{0}}$, $g_{\alpha}^{1}=h_{\alpha}$ or $g_{\alpha}^{1}=e^{*}_{k_{\alpha}}+h_{\alpha}$ where $k_{\alpha}\not\in\text{supp}h_{\alpha}$, $h_{\alpha}\in W$ and $w(h_{\alpha})=w(f_{\alpha})$. 4. For every $\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}$ the following inequality holds $$\vert f_{\alpha}(\sum_{k\in D_{\alpha}}b_{k}x_{k})\vert\leq C(g_{\alpha}^{1}+g_{\alpha}^{2})(\sum_{k\in D_{\alpha}}\vert b_{k}\vert e_{k})\,\,.$$ For every terminal node we set $g_{\alpha}^{1}=g_{\alpha}^{2}=0$ if $D_{\alpha}=\emptyset$, otherwise we set $g_{\alpha}=e^{*}_{k}$ if $D_{\alpha}=\{k\}$ and $g_{\alpha}^{2}=0$. Assume that we have defined the functionals $g_{\beta}^{1}$ and $g_{\beta}^{2}$, satisfying $(1)-(4)$, for every $\beta\in{{\mathcal A}}$ with $\vert\beta\vert=k$, and let $\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}$ with $\vert\alpha\vert=k-1$. If $D_{\alpha}=\emptyset$ we set $g_{\alpha}^{1}=g_{\alpha}^{2}=0$. Let $D_{\alpha}\not=\emptyset$. We distinguish two cases. *Case 1*. $w(f_{\alpha})=m_{j}\not= m_{j_{0}}$. Let $T_{\alpha}= D_{\alpha}\setminus\cup_{\beta\in S_{\alpha}} D_{\beta}=\{k: \alpha\in A_{k}\}$. We set $T_{\alpha}^{2}=\{k\in T_{\alpha} : m_{j_{k+1}}\leq m_{j}\}$ and $T_{\alpha}^{1}=T_{\alpha}\setminus T_{\alpha}^{2}$. In the pointwise estimations we shall make below, we shall discard the coefficient $\lambda_{f_{2i}}$, which appears in the definition of the special functionals, since $\vert\lambda_{f_{2i}}\vert\leq 1$. From condition $b)$ in the statement, it follows that for each $k\in T_{\alpha}^{2}$ $$\label{ee1} \vert f_{\alpha}(x_{k})\vert \leq \#(\text{supp}x_{k}){\Vert f_{\alpha}\Vert}_{\infty}\leq \#(\text{supp}x_{k})\frac{1}{m_{j}}\leq\varepsilon\leq C\varepsilon\,\,.$$ We define $$g_{\alpha}^{2}= \varepsilon\sum_{k\in T_{\alpha}^{2}}e_{k}^{*}+\sum_{\beta\in S_{\alpha}}g_{\beta}^{2}\,\,.$$ We observe that ${\Vert g_{\alpha}^{2}\Vert}_{\infty}\leq\varepsilon$, and that $\vert f_{\alpha}(x_{k})\vert\leq C\varepsilon=Cg_{\alpha}^{2}(e_{k})$, for every $k\in T_{\alpha}^{2}$. Let $T_{\alpha}^{1}=\{k_{1}<k_{2}<\ldots<k_{l}\}$. By the definition of $T_{\alpha}^{1}$ we have that $m_{j}<m_{j_{k_{2}}}<m_{j_{k_{3}}}<\ldots<m_{j_{k_{l}}}$. Thus condition $c)$ in the statement implies that $$\label{ee2} \vert f_{\alpha}(x_{k_{i}})\vert\leq \frac{C}{m_{j}}= \frac{1}{m_{j}}e^{*}_{k_{i}}(Ce_{k_{i}}),\quad\text{for every}\,\, 2\leq i\leq l\,.$$ We set $$g_{\alpha}^{1}=e_{k_{1}}^{*}+ \frac{1}{m_{j}}(\sum_{i=2}^{l}e^{*}_{k_{i}}+\sum_{\beta\in S_{\alpha}}g_{\beta}^{1})\,.$$ (The term $e^{*}_{k_{1}}$ does not appear if $w(f_{\alpha})<m_{j_{k}}$ for every $k\in T_{\alpha}$). We have to show that $h_{\alpha}= \frac{1}{m_{j}}(\sum_{i=2}^{l}e^{*}_{k_{i}}+\sum_{\beta\in S_{\alpha}}g_{\beta}^{1})\in W$. From the inductive hypothesis, we have that $g^{1}_{\beta}=h_{\beta}$ or $g^{1}_{\beta}=e^{*}_{k_{\beta}}+h_{\beta}$, $h_{\beta}\in W$, for every $\beta\in S_{\alpha}$. For $\beta\in S_{\alpha}$, such that $g_{\beta}^{1}=e^{*}_{k_{\beta}}+h_{\beta}$, let $E_{\beta}^{1}=\{n\in\mathbb{N}: n<k_{\beta}\}$ and $E_{\beta}^{2}=\{n\in\mathbb{N}: n>k_{\beta}\}$. We set $h_{\beta}^{1}=E_{\beta}^{1}h_{\beta}$, $h_{\beta}^{2}=E_{\beta}^{2}h_{\beta}$. For every $\beta$ such that $g_{\beta}^{1}=e^{*}_{k_{\beta}}+h_{\beta}$, the functionals $h_{\beta}^{1}$, $e^{*}_{k_{\beta}}$, $h_{\beta}^{2}$ are successive belonging to $W$, and for $\beta\not=\beta^{\prime}\in S_{\alpha}$ the corresponding functionals have disjoint range, since $\text{supp}g_{\beta}^{1}$ is an interval, remark (iii) after the definition of $D_{\alpha}$. From the remark iv) after the definition of $D_{\alpha}$ we have that $\#T_{\alpha}^{1}\leq n_{j}$. It follows that $$\#(\{ e^{*}_{k_{i}}, 2\leq i\leq l\}\cup\{ e^{*}_{k_{\beta}}, h^{1}_{\beta}, h^{2}_{\beta}:\, \beta\in S_{\alpha}, g_{\beta}=e^{*}_{k_{\beta}}+h_{\beta}\} \cup\{h_{\beta} :\, \beta\in S_{\alpha}, g_{\beta}=h_{\beta}\} )\leq 4n_{j}\,.$$ Therefore $h_{\alpha}=\frac{1}{m_{j}}(\sum_{i=2}^{l}e^{*}_{k_{l}}+\sum_{\beta\in S_{\alpha}}g_{\beta}^{1})\in W$. It remains to show property $4).$ By we have that $\vert f_{\alpha}(x_{k_{i}})\vert\leq Cg_{\alpha}^{1}(e_{k_i})$ for every $2\leq i\leq l$, while $$\vert f_{\alpha}(x_{k_{1}})\vert\leq {\Vert x_{k_{1}}\Vert}\leq Ce^{*}_{k_{1}}(e_{k_{1}})=g_{\alpha}^{1}(Ce_{k_{1}})\,.$$ We also have that $$\begin{aligned} \vert f_{\alpha}(\sum_{k\in \cup_{\beta\in S_{\alpha}}D_{\beta}}b_{k}x_{k})\vert & \leq \sum_{\beta\in S_{\alpha}}\vert f_{\alpha} (\sum_{k\in D_{\beta}}b_{k}x_{k})\vert \\ &\leq \frac{1}{m_{j}}\sum_{\beta\in S_{\alpha}}\vert f_{\beta}(\sum_{k\in D_{\beta}}b_{k}x_{k})\vert\\ & \leq \frac{1}{m_{j}}\sum_{\beta\in S_{\alpha}}(g_{\beta}^{1}+g_{\beta}^{2})(C\sum_{k\in D_{\beta}}\vert b_{k}\vert e_{k})\vert\\ & \leq (g_{\alpha}^{1}+ g_{\alpha}^{2})(C\sum_{k\in D_{\alpha}}\vert b_{k}\vert e_{k})\vert\,.\end{aligned}$$ *Case 2*. $w(f_{\alpha})=m_{j_{0}}$. In this case we have that $D_{\alpha}$ is an interval of the positive integers and $D_{\gamma}=\emptyset$, for every $\gamma\succ\alpha$. Let $k_{\alpha}$ such that $b_{k_{\alpha}}=\max_{k\in D_{\alpha}}\vert b_{k}\vert$. We set $$g_{\alpha}^{1}=e^{*}_{k_{\alpha}}\,\,\,\text{and}\,\,\, g_{\alpha}^{2}=\varepsilon\sum_{k\in D_{\alpha}}e^{*}_{k}\,.$$ Then we have that $$\vert f_{\alpha} (\sum_{k\in D_{\alpha}}b_{k}x_{k})\vert \leq C(\max_{k\in D_{\alpha}}\vert b_{k}\vert+ \varepsilon\sum_{k\in D_{\alpha}}\vert b_{k}\vert)=(g_{\alpha}^{1}+g_{\alpha}^{2})(C\sum_{k\in D_{\alpha}}\vert b_{k}\vert e_{k})\,\,.$$ Let $k\in\mathbb{N}$. A vector $x\in c_{00}$ is said to be a $C-\ell_{1}^{k}$ average if there exists $x_{1}<\ldots<x_{k}$, ${\Vert x_{i}\Vert}\leq C{\Vert x\Vert}$ and $x=\frac{1}{k}\sum_{i=1}^{k}x_{i}$. Moreover, if ${\Vert x\Vert}=1$ then $x$ is called a normalized $C-\ell_{1}^{k}$ average. \[106\] Let $j\geq 1$, $x$ be an $C-\ell_{1}^{n_{j}}$-average. Then for every $n\leq n_{j-1}$ and every $E_{1}<\ldots<E_{n}$, we have that $$\sum_{i=1}^{n}{\Vert E_{i}x\Vert}\leq C(1+\frac{2n}{n_{j}}) <\frac{3}{2}C.$$ We refer to [@Sh], (or [@GM], Lemma 4), for a proof. \[p18\] For every normalized block sequence $(y_{\ell})_{\ell}$ and every $k\ge m_2$ there exists a linear combination of $(y_{\ell})_{\ell}$ which is a normalized $2-\ell_1^k$ average. Given $k\ge m_2$ there exists $j\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $m_{2j-1}<k\le m_{2j+1}$. Recall that $n_{2j+2}=(4n_{2j+1})^{s_{2j+1}}$ and $m_{2j+2}^3<2^{s_{2j+1}}$. Hence setting $s=s_{2j+1}$ we have that $k^s\le n_{2j+2}$ and $2^{-s}< \frac{1}{m_{2j+2}}$. Observe that $$\label{107} {\Vert \sum\limits_{i=1}^{k^s}y_i\Vert}\ge \frac{k^s}{m_{2j+2}}\,\,.$$ Assuming that there is no normalized $2-\ell_1^k$ average in $\langle y_i:\; i\le k^s\rangle$ and following the proof of Lemma 3 in [@GM] we obtain that $$\label{108} {\Vert \sum\limits_{i=1}^{k^s}y_i\Vert}<k^s\cdot 2^{-s}.$$ Since $2^{-s}< \frac{1}{m_{2j+2}}$, (\[107\]) and (\[108\]) derive a contradiction. A block sequence $(x_{k})$ in $X_{ius}$ is said to be a $(C,\varepsilon)$-rapidly increasing sequence (R.I.S.), if there, exists a strictly increasing sequence $(j_{k})$ of positive integers such that a\) ${\Vert x_{k}\Vert}\leq C$. b\) $\#(\operatorname{range}(x_{k}))\frac{1}{m_{j_{k+1}}}<\varepsilon$. c\) For every $k=1,2,\ldots$ and every $f\in K$ with $w(f)<m_{j_{k}}$ we have that $\vert f(x_{k})\vert \le \frac{C}{w(f)}$. Let $(x_k)_k$ be a block sequence in $X_{ius}$ such that each $x_k$ is a normalized $\frac{2C}{3}-\ell_1^{n_{j_k}}$ average and let $\varepsilon>0$ be such that for each $k$, $\#(\operatorname{range}(x_{k}))\frac{1}{m_{j_{k+1}}}<\varepsilon$. Then Lemma \[106\] yields that condition (c) in the above definition is also satisfied hence $(x_k)_k$ is a $(C,\varepsilon)$ R.I.S. In this case we shall call $(x_k)_k$ as a $\mathbf{(C,\varepsilon)}$ [**R.I.S. of**]{} $\mathbf{\ell_1}$ [**averages**]{}. Let also observe that Proposition \[p18\] ensures that for every block sequence $(y_{\ell})_{\ell}$ and every $\varepsilon>0$ there exists $(x_k)_k$ which is a $(3,\varepsilon)$ R.I.S. of $\ell_1$ averages. \[ris\] Let $(x_{k})_{i=1}^{n_{j}}$ be a $(C,\varepsilon)$- R.I.S such that $\varepsilon\leq\frac{1}{n_{j}}$. Then 1\) For every $f\in K$ $$\vert f(\frac{1}{n_{j}}\sum_{k=1}^{n_{j}}x_{k})\vert \leq \begin{cases} \frac{3C}{m_{j}w(f)}\,,\quad &\text{if}\,\,\, w(f)<m_{j}\\ \frac{C}{w(f)}+\frac{2C}{n_{j}}\,,&\text{if}\,\,\, w(f)\geq m_{j}\,. \end{cases}$$ In particular ${\Vert \frac{1}{n_{j}}\sum\limits_{k=1}^{n_{j}}x_{k}\Vert} \leq\frac{2C}{m_{j}}$. 2\) If for $j_{0}=j$ the assumption d) of the basic inequality is fulfilled (Proposition \[bin\]), for a linear combination $\frac{1}{n_{j}}\sum_{i=1}^{n_{j}}b_{i}x_{i}$, where $\vert b_{i}\vert\leq 1$, then $${\Vert \frac{1}{n_{j}}\sum_{i=1}^{n_{j}}b_{i}x_{i}\Vert} \leq\frac{4C}{m_{j}^{3}}\,\,.$$ 3) If $(x_{i})_{i=1}^{n_{2j}}$ is a $(3,\varepsilon)$ rapidly increasing sequence of $\ell_{1}$ averages then $$\label{105} \frac{1}{m_{2j}}\leq {\Vert \frac{1}{n_{2j}}\sum_{i=1}^{n_{2j}}x_{i}\Vert} \leq\frac{6}{m_{2j}}\,\,.$$ The proof of 1) is an application of the basic inequality and Lemma \[42\]. Indeed for $f\in K$, the basic inequality yields that there exist $h_{1}\in W$ with $w(f)=w(h_{1})$, $t\in\mathbb{N}$ with $t\not\in\text{supp}h_{1}$, and $h_{2}\in c_{00}$ with ${\Vert h_{2}\Vert}_{\infty}\leq \varepsilon$, such that $$\label{eris1} \vert f(\frac{1}{n_{j}}\sum_{k=1}^{n_{j}}x_{k})\vert \leq (e_{t}^{*}+h_{1}+h_{2}) C(\frac{1}{n_{j}}\sum_{k=1}^{n_{j}}e_{k})\,.$$ Using Lemma \[42\] and the fact that $\varepsilon\leq\frac{1}{n_{j}}$ we obtain $$\label{eris2} \vert f(\frac{1}{n_{j}}\sum_{k=1}^{n_{j}}x_{k})\vert \leq \begin{cases} \frac{C}{n_{j}}+ \frac{2C}{w(f)m_{j}}+C\varepsilon\leq\frac{3C}{w(f)m_{j}}\,\,\,& \text{if}\,\,w(f)<m_{j}\\ \frac{C}{n_{j}}+ \frac{C}{w(f)}+C\varepsilon\leq\frac{C}{w(f)}+ \frac{2C}{n_{j}}\,\,\,& \text{if}\,\,w(f)\geq m_{j}\,\,. \end{cases}$$ To prove 2) we observe that the basic inequality yields the existence of $h_{1}$, $h_{2}$ such that $h_{1}$ has a tree $(h_{\alpha})_{\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}}$ such that $w(h_{\alpha})\not=m_{j}$ for every $\alpha\in{{\mathcal A}}$ and ${\Vert h_{2}\Vert}_{\infty}\leq \varepsilon.$ This and Lemma \[42\] yield that $$\label{eris3} \vert f(\frac{1}{n_{j}}\sum_{k=1}^{n_{j}}b_{k}x_{k})\vert \leq (e_{t}^{*}+h_{1}+h_{2}) C(\frac{1}{n_{j}}\sum_{k=1}^{n_{j}}e_{k}) \leq \frac{C}{n_{j}}+\frac{2C}{m_{j}^{3}}+C\varepsilon \leq\frac{4C}{m_{j}^{3}}\,\,.$$ The upper estimation in 3) follows from 1) for $C=3$. For the lower estimation in 3), for every $i\leq n_{2j}$ we choose a functional $f_{i}$ belonging to the pointwise closure of $K$ such that $f_{i}(x_{i})=1$ and $\text{range}(f_{i})\subset\text{range}(x_{i})$. Then it is easy to see that the functional $f=\frac{1}{m_{2j}}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n_{2j}}f_{i}$ belongs to the same set and provides the required result. The space $X_{ius}$ is reflexive. As we have already explained after the definition of the norming set $K,$ the basis is boundedly complete. Therefore to show that the space $X_{ius}$ is reflexive we need to prove that the basis is shrinking. Assume on the contrary. Namely there exists $x^*=w^*-\sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty}b_ne_n^*$ and $x^*\not\in \overline{ <e_n^*>}$. Then there exists $\varepsilon>0$ and successive intervals $(E_k)_k$ such that ${\Vert E_k x^{*}\Vert}>\varepsilon$. Choose $(x_k)_k$ in $X_{ius}$ such that $\operatorname{supp}(x_k)\subset E_k$, ${\Vert x_k\Vert}=1$ and $x^*(x_k)>\varepsilon$. It follows that every convex combination $\sum a_k x_k$ satisfies $$\label{110} {\Vert \sum a_k x_k\Vert}>\varepsilon .$$ Next for $j$ sufficiently large such that $\frac{4}{\varepsilon m_{2j}}<\varepsilon$ we define $y_1,y_2,\ldots,y_{n_{2j}}$ a $(\frac{2}{\varepsilon},\frac{1}{n_{2j}})$ R.I.S. of $\ell_1$ averages and each $y_i$ is some average of $(x_k)_k$. Proposition \[ris\] (1) yields that $$\label{109} {\Vert \frac{1}{n_{2j}}(y_1+y_2+\cdots+y_{n_{2j}})\Vert}\leq \frac{4}{m_{2j}\varepsilon}<\varepsilon.$$ Clearly (\[109\]) contradicts (\[110\]) and the basis is shrinking. [**The structure of ${{\mathcal B}}(X_{ius})$**]{} \[depseq\] A sequence $\chi=(x_1,f_1,x_2,f_2,\ldots,x_{n_{2j+1}},f_{n_{2j+1}})$ is said to be a [**depended sequence of length**]{} $\mathbf{n_{2j+1}}$ if the following conditions are fulfilled 1. There exists $\phi=(x_1,f_1,y_2,f_2,\ldots,x_{2i-1},f_{2i-1}, y_{2i},f_{2i},\ldots ,y_{n_{2j+1}},f_{n_{2j+1}})$ special sequence of length $n_{2j+1}$ such that $\operatorname{supp}(y_{2i})=\operatorname{supp}(x_{2i})$ and ${\Vert y_{2i}-x_{2i}\Vert}\leq \frac{1}{n_{j_{2i}}^2}$ where for $1\leq i< n_{2j+1}$, $j_{i+1}=\sigma(\phi_i)$. 2. For $i\leq n_{2j+1}/2$ we have that $$x_{2i}= \frac{c_{2i}}{n_{j_{2i}}}\sum\limits_{l=1}^{n_{j_{2i}}}x^{2i}_l$$ where $(x^{2i}_l)_l$ is a $(3,\frac{1}{n_{j_{2i}}})$ R.I.S. of $\ell^1$ averages, $c_{2i}\in(0,1)$. 3. $f_{2i}(x_{2i})\geq \frac{1}{12 m_{j_{2i}}}$. The following is a consequence of the previous results, and we sketch the proof of it. \[412\] Let $(y_k)_k$ be a normalized block sequence in $X_{ius}$ and $(e_n)_{n\in M}$ be a subsequence of its basis. Then for all $j\in\mathbb{N}$ there exists a depended sequence $$\chi=(x_1,f_1,x_2,f_2,\ldots,x_{n_{2j+1}},f_{n_{2j+1}})$$ of length $n_{2j+1}$ such that for each $i\le n_{2j+1}/2$, $x_{2i-1}\in \langle e_n\rangle_M$ and $x_{2i}\in \langle y_k\rangle_k$. Let $j_{1}\in\mathbb{N}$, $j_{1}$ even such that $m^{1/2}_{j_{1}}>n_{2j+1}$. We set $$x_{1}=\frac{1}{n_{j_{1}}}\sum_{i=1}^{n_{j_1}}e_{1,i}\,\,\,\text{and} \,\,\,\,\, f_{1}=\frac{1}{m_{j_{1}}}\sum_{i=1}^{n_{j_1}}e^{*}_{1,i}\,,$$ such that $x_{1}\in\langle e_{n}\rangle_{M}$. Let $j_{2}=\sigma(x_{1},f_{1})$. Using Proposition \[p18\] we choose an $(3,\frac{1}{n_{j_{2}}})$ R.I.S, $(x_{l}^{2})_{l=1}^{n_{j_{2}}}\in \langle y_{k}\rangle_{k}$ such that $x_{1}<x^{2}_{l}$ for every $l\leq n_{j_{2}}$. Next we choose for every $l\leq n_{j_{2}}$ a functional $f^{2}_{l}\in K$ such that $f^{2}_{l}(x^{2}_{l})\geq \frac{2}{3}{\Vert x^{2}_{l}\Vert}\geq\frac{2}{3}$ and $\text{range}(f^{2}_{l})\subset\text{range}(x^{2}_{l})$. We set $$f_{2}=\frac{1}{m_{j_{2}}}\sum_{l=1}^{n_{j_{2}}}f^{2}_{l}\,\,\, \text{and}\,\,\,\ x_{2}=\frac{c_{2}}{n_{j_{2}}}\sum_{l=1}^{n_{j_2}}x^{2}_{l} \,\,\,\,\,\text{where}\,\,\, c_{2}= \frac{1}{6}(1-\frac{m_{j_{2}}}{n^{2}_{j_{2}}})\,\,.$$ From Proposition \[ris\], it follows that ${\Vert x_{2}\Vert}\leq (\frac{1}{m_{j_{2}}}-\frac{1}{n^{2}_{j_{2}}})$. We also have that $$\label{l412e1} f_{2}(x_{2})\geq \frac{1}{m_{j_{2}}}\frac{c_2}{n_{j_2}} \sum_{l=1}^{n_{j_{2}}}f^{2}_{l}(x^{2}_{l}) \geq\frac{2}{3}\frac{c_{2}}{m_{j_{2}}}\geq\frac{1}{12m_{j_{2}}} \,\,.$$ We choose $y_{2}\in\mathbf{Q}$, that is $y_{2}$ is a finite sequence with rational coordinates, such that ${\Vert y_{2}-x_{2}\Vert}\leq\frac{1}{n^{2}_{j_{2}}}$ and $\text{supp}(y_{2})=\text{supp}(x_{2})$. It follows that ${\Vert y_{2}\Vert}\leq \frac{1}{m_{j_2}}$ and therefore $(x_{1},f_{1},y_{2},f_{2})$ is a special sequence of length $2$. We set $j_{3}=\sigma(x_{1},f_{1},y_{2},f_{2})$ and we choose $$x_{3}=\frac{1}{n_{j_{3}}}\sum_{l=1}^{n_{j_{3}}}e_{3,l}\,\,\, \text{and}\,\,\, f_{3}=\frac{1}{m_{j_{3}}}\sum_{l=1}^{n_{j_{3}}}e^{*}_{3,l}\,,$$ such that $\text{range}(y_{2})\cup\text{range}(f_{2})<\text{range}(x_{3})$ and $x_{3}\in\langle e_{n}\rangle_{M}$. Next we choose $x_{4},f_{4}$ and $y_{4}$ as in the second step, and it is clear that the procedure goes through up to the choice of $x_{n_{2j+1}}, f_{n_{2j+1}}$ and $y_{n_{2j+1}}$. \[413\] a) Let us observe that the proof of Lemma \[412\] yields that if $\chi=(x_1,f_1,x_2,f_2,\ldots,x_{n_{2j+1}},f_{n_{2j+1}})$ is a depended sequence, then for every $i\leq n_{2j+1}/2$ it holds that $x_{2i}=\frac{c_{2i}}{n_{j_{2i}}}\sum_{l=1}^{n_{j_{2i}}}x_{l}^{2i}$, where $(x^{2i}_{l})_{l}$ is a $(3,n_{j_{2i}})-R.I.S.$, $j_{2i}=\sigma(\phi_{2i-1})$ and $c_{2i}\leq \frac{1}{6}$. It follows from Proposition \[ris\] that ${\Vert m_{j_{2i}}x_{2i}\Vert}\leq 1$, and also if $f\in K$ and $w(f)<m_{j_{2i}}$ then, $f(m_{j_{2i}}x_{2i})\leq\frac{2}{w(f)}$. b\) Definition \[depseq\] essentially describes that a depended sequence is a small perturbation of a special sequence. Its necessity occurs from the restriction in the definition of the special sequence $\phi=(x_1,f_1,\ldots, x_{n_{2j+1}},f_{n_{2j+1}})$ that each $x_i\in \mathbf{Q}$ (i.e. $x_i(n)$ is a rational number) not permitting to find such elements $x_i$ in every block subspace. Next we state the basic estimations of averages related to depended sequences. \[depest\] Let $\chi=(x_1,f_1,x_2,f_2,\ldots,x_{n_{2j+1}},f_{n_{2j+1}})$ be a depended sequence of length $n_{2j+1}$. Then the following inequality holds: $${\Vert \frac{1}{n_{2j+1}}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n_{2j+1}} (-1)^{i+1}m_{j_i}x_i\Vert} \leq \frac{8}{m_{2j+1}^3}$$ where $m_{j_i}=w(f_i)$. \[ld\] Let $\phi=(x_{1},f_{1},\ldots,x_{n_{2j+1}},f_{n_{2j+1}})$ be a *special sequence*. For every $i\leq n_{2j+1}/2$, let $\sigma(x_{1},f_{1},\ldots,x_{2i-1},f_{2i-1})=j_{2i}$ and let $y_{2i}= \frac{m_{j_{2i}}}{n_{j_{2i}}} \sum\limits_{l=1}^{n_{j_{2i}}}e_{k_{l}}$ be such that $$\text{supp}(f_{2i})\cap\text{supp}(y_{2i})= \emptyset\,\,\,\text{and}\,\,\, \text{supp}(f_{2i-1})<\text{supp}(y_{2i})<\text{supp}(f_{2i+1})\,.$$ Then it holds that $${\Vert \frac{1}{n_{2j+1}}\sum_{i=1}^{n_{2j+1}/2}y_{2i}\Vert} \leq \frac{8}{m_{2j+1}^{3}}\,\,.$$ These two lemmas are the key ingredients for proving the main results for the structure of $X_{ius}$ and $\mathcal{B}(X_{ius})$. We proceed with the proof of the main results and we will provide the proof of the two lemmas at the end. \[pd\] Let $M\in [\mathbb{N}]$ and let $(y_{k})_{k}$ be a normalized block sequence. Then we have that $$\text{dist}(S_{\langle e_{n}\rangle_{M}}, S_{\langle y_{k}\rangle_k})=0\,.$$ For a given $\varepsilon>0$ we choose $j\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $\frac{8}{m_{2j+1}^{2}}<\varepsilon$. From Lemma \[412\] there exists a depended sequence $\chi=(x_{1},f_{1},\ldots,x_{n_{2j+1}},f_{n_{2j+1}})$ such that $x_{2i-1}\in \langle e_{n}\rangle_{M}$, $x_{2i}\in \langle y_{k}\rangle_{k}$ for every $i\leq n_{2j+1}/2$. Set $$e=\frac{m_{2j+1}}{n_{2j+1}}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n_{2j+1}/2} m_{j_{2i-1}}x_{2i-1}\;\text{ and }\; y=\frac{m_{2j+1}}{n_{2j+1}}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n_{2j+1}/2} m_{j_{2i}}x_{2i}\,.$$ We have that $e\in\langle e_{n}:n\in M\rangle$ and $y\in\langle y_{i}:i\in M\rangle$. From Lemma \[depest\] we have that ${\Vert e-y\Vert}\leq \frac{8}{m_{2j+1}^{2}}$. To obtain a lower estimation of the norm of $e$ and $y$ we consider the functional $f=\frac{1}{m_{2j+1}}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n_{2j+1}/2} \lambda_{f_{2i}}f_{2i-1}+ f_{2i}$ where $\lambda_{f_{2i}}=f_{2i}(m_{j_{2i}}y_{2i})$ and $\phi=(x_1,f_1,y_2,f_2,\ldots,y_{n_{2j+1}},f_{n_{2j+1}})$ is the special sequence associated to the depended sequence $\chi$. From the definition of the depended sequence, $f_{2i}(m_{j_{2i}}x_{2i})\geq\frac{1}{12}$, and ${\Vert x_{2i}-y_{2i}\Vert}\leq\frac{1}{n_{j_{2i}}^2}$ for every $i\leq n_{2j+1}/2$. It follows that $$\lambda_{f_{2i}}=f(m_{j_{2i}}y_{2i})\geq f(m_{j_{2i}}x_{2i})-m_{j_{2i}}{\Vert x_{2i}-y_{2i}\Vert} >\frac{1}{12}-\frac{1}{m^{2}_{j_{2i}}} >\frac{1}{24}\,.$$ Therefore $$\label{ll1} \Vert e\Vert\geq f(e)=\frac{m_{2j+1}}{m_{2j+1}} \sum_{i=1}^{n_{2j+1}/2}\frac{ \lambda_{f_{2i}}f_{2i-1}(m_{j_{2i-1}}x_{2i-1})}{n_{2j+1}} \geq\frac{1}{48}\,,$$ and $$\Vert y\Vert \geq f(y)=\frac{m_{2j+1}}{m_{2j+1}} \sum_{i=1}^{n_{2j+1}/2}\frac{ f_{2i}(m_{j_{2i}}x_{2i})}{n_{2j+1}}\geq\frac{1}{24}\,. \label{ll2}$$ These lower estimations and the fact that ${\Vert e-y\Vert}\leq \frac{8}{m_{2j+1}^{2}}$ easily yields the desired result. \[lemmaT\] Let $T:X_{ius}\to X_{ius}$ be a bounded operator. Then $$\lim_{n}\text{dist}(Te_{n},\mathbb{R}e_{n})=0\,.$$ Without loss of generality we may assume that ${\Vert T\Vert}=1$. Since $(e_{n})$ is weakly null, by a small perturbation of $T$ we may assume that $T(e_{n})$ is a finite block, $T(e_n)\in\mathbf{Q}$ and $\min\text{supp}T(e_{n}){}_{\overset{\longrightarrow}{n}}\infty$. Let $I(e_{n})$ be the smallest interval containing $\text{supp}T(e_{n})\cup\text{supp}(e_{n})$. Passing to a subsequence $(e_{n})_{n\in M}$, we may assume that $I(e_{n})<I(e_{m})$ for every $n,m\in M$ with $n<m$. If the result is not true, we may assume, on passing to a further subsequence, that there exists $\delta>0$ such that $$\text{dist}(Te_{n},\mathbb{R}e_{n})>2\delta\,\,\,\,\text{for every}\,n\in M\,.$$ It follows that $\Vert P_{n-1}Te_{n}\Vert>\delta$ or $\Vert (I-P_{n})Te_{n}\Vert> \delta$. Therefore for every $n\in M$ we can choose $x_{n}^{*}\in K$ such that $$\label{eq} x_{n}^{*}(Te_{n})\geq \delta,\,\,\, \text{range}(x_{n}^{*})\cap\text{range}(e_{n}) =\emptyset,\,\,\text{ and}\,\,\, \text{range}(x_{n}^{*})\subset I(e_{n})\,.$$ Since $T$ is bounded, for every $j\in\mathbb{N}$ we have that $${\Vert T(\frac{1}{n_{2j}}\sum_{i=1}^{n_{2j}}e_{k_{i}})\Vert}\leq {\Vert T\Vert}\,{\Vert \frac{1}{n_{2j}}\sum_{i=1}^{n_{2j}}e_{k_{i}}\Vert}= \frac{1}{m_{2j}}\,.$$ Also for every $j\in\mathbb{N}$ and $k_1<k_2<\cdots<k_{n_{2j}}$ in $M$, the functional $h_{2j}=\frac{1}{m_{2j}}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n_{2j}}x^{*}_{k_{i}}$ is in $K$ and $${\Vert T(\frac{1}{n_{2j}}\sum_{i=1}^{n_{2j}}e_{k_{i}})\Vert}= {\Vert \frac{1}{n_{2j}}\sum_{i=1}^{n_{2j}}Te_{k_{i}}\Vert}\geq h_{2j}(\frac{1}{n_{2j}}\sum_{i=1}^{n_{2j}}Te_{k_{i}}) \geq\frac{\delta}{m_{2j}}\,\,.$$ We consider now a *special sequence* $\phi=(x_{1},f_{1},\ldots,x_{n_{2j+1}},f_{n_{2j+1}})$ which is defined as follows: for every $i\geq 0$, $$\begin{aligned} &x_{2i+1}= \frac{1}{n_{\sigma(\phi_{2i})}} \sum_{j=1}^{n_{\sigma(\phi_{2i})}}e_{2i+1,j}\,,\quad & f_{2i+1}=\frac{1}{m_{\sigma(\phi_{2i})}} \sum_{j=1}^{n_{\sigma(\phi_{2i})}}e_{2i+1,j}^{*}\\ &x_{2i}= \frac{1}{n_{\sigma(\phi_{2i-1})}} \sum_{j=1}^{n_{\sigma(\phi_{2i-1})}}Te_{2i,j}\,, &f_{2i}=\frac{1}{m_{\sigma(\phi_{2i-1})}} \sum_{j=1}^{n_{\sigma(\phi_{2i-1})}}x^{*}_{2i,j}\end{aligned}$$ where $e_{i,\ell}\in \{e_n:\;n\in M\}$, $x^{*}_{2i,j}$, $Te_{2i,j}$ satisfies , and $I(e_{i,\ell})<I(e_{s,j})$ if either $i<s$ or $i=s$ and $\ell<j$. This is possible by our assumption $I(e_{n})<I(e_{m})$ for $n,m\in M$ with $n<m$. Observe that $f_{2i}(m_{\sigma(\phi_{2i-1})}x_{2i})\geq \delta$ and also that $\text{range}(f_{\ell})\cap\text{range}(x_{2i})=\emptyset$ for every $\ell\not=2i$. Consider now the following vector: $$x=\frac{1}{n_{2j+1}}\sum_{i=1}^{n_{2j+1}/2}\frac{m_{\sigma (\phi_{2i-1})}}{n_{\sigma(\phi_{2i-1})}} \sum_{j=1}^{n_{\sigma(\phi_{2i-1})}}e_{2i,j}\,\,.$$ Then $$T(x)=\frac{1}{n_{2j+1}}\sum_{i=1}^{n_{2j+1}/2}m_{\sigma (\phi_{2i-1})}x_{2i}\,\,,$$ and $${\Vert Tx\Vert}\geq\frac{1}{m_{2j+1}} \sum_{i=1}^{n_{2j+1}/2}(\lambda_{f_{2i}}f_{2i-1}+f_{2i}) Tx\geq\frac{\delta}{2m_{2j+1}}\,\,.$$ On the other hand, if $y_{2i}=\frac{m_{\sigma (\phi_{2i-1})}}{n_{\sigma(\phi_{2i-1})}} \sum\limits_{j=1}^{n_{\sigma(\phi_{2i-1})}}e_{2i,j} $, then we have that $\text{supp}(y_{2i}) \cap\text{supp}f_{2i}=\emptyset$ and $x_{2i-1}<y_{2i}<x_{2i+1}$ for every $i\leq n_{2j+1}/2$, and therefore by Lemma \[ld\] we have that $${\Vert x\Vert}= {\Vert \frac{1}{n_{2j+1}}\sum_{i=1}^{n_{2j+1}/2}y_{2i}\Vert} \leq\frac{8}{m_{2j+1}^{3}}\,.$$ It follows that ${\Vert T\Vert}\geq \frac{\delta}{16} m^{2}_{2j+1}$, a contradiction for $j$ sufficiently large. \[pss\] Let $T:X_{ius}\to X_{ius}$ be a bounded operator. Then there exists $\lambda\in\mathbb{R}$ such that $T-\lambda I$ is strictly singular. By Lemma \[lemmaT\] there exists $\lambda\in\mathbb{R}$ and $M\in [\mathbb{N}]$ such that $\lim_{n\in M}{\Vert Te_{n}-\lambda e_{n}\Vert}=0$. Let $\varepsilon>0$. Passing to a further subsequence $(e_{n_{k}})_{k}$, we may assume that ${\Vert Te_{n_{k}}-\lambda e_{n_{k}}\Vert}\leq \varepsilon 2^{-k}$ for every $k\in\mathbb{N}$. It follows that the restriction of $T-\lambda I$ to $[e_{n_{k}}, k\in\mathbb{N}]$ is of norm less than $\varepsilon$. By Proposition \[pd\] it follows that $T-\lambda I$ is strictly singular. The following two corollaries are consequences of Proposition \[pss\] (see [@GM]). There does not exist a non trivial projection $P:X_{ius}\to X_{ius}$. The space $X_{ius}$ is not isomorphic to any proper subspace of it. It remains to prove lemmas \[depest\] and \[ld\]. We start with the following. \[pd1\] Let $j\in\mathbb{N}$, $n_{2j+1}<m_{j_{1}}<m_{j_{2}}<\ldots<m_{j_{2r}}$ be such that $2r\leq n_{2j+1}<m_{j_{1}}^{1/2}.$ Let also $j_{0}\in\mathbb{N}$ be such that $m_{j_{0}}\not= m_{j_{i}}$ for every $i=1,\ldots,2r$ and $m^{1/2}_{j_{0}}>n_{2j+1}$. Then if $h_{1}<\ldots<h_{2r}\in K$ are such that $w(h_{i})=m_{j_{i}}$ for every $i=1,\ldots,2r$, then a\) $$\label{e1pd1} \vert(\sum_{k=1}^{r}\lambda_{2k-1}h_{2k-1}+h_{2k}) (\frac{m_{j_{0}}}{n_{j_{0}}}\sum_{l=1}^{n_{j_{0}}}e_{k_l})\vert <\frac{1}{n_{2j+1}}\,,$$ for every choice of real numbers $(\lambda_{2k-1})_{k=1}^{r}$ with $\vert\lambda_{2k-1}\vert\leq 1$ for every $k\leq r$. b\) If $(x_{l})_{l=1}^{n_{j_{0}}}$ is a $(3,\frac{1}{n_{j_{0}}})-$R.I.S of $\ell_{1}$ averages, then $$\label{e2pd1} \vert(\sum_{k=1}^{r}\lambda_{2k-1}h_{2k-1}+h_{2k}) (\frac{m_{j_{0}}}{n_{j_{0}}}\sum_{l=1}^{n_{j_{0}}}x_{l})\vert \leq \frac{1}{n_{2j+1}}\,,$$ for every choice of real numbers $(\lambda_{2k-1})_{k=1}^{r}$ with $\vert\lambda_{2k-1}\vert\leq 1$ for every $k\leq r$. We shall give the proof of b) and we shall indicate the minor changes for the proof of a). From the estimations on the R.I.S, Proposition \[ris\], for every $k\leq 2r$ we have that $$\label{e4pd1} \vert h_{k}(\frac{m_{j_{0}}}{n_{j_{0}}}\sum_{l=1}^{n_{j_{0}}}x_{l}) \vert\leq \begin{cases} \frac{9}{w(h_{k})},\quad &\text{if}\,\, w(h_{k})<m_{j_{0}}\\ \frac{3}{m_{r}}+\frac{6}{n_{j_{0}}},\,\,&\text{if}\,\, w(h_{k})=m_{r}>m_{j_{0}}\,. \end{cases}$$ Using that $m_{j+1}=m^{5}_{j}$ for every $j$ and $\vert\lambda_{2k-1}\vert\leq 1$ for every $k\leq r$ and , we get that $$\begin{aligned} \vert(\sum_{k=1}^{r}\lambda_{2k-1}h_{2k-1}+h_{2k}) (\frac{m_{j_{0}}}{n_{j_{0}}}\sum_{l=1}^{n_{j_{0}}}x_{l})\vert &\leq \sum_{k:w(h_{k})<m_{j_{0}}}\frac{9}{w(h_{k})}+ \sum_{r>j_{0}}\frac{3}{m_{r}}+\frac{12r}{n_{j_{0}}} \\ &\leq \frac{10}{w(h_{1})}+\frac{4}{m^{2}_{j_{0}}}+\frac{12r}{n_{j_{0}}} <\frac{1}{n_{2j+1}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ For the proof of a) using Lemma \[42\], for the estimations on the basis we get the corresponding inequality to , from which follows inequality . Let $\chi=(x_1,f_1,\ldots,x_{n_{2j+1}},f_{n_{2j+1}})$ be a depended sequence and $\phi=(y_1,f_1,y_2,f_2,\ldots,y_{n_{2j+1}},f_{n_{2j+1}})$ the special sequence associated to $\chi$. In the rest of the proof we shall assume that $\chi=\phi$. The general proof follows by slight and obvious modifications of the present proof. Hence we assume that $\phi=(x_1,f_1,\ldots,x_{n_{2j+1}},f_{n_{2j+1}})$. From Lemma \[42\] and Remark \[413\]a) it follows that the sequence $(m_{j_{i}}x_{i})_{i=1}^{n_{2j+1}}$ satisfies assumptions a), c) of the basic inequality for $C=2$. Furthermore the properties of the function $\sigma$ yield that assumption b) is also satisfied for $\varepsilon=1/n_{2j+1}$. The rest of the proof is devoted to establish that the sequence $(m_{j_{i}}x_{i})_{i}$ satisfies the crucial condition d) for $m_{j_{0}}=m_{2j+1}$ and $(b_{i})_{i}=(\frac{(-1)^{i+1}}{n_{2j+1}})_{i}$. First we consider $f\in K_{\phi}$. Then $f$ is of the form $$f=E(\frac{\varepsilon}{m_{2j+1}} (\lambda_{f^{\prime}_{2}}f_{1}+f^{\prime}_{2}+\ldots + \lambda_{f^{\prime}_{n_{2j+1}}}f_{n_{2j+1}-1}+ f^{\prime}_{n_{2j+1}})\,)\,,$$ where $\varepsilon\in\{-1,1\}$ and $E$ an interval of $\mathbb{N}$. Let us recall that $w(f^{\prime}_{2i})=w(f_{2i})$ and $\text{supp}(f^{\prime}_{2i})=\text{supp}(f_{2i})$ and therefore $\text{range}(f^{\prime}_{2i})\cap\text{range}(x_{k})=\emptyset$ for every $k\not=2i$. Let $$i_{0}=\min\{i\leq n_{2j+1}/2: \text{supp}(f)\cap (\text{range}(x_{2i-1})\cup\text{range}(x_{2i}))\not=\emptyset\}\,.$$ Then $$\begin{aligned} \vert f(\sum_{i=1}^{n_{2j+1}}(-1)^{i+1}m_{j_{i}}x_{i})\vert =& \vert E\frac{1}{m_{2j+1}}\sum_{k=1}^{n_{2j+1}/2} (\lambda_{f^{\prime}_{2k}}f_{2k-1}+f^{\prime}_{2k}) (\sum_{i=1}^{n_{2j+1}} (-1)^{i+1}m_{j_{i}}x_{i})\vert \leq \notag \\ & \frac{1}{m_{2j+1}} \vert\lambda_{f^{\prime}_{2i_{0}}} Ef_{2i_{0}-1}(m_{j_{2i_{0}-1}}x_{2i_{0}-1})- Ef^{\prime}_{2i_{0}}(m_{j_{2i_{0}}}x_{2i_{0}})\vert \label{c2} \\ +&\frac{1}{m_{2j+1}}\vert\sum_{i=i_{0}+1}^{n_{2j+1}/2} (\lambda_{f^{\prime}_{2i}}f_{2i-1}(m_{j_{2i-1}}x_{2i-1})- f^{\prime}_{2i}(m_{j_{2i}}x_{2i}))\vert\,. \label{c3}\end{aligned}$$ To estimate the sum in and , we partition the set $\{i_{0},\ldots,n_{2j+1}/2 \}$ into two sets $A$ and $B$, where $A=\{i: f^{\prime}_{2i}(x_{2i})\not= 0\}$ and $B$ is its complement. For every $i\in A$, $i>i_{0}$, using that $\lambda_{f^{\prime}_{2i}}=f^{\prime}_{2i}(m_{j_{2i}}x_{2i})$, we have that $$\label{c4} \lambda_{f^{\prime}_{2i}}f_{2i-1}(m_{j_{2i-1}}x_{2i-1})- f^{\prime}_{2i}(m_{j_{2i}}x_{2i})= f^{\prime}_{2i}(m_{j_{2i}}x_{2i})- f^{\prime}_{2i}(m_{j_{2i}}x_{2i}) =0\,.$$ For every $i\in B$ we have that $f^{\prime}_{2i}(x_{2i})=0$, and therefore, $|\lambda_{f^{\prime}_{2i}}|=\frac{1}{n_{2j+1}^{2}}$, see . It follows that, for every $i\in B$, $i>i_{0}$ $$\label{c5} \vert \lambda_{f^{\prime}_{2i}}f_{2i-1}(m_{j_{2i-1}}x_{2i-1})- f^{\prime}_{2i}(m_{j_{2i}}x_{2i})\vert =\vert \lambda_{f^{\prime}_{2i}}\vert =\frac{1}{n^{2}_{2j+1}}\,\,.$$ For the sum $\vert \lambda_{f^{\prime}_{2i_{0}}} Ef_{2i_{0}-1}(m_{j_{2i_{0}-1}}x_{2i_{0}-1}) - Ef^{\prime}_{2i_{0}}(m_{j_{2i_{0}}}x_{2i_{0}}) \vert$ distinguishing whether or not $Ef_{2i_{0}-1}=0$ and whether $i_{0}\in A$ or $i_{0}\in B$, it follows easily using the previous arguments that $$\label{c6} \vert \lambda_{f^{\prime}_{2i_{0}}} Ef_{2i_{0}-1}(m_{j_{2i_{0}-1}}x_{2i_{0}-1}) -Ef^{\prime}_{2i_{0}}( m_{j_{2i_{0}}}x_{2i_{0}}) \vert\leq 1$$ Summing up - we have that $$\label{c8} \vert f(\frac{1}{n_{2j+1}} \sum_{i=1}^{n_{2j+1}}(-1)^{i+1}m_{j_{i}}x_{i})\vert\leq \frac{1}{m_{2j+1}}(\frac{1}{n_{2j+1}}+\frac{1}{n^{2}_{2j+1}})< \frac{1}{n_{2j+1}}\,.$$ Consider now a *special sequence* $\psi=(y_{1},g_{1},y_{2},g_{2},\ldots, y_{n_{2j+1}},g_{n_{2j+1}})$. Let $i_{1}= \min\{i\in\{1,\ldots,n_{2j+1}\} : y_{i}\not=x_{i}\,\,\text{or}\,\, g_{i}\not=f_{i}\}$, and $k_{0}\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $i_{1}=2k_{0}-1$ or $2k_{0}$. Consider a functional $g\in K_{\psi}$ which is defined from this special sequence. Then we have that $$g=E(\frac{1}{m_{2j+1}} (\lambda_{g^{\prime}_{2}}g_{1}+g^{\prime}_{2}+ \ldots+ \lambda_{g^{\prime}_{n_{2j+1}}}g_{n_{2j+1}-1}+g^{\prime}_{n_{2j+1}})\,,$$ where $E$ is an interval of $\mathbb{N}$ and $w(g^{\prime}_{2i})=w(g_{2i})$ for every $i\leq n_{2j+1}/2$. Observe that $\text{range}(x_{i})\cap\text{range}(g_{k})=\emptyset$ for every $i\geq i_{1}$ and every $k<i_{1}$. Let $$i_{0}=\min\{i\leq n_{2j+1}/2: \text{supp}(g)\cap (\text{range}(x_{2i-1})\cup\text{range}(x_{2i}))\not=\emptyset\}\,.$$ Let $i_{0}<k_{0}$. Then $$\begin{aligned} \vert g(\sum_{i=1}^{n_{2j+1}}(-1)^{i+1}m_{j_{i}}x_{i})\vert &\leq \notag\\ &\frac{1}{m_{2j+1}} \Big( \vert E\lambda_{g^{\prime}_{2i_{0}}} g_{2i_{0}-1}(m_{j_{2i_{0}-1}}x_{2i_{0}-1})- Eg^{\prime}_{2i_{0}}(m_{j_{2i_{0}}}x_{2i_{0}}) \vert \label{re} \\ &\qquad\qquad+ \vert \sum_{i=i_{0}+1}^{k_{0}-1} (\lambda_{g^{\prime}_{2i}}g_{2i-1}(m_{j_{2i-1}}x_{2i-1})- g^{\prime}_{2i}(m_{j_{2i}}x_{2i}) \vert\Big) \label{re1} \\ & +\frac{1}{m_{2j+1}}\vert \sum_{k\geq k_{0}}(\lambda_{g^{\prime}_{2k}}g_{2k-1}+ g^{\prime}_{2k}) (\sum_{i\geq k_{0}} m_{j_{2i-1}}x_{2i-1}-m_{j_{2i}}x_{2i})\vert\,. \label{re2}\end{aligned}$$ where the sum in makes sense when $i_{0}<k_{0}-1$. If $i_{0}\geq k_{0}$ we get that $$\begin{aligned} \vert g(\sum_{i=1}^{n_{2j+1}}(-1)^{i+1}m_{j_{i}}x_{i})\vert &\leq \frac{1}{m_{2j+1}}\vert E\sum_{k\geq k_{0}}(\lambda_{g^{\prime}_{2k}}g_{2k-1}+ g^{\prime}_{2k}) (\sum_{i\geq i_{0}} m_{j_{2i-1}}x_{2i-1}-m_{j_{2i}}x_{2i})\vert\,.\end{aligned}$$ The proof of the upper estimation for the two cases is almost identical, so we shall give the proof in the case $i_{0}<k_{0}$. As in the previous case, for the sum in , we have that $$\begin{aligned} \vert E\lambda_{g^{\prime}_{2i_{0}}} g_{2i_{0}-1}(m_{j_{2i_{0}-1}}x_{2i_{0}-1})-& Eg^{\prime}_{2i_{0}}(m_{j_{2i_{0}}}x_{2i_{0}}) \vert + \notag\\ &\vert \sum_{i=i_{0}+1}^{k_{0}-1} (\lambda_{g^{\prime}_{2i}}g_{2i-1}(m_{j_{2i-1}}x_{2i-1})- g^{\prime}_{2i}(m_{j_{2i}}x_{2i}) \vert\leq 2\,.\label{re3}\end{aligned}$$ To estimate the sum in , first we observe that from the injectivity of $\sigma$ it follows that there exists at most one $k\geq i_{1}$ such that $$w(g_{k})\in \{m_{j_{i}}: i_{1}\leq i\leq n_{2j+1}\}\,.$$ Let $2i-1\geq i_{1}$ be such that $m_{j_{2i-1}}\not= w(g_{k})$ for every $k\geq i_{1}$. Then functionals $g_{2k-1},g^{\prime}_{2k}$, $k\geq k_{0}$ satisfy the assumptions of Lemma \[pd1\], and therefore we get that $$\label{r4} \vert\sum_{k\geq k_{0}}(\lambda_{g^{\prime}_{2k}}g_{2k-1}+g^{\prime}_{2k}) (m_{j_{2i-1}}x_{2i-1})\vert\leq\frac{1}{n_{2j+1}}\,.$$ Also for every $2i\geq i_{1}$ such that $m_{j_{2i}}\not=w(g_{k})$ for every $k\geq i_{1}$, the functionals $g_{2k-1},g^{\prime}_{2k}$, $k\geq k_{0}$ satisfy the assumptions of Lemma \[pd1\], and therefore we get that $$\label{r5} \vert\sum_{k\geq k_{0}} (\lambda_{g^{\prime}_{2k}}g_{2k-1}+g^{\prime}_{2k}) (m_{j_{2i}}x_{2i})\vert \leq\frac{1}{n_{2j+1}}\,.$$ For the unique $i\geq i_{1}$, such that there exists $k\geq i_{1}$ and $w(g_{k})=m_{j_{i}}$, if such an $i$ exists, we have that, using Lemma \[pd1\] $$\label{r6} \vert\sum_{k\geq k_{0}}(\lambda_{g^{\prime}_{2k}}g_{2k-1}+ g^{\prime}_{2k}) (m_{j_{i}}x_{i})\vert\leq 1+\frac{1}{n_{2j+1}}\,.$$ Now we distinguish if $i_{1}=2k_{0}-1$ or $i_{1}=2k_{0}$. If $i_{1}=2k_{0}-1$, we have that $\text{range}(g_{k})\cap\text{range}(x_{i})=\emptyset$ for every $k<2k_{0}-1$ and every $i\geq 2k_{0}-1$, and from - we get that $$\begin{aligned} \label{r7} \vert \sum_{k\geq k_{0}} (\lambda_{g^{\prime}_{2k}}g_{2k-1}+g^{\prime}_{2k}) \Bigl(\frac{1}{n_{2j+1}} \sum_{i=2k_{0}-1}^{n_{2j+1}}&(-1)^{i+1}m_{j_{i}}x_{i})\Bigr) \vert \notag\\ &\leq \frac{1}{n_{2j+1}}(1+\frac{1}{n_{2j+1}}+ \frac{n_{2j+1}}{n_{2j+1}}) <\frac{3}{n_{2j+1}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ If $i_{1}=2k_{0}$ then we have that $\text{range}(x_{2k_{0}-1})\cap\text{range}(g_{k})=\emptyset$ for every $k\geq 2k_{0}$ and $k<2k_{0}-1$, and from - we get that $$\begin{aligned} \label{r8} \vert\sum_{k\geq k_{0}} (\lambda_{g^{\prime}_{2k}}g_{2k-1}+g^{\prime}_{2k}) &\Bigl(\frac{1}{n_{2j+1}} \sum_{i=2k_{0}-1}^{n_{2j+1}}(-1)^{i+1}m_{j_{i}}x_{i})\Bigr)\vert \\ &\leq \frac{1}{n_{2j+1}}\Bigl( \vert \lambda_{g^{\prime}_{2k_{0}-1}}g_{2k_{0}-1} (m_{j_{2k_{0}-1}}x_{2k_{0}-1})\vert \notag \\ &\qquad\qquad+ \vert\sum_{k\geq k_{0}} (\lambda_{g^{\prime}_{2k}}g_{2k-1}+g^{\prime}_{2k}) ( \sum_{i=2k_{0}}^{n_{2j+1}}(-1)^{i+1}m_{j_{i}}x_{i})\vert\Bigr) \notag \\ &\leq \frac{1}{n_{2j+1}}+ \frac{1}{n_{2j+1}} (1+\frac{1}{n_{2j+1}}+ \frac{n_{2j+1}}{n_{2j+1}}) <\frac{4}{n_{2j+1}}\,.\notag\end{aligned}$$ From , and we get that $$\label{43} \vert g(\frac{1}{n_{2j+1}} \sum_{i=1}^{n_{2j+1}}(-1)^{i+1}m_{j_{i}}x_{i})\vert \leq \frac{1}{m_{2j+1}}(\frac{2}{n_{2j+1}}+ \frac{4}{n_{2j+1}}) <\frac{1}{n_{2j+1}}\,.$$ The inequalities and yield that indeed condition d) is satisfied for $\varepsilon=1/n_{2j+1}.$ Proposition \[ris\] (2) derives the desired result and the proof is complete. To prove this we shall follow similar arguments as in the proof of Lemma \[depest\]. We shall establish conditions a), b), c) and d) of the basic inequality, for $C=2$, $\varepsilon=\frac{1}{n_{2j+1}}$ and $m_{j_{0}}=m_{2j+1}$. Lemma \[42\] yields that the sequence $(y_{2i})_{i}$ satisfies the assumptions a) and c) of the basic inequality for $C=2$. Furthermore the properties of the function $\sigma$ yield that assumption b) is also satisfied for $\varepsilon=1/n_{2j+1}$. To establish condition d) we shall show that for every $f\in K$ with $w(f)=m_{2j+1}$, it holds that $$\vert f(\frac{1}{n_{2j+1}}\sum_{i=1}^{n_{2j+1}/2}y_{2i})\vert \leq \frac{1}{m_{2j+1}}(\frac{1}{n_{2j+1}}+\frac{1}{n_{2j+1}}) < \frac{1}{n_{2j+1}}\,.$$ First let us observe that for every $f\in K_{\phi}$, $f=E\frac{1}{m_{2j+1}} \sum\limits_{k=1}^{\frac{n_{2j+1}}{2}} (\lambda_{f^{\prime}_{2k}}f_{2k-1}+f^{\prime}_{2k})$ it holds that $f(\frac{1}{n_{2j+1}} \sum\limits_{i=1}^{n_{2j+1}/2}y_{2i})=0$. This is due to $\text{supp}f_{2i}^{\prime}=\text{supp}f_{2i}$ and $\text{supp}(f_{2i-1})<y_{2i}<\text{supp}(f_{2i+1})$ for every $i\leq n_{2j+1}/2$. Let $\phi=(z_{1},g_{1},z_{2},g_{2},\ldots, z_{n_{2j+1}},g_{n_{2j+1}})$ be a *special sequence* of length $n_{2j+1}$ and let $f=E\frac{1}{m_{2j+1}} \sum\limits_{k=1}^{\frac{n_{2j+1}}{2}} (\lambda_{g^{\prime}_{2k}}g_{2k-1}+g^{\prime}_{2k})$ belonging to $K_{\phi}$. Without loss of generality we may assume that $E=\mathbb{N}$. Let $i_{1}=\min\{i\leq n_{2j+1}: z_{i}\not= x_{i}\,\,\text{or}\,\,f_{i}\not=g_{i}\}$, and $k_{0}\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $i_{1}=2k_{0}-1$ or $i_1=2k_{0}$. Observe that $\text{range}(g_{k})\cap\text{range}(y_{2i})=\emptyset$ for every $k<i_{1}$ and every $2i\geq i_{1}$. From the injectivity of $\sigma$, it follows that there exists at most one $k\geq i_{1}$ such that $$w(g_{k})\in \{m_{j_{i}}:i_{1}\leq i \leq n_{2j+1}\}\,.$$ Let $2i\geq i_{1}$ such that $w(g_{k})\not=m_{j_{2i}}$ for all $k\geq i_{1}$. Then the functionals $g_{2k-1}, g^{\prime}_{2k}$, $k\geq k_{0}$ satisfy the assumptions of Lemma \[pd1\](a), and therefore it follows that $$\label{l2} \vert(\sum_{k\geq k_{0}} \lambda_{g^{\prime}_{2k}}g_{2k-1}+g^{\prime}_{2k})(y_{2i}) \vert <\frac{1}{n_{2j+1}}\,.$$ For the unique $2i\geq i_{1}$ such that there exists $k\geq i_{1}$ with $w(g_{k})=m_{j_{2i}}$, if such $2i$ exists, we have that $$\label{l3} \vert(\sum_{k\geq k_{0}} \lambda_{g^{\prime}_{2k}}g_{2k-1}+g^{\prime}_{2k})(y_{2i}) \vert < 1+\frac{1}{n_{2j+1}}\,.$$ Summing up - we get that $$\label{ee} \vert f(\frac{1}{n_{2j+1}}\sum_{i=1}^{n_{2j+1}/2}y_{2i})\vert \leq \frac{1}{m_{2j+1}}(\frac{1}{n_{2j+1}}+\frac{1}{n_{2j+1}}) <\frac{1}{n_{2j+1}}\,.$$ Inequality implies that condition d) of the basic inequality is fulfilled, and Proposition \[ris\] yields the desired result. [150]{} , [*Examples of asymptotic $\ell_1$ Banach spaces*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**349**]{}, (1997), 973-995. , [*Interpolating Hereditarily Indecomposable Banach spaces*]{}, Journal of A.M.S. [**13**]{}, (2000), 243-294. , [*Methods in the Theory of Hereditarily Indecomposable Banach Spaces*]{}, preprint , [*Families of finite subsets of $\mathbb{N}$ of low complexity and Tsirelson type spaces*]{}, Math. Nachr. [**222**]{}, (2001), 15-29. , [*A solution to Banach’s Hyperplane problem*]{}, Bull. of London Math. Soc. [**26**]{}, (1994), 523-530. , [*Ramsey Methods in Banach spaces*]{}, [*Handbook of the Geometry of Banach spaces*]{}, vol. 2, W.B.Johnson and J.Lindenstrauss, eds., Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2003. , [*An Infinite Ramsey Theorem and Some Banach-Space Dichotomies*]{}, Ann. of Math. (to appear) , [*The Unconditional basic Sequence Problem*]{}, Journal of A.M.S, [**6**]{} N4,(1993), 851-874 , [*Classical Banach spaces I*]{}, Springer-Verlag 92, 1977. , [*An arbitrarily distortable Banach space*]{}, Israel J. Math. [**76**]{} (1991), 81-95.

ArXiv

--- address: 'Institute for Nuclear Research, 117312 Moscow, Russia' author: - 'S. A. Kulagin' title: ' On the Paschos–Wolfenstein Relationship for Nuclei ' --- The scattering of (anti)neutrino from matter is mediated by charged $W^+$ or $W^-$ boson (charged current, CC), or by neutral $Z$ boson (neutral current, NC). A relation between neutrino–antineutrino asymmetries in the NC and CC deep-inelastic (DIS) cross sections was derived long ago by Paschos and Wolfenstein [@PW73] $$\begin{aligned} \label{pw} R^- &=& \frac{ \sigma^\nu_{\mathrm{NC}}-\sigma^{\bar\nu}_{\mathrm{NC}} } { \sigma^\nu_{\mathrm{CC}}-\sigma^{\bar\nu}_{\mathrm{CC}} } =\frac12 -{\sin^2{\theta_W}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta_W$ is the Weinberg mixing angle. The derivation of the Paschos–Wolfenstein relationship (PW) is solely based on the isospin symmetry and neglects contributions from heavy quarks. For this reason this relation is exact for an isoscalar target in a world without heavy quarks. In particular, this means that various strong interaction effects, including nuclear effects, should cancel out in $R^-$ for an isoscalar target thus making [Eq.(\[pw\])]{} a very good tool for the measurement of the mixing angle in neutrino scattering. However, in the real world the PW relation is subject to a number of corrections. In particular, it must be corrected for the effects due to possible $s-\bar s$ and $c-\bar c$ asymmetries in the target (see e.g. Refs. [@DFGRS02; @mm03]). Furthermore, the targets used in neutrino experiments are usually heavy nuclei, such as iron in NuTeV experiment [@nutev-prl]. Heavy nuclei typically have an excess of neutrons over protons and are non-isoscalar. For a non-isoscalar target [Eq.(\[pw\])]{} is not exact and receives various strong interaction corrections via admixture of the isovector components to $R^-$. In this paper we address QCD perturbative corrections and nuclear effects in the PW relationship for non-isoscalar nuclei. We will discuss (anti)neutrino DIS in the leading twist (LT) QCD approximation. In this approximation the NC and CC structure functions are given in terms of parton distribution functions (PDFs). In order to simplify discussion of isospin effects, we consider the isoscalar, $q_0(x)=u(x)+d(x)$, and the isovector, $q_1(x)=u(x)-d(x)$, quark distributions (for simplicity, we suppress the explicit notation for the $Q^2$ dependence of parton distributions). The calculation of the NC and CC cross sections, and the PW ratio in the leading order in the strong coupling constant (LO) is straightforward. The next-to-leading order (NLO) correction to the PW relation is given in Ref.[@DFGRS02] and the next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) correction was calculated in Ref.[@mm03]. The result can be written as [^1] $$\begin{aligned} \label{pw:cor} R^- &=& \frac12 - s_W^2 +\delta R^-, \nonumber\\ \delta R^- &=& \left[1-\frac73 s_W^2 + \left(\frac89\frac{{\alpha_{\scriptscriptstyle S}}}{\pi} +5.34\frac{{\alpha_{\scriptscriptstyle S}}^2}{\pi^2}\right) \left(\frac12-s_W^2\right)\right] \left(\frac{x_1^-}{x_0^-}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $s_W^2={\sin^2{\theta_W}}$, ${\alpha_{\scriptscriptstyle S}}$ is the strong coupling, and $x_a^- =\int {\mathrm{d}}x\,x(q_a-\bar q_a)$, with $q_a$ and $\bar q_a$ the distribution functions of quarks and antiquarks of type $a$. The subscripts 0 and 1 refer to the isoscalar $q_0$ and isovector $q_1$ quark distributions, respectively. In the derivation of [Eq.(\[pw:cor\])]{} we expanded in $x_{1}^-/x_0^-$ and retained only linear corrections. We also neglected contributions due to possible $s-\bar s$ asymmetry discussion of which can be found in Refs.[@DFGRS02; @mm03; @ku03]. Equation (\[pw:cor\]) applies to any, not necessarily isoscalar, nuclear target. We observe that $\delta R^-$ is determined by the valence part of the isovector quark distribution in the target. Complex nuclei, such as iron, have unequal number of neutrons ($N$) and protons ($Z$) and the isovector quark distribution is finite in such nuclei. In order to understand this effect, we first consider a simple approximation which is often used in processing of DIS data. In particular, we neglect nuclear effects and view the neutrino scattering off a nucleus as incoherent scattering off bound protons and neutrons at rest. We denote $q_{a/T}$ as the distribution of quarks of type $a$ in a target $T$. Then in considered approximation the nuclear distribution $q_{a{/}A}$ is the sum of the corresponding quark distributions for bound protons and neutrons $$\begin{aligned} \label{nuke:NZ} q_{a{/}A} &=& Z q_{a{/}p}+ N q_{a{/}n}.\end{aligned}$$ We apply [Eq.(\[nuke:NZ\])]{} to the isovector and isoscalar distributions assuming the isospin invariance of PDFs in the proton and neutron, i.e. $q_{0/p}(x)=q_{0/n}(x)$ and $q_{1/p}(x)=-q_{1/n}(x)$. Then we have $q_{0{/}A}(x)=A\,q_{0{/}p}(x)$ and $q_{1{/}A}(x)=(Z-N)q_{1{/}p}(x)$. For the ratio of average light cone momenta in the isovector and isoscalar states, which determine $\delta R^-$ in [Eq.(\[pw:cor\])]{}, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} (x_{1}/x_{0})_A=-\delta N (x_{1}/x_{0})_p, \label{x1:x0}\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta N=(N-Z)/A$ is fractional excess of neutrons. It follows from Eq.(\[x1:x0\]) that the neutron excess correction to $R^-$ is negative for neutron-rich targets. In order to estimate the magnitude of this correction for iron target we first neglect ${\alpha_{\scriptscriptstyle S}}$ terms in [Eq.(\[pw:cor\])]{} and compute $(x_1^-/x_0^-)_p=0.45$ using the parton distributions of Ref.[@a02] at $Q^2=20{\:\mathrm{GeV}^2}$. Keeping in mind application to NuTeV measurement [@nutev-prl] we use $\delta N=0.0574$ reported by NuTeV [@nutev-prd]. Then we have $\delta R^-=-0.013$. This is a large value on the scale of experimental errors of NuTeV measurement since $|\delta R^-| \simeq 10\sigma$ (for a discussion of the neutron excess correction in this context see Ref. [@ku03]). This gives us a motivation to study various corrections to $R^-$ in more detail. We first discuss perturbative corrections in [Eq.(\[pw:cor\])]{} and consider the difference between NNLO and LO approximations $$\Delta R^- = \delta R^-(\text{NNLO})-\delta R^-(\text{LO}). \label{Delta:R}$$ If we simply use the LO PDFs and ${\alpha_{\scriptscriptstyle S}}$ of Ref. [@a02] at $Q^2=20{\:\mathrm{GeV}^2}$ we obtain from [Eq.(\[pw:cor\])]{} $\Delta R^-=-0.0008$, which is about 6% of the LO value of $\delta R^-$. However this calculation is not fully consistent, since PDFs as well as the value of ${\alpha_{\scriptscriptstyle S}}$ in [Eq.(\[Delta:R\])]{} should correspond to the order of perturbative calculation. It is possible to take into account this effect using the results of analysis of Ref. [@a02], which provides PDFs to different order up to the NNLO approximation. If we do so we observe that the terms in the right side of [Eq.(\[Delta:R\])]{} almost cancel each other leading to $\Delta R^-\simeq 0.7\cdot 10^{-4}$. This value is the order of magnitude less than the result of a naive calculation (note also that the sign of the correction has changed). The reason for this cancellation is that ${\alpha_{\scriptscriptstyle S}}$ terms in [Eq.(\[pw:cor\])]{} turned out to be balanced by perturbative effects in PDFs which cause the decrease in the ratio $x_1/x_0$ for valence quarks in the proton from 0.457 (LO) to 0.434 (NNLO). In order to verify that this cancellation is not accidential we performed similar analysis for $Q^2=10$ and $100{\:\mathrm{GeV}^2}$. We have respectively $\Delta R^-=-1.7\cdot 10^{-5}$ and $1.9\cdot 10^{-4}$. These values indicate that the cancellation seems to be systematic. It must be also noted that such a small value of $\Delta R^-$ suggests that the magnitude of perturbative correction to $R^-$ is within the variations of $\delta R^-$ due to PDF uncertainties of Ref. [@a02]. Summarizing, we conclude that the LO calculation provides a good approximation of $R^-$. Now we turn to the discussion of nuclear effects in $R^-$. In order to improve on [Eq.(\[nuke:NZ\])]{}, we consider nuclear binding and Fermi motion effects (for which we will use the abbreviation FMB) in terms of the convolution model of nuclear parton distributions (see, e.g., Refs. [@akv85; @ku89; @kpw94]). Then [Eq.(\[nuke:NZ\])]{} should be replaced by $$\begin{aligned} q_{a/A} = {\left\langle{q_{a/p}}\right\rangle}_p + {\left\langle{q_{a/n}}\right\rangle}_n, \label{nuke:qA}\end{aligned}$$ where the two terms in the right side are the quark distributions in bound protons and neutrons averaged with the proton and neutron nuclear spectral functions, respectively. Similar equation can also be written for antiquark distribution. The explicit expression for the averaging in [Eq.(\[nuke:qA\])]{} is (see [@ku89; @kpw94]) $$\begin{aligned} \label{nuke:av} x\langle q_{a/p}\rangle_p &=& \int {\mathrm{d}}{\varepsilon}{\mathrm{d}}^3\bm{k}\, \mathcal{P}_p({\varepsilon},\bm{k}) \left(1+\frac{k_z}{M}\right) x'q_{a/p}(x'),\\ x'&=&\frac{Q^2}{2k\cdot q}=\frac{x}{1+({\varepsilon}+k_z)/M}. \label{xprim}\end{aligned}$$ The integration in [Eq.(\[nuke:av\])]{} is taken over the energy and momentum of bound protons (we separate the nucleon mass $M$ from the nucleon energy $k_0=M+{\varepsilon}$). The quantity $\mathcal{P}_p({\varepsilon},\bm{k})$ is the nuclear spectral function which describes the distribution of bound protons over the energy and momentum. In [Eq.(\[nuke:av\])]{}, the $z$-axis is chosen in the direction opposite to the momentum transfer $q=(q_0,0_\perp,-|\bm{q}|)$, and $x'$ is the Bjorken variable of the bound proton with four-momentum $k$. Equation similar to [Eq.(\[nuke:av\])]{} also holds for neutrons with the obvious replacement of the spectral function and quark distributions. The spectral functions $\mathcal{P}_{p}$ and $\mathcal{P}_{n}$ are normalized to the proton and neutron number, respectively. For the isoscalar and isovector nuclear parton distributions we obtain from Eq.(\[nuke:qA\]) \[qA:01\] $$\begin{aligned} \label{nuke:q0} q_{0/A} &=& {\left\langle{q_{0/p}}\right\rangle}_0,\\ q_{1/A} &=& {\left\langle{q_{1/p}}\right\rangle}_1, \label{nuke:q1}\end{aligned}$$ where the averaging is respectively performed with isoscalar and isovector spectral functions, $\mathcal{P}_0=\mathcal{P}_{p}+\mathcal{P}_{n}$ and $\mathcal{P}_1=\mathcal{P}_{p}-\mathcal{P}_{n}$. The isoscalar and isovector spectral functions $\mathcal{P}_0$ and $\mathcal{P}_1$ are very different in complex nuclei. In an isoscalar nucleus with equal number of protons and neutrons one generally assumes vanishing $\mathcal{P}_1$ [^2] and nuclear effects are dominated by the isoscalar spectral function. In a nuclear mean-field model, in which a nucleus is viewed as Fermi gas of nucleons bound to self-consistent mean field, the spectral function can be calculated as $$\label{spfn:MF} {\mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{MF}}}({\varepsilon},\bm{p})=\sum_{\lambda<\lambda_F} n_\lambda \left|\phi_\lambda(\bm{p})\right|^2 \delta({\varepsilon}- {\varepsilon}_\lambda),$$ where $\phi_\lambda(\bm{p})$ are the wave functions of the single-particle level $\lambda$ in nuclear mean field and $n_\lambda$ is the number of nucleons on this level. The sum in [Eq.(\[spfn:MF\])]{} runs over occupied single-particle levels with energies below the Fermi level $\lambda_F$. Equation (\[spfn:MF\]) gives a good approximation to nuclear spectral function in the vicinity of the Fermi level, where the excitation energies of the residual nucleus are small. As separation energy $|{\varepsilon}|$ becomes higher, [Eq.(\[spfn:MF\])]{} becomes less accurate. High-energy and high-momentum component of nuclear spectrum can not be described by the mean-field model and driven by correlation effects in nuclear ground state as witnessed by numerous studies. We denote this contributions to the spectral function as ${\mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{cor}}}({\varepsilon},\bm{p})$. In a generic nucleus the spectral function $\mathcal{P}_1$ determines the isovector nucleon distribution. We now argue that the strength of $\mathcal{P}_1$ is peaked about the Fermi surface. It is reasonable to assume that ${\mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{cor}}}$ is mainly isoscalar and neglect its contribution to $\mathcal{P}_1$. Then $\mathcal{P}_1$ is determined by the difference of the proton and neutron mean-field spectral functions. If we further neglect small differences between the energy levels of protons and neutrons then $\mathcal{P}_1$ will be determined by the difference in the level occupation numbers $n_\lambda$ for protons and neutrons. Because of Pauli principle, an additional particle can join a Fermi system only on an unoccupied level. In a complex nucleus all but the Fermi level are usually occupied (the Fermi level has a large degeneracy factor). Therefore, $\mathcal{P}_1$ is determined by the contribution from the Fermi level and we can write $$\label{spfn_1} \mathcal{P}_1=(Z-N)|\phi_{F}(\bm{p})|^2\delta({\varepsilon}-{\varepsilon}_F),$$ where ${\varepsilon}_F$ and $\phi_F$ are the energy and the wave function of the Fermi level. In a nucleus with a large number of particles one can use the Fermi gas model to evaluate the wave function $\phi_F$. In this model $|\psi_F(p)|^2 \propto \delta(p_F-p)$, where $p_F$ is the Fermi momentum, and we have $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{P}_1 &=& (Z-N)\delta(p-p_F)\delta({\varepsilon}-{\varepsilon}_F)/(4\pi p_F^2). \label{DeltaP:FG}\end{aligned}$$ We now apply these equations to calculate the binding and momentum distribution effects on average quark light-cone momenta in the isoscalar and isovector quark distributions. Integrating Eq.(\[nuke:av\]) over $x$ and keeping the terms to order ${\varepsilon}/M$ and $\bm{k}^2/M^2$ we have \[x01:av\] $$\begin{aligned} \frac{x_{0/A}}{A} &=& \left(1+\frac{{\varepsilon}_0+\frac23 T_0}{M}\right)x_{0/p},\\ \frac{x_{1/A}}{A} &=& -\delta N \left(1+\frac{{\varepsilon}_F+\frac23 T_F}{M}\right)x_{1/p},\end{aligned}$$ where ${\varepsilon}_0$ and $T_0$ are the separation and kinetic energy per nucleon averaged with the isoscalar nuclear spectral function $\mathcal{P}_0$ and $T_F=p_F^2/(2M)$. In order to quantitatively estimate this effect we observe that the energy of the Fermi level ${\varepsilon}_F$ equals the minimum nucleon separation energy. For the iron nucleus we take ${\varepsilon}_F= -10{\:\mathrm{MeV}}$ and $p_F=260{\:\mathrm{MeV}}$ (the corresponding energy $T_F= 36{\:\mathrm{MeV}}$). In order to calculate the isoscalar parameters ${\varepsilon}_0$ and $T_0$ we use the model spectral function of Ref.[@CS96] which takes into account both the mean-field and correlated contributions (see also  [@KS00]). We find that the naive neutron excess correction by [Eq.(\[x1:x0\])]{} should be increased by the factor 1.055. We now discuss these results in the context of NuTeV effect [@nutev-prl]. We assume that the weak mixing angle can be calculated from [Eq.(\[pw:cor\])]{} in terms of experimental $R^-$. In particular, we are interested in the variation of $s_W^2$ because of nuclear effects and effects of higher order in ${\alpha_{\scriptscriptstyle S}}$, since NuTeV analysis was carried out in LO approximation without nuclear effects. The correction $\Delta s_W^2$ is apparently given by the difference between the corrected and uncorrected experessions for $\delta R^-$ $$\Delta s_W^2 = \delta R^-(\text{NNLO+FMB})-\delta R^-(\text{LO}). \label{Delta:sw}$$ Perturbative corrections are largely canceled out in the difference as discussed above and the resulting value $\Delta s_W^2=-0.00065$ is practically saturated by nuclear effects. With certain care this value can be viewed as a correction to the value of the Weinberg angle ${\sin^2{\theta_W}}$ measured by NuTeV [@nutev-prl].[^3] In summary, we discussed perturbative QCD corrections to the PW relationship together with nuclear binding and Fermi motion effects. A cancellation of QCD perturbative corrections to the PW relationship for the total cross sections has been observed. We found a negative correction due to nuclear effects to the PW relationship for the total cross sections for neutron-rich targets and estimated this effect on the Weinberg angle of NuTeV measurement. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== This work was supported in part by the RFBR project no. 03-02-17177. I am grateful to the organizers of the Moriond EW2004 meeting for support and warm hospitality. References {#references .unnumbered} ========== [99]{} E. A. Paschos and L. Wolfenstein, . S. Davidson, S. Forte, P. Gambino, N. Rius, and A. Strumia, . K. S. McFarland and S.-O. Moch, . G. P. Zeller, *et al.*, . G. P. Zeller, *et al.*, . S. A. Kulagin, . S. I. Alekhin, . S. V. Akulinichev, S. A. Kulagin, and G. M. Vagradov, . S. A. Kulagin, . S. A. Kulagin, G. Piller, and W. Weise, . C. Ciofi degli Atti and S. Simula, . S.A. Kulagin and A.V. Sidorov, . [^1]: The total cross sections involve the integration of the structure functions over the full phase space of $x$ and $Q^2$. Therefore ${\alpha_{\scriptscriptstyle S}}$ and the moments $x_i^-$ of the parton distributions are taken at some average scale $Q^2$, which has to be chosen according to specific experimental conditions. The NNLO coefficient in [Eq.(\[pw:cor\])]{} is given in $\overline{MS}$ scheme. We also remark that there is an error in the ${\alpha_{\scriptscriptstyle S}}$ NLO coefficient in Refs.[@DFGRS02; @ku03]. I am grateful to K. McFarland for pointing this out. [^2]: It must be commented that this statement is violated by a number of effects even in the $Z=N$ nuclei. The finite difference between the proton and neutron spectral functions is generated by Coulomb interaction and isospin-dependent effects in the nucleon–nucleon interaction. The discussion of these effects goes beyond the scope of this paper and we leave this topic for future studies. [^3]: It should be remarked in this context that total cross sections were not measured in NuTeV experiment. For this reason a more detailed analysis of differential cross sections with the proper treatment of experimental cuts and (anti)neutrino flux is needed.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We have systematically studied the nematic susceptibility in non-superconducting Ba(Fe$_{1-x}$TM$_{x}$)$_2$As$_2$ (TM = Cr, Mn, V and Cu) by measuring the uniaxial pressure dependence of the resistivity along the Fe-As-Fe direction. The nematic susceptibilities in all samples show the Curie-Weiss-like behavior at high temperatures, where the nematic Curie constant $A_n$ can be derived, similar to the Curie constant in a paramagnetism. While all these dopants do not introduce superconductivity in BaFe$_2$As$_2$, their effects on nematic fluctuations are different. In Mn, Cr and V doped samples, $|A_n|$ decreases significantly with the increasing doping level. On the other hand, $|A_n|$ increases dramatically with Cu doping, similar to the superconducting Ni-doped BaFe$_2$As$_2$. However, the nematic susceptibility is suppressed at low temperatures for $x$ larger than $0.04$, which may be related to the short-range antiferromagnetic order that survives up to very high doping level. Doping Mn, Cr and Cu into the optimally-doped superconducting BaFe$_2$(As$_{0.69}$P$_{0.31}$)$_2$ also strongly reduces $|A_n|$. Compared with those systems that clearly exhibit superconductivity, such as Ni, K or P doped samples, our results suggest a strong connection between the nematic and spin degrees of freedom. Moreover, the reason of the suppression of superconductivity by dopants such as Cr, Mn, V and Cu may be correlated with the suppression of nematic fluctuations.' author: - Yanhong Gu - Yuan Wei - Dongliang Gong - Wenliang Zhang - Wenshan Hong - Xiaoyan Ma - Xingguang Li - Congkuan Tian - Peng Cheng - Hongxia Zhang - Wei Bao - Guochu Deng - Xin Li - Jianming Song - 'Yi-feng Yang' - Huiqian Luo - Shiliang Li title: 'The effect of non-superconducting dopants (Mn, V, Cr and Cu) on the nematic fluctuations in iron-based superconductors' --- introduction ============ Iron-based superconductors have attracted many interests due to their high-temperature superconductivity, but the underlying mechanism is still unclear [@SiQ16; @DaiP15; @ScalapinoDJ12]. Compared to cuprates and many other unconventional superconductors, a particular interesting fact is that iron-based superconductivity can be achieved by various dopants at different sites [@HosonoH15]. For example, BaFe$_2$As$_2$ (Ba-122) shows both the antiferromagnetic (AFM) and tetragonal-to-orthorhombic structural transitions with a collinear or stripe magnetic structure [@HuangQ08]. Taking it as the parent compound, superconductivity can be achieved by substituting Fe by Ni, Co, Ru and Rh, or Ba by K and Na, or As by P, and so on [@SefatAS08; @LiLJ09; @NiN09; @SharmaS10; @RotterM08; @CortesGilR10; @JiangS09; @LuoH12]. However, one cannot always obtain superconductivity by the substitution, as shown in Mn, Cr, V and Cu doped systems [@NiN10; @ThalerA11; @LiX18]. In both Mn and Cr doped Ba-122, the stripe AFM structure changes to G-type structure with the competition between stripe-type and G-type spin fluctuations [@KimMG10; @MartyK11; @TuckerGS12; @InosovDS13], most likely because the magnetic structures in both BaMn$_2$As$_2$ and BaCr$_2$As$_2$ are G-type [@YogeshS09; @FilsingerKA17]. In V and Cu doped Ba-122, the AFM orders are gradually suppressed to short-range or spin-glass-like state without the appearance of superconductivity [@KimMG12; @KimMG15; @TakedaH14; @WangW17; @LiX18]. It is not only that doping these dopants cannot lead to superconductivity but also that they can quickly suppress superconductivity in superconducting samples [@NiN09; @ChengP10; @LiJ12; @ZhangR14; @ZhangW19]. It has been suggested that the above results are due to their local effects on the electronic and magnetic properties [@ChengP10; @TuckerGS12; @OnariS09; @TakedaH14; @TexierY12; @SuzukiH13; @IdetaS13; @WangX14; @UrataT15; @KobayashiT16; @GastiasoroMN14]. Since these explanations depend on the detailed effects of particular dopants, there is a lack of comprehensive understanding on the physics that is directly associated with superconductivity. This is not surprising because we have not found a general picture for the superconductivity itself yet. Dopants affect not only antiferromagnetism and superconductivity, but also nematicity. The nematic order in iron-based superconductors breaks the rotational symmetry of the tetragonal lattice and is believed to result in the tetragonal-to-orthorhombic structural transition at $T_s$ [@FernandesRM14]. While its mechanism is still under debates [@FernandesRM14], the nematic order and its fluctuations can be observed by the anisotropic properties revealed by many different techniques [@ChuJH10; @ChuJH12; @YiM11; @NakajimaM11; @LuX14; @BohmerAE14; @ZhangW16; @LiuZ16]. There are increasing evidences both theoretically and experimentally that nematic fluctuations may be important for superconductivity [@FernandesRM13; @LedererS15; @KleinA18; @kushnirenkoYS18; @KuoHH16; @GuY17]. We have shown in a previous study that the enhancement of nematic fluctuations seems to be associated with both the suppression of the AFM ordered moment and the appearance of superconductivity [@GuY17]. These observations are made in superconducting systems, here we further study the correlation between nematic fluctuations and the AFM order in non-superconducting materials and hope to gain further insights into the role of nematic fluctuations. The materials studied in this work are Mn, Cr, V and Cu doped Ba-122. The high-temperature nematic susceptibilities can be all fitted by the Curie-Weiss-like function as described before [@LiuZ16; @GuY17], where a nematic Curie constant $A_n$ can be obtained. The value of $A_n$ is quickly suppressed in Mn, Cr and V doped samples. In Ba(Fe$_{1-x}$Cu$_x$)$_2$As$_2$, although the mean-field nematic transition temperature $T'$ becomes zero around 0.045, no nematic quantum critical point (QCP) exists since the nematic fluctuations at low temperatures are significantly suppressed. This is consistent with the fact that the AFM order becomes short-range above $x$ = 0.04 and persists up to $x$ = 0.08 as shown by the neutron diffraction measurements. Moreover, doping Mn, Cr and Cu into optimally doped BaFe$_2$(As$_{0.69}$P$_{0.31}$)$_2$ suppresses both superconductivity and nematic fluctuations. These results suggest the nematic and spin degrees of freedom are strongly coupled. Moreover, despite of different macroscopic effects of these dopants on the electronic and magnetic properties, the suppression of nematic fluctuations may be correlated with the disappearance of superconductivity. experiments =========== Single crystals of Ba(Fe$_{1-x}$$TM$$_x$)$_2$As$_2$ ($TM$ = Mn, Cr, V and Cu) and Ba(Fe$_{1-x}$$TM$$_{x}$)$_2$(As$_{0.69}$P$_{0.31}$)$_2$ ($TM$ = Mn and Cu) were grown by flux-method as reported elsewhere[@ChenY11; @ZhangW19]. For the sake of simplicity, we will label them as $TM$-Ba122 and $TM$-BFAP, respectively. The doping levels of $TM$-Ba122 are actual doping levels determined from the inductively coupled plasma technique. The doping levels of $TM$-BFAP are nominal. The nematic susceptibility is obtained by measuring the resistance change under uniaxial pressure, which was carried out on a physical property measurement system (PPMS, Quantum Design). The uniaxial pressure is applied by a piezoelectric device as discussed previously [@LiuZ16]. The sign of the pressure is consistent with the experiments in hydrostaic pressure, i.e., positive and negative pressures correspond to compress and tensile a sample, respectively. The samples were cut along the tetragonal (110) direction by a diamond wire saw and then glued on the uniaxial pressure device. Neutron diffraction experiments were carried out at Kunpeng triple-axis spectrometer (TAS) at Key Laboratory of Neutron Physics and Institute of Nuclear Physics and Chemistry, Mianyang, China, SIKA TAS at Open Pool Australian Lightwater reactor (OPAL) [@sika], Australia and Xingzhi TAS at China Advanced Research Reactor (CARR), Beijing, China, with the final energy E$_f$ = 5 meV. Cooled Be filters were used after the sample. The samples were aligned in the \[H,H,L\] scattering plane in the tetragonal notation. results ======= $TM$-Ba122 ( $TM$ = Mn, Cr and V ) ---------------------------------- ![(a) Temperature dependence of the normalized resistivity $R_N$ = $R/R_{300K}$ in Mn-Ba122. (b) Temperature dependence of $\zeta_{(110)}$ in Mn-Ba122. The inset shows the resistivity change under pressure for the $x$ = 0.05 sample at several temperatures. (c) Temperature dependence of $R_N$ in Cr-Ba122. (d) Temperature dependence of $\zeta_{(110)}$ in Cr-Ba122. (e) Temperature dependence of $R_N$ in V-Ba122. (f) Temperature dependence of $\zeta_{(110)}$ in V-Ba122. The arrows in (b), (d) and (f) indicate $T_N$ obtained from the resistivity measurements that are consistent with previous reports [@KimMG10; @MartyK11; @LiX18]. []{data-label="fig1"}](fig1){width="\columnwidth"} We first provides results of Mn-, Cr- and V-Ba122. One of the common features of the magnetic properties in these systems is that the G-type AFM order strongly competes with the stripe AFM order [@KimMG10; @MartyK11; @TuckerGS12; @InosovDS13; @LiX18]. It is thus interesting to see whether their nematic fluctuations also share some similarities. Figure 1(a) shows the temperature dependence of the normalized resistivity $R_N$ for Mn-Ba122. For the $x$ = 0.05 sample, $R_N$ exhibits a sharp upturn at $T_N$ with decreasing temperature, which is a typical behavior for samples with the substitution of Fe by 3d transition-metal elements [@NiN09]. It should be noted that the structural transition temperature $T_s$ is usually the same or slightly above $T_N$ in most of the samples studied here, so we will not distinguish them unless ortherwise specified. This upturn disappears in the $x$ = 0.14 sample although $T_N$ changes little, which is consistent with the suppression of the stripe AFM order [@KimMG10; @InosovDS13]. A kink feature is found in the $x$ = 0.28 sample, and we attribute it to the AFM transition [@KimMG10; @TuckerGS12; @InosovDS13; @FilsingerKA17]. To study the nematic susceptibility, we have measured the resistance change under the uniaxial pressure to obtain $\zeta = d(\Delta R / R _0) / dP $, where $P$ and $R_0$ are the pressure and the resistance at zero pressure, respectively, and $\Delta R = R(P)-R_0$. The subscript means that the pressure is along the tetragonal (110) direction. As discussed previously [@LiuZ16; @GuY17], $\zeta_{(110)}$ can be treated as the nematic susceptibility, which is analogous to the magnetic susceptibility in a paramagnetism. The inset of Fig. 1(b) gives some examples of the pressure dependence of $\Delta R / R _0$ for the $x$ = 0.05 Mn-Ba122 sample. Well above $T_N$, the resistance changes linearly with pressure, so the slope is used to calculate $\zeta_{(110)}$. When the temperature is close to $T_N$, nonlinear pressure dependence of resistance appears, which is due to the effect of large pressure [@MaoH18]. Since this nonlinear effect is weak, one can still roughly make a linear fit to the data. Below $T_N$, clear hysteresis behavior appears because of magnetic or nematic domains [@GongD17]. In this case, $\zeta_{(110)}$ is not well defined anymore and the linear fit is forced to obtain its value, which will not affect our analyses that focus on the nematic susceptibility above $T_N$. Figure 1(b) shows the temperature dependence of $\zeta_{(110)}$ for Mn-Ba122. For the $x$ = 0.05 and 0.14 samples, $\zeta_{(110)}$ above $T_N$ can be fitted by the Curie-Weiss-like function, $A/(T-T')+y_0$, where $A$, $T'$ and $y_0$ are temperature-independent parameters [@LiuZ16; @GuY17]. The fittings are good until the temperature is below $T_N$, which is not just due to the ill-defined $\zeta_{(110)}$ below $T_N$ but also because the nematic susceptibility cannot go infinite with decreasing temperature and should change below the phase transition as the magnetic susceptibility in a typical magnetically ordered system. For the $x$ = 0.28 sample, where the magnetic structure would have changed, $\zeta_{(110)}$ starts deviating from the Curie-Weiss-like behavior well above $T_N$. Figure 1(c) shows the temperature dependence of $R_N$ for Cr-Ba122. Sharp upturns are found in the $x$ = 0.07 and 0.22 samples where the AFM order is still stripe-type. For the $x$ = 0.3 sample which is near the crossover from the stripe to G-type AFM order, the upturn of $R_N$ below $T_N$ becomes smooth. Figure 1(d) shows the temperature dependence of $\zeta_{(110)}$ in these samples. The nematic susceptibility in the $x$ = 0.07 behaves similar to that in the $x$ = 0.05 and 0.14 Mn-Ba122 samples. $\zeta_{(110)}$ becomes negative in the $x$ = 0.22 and 0.3 samples but can be still fitted by the Curie-Weiss-like function with negative value of $A$. This sign change has also been found in the hole-doped Ba$_{1-x}$K$_x$Fe$_2$As$_2$ system [@GuY17]. Figure 1(e) and 1(f) show the results of V-Ba122. The major features are similar to those observed in Mn- and Cr-Ba122, including the sharp upturn of $R_N$ associated with $T_N$ and the Curie-Weiss-like behavior of $\zeta_{(110)}$ above $T_N$. We will further analysis the nematic susceptibility in these materials later and here we would like to point it out that there is an intimate relationship between the magnetic and nematic systems. Ba(Fe$_{1-x}$Cu$_{x}$)$_2$As$_2$ -------------------------------- ![(a) Q-scans along the \[H,H,3\] direction for Ba(Fe$_{1-x}$Cu$_x$)$_2$As$_2$ at 2 K. (b) Q-scans along the \[0.5,0.5,L\] direction for Ba(Fe$_{1-x}$Cu$_x$)$_2$As$_2$ at 2 K. The solid lines in (a) and (b) are fitted by the Guassian function. (c) Doping dependence of the magnetic correlation length along HH and L directions. (d) Doping dependence of the peak intensity at (0.5, 0.5, 3). (e) & (f) Temperature dependence of the peak intensity at (0.5, 0.5, 3). The labels in (a), (b), (e) and (f) represent the doping levels and the scale factors of the intensities. []{data-label="fig2"}](fig2){width="\columnwidth"} The Cu doping is unique in the Ba-122 system in that the AFM order is continuously suppressed but no superconductivity is found [@KimMG12; @TakedaH14]. Moreover, it seems that the AFM and structural transitions are separated and may disappear at different doping levels. In other words, we may expect to observe the magnetic and nematic QCPs individually without the presence of superconductivity. However, there are some discrepancies in phase diagram [@KimMG12; @TakedaH14]. Therefore, we provide our elastic neutron scattering studies on the AFM order here, which will help us to understand the nematic fluctuations in this system. Figure 2(a) and 2(b) shows the HH-scans and L-scans at the magnetic peak (0.5, 0.5, 3) at 2 K for Cu-Ba122. For $x \leq $ 0.04, the magnetic peak is very sharp and the width is essentially resolution-limited. With further increasing $x$, the peak widths become much broader. This is because the AFM order becomes short-ranged as reported previously [@KimMG12]. To quantitatively describe the change from long-range to short-range AFM order, the doping dependence of the magnetic correlation lengths is shown in Fig. 2(c). Here the correlation $\xi$ is calculated as $\xi$ = $2\pi/FWHM$, where FWHM is the full width at half maximum obtained by the Guassian fit to the peak. For $x \leq$ 0.04, the correlation lengths along both directions are larger than 200 Å. Since the resolution effect has not been considered, these large values of $\xi$ suggest that the AFM order is still long-range. Above $x$ = 0.04, $\xi$ quickly drops in both directions, indicating the magnetic system becomes short-range. The change from long-range to short-range AFM order is also evidenced by the doping dependence of the peak intensity as shown in Fig. 2(d), which also drastically decreases above $x$ = 0.04. Figure 2(e) and 2(f) shows the temperature dependence of the magnetic peak intensity at (0.5, 0.5, 3), which are used to determine $T_N$. We will compare the results of $T_N$ with the mean-field nematic transition temperature $T'$ later. ![(a) Temperature dependence of $R_N$ for Cu-Ba122. (b) Temperature dependence of $dR_N/dT$ for Cu-Ba122. (c) Temperature dependence of $\zeta_{(110)}$ for Cu-Ba122. The solid lines are the fitted results by the Curie-Weiss-like function. The arrows in (b) and (c) indicate $T_N$. (d) Doping dependence of $T_N$ and $T'$. The labels LR, SR and SG represent long-range, short-range and spin-glass, respectively. The dashed lines are guides to the eye.[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3){width="\columnwidth"} Figure 3(a) shows the temperature dependence of $R_N$ for Cu-Ba122, where clear sharp upturns can be found for $x <$ 0.04. This is consistent with the above observation that the AFM order is long-range in these samples. Above $x$ = 0.04, the upturn in $R_N$ becomes smooth, which makes it hard to judge whether there is an AFM transition or not. The temperature dependence of $dR_N/dT$ shown in Fig. 3(b) also makes it clear that only the long-range AFM order can result in a dip at $T_N$. Since we have already obtained $T_N$ for $x >$ 0.04 from the neutron diffraction experiment, it seems that the short-range AFM order can still give rise to a kink feature in $dR_N/dT$. Figure 3(c) shows the temperature dependence of $\zeta_{(110)}$ for Cu-Ba122. For $x \leq$ 0.048, the high-temperature data can be fitted by the Curie-Weiss-like function. With further increasing doping, $\zeta_{(110)}$ shows a broad hump, similar to that in overdoped BaFe$_{2-x}$Ni$_x$As$_2$ [@LiuZ16]. From the fittings, we can obtain the mean-field nematic transition temperature $T'$, whose doping dependence is plotted together with $T_N$ in Fig. 3(d). The short-range AFM order survives up to 0.08. At doping level higher than 0.14, the system changes into a spin-glass-like state as reported previously [@WangW17]. For the nematic order, $T'$ continuously decreases with increasing $x$ and becomes zero at about 0.046. $TM$-BFAP ( $TM$ = Mn, Cr and Cu ) and summarized phase diagrams ---------------------------------------------------------------- ![(a) Temperature dependence of $R_N$ for Mn-BFAP. (b) Temperature dependence of $\zeta_{(110)}$ for Mn-BFAP. (c) Temperature dependence of $R_N$ for Cu-BFAP. (b) Temperature dependence of $\zeta_{(110)}$ for Cu-BFAP. The arrows in (b) and (d) indicate assumed $T_N$ from the resistivity.[]{data-label="fig4"}](fig4){width="\columnwidth"} In previous subsections, the effects of nonsuperconducting dopants on the nematic susceptibility in BaFe$_2$As$_2$ have been shown. In this subsection, we further show how the nematic susceptibility in optimally doped BaFe$_2$(As$_{0.69}$P$_{0.31}$)$_2$ (BFAP) changes with these dopants when the superconductivity is completely suppressed. The BFAP is chosen here as a starting material because $P$ and the $TM$ elements sit at different sites in the unit cell and their effects on superconductivity, magnetism and nematicity may be relatively easier to be separated. While the AFM order is nearly completely suppressed in BaFe$_2$(As$_{0.69}$P$_{0.31}$)$_2$ [@HuD15], upturns appear in the temperature dependence of $R_N$ for nonsuperconducting Mn-BFAP, as shown in Fig. 4(a). The uptrun temperature decreases with increasing Mn doping level. As shown in Cr-BFAP [@ZhangW19], the phosphorus doping level where the AFM order disappears changes with Cr doping. Therefore, it is assumed that the upturns are associated with the AFM transitions. This assumption is also evidenced by the temperature dependence of $\zeta_{(110)}$, which shows kinks at the same temperatures as shown in Fig. 4(b). In both the $x$ = 0.1 and 0.2 samples, $\zeta_{(110)}$ above $T_N$ can be well fitted by the Curie-Weiss-like function, but the signs are opposite. Figure 4(c) and 4(d) shows the temperature dependence of $R_N$ and $\zeta_{(110)}$ for Cu-BFAP, respectively. An upturn appears in $R_N$ for the $x$ = 0.1 sample, suggesting the presence of the AFM order, and disappears for the $x$ = 0.2 sample. Correspondingly, $\zeta_{(110)}$ in the $x$ = 0.1 sample can be fitted by the Curie-Weiss-like function above $T_N$ and shows a kink at it, while that in the $x$ = 0.2 sample shows a broad hump. Both signs of $\zeta_{(110)}$ are negative. For Cr-BFAP ($x$ = 0.03), the nematic susceptibility has already been studied previously [@ZhangW19]. Figure 5(a) shows the doping dependence of $|A_n|^{-1}$, where $A_n$ = $\kappa A$ with $A$ as the nematic Curie constant from the Curie-Weiss-like fit of $\zeta_{(110)}$. The $\kappa$ is a phenomenological parameter associated with the effect of Fermi velocities [@ZhangW19]. For the system studied here, we have assumed that $\kappa$ = 1. In other words, the changes of Fermi velocities with doping are supposed to be small. This assumption will not affect the main results here. As discussed previously, the magnitude of $|A_n|$ corresponds to the strength of nematic fluctuations [@ZhangW19]. It has been shown in a previous study that $|A_n|^{-1}$ decreases with increasing doping level in Ni-Ba122 [@LiuZ16]. Similar behavior is found in Cu-Ba122. For Mn-, V- and Cr-Ba122, $|A_n|^{-1}$ increases with increasing doping level. In other words, the value of $|A_n|$ becomes much smaller than that in BaFe$_2$As$_2$, suggesting the suppression of nematic fluctuations. While the effect of Cu on $|A_n|$ is different from those of other nonsuperconducting dopants, their effects are similar in BFAP, i.e., the value of $|A_n|^{-1}$ increases significantly with all kinds of non-superconducting dopants. Figure 5(b) plot the relationship between the AFM ordered moment $M$ and $|A_n|^{-1}$ of these nonsuperconducting systems together with the other systems that have been reported previously [@GuY17]. The data for Cu-Ba122 still falls onto the same linear relationship as shown by the dashed brown line. For Mn-, Cr- and V-Ba122, a new relationship is shown by the red dashed line in Fig. 5(b), which shows that $|A_n|^{-1}$ increases with decreasing $M$. Finally, starting from the optimally doped BFAP, $|A_n|^{-1}$ also increases with Mn, Cr and Cu doping as shown by the blue dashed line in Fig. 5(b). discussions =========== ![(a) Doping dependence of $|A_n|^{-1}$ for $TM$-Ba122 and $TM$-BFAP ( TM = Mn, Cr, V and Cu ). The data for Ba(Fe$_{1-x}$Ni$_{x}$)$_2$As$_2$ and Cr-BFAP are from Ref. [@LiuZ16] and [@ZhangW19], respectively. (b) The relationship between the AFM ordered moment $M$ and $|A_n|^{-1}$. The compounds listed in the right and the dashed straight brown line are from [@GuY17]. The values of $M$ for Cu-Ba122 are determined by comparing the intensities between the magnetic and nuclear peaks [@LuoH12]. The values of $M$ for Mn, Cr and V doped Ba-122 are estimated from Ref. [@KimMG10], [@MartyK11] and [@LiX18], respectively. Both $|A_n|^{-1}$ and $M$ of Cr-BFAP are from Ref. [@ZhangW19]. Since no measurements on the values of $M$ in Mn and Cr doped BFAP have been done yet, they are set as zero. The red and blue dashed lines are guides to the eye. The arrows in the red and blue dashed lines indicate increasing doping in $TM$-Ba122 ( Mn, Cr and V ) and $TM$-BFAP ( Mn, Cr and Cu ), respectively. []{data-label="fig5"}](fig5) We start the discussions from Mn, Cr and V dopants. In both Mn- and Cr-Ba122, the suppression of the stripe AFM order is caused by the competition from the G-type AFM order [@KimMG10; @MartyK11; @TuckerGS12; @InosovDS13; @YogeshS09; @FilsingerKA17]. This kind of competition is also shown to exist in V-Ba122, where a spin-glass state appears first after the stripe AFM order is completely suppressed above $x$ = 0.25 [@LiX18]. Our results in Fig. 5(a) show that Mn, Cr and V also have the similar effects on the nematic susceptibility, i.e., they all result in the increase of $|A_n|^{-1}$. Moreover, the rate of this increase is largest for Cr doping, which accords with that the suppression of $T_N$ of the stripe AFM order is also fastest in Cr-Ba122. Since the G-type AFM order does not break the $C_4$ rotational symmetry, it is reasonable to conclude that the suppression of nematic fluctuations in these systems is due to the competition from the G-type AFM spin fluctuations. It is thus not surprising that in both Mn- and Cr-BFAP, $|A_n|^{-1}$ also increases significantly with increasing doping levels as shown in Fig. 5(a). The Cu doping has different effects on the magnetic system in BaFe$_2$As$_2$ from the above non-superconducting dopants. First, the stripe AFM order is suppressed but is not replaced by the G-type order. In heavily overdoped Cu-Ba122 ( $x \geq$ 0.145 ), the magnetic system is spin-glass-like and the AFM order is short-range and stripe-type [@WangW17]. At first glance, this is the same as what we observed here for the samples with 0.044 $\leq x \leq$ 0.08. However, $T_N$ decreases and increases with increasing doping for $x \leq$ 0.08 and $x \geq$ 0.145, respectively. The difference of magnetic orders in these two doping regions can also be found from the doping dependence of the integrated magnetic intensity, which increases with doping for $x \geq$ 0.145 but decreases for $x \leq$ 0.08. It has been suggested that the certain arrangements of Fe and Cu may favor a magnetically ordered state [@WangW17], as also seen in heavily overdoped NaFe$_{1-x}$Cu$_x$As [@SongY16]. In our case, the content of Cu may be too little to introduce any kind of particular Fe-Cu arrangement. Therefore, the short-range AFM order below $x$ = 0.08 should be the result of randomly distributed Cu dopants, which may locally disturb the long-range stripe AFM order and make it short-range. Another possibility is that the electron doping from Cu dopants may result in short-range AFM order. We note that the short-range AFM order has also been found in the electron-doped systems of Co- and Ni-Ba122 [@LuoH12; @LuX14; @PrattDK11], although it is incommensurate. The effects of Cu doping on nematic fluctuations in Cu-Ba122 can also be understood by the local effects of Cu dopants. At one hand, the Cu doping results in the increase of $A_n$ ( Fig. 5(a) ), suggesting the enhancement of nematic fluctuations. On the other hand, the nematic susceptibility does not follow the Curie-Weiss-like behavior for samples with $T'$ close to zero at low temperatures ( Fig. 3(c) ), which suggests that the nematic fluctuations are significantly suppressed by Cu dopants. This seemingly contradictory results may be explained as two different effects of Cu dopants at different temperature regions. First, the nematic fluctuations will be enhanced if the magnetic order is suppressed with the stripe-type AF fluctuations maintained, as shown by the very similar doping dependence of $A_n$ and $T'$ in Cu- and Ni-Ba122 [@LiuZ16; @GuY17]. This effect may be treated as a global effect of dopants to the nematic system. Second, the strong local effects of Cu dopants may prevent the nematic susceptibility from further increasing at low temperatures. Since the nematic order is directly coupled to the lattice, it is not surprising that $\zeta_{(110)}$ cannot be infinite when $T'$ is close to zero because it would mean that the lattice will become unstable. Naively, it may suggest that Cu dopants may limit the nematic correlations and keep the nematic system from long-range ordering. Further high-resolution structural studies may give an answer to this hypothesis. It is interesting to note that many superconducting systems may have an avoided nematic QCP near optimally doping levels where $T'$ becomes zero [@LiuZ16; @KuoHH16; @GuY17]. Similarly, an avoided nematic QCP may also present in Cu-Ba122, i.e., quantum nematic fluctuations could dominate at high temperatures when $T'$ = 0 but there is no actual nematic QCP. Our results suggest a close relationship between the stripe AFM order and the nematicity. It has been shown that the ordered moment has a roughly linear relationship with $|A_n|^{-1}$ for many parent compounds and doped superconducting samples, as shown in Fig. 5(b). It suggests that the nematic fluctuations are enhanced when the stripe AFM order is suppressed. For Cu-Ba122 which does not induce any other type of magnetic order competing with the stripe AFM order, this relationship still holds. However, for Mn-, Cr- and V-Ba122, $|A_n|^{-1}$ increases drastically with the suppression of the stripe AFM order as shown by the red dashed line in Fig. 5(b), which clearly suggests that the competition from G-type AFM order suppresses the nematic fluctuations. This results, together with the linear relationship between $|A_n|^{-1}$ and $M$ in other systems, indicate that the stripe AFM order is directly associated with nematic fluctuations. Our results also suggest a close relationship between the nematic fluctuations and superconductivity. We have suggested in a previous work that superconductivity appears only when $|A_n|^{-1}$ is small enough [@GuY17]. This is consistent with the results in this work that $|A_n|^{-1}$ is drastically increased with non-superconducting dopants doping into the superconducting samples. Moreover, whether a dopant can lead to superconductivity in BaFe$_2$As$_2$ seems associated with whether it can enhance nematic fluctuations. A particular case is Cu-doped Ba-122, where Cu doping only suppress low-temperature nematic fluctuations. Of course, it is not to say that the superconductivity must come from nematic fluctuations since one mechanism may affect both superconductivity and nematicity simultaneously. Still, our results put nematicity as one of the key aspects to understand superconductivity in iron-based superconductors. conclusions =========== We have systematically studied the doping effects of Mn, Cr, V and Cu on the nematic susceptibility in parent compound Ba-122 and optimally-doped superconducting BFAP. The nematic Curie constant $|A_n|$ are drastically decreased in all cases except in Cu-Ba122. In the latter, nematic fluctuations are only suppressed at low temperatures. Combining our previous studies, our results suggest that the stripe AFM order and superconductivity may both have intimate relationship with nematic fluctuations. In other words, nematicity may play one of the key roles in the low-energy physics of iron-based superconductors. This work was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (Grants No. 2017YFA0302900 and No. 2016YFA0300502,2016YFA0300604), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grants No. 11874401 and No. 11674406, No. 11374346, No. 11774399, No. 11474330, No. 11421092, No. 11574359 and No. 11674370), the Strategic Priority Research Program(B) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grants No. XDB25000000 and No. XDB07020000, No. XDB28000000), China Academy of Engineering Physics (Grant No. 2015AB03) and the National Thousand-Young Talents Program of China. H. L. is grateful for the support from the Youth Innovation Promotion Association of CAS (2016004). [60]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{} , , , ****, (). , ****, (). , ****, (). , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , ****, (). , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , , , ****, (). , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , , , ****, (). , ****, (). , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , ****, (). , ****, (). , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , , , ****, (). , ****, (). , , , , ****, (). , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , (). , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , ****, (????). , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , , , ****, ().

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'In 1915, Einstein and de Haas and Barnett demonstrated that changing the magnetization of a magnetic material results in mechanical rotation, and vice versa. At the microscopic level, this effect governs the transfer between electron spin and orbital angular momentum, and lattice degrees of freedom, understanding which is key for molecular magnets, nano-magneto-mechanics, spintronics, and ultrafast magnetism. Until now, the timescales of electron-to-lattice angular momentum transfer remain unclear, since modeling this process on a microscopic level requires addition of an infinite amount of quantum angular momenta. We show that this problem can be solved by reformulating it in terms of the recently discovered angulon quasiparticles, which results in a rotationally invariant quantum many-body theory. In particular, we demonstrate that non-perturbative effects take place even if the electron–phonon coupling is weak and give rise to angular momentum transfer on femtosecond timescales.' author: - 'J. H. Mentink' - 'M. I. Katsnelson' - 'M. Lemeshko' title: 'Quantum many-body dynamics of the Einstein-de Haas effect' --- Introduction ============ The concept of angular momentum is ubiquitous across physics, whether one deals with nuclear collisions, chemical reactions, or formation of galaxies. In the microscopic world, quantum rotations are described by non-commuting operators. This makes the angular momentum theory extremely involved, even for systems consisting of only a few interacting particles, such as electrons filling an atomic shell or protons and neutrons composing a nucleus [@VarshalovichAngMom]. In condensed matter systems, exchange of angular momentum between electrons’ spins and a crystal lattice governs the Einstein-de Haas [@EinsteindeHaas15de] and Barnett [@BarnettPR15] effects. These effects play a key role in magnetoelasticity [@VlasovJETP1964], in the physics of molecular and atomic magnets [@CaleroPRL05; @GaraninPRX2011; @GanzhornNatCom16; @DonatiScience16], nano-magneto-mechanical systems [@WallisAPL06; @KovalevPRL05; @JaafarPRB2009; @Tejada2010PRL; @KeshtgarPRB17], spintronics [@KovalevPRB2007; @MatsuoPRL11; @MatsuoJPSJ17], and ultrafast magnetism [@BeaurepairePRL96; @KoopmansPRL2005; @KirilyukRMP10; @Dornes2019]. If approached from first principles, describing angular momentum transfer in condensed-matter systems represents a seemingly intractable problem, since it involves couplings between an essentially infinite number of angular momenta of all the electrons and nuclei in a solid. As a result, although several models of spin–lattice coupling have been developed [@VanVleckPR40; @Callen1963; @MelcherPRL72; @FeddersPRB77; @Mishchenko1997; @ChudnovskyPRB05; @ZhangPRL14; @GaraninPRB15; @FahnleJSNM17], they either solve the problem only partially (i.e. by ignoring the orbital dynamics of electrons) or do not account for the overall rotational invariance of the microscopic Hamiltonian. Moreover, while non-perturbative effects of electron–phonon coupling have been shown to play an important role in solid-state systems, most notably in the theory of polarons [@AppelPolarons] and in the microscopic theory of BCS superconductivity [@BardeenPR1957], none of the existing theories of angular momentum transfer have been applied beyond the perturbative regime. As a result, over 100 years after their discovery, a fully quantum mechanical microscopic description of the Einstein-de Haas and Barnett effects remains elusive. In particular, due to these limitations existing theories cannot describe how fast angular momentum can be transferred between electronic and lattice degrees of freedom. ![ [**Angulon quasiparticle in solid-state systems.**]{} A localized magnetic impurity exchanging angular momentum with lattice excitations can be described as the angulon quasiparticle, characterized by total (electrons+phonons) angular momentum. \[angulon\]](fig1angulon){width="\columnwidth"} Here, we introduce a conceptually novel approach to angular momentum transfer in solids, which relies on casting both electron and lattice degrees of freedom, and [– most importantly –]{} the coupling between the two, directly in the angular momentum basis. This results in a fully rotationally invariant quantum many-body theory that treats both electron spin and orbital angular momenta as well as phonon angular momentum on an equal footing. Remarkably, despite the fact that this problem involves coupling between an infinite number of angular momenta, it can be solved in closed form in terms of the angulon quasiparticle, a concept that was recently discovered in molecular physics [@LemeshkoDroplets16]. In the solid-state context, the angulon represents a many-electron atom dressed by a cloud of lattice excitations carrying angular momentum, see Fig. \[angulon\]. This quasiparticle approach not only captures perturbative effects such as the renormalization and broadening of well-known low-frequency properties, but also makes it straightforward to take non-perturbative effects into account. We emphasize that taking a phonon-dressed many-electron atom as building block represents a key step beyond conventional theories of electron-phonon coupling. Such theories usually account for phonons on top of an electronic Hamiltonian involving non-local interactions (electron hopping, static crystal fields), which were recently argued to dominate the ultrafast angular momentum dynamics in electron-only theories since they break rotational symmetry[@TowsPRL15; @Dewhurst2018]. However, by construction, electron-only theories fail to describe how, and how fast angular momentum is transferred from electronic to lattice degrees of freedom. Moreover, even when accounting for such non-local interactions, rotational invariance of the system as a whole should still be conserved. In this paper, as the first application of our formalism, we focus on the local angular momentum transfer between electrons and phonons, which is of key importance to reveal the shortest possible timescale of the Einstein de Haas effect [@KoopmansPRL2005; @Dornes2019], and for which the angulon building block alone is sufficient. If required, electron hopping and crystal fields can be introduced on top of such a building block. This, however, should not alter the qualitative behavior of the electron-phonon system described in this paper. Interestingly, already at this level, we predict qualitatively novel non-perturbative effects taking place even if the electron–lattice coupling is weak. These features arise at high energies and therefore enable transfer between electron spins and phonons at ultra short timescales. The Microscopic model ===================== To illustrate our approach, we consider a microscopic Hamiltonian, $\hat H=\hat H_\text{e} + \hat H_\text{p} + \hat H_\text{ep}$, where $\hat H_\text{e}$ accounts for the electronic degrees of freedom, $\hat H_\text{p}$ describes the phonons, and $\hat H_\text{ep}$ captures the electron–phonon coupling. For concreteness, as $\hat H_\text{e}$ we take the multi-orbital (in this case, three-orbital) Hubbard-Kanamori Hamiltonian describing localized paramagnetic atoms [@GeorgesARCMP13] with an additional spin-orbit coupling term. We explicitly consider the limit where the electronic degrees of freedom are completely localized on the atom and describe the atomic Hamiltonian as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:He} \hat H_\text{e}= \hat H_N - 2J_\text{H}\hat{\mathbf{S}}^2 - \frac{J_\text{H}}{2}\hat{\mathbf{L}}^2 + \xi\, \hat{\mathbf{L}}\cdot\hat{\mathbf{S}}.\end{aligned}$$ Here $\hat H_N = \hat{N}(\hat{N}-1)(U-3J_\text{H})/2 + 5J_\text{H}\hat{N}/2 $, where $\hat N$ is the total electron number operator, $U$ and $J_\text{H}$ parametrize the direct and exchange Coulomb interactions, respectively, and $\xi$ gives the the spin-orbit coupling strength. $\hat{\mathbf{L}}$ and $\hat{\mathbf{S}}$ are many-electron operators for the orbital and spin angular momentum, respectively, and we use $\hbar \equiv 1$ such that the parameters $U,J_\text{H}$, and $\xi$ have the dimension of energy. In an isolated atom, angular momentum $\hat{\mathbf{J}} =\hat{\mathbf{L}}+\hat{\mathbf{S}}$ is conserved and $\hat H_\text{e}$ is diagonal in the many-electron states, $|\Gamma\rangle=|NLSJM_J\rangle$ [@RudzikasBook2007; @IrkhinPSSB1994], where $M_J$ is the projection of $\mathbf{J}$ onto the laboratory-frame $z$-axis. For the sake of simplicity, we describe the lattice degrees of freedom by considering an isotropic elastic solid whose excitations are acoustic phonons as described by the Hamiltonian $$\label{eq:Hp} \hat H_\text{p}=\sum_{k\lambda\mu s}\omega_{ks}\,\hat{b}^\dagger_{k\lambda\mu s}\hat{b}_{k\lambda\mu s},$$ with a linear dispersion, $\omega_{ks}=c_sk$, $c_s$ being the speed of sound, $s$ the polarization index, and $k=|\mathbf{k}|$. In Eq.  we have used the angular momentum representation for the creation and annihilation operators, $\hat{b}^\dagger_{k\lambda\mu s}$ and $\hat{b}_{k\lambda\mu s}$, where $\lambda$ and $\mu$ give the phonon angular momentum and its projection onto the $z$-axis, respectively[@LemSchmidtChapter]. The boson operators in the $\{ k, \lambda, \mu\}$ basis are connected to the operators in the Cartesian representation, $\hat{b}^\dagger_{\mathbf{k}s}$ and $\hat{b}_{\mathbf{k}s}$, with $\mathbf{k} \equiv \{k_x, k_y, k_z\}$, as follows: $$\begin{aligned} \hat{b}^\dagger_{\mathbf{k}s}=\frac{(2\pi)^{3/2}}{k}\sum_{\lambda\mu}\hat{b}_{k\lambda\mu s}^\dagger \text{i}^{\lambda}Y^*_{\lambda\mu}(\Omega_k),\label{bdagtransf}\end{aligned}$$ In this angular momentum representation, each phonon carries angular momentum $\lambda$ with projection $\mu$ and $\hat{H}_\text{p}$ is diagonal in the basis $|k\lambda\mu s\rangle$. The total angular momentum of phonons with a given polarization is then defined by summing all excited phonons according to their occupations. For the three different components of the total phonon angular momentum we get the following expression: $$\begin{aligned} \hat{\mathbf{\Lambda}}_s=\sum_{k\lambda\mu\mu'}\hat{b}_{k\lambda\mu s}^\dagger\boldsymbol{\sigma}_{\mu\mu'}^\lambda \hat{b}_{k\lambda\mu' s},\end{aligned}$$ where $\boldsymbol{\sigma}^\lambda$ is the vector of matrices fulfilling the angular momentum algebra in the representation of angular momentum $\lambda=0,1,2\ldots$[@SchmidtLemPRX16] Hence, the total phonon angular momentum defined in this way is composed of non-spherical excitations of the elastic solid (e.g., $p,d,f$-waves for $\lambda=1,2,3$). The next step is to formulate the electron–phonon coupling, $\hat{H}_\text{ep}$, in a rotationally invariant way. Here we outline the main steps of this derivation, and provide further details in Appendix \[a1\]. Our starting point is the general Hamiltonian describing density–density interactions between electrons and ions of the lattice, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:Hepgen} \hat{H}_\text{ep}=\int \!\!d\mathbf{x}\int \!\!d\mathbf{r}\,\,\hat{\Psi}^\dagger(\mathbf{x})\hat{\Phi}^\dagger(\mathbf{r})V(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{r})\hat{\Psi}(\mathbf{x})\hat{\Phi}(\mathbf{r}),\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{\Psi}(\mathbf{x})$ and $\hat{\Phi}(\mathbf{r})$ are field operators for electrons and nuclei, respectively. Microscopically, the two-body interaction, $V(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{r})$, stems from the Coulomb interaction between electrons and nuclei, which is obviously rotationally invariant, $V(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{r}) \equiv V(|\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{r}|)$. Hence, rotational invariance is implied and the task is to describe excitations between different angular momentum states of electrons and phonons due to such an isotropic interaction. For this purpose we first expand the interaction in spherical harmonics, $Y_{lm}(\Omega)$: $$\begin{aligned} \label{Vscalar} V(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{r})=\sum_{lm}V_l(x,r)Y^*_{lm}(\Omega_x)Y_{lm}(\Omega_r),\end{aligned}$$ Second, considering electrons localized around the nuclei, we expand $\hat{\Psi}^\dagger(\mathbf{x})=\sum_{j}\hat{\psi}^\dagger_j(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{r}_j)$ and construct the local field operators $\hat{\psi}^\dagger_j(\mathbf{x})$ from a complete set of atomic orbitals: $$\begin{aligned} \label{atomicorbitals} \hat{\psi}^\dagger(\mathbf{x})=\sum_{\lambda\mu,\sigma}\rho_{\nu\lambda}(x)Y^*_{\lambda\mu}(\Omega_x)\chi^\dagger_{\sigma}\, \hat{c}^\dagger_{\lambda\mu \sigma},\end{aligned}$$ Here $\chi^\dagger_\sigma$ is a Pauli spinor and $\hat{c}^\dagger_{\lambda\mu \sigma}$ is the electron creation operator. The indices $\nu,\lambda,\mu,\sigma$ are the principal and orbital angular momentum quantum numbers and the projections of orbital and spin quantum numbers, respectively. Finally, we introduce phonons by expanding $V(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{r})$ in small displacements and subsequent transformation to the spherical phonon basis. In the resulting Hamiltonian integration over electronic and nuclear angles can be performed analytically. Here we present the result for the case in which (phonon-mediated) hopping between different atoms in the lattice is neglected: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:Hep} \hat H_{\text{ep},\lambda_1}^{\text{loc}}&=\sum_{\mu_1\mu_2}\sum_{k\lambda\mu}U_\lambda(k)\frac{\text{i}}{2}\left(1+(-1)^\lambda\right)\\ &\quad\times\left[-A^{\lambda_1\mu_1}_{\lambda\mu,\lambda_2\mu_2}\hat{b}_{k\lambda\mu} + (-1)^\mu A^{\lambda_1\mu_1}_{\lambda-\mu,\lambda_2\mu_2}\hat{b}^\dagger_{k\lambda\mu}\right]\nonumber\\ &\quad\times\!\!\!\!\sum_{NS\mathit{\Sigma}\atop LL'MM'}\!\!\!\!N\,W^{LL'S}_{MM'\mu_1\mu_2} \hat X(NLMS\mathit{\Sigma},NL'M'S\mathit{\Sigma})\nonumber,\end{aligned}$$ It is important to note that, first, only terms with $\mathbf{k}\cdot \mathbf{e}_{s}(\mathbf{k})\neq0$ (with $\mathbf{e}_{s}(\mathbf{k})$ the polarization vector) survive, as follows from the expansion of $V(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{r})$ to first order in nuclear displacements. This implies that only longitudinal phonons contribute in the case of an isotropic elastic solid. Second, in Eq.  we introduced the $\hat X$-operators [@IrkhinPSSB1994] (or Hubbard operators [@HubbardPRSA1965]), $\hat X(\Gamma,\Gamma')=|\Gamma\rangle\langle \Gamma'|$, that describe the transitions between many-electron states due to the terms $\hat{c}^\dagger_{\lambda_1\mu_1\sigma}\hat{c}_{\lambda_1\mu_2\sigma}$. Here $A^{\lambda_1\mu_1}_{\lambda\mu,\lambda_2\mu_2}$ captures the selection rules for single-electron excitations due to phonons (see Appendix \[a1\]) and $W^{LL'S}_{MM'\mu_1\mu_2}$ determines the allowed transitions between many-electron terms with different orbital angular momenta, $LM\neq L'M'$. In contrast, $S\mathit{\Sigma}=S'\mathit{\Sigma}'$, since the electron–phonon coupling does not depend on spin $S$ and its projection, $\mathit{\Sigma}$. We emphasize that $W^{LL'S}_{MM'\mu_1\mu_2}$ is based upon the exact solution of the many-electron problem, which takes into account all allowed electronic transitions with $N$ and $N\pm1$ electrons. The coupling strength is determined by $U_\lambda(k)$ that originates from the radial integrals. Explicit formulas for $U_\lambda(k)$ and $W$ are given in Appendix \[a1\]. Third, we stress that although we started from a spherically symmetric Coulomb interaction, the charge distribution of the atomic orbitals is not spherically symmetric. As a result, the coupling between different non-spherical electron distributions induced by phonons leads to angular momentum transfer. Indeed, when including only $s$-orbitals no transfer takes place, so one needs to have asymmetric $p$-, $d$-, or $f$-orbitals. At the same time, rotational invariance is preserved, *i.e.* simultaneous rotation of both electron and phonon subsytems leaves $H_\text{ep}^\text{loc}$ unchanged. The full Hamiltonian, $\hat H=\hat H_\text{e} + \hat H_\text{p} + \hat H^\text{loc}_\text{ep}$, is rotationally invariant and is therefore diagonal in the basis of a given total angular momentum, $|\mathsf{J}\mathsf{M}_\mathsf{J}\rangle$. In addition, it exhibits striking similarities with the one used to describe molecules rotating in superfluids, which were recently found to form so-called angulon quasiparticles [@SchmidtLem15; @SchmidtLemPRX16; @LemeshkoDroplets16]. Instead of mechanical rotation of a molecule, here we deal with orbital angular momentum of electrons. Lattice phonons, on the other hand, play the role of superfluid excitations. The anisotropic molecule–helium interaction, in turn, is replaced with the rotationally invariant electron–phonon coupling, Eq. , derived here from microscopic principles. Inspired by this analogy, in what follows we make use of the angulon concept in order to understand angular momentum transfer in solid-state systems. The key advantage of casting the problem in terms of angulons is that it allows for a drastic simplification. The latter, in turn, enables studying non-perturbative effects based on a transparent variational ansatz. By analogy with the molecular angulon, we construct an ansatz featuring all possible single-phonon excitations allowed by angular momentum conservation in the subspace of a given number of electrons, $N$: $$\begin{aligned} &|\psi_{\mathsf{JM_J}}\rangle = Z^{1/2}_{\mathsf{JM_J}}|LSJM_J\rangle|0\rangle \label{variationalpsi}\\ &\qquad + \sum_{k\lambda\mu \atop lm}\beta^{\mathsf{JM_J}}_{k\lambda l}\sum_{M\mathit{\Sigma}} C^{JM_J}_{LM,S\mathit{\Sigma}}C^{LM}_{lm,\lambda\mu} \hat{b}^\dagger_{k\lambda\mu}|0\rangle|lmS\mathit{\Sigma}\rangle\nonumber, \end{aligned}$$ A similar ansatz has been previously shown to provide a good approximation to the energies of polarons [@CombescotPRL08] and angulons [@BighinPRL18], even far beyond the weak-coupling regime considered in this paper. In Eq. , $Z^{1/2}_{\mathsf{JM_J}}$ and $\beta^{\mathsf{JM_J}}_{k\lambda l}$ are variational parameters which are determined by minimizing $\langle \psi_{\mathsf{JM_J}}| H- E|\psi_{\mathsf{JM_J}}\rangle$. This yields the equation, $E = E_{\mathsf{JM_J}} - \Sigma_{\mathsf{JM_J}}(E)$, from which the variational ground-state energy, $E$, is determined self-consistently. Here $E_{\mathsf{JM_J}}$ is the energy of the many-electron state without phonons and $\Sigma_{\mathsf{JM_J}}(E)$ plays the role of a self-energy describing the effect of electron–phonon interactions: $$\begin{aligned} \Sigma_{\mathsf{JM_J}} (E)&=\sum_{k\lambda l} \frac{U_\lambda(k)^2 Q_{\lambda l}^2}{E^\mathsf{JM_J}_{\lambda l}- E +\omega_k},\end{aligned}$$ where $Q_{\lambda l}$ are matrix elements that determine the allowed transitions to electronically excited states, $E^\mathsf{JM_J}_{\lambda l}$, due to phonons with angular momentum $\lambda$, which are given in an explicit form in the Appendix \[a2\]. Non-perturbative effects described below originate from the energy, $E$, in the denominator of $\Sigma_\mathsf{JM_J}(E)$. These effects do not take place in conventional second-order perturbation theory, which is recovered by replacing $\Sigma_\mathsf{JM_J}(E)\rightarrow \Sigma_\mathsf{JM_J}(E_{\mathsf{JM_J}})$. Moreover, the quasiparticle approach enables the study of angular momentum transfer in response to a time-dependent magnetic field, as described by the Zeeman term: $$\begin{aligned} \hat H_Z(t)=\mu_\text{B}\mathbf{B}(t)\cdot\left(g_L\hat{\mathbf{L}}+g_S\hat{\mathbf{S}}\right),\end{aligned}$$ In this case, we search for a solution based on the time-dependent variational principle [@McLachlanMolPhys1964; @JackiwPhysLettA1979]. Following Ref.[@KatsnelsonJPhysC1984], we write $|\Psi(t)\rangle=e^{-\text{i}Et}\sum_{\mathsf{M}_\mathsf{J}}|\psi_{\mathsf{JM_J}}(t)\rangle$. Next, for each $\mathsf{M}_\mathsf{J}$, we use the variational ansatz with time-dependent parameters, $Z^{1/2}_{\mathsf{JM_J}}(t)$ and $\beta^{\mathsf{JM_J}}_{k\lambda l}(t)$, which are determined by minimizing $\langle \Psi(t)| \text{i}\partial_t - H- H_Z(t)|\Psi(t)\rangle$. [Crucially,]{} this variational approach also gives rise to non-perturbative effects in the dynamical response. That is, in addition to the perturbative effects that give rise to phonon dressing of states with different $\mathsf{M_J}$, qualitatively new features appear. Within the quasiparticle picture this can be understood as follows. Due to the static phonon dressing, an external field can trigger virtual transitions to atomic states with $J'\neq J$, where $J$ is the ground-state angular momentum of the isolated atom. Without phonon coupling such excitations are obviously forbidden due to selection rules. Moreover, in the presence of electron–phonon coupling, these electronically excited states can decay by emitting phonons. This can either lead to (i) emergence of quasi-bound states of the quasiparticle itself, where reduced angular momentum of the electrons is balanced by increased phonon angular momentum or (ii) give rise to incoherent scattering of phonons. Both effects are captured by our theory. ![ [**Static effects of phonon dressing.**]{} [**a.**]{} Quenching of orbital angular momentum by phonons. Different components of angular momentum as a function of the dimensionless electron–phonon coupling strength, $\tilde{u}$. Due to the coupling, electronic orbital angular momentum is reduced and phonon angular momentum emerges, while the total angular momentum, $\mathsf{J}_z=J_z + \Lambda_z$, is conserved. [**b.**]{} Renormalization of the electron $g$-factor as a function of the dimensionless electron–phonon coupling strength. In the perturbative regime (inset) the dependence on the coupling strength is quadratic, which can be understood as phononic Lamb shift[@SchmidtLem15]. \[fig2\]](fig2statics){width="\columnwidth"} Static effects of phonon dressing ================================= We first illustrate the appearance of non-perturbative contributions in the static case by evaluating the effect of phonon dressing on different components of angular momentum, $I_z=\langle \psi_{\mathsf{JM_J}}| \hat{I}_z|\psi_{\mathsf{JM_J}}\rangle$, where $I=L,J,\Lambda$. In the variational calculation, the electronic Hamiltonian  is controlled by a single parameter, which we set to $\xi/J_\text{H}=0.1$. Here we focus on the case with $N=1$ electron, for which the configuration of the bare impurity is given by $L=1, S= J =1/2$. Furthermore, we consider the state with $M_J=J$, which is the ground state in the presence of a static magnetic field, $B_0<0$. Fig. \[fig2\]a shows different components of angular momentum as a function of the dimensionless electron–phonon coupling strength, $\tilde{u}=(u/E_L) \sqrt{E_M/E_L}/(2\pi^2)$. Here $u$ denotes the magnitude of the interaction $U_\lambda(k)$, $E_M=\hbar^2/(2Ma_0^2)$, with $M$ is the atomic mass of the nuclei (using $E_L=(J_\text{H}+\xi)/2$ as the unit of energy and the lattice spacing $a_0$ as the unit of length, see Appendix \[app:epstrength\]). In the absence of coupling, $\langle S_z \rangle=-1/6$ and $\langle L_z \rangle=2/3$, such that $\langle J_z\rangle=M_J=1/2$. While $S_z$ remains unperturbed since $\hat H_\text{ep}$ does not depend on spin, we find a reduction of orbital angular momentum that is quite distinct from the conventional picture of orbital angular momentum quenching. Instead of static crystal fields breaking rotational symmetry, here the dynamical crystal field induced by phonons causes the reduction of $\langle \hat{L}_z\rangle$ as well as of $\langle \hat{J}_z\rangle$, while conserving the total angular momentum, $\mathsf{M_J}=\langle \hat J_z \rangle + \langle \hat \Lambda_z \rangle$. The presence of phonon angular momentum also influences the response to magnetic fields. For quasi-static fields, this is reflected by the renormalization of the electron $g$-factor, which we determine from the well-known relation [@AshcroftMerminBook1976]: $$\begin{aligned} g_{J}&=\frac{g_L+g_S}{2}+\frac{g_L-g_S}{2}\frac{\langle\hat{\mathbf{L}}^2-\hat{\mathbf{S}}^2\rangle}{\langle\hat{\mathbf{J}}^2\rangle}\end{aligned}$$ Evaluating the second term with the variational wave functions gives the result shown in Fig. \[fig2\]b. In the perturbative regime (inset) this yields a quadratic dependence on $\tilde{u}$ which can be understood as the phononic analog of the Lamb shift[@SchmidtLem15], where virtual phonon excitations play the role of the photon excitations of quantum electrodynamics, thereby causing angular-momentum-dependent dressing of the electronic states. For larger coupling strengths, $g_J$ features a linear dependence until signatures of saturation are observed at intermediate coupling, $\tilde{u}\sim0.4$, where the single-phonon ansatz of Eq.  becomes less reliable. Within the quasiparticle picture, the observed enhancement of the $g$-factor is analogous to the enhancement of the moment of inertia due to the formation of molecular angulons [@SchmidtLem15; @LemeshkoDroplets16] and to the increased electron effective mass in the polaron problem. ![ [**Dynamical effects of phonon dressing.**]{} [**a.**]{} Magnetic susceptibililty for various electron–phonon coupling strengths, $\tilde{u}$. Besides the low-frequency electron spin resonance (ESR) peak, a broad second spectral feature due to phonon dressing is observed. By increasing $\tilde{u}$ gradually, a second sharp quasiparticle peak appears due to non-perturbative effects. [**b.**]{} Zoom-in in the vicinity of the ESR peak, demonstrating that phonon dressing causes a slight shift of the ESR peak to lower frequencies. [**c.**]{} Zoom-in in the vicinity of the sharp quasiparticle peak at $\tilde{u}=10^{-2}$. Exactly at the peak, the phonon susceptibility dips due to angular momentum transfer. \[linresp\]](fig3linresp){width="0.86\columnwidth"} Dynamic effects of phonon dressing ================================== Next we reveal the importance of non-perturbative effects in the dynamical response,by computing the linear response to an additional time-dependent magnetic field, $\mathbf{B}(t)=(\mathbf{B}e^{-\text{i}\omega t+\varepsilon t}+\mathbf{B}^*e^{\text{i}\omega t+\varepsilon t})/2$, $|\mathbf{B}|\ll B_0$. By determining the time-dependent changes of the variational parameters to linear order in $\mathbf{B}(t)$ and by using the general relation, $$\begin{aligned} \delta I_i(t)=\frac{1}{2}\sum_j\Big[\alpha^{(I)}_{ij}(\omega)B_j e^{-\text{i}\omega t+\varepsilon t} + \alpha^{(I)}_{ij}(-\omega)B^*_j e^{\text{i}\omega t+\varepsilon t}\Big]\nonumber,\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta I_i(t)=\langle\hat{I_i}(t)\rangle-\langle\hat{I}_i\rangle_0$, $i=x,y,z$, we can derive closed-form expressions for the magnetic susceptibilities, $\alpha^{(I)}_{ij}(\omega)$, see Appendix \[a3\]. In Fig. \[linresp\] we plot $-\omega \text{Im}\alpha^I(\omega)_{xx}$ as a function of $\omega$ (in units of $E_L$), for the configuration $N=5$, $L=1, S= J =1/2, M_J=-1/2$, with electronic parameters $\xi/J_\text{H}=0.1$, $\mu_\text{B}B_0/J_\text{H}=0.02$, and various coupling strength $\tilde{u}$. For the smallest value of $\tilde{u}=10^{-3}$, the spectrum consists of a sharp peak close to the electron spin resonance (ESR) of a free atom. Furthermore, an additional broad spectral feature appears at higher energies, which is associated with incoherent phonon scattering. At low (high) frequencies, the response for $L,-S,J$ and $\Lambda$ have the same (opposite) sign, where the minus sign in $S$ comes from the fact that in the ground state $S$ is antiparallel to both $L$ and $J$. Fig. \[linresp\]b shows that the ESR peak width for $\Lambda$ is much narrower than that for $J$, and increases only slightly with increasing the electron–phonon coupling strength. Hence, at these frequencies the phonons are damped much weaker than the electron spin and orbital angular momentum. This is consistent with the interpretation that the broadening of the ESR peak for $J$ is due to the dressing with phonons in either ground or excited states, while for $\Lambda$ the decay is only possible when the dressing of distinct $M_J$ levels is different. The red arrow shows the position of the ESR peak of the free atom. We note that phonon dressing causes a shift of the ESR peak to lower frequencies, which corresponds to a reduction of the effective $g$-factor, in contrast to what is observed for the static $g$-factor in Fig. \[fig2\]. The static and dynamical $g$-factors are indeed two different quantities. While both can be derived from the magnetic susceptibility, the static $g_J\sim \alpha_{zz}(\omega=0)$, while the ESR peak follows from the pole of $\alpha_{xx}(\omega)$ at $\omega\neq0$. Similar differences between static and dynamical electron $g$-factors occur in the Fermi-liquid theory [@PlatzmanWolff1973]. In addition to a shift of the ESR peak, Fig. \[linresp\]a shows that upon increasing the electron–phonon coupling strength the incoherent part moves towards higher frequencies. Moreover, a second sharp peak gradually emerges in between the ESR peak and the incoherent part, which is shown in Figure \[linresp\]c for $\tilde{u}=10^{-2}$. Both high-frequency responses have opposite sign for phonon and electron angular momentum, demonstrating that magnetic fields at these frequencies induce transfer of angular momentum from electronic to lattice degrees of freedom. The second sharp peak can be identified as an additional quasiparticle peak, i.e. a metastable excited state of the atom dressed by additional phonons carrying angular momentum. This is reminiscent to the effect observed in conventional polaron physics. It is known as the ‘relaxed excited state’ in the Frölich model [@Devreese15] and as the ‘excited phonon-polaron bound state’ in the Holstein model [@GogolinPSSB1982; @BoncaPRB1999], which arise at intermediate and strong coupling. Interestingly, in the present case this non-perturbative effect emerges already at weak coupling, $\tilde{u}\ll1$. The reason is that in our model the electron couples to low-energy acoustic phonons with a linear dispersion $\omega=ck$, rather than to gapped optical phonons. The presence of additional peaks is rooted in the poles of the susceptibility, which involves additional self-consistent solutions, $E'$, to the equation $E'=E_\mathsf{JM_J} - \Sigma_\mathsf{JM_J}(E')$, where $E'>E$, $E$ being the ground-state energy. Due to the Kramers-Kronig relations, additional sharp peaks can only occur for frequencies $\omega>E'_*-E$, where $E'_*$ is defined by $\text{Max}\left[\text{Im}\,\Sigma_{\mathsf{JM_J}} (E')\right]$, since in this range $-\text{Re}\left[\Sigma_\mathsf{JM_J}(E')\right]$ is a decreasing function. Hence, there is a threshold value, $\tilde{u}_* \approx 0.0033$ for the parameters used, below which no additional metastable states can occur. Above the threshold, $\tilde{u}>\tilde{u}_*$, we find an approximately linear dependence of the position of the metastable state on the coupling strength. Such a behavior is governed by the linear dependence of the ground-state energy on $\tilde{u}$ in this regime. In Appendix \[a3\] we explicitly confirm this analysis numerically for various coupling strengths. We emphasise that the appearance of such additional peaks is rooted in the general Fano-type shape of $\text{Re}\left[\Sigma_\mathsf{JM_J}(E)\right]$, and should therefore be qualitatively independent of the particular approximation used to calculate the self-energy. Furthermore, we obtained that upon changing the spin-orbit coupling strength, the width of the peaks changes but their position is hardly affected. These non-perturbative effects have important consequences for the dynamics. In particular, at optical frequencies, coupling of spins with a magnetic field is usually considered negligible due to the small magnitude of the magnetic component of an electromagnetic wave compared to its electric component, and the absence of magnetic dipole transitions. Our model, however, reveals that even for $u\ll J_\text{H}$, an additional resonance emerges at an energy scale of $\omega\sim J_\text{H}/5$ due to non-perturbative electron–phonon interactions. In the presence of such resonances, a magnetic field can induce transfer of angular momentum between spin and lattice degrees of freedom at ultrafast, femtosecond timescales. Conclusions =========== The results presented here demonstrate that the problem of describing the quantum dynamics of angular momentum transfer in condensed matter systems with multi-orbital atoms can be greatly simplified by casting it in terms of the angulon quasiparticles. This reformulation is achieved by deriving the electron–phonon interaction in a rotationally invariant form and using the Hubbard operators to keep track of the total angular momentum of electrons. We find that the effect of dressing of electron orbital angular momentum with phonon angular momentum leads to qualitatively new, non-perturbative high-frequency effects that should be observable in electron spin resonance experiments at THz and optical frequencies. Promising systems for experimental confirmation are paramagnetic CoO and FeO systems and nonmagnetic oxides containing orbitally degenerate impurity atoms, which, analogously to the model system studied here, contain partially filled degenerate $t_{2g}$ orbitals. While here we focused on local angular momentum transfer, which is highly relevant to understanding the fastest possible timescale for angular momentum transfer, the angulon can be used as a building block of models taking into account non-local transfer terms. Furthermore, the theory can be extended to include static crystal fields and magnetic ordering, which would pave the way to a deeper understanding of lattice dynamics during ultrafast demagnetization [@JalPRB17; @BonettiPRL16; @ReidNCOMM2018; @Dornes2019]. This can potentially resolve the long-lasting debate as to whether the angular momentum transfer during ultrafast demagnetization is local or non-local and ultimately reveal the fastest possible timescale of the Einstein-de Haas and Barnett effects. [56]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\ 12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty [**](https://books.google.at/books?id=nXcGCwAAQBAJ) (, ) @noop [****,  ()]{} [****,  ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.6.239) @noop [****,  ()]{},  [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.166603) [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevX.1.011005) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/ncomms11443) [****,  ()](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6283/318) [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.2355445) [****,  ()](https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.167201) [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.79.104410) [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.027202) [****, ()](https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.95.134447) [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.75.014430) [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.076601) [****,  ()](\doibase 10.7566/JPSJ.86.011011) [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.76.4250) [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.267207) [****, ()](https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.82.2731) [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1038/s41586-018-0822-7) [****,  ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.57.426) [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.129.578) [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.28.165) [****, ()](https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.15.3297) [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1134/1.567555) [****, ()](https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.72.094426) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.085503) [****,  ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.92.024421) [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1007/s10948-016-3950-z) in [**](https://books.google.at/books?id=09BryaGQtYsC), Vol. ,  (, ) [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.106.162) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.095301) [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.217204) [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1021/acs.nanolett.7b05118), , [****,  ()](https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-020911-125045) @noop [**]{} (, , ) [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1002/pssb.2221830102) @noop [ ()]{} [****,  ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.6.011012) @noop [****,  ()]{} [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.203001) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.050404) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.165301) @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [**]{} (, , ) @noop [**]{},  No.  (, ) [ ()](https://arxiv.org/abs/1012.4576) [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1002/pssb.2221090109) [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.60.1633) [****, ()](https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.95.184422) [****,  ()](https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.087205) [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1038/s41467-017-02730-7) @noop [**]{} (, , ) [**](arXiv:cond-mat/9812072) (, ) Acknowledgements ================ We acknowledge discussions with E. Yakaboylu. J.H.M. acknowledges support by the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO) by a VENI grant, and is part of the Shell-NWO/FOM-initiative ‘Computational sciences for energy research’ of Shell and Chemical Sciences, Earth and Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, FOM and STW. M.I.K. acknowledges support by the European Research Council (ERC) Advanced Grant No. 338957 (FEMTO/NANO). M.L. acknowledges support from the Austrian Science Fund (FWF), under project No. P29902-N27. Derivation of the electron-phonon coupling Hamiltonian {#a1} ====================================================== In this Appendix we provide details on the derivation of the rotationally invariant electron-phonon coupling Hamiltonian. In particular, we discuss the derivation of the local electron-phonon Hamiltonian, the integration over electronic and nuclear positions to derive the allowed terms respecting rotational invariance, introduce the Hubbard operators and obtain the dimensionless electron-phonon coupling strength. Local electron-phonon coupling ------------------------------ Starting from Eq. , the local electron–phonon coupling is derived by first expanding $\hat{\Psi}^\dagger(\mathbf{x})=\sum_{j}\hat{\psi}^\dagger_j(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{r}_j)$. Inserting an identity for the nuclear density operator, $\hat{\Phi}^\dagger(\mathbf{r})\hat{\Phi}(\mathbf{r})=\sum_i\delta(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}_i)$, and neglecting electron hopping between different nuclei, we have $$\begin{aligned} \hat{H}_\text{ep}^\text{loc}=\sum_{ij}\int \!\!d\mathbf{x}\,\,\hat{\psi}_j^\dagger(\mathbf{x})\,V(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{r}_{ij})\,\hat{\psi}_j(\mathbf{x}).\end{aligned}$$ Integration over electronic coordinates --------------------------------------- To exploit rotational invariance of $V(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{r})=V(|\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{r}|)$, it is convenient to expand in spherical harmonics: $$\begin{aligned} \label{Vscalar} V(|\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{r}|)=\sum_{lm}V_l(x,r)Y^*_{lm}(\Omega_x)Y_{lm}(\Omega_r).\end{aligned}$$ Inserting a complete set of atomic orbitals, $$\begin{aligned} \hat{\psi}^\dagger_j(\mathbf{x})=\sum_{\lambda\mu,\sigma}\rho_{\nu\lambda}(x)Y^*_{\lambda\mu}(\Omega_x)\chi^\dagger_{\sigma}\, \hat{c}^\dagger_{j,\lambda\mu\sigma},\end{aligned}$$ where $\nu$ is the principal quantum number, $\lambda$ and $\mu$ are the quantum numbers for the orbital angular momentum and its projection, respectively, and $\sigma$ is the spin projection, we obtain: $$\begin{aligned} \label{HepLoc} \hat{H}_\text{ep}^\text{loc}&=\sum_{ij,\sigma}\sum_{\lambda_1\mu_1}\sum_{\lambda_2\mu_{2}}\hat{c}^\dagger_{j,\lambda_1\mu_1\sigma} \hat{c}_{j,\lambda_2\mu_2\sigma}\, \int \!\!d\mathbf{x}\,\,\rho_{\nu\lambda_1}(x)Y^*_{\lambda_1\mu_1}(\Omega_x)\,V(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{r}_{ij})\,\rho_{\nu\lambda_2}(x)Y_{\lambda_2\mu_2}(\Omega_x),\end{aligned}$$ where we used that $V$ does not depend on spin. The integral in  involves a radial part and an angular integral over three spherical harmonics: $$\begin{aligned} &\sum_{lm}\left[\int x^2dx \rho_{\nu\lambda_1}(x)\rho_{\nu\lambda_2}(x)V_l(x,r_{ij})\right] \left[\int d\Omega_xY^*_{\lambda_1\mu_1}(\Omega_x)\,Y^*_{lm}(\Omega_x) \,Y_{\lambda_2\mu_2}(\Omega_x)\right] Y_{lm}(\Omega_{r_{ij}})\nonumber\\ &=\sum_{lm} g_{\lambda_1\lambda_2,l}(r_{ij})\,(-1)^mA^{\lambda_1\mu_1}_{l-m,\lambda_2\mu_2}Y_{lm}(\Omega_{r_{ij}}).\end{aligned}$$ Here [$g_{\lambda_1\lambda_2,l}(r_{ij})\equiv\int {dx~x^2} \rho_{\nu\lambda_1}(x)\rho_{\nu\lambda_2}(x)V_l(x,r_{ij})$]{} and the integration over spherical coordinates yields [@VarshalovichAngMom]: $$\begin{aligned} A^{\lambda_1\mu_1}_{lm,\lambda_2\mu_2}=\sqrt{\frac{(2l+1)(2\lambda_2+1)}{4\pi(2\lambda_1+1)}}C^{\lambda_10}_{l0,\lambda_20}C^{\lambda_1\mu_1}_{lm,\lambda_2\mu_2},\end{aligned}$$ where $C^{l_1m_1}_{l_2m_2,l_3m_3}$ are Clebsch-Gordon coefficients. Integration over nuclear coordinates ------------------------------------ For further derivations, we write the $\hat{H}_\text{ep}^\text{loc}$ in the form $$\begin{aligned} \hat{H}^{\text{loc}}_\text{ep}&=\sum_{\lambda_1\mu_1 \atop \lambda_2\mu_2}\sum_{j,\sigma}\hat{c}^\dagger_{j,\lambda_1\mu_1\sigma} \hat{c}_{j,\lambda_2\mu_2\sigma}\frac{1}{2} \sum_{i,lm}\left[g_{\lambda_1\lambda_2,l}(r_{ij})\,Y^*_{lm}(\Omega_{ij})\,A^{\lambda_1\mu_1}_{lm,\lambda_1\mu_2}+g_{\lambda_1\lambda_2,l}(r_{ij})\,Y_{lm}(\Omega_{ij})\,(-1)^mA^{\lambda_1\mu_1}_{l-m,\lambda_1\mu_2}\right].\end{aligned}$$ We aim to describe phonons that account for the collective dynamics of the nuclear subsystem at small deviations, $\mathbf{u}(\mathbf{r}_i)=\mathbf{r}'_i-\mathbf{r}_i$, from the equilibrium positions, $\mathbf{r}_i$. For convenience, we take the continuum limit for the nuclear coordinates $\mathbf{r}_i$ and focus on the coupling to a single atom ($j=0$). The dependence on the nuclear coordinates $\mathbf{r}$ in $H^{\text{loc}}_\text{ep}$ is then conveniently described in reciprocal space $$\begin{aligned} \label{F} F^{\lambda_1\lambda_2}_{lm}(\mathbf{r}')=g_{\lambda_1\lambda_2,l}(r)Y_{lm}(\Omega_{r}) = \sum_\mathbf{k}f^{\lambda_1\lambda_2}_{lm}(\mathbf{k})e^{\text{i}\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}}\approx F^{\lambda_1\lambda_2}_{lm}(\mathbf{r}) + \mathbf{u}(\mathbf{r})\cdot\nabla_\mathbf{r}F^{\lambda_1\lambda_2}_{lm}(\mathbf{r})\end{aligned}$$ The term $F^{\lambda_1\lambda_2}_{lm}(\mathbf{r})$ is assumed to vanish, since it gives rise to static crystal field terms that are absent in an isotropic elastic environment. The gradient is calculated from the Fourier series: $$\begin{aligned} \nabla_\mathbf{r}F^{\lambda_1\lambda_2}_{lm}(\mathbf{r}) = \sum_\mathbf{k}f^{\lambda_1\lambda_2}_{lm}(\mathbf{k})\,\text{i}\mathbf{k}\,e^{\text{i}\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}}=\frac{1}{V}\sum_\mathbf{k}\,\text{i}^{-l}\,G^{\lambda_1\lambda_2}_{l}(k)\,Y_{lm}(\Omega_k)\,\text{i}\mathbf{k}\,e^{\text{i}\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}},\label{gradF}\end{aligned}$$ where $V$ is the total volume of system and $f^{\lambda_1\lambda_2}_{lm}(\mathbf{k})$ is evaluated using the inversion formula and expansion of plane-waves in spherical coordinates, from which it follows that $$\begin{aligned} G^{\lambda_1\lambda_2}_l(k) &={4\pi}\!\!\int \!\!r^2\,dr\,g_{\lambda_1\lambda_2,l}(r)j_{l}(kr),\end{aligned}$$ where $j_l(x)$ is the spherical Bessel function. For an isotropic elastic solid, the displacements are written in terms of phonon creation and annihilation operators as follows [@KittelBook1963]: $$\begin{aligned} \label{displacements} \mathbf{u}(\mathbf{r}) = \mathbf{u}^\dagger(\mathbf{r}) = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{\mathbf{k}s}(2M\omega_{ks})^{-1/2}\mathbf{e}_{s}(\mathbf{k})\left[\hat{b}_{\mathbf{k}s}e^{\text{i}\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}}+\hat{b}^\dagger_{\mathbf{k}s}e^{-\text{i}\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}}\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $M$ is the nuclear mass, $n$ is the number of nuclei, and $s=1,2,3$ is the polarization index. The polarization vectors, $\mathbf{e}_{s}(\mathbf{k})$, are defined by the relations $\mathbf{e}_{1}(\mathbf{k})={\mathbf{k}}/{k}$ and $\mathbf{e}_{2,3}(\mathbf{k})\cdot\mathbf{k}=0$ for longitudinal and transverse phonons, respectively. Hence, from evaluating the scalar product in Eq.  using Eq.  and Eq. , we obtain that only longitudinal phonons contribute. We drop the label $s=1$ below and obtain: $$\begin{aligned} \frac{1}{V_r}\!\int\!d\mathbf{r}\,\mathbf{u}(\mathbf{r})\cdot\nabla_\mathbf{r}F^{\lambda_1\lambda_2}_{lm}(\mathbf{r})&=\frac{1}{V}\sum_\mathbf{k}(2M\omega_{k})^{-1/2}G^{\lambda_1\lambda_2}_l(k)\,(\text{i}k)\,\text{i}^{-l}\,\left[-Y_{lm}(\Omega_{-k})\,\hat{b}_{\mathbf{-k}}+Y_{lm}(\Omega_k)\,\hat{b}^\dagger_{\mathbf{k}}\right].\end{aligned}$$ Here $V_r=V/n$ is the volume of the unit cell and we used $\int\!d\mathbf{r} e^{\text{i}\mathbf{k}\mathbf{r}}=(2\pi)^3\delta({\mathbf{k}})$. We are still left with the dependence on angles, $\Omega_k$, which can be removed by transforming to spherical phonon operators using the definition [@LemSchmidtChapter]: $$\begin{aligned} \hat{b}^\dagger_{\mathbf{k}}=\frac{(2\pi)^{3/2}}{k}\sum_{\lambda\mu}\hat{b}_{k\lambda\mu}^\dagger \text{i}^{\lambda}Y^*_{\lambda\mu}(\Omega_k). \label{bdagtransf}\end{aligned}$$ Using $$\begin{aligned} \sum_\mathbf{k}=\frac{1}{V_k(2\pi)^3}\!\!\int \!\!dk\,k^2\!\!\int\!\! d\Omega_k,\end{aligned}$$ we can integrate over angles in $k$-space yielding $$\begin{aligned} \frac{1}{V_r}\!\int\!d\mathbf{r}\,\mathbf{u}(\mathbf{r})\cdot\nabla_\mathbf{r}F^{\lambda_1\lambda_2}_{lm}(\mathbf{r})&=\sum_{k\lambda\mu} U_\lambda(k)\,\text{i}\left[-\hat{b}_{k\lambda\mu}(-1)^{\lambda}(-1)^{\mu}\delta_{\lambda l}\delta_{\mu-m}+ \hat{b}^\dagger_{k\lambda\mu}\delta_{\lambda l}\delta_{\mu m}\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $\sum_k \equiv \int \!dk$ and $$\begin{aligned} \label{e:Uintegral} U^{\lambda_1\lambda_2}_\lambda(k) = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3/2}}k^2(2M\omega_{k})^{-1/2}G^{\lambda_1\lambda_2}_\lambda(k).\end{aligned}$$ Finally, we obtain: $$\begin{aligned} \hat{H}^{\text{loc}}_\text{ep} &=\sum_{\lambda_1\mu_1\atop \lambda_2\mu_2}\sum_{k\lambda\mu}\sum_{j\sigma}\hat{c}^\dagger_{j\lambda_1\mu_1\sigma}\hat{c}_{j\lambda_2\mu_2\sigma}\,U^{\lambda_1\lambda_2}_\lambda(k)\frac{\text{i}}{2}\left(1+(-1)^\lambda\right)\left[-A^{\lambda_1\mu_1}_{\lambda\mu,\lambda_1\mu_2}\hat{b}_{k\lambda\mu} + (-1)^\mu A^{\lambda_1\mu_1}_{\lambda-\mu,\lambda_1\mu_2}\hat{b}^\dagger_{k\lambda\mu}\right].\end{aligned}$$ The factor of $(1-(-1)^\lambda)$ originates from the assumption of an isotropic elastic solid, which ensures that only even $\lambda$ contributes to the transfer of angular momentum. Hermicity, $\hat{H}^{\text{loc}}_\text{ep}=\left(\hat{H}^{\text{loc}}_\text{ep}\right)^\dagger$, is easily proved using the symmetry relations for the Clebsch-Gordon coefficients, $C^{\lambda_1\mu_2}_{\lambda\mu,\lambda_1\mu_1}=(-1)^\mu C^{\lambda_1\mu_1}_{\lambda-\mu,\lambda_1\mu_2}$. Hubbard operators ----------------- Since $V(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{r})$ does not depend on spin, phonons only change the total orbital angular momentum $L$ of the electrons. This is made explicit by transforming from single-electron operators to many-electron $\hat X$-operators [@IrkhinPSSB1994] (also known as Hubbard operators [@HubbardPRSA1965]), $\hat X(\Gamma,\Gamma')=|\Gamma\rangle\langle \Gamma'|$. For a general operator acting on a single site $i$ we have $$\hat{O}_i=\sum_{\Gamma,\Gamma'}\langle\Gamma|\hat{O}_i|\Gamma'\rangle \hat X_i(\Gamma,\Gamma'),\quad \hat X_i(\Gamma,\Gamma')=|i\Gamma\rangle\langle i \Gamma'|.$$ Here $\Gamma=NLMS\mathit{\Sigma}\alpha$ are the quantum numbers of many-electron states, where $N$ denotes the total number of electrons, $L,S$ are total orbit and spin quantum numbers with projections $M,\mathit{\Sigma}$, and $\alpha$ is the Racah seniority quantum number. For the single-electron creation operator the matrix element reads [@IrkhinPSSB1994; @IrkhinBook2000]: $$\begin{aligned} \label{cdaggerX} \langle\Gamma_N|\hat{c}^\dagger_{i\lambda\mu\sigma}|\Gamma_{N-1}\rangle=N^{1/2}G^{\Gamma_N}_{\Gamma_{N-1}}C^{\Gamma_N}_{\Gamma_{N-1},\lambda\mu\sigma},\end{aligned}$$ where $G^{\Gamma_N}_{\Gamma_{N-1}}=G^{L_NS_N}_{L_{N-1}S_{N-1}}$ is the coefficient of fractional parentage [@RudzikasBook2007], and $C^{\Gamma_N}_{\Gamma_{N-1},\gamma}$ is expressed through the Clebsch-Gordon coefficients as $$\begin{aligned} C^{\Gamma_N}_{\Gamma_{N-1},\gamma}=C^{L_NM_N}_{L_{N-1}M_{N-1},lm}C^{S_N\mathit{\Sigma}_N}_{S_{N-1}\mathit{\Sigma}_{N-1},s\sigma},\end{aligned}$$ with $s=1/2$. Using Eq.  we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \label{cdaggercX} \langle\Gamma_N|\hat{c}^\dagger_{i\lambda_1\mu_1\sigma_1}\hat{c}_{i\lambda_2\mu_2\sigma_2}|\Gamma'_{N}\rangle=N \sum_{\Gamma''_{N-1}}G^{\Gamma_N}_{\Gamma''_{N-1}}C^{\Gamma_N}_{\Gamma''_{N-1},\lambda_1\mu_1\sigma_1}G^{\Gamma'_N}_{\Gamma''_{N-1}}C^{\Gamma'_N}_{\Gamma''_{N-1},\lambda_2\mu_2\sigma_2}.\end{aligned}$$ In the electron-phonon coupling only the summation over single-electron operators with the same spin $\sigma_1=\sigma_2$ enters, $$\begin{aligned} \sum_\sigma\hat{c}^\dagger_{i\lambda_1\mu_1\sigma}\hat{c}_{i\lambda_2\mu_2\sigma} &= N \sum_{\Gamma''_{N-1}}G^{\Gamma_N}_{\Gamma''_{N-1}}C^{\Gamma_N}_{\Gamma''_{N-1},\lambda_1\mu_1\sigma}G^{\Gamma'_N}_{\Gamma''_{N-1}}C^{\Gamma'_N}_{\Gamma''_{N-1},\lambda_2\mu_2\sigma}\hat X_i(\Gamma_N,\Gamma'_N),\end{aligned}$$ which ensures that only states $S'=S$, $\mathit{\Sigma}_N'=\mathit{\Sigma}_N$ contribute, as follows from summation over both $\mathit{\Sigma}_N''$ and $\sigma$ and by using the unitarity relation for the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients. For example, for a three-orbital atom, we have $\lambda_1=\lambda_2$ and the seniority quantum number can be omitted. In this case we obtain we obtain the following coupling term: $$\begin{aligned} W^{L_NL_N'S_N}_{M_NM_N'\mu_1\mu_2}&=\sum_{L''_{N-1}S''_{N-1}} G^{L_NS_N}_{L''_{N-1}S''_{N-1}}G^{L'_NS_N}_{L''_{N-1}S''_{N-1}}\sum_{M''_{N-1}}C^{L_NM_N}_{L''_{N-1}M''_{N-1},\lambda_1\mu_1} C^{L'_NM'_N}_{L''_{N-1}M''_{N-1},\lambda_1\mu_2},\end{aligned}$$ yielding $$\begin{aligned} \sum_\sigma\hat{c}^\dagger_{i\lambda_1\mu_1\sigma}\hat{c}_{i\lambda_1\mu_2\sigma} &= \sum_{NS_N\mathit{\Sigma}_N}\sum_{L_NL'_NM_NM_N'}N\,W^{L_NL'_NS_N}_{M_NM_N'\mu_1\mu_2}\,X_i(NL_NM_NS_N\mathit{\Sigma}_N,NL'_NM'_NS_N\mathit{\Sigma}_N)\end{aligned}$$ Note that it follows from the symmetry of the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients that only $M'_N=M_N-\mu_1+\mu_2$ remains in the summation. Electron-phonon coupling strength {#app:epstrength} --------------------------------- For numerical calculations we need to evaluate the radial integrals in $U_\lambda(k)=U^{\lambda_1\lambda_1}_\lambda(k)$ (see Eq. ) for which we use Gaussian form factors, $g_\lambda(r)=\frac{u_\lambda}{(2\pi)^{3/2}}e^{-r^2/(2r_\lambda^2)}$, where $u_\lambda$ parametrizes the strength of the electron-phonon coupling. Introducing dimensionless units, with $E_L=(J_\text{H}+\xi)/2$ being the unit of energy and the lattice spacing $a_0$ being the unit of length, we can write $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{U}_\lambda(\tilde{k}) &= {{\tilde{u}}_\lambda}\,\frac{\tilde{k}^{3/2}}{\tilde{c}^{1/2}}\int_0^\infty \! \!\tilde{r}^2\,d\tilde{r}\,e^{-\tilde{r}^2/(2\tilde{r}^2_\lambda)}j_{\lambda}(\tilde{k}\tilde{r})\end{aligned}$$ We use $\tilde{r}_\lambda=1$ to characterize the interaction range. The interaction strength is parametrized by $\tilde{u}_0=\tilde{u}$, $\tilde{u}_2=0.5\tilde{u}$. For the dimensionless electron-phonon coupling strength we obtain $\tilde{u}=(u/E_L) \sqrt{E_M/E_L}/(2\pi^2)$, where $E_M=\hbar^2/2Ma_0^2$. For transition metal atoms $M\sim100\cdot10^{-27}$ kg, $a_0\sim2\AA$, $E_L\sim0.5$ eV, we have $E_M/E_L\sim0.1$, which ensures that $\tilde{u}\ll1$ even if $(u/E_L)\sim1$. For the dimensionless speed of sound we use $\tilde{c}=0.05$, consistent with $c\sim 3-6 \cdot 10^3$ m/s for typical solid-state systems. Variational solution for the static case {#a2} ======================================== Non-perturbative self-energy ---------------------------- Here we discuss the derivation of the variational solution in more detail, providing explicit expressions for the matrix elements that enter the final result. For the static case, we deal with the Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned} \hat H = \hat H_\text{e}^\text{C}+ \hat H^{LS}_\text{e} + \hat H_\text{p} + \hat H_\text{ep}^{\text{loc}} + \hat H_Z,\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat H_Z=\mu_\text{B}B_0\left(g_L\hat{L}^z+g_S\hat{S}^z\right)$. Owing to the presence of spin-orbit coupling, only $\Gamma=LSJM_J$ are good quantum numbers, where $\hat{\mathbf{J}}=\hat{\mathbf{L}}+\hat{\mathbf{S}}$ with projection $M_J$ and for brevity we omit the label $N$. In addition, since $\hat H_\text{ep}$ couples directly only to orbital momentum $L$, we choose the variational wavefunctions as follows: $$\begin{aligned} |\psi_\mathsf{JM_J}\rangle & = Z^{1/2}_\mathsf{JM_J}|LSJM_J\rangle|0\rangle + \sum_{k\lambda\mu}\sum_{lm}\beta^\mathsf{JM_J}_{k\lambda l}\,\sum_{M\mathit{\Sigma}} C^{JM_J}_{LM,S\mathit{\Sigma}} C^{LM}_{lm,\lambda\mu} \hat{b}^\dagger_{k\lambda\mu}|0\rangle|lmS\mathit{\Sigma}\rangle= |\psi_1\rangle + |\psi_2\rangle, \end{aligned}$$ where we used that $|LSJM_J\rangle = \sum_{M\mathit{\Sigma}} C^{JM_J}_{LM,S\mathit{\Sigma}}|LMS\mathit{\Sigma}\rangle $. $Z^{1/2}_{JM_J}$ and $\beta^{(JM_J)}_{k\lambda l}$ are variational parameters to be determined from minimizing $ E= \langle\psi |\hat H|\psi\rangle / \langle\psi |\psi\rangle$. This is equivalent to minimizing $F=\langle\psi |\hat H-E|\psi\rangle$ and the following terms enter $$\begin{aligned} \langle\psi_1|\hat H^\text{C}_\text{e}+\hat H^{LS}_\text{e}+\hat H_Z+\hat H_p + \hat H_Z|\psi_1\rangle &= E_\mathsf{JM_J}|Z_\mathsf{JM_J}^{1/2}|^2 \\ \langle\psi_2|\hat H^\text{C}_\text{e}+\hat H^{LS}_\text{e}+\hat H_Z+\hat H_p + \hat H_Z|\psi_2\rangle &= \sum_{k\lambda l} (E^\mathsf{JM_J}_{\lambda l}+\omega_k)|\beta^\mathsf{JM_J}_{k\lambda l}|^2 \\ E_\mathsf{JM_J} &=E_{NS} + E_LL(L+1) + E_J J(J+1) + E_Z M^z_{M_J}\\ E^\mathsf{JM_J}_{\lambda l} &=E_{NS} + E_Ll(l+1) + E_J P_{\lambda l} + E_Z m^z_{\lambda l}\end{aligned}$$ Here $E_L=-J_\text{H}-\xi/2$, $E_J=\xi/2$, and $E_{NS}$ is the energy term depending on $N$ and $S$ which remains constant in the variational solution. Furthermore, we have defined $$\begin{aligned} M^z_{M_J}=\sum_{M\mathit{\Sigma}}\left(C^{JM_J}_{LM,S\mathit{\Sigma}}\right)^2\left[g_LM+g_S\mathit{\Sigma}\right],\qquad m^z_{\lambda l}=\sum_{M\mathit{\Sigma}}\sum_{m\mu}\left(C^{JM_J}_{LM,S\mathit{\Sigma}}\right)^2\left(C^{LM}_{lm,\lambda\mu}\right)^2\left[g_Lm+g_S\mathit{\Sigma}\right]\end{aligned}$$ as well as the bare spin-orbit coupling terms in the atomic state with phonons excited, $$\begin{aligned} P_{\lambda l}&=\sum_{MM'\mathit{\Sigma}}\sum_{m,jm_j}C^{JM_J}_{LM,S\mathit{\Sigma}}C^{JM_J}_{LM'\!,S\bar{\mathit{\Sigma}}}\,C^{LM}_{lm,\lambda(M-m)}C^{LM'}_{l\bar{m},\lambda(M-m)}\,C^{jm_j}_{lm,S\mathit{\Sigma}}C^{jm_j}_{l\bar{m},S\bar{\mathit{\Sigma}}}j(j+1),\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar{m}=m-(M-M')$, $\bar{\mathit{\Sigma}}=\mathit{\Sigma}+(M-M')$. In addition we have $$\begin{aligned} \langle\psi_1|\hat H^{\text{loc}}_\text{ep}|\psi_2\rangle &= -\text{i}\,Z^{1/2*}_\mathsf{JM_J}\sum_{k\lambda l}\beta^\mathsf{JM_J}_{k\lambda l}U_\lambda(k)Q_{\lambda l},\\ Q_{\lambda l}&=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+(-1)^\lambda\right)N\sum_{\mathit{\Sigma}M}\left(C^{JM_J}_{LM,S\mathit{\Sigma}}\right)^2\,\left(\sum_{\mu_1\mu_2}A^{\lambda_1\mu_1}_{\lambda(\mu_1-\mu_2),\lambda_1\mu_2}W^{LlS}_{M\bar{M}\mu_1\mu_2}C^{LM}_{l\bar{M},\lambda(\mu_1-\mu_2)}\right), \end{aligned}$$ with $\bar{M}=M-\mu_1+\mu_2$ and $U_\lambda(k)=U^{\lambda_1\lambda_1}_\lambda(k)$. In deriving these expressions we have used several times the symmetry properties of the Clebsch-Gordon coefficients. Minimization gives the equations $$\begin{aligned} E &= E_\mathsf{JM_J} - \Sigma_\mathsf{JM_J}(E),\quad \Sigma_\mathsf{JM_J} (E)=\sum_{k\lambda l} \frac{U_\lambda(k)^2Q_{\lambda l}^2}{E^\mathsf{JM_J}_{\lambda l}- E +\omega_k}.\end{aligned}$$ Once $E$ is obtained, the variational parameters can be determined from the relations $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\beta^\mathsf{JM_J}_{k\lambda l}}{Z_\mathsf{JM_J}^{1/2}}=\frac{-\text{i}\,U_\lambda(k)\,Q_{\lambda l}}{E - E^\mathsf{JM_J}_{\lambda l}-\omega_k } \equiv R^{\mathsf{JM_J}}_{k\lambda l}(E),\quad |Z_\mathsf{JM_J}^{1/2}|=\left(1+\sum_{k\lambda l}|R^{\mathsf{JM_J}}_{k\lambda l}(E)|^2\right)^{-1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ $g$-factor renormalization -------------------------- Once the variational parameters are determined, observables can be directly evaluated. For the calculation of the $g$-factor we need to evaluate $$\begin{aligned} g_{J}&=\frac{g_L+g_S}{2}+\frac{g_L-g_S}{2}\frac{\langle\hat{\mathbf{L}}^2-\hat{\mathbf{S}}^2\rangle}{\langle\hat{\mathbf{J}}^2\rangle}\end{aligned}$$ Direct substitution gives $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\langle\psi|\hat{\mathbf{L}}^2-\hat{\mathbf{S}}^2|\psi\rangle}{\langle\psi|\hat{\mathbf{J}}^2|\psi\rangle}=\frac{|Z_\mathsf{JM_J}^{1/2}|^2\big[L(L+1)-S(S+1)\big]+\sum_{k\lambda l}|\beta^\mathsf{JM_J}_{k\lambda l}|^2 \big[l(l+1)-S(S+1)\big]}{|Z_\mathsf{JM_J}^{1/2}|^2J(J+1) + \sum_{k\lambda l}|\beta^\mathsf{JM_J}_{k\lambda l}|^2 P_{\lambda l}}\end{aligned}$$ For weak electron-phonon interactions we have $|{\beta^\mathsf{JM_J}_{k\lambda l}}/{Z_\mathsf{JM_J}^{1/2}}|^2=|R^\mathsf{JM_J}_{k\lambda l}|^2\ll1$ and we can write $$\begin{aligned} g_{J}&\approx g_J^0 + \frac{g_L-g_S}{2}\sum_{k\lambda l}|R^\mathsf{JM_J}_{k\lambda l}|^2 \left[\frac{l(l+1)-S(S+1)}{J(J+1)} -\frac{L(L+1)-S(S+1)}{J(J+1)}\frac{P_{\lambda l}}{J(J+1)}\right],\label{geff}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} g_J^0=\frac{g_L+g_S}{2} + \frac{g_L-g_S}{2}\frac{L(L+1)-S(S+1)}{J(J+1)}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, at small coupling we expect a change of the $g$-factor that scales quadratically with the coupling strength. Variational solution for dynamical response {#a3} =========================================== Linear response formulas {#a:linrespformulas} ------------------------ To derive the equations for linear response, the variational parameters are written as $$\begin{aligned} Z^{1/2}_\mathsf{JM_J}(t)&=Z^{1/2}_\mathsf{JM_J}+\delta Z^{1/2}_\mathsf{JM_J}(t) \\ \beta^{\mathsf{JM_J}}_{k\lambda\mu}(t)&=\beta^{\mathsf{JM_J}}_{k\lambda\mu}+\delta \beta^{\mathsf{JM_J}}_{k\lambda\mu}(t),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \delta Z^{1/2}_\mathsf{JM_J}(t) &= \delta Z^{1/2}_\mathsf{JM_J}(\omega)e^{-\text{i}\omega t+\varepsilon t} + \delta Z^{1/2}_\mathsf{JM_J}(-\omega)e^{\text{i}\omega t+\varepsilon t},\nonumber\\ \delta \beta^\mathsf{JM_J}_{k\lambda l}(t) &= \delta \beta^\mathsf{JM_J}_{k\lambda l}(\omega)e^{-\text{i}\omega t+\varepsilon t} + \delta \beta^\mathsf{JM_J}_{k\lambda l}(-\omega)e^{\text{i}\omega t+\varepsilon t}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $Z^{1/2}_{\mathsf{JM_J}}$ and $\beta^{\mathsf{JM_J}}_{k\lambda\mu}$ are given by the solution of the static case. For convenience we write the dynamical contributions as $$\begin{aligned} \delta Z_\mathsf{JM_J}^{1/2}(\omega) &= \frac{1}{2}\mathbf{B}\cdot\boldsymbol{X}_\mathsf{JM_J}(\omega)\nonumber\\ \delta \beta^\mathsf{JM_J}_{k\lambda l}(\omega)&=\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{B}\cdot\boldsymbol{\chi}^\mathsf{JM_J}_{k\lambda l}(\omega),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ from which $\delta Z_\mathsf{JM_J}^{1/2}(-\omega)$ and $\delta \beta^\mathsf{JM_J}_{k\lambda l}(-\omega)$ are obtained by replacing $\omega\rightarrow -\omega$ and $\mathbf{B}\rightarrow\mathbf{B}^*$. In this notation, evaluation of the time-dependent changes of angular momentum, $\delta I_i(t)=\langle\hat{I_i}(t)\rangle-\langle\hat{I}_i\rangle_0$, yields the susceptibilities $$\begin{aligned} \alpha^{(I)}_{ij}(\omega)=&\sum_\mathsf{M_JM_J'}\bigg[I_{i}^\mathsf{M_JM_J'}\big[Z_\mathsf{JM_J}^{1/2*} {X}_{\mathsf{JM_J'},j}(\omega) + Z_\mathsf{JM_J'}^{1/2} \,{X}^*_{\mathsf{JM_J},j}(-\omega)\big]+ \sum_{k\lambda l}I_{\lambda l,i}^\mathsf{M_JM_J'}\big[\beta^{\mathsf{JM_J}*}_{k\lambda l}\,{\chi}^{\mathsf{JM_J'}}_{k\lambda l,j}(\omega) + \beta^{\mathsf{JM_J'}}_{k\lambda l}\,{\chi}^{\mathsf{JM_J}*}_{k\lambda l,j}(-\omega)\big]\bigg]\nonumber,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} I_{i}^\mathsf{M_JM_J'}&=\langle LS{JM_J}|\hat{I}_i|LS{JM_J'}\rangle,\\ I_{\lambda l,i}^\mathsf{M_JM_J'}&=\!\!\sum_{MM'\mathit{\Sigma}\mathit{\Sigma}'}\!\!C^{JM_J}_{LM,S\mathit{\Sigma}}C^{JM_J'}_{LM',S\mathit{\Sigma}'}\!\!\sum_{mm'\mu\mu'}\!\!C^{LM}_{lm,\lambda\mu}C^{LM'}_{lm',\lambda\mu'} \langle lmS\mathit{\Sigma}\lambda\mu|\hat{I}_i|lm'S\mathit{\Sigma}'\lambda\mu'\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ are the matrix elements of angular momentum components $I=L,S,J,\Lambda$ without and with phonons excited, respectively, with $i=x,y,z$. For practical calculations we focus to the case of a non-degenerate ground state. For example, at $B_0>0$ the variational state with $\mathsf{M^0_J}=\mathsf{-J}$ has the lowest energy. Hence, in the static problem only $Z_\mathsf{JM_J^0}^{1/2}$ and $\beta_{k\lambda l}^\mathsf{JM_J^0}$ are nonzero. For numerical evaluation of $\alpha^{(I)}_{ij}(\omega)$ it is convenient to determine the contributions of ${X}_{\mathsf{JM_J},i}(\omega)$ and ${\chi}^{\mathsf{JM_J}}_{k\lambda l,i}(\omega)$ from the expressions: $$\begin{aligned} &X_{\mathsf{JM_J},i}(\omega) = Z^{1/2}_{\mathsf{JM_J^0}}\,\frac{M^\mathsf{M_JM_J^0}_i + \sum_{\lambda l} m_{\lambda l,i}^\mathsf{M_JM_J^0}\,\text{K1}^\mathsf{M_J}_{\lambda l}(\omega)}{\omega + \text{i}\varepsilon + \Delta E_\mathsf{JM_J} - \text{K0}^\mathsf{M_J}(\omega)},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \sum_k\beta_{k\lambda l}^{\mathsf{JM_J^0}*}{\chi}^{\mathsf{JM_J}}_{k\lambda l,i}(\omega)=&Z^{1/2}_\mathsf{JM_J^0}\,\text{K1}^\mathsf{M_J}_{\lambda l}(\omega){X}_{\mathsf{JM_J},i}(\omega) + |Z^{1/2}_\mathsf{JM_J^0}|^2\,\text{K2}^\mathsf{M_J}_{\lambda l}(\omega)\,{m}^\mathsf{M_JM_J^0}_{\lambda l,i},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} {M}^\mathsf{M_JM_J'}_i&=\mu_\text{B}\left(g_L{L}^\mathsf{M_JM_J'}_i+g_S{S}^\mathsf{M_JM_J'}_i\right),\\ {m}^\mathsf{M_JM_J'}_{\lambda l,i} &=\mu_\text{B}\left(g_L{L}^\mathsf{M_JM_J'}_{\lambda l,i}+g_S{S}^\mathsf{M_JM_J'}_{\lambda l,i}\right),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \text{K0}^\mathsf{M_J}(\omega)&=\sum_{k\lambda l} \frac{|U_\lambda(k)\,Q_{\lambda l}|^2}{\big(\omega + \text{i}\varepsilon + \Delta E^{\mathsf{JM_J}}_{\lambda l}-\omega_k\big)}\\ \text{K1}^\mathsf{M_J}_{\lambda l}(\omega)&=\sum_k \frac{|U_\lambda(k)\,Q_{\lambda l}|^2}{\big(\Delta E^{\mathsf{JM_J^0}}_{\lambda l}-\omega_k\big)\big(\omega + \text{i}\varepsilon + \Delta E^{\mathsf{JM_J}}_{\lambda l}-\omega_k\big)}\\ \text{K2}^\mathsf{M_J}_{\lambda l}(\omega)&=\sum_k \frac{|U_\lambda(k)\,Q_{\lambda l}|^2}{\big(\Delta E^{\mathsf{JM_J^0}}_{\lambda l}-\omega_k\big)^2\big(\omega + \text{i}\varepsilon + \Delta E^{\mathsf{JM_J}}_{\lambda l}-\omega_k\big)}\end{aligned}$$ with $\Delta E_\mathsf{JM_J}=E-E_\mathsf{JM_J}$ and $\Delta E^{\mathsf{JM_J}}_{\lambda l}=E-E^\mathsf{JM_J}_{\lambda l}$, where $E$ is the variational ground-state energy. The integrals are computed numerically with $\varepsilon\ll1$ until convergence is achieved. Explicit expressions for the energy of the bare impurity, $E_\mathsf{JM_J}$, and the energy of the bare impurity with phonons excited, $E^\mathsf{JM_J}_{\lambda l}$, as well as for $Q_{\lambda l}$, are given in Appendix \[a2\]. Emergence of high-frequency peaks {#app:peaks} --------------------------------- The emergence of high-frequency peaks in the susceptibilities can be understood by analyzing (i) the poles of $X_{\mathsf{JM_J},i}$ (Eq. (22) of the Methods section), which involves changes of $Z_\mathsf{JM_J}^{1/2}(\omega)$ and (ii) the functions $\text{K}1^\mathsf{M_J}_{\lambda l}(\omega)$ and $\text{K}2^\mathsf{M_J}_{\lambda l}(\omega)$ (Eqs. (27)–(28) of the Methods section), which corresponds to changes of $\beta^\mathsf{JM_J}_{k\lambda l,i}(\omega)$. Here we elaborate on the poles of $X_{\mathsf{JM_J},i}$ which give rise to additional metastable states of the quasiparticle and are determined by the equation $$\begin{aligned} \label{polesX} \omega + \Delta E_\mathsf{JM_J} - \text{K0}^\mathsf{M_J}(\omega)=0,\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta E_\mathsf{JM_J}=E-E_\mathsf{JM_J}$. Using $\omega=E'-E$, with $E$ the ground-state energy and the definition of $\text{K0}^\mathsf{M_J}(\omega)$ (see Eq. (26) of the Methods section), we find that the solution of coincides with the solutions of $E'=E_\mathsf{JM_J}-\Sigma_{\mathsf{JM_J}}(E')$ corresponding to the angulon states at energies $E'>E$. Such additional solutions only occur for sufficiently high electron–phonon coupling strength, as we illustrate in Fig. \[graphicalsolution\] by plotting $E'-E_\mathsf{JM_J}$ (gray solid line), $-\text{Re}\left[\Sigma_{\mathsf{JM_J}}(E')\right]$ (blue dashed line) and $\text{Im}\left[\Sigma_{\mathsf{JM_J}}(E')\right]$ (red dotted line) as a function of $E'$ for a few different electron–phonon coupling strengths. Vertical dashed and dotted lines indicate the variational ground state energies of the angulon and of the free atom, respectively. We observe that additional sharp peaks only occur for $E'\gg E'_*$, where $E'_*$ is defined by $\text{Max}\left[\text{Im}\,\Sigma_{\mathsf{JM_J}} (E')\right]$, since in this range $-\text{Re}\,\Sigma_{\mathsf{JM_J}}(E')$ is a monotonically decreasing function and $\text{Im}\,\Sigma_{\mathsf{JM_J}} (E')$ remains small but not negligible. ![ [[**Emergence of metastable states due to the Fano-like shape of the self-energy.**]{} Self-consistent solutions are determined by crossings of the solid grey line and the blue dashed line, which represents the real part of the self-energy, $-\text{Re}\,\Sigma_{\mathsf{JM_J}}(E')$. [**a.**]{} For the smallest electron–phonon coupling strength, $\tilde{u}=0.001$, only one self-consistent solution is found (vertical dashed line) at a slightly lower energy than the ground-state energy of the bare atom (vertical dotted line). [**b.**]{} For larger coupling strengths, additional self-consistent solutions emerge. The metastable state corresponds to the solution with the largest energy. [**c.**]{} By further increasing the coupling strength, the metastable state shifts towards higher energies $E'$ where $-\text{Re}\,\Sigma_{\mathsf{JM_J}}(E')$ monotonically decreases. For comparison, the imaginary part of the self-energy is shown (red dotted line), which determines the lifetime of the metastable state. Note the different scales of the vertical axes for different coupling strengths.]{} \[graphicalsolution\]](figsup1fano.pdf){width="1.0\columnwidth"} [ In addition, in order to investigate the scaling of the high-frequency peak with electron–phonon coupling strength $\tilde{u}$, we evaluate the dependences $E(\tilde{u})$ and $E'(\tilde{u})$. The result is shown in Fig. \[scaling\], by solid black ($E$) and dashed blue ($E'$) lines, from which we conclude that the change of $\omega(\tilde{u})=E'(\tilde{u})-E(\tilde{u})$ is approximately linear with $\tilde{u}$. The results shown in Fig. \[graphicalsolution\] and Fig. \[scaling\] are computed for the same parameters as Fig. 3 of the main text: $N=5$, $L=1, S= J =1/2, M_J=-1/2$, with electronic parameters $\xi/J_\text{H}=0.1$, $\mu_\text{B}B_0/J_\text{H}=0.02$. ]{} ![ [ [**Scaling of the stable and metastable states with electron–phonon coupling strength, $\tilde{u}$.**]{} $E$ is the ground-state energy, $E'$, is the energy of the additional self-consistent solution of the equation $E'=E_\mathsf{JM_J}-\Sigma_{\mathsf{JM_J}}(E')$, which is found at energies above $\text{Max}\left[-\text{Re}\,\Sigma_\mathsf{JM_J}(E')\right]$ (see Fig.\[graphicalsolution\]). An approximately linear scaling with $\tilde{u}$ is found for both states, yielding a linear dependence of $\omega=E'-E$ on $\tilde{u}$ in the parameter range investigated.]{} \[scaling\]](figsup2scaling.pdf){width="0.45\columnwidth"}

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We search the American Association of Variable Star Observers (AAVSO) archives of the two best studied dwarf novae in an attempt to find light curves for long outbursts that are extremely well-characterized. The systems are U Gem and SS Cyg. Our goal is to search for embedded precursors such as those that have been found recently in the high fidelity [*Kepler*]{} data for superoutbursts of some members of the SU UMa subclass of dwarf novae. For the vast majority of AAVSO data, the combination of low data cadence and large errors associated with individual measurements precludes one from making any strong statement about the shape of the long outbursts. However, for a small number of outbursts, extensive long term monitoring with digital photometry yields high fidelity light curves. We report the discovery of embedded precursors in two of three candidate long outbursts. [*This is the first time that such embedded precursors have been found in dwarf novae above the period gap,*]{} and reinforces van Paradijs’ finding that long outbursts in dwarf novae above the period gap and superoutbursts in systems below the period gap constitute a unified class. The thermal-tidal instability to account for superoutbursts in the SU UMa stars predicts embedded precursors only for short orbital period dwarf novae, therefore the presence of embedded precursors in long orbital period systems $-$ U Gem and SS Cyg $-$ argues for a more general mechanism to explain long outbursts.' author: - 'John K. Cannizzo' title: The Shape of Long Outbursts in U Gem type Dwarf Novae from AAVSO data --- Introduction ============ [*Kepler*]{} observations of short orbital period dwarf novae (below the “period gap”) have given us for the first time clear evidence for the presence of embedded precursors, or “failed” outbursts, at the beginning of superoutbursts of SU UMa systems (Cannizzo et al. 2012). This behavior had been partially seen before in some systems with fragmentary data, but is now quite clear. Thanks to the high fidelity AAVSO data of the past $\sim$10 yrs, we report the discovery of such precursors also in two systems [*above*]{} the period gap. This may have consequences for theoretical models for the long outbursts and the superoutbursts. Cataclysmic variables (CVs $-$ Warner 1995ab) are semi-detached interacting binaries containing a Roche-lobe filling K or M secondary that transfers matter to a white dwarf (WD). CVs show a “gap” between $P_h\sim$$2$ and 3 (where $P_h = P_{\rm orbital}/1$ hr) during which time the secondary star loses contact with its Roche lobe and mass transfer ceases as the systems evolve to shorter orbital periods. Thus at $P_h\simeq3$ the binary becomes fully detached. At $P_h\simeq2$ the secondary comes back into contact with its Roche lobe and mass transfer resumes. Systems can also be “born” in the gap, so it is not completely empty. For $P_h \la 2$ angular momentum loss from the binary is thought to be due solely to gravitational radiation. The CV subclass of dwarf novae (DNe) also have semi-periodic outbursts. SU UMa stars are DNe below the period gap exhibiting short, normal outbursts (NOs) and superoutbursts (SOs). SOs show superhumps which are modulations in the light curve at periods slightly exceeding the orbital period; superhumps are the defining property of SOs. DNe outbursts are thought to be due to a thermal limit cycle accretion disk instability (Smak 1984) in which material is accumulated in quiescence and then dumped onto the WD during outburst. During short outbursts in longer period DNe, a few percent of the stored mass is accreted, and during long outbursts a significant fraction $\sim$0.2 of the stored mass is accreted. For the SU UMa stars, a SO is thought to accrete $\ga0.7-0.8$ of the stored mass. Although the accretion disk is never in steady state during the limit cycle, it is close to steady state during long outbursts. U Gem and SS Cyg are the two DNe with the most complete AAVSO coverage. U Gem ($P_h=4.25$) was discovered by John Russell Hind in 1855 (Hind 1856), and SS Cyg ($P_h=6.60$) by Louisa D. Wells in 1896 (Wells 1896). To date, U Gem has $\ga$115,000 observations, and SS Cyg has $\ga$455,000. Figure 1 shows the number of individual observations $n_{\rm obs}$ for each 24 hr interval versus time for each long term light curve.  -0.05cm Recent observations by [*Kepler*]{} have revealed details of the outburst behavior that have been partially seen previously[^1], but which can now be studied in much greater detail (Cannizzo et al. 2012). Of particular interest for this work is the presence of an embedded “failed” NO at the start of a SO. Within the context of the thermal-tidal instability (TTI) model for SOs (Osaki 1989; Ichikawa & Osaki 1992; Osaki 2005, see his Figures 3 and 4), embedded precursors are understood as being due to a temporary squeezing of the outer accretion disk by increased effective tidal forces due to the onset of a tidal instability. This instability drives the outer disk between circular and eccentric shapes when the outer edge of the disk expands beyond the point of 3:1 resonance with the binary orbital period, i.e., the point at which $2\pi/\Omega$ around the WD equals $P_{\rm orbital}/3$ (Whitehurst 1988). The discovery of the tidal instability by Whitehurst led Osaki to propose the TTI, which combines the accretion disk thermal limit cycle instability with the tidal instability. A necessary condition for the tidal instability is that the mass ratio $q\equiv M_2/M_1 < 0.25$ so that for long outbursts, in which a substantial amount of matter is stored in the disk, the presence of high viscosity material can expand the outer disk radius beyond the 3:1 radius. Thus superhumps are seen only in short orbital period DNe. An important point is that, if the TTI model only applies to low $q$ binaries, and therefore only to short orbital period DNe, one expects it not to apply to systems longward of the period gap (since for Roche-lobe filling main-sequence donors, systems with $q \la 0.25$ have $P_h \la 2.5$ hr). Therefore, the presence of embedded precursors in systems above the period gap, should they exist, would argue for a more general physical mechanism for long outbursts in all DNe. Previous studies of DNe outbursts using amateur data have proved useful in delineating timescales and constraining models (e.g., Campbell & Shapley 1940, Sterne, Campbell & Shapley 1940, Bath & van Paradijs 1983, van Paradijs 1983, Szkody & Mattei 1984, Cannizzo & Mattei 1992, 1998, Ak, et al. 2002, Simon 2004). Van Paradijs (1983) studied a sample of DNe spanning the period gap and found that short outburst durations increase with orbital period, whereas long outburst durations are relatively constant with orbital period. He proposed that the relation of SOs to NOs for DNe below the period gap and of long outbursts to NOs for DNe above the period gap are equivalent; superoutbursts are, in his view, just long outbursts seen in short orbital period DNe. This finding was amplified by Ak et al. (2002) using a larger sample. For completeness we note that there have been prior critical analyses of the TTI model, from both theoretical and observational perspectives. Schreiber et al. (2004) compare numerical time dependent models of the TTI with an alternative model $-$ enhanced mass transfer (EMT) from the secondary star. Their arguments are somewhat general, however, and although they conclude in the end that the EMT is favored, they note “we have not proven the EMT \[model\] to be correct nor the TTI \[model\] not to work.” Also, in a series of papers Smak (2009abcd) presents arguments against the standard interpretation of superhumps in the SU UMa stars as being due to a precessing, eccentric disk[^2]. Thus from his perspective the entire physical basis for the TTI would be called into question. Smak also favors the EMT model. Cannizzo et al. (2012) study the long term [*Kepler*]{} light curves of two SU UMa stars and argue that the tendency of recurrence times for normal outbursts to exhibit sometimes a local maximum half way between two superoutbursts argues against the TTI model, wherein one expects a monotonically increasing series of recurrence times between two superoutbursts (Ichikawa, Hirose, & Osaki 1993, see their Figure 1; Osaki 2005, see his Figure 3). High Fidelity Long Outbursts in U Gem and SS Cyg ================================================ Figure 1 shows the number of individual observations $n_{\rm obs}$ for each 24 hr interval within the historical AAVSO light curves for U Gem and SS Cyg. Data prior to 2000 are mainly visual and the errors are too large to be usable for detecting subtle effects such as embedded precursors to outbursts. One can see a period of faster-than-exponential growth in the upper envelope of $n_{\rm obs}$ versus time. For the vast majority of the data, the uncertainty in flux associated with an individual measurement produces a scatter in the light curve precludes any detailed study of the shape of the outburst. Historically, the majority of the data were from visual observations in which estimates of a given variable star brightness are carried out by comparison with nearby field stars. The precision for any given data point in this method is $\sim$0.3-0.5 mag, and, given the varying color biases between different observers, a simple averaging of $m_V(t)$ values for outburst during times when $n_{\rm obs}$ is large does not guarantee a light curve with true physical fidelity. In the last $\sim$10 yr this situation has changed due to the increased use of digital photometry. This trend can be seen in Figure 1. The intervals with digital photometry generally are accompanied by times during which $n_{\rm obs} \ga$$300-1000$, i.e., more than $\sim$$300-1000$ observations within a 24 hr interval. By restricting our attention to long outbursts lying within these times of large $n_{\rm obs}$ during the last 10 yr, and furthermore restricting the data to digital $V-$band photometry only (so as exclude the individual color biases inherent in the visual data), we may considerably reduce the vertical scatter in the outburst data. We note that the presence of high $n_{\rm obs}$ data is a necessary but not a sufficient ingredient. High $n_{\rm obs}$ values ($\ga300$) are indicative of the use of digital photometry, but there must also be a high cadence rate near outburst onset to have a reasonable chance of determining whether or not a failed, embedded outburst accompanies the outburst start.  -0.05cm  -0.05cm We have made careful study of each long outburst in U Gem and SS Cyg since 2000 in an effort to identify outbursts that are sufficiently well sampled by digital photometric observations such that one may make a clear statement concerning the presence of an embedded precursor. There are two such outbursts in U Gem and one in SS Cyg. Figure 2 shows an enhanced view of the U Gem light curve containing the two candidate long outbursts. The first outbursts of 2005 and 2007 are long and lie with regions of dense digital photometric coverage. Figure 3 shows detailed views of these two outbursts. The 2005 outburst shows an apparent failed outburst at the start, and the 2007 outburst does not. Figure 4 shows a stretch of $n_{\rm obs}>1000$ data for SS Cyg containing our one identified high fidelity long outburst, at $\sim$2005.7. It is shown in detail in Figure 5. It appears also to contain a failed outburst at the start. In summary, for two of the three long outbursts in the best studied DNe (both of which lie above the period gap) for which any statement can be made about the detailed shape of the outburst, there is an apparent failed, embedded outburst at the start, followed by a period of slow decay, followed by a period of faster decay. These three characteristics of long outbursts are the same as in the superoutbursts of the SU UMa stars, which lie below the period gap.  -0.05cm  -0.05cm Discussion and Conclusion ========================= By examining the best AAVSO data for U Gem and SS Cyg we have found evidence for embedded failed outbursts at the start of two out of three long outbursts for which such an exercise is feasible. These data are from digital photometry. For the 2005 U Gem outburst, the possibility of a time variable calibration to explain the embedded precursor seems unlikely since the light curve is comprised of data from several observers. For the 2005 SS Cyg outburst, the precursor stands out more strongly. For other data in the long term light curves, the quality is not good enough for one to be able to make any clear statement about the detailed outburst shape. The thermal-tidal instability model was developed to account for the short orbital period SU UMa stars which have $q < 0.25$. Since CVs have Roche-lobe filling secondary stars, this constrains the secondary star mass to be $\sim$$0.1\msun P_h$, unless the star has been driven considerably out of thermal equilibrium due to mass loss. Therefore DNe above the period gap such as U Gem and SS Cyg with orbital periods between 4 and 7 hr cannot possibly satisfy $q < 0.25$ for $M_{\rm WD}\simeq \msun$, and therefore the thermal-tidal model should not be a physical ingredient of their outbursts. Two of three long outbursts in DNe longward of the period gap which have the requisite AAVSO data fidelity show (i) the initial failed outburst embedded at the start, (ii) the slow decay consistent with viscous decay, and (iii) the faster decay consistent with thermal decay. These three characteristics are also manifested in the long outbursts in DNe below the period gap $-$ i.e., the superoutbursts in the SU UMa stars. Therefore Occam’s razor would seem to demand a common explanation which does not depend on $q$. The only difference between the two types of outbursts is the presence of superhumps in the superoutbursts, thus the association of superhumps with superoutbursts appears to be associative rather than causal. Finally, it is worth noting that U Gem exhibited an unusually long outburst in October 1985 with a duration of $\sim$39 d (Cannizzo et al. 2002). The usual duration of long outbursts in U Gem is $\sim$12 d. It is unclear how the existence of this long outburst impacts our conclusions. In the context of the standard accretion disk limit cycle for DN outbursts (Smak 1984), the cooling front responsible for terminating the flat-topped portion of a long outburst must have been prevented from propagating, perhaps due to an unusually large amount of stored disk mass. Cannizzo et al. (2002) determined a viscous decay time $26\pm6$ d mag$^{-1}$ from the AAVSO light curve. Given that virtually all other long outburst decays in U Gem and SS Cyg do not last long enough for the decay slope to be measurable, this one long outburst gives us our only measure of the viscous time scale in a DN longward of the period gap. We acknowledge the dedication and perseverance of the thousands of observers contributing data to the AAVSO International Database. We thank Allen Shafter for useful comments. Ak, T., Ozkan, M. T., & Mattei, J. A. 2002, , 389, 478 Bath, G. T., & van Paradijs, J. 1983, Nature, 305, 33 Campbell, L., & Shapley, H. 1940, Ann. Harvard, 90, 93 Cannizzo, J. K., Gehrels, N., & Mattei, J. A. 2002, , 579, 760 Cannizzo, J. K., & Mattei, J. A. 1992, , 401, 642 Cannizzo, J. K., & Mattei, J. A. 1998, , 505, 344 Cannizzo, J. K., Smale, A. P., Wood, M. A., Still, M. D., & Howell, S. B. 2012, , 747, 117 Hind, J. R. 1856, , 16, 56 Ichikawa, S., Hirose, M., & Osaki, Y. 1993, , 45, 243 Ichikawa, S., & Osaki, Y. 1992, , 44, 15 Montgomery, M. M. 2012a, , 745, L25 Montgomery, M. M. 2012b, , 753, L27 Osaki, Y. 1989, , 41, 1005 Osaki, Y. 2005, Proc. Japan Acad., 81, 291 Schreiber, M. R., Hameury, J.-M., & Lasota, J.-P. 2004, , 427, 621 Simon, V. 2004, Baltic Astron., 13, 101 Smak, J. 1984, Acta Astr., 34, 161 Smak, J. 2009a, Acta Astr., 59, 89 Smak, J. 2009b, Acta Astr., 59, 103 Smak, J. 2009c, Acta Astr., 59, 109 Smak, J. 2009d, Acta Astr., 59, 121 Sterne, T. E., Campbell, L., & Shapley, H. 1940, Ann. Harvard, 90, 189 Szkody, P., & Mattei, J. A. 1984, , 96, 988 van Paradijs, J. 1983, , 125, L16 Warner, B. 1995a, Astrophys. & Sp. Sci., 226, 187 Warner, B. 1995b, Cataclysmic Variable Stars (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press) Wells, L. D. 1896, Harv. Coll. Obs. Circ., No. 12. Whitehurst, R. 1988, , 232, 35 [^1]: For example, Figure 3.36 from Warner (1995b) shows precursors of varying depths in SOs of VW Hyi, but the light curves are smoothed, filled versions based on fragmentary data. [^2]: The most recent numerical simulations of an accretion disk subject to the 3:1 instability reveal a disk shape that alternates between eccentric and circular (Montgomery 2012ab), therefore it may be more difficult than previously thought to detect an (instantaneously) eccentric disk shape in an eclipsing system.

ArXiv

--- author: - | Lisa Borland\ Evnine & Associates, Inc.\ 456 Montgomery Street, Suite 800, San Francisco, CA 94104, USA [^1]\ Yoan Hassid\ Department of Statistics\ Stanford University title: 'Market panic on different time-scales' --- Introduction ============ We recently proposed a model with the goal of understanding the evolution of the cross-sectional distribution and correlation dynamics among stock returns, (adding to the existing literature of cross-sectional studies, e.g [@kaizoji]-[@Sornette]). Specifically, we described and modeled the interesting interplay between dispersion, kurtosis and cross-sectional correlations which we observed on daily time-scales. In that work, we found a strong anti-correlation between cross-sectional dispersion and cross-sectional kurtosis in financial markets [@borland]. In particular we discovered that, in times of market panic, dispersion increases drastically, as does volatility, while cross-sectional kurtosis drops close to zero. In addition, various measures of cross-stock correlations increases, inducing a bi-modal distribution of the cross-sectional sum of signs of stock returns, implying that in such times all stocks tend to move up or down together. To describe these findings we proposed a phase-transition model, where the dynamics of correlations responded to an external volatility shock, which could be interpreted as an increase in fear and uncertainty among market participants. This model describes very well all the stylized facts observed both in normal and panic times, on daily time-scales. We now extend our study to intra-day time scales, and also probe some interesting questions which were prompted by the original work. We wish to quantify any memory in the correlations, and also to see if there are any detectable asymmetries in the dynamics of the correlations. Indeed we find that correlation tend to increase more significantly after negative returns. We also find that the degree to which the kurtosis decreases depends on whether the volatility shock to the financial system is of an exogenous (market-wide) nature, or endogenous (more stock-specific). \[fig1\] {width="4.5in"} {width="4.5in"} \[fig3\] ![a) Cross-sectional dispersion calculated at 15 minute intervals and b) cross-sectional kurtosis calculated at 15 minute intervals. In contrast to daily data (Figure 4,) [@borland], there is in general no anti-correlation between kurtosis and dispersion](YMdispintra.jpg "fig:"){width="2.5in"} ![a) Cross-sectional dispersion calculated at 15 minute intervals and b) cross-sectional kurtosis calculated at 15 minute intervals. In contrast to daily data (Figure 4,) [@borland], there is in general no anti-correlation between kurtosis and dispersion](YMkurtintra.jpg "fig:"){width="2.5in"} ![Daily data shoes a strong anti-correlation between dispersion and kurtosis.[]{data-label="fig4"}](YMPanicDef.jpg){width="4.5in"} \[fig5\] ![The definition of AIC used in [@multifrac] is essentially the market volatility.](YMmvolaicold.jpg "fig:"){width="4.5in"} \[fig6\] {width="4.5in"} \[fig7\] {width="4.5in"} \[fig8\] {width="4.5in"} \[fig9\] {width="4.5in"} \[fig10\] {width="4.5in"} \[fig11\] {width="4.5in"} Intra day data: Cross-sectional properties ============================================ We showed previously [@borland] that market panic on daily time scales is accompanied by high volatility, high dispersion, and low kurtosis. In addition the sum of signs S follows a bimodal distribution as a result of high correlations among stocks. Since it is difficult to calibrate and check our model very carefully due to the lack of data and the relatively few instances of market panic historically, we instead look toward smaller time scales where we have many more observations. Our goal is to calculate the same quantities on these time scales and to see if the signatures of panic persist. A universe of 100 US stocks (belonging to the SP100) was sampled at 15 minute intervals spanning the time period 2007-2009. The market-wide average of this data is shown in Figure 1. Using this data, we calculated cross-sectional dispersion and cross-sectional kurtosis on 15 minute time scales. First, it is interesting to notice the intra-day seasonality that these quantities exhibit. In particular, the average intra day dispersion is markedly bigger at the beginning of the day, decreasing as time goes on. This result was shown also in [@emerich] and more recently in [@jpintraday]. Kurtosis exhibits a less defined pattern, and the sum of signs $S$ shows some slight seasonality as well. These latter observations are however not as marked as for the dispersion (see Figure 2). More interesting details on the relationship of dispersion, kurtosis and the index return are discussed in [@jpintraday]. Bearing in mind the intra day seasonality, we show in Figure 3 the cross-sectional dispersion calculated at 15 minute time intervals for the entire time period considered. We also show cross-sectional kurtosis. Note that the correlation between the two does not exhibit the strong anti-correlation that we saw on daily scales (Figure 4). On the contrary, the correlation is positive at $30\%$. Overnight data is omitted in this study, so one hypothesis is that the largest contribution to the decrease in kurtosis would come from overnight price moves. We discuss this point in more detail later on; in fact understanding why kurtosis and dispersion are negatively correlated on some time scales while not on others is an interesting feature which we try to understand and model [^2] The next quantity that we look at is the normalized sum of signs of returns ($S$) over a given 15 minute interval. We argued in [@borland] that $|S|$ is a good proxy for the correlations in the system. Intuitively, if $|S|$ is large (close to 1) , then all stocks will either go up or down together. Conversely, if $|S|$ is small, there should be no particular co-movement among stocks. As a result, we expect to see a uni-modal distribution of $S$ in normal times, and a bi-modal one in times of panic. This is what we observed on daily time scales. We studied the distribution of $S$ calculated from our intra-day data and found the same behavior: In times of panic, for example October 2008 (Figure 10), the distribution of $S$ is bimodal. In normal times, for example September 2008, the distribution of $S$ is unimodal (Figure 11). The fact that this property appears on multiple time scales prompts the question: Is there memory in correlation? This question was actually discussed in a recent paper [@multifrac] , but we argue here that their results are not based on a fair definition of correlation. We shall expand on this in the next section, but before doing so, we wish to point out a possible criticism of our analysis: Note that [@JPcritic] a bimodal distribution can easily be obtained as an artifact of conditioning on high volatility time points. In such a case one “cherry-picks” days (intervals) on which volatility was high, which by necessity corresponds to those days on which more stocks moved in the same direction, thus contributing to the higher absolute return over those particular days. We believe that this is not the case in our study; we do not“cherry-pick” certain days out of the sample, but are looking at the general behavior of stock returns for all days in a region of interest. \[fig12\] {width="4.5in"} \[fig13\] {width="4.5in"} \[fig14\] {width="4.5in"} \[fig15\] ![The correlation-leverage of Eq(\[eq:levaic\]) for daily time-scales., well-fit by $L(\tau) = -A \exp{-\tau/T}$ with $A = 0.01 $ and $T = 18.4$. Negative returns imply higher correlations. A similar result is found on intra-day time scales.](CorrLevDaily.jpg "fig:"){width="4.5in"} \[fig16\] {width="4.5in"} \[fig17\] {width="4.5in"} \[fig18\] {width="4.5in"} Memory in correlations ====================== In a recent paper, [@multifrac] studied the multi-fractal behavior of an average cross-market correlation defined from the sum of pair-wise correlations market-wide, $$\label{eq:aicold} AIC_{old} = \frac {2}{N(N-1)}\sum_i^{N-1}\sum_{j>i}^N \frac{(r_i-<r_i>)(r_j-<r_j>)}{\sigma_i \sigma_j}$$ While interesting, upon closer inspection it is very clear that this measure is essentially the index volatility if the $\sigma_i$ and $\sigma_j$ are taken to be time series volatilities (see Figure 5). Hence, the nice results obtained for correlation dynamics are already well-known from index volatility studies. Instead we define a correlation measure in the spirit of [@multifrac], yet which we believe isolates correlation effects from volatility effects. It is identical to Eq(\[eq:aicold\]) ( assuming zero means), except that we take $\sigma_i = |r_i|$ and $\sigma_j = |r_j|$ resulting in a sign-correlation function $$\label{eq:aic} AIC = \frac {2}{N(N-1)}\sum_i^{N-1}\sum_{j>i}^N {(s_i)(s_j)}$$ Note that any high frequency measure of correlation will suffer from the Epps effect [@epps], which underestimates correlations due to asynchronous trading. However, we found that this could be safely ignored at the 15 minute time scale resolution. Using the data set of 100 US stocks described above, we calculated at each time point the AIC as defined in Eq (\[eq:aic\]). A plot of AIC is shown in Figure 6. It is interesting to note that this quantity, for a large number N of stocks , is identically related to the square of a naive measure of correlations S which we defined in a previous work, $$S = \frac{\sum_i^N{sign(r_i)}}{N}$$ Because of this correspondence, we shall sometimes speak of S, sometimes of AIC, but essentially both are a proxy for the first-order correlation among stock returns. Using this simple statistic as a quantifier for correlations, we turn our attention to the first of our questions, namely if there is memory in correlations. We calculate the following quantity $$V_{aic}(\tau) = <(AIC(t)-AIC(t+\tau))^2>$$ which is a variogram for the average instantaneous correlation. If there is no memory in the system, then a plot of $V_{aic}$ as a function of the time lag $\tau$ will fluctuate around a straight line. However, this is not the case, and our results indicate that there is a power law decay of the instantaneous value of $AIC$ as time increases. Similar results for the memory in the volatility of individual stocks, as well as that of the volatility in the market index have already been presented in the literature [@jpandpotters]. Those quantities exhibit a long range memory with power law decays of index 0.2 and 0.34 respectively. In the case of AIC however, the memory is shorter-ranged , decaying with an index $\gamma$ empirically found to be on average around 0.03. Results for the memory on daily time scales are shown in Figure 7 ($\gamma = 0.05$). In Figure 8, the variogram of AIC sampled at 15 minute intervals is shown ($\gamma = 0.012$). The evidence of memory in the system is very clear, although the latter results contain a periodic pattern which is the effect of a convolution with intra-day seasonality. In addition to the variogram analysis, we also calculated the multi-fractal spectrum for AIC, from which there is evidence of memory on different time-scales. Fianlly, we looked at the distribution of the sum of signs $S = sqrt{AIC}$ for 15 minute intervals, for the months of September 2008 and October 2008 (Figures 9 and 10). Within our framework, the bimodal distribution in October speaks to a panic phase. The Flash-Crash ================ On May 6 2010, market participants went in to a mini- panic as stocks suddenly exhibited drastic negative returns, only to recover fully by the end of the day. Much speculation to the cause of this behavior points a finger at high frequency electronic trading algorithms. But whatever the reason, it is clear that May 6 can be classified as a day of market panic, referred to as the Flash Crash. For us, this is an excellent scenario to study in the current framework. In the days preceding and immediately following the Flash Crash, we sampled data for 100 highly capitalized US stocks at 5 minute intervals. We calculated cross-sectional dispersion and kurtosis, as well as $S$ and $AIC$. The plots in Figures 11-13 tell a nice story. First we show the 5 minute market returns on May 6 2010. One clearly sees how the volatility jumps after the large negative return. Simultaneously , dispersion (whose intra day seasonality is very clear) jumps to a high at the onset of the Flash Crash. Interestingly, kurtosis remains roughy the same. Regarding $S$, it is apparent that on and in the days following May 6 a bimodal distribution is attained. This can be seen in Figure 14 where a histogram of the cross-sectional average sum of signs after the Flash Crash is plotted, indicating that even on this 5 minute time scale, correlations have increased and there are signs of panic. Interpreting these results within the context of our model, in particular the fact that kurtosis doesn’t decrease markedly in the Flash Crash, is the topic of the following section and was also discussed in [@laurie]. Endogenous or Exogenous Volatility Shocks: Negative Returns or External Fear? ============================================================================== In our initial model [@borland] we hypothesized that market panic is triggered by an external volatility shock. In other words, a global “fear factor” pushes the financial system into a collective mode of highly correlated behavior, manifested by the fact that all stock returns will move in a highly similar manner, going either all up or all down together. This behavior is accompanied by an increase in volatility and an increase in cross-sectional dispersion. On daily time scales, it was also accompanied by a dramatic decrease in kurtosis. However, on intra day time scales we have seen that the cross-sectional kurtosis need in fact not decrease, while the other signatures of panic seem to hold true also on these scales. We want to explore this phenomenon and understand it in a little more detail. Another point which we would like to understand better is if there is any asymmetry in the correlation dynamics,. Basically we want to see if there is evidence that negative returns are more likely to trigger increases in correlation than positive returns. In fact, as we explore both of these points, we find a model that points to a distinction in the behavior of the cross-sectional kurtosis depending upon how correlated individual volatility shocks to each stock are. In other words, we shall see that the behavior is slightly different depending upon whether the volatility shock is of a global (exogenous) nature, or whether it is more stock-specific or endogenous (for example due to a large negative return to one or a few stocks in the market). We now study the first of these questions, namely if there is asymmetry in the correlation dynamics. To this end we calculate the following quantity $$\label{eq:levaic} L(\tau) = < AIC(t+\tau) r(t)>$$ which we shall refer to as a correlation-leverage quantity. If negative returns precede an increase in the correlation AIC more frequently than do positive returns, then this quantity will be negative. Indeed, a plot of the correlation-leverage according to Eq(\[eq:levaic\]) is shown in Figure 15, confirming that negative returns tend to precede increases in AIC. In fact, this result is not surprising. Bouchaud et al already showed [@jpleverage] that there is s leverage effect present for returns in that negative returns precede increases in volatility. Also, [@fearfactor] discusses a similar result. Within the framework of our understanding in the current context, it therefore makes sense that if negative returns imply higher volatility, then that should imply higher correlations because volatility and the correlation dynamics are intricately related. This is for example illustrated in Figure 16 where AIC is plotted as a function of market volatility (defined as the absolute value of the market return on a daily time scale). Notice that, as volatility increases, AIC grows until it saturates around 1. It is quite obvious from this plot that, on average, low volatility corresponds to low correlations, and high volatility corresponds to higher correlations. This plot is also consistent with the phase transition model of correlations which we proposed in [@borland]: For volatilities below a critical threshold, correlations are close to zero, with noise. This corresponds to the linear behavior at small volatilities. After a critical volatility, the correlations take on high values, hence the flatter region at higher volatilities. Note that this interpretation is a contemporary one, and also could be turned on it’s head: One could say that if AIC is large then the market volatility will be larger since the magnitude of the sum of returns across stocks will likely be larger if all stocks go up or down in the same direction. Nevertheless, if fits nicely with our phenomenological description of what is going on in the system. A model: skew, volatility feedback, and correlation dynamics ============================================================= The stock returns for each instrument across time is modeled by $$\label{eq:one} dy_t^i = \sigma_t^i d \omega_t^i$$ where $y^i$ is the log stock price of the $i$-th stock, $\omega^i$ is a zero mean Gaussian noise with unit variance, and $$\label{eq:two} (\sigma_t^i)^2 = \sigma_0^2 [1 + \sum_{\tau = 1}^{\infty} \frac{g_{\tau}}{\sigma^2\tau} ( y^i_t - y^i_{t=\tau})^2 + \kappa \sum_{\tau = 1}^{\infty} \frac{g_{\tau}}{\sigma \sqrt{\tau}}(y^i_t - y^i_{t-\tau}) ]$$ with $g_{\tau} = g/\tau^{\alpha}$. The parameters of the model are $g$, $\kappa$ and $\alpha$. Conditions for stability plus values which calibrate to real returns are discussed extensively in . The feedback in the model is controlled by $g$, the power law memory in time is related to $\alpha$, and the skew and leverage effect relating negative returns and volatility depends on $\kappa$. This model is motivated by the statistical feedback model that we presented in [@borland1; @borland2; @borland3] and is very similar to the Figarch models [@figarch; @zumbach; @Mandelbrot]. For an ensemble of $N$ stocks, we assume that the $\omega^i, i = 1, \cdots, N$ are correlated proportional to $AIC= s^2$, where $S$ is the average sum of signs cross-sectionally. The empirical data that we showed in Figure 16 tells us that $$|S| = f(\sigma_M) + F_t$$ where $\sigma_M$ is the market volatility. One possible phenomenological manifestation of this relationship is the phase transition model which we proposed in [@borland] $$\label{eq:s} \frac{ds}{dt} = -a s -b s^3 + F_t$$ with $ a = \alpha(\sigma_c-\sigma_M)$, $b$ a scaling parameter, and $\sigma_c $ a critical volatility level. In this model, $S$ can be thought of as jiggling around in a potential well. When $\sigma_M < \sigma_c$, that well only has one minimum at $0$, so $|S|$ fluctuates around that point. If $\sigma_M > \sigma_c$, the potential well attains two new minima at $\pm \sqrt(a)$. $|S| $becomes non-zero and correlations are high: Stocks tend to move up or down together in accordance, which is manifested in a bimodal distribution of $S$.We say that there is a phase transition as $\sigma_M$ crosses above the critical value, since the collective behavior of the stocks is qualitatively very different. This type of phase-transition model is based on the dynamics and theories of self-organizing systems as discussed in [@haken]. The market volatility $\sigma_M$ can increase to values larger than $\sigma_c$ due to either i) exogenous jumps (news) affecting all stocks so that $\sigma_0 $ becomes $\sigma_0 + \sigma_{shock}$, or ii) endogenous, idiosyncratic jumps which are more stock-specific and can for example be induced by a large negative return. Finally we would like to point out that our model is for the scenario where the universe of traded instruments consists of stocks, mainly. If one for example includes ETFs in a significant volume to the universe, correlations can be high even without panic but then one would expect that dispersion is lower [@Aevnine]. In that case, the stock dynamics could be written as $$dy_i = d(ETF) + \sigma_i(t) d\omega_i,$$ where the correlations among the $\omega_i $ still may follow Eq(\[eq:s\]). But because of the ETF exposure, there would be a necessarily high correlation among all stock returns if the volume of traded ETF is high, which is actually the present case with about 9$\%$ market volume in this instrument. \[fig19\] {width="4.5in"} \[fig20\] {width="4.5in"} \[fig21\] {width="3.5in"} Simulations =========== To illustrate our model in a qualitative fashion we ran a simulation using Eq(\[eq:one\]) and Eq(\[eq:two\]) as the basis for the dynamics of each stock. Here, the feedback parameter $g=0.35$, the skew parameter $\kappa = 0.15$ and $\alpha = 1.15$. The base volatility was chosen at $\sigma_0 = 0.20$, and we included only up until $N=100$ terms in the volatility feedback term. Our goal was not to calibrate to real data here, but rather to attain a process which qualitatively captures the main stylized facts that real stock returns exhibit over time. For the cross sectional dynamics we modeled the correlations across stocks at a given time point with the phenomenological equation Eq(\[eq:s\]) using $b = 0.01$ and $F_t = 0.1\tilde{\nu}$ where $\tilde{\nu}$ is a standard Brownian noise. The critical volatility $\sigma_c$ was taken to equal one standard deviation of the historical market volatility, itself measured as the squared variation of historical returns over the past 100 time points. At each time point in the simulation, an estimate of the current market volatility was obtained as the absolute value of the recent market return. In this setting, the current volatility can change either due to a “global” shock such that $\sigma_0$ effectively becomes $\sigma_0 + \sigma_{shock}$, or due to a large negative return in one or more stocks. The first case corresponds to a market wide exogenous fear factor, such as happened around the Lehman collapse. The second case better describes an endogenous, event driven panic such as happened in the Flash Crash. In our simulations we can induce both types of volatility shocks, and look to see the effect on the resulting cross-sectional properties which we have discussed in the previous sections. Figure 17 shows the simulated market returns, with three periods of panic (one induced by a negative return of 4 standard deviations magnitude at time 700, one induced by a volatility shock of size $\sigma_{shock} = 0.4$ at time 1150, and one which occurred spontaneously toward the end). The first period of panic was induced by a large endogenous negative return in one stock, which propagated up to the market level. The dispersion increased as exhibited in Figure 18, while the kurtosis (Figure 19) did not decrease but was instead somewhat positively correlated with the dispersion. This case mimics the scenario of the Flash Crash. On the other hand, as also shown in the plots of Figure 18 and Figure 19, the dispersion and kurtosis of the region where the panic was induced by a global exogenous shock exhibit a strong negative correlation, as in for example the crash of October 2008. In addition, the dynamics spontaneously induced another period of panic which follows the statistics of an endogenous shock. In all cases, histograms of S are bimodal during the times of panic, and unimodal in normal times, as already shown in [@borland]. Furthermore, a plot of $AIC$ versus volatility (Figure 20) is qualitatively similar to our empirical observations. And finally, the simulated data exhibits a correlation-leverage effect much as that observed empirically (see Figure 21). Conclusions =========== We have explored the dynamics of a simple correlation statistic, namely the sum of signs of cross-sectional return, or equivalently, its square which is closely related to the cross-sectional sign correlation. We have shown that this quantity exhibits a memory over time reinforcing the idea that correlations tend to cluster, although by far not as notably as volatility. We also showed that there is a kind of leverage-correlation effect (akin to the leverage effect between volatility and negative returns), in that negative returns precede an increase in the correlations. In a previous paper we had studied statistical signatures of market panic on daily time scales, and had found that in such instances, market volatility rises, as does cross-sectional dispersion and correlation among stocks, while the cross-sectional kurtosis exhibited a marked decrease. We proposed that the drastic change in the cross-sectional dynamics of markets in a panic situation can be modeled as a phase transition, induced by an external volatility shock. Here we extended this study to intra-day time scales and found that all signatures of panic remain the same, except that the kurtosis does not necessarily decrease during a crash. This was exemplified by an analysis of the cross-sectional dynamics on and around May 6, 2010, when markets crashed only to rebound fully shortly after, hence coined the Flash Crash. The subtle difference in the cross-sectional distribution of stock returns during this crash as opposed to for example the panic of October 2008 can be attributed to the source of the volatility shock which induces the crash. In particular we found that if the shock is the result of an endogenous, idiosyncratic behavior, such as an unusually large negative return in one or more stocks, then market volatility, dispersion and correlations will increase, but kurtosis doesn’t necessarily decrease. This can be understood as follows. If the volatility shock is global or market wide, as would be the case from an exogenous news event, then the individual volatilities of each stock will become more similar, which leads cross-sectionally to a more Gaussian distribution, and low kurtosis.. On the other hand, if the volatility shock affects just a few stocks, then the cross-sectional distribution reflects that of an ensemble of random variables each with a different volatility, yielding a high kurtosis. Interestingly we also found that in general kurtosis and dispersion are not strongly anti-correlated on intra-day timescales, even for periods such as late 2008 where they exhibit a strong negative correlation on daily timescales. This difference would be attributed to overnight price moves which, in the framework of our model, would impound globally correlated, exogenous volatility into the system. We proposed a model based on [@borland] that includes skew in the dynamics for each individual stock and were able to reproduce in simulations the basic dynamics and statistical properties of these two different sources of panic, including the leverage-correlation effect which we found. The work presented here is entirely qualitative in nature, and a future study should attempt to calibrate the model to empirical data. This could be useful to increase our understanding, but also for predictive purposes which could have many applications for risk control and the management of extreme correlation events. [99]{} ; bibitem[variety]{} [ F. Lillo and R. Mantegna, [ *Variety and volatility in financial markets*]{}, Phys. Rev. E [\ bf 62]{}, 6126 - 6134 (2000)]{} [^1]: [email protected] [^2]: We also want to point out that our study of the cross-sectional kurtosis on daily time-scales [@borland] was performed on a universe of 2000 US stocks, whereas the intra-day studies were just using 100 stocks.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'The Maldacena’s proposal has established an intriguing connection between string theory in $AdS$ spaces and gauge theory. In this paper we study the effects of adding $D(-1)$-branes to the system of $D3$- or $(D1-D5)$-branes and we give arguments indicating that $D(-1)$-branes are necessary to describe four and two dimensional instantons.' --- OUTP-98-49P\ hep-th/9806197\ \ [Ian I. Kogan]{}\ [email protected]\ \ [email protected]\ \ Introduction ============ The description of supersymmetric gauge field theories by means of superstrings has been a challenging problem. In brane theory, gauge theory arises as an effective low energy description that is useful in some regions in the moduli space of vacua [@Pol]. The underlying dynamics is always the same - brane volume dynamics in string theory. However, the physical interpretation of these objects has remained quite obscure. Recently, based on previous works on the structure of extremal black holes near the horizon [@Gi] and absorption by these branes [@Gubs], Maldacena has proposed an exact correspondence between string theory on Anti-de-Sitter spaces ( times a compact space) and superconformal quantum field theories living on the boundary of this space [@Gubs]. In particular, Type IIB theory on $AdS_5\times S^5$ should be dual to $N=4$ super Yang-Mills on the boundary. This new AdS/CFT duality allows to describe many features of gauge theory by means of branes. In this sense, perturbative computation of correlation functions of local operator have been presented in [@GuKePo][@WitHolo], Wilson loops operators have ben computed in [@MaldaWil] [@ReYe] and the description of baryons by wrapping branes on the compact space has been given in [@WitBa] and [@GO]. In this paper we are interested in finding branes configurations which can lead to instantons solutions of $d$ Yang-Mills field theory, the $d$ dimensional space being the $AdS_{d+1}$ boundary. If we construct systems of branes within the configuration of branes wich causes the $AdS$ background, in the AdS/CFT duality picture, the ‘small’ branes should behave as physical objects for the gauge field theory on the boundary. The natural $D$-brane objects to be identified with boundary instantons are the $D$-Instantons ( $D(-1)$-branes). The world volume of these tiny objects is just a point. Therefore, as we wil see, they hardly alter the basic structure of the space. In section 2 of the paper we will remind that the $AdS_5\times S^5$ space appears as a supergravity solution for $D3$-branes in the low energy limit. Then, in view of the fundamental role of supergravity solutions of branes near the horizon, looking for solutions of composite branes ( branes within branes) seems to be important. The description of smeared solutions of branes ending on branes have been extensively treated in literature [@Papa] and some localized solutions have been also found for specific configurations of branes [@Tse]. In section 3, we will focus on solutions of the $D-$Instanton within the $N$ $D3$-branes. We are interested in the configuration on the boundary and, therefore, in localized solutions. Here we will characterize the $D-$Instanton by means of a quasi conformally invariant harmonic function connected to the dilaton field and we will show how the presence of $D-$Instantons affects the structure of the space by developping throats which connect different vacua. In section 4, we will describe the field theory on the branes, the coupling to the gravitational fields and the new features, self-duality and non-trivial instanton number, which the existence of $D(-1)$-branes induces on the gauge fields. In section 5, we will approach the supergravity solution for $D$-Instantons in the bulk to the boundary. Here we will find that the system of $D(-1)$-branes stuck to the $N$ $D3$-branes behaves as small $SU(2)$ Yang-Mills instantons. We will obtain the Yang-Mills solution corresponding to the system, the moduli space of both of them and the instanton mesure Finally, in section 6, we will discuss supergravity solutions with lower supersymmetry ( $D(-1)$- branes within a $D1$-$D5$ system) and its relation to $d=2$ instantons. We will conclude with a brief discussion of the results and new possibilities for a further research. While this paper was being prepared for publication, we learned about a recent work on the same subject [@ChuHoWu]. The $AdS_5\times S^5$ background ================================   D-branes can be identified with BPS-saturated, R-R charged $p-$brane solutions. The Supergravity solution carrying D$p$ charge can be characterized in terms of a function $H_p (x_{_\perp})$ which is harmonic with respect to the directions transversal to the world volume [@HoStr]; i.e. it verifies the $10-(p+1)$ dimensional Laplace equation $$\label{laplacian} \partial_{x_{_\perp}}^2 H_p(x_{_\perp})=0.$$ Asuming that $H_p$ depends only on the radial coordinates $r=\sqrt{x_{p+1}^2+ ... +x_9^2}$, we can solve (\[laplacian\]) to get $$\label{hp} H_p(r)= 1+{ Q_p \over r^{(7-p)}}.$$ where the charge $Q_p$ is related to the string tension $T\equiv (2\pi\alpha)^{-1}$ $$\label{charge} Q_p=g( 2\pi)^{(5-p)/2}(2\pi\alpha^\prime)^{(7-p)/2}(2\pi^{(7-p)/2}/\Gamma((7-p)/2))^{-1}.$$ Then, the euclidean metric in string frame is $$\label{pmetric} ds_p^2= H_p^{-1/2}( dx_0^2+...+ dx_p^2)+ H_p^{1/2}( dx_{(p+1)}^2+...+ dx_9^2)$$ with the dilaton field $\phi$ given by $$\label{pdilaton} e^{2\phi}=H_p^{(3-p)/2}.$$ The R-R gauge field strength associated with the $p-$brane can be also expressed in terms of the harmonic function [@BerRoo] $$\label{fp1} F^{(p+2)}=d{1\over H_p}\wedge dx^0.....\wedge dx^p,$$ in case $p\le 3$ ( they carry electric charge) and its dual for $p\ge 3$ ( they carry magnetic charge). Notice that the case $p=3$ is self-dual. The flux of the dual field strengths on theirs $S^{(8-p)}$ transversal spheres fix the value of the charges. Now we consider the string background describing one $3-$brane $$\label{3metric} ds_3^2= H_3^{-1/2} d\vec x^2+ H_3^{1/2}( dr^2+ r^2 d\Omega_5^2), \ \ \ H_3= 1+ {4\pi g \alpha^{\prime 2}\over r^4}$$ where $\vec x =( x_0,..., x_3)$ denotes the four dimensional world volume of the $3-$brane and $d\Omega_5^2$ is the metric in $S^5$. There is no dilaton field[^1], then the string frame and the Einstein frame are identical $$ds_E^2=ds_s^2.$$ In case of $N$ parallel $3-$branes, the BPS condition of ‘No force’ implies $$\label{h3} H_3= 1+ {4N\pi g \alpha^{\prime 2}\over r^4 }.$$ In this paper we will consider the low energy effective theory. In this limit $$\label{limit} \alpha^\prime \rightarrow 0, \ \ \ U\equiv {r\over \alpha^\prime} = \rm{fixed}$$ the field theory on the $3-$brane decouples from the bulk [@Malda]. In this limit, the constant term in the harmonic function (\[h3\]) can be neglected and the metric, in terms of the new variable $U$, becomes $$ds_3^2= \alpha^\prime\left[{u^2\over\sqrt{4\pi g N}} d\vec x^2+ \sqrt{4\pi g N} {du^2\over u^2}+ \sqrt{4\pi g N} d\Omega_5^2 \right]$$ which describes the $AdS_5\times S^5$ space and remains constant in $\alpha^\prime$ units. Notice that $S^5$ and $AdS_5$ have the same radius and, being spaces of opposite curvature, the total scalar curvature of the $AdS_5\times S^5$ space is identically zero. The supersymmetry group of euclidean $AdS_5\times S^5$, $SO(1,5)\times SO(6)$, and, as it has been shown in [@WitHolo], the conformal compactification of $AdS_5$, on which $SO(1,5)$ acts, is the sphere $S^4$. The supersymmetric group is the same as the superconformal group in four dimensions [@HaLoSo]. This fact led to Maldacena’s proposal [@Malda]. According to it, when the effective coupling $g_e=gN$ becomes large , the $N=4$ superconformal theory on the boundary is governed by supergravity on $AdS_5\times S^5$ where perturbation theory be can trusted. Rescaling the $u\rightarrow u \lambda^{-1}$ and $ \vec x\rightarrow \lambda \vec x$ variables by the factor $\lambda^4= 4\pi gN$, we obtain the metric $$\label{umetric} ds_3^2= \alpha^\prime \sqrt{4\pi g N}\left[u^2 d\vec x^2+ {du^2\over u^2}+ d\Omega_5^2 \right]$$ and, using the inverse variable $z=1/u$, the metric $$\label{zmetric} ds_3^2= \alpha^\prime \sqrt{4\pi g N}\left[{1\over z^2}( d\vec x^2+ dz^2)+ d\Omega_5^2 \right]$$ which we will use, ignoring constant factors, from now on. In this representation of $AdS_5$ as the upper space $z>0$, the boundary consist of a copy of $R^4\times S^5$, at $z=0$, and a single point at $z=\infty$ which compactifies $R^5\times S^5$ to $S^4\times S^5$. D-Instantons in $AdS_5\times S^5$ ================================= The $p-(p+4)$ system of branes is a BPS bound state which preserves $1/4$ of the supersymmetries; i.e, we are dealing with a $N=2$ SUSY theory. These $p-(p+4)$ systems are marginally bound. This means that the total energy is the sum of the energies. We are interested in placing D-Instantons in the $AdS_5\times S^5$ space. Therefore, we will construct supergravity solutions of $D(-1)$-branes within a collection of $N$ $D3-$branes in the decouplig limit. The solutions are required to preserve as much as possible the symmetries of this space. The localized solution should correspond to localized instantons in the four dimensional theory. The supergravity background for such a system is represented by the following metric $$\label{1zmetric} ds_{(-1,3)}^2= H_{-1}^{1/2}\left[{1\over z^2}( d\vec x^2+ dz^2)+ d\Omega_5^2 \right],$$ where we have taken off the prefactor which appears in (\[zmetric\]), the $1-$ and $4-$forms $$\begin{array}{rl} F^{(1)}&= dH_{-1}^{-1} \nonumber \\ F^{(4)}&= d({1\over z^4}) (dx_0^2\wedge...\wedge dx_3^2), \label{gsfields} \end{array}$$ and dilaton field $$\label{ddilaton} e^\phi=H_{-1}.$$ In this case the string and the Einstein metric do not coincide $$\label{smet} ds_{string}^2= e^{\phi/2}ds_E$$ and, due to the relation (\[ddilaton\]), the Einstein metric still corresponds to $AdS_5\times S^5$ space. Assuming that the harmonic function $H_{-1}$ depends only on the coordinates of the $D3-$brane world volume $\vec x= (x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3)$ and on $z$, it must satisfy the Laplace equation in the ten-dimensional curved transverse space [[^2]]{} $$\label{l13} \left[ \triangle_{||}+ z^3{\partial \ \over \partial z} {1\over z^3}{\partial \ \over \partial z} \right] H_{-1}(\vec x,z)=0$$ where $\triangle_{||}$ represents the laplacian in the four dimensional space. This condition is invariant under translations in $x_i, n=0,..3$ and under the $SO(4)\times SO(6)$ symmetry group of $SO(1,5)$. However, a conformal transformation that maps the point at infinity to the origin $$\label{ctrans} z\leftrightarrow {z\over z^2+x^2} \ \ \ \ x_i\leftrightarrow {x_i\over z^2+x^2}, \ i=0, ...,3$$ does change the harmonic function leaving invariant the laplacian. Therefore, for a given solution $H_{-1}(\vec x,z)$ of (\[l13\]), its transformed function under (\[ctrans\]), $H_{-1}^t=H_{-1}({x\over z^2 + x^2},{x\over z^2 + x^2})$ is also a solution. Returning to the metric (\[1zmetric\]), it is straight to see that it exhibits this same behaviour; i.e., it is invariant under $SO(4)\times SO(6)$ and only the $H_{-1}^{-1/2}$ prefactor changes under (\[ctrans\]). In the representation of the bulk as the upper space $z>0$ we have been using, the transformation (\[ctrans\]) interchanges the two boundary regions. Now at infinity ($z^t=0$) we have a copy of $R^4$ and the boundary at $z=0$ ($z^t=\rm{infinity}$) is just a point. Then, the compactified space is still $S^4\times S^5$, but the normal vector has flipped. This change of orientation transforms the D-instanton into the anti D-Instanton [@CaMal] and changes the sign of the flux of the $1-$form defined in (\[gsfields\]) on $S^4\times S^5$. It will be clear later when we relate $D(-1)$-branes to Yang-Mills instantons that this operation precisely corresponds to coordinate inversion which sends the pseudoparticle with $q=Q$ into the antiparticle with $q=-Q$ [@JaRe]. Now we will construct specific supergravity solutions for the $D-$Instanton sitting on the $D3$-branes. That means $D(-1)-$brane configuration centered at the $u_0=0$. A solution of (\[l13\]) singular at a point on the boundary at $z=0$ can be shown to be $$\label{sc2} e^{\phi}= { c z^4\over ( (\vec x-\vec x_{(0)})^2+z^2)^4}$$ where the constant $c$ is related to the charge of the $D-$Instanton and $ \vec x_{(0)}$ is the position in $R^4$. Its transformed function under (\[ctrans\]) will give us the solution singular at infinity $$\label{sc1} e^{\phi}= c z^4.$$ Then, the conformal transformation (\[ctrans\]), transforms (\[sc2\]) into (\[sc1\]), leaving invariant the underlying $AdS_5\times S^5$ metric. This fact allows us relate the behaviour of the system at the origin and at infinity. In the string frame (\[smet\]), the configuration consists of two asymptotic $AdS_5\times S^5$ spaces, one at the singularity at the origin and the other at infinity, which are connected by a throat [@GiGrPe][@BerBehr].The space is geodesically complete, so in this sense is not singular. That is analogus to classical instantons in field theories which join two different vacua of the theory. The constant $c$ are related to the electric charge $Q^{-1}$ of the $D-$Instanton. This can be calculated as the flux of the $9-$form, $$\label{dualf} F^{9}= e^{2\phi(x,z)}*dH_{-1}^{-1}(x,z)=-e^{\phi(x,z)}*d\phi(x,z),$$ dual to $F^{1}$, on the $S^4\times S^5$ space $$Q^{-1}= \frac{1}{Vol(\Sigma)Vol(S_5)}\int_{AdS_5\times S^5}*d* d(e^{\phi})$$ $$= {c\over Vol(\Sigma)} \int_x d^4x\int_0^\infty dz\ \partial_z {1\over z^3} \partial_z{ z^4\over(x^2+z^2)^4 }$$ $$= {c\over 4 Vol(\Sigma)}~ \lim_{z\rightarrow 0}\int_x d^4x {1\over z^4} { z^4\over(x^2+z^2)^4 }= {c\over 4}$$ where $\Sigma=\partial AdS_5$. A quantization condition relates the R-R electric charges of $p-$branes to magnetic charges of $(p+6)$-branes[@Nepo][@Tei]. The associated R-R field strength $F^{(9)}$ is nine-dimensional and, therefore, the flux of its dual has to be calculated on the $S^1$ sphere. For this reason its charge is quantized and that gives a quantized charge for the $D(-1)-$brane. In hte following we will take $c=1$ for one $D-$Instanton. And, as a BPS state, for $n$ instantons we will have $c=n$. Due to the linearity of the laplacian in (\[l13\]) the multiinstanton solution will be a superposition of solutions $$\label{sc2m} e^{\phi}= \sum_i{ c_i \ z^4\over ( (\vec x-\vec x^i_{(0)})^2+z^2)^4}$$ as corresponding to a BPS state. At every of these singularities the space will develop a throat. Another set of solutions of (\[l13\]) can be found by factorizing $$H_{-1}(x,z)=F(x)G(z)$$ as a product of two functions. Then, we have $$\label{sc4} e^{\phi}= c {z^4 \over (x^2+ z^2)^4}{ (x^2+ z^2)^2 \over x^2}$$ singular at the origin, and its transformed under (\[ctrans\]) function $$\label{sc3} e^{\phi}= c z^4 {1 \over x^2},$$ singular at the infinity. When gravity decouples from field theory, all the gravitational fields should behave as Green’s functions. Note that these last solutions are more regular on the boundary and they may not be a good description for the dilaton field. Finally, we could also consider supergravity solutions for the $D(-1)$-brane smeared (as opposite to localized) in the $D3$-branes world volume. That can be achieved by integrating the $x_i, ( i=0,...,3)$ coordinates ( using the $AdS_5\times S^5$) metric to obtain $$\label{smso} e^\phi= z^4,$$ but this solution does tell us too much about the structure of the space because the transformation (\[ctrans\]) does not act longer. Field Theory on the branes ========================== We will describe in this section the action on the branes ($AdS_5\times S^5$) to wich the superconformal field theory on the boundary is dual. The bosonic part of the effective low energy field theory for a $D3$-brane brane, in the R-R sector, is given by the Born-Infeld action $$\label{bi} S= \int_{4} \ \ e^{-\phi} \sqrt{ det (G + F)}$$ where $G$ is the metric on the brane world-volume ( which , in static gauge, includes also six scalar fields ) and $F$ is the gauge field strength. From this action is clear the coupling $$\label{cym} C_1= {1\over 4}\int_4 e^{-\phi}F^2.$$ The presence of a $D(-1)$-brane will induces a coupling of the gauge field to the axion field $A^{(0)}$, $F^{(1)}=dA^{(0)} $, which arises from a Chern-Simons term $$\label{csa} C_2=-{1\over 4} \int_4 A^{(0)} F\wedge F.$$ The fact that the instanton number ${1\over 8 \pi^2}\int_4 A^{(0)} F\wedge F$ carries $(p-4)$-brane charge was observed by Witten [@WittenSm] for $5-$ and $9-$branes and as a general result by Douglas [@Douglas]. Then, the presence of a gauge field with non-trivial instanton number is necessary in order to induce the $D(-1)$-brane charge on a $D3$-brane. Moreover, we know that the $D(-1)$-$D3$ system is a BPS marginal configuration and, for correspondence to the properties of such a configuration, we must require the self-duality condition on this field. Therefore, the $D(-1)$-$D3$ action can be described as that of the $D3$-brane with an extra self dual gauge field [@CheTse]. From the relation $F^{(1)}= d e^{-\phi}$ between the gravitational filed strenght and the dilaton, it follows that the couplings in (\[cym\]) and (\[csa\]) are similar. Then, in the limit where the field theory on the brane decouples from the bulk, the properties of self-duality and non trivial instanton number will remain. $D-$Instantons localized on the boundary and small Instantons ============================================================= The $AdS/CFT$ correspondence tells us that in the limit where gravity decouples, the theory on the branes should be dual to the super Yang-Mills theory on the boundary of $AdS_5\times S^5$. Therefore, the system of $D-$Instantons sitting on $D3$-branes should describe $YM$ instantons on the boundary. Here we have a configuration space of Super Yang-Mills gauge fields and, as we have discussed in the preceding section, among them there exist self-dual configuration with non-trivial instanton number; i.e., Yang-Mills instantons. Then, by studing the new gravitational fields introduced by the $D-$Instantons we will try to find out some properties of Yang-Mills instantons. In this sense, both configurations are dual. In the following we will focus on the first set of supergravity solutions (\[sc2\]),(\[sc1\]) and (\[sc2m\]) for one instanton , though some of the arguments could be extended to the second one. We can see that the solution approaches on the boundary to $$\label{sc2b} e^{\phi}= { z^4\over ( (\vec x-\vec x_{(0)})^2+z^2)^4} , \ \ z\rightarrow 0.$$ This kind of singularities in the dilaton have been related to Yang-Mills instanton in the limit of small scale size [@CaHaSt] in the context of heterotic strings. The parameters which describe our D-Instanton solution (\[sc2b\]) on the boundary are its position given by the four coordinates $\vec x_{(0)}$, and the parameter $z$ which can be understood as an $UV$ regularization of the Yang-Mills boundary theory [@SuWit]. Then, we can identify the position of the $D-$Instanton with that of the Yang-Mills instanton on the boundary and the regulator $z$ with the size of the small instanton [@CaHaSt]. Note that we have placed the $D-$Instanton at the point where the collection of $D3-$branes were sitting originally $u_0=0$ and, interpreting $u$ as a scale of energies, that means a point in the IR. So, we can see that, in the holographic spirit, infrared effects in the bulk theory have been reflected as ultraviolet effects on the boundary theory. Following with the identifications, the electric R-R charge carried by the $D-$Instanton which flow through the throat might represent in the dual picture the instanton number. Working on a regulated boundary [@MaldaWil]-[@WitBa] and from $$\begin{aligned} \label{inst} n\sim Q^{-1} \sim \lim_{z\rightarrow 0} \int_x d^4x {1\over z^4} { z^4\over(x^2+z^2)^4 },\end{aligned}$$ where we have ignore constant factors, we obtain $$\label{fins} Tr\{F\wedge F\} \sim {z^4\over(x^2+z^2)^4 }$$ which is the correct expression for Yang-Mills instantons of size $z$. Then, thinking of gauge fiels $A_i$ on $S^3\subset S^4$ we arrive to the known pseudoparticle solution $$\label{ginst} A_i= {z^2x^2\over (x^2+z^2)} g^{-1}\partial_i g,$$ where $g=(x_3-i \vec x\vec \sigma)/(x_ix^i)^{1/2}\ $ is the imbedding of $S^3$ into the group manifold of $SU(2)$. We see that the size of this instanton shrinks to zero as the regulator parameter $z$ goes to zero. We will discuss next the moduli space of $D-$Instantons in order to compare it to that of $SU(2)$ instantons on $S^4$. We have characterized the $D-$Instanton by the harmonic function $H_{-1}(\vec x, z)$ solution of the Laplacian equation (\[l13\]) in $AdS_5\times S^5$ space. The solutions we have found are invariant under rotation $SO(6)$ in $S^5$ and rotations $SO(5)$ in $S^4$, but there exist a $SO(1,5)$ (\[ctrans\]) transformation which transforms it into other. Then, the moduli space of our supergravity solution is $$\label{moduli} {SO(1,5)\over SO(5)} \times { SO(6)\over SO(6)}$$ which coincides with the moduli space of $SU(2)$ instantons on $S^4$ of instanton number one [@JaNoRe]. Let us note that $ AdS_5=SO(1,5)/ SO(5)$. Then, the moduli space of one instanton solution is $AdS_5$ [@WitBa] and coordinates $\vec x, z \ $ in $AdS_5$ are coordinates of instanton moduli space. Therefore, the natural measure on this moduli space is $d\mu=\sqrt{g} dx_0...dx_4 dz$ in $AdS_5$ space. Using the $AdS_5$ metric $$\label{admetric} ds^2={1\over z^2} (dz^2+ d\vec x^2),$$ the measure on the moduli space can be expressed as $$\label{measure} d\mu= {d^4x \ dz\over z^5}$$ which is the well known instanton measure [@Poly]. Let us consider now $M$ $D-$Instantons. The moduli space of instanton with charge $M$ and gauge group $SU(N)$ has different components. Each of this components describes how the $M$ instantons have been placed in the $SU(2)$ factors of $SU(N)$. That seems closely related, in the dual picture of $D-$Instantons, to the way in which the $M$ $D(-1)$-branes have been attached to the $N$ $D3$-branes. Then, as an example, the symmetric component of the moduli space of $M$ instantons would correspond to the $M$ $D(-1)$-branes stuck to different $M$ $D3$-branes (symmetrized). Topological defects in two dimensions ====================================== Let us describe now another system of branes where the presence of $D$-Instantons within leads to topological defects in the $d=2$ gauge field on the boundary. We will consider a collection of $N_5$ $D5$-branes with world volume coordinates $x_i$, $(i=0,1,..,5)$ wrapping on a compact manifold $M_4$ and $N_1$ $D$-strings parallel to the first collection in $x_0,x_1$ coordinates and smeared in the $M_4$ coordinates. All of them are sitting at the point $x_6=x_7=x_8=x_9=0 \ $ of the transverse space. As a BPS bound state, the number of supersymmetries broken by such a state is $1/4$. The exact string background describing this configuration is represented by the conformal sigma-model with the following metric $$\label{met15} \begin{array}{rl} ds^2= &(H_1H_5)^{-1/2}(dx_0^2+dx_1^2)+H_1^{1/2}H_5^{-1/2}(dx_2^2+...+dx_5^2) \\ \nonumber + & (H_1H_5)^{1/2}(dx_6^2+...+dx_9^2) \end{array}$$ where the harmonic functions $H_1$ and $H_5$, depending only on the transverse radial coordinate $r=\sqrt{x_6^2+...+x_9^2}$, are $$\label{hh15} H_1= 1+ {g\alpha^\prime N_1\over v r^2}, \ \ \ \ H_5= 1+ {g\alpha^\prime N_5\over r^2},$$ non-trivial seven and three strength field forms (\[fp1\]) and dilaton field $$\label{d15} e^{2 \phi}= H_1/H_5 .$$ In the decoupling limit [@Malda] $$\label{de15} \alpha^\prime\rightarrow 0, \ \ \ u= {r\over \alpha^\prime}={\rm fixed}, \ \ \ v= {V_4\over(2\pi)^4 \alpha^{\prime 2}}={\rm fixed}, \ \ \ g_6={g\over \sqrt{v}}$$ with $V_4$ being the $M_4$ volume, we find the low energy metric $$\begin{array}{rl} \label{lmet15} ds^2= \alpha^\prime g_6 \sqrt{N_1N_5} [ & u^2 (dx_0^2+dx_1^2)+{du^2\over u^2}+ d\Omega_3^2 \\ \nonumber + & \beta(N_1,N_5)(dx_2^2+...+dx_5^2)], \end{array}$$ where we have used the rescaling of section 2 with $\lambda^4= g_6^2 N_1 N_5 \ $, $d\Omega_3^2$ is the metric in the unit three sphere and $\beta(N_1,N_5) = (\alpha^\prime g_6 N_5 v^{1/2})^{-1}$. This metric describes the $AdS_3 \times S^3 \times M_4$ space, where the $M_4$ factor is a compact hiperkäler manifold ( $T^4$ or $K^3$ ) depending on the charges of the branes. Note that in this limit the dilaton field is a constant $e^{2\phi}=N_1/(N_5 v)$. Any of our further results will not depend on the moduli space $M_4$ or on constant factors of (\[lmet15\]), then we will consider the seven dimensional metric, wich in terms of the inverse variable $z=1/u$ reads $$\label{lzmet15} ds^2= \left[ {1\over z^2} (dx_0^2+dx_1^2+ dz^2)+ d\Omega_3^2 \right] .$$ In this representation, the $AdS_3\times S^3$ space is the upper space $z>0$, its supersymmetric group is $SO(1,3)\times SO(4)$ and the conformal compactified boundary consist of the plane $R^2$ at $z=0$ and a point at infinity. The AdS/CFT picture tell us that the type $IIB$ string theory on $AdS_3\times S^3$ in the limit of large $N$ is dual to the $N=2$ superconformal Yang-Mills theory on the boundary. Now, as in section 3, we can add $D$-Instantons to the system of branes. This new collection of branes breaks $1/2$ of the supersymmetries. In this case the $p-(p+2)$ BPS system of branes is truly bound. The supergravity solution for the system is $$\label{15zmetric} ds^2= H_{-1}^{1/2}\left[{1\over z^2}( dx_0^2+ dx_1^2+ dz^2)+ d\Omega_3^2 \right],$$ with $ H_{-1}$ satisfying the laplace condiction $$\label{l15} \left[ \triangle_{||}+ z{\partial \ \over \partial z} {1\over z}{\partial \ \over \partial z} \right] H_{-1}(\vec x,z)=0,$$ where $\triangle_{||}$ represents the laplacian in the plane. We have also the $F^{(1)}$ strength given in (\[gsfields\]) and the dilaton field of (\[ddilaton\]) which leaves the metric in the Einstein frame invariant. Following the arguments of section 3, we find the solution $$\label{h15} e^{\phi}= c {z^2\over ((\vec x-\vec x_{(0)})^2+ z^2)^2},$$ invariant under $SO(3)\times SO(4)$. Its transformed function under (\[ctrans\]) is the solution singular at infinity $$\label{h15i} e^{\phi}= c z^2.$$ In this case, the $D-$Instanton connects two $AdS_3\times S^3$ spaces by a throat located at $(\vec x_{(0)}, z=0 )$ and at infinity. The charge which flows through the throat is given by $$Q^{-1}= {1\over Vol(\Sigma)Vol(S_3)}\int_{AdS_3\times S^3}*d* d(e^{\phi})$$ $$= {c\over Vol(\Sigma)} \int_x d^2x\int_0^\infty dz\ \partial_z {1\over z} \partial_z{ z^2\over(x^2+z^2)^2 }$$ $$= {c\over 2 Vol(\Sigma)} ~\lim_{z\rightarrow 0}\int_x d^2x {1\over z^2} { z^2\over(x^2+z^2)^2 }= {c\over 2}.$$ With regard to the field theory on the branes, the presence of $D(-1)$-branes induces a non trivial monopole (or two dimensional instanton) number $$-{1\over 2}\int_2 A^{(0)} F$$ which couples to the axion field. Now, after having described the supergravity solution, we are able to repeat the discussion of section 5 in order to indentify the solution on the boundary $$\label{sc2b2} e^{\phi}= { z^2\over ( (\vec x-\vec x_{(0)})^2+z^2)^2} , \ \ z\rightarrow 0.$$ with two dimensional gauge instantons [[^3]]{}. Here we find again the same kind of singularities in the dilaton field related to small instantons. The parameter $z$ plays the role of an $UV$ regulator for the instanton size. This is another example of the $IR$-$UV$ connection. The infrared regulator $1/z_0=u_0=0$ we have used to place the $D(-1)$-brane in the bulk has been translated to an $UV$ regulator on the boundary. The correct expression for the two dimensional instantons can be obtained from the identification of the monopole number with the charge of the $D-$Instanton $$\label{mon} \int_x d^2 x \ F \sim \lim_{z\rightarrow 0}\int_x d^2 x \ {1\over z^2}{z^2\over (x^2+z^2)^2}$$ which leads to the two dimensional gauge field solution $$\label{gmon} A_{\bar w}= { z^2 \vert w\vert^2 \over (\vert w\vert^2 + z^2)^2} g^{-1}\partial_{\bar w} g ,\ \ \ A_w= -\bar{ A_{\bar w}},$$ $w, \bar w$ being complex coordinates on the plane and $$\nonumber g={1\over 1+ \vert w\vert^2} \left( \begin{array}{cc} 1 & -w \\ \bar w & 1 \end{array} \right)$$ the embedding of the plane into the group manifold of $SU(2)$. Finally, we observe that the moduli space of one $D$-Instanton in $AdS_3\times S^3$, characterized by the harmonic function $H_{-1}$, $$\label{modmo} {SO(1,3)\over SO(3)}\times {SO(4)\over SO(4)}$$ agrees with that of the two dimensional instantons on $S^2$ of $\ 2d\ $ instanton number one. Again, the coordinates of the $AdS$ space $AdS_3= SO(1,3)/SO(3)$ are the coordinates of the instanton moduli space. Then, from the $AdS_3$ metric $$\label{admetric3} ds^2={1\over z^2} (dz^2+ d\vec x_0^2+ dx_1^2),$$ we obtain the measure on the instanton moduli space $$\label{measure3} d\mu= {d^2x \ dz\over z^3}.$$ It is easy to see that this measure is a right $\ 2d$ instanton measure by analizing the simplest example of instanton in $CP( O(3))$ model [@Poly]. This instanton is given by analytic functions ${z-a\over z-b}$ and its moduli space by the two complex coordinates $a$ and $b$. The one-instanton contribution is required to be dimensionless and, by translation invariance, to depend on $\vert a-b\vert $. Therefore, it must be $$\label{meas} d\mu={ d^2 a d^2 b\over\vert a-b\vert^4}= {d^2x \ d\rho \over \rho^3}$$ and, as $ \rho= \vert a-b\vert$ in this model is the size of instanton $z$, this measure coincides with (\[measure3\]). In case we consider $M$ instantons the components of the moduli space of the $2d$ instantons might be related to the different $D(-1)-D1$ bound states. Conclusion ========== In this paper we have analized the effects of $D$-Instantons on the boundary of $AdS$ spaces. Though they hardly change the properties of the space, throats joining diferent vacua are developped in their presence. It has been also remarked that the existence of $D-$Instantons does not disturb the metric in the Einstein frame. As predicted by the AdS/CFT correspondence, we have shown that these $D$-Instantons behave as Yang-Mills instantons, in case of $D3$-branes, and $2d$ instantons, in case of $(D1-D5)$-branes, in the dual pinture on the boundary and we have given exact expressions for the corresponding gauge instantons in four and two dimensions. We have also studied the moduli space of the supergravity solutions finding a total correspondence to the moduli space of gauge instantons in the case of instanton number one and we have shown that the natural measure on $AdS$ spaces is exactly the measure of the partition function in instantonic backgrounds. We have also discussed possible conjectures about the multiinstanton measure. It would be interesting to go further on this subject. In particular, a better understanding of the moduli space of $M$ $D-$Instantons and its correspondence to the $ADHM$ description of Yang-Mills instantons. Another direction for future research could be the calculation of expectation values in instantonic brackgrounds by using branes technology. Acknowledgements ================ We would like to thank E. Rabinovici for useful conversations about branes. The work of G.L. is supported by the spanish $FPU$ programme under grant $FP9717442117$. [99]{} J. Polchinski, hep-th/9611050. G. Gibbons, Nucl. Phys. [**B207**]{}(1982); R. Kallosh and A. Peet, Phys. Rev. [**D46**]{}(1992) 5223; S. Ferrara, G. Gibbons and R. Kallosh, Nucl. Phys. [**B500**]{}(1997); G. Gibbons and P. Townsend, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{} (1993) 5223. I.R. Klebanov, Nucl. Phys. [**B496**]{}(1997) 231; S.S. Gubser, I.R. Klebanov and A. A. Tseytlin, Nucl. Phys. [**B499**]{}(1997) 217; S.S. Gubser and I.R. Klebanov, Phys. Lett. [**B413**]{}(1997) 41. J. Maldacena, hep-th/9711200. S.S. Gubser, I.R. Klebanov and A.M. Polyakov, hep-th 9802109. E. Witten, hep-th/9802150. J. Maldacena, hep-th/9803002. S.J. Rey and J. Yee, hep-th/9803001. E. Witten, hep-th/9805112. D.J. Gross and H. Ooguri, hep-th/9805129. G. Papadopoulos and P. Townsend, Phys. Lett. [**B380**]{}(1996) 273; A.A. Tseytlin, Nucl. Phys. [**B475**]{}(1996) 149; A.A. Tseytlin, Class. Quant. Grav. [**14**]{}(1997) 2085. N. Itzhaki, A.A. Tseytlin and S. Yankielowicz, hep-th/9803103. C.S. Chu, P.M. Ho and Y.Y. Wu, hep-th/9806103. G. Horowitz and A. Strominger, Nucl. Phys. [**B360**]{}(1991) 197. E. Bergshoeff and M. de Roo, Phys. Lett. [**B380**]{}(1996) 265. R. Haag, J. Lopuszanski and M. Sohnius, Nucl. Phys. [**B88**]{}(1985) 257. C.G. Callan and J. Maldacena, hep-th/9708147. R. Jackiw and C. Rebbi, Phys. Rew. [**D14**]{}(1976) 517. G.W. Gibbons, M.B. Green and M.J. Perry, Phys. Lett. [**370B**]{}(1996) 37. E. Bergshoeff and K. Behrndt, hep-th/9803090. L. Susskind and E. Witten, hep-th/9805114. C. G. Callan, J. Harvey and A. Strominger, Nucl. Phys. [**367**]{}(1991) 60 A.M. Polyakov in [*[ Gauge Fields and Strings]{}*]{}, Harwood Academic Publisher, 1987. R.I. Nepomechie, Phys. Rev. [**D31**]{}(1985) 1921. C. Teitelboim, Phys. Lett. [**B167**]{}(1986) 63; Phys. Lett. [**167B**]{}(1986) 69. M.R. Douglas, hep-th/9512077. E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. [**B460**]{}(1996) 541. I. Chepelev and A.A. Tseytlin, hep-th/9704127. R. Jackiw, C. Nohl and C. Rebbi, Phys. Rew. [**D**]{} 1642. G. Horowitz, J. Maldacena and A. Strominger, Phys. Lett. [**B383**]{}(1996) 151. V.A. Novikov, M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein and V.I. Zakharov , Phys. Rep. [**116**]{}( 1984) 103. [^1]: That corresponds to the fact that the theory on $D3$-branes is conformal. [^2]: This condition preserves the flatness of the space. [^3]: A detailed discussion about gauge field description of $2d$ instantons can be found in Polyakov’s book [@Poly] or in NSVZ’s review [@NSVZ].

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We investigate the problem of learning a topic model – the well-known Latent Dirichlet Allocation – in a distributed manner, using a cluster of C processors and dividing the corpus to be learned equally among them. We propose a simple approximated method that can be tuned, trading speed for accuracy according to the task at hand. Our approach is asynchronous, and therefore suitable for clusters of heterogenous machines.' author: - 'James Petterson, Tibério Caetano[^1]' title: Scalable Inference for Latent Dirichlet Allocation --- Introduction ============ Very large datasets are becoming increasingly common – from specific collections, such as Reuters and PubMed, to very broad and large ones, such as the images and metadata of sites like Flickr, scanned books of sites like Google Books and the whole internet content itself. Topic models, such as Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA), have proved to be a useful tool to model such collections, but suffer from scalability limitations. Even though there has been some recent advances in speeding up inference for such models, this still remains a fundamental open problem. Latent Dirichlet Allocation =========================== Before introducing our method we briefly describe the Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) topic model [@BleNgJor03]. In LDA (see Figure \[fig:lda\]), each document is modeled as a mixture over $K$ topics, and each topic has a multinomial distribution $\beta_k$ over a vocabulary of $V$ words (please refer to table \[tab:notation\] for a summary of the notation used throughout this paper). For a given document $m$ we first draw a topic distribution $\theta_{m}$ from a Dirichlet distribution parametrized by $\alpha$. Then, for each word $n$ in the document we draw a topic $z_{m,n}$ from a multinomial distribution with parameter $\theta_{m}$. Finally, we draw the word $n$ from the multinomial distribution parametrized by $\beta_{z_{m,n}}$. ![ LDA model. []{data-label="fig:lda"}](eps/lda){width="80.00000%"} variable description ------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- $D_{train}$ training document corpus $D_{test}$ testing document corpus $K$ number of topics $M$ number of documents $N_m$ number of words in document m $V$ dictionary size $C$ number of CPUs $\alpha$ Dirichlet prior for $\theta$ (hyperparameter) $\eta$ Dirichlet prior for $\beta$ (hyperparameter) $\theta$ distribution of topics per document $\beta$ distribution of topics per word $z_{m,n}$ topic $(1..K)$ of word $n$ of document $m$ $w_{m,n}$ term index $(1..V)$ of word $n$ of document $m$ $n_{k,v}$ number of times the term $v$ has been observed with topic $k$ $n_{k,v}^l$ local modifications to $n_{k,v}$ $n_k$ number of times topic $k$ has been observed in all documents $n_{m,k}$ number of times topic $k$ has been observed in a word of document $m$ $n_m$ number of words in document $m$ : Notation[]{data-label="tab:notation"} Inference in LDA ---------------- Many inference algorithms for LDA have been proposed, such as variational Bayesian (VB) inference [@BleNgJor03], expectation propagation (EP) [@MinLaf02], collapsed Gibbs sampling [@GriSte04; @Hei04] and collapsed variational Bayesian (CVB) inference [@TehNewWel06]. In this paper we will focus on collapsed Gibbs sampling. Collapsed Gibbs sampling ------------------------ Collapsed Gibbs sampling is an MCMC method that works by iterating over each of the latent topic variables $z_1$, ..., $z_n$, sampling each $z_i$ from $P(z_i | z_{\neg i})$. This is done by integrating out the other latent variables ($\theta$ and $\beta$). We are not going to dwell on the details here, since this has already been well explained in [@GriSte04; @Hei04], but in essence what we need to do is to sample from this distribution: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:z_sampling} p(z_i=k | z_{\neg i}, w) & \propto \frac { \left( n_{k,v,\neg i} + \eta \right) }{ \sum_{v=1}^V \left( n_{k,v,\neg i} + \eta \right) } \left( n_{m,k,\neg i} + \alpha \right)\\ & \propto \frac { \left( n_{k,v,\neg i} + \eta \right) }{ \left( n_{k,\neg i} + V \eta \right) } \left( n_{m,k,\neg i} + \alpha \right)\end{aligned}$$ In simple terms, to sample the topic of a word of a document given all the other words and topics we need, for each $k$ in $\{1,\dots,K\}$: 1. $n_{k,v,\neg i}$: the total number of times the word’s term has been observed with topic $k$ (excluding the word we are sampling for). 2. $n_{k, \neg i}$: the total number of times topic $k$ has been observed in all documents (excluding the word we are sampling for). 3. $n_{m,k,\neg i}$: the number of times topic $k$ has been observed in a word of this document (excluding the word we are sampling for). Related work ============ There has been research in different approaches to increase the efficiency and/or scalability of LDA. We are going to discuss them next. Faster sampling --------------- The usual approach to draw samples of $z$ using is to compute a normalization constant $Z = \sum_{k=1}^K p(z_i=k | z_{\neg i}, w)$ to obtain a probabily distribution that can be sampled from: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:z_sampling_norm} p(z_{i=k} | z_{\neg i}, w) = \frac{1}{Z} \frac { \left( n_{k,v,\neg i} + \eta \right) }{ \left( n_{k,\neg i} + V \eta \right) } \left( n_{m,k,\neg i} + \alpha \right)\end{aligned}$$ This leads to a complexity for each iteration of standard Gibbs sampling of $O(N_T K)$, where $N_T$ is the total number of words in the corpus, and $K$ is the number of topics. [@PorNewIhlAsuetal08] proposed a way to avoid computing for each $K$ by getting an upper bound on $Z$ using Holder’s inequality and computing for the most probable topics first, leading to a speed up of up to 8x of the sampling process. [@YaoMimMcc09] broke in three components and took leverage on the resulting sparsity in $k$ of some of them – that, combined with an efficient storage scheme led to a speed up of the order of 20x. Parallelism ----------- A complementary approach for scalability is to share the processing among several CPUs/cores, in the same computer (multi core) or in different computers (clusters). ### Fine grained parallelism In most CPU architectures the cost incurred in creating *threads*/*processes* and synchronizing data among them can be very significant, making it infeasible to share a task in a fine-grained manner. One exception, however, are Graphics Processing Units (GPUs). Since they were originally designed to parallelize jobs in the pixel level, they are well suited for fine-grained parallelization tasks. [@MasHamShiOgu09] proposed to use GPUs to parallelize the sampling at the topic level. Although their work was with collapsed variational Bayesian (CVB) inference [@TehNewWel06], it could probably be extended to collapsed Gibbs sampling. It’s interesting to note that this kind of parallelization is complementary to the document-level one (see next section), so both can be applied in conjunction. ### Coarse grained parallelism Most of the work on parallelism has been on the document level – each CPU/core is responsible for a set of documents. Looking at equation it can be seen that in the right hand side we have a document specific variable ($n_{m,k}$). Only $n_{k,v}$ (and its sum, $n_k$), on the left hand side, is shared among all documents. Using this fact, [@NewAsuSmyWel07] proposed to simply compute a subset of the documents in each CPU, synchronizing the global counts ($n_{k,v}$) at the end of each step. This is an approximation, since we are no longer sampling from the true distribution, but from a noisy version of it. They showed, however, that it works well in practice. They also proposed a more principled way of sharing the task using a hierarchical model and, even though that was more costly, the results were similar. [@AsuSmyWel08] proposed a similar idea, but with an asynchronous model, where there is no global synchronization step (as there is in [@NewAsuSmyWel07]). Our method ========== We follow [@AsuSmyWel08] and work in a coarse-grained asynchronous parallelism, dividing the task at the document level. For simplicity, we split the $M$ documents among the $C$ CPUs equally, so that each CPU receives $\frac{M}{C}$ documents[^2]. We then proceed in the usual manner, with each CPU running the standard Gibbs sampling in its set of documents. Each CPU, however, keeps a copy of all its modifications to $n_{k,v}$ and, at the end of each iteration, stores them in a file in a shared filesystem. Right after that, it reads all modifications stored by other CPUs and incorporates them to its $n_{k,v}$. This works in an asynchronous manner, with each CPU saving its modifications and reading other CPU’s modifications at the end of each iteration. The algorithm is detailed in \[alg:simple\]. $\alpha$, $\eta$, $K$, $D_{train}$, $C$, $num\_iter$ Randomly initialize $z_{m,n}$, updating $n_{k,v}$ and $n_{k,v}^l$ accordingly. Save $n_{k,v}^l$ to a file Run collapsed Gibbs sampling, updating $z_{m,n}$, $n_{k,v}$ and $n_{k,v}^l$ Save $n_{k,v}^l$ to a file Load modifications to $n_{k,v}$ from other CPUs \[alg:simple\] We first note that, in this simple algorithm, the complexity of the sampling step is $O(N_c K)$ (whre $N_c$ is the number of words being processed in CPU $c$), while the synchronization part takes $O(C K V)$ (we save a $K$x$V$ matrix once and load it $C-1$ times). Plugging in the following values, based on a standard large scale task: - $K$ = $500$ topics - $C$ = $100$ CPUs - $N_c$ = $10^7$ words - $V$ = $10^5$ terms we get similar values for the sampling and the synchronization steps. That, however, doesn’t take into account the constants. In our experiments, with these parameters a sampling step will take approximately 500 seconds, while the synchronization will take around 20,000 seconds (assuming a 1Gbit/s ethernet connection shared among all CPUs). The bottleneck is clearly in the synchronization step. We propose, therefore, a variation of the first algorithm. When saving the modifications at the end of an iteration, only save those that are *relevant* – more formally, save (in a sparse format) only those items of $n_{k,v}^l$ for which $$\begin{aligned} \frac{n_{k,v}^l}{n_{k,v}} > threshold\end{aligned}$$ where $threshold$ is a parameter that can range from 0 to 1. The algorithm is detailed in \[alg:sparse\]. Note that setting $threshold$ to zero recovers Algorithm \[alg:simple\]. $\alpha$, $\eta$, $K$, $D_{train}$, $C$, $num\_iter$ Randomly initialize $z_{m,n}$, updating $n_{k,v}$ and $n_{k,v}^l$ accordingly. Save $n_{k,v}^l$ to a file Run collapsed Gibbs sampling, updating $z_{m,n}$, $n_{k,v}$ and $n_{k,v}^l$ Save $n_{k,v}^l$ if $\frac{n_{k,v}^l}{n_{k,v}} > threshold$ Load modifications to $n_{k,v}$ from other CPUs \[alg:sparse\] Experiments =========== Datasets -------- We ran our experiments in three datasets: NIPS full papers (books.nips.cc), Enron emails (www.cs.cmu.edu/$\sim$enron) and KOS (dailykos.com)[^3]. Each dataset was split in 90% for training and 10% for testing. Details on the parameters of the datasets are shown in table \[tab:datasets\]. All experiments were ran in a cluster of 11 machines, each one with a dual-core AMD64 2.4 GHz CPU and 8 Gb of RAM (22 CPUs total). All machines share a network file system over an 1GB Ethernet network. NIPS Enron KOS ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- --------- number of documents in $D_{train}$ 1350 35,874 3,087 number of documents in $D_{test}$ 150 3,987 343 total number of words 1,932,364 6,412,171 467,713 vocabulary size $V$ 12,419 28,102 6,906 : Parameters of the three datasets used.[]{data-label="tab:datasets"} We used a fixed set of LDA parameters: $K=50$ (unless otherwise noticed), $\alpha=0.1$, $\eta=0.01$ and 1500 iterations of the Gibbs sampler. To compare the quality of different approximations we computed the *perplexity* of a held-out test set. The perplexity is commonly used in language modeling: it is equivalent to the inverse of the geometric mean per-word likelihood. Formally, given a test set of $M_{test}$ documents: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:perplexity} perplexity(D_{test}) = exp \left\{ -\frac{\sum_{m=1}^{M_{test}} \sum_{n=1}^{N_m} log~p(w_{m,n})}{\sum_{m=1}^{M_{test}} N_m} \right\}\end{aligned}$$ Results ------- In figure \[fig:ttp\_threshold\] we compare running time and perplexity for different values of $threshold$ and different number of CPUs. We can see that as we increase $threshold$ we can significantly reduce training time, with just a small impact on the quality of the approximation, measured by the *perplexity* computed on a held-out test set. We can also see that, as expected, the training time reduction becomes more significant as we increasing the amount of information that has to be shared, by adding more CPUs to the task. {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} In figure \[fig:sync\_threshold\] we show the proportion of time spent in synchronization at each iteration when training the LDA model with different numbers of CPUs. By increasing $threshold$ we can substantially decrease synchronization time. As expected, as the number of CPUs increase synchronization starts to dominate over processing time. {width="50.00000%" height="0.4\textheight"} {width="50.00000%" height="0.4\textheight"} {width="50.00000%" height="0.4\textheight"} {width="50.00000%" height="0.4\textheight"} {width="50.00000%" height="0.4\textheight"} {width="50.00000%" height="0.4\textheight"} {width="50.00000%" height="0.4\textheight"} {width="50.00000%" height="0.4\textheight"} {width="50.00000%" height="0.4\textheight"} In figure \[fig:saved\_threshold\] we show the amount of information saved at each step for different values of $threshold$. We see that in the first few iterations the savings obtained by Algorithm \[alg:sparse\] are small, since almost all modifications are *relevant*, but as the model converges the amount of *relevant* information stabilizes at a lower level. We can also see that as we add more CPUs the savings become more prominent – this is expected, since then modifications of a single CPU tend to be less relevant as it becomes responsible for a smaller proportion of the corpus. {width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"} In figure \[fig:speed\_threshold\] we plot the speed-up obtained for different number of CPUs with different values of $threshold$. We see that the simple sharing method (Algorithm \[alg:simple\]), which corresponds to $threshold=0$, fails to get a significant improvement, except for small clusters of 4 CPUs. With sparse sharing ($threshold > 0$), however, we can get speed-ups of more than 7x for 8 CPUs, and more than 12x for 16 CPUs. This can also be seen in figure \[fig:speed\_cpu\], where we plot the speed-up for different number of CPUs for both algorithms. We would like to note that the datasets used are relatively small, as are the number of topics ($k=50$), leading to tasks that are not well suited for parallelization with a large number of CPUs. The purpose of these experiments was simply to measure the effects of the approximation proposed in Algorithm \[alg:sparse\] – for greater speed-ups when working with hundreds of CPUs a larger dataset or number of topics would be required. As an example we ran experiments with $k=500$, and as can be seen in figure \[fig:speed\_cpu2\], we can get speed-ups closer to the theoretical limit. {width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"} {width="60.00000%"} {width="60.00000%"} {width="60.00000%"} {width="60.00000%"} To get some perspective on the significance of the approximations being used, in figure \[fig:comp\_varational\] we compare our results to a variational Bayes inference implementation. We used the code from [@BleNgJor03][^4], with its default parameters, and $\alpha$ fixed to $0.1$, as in the Gibbs experiments. As can be seen, not only the Gibbs sampler is substantially faster, its perplexity results are better, even with all the approximations. {width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"} Conclusion and Discussion ========================= We proposed a simple method to reduce the amount of time spent in synchronization in a distributed implementation of LDA. We present empirical results showing a reasonable speed-up improvement, at the cost of a small reduction in the quality of the learned model. The method is tunable, allowing a trade off between speed and accuracy, and is completely asynchronous. Source code is available at the first authors’ web page.[^5] As future work we plan to look for more efficient ways of sharing information among CPUs, while also applying the method to larger datasets, where we expect to see more significative speed-up improvements. [^1]: NICTA’s Statistical Machine Learning program, Locked Bag 8001, ACT 2601, Australia, and Research School of Information Sciences and Engineering, Australian National University, ACT 0200, Australia. NICTA is funded by the Australian Government’Õs Backing Australia’Õs Ability initiative, and the Australian Research CouncilÕ’s ICT Centre of Excellence program. e-mails: `[email protected]` [^2]: This is not strictly necessary: when working with a cluster of heterogeneous CPUs it might be more interesting to split proportionally to the processing power of each CPU. [^3]: We used the preprocessed datasets available at <http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/Bag+of+Words>. [^4]: [http://www.cs.princeton.edu/$\sim$blei/lda-c/index.html](http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~blei/lda-c/index.html) [^5]: [http://users.rsise.anu.edu.au/$\sim$jpetterson/](http://users.rsise.anu.edu.au/~jpetterson/)

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'The property of balance (in the sense of Feder and Mihail) is investigated in the context of paving matroids. The following examples are exhibited: (a) a class of “sparse” paving matroids that are balanced, but at the same time rich enough combinatorially to permit the encoding of hard counting problems; and (b) a paving matroid that is not balanced. The computational significance of (a) is the following. As a consequence of balance, there is an efficient algorithm for approximating the number of bases of a sparse paving matroid within specified relative error. On the other hand, determining the number of bases exactly is likely to be computationally intractable.' author: - | Mark Jerrum[^1]\ School of Informatics\ University of Edinburgh bibliography: - 'paving.bib' title: | **Two remarks\ concerning balanced matroids** --- Discussion ========== Let $E$ be a finite ground set and $\calB\subseteq2^E$ a collection of subsets of $E$. We say that $\calB$ forms the collection of [*bases*]{} of a [*matroid*]{} $M=(E,\calB)$ if the following two conditions hold: 1. All bases (sets in $\calB$) have the same size $r$, namely the [*rank*]{} of $M$. 2. For every pair of bases $X,Y\in\calB$ and every element $e\in X$, there exists an element $f\in Y$ such that $X\cup\{f\}\setminus\{e\}\in\calB$. Several other equivalent axiomatisations of matroid are possible, but the above choice turns out to be the most appropriate for our needs. For other possible axiomatisations, and more on matroid theory generally, consult Oxley [@Oxley] or Welsh [@Welsh]. The above axioms for a matroid capture the notion of linear independence. Thus if $S=\{u_0,\ldots,u_{m-1}\}$ is a set of $n$-vectors over a field $K$, then the maximal linearly independent subsets of $S$ form the bases of a matroid with ground set $S$. The bases in this instance have size equal to the dimension of the vector space spanned by $S$, and they clearly satisfy the second or “exchange” axiom. A matroid that arises in this way is [*vectorial*]{}, and is said to be [*representable over $K$*]{}. A matroid that is representable over every field is said to be [*regular*]{}. An important combinatorial example is provided by the collection of all spanning trees in an undirected graph $H$: these form the bases of a matroid, the [*cycle matroid of $G$*]{}, with ground set $E(H)$, the edge set of $H$. A matroid that arises as the cycle matroid of some graph is called [*graphic*]{}. Graphic matroids form a proper subclass of regular matroids. The matroid axioms given above suggest a natural walk on the set of bases of a matroid $M$. The [*bases-exchange graph*]{} $G(M)$ of a matroid $M$ has vertex set $\calB=\calB(M)$ and edge set $$\big\{\{X,Y\}:X,Y\in\calB\hbox{ and }|X\oplus Y|=2\big\},$$ where $\oplus$ denotes symmetric difference. Note that the edges of the bases-exchange graph $G(M)$ correspond to the transformations guaranteed by the exchange axiom. Indeed, it is straightforward to check, using the exchange axiom, that the graph $G(M)$ is always connected. By simulating a random walk on $G(M)$ it is possible, in principle, to sample a basis almost uniformly at random (u.a.r.) from $\calB(M)$. We’ll return to this idea presently. An intriguing feature of the bases-exchange graph is that it appears to have very high “edge expansion”. For any matroid $M=(E,\calB)$, define the [*edge expansion*]{} of its bases-exchange graph to be $$\alpha=\alpha(M)\defeq \min\big\{|\mathrm{cut}(\calA)|/|\calA|: \emptyset\subset\calA\subset\calB\text{ and }|\calA|\leq\tfrac12|\calB|\big\},$$ where $\mathrm{cut}(\calA)$ denotes the cut defined by $\calA$, i.e., the set of edges in $E$ with one endpoint in $\calA$ and one in $\calB\setminus\calA$. Whenever it has been possible to compute the edge expansion of the bases-exchange graph of a matroid $M$, it has been found that $\alpha(M)\geq1$. The conjecture that $\alpha(M)\geq1$ for all matroids is a special case of an even stronger one, called the “zero-one polytope conjecture” of Mihail and Vazirani [@Mihail; @Kaibel]. The circumstantial evidence in favour of the conjecture, even in its restricted matroid version, is far from overwhelming. Our ignorance concerning the edge expansion of matroids in general is almost total: it is perfectly possible that a sequence of matroids exists for which $\alpha(M)$ decays exponentially fast as a function of the size $|E|$ of the ground set. Nevertheless there is an interesting class of matroids $M$, the “balanced” matroids, for which the lower bound $\alpha(M)\geq1$ has been established. The definition of balanced matroid (given below) is due to Feder and Mihail [@FM], as is the proof that balance implies expansion. Aside from its intrinsic appeal, the expansion conjecture for matroids (and even more so the zero-one polytope conjecture) has important algorithmic consequences, which arise from the following considerations. Suppose we simulate an unbiased random walk on the bases-exchange graph $G(M)$, with uniform transition probabilities (which could be taken as $1/rm$, where $m=|E|$ is the size of the ground set and $r$ the rank). The walk is ergodic and converges to a stationary distribution on bases which is uniform. It is possible, in principle, to use the walk to sample a basis (almost) u.a.r. from $\calB(M)$. From there it is a short step (see, e.g., [@ETH §3.2] for the general principle) to estimating the number $|\calB(M)|$ of bases within arbitrarily small relative error. The efficiency of this approach depends crucially on the “mixing time” (number of steps to convergence to near-stationarity) of the random walk. As far as we know, this mixing time could be exponential in $m$. However, the mixing time is short whenever $\alpha(M)\geq1$ (or something somewhat weaker) holds. For example, in the case of balanced matroids, the mixing time is known to be $O(rm\log r)$:[^2] see Jerrum and Son [@JS], which improves quantitatively on Feder and Mihail [@FM]. The standard examples of balanced matroids are regular matroids, which were shown to be balanced by Feder and Mihail [@FM], and uniform matroids, which are trivially balanced. (The bases of the uniform matroid of rank $r$ on $E$ are all $r$-element subsets of $E$.) From an algorithmic point of view, this is unfortunate, since the bases of a regular matroid may be counted exactly via linear algebra, and the number of bases of a uniform matroid is trivially $\binom{m}{r}$. (It can be shown that the bases of a regular matroid are in 1-1 correspondence with the non-singular $r\times r$ submatrices of an $r\times m$ unimodular matrix, and that the number of these can be computed using the Binet-Cauchy formula. Refer to Dyer and Frieze [@DyerFrieze §3.1] for a discussion of this topic.) The first observation in this paper is that paving matroids from a certain class, which will be called “sparse”, are all balanced. (Definitions of “paving matroid”, and “sparse paving matroid” will be given in §\[sec:balanced\].) The class of sparse paving matroids is combinatorially rich and it is easy to express one’s favourite computationally hard counting problem in terms of counting the bases of a sparse paving matroid. This shows that balance is a concept that is not entirely devoid of algorithmic interest: specifically, there exists a class of matroids $M$ for which (a) exact calculation of $|\calB(M)|$ is as hard as counting satisfying assignments to a Boolean formula, and hence is almost certainly computationally intractable, whereas (b) $|\calB(M)|$ may be approximated within arbitrarily small relative error in polynomial time by simulating random walks on bases-exchange graphs.[^3] The second observation resolves an obvious question raised by the first: namely, are all paving matroids balanced? It transpires that the answer is no, but the construction of a counterexample requires non-trivial effort. The counterexample is based on the Steiner system $S(5,8,24)$. Welsh [@Welsh §12.6] has noted the special position that this Steiner system holds in the theory of matroids. A closing historical remark. Dirk Vertigan (personal communication) has described a class of balanced matroids, unrelated to paving matroids, whose bases are hard to count in the sense we have in mind in this note (and which will be clarified in §\[sec:hard\]). His result was presented during the DIMACS Special Year on Graph Theory and Algorithms (1991–2), but was never published. Aside from applying to a different class of matroids, his construction was apparently more complicated than the one given here. So even if the result is not completely new, it seems worthwhile to record it here. A class of balanced paving matroids {#sec:balanced} =================================== Suppose $M=(E,\calB)$ is a matroid of rank $r$. A subset of $E$ is called an [*independent set*]{} if it a subset of some basis in $\calB$. A subset of $E$ that is not an independent set is a [*dependent set*]{}. A minimal (with respect to set inclusion) dependent set is a [*circuit*]{}. The matroid $M$ is said to be [*paving*]{} if all $(r-1)$-element subsets of $E$ are independent sets. Alternatively, one could say that all circuits of $M$ are of size either $r$ or $r+1$. Every $r$-element subset of $M$ is thus either a basis or a circuit. A element of $E$ that is contained in no basis of $M$ is a [*loop*]{}, and one that is contained in every basis is a [*coloop*]{}. Two absolutely central operations on matroids are contraction and deletion. Assume that $e\in E(M)$ is neither a loop nor a coloop. If $e$ is an element of the ground set of $M$ then the matroid $M\setminus e$ obtained by [*deleting*]{} $e$ has ground set $E(M\setminus e)=E(M)\setminus\{e\}$ and bases $\calB(M\setminus e)=\{X\subseteq E(M\setminus e): X\in\calB(M)\}$; the matroid $M/e$ obtained by [*contracting*]{} $e$ has ground set $E(M/e)=E(M)\setminus\{e\}$ and bases $\calB(M/e)=\{X\subseteq E(M/e): X\cup\{e\}\in\calB(M)\}$. Any matroid obtained from $M$ by a series of contractions and deletions is a [*minor*]{} of $M$. The matroid $M$ is said to possess the [*negative correlation property*]{} if the inequality $\Pr(e\in X\mid f\in X)\leq\Pr(e\in X)$ holds for all pairs of distinct elements $e,f\in X$, where we assume that $X\in\calB$ is chosen u.a.r. In other words the knowledge that $f$ is present in $X$ makes the presence of $e$ less likely.[^4] Further, the matroid $M$ is said to be [*balanced*]{} if all minors of $M$ (including $M$ itself) possess the negative correlation property. For more on balanced matroids in a general matroidal context, refer to Choe and Wagner [@ChoeWagner]. Let $(E,\calB)$ be a paving matroid of rank $r$ on ground set $E$. We have seen that such a matroid is defined by the set $\calC_r$ of circuits with $r$ elements. Oxley [@Oxley Prop. 1.3.10] provides the following useful characterisation of paving matroids. \[lem:PavingCharacter\] Let $\calC_r\subset 2^E$ be a collection of $r$-element subsets of $E$. Then $\calC_r$ defines (in the above sense) a paving matroid on $E$ precisely if the following condition holds: for all $C,C'\in \calC_r$, if $|C\oplus C'|=2$ then every $r$-element subset of $C\cup C'$ is in $\calC_r$. We say that a paving matroid is [*sparse*]{}[^5] if $$\label{eq:SparseDef} |C\oplus C'|>2 \text{ for all distinct circuits } C,C'\in\calC_r.$$ Note that, by Lemma \[lem:PavingCharacter\], any collection $\calC_r$ of $r$-element subsets of $E$ satisfying (\[eq:SparseDef\]) defines a (sparse) paving matroid. \[lem:SparseImpliesBalance\] Sparse paving matroids are balanced. We first verify that every minor of a sparse paving matroid is a sparse paving matroid. This is routine. Suppose $M=(E,\calC_r)$ is a sparse paving matroid, and $e\in E$ is arbitrary. Note that $e$ cannot be a coloop (except in the trivial case $r\geq|E|-1$) and so the rank of $M\setminus e$ is $r$. The circuits of size $r$ in $M\setminus e$ are simply all the sets in $\calC_r$ that avoid $e$ [@Oxley Eq. (3.1.14)]. This subcollection of $\calC_r$ clearly continues to satisfy (\[eq:SparseDef\]). Furthermore, $e$ cannot be a loop (except in the trivial case $r=1$), and so the rank of $M/e$ is $r-1$. The circuits of size $r-1$ in $M/e$ are all $r-1$ element subsets $C\subseteq E\setminus\{e\}$ satisfying $C\cup\{e\}\in\calC_r$ [@Oxley Prop. 3.1.11]. Again, it is clear that this collection of circuits satisfies (\[eq:SparseDef\]). It remains to show that the events $e\in X$ and $f\in X$ are negatively correlated for all distinct $e,f\in E$, assuming $X$ is a basis selected u.a.r. Partition $\calB=\calB_{ef}\cup\calB_{e\fbar}\cup\calB_{\ebar f}\cup\calB_{\ebar\fbar}$ into the sets of bases (respectively) including $e$ and $f$, including $e$ but excluding $f$, including $f$ but excluding $e$, and excluding both $e$ and $f$. Consider the bipartite subgraph of the bases exchange graph $G(M)$ induced by vertex sets $\calB_{ef}$ and $\calB_{e\fbar}$. Each vertex (basis) $X\in\calB_{ef}$ is adjacent to at least $m-r-1$ vertices in $\calB_{e\fbar}$. (Consider the collection of $r$-elements sets $\{X\cup\{g\}\setminus\{f\}:g\in E\setminus X\}$. Condition (\[eq:SparseDef\]) ensures that this collection contains at most one circuit.) On the other hand, each vertex (basis) in $X\in\calB_{e\fbar}$ is adjacent to at most $r-1$ vertices in $\calB_{ef}$. (The vertices adjacent to $X$ are all of the form $X\cup\{f\}\setminus\{g\}$ for some $g\in X\setminus\{e\}$.) It follows that $$\label{eq:Correspond1} (m-r-1)\,|\calB_{ef}|\leq (r-1)\,|\calB_{e\fbar}|.$$ Likewise, consider the bipartite subgraph induced by vertex sets $\calB_{\ebar\fbar}$ and $\calB_{\ebar f}$. Every vertex $X\in\calB_{\ebar\fbar}$ is adjacent to at least $r-1$ vertices in $\calB_{\ebar f}$. (Consider the collection of $r$-elements sets $\{X\cup\{f\}\setminus\{g\}:g\in X\}$. As before, this collection contains at most one circuit.) On the other hand, each vertex (basis) in $X\in\calB_{\ebar f}$ is adjacent to at most $m-r-1$ vertices in $\calB_{\ebar\fbar}$. It follows that $$\label{eq:Correspond2} (r-1)\,|\calB_{\ebar\fbar}|\leq (m-r-1)\,|\calB_{\ebar f}|.$$ (Inequality (\[eq:Correspond2\]) does not rely on sparseness, and holds in fact for any paving matroid.) Multiplying inequalities (\[eq:Correspond1\]) and (\[eq:Correspond2\]) yields $$|\calB_{ef}|\times |\calB_{\ebar\fbar}|\leq |\calB_{e\fbar}|\times|\calB_{\ebar f}|.$$ A little algebraic manipulation reveals that this inequality is equivalent to $\Pr(e\in X\mid f\in X)\leq \Pr(e\in X)$ where $X$ is selected u.a.r. from the bases of $M$. It is interesting to note that a simple bound on the density of bases of a matroid is sufficient to establish the negative correlation property. Specifically, it suffices that $|\calB|\geq\big(1-\frac{m-r}{2m^2}\big)\binom mr$. (Martin Dyer, personal communication.) However, since balance requires negative correlation to hold for all minors, it is likely that bases need to be somewhat uniformly distributed as well as dense. The sparse paving definition is a convenient way of ensuring these conditions. Counting bases is hard,\ even in balanced matroids {#sec:hard} ========================= In discussing algorithms for matroids, the issue of representation is necessarily problematic, not least because the number of matroids on a ground set of size $m$ is doubly exponential in $m$. Indeed, it is easy to see that the number of sparse paving matroids is already doubly exponential.[^6] We may note, in passing, that regular matroids form only a tiny fraction of all balanced matroids, since the number of regular matroids is only singly exponential in $m$. In this section, we avoid the issue of representing instances of paving matroids by not providing a formal definition of the bases counting problem. Instead we indicate a simple method of encoding hard counting problems in sparse paving matroids, which hopefully will seem quite natural. A “hard” counting problem in this context is one that is \#P-complete. The class \#P was introduced by Valiant as a counting analogue of the more familiar class NP of decision problems. He showed [@Valiant] that many natural counting problems are complete for \#P with respect to polynomial-time Turing reducibility, and hence almost certainly computationally intractable. In particular, \#P-completeness provides strong evidence against the existence of a polynomial-time algorithm. One of the original problems on Valiant’s list of \#P-complete problems is counting Hamiltonian cycles in an undirected graph. Suppose $H=([r],E)$ is an undirected graph on $r$ vertices with edge set $E$. Let $\calC_r$ be the collection of all Hamilton cycles in $H$. Since any pair of Hamilton cycles differ in at least four edges, the collection $\calC_r$ satisfies (\[eq:SparseDef\]), and hence defines a sparse paving matroid $(E,\calB)$ of rank $r$ on $E$. Furthermore, it is clear that the number of Hamiltonian cycles in $H$ is equal to $|\calC_r|=\binom{m}{r}-|\calB|$. This gives a natural — in a general combinatorial, though not specifically matroidal sense — encoding of a \#P-complete problem as a sparse paving matroid. It is interesting to observe that the number $|\calB|$ of bases of the matroid just constructed can be efficiently approximated (by virtue of balance, or by appeal to [@ChavezWelsh]) whereas the number $|\calC_r|$ of non-bases cannot (since even deciding emptiness of $\calC_r$ is hard). A paving matroid that is not balanced ===================================== Given that a relatively large subset of paving matroids are balanced, it is natural to ask whether all paving matroids are balanced. The answer is “no”, but one has to work a little to obtain a counterexample. The problem is to squeeze in enough circuits to violate the negative correlation property. We construct a paving matroid of rank six on a ground set $E$ of size $24$ containing two distinguished elements $e,f$, and prove that $e$ and $f$ are positively correlated. The construction is based on the Steiner system $S(5,8,24)$. Denote by $E$ the ground set of $S(5,8,24)$ and by $\calV\subset 2^E$ its set of blocks. (The ground sets of the Steiner system and of the paving matroid will coincide, so it is notationally convenient to confuse the two.) The salient features of $S(5,8,24)$ are the following [@BiggsWhite §3.6]: - $|E|=24$; - each block in $\calV$ is of size eight; - each subset of five elements of $E$ is contained in a unique block of $\calV$. We’ll define the desired paving matroid $(E,\calB)$ of rank six by specifying its circuits of size six. Let $e,f$ be distinguished elements of $E$. We’ll declare a subset $C\subset E$ of size six to be a circuit of the matroid if there exists a block $V\in \calV$ with $|V\cap\{e,f\}|=1$ and $V\supset C$. Note that two distinct blocks can have at most four elements in common, and the same is true of circuits coming from different blocks. Hence, by  Lemma \[lem:PavingCharacter\], these circuits define a paving matroid. The bases of this paving matroid are simply all six-element sets that are not circuits. Recall the partition $\calB=\calB_{ef}\cup\calB_{e\fbar}\cup\calB_{\ebar f}\cup\calB_{\ebar\fbar}$. We’ll calculate the sizes of the various sets occurring in this partition, and show that $|\calB_{ef}|\times|\calB_{\ebar\fbar}|>|\calB_{e\fbar}|\times|\calB_{\ebar f}|$. It follows directly that the events $e\in X$ and $f\in X$ are positively correlated, assuming $X\in\calB$ is selected u.a.r. - $|\calB_{ef}|=7315$. By construction, there are no circuits of size six containing both $e$ and $f$. In other words, every six-element set containing $e$ and $f$ is a base, and $|\calB_{ef}|=\binom{22}{4}=7315$. - $|\calB_{e\fbar}|=|\calB_{\ebar f}|=22638$. Denote by $\calV_e\subset\calV$ the blocks of the Steiner system containing $e$, and by $\calV_{e\fbar}$ the blocks containing $e$ but excluding $f$, etc. First we count the blocks $\calV_{e\fbar}\subset\calV$ containing $e$ but not $f$. (Every circuit of size six that contains $e$ but not $f$ must be a subset of a unique such block.) Consider any set $A\subset E\setminus\{e\}$ of size four. Observe that $A\cup\{e\}$ defines a unique block in $\calV_e$, and moreover that every such block is defined by exactly $\binom{7}{4}$ such sets $A$. Thus $|\calV_e|=\binom{23}{4}\big/\binom{7}{4}=253$. Similarly each set $A\subset E\setminus\{e,f\}$ of size three defines a unique block in $\calV_{ef}$, and every such block is defined by exactly $\binom{6}{3}$ such sets $A$. Thus $|\calV_{ef}|=\binom{22}{3}\big/\binom{6}{3}=77$. Subtracting, $|\calV_{e\fbar}|=176$. As we observed, each circuit of size six containing $e$ but not $f$ is contained in a unique block in $\calV_{e\fbar}$. The number of such circuits is thus $176\times\binom{7}{5}=3696$. Every six-element set containing $e$ but excluding $f$ is a basis unless it is one of these 3696 circuits. Thus $|\calB_{e\fbar}|=\binom{22}{5}-3696=22638$. Naturally, $|\calB_{\ebar f}|=|\calB_{e\fbar}|$ by symmetry. - $|\calB_{\ebar\fbar}|=72149$. Every six-element set avoiding both $e$ and $f$ is a base unless it is contained in a block in $\calV_{e\fbar}$ or $\calV_{\ebar f}$. Thus $|\calB_{\ebar\fbar}|=\binom{22}{6} - 2\times176\times\binom{7}{6}= 72149$. In summary, $$|\calB_{ef}|\times|\calB_{\ebar\fbar}|=\frac{89015}{86436}\times |\calB_{e\fbar}|\times|\calB_{\ebar f}|.$$ This example is perhaps a little larger than necessary, but there are limits to how much it can be simplified. For example, Wagner [@Wagner] shows that any matroid that is not balanced must have rank at least four. Furthermore, in order to violate the negative correlation property, it is necessary to achieve a high density of circuits of size $r$. Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered} --------------- I thank Martin Dyer for enlightening and encouraging remarks on an early version of this note. [^1]: Postal address: School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, The King’s Buildings, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, United Kingdom. [^2]: To avoid trivialities, assume $r\geq2$. [^3]: The issue of balance is not in fact crucial here, as Ch[á]{}vez Lomel[í]{} and Welsh [@ChavezWelsh] have presented a polynomial-time algorithm for approximately counting bases of an arbitrary paving matroid. [^4]: We assume here that $\Pr(f\in X)>0$, i.e., that $f$ is not a loop. [^5]: Clearly, the qualifier “sparse” is intended to refer to the circuits and not the bases of the matroid. [^6]: Piff and Welsh’s lower bound on combinatorial geometries [@PiffWelsh] is essentially based on counting sparse paving matroids.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) as an aerial base station is a promising technology to rapidly provide wireless connectivity to ground users. Given UAV’s agility and mobility, a key question is how to adapt UAV deployment to best cater to the instantaneous wireless traffic in a territory. In this paper, we propose an adaptive deployment scheme for a UAV-aided communication network, where the UAV adapts its displacement direction and distance to serve randomly moving users’ instantaneous traffic in the target cell. In our adaptive scheme, the UAV does not need to learn users’ exact locations in real time, but chooses its displacement direction based on a simple majority rule by flying to the spatial sector with the greatest number of users in the cell. To balance the service qualities of the users in different sectors, we further optimize the UAV’s displacement distance in the chosen sector to maximize the average throughput and the successful transmission probability, respectively. We prove that the optimal displacement distance for average throughput maximization decreases with the user density: the UAV moves to the center of the chosen sector when the user density is small and the UAV displacement becomes mild when the user density is large. In contrast, the optimal displacement distance for success probability maximization does not necessarily decrease with the user density and further depends on the target signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) threshold. Extensive simulations show that the proposed adaptive deployment scheme outperforms the traditional non-adaptive scheme, especially when the user density is not large.' author: - | Zhe Wang, , Lingjie Duan, ,\ and Rui Zhang,  [^1] [^2] [^3] title: 'Adaptive Deployment for UAV-Aided Communication Networks' --- Introduction ============ Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) aided wireless communication network is a promising solution to rapidly establish wireless connectivity for the mobile devices that are beyond the coverage of the terrestrial communication infrastructure [@UAV]. For example, UAVs can work as mobile aerial base stations to provide emergency communication services to the ground terminals in battle fields, disaster scenes, congested roads, blind spots and rural areas. UAV-aided communication has two major advantages. First, with the agility and mobility features, a UAV can rapidly fly to serve the users closely and adapt to the on-demand surge. Second, compared with the traditional terrestrial base stations, the UAV operating at a high altitude connects to ground users via more reliable communication channels thanks to line-of-sight (LoS) links. A key design challenge of UAV-aided communication network is how to deploy a UAV to cater to wireless users’ instantaneous traffic demands. Recent works have studied the UAV deployment for the static user networks, where the ground users’ locations are fixed and known. For example, [@YZeng0; @LSong; @YZeng1; @Lyu2; @Simeone] design the trajectory of a single UAV to relay information [@YZeng0; @LSong], broadcast/multicast messages [@YZeng1], or provide offloading services to the ground users [@Lyu2; @Simeone], in the delay-tolerant systems. In [@QWu], cooperative trajectory design for multiple UAVs is further investigated to mitigate the mutual co-channel interference. Besides trajectory designs, researchers investigate the UAV deployment that provides the wireless coverage to the static users in a target geographical area, by designing the optimal operating location in three-dimensional (3D) airspace [@MM0; @Akram; @coverage], minimizing the total deployment time [@Xiao], or minimizing the number of the stop points for the UAV [@MM]. [@Xinping] and [@Xuehe] study the economic issues, i.e., mechanism design and dynamic service pricing, in the multi-user UAV-aided network. In [@Juting2], the authors propose a machine learning approach to reconstruct a radio map of the air-to-ground channel across a dense urban environment, which is then exploited to search the global optimal UAV positioning for establishing the best wireless relay link between a BS and a static user in [@Juting1]. Compared with static user networks, the UAV deployment design for random user networks is more challenging when the user locations are random. [@MChen] proposes a machine learning approach to predict the user behaviors (i.e., content request distribution and mobility pattern) and designs the UAV deployment to meet the users’ quality of experience requirement while minimizing the UAV’s transmit power. In some other scenarios, the users’ locations are highly random and unpredictable. Recent works in [@JGuo; @Harp; @BG; @Chiya; @Ultra] adopt Poisson point process (PPP) to analytically characterize the spatial randomness of the users in the UAV-aided wireless networks. In [@JGuo; @Harp; @BG], the uplink or downlink coverage probability of the UAV is analyzed by considering the user distribution follows PPP, where the effect of users’ location randomness is captured from a long-term average perspective. [@Chiya] derives the optimal density of aerial base stations in a spectrum sharing scenario to maximize the drone small-cell network throughput while satisfying the cellular network efficiency constraint. [@Ultra] derives the UAV’s optimal altitude that maximizes the coverage region by guaranteeing a minimum outage performance over the region. However, in the aforementioned literature, the UAVs are deployed in a probabilistic or average sense, i.e., the UAVs are either statically located in the cell center [@JGuo][@Ultra] or randomly located following a Binomial/Poisson point process [@Harp; @BG; @Chiya], where the specific UAVs’ locations in each time/realization are independent of the locations of the nearby users. This non-adaptive UAV deployment cannot cater well to the real-time demands of the mobile users. To solve this problem, we study the adaptive UAV deployment that allows the UAV to adapt its location in each realization to the dynamic locations of the nearby users. We model the users to follow a homogeneous PPP, where the number of users in the target cell is a Poisson random variable that changes across different time realizations. In this type of random network, the ground base station is traditionally deployed at the center of each cell due to the uniform user density [@JGuo][@Ultra]. However, this deployment strategy may not be efficient since the instantaneous user traffic load can be asymmetric in the cell, e.g., there are more users in some hot-spot areas than others. To fully exploit the mobility feature of the UAV, it would be desirable to deploy the UAV adaptively according to the users’ spatial and temporal demand changes. Furthermore, in practice, it can be difficult for the UAV to precisely know the exact locations of the mobile users upon deployment, especially when the nearby terrestrial base stations experience congestion or failure for helping user localization [@Xinping]. The UAV may only have limited side information of user locations in real time, e.g., estimated user number in each service area/sector of the target cell. In this work, we propose a traffic-aware adaptive UAV deployment scheme in UAV-enabled communication networks, where the UAV serves a random number of Poisson distributed mobile users in its cell and makes deployment decisions according to the asymmetric instantaneous traffic in all sectors of the cell. Unlike the previous works that consider the non-adaptive UAV deployment with the Poisson distributed users in [@JGuo; @Harp; @Chiya; @BG; @Ultra], our study characterizes explicitly the correlation between the users’ instantaneous locations and the UAV’s displaced location to serve such users. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first analytical work that studies the traffic-aware adaptive UAV deployment under the limited side information of user locations. The key contributions of this work are summarized as follows. - *Novel traffic-aware adaptive UAV deployment:* To best cater to the instantaneous user traffic in each realization, we propose a traffic-aware adaptive UAV deployment scheme in Section II, where the UAV only needs to know the numbers of users in different spatial sectors and decides where to fly by following a simple majority-vote rule regarding users’ numbers in different sectors. That is, the UAV flies to the sector that has the greatest number of users with a certain displacement distance within the sector, where the optimal distance is further designed by maximizing different quality of service (QoS) objectives. - *Average throughput maximization via optimal UAV displacement:* In Section III, we consider a delay-tolerant variable-rate system, where the UAV (or user) transmits signal in downlink (or uplink) with best-effort by adapting its rate according to the transmission distance. For this case, we derive the average throughput of the users in a one-dimensional (1D) ground network under the proposed adaptive deployment scheme. The optimal displacement distance in the chosen sector is further designed by maximizing the average throughput of the users in the cell. We show that the optimal displacement distance decreases with the user density, i.e., the UAV should move to the center of the intended sector in the low user density regime and the displacement distance is small when the user density is large. - *Successful transmission probability maximization via optimal UAV displacement:* In Section IV, we consider a delay-limited fixed-rate system, where the UAV (or user) transmits with a fixed rate and a transmission is successful if the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) at the receiver exceeds a target threshold. We derive the optimal displacement distance in the chosen sector to maximize the success probability of an arbitrary user in the cell. We show that the optimal displacement distance critically depends on the target SNR. In the high target SNR regime, the UAV’s coverage region is not large enough to cover the intended sector. As a result, the corresponding optimal UAV placement is at any point ensuring that its coverage region is within the chosen sector. While in the low target SNR regime, the UAV is able to serve not only the users in the intended sector but also those in the neighboring sector. The corresponding optimal displacement distance thus becomes unique and increases with the SNR threshold. - *Extension to a 2D ground network:* We further extend the deployment design and analysis to a 2D random user network in Section V, where the UAV has multiple displacement directions to adapt in general. We consider the similar user-number based majority-vote rule for choosing the UAV displacement sector and further optimize the UAV displacement distance under the objectives of average throughput maximization and success probability maximization, respectively. We show that most of the main results for the 1D network hold for the 2D scenario. A key difference is that, the optimal displacement distance that maximizes the successful transmission probability changes with the user density in the low target SNR regime for the 2D network, while it is independent of the user density for the 1D network. Finally, we show that the proposed adaptive deployment scheme outperforms the traditional non-adaptive scheme in terms of both average throughput and success probability in both the 1D and 2D scenarios, especially when the user density is not large. Moreover, in Section VI, we numerically show that the performance can be further improved if the UAV ideally has precise information of user locations in real time. System Model ============ ![A UAV-aided 1D wireless network, where the MUs are distributed randomly inside the target cell in the range of $[-R, R]$. In each realization, the UAV chooses one of the displacement positions $(U_0,h)=(0,h)$, $(U_1,h)=(-\beta{R},h)$ or $(U_2,h)=(\beta{R},h)$. ](fig1.eps){width="0.43\columnwidth"} To start with, we consider a 1D terrestrial user network shown in Fig. 1, where a UAV serves a group of mobile users (MUs) within its cell boundary in either uplink or downlink. Each MU is allocated with a fixed bandwidth, where we assume the number of channels is always sufficient (e.g., narrowband FDMA systems [@Goldsmithbook]). The transmit power of the UAV in the downlink (or user in the uplink) is $P_t$. The MUs (e.g., on an avenue) follow a 1D homogeneous PPP $\{X_m\}$ with density $\lambda$, where $X_m$ is the coordinate of MU$_m$ on the ground. One application of such 1D scenario is to consider that the UAV is providing coverage to a road passing through a rural area. Later in Section V, we will extend our deployment scheme and analysis to a 2D scenario. We assume that the UAV is operating at a fixed minimum altitude $h$ under the air traffic control. The initial location of the UAV is at the center of the target cell, i.e., $(U_0,h)=(0,h)$. The target service area of the UAV on the ground is a line segment $S=[-R,R]$, which is partitioned into the left spatial sector $S_1=[-R,0)$ and right sector $S_2=[0,R]$. In one realization of the network, we denote the numbers of the MUs inside $S_1$ and $S_2$ as $k_1$ and $k_2$, respectively, and denote the total number of the MUs inside the cell as $k=k_1+k_2$. We now propose a traffic-aware adaptive UAV deployment scheme, where the UAV does not know users’ exact instantaneous locations due to the lack of precise user positioning technique in practical situations (e.g. search and rescue). Instead, it relocates according to the side information on user locations, i.e., the numbers $k_1$ and $k_2$, which may change over time. In each realization, the UAV chooses one out of the three deployment positions $(U_j,h)$ (for $j=0,1,2$) in Fig. 1 as its new displacement location by following a simple majority-vote rule, i.e., [U=]{} U\_0=0,      \[Y2\]\ U\_1=-,  \[Y1\]\ U\_2=,   \[Y3\]. We denote $\beta\in[0,1]$ as the displacement factor to reach the displacement distance $\beta{R}$ in each sector, which will be designed optimally for maximizing the average throughput in Sections III and maximizing the success probability in Section IV, respectively. The UAV keeps updating its displacement location $U_j$ according to (1) across different network realizations. There is a natural tradeoff in the design of $\beta$. If the UAV moves into one sector, it shortens the distance from the cell-edge users in this sector, which however comes at the cost of farther distance from the users located opposite to its moving direction in this sector and all users in the other sector. We aim at designing the optimal $\beta$ that maximizes the performance of the overall network to give a good balance between the two sides. For ease of implementation, we adopt the same displacement factor $\beta$ across the realizations and design the optimal $\beta^*$ offline by maximizing the long-term average performance per user. Once the optimal $\beta^*$ is obtained, the UAV chooses its displacement direction according to (1) for each realization in the online operation. In Section VI, we will show that updating with a different $\beta$ in each realization does not bring in significant gain in a long run. Furthermore, we consider our UAV adaptation scheme is not affected by the lifetime issue of the UAV since the adaptation time of the UAV (e.g., seconds or minutes) is usually much shorter compared with its total operation time (e.g., up to a few hours). For performance evaluation, we randomly select a typical user, i.e., MU$_0$, from the $k$ users (assuming $k>0$) in each realization. Since the user locations are independently and identical distributed (i.i.d.), the analysis of the average performance of the typical user is equivalent to that of any arbitrary user in the random network. To model the air-to-ground channels between the UAV and the users, we choose Rician fading which consists of a line-of-sight (LoS) component and a large number of i.i.d. reflected and scattered waves. Under Rician fading, the received signal amplitude $y$ follows a Rician distribution with the probability density function (PDF) of $$\begin{aligned} p_Y(y)=\frac{2y(\kappa+1)}{P_r}\exp\left[-\kappa-\frac{(\kappa+1)y^2}{P_r}\right]I_0\left(2y\sqrt{\frac{\kappa(\kappa+1)}{P_r}}\right),~y\geq0,\end{aligned}$$ where $P_r$ is the average received power at the UAV (or MU), $\kappa$ factor is the ratio between the energy in the LoS component and the energy in the NLoS component, and $I_0{(.)}$ is the modified Bessel function of the first kind and zeroth order [@Goldsmithbook]. In the sub-urban and rural areas, LoS link is usually dominating any other links [@Harp]. This corresponds to Rician fading with high $\kappa$ factor. In Sections III-V, we will focus on analyzing the long-term average user performance from an ergodic sense, which means to average over the short-term fading channels caused by the NLoS components. The direct analysis is difficult due to the existence of Bessel function in the Rician PDF. However, by using Jensen’s inequality, one can deduce that the ergordic performance metrics are tightly upper-bounded (approximated) by that of LoS link for high $\kappa$ factor. In other words, the LoS channel can provide a good approximation for the air-ground channel in suburban scenarios. As such, similar to \[3,5,6,8\], we model the communication channel between the UAV and each MU$_0$ by the LoS link that follows the free-space path loss model [@Goldsmithbook Chapter 2], i.e., $$\begin{aligned} g_{0}=\theta\left[{\sqrt{|X_0-U|^2+h^2}}/{d}\right]^{-2},\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta(dB)=-20\log_{10}\left({4\pi{d}}/{\nu}\right)$ denotes the channel power at the reference distance of $d$ with wavelength $\nu$. We adopt $d=1$ meter throughout the paper and assume the additive white Gaussian noise has zero mean and variance $\sigma^2$. Hence, the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of MU$_0$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} \gamma=\frac{P_tg_0}{\sigma^2} =\frac{P_t\theta}{\left(|X_0-U|^2+h^2\right)\sigma^2}.\label{gamma}\end{aligned}$$ For simplicity, we denote $a=P_t\theta/\sigma^2$ in the rest of the paper. In the following two sections, we will design the optimal displacement factor $\beta$ that maximizes the average throughput and success probability of the typical user in the 1D scenario, respectively. Average Throughput Maximization With 1D Adaptive UAV Deployment =============================================================== In this section, we study the design of the 1D displacement distance $\beta{R}$ for average throughput maximization under the adaptive deployment scheme in (1). For users’ traffic, we consider the best-effort data applications such as web browsing and video streaming, which are in general delay-tolerant and admit variable-rate transmission. To quantify how the traffic load affects the design of $\beta$ from an average perspective, we adopt the same $\beta$ across different MU number and location realizations that maximizes the long-term average throughput of MUs. Note that here we decide the adaptive UAV deployment according to the relationship between $k_1$ and $k_2$ as given in (1). In Appendix A, we further extend our study to design a different $\beta$ for each realization according to the exact numbers of $k_1$ and $k_2$, and the performance improvement of this scheme over that given in (1) is shown to be very mild in Section VI. Given the specific locations of the UAV and the typical user MU$_0$ in a realization, the throughput of MU$_0$ is $$\begin{aligned} C=\log(1+\gamma).\label{C0}\end{aligned}$$ To evaluate for our adaptive UAV deployment scheme, we should be able to find at least one typical user ($k\geq{1}$) inside the cell by excluding the no user case. Otherwise, it does not matter how the UAV moves given zero user to serve. By taking the expectation of over all three location candidates of the UAV, i.e., $U_j$ ($j=0,1,2$) and the two sectors that MU$_0$ may belong to, i.e., $X_0\in{S_i}$ ($i=1,2$), the average throughput of MU$_0$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} \mathbb{E}[C\big|k\geq{1}]=\mathbb{E}\left[\log(1+\gamma)\big|k\geq{1}\right]= \sum\limits_{j=0}^{2}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{2}\omega_{i,j}q_{i,j},\label{ECCC}\end{aligned}$$ where we denote the joint probability that UAV is displaced to $U_j$ and MU$_0$ is inside $S_i$ as $$\begin{aligned} q_{i,j}=\Pr\left(X_0\in{S_i},U=U_j\big|k\geq{1}\right)\label{qijij},\end{aligned}$$ and the conditional average throughput of the MU$_0$ given it is inside the sector $S_i$ and UAV is displaced to $U_j$ as $$\begin{aligned} \omega_{i,j}=\mathbb{E}\left[\log(1+\gamma)\big|X_0\in{S_i}, U=U_j,k\geq{1}\right].\label{omegaij}\end{aligned}$$ Since the analysis is symmetric for the cases of $X_0\in{S_1}$ and $X_0\in{S_2}$, we can replace $\sum_{i=1}^{2}$ in by $2$ and just focus on the analysis of the case of $X_0\in{S_1}$. As such, we rewrite as $$\begin{aligned} \mathbb{E}[C\big|k\geq{1}]&=2\sum\limits_{j=0}^{2}q_{1,j}\omega_{1,j}.\label{Exp}\end{aligned}$$ By a slightly abuse of notation, we replace $q_{1,j}$ and $\omega_{1,j}$ by $q_{j}$ and $\omega_j$ in the rest of the paper. Analysis of UAV Displacement Probability $q_j$ ---------------------------------------------- We first derive the joint probability of $q_j$ in . Note that the events of $U=U_j$ and $X_0\in{S_i}$ are correlated since MU$_0$ is one of the $k$ users whose locations affect the displacement decision of the UAV. According to the probability chain rule, we have $$\begin{aligned} q_{j} &=\sum\limits_{K=1}^{\infty}\Pr\left(k=K\big|k\geq{1}\right)\Pr\left(X_0\in{S_1}\big|k=K,k\geq{1}\right)\nonumber\\ &~~~~~~\times\Pr\left(U=U_j\big|X_0\in{S_1},k=K,k\geq{1}\right).\label{qqjj}\end{aligned}$$ By further derivations, we obtain $q_j$ in the following proposition. The joint probability that the UAV is displaced to $(U_j,h)$ while $X_0\in{S_1}$ is [q\_j=]{} \_[K=1]{}\^\_[n=0]{}\^C\_[K-1]{}\^[n]{}()\^[n]{}()\^[K-n-1]{},     j=1\[qj1\]\ \_[K=1]{}\^ \_[n=0]{}\^[-1]{}C\_[K-1]{}\^[n]{}()\^[n]{}()\^[K-n-1]{},  j=2\[qj2\]\ -q\_1-q\_2,                                                  j=0.\[qj3\] First, we derive the first term $\Pr\left(k=K\big|k\geq{1}\right)$ in the summation of . Since the MUs follow PPP with density of $\lambda$, the total user number $k$ inside the target cell $[-R,R]$ is a Poisson random variable with the mean value of $\mu=2\lambda{R}$. We denote $\mu$ as the average traffic load in the cell. The probability mass function (PMF) is given by $\Pr\left(k=K\right)=\frac{e^{-\mu}{\mu}^{K}}{K!}$, denoted by $\text{Poi}(\mu)$. Conditioned on $k\geq{1}$, the conditional PMF is thus given by [(k=K|k)=]{} 0,               , \[ConK0\]\ , .    \[ConK1\] We then derive the second term $\Pr\left(X_0\in{S_1}\big|k=K,k\geq{1}\right)$ in . As $k\sim{\text{Poi}(\mu)}$ and the two sectors are equally partitioned, we have $k_1\sim\text{Poi}({\mu}/{2})$ and $k_2\sim\text{Poi}({\mu}/{2})$. Using the property of Poisson distribution, $k_1$ conditioned on $k_1+k_2=k$ follows a Binomial distribution. That is, $k_1\sim\text{Binom}(k,\frac{1}{2})$, which indicates that each of the $k$ i.i.d. MUs falls into the two sectors with equal probabilities. As the typical users is chosen from these MUs, we thus have $$\begin{aligned} \Pr\left(X_0\in{S_1}\big|k=K,k\geq{1}\right)=\frac{1}{2}. \label{halff}\end{aligned}$$ The third term $\Pr\left(U=U_j\big|X_0\in{S_1},k=K,k\geq{1}\right)$ in can be deduced as follows. Given $X_0\in{S_1}$ and $k_1+k_2=K$, the UAV is displaced to $(U_1,h)$ if at most $\lfloor{\frac{K-1}{2}\rfloor}$ out of the rest of $K-1$ users fall into the sector $S_2$, where the floor function ensures that $k_2$ is an integer. We thus have . Conditioned on $X_0\in{S_1}$ and $k_1+k_2=K$, the UAV is displaced to $(U_2,h)$ if at most $\lfloor{\frac{K-1}{2}\rfloor}-1$ out of the rest of $K-1$ users are inside $S_1$. We thus have . The UAV chooses the center displacement position of $(U_0,h)$ if neither of the above cases happens. Since $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{j=0}^{2}q_j=\sum_{j=0}^{2}\Pr\left(X_0\in{S_1},U=U_j\big|k\geq{1}\right)=\Pr\left(X_0\in{S_1}\big|k\geq{1}\right)=\frac{1}{2},\label{halfff}\end{aligned}$$ we have . Based on and , we can easily deduce that $q_1>q_2$. To obtain more insights on how the average traffic load affects the joint probability $q_j$, we examine some asymptotic properties in the following corollary. As the average traffic load in the cell goes to zero (i.e., $\mu\rightarrow{0}$), the displacement probabilities of the UAV satisfy $q_1\rightarrow{\frac{1}{2}}$, $q_2\rightarrow{0}$ and $q_0\rightarrow{0}$. As $\mu\rightarrow{\infty}$, the displacement probabilities satisfy $q_1\rightarrow{\frac{1}{4}}$, $q_2\rightarrow{\frac{1}{4}}$ and $q_0\rightarrow{0}$. By further derivations, we can simplify the third term in for $j=1$ as [(U=U\_1|X\_0,k=K,k)=]{} +,  K \[odd1\]\ ,  K \[even1\] and for $j=2$ as [(U=U\_2|X\_0,k=K,k)=]{} -,  K  \[odd2\]\ -,  K .\[even2\] As $\mu\rightarrow{0}$, we have $e^{-\mu}=1-\mu$. According to , we deduce that $\lim\limits_{\mu\rightarrow{0}}\Pr\left(k=1\big|k\geq{1}\right)={1}$. For $k=1$, we can deduce from and that $\lim\limits_{\mu\rightarrow{0}}\Pr\left(U=U_1\big|X_0\in{S_1},k=1\right)=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{C_{0}^{0}}{2^1}=1$ and $\lim\limits_{\mu\rightarrow{0}}\Pr\left(U=U_2\big|X_0\in{S_1},k=1\right)=\frac{1}{2}-\frac{C_{0}^{0}}{2^1}=0.$ By substituting them and into , we have $\lim\limits_{\mu\rightarrow{0}}q_1=\frac{1}{2}$. and $\lim\limits_{\mu\rightarrow{0}}q_2={0}$. And we thus have $\lim\limits_{\mu\rightarrow{0}}q_0={0}$ based on . As $\mu\rightarrow\infty$, we are almost sure that $\lim\limits_{\mu\rightarrow{\infty}}\Pr\left(k\rightarrow\infty\big|k\geq{1}\right)=1$. For $k\rightarrow{\infty}$, we can deduce from and that $\lim\limits_{\mu\rightarrow{\infty}}\Pr\left(U=U_1\big|X_0\in{S_1},k\rightarrow\infty\right)=\frac{1}{2}$ and can obtain from and that $\lim\limits_{\mu\rightarrow{\infty}}\Pr\left(U=U_2\big|X_0\in{S_1},k\rightarrow\infty\right)=\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2^{\infty}}$. By substituting them and into , we have $\lim\limits_{\mu\rightarrow{\infty}}q_1 =\frac{1}{4}$ and $\lim\limits_{\mu\rightarrow{\infty}}q_2 ={\frac{1}{4}}$. Thus we have $\lim\limits_{\mu\rightarrow{\infty}}q_0={0}$ based on . Based on Corollary 1, the typical MU$_0$’s location affects the UAV’s displacement location significantly when the average traffic load is low. As $\mu\rightarrow{0}$, MU$_0$ is very likely to be the only MU in the cell given $k\geq{1}$. Conditioned on $X_0\in{S_1}$, the UAV will surely move to $U=U_1$. Since the probability of $X_0\in{S_1}$ is $1/2$, the joint probability of the events of $X_0\in{S_1}$ and $U=U_1$ is thus $1/2$. For very high traffic load, the impact of MU$_0$’s location on the UAV’s displacement location is trivial. As $\mu\rightarrow{\infty}$, the events of $X_0\in{S_1}$ and $U=U_1$ are almost independent and each happens with the probability of $1/2$. The joint probability of the two events is thus $1/4$. Average Throughput of MU$_0$ ---------------------------- We now derive the conditional average throughput $\omega_j$. Conditioned on that the UAV moves to $U_j$ and MU$_0$ is within $S_1$, the average throughput is given by $$\begin{aligned} \omega_{j} =\int_{-R}^{0}\log\left[1+\frac{a}{\left(|X_0-U_j|^2+h^2\right)}\right]f(X_0|X_0\in{S_1})dX_0,\label{o1}\end{aligned}$$ where $f(X_0|X_0\in{S_1})=\frac{1}{R}$ since $X_0$ is uniformly distributed in the interval of $[-R,0]$. Substituting all $q_j$ in , and and $\omega_j$ in  for $j=0,1,2$ into , the average throughput of MU$_0$ is given by the following proposition. In the UAV-aided 1D mobile network, the average throughput of the typical MU$_0$ under the adaptive UAV deployment scheme in (1) is given by $$\begin{aligned} \mathbb{E}\left[C\big|k\geq{1}\right]=2\left[q_{1}\zeta+(q_{1}-q_{2})\kappa+q_{2}\xi+q_{0}\vartheta\right],\label{EEC}\end{aligned}$$ where $\zeta =\frac{2h}{R}\arctan\left(\frac{(\beta-1)R}{h}\right)-\frac{2\sqrt{a+h^2}}{R}\arctan\left(\frac{(\beta-1)R}{\sqrt{a+h^2}}\right) -(\beta-1)\log\left(1+\frac{a}{h^2+(\beta-1)^2R^2}\right)$, $\kappa =-\frac{2h}{R}\arctan\left(\frac{\beta{R}}{h}\right)+\frac{2\sqrt{a+h^2}}{R}\arctan\left(\frac{\beta{R}}{\sqrt{a+h^2}}\right) +\beta\log\left(1+\frac{a}{h^2+\beta^2R^2}\right)$, $\xi =-\frac{2h}{R}\arctan\left(\frac{(\beta+1)R}{h}\right)+\frac{2\sqrt{a+h^2}}{R}\arctan\left(\frac{(\beta+1)R}{\sqrt{a+h^2}}\right) +(\beta+1)\log\left(1+\frac{a}{h^2+(\beta+1)^2R^2}\right)$ and $\vartheta =\frac{1}{R}[-2h\arctan\left(\frac{R}{h}\right)+2\sqrt{a+h^2}$ $\arctan\left(\frac{R}{\sqrt{a+h^2}}\right)] +\log\left(1+\frac{a}{h^2+R^2}\right)$. In the following corollary, we prove that $\mathbb{E}\left[C\big|k\geq{1}\right]$ in Proposition 2 above is concave in $\beta$. $\mathbb{E}\left[C\big|k\geq{1}\right]$ is strictly concave in the displacement factor $\beta$ for $\beta\in[0,1]$. The average throughput in is a linear combination of $\zeta$, $\kappa$, $\xi$, $\vartheta$ and the probabilities $q_j$ ($j=0,1,2$). Since $\vartheta$ and $q_j$ are not functions of $\beta$, we just check the second derivatives of $\zeta$, $\kappa$ and $\xi$ with respect to $\beta$, i.e., $\frac{\partial^2\zeta}{\partial\beta^2}=-\frac{2a(1-\beta)R^2}{\left(h^2+(1-\beta)^2R^2\right)\left(a+h^2+(1-\beta)^2R^2\right)}$, $\frac{\partial^2\kappa}{\partial\beta^2}=-\frac{2a\beta{R}^2}{\left(h^2+\beta^2R^2\right)\left(a+h^2+\beta^2R^2\right)}$, and $\frac{\partial^2\xi}{\partial\beta^2} =-\frac{2a(1+\beta)R^2}{\left(h^2+(1+\beta)^2R^2\right)\left(a+h^2+(1+\beta)^2R^2\right)}$. Since $0\leq\beta\leq1$, we have $\frac{\partial^2\zeta}{\partial\beta^2}\leq{0}$, $\frac{\partial^2\kappa}{\partial\beta^2}\leq{0}$ and $\frac{\partial^2\xi}{\partial\beta^2}<0$, where the equality signs of the first and second terms hold if $\beta=1$ and $\beta=0$, respectively. Based on Proposition 1, we have $q_1>0$, $q_2\geq0$ and $q_1>{q}_2$. We thus have $\frac{\partial^2\mathbb{E}[C]}{\partial\beta^2} =2\left[q_1\frac{\partial^2\zeta}{\partial\beta^2} +(q_1-q_2)\frac{\partial^2\kappa}{\partial\beta^2}+q_2\frac{\partial^2\xi}{\partial\beta^2}\right] <0$ for all $\beta\in[0,1]$. Therefore, $\mathbb{E}[C]$ is strictly concave in $\beta$. Intuitively, Corollary 2 tells a fundamental tradeoff in the displacement distance design. If the displacement distance is small, the UAV cannot efficiently serve the users in the target sector with more MUs. If the displacement distance is large, the MUs in the other sector with less MUs will suffer from great throughput degradation. Thus, designing the optimal displacement distance is of critical importance to maximize the network average throughput. Optimal Displacement Factor --------------------------- According to Corollary 2, there is a unique optimal displacement factor $\beta$ that maximizes the average throughput. The optimization problem is $$\begin{aligned} &&\text{P1}:\max\limits_{0\leq{\beta}\leq{1}}~~{\mathbb{E}\left[C\big|k\geq{1}\right]}.\end{aligned}$$ By solving P1, we have the following proposition. The optimal displacement factor $\beta^*$ that maximizes the average throughput $\mathbb{E}\left[C\big|k\geq{1}\right]$ is the unique solution to $$\begin{aligned} q_1\varrho_1 -q_2\varrho_2=0.\label{prop3} %\label{Efirst}\end{aligned}$$ where $\varrho_1=\log\left(\frac{1+\frac{a}{h^2+\beta^2R^2}}{1+\frac{a}{h^2+(\beta-1)^2R^2}}\right)$ and $\varrho_2=\log\left(\frac{1+\frac{a}{h^2+\beta^2R^2}}{1+\frac{a}{h^2+(\beta+1)^2R^2}}\right)$. The optimal $\beta^*$ decreases with average traffic load $\mu$ in the cell. Furthermore, we have $\beta^*\rightarrow\frac{1}{2}$ as $\mu\rightarrow{0}$ and $\beta^*\rightarrow0$ as $\mu\rightarrow{\infty}$, respectively. Due to the concavity of the objective function of P1 as shown in Corollary 2, it is enough to check the first-order condition. We thus have or equivalently $q_1/q_2=\varrho_2/\varrho_1$. We can prove that $\varrho_2/\varrho_1$ is positive for $\beta^*\in[0,0.5]$ and negative for $\beta^*\in[0.5,1]$, respectively. Since $q_1/q_2>0$, the feasible $\beta^*$ should be within the regime of $[0,0.5]$. In this regime, $\varrho_2/\varrho_1$ is monotonically increasing in $\beta^*$. According to and , $q_1$ decreases with $\mu$, and $q_2$ increases with $\mu$, respectively. Thus, $q_1/q_2$ decreases with $\mu$. As a result, $\beta^*$ decreases with $\mu$. We then prove the asymptotic results of $\beta^*$ in terms of $\mu$. As $\mu\rightarrow{0}$, we have $q_1\rightarrow{1/2}$ and $q_2\rightarrow{0}$ based on Corollary 1. Substituting them into , we have $\beta^2=(\beta-1)^2$ and thus have $\beta^*\rightarrow{1/2}$. As $\mu\rightarrow{\infty}$, we have $q_1\rightarrow{1/4}$ and $q_2\rightarrow{1/4}$ based on Corollary 1. Substituting them into , we have $(\beta-1)^2=(\beta+1)^2$ and thus have $\beta^*\rightarrow{0}$. As $\mu\rightarrow{0}$, MU$_0$ (if any) is very likely to be the only user in the network. To best serve this user in average sense without knowing its exact location, it is best for the UAV to move to the center of $S_j$ and the corresponding $\beta^*=0.5$. As $\mu\rightarrow\infty$, users are balanced in different sectors as in the average sense and the UAV should stay in the center with $\beta^*=0$. We further compare the maximum average throughput $\mathbb{E}[C(\beta^*)|k\geq{1}]$ with the average throughput $\mathbb{E}[C_0|k\geq{1}]$ in the non-adaptive scheme. For the non-adaptive scheme, the UAV is located at the origin, which is a special case of the proposed scheme by using $\beta=0$. Since $\mathbb{E}[C|k\geq{1}]$ is concave in $\beta$, we obtain the following corollary. The maximum average throughput in the proposed adaptive UAV deployment scheme with the optimal $\beta^*$ outperforms that of the non-adaptive scheme, i.e., $\mathbb{E}[C(\beta^*)|k\geq{1}]\geq\mathbb{E}[C_0|k\geq{1}]$. Successful Transmission Probability Maximization with 1D Adaptive UAV Deployment ================================================================================ In this section, we study the optimal UAV deployment for a delay-limited constant-rate transmission application (voice call or on-line gaming), where the UAV/MUs transmit with a constant rate in the downlink/uplink and the transmission is successful if the instantaneous SNR at the receiver is greater than the target threshold of $\gamma_{th}$. In the following, we design the optimal $\beta$ to maximize the probability that the UAV successfully transmits/receives message to/from the typical MU$_0$ under the proposed 1D adaptive UAV deployment scheme in (1). Intuitively, the design of $\beta$ is related to the SNR threshold. For example, when the SNR target is low, the UAV has relatively large coverage and does not need to move far away from the cell center. To obtain the insight on how the SNR threshold affects the UAV deployment distance from an average perspective, we adopt the same $\beta$ across different MU number/location realizations in the following discussions. At the end of this section, we will show that this is exactly equivalent to updating with a different $\beta$ in each realization due to the unique successful transmission (success in short) probability metric. Tractable Analysis of Success Probability ----------------------------------------- Conditioned on $k\geq{1}$, the success probability of MU$_0$ is defined as the probability that the received SNR $\gamma$ in is no smaller than the target SNR threshold $\gamma_{th}$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned} p=\Pr\left[\gamma\geq\gamma_{th}\big|k\geq{1}\right] %&=\Pr\left[\frac{Pm}{\left(\|X_0-{Y}\|^2+h^2\right)\sigma^2}\geq\gamma_{th}\right]\nonumber\\ %&=\Pr\left[\|X_0-{Y}\|\leq\sqrt{\frac{Pm}{\sigma^2\gamma_{th}}-h^2}\big|k\geq{1}\right]. =\Pr\left[|X_0-{U}|\leq{\rho}\big|k\geq{1}\right],\label{psuc}\end{aligned}$$ where we denote $\rho=\sqrt{\frac{a}{\gamma_{th}}-h^2}$ with $a=P_t\theta/\sigma^2$ as the UAV’s coverage radius that describes the maximum horizontal distance between MU$_0$ and UAV for achieving the target SNR performance. Given the UAV is in the position of $(U_j,h)$ in Fig. 1, the corresponding coverage region is thus $[U_j-\rho,U_j+\rho]$. Since we always have $p=1$ once $\rho\geq{R}$ even in the non-adaptive scheme, in the sequel, we focus on the scenario of $0<\rho<{R}$. Similar to the derivation of the average throughput in , we have $$\begin{aligned} p=2\sum\limits_{j=0}^{2}q_j\eta_{j}, \label{totalpp}\end{aligned}$$ where the displacement probability $q_j$ is given in Proposition 1, and we further denote $\eta_j=\Pr\left[|X_0-U|\leq{\rho}\big|U=U_j,X_0\in{S_1}\right]$ as the conditional success probability of MU$_0$. By recalling the property of $\sum_{j=0}^{2}q_j=\Pr\left(X_0\in{S_1}\big|k\geq{1}\right)=\frac{1}{2}$ given in , the overall success probability of MU$_0$ in is given by the following proposition. Under the adaptive 1D scheme in (1), the success probability of the typical MU$_0$ is [p=]{} +2(q\_1-q\_2),               \[P41\]\ q\_1+q\_0,                   1-  \[P42\]\ 2,  1-  \[P43\] for $0<\rho\leq\frac{R}{2}$ and [p=]{} +2(q\_1-q\_2),             1-\[P44\]\ +2,   1-\[P45\]\ 2,  \[P46\] for $\frac{R}{2}<\rho\leq{1}$. Optimal Displacement Factor --------------------------- In this subsection, we design the optimal displacement factor $\beta$ to maximize the success probability of the typical MU$_0$ given in Proposition 4. That is, $$\begin{aligned} &&\text{P2}:\max\limits_{0\leq{\beta}\leq{1},~\rho+\beta{R}\leq{R}}~~{p(\beta)} % &&\text{s.t.}~~~0\leq{\beta}\leq{1}\\ % &&~~~~~~\rho+\beta{R}\leq{R}. % &&~~~~~~p_s^{\text{II}}\geq{p_s^{th}}.\end{aligned}$$ Note, the constraint of $\rho+\beta{R}\leq{R}$ ensures the UAV does not move its coverage region outside the cell. Since $q_1>q_2$, we can easily prove that the success probability $p(\beta)$ in Proposition 4 is a concave function of $\beta$. By solving P2, we have the following proposition. If $0<\rho\leq\frac{R}{2}$, any displacement factor $\beta^*\in\left[\frac{\rho}{R},1-\frac{\rho}{R}\right]$ is optimal. If $\frac{R}{2}<\rho\leq{R}$, the unique optimal displacement factor is $\beta^*=1-\frac{\rho}{R}$. We can prove that the optimal $\beta^*$ in Proposition 5 holds even if we allow the UAV to maximize the success probability in each realization according to the exact values of $k_1=K_1$ and $k_2=K_2$ (except for the symmetric case of $K_1=K_2$ where we always have $\beta^*=0$). For example, if $K_1>K_2$, the success probability $p$ can be obtained by substituting $q_0=0$, $q_1=K_1/(K_1+K_2)$ and $q_2=K_2/(K_1+K_2)$ into Proposition 4 (the derivation is similar to that in Appendix A). By solving P2, $\beta^*$ is given by Proposition 5 as well. The similar proof applies for $K_1<K_2$. We now assume $K_1>K_2$ for the UAV’s displacement to sector $S_1$ and present the intuitive explanations for Proposition 5. - If $0<\rho\leq{\frac{R}{2}}$, the coverage region of the UAV is not large enough to cover the whole sector of $S_1$. In this case, without knowing the specific locations of the users, the optimal strategy for the UAV is to keep its coverage region $[U_1-\rho, U_1+\rho]$ within $S_1$. Thus, any UAV location point that satisfies the above condition is optimal. - If $\frac{R}{2}<\rho\leq{R}$, the UAV is able to not only provide full coverage for the users in $S_1$ but also cover $S_2$ as much as possible. Note that the UAV still has more preference for serving the users in $S_1$ than $S_2$ given most of the users are in $S_1$. To avoid moving its coverage region outside the cell and save coverage for $S_1$, the left-most coverage should just reach the left boundary of $S_1$. We further compare the maximum success probability $p(\beta^*)$ with the success probability $p_0$ in the non-adaptive scheme. Based on Propositions 4 and 5, $p(\beta)$ is increasing in $\beta\in[0,\beta^*]$ for both cases of $\rho\in[0,R/2]$ and $\rho\in[R/2,R)$, we thus have the following corollary. The maximum success probability with the proposed adaptive scheme in (1) strictly outperforms that of the non-adaptive scheme, i.e., $p(\beta^*)>{p}_0$, for any $\rho\in[0,R)$. Extension of Adaptive UAV Deployment for 2D User Network ======================================================== In this section, we extend the design and analysis to the 2D MU network to maximize the average throughput and success probability of the typical user, respectively. {width="0.4\columnwidth"} We plot the UAV-aided 2D network in Fig. 2. The MUs follow a homogeneous PPP $\{W_m\}$ with the spatial density of $\lambda$, where $W_m$ is the coordinate of MU$_m$ in $\mathcal{R}^2$ on the ground. The UAV aims at serving the users that are inside its target cell which is modeled as a square region with the width of $2R$. The initial location (or that of the non-adaptive scheme) of the UAV is at the center of the square with the height of $h$, i.e., $(U_0,h)=(0,0,h)$. We equally divide the target cell into four sectors $S_i$ ($i=1,2,3,4$). In one realization, we denote the number of MUs in sector $S_i$ as $k_i$ and the total number of users in the cell as $k$. Similar to the 1D case, we consider that the UAV knows and adapts to only the number of MUs in each sector without knowing the specific locations of the MUs. Different from the 1D network in Fig. 1, the UAV deployment in the 2D network involves not only the displacement distance but also multiple moving directions. In this section, we adopt the same majority-vote rule as in the 1D case for simplicity and assume that the UAV has limited moving direction choices, i.e., it moves only along the two diagonals of the square cell. Hence, the UAV adapts its location $U$ by choosing one of the five displacement positions $(U_j,h)=(U_{j,x},U_{j,y},h)$ (for $j=0,1,2,3,4$) as its new displacement location $(U,h)$, i.e., [U=]{} U\_j,  \[YY1\]\ U\_0, , \[YY0\] where $U_0=(0,0)$, $U_1=\left(\beta{R},\beta{R}\right)$, $U_2=\left(-\beta{R},\beta{R}\right)$, $U_3=\left(-\beta{R},-\beta{R}\right)$ and $U_4=\left(\beta{R},-\beta{R}\right)$ as shown in Fig. 2. To obtain the insights on how the traffic load and target SNR threshold affect the deployment distance, we adopt the same $\beta$ across different realizations as in the 1D network case. We will extend and also compare it with other schemes in Section VI. In the following, we will derive the optimal $\beta^*$ to maximize the objectives of the average throughput and success probability, respectively. 2D Adaptive UAV Deployment for Average Throughput Maximization -------------------------------------------------------------- In this subsection, we analyze the optimal displacement factor for average throughput maximization under the proposed 2D adaptive UAV deployment in (25). To evaluate the performance of an arbitrary MU, we randomly select a typical MU from the existing MUs (if any) inside the cell, denoted by MU$_0$, where its 2D ground location is denoted by $W_0=(X_0,Y_0)$ in $\mathcal{R}^2$. The throughput of MU$_0$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} C=\log\left(1+\gamma\right) %=\log\left(1+\frac{a}{\left(\|W_0-U\|^2+h^2\right)}\right), =\log\left(1+\frac{a}{\|W_0-U\|^2+h^2}\right),\label{Cnew} %&=\log\left(1+\frac{P_t\theta}{\left(|X_0-U_{j,x}|^2+|Y_0-U_{j,y}|^2+h^2\right)\sigma^2}\right).\end{aligned}$$ where both $W_0$ and $U$ are 2D random variables that are correlated with each other. ### Tractable Analysis of Average Throughput To derive the long-term average throughput of MU$_0$, we average over the five location candidates of the UAV, i.e., $U_j$ ($j=0,1,2,3,4$) and the four location regions of the MU$_0$, i.e., $W_0\in{S_i}$ ($i=1,2,3,4$). According to the probability chain rule, the average throughput in assuming at least one MU’s presence is given by $$\begin{aligned} \mathbb{E}[C\big|k\geq{1}] &=\sum\limits_{j=0}^{4}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{4}\mathbb{E}\left[C\big|U=U_j,W_0\in{S_i},k\geq{1}\right] \Pr\left(U=U_j,W_0\in{S_i}\big|k\geq{1}\right).\label{ECCC1} %&=\sum\limits_{j=0}^{4}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{4}q_j\omega_j\end{aligned}$$ Since the analysis is symmetric for all the four cases of $W_0\in{S_i}$, we can replace $\sum_{i=1}^{4}$ in by $4$ and just focus on the analysis of case $W_0\in{S_1}$. As such, we rewrite as $$\begin{aligned} \mathbb{E}[C\big|k\geq{1}]&=4\sum\limits_{j=0}^{4}q_j\mathbb{E}\left[C\big|U=U_j,W_0\in{S_1},k\geq{1}\right],~~\label{ECCC2}\end{aligned}$$ where we denote the joint probability that the UAV is displaced $U_j$ and MU$_0$ is inside $S_1$ as $$\begin{aligned} q_j&=\Pr\left(U=U_j,W_0\in{S_1}\big|k\geq{1}\right)=\Pr\left(k_j>\max\limits_{i\neq{j}}(k_i),W_0\in{S_1}\big|k\geq{1}\right). \label{qjj}\end{aligned}$$ The derivation of is challenging due to the correlation between $U=U_j$ and $W_0\in{S_i}$. This is because that MU$_0$ is one of the users whose locations affect the displacement decision of the UAV. Moreover, the events of $k_j>k_i$ and $k_j>k_n$ (for any other sector $n\neq{i}$) are also correlated, so that we cannot decompose the events of $k_j>\max_{i\neq{j}}(k_i)$ in into $M-1$ independent events of $k_j>k_i$. We thus adopt the multi-layer convolution to solve this problem. To generalize the results, we consider the general $M$-sector case and will derive the average throughput using $M=4$ (as in Fig. 2) for tractable results later. We obtain $q_j$ in the following. Conditioned on $k\geq{1}$ in the $M$-sector MU network, the joint probability that the UAV chooses the displacement position of $U=U_j$ (for $j=0,1,2,3,4$) and the typical MU$_0$ is inside the sector $S_1$ in an $M$-sector MU network is given by [q\_j=]{} \_[t\_M=1]{}\^\_[t\_2=1]{}\^\_[t\_1=(t\_2,,t\_M)]{}\^ ,  j=1  \ \_[t\_M=1]{}\^\_[t\_2=1]{}\^ \_[t\_1=(t\_2+1,t\_3,,t\_M)]{}\^ ,  j\ -\_[i=1]{}\^[M]{}q\_i,  j=0, where $\mu=4R^2\lambda$ is the average number of users in the cell. As the average user number in the cell $\mu\rightarrow{0}$, we have $q_1\rightarrow{1/M}$ and $q_j\rightarrow{0}$ for any $j\neq{1}$. As $\mu\rightarrow{\infty}$, we have $q_0\rightarrow{0}$ and $q_j\rightarrow{{1}/{M^2}}$ for any $j\neq{0}$. See Appendix B. The insight of Proposition 6 is similar to that of Remark 1 by replacing $1/2$ in the 1D’s two sector case by $1/M$ here in 2D, though we have adopted two different methods to derive the joint probabilities for the 1D and 2D networks. Conditioned on the joint event that the UAV is displaced to $U_j$ and MU$_0$ is within $S_1$, the average throughput of the typical user for the case of $M=4$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} \mathbb{E}[C\big|U=U_j,W_0\in{S_1}] %&=\mathbb{E}_{W_0}\left[\log\left[1+\frac{P_t\theta}{\left(\|W_0-U_i\|^2+h^2\right)\sigma^2}\right]\right]\nonumber\\ %&=\mathbb{E}_{X_0,Y_0}\left[\log\left[1+\gamma\big|U=U_j,W_0\in{S_1}\right]\right]\nonumber\\ =\int_{0}^{R}\int_{0}^{R}\log\left[1+\gamma\big|U=U_j,W_0\in{S_1}\right] %&~~~f\left(X_0\big|W_0\in{S_1}\right)f\left(Y_0\big|W_0\in{S_1}\right)dX_0dY_0. \frac{1}{R^2}dX_0dY_0. &\label{omega} %\label{omega}\end{aligned}$$ By substituting $q_j$ in Proposition 6 and for $j=0,1,2,3,4$ into , we can obtain the expression of $\mathbb{E}[C\big|k\geq{1}]$, for which the exact expression is omitted for brevity. ### Optimal Displacement Factor for Average Throughput Maximization Similar to P1 for the 1D network, we now derive the optimal displacement distance for average throughput maximization for the 2D network. We can prove that $\mathbb{E}[C\big|k\geq{1}]$ is concave in $\beta$ and there is a unique optimal displacement factor $\beta$ by solving the first-order condition ${d{\mathbb{E}\left[C\big|k\geq{1}\right]}}/{d{\beta}} =0$. To further simplify the above equation, we define three special functions of $f(z,v)=\sqrt{h^2+z^2R^2}\arctan\left(\frac{vR}{\sqrt{h^2+z^2R^2}}\right)$ $g(z,v)=\sqrt{a+h^2+z^2R^2}\arctan\left(\frac{vR}{\sqrt{a+h^2+z^2R^2}}\right)$ and $s(z,v)=zR\log\left(1+\frac{a}{h^2+z^2R^2+v^2R^2}\right)$. Due to the symmetric properties, we use $q_2$ to represent all identical $q_j$ for $j\neq{0,1}$ without loss of generality. The optimal $\beta^*$ is given in the following proposition. Under the proposed 2D adaptive UAV deployment scheme in (25), the UAV’s optimal displacement factor $\beta^*$ that maximizes the average throughput of the typical MU$_0$ is the unique solution to $$\begin{aligned} &(q_1-q_2)[2f(1-\beta,\beta)-2f(\beta,\beta)-2f(\beta,1-\beta) +2g(\beta,\beta)+2g(\beta,1-\beta)-2g(1-\beta,\beta)\nonumber\\ &+s(\beta,\beta)+s(1-\beta,\beta)-s(\beta,1-\beta)] +2q_1[f(1-\beta,1-\beta)-g(1-\beta,1-\beta)\nonumber\\ &-s(1-\beta,1-\beta)]+q_2[2f(1-\beta,1+\beta)-2f(1+\beta,1-\beta)-2f(1+\beta,1+\beta)\nonumber\\ &+2g(1+\beta,1-\beta)+2g(1+\beta,1+\beta) -2g(1-\beta,1+\beta)+s(1+\beta,1+\beta)\nonumber\\ &+s(1-\beta,1+\beta)-s(1+\beta,1-\beta)]=0. %\nonumber\\ %&. \label{propp} %\label{stationary}\end{aligned}$$ As $\mu\rightarrow{0}$, we have $\beta^*\rightarrow{0.5}$; and as $\mu\rightarrow{\infty}$, we have $\beta^*\rightarrow{0}$. We can simplify ${d{\mathbb{E}\left[C\big|k\geq{1}\right]}}/{d{\beta}}=0$ to obtain . As $\mu\rightarrow{0}$, we have $q_1\rightarrow{1/4}$ and $q_i\rightarrow0$ $\forall$ $i\neq{1}$ according to Proposition 6 for $M=4$. In this case, holds if and only if $\beta=1-\beta$, and we thus have $\beta^*={0.5}$. As $\mu\rightarrow\infty$, we have $q_j\rightarrow\frac{1}{16}$ $\forall$ $j\neq{0}$ according to Proposition 6 for $M=4$. In this case, holds if and only if $1-\beta=1+\beta$. We thus have $\beta^*={0}$. We see that the above asymptotic results of the optimal $\beta^*$ is similar to Proposition 3 of the 1D network, where the UAV moves to the center of the chosen sector when the user density is small and the UAV displacement becomes mild when the user density is large. 2D Adaptive UAV Deployment for Success Probability Maximization --------------------------------------------------------------- In this subsection, we derive the optimal displacement distance for success probability maximization in 2D and discuss how it changes with the target SNR threshold and average traffic load. Similar to , the success probability of MU$_0$ in the four-sector 2D network is $$\begin{aligned} &p =4\sum\limits_{j=0}^{4}q_j\eta_{j},\label{totalppp}\end{aligned}$$ where $q_j$ is given in Proposition 6 and $\eta_j=\Pr\left[\|W_0-U\|\leq{\rho}\big|U=U_j,W_0\in{S_1}\right]$. For the 2D MU network, the UAV’s coverage region is no longer a line interval but a circular disk that is centered at $U$ with radius $\rho=\sqrt{\frac{a}{\gamma_{th}}-h^2}$. We can prove that $p$ is concave in $\beta$ and derive the optimal $\beta^*$ similar to P2. We replace $\rho+\beta{R}<R$ by $\rho+\sqrt{2}\beta{R}<\sqrt{2}R$ for the 2D network to ensure that the UAV does not waste its coverage outside the cell. We use $q_2$ to replace any identical $q_j$ ($\forall~j\neq{0,1}$) without loss of generality. The UAV’s optimal displacement factor $\beta^*$ that maximizes the success probability for the typical MU$_0$ in the 2D MU network is given by [\^\*=]{} \_0\^\*,  \[0,)\ \_1\^\*,  \[,)\[bb1\]\ \_2\^\*,  \[,)\[bb2\]\ \_3\^\*,  \[,)\[bb3\]\ \_4\^\*,  \[,R)\[bb4\]\ 0,  \[R,),\[bb5\] where $\beta_0^*$ is any point within the regime of $\left[\frac{\rho}{R},1-\frac{\rho}{R}\right]$, $\beta_1^*$ is the unique solution to $(q_1-q_2)\sqrt{\rho^2-\beta^2R^2}-q_1\sqrt{\rho^2-(1-\beta)^2R^2}=0$, $\beta_2^*$ is unique solution to $(q_1-q_2)(\beta{R}+\sqrt{\rho^2-\beta^2R^2})$ $-2q_1\sqrt{\rho^2-(1-\beta)^2R^2}=0$, $\beta_3^*=1-\frac{\rho(q_1+q_2)}{R\sqrt{2(q_1^2+q_2^2)}}$, and $\beta_4^*$ is the unique solution to $(1-\beta)(q_1-q_2)R+2q_2\sqrt{\rho^2-(1+\beta)^2R^2}-(q_1+q_2)\sqrt{\rho^2-(1-\beta)^2R^2}=0$. From Proposition 8, the optimal $\beta^*$ not only depends on the target SNR $\gamma_{th}$ (which is reflected by $\rho$) but also the average traffic load $\mu$ (which is reflected by $q_j$). If $\rho<R/2$, the optimal $\beta^*=[\rho/R,1-\rho/R]$ is the same as that of the 1D network in Proposition 5. If $\rho\geq{R}/2$, the optimal $\beta^*$ in - depends on $\mu$ in the 2D network, which is a sharp contrast to $\beta^*=1-\rho/R$ regardless of $\mu$ for all $\rho\in[R/2,R]$ in the 1D network as shown in Proposition 5. To provide more insight on how $\beta^*$ changes with $\rho$ (or $\gamma_{th}$) and $\mu$, we further discuss the asymptotic results for the optimal $\beta^*$ for sufficiently low traffic load (as $\mu\rightarrow{0}$) and sufficiently high traffic load ($\mu\rightarrow\infty$), respectively. As $\mu\rightarrow{0}$, we have [\^\*=]{} ,  \[0,)\[bbb0\]\ ,               \[,)\[bbb1\]\ 1-,      \[,R)\[bbb3\]\ 0,                \[R,). As $\mu\rightarrow{\infty}$, we have [\^\*=]{} ,  \[0,)\[bbbb0\]\ 1-,         \[,R)\[bbb2\]\ 0,               \[R,).\[bbb4\] As $\mu\rightarrow{0}$, we have $q_1\rightarrow{1/4}$ and $q_2\rightarrow{0}$ according to Proposition 6. By substituting $q_1$ and $q_2$ into , and , we further obtain $\beta^*=\beta_1^*=\frac{1}{2}$ for $\rho\in[R/2,\sqrt{2}R/2)$ and $\beta^*=\beta_3^*=\beta_4^*=1-\frac{\rho}{\sqrt{2}R}$ for $\rho\in[\sqrt{2}R/2,\sqrt{2}R)$. We thus have $\beta_1^*\geq\beta_3^*$, where the equality holds if $\rho=\sqrt{2}R/2$. Moreover, we have $\beta^*=0$ for $\rho\in[\sqrt{2}R,\infty]$ as in . Note, we do not have $\beta_2^*$ in since the lower and upper bounds of $\rho$ overlap with each other. As $\mu\rightarrow{\infty}$, we have $q_1\approx{q}_2\rightarrow{1/16}$ according to Proposition 6. By substituting $q_1$ and $q_2$ into , , and , we have $\beta^*=\beta_1^*=\beta_2^*=\beta_3^*=1-\frac{\rho}{R}$ for $\rho\in[0,R]$ and $\beta^*=\beta_4^*=0$ for $\rho\in[R,\sqrt{2}R]$. Furthermore, we have $\beta^*=0$ for $\rho\in[\sqrt{2}R,\infty)$ as in . {width="0.9\columnwidth"} We now assume $k_1>\max(k_2,k_3,k_4)$ and give more intuitive explanations of Corollary 5. Basically, $\mu\rightarrow0$ tells the typical user is likely to be the only user in the cell and we thus decide the aggressive UAV deployment to cover $S_1$ as much as possible, while $\mu\rightarrow\infty$ tells that the users are more evenly distributed in all sectors and we thus decide the conservative UAV deployment that covers the other sectors as well. More specifically, we have the following discussions. - If $\rho\in[0,{R}/{2}]$, the UAV’s coverage region is far from enough to cover the whole $S_1$ as shown in Fig. 3(a). In this case, the optimal displacement location of the UAV is any point along the displacement direction that guarantees the circular coverage region of the UAV to be within $S_1$. The corresponding results in and are the same for any $\mu$, which is consistent with Proposition 5 in the 1D case. - If $\rho\in[R/2,\sqrt{2}R/2)$, the UAV’s coverage region is larger but still not enough to cover the whole $S_1$ including its corners as shown in Fig. 3(b). When the traffic load is sufficiently low (as $\mu\rightarrow{0}$), given $k\geq{1}$ and $k_1>\max(k_2,k_3,k_4)$, it is very likely that $S_1$ is the only sector that has a user. The best strategy for the UAV is to move to the center of $S_1$, i.e., $\beta^*=1/2$ as in or the pink hollowed dot in Fig. 3(b). When the traffic load is sufficiently high (as $\mu\rightarrow{\infty}$), each sector has a similar number of users though $k_1$ is still the largest. In this case, the UAV focuses more on serving users in $S_1$ while also serving the users in other sectors as much as it could. With $\beta^*=1-\rho/R$ in or the blue solid dot in Fig. 3(b), the UAV maximizes its coverage area in $S_1$ and avoids wasting any coverage outside the cell. - If $\rho\in[\sqrt{2}R/2,R)$, the coverage region of the UAV is larger than $S_1$ as shown in Fig. 3(c). As $\mu\rightarrow{0}$, the UAV will still focus on covering all points in $S_1$ and mildly cover other sectors by choosing $\beta^*=1-\frac{\rho}{\sqrt{2}R}$ as in or the pink hollowed dot in Fig. 3(c). It unnecessarily covers some points outside $S_1$. As $\mu\rightarrow{\infty}$, the other sectors are also important and the UAV will not cover any point outside $S_1$ by choosing $\beta^*=1-\frac{\rho}{R}$ in or the blue solid dot in Fig. 3(c). - If $\rho\in[R,\sqrt{2}R)$, the UAV’s coverage region is just not enough to cover the whole square cell as shown in Fig. 3(d). As $\mu\rightarrow{0}$, similar to the previous case, the optimal displacement is $\beta^*=1-\frac{\rho}{\sqrt{2}R}$ in or the pink hollowed dot in Fig. 3(d). As $\mu\rightarrow{\infty}$, we have $\beta^*=0$ in and the blue solid dot in Fig. 3(d). Finally, as $\rho$ increases to be greater than $\sqrt{2}R$, the UAV can cover any point in the square cell and does not need to adapt to the user realizations. Simulation Results ================== In this section, we evaluate the proposed adaptive UAV deployment scheme for different performance objectives in the 1D and 2D networks. We consider the downlink case and the UAV is operating with transmit power of $P_t=10$ mW at the height of $h=100$ m. The target cell for the 1D network is a line interval with the length of $R=1000$ m and that for the 2D network is a square region with the width of $2R=2000$ m. The communication bandwidth is $1$ MHz and the carrier frequency is $5.8$ GHz. We consider the noise power spectral density is $-170$ dBm$/$Hz and thus the receiver noise power is $\sigma^2=-110$ dBm. The corresponding wavelength of the carrier frequency is $\nu=0.05$ m, so that the reference channel power at $d=1$ m is $\theta=-47$ dB. We use $10^7$ number of realizations to generate all simulation results in this section. In the previous sections, we adopt the simple and practical majority-vote based adaptive scheme for tractable analysis, where the UAV does not need to adapt with a different $\beta^*$ in each realization. We now further discuss some other adaptive/non-adaptive schemes based on different side information on the user number and even their locations, which are defined as: - Adaptive deployment with perfect user location knowledge (Perfect knowledge adaptive scheme): the UAV has the perfect knowledge of the total number of MUs and their exact locations in each realization. The UAV updates its optimal displacement in each realization to maximize the average throughput or successful transmission events of all MUs. Under this scheme, the optimal displacement factor $\beta^*(X_m)$ is a function of user coordinates $X_m$ in each realization. - Adaptive deployment with exact user number per sector (Exact user number adaptive scheme): the UAV only knows the number of users $k_i$ for each sector (but not the user exact locations therein) in each realization. It updates its displacement location in each realization to maximize the expected outcome of the average throughput or successful transmission probability of all MUs. Under this scheme, the optimal displacement factor $\beta^*(k_i)$ is a function of user numbers $k_i$ in each realization. For the 1D scenario, the analytical result of $\beta^*(k_i)$ for average throughput maximization is given in Appendix A and that for success probability maximization is the same as Proposition 5 as discussed in Section IV. - Non-adaptive benchmark scheme: the UAV keeps staying at the cell center due to the homogeneous user density. We always have $\beta^*=0$ in all realizations. ![(a) Optimal $\beta^*$ that maximizes the average throughput in the 1D user network. (b) Comparison of the maximum average throughput $\mathbb{E}[C(\beta^*)]$ among various schemes.](fig4.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"} First, in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, the performance is shown for the 1D user network case. In Fig. 4(a), the average throughput of MU$_0$ is observed to be concave in $\beta$, where the simulation results match well with that of Proposition 2. We see that the optimal $\beta^*$ decreases with $\lambda$. From Fig. 4(b), we observe that, if the UAV is able to adapt to the perfect knowledge of user number and locations, the performance gain is significant, though this is difficult to realize in practice and its advantage decreases with $\lambda$. Compared to the scheme with exact user number per sector known, the majority-vote scheme is easier to implement and also achieves a very close performance for various user densities, explained as follows. Intuitively, only when the user number is very asymmetric across all sectors in one realization, the exact user number adaptive scheme that adopts a different displacement factor customized for this realization can obviously outperform the majority-vote scheme that adopts the same displacement factor across all realizations. However, this extremely asymmetric event happens rarely under the HPPP setting as all sectors have same user density $\lambda$. When we consider the average throughput over the long run, this advantage is minor and thus the two schemes have very close performance. Furthermore, we observe that the three adaptive schemes greatly outperform the non-adaptive scheme, especially for small user density. When the traffic load is high, all realizations tend to approach average sense and it is better to be non-adaptive to meet instantaneous traffic. {width="0.95\columnwidth"} In Fig. 5(a), we show that the success probability $p$ of the typical user is concave in $\beta$ in the 1D network case, where the simulation results match the analytical results in Proposition 4. In Fig. 5(b), we compare the four schemes in terms of success probability. Similar to Fig. 4(b), the maximum success probabilities of the three adaptive schemes greatly outperform that of the non-adaptive scheme for low traffic load and the performance gain decreases with the traffic load. We further notice that the curve of the majority-vote scheme is aligned with that of the exact user number scheme. Moreover, if the UAV knows the perfect number and exact locations of the MUs (though difficult in practice), the success probability can be further improved, where this improvement is more significant in the high target SNR regime. Intuitively, if the UAV has smaller coverage region, knowing exact MUs’ locations helps better pin-point the target MUs. ![(a) Optimal $\beta^*$ that maximizes the average throughput in the 2D user network. (b) Comparison of the maximum average throughput $\mathbb{E}[C(\beta^*)]$ among various schemes.](fig6.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"} Next, in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7, we show the performance in the 2D user network case. In Fig. 6(a), we show that the optimal displacement factor $\beta^*$ that maximizes the average throughput decreases with the MU density $\lambda$. The simulation result is consistent with the analytical result given in Proposition 7. In Fig. 6(b), we use exhaustive search method to find the optimal UAV deployment position (including both the optimal direction and optimal distance) for the perfect knowledge adaptive scheme and the exact user number adaptive scheme, respectively. The insight for the 2D network is similar to that of the 1D network except that the gap between the exact user number scheme and majority-vote scheme is slightly larger, which is due to the loss of optimality in the direction selection for the latter scheme in the 2D network. Specifically, the two schemes are equivalent as $\lambda\rightarrow{0}$ when there is only one user (if any) in the cell. {width="0.95\columnwidth"} In Fig. 7(a), we plot the optimal $\beta^*$ that maximizes the success probability of MU$_0$ versus the UAV’s coverage radius $\rho$. It matches well with the analytical results in Proposition 8. If $\rho<R/2$, the optimal $\beta^*$ is flexible and can be any point within the regime of $[\rho/R,1-\rho/R)$ as illustrated by the blue solid triangle, where this optimal regime shrinks with $\rho$. If $\rho\in[R/2,\sqrt{2}R]$, the optimal $\beta^*$ is unique and generally decreases with increasing $\rho$. Intuitively, the UAV can move with a shorter distance when it has a wider coverage region. Moreover, the optimal $\beta^*$ decreases as the user density $\lambda$ increases. One can also check that the curves with $\lambda=10^{-8}$ and $\lambda=10^{-4}$ are consistent with the asymptotic discussions of $\mu\rightarrow{0}$ and $\mu\rightarrow\infty$ in Corollary 5. In Fig. 7(b), we compare the maximum success probability for the majority-vote scheme with the perfect knowledge adaptive scheme and non-adaptive scheme under different SNR thresholds, where the insight is similar to that of Fig. 5(b) in the 1D network case. {width="0.55\columnwidth"} In Fig. 8, we extend the results to the multi-UAV case for 1D scenario. We consider $2n+1$ UAV cells by copying the single cell of $[-R,R]$ in Fig. 1 $n$ times on both sides the line. The target cell of UAV$_i$ is denoted by $[(i-1)R,(i+1)R]$, where $i$ is any integer within $[-n,n]$. Here we adopt $n=10$ for this simulation. The MUs follow HPPP with density of $\lambda$ over the whole 1D line, where the total user number inside each cell is a Poisson random variable with the mean value of $\mu=2\lambda{R}$. Similar to the single-UAV case, each UAV$_i$ also has three candidate stop points, i.e., $(iR-\beta{R},h)$, $(iR,h)$ and $(iR+\beta{R},h)$, and the UAV adapts its location following the similar majority-vote criteria as in (1). We consider the worst case scenario of full frequency reuse among the cells, where all the UAVs are interfering with each other. From Fig. 8 we observe that the optimal $\beta^*$ of the multi-UAV case is smaller than that of the single-UAV case for various user densities. Intuitively, the UAV should be more conservative in the adaptation process (i.e., not to move too close to each other) in order to avoid interfering with other cells. Still, the insight is similar to the single-user case, where the optimal $\beta^*$ decreases with the user density $\lambda$. Conclusions =========== In this paper, we proposed an adaptive UAV deployment scheme in a Poisson distributed 1D/2D random user network, where the UAV adapts its location according to the instantaneous traffic load in different sectors within its target cell. We adopted a simple majority-vote rule to displace the UAV in the direction of the sector that has the highest number of users in each network realization. This scheme is applicable for the scenario when the exact user number/locations in each sector are difficult to obtain in practice. We designed the optimal displacement distance in the chosen sector to maximize the average throughput for the variable-rate application and the success probability for the fixed-rate application, respectively. For average throughput maximization, the optimal displacement distance decreases with the average traffic load. For success probability maximization, the optimal displacement distance does not necessarily decrease with the average traffic load but depends on the target SNR. Extensive simulations show that the adaptive deployment scheme outperforms that of the non-adaptive scheme, especially for low traffic load. In the future work, we are working towards generalizing the adaptive UAV deployment in a multi-antenna and/or multi-UAV scenario. Appendix A: Derivation of Optimal $\beta^*$ Based on Exact User Number per Sector for Average Throughput Maximization in 1D Network {#appendix-a-derivation-of-optimal-beta-based-on-exact-user-number-per-sector-for-average-throughput-maximization-in-1d-network .unnumbered} =================================================================================================================================== First, we derive the expected throughput of MU$_0$ in one realization with given known $k_1=K_1$ and $k_2=K_2$, and the UAV location $U=U_j$ based on (1) as follows: $$\begin{aligned} &\mathbb{E}[C\big|k_1=K_1,k_2=K_2,U=U_j]\nonumber\\ &=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{2}\Pr\left[X_0\in{S_i}\big|k_1=K_1,k_2=K_2,U=U_j\right]\mathbb{E}\left[C\big|k_1=K_1,k_2=K_2,U=U_j,X_0\in{S_i}\right]\nonumber, %&=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{2}\frac{K_i}{K}\mathbb{E}\left[C\big|U=U_j,X_0\in{S_i}\right]\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ where $\Pr\left[X_0\in{S_i}\big|k_1=K_1,k_2=K_2,U=U_j\right]=\frac{K_i}{K},~\text{for}~i=1,2$ and the conditional throughput of $\mathbb{E}\left[C\big|k_1=K_1,k_2=K_2,U=U_j,X_0\in{S_i}\right]$ equals $\omega_{i,j}$ given in . Due to the symmetric feature, we further have $\omega_{1,0}=\omega_{2,0}=\omega_0$, $\omega_{1,1}=\omega_{2,2}=\omega_1$ and $\omega_{1,2}=\omega_{2,1}=\omega_2$. The expected throughput is thus rewritten as [=]{} \_0=,                                          \ \_1+\_2=(+)+(-), \ \_2+\_1=(+)+(-),  where $K=K_1+K_2$. Similar to Corollary 2 and Proposition 3, we can prove that the expected throughput $\mathbb{E}\left[C\big|k_1=K_1,k_2=K_2,U=U_j\right]$ for $j\neq0$ is strictly concave in $\beta$ for $\beta\in[0,1]$ and the optimal $\beta^*(k_1,k_2)$ in this realization is the solution to $K_j\varrho_1 -K_i\varrho_2=0~\text{for}~j=1,2~\text{and}~i\neq{j}$. Appendix B: Proof of Proposition 6 {#appendix-b-proof-of-proposition-6 .unnumbered} ================================== We rewrite as $$\begin{aligned} q_j %&=\Pr\left[U=U_j,W_0\in{S_1}\big|k\geq{1}\right]\nonumber\\ %&=\Pr\left[k_j>\max\limits_{i\neq{j}}(k_i),W_0\in{S_1}\big|k\geq{1}\right]\nonumber\\ &= %\frac {\Pr\left[k_j>\max\limits_{i\neq{j}}(k_i),W_0\in{S_1},k\geq{1}\right]}/{\Pr\left(k\geq{1}\right)},\label{k1} %&=\frac{\Pr\left[k_1>k_2,X_0\in{S_1},k_1\geq{1},k_2\geq{0}\right]+\Pr\left[k_1>k_2,X_0\in{S_1},k_1=0,k_2\geq{0}\right]}{\Pr\left(k\geq{1}\right)}\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ where $\Pr\left[k\geq{1}\right]=1-\exp(-\mu) $ with $\mu=4{R^2}\lambda$. A. Derivations of $q_j$ {#a.-derivations-of-q_j .unnumbered} ----------------------- We first derive the joint probability in the numerator of for $j=1$. Since $W_0\in{S_1}$ indicates that at least one user is inside the sector $S_1$, we can rewrite $k\geq{1}$ as $k_1\geq{1}$ and $k_i\geq{0}$ $\forall~i\neq{1}$ and thus have $$\begin{aligned} &\Pr\left[k_1>\max\limits_{i\neq{1}}(k_i),W_0\in{S_1},k\geq{1}\right] =\Pr\left[k_1>\max\limits_{i\neq{1}}(k_i),W_0\in{S_1},k_1\geq{1},k_{i}\geq{0} ~\forall{i}\neq{1}\right].\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Note that we cannot remove the event of $W_0\in{S_1}$ from the above joint events. Though we can deduce $k_1\geq{1}$ from $W_0\in{S_1}$, the converse is not true. We adopt convolution to derive this joint probability. Let $k_1=t_1$ and $k_i=t_1-t_i$ $\forall$ $i\neq{1}$. Since $k_1\geq{1}$ and $k_{i}\geq{0}$ $\forall$ $i\neq{1}$, we have $t_1\geq{\max\limits_{i\neq{1}}(1,t_i)}$. Moreover, since $k_1>\max\limits_{i\neq{1}}(k_i)$ and $k_i\geq0$, we have $t_i\geq{1}$ $\forall~i$. By averaging over $k_1$ and all possible $k_i$ for $i\neq{1}$, the joint probability is $$\begin{aligned} &\Pr\left[k_1>\max\limits_{i\neq{1}}(k_i),W_0\in{S_1},k_1\geq{1},k_{i}\geq0~\forall{i}\neq1\right]\nonumber\\ &=\sum_{t_M=1}^{\infty}\cdots\sum_{t_2=1}^{\infty}\sum_{t_1=\max\limits(t_2,\cdots,t_M)}^{\infty} \Pr\left[W_0\in{S_1}\big|k_1=t_1,k_2=t_1-t_2,\cdots,k_M=t_1-t_M\right]\nonumber\\ &~~~\times\Pr\left[k_1=t_1,k_2=t_1-t_2,\cdots,k_M=t_1-t_M\right]\label{eq1}.\end{aligned}$$ As $k\sim{\text{Poi}(\mu)}$ and $k_j\sim{\text{Poi}(\mu/M)}$ are independent, we decompose the joint PDF into $M$ independent Poisson PDFs. $$\begin{aligned} &\Pr\left[k_1=t_1,k_2=t_1-t_2,\cdots,k_M=t_1-t_M\right] %&=\Pr\left[k_1=t_1\right]\Pr\left[k_2=t_1-t_2\right]\cdots\Pr\left[k_L=t_1-t_L\right]\nonumber\\ =\Pr\left[k_1=t_1\right]\prod_{i=2}^{M}\Pr\left[k_i=t_1-t_i\right]\nonumber\\ &=\left[e^{-\frac{\mu}{M}}\frac{\left(\frac{\mu}{M}\right)^{t_1}}{t_1!}\right] \left[e^{-\frac{\mu}{M}}\frac{\left(\frac{\mu}{M}\right)^{t_1-t_2}}{(t_1-t_2)!}\right]\cdots \left[{e}^{-\frac{\mu}{M}}\frac{\left(\frac{\mu}{M}\right)^{t_1-t_M}}{(t_1-t_M)!}\right] =e^{-\mu}\frac{\left(\frac{\mu}{M}\right)^{Mt_1-\sum_{i=2}^{M}t_i}}{t_1!\prod_{i=2}^{M}(t_1-t_i)!}.\label{eq2}\end{aligned}$$ Conditioned on the fixed values of each $k_i$, the probability that the typical user is selected from the first sector, i.e., $W_0\in{S_1}$, is given by $\frac{k_1}{\sum_{i=1}^Mk_i}$. We thus have $$\begin{aligned} \Pr\left[W_0\in{S_1}\big|k_1=t_1,k_2=t_1-t_2,\cdots,k_M=t_1-t_M\right] %&=\frac{k_1}{\sum_{j=1}^Lk_j} =\frac{t_1}{Mt_1-\sum_{i=2}^{M}t_i}.\label{eq3}\end{aligned}$$ By substituting and into and , we obtain $q_1$ in Proposition 6. Next, we derive the joint probability in the numerator of for $j\geq{2}$. We can deduce $k_1\geq{1}$ from $W_0\in{S_1}$ and further deduce $k_j\geq{2}$ since $k_j>k_1$. The event of $k\geq{1}$ is thus equivalent to $k_1\geq{1}$, $k_j\geq{2}$ and $k_i\geq{0}$ $\forall{i}\neq{1,j}$. The joint probability is thus given by $$\begin{aligned} &\Pr\left[k_j>\max\limits_{i\neq{j}}(k_i),W_0\in{S_1},k\geq{1}\right]\nonumber\\ &=\sum_{t_M=1}^{\infty}\cdots\sum_{t_2=1}^{\infty} \sum_{t_1=\max(t_2+1,t_3,\cdots,t_M)}^{\infty}\Pr\left[k_j=t_1\right] \Pr\left[k_1=t_1-t_2\right]\prod_{i\neq{1,j}}\Pr\left[k_i=t_1-t_i\right]\nonumber %&=\Pr\left[k_j>\max\limits_{j\neq{i}}(k_i),W_0\in{S_1},k_1\geq{1},k_j\geq2,k_{i}\geq{0}~\forall{i}\neq{1,j}\right]\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} &~~~\times\Pr\left[W_0\in{S_1}\big|k_j=t_1,k_1=t_1-t_2,k_{i(\forall{i}\neq{1,j})}=t_1-t_i\right]\nonumber\\ &=e^{-\mu}\sum_{t_M=1}^{\infty}\cdots\sum_{t_2=1}^{\infty} \sum_{t_1=\max(t_2+1,t_3,\cdots,t_L)}^{\infty} \frac{\left(\frac{\mu}{M}\right)^{Mt_1-\sum_{i=2}^{M}t_i}}{t_1!\prod_{i=2}^{M}(t_1-t_i)!} \frac{t_1-t_2}{Mt_1-\sum_{i=2}^Mt_i}.\label{eq5}\end{aligned}$$ By substituting into , we obtain the second case of $q_j$ in Proposition 6. Third, we derive the joint probability in the numerator of for $j=0$. In this case, the UAV stays at the origin, i.e., $U=U_0$. The joint probability is given by $$\begin{aligned} q_0 %=\Pr\left[U=U_0,W_0\in{S_1}\big|k\geq{1}\right]\nonumber\\ &=\Pr\left(W_0\in{S_1}\big|k\geq{1}\right) -\sum_{i=1}^{M}\Pr\left[U=U_i,W_0\in{S_1}\big|k\geq{1}\right].\label{q0} %&=\frac{1}{M}-\sum\limits_{i=1}^{M}q_i.\end{aligned}$$ As $k\sim{\text{Poi}(\mu)}$ and the $M$ sectors are equally partitioned, we have $k_1\sim\text{Binom}(k,\frac{1}{M})$. As the typical user is chosen from these MUs, we thus have $\Pr\left[W_0\in{S_1}\big|k\geq{1}\right]=\frac{1}{M}$. Substituting it into , we obtain the third case of $q_j$ in Proposition 6. B. Asymptotic Analysis {#b.-asymptotic-analysis .unnumbered} ---------------------- Conditioned on $k\geq{1}$, the conditional PMF is given by and . As $\mu\rightarrow{0}$, we have $e^{-\mu}=1-\mu$. For $j=1$, we have $$\begin{aligned} \lim\limits_{\mu\rightarrow{0}}q_1 &=\lim\limits_{\mu\rightarrow{0}}\Pr\left[k=1\big|k\geq{1}\right]\Pr\left[k_1=1,k_2=0,\cdots,k_L=0\big|k={1}\right]\nonumber\\ &~~~\times\Pr\left[W_0\in{S_1}\big|k_1=1,k_2=0,\cdots,k_M=0\right] =1\times{\frac{1}{M}}\times{1}=\frac{1}{M}.\end{aligned}$$ For $j\geq{2}$, we have $$\begin{aligned} \lim\limits_{\mu\rightarrow{0}}q_j %=\lim\limits_{\mu\rightarrow{0}}\Pr\left[k_j>\max\limits_{i\neq{j}}(k_i),W_0\in{S_1}\big|k\geq{1}\right]\nonumber\\ &=\lim\limits_{\mu\rightarrow{0}}\Pr\left[k=1\big|k\geq{1}\right] \Pr\left[k_j>\max\limits_{i\neq{j}}(k_i),W_0\in{S_1}\big|k=1\right]=1\times{0}=0.\end{aligned}$$ And for $j=0$, we have $\lim\limits_{\mu\rightarrow{0}}q_0=0$. Similarly, we can prove that $\lim\limits_{\mu\rightarrow{\infty}}q_j=1/M^2$ for $j\neq{0}$ and $\lim\limits_{\mu\rightarrow{\infty}}q_0=0$. [10]{} Z. Wang, L. Duan, and R. Zhang, “Traffic-aware adaptive deployment for UAV-aided communication networks,” in [Proc. *IEEE Global Commun. Conf. (GLOBECOM 2018),*]{} Abu Dhabi, UAE, Dec. 9-13, 2018. E. W. Frew and T. X. Brown, “Airborne communication networks for small unmanned aircraft systems,” [*Proc. IEEE,*]{} vol. 96, no. 12, pp. 2008-2027, Dec. 2008. Y. Zeng, R. Zhang, and T. J. Lim, “Throughput maximization for UAV-enabled mobile relaying systems,” [*IEEE Trans. Commun.,*]{} vol. 64, no. 12, pp. 4983-4996, Dec. 2016. S. Zhang, H. Zhang, Q. He, K. Bian, and L. Song, “Joint trajectory and power optimization for UAV relay networks,” [*IEEE Commun. Lett.*]{}, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 161-164, Jan. 2018. Y. Zeng, X. Xu, and R. Zhang, “Trajectory design for completion time minimization in UAV-enabled multicasting,” [*IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.,*]{} vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 2233-2246, Apr. 2018. J. Lyu, Y. Zeng, and R. Zhang, “UAV-aided offloading for cellular hotspot,” to appear in [*IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.,*]{} 2018. S. Jeong, O. Simeone, and J. Kang, “Mobile edge computing via a UAV-mounted cloudlet: Optimization of bit allocation and path planning,” [*IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.,*]{} vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 2049-2063, Mar. 2018. Q. Wu, Y. Zeng, and R. Zhang, “Joint trajectory and communication design for multi-UAV enabled wireless networks,” [*IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.,*]{} vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 2109-2121, Mar. 2018. M. Mozaffari, W. Saad, M. Bennis, and M. Debbah, “Efficient deployment of multiple unmanned aerial vehicles for optimal wireless coverage,” [*IEEE Commun. Lett.,*]{} vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 1647-1650, Aug. 2016. A. Al-Hourani, S. Kandeepan, and S. Lardner, “Optimal LAP altitude for maximum coverage,” [*IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett.,*]{} vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 569-572, Dec. 2014. M. Alzenad, A. El-Keyi, F. Lagum, and H. Yanikomeroglu, “3-D placement of an unmanned aerial vehicle base station (UAV-BS) for energy-efficient maximal coverage,” [*IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett.,*]{} vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 434-437, Aug. 2017. X. Zhang and L. Duan, “Fast deployment of UAV networks for optimal wireless coverage,” [*IEEE Trans. Mobile Comput.*]{}, in press, 2018. M. Mozaffari, W. Saad, M. Bennis, and M. Debbah, “Unmanned aerial vehicle with underlaid device-to-device communications: Performance and tradeoffs,” [*IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.,*]{} vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 3949-3963, Jun. 2016. X. Xu, L. Duan, and M. Li, “UAV placement games for optimal wireless service provision,” in [*Proc. IEEE 16th Int. Symposium on Modeling and Optimization in Mobile, Ad Hoc and Wireless Netw. (WiOpt 2018),*]{} Shanghai, China, May 2018. X. Wang and L. Duan, “Dynamic pricing and capacity allocation of UAV-provided mobile services,” to appear in [*Proc. IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM 2019),*]{} Paris, France, May 2019. J. Chen, U. Yatnalli, and D. Gesbert, “Learning radio maps for UAV-aided wireless networks: A segmented regression approach”, in [*Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. (ICC),*]{} Paris, France, May 2017. J. Chen and D. Gesbert, “Local map-assisted positioning for flying wireless relays,” arXiv: 1801.03595, 2018. M. Chen, M. Mozaffari, W. Saad, C. Yin, M. Debbah, and C. S. Hong, “Caching in the sky: Proactive deployment of cache-dnabled unmanned aerial vehicles for optimized quality-of-experience”, [*IEEE J. Selected Areas Commun. (JSAC),*]{} vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 1046-1061, May 2017. X. Zhou, J. Guo, S. Durrani, and H. Yanikomeroglu, “Uplink coverage performance of an underlay drone cell for temporary events,” in [*Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. (ICC)*]{}, Kansas City, USA, May 2018. V. V. Chetlur and H. S. Dhillon, “Downlink coverage analysis for a finite 3-D wireless network of unmanned aerial vehicles,” [*IEEE Trans. Commun.,*]{} vol. 65, no. 10, pp. 4543-4558, Oct. 2017. B. Galkin, J. Kibilda, and L. A. DaSilva, “Coverage analysis for low-altitude UAV networks in urban environments,” in [*Proc. IEEE Global Commun. Conf. (GLOBECOM)*]{}, Singapore, Dec 2017. C. Zhang and W. Zhang, “Spectrum sharing for drone networks,” [*IEEE J. Sel. areas Commun.,*]{} vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 136-144, Jan. 2017. M. M. Azari, F. Rosas, K.-C. Chen, and S. Pollin, “Ultra reliable UAV communication using altitude and cooperation diversity,” [*IEEE Trans. Commun.,*]{} vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 330-344, Jan. 2018. A. Goldsmith, [*Wireless Communications,*]{} Cambridge. University Press, 2005. [^1]: Part of this work was presented at the IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM 2018), Abu Dhabi, UAE, Dec. 9-13, 2018. [@Zhe] [^2]: Z. Wang and L. Duan are with Pillar of Engineering Systems and Design, Singapore University of Technology and Design, Singapore (e-mail: zhe$\[email protected]; lingjie$\[email protected]). [^3]: R. Zhang is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore (e-mail: [email protected]).

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We present a new data-driven paradigm for variational brittle fracture mechanics. The fracture-related material modeling assumptions are removed and the governing equations stemming from variational principles are combined with a set of discrete data points, leading to a model-free data-driven method of solution. The solution at a given load step is identified as the point within the data set that best satisfies either the Kuhn-Tucker conditions stemming from the variational fracture problem or global minimization of a suitable energy functional, leading to data-driven counterparts of both the local and the global minimization approaches of variational fracture mechanics. Both formulations are tested on different test configurations with and without noise and for Griffith and R-curve type fracture behavior.' address: - 'Dept. of Mechanical and Process Engineering, ETH Zürich, Tannenstr. 3, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland ' - 'Dept. of Mechanical and Process Engineering, ETH Zürich, Tannenstr. 3, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland ' - 'Institut de Recherche en Génie Civil et Mécanique (GeM - UMR 6183), École Centrale de Nantes, 1 rue de la Noë - BP 92101, 44321 Nantes cedex 3, France.' - 'Division of Engineering and Applied Science, California Institute of Technology, 1200 East California Boulevard, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA.' author: - 'P. Carrara$^{*}$' - 'L. De Lorenzis' - 'L. Stainier' - 'M. Ortiz' bibliography: - 'Biblio.bib' title: 'Data-Driven Fracture Mechanics' --- [^1] Introduction ============ Data-driven techniques rooted in data science and machine learning recently experienced a tremendous development and a boost of applications in many fields such as finance, advertising and marketing, to create predictive models based on large sets of discrete data [@Bessa2017]. Related approaches were applied since the late ’80s to mechanics problems but were restricted to pre- or post-processing procedures, with the aim of identifying unknown parameters in pre-defined material constitutive laws or for design optimization [@Goldberg1987; @Ghaboussi1991; @Pernot1999], whereas the solution of the mechanics boundary value problems followed the conventional lines. More recently, the novel paradigm of model-free data-driven computational mechanics was advocated [@Kirchdoerfer2016]. The main idea is that boundary value problems in mechanics are based upon two types of relationships: an epistemic and certain set of basic conservation laws (e.g., energy balance, equilibrium, compatibility) and an empirical and uncertain set of material constitutive equations [@Kirchdoerfer2016]. The uncertainty of the latter stems from the attempt to distillate analytical models from collected data, with an unavoidable manipulation of the information [@Lopez2018]. In this process, uncertain assumptions on the characteristics of the constitutive model are introduced to obtain objective functions that are calibrated using the collected data, also affected by uncertainty. The consequent interaction between these two sources of uncertainty is hardly predictable and can be avoided by directly replacing the classical constitutive relationships with information supplied by discrete raw observations. The data-driven solver in [@Kirchdoerfer2016] assigns to each material point the point in the available data set closest to the subset of points fulfilling compatibility and equilibrium. Subsequent extensions were proposed to geometrically nonlinear elasticity [@Nguyen2018; @Conti2020], and elastodynamics [@Kirchdoerfer2018]. Further developments include a maximum entropy scheme increasing robustness with respect to outliers [@Kirchdoerfer2017], and the reformulation of the problem in the framework of mixed-integer quadratic optimization [@Kanno2019]. Based on the approach in [@Kirchdoerfer2016], a new methodology to identify material parameters and stresses in experimental testing based on digital image correlation was developed in [@Leygue2018; @Stainier2019]. Alternative data-driven formulations [@Ibanez2017; @Ibanez2017a] seek to reconstruct a constitutive manifold from data using manifold learning methods. In the case of elasticity, the goal is to use data to identify a suitable approximation of the strain energy density functional. Extensions of the Data-Driven formulation to inelastic materials have been considered by Eggersmann [*et al.*]{} [@Eggersmann2018]. The fundamental challenge is to account for the history dependence of the material without modeling assumptions such as an [*ad hoc*]{} choice of internal variables. Eggersmann [*et al.*]{} [@Eggersmann2018] investigate three representational paradigms for the evolving material data sets: i) materials with memory, i. e., conditioning the material data set to the past history of deformation; ii) differential materials, i. e., conditioning the material data set to short histories of stress and strain; and iii) history variables, i. e., optimally identifying variables encoding as much information as possible about history dependence in stress-strain data. In this latter vein, a particular choice of internal variable, namely, the plastic-strain rate, has been considered in [@Ladeveze2019]. Despite these advances, the extension of the model-free data-driven approach to dissipative inelastic behavior remains a largely open and non-trivial challenge. In this paper, we propose a data-driven approach to the solution of the rate independent fracture problem in brittle materials. This class of problems is particularly suited to be adapted to the model-free data-driven paradigm since the natural choice for the history variable is the crack extension, which is easy to measure experimentally. For the sake of simplicity, we assume a known linear elastic constitutive behavior of the material and focus on the data-driven solution of the fracture problem. Along the same lines as in [@Kirchdoerfer2016], we remove the fracture-related material modeling assumptions and let the fracture constitutive behavior be fully encoded in a discrete set of material data. In addition, we derive the epistemic and certain set of conservation laws from variational principles. In the variational formulation of the fracture problem, we consider both the stationarity condition of the free energy, i. e., a solution based on metastability or local stability [@Negri2008], which is the closest to Griffith’s view of fracture, and a solution based on global stability in the spirit of [@Francfort2008]. The solution at a given load step is identified as the point within the data set that best fulfils either stationarity or global minimization of the free energy, leading to the data-driven counterparts of both the local and the global minimization approaches. The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. In Sect. \[sct:formulation\] standard rate-independent fracture mechanics is briefly recalled along with its variational setting in terms of both local and global minimization of the free energy. The data-driven counterparts are formulated in Sect. \[sct:DD\_frac\], where also the main aspects of the numerical implementation are described. Sect. \[sct:NUM\_ex\] presents some numerical examples, where standard and data-driven formulations are tested on different setups with and without noise, for Griffith and R-curve type fracture behavior. Conclusions are drawn in Sect. \[sct:conclusions\]. Classical fracture mechanics {#sct:formulation} ============================ Throughout this work, we are concerned with the problem of modeling the growth of cracks in elastic materials. In order to focus attention on how data-driven concepts apply to fracture mechanics, we consider the simplest possible case of a solid with a known linearly elastic constitutive behavior, in which the crack set can be characterized by a single length parameter $a$. \[subsec:cracked\_solid\]Equilibrium of a cracked elastic solid --------------------------------------------------------------- Crack growth is an inelastic process in which the crack configuration evolves according to kinetics and is driven by energetic forces. In order to exhibit the structure of the theory in its simplest form, we adopt a compliance representation of the energy and assume planar rate-independent crack growth under mode I loading. Under these conditions, the configuration of the crack is described by the single variable $a$, which plays the role of a state variable, the loading by an effective force $P$ and the deformation by a conjugate effective displacement $\Delta$. At equilibrium $P$ and $\Delta$ necessarily bear a linear relation of the form $$\Delta=C(a)P\label{compl}$$ where $C(a)$ is the crack-length-dependent *compliance* of the solid (Fig. \[fig:scheme\]a). Throughout this paper we assume the compliance function to be exactly known. We assume displacement control and formulate the equilibrium problem as follows. Suppose the solid has an initial crack of length $a_{0}$, and it is imparted a prescribed opening displacement $\Delta$ (Fig. \[fig:scheme\]a). Our goal is to determine the equilibrium crack length $a^{*}\left(\Delta,a_{0}\right)$, where we postulate $a^{*}\geq a_{0}$ due to irreversibility, and the corresponding load $P$ (Fig. \[fig:scheme\]a). More generally, within an incremental displacement-controlled loading process, we may want to determine the incremental behavior of the system; i.e., for given $\Delta_{k+1}$ at time $t_{k+1}$ and $a_{k}$ at time $t_{k}$, determine $a_{k+1}\left(\Delta_{k+1},a_{k}\right)$, with $a_{k+1}\geq a_{k}$ due to irreversibility, and the corresponding load $P_{k+1}$. Note that the quantity $a_k$ plays here the role of a history variable. [-3cm]{}[-3cm]{} ![(a) Sketch of the equilibrium problem and (b) schematic representation of the equilibrium curve exhibiting loading/elastic unloading behavior.[]{data-label="fig:scheme"}](fig1 "fig:") Both the equilibrium and the incremental problem can be characterized variationally by means of energy dissipation principles. As follows, we formulate the equilibrium problem. We introduce the elastic strain energy of the solid $$\label{elstr} E=\frac{\Delta^{2}}{2C(a)}\,,$$ which has the properties $$\label{P_G} P=\frac{\partial E}{\partial\Delta}(\Delta,a),\qquad G=-\frac{\partial E}{\partial a}(\Delta,a)\,,$$ where $G$ is known as the energy release rate. Combining (\[elstr\]) and (\[P\_G\]b) gives $$G=\frac{\Delta^{2}}{2C^{2}(a)}\frac{dC}{da}\,,$$ which provides a shortcut to compute $G$ known as compliance method. Let us now introduce the free energy $$F(\Delta,a)=E(\Delta,a)+F_{R}(a)\,,$$ where the resistance term $F_{R}(a)$ has the property that $$G_{R}(a)=\frac{dF_{R}}{da}(a)\,,\label{eq:G_R}$$ defines the resistance curve in terms of energy release rates. For the solution of the problem based on the variational principle of free energy minimization we have two options. One possibility is to look for the value of crack length which corresponds to the *global minimum* of the free energy, i. e., $$F\left(\Delta,a^{*}\right)\leq F\left(\Delta,a\right)\quad\forall a\geq a_{0}\,,$$ or $$\label{eq:glob} a^{*}\left(\Delta,a_{0}\right)=\mathrm{argmin\left\{ \mathit{F\left(\Delta,a\right):a\geq a_{0}}\right\} }\,.$$ Another possibility is to look for the value of crack length which corresponds to a *local minimum* of the free energy, i. e., to look for $a^{*}$ such that there exists $h>0$ satisfying $$F\left(\Delta,a^{*}\right)\leq F\left(\Delta,a^{*}+a-a^{*}\right)\qquad\forall a\geq a_{0},\left|a-a^{*}\right|\leq h\,,$$ i. e., for each $a\geq a_{0}$ in the *neighborhood* of $a^{*}$. A first-order Taylor series expansion of the right-hand side, along with (\[P\_G\]b) and (\[eq:G\_R\]), leads to $$\label{eq:ineq} \left[G\left(\Delta,a^{*}\right)-G_{R}\left(a^{*}\right)\right]\left(a-a^{*}\right)\leq0\quad\forall a\geq a_{0}\,.$$ There are two possibilities to satisfy this condition, namely - for $a^{*}>a_{0}$, $a-a^{*}$ can have any sign. Hence, in order to satisfy (\[eq:ineq\]), it must be $G\left(\Delta,a^{*}\right)-G_{R}\left(a^{*}\right)=0$; - for $a^{*}=a_{0}$, it can only be $a-a^{*}\geq0$, so that (\[eq:ineq\]) gives $G\left(\Delta,a^{*}\right)-G_{R}\left(a^{*}\right)\leq0$. These conditions can be collected in Kuhn-Tucker form as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:KT} a^{*}-a_{0} & \geq & 0\nonumber \\ G\left(\Delta,a^{*}\right)-G_{R}\left(a^{*}\right) & \leq & 0\\ \left[G\left(\Delta,a^{*}\right)-G_{R}\left(a^{*}\right)\right]\left(a^{*}-a_{0}\right) & = & 0\,.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Evidently, these relations reduce to the Griffith criterion when $G_{R}(a)=G_{c}=$ constant. Global and local minimization obviously deliver the same solution if the free energy is a convex function of $a$. Otherwise, it is known in the literature that the two options in general deliver different results, see [@Negri2008]. Inserting $a^{*}\left(\Delta,a_{0}\right)$ obtained either from (\[eq:glob\]) or from (\[eq:KT\]) into the equilibrium relation (\[P\_G\]a), we obtain $$\label{eq:P_eq} P=\frac{\partial E}{\partial\Delta}(\Delta,a^{*}\left(\Delta,a_{0}\right))\,,$$ which characterizes all possible $\left(P,\Delta\right)$ pairs attainable by the system given $a_{0}$. Hence, for a given $\Delta$ it is immediate to find $P$. We expect the curve defined by (\[eq:P\_eq\]) to exhibit loading-unloading behavior, with elastic unloading occurring when $a^{*}(\Delta,a_{0})=a_{0}$, i. e., under conditions of crack arrest, and loading when $a^{*}(\Delta,a_{0})>a_{0}$, i. e., under conditions of crack growth (Fig. \[fig:scheme\]b). \[subsec:cracksol\_test\]Equilibrium of a cracked elastic solid connected to a testing machine ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Suppose, more generally, that the solid is connected to a testing machine of compliance $C_{{\rm M}}$. Then, the opening displacement $\Delta$ and the load are related as $$\Delta_{{\rm T}}=\Delta+C_{{\rm M}}P,\label{machine}$$ where $\Delta_{{\rm T}}$ is a time-dependent control opening displacement. Other loading devices result in different load-displacement relations and may involve different control parameters, but the simple linear device (\[machine\]) suffices to illustrate the concept. The elimination of $P$ between (\[P\_G\]a) and (\[machine\]) delivers $$\label{eq:delta} \Delta=\frac{C\left(a\right)}{C\left(a\right)+C_{M}}\Delta_{T}\,.$$ Once again we formulate the equilibrium problem. The solid has an initial crack of length $a_{0}$, and it is subjected by the testing machine to a prescribed opening displacement $\Delta_{T}$. Our goal is to determine the equilibrium crack length $a^{*}\left(\Delta_{T},a_{0}\right)$, where we postulate $a^{*}\geq a_{0}$ due to irreversibility, and the corresponding load $P$ and opening displacement $\Delta$. In fact, we first determine $a^{*}\left(\Delta,a_{0}\right)$ to leverage the results in Sect. \[subsec:cracked\_solid\], and then show how one can directly determine $a^{*}\left(\Delta_{T},a_{0}\right)$. In this case one can introduce a mixed variational principle, as follows. Define the function $$\Phi(\Delta,P,a)=E(\Delta,a)+F_{R}(a)-\frac{C_{{\rm M}}}{2}P^{2}-P(\Delta-\Delta_{{\rm T}}).\label{eq:mixed_varpr}$$ It is straightforward to verify that the Euler-Lagrange equations of the saddle-point problem $$\label{minimax} \min_{\Delta}\min_{a\geq a_{0}}\max_{P}\Phi(\Delta,P,a)\,,$$ are indeed (\[eq:P\_eq\]), (\[machine\]) and the Kuhn-Tucker conditions (\[eq:KT\]). The latter conditions obviously only hold if local minimization is pursued; alternatively, the direct global minimization of (\[eq:mixed\_varpr\]) with respect to $a\geq a_{0}$ must be carried out. Evidently, once, for a given $\Delta_{T}$, $a^{*}\left(\Delta,a_{0}\right)$ is determined by either global or local minimization, the new state $(P,\Delta)$ of the system must satisfy relations (\[eq:P\_eq\]) and (\[machine\]) simultaneously, i. e., it must lie at the intersection of the curves defined by (\[eq:P\_eq\]) and (\[machine\]). This defines automatically $P$ and $\Delta$. A more direct way to proceed is the following. By substituting (\[P\_G\]a) and (\[machine\]) into (\[eq:mixed\_varpr\]), the following reduced function is obtained $$\label{eq:mixed_varpr-1} \tilde{\Phi}(\Delta_{T},a)=\tilde{E}(\Delta_{T},a)+F_{R}(a)\,,$$ with $$\label{elstr-1} \tilde{E}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\Delta_{T}^{2}}{C(a)+C_{M}}\,,$$ which can then be directly minimized (globally or locally) with respect to $a$ at given $\Delta_{T}$ and $a_{0}$. Global minimization delivers $$a^{*}\left(\Delta_{T},a_{0}\right)=\mathrm{argmin\left\{ \mathit{\tilde{\Phi}\left(\Delta_{T},a\right):a\geq a_{0}}\right\} }\,,\label{eq:glob-1}$$ whereas local minimization leads to $$\begin{aligned} a^{*}-a_{0} & \geq & 0\nonumber \\ \tilde{G}\left(\Delta_{T},a^{*}\right)-G_{R}\left(a^{*}\right) & \leq & 0\label{eq:KT-1}\\ \left[\tilde{G}\left(\Delta_{T},a^{*}\right)-G_{R}\left(a^{*}\right)\right]\left(a^{*}-a_{0}\right) & = & 0\,,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{G}\left(\Delta_{T},a\right)$ is obtained from the combination of $G\left(\Delta,a\right)$ and (\[eq:delta\]). Data-driven fracture mechanics {#sct:DD_frac} ============================== For most materials, the crack resistance curve is only known through material testing, which results in limited data in the form of point sets. In addition, such data can be noisy. In the spirit of data-driven mechanics [@Kirchdoerfer2016], we explore the possibility of solving fracture mechanics problems directly from data. Data representation {#sct:full} ------------------- The question now arises of how to characterize fracture by means of data. To this end, we begin by reexamining the classical equilibrium problem of Sect. \[subsec:cracksol\_test\] in which $E(\Delta,a)$, $F_{R}(a)$ and the loading device are exactly known and characterized. We adopt the viewpoint that a solution is a pair $(\Delta,P)$ that simultaneously satisfies compatibility, equilibrium and the material laws. The space of solutions, or *phase space*, is therefore the space $\mathcal{Z}$ of work-conjugate pairs $(\Delta,P)$. Given $a_{0}$, we may identify the subset of $\mathcal{Z}$, $$\mathcal{D}=\{(\Delta,P)\,:\,\text{equation (\ref{eq:P_eq})}\},$$ as a *material data set* which collects the net sum of our knowledge about the material. Likewise, given $\Delta_{{\rm T}}$ we may identify the subset of $\mathcal{Z}$, $$\mathcal{E}=\{(\Delta,P)\,:\,\text{equation (\ref{machine})}\},$$ as a *constraint set*, consisting of all points in phase space that are compatible and in equilibrium with the loading machine. Evidently, within this framework the solution set for given $a_{0}$ and $\Delta_{{\rm T}}$ is the intersection $\mathcal{D}\cap\mathcal{E}$, i. e., the collection of points in phase space that are simultaneously in the material and constraint data sets. Suppose now that the elastic energy $E(\Delta,a)$ is exactly known, e. g., in terms of a fully characterized compliance, whereas the resistance part $F_{R}(a)$ of the free energy or its derivative $G_{R}(a)$ is known only from data. Given a crack length $a_{0}$ and an opening displacement $\Delta$, the corresponding equilibrium crack length $a^{*}(\Delta,a_{0})$ can be found from the data by either global or local minimization. Within an incremental loading procedure, we compute the equilibrium crack length $a_{k+1}$ for given displacement $\Delta_{k+1}$ at time $t_{k+1}$ and crack length $a_{k}$ at time $t_{k}$. This relation in turn defines the material data set, $$\mathcal{D}_{k+1}=\left\{(\Delta_{k+1},P(\Delta_{k+1},a^{*}(\Delta_{k+1},a_{k}))\right\}\,,$$ of all possible opening displacements and loads attainable at time $t_{k+1}$. Let $\mathcal{E}_{k+1}$ be the constraint set of points $(\Delta_{k+1},P_{k+1})$ consistent with the loading device at time $t_{k+1}$. We define the data-driven solution set at time $t_{k+1}$ as the intersection $\mathcal{D}_{k+1}\cap\mathcal{E}_{k+1}$, i. e., the collection of points in phase space that are simultaneously in the material and constraint data sets. As in (\[minimax\]), the entire solution $(\Delta_{k+1},P_{k+1},a_{k+1})$ can be characterized jointly by means of the saddle point problem $$\min_{\Delta}\min_{{a\geq a_{0}\atop (a,F_{R})\in\mathcal{D}_{R}}}\max_{P}\Big(E(\Delta,a)+F_{R}-\frac{C_{{\rm M}}}{2}P^{2}-P(\Delta-\Delta_{{\rm T}})\Big),\label{eq:minimax_data}$$ which now entails a discrete minimization over the resistance data set $\mathcal{D}_{R}$. If using local minimization with respect to $a$, $(a,F_{R})\in\mathcal{D}_{R}$ must be substituted by $(a,G_{R})\in\mathcal{D}_{R}$ in (\[eq:minimax\_data\]). Computational procedure {#sct:direct} ----------------------- A more direct and practical way of proceeding, which mirrors the introduction of the “reduced” function $\tilde{\Phi}$ in Sect. \[subsec:cracksol\_test\], is the following. When using the global minimization approach, the resistance data set $\mathcal{D}_{R}$ consists of pairs $(\hat{a}_i,\hat{F}_{Ri})$ and minimization is straightforwardly performed as follows: $a^{*}(\Delta_{T},a_{0})=\hat{a}_{i^{*}}$ with $$i^{*}(\Delta_{T},a_{0})={\rm \underset{\mathit{i}}{argmin}}\left\{\tilde{E}(\Delta_{T},\hat{a}_{i})+\hat{F}_{Ri}\,:\,\hat{a}_{i}\geq a_{0},\ (\hat{a}_{i},\hat{F}_{Ri})\in\mathcal{D}_{R}\right\}.\label{data_glob-1}$$ Note that $a^{*}(\Delta_{T},a_{0})$ follows from a discrete minimization over the point set $\mathcal{D}_{R}$ and is, therefore, stepwise. With local minimization, the data set $\mathcal{D}_{R}$ consists of pairs $(\hat{a}_i,\hat{G}_{Ri})$. Finding $a^{*}(\Delta_{T},a_{0})$ requires a little more care. A possible strategy is based on closest-point projection. Here we first determine $G_{R0}$ as the value of $\hat G_R$ corresponding to $\hat a = a_0$. Then, if the propagation condition is met, i. e., $G_{R0}-\tilde{G}\left(\Delta_{T},a_0\right)\le0$, and for each $(\hat{a}_i,\hat{G}_{Ri})$ pair in the data set with $\hat{a}_{i}\geq a_{0}$, we determine the distance to the analytical curve $\tilde{G}\left(\Delta_{T},a\right)$ as $$\tilde{d}_{i}\left(\Delta_{T},a_{0}\right)={\rm \underset{\mathit{a\geq a_{0}}}{min}}\left\{\sqrt{\left(\hat{a}_{i}-a\right)^{2}+\left(\hat{G}_{Ri}-\tilde{G}\left(\Delta_{T},a\right)\right)^{2}}\right\}\,,$$ and then compute $a^{*}(\Delta_{T},a_{0})$ by minimizing the distance between $\tilde{G}\left(\Delta_{T},a\right)$ and the resistance data set, as follows: $a^{*}(\Delta_{T},a_{0})=\hat{a}_{i^{*}}$ with $$i^{*}(\Delta_{T},a_{0})={\rm \underset{\mathit{i}}{argmin}}\left\{\tilde{d}_{i}(\Delta_{T},a_{0})\,:\,\hat{a}_{i}\geq a_{0},\ (\hat{a}_{i},\hat{G}_{Ri})\in\mathcal{D}_{R}\right\}.\label{data_loc-2}$$ A second possible strategy for local minimization is based on the best approximation of the third Kuhn-Tucker condition (known as the consistency condition). With this strategy, we compute $$\begin{split}i^{*}(\Delta_{T},a_{0})=&{\rm \underset{\mathit{i}}{argmin}}\left\{\left|\left(\tilde{G}\left(\Delta_{T},\hat{a}_{i}\right)-\hat{G}_{Ri}\right)\left(\hat{a}_{i}-a_{0}\right)\right|\,:\right.\\ &\left.\,\hat{a}_{i}\geq a_{0},\tilde{G}\left(\Delta_{T},\hat{a}_{i}\right)-\hat{G}_{Ri}\leq0,\ (\hat{a}_{i},\hat{G}_{Ri})\in\mathcal{D}_{R}\right\}.\end{split}\label{data_loc-1-1}$$ and once again $a^{*}(\Delta_{T},a_{0})=\hat{a}_{i^{*}}$. Note that in (\[data\_loc-1-1\]) the crack arrest/propagation condition is directly imposed within the minimization procedure. In all cases, once $a^{*}$ is known, $\Delta$ and $P$ can be computed directly: $$\Delta=\frac{C\left(a^{*}\right)}{C\left(a^{*}\right)+C_{M}}\Delta_{T}\,,\quad P=\frac{\Delta}{C\left(a^{*}\right)}\,.$$ Within an incremental loading procedure, we perform either global or local minimization to compute the equilibrium crack length $a_{k+1}$ for given displacement $\Delta_{T\,k+1}$ at time $t_{k+1}$ and crack length $a_{k}$ at time $t_{k}$. Finally, we can compute $\Delta_{k+1}$ and $P_{k+1}$ directly. More details are given in the next subsection. Numerical implementation {#sct:NUM_algo} ------------------------ This section provides more details on how the data-driven solution of the fracture problem is implemented within an incremental loading procedure. The applied displacement is parameterized as $\Delta_{T\,k} = \delta_Tk$ where $k$ is the load step number and $\delta_T$ the load step increment. The aim is then, given the current imposed displacement $\Delta_{T\,k+1}$ and the previous crack length $a_k$, to find within the material set $\mathcal{D}_R$ the state that fulfils the global or local data-driven criteria described in Sect. \[sct:direct\]. In this context, the variable $a$ acts as a history variable, that is trivially initialized to the length of the initial crack $a_0$. Both global and local minimization need to be constrained by the irreversibility condition. A convenient way to enforce this constraint is to *a priori* restrict the minimization procedures to the states for which $a_{k+1} \ge a_k$ is fulfilled. Alternatively, one can adopt a reference system attached to the crack tip and reformulate the minimization problems in terms of crack length increments $\Delta a_{k+1} \ge 0$, a choice which makes the data set independent on the geometry and test setup. In the following it is assumed that the material data set is sufficient to study the problem at hand, meaning that the points in $\mathcal{D}_R$ cover the propagation of the crack from the initial length $a_0$ to the maximum extension allowed by the geometry and setup under investigation. ### Global minimization Algorithm \[algo:DD\_GLOB\] presents the procedure to obtain the data-driven solution of the crack propagation problem as the global minimum of the function $\tilde{\Phi}(\Delta_T,\,a)$. Note that, if the material data set contains no point with $\hat{a}=a_0$, at the first load step the minimization procedure always predicts crack propagation, and the extent of this propagation depends on the characteristics of the data set $\mathcal{D}_R$. The global minimization procedure does not detect the occurrence of unstable crack propagation and keeps delivering a (possibly constant) solution state. ${\boldsymbol{Step}}:\,\,k+1$ **[Define]{}: $\mathcal{D}_{R\,\,{k+1}}=\left\{(\hat a_i,\,\hat F_{Ri})\in\mathcal{D}_{R}: \hat a\ge a_k\right\}$** **[Compute]{}: [$i^{*}(\Delta_{T},a_{0})={\rm \underset{\mathit{i}}{argmin}}\left\{\tilde{E}(\Delta_{T},\hat{a}_{i})+\hat{F}_{Ri}\,:\,\ (\hat{a}_{i},\hat{F}_{Ri})\in\mathcal{D}_{R\,\,{k+1}}\right\}$ $a_{k+1}=\hat{a}_{i^{*}}$\ $\Delta_{k+1} = \displaystyle\frac{C\left(a_{k+1}\right)}{C\left(a_{k+1}\right)+C_{M}}\Delta_{T\,k+1},\,\, P_{k+1} = \displaystyle\frac{\Delta_{T\,k+1}}{C\left(a_{k+1}\right)+C_{M}}$ ]{}** ### Local minimization based on closest point projection {#sct:DD_CPP} The implementation of the closest point projection strategy is detailed in Algorithm \[algo:DD\_DIST\]. This algorithm is slightly more complicated but it allows a deeper analysis. The history variables are both $a$ and $G_R$ and this allows to distinguish within the data-driven search procedure between an elastic step and a dissipative step. The related energy release rate quantities are collected in $G_{DD\,k+1}$. This seemingly redundant distinction can be exploited to implement a data-driven search also for the elastic step. This can be done by introducing an elastic material data set that accounts, e.g., for the measuring tolerance of the crack length. Moreover, this distinction reduces the computational time if requiring a data-driven search only when the propagation condition is met. The quantity $G_R$ triggers the crack propagation, hence, the initial crack increment depends on its initialization. If the initial crack length $a_0$ corresponds to a point of the material data set $\mathcal{D}_R$, then the couple $(a_0,\,G_{R0})$ can be trivially set to the coordinates of that point. Otherwise, one can set $G_{R0}$ as the average value of $\hat G$ of the two points in $\mathcal{D}_R$ with value of $\hat a$ immediately larger and smaller than $a_0$ or set $G_{R0}$ to 0. With the former choice, adopted here, the computation involves an elastic branch from the first load step that proceeds until $G(\Delta_T,\,a_0)\le G_{R0}$, the latter choice instead predicts an initial increment of crack length similarly to what was noted for the global minimization approach. Algorithm \[algo:DD\_DIST\] entails the definition of a tolerance ($tol$) to be applied to the distance between the energy release rate function and the material data set. This allows to detect the occurrence of unstable crack propagation. The value of $tol$ must be related to the characteristics of the data set and we suggest to set it to 5-10 times the average crack size increment in the adopted material data set. ${\boldsymbol{Step}}:\,\,k+1$ **[Define]{}: $\mathcal{D}_{R\,\,k+1}=\left\{(\hat a_i,\,\hat G_{R\,i})\in\mathcal{D}_{R}: \hat a_i\ge a_k\right\}$** [**[Compute]{}: $\Delta_{k+1} = \displaystyle\frac{C\left(a_{k+1}\right)}{C\left(a_{k+1}\right)+C_{M}}\Delta_{T\,k+1},\,\, P_{k+1} = \displaystyle\frac{\Delta_{T\,k+1}}{C\left(a_{k+1}\right)+C_{M}}$** ]{} ### Local minimization based on the consistency condition The implementation of the local minimization based on the consistency condition is detailed in Algorithm \[algo:DD\_CONS\]. Here, the solution of the problem given a certain displacement $\Delta_{T\,k+1}$ is defined as the point $(\hat a, \hat G_R)$ that minimizes the violation of the consistency condition (\[eq:KT-1\]c). Such condition already encodes the propagation criterion and, hence, makes the definition of $G_R$ redundant (although still possible) preventing the distinction between elastic and dissipative steps. In turn, this might lead, when $a_0$ is not represented in $\mathcal{D}_R$, to an increment of the crack size at the first load step, similarly to what mentioned for the closest point projection where $G_R$ is initialized to 0. The restriction of the minimization to the points with $\hat G_R \ge \tilde{G}(\Delta_T,\,\hat a)$ allows to detect unstable crack propagation without the introduction of any tolerance. ${\boldsymbol{Step}}:\,\,k+1$ **[Define]{}: $\mathcal{D}_{R\,k+1}=\left\{(\hat a_i,\,\hat G_{R\,i})\in\mathcal{D}_{R}: \hat a_i\ge a_k,\, \hat G_{R\,i} \ge \tilde{G}(\Delta_{T\,k+1},\,\hat a_i)\right\}$** [**[Compute]{}: $\Delta_{k+1} = \displaystyle\frac{C\left(a_{k+1}\right)}{C\left(a_{k+1}\right)+C_{M}}\Delta_{T\,k+1},\,\, P_{k+1} = \displaystyle\frac{\Delta_{T\,k+1}}{C\left(a_{k+1}\right)+C_{M}}$** ]{} Numerical examples {#sct:NUM_ex} ================== To demonstrate the capabilities of the proposed approach let us consider a double cantilever beam (DCB) with dimensions $L\times 2h\times b$ and initial crack length $a_0$, whose arms are subjected to bending (Fig. \[fig:DCB\]). The test is performed imposing the loading device displacement $\Delta_T$ (Fig. \[fig:DCB\]) following a load ramp $\Delta_{T\,k} = \delta_T\,k$. If not otherwise specified, the parameters are those in Tab. \[tab:param\]. [0cm]{}[0cm]{} ![Scheme and geometry of the double cantilever beam test.[]{data-label="fig:DCB"}](fig2 "fig:") ------------------------------------- -------------- --- ----------------------- Young’s modulus $Y$ = $70$ GPa \[4pt\] Height $h$ = $3$ mm \[4pt\] Length $ L $ = $30$ mm \[4pt\] Thickness $ b $ = $1$ mm \[4pt\] Initial crack length $ a_0 $ = $3$ mm \[4pt\] Displacement increment $ \delta_T $ = $1.5\cdot10^{-3}$ mm \[4pt\] Machine compliance $C_M$ = $2\cdot 10^{-3}$ mm/N \[4pt\] Griffith fracture toughness (Reference) ------------------------------------- -------------- --- ----------------------- : Parameters used for the computations.[]{data-label="tab:param"} The following dimensionless quantities are used [$$\label{eq:dimensionless} {\begin{array}{cccc} \displaystyle\bar L = \frac{L}{L}=1\,, & \displaystyle\bar h = \frac{h}{L}\,, & \displaystyle\bar a = \frac{a}{L}\,, &\displaystyle\bar b = \frac{b}{L}\,, \\[20pt] \displaystyle\bar C_M = {C_M\gamma}\,, & \displaystyle\bar Y = \frac{YL}{\gamma}\,, & \displaystyle\bar \Delta_T = \frac{\Delta_T}{L}\,, & \displaystyle\bar \Phi= \frac{\Phi}{\gamma L^2} \,, \\ [20pt] \displaystyle\bar G= \frac{G}{\gamma}\,, & \displaystyle\bar E= \frac{E}{\gamma L^2}\,, & \displaystyle\bar G_R = \frac{G_R}{\gamma}\,, & \displaystyle\bar F_R= \frac{F_R}{\gamma L^2}\,. \end{array}}$$]{} where the Griffith critical energy release rate $\gamma$ should be intended as a reference value. For the geometry reported in Fig. \[fig:DCB\], the dimensionless energy release rate is [$$\label{eq:ERR_DCB_nondim} {\bar G(\bar \Delta_T,\,\bar a) = 12 \bar a^2 \bar Y \bar h^3\left[\frac{\bar \Delta_T}{8\bar a^3+\bar C_M \bar Y \bar b \bar h^3}\right]^2\,,}$$]{} while the dimensionless compliance $\bar C(\bar a)$ and applied load $\bar P(\bar t)$ are [$$\label{eq:dimless_param} { \bar C (\bar a)=\frac{8\bar a^3}{\bar Y \bar b \bar h^3}\,, \quad\quad \bar P= \frac{\bar \Delta_T}{\bar C(\bar a)+\bar C_M}\,.}$$]{} The data sets used in this paper are generated artificially to mimic different standard resistance models. In the following, the data-driven results obtained using either Algorithm \[algo:DD\_GLOB\] or Algorithms \[algo:DD\_DIST\]-\[algo:DD\_CONS\] are compared with the reference solution of the global and local minimization problem, respectively. Global minimization is performed numerically at each time step by evaluating (\[eq:mixed\_varpr-1\]) at 1000 equispaced points along the interval $[0, \bar L=1]$ and finding the solution with (\[eq:glob-1\]). The local minimizer is obtained analytically solving (\[eq:KT\]). In this case the possible occurrence of crack jumps and their position is not uniquely defined. However, to determine them one can invoke causality or Onsager’s principle. This discussion is out of the scope of this paper but the interested reader can refer to [@Negri2010; @Alessi2016]. Griffith fracture {#sct:DD_Griff} ----------------- In this section we present the results obtained using Griffith model, for which [$$\label{eq:Griff_err} {\bar G_R = 1\,,}$$]{} and [$$\label{eq:Griff_Fr} {\frac{\bar F_R}{\bar b} = \bar G_R \bar a = \bar a\,,}$$]{} in terms of critical energy release rate and critical energy, respectively. The data sets used for the data-driven solution are obtained through a sampling of (\[eq:Griff\_err\]) and (\[eq:Griff\_Fr\]) with 50 points randomly distributed along the interval $\bar a=[0, 1.1\bar L]$. To allow a fair comparison between the different approaches, (\[eq:Griff\_err\]) and (\[eq:Griff\_Fr\]) are sampled at the same values of $\bar a$. ### Global minimization {#sct:Griff_noNoise_glob} Fig. \[fig:glob\_sol\]a shows the comparison between the reference and data-driven (DD in the figures) solution obtained using the global minimization approach (Algorithm \[algo:DD\_GLOB\]) and the material data set shown in Fig. \[fig:glob\_sol\]b. [-3cm]{}[-3cm]{} ![Data-driven results for Griffith fracture using global minimization: comparison between reference and data-driven results (a), data-driven search procedure at load step 35 (i. e.,at the crack jump) in terms of energy (b) and of energy release rate (c).[]{data-label="fig:glob_sol"}](fig3 "fig:") Considering the limited number of data points used and the presence of large unsampled intervals of crack length (Figs. \[fig:glob\_sol\]b,c), the agreement between reference and data-driven solution is excellent. In particular, the reference predicts a crack jump due to a snap-back at the load step 35, i. e., for a machine displacement $\bar \Delta_T$ = 1.75$\cdot$10$^{-3}$, which is correctly reproduced by the data-driven solution in terms of both position and extension although no ad-hoc criterion is introduced in Algorithm \[algo:DD\_GLOB\] (Fig. \[fig:glob\_sol\]a). Fig. \[fig:glob\_sol\]b shows the main energetic quantities at this load step, which can be taken as a paradigmatic example for the data-driven global minimization procedure. Here, it can be appreciated how the energy $\bar E(\bar \Delta_T, \bar a)$ and the resistance energy term $\bar F_R$ are composed in order to obtain the data set $\{\hat a_i, \bar\Phi(\bar\Delta_{T\,35},\hat a_i)\}$, on which minimization is performed to obtain the globally stable state at this load step. Figs.  \[fig:glob\_sol\]a and  \[fig:glob\_sol\]b show $\bar a_k=\bar a_{34}$, i. e., the crack length at the previous load step 34, which corresponds to the initial unstable state, as well as the computed crack length solution for the current load step $\bar a_{k+1}=\bar a_{35}$. In Fig. \[fig:glob\_sol\]a it is possible to observe that the crack length undergoes a small increment already at the first load step (Fig. \[fig:glob\_sol\]a) since there is no material data point for a crack length equal to $\bar a_0$. Hence, the first data-driven search returns the closest globally stable point fulfilling the irreversibility condition. It is also worth noting that adopting a global minimality principle in both data-driven and reference solution, the state of the system is allowed to overcome arbitrarily large energetic barriers at the crack jumps violating the causality principle, as visible in Fig. \[fig:glob\_sol\]b and discussed in [@Negri2010; @Alessi2016]. For comparison purposes, the load step 35 is represented in terms of energy release rate in Fig. \[fig:glob\_sol\]c, where we can observe that the initial state cannot be considered unstable from the standpoint of (\[eq:KT\]). This is a direct consequence of the globally stable domain being smaller compared to the domain of the locally stable states, as discussed in [@Negri2010; @Alessi2016]. Fig. \[fig:glob\_sol\]c also reports the set of candidate points for the local minimum of Algorithm \[algo:DD\_CONS\] (set $\mathcal{D}_{R\,k+1}=\mathcal{D}_{R\,35}$ in Algorithm \[algo:DD\_CONS\]). The solution point obtained with the global minimum algorithm is not included, i. e., this point is not a candidate for Algorithm \[algo:DD\_CONS\], while it is a good candidate for Algorithm \[algo:DD\_DIST\] as it is quite close to the curve $\bar G(\bar \Delta_T,\,\bar a)$. ### Local minimization {#sct:griff_locmin} Figs. \[fig:dist\_sol\]a and \[fig:loc\_sol\]a compare the reference and data-driven solutions obtained using local minimization along with closest point projection (\[data\_loc-2\]) and the consistency condition (\[data\_loc-1-1\]), respectively. In both cases the material data set is the same as in Sect. \[sct:Griff\_noNoise\_glob\]. [-3cm]{}[-3cm]{} ![Data-driven results for Griffith fracture using local minimization and closest point projection: comparison between reference and data-driven results (a), data-driven search procedure at load step 47 (i. e.,at the crack jump) in terms of energy (b) and of energy release rate (c).[]{data-label="fig:dist_sol"}](fig4 "fig:") [-3cm]{}[-3cm]{} ![Data-driven results for Griffith fracture using local minimization and the consistency condition: comparison between reference and data-driven results (a), data-driven search procedure at load step 41 (i. e.,at the crack jump) in terms of energy (b) and of energy release rate (c).[]{data-label="fig:loc_sol"}](fig5 "fig:") Also in this case the reference solution involves a crack jump that takes place at $\bar\Delta_T$ = 2.23$\cdot$10$^{-3}$. This value is higher than that obtained from global minimization, which is again consistent with the larger extension of the locally stable states domain [@Negri2010; @Negri2008; @Alessi2016]. This also leads to a higher peak load, which is evident comparing Figs. \[fig:dist\_sol\]a and \[fig:loc\_sol\]a with Fig. \[fig:glob\_sol\]a. Once again the agreement between reference and data-driven solution is excellent. The data-driven search procedure based on closest point projection performs better than that based on the consistency condition, especially in predicting the peak load (Figs. \[fig:dist\_sol\]a and \[fig:loc\_sol\]a). This is mainly due to the fact that the latter undergoes a limited evolution of the crack length at the first load step (Figs. \[fig:loc\_sol\]a) for the same reason highlighted for the global minimum solution in Sect. \[sct:Griff\_noNoise\_glob\]. This does not hold for the closest point projection procedure (Figs. \[fig:dist\_sol\]a) because of the initialization of $\bar G_R$ (Sect. \[sct:DD\_CPP\]), which is mostly responsible for the first evolution of the crack length. For this reason the two approaches predict the crack jump to take place at two different load steps, namely at the 47$^{th}$ ($\bar\Delta_T$ = 2.35$\cdot$10$^{-3}$) and 41$^{st}$ ($\bar\Delta_T$ = 2.05$\cdot$10$^{-3}$) for the closest point projection and the consistency condition, respectively. Figs. \[fig:dist\_sol\]b,c and \[fig:loc\_sol\]b,c illustrate the data-driven search procedure at the crack jump for the two approaches. Apart from the peak load, results are very similar. In particular, they are both consistent with the characteristic of local minimality of preventing the system from overcoming energetic barriers at the crack jump (Figs. \[fig:dist\_sol\]b and \[fig:loc\_sol\]b). The main difference is that the consistency condition strategy strictly enforces (\[eq:KT\]b), hence, it has the tendency to overestimate the crack length and to accept values of the energy release rate smaller than the critical one at the final state (Fig. \[fig:loc\_sol\]c). Conversely, the closest point projection allows also values of energy release rate slightly larger than the critical one, hence, it alternates between over- and underestimations of the crack length (Fig. \[fig:dist\_sol\]c). ### Results in presence of noisy data To determine the sensitivity of the proposed method to noise in the input data, a random noise with amplitude $\pm$ 2.5% is applied to the material data sets obtained by sampling (\[eq:Griff\_err\]) and (\[eq:Griff\_Fr\]). As before, sampling is performed at the same 50 values of crack lengths. Moreover, for consistency of both noisy data sets, points corresponding to the same values of crack length are affected by the same noise. The results are illustrated in Figs. \[fig:glob\_sol\_noise\] to \[fig:loc\_noise\]. [-3cm]{}[-3cm]{} ![Data-driven results for Griffith fracture with a noisy material data set using global minimization: comparison between reference and data-driven results (a), data-driven search procedure at load step 100 in terms of energy (b) and of energy release rate (c).[]{data-label="fig:glob_sol_noise"}](fig6 "fig:") [-3cm]{}[-3cm]{} ![Data-driven results for Griffith fracture with a noisy material data set using local minimization and closest point projection: comparison between reference and data-driven results (a), data-driven search procedure at load step 100 in terms of energy (b) and of energy release rate (c).[]{data-label="fig:dist_sol_noise"}](fig7 "fig:") [-3cm]{}[-3cm]{} ![Data-driven results for Griffith fracture with a noisy material data set using local minimization and the consistency condition: comparison between reference and data-driven results (a), data-driven search procedure at load step 100 in terms of energy (b) and of energy release rate (c).[]{data-label="fig:loc_noise"}](fig8 "fig:") Comparing the results with and without noise, it is clear that data-driven global minimization is very sensitive to the presence of noise. The displacement vs. crack length curve involves several large crack jumps followed by long elastic branches (Fig. \[fig:glob\_sol\_noise\]a). The data-driven search procedure related to the jump at load step 100 ($\bar \Delta_T$ = 5$\cdot$10$^{-3}$) with global minimization is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:glob\_sol\_noise\]b. Here the solution is seen to switch between points affected by large values of negative noise. In this case, this leads to an overestimation of the crack length delivering a solution point that refers clearly to an ascending branch of the reference noiseless total energy curve. From the standpoint of the energy release rate (Fig. \[fig:glob\_sol\_noise\]c), this means that the solution often evolves from points clearly above to points clearly below the critical energy release rate. The agreement between reference and data-driven results obtained with both local minimization procedures (Figs. \[fig:dist\_sol\_noise\]a and \[fig:loc\_noise\]a) is still excellent and comparable to that obtained in the noiseless case (Figs. \[fig:dist\_sol\]a and \[fig:loc\_sol\]a). The same observations of Sect. \[sct:griff\_locmin\] apply. Figs. \[fig:dist\_sol\_noise\]b,c and \[fig:loc\_noise\]b,c illustrate the data-driven search procedures and the corresponding energetic quantities at the same load step analyzed for global minimization (Fig. \[fig:glob\_sol\_noise\]b,c). Here we can see that the crack length for both local minimization strategies does not evolve. This is due to a relatively large unsampled interval of crack length, leading to a lack of better solution candidates than the values at load step 99. While with closest point projection the data-driven solution underestimates the reference solution (Fig. \[fig:dist\_sol\_noise\]a) because the energy release rate curve lies between two points of the data set (Fig. \[fig:dist\_sol\_noise\]c), the consistency condition criterion overestimates the crack length (Fig. \[fig:loc\_noise\]a,c). Nevertheless, in both cases the solution is close to the (local) minimum of the total energy (Figs. \[fig:dist\_sol\_noise\]b and \[fig:loc\_noise\]b). R-curve fracture ---------------- This section shows that the algorithms presented in Sect. \[sct:NUM\_algo\] can be applied without any modification to other fracture models. We adopt the following R-curve model [$$\label{eq:Rcurve} {\bar G_R(\bar a)=1+\frac{(\bar a -0.1)^2}{(\bar a -0.1)^2+0.2(\bar a -0.1)}\,,}$$]{} or, in terms of energy [$$\label{eq:Rcurve_FR} {\frac{\bar F_R(\bar a)}{\bar b} = 0.2\left[10\bar a - \text{ln}\,\left(\frac{\bar a +0.1}{0.1}\right)\right]\,.}$$]{} Unless otherwise specified, a random noise with amplitude $\pm$2.5% is added to the material data set, which is composed of 50 randomly distributed points. Moreover, the loading ramp now includes a complete unloading-reloading branch that starts at $\bar \Delta_T$ = 5$\cdot$10$^{-3}$. The results obtained with global minimization are illustrated in Fig. \[fig:glob\_rcurve\], while those of local minimization with closest point projection are presented in Fig. \[fig:dist\_rcurve\]. From now on, the local minimization results obtained with the consistency condition are not reported, as they are similar to those obtained with closest point projection. [-3cm]{}[-3cm]{} ![Data-driven results for an R-curve model with a noisy material data set using global minimization: comparison between reference and data-driven results (a), data-driven solution in terms of energy (b) and of energy release rate (c).[]{data-label="fig:glob_rcurve"}](fig9 "fig:") [-3cm]{}[-3cm]{} ![Data-driven results for an R-curve model with a noisy material data set using local minimization and closest point projection: comparison between reference and data-driven results (a), data-driven solution in terms of energy (b) and of energy release rate (c).[]{data-label="fig:dist_rcurve"}](fig10 "fig:") Both approaches are able to correctly follow the unloading-reloading curve $\textsf{A-B-C-D}$, see Figs. \[fig:glob\_rcurve\]a and \[fig:dist\_rcurve\]a. In particular, the unloading and reloading phases $\textsf{B-C}$ and $\textsf{C-D}$ follow a linear elastic path along the displacement vs. load curve, while the crack length remains constant (Figs. \[fig:glob\_rcurve\]b,c and \[fig:dist\_rcurve\]b,c). The agreement between reference and data-driven results is similar as in the example with Griffith fracture. In particular, the presence of noise significantly affects the accuracy of the global minimization approach (Fig. \[fig:glob\_rcurve\]a), as evident e.g. in the post peak portion of $\textsf{A-B}$ in Fig. \[fig:glob\_rcurve\]a. Figs. \[fig:glob\_rcurve\]b,c show that among all the available states, global minimization tends to prefer points affected by a negative noise, thus promoting lower total energy (Figs. \[fig:glob\_rcurve\]b). In the current example this causes the data-driven procedure to highly overestimate the ultimate displacement, defined as the displacement corresponding to $\bar a$ = 1. The reference solution predicts an ultimate displacement $\bar \Delta_T$ = 16.9$\cdot$10$^{-3}$ while global minimization reaches the ultimate condition at $\textsf{F}$ for $\bar \Delta_T$ = 35.3$\cdot$10$^{-3}$ (the last portion of the curves is not shown in Fig. \[fig:glob\_rcurve\]a). This is due to the negative noise that affects the data-driven solution point $\textsf{E}$ preceding the one leading to the ultimate condition (Figs. \[fig:glob\_rcurve\]b,c). The ultimate point $\textsf{F}$ is affected by a positive noise. Hence, to allow the ultimate state to become a global minimum, a large amount of energy must be provided to the system. Conversely, the local minimization approach is not biased towards any specific set of points and can switch to the ultimate condition much earlier, namely already at point $\textsf{E}$ (Figs. \[fig:dist\_rcurve\]b,c). As mentioned earlier, local minimization based on closest point projection is the only data-driven procedure able to differentiate between dissipative and elastic steps. Such distinction is visible in Fig. \[fig:dist\_rcurve\]c, where the initial and unloading-reloading linear elastic phases are evident. Bimaterial DCB -------------- Let us now consider a DCB specimen composed of two different materials connected by a perfect interface (Fig. \[fig:interf\]). The lengths of the two parts of the sample are $\bar L_1=\bar L_2 = 0.5$ ($\bar L_i=L_i/L$). We model Griffith fracture with [$$\label{eq:err_intstab} {\bar G_R(\bar a)=\begin{cases} 1 &\text{for } 0.0< \bar a \le 0.5\\ 5 & \text{for } 0.5< \bar a \le 1.0\,, \end{cases}}$$]{} or, in terms of energy [$$\label{eq:FR_intstab} {\frac{\bar F_R(\bar a)}{\bar b} = \begin{cases} \bar a &\text{for } 0.0< \bar a \le 0.5\\ (5\bar a-2) & \text{for } 0.5< \bar a \le 1.0\,. \end{cases}}$$]{} In this case, the crack must first traverse the weaker half of the sample to reach the strongest part, therefore this arrangement is termed *stable*. One can also define an *unstable* setup where the materials are reversed, i. e., [$$\label{eq:err_intunstab} {\bar G_R(\bar a)=\begin{cases} 5 &\text{for } 0.0< \bar a \le 0.5\\ 1 & \text{for } 0.5< \bar a \le 1.0\,, \end{cases}}$$]{} or, in terms of energy [$$\label{eq:FR_intunstab} {\frac{\bar F_R(\bar a)}{\bar b} = \begin{cases}5 \bar a &\text{for } 0.0< \bar a \le 0.5\\ (\bar a+2) & \text{for } 0.5< \bar a \le 1.0\,. \end{cases}}$$]{} [-3cm]{}[-3cm]{} ![Sketch of the bimaterial DCB specimen.[]{data-label="fig:interf"}](fig11 "fig:") Because of the drawbacks of global minimization discussed in the previous examples, from now on only local minimization is pursued. In Fig. \[fig:dist\_interf\_stab\]a the reference and data-driven results obtained for the stable arrangement are compared and the agreement is very good. From the reference curves we can see that the crack stops propagating once it reaches the interface at $\bar a$ = 0.5, until the energy release rate reaches the critical value of the strongest material. The data-driven solution is able to reproduce this behavior, however, due to the discrete set of states in the material data, the transition between the two halves of the specimen occurs approximately half way on the horizontal branch of the reference crack length vs. displacement curve, i. e., between the load steps $\textsf{A}$ and $\textsf{B}$ in Fig. \[fig:dist\_interf\_stab\]. At this stage of the test the energy release rate curve is approximately at the same distance from the last available material point of the weakest and the first one of the strongest material (Fig. \[fig:dist\_interf\_stab\]c). Since the transition occurs when the energy release rate is below the largest critical value, at the following load step $\textsf{C}$ a linear elastic branch starts that persists until the evolution conditions are met again at load step $\textsf{D}$ (Fig. \[fig:dist\_interf\_stab\]b,c). [-3cm]{}[-3cm]{} ![Data-driven results for the bimaterial DCB specimen (stable arrangement) using local minimization and closest point projection: comparison between reference and data-driven results (a), data-driven solution in terms of energy (b) and of energy release rate (c).[]{data-label="fig:dist_interf_stab"}](fig12 "fig:") We now consider the *unstable* setup, whose results are presented in Fig. \[fig:dist\_interf\_unstab\]. The reference curves display two snap-backs, the first one at the peak load and the second one at $\bar a$ = 0.5, i. e., when the crack tip reaches the interface. As shown in Fig. \[fig:dist\_interf\_unstab\]a the data-driven approach does not reproduce the two jumps corresponding to these snap-backs, but merges them into one large jump. After reaching the peak load the crack tip jumps directly to the weakest portion of the specimen, then it follows again the reference solution. This result is due to a competition between different possible states after the peak load, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:dist\_interf\_unstab\]b,c. For the analytical solution one can invoke causality or Onsager’s principle [@Negri2010] to favor the higher branch of the reference solution after the peak over the lower branch taken directly by the data-driven response. However, these considerations play no role in the data-driven procedures (as a side note, similar results are obtained with global minimization and with local minimization using a consistency condition criterion - not shown). [-3cm]{}[-3cm]{} ![Data-driven results for the bimaterial DCB specimen (unstable arrangement) using local minimization and closest point projection: comparison between reference and data-driven results (a), data-driven search procedure at the load step corresponding to the crack jump in terms of energy (b) and of energy release rate (c).[]{data-label="fig:dist_interf_unstab"}](fig13 "fig:") Tapered DCB ----------- In this section we analyze a homogeneous tapered DCB specimen, see Fig. \[fig:tapered\]. We assume the same Griffith model of Sect. \[sct:DD\_Griff\], and the data set is composed of 100 points affected by random noise with amplitude $\pm 2.5\%$. Unlike in the bimaterial DCB, here a transition in the cracking behavior is induced by the geometry of the specimen. The analytical compliance function is reported in Appendix \[app:taper\_comp\]. As follows, three geometries are investigated, one with increasing height, and two with decreasing height and different slopes of the transition region, see Tab. \[tab:taper\_param\]. [-3cm]{}[-3cm]{} ![Sketch of the tapered DCB specimen.[]{data-label="fig:tapered"}](fig14 "fig:") ------------------------ --------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------- [**Parameter**]{} [****]{} [****]{} [****]{} \[4pt\] $\bar h_1$ 0.10 0.10 0.10 \[4pt\] $\bar h_2$ 0.15 0.05 0.04 \[4pt\] $\bar L_1$ 0.50 0.45 0.45 \[4pt\] $\bar L_T$ 0.10 0.30 0.10 \[4pt\] $\bar L_2$ 0.40 0.25 0.45 \[4pt\] $m$ ($^\circ$) 1/2 (26.56$^\circ$) -1/6 (-9.46$^\circ$) -3/5 (-30.96$^\circ$) ------------------------ --------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------- : Parameters for the tapered DCB.[]{data-label="tab:taper_param"} As shown in Fig. \[fig:taper\_stab\], for the first two cases the results are similar as for the standard DCB. The reference solution features a snap-back whose position and extension is correctly reproduced by the data-driven results. In the third case the reference solution displays a second snap-back that takes place for $\bar a$ = $\bar L_1$. As for the bimaterial DCB with the unstable arrangement, the position of the second jump is clearly anticipated by the data-driven procedure (Fig. \[fig:taper\_unstab\]a). This is caused once again by the competition of different possible solution states, see Figs. \[fig:taper\_unstab\]b,c. After the second jump, the data-driven procedure goes back to closely reproducing the reference solution (Fig. \[fig:taper\_unstab\]a). [-3cm]{}[-3cm]{} ![Comparison between reference and data-driven results for the tapered DCB specimen: $\textsf{CASE 1}$ (a) and $\textsf{CASE 2}$ (b).[]{data-label="fig:taper_stab"}](fig15 "fig:") [-3cm]{}[-3cm]{} ![Data-driven results for the tapered DCB specimen ($\textsf{CASE 3}$) using local minimization and closest point projection: comparison between reference and data-driven results (a), data-driven search procedure for the load step corresponding to the second crack jump in terms of energy (b) and of energy release rate (c).[]{data-label="fig:taper_unstab"}](fig16 "fig:") Convergence ------------ Aim of this section is to demonstrate convergence of the data-driven results to the reference solution with respect to the number of points in the material data set and the noise amplitude for both global and local minimization algorithms. To this end, we consider a DCB test for a Griffith material as in Sect. \[sct:DD\_Griff\] and we compute the error $\varepsilon$ of the data-driven solution with respect to the reference solution as [$$\label{eq:error} {\varepsilon = \sqrt{\sum_{k=1}^N\left(\bar a_k-\bar a^{ref}_k\right)^2}\,,}$$]{} where $\bar a_k$ and $\bar a^{ref}_k$ are respectively the data-driven and the reference solution computed for the same value of machine displacement $\bar \Delta_{T\,k}$. For each case considered in the following, we compute the average $\mu$ and the standard deviation of the error for 100 solutions obtained changing the randomly sampled material database and, if applicable, the random noise. We also compute the frequency histograms of the error (in the range $[0,\, 2\mu]$ with bin size of 0.1$\mu$) and the data-driven solution range of the $\bar a$ vs. $\bar \Delta_T$ curve. The latter is the smallest area in the $\bar \Delta_T-\bar a$ plane that includes all the 100 data-driven solutions. The load step size is the same adopted in the previous sections, namely $\bar \delta_T$ = 5$\cdot$10$^{-5}$. Fig. \[fig:conv\_pts\] show the results of the convergence study with respect to the number of points in a noiseless dataset. The average error is reported for 10, 20, 50, 100, 250, 500, 1000, 5000, and 10000 points. We can observe that for all approaches the rate of convergence is almost linear, with the closest point projection algorithm performing better than the other two. The consistency condition approach features an initially lower convergence rate, due to a relatively high error contribution given by the crack propagation at the first load step when the initial crack length is not (even approximately) resolved within the dataset. This causes a delayed or anticipated initial crack jump responsible for a major contribution to the error, whose amplitude is governed by the snap-back characteristics and roughly independent of the dataset properties. Because of this phenomenon, increasing the size of the dataset leads to the clustering of the solutions in two groups: one featuring an incorrectly predicted crack jump affected by a higher error and one where the initial crack length is closely resolved and the error is much lower. This can be clearly observed in the frequency histograms related to datasets with 250, 500 and 1000 points of Fig. \[fig:conv\_pts\]. Increasing further the number of points in the dataset leads to an improved convergence rate and the error becomes close to that of the other two approaches. A similar phenomenon occurs for the global minimization approach, but in this case the snap-back branch is less pronounced and leads to smaller errors. A clustering of the results is still present in this case already from the 50-points dataset although with much lower frequencies. Moreover, the convergence rate for this approach degrades for very dense datasets (i. e.,with more than 1000 points). The range of the solutions in Fig. \[fig:conv\_pts\] confirms that the local minimization approach based on the consistency condition systematically overestimates the crack length, while the other two methods alternate over- and under-estimations. Also, we can see that the range of the solutions for 5000 points is indistinguishable from the reference solution for all the approaches. [-3cm]{}[-3cm]{} ![Convergence with respect to the number of points in the dataset including frequency histograms of the error and range of the solutions for 50 and 5000 points.[]{data-label="fig:conv_pts"}](fig17 "fig:") The results of the convergence study with respect to the noise amplitude are presented in Fig. \[fig:conv\_noise\] for a dataset with 5000 points and 20%, 10%, 5%, 1%, 10$^{-1}$% and 10$^{-2}$% (i. e.,$\pm$10%, $\pm$5%, $\pm$2.5%, $\pm$0.5%, $\pm$5$\cdot$10$^{-2}$% and $\pm$5$\cdot$10$^{-3}$%) noise ranges. For the closest point projection approach, the convergence behavior is linear up to a noise range of 5% and then becomes almost quadratic until the error reaches the value of the noiseless case. The convergence behavior of the consistency condition approach is very similar. Unlike in the noiseless case, in presence of noise also an underestimation of the crack length is possible. Compared to both local minimization approaches, the global minimization method features a much slower convergence. This is clearly confirmed by, e.g., the data-driven solution range for 5% noise, which is much wider than those coming from the local minimization approaches (Fig. \[fig:conv\_noise\]). The noiseless limit is not approached even for a noise range of 10$^{-2}$%. This slower convergence stems from the tendency of this approach, already noted earlier, to select points with high negative noise and, hence, to systematically anticipate the selection of a certain crack length (Fig. \[fig:conv\_noise\]). For this reason, the range of the data-driven solutions lies always above the reference solution (Fig. \[fig:conv\_noise\]). [-3cm]{}[-3cm]{} ![Convergence with respect to the noise amplitude in the dataset including frequency histograms of the error and range of the data-driven solutions for 20% (i. e.,$\pm$10%) and 5% (i. e.,$\pm$ 2.5%) noise amplitude.[]{data-label="fig:conv_noise"}](fig18 "fig:") A final comment is devoted to the computational efficiency. Although this is not quantitatively shown here, the closest point projection method is the most efficient. The other two approaches are slower due to the need of selecting points within the material data set which fulfill certain requirements. Note that in our implementation of all methods the material data set is not sorted with respect to the crack length nor efficient search algorithms are adopted. This reduces the computational speed but is consistent with the intention of the model-free data-driven philosophy not to manipulate the material data set in any way. Summary and concluding remarks {#sct:conclusions} ============================== We have proposed a data-driven approach to rate-independent fracture mechanics in brittle materials. The main idea is to remove fracture-related material modeling assumptions from the formulation and let the fracture constitutive behavior be encoded exclusively in a discrete material data set, while simultaneously keeping the epistemic laws of fracture that stem from variational principles. Here we consider both solutions based on a metastability or local stability principle, fulfilling Kuhn-Tucker conditions for the energy release rate, and solutions based on a global stability principle corresponding to the minimization of the total free energy. The data-driven solution at a given load step is identified as the point within the data set that best fulfills either stationarity or global minimization of the free energy, leading to data-driven counterparts of both approaches. For local minimization, two alternative data-driven approaches are devised, one based on the closest-point projection of the material data set onto the (analytically known) energy-release rate function and another based on a consistency condition among data points that [*a priori*]{} satisfy the other two Kuhn-Tucker conditions. Both approaches have been tested on double-cantilever-beam examples with different geometries, using artificially generated material data sets, with or without random noise, which reproduce or randomize Griffith and R-curve type fracture models. A convergence study with respect of the number of points and the noise amplitude of the data set is also performed. Based on the obtained results the following conclusions can be drawn: - data-driven fracture mechanics approaches based on local or global stability deliver results in excellent agreement with those of their standard fracture mechanics counterparts. This implies in particular that the known drawbacks of global minimization (most notably, the possibility for the system to overcome energy barriers in case of crack jumps) are also observed in data-driven global minimization; - the data-driven approaches based on local minimality feature an excellent robustness with respect to noisy data, whereas the quality of data-driven global minimization results is quite sensitive to noise; - the two devised data-driven procedures based on local minimality deliver very similar results. The procedure based on closest point projection has the advantage of being able to automatically discriminate between crack arrest and crack propagation conditions, and is computationally less expensive; - data-driven fracture mechanics is able to correctly reproduce crack jumps with no need for [*ad hoc*]{} criteria, provided that no competition takes place between different possible meta-stable states. Otherwise, the approach tends to select the state corresponding to the maximum dissipation; - all proposed approaches deliver convergent results with respect to both the number of points in the data sets and the amplitude of a random noise. The procedure based on local minimality and closest point projection features the best convergence rate. Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ================ P. Carrara gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the German Research Foundation (DFG) through the Fellowship Grant CA 2359/1. Compliance for the tapered DCB {#app:taper_comp} ============================== Each arm of the tapered DCB specimen of Fig. \[fig:tapered\] is assumed to behave as a cantilever beam whose length is equal to the crack extension $a$ and loaded with a concentrated force $P$ at the free end. The opening $\Delta$ of the tapered DCB is twice the free end deflection of the beam $v_0$, so the compliance is directly computed from (\[compl\]) as [$$\label{eq:TDCB_compl} {C(a) = \frac{\Delta}{P}=\frac{2v_0}{P}\,.}$$]{} Neglecting the shear contribution and the deformability of the uncracked portion of the specimen, the vertical displacement $v$ can be computed integrating the Euler-Bernoulli beam equation [$$\label{eq:EB_eq} {v''(x) = \frac{M(x)}{YI(x)}=\frac{12Px}{Ybh(x)^3}\quad\text{with}\quad I(x)=\frac{bh(x)^3}{12}\,,}$$]{} where $M(x)$ is the bending moment and $I(x)$ is the moment of inertia of the rectangular DCB section. With reference to Fig. \[fig:tapered\] the following quantities are defined [$$\label{eq:taper_DCB_par} {p=h_1 - m L_1\,,\quad L_{1-2}=L_1+L_T\,,\quad h_2=h_1+mL_T\,,}$$]{} while the height reads [$$\label{eq:tdcb_height} {h(x)=\begin{cases} h_1 &\text{if } 0< x \le L_1\\ p+mx & \text{if } L_1< x \le L_{1-2}\\ h_2 & \text{if } x >L_{1-2}\,. \end{cases}}$$]{} To determine the integration constants, different kinematic boundary and continuity conditions are imposed as a function of the crack tip position, see Tab. \[tab:taper\_bc\]. ------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- $0< a \le L_1$ $v_1(a)=v'_1(a)=0$ \[10pt\] $L_1< a \le L_{1-2}$ $\begin{array}{cc}v_1(L_1)=v_T(L_1)\\v'_1(L_1)=v'_T(L_1)\end{array}$ $v_T(a)=v'_T(a)=0$ \[10pt\] $a >L_{1-2}$ $\begin{array}{cc}v_1(L_1)=v_T(L_1)\\v'_1(L_1)=v'_T(L_1)\end{array}$ $\begin{array}{cc}v_T(L_{1-2})=v_2(L_{1-2})\\v'_T(L_{1-2})=v'_2(L_{1-2})\end{array}$ $v_2(a)=v'_2(a)=0$ \[10pt\] ------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- : Boundary conditions to determine the deflection of the tapered DCB specimen. Subscripts $1$, $2$ and $T$ refer to the relationships obtained integrating (\[eq:EB\_eq\]) along $L_1$, $L_2$ and $L_T$, respectively.[]{data-label="tab:taper_bc"} The compliance function is given by [$$\label{eq:taper_compl} {C(a) = \begin{cases}\displaystyle \frac{8a^3}{Ybh_1^3} &\text{if } 0< a \le L_1\\ \\ \begin{split}\displaystyle\frac{12}{Ybm^3}\left[ \ln\left(\frac{ma+p}{mL_1+p}\right)^2 + \frac{p^2-2m^2a^2}{(ma+p)^2} +\right.\\\left.- \frac{p^2-2m^2L_1^2}{(mL_1+p)^2} + \frac{2m^3L_1^3}{3h_1^3}\right] \end{split}& \text{if } L_1< a \le L_{1-2}\\ \\ \begin{split}\displaystyle\frac{12}{Ybm^3}\left[ \ln\left(\frac{mL_{1-2}+p}{mL_1+p}\right)^2 + \frac{p^2-2m^2L_{1-2}^2}{(mL_{1-2}+p)^2} +\right.\\ \left.- \frac{p^2-2m^2L_1^2}{(mL_1+p)^2} + \frac{2m^3L_1^3}{3h_1^3}+ \frac{2m^3(a^3-L_{1-2}^3)}{3h_2^3}\right] \end{split} & \text{if } a >L_{1-2}\,. \end{cases}}$$]{} [^1]: $^{*}$*Corresponding author* [email protected]

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'The Pb/Si(111) thin films were simulated within the density functional theory (DFT). The well-known Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof (PBE) version of the generalized gradient approximation (GGA) and its recent nonempirical successor Wu-Cohen (WC) issue were used to estimate the exchange-correlation functional. Lattice parameters were calculated for Bulk of the Pb and Si compounds to obtain more reliable lattice mismatch at the interface to be consistent with our used full-potential method of calculations. The WC-GGA result predicts the lattice constants of the Pb and Si compounds better than the GGA when compared with experiment. We have found that the spin-orbit coupling (SOC) does not significantly influence the results. Our finding is in agreement with the recent observation of the Rashba-type spin-orbit splitting of quantum well states in ultrathin Pb/Si(111) films. Our result shows, in agreement with experiment, that the top site (T1) is the most stable phase. A combination of tight $\sigma$ and feeble $\pi$ bonds has been found at the interface, which results in a covalent Pb-Si bond. Our calculated electric field gradient (EFG) predicts quantum size effects (QSE) with respect to the number of deposited Pb layers on the Si substrate. The QSE prediction shows that the EFG dramatically drops on going from first to second layer. The EFG calculation shows that this system is not an ideal paradigm to freestanding films.' author: - 'M. Rafiee' - 'S. Jalali Asadabadi[^1]' title: 'Quantum Size Effects in Pb/Si(111) Thin Films from Density Functional Calculations' --- Introduction {#sec-intro} ============ The Pb/Si(111) thin films can be considered as an ideal interface, since it is an unreactive metal-semiconductor system which forms perfectly an abrupt interface without intermixing.[@Lay91] Intensive experimental[@Wei92; @Sve08] and theoretical[@Cha03; @Cha06] works performed on this system show that it is a subject of intense technological and scientific interest with a wide range of applications. Several structures were proposed experimentally for this system.[@Lay91; @See95] The structures vary with their circumstances. The variations form a complicated phase diagram. The stability of the proposed structural models were studied theoretically employing pseudopotential calculations.[@Cha03] The complex phase diagram shows that there are 4 structures with a simple (1$\times$1)-unit cell. The experimentally observed[@Sel00] simple unit cell provides a suitable case to perform accurate atomic relaxations within an all-electron calculation reliably. Our full-potential surface calculations were then devoted to study these (1$\times$1) structures with the concentration on their most stable phase. Quantum size effects (QSEs) in nanostructures, e.g., a two-dimensional (2D) ultrathin metal films, appear as dramatic oscillations in many physical properties upon variation of film thickness.[@Tri07; @Vaz09] The motion of electrons in the film plane of such a 2D-system is essentially free, whereas the electrons are confined in the normal direction to the film surface, which leads to the quantized electronic states, i.e., quantum well states (QWS).[@Jia07] The oscillation period was found to be 7-monolayer-height-islands of lead grown on top of a silicon substrate for the electron intensity curve as a function of the normal component of the electron momentum transfer.[@Tri07] Vázquez de Parga and coworkers observed the QSEs for a number of surface properties, i.e., the surface roughening temperature, work function, chemical reactivity, or the surface diffusion barrier, in the Pb/Si(111) and Pb/Cu(111) thin films by Scanning Tunneling Microscopy/Spectroscopy (STM/STS).[@Vaz09] The step height of layer N is related to the electron spillage length into the vacuum which depends on the DOS at the Fermi level.[@Vaz09] Quantum size effects (QSEs) were found for the total energies and energy differences in freestanding Pb(111) thin films by using pseudopotential method as embodied in the CASTEP code.[@Mat01] Influence of the Cu(111) substrate on the geometry structure of the Pb(111) layers was also indirectly taken into account by solely reducing in-plane lattice constant to impose 3.3% lateral compression on all the Pb(111) layers to mimic the role of Cu(111) substrate.[@Mat01] The effects of Cu(111) substrate were found to be substantial, as the step heights were calculated to be in more agreement with experiment within the later in-pane strain.[@Mat01] Wei and Chou theoretically, employing ultrasoft pseudopotential calculations, studied the quantum size effects (QSEs) in the clean surface of Pb(111).[@Wei02] Recently P. S. Kirchmann et al. experimentally observed quantum size effects (QSEs) in the Pb/Si(111).[@Kir07] They[@Kir07] found their experimental results for the actual Pb/Si(111) slab to be in agreement with the pseudopotential results[@Wei02] for the hypothetical freestanding Pb(111) slab. Dil et al.[@Dil07] comparing their Pb/C full-potential calculations with the Pb/Si(111) experimental results of the others[@Upt04] reported that unlike for Pb on graphite, the Pb overlayer lattice structure is influenced by that of the Si(111). Here we then intend to, going beyond the hypothetical freestanding Pb(111) approximation, quantitatively assess the effects of electronic and crystalline structures of the underlying Si substrate on the deposited Pb films. For this reason we inspect the electronic structures at the interface of the Pb/Si(111) slab. From our electronic structure calculations, we show that there is a mixed state composed of weak $\pi$ and strong $\sigma$ bonds between Pb and Si at the interface which results in a strong Pb-Si covalent bond. We aim to investigate whether the substrate can influence the results. In order to accomplish the investigation, we have calculated the work function, energy differences and surface formation energy as a function of number of Pb layers for the $(1\times1)$-Pb/Si(111). Our result shows that the effect of Si substrate can be of significant importance for some physical quantities depending on their sensitivity to the valence electron charge density. We have observed the quantum size effects (QSEs) for the $(1\times1)$-Pb/Si(111) thin films. The goal of this work more transparently is achieved by presenting a physical interpretation for our QSE calculations for this system in the electric field gradient (EFG) as an extremely sensitive quantity to the valence electron charge density distribution. We would also examine the effect of spin-orbit coupling (SOC) on our thin films. The result, in agreement with experiment,[@Hug08] shows that the SOC has a minor effect for the Pb/Si(111) thin films. Low temperature $\sqrt3\times\sqrt3$, 3$\times$3 and $\sqrt7\times\sqrt3$ phases of Pb/Si(111) were theoretically studied employing pseudopotential method.[@Cud08] It was shown that there could be a discrepancy in predicting the ground state of Pb/Si(111) system between local density approximation (LDA) and generalized gradient approximations (GGA).[@Cud08] Another objective of our density functional theory[@Hoh64; @Koh65] (DFT) calculations is to go beyond the LDA and GGA by using the nonempirical GGA recently proposed by Wu-Cohen (WC) for the exchange-correlation functional,[@Wu06] which is expected to improve metal surface formation energy and lattice constant calculations[@Wu06; @Tra07] compared to the Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof GGA (PBE-GGA).[@Per96] Computational Details {#sec-compdetails} ===================== State-of-the-art calculations were performed within the density functional theory[@Hoh64; @Koh65] (DFT) as implemented in the WIEN2k code.[@Bla01] The augmented plane waves plus local orbital (APW+lo) method[@Sjs00; @Mad01] has been used for solving the Kohn-Sham equations[@Koh65] employing the latest version of the generalized gradient approximation (GGA), i.e., Wu-Cohen (WC), for the exchange-correlation functional[@Wu06]. We set the Muffin-tin radii to $R_{MT}=2.2$ $bohr$ for the Si and to $R_{MT}=2.5$ $bohr$ for the Pb atoms. The expansion of the wave functions and charge densities were cut off by the $R_{MT}K_{max} = 7.5$ and $G_{max} = 14$ parameters, respectively. The full relaxations were performed with the criterion of 1 mRy/bohr on the exerted forces. The relativistic effects were taken into account by including the spin-orbit coupling (SOC) in a second variational procedure. A set of $22\times22\times1$ special k points has been used for integrations over the Brillouin zone of the 1$\times$1 surface cell. Bulk Structural Properties {#sec-bulk} ========================== Method XC-Potential $a$(bohr) $B$(Gpa) $B'$ ---------------- --------------- -- -------------- -- ----------- -- ------------ -- APW+lo GGA-WC 10.28 (9.31) 93 (47.3) 4.23 (2.9) APW+lo GGA-PBE 10.34 (9.49) 88 (42.2) 4.16 (5.0) APW+lo LDA 10.22 (9.21) 96 (53.1) 4.37 (3.7) PPW LDA$^{a (b)}$ 10.17 (9.16) 87 (52.6) 3.82 (5.2) PPW GGA$^{c (b)}$ 10.32 (9.56) 87 (39.3) —– (4.7) Exp.$^{d (e)}$ 10.26 (9.36) 98 (43.2) 4.02(4.9) : Lattice parameter, bulk modulus and pressure derivative of bulk modulus of Si (Pb) together with the method of calculations and exchange-correlation (XC) functional. \[tab1\] $^aReference~\textrm{\onlinecite{Cam88}}.$\ $^bReference~\textrm{\onlinecite{Yu04}}.$\ $^cReference~\textrm{\onlinecite{Pal99}}.$\ $^dReference~\textrm{\onlinecite{Bea70}}.$\ $^eReference~\textrm{\onlinecite{Voh90}}.$\ Before going through the interface and surface calculations in detail, it seems advisable to first shortly report on the bulk structural properties. In this case, the accuracy of our calculations could be first assessed, and second more accurate lattice parameters would be also obtained to simulate the substrate with an actual and reliable lattice mismatch at the interface. Furthermore one aims to get more insight into the various exchange-correlation functionals, specially the recent proposed WC-GGA[@Wu06] potential. The lattice parameters, bulk moduli, and the pressure derivative of the bulk moduli were calculated for the bulks of the Si and Pb compounds. The calculations were performed within the LDA[@Kur99], PBE-GGA[@Per96] and WC-GGA[@Wu06] functionals by fitting the total energy as a function of volume with the Birch equation of state.[@Bir78] The current APW+lo and previous pseudopotential plane wave (PPW) results[@Cam88; @Yu04; @Pal99] along with the experimental data [@Bea70; @Voh90] are presented in Tab. \[tab1\]. Our APW+lo result, compared to the experiment[@Bea70; @Voh90], shows that, for both the Si and Pb cases, the PBE-GGA[@Per96] overestimates the lattice constants and bulk modulii, whereas the LDA[@Kur99] underestimates them. This is consistent with the general features of the PBE-GGA[@Per96] and LDA[@Kur99] functionals for solid states. In particular, as shown in Tab. \[tab1\], our values are in complete accord with the previous PPW results.[@Cam88; @Yu04; @Pal99] The WC-GGA[@Wu06] predicts the lattice constant of the Pb compound better than the LDA[@Kur99] and GGA regardless of the APW+lo or PPW method, while our PBE-GGA[@Per96] remains superior for the prediction of its bulk modulus. This can also be the case for the lattice parameter of the Si compound. From the result presented in Tab. \[tab1\] one can cautiously state that the WC-GGA[@Wu06] functional improves the lattice parameters over both the LDA[@Kur99] and PBE-GGA[@Per96]. This statement is in agreement with the prediction of Wu and Cohen for the most of their studied compounds[@Wu06]. Our results show that lattice parameters calculated from WC-GGA[@Wu06] approximation are very close to experiment[@Bea70; @Voh90]. The calculated lattice parameter of the bulk Si, i.e., 10.28 a.u., will be used in the forthcoming Sec. \[sec-Slab\] for simulating this compound as our substrate to mimic the effects of the lattice mismatch on the valence bands at the interface of the Pb/Si(111). Finally, keeping in mind that the value obtained for the pressure derivative of the bulk modulus depends on the range of fitting and as a result quantitative analysis may not be completely reliable, our result shows that the PBE-GGA[@Per96] yields better pressure derivatives of the bulk moduli for the Pb and Si compounds than LDA[@Kur99] and WC-GGA[@Wu06]. Slab Determination and Optimization {#sec-Slab} =================================== $N_{Si}$ $\phi_{Si}$ (eV) $E^f_{Si}$ (eV/$bohr^2$) -- ---------- ------------------ -------------------------- -- 4 4.8484 1.3037 6 4.7179 1.3281 8 4.7295 1.3274 10 4.7299 1.3270 : The work function, $\phi_{Si}$ (eV), and surface formation energy, $E^f_{Si}$ (eV/$bohr^2$), per unit area for the number of Si(111) bilayers ($N_{Si}$). \[tab2\] ![(Color online) (a) A Pb/Si(111) slab symmetrically immersed in a vacuum to illustrate atomic arrangement of Pb adatoms (larger grey spheres) on 8 bilayers of Si(111) atoms (smaller light spheres). (b) A schematic view of Pb overlayers to illustrate T1 (top), H3 (hcp), T4 (fcc) and bridge (intermediate point of the T1 and T4 or T1 and H3) sites of the Pb adatoms on the Si(111) substrate. Top (c) and cross (d) views of the the most stable phase, T1, including a bilayer of Si(111) and a Pb overlayer located along the first layer of the Si(111) bilayer. The (1$\times$1)-unit cell is outlined in (b) and (c). \[fig1\]](fig1.eps){width="8.1cm"} The silicon substrate has been simulated using the calculated WC-GGA[@Wu06] lattice parameter in the previous Sec. \[sec-bulk\] along the (111) crystallographic direction of the $Fd\overline{3}m$ space group. We have found that the Si(111) substrate, as shown in Fig. \[fig1\](a), can be properly modeled by stacking 8 Si bilayers, i.e., 16 Si monolayers. Surface formation energy, $E^f_{Si}$, per unit area and work function, $\phi_{Si}$, were calculated for the various number of Si(111) bilayers, $N_{Si}$, and the results are listed in Tab. \[tab2\]. Our result shows that the changes of the work function and the surface formation energy are less than 0.001 eV by adding more bilayers. The reliability of the obtained 8 Si bilayers has been further investigated by comparing the bulk and surface electronic structures of the silicon. The total densities of states (DOSs) were calculated for both the bulk and surface of the Si. One expects to observe similar DOSs for the bulk of Si and the deepest atom from the surface of the Si(111). Our calculated surface DOS for $N_{Si} < 8$ predicts a wrong metallic behavior for the deepest Si atom. However, our result confirms that the DOS of the deepest Si layer approaches to the bulk DOS of the Si semiconductor by approaching $N_{Si}$ to the 8 bilayers. We avoid to present the DOSs of the substrate without the deposited Pb layers in this paper, as we just used them to ensure the validity of the Pb/Si(111) thin films calculations. The Pb layers were then deposited over and below the prepared Si(111) substrate to create a symmetric Pb/Si(111) slab. In order to simulate the Pb/Si(111) thin films, the created Pb/Si(111) slab, as shown in Fig. \[fig1\](a), is symmetrically immersed in a vacuum as well. The symmetric thin films causes to add inversion symmetry which gives rise to speed up the interface relaxation. The vacuum thickness is defined to be the distance between the top edge of the slab and the bottom edge of its next neighbor. In order to determine the vacuum thickness, total energy, work function and exerted forces on the surface atoms were calculated for the 8 bilayers Si(111) structure versus various vacuum thicknesses. Our results, which are not presented here, show that 12 $\AA$ is sufficient for the vacuum thickness to avoid interactions with the nearest neighbors of the slab along the Cartesian z axis. The total energy, work function and forces were well converged in the vicinity of the obtained vacuum thickness – they did not show significant changes by increasing the vacuum thickness more than the value obtained. All the Si underneath atoms and Pb adatoms are allowed to fully relax by adjusting their heights, but not their coordinates parallel to the Si(111) surface. The top (T1), fcc (T4), hcp (H3), and bridge (B2 – intermediate point of the T1 and T4 or T1 and H3) sites, as corresponding phases for the deposition of the Pb layers on the Si(111) surface, are shown in Fig. \[fig1\](b). In order to better visualize the most stable phase, top and cross views of the ($\sqrt{3}$$\times$$\sqrt{3}$)-unit cell of the T1 phase are illustrated in Figs. \[fig1\](c) and (d), respectively. In this phase, as shown in Fig. \[fig1\](d), the Pb adatoms were positioned along the first layer of the the first Si(111) bilayers. The (1$\times$1)-unit cell as the interface structure for our full-potential all electron ab initio calculations is outlined in Figs. \[fig1\](b) and (c). Interface Properties {#sec-Interface} ==================== Stability {#sec-Stability} --------- SOC T1 (eV) T4 (eV) H3 (eV) -------- --------- --------- --------- -- No 0.00 0.41 0.32 Yes 0.00 0.25 0.20 No$^a$ 0.00 0.35 0.18 : Relative total energies with respect to the energy of the T1 phase, E(T1), in the presence and absence of the spin-orbit coupling (SOC). Here the E(T1) is arbitrarily chosen to be zero. \[tab3\] $^aReference~\textrm{\onlinecite{Bro02}}.$\ In this section, we would make sure about the most preferable configuration. Total energies were then calculated for all of the illustrated structures in the Fig. \[fig1\](b), apart from the bridge-site structure. The calculations were performed in the presence and absence of the spin-orbit coupling (SOC). Total energies relative to the T1 site are presented in Table. \[tab3\]. Our result with and without SOC shows that the T1 site is the most stable structure among the other configurations. This result is in agreement with experiment.[@See95] The energy, as shown in Table. \[tab3\], increases from T1 site to T4 site and deceases from T4 site to H3 site. The later trend, as shown in Table. \[tab3\], is not affected by the spin-orbit interactions. The result shows that the effect of spin-orbit interactions, keeping the trend, is to shift downward total energies of all the sites. Our results are also quantitatively comparable with the pseudopotential calculations.[@Bro02] The energy of the bridge-site phase has not been calculated, since, as mentioned in the previous Sec. \[sec-Slab\], B2 is an intermediate site of T1 and T4 sites or T1 and H3 sites. Therefore, one can most likely predict that the surface formation energy of the B2 site because of its symmetry is somewhere between T1 and T4 sites or between T1 and H3 sites. This prediction is in complete accord with the pseudopotential results.[@Bro02] We will concentrate only on the lowest-energy T1 site from later on in the remaining subsequent sections. Si-Pb bond length {#sec-Bond} ----------------- Method XC-Potential d(Pb-Si)$(\AA)$ ----------- -------------- -------------------------------------- -- FP-APW+lo WC-GGA 2.72 FP-APW+lo PBE-GGA 2.70 FP-APW+lo LDA 2.68 PPW$^a$ LDA 2.66 EXP.$^b$ $2.66\pm0.03\leq d \leq 2.98\pm0.03$ : Pb-Si bond length, d(Pb-Si), together with the method of calculations and exchange-correlation (XC) functional. \[tab4\] $^aReference~\textrm{\onlinecite{Cha03}}.$\ $^bReference~\textrm{\onlinecite{Kum00}}.$\ Bond length of Pb-Si, d(Pb-Si), at the interface of our slab has been calculated for the most energetically stable phase, i.e., T1 site, as shown in Tab. \[tab3\]. The WC-GGA[@Wu06], PBE-GGA[@Per96] and LDA[@Kur99] functionals were used for the exchange-correlation (XC) potential. Our full-potential results together with the pseudopotential results of the others[@Cha03] as well as experimental data[@Kum00] are listed in Tab. \[tab4\]. The experimental data were obtained by surface X-ray diffraction based on the Pb/Si(111)-$(^{~~3}_{-1}{~~}^{2}_1)$ model[@Kum00]. This model contains 7 Pb adatoms in the $(^{~~3}_{-1}{~~}^{2}_1)$-unit cell[@Kum00]. Here we are only interested in the four of these lead atoms, since they are located in the top (T1) site as our predicted most stable phase[@Kum00]. The Pb-Si bond lengths for these 4 lead adatoms were measured[@Kum00] to be between $2.66\pm0.03 \AA$ and $2.98\pm0.03 \AA$.[@Kum00] The covalent radii of silicon and lead are $R_{co}(Si) = 1.18 \AA$ and $R_{co}(Pb) = 1.47 \AA$, respectively, and the bulk radius of lead is $R_{bu}(Pb) = 1.75 \AA$.[@Kum00] Thereby the covalent bond lengths of Pb-Si have to be between $R_{co}(Si) + R_{co}(Pb)= 2.65 \AA$ and $R_{co}(Si) + R_{bu}(Pb)= 2.93 \AA$, viz. $2.65 \AA < d_{co}(Pb-Si) < 2.93 \AA$.[@Kum00] Our LDA full-potential result, as shown in Tab. \[tab4\], is in excellent agreement with the LDA pseudopotential result of the others.[@Cha03] The LDA results, as shown in Tab. \[tab4\], are very close to the strongest covalent bond length, i.e., $2.65 \AA$. The result demonstrates that the PBE-GGA and WC-GGA give larger bond lengths which result in weaker Pb-Si bonds than LDA. This confirms a trend shown in Tab. \[tab1\] in which the LDA underestimates but GGA overestimates lattice parameters compared to experiment. The weaker PBE- and WC-GGA bonds, as shown in Tab. \[tab4\], are still in the covalent bond length interval, i.e. \[2.65, 2.93 $\AA$\]. The predicted covalent bonds by LDA and GGA show that the competition between the Pb-Si and Pb-Pb interactions gives rise to saturate all the dangling bonds of the silicon substrate. Finally, it worths to mention that the trend seen in Tab. \[tab1\] is reversed here, as shown in Tab. \[tab4\], between PBE-GGA and WC-GGA in which PBE-GGA predicts lattice parameter larger than WC-GGA. In contrast to the lattice parameter trend, here, as shown in Tab. \[tab4\], the Pb-Si bond length within the WC-GGA is slightly larger than the Pb-Si bond length within the PBE-GGA. Normal and in-plane Pb-Si distances, viz. $d_z$ and $d_{xy}$, were calculated employing pseudopotential method for the $\sqrt7\times\sqrt3$ mixed phase obtained from coadsorption of Pb and Sn on the Si(111) surface. The Pb-Si bond lengths, d = $({d_{xy}^2+d_z^2})^{\frac{1}{2}}$, were found to vary from 2.77 Å  to 3.33 Å  depending on the positions of silicon atoms with respect to the lead adatoms for the (Pb, Sn)/Si(111) $\sqrt7\times\sqrt3$ phase.[@Cud08] The Pb-Si bond length of the later $\sqrt7\times\sqrt3$ model with less in-plane Pb-Si distance can be more comparable with the bond length obtained from our top site phase. The less in-plane distance and its corresponding normal distance were calculated to be $d_{xy}$ = 1.79 Å  and $d_{z}$ = 2.11 Å, respectively, which resulted in Pb-Si bond length d = $(1.79^2+2.11^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}$ = 2.77 Å.[@Cud08] The later bond length, 2.77 Å, which is in the above mentioned covalent bond length interval, i.e., \[2.65, 2.93 $\AA$\] and closer to our WC-GGA result, asserts that the Pb-Si forms a very strong bond.[@Cud08] Work function and surface formation energy {#sec-Work} ------------------------------------------ Method XC-Pot. SOC Si(111) $\phi$ (eV) $E^f$ (eV/$\AA^2$) --------------- --------- ----- --------- ------------- -------------------- -- FP-APW+lo WC-GGA No Yes 4.72 -0.59 FP-APW+lo WC-GGA Yes Yes 4.65 -0.61 FP-APW+lo$^a$ WC-GGA No No 4.23 0.02 PPW$^b$ LDA No Yes —– -0.47 PPW$^c$ PW-GGA No No 4.07 —– PAW-PPW$^d$ GGA92 No No 3.83 0.03 : The work function, $\phi$ (eV), and surface formation energy, $E^f$ (eV/$\AA^2$), per (1$\times$1)-unit cell for the Pb at the interface (1 ML coverage) of the Pb/Si(111) together with the method of calculations, kind of exchange-correlation (XC) functionals and interactions as well as existence or extinction of the Si(111) substrate. Since most of the presented pseudopotential results of the others in this table are for the hypothetical free-standing Pb(111), our FP-APW+lo results without Si(111) substrate are also included for the comparison. \[tab5\] $^a$These free-standing Pb(111) values are given for N=2. For N=1, the hypothetical free-standing film is so unstable that may no longer be considered as a physical system even within a pure theoretical study.\ $^bReference~\textrm{\onlinecite{Cha03}}.$\ $^cReference~\textrm{\onlinecite{Jia06}}$\ $^dReference~\textrm{\onlinecite{Sun08}};$ The given surface formation energy in the reference , 0.372 eV, is converted from eV to eV/$\AA^2$. Hence the value of 0.372 eV is divided by the area of the $(1\times 1)$-unit cell, 12.804 $\AA^2$.\ We calculated the work function ,$\phi (eV)$, as the minimum energy required to liberate an electron from the Fermi level ($E_F$) to a point with negligible kinetic energy at the center of the vacuum of the slab. The calculations were performed using the following formula: $$\begin{aligned} \phi=E_{vac} - E_F, \label{equ1}\end{aligned}$$ where $E_{vac}$ is estimated by the averaged electrostatic Coulomb potential at the midpoint of the vacuum of the slab and $E_F$ is the corresponding Fermi energy. The work function is a sensitive parameter to the surface conditions, since the liberated electron must move through the surface. The work functions were calculated at the interface of the slab with and without SOC and the results are presented in Tab. \[tab5\]. The result shows that the SOC causes to reduce the work function. The pseudopotential results for the clean Pb(111) surface[@Jia06; @Sun08] are also given in Tab. \[tab5\] within two different exchange-correlation functionals. The comparison shows that the various versions of GGA can result in slightly different values. Since the pseudopotential work functions are available for the hypothetical free-standing Pb(111), we also added our results without Si(111) substrate in Tab. \[tab5\] for the comparison. Our free-standing work function is calculated for the second layer of the Pb(111). A single lead layer without any substrate may not constitute a meaningful stable physical system. Our Pb(111) work function which is in good agreement with the pseudopotential result would be compared with the results of our actual Pb/Si(111) slab to elucidate the role of Si(111) substrate. An overlook on the Tab. \[tab5\] shows that our calculated work functions taking silicon substrate into account are in the same order of magnitudes when compared to the free-standing full- and/or pseudo-potential results. From the later point, it appears that the Si substrate does not significantly influence the work functions. The later point confirms the observation of P. S. Kirchmann et al.,[@Kir07], where they[@Kir07] found the agreement between their experimental QSE observation for the actual Pb/Si(111) and the pseudopotential results[@Wei02] for the hypothetical freestanding Pb(111). The surface formation energy per unit area at zero temperature is defined as:[@Pen00] $$\begin{aligned} E^f=\frac{1}{2A}(E_{slab}-N_{Si}E_{Si}^{bulk}-N_{Pb}E_{Pb}^{bulk}), \label{equ2}\end{aligned}$$ where $E_{slab}$ is the total energy of the slab, $N_{Si}$($N_{Pb}$) and $E_{Si}^{bulk}$($E_{Pb}^{bulk}$) are the number and bulk energy of the Si (Pb) atoms in the unit cell, respectively. Here A is the area of the (1$\times$1)-unit cell. The factor $\frac{1}{2}$ is used in the above formula, since the slab has two surfaces, as shown in Fig. \[fig1\](a), due to the embodied inversion symmetry. In principle one can use the above equation as the standard method to calculate the surface formation energy. However, it is well known that in practice the surface formation energy employing Equ. \[equ2\] diverges.[@Fio96; @Boe98] In order to overcome the divergence problem of the standard Equ. \[equ2\], in this paper we have used the following formula[@Fio96] to calculate the surface formation energy: $$\begin{aligned} E^f=\frac{1}{2A}(E_{slab}-N_{Si}\Delta E_{Si}^N-N_{Pb}\Delta E_{Pb}^N), \label{equ3}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta E_{Si}^N = E_{Si}^{N} - E_{Si}^{N-1}$ and $\Delta E_{Pb}^N = E_{Pb}^{N} - E_{Pb}^{N-1}$. We have already used Equ. \[equ3\], with $N_{Pb}=0$, in the previous Sec. \[sec-Slab\] to calculate the surface formation energy of the pure Si(111) substrate. Our calculated surface formation energies in the presence and absence of the spin-orbit coupling (SOC) along with the pseudopotential results for both of the actual Pb/Si(111) interface[@Cha03] and hypothetical clean Pb(111) surface[@Sun08] are given in Tab. \[tab5\]. Our result shows that the effect of SOC is small as well. Spin-orbit (SO) coupling breaks down the space inversion symmetry by imposing a preferable direction, which gives rise to spin splitting. The inversion symmetry can be also broken at an interface or a surface. The Rashba-effect[@Byc84] on metallic surfaces is a phenomenon, which originates both from spin-orbit coupling and the lack of inversion symmetry at surfaces.[@Bih06] A Rashba-type spin-orbit splitting with no coverage dependency was found for quantum well states formed in ultrathin Pb films on Si (111).[@Hug08] Hugo Dil et al.[@Hug08] found for the states at 0.15 and 0.4 eV this splitting to be 14 and 15 meV, respectively. We found the same splitting in the vicinity of Fermi level for the valence bands. The SO coupling within this small splitting, as shown in Tab. \[tab5\], causes to reduce the work function and surface formation energy by 0.07 eV and 0.02 eV/$\AA^2$, respectively. As shown in Tab. \[tab5\], the surface formation energy is a negative value taking substrate into account, i.e., for the actual Pb/Si(111) case. On the contrary it is a tiny positive value without substrate, i.e., for the hypothetical freestanding Pb(111) case. The obtained negative value when compared with the tiny positive value confirms that the Pb/Si(111) is energetically more favorable to form that particular structure than the clean Pb(111) surface. The later point is in complete accord with the pseudopotential results, as can be seen from Tab. \[tab5\]. Therefore, the effect of substrate is obviously to make the Pb layers energetically stable. Density of states (DOS) {#sec-Density} ----------------------- ![(Color online) Partial densities of states for (a) s Pb, (b) p Pb, (c) $p_{x+y}$ Pb, (d) $p_{z}$ Pb, (e) s Si, (f) p Si, (g) $p_{x+y}$ Si, (h) $p_{z}$ Si. \[fig2\]](fig2.eps){width="9cm"} Total and partial densities of states (DOSs) were calculated at the interface for both of the underneath Si and the overlayer Pb atoms. The calculations were performed in the absence and presence of the spin-orbit coupling (SOC) for the slab shown in Fig. \[fig1\](a). Total DOSs with and without SOC, which are not shown here, were compared. Despite the large atomic number of Pb, the comparison shows that the effect of SOC is not very significant on the valence electronic structure and can be ignored. This is in accordance with the experiment in which the magnitude of the Rashba-type spin-orbit splitting were found for this thin films to be so small that can be detected by the spin integrated angle resolved photoemission (ARPES) method.[@Hug08] The spin splitting originates from all of the layers and thereby should be calculated by integrating over the entire layers.[@Hug08] The spin splitting is small in Pb/Si(111) ultrathin films, because the signs of the splittings of the Pb-vacuum and Si(111)-Pb interfaces are opposite in direction due to the larger phase shift at the Pb to the vacuum interface than the phase shift at the Pb to Si(111) interface.[@Hug08] Thus the total splitting which partly cancels each other results in an ignorable spin-orbit coupling effect in Pb/Si(111). Therefore from now on we do not include the spin-orbit interactions in all of our surface calculations. Partial s and p DOSs are shown in Figs. \[fig2\](a) and (b) for Pb and in Figs. \[fig2\](e) and (f) for Si atoms at the interface of the slab, respectively. The result shows that the s states of the Pb and Si atoms are almost distributed over the energy interval of (-10, -5) eV, while their p states are nearly in the (-4, $E_F$ = 0) eV energy window. This demonstrates that the s states are lower in energy than the p states for both of these Pb and Si atoms. Consequently, the s states of Pb and Si are more localized than their p states, which are closer to the Fermi level when compared with the former s sates. Since the p orbital manifest itself more closely to the Fermi level, the p sates show more itinerant character than the s sates. Hence, the p electrons play more important role than the s electrons in the Pb-Si bonding. Now we can discuss the kinds and qualitatively the strengths of the Pb-Si bonds, keeping three points in mind: (i) s (p) electrons are more localized (itinerant) than p (s) electrons for both of the Pb and the Si atoms, and (ii) below the Fermi level interval energy (-10, -5) eV of s states do not overlap interval energy (-4, 0) eV of p states for both of the Pb and Si atoms, as well as (iii) Pb sits on-top of Si site vertically along z direction, as shown in the top site configuration in Fig. \[fig1\] (b). The result shows that the 6s states of Pb adatoms are weakly hybridized with the 3s states of the Si substrate. According to the above point (ii) the energy window of 3s Si well overlaps the energy window of 6s Pb, as shown in Figs. \[fig2\](a) and (e). One may then promptly speculate that the 6s Pb states can be well hybridized with the 3s Si states. However, according to the point (i) both of the 6s and 3s states are nearly localized and so do not substantially contribute in bonding. Thereby the overlap of the 3s Si and 6p Pb DOSs can only result in an extremely weak $\sigma$-like bond, which may be due to its weakness neglected. The 6s Pb states are even much more weakly bonded to the p Si states compared to the former extremely weak $\sigma$-like Pb-Si bond. According to the property (ii) energy windows of 6s Pb and 3s Si do not overlap, because the s-Pb states are over (-10, -5 eV), while the p-Si state are in (-4, 0 eV), as can be clearly seen from Figs. \[fig2\](a) and (f). This in turn gives rise to even weaker bond between 6s Pb and p Si states than the last 6s Pb and 3s Si bond. This is also the case, as shown in Figs. \[fig2\](b) and (e), for the p Pb and s Si DOSs. Till now, there are no any evidence of the appearance of Pb-Si bonding. Let us then discuss the bonding states by concentrating solely on the most important p states of the Pb and Si. First, the result shows that the energy window of p Pb well overlaps the energy window of p Si, as shown in Figs. \[fig2\](b) and (f). Second, according to the above mentioned (i) point, the p Pb and Si electrons are more itinerant than their s electrons. Third, there are a lot of p Pb and p Si states at an energy very close to the Fermi level, see two sharp peaks in Figs. \[fig2\](b) and (f). Therefore, the p states of the Pb and Si atoms can be well hybridized with each other. In order to determine the kind of Pb-Si bond, the p states of Pb and Si were further decomposed, as shown in the right panel of the Figs. \[fig2\], to their partial $p_z$ and $p_{xy}$ states. The distributions of the $p_z$ and $p_{xy}$ DOSs of both Pb and Si atoms show that they are completely hybridized with each other. Here, the z axis is taken to be perpendicular on the surface and x,y are parallel to the surface. The Pb overlayer atom is just located above the Si underneath atom along the z-Cartesian coordinate in the top site configuration, as shown in Figs. \[fig1\](b). Hence, one lobe of the $p_z$ orbital of Si underneath atom overlaps with one lobe of the $p_z$ orbital of Pb overlayer atom. Consequently, hybridization of $p_z$ orbitals of Pb and Si results in a $\sigma$-bond. The strength of the $p_z$ Pb and $p_z$ Si $\sigma$-bond can be estimated by observing that the two sharp peaks at an almost single energy nearby the Fermi level originate from the $p_z$ Pb and $p_z$ Si DOSs, as shown in Figs. \[fig2\](d) and (h). This can be taken as an indication to the fact that there is a tightly $\sigma$-bond between the the $p_z$ Pb and $p_z$ Si at the interface. This result is in excellent agreement with the pseudopotential result of the others[@Cud08] for Pb/Si(111) $\sqrt3\times\sqrt7$ phase, in which a strong hybridization between the $P_z$ Pb orbital and the $P_z$ dangeling bonds of the substrate had been reported. As shown in Figs. \[fig2\](c) and (g), two lobes of the $p_{xy}$ Pb overlap with two lobes of the $p_{xy}$ Si as well, which gives rise to a $\pi$-bond. The strength of the $\pi$-bond cannot be so large, because the $p_{xy}$ Pb and $p_{xy}$ Si DOSs are broadened, as shown in Figs. \[fig2\](d) and (h), in contrast to the sharp narrow $p_{z}$ Pb and Si DOSs. Thereby, a feeble $\pi$-bond is constituted by the the $p_{xy}$ Pb and $p_{xy}$ Si at the interface. We conclude this discussion by stating the following points. There is not a pure $\pi$ or $\sigma$ state in the Pb-Si bond. Instead there is a mixed state composed of $\pi$ and $\sigma$ states in the Pb-Si bond. The combination of these two feeble $\pi$ and strong $\sigma$ bonds can result in a strong covalent Pb-Si bond. The later point is consistent with our last discussion in Sec. \[sec-Bond\] regarding the bond length of Pb-Si. In summary, the Pb overlayer can be strongly absorbed by the Si substrate. Thin Films Properties {#sec-Thin} ===================== Total Energy and Energy Differences {#sec-Energy-thin} ----------------------------------- ![(Color online) (a)Total energy per layer (solid line) and energy differences (dotted line) of Pb/Si(111) versus number of monolayer (ML) coverages, N. (b)Surface formation energy (dotted line) per (1$\times$1)-unit cell and work Function (solid line) of Pb/Si(111) versus number of monolayer (ML) coverages, N. \[fig3\]](fig3.eps){width="9cm"} Total energy per number of layers, $E(N)/N$, is shown in Fig. \[fig3\] (a) as a function of the film thickness, N. The result shows that the $E(N)/N$ increases by N and asymptotically approaches to a constant value. The asymptotic behavior can be realized, if we notice that the motion of Pb electrons is confined in one direction while it remains free to move on the surface. The later point itself is due to the fact that the Pb/Si(111) is a prototype of the metal-on-semiconductor system with a high Schottky barrier against penetrating valence electrons of Pb into the substrate.[@Hes90; @Cvi02] The confinement in the nanoscale causes wave vector k to quantize in a perpendicular direction on the surface, which results in discrete energy levels associated with the so-called quantum-well (QW) states. The simplest way to describe this confinement is then by the one dimensional QW.[@Chi00] In a direction normal on the surface there is no translation symmetry. The potential in the xy plane is periodic and potential in the z direction represents the QW. The energy levels in the free electron approximation are given by: $$\begin{aligned} E_{n}=\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}(k_{\parallel}^{2}+k_{\perp}^{2})=\frac{\hbar^2} {2m}(k_{x}^{2}+k_{y}^{2})+\frac{\hbar^2\pi^2n_{z}^{2}}{2md^{2}},\end{aligned}$$ where $m$ is the free electron mass and d is the thickness of the film. The above equation clearly shows that the total energy approaches to a constant value by increasing the film thickness. This equation elucidates recognition of the asymptotic behavior shown in Fig. \[fig3\] (a). Monolayer per atom energies $\frac{E(N)}{N}$ were calculated for the freestanding Pb(111) slab as a function of monolayers N.[@Mat01] In agreement with our above discussed asymptotic behavior for the actual case of Pb/Si(111), it was shown that $\frac{E(N)}{N}$ of the hypothetical freestanding Pb(111) system gradually approaches a constant value.[@Mat01] The energy difference between two successive layers is defined as: $$\begin{aligned} \delta E(N)=E(N)-E(N-1).\end{aligned}$$ The $\delta E(N)$ versus number of layers, N, is also shown in Fig. \[fig3\](a). The result shows that the energy difference oscillates as a function of the number of monolayer (ML) coverages with the period of $\lambda = 2 ML$. The oscillation is attributed to the quantum size effect (QSE). Similar QSEs were detected by the pseudopotential calculations for the freestanding Pb(111) thin films.[@Mat01] One expects that the underlying physics behind of the observed QSE in the $\delta E(N)$ quantity, as shown in Fig. \[fig3\](a), can be related to the electronic structure of the system. We would postpone this point to a more appropriate time in Sec. \[sec-EFG-thin\], where the electric field gradient (EFG) as an extremely sensitive quantity to the valence electron charge density distribution is discussed. Work function and surface formation energy {#sec-Work-thin} ------------------------------------------ ![(Color online) Surface formation energy (dotted line) per (1$\times$1)-unit cell and work Function (solid line) of freestanding Pb(111) versus number of monolayer (ML) coverages, N. \[fig4\]](fig4.eps){width="9cm"} The work function, as discussed in the previous Sec. \[sec-Work\], has been calculated utilizing Equ. \[equ1\]. The result is presented in Fig. \[fig3\](b) as a function of Pb thin films thickness for the actual Pb/Si(111) slab. The result shows an oscillatory behavior of the work function versus the film thickness with the period of $\lambda = 2 ML$. The oscillation is quickly damped and the work function is going to be converged through a few number of Pb layers. The work function oscillation was previously attributed to the quantum size effects (QSE) and predicted[@Wei02] by using a pseudopotential calculation for the case of a freestanding Pb slab. The pseudopotential result[@Wei02] for the hypothetical clean Pb(111) thin films shows that the oscillation is much more slowly damped and the work function is converged at a very large number of Pb layers when compared with our full-potential results for the real Pb/Si(111) case. The different oscillatory behavior might be related to the effect of the Si substrate. But one has to notice that the discrepancy may come from the two different approaches. Thus we calculated the work function for the clean Pb(111) surface within our full-potential method as well. The result as shown in Fig. \[fig4\] shows that our full-potential work functions are also no longer rapidly damped for the clean Pb(111) case in agreement with the pseudopotential result. This verifies that the oscillatory behavior discrepancy indeed results mainly from the existence and extinction of the Si substrate and not from the method of calculations. This authenticates that the occurred QSE in the work function is influenced by that of Si(111). The effect of Si substrate on the work function confirms the calculation of Dil et al.,[@Dil07] where they[@Dil07] similarly found that unlike for Pb on graphite, the Pb overlayer lattice structure is influenced by the Si(111). The effect of our Si(111) substrate on both of the geometry and electronic structures of the Pb overlayer atoms is also in agreement with the influence of the Cu(111) substrate on the geometry structure of the Pb(111) layers reported by Materzanini and coworkers.[@Mat01] In the later work, the effect of substrate was studied in a tricky manner without including directly Cu(111) underneath atoms by compressing the supercell dimensions in the surface plane by 3.3%.[@Mat01] They found that the explicit inclusion of the Cu(111) substrate would be highly desirable to explain the remaining quantitative differences between theory and experiment.[@Mat01] It seems that the later result contradicts our last finding in Sec. \[sec-Work\]. We found in Sec. \[sec-Work\] that the order of magnitude of the work function could not be significantly affected by the substrate in agreement with the observation presented in Ref. . The contradiction can be resolved if we notice that the work function is not so sensitive that its order of magnetite, but its oscillatory behavior, can be affected by the substrate. The electric field gradient (EFG) is much more sensitive quantity than the work function to the surface states. We shall show in subsequent Sec. \[sec-EFG-thin\] that the EFG is so sensitive to the substrate that not only its oscillatory behavior but also its value can be affected by the Si substrate. We calculated the surface formation energy versus the film thickness, N, based on the Equ. \[equ2\]. The result, which is not shown here, varies linearly with respect to N. The linear variation is consistent with the first scheme described in Ref. . We then recalculated the surface formation energy versus N according to the Equ. \[equ3\]. The result, as shown in Fig. \[fig3\](b), manifests a deviation from the linear behavior on going from fourth to the fifth layer. The deviation is consistent with the third scheme discussed in Ref. . Here we did not use the fourth scheme given in Ref. . According to the fourth scheme the Bulk energies in the standard Equ. \[equ2\] can be found by taking the slope of a fitted straight line to all of the slab total energies versus N. It is generally believed[@Fio96; @Boe98; @Hon03] that the divergence problem disappears employing the fourth scheme for smaller N. However, in this paper we aim to elucidate the role of substrate. The goal of this paper can be achieved even by the third scheme which is identical to the the Equ. \[equ3\]. Therefore we calculated the surface formation energy versus N for the clean Pb(111) surface. The result is shown in Fig \[fig4\] which can be compared with the surface formation energy of the actual Pb/Si(111) slab as shown in Fig. \[fig3\](b). Furthermore the clean Pb(111) surface formation energy behaves completely different from that of its supported slab by the Si substrate. The different behavior demonstrates the effect of Si on the surface formation energy. Electric Field Gradient (EFG) {#sec-EFG-thin} ----------------------------- ![(Color online) The main component of the electric field gradient, $V_{zz}$, versus number of monolayer (ML) coverages, N. \[fig5\]](fig5.eps){width="9cm"} ![(Color online) A schematic representation of electron charge density distribution (ECDD). (a) A longitudinal ECDD deformation can yield a nonzero negative value for the main component of the electric field gradient, $V_{zz}$, for angular *l*=2 and azimuthal *m*=0 quantum numbers. (b) An undeformed spherical ECDD yields a zero value for the $V_{zz}$, for every *l* and *m*. (c) A transverse ECDD deformation can yield a nonzero positive value for the $V_{zz}$, with *l*=2 and *m*=0. \[fig6\]](fig6.eps){width="8.5cm"} The electric field gradients (EFGs)[@Bla88; @Sch90] were calculated at the Pb sites for our slab. The main component of the EFG tensor, $V_{zz}$, is presented as a function of film thickness, N, in Fig. \[fig5\]. The sign of the $V_{zz}$ is negative, as shown in Fig. \[fig5\], for all the layers. The result shows that for 1 monolayer coverage, i.e., N = 1, the absolute value of the $V_{zz}$ is a very large number. As shown in Fig. \[fig5\], the $|V_{zz}|$ is drastically reduced on going from first to the second layer. Despite the reduction is significant, the $|V_{zz}|$ values are still considerably large for $N \geq 2$. Our result shows that for the larger N the $V_{zz}$ oscillates with respect to the number of monolayer (ML) coverages. The period of oscillation here is also $\lambda = 2 ML$. Therefore our ab initio calculations clearly elucidate the quantum size effect (QSE) in the electric field gradient (EFG). In order to interpret the above observation shown in Fig. \[fig5\] a cartoonlike electron charge distribution is illustrated in Figs. \[fig6\]. The electric field gradient (EFG) is an extremely sensitive quantity to the deviation from the spherical valence electron charge density distribution.[@Sch90; @Yu91; @Jal02; @Jal04] The EFG, as shown in Fig. \[fig6\] (b), is zero for a spherical charge density distribution, which is the case for the cubic or higher point group symmetry. The EFG, as shown in Figs. \[fig6\] (a) and (c), can be nonzero at an atomic site depending on its point group symmetry for an aspherical charge density distribution, which is the case for our Pb sites. The EFG can be calculated within the APW method by $V_{zz}\propto\int[\rho(r)Y_{20}]/r^3dr$.[@Las03] The EFG can be nonzero for an aspherical charge density distribution and obtained directly from the *l* = 2, *m* = 0 component of the potential expansion inside the muffin-tin spheres.[@Jal04] The sign of the EFG depends on the orientation of the anisotropic charge density distribution. The sign is defined to be negative (positive) for the charge distribution shown in Fig. \[fig6\] (a) (Fig. \[fig6\] (c)). Our surface Pb atoms for 1 monolayer (1 ML) coverage are only supported by their underneath Si(111) substrate atoms, since for N = 1 there is no more Pb overlayer on the first deposited Pb layer. The Pb-Pb bonds in the (x, y)-plane compensate each other. However, there is no Pb-Pb bonds along the z Cartesian direction to compete with the Pb-Si bonds to compensate them. The Pb-Si bond, as discussed in Sec. \[sec-Bond\], is a strong covalent bond. The uncompensated covalent Pb-Si bond results in a dramatic electron charge density deformation along the z direction. Consequently one can, according to the Fig. \[fig6\] (a), first expect that the sign of the EFG is negative and second its value is dramatically large. These expectations are in excellent agreement with our result as shown in Fig. \[fig5\]. For 2 ML coverages the second Pb layer is supported by the first Pb layer. The Pb-Pb bonds, which are again compensated in the (x, y)-plane, are much weaker[@Kum00] than the Pb-Si bonds along the z Cartesian direction. The weaker bonds results in a less charge density deformation which gives rise to a less value of the EFG at the Pb site for the second layer. The later point clearly explains the significant drop of the EFG on going from N = 1 to 2 as shown in Fig. \[fig5\]. Although the EFG is drastically reduced by adding the second layer, it can be still large due to the anisotropy of the Pb surface. The anisotropy comes from the fact that for N = 2 there is no Pb-Pb bond over the second layer to compensate the Pb-Pb bonds between the first and second layers. Here we would back to the postponed point to clarify that the source of the quantum size effect (QSE) originates from the electronic structure of the system. In order to reach the purpose one can first make a connection between the EFG and the density of states (DOS). Fortunately an astonishing connection was previously made[@Jal07] between the EFG and the total DOS at the $E_F$, $N_F$. There it was found an approximately linear relation between the main component of the electric field gradient and the total density of states at the Fermi level, viz. $V_{zz} \propto N_F$, in the $CeIn_3$ compound.[@Jal07] Therefore from one side there can be a relation between the $V_{zz}$ and the $N_F$ in our thin films. On the other hand here we have shown that the $V_{zz}$ oscillates as a function of film thickness. Consequently, there might be a relation between QSE and the electronic structure, or more specifically, between QSE and the total DOS at the Fermi level ($N_F$). Our finding regarding the later relation between QSE and $N_F$ verifies the previously reported relation between $N_F$ and the electron spillage length into the vacuum and as a result between $N_F$ and the step height of the layer N.[@Vaz09] This illuminates the underlying physics behind of the quantum size effects (QSEs). Our EFG study shows that the oscillations of a sensitive physical quantity with respect to the film thickness originates from the beating of the valence electron charge density distributions (VECDD). The VECDD deformation can change layer by layer depending on the bonds strength. The effect of the Si substrate, which is shown to be of significant importance in the strength of the bonds, plays an important role in the QSE. One suspects that the freestanding model can be applicable for those kinds of the thin films that the strength of their substrate-overlayer bonds are comparable with the strength of their overlayer-overlayer bonds. The later point is not the case for our thin films, since the strengths of the Pb-Si and Pb-Pb bonds are not comparable.[@Kum00] In conclusion our QSE calculation shows that our system is not an ideal paradigm to freestanding films. Conclusions =========== The effects of Si(111) substrate were investigated on the physical properties of the Pb/Si(111) thin films. The investigations were performed within the density functional theory (DFT) employing the augmented plane waves plus local orbital method (APW+lo). We used the PBE-GGA and WC-GGA for the exchange-correlation functional. Our result shows that the WC-GGA is more reliable to study this system. We included spin-orbit interactions in our the Kohn-Sham Hamiltonian. Our result shows that the effect of spin-orbit coupling is not of significant importance for this thin film. Several structures were considered for the slab. Our ab initio full-potential calculation shows that the top site (T1) is the most stable phase. The electronic structures at the interface of the most stable T1 phase were studied. The study shows that the Pb and Si at the interface are strongly bonded by $\sigma$ and weakly by $\pi$ bonds. The strong covalent Pb-Si bond is consistent with experiment. In order to elucidate the role of Si substrate the Quantum size effects (QSEs) were studied for the T1 configuration. The study is carried out by calculating the work function and surface formation energy as well as the electric field gradient (EFG) at the Pb sites. The calculations were performed as functions of the thin film thickness (N). We connected the oscillatory behavior of our calculated physical quantities to the electronic structures at various layers of the system. The connection has been made by the concept of the electric field gradient (EFG) as an extremely sensitive quantity to the electronic structure. The EFG provides a reliable approach to undertake the underlying physics behind of the QSE. Therefore the electric hyperfine interaction has merit as a measurement method to be further used in thin films. Our result shows that the effect of Si substrate depends on the sensitivity of the physical quantities to the valence electron charge densities. The Si substrate can be considerable for the sensitive quantities such as electric filed gradients (EFG), while it can be ignored for less sensitive quantities such as the value of the work function. This work is supported by University of Isfahan (UI), Isfahan, Iran. We are also thankful to Computational Nanotechnology Supercomputing Center Institute for Research in Fundamental Science (IPM) P.O.Box 19395-5531, Tehran, Iran for the computing facility. G. Le Lay, M. Abraham, A. Kahn, K. Hricovini and J. E. Bonnet, Physica Scripta. [**T35**]{}, 261-267 (1991). H. H. Weitering, D. R. Heslinga, and T. Hibma, Phys. Rev. B [**45**]{}, 5991 (1992). M. Švec, P. Jelínek, P. Shukrynau, C. González, V. Cháb and V. Drchal, Phys. Rev. B [**77**]{}, 125104 (2008). Tzu-Liang Chan, C. Z. Wang, M. Hupalo, M. C. Tringides, Zhong-Yi Lu, and K. M. Ho, Phys.Rev. B [**68**]{}, 045410 (2003). T.-L. Chan, C. Z. Wang, M. Hupalo, M. C. Tringides, and K. M. Ho, Phys. Rev. Let. [**96**]{}, 226102 (2006). L. Seehofer, G. Falkenberg, D. Daboul, and R. L. Johnson, Phys. Rev. B [**51**]{}, 13503 (1995). J. Slezák, P. Mutombo, V. Cháb, Surface Science [**454-56**]{}, 584-590 (2000). Michael C. Tringides, Mieczyslaw Jalochowski, and Ernst Bauer, Phys. Today [**60**]{} April 50 (2007). A.L. Vázquez de Parga, J.J. Hinarejos, F. Calleja, J. Camarero, R. Otero, R. Miranda, Surface Science [**603**]{} 1389-1396 (2009). Giuliana Materzanini, Peter Saalfrank, and Philip J.D. Lindan, Phys. Rev. B [**63**]{}, 235405 (2001). Jin-Feng Jia, Shao-Chun Li, Yan-Feng Zhang, and Qi-Kun Xue , J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**76**]{}, 082001 (2007). C. M. Wei, and M. Y. Chou, Phys. Rev B [**66**]{}, 233408 (2002). P. S. Kirchmann, M. Wolf, J. H. Dil, K. Horn, and U. Bovensiepen, Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{}, 075406 (2007). J. H. Dil, T. U. Kampen, B. Hülsen, T. Seyller, and K. Horn, Phys. Rev. B [**75**]{}, 161401(R) (2007). M. H. Upton, C. M.Wei, M.Y. Chou, T. Miller, and T.-C. Chiang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 026802 (2004). J. Hugo Dil, Fabian Meier, Jorge Lobo-Checa, Luc Patthey, Gustav Bihlmayer, and Jürg Osterwalder, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 266802 (2008). P. Cudazzo, G. Profeta, A. Continenza, Surface Science [**602**]{}, 747-754 (2008). P. Hohenberg and W. Kohn, Phys. Rev. [**136**]{}, 864 (1964). W. Kohn and L. J. Sham, Phys. Rev. [**140**]{}, A1133 (1965). Z. Wu, and R. E. Cohen, Phys. Rev. B [**73**]{}, 235116 (2006). Fabien Tran, Robert Laskowski, Peter Blaha, and Karlheinz Schwarz, Phys. Rev. B [**75**]{}, 115131 (2007). J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 3865 (1996). P. Blaha, K. Schwarz, G. K. H. Madsen, D. Kvasnicka, and J. Luitz, WIEN2K, “An Augmented Plane Waves + Local Orbitals Program for Calculating Crystal Properties,” Karlheinz Schwarz, Techn. Universitat Wien, Austria, ISBN 3-9501031-1-2 (2001). E. Sjöstedt, L. Nordström, and D. J. Singh, Solid State Commun. [**114**]{}, 15 (2000). G. K. H. Madsen, P. Blaha, K. Schwarz, E. Sjöstedt, and L. Nordström, Phys. Rev. B [**64**]{}, 195134 (2001). S. Kurth, J. P. Perdew, and P. Blaha, Int. J. Quantum Chem. [**75**]{}, 889 (1999). F. Birch, J. Geophys. Res. [**83**]{}, 1257 (1978). P. E. V. Camp, V. E. V. Doren and J. T. Devreese, Phys. Rev. B [**38**]{}, 12675 (1988). Dengke Yu and Matthias Scheffler, Phys. Rev. B [**70**]{}, 155417 (2004). M. Palummo, G. Onida, R. Del Sole and M. Corradini, and L. Reining, Phys. Rev B [**60**]{}, 11329 (1999). A. G. Beattie and J. E. Schirber, Phys. Rev. B [**1**]{}, 1548 (1970). Y. K. Vohra and A. L. Ruoff, Phys. Rev. B [**42**]{}, 8651 (1990). S. Brochard, Emilio Artacho, O. Custance, I. Brihuega, A. M. Baro´, J. M. Soler, and J. M. Gómez-Rodríguez, Phys. Rev. B [**66**]{}, 205403 (2002). C. Kumpf, O. Bunk, J. H. Zeysing, M. M. Nielsen, M. Nielsen, R.L. Johnson and R. Feidenhans’l, Surf. Sci. [**448**]{}, L213 (2000). R. Pentcheva, and M. Scheffler, Phys. Rev B [**61**]{}, 2211 (2000). Yu Jia, Biao Wu, H. H. Weitering, and Zhenyu Zhang, Phys. Rev B [**74**]{}, 035433 (2006). Bo Sun, Ping Zhang, Zhigang Wang, Suqing Duan, Xian-Geng Zhao, Xucun Ma, and Qi-Kun Xue, Phys. Rev B [**78**]{}, 035421 (2008). Vincenzo Fiorentiniy and M Methfessel, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**8**]{}, 6525-6529 (1996). J C Boettger, John R Smith, Uwe Birkenheuer, Notker Rösch, S B Trickey, John R Sabin and S Peter Apell, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**10**]{}, 893–894 (1998). Y.A. Bychkov and E.I. Rashba, JETP Lett. [**39**]{}, 78 (1984). G. Bihlmayer, Yu.M. Koroteev, P.M. Echenique, E.V. Chulkov, S. Blügel, Surface Science [**600**]{}, 3888-3891 (2006). D.R. Heslinga, H.H. Weitering, D.P. van der Werf, T.M. Klapwijk, and T. Hibma, Phys. rev. Let. [**64**]{}, 1589 (1990). B. Cvikl, D. Korošak, J. Appl. Phys. [**91**]{}, 4281 (2002). T.-C. Chiang, Surf. Sci. Rep. [**39**]{}, 181 (2000). H. Hong, C. M. Wei, M. Y. Chou, Z. Wu, L. Basile, H. Chen, M. Holt, and T.-C. Chiang, Phys Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 076104 (2003). P. Blaha and K. Schwarz, P. H. Dederichs, Phys. Rev. B [**37**]{}, 2792 (1988). K. Schwarz, C. Ambrosch-Draxl, P. Blaha, Phys. Rev. B [**42**]{}, 2051 (1990). J. Yu, A. J. Freeman, R. Podloucky, P. Herzig, P. Weinberger, Phys. Rev. B [**43**]{}, 532 (1991). S. Jalali Asadabadi, S. Cottenier, H. Akbarzadeh, R. Saki, and M. Rots, Phys. Rev. B [**66**]{}, 195103 (2002). S. Jalali Asadabadi and H. Akbarzadeh, Physica B [**349**]{}, 76-83 (2004). R. Laskowski, P. Blaha, and K. Schwarz, Phys. Rev. B [**67**]{}, 075102 (2003). S. Jalali Asadabadi, Phys. Rev. B [**75**]{}, 205130 (2007). [^1]: E-mail: [email protected]; Tel: +98-0311-7934176; Fax: +98-0311-7932409

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'Time-resolved photoelectron spectra are proposed for the measurement of classical information recorded in the quantum phases of a molecular rotational wave packet. Taking as a prototypical system, we show that an interference arises from the electron-nuclei entanglement induced by the molecular anisotropy. This phenomenon is used to transfer the information that was stored initially in the nuclear rotational degree of freedom into the electronic degree of freedom.' author: - Eric Charron - Maurice Raoult title: Phase information revealed by interferences in the ionization of rotational wave packets --- Introduction {#sec:Introduction} ============ In parallel with quantum measurement and quantum entanglement, quantum interference is one of the usual ingredients of quantum communication and computing [@QI]. The overall speedup expected from quantum computers originates in part from the fact that the input state of the computation can be chosen as a coherent superposition of all possible classical inputs. A sequence of unitary operations is applied to this initial state in order to perform the computation. This approach processes the data in a massively parallel way, and the result of the computation usually depends on the interference between the various paths followed by all possible initial states. The real power of quantum interference is revealed when bringing together all different components of the wave function in a single step [@Lloyd99]. Even if not sufficient for reliable and efficient quantum computation [@Lloyd99; @Divincenzo00], the buildup of a quantum interferometer is of course necessary for the construction of a quantum computer. In this respect various physical implementations have been proposed to test the principles of quantum computing, including nuclear magnetic resonance [@Jones01], trapped ions [@TI], cavity quantum electrodynamics [@QED], Josephson junctions [@JJ] and neutral atoms [@NA]. Matter-wave interferometry using molecular systems is an active field of research [@MWI] with potential applications for quantum information processing. In this article, we show that in a molecular system quantum interferences can be used in combination with electron-nuclear entanglement to extract classical information initially stored in a rotational wave packet. This approach is inspired by a set of beautiful experiments performed on Rydberg atom data registers [@Bucksbaum1; @Bucksbaum2], and on in the context of femtochemistry [@Leone1] and for coherent control [@Leone2; @Leone3]. This last system has also been used for the implementation of various simple quantum algorithms [@Leone4]. The molecular system and the laser fields {#sec:The molecular system and the laser fields} ========================================= The present theoretical study is based on the usual three-step photoionization scheme used in most recent experiments [@Leone1; @Leone2], as shown in Figure \[fig:pot\]. ![ \[fig:pot\] (Color online) Three step “preparation-pump-probe” scheme proposed to store classical information in the phases of a rotational wave packet in the $E\rm\left(^{1}\Sigma_{g}^{+}\right)$ electronic state of the molecule, and to read it in the photoelectron spectrum recorded in the last step which consists of a picosecond photoionization experiment. The potential energy curves of the $X$, $A$ and $E$ electronic states of are shown as a function of the internuclear distance $R$ as black, green and blue solid lines respectively. The potential curve associated with the ground electronic state of is shown as a red solid line. Their associated molecular rotational quantum numbers are denoted by $N_X$, $N_A$, $N_E$ and $N^+$, while $M$ and $M^+$ denote their projection on the electric field polarization axis.](fig1.eps){width="8cm"} A [*cw*]{} linearly polarized laser pulse first excites a [*single*]{} transition from the ground electronic state $X\rm\left(^{1}\Sigma_{g}^{+}\right)$ of to a pure rovibrational $\left(v_A,N_A\right)$ level on the first excited $A\rm\left(^{1}\Sigma_{u}^{+}\right)$ electronic potential curve. From this unique launch state an ultrafast laser pulse of linear polarization excites a superposition of rovibrational levels $\left(v_E,N_{E}=N_A\pm1\right)$ on the $E\rm\left(^{1}\Sigma_{g}^{+}\right)$ electronic potential. We assume here that this pump pulse has been sent through a dispersion-free pulse shaper. This kind of technique has already been used with [@Leone2]. A phase mask is then used to control accurately the phases of the various components of the nuclear wave packet created on the $E$ electronic state potential. Each possible value of the projection of the initial state rotational quantum number on the electric field polarization axis is equiprobable. We therefore perform a separate calculation for each initial value of $M$, and the total photoelectron signal is calculated by averaging our results over this initial state quantum number (section \[sec:photoelectron spectra\]). Note that the three excitation steps shown in Figure \[fig:pot\] are performed with the same electric field linear polarization, and the value of $M$ is thus identical in all electronic states of . In analogy with the study performed on Rydberg atom data registers [@Bucksbaum1; @Bucksbaum2], we associate the phases imprinted in the coherent superposition of rovibrational levels $\left(v_E,N_{E}\right)$ with information of classical nature. For example, if a single vibrational level $v_E$ is populated, the phase shift $\Delta\varphi$ between the two rotational components $N_{E}=N_A+1$ and $N_{E}=N_A-1$ is fixed at the value 0 or $\pi$. If $\Delta\varphi=0$ the two components are in phase, and this corresponds arbitrarily to the storage of the integer $n=1$. If $\Delta\varphi=\pi$ the two components are out of phase, and this is interpreted as the storage of the integer $n=0$ [@Note1]. With two vibrational levels $v_E$, one can store in a similar way the combinations 00, 01, 10 and 11, corresponding to the integers $n=0$, 1, 2, and 3 where the first binary digit is determined by the phase shift between the rotational components of the first vibrational level while the second digit is controlled similarly by the second vibrational level. This can be generalized, and with $n_v$ vibrational levels one can store all integers up to $n=2^{n_v}-1$. Encoding this type of classical information in a quantum system is of course a very challenging task, and efficient schemes are necessary to reveal this information in the last experimental step. We propose here to read this information with the help of a picosecond ionizing pulse, as shown in Figure \[fig:pot\]. This last laser pulse, the probe pulse, has a bandwidth $\Delta\omega$ which encompasses the two rotational components associated with the various vibrational levels without mixing the different vibrational states during the ionization process, [*i.e.*]{} $$2B_{\rm rot}\left(2{N_A}+1\right)\; \ll \;\hbar\,\Delta\omega\; \ll \;\hbar\,\omega_{\rm vib}~,$$ where $B_{\rm rot}$ and $\omega_{\rm vib}$ are the molecular rotational constant and the vibrational frequency in the $E$-state. Section \[sec:Results and discussion\] will show that the encoded number can be revealed by an interference effect modifying the time-resolved photoelectron spectrum $P(\varepsilon)$ which exhibits a series of peaks characteristic of the recorded integer. Theoretical approach {#sec:Theoretical approach} ==================== The molecular basis set {#sec:molecular basis} ----------------------- We follow the dynamics of the molecule by propagating in time its associated electro-nuclear wave function decomposed in two parts $$\label{eq:wf} \Psi(\vec{\mathbi{r}}_{\mathbi{\!e\,}},\vec{\mathbi{R}},t) = \Psi_{E}(\vec{\mathbi{r}}_{\mathbi{\!e\,}},\vec{\mathbi{R}},t) + \Psi_{+}(\vec{\mathbi{r}}_{\mathbi{\!e\,}},\vec{\mathbi{R}},t)$$ corresponding to the $E$-electronic state of and to respectively. The coordinates of all electrons are denoted by the vector , and the vector represents the internuclear coordinate. We now separate the global electronic coordinate $\vec{\mathbi{r}}_{\mathbi{\!e\,}}$ of all electrons into the coordinate $\vec{\mathbi{r}}_{\mathbi{\!c\,}}$ of the core electrons and the coordinate $\vec{\mathbi{r}}$ of the ionized electron. We then write the electro-nuclear wave functions $\Psi_{E}$ and $\Psi_{+}$ as the following Born-Oppenheimer expressions \[eq:wfBO\] $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:wfEBO} \Psi_{E}(\vec{\mathbi{r}}_{\mathbi{\!e\,}},\vec{\mathbi{R}},t) & = & \psi_{E}(\vec{\mathbi{R}},t)\, \Phi_{E}(\vec{\mathbi{r}}_{\mathbi{\!e\,}}|R)\\ \label{eq:wf+BO} \Psi_{+}(\vec{\mathbi{r}}_{\mathbi{\!e\,}},\vec{\mathbi{R}},t) & = & \psi_{+}(\vec{\mathbi{r}},\vec{\mathbi{R}},t)\, \Phi_{+}(\vec{\mathbi{r}}_{\mathbi{\!c\,}}|R)\end{aligned}$$ where and denote the electronic wave functions associated with the $E$-state of and with the ground electronic state of respectively. The $E$-electronic state ($^1\Sigma_g^+$ symmetry) is now considered as a 3s$\sigma$ Rydberg state, and the electronic wave function is expressed in the molecular frame (Hund’s case (b) representation) as $$\label{eq:PhiE} \Phi_{E}(\vec{\mathbi{r}}_{\mathbi{\!e\,}}|R) = \phi_{E}(r,\vec{\mathbi{r}}_{\mathbi{\!c\,}}|R)\,Y_{00}(\,\hat{\mathbi{\!r}}\,)$$ On the other hand, the electronic part of is expressed in the laboratory frame (Hund’s case (d) representation) as $$\label{eq:psi+} \psi_{+}(\vec{\mathbi{r}},\vec{\mathbi{R}},t)\!=\!\! \int\!\!d\varepsilon\sum_{\ell,m}\psi^{+}_{\ell m}(\varepsilon,\vec{\mathbi{R}},t)\, \phi_{\ell}(\varepsilon,r|R)\,Y_{\ell m}(\,\hat{\mathbi{\!r}}\,)$$ where is the electronic continuum wave function at energy $\varepsilon$ and $(\ell,m)$ denote the electron angular momentum and its projection in the laboratory frame. Note that even though the one-photon transition considered here from the $E$-electronic state will result in the ejection of a $p$-electron with $\ell=1$, we keep the double sum over $\ell$ and $m$ in the following for the sake of generality. Various similar approaches have already been used for the calculation of femtosecond time-resolved photoelectron angular distributions [@FTPD]. In the present study the photoionization step is performed by a picosecond laser pulse of linear polarization. The following selection rule therefore applies for the projections $M$ and $M^{+}$ of the molecular rotational angular momenta of and on the polarization axis $$\label{eq:M+} M=M^{+}+m$$ For any given initial projection $M$, an unambiguous relation therefore relates $M^{+}$ and $m$. Hence the quantum number $M^{+}$ is replaced in the following by . In our time-dependent approach a propagation is performed independently for each initial value of $M$, and the angular parts of the nuclear wave packets and are thus expressed as the following expansions \[eq:psiE+\] $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:psiE} \psi_{E}(\vec{\mathbi{R}},t) & \!=\! & \!\sum_{N_{E}} \psi^{N_{E}}_{M}(R,t) \, {\cal D}^{{N_{E}}^{\,*}}_{M,0}(\,\hat{\mathbi{\!R}}\,)\\ \label{eq:psi+lm} \psi^{+}_{\ell m}(\varepsilon,\vec{\mathbi{R}},t) & \!=\! & \!\sum_{N^{+}} \psi^{N^{+}\!,\,\ell}_{M-m}(\varepsilon,R,t) \, {\cal D}^{N^{+\,*}}_{M-m,0}(\,\hat{\mathbi{\!R}}\,)\end{aligned}$$ in terms of the normalized Wigner rotation matrices ${{\cal D}^{N^{\,*}}_{M,\Lambda}}(\,\hat{\mathbi{\!R}}\,)$ which verify $$\label{eq:Dwigner} \int\!d\,\hat{\mathbi{\!R}}\; {\cal D}^{N^{\,*}}_{M,\Lambda}(\,\hat{\mathbi{\!R}}\,)\, {\cal D}^{N'}_{M',\Lambda'}(\,\hat{\mathbi{\!R}}\,) = \delta_{NN'}\,\delta_{MM'}\,\delta_{\Lambda\Lambda'}$$ where $\delta$ stands for the Kronecker delta symbol [@Zare]. The laser-molecule interaction {#sec:interaction} ------------------------------ The initial electro-nuclear wave packet (\[eq:wf\]) is prepared at time $t=0$ from a “source level” $\left(v_X,N_X\right)$ as a coherent superposition of several rovibrational levels in the two-step process depicted in Figure \[fig:pot\]. The initial components of the expansions (\[eq:psiE+\]) are thus given by \[eq:wf0\] $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:wfE0} \psi^{N_{E}}_{M}(R,0) & = & c_{N_E,M}\,\sum_{v_E}\;\mathrm{e}^{i\varphi_{v_E,N_E}}\;\chi_{v_E,N_E}(R)\;\;\;\;\;\;\\ \label{eq:wf+0} \psi^{N^{+}\!,\,\ell}_{M-m}(\varepsilon,R,0) & = & 0\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:coef0} c_{N_E,M} & = & \sqrt{2N_{E}+1}\;(2N_{A}+1)\,\sqrt{2N_{X}+1}\nonumber\\ & \times & \left( \begin{array}{ccc} N_{A} & 1 & N_{X}\\ M & 0 & -M \end{array} \right) \left( \begin{array}{ccc} N_{A} & 1 & N_{X}\\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array} \right)\nonumber\\ & \times & \left( \begin{array}{ccc} N_{E} & 1 & N_{A}\\ M & 0 & -M \end{array} \right) \left( \begin{array}{ccc} N_{E} & 1 & N_{A}\\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array} \right)\end{aligned}$$ The rovibrational eigenstates $\chi_{v_E,N_E}(R)$ of total energy $E(v_E,N_E)$ are solution of the time-independent Schrödinger equation $$\label{eq:TISE} \hat{\cal H}^{E}_{N_{E}}\;\chi_{v_E,N_E}(R) = E(v_{E},N_{E})\;\chi_{v_E,N_E}(R)$$ where the nuclear Hamiltonian $\hat{\cal H}^{E}_{N_{E}}$ is given by $$\label{eq:nuchamE} \hat{\cal H}^{E}_{N_{E}} = -\frac{\hbar^2}{2\mu}\left[\frac{\partial^2}{\partial R^2}-\frac{N_{E}(N_{E}+1)}{R^2}\right] + V_{E}(R)$$ We assume that the $E$-state coherent superposition of rovibrational levels has been created with a femtosecond laser pulse which has been sent thought a phase mask such that the phases $\varphi_{v_E,N_E}$ associated with each level can be controlled. The binary information is then stored in the phase differences between the two rotational components of each vibrational level $v_E$. In addition we have also assumed that an amplitude mask has been used to compensate the Franck-Condon factors which normally govern the $A \leftarrow X$ transition. The initial populations of the different levels in Eq. (\[eq:wfE0\]) have therefore been taken as independent of the vibrational quantum number $v_{E}$. The molecule is then submitted to an ionizing laser pulse associated with the linearly polarized electric field $$\label{eq:Electric field} \vec{\mathbi{E}}(t)= E_0\,f(t)\cos(\omega t)\;\hat{\mathbi{\!e}}$$ where $E_0$ and $\omega$ denote the electric field amplitude and the angular frequency of the radiation. $\,\hat{\mathbi{\!e}}$ is the unit polarization vector. The pulse envelope $f(t)$ is defined by the Gaussian-like expression $$\label{eq:pluse enveloppe} f(t)=\sin^2\left(\frac{\pi t}{2\tau}\right)$$ where $\tau$ is the Full Width at Half Maximum (FWHM), and $2\tau$ the total pulse duration. Introducing the expansions (\[eq:wf\])-(\[eq:psi+\]) and (\[eq:psiE+\]) in the time-dependent Schrödinger equation, and projecting onto the electronic and rotational basis functions yields, in the dipole approximation, the following set of coupled differential equations for the nuclear wave packets $\psi^{N_{E}}_{M}(R,t)$ and $\psi^{N^{+}\!,\,\ell}_{M-m}(\varepsilon,R,t)$ \[eq:tdse\] $$\begin{aligned} i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\psi^{N_{E}}_{M} & = & \hat{\cal H}^{E}_{N_{E}}\,\psi^{N_{E}}_{M}\nonumber\\ \label{eq:tdseE} & - & E(t)\times\!\!\!\!\sum_{N^{+}\!,\ell,m\!}\!\!{\cal M}^{N^{+}\!,\,\ell,m}_{N_{E},M}\;\psi^{N^{+}\!,\,\ell}_{M-m}\\ i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\psi^{N^{+}\!,\,\ell}_{M-m} & = & \left(\hat{\cal H}^{+}_{N^+}+\varepsilon\right)\psi^{N^{+}\!,\,\ell}_{M-m}\nonumber\\ \label{eq:tdse+} & - & E(t)\times\sum_{N_{E}}{\cal M}^{N^{+}\!,\,\ell,m\,^*}_{N_{E},M}\;\psi^{N_{E}}_{M}\end{aligned}$$ where the nuclear Hamiltonian $\hat{\cal H}^{+}_{N^{+}}$ is given by $$\label{eq:nucham+} \hat{\cal H}^{+}_{N^{+}} = -\frac{\hbar^2}{2\mu}\left[\frac{\partial^2}{\partial R^2}-\frac{N^{+}(N^{+}\!+1)}{R^2}\right] + V_{+}(R)$$ The matrix elements ${\cal M}^{N^{+}\!,\,\ell,m}_{N_{E},M}$ which couple the nuclear wave packets evolving on the electronic potential curves $V_{E}(R)$ and $V_{+}(R)$ read $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:coupling} {\cal M}^{N^{+}\!,\,\ell,m}_{N_{E},M} & = & \sum_{N}(2N+1) \left( \begin{array}{ccc} N^{+} & \ell & N \\ M-m & m & -M \end{array} \right)\nonumber\\ & \times & \left( \begin{array}{ccc} N_{E} & 1 & N \\ M & 0 & -M \end{array} \right) \{N_{E}|N|N^{+}\ell\}\end{aligned}$$ where the total angular momentum (ion + electron) $$\label{eq:Ntotal} \vec{\mathbi{N}} = \vec{\mathbi{N}}^{+} + \vec{\boldsymbol{\ell}}$$ has been introduced. The source term $\{N_{E}|N|N^{+}\ell\}$ is evaluated in the molecular frame. The electron wave function originally described in the laboratory frame in Eq. (\[eq:psi+\]) is expressed in the molecular frame (Hund’s case (b) representation) using the frame transformation technique implemented by Ugo Fano in his pioneering work on H$_{2}$ [@Fano]. Following these lines, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:sumLambda} \{N_{E}|N|N^{+}\ell\} & = & \sum_{\Lambda=0}^{1}\;\langle N^{+}\ell | N\Lambda \rangle\;{\mathrm{e}}^{i\pi\mu_\Lambda}\nonumber\\ & & \qquad\;\times\;d^{\,\ell}_{\Lambda}(\varepsilon,R)\;\langle N_{E}1 | N\Lambda \rangle $$ where $\Lambda$ is the projection of the total angular momentum $\vec{\mathbi{N}}$ on the molecular axis. From the definition given in Eq. (\[eq:Ntotal\]), the following relation holds $$\label{eq:Lambdatotal} \Lambda = \Lambda^{+} + \lambda$$ where $\Lambda^{+}$ and $\lambda$ are the projections of the ion and electron angular momenta $\vec{\mathbi{N}}^{+}$ and $\vec{\boldsymbol{\ell}}$ on the molecular axis. In the present case, the ionic core presents a $^2\Sigma_g^+$ symmetry () and hence $$\label{eq:Lambdalambda} \Lambda=\lambda$$ In Eq. (\[eq:sumLambda\]), the phases with represent the phase shifts of the $\sigma$ and $\pi$ electron continuum wave functions relative to the regular radial Coulomb function. The short range quantum defects $\mu_\Lambda$ with $\Lambda=0$ or 1 are indeed associated with the $\Sigma$ and $\Pi$ $p$-Rydberg series of [@Fano]. The matrix element of the unitary frame transformation and the Hönl-London rotational factor of Eq. (\[eq:sumLambda\]) are defined by $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:OL} \langle N'\ell' | N\Lambda \rangle & = & (-1)^{N'+\Lambda+1}\,(2-\delta_{\Lambda0})^{\frac{1}{2}}\,(2N'+1)^{\frac{1}{2}}\nonumber\\ & & \times \left( \begin{array}{ccc} \ell' & N & N' \\ -\Lambda & \Lambda & 0 \end{array} \right)\end{aligned}$$ In the sum of Eq. (\[eq:sumLambda\]) $d^{\,\ell}_{\Lambda}(\varepsilon,R)$ denotes the energy and $R$-dependent ionization dipole moment from the $E$-state $$\label{eq:dipoletot} d^{\,\ell}_{\Lambda}(\varepsilon,R) = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} \ell & 1 & 0 \\ -\Lambda & \Lambda & 0 \end{array} \right) d_{\ell}(\varepsilon,R)$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:dipole} d_{\ell}(\varepsilon,R) & = & \int \phi^{*}_{\ell}(\varepsilon,r|R)\,\Phi_{+}^{*}(\vec{\mathbi{r}}_{\mathbi{\!c\,}}|R)\nonumber\\ & & \qquad\times\;r\; \phi_{E}(r,\vec{\mathbi{r}}_{\mathbi{\!c\,}}|R) \;dr\,d\vec{\mathbi{r}}_{\mathbi{\!c\,}}\end{aligned}$$ The present study is limited to a restricted range of photoelectron energies and of internuclear distances (in the vicinity of the $E$-state equilibrium distance $R_e$). This justifies the Condon approximation $d_{\ell}(\varepsilon,R) \simeq {\mathrm{cst}}$ used hereafter. The quantum defects $\mu_{\Sigma}$ and $\mu_{\Pi}$ are also taken as independent of $R$, and their numerical values and have been extracted at from the electronic potential energies given in [@schmidt85]. The time propagation {#sec:time propagation} -------------------- To calculate the ionization of subjected to a pulsed laser radiation, we propagate the nuclear wave packets $\psi^{N_{E}}_{M}(R,t)$ and $\psi^{N^{+}\!,\,\ell}_{M-m}(\varepsilon,R,t)$ in time during the entire pulse using the split operator method developed by  [@feit82] $$\label{eq:propag} \left( \begin{array}{c} \vdots\\ \psi^{N_{E}}_{M}\\ \vdots\\ \psi^{N^{+}\!,\,\ell}_{M-m}\\ \vdots \end{array} \right)_{\!t+\delta t} = \;\mathrm{e}^{-i\,\hat{\cal H}\,\delta t/\hbar}\, \left( \begin{array}{c} \vdots\\ \psi^{N_{E}}_{M}\\ \vdots\\ \psi^{N^{+}\!,\,\ell}_{M-m}\\ \vdots \end{array} \right)_{\!t}$$ where the total (molecular + interaction) Hamiltonian $\hat{\cal H}=\hat{T}+\hat{V}+\hat{W}(t)$ is split in three parts corresponding to the kinetic ($\hat{T}$), potential ($\hat{V}$) and interaction ($\hat{W}(t)$) propagators $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:split} \mathrm{e}^{-i\,\hat{\cal H}\,\delta t/\hbar} & = & \mathrm{e}^{-i\,\hat{T}\,\delta t/2\hbar} \; \mathrm{e}^{-i\,\hat{V}\,\delta t/2\hbar} \; \mathrm{e}^{-i\,\hat{W}(t)\,\delta t/\hbar}\nonumber\\ & & \times \mathrm{e}^{-i\,\hat{V}\,\delta t/2\hbar} \; \mathrm{e}^{-i\,\hat{T}\,\delta t/2\hbar} +o(\delta t^3)\end{aligned}$$ The kinetic and potential propagations are performed in the momentum and coordinate spaces respectively. Fast Fourier Transformation (FFT) allows rapid passage back and forth from one representation to the other at each time step. The propagator associated with the laser interaction term $\hat{W}(t)$ is calculated using a simple diagonalization of its associated interaction matrix [@charron98]. Since we are only dealing with bound vibrational states in this study, typical grids extend from to with $2^{7}$ grid points. The potential energy curves $V_{E}(R)$ and $V_{+}(R)$ are taken from [@schmidt85]. Numerically, the rotating wave approximation (RWA), very accurate for the present case of low laser intensities and vertical resonant transitions, allows a substantial gain of computational time. This approximation, which consists in neglecting the so-called counter-rotating terms, results in a simple one-photon dressing (energy translation by $\hbar\omega$) of the ion electronic potential $V_{+}(R)$ in our time-dependent approach [@charron98]. A time step of the order of is then sufficient for convergence. The photoelectron spectra {#sec:photoelectron spectra} ------------------------- The analysis of the photoelectron angular distributions is made by projecting the wave packet $\psi_{+}$ defined in Eq. (\[eq:psi+\]) at the end of the pulse on the energy-normalized solutions of the field-free ionized molecular states [@continuum]. We need to define the set of outgoing plane waves elastically scattered in the direction for a prescribed asymptotic electron kinetic energy . These are represented by the usual expansions on angular momentum states [@Messiah] $$\label{eq:continuum} |\varepsilon,\,\hat{\mathbi{\!k}}\,\rangle = \sum_{\ell,m}\,i^{\ell}\,\mathrm{e}^{-i\xi_{\ell}}\, Y_{\ell m}^{*}(\,\hat{\mathbi{\!k}}\,)\,\phi_{\ell}(\varepsilon,r|R)\,Y_{\ell m}(\,\hat{\mathbi{\!r}}\,)$$ where $\xi_{\ell}$ denotes the Coulomb phase shift of each partial wave. We therefore evaluate, for a given value of $M$, the angular distribution of the ejected photoelectron at some fixed energy $\varepsilon$ as $$\label{eq:P_M(E,theta)} P_{M}(\varepsilon,\,\hat{\mathbi{\!k}}\,)= \int\!dR\,d\,\hat{\mathbi{\!R}}\; \left|\,\langle\,\varepsilon,\,\hat{\mathbi{\!k}}\; |\,\psi_{+}(\vec{\mathbi{r}},\vec{\mathbi{R}},2\tau)\,\rangle_{\vec{\mathbi{r}}}\right|^{2}$$ This multiple integral can be written in a more convenient form with the help of the expansions (\[eq:psi+\]) and (\[eq:psi+lm\]). After the integration over the electronic coordinate and over the angle we get $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:P(E,theta)simple} P_{M}(\varepsilon,\,\hat{\mathbi{\!k}}\,) & = & \!\!\sum_{N^{+}}\,\sum_{m}\,\sum_{\ell,\ell'} i^{(\ell'-\ell)}\,\mathrm{e}^{i(\xi_{\ell}-\xi_{\ell'})} Y_{\ell' m}^{*}(\,\hat{\mathbi{\!k}}\,) Y_{\ell m}(\,\hat{\mathbi{\!k}}\,)\nonumber\\ & \times & \!\!\!\!\int\!\!dR\,\, \psi^{N^{+}\!,\,\ell'^{\,*}}_{M-m}(\varepsilon,R,2\tau)\; \psi^{N^{+}\!,\,\ell}_{M-m}(\varepsilon,R,2\tau)\end{aligned}$$ One can notice here the appearance of an incoherent sum over the quantum numbers $N^{+}$ and $m$, while the sum over the electron angular momentum $\ell$ is coherent and gives rise to various () cross-terms. The total photoelectron angular distribution at some fixed energy $\varepsilon$ is then obtained by averaging over the initial distribution of $M$ $$\label{eq:sumM} P(\varepsilon,\,\hat{\mathbi{\!k}}\,) \propto \sum_{M}P_{M}(\varepsilon,\,\hat{\mathbi{\!k}}\,)$$ In the present study, a $p$-electron is ejected and the value of the electron angular momentum is therefore fixed to . In this case, Eqs. (\[eq:P(E,theta)simple\]) and (\[eq:sumM\]) simplify to $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:P(E,theta)simple2} P(\varepsilon,\,\hat{\mathbi{\!k}}\,) & \propto & \sum_{M}\,\sum_{N^{+}}\sum_{m}\;\left|Y_{1m}(\,\hat{\mathbi{\!k}}\,)\right|^2\nonumber\\ & & \qquad\times\;\int\,\left|\psi^{N^{+},1}_{M-m}(\varepsilon,R,2\tau)\right|^{2}dR\end{aligned}$$ The total photoelectron spectrum is then obtained by a summation over the ejection angle $$\label{eq:P(E)} P(\varepsilon) = \int\!d\,\hat{\mathbi{\!k}}\; P(\varepsilon,\,\hat{\mathbi{\!k}}\,)$$ thus giving $$\label{eq:P(E)simple} P(\varepsilon) \propto \sum_{M}\,\sum_{N^{+}}\sum_{m}\int\,\left|\psi^{N^{+},1}_{M-m}(\varepsilon,R,2\tau)\right|^{2}dR$$ Numerically, the continuous variable $\varepsilon$ is discretized in 150 energy values, with . The probability that the electron exits in the $\hat{\mathbi{\!k}}$ direction with an energy $\varepsilon$ is calculated from Equation (\[eq:P(E,theta)simple2\]) on a grid of 325 points in . Even if Eq. (\[eq:P(E)simple\]) only reveals a series of incoherent sums, one should not forget that each exit channel $N^+$ may be reached from different initial levels $N_E$. As a consequence, an initial quantum superposition of rotational levels can induce an interference effect in the photoelectron spectra which arises from the phases of the different components in this initial wave packet. Results and discussion {#sec:Results and discussion} ====================== Analysis of the photoelectron spectra and of the interference effect -------------------------------------------------------------------- Typical photoelectron spectra are shown Figure \[fig:f2\] when a single initial rovibrational level is populated. The upper and lower graphs of Figure \[fig:f2\] correspond to the same initial vibrational state , but to different initial rotational excitations: in the upper panels (a) and (b), in the lower panels (c) and (d). It is assumed here that these levels are prepared using the two-step process depicted Figure \[fig:pot\], with and . The incoherent sum over $M$ in Eqs. (\[eq:P(E,theta)simple2\]) and (\[eq:P(E)simple\]) therefore extends from to only. The photoelectron spectra shown in the left panels (a) and (c) have been calculated using the accurate short range quantum defects and of while the right panels (b) and (d) correspond to an hypothetically isotropic molecule with . ![ \[fig:f2\] (Color online) Photoelectron spectra calculated using a [*single*]{} initial state as a function of energy $\varepsilon$. Upper panels (a) and (b): the initial state is , . Lower panels (c) and (d): the initial state is , . The photoelectron spectra calculated using the quantum defects of are shown in the left panels (a) and (c), while the spectra in the right panels (b) and (d) correspond to (see text for details). The solid blue lines correspond to the pulse duration (FWHM) while for the red dashed lines. The laser wavelength is . The photoelectron energies expected from a simple energy conservation rule with the usual selection rule are shown as thin vertical dotted blue lines for various ion rotational quantum numbers $N^{+}$. ](fig2.eps){width="8cm"} The solid blue lines in Figure \[fig:f2\] represent the photoelectron spectra obtained with the laser frequency (wavelength ) and with the pulse duration . One can notice that for the initial condition (panel (a)) two peaks are seen in the photoelectron signal. Their energies correspond to the ion exit channels with or 3. The vibrational selection rule is observed in this case because of the pronounced Rydberg character of the $E$-electronic state at short internuclear distances. The two potential curves and are indeed parallel for (see Figure \[fig:pot\]). Around , an avoided crossing gives rise to the double-well structure of the $E$-state, deeply modifying the Rydberg nature of this excited state. However, this avoided crossing has a negligible influence on the lowest vibrational levels (). The branching ratio between the and exit channels clearly favors . This result is not unexpected since in the case of an isotropic symmetry (corresponding here to ) the other ionization channel () has no intensity, as one can see in the panel (b) of Figure \[fig:f2\]. The molecular anisotropy, expressed by the phase difference , allows for the exchange of angular momentum between the ionized electron and the nuclear rotation. This effect, which can be seen as a mutual electron-nuclei entanglement, explains the appearance of the additional branch in panel (a). For the initial level (lower part of Figure \[fig:f2\]), this effect is also seen with the appearance of the two satellite peaks around and around . These two peaks are not seen in panel (d) when . Note also from panels (a) and (c) that the central peak, which corresponds to an ionization without exchange of angular momentum (), is located at the same photoelectron energy for both initial rotational levels and 3. This happens because the rotational constants of the $E$-state of and of the ground electronic state of are almost identical. The dashed red lines shown Figure \[fig:f2\] finally represent the photospectra calculated with the same parameters except for a much shorter pulse duration $\tau=2.5$ ps. In this case the peaks associated with different values of the ion rotational quantum number $N^+$ overlap due to the large spectral bandwidth of the pulse. A single broad photoelectron peak is, therefore, obtained around whatever the initial rotational level $N_E$. In the isotropic case shown on the right hand side of Figure \[fig:f2\] the photoelectron peaks calculated with this shorter pulse duration have a symmetric shape since a single ionization channel () is observed. On the other hand, a slightly asymmetric shape is obtained with the real molecule (see the red dashed line in panel (c) for instance), due to the asymmetric distribution of the two satellite peaks on both sides of the central peak corresponding to . In the experiment, it is expected that two $N_E$ rotational levels can be populated in a coherent distribution whose initial phase difference is controlled using the phase mask of a pulse shaper. This type of experiment has been implemented recently for higher rotational levels in the Group of Stephen Leone [@Leone2] for instance. The photoelectron spectra calculated using in-phase and out-of-phase initial distributions of and 3 are shown in Figure \[fig:f3\] as red solid and blue dashed lines for the pulse duration . One can recognize in these two spectra the slightly asymmetric distributions discussed previously. ![ \[fig:f3\] (Color online) Photoelectron spectra calculated using a [*single*]{} initial vibrational state () with a coherent superposition of [*two*]{} rotational levels ( and ) as a function of energy $\varepsilon$. The pulse duration is in the main graph (a) and in the small upper-right inset (b). The laser wavelength is . The red solid line and blue dashed line correspond to an [*in phase*]{} and an [*out of phase*]{} coherent superposition respectively. The isotropic case is represented by the green dotted line for and the green solid circles for . The labels in the inset assign the various energy peaks with respect to the initial ($N_{E}$) and final ($N^{+}$) rotational levels. See text for details. ](fig3.eps){width="8cm"} A clear and significant interference effect is also seen here. The total ionization probability is amplified by a factor of 2.05 when comparing the in-phase and out-of-phase initial conditions. Because of the orthogonality of the Wigner rotation matrices ${{\cal D}^{N^{\,*}}_{M,\Lambda}}(\,\hat{\mathbi{\!R}}\,)$ the photoelectron probability can be written as an incoherent sum over the rotational quantum number $N^+$, as one can see in Eq. (\[eq:P(E)simple\]). The interference effect seen here is therefore not due to an interference between the different exit channels labeled by $N^{+}$, but is due to an interference taking place in the same ionization channel between the two pathways coming from the two possible initial levels $N_E$. Let us consider for instance the ionization channel associated with $N^+=3$. This final state can be reached through the main branch coming from $N_E=3$ or through the small satellite arising from $N_E=1$. One could think at first sight that the cross term associated with this interference mechanism is probably negligible considering the small branching ratio () between the and pathways (see Figure \[fig:f2\]c). However, even in this apparently unfavorable case, it can be easily estimated that this cross term can induce a significant interference effect which could in principle modify the ionization probability by a factor of three when comparing destructive and constructive interferences. In our case all exit channels are not subjected to this interference. For example can be reached from only. In addition the photoelectron signal is a complex incoherent average over the different possible values of $M$ and $m$ (see Eq (\[eq:P(E)simple\])). The two different pathways and are also affected by the different values of the coupling matrix elements ${\cal M}^{N^{+}\!,\,\ell,m}_{N_{E},M}$ given in Eq. (\[eq:coupling\]). The contrast separating a constructive from a destructive interference is therefore not maximum, and after this complex averaging Figure \[fig:f3\] shows that the interference effect changes the ionization probability of by a factor of about two. ![ \[fig:f4\] (Color online) Photoelectron spectra calculated using [*two*]{} initial vibrational states ( and 1) with a coherent superposition of [*two*]{} rotational levels ( and ) as a function of energy $\varepsilon$. The pulse duration is and the laser wavelength is 699.8 nm. The dashed blue lines show the photoelectron spectra $P(n,\varepsilon)$ calculated when the integer values $n=0$ , , and are stored in the phase difference between the rotational components of the initial wave packet. The solid red lines in the small insets show the signal difference for . ](fig4.eps){width="8cm"} Our analysis is also confirmed by the photoelectron spectrum obtained with (green dotted line and green solid circles in Figure \[fig:f3\]). Whatever the phase shift between the and initial rotational levels the same photoelectron spectrum is obtained, and no interference effect is seen. This is due to the disappearance of the pathways, as discussed previously. The interference effect can also be suppressed by increasing the pulse duration $\tau$. In this last case the photoelectron peaks associated with different rotational quantum number $N^+$ do not overlap anymore, and two identical $N^+$ originating from different $N_E$ never appear at the same energy (see the small inset in Figure \[fig:f3\] for instance). As can be seen in Eq. (\[eq:P(E)simple\]), the wave packets associated with different photoelectron energies never interfere and as a consequence the interference effect seen with shorter pulses is not observed with long pulses. We have indeed verified that the spectrum shown in the small inset of Figure \[fig:f3\] () does not depend on . We will now show that the interference effect shown in Figure \[fig:f3\] with relatively short pulses can be used to reveal efficiently a more complex phase information initially stored in the rotational wave packet of in a way similar to the implementation performed in the group of Philip Bucksbaum with Rydberg wave packets [@Bucksbaum1; @Bucksbaum2]. Applications to quantum information ----------------------------------- In , we use the quantum superposition of two rotational levels in different vibrational states to store a binary information. The case of two vibrational levels is shown in Figure \[fig:f4\]. The combinations 00, 01, 10 and 11, associated with the decimal values $n=0$, 1, 2 and 3, can then be stored. The measurement of this information is performed by photoionization, thanks to the anharmonicity of the electronic potential curves of the molecule. Since the vibrational frequency of the $E$-state and of the ion are almost identical, in an harmonic approximation and with the energy of the ionized electron $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:energy} \varepsilon & = & \!\!E(v_{E},N_{E})+\hbar\omega-E(v_{+},N^{+})\\ & \stackrel{\textrm{\scriptsize harm}}{\simeq} & \!\!\mathrm{cst} + B_{\rm rot}\left[N_E(N_E\!+\!1)-N_+(N_+\!+\!1)\right]\;\end{aligned}$$ does not depend on the value of the initial vibrational level. However, the anharmonicity of is large enough () to exceed by far the rotational spacing (). Different initial vibrational levels can therefore be clearly distinguished even with the relatively short pulses () which allow for the observation of the interference effect discussed previously. The dashed blue lines in Figure \[fig:f4\] represent the photoelectron spectra calculated with the phase differences (0,0), (0,$\pi$), ($\pi$,0) and ($\pi$,$\pi$) in the vibrational states between the rotational levels and . These phase differences correspond to the integers $n=0$, 1, 2 and 3. We denote by $P(n,\varepsilon)$ the associated photoelectron spectra. The interference effect (amplification of the ionization probability by a factor of two) is clearly seen for both vibrational levels. If we define the signal difference $S(n,\varepsilon)$ by the following relation $$\label{eq:S(n,E)} S(n,\varepsilon) = P(n,\varepsilon) - P(0,\varepsilon)\,,$$ a direct visualization of the binary representation of $n$ is obtained in the graphs showing $S(n,\varepsilon)$ as a function of the energy $\varepsilon$. These signal differences are represented as red solid lines in the four small insets of Figure \[fig:f4\]. This photoelectron signal difference $S(n,\varepsilon)$ characterizes the cross terms associated with the and paths. It can also be seen as a direct measure of the electron-nuclei entanglement induced by the molecular anisotropy. In order to check the scalability of this method, we have calculated the signal difference $S(n,\varepsilon)$ for $n=0$, 1, 10 and 31 when the binary information is stored in the first five vibrational levels of the $E$-state. These results are shown as red solid lines in the four panels of Figure \[fig:f5\]. One can notice the effectiveness of the method for such a small number of vibrational levels. A few tendencies are worth being noted in this figure. Since the total (electron+ion) energy is fixed, the lowest energy peaks can be assigned to the highest ion vibrational levels $v_+$. The fact that the energy separation between two peaks increases with $v_+$ is simply explained by the increasing anharmonicity of the potential curve with larger internuclear distances. ![ \[fig:f5\] (Color online) Photoelectron spectra calculated using [*five*]{} initial vibrational states () with a coherent superposition of [*two*]{} rotational levels ( and ) as a function of energy $\varepsilon$. The pulse duration is and the laser wavelength is . The solid red lines show the signal difference when the integer values  (panel a) , 1 (panel b), 10 (panel c) and 31 (panel d) are stored in the phase difference between the rotational components of the initial wave packet. The step function shown as a green solid line in panel (d) represents the vibrational Franck-Condon factors associated with the different photoelectron peaks. The ratio is shown in panel (d) as a blue dashed-line. ](fig5.eps){width="8cm"} Finally, one can also notice that the energy peak on the left is not as intense as the other ones. This peak corresponds to an ion left in and therefore to the molecule being initially in . This initial level is already located at an energy close to the avoided crossing of the $E$-state (see Figure \[fig:pot\]), and the selection rule is no longer fully verified. This initial level is effectively also ionized in , yielding the ejection of an electron carrying much more energy. This effect explains the smallest probability observed in Figure \[fig:f5\] for the pathway. Higher vibrational levels also show this tendency of being ionized into vibrational levels with . This type of behavior could be seen as a limitation of the proposed mechanism for storing and reading information in and from the rotational degree of freedom of a diatomic molecule. However, this effect can easily be corrected for by renormalizing the photoelectron signal with the vibrational Franck-Condon factors $$\label{FCF} \mathscr{F}(\varepsilon) = \int \chi_{v_{+}}^*\!(R)\;\chi_{v_{E}}\!(R)\;dR$$ between the eigenfunctions associated with the $v_E$ and vibrational quantum numbers. The step-like function is shown as a green solid line in panel (d) of Figure \[fig:f5\]. The decreasing probability seen in the left peak associated with is compensated by calculating the simple ratio . This ratio is shown in the same graph as a blue dashed line, and all constructive interference peaks now reach the same height. Since the vibrational wave functions and can be easily calculated from the potential curves given in [@schmidt85], this correcting procedure is quite straitforward. Conclusion {#sec:Conclusion} ========== We have proposed here a theoretical model for the study of the short-pulse photoionization of , following a scheme relatively close to recent experimental implementations. This model takes into account the molecular rotational degree of freedom and allows for the calculation of the photoelectron spectrum resolved in time, energy and in angle. We have used this time-dependent model to predict a new and efficient mechanism for measuring binary classical information initially stored in the phases of a rotational wave packet. A picosecond laser excitation induces an interference between these different rotational components. This typically molecular interference effect measures the electron-nuclei entanglement which takes place thanks to the anisotropy of the diatomic molecule, and transfers the rotational phase information in the photoelectron spectrum. These results indicate that a high degree of control can be achieved in this type of molecular systems using simple pulse shaping techniques. A systematic exploration of the control achievable in the photoelectron angular distributions will be presented in another paper. We thank Hervé Le Rouzo and Georges Raseev (Orsay) for stimulating and helpful discussions. The IDRIS-CNRS supercomputer center provided computational time under project number 08/051848. This work was partially supported by the LRC of the CEA, under contract number DSM-05–33. Laboratoire de Photophysique Moléculaire and Laboratoire Aimé Cotton are associated with Université Paris-Sud 11. [99]{} A. Steane, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**61**]{}, 117 (1998); C. Bennet and D. DiVincenzo, Nature [**404**]{}, 247 (2000); P. Shor, [*Proc. 35th Annual Symp. on Found. of Comput. Science*]{}, IEEE Comput. Soc. Press, Santa Fe, NM (1994); M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, [*Quantum Computation and Quantum Information*]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000). S. Lloyd, , 010301(R) (2000). P. Divincenzo, Fortschr. Phys. [**48**]{}, 771 (2000). J. Jones, Prog. Nuc. Magn. Res. Spect., [**38**]{}, 325 (2001). J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, , 4091 (1995); C. Monroe, D. M. Meekhof, B. E. King, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland, , 4714 (1995); J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Nature [**404**]{}, 579 (2000). Q. A. Turchette, C. J. Hood, W. Lange, H. Mabuchi, and H. J. Kimble, , 4710 (1995); A. Rauschenbeutel, G. Nogues, S. Osnaghi, P. Bertet, M. Brune, J. M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, , 5166 (1999). A. Shnirman, G. Schön, and Z. Hermon, , 2371 (1997); Y. Makhlin, G. Schön, and A. Shnirman, , 357 (2001). D. Jaksch, H. J. Briegel, J. I. Cirac, C. W. Gardiner, and P. Zoller, , 1975 (1999); G. K. Brennen, C. M. Caves, P. S. Jessen, and I. H. Deutsch, , 1060 (1999); A. Hemmerich, , 943 (1999); E. Charron, E. Tiesinga, F. Mies, and C. Williams, , 077901 (2002); O. Mandel, M. Greiner, A. Widera, T. Rom, T. W. Hänsch, and I. Bloch, Nature [**425**]{}, 937 (2003); J. V. Porto, S. Rolston, B. Laburthe Tolra, C. J. Williams, and W. D. Phillips, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A [**361**]{}, 1417 (2003); E. Charron, M. A. Cirone, A. Negretti, J. Schmiedmayer, and T. Calarco, , [**74**]{}, 012308 (2006). E. A. Shapiro, M. Spanner, and M. Y. Ivanov, , 237901 (2003); E. A. Shapiro, I. Khavkine, M. Spanner, and M. Y. Ivanov, , 013406 (2003); J. Degert, C. Meier, B. Chatel, and B. Girard, , 041402(R) (2003); K. Ohmori, Y. Sato, E. E. Nikitin, and S. A. Rice, , 243003 (2003); K. Ohmori, H. Katsuki, H. Chiba, M. Honda, Y. Hagihara, K. Fujiwara, Y. Sato, and K. Ueda, , 093002 (2006). J. Ahn, T. C. Weinacht, and P. H. Bucksbaum, Science [**287**]{}, 463 (2000); D. A. Meyer; P. G. Kwiat and R. J. Hughes; P. H. Bucksbaum, J. Ahn, and T. C. Weinacht, Science [**289**]{}, 1431a (2000). J. Ahn, D. N. Hutchinson, C. Rangan, and P. H. Bucksbaum, , 1179 (2001); C. Rangan, and P. H. Bucksbaum, , 033417 (2001); J. Ahn, C. Rangan, D. N. Hutchinson, and P. H. Bucksbaum, , 022312 (2002). J. M. Papanikolas, R. M. Williams, P. D. Kleiber, J. L. Hart, C. Brink, S. D. Price, and S. R. Leone, , 7269 (1995); R. Uberna, M. Khalil, R. M. Williams, J. M. Papanikolas, and S. R. Leone, , 9259 (1998); R. Uberna, Z. Amitay, C. X. W. Qian, and S. R. Leone, , 10311 (2001); J. B. Ballard, X. Dai, A. N. Arrowsmith, L. Hüwel, H. U. Stauffer, and S. R. Leone, Chem. Phys. Lett. [**402**]{}, 27 (2005); X. Dai, E. A. Torres, E. W. Lerch, D. J. Wilson, and S. R. Leone, Chem. Phys. Lett. [**402**]{}, 126 (2005). J. B. Ballard, H. U. Stauffer, E. Mirowski, and S. R. Leone, , 043402 (2002); J. B. Ballard, A. N. Arrowsmith, L. Hüwel, X. Dai, and S. R. Leone, , 043409 (2003). J. M. Papanikolas, R. M. Williams, and S. R. Leone, , 4172 (1997); H. U. Stauffer, J. B. Ballard, Z. Amitay, and S. R. Leone, , 946 (2002); J. B. Ballard, H. U. Stauffer, Z. Amitay, and S. R. Leone, , 1350 (2002); Z. Amitay, J. B. Ballard, H. U. Stauffer, and S. R. Leone, Chem. Phys. [**267**]{}, 141 (2001). Z. Amitay, R. Kosloff, and S. R. Leone, Chem. Phys. Lett. [**359**]{}, 8 (2002); J. Vala, Z. Amitay, B. Zhang, S. R. Leone, and R. Kosloff, , 062316 (2002). The fact that the two different rotational levels evolve with a different time dependence ${\mathrm{e}}^{-i\,E_{N_{E}}t/\hbar}$ due to their different energy $E_{N_{E}} \simeq B_{\rm rot}N_{E}(N_{E}+1)$ adds a small complexity which can be dealt with by precompensating this future phase evolution in the initial phase difference between the two rotational components of the wave packet (see [@Bucksbaum1] for details). S. C. Althorpe and T. Seideman, , 147 (1999); Y. Arasaki, K. Takatsuka, K. Wang, and V. McKoy, Chem. Phys. Lett. [**302**]{}, 363 (1999); Y. Arasaki, K. Takatsuka, K. Wang, and V. McKoy, , 8871 (2000); L. Pesce, Z. Amitay, R. Uberna, S. R. Leone, M. Ratner, and R. Kosloff, , 1259 (2001). R. N. Zare, [*Angular momentum*]{}, John Wiley & Sons, New-York (1988). U. Fano, , 353 (1970); U. Fano and D. Dill, , 185 (1972); D. Dill, , 160 (1972); C. Jungen and O. Atabek, , 5584 (1977); C. Jungen and D. Dill, , 3338 (1980); M. Raoult and C. Jungen, , 3388 (1981). I. Schmidt-Mink, W. Müller, and W. Meyer, Chem. Phys. [**92**]{}, 263 (1985). M. J. Feit, J. A. Fleck, and A. Steiger, J. Comput. Phys. [**47**]{}, 412 (1982). E. Charron and A. Suzor-Weiner, , 3922 (1998). E. Charron, A. Giusti-Suzor, and F. H. Mies, , R641 (1994). X. Chen, A. Sanpera, and K. Burnett, , 4824 (1995). A. Messiah, [*Quantum Mechanics*]{}, Vol. I, North Holland, Amsterdam (1962).

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'I use cosmology examples to illustrate that the second law of thermodynamics is not old and tired, but alive and kicking, continuing to stimulate interesting research on really big puzzles. The question “Why is the entropy so low?” (despite the second law) suggests that our observable universe is merely a small and rather uniform patch in a vastly larger space stretched out by cosmological inflation. The question “Why is the entropy so high“ (compared to the complexity required to describe many candidate ”theories of everything”) independently suggests that physical reality is much larger than the part we can observe.' author: - Max Tegmark title: 'The Second Law and Cosmology[^1]' --- [address=[Dept. of Physics, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139]{}]{} \[APPLAUSE\] Thank you very much. It’s a pleasure to be here. I was asked by the organizers to speak of the second law and cosmology, and one’s gut reaction to such a title is: “Wait a minute – the second law of thermodynamics has [*nothing*]{} to do with cosmology!” When I first heard about the second law, I thought it had more to do with Murphy’s Law and the kind of physics that takes place in my kitchen, especially now with two young boys in the mornings. You know, eggs break and they don’t unbreak. And this local arrow of time that we perceive, what could that possibly have to do with the universe? Yet, as we’re going to see, it has everything to do with the universe. Indeed both Dick Bedeaux and Charles Bennett mentioned that a key to understanding our local arrow of time here is to understand why we started out in such an usual low-entropy state. And understanding how we started out is of course the business of cosmology. So a little bit more quantitatively, with one way of counting, what’s the entropy of our observable universe, this sphere in space from which light has had time to get here so far during the 13.7 billion years since the big bang? This entropy is in the ball park of $10^{89}$ bits. So crudely speaking, a googol bits. My talk will have two parts. I’m going to talk about two questions: 1. Why is our entropy so low? 2. Why is our entropy so high? By the first question, I will mean why is it that the $10^{89}$ bits is still much lower than thermal equilibrium or whatever that means? Much lower than the $10^{122}$ bits which is the Hawking and Bekenstein bound on how much entropy a volume of this size can have. The second question is why on Earth is this number still so much bigger than something like zero? Where did all this complexity come from? Let us begin with the first question, “why is our entropy so low?”, which is of course crucial to understanding our arrow of time. I first have to tell you what I mean by entropy. I’m going to stick with the microscopic definition. I will keep measuring it in bits, just like Charles Bennett did, which you can think of as using units where Boltzmann’s constant is equal to one. Towards the end I’m also going to take some liberties and use entropy rather loosely to refer to algorithmic information or algorithmic complexity. I’m going to take these liberties because, frankly, we have severe problems to even define entropy in cosmology, which you’re welcome to ask me about afterwards. And as John von Neumann once said, nobody knows what entropy really is, so in a debate, you’ll always have the advantage. So with those caveats, why is the entropy so low in our solar system? And how did our solar system end up so far from thermal equilibrium? The whole reason we have life here on this planet, the driving force of thermodynamics behind the arrow of time here, is that we have this 6,000 Kelvin sunlight radiating onto our 300 Kelvin planet, which is in turn radiating back out into a 3 Kelvin universe. This is the number one driver of thermodynamic processes that are happening here. How could it end up this way? If you think about it, it’s really shocking. We’ve all learned that when the universe was much younger, the temperature was almost exactly the same everywhere. We started out 400,000 years after our big bang in a situation where the density was almost perfectly uniform throughout our observable universe, and the temperature was almost exactly the same everywhere to within a part in $10^5$. This was the subject of last year’s Nobel Prize in physics to Mather and Smoot. So how could you take something with almost the same temperature everywhere and then make something really hot here and something else really cold? How did that happen? Well, take a look at this animation. We have classical physics a la Boltzmann where you have a bunch of atoms, which are starting out clumpy and end up in a more uniform situation. This is the usual way in which we think of the second law of thermodynamics, taking something clumpy and making it more uniform. Well, in cosmology, it tends to be almost exactly the opposite. And the reason is gravity. This happens when there is no gravity, whereas when we have gravity, if we just remind ourselves of what Dick Bedeaux told us, when we look at this usual Boltzmann factor $e^{-H/kT}$, the Hamiltonian here will contain a potential energy term from gravity here in the exponent, which can go negative. And it can go arbitrarily negative in classical gravity: if I take two particles and put them arbitrarily close to each other, I can get an almost infinite negative energy. And what that does is it gives you an intrinsic instability, a thermodynamic instability. And as a result, as I’m going to show you now, what actually has happened in our universe is that it’s gone from being almost uniform to being very, very clumpy. Let me make this a little bit more visual by showing you a supercomputer simulation from Ben Moore and his group in Zurich. What we have here is an enormously large cube, many hundreds of millions of light years on the side, filled with almost uniform matter, and all they put into this supercomputer is the laws of gravity. We run this forward and you see a nearly uniform distribution gets more and more clumpy. An intuitive physical way of thinking about why this is happening is that if you started with something perfectly symmetric and uniform, of course by symmetry it would have to stay that way. But if you have a clump here with a little more stuff than in its surroundings, then that clump will gravitationally attract more stuff from its environment and become a bigger clump, which in turn gets still better at stealing stuff from its environment. The clump gets bigger and bigger and before you know it, these tiny over-densities at the level of $10^{-5}$ have grown into galaxies, stars, planets, etc. Basically the rich get richer. That’s what gravity is doing here. So let us zoom in on one of these clumps, which is about the size of the dark matter halo that our Milky Way galaxy lives in, and see more examples of the second law in action in cosmology. This is a supercomputer simulation now by Mattias Steinmetz and his group in Potsdam, Germany, where they have also put in besides gravity, basic gas physics. What you see on the left is a top view of this same thing that you see from the right, from the side view here, which is gas gradually getting denser and denser and forming stars, and things are getting messier and messier. Except, again, compared to the way we usually think of entropy increasing in a gas, getting more uniform, this is not getting more uniform. It’s getting more and more clumpy and complicated. And if you let this go for a billion years or so, you end up with something which looks quite a lot like the Milky Way galaxy that’s our home. If we zoom still closer to home now into the environment of just one of these little specs of light here, just one star, we can see again the second law. We have a gas cloud. It contracts because of gravity. It dissipates and radiates away much of its energy and settles into a disk, and the contraction and clumping continues in the center of this until the gas gets so dense that nuclear fusion ignites in the core of this clump and a star is born. And all the while, further clumping has been taking place in the outer parts of this disk, and once the nascent star blows away the the residual gas, you see these clumps that are formed here: planets. We started out wondering why the entropy is so low here in our solar system: why we have very different temperatures of different celestial bodies that let us have life here, and so on. The good news is that astrophysicists have made a lot of progress on that, as these computer simulations illustrate, because there’s no magic that’s been put in here — we just put in Einstein’s theory of gravity and basic gas physics, and end up with what looks like the universe we observe. However, deep questions remain. Why then was it that things were so uniform in the beginning? Because as I just told you, that in fact corresponds to very low entropy in cosmology. Why was it that the gas that filled our observable universe was about as uniform as the gas in this room? The air has fluctuations at the $10^{-5}$ level because of the sound waves caused by my speaking about this loud. Why was it so uniform back then? And besides, why is it all so big? Why is space expanding? There’s a host of questions which have really haunted us for a long time. And then our colleague Alan Guth here at MIT came up with a completely crazy sounding answer for this called inflation, which has caught on like wildfire and is now strongly supported by observation. His answer to why the universe started out so uniform is that it didn’t. Instead he said that if you just have one tiny region of space, much, much smaller than an atom, which for whatever reason is very, very uniform and also very, very dense, then this process of inflation can take hold and expand space, as Einstein and Friedman long ago showed us that space is allowed to do, and expand space exponentially, so it keeps doubling its size over and over and over again, perhaps every $10^{-32}$ seconds or so, until this subatomic region of space has become so huge that you’ve made all the space in the part of the universe that we can see and more. And it makes it all uniform. So in this picture, you could start out with something which is a total mess, maybe close to some sort of thermodynamic equilibrium in some vague sense, but a little piece of it could stretch out and become so uniform. And since it fills everything we can see, we get fooled into thinking that everything was uniform just because we hubristically like to think that everything we can see is all there is. This is a very, very crazy sounding idea, so why should you believe a word of it? I want to remind you that all of cosmology was viewed with extreme suspicion throughout the sixties and seventies. It was considered a very flaky subject, somewhere on the borderline between metaphysics and philosophy. And yet Science Magazine wrote this article in 2003, saying that the number one breakthrough of the year is that we can now actually start to believe what these cosmologists are saying. And why did they write that? They wrote that because there’s data. Like Bob Silbey mentioned, we’ve enjoyed a revolution in measurement, in our ability to quantify things out there in space. And just to give you one example of this, I’ve already spoken a bit about three-dimensional galaxy maps. Another one is these baby pictures of the universe that George Smoot and John Mather got the Nobel Prize for last year. Don’t worry about what these axes mean. What’s important is that the black crosses here are measurements with one sigma error bars and that the red curve is a theoretical prediction from inflation. This is very, very far from back in the sixties when you could speculate about anything because there was no data to prove you wrong. This is a really impressive quantitative fit. And it’s because of this kind of measurement that more and more people are beginning to think that Alan Guth also is going to get a free trip to Stockholm at some point. Because this theory is looking very believable. So we’ve spoken at some length now about why our entropy is so low. In other words, why at least the part of space that we are in is so far from thermal equilibrium. And let me spend my remaining five minutes just very, very briefly saying a few words about why the entropy is so high. It is a huge number, $10^{89}$ bits. Now who ordered that? Here at MIT a lot of people like to walk around with T-shirts with fundamental equations on them. And my colleagues in theoretical physics have their Holy Grail hope that one day they will discover not just some equations, but [*the*]{} equations, for the theory of everything. They are going to give a complete description of our universe. And what they’re particularly hoping is that they’re going to be elegant enough that they’ll even fit on a T-shirt, right? This may be a vain hope. But suppose it’s true for a moment. Let’s just entertain that thought and see where it leads us. Then how much of this information really needs to go on a T-shirt? Does a T-shirt have to have an equation which has the number eight in it that says that we have eight planets? No way. Because we know that there are many other solar systems with three planets, two planets, zero planets and so on, so the number eight is just telling us something about where we happen to live, right? Would that T-shirt have to specify all the initial conditions for our observable universe? No. It wouldn’t, because inflation predicts that space is not only big, but actually infinite. So if you go sufficiently far away, by the kind of ergodicity arguments that we heard about earlier this morning, all kinds of initial conditions will be realized somewhere else. So those initial conditions, which made up the bulk of those $10^{89}$ bits, are just telling us where in space we live. Those $10^{89}$ bits are just telling us our address in space. So they should not go on a T-shirt, because the T-shirt describes the whole space, the whole theory, right? And in the previous beautiful talk by Charles Bennett on quantum physics, suppose you take a quantum random number generator like your Stern-Gerlach apparatus and you start to produce a whole bunch of quantum-generated random numbers, should these numbers go on a T-shirt as something fundamental about the universe? Well, if you give Charles Bennett a sufficient about of beer, he will confess to you that he believes that quantum physics is unitary and that likewise, all this, all these bits are also just telling us where we are in this big quantum Hilbert space where all of these different outcomes happen. What should go on the T-shirt then? This is from a recent paper I wrote with my colleague Frank Wilczek here and Martin Rees and Anthony Aguirre: you might want to put the 32-dimensionless constants of nature, which we need to calculate everything from the masses of the elementary particles to the strengths of the interactions and so on. That might seem like a good thing to put there. We don’t know yet where these come from. They really tell us something about our universe. Or maybe we put some equations, including the standard model Lagrangian. I have a feeling this T-shirt wouldn’t be very viable financially. But maybe one of you will come up with some more elegant equations of string theory or whatnot, of which this is just a special case. But even here there is a bit of a surprise that’s come out of string theory recently, which is that it may well be that in this infinite space even the values of these constants may not be completely constant throughout all of space. They may just be constant in a big patch that inflation has made. And they may have other values somewhere else, in which case even some of this information is also just telling us where we live. The key point I’m making is that most of the information that we thought described something fundamental about the universe may turn out to be merely our address, akin to our cosmic phone number. So if you ask yourself the question “is all we observe really all there is”, I would argue that our high entropy, the fact that $10^{89}$ its is such a big number suggests “no, there’s probably more than we can see". Or putting if differently, if what we can observe here requires much more bits to describe than a complete mathematical description of the world to put on a T-shirt, then we’re in some kind of multiverse or basically some much larger reality than what we can observe. To summarize, I think that not only does the second law of thermodynamics have a lot to do with cosmology, but it gives some really intriguing hints about future research to pursue. Why is entropy so low? Probably because inflation happened. Why is it so high? I’m guessing it’s because we’re in some sort of multiverse. Do we know this? Absolutely not. But my key point is these are very active research questions. And if you feel it sounds too crazy, I think especially for the biologists in the room, we have to give credit to Charles Darwin here. He told us that we evolved intuition as humans for things which had survival value to our ancestors, like classical physics, the parabolic orbits of a flying rock being hurled at you. That’s the kind of stuff we’d expect to have intuition for, nothing else. So it’s no surprise then that when we looked at very small things in the quantum world, it seemed counterintuitive, when we looked at very big things, very fast things, black holes, time-dilation, it seemed counterintuitive. And I think if we categorically reject ideas and science just because it feels crazy, we’ll probably reject whatever the correct theory is too. Finally, I would like to come back to the anthropic principle which was mentioned by Charles Bennett here. Now the ultimate form of this, the most extreme culinary form of it, would be that, you know, the universe has to be such that we like it. And the great physicist Richard Feynman had something very interesting to say about this, which I would like to end by showing you in this video clip. [**Feynman:**]{} [*Then there’s the kind of saying that you don’t understand meaning “I don’t believe it". It’s too crazy. It’s the kind of thing I’m just, I’m not going to accept.” \[...\] If you want to know the way nature works, we looked at it carefully, looked at it — see, that’s the way it looks. If you don’t like it, go somewhere else! To another universe where the rules are simpler, philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy*]{} So let’s conclude with something which I’m sure we all agree on. I think we all agree that despite its old age, the second law is not old and tired. Rather, it’s alive and kicking. And I hope these cosmology examples have helped illustrate that the second law of thermodynamics is continuing to stimulate really interesting research on really, really big puzzles. Thank you! DISCUSSION ========== GIAN PAOLO BERETTA \#1: OK, well, I was trying to make sense of the connection between the previous talk and your talk and I have a question for you. Because in the previous talk I was told that the prevailing view is that since the entropy, overall entropy of the universe, if we include everything, should be zero. It should be in a pure state. And yet here you say that it’s 10 to the 89. I don’t know how you measure it, but I believe you. So my question is, does it mean, you seem to suggest that the resolution is that you’re not counting, you’re missing something in your accounting which would be correlated with what appears to be the universe so that the overall entropy is zero. So there is something else, some other place to go. But suppose there wasn’t another place to go. And suppose that your single bits, each one of them had a little entropy in itself. Would that be compatible with your theories? TEGMARK \#1: That’s a very good question. Let me make a couple of remarks on it. First of all, is the entropy of the universe zero? If you think of the universe as a classical quantum system in a pure state, you might say by definition it’s zero. But we must remember that we don’t have that theory of quantum gravity right now, which is what we would obviously need to describe general relativity in a quantum way. And it’s even more embarrassing because as I’ve alluded to, there are two different instabilities in the theory of gravity, which make it really hard to define entropy. One is this thermodynamic instability that makes things cluster and creates black holes. And the other one, which is even more severe, is the one which underlies inflation. But you can take a finite amount of space and make just much space ad infinitum. And what happens when you try to define in a rigorous way then the entropy of this system it gets infinitely many degrees of freedom and it just keeps making more degrees of freedom and more space. And I think it’s fair to say that this is an example of how the second law of thermodynamics is leading to questions which the leading experts of the world still argue viciously about. How do you even define something like the entropy of the universe? And I think we really haven’t heard the last word on this. There are business issues like the holographic bound in relation to the Hawking Bekenstein bound, for instance, where we really need to understand what it even means. JIM KECK \#6: Sorry to monopolize the microphone, but I have to ask, what formula or what body of data was used to compute the numbers you put on the screen? You’ve talked about the entropy. But you did not give us a definition. TEGMARK \#2: So the top number here, the 10 to the power of 122, the Hawking-Bekenstein bound, is simply the area of this sphere measured in Planck units. And this is what it comes out to be when you plug in the actual radius of this volume that we can observe. And that should, of course that just \[UNINTELLIGIBLE\] to this volume. If by universe you mean the entire infinite space you would then get an infinite number here. KECK \#7: Well, one thing that bothers me is you’ve only shown us half the problem. You’ve shown us what happens in configuration space and not what happens in momentum space. And the entropy depends on both. And I’m a little concerned. I don’t see where ro logro has gotten into the picture. TEGMARK \#3: OK. Well, the main thing I wanted you to really take away from everything I’ve said is, I have not tried to give you, to tell you here is the answer to all the questions. I’ve rather tried to emphasize that the second law is posing new and interesting problems. Effectively what I think we’ve succeeded in doing in cosmology is we’ve taken the frontier of our ignorance and we’ve pushed it backwards in time. Because a hundred years ago, we had no clue what it was that was even causing the sun to shine. We hadn’t discovered nuclear reactions. Right? We had no clue how the solar system got here. And it was taken just as some kind of magic initial conditions, right? Now I’ve showed you some really realistic computers simulations of how you can make a solar system and a star and all of that, which to Boltzmann was initial conditions from some other initial conditions you have to put in earlier. But I did not tell you why we started out with this uniform expanding stuff, because we still don’t know. THEO NIEUWENHUIZEN \#4: I would also like to come up to this point of extend to the 122 bits. There was some recent idea put forward by people called \[Motola and Mazur?\], who see a big black hole as some quantum thing, whatever that may mean. But in any case, it would not have this entropy, so in short let me formulate the question as follows. Let us suppose that Mr. Bekenstein and Hawking, that their prediction has nothing to do with nature, then how would this change the talk that you have given now? TEGMARK \#4: Not much. The key point about inflation is, you know, we have a theory which, you don’t need to, let me take a step back. What is it that we have assumed to get these predictions which Science magazine felt meant we should start taking the field seriously as a quantitative physics field rather than just some flaky speculation. OK. What was it that was assumed in this kind of calculations? Only two things, general relativity. And you don’t even have to assume that you know how it works with strong gravity like black holes. You only have to assume general relativity and limit the weak gravitational fields. That’s the first assumption. And the second assumption you have to make is that you know how to do basic thermodynamics with gases. So you have to understand how hydrogen works at 3,000 Kelvin and so on. So you just put in those two assumptions. Then if you start out with a hot expanding bunch of gas you will make all these things that we can measure in great detail. So that I think is a striking empirical success, regardless of what it all means. But I do not want in any way downplay the theme you’re mentioning here, which is that there are big mysteries remaining. And I said inflation, for example, is a very popular theory for explaining what put the bang into the big bang and what made things expand, but you’ll be amused to know that there’s still absolutely no agreement on how inflation started. There’s an annoying theorem says that inflation must have started. It couldn’t have gone forever to the past. And that’s just another example then of how we can push \[UNINTELLIGIBLE\] back in time, but we’re still stuck. And it reminds me also of the first talk when we heard about many efforts to prove the second law, right, and we kept saying OK, we can prove it from something else, but then how do you prove that? GEORGE HATSOPOULOS \#4: Well, first of all, let me thank you for that beautiful presentation, because at the beginning when we conceived the idea of having this symposium on thermodynamics, our whole purpose was to stimulate people to, especially young people that come to MIT that thermodynamics is not an old topic. It’s not closed. There’s a lot to be done and I think that you have managed to indicate whoever is here or whoever reads the record of this symposium that there’s a lot more work to be done. That was our purpose. So I’d like to thank you for that. TEGMARK \#5: Thank you. HATSOPOULOS \#5: Second, I want to point out something pertaining to the previous lecture, Mr. Bennett. I think I fully understood what he was talking about, but namely that if it is possible that if the universe started at zero entropy and split up in various parts that were correlated with each other and we lived in one part, we could observe really entropy in that part or the effects of entropy even though the whole got started at zero entropy and continued as a whole to \[being?\] zero entropy. OK. I understand his point. Nevertheless, what I don’t understand is do we have any evidence that, any evidence at all why do we have any evidence that the universe started at zero entropy or was in a pure state? TEGMARK \#6: To me, the most hopeful route to addressing that very important question is look for a theory of quantum gravity. And I think it’s very important that we’re modest here today. Because yes, we humans have managed to figure a lot of stuff out. Yes, we have a very successful theory of general relativity that can deal with all the big stuff and quantum theory that can deal with all the small stuff. But we don’t have a single self-consistent mathematical theory that unifies them, right? And until we have that, I really don’t think we with any confidence can claim to know the answer to this sort of question. We’d like to know what kind of mathematical object is it that’s evolving and I would like to encourage anyone in this room who is interested in those questions to not just shy away from that as being some kind of boring old hat question, but as being something which we really have a pressing need for. BJARNE ANDRESEN \#1: I have two questions for you. One was the one that he asked a little while ago. And if you had extended that time evolution picture or film that you have of the universe, how many lumps would the second law permit you to end up with? TEGMARK \#7: So if we keep going forward in time I can actually show you what happens. ANDRESEN \#2: Oh, great. So you’re a sorcerer. You can predict the future. TEGMARK \#8: And I hope I won’t make you too depressed by showing you this. Because. Here we are, our solar system in red orbiting around the center of our Milky Way galaxy every few hundred million years. This is now how far we are in the future, about a billion years. And we’re not alone of course. Here’s another clump, our nearest neighbor, a big clump, the Andromeda galaxy. You can see it’s not falling straight towards us because there’s a lot of other matter here in the vicinity pulling on it. However, now something rather bad is going to happen and you will soon get one clump less, smack. About 3.5 billion years from now our solar system is in a much more precarious orbit around this monster black hole in our galactic center, and out comes the big whammo here, about 5 billion years from now. And soon we’re going to get a giant corporate merger here and even the two black holes are likely to merge with each other. And we are in a very funky orbit around now \[Milcomada?\] or whatever they decide to name this. We will keep merging all these things nearby into one giant galaxy, whereas all the other more distant galaxies will keep flying away if our current understanding of dark energy is correct, until all we can see in the sky is just empty space, no other galaxies within our \[ent?\] horizon, except this one big merged blob. But I suggest you not get too worried about this because I still think that the main challenges we have to meet in the short term are caused by humans. ANDRESEN \#3: OK, so just one lump got left. Yeah, the other question is how much entropy is stored in that overwhelming part of the universe that got squeezed away in this rabid inflation? There was one point, tiny point that expanded and almost filled the entire thing, but before that there must have been a lot of entropy stored in what got pushed aside. How much? TEGMARK \#9: Yeah, so this is actually an interesting, one argument that you might heuristically for why the total entropy should be near zero, because if everything we see once came from a region which was a little bigger than a Planck region, you might say there’s no way there could be more than a few bits of information there by the Hawking-Bekenstein bound. And then insofar as it’s isolated, just like causality, it should stay being basically zero. ANDRESEN \#4: But what about the \[rest?\] outside part that did not come from that tiny spot? TEGMARK \#[10]{}: Well, it’s still out there, doing its own thing. And if you take inflation seriously what it predicts is that this inflation process just goes on forever and then in some places in space it stops and you get a more leisurely expansion and you make galaxies and stars like us. So if that’s true, we should first of all be a little more careful and not hubristically say our, say the universe when we talk about this sphere. But that should be called just our local observable universe. And second, we shouldn’t say that the big bang is the beginning, because we should rather call it the end of inflation in this part of space. That’s what we’ve traditionally called the big bang, the time when all of the stuff we see here was very hot and dense. And it ended here, but it keeps going in other places. So if we could zoom out, in other words on our universe, and look at the bigger picture, you should expect to see much more stuff there and much more entropy. ANDREW FOLEY \#1: I have a quick question. Isn’t the problem with the second law that we’re discussing today really just how you define it? One man defines the gas expanding as an increase in entropy, because he sees the energy lost from the expansion. In the next breath you say oh, it collapses with gravity. Well, another person would see that as potential energy being recouped and hence entropy is this reversal process, and it’s all in the definition. The other problem I would argue is where we’re very loose with the definition. We’re confusing our data transfer as entropy, and that’s not the same thing. And we’re kind of, we’re making problems where none exist really. And as for the level of entropy at the beginning of the universe, really that depends again on a personal definition. How much of that expansion could we actually capitalize as work? And again, that’s depending on how you could extract the energy. TEGMARK \#[11]{}: I agree with those points. If you take in classical physics the probability distribution phase space and you look at it coarse-grained, and to proved that it’s entropy will increase, you have to make these assumptions that we heard about earlier this morning about some uncorrelated phases or some such. And like wise if you take the density matrix of the whole universe and then partial trace out all the degrees of \[freedom?\] except the \[single?\] subsystem, you’ll typically see entropy increased where we are if again you make some assumptions about the initial conditions, maybe lack of entanglement, low initial entropy. Right? But it still leaves that question dangling. Why those initial conditions and not some other initial conditions. And if we think that the most generic initial conditions are thermo equilibrium, then we’re stuck again. So I still think no matter how hard we work on these kind of beautiful mathematical theorems, we still have to answer this question of why we started out with so low entropy in this part of space. [^1]: This is a verbatim transcript of a 10/4-2007 talk at the MIT Keenan Symposium, published in “Meeting the Entropy Challenge", eds. G P Beretta, Ajmed F Ghoneim & G N Hatsopoulos, AIP, New York, 2008. A video of the talk, including slides and animations, is available at <http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/513>.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'Natural Language Inference (NLI) datasets often contain hypothesis-only biases—artifacts that allow models to achieve non-trivial performance without learning whether a premise entails a hypothesis. We propose two probabilistic methods to build models that are more robust to such biases and better transfer across datasets. In contrast to standard approaches to NLI, our methods predict the probability of a premise given a hypothesis and NLI label, discouraging models from ignoring the premise. We evaluate our methods on synthetic and existing NLI datasets by training on datasets containing biases and testing on datasets containing no (or different) hypothesis-only biases. Our results indicate that these methods can make NLI models more robust to dataset-specific artifacts, transferring better than a baseline architecture in $9$ out of $12$ NLI datasets. Additionally, we provide an extensive analysis of the interplay of our methods with known biases in NLI datasets, as well as the effects of encouraging models to ignore biases and fine-tuning on target datasets. [^1]' author: - | Yonatan Belinkov$^{13}$[^2] Adam Poliak$^{2*}$\ **Stuart M. Shieber$^1$ Benjamin Van Durme$^2$ Alexander M. Rush$^1$**\ $^1$Harvard University $^2$Johns Hopkins University $^3$Massachusetts Institute of Technology\ `{belinkov,shieber,srush}@seas.harvard.edu`\ `{azpoliak,vandurme}@cs.jhu.edu` bibliography: - 'references.bib' title: | Don’t Take the Premise for Granted:\ Mitigating Artifacts in Natural Language Inference --- Introduction ============ Natural Language Inference (NLI) is often used to gauge a model’s ability to understand a relationship between two texts [@fracas; @dagan2006pascal]. In NLI, a model is tasked with determining whether a hypothesis (*a woman is sleeping*) would likely be inferred from a premise (*a woman is talking on the phone*).[^3] The development of new large-scale datasets has led to a flurry of various neural network architectures for solving NLI. However, recent work has found that many NLI datasets contain biases, or annotation artifacts, i.e., features present in hypotheses that enable models to perform surprisingly well using only the hypothesis, without learning the relationship between two texts [@gururangan-EtAl:2018:N18-2; @poliak-EtAl:2018:S18-2; @1804.08117].[^4] For instance, in some datasets, negation words like “not” and “nobody” are often associated with a relationship of contradiction. As a ramification of such biases, models may not generalize well to other datasets that contain different or no such biases. [0.32]{} {height="3.5cm"} [0.32]{} {height="3.5cm"} [0.32]{} {height="3.5cm"} Recent studies have tried to create new NLI datasets that do not contain such artifacts, but many approaches to dealing with this issue remain unsatisfactory: constructing new datasets [@sharma-EtAl:2018:Short] is costly and may still result in other artifacts; filtering “easy” examples and defining a harder subset is useful for evaluation purposes [@gururangan-EtAl:2018:N18-2], but difficult to do on a large scale that enables training; and compiling adversarial examples [@glockner-shwartz-goldberg:2018:Short] is informative but again limited by scale or diversity. Instead, our goal is to develop methods that overcome these biases as datasets may still contain undesired artifacts despite annotation efforts. Typical NLI models learn to predict an entailment label discriminatively given a premise-hypothesis pair ([Figure \[fig:arch-baseline\]]{}), enabling them to learn hypothesis-only biases. Instead, we predict the premise given the hypothesis and the entailment label, which by design cannot be solved using data artifacts. While this objective is intractable, it motivates two approximate training methods for standard NLI classifiers that are more resistant to biases. Our first method uses a hypothesis-only classifier ([Figure \[fig:arch-double\]]{}) and the second uses negative sampling by swapping premises between premise-hypothesis pairs ([Figure \[fig:arch-single\]]{}). We evaluate the ability of our methods to generalize better in synthetic and naturalistic settings. First, using a controlled, synthetic dataset, we demonstrate that, unlike the baseline, our methods enable a model to ignore the artifacts and learn to correctly identify the desired relationship between the two texts. Second, we train models on an NLI dataset that is known to be biased and evaluate on other datasets that may have different or no biases. We observe improved results compared to a fully discriminative baseline in $9$ out of $12$ target datasets, indicating that our methods generate models that are more robust to annotation artifacts. An extensive analysis reveals that our methods are most effective when the target datasets have different biases from the source dataset or no noticeable biases. We also observe that the more we encourage the model to ignore biases, the better it transfers, but this comes at the expense of performance on the source dataset. Finally, we show that our methods can better exploit small amounts of training data in a target dataset, especially when it has different biases from the source data. In this paper, we focus on the transferability of our methods from biased datasets to ones having different or no biases. Elsewhere [@belinkov:2019:starsem], we have analyzed the effect of these methods on the learned language representations, suggesting that they may indeed be less biased. However, we caution that complete removal of biases remains difficult and is dependent on the techniques used. The choice of whether to remove bias also depends on the goal; in an in-domain scenario certain biases may be helpful and should not necessarily be removed. In summary, in this paper we make the following contributions: - Two novel methods to train NLI models that are more robust to dataset-specific artifacts. - An empirical evaluation of the methods on a synthetic dataset and $12$ naturalistic datasets. - An extensive analysis of the effects of our methods on handling bias. Motivation {#sec:motivation} ========== A training instance for NLI consists of a hypothesis sentence $H$, a premise statement $P$, and an inference label $y$. A probabilistic NLI model aims to learn a parameterized distribution $p_{\theta}(y {\,|\,}P, H)$ to compute the probability of the label given the two sentences. We consider NLI models with premise and hypothesis encoders, $f_{P,\theta}$ and $f_{H,\theta}$, which learn representations of $P$ and $H$, and a classification layer, $g_\theta$, which learns a distribution over $y$. Typically, this is done by maximizing this discriminative likelihood directly, which will act as our baseline (Figure \[fig:arch-baseline\]). However, many NLI datasets contain biases that allow models to perform non-trivially well when accessing just the hypotheses [@1804.08117; @gururangan-EtAl:2018:N18-2; @poliak-EtAl:2018:S18-2]. This allows models to leverage hypothesis-only biases that may be present in a dataset. A model may perform well on a specific dataset, without identifying whether ${P\xspace}$ entails ${H\xspace}$. argue that “the bulk” of many models’ “success \[is\] attribute\[d\] to the easy examples”. Consequently, this may limit how well a model trained on one dataset would perform on other datasets that may have different artifacts. Consider an example where ${P\xspace}$ and ${H\xspace}$ are strings from $\{a, b, c\}$, and an environment where ${P\xspace}$ entails ${H\xspace}$ if and only if the first letters are the same, as in synthetic dataset A. In such a setting, a model should be able to learn the correct condition for ${P\xspace}$ to entail ${H\xspace}$. [^5] **Synthetic dataset A**\ $(a, a)$ $\rightarrow$ [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">True</span>]{} $(a, b)$ $\rightarrow$ [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">False</span>]{}\ $(b, b)$ $\rightarrow$ [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">True</span>]{} $(b, a)$ $\rightarrow$ [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">False</span>]{}\ Imagine now that an artifact $c$ is appended to every entailed ${H\xspace}$ (synthetic dataset B). A model of $y$ with access only to the hypothesis side can fit the data perfectly by detecting the presence or absence of $c$ in ${H\xspace}$, ignoring the more general pattern. Therefore, we hypothesize that a model that learns $p_{\theta}(y {\,|\,}{P\xspace}, {H\xspace})$ by training on such data would be misled by the bias $c$ and would fail to learn the relationship between the premise and the hypothesis. Consequently, the model would not perform well on the unbiased synthetic dataset A. **Synthetic dataset B (with artifact)**\ $(a, ac)$ $\rightarrow$ [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">True</span>]{} $(a, b)$ $\rightarrow$ [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">False</span>]{}\ $(b, bc)$ $\rightarrow$ [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">True</span>]{} $(b, a)$ $\rightarrow$ [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">False</span>]{}\ Instead of maximizing the discriminative likelihood $p_{\theta}(y {\,|\,}P, H)$ directly, we consider maximizing the likelihood of generating the premise $P$ conditioned on the hypothesis $H$ and the label $y$: $p(P {\,|\,}H, y)$. This objective cannot be fooled by hypothesis-only features, and it requires taking the premise into account. For example, a model that only looks for $c$ in the above example cannot do better than chance on this objective. However, as $P$ comes from the space of all sentences, this objective is much more difficult to estimate. Training Methods ================ Our goal is to maximize $\log p(P {\,|\,}H, y)$ on the training data. While we could in theory directly parameterize this distribution, for efficiency and simplicity we instead write it in terms of the standard $p_{\theta}(y {\,|\,}P, H)$ and introduce a new term to approximate the normalization: $$\log p(P {\,|\,}y, H) = \log\dfrac{p_{\theta}(y {\,|\,}P, H) p(P {\,|\,}H)}{p(y {\,|\,}H)}.$$ Throughout we will assume $p(P {\,|\,}H)$ is a fixed constant ( justified by the dataset assumption that, lacking $y$, $P$ and $H$ are independent and drawn at random). Therefore, to approximately maximize this objective we need to estimate $p(y {\,|\,}H)$. We propose two methods for doing so. [Method 1]{}: Hypothesis-only Classifier ---------------------------------------- Our first approach is to estimate the term $p(y {\,|\,}H)$ directly. In theory, if labels in an NLI dataset depend on both premises and hypothesis (which call “*interesting* NLI”), this should be a uniform distribution. However, as discussed above, it is often possible to correctly predict $y$ based only on the hypothesis. Intuitively, this model can be interpreted as training a classifier to identify the (latent) artifacts in the data. We define this distribution using a shared representation between our new estimator $p_{\phi,\theta}(y {\,|\,}H)$ and $p_{\theta}(y {\,|\,}P, H)$. In particular, the two share an embedding of $H$ from the hypothesis encoder $f_{H,\theta}$. The additional parameters $\phi$ are in the final layer $g_{\phi}$, which we call the *hypothesis-only classifier*. The parameters of this layer $\phi$ are updated to fit $p(y {\,|\,}H)$ whereas the rest of the parameters in $\theta$ are updated based on the gradients of $\log p(P {\,|\,}y, H)$. Training is illustrated in [Figure \[fig:arch-double\]]{}. This interplay is controlled by two hyper-parameters. First, the negative term is scaled by a hyper-parameter $\alpha$. Second, the updates of ${g}_\phi$ are weighted by $\beta$. We therefore minimize the following multitask loss functions (shown for a single example): $$\begin{aligned} \max_{\theta } L_1(\theta) &= \log {p_{\theta}(y {\,|\,}P, H) } - \alpha \log {p_{\phi,\theta}(y {\,|\,}H)} \\ \max_{\phi} L_2(\phi) &= \beta \log {p_{\phi, \theta}(y {\,|\,}H) }\end{aligned}$$ We implement these together with a gradient reversal layer [@ganin2015unsupervised]. As illustrated in [Figure \[fig:arch-double\]]{}, during back-propagation, we first pass gradients through the hypothesis-only classifier $g_{\phi}$ and then reverse the gradients going to the hypothesis encoder ${g}_{H,\theta}$ (potentially scaling them by $\beta$). [^6] [Method 2]{}: Negative Sampling ------------------------------- As an alternative to the hypothesis-only classifier, our second method attempts to remove annotation artifacts from the representations by sampling alternative premises. Consider instead writing the normalization term above as, $$\begin{aligned} -\log p(y {\,|\,}H) &= -\log \sum_{P'} p(P' {\,|\,}H) p(y {\,|\,}P', H) \\ &= -\log {\mathbb E}_{P'} p(y {\,|\,}P', H) \\ &\geq - {\mathbb E}_{P'} \log p(y {\,|\,}P', H),\end{aligned}$$ where the expectation is uniform and the last step is from Jensen’s inequality.[^7] As in Method 1, we define a separate $p_{\phi,\theta}(y {\,|\,}P', H)$ which shares the embedding layers from $\theta$, $f_{P,\theta}$ and $f_{H,\theta}$. However, as we are attempting to unlearn hypothesis bias, we block the gradients and do not let it update the premise encoder $f_{P,\theta}$.[^8] The full setting is shown in [Figure \[fig:arch-single\]]{}. To approximate the expectation, we use uniform samples $P'$ (from other training examples) to replace the premise in a (${P\xspace}$, ${H\xspace}$)-pair, while keeping the label $y$. We also maximize $p_{\theta, \phi}(y {\,|\,}{P\xspace}', {H\xspace})$ to learn the artifacts in the hypotheses. We use $\alpha \in [0, 1]$ to control the fraction of randomly sampled ${P\xspace}$’s (so the total number of examples remains the same). As before, we implement this using gradient reversal scaled by $\beta$. $$\begin{aligned} \max_{\theta} L_1(\theta) &= (1- \alpha) \log {p_{\theta}(y {\,|\,}P, H) } \\ & \hspace{2.6em} - \alpha \log {p_{\theta, \phi}(y {\,|\,}P', H)} \\ \max_{\phi} L_2(\phi) &= \beta \log {p_{\theta, \phi}(y {\,|\,}P', H) }\end{aligned}$$ Finally, we share the classifier weights between $p_{\theta}(y {\,|\,}P, H)$ and $p_{\phi,\theta}(y {\,|\,}P', H)$. In a sense this is counter-intuitive, since $p_{\theta}$ is being trained to unlearn bias, while $p_{\phi,\theta}$ is being trained to learn it. However, if the models are trained separately, they may learn to co-adapt with each other [@elazar2018adversarial]. If $p_{\phi,\theta}$ is not trained well, we might be fooled to think that the representation does not contain any biases, while in fact they are still hidden in the representation. For some evidence that this indeed happens when the models are trained separately, see @belinkov:2019:starsem.[^9] Experimental Setup ================== To evaluate how well our methods can overcome hypothesis-only biases, we test our methods on a synthetic dataset as well as on a wide range of existing NLI datasets. The scenario we aim to address is when training on a source dataset with biases and evaluating on a target dataset with different or no biases. We first describe the data and experimental setup before discussing the results. #### Synthetic Data We create a synthetic dataset based on the motivating example in Section \[sec:motivation\], where ${P\xspace}$ entails ${H\xspace}$ if and only if their first letters are the same. The training and test sets have 1K examples each, uniformly distributed among the possible entailment relations. In the test set (dataset A), each premise or hypothesis is a single symbol: ${P\xspace}, {H\xspace}\in \{a,b\}$, where ${P\xspace}$ entails ${H\xspace}$ iff ${P\xspace}= {H\xspace}$. In the training set (dataset B), a letter $c$ is appended to the hypothesis side in the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">True</span>]{}examples, but not in the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">False</span>]{}examples. In order to transfer well to the test set, a model that is trained on this training set needs to learn the underlying relationship—that ${P\xspace}$ entails ${H\xspace}$ if and only if their first letter is identical—rather than relying on the presence of $c$ in the hypothesis side. #### Common NLI datasets Moving to existing NLI datasets, we train models on the Stanford Natural Language Inference dataset [SNLI; @snli:emnlp2015], since it is known to contain significant annotation artifacts. We evaluate the robustness of our methods on other, target datasets. \#1[\#1&gt;100]{} [0.45]{} [l\*[7]{}[c]{}]{} &\ (lr)[2-7]{} $\beta$ & 0.1 & 0.25 & 0.5 & 1 & 2.5 & 5\ (lr)[1-1]{} (lr)[2-7]{} 0.1 & & & & & &\ 0.5 & & & & & &\ 1 & & & & & &\ 1.5 & & & & & &\ 2 & & & & & &\ 2.5 & & & & & &\ 3 & & & & & &\ 3.5 & & & & & &\ 4 & & & & & &\ 5 & & & & & &\ 10 & & & & & &\ 20 & & & & & &\ [0.45]{} [l\*[6]{}[c]{}]{} &\ (lr)[2-6]{} $\beta$ & 0.1 & 0.25 & 0.5 & 0.75 & 1\ (lr)[1-1]{} (lr)[2-6]{} 0.1 & & & & &\ 0.5 & & & & &\ 1 & & & & &\ 1.5 & & & & &\ 2 & & & & &\ 2.5 & & & & &\ 3 & & & & &\ 3.5 & & & & &\ 4 & & & & &\ 5 & & & & & $^*$\ 10 & & & & & $^*$\ 20 & & & & $^*$ & $^*$\ As target datasets, we use the $10$ datasets investigated by @poliak-EtAl:2018:S18-2 in their hypothesis-only study, plus two test sets: GLUE’s diagnostic test set, which was carefully constructed to not contain hypothesis-biases [@wang2018glue], and SNLI-hard, a subset of the SNLI test set that is thought to have fewer biases [@gururangan-EtAl:2018:N18-2]. The target datasets include *human-judged* datasets that used automatic methods to pair premises and hypotheses, and then relied on humans to label the pairs: SCITAIL [@SCITAIL], ADD-ONE-RTE [@P16-1204], Johns Hopkins Ordinal Commonsense Inference [JOCI; @TACL1082], Multiple Premise Entailment [MPE; @lai-bisk-hockenmaier:2017:I17-1], and Sentences Involving Compositional Knowledge [SICK; @MARELLI14.363.L14-1314]. The target datasets also include datasets recast by @white-EtAl:2017:I17-1 to evaluate different semantic phenomena: FrameNet+ [FN+; @pavlick-EtAl:2015:ACL-IJCNLP2], Definite Pronoun Resolution [DPR; @rahman-ng:2012:EMNLP-CoNLL], and Semantic Proto-Roles [SPR; @TACL674].[^10] As many of these datasets have different label spaces than SNLI, we define a mapping ([Appendix \[app:label-mapping\]]{}) from our models’ predictions to each target dataset’s labels. Finally, we also test on the Multi-genre NLI dataset [MNLI; @N18-1101], a successor to SNLI.[^11] #### Baseline & Implementation Details We use `InferSent` [@D17-1070] as our baseline model because it has been shown to work well on popular NLI datasets and is representative of many NLI models. We use separate encoders to learn vector representations of ${P\xspace}$ and ${H\xspace}$.[^12] The vector representations are combined following ,[^13] and passed to an MLP classifier with one hidden layer. Our proposed methods for mitigating biases use the same technique for representing and combining sentences. Additional implementation details are provided in [Appendix \[app:implementation\]]{}. For both methods, we sweep hyper-parameters $\alpha$, $\beta$ over $\{0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.8, 1.0\}$. For each target dataset, we choose the best-performing model on its development set and report results on the test set.[^14] [l r H H r @r@[|]{}l H r @r@[|]{}l H r @r@[|]{}l H r @r@[|]{}l ]{} & &\ (lr)[2-11]{}(lr)[12-19]{} Target Test Dataset & Baseline & Hypothesis & [Method 1]{}& & [Method 2]{}& & [Method 1]{}& & [Method 2]{}&\ SCITAIL & 58.14 & 37 & 57.67 & -0.47 & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & & 51.08 & -7.06 & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & & 84.04 & -0.18 & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & & 75.16 & -9.06 & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ &\ ADD-ONE-RTE & 66.15 & 40 & 66.15 & 0.00 & & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & 83.46 & 17.31 & & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & 81.93 & -2.29 & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & & 34.59 & -49.63 & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ &\ JOCI & 41.50 & 36 & 41.74 & 0.24 & & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & 39.63 & -1.87 & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & & 83.78 & -0.44 & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & & 78.3 & -5.92 & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ &\ MPE & 57.65 & 34 & 58.1 & 0.45 & & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & 52.35 & -5.30 & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & & 83.65 & -0.57 & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & & 83.68 & -0.54 & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ &\ DPR & 49.86 & 33 & 50.96 & 1.10 & & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & 49.41 & -0.45 & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & & 83.49 & -0.73 & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & & 76.41 & -7.81 & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ &\ MNLI matched & 45.86 & 41 & 47.24 & 1.38 & & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & 43.76 & -2.10 & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & & 82.97 & -1.25 & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & & 75.29 & -8.93 & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ &\ FN+ & 50.87 & 28 & 52.48 & 1.61 & & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & 57.03 & 6.16 & & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & 82.28 & -1.94 & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & & 83.78 & -0.44 & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ &\ MNLI mismatched & 47.57 & 42 & 49.24 & 1.67 & & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & 43.66 & -3.91 & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & & 82.97 & -1.25 & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & & 75.29 & -8.93 & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ &\ SICK & 25.64 & 37 & 27.44 & 1.80 & & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & 56.75 & 31.11 & & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & 83.65 & -0.57 & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & & 75.29 & -8.93 & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ &\ GLUE & 38.50 & & 40.49 & 1.99 & & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & 43.21 & 4.71 & & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & 82.97 & -1.25 & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & & 75.29 & -8.93 & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ &\ SPR & 52.48 & 35 & 58.99 & 6.51 & & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & 65.43 & 12.94 & & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & 82.46 & -1.76 & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & & 70.21 & -14.01 & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ &\ SNLI-hard & 68.02 & & 66.27 & -1.75 & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & & 55.6 & -12.42 & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & & & & &\ Results ======= Synthetic Experiments --------------------- To examine how well our methods work in a controlled setup, we train on the biased dataset (B), but evaluate on the unbiased test set (A). As expected, without a method to remove hypothesis-only biases, the baseline fails to generalize to the test set. Examining its predictions, we found that the baseline model learned to rely on the presence/absence of the bias term $c$, always predicting [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">True</span>]{}/[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">False</span>]{}respectively. Table \[tab:results-toy\] shows the results of our two proposed methods. As we increase the hyper-parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$, our methods initially behave like the baseline, learning the training set but failing on the test set. However, with strong enough hyper-parameters (moving towards the bottom in the tables), they perform perfectly on both the biased training set and the unbiased test set. For , stronger hyper-parameters work better. [Method 2]{}, in particular, breaks down with too many random samples (increasing $\alpha$), as expected. We also found that [Method 1]{}did not require as strong $\beta$ as [Method 2]{}. From the synthetic experiments, it seems that [Method 1]{}learns to ignore the bias $c$ and learn the desired relationship between ${P\xspace}$ and ${H\xspace}$ across many configurations, while [Method 2]{}requires much stronger $\beta$. Results on existing NLI datasets -------------------------------- Table \[tab:results-cross\] (left block) reports the results of our proposed methods compared to the baseline in application to the NLI datasets. The method using the hypothesis-only classifier to remove hypothesis-only biases from the model ([Method 1]{}) outperforms the baseline in $9$ out of $12$ target datasets ($\Delta>0$), though most improvements are small. The training method using negative sampling ([Method 2]{}) only outperforms the baseline in $5$ datasets, $4$ of which are cases where the other method also outperformed the baseline. These gains are much larger than those of [Method 1]{}. We also report results of the proposed methods on the SNLI test set (right block). As our results improve on the target datasets, we note that [Method 1]{}’s performance on SNLI does not drastically decrease (small $\Delta$), even when the improvement on the target dataset is large (for example, in SPR). For this method, the performance on SNLI drops by just an average of 1.11 (0.65 STDV). For [Method 2]{}, there is a large decrease on SNLI as results drop by an average of 11.19 (12.71 STDV). For these models, when we see large improvement on a target dataset, we often see a large drop on SNLI. For example, on ADD-ONE-RTE, [Method 2]{}outperforms the baseline by roughly 17% but performs almost 50% lower on SNLI. Based on this, as well as the results on the synthetic dataset, [Method 2]{}seems to be much more unstable and highly dependent on the right hyper-parameters. Analysis ======== Our results demonstrate that our approaches may be robust to many datasets with different types of bias. We next analyze our results and explore modifications to the experimental setup that may improve model transferability across NLI datasets. Interplay with known biases --------------------------- A priori, we expect our methods to provide the most benefit when a target dataset has no hypothesis-only biases or such biases that differ from ones in the training data. Previous work estimated the amount of bias in NLI datasets by comparing the performance of a hypothesis-only classifier with the majority baseline [@poliak-EtAl:2018:S18-2]. If the classifier outperforms the baseline, the dataset is said to have hypothesis-only biases. We follow a similar idea for estimating how similar the biases in a target dataset are to those in the source dataset. We compare the performance of a hypothesis-only classifier trained on SNLI and evaluated on each target dataset, to a majority baseline of the most frequent class in each target dataset’s training set (Maj). We also compare to a hypothesis-only classifier trained and tested on each target dataset. [^15] [Figure \[fig:hyp-diff-biases\]]{} shows the results. When the hypothesis-only model trained on SNLI is tested on the target datasets, the model performs below Maj (except for MNLI), indicating that these target datasets contain different biases than those in SNLI. The largest difference is on SPR: a hypothesis-only model trained on SNLI performs over 50% worse than one trained on SPR. Indeed, our methods lead to large improvements on SPR ([Table \[tab:results-cross\]]{}), indicating that they are especially helpful when the target dataset contains different biases. On MNLI, this hypothesis-only model performs 10% above Maj, and roughly 20% worse compared to when trained on MNLI, suggesting that MNLI and SNLI have similar biases. This may explain why our methods only slightly outperform the baseline on MNLI ([Table \[tab:results-cross\]]{}). [0.49]{} {width="\linewidth"} [0.49]{} {width="\linewidth"} The hypothesis-only model trained on each target dataset did not outperform Maj on DPR, ADD-ONE-RTE, SICK, and MPE, suggesting that these datasets do not have noticeable hypothesis-only biases. Here, as expected, we observe improvements when our methods are tested on these datasets, to varying degrees (from 0.45 on MPE to 31.11 on SICK). We also see improvements on datasets with biases (high performance of training on each dataset compared to the corresponding majority baseline), most noticeably SPR. The only exception seems to be SCITAIL, where we do not improve despite it having different biases than SNLI. However, when we strengthen $\alpha$ and $\beta$ (below), [Method 1]{}outperforms the baseline. Finally, both methods obtain improved results on the GLUE diagnostic set, designed to be bias-free. We do not see improvements on SNLI-hard, indicating it may still have biases – a possibility acknowledged by @gururangan-EtAl:2018:N18-2. Stronger hyper-parameters {#sec:stronger-hyper-params} ------------------------- In the synthetic experiment, we found that increasing $\alpha$ and $\beta$ improves the models’ ability to generalize to the unbiased dataset. Does the same apply to natural NLI datasets? We expect that strengthening the auxiliary losses ($L_{2}$ in our methods) during training will hurt performance on the original data (where biases are useful), but improve on the target data, which may have different or no biases ([Figure \[fig:hyp-diff-biases\]]{}). To test this, we increase the hyper-parameter values during training; we consider the range $\{ 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0\}$. [^16] While there are other ways to strengthen our methods, e.g., increasing the number or size of hidden layers [@elazar2018adversarial], we are interested in the effect of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ as they control how much bias is subtracted from our baseline model. Table \[tab:results-cross-stronger\] shows the results of [Method 1]{}with stronger hyper-parameters on the existing NLI datasets. As expected, performance on SNLI test sets (SNLI and SNLI-hard in [Table \[tab:results-cross-stronger\]]{}) decreases more, but many of the other datasets benefit from stronger hyper-parameters (compared with [Table \[tab:results-cross\]]{}). We see the largest improvement on SICK, achieving over 10% increase compared to the 1.8% gain in [Table \[tab:results-cross\]]{}. As for [Method 2]{}, we found large drops in quality even in our basic configurations ([Appendix \[app:cv\]]{}), so we do not increase the hyper-parameters further. This should not be too surprising, adding too many random premises will lead to a model’s degradation. [lccr @r@[|]{}l]{} Dataset & & &\ JOCI & 41.50 & 39.29 & -2.21 & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ &\ SNLI & 84.22 & 82.40 & -1.82 & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ &\ DPR & 49.86 & 49.41 & -0.45 & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ &\ MNLI matched & 45.86 & 46.12 & 0.26 & & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \ MNLI mismatched & 47.57 & 48.19 & 0.62 & & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \ MPE & 57.65 & 58.60 & 0.95 & & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \ SCITAIL & 58.14 & 60.82 & 2.68 & & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \ ADD-ONE-RTE & 66.15 & 68.99 & 2.84 & & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \ GLUE & 38.50 & 41.58 & 3.08 & & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \ FN+ & 50.87 & 56.31 & 5.44 & & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \ SPR & 52.48 & 58.68 & 6.20 & & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \ SICK & 25.64 & 36.59 & 10.95 & & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \ SNLI-hard & 68.02 & 63.81 & -4.21 & ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \ Fine-tuning on target datasets ------------------------------ Our main goal is to determine whether our methods help a model perform well across multiple datasets by ignoring dataset-specific artifacts. In turn, we did not update the models’ parameters on other datasets. But, what if we are given different amounts of training data for a new NLI dataset? To determine if our approach is still helpful, we updated four models on increasing sizes of training data from two target datasets ( MNLI and SICK). All three training approaches— the baseline, [Method 1]{}, and [Method 2]{}—are used to pre-train a model on SNLI and fine-tune on the target dataset. The fourth model is the baseline trained only on the target dataset. Both MNLI and SICK have the same label spaces as SNLI, allowing us to hold that variable constant. We use SICK because our methods resulted in good gains on it ([Table \[tab:results-cross\]]{}). MNLI’s large training set allows us to consider a wide range of training set sizes.[^17] [Figure \[fig:increasing\]]{} shows the results on the dev sets. In MNLI, pre-training is very helpful when fine-tuning on a small amount of new training data, although there is little to no gain from pre-training with either of our methods compared to the baseline. This is expected, as we saw relatively small gains with the proposed methods on MNLI, and can be explained by SNLI and MNLI having similar biases. In SICK, pre-training with either of our methods is better in most data regimes, especially with very small amounts of target training data.[^18] 25% of the Related Work {#sec:related work} ============ #### Biases and artifacts in NLU datasets Many natural language undersrtanding (NLU) datasets contain annotation artifacts. Early work on NLI, also known as recognizing textual entailment (RTE), found biases that allowed models to perform relatively well by focusing on syntactic clues alone [@N06-1005; @vanderwende2006syntax]. Recent work also found artifacts in new NLI datasets [@1804.08117; @gururangan-EtAl:2018:N18-2; @poliak-EtAl:2018:S18-2]. Other NLU datasets also exhibit biases. In ROC Stories [@mostafazadeh-EtAl:2016:N16-1], a story cloze dataset, @schwartz2017effect obtained a high performance by only considering the candidate endings, without even looking at the story context. In this case, stylistic features of the candidate endings alone, such as the length or certain words, were strong indicators of the correct ending  [@K17-1004; @P17-2097]. A similar phenomenon was observed in reading comprehension, where systems performed non-trivially well by using only the final sentence in the passage or ignoring the passage altogether [@kaushik2018much]. Finally, multiple studies found non-trivial performance in visual question answering (VQA) by using only the question, without access to the image, due to question biases [@7780911; @7780907; @kafle2017visual; @goyal2017making; @agrawal2017don]. #### Transferability across NLI datasets It has been known that many NLI models do not transfer across NLI datasets. Chen Zhang’s thesis [@Zhang:2010:NLI:2019860] focused on this phenomena as he demonstrated that “techniques developed for textual entailment“ datasets, e.g., RTE-3, do not transfer well to other domains, specifically *conversational entailment* [@Zhang:2009:WKC:1708376.1708406; @zhang-chai-2010-towards]. and demonstrated (specifically in their respective Tables 7 and 4) how models trained on SNLI and MNLI may not transfer well across other NLI datasets like SICK. recently reported similar findings using many advanced deep-learning models. #### Improving model robustness Neural networks are sensitive to adversarial examples, primarily in machine vision, but also in NLP [@jia-liang:2017:EMNLP2017; @belinkov2018synthetic; @C18-1055; @heigold2017robust; @P18-1176; @P18-1079; @belinkov2019analysis]. A common approach to improving robustness is to include adversarial examples in training [@szegedy2013intriguing; @goodfellow2014explaining]. However, this may not generalize well to new types of examples [@yuan2017adversarial; @tramèr2018ensemble]. Domain-adversarial neural networks aim to increase robustness to domain change, by learning to be oblivious to the domain using gradient reversals [@ganin2016domain]. Our methods rely similarly on gradient reversals when encouraging models to ignore dataset-specific artifacts. One distinction is that domain-adversarial networks require knowledge of the domain at training time, while our methods learn to ignore latent artifacts and do not require direct supervision in the form of a domain label. Others have attempted to remove biases from learned representations, e.g., gender biases in word embeddings [@bolukbasi2016man] or sensitive information like sex and age in text representations [@P18-2005]. However, removing such attributes from text representations may be difficult [@elazar2018adversarial]. In contrast to this line of work, our final goal is not the removal of such attributes per se; instead, we strive for more robust representations that better transfer to other datasets, similar to @P18-2005. Recent work has applied adversarial learning to NLI. generate adversarial examples that do not conform to logical rules and regularize models based on those examples. Similarly, incorporate external linguistic resources and use a GAN-style framework to adversarially train robust NLI models. In contrast, we do not use external resources and we are interested in mitigating hypothesis-only biases. Finally, a similar approach has recently been used to mitigate biases in VQA [@ramakrishnan2018overcoming; @grand:2019:SIVL]. Conclusion ========== Biases in annotations are a major source of concern for the quality of NLI datasets and systems. We presented a solution for combating annotation biases by proposing two training methods to predict the probability of a premise given an entailment label and a hypothesis. We demonstrated that this discourages the hypothesis encoder from learning the biases to instead obtain a less biased representation. When empirically evaluating our approaches, we found that in a synthetic setting, as well as on a wide-range of existing NLI datasets, our methods perform better than the traditional training method to predict a label given a premise-hypothesis pair. Furthermore, we performed several analyses into the interplay of our methods with known biases in NLI datasets, the effects of stronger bias removal, and the possibility of fine-tuning on the target datasets. Our methodology can be extended to handle biases in other tasks where one is concerned with finding relationships between two objects, such as visual question answering, story cloze completion, and reading comprehension. We hope to encourage such investigation in the broader community. Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ================ We would like to thank Aviad Rubinstein and Cynthia Dwork for discussing an earlier version of this work and the anonymous reviewers for their useful comments. Y.B. was supported by the Harvard Mind, Brain, and Behavior Initiative. A.P. and B.V.D were supported by JHU-HLTCOE and DARPA LORELEI. A.M.R gratefully acknowledges the support of NSF 1845664. Views and conclusions contained in this publication are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing official policies or endorsements of DARPA or the U.S. Government. Appendix ======== Mapping labels {#app:label-mapping} -------------- Each premise-hypothesis pair in SNLI is labeled as <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">entailment</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">neutral</span>, or <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">contradiction</span>. MNLI, SICK, and MPE use the same label space. Examples in JOCI are labeled on a 5-way ordinal scale. We follow by converting it “into 3-way NLI tags where 1 maps to <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">contradiction</span>, 2-4 maps to <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">neutral</span>, and 5 maps to <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">entailment</span>.” Since examples in SCITAIL are labeled as <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">entailment</span> or <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">neutral</span>, when evaluating on SCITAIL, we convert the model’s <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">contradiction</span> to <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">neutral</span>. ADD-ONE-RTE and the recast datasets also model NLI as a binary prediction task. However, their label sets are <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">entailed</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">not-entailed</span>. In these cases, when the models predict <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">entailment</span>, we map the label to <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">entailed</span>, and when the models predict <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">neutral</span> or <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">contradiction</span>, we map the label to <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">not-entailed</span>. Implementation details {#app:implementation} ---------------------- For our experiments on the synthetic dataset, the characters are embedded with 10-dimensional vectors. Input strings are represented as a sum of character embeddings, and the premise-hypothesis pair is represented by a concatenation of these embeddings. The classifiers are single-layer MLPs of size 20 dimensions. We train these models with SGD until convergence. For the traditional NLI datasets, we use pre-computed 300-dimensional GloVe embeddings [@pennington2014glove] .[^19] The sentence representations learned by the encoders and the MLP classifier’s hidden layer have a dimensionality of 2048 and 512 respectively. We follow `InferSent`’s training regime, using SGD with an initial learning rate of 0.1 and optional early stopping. See @D17-1070 for details. Hyper-parameter sweeps {#app:cv} ---------------------- Here we provide 10-fold cross-validation results on a subset of the SNLI training data (50K sentences) with different settings of our hyper-parameters. [Figure \[fig:app-cv-single\]]{} shows the dev set results with different configurations of [Method 2]{}. Notice that performance degrades quickly when we increase the fraction of random premises (large $\alpha$). In contrast, the results with [Method 1]{} ([Figure \[fig:app-cv-double\]]{}) are more stable. ![Cross-validation results.[]{data-label="fig:app-cv"}](cv_outputs_double_val_new.png){width="\linewidth"} \ ![Cross-validation results.[]{data-label="fig:app-cv"}](cv_outputs_single_val_new.png){width="\linewidth"} [^1]: Our code is available at <https://github.com/azpoliak/robust-nli>. [^2]: $^*$ Equal contribution [^3]: This hypothesis contradicts the premise and would likely not be inferred. [^4]: We use *artifacts* and *biases* interchangeably. [^5]: This is equivalent to XOR and is learnable by a MLP. [^6]: This approach may also be seen as adversarial training with respect to the hypothesis, akin to domain-adversarial neural networks [@ganin2016domain]. However, our methods encourage robustness to latent hypothesis biases, without requiring a domain label. [^7]: There are more developed and principled approaches in language modeling for approximating this partition function without having to make this assumption. These include importance sampling [@bengio2003quick], noise-contrastive estimation [@gutmann2010noise], and sublinear partition estimation [@rastogi2015sublinear]. These are more difficult to apply in the setting of sampling full sentences from an unknown set. We hope to explore methods for applying them in future work. [^8]: A reviewer asked about gradient blocking. Our motivation was that, for a random premise, we do not have reliable information to update its encoder. However, future work can explore different configurations of gradient blocking. [^9]: A similar situation arises in neural cryptography [@abadi2016], where an encryptor Alice and a decryptor Bob communicate while an adversary Eve tries to eavesdrop on their communication. Alice and Bob are analogous to the hypothesis embedding and $p_{\theta}$, while Eve is analogous to $p_{\phi,\theta}$. In their asymmetric encryption experiments, @abadi2016 observed seemingly secret communication, which on closer look the adversary was able to eavesdrop on. [^10]: Detailed descriptions of these datasets can be found in . [^11]: We leave additional NLI datasets, such as the Diverse NLI Collection [@poliak2018emnlp-DNC], for future work. [^12]: Many NLI models encode ${P\xspace}$ and ${H\xspace}$ separately  [@rocktaschel2015reasoning; @mou-EtAl:2016:P16-2; @liu2016learning; @cheng-dong-lapata:2016:EMNLP2016; @P17-1152], although some share information between the encoders via attention [@D16-1244; @attention-fused-deep-matching-network-natural-language-inference]. [^13]: Specifically, representations are concatenated, subtracted, and multiplied element-wise. [^14]: For MNLI, since the test sets are not available, we tune on the matched dev set and evaluate on the mismatched dev set, or vice versa. For GLUE, we tune on MNLI matched. [^15]: A reviewer noted that this method may miss similar bias “types” that are achieved through different lexical items. We note that our use of pre-trained word embeddings might mitigate this concern. [^16]: The synthetic setup required very strong hyper-parameters, possibly due to the clear-cut nature of the task. In the natural NLI setting, moderately strong values sufficed. [^17]: We hold out $10$K examples from the training set for dev as gold labels for the MNLI test set are not publicly available. We evaluate on MNLI’s matched dev set to assure consistent domains when fine-tuning. [^18]: Note that SICK is a small dataset (10K examples), which explains why the model without pre-training does not benefit from more data, barely surpassing the majority baseline. [^19]: Specifically, glove.840B.300d.zip.

ArXiv

--- abstract: | In this article we provide initial findings regarding the problem of solving likelihood equations by means of a maximum entropy approach. Unlike standard procedures that require equating at zero the score function of the maximum-likelihood problem, we propose an alternative strategy where the score is instead used as external informative constraint to the maximization of the convex Shannon’s entropy function. The problem involves the re-parameterization of the score parameters as expected values of discrete probability distributions where probabilities need to be estimated. This leads to a simpler situation where parameters are searched in smaller (hyper) simplex space. We assessed our proposal by means of empirical case studies and a simulation study, this latter involving the most critical case of logistic regression under data separation. The results suggested that the maximum entropy re-formulation of the score problem solves the likelihood equation problem. Similarly, when maximum-likelihood estimation is difficult, as for the case of logistic regression under separation, the maximum entropy proposal achieved results (numerically) comparable to those obtained by the Firth’s Bias-corrected approach. Overall, these first findings reveal that a maximum entropy solution can be considered as an alternative technique to solve the likelihood equation.\ [Keywords:]{} maximum entropy; score function; maximum likelihood; binary regression; data separation author: - | Antonio Calcagnì[^1], Livio Finos, Gianmarco Altoé,\ and Massimiliano Pastore\ \ University of Padova bibliography: - 'biblio.bib' title: | A Maximum Entropy Procedure to Solve\ Likelihood Equations --- Introduction ============ Maximum likelihood is one of the most used tools of modern statistics. As a result of its attractive properties, it is useful and suited for a wide class of statistical problems, including modeling, testing, and parameters estimation [@cox2006principles; @stigler2007epic]. In the case of regular and correctly-specified models, maximum likelihood provides a simple and elegant means of choosing the best asymptotically normal estimators. Generally, the maximum likelihood workflow proceeds by first defining the statistical model which is thought to generate the sample data and the associated likelihood function. Then, the likelihood is differentiated around the parameters of interest by getting the likelihood equations (score), which are solved at zero to find the final estimates. In most simple cases, the maximum likelihood solutions are expressed in closed-form. However, analytic expressions are not always available for most complex problems and researchers need to solve likelihood equations numerically. A broad class of these procedures include Newton-like algorithms, such as the Newton–Raphson, Fisher-scoring, and quasi Newton–Raphson algorithms [@tanner2012tools]. However, when the sample size is small, or when the optimization is no longer convex as in the case of more sophisticated statistical models, the standard version of Newton–Raphson may not be optimal. In this case, robust versions should instead be used [@commenges2006newton]. A typical example of such a situation is the logistic regression for binary data, where maximum likelihood estimates may no longer be available, for instance, when the binary outcome variable can be perfectly or partially separated by a linear combination of the covariates [@albert1984existence]. As a result, the Newton–Raphson is unstable with inconsistent or infinite estimates. Other examples include small sample sizes, large numbers of covariates, and multicollinearity among the regressor variables [@shen2008solution]. [Different proposals have been made to solve these drawbacks, many of which are based on iterative adjustments of the Newton–Raphson algorithm (e.g., see [@firth1993bias; @kenne2017median]), penalized maximum likelihood (e.g., see [@gao2007asymptotic]), or the homotopy-based method (e.g., see [@abbasbandy2007newton]). Among them, bias-corrected methods guarantee the existence of finite maximum likelihood estimates by removing first-order bias [@cordeiro1991bias], whereas homotopy Newton-Raphson algorithms, which are mostly based on Adomian’s decomposition, ensure more robust numerical convergences in finding roots of the score function (e.g., see [@wu2005study]).]{} [Maximum entropy (ME)-based methods have a long history in statistical modeling and inference (e.g., for a recent review see [@golan2017foundations]). Since the seminal work by [@golan1994recovering], there have been many applications of maximum entropy to the problem of parameter estimation in statistics, including autoregressive models [@golan1996maximumA], multinomial models [@golan1996maximumB], spatial autoregressive models [@marsh2004generalized], structural equation models [@ciavolino2009comparing], the co-clustering problem [@banerjee2007generalized], and fuzzy linear regressions [@ciavolino2016generalized]. What all these works share in common is an elegant estimation method that avoids strong parametric assumptions on the model being used (e.g., error distribution). Differently, maximum entropy has also been widely adopted in many optimization problems, including queueing systems, transportation, portfolio optimization, image reconstruction, and spectral analysis (for a comprehensive review see [@kapur1989maximum; @fang2012entropy]). In all these cases, maximum entropy is instead used as a pure mathematical solver engine for complex or ill-posed problems, such as those encountered when dealing with differential equations [@el2003maximum], oversampled data [@bryan1990maximum], and data decomposition [@calcagni2017analyzing].]{} The aim of this article is to introduce a maximum entropy-based technique to solve likelihood equations as they appear in many standard statistical models. [The idea relies upon the use of Jaynes’ classical ME principle as a mathematical optimization tool [@fang2012entropy; @el2003maximum; @sukumar2004construction].]{} In particular, instead of maximizing the likelihood function and solving the corresponding score, we propose a solution where the score is used as the data constraint to the estimation problem. The solution involves two steps: (i) reparametrizing the parameters as discrete probability distributions and (ii) maximizing the Shannon’s entropy function w.r.t. to the unknown probability mass points constrained by the score equation. Thus, parameter estimation is reformulated as recovering probabilities in a (hyper) symplex space, with the searching surface being always regular and convex. In this context, the score equation represents all the available information about the statistical problem and is used to identify a feasible region for estimating the model parameters. In this sense, our proposal differs from other ME-based procedures for statistical estimation (e.g., see [@golan1996maximum]). [Instead, our intent is to offer an alternative technique to solve score functions of parametric, regular, and correctly specified statistical models, where inference is still based on maximum likelihood theory.]{} The reminder of this article is organized as follows. Section \[ME\_proposal\] presents our proposal and describes its main characteristics by means of simple numerical examples. Section \[simulation\_study\] describes the results of a simulation study where the ME method is assessed in the typical case of logistic regression under separation. Finally, Section \[discussion\] provides a general discussion of findings, comments, and suggestions for further investigations. Complementary materials like datasets and scripts used throughout the article are available to download at <https://github.com/antcalcagni/ME-score>, whereas the list of symbols and abbreviations adopted hereafter is available in Table \[tab0\]. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ME Maximum Entropy NR Newton–Raphson algorithm NFR Bias corrected Newton–Raphson algorithm y sample of observations $\mathcall{Y}$ sample space $\boldsymbol\theta$ $J\times 1$ vector of parameters $\boldsymbol{\hat\theta}$ estimated vector of parameters $\boldsymbol{\tilde\theta}$ reparameterized vector of parameters under ME $f(y;\boldsymbol\theta)$ density function $l(\boldsymbol\theta)$ likelihood function $\mathcall U(\boldsymbol\theta)$, $\mathcall U(\boldsymbol{\tilde\theta})$ score function $\mathbf z$ $K\times 1$ vector of finite elements for $\boldsymbol{\tilde\theta}$ $\mathbf p$ $K\times 1$ vector of unknown probabilities for $\boldsymbol{\tilde\theta}$ $\mathbf{\hat p}$ vector of estimated probabilities for $\boldsymbol{\tilde\theta}$ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- : List of symbols and abbreviations used throughout the manuscript.[]{data-label="tab0"} A maximum entropy solution to score equations {#ME_proposal} ============================================= Let $\mathbf y=\{y_1,\ldots,y_n\}$ be a random sample of independent observations from the parametric model $\mathcall{M} = \{f(y; \boldsymbol{\theta}): \boldsymbol{\theta} \in \boldsymbol{\Theta}, y \in \mathcall Y\}$, with $f(y; \boldsymbol{\theta})$ being a density function parameterized over $\boldsymbol{\theta}$, $\boldsymbol{\Theta} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^J$ the parameter space with $J$ being the number of parameters, and $\mathcall Y$ the sample space. Let $${l}(\boldsymbol{\theta}) = \sum_{i=1}^n \ln f(y_i;\boldsymbol \theta)$$ be the log-likelihood of the model and $$\mathcall U(\boldsymbol{\theta}) = \nabla_{\boldsymbol{\theta}} l(\boldsymbol{\theta}) = (\partial l/\partial\theta_1,\ldots,\partial l/\partial\theta_j,\ldots,\partial l/\partial\theta_J)$$ the score equation. In the regular case, the maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) $\boldsymbol{\hat\theta}$ of the unknown vector of parameters $\boldsymbol\theta$ is the solution of the score $\mathcall U(\boldsymbol{\theta}) = \mathbf 0_J$. In simple cases, $\boldsymbol{\hat\theta}$ has closed-form expression but, more often, a numerical solution is required for $\boldsymbol{\hat\theta}$, for instance by using iterative algorithms like Newton–Raphson and Expectation-Maximization. In the maximum likelihood setting, our proposal is instead to solve $\mathcall U(\boldsymbol{\theta}) = \mathbf 0_J$ by means of a maximum entropy approach (for a brief introduction, see [@golan1997maximum]). This involves a two step formulation of the problem, where $\boldsymbol\theta$ is first reparameterized as a convex combination of a numerical support with some predefined points and probabilities. Next, a non-linear programming (NLP) problem is set with the objective of maximizing the entropy of the unknown probabilities subject to some feasible constraints. More formally, let $$\label{eq1} \boldsymbol{\tilde\theta} = (\mathbf z_1^T \mathbf p_1,\ldots,\mathbf z_j^T \mathbf p_j,\ldots,\mathbf z_J^T \mathbf p_J)^T$$ be the reparameterized $J\times 1$ vector of parameters of the model $\mathcall{M}$, where $\mathbf z_j$ is a user-defined vector of $K\times 1$ (finite) points, whereas $\mathbf p_j$ is a $K\times 1$ vector unknown probabilities obeying to $\mathbf p_j^T\mathbf 1_K = 1$. Note that the arrays $\mathbf z_1,\ldots,\mathbf z_J$ must be chosen to cover the natural range of the model parameters. Thus, for instance, in the case of estimating the population mean $\mu \in \mathbb{R}$ for a normal model $\text{N}(\mu,\sigma^2)$ with $\sigma^2$ known, $\mathbf z_\mu = (-d,\ldots,0,\ldots,d)^T$ with $d$ as large as possible. In practice, as observations $\mathbf y$ are available, the support vector can be defined using sample information, i.e., $\mathbf z_\mu = \left(\min(\mathbf y),\ldots,\max(\mathbf y)\right)^T$. Similarly, in the case of estimating the parameter $\pi \in [0,1]$ of the Binomial model $\text{Bin}(\pi,n)$, the support vector is $\mathbf z_\pi = (0,\ldots,1)^T$. The choice of the number of points $K$ of $\mathbf z$ can be made via sensitivity analysis although it has been shown that $K\in \{5,7,11\}$ is usually enough for many regular problems (e.g., see [@papalia2008composite; @golan1996maximum]). [Readers may refer to [@golan1996maximum] and [@ciavolino2014generalized] for further details.]{} Under the reparameterization in Equation , $\mathcall U(\boldsymbol{\theta}) = \mathbf 0_J$ is solved via the following NLP problem: $$\label{eq2} \begin{aligned} &\underset{(\mathbf p_1,\ldots,\mathbf p_J)}{\text{maximize}} & \mathcall H(\mathbf{p}_1,\ldots,\mathbf{p}_J) \\ &\text{subject to:} & \mathcall U(\boldsymbol{\tilde\theta}) = \mathbf 0_J\\ && \mathbf{p}_1^T\mathbf 1_K = 1\\ && \vdots\\ && \mathbf{p}_J^T\mathbf 1_K = 1,\\ \end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcall H(\mathbf{p}) = -\sum_{j=1}^{J}\mathbf p_j^T\log \mathbf p_j$ is the Shannon’s entropy function, whereas the score equation $\mathcall U(\boldsymbol{\tilde\theta})$ has been rewritten using the reparameterized parameters $\boldsymbol{\tilde\theta}$. The problem needs to recover $K\times J$ quantities which are defined in a (convex) hyper-simplex region with $J$ (non-) linear equality constraints $\mathcall U({\tilde{\theta}_1}),\ldots,\mathcall U({\tilde{\theta}_J})$ (*consistency constraints*) and linear equality constraints $\mathbf{p}_1^T\mathbf 1_K,\ldots,\mathbf{p}_J^T\mathbf 1_K$ (*normalization constraints*). The latter ensure that the recovered quantities $\mathbf{\hat p}_1,\ldots,\mathbf{\hat p}_J$ are still probabilities. Note that closed-form solutions for the ME-score problem do not exist and solutions need to be attained numerically. In the following examples, we will show how the ME-score problem can be formulated in the most simple cases of estimating a mean from Normal, Poisson, and Gamma models (Examples 1-3) as well as in more complex cases of estimating parameters for logistic regression (Example 4). Example 1: The Normal case {#ex1} -------------------------- Consider the case of estimating the location parameter $\mu \in \mathbb R$ of a Normal density function with $\sigma^2$ known. In particular, let $$\mathbf y = (2.61,4.18,3.40,3.73,3.63,2.41,3.76,3.93,4.66,1.59,4.51,2.77)^T$$ be a sample of $n=12$ drawn from a population with Normal density $\text{N}(\mu,\sigma_0^2)$ with $\sigma_0^2 = 1$ known. Our objective is to estimate $\mu$ using the information of $\mathbf y$. Let $$l(\mu) = (\sigma_0^2)^{-1}|| \mathbf y - \mu\mathbf 1_n ||^2$$ be the log-likelihood of the model where constant terms have been dropped and $$\mathcall U(\mu) = (\sigma_0^2)^{-1}\left(\mathbf y^T\mathbf 1_n - n\mu\right)$$ be the corresponding score w.r.t. $\mu$. To define the associated ME-score problem to solve $\mathcall U(\mu) = 0$, first let ${\mu}_{\text{ME}} = \mathbf z^T \mathbf p$ with $\mathbf z$ and $\mathbf p$ being $K\times 1$ vector of supports and unknown probabilities. In this example, $$\mathbf z = \left(1.59,2.10,2.61,3.13,3.64,4.15,4.66\right)^T$$ with $K=7$, $z_1 = \min(\mathbf y)$, and $z_K = \max(\mathbf y)$. Given the optimization problem in , in this case $\mathbf p$ can be recovered via the Lagrangean method, as follows. Let $$\label{eq3} \mathcall L(\lambda_0,\lambda_1,\mathbf p) = -\mathbf p^T\log \mathbf p - \lambda_0\left(1 - \mathbf{p}^T\mathbf 1_K\right) - \lambda_1\left((\sigma_0^2)^{-1}(\mathbf y^T\mathbf 1_n - n(\mathbf z^T\mathbf p))\right)$$ be the Lagrangean function, with $\lambda_0$ and $\lambda_1$ being the usual Lagrangean multipliers. The Lagrangean system of the problem is $$\begin{aligned} & \frac{\partial \mathcall L(\lambda_0,\lambda_1,\mathbf p)}{\partial \mathbf p} = -\log(\mathbf p) -1 -\lambda_0 - \lambda_1 n \mathbf z = \mathbf 0_K\label{eq4a}\\ & \frac{\partial \mathcall L(\lambda_0,\lambda_1,\mathbf p)}{\partial \lambda_0} = 1 - \mathbf{p}^T\mathbf 1_K = 0\label{eq4b}\\ & \frac{\partial \mathcall L(\lambda_0,\lambda_1,\mathbf p)}{\partial \lambda_1} = (\sigma_0^2)^{-1}(\mathbf y^T\mathbf 1_n - n(\mathbf z^T\mathbf p) = 0.\label{eq4c}\end{aligned}$$ Solving $\mathbf p$ in Equation , by using Equation , we get the general solutions for the ME-score problem: $$\label{eq5} \mathbf{\hat p} = \frac{\exp\left(-\mathbf z \hat\lambda_1 n (\sigma_0^2)^{-1}\right)}{\exp\left(-\mathbf z \hat\lambda_1 n (\sigma_0^2)^{-1}\right)^T\mathbf 1_K},$$ where the quantity in the denominator is the normalization constant. Note that solutions in Equation depend on the Lagrangean multiplier $\hat\lambda_1$, which needs to be determined numerically [@golan1998maximum]. In this particular example, we estimate the unknown Lagrangean multiplier using a grid-search approach, yielding to $\hat\lambda_1 = -0.024$. The final solutions are $$\mathbf{\hat p} = \left(0.087,0.101,0.117,0.136,0.159,0.185,0.215\right)^T$$ with $\hat\mu_{\text{ME}} = \mathbf z^T\mathbf{\hat p} = 3.432$, which corresponds to the maximum likelihood estimate of $\hat\mu_{\text{ML}} = \frac{1}{n}\mathbf y^T\mathbf 1_n = 3.432$, as expected. Example 2: The Poisson case --------------------------- Consider the simple case of estimating $\lambda \in \mathbb R^+$ of a Poisson density function. Let $$\mathbf y = (5,7,7,4,4,8,15,7,7,4,7,3,8,5,4,7)^T$$ be a sample of $n=16$ drawn from a Poisson density $\text{Pois}(\lambda)$ and $\mathcall U(\lambda) = -n + (\mathbf y^T\mathbf 1_n)/\lambda$ be the score of the model. The reparameterized Poisson parameter is $\lambda_{\text{ME}} = \mathbf z^T\mathbf p$, with support being defined as follows: $$\mathbf z = \left(0.00, 3.75, 7.50, 11.25, 15.00\right)^T,$$ where $K=5$ and $z_K = \max(\mathbf y)$. Note that, since the Poisson parameter $\lambda$ is bounded below by zero, we can set $z_1 = 0$. Unlike the previous case, we cannot determine $\mathbf{\hat p}$ analytically. For this reason, we need to solve the ME-score problem: $$\begin{aligned} &\underset{\mathbf p}{\text{maximize}} & -\mathbf p^T\log (\mathbf p) \label{eq6}\\ & \text{subject to:} & \mathbf p^T\mathbf 1_{K} \\ && \mathbf -n + (\mathbf y^T\mathbf 1_n)/(\mathbf z^T\mathbf p) \\ \end{aligned}$$ via the augmented Lagrangean adaptive barrier algorithm as implemented in the function `constrOptim.nl` of the `R` package `alabama` [@alabama2015]. The algorithm converged successfully in few iterations. The recovered probabilities are as follows: $$\mathbf{\hat p} = \left(0.184,0.256,0.283,0.247,0.034\right)^T$$ with $\hat{\lambda}_{\text{ME}} = 6.375$, which is equal to the maximum likelihood solution $\hat{\lambda}_{\text{ML}} = \frac{1}{n}\mathbf y^T\mathbf 1_n = 6.375$, as expected. Example 3: The Gamma case ------------------------- Consider the following random sample $$\mathbf y = (0.09,0.35,0.98,0.20,0.44,0.13,0.25,0.48,0.09,0.45,0.03,0.06,0.18,0.26,0.79,0.36,0.26)^T$$ drawn from a Gamma density $\text{Ga}(\alpha,\rho)$ with $\alpha \in \mathbb R^+$ being the scale parameter and $\rho \in \mathbb R^+$ the rate parameter. The log-likelihood of the model is as follows: $$l(\alpha,\rho) = -((\alpha-1)\log(\mathbf y)^T\mathbf{1}_n - (\mathbf y^T\mathbf 1_n\rho) + n\alpha\log(\rho) - n\log\left(\Gamma(\alpha))\right)$$ where $\Gamma(.)$ is the well-known gamma function. The corresponding score function equals to $$\begin{aligned} & \mathcal U(\alpha) = -\mathbf y^T\mathbf 1_n + {n\alpha}{\rho^{-1}}\\ & \mathcal U(\rho) = \log(\mathbf y)^T\mathbf{1}_n + n\log(\rho) - n\psi(\alpha) \end{aligned}$$ with $\psi(\alpha) = \frac{\partial}{\partial\alpha} \log(\Gamma(\alpha))$ being the digamma function, i.e. the derivative of the logarithm of the Gamma function evaluated in $\alpha$. The re-parameterized Gamma parameters are defined as usual $\tilde{\alpha}_{\text{ME}} = \mathbf z_\alpha^T \mathbf p_\alpha$ and $\tilde{\rho}_{\text{ME}} = \mathbf z_\rho^T \mathbf p_\rho$ whereas the supports can be determined as $\mathbf z_\alpha = \left(0,\ldots,\overline{\alpha}+\delta\right)$ and $\mathbf z_\rho = \left(0,\ldots,\overline{\rho}+\delta\right)$, with $\delta$ being a positive constant. Note that the upper limits of the support can be chosen according to the following approximations: $\overline{\alpha} = 1\big/2M$ and $\overline{\rho} = \overline{\alpha}\big/ \overline y$, with $M = \log(\overline{y}) - {\sum_i \log(y_i)}\big/{n}$ and $\overline{y} = \sum_i y_i \big/ n$ [@choi1969maximum]. In the current example, the supports for the parameters are: $$\mathbf z_\alpha = \left(0.00, 1.12, 2.24, 3.35, 4.47\right)^T \quad\text{ and }\quad \mathbf z_\rho = \left(0.00, 1.91, 3.82, 5.73, 7.64\right)^T$$ where $K=5$, $\overline{\alpha} = 1.47$, $\overline{\rho} = 4.64$, and $\delta = 3$. The ME-score problem for the Gamma case is $$\begin{aligned} &\underset{\mathbf p}{\text{maximize}} & -\mathbf p_\alpha^T\log (\mathbf p_\alpha) - \mathbf p_\rho^T\log (\mathbf p_\rho) \label{eq6b}\\ & \text{subject to:} & \mathbf p_\alpha^T\mathbf 1_{K} \\ && \mathbf p_\rho^T\mathbf 1_{K}\\ && -\mathbf y^T\mathbf 1_n + ({n \mathbf z_\alpha^T \mathbf p_\alpha})({\mathbf z_\rho^T \mathbf p_\rho}){^{-1}} \\ && \log(\mathbf y)^T\mathbf{1}_n + n\log(\mathbf z_\rho^T \mathbf p_\rho) - n\psi(\mathbf z_\alpha^T \mathbf p_\alpha) \end{aligned}$$ which is solved via Augmented Lagrangean adaptive barrier algorithm. The algorithm required few iterations to converge and the recovered probabilities are as follows: $$\mathbf{\hat p}_\alpha = (0.290, 0.261, 0.222, 0.164, 0.063)^T \quad\text{ and }\quad \mathbf{\hat p}_\rho = (0.058, 0.138, 0.208, 0.270, 0.327)^T$$ The estimated parameters under the ME-score formulation are $\hat{\alpha}_\text{ME} = 1.621$ and $\hat{\rho}_\text{ME} = 5.103$ which equal to the maximum likelihood solutions $\hat{\alpha}_\text{ML} = 1.621$ and $\hat{\rho}_\text{ML} = 5.103$. Example 4: Logistic regression ------------------------------ In what follows, we show the ME-score formulation for logistic regression. We will consider both the cases of simple situations involving no separation—where maximum likelihood estimates can be easily computed—and those unfortunate situations in which separation occur. Note that in the latter case, maximum likelihood estimates are no longer available without resorting to the use of a bias reduction iterative procedure [@firth1993bias]. Formally, the logistic regression model with $p$ continuous predictors is as follows: $$\begin{aligned} & \pi_i = \left(1 + \exp(-\mathbf X_i\boldsymbol\beta)\right)^{-1}\label{eq7}\\ & y_i \sim \text{Bin}\left(\pi_i\right),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf X$ is an $n\times p$ matrix containing predictors, $\boldsymbol\beta$ is a $p\times 1$ vector of model parameters, and $\mathbf y$ is an $n\times 1$ vector of observed responses. Here, the standard maximum likelihood solutions $\hat{\boldsymbol\beta}$ are usually attained numerically, e.g., using Newton–Raphson like algorithms [@albert1984existence].\ *No separation case*. As an illustration of the ME-score problem in the optimal situation where no separation occurs, we consider the traditional Finney’s data on vasoconstriction in the skin of the digits (see Table \[tab1\]) [@pregibon1981logistic]. Volume Rate Y -------- ------- --- 3.70 0.825 1 3.50 1.090 1 1.25 2.500 1 0.75 1.500 1 0.80 3.200 1 0.70 3.500 1 0.60 0.750 0 1.10 1.700 0 0.90 0.750 0 0.90 0.450 0 0.80 0.570 0 0.55 2.750 0 0.60 3.000 0 1.40 2.330 1 0.75 3.750 1 2.30 1.640 1 3.20 1.600 1 0.85 1.415 1 1.70 1.060 0 : Finney’s data on vasoconstriction in the skin of the digits. The response $Y$ indicates the occurrence ($Y=1$) or non-occurrence ($Y=0$) of the vasoconstriction.[]{data-label="tab1"} In the Finney’s case, the goal is to predict the vasoconstriction responses as a function of Volume and Rate, according to the following linear term [@pregibon1981logistic]: $$\label{eq8a} \text{logit}(\pi_i) = \beta_0 + \beta_1\log{\left(\text{Volume}_i\right)} + \beta_2\log{\left(\text{Rate}_i\right)}$$ with $\text{logit}:[0,1]\to \mathbb{R}$ being the inverse of the logistic function. In the maximum entropy framework, the model parameters can be reformulated as follows: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq8b} & \boldsymbol\beta_{\text{ME}} = \left(\mathbf z^T \otimes \mathbf I_{p+1}\right)\text{vec}(\mathbf P^T),\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf z$ is a $K\times 1$ vector of support points, $\mathbf I_{p+1}$ is an identity matrix of order $p+1$ (including the intercept term), $\mathbf P$ is a $(p+1)\times K$ matrix of probabilities associated to the $p$ parameters plus the intercept, $\otimes$ is the Kronecker product, whereas $\text{vec(~)}$ is a linear operator that transforms a matrix into a column vector. Note that in this example $p=2$ and $K=7$, whereas the support $\mathbf z = (-10,\ldots,0,\ldots,10)^T$ is defined to be the same for both predictors and the intercept (the bounds of the support have been chosen to reflect the maximal variation allowed by the logistic function). Finally, the ME-score problem for the Finney’s logistic regression is: $$\begin{aligned} &\underset{\text{vec}(\mathbf P)}{\text{maximize}} & -\text{vec}(\mathbf P)^T\log (\text{vec}(\mathbf P)) \label{eq8c}\\ & \text{subject to:} & \text{vec}(\mathbf P)^T\mathbf 1_{p(K+1)} \\ && \mathbf X^T(\mathbf y-\boldsymbol\pi), \\ \end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf X$ is the $n\times (p+1)$ matrix containing the variables Rate, Volume, and a column of all ones for the intercept term, and $\boldsymbol\pi = \left(1 + \exp(-\mathbf X \boldsymbol\beta_{\text{ME}})\right)^{-1}$, with $\boldsymbol\beta_{\text{ME}}$ being defined as in Equation . Solutions for $\mathbf{\hat P}$ were obtained via the augmented Lagrangean adaptive barrier algorithm, which yielded the following estimates: $$\mathbf{\hat P} = \begin{bmatrix} 0.000&0.004&0.062&0.159&0.220&0.263&0.293\\ 0.000&0.001&0.099&0.178&0.224&0.247&0.251\\ 0.205&0.201&0.190&0.170&0.137&0.085&0.013 \end{bmatrix},$$ where the third line of $\mathbf{\hat P}$ refers to the intercept term. The final estimated coefficients are $$\begin{aligned} & \hat{\beta}_{0_{\text{ME}}} = -2.875\\ & \hat{\beta}_{1_{\text{ME}}} = 5.179\\ & \hat{\beta}_{2_{\text{ME}}} = 4.562,\end{aligned}$$ which are the same as those obtained in the original paper of [@pregibon1981logistic].\ *Separation case*. As a typical example of data under separation, we consider the classical Fisher iris dataset [@lesaffre1989partial]. As generally known, the dataset contains fifty measurements of length and width (in centimeters) of sepal and petal variables for three species of iris, namely setosa, versicolor, and virginica [@fisher1936use]. For the sake of simplicity, we keep a subset of the whole dataset containing two species of iris (i.e., setosa and virginica) with sepal length and width variables only. Inspired by the work of [@lesaffre1989partial], we study a model where the response variable is a binary classification of iris, with $Y=0$ indicating the class virginica and $Y=1$ the class setosa, whereas petal length and width are predictors of $Y$. The logistic regression for the iris data assumes the following linear term: $$\label{eq8d} \text{logit}(\pi_i) = \beta_0 + \beta_1\text{length}_i + \beta_1\text{width}_i,$$ where model parameters can be reformulated as in Equation , with $K=7$, $p=2$, and $\mathbf z$ being centered around zero with bounds $z_1 = -25$ and $z_K = 25$. The ME-score problem for the iris dataset is the same as in and it is solved using the augmented Lagrangean adaptive barrier algorithm. The recovered $\mathbf{\hat P}$ is $$\mathbf{\hat P} = \begin{bmatrix} 0.228& 0.226& 0.215& 0.190& 0.137& 0.001& 0.001\\ 0.000& 0.039& 0.040& 0.158& 0.218& 0.257& 0.285\\ 0.000& 0.000& 0.000& 0.037& 0.210& 0.329& 0.426 \end{bmatrix},$$ where the intercept term is reported in the third line of the matrix. The estimates for the model coefficients are reported in Table \[tab2\] (ME, first column). For the sake of comparison, Table \[tab2\] also reports the estimates obtained by solving the score of the model via Bias-corrected Newton–Raphson (NRF, second column) and Newton–Raphson (NR, third column). The NRF algorithm uses the Firth’s correction for the score function [@firth1993bias] as implemented in the `R` package `logistf` [@logistf2018]. As expected, the NR algorithm fails to converge reporting divergent estimates. By contrast, the NRF procedure converges to non-divergent solutions. Interestingly, the maximum entropy solutions are more close to NRF estimates although they differ in magnitude. ME NRF NR ----------- --------- -------- ---------- $\beta_0$ 17.892 12.539 445.917 $\beta_1$ -10.091 -6.151 -166.637 $\beta_2$ 12.229 6.890 140.570 : Estimates for the iris logistic regression: ME (maximum entropy), NRF (Biased-corrected Newton–Raphson), NR (Newton–Raphson). Note that NRF algorithm implements the Firth’s bias correction [@firth1993bias].[]{data-label="tab2"} Simulation study {#simulation_study} ================ Having examined the ME-score problem with numerical examples for both simple and more complex cases, in this section, we will numerically investigate the behavior of the maximum entropy solutions for the most critical case of logistic regression under separation.\ *Design*. Two factors were systematically varied in a complete two-factorial design: - the sample size $n$ at three levels: 15, 20, 200; - the number of predictors $p$ (excluding the intercept) at three levels: 1, 5, 10. The levels of $n$ and $p$ were chosen to represent the most common cases of simple, medium, and complex models, as those usually encountered in many social research studies.\ *Procedure*. Consider the logistic regression model as represented in Equation and let $n_k$ and $p_k$ be distinct elements of sets $n$ and $p$. The following procedure was repeated $Q=10000$ times for each of the $n\times p = 9$ combinations of the simulation design: 1. Generate the matrix of predictors $\mathbf X_{n_k \times (1+p_k)} = \left[\mathbf 1_{n_k} | \tilde{\mathbf X}_{n_k\times p_k}\right]$, where $\tilde{\mathbf X}_{n_k\times p_k}$ is drawn from the multivariate standard Normal distribution $\text{N}(\mathbf{0}_{p_k},\mathbf{I}_{p_k})$, whereas the column vector of all ones $\mathbf 1$ stands for the intercept term; 2. Generate the vector of predictors $\boldsymbol\beta_{1+p_k}$ from the multivariate centered Normal distribution $\text{N}(\mathbf{0}_{1+p_k},\sigma\mathbf{I}_{1+p_k})$, where $\sigma = 2.5$ was chosen to cover the natural range of variability allowed by the logistic equation; 3. Compute the vector $\boldsymbol\pi_{n_k}$ via Equation using $\mathbf X_{n_k \times (1+p_k)}$ and $\boldsymbol\beta_{p_k}$; 4. For $q=1,\ldots,Q$, generate the vectors of response variables $\mathbf y_{n_k}^{(q)}$ from the binomial distribution $\text{Bin}(\boldsymbol\pi_{n_k})$, with $\boldsymbol\pi_{n_k}$ being fixed; 5. For $q=1,\ldots,Q$, estimate the vectors of parameters $\hat{\boldsymbol\beta}_{1+p_k}^{(q)}$ by means of Newton–Raphson (NR), Bias-corrected Newton–Raphson (NRF), and ME-score (ME) algorithms. The entire procedure involves a total of $10000 \times 3 \times 3 = 90000$ new datasets as well as an equivalent number of model parameters. For the NR and NRF algorithms, we used the `glm` and `logistf` routines of the `R` packages `stats` [@Rlang] and `logistf` [@logistf2018]. By contrast, the ME-score problem was solved via the augmented Lagrangean adaptive barrier algorithm implemented in `constrOptim.nl` routine of the `R` package `alabama` [@alabama2015]. Convergences of the algorithms were checked using the built-in criteria of `glm`, `logistf`, and `constrOptim.nl`. For each of the generated data $\{\mathbf y, \mathbf X\}_{q=1,\ldots,Q}$, the occurrence of separation was checked using a linear programming-based routine to find infinite estimates in the maximum likelihood solution [@Konis2007; @Konis2013]. The whole simulation procedure was performed on a (remote) HPC machine based on 16 cpu Intel Xeon CPU E5-2630L v3 1.80GHz, 16x4GB Ram.\ *Measures*. The simulation results were evaluated considering the averaged bias of the parameters $\hat{B} = \frac{1}{Q}(\boldsymbol\beta^{(k)}-\hat{\boldsymbol\beta}^{(k)})^T\mathbf 1$, its squared version $\hat{B}^2$ (the square here is element-wise), and the averaged variance of the estimates $\hat{V} = \frac{1}{Q}\text{Var}(\hat{\boldsymbol\beta}^{(k)})$. They were then combined together to form the mean square error (MSE) of the estimates $\text{MSE} = \hat{V} + \hat{B}^2 $. [The relative bias $RB = (\hat{\beta}_j^{(k)} - \beta^0_j)\big/|\beta^0_j|$ was also computed for each predictor $j=1,\ldots,J$, ($\beta^0$ indicates the population parameter).]{} The measures were computed for each of the three algorithms and for all the combinations of the simulation design.\ *Results*. Table \[tab3\] reports the proportions of separation present in the data for each level of the simulation design along with the proportions of non-convergence for the three algorithms. As expected, NR failed to converge when severe separation occurred, for instance, in the case of small samples and large number of predictors. By contrast, for NRF and ME algorithms, the convergence criteria were always met. The results of the simulation study with regards to bias, variance, and mean square error (MSE) are reported in Table \[tab4\] and Figure \[fig1\]. In general, MSE for the three algorithms decreased almost linearly with increasing sample sizes and number of predictors. As expected, the NR algorithm showed higher MSE than NRF and ME, except in the simplest case of $n=200$ and $p=1$. Unlike for the NR algorithm, with increasing model complexity ($p>1$), ME showed a similar performances of NRF both for medium ($n=50$) and large ($n=200$) sample sizes. Interestingly, for the most complex scenario, involving a large sample ($n=200$) and higher model complexity ($p=10$), the ME algorithm outperformed NRF in terms of MSE. To further investigate the relationship between NRF and ME, we focused on the latter conditions and analyzed the behavior of ME and NRF in terms of relative bias (RB, see Figure \[fig2\]). Both the ME and NRF algorithms showed RB distributions centered about 0. Except for the condition $N=200 \land P=10$, where ME showed smaller variance than NRF, both the algorithms showed similar variance in the estimates of the parameters. Finally, we also computed the ratio of over- and under-estimation $r$ as the ratio between the number of positive RB and negative RB, getting the following results: $r_{\text{ME}}=1.18$ (over-estimation: 54%), $r_{\text{NRF}}=0.96$ (over-estimation: 49%) for the case $N=200 \land P=5$ and $r_{\text{ME}}=1.12$ (over-estimation: 53%), $r_{\text{NRF}}=0.91$ (over-estimation: 47%) for the case $N=200 \land P=10$.\ Overall, the results suggest the following points: - In the simplest cases with no separation (i.e., $N=50 \land P=1$, $N=200 \land P=1$, $N=200 \land P=5$), the ME solutions to the maximum likelihood equations were the same as those provided by standard Newton–Raphson (NR) and the bias-corrected version (NRF). In all these cases, the bias of the estimates approximated zero (see Table \[tab4\]); - In the cases of separation, ME showed comparable performances to NRF, which is known to provide the most efficient estimates in the case of logistic model under separation: Bias and MSE decreased as a function of sample size and predictors, with MSE being lower for ME than NRF in the case of $N=200 \land P=5$ and $N=200 \land P=10$; - In the most complex scenario with a large sample and higher model complexity ($N=200 \land P=5$, $N=200 \land P=10$), ME and NRF algorithms showed similar relative bias, with ME estimates being less variable than NRF in $N=200 \land P=10$ condition. The ME algorithm tended to over-estimate the population parameters, by contrast NRF tended to under-estimate the true model parameters. n p separation $\text{nc}_\text{\tiny NR}$ $\text{nc}_\text{\tiny NRF}$ $\text{nc}_\text{\tiny ME}$ ----- ---- ------------ ----------------------------- ------------------------------ ----------------------------- 15 1 0.333 0.085 0.000 0.000 50 1 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.000 200 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 15 5 0.976 0.237 0.000 0.000 50 5 0.771 0.771 0.000 0.000 200 5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 15 10 1.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 50 10 0.949 0.950 0.000 0.000 200 10 0.013 0.013 0.000 0.000 : Simulation study: proportions of separation occurred in the data and non-convergence (nc) rates for NR, NRF, ME algorithms.[]{data-label="tab3"} ----- ---- ---------- ---------- ------------- --------- ---------- ---------- ------- ------- ---------- ---------- ------- ------- n p $\hat B$ $\hat V$ $\hat{B}^2$ $MSE$ $\hat B$ $\hat V$ $B^2$ $MSE$ $\hat B$ $\hat V$ $B^2$ $MSE$ 15 1 -5.54 236.70 30.67 267.36 0.22 0.35 0.05 0.40 -1.17 6.28 1.37 7.64 50 1 -0.13 3.42 0.02 3.44 -0.00 1.41 0.00 1.41 -0.12 1.99 0.01 2.00 200 1 0.03 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.03 0.11 0.00 0.11 15 5 10.68 1553.37 113.98 1667.33 -1.22 3.00 1.50 4.49 0.20 5.32 0.04 5.36 50 5 7.46 1918.18 55.65 1973.78 -0.44 2.20 0.20 2.39 -0.11 1.45 0.01 1.46 200 5 0.24 1.58 0.06 1.64 0.01 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.12 0.42 0.02 0.44 15 10 -0.97 177.40 0.95 178.35 -0.13 4.82 0.02 4.84 -0.38 8.10 0.14 8.24 50 10 2.80 1490.39 7.83 1498.20 -0.07 1.23 0.00 1.23 -0.02 1.53 0.00 1.53 200 10 0.66 15.29 0.43 15.72 0.02 0.86 0.00 0.86 0.10 0.48 0.01 0.50 ----- ---- ---------- ---------- ------------- --------- ---------- ---------- ------- ------- ---------- ---------- ------- ------- : Simulation study: averaged bias, squared averaged bias, and MSE for NR, NRF, ME algorithms.[]{data-label="tab4"} Discussion and conclusion {#discussion} ========================= We have described a new approach to solve the problem $\mathcal U(\boldsymbol\theta)=\mathbf 0$ in order to get $\boldsymbol{\hat{\theta}}$ in the context of maximum likelihood theory. Our proposal took the advantages of using the maximum entropy principle to set a non-linear programming problem where $\mathcal U(\boldsymbol\theta)$ was not solved directly, but it was used as informative constraint to maximize the Shannon’s entropy. Thus, the parameter $\boldsymbol\theta$ was not searched over the parameter space $\boldsymbol\Theta\subset\mathbb R^J$, rather it was reparameterized as a convex combination of a known vector $\mathbf z$, which indicated the finite set of possible values for $\boldsymbol\theta$, and a vector of unknown probabilities $\mathbf p$, which instead needed to be estimated. In so doing, we converted the problem $\mathcal U(\boldsymbol\theta)=\mathbf 0$ from one of numerical mathematics to one of inference, where $\mathcal U(\boldsymbol\theta)$ was treated as one of the many pieces of (external) information we may have had. As a result, the maximum entropy solution did not require either the computation of the Hessian of second-order derivatives of $l(\boldsymbol\theta)$ (or the expectation of the Fisher information matrix) or the definition of initial values, as is required by Newton-like algorithms $\boldsymbol\theta^0$. In contrast, the maximum entropy solution revolved around the reduction of the initial uncertainty: as one adds pieces of external information (constraints), a departure from the initial uniform distribution $\mathbf p$ results, implying a reduction of the uncertainty about $\boldsymbol\theta$; a solution is found when no further reduction can be enforced given the set of constraints. We used a set of empirical cases and a simulation study to assess the maximum entropy solution to the score problem. In cases where the Newton–Raphson is no longer correct for $\boldsymbol\theta$ (e.g., logistic regression under separation), the ME-score formulation showed results (numerically) comparable with those obtained using the Bias-corrected Newton–Raphson, in the sense of having the same or even smaller mean square errors (MSE). Broadly speaking, these first findings suggest that the ME-score formulation can be considered as a valid alternative to solve $\mathcal U(\boldsymbol\theta)=\mathbf 0$, although further in-depth investigations need to be conducted to formally evaluate the statistical properties of the ME-score solution. Nevertheless, we would like to say that the maximum entropy approach has been used to build a solver for maximum likelihood equations [@fang2012entropy; @el2003maximum; @sukumar2004construction]. In this sense, standard errors, confidence levels, and other likelihood based quantities can be computed using the usual asymptotic properties of maximum likelihood theory. However, attention should be directed at the definition of the support points $\mathbf z$ since they need to be sufficiently large to include the true (hypothesized) parameters we are looking for. Relatedly, our proposal differs from other methods, such as Generalized Maximum Entropy (GME) or Generalized Cross Entropy (GCE) [@golan1996maximum; @ciavolino2016generalized], in two important respects. First, the ME-score formulation does not provide a class of estimators for the parameters of statistical models. By contrast, GME and GCE are estimators belonging to the exponential family, which can be used in many cases as alternatives to maximum likelihood estimators [@golan1997maximum]. Second, the ME-score formulation does not provide an inferential framework for $\boldsymbol\theta$. While GME and GCE use information theory to provide the basis for inference and model evaluation (e.g., using Lagrangean multipliers and normalized entropy indices), the ME-score formulation focuses on the problem of finding roots for $\mathcal U(\boldsymbol\theta)=\mathbf 0$. [Finally, an open issue which deserves greater consideration in future investigations is the examination of how the ME-score solution can be considered in light of the well-known maximum entropy likelihood duality [@brown1986fundamentals].]{} Some advantages of the ME-score solution over Newton-like algorithms may include the following: (i) model parameters are searched in a smaller and simpler space because of the convex reparameterization required for $\boldsymbol\theta$; (ii) the function to be maximized does not require either the computation of second-order derivatives of $l(\boldsymbol\theta)$, or searching for good initial values $\boldsymbol\theta^0$; (iii) additional information on the parameters, such as dominance relations among the parameters, can be added to the ME-score formulation in terms of inequality constraints (e.g., $\boldsymbol\theta_{j} < \boldsymbol\theta_{t}$, $j\neq t$). Furthermore, the ME-score formulation may be extended to include a priori probability distributions on $\boldsymbol\theta$. While in the current proposal, the elements of $\mathbf z_j$ have the same probability to occur, the Kullback–Leibler entropy might be used to form a Kullback Leibler -score problem, where $\mathbf z = (\mathbf z_1,\ldots,\mathbf z_J)^T$ are adequately weighted by known vectors of probability $\mathbf w = (\mathbf w_1,\ldots,\mathbf w_J)^T$. This would offer, for instance, another opportunity to deal with cases involving penalized likelihood estimations. In conclusion, we think that this work yielded initial findings in the solution of likelihood equations from a maximum entropy perspective. To our knowledge, this is the first time that maximum entropy is used to define a solver to the score function. We believe this contribution will be of interest to all researchers working at the intersection of information theory, data mining, and applied statistics. [^1]: Corresponding author: [email protected]

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'Lavrentev regularization for the autoconvolution equation was considered by J. Janno in [*Lavrentev regularization of ill-posed problems containing nonlinear near-to-monotone operators with application to autoconvolution equation*]{}, Inverse Problems, 16(2):333–348, 2000. Here this study is extended by considering discretization of the Lavrentev scheme by splines. It is shown how to maintain the known convergence rate by an appropriate choice of spline spaces and a proper choice of the discretization level. For piece-wise constant splines the discretized equation allows for an explicit solver, in contrast to using higher order splines. This is used to design a fast implementation by means of post-smoothing, which provides results, which are indistinguishable from results obtained by direct discretization using cubic splines.' address: - 'Technische Universität Chemnitz, Department of Mathematics, D-09107 Chemnitz, Germany' - 'Weierstra[ß]{} Institute for Applied Analysis and Stochastics, Mohrenstraße 39, 10117 Berlin, Germany' author: - Steven Bürger - Peter Mathé title: Discretized Lavrentev regularization for the autoconvolution equation --- Introduction, problem formulation {#sec:intro} ================================= We shall study the numerical solution of the following autoconvolution operator, say $F:L_2(0,1)\to L_2(0,1)$, given as $$\label{eq:base-auto} [F(x)](s):=\int_{0}^{s} x(s-t)x(t){\mathrm d}t,\quad s \in [0,1],$$ for real-valued functions. The solution to such equations attracted attention both from applications, cf. [@Schleicher198333; @0266-5611-32-3-035002], and from the mathematical side, see e.g. [@MR1269013; @MR1402101; @MR3306115], and [@MR3353600], where different approaches are taken. Instead of the exact equation $F({x_0}) = y_{0}$ we are given noisy data ${y^\delta}$ given as $$\label{eq:base-noisy} {y^\delta}= F({x_0}) + \delta\xi$$ for given noisy right hand side. The assumption on the noise will be specified, below. To this end we use Lavrentev regularization, and hence we choose some a priori guess, say $x_{\ast}$, and a parameter $\alpha>0$ such that we look for some $x = {x^\delta_\alpha}$ with $$\label{eq:lavrentev} \alpha(x_{\ast} - x) + {y^\delta}= F(x).$$ Extending the analysis from [@MR1766765] we want to use finite dimensional approximations to solve Eq. (\[eq:base-noisy\]). To this end we consider linear approximations $Q = Q_{m}$ with certain approximation properties, to be specified later. Having chosen $Q_{m}$ we replace Eq. (\[eq:lavrentev\]) by $$\label{eq:Qbase} \alpha Q_{m}(x_{\ast} - x) + Q_{m}{y^\delta}= Q_{m} F(Q_{m}x).$$ This is a two-sided discretization, since we use a finite amount of data $Q_{m}{y^\delta}$, and we also aim at representing the solution in the range of $Q_{m}$. The outline for the material is as follows. In Section \[sec:error-analysis\] we provide the error analysis for (\[eq:Qbase\]), extending Janno’s original ideas, where no discretization was involved. These results are then extended in Section \[sec:extension\]. We also derive an explicit implementation of the scheme (\[eq:Qbase\]). Finally we provide some numerical study, where we discuss the control of the involved parameters, in particular the choice of $\alpha$, and the discretization level $m$, both as functions of the noise level $\delta$, which is assumed to be known. Most of the proofs are given in the appendix. Error analysis of the discretized regularization problem {#sec:error-analysis} ======================================================== The goal is to formulate the main results. To do so we first introduce the basic assumptions, then we derive some properties of the autoconvolution operator. Special attention is paid on the approximation of the value ${x_0}(0)$, since this will prove important. The main results and some consequences are then given in § \[sec:main-result\]. Assumptions {#sec:assumptions} ----------- The error analysis will be based on several assumptions, especially on the noise, the (unknown) solution $x$ in (\[eq:base-noisy\]), and the discretization schemes, to be considered. We shall consider two different assumptions on the noise. \[noise\]\[ass:noise\] Suppose that we are given a noise level $\delta>0$. 1. \[ass:1\] The element $\xi$ obeys $\label{noise1} \norm{\xi}{\infty} \le \delta.$ 2. \[ass:1prime\]The element $\xi$ obeys $\label{noise2} \norm{\xi}{2} \le \delta.$ The main result, Theorem \[thm:main\] is concerned with the first case, Assumption \[ass:noise\], and we shall briefly discuss the more relaxed assumption \[ass:noise\] in its Corollary \[cor:noise1prime\]. We turn to the solution smoothness. For $x\in L_\infty(0,1)$ we will denote the essential supremum norm of $x$ as $\|x\|_\infty$. \[solution smoothness\]\[ass:onx\] The unknown solution element ${x_0}$ is positive, it belongs to $W^{2}_{\infty}(0,1)$, and ${\left\Vert {x_0}\right\Vert _{C^{1}(0,1)}}\leq K$, where we equip the space $C^{1}(0,1)$ with norm ${\left\Vert x \right\Vert _{C^{1}(0,1)}}:= \max{\left\{{\left\Vert x \right\Vert _{\infty}},{\left\Vert x^{\prime} \right\Vert _{\infty}}\right\}}$. In particular we assume that ${x_0}(0) >0$. \[rem:data-nonneg\] Since we assumed that the unknown solution is positive and the autoconvolution of a positive function is obviously nonnegative, we know that the exact data $y_0 := F(x_0)$ are nonnegative. For this reason we will assume that our noisy data are nonnegative as well, otherwise we would define new data $\tilde y^\delta$ by $$\tilde y^\delta(s) = \begin{cases}y^\delta(s) & \text{ if } y^\delta(s) \ge 0\\ 0 & \text{ else}\end{cases}$$ without increasing the noise level. Following the study [@MR1766765], having fixed some $\sigma\geq 0$ (to be specified later) we equip $L_2(0,1)$ with the inner product $$\langle x,y \rangle_\sigma = \int_0^1 e^{-2\sigma t} x(t) y(t) {\mathrm d}t,$$ and the corresponding (weighted) norm $$\|x\|_\sigma^2=\int_{0}^{1} e^{-2\sigma t} x(t)^2 {\mathrm d}t.$$ Although the norms ${\left\Vert \cdot \right\Vert _{}}$ and ${\left\Vert \cdot \right\Vert _{\sigma}}$ are equivalent, i.e., for fixed $\sigma>0$ we have that $$\label{norm:equiv} e^{-\sigma}\|x\|_0 \le \|x\|_\sigma \le \|x\|_0,\quad x\in L_{2}(0,1),$$ we shall occasionally denote the weighted Hilbert space by $L_{2}^{\sigma}(0,1)$. There is a natural isometry $D_{\sigma}\colon L_{2}(0,1)\to L_{2}^{\sigma}(0,1)$, given through the function $f_{\sigma}(t) = e^{\sigma t},\ t\in[0,1]$ as $$\label{eq:dsigma} D_{\sigma}x = f_{\sigma }x,\quad x\in L_{2}(0,1).$$ Similarly, if $x\in L_{2}(0,1)$ is such that it is absolutely continuous, and the weak derivatives are in $L_{2}(0,1)$, then we shall denote the weighted Sobolev Hilbert space of such elements by $H^{\sigma}_{1}(0,1)$, equipped with norm $${\left\Vert x \right\Vert _{1,\sigma}}:=\frac 1 2 {\left({\left\Vert x \right\Vert _{\sigma}}^{2}+ {\left\Vert x^{\prime} \right\Vert _{\sigma}}^{2}\right)}^{1/2}.$$ Furthermore we introduce the operator norm ${\left\Vert . \right\Vert _{\sigma \to \sigma}}$ as $$\begin{aligned} {\left\Vert A \right\Vert _{\sigma \to \sigma}} := {\left\Vert A\colon L_{2}^{\sigma}(0,1)\to L_{2}^{\sigma}(0,1) \right\Vert _{}} = \sup_{x\in L_2^\sigma(0,1)} \frac{{\left\Vert Ax \right\Vert _{\sigma}}}{{\left\Vert x \right\Vert _{\sigma}}}. \end{aligned}$$ for linear Operators $A:L_2^\sigma(0,1) \to L_2^\sigma(0,1)$. Note that $\|.\|_\sigma$ reduces to the standard $L_2$-norm for $\sigma=~0$. Also, due to the above equivalence, the spaces $H^{\sigma}_{1}(0,1)$ are equivalent to the usual Sobolev Hilbert spaces $H^{1}(0,1)$. Finally, we mention that functions $x\in C^{1}(0,1)$ belong to $H^{\sigma}_{1}(0,1)$ and ${\left\Vert x \right\Vert _{H_{1}^{\sigma}(0,1)}}\leq {\left\Vert x \right\Vert _{C^{1}(0,1)}}$. We turn to describing the approximation scheme, captured by the approximation operators $Q_{m},\ m=1,2,\dots$ \[approximation power\]\[ass:onQ\] We assume that we are given a sequence $X_{m}\subset L_{2}(0,1),\ m\in{\mathbb{N}}$, of finite dimensional subspaces, $\dim(X_{m})=m$ with orthogonal (in $L_{2}^{\sigma}(0,1)$) projections ${Q_m^\sigma}$ onto the spaces $X_{m}$. There is a constant $L<\infty$ such that for all $x\in H^{\sigma}_{1}(0,1)$ we have $$\label{it:best-appr} \inf{\left\{{\left\Vert x - z \right\Vert _{\sigma}},\quad z\in X_{m}\right\}} \leq \frac L m{\left\Vert x \right\Vert _{H^{\sigma}_{1}(0,1)}},\quad m\in{\mathbb{N}}.$$ We highlight the relations and approximation properties between the unweighted ($\sigma=0$) and weighted ($\sigma>0$) spaces. Specifically, any family of projection operators $(Q_m)_{m\in{\mathbb{N}}}$, which fulfills assumption \[ass:onQ\] for $\sigma=0$ can be used to construct projection operators ${Q_m^\sigma}$ for $\sigma>0$, which also satisfy assumption \[ass:onQ\], with simple proof to be found in the appendix. \[lem:02sigma\] Let $X_{m}\subset L_{2}(0,1),\ m\in{\mathbb{N}}$ a sequence of finite dimensional subspaces with orthogonal (in $L_{2}(0,1)$) projections ${Q_m}$ onto the spaces $X_{m}$, satisfying Assumption \[ass:onQ\] with a constant $L<\infty$. Moreover let $f_\sigma$ and $D_\sigma$ as in (\[eq:dsigma\]). Then for $\sigma>0$ the projection operators ${Q_m^\sigma}$ defined by $${Q_m^\sigma}:= D_\sigma {Q_m}D_\sigma^{{^{-1}}}$$ are orthogonal projection operators w.r.t. $\langle.,.\rangle_\sigma$, for which Assumption \[ass:onQ\] holds with constant $\sqrt 2 {\left(1 + \sigma\right)}L$, onto the spaces $D_{\sigma}X_{m}$. We provide the following illustrative examples. \[ex:fsigma-constant\] We let $\tilde X_{m}$ be the spline spaces $\mathcal S^{m}_{1}$ of piece-wise constant functions with respect to the equi-distant partition $\Delta_{i}= [(i-1)/m,i/m),\ i=1,\dots,m$. The spaces $X_{m}$ are then given as $X_{m}= D_{\sigma} (\tilde X_{m})$. The approximation power for elements in $H^{1}(0,1)$ by piece-wise constant functions is known (cf. [@MR2348176 Thm. 6.1, eq. (6.7)] with p=q=2) as $$\inf{\left\{{\left\Vert x - z \right\Vert _{,}}\quad z\in X_{m}\right\}} \leq \frac L {m}{\left\Vert x \right\Vert _{H_1(0,1)}},\quad m\in{\mathbb{N}},$$ and hence the spaces $\tilde X_{m}$ obey Assumption \[ass:onQ\] for $\sigma=0$ with constant $L=1$. By virtue of Lemma \[lem:02sigma\] this extends to the spaces $X_{m}$. We mention that this approximation maps nonnegative functions to nonnegative piece-wise constant functions. \[cubic splines\] As above we consider the equidistant partition, and we let $\mathcal S_{4}^{m}$ be the space of cubic splines, with corresponding orthogonal (in $L_{2}(0,1)$) projection $Q_{m}$. Then Assumption \[ass:onQ\] holds, and we refer to the comprehensive monograph [@MR2348176 Cor. 6.26] (with $m=4,\sigma=1,p=q=2,r=0$) for $\sigma=0$. Therefore, the validity of Assumption \[ass:onQ\] extends to $\sigma>0$. Actually, for functions which fulfill Assumption \[ass:onx\] we even have the stronger assertion $$\inf{\left\{{\left\Vert x - z \right\Vert _{\infty}},\quad z\in X_{m}\right\}} \leq \frac L {m^{2}}{\left\Vert x \right\Vert _{W^{2}_{\infty}(0,1)}},\quad m\in{\mathbb{N}},$$ see e.g. [@MR2348176 Cor. 6.26] (with $m=4,\sigma=2,p=q=\infty,r=0$). However, we cannot benefit from this additional approximation power in the overall performance of the proposed Lavrentev regularization. Properties of the autoconvolution operator {#sec:props} ------------------------------------------ In the subsequent analysis we will relate the nonlinear autoconvolution equation (\[eq:base-auto\]) to the following linear Volterra equation. We note that for $F$ from (\[eq:base-auto\]) its Frèchet-derivative $F^{\prime}(x)\colon L_{2}(0,1) \to L_{2}(0,1)$, at element $x$, is given by $$\label{eq:frechet} [F^{\prime}(x)h](s) = 2\int_0^s x(s-t) h(t) {\mathrm d}t,\quad s \in [0,1],\ h\in L_{2}(0,1).$$ Under the assumptions made on the solution ${x_0}$ the equation $$\label{eq:volterra} F'({x_0})\omega = {x_0}- {x_0}(0),$$ has a solution, and we refer to [@MR1766765 Lemma 4]. We bound the norm of the Frèchet derivative in the weighted Hilbert spaces $L_{2}^{\sigma}(0,1)$. \[lem:frechet\] For the Frèchet-derivative $F^{\prime}(u)$ of $F$ at $u\in L_2^{\sigma}(0,1)$ the estimate $$\|F'(u)\colon L_{2}^{\sigma}(0,1)\to L_{2}^{\sigma}(0,1)\|\le 2\|u\|_{\sigma},\quad u\in L_{2}^{\sigma}(0,1),$$ holds. Consequently, we also have that $$\label{F} \|F(x)\|_{\sigma}\le \|x\|_{\sigma}^2,\quad x\in L_{2}^{\sigma}(0,1).$$ Let $u\in L_2^{\sigma}(0,1)$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned} \|F'(u)v\|_{\sigma}^2 =& \int_0^1 e^{-2\sigma s} \left(2\int_0^s u(s-t) v(t) {\mathrm d}t\right)^2 {\mathrm d}s\\ =& 4\int_0^1 \left(\int_0^s e^{-\sigma(s-t)} u(s-t) e^{-\sigma t} v(t) {\mathrm d}t\right)^2 {\mathrm d}s\\ \le& 4\int_0^1 \left(\int_0^s e^{-2\sigma(s-t)} u(s-t)^2{\mathrm d}t\right) \left(\int_0^s e^{-2\sigma t} v(t)^2 {\mathrm d}t\right) {\mathrm d}s\\ \le& 4\int_0^1 \left(\int_0^1 e^{-2\sigma t} u(t)^2{\mathrm d}t\right) \left(\int_0^1 e^{-2\sigma t} v(t)^2 {\mathrm d}t\right) {\mathrm d}s\\ =& 4\|u\|_{\sigma}^2 \|v\|_{\sigma}^2.\end{aligned}$$ The final assertions follows from the observation that $F(x) = \frac12F^{\prime}(x) x$, which completes the proof. The following technical lemma will be used to prove the main result. \[lem:suumary-sigma\] Suppose that ${x_0}$ obeys Assumption \[ass:onx\]. For each $0 < {c}<1$ there is some $\sigma_{0}\geq 0$ such that for $\sigma \geq \sigma_{0}$ we have that 1. ${\langle F^{\prime}({x_0}) v,v\rangle}_{\sigma}\geq 0,\quad v\in L_{2}(0,1)$, and 2. the solution $\omega$ to (\[eq:volterra\]) obeys ${\left\Vert \omega \right\Vert _{\sigma}} < {c}$. Approximation of the initial value {#sec:approx-init} ---------------------------------- Recall, for the solution to the equation (\[eq:volterra\]) to exist, we required to know the value ${x_0}(0)$. Since this is not the case, we need to find a good approximation to it, based on the given data ${y^\delta}$. This is done by averaging with the approximating mapping $Q_{m}^0$ from example \[ex:fsigma-constant\], formulated in the following proposition, again with proof postponed to the Appendix. \[pro:x0strich-appr\] Let $\sigma>0$, $\delta\le 1$ and $m\in {\mathbb{N}}$ be fixed, with $m\geq 1/\delta$. If the noise obeys Assumption \[ass:noise\] then $$ \left|\sqrt{\frac1{\sqrt \delta}{[Q_m{y^\delta}](\sqrt \delta)}}-{x_0}(0)\right| \le \frac{\left(1 + {4{\left\Vert {x_0}\right\Vert _{C^{1}(0,1)}}^{2}}\right)}{{x_0}(0)}\sqrt\delta,$$ if $[Q_m{y^\delta}](\sqrt\delta)\ge 0$ and $${\left\vert x_0(0) \right\vert} \le \frac{\left(1 + {4{\left\Vert {x_0}\right\Vert _{C^{1}(0,1)}}^{2}}\right)}{{x_0}(0)}\sqrt\delta,$$ otherwise. Thus we use the approximation as found in Proposition \[pro:x0strich-appr\] to define the reference element $x_{\ast}$. Specifically, given $\delta>0$ we let $x_{\ast}$ be the constant function defined as $$\label{eq:xast} x_{\ast}\equiv \begin{cases} \sqrt{\frac1{\sqrt \delta}{[Q_m{y^\delta}](\sqrt \delta})},& \text { if }[Q_m{y^\delta}](\sqrt\delta)\ge 0\\ 0, & \text{ else.} \end{cases}$$ The above approximation cannot be used for general noise which just belongs to $L_{2}(0,1)$. We give the following result for this case. \[pro:different-noise\] Suppose that the noise obeys Assumption \[ass:1\]. Then there is a constant $D< \infty$ such that for $ h:= \left(\frac23 \|x_0\|^2_{C^1(0,1)}\right)^{-\frac25}\delta^{\frac25}$ we have that $$\left|\sqrt{\frac2{h^2}\int_0^h {y^\delta}(t){\mathrm d}t}-{x_0}(0)\right| \le \frac{D }{{x_0}(0)}\delta^{\frac25},\quad \text{as}\ \delta \to 0.$$ Estimation of the derivative of a function under $L_{2}$-noise has not been studied as often. The best results in this direction are presented in [@MR2240638; @MR3043622]. This will not immediately give results under the smoothness Assumption \[ass:onx\]. It is not clear to the authors, whether a reconstruction rate $\delta^{1/2}$ is possible under $L_{2}$-noise. Main result {#sec:main-result} ----------- We now recall the equation (\[eq:Qbase\]), as $$\label{eq} Q(\alpha (x_*-x) + {y^\delta}- F(Q x))=0,$$ where $Q$ is any, not necessarily orthogonal, projection. We are interested in its solution. Therefore we introduce the family of linear operators $H_\alpha:= {\left(\alpha {\operatorname{Id}}+ Q F^{\prime}({x_0})Q\right)},\ \alpha>0$. For projections $Q$ onto some space $X_{m}\subset X$, orthogonal in a suited $L_{2}^{\sigma}(0,1)$ the mapping $H_{\alpha}$ is continuously invertible, and maps $X_{m}$ into $X_{m}$, which is easy to check. For given $\alpha>0$, to be specified later, we apply $H_{\alpha}^{-1}$ to both sides. We see that $$\begin{aligned} 0 =& H_\alpha{^{-1}}Q\big(\alpha ( x_*-x) + y^\delta - F(Q x)\big)\\ =& H_\alpha{^{-1}}Q \big( y^\delta - F({x_0}) -F'({x_0})(Q x - {x_0}) - F(Q x - {x_0}) + \alpha ( x_*-x)\big)\\ =& H_\alpha{^{-1}}\Big( -\big(Q F'({x_0})(Q( x - {x_0}) )+\alpha(Q x-{x_0})\big) + Q F'({x_0})({x_0}-Q {x_0}) \\ &\qquad\ \ + Q \big( y^\delta - y_0 - F(Q x-{x_0})\big) + \alpha (Q x_*-{x_0})\Big)\\ =& {x_0}-Q x + \\ \begin{split} H_\alpha{^{-1}}\Big( Q \big( F'({x_0})({x_0}-Q {x_0}) + y^\delta - y_0- F(Q_mx-{x_0})\big) + \alpha (Q x_*-{x_0}) \Big). \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ This can be written as a fixed-point equation for the (continuous nonlinear) mapping $G\colon X\to X$, given by $$\label{eq:G-def} \begin{split} G(Q x) := {x_0}+ H_\alpha{^{-1}}\Big( Q \big( F'({x_0})({x_0}-Q {x_0}) + {y^\delta}- y_0\\ - F(Q_mx-{x_0})\big) + \alpha (Q x_*-{x_0}) \Big),\ x\in L_{2}^{\sigma}(0,1). \end{split}$$ The fixed-point equation we consider is now given as $$\label{fix} G(Q x ) = Q x,$$ on some domain to be determined later. The following holds true. \[pro:contraction\] Let $\sigma>0$ be such that $F^{\prime}({x_0})$ is accretive on $L_{2}^{\sigma}(0,1)$. Suppose that $m\geq \sigma/\delta$, $\delta\leq 1$ and that the element $\omega$ as the solution to (\[eq:volterra\]) satisfies ${\left\Vert \omega \right\Vert _{\sigma}} < 1/4$. If the noise obeys Assumption \[ass:noise\](\[ass:1\]) then there is some $r>0$ such that the mapping $G$ obeys $$G{\left(B({x_0},r) \cap X_{m}\right)} \subset B({x_0},r) \cap X_{m}.$$ Consequently it has a fixed point. We are now in the position to formulate the main result, \[thm:main\] Suppose that the noise obeys Assumption \[ass:noise\], and that the true solution obeys Assumption \[ass:onx\], and that the discretization is with spaces $X_{m}$ which fulfill Assumption \[ass:onQ\]. Moreover let the assumptions of Proposition \[pro:contraction\] hold. There is a constant $c>0$ such that for $\alpha:= c \sqrt\delta$, Lavrentev regularization with discretization according to (\[eq:Qbase\]) has a solution ${x^\delta_\alpha}\in X_{m}$ which obeys $${\left\Vert {x_0}- {x^\delta_\alpha}\right\Vert _{}} \leq c \sqrt\delta,\quad \text{as}\ \delta\to 0.$$ Again, we postpone the proofs, both for Proposition \[pro:contraction\] and Theorem \[thm:main\] to the Appendix. We shall next mention the modification of the main results when the noise obeys Assumption \[ass:1\]. As the interested reader may check, the arguments used in the proofs of Proposition \[pro:contraction\] and Theorem \[thm:main\] remain valid, except that the optimal parameter choice strategy is different. \[cor:noise1prime\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:main\], but with noise fulfilling Assumption \[ass:1\] we have the following. There is a constant $c>0$ such that for the parameter $\alpha$ is chosen from $$\alpha = c \delta^{\frac25}$$ this yields $${\left\Vert {x_0}- {x^\delta_\alpha}\right\Vert _{}} \leq c\delta^{\frac25},\quad \text{as}\ \delta\to 0.$$ Extension {#sec:extension} ========= We will extend the main results to the situation when the projections used in (\[eq\]) are not orthogonal, but the corresponding spaces $X_{m}$ still obey Assumption \[ass:onQ\]. As we know from Lemma \[lem:suumary-sigma\] we can choose the value of $\sigma>0$ such that accretivity of the operator $F^{\prime}({x_0})$ holds in $L_{2}^{\sigma}(0,1)$. This, of course, extends to accretivity of the mapping $QF^{\prime}({x_0}) Q$, whenever $Q$ is an orthogonal projection in $L_{2}^{\sigma}(0,1)$. In some cases, the accretivity extends at the expense of an additional correction term to nonorthogonal projections. The prototypical example is the projection onto the piece-wise constant functions, which is orthogonal in $L_{2}(0,1)$, but not in $L_{2}^{\sigma}(0,1)$. The following ’closeness’ can be established. \[lem:qm-qms\] Consider the spaces $\tilde X_{m}$ as in Example \[ex:fsigma-constant\], and let $Q_{m}:= Q_{m}^{0}$ be the projection, which is orthogonal in $L_{2}(0,1)$. Then, for $m\geq \sigma$ we have that $${\left\Vert Q_{m} - {Q_m^\sigma}\right\Vert _{\sigma\to \sigma}}\leq 2 \frac \sigma m.$$ Consequently we find that $${\left\Vert Q_{m} \right\Vert _{\sigma\to \sigma}} \leq 1 + 2 \frac \sigma m.$$ As a consequence of the preceding lemma we obtain \[cor:accretive\] Suppose that $\sigma>0$ is chosen such that ${Q_m^\sigma}F'({x_0}) {Q_m^\sigma}$ is accretive w.r.t. $\langle.,.\rangle_\sigma$. Then $Q_m F'({x_0}) Q_m + \frac{8\sigma\|{x_0}\|}m {\operatorname{Id}}$ is accretive w.r.t. $\langle.,.\rangle_\sigma$. Consequently $$\|(\alpha{\operatorname{Id}}+ Q_m F'({x_0}) Q_m){^{-1}}\|_\sigma\le \frac2{\alpha}$$ and $$\|(\alpha{\operatorname{Id}}+ Q_m F'({x_0}) Q_m){^{-1}}Q_m F'({x_0}) Q_m\|_\sigma\le 2$$ for $\alpha\ge \frac{16\sigma\|{x_0}\|}m$. Based on these preliminary results, we show that in the setting of Example \[ex:fsigma-constant\] the result of Theorem \[thm:main\] can also be obtained with the projections $Q_m:=Q_m^0$ even for $\sigma>0$. \[pro:main\] Let $\sigma >0$ and $Q_m,{Q_m^\sigma}$ as in Lemma \[lem:qm-qms\]. We denote the projection space corresponding to $Q_m$ by $X_m^0$. For the noise level $0< \delta\leq 1$ assume that we have $m \delta\geq 1$. Then the Lavrentev-regularized equation $$\label{eq:reg0} \alpha Q_{m}(x_{\ast} - x) + Q_{m}{y^\delta}= Q_{m} F(Q_{m}x).$$ has a solution ${x^\delta_\alpha}\in X_{m}^0$ with $${\left\Vert {x_0}- {x^\delta_\alpha}\right\Vert _{}} \leq c \sqrt\delta,$$ for a suitable parameter choice $\alpha=c\sqrt\delta$ with some constant $c$ (independent of $\delta$). The proofs of the previous results, Lemma \[lem:qm-qms\], Corollary \[cor:accretive\], and Proposition \[pro:main\] are given in the appendix. Numerical simulation {#sec:numerics} ==================== Here we are going to highlight the validity of the theoretical findings. Also, we want to discuss that some of the theoretical limitations cannot be seen in practical simulations. This concerns the assumption of the accretivity, i.e., when we require $\sigma$ to be chosen according to Lemma \[lem:suumary-sigma\]. An explicit solver ------------------ We shall show that the discretization described in Example \[ex:fsigma-constant\] leads to a convenient explicit scheme for solving the discretized equation (\[eq:Qbase\]) with $Q_{m}:= {Q_m^\sigma}$. Thus, we fix $\sigma>0$, and $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$, and we consider the orthogonal projection ${Q_m^\sigma}$ from Example \[ex:fsigma-constant\]. First we simplify the operator ${Q_m^\sigma}\circ F\circ {Q_m^\sigma}$. Therefore we define for $x\in L_2(0,1)$ , and for $1\le i\le m$, the quantities $$\begin{aligned} f_i(s)& := \begin{cases} e^{\sigma s}, & \text{ for }\frac{i-1}m \le s \le \frac im,\\ 0,& \text{ else}, \end{cases}\\ \intertext{and} x^i& := m \int_{\frac{i-1}m}^{\frac im} e^{-\sigma t}x(t){\mathrm d}t. \end{aligned}$$ In these terms we see that $${Q_m^\sigma}x = \sum_{i=1}^m x^i f_i,\quad x\in L_{2}(0,1).$$ We identify $\mathcal R({Q_m^\sigma})$ with a vector in ${\mathbb{R}}^m$ through the bijection $$x\longrightarrow (x^i)_{1\le i\le m}.$$ Furthermore, let $$h_i(s):= \begin{cases} \frac{i-1}m + s & \text{ for } \frac{i-1}m\le s < \frac im\\ \frac{i+1}m - s & \text{ for } \frac{i}m\le s < \frac {i+1}m\\0&\text{ else} \end{cases}$$ Then for $x\in L_2(0,1)$ we have $$\begin{aligned} ({Q_m^\sigma}\circ F\circ {Q_m^\sigma})(x) =& ({Q_m^\sigma}\circ F)\left(\sum_{i=1}^m x^i f_i\right)\\ =& {Q_m^\sigma}\left(\sum_{i=1}^m \sum_{j=1}^{m-i+1}x^i x^j f_i*f_j\right)\\ =& {Q_m^\sigma}\left(\sum_{k=1}^m \sum_{j=1}^{k}x^{k-j+1} x^j(f_{k} + f_{k+1}) h_{k}\right)\\ =& \frac1{2m} \sum_{k=1}^m \sum_{j=1}^{k} x^{k-j+1} x^j (f_{k} + f_{k+1}).\end{aligned}$$ Now we can write equation (\[eq\]) component-wise as follows. For $i=1$ we find that $x^{1}$ must satisfy the quadratic equation $${\left(x^{1}\right)}^{2} + 2 m \alpha x^{1} - {\left(2m {\left({y^\delta}\right)}^{1} + 2 m \alpha x_{\ast}^{1}\right)} = 0.$$ Note that $(y^\delta)^i\ge 0$ for all $i=1,\dots,n$, since we can assume that $y^\delta\ge 0$ (see remark \[rem:data-nonneg\]). The non-negative solution is $$\label{xone} x^1=-m\alpha +\sqrt{m^2 \alpha^2 + 2m(({y^\delta})^1 + \alpha x_*^1)}.$$ For $i=2,\dots,m$ we find that $$\label{eqcomp} \alpha (x_*^i-x^i) + ({y^\delta})^i - \frac1{2m}\left( \sum_{j=1}^{i} x^{i-j+1} x^j + \sum_{j=1}^{i-1} x^{i-j} x^j \right)=0.$$ This can be considered as a linear equation in $x^i$, if all $x_j$ for $j<i$ are already determined. Rearrangement yields $$\label{eqre} x^i = \frac m{m\alpha + x^1}\left(({y^\delta})^i + \alpha x_*^i - \frac 1 {2m}\left(\sum_{j=1}^{i-1} x^j x^{i-j} + \sum_{j=2}^{i-1} x^j x^{i-j+1}\right)\right).$$ Thus we have obtained the piece-wise constant approximation ${Q_m^\sigma}x$, and we now apply *post-smoothing* by a cubic spline. By doing this appropriately we can retain approximation rate $\frac12$. Indeed, consider a cubic spline $S \in S_{4}^{m}$, and let  $x_\alpha^\delta$ be the above piece-wise constant approximation. The triangle inequality yields $${\left\Vert S-x_\alpha^\delta \right\Vert _{}} \le {\left\Vert S-x_0 \right\Vert _{}} + {\left\Vert x_0 - x_\alpha^\delta \right\Vert _{}}$$ By the main result, the second summand above is of order $\sqrt\delta$. On the other hand, the solution ${x_0}$ can be approximated by a cubic spline at the rate $\frac1{m^2}$ (see [@MR2348176 Corollary 6.21]). Hence we can have the left hand side of order $\sqrt\delta$ by choosing $m\ge\delta^{-\frac14}$. Thus, for given $\sigma>0$, $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$, and parameter $\alpha>0$, this results in the following simple algorithm to compute a solution to (\[eq\]), which requires $O(n^2)$ operations. Input : Data ${y^\delta}$, reference element $x_{\ast}$. Init : Compute $x^{1}$ from (\[xone\]). Iter : For $i=2,\dots,m$ solve (\[eqre\]) to obtain $x^{2},\dots,x^{m}$. Smooth : Approximate the function $\hat f:= \sum_{i=1}^{m} x^{i}f_{i}$ by a cubic smoothing spline $S(\hat f) \in \mathcal S_{4}(\Delta_{m})$. Output : spline $S(\hat f) $. \[fig:algorithm\] Simulation study {#sec:simulationstudy} ---------------- The setup is according to the theoretical study. We fix some function ${x_0}\colon [0,1]\to {\mathbb{R}}^{+}$, and then we generate data ${y^\delta}= F({x_0}) + \delta\xi$ on a fine grid (meshsize= $5000$), where $\|\xi\|_\infty = 1$. For different values of $\delta=0.04,0.0025$ we let $\alpha=\sqrt\delta$. The theoretical results were based on the accretivity assumption, and we shall perform simulations, both for $x_0$ that satisfies (1) in Lemma \[lem:suumary-sigma\], but also for $x_0$ violating the accretivity assumption for $\sigma=0$. The spaces $\tilde X_{m}$ are chosen both, as piece-wise constant functions, and cubic splines, respectively, and on a grid with discretization level $m \geq \lceil \frac{1}{\delta}\rceil$ for piece-wise constant functions and $m \geq \lceil \sqrt[4]{\frac{20}\delta}\rceil$ for cubic splines. We then show the reconstructions, for piece-wise constant ansatz functions, without( left panel) and with (middle panel) post-smoothing by cubic spline interpolation. We add the corresponding reconstructions with cubic splines (right panel). For the first and the last case we obtain a convergence rate of order $\frac12$ from the theory (cf. Theorem \[thm:main\]). Accretivity for $\mathbf {\sigma=0}$ {#sec:sigma0} ------------------------------------ Here we let $$\label{eq:f1} {x_0}(t) = t^{2} -2t + 2,\quad 0\leq t\leq 1.$$ This function is positive, decreasing and convex on the unit interval, and hence $\sigma=0$ is appropriate for the accretivity. Figure \[fig:first-delta04\] shows the reconstructions for the noise level $\delta=0.04$, whereas Figure \[fig:first-delta0025\] for $\delta=0.0025$. \[fig:first-delta04\] \[fig:first-delta0025\] ------------------- --------------------- ------- ---------------- data error approximation space $m$ cpu-time \[s\] $\delta = 0.0025$ piece-wise constant $400$ $1.68$ cubic splines $10$ $1076$ $\delta = 0.04$ piece-wise constant $25$ $0.173$ cubic splines $5$ $338$ ------------------- --------------------- ------- ---------------- : computation times for function ${x_0}$ from (\[eq:f1\]) \[tab:cpu-f1\] The computation times for the different methods are shown in Table \[tab:cpu-f1\]. Since the time for smoothing the piece-wise constant solution is negligible, the corresponding computation times are not listed here. Figure \[fig:rate1\] shows a log-log plot of reconstruction errors of the different reconstruction methods depending on the noise level. {width="5in" height="3in"} \[fig:rate1\] We observe that we obtain acceptable reconstructions from all three methods, where post smoothing of the piece-wise constant reconstruction and cubic spline ansatz yield almost identical results. Since the computation time for the piece-wise constant ansatz is much lower, we recommend this method. In Figure \[fig:rate1\] we see that all three methods have a numerical convergence rate of approximately $\frac12$, where the curves for the last two methods are almost identical for small data error. Accretivity for positive $\sigma$ {#sec:sigmapositive} --------------------------------- We consider the function $$\label{eq:f2} {x_0}(t) = 2 + \cos(4\pi t),\quad 0\leq t\leq 1.$$ The following Figures \[fig:sigma-positive-delta04\] & \[fig:sigma-positive-delta0025\], show the reconstructions. \[fig:sigma-positive-delta04\] \[fig:sigma-positive-delta0025\] ------------------- --------------------- ------- ---------------- data error approximation space $m$ cpu-time \[s\] $\delta = 0.0025$ piece-wise constant $400$ $1.60$ cubic splines $10$ $1003$ $\delta = 0.04$ piece-wise constant $25$ $0.176$ cubic splines $5$ $319$ ------------------- --------------------- ------- ---------------- : computation times for function ${x_0}$ from (\[eq:f2\]) {width="\textwidth" height="3in"} \[fig:rate2\] In principle we observe the same behavior as for the first test function. The numerical convergence rates shown in figures \[fig:rate2\] are slightly lower than $\frac12$. A reason could be that the constant $c$ in the parameter choice rule $\alpha = c\sqrt\delta$ has been chosen to small. Proofs ====== First, notice that the mappings ${Q_m^\sigma}$ are idempotent, and hence projections onto their ranges. Further we have the relation between the weighted and unweighted spaces $$\|x\|_\sigma = \|D_\sigma{^{-1}}x\|,\qquad x\in L_2(0,1).$$ This yields $${\left\Vert {Q_m^\sigma}x \right\Vert _{\sigma}}={\left\Vert D_{\sigma}^{-1}{Q_m^\sigma}x \right\Vert _{}} = {\left\Vert Q_{m} D_{\sigma}^{-1}x \right\Vert _{}} = {\left\Vert D_{\sigma}^{-1}x \right\Vert _{}} = {\left\Vert x \right\Vert _{\sigma}},\ {x\in D_\sigma(X_m)},$$ such that the mappings ${Q_m^\sigma}$ are partial isometries, and hence orthogonal projections on their ranges. To show the approximation property let $x\in H_1(0,1)$ be arbitrary. Then $f_\sigma{^{-1}}x \in H_1(0,1)$ because $f_\sigma{^{-1}}$ is a smooth function. Since ${Q_m}$ satisfies assumption \[ass:onQ\] we obtain $$\|f_\sigma{^{-1}}x - {Q_m}(f_\sigma{^{-1}}x) \| \le \frac L m \|f_\sigma{^{-1}}x\|_{H_1}.$$ Moreover we have $$\begin{aligned} \|f_\sigma{^{-1}}x\|_{H_1}^{2} & = \| f_\sigma{^{-1}}x \|^{2} + \| (f_\sigma{^{-1}}x)' \|^{2}\\ &= \| f_\sigma{^{-1}}x \|^{2} + \| -\sigma f_\sigma{^{-1}}x + f_\sigma{^{-1}}x'\|^{2}\\ & \le (1+2\sigma^2)\| f_\sigma{^{-1}}x \|^2 + 2\| f_\sigma{^{-1}}x'\|^2\\ & = (1+2\sigma^2) \| x \|_\sigma^2 + 2\| x' \|_\sigma^2\\ & \le \max\left\{2,1+2\sigma^2\right\} \|x\|_{H_1^\sigma}^{2}. \end{aligned}$$ Using the above two estimates we derive $$\begin{aligned} \| x - {Q_m^\sigma}x\|_\sigma & = \| D_\sigma{^{-1}}x - D_\sigma{^{-1}}D_\sigma {Q_m}D_\sigma{^{-1}}x\|\\ & = \| f_\sigma{^{-1}}x - {Q_m}(f_\sigma{^{-1}}x)\|\\ & \le \frac Lm \|f_\sigma{^{-1}}x\|_{H_1}\\ & \le \max\left\{\sqrt2,\sqrt{1+2\sigma^2}\right\} \frac Lm \|x\|_{H_1^\sigma}. \end{aligned}$$ Since we find that $ \max\left\{\sqrt2,\sqrt{1+2\sigma^2}\right\} \leq \sqrt 2 {\left(1 + \sigma\right)}$ we can complete the proof. Proofs for § \[sec:approx-init\] -------------------------------- Before turning to the proof of Proposition \[pro:x0strich-appr\] we provide representations for $y_{0}$ and its derivatives. Indeed, since it holds $y_{0}(0)=0$, we have , from the Taylor expansion that $$\begin{aligned} y_0(s) & = y_0(0) + y_0'(0)s + \frac 12 y_0''(\xi)s^2 = y_0'(0)s + \frac 12 y_0''(\xi)s^2\,\text{ for some $\xi\in [0,s]$} \label{taylor}\\ y_0'(s) & = {x_0}(0) {x_0}(s) + \int_0^s {x_0}'(s-t){x_0}(t){\mathrm d}t = {x_0}(0) {x_0}(s) +\int_0^s {x_0}(s-t) {x_0}'(t) {\mathrm d}t\notag,\\ y_0''(s) & = 2 {x_0}(0) {x_0}'(s) + \int_0^s {x_0}'(s-t) {x_0}'(t) {\mathrm d}t\notag. $$ This shows, among other things that $y^{\prime\prime}$ is continuous, but we also conclude that $$\label{eq:yprime-bounds} {\left\Vert y_{0}^{\prime} \right\Vert _{\infty}}\leq 2 {\left\Vert {x_0}\right\Vert _{C^{1}(0,1)}}^{2} \quad \text{and}\quad {\left\Vert y_{0}^{\prime\prime} \right\Vert _{\infty}}\leq 3 {\left\Vert {x_0}\right\Vert _{C^{1}(0,1)}}^{2}.$$ We first derive a uniform bound. We shall use the piece-wise constant approximations from Example \[ex:fsigma-constant\]. For $t\in\Delta$ we then find that $${\left\vert (Q_{m}y_0 - y_0)(t) \right\vert} = m {\left\vert \int_{\Delta}(y_0(\tau) - y_0(t){\mathrm d}\tau \right\vert},$$ which yields the bound $${\left\vert (Q_{m}y_0 - y_0)(t) \right\vert} \leq \frac 1 {m} {\left\Vert y_0^{\prime} \right\Vert _{\infty}},$$ by using ${\left\vert y_0(\tau) - y_0(t) \right\vert} = {\left\vert y_0^{\prime}(\xi) (\tau - t) \right\vert}\leq {\left\vert \Delta \right\vert} {\left\Vert y_0^{\prime} \right\Vert _{\infty}}$. Thus we have $$\label{eq:10} {\left\Vert Q_{m} y_0 - y_0 \right\Vert _{\infty}}\leq \frac 1 {m} {\left\Vert y_0^{\prime} \right\Vert _{\infty}} \leq \frac 2 {m} {\left\Vert x_0 \right\Vert _{C^{1}(0,1)}}^{2},$$ by virtue of (\[eq:yprime-bounds\]). Let now $h>0$. We start with (\[taylor\]) (s:=h), which yields for the derivative of $y_{0}$ at zero $$y_0'(0) = \frac{y_0(h) }h - \frac12 y_0''(\xi)h.$$ Using (\[noise1\]), (\[eq:yprime-bounds\]) and (\[eq:10\]) we see that $$\begin{aligned} \left|\frac{[Q_m{y^\delta}](h)}h - y_0'(0)\right|& \le \frac{|[Q {y^\delta}](h)-[Q y_0](h)|}h + \frac{|[Q y_0](h) - y_0(h)|}h\\ & + \frac12 h |y_{0}^{\prime\prime}(\xi)| \le \frac{\delta + \tfrac 2m {{\left\Vert x_0 \right\Vert _{C^{1}(0,1)}}^{2}}}h + \frac32 {\left\Vert x_0 \right\Vert _{C^{1}(0,1)}}^{2} h,\end{aligned}$$ If we set $h={\sqrt \delta}$ this yields $$\begin{aligned} \left|\frac1{\sqrt \delta}{[Q_m{y^\delta}](\sqrt\delta}) - y_0'(0)\right| &\le {\left(1 + \frac {2{\left\Vert x_0 \right\Vert _{C^{1}(0,1)}}^{2}} {m\delta} + \frac32 {\left\Vert x_0 \right\Vert _{C^{1}(0,1)}}^{2} \right)}\sqrt\delta\\ &\leq\left(1 + \frac 7 2 {\left\Vert x_0 \right\Vert _{C^{1}(0,1)}}^{2}\right)\sqrt\delta,\end{aligned}$$ provided that $m\delta\geq 1$. Since for $a,b>0$ it holds true that ${\left\vert \sqrt a - b \right\vert}\leq \tfrac{{\left\vert a - b^{2} \right\vert}}{b}$, whereas for $a<0$ we have $b \le \frac {{\left\vert a-b^2 \right\vert}}b$, we can complete the proof with letting $$a:= \begin{cases} \sqrt{\frac{1}{\sqrt \delta}[Q_m{y^\delta}](\sqrt\delta)},& \text{ if } [Q_m{y^\delta}](\sqrt\delta)\ge 0, \\ 0 ,& \text{else}. \end{cases}$$ and $b:= {x_0}(0)$, such that $b^{2}= y_0^{\prime}(0)$, cf. the above representations for $y_{0}$ and its derivatives. \[Proof of Proposition \[pro:different-noise\]\] Due to (\[taylor\]) we obtain $$|y_0(t) - y_0'(0)t| \le \frac 12 y_0(\xi) t^2\qquad\text{for some }\xi\in[0,t].$$ Using (\[eq:yprime-bounds\]) this gives $$|y_0(t) - y_0'(0)t| \le \frac 32\|x_0\|^2_{C^1(0,1)} t^2.$$ Integration from $0$ to $h$ yields $$\left|\int_0^h y_0(t){\mathrm d}t - \frac12 h^2 y_0'(0)\right| \le \frac12 h^3 \|x_0\|^2_{C^1(0,1)}.$$ Moreover, by the Hölder inequality we have $$\begin{aligned} \left|\int_0^h (y_0(t)-{y^\delta}(t)){\mathrm d}t \right| &\le \int_0^h |y_0(t)-{y^\delta}(t)|{\mathrm d}t\\ &\le \sqrt{\int_0^h(y_0(t) - {y^\delta}(t))^2 {\mathrm d}t} \cdot \sqrt{\int_0^h{\mathrm d}t} \le \delta \sqrt h.\end{aligned}$$ The triangle inequality yields $$\left|\int_0^h {y^\delta}(t){\mathrm d}t - \frac12 h^2 y_0'(0)\right| \le \frac12 h^3 \|x_0\|^2_{C^1(0,1)} + \delta\sqrt{ h}$$ or equivalently $$\left|\frac2{h^2}\int_0^h {y^\delta}(t){\mathrm d}t - y_0'(0)\right| \le h \|x_0\|^2_{C^1(0,1)} + \delta h^{-\frac32}.$$ Considered as a function of $h$, the right hand side of this inequality obtains its minimum for $h:=\left(\frac23 \|x_0\|^2_{C^1(0,1)}\right)^{-\frac25}\delta^{\frac25}$, and then the assertion is proved. Proofs for § \[sec:main-result\] -------------------------------- We recall the definition of the mapping $G$ from (\[eq:G-def\]). We shall first see that there is some $r>0$ such that ${\left\Vert Qx - {x_0}\right\Vert _{\sigma}}\leq r$ yields that ${\left\Vert G(Qx) - {x_0}\right\Vert _{\sigma}}\leq r$. By the definition of $G$ we see that $${\left\Vert G(Qx) - {x_0}\right\Vert _{\sigma}} \leq I_{1} + I_{2} + I_{3} + I_{4},$$ where $$\begin{aligned} I_{1} & := \|H_\alpha{^{-1}}Q F'({x_0})({x_0}-Q {x_0})\|_\sigma,\\ I_{2} & := \|H_\alpha{^{-1}}Q ( {y^\delta}- y )\|_\sigma,\\ I_{3} & := \|H_\alpha{^{-1}}Q F(Q x - {x_0})\|_\sigma,\quad\text{and}\\ I_{4} &:= \|H_\alpha{^{-1}}\alpha (Q x_* -{x_0})\|_\sigma.\end{aligned}$$ We bound each summand, separately. By using Lemma \[lem:frechet\] and Assumption \[ass:onQ\] we find that $$\begin{aligned} I_{1} &\leq {\left\Vert H_{\alpha}^{-1} \right\Vert _{\sigma}}{\left\Vert F^{\prime}({x_0}) \right\Vert _{\sigma}} {\left\Vert Q {x_0}- {x_0}\right\Vert _{\sigma}}\leq \frac{2L}{m\alpha}{\left\Vert {x_0}\right\Vert _{\sigma}}{\left\Vert {x_0}\right\Vert _{H_{1}^{\sigma}(0,1)}}\\ &\leq \frac{2L}{m\alpha}{\left\Vert {x_0}\right\Vert _{H_{1}^{\sigma}(0,1)}}^{2}{\left\Vert Q \right\Vert _{\sigma \to \sigma}}.\end{aligned}$$ where throughout we use ${\left\Vert Q \right\Vert _{\sigma \to \sigma}}=1$, since $Q:L_2^\sigma(0,1)\to L_2^\sigma(0,1)$ is an orthogonal projection by Assumption \[ass:onQ\]. By Assumption \[ass:noise\](\[noise1\]) on the noise we bound $$I_{2} \leq \|H_\alpha{^{-1}}\|_\sigma \, \| Q ( {y^\delta}- y ) \|_\sigma \le \frac \delta \alpha.$$ Next, we see from Lemma \[lem:frechet\] that $$I_{3} \leq \|H_\alpha{^{-1}}\|_\sigma \, \|F(Q x - {x_0})\|_\sigma \le \frac{\|Q x-{x_0}\|_\sigma^2}\alpha.$$ The bound for $I_{4}$ is more tedious, and we decompose $$\begin{aligned} I_{4} &\leq \alpha \|H_\alpha{^{-1}}(Q ( {x_0}(0) -{x_0}) + Q(x_* - {x_0}(0)) +(Q {x_0}-{x_0})\|_\sigma\\ &\leq \alpha \|H_\alpha{^{-1}}(Q ( {x_0}(0)-{x_0}))\|_\sigma + \alpha \|H_\alpha{^{-1}}Q(x_* - {x_0}(0))\|_\sigma + \alpha \|H_\alpha{^{-1}}(Q {x_0}-{x_0})\|_\sigma.\end{aligned}$$ Again, we bound separately. The last summand is easily bounded as $$\alpha \|H_\alpha{^{-1}}(Q {x_0}-{x_0})\|_{\sigma} \leq \frac L m {\left\Vert {x_0}\right\Vert _{H_{1}^{\sigma}}} .$$ For the middle summand we recall that the reference element $x_{\ast}$ was chosen constant, cf. (\[eq:xast\]), such that by Proposition \[pro:x0strich-appr\] we find $$\alpha \|H_\alpha{^{-1}}Q(x_* - {x_0}(0))\|_{\sigma}\leq \|Q(x_* - {x_0}(0))\|_{\sigma} \leq \frac{\left(1 + {4{\left\Vert {x_0}\right\Vert _{C^{1}(0,1)}}^{2}}\right)}{{x_0}(0)}\sqrt\delta.$$ It remains to bound the first summand in $I_{4}$, above. To this end we use the element $\omega$ from (\[eq:volterra\]) and find that $$\alpha \|H_\alpha{^{-1}}(Q ( {x_0}(0)-{x_0}))\|_\sigma \leq \alpha {\left\Vert H_{\alpha}^{-1} Q F^{\prime}({x_0}) \omega \right\Vert _{\sigma}}.$$ We bound the right hand side, again using Lemma \[lem:frechet\], as $$\begin{aligned} \alpha {\left\Vert H_{\alpha}^{-1} Q F^{\prime}({x_0}) \omega \right\Vert _{\sigma}} & \leq \alpha {\left\Vert H_{\alpha}^{-1} Q F^{\prime}({x_0}) Q \omega \right\Vert _{\sigma}} + \alpha {\left\Vert H_{\alpha}^{-1} Q F^{\prime}({x_0}) ({\operatorname{Id}}- Q) \omega \right\Vert _{\sigma}}\\ & \leq \alpha {\left\Vert \omega \right\Vert _{\sigma}} + 2{\left\Vert Q \right\Vert _{\sigma\to \sigma}}{\left\Vert {x_0}\right\Vert _{\sigma}} {\left\Vert ({\operatorname{Id}}- Q) \omega \right\Vert _{\sigma}}. \end{aligned}$$ By Assumption \[ass:onx\] the right hand side in (\[eq:volterra\]) is in $W_{\infty}^{2}(0,1)$, its derivative is in $H_{1}^{\sigma}$, and so will be the element $\omega$, where we refer to [@MR1766765 Proof of Lem. 4]. Therefore Assumption \[ass:onQ\] gives $$\alpha {\left\Vert H_{\alpha}^{-1} Q F^{\prime}({x_0}) \omega \right\Vert _{\sigma}} \leq \alpha{\left( {\left\Vert \omega \right\Vert _{\sigma}} + \frac{2L}{m\alpha}{\left\Vert Q \right\Vert _{\sigma\to \sigma}}{\left\Vert {x_0}\right\Vert _{\sigma}} {\left\Vert \omega \right\Vert _{H_{1}^{\sigma}(0,1)}}\right)}.$$ Overall this gives for $I_{4}$ the bound $$\begin{aligned} I_{4} & \leq \alpha {\left\Vert \omega \right\Vert _{\sigma}} + \\ &\frac{2L}{m}{\left\Vert {x_0}\right\Vert _{\sigma}} {\left\Vert \omega \right\Vert _{H_{1}^{\sigma}(0,1)}} + \frac L m {\left\Vert {x_0}\right\Vert _{H_{1}^{\sigma}}} + \frac{\left(1 + {4{\left\Vert {x_0}\right\Vert _{C^{1}(0,1)}}^{2}}\right)}{{x_0}(0)}\sqrt\delta. $$ We rearrange terms and write $$\label{eq:Gx-x} {\left\Vert G(Qx) - {x_0}\right\Vert _{\sigma}} \leq I_{3} + {\left(I_{1} + I_{2} + I_{4}\right)}.$$ The following result proves useful. \[lem:quadrat\] Suppose that $a,b,u,v\geq 0$ are such that $u \leq a v^{2} +b$. If $4ab<1$ then $v\leq r$ implies that $u\leq r$ for the choice of $$\label{eq:r} r= \frac 1 {2a}{\left(1 - \sqrt{1 - 4ab}\right)}.$$ The assertion holds true if $r$ can be found such that $a r^{2} - r + b\leq 0$, and this is the case whenever $4ab<1$. In this case the choice of $r$ according to (\[eq:r\]) does the job. We shall apply this fact to the estimate (\[eq:Gx-x\]), hence with $u:={\left\Vert G(Qx) - {x_0}\right\Vert _{\sigma}}, v:= \|Q x-{x_0}\|_{\sigma}, a:= \alpha^{-1}{\left\Vert Q \right\Vert _{\sigma \to \sigma}}, b:= I_{1} + I_{2} + I_{4}$. Thus, we aim at arranging the parameter $\alpha>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned} 4 \alpha^{-1}{\left\Vert Q \right\Vert _{\sigma \to \sigma}}{\left(I_{1} + I_{2} + I_{4}\right)} & = 4 {\left\Vert Q \right\Vert _{\sigma \to \sigma}} {\left\Vert \omega \right\Vert _{\sigma}}\\ & + 4 \alpha^{-1}{\left\Vert Q \right\Vert _{\sigma \to \sigma}}{\left(I_{1} + I_{2} + I_{4} - \alpha {\left\Vert \omega \right\Vert _{\sigma}}\right)}< 1. \end{aligned}$$ The first summand is smaller than one under the assumption on $ {\left\Vert \omega \right\Vert _{\sigma}}$, (note that $\|Q\|_{\sigma\to \sigma}=1$ here), and hence we need to make the second summand, temporarily denoted by ${\operatorname{Res}}$, sufficiently small for an appropriate choice of $\alpha$. Looking at the bounds for $I_{1},I_{2}$ and $I_{4}$ we find constants $C_{1},\dots,C_{5}>0$ such that $${\operatorname{Res}}\leq C_{1}\frac{1}{m\alpha^{2}} + C_{2} \frac{\delta}{\alpha^{2}} + C_{3} \frac{1}{m\alpha} + C_{4}\frac{\sqrt \delta}{\alpha} + C_{5}\frac1 {m\alpha}.$$ Now we recall that the bounds were obtained under the assumption that $m\delta\geq1$ (cf. Proposition \[pro:x0strich-appr\]), and assuming that the noise level is small, hence assuming that $\delta\leq 1$, then we can specify the previous bound to the form $${\operatorname{Res}}\leq {\left(C_{1} + C_{2}\right)}\frac{\delta}{\alpha^{2}} + {\left(C_{3} + C_{4} + C_{5}\right)}\sqrt{\frac{\delta}{\alpha^{2}}}.$$ Thus, the remainder ${\operatorname{Res}}$ can be made arbitrarily small if $\delta/\alpha^{2}$ is sufficiently small. This can be achieved by letting $\alpha := c \sqrt{\delta}$ with a sufficiently large constant $c>0$. Under the assumptions made, and in the light of Lemma \[lem:quadrat\] we can find $r>0$ such that $$G(B({x_0},r)\cap \mathcal R Q)\subset B({x_0},r)\cap \mathcal R Q.$$ Notice, that the set $B({x_0},r)\cap \mathcal R Q$ is compact and convex, such that the Schauder Fixed Point Theorem, cf. [@MR1070713 Chapt. V.9], yields the existence of a fixed point of the continuous mapping $G$. \[Proof of Theorem \[thm:main\]\] Under the given assumptions, by Proposition \[pro:contraction\] the equation (\[eq\]) has a solution, say ${x^\delta_\alpha}$ in $X_{m}$ which satisfies ${x^\delta_\alpha}\in B({x_0},r)$, where $r$ is given by Lemma \[lem:quadrat\], with $a,b$ specified, there. Obviously, we can bound $r \leq 1/(2a)$. The specification for $a$ was given as $a:= {\left\Vert Q_{m} \right\Vert _{\sigma\to\sigma}}/\alpha$, and it yields that $r\leq \alpha/(2 {\left\Vert Q_{m} \right\Vert _{\sigma\to\sigma}}) \leq \alpha/2$, such that with $\alpha = c\sqrt\delta$ (cf. proof of Proposition \[pro:contraction\]), we find $$r \leq \alpha/2 = \frac c 2 \sqrt\delta.$$ Notice, that the value of $c$ depends on the constants $C_{1},\dots, C_{5}$, only, and these were dependent on properties of ${x_0}$, but not on the noise level $\delta$. which completes the proof. Proofs for § \[sec:extension\] ------------------------------ Let $x\in L_2(0,1)$ and $s\in[0,1)$. Then there exists $i\in {\mathbb{N}}$, s.t. $s\in[\frac{i-1}m,\frac im)$. Using $\frac\sigma m \le 1$ and the inequality $$|e^x-1| \le 2 |x| \qquad \text{ for } |x| \le 1$$ we estimate $$\begin{aligned} \big|[(Q_m - Q_m^\delta)x](s)\big| & = m \left| \int_{\frac{i-1}m}^{\frac im} x(t) {\mathrm d}t - e^{\sigma s} \int_{\frac{i-1}m}^{\frac im} e^{-\sigma t} x(t) {\mathrm d}t \right|\\ & = m e^{\sigma s} \left| \int_{\frac{i-1}m}^{\frac im} (e^{\sigma(t-s)} -1) e^{-\sigma t} x(t) {\mathrm d}t \right|\\ & \le m e^{\sigma s} \int_{\frac{i-1}m}^{\frac im} \left|e^{\sigma(t-s)} -1\right| \cdot \left| e^{-\sigma t} x(t) \right| {\mathrm d}t\\ & \le m e^{\sigma s} \int_{\frac{i-1}m}^{\frac im} 2\left|\sigma(t-s)\right| \cdot \left| e^{-\sigma t} x(t) \right| {\mathrm d}t\\ & \le m e^{\sigma s} \int_{\frac{i-1}m}^{\frac im} 2\frac \sigma m \left| e^{-\sigma t} x(t) \right| {\mathrm d}t\\ & \le 2 \sigma e^{\sigma s} \left( \int_{\frac{i-1}m}^{\frac im} e^{-2\sigma t} x(t)^2 {\mathrm d}t \right)^{\frac12} \sqrt{\frac 1m},\end{aligned}$$ where we used the Hölder inequality in the last step. Now we have $$\begin{aligned} \|(Q_m - Q_m^\delta)x\|_\sigma^2 &= \sum_{i=1}^m \int_{\frac{i-1}m}^{\frac im} e^{-2\sigma s} \big|[(Q_m-Q_m^\sigma)x](s)\big|^2 {\mathrm d}s\\ &\le \sum_{i=1}^m \int_{\frac{i-1}m}^{\frac im} \frac{4\sigma^2}{ m} \left( \int_{\frac{i-1}m}^{\frac im} e^{-2\sigma t} x(t)^2 {\mathrm d}t \right) {\mathrm d}s\\ &= \frac{4\sigma^2}{ m^2 } \int_0^1 e^{-2\sigma t} x(t)^2 {\mathrm d}t = \frac{4\sigma^2}{ m^2 } \|x\|_\sigma^2\end{aligned}$$ and thus $$\|Q_m - Q_m^\sigma\|_{\sigma\to\sigma} \le \frac{2\sigma}m,$$ which proves the first assertion. Finally, in operator norms we bound $$\begin{aligned} {\left\Vert Q_{m} \right\Vert _{\sigma\to\sigma}} \leq {\left\Vert Q_{m} - {Q_m^\sigma}\right\Vert _{\sigma\to\sigma}} + {\left\Vert {Q_m^\sigma}\right\Vert _{\sigma\to \sigma}} \leq \frac{2\sigma}m + 1,\end{aligned}$$ which completes the proof of the lemma. Let $v\in L_2(0,1)$ be arbitrary. Then $$\begin{aligned} &{\left\langle \left(Q_m F'(x) Q_m + \tfrac{8\sigma\|x\|_\sigma}m {\operatorname{Id}}\right) v,v\right\rangle_\sigma}\\ &= {\left\langle {Q_m^\sigma}F'(x) {Q_m^\sigma}v,v\right\rangle_\sigma} + {\left\langle Q_m F'(x) Q_m v,v\right\rangle_\sigma} - {\left\langle {Q_m^\sigma}F'(x) {Q_m^\sigma}v,v\right\rangle_\sigma} + \frac{8\sigma\|x\|_\sigma}m \|v\|_\sigma^2\\ & \ge {\left\langle (Q_m - {Q_m^\sigma}) F'(x) Q_m v,v\right\rangle_\sigma} + {\left\langle {Q_m^\sigma}F'(x) (Q_m - {Q_m^\sigma}) v,v\right\rangle_\sigma} + \frac{8\sigma\|x\|_\sigma}m \|v\|_\sigma^2\\ & \ge \frac{8\sigma\|x\|_\sigma}m \|v\|_\sigma^2 - \|(Q_m - {Q_m^\sigma}) F'(x) Q_m v\|_\sigma\cdot\|v\|_\sigma - \|{Q_m^\sigma}F'(x) (Q_m - {Q_m^\sigma}) v\|_\sigma\cdot\|v\|_\sigma\\ & \ge \frac{8\sigma\|x\|_\sigma}m \|v\|_\sigma^2 - 2 \|Q_m - {Q_m^\sigma}\|_{\sigma\to\sigma}\cdot \|F'(x)\|_{\sigma\to\sigma} \cdot \|v\|_\sigma^2. \end{aligned}$$ Now we use Lemma \[lem:frechet\] and Lemma \[lem:qm-qms\] to see that $$2 \|Q_m - {Q_m^\sigma}\|_{\sigma\to\sigma}\cdot \|F'(x)\|_{\sigma\to\sigma} \cdot \|v\|_\sigma^2 \leq \frac{8\sigma}m {\left\Vert x \right\Vert _{\sigma}}{\left\Vert v \right\Vert _{\sigma}}^{2},$$ which implies the accretivity of $Q_m F'(x) Q_m + \frac{8\sigma\|x\|}m {\operatorname{Id}}$. For the sake of readability we set $J:= Q_m F'(x) Q_m$. Let now $\alpha \ge \frac{16\sigma\|x\|}m$. Then $\frac\alpha2 \ge \frac{8\sigma\|x\|}m$, thus $G := J + \frac\alpha 2 {\operatorname{Id}}$ is accretive. We recall [@MR1766765 Eq. (14)], which asserts that for $\beta>0$ we have $$\|(\beta{\operatorname{Id}}+ G){^{-1}}\|_\sigma \le \frac1\beta \quad \text{and}\quad \|(\beta {\operatorname{Id}}+ G){^{-1}}G\|_\sigma \le 1.$$ We use this to conclude that $$\|(\alpha{\operatorname{Id}}+ J){^{-1}}\|_\sigma = \| \big(\tfrac\alpha 2 {\operatorname{Id}}+ (\tfrac\alpha2{\operatorname{Id}}+ J)\big){^{-1}}\|_\sigma \le \frac2{\alpha},$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \| &(\alpha{\operatorname{Id}}+ J){^{-1}}J\|_\sigma = \|\big(\tfrac\alpha2{\operatorname{Id}}+ (\tfrac\alpha2{\operatorname{Id}}+ J)\big){^{-1}}(\tfrac\alpha 2 {\operatorname{Id}}+ J - \tfrac\alpha2 {\operatorname{Id}})\|_\sigma\\ & \le \|\big(\tfrac\alpha2{\operatorname{Id}}+ (\tfrac\alpha2{\operatorname{Id}}+ J)\big){^{-1}}(\tfrac\alpha 2 {\operatorname{Id}}+ J) \|_\sigma + \|\big(\tfrac\alpha2{\operatorname{Id}}+ (\tfrac\alpha2{\operatorname{Id}}+ J)\big){^{-1}}\tfrac\alpha2 {\operatorname{Id}}\|_\sigma\\ & \le 1 + \frac2\alpha \cdot \frac\alpha2 = 2, \end{aligned}$$ and the proof is complete. By Lemma \[lem:suumary-sigma\], it exists a $\sigma_1>0$ s.t. $$\|\omega\|_{\sigma_1} < \frac 1{48}.$$ Since by Lemma \[lem:qm-qms\] we have with $m \ge {\sigma_1}$ that $$\|Q_m\|_{\sigma_1\to \sigma_1}\le 1 + 2 \frac {\sigma_1} m \le 3$$ and hence we find that $$\|\omega\|_{\sigma_1}\cdot \|Q_m\|_{\sigma_1\to \sigma_1}< \frac 1{16}.$$ In the following we will abbreviate $Q_{m}$ by $Q$. Basically we follow the proofs of Proposition \[pro:contraction\] and Theorem \[thm:main\], but the norm ${\left\Vert Q \right\Vert _{\sigma\to\sigma}}$ is no longer equal to one. Analogous to (\[eq:G-def\]) we write equation (\[eq:reg0\]) in fix-point form as $$G(Qx) = Qx$$ with $$G(Q x) := {x_0}+ H_\alpha{^{-1}}\Big( Q \big( F'({x_0})({x_0}-Q {x_0}) + {y^\delta}- y- F(Q_mx-{x_0})\big) + \alpha (Q x_*-{x_0}) \Big),$$ where $$H_\alpha:= Q F'(x_0)Q.$$ As in the proof of Prop. \[pro:contraction\] we have $${\left\Vert G(Qx) - {x_0}\right\Vert _{\sigma_1}} \leq I_{1} + I_{2} + I_{3} + I_{4},$$ where $$\begin{aligned} I_{1} & := \|H_\alpha{^{-1}}Q F'({x_0})({x_0}-Q {x_0})\|_{\sigma_1},\\ I_{2} & := \|H_\alpha{^{-1}}Q ( {y^\delta}- y )\|_{\sigma_1},\\ I_{3} & := \|H_\alpha{^{-1}}Q F(Q x - {x_0})\|_{\sigma_1}\quad\text{and}\\ I_{4} &:= \|H_\alpha{^{-1}}\alpha (Q x_* -{x_0})\|_{\sigma_1}.\end{aligned}$$ The following estimations are almost the same as before, except that we assume $$\label{eq:ass:alpha} \alpha\ge \frac{16\sigma\|x\|}m$$ and make use of Corollary \[cor:accretive\]. This yields $$\begin{aligned} I_{1} &\leq \frac{4L}{m\alpha}{\left\Vert {x_0}\right\Vert _{H_{1}^{\sigma_1}(0,1)}}^{2}{\left\Vert Q \right\Vert _{\sigma_1 \to \sigma_1}},\\ I_{2} &\leq 2\frac \delta \alpha{\left\Vert Q \right\Vert _{\sigma_1 \to \sigma_1}},\\ I_{3} &\leq 2\frac{\|Q x-{x_0}\|_{\sigma_1}^2}\alpha{\left\Vert Q \right\Vert _{\sigma_1 \to \sigma_1}}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} I_{4} & \leq 2\alpha {\left\Vert \omega \right\Vert _{\sigma_1}} + \frac{4L}{m}{\left\Vert Q \right\Vert _{\sigma_1\to \sigma_1}}{\left\Vert {x_0}\right\Vert _{\sigma_1}} {\left\Vert \omega \right\Vert _{H_{1}^{\sigma_1}(0,1)}}\\ &+ \frac {2L} m {\left\Vert {x_0}\right\Vert _{H_{1}^{\sigma_1}}} + \frac{2\left(1 + {4{\left\Vert {x_0}\right\Vert _{C^{1}(0,1)}}^{2}}\right)}{{x_0}(0)}\sqrt\delta{\left\Vert Q \right\Vert _{\sigma_1 \to \sigma_1}}.\end{aligned}$$ Now we want to apply Lemma \[lem:quadrat\] with the parameters $u:={\left\Vert G(Qx) - {x_0}\right\Vert _{\sigma_1}}, v:= \|Q x-{x_0}\|_{\sigma_1}, a:= 2\alpha^{-1}{\left\Vert Q \right\Vert _{\sigma_1 \to \sigma_1}}, b:= I_{1} + I_{2} + I_{4}$. Again we have to ensure that $4ab<1$. This is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned} 16 {\left\Vert Q \right\Vert _{\sigma_1 \to \sigma_1}} {\left\Vert \omega \right\Vert _{\sigma_1}} + 8 \alpha^{-1}{\left\Vert Q \right\Vert _{\sigma_1 \to \sigma_1}}{\left(I_{1} + I_{2} + I_{4} - 2\alpha {\left\Vert \omega \right\Vert _{\sigma_1}}\right)}< 1. \end{aligned}$$ Due to the choice of $\sigma_1$ we have $$16 {\left\Vert Q \right\Vert _{\sigma_1 \to \sigma_1}} {\left\Vert \omega \right\Vert _{\sigma_1}}<1$$ and the second summand, denoted by ${\operatorname{Res}}$ can be estimated as $${\operatorname{Res}}\leq C_{1}\frac{1}{m\alpha^{2}} + C_{2} \frac{\delta}{\alpha^{2}} + C_{3} \frac{1}{m\alpha} + C_{4}\frac{\sqrt \delta}{\alpha} + C_{5}\frac1 {m\alpha}.$$ with constants $C_1,\dots,C_5$. With the assumptions $m\delta \ge 1$ and $\delta \le 1$ we derive $${\operatorname{Res}}\leq {\left(C_{1} + C_{2}\right)}\frac{\delta}{\alpha^{2}} + {\left(C_{3} + C_{4} + C_{5}\right)}\sqrt{\frac{\delta}{\alpha^{2}}}.$$ Hence ${\operatorname{Res}}$ can be made arbitrarily small by setting $\alpha=c\sqrt\delta$ with $c$ big enough and $c\ge \frac{16\sigma\|x\|}{m\sqrt\delta}$, which ensures (\[eq:ass:alpha\]). If $c$ is now chosen in such a way that $$16 {\left\Vert Q \right\Vert _{\sigma_1 \to \sigma_1}} {\left\Vert \omega \right\Vert _{\sigma_1}} + {\operatorname{Res}}< 1$$ we apply Lemma \[lem:quadrat\] and obtain $$G(B({x_0},r)\cap \mathcal R Q)\subset B({x_0},r)\cap \mathcal R Q.$$ for $r= \frac 1 {2a}{\left(1 - \sqrt{1 - 4ab}\right)}$. Since $B({x_0},r)\cap \mathcal R Q$ is a compact and convex set, we obtain that $G$ has a fixed point by the Schauder Fixed Point Theorem. The remainder of the proof is analogous to the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\]. [10]{} Stephan W Anzengruber, Steven Bürger, Bernd Hofmann, and Günter Steinmeyer. Variational regularization of complex deautoconvolution and phase retrieval in ultrashort laser pulse characterization. , 32(3):035002, 2016. Steven B[ü]{}rger and Jens Flemming. Deautoconvolution: a new decomposition approach versus [TIGRA]{} and local regularization. , 23(3):231–243, 2015. Steven B[ü]{}rger and Bernd Hofmann. About a deficit in low-order convergence rates on the example of autoconvolution. , 94(3):477–493, 2015. John B. Conway. , volume 96 of [*Graduate Texts in Mathematics*]{}. Springer-Verlag, New York, second edition, 1990. Gunter Fleischer and Bernd Hofmann. On inversion rates for the autoconvolution equation. , 12(4):419–435, 1996. Rudolf Gorenflo and Bernd Hofmann. On autoconvolution and regularization. , 10(2):353–373, 1994. Jaan Janno. Lavrentev regularization of ill-posed problems containing nonlinear near-to-monotone operators with application to autoconvolution equation. , 16(2):333–348, 2000. Shuai Lu, Valeriya Naumova, and Sergei V. Pereverzev. Legendre polynomials as a recommended basis for numerical differentiation in the presence of stochastic white noise. , 21(2):193–216, 2013. Shuai Lu and Sergei V. Pereverzev. Numerical differentiation from a viewpoint of regularization theory. , 75(256):1853–1870, 2006. K.-Th. Schleicher, S.W. Schulz, R. Gmeiner, and H.-U. Chun. A computational method for the evaluation of highly resolved dos functions from [APS]{} measurements. , 31(1):33 – 56, 1983. Larry L. Schumaker. . Cambridge Mathematical Library. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, third edition, 2007.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'This paper addresses the problem of unsupervised object localization in an image. Unlike previous supervised and weakly supervised algorithms that require bounding box or image level annotations for training classifiers in order to learn features representing the object, we propose a simple yet effective technique for localization using iterative spectral clustering. This iterative spectral clustering approach along with appropriate cluster selection strategy in each iteration naturally helps in searching of object region in the image. In order to estimate the final localization window, we group the proposals obtained from the iterative spectral clustering step based on the perceptual similarity, and average the coordinates of the proposals from the top scoring groups. We benchmark our algorithm on challenging datasets like Object Discovery and PASCAL VOC 2007, achieving an average CorLoc percentage of $51\%$ and $35\%$ respectively which is comparable to various other weakly supervised algorithms despite being completely unsupervised.' author: - bibliography: - 'IEEEabrv.bib' - 'ref.bib' title: Iterative Spectral Clustering for Unsupervised Object Localization --- [Shell : Bare Demo of IEEEtran.cls for IEEE Journals]{} Object Localization, Spectral Clustering, Unsupervised Localization. Introduction {#intro} ============ Object localization is an important computer vision problem where the task is to estimate precise bounding boxes around all categories of the objects present in the given image. Due to the intra-class variations, occlusion, and background clutter present in the real-world images, this becomes a challenging problem to solve. Compared to image classification, localization involves estimating precise location of an object in the image. Therefore, it proves to be more difficult problem to solve. Object localization is useful in several image understanding tasks like separating the foreground from the background, object recognition, and segmentation. Previous fully-supervised approaches relied on sliding window search in order to search for an object in the image. Because of their inefficiency in terms of speed, several efficient sub-window search algorithms were proposed which work quite well in localizing the object in an image ([@lampert2009efficient]). However, these techniques require strong supervision in the form of manually-annotated bounding boxes on locations of all the object categories in an image. Acquiring such human annotations for training accurate classifiers is a cumbersome task and is prone to human errors. As a result, supervised techniques for object localization do not prove to be useful in resource restricted settings. In order to overcome the huge manual efforts required in annotations of objects in the image in supervised learning algorithms, several weakly supervised approaches were proposed. Rather than bounding box annotations of target instances, weakly supervised learning focuses on image level labelling which is based on the presence/absence of target object instances in an image ([@gokberk2014multi; @deselaers2010localizing; @nguyen2009weakly; @hoai2014learning; @song2014learning]). Though these techniques work well in terms of localization accuracy, they still require human annotation efforts especially when the training data is large. In an effort to make the task of object localization completely unsupervised, various object co-localization algorithms were proposed which try to localize an object across multiple images ([@sivic2005discovering; @russell2006using; @grauman2006unsupervised; @kim2009unsupervised; @cho2015unsupervised]) without any supervision. As co-localization algorithms assume that each image has the same target object instance that needs to be localized ([@grauman2006unsupervised; @kim2009unsupervised]), it imports some sort of supervision to the entire localization process thus making the entire task easier to solve using techniques like proposal matching ([@cho2015unsupervised]) and clustering ([@tang2014co]) across images. In contrast to these works, the work presented in this paper focuses on localizing a single object instance in an image in a completely unsupervised fashion. To the best of our knowledge there is no previous work that tries to solve this problem in an unsupervised way. In this work, we do not make any assumptions like that in co-localization algorithms, thus making the entire problem more practical and challenging one to be solved. Further, it is an important problem to be addressed because of the following reasons: (1) Proposed work is an unsupervised approach for object localization. As mentioned previously, all the manual labour required in annotating the data with accurate bounding box regions around the target object instances will not be required, which saves the resources as well as the training time. (2) Apart from being fully automatic and unsupervised, our technique is easy-to-fit in the current state-of-the-art object recognition pipelines like RCNN ([@girshick2014rich]). Thus unlike current system, we do not need to classify each of the thousands of object proposals generated from an object proposal algorithm individually. Instead, we can localize the object directly in the input test image and then provide this localized object to the CNN pipeline that will classify the object appropriately. Such a type of functionality is not available with co-localization techniques. This restricts their applicability in real-world scenarios. To solve this problem in an unsupervised manner, we start with extracting thousands of object proposals from the input image using an off-the-shelf object proposal algorithm ([@zitnick2014edge; @uijlings2013selective]). We then try to filter out number of object proposals effectively in such a way that after the entire proposal filtering process, a good set of object proposals that contain the object are retained. In order to achieve this, we formulate the problem as an undirected graph problem and perform spectral clustering on the constructed graph. This will split the set of proposals that can be discriminated based on the selected feature space. However, one iteration of spectral clustering would not be enough to filter the proposals by a significant amount. As a result, we repeat the process for a number of iterations after selecting appropriate cluster for subsequent partitioning. We compute a cluster score after each iteration and select the cluster that has higher score for further partitioning in the next iteration and discard all the proposals in the cluster having lower score. After this filtering step, we then estimate the final localized window by grouping the proposals based on the perceptual similarity among the proposals. We then pick top scoring groups and take the mean of coordinates of proposals present in that groups in order to get the final localized window. The main contributions of this paper are summarized as follows: (1) A completely unsupervised object localization algorithm for an image containing a single object is presented and benchmarked on a challenging datasets like Object Discovery ([@Rubinstein13Unsupervised]) and PASCAL VOC 2007 ([@pascal-voc-2007]). (2) An iterative spectral clustering approach along with an appropriate cluster selection strategy is proposed which naturally helps in searching of object region in the image. This entire process takes place in a completely unsupervised fashion. (3) Proposal grouping technique is proposed which helps in estimating the final localized window in the image. {width="0.95\linewidth"} Related Work {#rw} ============ Previous works in object localization are described below based on the decreasing order of supervision. **Supervised approaches** for object localization involves *sliding window* approaches that apply a classifier subsequently to subimages, thus obtaining a classification map. Indicator of the object region is obtained from the classification map as the region with the maximum score. As an average size image will have a lot of pixels, scanning all of them and deriving the classification map is a computationally expensive task. [@lampert2009efficient] and [@villamizar2012bootstrapping] tried to come up with a more efficient solution by proposing an *efficient subwindow search* for object localization which does not suffer from the above mentioned drawbacks. This scheme helps to optimize the quality function over all the possible subregions of the image with fewer number of classification evaluations and thus making the algorithm run in linear time or faster. [@blaschko2009object] introduced the concept of *global and local context kernels* that tries to combine different context models into a single discriminative classifier. [@sermanet2013overfeat] proposed an integrated framework for image classification, localization and detection. They efficiently implemented a multiscale and sliding window approach within a convolutional neural network (CNN). They treat localization as a regression problem where the final layer is involved in predicting the coordinates of the bounding box. This entire system is trained end-to-end with bounding box annotations from the ImageNet dataset ([@krizhevsky2012imagenet]). **Weakly-supervised approaches** for localization can be divided into $4$ categories: (i) exhaustive search technique ([@nguyen2009weakly; @hoai2014learning; @pandey2011scene; @zhang2010weakly]), (ii) multiple instance learning ([@qi2007incorporating; @galleguillos2008weakly; @siva2012defence; @cinbis2017weakly; @vijayanarasimhan2008keywords; @wang2014weakly]), (iii) inter-intra-class modelling ([@deselaers2010localizing; @deselaers2012weakly; @russakovsky2012object; @siva2011weakly; @wang2013weakly]), and (iv) topic model ([@shi2013bayesian; @sivic2005discovering]). Exhaustive search techniques try to learn discriminative sub-window classifiers from the weakly labelled data and then based on the scores of the most discriminative local regions of the image, they try to estimate the final localization window. Multiple-instance learning approaches try to learn various object categories from the bag of positive and negative labelled images. Different multiple-instance learning algorithms try to exploit various aspects associated with the image. For example, [@wang2014weakly] tries to model the latent categories of the image like sky and grass in order to improve the overall localization accuracy. [@vijayanarasimhan2008keywords] proposed an alternative learning approach where they trained robust category models from images returned by keyword-based search engines. In order to improve the quality of the object regions, along with the inter-class models, researchers also model intra-class relations to improve the similarity of the regions within the same object class. **Co-localization approaches:** [@tang2014co] proposed an image-box formulation for solving object co-localization problem, where they simultaneously localize object of the same class across a set of images. [@cho2015unsupervised] generalized the task of object localization by relaxing the condition that each image should contain the object from the same category. [@kim2009unsupervised] proposed an iterative link analysis technique in order to estimate the region of interest in the image. [@grauman2006unsupervised] proposed an approach for colocalization which is based on the partial correspondences and the clustering of local features. Proposed Approach {#pa} ================= In this section, we describe the entire pipeline for the unsupervised object localization. The summary of the entire pipeline is shown in Fig. \[Fig:pipeline\]. Object proposals extraction and scoring --------------------------------------- We generate object proposals from the input image using off-the-shelf object proposal generation algorithm known as EdgeBoxes ([@zitnick2014edge]), which generates object proposals based on the edge information present in the image. We chose this technique for extracting object proposals as it is capable of generating proposals with high recall at a very fast rate. It extracts $\sim$1000 object proposals per image in around 0.25 secs achieving an object recall of over $96\%$ at an overlap of $0.5$ on the PASCAL VOC dataset ([@pascal-voc-2007]). After the extraction of object proposals $B=\{b_{1},b_{2},...,b_{N}\}$ from the image $I$, we score each proposal based on the probability that the region contains an object. Here, we extract $N=1000$ object proposals. EdgeBoxes algorithm computes objectness scores $s_{obj}$ for each proposal in $B$ which is based on the fact that the number of edge contours that are wholly contained by the proposal is indicative of the proposal containing an object. We combine appearance score of each proposal with the saliency score in order to compute the overall score of each proposal. In order to do this, we compute the saliency map $S$ of the input image $I$ using the saliency algorithm proposed by [@margolin2013makes]. From the saliency map $S$, we compute the average saliency score for each object proposal which gives saliency score $s_{sal}$ for that particular proposal. After this, the overall score $s_{i}$ of all the object proposals in the set $B$ are computed as $s_{i}=s_{obj}\times s_{sal}$, where $i=1$ to $N$. As a result, proposals that have high objectness score and those that cover the salient region of the image will have high overall score. Iterative spectral clustering for proposal filtering ---------------------------------------------------- Given a set of object proposals $B=\{b_{1},b_{2},...,b_{N}\}$ and proposal scores $s=\{s_{1},s_{2},...,s_{N}\}$ ($N=1000$), we need to effectively select a subset of proposals that have a high probability of containing an object. We model the feature similarity among the object proposals using an undirected graph. For each proposal $b_{i} \in B$, we extract a HOG descriptor $f_{i}$ on a $8\times8$ grid ([@dalal2005histograms]). We model graph $W$ based on the HOG feature similarity among the computed proposals in the set $B$. Each node of the graph is the computed HOG descriptor $f_{i}$ and each edge of the graph is weighted by $w_{ij}$, where $w_{ij}$ is the gaussian similarity score computed as $w(f_{i},f_{j}) = exp(-\frac{\|{f_{i}-f_{j}}\|^{2}}{2\sigma^{2}})$. Here the parameter $\sigma$ controls the width of the neighbourhood. For our experiments we select $\sigma$ to be $0.05\times \max(\|f_{i}-f_{j}\|)$. After constructing the graph $W$, we then compute the normalized Laplacian matrix of the graph W as $L = I-D^{\frac{-1}{2}}WD^{\frac{-1}{2}}$, where $D$ is the diagonal matrix composed of the sum of rows of $W$. This choice is motivated by the work of [@shi2000normalized] who showed that selecting the second smallest eigenvector of the normalized Laplacian graph $L$ leads to bi-partitioning of the graph. As HOG features are able to discriminate between the foreground and background object proposals through the modelled graph, this bi-partitioning will try to partition these proposals into two separate clusters. However, one step of spectral clustering will not be able to select highly localized proposals from the huge set of object proposals. As a result, we perform a few iterations of spectral clustering until we are left with a few highly localized object proposals from which we can estimate the final detected window. In order to select a cluster for subsequent partitioning, we compute a cluster score by taking the average of all the scores $s$ among all the proposals present in the cluster. We pick the cluster with higher score for further partitioning and discard the proposals in the cluster with lower score. We continue this iterative spectral clustering until the number of proposals are less than stopping criteria $T$ (here, $T=100$). As it can be seen in Fig. \[Fig:prop\_filt\](b) that after iterative spectral clustering, highly localized object proposals are retained and rest of the proposals are discarded from the original set of proposals (Fig. \[Fig:prop\_filt\](a)). ![**Results of iterative spectral clustering**. (a) Candidate regions extracted from the input image from the PASCAL VOC 2007 dataset ([@pascal-voc-2007]). (b) Filtered object proposals of the image.[]{data-label="Fig:prop_filt"}](fig_2.png) **Procedure:**\ Set Number of proposals, N.\ Set stop criteria for iterative spectral clustering, $T$.\ Set $k$ for NN search and $C$ for number of groups to select.\ Extract object proposals $B=\{b_{1},b_{2},...,b_{N}\}$ from $I$.\ Compute saliency map $S$ of $I$.\ Compute saliency score $s_{sal}$ for each proposal.\ Compute overall score $s_{i} = s_{obj}*s_{sal}$, $i=1$ to $N$.\ Compute HOG features for $b_{i} \in B$, i.e., $F=\{f_{1},f_{2},...,f_{N}\}$.\ Compute Dense SIFT features $\hat{F}=\{\hat{f}_{1},\hat{f}_{2},...,\hat{f}_{K}\}$, for $\hat{b}_{i} \in \hat{B}$, where $\hat{B}=\{\hat{b}_{1},\hat{b}_{2},...,\hat{b}_{K}\}$, where $K<T$.\ *k*-NN for $\hat{b}_{i} \in \hat{B}$ resulting in $G=\{g_{1},g_{2},...,g_{K}\}$ groups.\ Compute scores for $g_{i} \in G$ using Eq. \[eq1\] and pick top-*C* groups.\ Compute mean of all coordinates of proposals to get the final localized window $b_{final}$. Estimating the final localized window ------------------------------------- After the iterative spectral clustering step, the proposals obtained from the final cluster localizes the object region in the image, as it can be seen in Fig. \[Fig:prop\_filt\](b). This is due to the reason that the proposals in the final cluster have a high HOG feature similarity and they stand out based on the cluster score during the entire clustering process. We need to estimate a tight localization window around the object from these proposals in order to get good localization accuracy in a completely unsupervised fashion. One simple way to do this is to take the mean of all the proposals obtained after the iterative spectral clustering step. However, such a naive technique is prone to outliers (those object proposals that are larger in area will have less portion of object covered and have more background region) which will affect the overall mean of all the windows and thus affect the final localization accuracy. As a result, we need to come up with a better strategy to estimate the final window location which is immune to such outliers and thus resulting in an accurate localization. In visual perception, a high contrast difference exists between the foreground and the background regions and low contrast difference exists between the foreground-foreground and background-background regions. We exploit this idea in order to get a good localization window. We group the object proposals obtained after clustering by considering each proposal as a seed proposal and selecting other members of the group as the proposals that have a high feature similarity with the seed proposal. We score each group based on the feature similarity of group’s member proposals with the seed proposal and on the score of each proposal in the group. The main difference between iterative spectral clustering step and proposal grouping strategy is that, iterative spectral clustering helps in effectively filtering huge set of proposals at a very fast rate by reducing the number of proposals by about half in each iteration. However, each proposal remaining after the iterative spectral clustering step will have some implication on the final localization accuracy as it can be seen in Fig. \[Fig:prop\_filt\](b). As a result, continuing iterative spectral clustering on these proposals will discard many such proposals that highly contribute towards the localization accuracy. Because of this, we come up with a proposal grouping technique that considers each proposals implication on localization accuracy through the contrast differences between the foreground and background regions, thus helping in better localization window estimation. After the iterative spectral clustering step, we are left with a set of proposals $\hat{B}=\{\hat{b}_{1},\hat{b}_{2},...,\hat{b}_{K}\}$, where $K<T$. For each object proposal $\hat{b}_{i}\in\hat{B}$, we extract dense SIFT features as local discriminative features every $4$ pixels and vector quantize each descriptor into a $1,000$ word codebook. For each proposal, we pool the SIFT features within the proposal using $1\times1$ and $3\times3$ spatial pyramid matching (SPM) ([@lazebnik2006beyond]) pooling regions to generate a $d = 10,000$ dimensional feature descriptor for each box, similar to the one used by [@tang2014co] for co-localization. We then normalize each feature descriptor using $L_{2}$ norm. As a result of this, we get a set of features $\hat{F}=\{\hat{f}_{1},\hat{f}_{2},...,\hat{f}_{K}\}$ for each proposal in $\hat{B}$. We then group the set of object proposals that are perceptually similar. For this, we consider each proposal from the set $\hat{B}$ as the seed proposal and find the *k*-nearest neighbours of this seed proposal using the $\hat{F}$ feature set. Here we select $k=10$. We do this *k*-nearest neighbour search for all proposals. After this, we get $G=\{g_{1},g_{2},...,g_{K}\}$ groups of object proposals with each group containing one member as a seed proposal and remaining members of the group with proposals that have higher similarity with the seed proposal. In order to get the final localization window, we need to select best groups from this set $G$. We compute the score for each group based on the feature similarity among the proposals in that group and the proposal score of the member object proposals in that group. The score for each group $g_{i} \in G$ is given as: $$s_{group}(i) = \sum_{j=2}^{\textit{k}} s(\hat{b}_{j}) (\hat{f}_{j}^{\top}\hat{f}_{i}) \label{eq1}$$ Here $i$ is the seed proposal of the group and $j$ is the index of the group members and thus the range is from $2$ to $k$. We pick top-$C$ proposal groups (here, $C=5$) that have maximum group scores and obtain a final set of proposals by taking the union of all proposals in the top-$C$ groups (i.e., many proposals in the top-$C$ groups would be common, thus those proposals that are common will be considered only once in the final set if we take the union). We then take the mean of all the coordinates of the bounding boxes in the final set of proposals in order to obtain the final detection window $b_{final}$ as shown in Figure. \[Fig:pipeline\](e).  Evaluation {#ev} ========== In order to evaluate our algorithm, we conducted experiments on two realistic datasets, the Object Discovery dataset ([@Rubinstein13Unsupervised]) and PASCAL VOC 2007 dataset ([@pascal-voc-2007]) and compare the results with various state-of-the-art algorithms for weakly supervised localization of object in the image like [@nguyen2009weakly; @hoai2014learning; @siva2011weakly; @siva2012defence; @shi2013bayesian; @gokberk2014multi; @cinbis2017weakly; @wang2014weakly]. We set the parameters of the experiments as follows: (1) Number of proposals per image, $N=1000$. (2) Stopping criteria of iterative spectral clustering, $T=100$. (3) $k$ for NN search, $k=10$. (4) Number of groups to merge, $C=5$. Selecting a higher value of $k$ and $C$ will result into more proposals contributing to the estimation of the final localization window, thus affecting the localization accuracy. We tried with different values of $k$ and $C$ and found that the above values give best results. We use these values for our experiments and keep it constant throughout. Evaluation criteria and runtime ------------------------------- Following previous works on weakly supervised localization of images, we use the CorLoc (correct location) metric, defined as the percentage of images correctly localized in the whole dataset. Here a correct localization in an image is obtained if the intersection-over-union score of the estimated bounding box and the ground truth bounding box of the image is greater than $0.5$ i.e., $\frac{area(b_{p}\cap b_{gt})}{area(b_{p}\cup b_{gt})}>0.5$. Here $b_{p}$ is the predicted bounding box and $b_{gt}$ is the ground truth bounding box of the same object. This evaluation criteria was suggested by [@everingham2010pascal]. Since our algorithm is able to localize a single object instance in an image, we face an issue when the image consists of multiple object instances. This case happens when we evaluate our algorithm on PASCAL VOC 2007 dataset ([@pascal-voc-2007]) where many images consists of more than one target object instances. In order to measure CorLoc in such situations, we evaluate our algorithm on per image basis i.e., we classify the image to be correctly localized if any one object instance in the image satisfies the CorLoc condition similar to [@wang2014weakly]. We perform the experiments in MATLAB environment on a PC with intel core i7 processor. Our algorithm is able to localize an object in an image of resolution of $500 \times 375$ (of PASCAL VOC dataset) in around $\sim11$ seconds, out of which computing saliency map using [@margolin2013makes] technique itself takes $7.5$ secs. In order to make the entire algorithm faster we can replace the saliency algorithm with various other faster alternatives ([@cheng2015global]). ![Results of localization on Object Discovery dataset ([@Rubinstein13Unsupervised]). Green box $=$ Estimated Window, Red box $=$ Ground Truth.[]{data-label="Fig:results1"}](fig_4.png) Object Discovery dataset and results ------------------------------------ The Object Discovery dataset ([@Rubinstein13Unsupervised]) consists of images from $3$ object categories i.e., aeroplane, car, horse. We evaluate our algorithm on the $100$ image subset. This dataset is mainly used for the purpose of benchmarking object discovery algorithms ([@Rubinstein13Unsupervised; @cho2015unsupervised; @chen_cvpr14]). However, since each image consist of a single object to localize, we can have a much more extensive and better evaluation of our algorithm. No previous weakly supervised techniques for localization with which we benchmark our algorithm ([@nguyen2009weakly; @hoai2014learning; @siva2011weakly; @siva2012defence; @shi2013bayesian; @gokberk2014multi; @cinbis2017weakly; @wang2014weakly]) have benchmarked their algorithms on this dataset. Since this dataset is used for object discovery algorithms, it consists of noisy images as well. We discard noisy images in the evaluation of our algorithm because of the unavailability of the ground truth for these images. Aeroplane class of the dataset have $18$, car class have $11$ and horse class have $7$ noisy images out of the set of $100$ images each. Thus we get a total of $264$ images for evaluation from the whole dataset. The ground truths are available in the form of segmentations. We convert all the ground truth segmentations into localization boxes. We evaluate our algorithm on all $264$ images of all $3$ classes available in the dataset. The results are shown in Table \[tab: ObjDis\]. Our algorithm achieves an average CorLoc measure of $51.41 \%$. Images of the results of localization on Object Discovery dataset is shown in Fig. \[Fig:results1\]. **Class** **Aeroplane** **Car** **Horse** **Average (%)** ------------ --------------- --------- ----------- ----------------- **CorLoc** 43.9 65.17 45.16 51.41 : Performance of our algorithm on Object Discovery dataset. \[tab: ObjDis\] PASCAL VOC 2007 dataset and results ----------------------------------- In order to compare our algorithm with various other weakly supervised algorithms, we benchmark it on PASCAL VOC 2007 dataset ([@pascal-voc-2007]) which is a very challenging dataset consisting of images captured in real-life scenarios with considerable clutter, occlusion, and diverse viewpoints. It consists of 20 object classes. For a large scale evaluation of the algorithm we take all train+val dataset images which counts to a total of $5011$ images. Each of the $20$ object instances are spread across all the $5011$ images in a range from $215$ (diningtable) to $4690$ (person), having a total of $12608$ object instances. However, as mentioned above we evaluate our algorithm on per image basis i.e., the image is correctly classified in the image if atleast one object instance in the image is correctly localized. The results on PASCAL dataset is shown in Table \[tab: results\]. The second column in the table describes about the amount of data used by these mentioned algorithms. Positive images of the training set is denoted by P and negative images are denoted by N. [@wang2014weakly] uses additional data to train a CNN model thus this is represented as A. We evaluate our algorithm on $5011$ images. Our algorithm achieves an average CorLoc measure of about $35.08\%$, which performs better then some of the weakly supervised techniques i.e. [@nguyen2009weakly; @hoai2014learning; @siva2011weakly; @siva2012defence] and comparably to [@shi2013bayesian], despite being completely unsupervised. The best performing algorithm is that by [@wang2014weakly] which gives an average CorLoc of $48.5\%$. However, it trains a convolutional neural network (CNN) on ILSVRC 2011 dataset in order to extract a $4096$ deep feature descriptor for each proposal of the image. However, we achieve better results than $3$ weakly supervised by just using simple conventional features like HOG and dense SIFT and with the power of spectral clustering. Images of the results of localization on PASCAL VOC dataset is shown in Fig. \[Fig:results\]. [@ccc@]{} **Method** & **Data used** & **CorLoc (%)**\ [@nguyen2009weakly] & P+N & 22.4\ [@siva2011weakly] & P+N & 30.2\ [@siva2012defence] & P+N & 30.4\ [@shi2013bayesian] & P+N & 36.2\ [@gokberk2014multi] & P+N & 38.8\ [@cinbis2017weakly] & --- P --- : Performance of our algorithm on PASCAL VOC 2007 dataset. & 47.3\ [@wang2014weakly] & P+N+A & 48.5\ **Ours** & - & **35.08**\ \[tab: results\] Conclusion {#conc} ========== We have presented a new simple and efficient approach for unsupervised object localization using iterative spectral clustering and proposal grouping. We have shown that our algorithm is able to perform well in challenging scenarios by benchmarking our algorithm on challenging datasets like Object Discovery dataset and PASCAL VOC 2007. We have achieved comparable results in terms of CorLoc when compared to other weakly supervised algorithms. In future work, we plan to extend this work to localizing multiple object instances in an image thus making the algorithm more useful for real-life scenarios.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We present a state-of-the-art reanalysis of experimental results on Efimov resonances in the three-fermion system of $^6$Li. We discuss different definitions of the 3-body parameter (3BP) for Efimov states, and adopt a definition that excludes effects due to deviations from universal scaling for low-lying states. We develop a finite-temperature model for the case of three distinguishable fermions and apply it to the excited-state Efimov resonance to obtain the most accurate determination to date of the 3BP in an atomic three-body system. Our analysis of ground-state Efimov resonances in the same system yields values for the three-body parameter that are consistent with the excited-state result. Recent work has suggested that the reduced 3BP for atomic systems is a near-universal quantity, almost independent of the particular atom involved. However, the value of the 3BP obtained for $^6$Li is significantly ($\sim 20$%) different from that previously obtained from the excited-state resonance in Cs. The difference between these values poses a challenge for theory.' author: - 'Bo Huang(黄博)' - 'Kenneth M. O’Hara' - Rudolf Grimm - 'Jeremy M. Hutson' - 'Dmitry S. Petrov' title: 'The three-body parameter for Efimov states in lithium-6' --- [UTF8]{}[gbsn]{} Introduction ============ Ultracold atomic gases with resonant interactions provide experimental model systems to explore the universal physics of few-body quantum states [@Braaten2006uif; @Ferlaino2010fyo]. Efimov states, which are weakly bound three-body quantum states in systems of resonantly interacting particles, are a paradigm of this field. Efimov [@Efimov1970ela] showed that, when two bosons interact with an infinite scattering length, the corresponding three-particle system has an infinite number of three-body states just below threshold. For zero-range interactions, each successive Efimov state is larger than the previous one by a discrete length scaling factor, the ‘Efimov period’, which is 22.7 for a system of three identical bosons [@note:efactor] but can be widely different for other systems [@Dincao2006eto]. We refer to this universal scaling behavior as Efimov universality. The interactions between pairs of ultracold atoms may be varied by tuning an applied magnetic field in the vicinity of a zero-energy Feshbach resonance [@Chin2010fri]. The scattering length has a pole at resonance, corresponding to a 2-body bound state exactly at threshold. Signatures of Efimov states were first observed in an ultracold gas of cesium atoms [@Kraemer2006efe], and have since been found in many other systems, including other bosonic gases [@Zaccanti2009ooa; @Pollack2009uit; @Gross2009oou; @Gross2010nsi; @Wild2012mot; @Roy2013tot], three-component fermionic spin mixtures [@Ottenstein2008cso; @Huckans2009tbr; @Williams2009efa; @Nakajima2010nea], and mixtures of atomic species [@Barontini2009ooh; @Bloom2013tou; @Tung2014oog; @Pires2014ooe]. Moreover, extensions of the Efimov scenario to universal states of larger clusters [@Hammer2007upo; @vonStecher2009sou; @vonStecher2010wbc] have been demonstrated in experiments [@Ferlaino2009efu; @Pollack2009uit; @Zenesini2013rfb], highlighting the general nature of universal few-body physics. In addition to their discrete scaling property, Efimov states are characterized by a [*three-body parameter*]{} (3BP), which determines the position of the entire ladder of states. In the realm of nuclear systems, the 3BP is a non-universal quantity [@Braaten2006uif], determined by details of the short-range interaction. However, in atomic systems it has been found experimentally [@Berninger2011uot; @Roy2013tot] that the 3BP is nearly constant when expressed in terms of the van der Waals length $r_{\rm vdW}$ [@Chin2010fri], which quantifies the dispersion interaction between two neutral atoms. We refer to this feature of Efimov physics as van der Waals universality of the 3BP, and it has been the subject of a number of theoretical investigations [@Chin2011uso; @Wang2012oot; @Schmidt2012epb; @Sorensen2012epa; @Naidon2014moa; @Wang2014uvd]. Three-body recombination resonances occur when Efimov states cross the three-atom threshold as a function of magnetic field (and hence of scattering length) [@Esry1999rot; @Braaten2001tbr; @Ferlaino2011eri]. Recombination resonances due to Efimov ground states provide the most prominent observables in Efimov physics. Many experiments have focused on such features, including some that determined the 3BP [@Berninger2011uot; @Wild2012mot; @Roy2013tot]. In real atomic systems, however, finite-range corrections may significantly affect universal scaling, particularly for ratios involving the Efimov ground state [@Thogersen2008nbe; @Platter2009rct; @Naidon:2011; @Schmidt2012epb]. However, such corrections decrease substantially for higher Efimov states and are already very small for the first excited state. Excited-state resonances are therefore particularly interesting for precise measurements of the 3BP. Excited-state Efimov resonances occur at very large scattering lengths. They require extremely low temperatures for experimental observation, since the recombination peaks are less well defined when the de Broglie wavelengths are shorter than the scattering lengths [@Dincao2004lou; @Kraemer2006efe; @Rem2013lot]. Excited-state resonances have therefore been observed in only a very few experiments, carried out with $^6$Li [@Williams2009efa], with $^{133}$Cs [@Huang2014oot], and with mixtures of $^6$Li and $^{133}$Cs [@Tung2014oog; @Pires2014ooe]. Quantitative understanding of these resonances requires both very precise knowledge of the two-body scattering properties and an accurate theoretical description of finite-temperature effects. Ref. [@Huang2014oot] analyzed the excited-state Efimov resonance in cesium, using a highly accurate model of the two-body scattering [@Berninger2013frw] and a theoretical finite-temperature approach recently developed in Ref. [@Rem2013lot]. This study provided the most precise measurement of the Efimov period so far. In this Article, we re-analyze previous experimental results on the excited-state Efimov resonance in $^6$Li observed in Ref. [@Williams2009efa] and on the ground-state Efimov resonances observed in Refs. [@Ottenstein2008cso] and [@Huckans2009tbr]. In Sec. \[sec:3BP\], we discuss different definitions of the 3BP and how they are affected by deviations from ideal Efimov behavior. We adopt a definition that excludes effects due to deviations from universal scaling for low-lying states. In Sec. \[sec:threefermion\], we summarize the main properties of the three-fermion system. In Sec. \[sec:model\], we develop a new finite-temperature approach, which generalizes the theory introduced for the three-boson case in Ref. [@Rem2013lot] to the case of three distinguishable fermions. In Sec. \[sec:excited\], we present a refined analysis of the excited-state resonance observed in Ref. [@Williams2009efa]. This gives a high-precision value for the 3BP in $^6$Li, which deviates significantly from those found in other atomic systems. In Sec. \[sec:ground\], we re-analyze previous results on the ground-state Efimov resonance from Ref. [@Ottenstein2008cso] and investigate the possible influence of finite-range effects. In Sec. \[sec:discuss\], we discuss our findings in the context of other experiments in the field. The value of the 3BP found for $^6$Li is not well explained by current theories and presents a challenge for future theoretical work. Three-body parameter {#sec:3BP} ==================== For three identical bosons, ideal Efimov scaling leads to the simple relation $$\kappa^{(n+1)} = \kappa^{(n)} / 22.7 \, \label{eq:kappa_universal}$$ between the wavenumbers $\kappa^{(n)}$ that characterize the energies $E^{(n)}_{\rm res} = - (\hbar \kappa^{(n)})^2/m$ of successive Efimov states in the resonant limit $a \rightarrow \pm\infty$. Here $m$ is the atomic mass and $n$ is an integer quantum number. The corresponding relation between the the scattering lengths at the positions of successive recombination resonances is $$a_-^{(n+1)} = 22.7 \times a_-^{(n)} \, . \label{eq:a_universal}$$ The universal relation $$a_-^{(n)} = -1.508 / \kappa^{(n)} \, \label{eq:aminus}$$ connects a resonance position with the corresponding bound-state wavenumber. In the ideal case, knowledge of any of the above quantities $\kappa^{(n)}$ or $a_-^{(n)}$ fixes the infinite series and thus provides a proper representation of the 3BP. In a real system, where the interaction has a finite range, the Efimov spectrum is bounded from below. We refer to the lowest state as the Efimov ground state with $n=0$ and to the corresponding resonance at $a_-^{(0)}$ as the ground-state Efimov resonance. Eqs. (\[eq:kappa\_universal\]) and (\[eq:a\_universal\]) then represent approximations, subject to finite-range effects. One way to understand the Efimov effect is through a treatment in hyperspherical coordinates. Efimov states may be viewed as supported by an effective adiabatic potential that is a function of the hyperradius $R$. For a zero-range two-body potential with large scattering length $a$, this potential is attractive and proportional to $R^{-2}$ for $R\lesssim|a|$ [@Macek:1986] and supports an infinite number of bound states as $a\rightarrow\pm\infty$. For potential curves with long-range van der Waals tails, however, Wang [*et al.*]{} [@Wang2012oot] have shown that the effective adiabatic potential reaches a minimum and then rises to a wall or barrier near $R=2r_{\rm vdW}$. The position of the minimum and wall depend to some extent on the details of the two-body potential and the number of bound states it supports, but become near-universal as the number of 2-body bound states increases. The presence of the minimum and wall have two principal effects on the physics. First, the deviation of the effective potential from $R^{-2}$ behavior results in deviations from ideal Efimov scaling for the lowest-lying states. Secondly, the boundary condition provided by the wall defines the position of the entire ladder of Efimov states, and its nearly universal position is responsible for the near-universality of the 3BP. However, it should be noted that the wall itself is a product of physics around $2r_{\rm vdW}$, so that variations in the physics in this region can produce deviations from universality of the 3BP even in the limit $a\rightarrow\pm\infty$. Theoretical investigations [@Thogersen2008nbe; @Platter2009rct; @Wang2012oot; @Schmidt2012epb] have shown that the Efimov ground state may be subject to considerable modifications. For $n=0$ this may change the factor $22.7$ in Eqs. (\[eq:a\_universal\]) - (\[eq:aminus\]) by up to 25%. The relation (\[eq:aminus\]) is subject to similar modifications [@Schmidt2012epb; @Wang2012oot]. The recent experiment on the excited-state resonance in Cs [@Huang2014oot] and a related theoretical investigation [@Wang2014uvd] also hint at deviations from the ideal scaling. The deviations from universal scaling for low-lying Efimov states raise the question of the best representation of the 3BP. Definitions based on the limit $n \rightarrow \infty$ remove effects of this type from the 3BP. Accordingly, we adopt the definition [@Braaten2006uif] $$\kappa_* = \lim_{n \to \infty} \left( 22.7^n \kappa^{(n)} \right) \, , \label{eq:idealkappa}$$ and by analogy $$a_-^* = \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{a_-^{(n)}}{22.7^n}\, . \label{eq:ideala}$$ The position of the ground-state Efimov resonance, $a_-^{(0)}$, is commonly used as a 3BP. However, it gives a somewhat crude approximation to $a_-^*$, and in some cases may deviate from it by as much as 25%. The quantities $a_-^{(1)}/22.7$ and $22.7\kappa^{(1)}$, obtained from the excited-state resonance, provide much better approximations to $a_-^*$ and $\kappa_*$, with corrections of only about 1% due to deviations from universal scaling [@Schmidt2012epb]; these corrections are comparable to the other uncertainties in current experiments. Efimov states are also characterized by a decay parameter $\eta_*$ [@Braaten2006uif], which describes their decay to lower-lying atom-dimer combinations. This parameter is usually considered to be a constant for a particular Efimov state, but may vary if the available product states change significantly. The resulting field dependence may be important when interpreting measurements that extend over wide ranges of field [@Wenz2009uti]. Efimov states in a three-component Fermi gas {#sec:threefermion} ============================================ Three-fermion system -------------------- Efimov states in a three-component gas of fermions [@Braaten2009tbr] exhibit the same discrete scaling behavior as in the three-boson case, provided that all three scattering lengths involved are large ($|a_{12}|, |a_{13}|, |a_{23}| \gg r_{\rm vdW}$). In particular, if the masses of the three components are equal, the Efimov period is given by the same discrete scaling factor of $22.7$ [@note:efactor]. The special case of three equal scattering lengths ($a_{12} = a_{13} = a_{23}$) is formally equivalent to the situation for three identical bosons. A gas of $^6$Li atoms prepared in a mixture of the lowest three spin states allows a realization of large scattering lengths by Feshbach tuning [@Chin2010fri]. However, the applied magnetic field offers only one degree of freedom for tuning, thus limiting the experimentally accessible combinations of scattering lengths. Arbitrary combinations and, in particular, the situation of three equal scattering lengths thus remain hypothetical cases, but universal theory allows them to be linked to the combinations that exist in real systems. In real experiments on a three-fermion system, Efimov resonances appear at certain combinations of large scattering lengths $a_{12}, a_{13}, a_{23}$, where typically $a_{12} \neq a_{13} \neq a_{23}$. A generalization of the Skorniakov–Ter-Martirosian (STM) equations [@Braaten2009tbr] can be employed to determine the 3BP from these generally unequal values. In the wavenumber representation, $\kappa_*$ then refers to the hypothetical case of three infinite scattering lengths, while $a_-^*$ refers to a hypothetical system with three equal scattering lengths. The STM approach is based on the zero-range approximation and therefore does not take account of finite-range corrections, which are significant at relatively small scattering lengths. It can thus be expected to provide an excellent approximation for excited Efimov states ($n \ge 1$), but it may be subject to significant corrections if applied to the Efimov ground state ($n=0$). Three-body recombination ------------------------ In a three-component Fermi gas, the dominant contribution to three-body losses results from triples of three non-identical particles. All other combinations involve pairs of identical fermions, which leads to a strong Pauli suppression of losses at ultralow temperatures [@Esry2001tlf]. Three-body losses can be modeled by the simple rate equation $$\frac{d}{dt} n_i = - L_3 n_1 n_2 n_3 \, ,$$ where the $n_i$ represent the number densities of the three different spin states. After a spatial integration of losses over the density profile of the trapped cloud, the loss rate coefficient $L_3$ can be experimentally determined by fitting the time-dependent decay of the total atom numbers [@Ottenstein2008cso; @Huckans2009tbr; @Williams2009efa]. Efimov states show up as distinct loss resonances [@Ferlaino2011eri] when they couple to the three-atom threshold. Lithium-6 --------- The situation of a three-component Fermi gas of $^6$Li is unique because of overlapping Feshbach resonances in all three combinations of the lowest three spin states together with large negative background scattering lengths. The two-body scattering properties are known to an extraordinarily high level of precision thanks to the characterization in Ref. [@Zurn2013pco], which significantly improved the conversion from magnetic field to scattering lengths compared to previous work [@Bartenstein2005pdo]. In the resonance region between 832 and 900G, all three scattering lengths are very large and negative, with absolute values of a few thousand times the Bohr radius $a_0$ that vastly exceed $r_{\rm vdW} = 31.26\,a_0$. In this extreme regime, an excited Efimov state exists [@Williams2009efa]. This trimer state crosses the three-atom threshold near 900G and leads to a strong enhancement of three-body recombination. The corresponding Efimov ground state exists over a much wider range of magnetic fields, but it does not cross threshold at currently accessible magnetic fields and thus does not lead to an observable recombination resonance. In the magnetic-field region below the zero crossings of the Feshbach resonances, the three scattering lengths are moderately large and negative, so that an Efimov ground state exists. This state crosses the three-atom threshold near 130G and near 500G [@Ottenstein2008cso; @Huckans2009tbr], leading to two observable Efimov resonances. In this low-field region, the scattering lengths never reach large enough values for an excited Efimov state to exist. The effective range ------------------- One way to quantify the finite (non-zero) range of an atomic interaction is through the effective range [@Bethe:1949; @Hinckelmann:1971], which characterizes the leading term in the energy-dependence of the scattering length. The effective range behaves very differently in the vicinity of Feshbach resonances of different types [@Blackley:eff-range:2014]. For a resonance that is strongly entrance-channel-dominated [@Chin2010fri], the effective range takes a small and fairly constant value close to $2.8r_{\rm vdW}$ at fields near the resonance pole [@Gao:QDT:1998]. By contrast, for resonances that are closed-channel-dominated, the effective range is much larger and varies very fast with magnetic field [@Blackley:eff-range:2014]. The Feshbach resonances used in the present work for $^6$Li are all strongly entrance-channel-dominated [@Chin2010fri], so that deviations from Efimov scaling due to finite-range effects are expected to be relatively small in comparison to some of the other atomic systems that have been studied. Finite-temperature theoretical approach {#sec:model} ======================================= A convenient way of modeling three-body losses in Efimovian systems is provided by the $S$-matrix formalism based on Efimov’s radial law [@Efimov1979lep], which is elaborated in Refs. [@Braaten2006uif; @Braaten2008tbr; @Rem2013lot] for the case of three identical bosons. Its generalization to three distinguishable atoms with different scattering lengths is straightforward and we will present only a brief derivation. This is a zero-range theory for which $\kappa_*$ and $\eta_*$ are external parameters. First, one introduces three-atom scattering channels describing the motion of free atoms at large distances. By contrast, all atom-dimer channels are substituted by the single Efimov channel defined in the scaling region $r_{\rm vdW}\ll R\ll {\rm min}\{1/k,|a_{12}|,|a_{23}|,|a_{13}|\}$, where $k=\sqrt{mE}/\hbar$, $E$ is the energy in the center of mass reference frame, $R$ is the hyperradius, and we consider the case of negative scattering lengths. The reason for this substitution is that when $r_{\rm vdW}\ll {\rm min}\{1/k,|a_{12}|,|a_{23}|,|a_{13}|\}$ this channel becomes essentially the only one that can conduct three atoms from large distances to the recombination region of size $\sim r_{\rm vdW}$. One can think of this short-distance channel and the long-distance three-atom channels as being fused together at intermediate distances where the transmission, reflection, and mixing of the channels takes place. We can then introduce a unitary matrix $s_{ij}$, which defines the amplitude of the outgoing wave in channel $j$ if the incoming wave is injected in channel $i$. The terms “incoming” and “outgoing” are defined with respect to the fusion region. In particular, the incoming Efimov wave $R^{-2+is_0}$ actually propagates towards larger distances and $R^{-2-is_0}$ describes the outgoing one. Here $s_0 \approx 1.00624$ is a constant and the ideal Efimov period of 22.7 is $e^{\pi/s_0}$. The simple fact that the matrix $s_{ij}$ is unitary turns out to be very useful in describing the scaling properties of Efimovian systems [@Braaten2006uif]. We point out that $s_{ij}$ does not depend on the 3BP $\kappa_*$ or the decay parameter $\eta_*$. These quantities come into play when one fixes the relative phase and amplitude of the incoming and outgoing Efimov waves, $$\label{ThreeBodyCond} R^2\Psi\,{\propto}\,(R/R_0)^{is_0}{-}e^{2\eta_*}(R/R_0)^{-is_0},$$ where $R_0$ is a three-body length related to $\kappa_*$ by $$(\kappa_* R_0/2)^{2is_0}=-\Gamma(is_0)/\Gamma(-is_0)$$ and $\Gamma$ is the gamma function. One can imagine that Efimov waves are reflected at small hyperradii by a lossy mirror with reflection/loss properties given by Eq. (\[ThreeBodyCond\]). The three-body problem is then analogous to a Fabry-Perot interferometer with the other mirror quantified by the matrix $s_{ij}$. This picture gives a convenient way of understanding and describing three-body loss peaks as resonances of the Fabry-Perot cavity. In particular, if we denote the Efimov channel by subscript 1, the loss probability for a given incoming channel $i\neq 1$ is [@Braaten2008tbr] $$P_i=\frac{(1-e^{-4\eta_*})|s_{i1}|^2}{|1+(kR_0)^{-2is_0}e^{-2\eta_*}s_{11}|^2},$$ where the denominator accounts for multiple reflections “inside” the resonator. The total loss rate constant for three distinguishable fermions is obtained by using unitarity ($\sum_{i=1}^\infty|s_{1i}|^2\,{=}\,1$) and averaging over the Boltzmann distribution, $$\begin{aligned} \label{L3result} L_3&=&\frac{24\sqrt{3}\pi^2\hbar (1-e^{-4\eta_*})}{mk_{\rm th}^{6}} \nonumber\\ &\times& \int_0^\infty\frac{(1-|s_{11}|^2)e^{-k^2/k_{\rm th}^2}}{|1+(kR_0)^{-2is_0}e^{-2\eta_*}s_{11}|^2}k\,dk,\end{aligned}$$ where $k_{\rm th}=\sqrt{mk_{\rm B}T}/\hbar$. Equation (\[L3result\]) differs from the bosonic result of Ref. [@Rem2013lot] only by the factor $1/3$, which is due to the bosonic bunching effect and different ways of counting triples in the two cases. A more profound change is hidden in the quantity $s_{11}$, which, in contrast to the case of identical bosons, now depends on three dimensionless numbers $ka_{12}$, $ka_{23}$, and $ka_{13}$. In order to determine $s_{11}$ we look for the three-body wave function that behaves as $A (kR)^{-2+is_0}+ B (kR)^{-2-is_0}$ in the scaling region and contains only outgoing waves at large distances. By definition, $s_{11}=B/A$. We solve this problem by using the STM equations in a very close analogy to the bosonic case (see Supplemental Material of [@Rem2013lot]). For distinguishable atoms with generally different scattering lengths we end up with three coupled STM equations (see Ref. [@PetrovLesHouches2010] for details of the method). In practice, we use the known dependence of $a_{ij}$ on $B$ [@Zurn2013pco] and tabulate $s_{11}$ as a function of $k$ and $B$. This then allows fast integration of Eq. (\[L3result\]) for any desired values of $T$, $\kappa_*$, and $\eta_*$. Excited-state Efimov resonance {#sec:excited} ============================== In Ref. [@Williams2009efa], the excited-state Efimov resonance was observed in the high-field region of $^6$Li. In Figure \[fig.2nd\] we show the experimental results for the three-body loss coefficient $L_3$ as a function of the magnetic field, measured for two different temperatures of about 30nK (set A) and 180nK (set B). In this section we reanalyze these results, taking account of finite-temperature effects using the theory described in Sec. \[sec:model\], in order to obtain a refined estimate of the 3BP for $^6$Li. ![(Color online). Finite-temperature fits to the excited-state Efimov resonance. The experimental results obtained for $L_3$ in Ref. [@Williams2009efa] for two different temperatures are plotted as filled blue squares (set A, 30nK) and filled red circles (set B, 180nK). The amplitude scaling parameter $\lambda$ is of order 1, see text. The corresponding solid lines are the fixed-temperature fits to both data sets, carried out on a linear scale (see first and fifth row in Table \[tab.2nd\]). The black dashed curve is calculated for the zero-temperature limit using the parameters from the fixed-temperature fit to the 30 nK set.[]{data-label="fig.2nd"}](2nd.eps){width="8.6cm"} The two free parameters in the temperature-dependent theory of Sec. \[sec:model\] are the 3BP $\kappa_*$ and the decay parameter $\eta_*$. In addition, experimental uncertainties in the number density calibration may considerably affect the amplitude of the observed losses. Such uncertainties may result from the atom number calibration, from the limited knowledge of the trap frequencies, and from errors in the temperature measurements. It is therefore useful to introduce an additional scaling parameter $\lambda$ for the amplitude of the observed losses [@Huang2014oot]. Under realistic experimental conditions, variations of up to a factor of two from the ideal value $\lambda = 1$ are plausible. To analyze the data we follow several different strategies, similar to those applied to the three-boson case of cesium [@Huang2014oot]. First, we fix the temperature $T$ to the measured values $T_{\rm meas} = 30$nK (set A) and 180nK (set B), and we perform a fit with $\kappa_*$, $\eta_*$, and $\lambda$ as the free parameters. Alternatively, we allow for a variable temperature $T$, and instead we fix $\lambda = (T/T_{\rm meas})^{-3}$ [@note:unstable] to take account of the resulting change in the volume of the harmonically trapped gas. Moreover, we fit the data sets A and B on either a linear or a logarithmic scale, which puts different weights on the different regions. In this way, we obtain four different fits for each data set. We note that the experimental results of Ref. [@Williams2009efa] indicated that the effect of heating during the decay of the trapped sample remained very small, so that this effect can safely be neglected in our fit analysis. Set $T$ (nK) $\kappa_* a_0$ $\eta_*$ $\lambda$ ------- ---------- ---------------- ----------- ------------ A 30$^a$ 0.006808(36) 0.032(5) 0.546(27) A log 30$^a$ 0.006744(91) 0.048(15) 0.498(107) A 35(5) 0.006774(39) 0.029(5) 0.644$^T$ A log 36(2) 0.006689(97) 0.042(14) 0.593$^T$ B 180$^a$ 0.006839(80) 0.088(15) 0.258(16) B log 180$^a$ 0.006665(130) 0.067(16) 0.270(49) B 237(5) 0.006736(84) 0.072(15) 0.438$^T$ B log 218(10) 0.006624(118) 0.034(8) 0.562$^T$ : Results of fits for the excited-state Efimov resonance, obtained from the two sets of measurements presented in Fig. \[fig.2nd\]. The fits using a logarithmic $L_3$ scale are indicated with ‘log’ in the column ‘Set’. The superscript $^a$ means that corresponding parameter is kept fixed. The superscript $^T$ indicates that the corresponding parameter is calculated from the fitted values for $T$.[]{data-label="tab.2nd"} ![(Color online). Fitted values for $\kappa_*$ corresponding to the third column in Table \[tab.2nd\]. The dashed line indicates the final result $\kappa_* = 0.00678(6)\,a_0^{-1}$, as obtained from a weighted average of the four data points of the low-temperature data set A (filled blue squares), and the gray-shaded region shows the corresponding uncertainty. The high-temperature data set B (filled red circles) is not used for deriving the final value, but within the uncertainties the values are fully consistent with the result from data set A.[]{data-label="fig.kappas"}](kappas.eps){width="8.6cm"} Table \[tab.2nd\] summarizes the results of our fits for both data sets, and Fig. \[fig.kappas\] shows the values obtained for the 3BP (from the third column of the Table). The comparison between the four different fits for each data set provides information on the robustness of the fits and possible systematic effects beyond simple statistical uncertainties. In our results from the low-temperature set A, the errors on $\kappa_*$ from individual fits range between 0.5% (for linear fits) and 1.5% (for logarithmic fits). Within the error bars no significant systematic deviations appear between the central values obtained from the different fits, which shows that the errors are consistent with purely statistical uncertainties. From the low-temperature data set A, by calculating a weighted average [@note:weights] over all four fitted values, we obtain the final value $\kappa_* = 0.00678(6)\,a_0^{-1}$, where the uncertainty includes both the weighted errors of the four individual fits and the standard deviation of the four slightly different values. The result for $\kappa_*$ and the error are shown by the dashed horizontal line and the gray-shaded region in Fig. \[fig.kappas\]. Note that all the statistical uncertainties specified in this work correspond to one standard deviation. The higher-temperature data set B yields similar results, but with somewhat larger uncertainties. Again, there are no systematic deviations between the four different fit strategies applied. Here the final result for the 3BP, $\kappa_* = 0.00674(13)\,a_0^{-1}$, is fully consistent with the result obtained at lower temperatures, with an uncertainty about two times larger than for set A. This confirms that temperature-induced shifts of the resonance are properly taken into account in our theoretical approach. The original data analysis in Ref. [@Williams2009efa] yielded $\kappa_* = 0.0069(2)\,a_0^{-1}$, remarkably close to the present result but with a quoted error about three times larger. However, the present work reveals two systematic shifts, which in the previous work partially canceled each other. The updated values of the scattering lengths [@Zurn2013pco] shift the value of $\kappa_*$ up by about 3%, while residual finite-temperature effects shift the value down by about 5% [@note:residualT]. A further contribution to our error budget comes from the uncertainty in the mapping from magnetic field to scattering length. The scattering lengths used here were obtained from the potential curves of Ref. [@Zurn2013pco], which were fitted to highly precise measurements of binding energies of $^6$Li$_2$ in the resonant region, together with measurements of collision properties. The fits have recently been extended to include binding energies for $^7$Li$_2$, with an explicit mass-dependence of the potential curves [@Julienne:Li67:2014]. In order to establish the uncertainties in the scattering lengths at the magnetic field of the excited-state resonance, we have repeated the fits of Ref. [@Zurn2013pco] and calculated explicit statistical uncertainties in the three scattering lengths $a_{12}$, $a_{13}$ and $a_{23}$ at 891G, using the procedure of Ref. [@LeRoy:1998]. The resulting contribution to the uncertainty in $\kappa_*$ is about 0.1%. We have also estimated the nonstatistical uncertainties in the scattering lengths by repeating the fits with the experimental binding energies set to the values at the upper and lower limits of their systematic errors, producing a further uncertainty of 0.07%. The uncertainty of 0.1G in the magnetic-field calibration of Ref. [@Williams2009efa] corresponds to a further error of 0.07%. All these error sources are thus negligibly small compared to the fitting errors described above. Based on the results of our fits for $\kappa_*$ and $\eta_*$, we can calculate the recombination rate coefficient $L_3$ in the zero-temperature limit. The resulting curve is shown as a dashed line in Fig. \[fig.2nd\]. The peak occurs at 891G, which marks the point where the Efimov state crosses the three-atom threshold. Here the three scattering lengths are $a_{12} = -8671(38)\,a_0$, $a_{13} = -2866(3)\,a_0$, and $a_{23} = -5728(16)\,a_0$. Ground-state Efimov resonances {#sec:ground} ============================== References [@Ottenstein2008cso; @Huckans2009tbr] reported the observation of the two ground-state Efimov resonances in the low-field region of $^6$Li near 130G and near 500G. The $L_3$ results of Ref. [@Ottenstein2008cso] have been further analyzed in Refs. [@Braaten2009tbr; @Wenz2009uti; @Naidon:2011], using different models within the zero-temperature approximation. Ref. [@Braaten2009tbr] treated the three different scattering lengths within the approach of the generalized STM equations, which is exact within the zero-range limit, while Ref. [@Wenz2009uti] introduced the approximation of an ‘effective scattering length’. As an important improvement, Ref. [@Wenz2009uti] introduced a magnetic-field dependence in the decay parameter $\eta_*$, determined by the binding energies of the different target molecular states. The latter has proved very useful to describe the different widths of the narrower Efimov resonance near 130G and the wider Efimov resonance near 500G. Ref. [@Naidon:2011] considered the effects of finite-range corrections and of a two-channel model of the atom-atom scattering. Our new analysis of the results of Ref. [@Ottenstein2008cso] is based on the generalized STM approach in combination with the magnetic-field-dependent decay parameter $\eta_*$. We also use the updated scattering length values from Ref. [@Zurn2013pco], instead of the ones from Ref. [@Bartenstein2005pdo], but this has negligible effect on the value resulting for the 3BP in the low-field region. All our fits assume a temperature of 215nK [@Ottenstein2008cso], but we find that including finite-temperature effects makes a negligible difference for the ground-state resonances, in contrast to the excited-state case. Our theoretical model to calculate $L_3$ from the three different scattering lengths relies on the zero-range approximation, and is applicable only for $|a_{12}|, |a_{13}|, |a_{23}| \gg r_{\rm vdW}$. However, at the resonance positions of 130G and 500G, the smallest of the three scattering lengths, $|a_{12}|$, exhibits rather small values of $\sim4\,r_{\rm vdW}$ and $\sim3\,r_{\rm vdW}$, respectively. This makes the analysis quite vulnerable to finite-range effects, and the extracted values for $\kappa_*$ can be expected to provide only an approximation to the limiting case of Eq. (\[eq:idealkappa\]). To deal with this nonideal situation, we introduce a lower cutoff scattering length $a_{\rm min}$ and restrict our fit to the region where $|a_{12}|, |a_{13}|, |a_{23}| > a_{\rm min}$. The dependence of the resulting values for $\kappa_*$ on $a_{\rm min}$ then gives an indication of the sensitivity to finite-range and model-dependent corrections. ![(Color online). Fits to the ground-state Efimov resonances. All three panels show the same experimental data on the loss rate coefficient $L_3$ from Ref. [@Ottenstein2008cso], where the filled squares, filled circles, and filled triangles refer to losses measured in the lowest three spin states. The theoretical curves represent our fits to the data on a linear scale. The solid lines indicate the region used for the fit with all three scattering lengths being larger than the cutoff value $a_{\rm min}$. The dashed lines extrapolate the theory to regions not used for the fit.[]{data-label="fig.1stfit"}](1stfit.eps){width="8cm"} Figure \[fig.1stfit\] shows three different fits to the same data points, differing in the cutoff scattering length, $a_{\rm min}/r_{\rm vdW} = 2, 4$, and $6$. The fits are applied globally to both resonances, appearing near 130G and near 500G. The three free parameters of the fit are $\kappa_*$, the amplitude scaling factor $\lambda$ (see Sec. \[sec:excited\]), and the parameter $A$ defined in Ref. [@Wenz2009uti], from which the magnetic-field-dependent $\eta_*$ can be calculated. The lines in Fig. \[fig.1stfit\] represent the behavior within the fit region (solid lines) and extrapolated beyond that region (dashed lines). We find that the fit with $a_{\rm min}/r_{\rm vdW} = 4$ captures both resonances and the overall behavior quite well. Here we obtain $\kappa_* = \, 0.00645(3) \, a_0^{-1}$ (linear scale) and $0.00641(3) \, a_0^{-1}$ (logarithmic scale). For the amplitude scaling factor the fits yield the plausible values $\lambda = 1.65(5)$ (linear) and $1.68(7)$ (logarithmic). From the corresponding values of $A$ we obtain the values $\eta_*=0.0814(3)$ (linear) and $0.0745(3)$ (logarithmic) for the decay parameter at the lower-field (sharper) resonance, which the fit locates at 132G. In contrast to the fit with $a_{\rm min}/r_{\rm vdW} = 4$, the two other fits in Fig. \[fig.1stfit\] are problematic. The fit for $a_{\rm min}/r_{\rm vdW} = 2$ puts some weight on regions where the applicability of zero-range theory is highly questionable, while the fit for $a_{\rm min}/r_{\rm vdW} = 6$ excludes the centers of the two resonances, which provide the most sensitive information on the Efimov resonance positions. ![(Color online). Dependence of the fitted values for $\kappa_*$ on the cutoff scattering length $a_{\rm min}$ for the ground-state Efimov resonance. The blue filled squares and red filled circles refer to fits performed with a linear and logarithmic $L_3$ scale. The error bars represent the $1\sigma$ uncertainties from the individual fits. The horizontal dashed line marks the value of $\kappa_*$ obtained from the excited-state Efimov resonance. The gray-shaded region marks the corresponding error range.[]{data-label="fig.1stBRange"}](1stBRange.eps){width="8.6cm"} Figure \[fig.1stBRange\] shows the values for $\kappa_*$ resulting from fits with different cutoff scattering lengths $a_{\rm min}$ in the range between $2$ and $6\,r_{\rm vdW}$. The filled blue squares represent the fit to the $L_3$ results on a linear scale. This fit puts most weight on the lower resonance, but as $a_{\rm min}$ increases it gives more weight to the region between the resonances, and the resulting value for $\kappa_*$ decreases by almost 10%. The fits to the $L_3$ data on a logarithmic scale (filled red circles) show a similar behavior with a trend towards smaller values of $\kappa_*$ at larger values of $a_{\rm min}$. The fits for $a_{\rm min}/r_{\rm vdW} \ge 5$ do not provide satisfactory results, mainly because of significant problems in reproducing the position of the resonance near 130G. The fits for $a_{\rm min}/r_{\rm vdW} \le 4$ (central panel in Fig. \[fig.1stfit\]) appear good, but for lower values of $a_{\rm min}$ the result may be subject to significant finite-range effects. We therefore consider $a_{\rm min}/r_{\rm vdW} = 4$ to be the best choice. It gives $\kappa_* = 0.00643(4) \, a_0^{-1}$, based on averaging the results of the linear and logarithmic fits. The error given here indicates only the statistical uncertainty, but the dependence of the results on $a_{\rm min}$ suggests additional systematic errors on the order of 10%. The dashed horizontal line and the gray-shaded region in Fig. \[fig.1stBRange\] indicate the value of $\kappa_*$ obtained from the excited-state resonance in Sec. \[sec:excited\], together with the corresponding error range. It may be seen that our results are consistent with discrete scaling as described by Eq. (\[eq:kappa\_universal\]) within the relatively large uncertainties due to finite-range effects in the low-field region. Conclusion {#sec:discuss} ========== We have reanalyzed experimental results for the Efimov recombination resonances in $^6$Li arising from the ground and excited Efimov states, using a very precise model of the two-body scattering [@Zurn2013pco] and a new model of temperature-dependent effects in three-body recombinantion of three nonidentical fermions. From the excited-state Efimov resonance [@Williams2009efa], we obtain the value for the 3BP in the wavenumber representation, $$\kappa_* = 0.00678(6)\,a_0^{-1} \, . \nonumber$$ This gives the reduced 3BP $$\kappa_* r_{\rm vdW} = 0.212(2)\, . \nonumber$$ According to Eq. (\[eq:aminus\]) this corresponds to a reduced 3BP in the scattering length representation, $$a_-^*/r_{\rm vdW} = -7.11(6) \, . \nonumber$$ This latter representation of the 3BP facilitates a direct comparison with three-boson systems, which are characterized by a single scattering length [@note:aeff]. Our analysis of the ground-state Efimov resonances [@Ottenstein2008cso; @Huckans2009tbr] yields values for the 3BP that are consistent with the above result within an estimated 10% uncertainty. Alternatively, they may be viewed as confirming that the lowest Efimov period in $^6$Li is within 10% of the universal value of 22.7. The uncertainties, which follow from systematic shifts that depend on the choice of the lower cutoff applied to the scattering lengths in the data analysis, place an upper bound on the magnitude of possible finite-range corrections to the lowest Efimov period. The rapid decrease of such shifts with increasing order of the Efimov state [@Thogersen2008upo; @Schmidt2012epb] gives us confidence that such corrections can be neglected for the 3BP if determined from the position of an excited-state resonance. It is very interesting to compare the present result with the recent measurement for cesium in Ref. [@Huang2014oot], which gave $a_-^{(1)}=-20190(1200)\,a_0$, implying a reduced 3BP $a_-^*/r_{\rm vdW}^{\rm Cs} = -8.8(4)$ with $r_{\rm vdW}^{\rm Cs} = 101.1\,a_0$ [@Berninger2013frw]. In both cases, the Feshbach resonances used for interaction tuning are strongly entrance-channel-dominated [@Chin2010fri]. The present result for the reduced 3BP in $^6$Li differs from that measured for Cs by a factor $0.81(4)$. This clearly demonstrates that the van der Waals length is not the only relevant quantity in determining the 3BP. Even for strongly entrance-channel-dominated Feshbach resonances, van der Waals universality of the 3BP is only approximate, and is subject to further influences. It remains a challenge for theory to understand fully the role of finite-range effects [@Naidon:2011], of the physics of particular Feshbach resonances [@Schmidt2012epb; @Wang2014uvd], of the role of genuine short-range three-body forces [@Axilrod1943iot; @Soldan2003tbn; @Dincao2009tsr], and of other species-dependent factors such as the number of bound states in the two-body potentials [@Wang2012oot]. It is also possible that light particles can tunnel through the barrier in the effective potential [@Wang2012oot] more effectively than heavy ones. It would be highly desirable to investigate other systems at the precision of the present work, by detecting excited-state Efimov resonances and thus accurately measuring the 3BP. The bosonic gas of $^7$Li [@Gross2009oou; @Pollack2009uit; @Rem2013lot] is a prime candidate for such experiments, because it provides another example of a light system with exceptionally well characterized two-body scattering properties [@Dyke2013frc; @Julienne:Li67:2014]. Atoms such as $^{39}$K [@Zaccanti2009ooa; @Roy2013tot; @Fletcher2013soa] and $^{85}$Rb [@Wild2012mot] also provide very interesting systems for future precision experiments: $^{85}$Rb offers access to another entrance-channel-dominated case, while $^7$Li and $^{39}$K offer Feshbach resonances of intermediate character [@Chin2010fri]. Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ================ We thank Selim Jochim for providing the experimental $L_3$ data for the ground-state Efimov resonances and Benno Rem for useful discussions. We acknowledge support by the Austrian Science Fund FWF within project P23106 and by EPSRC under grant no. EP/I012044/1. D.S.P. acknowledges support from the IFRAF Institute. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council (FR7/2007-2013 Grant Agreement no. 341197). K.M.O. acknowledges support from the NSF (Grant No. 1312430). [68]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{} , ****, (). , ****, (). , ****, (). , ****, (). , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , ****, (). , , , , ****, (). , , , , ****, (). , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , ****, (). , , , , , (). , , , , , , , ****, (). , ****, (). , , , ****, (). , ****, (). , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , ****, (). , (). , , , , ****, (). , , , ****, (). , , , , ****, (). , , , ****, (). , ****, (). , , , ****, (). , ****, (). , , , , , , ****, (). , , , ****, (). , , , ****, (). , ****, (). , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , ****, (). , ****, (). , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , ****, (). , , , ****, (). , , , , , , ****, (). , , , , , , , , , , , , ****, (). , ****, (). , ****, (). , , , ****, (). , ****, (). , ****, (). , , , , ****, (). . , ****, (). , ****, (). , , , ****, (). , ****, (). , , , ****, (). , , , ****, (). , , , ****, (). , , , , , ****, ().

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'The discoveries of superconductivity in heavily boron-doped diamond (C:B) in 2004 and silicon (Si:B) in 2006 renew the interest in the superconducting state of semiconductors. Charge-carrier doping of wide-gap semiconductors leads to a metallic phase from which upon further doping superconductivity can emerge. Recently, we discovered superconductivity in a closely related system: heavily-boron doped silicon carbide (SiC:B). The sample used for that study consists of cubic and hexagonal SiC phase fractions and hence this lead to the question which of them participates in the superconductivity. Here we focus on a sample which mainly consists of hexagonal SiC without any indication for the cubic modification by means of x-ray diffraction, resistivity, and ac susceptibility.' address: - '$^1$Department of Physics, Graduate School of Science, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan' - '$^2$Department of Physics and Mathematics, Aoyama-Gakuin University, Sagamihara, Kanagawa 229-8558, Japan' author: - 'M Kriener$^1$, T Muranaka$^2$, J Kato$^2$, Z A Ren$^2$, J Akimitsu$^2$ and Y Maeno$^1$' title: 'Superconductivity in heavily boron-doped silicon carbide' --- Introduction ============ The possibility to achieve a superconducting phase in wide-band-gap semiconductors was suggested already in 1964 by Cohen, namely in Ge and GeSi [@cohen64a]. Right after the prediction several semiconductor-based compounds were indeed found to be superconducting at rather low temperatures and high charge-carrier doping concentrations. In the last decade superconductivity was found in doped silicon clathrates [@kawaji95a; @grosche01a; @connetable03a] which exhibit similar bond lengths in a covalent tetrahedral $sp^3$ network like diamond. In 2004 eventually type-II superconductivity was found in highly boron-doped diamond [@ekimov04a], the cubic carbon modification with a large band gap. The boron (hole) concentration of the sample was reported to be about $n=1.8\times 10^{21}$cm$^{-3}$ with a critical superconducting transition temperature ${\ensuremath{T_{\rm c}}}\approx 4.5$K and an upper critical field strength ${\ensuremath{H_{\rm c2}}}\approx 4.2$T. At higher doping concentrations $n=8.4\times 10^{21}$cm$^{-3}$ [$T_{\rm c}$]{} was found to increase to about 11.4K and [$H_{\rm c2}$]{} to about 8.7T [@umezawa05a]. Subsequently its next-period neighbor in the periodic system cubic silicon was found to be a type-II superconductor in 2006 at boron concentrations of about $n=2.8\times 10^{21}$cm$^{-3}$ [@bustarret06a]. However, the critical temperature is only 0.4K and the upper critical field 0.4T [@commentSiB]. In 2007 we found superconductivity in the stochiometric composition of carbon and silicon: heavily boron-doped silicon carbide [@ren07a]. One interesting difference between these three superconducting systems is the well-known polytypism in SiC which means that it exhibits different structural ground states the energy of which only slightly differs. For SiC more than 200 such structural modifications are reported [@casady96a]. It exists one cubic ”C” modification labeled as 3C-SiC (zincblende = diamond structure with two different elements) or $\beta$-SiC. All other observed unit cells are either hexagonal ”H” (wurtzite or wurtzite related) or rhombohedral ”R”, labeled as $m$H-SiC or $\alpha$-SiC and $m$R-SiC, respectively. The variable $m$ indicates the number of carbon and silicon bilayers which are needed to form the unit cell. The most important hexagonal modifications are the only pure hexagonal 2H-SiC and the of cubic and hexagonal bonds consisting 4H- and 6H-SiC polytypes. Fig.\[structureSiC\] (from Ref.[@ren07a]) gives sketches of the two for this paper relevant modifications 3C-SiC and 6H-SiC. For a more comprehensive introduction to SiC compare Ref.[@kriener08a] and references therein. We note here that all SiC polytypes break inversion symmetry which is known to give rise to quite unconventional superconducting scenarios, e.g., in heavy-fermion compounds, another principal difference to the inversion-symmetry conserving systems C:B and Si:B. However due to the comparably light elements carbon and silicon we do not believe that any exotic superconducting scenario applies to SiC:B. ![(colour online) (a) Unit cell of cubic 3C-SiC. The planes mark the three C–Si bilayers forming the unit cell (stacking sequence: ABC–…along $\left<111\right>$ (dotted arrow)). The tetrahedral bond alignment of diamond is emphasized demonstrating the close relation to that structure. (b) Four unit cells of hexagonal 6H-SiC. The six bilayers needed for the unit cell are again denoted by planes (stacking sequence ABCACB–…along $\left<001\right>$ (dotted arrow)). For the drawings the software *Vesta* was used [@momma08a].[]{data-label="structureSiC"}](Figures/fig1.pdf){width="10cm"} Superconducting properties of SiC:B =================================== In the discovery paper (Ref.[@ren07a]) we used a multiphase polycrystalline boron-doped SiC sample which contains three different phase fractions: 3C-SiC, 6H-SiC, and unreacted Si. The charge-carrier concentration of this particular sample was estimated to $1.91\times 10^{21}$ holes/cm$^{3}$ [@ren07a]. The critical temperature at which we observe a sharp transition in resistivity and ac susceptibility data is $\sim 1.45$K. The critical field strength amounts to ${\ensuremath{H_{\rm c}}}\approx 115$Oe, much lower than for the two parent compounds C:B and Si:B. A big surprise was the finding that SiC:B is a type-I superconductor as indicated by the observation of a clear hysteresis between data (resistivity and ac susceptibility) measured upon cooling from above [$T_{\rm c}$]{} to the lowest accessible temperature and a subsequent warming run in different applied external magnetic dc fields. This is in clear contrast to the reported type-II behaviour of C:B and Si:B [@ekimov04a; @bustarret06a; @commentSiB; @takano07a]. Another surprise is the for a ”dirty” doped semiconductor-based system, i.e., for a multiphase polycrystalline sample unexpected low residual resistivity $\rho_0$ at [$T_{\rm c}$]{}, which is as low as 60[$\muup\Omega{\rm cm}$]{}. Above [$T_{\rm c}$]{} the system features a metallic-like temperature dependence with a positive slope of d$\rho/$d$T$ in the whole temperature range up to room temperature with a residual resistivity ratio ${\rm RRR}=\rho({\rm 300\,K})/\rho_0$ of about 10. These observations are again in contrast especially to C:B which exhibits a more or less temperature independent resistivity with $\rho_0\approx 2500$[$\muup\Omega{\rm cm}$]{} and ${\rm RRR}\approx 1$. In a subsequent specific-heat study (Ref.[@kriener08a]) using the same sample we found a very small normal-state Sommerfeld parameter ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{\rm n}}}\approx 0.29$mJ/molK. Moreover, we could clearly demonstrate that SiC:B is a bulk superconductor as indicated by a specific-heat jump at about 1.45K coinciding with the critical temperature [$T_{\rm c}$]{} estimated from resistivity and ac susceptibility data. The jump in the specific heat is rather broad reflecting the polycrystalline multi-phase character of the sample used. However, the system comes up with a third remarkable surprise. The electronic specific heat ${\ensuremath{c_{\rm el}}}/T$ exhibits a strict linear temperature dependence below its jump down to the lowest so-far accessed temperature $\sim 0.35$K and extrapolates almost identical to 0 for $T\rightarrow 0$. The jump hight is estimated to ${\ensuremath{\Delta c_{\rm el}}}/{\ensuremath{\gamma_{\rm n}}}{\ensuremath{T_{\rm c}}}\approx 1$ which is only 1/3 of the BCS expectation of a weak-coupling superconductor close to the value theoretically expected for a superconducting gap with nodes [@hasselbach93a; @nishizaki99a]. However, a strict linear temperature dependence is only expected well below [$T_{\rm c}$]{}, where the superconducting gap is nearly temperature independent. When approaching [$T_{\rm c}$]{} the specific heat should deviate from ${\ensuremath{c_{\rm el}}}/T\propto T$ due to the reduction of the gap magnitude. We note here that the assumption of a BCS-like scenario with a residual contribution to the specific heat [$\gamma_{\rm res}$]{}, e.g., due to non-superconducting parts of the sample, yields a reasonable description of the data, too, with ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{\rm res}}}\approx 0.14$mJ/molK, compare Ref.[@kriener08a]. The jump height in this scenario is 1.48 almost fitting the BCS expectation of 1.43. In the description of the specific heat assuming a linear ${\ensuremath{c_{\rm el}}}/T$ no residual contribution is needed, a respective fit to the data yields ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{\rm res}}}\approx 0$mJ/molK, as suggested by the almost perfect extrapolation of the data down to 0 for $T\rightarrow 0$. These results for [$\gamma_{\rm res}$]{} for the two approaches imply a superconducting volume fraction of about 100% for the nodal gap scenario and about 50% for the BCS-like scenario. In a very recent publication [@kriener08b] we reported that the hexagonal phase fraction is superconducting and exhibits a similar linear temperature dependence of the electronic specific heat ${\ensuremath{c_{\rm el}}}/T$ in the superconducting state and also a reduced jump height. In this paper we focus on this particular sample referred to as 6H-SiC in more detail and discuss the [$H$–$T$]{} phase diagram derived from ac susceptibility data. We give an evaluation of the Ginzburg-Landau (GL) parameter, too, and compare these results with those obtained for the afore mentioned ”mixed” sample used in Refs.[@ren07a] and [@kriener08a] referred to as 3C/6H-SiC in this paper. Experimental ============ The details of the sample preparation of sample 3C/6H-SiC are given in Ref.[@ren07a], sample 6H-SiC was synthesized in a similar way. The charge-carrier concentration of this sample is $0.25\times 10^{21}$ holes/cm$^{3}$ as estimated from a Hall effect measurement. The electrical resistivity was measured by a conventional four-probe technique using a commercial system (Quantum Design, PPMS). AC susceptibility measurements were performed using a mutual-inductance method in a commercial $^3$He refrigerator (Oxford Instruments, Heliox) inserted into a standard superconducting magnet with a small ac field of ${\ensuremath{H_{\rm ac}}}= 0.01$Oe-rms at a frequency of 3011Hz in zero and several finite dc magnetic fields [$H_{\rm dc}$]{} parallel to [$H_{\rm ac}$]{}. Results ======= ![(colour online) (a) Powder x-ray diffraction patterns of boron-doped 6H-SiC. Three phases, 6H-SiC, 15R-SiC, and silicon, are identified as marked by the symbols. There is no indication for a cubic SiC modification in this sample. For comparison the respective data for 3C/6H-SiC:B from Ref.[@ren07a] is shown in panel (b), too.[]{data-label="XRay"}](Figures/fig2.pdf){width="7.5cm"} Fig.\[XRay\](a) shows the result of a powder x-ray diffraction experiment of boron-doped 6H-SiC and for comparison the respective data for 3C/6H-SiC:B from Ref.[@ren07a]. The sample 6H-SiC:B is also a multiphase polycrystalline material with two different SiC modifications. However, we detect mainly hexagonal 6H-SiC and a much smaller phase fraction of rhombohedral 15R-SiC. In addition, we find some unreacted silicon, too. The estimation of the lattice parameters suggests substitutional boron-doping at the carbon site, compare the discussion in Ref.[@ren07a]. ![(colour online) Resistivity vs. temperature of 6H-SiC:B (blue symbols) (a) up to room temperature and (b) around [$T_{\rm c}$]{}. The sample used exhibits a metallic-like temperature dependence in the whole examined temperature range above [$T_{\rm c}$]{}. At [$T_{\rm c}$]{} we detect a sharp drop to zero resistance. For comparison the respective data for 3C/6H-SiC:B from Ref.[@ren07a] is shown, too (red symbols). Please note that the resistivity data of 3C/6H-SiC:B is multiplied by 10. The dotted line marks the transition, see text.[]{data-label="resistivity"}](Figures/fig3.pdf){width="11.5cm"} In Fig.\[resistivity\] the resistivity of 6H-SiC:B (blue symbols) (a) up to room temperature and (b) around the superconducting transition is presented. For comparison the respective data for 3C/6H-SiC:B (red symbols) from Ref.[@ren07a] is shown, too, here multiplied by 10. The resistivity exhibits a metallic-like behaviour, i.e., ${\rm d}\rho/{\rm d}T>0$, in the whole examined temperature range above [$T_{\rm c}$]{}. However, a linear temperature dependence is observed only in a very small temperature range above 60K to about 120K. Toward higher temperatures the slope decreases. Below approximately 1.5K a clear drop to zero-resistance with a transition width of about 25mK is found indicating the onset of a superconducting phase. The residual resistivity is $\rho_0\approx 1.2$m$\Omega$cm, the residual resistivity ratio estimates to ${\rm RRR}\approx 4.7$. ![(colour online) Temperature dependence of the ac susceptibility [$\chi_{\rm ac}$]{} of 6H-SiC. In (a) the real part [$\chi '$]{} and in (b) the imaginary part [$\chi ''$]{} are shown. For comparison the respective data for 3C/6H-SiC:B from Ref.[@ren07a] is shown in the panels (c) and (d). The dotted line in panels (a) and (c) signals the zero-field transition temperature. The arrows in panels (a) and (c) denote the temperature sweep direction, see text.[]{data-label="chiac"}](Figures/fig4.pdf){width="11.5cm"} Fig.\[chiac\] summarizes the results of our ac susceptibility measurements on sample 6H-SiC:B and for comparison also on the ”discovery” sample 3C/6H-SiC:B from Ref.[@ren07a]. In panel (a) and (c) the real parts and in (b) and (d) the imaginary parts of ${\ensuremath{\chi_{\rm ac}}}= {\ensuremath{\chi '}}+ i\cdot{\ensuremath{\chi ''}}$ are shown. The measurements were performed upon cooling and warming at constant [$H_{\rm dc}$]{} as well as upon sweeping [$H_{\rm dc}$]{} up and down at constant temperature. The temperature dependence of the in-field susceptibility data was taken as follows: The external dc magnetic field was set above [$T_{\rm c}$]{}. Then the temperature was reduced down to ca. 300mK and subsequently increased above [$T_{\rm c}$]{}. In Fig.\[chiac\] the results of temperature sweeps (solid lines: cooling run, dashed lines: warming run) for ${\ensuremath{H_{\rm dc}}}= 0$, 20, 40, and 60Oe are shown. In zero field a single sharp transition with a [$T_{\rm c}$]{} of about 1.5K is observed in good agreement with the resistivity data. In finite magnetic fields a hysteresis between cooling and subsequent warming run appears as can be clearly seen in both, [$\chi '$]{} and [$\chi ''$]{} (Fig.\[chiac\](a) and (b)). The arrows in panel (a) denote the temperature sweep direction for ${\ensuremath{H_{\rm ac}}}=60$Oe. This in-field first-order phase transition is known as supercooling effect and is an indication of a type-I superconductor with a GL parameter ${\ensuremath{\kappa_{\rm GL}}}\leq 0.417$ [@tinkham96; @feder67a; @marchenko03a]. We note that we observed a similar hysteresis in field-dependent measured data at constant temperature, too. In the case of a supercooled type-I superconductor the observed critical field upon warming gives the thermodynamical critical field ${\ensuremath{H_{\rm c}}}(T)$. The GL parameter will be further discussed in the next section. From these data we derived the $H-T$ phase diagram of 6H-SiC:B shown in Fig.\[HTdiag\](a). For comparison the phase diagram of 3C/6H-SiC:B from Ref.[@ren07a] is shown in panel (b). The critical temperature was estimated from the shielding-fraction data [$\chi '$]{}. Here we define [$T_{\rm c}$]{} as the temperature at which the absolute value of [$\chi '$]{} has dropped by 1% of the total difference in the signal between the normal and the superconducting state. This procedure was applied to both, the data obtained upon decreasing and increasing temperature. The resulting two phase lines are the lower supercooling field phase line ${\ensuremath{H_{\rm sc}}}(T)$ and the higher lying critical field phase line ${\ensuremath{H_{\rm c}}}(T)$. The black dashed lines are fits to the data applying the empirical formula ${\ensuremath{H_{\rm c}}}(T)={\ensuremath{H_{\rm c}}}(0)[1-(T/{\ensuremath{T_{\rm c}}}(0))^{\alpha}]$ yielding for $T\rightarrow 0$ a supercooling field of ${\ensuremath{H_{\rm sc}}}(0)=(90 \pm5)$Oe with $\alpha=1.3$, which can be identified as the upper limit of the intrinsic supercooling limit. The thermodynamical critical field was estimated to ${\ensuremath{H_{\rm c}}}(0)=(110 \pm5)$Oe again with $\alpha=1.3$. ![(colour online) (a) [$H$–$T$]{} phase diagram of 6H-SiC:B. The dashed lines are fits to the data, see text. For comparison the respective data for 3C/6H-SiC:B from Ref.[@ren07a] is shown in panel (b), too. The lower phase lines [$H_{\rm sc}$]{} correspond to the ”supercooling” effect, see text.[]{data-label="HTdiag"}](Figures/fig5.pdf){width="11.5cm"} Discussion ========== Now we would like to briefly compare these newly presented data with the data from Ref.[@ren07a] which is included to Figs.\[XRay\]–\[HTdiag\] and, together with the results of respective specific-heat studies in Refs.[@kriener08a] and [@kriener08b], discuss the superconducting parameters. The comparison of the resistivity data in Fig.\[resistivity\] reveals that 6H-SiC:B ($\rho_0=1200$[$\muup\Omega{\rm cm}$]{}) is the much dirtier crystal as indicated by different RRR values of 5 (6H-SiC:B) and 10 (3C/6H-SiC:B). Please note, that the data of 3C/6H-SiC:B ($\rho_0=60$[$\muup\Omega{\rm cm}$]{}) is scaled by a factor of 10 in Fig.\[resistivity\]. Obviously the transition width is smaller for the cleaner 3C/6H-SiC:B compound ($\sim 15$mK compared to $\sim 25$mK). Surprisingly the difference in the charge-carrier concentration does not affect the onset temperature of superconductivity which is for both samples almost identical around 1.5K, compare the dashed line in Fig.\[resistivity\]. Like seen in Fig.\[chiac\] both samples exhibit a clear supercooling behaviour which is usually observed in very clean systems like the type-I elemental superconductors. In both compounds the shielding signal is strong and robust and the shielding fraction in both cases is almost field independent, although the hysteresis is more pronounced in 3C/6H-SiC:B as seen in the [$H$–$T$]{} phase diagrams in Fig.\[HTdiag\]. The thermodynamical critical field strength ${\ensuremath{H_{\rm c}}}\approx 110-115$Oe is again almost identical. The additional features at the low-temperature side of [$\chi ''$]{} are likely due to superconducting grains with a slightly lower critical temperature. Remembering the comparably higher cleanness of sample 3C/6H-SiC:B it is surprising that these features are much less pronounced in 6H-SiC:B. Assuming that both phase fractions in 3C/6H-SiC:B are superconducting, which will be discussed next, one might speculate that the cubic phase fraction has a lower [$T_{\rm c}$]{} leading to these features. However, this conclusion is in contradiction with the finding of only one single sharp transition in the [$\chi '$]{} data of that sample. At the time of writing Ref.[@ren07a] we were not sure which of the two existent SiC phase fractions (3C or 6H) is responsible for the superconductivity in this system. The comparison of Figs.\[XRay\](a) and (b) clearly demonstrates that there is no indication for a cubic phase fraction in sample 6H-SiC:B and hence the hexagonal modification of SiC:B is a bulk superconductor. Very recent data on 3C-SiC:B implies that also the cubic modification participates in the superconductivity [@muranaka08a]. The unreacted silicon included to our samples is likely to be an insulating phase fraction with no electronic and almost no phononic contributions to the specific heat at low temperatures. Therefore a residual contribution caused by this phase fraction cannot easily explain the values for [$\gamma_{\rm res}$]{} found in the specific-heat analysis assuming a BCS-like scenario given in Refs.[@kriener08a; @kriener08b] as mentioned in the introduction. Therefore this further supports the power-law description of the data in accordance with the observation of a linear temperature dependence of ${\ensuremath{c_{\rm el}}}/T$ below [$T_{\rm c}$]{} and a reduced jump height. Together with the analysis of the specific-heat data we are able to estimate the superconducting parameters for 6H-SiC:B as described in detail for 3C/6H-SiC:B in Ref.[@kriener08a]. They are summarized in Table\[SiCprop\]. [lccc]{} & 6H-SiC:B & 3C/6H-SiC:B\ $n$ (cm$^{-3}$) & $0.25\cdot 10^{21}$ & $1.91\cdot 10^{21}$\ [$\gamma_{\rm n}$]{} (mJ/molK$^2$) & 0.349 & 0.294\ ${\ensuremath{\Delta c_{\rm el}}}/{\ensuremath{\gamma_{\rm n}}}{\ensuremath{T_{\rm c}}}$ & 1 & 1\ $\rho_0$ ([$\muup\Omega{\rm cm}$]{}) & 1200 & 60\ RRR & 5 & 10\ $\ell$ (nm) & 2.7 & 14\ [lccc]{} & 6H-SiC:B & 3C/6H-SiC:B\ ${\ensuremath{T_{\rm c}}}(0)$ (K) & 1.5 & 1.45\ ${\ensuremath{H_{\rm c}}}(0)$ (Oe) & 110 & 115\ ${\ensuremath{H_{\rm sc}}}(0)$ (Oe) & 90 & 80\ $\xi(0)$ (nm) & 78 & 360\ $\lambda(0)$ (nm) & 560 & 130\ [$\kappa_{\rm GL}$]{}(0) & 7 & 0.35\ Here the GL parameter is derived from the experimental values of the charge-carrier concentration $n$, the critical temperature [$T_{\rm c}$]{}, and the Sommerfeld parameter of the normal-state specific heat [$\gamma_{\rm n}$]{}. Using the values given in Table\[SiCprop\] yields ${\ensuremath{\kappa_{\rm GL}}}=7$. This is much higher than the value suggested by the finding of a supercooling effect ${\ensuremath{\kappa_{\rm GL}}}\leq 0.417$ and the finding for 3C/6H-SiC:B, i.e., ${\ensuremath{\kappa_{\rm GL}}}=0.35$. The values of [$T_{\rm c}$]{} and [$\gamma_{\rm n}$]{} are similar for both samples but the charge-carrier concentration of 6H-SiC:B is about one order of magnitude smaller than that of 3C/6H-SiC:B and indeed, this is the crucial parameter. The GL parameter is defined as ${\ensuremath{\kappa_{\rm GL}}}=\lambda/\xi$, compare the discussion in Ref.[@kriener08a]. The penetration depth depends on the charge-carrier concentration as $\lambda\propto 1/n^{2/3}$, the coherence length as $\xi\propto n^{2/3}$ and hence ${\ensuremath{\kappa_{\rm GL}}}\propto 1/n^{4/3}$. Using a charge-carrier concentration of about $2\times10^{21}$/cm$^{-3}$ yields a GL parameter of the right order of magnitude. Therefore the determination of $n$ needs further clarification. Summary ======= In summary we present a study of mainly hexagonal boron-doped 6H-SiC without any indication of a cubic 3C phase fraction by means of x-ray diffraction, resistivity, and ac-susceptibility data. We compare these results with those obtained for a sample containing reasonable fractions of both, the 3C- and the 6H-SiC modification. Both samples are bulk type-I superconductors as indicated by the [$H$–$T$]{} phase diagrams, i.ė., the finding of a pronounced supercooling indicated by an in-field first-order phase transition, and recent specific-heat studies, revealing a clear jump at [$T_{\rm c}$]{}. The sample consisting of both SiC phase fractions turns out to contain a one order of magnitude higher charge-carrier concentration. Moreover it is the much cleaner system as indicated by a surprising low residual resistivity. The GL parameter for the hexagonal SiC sample is estimated to be much higher than expected for a type-I superconductor with a strong supercooling effect. This could be due to an erroneous determination of the charge-carrier concentration and needs further clarification. Taking all data together we have strong indications that boron-doped cubic as well as hexagonal SiC are bulk superconductors. Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ================ This work was supported by a Grants-in-Aid for the Global COE ”The Next Generation of Physics, Spun from Universality and Emergence” from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT) of Japan, and by the 21st century COE program ”High-Tech Research Center” Project for Private Universities: matching fund subsidy from MEXT. It has also been supported by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from MEXT and from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS). TM is supported by Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) (No. 20740202) from MEXT and MK is financially supported as a JSPS Postdoctoral Research Fellow. References {#references .unnumbered} ========== [10]{} url \#1[[\#1]{}]{}urlprefix\[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{} Cohen M 1964 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**134**]{} A511 Kawaji H, Horie H, Yamanaka S and Ishikawa M 1995 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**74**]{} 1427 Grosche F, Yuan H, Carrillo-Cabrera W, Paschen S, Langhammer C, Kromer F, Sparn G, Baenitz M, Grin Y and Steglich F 2001 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**87**]{} 247003 Connétable D, Timoshevskii V, Masenelli B, Beille J, Marcus J, Barbara B, Saitta A, Rignanese G M, Mélinon P, Yamanaka S and Blase X 2003 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**91**]{} 247001 Ekimov E, Sidorov V, Bauer E, Mel’nik N, Curro N, Thompson J and Stishov S 2004 [*Nature (London)*]{} [**428**]{} 542 Umezawa H, Takenouchi T, Takano Y, Kobayashi K, Nagao M, Sakaguchi I, Tachiki M, Hatano T, Zhong G, Tachiki M and Kawarada H 2005 [*condmat/0503303*]{} Bustarret E, Marcenat C, Achatz P, Kačmarčik J, Lévy F, Huxley A, Ortéga L, Bourgeois E, Blase X, Débarre D and Boulmer J 2006 [*Nature (London)*]{} [**444**]{} 465 Ren Z, Kato J, Muranaka T, Akimitsu J, Kriener M and Maeno Y 2007 [*J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.*]{} [**76**]{} 103710 Casady J and Johnson R 1996 [*Solid-State Electron.*]{} [**39**]{} 1409 Kriener M, Maeno Y, Oguchi T, Ren Z, Kato J, Muranaka T and Akimitsu J 2008 [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**78**]{} 024517 Momma K and Izumi F 2008 [*J. Appl. Crystallogr.*]{} [**41**]{} 653 Takano Y, Takenouchi T, Ishii S, Ueda S, Okutsu T, Sakaguchi I, Umezawa H, Kawarada H and Tachiki M 2007 [*Diamond Relat. Mater.*]{} [**16**]{} 911 Hasselbach K, Kirtley J and Flouquet J 1993 [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**47**]{} 509 NishiZaki S, Maeno Y and Mao Z 1999 [*J. Low Temp. Phys.*]{} [**117**]{} 1581 Kriener M, Muranaka T, Ren Z, Kato J, Akimitsu J and Maeno Y 2008 [ *arXiv:0808.0231v1*]{} Tinkham M 1996 [*Introduction to Superconductivity*]{} 2nd ed (McGraw-Hill) Feder J 1967 [*Solid-State Commun.*]{} [**5**]{} 299 Marchenko V and Podolyak E 2003 [*Sov. Phys. JETP*]{} [**97**]{} 154

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'The paper is devoted to the problem of disaster mitigation. It develops an emergent mechanism of resource redistribution aimed at recovering of a socio-technological system affected by a large scale disaster. The basic requirements to the short-term recovery are taken into account in constructing this mechanism. The system at hand consists of many individual units (cities) and the mechanism is based on their cooperative interaction, which makes the resource redistribution efficient regardless of the particular position of affected region. Previously we studied the dynamics of supply process governed by this mechanism when all the information about the system is available and actual from the beginning of the process (V. Lubashevskiy, T. Kanno, K. Furuta, arXiv:1310.0648). In the present paper we analyze the effects of lack of information on the resource delivery rate. Two scenarios of the lack of information are allowed for. The first one is the delay of the information about the city states. The second one is its incompleteness. As a result of simulation, it is demonstrated that the duration of the resource redistribution governed by the developed mechanism is weakly affected by the lack of information.' address: 'Department of Systems Innovations, School of Engineering, University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo Bunkyo-ku, 113-8656 Tokyo, Japan' author: - 'Vasily Lubashevskiy, Taro Kanno, and Kazuo Furuta' bibliography: - 'mylibrari.bib' title: | Resource Redistribution under Lack of Information:\ Short-Term Recovery after Large Scale Disasters --- recovery ,resilience ,cooperation ,dynamic network ,information insufficiency Introduction ============ In recent years the problems of disaster mitigation and resilience have attracted much attention. As far as mitigation of large scale disasters is concerned, two phases, short- and long-term recoveries, can be distinguished. The use of these terms has a long history [@national1979comprehensive], nonetheless, the appropriate classification of recovery phases is required especially for efficient emergency management of large scale disasters [@DHS2008; @MalcolmBaird2010a; @DHS2013]. Following the cited materials we consider the short-term recovery *mainly* aiming at restoring the vital life-support system to the minimal operating standards. Generally this system comprises many individual components and the corresponding services, in particular, sheltering, feeding operations, emergency first aid, bulk distribution of emergency items, and collecting and providing information on victims to family members. One of the basic requirements imposed on the short-term recovery is the beginning of its implementation within the minimal time. For example, the aforementioned services have to start their operations within 8 hours according to the Disaster Recovery Plan of State of Illinois [@DRP_Illinois_July2012_STRecovery]. To mitigate aftermath of a large scale disaster cooperation of many cities is required because the amount of resources initially accumulated in an affected area can be insufficient to recover all the individual components of the vital life-support system. Thereby the implementation of the short-term recovery is directly related to an efficient resource redistribution. This redistribution cannot be predetermined because of the unpredictability of disaster consequences. It is possible only to formulate rather general requirements for this process. First, the supply to an affected area must start practically immediately in order to recover the life-support system. Second, the resource supply should be decentralized, otherwise, its centralized management can be a ‘bottleneck’ that delays the responsive and adaptive delivery of resources or aid [@managprob:panda2012]. In the previous work [@lubashevskiy2013algorithm] we have proposed an algorithm by which the required resource redistribution can be implemented in a quasi-optimal way. Initially it was applied to modeling the resource redistribution in an affected system for which the whole information about the city states is available from the beginning of the short-term recovery. In the reality one of the crucial points for the recovery management is lack of information about the affected area just after the disaster. The purpose of the present paper is to analyze the effects of lack of information on the recover rate. Two scenarios, namely, the delay of information and its incompleteness will be considered. The former scenario implies that to collect the whole information some time is required, so, the real situation may be much worse than the initial evaluation of the disaster consequences. The latter scenario represents a more problematic situation. For instance, in the case of earthquakes in mountainous area the communication with some cities can be broken [@managprob:panda2012] and the information about their state is just not available at the beginning of the recovery process. One of the key points of the present work is that the developed algorithm generates a plan for the resource redistribution based on the current information about the city states. If during the implementation of this plan the information is updated, the plan will be reconstructed without halting the process remarkably and the resource redistribution will be continued taking into account the changed information. As will be demonstrated, this approach, in particular, gives rise to a faster implementation of the short-term recovery than if it would be postponed until the whole information is collected. Model ===== Model background {#modback} ---------------- The Great East Japan Earthquake occurred along the eastern coast of Japan on 11 March 2011 exemplifies large scale destructive disasters that necessitate the cooperation of many cities and even regions in mitigating the aftermath. The hypo-central region of this earthquake comprised several offshore prefectures (Iwate, Miyagi, Fukushima, and Ibaraki Prefectures) and have ruptured the zone with a length of 500 km and a width of 200 km [@wiki:GEJ2011]. The terrible aftermath of the disaster initiated evacuation from some areas of these prefectures, thousands houses were destroyed, many victims required medical assistance. Obviously none of the affected cities was able to recover only by its local resources, practically all the non-affected cities in these prefectures were involved into this process. These Japanese prefectures can be one of the representative examples of the system, which overcame the disaster and recovered to its normal state. In numerical simulation to be described below some of the system parameters were evaluated comparing with the data of the Fukushima prefecture. Namely, the total number of residents is evaluated as $4*10^6$, the area of the region treated as a certain administrative unit responsible for mitigating the aftermath is set about $4*10^5$ km$^2$, the mean distance between the neighboring cities in this region is 40–50 km, as a results, the number of cities that can be involved into recovering the affected region may be about 81. Such parameters correspond to the administrative unit comparable with two Fukushima prefectures. System under consideration -------------------------- The system is modeled as a collection of cities connected with one another by a transport network. Initially in each city $i$ there is some amount of the vital resources $Q_i$. Under the normal conditions this amount of resources is excessive and substantially exceeds the minimal critical level $Q_{ci}$ required for its residents to survive during a certain period of time, $Q_i > Q_{ci}$. Naturally the magnitude of the quantity $Q_{ci}$ depends on the number $N_i$ of residents in a given city $i$; the larger the number of residents, the higher the required level of resources $Q_{ci}$. One of the consequences of a large scale disaster is the increased demand for the vital resources in the affected cities. This is modeled as the essential increase in the corresponding magnitudes of $Q_{ci}$ and the opposite inequality $Q_i < Q_{ci}$ holds for the affected cities, which is the mathematical description of the disaster effect. Naturally the inequality $$\label{in:1} \sum_i Q_i > \sum_i Q_{ci}$$ must hold still after the disaster. Actually inequality (\[in:1\]) is the mathematical implementation of the requirement that the given system is capable to survive as a whole during a certain time without external help. ![Dynamics of the information update about the state of an affected city $i$ used in the simulation of the resource redistribution in the case of information delay.[]{data-label="F1"}](fig1.jpg){width="0.8\columnwidth"} The effects of the delay and incompleteness of the information about the city states are analyzed individually. The effect of the information delay is described within the following model (Fig. \[F1\]). Just after the disaster the demand for the vital resources increases from the initial level $Q^\text{ini}_{ci}$ to the level $Q^\text{real}_{ci}$ in a given affected city $i$. However, the information about this city state is collected with a delay. The model at hand considers two steps of the information update. Just after the disaster the demand is evaluated to equal to $Q_{ci}^1$, then in the time $T_1$ the first update of information occurs and the level raises to $Q_{ci}^2$, and only at the time $T_2$ the real information is obtained. ![Fragment of the system. Empty (red) circles represent the non-affected cities for which $Q_{ci} < Q_i$, filled (blue) circles depict the affected cities, $Q_{ci} > Q_i$. Region 1 is the collection of the cities for which the information about their state is available at the initial stage, the information about the state of the cities located inside regions 2 and 3 becomes available after the time $T_1$ and $T_2$, respectively.[]{data-label="F2"}](fig2.jpg){width="0.8\columnwidth"} The effect of the information incompleteness is modeled as demonstrated in Fig. \[F2\]. The system is divided into three regions. The state of all the cities located in region 1 is assumed to be known right after the disaster. The information about regions 2 and 3 becomes available at the time moments $T_1$ and $T_2$, respectively. It should be noted that if the intervals $T_1$ and $T_2$ were known beforehand to be rather short and the duration of the process were not crucial, it would make sense to wait until all the information about the system state is collected. However, if the time of information updates is not determined and the recovery has to be initiated immediately, resource redistribution must be started as soon as possible regardless of the lack of information. Resource redistribution algorithm ================================= At the initial step all the cities that are accessible provide the information about their state, namely, the available amount of resources $Q_i$, the minimal critical amount $Q_{ci}$ required for their individual surviving, and the number $N_i$ of citizens. The characteristics of the transportation network are assumed to be also given, it is the matrix $\mathbf{D}=\|d_{ij}\|$ whose element, e.g., $d_{ij}$ specifies the minimal time distance between city $i$ and $j$. To describe the states of cities let us introduce the value $$\label{eq:theta} \theta_i = \frac{Q_i - Q_{ci}}{Q_{ci}}\,.$$ If the information about a given city $i$ is not available, then the corresponding value is set equal to zero, $\theta_{i}=0$. When $\theta_i < 0$ its magnitude quantifies the lack of vital resources in relative units. The quantity $S_i = \theta_i N_i$, or more strictly its absolute value is actually the number of people being under the level of surviving. It will be used in specifying the priority of the cities in the resource redistribution queue. As previously [@lubashevskiy2013algorithm] to avoid the discussion about ethics or morality of the priority choice we appeal to the following historical example. Baron Dominique Jean Larrey, surgeon-in-chief to Napoleon’s Imperial Guard, articulated one of the first triage rule in 1792: “Those who are dangerously wounded should receive the first attention, without regard to rank or distinction. They who are injured in a less degree may wait until their brethren in arms, who are badly mutilated, have been operated on and dressed, otherwise the latter would not survive many hours; rarely, until the succeeding day” [@Napaleon]. The minimal value of $S$ corresponds to the maximal number of residents which are not supplied with the vital resources and it allows us to regard that city as most “dangerously wounded”. Because the main goal of resource redistribution just after the disaster is mitigation of consequences and minimization of the amount of victims, Table \[T1\] determines the priority of the resource redistribution. $S_p$ $S_1$ $S_2$ $\ldots$ $S_{M-1}$ $S_{M}$ ------- ------- ------- ---------- ----------- --------- $p$ $1$ $2$ $\ldots$ $M-1$ $M$ : The order of cities according to the resource redistribution priority. Here $M$ is the total number of cities in the given system.[]{data-label="T1"} The order used in Table \[T1\] matches the inequality $$\label{eq:order} S_1 \leq S_2 \leq \ldots\leq S_{M-1}\leq S_{M}$$ and $i_1$, $i_2$, $\ldots$, are the corresponding indexes of these cities. In order to describe resource redistribution dynamics, let us introduce the following quantities. First, it is a certain quantum $h$ of resources that can be directed from a city to another one. The second quantity is the time $\Delta t$ required for this quantum to be assembled for transportation. The third one $c_i$ is the capacity of a given city $i$ specifying the maximal number of quanta which can be assembled during the time $\Delta t$. Introduction of these quantities implies the realization of resource redistribution mainly via fast loading vehicles, for instance, tracks. In this case $h$ is the volume of resources transported by the typical vehicle individually, $\Delta t$ is the time necessary to load this vehicle, and $c_i$ is determined by the number of loading places and the capacity of loading facilities. The algorithm to be described below creates a complete plan of resource redistribution depending explicitly on the initial post-disaster system state. Namely, at the first step Table \[T1\] is formed using the initial data. The city $i_1$ is selected as the city with the wost situation. Then we choose a city $i_k$ such that $$\label{eq:dsearch} d_{i_1 i_k} = \min_j d_{i_1 j}\quad \text{among} \quad Q_j - h \geq Q_{cj}\,.$$ Then the prepared quantum is *virtually* transported to city $i_1$ from city $i_k$ . It gives rise to the transformations $$\label{eq:transf} \begin{split} Q_{i_1} &\rightarrow Q_{i_1} + h\,,\\ %[-2mm] Q_{i_k} &\rightarrow Q_{i_k} - h\,, \\ %[-2mm] c_{i_k} & \rightarrow c_{i_k} - 1\,. \end{split}$$ The information about the given action is saved as a report of its virtual realization and comprises: “city $i_k$ sent one quantum to city $i_1$ at time $t_{\text{dep},i_k}$, the quantum is received at time $t_\text{arr}$”. Initially for all the cities involved in the resource redistribution we set $t^\text{init}_{\text{dep},i_k}=0$. The further modification of these values will be explained below, see Eq. . In the developed algorithm the time moments $\{t_\text{arr}\}$ are specified via the expression $$\label{eq:tdeptarr} t_\text{arr} = d_{i_1 i_k}\,.$$ It should be noted that formula  obviously holds at the initial steps when $t^\text{init}_{\text{dep},i_k}=0$ and the original element of the matrix $\mathbf{D}$ enters it. Its use in the general case will be justified by the renormalization of the matrix $\mathbf{D}$ (see Eq. ) taking into account the delay in sending the resource quanta caused by the city limit capacity leading to nonlinear effects in the resource redistribution. At the next step this procedure is reproduced again. Table \[T1\] is reconstructed, the logic of choosing the interacting cities is repeated with saving the relevant report. Since the maximal number of quanta that can be sent from a given city simultaneously is finite, there exist a situation where $c_j$ takes a zero value due to transformations . This effect is taken into account by renormalization of the matrix $\mathbf{D}$, which is a time distance matrix. Namely, when $c_j = 0$ we restore the initial value of $c_j$ and for all $i$ $$\label{eq:decrD} \begin{split} d_{ij} &\rightarrow d_{ij} + \Delta t\,,\\ %[-2mm] t_{\text{dep},j} &\rightarrow t_{\text{dep},j}+ \Delta t\,. \end{split}$$ This procedure is terminated when at the next step $$\forall i: \quad S_i > 0\,.$$ As a result, this algorithm generates the collection of reports which enables us to create a semi-optimal plan of resource redistribution for all the cities and the real process of resource redistribution is initiated. According to this plan the cities start sending the real resources. If at a certain moment of time $T_1$ new information about the system state is received the procedure of plan construction is repeated. This reconstruction takes into account two factors. First, it is the new data about the city damage $\{Q_{ci}\}$. The second factor is the current pattern of resource allocation in the system, $\{Q_{i}(T_1)\}$. It is determined by the implementation of the previous plan of sending the resource quanta before the moment $T_1$. Within the frameworks of the developed algorithm this construction is possible because it is based on the collection of reports like “city $i_k$ sent one quantum to city $i_1$ at time $t_\text{dep}$, the quantum is received at time $t_\text{arr}$” and at any time moment it is possible to figure out how many resource quanta have been sent, got the destination, and are in the transportation process. Thereby, the new plan replaces the previous one from the time moment $T_1$ and continues governing the further resource redistribution. In the case of a new update event such reconstruction is repeated again. This procedure of the plan reconstruction with the information update is a main modification of the algorithm developed in our previous work [@lubashevskiy2013algorithm]. It enables us to govern the resource redistribution efficiently even in the case of the lack of information. Results of Numerical Simulation =============================== ![Example of the city arrangement and the corresponding transportation network.[]{data-label="F:angle"}](fig2.png){width="0.5\columnwidth"} Details of modeling {#moddetail} ------------------- The purpose of the present section is to illustrate the characteristic features of the analyzed resource redistribution process. Keeping in mind the administrative units noted in Section \[modback\], the following system was studied numerically based on the developed model. It is assumed to comprise $9\times 9 = 81$ cities regarded as basic entities connected with one another by a transport network. The total population of these cities is set equal to $N\approx4\times 10^6$. The amount of resources were measured in the units of resource quantum $h$, so we set $h=1$. To be specific the volume of one quantum is assumed to supply 20 residents with the resources under the normal conditions. So the integral amount of resources initially allocated in the system is $$\sum_i Q_i = \frac{N}{20}\,.$$ The mean time distance between the cities varied between 40 and 80 minutes and the time $\Delta t$ necessary to assemble one resource quantum was set equal to 1 minute. The number of quanta $h$, which could be formed in any city simultaneously was set equal to 1. This assumption was accepted to make the dynamics of supply as smooth as possible. It should be noted that in the previous paper [@lubashevskiy2013algorithm] we analyzed the resource redistribution supposing that 15 quanta can be assembled simultaneously within 15 minutes. Given the other conditions equal, it leads actually to the same dynamics, where, however, the effects of discretization are much more pronounced. The transportation network was constructed in the following way. The region occupied by the given system is considered to be of a rectangular form and is divided into $81$ (the number of cities) equal rectangles. Each rectangle contains one city placed randomly within it. At the first step the connections between the cities located in the neighboring rectangles are formed as illustrated in Fig. \[F:angle\]. For any arrangement of these four cities the “vertical” and “horizontal” connections are formed. A diagonal connection, for example, the connection 2-3 is formed if both of the opposite angles are less than $90^\text{o}$: $\angle{213}$ and $\angle{243}$ in Fig. \[F:angle\]. In this way we construct the matrix **D** of minimal time distances between the neighboring cities. The relationship between spatial and temporal scales was determined assuming the average speed of transporting vehicles to be equal to 60 km/h. At the next step using Warshall’s algorithm (see, e.g., [@discmathstr_kbr6]) we completed **D** to the matrix of the minimal time distances between any pair of cities. The number of the affected cities was chosen equal to 9 and they were located in the middle part the system in order to avoid the influence of possible edge effects. Before ascribing particular values of the time moments $T_1$ and $T_2$ we simulated the system recovery provided all the information is available. It gave us the time $T$ at which the last resource quantum was sent and enables us to evaluate the duration of the short-time recovery under ideal conditions. Then the time moments of the information update was set equal to $T_1 = 0.2\,T$ and $T_2 = 0.4\, T$. Scenario of information delay ----------------------------- Let us, first, present the results for the system with the information delay. It was assumed (Fig. \[F1\]) that at the beginning of the process (before $T_1$) the demand in three of nine affected cities is evaluated as $Q_{ci}^1 = 0.5\,Q_{ci}^\text{real}$; during the time interval $T_1<t<T_2$ the demand is considered to be equal to $Q^2_{ci} = 0.8\,Q_{ci}^\text{real}$, and only after the second update at time $T_2$ the real value $Q_{ci}^\text{real}$ becomes known. For the affected cities the value of $Q_{ci}^\text{real}$ was set equal to $Q_{ci}^\text{real} = 3Q^\text{init}_i$ whereas for the unaffected cities this value was equal to $Q_{ci}=0.6 Q^\text{init}_i$, where $Q^\text{init}_i$ is the amount of resources under the normal conditions. ![Supply dynamics of an affected city $i$ that provided the sufficient information about its state from the beginning of the resource redistribution in two situations. Curve 1 matches to the ideal case, curve 2 corresponds to the scenario of information delay.[]{data-label="delay1"}](delay1.png){width="1.0\columnwidth"} ![Supply dynamics of affected cities in the scenario of information delay. Curves 1 corresponds to the ideal case, curves 2 to a city $i$ that provided the sufficient information about its state from the beginning of the resource redistribution, curves 3 to a city $j$ that provides the information about its state with delay. Plot I corresponds to $T_1 = 0.2\,T\approx 2.5~\text{h}$, $T_2 = 0.4\,T\approx 5~\text{h}$, Plot II corresponds to $T_1 = 0.4\,T\approx 5~\text{h}$, $T_2 = 0.6\,T\approx 7.5~\text{h}$, and Plot III corresponds to $T_1 = 0.6\,T\approx 7.5~\text{h}$, $T_2 = 0.8\,T\approx 10~\text{h}$.[]{data-label="delay2"}](delay2.png){width="1.0\columnwidth"} Figure \[delay1\] compares the dynamics of the supply process of an affected city $i$ when (1) the complete information about the system state as a whole is available from the beginning and (2) the information about the state of *other* cites is delayed. When all the information is available (the ideal case) the rate of the supply process increases monotonously (with saturation) and two stages can be singled out. At the first stage the number of cities from which the resource flow has gotten the city $i$ is growing and, as a result, the supply rate is increasing. At the second stage the pattern of the cities involved into the supply process becomes stable and the supply rate practically does not change in time (curve 1). When some other cities provide an insufficient information about their state (the scenario of information delay) the priority $S$ of the cities with sufficient information becomes higher. The latter leads to the increased rate of their supply as it is represented by curve 2 in Fig. \[delay1\]. When, however, the new information comes, the priority could be changed and the rate of supply of the city $i$ would decrease. This change of priorities gives rise to the wave-like growth. It is worthwhile to attract attention to the found fact that if the sufficient information is provided not too late after the beginning of the resource redistribution, the supply process will end practically at the same time as in the ideal case. Thereby if the resource delivery was initiated only after gaining the complete information, then the supply process would be finished with the delay $T_2$. In contrast, in the analyzed situation its duration is not affected at all due to the cooperative effects in the resource redistribution. The obtained results allows us to assert that the effect of the information delay on the duration of the supply process is weak due to the cooperative behavior of the resource redistribution system. To justify this statement let us analyze in more detail how the information delay affects the supply process. Figure \[delay2\] shows series of plots illustrating the supply dynamics for different time moments of the information update. For all the three plots the time difference $T_2-T_1 = 0.2T$ is the same but the first time moment $T_1$ takes three different values, $T_1 = 0.2T,\ 0.4T,\ 0.6 T$. In these plots curve 1, as previously, illustrates the dynamics of the supply process for an affected city $i$ if all the information is available from the beginning of the process. Curve 2 shows the supply dynamics for the same city $i$ when it provided the whole information about its state from the beginning of the process but there are other affected cities for which the information about their states was initially insufficient. Curve 3 depicts the supply dynamics for an affected city $j$ that provides initially an insufficient information updated at the time moments $T_1$ and $T_2$. Because at the initial step its priority was lower than the priority of the city $i$, i.e., $|S_j| < |S_i|$, the resource flow was directed to the city $i$ and only after the priorities of the cities $i$ and $j$ have become equal the resource flow was directed to the city $j$ also. After the information update the priority of the city $j$ grows in a stepwise way and, as a result, all the resource quanta are temporally sent to this city. It explains the “screening effect” of the city $j$ at the beginning of the supply process. As seen in Fig. \[delay2\] even in the wost case (plot III) for which the last moment of the information update $T_2 = 0.8T$ is approximately equal to the duration $T$ of the supply process in the ideal case, the constructed algorithm is able to govern the resource redistribution in such a way that the duration of the analyzed supply process actually is not affected by the information delay. Summarizing the obtained results, we can state that the cooperative mechanism of resource redistribution endows the system with a high adaptability and the information delay practically does not affect the duration of the recovery even in cases of comparably late collection and provision of information about the system state. Scenario of information incompleteness -------------------------------------- ![Supply dynamics of affected cities in the scenario of the information incompleteness. Curve 1 matches the ideal case, curve 2 corresponds to a city $i$ that provided the sufficient information about its state from the beginning of the resource redistribution, curve 3 represents these data for a city $j$ that provides the information about its state only after the moment $T_2$ and regarded as a “lost” city at the beginning of the process.[]{data-label="incomplete1"}](incomplete1.png){width="1.0\columnwidth"} Now let us consider the results of simulation for the system with incomplete information about the city states. As noted in Section \[moddetail\] we studied the case when three ones of the nine affected cities do not provide any information about them at the beginning; the same is the case with respect to four non-affected cities neighboring to the damaged region. So the process starts without them. At the time moment $T_1$ the information about these non-affected “lost” cities become available and they are involved into the resource redistribution. At the time moment $T_2$ the information about the affected “lost” cities becomes also available and the required resources are directed to the affected cities too. The results of simulation are presented in Fig. \[incomplete1\]. As previously, curve 1 shows the supply dynamics of an affected city $i$ in the ideal case. Curve 2 illustrates the supply dynamics for the same affected city $i$ the information about which was available from the beginning. Curve 3 exhibits similar data for an affected city $j$ the information about which becomes available only after the time $T_2$. Before the time moment $T_2$ the resources were distributed over the “visible” cities (curve 2), so their states have become better than that of the “lost” cities. Therefore after the moment $T_2$ they receive the highest priority (Table \[T1\]) and the resource flow is mainly directed to them. In Fig. \[incomplete1\] it is manifested in a very fast growth of curve 3 and a temporal stagnation in the supply of the “visible” cities (curve 2). On the contrary, before the moment $T_2$ the supply of the “visible” cities with resources is also rather fast because no resource quanta were sent to the “lost” cites. In other words, broadly speaking, the “visible” cities are supplied during the first part of the process, whereas the “lost” cities are mainly supplied during the second part. As it must be, the supply process ends practically simultaneously for all the affected cities. With respect to the “visible” cities the latter fact is demonstrated by a short fragment of the resource amount growth before the value $Q_i$ gets its required level $Q_{ci}^\text{real}$ (curve 2). This type of dynamics can be characterized as a certain “screening” effect. It should be noted that a similar ”screening” effect but of another nature has been found in the resource redistribution during the short-term recovery in systems without the lack of information [@lubashevskiy2013algorithm]. In contrast to the previous scenario, in the given case there are conditions when the resource redistribution splits into two independent processes as illustrated in Fig. \[incomplete1\]. Because at the initial steps three of nine cities did not provide any information about their states, no resource quanta were sent to them up to the second information update at $T_2$. Therefore the resource flow to the other six cities was substantially increased for a relatively long time interval in comparison with the scenario of the information delay. Thereby in the case of $T_1=0.4 \,T$ and $T_2= 0.6 \,T$ the system recovery is rather closed to be split into two independent supply processes (Fig. \[incomplete1\]). We can conclude this Section as follows. The results of simulation of the resource redistribution system applied to the short-term recovery after a large scale disaster shows the fact that the proposed mechanism enables a rather adaptive response to the effects of lack of information. In particular, the duration of the short-term recovery turns out to be practically insensitive to various types of information delay if its value does not exceed the duration of the recovery process in the ideal case. Conclusion ========== This work has analyzed the effects of the lack of information on the resource redistribution process aimed at mitigating aftermath of a large scale disaster in the frameworks of short-term recovery. A socio-technological system at hand was regarded as a collection of cities connected with one another by a transport network. The effect of disaster on a given city is simulated as a lack of vital resources in it. The recovering process is based on the cooperative supply to the damaged region by the non-affected cities. The developed mechanism governing this resource redistribution generates a certain semi-optimal plan. It is based on the algorithm developed previously [@lubashevskiy2013algorithm] and generalized it to take into account possible effects of the lack of information or its delay. Strictly speaking, the optimal plan of the resource redistribution implies the minimal time of the resource supply to the affected cities. One of the criteria of the plan optimality is the requirement that the resource supply be finished for all the affected cities practically at the same moment. Due to condition  determining the priority of the city with the worst situation the latter requirement holds. The choice of the suppling city specified by expressions  and actually minimizes the duration of the resource redistribution. Naturally this argumentation is not a rigorous proof of optimality. However, it meets the necessary criteria, enabling us to call it semi-optimal. Using numerical simulation we have studied the influence of the lack of information on the resource redistribution planning. Two cases of the lack of information were considered. The first one is the delay of the information about the state of the affected cities. The second one is the information incompleteness with respect to affected and not-affected cities. As a main result, we have demonstrated that the lack of information affects weakly the duration of the recovering process as a whole. Besides, it is shown that the delay of information as well as its incompleteness manifest themselves in local screening effects.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We consider the scattering problem on locally perturbed periodic penetrable dielectric layers, which is formulated in terms of the full vector-valued time-harmonic Maxwell’s equations. The right-hand side is not assumed to be periodic. At first, we derive a variational formulation for the electromagnetic scattering problem in a suitable Sobolev space on an unbounded domain and reformulate the problem into a family of bounded domain problems using the Bloch-Floquet transform. For this family we can show the unique existence of the solution by applying a carefully designed Helmholtz decomposition. Afterwards, we split the differential operator into a coercive part and a compact perturbation and apply the Fredholm theory. Having that, the Sherman-Morrison-Woodbury formula allows to construct the solution of the whole problem handling the singularities of the Calderon operator on the boundary. Moreover, we show some regularity results of the Bloch-Floquet transformed solution w.r.t. the quasi-periodicity.' author: - Alexander Konschin bibliography: - 'ip-biblio.bib' title: Electromagnetic wave scattering from locally perturbed periodic inhomogeneous layers --- Introduction ============ This study of the electromagnetic scattering problem for locally perturbed periodic layers modeled by the full vector-valued Maxwell’s equations is motivated by the growing industrial interest for nano-structured materials and the resulting challenge to construct an automated non-destructive testing method for these kinds of structures. Assuming a periodic layer and a quasi-periodic incident field, the problem can be reduced to one periodic cell, which is analyzed in [@Bao2000; @Dobso1994; @Schmi2003] in the case of a constant permeability and in [@AmmariBao2003] for a chiral periodic media. The acoustic scattering problem from unbounded periodic structures with a quasi-periodic incident field is a well-established topic in mathematics and was analyzed in various articles (see, e.g., [@Abboud1992; @Bao1994; @Bao1995; @BaoDobsomCox95; @Bonne1994; @Dobson1992; @Kirsc1993; @Kirsc1995a]). If the incident field or the media do not satisfy the periodicity condition, then the problem is usually treated as a rough layer scattering problem where some restrictive assumptions for the permittivity and permeability are prescribed in the literature (see [@Hadda2011; @LiZhengZheng2016] for the vector-valued problem and [@HuLiuQuZhang2015; @Lechl2009] for the acoustic scattering problem). Alternatively, the wave number is assumed to be complex valued (see, e.g., [@LiWuZheng2011]) in which case the sesquilinear form is coercive and the problem is much easier. For sound-soft rough surfaces, the unique existence of the solution is well-known (see [@Chand2010] and [@Chand2005]). In this article, we consider the rough scattering problem in the case that the permittivity $\varepsilon$ and that the permeability $\mu$ are periodic functions in the first two components and the permittivity includes a local defect. The right-hand side can be chosen arbitrarily without any periodicity restrictions. Our Bloch-Floquet transform approach, which is motivated by the results of [@Konschin19a] for the Helmholtz equation, allows to show the unique existence of the solution to the vector-valued scattering problem with much less restrictive regularity assumptions on the parameter. It is enough to assume that the permittivity $\varepsilon$ and the permeability $\mu$ are Lipschitz-continuous functions and some condition for the uniqueness, e.g., that the set $\{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Im}~}}\varepsilon > 0\}$ should contain an open ball to avoid surface waves. The Bloch-Floquet approach was used in existing work to analyze the acoustic scattering problem in waveguides (compare [@Ehrhardt2009; @Fliss2015; @Joly2006]) and in open space (see [@Konschin19a]). In [@LechleiterZhang2017b] a first approach for the vector-valued problem for a periodic permittivity, a constant permeability and for a non-periodic right-hand side was studied. Because of the choice of a constant permeability the solution to the corresponding variational problem of the Maxwell equations is $H^1$-regular and the boundary condition is well-behaved. In our case we consider the permeability as a function and seek a solution in the $H(\operatorname{curl})$ space. In this case the radiation condition has to be adjusted and includes singularities in the frequency domain. This makes the analysis much more involved. For the existence theory, we apply the Bloch-Floquet transform to derive a family of quasi-periodic variational problems in a bounded domain. As the next step, we divide the quasi-periodic solution space into the sum of three subspaces by constructing two suitable Helmholtz decompositions, such that the problem reduces to finding a solution in a more regular subspace. In this quasi-periodic subspace, we can split the sesquilinear form into a coercive part and a compact perturbation and apply the Fredholm theory to conclude the solvability of the family of problems by showing the uniqueness. Having this, we construct a solution to the actual problem by showing and applying the so-called Sherman-Morrison-Woodbury formula to handle the singularities. Furthermore, the formula allows to show the regularity of the Bloch-Floquet transformed solution with respect to the quasi-periodicity and describes a natural way to approximate the solution numerically. This paper is organized as follows. In section \[Sec2\] we introduce the scattering problem and in section \[Sec3\] we derive the corresponding variational formulation using the Calderon operator for the upper boundary condition. Hereafter, we prove the unique existence of the solution in section \[Sec4\], if the permittivity is not perturbed, and in section \[Sec5\] we prove the unique existence of the solution for the locally perturbed permittivity. Section \[Sec6\] contains regularity results of the Bloch-Floquet transformed solution. Scattering problem {#Sec2} ================== We model the scattered electric field ${\mathbf E}$ as well as the magnetic field ${\mathbf H}$ as the solutions to the Maxwell’s equations in ${\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^3$. We assume to have an inhomogeneous isotropic material, or in other words, we assume that the permeability $\mu$, the permittivity $\varepsilon$ and the resistance $\sigma$ are scalar-valued functions in $L^\infty({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^3_+, {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}})$ and fulfill the bounds $\mu(x) \geq \mu_0 > 0$, $\varepsilon(x) \geq \varepsilon_0 > 0$ and $\sigma(x) \geq 0$ for all $x \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^3_+ := {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2 \times (0, \infty)$. We consider the problem with a perfect conductor on the lower boundary ${\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2 \times \{ 0 \}$ for better readability, which implicates the boundary condition ${\mathbf E}_T := ({\mathbf E}_1, {\mathbf E}_2, 0)^\top = 0$ on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2 \times \{ 0 \}$. The arguments can be easily extended to the case that the obstacle is surrounded by homogeneous media. Define for $R \geq 0$ the sets $$\begin{aligned} \Omega^R &:= {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^{2} \times (0, R) , &\Gamma^R &:= {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^{2} \times \{R\} , \\ \Gamma_0^R &:= (-\pi, \pi)^{2} \times \{R\} \text{ and } &I_{} &:= (\nicefrac{-1}{2}, \nicefrac{1}{2})^{2} . \end{aligned}$$ We seek the electric field ${\mathbf E}$ as well as the magnetic field ${\mathbf H}$ as function of the space $H_{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{loc}}}}(\operatorname{curl}; {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^3_+)$, where both lie in $H(\operatorname{curl}; \Omega^R)$ for all $R \geq R_0 > 0$ and fulfill the equations \[eq\_Maxwell1\] $$\begin{aligned} \nabla \times {\mathbf E} - {\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\omega \mu {\mathbf H} &= 0 ,& &\nabla \times {\mathbf H} + {\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}(\omega \varepsilon + {\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\sigma) {\mathbf E} = J &&\text{in } L^2({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^3_+)^3 , \\ \operatorname{div}(\mu {\mathbf H}) &= 0 ,& &\operatorname{div}\left( \varepsilon {\mathbf E} +{\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\frac{\sigma}{\omega} {\mathbf E} \right) = \frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\omega}\operatorname{div}( J) &&\text{in } H^{-1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^3_+) , \\ {\mathbf E}_T\big|_{\Gamma^0 } &= 0 & & &&\text{in } L^2({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2) , \end{aligned}$$ where $\omega \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}_{\geq 0}$, $\mu$, $\varepsilon$, $\sigma \in L^\infty({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^3_+, {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}})$ and $J \in L^2({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^3_+)^3$. Since the electric field is a function in $H(\operatorname{curl}; \Omega^R)$ for some $R > R_0$, the trace ${\mathbf E}_T\big|_{\Gamma^0 } $ is well-defined on $\Gamma^0$. The substitution of the magnetic field ${\mathbf H}$ gives the Maxwell’s equation of second order for the electric field ${\mathbf E} \in H(\operatorname{curl}; \Omega^R)$ for all $R \geq R_0 > 0$ of the form \[eq\_Maxwell3\_1\] $$\begin{aligned} \nabla \times \biggl( \mu^{-1} \nabla \times {\mathbf E} \biggr) - \omega^2 {\varepsilon}{\mathbf E} &= f := {\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\omega \mu_+ J &&\text{in } L^2({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^3_+)^3 , \label{eq_Maxwell3_a} \\ \operatorname{div}({\varepsilon}{\mathbf E}) = -\frac{1}{\omega^2 } \operatorname{div}f &= \frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\omega }\operatorname{div}J &&\text{in } H^{-1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^3_+) , \\ {\mathbf E}_T\big|_{\Gamma^0 } &= 0 &&\text{in } L^2({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2) . \end{aligned}$$ Having a solution ${\mathbf E}$ to the equations , the functions ${\mathbf E}$ and ${\mathbf H} := \tfrac{1}{{\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\omega \mu_r \mu_+} \nabla \times {\mathbf E}$ solve the first order Maxwell’s equations . We assume that the obstacle is bi-periodic in the first two components ${\ensuremath{\underline{x}}}:= (x_1, x_2) \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2$ and bounded in the third direction. We characterize the periodicity by some invertible matrix $\Lambda \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^{2 \times 2}$ and set $\Lambda^*:= 2 \pi (\Lambda^{T})^{-1}$. With the boundedness of the object in the third direction we describe the fact that we can find an $R_0 > 0$, such that the obstacle is supported in the strip $\Omega^{R_0}$. To simplify the notation, we assume without loss of generality that the periodicity equals to the scaled identity matrix $\Lambda = 2\pi I_{2} \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^{2 \times 2}$, $\Lambda^* = I_2$ and that the local perturbation $q \in L^\infty({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}_+^{3})$ has the support in $\Omega_0^{R_0}$, where $\Omega_0^{R} := (-\pi, \pi)^{2} \times (0, R)$ for $R \geq R_0$. For the existence theory we prescribe the following assumptions: - The constant $R_0 > 0$ is chosen, such that for a small $\delta > 0$ the parameter $ \varepsilon +\tfrac{{\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\sigma}{\omega}$ and $\mu$ are constant outside of $\Omega^{R_0-\delta}$ with $\sigma = 0$. In other words, the parameter can be described by constants $\mu = \mu_+ > 0$ and $ \varepsilon +\tfrac{{\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\sigma}{\omega} = \varepsilon_+ >0$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^3_+ \setminus \overline{\Omega^{R_0-\delta}}$. We set the abbreviation $\varepsilon_r := ( \varepsilon + \tfrac{{\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\sigma}{\omega}) /\varepsilon_+$ and $\mu_r := \tfrac{\mu}{\mu_+}$ as well as $k^2:=\omega^2 \mu_+\varepsilon_+$. - The permittivity $\varepsilon_r$ and the permeability $\mu_r$ are $2\pi$-periodic and we write ${\varepsilon}^{\mathrm{s}}_r := \varepsilon_r +q$ for the perturbed permittivity with the perturbation $q \in L^\infty({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^3_+)$, which is supported in $\Omega_0^{R_0}$. - The right-hand side $f$ is supported in $\Omega^{R_0-\delta}$. The assumptions allow us to derive a radiation condition for the scattering problem. For a sufficient small $\delta > 0$ the parameter $\mu_r$ and ${\varepsilon}_r$ are constant in ${\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^3_+ \setminus \overline{\Omega^{R_0-\delta}}$ and the right-hand side vanishes there. Hence, for the divergence of ${\mathbf E}$ it holds $\operatorname{div}{\mathbf E} = 0$ above the strip domain and the equation  reduces to the component-wise homogeneous Helmholtz equation $\Delta {\mathbf E} + k^2 {\mathbf E} = 0$. In consequence, the scattered field ${\mathbf E}$ should satisfy the angular spectrum representation as the radiation condition, which is defined by ${\mathbf E}^{R}\in C^\infty \left({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2 \times (R, \infty) \right)$, $$\label{eq_Ausstrahl1} {\mathbf E}^{R}(x) := \frac{1}{{2\pi}} \int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2} \mathcal{F} \left( {\mathbf E}\big|_{ \Gamma^{R}} \right) (\xi ) \,e^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\xi \cdot {\ensuremath{\underline{x}}}+ {\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\sqrt{k^2 - |\xi|^2}(x_3 - R)} {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}\xi$$ for $x \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^3_{+} \setminus \overline{\Omega^{R_0-\delta}}$. We call the space of functions $\phi_T = (\phi_1, \phi_2, 0)^T \in H^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}(\Gamma^{R})^3$ as ${TH}^{\nicefrac{1}{2}} (\Gamma^{R})$. The following regularity theorem shows that the radiation condition  is well-defined. \[satz\_regGebiet\] Choose $R' > R \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}$ and set $\Omega := {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2 \times (R, R')$. If a function $u \in H(\operatorname{curl}; \Omega ) \cap H(\operatorname{div}; \Omega )$ satisfies $u_T \in TH^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}(\partial \Omega)$, then $u \in H^1(\Omega )^3$ and it holds the estimation $$\begin{aligned} ||u||_{H^1(\Omega )^3} \leq c \biggl( ||u||_{H(\operatorname{curl}; \Omega )} + ||\operatorname{div}u||_{L^2(\Omega )} + || u_T ||_{TH^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}(\partial \Omega)} \biggr) . \end{aligned}$$ For a smooth function $\phi \in C^\infty_0({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^3)^3$ with compact support in ${\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^3$ it holds $\nabla \times \nabla \times \phi = \nabla \operatorname{div}\phi - \Delta \phi$ and Green formula gives $$\begin{aligned} &\int_{\Omega} |\nabla \phi |^2 {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}x = -\sum_{j=1}^{3} \int_{\Omega} \Delta \phi_j\, \overline{\phi}_j {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}x + \left[ \int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2 \times \{R'\}} - \int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2 \times \{R\}} \right] \frac{\partial}{\partial x_3} \phi_j\, \overline{\phi}_j {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}S \\ &= \int_{\Omega} \nabla \times \nabla \times \phi \cdot \overline{\phi} - (\nabla \operatorname{div}\phi) \cdot \overline{\phi} {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}x + \sum_{j=1}^{3} \left[ \int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2 \times \{R'\}} - \int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2 \times \{R\}} \right] \frac{\partial \phi_j}{\partial x_3} \overline{\phi}_j {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}S . \end{aligned}$$ If we apply the Green formula a second time, we derive $$\begin{aligned} \int_{\Omega} |\nabla \phi |^2 {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}x & = \int_{\Omega} \nabla \times \phi \cdot \nabla \times \overline{\phi} + \operatorname{div}\phi\, \operatorname{div}\overline{\phi} {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}x \\ &\quad + \sum_{j=1}^{3} \left[ \int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2 \times \{R'\}} - \int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2 \times \{R\}} \right] \frac{\partial}{\partial x_3} \phi_j\, \overline{\phi}_j {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}S \\ &\quad + \left[ \int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2 \times \{R'\}} - \int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2 \times \{R\}} \right] e_3 \times (\nabla \times \phi) \cdot \overline{\phi} - \operatorname{div}\phi\,\overline{\phi}_3 {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}S . \end{aligned}$$ For the boundary term on $\Gamma :={\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2 \times \{R'\}$, and analogously on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2 \times \{R\}$, we compute $$\begin{aligned} & \int_{\Gamma} e_3 \times (\nabla \times \phi) - \operatorname{div}\phi\,\overline{\phi}_3 + \sum_{j=1}^{3} \frac{\partial}{\partial x_3} \phi_j\, \overline{\phi}_j {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}S \\ &= \int_{\Gamma} \frac{\partial}{\partial x_2} \phi_3\, \overline{\phi}_2 + \frac{\partial}{\partial x_1} \phi_3\, \overline{\phi}_1 - \frac{\partial}{\partial x_1 } \phi_1\, \overline{\phi}_3 - \frac{\partial}{\partial x_2 } \phi_2\, \overline{\phi}_3 {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}S \\ &= - 2\, {\ensuremath{\mathrm{Re}~}}\int_{\Gamma} (\operatorname{div}_T \phi_T )\, \overline{\phi}_3 {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}S . \end{aligned}$$ Since the operator $\operatorname{div}_T \colon H^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2)^2 \to H^{\nicefrac{-1}{2}}({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2)$ is continuous, we conclude $$\begin{aligned} ||\phi||^2_{H^1(\Omega)^3} &\leq ||\phi||^2_{H(\operatorname{curl}; \Omega)} + ||\operatorname{div}\phi||^2_{L^2(\Omega)} + C ||\phi_T||_{TH^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}(\partial \Omega)} ||\phi||_{H^1(\Omega)^3} \\ &\leq \left(||\phi||_{H(\operatorname{curl}; \Omega)} + ||\operatorname{div}\phi||_{L^2(\Omega)} + C ||\phi_T||_{TH^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}(\partial \Omega)} \right) ||\phi||_{H^1(\Omega)^3} \end{aligned}$$ for all $\phi \in C_0^\infty({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^3)^3$. Because of the denseness of the space $C_0^\infty({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^3)^3$ of smooth functions with compact support in , the estimation holds for every function $u \in H(\operatorname{curl}; \Omega ) \cap H(\operatorname{div}; \Omega )$ with $u_T \in TH^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}(\partial \Omega)$. We seek a solution to the Maxwell’s equations which has the trace in $TH^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}(\Gamma^R)$. Therefore, the solution is locally an $H^1$-regular around the boundary $\Gamma^R$ and analogously to [@Chand2005 Lemma 2.2] and we can prove that the radiation condition ${\mathbf E}^R$ is well-defined and lies in $H^1({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2 \times (R, R'))$. Reduction to a variational problem {#Sec3} ================================== We reduce the scattering problem  ,  to a variational problem. For that, we first apply formally the Gaussian theorem on the domain $\Omega^R$ to derive equation $$\begin{aligned} \int_{\Omega^R} \nabla \times \biggl( \mu_r^{-1} \nabla \times {\mathbf E} \biggr) \cdot \overline{v} - k^2 {\varepsilon}^{\mathrm{s}}_r {\mathbf E} \cdot \overline{v} {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}x & = \int_{\Omega^R} \mu_r^{-1} \nabla \times {\mathbf E} \cdot \nabla \times \overline{v} - k^2{\varepsilon}^{\mathrm{s}}_r {\mathbf E} \cdot \overline{v} {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}x \\ &\quad\quad + \left[ \int_{\Gamma^{R}} - \int_{\Gamma^{-R}} \right] \left[ e_3 \times (\nabla \times {\mathbf E}) \cdot \overline{v} \right] {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}S . \end{aligned}$$ In the following we replace the boundary term by some boundary condition and adapt the radiation condition, such that the solution to the variational problem solve the scattering problem , . Since the trace of the third component ${\mathbf E}_{3}\big|_{\Gamma^{R}}$ of a function $H(\operatorname{curl}; \Omega^R)$ is not well-defined, we have to reformulate the radiation condition. Near the boundary $\Gamma^{R}$ for some $R \geq R_0$ the $H^1$-regularity of the solution follows by theorem \[satz\_regGebiet\]. For a sufficient small $ \delta > 0$ it follows by standard regularity results that the solution actually lies in $H^2({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2 \times (R-\delta, R+\delta))$ and, in particular, the solution ${\mathbf E}$ satisfies the equation $$e_3 \times (\nabla \times {\mathbf E}) = \nabla_T {\mathbf E}_3 - \frac{\partial {\mathbf E}_T}{\partial x_3} \quad\text{in } H^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}(\Gamma^R) .$$ Since for $R \geq R_0$ the solution is given by the radiation condition , we can express $\frac{\partial {\mathbf E}_T}{\partial x_3}\big|_{\Gamma^{R}}$ as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq_T} \frac{\partial {\mathbf E}_T}{\partial x_3}\big|_{\Gamma^{R}} = T( {\mathbf E}_T\big|_{\Gamma^{R}})({\ensuremath{\underline{x}}}, R) := \frac{{\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}}{2\pi} \int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^{2}} \sqrt{k^2 - | \xi|^2}\, \mathcal{F}( {\mathbf E}_T \big|_{\Gamma^{R}}) (\xi)\, e^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}{\ensuremath{\underline{x}}}\cdot \xi} {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}\xi \end{aligned}$$ for ${\ensuremath{\underline{x}}}\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^{2}$. The operator $T \colon H^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}(\Gamma^{R}) \to H^{\nicefrac{-1}{2}}(\Gamma^{R})$ is called the Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator and satisfies the inequalities $$-{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Re}~}}\langle T \phi, \phi \rangle_{H^{\nicefrac{-1}{2}}(\Gamma^{R}) \times H^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}(\Gamma^{R})} \geq 0 \quad \text{and} \quad {\ensuremath{\mathrm{Im}~}}\langle T \phi, \phi \rangle_{H^{\nicefrac{-1}{2}}(\Gamma^{R}) \times H^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}(\Gamma^{R})} \geq 0$$ (compare [@Chand2005]). For the remaining term $\nabla_T {\mathbf E}_3$ we consider the identity $$0 = \operatorname{div}{\mathbf E} = \operatorname{div}_T {\mathbf E}_T + \frac{\partial {\mathbf E}_3}{\partial x_3} \quad \text{in } H^1 \left({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2 \times (R-\delta, R+\delta)\right)$$ together with the Fourier-transform and to derive $${\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\xi \,\mathcal{F} \left({\mathbf E}_{3}\big|_{\Gamma^{R}} \right) = -\frac{{\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\xi}{\sqrt{k^2 - | \xi|^2}}\, \left(\xi \cdot \mathcal{F}({\mathbf E}_{T}\big|_{\Gamma^{R}})\right) \quad \text{in } L^2\left({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2\right) .$$ We define the space ${\widehat}{TH}^{\nicefrac{1}{2}} (\Gamma^{R})$ as $$\begin{aligned} {\widehat}{TH}^{\nicefrac{1}{2}} (\Gamma^{R}) := \left\{ u_T \in {TH}^{\nicefrac{1}{2}} (\Gamma^{R}) : \biggl(\xi \mapsto \frac{\xi \cdot \mathcal{F}(u_T)(\xi)}{|k^2 - |\xi|^2|^{\nicefrac{1}{4}}} \biggr)\in L^2({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2) \right\} , \end{aligned}$$ which has the norm $$||u_T||^2_{{\widehat}{TH}^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}(\Gamma^{R})} := \bigintsss_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2} \frac{1}{|k^2 - |\xi|^2|^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}}\, |\xi \cdot \mathcal{F}(u_T)(\xi)|^2 +|1 + |\xi|^2|^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}\, |\mathcal{F}(u_T)(\xi)|^2 {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}\xi ,$$ and the corresponding scalar product. By construction of the space ${\widehat}{TH}^{\nicefrac{1}{2}} (\Gamma^{R})$, the operator $N \colon {\widehat}{TH}^{\nicefrac{1}{2}} (\Gamma^{R}) \to {\widehat}{TH}^{\nicefrac{1}{2}} (\Gamma^{R})'$, $$N(\phi_T) ({\ensuremath{\underline{x}}}) := - \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2} \frac{{\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\xi}{\sqrt{k^2 - | \xi|^2}}\, \left(\xi \cdot \mathcal{F}(\phi_T)(\xi)\right)\, e^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\xi \cdot {\ensuremath{\underline{x}}}} {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}\xi ,$$ is well-defined and satisfies the inequalities $$-{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Re}~}}\langle N \phi_T, \phi_T \rangle \geq 0 \ \ \quad\text{and}\quad \quad -{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Im}~}}\langle N \phi_T, \phi_T \rangle \geq 0 .$$ Thus, we can define the solution space $X$ as $$X := \left\{ u \in H(\operatorname{curl}; \Omega^R) : u_{T}\big|_{\Gamma^{R}} \in \widehat{TH}^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}(\Gamma^{R}),\ u_{T}\big|_{\Gamma^{0}}=0 \right\} ,$$ where the norm is given by $ ||u||^2_X := ||u||^2_{H(\operatorname{curl}; \Omega^R)} + ||u_T||^2_{{\widehat}{TH}^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}(\Gamma^{R})} . $ Therefore, we have derived the following variational formulation: \[prob\_Maxwell\] [We seek ${\mathbf E} \in X$, such that]{} $$\begin{aligned} a_q({\mathbf E}, v) &:= \int_{\Omega^R} \mu_r^{-1} \left(\nabla \times {\mathbf E}\right) \cdot \left(\nabla \times \overline{v } \right) - k^2{\varepsilon}^{\mathrm{s}}_r {\mathbf E} \cdot \overline{v} {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}x \nonumber \\ &\quad \quad + \int_{\Gamma^{R}} N({\mathbf E}_{T}\big|_{\Gamma^{R}}) \cdot \overline{v}_{T}\big|_{\Gamma^{R}}- T({\mathbf E}_{T}\big|_{\Gamma^{R}}) \cdot \overline{v}_{T}\big|_{\Gamma^{R}} {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}S \nonumber \\ &= \int_{\Omega^R} f \cdot \overline{v} {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}x \end{aligned}$$ [is satisfied for all $v \in X$.]{} For the existence theory we assume some regularity for the parameter. \[assumption\_absorptionMaxwell\] The set $\{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Im}~}}{\varepsilon}_r > 0\}$ includes an open ball. Furthermore, the parameter ${\varepsilon}_r$, $q$ and $\mu_r$ should be functions in $W^{1,\infty}({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^3_+)$ and bounded from below by ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{Im}~}}{\varepsilon}^{\mathrm{s}}_r \geq 0$, ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{Im}~}}\mu_r \geq 0$ as well as by ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{Re}~}}{\varepsilon}_r \geq {\varepsilon}_0 > 0$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{Re}~}}\mu_r \geq \mu_0 > 0$. Having a solution to the variational problem \[prob\_Maxwell\], we extend the function by the radiation condition and it solves the scattering problem. This results was proven in [@Hadda2011], which we summarize here. \[lemma\_rueckUndRand\] The solution to the variational problem  \[prob\_Maxwell\] is a distributional solution to the equations  in $\Omega^R$ and the equation   holds in $L^2(\Omega^R)$. Moreover, the identity $$\label{eq_CalderonRand} e_3 \times (\nabla \times {\mathbf E})\big|_{ \Gamma^{R} } = N({\mathbf E}_{T}\big|_{\Gamma^{R}}) - T({\mathbf E}_{T}\big|_{\Gamma^{R}})$$ holds in $H^{\nicefrac{-1}{2}}(\Gamma^{R})^3$. We refer to [@Hadda2011 Korollar 3.2]. \[lemma\_ausstrahlungsbedingung\] The extension of the solution ${\mathbf E}\in X$ to the variational problem \[prob\_Maxwell\] for some $R \geq R_0$ to ${\mathbf E}'$ defined by ${\mathbf E}' := {\mathbf E}$ in $\Omega^R$ and \[eq\_Ausstrahl2\_1\] $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbf E}'_T(x) &:= \int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2} \mathcal{F}({\mathbf E}_T)(\xi)\, e^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\xi \cdot {\ensuremath{\underline{x}}}+ {\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\sqrt{k^2-|\xi|^2}(x_3 - R)} \;d \xi \\ {\mathbf E}'_3(x) &:= \int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2} \frac{- 1}{\sqrt{k^2 - | \xi|^2}}\, \left(\xi \cdot \mathcal{F}({\mathbf E}_T)(\xi) \right)\, e^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\xi \cdot {\ensuremath{\underline{x}}}+ {\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\sqrt{k^2-|\xi|^2}(x_3 - R)} \;d \xi \end{aligned}$$ for $x \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^3_+\setminus\overline{\Omega^R}$ solves the scattering problem ,  in ${\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^3_+$. Furthermore, the extension ${\mathbf E}'$ solves the variational problem \[prob\_Maxwell\] for $R' > R$ and it holds ${\mathbf E}' \in H^1(\Omega^{R'} \setminus\Omega^{R_0 - \delta})^3$ for all $R' \geq R_0$ and for $\delta > 0$ small enough. We refer to [@Hadda2011 Korollar 3.3]. Having the $H^1$-regularity of the solution ${\mathbf E} \in X$ to the variational problem near the boundary $\Gamma^{R}$, we can conclude that the third component is well-defined and can be characterized by $$\mathcal{F}({\mathbf E}_3) = \frac{- 1}{\sqrt{k^2 - | \xi|^2}}\, \left(\xi \cdot \mathcal{F}({\mathbf E}_T)(\xi) \right) \quad \text{in } H^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}(\Gamma^{R}) .$$ Thus, the solution satisfies the radiation condition . Existence theory for the periodic permittivity {#Sec4} ============================================== At first, we consider the case that both parameter are periodic and that there is no perturbation in the permittivity, or in other words that $q=0$ and $\varepsilon_r^\mathrm{s} = \varepsilon_r$. This allows us to apply the Bloch-Floquet transform and consider the quasi-periodic problem. For the quasi-periodic problem we decompose the solution space with a carefully chosen Helmholtz decomposition to gain a reduced problem on a more regular solution space, which is compactly embedded in $L^2(\Omega_0^R)$. Afterwards, we have to construct the solution to problem \[prob\_Maxwell\] by analyzing the behavior of the quasi-periodic solution operator w.r.t. the quasi-periodicity. A function is called $\alpha$-quasi-periodic with $\alpha \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^{2}$ and period $2 \pi$, if $$u({\ensuremath{\underline{x}}}+ 2 \pi j, x_d) = e^{-2 \pi {\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\alpha \cdot j} u({\ensuremath{\underline{x}}}, x_d) \quad\text{holds for all } j \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}}^{2} .$$ For smooth functions $\phi \in C^\infty_0(\overline{\Omega^R})$ the horizontal Bloch-Floquet transform ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2}$ is defined by $${\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2} \phi (\alpha, {\ensuremath{\underline{x}}}, x_d) := \sum_{j \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}}^{2}} \phi ({\ensuremath{\underline{x}}}+ 2 \pi j, x_d) e^{2 \pi {\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\alpha \cdot j} .$$ Recall the spaces $H^s_\alpha(\Omega_0^R)$ and $H^s_\alpha(\Gamma_0^R)$ of $\alpha$-quasi-periodic weakly differentiable functions, and set ${\widetilde}{H}^s_\alpha(\Omega_0^R)$ as the subspace of functions $u \in H^s_\alpha(\Omega_0^R)$ satisfying $u \big|_{\Gamma_0^0} = 0$. The Bloch-Floquet transform extends for $s \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}$ to an isomorphism between ${\widetilde}{H}^s(\Omega^R)$ and $L^2(I_{}; {\widetilde}{H}^s_\alpha(\Omega_0^R))$ as well as between ${H}^s(\Gamma^R)$ and $L^2(I_{}; {H}^s_\alpha(\Gamma_0^R))$, where the index $\alpha$ indicates that the space depends on $\alpha \in I_{}$ (see [@Lechleiter2016]). The inverse of the transform is given by $${\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2}^{-1} w ({\ensuremath{\underline{x}}}+ 2 \pi j, x_d) = \int_{I_{}} w(\alpha, {\ensuremath{\underline{x}}}, x_d) e^{-2 \pi {\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\alpha \cdot j} {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}\alpha \quad \text{for } x \in \Omega_0^R , \ j \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}}^{2} .$$ Alternative formulation on a bounded domain ------------------------------------------- At first, we formulate the quasi-periodic scattering problem, which is not well-defined for some quasi-periodicities. For that, we define the set of singularities as $$\mathcal{A} := \left\{ \alpha \in \overline{I_{}} : |\alpha + j| = k \quad\text{for some } j \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}}^2 \right\} .$$ For this problem we consider functions, which are quasi-periodic in ${\ensuremath{\underline{x}}}$. Hence, the radiation condition reduces to the Rayleigh radiation condition and we adapt the boundary condition. We write $u_\alpha:={\widetilde}{u}(\alpha, \cdot)$ for $\alpha \in \overline{I}_{}$ and ${\widetilde}{u} \in L^2(I_{}; L^2(\Omega_0^R))^3$ and define for $\alpha \in \overline{I} \setminus \mathcal{A}$ the space ${\widetilde}{X}_\alpha$ as $$\begin{aligned} {\widetilde}{X}_\alpha &:= \left\{ {\mathbf E}_\alpha \in H_\alpha(\operatorname{curl}; \Omega_0^R) : {\mathbf E}_{\alpha,T} \big|_{\Gamma_0^R} \in TH_\alpha^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}(\Gamma_0^{R}) ,\ {\mathbf E}_{\alpha,T} \big|_{\Gamma_0^0} =0 \right\} ,\ \end{aligned}$$ where $H_\alpha(\operatorname{curl}; \Omega_0^R)$ is the subspace of $L^2(\Omega^R_0)$-functions which are $\alpha$-quasi-periodic and which the $\operatorname{curl}$ operator maps into $L^2(\Omega^R_0)$. The trace of these functions can be written as a Fourier series. Since we only need the transverse part of a vector field on the boundary, we write ${\mathbf E}_{\alpha, T}$ instead of ${\mathbf E}_{\alpha, T}\big|_{\Gamma_0^R}$ from now on. Analogously to the continuous problem, we avoid the trace of the third component in the sesquilinear form, since it is not well-defined for all $H_\alpha(\operatorname{curl}; \Omega_0^R)$-functions. Thus, we derive the extension $${\mathbf E}_{\alpha, 3}^{R}({\ensuremath{\underline{x}}}, x_3) = \frac{1}{2 \pi} \sum_{j \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}}^2} \frac{ 1}{\beta_j} \left( \alpha_j \cdot \widehat{({\mathbf E}_{\alpha, T})}_j \right)\, e^{-{\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\alpha_j \cdot {\ensuremath{\underline{x}}}+ {\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\beta_j(x_3 - R)}$$ for $x \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2 \times (R, \infty)$. For all $\alpha \in \overline{I}$ we define the quasi-periodic Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator $T_\alpha\colon TH_\alpha^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}(\Gamma_0^R) \to TH_\alpha^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}(\Gamma_0^R)'$ for $\phi_T = \sum_{j \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}}^{2}} {\widehat}{(\phi_T)}_j(\alpha) e^{ -{\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}(\alpha + j) \cdot {\ensuremath{\underline{x}}}}({\ensuremath{\underline{x}}}) $ by $$T_\alpha(\phi_T)({\ensuremath{\underline{x}}}) = \sum_{j \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}}^{2}} \sqrt{k^2 - |\alpha + j |^2} {\widehat}{(\phi_T)}_j(\alpha) e^{-{\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}(\alpha + j) \cdot {\ensuremath{\underline{x}}}} ,$$ which satisfies the inequalities $$\label{eq_Tinequalities} {\ensuremath{\mathrm{Re}~}}\langle T_\alpha \phi_T, \phi_T \rangle \leq 0 \ \ \quad\text{and}\quad \quad {\ensuremath{\mathrm{Im}~}}\langle T_\alpha \phi_T, \phi_T \rangle \geq 0 .$$ For all $\alpha \in \overline{I}\setminus \mathcal{A}$ we define the operator $N_\alpha \colon TH_\alpha^{\nicefrac{1}{2}} (\Gamma_0^{R}) \to TH_\alpha^{\nicefrac{1}{2}} (\Gamma_0^{R})'$ as $$N_\alpha(\phi_T ) ({\ensuremath{\underline{x}}}) := - \frac{1}{2 \pi} \sum_{j \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}}^2} \frac{{\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\alpha_j}{\sqrt{k^2 - | \alpha_j|^2}} \left(\alpha_j \cdot \widehat{(\phi_T )}_j \right) e^{-{\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\alpha_j \cdot {\ensuremath{\underline{x}}}} ,$$ which is well-defined and satisfies the inequalities $$\label{eq_Ninequalities} -{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Re}~}}\langle N_\alpha \phi_T, \phi_T \rangle \geq 0 \ \ \quad\text{and}\quad \quad -{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Im}~}}\langle N_\alpha \phi_T, \phi_T \rangle \geq 0 .$$ Moreover, the solution space ${\widetilde}{X} := {\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2} X = L^2_{\mathrm{w}}(I_{}; {\widetilde}{X}_\alpha)$ is given by $$L^2_{\mathrm{w}}(I_{}; {\widetilde}{X}_\alpha) := \left\{ u \in L^2(I_{}; {\widetilde}{X}_\alpha) : \bigintsss_{I_{}} \sum_{j \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}}^2} \frac{\left|\alpha_j \cdot \widehat{( {\mathbf E}_{\alpha, T})}_j \right|^2}{|k^2 - | \alpha_j|^2|^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}} {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}\alpha < \infty \right\} ,$$ where the norm can be written as $$||u||_{L^2_{\mathrm{w}}(I_{}; {\widetilde}{X}_\alpha)}^2 := \bigintsss_{I_{}} ||u(\alpha, \cdot)||^2_{{\widetilde}{X}_\alpha} + \sum_{j \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}}^2} \frac{\left|\alpha_j \cdot \widehat{( {\mathbf E}_{\alpha, T})}_j \right|^2 }{|k^2 - | \alpha_j|^2|^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}} {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}\alpha .$$ Therefore, we can state the alternative problem as: *For ${\widetilde}{f} \in L^2(I_{} \times \Omega^R_0)$ we seek ${\widetilde}{{\mathbf E}} \in L^2_{\mathrm{w}}(I_{}; {\widetilde}{X}_\alpha)$, such that* \[eq\_transVarProblem\] $$\begin{aligned} &\int_{I_{}} \int_{\Omega_0^R} \mu_r^{-1} \left(\nabla \times {\widetilde}{{\mathbf E}}_\alpha \right) \cdot \left( \nabla \times \overline{v}_\alpha \right) - k^2{\varepsilon}_r {\widetilde}{{\mathbf E}}_\alpha \cdot \overline{v}_\alpha {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}x {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}\alpha \\ & \quad \quad + \int_{I_{}} \int_{\Gamma_0^{R}} N_\alpha( {\widetilde}{{\mathbf E}}_{\alpha,T}) \cdot \overline{v}_{\alpha,T} - T_\alpha( {\widetilde}{{\mathbf E}}_{\alpha,T}) \cdot \overline{v}_{\alpha,T} {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}S {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}\alpha \\ & = \int_{I_{}} \int_{\Omega_0^R} {\widetilde}{f}_\alpha \cdot \overline{v_\alpha} {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}x{\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}\alpha \end{aligned}$$ *holds for all $v \in L^2_{\mathrm{w}}(I_{}; {\widetilde}{X}_\alpha)$.* The sesquilinear form is well-defined by construction and the following lemma shows the equivalence of the problems. The function ${\mathbf E} \in X$ solves the variational problem  in the strip domain $\Omega^R$ if, and only if, ${\widetilde}{{\mathbf E}} := ({\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2} {\mathbf E}) \in L^2_{\mathrm{w}}(I_{}; {\widetilde}{X}_\alpha)$ solves the alternative variational problem  with the right-hand side ${\widetilde}{f}:= ({\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2} f)$. For the operator $T$ and the term in the volume integral part the equivalence can be proven analogously to [@Konschin19a Theorem 2]. We choose a cut-off function $\chi_{\{ ||\xi| - k | \geq \eta\}}$ for some $\eta > 0$ and consider $\mathcal{F}^{-1}\left(\chi_{\{ ||\xi| - k | \geq \eta\}} \mathcal{F}(N({\mathbf E}_T))\right)$. Then, we can show the equivalence for the operator $N$ analogously to $T$ and let $\eta$ go to zero. At first, we show the uniqueness, which is a direct consequence of the unique continuation property shown in [@Okaji2002]. We start by citing the corresponding result. \[proposition\_uniqueContienuationMaxwell\] Let $U \subseteq {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^3$ be some domain and the parameter $\mu_r$ and ${\varepsilon}_r$ functions in $W^{1, \infty}({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^3)$. If ${\mathbf E}$ solves the Maxwell’s equations  for the right-hand side $f = 0$ and vanishes on an open set, then ${\mathbf E}$ vanishes everywhere in $U$. The results is proven in [@Okaji2002 Theorem 2.3]. Thus, we can show the uniqueness of a solution to the problem \[prob\_Maxwell\]. \[lemma\_eindInt\] If the Assumption \[assumption\_absorptionMaxwell\] holds, then there exists at maximum one solution to the problem in the integral form  for every right-hand side. Let ${\widetilde}{{\mathbf E}}$ be the solution to the problem  for ${\widetilde}{f} = 0$, then for all $v \in L^2_{\mathrm{w}}(I_{}; {\widetilde}{X}_\alpha)$ it holds $$\begin{aligned} 0 &= \int_{I_{}} \int_{\Omega_0^R} \mu_r^{-1} \left( \nabla \times {\widetilde}{{\mathbf E}}_\alpha \right) \cdot \left(\nabla \times \overline{v}_\alpha \right) - k^2{\varepsilon}_r {\widetilde}{{\mathbf E}}_\alpha \cdot \overline{v}_\alpha {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}x {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}\alpha \nonumber \\ & \quad \quad + \int_{I_{}} \int_{\Gamma_0^{R}} N_\alpha({\widetilde}{{\mathbf E}}_{\alpha,T} ) \cdot \overline{v}_{\alpha,T} - T_\alpha({\widetilde}{{\mathbf E}}_{\alpha,T} ) \cdot \overline{v}_{\alpha,T} {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}S {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}\alpha . \end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we can conclude using the inequalities in and that $$\begin{aligned} 0 &= \int_{I_{}} \int_{\Omega_0^R} - k^2 ({\ensuremath{\mathrm{Im}~}}{\varepsilon}_r) |{\widetilde}{{\mathbf E}}_\alpha|^2 {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}x {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}\alpha + {\ensuremath{\mathrm{Im}~}}\int_{I_{}} \int_{\Gamma_0^{R}} \left(N_\alpha- T_\alpha\right)({\widetilde}{{\mathbf E}}_{\alpha,T} ) \cdot \overline{{\widetilde}{{\mathbf E}}}_{\alpha,T} {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}S{\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}\alpha \\ &\leq \int_{I_{}} \int_{\Omega_0^R} - k^2 ({\ensuremath{\mathrm{Im}~}}{\varepsilon}_r) |{\widetilde}{{\mathbf E}}_\alpha|^2 {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}x {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}\alpha \leq 0 \end{aligned}$$ holds, wherefrom ${\widetilde}{{\mathbf E}}_\alpha = 0$ on $\{({\ensuremath{\mathrm{Im}~}}{\varepsilon}_r) > 0 \}$ follows for almost all $\alpha \in I_{}$. Hence, we derive ${\widetilde}{{\mathbf E}}_\alpha = 0$ on $\Omega^R_0$ for almost all $\alpha \in I_{}$ applying Proposition \[proposition\_uniqueContienuationMaxwell\]. The variational problem  is formulated with an additional integral surrounding the variational formulation. In this case we do not have any compact embedding results for the solution space $L^2_{\mathrm{w}}(I_{}; {\widetilde}{X}_\alpha)$, and Fredholm theory is not applicable. For this reason, we are considering the problem pointwise in $\alpha \in \overline{I} \setminus \mathcal{A}$, for which we can decompose the solution space by the Helmholtz decomposition and derive compact embedding of the reduced problem. This will be our next step. The quasi-periodic variational problem for $\alpha \in \overline{I_{}} \setminus \mathcal{A}$ is given by: *We seek ${\widetilde}{{\mathbf E}}_\alpha \in {\widetilde}{X}_\alpha$, such that* \[eq\_probWirklichPunkt\] $$\begin{aligned} a_\alpha({\widetilde}{{\mathbf E}}_\alpha, v_\alpha) &:=\int_{\Omega_0^R} \mu_r^{-1} \left(\nabla \times {\widetilde}{{\mathbf E}}_\alpha \right) \cdot \left( \nabla \times\overline{ v }_\alpha \right) - k^2{\varepsilon}_r {\widetilde}{{\mathbf E}}_\alpha \cdot \overline{v}_\alpha {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}x \\ &\quad\quad\quad + \int_{\Gamma_0^{R}} N_\alpha({\widetilde}{{\mathbf E}}_{\alpha,T} ) \cdot \overline{v}_{\alpha,T} -T_\alpha({\widetilde}{{\mathbf E}}_{\alpha,T} ) \cdot \overline{v}_{\alpha,T} {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}S \\ &= f_\alpha(v_\alpha) \end{aligned}$$ *holds for all $v_\alpha \in {\widetilde}{X}_\alpha$.* Helmholtz decomposition of the solution space --------------------------------------------- In the following we apply two different Helmholtz decompositions to the variational problem . The first decomposition is for reducing the solution space to some more regular subspace, and with the help of the second decomposition, we include a boundary condition, which will be crucial for the decomposition of the differential operator into a coercive part and a compact perturbation. For the Helmholtz decomposition we consider the two following problems, where the first one is solved in $W:={\widetilde}{H}^1_\alpha(\Omega_0^R)$ and for the second one we seek the solution in $W_0 := \{ w \in W : w = 0 \text{ on } \Gamma^R_0 \}$. We define the sesquilinear form $b^{(\varepsilon_r)}$ for all $\phi$, $v \in {\widetilde}{X}_\alpha$ as $$b^{(\varepsilon_r)}(\phi, v) := \int_{\Omega_0^R} k^2 {\varepsilon}_r \phi \cdot \overline{ v} {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}x - \int_{\Gamma_0^R} \left( N_\alpha - T_\alpha \right)(\phi_{ T}) \cdot \overline{v}_{ T} {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}S ,$$ which is well-defined for all functions in ${\widetilde}{X}_\alpha$. For the first decomposition we seek a function in $W_0$. In this case the boundary terms of the sesquilinear form $b^{(\varepsilon_r)}$ can be omitted and we derive the following problem: \[lemma\_loesHilfs1\] For $F \in W_0'$ the problem $$\begin{aligned} \operatorname{div}\left(k^2{\varepsilon}_r \nabla w\right) &= -F &&\text{in } \Omega_0^R \\ w &= 0 &&\text{on } \Gamma_0^{0} \cup \Gamma_0^{R} \end{aligned}$$ has a unique solution $w \in W_0$. The corresponding variational problem is to find a $w \in W_0$, such that $$b^{(\varepsilon_r)} \left(\nabla w, \nabla v \right) = \int_{\Omega_0^R} F \cdot \overline{v} {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}x \quad\text{holds for all } v \in W_0 .$$ Since the trace of $W_0$-functions vanishes on the boundary $\Gamma_0^R \cup \Gamma_0^0$, the coercivity follows by the Poincaré inequality together with the estimation $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{Re}~}}b^{(\varepsilon_r)}(\nabla w, \nabla w) = {\ensuremath{\mathrm{Re}~}}\int_{\Omega_0^R} k^2 {\varepsilon}_r |\nabla { w}|^2 {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}x \geq k^2 \varepsilon_0 \,||\nabla w||^2_{L^2(\Omega_0^R)} .$$ Hence, the unique existence of the solution follows by the lemma of Lax-Milgram. For the second decomposition, we seek a function in $W$ which possesses a special boundary condition. \[lemma\_loesHilfs2\] For $\alpha \in \overline{I}\setminus \mathcal{A}$ and $G \in H_\alpha^{\nicefrac{-1}{2}}(\Gamma_0^{R})$ the boundary value problem $$\begin{aligned} \operatorname{div}\left(k^2{\varepsilon}_r \nabla w\right) &= 0 &&\text{in } \Omega_0^R \\ \frac{\partial w}{\partial x_3} +k^{-2} \operatorname{div}_T( N_\alpha - T_\alpha)\left(\nabla_T w\right) &= k^{-2} G &&\text{on } \Gamma_0^{R} \\ w &= 0 &&\text{on } \Gamma_0^{0} \end{aligned}$$ is uniquely solvable in $W$. If $G$ is an element of $H_\alpha^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}(\Gamma_0^{R})$, then the solution is an element of $ H_\alpha^2(\Omega_0^R)$. Since the functions are $\alpha$-quasi-periodic on the boundary, it holds the identity ${\widehat}{(\nabla_T w)}_j = -{\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\alpha_j \,{\widehat}{w}_j$ for the $j$th Fourier coefficient ${\widehat}{w}_j$ of $w \in W$. Thus, it holds \[eq\_nablaTw\] $$\begin{aligned} k^{2}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Re}~}}\langle B_\alpha w, w \rangle := &- {\ensuremath{\mathrm{Re}~}}\int_{\Gamma_0^R} \left( N_\alpha - T_\alpha \right)(\nabla_T w) \cdot \nabla_T \overline{w} {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}S \\ &= \sum_{|\alpha_j| > k} \frac{1}{\sqrt{|\alpha_j|^2 - k^2 }} \left( |\alpha_j|^4 |{\widehat}{w}_j|^2 + (k^2 - |\alpha_j|^2 ) |\alpha_j|^2 |{\widehat}{w}_j|^2 \right) \\ &=k^2 \sum_{|\alpha_j| > k} \frac{|\alpha_j|^2}{|k^2 - |\alpha_j|^2|^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}}\, |{\widehat}{w}_j|^2 \geq 0 . \end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the existence of the unique solution follows analogously to Lemma \[lemma\_loesHilfs1\]. The second part of the statement regards the regularity of the solution can be proven analogously to Section 2.3 in [@Grisv1985], which argumentation we sketch here. Following the argumentation in [@Grisv1985], it is sufficient to show the estimation $$||v||_{H_\alpha^2(\Omega)} \leq C \left( ||v||_{H_\alpha^1(\Omega)} + ||G ||_{H_\alpha^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}(\Omega)} \right)$$ for the solution $v \in H_\alpha^2(\Omega)$, $\Omega := (-\pi, \pi)^2 \times (-\infty, R)$, of the problem \[eq\_RegW\] $$\begin{aligned} -\Delta v + v &= 0 &&\text{in } \Omega \label{eq_RegWa} \\ \frac{\partial v }{\partial x_3} + B_\alpha v &= G &&\text{on } \Gamma_0^R . \end{aligned}$$ To construct the solution to this problem, one can solve an ordinary differential equation for the Fourier coefficients and derive the solution $$v = \sum_{j \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}}^{2} }\frac{{\widehat}{G}_j \sqrt{k^2-|\alpha_j|^2} }{\sqrt{k^2-|\alpha_j|^2}\sqrt{1+|\alpha_j|^2} + {{\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}|\alpha_j|^2}} \, e^{-{\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\alpha_j \cdot {\ensuremath{\underline{x}}}+\sqrt{1+|\alpha_j|^2} (x_3-R)} \in H_\alpha^2(\Omega) ,$$ where the $H_\alpha^2(\Omega)$ norm can be estimated by the $H_\alpha^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}(\Gamma^R_0)$ norm of $G$ analogously to [@Chand2005 Lemma 2.2]. Using a convolution with the solution operator for the problem $-\Delta v + v = f$ in $(-\pi, \pi)^2 \times {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}$, we derive the estimation of the $H^2(\Omega)$ norm of the solution to the problem with an additional right-hand side $f \in L^2(\Omega)$ in (compare [@Grisv1985 Lemma 2.3.2.4]). Now, we split the domain $\Omega_0^R$ into $\Omega_0^{R-\delta} \cup D$, where $D:= \Omega_0^{R} \setminus \overline{\Omega_0^{R-2\delta} }$ for a sufficient small $\delta > 0$. By [@McLea2000 Theorem 4.18]), we conclude that $w$ is $H^2$-regular on $\Omega_0^{R-\delta}$. Choosing a cut-off function $\chi \in C^{\infty}(-\infty, R)$ with $\chi(x_3) = 0$ for $|x_3-R| \geq 2\delta$ and $\chi(x_3) = 1$ for $|x_3-R| \leq \delta$, we can extend the function $\chi w$ with zero to $\Omega$. The function $\chi w$ solves $-\Delta (\chi w) +\chi w = f \in L^2(D)$ with $G$ as the boundary condition. Thus, we can conclude the $H^2$-regularity of the solution $w$ in $\Omega_0^R \setminus \overline{\Omega_0^{R-\delta}}$, and in consequence, in the whole domain $\Omega_0^R$. Since the permittivity $\varepsilon_r$ is constant near the boundary with $\varepsilon_r=1$, we can define the trace $u_3$ on $\Gamma_0^{R}$ for every function $u \in {\widetilde}{X}_\alpha$, which fulfills $\operatorname{div}(\varepsilon_r u) = 0$ in $\Omega_0^R$, and it holds $u_3 \in H^{\nicefrac{-1}{2}}(\Gamma_0^{R})$. Therefore, the four spaces $${\widetilde}{Y}_\alpha := \left\{ u \in {\widetilde}{X}_\alpha : \operatorname{div}({\varepsilon}_r u) = 0 \text{ in } \Omega^R_0 \right\} \quad\text{and}\quad {\widetilde}{Y}_\alpha^{\perp} := \left\{ u \in {\widetilde}{X}_\alpha : u = \nabla w,\ w \in W_0 \right\}$$ as well as $${Y}_\alpha := \left\{ u \in {\widetilde}{Y}_\alpha : k^2{u}_{\alpha,3} = -\operatorname{div}_T \left[ ( N_\alpha - T_\alpha) u_{\alpha, T} \right] \in H^{\nicefrac{-1}{2}}(\Gamma_0^{R}) \right\}$$ and $${Y}_\alpha^{\perp} := \left\{ u \in {\widetilde}{Y}_\alpha : u = \nabla w,\ w \in W \right\}$$ are well-defined. \[lemma\_ZerlegungAlpha\] The subspaces ${\widetilde}{Y}_\alpha$ and ${\widetilde}{Y}_\alpha^{\perp}$ of ${\widetilde}{X}_\alpha$ are closed and ${\widetilde}{X}_\alpha$ can be decomposed into $ {\widetilde}{X}_\alpha = {\widetilde}{Y}_\alpha \oplus {\widetilde}{Y}_\alpha^{\perp} . $ \(i) Closeness of ${\widetilde}{Y}_\alpha^{\perp}$: Let $\{ \nabla {\widetilde}{w}_n \}_{n \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}$ be a Cauchy sequence in ${\widetilde}{Y}_\alpha^{\perp}$. For $\nabla v \in {\widetilde}{Y}_\alpha^{\perp} $ the norm of ${\widetilde}{X}_\alpha$ reduces to $ ||\nabla v ||_{L^2(\Omega_0^R)} . $ Hence, the sequence $\{ {\widetilde}{w}_n \}_{n \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}$ is a Cauchy sequence in the closed space $W_0$ and possesses the limit ${\widetilde}{w} \in W_0$. The norm equivalence implies that the sequence $\{ \nabla {\widetilde}{w}_n \}_{n \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}$ convergence in ${\widetilde}{X}_\alpha$ against $ \nabla {\widetilde}{w}$ for $n \to \infty$, which is an element of ${\widetilde}{Y}_\alpha^{\perp}$. \(ii) Closeness of ${\widetilde}{Y}_\alpha$: We show that ${\widetilde}{Y}_\alpha$ is the null space of the operator ${\widetilde}{P} \in \mathcal{L}({\widetilde}{X}_\alpha, W_0')$, ${\widetilde}{P}\colon {\widetilde}{u} \mapsto b^{(\varepsilon_r)}({\widetilde}{u}, \nabla \cdot)$, which implies the closeness. Obviously the ${\widetilde}{Y}_\alpha$ is a subspace of the null space $\mathcal{N} ({\widetilde}{P})$. Hence, let ${\widetilde}{u} \in \mathcal{N} ({\widetilde}{P})$ be some function of the null space, then for all $\phi \in C^\infty_0 (\Omega_0^R)$ it holds $\nabla \phi \in X_\alpha$ and $$0 = b^{(\varepsilon_r)}({\widetilde}{u}, \nabla \phi) = \int_{\Omega_0^R} k^2 \varepsilon_r {\widetilde}{u}\cdot \nabla \overline{\phi} {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}x .$$ Therefore, it holds $\operatorname{div}(\varepsilon_r {\widetilde}{u}) = 0$ in the distributional sense and we conclude ${\widetilde}{u} \in {\widetilde}{Y}_\alpha^\perp$. \(iii) Decomposition of ${\widetilde}{X}_\alpha$: We choose ${\mathbf E} \in {\widetilde}{X}_\alpha$, then there exists the unique solution ${\widetilde}{w} \in W_0$ of the variational problem $$b^{(\varepsilon_r)}(\nabla {\widetilde}{w},\nabla v) = b^{(\varepsilon_r)}({\mathbf E},\nabla v) \quad\text{for all } v \in W_0$$ by Lemma \[lemma\_loesHilfs1\]. For the function ${\widetilde}{u} := {\mathbf E} - \nabla {\widetilde}{w} \in {\widetilde}{X}_\alpha$, it holds ${\widetilde}{u}_T \in TH^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}(\Gamma_0^R)$ and $$0 = b^{(\varepsilon_r)}({\widetilde}{u}, \nabla v) = \int_{\Omega_0^R} k^2 {\varepsilon}_r {\widetilde}{u} \cdot \nabla \overline{v}{\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}x$$ for all $v \in W_0$. Thus, the function ${\widetilde}{u}$ is an element of ${\widetilde}{Y}_\alpha$. \(iv) Uniqueness of the decomposition: Let ${\widetilde}{u} = \nabla {\widetilde}{w}$ be in $ {\widetilde}{Y}_\alpha \cap {\widetilde}{Y}_\alpha^{\perp}$. We choose $F = \operatorname{div}({\varepsilon}_r {\widetilde}{u}) = 0$, such that Lemma \[lemma\_loesHilfs1\] implicates ${\widetilde}{w} = 0$. Consequently, we conclude ${\widetilde}{u} = 0$. For $\varepsilon_r \in W^{1, \infty} (\Omega_0^R)$ and ${\widetilde}{u} \in {\widetilde}{Y}_\alpha$ it holds the estimation $$\label{eq_divLeqU} || \operatorname{div}{\widetilde}{u}||_{L^2(\Omega_0^R)} \leq \left|\left| \frac{\nabla \varepsilon}{\varepsilon}\right|\right|_{L^\infty(\Omega_0^R)} || {\widetilde}{u}||_{L^2(\Omega_0^R)} \leq \frac{||\varepsilon_r ||_{W^{1,\infty}(\Omega_0^R)}}{\varepsilon_0} \, || {\widetilde}{u}||_{L^2(\Omega_0^R)} ,$$ and hence, it follows by Theorem \[satz\_regGebiet\] that ${\widetilde}{Y}_\alpha$ is a subspace of ${\widetilde}{H}_\alpha^1(\Omega^R)^3$ and the norms of ${\widetilde}{X}_\alpha$ and of $H^1(\Omega_0^R)^3$ are equivalent on ${\widetilde}{Y}_\alpha$. In the next step we apply a second Helmholtz decomposition to ${\widetilde}{Y}_\alpha$ to get an additional boundary condition into the solution space. \[lemma\_ZerlegungAlpha2\] Choose $\varepsilon_r \in W^{1, \infty} (\Omega_0^R)$, then the subspaces ${Y}_\alpha$ and ${Y}_\alpha^{\perp}$ of ${\widetilde}{Y}_\alpha$ are closed and the space ${\widetilde}{Y}_\alpha$ can be decomposed into $ {\widetilde}{Y}_\alpha = {Y}_\alpha \oplus {Y}_\alpha^{\perp} . $ \(i) The argumentation for the closeness of $Y_\alpha^\perp$ is analogously to the proof of Lemma \[lemma\_ZerlegungAlpha\], with the only difference that the ${\widetilde}{X}_\alpha$ norm for $\nabla v \in {Y}_\alpha^{\perp}$ reduces to $$||\nabla v ||^2_{{\widetilde}{X}_\alpha} =||\nabla v ||^2_{L^2(\Omega_0^R)} + || \nabla_T v ||^2_{TH^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}(\Gamma_0^R)}$$ and the Cauchy sequence converges in $\{ u \in W : \nabla_T u \in TH_\alpha^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}(\Gamma_0^{R}) \}$. \(ii) We define the operator $P \in \mathcal{L}({\widetilde}{Y}_\alpha, W')$ as $P\colon u \mapsto b^{(\varepsilon_r)}(u, \nabla \cdot)$ and show $Y_\alpha = \mathcal{N}(P)$. For $u \in \mathcal{N}(P)$ it holds $\operatorname{div}(\varepsilon_r u ) = 0$ and $u_3 \in H^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}(\Gamma^R_0)$ is well-defined. Choosing some $\psi \in C^\infty_0 ({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^3)$ which does not vanish on the boundary, we can apply the Gaussian theorem and derive $$0 = b^{(\varepsilon_r)}(u, \nabla \psi) = \int_{\Gamma_0^R} k^2 u_{ 3}\, \overline{\psi} - ( N_\alpha - T_\alpha) u_{ T} \cdot \nabla_T \overline{\psi} {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}S .$$ Because of the arbitrary choice of $\psi \in C^\infty_0 ({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^3)$ the function $u$ has to be an element of ${Y}_\alpha$. \(iii) Decomposition of ${\widetilde}{Y}_\alpha$: We choose ${\widetilde}{u} \in {\widetilde}{Y}_\alpha$ and the right-hand side $G := k^2{\widetilde}{u}_3 + \operatorname{div}_T \left[ ( N_\alpha - T_\alpha) {\widetilde}{u}_{T} \right]$. Then $G \in H_{\alpha}^{\nicefrac{-1}{2}}(\Gamma_0^R)$, since for all $\phi \in H_{\alpha}^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}(\Gamma_0^R)$ it holds $$\begin{aligned} & \left| \int_{\Gamma_0^R} \left( N_\alpha - T_\alpha \right)({\widetilde}{u}_T w) \cdot \nabla_T \overline{\phi} \right| {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}S \\ &\leq C \sum_{j \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}}^2} \left(1+|j|^2\right)^{\nicefrac{-1}{2}} \left| (\alpha_j \cdot {\widetilde}{u}_T) \,|\alpha_j|^2\, \overline{\phi} + (k^2 - |\alpha_j|^2 ) (\alpha_j \cdot {\widetilde}{u}_T)\, \overline{\phi} \right| \\ &\leq C ||\operatorname{div}_T {\widetilde}{u}_T||_{H_\alpha^{\nicefrac{-3}{2}}(\Gamma_0^R)} ||\phi||_{H_\alpha^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}(\Gamma_0^R)} \\ &\leq C ||{\widetilde}{u}_T||_{TH_\alpha^{\nicefrac{-1}{2}}(\Gamma_0^R)} ||\phi||_{H_\alpha^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}(\Gamma_0^R)} . \end{aligned}$$ In Lemma \[lemma\_loesHilfs2\] we showed that there exists a unique solution $w \in W$ to the variational problem $$b^{(\varepsilon_r)}(\nabla w,\nabla v) = b^{(\varepsilon_r)}({\widetilde}{u},\nabla v) \quad\text{for all } v \in W .$$ Using the assumption $\varepsilon_r \in W^{1, \infty}(\Omega^R)$ and the estimation , we have the inclusion ${\widetilde}{Y}_\alpha \subseteq {\widetilde}{H}^1_\alpha(\Omega_0^R)^3$. Therefore, the right-hand side $G$ is actually an element of $ H_\alpha^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}(\Gamma^R_0)$ and by Lemma \[lemma\_loesHilfs2\], we derive $w \in H^2(\Omega_0^R)$. In particular, the function $u := {\widetilde}{u} - \nabla w \in {\widetilde}{Y}_\alpha$ satisfies $$0 = b^{(\varepsilon_r)}(u, \nabla v) = \int_{\Omega_0^R} k^2 {\varepsilon}_r u \cdot \nabla \overline{v}{\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}x - \int_{\Gamma_0^R} \left( N_\alpha - T_\alpha \right)({\widetilde}{u}_{T}) \cdot \nabla_T \overline{v} {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}S$$ for all $v \in W$, and in consequence, $u \in Y_\alpha$. \(iv) The uniqueness of the decomposition follows by Lemma \[lemma\_loesHilfs2\], if we choose $G= k^{2} u_{3} + \operatorname{div}_T( N_\alpha - T_\alpha)(u_{T}) = 0$ for $u = \nabla w \in Y_\alpha \cap Y_\alpha^{\perp}$. Applying both Helmholtz decompositions to our variational problem, we can split a function ${\widetilde}{X}_\alpha$ into three unique functions of $Y_\alpha$, $Y_\alpha^\perp$ and ${\widetilde}{Y}_\alpha^{\perp}$. Let ${\mathbf E} = u_{\mathbf E} + \nabla w_{\mathbf E} + \nabla {\widetilde}{w}_{\mathbf E} \in {\widetilde}{X}_\alpha$ be the solution to problem and let $v = u_v + \nabla w_v+ \nabla {\widetilde}{w}_v\in {\widetilde}{X}_\alpha$ be a test function, where $u_{\mathbf E}, u_v \in Y_\alpha$, $\nabla w_u, \nabla w_v \in Y_\alpha^{\perp}$ and $\nabla {\widetilde}{w}_u, \nabla {\widetilde}{w}_v \in {\widetilde}{Y}_\alpha^{\perp}$. We conclude by Lemma \[lemma\_loesHilfs1\] and by Lemma \[lemma\_loesHilfs2\] that $w_{\mathbf E} \in W$ and ${\widetilde}{w}_{\mathbf E} \in W_0$ are the unique solutions to $$b^{(\varepsilon_r)}(\nabla w_{\mathbf E}, \nabla w_v) = \int_{\Omega_0^R} {f}_\alpha \cdot \nabla w_v {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}x ,\quad b^{(\varepsilon_r)}(\nabla {\widetilde}{w}_{\mathbf E}, \nabla {\widetilde}{w}_v) = \int_{\Omega_0^R} {f}_\alpha \cdot \nabla {\widetilde}{w}_v {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}x$$ for all $w_v \in W$ and ${\widetilde}{w}_v \in W_0$. Therefore, the problem can be reduced to: *We seek $u_{\mathbf E} \in Y_\alpha$, such that* $$\label{eq_redProb} a_\alpha(u_{\mathbf E}, u_v) = g_\alpha(u_v) \quad\text{\emph{holds for all }} u_v \in Y_\alpha ,$$ where the right-hand side is given by $$\begin{aligned} g_\alpha(u_v) & := \int_{\Omega_0^R} {f}_\alpha \cdot \overline{u}_v {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}x - a_\alpha(\nabla w_{\mathbf E}, u_v) - a_\alpha(\nabla {\widetilde}{w}_{\mathbf E}, u_v) \\ & = \int_{\Omega_0^R} \left({f}_\alpha+ k^2 {\varepsilon}_r \nabla (w_{\mathbf E}+{\widetilde}{w}_{\mathbf E}) \right) \cdot \overline{u}_v {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}x - \int_{\Gamma_0^{R}} \left( N_\alpha - T_\alpha \right)(\nabla_T w_{\mathbf E}) \cdot \overline{u}_v {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}S . \end{aligned}$$ Unique existence of the solution to the quasi-periodic problem -------------------------------------------------------------- In this section we consider the reduced quasi-periodic variational problem and show the unique existence of the solution. Let $\alpha \in \overline{I_{}} \setminus \mathcal{A}$ be fixed and choose a sufficient large $\rho > 0$. We define the sesquilinear form $a^\rho_\alpha$ for all $u_\alpha$, $v_\alpha \in {Y}_\alpha$ as $$\begin{aligned} a^\rho_\alpha(u_\alpha,v_\alpha) &:= \int_{\Omega_0^R} \mu_r^{-1} \left(\nabla \times u_\alpha \right) \cdot \left( \nabla \times \overline{v }_\alpha \right) + \rho\, u_\alpha \cdot \overline{v}_\alpha {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}x \\ & \quad \quad \quad \quad + \int_{\Gamma_0^{R}} N_\alpha(u_{\alpha,T} ) \cdot \overline{v}_{\alpha,T} -T_\alpha(u_{\alpha,T} ) \cdot \overline{v}_{\alpha,T} {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}S \\ & \quad \quad \quad \quad + C(k^2, \alpha) \sum_{j \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}}^2} (1+|\alpha_j|^2)^{\nicefrac{-1}{2}}\, \widehat{(u_{\alpha,T})}_j \cdot \overline{\widehat{(v_{\alpha,T})}_j} , \end{aligned}$$ where the constant $C(k^2, \alpha) $ is given by $$C(k^2, \alpha) := \frac{k^2}{2 \pi}\, \sup_{j \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}}^2 } \frac{(1 + |\alpha_j|^2)^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}}{|k^2 - |\alpha_j|^2|^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}} .$$ Thus, we can write the sesquilinear form $a_\alpha $ as $$\begin{aligned} a_\alpha(u_\alpha,v_\alpha) &= a^\rho_\alpha(u_\alpha,v_\alpha) - \int_{\Gamma_0^{R}} (\rho+ k^2{\varepsilon}_r)\, u_\alpha \cdot \overline{v}_\alpha {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}x \\ & \quad\quad\quad - C(k^2, \alpha) \sum_{j \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}}^2} (1+|\alpha_j|^2)^{\nicefrac{-1}{2}}\, \widehat{(u_{\alpha,T})}_j \cdot \overline{\widehat{(v_{\alpha,T})}_j} . \end{aligned}$$ \[satz\_koerziv\] For $\varepsilon_r \in W^{1, \infty} (\Omega_0^R)$ and a sufficient large $\rho > 0$ the sesquilinear form $a^\rho_\alpha$ is coercive on ${\widetilde}{H}_\alpha^1(\Omega_0^R)^3$, and, in particular, on ${Y}_\alpha$. For the boundary term it holds $$\begin{aligned} &\frac{1}{2 \pi}\sum_{j \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}}^2,\,|\alpha_j| > k} -\left(| \alpha_j|^2 - k^2 \right)^{\nicefrac{-1}{2}}\, \left|\alpha_j \cdot \widehat{(u_T)}_{j}\right|^2 + \left(|\alpha_j|^2 - k^2\right)^{\nicefrac{1}{2}} \,\left|\widehat{(u_T)}_{j}\right|^2 \\ &\geq \frac{1}{2 \pi}\sum_{j \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}}^2,\,|\alpha_j| > k} \left(| \alpha_j|^2 - k^2\right)^{\nicefrac{-1}{2}} \left(-|\alpha_j|^2+ | \alpha_j|^2 - k^2 \right)\, \left|\widehat{(u_T)}_{j}\right|^2 \\ &= \frac{- k^2}{2 \pi}\sum_{j \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}}^2,\,|\alpha_j| > k} \frac{\left|\widehat{(u_T)}_{j}\right|^2}{\left(| \alpha_j|^2 - k^2 \right)^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}} , \end{aligned}$$ and, in consequence, we have the estimation $$\begin{aligned} {\ensuremath{\mathrm{Re}~}}\int_{\Gamma_0^{R}} \left[ N_\alpha -T_\alpha \right](u_{\alpha,T} ) \cdot \overline{u}_{\alpha,T} {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}S \geq -C(k^2, \alpha)\, ||u_{\alpha,T}||^2_{H_\alpha^{\nicefrac{-1}{2}}(\Gamma_0^{R})} . \end{aligned}$$ The assumption $\varepsilon_r \in W^{1, \infty} (\Omega_0^R)$ implicates $ ||\operatorname{div}u_\alpha||^2_{L^2(\Omega_0^R)} - C_2||u_\alpha||^2_{L^2(\Omega_0^R)} \leq 0 , $ wherefrom we derive $$\begin{aligned} &{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Re}~}}\int_{\Omega_0^R} \mu_r^{-1} \left( \nabla \times u_\alpha \right) \cdot \left( \nabla \times \overline{u }_\alpha \right) + \rho\, u_\alpha \cdot \overline{u}_\alpha {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}x \\ & \geq ||\mu_r||_{L^\infty(\Omega_0^R)}^{-1} ||\nabla \times u_\alpha||^2_{L^2(\Omega_0^R)^3} + \rho\,||u_\alpha||^2_{L^2(\Omega_0^R)^3} \\ &\geq C_1 ||\nabla \times u_\alpha||^2_{L^2(\Omega_0^R)^3} + C_1||\operatorname{div}\cdot u_\alpha ||^2_{L^2(\Omega_0^R)} + (\rho-C_1C_2) ||u_\alpha||^2_{L^2(\Omega_0^R)^3} . \end{aligned}$$ An analogous computation to Theorem \[satz\_regGebiet\] gives the identity $$\int_{\Omega_0^R} | \nabla \times v |^2 + |\operatorname{div}v|^2 {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}x = \sum_{j=1}^3 \int_{\Omega_0^R} |\nabla v_j|^2 + 2\, {\ensuremath{\mathrm{Re}~}}\int_{\Gamma_0^R} (\operatorname{div}_T v_T )\,\overline{v}_3 {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}S$$ for $v \in {\widetilde}{H}_{\alpha}^1(\Omega_0^R)^3$, wherefrom it follows $$\begin{aligned} &{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Re}~}}\int_{\Omega_0^R} \mu_r^{-1} \left( \nabla \times u_\alpha \right) \cdot \left( \nabla \times \overline{u }_\alpha \right) + \rho\, u_\alpha \cdot \overline{u}_\alpha {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}x \\ & \geq C_1\, ||u_\alpha||^2_{H^1(\Omega_0^R)^3} + (\rho- C_2 C_1)\, ||u_\alpha||^2_{L^2(\Omega_0^R)^3} \\ & \quad\quad\quad + 2 C_1\, {\ensuremath{\mathrm{Re}~}}\int_{\Gamma_0^R} (\operatorname{div}_T u_{\alpha,T}) \overline{u}_{\alpha,3} {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}S . \end{aligned}$$ Let $( u )^{{\widehat}{}}_j$ denote the $j$th Fourier coefficient of some function $u \in L^2(\Gamma^R_0)$. Considering the boundary condition of the space $Y_\alpha$, we compute $$\begin{aligned} k^2 {\widehat}{(u_{\alpha, 3})}_{j} &= - \left(\operatorname{div}_T\left( N_\alpha - T_\alpha\right)( u_{\alpha, T})\right)^{{\widehat}{}}_j \\ &= {\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\alpha_j \cdot \left( \frac{ -{\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\alpha_j}{\sqrt{k^2-|\alpha_j|^2}} \left( \alpha_j \cdot \widehat{(u_{\alpha, T})}_j\right) - {\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\sqrt{k^2 - |\alpha_j|^2}\, \widehat{(u_{\alpha, T})}_j \right) \\ &= \frac{ 1 }{\sqrt{k^2-|\alpha_j|^2}} \left( |\alpha_j|^2 \left( \alpha_j \cdot \widehat{(u_{\alpha, T})}_j\right) +\left(k^2 - |\alpha_j|^2\right) \left(\alpha_j \cdot \widehat{(u_{\alpha, T})}_j \right) \right) \\ &= k^2 \frac{ -{\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\alpha_j \cdot \widehat{(u_{\alpha, T})}_j }{ -{\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\sqrt{k^2-|\alpha_j|^2}} . \end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the boundary term is non-negative, since $$2\, C_1\, {\ensuremath{\mathrm{Re}~}}\int_{\Gamma_0^R} (\operatorname{div}_T u_{\alpha, T})\, \overline{u}_{\alpha, 3} {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}S = 2\, C_1 \sum_{j \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}}^2,\,|\alpha_j| > k} \frac{1}{\sqrt{|\alpha_j|^2 - k^2}} \,|\alpha_j \cdot u_{\alpha, T} |^2 \geq 0 .$$ If we put everything together, we derive the estimation $$\begin{aligned} {\ensuremath{\mathrm{Re}~}}a^\rho_\alpha(u_\alpha, u_\alpha) \geq C\, ||u_\alpha||^2_{H^1(\Omega_0^R)^3} + C(\rho) \,|| u_\alpha||^2_{L^2(\Omega_0^R)^3} \geq c \,||u_{\alpha}||^2_{{\widetilde}{X}_\alpha} , \end{aligned}$$ and hence, the sesquilinear form is coercive on ${\widetilde}{Y}_\alpha$. Thus, we are prepared to show the unique existence of the solution to the reduced quasi-periodic problem. \[lemma\_perRWPLoesung\] If the Assumption \[assumption\_absorptionMaxwell\] holds, then for all $\alpha \in \overline{I_{}} \setminus \mathcal{A}$ the problem $$a_\alpha(u_\alpha, v_\alpha) = g_\alpha(v_\alpha) \quad\text{for all } v_\alpha \in {Y}_\alpha$$ is uniquely solvable. Because of Theorem \[satz\_koerziv\] and the compact embedding of ${\widetilde}{H}^1_\alpha(\Omega_0^R)$ in $L^2(\Omega_0^R)$ (see [@McLea2000 Theorem 3.27]), we can split the sesquilinear form into a coercive part and a compact perturbation. Thus, it remains to show the uniqueness and apply the Fredholm alternative for the existence of the solution. The uniqueness can be shown analogously to Lemma \[lemma\_eindInt\] by applying Proposition \[proposition\_uniqueContienuationMaxwell\], since $$0 = \int_{\Omega_0^R} - k^2 ({\ensuremath{\mathrm{Im}~}}{\varepsilon}_r) \, |u_\alpha|^2 {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}x + {\ensuremath{\mathrm{Im}~}}\int_{\Gamma_0^{R}} \left( N_\alpha - T_\alpha \right) (u_{\alpha,T} )\cdot \overline{u}_{\alpha,T} {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}S \leq 0$$ holds. Constructing the solution ------------------------- Having the existence theory for the quasi-periodic problems, we want to construct the solution to the problem in the integral form . The following theorem summarizes this subsection. \[satz\_pktweise1\] The existence of unique solutions $u_\alpha \in {\widetilde}{X}_\alpha$ for all $\alpha \in \overline{I_{}} \setminus \mathcal{A}$ to the $\alpha$-quasi-periodic problem  implicates the existence of the unique solution ${\widetilde}{u} \in L^2_{\mathrm{w}}(I_{}; {\widetilde}{X}_\alpha)$, ${\widetilde}{u}(\alpha, \cdot) := u_\alpha$, to the problem  in the integral form. Furthermore, it holds $$\label{eq_abschaetzung} ||{\widetilde}{u}||_{L^2_{\mathrm{w}}(I_{};{\widetilde}{X}_\alpha)} \leq c\, ||{\widetilde}{f}||_{L^2(I_{} \times \Omega_0^R)} .$$ For the proof we show that the quasi-periodic solution operator $L_\alpha$, which is only defined for $\alpha \in \overline{I}_{}\setminus \mathcal{A}$, can be extended continuously to $\overline{I}_{}$. Therefore, we can find a global constant $C$, such that $\sup_{\alpha \in \overline{I}} ||L_\alpha||_{L^2(I;X_\alpha)} \leq C$ holds. Afterwards, we still have to show that the estimation  holds for the weighted space $ L^2_{\mathrm{w}}(I_{}; {\widetilde}{X}_\alpha)$. For the extension we utilize the Sherman-Morrison-Woodbury formula, which we prove first. \[satz\_SMWFormel\] Let $H_1$ and $H_2$ two Hilbert spaces and $S \in \mathcal{L}(H_1)$ as well as $D \in \mathcal{L}(H_2)$ two invertible bounded operators. Further, choose two linear and continuous operators $Z_1 \in \mathcal{L}(H_1, H_2)$ and $Z_2 \in \mathcal{L}(H_1, H_2)$, such that $$B := S + Z_2^* D Z_1 \in \mathcal{L}(H_1) \quad\text{and}\quad G := D^{-1} + Z_1 S^{-1} Z_2^* \in \mathcal{L}(H_2)$$ are invertible. Then the inverse of $B$ can be represented by $$\label{eq_SMW} B^{-1} = S^{-1} - S^{-1} Z_2^* \left(D^{-1} + Z_1 S^{-1} Z_2^* \right)^{-1} Z_1 S^{-1} .$$ We call the operator on the right-hand side of as $C$. We assumed that $S$, $D$, $B$ and $G$ are continuously invertible operators, and hence, $C$ is also continuously invertible. We call $I_1 \in \mathcal{L}(H_1)$ and $I_2 \in \mathcal{L}(H_1)$ the two identity operators on $H_1$, or on $H_2$, respectively. Thus, we compute $$\begin{aligned} C B &= \left(S^{-1} - S^{-1} Z_2^* \left(D^{-1} + Z_1 S^{-1} Z_2^*\right)^{-1} Z_1 S^{-1} \right) (S + Z_2^* D Z_1 ) \\ &= I_1 + S^{-1}Z_2^* D Z_1 - S^{-1} Z_2^* G^{-1} Z_1 - S^{-1} Z_2^* G^{-1} Z_1 S^{-1} Z_2^* D Z_1 \\ &= I_1 + S^{-1}Z_2^* G^{-1} \left [\left(D^{-1} + Z_1 S^{-1} Z_2^*\right) D - I_2 - Z_1 S^{-1} Z_2^* D \right] Z_1 \\ &= I_1 + S^{-1}Z_2^* G^{-1} \left [I_2 + Z_1 S^{-1} Z_2^* D - I_2 - Z_1 S^{-1} Z_2^* D\right] Z_1 \\ & = I_1 \end{aligned}$$ and therefore, $B^{-1} = C B B^{-1} = C$ holds. The sesquilinear form $a_\alpha$ is continuous outside of the singularities, which can be proven analogously to [@Konschin19a Lemma 6] If Assumption \[assumption\_absorptionMaxwell\] holds, then the solution operator for the sesquilinear form $a_\alpha$ is continuous in $\overline{I}_{} \setminus \mathcal{A}$. Now, we consider the convergence of the solution operator $L_\alpha$, if $\alpha$ approaches a singularity ${\widehat}{\alpha} \in \mathcal{A}$. For that, we fix ${\widehat}{\alpha} \in \mathcal{A}$ and consider the finite set $$\label{eq_Jalpha} J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}} := \left\{ j \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}}^2 : |{\widehat}{\alpha} + j | = k \right\} .$$ We decompose the boundary operator $N_\alpha$ into two parts, one part is a finite sum with all the singularities and the second part does not include any singularity. We define for $\alpha \in \overline{I}_{}\setminus \mathcal{A}$, $u_\alpha \in {\widetilde}{X}_\alpha$, and for ${\ensuremath{\underline{x}}}\in \Gamma_0^R$ the operators $$\begin{aligned} N_\alpha(u_{\alpha,T}) ({\ensuremath{\underline{x}}}) &= \left[ \frac{1}{2 \pi} \sum_{j \not \in J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}} \frac{-{\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\alpha_j}{\sqrt{k^2 - | \alpha_j|^2}} \left( \alpha_j \cdot \widehat{( u_{\alpha, T})}_j\right) e^{-{\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\alpha_j \cdot {\ensuremath{\underline{x}}}} \right] \\ &\quad\quad\quad + \left[ \frac{1}{2 \pi} \sum_{j \in J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}} \frac{-{\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\alpha_j}{\sqrt{k^2 - | \alpha_j|^2}} \left( \alpha_j \cdot \widehat{( u_{\alpha, T})}_j \right) e^{-{\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}\alpha_j \cdot {\ensuremath{\underline{x}}}} \right] \\ &=: {\widetilde}{N}_\alpha(u_{\alpha,T}) ({\ensuremath{\underline{x}}}) + {\widehat}{N}_\alpha(u_{\alpha,T}) ({\ensuremath{\underline{x}}}) , \end{aligned}$$ where ${\widetilde}{N}_\alpha(u_{T, \alpha})$ is well-defined for all $\alpha$ in a neighborhood $U({\widehat}{\alpha}) \cap I_{}$ of ${\widehat}{\alpha}$. If we set the linear and continuous functional $$l_{\alpha_j} : H_\alpha(\operatorname{curl}; \Omega_0^R) \to {\ensuremath{\mathbb C}}, \quad u_\alpha \mapsto (\alpha + j) \cdot \widehat{(u_{\alpha,T})}_{j} ,$$ then we can rewrite the operator ${\widehat}{N}_\alpha(u_{\alpha,T})$ as $$\int_{\Gamma_0^{R}} {\widehat}{N}_\alpha(u_{\alpha,T})\, \overline{ v }_{\alpha,T} {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}S = \frac{1}{2 \pi} \sum_{j \in J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}} \frac{- {\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}}{\sqrt{k^2 - | \alpha_j|^2}} \, l_{\alpha_j}( u_{\alpha})\, \overline{l_{\alpha_j} ( v_{\alpha}) } .$$ We define the sesquilinear form $s_\alpha$, which includes all the parts of $a_\alpha$ beside the singularities, by $$\begin{aligned} s_\alpha(u_\alpha, v_\alpha) &:= \int_{\Omega_0^R} \mu_r^{-1} \nabla \times u_\alpha \cdot \nabla \times \overline{v}_\alpha - k^2 {\varepsilon}_r u_\alpha \cdot \overline{v}_\alpha {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}x \\ \nonumber &\quad \quad\quad + \int_{\Gamma_0^{R}} {\widetilde}{N}_\alpha(u_{\alpha,T}) \cdot \overline{v}_{\alpha,T} - T_\alpha(u_{\alpha,T} ) \cdot \overline{v}_{\alpha,T} {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}S \end{aligned}$$ for all $u_\alpha$, $v_\alpha \in {\widetilde}{X}_\alpha$. Hence, the problem  can be written as $$a_\alpha(u_\alpha, v_\alpha) = s_\alpha(u_\alpha, v_\alpha) - \frac{1}{2 \pi} \sum_{j \in J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}} \frac{{\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}}{\sqrt{k^2 - | \alpha_j|^2}} \, l_{\alpha_j}( u_{\alpha}) \,\overline{l_{\alpha_j} ( v_{\alpha}) } =f_\alpha(v_\alpha) .$$ Applying the theorem of Riesz, we reformulate the problem into a operator equation of the form $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq_Operatordarstellung} S_\alpha u_\alpha - \frac{1}{2 \pi} \sum_{j \in J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}} \frac{{\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}}{\sqrt{k^2 - | \alpha_j|^2}} \, ( u_{\alpha}, z_{\alpha_j})\, z_{\alpha_j} = y_\alpha , \end{aligned}$$ where $ s_\alpha(u_\alpha, v_\alpha) = (S_\alpha u_\alpha, v_\alpha)_{H(\operatorname{curl}; \Omega_0^R)} $, $ l_{\alpha_j}(v_\alpha) = (v_\alpha, z_{\alpha_j})_{H(\operatorname{curl}; \Omega_0^R)} , $ and the right-hand side satisfies $ f_\alpha(v_\alpha) = (y_\alpha, v_\alpha)_{H(\operatorname{curl}; \Omega_0^R)} . $ If Assumption \[assumption\_absorptionMaxwell\] holds, then the operator $S_\alpha$ is continuously invertible and the map $\alpha \mapsto S_\alpha^{-1}$ is unified continuous in an open ball around ${\widehat}{\alpha}$. The continuous invertibility of $S_\alpha$ can be shown analogously to the invertibility of the differential operator corresponding to $a_\alpha$. Since the operator $S_\alpha$ is well-defined in every $\alpha \in \overline{I}$ and continuous on $\overline{I}$, the Neumann series argument implies that the map $\alpha \mapsto S_\alpha^{-1}$ is unified continuous (compare [@Konschin19a Lemma 6]). To simplify the notation in the following argumentation, we renumber the $|J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}|$ elements $\{z_{\alpha_j}\}_{j \in J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}}$ as $\{z_m\}_{m=1,\ldots,|J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}|}$ and call the corresponding $\alpha_j$ as $\alpha^m$. Further, we define the operator $Z^*_{\alpha} \colon {\widetilde}{X}_\alpha \to {\ensuremath{\mathbb C}}^{|J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}|}$ and his adjoint operator $Z_{\alpha} \colon {\ensuremath{\mathbb C}}^{|J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}|} \to {\widetilde}{X}_\alpha $ by $$Z^*_{\alpha} \colon v \mapsto \left\{(v, z_m) e_m \right\}_{m=1,\ldots,|J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}|} \quad\text{and}\quad Z_{\alpha} \colon x \mapsto \sum_{m=1}^{|J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}|} (x, e_m)\, z_m .$$ Since every $z_m$, $m=1,\ldots,|J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}|$, corresponds to a different $j \in J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}$, the set $\{ z_m \}_{m=1}^{|J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}|}$ is linearly independent and $\mathcal{N}(Z_{\alpha} ) = \mathcal{R}(Z_{\alpha} ^*)^\perp = \{0 \}$ holds. Moreover, we define the diagonal matrix $$D_\alpha \colon {\ensuremath{\mathbb C}}^{|J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}|} \to {\ensuremath{\mathbb C}}^{|J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}|} ,\ e_m \mapsto \frac{-{\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}}{2 \pi} \frac{1}{\sqrt{k^2 - | \alpha^m|^2}} \, e_m \quad\text{for all } m = 1,\ldots,|J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}| ,$$ such that we can write the operator equation  as $$\left(S_\alpha + Z_\alpha D_\alpha Z_\alpha^* \right) u_\alpha = y_\alpha .$$ \[lemma\_neq0\] If the Assumption \[assumption\_absorptionMaxwell\] holds, then the operator $Z^*_{\alpha} S_\alpha^{-1}Z_{\alpha} \colon {\ensuremath{\mathbb C}}^{|J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}|} \to {\ensuremath{\mathbb C}}^{|J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}|}$ is continuously invertible in a neighborhood of ${\widehat}{\alpha}$. Because of the assumptions on the parameters $\varepsilon_r$ and $\mu_r$ the operator $S_\alpha$ is continuously invertible. Since we are in the setting of a finite dimensional space $\mathcal{L}({\ensuremath{\mathbb C}}^{|J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}|})$, the invertibility follows by the injectivity of $Z^*_{\alpha} S_\alpha^{-1}Z_{\alpha}$. Let’s assume the operator is not one-to-one, then there exists a vector $v$ in the kernel $\mathcal{N}(Z_\alpha^* S^{-1}_\alpha Z_\alpha) \setminus \{0 \}$. Since it holds $\mathcal{N}(Z_{\alpha} ) = \{0 \}$, we derive $w := S^{-1}_\alpha Z_\alpha v \neq 0$. On the other hand, $w$ solves $$\begin{aligned} 0 &= \left(Z_\alpha^* S^{-1}_\alpha Z_\alpha v, v \right)_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb C}}^{|J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}|}} = \left(S^{-1}_\alpha Z_\alpha v, Z_\alpha v\right)_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb C}}^{|J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}|}} = (w, S_\alpha w)_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb C}}^{|J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}|}} \\ &= \overline{(S_\alpha w, w)}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb C}}^{|J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}|}} = \overline{s_\alpha(w, w)} , \end{aligned}$$ wherefrom we can show analogously to Lemma \[lemma\_perRWPLoesung\] that $w = 0$ holds. Thus, we have a contradiction. \[satz\_darstellungDerInversen\] If Assumption \[assumption\_absorptionMaxwell\] holds, then in the neighborhood $U({\widehat}{\alpha}) \subseteq I \setminus \mathcal{A}$ of ${\widehat}{\alpha}$ the equation $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq_SalphaPlusRest} \left(S_\alpha + Z_\alpha D_\alpha Z_\alpha^* \right) u_\alpha = y_\alpha \end{aligned}$$ is uniquely solvable and the solution operator can be written as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq_smwFormel} S_\alpha^{-1} - S_\alpha^{-1} Z_{\alpha} \left(D^{-1}_{\alpha} + Z_{\alpha}^* S_\alpha^{-1} Z_{\alpha} \right)^{-1}Z_{\alpha}^* S_\alpha^{-1} \end{aligned}$$ in this neighborhood. We showed the invertibility of in Lemma \[lemma\_perRWPLoesung\]. For some $\alpha\in \overline{I}_{} \setminus \mathcal{A}$, which is close to ${\widehat}{\alpha} \in \mathcal{A}$, the invertible matrix $D_\alpha^{-1}$ converges to the zero matrix, such that the Neumann series argument implicates the invertibility of $D_\alpha^{-1} + Z_\alpha^* S^{-1}_\alpha Z_\alpha $. Thus, all assumptions of the Sherman-Morrison-Woodbury formula are fulfilled and the inverse of $S_\alpha + Z_\alpha D_\alpha Z_\alpha^* $ can be written in the form of by Theorem \[satz\_SMWFormel\]. Thus, we have all the ingredients to prove Theorem \[satz\_pktweise1\]. For every wave number $k>0$ the lines with the singularities consist of finite number of parts of the circle going through $\overline{I}_{}$. Therefore, for every ${\widehat}{\alpha} \in \mathcal{A}$ there exists a sequence $\{\alpha_j\}_{j=1}^\infty \subseteq \overline{I}_{} \setminus \mathcal{A}$, which converges to ${\widehat}{\alpha}$. Let $U({\widehat}{\alpha})$ be a small neighborhood around ${\widehat}{\alpha}$. The operators $S_\alpha^{-1}$, $Z_\alpha$, $D_\alpha^{-1}$ and $Z_\alpha^*$ are continuous (or continuously extendable) to $U({\widehat}{\alpha})$. The Neumann series argument implies that $(D^{-1}_{\alpha} + Z_{\alpha}^* S_\alpha^{-1} Z)^{-1}$ is also continuous on $U({\widehat}{\alpha})$. Hence, the representation of the sesquilinear form $a_\alpha$ in converges to $$S_\alpha^{-1} - S_\alpha^{-1} Z_{\alpha} \left(D^{-1}_{\alpha} + Z_{\alpha}^* S_\alpha^{-1} Z_{\alpha}\right)^{-1} Z_{\alpha}^* S_\alpha^{-1} \to S_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}^{-1} - S_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}^{-1} Z_{{\widehat}{\alpha}} \left(Z_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}^* S_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}^{-1} Z_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}\right)^{-1}Z_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}^* S_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}^{-1}$$ for $\alpha \to {\widehat}{\alpha}$ w.r.t. the operator norm of $\mathcal{L}({\widetilde}{X}_\alpha)$, since the limit is well-defined by Lemma \[lemma\_neq0\]. Thus, the mapping $\alpha \mapsto L_\alpha$, where $L_\alpha$ is the solution operator of the quasi-periodic problem , is continuously extendable to $\overline{I}_{}$ and, in particular, unified continuous on $\overline{I}_{}$. Therefore, there exists an $\alpha$ independent constant $ C > 0$, such that $\sup_{\alpha \in \overline{I}_{}} ||L_\alpha|| < C$ holds. In consequence, the function ${\widetilde}{u}(\alpha, \cdot) := u_\alpha$ is an element of $L^2(I_{}; {\widetilde}{X}_\alpha)$ and solves the problem . It remains to show that ${\widetilde}{u}$ actually lies in $L^2_{\mathrm{w}}(I_{}; {\widetilde}{X}_\alpha)$ and the estimation  holds. Since for $\alpha \in I_{} \setminus \mathcal{A}$ the sum $\langle{\widehat}{N}_\alpha(u_{\alpha,T}), u_{\alpha,T} \rangle$ only consists of entries with negative real part and vanishing imaginary part, or, negative imaginary part and vanishing real part, we can estimate $$\begin{aligned} &\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j \in J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}} \left|k^2 - | \alpha_j|^2\right|^{\nicefrac{-1}{2}} |l_{\alpha_j}( u_{\alpha})|^2 \leq\left|\sum_{j \in J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}} \frac{{\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}}{\sqrt{k^2 - | \alpha_j|^2}} \, l_{\alpha_j}( u_{\alpha})\, \overline{l_{\alpha_j}( u_{\alpha})} \right| \\ &\leq 2 \pi \,|a_\alpha(u_{\alpha}, u_{\alpha})| +\left|2 \pi\, a_\alpha(u_{\alpha}, u_{\alpha}) + \sum_{j \in J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}} \frac{{\ensuremath{\mathrm i}}}{\sqrt{k^2 - | \alpha_j|^2}} \,l_{\alpha_j}( u_{\alpha})\, \overline{l_{\alpha_j}( u_{\alpha})} \right| \\ &\leq 2 \pi\, ||f_\alpha||_{L^2(\Omega_0^R)} ||u_{\alpha}||_{L^2(\Omega_0^R)} + 2 \pi\, |s_\alpha(u_{\alpha}, u_{\alpha})| \\ &\leq C \left(||f_\alpha||^2_{L^2(\Omega_0^R)} + |s_\alpha(u_{\alpha}, u_{\alpha})|\right) . \end{aligned}$$ Moreover, the continuity of the sesquilinear form $s_\alpha$ allows the estimation $$|s_\alpha(u_{\alpha}, u_{\alpha})| \leq C\left(C_{\mathrm{trace}} + k^2||\varepsilon_r||_{L^\infty(\Omega_0^R)}+||\mu||^{-1}_{L^\infty(\Omega_0^R)}\right) ||u_{\alpha}||^2_{{\widetilde}{X}_\alpha} \leq C\,||f_{\alpha}||^2_{L^2(\Omega_0^R)} .$$ Consequently, we derive the claimed estimation by $$\int_{I_{}} \sum_{j \in J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}} \left|k^2 - | \alpha_j|^2\right|^{\nicefrac{-1}{2}} |l_{\alpha_j}( u_{\alpha})|^2 {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}\alpha < \infty ,$$ wherefrom ${\widetilde}{u} \in L^2_{\mathrm{w}}(I_{}; {\widetilde}{X}_\alpha)$ and the estimation  follows. Existence theory in case of a local perturbed permittivity {#Sec5} ========================================================== In this section we consider the scattering problem including a local perturbation in the permittivity $\varepsilon_r$. We call ${\varepsilon}^{\mathrm{s}}_r$ the perturbed parameter, and assume that the perturbation $q := {\varepsilon}^{\mathrm{s}}_r - \varepsilon_r $ has the support $\operatorname{supp}(q)$ in $\Omega^R_0$. Moreover, the imaginary part of the perturbed parameter should satisfy $({\ensuremath{\mathrm{Im}~}}{\varepsilon}^{\mathrm{s}}_r) \geq 0$ as assumed in Assumption \[assumption\_absorptionMaxwell\]. The idea is to apply the Fredholm alternative to show the solvability. Therefore, we define the two spaces $Y$ and $Y^{\perp}$ as $$Y := \left\{ u \in X : \operatorname{div}({\varepsilon}_r u) = 0 \right\} = {\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2}^{-1} \left( L^2(I; Y_\alpha)\right)$$ and $$Y^{\perp} := \{ u \in X : u = \nabla w,\ w \in W_0 \} = {\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2}^{-1} \left(L^2(I; Y^{\perp}_\alpha)\right) .$$ Since the Bloch-Floquet transform and the partial derivation can be interchanged, we derive the decomposition $X = Y \oplus Y^{\perp} $. The subspaces $Y$ and $Y^{\perp}$ of $X$ are closed and $X$ can be decomposed in $ X = Y \oplus Y^{\perp} . $ Thus, we can split every function in $X$ into the sum of a unique function of $Y$ and a unique function of $Y^{\perp}$. The variational problem reduces to: *For the right-hand side* $$g(v) := \int_{\Omega^R} f \cdot \overline{y}_v {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}x - a_q(\nabla w_u, v) = \int_{\Omega^R} \left(f+ k^2 {\varepsilon}_r \nabla w_u \right) \cdot \overline{v} {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}x$$ *we seek $u \in Y $, such that* $$\label{eq_ProblemnachHelmholtzPert} a_q(u, v) = g(v) \quad \text{\emph{holds for all }} v \in Y .$$ If the Assumption \[assumption\_absorptionMaxwell\] holds, then there exists the unique solution ${\mathbf E} \in X$ for the variational problem \[prob\_Maxwell\]. As we have seen before, we only have to show the unique solvability of the reduced problem  by $u \in Y$. Because of the regularity of ${\varepsilon}_r \in W^{1, \infty}({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^3_+)$ and the embedding of $Y \subseteq H^1(\Omega^R)$, the sesquilinear form $l : X \times X \to \mathbb{C}$, $$l(u, v) := \int_{\Omega^R} -k^2 q u \cdot \overline{v} {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}x ,$$ is a compact perturbation of the differential operator, since $ u \in H^1(\Omega^R)$, $\operatorname{supp}(q) \subseteq \Omega_0^R$ and $H^1(\Omega_0^R)$ is compactly embedded into $L^2(\Omega^R_0)$ (see [@McLea2000 Theorem 3.27]). Therefore, it remains to show the uniqueness and derive the existence by the Fredholm alternative. Let $u$ be the solution for the right-hand side $g = 0$. Because of the condition $({\ensuremath{\mathrm{Im}~}}{\varepsilon}^{\mathrm{s}}_r) \geq 0$, we can estimate the sesquilinear form by $ 0 \leq \int_{\Omega^R} - ({\ensuremath{\mathrm{Im}~}}{\varepsilon}^{\mathrm{s}}_r ) |u|^2 {\ensuremath{\;\mathrm{d}}}x \leq 0 . $ We assumed that $({\ensuremath{\mathrm{Im}~}}{\varepsilon}_r) > 0$ holds on an open ball of $\Omega^R$. Hence, the function ${u}$ vanishes on this set and the unique continuation property in Proposition \[proposition\_uniqueContienuationMaxwell\] implicates that $w$ has to vanish everywhere. Regularity of the transformed solution w.r.t. the quasi-periodicity {#Sec6} =================================================================== In this section we consider the regularity of the transformed solution to the problem \[prob\_Maxwell\] w.r.t. the quasi-periodicity. At first, we consider the regularity in the case of unperturbed periodic parameters. \[satz\_regUngestoert\] Let $f_\alpha \in L^2(\Omega_0^R)$ be analytical in $\alpha \in \overline{I_{}}$. Then the solution ${\mathbf E}_\alpha\in {\widetilde}{X}_\alpha$ of the (unperturbed) quasi-periodic variational problem  is continuous in $\alpha \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2$ and analytical in $\alpha \in \overline{I_{}} \setminus \mathcal{A}$. For any $\alpha \in \overline{I_{}} \setminus \mathcal{A}$ which is near a singularity ${\widehat}{\alpha} \in \mathcal{A}$, there exist functions ${\mathbf E}_\alpha^1$ and ${\mathbf E}_{\alpha_j}^2 \in {\widetilde}{X}_\alpha$, $j \in J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}$, which are analytical in $\alpha \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2$, such that $$\label{eq_zerlegung} {\mathbf E}_\alpha = {\mathbf E}_\alpha^1 + \sum_{j \in J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}} \sqrt{k^2-|\alpha_j|^2}\, {\mathbf E}_{\alpha_j}^2 .$$ For $\alpha \in \overline{I_{}} \setminus \mathcal{A}$ the differential operator is analytical w.r.t. $\alpha$, and hence, the solution is analytical there. Therefore, we only have to show how the solution behaves near a singularity. If $\alpha$ is near a singularity ${\widehat}{\alpha} \in \mathcal{A}$, then the solution operator can be decomposed into $$S_\alpha^{-1} - S_\alpha^{-1} Z_{\alpha} \left(D^{-1}_{\alpha} + Z_{\alpha}^* S_\alpha^{-1} Z_{\alpha}\right)^{-1}Z_{\alpha}^* S_\alpha^{-1} ,$$ which follows by Theorem \[satz\_darstellungDerInversen\]. The operators $Z_{\alpha}$ and $Z_{\alpha}^*$ are analytical in $\alpha \in \overline{I_{}}$ and we can show the analyticity of $S_\alpha^{-1}$ analogously to [@Konschin19a Lemma 6]. Hence, the linear operator $G_\alpha:=(Z_\alpha^* S_\alpha^{-1} Z_\alpha)^{-1}$ is well-defined by Lemma \[lemma\_neq0\] and the Neumann series argument implies that $G_\alpha$ is analytical. If $\alpha$ approaches ${\widehat}{\alpha}$, then the matrix $D_\alpha^{-1}$ convergences with an order of one half to the zero matrix and applying the Neumann series argument and we derive the equation $$\begin{aligned} \left(D_\alpha^{-1} + Z_\alpha^* S_\alpha^{-1} Z_\alpha \right)^{-1} v & = \left( G_\alpha D_\alpha^{-1} + I_{|J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}|} \right)^{-1} G_\alpha v =- \sum_{l=0}^{\infty} \left( G_\alpha D_\alpha^{-1} \right)^{l} G_\alpha v \\ &=: U^0_\alpha v + \sum_{m=1}^{|J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}|} \sqrt{k^2-|\alpha^m|^2} \,U^m_\alpha v \end{aligned}$$ for analytical dependent operators $U^m_\alpha$, $m = 0,\ldots,|J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}|$ and for a vector $v \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb C}}^{|J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}|}$. Therefore, the solution can also be written as $${\mathbf E}_\alpha = S_\alpha^{-1} f_\alpha - S_\alpha^{-1} Z_{\alpha} \left(D^{-1}_{\alpha} + Z_{\alpha}^* S_\alpha^{-1} Z_{\alpha} \right)^{-1}Z_{\alpha}^* S_\alpha^{-1} f_\alpha .$$ In the next theorem, we consider the scattering problem with a locally perturbed permittivity. Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2} {\mathbf E} \in L^2_{\mathrm{w}}(I_{}; {\widetilde}{X}_\alpha)$ be the Bloch-Floquet transformed solution to the (locally perturbed) variational problem \[prob\_Maxwell\] with the right-hand side $f \in L^2(\Omega^R)$, such that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2} f$ is analytical in $\alpha \in \overline{I_{}}$. Then ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2} {\mathbf E}$ is continuous in $\alpha \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2$ and analytical in $\alpha \in \overline{I_{}} \setminus \mathcal{A}$. For $\alpha \in \overline{I_{}} \setminus \mathcal{A}$ near some singularity ${\widehat}{\alpha} \in \mathcal{A}$ there exist functions ${\mathbf E}_\alpha^1$ and ${\mathbf E}_{\alpha_j}^2 \in {\widetilde}{X}_\alpha$, $j \in J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}$, which are analytically dependent on $\alpha$, such that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2} {\mathbf E}$ can be written as $${\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2} {\mathbf E} = {\mathbf E}_\alpha^1 + \sum_{j \in J_{{\widehat}{\alpha}}} \sqrt{k^2-|\alpha_j|^2}\, {\mathbf E}_{\alpha_j}^2 .$$ The operator $K_q \colon {\widetilde}{X} = {\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2} X \to L^2(I_{} \times \Omega_0^R)$, ${\widetilde}{u} \mapsto q {\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2}^{-1} {\widetilde}{u}$, maps functions of ${\widetilde}{X}$ to functions which are constant in $\alpha$, and, in particular, analytical in $\alpha$. Let $A$ be the Riesz representation of the invertible unperturbed Bloch-Floquet transformed differential operator, ${\widetilde}{K}_q \in \mathcal{L}({\widetilde}{X})$ the Riesz representation of $K_q$ and ${\widetilde}{f}$ the Riesz representation of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2} f$. Then the solution ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2} {\mathbf E} \in {\widetilde}{X} = L^2_{\mathrm{w}}(I_{}; H_\alpha(\operatorname{curl}; \Omega_0^R))$ to the problem \[prob\_Maxwell\] satisfies the equation $${\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2} {\mathbf E} = A^{-1} {\widetilde}{f} - A^{-1} {\widetilde}{K}_q {\mathbf E} \quad\text{in } {\widetilde}{X} .$$ Since ${\widetilde}{f}$ as well as ${\widetilde}{K}_q w$ are analytical in $\alpha$, Theorem \[satz\_regUngestoert\] implicates that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{J}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^2} {\mathbf E}$ can be written in the claimed representation. It is sufficient to have a right-hand side which fulfills an analogous decomposition as to have the same decomposition to the solution. ### Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered} We thank Prof. Dr. Andreas Kirsch for the valuable suggestions, which improved this work.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'This paper presents a recursive system identification method for multi-degree-of-freedom (MDoF) structures with tuned mass dampers (TMDs) considering abrupt stiffness changes in case of sudden events, such as earthquakes. Due to supplementary non-classical damping of the TMDs, the system identification of MDoF+TMD systems disposes a challenge, in particular, in case of sudden events. This identification methods may be helpful for structural health monitoring of MDoF structures controlled by TMDs. A new adaptation formulation of the unscented Kalman filter allows the identification method to track abrupt stiffness changes. The paper, firstly, describes the theoretical background of the proposed system identification method and afterwards presents three parametric studies regarding the performance of the method. The first study shows the augmented state identification by the presented system identification method applied on a MDoF+TMD system. In this study, the abrupt stiffness changes of the system are successfully detected and localized under earthquake, impulse and white noise excitations. The second study investigates the effects of the state covariance and its relevance for the system identification of MDoF+TMD systems. The results of this study show the necessity of an adaptive definition of the state covariance as applied in the proposed method. The third study investigates the effects of modeling on the performance of the identification method. Mathematical models with discretization of different orders of convergence and system noise levels are studied. The results show that, in particular, MDoF+TMD systems require higher order mathematical models for an accurate identification of abrupt changes.' address: | Department of Civil Engineering, RWTH Aachen University\ Mies-van-der-Rohe-Str. 1, 52074 Aachen, Germany author: - Simon Schleiter - Okyay Altay bibliography: - 'Ref.bib' title: Identification of Abrupt Stiffness Changes of Structures with Tuned Mass Dampers under Sudden Events --- system identification,stiffness identification,abrupt stiffness changes,tuned mass dampers,Kalman filter,adaptive unscented Kalman filter Introduction {#sec1} ============ In the past decades, the importance of system identification in civil engineering has grown continously. Response measurements using accelerations, velocities, etc. are common and can be applied for the identification of important parameters, such as the natural frequencies and damping ratios of linear structures. However, the identification of nonlinear structures, including system damages, got more attention recently. As Devin and Fanning[@Devin.2019] mentioned, even partition walls or in general non-structural elements have high influence on natural frequencies and damping ratios, so that, for instance in case of an earthquake, even small damages can deteriorate the dynamic performance. The damage detection is, therefore, an important research field of nonlinear system identification. Numerous system identification methods have been proposed so far, which can be split into offline and online, i.e. recursive, methods. For offline methods, a whole data set of system responses is required, while recursive methods enable stepwise system identification based on *a priori* system informations and states. One field of offline identification is the operational modal analysis (OMA)[@Brincker.2015], which can be further divided in time domain methods, including autoregressive moving average (ARMA) methods[@Soderstrom.1994] or stochastic subspace identification (SSI)[@Brincker.2015], and the frequency domain methods, such as the frequency domain decomposition (FDD)[@Brincker.2001; @Schleiter.2018], respectively. The aim of the OMA is the *a posteriori* system identification under white noise input signals and, therefore, output-only measurements. On the other hand, online identification methods are necessary to identify nonlinear system changes in real-time. In contrast to offline identification methods, only time domain methods can be applied for the online identification, since basic frequency domain methods are generally nonrecursive. Some examples for the time domain methods, which were successfully applied to civil engineering structures, are, for instance, least square estimation (LSE)[@Smyth.1999], particle filters (PF)[@Chatzi.2009] and Kalman filter (KF)[@Kalman.1960]. Among these methods, Kalman filter methods, in particular, have become one of the common methods for system identification, since a combined parameter and state estimation is possible and the computational cost is moderate. The KF is a recursive method for estimating states, considering e.g. displacements and velocities, and can be applied for any type of excitation signal. However, only linear system behavior can be covered by the KF. On this account, the extended Kalman filter (EKF) has been proposed[@Jazwinski.1997; @Haykin.2001]. In general, the EKF uses the same concept as the KF, except for the nonlinear state and observation equations, which are linearized in each calculation step by setting up their Jacobians. Although nonlinear systems can be covered by this linearization, EKF has two main disadvantages: Firstly, it is very costly to set up the Jacobians in each time step, which makes a recursive application more difficult, and secondly for highly nonlinear systems the linearization approach is not accurate enough. Therefore, a further development, the unscented Kalman filter (UKF) by Julier *et al.*[@Julier.1997; @Julier.2004], has been proposed, avoiding the disadvantages of the EKF. Instead of the linearization, an unscented transformation (UT), based on sampling points is used and thus systems with higher nonlinearities can be covered. In addition, the main advantage of both EKF and UKF is the possibility of a joint state and parameter estimation[@Wan.14Oct.2000; @Hoshiya.1984], which includes, besides the common displacement and velocity states, also system parameters, such as stiffness coefficients. The joint state and parameter estimation of the UKF was applied to multi-degree-of-freedom (MDoF) civil engineering structures both numerically[@Miah.2015; @Roffel.2014] and experimentally[@Miah.2017]. Within these studies, however, only nonlinearities due to initial stiffness deviations were investigated and apart from that, systems were assumed to behave linearly. Further studies have shown the applicability of the parameter estimation using UKF to the nonlinear Bouc-Wen material behavior[@Wu.2007], as well as for negative stiffness devices in frame structures[@Erazo.2018]. To cover abrupt system changes of MDoF structures, the UKF or respectively EKF has to be adaptive. On this account several attempts have been made in the past. For instance, Yang *et al.*[@Yang.2006] propose a recursively determined forgetting factor introduced in the EKF, which is calculated by an optimization step based on stiffness estimates. Lei *et al.*[@Lei.2016], instead, propose a three step algorithm, where, firstly, the initial system parameters are identified by an EKF. For each following time steps, the damages are detected by the innovation error, subsequently, identified and localized by an optimization step and, finally, the new states are identified using a KF. In contrast, Bisht and Singh[@Bisht.2014] propose an adaptive unscented Kalman filter (A-UKF). Damages herein are detected by an adaptation criterion based on the innovation error and *a posteriori* known system response data. Finally, the estimation of abrupt changes is enabled by the adaptation of the state covariance. Although Rahimi *et al.*[@Rahimi.2017] use a similar approach like Bisht and Singh, they modified the adaptation criterion, where the adaptation threshold is calculated non-recursively based on sensitive floating variances. Tuned mass dampers (TMDs) introduce supplementary damping and restoring forces on structures. Therefore, MDoF structures with TMDs respond to dynamic excitations with lower amplitudes and shorter vibration duration than systems without TMDs. Consequently, in particular in case of sudden events with abrupt changes, the system identification performance of MDoF structures with TMDs is expected to deteriorate. On this account, the accuracy of stiffness identification is more challenging for systems with TMDs in contrast to those without additional damping devices. However, to the best of authors’ knowledge, no previous study has investigated the performance of the recursive system identification approaches for the estimation of abrupt changes of MDoF+TMD systems. In this context, in particular, the accuracy of the chosen mathematical model is important. The previous studies mostly used linearized mathematical models, which cannot reach the required accuracy level for MDoF+TMD systems. A comparison and a careful choice of existing mathematical models in nonlinear system identification is absolutely necessary. Furthermore, the so far proposed adaptation algorithms for the UKF either require a completed system response time-window in a nonrecursive manner or include highly sensitive nonrobust calculation procedures. Since for real-time measurement scenarios the response data is available only stepwise and signals are biased by noise, a robust recursive adaptation criterion is required. This paper presents an UKF-based system identification method for MDoF+“”TMD systems. In Section \[sec2\], an adaptive approach with robust, recursive algorithms is proposed, which enables the detection of abrupt stiffness changes of MDoF+TMD systems during sudden events with a high-level accuracy. In particular, the proposed approach needs no special knowledge of *a posteriori* system responses. Thus, a constant adaptation criterion based on known sensor properties is driven by statistical signal properties. In Section \[sec3\], the presented method is investigated on a MDoF+TMD system by three parametric studies. In the first study, using the proposed system identification method a stiffness and state estimation considering abrupt stiffness changes is performed for several load scenarios. The remaining two studies focus on the filter setup of the system identification method and its influence regarding the identification performance. Therefore, the state covariance influence regarding the identification speed, especially in terms of TMD equipped structures, is investigated in the second study. Finally, the accuracy of four Taylor expansion based mathematical models of different orders of convergences are analyzed in the third study. In particular, the relationship between the system noise level and mathematical model is explored. A conclusion of the work is presented in Section \[sec4\]. System identification method for MDoF structures with TMDs {#sec2} ========================================================== System identification method {#sec2.1} ---------------------------- For the system identification of MDoF+TMD systems, an unscented Kalman filter (UKF)[@Julier.1997] based system identification method is proposed. Similar to the linear KF, the UKF consists of a prediction as well as a correction step. To cover the nonlinearities the UT is applied. In the UT, sampling points $\mathbf{\tilde{X}}_k^i$ of size $n$, where $\tilde{\cdot}$ denotes corrected values, are created on the basis of the known mean $\mathbf{\tilde{x}}_k$ and the current state covariance $\mathbf{\tilde{P}}_k$, which is assumed to be Gaussian distributed. For the calculation of the sampling points, weighting factors $W_m^i$ and $W_c^i$ are introduced for mean and respectively covariance values. The scaling parameters $\lambda$, $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\kappa$ are standard values and are mostly chosen based on a Gaussian distribution[@Wan.14Oct.2000]: $$\mathbf{\tilde{X}}_k^i=\mathbf{\tilde{x}}_k\pm\left(\sqrt{(n+\lambda)\mathbf{\tilde{P}}_k}\right)_i\hspace{7mm}i=1,...,2n\\$$ $$\mathbf{\tilde{X}}_k^0=\mathbf{\tilde{x}}_k\\$$ $$W_m^0=\frac{\lambda}{n+\lambda}\\$$ $$W_c^0=\frac{\lambda}{n+\lambda}+1-\alpha^2+\beta\\$$ $$W_m^i=W_c^i=\frac{1}{2(n+\lambda)}\\$$ $$\lambda=\alpha^2(n+\kappa)-n\\$$ Using a nonlinear time variant state equation $f(\cdot)$ all sampling points are transformed to the estimates $\mathbf{\hat{X}}_{k+1}^i$ at the next time step $k+1$, where $\hat{\cdot}$ denotes estimation values. Under assumption of a Gaussian distribution for both time steps $k$ and $k+1$ the state estimate $\mathbf{\hat{x}}_{k+1}$, as well as the state covariance estimate $\mathbf{\hat{P}}_{k+1}$ at time step $k+1$, can be predicted by summing up all weighted sampling points. Applying the observation equation $h(\cdot)$ at first, the sampling points of the output vector $\mathbf{\hat{Y}}_{k+1}^i$ at time $k+1$ can be found and finally weighted to the estimated output vector $\mathbf{\hat{y}}_{k+1}$ as well:\ $$\mathbf{\hat{X}}_{k+1}^i=f\left(\mathbf{\tilde{X}}_k^i,\mathbf{u}_k\right)\label{eq:state}\\$$ $$\mathbf{\hat{x}}_{k+1}=\sum_{i=0}^{2n}W_m^i\mathbf{\hat{X}}_{k+1}^i\\$$ $$\mathbf{\hat{P}}_{k+1}=\sum_{i=0}^{2n}W_c^i(\mathbf{\hat{X}}_{k+1}^i-\mathbf{\hat{x}}_{k+1})(\mathbf{\hat{X}}_{k+1}^i-\mathbf{\hat{x}}_{k+1})^T+\mathbf{Q}\\$$ $$\mathbf{\hat{Y}}_{k+1}^i=h\left(\mathbf{\hat{X}}_{k+1}^i,\mathbf{u}_{k+1}\right)\\\label{eq:Measurement}$$ $$\mathbf{\hat{y}}_{k+1}=\sum_{i=0}^{2n}W_m^i\mathbf{\hat{Y}}_{k+1}^i\\$$ On basis of the innovation error $\mathbf{e}_{k+1}=\mathbf{y}_{k+1}-\mathbf{\hat{y}}_{k+1}$, the estimated state $\mathbf{\hat{x}}_{k+1}$ is corrected using the Kalman gain $\mathbf{K}_{k+1}$, which is calculated by the covariances $\mathbf{\hat{P}}_{yy,k+1}$ and $\mathbf{\hat{P}}_{xy,k+1}$. Finally it yields the predicted and corrected state $\mathbf{\tilde{x}}_{k+1}$ and covariance $\mathbf{\tilde{P}}_{k+1}$ respectively: $$\mathbf{\hat{P}}_{yy,k+1}=\sum_{i=0}^{2n}W_c^i(\mathbf{\hat{Y}}_{k+1}^i-\mathbf{\hat{y}}_{k+1})(\mathbf{\hat{Y}}_{k+1}^i-\mathbf{\hat{y}}_{k+1})^T+\mathbf{R}\label{P_yy}\\$$ $$\mathbf{\hat{P}}_{xy,k+1}=\sum_{i=0}^{2n}W_c^i(\mathbf{\hat{X}}_{k+1}^i-\mathbf{\hat{x}}_{k+1})(\mathbf{\hat{Y}}_{k+1}^i-\mathbf{\hat{y}}_{k+1})^T\\$$ $$\mathbf{K}_{k+1}=\mathbf{P}_{xy,k+1}\mathbf{P}_{yy,k+1}^{-1}\\$$ $$\mathbf{\tilde{x}}_{k+1}=\mathbf{\hat{x}}_{k+1}+\mathbf{K}_{k+1}\mathbf{e}_{k+1}=\mathbf{\hat{x}}_{k+1}+\mathbf{K}_{k+1}(\mathbf{y}_{k+1}-\mathbf{\hat{y}}_{k+1})\\$$ $$\mathbf{\tilde{P}}_{k+1}=\mathbf{\hat{P}}_{k+1}-\mathbf{K}_{k+1}\mathbf{\hat{P}}_{yy,k+1}\mathbf{K}_{k+1}^T\\$$ For the parameter estimation, the previous state vector $\mathbf{x}_k$, including displacement, velocity or acceleration information, has to be augmented by a parameter vector $\boldsymbol{\theta}_k$, containing all to be identified parameters. It yields the augmented state vector $\mathbf{x}_k^a$. Afterwards the state equation has to be changed and the UKF can be applied using $\mathbf{x}_k^a$. $$\mathbf{x}_k^a=\begin{bmatrix} \mathbf{x}_k\\ \boldsymbol{\theta}_k \end{bmatrix}$$ Adaptation scheme for the system identification method {#sec2.2} ------------------------------------------------------ For systems with both initial nonlinearities and abrupt changes, an adaptation procedure is presented as follows. As the corrected state covariance $\mathbf{\tilde{P}}_k$ describes the confidence of the estimated and corrected state $\mathbf{\tilde{x}}_{k}$, it can be used to influence the upcoming parameter estimation step, i.e. a high state covariance yield more sensitive system identification and nonlinearities can be identified better. For this purpose, firstly, similar to Bisht and Singh[@Bisht.2014], the trigger parameter $\gamma$ based on the innovation error $\mathbf{e}_{k+1}$ is introduced. In contrast to Bisht and Singh, the innovation error is normalized by the measurement noise covariance $\mathbf{R}$ instead of the measurement covariance $\mathbf{P}_{yy}$ allowing the trigger parameter $\gamma$ to be independent from the measurement noise level: $$\gamma=\mathbf{e}_{k+1}^T\mathbf{R}^{-1}\mathbf{e}_{k+1}\label{eq:adaption}$$ For $m$ sensors with the identical constant measurement noise covariance $R_i=R$, $\gamma$ reads: $$\gamma=\begin{bmatrix}e_1\\\vdots\\e_m\end{bmatrix}^T\begin{bmatrix}R_1&\cdots&0\\\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\0&\cdots&R_m\end{bmatrix}^{-1}\begin{bmatrix}e_1\\\vdots \\e_m\end{bmatrix}=\frac{e_1^2}{R_1}+\cdots+\frac{e_m^2}{R_m}=\frac{e_1^2+\cdots+e_m^2}{R}\label{eq:adaption2}.$$ To detect system changes, a threshold $\gamma_0$ is defined as an adaptation criterion, which has to be exceeded by $\gamma$ in adaptation cases: $$\gamma\geqslant\gamma_0 \Rightarrow \text{adaptation}$$ Bisht and Singh[@Bisht.2014] proposed to choose a constant threshold based on the *a posteriori* known covariance of the measurement signal $\mathbf{y}_k$, whereas Rahimi *et al.*[@Rahimi.2017] compensated the unknown *a posteriori* information by introducing variable thresholds over time. However, different than the previous approaches, the in this paper proposed threshold avoids both the necessity of *a posteriori* knowledge as well as the high sensitivity resulting from variable thresholds. On basis of known sensor numbers $m$ and measurement noise covariance $R$, the threshold $\gamma_0$ is calculated. ![Proposed scheme for the determination of the adaptation threshold $\gamma_0$ applied for accelerometers.[]{data-label="A_UKF_Probability"}](Figures/Theory/Fig_1_Trigger_Parameter.eps){width="\textwidth"} Figure \[A\_UKF\_Probability\] shows the individual steps of the derivation of the threshold, including the approximation of the innovation error with noise terms, the corresponding statistics, the realization of the trigger parameter $\gamma$ and the threshold $\gamma_0$. The innovation error $\mathbf{e}_{k+1}$ contains both the system and measurement errors. System changes correspond to system errors. For the identification of system changes from the innovation error, the threshold $\gamma_0$ must cover with a certain probability the measurement error portion of the innovation error. If the trigger parameter $\gamma$ exceeds this threshold $\gamma_0$, the existence of a system error, i.e. system change, is ensured. For the definition of such a threshold, we consider firstly a constant system behavior without any changes, i.e. no system errors. In this case, the innovation error can be solely approximated by the measurement error, Figure \[A\_UKF\_Probability\] (Step 1: Approximation of innovation error). For the sake of simplicity, the time steps are not explicitly given for each parameter, since each parameter corresponds to the same time step. The measurement error is computed from the difference between the true measurement signal $y_i$ and the predicted measurement signal $\hat{y}_i$. The predicted measurement signal is calculated by the observation equation by the output matrix $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{C}}$ with the predicted state $\hat{\mathbf{x}}$ and the transition matrix $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{D}}$ with the input $\mathbf{u}$ (Section \[sec2.4\]). The predicted state is independent from the measurement error. Accordingly, output $n_y$ and the input $n_u$ govern the measurement error. If the system motion is observed by displacement and velocity sensors, the transition matrix $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{D}}$ becomes zero, so that the innovation error $e_i$ solely depends on the output measurement noise $n_y$. If acceleration sensors are used, $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{D}}$ is an identity matrix and, consequently, $e_i$ is approximated by the difference of both the output $n_y$ and the input $n_u$ measurement noises. Both measurement noises are assumed to be Gaussian and each has a covariance of R. Accordingly, their superposition can be treated as Gaussian as well [@BarShalom.2001], Figure \[A\_UKF\_Probability\] (Step 2: Statistical properties of innovation error). Consequently, $e_i$ has a mean of zero and its variance $R_e$ can be written as the sum of both variances as $2R$. The innovation error $e_i$ can now be expressed for each sensor by a standard normally distributed variable $z_e$ instead of $e_i$ and $R$. As shown in Figure \[A\_UKF\_Probability\] (Step 3: Trigger parameter and threshold), substituting $z_e$ instead of $e_i$ and $R_i$ in Equation 19 yields for the case of accelerometers $\gamma\approx2mz_e^2$, which solely depends on the number of sensors $m$, the variable $z_e$ and the scalar $2$, which results from the choice of accelerometers. The scalar changes to $\gamma\approx mz_e^2$ for displacement and velocity sensors. Consequently, a parameter $\delta$ is introduced in the calculation of the trigger parameter as $$\gamma\approx\delta m z_e^2$$ with $\delta=1$ for displacement and velocity sensors and $\delta=2$ for accelerometers respectively. Accordingly, the corresponding threshold is given by $$\label{eq:threshold} \gamma_0=\delta mz_0^2.$$ Now, since $\delta$ and $m$ are system dependent preset parameters, $z_0$ governs the threshold based on the exceeding probability of the Gaussian distribution. For the variable $z_0=3\sqrt{2}$, which corresponds to an exceeding probability of $\SI{99.998}{\%}$[@Bendat.2010], the threshold yields $\gamma_0=72$ for two accelerometers. This threshold value will be used in the performance studies in Section \[sec3.1\]. The presented threshold, Equation \[eq:threshold\], is valid for monitoring systems consisting of either only displacement and velocity sensors or only accelerometers. Considering mixed sensor types in the monitoring system, instead, the threshold has to be derived individually as shown above. ![Detection and localization of system changes.[]{data-label="A_UKF"}](Figures/Theory/Fig_2_Adaptation_Localization.eps){width="100.00000%"} After detecting abrupt system changes, a localization algorithm has to follow. For this purpose, the localization scheme of Bisht and Singh[@Bisht.2014] is extended as shown in Figure \[A\_UKF\]. The flowchart of the proposed A-UKF presents besides the detection of system changes the adaptation step, in particular, consisting of localization and covariance adaptation. In the following paragraph the subscript $\theta$ denotes covariances $P$, which are dependent on the system parameters $\theta$ only, and subscript $x$ analogously denotes the state dependent covariances only. To localize system changes, an additional UKF estimation step is shown in Figure \[A\_UKF\] for the next time step $k+1$. The state covariance component $\tilde{\mathbf{P}}_{\theta,k+1}\left\lbrack i,i\right\rbrack$ is set to $P_{adapt}$ for each $i=1,...,n$ individually, where $P_{adapt}$ is a high constant covariance value, which is introduced to increase the sensitivity of the parameter identification. Since only stiffness degradations are expected, each parameter $\tilde{\theta}_i$ with corresponding index $i$ is additionally decreased by , different than previous studies, in order to facilitate the localization. Accordingly, for each index $i$ now a different set of $\tilde{\mathbf{P}}_{k+1}$ and $\boldsymbol{\tilde{\theta}}_{k+1}$ exists. For each of these sets and otherwise unchanged conditions a single calculation step of the UKF is executed and finally the trigger parameter $\gamma_i$ of Equation \[eq:adaption\] is recalculated. Now assuming, that the lowest value of $\gamma_i$ describes the lowest system error and, thus, yields the best estimate for the system properties, the related index $i$ belongs to the degrading parameter $\theta_i$. For the next simulation step $k+1$ solely the state covariance component $\tilde{\mathbf{P}}_{\theta,k+1}\left\lbrack i,i\right\rbrack$ of the localized index $i$ is substituted by the new state covariance value $P_{adapt}$, which has to be chosen in advance and is highly dependent on the chosen system noise covariance $\mathbf{Q}$ and the present measurement noise covariance $\mathbf{R}$. The parameter has to be chosen as high as possible to enable a system identification of abrupt changes. Section \[sec3.3\] will give a detailed simulation example of how to choose $P_{adapt}$. Application of the system identification method on MDoF+TMD systems {#sec2.3} ------------------------------------------------------------------- ![System identification scheme for MDoF+TMD systems.[]{data-label="Flowchart"}](Figures/Theory/Fig_3_Flowchart_SI.eps){width="100.00000%"} The theory is introduced using the example case, at which a TMD is attached at the top DoF of a MDoF frame structure, Figure \[Flowchart\]. The structure is instrumented with a monitoring system and the proposed system identification method will be implemented on this system to obtain its abrupt stiffness changes. Thus the equation of motion with stiffness, damping and mass matrices $(\mathbf{K},\mathbf{C},\mathbf{M})$ can be set up for a seismic ground excitation distributed equally over the height of the system as $$\mathbf{M}\mathbf{\ddot{x}}(t)+\mathbf{C}\mathbf{\dot{x}}(t)+\mathbf{K}(t)\mathbf{x}(t)=\mathbf{M}\mathbf{\Gamma}u(t)\hspace{10mm}\text{with}\ \mathbf{\Gamma}=\begin{bmatrix}1 & \cdots & 1\end{bmatrix}.$$ The stiffness matrix $\mathbf{K}$ is assumed to be time variant with abrupt changes assembling a nonlinear structural behavior. Whereas the to be identified stiffness parameters $k_1(t),...,k_n(t)$ are time variant, the damping constants $c_1,...,c_n$ and masses $m_1,...,m_n$ remain constant during the simulation as well as the initially adjusted TMD parameters $k_d,c_d,m_d$. A monitoring system is set up to observe the actual system responses. As it is shown in Figure \[Flowchart\], sensors are assumed to be placed on each DoF $i=1,...,n$. However, for other systems, e.g. high-rise structures with a large number of DoFs, a different sensor layout with a reduced amount of sensors is possible with a reduced accuracy. For the monitoring system all motion sensors (e.g. displacement, velocity, acceleration, forces) are possible. In the scope of this paper, accelerometers are used only, since they are the most commonly used sensor types for vibration measurements. Sensor properties, such as offset and RMS-value of the measurement noise are required for later system identification steps and the adaptation step, in particular. Using the response $\mathbf{y}$ and input signals $\mathbf{u}$, the in Section \[sec2.1\] and \[sec2.2\] introduced adaptive system identification method is applied for the joint state and parameter estimation computing the corrected and estimated state vectors, consisting of displacements, velocities and system stiffnesses. The challenge for identification of highly damped systems (e.g. TMD) is to deal with rapidly decreasing vibration amplitudes compared to lightly damped systems. For such a system, a system identification is, therefore, only possible during a significantly smaller time period. In particular, for strongly (non-classically) damped systems, special attention has to be paid on the sensitivity or filter settings, respectively, of the system identification as well as the used mathematical models. This aspect will be elaborated in Section \[sec3\] by three parametric studies on a MDoF structure with and without TMD. Modelling of the MDoF+TMD systems {#sec2.4} --------------------------------- As described in Section \[sec2.1\] the UKF requires a state equation $f(\cdot)$ and an observation equation $h(\cdot)$, which are herein assumed as stepwise linear state-space representations. Starting with the state equation, the equation of motion of the previously in Section \[sec2.3\] described system can be rewritten to a differential equation of $1^{st}$ order as follows: $$\mathbf{\dot{x}}(t)=\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}(t)\mathbf{x}(t)+\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}\mathbf{u}(t)+\mathbf{w}(t)\label{state eq.}$$ The system matrix $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}(t)$ and input matrix $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}$ contain the nonlinear system properties and information of input signals, respectively. An additive noise $\mathbf{w}(t)$ is added to the state equation describing the system noise, including errors of the mathematical model. The monitoring system is transferred to the observation equation, where the output matrix $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{C}}$ and transition matrix $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{D}}$ describe the sensor layout of number, type and position. The result is finally enhanced by the noise component $\mathbf{v}(t)$, representing measurement noise: $$\mathbf{y}(t)=\boldsymbol{\mathcal{C}}\mathbf{x}(t)+\boldsymbol{\mathcal{D}}\mathbf{u}(t)+\mathbf{v}(t)\label{observation eq.}\\$$ Both state and measurement equations are given in continuous time so far. However, the system identification method requires a discrete time formulation, since the measurement data has a discrete form. A discretization can be realized by many methods, e.g. Euler or $4^{th}$ order Runge Kutta method. Although every method has different characteristics and calculation rules, all of them can be compared by the order of convergence $p$, defined by discretization errors. Higher orders of convergences generally yield more accurate results, but also have higher computational costs. In case of the explicit Euler method the order of convergence is $p=1$ and for $4^{th}$ order Runge Kutta $p=4$, respectively. In this paper, however, the discretization is done by a Taylor expansion developed from the analytical solution with orders of convergence $p=1-4$. This approach is preferred here, since all $p=1-4$ easily can be implemented based on one model only allowing a parametric study of the influence of model accuracy, Section \[sec3.4\]. The discretization yields the matrices $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}_d$ and $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}_d$: $$\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}_d=e^{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}T_s}=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{i!}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^iT_s^i\approx\mathbf{I}+\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}T_s+...+\frac{1}{p!}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^pT_s^p$$ $$\begin{aligned} \boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}_d=\int_{0}^{T_s}e^{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}\tau}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}d\tau&=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{(i+1)!}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^i\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}T_s^{i+1}\notag\\&\approx\mathbf{0}+\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}T_s+...+\frac{1}{(p+1)!}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^p\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}T_s^{p+1}\end{aligned}$$ Using the above discretization, the state and observation equation can be easily transformed into the discrete domain assuming real sampling, with the sampling time $T_s$: $$\mathbf{x}_{k+1}=\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}_{d,k}\mathbf{x}_k+\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}_d\mathbf{u}_k+\mathbf{w}_k\label{state eq.}\\$$ $$\mathbf{y}_k=\boldsymbol{\mathcal{C}}\mathbf{x}_k+\boldsymbol{\mathcal{D}}\mathbf{u}_k+\mathbf{v}_k\label{observation eq.}\\$$ Performance Studies {#sec3} =================== In this section, investigations on a two-degree-of-freedom (2-DoF) structure with and without TMD will be presented under seismic, white noise and impulse excitations. Detailed parameter studies are done regarding the system accuracy and convergence behavior of the system identification method considering TMD influence and abrupt stiffness changes of the structure. Recommendations to the filter and model setup are given for the investigated systems. Description of the investigated MDoF+TMD systems {#sec3.1} ------------------------------------------------ ![Investigated systems: (a) 2-DoF and (b) 2-DoF+TMD.[]{data-label="Systems"}](Figures/Theory/Fig_4_Systems.eps "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}\ Two different systems are investigated: solely a 2-DoF structure as well as the same 2-DoF structure with a TMD attached at the top DoF, Figure \[Systems\]. Stiffness, damping and mass matrices $(\mathbf{K}, \mathbf{C}, \mathbf{M})$ can be set up corresponding to the system parameters, listed in Table \[system properties\], as $$\begin{gathered} \mathbf{K}=\begin{bmatrix} k_1+k_2 & -k_2 & 0 \\ -k_2 & k_2+k_d & -k_d \\ 0 & -k_d & k_d\end{bmatrix};\hspace{10mm} \mathbf{C}=\begin{bmatrix} c_1+c_2 & -c_2 & 0 \\ -c_2 & c_2+c_d & -c_d \\ 0 & -c_d & c_d\end{bmatrix};\hspace{10mm} \mathbf{M}=\begin{bmatrix} m_1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & m_2 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & m_d\end{bmatrix}.\end{gathered}$$ The masses $(m_1, m_2)$ and the damping constants $(c_1, c_2)$ are time invariant values. The stiffness values $(k_1, k_2)$ consider abrupt system changes of $\SI{10}{\%}$ at each DoF corresponding to a $\SI{5}{\%}$ decrease of the $1^{st}$ natural frequency, which are realistic values to observe during load cases, such as earthquakes. The initial stiffness values are chosen as $k_1=\SI{12}{kN/m}$ and $k_2=\SI{10}{kN/m}$. For each load case, abrupt stiffness changes appear at a defined time step $t_f$ according to high interstory drifts between the individual DoFs. ---------------------- ------------ --------- ------------ --------- **System parameter** $t\le t_f$ $t>t_f$ $t\le t_f$ $t>t_f$ $m_1$ $m_2$ $m_d$ $k_1(t)$ $k_2(t)$ $k_d$ $c_1$ $c_2$ $c_d$ $f_1$ $f_2$ $f_3$ ---------------------- ------------ --------- ------------ --------- : System parameters of (a) 2-DoF and (b) 2-DoF+TMD.[]{data-label="system properties"} The attached TMD is defined by the time invariant parameters $k_d, c_d, m_d$, which are chosen in the initial time step. The undamaged 2-DoF structure has a natural frequency of $f_1=\SI{0.33}{Hz}$ and a damping ratio of $D_1=\SI{0.92}{\%}$ for the $1^{st}$ eigenmode, and analogously for the $2^{nd}$ eigenmode $f_2=\SI{0.84}{Hz}$ and $D_2=\SI{2.49}{\%}$. Table \[system properties\] provides the remaining natural frequencies of the 2-DoF+TMD system. To adjust the damper parameters, several possible approaches are proposed in the literature. In this paper, we focus on the system identification and use the classical approach of Warburton [@Warburton.1982]. Assuming the structure to be lightly damped $(D_1=\SI{0.92}{\%})$ an application of Warburton is reasonable. The TMD is tuned to the $1^{st}$ natural frequency of the 2-DoF structure. Therefore, the mass ratio $\mu$, describing the relation of damper mass $m_d$ and generalized mass of the $1^{st}$ mode $\hat{m}_1$, the optimal damper frequency $f_{opt}$, dependent on $f_1$ and $\mu$, and finally the optimal damping ratio $D_{opt}$, dependent on $\mu$, are calculated: $$\begin{gathered} \mu=\frac{m_d}{\hat{m}_1}=0.076\hspace{10mm} f_{opt}=f_1\frac{\sqrt{1-\frac{\mu}{2}}}{1+\mu}=\SI{0.30}{Hz}\hspace{10mm} D_{opt}=\sqrt{\frac{\mu(1-\frac{\mu}{4})}{4(1+\mu)(1-\frac{\mu}{2})}}=\SI{13.42}{\%}\end{gathered}$$ Subsequently, all damper parameters can be calculated using fundamental SDoF relations, Table \[system properties\]. In a final step, $\mathbf{K}$, $\mathbf{C}$ and $\mathbf{M}$ are transformed into the state-space representation. The time variant system matrix $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}(t)$ and the input matrix $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}$ can be set up according to the nonlinear system properties. We formulate the representation for a ground acceleration $\ddot{x}_g$ as input. Furthermore, the output matrix $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{C}}$ and transition matrix $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{D}}$ can be calculated as follows, describing a monitoring system of two accelerometers on both DoFs $x_1$ and $x_2$ and one accelerometer for the ground motion $\ddot{x}_g$: $$\begin{gathered} \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}(t)=\begin{bmatrix} \mathbf{0}_{3\times 3} & \mathbf{I}_{3\times 3} & \mathbf{0}_{3\times 2}\\ -\mathbf{M}^{-1}\mathbf{K}(t) & -\mathbf{M}^{-1}\mathbf{C} & \mathbf{0}_{3\times 2} \\ \mathbf{0}_{2\times 3} & \mathbf{0}_{2\times 3} & \mathbf{0}_{2\times 2} \end{bmatrix}; \hspace{5mm} \boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}=\begin{bmatrix} \mathbf{0}_{3\times 3} \\ \mathbf{I}_{3\times 3} \\ \mathbf{0}_{2\times 3}\end{bmatrix};\notag\\ \boldsymbol{\mathcal{C}}=\begin{bmatrix}-\mathbf{M}^{-1}\mathbf{K} & \hspace{1mm}-\mathbf{M}^{-1}\mathbf{C} \end{bmatrix}; \hspace{5mm} \boldsymbol{\mathcal{D}}=\begin{bmatrix} \mathbf{I}_{2\times 2} \end{bmatrix}\end{gathered}$$ with the input vector $\mathbf{u}$ and the output vector $\mathbf{y}$: $$\mathbf{u}=\begin{bmatrix} \ddot{x}_g\\ \ddot{x}_g\\ \ddot{x}_g\\ \end{bmatrix};\hspace{5mm} \mathbf{y}=\begin{bmatrix} \ddot{x}_1\\ \ddot{x}_2\\ \end{bmatrix}\\$$ Both state and observation equations are calculated for the joint state and parameter estimation, i.e. the state vector $\mathbf{x}$ extends to an augmented state vector $\mathbf{x}^a$, including displacements, velocities and stiffnesses of the system: $$\mathbf{x}^a=\begin{bmatrix} x_1 & x_2 & x_d & \dot{x}_1 & \dot{x}_2 & \dot{x}_d & k_1 & k_2 \end{bmatrix}^T$$ For the investigations, the earthquake acceleration histories of the El Centro far field earthquake (1940) and the Northridge near field earthquake (1994) are considered, Figure \[Fig:Earthquake\_histories\]. Moreover, a white noise input with an RMS-value of $\SI{0.57}{m/s^2}$ and an impulse load of $\SI{80}{m/s^2}$ at $t=\SI{2}{s}$ are investigated. In all studies an additive white Gaussian noise of RMS$=\SI{0.01}{m/s^2}$, approximately $\SI{2}{\%}$ RMS-noise of the El Centro earthquake, is added to input as well as output measurement signals. The simulations are performed with a sampling time of $T_s=\SI{0.02}{s}$. ![Acceleration time histories of the El Centro (1940) (left) and the Northridge (1994) earthquakes (right).[]{data-label="Fig:Earthquake_histories"}](Figures/Theory/Fig_5_Input_Earthquake.eps "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}\ Study 1: Identification of the augmented state including abrupt stiffness changes {#sec3.2} --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The chosen filter setup of the identification algorithm applied herein is presented in Table \[filter\_setup\_1\]. The state covariance $\mathbf{P}$ is chosen corresponding to the results of the parametric study 2, which will be presented in Section \[sec3.3\]. According to the results of the parametric study, the new state covariance value after adaptation is chosen as high as possible as $P_{adapt}=10^0$. The initial covariance value, however, is chosen as low as possible $\mathbf{P}_0=10^{-6}\mathbf{I}_{8\times8}$, so that the identification algorithm does not show oversensitive reactions regarding the stiffness estimation before the abrupt stiffness change. The system noise covariance $\mathbf{Q}$ is chosen corresponding to the results of the parametric study 3, which will be presented in Section \[sec3.4\]. Both 2-DoF and 2-DoF+TMD systems are modeled based on $3^{rd}$ order Taylor expansion. Effects of the used order for the Taylor expansion, in particular, will be also shown in Section \[sec3.4\]. The measurement noise covariance $\mathbf{R}$ is calculated from the square of the RMS-value for the present noise, according to $\SI{2}{\%}$ RMS-noise of El Centro earthquake. The initial stiffness estimations $\hat{k}_1$ and $\hat{k}_2$ correspond to the real stiffness values $k_1$ and $k_2$, as shown in Table \[system properties\]. In Figure \[gamma\] (left) the time history of the trigger parameter $\gamma$ is shown. The curve is calculated by the previously, in Section \[sec2.2\], introduced Equation \[eq:adaption\]. In addition, the right diagram shows the time history for a time window around the abrupt stiffness change. The trigger parameter shows a peak value corresponding to the time step of the abrupt stiffness change $t=\SI{9}{s}$. After comparing the threshold $\gamma_0$, which is calculated from Equation \[eq:threshold\], the state covariance is adapted. In Figure \[gamma\], three different thresholds $\gamma_0=10.8$, $\gamma_0=26.5$ and $\gamma_0=72$ are shown according to the exceeding probability of $\SI{90}{\%}$, $\SI{99}{\%}$ and $\SI{99.998}{\%}$ respectively. For both probabilities $\SI{90}{\%}$ and $\SI{99}{\%}$ the threshold is exceeded several times with significantly high values (e.g. $\gamma=53$ at $t =\SI{52}{s}$). Best result is achieved with the threshold value of $\gamma_0=72$, which is exceeded only during the abrupt stiffness change. In the first part of the study, we consider the El Centro earthquake excitation, including a stiffness degradation of $\SI{10}{\%}$ at the $1^{st}$ DoF after $t=\SI{9}{s}$ due to large story drift. Figure \[Fig:7\_Study\_1\] compares the true values of the motion (displacement, velocity and acceleration) of both DoF of the structure and the stiffness time histories with those time histories, which are estimated by the proposed system identification method. Both cases with and without TMD are presented in the graphics. The abrupt stiffness change can be directly seen from the time histories of $k_1$ and $\hat{k}_1$. Both estimated and true values match with each other. The abrupt stiffness change is identified for both systems. In the second part of the study, we enhance our investigation by considering besides the both El Centro and Northridge earthquakes also impulse and white noise excitations. Furthermore, we allow an abrupt stiffness change on the $2^{nd}$ DoF as well. The occurrence times also in this second part of the study correspond to the interstory drift between $1^{st}$ DoF and $2^{nd}$ DoF. In Figures \[Fig:8\_Study\_1\] and \[Fig:9\_Study\_1\], the corresponding time histories of the estimated and true values of the displacements and stiffness values are shown. A high accuracy of the estimated results is also observed here. **Filter parameter** **Value** **Scaling factor** **Value** ---------------------- -------------------------------- -------------------- ----------- $\mathbf{P}_0$ $10^{-6}\mathbf{I}_{8\times8}$ $\alpha$ $0.001$ $P_{adapt}$ $10^{0}$ $\beta$ $2$ $\mathbf{Q}$ $10^{-9}\mathbf{I}_{8\times8}$ $\kappa$ $0$ $\mathbf{R}$ $10^{-4}\mathbf{I}_{3\times3}$ : Study 1: Filter setup of the system identification method.[]{data-label="filter_setup_1"} ![Study 1: Time history of the trigger parameter $\gamma$ (left). A time window from the time history around the abrupt stiffness change at $t=\SI{9}{s}$ (right).[]{data-label="gamma"}](Figures/Example_1/Fig_6_Gamma_History.eps "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}\ ![Study 1: Time histories of estimated $(\hat{\cdot})$ and true values of displacement (a), velocity (b), acceleration (c) and stiffness (d) of both DoFs during El Centro earthquake. Abrupt stiffness change at $1^{st}$ DoF.[]{data-label="Fig:7_Study_1"}](Figures/Example_1/Fig_7_Study_1.eps "fig:"){width="98.00000%"}\ ![Study 1: Time histories of estimated $(\hat{\cdot})$ and true values of displacement and stiffness of both DoFs during El Centro (a) and Northridge (b) earthquake. Abrupt stiffness changes at both $1^{st}$ and $2^{nd}$ DoFs.[]{data-label="Fig:8_Study_1"}](Figures/Example_1/Fig_8_Study_1.eps "fig:"){width="98.00000%"}\ ![Study 1: Time histories of estimated $(\hat{\cdot})$ and true values of displacement and stiffness of both DoFs during impulse (a) and white noise (b) excitation. Abrupt stiffness changes at both $1^{st}$ and $2^{nd}$ DoFs.[]{data-label="Fig:9_Study_1"}](Figures/Example_1/Fig_9_Study_1.eps "fig:"){width="98.00000%"}\ Study 2: Effects of the state covariance {#sec3.3} ---------------------------------------- **Filter parameter** **Value** **Scaling factor** **Value** ---------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- ----------- $\mathbf{P}_0$ $10^{-8}\mathbf{I}_{8\times8}\cdots10^{0}\mathbf{I}_{8\times8}$ $\alpha$ $0.001$ $\mathbf{Q}$ $10^{-9}\mathbf{I}_{8\times8}$ $\beta$ $2$ $\mathbf{R}$ $10^{-4}\mathbf{I}_{3\times3}$ $\kappa$ $0$ : Study 2: Filter setup of the system identification method.[]{data-label="filter_setup_2"} The supplementary damping introduced by the TMD as well as abrupt stiffness changes of the structure shorten the time window, in which the proposed system identification method must complete its estimation. In this regard, the most powerful parameter is the state covariance $\mathbf{P}$. By increasing the state covariance, the reaction time of the identification method can be reduced. On the other hand, too high $P$ values can decrease the estimation accuracy. To clarify this effect, this study performs calculations with different constant $P$ values between $10^{-8}$ and $10^0$. Further filter parameters are shown in Table \[filter\_setup\_2\]. Calculations are performed using $3^{rd}$ order Taylor expansion based models of 2-DoF and 2-DoF+TMD systems under the Northridge earthquake. The initial stiffness estimates of the structure are assigned as $\hat{k}_1=\SI{14.4}{kN/m}$ and $\hat{k}_2=\SI{12}{kN/m}$, which are $\SI{20}{\%}$ higher than the true stiffness values of $k_1=\SI{12}{kN/m}$ and $k_1=\SI{10}{kN/m}$. Figure \[Fig:10\_Study\_2\] (left) shows the true and estimated values of the $1^{st}$ DoF stiffness $k_1$ and $\hat{k}_1$. On the right side in Figure \[Fig:10\_Study\_2\] we see the true and estimated values of the displacement of the $1^{st}$ DoF $x_1$ and $\hat{x}_1$. The displacement time histories are shown for the selected state covariance values of $10^{-8}$ and $10^0$. From the comparison of the displacement time histories the effect of the TMD can be clearly observed from the short vibration duration. Already after $\SI{35}{s}$ the vibration of the 2-DoF+TMD system is reduced below $\SI{0.01}{m}$. At the same time step, the vibration of the 2-DoF structure without TMD still continues with an amplitude of $\SI{0.30}{m}$. This difference governs the required accuracy level of the identification method. In the time histories of the stiffness, we observe, in particular for lower $P$ values, that as soon as the vibrations vanish the estimated stiffness of the 2-DoF+TMD system converges to a constant value, which is far away from the real stiffness value. For instance, the estimated stiffness value of 2-DoF+TMD system is for $P=10^{-8}$ approximately $\SI{14}{kN/m}$, which does not match the true stiffness value of $\SI{12}{kN/m}$. For the same $P$ value of $10^{-8}$, the estimated stiffness of the 2-DoF structure without TMD converges slowly to the true stiffness value as the structure is still continuing to oscillate. ![Study 2: Time histories of estimated stiffness $(\hat{k}_1)$ of $1^{st}$ DoF (left). Time histories of estimated $(\hat{x}_1)$ and true $(x_1)$ displacement of $1^{st}$ DoF (right). State covariance values $P_0$ are varying. Calculations are performed for (a) 2-DoF and (b) 2-DoF+TMD systems under Northridge earthquake.[]{data-label="Fig:10_Study_2"}](Figures/Example_2/Fig_10_Study_2.eps "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}\ By increasing the $P$ value, we observe from the results that both systems can be identified with high accuracy. For the 2-DoF+TMD system, the correct stiffness value is estimated with $P=10^{-4}$. On the other hand, as stated before, the 2-DoF structure is estimated already with $P=10^{-8}$. A further increase of the $P$ value causes the system identification method to behave oversensitive and the estimated stiffness course begins for both systems to fluctuate. With high $P$ values we observe at the beginning of the both time histories initially underestimated stiffness values. Accordingly, the $P$ value must be chosen depending on the expected abrupt changes and the type of the system, which is a challenge for all UKF-based system identification methods. To overcome this effect, as introduced in Section \[sec2.2\], the proposed parameter identification algorithm tunes the state covariance in an adaptive manner. Study 3: Modeling effects {#sec3.4} ------------------------- The accuracy of recursive system identification methods is directly related with the accuracy of the chosen mathematical model describing the system properties. The error inherent in the chosen mathematical model is considered in the proposed UKF-based identification method by the system noise covariance $\mathbf{Q}$. However, due to additional damping of TMDs, the accuracy sensitivity of the identification process increases. Therefore, $\mathbf{Q}$ struggles to realize the desired identification efficiency. Accordingly, the necessity of an accurate mathematical model increases for MDoF+TMD systems. In this section, to show the modeling effect, four mathematical models are investigated using $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}_d$ and $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}_d$ discretization, introduced in Section \[sec2.4\], by Taylor expansions of $1^{st}$ to $4^{th}$ order of convergence, Table \[Table:discretized\_matrices\]. During the study, different $\mathbf{Q}$ matrices, which are constant over simulation time, are introduced varying from $10^{-8}\mathbf{I}_{8\times8}$ to $10^{-15}\mathbf{I}_{8\times8}$. Two load scenarios are investigated: The El Centro and the Northridge earthquakes. To determine the accuracy of the final stiffness estimation, the deviation parameter $\Delta k_i$ is introduced, which defines the percentage deviation of the final estimated stiffness $\hat{k}_i$ to the true value $k_i$: $$\Delta k_i=\frac{\lvert k_i-\hat{k}_i\rvert}{k_{i}} \ \left[\%\right]$$ ------------------------------ ------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- **Matrix** $p=1$ $p=2$ $p=3$ $p=4$ $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}_d$ $\mathbf{I}+\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}T_s$ $\frac{1}{2!}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^2T_s^2$ $\frac{1}{3!}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^3T_s^3$ $\frac{1}{4!}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^4T_s^4$ $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}_d$ $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}T_s$ $\frac{1}{2!}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}T_s^2$ $\frac{1}{3!}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^2\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}T_s^3$ $\frac{1}{4!}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^3\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}T_s^4$ ------------------------------ ------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- : Study 3: Discretizations of the system matrix $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}_d$ and the output matrix $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}_d$ with up to $4^{th}$ order Taylor expansion.[]{data-label="Table:discretized_matrices"} **Filter parameter** **Value** **Scaling factor** **Value** ---------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- ----------- $\mathbf{P}_0$ $\mathbf{I}_{8\times8}$ $\alpha$ $0.001$ $\mathbf{Q}$ $10^{-8}\mathbf{I}_{8\times8}\dots10^{-15}\mathbf{I}_{8\times8}$ $\beta$ $2$ $\mathbf{R}$ $10^{-4}\mathbf{I}_{3\times3}$ $\kappa$ $0$ : Study 3: Filter setup of the system identification method.[]{data-label="filter_setup_3"} In this study, the initial stiffness estimates are chosen to be $k_1=\SI{14.4}{kN/m}$ and $k_2=\SI{12}{kN/m}$, which are $\SI{20}{\%}$ higher than the true stiffness values of $k_1=\SI{12}{kN/m}$ and $k_1=\SI{10}{kN/m}$. Accordingly, a nonlinear parameter identification is required. Besides this fact, in this study, the structure is assumed to behave linearly during the earthquake excitation without any abrupt stiffness changes. All remaining filter setup parameters are shown in Table \[filter\_setup\_3\]. ![Study 3: Time histories of the estimated and true stiffness values $\hat{k}_1$ and $k_1$ for the selected system noise covariance levels $\mathbf{Q}\left\lbrack i,i\right\rbrack$ of $10^{-14}$ (left) and $10^{-9}$ (right). Estimations are calculated using $1^{st}$-$4^{th}$ order Taylor expansion discretizations for the (a) 2-DoF and (b) 2-DoF+TMD system under El Centro earthquake.[]{data-label="Fig:11_Study_3"}](Figures/Example_3/Fig_11_Study_3.eps "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}\ ![Study 3: Comparison of the stiffness deviations $\Delta k_1$ for $1^{st}$-$4^{th}$ order discretizations and variable system noise covariance levels $\mathbf{Q}\left\lbrack i,i\right\rbrack$. Estimations are calculated for the (a) 2-DoF and (b) 2-DoF+TMD systems under El Centro earthquake.[]{data-label="Fig:12_Study_3"}](Figures/Example_3/Fig_12_Study_3.eps "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}\ ![Study 3: Comparison of the stiffness deviations $\Delta k_1$ for $1^{st}$-$4^{th}$ order discretizations and variable system noise covariance levels $\mathbf{Q}\left\lbrack i,i\right\rbrack$. Estimations are calculated for the (a) 2-DoF and (b) 2-DoF+TMD systems under Northridge earthquake.[]{data-label="Fig:13_Study_3"}](Figures/Example_3/Fig_13_Study_3.eps "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}\ Figure \[Fig:11\_Study\_3\] compares for the El Centro earthquake the estimated time histories of the $1^{st}$ DoF stiffness $\hat{k}_1$ with the true values $k_1$. Two different system noise covariance levels $\mathbf{Q}\left\lbrack i,i\right\rbrack$ are shown. At $\mathbf{Q}\left\lbrack i,i\right\rbrack=10^{-14}$ (left), the $1^{st}$ order Taylor expansion based model of the 2-DoF+TMD system causes larger deviations than the model of the 2-DoF without TMD. These results show the increased sensitivity of the system identification due to supplementary TMD. By increasing the covariance level to $\mathbf{Q}\left\lbrack i,i\right\rbrack=10^{-9}$ (right) the deviation reduces. In Figure \[Fig:11\_Study\_3\], the other investigated higher order models do not show any dependency with the covariance level. The study is expended in Figure \[Fig:12\_Study\_3\] for further $\mathbf{Q}\left\lbrack i,i\right\rbrack$ values. Here, we observe that the Taylor $1^{st}$ order expansion based model of the 2-DoF structure allows for system noise covariance level values higher than $\mathbf{Q}\left\lbrack i,i\right\rbrack=10^{-9}$ a high accuracy system identification with $\Delta k_1 <\SI{0.001}{\%}$. With the same order of the model, the system identification accuracy of the 2-DoF+TMD system also increases by increasing the system noise covariance. However, after reaching its minimum deviation at $\mathbf{Q}\left\lbrack i,i\right\rbrack=10^{-9}$ with increasing system noise covariance the deviation of the stiffness estimation increases again. This effect exists invisible small also for the 2-DoF structure without TMD. Corresponding to the results of Figure \[Fig:11\_Study\_3\], also in Figure \[Fig:12\_Study\_3\], we see again for higher order models that the accuracy is independent from the system noise covariance level. Accordingly, as introduced before, we emphasize also with these results the necessity of higher order mathematical models for the identification MDoF+TMD systems. In Figure \[Fig:13\_Study\_3\], the study is repeated for the near field Northridge earthquake. The performance results of the investigated models conform with the conclusions of the in Figure \[Fig:11\_Study\_3\] and \[Fig:12\_Study\_3\] shown El Centro results. Also here the course of the deviation parameter $\Delta k_1$ shows for the $1^{st}$ order Taylor expansion model of the 2-DoF structure a stable accuracy after a certain system noise level. On the other hand, for the same order 2-DoF+TMD model the deviation $\Delta k_1$ fluctuates depending on the system noise level. For the estimated $2^{nd}$ DoF stiffness $\hat{k}_2$ we get similar results, which we do not include here for the sake of brevity. Conclusions {#sec4} =========== In this paper, for MDoF structures with TMDs a recursive system identification method is presented, which is able to detect and localize abrupt stiffness changes during sudden events, such as earthquakes. The method enhances the UKF by a new adaptation formulation, which is modifying the state covariance initiated by a trigger parameter. The proposed adaptation algorithm operates in a recursive manner and calculates the trigger parameter depending on the innovation error, which is normalized by the measurement noise covariance. A constant threshold is formulated based on the sensors. Three parametric studies are conducted on a 2DoF+TMD system to investigate the performance of the system identification method. In the first study, earthquake, impulse and white noise excitations are applied. Single and combined abrupt stiffness changes of the DoFs of the structure are simulated. Time histories of estimated and true values of structural motion and stiffness changes are compared. Results show that the proposed identification method is able to detect and localize the abrupt stiffness changes. The estimated state conforms with the true values. The second study investigates the effects of the state covariance. On the 2DoF+TMD system an earthquake excitation is applied. An increase of the state covariance improves the parameter estimation performance. However, after a certain value, a further increase causes the identification method to behave oversensitive and loose its accuracy. The results conclude the necessity of an adaptive formulation of the state covariance as applied in the proposed approach. In the third study, the effects of the modeling accuracy are investigated on the 2DoF+TMD system under earthquake excitation. Besides the effects of the system noise covariance, the study considers also the effects of convergence orders for discretization using Taylor expansion. The results confirm that the identification of abrupt stiffness changes requires a high-level accuracy of the method, in particular, for the identification of MDoF structures with supplementary TMDs.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'For a two-component Fermi gas in the unitarity limit (ie, with infinite scattering length), there is a well-known virial theorem, first shown by J. E. Thomas et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 120402 (2005). A few people rederived this result, and extended it to few-body systems, but their results are all restricted to the unitarity limit. Here I show that there is a generalized virial theorem for FINITE scattering lengths. I also generalize an exact result concerning the pressure, first shown in cond-mat/0508320, to the case of imbalanced populations.' address: 'Institute for Nuclear Theory, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-1550, USA' author: - Shina Tan bibliography: - 'virial.bib' title: Generalized Virial Theorem and Pressure Relation for a strongly correlated Fermi gas --- virial theorem ,pressure ,momentum distribution 03.75.Ss ,05.30.Fk ,71.10.Ca Two-component ultracold atomic Fermi gases with large scattering lengths have been realized recently, and have become a focus of numerous research activities. In this paper we study two exact properties of such a system. We will consider the zero-range interaction model only, in which the scattering length $a$ between the ${\uparrow}$ and ${\downarrow}$ spin states is the only parameter for the interaction. (Such a model is justified by typical experimental setups, in which the interatomic distance, the thermal de Broglie wavelength, and $a$ are all large compared to the Van de Waals range of the interaction.) Generalized Virial Theorem ========================== If the system is confined by a harmonic trap, and is in the unitarity limit ($a\rightarrow\infty$), the total energy $E$ is related to the external potential energy by $$\label{eq:special_virial} E=2E_V.$$ The result was first shown by J. E. Thomas et al using the local density approximation [@Thomas2005PRL]. A few people rederived this result, and extended it to few-body systems, but their results are all restricted to the unitarity limit and to a harmonic confinement potential [@SpecialVirialTheorem_others]. Here I show that there is a *generalized* virial theorem for *finite* scattering lengths. I also consider a somewhat more general confinement potential, $$V({\mathbf{r}})=r^\beta f(\hat{{\mathbf{r}}})$$ satisfying $\beta>-2$, $\beta\ne0$, and $\beta f(\hat{{\mathbf{r}}})>0$, where $f(\hat{{\mathbf{r}}})$ is any smooth function of the unit direction vector $\hat{{\mathbf{r}}}$. For a harmonic trap $\beta=2$. Such a generalized virial theorem is $$\label{eq:general_virial} E-\frac{\beta+2}{2}E_V=-\frac{\hbar^2{\mathcal{I}}}{8\pi am},$$ where $m$ is the fermion mass, ${\mathcal{I}}=\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty} k^4\rho_{{\mathbf{k}}\sigma}$, and $\rho_{{\mathbf{k}}\sigma}$ is the momentum distribution at momentum $\hbar{\mathbf{k}}$ and spin state $\sigma$. The amplitude of $\rho_{{\mathbf{k}}\sigma}$ is defined by $\int\frac{{\mathrm{d}}^3k}{(2\pi)^3}\rho_{{\mathbf{k}}\sigma}=N_\sigma$, the number of spin-$\sigma$ fermions. Note that $N_{\uparrow}$ and $N_{\downarrow}$ are arbitrary and may be different. ${\mathcal{I}}$ equals the quantity $\Omega C$ in Refs. [@ShinaTan0505200; @ShinaTan0508320]. An equivalent definition of ${\mathcal{I}}$ is given in Ref. [@ShinaTan0508320]: $${\mathcal{I}}=\lim_{K\rightarrow\infty}\pi^2KN_{k>K},$$ where $N_{k>K}$ is the expectation of the total number of fermions with momenta larger than $\hbar K$. We will give ${\mathcal{I}}$ a short name: *total contact*, or simply *contact*. We will give the spatial function $C({\mathbf{r}})$ introduced in Ref. [@ShinaTan0505200] a name: *local contact density*. The quantity $C=\Omega^{-1}{\mathcal{I}}=\Omega^{-1}\int{\mathrm{d}}^3 rC({\mathbf{r}})$ [@ShinaTan0505200] will be called *average contact density* (over volume $\Omega$). For a homogeneous system of volume $\Omega$, $C({\mathbf{r}})$ equals $C$. To prove , we first consider an energy eigenstate $\phi$ at scattering length $a$, with energy $E=E_\text{internal}+E_V$,where $E_\text{internal}$ is the internal energy expectation value. We then modify this state infinitesimally, in two consecutive steps. In the first step, we adiabatically change the scattering length to $a'=(1+\epsilon)a$, where $\epsilon$ is an infinitesimal number. The energy changes to $E'=E'_\text{internal}+E'_V$. Using the adiabatic sweep theorem of Ref. [@ShinaTan0508320], we find $$E'-E=\frac{\hbar^2{\mathcal{I}}}{4\pi am}\epsilon+O(\epsilon^2).$$ In the second step, we do a geometric compression of the system’s wave function, from $\phi'({\mathbf{r}}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf{r}}_N)$ to $$\phi''({\mathbf{r}}_1,\cdots,{\mathbf{r}}_N)=(1+\epsilon)^{3N/2}\phi'\mathbf{(}(1+\epsilon){\mathbf{r}}_1,\cdots,(1+\epsilon){\mathbf{r}}_N\mathbf).$$ Using the short-range boundary condition for the wave function ($\phi\propto 1/s-1/\text{scatt.length}$ when the distance $s$ between two fermions in different spin states is small), we find that $\phi''$ corresponds to a state with scattering length $a''=a'/(1+\epsilon)=a$. Using the energy theorem [@ShinaTan0505200], we get $E''_\text{internal}=(1+\epsilon)^2E'_\text{internal}$, and $E''_V=(1+\epsilon)^{-\beta}E'_V$. So $$E''-E'=2\epsilon E'_\text{internal}-\beta \epsilon E'_V+O(\epsilon^2)=2\epsilon E_\text{internal}-\beta \epsilon E_V+O(\epsilon^2).$$ Because the state $\phi''$ has the *same* scattering length as the initial state $\phi$, and because the difference between the two states is of the order $\epsilon$, the variational stability of energy levels implies that $E''-E=O(\epsilon^2)$, or $(E''-E')+(E'-E)=O(\epsilon^2)$. So $$\frac{\hbar^2{\mathcal{I}}}{4\pi am}+2 E_\text{internal}-\beta E_V=0.$$ Rewriting $E_\text{internal}=E-E_V$, we get . Obviously, is also valid for any statistical ensemble of energy levels, with a statistical weight decaying sufficiently fast at large energy, such that ${\mathcal{I}}$ equals the statistical average of the values of ${\mathcal{I}}$’s for the individual energy levels [@ShinaTan0505200]. Thus is valid for any finite temperature states in the canonical or grand canonical ensemble, as well as the ground state. When $k_Fa\rightarrow0^-$ ($k_F$ fixed), ${\mathcal{I}}\propto a^2$ and Eq.  reduces to the virial theorem for the noninteracting Fermi gas. When $a=\infty$ and $\beta=2$, Eq.  reduces to Eq. . When $N_{\uparrow}=N_{\downarrow}\gg1$, $k_Fa\rightarrow0^+$ and the temperature is zero, the system approaches a Bose-Einstein condensate of tightly bound molecules, and approaches the virial theorem for the Gross-Pitaevskii equation for these bosonic molecules [@virial_theorem_BEC] with scattering length $a_m\approx0.6a$ [@Petrov2004PRL]. Pressure Relation ================= Suppose that the system is in a cubic box of size $L=\Omega^{1/3}$, and a periodic boundary condition is imposed. In the absence of the external potential $$\label{eq:P} P-\frac{2}{3}\rho_E=\frac{\hbar^2C}{12\pi am},$$ where $\rho_E=E/\Omega$ is the average energy density, and $C={\mathcal{I}}/\Omega$ is the average contact density. Equation  is valid for any energy eigenstate, or any statistical ensemble of them, with a statistical weight decaying sufficiently fast at large energy, such that ${\mathcal{I}}$ equals the statistical average of the values of ${\mathcal{I}}$’s for the individual energy levels [@ShinaTan0505200]. This includes any finite temperature states in the canonical or grand canonical ensemble, as well as the ground state. In Ref. [@ShinaTan0508320], the pressure relation is shown for balanced populations of the two spin states: $N_{\uparrow}=N_{\downarrow}$. Here I point out that remains valid *even if $N_{\uparrow}\ne N_{\downarrow}$*. This incorporates many interesting possibilities, in particular phase separation between superfluid and normal phase [@phase_separation] and, consequently, spontaneous spatial inhomogeneity of the energy density and contact density. The general proof of is very similar to that of . Starting with any energy eigenstate $\phi$ with scattering length $a$ and energy $E$, we first increase the scattering length adiabatically, from $a$ to $a'=(1+\epsilon)a$, to get $E'=E+\frac{\hbar^2{\mathcal{I}}}{4\pi am}\epsilon+O(\epsilon^2)$. We then do a geometric compression of the wave function, after which the scattering length changes back to $a$, the period of the wave function becomes $L/(1+\epsilon)$, the energy becomes $$E''=(1+\epsilon)^2E'=E'+2\epsilon E'+O(\epsilon^2)=E+\frac{\hbar^2{\mathcal{I}}}{4\pi am}\epsilon+2\epsilon E+O(\epsilon^2),$$ and the quantum state becomes $\phi''$. If we start from the state $\phi$, and compress the box by a linear factor $(1+\epsilon)$ adiabatically, without changing the scattering length, we will get the *same* final state as $\phi''$. So the pressure is $$P=\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow0}\frac{E''-E}{\Omega-(1+\epsilon)^{-3}\Omega}=\frac{2E}{3\Omega}+\frac{\hbar^2{\mathcal{I}}}{12\pi am\Omega}.$$ Although Eq.  is only exact in the absence of external potential, it is approximately valid for each local part of the fermionic cloud in a trap, within the local density approximation. In this latter case, $\rho_E$ is replaced by the local internal energy density, and $C$ is replaced by the local contact density $C({\mathbf{r}})$. The author thanks L. I. Glazman and K. Levin for communications, and thanks E. Braaten for suggesting intuitive names for the quantities ${\mathcal{I}}$ and $C({\mathbf{r}})$. This work was supported by DOE Grant No. DE-FG02-00ER41132.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We present a general probabilistic perspective on Gaussian filtering and smoothing. This allows us to show that common approaches to Gaussian filtering/smoothing can be distinguished solely by their methods of computing/approximating the means and covariances of joint probabilities. This implies that novel filters and smoothers can be derived straightforwardly by providing methods for computing these moments. Based on this insight, we derive the cubature Kalman smoother and propose a novel robust filtering and smoothing algorithm based on Gibbs sampling.' author: - | Marc Peter Deisenroth$^{1,2}$ and Henrik Ohlsson$^3$\ \ \ \ \ \ title: 'A Probabilistic Perspective on Gaussian Filtering and Smoothing[^1]' --- Inference in latent variable models is about extracting information about a not directly observable quantity, the latent variable, from noisy observations. Both recursive and batch methods are of interest and referred to as *filtering* respective *smoothing*. Filtering and smoothing in latent variable time series models, including hidden Markov models and dynamic systems, have been playing an important role in signal processing, control, and machine learning for decades [@Kalman1960; @Maybeck1979; @Bishop2006]. In the context of dynamic systems, filtering is widely used in control and robotics for online Bayesian state estimation [@Thrun2005], while smoothing is commonly used in machine learning algorithms for parameter learning [@Bishop2006]. For computational efficiency reasons, many filters and smoothers approximate appearing probability distributions by Gaussians. This is why they are referred to as *Gaussian filters/smoothers*. In the following, we discuss Gaussian filtering and smoothing from a general probabilistic perspective without focusing on particular implementations. We identify the high-level concepts and the components required for filtering and smoothing, while avoiding getting lost in the implementation and computational details of particular algorithms (see e.g., standard derivations of the Kalman filter [@Anderson2005; @Thrun2005]). We show that for Gaussian filters/smoothers for (non)linear systems (including common algorithms such as the extended Kalman filter (EKF) [@Maybeck1979], the cubature Kalman filter (CKF) [@Arasaratnam2009], or the unscented Kalman filter (UKF) [@Julier2004]) can be distinguished by their means to computing Gaussian approximations to the joint probability distributions ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1},{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$ and ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$. Our results also imply that novel filtering and smoothing algorithms can be derived straightforwardly, given a method to determining the moments of these joint distributions. Using this insight, we present and analyze the cubature Kalman smoother (CKS) and a filter and an RTS smoother based on Gibbs sampling. We start this paper by setting up the problem and the notation, Sec. \[sec:probform\]. We thereafter proceed by reviewing Gaussian filtering and RTS smoothing from a high-level probabilistic perspective to derive sufficient conditions for Gaussian filtering and smoothing, respectively (Secs. \[sec:filtering\] and \[sec:smoothing\]). The implications of this result are discussed in Sec. \[sec:results\], which lead to the derivation of a novel Gaussian filter and RTS smoother based on Gibbs sampling. Sec. \[sec:numerical evaluation\] provides proof-of-concept numerical evaluations for the proposed method for both linear and nonlinear systems. Secs. \[sec:discussion\]–\[sec:conclusion\] discuss related work and conclude the paper. Problem Setup and Notation {#sec:probform} ========================== We consider discrete-time stochastic dynamic systems of the form $$\begin{aligned} {{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t &= f({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}) + {{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{w}}}}_{t}\,,\label{eq:system equation}\\ {{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t& = g({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t) + {{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{v}}}}_t\,,\label{eq:measurement}\end{aligned}$$ where ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t\in{\mathds{R}}^D$ is the state, ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t\in{\mathds{R}}^E$ is the measurement at time step $t=1,\dotsc,T$, ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{w}}}}_t\sim{\mathcal{N}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{0}}}},{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{Q}}}})}$ is i.i.d. Gaussian system noise, ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{v}}}}_t\sim{\mathcal{N}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{0}}}},{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{R}}}})}$ is i.i.d. Gaussian measurement noise, $f$ is the transition/system function and $g$ is the measurement function. The graphical model of the considered dynamic system is given in fig. \[fig:gm\]. The noise covariance matrices ${{\ensuremath{\mathbf{Q}}}}$, ${{\ensuremath{\mathbf{R}}}}$, the system function $f$, and the measurement function $g$ are assumed known. If not stated otherwise, we assume nonlinear functions $f$ and $g$. The initial state ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_0$ of the time series is distributed according to a Gaussian prior distribution ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_0) = {\mathcal{N}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_0^x,{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_0^x)}$. The purpose of filtering and smoothing is to find approximations to the posterior distributions ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:\tau})$, where a subscript $1\!:\!\tau$ abbreviates $1,\dotsc,\tau$, with $\tau\!=\!t$ for filtering and $\tau\!=\!T$ for smoothing. In this paper, we consider Gaussian approximations ${\mathcal{N}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t\,|\,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t|\tau}^x,{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t|\tau}^x)}$ of the latent state posteriors ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:\tau})$. We use the shorthand notation ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{a}}}}_{b|c}^d$ where ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{a}}}}={{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}$ denotes the mean ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}$ and $ {{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{a}}}} = {{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}$ denotes the covariance, $b$ denotes the time step under consideration, $c$ denotes the time step up to which we consider measurements, and $d\in\{x,{z}\}$ denotes either the latent space ($x$) or the observed space (${z}$). Let us assume a prior ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_0) = {{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_0|\emptyset)$ and a sequence ${{{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}}}_1,\dotsc,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_T$ of noisy measurements of the latent states ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_0,\dotsc,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_T$ through the measurement function $g$. The objective of *filtering* is to compute a posterior distribution ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}}}_{1:t})$ over the latent state as soon as a new measurement ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t$ is available. *Smoothing* extends filtering and aims to compute the posterior state distribution of the hidden states ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t$, $t=0,\dotsc,T$, given *all* measurements ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_1,\dotsc,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_T$ (see e.g., [@Anderson2005; @Thrun2005]). Gaussian Filtering {#sec:filtering} ================== Given a prior ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_0)$ on the initial state and a dynamic system (e.g., Eqs. (\[eq:system equation\])–(\[eq:measurement\])), the objective of *filtering* is to infer a posterior distribution ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t})$ of the hidden state ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t$, $t = 1,\dotsc,T$, incorporating the evidence of the measurements ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t}$. Specific for Gaussian filtering is that posterior distributions are approximated by Gaussians [@Thrun2005]. Approximations are required since generally a Gaussian distribution mapped through a nonlinear function does not stay Gaussian. Assume a Gaussian filter distribution ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}|{{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}}_{1:t-1})={\mathcal{N}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t-1|t-1}^x,{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t-1|t-1}^x)}$ is given (if not, we employ the prior ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_0) = {{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_0|\emptyset)={\mathcal{N}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{0|\emptyset}^x,{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{0|\emptyset}^x)})$ on the initial state. Using Bayes’ theorem, the filter distribution at time $t$ is $$\begin{aligned} {{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}}_{1:t}) &= \frac{{{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})}{{{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t| {{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})}\propto {{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t){{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})\,. \label{eq:Bayes theorem} $$ \[prop:filter distribution\] Gaussian filters approximate the filter distribution ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t})$ using a Gaussian distribution ${\mathcal{N}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t|t}^x,{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t|t}^x)}$. The moments of this approximation are in general computed through $$\begin{aligned} {{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t|t}^x&=\hat{{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}}_{t|t-1}^x + \hat{ {{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}}_{t|t-1}^{x{z}}(\hat{{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}}_{t|t-1}^{z}){^{-1}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t - \hat{ {{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}}_{t|t-1}^{z})\,, \label{eq:proposition filter mean}\\ {{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t|t}^x&= \hat{{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}}_{t|t-1}^{x} - \hat{ {{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}}_{t|t-1}^{x{z}}(\hat{ {{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}}_{t|t-1}^{z}){^{-1}}\hat{ {{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}}_{t|t-1}^{{z}x}\,. \label{eq:proposition filter covariance}\end{aligned}$$ Since the true moments of the joint distribution ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$ can in general not be computed analytically, approximations/estimates are used (hence the $\hat{~}$-symbols). Generally, filtering proceeds by alternating between predicting (*time update*) and correcting (*measurement update*) [@Anderson2005; @Thrun2005]: 1. Time update (predictor) 1. Compute the predictive distribution ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$. 2. Measurement update (corrector) 1. Compute the joint distribution ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}}_{1:t-1})$ of the next latent state and the next measurement. 2. Measure ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t$. 3. Compute the posterior ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}}_{1:t})$. In the following, we detail these steps to prove Prop. \[prop:filter distribution\]. Time Update (Predictor) ----------------------- 1. Compute the predictive distribution ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$. The predictive distribution of state ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}$ at time $t$ given the evidence of measurements up to time $t-1$ is $$\begin{aligned} {{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1}) \!= \! \int\!{{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}){{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1}) {\operatorname{d}\!}{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}\,,\label{eq:time update}\end{aligned}$$ where ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}) = {\mathcal{N}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t\,|\,f({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}),{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{Q}}}})}$ is the transition probability. In Gaussian filters, the predictive distribution ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$ in Eq.  is approximated by a Gaussian distribution, whose exact mean and covariance are given by $$\begin{aligned} {{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t|t-1}^x&\!\coloneqq\!{\mathds{E}}_{{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t}[{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1}]\! =\! {\mathds{E}}_{{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1},{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{w}}}}_t}[f({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1})\!+\!{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{w}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1}] =\int f({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}){{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1}){\operatorname{d}\!}{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}\,, \label{eq:mean state predicted measurement}\\ {{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t|t-1}^x &\coloneqq{\mathrm{cov}}_{{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t}[{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1}] = {\mathrm{cov}}_{{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}}[f({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1})|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1}] + {\mathrm{cov}}_{{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{w}}}}_t}[{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{w}}}}_t] \nonumber \\ &=\underbrace{\int f({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1})f({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}){^\top}{{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1}){\operatorname{d}\!}{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}-{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t|t-1}^x\big({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t|t-1}^x){^\top}}_{ = {\mathrm{cov}}_{{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}}[f({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1})|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1}]} +\underbrace{{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{Q}}}}}_{ ={\mathrm{cov}}_{{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{w}}}}_t}[{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{w}}}}_t]} \label{eq:cov state predicted measurement}\end{aligned}$$ respectively. In Eq. , we exploited that the noise term ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{w}}}}_t$ in Eq.  has mean zero and is independent. A Gaussian approximation to the time update ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$ is then given by ${\mathcal{N}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t\,|\,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t|t-1}^x,{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t|t-1}^x)}$. Measurement Update (Corrector) ------------------------------ 1. Compute the joint distribution $$\begin{aligned} {{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})={{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t)\underbrace{{{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})}_{\text{time update}}\,. \label{eq:1st joint}\end{aligned}$$ In Gaussian filters, a Gaussian approximation to this joint is an intermediate step toward the desired Gaussian approximation of the posterior ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t})$. If the mean and the covariance of the joint in Eq. (\[eq:1st joint\]) can be computed or estimated, the desired filter distribution corresponds to the conditional ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t})$ and is given in closed form [@Bishop2006]. Our objective is to compute a Gaussian approximation $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal{N}\left( \begin{bmatrix} {{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t|t-1}^x\\ {{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t|t-1}^{z}\end{bmatrix} , \begin{bmatrix} {{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t|t-1}^x & {{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t|t-1}^{x{z}}\\ {{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t|t-1}^{{z}x} & {{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t|t-1}^{z}\end{bmatrix} \right)} \label{eq:joint p(x,z)}\end{aligned}$$ to the joint ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$ in Eq. (\[eq:1st joint\]). Since a Gaussian approximation ${\mathcal{N}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t|t-1}^x,{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t|t-1}^x)}$ to the marginal ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$ is known from the time update, it remains to compute the marginal ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$ and the cross-covariance ${{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t|t-1}^{x{z}}\coloneqq {\mathrm{cov}}_{{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t}[{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1}]$. - The marginal ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{z}}}}_t|{{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}}_{1:t-1})$ of the joint in Eq.  is $$\begin{aligned} {{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1}) = \int{{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t){{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1}) {\operatorname{d}\!}{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t\,,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the state ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t$ is integrated out according to the time update ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$. The measurement Eq. (\[eq:measurement\]), yields ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t)={\mathcal{N}(g({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t),{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{R}}}})}$. Hence, the exact mean of the marginal is $$\begin{aligned} {{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t|t-1}^{z}&\coloneqq {\mathds{E}}_{{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t}[{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1}]= {\mathds{E}}_{{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t}[g({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t)|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1}] =\int g({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t)\underbrace{{{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})}_{\text{time update}}{\operatorname{d}\!}{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t \label{eq:mean predicted measurement}\end{aligned}$$ since the noise term ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{v}}}}_t$ in the measurement Eq. (\[eq:measurement\]) is independent and has zero mean. Similarly, the exact covariance of the marginal ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$ is $$\begin{aligned} {{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t|t-1}^{z}&= {\mathrm{cov}}_{{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t}[{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1} = {\mathrm{cov}}_{{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t}[g({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t)|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1}]+ {\mathrm{cov}}_{{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{v}}}}_t}[{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{v}}}}_t]\nonumber \\ & = \underbrace{\int g({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t)g({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t){^\top}{{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1}){\operatorname{d}\!}{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t-{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t|t-1}^{z}\big({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t|t-1}^{z}){^\top}}_{={\mathrm{cov}}_{{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t}[g({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t)|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1}]} +\underbrace{{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{R}}}}}_{={\mathrm{cov}}_{{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{v}}}}_t}[{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{v}}}}_t]}\,. \label{eq:covariance predicted measurement}\end{aligned}$$ Hence, a Gaussian approximation to the marginal measurement distribution ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal{N}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t\,|\,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t|t-1}^{z},{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t|t-1}^{z})}\,, \label{eq:measurement marginal}\end{aligned}$$ with the mean and covariance given in Eqs. (\[eq:mean predicted measurement\]) and (\[eq:covariance predicted measurement\]), respectively. - Due to the independence of ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{v}}}}_t$, the exact cross-covariance terms of the joint in Eq.  are $$\begin{aligned} {{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t|t-1}^{x{z}}&={\mathrm{cov}}_{{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t}[{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1}] ={\mathds{E}}_{{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{z}}}}_t}[{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t{^\top}|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1}]-{\mathds{E}}_{{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t}[{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1}]{\mathds{E}}_{{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t}[{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1}]{^\top}\nonumber\\ &=\iint{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t{^\top}{{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1}){\operatorname{d}\!}{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t{\operatorname{d}\!}{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t-{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t|t-1}^x({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t|t-1}^{z}){^\top}\nonumber\,.\end{aligned}$$ Plugging in the measurement Eq. , we obtain $$\begin{aligned} {{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t|t-1}^{x{z}} & = \int{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_tg({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t){^\top}{{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1}){\operatorname{d}\!}{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t-{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t|t-1}^x({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t|t-1}^{z}){^\top}\,. \label{eq:cross-covariance x and z}\end{aligned}$$ 2. Measure ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t$. 3. Compute a Gaussian approximation of the posterior ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t})$. This boils down to computing a conditional from the Gaussian approximation to the joint distribution ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$ in Eq. . The expressions from Eqs. (\[eq:mean state predicted measurement\]), , (\[eq:mean predicted measurement\]), (\[eq:covariance predicted measurement\]), and (\[eq:cross-covariance x and z\]), yield a Gaussian approximation ${\mathcal{N}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t\,|\,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t|t}^x,{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t|t}^x)}$ of the filter distribution ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t})$, where $$\begin{aligned} {{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t|t}^x &= {{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t|t-1}^x + {{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t|t-1}^{x{z}}\big({{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t|t-1}^{z}\big){^{-1}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t-{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t|t-1}^{z})\,,\label{eq:generic filter mean}\\ {{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t|t}^x &= {{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t|t-1}^x - {{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t|t-1}^{x{z}}\big({{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t|t-1}^{z}\big){^{-1}}{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t|t-1}^{{z}x}\,. \label{eq:generic filter covariance}\end{aligned}$$ Generally, the required integrals in Eqs. , , , , and cannot be computed analytically. Hence, approximations of the moments are typically used in Eqs.  and . This concludes the proof of Prop. \[prop:filter distribution\]. Sufficient Conditions for Gaussian Filtering -------------------------------------------- In any Bayes filter [@Thrun2005], the sufficient components to computing the Gaussian filter distribution in Eqs. (\[eq:generic filter mean\]) and (\[eq:generic filter covariance\]) are the mean and the covariance of the joint distribution ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$. Generally, the required integrals in Eqs. , , , , and cannot be computed analytically. One exception are *linear* functions $f$ and $g$, where the analytic solutions to the integrals are embodied in the Kalman filter [@Kalman1960]: Using the rules of predicting in linear Gaussian systems, the Kalman filter equations can be recovered when plugging in the respective means and covariances into Eq. (\[eq:generic filter mean\]) and (\[eq:generic filter covariance\]) [@Roweis1999; @Minka1998; @Anderson2005; @Bishop2006; @Thrun2005]. In many *nonlinear* dynamic systems, filtering algorithms approximate probability distributions (see e.g., the UKF [@Julier2004] and the CKF [@Arasaratnam2009]) or the functions $f$ and $g$ (see e.g., the EKF [@Maybeck1979] or the GP-Bayes filters [@Deisenroth2009a; @Ko2009]). Using the means and (cross-)covariances computed by these algorithms and plugging them into Eqs. (\[eq:generic filter mean\])–(\[eq:generic filter covariance\]), recovers the corresponding filter update equations for the EKF, the UKF, the CKF, and the GP-Bayes filters. Gaussian RTS Smoothing {#sec:smoothing} ====================== In this section, we present a general probabilistic perspective on Gaussian RTS smoothers and derive sufficient conditions for Gaussian smoothing. The smoothed state distribution is the posterior distribution of the hidden state given *all* measurements $${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:T})\,,\,\,t=T,\dotsc,0\,.$$ \[prop:smoothing\] For Gaussian smoothers, the mean and the covariance of a Gaussian approximation to the distribution ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:T})$ are generally computed as $$\begin{aligned} {{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t-1|T}^x&=\hat{{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}}_{t-1|t-1}^x + \hat{{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}}}_{t-1}(\hat{{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}}_{t|T}^x - \hat{{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}}_{t|t-1}^x)\,, \label{eq:proposition mean smoother}\\ {{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t-1|T}^x &=\hat{{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}}_{t-1|t-1}^x + \hat{{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}}}_{t-1} (\hat{{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}}_{t|T}^x - \hat{{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}}_{t|t-1}^x)\hat{{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}}}_{t-1}{^\top}\,, \label{eq:proposition cov smoother}\\ {{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}}_{t-1} &= {\mathrm{cov}}[{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1},{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1}]{\mathrm{cov}}[{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1}]{^{-1}}\nonumber\\ &={{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t-1,t|t-1}^x({{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t|t-1}^x){^{-1}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ The smoothed state distribution at the terminal time step $T$ is equivalent to the filter distribution ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_T|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:T})$ [@Anderson2005; @Bishop2006]. The distributions ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:T})$, $t = T,\dotsc,1$, of the smoothed states can be computed recursively according to $$\begin{aligned} {{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:T}) &=\int{{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:T}){{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:T}){\operatorname{d}\!}{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t =\int{{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1}){{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:T}){\operatorname{d}\!}{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t \label{eq:smoothing recursion}\end{aligned}$$ by integrating out the smoothed hidden state at time step $t$. In Eq. , we exploited that ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}$ is conditionally independent of the future measurements ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{t:T}$ given ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t$. To compute the smoothed state distribution in Eq. (\[eq:smoothing recursion\]), we need to multiply a distribution in ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t$ with a distribution in ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}$ and integrate over ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t$. To do so, we follow the steps: 1. Compute the conditional ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$. 2. Formulate ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:T})$ as an unnormalized distribution in ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t$. 3. Multiply the new distribution with ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:T})$. 4. Solve the integral in Eq. . We now examine these steps in detail. Assume a known (Gaussian) smoothed state distribution ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:T})$. 1. Compute a Gaussian approximation to the conditional ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$. We compute the conditional in two steps: First, we compute a Gaussian approximation to the joint distribution ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$. Second, we apply the rules of computing conditionals to this joint Gaussian. Let us start with a Gaussian approximation $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal{N}\left( \begin{bmatrix}{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t-1|t-1}^x\\ {{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t|t-1}^x\end{bmatrix},\begin{bmatrix}{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t-1|t-1}^x & {{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t-1,t|t-1}^x\\ ({{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t-1,t|t-1}^x){^\top}& {{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t|t-1}^x\end{bmatrix}\right)} \label{eq:p(x_{t-1},x_t|Y)}\end{aligned}$$ to the joint ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1},{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$ and have a closer look at its components: A Gaussian approximation of the filter distribution ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$ at time step $t-1$ is known and is the first marginal distribution in Eq. (\[eq:p(x\_[t-1]{},x\_t|Y)\]). The second marginal ${\mathcal{N}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t|t-1}^x,{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t|t-1}^x)}$ is the time update and also known from filtering. To fully determine the joint in Eq. (\[eq:p(x\_[t-1]{},x\_t|Y)\]), we require the cross-covariance matrix $$\begin{aligned} {{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t-1,t|t-1}^x & =\iint {{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}f({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}){^\top}{{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1}){\operatorname{d}\!}{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1} - {{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t-1|t-1}^x({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t|t-1}^x){^\top}\,, \label{eq:cross-covariance smoothing}\end{aligned}$$ where we used the means ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t-1|t-1}^x$ and ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t|t-1}^x$ of the measurement update and the time update, respectively. The zero-mean independent noise in the system Eq. (\[eq:system equation\]) does not influence the cross-covariance matrix. The cross-covariance matrix in Eq. (\[eq:cross-covariance smoothing\]) can be pre-computed during filtering since it does not depend on future measurements. This concludes the first step (computation of the joint Gaussian) of the computation of the desired conditional. In the second step, we apply the rules of Gaussian conditioning to obtain the desired conditional distribution ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$. For a shorthand notation, we define $$\label{eq:J-matrix smoothing} {{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}}_{t-1}\coloneqq {{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t-1,t|t-1}^x({{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t|t-1}^x){^{-1}}\,,$$ and obtain a Gaussian approximation ${\mathcal{N}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}\,|\,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{m}}}},{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{S}}}})}$ of the conditional distribution ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1} |{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$ with $$\begin{aligned} {{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{m}}}} &= {{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t-1|t-1}^x+{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}}_{t-1}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t - {{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t|t-1}^x)\,,\\ {{\ensuremath{\mathbf{S}}}} &= {{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t-1|t-1}^x - {{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}}_{t-1}({{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t-1,t|t-1}^x){^\top}\,.\end{aligned}$$ 2. Formulate ${\mathcal{N}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}\,|\,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{m}}}},{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{S}}}})}$ as an unnormalized distribution in ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t$. The square-root of the exponent of ${\mathcal{N}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}\,|\,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{m}}}},{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{S}}}})}$ contains $$\begin{aligned} {{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1} -{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{m}}}} &= {{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}) - {{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}}_{t-1}{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1})= {{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1} - {{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t-1|t-1}^x+{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}}_{t-1}{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t|t-1}^x$, which is a linear function of both ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}$ and ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t$. We now reformulate the conditional Gaussian ${\mathcal{N}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}\,|\,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{m}}}},{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{S}}}})}$ as a Gaussian in ${{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}}_{t-1} {{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t$ with mean ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1})$ and the unchanged covariance matrix ${{\ensuremath{\mathbf{S}}}}$. We obtain the conditional $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal{N}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}\,|\,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{m}}}},{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{S}}}})} &=c_1{\mathcal{N}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t\,|\,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{a}}}},{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}}})}\,,\label{eq:N(Rx) is N(x)}\\ \text{with} \quad c_1&=\sqrt{|2\pi({{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}}_{t-1}{^\top}{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{S}}}}{^{-1}}{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}}_{t-1}){^{-1}}|/|2\pi {{\ensuremath{\mathbf{S}}}}|}\,,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{a}}}}={{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}}_{t-1}{^{-1}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1})\,, {{\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}}} = ({{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}}_{t-1}{^\top}{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{S}}}}{^{-1}}{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}}_{t-1}){^{-1}}$. Note that ${\mathcal{N}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}\,|\,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{m}}}},{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{S}}}})}$ is an unnormalized Gaussian in ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t$, see Eq. . The matrix ${{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}}_{t-1}$ defined in Eq. (\[eq:J-matrix smoothing\]) is quadratic, but not necessarily invertible, in which case we take the pseudo-inverse. However, we will see that this inversion will be unnecessary to obtain the final result. 3. Multiply the new distribution with ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:T})$. To determine ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:T})$, we multiply the Gaussian in Eq. (\[eq:N(Rx) is N(x)\]) with the smoothed Gaussian state distribution ${\mathcal{N}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t\,|\,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t|T}^x,{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t|T}^x)}$, which yields the Gaussian approximation $$\begin{aligned} c_1{\mathcal{N}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t\,|\,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{a}}}},{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}}})}{\mathcal{N}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t\,|\,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t|T}^x,{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t|T}^x)} &= c_1c_2({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{a}}}}){\mathcal{N}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t\,|\,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{b}}}},{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{B}}}})} \label{eq:density mult backward}\end{aligned}$$ of ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1},{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:T})$, for some ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{b}}}}$, ${{\ensuremath{\mathbf{B}}}}$, where $c_2({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{a}}}})$ is the inverse normalization constant of ${\mathcal{N}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t\,|\,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{b}}}},{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{B}}}})}$. 4. Solve the integral in Eq. . Since we integrate over ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t$ in Eq. (\[eq:smoothing recursion\]), we are solely interested in the parts that make Eq. (\[eq:density mult backward\]) unnormalized, i.e., the constants $c_1$ and $c_2({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{a}}}})$, which are independent of ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t$. The constant $c_2({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{a}}}})$ in Eq. (\[eq:density mult backward\]) can be rewritten as $c_2({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1})$ by reversing the step that inverted the matrix ${{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}}_{t-1}$, see Eq. (\[eq:N(Rx) is N(x)\]). Then, $c_2({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1})$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} &\hspace{-2mm}c_2({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}) =c_1{^{-1}}{\mathcal{N}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}\,|\,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t-1|T}^x,{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t-1|T}^x)}\,, \label{eq:moments of smoothed distribution}\\ &\hspace{-2mm}{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t-1|T}^x={{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t-1|t-1}^x + {{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}}_{t-1}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t|T}^x -{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t|t-1}^x)\,, \label{eq:mean smoother}\\ &\hspace{-2mm}{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t-1|T}^x ={{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t-1|t-1}^x + {{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}}_{t-1} ({{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t|T}^x - {{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t|t-1}^x){{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}}_{t-1}{^\top}\,.\label{eq:cov smoother}\end{aligned}$$ Since $c_1c_1{^{-1}}=1$ (plug Eq.  into Eq. ), the desired smoothed state distribution is $$\label{eq:smoothing result} {{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:T})={\mathcal{N}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}\,|\,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t-1|T}^x,{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t-1|T}^x)}\,,$$ where the mean and the covariance are given in Eq. (\[eq:mean smoother\]) and Eq. (\[eq:cov smoother\]), respectively. This result concludes the proof of Prop. \[prop:smoothing\]. Sufficient Conditions for Smoothing ----------------------------------- After filtering, to determine a Gaussian approximation to the distribution ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:T})$ of the smoothed state at time $t-1$, only a few additional ingredients are required: the matrix ${{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}}_{t-1}$ in Eq.  and Gaussian approximations to the smoothed state distribution ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t}|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:T})$ at time $t$ and the predictive distribution ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$. Everything but the matrix ${{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}}_{t-1}$ can be precomputed either during filtering or in a previous step of the smoothing recursion. Note that ${{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}}_{t-1}$ can also be precomputed during filtering. Hence, for Gaussian RTS smoothing it is sufficient to determine Gaussian approximations to both the joint distribution ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t, {{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$ of the state and the measurement for the filter step and the joint distribution ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1},{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$ of two consecutive states. Implications and Theoretical Results {#sec:results} ==================================== \[sec:implications\] Using the results from Secs. \[sec:filtering\] and \[sec:smoothing\], we conclude that for filtering and RTS smoothing it is sufficient to compute or estimate the means and the covariances of the joint distribution ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1},{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$ between two consecutive states (smoothing) and the joint distribution ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$ between a state and the subsequent measurement (filtering and smoothing). This result has two implications: 1. Gaussian filters/smoothers can be distinguished by their approximations to these joint distributions. 2. If there exists an algorithm to compute or to estimate the means and the covariances of the joint distributions ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}},h({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}))$, where $h\in\{f,g\}$, the algorithm can be used for filtering and RTS smoothing. In the following, we first consider common filtering and smoothing algorithms and describe how they compute Gaussian approximations to the joint distributions ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1},{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$ and ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$, respectively, which emphasizes the first implication (Sec. \[sec:example realizations\]). After that, for the second implication of our results, we take an algorithm for estimating means and covariances of joint distributions and turn this algorithm into a filter/smoother (Sec. \[sec:gibbs filter\]). Current Algorithms for Computing the Joint Distributions {#sec:example realizations} -------------------------------------------------------- \[tab:joint\] Tab. \[tab:joint\] gives an overview of how the Kalman filter, the EKF, the UKF, and the CKF represent the means and the (cross-)covariances of the joint distributions ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$ and ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1},{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$. In Tab. \[tab:joint\], we use the shorthand notation ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{a}}}}^2\coloneqq {{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{a}}}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{a}}}}{^\top}$. For example, we defined $(f({{\ensuremath{\mathbf{X}}}}_{t-1|t-1}^{(i)}) - {{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t|t-1}^x)^2\coloneqq(f({{\ensuremath{\mathbf{X}}}}_{t-1|t-1}^{(i)}) - {{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t|t-1}^x) (f({{\ensuremath{\mathbf{X}}}}_{t-1|t-1}^{(i)})-{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t|t-1}^x){^\top}$. In the Kalman filter, the transition function $f$ and the measurement function are linear and represented by the matrices ${{\ensuremath{\mathbf{F}}}}$ and ${{\ensuremath{\mathbf{G}}}}$, respectively. The EKF linearizes $f$ and $g$ resulting in the matrices $\tilde{{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{F}}}}}$ and $\tilde{{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{G}}}}}$, respectively. The UKF computes $2D+1$ sigma points ${{\ensuremath{\mathbf{X}}}}$ and uses their mappings through $f$ and $g$ to compute the desired moments, where $w_m$ and $w_c$ are the weights used for computing the mean and the covariance, respectively (see [@Thrun2005], pp. 65). The CKF computations are nearly equivalent to the UKF’s computations with slight modifications: First, the CKF only requires $2D$ cubature points ${{\ensuremath{\mathbf{X}}}}$. The cubature points are chosen as the intersection of a $D$-dimensional unit sphere with the coordinate system. Thus, the sums run from 1 to $2D$. Second, the weights $w_c=1/D=w_m$ are all equal [@Arasaratnam2009]. Although none of these algorithms computes the joint distributions ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$ and ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1},{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$ explicitly, they all do so implicitly. Using the means and covariances in Fig. \[tab:joint\] in the filtering and smoothing Eqs. (\[eq:proposition filter mean\]), (\[eq:proposition filter covariance\]), (\[eq:proposition mean smoother\]), and (\[eq:proposition cov smoother\]), the results from the original papers [@Kalman1960; @Rauch1965; @Maybeck1979; @Julier2004; @Sarkka2008; @Arasaratnam2009] are recovered. To the best of our knowledge, Tab. \[tab:joint\] is the first presentation of the CKS. Gibbs-Filter and Gibbs-RTS Smoother {#sec:gibbs filter} ----------------------------------- We now derive a Gaussian filter and RTS smoother based on Gibbs sampling [@Geman1984]. Gibbs sampling is an example of a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm and often used to infer the parameters of the distribution of a given data set. In the context of filtering and RTS smoothing, we use Gibbs sampling for inferring the mean and the covariance of the distributions ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1},{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$ and ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$, respectively, which is sufficient for Gaussian filtering and RTS smoothing, see Sec. \[sec:implications\]. **init:** ${{p}}(x_0),{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{Q}}}},{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{R}}}},f ,g$ infer moments of ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1},{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$ infer moments of ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$ measure ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t$ compute ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t|t}^x,{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t|t}^x,{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}}_{t-1}$ compute ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{t-1|T}^x,{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{t-1|T}^x$ Alg. \[alg:gibbs-rtss\] details the high-level steps of the Gibbs-RTSS. \[fig:gibbs filter\] At each time step, we use Gibbs sampling to infer the moments of the joint distributions ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1},{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$ and ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$. Fig. \[fig:gibbs filter\] shows the graphical model for inferring the mean ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}$ and the covariance ${{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}$ from the joint data set ${{\ensuremath{\mathbf{X}}}}$ using Gibbs sampling. The parameters of the conjugate priors on the mean ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}$ and the covariance ${{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}$ are denoted by ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{m}}}},{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{S}}}}$ and ${{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Psi}}}},\nu$, respectively. To infer the moments of the joint ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1},{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$, we first generate i.i.d. samples from the filter distribution ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1}|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$ and map them through the transition function $f$. The samples and their mappings serve as samples ${{\ensuremath{\mathbf{X}}}}$ from the joint distribution ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1},{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$. With a conjugate Gaussian prior ${\mathcal{N}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}\,|\,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{m}}}},{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{S}}}})}$ on the joint mean, and a conjugate inverse Wishart prior distribution $\mathcal{IW}({{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}|{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Psi}}}},\nu)$ on the joint covariance matrix, we infer the posterior distributions on ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}$ and ${{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}$. By sampling from these posterior distributions, we obtain unbiased estimates of the desired mean and the covariance of the joint ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1},{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$ as the sample average (after a burn in). To infer the mean and the covariance of the joint ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$, we proceed similarly: We generate i.i.d. samples from the distribution ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$, which are subsequently mapped through the measurement function. The combined data set of i.i.d. samples and their mappings define the joint data set ${{\ensuremath{\mathbf{X}}}}$. Again, we choose a conjugate Gaussian prior on the mean vector and a conjugate inverse Wishart prior on the covariance matrix of the joint ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$. Using Gibbs sampling, we sample means and covariances from the posteriors and obtain unbiased estimates for the mean and the covariance of the joint ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$. Alg. \[alg:Gibbs\] outlines the steps for computing the joint distribution ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$. pass in marginal distribution ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t}|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$, burn-in period $B$, number $L$ of Gibbs iterations, size $N$ of data set init. conjugate priors on joint mean and covariance ${\mathcal{N}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{x,{z}}\,|\,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{m}}}},{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{S}}}})}$ and $\mathcal{IW}({{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{x,{z}}|{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Psi}}}},\nu)$ ${{\ensuremath{\mathbf{X}}}}\coloneqq [{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t}{^{(i)}}, g({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t}{^{(i)}})+{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{v}}}}_t{^{(i)}}]_{i=1}^N$ generate joint data set sample ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_1\sim{\mathcal{N}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{m}}}},{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{S}}}})}$ sample ${{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_1\sim\mathcal IW({{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Psi}}}},\nu)$ update ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{m}}}}|{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{X}}}},{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_j,{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_j$ posterior parameter (mean) of ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_j)$ update ${{\ensuremath{\mathbf{S}}}}|{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{X}}}},{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_j,{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_j$ posterior parameter (covariance) of ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_j)$ sample ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{j+1}\sim{\mathcal{N}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{m}}}},{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{S}}}})}$ sample mean of the joint update ${{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Psi}}}}|{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{X}}}},{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{j+1},{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_j$ posterior hyper-parameter (scale matrix) of ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{j})$ update $\nu |{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{X}}}},{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{j+1},{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{j}$ posterior hyper-parameter (degrees of freedom) of ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{j})$ sample ${{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{j+1}\sim\mathcal{IW}({{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Psi}}}},\nu)$ sample covariance of the joint ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{x,{z}}\coloneqq {\mathds{E}}[{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{B+1:L}]$ ${{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{x,{z}}\coloneqq {\mathds{E}}[{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{B+1:L}]$ unbiased estimate of the covariance of the joint distribution ${{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mu}}}}_{x,{z}},{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\Sigma}}}}_{x,{z}}$ Since the chosen priors for the mean and the covariance are conjugate priors, all updates of the posterior hyper-parameters can be computed analytically [@Gilks1996]. The moments of ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1},{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$, which are required for smoothing, are computed similarly by exchanging the pass-in distributions and the mapping function. Numerical Evaluation {#sec:numerical evaluation} ==================== As a proof of concept, we show that the Gibbs-RTSS proposed in Sec. \[sec:gibbs filter\] performs well in linear and nonlinear systems. As performance measures, we consider the expected root mean square error (RMSE) and the expected negative log-likelihood (NLL) per data point in the trajectory. For a single trajectory, the NLL is given by $$\begin{aligned} \text{NLL} &= -\frac{1}{T+1}\sum_{t=0}^T \log \mathcal N(x_t^{\text{truth}}|\mu_{t|\tau}^x,(\sigma_{t|\tau}^x)^2)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau=t$ for filtering and $\tau=T$ for smoothing. While the RMSE solely penalizes the distance of the true state and the mean of the filtering/smoothing distribution, the NLL measures the coherence of the filtering/smoothing distributions, i.e., the NLL values are high if $x_t^{\text{truth}}$ is an unlikely observation under ${{p}}(x_t|\mu_{t|\tau}^x,(\sigma_{t|\tau}^x)^2)$, $\tau\in\{t,T\}$. In our experiments, we chose a time horizon $T=50$. Proof of Concept: Linear System ------------------------------- First, we tested the performance of the Gibbs-filter/RTSS in the linear system $$\begin{aligned} x_{t} &= x_{t-1} + w_t\\ z_t &= -2\,x_t + v_t\,, \end{aligned}$$ where $w_t\sim\mathcal N(0,1), v_t\sim\mathcal N(0,10), p(x_0) = \mathcal N(0,5)$. In a linear system, the (E)KF is optimal and unbiased [@Anderson2005]. The Gibbs-filter/RTSS perform as well as the EKF/EKS as shown in Fig. \[tab:results linear\], which shows the expected performances (with the corresponding standard errors) of the filters/smoothers over 100 independent runs, where $x_0\sim{{p}}(x_0)$. The Gibbs-sampler parameters were set to $(N,L,B)=(1000,200,100)$, Alg. \[alg:Gibbs\]. Nonlinear System: Non-stationary Growth Model --------------------------------------------- As a nonlinear example, we consider the dynamic system $$\begin{aligned} x_t &= \tfrac{x_{t-1}}{2} + \tfrac{25x_{t-1}}{1+x_{t-1}^2} + 8\cos(1.2\,(t-1)) + w_t\,, \label{eq:nonlinear system}\\ z_t & = \tfrac{x_t^2}{20} + v_t\label{eq:nonlinear meas}\,,\end{aligned}$$ with exactly the same setup as in [@Doucet2000]: $w_t\sim\mathcal N(0,1)$, $v_t\sim\mathcal N(0,10)$, and $p(x_0) = \mathcal N(x_0|0,5)$. This system is challenging for Gaussian filters due to its quadratic measurement equation and its highly nonlinear system equation. We run the Gibbs-RTSS, the EKS, the CKS, and the URTSS [@Sarkka2008] for comparison. We chose the Gibbs parameters $(N,L,B)=(1000,200,100)$. For 100 independent runs starting from $x_0\sim{{p}}(x_0)$, we report the expected RMSE and NLL performance measures in Fig. \[tab:results nonlinear\]. Both high expected NLL-values and the fact that smoothing makes them even higher hint at the incoherencies of the EKF/EKS, the CKF/CKS, and the UKF/URTSS. The Gibbs-RTSS was the only considered smoother that consistently improved the results of the filtering step. Therefore, we conclude that the Gibbs-filter/RTSS is coherent. Fig. \[fig:results\] shows example realizations of filtering and smoothing using the Gibbs-filter/RTSS, the EKF/EKS, the CKF/CKS, and the UKF/URTSS, respectively. The Gibbs-filter/RTSS appropriately inferred the variances of the latent state while the other filters/smoothers did not (neither of them is moment-preserving), which can lead to incoherent filtering/smoothing distributions [@Deisenroth2010b], see also Fig. \[tab:results nonlinear\]. Discussion {#sec:discussion} ========== Our Gibbs-filter/RTSS differs from [@Carter1994], where Gibbs sampling is used to infer the noise in a linear system. Instead, we infer the means and covariances of the full joint distributions ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1},{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$ and ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$ in nonlinear systems from data. Neither the Gibbs-filter nor the Gibbs-RTSS require to know the noise matrices ${{\ensuremath{\mathbf{R}}}},{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{Q}}}}$, but they can be inferred as a part of the joint distributions if access to the dynamic system is given. Unlike the Gaussian particle filter [@Kotecha2003], the proposed Gibbs-filter is not a particle filter. Therefore, it does not suffer from degeneracy due to importance sampling. Although the Gibbs-filter is computationally more involved than the EKF/UKF/CKF, it can be used as a baseline method to evaluate the accuracy and coherence of more efficient algorithms: When using sufficiently many samples the Gibbs-filter can be considered a close approximation to a moment-preserving filter in nonlinear stochastic systems. The sampling approach to inferring the means and covariances of two joint distributions proposed in this paper can be extended to infer the means and covariances of a single joint, namely, ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1},{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$. This would increase the dimensionality of the parameters to be inferred, but it would remove slight inconsistencies that appear in the present approach: Ideally, the marginals ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$, i.e., the time update, which can be obtained from both joints ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1},{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$ and ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$ are identical. Due to the finite number of samples, small errors are introduced. In our experiments, they were small, i.e., the relative difference error was smaller than $10^{-5}$. Using the joint ${{p}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_{t-1},{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{x}}}}_t,{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_t|{{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{{z}}}}}_{1:t-1})$ would avoid this kind of error. The Gibbs-filter/RTSS only need to be able to evaluation the system and measurement functions. No further requirements such as differentiability are needed. A similar procedure for MCMC-based smoothing is applicable when, instead of Gibbs sampling, slice sampling [@Neal2003] or elliptical slice sampling [@Murray2010] is used, potentially combined with GPs that model the functions $f$ and $g$. The Gibbs-RTSS code is publicly available at [mloss.org](mloss.org). In the context of Gaussian process dynamic systems, the GP-EKF, the GP-UKF [@Ko2009], and the GP-ADF [@Deisenroth2009a] can directly be extended to smoothers using the results from this paper. The GP-URTSS (smoothing extension of the GP-UKF) and the GP-RTSS (smoothing extension of the GP-ADF) are presented in [@Deisenroth2010b]. Conclusion {#sec:conclusion} ========== Using a general probabilistic perspective on Gaussian filtering and smoothing, we first showed that it is sufficient to determine Gaussian approximations to two joint probability distributions to perform Gaussian filtering and smoothing. Computational approaches to Gaussian filtering and Rauch-Tung-Striebel smoothing can be distinguished by their respective methods used to determining two joint distributions. Second, our results allow for a straightforward derivation and implementation of novel Gaussian filtering and smoothing algorithms, e.g., the cubature Kalman smoother. Additionally, we presented a filtering smoothing algorithm based on Gibbs sampling as an example. Our experimental results show that the proposed Gibbs-filter/Gibbs-RTSS compares well with state-of-the-art Gaussian filters and RTS smoothers in terms of robustness and accuracy. Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ---------------- The authors thank S. Mohamed, P. Orbanz, M. Krainin, and D. Fox for valuable suggestions and discussions. MPD has been supported by ONR MURI grant N00014-09-1-1052 and by Intel Labs. HO has been partially supported by the Swedish foundation for strategic research in the center MOVIII and by the Swedish Research Council in the Linnaeus center CADICS. [^1]: This paper is an extended version of the conference paper [@Deisenroth2011].

ArXiv

--- abstract: | The aim of this note is to prove a result of effective stability for a non-autonomous perturbation of an integrable Hamiltonian system, provided that the perturbation depends slowly on time. Then we use this result to clarify and extend a stability result of Giorgilli and Zehnder for a mechanical system with an arbitrary time-dependent potential. [*To cite this article:* ]{} 0.5 [**Résumé**]{} 0.5[**Stabilité effective pour des Hamiltoniens presque intégrables lentement non-autonomes et application.** ]{} Le but de cette note est de démontrer un résultat de stabilité effective pour une perturbation non-autonome d’un système hamiltonien intégrable, sous la condition que la perturbation dépende lentement du temps. Nous utilisons ensuite ce résultat pour clarifier et généraliser un résultat de stabilité de Giorgilli et Zehnder pour des systèmes mécaniques dont le potentiel dépend arbitrairement du temps. [*Pour citer cet article :* ]{} address: 'Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques, 35 route de Chartres 91440 Bures-sur-Yvette ([email protected])' author: - Abed Bounemoura title: 'Effective stability for slow time-dependent near-integrable Hamiltonians and application' --- , [Received \*\*\*\*\*; accepted after revision +++++\ Presented by £££££]{} Introduction {#s1} ============ Let $n \in \N$, $n \geq 2$, $\T^n=\R^n / \Z^n$ and consider the Hamiltonian system defined by $H : \T^n \times \R^n \times \R \rightarrow \R$, $$\label{H} H(\theta,I,t)=h(I)+\varepsilon f(\theta,I,t), \quad (\theta,I,t)=(\theta_1,\dots,\theta_n,I_1,\dots,I_n,t)\in \T^n \times \R^n \times \R, \quad \varepsilon>0.$$ Nekhoroshev proved ([@1]) that whenever $h$ is steep (see §\[s2\] for a definition), $f(\theta,I,t)=f(\theta,I)$ is time-independent and $H$ is real-analytic, there exist positive constants $\varepsilon_0,c_1,c_2,c_3,a,b$ such that for $\varepsilon \leq \varepsilon_0$, for all solutions $(\theta(t),I(t))$ we have the following stability estimates $$\label{estim} |I(t)-I(0)|=\max_{1 \leq i \leq n}|I_i(t)-I_i(0)| \leq c_1\varepsilon^b, \quad |t|\leq c_2\exp(c_3\varepsilon^{-a}).$$ In the particular case where $h$ is (strictly uniformly) convex or quasi-convex, following a work of Lochak ([@4]) it was proved ([@2],[@3]), using preservation of energy arguments, that one can choose $a=b=(2n)^{-1}$ in (\[estim\]), and that these values are close to optimal. In the general steep case, however, there are still no realistic values for these stability exponents $a$ and $b$. The purpose of this note is to discuss to which extent stability estimates similar to (\[estim\]) hold true if the perturbation is allowed to depend on time. Assume first that $f$ depends periodically on time, that is $f(\theta,I,t)=f(\theta,I,t+1)$ in (\[H\]). Removing the time-dependence by adding an extra degree of freedom, the Hamiltonian is equivalent to $$\tilde{H}(\theta,\varphi,I,J)=\tilde{h}(I,J)+\varepsilon f(\theta,\varphi,I), \quad (\theta,\varphi=t,I,J)\in \T^{n}\times\T \times \R^{n} \times \R, \quad \tilde{h}(I,J)=h(I)+J.$$ It turns out that if $h$ is convex, then $\tilde{h}$ is quasi-convex and so (\[estim\]) holds true with $a=b=(2(n+1))^{-1}$. In general, it is possible for $\tilde{h}$ to be steep in which case (\[estim\]) is satisfied, but it is not clear how to formulate a condition on $h$ (and not on $\tilde{h}$) to ensure that (\[estim\]) holds true. Now assume that $f$ depends quasi-periodically on time, that is $f(\theta,I,t)=f(\theta,I,t\omega)$ in (\[H\]) for some vector $\omega \in \R^m$ which we can assume to be non resonant ($k\cdot\omega \neq 0$ for any non-zero $k\in\Z^m$) and $f : \T^n \times \R^n \times \T^m \rightarrow \R$. As before, the time-dependence can be removed by adding $m$ degrees of freedom and we are led to consider $\tilde{H}(\theta,\varphi,I,J)=\tilde{h}(I,J)+\varepsilon f(\theta,\varphi,I)$ but this time $$(\theta,\varphi=t\omega,I,J)\in \T^{n} \times \T^m \times \R^{n}\times \R^{m}, \quad \tilde{h}(I,J)=h(I)+\omega\cdot J.$$ It was conjectured by Chirikov ([@5]), and then again by Lochak ([@6]), that if $h$ is convex and $\omega$ satisfies a Diophantine condition of exponent $\tau\geq m-1$ (there exists a constant $\gamma>0$ such that $|k.\omega|\geq \gamma|k|^{-\tau}$ for any non-zero $k\in\Z^m$), then the estimates (\[estim\]) hold true and moreover we can choose $a=b=(2(n+1+\tau))^{-1}$. If $m=1$, then $\tau=0$ and we are in the periodic case so the conjecture is true. However, if $m>1$, $\tilde{h}$ cannot be steep and the problem is still completely open. Even though the conjecture is sometimes considered as granted (for instance in [@7]), there is still no proof. Needless to say that the situation in the general case (without the convexity assumption on $h$) is even more complicated. In a different direction, Giorgilli and Zehnder ([@8]) considered the following time-dependent Hamiltonian $$G(\theta,I,t)=h_2(I)+V(\theta,t), \quad (\theta,I,t)\in \T^{n} \times \R^{n} \times \R, \quad h_2(I)=I_1^2+\cdots+I_n^2,$$ and proved the following Nekhoroshev type result: if $G$ is real-analytic and $V$ is uniformly bounded, then for $R$ sufficiently large, if $I_0$ belongs to the ball $B_R$ of radius $R$ centered at the origin, then $I(t) \in B_{2R}$ for $|t|\leq c_2\exp(c_3 R^{d})$ for some positive constants $c_2,c_3$ and $d$. Even though such a system is clearly not of the form (\[H\]), the fact that no restriction on the time-dependence is imposed in their result has lead to several confusions. In [@8], the authors themselves assert that “extra work is needed because the time-dependence is not assumed to be periodic or quasi-periodic". Even more surprising, one can read (in [@9] for instance) that this result implies that the estimates (\[estim\]) hold true for (\[H\]) without any restriction on the time-dependence. Concerning the latter assertion, it is simply wrong and it seems very unlikely to have non trivial stability estimates for (\[H\]) with an arbitrary time-dependence. As for the former assertion, it is not difficult to see that the system considered in [@8] can be given the form (\[H\]), with a perturbation depending slowly on time, in their example $f(\theta,I,t)=f(\theta,I,\varepsilon^{1/2}t)$. We will show in §\[s2\] that for such Hamiltonian systems depending slowly on time, essentially classical techniques can be used to prove that (\[estim\]) hold true, and that the non-periodicity or non-quasi-periodicity of time plays absolutely no role (as a matter of fact, we already explained that for a periodic or quasi-periodic time dependence which is not slow, basic questions are still open). Then, in §\[s3\], we will use this result to derive, in a simpler way, a more general statement than the one contained in [@8]. A stability result {#s2} ================== For a given $\rho>0$, a function $h \in C^2(B_\rho)$ is said to be steep if for any $k \in \{1, \dots, n\}$, there exist positive constants $p_k,C_k,\delta_k$ such that for any affine subspace $\lambda_k$ of dimension $k$ intersecting $B_\rho$, and any continuous curve $\gamma : [0,1] \rightarrow \lambda_k \cap B$ with $|\gamma(0)-\gamma(1)|=\delta<\delta_k$, there exists $t_*\in [0,1]$ such that $|\gamma (t)-\gamma (0)|< \delta$ for all $t\in [0,t_*]$ and $|\Pi_{\Lambda_k}(\nabla h(\gamma (t_*)))| > C_k \delta^{p_k}$, where $\Pi_{\Lambda_k}$ is the projection onto $\Lambda_k$, the direction of $\lambda_k$. Then, given $r,s>0$, let us define the complex domain $$\mathcal{D}_{r,s}=\{(\theta,I,t)\in(\C^n/\Z^n)\times \C^{n} \times \C \; | \; |(\mathrm{Im}(\theta_1),\dots,\mathrm{Im}(\theta_n))|<s, \; |\mathrm{Im}(t)|<s,\; d(I,B_\rho)< r\},$$ and for a fixed constant $1/2 \leq c \leq 1$, we consider $H(\theta,I,t)=h(I)+\varepsilon f(\theta,I,\varepsilon^ct)$ defined on $\mathcal{D}_{r,s}$ and real-analytic (that is $H$ is analytic and real-valued for real arguments). Finally, we assume that there exists a positive constant $M$ such that the operator norm $|\nabla^2 h(I)|\leq M$ for any $I\in B_\delta$, and that $|f(\theta,I,t)|\leq 1$ for any $(\theta,I,t) \in \mathcal{D}_{r,s}$. \[th1\] Under the previous assumptions, there exist positive constants $\varepsilon_0,c_1,c_2,c_3,$ that depend on $n,\rho,p_k,C_k,\delta_k,r,s,M$, and positive constants $a,b$ that depend only on $n,p_k$, such that if $\varepsilon \leq \varepsilon_0$, for all solutions $(\theta(t),I(t))$ of the Hamiltonian system defined by $H$, if $I(0)\in B_{\rho/2}$, then $|I(t)-I(0)| \leq c_1\varepsilon^b$ for all $|t|\leq c_2\exp(c_3\varepsilon^{-a})$. Let us explain the proof, which follows from the arguments exposed in [@10] or [@11], up to some technical points we shall detail now. First we remove the time-dependence: we let $x=\varepsilon^ct$ and we introduce a variable $y$ canonically conjugated to $x$, so that the Hamiltonian is equivalent to $$\label{HamD} \tilde{H}(\theta,I,x,y)=h(I)+\varepsilon^c y +\varepsilon f(\theta,I,x)=h(I)+\tilde{f}(\theta,I,x,y), \quad (\theta,I,x,y) \in \tilde{\mathcal{D}}_{r,s},$$ where $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_{r,s}=\mathcal{D}_{r,s} \times\{y \in \C \; | \; |\mathrm{Im}(y)|<s \}$. The fact that the dependence on time is slow allows us to keep the integrable part fixed when removing the time-dependence, as one can consider that the extra degree of freedom only affects the perturbation. The new perturbation $\tilde{f}$ depends on parameters or “degenerate" variables $x$ and $y$ (degenerate since they are not present in the integrable part), and such systems were already considered by Nekhoroshev ([@1]). However, a difficulty arise: for subsequent arguments, it is important for the (real part of the) variable $y$ to be unbounded, which is indeed the case by our definition of $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_{r,s}$; but on this extended domain $\tilde{f}$ is unbounded and this implies that $\tilde{H}$ in (\[HamD\]) is not a perturbation of $h$. Yet the Hamiltonian vector field $X_{\tilde{H}}$ can be considered as a perturbation of $X_{h}$, as $X_{\tilde{f}}=(\partial_{I}\tilde{f},-\partial_{\theta}\tilde{f},\partial_{y}\tilde{f},-\partial_{x}\tilde{f})=(\varepsilon \partial_{I}f,-\varepsilon \partial_{\theta}f,\varepsilon^c,-\partial_{t}f)$, and so $X_{\tilde{f}}$ is bounded (by a Cauchy estimate) on the domain $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_{r/2,s/2}$ for instance. As a consequence, even when $h$ is convex one cannot use preservation of energy arguments as it is the case in [@2], [@3], [@4], and in general one has use a perturbation theory that deals only with vector fields: the proofs in [@10] and [@11] accommodate both requirements. Now the analytic part of [@10] and [@11] goes exactly the same way for (\[HamD\]) by simply considering $x$ and $y$ as “dummy" variables: given an integer parameter $m\geq 1$ which will be determined by the geometric part in terms of $\varepsilon$, on suitable domains resonant normal forms with a remainder of size bounded by a constant times $\varepsilon^ce^{-m}$ are constructed (note that the size of the perturbation $X_{\tilde{f}}$ is of order $\varepsilon^c$ and $c\leq 1$, but its “effective" size is of order $\varepsilon$ and so $m$ will be determined in terms of $\varepsilon$ and not $\varepsilon^c$; $\varepsilon^c$ just enters the pre-factor in the exponential and will not alter the radius of confinement $\varepsilon^b$ as we always have $b\leq 1/2$ whereas $c\geq 1/2$.). The geometric part of [@10] and [@11] also goes exactly the same way since the time of escape (of the domain) of the degenerate variables $x$ and $y$ is infinite (as the domain is unbounded in these directions), $m$ is eventually chosen proportional to $\varepsilon^{-a}$, the radius of confinement is chosen proportional to $\varepsilon^b$ and the stability time is bounded by a constant times $e^{-m}$. Now let us add two remarks on the statement of Theorem \[th1\]. First, the exponents $a$ and $b$ are the same as in (\[estim\]) when the perturbation is time-independent. It is reasonable to expect that if $h$ is convex, then $a=b=(2n)^{-1}$ in Theorem \[th1\], but we already explained that we cannot use preservation of energy arguments and so we cannot reach these values: the problem actually reduces to the problem of finding realistic values of $a$ and $b$ in the general steep case, which is still open. Then, using [@10] and [@11], the statement of Theorem \[th1\] can be generalized in two ways: using [@10] the statement holds true for the much wider class of Diophantine steep functions introduced by Niederman (which is a prevalent class of functions), using [@11] the statement holds true for $\alpha$-Gevrey Hamiltonians for $\alpha\geq 1$ (with $\exp(c_3\varepsilon^{-a})$ replaced by $\exp(c_3\varepsilon^{-\alpha^{-1}a})$, recall that $1$-Gevrey is real-analytic) and for $C^k$ Hamiltonians, $k\geq n+1$ (with $\exp(c_3\varepsilon^{-a})$ replaced by $c_3\varepsilon^{-k^*a}$, with $k^*$ the largest integer $l\geq 1$ such that $k\geq ln+1$). An application {#s3} ============== Now we come back to the problem studied in [@8], and more generally we consider, for an integer $p\geq 2$, $$G(\theta,I,t)=h_p(I)+V(\theta,t), \quad (\theta,I,t)\in \T^{n} \times \R^{n} \times \R, \quad h_p(I)=I_1^p+\cdots+I_n^p.$$ The case $p=2$ corresponds to [@8] and $h_2$ is convex, for $p\geq 3$ the function $h_p$ is not convex but it is steep with $p_k=p-1$ and $C_k=\delta_k=1$ for all $1 \leq k \leq n$. The function $V$ is assumed to be real-analytic, defined on $\mathcal{D}_{s}=\{(\theta,t)\in(\C^n/\Z^n)\times \C \; | \; |(\mathrm{Im}(\theta_1),\dots,\mathrm{Im}(\theta_n)|<s, \; |\mathrm{Im}(t)|<s\}$, and it is assumed that $|V(\theta,t)|\leq 1$ for all $(\theta,t)\in \mathcal{D}_{s}$. \[th2\] Under the previous assumptions, there exist positive constants $R_0,c_1,c_2,c_3$ that depend on $n,p,s$, and positive constants $a',b'$ that depend only on $n,p$, such that if $R\geq R_0$, for all solutions $(\theta(t),I(t))$ of the Hamiltonian system defined by $G$, if $I(0)\in B_{R}$, then $|I(t)-I(0)| \leq c_1R^{1-b'}$ for all $|t|\leq c_2R^{1-p}\exp(c_3R^{a'})$. The proof is a direct application of Theorem \[th1\]. Indeed, for $R>0$ consider the scalings $$I=RI', \quad \theta=\theta', \quad G=R^p G', \quad t=R^{1-p}t'.$$ Then the Hamiltonian $G(\theta,I,t)$, for $(\theta,I,t) \in \mathcal{D}_{s} \times B_{2R}$, is equivalent to the Hamiltonian $G'(\theta',I',t')$, for $(\theta',I',t') \in \mathcal{D}_{s} \times B_{2}$, where $G'(\theta',I',t')=h_p(I')+R^{-p} V(\theta',R^{1-p}t')$. Hence we can apply Theorem \[th1\] to the Hamiltonian $G'$, with $\varepsilon=R^{-p}$, $c=(p-1)p^{-1}$, $\rho=2$ and $M$ which depends only on $p$: there exist positive constants $\varepsilon_0,c_1,c_2,c_3,$ that depend on $n,p,s$, and positive constants $a,b$ that depend only on $n,p$, such that if $\varepsilon \leq \varepsilon_0$, for all solutions $(\theta'(t'),I'(t'))$ of the Hamiltonian system defined by $G'$, if $I'(0)\in B_{1}$, then $|I'(t')-I'(0)| \leq c_1\varepsilon^b$ for all $|t'|\leq c_2\exp(c_3\varepsilon^{-a})$. Recalling that $\varepsilon=R^{-p}$, this means that if $R \geq R_0=\varepsilon_0^{-p^{-1}}$, for all $I'(0)\in B_{1}$ we have $|I'(t')-I'(0)| \leq c_1R^{-b'}$ for all $|t'|\leq c_2\exp(c_3R^{a'})$ for $b'=pb$ and $a'=pa$. Now scaling back to the original variables, for all $I(0)\in B_{R}$, we have $|I(t)-I(0)| \leq c_1R^{1-b'}$ for all $|t|\leq c_2R^{1-p}\exp(c_3R^{a'})$. Now let us add some comments on the statement of Theorem \[th2\]. The estimate $|I(t)-I(0)| \leq c_1R^{1-b'}$ is stronger than $|I(t)-I(0)| \leq R$ (as in the argument above, the estimate $|I'(t')-I'(0)| \leq c_1\varepsilon^b$ is stronger than $|I'(t')-I'(0)| \leq 1$) and hence it is stronger than $I(t)\in B_{2R}$ if $I(0)\in B_R$. Moreover, we have $|t|\leq c_2\exp(c_3'R^{a'}) \leq c_2R^{1-p}\exp(c_3R^{a'})$ by restricting $c_3$ to a smaller value $c_3'$ and enlarging $R_0$ if necessary. So even for the convex case $p=2$ our statement is more accurate than the statement in [@8]. In fact, for $p=2$, we already explained that we believe we can choose $a=b=(2n)^{-1}$, in which case the statement of Theorem \[th2\] would read $|I(t)-I(0)| \leq c_1R^{1-n^{-1}}$ for all $|t|\leq c_2R^{-1}\exp\left(c_3R^{n^{-1}}\right)$, which would be in perfect agreement with the much simpler autonomous case $V(\theta,t)=V(\theta)$ described in [@3]. [00]{} N.N. Nekhoroshev, “An exponential estimate of the time of stability of nearly integrable Hamiltonian systems”, [*Russian Math. Surveys*]{} [**32**]{}, (1977), no 6, 1-65. P. Lochak and A.I. Neishtadt, “Estimates of stability time for nearly integrable systems with a quasiconvex Hamiltonian”, [*Chaos*]{} [**2**]{}, (1992), no 4, 495-499. J. Pöschel, “Nekhoroshev estimates for quasi-convex Hamiltonian systems”, [*Math. Z.*]{} [**213**]{}, (1993), 187-216. P. Lochak, “Canonical perturbation theory via simultaneous approximation”, [*Russ. Math. Surv.*]{} [**47**]{}, (1992), no 6, 57-133. B.V. Chirikov, “A universal instability of many-dimensional oscillator systems”, [*Phys. Reports*]{} [**52**]{}, (1979), 263-379. P. Lochak and J.-P. Marco and D. Sauzin, “On the splitting of invariant manifolds in multidimensional near-integrable Hamiltonian systems”, [*Mem. Am. Math. Soc.*]{} [**775**]{}, (2003), 145pp. S. Kuksin and A.I. Neishtadt, “On quantum averaging, quantum KAM and quantum diffusion”, [*preprint*]{}, arXiv:1208.4819 (2012). A. Giorgilli and E. Zehnder, “Exponential stability for time dependent potentials”, [*Z. Angew. Math. Phys.*]{} [**43**]{}, (1992), no 5, 827–855. A. Morbidelli, “Bounds on diffusion in phase space: connection between Nekhoroshev and KAM theorems and superexponential stability of invariant tori”, [*Hamiltonian systems with three or more degrees of freedom*]{}, NATO Adv. Sci. Inst. Ser. C Math. Phys. Sci., Volume 533, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, (1999), 514-517. A. Bounemoura and L. Niederman, “Generic Nekhoroshev theory without small divisors”, [*Ann. Inst. Fourier*]{} [**62**]{}, (2012), no 1, 277-324. A. Bounemoura, “Effective stability for Gevrey and finitely differentiable prevalent Hamiltonians”, [*Comm. in Math. Phys.*]{} [**307**]{}, (2011), no 1, 157-183.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We calculate the dc Josephson current for two superconductor-ferromagnet (S/F) bilayers separated by a thin insulating film. It is demonstrated that the critical Josephson current $I_{c}$ in the junction strongly depends on the relative orientation of the effective exchange field $h$ of the bilayers. We found that in the case of an antiparallel orientation, $I_{c}$ increases at low temperatures with increasing $h$ and at zero temperature has a singularity when $h$ equals the superconducting gap $\Delta $. This striking behavior contrasts suppression of the critical current by the magnetic moments aligned in parallel and is an interesting new effect of the interplay between superconductors and ferromagnets. PACS: 74.80.Dm,74.50.+r, 75.70.Cn' address: | $^{(1)}$Theoretische Physik III,\ Ruhr-Universität Bochum, D-44780 Bochum, Germany\ $^{(2)}$Institute of Radioengineering and Electronics of the Russian Academy\ of Sciences, 103907 Moscow, Russia\ $^{(3)}$L.D. Landau Institute for Theoretical Physics, 117940 Moscow, Russia author: - 'F. S. Bergeret $^{1 }$, A. F. Volkov$^{1,2}$ and K. B. Efetov$^{1,3}$' title: 'Enhancement of the Josephson current by an exchange field in superconductor-ferromagnet structures ' --- The possibility of various applications and the appearance of new interesting physics makes the experimental and theoretical study of ferromagnetic and superconducting-ferromagnetic hybrid structures a popular topic. One of the properties that has attracted in the last years a lot of interest is a magnetoresistance due to the presence of the magnetic order [@baibich; @binasch; @garcia1; @garcia2]. In some structures the magnetoresistance can reach very large values. This effect has been termed “giant magnetoresistance” (GMR). First discovered in magnetic multilayers [@baibich; @binasch] where the typical values of MR were of order of $10\%$, the GMR effect can be as large as $200\%-300\%$ in $Ni-Ni$ or $Co-Co$ point contacts [@garcia1; @garcia2]. A typical device studied in such experiments consists of two separated ferromagnets. One measures the resistivity for different relative directions of the magnetization. The large values of the MR is due to an additional scattering of electrons at the boundary between adjacent layers (in the case of antiparallel orientation, an electron crossing this boundary goes from one sub-band to another and experiences a reflection from an effective potential related to the different positions of the sub-bands) If the normal metals of the reservoirs are replaced by superconductors, another mechanism causes differing resistances for the antiparallel and the parallel alignment of magnetization. This mechanism is due to Andreev reflection which occurs at the S/F interfaces, and which implies a zero spin current through them [@falko]. In the case of very thin magnetic layers separating the superconducting reservoirs, the resistance of the structure drops to zero and it becomes more appropriate to consider the supercurrent (or Josephson current). It was shown that if the exchange field $h$ in the magnetic layer exceeds a certain value, the state energetically more favorable corresponds not to a zero phase difference between the reservoirs (in the absence of an external current), but to a phase difference of $\varphi = \pi$ (the so-called $\pi$-junction)[@Buzdin]. The predicted $\pi$-state in a S/F/S Josephson junction apparently was observed by Ryazanov [*et al.*]{} [@Ryaz]. The critical current decreases with increasing exchange field $h$ in the magnetic layer, changes sign and decays to zero while undergoing some oscillations. The superconducting properties are not so strongly reduced if the magnetization (i.e. the exchange field $h$) is not homogeneous [@Bul1; @Berger]. In this Letter we demonstrate that, in contrast to the common knowledge, the exchange field can under certain conditions enhance the Josephson critical current in a S/F-I-S/F tunnel junction rather than reduce it (here I is an insulating layer). As a result, the critical current $I_c$ may considerably exceed the critical current of the Josephson junction in the absence of the exchange field. The conditions are quite simple: one needs low temperatures and the antiparallel alignment of the magnetization in the different parts of the superconductor. At the same time, if the magnetization in the bilayers are parallel the critical current is suppressed. This leads to a high sensitivity of the critical current to the mutual alignment of the magnetic moments and, hence, to a possibility of an experimental observation. To be specific we consider a system consisting of two superconductor-ferromagnet (S/F) bilayers (F here is a thin film) separated by a thin insulating layer (see Fig.\[Fig.1\]), i.e. the Josephson S/F-I-F/S junction. This system can be studied using quasiclassical equations [@Eilen; @LOvchQuas; @Usadel] complemented with the boundary conditions [@Zaitsev; @Kupr]. This approach allows one to describe the system completely and was used to get the main results of the present paper. However, the Josephson current and other thermodynamic quantities can be derived in a considerably simpler way if the thicknesses of the layers $d_{S}$ and $d_F$ in Fig.\[Fig.1\] are smaller than the superconducting coherence length $\xi_{S}\sim \sqrt{D/2\pi T_{c}}$ and the length of the condensate penetration into the ferromagnet $\xi_{F}\sim \sqrt{D/h}$, respectively. These conditions can be met experimentally. Although, generally speaking, solutions for the superconducting order parameter $\Delta $ of the quasiclassical equations depend on the coordinates, the assumption about the thickness allows one to write solutions that do not have this dependence. In this limit, the influence of the ferromagnetic layers on superconductivity is not local and is equivalent to inclusion of a homogeneous exchange field with a reduced value. Of course, the other physical quantities characterizing the superconductor should be modified, too. = 3.5cm Proceeding in this way, one comes to effective values of the superconducting order parameter $\Delta _{eff}$, of the coupling constant $\lambda _{eff}$, and of the magnetic moment $h_{eff}$ described by the following equations $$\Delta _{eff}/\Delta =\lambda _{eff}/\lambda =\nu _{s}d_{s}\left( \nu _{s}d_{s}+\nu _{f}d_{f}\right) ^{-1},$$ $$h_{eff}/h=\nu _{f}d_{f}\left( \nu _{s}d_{s}+\nu _{f}d_{f}\right) ^{-1} \label{a1}$$ where $\nu _{s}$ and $\nu _{f}$ are the densities of states in the superconductor and ferromagnet, respectively. Assuming that the exchange field acts only on spin of electrons (which implies that the magnetizations are parallel to the interface) one can write the Gor’kov equations for the S/F layers $$\left( i \varepsilon _{n}+\xi -{\bf \sigma h}\right) \hat{G}% _{\varepsilon }+\hat{\Delta}\hat{F}_{\varepsilon }^{+}=1$$ $$\left( -i\varepsilon _{n}+\xi -{\bf \sigma h}\right) \hat{F}_{\varepsilon }+% \hat{\Delta}\hat{G}_{\varepsilon }=0 \label{a2}$$ where ${\bf \sigma }$ are Pauli matrices and $\xi =\varepsilon \left( {\bf p}% \right) -\varepsilon _{F},$ $\varepsilon _{F}$ is the Fermi energy, $% \varepsilon \left( {\bf p}\right) $ is the spectrum, $\varepsilon _{n}=\left( 2n+1\right) \pi T$ are Matsubara frequencies, and $% G_{\varepsilon }$ and $F_{\varepsilon }$ are normal and anomalous Green functions. (We omit the subscript $eff$  in Eqs. (\[a2\]) and below). Eqs. (\[a2\]) should be complemented by the self-consistency equation $$\Delta=\lambda T\sum_{\varepsilon }{\rm Tr}\hat{f}_{\varepsilon } \label{a3}$$ where trace ${\rm Tr}$ should be taken over the spin variables and $$\hat{f}_{\varepsilon }=\frac{1}{\pi }\int \hat{F}_{\varepsilon }d\xi \label{a4}$$ Eqs. (\[a2\]-\[a4\]) may describe superconductors with a homogeneous exchange field as well. We neglect influence of the magnetic moments on the orbital electron motion, which is definitely legitimate for the thin ferromagnetic layers considered here. As soon as the S/F system is described by Eqs. (\[a2\]-\[a4\]) the Josephson current $I_J$ can be expressed in terms of $\hat{f}$ $$I_{J}=\left( 2\pi T/eR\right){\rm Tr}\sum_{n}\hat{f}(h_1)\hat{f}(h_2)\sin \varphi \label{a5}$$ where $R$ is the barrier resistance in the normal state. This formula can be easily obtained by using the standard tunneling Hamiltonian method or boundary conditions [@Zaitsev; @Kupr]. $h_1$ and $h_2$ are the exchange fields to the left and to the right of the junction. In the case of the conventional singlet superconducting pairing the matrix $% \hat{\Delta}$ has the form $\hat{\Delta}=i\sigma _{y}\Delta $. Solving Eqs. (\[a2\]) and using Eq. (\[a4\]) we find easily for the function $\hat{f}% _{\varepsilon }$$$\hat{f}_{\varepsilon }=\hat{\Delta}\left( \left( \varepsilon _{n}+i{\bf % \sigma h}\right) ^{2}+\Delta ^{2}\right) ^{-1/2} \label{a6}$$ With Eq. (\[a6\]) one can calculate the Josephson current $I_{J}$ for any direction of the magnetic moments ${\bf h}_{1}$ and ${\bf h}_{2}$. The most interesting are the cases of the parallel and antiparallel alignments of the magnetic moments. In the both cases computation of the current $I_{J}$ in Eq. (\[a5\]) is very simple and we obtain for the parallel configuration $$I_{J}^{\left( p\right) }\!\!=\frac{\Delta ^{2}\left( T\right) 4\pi T}{eR}\sum_{\varepsilon }\frac{\varepsilon _{n}^{2}+\Delta ^{2}\left( T,h\right) -h^{2}}{\left( \varepsilon _{n}^{2}+\Delta ^{2}\left( T,h\right) -h^{2}\right) ^{2}+4\varepsilon _{n}^{2}h^{2}}, \label{a7}$$ whereas the Josephson current $I^{\left( a\right) }$ for the antiparallel configuration takes the form $$I_{J}^{\left( a\right) }\!\!=\frac{\Delta ^{2}\left( T\right) 4 \pi T}{eR}\sum_{\varepsilon }\frac{1}{\sqrt{\left( \varepsilon _{n}^{2}+\Delta ^{2}\left( T,h\right) -h^{2}\right) ^{2}+4\varepsilon _{n}^{2}h^{2}}}. \label{a8}$$ In Eqs. (\[a7\], \[a8\]), $\Delta \left( T,h\right) $ is the superconducting gap which depends on both the temperature $T$ and the exchange field $h$ (for simplicity we assume that the moduli of the exchange field are equal to each other). The value of the superconducting order parameter $\Delta \left( T,h\right) $ is determined by Eqs. (\[a3\], \[a6\]) that can be reduced to the form $$1=\lambda \pi T\sum_{\varepsilon } \mathop{\rm Re} \frac{1}{\sqrt{\left( \varepsilon _{n}+ih\right) ^{2}+\Delta ^{2}\left( T,h\right) }}\, . \label{a9}$$ Eqs. (\[a7\]-\[a9\]) solve completely the problem of calculation of the Josephson energy and the critical current of the junction with the parallel and antiparallel alignment of the magnetic moments and all new interesting results of the present paper are described by these equations. It is clear without further calculations that the current $I_{c}^{\left( p\right) }$ of the parallel configuration is always smaller than the current $I_{c}^{\left( a\right) }$ corresponding to the antiparallel one. So, rotating experimentally the magnetic moment of one of the S/F bilayer one might considerably change the critical current. Although this phenomenon is interesting on its own, Eq. (\[a8\]) written for the antiparallel alignment describes at low temperatures a much more striking effect. In the limit $T\rightarrow 0$, the sums over the Matsubara frequencies can be replaced by integrals and one obtains [@Fulde; @LOv] $$\Delta \left( 0,h\right) =\left\{ \begin{array}{cc} \Delta _{0}, & h<\Delta _{0} \\ 0, & h>\Delta _{0} \end{array} \right. \label{a11}$$ where $\Delta _{0}$ is the BCS superconducting gap at $T=0$ in the absence of the exchange field. There is another solution for $\Delta (h)<\Delta_0$ in the interval $1/2<h<1$ [@LOv; @Fulde], but this solution is unstable. Inserting Eq. (\[a11\]) in Eq. (\[a8\]) one can see that the Josephson critical current $I_{c}^{\left(a\right) }$ grows with increasing exchange field and even formally logarithmically diverges when $h\rightarrow \Delta _{0}$$$I_{c}^{\left( a\right) }\left( h\rightarrow \Delta _{0}\right) \simeq \frac{I_{c}\left( 0\right)}{\pi} \ln \left( \Delta _{0}/\omega _{0}\right)\, , \label{a12}$$ where $I_{c}\left( 0\right) $ is the critical current in the absence of the magnetic moment at $T=0$, and $\omega _{0}$ is a cutoff at low energies. At finite temperatures $\omega _{0}\sim T$ but, in principle, it should remain finite also at $T=0$. The formal divergence seen in Eq. (\[a8\]) can apparently be removed by considering any damping in the excitation spectrum of the superconductors or higher orders in expansion in the tunneling rate. The enhancement of the Josephson current by the presence of ordered magnetic moments in superconductors, Eq. (\[a12\]), is the main result of our paper and is, to the best of our knowledge a novel effect. It occurs if the magnetic moments are aligned [*antiparallel*]{}. In contrast, at finite temperature the Josephson critical current for a [*parallel*]{} alignment of the magnetic moments are always smaller than the corresponding values without the magnetic moments. At $T=0,$ the calculation of the integral over the frequencies in Eq. (\[a7\]) shows that $I_{c}^{(p)}$ does not depend on $h$, coinciding with $I_{c}(0)$. In principle, the dependence of the critical currents on the exchange field can be more complicated due to a possibility of a transition to the nonhomogeneous LOFF phase predicted by Larkin and Ovchinnikov (LO) [@LOv] and Fulde and Ferrell [@Fulde] for the region $0.755\Delta _{0}<h<\Delta _{0}$. Nevertheless, Eqs. (\[a7\]-\[a12\]) are applicable for $ h<0.755\Delta _{0}$, and a possible transition to the LOFF state would manifest itself in a drop of the critical current. Even for $h>0.755\Delta_{0}$ the predicted effect may survive because the state with homogeneous $\Delta$ may exist as a metastable one. The enhancement of the Josephson current occurs only at sufficiently low temperatures. Near the transition temperature $T_{c\text{ }}$ and for small $h$ one obtains $$I_{c}^{\left( a\right) }=\pi \left( eR \right)^{-1}\left( \Delta ^{2}/h \right)\tanh \left(h/2T_{c}\right)\;,$$ $$I_{c}^{\left( p\right) }=\left( \pi /2\right)\left ( eR\right)^{-1}\left(\Delta^{2} /T_{c}\right)\cosh ^{-2}\left ( h/2T_{c}\right)\; ,$$ $$I_{c}^{\left( a\right) }/I_{c}^{\left( p\right) }=\left( T_{c}/h\right)\sinh \left( h/T_{c}\right)\, , \label{a14}$$ where $\Delta=\Delta(T,h)$ is determined from Eq. (\[a9\]). The dependence of $T_c$ on $h$ is presented in Ref. [@sarma]. At arbitrary temperatures the dependence of the critical currents on the exchange field $h$ can be obtained from Eqs. (\[a7\]-\[a9\]) only numerically. The results are represented in Fig.\[Fig.2\] for the antiparallel configuration and in Fig.\[Fig.3\] for the parallel one. = 5.5cm = 5cm If the angle $\alpha$ between the directions of the magnetization is arbitrary the critical current $I_{c}^{\alpha }$ can be written in the form $$I_{c}^{\alpha }=I_{c}^{\left( p\right) }\cos ^{2}\left( \alpha /2\right) +I_{c}^{\left( a\right) }\sin ^{2}\left( \alpha /2\right)\, . \label{a15}$$ Eq. (\[a15\]) shows that the singular part of the critical current is always present and its contribution may reach $100\%$ at $\alpha =\pi$. All the conclusions presented above valid also for two magnetic superconductors with uniformly oriented magnetization in each layer. Eqs. (\[a7\]-\[a8\]) could be obtained from formulae written in Ref. [@kulic] for magnetic superconductors with a spiral structure. However, the effects found in our work were not discussed in Ref. [@kulic]. Experimentally, it might be convenient to measure the coefficient $D$ $$D=\frac{I_{c}^{\left( a\right) }-I_{c}^{\left( p\right) }}{I_{c}^{\left( p\right) }} \label{a16}$$ as a function of temperature. We draw in Fig.\[Fig.4\] several curves characterizing the temperature dependence $D\left( T\right)$ for different $h$. One can change $h$ by varying the thickness of the magnetic layers. We see that the coefficient $D$ can reach values of the order of unity. We note that at a given $h$ ($h>1/2$) a first order transition takes place when $T$ reaches a certain critical value. In this case either $\Delta$ drops to a smaller value or the normal state is realized. If the S/F interface resistance per unit area $R_{S/F}$ exceeds the value $\rho_{F}d_{F}$ ($\rho_{F}$ is the specific resistance of the ferromagnet), the condensate functions experience a jump at the S/F interface and a sub gap $\epsilon_{sg}=\left(D\rho_{F}\right)_{F}/R_{S/F}d_{F}<\Delta$ arises in the ferromagnet [@mcmillan]. In this case a singularity appears when $h\rightarrow \epsilon_{sg}$. = 5.5cm All the results presented in this paper can be obtained by using the quasiclassical Green’s function technique generalized for spin-dependent interaction. The details of the calculations will be presented elsewhere. It is important to mention that the enhancement of the Josephson current by the antiparallel alignment of the magnetic moments is obtained only for the singlet pairing. In conclusion, we have shown that in contrast to the common view, the presence of an exchange field $h$ can increase the critical current $I_c$ in a Josephson tunnel junction S/F-I-F/S in the case of an antiparallel alignment of the magnetization in the ferromagnets. We thank SFB 491 [*Magnetische Heterostrukturen*]{} for financial support. M.N. Baibich, J. M. Broto, A. Fert, F. Nguyen Van Dan, and F. Petroff, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**61**]{}, 2472 (1988) G. Binasch, P. Grünberg, F. Saurenbach, and W. Zinn, Phys. Rev. B [**39**]{}, 4828 (1989) N. Garcia, M. Muñoz, and Y.-W. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 2923 (1999) G. Tatara, Y.-W. Zhao, M. Muñoz, And N. Garcia, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 2030 (1999) M. J. M. de Jong, and C. W. J. Beenakker, Phys. Rev. Lett. [ **74**]{}, 1657 (1995); V. I. Fal’ko, A. F. Volkov and C. J. Lambert, JETP Lett. [ **69**]{}, 532 (1999); F. Taddei [*et al*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 4938 (1999). A. I. Buzdin, L. N. Bulaevskii, and S. V. Panyukov, JETP Lett. [**35**]{}, 178 (1982);A. I. Buzdin, and M. Yu. Kupriyanov, JETP Lett., [**52,**]{} 487 (1990); L.N.Bulaevskii, V.V.Kuzii, and A.A.Sobyanin, JETPLett. [**25**]{}, 290(1977); T. T. Hekkila, F. K. Wilhelm and G. Schön, cond-mat/0003383. V. V. Ryazanov, V. A. Oboznov, A. Yu. Rusanov, A. V. Veretennikov, A. A. Golubov, and J. Aarts, cond-mat.0008364 L. N. Bulaevskii, A. I. Buzdin, Sov.Phys.JETP [**67**]{}, 576 (1988). F. S. Bergeret, K. B. Efetov, A. I. Larkin, Phys Rev. B [**62**]{}, 11872 (2000) (to be published). P. Fulde and R. A. Ferrell, Phys. Rev. A [**135**]{}, 550 (1965). A. I. Larkin and Yu. N. Ovchinnikov, JETP [**20**]{}, 762 (1965). G. Eilenberger, Z. Phys. [**214**]{}, 195 (1968). A. I. Larkin and Yu. N. Ovchinnikov, JETP [**26**]{}, 1200 (1968); A. I. Larkin and Yu. N. Ovchinnikov, in [*Nonequilibrium Superconductivity,*]{} edited by D. N. Langenberg and A. I. Larkin, (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1984). K.L. Usadel, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**25**]{}, 507 (1970) A. V. Zaitsev, JETP [**59**]{}, 1015 (1984). M. Yu. Kupriyanov and V. F. Lukichev, JETP [**67**]{}, 1163 (1988). M. L. Kulic and I. M. Kulic, cond-mat/0001092 (2000). W. L. Mc Millan, Phys. Rev. [**175**]{}, 537 (1968). G. Sarma, J. Phys. Chem. Solids [**24**]{}, 1029 (1963).

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We report on the spectroscopic monitoring of GCIRS16SW, an Ofpe/WN9 star and LBV candidate in the central parsec of the Galaxy. SINFONI observations show strong daily spectroscopic changes in the K band. Radial velocities are derived from the He [i]{} $2.112 \mu m$ line complex and vary regularly with a period of 19.45 days, indicating that the star is most likely an eclipsing binary. Under various assumptions, we are able to derive a mass of $\sim$ 50 [M\_ M$_{\odot}$]{}for each component.' author: - 'F. Martins , S. Trippe , T. Paumard , T. Ott , R. Genzel , G. Rauw , F. Eisenhauer , S. Gillessen , H. Maness , R. Abuter' title: 'GCIRS16SW: a massive eclipsing binary in the Galactic Center [^1]' --- Introduction {#intro} ============ The central cluster constitutes one of the largest concentrations of massive stars in the Galaxy [@genzel03]. Nearly 100 OB and Wolf-Rayet stars are confined in a compact region of radius $\sim$ 0.5 parsec centered on the super-massive black hole associated with the radio source SgrA\* [@paumard06]. Among this population of young massive stars, six are thought to be Luminous Blue Variables (LBV): IRS16NE, IRS16C, IRS16NW, IRS16SW, IRS33E and IRS34W [@paumard04; @trippe06]. LBVs are evolved massive stars experiencing strong variability in both photometry and spectroscopy due to their proximity to the Humphreys-Davidson limit [@hd94], a region of the HR diagram where the luminosity of the stars reaches the Eddington luminosity so that instabilities develop in their atmospheres, leading to strong mass ejection and drastic changes in the stellar properties ([T\_[eff]{} $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{}, radius). The six stars mentioned above are only LBV “candidates” (LBVc) since they have not been observed to experience the strong outbursts and photometric changes typical of bona fide LBVs such as $\eta$ Car [@dh97]. However, their luminosities and spectra are very similar to stars known to be “quiescent” LBV, i.e. stars having experienced an LBV event in the past and being now in a more stable phase. In addition, one of them - IRS34W - has shown photometric variability on timescales of months to years which was interpreted as the formation of dust from material previously ejected by an LBV outburst [@trippe06]. Among these six stars, IRS16SW deserves special attention. This star was claimed to be a massive eclipsing binary by @ott99 since its K band magnitude displays regular variations with a periodicity of 9.72 days. However, the absence of a second eclipse in the light-curve lead @depoy04 to the conclusion that the binary scenario was not correct, and that IRS16SW was instead a pulsating massive star, a class of star predicted by theory but not observed so far. Here, we present results of the spectroscopic monitoring of IRS16SW revealing periodic variations of radial velocities which are interpreted as the signature of a massive spectroscopic and eclipsing binary . {width="8.5cm" height="6.5cm"} {width="8.5cm" height="6.5cm"} Observations and data reduction {#observ} =============================== We used SINFONI [@frank03] on the ESO/VLT to obtain spectra of IRS16SW. Observations were carried out under seeing limited conditions and were performed on August 28$^{\rm th}$ - September 1$^{\rm st}$, September 4$^{\rm th}$, October 2$^{\rm nd}$, and October 4$^{\rm th}$ - 12$^{\rm th}$ 2005, and March 18$^{\rm th}$ - 21$^{\rm st}$ 2006. In order to get the best spectral resolution available with SINFONI (R = 4000) we restricted ourselves to the K band. Short exposures ($2 \times 60$ seconds) were sufficient to obtain S/N $\sim$ 30. Data reduction was performed as in @frank05. The final spectra were subsequently carefully extracted from the “data cubes” by selecting a circular aperture (radius of 3 pixels) centered on the star and by subtracting from it an annulus of inner (outer) radius 3 (4) pixels. This procedure allowed a good removal of nebular contamination. Results ======= Spectroscopic variability and radial velocities {#var_rv} ----------------------------------------------- Fig. \[var\_lines\] shows the variation of the [He [i]{} 2.112 $\mu m$]{} and [Br$\gamma$]{} lines with time. It is obvious that not only the line shape but also the position of the centroid varies. In order to test the binary scenario, we have derived radial velocities (RV). For that purpose, we have used the line at 2.112 $\mu m$ since it is less affected by wind emission than other lines and is formed closer to the photosphere, allowing a better estimate of the star’s motion. This line is however a blend of at least two He lines, and synthetic spectra computed with atmosphere models reveal that the position of the strongest absorption part of the profile can vary by several 100 [km s$^{-1}$]{} around 2.112 $\mu m$ depending on the stellar and wind properties. We have thus adopted this wavelength as our reference, but we stress that the absolute value of the RV may be systematically shifted compared to the real value due to this choice. In practice, we have measured the position of the maximum absorption trough in the line complex and computed the radial velocity from the wavelength shift compared to the adopted reference wavelength. When the line shows a double peak, we have always measured the position of the deepest absorption part of the profile (which also turned out to always be the bluest). This implicitely assumes that if the star is a binary, this absorption is always produced by the same star. Note that when present, the two absorption peaks are separated by the theoretical spacing between the two Helium lines around 2.112 $\mu m$: 170 [km s$^{-1}$]{}. Hence we conclude that the second peak most likely comes from the same star. The derived RV are presented in Fig. \[fit\_vrad\] and follow very nicely an almost exact cosine curve (see below). This is a strong indication that IRS16SW is a binary star (and justifies a posteriori our method to derive RVs). A period folding analysis applied to the RV curve gives 19.3 $\pm$ 0.4 days, in good agreement with the K band light-curve analysis. @depoy04 derived a period of 9.725 $\pm 0.005$ days but argue that if this light-curve was to be produced by a binary star, the absence of second minimum should point to a system composed of two stars with the same K band luminosity, and consequently to a true period of $2 \times 9.725 = 19.45$ days. A re-analysis of the photometric data of @ott99 in view of these new results confirms that a period of 19.447 $\pm 0.011$ days is indeed present in the period folding diagram [for a description of the method, see @ott99]. We conclude that IRS16SW is most likely a single line spectroscopic (SB1) and eclipsing binary with an orbital period of 19.45 days. Orbital solution and physical parameters {#orb_sol} ---------------------------------------- With the RVs in hand, we have performed an orbital solution for an SB1 binary using the method of @rauw00, which is based on the Wolfe, Horak & Storer algorithm [@wolfe67]. The resulting parameters are given in Table \[tab\_param\_orbit\]. Note the small eccentricity justifying that the fit of the RV curve in Fig. \[fit\_vrad\] is almost a cosine. The orbital solution also gives the mass function $$f(m) = \frac{(M_{2} \sin i)^{3}}{(M_{1}+M_{2})^{2}} = 10.47 M_{\odot} \label{eq_fm}$$ from which one can estimate the individual masses of each component ($M_{1}$ and $M_{2}$) if one uses in addition Kepler’s third law $$M_{1}+M_{2} = \frac{4 \pi^{2} r^{3}}{G P^{2}} \label{kepler3}$$ where $r$ is the separation between the two stars and $P$ the period. However, one needs an estimate of 1) the inclination and 2) the separation. As for the latter, the absence of plateau in the K band light-curve indicates that contact is achieved in the binary: as soon as the primary eclipse ends, the secondary eclipse starts. Hence, one can assume that $r$ is simply the sum of the radii of the two components. The value of $a \sin i$ we find (and $a$ itself, $\sin i$ being close to 1, see below) is similar to the stellar radius of LBVc stars derived by @paco97, so we assume $r = 2 \times a$. In that configuration, the two stars, which we know have similar K magnitude, have similar radii and rotate around each other, the center of mass being the contact point. To get an estimate of the inclination, we have used the software NIGHTFALL [^2] to fit the light-curve (see result in Fig. \[fit\_kcurve\]). Assuming a similar effective temperature of 28000 K for both components [see @paco97] and a light ratio of one, we obtained a reasonable fit with an inclination $i \sim 70 \deg$. Note that we had to adopt Roche lobe filling factors of 1.3 (the maximum allowed value in NIGHTFALL) to correctly reproduce the light-curve. If filling factors lower than one are used, the light-curve can not be reproduced correctly as the “peaks” are too broad [a problem encountered by @depoy04]. This confirms that contact is achieved and justifies our assumption that the separation is the sum of the stellar radii. Given the limitations on the light-curve fit and the complications in the physics of the star due to contact (mass transfer, departure from sphericity due to gravitational interaction, hot spot in interaction region), we stress that our estimate of the inclination is only indicative. It is however consistent with the value expected for an eclipsing binary. With $i \sim 70 \deg$, and using Eq. \[eq\_fm\] and \[kepler3\], we finally derive $M_{1} \sim M_{2} \sim 50 M_{\odot}$. ![Radial velocity curve of IRS16SW together with the best orbital solution (for P = 19.45 days, solid line). The typical uncertainty on the radial velocity is $\pm$ 20 [km s$^{-1}$]{}. Parameters for the best fit solution are given in Table \[tab\_param\_orbit\]. \[fit\_vrad\]](f2.eps){width="8.5cm" height="6.5cm"} ![K band light-curve displayed for a period of 19.45 days, together with the best fit (dashed line). Data are from @ott99. The two eclipses are similar, indicating that both components of the binary have the same K band magnitude. Note also the absence of plateau which suggests that contact is achieved. \[fit\_kcurve\]](f3.eps){width="8.5cm" height="6.5cm"} [l|ll]{} $a sini$ \[[R\_ R$_{\odot}$]{}\] & 66.4 $\pm$ 2.2 &\ $e$ & 0.088 $\pm$ 0.023 &\ $v_{0}$ \[[km s$^{-1}$]{}\] & 459.5 $\pm$ 3.6 &\ $K1$ \[[km s$^{-1}$]{}\] & 173.8 $\pm$ 5.5 &\ $\omega$ \[$\deg$\] & 334.0 $\pm$ 18.3 &\ Spectral disentangling {#spec_disentang} ---------------------- In order to get more insight into the properties of the components of IRS16SW, we have attempted to disentangle the spectra using the method of @gl06. In practice, the RVs of the primary are used to evaluate an average spectrum in the primary’s rest frame. This provides an approximation of the primary spectrum which is then shifted back into the observer’s frame and subtracted from the observed spectrum. The residual is composed of the secondary spectrum from which RVs can be estimated. The whole procedure is then re-started inverting the role of the two components, and is iterated until convergence. Due to the limited number of spectral lines and S/N ratio of our spectra, no solution could be found leaving all parameters free. We therefore decided to freeze the primary RVs at their values determined above. Given the results of the orbital solution, we also decided to set the mass ratio to 1.0, and assumed that both components have the same systemic velocities. In that case, convergence could be achieved and the resulting spectra are shown in Fig. \[fig\_disent\]. These spectra should be interpreted with caution. Not only they were obtained under the assumption that the mass ratio is 1.0, but the procedure used also implies that the spectra are free of contamination by wind-wind collision or any other interaction in the contact region. With these restrictions in mind, the main qualitative conclusion we draw is that the spectra of both stars, and consequently their properties, are similar and typical of LBV candidates such as the Pistol star [@figer99]. ![Spectra of the primary (top) and secondary (bottom) components of IRS16SW as obtained from the spectral disentangling analysis. These spectra should be interpreted with caution since they were obtained under several assumptions (see text). \[fig\_disent\]](f4.eps){width="8.5cm" height="6.5cm"} Discussion {#disc} ========== Binary versus pulsating variable {#disc_bin} -------------------------------- @depoy04 argue that IRS16SW was a pulsating massive star based on the absence of second minimum in the light-curve and the difficulty to fit this light-curve in the binary scenario (but see Sect.\[orb\_sol\]). They compare the observed variation in K magnitude to the predictions of the dynamical models of @dg00 and conclude that there is a reasonable qualitative agreement. However, there are some quantitative discrepancies. First, the amplitude of the variation is much larger than predicted: although @dg00 do not compute K band photometry, one can estimate the variation in this band to be at most 0.2 mag (inspection of their Table 2 reveals that the amplitude of photometric variations decreases with wavelength and is $\lesssim 0.2$ mag in the I band), while we observe 0.55 mag. Second, the period we derive $-$ 19.45 days $-$ is larger than expected in the pulsating scenario [see Table 1 of @dg00]. Concerning spectroscopic changes, although in principle one can not completely rule out the possibility that they are due to motions of the atmosphere and fluctuations of the physical parameters ([T\_[eff]{} $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{}, radius) due to pulsations [@dg00], the timescales are again not consistent: $\sim$ 1 day for pulsations compared to 19.45 days observed. Besides, so far there are no theoretical predictions of spectroscopic changes caused by pulsations to which we could compare our observed spectra. The binary nature of IRS16SW is thus strongly favored. The absence of secondary eclipse in the light-curve is explained by the similar K band magnitude of the two components. This is another indication that both stars are very similar. @depoy04 report the presence of a variation in $H-K$ on a period of 9.725 days, $H-K$ being bluer when the system is brighter. A similar trend was observed in the optical photometry of the massive contact binary V606 Centauri [@lorenz99]. We interpret this as a sign of heating in the contact zone, making the spectral energy distribution in this region bluer. Massive binaries are indeed known to produce X-rays through colliding winds, and we might expect the same kind of interaction and heating around the contact region. Again, since this region is seen twice during an orbital revolution, an observed period half the true orbital period is naturally derived from the $H-K$ curve. Stellar evolution and the LBV phenomenon {#disc_evol} ---------------------------------------- Whether or not all massive stars go through the LBV phase is still under debate. @langer94 and @pasquali97 argue that this is the case, while other observational [@crowther95] and theoretical [@mm05] studies indicate that the most massive stars ($M \gtrsim 60 {\ifmmode M_{\odot} \else M$_{\odot}$\fi}$) may skip this phase. This is an important issue since although short, the LBV phase is crucial in the mass loss history, and consequently in the subsequent evolution, of massive stars. Recent studies by @smith06 even claim that most of the mass of hot stars is lost during the LBV phase. Here, we provide an accurate measurement of the present mass of a candidate LBV, confirming that a star with an initial mass larger than 50 [M\_ M$_{\odot}$]{} (and likely of the order 60-70 [M\_ M$_{\odot}$]{}) may become a LBV. This is a strong constraint for evolutionary models. Of course, one could argue that the star’s evolution was affected by binarity. However, inspection of the spectral morphology and physical properties [see @paco97] of IRS16SW and the other LBVc in the Galactic Center shows similarities. Our monitoring of IRS16SW also includes the other LBVc in the Galactic Center. Except for IRS16NE, none of these stars showed any spectroscopic variation, ruling out the possibility that they are close binaries. IRS16NE showed some RV fluctuations [see also @tanner06], but so far we do not have enough data point to sample an hypothetical RV curve. Hence, the similarity between the spectrum of IRS16SW and those of the other single LBV candidates leads us to the conclusion that binarity has not (yet?) significantly affected the evolution of IRS16SW. Since the mass of the two components is similar, one can speculate that IRS16SW is composed of two stars initially equally massive that have so far evolved in parallel in a detached system, without influencing each other. They may have just entered the LBV phase during which contact was achieved due to their respective expansion. This event probably happened very recently (the LBV phase lasting $\sim 10^{5} yr$) so that the general properties of both components have not yet been affected by mass transfer and binary evolution. Such a scenario is consistent with both stars displaying similar spectra (but see Sect.\[spec\_disentang\] for caution words). Assuming that IRS16SW was not affected by binary evolution, the properties of the LBV candidate in IRS16SW can thus be used to constrain evolutionary models of single massive stars. In their recent models including rotation, @mm05 stressed that the LBV phase is not systematically reached above 45 [M\_ M$_{\odot}$]{}. Here, we have an example for which it is the case (under the assumption that IRS16SW will turn $-$ or has already turned in the past $-$ into a genuine LBV). We thank all the ESO staff for their help during observations. FM acknowledges support from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. Crowther, P. A., et al., 1995, , 293, 427 DePoy, D. L., et al., 2004, , 617, 1127 Davidson, K., Humphreys, R. M., 1997, ARA&A, 35, 1 Dorfi, E. A., Gautschy, A., 2000, , 545, 982 Eisenhauer, F., et al., 2003, The Messenger, 113, 17 Eisenhauer, F., et al., 2005, , 628, 246 Figer, D.F., et al., 1999. , 506, 384 Genzel, R., et al., 2003, , 594, 812 González, J.F., Levato, H., 2006, , 448, 283 Humphreys, R. M., Davidson, K., 1994, , 106, 1025 Langer, N., et al., 1004, , 290, 819 Lorenz, R., et al., 1999, , 345, 531 Meynet, G., Maeder, A., 2005, , 429, 581 Najarro, F., et al., 1997, , 325, 700 Ott, T., Eckart, A., Genzel, R., 1999, , 523, 248 Pasquali, A., et al., 1997, , 478, 340 Paumard, T., et al., 2004, Proc. XXXIXth Rencontres de Moriond-La Thuile, Editions Frontieres, Paris, p. 377 Paumard, T., et al., 2006, , 643, 1011 Rauw, G., et al., 2000, , 360, 1003 Smith, N., Owocki, S.P., 2006, ApJL, in press Tanner, A., et al., 2006, , 641, 891 Trippe, S., et al., 2006, , 448, 305 Wolfe, R. H. Jr., et al., 1967, in Modern Astrophysics, Gordon & Breach (New York), p. 251 [^1]: Based on observations collected at the ESO Very Large Telescope (programs 075.B-0547 and 076.B-0259) [^2]: software developed by R. Wichmann and freely available at the following URL http://www.hs.uni-hamburg.de/DE/Ins/Per/Wichmann/Nightfall.html

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'Conditions under which gravity coupled to self interacting scalar field determines singularity formation are found and discussed. It is shown that, under a suitable matching with an external space, the boundary, if collapses completely, may give rise to a naked singularity. Issues related to the strength of the singularity are discussed.' address: 'Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica, Università di Camerino, Italy' author: - Roberto Giambò date: 'April 2005 (revised version)' --- \#1[\_[\#1]{}]{} \#1\#2 Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ The gravitational collapse of scalar fields in classical General Relativity has been widely studied in literature. Its role in understanding the machinery ruling singularities’ causal structure – at least in spherical symmetry – was clear since 90’s, when models of scalar field collapse exhibiting a naked singularity, and therefore violating the so–called Penrose’s Cosmic Censorship Conjecture [@pen], were found numerically by Choptuik [@chop] and analytically by Christodoulou [@chr1]. In these pioneering works the scalar field is massless and free, that means that the Lagrangian function of the field does not contain any mass or potential terms. Recently, Hertog, Horowitz and Maeda [@hor] found a class of potentials where smooth initial data evolve to give rise to a naked singularity, although energy conditions may be violated. Moreover, in a recent paper, Goswami and Joshi [@joshi] studied collapse of self interacting scalar field, under a homogeneity assumption, considering a class of models where divergence of energy density near the singularity is assumed to satisfy a power–law relation. As is well known scalar field have not been observed although their fundamental relevance in cosmology. Observational cosmology is indeed probably the unique field in which we can hope to obtain information on the scalar field potential, and several works go in this direction, as e.g. [@nunes] (and references therein) in which the analysis of transition from matter domination to dark energy domination is taken into account, although the expanding case is obviously considered there. In the present paper, we consider homogeneous scalar fields collapsing models *in general*, characterizing the class of potentials determining singularity formation. A crucial role in determining the causal structure is played by the existence, or not, of apparent horizon during the evolution. Since the singularity is (of course) synchronous, the behavior is quite different from what happens in many examples of matter models exhibiting a central naked singularity [@JoshiCMP; @ns]. Here, instead, it may be that the singularity located at the boundary of the “ball” of scalar field can be naked. Therefore, the scalar field solution must be matched with a suitable external solution and behavior of radial geodesic in the external solution must be studied accordingly. Scalar field solution under homogeneity assumption is introduced in Section \[sec:eqs\]. In Section \[sec:sing\], necessary and sufficient conditions for singularity formation are stated, together with conditions which forbid apparent horizon formation during the evolution. In the latter case, a matching with anisotropic generalization of de Sitter spacetime [@aniso] is performed (Section \[sec:deSitter\]), and naked singularity existence is proved – and its gravitational strength discussed – in Section \[sec:naked\]. Reasons for our choice of exterior region are discussed in final Section \[sec:final\], together with overall conclusions. The solution {#sec:eqs} ============ The general scalar field spacetime is a spacetime $({\mathcal M},g_{\mu\nu})$ satisfying Einstein field equations for the energy–momentum tensor $$\label{eq:Tgen} T_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu\phi\partial_\nu\phi-\left(\frac12 g^{\alpha\beta}\partial_\alpha\phi\partial_\beta\phi+V(\phi)\right)g_{\mu\nu},$$ where $\phi$ is a scalar function on ${\mathcal M}$ and $V$ is the potential. We consider the case of a spherically symmetric spacetime where the gradient of $\phi$ is timelike, which allows us to choose a comoving gauge such that $\phi$ is a function of comoving time only, and the metric and the energy–momentum tensor can be respectively written in the form [@kra] $$\label{eq:metric} \text ds^2=-\text dt^2+a^2(t)\,\text dr^2+ a^2(t) r^2\,\text d\Omega^2,$$ and $$\label{eq:T} T^\mu_\nu=\text{diag}(-\epsilon,p,p,p)$$ Equations – imply that, in the above expression, the energy density $\epsilon$ and the stress $p$ can be written in terms of the field and the potential as $$\label{eq:ep} \epsilon=\frac12\dot\phi^2+V(\phi),\qquad p=\frac12\dot\phi^2-V(\phi),$$ where the dot denotes differentiation with respect to $t$. Field equations reduce to $$\begin{aligned} & \dot a^2=\frac{8\pi}3 a^2\epsilon,\label{eq:dota}\\ & \ddt\left(a^3\dot\phi\right)=-a^3 V'(\phi).\label{eq:KG}\end{aligned}$$ in the unknown functions $a(t)\ge 0$ and $\phi(t)$. The potential $V(\phi)$ has to be considered as a constitutive function that, analogously to what happen in the elastic–solid matter case [@magli], establishes a relation between energy and stresses. In particular, is Klein–Gordon equation $g^{\mu\nu}\nabla_\mu\partial_\nu\phi=V'(\phi)$, obviously equivalent to the Bianchi identity . We will take initial data at an initial time, say $t=0$: $$\label{eq:initial} a(0)=a_0,\quad\phi(0)=\phi_0,\quad\dot\phi(0)=\dot\phi_0.$$ The field evolves collapsing until it possibly reaches the singular state at $a=0$. We will consequently consider cases where $a$ is a monotonically decreasing function of $t$. This fact implies that, for instance, the energy density $\epsilon$ can be seen as a function of $a$, and can be written as $$\label{eq:eps} \epsilon=\frac{3}{8\pi}\left(\frac{\psi(a)}a\right)^2,$$ where $\psi\in C^\infty((0,a_0),(0,+\infty))$. Note that, in principle, we don’t make assumption on the behavior of $\psi(a)$ as $a\to 0^+$ but, in order to study a physically meaningful singularity, we will assume that $$\label{eq:assum} \lim_{a\to 0^+}\frac{\psi(a)}a=+\infty.$$ Using , equation takes the form $$\label{eq:dota2} \dot a=-\psi(a),$$ where the sign choice is determined by the positive sign of $\psi(a)$ and the fact that we are considering a collapsing situation. Therefore, using initial condition , the following proposition easily follows. \[thm:a\] The metric is determined by the function $$\label{eq:a(t)} a(t)=F^{-1}(F(a_0)-t),$$ where $F=F(a)$ is a primitive function of $\,1/\psi(a)$. Moreover, such a choice of $\psi$ also determines both the scalar function $\phi$ and the potential $V$ as functions of $a$. Indeed, with the positions $$\label{eq:Rm} R:=a(t) r,\qquad m:=\frac R2\left(1-g^{\alpha\beta}\partial_\alpha R\,\partial_\beta R\right)=\frac12 r^3 a(t) \dot a^2(t),$$ using , , it is easy to see that Klein–Gordon equation is completely equivalent to $$\label{eq:dotm} \dot m=-4\pi\,p\, R^2\,\dot R,$$ and, in view of the above equation and again, we can write the stress $p$ as $$\label{eq:efe-p} p=-\frac{\psi^2(a)}{8\pi a^2}\left(1+2a\frac{\psi'(a)}{\psi(a)}\right).$$ Using , , one finally finds $$\label{eq:phi} \left(\frac{\text d\phi}{\text da}\right)^2=\frac1{4\pi a^2}\left(1-a\frac{\psi'(a)}{\psi(a)}\right),$$ $$\label{eq:V} V=\frac{\psi^2(a)}{4\pi a^2}\left(1+\frac12a\frac{\psi'(a)}{\psi(a)}\right).$$ Therefore, chosen an energy profile through the function $\psi(a)$, the solution is completely expressed in function of $a$ and, consequently, of $t$. In case the function $\phi(a)$ is invertible, one can say more. Indeed, the following proposition holds. \[thm:Vphi\] If $\tfrac{\psi'(a)}{\psi(a)}a<1$ in $(0,a_0)$, the spacetime given by solves Einstein field equations, with the potential $V(\phi)=V(a(\phi))$, where $V(a)$ is given by , and $a(\phi)$ is the inverse function of $$\label{eq:phi2} \phi(a)=\phi_0+\int_a^{a_0}\sqrt{\frac1{4\pi \theta^2}\left(1-\theta\frac{\psi'(\theta)}{\psi(\theta)}\right)}\,\text d\theta.$$ \[rem:wec\] Since $$\epsilon+p=\dot\phi^2=\dot a^2\left(\frac{\text d\phi}{\text da}\right)^2,$$ the condition $\tfrac{\psi'(a)}{\psi(a)}a<1$ in $(0,a_0)$ can be reinterpreted by saying that the weak energy condition inequality must be *strictly* satisfied, that is $\epsilon+p>0$. Of course, one can invert the function $\phi(a)$ under more general conditions also, for instance if $\epsilon+p$ vanishes for some isolate values of $a$, but in this case problems of regularity may arise. Singularity formation {#sec:sing} ===================== Properties of $\psi(a)$ will be used to study singularity formation and behavior for the solutions above. The following theorem holds. \[thm:form\] The spacetime becomes singular in a finite amount of comoving time if and only if the function $1/\psi(a)$ is integrable on $(0,a_0)$. The time of collapse is given by $$\label{eq:ts} t_s=\int_0^{a_0}\frac{1}{\psi(a)}\,\text da.$$ If $1/\psi(a)$ is integrable in $(0,a_0)$, the primitive $F(a)$ can be continuously extended to $a=0$. In this case $t_s=F(a_0)-F(0)$, and using it follows that $a(t_s)=0$. Viceversa, if $a(t)=0$ for some $t_s\in(0,+\infty)$, then by continuity $\lim_{t\to t_s} a(t)=0$. Equation again implies that $\lim_{a\to 0^+}F(a)=F(a_0)-t_s$, and the primitive can be extended up to $a=0$. We will suppose hereafter that we are in the hypothesis of Theorem \[thm:form\], so that singularity forms in a finite amount of comoving time. In order to study singularity behavior, we fix $t_s$ as in and consider the *apparent horizon* curve $t_h(r)$ implicitly defined by the equation $R(r,t_h(r))=2m(r,t_h(r))$. It is the boundary of the *trapped region* $$\mathcal T=\{(r,t)\,:\,R(r,t)\le 2m(r,t)\}.$$ The following result holds. \[thm:nohor\] If $\psi(a)$ is bounded in $(0,a_0)$, there exists $r_b>0$ such that, for any shell of matter $r\leq r_b$, no apparent horizon forms during the evolution. Using , the inequality $R>2m$ means that $$\label{eq:ext} \psi(a) r<1.$$ Then, it suffices to choose $r_b<(\sup_{(0,a_0)}\psi(a))^{-1}$, and, if $r\le r_b$ and $t<t_s$, it will be $(t,r)\not\in\mathcal T$. \[rem:bound\] The quantity $r_b$ will play the role of the boundary of scalar field collapsing sphere. Note that the absence of horizon does not mean, in principle, that the singularity is naked. Indeed, if a future pointing null geodesic arising from the singularity exists, it must satisfy the ODE $$\label{eq:ODE} \frac{\text dt}{\text dr}=a(t),$$ and then it must be an increasing function of $r$. This cannot happen for $r\in[0,r_b)$, because the singularity is synchronous. But it could be the case for a null geodesic to arise from $(r_b,t_s)$ and go into the external space. This situation can be studied only after we join, at the shell $r_b$, the solutions found in Section \[sec:eqs\] with an exterior solution. This will be done in Section \[sec:deSitter\]. \[rem:counterex\] Note that one can conceive cases of such no trapped surface formation when pressures *do not diverge* and *do not remain negative* in the approach to the singularity, even when w.e.c. is satisfied. Take, for instance, $ \psi(a)=\sqrt[5]{a}(\sin\log a+\tfrac53). $ Anyway, if pressures diverge, potential also (positively) does. We now consider the case where $\psi$ is unbounded, positively diverging at the singularity. \[thm:hor\] If $\lim_{a\to 0^+}\psi(a)=+\infty$, for any $r>0$ such that the initial data are taken outside the trapped region $\mathcal T$, the shell labelled $r$ becomes trapped strictly before it becomes singular, and so a black hole forms. Fix any $r>0$. If $(r,0)\not\in\mathcal T$, then $\psi(a_0)<\tfrac1{r}$. But $\psi(a)\to+\infty$ as $a\to 0$, and therefore by continuity there must exists a time $t_h(r)<t_s$ such that $\psi(a(t_h(r)))=1/r$. Then, the apparent horizon lies below the singularity curve $t=t_s$, which is therefore covered for any $r>0$. Similar arguments to those made in Remark \[rem:bound\] show that, even if $\lim_{r\to 0^+}t_h(r)=t_s$, there cannot exist future pointing null geodesic below the horizon arising from the centre, and then $t=t_s$ is covered at each shell. \[rem:open\] Note that hypothesis of Proposition \[thm:hor\] does not cover all cases of unbounded $\psi(a)$, which indeed may not have limit as $a\to 0^+$. \[ex:power\] Consider the case of $\psi$ ruled by the power–law relation [@joshi] $$\psi(a)=\sqrt{\frac{8\pi}{3}}\, a^\beta,\quad\beta\in{\mathbb R},$$ where $\beta<1$ by compatibility with . Hypotheses of Theorem \[thm:form\] are always verified with this choice of $\psi$, therefore the model collapses in a finite amount of comoving time. Using the above equations one finds $$\begin{aligned} &a(t)=\left(a_0^{1-\beta}-\sqrt{\frac{8\pi}{3}} (1-\beta) t\right)^{\frac1{1-\beta}},\\ &\phi(a)=\phi_0+\sqrt{\frac{1-\beta}{4\pi}}\log\frac{a_0}a,\\ &V(\phi)=V_0 e^{\sqrt{16\pi(1-\beta)}(\phi-\phi_0)}.\end{aligned}$$ If $\beta$ is not negative we are in the case of Proposition \[thm:nohor\] and no apparent horizon forms if one takes $r_b$ sufficiently small. On the other side, $\beta$ negative implies apparent horizon existence (Proposition \[thm:hor\]), and $$t_h(r)=t_s-\gamma r^{\frac{\beta-1}\beta},$$ where $\gamma>0$ depends on $\beta$. Note that the centre gets trapped at singular comoving time $t_s$. The particular case $\beta=-\tfrac12$ corresponds – as easily inferred using – to vanishing stresses, and in fact the solution is formally equivalent to the case of homogeneous dust cloud collapse (Oppenheimer–Snyder model [@opp]). The exterior region {#sec:deSitter} =================== Our aim is to join the scalar field spacetime with an exterior solution at $r=r_b$, and study singularity arising from $r=r_b,\,t=t_s$. The matching will be performed along a hypersurface $\Sigma$ using Israel–Darmois junction conditions [@darm; @isr], that requires continuity across $\Sigma$ of the first and the second fundamental forms induced on $\Sigma$ by the two spacetimes. For this reason, one cannot expect to perform the junction with Schwarzschild line element, since radial stresses of the scalar field ball do not vanish in principle (see ). Therefore, as exterior solution, we will consider the anisotropic generalization of de Sitter spacetime – see [@aniso] and references therein – that we here briefly review. Consider a spherically symmetric spacetime such that the metric tensor and the energy–momentum tensor respectively reads $$\begin{aligned} &\text ds^2=-e^{2\nu}\text dt^2 +e^{2\lambda}\text dr^2 +Y^2 (\text d\theta^2 +\sin^2\theta\, \text d\phi^2),\label{eq:ds}\\ &T^\mu_\rho={\rm diag}\left(-\epsilon(r,t),p_r(r,t),p_t(r,t),p_t(r,t)\right).\label{eq:Tss}\end{aligned}$$ As well known, stresses are isotropic in case of de Sitter solution $p_r=p_t=p$, where $\epsilon+p=0$. One may try to look for generalizations of this case, braking the isotropy conditions, that is supposing $p_r\ne p_t$, but still assuming $$\label{eq:deSitter} \epsilon+p_r=0.$$ This amounts to weaken the degeneracy hypothesis on the tensor $T^\mu_\nu$ of de Sitter solution, retaining two different degenerate subspaces. Misner–Sharp mass reads $$\label{eq:M-S} m={\frac Y2}\left[1-(Y'e^{-\lambda})^2+(\dot Y e^{-\nu})^2\right],$$ (in this Section, dot and prime will denote differentiation w.r.t $t$ and $r$, respectively). Using Einstein equations together with assumption one shows that both $\epsilon$ and $m$ can be seen as functions of $Y$. In particular $m(Y)=4\pi\int_0^Y\epsilon(\sigma)\sigma^2\,\text d\sigma+m_0$. With the additional ansatz that $$(Y'e^{-\lambda}),\quad (\dot Y e^{-\nu}),$$ are functions of the variable $Y$ only, that amounts to require a higher degree of symmetry of the solution – a $G_4$ group of motion – it can be seen that a suitable coordinate change exists, that brings the solution in the form $$\label{eq:KS} \text ds^2=-\chi(Y)\,\text dT^2+\chi(Y)^{-1}\,\text dY^2+Y^2\,\text d\Omega^2,\quad\chi(Y)=1-\frac{2M(Y)}Y,$$ thereby obtaining a family of solution as the mass $M(Y)$ varies. This function $M(Y)$ is arbitrary but, to satisfy weak energy conditions, it must obey to the following law $$\label{eq:wec2} M'(Y)\ge 0,\qquad M''(Y)-\frac 2Y M'(Y)\le 0.$$ The family outlined here contains, for instance, Minkowski, Schwarzschild, Reissner–Nordström and de Sitter spacetimes as particular cases, corresponding to choosing the function $M(Y)$ respectively equal to 0, to $m_0$ (constant), to $m_0+e_0^2/Y$ ($m_0,\,e_0$ constant) and to $\frac 43\epsilon_0 \pi Y^3$. Computation of Kretschmann scalar implies that the only singularity may arise at $Y=0$ – for instance, it suffices that $m(Y)=Y^\alpha+o(Y^\alpha)$ for $Y\to 0$, with $0<\alpha<3$. Matching conditions {#subsec:match} ------------------- Let us now consider a spherical symmetric source $$\label{eq:dsint} \text ds^2=-e^{2\nu}\text dt^2 +e^{2\lambda}\text dr^2 +R^2(r,t) (\text d\theta^2 +\sin^2\theta\, \text d\phi^2),$$ Our aim is to show that, at a spherical junction hypersurface $r=r_b$, no conditions other than continuity of the mass function are required to perform the matching. Indeed, the following proposition holds. \[thm:join\] A general spherical line element can be joined with the spacetime at a hypersurface $\Sigma:=\{(t,r=r_b,\theta,\phi)\}$. The matching conditions at $\Sigma$ read $$\label{eq:cond} Y(t)=R(r_b,t),\qquad\frac{\text d T}{\text d t}(t)=\frac{R'(r_b,t)}{\chi(m(r_b,t))e^{(\lambda-\nu)(r_b,t)}},$$ where $m(r,t)$ is the Misner–Sharp mass function of the metric . Let us parameterize $\Sigma$ with coordinates $(\tau,\theta,\phi)$. The injection of $\Sigma$ into the internal space equipped with metric simply reads $(\tau,\theta,\phi)\hookrightarrow(\tau,r_b,\theta,\phi)$. Consequently, the fundamental forms induced by the metric on $\Sigma$ can be computed as $$\begin{aligned} & I^{int}_\Sigma= -e^{2\nu}\,\text d\tau^2+R^2\,\text d\Omega^2,\label{eq:int1}\\ &I\!\!I^{int}_\Sigma= -e^\lambda\left[e^{2(\nu-\lambda)}\nu'\,\text d\tau^2-e^{-2\lambda}R'R\,\text d\Omega^2\right].\label{eq:int2}\end{aligned}$$ where we suppose the metric terms calculated in $(r_b,t)$. We perform the same operation with the external metric . The injection reads in coordinates $(\tau,\theta,\phi)\hookrightarrow(T(\tau),Y(\tau),\theta,\phi)$, where $T(\tau)$, $Y(\tau)$ are unknown functions. First fundamental form in this case is $$\label{eq:ext1} I^{ext}_\Sigma=\left(-\chi(Y)\dot T^2+\frac{\dot Y^2}{\chi(Y)}\right)\,\text d\tau^2+ Y^2\,\text d\Omega^2,$$ where, with a slight abuse of notation, we denote derivatives of $T$ and $Y$ by $\dot T$ and $\dot Y$. Continuity of the first fundamental form at $\Sigma$ implies $$\begin{aligned} &Y(\tau)=R(\tau,r_b),\label{eq:1}\\ \intertext{which is the first equation in \eqref{eq:cond}, and} &-\chi(Y)\dot T^2+\frac{\dot Y^2}{\chi(Y)}=-e^{2\nu}.\label{eq:2}\end{aligned}$$ The second fundamental form reads ($M_{,Y}$ is the derivative of $M(Y)$) $$\begin{gathered} \label{eq:ext2} I\!\!I^{ext}_\Sigma= e^{-\nu}\left\{\dot Y\left[\ddot T+2\left(\frac{M}{Y^2}-\frac{M_{,Y}}{Y}\right)\frac{\dot Y\dot T}{\chi(Y)}\right]\,\text d\tau^2-\right.\\ \left.-\dot T\left[\ddot Y+\left(\frac{M}{R^2}-\frac{M_{,Y}}{Y}\right)e^{2\nu}\,\text d\tau^2-Y\chi(Y)\,\text d\Omega^2\right]\right\},\end{gathered}$$ where we have used . Comparison of the angular terms in the two second fundamental forms immediately yields $$\label{eq:cond2} \dot T=\frac{R'}{\chi e^{(\lambda-\nu)}}$$ i.e. the second condition in . Finally, let us show that there are no other conditions to be imposed. First, substituting in we get the identity $$\label{eq:mass} \chi(R)=(R' e^{-\lambda})^2-(\dot R e^{-\nu})^2,$$ that only says that the mass function must be continuous across $\Sigma$, that is $m(r_b,t)=M(Y(t))$. Therefore, we are only left with the proof that coefficients of $\text d\tau^2$ in the two second fundamental forms coincide, that is we have to prove $$\label{eq:toprove1} e^{-\nu}\left[\ddot T\dot Y-\dot T\ddot Y\left(\frac{M}{Y^2}-\frac{M_{,Y}}{Y}\right)\left(\frac2\chi\dot Y^2\dot T-e^{2\nu}\dot T\right)\right]+e^{2\nu-\lambda}\nu'=0$$ But this equation can be easily shown to hold identically by calculating the quantities $\ddot T$ from and $\ddot Y$ from , and using Einstein equation $\dot R'-\dot\lambda R'-\nu'\dot R=0$. \[rem:Vai\] The anisotropic generalizations of de Sitter spacetime are formally a subclass of the so–called *generalized Vaidya solutions* [@gov; @wang], given by $$\label{eq:Va} \text ds^2=-\left(1-\frac{2M(V,Y)}Y\right)\,\mathrm dV^2-2\,\mathrm dY\,\mathrm dV + Y^2\,\mathrm d\Omega^2.$$ Indeed, in case $M$ depends only on $Y$, i.e. $M_{,V}=0$, the coordinate transformation $\mathrm dV=\mathrm dT-\tfrac1{\chi(Y)}\mathrm dY$ brings into . Of course, a similar result to Proposition \[thm:join\] can be proved for this wider class of solutions. But, in this case, there is an additional condition on the mass function, that must satisfy the requirement (see also [@joshi equation (39)]) $$\label{eq:addit} M_{,V}=0\quad\text{on\ }\Sigma,$$ to perform the matching with the general spherical symmetric line element . Naked singularities existence {#sec:naked} ============================= We now confine ourselves to the case when $\psi(a)$ is a bounded function of $a$. The singularity that develops is therefore massless, as one can easily infer from using . Moreover, in view of Proposition \[thm:nohor\], the singular curve $t=t_s$ does not get trapped if one take $r_b$ sufficiently small. In view of the results of Section \[sec:deSitter\] above, we consider the spacetime where the interior scalar field is matched with an exterior anisotropic generalization of de Sitter spacetime at the shell $\Sigma$ labeled $r_b$. Let us recall that the mass $m$ is equal, using , to $\frac12 r^3 a\psi^2(a)=\frac12 r^2 R \psi^2(\tfrac Rr)$, and therefore a necessary condition must be $$\label{eq:massext} M(Y)=\frac12 r_b^2 Y\psi^2(\tfrac Y{r_b}),\qquad\forall Y\in[0,a_0^2 r_b^2].$$ In principle, the matching condition fixes the mass function for the external region for the portion of junction surface corresponding to the observed scalar field collapsing ball, that is for $t$ running from 0 to the time of collapse $t_s$. For bigger values of $Y$ ($Y>a_0^2 r_b^2$), the mass is determined by the form of the metric for $t<0$. As we already know, the exterior solution may possess a singularity at $Y=0$, depending on the mass profile. From the equation of state , energy diverges at $Y=0$ if $p_r$ does, and since, with the above choice of mass, radial pressure is continuous across junction surface, then $Y=0$ is a singularity if $$\label{eq:divpress} \lim_{a\to 0^+} p(a)=-\infty,$$ where $p(a)$ is the quantity, depending on $\psi(a)$, given by . \[rem:wec\] Weak energy condition is equivalent, with the above choice of $M(Y)$, to the following two conditions on the function $\psi$: $$\label{eq:wec2new} \psi(a)+2a\psi'(a)\ge 0,\quad\psi^2(a)-a^2\left(\psi'^2(a)+\psi(a)\psi''(a)\right)\ge 0.$$ We observe by the way that the first of these inequalities implies that potential diverges. Conditions are satisfied by power–law models of Example \[ex:power\], when $\psi$ is bounded, i.e. for non-negative $\beta$. We prove the following theorem. \[thm:naked\] Suppose that $\psi(a)$ is bounded and satisfies , and let $r_b$ such that $1-\psi^2(a(t))r^2$ is bounded away from 0 uniformly on $(0,r_b)\times(0,t_s)$. Then, the boundary $\Sigma=\{r=r_b\}$ of the scalar field collapses to a naked singularity. Equations becomes, using , also, $$\label{eq:cond1} Y(t)=a(t) r_b,\quad\frac{\text d T}{\text d t}(t)=-\frac{r_b}{1-r_b^2\psi^2(a(t))}.$$ Let $r_b$ such that $1-\psi^2(a(t))r^2$ is bounded away from 0. Such a choice is, of course, always made possible because $\psi(a)$ is bounded. Then $\frac{r_b}{1-r_b^2\psi^2(a(t))}$ is bounded in $(0,a_0)$ and we can integrate the ODE in to obtain $$\lim_{t\to t_s} T(t)=T_0\in(0,+\infty).$$ Then the anisotropic generalization of de Sitter spacetime solution can be extended up to $T=T_0, Y=0$. But in a neighborhood of this point, $\chi$ is bounded away from zero because junction conditions imply continuity of the mass function, and by hypothesis, $1-\frac{2m(t,r_b)}{Y(t,r_b)}$ is bounded away from zero as the singularity is approached. Then the ODE $$\frac{\text dT}{\text dY}=\frac{1}{\chi(Y)}$$ can be solved in a right neighborhood of $Y=0$, and there exists a radial null geodesic starting from the singularity, which is therefore naked. \[rem:power1\] The above theorem applies to cases described in Example \[ex:power\], with $\beta\ge 0$. We stress the fact that, in the approach to the singularity $t=t_s$, $\tfrac{2m}R=\psi(a(t))^2\,r_b^2$ does not need to vanish, but may also tend to a constant nonzero value, or may even not possess a limit value. Consider, for instance, Example \[ex:power\] with $\beta=0$. We know that that no horizon forms if $r_b$ is sufficiently small, but now $1-\tfrac{2m}{R}$ is a positive constant on $\Sigma$. Strength of the singularity {#subsec:str} --------------------------- Since we have found examples of spacetimes exhibiting a naked singularity, it may be of interest to determine its *strength*. The first definition of strong curvature singularity was suggested by Tipler [@tip] and studied e.g. in [@clarkrol; @tipclark]. Modifications to this definition have been also suggested by Nolan [@nolan] and Ori [@ori] to take into account pathological situations where, although volume forms along geodesics preserve, Jacobi fields have opposite irregular behavior – i.e. one diverges and another one vanishes in the approach to the singularity. For most of our purposes, anyway, it will suffice to look at the behavior of the quantity $k^2\Psi= k^2 R_{\alpha\beta} K^\alpha K^\beta$ along causal geodesics, where $R_{\alpha\beta}$ is Ricci tensor, $K^\alpha=\tfrac{\mathrm dx^\alpha}{\mathrm dk}$ is the tangent vector of the geodesic with parameter $k$. If this quantity remains bounded away from zero in the approach to the singularity, this one may be considered as physically meaningful. Let us first consider the metric . If $K^\alpha$ is a radial null geodesic, it can be computed, using , that $$k^2\Psi=2\left(\frac ka\frac{\mathrm da}{\mathrm dk}\right)^2\left[1-\frac{\psi'(a)a}{\psi(a)}\right].$$ If the limit $\tfrac{\mathrm da}{\mathrm dk}$ exists as $k\to 0$, the quantity in round brackets tends to a finite value, while the quantity in square brackets remains bounded away from zero if $\epsilon+p>0$ (see ), and then the radial null geodesic terminates in a strong singularity. Of course, in our model the interior scalar field region is matched with an exterior where metric tensor is given by , and so strength of the central singularity of must be determined to see whether strong singularity persists. \[thm:tip\] If, $\forall a\in (0,a_0)$, the quantity $\left(\frac{a\,\psi'(a)}{\psi(a)}+\frac{a\,\psi''(a)}{\psi'(a)}+2\right)$ is well defined and bounded away from zero, then there exists causal geodesics terminating into the naked singularity and satisfying the limit strong curvature condition $\liminf_{k\to 0}|k^2\Psi|>0$. Let us evaluate the strength of the $Y=0$ singularity in this case, recalling that the mass $M(Y)$ is given by . Actually, it can now be checked that $\Psi$ vanishes along null geodesics, and so we will consider the situation for *timelike* radial geodesics. Their equations integrate to give (see also ) $$\frac{\mathrm dT}{\mathrm dk}=\frac{\xi}{\chi(Y(k))},\qquad \frac{\mathrm dY}{\mathrm dk}=\sqrt{\xi^2- \zeta^2\chi(Y(k))},$$ ($\xi$ and $\zeta\ne 0$ are integration constants) that is, they are regular at $Y=0$. Therefore, considering a geodesic with $\frac{\mathrm dY}{\mathrm dk}\to 0$, it can be seen that $$\begin{gathered} |k^2\Psi|=\frac{k^2}Y M''(Y)=\frac{2}{\mathrm d^2 Y/\mathrm dk^2} M''(Y)=\\2\zeta^{-2}\frac{M''(Y) Y^2}{Y M'(Y)-M(Y)}= 2\zeta^{-2}\left(2+\frac{a\,\psi'(a)}{\psi(a)}+\frac{a\,\psi''(a)}{\psi'(a)}\right),\end{gathered}$$ and the proposition is proved since last term is bounded away from zero. \[rem:beta0\] The above theorem applies to the power–law cases discussed in Example \[ex:power\], with $\beta$ strictly positive, and more generally for functions $\psi$ not–decreasing but strictly concave in $(0,a_0)$. The case $\beta=0$ (see also Remark \[rem:power1\]), where $|k^2\Psi|$ is seen to go to zero, may be treated using ideas from [@nolan], and results in a weak singularity. Discussion and conclusions {#sec:final} ========================== As we have seen, the formation of singularities the gravitational collapse of homogeneous scalar fields with potential is completely ruled by a condition of integrability of a function related to the energy density of the model. If this function is bounded, apparent horizon formation is avoided during the evolution, and therefore the singularity is massless, which, as is well known, is actually a feature of any spherically symmetric naked singularity. The boundary develops a naked singularity when the exterior solution is given by anisotropic de Sitter generalization , and the singularity turns out to satisfy a strong curvature condition for a class of examples that also includes power–law cases studied in [@joshi]. Let us briefly comment on the choice of the exterior region. In the examples discussed in [@joshi], the matching is performed with a wider class, that is the generalization of Vaidya spacetime. One may wonder whether the strong curvature condition is satisfied also along null geodesics with this more general choice of mass profile. Actually, in this case $k^2\Psi$ is not *identically* zero – as it happens in the case we studied – but it can be checked that again it vanishes *in the limit* $k\to 0^+$, due to matching condition . It must therefore be observed that, if the exterior region is given by or even the more general metric , the limit strong curvature condition proved in Proposition \[thm:tip\] does not hold for any radial geodesic, but only for timelike geodesic satisfying $\frac{\mathrm dY}{\mathrm dk}\to 0$ in the approach to the singularity. Such a case is possible due to the fact that no apparent horizon form in the interior region, and $\chi$ is bounded away from zero near the singularity. Although one may try and see what happens with other exterior metrics, this fact seems to be a distinctive feature of the homogeneous scalar field model under exam, which possess a synchronous singularity, and therefore is qualitatively different from other Cosmic Censorship counterexamples known in literature [@JoshiCMP; @ns]. In conclusion, breaking the homogeneity assumption of scalar field models with potential seems an unavoidable step to retain strong curvature condition along *any* causal geodesic terminating into the naked singularity. [00]{} M. Choptuik, Phys. Rev. Lett. **70** (1993) 9 D. Christodoulou, Ann. Math. **140** (1994) 607 C. J. S. Clarke and A. Krolak, J. Geom. Phys. **2** (1985) 127 G. Darmois, *Mémorial des Sciences Mathématiques* *Gauthier-Villars*, Paris, 1927, Vol. 25. I. H. Dwivedi and P. S. Joshi, Comm. Math. Phys. [**166**]{} 117 (1994). R. Giambò, Class. Quantum Grav **19** (2002) 4399 R. Giambò, F. Giannoni, G. Magli, P. Piccione, Class. Quantum Grav., [**20**]{}, L75 (2003) R. Goswami, P. S. Joshi, [gr-qc/0410144]{} K. S. Govinder and M. Govender, Phys.Rev. D **68** (2003) 024034, T. Hertog, G. Horovitz, and K. Maeda, Phys. Rev. Lett. **92** (2004) 131101; W. Israel, Nuovo Cim. **44B** (1966) 1, Nuovo Cim. **49B** (1966) 463 (erratum) D. Kramer, H. Stephani, E. Herlt, M. MacCallum, [*Exact Solutions of the Einstein’s Field Equations*]{}, Cambridge University Press (1980) G. Magli, Class. Quantum Grav. **14** (1997) 1937-1953 B. C. Nolan, Phys. Rev. D **60** (1999) 024014 N. J. Nunes, J. E. Lidsey, Phys.Rev. D **69** (2004) 123511 J. R. Oppenheimer, and H. Snyder, Phys. Rev. **56** (1939) 455 A. Ori, Phys. Rev. D **61** (2000) 064016 R. Penrose, Nuovo Cimento [**1**]{} 252 (1969). F. J. Tipler, Phys. Lett. **64A** (1987) 8 F. J. Tipler, C. J. S. Clarke, and G. F. R. Ellis, in General Relativity and Gravitation Vol. 2 (ed. A Held), Plenum NY (1980) A. Wang, Y. Wu, Gen. Rel. Grav. **31** (1999), 107.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We consider a new approach to power control in decentralized wireless networks, termed fractional power control (FPC). Transmission power is chosen as the current channel quality raised to an exponent $-s$, where $s$ is a constant between 0 and 1. The choices $s = 1$ and $s = 0$ correspond to the familiar cases of channel inversion and constant power transmission, respectively. Choosing $s \in (0,1)$ allows all intermediate policies between these two extremes to be evaluated, and we see that usually neither extreme is ideal. We derive closed-form approximations for the outage probability relative to a target SINR in a decentralized (ad hoc or unlicensed) network as well as for the resulting transmission capacity, which is the number of users/m$^2$ that can achieve this SINR on average. Using these approximations, which are quite accurate over typical system parameter values, we prove that using an exponent of $s^*=\frac{1}{2}$ minimizes the outage probability, meaning that the inverse square root of the channel strength is a sensible transmit power scaling for networks with a relatively low density of interferers. We also show numerically that this choice of $s$ is robust to a wide range of variations in the network parameters. Intuitively, $s^*=\frac{1}{2}$ balances between helping disadvantaged users while making sure they do not flood the network with interference.' author: - 'Nihar Jindal, Steven Weber, Jeffrey G. Andrews [^1]' title: | Fractional Power Control for\ Decentralized Wireless Networks --- \[sec:1\] Introduction ====================== Power control is a fundamental adaptation mechanism in wireless networks, and is used to at least some extent in virtually all terrestrial wireless systems. For a single user fading channel in which the objective is to maximize expected rate, it is optimal to increase transmission power (and rate) as a function of the instantaneous channel quality according to the well-known waterfilling policy [@GolVar97]. On the other hand, if the objective is to consistently achieve a target rate (or SNR), then the power should be adjusted so that this target level is exactly met. Such an objective is philosophically the opposite of waterfilling, since power is inversely related to the instantaneous channel quality: we call this *channel inversion*. Although suboptimal from an information theory point of view, some channel inversion is used in many modern wireless systems to adapt to the extreme dynamic range (often $> 50$ dB due to path loss differences as well as multipath fading) that those systems experience, to provide a baseline user experience over a long-term time-scale. Background and Motivation for Fractional Power Control ------------------------------------------------------ In a multi-user network in which users mutually interfere, power control can be used to adjust transmit power levels so that all users simultaneously can achieve their target SINR levels. The Foschini-Miljanic algorithm is an iterative, distributed power control method that performs this task assuming that each receiver tracks its instantaneous SINR and feeds back power adjustments to its transmitter [@FosMil93]. Considerable work has deeply explored the properties of these algorithms, including developing a framework that describes all power control problems of this type [@Yat95], as well as studying the feasibility and implementation of such algorithms [@BamChe95; @HerCho00], including with varying channels [@ChaVee03]; see the recent monographs [@SchubertBocheNOW][@MChiangNOW] for excellent surveys of the vast body of literature. This body of work, while in many respects quite general, has been primarily focused on the cellular wireless communications architecture, particularly in which all users have a common receiver (i.e., the uplink). More recently, there has been considerable interest in power control for decentralized wireless networks, such as unlicensed spectrum access and ad hoc networks [@ElbEph02; @CruSan03; @Hae03; @AgaKri01; @KawKum03; @Chi05]. A key distinguishing trait of a decentralized network is that users transmit to distinct receivers in the same geographic area, which causes the power control properties to change considerably. In this paper, we explore the optimal power control policy for a multi-user decentralized wireless network with mutually interfering users and a common target SINR. We do not consider iterative algorithms and their convergence. Rather, motivated by the poor performance of channel inversion in decentralized networks [@WebAndJin07], we develop a new transmit power policy called *fractional power control*, which is neither channel inversion nor fixed transmit power, but rather a trade-off between them. Motivated by a recent Motorola proposal [@XiaRat06] for fairness in cellular networks, we consider a policy where if $H$ is the channel power between the transmitter and receiver, a transmission power of $H^{-s}$ is used, where $s$ is chosen in $[0,1]$. Clearly, $s=0$ implies constant transmit power, whereas $s=1$ is channel inversion. The natural question then is: what is an appropriate choice of $s$? We presume that $s$ is decided offline and that all users in the network utilize the same $s$. Technical Approach ------------------ We consider a spatially distributed (decentralized) network, representing either a wireless ad hoc network or unlicensed spectrum usage by many nodes (e.g., Wi-Fi or spectrum sharing systems). We consider a network that has the following key characteristics. - Each transmitter communicates with a single receiver that is a distance $d$ meters away. - Channel attenuation is determined by path loss (with exponent $\alpha$) and a (flat) fading value $H$. - Each transmitter knows the channel power to its intended receiver, but has no knowledge about other transmissions. - All multi-user interference is treated as noise. - Transmitters do not schedule their transmissions based on their channel conditions or the activities of other nodes. - Transmitter node locations are modeled by a homogeneous spatial (2-D) Poisson process. These modeling assumptions are made to simplify the analysis, but in general reasonably model a decentralized wireless network with random transmitter locations, and limited feedback mechanisms. In particular, the above assumptions refer to the situation where a connection has been established between a transmitter and receiver, in which case the channel power can be learned quickly either through reciprocity or a few bits of feedback. It is not however as easy to learn the interference level since it may change suddenly as interferers turn on and off or physically move (and reciprocity does not help). The fixed transmit distance assumption is admittedly somewhat artificial, but is significantly easier to handle analytically, and has been shown to preserve the integrity of conclusions even with random transmit distances. For example, [@WebAndJin07; @WebYan05] prove that picking the source-destination distance $d$ from an arbitrary random distribution reduces the transmission capacity by a constant factor of $E[d^2]/(E[d])^2 \geq 1$. Therefore, although fixed distance $d$ can be considered best-case as far as the numerical value of transmission capacity, this constant factor will not change fractional power control’s relative effect on the transmission capacity, which is the subject of this paper. Contributions and Organization ------------------------------ The contributions of the paper are the suggestion of fractional power control for wireless networks and the derivation of the optimum power control exponent $s^*=\frac{1}{2}$. The exponent $s=\frac{1}{2}$ is shown to be optimal for an approximation to the outage probability/transmission that is valid for relatively low density networks that are primarily interference-limited (i.e., the effect of thermal noise is not overly large); if the relative density or the effect of noise is large, then our numerical results show that no power control ($s=0$) is generally preferred. In the relatively large parameter space where our primary approximation is valid, fractional power control with the choice $s^* = \frac{1}{2}$ is shown to greatly increase the transmission capacity of a 1-hop ad hoc network for small path loss exponents (as $\alpha \to 2$), with more modest gains for higher attenuation channels. The results open a number of possible avenues for future work in the area of power control, and considering the prevalence of power control in practice, carry several design implications. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section II provides background material on the system model, and key prior results on transmission capacity that are utilized in this paper. Section III holds the main results, namely Theorem \[thm:3\] which gives the outage probability and transmission capacity achieved by fractional power control, and Theorem \[thm:4\] which determines the optimum power control exponent $s^*$ for the outage probability approximation. Section IV provides numerical plots that explore the numerically computed optimal $s^*$, which provides insight on how to choose $s$ in a real wireless network. Section V suggests possible extensions and applications of fractional power control, while Section VI concludes the paper. \[sec:2\] Preliminaries ======================= System Model ------------ We consider a set of transmitting nodes at an arbitrary snapshot in time with locations specified by a homogeneous Poisson point process (PPP), $\Pi(\lambda)$, of intensity $\lambda$ on the infinite two-dimensional plane, $\mathbb{R}^2$. We consider a reference transmitter-receiver pair, where the reference receiver, assigned index $0$, is located without loss of generality, at the origin. Let $X_i$ denote the distance of the $i$-th transmitting node to the reference receiver. Each transmitter has an associated receiver that is assumed to be located a fixed distance $d$ meters away. Let $H_{i0}$ denote the (random) distance–independent fading coefficient for the channel separating transmitter $i$ and the reference receiver at the origin; let $H_{ii}$ denote the (random) distance–independent fading coefficient for the channel separating transmitter $i$ from its intended receiver. We assume that all the $H_{ij}$ are i.i.d. (including $i=j$), which implies that no source-destination (S-D) pair has both a transmitter and receiver that are very close (less than a wavelength) to one another, which is reasonable. Received power is modelled by the product of transmission power, pathloss (with exponent $\alpha > 2$), and a fading coefficient. Therefore, the (random) SINR at the reference receiver is: $$\begin{aligned} {\rm SINR}_0 = \frac{P_0 H_{00} d^{-\alpha}}{\sum_{i \in \Pi(\lambda)} P_i H_{i0} X_i^{-\alpha} + \eta},\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta$ is the noise power. Recall our assumption that transmitters have knowledge of the channel condition, $H_{ii}$, connecting it with its intended receiver. By exploiting this knowledge, the transmission power, $P_i$, may depend upon the channel, $H_{ii}$. If Gaussian signaling is used, the corresponding achievable rate (per unit bandwidth) is $\log_2 ( 1 + {\rm SINR}_0)$. The Poisson model requires that nodes decide to transmit independently, which corresponds in the above model to slotted ALOHA [@Bac06]. A good scheduling algorithm by definition introduces correlation into the set of transmitting nodes, which is therefore not well modeled by a homogeneous PPP. We discuss the implications of scheduling later in the paper. Transmission Capacity --------------------- In the outage-based transmission capacity framework, an outage occurs whenever the SINR falls below a prescribed threshold $\beta$, or equivalently whenever the instantaneous mutual information falls below $\log_2(1+ \beta)$. Therefore, the system-wide outage probability is $$q(\lambda) = \mathbb{P}({\rm SINR}_0 < \beta) \label{eq:opdef}$$ Because (\[eq:opdef\]) is computed over the distribution of transmitter positions as well as the iid fading coefficients (and consequently transmission powers), it corresponds to fading that occurs on a time-scale that is comparable or slower than the packet duration (if (\[eq:opdef\]) is to correspond roughly to the packet error rate). The outage probability is clearly a continuous increasing function of the intensity $\lambda$. Define $\lambda(\epsilon)$ as the maximum intensity of *attempted* transmissions such that the outage probability is no larger than $\epsilon$, i.e., $\lambda(\epsilon)$ is the unique solution of $q(\lambda) = \epsilon$. The transmission capacity is then defined as $c(\epsilon) = \lambda(\epsilon) (1 - \epsilon) b$, which is the maximum density of *successful* transmissions times the spectral efficiency $b$ of each transmission. In other words, transmission capacity is area spectral efficiency subject to an outage constraint. For the sake of clarity, we define the constants $\delta = 2/\alpha < 1$ and ${\rm SNR}=\frac{p d^{-\alpha}}{\eta}$. Now consider a path-loss only environment ($H_{i0} = 1$ for all $i$) with constant transmission power ($P_i = p$ for all $i$). The main result of [@WebYan05] is given in the following theorem. \[thm:1\] [**Pure pathloss.**]{} [*Consider a network where the SINR at the reference receiver is given by (\[eq:opdef\]) with $H_{i0} = 1$ and $P_i = p$ for all $i$. Then the following expressions give bounds on the outage probability and transmission attempt intensity for $\lambda, ~ \epsilon$ small: $$\begin{aligned} q^{\rm pl}(\lambda) &\geq& q^{\rm pl}_l(\lambda) = 1 - \exp \left\{- \lambda \pi d^2 \left(\frac{1}{\beta } - \frac{1}{{\rm SNR}} \right)^{-\delta} \right\}, \label{eq-pout} \\ \lambda^{\rm pl}(\epsilon) & \leq & \lambda^{\rm pl}_u(\epsilon) = -\log(1-\epsilon)\frac{1}{\pi d^2} \left(\frac{1}{\beta } - \frac{1}{{\rm SNR}} \right)^{\delta}. \label{eq-transcap}\end{aligned}$$*]{} Here [*pl*]{} denotes pathloss. The transmission attempt intensity upper bound, $\lambda^{\rm pl}_u(\epsilon)$, is obtained by solving $q^{\rm pl}_l(\lambda) = \epsilon$ for $\lambda$. These bounds are shown to be approximations for small $\lambda,\epsilon$ respectively, which is the usual regime of interest. Note also that $- \log(1-\epsilon) = \epsilon+ O(\epsilon^2)$, which implies that transmission density is approximately linear with the desired outage level, $\epsilon$, for small outages. The following corollary illustrates the simplification of the above results when the noise may be ignored. \[cor:1\] [*When $\eta = 0$ the expressions in Theorem \[thm:1\] simplify to: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn:a} q^{\rm pl}(\lambda) &\geq& q^{\rm pl}_l(\lambda) = 1 - \exp \left\{- \lambda \pi d^2 \beta^{\delta} \right\}, \\ \lambda^{\rm pl}(\epsilon) & \leq & \lambda^{\rm pl}_u(\epsilon) = -\log(1-\epsilon)\frac{1}{\pi d^2 \beta^{\delta}}. \label{eqn:a2}\end{aligned}$$*]{} \[sec:3\] Fractional Power Control ================================== The goal of the paper is to determine the effect that fractional power control has on the outage probability lower bound in (\[eq-pout\]) and hence the transmission capacity upper bound in (\[eq-transcap\]). We first review the key prior result that we will use, then derive the maximum transmission densities $\lambda$ for different power control policies. We conclude the section by finding the optimal power control exponent $s$. Transmission capacity under constant power and channel inversion ---------------------------------------------------------------- In this subsection we restrict our attention to two well-known power control strategies: constant transmit power (or no power control) and channel inversion. Under constant power, $P_i = p$ for all $i$ for some common power level $p$. Under channel inversion, $P_i = \frac{p}{\mathbb{E}[H^{-1}]}H_{ii}^{-1}$ for all $i$. This means that the received signal power is $P_i H_{ii} d^{-\alpha} = \frac{p}{\mathbb{E}[H^{-1}]} d^{-\alpha}$, which is constant for all $i$. That is, channel inversion compensates for the random channel fluctuations between each transmitter and its intended receiver. Moreover, the expected transmission power is $\mathbb{E}[P_i] = p$, so that the constant power and channel inversion schemes use the same expected power. We would like to emphasize the distribution of $H$ is arbitrary and can be adapted in principle to any relevant fading or compound shadowing-fading model. For some possible distributions (such as Rayleigh fading, i.e. $H \sim \exp(1)$), the value $\mathbb{E}[H^{-1}]$ may be undefined, strictly speaking. In practice, the transmit power is finite and so $P_i = \frac{p}{\mathbb{E}[H^{-1}]}H_{ii}^{-1}$ is finite. The value $\mathbb{E}[H^{-1}]$ is simply a normalizing factor and can be interpreted mathematically to mean that $H \to \min(H,\delta)$ for an arbitrarily small $\delta$. Such a definition would not affect the results in the paper. A main result of [@WebAndJin07] extended to include thermal noise is given in the following theorem, with a general proof that will apply to all three cases of interest: constant power, channel inversion and fractional power control. Note that [cp]{} and ${\rm ci}$ are used to denote constant power and channel inversion, respectively. \[thm:2\] [*[**Constant power.**]{} Consider a network where the SINR at the reference receiver is given by (\[eq:opdef\]) with $P_i = p$ for all $i$. Then the following expressions give good approximations of the outage probability and transmission attempt intensity for $\lambda,\epsilon$ small. $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber q^{\rm cp}(\lambda) &\geq& q^{\rm cp}_l(\lambda) = 1 - \mathbb{P} \left(H_{00} \geq \frac{\beta}{{\rm SNR}}\right) \mathbb{E} \left[ \exp \left\{-\lambda \pi d^2 \mathbb{E}[H^{\delta}] \left(\frac{H_{00}}{\beta} - \frac{1}{{\rm SNR}} \right)^{-\delta} \right\} \Big\vert H_{00} \geq \frac{\beta}{{\rm SNR}} \right] \\ & \approx & \tilde{q}^{\rm cp}_l(\lambda) = 1 - \mathbb{P} \left(H_{00} \geq \frac{\beta}{{\rm SNR}}\right) \exp \left\{-\lambda \pi d^2 \mathbb{E}[H^{\delta}] \mathbb{E} \left[ \left(\frac{H_{00}}{\beta} - \frac{1}{{\rm SNR}} \right)^{-\delta} \Big\vert H_{00} \geq \frac{\beta}{{\rm SNR}} \right] \right\} \nonumber \\ \lambda^{\rm cp}(\epsilon) & \approx & \tilde{\lambda}^{\rm cp}(\epsilon) = - \log\left( \frac{1-\epsilon}{\mathbb{P} \left(H_{00} \geq \frac{\beta}{{\rm SNR}}\right)} \right) \frac{1}{\pi d^2} \frac{1}{\mathbb{E}[H^{\delta}]} \mathbb{E} \left[ \left(\frac{H_{00}}{\beta} - \frac{1}{{\rm SNR}} \right)^{-\delta} \Big\vert H_{00} \geq \frac{\beta}{{\rm SNR}} \right]^{-1}. \label{eq:cp3}\end{aligned}$$ [**Channel inversion.**]{} Consider the same network with $P_i = \frac{p}{\mathbb{E}[H^{-1}]}H_{ii}^{-1}$ for all $i$. Then the following expressions give tight bounds on the outage probability and transmission attempt intensity for $\lambda,\epsilon$ small: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:ci1} q^{\rm ci}(\lambda) &\geq& q^{\rm ci}_l(\lambda) = 1 - \exp \left\{-\lambda \pi d^2 \mathbb{E}[H^{\delta}]\mathbb{E}[H^{-\delta}] \left(\frac{1}{\beta} - \frac{\mathbb{E}[H^{-1}]}{{\rm SNR}} \right)^{-\delta} \right\} \\ \lambda^{\rm ci}(\epsilon) & \leq & \lambda^{\rm ci}_u(\epsilon) = - \log(1-\epsilon) \frac{1}{\pi d^2} \frac{1}{\mathbb{E}[H^{\delta}]\mathbb{E}[H^{-\delta}]} \left(\frac{1}{\beta} - \frac{\mathbb{E}[H^{-1}]}{{\rm SNR}} \right)^{\delta} . \label{eq:ci2} \\ \nonumber\end{aligned}$$*]{} The SINR at the reference receiver for a generic power vector $\{P_i\}$ is $${\rm SINR}_0 = \frac{P_0 H_{00} d^{-\alpha}}{\sum_{i \in \Pi(\lambda)} P_i H_{i0} X_i^{-\alpha} + \eta},$$ and the corresponding outage probability is $$q(\lambda) = \mathbb{P}({\rm SINR}_0 < \beta) = \mathbb{P} \left( \frac{P_0 H_{00} d^{-\alpha}}{\sum_{i \in \Pi(\lambda)} P_i H_{i0} X_i^{-\alpha} + \eta} < \beta \right).$$ Rearranging yields: $$q(\lambda) = \mathbb{P} \left( \sum_{i \in \Pi(\lambda)} P_i H_{i0} X_i^{-\alpha} \geq \frac{P_0 H_{00} d^{-\alpha}}{\beta} - \eta \right).$$ Note that outage is certain when $P_0 H_{00} < \eta \beta d^{\alpha}$. Conditioning on $P_0 H_{00}$ and using $f(\cdot)$ to denote the density of $P_0 H_{00}$ yields: $$q(\lambda) = \mathbb{P} \left(P_0 H_{00} \leq \eta \beta d^{\alpha} \right) + \int_{\eta \beta d^{\alpha}}^{\infty} \mathbb{P} \left( \sum_{i \in \Pi(\lambda)} P_i H_{i0} X_i^{-\alpha} \geq \frac{p_0 h_{00} }{\beta d^{\alpha}} - \eta ~ \Big\vert ~ P_0 H_{00} = p_0 h_{00} \right) f(p_0 h_{00}) {\rm d} (p_0 h_{00}).$$ Recall the generic lower bound from [@WebAndJin07]: if $\Pi(\lambda) = \{(X_i,Z_i)\}$ is a homogeneous marked Poisson point process with points $\{X_i\}$ of intensity $\lambda$ and iid marks $\{Z_i\}$ independent of the $\{X_i\}$, then $$\mathbb{P} \left(\sum_{i \in \Pi(\lambda)} Z_i X_i^{-\alpha} > y \right) \geq 1 - \exp \left\{ - \pi \lambda \mathbb{E}[Z^\delta] y^{-\delta} \right\},$$ Applying here with $Z_i = P_i H_{i0}$ and $y = \frac{p_0 h_{00} }{\beta d^{\alpha}} - \eta$: $$\begin{aligned} q(\lambda) & \geq & \mathbb{P} \left(P_0 H_{00} \leq \eta \beta d^{\alpha} \right) + \int_{\eta \beta d^{\alpha}}^{\infty} \left(1 - \exp \left\{- \pi \lambda \mathbb{E}[(P_i H_{i0})^{\delta}] \left( \frac{p_0 h_{00} }{\beta d^{\alpha}} - \eta \right)^{-\delta} \right\} \right) f(p_0 h_{00}) {\rm d} (p_0 h_{00}) \nonumber \\ &=& 1 - \int_{\eta \beta d^{\alpha}}^{\infty} \exp \left\{- \pi \lambda \mathbb{E}[(P_i H_{i0})^{\delta}] \left( \frac{p_0 h_{00} }{\beta d^{\alpha}} - \eta \right)^{-\delta} \right\} f(p_0 h_{00}) {\rm d} (p_0 h_{00}) \nonumber \\ &=& 1 - \mathbb{P} \left(P_0 H_{00} \geq \eta \beta d^{\alpha} \right) \mathbb{E} \left[ \exp \left\{- \lambda \pi d^2 \mathbb{E}[(P_i H_{i0})^{\delta}] \left( \frac{P_0 H_{00} }{\beta } - \frac{\eta}{d^{-\alpha}} \right)^{-\delta} \right\} \Big\vert P_0 H_{00} \geq \eta \beta d^{\alpha} \right]. \label{eq-outage_lower}\end{aligned}$$ The Jensen approximation for this quantity is: $$q(\lambda) \approx 1 - \mathbb{P} \left(P_0 H_{00} \geq \eta \beta d^{\alpha} \right) \exp \left\{- \lambda \pi d^2 \mathbb{E}[(P_i H_{i0})^{\delta}] \mathbb{E} \left[ \left( \frac{P_0 H_{00} }{\beta } - \frac{\eta}{d^{-\alpha}} \right)^{-\delta} \Big\vert P_0 H_{00} \geq \eta \beta d^{\alpha} \right] \right\}. \label{eq-outage_jensen}$$ For constant power we substitute $P_i H_{i0} = p H_{i0}$ (for all $i$) into (\[eq-outage\_lower\]) and (\[eq-outage\_jensen\]) and manipulate to get the expressions for $q^{\rm cp}_l(\lambda)$ and $\tilde{q}^{\rm cp}_l(\lambda)$ in (\[eq:cp3\]). To obtain $\tilde{\lambda}^{\rm cp}(\epsilon)$, we solve $\tilde{q}^{\rm cp}_l(\lambda) = \epsilon$ for $\lambda$. For channel inversion, $P_0 H_{00} = \frac{p}{\mathbb{E}[H^{-1}]}$ while for $i \ne 0$ we have $P_i H_{i0} =\frac{p}{\mathbb{E}[H^{-1}]}\frac{H_{i0}}{H_{ii}}$. Plugging into (\[eq-outage\_lower\]) and using the fact that $H_{ii}$ and $H_{i0}$ are i.i.d. yields (\[eq:ci1\]), and (\[eq:ci2\]) is simply the inverse of (\[eq:ci1\]). Note that channel inversion only makes sense when $\frac{{\rm SNR}}{\mathbb{E}[H^{-1}]} = \frac{p d^{-\alpha}}{\eta \mathbb{E}[H^{-1}]}$, the effective interference-free SNR after taking into account the power cost of inversion, is larger than the SINR threshold $\beta$. The validity of the outage lower bound/density upper bound as well as of the Jensen’s approximation are evaluated in the numerical and simulation results in Section \[sec:numerical\]. When the thermal noise can be ignored, these results simplify to the expressions given in the following corollary: \[cor:2\] [*When $\eta = 0$ the expressions in Theorem \[thm:2\] simplify to: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn:b} q^{\rm cp}(\lambda) &\geq& q^{\rm cp}_l(\lambda) = 1 - \mathbb{E} \left[ \exp \left\{-\lambda \pi d^2 \beta^{\delta} \mathbb{E}\left[H^{\delta} \right] H_{00}^{-\delta}\right\}\right] \nonumber \\ & \approx & \tilde{q}^{\rm cp}_l(\lambda) = 1 - \exp \left\{-\lambda \pi d^2 \beta^{\delta} \mathbb{E}\left[H^{\delta} \right] \mathbb{E} \left[H^{-\delta} \right] \right\}, \nonumber \\ q^{\rm ci}(\lambda) & \geq & q^{\rm ci}_l(\lambda) = 1 - \exp \left\{-\lambda \pi d^2 \beta^{\delta} \mathbb{E}\left[H^{\delta} \right] \mathbb{E} \left[H^{-\delta} \right] \right\}, \nonumber \\ \lambda^{\rm cp}(\epsilon) & \approx & \tilde{\lambda}^{\rm cp}(\epsilon) = - \log(1-\epsilon) \frac{1}{\pi d^2 \beta^{\delta}} \frac{1}{\mathbb{E}\left[H^{\delta} \right] \mathbb{E} \left[H^{-\delta} \right]}, \nonumber \\ \lambda^{\rm ci}(\epsilon) & \leq & \lambda^{\rm ci}_u(\epsilon) = - \log(1-\epsilon) \frac{1}{\pi d^2 \beta^{\delta}} \frac{1}{\mathbb{E}\left[H^{\delta} \right] \mathbb{E} \left[H^{-\delta} \right]}.\end{aligned}$$* ]{} Note that these expressions match Theorem 3 and Corollary 3 of the SIR-analysis performed in [@WebAndJin07]. In the absence of noise the constant power outage probability approximation equals the channel inversion outage probability lower bound: $\tilde{q}_l^{\rm cp}(\lambda) = q_l^{\rm ci}(\lambda)$. As a result, the constant power transmission attempt intensity approximation equals the channel inversion transmission attempt intensity upper bound: $\tilde{\lambda}^{\rm cp}(\epsilon) = \lambda_u^{\rm ci}(\epsilon)$. Comparing $\tilde{\lambda}^{\rm cp}(\epsilon) = \lambda_u^{\rm ci}(\epsilon)$ in (\[eqn:b\]) with $\lambda_u^{\rm pl}(\epsilon)$ in (\[eqn:a2\]) it is evident that the impact of fading on the transmission capacity is measured by the loss factor, $L^{\rm cp} = L^{\rm ci}$, defined as $$L^{\rm cp} = L^{\rm ci} = \frac{1}{\mathbb{E}\left[H^{\delta} \right] \mathbb{E} \left[H^{-\delta} \right]} < 1.$$ The inequality is obtained by applying Jensen’s inequality to the convex function $1/x$ and the random variable $H^{\delta}$. If constant power is used, the $\mathbb{E}[H^{-\delta} ]$ term is due to fading of the desired signal while the $\mathbb{E}[H^{\delta}]$ term is due to fading of the interfering links. Fading of the interfering signal has a positive effect while fading of the desired signal has a negative effect. If channel inversion is performed the $\mathbb{E}[H^{-\delta} ]$ term is due to each interfering transmitter using power proportional to $H_{ii}^{-1}$. When the path loss exponent, $\alpha$, is close to 2 then $\delta = 2/\alpha$ is close to one, so the term $\mathbb{E}[H^{-\delta} ]$ is nearly equal to the expectation of the inverse of the fading, which can be extremely large for severe fading distributions such as Rayleigh. As a less severe example, $\alpha =3$, the loss factor for Rayleigh fading is $L^{\mathrm{cp}} = L^{\mathrm{ci}} = 0.41$. Transmission capacity under fractional power control ---------------------------------------------------- In this section we generalize the results of Theorem \[thm:2\] by introducing fractional power control (FPC) with parameter $s \in [0,1]$. Under FPC the transmission power is set to $P_i = \frac{p}{\mathbb{E}[H^{-s}]} H_{ii}^{-s}$ for each $i$. The received power at receiver $i$ is then $P_i H_{ii} d^{-\alpha} = \frac{p}{\mathbb{E}[H^{-s}]} H_{ii}^{1-s}d^{-\alpha}$, which depends upon $i$ aside from $s=1$. The expected transmission power is $p$, ensuring a fair comparison with the results in Theorems \[thm:1\] and \[thm:2\]. Note that constant power corresponds to $s=0$ and channel inversion corresponds to $s=1$. The following theorem gives good approximations on the outage probability and maximum allowable transmission intensity under FPC. \[thm:3\] [*[**Fractional power control.**]{} Consider a network where the SINR at the reference receiver is given by (\[eq:opdef\]) with $P_i = \frac{p}{\mathbb{E}[H^{-s}]} H_{ii}^{-s}$ for all $i$, for some $s \in [0,1]$. Then the following expressions give good approximations of the outage probability and maximum transmission attempt intensity for $\lambda, ~ \epsilon$ small $$\begin{aligned} q^{\rm fpc}(\lambda) & \geq & q^{\rm fpc}_l(\lambda) = 1 - \mathbb{P} \left(H_{00} \geq \kappa(s) \right) \times \\ && \hspace{25mm} \mathbb{E} \left[ \exp \left\{- \lambda \pi d^2 \mathbb{E}[H^{-s \delta}] \mathbb{E}[H^{\delta}] \left( \frac{H_{00}^{1-s} }{\beta } - \frac{\mathbb{E}[H^{-s}]}{{\rm SNR}} \right)^{-\delta} \right\} \Big\vert H_{00} \geq \kappa(s) \right] \\ & \approx & \tilde{q}^{\rm fpc}_l(\lambda) = 1 - \mathbb{P} \left(H_{00} \geq \kappa(s) \right) \times \\ && \hspace{25mm} \exp \left\{- \lambda \pi d^2 \mathbb{E}[H^{-s \delta}] \mathbb{E}[H^{\delta}] \mathbb{E} \left[ \left(\frac{H_{00}^{1-s} }{\beta} - \frac{\mathbb{E}[H^{-s}]}{{\rm SNR}} \right)^{-\delta} \Big\vert H_{00} \geq \kappa(s) \right] \right\}\\ \lambda^{\rm fpc}(\epsilon) & \approx & \tilde{\lambda}^{\rm fpc}(\epsilon) = - \log \left( \frac{1-\epsilon}{\mathbb{P} \left(H_{00} \geq \kappa(s) \right)} \right) \frac{1}{\pi d^2} \frac{1} {\mathbb{E}[H^{-s\delta}]\mathbb{E}[H^{\delta}]} \times \\ && \hspace{65mm} \left( \mathbb{E} \left[ \left(\frac{H_{00}^{1-s} }{\beta } - \frac{\mathbb{E}[H^{-s}]}{{\rm SNR}} \right)^{-\delta} \Big\vert H_{00} \geq \kappa(s) \right] \right)^{-1}\end{aligned}$$*]{} where $\kappa(s) = \left( \frac{\beta}{\rm SNR} \mathbb{E}[H^{-s}] \right)^{\frac{1}{1-s}}$. Under FPC, the transmit power for each user is constructed as $P_i = \frac{p}{\mathbb{E}[H^{-s}]}H_{ii}^{-s}$. Substituting this value into the proof for Theorem 2 immediately gives the expression for $q^{\rm fpc}_l(\lambda)$. Again, the transmission attempt intensity approximation is obtained by solving $\tilde{q}_l(\lambda) = \epsilon$ for $\lambda$. As with Theorem \[thm:2\], the approximation $q^{\rm fpc}_l(\lambda) \approx \tilde{q}^{\rm fpc}_l(\lambda)$ is accurate when the exponential term in $q^{\rm fpc}_l(\lambda)$ is approximately linear in its argument and thus Jensen’s is tight. In other words, this approximation utilizes the fact that ${\rm e}^{-x}$ is nearly linear for small $x$. Looking at the expression for $q^{\rm fpc}_l(\lambda)$ we see that this reasonable when the *relative density* $\lambda \pi d^2$ is small. If this is not true then the approximation $\tilde{q}^{\rm fpc}_l(\lambda)$ is not sufficiently accurate, as will be further seen in the numerical results presented in Section \[sec:numerical\]. The FPC transmission attempt intensity approximation, $\tilde{\lambda}^{\rm fpc}(\epsilon)$, is obtained by solving $\tilde{q}^{\rm fpc}_l(\lambda) = \epsilon$ for $\lambda$. The following corollary illustrates the simplification of the above results when the noise may be ignored. \[cor:3\] [*When $\eta = 0$ the expressions in Theorem \[thm:3\] simplify to: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn:c} q^{\rm fpc}(\lambda) &\geq& q^{\rm fpc}_l(\lambda) = 1 - \mathbb{E} \left[ \exp \left\{-\lambda \pi d^2 \beta^{\delta} \mathbb{E}\left[H^{\delta} \right] \mathbb{E}\left[H^{-s\delta} \right] H_{00}^{-(1-s) \delta}\right\}\right] \nonumber \\ & \approx & \tilde{q}^{\rm fpc}_l(\lambda) = 1 - \exp \left\{-\lambda \pi d^2 \beta^{\delta} \mathbb{E}\left[H^{\delta} \right] \mathbb{E}\left[H^{-s\delta} \right] \mathbb{E} \left[ H^{-(1-s) \delta} \right] \right\}, \nonumber \\ \lambda^{\rm fpc}(\epsilon) & \approx & \tilde{\lambda}^{\rm fpc}(\epsilon) = - \log(1-\epsilon) \frac{1}{\pi d^2 \beta^{\delta}} \frac{1}{\mathbb{E}\left[H^{\delta} \right] \mathbb{E}\left[H^{-s\delta} \right] \mathbb{E} \left[ H^{-(1-s) \delta} \right]}.\end{aligned}$$* ]{} The loss factor for FPC, $L^{\rm fpc}$, is the reduction in the transmission capacity approximation relative to the pure pathloss case: $$L^{\rm fpc}(s) = \frac{1}{\mathbb{E}\left[H^{\delta} \right] \mathbb{E}\left[H^{-s\delta} \right] \mathbb{E} \left[ H^{-(1-s) \delta} \right]}.$$ Clearly, the loss factor $L^{\mathrm{fpc}}$ for FPC depends on the design choice of the exponent $s$. Optimal Fractional Power Control Exponent {#sec:optfpc} ----------------------------------------- Fractional power control represents a balance between the extremes of no power control and channel inversion. The mathematical effect of fractional power control is to replace the $\mathbb{E}[H^{-\delta}]$ term with $\mathbb{E}[H^{-s \delta}] \mathbb{E}[H^{-(1-s)\delta}]$. This is because the signal fading is [*softened*]{} by the power control exponent $-s$ so that it results in a leading term of $H^{-(1-s)}$ (rather than $H^{-1}$) in the numerator of the SINR expression, and ultimately to the $\mathbb{E}[H^{-(1-s)\delta} ]$ term. The interference power is also softened by the fractional power control and leads to the $\mathbb{E}[H^{-s\delta} ]$ term. The key question of course lies in determining the optimal power control exponent. Although it does not seem possible to derive an analytical expression for the exponent that minimizes the general expression for $q^{\rm fpc}_l(\lambda)$ given in Theorem \[thm:3\], we can find the exponent that minimizes the outage probability approximation in the case of no noise. \[thm:4\] [*In the absence of noise ($\eta = 0$), the fractional power control outage probability approximation, $\tilde{q}^{\rm fpc}_l(\lambda)$, is minimized for $s=\frac{1}{2}$. Hence, the fractional power control transmission attempt intensity approximation, $\tilde{\lambda}^{\rm fpc}(\epsilon)$ is also maximized for $s = \frac{1}{2}$.*]{} Because the outage probability/transmission density approximations depend on the exponent $s$ only through the quantity $\mathbb{E} \left[H^{-s \delta } \right] \mathbb{E}\left[H^{-(1-s)\delta} \right]$, it is sufficient to show that $\mathbb{E} \left[H^{-s \delta } \right] \mathbb{E}\left[H^{-(1-s)\delta} \right] $ is minimized at $s=\frac{1}{2}$. To do this, we use the following general result, which we prove in the Appendix. For any non-negative random variable $X$, the function $$h(s) = \mathbb{E}\left[ X^{-s} \right] \mathbb{E} \left[ X^{s-1} \right],$$ is convex in $s$ for $s \in \mathbb{R}$ with a unique minimum at $s = \frac{1}{2}$. Applying this result to random variable $X=H^{\delta}$ gives the desired result. The theorem shows that transmission density is maximized, or equivalently, outage probability is minimized, by balancing the positive and negative effects of power control, which are reduction of signal fading and increasing interference, respectively. Using an exponent greater than $\frac{1}{2}$ [*o*ver-compensates]{} for signal fading and leads to interference levels that are too high, while using an exponent smaller than $\frac{1}{2}$ leads to small interference levels but an [*u*nder-compensation]{} for signal fading. Note that because the key expression $\mathbb{E} \left[ H^{-s \delta } \right] \mathbb{E} \left[ H^{-(1-s)\delta} \right]$ is convex, the loss relative to using $s=\frac{1}{2}$ increases monotonically both as $s \to 0$ and $s \to 1$. One can certainly envision “fractional" power control schemes that go even further. For example, $s > 1$ corresponds to “super" channel inversion, in which bad channels take resources from good channels even more so than in normal channel inversion. Not surprisingly, this is not a wise policy. Less obviously, $s < 0$ corresponds to what is sometimes called “greedy" optimization, in which good channels are given more resources at the further expense of poor channels. Waterfilling is an example of a greedy optimization procedure. But, since $\mathbb{E} \left[ H^{-s \delta } \right] \mathbb{E} \left[ H^{-(1-s)\delta} \right]$ monotonically increases as $s$ decreases, it is clear that greedy power allocations of any type are worse than even constant transmit power under the SINR-target set up. The numerical results in the next section show that FPC is very beneficial relative to constant transmit power or channel inversion. However, fading has a deleterious effect relative to no fading even if the optimal exponent is used. To see this, note that $x^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ is a convex function and therefore Jensen’s yields $\mathbb{E}[X^{-\frac{1}{2}}] \geq (\mathbb{E}[X])^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ for any non-negative random variable $X$. Applying this to $X=H^{\delta}$ we get $\left( \mathbb{E} \left[ H^{-\frac{\delta}{2}} \right] \right)^2 \geq \left( \mathbb{E}[H^{\delta}] \right)^{-1}$, which implies $$\begin{aligned} L^{\rm fpc}(1/2) = \frac{1} { \mathbb{E} \left[ H^{\delta} \right] \left( \mathbb{E} \left[ H^{- \frac{\delta}{2} } \right] \right)^2 } \leq 1.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, fractional PC cannot fully overcome fading, but it is definitely a better power control policy than constant power transmission or traditional power control (channel inversion). \[sec:numerical\] Numerical Results and Discussion ================================================== In this section, the implications of fractional power control are illustrated through numerical plots and analytical discussion. The tightness of the bounds will be considered as a function of the system parameters, and the choice of a robust FPC exponent $s$ will be proposed. As default parameters, the simulations assume $$\begin{array}{cccccc} \alpha = 3, & \beta = 1 ~(0 ~{\rm dB}), & d = 10 {\rm m}, & {\rm SNR} = \frac{p d^{-\alpha}}{\eta } = 100 ~(20~ {\rm dB}), & \lambda = 0.0001 ~ \frac{\rm users}{{\rm m}^2}. \end{array}$$ Furthermore, Rayleigh fading is assumed for the numerical results. Effect of Fading ---------------- The benefit of fractional power control can be quickly illustrated in Rayleigh fading, in which case the channel power $H$ is exponentially distributed and the moment generating function is therefore $$\label{eqn:at} \mathbb{E}[H^t] = \Gamma(1+t),$$ where $\Gamma(\cdot)$ is the standard gamma function. If fractional power control is used, the transmission capacity loss due to fading is $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq-rayleigh} L^{\rm fpc} = \frac{1} { \mathbb{E} \left[ H^{\delta} \right] \mathbb{E} \left[ H^{-s \delta } \right] \mathbb{E}\left[ H^{(1-s)\delta} \right] } = \frac{1}{ \Gamma(1 + \delta) \cdot \Gamma(1 - s \delta) \cdot \Gamma(1 - (1-s) \delta)}\end{aligned}$$ In Fig. \[fig-pc1\] this loss factor ($L$) is plotted as a function of $s$ for path loss exponents $\alpha = \{2.1, 3, 4\}$. Notice that for each value of $\alpha$ the maximum takes place at $s=\frac{1}{2}$, and that the cost of not using fractional power control is highest for small path loss exponents because $\Gamma(1+x)$ goes to infinity quite steeply as $x \rightarrow -1$. This plot implies that in severe fading channels, the gain from FPC can be quite significant. It should be noted that the expression in (\[eq-rayleigh\]) is for the case of no thermal noise ($\eta=0$). In this case the power cost of FPC completely vanishes, because the same power normalization (by $\mathbb{E}[H^{-s}]$) is performed by each transmitting node and therefore this normalization cancels in the SIR expression. On the other hand, this power cost does not vanish if the noise is strictly positive and can potentially be quite significant, particularly if ${\rm SNR}$ is not large. A simple application of Jensen’s shows that the power normalization factor $\mathbb{E}[H^{-s}]$ is an increasing function of the exponent $s$ for any distribution on $H$. For the particular case of Rayleigh fading this normalization factor is $ \Gamma(1-s)$ which makes it prohibitively expensive to choose $s$ very close to one; indeed, the choice $s=1$ requires infinite power and thus is not feasible. On the other hand, note that $\Gamma(.5)$ is approximately $2.5$ dB and thus the cost of a moderate exponent is not so large. When the interference-free ${\rm SNR}$ is reasonably large, this normalization factor is relatively negligible and the effect of FPC is well approximated by (\[eq-rayleigh\]). Tightness of Bounds ------------------- There are two principle approximations made in attaining the expressions for outage probability and transmission capacity in Theorem 3. First, the inequality is due to considering only *dominant* interferers; that is, an interferer whose channel to the desired receiver is strong enough to cause outage even without any other interferers present. This is a lower bound on outage since it ignores non-dominant interferers, but nevertheless has been seen to be quite accurate in our prior work [@WebYan05; @WebAnd07; @WebAndJin07]. Second, Jensen’s inequality is used to bound $\mathbb{E}[\exp(X)] \geq \exp(\mathbb{E}[X])$ in the opposite direction, so this results in an approximation to the outage probability rather than a lower bound; numerical results confirm that this approximation is in fact not a lower bound in general. Therefore, we consider the three relevant quantities: (1) the actual outage probability $q^{\rm fpc}(\lambda)$, which is determined via Monte-Carlo simulation and does not depend on any bounds or approximations, (2) a numerical computation of the outage probability lower bound $q^{\rm fpc}_l(\lambda)$, and (3) the approximation to the outage probability $\tilde{q}^{\rm fpc}_l(\lambda)$ reached by applying Jensen’s inequality to $q^{\rm fpc}_l(\lambda)$. Note that because of the two opposing bounds (one lower and one upper), we cannot say *a priori* that method (2) will produce more accurate expressions than method (3). The tightness of the bounds is explored in Figs. \[fig:default\] - \[fig:SINR\]. Consider first Fig. \[fig:default\] for the default parameters given above. We can see that the lower bound and the Jensen approximation both reasonably approximate the simulation results, and the approximation winds up serving as a lower bound as well. The Jensen’s approximation is very accurate for large values of $s$ (i.e., closer to channel inversion), and while looser for smaller values of $s$, this “error" actually moves the Jensen’s approximation closer to the actual (simulated) outage probability. The Jensen’s approximation approaches the lower bound as $s \to 1$ because the random variable $H^{(1-s)\delta}$ approaches a constant, where Jensen’s inequality trivially holds with equality (see, e.g., (\[eqn:c\])). Changing the path loss exponent $\alpha$, the SNR, the target SINR $\beta$, or the density $\lambda$ can have a significant effect on the bounds, as we will see. With the important exception of high density networks, the approximations are seen to be reasonably accurate for reasonable parameter values. **Path loss.** In Fig. \[fig:PL\], the bounds are given for $\alpha = 2.2$ and $\alpha = 5$, which correspond to much weaker and much stronger attenuation than the (more likely) default case of $\alpha = 3$. For weaker attenuation, we can see that the lower bound holds the right shape but is less accurate, while the Jensen’s approximation becomes very loose when the FPC exponent $s$ is small. For path loss exponents near $2$, the dominant interferer approximation is weakened because the attenuation of non-dominant interferers is less drastic. On the other hand, both the lower bound and Jensen’s approximation are very accurate in strong attenuation environments as seen in the $\alpha=5$ plot. This is because the dominant interferer approximation is very reasonable in such cases. **SNR.** The behavior of the bounds also varies as the background noise level changes, as shown in Fig. \[fig:SNR\]. When the SNR is 10 dB, the bounds are quite tight. However, the behavior of outage probability as a function of $s$ is quite different from the default case in Fig. \[fig:default\]: outage probability decreases slowly as $s$ is increased, and a rather sharp jump is seen as $s$ approaches one. When the interference-free SNR is only moderately larger than the target SINR (in this case there is a 10 dB difference between ${\rm SNR}$ and $\beta$), a significant portion of outages occur because the signal power is so small that the *interference-free* received SNR falls below the target $\beta$; this probability is captured by the $\mathbb{P} \left(H_{00} \geq \kappa(s) \right)$ terms in Theorem \[thm:3\]. On the other hand, if ${\rm SNR}$ is much larger than the target $\beta$, outages are almost always due to a combination of signal fading and large interference power rather than to signal fading alone (i.e., $\mathbb{P} \left(H_{00} \geq \kappa(s) \right)$ is insignificant compared to the total outage probability). When outages caused purely by signal fading are significant, the dependence on the exponent $s$ is significantly reduced. Furthermore, the power cost of FPC becomes much more significant when the gap between ${\rm SNR}$ and $\beta$ is reduced; this explains the sharp increase in outage as $s$ approaches one. When ${\rm SNR}= 30$ dB, the behavior is quite similar to the 20 dB case because at this point the gap between ${\rm SNR}$ and $\beta$ is so large that thermal noise can effectively be neglected. **Target SINR.** A default SINR of $\beta = 1$ was chosen, which corresponds roughly to a spectral efficiency of 1 bps/Hz with strong coding, and lies between the low and high SINR regimes. Exploring an order of magnitude above and below the default in Fig. \[fig:SINR\], we see that for $\beta = 0.1$ the bounds are highly accurate, and show that $s^* = \frac{1}{2}$ is a good choice. For this choice of parameters there is a 30 dB gap between ${\rm SNR}$ and $\beta$ and thus thermal noise is essentially negligible. On the other hand, if $\beta = 10$ the bounds are still reasonable, but the outage behavior is very similar to the earlier case where ${\rm SNR}=10$ dB and $\beta=0$ dB because there is again only a 10 dB gap between ${\rm SNR}$ and $\beta$. Despite the qualitative and quantitative differences for low SNR and high target SINR from the default values, it is interesting to note that in both cases $s = \frac{1}{2}$ is still a robust choice for the FPC exponent. **Density.** The default value of $\lambda = 0.0001$ corresponds to a somewhat low density network because the expected distance to the nearest interferer is approximately $50$ m, while the TX-RX distance is $d=10$ m. In Fig. \[fig:DENSITY\] we explore a density an order of magnitude lower and higher than the default value. When the network is even sparser, the bounds are extremely accurate and we see that $s^* = \frac{1}{2}$ is a near-optimal choice. However, the behavior with $s$ is very different in a dense network where $\lambda = .001$ and the nearest interferer is approximately $17$ m away. In such a network we see that the nearest neighbor bound is quite loose because a substantial fraction of outages are caused by the summation of non-dominant interferers, as intuitively expected for a dense network. Although the bound is loose, it does capture the fact that outage increases with the exponent $s$. On the other hand, the Jensen approximation is loose and does not correctly capture the relationship between $s$ and outage. The approximation is based on the fact that the function $e^{-x}$ is approximately linear for small $x$. The quantity $x$ is proportional to $\pi \lambda d^2$, which is large when the network is dense relative to TX-RX distance $d$, and thus this approximation is not valid for relatively dense networks. Choosing the FPC exponent $s$ ----------------------------- Determining the optimum choice of FPC exponent $s$ is a key interest of this paper. As seen in Sect. \[sec:optfpc\], $s^* = \frac{1}{2}$ is optimal for the Jensen’s approximation and with no noise, both of which are questionable assumptions in many regimes of interest. In Figs. \[fig:sPL\] – \[fig:sDENSITY\], we plot the truly optimal choice of $s^*$ for the default parameters, while varying $\alpha$, SNR, $\beta$, and $\lambda$, respectively. That is, the value of $s$ that minimizes the true outage probability is determined for each set of parameters. The FPC exponents $s_l(\Delta)$ and $s_u(\Delta)$ are also plotted, which provide $\Delta$% error below and above the optimum outage probability. For the plots, we let $\Delta = 1$ and $\Delta = 10$. The key findings are: (1) In the pathloss ($\alpha$) plot, $s^* = \frac{1}{2}$ is a very robust choice for all attenuation regimes; (2) For SNR, $s^* = \frac{1}{2}$ is only robust at high SNR, and at low SNR constant transmit power is preferable; (3) For target SINR $\beta$, $s^* = \frac{1}{2}$ is robust at low and moderate SINR targets (i.e. low to moderate data rates), but for high SINR targets constant transmit power is preferred; (4) For density $\lambda$, $s^* = \frac{1}{2}$ is robust at low densities, but constant transmit power is preferred at high densities. The explanation for findings (2) and (3) is due to the dependence of outage behavior on the difference between ${\rm SNR}$ and $\beta$. As seen earlier, thermal noise is essentially negligible when this gap is larger than approximately 20 dB. As a result, it is reasonable that the exponent shown to be optimal for noise-free networks ($s=\frac{1}{2}$) would be near-optimal for networks with very low levels of thermal noise. On the other hand, outage probability behaves quite differently when ${\rm SNR}$ is only slightly larger than $\beta$. In this case, power is very valuable and it is not worth incurring the normalization cost of FPC and thus very small FPC exponents are optimal. Intuitively, achieving high data rates in moderate SNR or moderate data rates in low SNR are difficult objectives in a decentralized network. The low SNR case is somewhat anomalous, since the SNR is close to the target SINR, so almost no interference can be tolerated. Similarly, to meet a high SINR constraint in a random network of reasonable density, the outage probability must be quite high, so this too may not be particularly meaningful. To explain (4), recall that the Jensen-based approximation to outage probability is not accurate for dense networks and the plot shows that constant power ($s=0$) is preferred at high densities.[^2] Fractional power control softens signal fading at the expense of more harmful interference power, and this turns out to be a good tradeoff in relatively sparse networks. In dense networks, however, there generally are a large number of nearby interferers and as a result the benefit of reducing the effect of signal fading (by increasing exponent $s$) is overwhelmed by the cost of more harmful interference power. Note that this is consistent with results on channel inversion ($s=1$) in [@WebAndJin07], where $s=0$ and $s=1$ are seen to be essentially equivalent at low densities (as expected by the Jensen approximation) but inversion is inferior at high densities. \[sec:5\] Possible Areas for Future Study ========================================= Given the historically very high level of interest in the subject of power control for wireless systems, this new approach for power control opens many new questions. It appears that FPC has potential for many applications due to its inherent simplicity, requirement for only simple pairwise feedback, and possible *a priori* design of the FPC parameter $s$. Some areas that we recommend for future study include the following. **How does FPC perform in cellular systems?**. Cellular systems in this case are harder to analyze than ad hoc networks, because the base stations (receivers) are located on a regular grid and thus the tractability of the spatial Poisson model cannot be exploited. On the other hand, FPC may be even more helpful in centralized systems. Note that some numerical results for cellular systems are given in reference [@XiaRat06], but no analysis is provided. **Can FPC be optimized for spectral efficiency?**. In this paper we have focused on outage relative to an SINR constraint as being the metric. Other metrics can be considered, for example maximizing the average spectral efficiency, i.e. $\max \mathbb{E}[\log_2(1+{\rm SINR})]$, which could potentially result in optimal exponents $s < 0$, which is conceptually similar to waterfilling. **What is the effect of scheduling on FPC?** If scheduling is used, then how should power levels between a transmitter and receiver be set? Will $s = \frac{1}{2}$ still be optimal? Will the gain be increased or reduced? We conjecture that the gain from FPC will be smaller but non-zero for most any sensible scheduling policy, as the effect of interference inversion is softened. **Can FPC be used to improve iterative power control?** At each step of the Foschini-Miljanic algorithm (as well as most of its variants), transmitters adjust their power in a manner similar to channel-inversion, i.e., each transmitter fully compensates for the current SINR. While this works well when the target SINR’s are feasible, it does not necessarily work well when it is not possible to satisfy all users’ SINR requirements. In such a setting, it may be preferable to perform *partial* compensation for the current SINR level during each iteration. For example, if a link with a 10 dB target is currently experiencing an SINR of 0 dB, rather than increasing its transmit power by 10 dB to fully compensate for this gap (as in the Foschini-Miljanic algorithm), an FPC-motivated iterative policy might only boost power by 5 dB (e.g., adjust power in linear units according to the square root of the gap). \[sec:6\] Conclusions ===================== This paper has applied fractional power control as a general approach to pairwise power control in decentralized (e.g. ad hoc or spectrum sharing) networks. Using two approximations, we have shown that a fractional power control exponent of $s^* = \frac{1}{2}$ is optimal in terms of outage probability and transmission capacity, in contrast to constant transmit power ($s=0$) or channel inversion ($s=1$) in networks with a relatively low density of transmitters and low noise levels. This implies that there is an optimal balance between compensating for fades in the desired signal and amplifying interference. We saw that a gain on the order of $50\%$ or larger (relative to no power control or channel inversion) might be typical for fractional power control in a typical wireless channel. We prove that for any non-negative random variable $X$, the function $$h(s) = \mathbb{E}\left[ X^{-s} \right] \mathbb{E} \left[ X^{s-1} \right],$$ is convex in $s$ for $s \in \mathbb{R}$ with a unique minimum at $s = \frac{1}{2}$. In order to show $h(s)$ is convex, we show $h$ is log-convex and use the fact that a log-convex function is convex. We define $$H(s) = \log h(s) = \log \left( \mathbb{E}\left[X^{-s} \right] \mathbb{E}\left[X^{s-1} \right] \right),$$ and recall Hölder’s inequality: $$\mathbb{E}[XY] \leq \left( \mathbb{E}[X^p] \right)^{\frac{1}{p}}\left( \mathbb{E}[Y^q] \right)^{\frac{1}{q}}, ~~~~ \frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}=1.$$ The function $H(s)$ is convex if $H(\lambda s_1 + (1-\lambda)s_2) \leq \lambda H(s_1) + (1-\lambda) H(s_2)$ for all $s_1,s_2$ and all $\lambda \in [0,1]$. Using Hölder’s with $p = \frac{1}{\lambda}$ and $q=\frac{1}{1-\lambda}$ we have: $$\begin{aligned} H(\lambda s_1 + (1-\lambda)s_2) &=& \log \left( \mathbb{E}\left[X^{-(\lambda s_1 + (1-\lambda)s_2)} \right] \mathbb{E}\left[X^{(\lambda s_1 + (1-\lambda)s_2)-1} \right] \right) \nonumber \\ &=& \log \left( \mathbb{E}\left[X^{-\lambda s_1} X^{(1-\lambda)s_2} \right] \mathbb{E}\left[X^{\lambda (s_1-1)} X^{(1-\lambda)(s_2-1)} \right] \right) \nonumber \\ & \leq & \log \left( \mathbb{E}\left[X^{-s_1} \right]^{\lambda} \mathbb{E} \left[ X^{s_2} \right]^{1-\lambda} \mathbb{E}\left[X^{s_1-1}\right]^{\lambda} \mathbb{E} \left[X^{s_2-1} \right]^{1-\lambda} \right) \nonumber \\ & = & \lambda \log \left( \mathbb{E}\left[X^{-s_1} \right] \mathbb{E}\left[X^{s_1-1}\right] \right) + (1-\lambda) \log \left( \mathbb{E} \left[ X^{s_2} \right] \mathbb{E} \left[X^{s_2-1} \right] \right) \nonumber \\ &=& \lambda H(s_1) + (1-\lambda) H(s_2).\end{aligned}$$ This implies $H(s)$ is convex, which further implies convexity of $h(s)$. The derivative of $h$ is $$h'(s) = \mathbb{E}\left[ X^{-s} \right] \mathbb{E}\left[ X^{s-1} \log X \right] - \mathbb{E}\left[ X^{s-1} \right] \mathbb{E}\left[ X^{-s} \log X \right],$$ and it can easily be seen that $s^* = \frac{1}{2}$ is the unique minimizer satisfying $h'(s) = 0$. [10]{} \[1\][\#1]{} url@rmstyle \[2\][\#2]{} N. Jindal, S. Weber, and J. G. Andrews, “Fractional power control for decentralized wireless networks,” in *Proc., Allerton Conf. on Comm., Control, and Computing*, Monticello, IL, Sept. 2007, available at http://www.ece.umn.edu/users/nihar/Publications.html. A. Goldsmith and P. Varaiya, “Capacity of fading channels with channel side information,” *IEEE Trans. on Info. Theory*, pp. 1986–92, Nov. 1997. G. J. Foschini and Z. Miljanic, “A simple distributed autonomous power control algorithm and its convergence,” *IEEE Trans. on Veh. Technology*, vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 641–646, Nov. 1993. R. D. Yates, “A framework for uplink power control in cellular radio systems,” *IEEE Journal on Sel. Areas in Communications*, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 1341–47, Sept. 1995. N. Bambos, S. Chen, and G. J. Pottie, “Radio link admission algorithms for wireless networks with power control and active link quality protection,” in *Proc., IEEE INFOCOM*, Boston, MA, Apr. 1995, pp. 97–104. J. Herdtner and E. Chong, “Analysis of a class of distributed asynchronous power control algorithms for cellular wireless systems,” *IEEE Journal on Sel. Areas in Communications*, vol. 18, no. 3, Mar. 2000. J. F. Chamberland and V. V. Veeravalli, “Decentralized dynamic power control for cellular [CDMA]{} systems,” *IEEE Trans. on Wireless Communications*, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 549–59, May 2003. M. Schubert and H. Boche, *QoS-Based Resource Allocation and Transceiver Optimization*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emNOW: Foundations and Trends in Communications and Information Theory, 2005. M. Chiang, P. Hande, T. Lan, and C. W. Tan, *Power Control in Cellular Networks*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emNOW: Foundations and Trends in Networking, To appear 2008. T. ElBatt and A. Ephremides, “Joint scheduling and power control for wireless ad hoc networks,” in *Proc., IEEE INFOCOM*, June 2002, pp. 976–84. R. Cruz and A. V. Santhanam, “Optimal routing, link scheduling and power control in multihop wireless networks,” in *Proc., IEEE INFOCOM*, Apr. 2003, pp. 702– 711. M. Haenggi, “The impact of power amplifier characteristics on routing in random wireless networks,” in *Proc., IEEE Globecom*, San Francisco, CA, Dec. 2003, pp. 513–17. S. Agarwal, S. V. Krishnamurthy, R. H. Katz, and S. K. Dao, “Distributed power control in ad-hoc wireless networks,” in *Proc., IEEE PIMRC*, Oct. 2001, pp. 59–66. V. Kawadia and P. R. Kumar, “Power control and clustering in ad hoc networks,” in *Proc., IEEE INFOCOM*, 2003. M. Chiang, “Balancing transport and physical layers in wireless multihop networks: Jointly optimal congestion control and power control,” *IEEE Journal on Sel. Areas in Communications*, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 104–16, Jan. 2005. S. Weber, J. G. Andrews, and N. Jindal, “The effect of fading, channel inversion, and threshold scheduling on ad hoc networks,” *IEEE Trans. on Info. Theory*, vol. 53, no. 11, pp. 4127 – 4149, Nov. 2007. W. Xiao, R. Ratasuk, A. Ghosh, R. Love, Y. Sun, and R. Nory, “Uplink power control, interference coordination and resource allocation for [3GPP E-UTRA]{},” in *Proc., IEEE Veh. Technology Conf.*, Sept. 2006, pp. 1–5. S. Weber, X. Yang, J. G. Andrews, and G. de Veciana, “Transmission capacity of wireless ad hoc networks with outage constraints,” *IEEE Trans. on Info. Theory*, vol. 51, no. 12, pp. 4091–4102, Dec. 2005. F. Baccelli, B. Blaszczyszyn, and P. Muhlethaler, “An [Aloha]{} protocol for multihop mobile wireless networks,” *IEEE Trans. on Info. Theory*, pp. 421–36, Feb. 2006. S. Weber, J. G. Andrews, X. Yang, and G. de Veciana, “Transmission capacity of wireless ad hoc networks with successive interference cancellation,” *IEEE Trans. on Info. Theory*, vol. 53, no. 8, pp. 2799–2814, Aug. 2007. ![The loss factor $L$ vs. $s$ for Rayleigh fading. Note that $L^{\mathrm{cp}}$ and $L^{\mathrm{ci}}$ are the left edge and right edge of the plot, respectively.[]{data-label="fig-pc1"}](Figure1.pdf){width="3.5in"} ![The outage probability (simulated, lower bound, and Jensen’s approximation) vs. FPC exponent $s$ for the default parameters.[]{data-label="fig:default"}](Figure2.pdf){width="3.5in"} ![The outage probability (simulated, lower bound, and Jensen’s approximation) vs. FPC exponent $s$ for $\alpha = 2.2$ (left) and $\alpha = 5$ (right).[]{data-label="fig:PL"}](Figure3a.pdf "fig:"){width="3.5in"} ![The outage probability (simulated, lower bound, and Jensen’s approximation) vs. FPC exponent $s$ for $\alpha = 2.2$ (left) and $\alpha = 5$ (right).[]{data-label="fig:PL"}](Figure3b.pdf "fig:"){width="3.5in"} ![The outage probability (simulated, lower bound, and Jensen’s approximation) vs. FPC exponent $s$ for ${\rm SNR} = 10$ dB (left) and ${\rm SNR} = 30$ dB (right).[]{data-label="fig:SNR"}](Figure4a.pdf "fig:"){width="3.5in"} ![The outage probability (simulated, lower bound, and Jensen’s approximation) vs. FPC exponent $s$ for ${\rm SNR} = 10$ dB (left) and ${\rm SNR} = 30$ dB (right).[]{data-label="fig:SNR"}](Figure4b.pdf "fig:"){width="3.5in"} ![The outage probability (simulated, lower bound, and Jensen’s approximation) vs. FPC exponent $s$ for $\beta = -10$ dB (left) and $\beta = 10$ dB (right).[]{data-label="fig:SINR"}](Figure5a.pdf "fig:"){width="3.5in"} ![The outage probability (simulated, lower bound, and Jensen’s approximation) vs. FPC exponent $s$ for $\beta = -10$ dB (left) and $\beta = 10$ dB (right).[]{data-label="fig:SINR"}](Figure5b.pdf "fig:"){width="3.5in"} ![The outage probability (simulated, lower bound, and Jensen’s approximation) vs. FPC exponent $s$ for $\lambda = 0.00001$ (left) and $\lambda = 0.001$ (right).[]{data-label="fig:DENSITY"}](Figure9a.pdf "fig:"){width="3.5in"} ![The outage probability (simulated, lower bound, and Jensen’s approximation) vs. FPC exponent $s$ for $\lambda = 0.00001$ (left) and $\lambda = 0.001$ (right).[]{data-label="fig:DENSITY"}](Figure9b.pdf "fig:"){width="3.5in"} ![The optimal choice of FPC exponent $s$ vs. PL exponent $\alpha$, with $\pm 1$% and $\pm10$% selections for $s$.[]{data-label="fig:sPL"}](Figure6.pdf){width="3.5in"} ![The optimal choice of FPC exponent $s$ vs. transmitter SNR $= \frac{\rho}{\eta}$, with $\pm 1$% and $\pm10$% selections for $s$.[]{data-label="fig:sSNR"}](Figure7.pdf){width="3.5in"} ![The optimal choice of FPC exponent $s$ vs. SINR constraint $\beta$, with $\pm 1$% and $\pm10$% selections for $s$.[]{data-label="fig:sSINR"}](Figure8.pdf){width="3.5in"} ![The optimal choice of FPC exponent $s$ vs. density $\lambda$, with $\pm 1$% and $\pm10$% selections for $s$.[]{data-label="fig:sDENSITY"}](Figure10.pdf){width="3.5in"} [^1]: The contact author N. Jindal ([email protected]) is with the University of Minnesota, S. Weber is with Drexel University, J. Andrews is with the University of Texas at Austin. This research was supported by NSF grant no. 0634763 (Jindal), no. 0635003 (Weber), nos. 0634979 and 0643508 (Andrews), and the DARPA IT-MANET program, grant no. W911NF-07-1-0028 (all authors). An early, shorter version of this work appeared at *Allerton* 2007 [@JinWeb_Allerton07]. Manuscript date: . [^2]: Based on the figure it may appear that choosing $s<0$, which means users with good channels transmit with additional power, outperforms constant power transmission. However, numerical results (not shown here) indicate that this provides a benefit only at extremely high densities for which outage probability is unreasonably large. Intuitively, a user with a poor channel in a dense network is extremely unlikely to be able to successfully communicate and global performance is improved by having such a user not even attempt to transmit, as done in the threshold-based policy studied in [@WebAndJin07].

ArXiv

--- abstract: | Fourier transform is an essential ingredient in Shor’s factoring algorithm. In the standard quantum circuit model with the gate set $\{{{\mathbb{U}}}(2), \textrm{CNOT}\}$, the discrete Fourier transforms $F_N=(\omega^{ij})_{N\times N},i,j=0,1,\cdots, N-1, \omega=e^{\frac{2\pi i}{N}}$, can be realized exactly by quantum circuits of size $O(n^2), n=\textrm{log}N$, and so can the discrete sine/cosine transforms. In topological quantum computing, the simplest universal topological quantum computer is based on the Fibonacci (2+1)-topological quantum field theory (TQFT), where the standard quantum circuits are replaced by unitary transformations realized by braiding conformal blocks. We report here that the large Fourier transforms $F_N$ and the discrete sine/cosine transforms can never be realized exactly by braiding conformal blocks for a fixed TQFT. It follows that approximation is unavoidable in implementation of the Fourier transforms by braiding conformal blocks. author: - 'Michael H. Freedman' - Zhenghan Wang title: Large Fourier transforms never exactly realized by braiding conformal blocks --- #### Introduction. The simplest topological model for quantum computing which can approximate any quantum circuit efficiently by braiding conformal blocks is based on the Fibonacci topological quantum field theory (TQFT) [@FLW02]. The corresponding conformal field theories (CFTs) for the Fibonacci TQFT include the level=$1$ WZW $G_2$ CFT. TQFTs are low energy effective theories for topological phases of matter such as fractional quantum Hall (FQH) liquids, where quasi-particles can be anyons, even non-abelions theoretically. We will use the term anyon loosely here to include also non-abelions. On theoretical and numerical grounds it is believed that the Fibonnaci TQFT is an essential part of an effective theory for the FQH liquids at filling fraction $\nu=12/5$ [@RR] [@Xia04]. Moore and Read proposed that the ground state wavefunctions for anyons localized at fixed positions are given by the conformal blocks of the corresponding conformal field theory [@Moore91]. Thus quantum gates in topological quantum computers are the braiding matrices of the conformal blocks, which are also the braiding statistics of anyons. A decade ago, Shor discovered the polynomial-time quantum algorithm for factoring integers. A key component of Shor’s algorithm is the application of the discrete Fourier transforms $F_N$. It is known that the Fibonacci topological quantum computer can simulate Shor’s algorithm efficiently, but the simulation requires approximations of the Fourier transforms [@FLW02]. In this paper we present a no-go" theorem by showing that approximation is unavoidable. Closely related to the Fourier transforms are the discrete sine/cosine transforms which are also useful for signal processing. Our discussion for Fourier transforms applies equally to those transforms. As the prospect of a topological quantum computer has attracted increased attention, examination of the programming and compiling issues attendant to this design has begun [@B05]. Even an accurate ($10^{-5}$) NOT gate requires several hundred elementary braids according to the known approximation scheme [@NC00]. Audiences seeing such compilations always ask, yes, but isn’t there a better way? Can’t the arithmetic properties of Fibonacci anyons be matched to the number theory of factoring?" While efficient factoring is still a theoretical possibility, we show no arithmetic wizardry will create the all-important Fourier, sine or cosine transforms inside TQFTs. A TQFT has a finite label set $L=\{a,b,c,\cdots \}$, which physically represents the anyon types in the theory. Then a TQFT is a consistent rule to assign each 2-dimensional oriented compact space $\Sigma$ a vector space $V(\Sigma)$, and each cobordism $(M,\Sigma_1, \Sigma_2)$ a linear map $Z(M,\Sigma_1, \Sigma_2): V(\Sigma_1)\longrightarrow V(\Sigma_2)$. In particular, a projective representation of the mapping class group $\mathbb{M}(\Sigma)$ on $V(\Sigma)$. When $\Sigma$ has boundaries, the boundaries will be labelled by anyons. A TQFT is unitary if each vector space $V(\Sigma)$ has a positive definite Hermitian inner product $<\cdot , \cdot>_{\Sigma}$ satisfying the following conditions: 1): The Hermitian inner product is multiplicative with respect to disjoint union of surfaces, and the inner product on $V(\emptyset)$ for the empty surface $\emptyset$ is 1. 2): The Hermitian inner product is natural with respect to the mapping class group action. 3): For any cobordism $(M,\Sigma_1, \Sigma_2)$ and any $x\in V(\Sigma_1)$ and $y\in V(\Sigma_2)$, we have $$<Z(M,\Sigma_1,\Sigma_2)(x),y>_{\Sigma_2}=<x,Z(\bar{M},\Sigma_2,\Sigma_1)(y)>_{\Sigma_1} .$$ Theses conditions imply that the projective representations of the mapping class groups are unitary. Furthermore, according to [@T] for any TQFT and any surface $\Sigma$ (if $\partial \Sigma\neq \emptyset$, then $\partial \Sigma$ should be labelled) a spanning set for $V(\Sigma)$ is obtained by the functor $V$ applied to 3-manifolds $M$ containing a labelled trivalent graph with $\partial M=\Sigma$. Thus for any $x, y\in V(\Sigma)$ with $x=Z(M)$, we have $<Z(M),y>_{\Sigma}=<Z(M,\emptyset, \partial M)(1), y>_{\Sigma}=<1, Z(\bar{M}, \partial M, \emptyset)(y)>_{\emptyset}$. It follows from this identity that any Hermitian structure obeying 1)-3) above is determined by the operators $Z(\bar{M},\partial M,\emptyset)$, hence unique. We can use the gluing axiom to reduce the computation of the Hermitian inner products for all surfaces to the computation for annuli and pairs of pants. It follows that if all the quantum dimensions of an Hermitian TQFT are positive, and the Hermitian products on all pairs of pants are positive definite, then the TQFT is unitary. #### F-matrices Given a unitary TQFT and a 4-punctured sphere $S^2_{a,b,c,d}$, where the 4 punctures are labelled by anyons of types $a,b,c,d$. The 4-punctured sphere can be divided into two pairs of pants(=3-punctured spheres) in two different ways. In FIG.1, the 4-punctured sphere is the boundary of a thickened neighborhood of the graph in either side, and the two graphs encode the two different pants-decompositions of the 4-punctured sphere. The F-move is just the change of the two pants-decompositions. ![F-moves: the free ends are labelled by anyons[]{data-label="fig:F-move"}](fmove){width="3.45in"} By the axioms of a TQFT, each pants decomposition of $S^2_{a,b,c,d}$ determines an orthonormal basis of $V(S^2_{a,b,c,d})$. Therefore the F-move gives rise to a change of orthonormal bases of the same Hilbert space $V(S^2_{a,b,c,d})$, hence induces a unitary matrix $F_{a,b,c,d}$, which is called the F-matrix. From the definition the F-matrices are unitary, but it is not obvious that the entries of the F-matrices are always algebraic. One of our goals is to show that the entire unitary structure, including the F-matrices, is compatible with algebraic choices for all unitary TQFTs. The difficulty lies in the choices of the F-matrices as they are basis dependent. The obvious solution": solve all complex equations in a TQFT such as the pentagon and hexagon equations for their real and imagine parts independently plus the unitarity constraints for the F-matrices, is not sufficient for the compatibility as the condition of being purely real or purely imaginary is not algebraic. Our approach instead is to satisfy the algebraic conditions first for the F-matrices with certain normalization and then to deduce unitarity from the normalization. #### Fibonacci TQFT First we recall the data for the Fibonacci TQFT, our chief example. There is only one non-trivial anyon type $\tau$ in the theory. We will also use $\tau$ to denote the golden ratio $\tau=\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}$, and no confusions should arise. There are two unitary TQFTs with anyon types $\{1,\tau\}$ and the fusion rule: $\tau \otimes \tau=1\oplus \tau$. One is the mirror (or parity reversed) theory of the other. We list the data for one theory and refer to the resulting theory as the Fibonacci TQFT. The data for the other theory is obtained by complex conjugate all the data below. Anyon types: $\{1,\tau\}$ Fusion rule: $1\otimes \tau=\tau\otimes 1=\tau, \tau \otimes \tau=1\oplus \tau$ Quantum dimensions: $\{1,\tau\}$ Twists: $\theta_1=1, \theta_{\tau}=e^{\frac{4\pi i}{5}}$ Braidings: $R_1^{\tau \tau}=e^{\frac{4\pi i}{5}}, R_{\tau}^{\tau\tau}=e^{\frac{7\pi i}{5}}$ S-matrices: $ S_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2+\tau}} \begin{pmatrix} 1 & \tau \\ \tau & -1 \end{pmatrix}, S_{\tau}=(e^{\frac{3\pi i}{10}})$ Topological degeneracy: Let $\Sigma_{g,n}$ be the genus=$g$ oriented surface with $n$ boundaries labelled by $\tau$, then $dim V(\Sigma_{g,n})=\frac{\tau^n+(-1)^n \tau^{2-2g-n}}{(\tau+2)^{1-g}}$. Topological inner product: The Hilbert space $V(\Sigma_{g,n})$ is spanned by labelled uni-trivalent graphs $\{G\}$ in a bounding handlebody $H_{g,n}$ (for simplicity we ignore the framing subtlety.) Given two vectors in $v, w\in V(\Sigma_{g,n})$ represented by two graphs $G_v, G_w$, then the inner product of $v,w$ is the topological invariant of the 3-manifold $M$ with a trivalent graph $G$ inside obtained from doubling the handlebodies and uni-trivalent graphs $G_v, G_w$: glue the orientation reversed handlebody containing $G_v$ with the handlebody containing $G_w$ by the identity map on their boundaries. Conformal block basis (FIG.2): ![The basis is in one-one correspondence to admissible labellings of the internal edges with $1$ or $\tau$ subject to the fusion rules at each trivalent vertex. In all figures, label 0 represents type 1, and label 1 represents $\tau$.[]{data-label="fig:cbasis"}](cbasis){width="3.45in"} F-matrices: $ F=\begin{pmatrix} \tau^{-1} & {\tau}^{-1/2} \\ {\tau}^{-1/2} & -\tau^{-1} \end{pmatrix}$ The braiding of two anyons in a conformal block basis state is represented by the following graph (FIG. 3): ![The braiding is obtained by stacking the braid on top of a conformal block basis, and the braining matrix is computed by using the graphical calculus.[]{data-label="fig:brading"}](braid){width="3.45in"} To find the matrix elements, we form the inner products of this braided basis with all basis. The topological inner product in the conformal block basis is given by flipping over the first argument and stacking on top of the second argument. Hence the matrix element is an invariant of a trivalent graph with certain braidings. Now we observe that the invariant of any such graph is a complex number in the number field ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\tau},\xi_{20})$, where $\xi_{20}=e^{2\pi i/20}$ and ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\tau},\xi_{20})$, an example of a number field, consists of all complex numbers which are rational polynomials in $\sqrt{\tau}, \xi_{20}$ with integer coefficients. Therefore, we have: [*Observation:*]{} All matrix entries of the braiding matrices with the above choices of data for the Fibonacci TQFT lie inside the number field ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\tau},\xi_{20})$ whose Galois group is the non-abelian dihedral group $D_4$. Furthermore, only 1,2,4,5,10,20-th roots of unity exist in ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\tau},\xi_{20})$. We will now see that there are only finitely many roots of unity in ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\tau},\xi_{20})$. But to realize all the discrete Fourier transforms $F_N$, we need infinitely many root of unity, therefore discrete Fourier transforms $F_N$ for large $N$ cannot be realized exactly by braiding conformal blocks. The roots of unity in ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\tau},\xi_{20})$ determine which Fourier transform can be potentially realized by braiding conformal blocks in the Fibonacci TQFT. The notation below is clarified in the following section. Notice that $[{{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\tau},\xi_{20}): {{\mathbb{Q}}}]= [{{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\tau},\xi_{20}):{{\mathbb{Q}}}(\xi_{20})][{{\mathbb{Q}}}(\xi_{20}):{{\mathbb{Q}}}].$ For a primitive m-th root of unity $\xi_m$, $[{{\mathbb{Q}}}(\xi_{m}):{{\mathbb{Q}}}]=\phi(m)$, where $\phi(m)$ is the Euler function whose value is the number of integers from $1$ to $m-1$ that is relatively prime to $m$. Since $\tau \in {{\mathbb{Q}}}(\xi_{20})$, so $[{{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\tau},\xi_{20}):{{\mathbb{Q}}}(\xi_{20})]=2$, and $[{{\mathbb{Q}}}(\xi_{20}):{{\mathbb{Q}}}]=\phi(20)=8$. Hence we have $[{{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\tau},\xi_{20}):{{\mathbb{Q}}}]=16$. It follows that there are only finitely many roots of unity in ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\tau},\xi_{20})$ since there are only finitely $m$ such that $\phi(m)\leq 16$. Another consequence of this observation is that the Fibonacci TQFT cannot be realized in an abelian extension of ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$ because the Galois group of ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\tau},\xi_{20})$ is non-abelian. It suffices to show that the Galois group of ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\tau}, i) \subset {{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\tau},\xi_{20})$ is non-abelian, which is the same as the Galois group for the minimal polynomial of $\sqrt{\tau}$ $f(x)=x^4-x^2-1$. To determine the Galois group of $f(x)$, we use the following fact: let $g(x)=x^4+ax^2+b\in {{\mathbb{Q}}}(x)$ be irreducible with Galois group $G$. If neither $b$ nor $b(a^2-4b)$ is a square in ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$, then the Galois group of $g(x)$ is the non-abelian dihedral group $D_4$. For a proof, see Proposition 4.11 of [@Hung] on Page 273 and Ex. 9 on page 277. Now it is obvious that the Galois group of $f(x)$ is $D_4$. Finally let us determine all the possible roots of unity in ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\tau},\xi_{20})$. If a primitive m-th root of unity $\xi_m$ is in ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\tau},\xi_{20})$, then $\phi(m)$ is a factor of $16$ because $[{{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\tau},\xi_{20}):{{\mathbb{Q}}}]=[{{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\tau},\xi_{20}):{{\mathbb{Q}}}(\xi_{m})] [{{\mathbb{Q}}}(\xi_{m}):{{\mathbb{Q}}}]=16.$ If $m$ is relatively prime to $20$ and $\geq 7$, then $\xi_{20m}$ would be in ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\tau},\xi_{20})$. But $\phi(20m)=8\phi(m)>16$, a contradiction. It follows that if $\xi_m \in {{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\tau},\xi_{20})$, then $m$ is of the form $2^k\cdot 3\cdot 5$ for possibly $k=1,2,3$. But first $3$ cannot be a factor $m$ because otherwise, $\xi_{60}\in {{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\tau},\xi_{20})$. Since ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\xi_{60})$ would be a subfield of ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\tau},\xi_{20})$ which are both degree $16$ extension of $Q$, we will have ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\xi_{60})={{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\tau},\xi_{20})$. But this is impossible since the Galois group of ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\xi_{60})$ is abelian, while the Galois group of ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\tau},\xi_{20})$ is non-abelian. Exactly the same argument will rule out $k=3$ with $\xi_{40}$ replacing $\xi_{60}$. So the only possible primitive roots of unity in ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\tau},\xi_{20})$ are $\xi_{m}, m=1,2,4,5,10,20$, and their powers. Using the relation $\frac{p_{+}}{D}=e^{2 \pi i \cdot c/8 }$, we deduce that the central charges of the corresponding CFTs are $c=14/5$ mod 8, which is realized by the level=$1$ $G_2$ CFT. Because the central charges $c\neq 0$, we have to either work with projective representations rather than linear representations of the mapping class groups or work with some central extension of the mapping class groups for extended surfaces. For the torus case, the projective representation can always be lifted to a linear representation as follows: direct computation shows that $(st)^3=\frac{p_{+}}{D} s^2$, so if we set $\tilde{t}=t (\frac{p_{+}}{D})^{-\frac{1}{3}}$, then $(s\tilde{t})^3=s^2$. It has been shown that a 3rd-root of unity of $\frac{p_{+}}{D}$ is sufficient to lift all projective representations of the mapping class groups to linear representations of the extended mapping class groups [@T]. Hence there are at least three different normalizations for a given TQFT, which lead to successively larger number fields: 1). Arbitrary choice for the F-matrices and projective representations for the mapping class groups 2). Unitary normalization for the F-matrices and projective representations for the mapping class groups 3). Unitary normalization for the F-matrices and linear representations for the extended mapping class groups. For the Fibonacci TQFT, with normalization 1), the Fibonacci TQFT can be described in ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\xi_{20})$; with normalization 2), ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\tau},\xi_{20})$; with normalization 3) ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\tau},\xi_{60})$. Note this field contains $\xi_m$ for all $m|60$ by an argument similar to the one above. #### Unitary TQFTs Let ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$ be the field of the rational numbers (a field here is not in the sense field theory in physics, but as in number theory. A field is a generalization of the number systems ${{\mathbb{Q}}},{{\mathbb{R}}},{{\mathbb{C}}}$.) A number field is a finitely dimensional vector space $K$ over ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$ which is a field: a vector space with a compatible multiplication. The field $K$ is called an extension field of ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$, and the dimension of $K$ as a vector space over ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$ is called the degree of the extension, denoted by $[K:{{\mathbb{Q}}}]$. Given a complex number $x$, ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(x)$ is the field of all complex numbers of the form $p(x)/q(x)$, where $p(x),q(x)$ are polynomials in $x$ with coefficients in ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$ and $q(x)\neq 0$. For example, ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\tau})$ is a degree=$4$ extension of ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$. Fields can be extended repeatedly as follows: let $K$ be an extension of ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$ and $y$ a complex number, then $K(y)$ is the field of all complex numbers of the form $p(y)/q(y)$, where $p(y),q(y)$ are polynomials in $y$ with coefficients in $K$ and $q(y)\neq 0$. Given two complex numbers $x,y$, the number field ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(x,y)$ is the extension of first ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$ to ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(x)=K$ or ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(y)=K$, then $K$ to $K(y)$ or $K(x)$, which both are ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(x,y)$. The degree of the extension is $[{{\mathbb{Q}}}(x,y):{{\mathbb{Q}}}]=[{{\mathbb{Q}}}(x,y):{{\mathbb{Q}}}(x)][{{\mathbb{Q}}}(x):{{\mathbb{Q}}}]=[{{\mathbb{Q}}}(x,y):{{\mathbb{Q}}}(y)][{{\mathbb{Q}}}(y):{{\mathbb{Q}}}]$. #### Main Results: 1\. Given a unitary TQFT, there is a normalization so that all the entries of the F-matrices are in a number field K, and the F-matrices associated to the F-moves are unitary. 2\. Each Hilbert space $V(\Sigma)$ has an orthonormal basis so that every representation matrix of the mapping class group has entries in the number field $K$. Warning the Galois group $Gal(K/{{\mathbb{Q}}})$ is not necessarily abelian. 3\. Large Fourier transforms, the discrete sine/cosine transforms cannot be realized exactly in any fixed TQFT by braiding conformal blocks. Parts 3 follows from Part 2 as follows. We recall that the number of roots of unity in a number field $K$ is always finite. To see this, the degree of the extension of ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\xi_m), \xi_m=e^{\frac{2\pi i}{m}}$ is $\phi(m)$, where $\phi(m)$ is the Euler function. Therefore if $[K:{{\mathbb{Q}}}]=n$ and $\phi(m)>n$, then $\xi_m$ cannot be in $K$ because otherwise the extension degree will be $>n$. Similarly for ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(sin(2\pi /m)), {{\mathbb{Q}}}(cos(2 \pi /m))$. Part 2 follows from Part 1. Given a unitary TQFT, there is a unique way to construct compatible topological inner products for $V(\Sigma)$’s \[[@T], Chapter IV, Section 10\], and we need an explicit orthonormal basis for each $V(\Sigma)$ to compute the braiding matrices. To do this one sets up a graphical calculus so that each matrix entry is an invariant of a certain trivalent graph, which depends on our choices of the F-matrices and $\theta$ symbols. The theorem is reduced to the careful choices of F-matrices and $\theta$ symbols which are compatible with the topological inner product. The invariants of such graphs are polynomial of certain roots of unity and $6j$ symbols $F_{ijk}^{lmn}$. There are three kinds of contributions of roots of unity: the braiding eigenvalues, the twists, and the higher Frobenius-Schur indicators resulting from bending anyon trajectories. They are in some fixed extension of ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$ whose degree is determined by the fusion rules through Vafa’s theorem. The $6j$ symbols are constrained by the pentagon identities. To have a consistent set of $6j$ symbols $F_{ijk}^{lmn}$ with graphical calculus, it is sufficient to solve the following set of polynomial equations (for easiness of notation we drop the dependence on trivalent vertices): 1\. $F_{j^*i^*0}^{ijk}=\sqrt{\frac{d_k}{d_id_j}}\delta_{ijk}$ 2\. $F_{kln}^{ijm}=F_{ijn^*}^{klm^*}=F_{nk^*l^*}^{mij}\sqrt{\frac{d_md_n}{d_jd_l}}$ 3\. $\sum_{n}F_{kp^*n}^{mlq}F_{mns^*}^{jip}F_{lkr^*}^{js^*n}=F_{q^*kr^*}^{jip}F_{mls^*}^{riq^*}$ Any solution of this set of equations will be a consistent choice of 6j symbols for the unitary TQFT. Now we cite a theorem in algebraic geometry: the solution to the polynomial equations above is an algebraic variety over ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{d_i}), i=1,2,\cdots, R$, where $R$ is the number of anyon types. Since this variety has at least one point which gives rise to the TQFT, then there will be also an algebraic point by Theorem 7 on Page 32 [@Lang]. It follows that every graph invariant will be inside a fixed finite extension of ${{\mathbb{Q}}}{(\sqrt{d_i})}$ and hence in a number field over ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$. The resulted graphical calculus from the solution of the the pentagon equations with the above normalization has very nice properties. The conformal block basis is an orthogonal basis. The $\theta$ symbols $\theta(a,b,c)=\sqrt{d_a d_b d_c}$, where $d_a, d_b, d_c$ are the quantum dimensions of the anyons $a,b,c$. One consequence of the $\theta$ symbol values is that the conformal block basis elements have the same length, independent of the internal labellings. So the $F$-matrices are change of basis for two orthonormal bases up to overall scalars, hence are unitary. #### Approximation by Fibonacci Quantum Computer Since the exact realization of the Fourier transforms is impossible in the Fibonacci TQFT, we would like to approximate them using braiding matrices. Given a prescribed accuracy, it will be interesting to find the explicit approximations. We will only outline an approximation here. To simulate a standard $n$-qubit quantum circuit $U_L: ({{\mathbb{C}}}^2)^{\otimes n}\rightarrow ({{\mathbb{C}}}^2)^{\otimes n}$, we embed $({{\mathbb{C}}}^2)^{\otimes n}$ into the conformal blocks on $2n+2$ Fibonacci anyons at fixed positions. Since $dim(V_{2n+2})=F_{2n+2}> 2^n$ except for $n=1$, we need to choose an efficiently computable subspace of the conformal blocks. One way to do this is to choose the following subspace $({{\mathbb{C}}}^2)^{\otimes n}$ of $V_{2n+2}$ with the conformal block basis (FIG. 4). ![The edges labelled by $0$ or $1$ correspond to standard qubits, and other basis span the non-computational subspace which should be evolved by the identity operator ideally in the computational process. Again 0 represents 1, and 1 represents $\tau$[]{data-label="fig:computation"}](csub){width="3.45in"} Then we look for a braid $b$ so that the following diagram commutes up to the prescribed error, where $\rho(b)$ is the braiding matrix of conformal blocks. $$\begin{matrix} ({\mathbb{C}^2})^{\otimes n} & \longrightarrow & V_{{2n+2}}\cr {U_L} \downarrow & & \downarrow {\rho(b)}\cr ({\mathbb{C}^2})^{\otimes n} & \longrightarrow & V_{{2n+2}} \end{matrix}$$ The standard quantum circuits for the exact realization of the Fourier transforms are given on Page 219 of [@NC00]. Given a precision $\epsilon>0$, then one finds a braid that approximate $F_N$ by using the approximations of the single qubit gates and $\textrm{CNOT}$ in [@B05]. #### Conclusion TQFTs are effective theories for topological phases of matter such as the fractional quantum Hall liquids. Specifically, the braiding matrices of conformal blocks are unitary transformations of the degenerate ground states when anyons are fixed at certain positions. Because polynomial time approximation schemes exist [@NC00], the reported obstruction to exact realization of the Fourier transforms will not impose a fundamental physical constraint on topological quantum computing. However as a practical matter there is an important distinction between billions as opposed to millions of braid generators to factor a large number. The Jones braid representation(s) that we get from Fibonacci anyons can be described as a regularized Fourier transform FTB“ of the braid group(s) $B_n$. The braid generators correspond to position” coordinates and the path basis of conformal blocks is a regularized momentum basis for the group algebra of the braid group ${{\mathbb{C}}}[B_n]$. The chosen regularization consists of passing to an appropriate semi-simple quotient, the Temperley-Lieb algebra $\textrm{TL}^n_q={{\mathbb{C}}}[B_n]/\sim, q=e^{2\pi i/5}$. We have shown that one cannot find the FT of large cyclic groups inside these FTB. The most direct application of FTB is to the estimation of Jones polynomial evaluations [@FKLW] and [@BFLW]. The possibility of harnessing FTB for number theoretic application such as factoring should be explored. #### Acknowledgements This research has been supported by the NSF under grants DMR-0130388 and DMR-0354772 (Z.W.). -0.5cm [29]{} M. Bordewich, M. Freedman, L. Lovász, and D. Welsh, Approximate counting and quantum computation, Combinatorics, Probability and Computing, 14(5-6):737-754 (2005). M. H. Freedman, A. Kitaev, M. Larsen and Z. Wang, Topological quantum computation, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 40 (2003), no. 1, 31–38. M. H. Freedman, M. J. Larsen and Z. Wang, Commun. Math. Phys. [**227**]{} 605 (2002). J.S. Xia [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 176809 (2004). G. Moore and N. Read, Nucl. Phys. B [**360**]{}, 362 (1991). T. W. Hungerford, Algebra, GTM vol. 73. S. Lang, Introduction to algebraic geometry, Intersciecne Publisher, Inc., 1958. N. E. Bonesteel [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 140503 (2005). M. A. Niesen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum computation and quantum information, Cambridge University Press, 2000. E.H. Rezayi and N. Read, Non-abelian quantized Hall states of electron at filling factors $12/5$ and $13/5$ in the first excited Landau level, cond-mat/0608346. V. Turaev, Quantum invariants of knots and 3-manifolds, de Gruyter studies in mathematics, vol. 18.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'The purpose of this note is to collect in one place a few results about simple random walk and Brownian motion which are often useful. These include standard results such as Beurling estimates, large deviation estimates, and a method for coupling the two processes, as well as solutions to the discrete Dirichlet problem in various domains which, to the author’s knowledge, have not been published anywhere. The main focus is on the two-dimensional processes.' author: - | Christian Beneš\ Tufts University bibliography: - 'Estimates.bib' title: Some Estimates for Planar Random Walk and Brownian Motion --- Introduction and Definitions {#IntroDefs} ============================ In the study of simple random walk or standard Brownian motion, some estimates are striking by their ubiquity. The following pages are a collection of results which are frequently needed when dealing with these processes, and of some more specific estimates. $B$ will denote planar standard Brownian motion started at the origin and $S$ will be planar simple random walk, defined by $S(0)=(0,0)$ and for $n\in{\mathbbm{N}}$, by $S(n) = \sum_{k=1}^{n}X_k$, where $\{X_k\}_{k\in{\mathbbm{N}}}$ are independent random vectors satisfying ${\mathbb{P}\left\{X_k = \pm e_i\right\}} = \frac{1}{4}, i=1,2$, where $e_1=\langle 1,0\rangle$ and $e_2=\langle 0,1\rangle$. We will also think of planar simple random walk $S$ as being a continuous process, that is, for positive real times $t$, we let $S(t)$ be the linear interpolation of the walk’s position at the surrounding integer times: For all real $t\geq 0$, $$\label{03-28-05} S(t) = S([t])+(t-[t])(S([t]+1)-S([t])),$$ where $[t]$ denotes the integer part of $t$. For any real numbers $0\leq a\leq b$, we will write $S[a,b]:=\{S(t)\}_{a\leq t\leq b}$, and use the same notation for $B$. If we consider $B$ or $S$ in dimensions other than 2, we will say so explicitly. The measure associated with either of the processes, started at $x$ will be denoted ${\mathbbm{P}}^x$ and we will write ${\mathbbm{P}}$ for ${\mathbbm{P}}^0$. It will be clear from context which is the concerned process. In what follows, all multiplicative constants will be denoted by $K, K_1$, or $K_2$. It will be understood that they may be different from one line to the next. The letters $r, s, t$ will be used to denote real numbers, while $i, j, k, l, m, n$ will be integers. The symbols ${\cal O}$, $o$, $\sim$, and $\asymp$ will mean the following: for two functions $f$ and $g$, $f(x) = {\mathcal{O}\left(g(x)\right)}$ if there exists a constant $K$ such that $f(x)\leq Kg(x)$ for all $x$ large enough, $f(x)=o(g(x))$ if $\lim_{x\to\infty} f(x)/g(x)=0$, $f(x)\sim g(x)$ if $\displaystyle{\lim_{x\to\infty} f(x)/g(x)=1},$ and $f(x) \asymp g(x)$ if there exists a constant $K>0$ such that for all $x$ large enough $\frac{1}{K}g(x)\leq f(x) \leq Kg(x)$. In some cases, the same notation will be used to describe limiting behavior close to 0 and the context will leave no doubt as to what is meant. The Euclidean norm of a point $x$ in ${\mathbbm{R}}$ or ${\mathbbm{C}}$ is $|x|$. The distance between two sets $A,B\subset{\mathbbm{C}}$ is $d(A,B)=\inf_{x\in A, y\in B} |x-y|$ and the diameter of $A$ is $\text{diam}(A)=\sup_{w,z\in A}|w-z|$. The boundary of a discrete set $D\subset {\mathbbm{Z}}^2$ is defined to be $\{w\in {\mathbbm{Z}}^2:w\not\in D; \exists z\in D \text{ with } |z-w|=1\}$. From One to Two Dimensions {#1-2} ========================== Planar Brownian motion $B$ can be defined as a couple $(B^1(t),B^2(t))$ of independent realizations of one-dimensional Brownian motion. This representation is often convenient when trying to obtain estimates for the planar process from estimates for the linear process. One does not usually think of planar random walk in the same way, although an analogous definition is possible. Since this will be useful in the next section, we quickly give this simple construction here: The idea is to note that if we take two independent random walks $S^1$ and $S^2$ on appropriately scaled and rotated versions of ${\mathbbm{Z}}$, then $(S^1,S^2)$ is a simple random walk in ${\mathbbm{Z}}^2$. ![Two independent one-dimensional simple random walks on diagonal lattices give a simple random walk in ${\mathbbm{Z}}^2$ (black dots).[]{data-label="Fig3"}](Fig3.eps){width=".5\textwidth"} More precisely, for $k\geq 1, j=1,2$, let $X_k^j$ be independent random vectors with distribution $${\mathbb{P}\left\{X_k^1=\pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i\pi/4}\right\}} = {\mathbb{P}\left\{X_k^2=\pm\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i3\pi/4}\right\}} = \frac{1}{2}.$$ Then if we let $S^j(n)={\displaystyle{\sum_{k=1}^{n}{X_k^j}}}, S^1(n)$ and $S^2(n)$ are independent simple random walks on $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i\pi/4}\cdot{\mathbbm{Z}}= \{\frac{l}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i\pi/4}:l\in{\mathbbm{Z}}\}$ and $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i3\pi/4}\cdot{\mathbbm{Z}}$, respectively, and $S(n) = (S^1(n),S^2(n))$ is a simple random walk in ${\mathbbm{Z}}^2$. See Figure \[Fig3\]. Large deviations {#LargeDev} ================ In time $n$, planar Brownian motion $B$ and planar simple random walk $S$ are expected to reach a distance of order $\sqrt{n}$, as shown in the first lemma below. In this section we give bounds for the likelihood that they behave unusually (that is, reach a distance which is much greater than $\sqrt{n}$ or remain in a disk which has a radius much smaller than $\sqrt{n}$). We only give upper bounds for these probabilities, except in the case of Brownian motion traveling much beyond distance $\sqrt{n}$, where deriving a lower bound requires little work. The corresponding results for random walk are remarkably more difficult to obtain. \[meansquaredistance\] $$\begin{aligned} & (a) & {\mathbb{E}\left[|B(n)|^2\right]}=2n.\\ & (b) & {\mathbb{E}\left[|S(n)|^2\right]}=n.\end{aligned}$$ \(a) The transition density for $B$ is $p_t(x,y) = \frac{1}{2\pi t}e^{-|y-x|^2/2t}$, so integration in polar coordinates yields $${\mathbb{E}\left[|B(n)|^2\right]} = \int_0^{2\pi}\int_0^\infty \frac{1}{2\pi n}e^{-r^2/2n}r^3\,dr\,d\theta = 2n.$$ \(b) It is easy to check that $M_n=|S_n|^2-n$ is a martingale, so ${\mathbb{E}\left[M_n\right]}={\mathbb{E}\left[M_0\right]}=0$. \[reflection\] If $X$ is planar random walk or Brownian motion, then for any $a\in{\mathbbm{R}}_+, n\in{\mathbbm{N}}$, $${\mathbb{P}\left\{|X(n)|\geq a\right\}}\leq {\mathbb{P}\left\{\sup_{0\leq s\leq n}|X(s)|\geq a\right\}} \leq 2{\mathbb{P}\left\{|X(n)|\geq a\right\}}.$$ The first inequality is obvious. The second is a consequence of $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbb{P}\left\{\sup_{0\leq s\leq n}|X(s)|\geq a\right\}} & \leq & {\mathbb{P}\left\{\sup_{0\leq s\leq n}|X(s)|\geq a ; |X(n)|\geq a\right\}}\\ & & \hspace{7.15pc} + {\mathbb{P}\left\{\sup_{0\leq s\leq n}|X(s)|\geq a ; |X(n)| < a\right\}}\\ & \leq & {\mathbb{P}\left\{|X(n)|\geq a\right\}} + \frac{1}{2}{\mathbb{P}\left\{\sup_{0\leq s\leq n}|X(s)|\geq a\right\}}, \end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality follows from the strong Markov property. Brownian motion {#bm} --------------- Lemma \[bmtoofar\] gives a two-sided estimate for the probability that Brownian motion goes farther than expected, while Lemma \[bmtooclose\] provides an upper bound for the probability that it remains in a ball that is much smaller than expected. \[bmtoofar\] If $B$ is planar standard Brownian motion, $$\begin{aligned} & (a) & {\mathbb{P}\left\{|B(n)|\geq r\sqrt{n}\right\}} = e^{-r^2/2}.\\ & (b) & {\mathbb{P}\left\{\sup_{0\leq t \leq n}|B(t)| \geq r\sqrt{n}\right\}} \asymp e^{-r^2/2}.\end{aligned}$$ $(a)$ This is a straightforward computation using the transition density for $B$. $(b)$ follows from $(a)$ and Lemma \[reflection\]. The following is an equivalent formulation of part $(b)$ of the lemma: If $T_R = \inf\{t\geq 0:|B(t)|\geq R\}$, $${\mathbb{P}\left\{T_{r\sqrt{n}} \leq n\right\}}\asymp e^{-r^2/2}.$$ \[bmtooclose\] There exists a constant $K > 0$ such that for all $n\in{\mathbbm{N}}, r\geq 1$, $${\mathbb{P}\left\{\sup_{0\leq t \leq n}|B(t)| \leq r^{-1}n^{1/2}\right\}} \leq \exp\{-K r^2\},$$ where $B$ is a planar Brownian motion. For $l,n \in{\mathbbm{N}}, r\geq 1$, we define $$I_l = I_l(r,n) = [(l-1)\frac{n}{r^2},l\cdot \frac{n}{r^2}].$$ Then, if $k = [r^2]$, where $[\cdot]$ denotes the integer part, $$\displaystyle{\cup_{l=1}^k I_l \subset [0,n]}.$$ A simple geometric argument, the Markov property, and Brownian scaling give: $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbb{P}\left\{\sup_{0\leq t \leq n}|B(t)| \leq r^{-1}n^{1/2}\right\}} & \leq & \prod_{l=1}^{k}{\mathbb{P}\left\{\sup_{t\in I_l}|B(t) - B\left((l-1)\frac{n}{r^2}\right)| \leq 2r^{-1}n^{1/2}\right\}}\\ & \leq & \prod_{l=1}^{k}{\mathbb{P}\left\{\sup_{0\leq t \leq 1}|B(t)|\leq 2\right\}}\\ & \leq & \rho^k \leq \exp\{-K r^2\},\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho < 1$ is independent of $r$ and $n$, and $K=-\frac{\ln \rho}{2} > 0$. Random walk {#rw} ----------- As mentioned above, deriving the same type of estimates for random walk is more involved, since we do not have as nice a transition density to work with. We give in Theorem \[LCLTthm\] a version of the local central limit theorem which is sharper than, say, in [@greenbook] for points far away from the origin and allows us to obtain a sharp large deviations estimate in the one-dimensional case. We then use that estimate to find a bound in the planar case. We first prove under slightly more general assumptions than for simple random walk a weaker result for random walk which will be useful in Section \[Skorokhod\]. \[expboundrv\] Suppose $\{X_i\}_{i\geq 1}$ are independent, identically distributed random variables with mean 0 such that for some $a>0$, the moment generating function $$\label{exprv} M(t)={\mathbb{E}\left[e^{tX_1}\right]}<\infty \text{ for }|t|\leq a.$$ Then there exists a constant $K$ depending on $a$ and the distribution of $X_1$ such that if $S(n)={\displaystyle{\sum_{i=1}^{n}{X_i}}}$, for all $n\geq 1, r>0$, $${\mathbb{P}\left\{|S(n)|\geq r\sqrt{n}\right\}}\leq Ke^{-ar}$$ and $${\mathbb{P}\left\{\max_{1\leq k \leq n}|S(k)|\geq r\sqrt{n}\right\}}\leq 2Ke^{-ar}$$ Choose a distribution $X_1$ and an $a$ for which (\[exprv\]) holds. It suffices to show that there is a $K_1>0$ such that ${\mathbb{P}\left\{S(n)\geq r\sqrt{n}\right\}}\leq K_1e^{-ar}$. By Markov’s inequality, $${\mathbb{P}\left\{\frac{S(n)}{\sqrt{n}}\geq r\right\}}\leq \frac{{\mathbb{E}\left[\exp\{aS(n)/\sqrt{n}\}\right]}}{e^{ar}}.$$ But by expanding ${\mathbb{E}\left[e^{tX_1}\right]}$ about 0, we get for $|t|\leq a$, $$M(t) = 1+\frac{{\mathbb{E}\left[X_1^2\right]}}{2}t^2+{\mathcal{O}\left(t^3\right)},$$ so that we can find a constant $K_2$ such that for all $n\geq 1$, $$M(\frac{a}{\sqrt{n}})\leq 1+\frac{K_2}{n}.$$ Thus, $${\mathbb{E}\left[\exp\{aS(n)/\sqrt{n}\}\right]} = M\left(\frac{a}{\sqrt{n}}\right)^n \leq \left(1+\frac{K_2}{n}\right)^n \leq K_1,$$ where $K_1 = e^{K_2}$. This implies that $${\mathbb{P}\left\{\frac{S(n)}{\sqrt{n}}\geq r\right\}} \leq K_1e^{-ar}.$$ The other part follows from Lemma \[reflection\]. The following particular case will be of special interest when we consider Skorokhod embedding in Section \[Skorokhod\]: \[bmstoppingtimes\] For one-dimensional standard Brownian motion started at 0, define $T_1=\inf\{t\geq 0:|B(t)|=1\}$ and for $j\geq 2, T_j=\inf\{t\geq T_{j-1}:|B(t)-B(T_{j-1})|=1\}.$ Then there exist constants $K, K_1 >0$ such that for all $n\geq 1, r>0$, $${\mathbb{P}\left\{\max_{1\leq k\leq n}|T_k - k|\geq r\sqrt{n}\right\}}\leq Kne^{-K_1r}.$$ The fact that ${\mathbb{E}\left[T_1\right]}=1$ is well known and since for all $j\geq 1, T_j - T_{j-1} \stackrel{\mathcal{D}}{=} T_1$, it suffices, by Lemma \[expboundrv\] to show that there is an $a>0$ such that ${\mathbb{E}\left[e^{a(T_1-1)}\right]}<\infty$. It follows from $${\mathbb{P}\left\{T_1\geq k+1 | T_1\geq k\right\}}\leq {\mathbb{P}\left\{|B(k+1)-B(k)|\leq 2\right\}} = \rho < 1$$ that ${\mathbb{P}\left\{T_1\geq k\right\}}\leq \rho^k$, and it suffices to choose $a<\ln (\rho^{-1})$ to ensure that ${\mathbb{E}\left[e^{aT_1}\right]}<\infty$. To find a better bound for ${\mathbb{P}\left\{|S(n)|\geq r\sqrt{n}\right\}}$ when $S(n)$ is planar simple random walk, we will derive a bound in the one-dimensional case via a precise version of the Local Central Limit Theorem and use it to find a bound in the two-dimensional case. \[LCLTthm\] If $S$ is one-dimensional simple random walk, then for every $n\geq 1, |k|\leq n$, $${\mathbb{P}\left\{S(2n)=2k\right\}} = \sqrt{\frac{1}{\pi n}}\exp(-\phi(n,k))\left(1+{\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}+{\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{k^2}{n^2}\right)}\right),$$ where $\phi(n,k) = {\displaystyle{\sum_{l=1}^{\infty}{\frac{1}{l(2l-1)}\frac{k^{2l}}{n^{2l-1}}}}}$.\ In particular, for every $N\geq 2, a<\frac{2N-1}{2N}$, and $|k|\leq n^a$, $$\label{LCLTeq1} {\mathbb{P}\left\{S(2n)=2k\right\}} \sim \sqrt{\frac{1}{\pi n}}\exp\left(-{\displaystyle{\sum_{l=1}^{N-1}{\frac{1}{l(2l-1)}\frac{k^{2l}}{n^{2l-1}}}}}\right).$$ Moreover, there exists a constant $K>0$ such that for all $n\in{\mathbbm{N}}, k\in{\mathbbm{Z}}$, $$\label{LCLTeq2} {\mathbb{P}\left\{S(2n)=2k\right\}} \leq \frac{K}{\sqrt{n}}\exp\left(-\frac{k^2}{n}\right).$$ ${\mathbb{P}\left\{S(2n)=\pm 2n\right\}} = \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{2n}$ and for $|k|<n$, Stirling’s formula yields $$\begin{aligned} \label{LCLTprob} {\mathbb{P}\left\{S(2n)=2k\right\}} & = & {2n \choose n+k}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{2n}\nonumber \\ & = & \frac{\sqrt{4\pi n}}{\sqrt{2(n+k)\pi}\sqrt{2(n-k)\pi}}\frac{(2n)^{2n}}{(n+k)^{n+k}(n-k)^{n-k}}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{2n}\left(1+{\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}\right)\nonumber \\ & = & \frac{\sqrt{\pi n}}{\sqrt{(n+k)\pi}\sqrt{(n-k)\pi}} \phi(n,k)\left(1+{\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi(n,k) = \frac{n^{2n}}{(n+k)^{n+k}(n-k)^{n-k}}$. The Taylor expansion of $\ln(1+x)$ gives for $|k| < n$ $$\begin{aligned} \log \phi(n,k) & = & 2n\log n - (n+k)\log(n+k) - (n-k)\log(n-k)\\ & = & -n(\log(1+\frac{k}{n}) + \log(1-\frac{k}{n})) - k(\log(1+\frac{k}{n}) - \log(1-\frac{k}{n}))\\ & = & -n\left({\displaystyle{\sum_{l=1}^{\infty}{\frac{(-1)^{l+1}}{l}\left(\frac{k}{n}\right)^l}}} - {\displaystyle{\sum_{l=1}^{\infty}{\frac{1}{l}\left(\frac{k}{n}\right)^l}}}\right)\\ & & \hspace{4pc}-k\left({\displaystyle{\sum_{l=1}^{\infty}{\frac{(-1)^{l+1}}{l}\left(\frac{k}{n}\right)^l}}} + {\displaystyle{\sum_{l=1}^{\infty}{\frac{1}{l}\left(\frac{k}{n}\right)^l}}}\right)\\ & = & 2\left(n{\displaystyle{\sum_{l=1}^{\infty}{\frac{1}{2l}\left(\frac{k}{n}\right)^{2l}}}} - k{\displaystyle{\sum_{l=1}^{\infty}{\frac{1}{2l-1}\left(\frac{k}{n}\right)^{2l-1}}}}\right) = -{\displaystyle{\sum_{l=1}^{\infty}{\frac{1}{l(2l-1)}\frac{k^{2l}}{n^{2l-1}}}}},\end{aligned}$$ which implies that $$\label{phi(n,k)} \phi(n,k) = \exp\left\{-{\displaystyle{\sum_{l=1}^{\infty}{\frac{1}{l(2l-1)}\frac{k^{2l}}{n^{2l-1}}}}}\right\}.$$ In particular, there exists a $K>0$ such that for all $n\in{\mathbbm{N}}, N\geq 2$, and $|k|\leq n^{(2N-1)/2N}$, $$\label{part1} \phi(n,k) = \exp\left\{-{\displaystyle{\sum_{l=1}^{N-1}{\frac{1}{l(2l-1)}\frac{k^{2l}}{n^{2l-1}}}}}\right\} (1+\eta_N(n,k)),$$ where $\eta_N(n,k) \leq K\frac{k^{2N}}{n^{2N-1}}$. Also, $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\sqrt{\pi n}}{\sqrt{(n+k)\pi}\sqrt{(n-k)\pi}} & = & \sqrt{\frac{1}{\pi}}\sqrt{\frac{1}{n(1-k^2/n^2)}}\\ & = & \sqrt{\frac{1}{\pi n}}\left(1+{\displaystyle{\sum_{l=1}^{\infty}{\left(\frac{k}{n}\right)^{2l}\frac{(2l-1)(2l-3)\cdots 3\cdot 1}{2^l l!}}}}\right),\end{aligned}$$ which converges for $|k|<n$, so for any $b<1$, there is a constant $C_b$ such that for all $|k|\leq bn$, $$\left|\frac{\sqrt{\pi n}}{\sqrt{(n+k)\pi}\sqrt{(n-k)\pi}} - \sqrt{\frac{1}{\pi n}}\right| \leq C_b \frac{k^2}{n^{5/2}}.$$ In particular, there exist a constant $K>0$ and a function ${\epsilon}(x)$ with ${\epsilon}(x) \leq Kx$ such that for every $a < 1$, every $n\geq 1$, and every $|k|\leq n^a$, $$\label{part2} \frac{\sqrt{\pi n}}{\sqrt{(n+k)\pi}\sqrt{(n-k)\pi}} = \sqrt{\frac{1}{\pi n}}\left(1+{\epsilon}\left(\frac{k^2}{n^2}\right)\right) = \sqrt{\frac{1}{\pi n}}(1+o(1)).$$ Moreover, it is easy to see that for all $|k|<n$. $$\label{trivialbound} \frac{\sqrt{\pi n}}{\sqrt{(n+k)\pi}\sqrt{(n-k)\pi}} \leq 1.$$ , , and yield . To show , it suffices to consider separately two cases: If $k\leq n^{5/6}$, and directly yield the result. If $n^{5/6}\leq k \leq n$, and show that $${\mathbb{P}\left\{S(2n)=2k\right\}} \leq K\exp(-\frac{k^2}{n})\exp(-\frac{k^4}{6n^3}) \leq \frac{K}{\sqrt{n}}\exp(-\frac{k^2}{n}).$$ Replacing $k$ by $n$ in yields, as one would expect, $\phi(n,n) = \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{2n}$ \[largedevsrw\] If $S$ is one-dimensional simple random walk, there exists a $K>0$ such that for every $n, k\in{\mathbbm{N}}$, every $r\geq 1$, $${\mathbb{P}\left\{|S(2n)|\geq r\sqrt{n}\right\}}\leq K\exp\left\{-\frac{r^2}{4}\right\}.$$ Given Theorem \[LCLTthm\], all that is left to do is integrate: $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbb{P}\left\{|S(2n)|\geq r\sqrt{n}\right\}} & \leq & 2{\displaystyle{\sum_{k=[r\sqrt{n}/2]}^{n}{{\mathbb{P}\left\{S(2n)=2k\right\}}}}}\\ & \leq & \frac{K}{\sqrt{n}}{\displaystyle{\sum_{k=[r\sqrt{n}/2]}^{n}{\exp\left\{-\frac{k^2}{n}\right\}}}} \leq K\int_{r/\sqrt{2}}^{2\sqrt{2n}}e^{-x^2/2} \,dx \leq Ke^{-r^2/4}.\end{aligned}$$ The corollary is equivalent to the statement that there exists a $K>0$ such that for every $n, k\in{\mathbbm{N}}$, every $r\geq 1$, $${\mathbb{P}\left\{|S(n)|\geq r\sqrt{n}\right\}}\leq K\exp\left\{-\frac{r^2}{2}\right\},$$ which is in agreement with the bound for one-dimensional Brownian motion. We now give the analogue of Lemma \[bmtoofar\] for random walk. \[rwtoofar\] There exists a positive constant $K$ such that if $S$ is planar simple random walk, then $$\begin{aligned} & (a) & {\mathbb{P}\left\{|S(2n)|\geq r\sqrt{n}\right\}} \leq Ke^{-r^2/4}.\\ & (b) & {\mathbb{P}\left\{\sup_{0\leq t \leq n}|S(2t)| \geq r\sqrt{n}\right\}} \leq 2Ke^{-r^2/4}.\end{aligned}$$ We know from Section \[1-2\] that we can write $S(n) = (S^1(n),S^2(n))$, where $S^1(n)$ and $S^2(n)$ are independent random walks on $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i\pi/4}\cdot{\mathbbm{Z}}$ and $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i3\pi/4}\cdot{\mathbbm{Z}}$, respectively. These are random walks on shrunken lattices and we get from Corollary \[largedevsrw\] that for $k=1, 2$, $${\mathbb{P}\left\{|S^k(2n)|\geq r\sqrt{\frac{n}{2}}\right\}}\leq K\exp\left\{-\frac{r^2}{4}\right\},$$ which, together with the obvious inequality ${\mathbb{P}\left\{|S(2n)|\geq r\sqrt{n}\right\}} \leq 2{\mathbb{P}\left\{|S^1(2n)| \geq r\sqrt{n/2}\right\}}$, gives part $(a)$. Part $(b)$ follows from Lemma \[reflection\]. Beurling estimates {#beurling} ================== It is often useful to know how likely it is for Brownian motion to get to distance $R$ without hitting a set $A$ with $d(B(0),A)=r\leq R$ and rad$(A)\geq 2R$. The probability of this event can be bounded above by a power function of the ratio $\frac{r}{R}$, uniformly for all sets $A$. Given the Beurling Projection Theorem which we state below, it is easy to find the best possible exponent of this power function and we do it in this section. The discrete case is more difficult and we just refer the reader to [@kesten], where the proof is given. The first result of this section is the Beurling Projection Theorem (for a proof, see [@bass] or [@ahlfors2]). It says that among all connected sets of a given radius, that which Brownian motion will most likely avoid is a straight line. Let ${\mathbb{D}}$ be the closed unit disk centered at the origin and consider a set $E \subset R{\mathbb{D}}= \{z\in{\mathbbm{C}}:|z|\leq R\}$. The circular projection of $E$ is defined to be ${\gamma}(E)=\{|z|:z\in E\}$. For a set $A\subset {\mathbbm{C}}$, let $T_A = \inf\{t\geq 0:B(t)\in A\}$ and $\Xi_R = T_{{\partial{R}}{\mathbb{D}}}$. \[projection\] For all $R\geq 1$ and $E\subset {\mathbbm{C}}$, $${\mathbb{P}^{-1}\left\{\Xi_R<T_E\right\}} \leq {\mathbb{P}^{-1}\left\{\Xi_R<T_{{\gamma}(E)}\right\}}.$$ We will be interested in the case where $E$ satisfies ${\gamma}(E)=[0,R]$. Now that we have Theorem \[projection\], we know that finding an upper bound for ${\mathbb{P}^{-1}\left\{\Xi_R<T_{[0,R]}\right\}}$ also provides an upper bound for ${\mathbb{P}^{-1}\left\{\Xi_R<T_E\right\}}$ for all sets $E \subset R{\mathbb{D}}$ with ${\gamma}(E)=[0,R]$. We can compute such a bound via a sequence of conformal maps, using the fact that the exit distribution of the upper half-plane is a Cauchy distribution, and the fact that harmonic measure is conformally invariant (see [@bass] for a proof of this). ![The sequence of conformal transformations leading to the Beurling estimate.[]{data-label="Fig4"}](maps.eps){height="2in" width="2.6in"} Consider the following domains, where ${\mathbb{U}}= \{z\in{\mathbbm{C}}:|z|<1\}$ is the open unit disk and recall that ${\mathbb{D}}={\partial{{\mathbb{U}}}}$: the upper half-plane ${\mathbbm{H}}= \{z\in{\mathbbm{C}}:{\text{Im}(z)}>0\}$, the slit unit disk ${\mathbb{U}}_s = {\mathbb{U}}\setminus \{z\in{\mathbbm{C}}:0\leq {\text{Re}(z)} < 1 ; {\text{Im}(z)}=0\}$, the upper half-disk ${\mathbb{U}}_u = {\mathbb{U}}\cap {\mathbbm{H}}$, and the complement in ${\mathbbm{H}}$ of the closed upper half-disk ${\mathbbm{H}}_{\mathbb{U}}= {\mathbbm{H}}\cap \{z\in{\mathbbm{C}}:|z|>1\}.$ These domains are linked by the following conformal transformations (surjective conformal maps): $${\mathbb{U}}_s \stackrel{f}{\rightarrow} {\mathbb{U}}_u \stackrel{g}{\rightarrow} {\mathbbm{H}}_{\mathbb{U}}\stackrel{h}{\rightarrow} {\mathbbm{H}},$$ where $f(z) = \sqrt{z}, g(z) = -\frac{1}{z}, h(z)=z+\frac{1}{z}$. Then $h \circ g \circ f (-{\epsilon}) = (\frac{1}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}-\sqrt{{\epsilon}})i$ and $h \circ g \circ f ({\mathbb{U}}) = [-2,2].$ See Figure \[Fig4\]. Conformal invariance of Brownian motion implies that $${\mathbb{P}^{{\epsilon}}\left\{B(T_{\partial {\mathbb{U}}_s})\in {\mathbb{D}}\right\}} = {\mathbb{P}^{(\frac{1}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}-\sqrt{{\epsilon}})i}\left\{B(T_{{\mathbbm{R}}}) \in [-2,2]\right\}}.$$ Using the fact that the exit distribution of the upper half-plane is a Cauchy distribution and the Beurling Projection Theorem, Brownian scaling gives the following: \[beurlingcontinuous\] There exists a constant $K >0$ such that for any $R \geq 1$, any $x$ with $|x|\leq R$, any set $A$ with $[0,R] \subset {\gamma}(A)$, $${\mathbb{P}^{x}\left\{\Xi_R \leq T_A\right\}}\leq K\left(\frac{|x|}{R}\right)^{1/2}.$$ As we pointed out earlier, extending this result to the random walk case is not as easy, mainly because none of the conformal invariance techniques are available. In [@kesten], Kesten first showed that the Beurling estimate holds in the discrete case as well. We state the theorem here without a proof. For $R\in {\mathbbm{R}}_+$, we define ${\mathcal A}_R$ to be the set of subsets $A$ of ${\mathbbm{Z}}^2$ containing 0 and for which $\sup\{|x|:x\in A\}\geq R$. We also let for $A\subset{\mathbbm{Z}}^2, \tau_A = \inf\{k\geq 0:S(k)\in A\}$ and $\xi_R = \inf\{k\geq 0:|S(k)|>R\} $. \[beurlingdiscrete\] Let $\tau_A = \inf\{n\geq 1:S(n) \in A\}$ and $\xi_R = \inf\{k\geq 0:|S(k)|\geq R\}$. Then there exists a constant $K > 0$ such that if $A \in {\mathcal A}_R, |x|<R,$ $${\mathbb{P}^{x}\left\{\xi_R\leq\tau_A\right\}}\leq K\left(\frac{|x|}{R}\right)^{1/2}.$$ Note that although the exponents are the same in the continuous and discrete case, it is not clear that in a given discrete disk, a straight line is the easiest set to avoid for random walk. Skorokhod Embedding {#Skorokhod} =================== Knowledge about the behavior of Brownian motion can often be used to understand the behavior of random walk, and vice-versa. Coupling arguments turn out to be particularly useful in many cases. We briefly discuss one of them here, namely Skorokhod embedding. The one-dimensional case ------------------------ \[skocoupling\] There exists a probability space containing a linear standard Brownian motion $B$ and a one-dimensional simple random walk $S$ such that for every $g(n)\geq 1$, there exist constants $b,K>0$ such that $${\mathbb{P}\left\{\sup_{0\leq t \leq n}|B(t) - S(t)|\geq n^{1/4}g(n)\right\}} \leq Kne^{-bg(n)}.$$ We define $T_0 = 0$ and for $i\geq 1, T_i = \inf\{t\geq T_{i-1}:|B(t) - B(T_{i-1})| = 1\},$ and define the simple random walk $S(n) := B(T_n)$. For notational purposes, we let $h(n) = g(n)\sqrt{n}$ and for $k\geq 1$, $$I_k=\left[(k-1)[h(n)],k[h(n)]\right].$$ For $n\geq 4$, we have the covering $[0,n] \subset \displaystyle{\bigcup_{k=1}^{[\sqrt{n}/g(n)]+3}I_k}$. Also, if $0\leq t-s \leq h(n)$, the interval $[s,t]$ intersects at most 3 of the $I_k$’s. We use this and Corollary \[bmstoppingtimes\] to see that there exist constants $K, a >0$ such that $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbbm{P}}\{\sup_{0\leq k \leq n} & |B(k) - S(k)|\geq \frac{1}{2}n^{1/4}g(n)\}\\ & \leq {\mathbb{P}\left\{\max_{1\leq k\leq n}|T_k-k|\geq h(n)\right\}} + {\mathbb{P}\left\{\mathop{\sup_{0\leq s\leq n}}_{|t-s|\leq h(n)}|B(t)-B(s)|\geq \frac{1}{2}n^{1/4}g(n)\right\}}\\ & \leq Kne^{-ag(n)} + {\mathbb{P}\left\{\mathop{\sup_{1\leq k\leq [\sqrt{n}/g(n)]+3}}_{t\in I_k}|B(t)-B((k-1)[h(n)])|\geq \frac{1}{6}n^{1/4}g(n)\right\}}\\ & \leq K\left(ne^{-ag(n)} + \frac{\sqrt{n}}{g(n)}{\mathbb{P}\left\{\sup_{0\leq t\leq [h(n)]}|B(t)|\geq \frac{1}{6}n^{1/4}g(n)\right\}}\right)\\ & \leq K\left(ne^{-ag(n)} + \frac{\sqrt{n}}{g(n)^{3/2}}e^{g(n)/72}\right) \leq Kn e^{-bg(n)},\end{aligned}$$ where the two last inequalities follow from Brownian scaling, Lemma \[bmtoofar\], and the choice $b=\min\{a,1/72\}$. To get the result for all real times $t\in [0,n]$, it suffices to observe that $$\begin{aligned} \mathbb{P}\{&\sup_{0\leq t \leq n}|B(t) - S(t)|\geq n^{1/4}g(n)\}\\ & \leq {\mathbb{P}\left\{\displaystyle{\sup_{0\leq k \leq n}|B(k) - S(k)|\geq \frac{1}{2}n^{1/4}g(n)}\right\}}\\ & \hspace{5pc}+ n{\mathbb{P}\left\{\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}|B(t)-S(t)|\geq \frac{1}{2}n^{1/4}g(n)\right\}}\\ & \leq K\left(ne^{-bg(n)} + ne^{-b'n^{1/2}}\right) \leq Kne^{-bg(n)}.\end{aligned}$$ Extending the result to the plane --------------------------------- The construction we made in the previous section does not work in dimensions other than 1. However, there is a simple way of getting around this problem, which is as follows: Let $B^1(t), B^2(t)$ be independent one-dimensional Brownian motions. Then $$B(t)=(B^1(t),B^2(t))$$ is a planar Brownian motion. For $i\geq 0, j=1,2$, let $T_i^j$ be the stopping times for $B^j(t)$ as defined in the previous subsection and for $i\geq 0$, define $S_n^j = B^j(T_n^j)$. Then $S^1, S^2$ are independent one-dimensional random walks. We let $L_i=(L_i^1,L_i^2)$ be independent random vectors, independent of $B^1,B^2$, with distribution $${\mathbb{P}\left\{L_i=(1,0)\right\}}={\mathbb{P}\left\{L_i=(0,1)\right\}}=\frac{1}{2}.$$ If we define $U_n^j = {\displaystyle{\sum_{i=1}^{n}{L_i^j}}}$, it is easy to check that $S(n):=(S^1(U_n^1),S^2(U_n^2))$ is a planar simple random walk. The statement and the proof of the main result are essentially the same as in one dimension. The only difference is that now, the time-parameter is different for the two processes. A heuristic reason for the different time scales is that Brownian motion moves a little bit faster since it is not restricted to moving along the lines of the lattice, but can take “diagonal shortcuts”. See also Lemma \[meansquaredistance\]. There exists a coupling of standard Brownian motion $B$ and simple random walk $S$ in the plane such that for all $g(n)\geq 1$ satisfying $g(n) = {\mathcal{O}\left(n^{1/4}\right)}$, there exist constants $b,K>0$ such that $${\mathbb{P}\left\{\sup_{0\leq t \leq n}|B(t) - S(2t)|\geq n^{1/4}g(n)\right\}} \leq Kne^{-bg(n)}.$$ If $S$ is defined as above, we have $${\mathbb{P}\left\{\max_{1\leq k \leq n}|B(k) - S(2k)|\geq n^{1/4}g(n)\right\}} \leq 2{\mathbb{P}\left\{\max_{1\leq k \leq n}|B^1(k) - S^1(T_{2k}^1)|\geq \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}n^{1/4}g(n)\right\}}.$$ Since $T_{2k}$ is a sum of $2k$ random variables of mean $1/2$ and finite variance, the exact same argument as in Theorem \[skocoupling\] can be used to conclude the proof. Exiting distributions for simple random walk ============================================ The Laplacian $\Delta$ of a $C^2$ function $f:{\mathbbm{R}}^2\to{\mathbbm{R}}$ is defined by $$\Delta f(x,y) = \frac{{\partial{}}^2f}{{\partial{x}}^2} + \frac{{\partial{}}^2f}{{\partial{y}}^2}(x,y).$$ If in a domain $D, \Delta f \equiv 0$, we say that $f$ is harmonic in $D$. Similarly, for any function $f:{\mathbbm{Z}}^2 \to {\mathbbm{R}}$ the discrete Laplacian is $$\Delta f(x,y) = \frac{1}{4}\sum (f(x',y')-f(x,y)),$$ where the sum is over $\{(x',y'):|(x',y')-(x,y)|=1\}$. By analogy with the continuous case, we say that $f:\bar{D}\to{\mathbbm{R}}$ is discrete harmonic in a set $D$ if $\Delta f \equiv 0$ in $D$. To solve the Dirichlet problem in a domain $D$ with boundary condition $\phi$, where $\phi:{\partial{D}}\to{\mathbbm{R}}$ is to find a function $u:\bar{D}\to {\mathbbm{R}}$ such that $u$ is harmonic in $D$ and $u\equiv \phi$ on ${\partial{D}}$. The discrete Dirichlet problem is defined in the natural analogous way. The Dirichlet problem is intimately related to Brownian motion and so is the discrete Dirichlet problem to random walk. Solving the Dirichlet problem with appropriate boundary conditions is equivalent to computing the probability that Brownian motion (or random walk in the discrete case) leaves a domain at a given subset of the boundary. More precisely, if $A$ and $B$ are disjoint subsets of the boundary of $D$ and $A\cup B = {\partial{D}}$, solving the Dirichlet problem with boundary value 1 on $A$ and 0 on $B$ is equivalent, under some mild assumptions, to finding the probability that Brownian motion (in the continuous case) or random walk (in the discrete case) leaves $D$ at $A$. (See [@durrett2] for a discussion of this in the continuous case and [@greenbook] for the discrete case.) Discrete Dirichlet problem in the finite and infinite rectangles ---------------------------------------------------------------- We will first solve the discrete Dirichlet problem on a discrete rectangle with boundary conditions a general function $\phi$ on one side and 0 on the others. We will then use this to find bounds for the problem with specific $\phi$ and points inside the rectangle. We start with a trivial lemma which will be needed in our study of the discrete Dirichlet problem in some specific domains. \[a\_jlemma\] If for $1 \leq j \leq n-1$, $a_j = a_j(n)$ is defined to be the positive solution of the equation $$\label{110306} \cosh(a_j)=2-\cos(\frac{\pi j}{n}),$$ then for any $1 \leq j \leq n-1$, $$\frac{j}{2n} \leq a_j \leq \frac{\pi j}{n}.$$ The equality $$\displaystyle{\sum_{k\geq 1}\frac{a_j^{2k}}{(2k)!} = \sum_{k\geq 1}(-1)^{k+1}\frac{(\pi j/n)^{2k}}{(2k)!}},$$ obtained by Taylor-expanding , allows us to see that $\forall \; n>0, \forall \; j \leq n/\pi,$ $$\frac{\pi j}{2n} \leq a_j \leq \frac{\pi j}{n}.$$ Indeed, suppose that for some $n>0$ and $j\leq n\pi, a_j > \frac{\pi j}{n}$. Then $$\displaystyle{\sum_{k\geq 1}\frac{(\pi j/n)^{2k}}{(2k)!} < \sum_{k\geq 1}(-1)^{k+1}\frac{(\pi j/n)^{2k}}{(2k)!}}.$$ This is clearly impossible. Also, if we suppose that for some $0\leq a_j \leq \frac{\pi j}{2n}$, we get the inequality $$0 \leq {\displaystyle{\sum_{k\geq 1}^{}{\frac{(\pi j/n)^{2k}\left((1/2)^{2k}-(-1)^{k+1}\right)}{(2k)!}}}}.$$ The first term in this sum is $\frac{-3}{8}(\frac{\pi j}{n})^2$. The sum of the positive terms is $$\leq \frac{17}{16}(\frac{\pi j}{n})^4{\displaystyle{\sum_{k\geq 1}^{}{\frac{1}{(4k)!}}}} \leq \frac{1}{10}(\frac{\pi j}{n})^4,$$ and we get a contradiction. It is also easy to see directly from the $\cos$ and $\cosh$ functions that for $n/\pi \leq j \leq n-1, \, 1/2 \leq a_j \leq \pi$. This is not optimal but sufficient for our needs. The lemma now follows easily. We let $$R(l,n)=\{(x,y) \in {\mathbbm{Z}}^2:1\leq x\leq l-1,1\leq y \leq n-1\},$$ be the discrete rectangle of “side lengths” $l-1$ and $n-1$, with boundary $\partial R(l,n)$ and closure $\bar{R}(l,n)=R(l,n) \cup \partial R(l,n)$. \[Rectangle\] Let $\phi:\{1,..,n-1\} \to {\mathbbm{R}}$ be a given function. Then the unique function $f:\bar{R}(l,n) \to {\mathbbm{R}}$ satisfying $$\Delta f(x,y) = 0 \text{ in } R(l,n),$$ $$f(x,y) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \phi(y) & \text{ on } \{(l,y):1\leq y \leq n-1\}\\ 0 & \text{ on } \partial R(l,n) \setminus \{(l,y):1\leq y \leq n-1\} \end{array} \right.,$$ is given by $$\label{rectangle} f(x,y) = \displaystyle{\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}b_j(\phi)\frac{\sinh(a_jx)}{\sinh(a_jl)}\sin(\frac{\pi yj}{n})},$$ where $a_j$ is the positive solution of $$\label{a_j} \cosh(a_j) = 2 - \cos(\frac{\pi j}{n}),$$ and $$\label{b_j} b_j(\phi)=\frac{2}{n-1}\displaystyle{\sum_{y=1}^{n-1}\phi(y)\sin(\frac{\pi yj}{n})}.$$ It suffices to check that the given function is harmonic and that it has the right values on $\partial R(l,n)$. Uniqueness follows from [@greenbook Theorem 1.4.5]. We first check the boundary conditions. It is clear that $$f(0,y) = f(x,0) = f(x,n) = 0 \;\; \forall \; x,y \in {\mathbbm{Z}}.$$ Also, $$\begin{aligned} f(l,y) & = & \displaystyle{\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}b_j(\phi)\sin(\frac{\pi yj}{n})}\\ & = & \frac{2}{n-1}\displaystyle{\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}\sum_{y=1}^{n-1}\phi(y)\sin^2(\frac{\pi yj}{n})}.\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to see that if $1 \leq y \leq n-1$, then $$\displaystyle{\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}\sin^2(\frac{\pi yj}{n})} = \frac{n-1}{2},$$ from which it follows that $$f(l,y) = \phi(y) \;\; \forall \; y \in \{1,..,n-1\}.$$ To see that $f$ is harmonic in $R(l,n)$, we do a straightforward computation: Fix $(x,y) \in R(l,n)$. Then, using the fact that $\sin(x+y)=\sin(x)\cos(y)+\sin(y)\cos(x)$, $$\begin{aligned} \Delta &f(x,y)\\ & = f(x+1,y) + f(x-1,y) + f(x,y+1) + f(x,y-1) - 4f(x,y)\\ & = \displaystyle{\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}b_j\left[2\sin(\frac{\pi yj}{n})(\cos(\frac{\pi j}{n})-1)\frac{\sinh(a_jx)}{\sinh(a_jl)} + 2\sin(\frac{\pi yj}{n})\frac{\sinh(a_jx)}{\sinh(a_jl)}(\cosh(a_j)-1)\right]}\\ & = 2\displaystyle{\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}b_j\left[\sin(\frac{\pi yj}{n})\frac{\sinh(a_jx)}{\sinh(a_jl)}\left((\cos(\frac{\pi j}{n}) - 1)+(\cosh(a_j)-1)\right)\right]}.\end{aligned}$$ We see that this is 0 if $\cos(\frac{\pi j}{n})+\cosh(a_j)=2$. We now turn to the infinite rectangle $$\mathcal{R}(n)= \{(x,y) \in {\mathbbm{Z}}^2:x \geq 1, 1 \leq y \leq n-1\}$$ with boundary $\partial\mathcal{R}(n)$ and closure $\bar{\mathcal{R}}(n) = \mathcal{R}(n) \cup \partial\mathcal{R}(n)$. \[Infrectangle\]Let $\phi:\{1,..,n-1\} \to {\mathbbm{R}}$ be a given function. Then the unique bounded function $f(x,y):\bar{\mathcal{R}}(n) \to {\mathbbm{R}}$ satisfying $$\Delta f(x,y) = 0 \text{ in }\mathcal{R}(n),$$ $$f(x,y) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \phi(y) & \text{ on } \{(0,y):1\leq y \leq n-1\}\\ 0 & \text{ on } \partial \mathcal{R}(n) \setminus \{(0,y):1\leq y \leq n-1\} \end{array} \right.$$ is given by $$\label{infrectangle} f(x,y) = \displaystyle{\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}b_j(\phi)\exp(-a_jx)\sin(\frac{\pi yj}{n})},$$ where $a_j$ is the positive solution of $$\cosh(a_j) = 2 - \cos(\frac{\pi j}{n}),$$ and $$b_j(\phi)=\frac{2}{n-1}\displaystyle{\sum_{y=1}^{n-1}\phi(y)\sin(\frac{\pi yj}{n})}.$$ We invoke [@greenbook Theorem 1.4.8] to show uniqueness. We can check that $f$ has the right boundary conditions exactly as in Lemma \[Rectangle\]. Harmonicity follows from $$\Delta f(x,y) = \displaystyle{\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}b_j(\phi)\exp(-a_jx)\sin(\frac{\pi yj}{n})\left(2\cos(\frac{\pi j}{n})+2\cosh(a_j)-4\right)}.$$ We now find upper bounds for solutions of the Dirichlet problem in a finite and infinite rectangle at particular points in the case where $\phi \equiv 1$. \[f(1,y)\]If $f(x,y)$ is the solution of the Dirichlet problem in $R([an],n)$ with $\phi(y) \equiv 1$, then there exists a positive constant $K$, depending on $a$, such that for all $y$ and all $n,$ $$f(1,y) \leq K\frac{y}{n^2}.$$ This is a particular case of Lemma \[Rectangle\]. First note that $a_j$ and $b_j$ depend on $n$. $$b_j:=b_j(\phi) = \frac{2}{n-1}\displaystyle{\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\sin \left(\frac{\pi kj}{n}\right) \stackrel{n \to \infty}{\longrightarrow} 2\int_0^1 \sin(\pi jx)\,dx} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \frac{4}{\pi j}, & j \text{ odd }\\ 0, & j \text{ even, } \end{array}, \right.$$ so $\exists \, C>0, \text{ s.t. }\forall \; n>0, \; \forall \; j \in \{1,..,n-1\}$, $$\label{b_jbound} b_j \leq \frac{C}{j}.$$ We also note that $$\label{sin} \sin(x) \leq x, \; \forall x \geq 0.$$ Finding a bound for the term $\frac{\sinh(a_jx)}{\sinh(a_j[an])}$ is more delicate. We first note that for all $x \geq 0, \, \sinh(x) \geq x$, and for $x\leq 1,\; \sinh(x)\leq 2x.$ We also recall from Lemma \[a\_jlemma\] that $\frac{j}{2n} \leq a_j \leq \frac{\pi j}{2n}.$ - If $1 \leq j < \frac{8}{a\pi}$, then $a_j[an] \geq C$ for some $C>0$ depending on $a$, and $a_j$ is small, so that $$\frac{\sinh(a_j)}{\sinh(a_j[an])} \leq \frac{C_1a_j}{C_2} \leq C\frac{j}{n}.$$ - If $\frac{8}{a\pi} \leq j < \frac{n}{\pi}$ and $n$ is large enough, $$a_j[an] \geq [an]\frac{j}{2n} \geq cj \geq 1,$$ for some $c>0$ independent of $j$, so that, since $a_j < 1,$ $$\frac{\sinh(a_j)}{\sinh(a_j[an])} \leq C\frac{j/n}{\exp(cj)}.$$ - Finally, if $n/\pi \leq j \leq n-1$, then $$\frac{\sinh(a_j)}{\sinh(a_j[an])} \leq C_1\exp(-C_2n).$$ Plugging these bounds, as well as (\[b\_jbound\]) and (\[sin\]) into (\[rectangle\]), we get $$\begin{aligned} f(x,y) & = & \displaystyle{\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}b_j(\phi)\frac{\sinh(a_jx)}{\sinh(a_j[an])}\sin(\frac{\pi yj}{n})}\\ & \leq & C\left(\displaystyle{\sum_{j=1}^{[4/a\pi]}\frac{\pi yj}{\pi jn^2} + \sum_{j=[4/a\pi]}^{[n/\pi]}\frac{\pi yj^2}{\pi jn^2\exp(cj)} + \sum_{j=[n/\pi]}^{n-1}\frac{\pi yj\exp(-C_2n)}{\pi jn}}\right)\\ & \leq & C\left(\frac{y}{n^2} + \frac{y}{n^2} \displaystyle{\sum_{j=[4/a\pi]}^{[n/\pi]}(\frac{j}{\exp(cj)})} + 4y\exp(-C_2n)\right) \leq C\frac{y}{n^2}\\\end{aligned}$$ \[f(n,y)\]If $f(x,y)$ is the solution of the Dirichlet problem in $\mathcal{R}(n)$ with $\phi(y) \equiv 1$, then there exists a constant $K>0$ such that for all $n$ and all $y \in \{1,..,n-1\}$, $$f(n,y) \leq K\frac{y}{n}.$$ This is a particular case of Lemma \[Infrectangle\]. From the proof of Lemma \[f(1,y)\], we know that $$b_j \leq \frac{C}{j} \text{ and } \sin(\frac{\pi yj}{n}) \leq \frac{\pi yj}{n}.$$ We also know from Lemma \[a\_jlemma\] that for $1\leq j\leq n-1, a_j \geq \frac{j}{2n}$, so that $$\exp(-a_jn) \leq \exp(-j/2).$$ Plugging all this into (\[infrectangle\]) gives $$f(n,y) \leq K\displaystyle{\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}\frac{1}{j}\exp(-j/2)\frac{yj}{n}} \leq K\frac{y}{n}.$$

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We consider a cantilever beam which possesses a possibly non-uniform permanent magnetization, and whose shape is controlled by an applied magnetic field. We model the beam as a plane elastic curve and we suppose that the magnetic field acts upon the beam by means of a distributed couple that pulls the magnetization towards its direction. Given a list of target shapes, we look for a design of the magnetization profile and for a list of controls such that the shapes assumed by the beam when acted upon by the controls are as close as possible to the targets, in an averaged sense. To this effect, we formulate and solve an optimal design and control problem leading to the minimization of a functional which we study by both direct and indirect methods. In particular, we prove uniqueness of minimizers for sufficiently low intensities of the controlling magnetic fields. To this aim, we use two nested fixed-point arguments relying on the Lagrange-multiplier formulation of the problem, a method which also suggests a numerical scheme. 0.5' address: - | Dipartimento di Scienze di Base e Applicate per l’ Ingegneria, “Sapienza" Università di Roma, Via Scarpa 16, 00161 Roma, Italy\ [email protected] - | Dipartimento di Scienze di Base e Applicate per l’ Ingegneria, “Sapienza" Università di Roma, Via Scarpa 16, 00161 Roma, Italy\ [email protected] - | Università degli Studi “Roma Tre”, Dipartimento di Ingegneria, Via Vito Volterra 62, 00146 Roma, Italy\ [email protected]\ [`ORCiD: 0000-0001-8801-7461`](https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8801-7461) author: - Riccardo Durastanti - Lorenzo Giacomelli - Giuseppe Tomassetti title: Shape programming of a magnetic elastica --- Introduction and main results {#sec:intro} ============================= Motivation ---------- Recent technological developments have made it possible to assemble materials which can convert into deformation, and hence motion, a diversity of energetic inputs in the form of heat, light, chemical agents, electric and magnetic fields. Magnetic actuation, in particular, is contactless, it offers fast response, and it does not affect the surrounding medium by polarization (which is the case of electric actuation). Moreover, an external magnetic field is relatively easy to be controlled both in magnitude and direction [@Rikken2014a]. Enhancements in manufacturing processes allow to control with pinpoint accuracy the composition and the texture of an engineering manufact, making it possible to realize polymer composites, the so-called *magnetorheological elastomers* (MRE), obtained by embedding magnetic particles in a soft elastomeric matrix. Originally, MRE were devised to be employed as viscoelastic solids whose mechanical response can be controlled by an applied magnetic field [@Ginder1999]. However, thanks to the compliance of the elastomeric matrix, these materials now find applications in circumstances when large displacements are in need. These technological advances have been offering several challenges to mechanics and mathematics: for example, the definition of a suitable continuum-mechanical framework [@KANKANALA2004; @Dorfmann2004b], stability at both the macroscopic [@Ottenio2008] and the microstructural level [@Rudykh2013], and the development of *ad hoc* computational techniques [@Pelteret2016]. When crafted in the form of thin bodies, such as rods or plates, magnetorheological elastomers display a very large range of motion, so much so that they appear to be a promising technology for the realization of small-scale untethered microrobots which can walk and crawl [@Hu2018; @Xu2019]. This has also stimulated substantial theoretical work concerning *shape programming*, i.e., the design of textures and controls that produce desired shapes, a topic which is becoming increasingly relevant in elasticity (see e.g. [@Acharya2018; @Agostiniani2017a]). In this respect, shape programming appears to be rather intriguing, even for a simple mechanical model such Euler’s Elastica. This is not surprising, since the [[qualitative and quantitative properties of ]{}]{}equilibrium [[solutions for]{}]{} elastic curves [[in a diversity of settings is still]{}]{} the object of intense mathematical research (see e.g. [@DellaCorte2017; @Ferone2016; @jian2003; @miura2017elastic]). The mechanical system --------------------- We focus on a model problem featuring a *cantilever beam* with *permanent magnetization* under a *spatially-constant magnetic field*, as shown in the following figure. \[fig:1\]  We model the cantilever beam as a [*planar elastica*]{}, and we describe its configuration through the parametric curve $\mathbf r:(0,1)\to\mathbb R^2$ defined by $$\label{eq:5} \mathbf r(s)=\ell\int_0^s \vec m(\vartheta(\xi))\,{\rm d}\xi, $$ where $\ell$ is the length of the beam, $\vec m:\mathbb R\to\mathbb R^2$ is defined by $$\label{eq:17} \vec m(v)=(\cos(v),\sin(v)),$$ and $\vartheta(s)$ is the *rotation at $s$*. With slight abuse of language, we shall refer to the function $\vartheta:(0,1)\to\mathbb R$ as the *shape of the beam*. Since the beam is clamped, the shape must satisfy the essential boundary condition: $$\vartheta(0)=0,$$ which holds irrespectively of the loading environment. The beam has a permanent magnetization per unit length, whose intensity is a constant $M_0$ (its unit in the S.I. System is ampere$\cdot$meter${}^{-2}$ $[\rm Am^{-2}]$), and whose orientation with respect to the tangent line is given by a possibly non-uniform *relative angle* $\alpha(s)\in\mathbb R$, $s\in(0,1)$. We assume that the relative angle $\alpha(s)$ is not affected by the magnetic field and by the deformation process. Hence the vector field $$\vec m(\vartheta+\alpha)=(\cos(\alpha+\vartheta),\sin(\alpha+\vartheta))$$ is the *orientation of the magnetization* in the typical deformed configuration. The theory of magnetoelastic rods deduced in [@Ciambella2018] by dimension reduction predicts that when a spatially constant magnetic field $\vec H$ $[\rm Am^{-1}]$ is applied to the beam, any stable equilibrium configuration must be a local minimizer of the renormalized *magnetoelastic energy* $$\label{eq:6} \mathcal E(\vartheta)=\int_0^1 \Big(\frac 12\big(\vartheta'\big)^2-\vec h\cdot\vec m(\vartheta+\alpha)\Big)\, {\rm d}s,$$ where a dot denotes the scalar product, $\vec h$ is the renormalized magnetic field defined by $\vec h=\mu_0\frac {M_0 \ell^2 }{S}\vec H$, with $\mu_0$ $[{\rm Hm^{-1}}]$ the magnetic permeability of vacuum and $S$ $[\rm Nm^2]$ is the *bending stiffness*. The vector $\vec h$ is dimensionless, since its modulus $|\vec h|=(\mu_0 M_0H\ell)/(S\ell^{-1})$ can be written as the ratio between the *magnetic energy* $\frac 12\mu_0 M_0 H\ell$ that must be expended to immerse the beam in the magnetic field, and the *elastic energy* $S/\ell$ that must be stored in the system to impart the curvature $\ell^{-1}$ to the beam. The state equation {#sec:the-state-equation} ------------------ For $\vec h=0$ the magnetoelastic energy has the unique minimizer $\vartheta=0$, which corresponds through to the straight configuration. As detailed in Section \[sec:basic\] (see Corollary \[cor:theta\]), for given, arbitrary $\vec h$ and $\alpha$ the magnetoelastic energy has at least one minimizer, which furthermore solves the *Euler-Lagrange system* $$\begin{cases} \label{pthi1}\tag{$P_{\vartheta}$} -{\vartheta}''-\vec h\cdot {D\vec m}(\alpha+\vartheta)=0 & \mbox{in $(0,1),$} \\ {\vartheta}(0)=0, \\ {\vartheta}'(1)=0, \end{cases}$$ where $$\label{consist} D\vec m(v)=(-\sin v,\cos v),\qquad \text{for all }v\in\mathbb R$$ is the derivative of the function $\vec m$ defined in ; moreover, such minimizer is unique if $$\label{eq:8} |\vec h|< c_p^{-2},$$ where $c_p= 2/\pi$ is the best constant in the Poincaré-type inequality $$\int_0^1 v^2\le c_p^2\int_0^1 (v')^2\quad\text{for all }v\in C^1([0,1])\text{ such that }v(0)=0.$$ The *state equation* is a variant of the well-known [*e*lastica equation]{}. Given $\alpha$, defines a *solution operator* $$\label{def:Theta_alpha} \Theta_\alpha\ : \quad B(0,c_p^{-2})\ni \vec h \ \longmapsto\ \vartheta= \Theta_\alpha(\vec h) $$ which maps the *control* $\vec h$ into the *state* $\vartheta=\Theta_\alpha(\vec h)$. The manifold of attainable configurations parametrized by the chart $\Theta_\alpha$ is two-dimensional. Thus, one may hope that complex motions, such as for instance those required for applications to microswimmers [@alouges2015can; @Alouges2013], could be realized, at least with a reasonable approximation, by a judicious choice of a fixed magnetization profile and a time varying magnetic field. The papers [@Hu2018] and [@lum2016shape] offer experimental evidence of this possibility. The optimal design-control problem {#sec:the-optimal-design} ---------------------------------- In this paper we are concerned with the following situation. We are given a list of $n$ prescribed *target shapes*, $${\overline{\bm\vartheta}}=({\bar{\vartheta}}_1,\dots,{\bar{\vartheta}}_n):[0,1]\to\mathbb R^n,$$ which the beam should ideally attain by applying $n$ *controls*: these are the $n$ magnetic fields $${\bm{\vec{h}}}=(\vec{h}_1,\dots,\vec{h}_n)\in\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^{2n},$$ with $\vec{h}_i=(h_{ix},h_{iy})\in\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^2$. At our disposal is also a *design*, the magnetization $\alpha$ of the beam. Thus, we look for a design $\alpha$ and a control ${\bm{\vec{h}}}$ such that the shapes $\vartheta_i = \Theta_\alpha(\vec h_i)$ attained by the beam when applying the magnetic fields $\vec h_i$, namely the solutions of $$\begin{cases} \label{pthi}\tag{$P_{{\vartheta}_i}$} -{\vartheta}_i''-\vec h_i\cdot{D\vec m}(\alpha+{\vartheta}_i)=0 & \mbox{in $(0,1),$} \\ {\vartheta}_i(0)=0, \\ {\vartheta}_i'(1)=0, \end{cases} \quad \mbox{$i=1,\dots,n,$}$$ are “as close as possible” to the targets $\overline\vartheta_i$. The precise meaning of “closeness” depends on the choice of the [*c*ost functional]{} $\mathcal C$, which we define as follows: $$\label{cost} \mathcal{C}({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}})=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^n {\int_0^1}|{\vartheta}_i-{\bar{\vartheta}}_i|^2 +\frac{\varepsilon}{2}{\int_0^1}|\alpha'|^2 + \frac{\gamma}{2} \sum_{i=1}^n |\vec{h}_i|^2. $$ where $\varepsilon>0$ and $\gamma>0$ are positive parameters. [The choice of the cost functional $\mathcal C$ in deserves a discussion. The first integral has an obvious interpretation, since we aim at minimizing the distance between the $n$ attained shapes $\vartheta_i$ and the $n$ target shapes $\overline\vartheta_i$. The second and third ones take into account, respectively, the design cost (it is technological more difficult and more expensive to manufacture beams whose magnetization varies more pronouncedly) and the technological cost of applying magnetic fields ${\bm{\vec{h}}}$ of larger intensities. From the mathematical viewpoint, they together guarantee *the coerciveness* of $\mathcal C$.]{} Our precise mathematical formulation of the problem thus involves three ingredients: - the *admissible space* $$\mathcal{H}=\{({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}}):{\bm{\vec{h}}}\in\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^{2n},\alpha\in\hl,{{\bm\vartheta}}\in\hl^n\}\color{black}=\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^{2n}\times\hl\times\hl^n,$$ where $$\label{defhl} \hl:=\{v\in H^1(I):v(0)=0\};$$ - the *cost functional* $\mathcal{C}:\mathcal{H}\to\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}$, defined by for all $({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}})\in\mathcal{H}$; - the *admissible set* $$\label{eq:11} \mathcal{A}=\left\{({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}})\in \mathcal{H} : \ {\vartheta}_i \text{ solves \eqref{pthi} for every } i=1,\dots,n \right\}.$$ With these three ingredients, we may formulate the following *Optimal Control-Design Problem*: $$\label{main-problem} \text{ minimize $\mathcal C({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}})$ among all $({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}})\in \mathcal A$.}$$ Our results ----------- Using the direct method of the Calculus of Variations, we prove in Section \[sec:minimizer\] the existence of a minimizer: \[min\] For any $\overline{{{\bm\vartheta}}}\in L^2(I)^n$, the cost functional $\mathcal C$ has a minimizer in the admissible set $\mathcal A$. Furthermore, any minimizer is such that $$\label{eq:13} \left({\max\limits_{i=1,\dots,n}\{|\vec h_i|\}}\right)^2\leq \frac{\overline{\Theta}^2}{\gamma},\qquad\mbox{where}\quad \overline{\Theta}^2= \sum_{i=1}^n \int_0^1\overline \vartheta_i^2.$$ An important consequence of is that, for $\overline\Theta$ sufficiently small and/or $\gamma$ sufficiently large, each of the applied magnetic field $\vec h_i$ satisfies ; thus, if $(\bm{\vec h},\alpha,\bm{\vartheta})$ is a minimizer with $\bm{\vartheta}=({\vartheta}_1,\ldots,{\vartheta}_n)$, then each state $\vartheta_i$ is the unique solution of its state system : this means that the mechanical equilibria identified by the minimization of $\mathcal C$ are stable. In other words, [[for $\overline\Theta$ sufficiently small and/or $\gamma$ sufficiently large]{}]{} each configuration $\vartheta_i$ corresponds to a stable minimizer of the magnetoelastic energy if the corresponding $\bm{\vec h}$ and $\alpha$ are taken as fixed. However, the previous result neither implies uniqueness of the [*triplet*]{} $(\bm{\vec h},\alpha,\bm{\vartheta})$, nor provides a constructive scheme for its numerical approximation. Focusing on these two aspects, we investigate the Lagrange-multiplier reformulation of . This reformulation amounts to finding a critical point of the *Lagrangian* $$\mathcal L ({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}},\bm{\lambda}):= \mathcal C ({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}}) - \sum_{i=1}^n \int_0^1 \lambda_i \left(-{\vartheta}_i''-\vec h_i\cdot{D\vec m}(\alpha+{\vartheta}_i)\right),$$ where $\bm{\lambda}=(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_n)$ is the *Lagrange multiplier*. The differentiation of $\mathcal L$ yields, formally, the following system: $$\label{EQ} \left\{\begin{array}{lll} (P_{{\vartheta}_i}): & \displaystyle -{\vartheta}_i''-\vec h_i\cdot{D\vec m}(\alpha+{\vartheta}_i)=0, & \vartheta_i(0)=\vartheta'_i(1)=0 \\ (P_{\lambda_i}): & \displaystyle -\lambda_i''-\lambda_i \vec h_i\cdot{D^2\vec m}(\alpha+{\vartheta}_i)={\vartheta}_i-{\bar{\vartheta}}_i, & \lambda_i(0)=\lambda_i'(1)=0 \\ (P_{\alpha}): & \displaystyle -\varepsilon\alpha''+\sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_i\vec h_i\cdot{D^2\vec m}(\alpha+{\vartheta}_i)=0, & \alpha(0)=\alpha'(1)=0 \\ (P_{\vec h_i}): & \displaystyle \vec h_{i}=-\frac{1}{\gamma}{\int_0^1}\lambda_i {D\vec m}(\alpha+{\vartheta}_i) &\\ \end{array}\right.$$ for every $i=1,\dots,n$, where $$\label{consist2} D^2\vec m(v)=(-\cos v,-\sin v),\qquad v\in\mathbb R,$$ is the second derivative of $\vec m$. According to the standard theory of constrained minimization through Lagrange multipliers in Banach spaces, whose main results we summarize in the Appendix, a mimimizer $(\bm{\vec h},\alpha,\bm\vartheta)$ of the cost functional in the admissible set corresponds to a stationary point $(\bm{\vec h},\alpha,\bm\vartheta,\bm\lambda)$ for some Lagrange multiplier $\bm\lambda$ only if that point is *regular*, in the sense that the *constraint mapping* $G:\mathcal H\to (\hl^n)'$ (the dual of $\hl^n$), defined by $$\label{defg-intro} \langle G({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}}),\bm{u}\rangle=\sum_{i=1}^n\left\{{\int_0^1}{\vartheta}_i'u_i'-{\int_0^1}\vec h_i\cdot{D\vec m}(\alpha+{\vartheta}_i) u_i\right\}\quad\mbox{for all $\bm{u}\in \hl^n$,}$$ is *Fréchet differentiable* at $(\bm{\vec h},\alpha,\bm\vartheta)$ and its differential $DG$ is *surjective*. We apply this theory in Section \[sec:minimizer\], where we study the Fréchet differentiability of the cost function $\mathcal C$ and of the constraint mapping $G$, as well as the surjectivity of the Fréchet differential of the latter. We show (see the proof of Proposition \[lagmul\]) that a miminizer $(\bm{\vec h},\alpha,\bm\vartheta,\bm\lambda)\in\mathcal A$ is a regular point of the admissible set $\mathcal A$ if $$\label{bound-on-H} {\max\limits_{i=1,\dots,n}\{|\vec h_i|\}}<c_p^{-2}.$$ Thanks to this fact, we deduce the following result: \[lagmul2\] Let $({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}})$ be a minimizer of $\mathcal{C}$ in $\mathcal{A}$ such that holds. Then there exists a Lagrange multiplier $\bm{\lambda}\in \hl^n$ such that $({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}},\bm{\lambda})$ is a solution of system . Furthermore, $\alpha'(0)=0$. [[ As an immediate consequence of Proposition \[min\], the bound , and Proposition \[lagmul2\], we obtain that if $\gamma>\overline\Theta^2 c_p^4$ then there exists a solution $({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}},\bm{\lambda})\in\mathcal{H}\times\hl^n$ to system such that $({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}})$ is a minimizer of $\mathcal{C}$ in $\mathcal{A}$. ]{}]{} The existence of a Lagrange multiplier justifies the approach proposed in [@ciambella2019form] to numerically approximate the minimizer of $\mathcal C$, which is based on . In Section \[sec:uniqueness\] we prove by a contraction argument that, at least for $\gamma$ sufficiently large, System has a unique solution (see Proposition \[prop-step1+2\]). As a by-product, we have: \[exun\] Let ${\overline{\bm\vartheta}}\in C([0,1])^n$, $\varepsilon>0$, and let $K>0$ such that $$\label{eq:15} K<c_p^{-2}.$$ Then exists $\gamma_*=\gamma_*({\overline{\bm\vartheta}},\varepsilon,K)$ such that for every $\gamma> \gamma_*$ there exists a unique solution of system within the following set: $$\label{cond} ({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}},\bm{\lambda})\in\mathcal{H}\times\hl^n \quad\mbox{such that}\quad {\max\limits_{i=1,\dots,n}\{|\vec h_i|\}}\leq K<c_p^{-2}.$$ Proposition \[min\], Proposition \[lagmul2\] and Theorem \[exun\] combine into the main result of the present paper: \[coro-un\] Let ${\overline{\bm\vartheta}}\in C([0,1])^n$, $\varepsilon>0$, and let $K>0$ such that holds. Then there exists $\gamma_{**}=\gamma_{**}({\overline{\bm\vartheta}},\varepsilon,K)$ such that for any $\gamma>\gamma_{**}$ the minimizer in Proposition \[min\] is unique. Furthermore, it coincides with the unique solution to , whence it is smooth and such that $\alpha'(0)=0$. Let $({\bm{\vec{h}}}^{(j)},\alpha^{(j)},{{\bm\vartheta}}^{(j)})$, $j=1,2$ be two minimizers. Let $\gamma> \overline\Theta^2/K^2$. By in Proposition \[min\], both minimizers satisfy $$\label{JJJ} \left(\max_{i=1,\dots,n}|\vec h_i^{(j)}|\right)^2\leq \frac{\overline{\Theta}^2}{\gamma} < K^2<c_p^{-4},\qquad j=1,2.$$ In particular, holds for both. Hence, by Proposition \[lagmul2\], there exist $\bm{\lambda}^{(j)}\in \hl^n$ such that $({\bm{\vec{h}}}^{(j)},\alpha^{(j)},{{\bm\vartheta}}^{(j)},\bm{\lambda}^{(j)})\in\mathcal{H}\times\hl^n$ are solutions to system . Assume in addition that $\gamma> \gamma_*(\overline{\bm\vartheta},{\varepsilon}, K)$. Then, by and Theorem \[exun\], the two quadruplets, whence the two minimizers, coincide: therefore the proof is complete by choosing $\gamma_{**}=\max\{\overline{\Theta}^2/K^2, \gamma_*(\overline{\bm\vartheta},{\varepsilon},K)\}$. Corollary \[coro-un\] states that for $\gamma>\gamma_{**}$ the minimum is unique and may be numerically approximated by solving the Euler-Lagrange system (hence, not necessarily by a direct approach, although the latter is used to prove the existence of the minumum). In fact, it is through the uniqueness of the solution of the Euler-Lagrange system that we are able to assert the uniqueness of the minimum. [[Also, note that Corollary \[coro-un\] holds for any target $\overline{{\bm\vartheta}}$, even very large ones (in this respect, see Section \[sec:concl\]).]{}]{} The lower bound $\gamma_{**}$ depends on the target shapes $\overline{\bm\vartheta}=(\overline\vartheta_i)$, on the penalization $\varepsilon$, and on a constant $K$ which we are free to choose consistent with the restriction $K<c_p^{-2}$. Corollary \[coro-un\] guarantees that none of the control fields $\vec h_i$ will exceed $K$ in intensity if $\gamma>\gamma_{**}$. Thus, the constant $K$ may be chosen to be the maximum intensity (in renormalized units) that available devices can apply, if this intensity does not exceed $c_p^{-2}$. [[Further remarks and open questions are presented in the concluding Section \[sec:concl\].]{}]{} Notation and preliminaries {#sec:preli} ========================== In this section we introduce some notation as a complement to that already defined in the Introduction, and we collect preliminary results that will be needed in our subsequent developments. Other standard results are contained in the Appendix. Given a vector $\vec{v}=(v_x,v_y)\in\mathbb R^2$, we let $|\vec{v}|=\sqrt{v_x^2+v_y^2}$ be its Euclidean norm and, for $\vec w$ another vector, we let $\vec{v}\cdot\vec{w}=v_xw_x+v_yw_y$ be the scalar product between $\vec v$ and $\vec w$. Given a list of vectors $\bm{\vec v}=(\vec v_1,\ldots, \vec v_n)$, with $\vec{v}_i\in\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^2$ for $i=1,\dots,n$, we let $|\bm{\vec v}|:=|\vec{v}_1|+\dots+|\vec{v}_n|$. For $f:I\to \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}$ a measurable function, we use the abbreviation $\|f\|_{p}\equiv\|f\|_{L^p(I)}$ for all exponents $p\ge 1$. We use similar abbreviations for measurable vector-valued functions. We recall that, by the Sobolev embedding theorem, $\hl\subset C([0,1])$, where $C([0,1])$ is the space of the continuous functions on $[0,1]$. We record for later use the inequality $$\label{def-S} \|v\|^2_{\infty}\leq {\int_0^1}(v')^2 \quad\mbox{for all $v\in\hl$}$$ which is sharp, as can be seen by taking $v(x)=x$. We denote by $c_p=2/\pi$ the *best constant* in the *Poincaré-type inequality*: $$\label{def-c} {\int_0^1}v^2 \le c_p^2{\int_0^1}(v')^2 \quad \mbox{for all $v\in \hl$}.$$ It follows from and from the definition that $$\label{eq:10} \|v\|^2:={\int_0^1}(v')^2$$ is equivalent to the Sobolev norm on $\hl$. Accordingly, we henceforth shall use the norm to endow $\hl$ with a Hilbert-space structure. For $({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}})\in\mathcal{H}$ we define $\displaystyle \|({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}})\|_{\mathcal{H}}=|{\bm{\vec{h}}}|+\|\alpha\|+\|{{\bm\vartheta}}\|$. It follows that $\mathcal{H}$ is an Hilbert space. For $(\mathcal X,\|\cdot\|_{\mathcal X})$, $(\mathcal Y,\|\cdot\|_{\mathcal Y})$ Banach spaces we denote by $\mathcal L(\mathcal X,\mathcal Y)$ the space of bounded linear operators from $\mathcal X$ to $\mathcal Y$, and we let $\|\cdot\|_{\mathcal L(\mathcal X,\mathcal Y)}$ be the operator norm. Moreover, we write $\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle_{{\mathcal X',\mathcal X}}$ to denote the pairing between a Banach space $\mathcal X$ and its dual: in fact, we will omit the indexing whenever the space $\mathcal X$ is clear from the context. If not otherwise specified, we will denote by $C$ a generic constant whose value may possibly change within the same chain of inequalities, and by $C(\cdot)$ constants whose value only depend on the parameters and variables listed within parentheses. Finally, we observe that the function $\vec m:\mathbb R\to\mathbb R^2$ defined in is bounded, infinitely differentiable and its $N$-th derivative, defined consistently with , is $$\label{eq:18} D^N\vec m(v)=\left({\begin{smallmatrix} 0 &-1\\[0.5em] +1 & 0 \end{smallmatrix}}\right)^N \vec m(v),\qquad\text{for all }N\in\mathbb N,$$ namely, $D^N\vec m(v)$ is the vector obtained by rotating $\vec m(v)$ in the counter-clockwise direction by the amount $N\pi/2$. Thus, $$\label{eq:16} \bigl|D^N\vec m(v)\bigr|=1,\quad\text{for all }v\in\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}\text{ and }N\in\mathbb N.$$ Hence, $$|D^N\vec m(v_1)-D^N\vec m(v_2)|\le \int_{v_1}^{v_2} \lvert D^{N+1}\vec m(v)\rvert dv=|v_1-v_2|\quad\text{for all }v_1,v_2\in\mathbb R.$$ As a consequence of this observation, we record three bounds which will be used several times. \[trig1\] Let $(\vec{h},\alpha,\vartheta,\lambda),(\vec{\tilde{h}},\tilde{\alpha},\tilde{\vartheta},\tilde{\lambda})\in\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^2\times \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}\times \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}\times \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}$ and $N\in\mathbb N$. Then $$\begin{aligned} \label{trigR4} \left|\lambda D^N\vec m(\alpha+{\vartheta})- \tilde\lambda D^N\vec m(\tilde\alpha+\tilde\vartheta) \right| & \le & |\lambda-\tilde\lambda| + |\tilde{\lambda}| \left(|\alpha-\tilde{\alpha}|+|\vartheta-\tilde{\vartheta}|\right), \\ \label{trigR2} \left|\vec h\cdot D^N\vec m(\alpha+{\vartheta})- \tilde{\vec h}\cdot D^N\vec m(\tilde\alpha+\tilde\vartheta) \right| & \le & |\vec h-\vec{\tilde h}| + |\vec{\tilde h}| \left(|\alpha-\tilde{\alpha}|+|\vartheta-\tilde{\vartheta}|\right), \\ \nonumber \left|\lambda \vec h\cdot D^N\vec m(\alpha+{\vartheta})- \tilde\lambda \vec{\tilde h}\cdot D^N\vec m(\tilde\alpha+\tilde\vartheta) \right| & \le & |\vec{h}| |\lambda-\tilde\lambda| + |\tilde \lambda| |\vec{h}-\vec{\tilde h}| \\ && + |\vec{\tilde{h}}||\tilde{\lambda}| \left(|\alpha-\tilde{\alpha}|+|\vartheta-\tilde{\vartheta}|\right).\label{trigR}\end{aligned}$$ Existence of a minimizer {#sec:minimizer} ======================== In this section we address the existence of a minimizer to the optimal control-design problem . We recall that the admissible set is defined in . We begin by noting that $(\bm{0},0,\bm{\vec{0}})\in\mathcal{A}$, hence $\mathcal{A}$ is not empty. Next, we let $$m=\inf_\mathcal{A} C({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}}),$$ and we consider a minimizing sequence, i.e. a sequence $\{({\bm{\vec{h}}}_k,\alpha_k,{{\bm\vartheta}}_k)\}\subset\mathcal{A}$ with ${\bm{\vec{h}}}_k=(\vec{h}_{k1},\dots,\vec{h}_{kn})$, $\vec{h}_{ki}=(h_{kix},h_{kiy})$, and ${{\bm\vartheta}}_k=({\vartheta}_{k1},\dots,{\vartheta}_{kn})$, such that $\mathcal{C}({\bm{\vec{h}}}_k,\alpha_k,{{\bm\vartheta}}_k)\to m$ as $k\to +\infty$. In particular, by the definition of $\mathcal{C}$, a constant $C$ exists such that $$\label{app-1} \sum_{i=1}^n {\int_0^1}|{\vartheta}_{ki}|^2 + {\int_0^1}|\alpha_k'|^2 + \sum_{i=1}^n|\vec{h}_{ki}|^2 \leq C$$ for all $k\in \operatorname{\mathbb{N}}$. Moreover ${\vartheta}_{ki}$ satisfies $$\label{app2} {\int_0^1}\left({\vartheta}_{ki}' v'- \vec h_{ki}\cdot{D\vec m}(\alpha_k+{\vartheta}_{ki})v\right) =0, \qquad \forall v\in\hl$$ for all $k\in \operatorname{\mathbb{N}}$ and $i=1,\dots,n$. Choosing ${\vartheta}_{ki}$ as test function in and recalling , we obtain $$\|{\vartheta}_{ki}\|\leq 2C \quad\mbox{for all $k\in \operatorname{\mathbb{N}}$ and every $i=1,\dots,n$.}$$ Hence, by a standard compactness argument, $({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}})\in \mathcal{H}$ exists such that, by passing to a subsequence (not relabeled), $$\label{conv} \begin{array}{l} \vec{h}_{ki} \rightarrow \vec{h}_i \text{ in } \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^2, \text{ for every } i=1,\dots,n , \\ \alpha_k \rightarrow \alpha \text{ weakly in } \hl \text{ and uniformly in } C([0,1]), \\ {\vartheta}_{ki} \rightarrow {\vartheta}_i \text{ weakly in } \hl \text{ and uniformly in } C([0,1]), \text{ for every } i=1,\dots,n. \end{array}$$ Letting $k$ tend to infinity in and using the convergence statement , we conclude that ${\vartheta}_i$ is a weak solution of for every $i=1,\dots,n$, so $({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}})\in\mathcal{A}$. Moreover, by lower semi-continuity, $$\mathcal{C}({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}})\leq \liminf_{k\to\infty}\mathcal{C}({\bm{\vec{h}}}_k,\alpha_k,{{\bm\vartheta}}_k)=m.$$ This implies that $({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}})$ is a minimizer of $\mathcal{C}$. In addition, since $(\bm{0},0,\bm{\vec{0}})\in\mathcal{A}$, for any minimizer we have $$\frac{\gamma}{2}\sum_{i=1}^n |\vec{h}_i|^2 \le \mathcal{C}({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}})\leq \mathcal{C}(\bm{0},0,\bm{\vec{0}})= \frac12\sum_{i=1}^n|\overline{\vartheta}_i|^2,$$ which implies . The basic equation {#sec:basic} ================== The next sections will be devoted to the analysis of the Lagrange-multiplier system . Its equations, eq, eq, and $({P}_{\alpha})$, share the following structure: $$\label{general} \begin{cases} -v''+f(s,v)=0 & \mbox{in $(0,1),$} \\ v(0)=0, \\ v'(1)=0. \end{cases}$$ In particular, with reference to , we have that $$\label{eq:12} \text{\eqref{general} is equivalent to: }\left\{ \begin{aligned} &({P}_{{\vartheta}_i})\text{ for }f(s,v)=-\vec h_i\cdot D\vec m(\alpha(s)+v);\\ &({P}_{\lambda_i})\text{ for }f(s,v)=-v\vec h_i\cdot D^2\vec m(\alpha(s)+{\vartheta}_i(s))+\overline{\vartheta}_i(s)-{\vartheta}_i(s);\\ &({P}_{\alpha})\text{ for }f(s,v)=\frac 1 \varepsilon \sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i(s)\vec h_i\cdot D^2\vec m(v+{\vartheta}_i(s)). \end{aligned}\right.$$ \[weaksol\] Let $f\in L^1(I\times \operatorname{\mathbb{R}})$. A function $v$ belonging to $\hl$ is a (weak) solution to problem if $$\label{weak-form} {\int_0^1}v'w'+{\int_0^1}f(s,v)w=0, \qquad \text{for all } w\in\hl.$$ In the following Lemma we provide (to the extent we need) uniqueness, existence, and boundedness results for solutions of . \[qualit\] Let $f\in L^\infty(I\times \operatorname{\mathbb{R}})$, let $L\in (0,c_p^{-2})$ be such that $$\label{Lip-f} |f(s,v_1)-f(s,v_2)| \le L |v_1-v_2| \quad\mbox{for a.e. $s\in I$ and for all $v_1,v_2\in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}$,}$$ and let $c_p$ be defined by . Then there exists a unique solution $v$ to problem in the sense of Definition \[weaksol\], and this solution satisfies the bounds $$\label{bound2} \displaystyle \|v\|\le \frac{c_p}{1-Lc_p^2}\|f(s,0)\|_\infty,\quad \|v\|_{\infty}\le \|f\|_{\infty}.$$ Let $f_0(s)=f(s,0)$. For $ g(s,v)=\int_0^v f(s,t) dt$, we let: $$\mathscr F(w)=\frac12 {\int_0^1}w'^2+{\int_0^1}g(s,w), \qquad w\in\hl.$$ This position defines a Gâteaux-differentiable, weakly-lower semicontinuous functional $\mathscr F:\hl\to\mathbb R$. Since $$|g(s,v)|\le \int_0^v |f(s,t)|dt\stackrel{\eqref{Lip-f}}\le |f_0(s)||v|+\frac12 L|v|^2,$$ we have $$\mathscr F(w)\ge \frac12 {\int_0^1}{w'}^2-{\int_0^1}|f_0 w|-\frac12 L{\int_0^1}w^2\ge \frac12(1-Lc_p^2)\|w\|^2-\|f_0\|_2\|w\|_2,$$ whence, by , $$\mathscr F(w)\ge \frac12(1-Lc_p^2)\|w\|^2-c_p\|f_0\|_\infty\|w\|.$$ This inequality implies that $\mathscr F$ is *coercive*, thanks to the hypothesis $L<c_p^{-2}$. The coercivity and the lower semicontinuity of $\mathscr F$ imply, by a standard argument, that $\mathscr F$ has a minimizer $v$ in $\hl$ (see [@Giusti2003]). Since $\mathscr F$ is Gâteaux differentiable, $v$ is also a weak solution of Problem . In order to prove uniqueness, let $v_1$ and $v_2$ be two weak solutions of . According to Definition \[weaksol\], $v_1-v_2$ is a legal test function for the weak formulation of . We use this test in . On taking the difference between the resulting equations we obtain: $${\int_0^1}[(v_1-v_2)']^2 + {\int_0^1}(f(\cdot,v_1)-f(\cdot,v_2))(v_1-v_2)=0.$$ It follows from the assumption on $f$ and from the Poincaré inequality that $${\int_0^1}(f(\cdot,v_1)-f(\cdot,v_2))(v_1-v_2) \le L{\int_0^1}|v_1-v_2|^2\le L c_p^2\|v_1-v_2\|^2,$$ whence $$(1-Lc_p^2)\|v_1-v_2\|^2\leq 0,$$ and thence $v_1=v_2$, given that $Lc_p^2<1$. Taking $v$ as test function in we obtain that $$\begin{aligned} \|v\|^2={\int_0^1}v'^2 &=& -{\int_0^1}f(s,v)v \le {\int_0^1}|f_0(s)||v|+ L{\int_0^1}|v|^2 \\ &\le & \|f_0\|_\infty\left({\int_0^1}v^2\right)^{1/2} + L{\int_0^1}|v|^2 \stackrel{\eqref{def-c}}\le c_p\|f_0\|_\infty\|v\| + Lc_p^2 \|v\|^2,\end{aligned}$$ whence the first bound in . Finally, the second bound in is immediate from the representation formula $$v(s)= \int_0^s \int_{s'}^1 f(s'',v(s''))d s''\ ds'.$$ [\[regularity\] It follows from standard arguments (see e.g. [@BeiraodaVeiga1974 Proposition A]) that if $v\in\hl$ is a weak solution to problem , then $$v\in H^2(I)=\left\{w\in L^2(I) : w',w''\in L^2(I)\right\}.$$ The Sobolev embedding theorem (see for instance Sec. 2.1 of [@buttazzo]) implies that $v\in C^1([0,1])$, and that the boundary conditions are satisfied pointwise. Indeed, since $v\in\hl$, we have that $v(0)=0$. Moreover, multiplying by an arbitrary function $w\in\hl$ and integrating in $I$ equation we obtain $$\label{regu} {\int_0^1}-v''w+{\int_0^1}f(s,v)w=0 \qquad \text{for all } w\in\hl.$$ Integrating by parts the first term of the l.h.s. of we have $$v'(1)w(1)={\int_0^1}(v'w)'={\int_0^1}v'w'+{\int_0^1}f(s,v)w\stackrel{\eqref{weak-form}}= 0 \qquad \text{for all } w\in\hl.$$ This implies that $v'(1)=0$. ]{} As a by-product of the previous discussion, we obtain: \[cor:theta\] Let $\vec h\in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^2$ and $\alpha\in C([0,1])$. Then the energy functional $\mathcal E$ defined by has a minimizer $\vartheta\in H^1_{0L}$. Furthermore, $\vartheta\in C^1([0,1])$ solves and $\vartheta$ is unique if holds. Existence of a minimizer of $\mathcal E$ in $\hl$ can be proved with the same arguments used in Section \[sec:minimizer\]. By standard variational considerations, $\vartheta$ is a solution to with $f(s,\vartheta)= -\vec h\cdot D\vec m(\alpha(s)+\vartheta)$: hence, by Lemma \[qualit\], it is unique if $|\vec h|<c_p^{-2}$. The remaining statement follows from Remark \[regularity\]. The Lagrange multiplier formulation {#sec:lagr2} =================================== We recall the definition of the constraint mapping: $$\label{defg} \langle G({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}}),\bm{u}\rangle =\sum_{i=1}^n\left\{{\int_0^1}{\vartheta}_i'u_i'-{\int_0^1}\vec h_i\cdot{D\vec m}(\alpha+{\vartheta}_i) u_i\right\}.$$ Since $\displaystyle |\langle G({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}}),\bm{u}\rangle|\leq C({\bm{\vec{h}}},{{\bm\vartheta}})\|\bm{u}\|$ for every $\bm{u}\in\hl^n$, $G({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}})$ is a linear bounded functional. Thus defines a map $G:\mathcal{H}\to(\hl^n)'$. Thanks to the equivalence $$({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}})\in\mathcal{A} \quad \Leftrightarrow \quad G({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}})= 0,$$ we can write $$\label{defA} \mathcal{A}\stackrel{\eqref{eq:11}}=\left\{({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}})\in\mathcal{H} : G({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}})= 0\right\}.$$ Proposition \[lag\] in the Appendix of this paper provides sufficient conditions for the existence of the Lagrange multiplier $\bm\lambda$. We are going to use this proposition as a tool to characterize the minimizers of $\mathcal{C}$ in $\mathcal{A}$. To this aim, we need to assess the regularity of the functional $\mathcal C$ and of the operator $G$; the next statement concerns their Fréchet differentiability, which we shall obtain as a consequence of Proposition \[equiv\] and the following lemma. \[lemc1\] The operators $\mathcal{C}:\mathcal{H}\to\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}$ and $G:\mathcal{H}\to(\hl^n)'$ are $\mathcal{C}$ and $G$ are $C^1$, with $D\mathcal{C}:\mathcal{H}\to\mathcal{H}'$ and $DG:\mathcal{H}\to\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H},(\hl^n)')$ being represented by $$\label{DC} \displaystyle D\mathcal{C}({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}})(\bm{\vec{k}},\beta,\bm{\iota})=\gamma\sum_{i=1}^n \vec{h}_i\cdot\vec{k}_i+\varepsilon{\int_0^1}\alpha'\beta'+\sum_{i=1}^n{\int_0^1}({\vartheta}_i-{\bar{\vartheta}}_i)\iota_i,$$ respectively $$\begin{aligned} \label{DG} \nonumber \lefteqn{\langle DG({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}})(\bm{\vec{k}},\beta,\bm{\iota}),\bm{u}\rangle \ = \ \sum_{i=1}^n{\int_0^1}-\vec{k}_{i}\cdot D\vec{m}(\alpha+{\vartheta}_i)u_i} \\ &&+\!\sum_{i=1}^n\!{\int_0^1}\!\left\{ \iota_i'u_i'-\vec h_i\cdot\left({D^2\vec m}(\alpha+{\vartheta}_i)\iota_i+D^2\vec m(\alpha+{\vartheta}_i)\beta\right)\!u_i\!\right\}\!\!,\end{aligned}$$ for every $({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}}),(\bm{\vec{k}},\beta,\bm{\iota})\in\mathcal{H}$ and $\bm{u}\in\hl^n$. Fix $\bm{\varphi}:=({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}})\in \mathcal{H}$. We consider a sequence $\{\bm{\varphi}_k\}:=\{({\bm{\vec{h}}}_k,\alpha_k,{{\bm\vartheta}}_k)\}$, with ${\bm{\vec{h}}}_k=(\vec{h}_{k1},\dots,\vec{h}_{kn})$, $\vec{h}_{ki}=(h_{kix},h_{kiy})$, and ${{\bm\vartheta}}_k=({\vartheta}_{k1},\dots,{\vartheta}_{kn})$ such that $\|\bm{\varphi}_k- \bm{\varphi}\|_{\mathcal H}\rightarrow 0$ as $k\rightarrow +\infty$. In particular, $C$ exists such that $$\label{normeq2} |{\bm{\vec{h}}}_k|\le C.$$ First we focus on $\mathcal{C}$. We trivially have $\mathcal{C}({\bm{\vec{h}}}_k,\alpha_k,{{\bm\vartheta}}_k)\to \mathcal{C}({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}})$ in $\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}$, hence $\mathcal{C}$ is continuous. The Gâteaux derivative $\mathcal C'(\bm{\varphi})$ can be computed explicitly via Definition \[gat\], and it coincides with the right-hand side of . In order to show that $\mathcal C$ is $C^1$, we write (using Cauchy-Schwarz inequality) $$\begin{aligned} &|\left(\mathcal{C}'(\bm{\varphi})-\mathcal{C}'(\bm{\varphi}_k)\right)(\bm{\vec{k}},\beta,\bm{\iota})| \\ & \stackrel{\eqref{DC}}\leq \left\{\gamma\sum_{i=1}^n|\vec{h}_i-\vec{h}_{ki}|+\varepsilon\|\alpha-\alpha_k\|+\sum_{i=1}^n \|{\vartheta}_i-{\vartheta}_{ki}\|_{2}\right\}\|(\bm{\vec{k}},\beta,\bm{\iota})\|_{\mathcal{H}},\end{aligned}$$ hence $$\displaystyle \|\mathcal{C}'(\bm{\varphi})-\mathcal{C}'(\bm{\varphi}_k)\|_{\mathcal H'}\leq C\|\bm{\varphi}-\bm{\varphi}_k\|_{\mathcal{H}}.$$ Thus the Gâteaux derivative $\mathcal C'$ of $\mathcal C$ is (Lipschitz) continuous with respect to the operator norm and, by applying Proposition \[equiv\], we conclude that $\mathcal C$ is Fréchet differentiable, that its differential is $D\mathcal C = \mathcal C'$ and that therefore $\mathcal{C}$ is $C^1$. Now we focus our attention on $G$, by first proving that $G$ is continuous. To this aim, we fix $\bm{u}=(u_1,\dots,u_n)\in\hl^n$ and we compute: $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber \langle G(\bm{\varphi})-G(\bm{\varphi}_k),\bm{u}\rangle&\stackrel{\eqref{defg}}=& \sum_{i=1}^n{\int_0^1}({\vartheta}_i-{\vartheta}_{ki})'u_i' -\sum_{i=1}^n{\int_0^1}\left(\vec h_i\cdot{D\vec m}(\alpha+{\vartheta}_i)- \vec{h}_{ki}\cdot D\vec m(\alpha_k+{\vartheta}_{ki})\right)u_i\nonumber \\ \nonumber &\stackrel{\eqref{trigR2}}\le& \|{{\bm\vartheta}}-{{\bm\vartheta}}_k\|\|\bm{u}\| +\sum_{i=1}^n {\int_0^1}\bigl(|\vec{h}_i-\vec{h}_{ki}|+|\vec{h}_{ki}|\left(|\alpha-\alpha_k|+|{\vartheta}_i-{\vartheta}_{ki}|\bigr)\right)|u_i|.\end{aligned}$$ Then, by making use of Hölder and Poincaré inequalities, we deduce the inequality $$|\langle G(\bm{\varphi})-G(\bm{\varphi}_k),\bm{u}\rangle|\leq C \left((1+|{\bm{\vec{h}}}_k|)\|{{\bm\vartheta}}-{{\bm\vartheta}}_k\|+|{\bm{\vec{h}}}-{\bm{\vec{h}}}_k|+|{\bm{\vec{h}}}_k|\|\alpha-\alpha_k\|\right)\|\bm{u}\|,$$ whence $$\begin{aligned} \|G(\bm{\varphi})-G(\bm{\varphi}_k)\|_{(\hl^n)'} &\leq & C\left((1+|{\bm{\vec{h}}}_k|)\|{{\bm\vartheta}}-{{\bm\vartheta}}_k\|+|{\bm{\vec{h}}}-{\bm{\vec{h}}}_k|+|{\bm{\vec{h}}}_k|\|\alpha-\alpha_k\|\right) \\ &\stackrel{\eqref{normeq2}}\leq & C\|\bm{\varphi}-\bm{\varphi}_k\|_{\mathcal{H}}\to 0,\end{aligned}$$ hence $G$ is (Lipschitz) continuous. The Gâteaux derivative $G'(\bm{\varphi}):\mathcal H\to (\hl^n)'$ can be computed explicitly via its definition, and it coincides with the right-hand side of . Hence we deduce that $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{\langle\left(G'(\bm{\varphi})-G'(\bm{\varphi}_k)\right)(\bm{\vec{k}},\beta,\bm{\iota}),\bm{u}\rangle} \\ &=&-\sum_{i=1}^n{\int_0^1}\vec{k}_i\cdot(D\vec m(\alpha+{\vartheta}_i)-D\vec m(\alpha_k+\vartheta_{ki}))u_i \\ &&-\sum_{i=1}^n{\int_0^1}\left( \vec h_i\cdot D^2\vec m(\alpha+\vartheta_i)-\vec h_{ki}\cdot D^2\vec m(\alpha_k+\vartheta_{ki}) \right)(\beta+\iota_i)u_i \\ &\stackrel{\eqref{trigR2}}\leq &\sum_{i=1}^n {\int_0^1}|\vec{k}_i|(|\alpha-\alpha_k|+|{\vartheta}_i-{\vartheta}_{ki}|)|u_i| \\ &&+\sum_{i=1}^n {\int_0^1}\left(|\vec{h}_i-\vec{h}_{ki}|+|\vec{h}_{ki}|(|\alpha-\alpha_k|+|{\vartheta}_i-{\vartheta}_{ki}|)\right)|\beta+\iota_i||u_i| \\ &\stackrel{\eqref{normeq2}}\leq &C\left(\left(|{\bm{\vec{h}}}-{\bm{\vec{h}}}_k|+\|\alpha-\alpha_k\|+\|{{\bm\vartheta}}-{{\bm\vartheta}}_k\|\right)(|\bm{\vec{k}}|+\|\beta\|+ \|\bm{\iota}\|)\right)\|\bm{u}\|,\end{aligned}$$ where in the last inequality we have also used Hölder and Poincaré inequalities. It follows that $$\begin{aligned} \|(G'(\bm{\varphi})-G'(\bm{\varphi}_k))(\bm{\vec{k}},\beta,\bm\iota)\|_{(\hl^n)'} &=\sup_{\|\bm u\|_{\hl^n}=1}|\langle(G'(\bm{\varphi})-G'(\bm{\varphi}_k))(\bm{\vec{k}},\beta,\bm\iota),\bm u\rangle|\\ &\leq C\|\bm{\varphi}-\bm{\varphi}_k\|_{\mathcal{H}}\|(\bm{\vec{k}},\beta,\bm\iota)\|_{\mathcal{H}}, \end{aligned}$$ hence that $$\|G'(\bm{\varphi})-G'(\bm{\varphi}_k)\|_{\mathcal L(\mathcal H,(\hl^n)')}=\sup_{\|\bm{(\vec{k}},\beta,\bm\iota)\|_{\mathcal H}=1}\|(G'(\bm{\varphi})-G'(\bm{\varphi}_k))(\bm{\vec{k}},\beta,\bm\iota)\|_{(\hl^n)'} \leq C\|\bm{\varphi}-\bm{\varphi}_k\|_{\mathcal{H}}.$$ This implies, applying Proposition \[equiv\], that $DG=G'$ and that $G$ is $C^1$. We give a necessary condition for minimizers of $\mathcal{C}$ in $\mathcal{A}$. \[lagmul\] Let $({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}})$ be a minimizer of $\mathcal{C}$ in $\mathcal{A}$ such that $\max_{i=1,\dots,n}|\vec h_i|<{c_p^{-2}}$. There exists a Lagrange multiplier $\bm{\lambda}\in \hl^n$ such that $({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}},\bm{\lambda})$ satisfies $$\label{eqz} D\mathcal{C}({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}})(\cdot)= \langle DG({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}})(\cdot),\bm{\lambda}\rangle \qquad \mbox{in $\mathcal H'$.}$$ In view of Lemma \[lemc1\] and Proposition \[lag\], we only need to prove that $DG({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}})$ is surjective, that is, for every $T\in(\hl^n)'$ there exists $\bm{\psi}\in\mathcal{H}$ such that $$\label{sur1} \langle DG({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}})(\bm{\psi}),\bm{u}\rangle =\langle T,\bm{u}\rangle \quad\mbox{for all $\bm{u}=(u_1,\dots,u_n)\in\hl$.}$$ It turns out that it suffices to choose $\bm{\psi}=(\bm{v}, 0, \bm{\vec{0}})$ with $\bm{v}\in\hl^n$. In this case, the l.h.s. of defines a bilinear form, $a:\hl^n\times\hl^n\to\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}$: $$\label{sur2} a(\bm{v},\bm{u}):= \langle DG({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}})(\bm{v}, 0, \bm{\vec{0}}),\bm{u}\rangle \stackrel{\eqref{DG}}= \sum_{i=1}^n{\int_0^1}v_i'u_i'-\vec h_i\cdot D^2\vec m(\alpha+\vartheta_i)v_iu_i.$$ If we prove that there exists $\bm{v}\in\hl^n$ such that $$\label{sur3} a(\bm{v},\bm{u})=\langle T,\bm{u}\rangle \quad\mbox{for any $\bm{u}\in\hl^n$,}$$ then holds and $DG({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}})$ is surjective. By Lemma \[lemc1\] we have that $$|a(\bm{v},\bm{u})|\leq C\|\bm{v}\|\|\bm{u}\|,$$ so $a$ is a continuous form. Moreover, $$\begin{aligned} a(\bm{u},\bm{u})&=\sum_{i=1}^n{\int_0^1}\left\{(u_i')^2-\vec{h}_i\cdot D^2\vec m(\alpha+\vartheta_i)u_i^2\right\} \\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:16}}\geq \sum_{i=1}^n{\int_0^1}\left\{(u_i')^2-|\vec{h}_i| u_i^2\right\} \stackrel{\eqref{def-c}}\geq \left(1-c_p^2{\max\limits_{i=1,\dots,n}\{|\vec h_i|\}}\right)\|\bm{u}\|^2.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, by , we have that $a$ is coercive. Then, by the Lax-Milgram theorem, there exists $\bm{v}\in\hl^n$ such that is satisfied. Now, starting from Proposition \[lagmul\], we prove Proposition \[lagmul2\], which makes explicit. It follows from and that evaluated in $(\bm{\vec{k}},\beta,\bm{\iota})\in\mathcal H$ is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqz2} \nonumber \lefteqn{\gamma\sum_{i=1}^n \vec{h}_i\cdot\vec{k}_i+\varepsilon{\int_0^1}\alpha'\beta'+\sum_{i=1}^n{\int_0^1}({\vartheta}_i-{\bar{\vartheta}}_i)\iota_i = \sum_{i=1}^n{\int_0^1}-\vec{k}_{i}\cdot \lambda_i D\vec m(\alpha+{\vartheta}_i)} \\ &&+\sum_{i=1}^n{\int_0^1}-\lambda_i \vec h_i\cdot D^2\vec m(\alpha+{\vartheta}_i)\beta +\sum_{i=1}^n{\int_0^1}\left\{\lambda_i'\iota_i'-\lambda_i \vec h_i\cdot{D^2\vec m}(\alpha+{\vartheta}_i) \iota_i\right\}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Since $D\mathcal{C}$ and $DG$ are linear w.r.t. $(\bm{\vec{k}},\beta,\bm{\iota})$, expanding with respect to each component, we obtain that it is equivalent to $$\label{eqz3} \begin{cases} \displaystyle {\int_0^1}\left\{\lambda_i'\iota_i'-\lambda_i\vec h_i\cdot{D^2\vec m}(\alpha+{\vartheta}_i) \iota_i\right\}={\int_0^1}({\vartheta}_i-{\bar{\vartheta}}_i) \iota_i, \\ \displaystyle \varepsilon{\int_0^1}\alpha'\beta'+\sum_{i=1}^n{\int_0^1}\lambda_i\vec h_i\cdot D^2\vec m(\alpha+{\vartheta}_i)\beta=0, \\ \displaystyle \gamma \vec k_{i}\cdot\vec h_i=-\vec k_i\cdot{\int_0^1}\lambda_i{D\vec m}(\alpha+{\vartheta}_i), \\ \end{cases} \forall i=1,\dots,n.$$ It follows from Remark \[regularity\] and adding to the constraint $({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}})\in\mathcal{A}$ that $({\bm{\vec{h}}},\alpha,{{\bm\vartheta}},\bm{\lambda})$ is a solution to . In order to deduce $\alpha'(0)=0$, we recall that ${\vartheta}_i,\alpha,\lambda_i\in C^1([0,1])$ (see Remark \[regularity\]). Therefore, using $(P_{\alpha})$, $\alpha\in C^2(I)$ and $$\begin{aligned} \alpha'(1)-\alpha'(0)&={\int_0^1}\alpha''\stackrel{(P_{\alpha})}=\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\sum_{i=1}^n{\int_0^1}\lambda_i \vec h_i\cdot{D^2\vec m}(\alpha+{\vartheta}_i)\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:18}}=\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\sum_{i=1}^n{\int_0^1}\vec h_i \cdot \left(\begin{smallmatrix}0 & -1\\[0.5em] +1 & 0\end{smallmatrix}\right)\lambda_i D\vec m(\alpha+{\vartheta}_i)\\ &\stackrel{(P_{\vec h_{i}})}=-\frac \gamma \varepsilon \sum_{i=1}^n\vec h_i \cdot \left(\begin{smallmatrix}0 & -1\\[0.5em] +1 & 0\end{smallmatrix}\right)\vec h_i =0. \end{aligned}$$ Hence $\alpha'(1)=\alpha'(0)\stackrel{(P_{\alpha})}=0$. A constructive scheme; uniqueness of solutions to the Lagrange multiplier formulation {#sec:uniqueness} ===================================================================================== [[In this section we introduce a constructive scheme to obtain solutions of the Euler-Lagrange formulation . We will prove its contractivity and]{}]{}, as a by-product, uniqueness of solutions to (Theorem \[exun\]). The scheme consists of two steps and works as follows. [**Step 1.**]{} In the first step, we fix $\alpha\in C([0,1])$. We introduce the set $$\label{def-D} D:=\{{\bm{\vec{h}}}\in\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^{2n} : \max_{1\le i\le n} |\vec{h}_i|\leq K \}, \quad \mbox{with $K<c_p^{-2}$ (cf. \eqref{eq:15}).}$$ We will show that the chain $$\label{scheme} {\bm{\vec{h}}}\stackrel{(P_{{\vartheta}_i})}\mapsto{{\bm\vartheta}}=(\vartheta_1,\dots,\vartheta_n)\stackrel{(P_{\lambda_i})}\mapsto{\bm\lambda}=(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_n)\stackrel{(P_{\vec h_i})}\mapsto \bm{\vec T}^{(\alpha)}({\bm{\vec{h}}})\in\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$$ defines a map $\bm{\vec T}^{(\alpha)}:D\to D$. We then show that $\bm{\vec T}^{(\alpha)}$ is a contraction for $\gamma$ sufficiently large. Then, by Proposition \[contr\], there exists a unique fixed point of $\bm{\vec{T}}^{(\alpha)}$ in $D$, $\bm{\vec h}(\alpha)$: $$\bm{\vec h}(\alpha) = \bm{\vec{T}}^{(\alpha)}(\bm{\vec h}(\alpha)).$$ [**Step 2.**]{} In view of Step 1, we define $A:C([0,1])\to C([0,1])$ as the unique function such that $$\label{app13} \begin{cases} \displaystyle -A(\alpha)''=-\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_i(\alpha)\vec h_i(\alpha)\cdot D^2(\alpha+\vartheta_i(\alpha)) & \mbox{in $(0,1),$} \\ A(\alpha)|_0= A(\alpha)'|_1=0, \end{cases}$$ where $\vartheta_i(\alpha),\lambda_i(\alpha)$ are the unique solutions to eq, resp. eq, with $\bm{\vec h}=\bm{\vec h}(\alpha)$. We will prove that $A$ is a contraction, hence it has a unique fixed point, for $\gamma$ sufficiently large. Thanks to and to , a quadruplet $(\bm{\vec h}(\alpha),\alpha,\bm\vartheta(\alpha),\bm\lambda(\alpha))$ is a solution to System if and only if $\alpha$ is a fixed point of $A$. In particular, this implies the uniqueness result in Theorem \[exun\]. There are three key features of System that allow us to show that the maps $\vec{\bm T}^{(\alpha)}$ and $A$ are contractions. Namely: - the boundary-value problems in share the same structure, that of ; - all lowest-order terms on the left-hand sides of the differential equations in are *proportional* to the norm $|\vec h_i|$ of the applied fields, which in turn are controlled (for a minimizer) by the target shapes $\overline{\bm{\vartheta}}$ and by the regularization constant $\gamma$ through the bound ; - the equation for $\vec h_i$ in contain on the right-hand side the pre-factor $\gamma^{-1}$. Accordingly, as long as $\gamma$ is large, we can control the applied fieds and hence also the solutions of . We now prove the assertions formulated above. \[prop-step1+2\] Let $D$ as in . Then: - For any $\alpha\in C([0,1])$ there exists $\gamma_1$ (depending on ${\bar{\vartheta}}$ and $K$) such that for any $\gamma>\gamma_1$ the map $\bm{\vec T}^{(\alpha)}:D\to \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$ defined in has a unique fixed point in $D$, $\bm{\vec h}(\alpha)$; in particular, $$\max_{1\le i\le n} |\vec{h}_i(\alpha)|\leq K<c_p^{-2};$$ - there exists $\gamma_*> \gamma_1$ (depending on ${\bar{\vartheta}}$, $K$, and $\varepsilon$) such that the map $A:C([0,1])\to C([0,1])$ defined in has a unique fixed point, $\alpha=A(\alpha)$. Furthermore, $\alpha\in C^2([0,1])$ and $\alpha(0)=\alpha'(1)=0$; - consequently, Theorem \[exun\] holds. We divide the proof into steps. [*(A). There exists $\gamma_0$ such that $\bm{\vec{T}}^{(\alpha)}$ maps $D$ in itself.*]{} Let ${\bm{\vec{h}}}\in D$. Thanks to the first equivalence in , , and , we can apply Lemma \[qualit\] with $L=K$: for every $i=1,\dots,n$ there exists a unique solution ${\vartheta}_i\in\hl$ of eq, which satisfies $$\label{stima-the} \|\vartheta_i\|_\infty \stackrel{\eqref{bound2}_2}\le K, \quad i=1,\dots,n.$$ By the same argument, the second equivalence in and allow to apply Lemma \[qualit\] with $L= K$ and $f_0=\overline{\vartheta}_i-{\vartheta}_i$: for every $i=1,\dots,n$ there exists a unique solution $\lambda_i\in \hl$ of eq, such that $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber \|\lambda_i\|_\infty & \stackrel{\eqref{bound2}_1}\leq & \frac{c_p}{{1-Kc_p^2}} \|\vartheta_i-\overline\vartheta_i\|_\infty \le \frac{c_p}{{1-Kc_p^2}} \left(\|\vartheta_i\|_\infty + \|\overline\vartheta_i\|_\infty\right) \\ & \stackrel{\eqref{stima-the}}\le & \frac{c_p}{{1-Kc_p^2}} \left(K + \|\overline\vartheta_i\|_\infty\right)=C, \label{stima-lam}\end{aligned}$$ where from now on $C$ denotes a generic constant depending on ${\overline{\bm\vartheta}}$ and $K$, but independent of $\gamma$ and ${\varepsilon}$. Therefore $$\label{app0bis} |\vec{T}_i^{(\alpha)}({\bm{\vec{h}}})| \stackrel{\eqref{scheme},\eqref{EQ}_4}= \frac{1}{\gamma}\left|{\int_0^1}\lambda_i {D\vec m}(\alpha+{\vartheta}_i) \right| \stackrel{\eqref{eq:16}}\leq \frac{2}{\gamma} \|\lambda_i\|_\infty \stackrel{\eqref{stima-lam}}\leq \frac{C}{\gamma}, \quad\mbox{$i=1,\dots,n$}.$$ This implies that, for $\gamma>\gamma_0$ large enough, the operator $\bm{\vec{T}}^{(\alpha)}$ maps $D$ in itself. For reasons which will be clarified later, we postpone the proof of $(i)$, and for the moment we assume it to be true. [*(B). Proof of $(ii)$ assuming $(i)$.*]{} Assume $\gamma>\gamma_1$, with $\gamma_1$ as given in $(i)$. For $\alpha$ and $\tilde\alpha$ in $C([0,1])$, let $\vartheta_i=\vartheta_i(\alpha)$ and $\tilde\vartheta_i=\tilde\vartheta_i(\alpha)$, resp. $\lambda_i=\lambda_i(\alpha)$ and $\tilde\lambda_i=\tilde\lambda_i(\alpha)$, be the unique solutions to eq, resp. eq, with $\bm{\vec h}=\bm{\vec h}(\alpha)$ and $\vec{\tilde{\bm{h}}}=\vec{\tilde{ \bm h}}(\tilde{\alpha})$ as defined in $(i)$. It follows from and that $$\label{app0} \|{\vartheta}_i\|_{\infty}+\|\lambda_i\|_{\infty} \le C \quad\mbox{and}\quad \|\tilde{{\vartheta}}_i\|_{\infty}+\|\tilde{\lambda}_i\|_{\infty}\leq C, \quad i=1,\dots,n.$$ Let $A(\alpha)$ and $A(\tilde\alpha)$ be defined by , and note that is equivalent to $$\label{app13bis} A(\alpha)(s):=-\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\sum_{i=1}^n\int_0^s\int_{s'}^1 \lambda_i(s'')\vec{h}_i\cdot D^2(\alpha(s'')+{\vartheta}_i(s'')) ds'' ds', \qquad \forall s\in[0,1]\,;$$ in particular, $A(\alpha)\in C^2([0,1])$. Therefore $$\begin{aligned} \label{app14} \lefteqn{\|A(\alpha)-A(\tilde{\alpha})\|_\infty} \nonumber \\ &\stackrel{\eqref{app13bis}} \leq & \frac{1}{\varepsilon}\sum_{i=1}^n \|\lambda_i\vec h_i\cdot D^2\vec m(\alpha+{\vartheta}_i)-\tilde{\lambda}_i\vec{\tilde h}_i\cdot D^2\vec m(\tilde{\alpha}+\tilde{{\vartheta}}_i)\|_{\infty} \nonumber \\ &\stackrel{\eqref{trigR}}\leq & \frac{1}{\varepsilon}\sum_{i=1}^n \left(|\vec{h}_i| \|\lambda_i-\tilde\lambda_i\|_{\infty} + \|\tilde{\lambda}_i\|_{\infty} |\vec{h}_i-\vec{\tilde h}_i| + |\vec{\tilde{h}}_i|\|\tilde{\lambda}_{i}\|_{\infty} \left(\|\alpha-\tilde{\alpha}\|_{\infty}+\|\vartheta_i-\tilde{\vartheta}_i\|_{\infty}\right)\right) \nonumber \\ &\stackrel{\eqref{def-D},\eqref{app0}}\leq & \frac{C}{\varepsilon}\sum_{i=1}^n \left(|\vec{h}_i-\vec{\tilde h}_i|+\|\alpha-\tilde{\alpha}\|_{\infty}+\|\vartheta_i-\tilde{\vartheta}_i\|_{\infty} +\|\lambda_i-\tilde\lambda_i\|_{\infty}\right). $$ Now we will estimate the right hand side of . Taking $\lambda_i-\tilde{\lambda}_i$ as test function in the weak formulations for $\lambda_i$ and $\tilde{\lambda}_i$ (cf. and ) and subtracting the resulting equations, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \label{app19} {\int_0^1}|(\lambda_i-\tilde{\lambda}_i)'|^2&=&{\int_0^1}\left(\lambda_i\vec h\cdot{D^2\vec m}(\alpha+{\vartheta}_i)-\tilde{\lambda}_i\vec{\tilde{h}}_i\cdot D^2\vec m(\tilde\alpha+\tilde{{\vartheta}}_i)\right)(\lambda_i-\tilde{\lambda}_i) \nonumber \\ &&+{\int_0^1}({\vartheta}_i-\tilde{{\vartheta}}_i)(\lambda_i-\tilde{\lambda}_i) \nonumber \\ &\stackrel{\eqref{trigR}}{\le}& \left(\|\tilde{\lambda}_i\|_{\infty}|\vec{\tilde{h}}_i|+1\right){\int_0^1}|{\vartheta}_i-\tilde{{\vartheta}}_i||\lambda_i-\tilde{\lambda}_i| \nonumber \\ &&+\|\tilde{\lambda}_i\|_{\infty}|\vec{h}_i-\vec{\tilde{h}}_i|{\int_0^1}|\lambda_i-\tilde{\lambda}_i| +\|\tilde{\lambda}_i\|_{\infty}|\vec{\tilde{h}}_i| {\int_0^1}|\alpha-\tilde{\alpha}||\lambda_i-\tilde{\lambda}_i| \nonumber \\ &&+|\vec{h}_i|{\int_0^1}|\lambda_i-\tilde{\lambda}_i|^2.\end{aligned}$$ We estimate the last summand on the r.h.s. of using the Poincaré inequality and the definition of $D$: $$|\vec{h}_i|{\int_0^1}|\lambda_i-\tilde{\lambda}_i|^2 \stackrel{\eqref{def-c},\eqref{def-D}}\le K c_p^2 {\int_0^1}|(\lambda_i-\tilde{\lambda}_i)'|^2.$$ Absorbing this summand on the left-hand side of , we obtain: $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{\underbrace{(1-Kc_p^2)}_{\text{$> 0$ by }\eqref{eq:15}}{\int_0^1}|(\lambda_i-\tilde{\lambda}_i)'|^2 \le \left({\int_0^1}|\lambda_i-\tilde{\lambda}_i|\right) \times} \\ && \times \left( \left(\|\tilde{\lambda}_i\|_{\infty}|\vec{\tilde{h}}_i|+1\right)\|{\vartheta}_i-\tilde{{\vartheta}}_i\|_\infty + \|\tilde{\lambda}_i\|_{\infty}|\vec{h}_i-\vec{\tilde{h}}_i| + \|\tilde{\lambda}_i\|_{\infty}|\vec{\tilde{h}}_i|\|\alpha-\tilde{\alpha}\|_\infty\right) \\ & \stackrel{\eqref{def-D},\eqref{app0}}\leq & C \left({\int_0^1}|\lambda_i-\tilde{\lambda}_i|\right) \left(|\vec{h}_i-\vec{\tilde{h}}_i| + \|{\vartheta}_i-\tilde{{\vartheta}}_i\|_{\infty} + \|\alpha-\tilde{\alpha}\|_\infty\right).\end{aligned}$$ Using Hölder and Poincaré inequalities, we deduce $$\label{app20} \|\lambda_i-\tilde{\lambda}_i\|_{\infty} \stackrel{\eqref{def-S}}\leq \|\lambda_i-\tilde{\lambda}_i\| \leq C\left(|\vec{h}_i-\vec{\tilde{h}}_i| + \|{\vartheta}_i-\tilde{{\vartheta}}_i\|_{\infty} + \|\alpha-\tilde{\alpha}\|_\infty\right).$$ In order to estimate $\|{\vartheta}_i-\tilde{{\vartheta}}_i\|_{\infty}$, we follow the same line of argument. We choose ${\vartheta}_i-\tilde{{\vartheta}}_i$ as test function in the weak formulations for ${\vartheta}_i$ and for $\tilde{{\vartheta}}_i$ (cf. ): subtracting the resulting equations, we have $$\begin{aligned} {\int_0^1}|({\vartheta}_i-\tilde{{\vartheta}}_i)'|^2 &=& {\int_0^1}\bigl(\vec h_i\cdot D\vec m(\alpha+{\vartheta}_i)-\vec{\tilde{h}}_i\cdot D\vec m(\tilde\alpha+\tilde{{\vartheta}}_i)\bigr)({\vartheta}_i-\tilde{{\vartheta}}_i) \nonumber \\ & \stackrel{\eqref{trigR2}}\le & \left(|\vec{h}_i-\vec{\tilde{h}}_i|+|\vec{h}_i|\|\alpha-\tilde\alpha\|_\infty\right){\int_0^1}|{\vartheta}_i-\tilde{{\vartheta}}_i|+|\vec{{h}}_i|{\int_0^1}|{\vartheta}_i-\tilde{{\vartheta}}_i|^2.\end{aligned}$$ As above, the second summand may be absorbed on the left-hand side via Poincaré inequality and the assumption that $K<c_p^{-2}$, whereas the first one can be treated by Hölder and Poincaré inequality (the specific constant being irrelevant in this case). Altogether, we obtain $$\label{app8} \|{\vartheta}_i-\tilde{{\vartheta}}_i\|_{\infty}\stackrel{\eqref{def-S}}\le \|{\vartheta}_i-\tilde{{\vartheta}}_i\|\leq C\left(|\vec{h}_i-\vec{\tilde{h}}_i|+\|\alpha-\tilde\alpha\|_\infty\right).$$ Now we estimate $|\vec{h}_i-\vec{\tilde{h}}_i|$. By the definition of $T_i^{(\alpha)}$ we deduce that $$\begin{aligned} \label{app18} |\vec{h}_i-\vec{\tilde{h}}_i| & \leq &\frac{1}{\gamma}\|\lambda_i{D\vec m}(\alpha+{\vartheta}_i)-\tilde{\lambda}_iD\vec m(\tilde{\alpha}+\tilde{{\vartheta}}_i)\|_{\infty} \nonumber \\ & \stackrel{\eqref{trigR4},\eqref{app0}}\leq & \frac{C}{\gamma}\left(\|\alpha-\tilde{\alpha}\|_\infty+\|{\vartheta}_i-\tilde{{\vartheta}}_i\|_\infty+\|\lambda_i-\tilde{\lambda}_i\|_\infty\right).\end{aligned}$$ Inserting and in , we deduce that there exists $C_2$ such that $$\label{ref-a-dopo} |\vec{h}_i-\vec{\tilde{h}}_i|\leq\frac{C_2}{\gamma}\left(\|\alpha-\tilde{\alpha}\|_\infty+|\vec{h}_i- \vec{\tilde{h}}_i|\right).$$ Taking $\gamma_2=C_2$, we have $C_2/\gamma<1$ for $\gamma>\gamma_2$, so that $$\label{app22} |\vec{h}_i-\vec{\tilde{h}}_i|\leq \frac{C_2}{\gamma-C_2}\|\alpha-\tilde{\alpha}\|_\infty$$ for $\gamma>\gamma_2$. Using in , we obtain $$\label{app23} \|{\vartheta}_i-\tilde{{\vartheta}}_i\|_{\infty}\leq \frac{C}{\gamma-C_2}\|\alpha-\tilde{\alpha}\|_\infty.$$ In turn, using and in , we obtain $$\label{app24} \|\lambda_i-\tilde{\lambda}_i\|_{\infty}\leq \frac{C}{\gamma-C_2}\|\alpha-\tilde{\alpha}\|_\infty.$$ Finally, inserting , , and into , we deduce that there exist $C_3$ such that $$\label{app25} \|A(\alpha)-A(\tilde{\alpha})\|_\infty\leq \frac 1 \varepsilon \frac{C_3}{\gamma-C_2}\|\alpha-\tilde{\alpha}\|_\infty.$$ We now set $\gamma_3=C_2+C_3/\varepsilon{{>\gamma_2}}$, so that the prefactor in is smaller than $1$ for every $\gamma> {{ \max\{\gamma_1,\gamma_3\} }} =:\gamma_*$. By Proposition \[contr\], for $\gamma>\gamma_*$ there exists a unique fixed point $\alpha\in C([0,1])$ of $A$. We finally return to the proof of $(i)$, which we postponed since its proof is simpler than that of $(ii)$, in that we may use the same estimates as in $(B)$ with $\alpha=\tilde\alpha$. [*(C). Proof of (i).*]{} We prove that $\bm{\vec{T}}^{(\alpha)}$ is a contraction. Let $\gamma>\gamma_0$, as given in $(A)$. Given ${\bm{\vec{h}}}, {\bm{\vec{\tilde h}}}\in D$, we define ${\vartheta}_i$ and $\tilde{{\vartheta}}_i$, resp. $\lambda_i$ and $\tilde{\lambda}_i$, as the corresponding unique solutions of eq, resp. eq. Then, the same arguments of $(B)$ may be applied with $\alpha=\tilde\alpha$, yielding $$\label{app5} \|\lambda_i-\tilde{\lambda}_i\|_{\infty} \leq C\left(|\vec{h}_i-\vec{\tilde{h}}_i|+\|{\vartheta}_i-\tilde{{\vartheta}}_i\|_{\infty}\right)$$ (cf. ) and $$\label{app8bis} \|{\vartheta}_i-\tilde{{\vartheta}}_i\|_{\infty}\stackrel{\eqref{def-S}}\le \|{\vartheta}_i-\tilde{{\vartheta}}_i\|\leq C|\vec{h}_i-\vec{\tilde{h}}_i|$$ (cf. ). Therefore $$\begin{aligned} |\vec{T}_i^{(\alpha)}({\bm{\vec{h}}})-\vec{T}_i^{(\alpha)}({\bm{\vec{\tilde h}}})| &\stackrel{\eqref{scheme},\eqref{EQ}_4}= & \frac{1}{\gamma}\left| {\int_0^1}\left(\lambda_i {D\vec m}(\alpha+{\vartheta}_i) -\tilde\lambda_i {D\vec m}(\alpha+\tilde{{\vartheta}}_i)\right)\right| \\ & \stackrel{\eqref{trigR4},\eqref{stima-lam}}\leq & \frac{C}{\gamma}\left\{\|\lambda_i-\tilde{\lambda}_i\|_{\infty}+\|{\vartheta}_i-\tilde{{\vartheta}}_i\|_{\infty}\right\} \stackrel{\eqref{app5},\eqref{app8bis}}\leq \frac{C_1}\gamma |\vec{h}_i-\vec{\tilde{h}}_i|.\end{aligned}$$ Choosing $\gamma_1=C_1$, we conclude that $\bm{\vec{T}}^{(\alpha)}$ is a contraction for every $\gamma>\gamma_1$. [*(D). Proof of (iii).*]{} Theorem \[exun\] is an immediate consequence of $(i)$ and $(ii)$. Indeed, let $\alpha=A(\alpha)$ be the fixed point of $A$ identified in $(ii)$, and let ${\bm{\vec{h}}}(\alpha)=\bm{\vec{T}}^{(\alpha)}({\bm{\vec{h}}}(\alpha))$ be the fixed point identified in $(i)$. Then, by construction, the quadruplet $({\bm{\vec{h}}}(\alpha),\alpha, \bm\vartheta(\alpha), \bm\lambda(\alpha))$ is a solution to system in the class . Viceversa, if two solutions of exist in that class, then they are both fixed points of $A$, hence they coincide. [ Under the provision that $K<1$, a bound similar to might be obtained from the representation formula $$\lambda_i-\tilde\lambda_i=\int_0^s\int_{s'}^{1}\left(\lambda_i\vec h_i\cdot D^2\vec m(\alpha+{\vartheta}_i)-\tilde\lambda_i\vec{\tilde{ h}}_i\cdot D^2\vec m(\alpha+\tilde{{\vartheta}}_i)\right)ds''ds'.$$ Indeed, from $$\|\lambda_i-\tilde\lambda_i\|_{\infty}\stackrel{\eqref{trigR}}\le \|\tilde{\lambda_i}\|_{\infty}|\vec{\tilde{ h}}_i|\|{\vartheta}_i-\tilde{{\vartheta}}_i\|_{\infty}+\|\tilde\lambda_i\|_{\infty}|\vec h_i-\vec{\tilde{h}}_i|+|\vec h_i|\|\lambda_i-\tilde\lambda_i\|_{\infty},$$ we obtain, for $K<1$, $$\begin{aligned} \|\lambda_i-\tilde\lambda_i\|_{\infty} & \stackrel{\eqref{stima-lam},\eqref{def-D}} \leq & \frac 1{1-K}\left( K C(\overline{\bm{\vartheta}},K)\|{\vartheta}_i-\tilde{{\vartheta}}_i\|_{\infty}+C(\overline{\bm{\vartheta}},K)|\vec h_i-\vec{\tilde h}_i|\right)\\ & \leq & C(\overline{\bm{\vartheta}},K)\bigl(\|{\vartheta}_i-\tilde{{\vartheta}}_i\|_{\infty}+|\vec h_i-\vec{\tilde h}_i|\bigr). \end{aligned}$$ However, the requirement $K<1$ is stricter than our assumption because $c_p<1$. ]{} [The constant $\gamma_*$ in Theorem \[exun\] increases monotonically with $K$ and blows up as $K$ tends to $c_p^{-2}$. Since $\gamma_{**}=\max(\overline\Theta^2/K^2,\gamma_*)$, we have that $\gamma_{**}$ blows up as $K$ tends to $0$ and as $K$ tends to $c_p^{-2}$. The blow up for $K$ small is obvious: as $K$ tends to $0$ the maximum allowed applied field tends to $0$ in intensity, and to limit the applied field we need $\gamma$ large. The blow up for $K$ approaching $c_p^{-2}$ is essentially technical, and follows from the estimates in the proof of Theorem \[exun\] becoming degenerate as $K$ tends to $c_p^{-2}$. Ultimately, this is because we rely only on the first estimate in in Lemma \[qualit\], which becomes degenerate when the Lipschitz constant $L$ (identified with the intensity of the magnetic field) approaches $c_p^{-2}$. ]{} Let us conclude the Section with a digression on the case in which $\alpha$ is fixed. Part $(i)$ of Proposition \[prop-step1+2\] may be rephrased as follows: \[lamu13\] Let ${\overline{\bm\vartheta}}\in C([0,1])^n$, $\varepsilon>0$, and let $K>0$ such that holds. Then there exists $\gamma_*=\gamma_*({\overline{\bm\vartheta}},K)$ such that for every $\gamma> \gamma_*$ and any $\alpha\in C([0,1])$ there exists a unique solution of the system $$\label{EQ1} \left\{\begin{array}{ll} \displaystyle -{\vartheta}_i''-\vec h_i\cdot{D\vec m}(\alpha+{\vartheta}_i)=0, & \vartheta_i(0)=\vartheta'_i(1)=0 \\ \displaystyle -\lambda_i''-\lambda_i \vec h_i\cdot{D^2\vec m}(\alpha+{\vartheta}_i)={\vartheta}_i-{\bar{\vartheta}}_i, & \lambda_i(0)=\lambda_i'(1)=0 \\ \displaystyle \vec{h}_{i}=-\frac{1}{\gamma}{\int_0^1}\lambda_i {D\vec m}(\alpha+{\vartheta}_i) &\\ \end{array}\right. \forall i=1\dots,n$$ within the following set: $$\label{cond2} ({\bm{\vec{h}}},{{\bm\vartheta}},\bm{\lambda})\in D\times\hl^n \times\hl^n.$$ \[minser\] For fixed $\alpha$, the solution in Proposition \[lamu13\] is the unique stationary point of the functional $$\label{app26} \tilde{\mathcal{C}}({\bm{\vec{h}}},{{\bm\vartheta}})=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^n {\int_0^1}|{\vartheta}_i-{\bar{\vartheta}}_i|^2 + \frac{\gamma}{2} \sum_{i=1}^n |\vec{h}_i|^2,$$ in the admissible set $$({\bm{\vec{h}}},{{\bm\vartheta}})\in\tilde{\mathcal{A}}:=\left\{({\bm{\vec{h}}},{{\bm\vartheta}})\in D\times\hl^n: \ {\vartheta}_i \text{ solves \eqref{pthi} for every } i=1,\dots,n \right\}.$$ Therefore, arguing as we did for the full problem, for $\gamma$ sufficiently large it follows from Proposition \[lamu13\] that: - $\tilde{\mathcal{C}}$ has a unique minimizer; - looking for the minimum $({\bm{\vec{h}}},{{\bm\vartheta}})$ of $\tilde{\mathcal{C}}$ is equivalent to looking for the fixed point of $\bm{\vec{T}}^{(\alpha)}$. Concluding remarks and open problems {#sec:concl} ==================================== We have considered a beam clamped at one side, modeled as a planar elastica. The beam has a permanent magnetization (the design $\alpha$), hence it deforms under the action of spatially-constant magnetic fields $\vec h_i$, $i=1,\dots,n$ (the controls). Given a list of $n$ prescribed target shapes $\overline \vartheta_i$ ($i=1,\dots,n$), we have looked for optimal design and controls in order for the corresponding shapes $\vartheta_i$ ($i=1,\dots,n$) of the beam to get as close as possible to the corresponding targets. Choosing the cost functional as in has lead us to the formulation of an optimal design-control problem (cf. ), whose minimization has been studied by both direct and indirect methods. Loosely speaking, we have shown that: - minimizers $(\alpha,{\bm{\vec{h}}})$ exist (Proposition \[min\]); - provided the intensity of ${\bm{\vec{h}}}$ is sufficiently small (cf. ), minimizers solve the Lagrange multiplier formulation (Proposition \[lagmul2\]); - if the parameter $\gamma$ penalizing the cost of the fields’ intensity is sufficiently high, the minimizer is unique, satisfies , and is the unique solution to the Lagrange multiplier formulation (Theorem \[exun\] and Corollary \[coro-un\]). [R]{}[0.53]{} [**Initialisation**]{}:\ $\alpha\longleftarrow \text{initial guess }\alpha^{(0)}$ $\vec h_i\longleftarrow\text{initial guess }\vec h_i^{(0)}$, $i=1,\ldots n$ $\lambda_i\longleftarrow\text{initial guess }\lambda_i^{(0)}$, $i=1,\ldots n$ $tol\longleftarrow\text{tolerance}$ In what follows, we briefly discuss a numerical scheme which naturally emerges from the proof of Theorem \[exun\], as well as a different choice of the cost functional, using residuals. We also point out [[open question related to uniqueness and to the refinement of estimates]{}]{}, as well as two possible generalizations of our choice of the cost. #### $\bullet$ [**The numerical scheme.**]{} The proof of Theorem \[exun\] suggests an alternative to the numerical scheme proposed in [@ciambella2019form]. The new scheme is based on two nested loops. In the inner loop, $\alpha$ is fixed and $\vec{\bm h}$, $\bm\lambda$, and $\bm\vartheta$ are computed by a fixed point iteration scheme which uses, in the order, equations $(P_{\vartheta_i})$, $(P_{\lambda_i})$ and $(P_{\vec h_i})$; in the outer loop, $\alpha$ is updated by using the equation $(P_{\alpha})$ with $\vec{\bm h}$, $\bm\lambda$, and $\bm\vartheta$ obtained from the inner loop. Each loop terminates when the update of each variable results in an increment below a certain tolerance $tol$. The algorithm is described in the pseudocode [[aside]{}]{}. Note that, in [[this]{}]{} algorithm, steps to be performed for $i=1,\dots n$ do not need to be carried out sequentially, but can also be done in parallel, since they are independent on each other. #### $\bullet$ **Using residuals to assess shape attainment.** Shape programming has been addressed in [@lum2016shape] under slightly more general conditions than those considered in this paper. In particular, [@lum2016shape] allows the magnetization intensity to be non-constant and the magnetic field to be non-uniform, and assigns a different weight to each shape. The unknown fields are represented through their Fourier expansion truncated at order $k$. Within our framework (constant magnetic intensity, uniform applied field, and same weight for all shapes), the approach proposed in [@lum2016shape] would lead to the minimization of the following functional: $$\label{costilde} \widetilde E{{(\alpha,{\bm{\vec{h}}})}}=\sum_{i=1}^n \int_0^1\left| -\overline\vartheta_i''-\vec h_i\cdot\vec m(\alpha+\overline{\vartheta}_i)\right|^2. $$ The integrands in represent [*residuals*]{}, in the sense that they vanish if the targets $\overline\vartheta_i$ are themselves solution to the state equation . Such minimization would be carried out in the space of designs $\alpha$ whose first $k$ Fourier coefficients are in a bounded set and control fields $\vec{\bm h}$ whose magnitude does not exceed a constant $K$. However, from the purely theoretical point of view, it would be useful to have estimates of the attainment error $$E(\alpha,{\bm{\vec{h}}})=\frac 12 \sum_{i=1}^n \int_0^1 |\overline\vartheta_i-\Theta_\alpha(\vec h_i)|^2$$ (cf. ) for solutions of both the optimization problem considered in [@lum2016shape] and the problem considered in this paper. In this respect, a first problem to be solved would be obtaining a bound of $E(\alpha,{\bm{\vec{h}}})$ in terms of $\widetilde E(\alpha,{\bm{\vec{h}}})$, where $(\alpha,{\bm{\vec{h}}})$ is a minimizer of . #### $\bullet$ **The condition $|\vec h|<c_p^{-2}$.** Within our approach, even if $n=1$ and $\alpha,\vec h$ are fixed, we can guarantee uniqueness of solutions to Problem only if $|\vec h|< c_p^{-2}$ (cf.), a condition which then drives our analysis of the full problem. We have reasons to believe that this restriction is not optimal. For example, the bifurcation diagrams in [@Ciambella2018] provide numerical evidence, at least for the clamped elastica, that uniqueness of equilibria holds for loads two or three times higher than those for which uniqueness is guaranteed by convexity of the energy or fixed-point arguments applied to the Euler-Lagrange system. We expect that this is due to a gap, which seems nontrivial to be captured, between loss of convexity and emergence of local critical points. The same considerations arise when comparing the theory and the numerical simulations in [@DellaCorte2017], a paper which investigates equilibria of a cantilever undergoing a uniformly-distributed vertical dead load. Improving the conditions on $\vec h$ which guarantee uniqueness seems to be an interesting open problem that deserves attention. #### $\bullet$ [**${{\bm\vartheta}}$ versus $\overline{{\bm\vartheta}}$**]{} As we mentioned in the Introduction, Corollary \[coro-un\] holds for any target $\overline{{\bm\vartheta}}$ (even very large ones). However, the minimizing state $\bm\vartheta$ will anyway be such that $\|\vartheta_i\|_\infty\le K$ for all $i=1,\dots,n$ (see in the proof of Theorem \[exun\]), meaning that the minimizing states may turn out not to be “close” to the targets when the latter ones are large. Also with an eye to the evolutive case, in which the $n$ targets would reperesent discrete snapshots of a continuous movement, this limitation points towards a refinement of the estimates of ${{\bm\vartheta}}$ in terms of $\overline{{\bm\vartheta}}$. #### $\bullet$ **Variable intensity of the magnetization.** Further developments of the present work may include a variable intensity of the magnetization. In this case, if we let $\mu(s) M_0$ be the magnetization density in the undeformed configuration, then the energy functional would be replaced by $$\widetilde{\mathcal E}(\vartheta)=\int_0^1\frac 12 (\vartheta')^2-\mu \vec h\cdot\vec m(\vartheta+\alpha).$$ Such modification would also require a regularization to limit the oscillations of $\mu$, as well as a penalization of negative values. Instead of choosing $\mu$ and $\alpha$ as design variables for the magnetization, one might choose the vector $\vec\mu=\mu\vec m(\alpha)$. In terms of this vector, the energy would take the form $$\widetilde{\mathcal E}(\vartheta)=\int_0^1\frac 12 (\vartheta')^2-\vec h\cdot\mathbf R(\vartheta)\vec\mu,$$ where $\mathbf R(v)=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}\cos v & -\sin v \\[0.5em] \sin v & \cos v\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ is the counterclockwise rotation of the angle $v$. Such extension should be accompanied by a penalization of the oscillation of the vector field $\vec\mu$. #### $\bullet$ **Non-quadratic costs.** A non trivial generalization of the present work we may consider more general costs, of the form $$\label{pcost} \sum_{i=1}^n \|\overline\vartheta_i-\vartheta\|_{L^p}+e(\|\alpha'\|_{L^p})+g\Bigl(\bigl(\sum_{i=1}^n |\vec{h}_i|^p\bigr)^{1/p}\Bigr)$$ where $p\in[2,+\infty]$ and $e$ and $g$ are convex functions (for instance, the indicator functions of convex sets). Such more general situation would likely require techniques completely different from those used in this paper, especially in the case of $e$ and $g$ nonsmooth. Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered} ======== Let $(\mathcal{X},\|\cdot\|_{\mathcal{X}}), (\mathcal{Y},\|\cdot\|_{\mathcal{Y}})$ be Banach spaces, $\mathcal{U}$ an open subset of $\mathcal{X}$. We shall also consider a generic map $F:\mathcal{U}\to\mathcal{Y}$. \[gat\] $F$ has Gâteaux derivative $F'(x_0)$ at the point $x_0\in\mathcal{U}$ if there exist $$\displaystyle F'(x_0)(v):=\lim_{t\to 0} \frac{F(x_0+t v)-F(x_0)}{t}, \qquad \forall v\in\mathcal{X}.$$ \[fre\] $F$ is called Fréchet differentiable at $x_0\in\mathcal{U}$ if there exists $DF(x_0)\in\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y})$ such that $$\displaystyle \lim_{\| h\|_{\mathcal{X}}\to 0}\frac{\|F(x_0+h)-F(x)-DF(x_0)(h)\|_{\mathcal{Y}}}{\|h\|_{\mathcal{X}}}=0.$$ Moreover we give the notion of continuous differentiable operator. Let $T$ belong to $\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y})$. We recall that the operator norm is defined by $$\|T\|_{\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y})}:=\sup_{\{0\ne x\in\mathcal{X}\}} \frac{\|T(x)\|_{\mathcal{Y}}}{\|x\|_{\mathcal{X}}}=\sup_{\|x\|_{\mathcal{X}}=1} \|T(x)\|_{\mathcal{Y}}.$$ \[c1\] We say that $F$ is $C^1$ if $DF(x)$ exists for every $x\in\mathcal{U}$ and $DF:\mathcal{U}\to\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y})$ is a continuous operator. We recall the following proposition linking Gâteaux derivability and Fréchet differentiability. \[equiv\] If $F$ admits Gâteaux derivative $F'(x)$ in an open neighborhood $\mathcal{V}\subset\mathcal{U}$ of $x_0$ and $F':\mathcal{V}\to\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y})$ is continuous at $x_0$, then $F$ is Fréchet differentiable at $x_0$ and $DF(x_0)=F'(x_0)$. Moreover if $F':\mathcal{U}\to\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y})$ is a continuous operator, then $DF= F'$ and $F$ is $C^1$. See [@Zeidler1995], p. 274. We denote by $\mathcal{X}'$ the dual space of $\mathcal{X}$ and by $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle:\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{X}\to\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}$ the duality pairing defined as $\langle S ,t \rangle=S(t)$, for every $t\in\mathcal{X}, S\in\mathcal{X}'$. \[lag\] Let $f:\mathcal{U}\subset\mathcal{X}\to\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}$ and $G:\mathcal{U}\subset\mathcal{X}\to\mathcal{Y}$ be $C^1$ on an open neighborhood $\mathcal U$ of $\tilde{x}$. Suppose that $\tilde{x}$ is an extremum of $f$ on the set $\{x\in\mathcal{U} : G(x)=0\}$ and that $$DG(\tilde{x}):\mathcal{X}\to\mathcal{Y} \qquad \text{is a surjective linear operator}.$$ Then there exists a Lagrange multiplier $\lambda\in\mathcal{Y}'$ such that $$Df(\tilde{x})-\langle\lambda,DG(\tilde{x})\rangle=0.$$ \[contr\] Let $T:\mathcal{X}\to\mathcal{X}$. If $L\in(0,1)$ exists such that $$\|T(x)-T(y)\|_{\mathcal{X}}\leq L\|x-y\|_{\mathcal{X}}, \qquad\forall x,y\in\mathcal{X},$$ then $T$ admits a unique fixed point $x^*\in\mathcal{X}$ (i.e. $T(x^*)=x^*$). Acknowledgments =============== [[GT received financial support from the MIUR-Italy grant “Excellence Departments”. LG and GT received financial support from the MIUR-Italy grant “Mathematics of active materials: From mechanobiology to smart devices” (PRIN 2017KL4EF3). ]{}]{} [10]{} A. Acharya. . , 136:237–249,2018. V. Agostiniani, A. DeSimone, and K. Koumatos. . , 127:1–24, 2017. F. Alouges, A. DeSimone, L. Giraldi, and M. Zoppello. . , 56:132–141, 2013. F. Alouges, A. DeSimone, L. Giraldi, and M. Zoppello. , 2(3):117–128. H. [Beirao da Veiga]{}. . , 53:279–290, 1974. G. Buttazzo, M. Giaquinta, and S. Hildebrandt. . Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998. J. Ciambella, A. Favata, and G. Tomassetti. . , 474:20170703, 2018. J. Ciambella and G. Tomassetti. A form-finding strategy for magneto-elastic actuators. , 2019. A. [Della Corte]{}, F. Dell’Isola, R. Esposito, and M. Pulvirenti. . , 27:1391–1421, jul 2017. A. Dorfmann and R. W. Ogden. . , 167:13–28, 2004. V. Ferone, B. Kawohl, and C. Nitsch. . 365,987–1015, 2016. J. M. Ginder, M. E. Nichols, L. D. Elie, and J. L. Tardiff. . In M. R. Wuttig, editor, [*Proc. Vol. 3675, Smart Struct. Mater. 1999 Smart Mater. Technol.*]{}, pp. 131–138, 1999. E. Giusti. . World Scientific Publishing Co. Inc., River Edge, NJ, 2003. W. Hu, G. Z. Lum, M. Mastrangeli, and M. Sitti. . , 554:81–85, 2018. S. Jianhong, S. H. Kang, and T. F. Chan. , 63:564–592, 2003. S. Kankanala and N. Triantafyllidis. . , 52:2869–2908, 2004. G. Z. Lum, Z. Ye, X. Dong, H. Marvi, O. Erin, W. Hu, and M. Sitti. Shape-programmable magnetic soft matter. , 113(41):E6007–E6015, 2016. T. Miura. Elastic curves and phase transitions. ,[1–46]{}, [2017]{}. M. Ott[é]{}nio, M. Destrade, and R. W. Ogden. . , 90(1):19–42, 2008. J. P. Pelteret, D. Davydov, A. McBride, D. K. Vu, and P. Steinmann. . , 2016. R. S. Rikken, R. J. Nolte, J. C. Maan, J. C. [Van Hest]{}, D. A. Wilson, and P. C. Christianen. . , 10(9):1295–1308, 2014. S. Rudykh and K. Bertoldi. . , 61(4):949–967, 2013. T. Xu, J. Zhang, M. Salehizadeh, O. Onaizah, and E. Diller. . , 4(29):eaav4494, 2019. E. Zeidler. . Springer New York, New York, NY, 1995. E. Zeidler. . Springer New York, New York, NY, 1995.

ArXiv

--- author: - 'Karl L.F. Bane and Zenghai Li' title: Dipole Mode Detuning in theInjector Linacs of the NLC --- [SLAC-AP-134\ LCC-0043\ December 2000]{} [**Dipole Mode Detuning in theInjector Linacs of the NLC [^1]**]{} [Karl L.F. Bane and Zenghai Li\ Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94309]{} [ **Abstract** ]{} > The injector linacs of the JLC/NLC project include the prelinac, the $e^+$ drive linac, the $e^-$ booster, and the $e^+$ booster. The first three will be S-band machines, the last one, an L-band machine. We have demonstrated that by using detuning alone in the accelerator structure design of these linacs we will have acceptable tolerances for emittance growth due to both injection jitter and structure misalignments, for both the nominal (2.8 ns) and alternate (1.4 ns) bunch spacings. For the L-band structure (a structure with $2\pi/3$ phase advance) we take a uniform distribution in synchronous dipole mode frequencies, with central frequency $\bar{f}=2.05$ GHz and width $\Delta_{\delta f}=3\%$. For the S-band case our optimized structure ( a $3\pi/4$ structure) has a trapezoidal dipole frequency distribution with $\bar{f}=3.92$ GHz, $\Delta_{\delta f}=5.8\%$, and tilt parameter $\alpha=-.2$. The central frequency and phase advance were chosen to put bunches early in the train on the zero crossing of the wake and, at the same time, keep the gradient optimized. We have shown that for random manufacturing errors with rms 5 $\mu$m, (equivalent to $10^{-4}$ error in synchronous frequency), the injection jitter tolerances are still acceptable. We have also shown that the structure alignment tolerances are loose, and that the cell-to-cell misalignment tolerance is $\gtrsim 40$ $\mu$m. Note that in this report we have considered only the effects of modes in the first dipole passband. Introduction ============ A major consideration in the design of the accelerator structures in the injector linacs of the JLC/NLC[@zdr][@NLC] is to keep the wakefield effects within tolerances for both the nominal (2.8 ns) and the alternate (1.4 ns) bunch spacings. One important wakefield effect in the injector linacs is likely to be multi-bunch beam break-up (BBU). With this effect a jitter in the injection conditions of a bunch train, due to the dipole modes of the accelerator structures, is amplified in the linac. By the end of the linac bunches in the train are driven to large amplitudes and/or the projected emittance of the train becomes large, both effects which can hurt machine performance. Another important multi-bunch wakefield effect that needs to be considered is static emittance growth caused by structure misalignments. To minimize the multi-bunch wakefield effects in the injector linacs we need to minimize the sum wake in the accelerator structures. The dipole wake amplitude of the structures—and therefore also the sum wake amplitude—scales as frequency to the -3 power. Therefore, compared to the main (X–band) linac, the injector linac wakes tend to be smaller by a factor $1/64$ and $1/512$, respectively, for the S– and L–band linacs. We shall see, however, that—in the S-band case—this reduction, by itself, is not sufficient. Two ways of reducing the sum wake further are to detune the first pass-band dipole modes and to damp them. Detuning can be achieved by gradually varying the dimensions of the cells in a structure. Weak damping can be achieved by letting the fields couple to manifolds running parallel to the structure (as is done in the main JLC/NLC linac[@RJones]); stronger damping by, for example, introducing lossy material in the cells of the structure. In the injector linacs the dipole mode frequencies are much lower than in the main linac, and the number of dipole mode oscillations between bunches $n_d$ is much smaller (see Table \[tascale\]). Therefore, significantly reducing the wake envelope at one bunch spacing behind the driving bunch by detuning alone becomes more difficult. In addition, for a given $Q$, the effective damping is 4 (or 8) times less effective than for X-band. ------ ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- Band Freq. Wake $n_d$ $Q_d$ $n_d$ $Q_d$ X 1 1 42.0 132 21.0 66 C 1/2 1/8 21.0 66 10.5 33 S 1/4 1/64 10.5 33 5.3 16 L 1/8 1/512 5.3 16 2.6 8 ------ ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- : Scaling of the frequency and the wake amplitude for C, S, and L bands as compared to X band. Also given are the number of dipole mode oscillations between bunches $n_d$, and the damping needed to reduce the wake amplitude by $1/e$ at the position of the second bunch, $Q_d$, for the nominal (2.8 ns) and the alternate (1.4 ns) bunch spacings. []{data-label="tascale"} In this report our goal is to design the accelerator structures for the injector linacs using simple detuning alone, [*i.e.*]{} including no damping, to take care of the long-range wakefields. We focus mostly on the S-band injector linacs. We begin by discussing analytical approaches to estimating the effects of BBU and structure misalignments. We then discuss wakefield compensation using detuning. We optimize structure dimensions for structures with $2\pi/3$ and $3\pi/4$ per cell phase advance, and show that the latter is preferable. And finally we obtain tolerances to wakefield effects for all the injector linacs using both analytical formulas and numerical tracking. Note that in this report we are only concerned with the effects of modes in the first dipole passband, which have kick factors much larger than those in the higher passbands. The effects of the higher passband modes, however, will need to be addressed in the future. Emittance Growth ================ Beam Break-up (BBU) ------------------- In the case of [*single-bunch*]{} beam break-up in a linac the amplification of injection jitter can be characterized by a strength parameter dependent on the longitudinal position within the bunch. When the strength parameter is sufficiently small the growth in amplitude at the end of the linac is given by the first power of this parameter[@chao]. For the [*multi-bunch*]{} case we can derive an analogous strength parameter, one dependent on bunch number $m$. When this strength parameter is sufficiently small we expect that again the growth in amplitude at the end of the linac is given by the first power of the parameter. (But even when the strength parameter is not sufficiently small it can be a useful parameter for characterizing the strength of BBU.) For the multi-bunch case the strength parameter becomes (see Appendix A) $$\Upsilon_m= {e^2NLS_{m}\bar\beta_0\over 2E_0} g(E_f/E_0,\zeta)\quad\quad\quad[m=1,\ldots,M]\ ,\label{eqeta}$$ with $N$ the single bunch population, $L$ the machine length, $\bar\beta_0$ the initial value of the beta function averaged over a lattice cell, $E_0$ the initial energy, $E_f$ the final energy, and $M$ the number of bunches in a train. The sum wake $S_m$ is given by $$S_m= \sum_{i=1}^{m-1} W[(m-i)\Delta t]\quad\quad\quad[m=1,\ldots,M]\ ,$$ with $W$ the transverse wakefield and $\Delta t$ the time interval between bunches in a train. The wakefield, in turn, is given by a sum over the dipole modes in the accelerator structures: $$W(t)= \sum^{N_m}_n 2 k_{n}\sin({2\pi f_{n}t/ c}) \exp(-\pi{f_{n}}t/Q_n)\quad\quad, \label{eqwake}$$ with $N_m$ the number of modes, $f_n$, $k_n$, and $Q_n$ are, respectively, the frequency, the kick factor, and the quality factor of the $n^{\rm th}$ mode. The function $g(x)$ in Eq. \[eqeta\] is one depending on the energy gradient and focusing profile in the linac. For acceleration assuming the beta function varies as $\bar\beta\sim E^\zeta$, $$g(x,\zeta)= {1\over\zeta}\left({x^\zeta-1\over x-1}\right) \quad\quad\quad[{\bar\beta\sim E^\zeta}].$$ If $\Upsilon_m$, for all $m$, is not large, the linear approximation applies, and this parameter directly gives the (normalized) growth in amplitude of bunch $m$. If $\Upsilon_m$ is not large the projected normalized emittance growth of the bunch train becomes (assuming, for simplicity, that, in phase space, the beam ellipse is initially upright): $$\delta\epsilon\approx \left[{1+\left({y_0\Upsilon_{rms0}\over \sigma_{y0}}\right)^2}\right]^{1/2}-1\quad\quad\quad [\Upsilon_m\ {\rm small}],\label{eqemit}$$ with $y_0$ the initial bunch offset, $\Upsilon_{rms0}$ the rms of the strength parameter (the square root of the second moment: the average is not subtracted), and $\sigma_{y0}$ the initial beam size. Note that the quantity $S_m/M$ in the multi-bunch case takes the place of the bunch wake (the convolution of the wake with the bunch distribution) in the single bunch instability problem. As jitter tolerance parameter, $r_t$, we can take that ratio $y_0/\sigma_{y0}$ that yields a tolerable emittance growth, $\delta_{\epsilon t}$. Misalignments ------------- If the structures in the linac are (statically) misaligned with respect to a straight line, the beam at the end of the linac will have an increased projected emittance. If we have an ensemble of misaligned linacs then, to first order, the distribution in emittance growth at the end of these linacs is given by an exponential distribution $\exp[-\delta\epsilon/\langle\delta\epsilon\rangle]/\langle\delta\epsilon\rangle$, with[@static] [^2] $$\sqrt{\langle\delta\epsilon\rangle}= {e^2NL_a(x_a)_{rms}{S}_{rms}\over E_0} \sqrt{{N_a\beta_0\over2}}\,h(E_f/E_0,\zeta) \quad, \label{eqmisa}$$ with $L_a$ the structure length, $(x_a)_{rms}$ the rms of the structure misalignments, ${S}_{rms}$ is the rms of the sum wake [*with respect to the average*]{}, $N_a$ the number of structures; the function $h$ is given by (again assuming $\bar\beta\sim E^\zeta$): $$h(x,\zeta)= \sqrt{{1\over\zeta x}\left({x^\zeta-1\over x-1}\right)} \quad\quad\quad[{\bar\beta\sim E^\zeta}].$$ Eq. \[eqmisa\] is valid assuming the so-called betratron term in the equation of motion is small compared to the misalignment term. We can define a misalignment tolerance by $$x_{at}=(x_a)_{rms}\sqrt{{\delta\epsilon_t\over\langle\delta\epsilon\rangle}}\quad, \label{eqxat}$$ with $\delta\epsilon_t$ the tolerance in emittance growth. What is the meaning of $x_{at}$? For an ensemble of machines, each with a different collection of random misalignment errors but with the same rms $x_{at}$, then the distribution of final emittances will be given by the exponential function with expectation value $\delta\epsilon_t$. Note that if we, for example, want to have 95% confidence to achieve this emittance growth, we need to align the machine to a tolerance level of $x_{at}/\sqrt{-\ln .05}\approx.58x_{at}$. Besides the tolerance to structure misalignments, we are also interested in the tolerance to cell-to-cell misalignments due to fabrication errors. A structure is built as a collection of cups, one for each cell, that are brazed together, and there will be some error, small compared to the cell dimensions, in the straightness of each structure. To generate a wake (for a beam on-axis) in a structure with cell-to-cell misalignments we use a perturbation approach that assumes that, to first order, the mode frequencies remain unchanged (from those in the straight structure), and only new kick factors are needed[@perturb] (The method is described in more detail in Appendix B). Note that for particle tracking through structures with internal misalignments, contributions from both this (orbit independent) wake force and the normal (orbit dependent) wake force need to be included. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Machine properties for the injector linacs used in this report are given in Table \[taone\][@NLC]. The rf frequencies of all linacs are sub–harmonics of the main linac frequency, 11.424 GHz. The prelinac, $e^+$ drive linac, $e^-$ booster linac all operate at S–band (2.856 GHz), and the $e^+$ booster linac at L–band (1.428 GHz). Note that $\bar\beta_{y0}$ and $\zeta$ are only a rough fitting of the real machine $\beta$–function to the dependence $\bar\beta\sim E^\zeta$. In Table \[tatwo\] beam properties for the injector linacs, for the nominal bunch train configuration (95 bunches spaced at $\Delta t=2.8$ ns), are given. For the alternate configuration (190 bunches spaced at $\Delta t=1.4$ ns) $N$ is reduced by $1/\sqrt{2}$. \[taone\] Name Band $E_0$\[GeV\] $E_f$\[GeV\] $L$\[m\] $\bar\beta_{y0}$\[m\] $\zeta$ --------------- ------ -------------- -------------- ---------- ----------------------- --------- Prelinac S 1.98 10.0 558 8.6 1/2 $e^+$ Drive S .08 6.00 508 2.4 1/2 $e^-$ Booster S .08 2.00 163 3.4 1/4 $e^+$ Booster L .25 2.00 184 1.5 1 : Machine properties of the injector linacs. Given are the initial energy $E_0$, the final energy $E_f$, the length $L$, the initial average beta function in $y$, and the approximate scaling parameter $\zeta$, of $\beta$ with energy ($\beta\sim E^\zeta$). \[tatwo\] Name $N[10^{10}]$ $\sigma_z$\[mm\] $\sigma_{\delta 0}$\[%\] $\epsilon_{yn}$\[m\] --------------- -------------- ------------------ -------------------------- ---------------------- Prelinac 1.20 0.5 1. $3\times10^{-8}$ $e^+$ Drive 1.45 2.5 1. $1\times10^{-4}$ $e^-$ Booster 1.45 2.5 1. $1\times10^{-4}$ $e^+$ Booster 1.60 9.0 3.5 $6\times10^{-2}$ : Beam properties in the injector linacs under the nominal bunch train configuration (95 bunches spaced at $\Delta t=2.8$ ns). Given are the bunch population $N$, the rms bunch length $\sigma_z$, the initial energy spread $\sigma_{\delta 0}$, and the nominal normalized emittance in $y$, $\epsilon_{yn}$. Note that under the alternate bunch train configuration (190 bunches spaced at $\Delta t=1.4$ ns) $N$ is reduced by $1/\sqrt{2}$. Wakefield Compensation ====================== For effective detuning, one generally requires that the wake amplitude drop quickly, in the time interval between the first two bunches, and then remain low until the tail of the bunch train has passed. In the main (X-band) linac of the NLC, Gaussian detuning is used to generate a fast Gaussian fall-off in the wakefield; in particular, at the position of the second bunch the wake is reduced by roughly 2 orders of magnitude from its initial value. The short time behavior of the wake can be analyzed by the so-called “uncoupled” model. According to this model (see, for example, Ref. [@Gluck]) $$W(t)\approx \sum^{N_c}_n 2 k_{sn}\sin({2\pi f_{sn}t/ c}) \quad\quad\quad[t\ {\rm small}], \label{eqwakes}$$ where $N_c$ is the number of cells in the structure, and $f_{sn}$ and $k_{sn}$ are, respectively, the frequency and kick factor at the synchronous point, for a periodic structure with dimensions of cell $n$. Therefore, one can predict the short time behavior of the wake without solving for the modes of the system. (In the following we will omit the unwieldly subscript $s$; whether the synchronous or mode parameters are meant will be evident from context.) For Gaussian detuning the initial fall-off of the wake is given by $$W(t)\approx 2{\bar k}\sin(2\pi{\bar f}t) \exp\left(-2\left[\pi{\bar f} t\sigma_{\delta f}\right]^2\right) \quad\quad\quad[t\ {\rm small}],$$ with ${\bar k}$ the average kick factor, ${\bar f}$ the average (first band) synchronous, dipole mode frequency, and $\sigma_{\delta f}$ the sigma parameter in the Gaussian distribution. Suppose we want a relative amplitude reduction to 0.05 at the position of the second bunch. Considering the alternate (1.4 ns) bunch spacing, and taking $\bar{f}=4.012$ GHz (S-band), we find that the required $\sigma_{\delta f}=6.5\%$. To achieve a smooth Gaussian drop–off of the wake requires that we take at least $\sim 3\sigma_{\delta f}=20\%$ as the full–width of our frequency distribution, a number which is clearly too large. If we limit the total frequency spread to an acceptable $\Delta_{\delta f}=10\%$ and keep the parameter $\sigma_{\delta f}$ fixed, our Gaussian distribution becomes similar to a uniform distribution. For the case of a uniform distribution with full width $\Delta_{\delta f}$ the wake becomes $$W\approx {2\bar{k}\over N_c} \sin(2\pi{\bar f}t)\,{{\rm sin}(\pi{\bar f}t\Delta_{\delta f})\over {\rm sin}(\pi{\bar f}t\Delta_{\delta f}/N_c)}\quad\quad\quad [(\pi\bar{f}t/Q)\,{\rm small}].\label{equni}$$ Again considering S-band with the alternate (1.4 ns) bunch spacing, and taking $\bar f=4.012$ GHz, we obtain an amplitude reduction to 0.37 at the position of the second bunch, which is still too large. If we want to substantially reduce the wake further we need to shift the average dipole frequency ${\bar f}$, so that the term $\sin(2\pi{\bar f}t)$ in Eq. \[equni\] becomes small, and the wake at the second bunch is near a zero crossing. That is, $$\bar{f}\Delta t={n\over2}\quad\quad\quad[n\,{\rm an\, integer}], \label{eqcond}$$ with $\Delta t$ the bunch spacing. With $n$ an even integer the bunch train will be near the integer resonance, otherwise it will be near the half-integer resonance. With our parameters $\bar{f}\Delta t=5.62$, and Condition \[eqcond\] is achieved by changing ${\bar f}$ by $-2\%$ (or by a much larger amount in the positive direction). However, $\bar f=4.012$ GHz is the average dipole mode frequency for the somewhat optimized structure, and a change of $-2\%$ results in a net loss of 7% in accelerating gradient, and, presumably, a 7% increase in the required lengths of the S–band injector linacs. One final possibility for reducing the wake at one bunch spacing is to introduce heavy damping. But for this case, just to reduce the wake at one bunch spacing by $1/e$, a quality factor of 16 would be needed (see Table \[tascale\]), and such a quality factor is not easy to achieve without a significant loss in fundamental mode shunt impedance. The wakefield for a uniform distribution, as given by Eq. \[equni\], not only gives the initial drop-off of the wake, but also the longer term behavior. (However, here the mode parameters, not the synchronous parameters, are needed. Therefore, to see whether such a mode distribution can actually be achieved the circuit equations need to be solved.) We see that for a uniform distribution the wakefield resurges to a maximum again, at $t=N_c/({\bar{f}\Delta_{\delta f}})$. Therefore, $\Delta_{\delta f}$ must be sufficiently small to avoid this resurgence occurring before the end of the bunch train; [*i.e.*]{} it must be significantly less than $N_c/(M{\bar f}\Delta t)$ (which is about 10% in our case). The envelope of Eq. \[equni\] for $\Delta_{\delta f}=8\%$, ${\bar f}=4.012$ GHz, and $N_c=114$ is shown in Fig. \[fisinxox\]. Another possibility for pushing the resurgence in the wake to larger $t$ is to use two structure types, which can effectively double the number of modes available for detuning. This idea has been studied; it has been rejected in that it requires extremely tight alignment tolerances between pairs of such structures. $2\pi/3$ Phase Advance Per Cell ------------------------------- Except for the region of the initial drop-off, we need to solve for the eigenmodes of the system to know the behavior of the wake or the sum wake for a detuned structure. To numerically obtain these modes we use a computer program that solves the double-band circuit model described in Ref. [@Gluck]. We consider structures of the disk–loaded type, with constant period and with rounded irises of fixed thickness. The iris radii and cavity radii are adjusted to give the correct fundamental mode frequency and the desired dipole mode spectrum. Therefore, the dimensions of a particular cell $m$ can be specified by one free parameter, which we take to be the synchronous frequency of the first dipole mode pass band, $f_{sm}$ (more precisely, the synchronous frequency of the periodic structure with cell dimensions of cell $m$). The computer program generates $2N_c$ coupled mode frequencies $f_{n}$ and kick factors $k_{n}$, with $N_c$ the number of cells in a structure. It assumes the modes are trapped at the ends of the structure. Only the modes of the first band (approximately the first $N_c$ modes) are found accurately by the two-band model. And since, in addition, the strengths of the first band modes are much larger than those of the second band (in the S-band case the synchronous mode kick factors are larger by a factor $\sim35$), we will use only the first band modes to obtain the wake, and then the sum wake. For our S-band structures, we will consider a uniform frequency distribution, with a central frequency $\bar{f}$ chosen so that at one bunch spacing, for the alternate configuration ($\Delta t=1.4$ ns), the wake is very close to a zero crossing. The strength of interaction with the modes, given by the kick factors $k$, will be stronger near the downstream end of the structure, where the iris radii become smaller. To counteract this asymmetry we will allow the top of the frequency distribution to be slanted at an angle, and therefore, our distribution becomes trapezoidal in shape. We parameterize this slant by $$\alpha= {\lambda_f(f_{hi})-\lambda_f(f_{lo})\over\lambda_f(f_{hi})+\lambda_f(f_{lo})}\quad\quad,$$ where $\lambda_f$ is the synchronous frequency distribution, and $f_{lo}$ and $f_{hi}$ represent, respectively, the lowest and highest frequencies in the distribution. Note that $-1\leq\alpha\leq1$. With $\bar f$, $\alpha$, and the relative width of the distribution $\Delta_{\delta f}$, we have 3 parameters that we will vary to reduce the wakefield effects—specifically by minimizing on the sum wake—for both bunch train configurations. Each S-band structure operates at a fundamental mode frequency of 2.856 GHz, and consists of 114 cells with a cell period of 3.5 cm (where the phase advance per cell $\phi=2\pi/3$), an iris thickness of 0.584 cm, and cavity radius $\sim4.2$ cm. The $Q$ of the modes due to wall losses (copper) $\sim14,500$. Given our implementation of the SLED-I pulse compression system[@zenghai], to optimize the rf efficiency the average (synchronous) dipole mode frequency needs to be 4.012 GHz. Fig. \[fiomegbet\] shows the dispersion curves of the first two dipole bands for representative constant impedance, S-band structures, with $a$ varying from 1.30 cm to 2.00 cm. The results of a finite element, Maxwell Equations solving program, OMEGA2[@OMEGA2], are given by the plotting symbols. The end points of the curves are used to fix the parameters in the circuit program. The two-band circuit results for these constant impedance structures are indicated by the curves in the figure. We note good agreement in the first band results and not so good agreement in those of the second band. For a detuned structure, to obtain the local circuit parameters, we interpolate from these representative dispersion curves. We have 3 parameters to vary in our input (uncoupled) frequency distribution: the (relative) shift in average frequency from the nominal 4.012 GHz, $\delta\bar{f}$, the (relative) width of the distribution $\Delta_{\delta f}$, and the flat-top tilt parameter $\alpha$. Varying these parameters we calculate $S_{rms0}$, $S_{rms}$, and the peak value of $|S|$, $|\hat S|$, for the coupled results, for both bunch train configurations. These parameters serve as indicators, respectively, of emittance growth due to BBU (injection jitter), emittance growth due to misalignments, and the maximum beam excursion due to BBU. From our numerical simulations we find that a fairly optimized case consists of $\delta\bar{f}=-2.4\%$, $\Delta_{\delta f}=7.5\%$, and $\alpha=-0.20$. In Fig. \[fisband\_opt\] we display, for the optimized case, the frequency distribution (a), the kick factors (b), and the envelope of the wake (c). The dashed curves in (a) and (b) give the uncoupled (input) values. The plotting symbols in (c) give $|W|$ at the bunch positions for the alternate (1.4 ns) bunch train configuration. From (b) we note that there are a few modes, trapped near the beginning of the structure, which have kick factors significantly larger than the rest. This is a consequence of the fact that, for all cells of this structure, the dispersion curves are backward waves. From (c) we see that, due to these few strong modes, the wake envelope does not nearly reach the low, flat bottom that it does for the idealized, uniform frequency distribution (see Fig. \[fisinxox\]). We note, however, that the short-range drop-off is similar to the idealized form (see Fig. \[fisinxox\]), for about 20 m. In addition we note that, by setting the second bunch near the zero crossing, many following bunches also have wakes with amplitudes significantly below the wake envelope. Finally, in Fig. \[fisbands\_opt\] we present the sum wake for both bunch train configurations. For this case, for both bunch train configurations, $S_{rms0}=S_{rms}=.02$ MV/nC/m$^2$. Note that if we set $\delta{\bar f}$ back to 0, then, for the 1.4 ns bunch spacing option, $S_{rms0}$ becomes a factor of 20 larger. $3\pi/4$ Phase Advance Per Cell ------------------------------- If we would like to regain some of the 7% in accelerating gradient that we lost by shifting $\bar f$, we can move to a structure where the group velocity at the synchronous point is less than for the $2\pi/3$ structure (for the same $\bar f$). One solution is to go to a structure with a $3\pi/4$ synchronous point. Note that in such a structure the cell length is 3.94 cm and that there are 102 cells per structure. Note also that for the same group velocity for the fundamental mode a higher phase advance implies larger values of iris radius $a$, which will also improve the short-range wakefield tolerances. The dispersion curves are shown in Fig. \[fiomegbet\_3pi4\]. Note that, in this case, our distribution will have $f_0<f_{\pi}$ for the cell geometries near the beginning of the structure, $f_0>f_{\pi}$ for the cell geometries near the end of the structure, while the synchronous phase is near pi phase advance. Consequently modes touching either end of the structure will only weakly interact with the beam (see, [*eg*]{} Ref. [@Gluck]), allowing us to have a smoother impedance function, and therefore a more uniformly suppressed wakefield envelope. This was not the case for $2\pi/3$ structure, where the dispersion curves for all cells have a negative slope (between 0 and $\pi$ phase advance) (see Fig. \[fiomegbet\]); it is also not the case for a $5\pi/6$ structure, where the slopes would all be positive. Again optimizing on the sum wake, we find that for a fairly optimized case $\delta\bar{f}=-2.3\%$, $\Delta_{\delta f}=5.8\%$, and $\alpha=-0.20$. The change of the indicators $|\hat S|$, $S_{rms}$ and $S_{rms0}$ as we deviate from this point, for both bunch train configurations, is shown in Figs. \[fivarfbar\_3p4\]-\[fivaralpha\_3p4\]. In Fig. \[fivarfbar\_3p4\] we show the $\bar f$ dependence. We see that, for both bunch train configurations the results are very sensitive to $\bar f$. In Fig. \[fivarftot\_3p4\] we give the $\Delta_{\delta f}$ dependence. We can clearly see the effect of the resurgence in the wake when $\Delta_{\delta f}\gtrsim7\%$. And finally, in Fig. \[fisbands\_opt\_3pi4\] we give the $\alpha$ dependence. We note that the tilt in the distribution helps primarily in reducing the sensitivity to BBU for the nominal (2.8 ns) bunch train configuration. In Fig. \[fisband\_opt\_3p4\] we display, for the optimized $3\pi/4$ case, the frequency distribution (a), the kick factors (b), and the envelope of the wake (c). From (b) we note that in this case $k(f)$ is a relatively smooth function, as was expected from our earlier discussion. From (c) we see that the wake envelope reaches a broader, flatter bottom than for the $2\pi/3$ structure, again as we expected. Again we note that many of the earlier bunches have wakes with amplitudes significantly below the wake envelope. Finally, in Fig. \[fisband\_opt\_3p4\] we show the sum wake for both bunch train configurations. The rms of these sum wakes are much smaller than for the $2\pi/3$ structure: $S_{rms0}=S_{rms}=.004$ MV/nC/m$^2$. Frequency Errors ---------------- How sensitive are our results to manufacturing errors? We will begin to explore this question by looking at the dependence of the sum wake on errors in the synchronous frequencies of the cells of the structure. Note that the synchronous frequency of a cell is not equally sensitive to each of the cell dimensions. Basically there are 4 dimensions: the iris radius $a$, the cavity radius $b$, the iris thickness $d$, and the period length $p$. The synchronous frequency $f_s$ is insensitive to $d$ and $p$, and for the average S-band cell we find that $\delta f_s=-.85\delta b$ and $\delta f_s=-.15\delta a$. Or, a $-1$ micron change in $b$ results in $\delta f_s=2\times10^{-5}$; a $-1$ micron change in $a$ results in $\delta f_s=1\times10^{-5}$. As for attainable accuracy, let us assume that each synchronous frequency can be obtained to a relative accuracy of $10^{-4}$, or to about .5 MHz. As for systematic frequency errors we note from Fig. \[fivarfbar\_3p4\] that we are especially sensitive to changes in average frequency. For example, to double $S_{rms0}$ from its minimum, requires a relative frequency change of only $4\times10^{-4}$. If each cell frequency has an accuracy of $10^{-4}$, and there are about 100 cells, the accuracy in the centroid frequency should be $\sim10^{-5}$. Therefore, the effect of this type of systematic error should be negligible. As for random manufacturing errors, let us distinguish two types: “systematic random” and “purely random” errors. By “systematic random” we mean errors, random in one structure, that are repeated in all structures of the prelinac subsystem. “Purely random” errors are, in addition, random from structure to structure. In Fig. \[fierrs\] we give the resulting $S_{rms0}$ and $S_{rms}$, for both bunch train configurations, when a random error component is added to the (input) synchronous frequencies of the optimal distribution. With a frequency spacing of $\sim8\times10^{-4}$, an rms frequency error of $10^{-4}$ is a relatively small perturbation. We see that for the alternate (1.4 ns) bunch spacing the effect of such a perturbation is indeed very small, whereas for the nominal (2.8 ns) bunch spacing the effect is large. The reason is that with the 1.4 ns bunch spacing the beam sits near a half-integer resonance, whereas for the 2.8 ns spacing it sits near the integer resonance. (Resonant multi-bunch wakefield effects are discussed in Appendix C.) Note, however, that if we consider the case of “purely random” machining errors, with a relative accuracy in synchronous frequencies of $10^{-4}$, and considering we have $N_{struc}=140$, 127, 41 structures in, respectively, the prelinac, the $e^+$ drive linac, and the $e^-$ booster, then, with a $1/\sqrt{N_{struc}}$ reduction in sensitivity, the appropriate abscissas in the figure become .8, .9, and $1.6\times10^{-5}$. At these points, for the 2.8 ns spacing, we see that $S_{rms0}$ is only a factor $2\pm1$, $2\pm1$, $3\pm2$ times larger than the zero error result. Finally, as for the “systematic random” errors, it is difficult to judge how large they might be in the real structure; however, they are likely an order of magnitude less than the purely random errors, and should therefore not yield a sum wake much larger than that due to the purely random manufacturing errors. If we make a weak damping, approximate calculation, by redoing the calculation but now with $Q=1000$, we find no appreciable effect on the resonance behavior for the $\Delta t=2.8$ ns case with frequency errors. For strong damping, taking $Q=100$, however, we do find a suppression of the resonance effect. $e^+$ Booster ------------- For the $e^+$ booster (the L–band machine) each accelerator structure consists of 72 cells and the synchronous phase advance is taken to be $2\pi/3$. The synchronous dipole mode distribution is taken to be uniform, with $\bar f=2.05$ GHz and $\Delta_{\delta f}=3\%$. We take $Q=20,000$. Note that in this case $\bar{f}\Delta t=2.87$; for the second bunch to sit on the zero crossing of the wakefield would require a shift in frequency of $+4.5\%$ or $-13\%$. For the L-band structure not much can be gained by changing the frequency spectrum. We do gain, however, a factor of 8 reduction in wake in going from S- to L-band, which, as we shall see, suffices. Tolerances ========== For our designed structures we perform the tolerance calculations presented in Section 2. To check the analytical estimates, tracking, using the computer program LIAR[@LIAR], was also performed. The numerical simulations were simplified in that one macro-particle was used to represent each bunch, and the bunch train was taken to be mono–energetic. The analytical BBU results and those of LIAR, at the end of the four injector linacs, are compared in Table \[tasummary\]. Results are given for bunch spacings of 1.4 and 2.8 ns. Under the heading “Analytical” are given the rms of the sum wake $S_{rms}$, the rms of the growth factor $\Upsilon_{rms}$, the maximum (within the bunch train) of the growth factor $\hat\Upsilon$, and the tolerance $r_t$ for $\delta_{\epsilon t}=10\%$, [*i.e.*]{} that ratio $y_0/\sigma_{y0}$ that results in 10% emittance growth. Under the heading “Numerical” we give the LIAR results: the maximum (within the bunch train) growth in normalized phase space $\hat\xi$ and the tolerance $r_t$ for 10% emittance growth, both referenced to the centroid of the first bunch in the train. ----------------------- ------------------------ ------------ ------------------- ------------------ ----- ------------- ----- \[0pt\][$\Delta t$]{} \[0pt\][$\quad$Name]{} $S_{rms0}$ $\Upsilon_{rms0}$ $\hat\Upsilon\ $ $\hat\xi\ $ Prelinac .004 .007 .025 70 .020 85 $e^+$ Drive .004 .017 .066 25 .047 35 \[0pt\][2.8ns]{} $e^-$ Booster .004 .009 .036 50 .026 65 $e^+$ Booster .12 .119 .227 3.8 .153 5.5 Prelinac .004 .004 .019 115 .015 140 $e^+$ Drive .004 .011 .049 45 .035 60 \[0pt\][1.4ns]{} $e^-$ Booster .004 .006 .027 80 .019 105 $e^+$ Booster .30 .205 .379 2.2 .257 3.0 ----------------------- ------------------------ ------------ ------------------- ------------------ ----- ------------- ----- : Beam break-up calculations for the two bunch spacings. Given are the rms of the sum wake $S_{rms0}$ (in units of MV/nC/m$^2$), the rms and the peak of the strength parameter, $\Upsilon_{rms0}$ and $\hat\Upsilon$, respectively, and the analytically obtained tolerance $r_t$ for $\delta_{\epsilon t}=10\%$, [*i.e.*]{} that ratio $y_0/\sigma_{y0}$ that results in 10% emittance growth. Also shown are LIAR results: the peak blow-up in normalized phase space, $\hat\xi$, and the tolerance $r_t$.[]{data-label="tasummary"} ----------------------- ------------------------ ----------- ------ ------ \[0pt\][$\Delta t$]{} \[0pt\][$\quad$Name]{} $S_{rms}$ Prelinac .004 2.9 3.2 $e^+$ Drive .004 100. 120. \[0pt\][2.8ns]{} $e^-$ Booster .004 140. 170. $e^+$ Booster .022 590. Prelinac .004 4.6 4.8 $e^+$ Drive .004 150. 180. \[0pt\][1.4ns]{} $e^-$ Booster .004 210. 260. $e^+$ Booster .040 450. ----------------------- ------------------------ ----------- ------ ------ : Effect of structure misalignments for the two bunch spacings. Given are the rms of the sum wake $S_{rms}$ (in units of MV/nC/m$^2$) and the tolerance for structure misalignments for a 10% emittance growth, $x_{at}$, both obtained analytically (Eqs. \[eqmisa\],\[eqxat\]) and by LIAR. []{data-label="tasummary2"} We note from Table \[tasummary\] that for the S-band machines, $\Upsilon_{rms0}$ and $\hat\Upsilon$ are both small compared to 1, and that the injection jitter tolerance for 10% emittance growth is very large. For the L-band machine, the $e^+$ booster, the tolerances are tighter but still acceptable. We note also that the analytical $\hat\Upsilon$ agrees well with the numerical $\hat\xi$, as do the two versions of $r_t$. In Table \[tasummary2\] we present misalignment results. Given are $S_{rms}$ and the tolerance for structure misalignments, $x_{at}$, both as given analytically and by LIAR. As discussed before, the meaning of $x_{at}$ is the rms misalignment that (for an ensemble of machines) results, on average, in a final emittance growth equal to a tolerance $\delta\epsilon_t$, which in this case we set to 10%. From Table \[tasummary2\] we see that the analytical and numerical results agree well, and that the misalignment tolerances are all very loose. The tightest tolerance is for the prelinac with nominal (2.8 ns) bunch spacing, where the tolerance is still an acceptable 3 mm. The effect of machining errors will tighten these tolerances for the S-band machines with the nominal (2.8 ns) bunch spacing, due to the beam being near the integer resonance. If machining adds a purely random error component that is equivalent to $10^{-4}$ frequency error, we saw earlier that (for the 2.8 ns bunch spacing case only) this will tighten the injection jitter tolerances by about a factor $2\pm1$ for the prelinac and $e^+$ drive linac, and about a factor of $3\pm2$ for the $e^-$ booster. But even with this, the tolerances are still very loose. The misalignment tolerances are affected less by machining errors. The prelinac tolerance, with 2.8 ns bunch spacing, will become $\sim2\pm1$ mm; for 95% confidence in achieving $\delta_{\epsilon}=10\%$, the tolerance becomes $\sim1\pm.5$ mm. Finally, what is the random, cell-to-cell misalignment tolerance? Performing the perturbation calculation described in Appendix B, and calculating for 1000 different random structures, we find that $S_{rms}=.27\pm.12$ MV/nC/m$^2$ for $\Delta t=2.8$ ns, and $S_{rms}=.032\pm.003$ MV/nC/m$^2$ for $\Delta t=1.4$ ns. We again see the effect of the integer resonance on the 2.8 ns option result. (To verify that this is the case, we performed one run but with the bunch spacing changed so that the beam sits near the next half-integer resonance (11.5); the result was that $S_{rms}$ dropped by a factor of 6.) For the prelinac the cell-to-cell misalignment tolerance becomes 40 $\mu$m for the nominal (2.8 ns) bunch configuration and 600 $\mu$m for the alternate (1.4 ns) configuration. Conclusion ========== We have demonstrated that by using detuning alone, the four injector linacs can be built to sufficiently suppress the multi-bunch wakefield effects, for both the nominal (2.8 ns) and alternate (1.4 ns) bunch spacings. We have studied the sensitivity to multi-bunch beam break-up (BBU) and to structure misalignments through analytical estimates and numerical tracking, and shown that the tolerances to injection jitter, in the former case, and to structure misalignments, in the latter case, are not difficult to achieve. We have also studied the effect of manufacturing errors on these tolerances, and have shown that if the errors are purely random, with an equivalent rms frequency error of $10^{-4}$, then the other tolerances are still acceptable. Finally, we have shown that the cell-to-cell misalignment tolerance is $\gtrsim40$ $\mu$m. For the L–band machine—the $e^+$ Booster—we have shown that a uniform detuning of the dipole modes, with central frequency ${\bar f}=2.05$ GHz and a total frequency spread $\Delta_{\delta f}=3\%$, suffices. For the S–band linacs—the Prelinac, the $e^+$ Drive Linac, and the $e^-$ Booster—we have shown that the 1.4 ns bunch spacing option forces us to reduce the central frequency by 2.3% from the nominal 4.012 GHz. Doing this we lose 7% in effective gradient, which, however, can be regained by increasing the phase advance per cell from $2\pi/3$ to $3\pi/4$. Our final, optimized distribution is trapezoidal in shape with ${\bar f}=3.920$ GHz, $\Delta_{\delta f}=5.8$%, and tilt parameter $\alpha= -0.2$. We have demonstrated in this report that the integer resonance, which we cannot avoid given the two bunch train alternatives, can make us more sensitive to manufacturing errors. Also, we have shown that the analytical, single-bunch beam break-up theory, when slightly modified, can be useful in predicting the behavior of multi-bunch beam break-up also. Given the rather loose tolerances demonstrated here makes us think that the S-band machines can be replaced with C-band ones that still have reasonable tolerances, an option which may result in savings in cost, though this needs further study. Finally, we should reiterate that in this report we were concerned with the effects of the modes in the first dipole passband only. With the wakefield of the first band modes greatly suppressed by detuning, the effects of the higher bands may no longer be insignificant. This problem will need to be addressed in the future. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== The author thanks the regular attendees of the Tuesday JLC/NLC linac meetings at SLAC for helpful comments and discussions on this topic, and in particular T. Raubenheimer, our leader, and V. Dolgashev for carefully reading parts of this manuscript. [9]{} NLC ZDR Design Report, SLAC Report 474, 589 (1996). See the JLC/NLC Accelerator Physics at SLAC web site at: www-project.slac.stanford.edu/lc/local/AccelPhysics/Accel\_Physics\_index.htm. R. M. Jones, [*et al*]{}, “Equivalent Circuit Analysis of the SLAC Damped Detuned Structures,” Proc. of EPAC96, Sitges, Spain, 1996, p. 1292. A. Chao, “Physics of Collective Instabilities in High-Energy Accelerators”, John Wiley & Sons, New York (1993). K. Bane, [*et al*]{}, “Issues in Multi-Bunch Emittance Preservation in the NLC,” Proc. of EPAC94, London, England, 1994, p. 1114. R. M. Jones, [*et al*]{}, “Emittance Dilution and Beam Breakup in the JLC/NLC,” Proc. of PAC99, New York, NY, 1999, p. 3474. V. Dolgashev, [*et al*]{}, “Scattering Analysis of the NLC Accelerating Structure,” Proc. of PAC99, New York, NY., 1999, p. 2822. K. Bane and R. Gluckstern, [*Part. Accel.*]{}, [**42**]{}, 123 (1994). Z. Li, [*et al*]{}, “Parameter Optimization for the Low Frequency Linacs in the NLC,” Proc. of PAC99, New York, NY, 1999, p. 3486. X. Zhan, “Parallel Electromagnetic Field Solvers $\ldots$,” PhD Thesis, Stanford University, 1997. R. Assmann, [*et al*]{}, LIAR Reference Manual, SLAC/AP-103, April 1997. R. Helm and G. Loew, [*Linear Accelerators*]{}, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1970, Chapter B.1.4. E. U. Condon, [*J. Appl. Phys.*]{} [**12**]{}, 129 (1941). P. Morton and K. Neil, UCRL-18103, LBL, 1968, p. 365. K.L.F. Bane, [*et al*]{}, in “Physics of High Energy Accelerators,” AIP Conf. Proc. [**127**]{}, 876 (1985). K. Bane and B. Zotter, Proc. of the 11$^{\rm th}$ Int. Conf. on High Energy Acellerators, CERN (Birkh[ä]{}user Verlag, Basel, 1980), p. 581. D. Schulte, presentation given in an NLC Linac meeting, summer 1999. Appendix A:Analytical Formula for Weak Multi-Bunch BBU {#appendix-aanalytical-formula-for-weak-multi-bunch-bbu .unnumbered} ====================================================== In Ref. [@chao] an analytical formula for [*single-bunch*]{} beam break-up in a smooth focusing linac, for the case without energy spread in the beam, is derived, the so-called Chao-Richter-Yao (CRY) model for beam break-up. Suppose the beam is initially offset from the accelerator axis. The beam break-up downstream is characterized by a strength parameter $\Upsilon(t,s)$, where $t$ represents position within the bunch, and $s$ position along the linac. When $\Upsilon(t,s)$ is small compared to 1, the growth in betatron amplitude in the linac is proportional to this parameter. When applied to the special case of a uniform longitudinal charge distribution, and a linearly growing wakefield, the result of the calculation becomes especially simple. In this case the growth in orbit amplitude is given as an asymptotic power series in $\Upsilon(t,s)$, and the series can be summed to give a closed form, asymptotic solution for single-bunch BBU. The derivation of an analytic formula for [*multi-bunch*]{} BBU is almost a trivial modification of the CRY formalism. We will here reproduce the important features of the single-bunch derivation of Ref. [@chao] (with slightly modified notation), and then show how it can be modified to obtain a result applicable to multi-bunch BBU. Note that we are interested in estimating the effect of relatively weak multi-bunch BBU, caused by the somewhat complicated wakefields of detuned structures. The more studied multi-bunch BBU problem, [*i.e.*]{} the effect on a bunch train of a single strong mode, the so-called “cumulative beam break-up instability” (see, [*e.g.*]{} Ref. [@Lau]), is a somewhat different problem to which our results are not meant to apply. Let us consider the case of single-bunch beam break-up, where a beam is initially offset by distance $y_0$ in a linac with acceleration and smooth focusing. We assume that there is no energy spread within the beam. The equation of motion is $${1\over E(s)}{d\over ds} \left[E(s){dy(t,s)\over ds}\right]+ {y(t,s)\over\beta^2(s)}= {e^2N_t\over E(s)}\int_{-\infty}^t dt^\prime\,y(t^\prime,s)\lambda_t(t^\prime) W(t-t^\prime)\ ,\label{eqmotion}$$ with $y(t,s)$ the bunch offset, a function of position within the bunch $t$, and position along the linac $s$; with $E$ the beam energy, $[1/\beta(s)]$ the betatron wave number, $eN_t$ the total bunch charge, $\lambda_t(t)$ the longitudinal charge distribution, and $W(t)$ the short-range dipole wakefield. Our convention is that negative values of $t$ are toward the front of the bunch. Let us, for the moment, limit ourselves to the problem of no acceleration and $\beta$ a constant. A. Chao in Ref. [@chao] expands the solution to the equation of motion for this problem in a perturbation series $$y(t,s)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty y^{(n)}(t,s)\quad,\label{eqypert0}$$ with the first term given by free betatron oscillation \[$y^{(0)}=y_0\cos (s/\beta)$\]. He then shows that the solution for the higher terms at position $s=L$, after many betatron oscillations, is given by $$y^{(n)}(t,L)\approx {y_0\over n!}\left( {ie^2N_tL\beta\over 2E} \right)^n R_n(t)e^{iL/\beta}\quad,\label{eqypert}$$ with $$\begin{aligned} R_n(t)&=&\int_{-\infty}^t dt_1\,\lambda(t_1)W(t-t_1) \int_{-\infty}^{t_1} dt_2\,\lambda(t_2)W(t_1-t_2)\nonumber\\ & &\cdots \int_{-\infty}^{t_{n-1}} dt_n\,\lambda(t_n)W(t_{n-1}-t_n)\ , \label{eqrn}\end{aligned}$$ and $R_0(z)=1$. An observable $y$ is meant to be the real part of Eq. \[eqypert0\]. The effects of adiabatic acceleration, [*i.e.*]{} sufficiently slow acceleration so that the energy doubling distance is large compared to the betatron wave length, and $\beta$ not constant, can be added by simply replacing $(\beta/E)$ in Eq. \[eqypert\] by $\langle\beta/E\rangle$, where angle brackets indicate averaging along the linac from $s=0$ to $s=L$.[^3] For example, if the lattice is such that $\beta\sim E^\zeta$ then $\langle\beta/E\rangle=(\beta_0/E_0)g(E_f/E_0,\zeta)$, where subscripts “0” and “$f$” signify, respectively, initial and final parameters, and $$g(x,\zeta)= {1\over\zeta}\left({x^\zeta-1\over x-1}\right) \quad\quad\quad[{\beta\sim E^\zeta}].$$ Chao then shows that for certain simple combinations of bunch shape and wake function shape the integrals in Eq. \[eqrn\] can be performed analytically, and the result becomes an asymptotic series in powers of a strength parameter. For example, for the case of a uniform charge distribution of length $\ell$ (with the front of the bunch at $t=0$), and a wake that varies as $W=W^\prime t$, the strength parameter is $$\Upsilon(t,L)={e^2N_t LW^\prime t^2\beta_0\over 2E_0\ell}g(E_f/E_0,\zeta) \quad.$$ If $\Upsilon$ is small compared to 1, the growth is well approximated by $\Upsilon$. If $\Upsilon$ is large, the sum over all terms can be performed to give a closed form, asymptotic expression. For [*multi-bunch*]{} BBU we are mainly concerned with the interaction of the different bunches in the train, and will ignore wakefield forces within bunches. The derivation is nearly identical to that for the single-bunch BBU. However, in the equation of motion, Eq. \[eqmotion\], the independent variable $t$ is no longer a continuous variable, but rather $t$ takes on discrete values $t_m=m\Delta t$, where $m$ is a bunch index and $\Delta t$ is the bunch spacing. Also, $W$ now represents the long-range wakefield. Let us assume that there are $M$, equally populated bunches in a train; [*i.e.*]{} $N_t=MN$, with $N$ the particles per bunch. The solution is again expanded in a perturbation series. In the solution, Eq. \[eqypert\], the $R_n(t)$, which are smooth functions of $t$, are replaced by $${\cal R}_m^{(n)}= {1\over M}\sum_{j=1}^{m-1} W[(m-j)\Delta t]{\cal R}_j^{(n-1)} \quad,\label{eqcalr}$$ (with ${\cal R}_j^0=1$), which is a function of a discrete parameter, the bunch index $m$. Note that ${\cal R}_m^{(1)}=S_m/M$, with $S_m$ the sum wake. Generally the sums in Eq. \[eqcalr\] cannot be given in closed form, and therefore a closed, asymptotic expression for multi-bunch BBU cannot be given. We can still, however, numerically compute the individual terms equivalent to Eq. \[eqypert\] for the single bunch case. For example, the first order term in amplitude growth is given by $$\Upsilon_m= {e^2NLS_{m}\beta_0\over 2E_0} g(E_f/E_0,\zeta)\quad\quad\quad[m=1,\ldots,M]\ .$$ If this term is small compared to 1 for all $m$, then BBU is well characterized by $\Upsilon$. If it is not small, though not extremely large, the next higher terms can be computed and their contribution added. For $\Upsilon$ very large, this approach may not be very useful. From our derivation we see that there is nothing that fundamentally distinguishes our BBU solution from a single-bunch BBU solution. If we consider again the single-bunch calculation, for the case of a uniform charge distribution of length $\ell$, we see that we need to perform the integrations for $R_n$ in Eq. \[eqrn\]. If we do the integrations numerically, by dividing the integrals into discrete steps $t_n=(n-1)\Delta t$ and then performing quadrature by rectangular rule, we end up with Eq. \[eqcalr\] with $M=\ell/\Delta t$. The solution is the same as our multi-bunch solution. What distinguishes the multi-bunch from the single-bunch problem is that the wakefield for the multi-bunch case is not normally monotonic and does not vary smoothly with longitudinal position. For such a case it may be more difficult to decide how many terms are needed for the sum to converge. In Fig. \[fiperturb\] we give a numerical example: the NLC prelinac with the optimized $3\pi/4$ S-band structure, but with $10^{-5}$ systematic frequency errors, with the nominal (2.8 ns) bunch spacing (see the main text). The diamonds give the first order (a) and the second order (b) perturbation terms. The crosses in (a) give the results of a smooth focusing simulation program (taking $\beta\sim E^{1/2}$), where the free betatron term has been removed. We see that the agreement is very good; [*i.e.*]{} the first order term is a good approximation to the simulation results. In (b) we note that the next order term is much smaller. For this example we find that even if we increase the current by an order of magnitude the 1st order term alone remains a good approximation. Appendix B:The Wakefield Due to Cell-to-Cell Misalignments {#appendix-bthe-wakefield-due-to-cell-to-cell-misalignments .unnumbered} ========================================================== We assume a structure is composed of many cells that are misaligned transversely by amounts that are very small compared to the cell dimensions. For such a case we assume that the mode frequencies are the same as in the ideal structure, and only the mode kick factors are affected. To first order we assume that for each mode, the kick factor for the beam on-axis in the imperfect structure is the same as for the case with the beam following the negative of the misalignment path in the error-free structure. In Fig. \[fistruct\] we sketch a portion of such a misaligned structure (top) and the model used for the kick factor calculation (bottom). The sketch is meant to represent a disk-loaded structure that has been built up from a collection of cups. Note that the relative size of the misalignements is exaggerated from what is expected, in order to more clearly show the principle. Given this model, the method of calculation of the kick factors can be derived using the so-called “Condon Method”[@condon],[@morton] (see also [@bane]). Note that this application to cell-to-cell misalignments in an accelerator structure is presented in Ref. [@perturb]. The results of this perturbation method have been shown to be consistent with those using a 3-dimensional scattering matrix analysis[@Valery]. We will only sketch the derivation below. Consider a closed cavity with perfectly conducting walls. For such a cavity the Condon method expands the vector and scalar potentials, in the Coulomb gauge, as a sum over the empty cavity modes. As function of position $\bf x$ $(x,y,z)$ and time $t$ the vector potential in the cavity is given as $${\bf A}({\bf x},t)=\sum_\lm q_\lm(t){\bf a}_\lm({\bf x})\quad,$$ where $$\nabla^2{\bf a}_\lm + {\omega_\lm^2\over c^2}{\bf a}_\lm=0\quad,$$ with $\omega_\lm$ the frequency of mode $\lm$, and ${\bf a}_\lm\times{\bf{\hat n}}=0$ on the metallic surface (${\bf{\hat n}}$ is a unit vector normal to the surface). Using the Coulomb gauge implies that $\nabla\cdot{\bf a}_\lm=0$. The $q_\lm$ are given by $$\ddot{q}_\lm+\omega_\lm^2 q_\lm={1\over 2U_\lm}\int_{\cal{V}}d\cal{V}\, {\bf j}\cdot {\bf a}_\lm\quad,$$ with the normalization $${\epsilon_0\over2}\int_{\cal{V}}d\cal{V}\, {\bf a}_{\lm^\prime}\cdot{\bf a}_\lm= U_\lm\delta_{\lm\lm^\prime}\quad,$$ with ${\bf j}$ the current density. Note that the integrations are performed over the volume of the cavity $\cal{V}$. The scalar potential is given as $$\Phi({\bf x},t)=\sum_\lm r_\lm(t)\phi_\lm({\bf x})\quad,$$ where $$\nabla^2\phi_\lm + {\Omega_\lm^2\over c^2}\phi_\lm=0\quad,$$ with $\Omega_\lm$ the frequencies associated with $\phi_\lm$, and with $\phi_\lm=0$ on the metallic surface. The $r_\lm$ are given by $$r_\lm={1\over 2T_\lm}\int_{\cal{V}}d\cal{V}\,\rho\phi_\lm\quad,$$ with $\rho$ the charge distribution in the cavity. Note that one fundamental difference between the behavior of $A({\bf x},t)$ and $\Phi({\bf x},t)$ is that when there are no charges in the cavity the vector potential can still oscillate whereas the scalar potential must be identically equal to 0. Let us consider an ultra-relativistic driving charge $Q$ that passes through the cavity parallel to the $z$ axis, and (for simplicity) a test charge following at a distance $s$ behind on the same path. Both enter the cavity at position $z=0$ and leave at position $z=L$. The transverse wakefield at the test charge is then $$\begin{aligned} {\bf W}(s)&=&{1\over QLx_0}\int_0^L dz\,\left[c\nabla_\bot A_z-\nabla_\bot\Phi\right]_{t=(z+s)/c} \nonumber\\ &=&{1\over QLx_0}\sum_\lm\int_0^L dz\,\left[cq_\lm\left({z+s\over c}\right)\nabla_\bot a_{\lm z}(z)\right.\nonumber\\ & &\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad -r_\lm\left({z+s\over c}\right)\nabla_\bot\phi_\lm(z)\bigg]\ , \label{eqconda}\end{aligned}$$ where the integrals are along the path of the particle trajectory. The parameter $x_0$ is a parameter for transverse offset (the transverse wake is usually given in units of V/C per longitudinal meter per transverse meter); for a cylindrically-symmetric structure it is usually taken to be the offset, from the axis, of the driving bunch trajectory. For $s>L$ we can drop the scalar potential term (it must be zero when there is no charge in the cavity), and the result can be written in the form[@bane] $${\bf W}(s)=\sum_\lm{c\over 2U_\lm\omega_\lm Lx_0}\Im{\rm m}\left[ V_\lm^*\nabla_\bot V_\lm \,e^{i\omega_\lm s/c}\right] \quad\quad[s>L]\ , \label{eqcondc}$$ with $$V_\lm=\int_0^L dz\,a_{\lm z}(z)e^{i\omega_\lm z/c}\quad.$$ Note that the arbitrary constants associated with the parameter ${\bf a}_\lm$ in the numerator and the denominator of Eq. \[eqcondc\] cancel. Note also that—to the same arbitrary constant—$|V_\lm|^2$ is the square of the voltage lost by the driving particle to mode $\lm$ and $U_\lm$ is the energy stored in mode $\lm$. Consider now the case of a cylindrically-symmetric, multi-cell accelerating cavity, and let us limit our concern to the effect of the dipole modes of such a structure. We will allow the charges to move on an arbitrary, zig-zag path in the $x-z$ plane that is close to the axis, and for which the slope is everywhere small (so that $\nabla_\bot\sim \partial/\partial x$). For dipole modes in a cylindrically-symmetric, multi-cell accelerator structure, it can shown that the synchronous component of $a_{\lm z}$ (the only component that, on average, is important) can be written in the form $a_{\lm z}=xf_\lm(z)$ (see [*e.g.*]{} Ref. [@Trans]). Then Eq. \[eqcondc\] becomes $$\begin{aligned} W_x(s)&=&\sum_\lm{c\over 2U_\lm\omega_\lm Lx_0}\times\label{eqconde}\\ & &\hspace*{-11mm}\times\Im{\rm m}\left[e^{i\omega_\lm s/c} \int_0^L dz^\prime\, x(z^\prime)f_\lm(z^\prime)e^{-i\omega_\lm z^\prime/c} \int_0^L dz\, f_\lm(z)e^{i\omega_\lm z/c} \right]\ [s>L]\ .\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Note that this equation can be written in the form: $$W_x(s)= \sum_\lm 2k^\prime_{\lm}\sin\left({\omega_\lm s\over c}+\theta_\lm\right) \quad\quad[s>L]\ , \label{eqcondb}$$ with $k^\prime_{\lm}$ a kind of kick factor and $\theta_\lm$ the phase of excitation of mode $\lm$. Note that in the special case where the particles move parallel to the axis, at offset $a$, $k^\prime_{\lm}=k_\lm=c|V_\lm|^2/(4U_\lm\omega_\lm a^2L)$, the normal kick factors for the structure, and $\theta_\lm=0$. For this case it can be shown that Eq. \[eqcondb\] is valid for all $s>0$[@bane]. Finally, note that, for the general case, Eq. \[eqcondb\] can obviously not be extrapolated down to $s=0$, since it implies that $W_x(0)\not=0$, which we believe is nonphysical, implying that a particle can kick itself transversely. To obtain the proper equation valid down to $s=0$ we would need to include the scalar potential term that was dropped in going from Eq. \[eqconda\] to Eq. \[eqcondc\]. Our derivation, presented here, is technically applicable only to structures for which all modes are trapped. The modes will be trapped at least at the ends of the structure, if the connecting beam tubes have sufficiently small radii and the dipole modes do not couple to the fundamental mode couplers in the end cells. For detuned structures, like those in the injector linacs discussed in this report, most modes are trapped internally within a structure, and those that do extend to the ends couple only weakly to the beam; for such structures the results here can also be applied, even if the conditions on the beam tube radii and the fundamental mode coupler do not hold. We believe that even for the damped, detuned structures of the main linac of the JLC/NLC, which are similar, though they have manifolds to add weak damping to the wakefield, a result very similar to that presented here applies. To estimate the wakefield associated with very small, random cell-to-cell misalignments in accelerator structures we assume that we can use the mode eigenfrequencies and eigenvectors of the error-free structure. We obtain these from the circuit program. Then to find the kick factors we replace $x(z)$ in the first integral in Eq. \[eqconde\] by the zig-zag path representing the negative of the cell misalignments, a path we generate using a random number generator. The normalization factor $x_0$ is set to the rms of the misalignments. How can we justify using this method for finding the wake at the spacing of the bunch positions? For example, for the $3\pi/4$ S-band structure, the alternate bunch spacing is only 42 cm whereas the whole structure length $L=4.46$ m. Therefore, in principle, Eq. \[eqconde\] is not valid until the 11$^{\rm th}$ bunch spacing. We believe, however, that the scalar potential fields will not extend more than one or two cells behind the driving charge (the cell length is 4.375 cm), and therefore this method will be a good approximation at all bunch positions behind the driving charge. This belief should be tested in the future by repeating the calculation, but now also including the contribution from scalar potential terms. In Fig. \[fiscatter\] we give a numerical example. Shown, for the optimized $3\pi/4$ S-band structure (see the main text), are the kick factors and the phases of the modes as calculated by the method described in this section. Note that $\theta_\lambda$ is not necessarily small. Appendix C:Resonant Multi-Bunch Wakefield Effects {#appendix-cresonant-multi-bunch-wakefield-effects .unnumbered} ================================================= It is easy to understand how resonances can arise in a linac with bunch trains. Consider the case of the interaction of the beam with one single structure mode. The leading bunch enters the structure offset from the axis and excites the mode. If the bunch train is sitting on an integer resonance, [*i.e.*]{} if $f\Delta t=n$, with $f$ the mode frequency, $\Delta t$ the bunch spacing, and $n$ an integer, then when the 2nd bunch arrives it will excite the mode at the same phase and also obtain a kick due to the wakefield of the first bunch. The $m{\rm th}$ bunch will also excite the mode in the same phase and obtain $(m-1)$ times the kick from the wakefield that the second bunch experienced (for simplicity we assume the mode $Q$ is infinity). On the half-integer resonance, [*i.e.*]{} when $f\Delta t=n+.5$, the $m{\rm th}$ bunch will also receive kicks from the wakefield left by the earlier bunches, but in this case the kicks will alternate in direction, and no resonance builds up. For a transverse wakefield effect, such as we are interested in, however, this simple description of the resonant interaction needs to be modified slightly. For this case the wake varies as $\sin(2\pi ft)$, and neither the integer nor the half-integer resonance condition will excite any wakefield for the following bunches. In this case resonant growth is achieved at a slight deviation from the condition $f\Delta t=n$, as is shown below. In the following, for simplicity, we will use the “uncoupled” model (which is described in Chapter 3 of the main text) to investigate resonant effects in the sum wake for a structure with modes with a uniform frequency distribution. The point of using the uncoupled model is that it allows us to study the effect of an idealized, uniform frequency distribution. As we have seen in the main text, an ideal (input) frequency distribution becomes distorted by the cell-to-cell coupling of an accelerator structure. As example we will use the parameters of a simplified version (all kick factors are equal) of the optimized $3\pi/4$ S-band structure described in the main text; for bunch structure we consider the nominal bunch spacing ($\Delta t=2.4$ ns). The results for the real structure, with coupled modes, will be slightly different yet qualitatively the same. Note that we are also aware of a different analysis of resonant multi-bunch wakefield effect[@schulte]. Consider first the case of a structure with only one dipole mode, with frequency $f$, and a kick factor that we will normalize (for simplicity) to $1/2$. Suppose there are $M$ bunches in the bunch train. The sum wake at the $m{\rm th}$ bunch is given by $$\begin{aligned} S_m^{(1)}(f\Delta t)&=&\sum_{i=1}^m\sin\left(2\pi[i-1] f\Delta t\right)\nonumber\\ &=& {\sin\left(\pi[m-1]f\Delta t\right)\sin\left(\pi mf\Delta t\right) \over\sin\left(\pi f\Delta t\right)}\quad. \label{eqres1}\end{aligned}$$ As with the nominal (2.8 ns) bunch spacing in the S-band prelinacs, let us, for an example, consider $M=95$ bunches and the region near the 11th harmonic. In Fig. \[fires1\] we plot $f\Delta t$ [*vs*]{} the sum wake for the $M$th (the last) bunch, $S_M^{(1)}$, near the 11th integer resonance. It can be shown that, if $M$ is not small, the largest resonance peaks (the extrema of the curve) are at $$f\Delta t\approx n\pm {3\over8M}\quad\quad[M\ {\rm not\ small}]\quad,$$ with values $\pm.72M$. Note that at the exact integer and half-integer resonant spacings the sum wake is zero. Now let us consider a uniform distribution of mode frequencies. For simplicity we will let all the kick factors be equal, and be normalized to $1/2$. The sum wake, according to the uncoupled model, becomes $$S_m({\bar f}\Delta t)={1\over N_c}\sum_{n=1}^{N_c}S_m^{(1)}\left[{\bar f}\Delta t\left( 1+{(n-N_c/2)\over N_c}\Delta_{\delta f}\right)\right]\quad,\label{equnib}$$ with $N_c$ the number of cells (also the number of modes), $\bar f$ the central frequency, and $\Delta_{\delta f}$ the total (relative) width of the frequency distribution. As an example, let us consider the optimized $3\pi/4$ S-band structure, with $N_c=102$ and $\Delta_{\delta f}=5.8\%$. The sum wake at the last (the $M$th) bunch position, $S_M$, is plotted as function of ${\bar f}\Delta t$ in Fig. \[fires2\]. Note that the uniform frequency distribution appears to suppress the integer resonance. The extrema of the curve (the “horns”) that are seen at ${\bar f}\Delta t=11\pm.32$ are resonances due to the edges of the frequency distribution, with the condition ${\bar f}\Delta t\approx11/(1\pm\Delta_{\delta f}/2)$. Note, however, that the sizes of even these spikes are small compared to those of the single mode case. Suppose we add frequency errors to our model. We can do this by, in each term in the sum of Eq. \[equnib\], multiplying the frequency by the factor $(1+\delta f_{err}r_n)$, with $\delta f_{err}$ the rms (relative) frequency error and $r_n$ a random number with rms 1. Doing this, considering a uniform distribution in frequency errors with rms $\delta f_{err}=10^{-4}$, Fig. \[fires2\] becomes Fig. \[fires3\]. Note that this perturbation is small compared to the frequency spacing $5.7\times10^{-4}$, so it does not really change the frequency distribution significantly. Nevertheless, because of resonance-like behavior we can see a large effect on $S_M$ throughout the range between the horns of Fig. \[fires2\] ($10.68\leq {\bar f}\Delta t\leq 11.32$). To model cell-to-cell misalignments, we multiply each term in the sum of Eq. \[equnib\] by the random factor $r_n$. The results, for a uniform distribution of errors with rms 1, are shown in Fig. \[fires4\]. Again resonance-like behavior is seen throughout the range between the horns of Fig. \[fires2\]. We can understand these results in the following manner: Only when there are no errors does using a uniform frequency distribution suppress the resonance in the region near the integer resonance. But otherwise, using a uniform frequency distribution basically only reduces the size of the resonances, at the expense of extending the range in bunch spacings where they can be excited. Instead of being localized in the region near the integer resonance (${\bar f}\Delta t\approx n$), resonance-like behavior can now be excited anywhere between the limits $$({\bar f}\Delta t)_\pm ={n\over1\mp\Delta_{\delta f}/2}\quad.$$ Note that this implies that if $\Delta_{\delta f}>1/({\bar f}\Delta t)$, then the resonance-like behavior cannot be avoided no matter what bunch spacing (fractional part) is chosen. For example, for the X-band linac in the NLC, where the total width of the dipole frequency distribution (of the dominant first band modes) is 10%, even for the alternate (1.4 ns) bunch spacing, where the integer part of ${\bar f}\Delta t$ is 21, the resonance region cannot be avoided. [^1]: Work supported by Department of Energy contract DE–AC03–76SF00515. [^2]: This equation is a slightly generalized form of an equation given in Ref. [@static]. [^3]: Note that the terms $y_0 e^{iL/\beta}$ in Eq. \[eqypert\], related to free betatron oscillation, also need to be modified in well-known ways to reflect the dependence of $\beta$ on $E$. It is the other terms, however, which characterize BBU, in which we are interested.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We tackle the problem of understanding visual ads where given an ad image, our goal is to rank appropriate human generated statements describing the purpose of the ad. This problem is generally addressed by jointly embedding images and candidate statements to establish correspondence. Decoding a visual ad requires inference of both semantic and symbolic nuances referenced in an image and prior methods may fail to capture such associations especially with weakly annotated symbols. In order to create better embeddings, we leverage an attention mechanism to associate image proposals with symbols and thus effectively aggregate information from aligned multimodal representations. We propose a multihop co-attention mechanism that iteratively refines the attention map to ensure accurate attention estimation. Our attention based embedding model is learned end-to-end guided by a max-margin loss function. We show that our model outperforms other baselines on the benchmark Ad dataset and also show qualitative results to highlight the advantages of using multihop co-attention.' author: - | Karuna Ahuja Karan Sikka Anirban Roy Ajay Divakaran\ [(karuna.ahuja, karan.sikka, anirban.roy, ajay.divakaran)@sri.com]{}\ SRI International, Princeton, NJ bibliography: - 'egbib.bib' title: 'Understanding Visual Ads by Aligning Symbols and Objects using Co-Attention' --- onedot[let@token..]{} Ø ł Introduction ============ We address the problem of understanding visual advertisement which is a special case of visual content analysis [@hussain2017automatic]. While current vision approaches can successfully address object [@krishna2017visual; @kiros2014unifying; @lin2014microsoft] and scene [@zhou2014learning; @girshick2014rich; @cordts2016cityscapes] centric interpretations of an image, deeper subjective interpretations such as rhetoric, symbolism, . remain challenging and have drawn limited attention from the vision community. ![[]{data-label="vis"}](127720.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} Recently, visual ad-understanding has been addressed by Hussain et al. [@hussain2017automatic] and a dataset has been introduced to evaluate ad-understanding approaches. The authors introduce several sub-problems such as identifying the underlying topics in the ad, predicting the sentiments and symbolism referenced in the ads, associating an action and corresponding reason in response to an ad. In this work, we target understanding of ad images by formulating the task as mutimodal matching of the image and its corresponding human generated statements [@ye2017advise]. These statements were obtained from annotators by asking them to answer questions such as “I should do this because”. [@hussain2017automatic]. Note that for interpreting the rhetoric conveyed by an ad image, we need to exploit the semantic, symbolic, and sentimental references made in the image. Moreover, these alternate references are correlated and influence each other to convey a specific message. For example, an ad corresponding to symbols ‘humor’ and ‘fun’ are likely to invoke ‘amused’ sentiment rather than ‘sad’. Thus, we consider the interactions between these references for interpreting ads in the proposed approach. Currently, the amount of labeled data for the task of understanding ads is limited as annotating images with symbols and sentiments is both subjective and ambiguous. To tackle these challenges, we propose a novel weakly supervised learning (WSL) algorithm that learns to effectively combine multiple references present in an image by using an iterative co-attention mechanism. In this work, we focus only on semantic references (made via visual content) and symbolic references, and later discuss ideas for including sentiments and object information within our model. We first obtain scores for symbolic and other references made in an image by using pretrained model trained on labeled data [@hussain2017automatic]. These scores describe symbols at an image level instead at a region-level granularity due to the difficulty of labeling region-symbol associations. This is often referred to as WSL setting [@roy2017combining; @durand2016weldon; @kar2017adascan] and poses specific challenges in understanding ads as different regions are generally associated with different symbols. As previously mentioned, we pose decoding ads as a multimodal matching problem and use Visual Semantic Embeddings (VSE) [@kiros2014unifying] to jointly embed an image and sentence to a common vector space for establishing correspondence. However, due to the ambiguity of region-label associations, VSE may fail to correctly align visual regions with symbolic references and thus unable to fuse information in an optimal manner for decoding the ad. This motivates us to leverage an attention driven approach [@bahdanau2014neural; @xu2015show], where the prediction task is used to guide the alignment between the input modalities by predicting attention maps. For example, in Visual Question Answering (VQA) the task of predicting answers is used to train the question to image attention module [@lu2016hierarchical; @anderson2017bottom; @das2017human]. Attention has been shown to improve tasks such as VQA [@lu2016hierarchical], object and scene understanding [@roy2017combining; @durand2016weldon], action recognition [@kar2017adascan; @sharma2015action; @girdhar2017attentional]. Commonly used top-down attention identifies the discriminative regions of an image based on the final task [@ye2017advise; @teh2016attention]. In ad understanding, image regions may be associated with multiple symbols. Thus the standard top-down attention may get confused due to the many-to-many mappings between image regions and image labels. To address this issue, we consider co-attention [@lu2016hierarchical; @nam2016dual] to implement an alternating attention from a set of image-level symbols to image regions and vice-versa. Moreover, recent works demonstrate that the attention maps can be refined in subsequent iterations [@nam2016dual; @xu2016ask; @yang2016stacked]. Thus, we consider multi-hop attention (fig. \[vis\]) between image regions and symbols where the attention is computed iteratively while attention estimation in current step depends on the attention from the previous step. We finally fuse information from attended image and symbols from different iterations for multimodal embedding. We also leverage bottom-up and top-down attention [@ye2017advise; @anderson2017bottom] by estimating attention on object proposals leading to improved alignments. Our work differs from the work by Ye [@ye2017advise] which uses (top-down) attention to attend to image regions and combine additional information from other references by simple fusion and additional learning constraints. Moreover, our model is principled in using attention to fuse information from visual and other modalities by using co-attention with multiple hops. Our initial experiments show that adopting co-attention with multiple hops outperforms the standard top-down and bottom-up attention in terms of overall ad-understanding performance. Approach ======== ![[]{data-label="block"}](block.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} We propose a co-attention based VSE approach, referred to as VSE-CoAtt, for jointly embedding advertisements and their corresponding ad messages. VSE-CoAtt estimates attention for image regions by using symbol information and subsequently uses the attended image to predict attention for image symbols. This co-attention formulation allows our method to align visual and symbol modalities and fuse them effectively. We also propose a multihop version of our algorithm, referred to as VSE-CoAtt-2, that iteratively refines attention masks for the two modalities (visual and symbolic) and summarizes the information to compute similarity with an ad statement (fig. \[block\]). We denote an ad image as $I \in \mathcal{R}^{M \times N \times 3}$. The given ground-truth statements are denoted as $Y=\{y_j\}_{j=1}^{N_m}$. We use an embedding to represent each word and use an LSTM [@hochreiter1997long] to encode a sentence, denoted as $\psi(y_j) \in R^{D_3}$. We use object proposals, denoted $\{b_i\}_{i=1}^{N}, b_i \in \mathcal{R}^{4}$ and $N=70$, to attend to salient image regions [@anderson2017bottom]. We use the curated list of $53$ symbols, denoted as $Z=\{z_k\}_{k=1}^{K}, z_k \in \mathcal{R}^{D_1}$, as provided by the authors of the dataset [@hussain2017automatic] and encode them using GloVe vector [@pennington2014glove]. We also assume that we have scores ($p_k$ for symbol $z_k$) either provided by a human annotator or predicted using another CNN. We use a CNN to extract features from each bounding box $b_i$ and denote them as $\phi(b_i) \in R^{D_2}$. We begin the iterations for our model by initializing the attended vector (also referred to as summary vector) for symbols (denoted as $\hat{s_0}$) by: $$\begin{aligned} \hat{s_0} = \frac{1}{K} \sum_k{z_k} \label{eq1}\end{aligned}$$ We compute the raw attention scores for the object proposals $b_i$ by using the attended symbol vector $\hat{s_0}$ as shown below. We use ${\text{softmax}}$ to normalize the attention scores, denoted as $\alpha^{I}_{i}$, and finally compute the summary vector $\hat{b_1}$ for images $$\begin{aligned} \alpha^{I}_{i} &= {\text{softmax}}(\tanh(\hat{s_0}^TW^T\phi(b_i)) \\ \hat{b_1} &= \sum_i{\alpha^{I}_{i} \phi(b_i)}\end{aligned}$$ where $W \in {D_2 \times D_1}$ is used to project visual features to the symbol space. We use a number subscript in $\hat{s}$ and $\hat{b}$ to denote the iteration index for the multihop version. We use a similar operation to compute attention $\beta_{k}^{Z}$ for symbol $z_k$ using the previously attended image vector $\hat{b}_1$ as shown below: $$\begin{aligned} \beta^{Z}_{k} &= {\text{softmax}}(\tanh(z_k^{T} W^T \hat{b_1})) \end{aligned}$$ We use the given symbol probabilities to weigh the attention maps so as to focus on symbols present in the image as shown below: $$\begin{aligned} \hat{s_1} &= \sum_k{\beta^{Z}_{k} p_k z_k}\end{aligned}$$ We consider co-attention with only two hops to avoid overfitting. We obtain the final features for visual and symbol modalities by fusing the attended vectors at different iterations using an addition operation $f_{IZ} = \sum_t W^T \hat{b_t} + \hat{s_t}$. Similar to Kiros [@kiros2014unifying], we first linearly project $f_{IZ}$ and then use cosine similarity to compute similarity $S_l$ between $f_{IZ}$ and the $l^{th}$ ad statements $y_{l}$. In order to learn the model parameters, we use a max-margin based ranking loss which enforces the matching score of an image-symbol pair to be higher with its true sentences and vice-versa. We define loss for a training sample pair $I, Z$ with ground-truth ad messages $Y$ as: $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{L}(I, Z, Y, \theta) = \sum_{y_j \in Y} \sum_{y_l \notin Y} \max(0, m - S_{j} + S_{l})\end{aligned}$$ Experiments =========== **Dataset:** Following Ye [@ye2017advise], we evaluate the task of visual ad understanding by matching ad images to their corresponding human generated sentences on the Ads dataset [@hussain2017automatic]. We follow the data splits and experimental protocol used by Ye [@ye2017advise] and rank 50 statements (3 related and 47 unrelated from the same topic). Since the proposed model explores the possibility of including additional knowledge, we evaluate our approach on a subset of the ADs dataset which have at least one symbol annotation that belongs to one of the $53$ clusters as in [@hussain2017automatic]. Different from Ye , we make no distinction between the public service announcements (PSAs) and product ads and combine them during evaluation. During evaluation, we rank the $50$ statements for each image based on their similarity score and report mean of the top rank of the ground-truth statements for images (mean rank metric). Our dataset consists of $13,938$ images partitioned into $5$ cross-validation splits- provided by [@ye2017advise]. **Implementation details:** We extract the features from images (and boxes) using ResNet-101 and consider top $70$ object proposals [@zitnick2014edge]. We experimented with regions proposals trained on the symbol bounding boxes, as in [@ye2017advise] but found the performance to be lower. For learning, we use an Adam [@kingma2014adam] optimizer with a learning rate of $5e^{-4}$. We implement several baselines as shown in tab. \[results\_1\] and use the same features and learning settings for a fair comparison. The baseline VSE model [@kiros2014unifying] with attention (VSE-Att) and without attention (VSE) use features before and after the average pooling layer respectively. Since our model builds on a bottom-up and top-down attention framework, [@anderson2017bottom] that uses object proposals instead of feature maps for attention, we also implement two variants of VSE with object proposals: 1) using average pooling (VSE-P) and 2) using attention over the proposals (VSE-P-Att) (similar to Ye [@ye2017advise]). We implement four variants of our algorithm that include a single hop co-attention (VSE-CoAtt), a two hop co-attention (VSE-CoAtt-2), and two similar implementations (VSE-CoAtt-wt and VSE-CoAtt-2-wt) that weigh the symbol initialization (eq. \[eq1\]) with symbol probabilities $p_k$. Results and Ablation Studies ---------------------------- As show in the Tab. \[results\_1\], proposed VSE-CoAtt-2 outperforms all the baseline which justifies the importance of multihop co-attention for ad-understanding. For example, considering attention cues, VSE-CoAtt-2 achieves a lower mean rank of $6.58$ than VSE (mean rank $7.79$) which does not consider attention. The advantage of using co-attention is evident in the performance of VSE-CoAtt (rank of $6.68$) versus VSE-P-Att (rank of $7.35$), that uses a fixed attention template for the visual modality. We also observe benefit of using multiple hops, that aggregates information from multiple steps of visual and symbol attention, while comparing the mean rank of $6.68$ of VSE-CoAtt versus mean rank of $6.58$ of VSE-CoAtt-2. The results while using per-symbol probabilities for initializing iterations for attention seem to be lower for both with and without multihop attention. This could be happening due to overfitting since we only have a few number of images. Conclusion and Future Work ========================== We propose a novel approach leveraging multihop co-attention for understanding visual ads. Our model uses multiple iterations of attention to summarize visual and symbolic cues for an ad image. We perform multimodal embedding of images and statements to establish their correspondence. Our experiments show the advantages of multihop co-attention over vanilla attention for ad-understanding. Beyond the presented work, we are currently working on incorporating additional cues such as sentiments and objects inside our model. To resolve the problem of limited training data for subjective references, we are using weakly labeled data on the internet to train models and form associations between objects and symbols. We plan to use these associations to regularize the predicted attention by our model. Appendix ======== In this section we show some additional results and provide some more details about the algorithm. We display results for four visual ads corresponding to fast food, road violence, gun violence, and road safety respectively as shown in figure.\[fig\_all\]. We observe that our algorithm is able to both identify as well as refine symbol and image attention in multiple iterations. For , in the advertisement on road safety (last row), the algorithm refines symbol attention in the second hop by shifting attention from unrelated symbols like ‘power’ and ’hunger’ to relevant symbols such as ‘danger’ and ‘safety’ over the course of multihop iterations. Weakly supervised algorithms often suffer from the problem of identifying the most discriminative region(s) in an image. Hence, they may fail to cover all possible salient regions and result in overfitting. To prevent this problem, we apply a heuristic technique wherein for a given $n^{th}$ iteration, we suppress the image attention scores (prior to softmax operation) of the regions which received scores greater than or equal to $0.7$ times the highest score in ${n-1}^{th}$ iteration. We manually set the scores to a low value ($-2$). Although this simple step improved the results, we need to further investigate the use of additional constraints ( spatial and semantic) to discover other salient regions. \[fig\_all\] ![[]{data-label="fig_all"}](19043.pdf "fig:"){width=".5\columnwidth"}\ ![[]{data-label="fig_all"}](41264.pdf "fig:"){width=".5\columnwidth"}\ ![[]{data-label="fig_all"}](45966.pdf "fig:"){width=".5\columnwidth"}\ ![[]{data-label="fig_all"}](127419.pdf "fig:"){width=".5\columnwidth"}\

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'The Hermitian Hamiltonian of a spin one-half particle with spin-orbit coupling (SOC) confined to a surface that is embedded in a three-dimensional space spanned by a general Orthogonal Curvilinear Coordinate (OCC) is constructed. A gauge field formalism, where the SOC is expressed as a non-Abelian $SU(2)$ gauge field is used. A new practical approach, based on the physical argument that upon confining the particle to the surface by a potential, then it is the physical Hermitian momentum operator transverse to the surface, rather than just the derivative with respect to the transverse coordinate that should be dropped from the Hamiltonian.Doing so, it is shown that the Hermitian Hamiltonian for SOC is obtained with the geometric potential and the geometric kinetic energy terms emerging naturally. The geometric potential is shown to represent a coupling between the transverse component of the gauge field and the mean curvature of the surface that replaces the coupling between the transverse momentum and the gauge field. The most general Hermitian Hamiltonian with linear SOC on a general surface embedded in any 3D OCC system is reported. Explicit plug-and-play formulae for this Hamiltonian on the surfaces of a cylinder, a sphere and a torus are given. The formalism is applied to the Rashba SOC in three dimensions (3D RSOC) and the explicit expressions for the surface Hamiltonians on these three geometries are worked out.' author: - 'M. S. Shikakhwa' - 'N. Chair' title: 'Hermitian spin-orbit Hamiltonians on a surface in orthogonal curvilinear coordinates: a new practical approach' --- Introduction ============ There has been a revival of interest in two-dimensional electron and hole systems with spin-orbit coupling (SOC) motivated by recent developments in spintronics. [@spintronics]. The magnetic field induced by the SOC may be tuned by varying the electric potential felt by the charge carriers in the crystal, thus providing a mechanism for spin current generation and manipulation. So far,two major types of SOC mechanisms have been receiving the most interset; the one resulting from the structure inversion asymmetry, or the Rashba SOC (RSOC)[@rashba], while the second is due to the bulk inversion asymmetry and known as Dresselhaus SOC (DSOC)[@dresselhaus]. An approach to investigate SOC systems that has gained some popularity recently is the non-Abelian gauge field formulation of the SOC [@Jin.et.al-JPA; @Dartora08; @shikakhwa12]. The idea introduced in [@frohlich93] is based on noting that a linear SOC ; $\beta{\boldsymbol{p}}\cdot({\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\wedge{\boldsymbol{E}})$ can be expressed in terms of a non-Abelian gauge field ${\boldsymbol{W}}$ related to the electric field ${\boldsymbol{E}}$ generating the SOC as $-gW_i^a \sigma^a= 2m\beta\epsilon_{iaj}E_j$, (${\boldsymbol{p}}$ is the momentum operator, $\sigma^i$’s are the Pauli spin matrices, and $\beta$ a constant related to the strength of the coupling), thus allowing one to write the Hamiltonian using the covariant derivatives as in Eq.(\[a\]) below. This approach has the advantage of allowing one to avail from the well-established full machinery of dealing with non-Abelian gauge fields; where ideas like gauge transformations, gauge invariance..etc. can be employed. Many authors have exploited this approach efficiently to reveal some interesting properties of 2D spin one-half systems with SOC . An interesting point in applying this approach to SOC systems is the fact that the gauge field ${\boldsymbol{W}}$ in this case - unlike the case in particle physics- is related to a physical field as is evident from its definition. Therefore, a gauge transformation, for example, amounts to a change in a physical field configuration , so a gauge-symmetric Hamiltonian describes systems with different field configurations that are unitarily-equivalent and iso-spectral.\ More recently, spin one-half particle systems with SOC in geometries other than planar started to attract attention as a result of the advances in nano technology which made it possible to synthesize objects like nano tubes and nano bubbles [@Romanov; @Turshin; @Son-Hsein; @2010; @Magaril99; @Hernando; @Jeong]. It has been known for sometime that attempting to write down the SOC Hamiltonians for reduced geometries by blindly following the pragmatic approach, where one simply “freezes” one of the coordinates and writes the Hamiltonian accordingly by dropping the corresponding derivatives gives rise to non-Hermitian Hamiltonians [@meijer; @Lyanda-Geller]. Therefore, many authors [@Entin; @and; @Magaril; @u; @shape; @cheng; @exact] turned to the so-called thin layer quantization approach [@Costa] to formulate the correct Hamiltonian on general curved geometries. This approach provides a systematic way of confining a system to a curved surface embedded in a full three dimensional general curvilinear coordinate system by introducing a confining potential to freeze the coordinate normal to the surface and decouple it from the surface Hamiltonian. The results, however, are in most cases applied to to conventional geometries like ring, sphere and cylinder which can be described using *orthogonal* curvilinear coordinate systems.\ The present work presents a new, simple and physics-based approach to address the problem of writing the Hamiltonian of a spin one-half particle with *linear* SOC confined to a surface that is embedded in a general *orthogonal* curvilinear coordinate(OCC) using the gauge field formulation of SOC. It is based on the simple observation that when the particle is squeezed to a surface by a confining potential, then one drops from the Hamiltonian the physical momentum transverse to he surface, rather than just the derivative of the transverse coordinate. In doing so,the surface Hamiltonian acquires the well-known geometric potential and is rendered Hermitian; the geometric kinetic energy term emerges naturally as well. Moreover, it is shown that for a constant SOC the geometric potential is actually a coupling of the gauge field ${\boldsymbol{W}}$ to the mean curvature of the surface, thus providing a physical interpretation of this term.\ In section 2, the general formalism is introduced, and the Hermitian Hamiltonian with any linear SOC on a surface embedded in a 3D space spanned by OCC system is derived. Three special geometries are then considered; a cylinder, a sphere and a torus. General expressions valid for any linear SOC for the Hermitian Hamiltonians on these surfaces are derived.Section 3 applies the formalism to the RSOC, where the Hermitian Hamiltonians on the surfaces of a cylinder and a sphere reported earlier in the literature are derived, and the Hamiltonian for the RSOC on the surface of a torus is worked out. Discussion and conclusions are given in section 4.\  General Hermitian Hamiltonian on a surface in OCC’s =================================================== The Hamiltonian of a spin one-half particle of mass $m$ subject to a general linear spin-orbit coupling (SOC) has the general form: $$\begin{aligned} \label{a} H=&\frac{{\boldsymbol{p}}^{2}}{2m}-\frac{g}{m}{\boldsymbol{W}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{p}} \\ =&\frac{({\boldsymbol{p}}-g{\boldsymbol{W}})^{2}}{2m}-\frac{g^{2}}{2m}{\boldsymbol{W}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{W}}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\boldsymbol{W}}$ is a (three)two-component non-Abelian gauge field $\mathbf{W}=\vec{W}^a \sigma^{a}$ (or $\mathbf{W}_i=W_i^a \sigma^a$) with $i,a=1..3$. In this work we will use $a,b,c,...$ to refer to group indices and $i,j,k...$ to refer to space indices. Evidently, the above Hamiltonian is not gauge-invariant due to the presence of the gauge-symmetry breaking term $\frac{g^{2}}{2m}{\boldsymbol{W}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{W}}$ [@shikakhwa12]. Recall that in a source-free region ${\boldsymbol{\nabla}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{W}}=0$ as a result of ${\boldsymbol{\nabla}}\times {\boldsymbol{E}}=0$. In a general orthogonal curvilinear coordinate (OCC) with coordinates $u_i$ , this Hamiltonian takes the explicit form: $$\label{OCC H} H=\frac{-\hbar^2}{2m}\nabla^2+\frac{i\hbar g}{m}(\frac{1}{h_1}W_1\partial_1+\frac{1}{h_2}W_2\partial_2+\frac{1}{h_3}W_3\partial_3)$$ $h_1 ,h_2$ and $h_3$ are the well-known [@Arfken] scale factors of the OCC’s defined in terms of the derivatives of the position vector ${\boldsymbol{r}}$ as $\frac{\partial{\boldsymbol{r}}}{\partial u_i}=h_i{\boldsymbol{\hat{e}}}_i$, where ${\boldsymbol{\hat{e}}}_i$’s are the orthogonal unit vectors of the OCC system, and we use $\partial_i\equiv\frac{\partial}{\partial u_i}$ . A surface embedded in the space spanned by the OCC is defined by setting one coordinate that has the dimensions of length; $u_3$ say,( thus has a scale factor $h_3=1$ ) to a constant, e.g.$u_3=a$. Confining the particle to this surface can then be achieved by introducing a confining potential $V(u_3)$ - not shown in the above Hamiltonian- that squeezes the particle into a thin layer around $a$ and then taking the limit $u_3arrow a$ . In a pragmatic approach to write down the Hamiltonian of a particle thus confined to the surface, the derivatives $\partial_3$ is set to zero in the above Hamiltonian on the grounds that $u_3$ is a constant on the surface. The resulting Hamiltonian is : $$\label{surface H} H^{surf.}=\frac{-\hbar^2}{2m}\nabla'^2+\frac{i\hbar g}{m}(\frac{1}{h_1}W_1\partial_1+\frac{1}{h_2}W_2\partial_2)$$ where $$\label{laplacian prime} \frac{-\hbar^2}{2m}\nabla'^2=\frac{-\hbar^2}{2m}(\frac{1}{h_1 h_2 h_3})(\partial_1\frac{h_2 h_3}{h_1}\partial_1+\partial_2\frac{h_1 h_3}{h_2}\partial_2)$$ is the Laplacian operator at the surface. Evidently, the above Hamiltonian is not Hermitian in the sense [@Griffiths] $\langle \Psi|H\Psi\rangle\neq\langle H\Psi|\Psi\rangle$ on the surface . Moreover, this approach fails to generate the geometric kinetic energy term that appears in the thin layer quantization [@Costa].\ We now, introduce a new approach to the problem, that is both physically sound and practical, and gives a Hermitian Hamiltonian with the geometric kinetic energy term emerging naturally. We start by noting that the physical momentum in the OCC is not simply the non-Hermitian operator $-i\hbar\partial_3$ ! One can check easily that it is $$\label{hermitian p} p_3=-i\hbar(\frac{1}{h_3}\partial_3+\frac{1}{2h_1 h_2 h_3}\partial_3(h_1 h_2))$$ that turns out to be Hermitian. Now, noting the following two relations: $$\label{p3} \frac{i\hbar g}{m}(\frac{1}{h_3}W_3\partial_3)=\frac{- g}{m}W_3 p_3-\frac{i\hbar g}{m}W_3(\frac{1}{2h_1 h_2 h_3}\partial_3(h_1 h_2))$$, $$\label{p3 square} \frac{-\hbar^2}{2m}\nabla^2=\frac{p_3^2}{2m}+\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}(\frac{\partial_3^2(h_1 h_2)}{2h_1 h_2}-\frac{(\partial_3(h_1 h_2))^2}{(2h_1 h_2)^2})-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\nabla'^2$$ we can cast the Hamiltonian, Eq.(\[OCC H\]), in the form: $$\label{OCC H p3} H= \frac{p_3^2}{2m}+\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}(\frac{\partial_3^2(h_1 h_2)}{2h_1 h_2}-\frac{(\partial_3(h_1 h_2))^2}{(2h_1 h_2)^2})-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\nabla'^2-\frac{ g}{m}W_3 p_3-\frac{i\hbar g}{m}W_3(\frac{1}{2h_1 h_2 h_3}\partial_3(h_1 h_2))+\frac{i\hbar g}{m}(\frac{1}{h_1}W_1\partial_1+\frac{1}{h_2}W_2\partial_2)$$ Now, we make the following argument: SOC has its physical origin as a coupling between the magnetic field induced in the rest frame of the moving particle by the electric field ( expressed in the original Cartesian Hamiltonian as a coupling with the gauge field;$\frac{g}{m}{\boldsymbol{W}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{p}}$ ). Therefore, as the confining potential squeezes the particle so that it is trapped at the surface, it is natural that it will not “feel” the magnetic filed due to its transverse motion since this motion is frozen. Setting $p_3$ to zero in the above Hamiltonian exactly achieves this by decoupling $W_3$ from the Hamiltonian. Moreover, the contribution of $p_3$ to the kinetic energy, i.e. the $\frac{p_3^2}{2m}$ term also drops. The two surviving new terms in the above Hamiltonian; the second and the fifth, are respectively, the geometric kinetic energy [@Costa] and the geometric potential [@u; @shape; @exact; @Entin; @and; @Magaril]. Indeed, one can check (see the appendix) that : $$\label{geometric K} \frac{\hbar^2}{2m}(\frac{\partial_3^2(h_1 h_2)}{2h_1 h_2}-\frac{(\partial_3(h_1 h_2))^2}{(2h_1 h_2)^2})=-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}(M^2-K),$$ where $M$ and $K$ are the mean and the Gaussian curvatures, respectively, in complete agreement with the thin layer quantization [@Costa]. As for the geometrical potential, it is easy to see that it is can be expressed as: $$\label{geometric potential} -\frac{i\hbar g}{m}W_3(\frac{1}{2h_1 h_2 h_3}\partial_3(h_1 h_2))=\frac{i\hbar g}{m}W_3 M$$ which couples the gauge field to the mean curvature of the surface. Since the confining potential freezes the transverse component of the momentum and at the same time introduces curvature into space by physically defining the surface, then we can view this term as “replacing” the coupling of the gauge field to the transverse momentum. This result supports the physical picture we are drawing. In the work [@Jensen], which discusses confining a particle in an electromagnetic field to a surface, similar term coupling the transverse component of the electromagnetic vector potential to the mean curvature was shown to appear. In that work, that term was undesirable as it represented a curvature contribution to the orbital magnetic moment of the particle. In our case, it does not carry such a meaning and its appearance is welcomed, even crucial as we now show. We first note that the condition ${\boldsymbol{\nabla}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{W}}=0$ implies for a *constant Cartesian vector* ${\boldsymbol{W}}$ that: $$\label{div w} W_3(\frac{1}{2h_1 h_2 h_3})\partial_3(h_1 h_2)=-W_3M=\frac{-1}{2h_1 h_2 h_3}(\partial_1(h_2 h_3 W_1)+\partial_2(h_2 h_3 W_2))=\frac{-1}{2}{\boldsymbol{\nabla'}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{W'}}$$ where primes again indicates quantities on the surface and the absence of the third components. Using this, we can write the surface Hamiltonian as: $$\label{most general H} H^{surf.}_{Herm.}=\frac{-\hbar^2}{2m}\nabla'^2-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}(M^2-K)+\frac{i\hbar g}{m}(\frac{1}{h_1}W_1\partial_1+\frac{1}{h_2}W_2\partial_2)+\frac{i\hbar g}{2m}(\frac{1}{h_1h_2h_3}) (\partial_1(h_2h_3W_1)+\partial_2(h_1h_3W_2))$$ The above equation provides the the most general Hermitian Hamiltonian with a linear SOC on a surface in any OCC system. We stress here that the last term in the above Hamiltonian plays a crucial role in establishing Hermicity. Our equation (\[div w\]) provides the physical origin of this term. One can recast this Hamiltonian using covariant derivatives in the form $$\begin{aligned} \label{H covariant} H^{surf.}_{Herm.}&=\frac{-\hbar^2}{2m}((\hat{u}_1(\frac{1}{h_1}\partial_1-\frac{ig}{\hbar}W_1)+(\hat{u}_2(\frac{1}{h_2}\partial_2-\frac{ig}{\hbar}W_2))^2- \frac{g^{2}}{2m}{\boldsymbol{W'}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{W'}}-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}(M^2-K)\\\nonumber & =\frac{-\hbar^2}{2m}(\hat{u}_1D_1+\hat{u}_2D_2)^2-\frac{g^{2}}{2m}{\boldsymbol{W'}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{W'}}-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}(M^2-K)\\\nonumber &=\frac{-\hbar^2}{2m}({\boldsymbol{D'}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{D'}})-\frac{g^{2}}{2m}{\boldsymbol{W'}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{W'}}-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}(M^2-K)\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined the covariant derivatives $D_k=(\frac{1}{h_k}\partial_k-\frac{ig}{\hbar}W_k), k=1,2$, and the prime, again, denotes quantities on the surface and the absence of the 3-component.\ Table \[table1\] provides the h-factors, $p_3$’s and the geometric kinetic energies (GKE)for cylindrical, spherical and the torus (see figure) coordinates. The results for the GKE’s coincide with the well-known ones reported in the literature [@exact; @ferrari], and those for $p_r$ in cylindrical and spherical polar coordinates are the standard text book expressions for those operators. It is now straightforward to write down the Hermitian Hamiltonians in these three main OCC systems. OCC h-factors $p_3$’s GKE ------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Cylindrical $u_1=\theta, u_2=z, u_3=r; h_\theta=r,h_z=h_r=1$ $ p_r=-i\hbar(\partial_r+\frac{1}{2r})$ $\frac{-\hbar^2}{8ma^2}$ Spherical $u_1=\theta, u_2=\phi, u_3=r; h_\theta=r,h_\phi=r\sin\theta, h_r=1$ $ p_r=-i\hbar(\partial_r+\frac{1}{r})$ 0 Torus $u_1=\theta, u_2=\phi, u_3=q; h_\theta=r+q,h_\phi=R+(r+q)\cos\theta, h_q=1$ $ p_q=-i\hbar(\partial_q+\frac{(R+2(r+q)\cos\theta}{2(r+q)(R+r+q)\cos\theta})$ $\frac{-\hbar^2 R^2}{8mr^2(R+r\cos\theta)^2}$ : The h-factors, $p_3$’s and GKE for cylindrical, spherical and torus coordinates. The expression for GKE is calculated by setting $u_3=r=a$ at the surfaces of a cylinder and a sphere, and $u_3=q=0$ at the surface of the torus[]{data-label="table1"} In cylindrical coordinates the Hermitian Hamiltonian on the surface of a cylinder of radius $a$ is : $$\label{cyl} H^{cyl.}_{Herm.}=\frac{-\hbar^2}{2m}(\hat{\theta}D_\theta+\hat{z}D_z)^2-\frac{g^{2}}{2m}(W_\theta^2+W_z^2)+\frac{-\hbar^2}{8ma^2}$$ with, $$\label{cov cyl} D_\theta=(\frac{1}{a}\partial_\theta-\frac{ig}{\hbar}W_\theta),D_z=(\partial_z-\frac{ig}{\hbar}W_z).$$ Dropping the $z-$dependence, one gets the Hermitian Hamiltonian on a ring of radius $a$.On the surface of a sphere of radius $a$,the Hamiltonian takes the form: $$\label{sph} H^{sph.}_{Herm.}=\frac{-\hbar^2}{2m}(\hat{\theta}D_\theta+\hat{\phi}D_\phi)^2-\frac{g^{2}}{2m}(W_\theta^2+W_\phi^2)$$ with, $$\label{cov sph} D_\theta=(\frac{1}{a}\partial_\theta-\frac{ig}{\hbar}W_\theta),D_\phi=(\frac{1}{a\sin\phi}\partial_\phi-\frac{ig}{\hbar}W_\phi).$$ Finally, for a torus we have the Hermitian Hamiltonian on the surface of the torus ($qarrow 0$) as: $$\label{torus} H^{tor}_{Herm.}=\frac{-\hbar^2}{2m}(\hat{\theta}D_\theta+\hat{\phi}D_\phi)^2-\frac{g^{2}}{2m}(W_\theta^2+W_\phi^2)+\frac{-\hbar^2 R^2}{8mr^2(R+r\cos\theta)^2}$$ with, $$\label{cov tor} D_\theta=(\frac{1}{r}\partial_\theta-\frac{ig}{\hbar}W_\theta), D_\phi=(\frac{1}{R+r\cos\theta}\partial_\phi-\frac{ig}{\hbar}W_\phi)$$ Equations (\[cyl\]-\[cov tor\]) are the most general expressions for Hermitian Hamiltonians with any linear SOC on the surfaces of a cylinder, sphere and torus, and provide a sort of plug-and-play formulae to find the explicit Hamiltonians for any linear SOC on these surfaces. In the following section, we will be applying these to write down the explicit Hamiltonians for the case of 3D RSOC. Application to 3d rsoc ====================== We now apply the formalism to the isotropic 3D RSOC with coupling strength $\alpha$ that was also considered in [@exact]. The RSOC is casted in the form of a gauge field as: $$\label{} -\frac{g}{m}{\boldsymbol{W}}=\frac{\alpha}{\hbar}(\sigma_z-\sigma_y,\sigma_x-\sigma_z,\sigma_y-\sigma_x)$$ Now, the question of applying the formalism developed in the previous section to this RSOC, is almost reduced to expressing the above RSOC gauge field in cylilndrical,spherical, and torus coordinates. The procedure is straightforward and the results are summarized in Table 1. Plugging the expressions for the various components of the gauge field into Eqs.(\[cyl\]),(\[sph\]) and (\[torus\]) gives, respectively, the explicit exact Hermitian Hamiltonians of 3D RSOC on the surfaces of a cylinder,sphere and torus.\ OCC $ W_1,W_2$ and $W_3 $ ------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cylindrical $ W_1=W_\theta=-(\frac{m\alpha}{g\hbar})(-\sigma_z(\cos\theta+\sin\theta)+{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\cdot \hat{r})$ $W_2= W_z=-(\frac{m\alpha}{g\hbar})(\sigma_y-\sigma_x)$ $W_3= W_r=-(\frac{m\alpha}{g\hbar})(\sigma_z(\cos\theta-\sin\theta)-{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\cdot\hat\theta)$ Spherical $W_1= W_\theta=-(\frac{m\alpha}{g\hbar})(\sigma_x(\cos\theta\sin\phi+\sin\theta)-\sigma_y(\cos\theta\cos\phi+\sin\theta)+\sigma_z(\cos\theta\cos\phi-\cos\theta\sin\phi)$ $W_2=W_\phi=-(\frac{m\alpha}{g\hbar})(\sigma_x\cos\phi+\sigma_y\sin\phi-\sigma_z(\sin\phi+\cos\phi))$ $W_3=W_r=-(\frac{m\alpha}{g\hbar})(\sigma_x(\sin\theta\sin\phi-\cos\theta)+\sigma_y(\cos\theta-\sin\theta\cos\phi)+\sigma_z(\sin\theta\cos\phi-\sin\theta\sin\phi))$ Torus $W_1=W_\theta=-(\frac{m\alpha}{g\hbar})(-\sigma_x(\sin\theta\sin\phi+\cos\theta)+\sigma_y(\sin\theta\cos\phi+\cos\theta)+\sigma_z(\sin\theta\sin\phi-\sin\theta\cos\phi))$ $ W_2=W_\phi= -(\frac{m\alpha}{g\hbar})(\sigma_x\cos\phi+\sigma_y\sin\phi-\sigma_z(\sin\phi+\cos\phi))$ $W_3=W_q= -(\frac{m\alpha}{g\hbar})(\sigma_x(\cos\theta\sin\phi-\sin\theta)+\sigma_y(\sin\theta-\cos\theta\cos\phi)+\sigma_z(\cos\theta\cos\phi-\cos\theta\sin\phi))$ : The components of the RSOC gauge field $W_1,W_2 $ and $W_3$ for the major OCC’s[]{data-label="table"} So,we get the explicit Hermitian Hamiltonian on the surface of a cylinder, $$\begin{aligned} \label{exp cyl} H^{cyl.}_{R}=&\frac{-\hbar^2}{2m}(\hat{\theta}(\frac{1}{\theta}\partial_\theta+\frac{im\alpha}{\hbar^2}(-\sigma_z(\sin\theta+\cos\theta)+{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\cdot\hat{r}))+\hat{z}(\partial_z+\frac{im\alpha}{\hbar^2}(\sigma_y-\sigma_x)))^2 -\frac{g^2}{2m}(W_\theta^2+W_z^2)+\frac{-\hbar^2}{8ma^2} \\\nonumber =&\frac{-\hbar^2}{2m}(\frac{1}{a^2}\partial_\theta^2+\partial_z^2)+\frac{i\alpha}{a}(\sigma_z(\sin\theta+\cos\theta)- {\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\cdot\hat{r})\partial_\theta +i\alpha(\sigma_x-\sigma_y)\partial_z+\frac{i\alpha}{2a}(\sigma_z(\cos\theta-\sin\theta)-{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\cdot\hat{\theta})+\frac{-\hbar^2}{8ma^2},\end{aligned}$$ on the surface of a sphere, $$\begin{aligned} \label{exp sph} H^{sph.}_{R}&=&\frac{-\hbar^2}{2m}(\hat{\theta}\frac{1}{a}\partial_\theta+\frac{im\alpha}{\hbar^2}(\sigma_x(\cos\theta\sin\phi+\sin\theta)-\sigma_y(\cos\theta\cos\phi+\sin\theta)+ \sigma_z(\cos\theta\cos\phi-\cos\theta\sin\phi)). \\\nonumber &+&\hat{\phi}(\frac{1}{a\sin\theta}\partial_\phi+\frac{im\alpha}{\hbar^2}(\sigma_x\cos\phi+\sigma_y\sin\phi-\sigma_z(\sin\phi+\cos\phi)))^2-\frac{g^{2}}{2m}(W_\theta^2+W_\phi^2) \\\nonumber &=& \frac{-\hbar^2}{2m}(\frac{1}{a^2\sin\theta}\partial_\theta(\sin\theta\partial_\theta)+\frac{1}{a^2\sin^2\theta}\partial_\phi^2)-\frac{i\alpha}{a}(\sigma_x(\cos\theta\sin\phi+\sin\theta)-\sigma_y(\cos\theta\cos\phi+\sin\theta)\\\nonumber &-&\sigma_z(\cos\theta\cos\phi-\cos\theta\sin\phi))\partial_\theta-\frac{i\alpha}{a\sin\theta}(\sigma_x\cos\phi+\sigma_y\sin\phi-\sigma_z(\sin\phi+\cos\phi))\partial_\phi\\\nonumber &+&\frac{i\alpha}{2}(\sigma_x(\sin\theta\sin\phi-\cos\theta)+\sigma_y(\cos\theta-\sin\theta\cos\phi)+\sigma_z(\sin\theta\cos\phi-\sin\theta\sin\phi))(\frac{2}{a})\end{aligned}$$ and finally on the surface of a torus: $$\begin{aligned} \label{exp tor} H^{tor.}_{R}& =& \frac{-\hbar^2}{2m}(\hat{\theta}(\frac{1}{r}\partial_\theta+\frac{im\alpha}{\hbar^2}(-\sigma_x(\sin\theta\sin\phi+\cos\theta)+\sigma_y(\sin\theta\cos\phi+\cos\theta)+\sigma_z(\sin\theta\sin\phi-\sin\theta\cos\phi)).\\\nonumber &+&\hat{\phi}(\frac{1}{R+r\cos\theta}\partial_\phi+\frac{im\alpha}{\hbar^2}(\sigma_x\cos\phi+\sigma_y\sin\phi-\sigma_z(\sin\phi+\cos\phi))^2-\frac{g^{2}}{2m}(W_\theta^2+W_\phi^2)\\\nonumber &+&\frac{-\hbar^2 R^2}{8mr^2(R+r\cos\theta)^2}\\\nonumber&=& \frac{-\hbar^2}{2m}\big(\frac{1}{r^{2}}\partial_\theta^{2} -\frac{\sin\theta}{r(R+r\cos\theta)}\partial_\theta+\frac{1}{(R+r\cos\theta)^{2}}\partial_\phi^{2}\big)+i\alpha\big(\sigma_x(\sin\theta\sin\phi+\cos\theta)-\sigma_y(\sin\theta\cos\phi+\cos\theta)\\\nonumber&-&\sigma_z(\sin\theta\sin\phi-\sin\theta\cos\phi)\big)\frac{1}{r}\partial_{\theta}-\frac{i\alpha}{(R+r\cos\theta)}\big(\sigma_x\cos\phi+\sigma_y\sin\phi-\sigma_z(\sin\phi+\cos\phi)\big)\partial_{\phi}\\\nonumber &-&\frac{i\alpha(R+2r\cos\theta)}{2r(R+r\cos\theta)}\big(\sigma_x(\sin\theta-\cos\theta\sin\phi)+\sigma_y(\cos\theta\cos\phi-\sin\theta)+\sigma_z(\cos\theta\sin\phi-\cos\theta\cos\phi)\big)\\\nonumber &+&\frac{-\hbar^2 R^2}{8mr^2(R+r\cos\theta)^2} $$ The Hamiltonian for a ring of radius $a$ can be obtained from Eq.(\[exp cyl\]) by dropping the derivatives with respect to $z$. Eqs.(\[exp cyl\]) and (\[exp sph\]) - as expressed in their expanded forms after the second equality signs- are exactly, Eq.(16) and (19), respectively, in reference [@exact]. Eq.(\[exp tor\]) is reported for the first time to the best of our knowledge. The terms linear in $\alpha$ and not coupled to the derivatives in each of the above equations are the geometric potentials reported in this and other references[@Entin; @and; @Magaril; @u; @shape; @cheng]. conclusions =========== We have proposed a new physical practical approach to construct the Hermitian Hamiltonian of a spin one-half particle with linear SOC confined to a surface embedded in 3D in any OCC system within the gauge field formulation of SOC. The approach is based on the simple argument that as the particle is confined o a surface by a potential, then it is the transverse physical Hermitian momentum operator that needs to be dropped from the Hamiltonian rather than just the derivative with respect to the transverse coordinate as used to be done in the conventional practical approach to the problem. The approach, not only generates the geometric potential that renders the Hamiltonian Hermitian as well as the geometric kinetic energy term, it also provides a new physical interpretation of this geometric potential as a coupling of the transverse component of the gauge field to the mean curvature of the surface. As such, this approach substitutes the old practical approach to confine a particle to a surface embedded in 3D space spanned by an OCC system based on simply dropping the derivative with respect to the transverse coordinate from the Hamiltonian.It also can be considered as providing a physical interpretation for the very general and rigorous thin-layer quantization procedure.\ The development is simple, transparent and elegant: The main strength is that given any linear SOC Hamiltonian, we know now how to write down its corresponding Hermitian version , it is just Eq.(\[most general H\]) . This last Hermitian Hamiltonian is the most general Hermitian Hamiltonian for any linear SOC on a surface in any OCC system. The Hermitian Hamiltonians for any linear SOC on the three surfaces of practical value; a cylinder, a sphere and a torus were provided, which furnish a plug-and-play formulae for any linear SOC. The formalism is applied to the experimentally important 3D RSOC, where the Hermitian Hamiltonians on the surfaces of a sphere and a cylinder reported earlier by other methods are reproduced, and the Hermitian Hamiltonian on the surface of a torus is worked out. Closing, we note that the present approach can be easily applied to other interactions, e.g. a particle coupled to a $U(1)$ vector potential (electromagnetic field). The applicability of the approach to general curvilinear coordinates - not necessarily orthogonal- should not be difficult either, but still needs to be carefully analyzed. These questions are under current investigation. appendix ========= In this appendix we give derivations to Eq.(\[geometric K\]) and Eq. (\[geometric potential\]) using classical differential Geometry [@Forsyth; @Willmore]. To carry out our derivations, it is convenient to use notations from differential geometry of curved surfaces ${\boldsymbol{r}}={\boldsymbol{r}}(u_{1}, u_{2}) $ namely, $h_{1}=\sqrt{E}$, $h_{2}=\sqrt{G}$ and set $h_{3}=1$ and hence the first fundamental form on the surface is $$ds^{2}=h_{1}du_{1}^{2}+h_{2}du_{2}^{2}= Edu_{1}^{2}+Gdu_{2}^{2},$$ while the second fundamental form is $$Ldu_{1}^{2}+Ndu_{2}^{2}.$$ Here, $ L=-\frac{\partial{{\boldsymbol{N}}}}{\partial u_{1}}.\frac{\partial{\boldsymbol{r}}}{\partial u_{1}},$ and $N=-\frac{\partial{{\boldsymbol{N}}}}{\partial u_{2}}.\frac{\partial{\boldsymbol{r}}}{\partial u_{2}},$ ${\boldsymbol{N}} $ being the normal vector to the surface. The left-hand side of Eq. (\[geometric K\]), can be written as $$\label{geometric KA} \frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\Big(\frac{1}{4h_{1}^2 h_{2}^2}\Big(2h_{1}h_{2}^{2}(\partial_3^2h_1)+2h_{1}^{2}h_{2}(\partial_3^2h_2)+2h_{1}h_{2}(\partial_3h_1)(\partial_3h_2)-h_{2}^{2}(\partial_3h_1)^{2}-h_{1}^{2}(\partial_3h_2)^{2}\Big)\Big).$$ The above expression can be simplified using the Lame’s Equations [@Forsyth] that are reduced to $\partial_3^2h_1=0 $ and $\partial_3^2h_2=0 $. Furthermore, using the fact that $ L=-\frac{h_{1}}{h_{3}}(\partial_3h_1)$ and $ N=-\frac{h_{2}}{h_{3}}(\partial_3h_2)$, then Eq. (\[geometric KA\]) reads $$\begin{aligned} \label{geometric KAA} \frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\Big(\frac{1}{4h_{1}^2 h_{2}^2}\Big(2h_{1}h_{2}(\partial_3h_1)(\partial_3h_2)-h_{2}^{2}(\partial_3h_1)^{2}-h_{1}^{2}(\partial_3h_2)^{2}\Big)\Big)&=&-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\Big(\frac{L^{2}}{4E^{2}}+\frac{N^{2}}{4G^{2}}-\frac{2LN}{4EG}\Big)\nonumber\\&=&-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\Big( M^{2}-K\Big).\end{aligned}$$ Here, we used $ M=\frac{EN+GL}{2EG}$, $ K=\frac{LN}{2EG}$ corresponding to the mean curvature and curvature of the surface in the orthogonal curvilinear coordinates. We now move to derive Eq. (\[geometric potential\]). The left-hand side of the latter can be written as follows $$\begin{aligned} \label{geometric potentialA} -\frac{i\hbar g}{2m}W_3\Big(\frac{h_{1}(\partial_3h_1)}{h_1^{2} h_3}+\frac{h_{2}(\partial_3h_1)}{h_2^{2} h_3}\Big)&=&\frac{i\hbar g}{m}W_3\Big(\frac{LG+NE}{2EG}\Big)\nonumber\\&=&\frac{i\hbar g}{m}W_3 M\end{aligned}$$ [99]{} I. Žutić, J. Fabian and S. Das Sarma, Rev. Mod. Phys. **76**, 323 (2004). E. I. Rashba, Sov. Phys. Solid State **2**, 1109 (1960). G. Dresselhaus, Phys. Rev. **100**, 580 (1955). P-Q. Jin, Y-Q. Li and F-C. Zhang, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. **39**, 7115 (2006). C. A. Dartora and G. G. Cabrera, Phys. Rev. B **78**, 012403 (2008). M.S.Shikakhwa,S. Turgut, N.K.Pak, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. **45**, 105305 (2012). J. Fröhlich and U. M. Studer, Rev. Mod. Phys. **65**, 733 (1993). I. V. Tokatly, Phys. Rev. Lett. **101**, 106601 (2008). I. V. Tokatly, E.Ya.Sherman, Ann.Phys.**325**, 1104 (2010). S-H. Chen and C-R. Chang, Phys. Rev. B **77**, 045324 (2008). J-S. Yang, X-G. He, S-H. Chen and C-R. Chang, Phys. Rev. B **78**, 085312 (2008). E. Medina, A. Lopez and B. Berche, Eur. Phys. Lett. **83**, 47005 (2008). Berche, B., Bolívar, N., López, A., Medina, E. , The European Physical journal B **88**, 198 (2015). Magarill, L.I. and Romanov, D.A. and Chaplik, A.V,JETP Lett. **64** , 460 (1996). M. Trushin and J. Schliemann,New Journal of Physics **9** , 346 (2007). C-L.Chen et. al. ,J. App. Phys. **108** , 033715 (2010). L.I.Magarill, A.V Chaplik,JETP **88** , 815 (1999). D.Huertas-Hernando, F.Guinea, A.Brataas, Phys. Rev. B**74** , 155426 (2006). J-S. Jeong, H-W. Lee Lee, Phys. Rev. B**80** , 075409 (2009). F. E. Meijer, A. F. Morpurgo, T. M. Klapwijk, Phys. Rev. B**66** , 033107 (2002). A. G. Aronov, Y. B. Lyanda-Geller, Phys. Rev. B**70** , 343 (1993). M. V. Entin, L. I. Magarill, Phys. Rev. B**64** , 085330 (2001). M-H. Liu et. al., Phys. Rev. B **84**, 085307 (2011). T-C. Cheng, J-Y. Chen, and C-R. Chang, Phys. Rev. B **84**, 214423 (2011). J-Y. Chang, J-S. Wu, and C-R. Chang Phys. Rev. B **87** , 174413 (2013). R. C. T. da Costa, Phys. Rev. A **23**, 1982 (1981). G. Arfken, J.Weber *Mathematical Methods for Physicists, sixth edition*, Elsevier, 2005. D. Griffiths *Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, second edition*, Pearson Education limited, 2014. G. Ferrari and G.Coughi, Phys. Rev. Lett. **100**, 240403 (2008). B.Jensen and R.Dandoloff Phys. Rev. A **80**, 052109 (2009). A. R. Forsyth, Lectures on the differential geometry of curves and surfaces, second eddition, Cambridge University Press, 1920. T. J. Willmore, An Introduction to Differential Geometry, Oxford University Press 1959.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'A metric graph is a 1-dimensional stratified metric space consisting of vertices and edges or loops glued together. Metric graphs can be naturally used to represent and model data that take the form of noisy filamentary structures, such as street maps, neurons, networks of rivers and galaxies. We consider the statistical problem of reconstructing the topology of a metric graph embedded in $\mathbb{R}^D$ from a random sample. We derive lower and upper bounds on the minimax risk for the noiseless case and tubular noise case. The upper bound is based on the reconstruction algorithm given in @aanjaneya2012metric.' author: - | Fabrizio Lecci [email protected]\ Alessandro Rinaldo [email protected]\ Larry Wasserman [email protected]\ Department of Statistics\ Carnegie Mellon University\ Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA bibliography: - 'paper.bib' title: Statistical Analysis of Metric Graph Reconstruction --- Metric Graph, Filament, Reconstruction, Manifold Learning, Minimax Estimation Introduction ============ We are concerned with the problem of estimating the topology of filamentary data structure. Datasets consisting of points roughly aligned along intersecting or branching filamentary paths embedded in 2 or higher dimensional spaces have become an increasingly common type of data in a variety of scientific areas. For instance, road reconstruction based on GPS traces, localization of earthquakes faults, galaxy reconstruction are all instances of a more general problem of estimating basic topological features of an underlying filamentary structure. The recent paper by @aanjaneya2012metric, upon which our work is based, contains further applications, as well as numerous references. To provide a more concrete example, consider Figure \[plot3D\]. The left hand side displays raw data portraying a neuron from the hippocampus of a rat [@gulyas1999total]. The data were obtained from NeuroMorpho.Org [@ascoli2007neuromorpho]. The right hand side of the figure shows the output of the metric graph reconstruction obtained using the algorithm analyzed in this paper, originally proposed by @aanjaneya2012metric. The reconstruction, which takes the form of a graph, captures perfectly all the topological features of the neuron, namely, the relationship between the edges and vertices, the number of branching points and the degree of each node. Metric graphs provide the natural geometric framework for representing intersecting filamentary structures. A metric graph embedded in a $D$-dimensional Euclidean space ($D \geq 2$) is a 1-dimensional stratified metric space. It consists of a finite number of points (0-dimensional strata) and curves (1-dimensional strata) of finite length, where the boundary of each curve is given by a pair (of not-necessarily distinct) vertices (see the next section for a formal definition of a metric graph). In this paper we study the problem of reconstructing the topology of metric graphs from possibly noisy data, from a statistical point of view. Specifically, we assume that we have a sample of points from a distribution supported on a metric graph or in a small neighborhood and we are interested in recovering the topology of the corresponding metric graph. To this end, we use the metric graph reconstruction algorithm given in @aanjaneya2012metric. Furthermore, in our theoretical analysis we characterize explicitly the minimal sample size required for perfect topological reconstruction as a direct function of parameters defining the shape of the metric graph, introduced in Section \[section::background\]. This leads to an upper bound on the risk of topological reconstruction. Finally, we obtain a lower bound on the risk of topological reconstruction, which, in the noiseless case, almost matches the derived upper bound, indicating that the algorithm of [@aanjaneya2012metric] behaves nearly optimally. [*Outline.*]{} In Section \[section::background\] we formally define metric graphs, the statistical models we will consider and the assumptions we will use throughout. We will also describe several geometric quantities that are central to our analysis. Section \[sec:performance\] contains detailed analysis of the performance of algorithm of @aanjaneya2012metric for metric graph reconstruction, under modified settings and assumptions. In Section \[section::minimax\] we derive lower and upper bounds for the minimax risk of metric graph reconstruction problem. In Section \[section::conclusion\] we conclude with some final comments. [*Related Work.*]{} The work most closely related to ours is @aanjaneya2012metric which was, in fact, the motivation for our work. From the theoretical side, we replace the key assumption in @aanjaneya2012metric of the sample being a $(\varepsilon,R)$-approximation to the underlying metric graph, by the milder assumption of the sample being dense in a neigborhood of the metric graph. Approximation and reconstruction of metric graphs has also been considered in [@chazal2013gromov] and [@ge2011data]. Metric graph reconstruction is related to the problem of estimating stratified spaces (basically, intersecting manifolds). Stratified spaces have been studied by a number of authors such as [@bendich2010towards; @bendich2012local; @bendich2008analyzing]. A spectral method for estimating intersecting structures is given in [@arias2011spectral]. There are a variety of algorithms for specific problems, for example, see [@ahmed2012probabilistic; @chen2010road] for the reconstruction of road networks. Finally, @chernov2013reconstructing derived an alternative algorithm that uses ideas from homology. ![Left: Neuron cr22e from the hippocampus of a rat; NeuroMorpho.Org [@ascoli2007neuromorpho]. Right: A metric graph reconstruction of the neuron.[]{data-label="plot3D"}](figs/plotNeu) Background and Assumptions {#section::background} ========================== The assumptions in @aanjaneya2012metric lead to a reconstruction process that is aimed at capturing the intrinsic structure of the data and is somewhat oblivious to its extrinsic embedding. The authors assume that the sample comes with a metric that is close to the intrinsic metric of the underlying graph, by imposing a limit on the Gromov-Hausdorff distance between the two metrics. By considering data embedded in the Euclidean space and focusing on the topological aspect, we show that the notion of *dense sample* is sufficient to guarantee a correct reconstruction. In this section we provide background on metric graph spaces and describe the assumptions and the geometric parameters that we will be using throughout.\ Informally, a metric graph is a collection of vertices and edges glued together in some fashion. Here we state the formal definitions of path metric space and metric graph. For more details see @aanjaneya2012metric and @kuchment2004quantum. A metric space $(G, d_G)$ is a path metric space if the distance between any pair of points is equal to the infimum of the lengths of the continuous curves joining them. A metric graph is a path metric space $(G, d_{G})$ that is homeomorphic to a 1-dimensional stratified space. A vertex of $G$ is a 0-dimensional stratum of $G$ and an edge of $G$ is a 1-dimensional stratum of $G$. We will consider metric graphs embedded in $\mathbb{R}^D$. Note that, if one ignores the metric structure, namely the length of edges and loops, the shape or topology of a metric graph $(G,d_G)$ is encoded by a graph, whose vertices and edges correspond to vertices and edges of $G$. Since we allow for two vertices to be connected by more than one edge we are actually dealing with pseudographs. We recall that an undirected pseudograph $(V,E)$ is a set of vertices $V$, a multiset $E$ of unordered pairs of (not necessarily distinct) vertices. To a given pseudograph we can associate a function $f : E \rightarrow V \times V$, which, when applied to an edge $e \in E$, simply extracts the vertices to which $e$ is adjacent. Thus, if $e_1,e_2 \in E$ are such that $f(e_1) = f(e_2)$, then $e_1$ and $e_2$ are parallel edges. Similarly, if $e \in E$ is such that $f(e) = \{v,v\}$ for some $v \in V$, then $e$ is a loop. For each pair $(u,v) \in V \times V$, let $\nu(u,v) = |f^{-1}(\{u,v\})|$ if $\{u,v\} \in E$ and $0$ otherwise. In particular, $\nu(u,v)$ is the number of edges between $u$ and $v$ (or loops if $u=v$). We say that a metric graph reconstruction algorithm perfectly recovers the topology of $G$ if outputs a pseudograph isomorphic to the pseudograph representing the topology of $G$. We now define some key quantities regarding the structure of a metric graph. We start with the definition of reach. Let $M$ be a 1-dimensional manifold embedded in $\mathbb{R}^D$. Let $T_uM$ denote the 1-dimensional tangent space to $M$ and let $T_u^\perp$M be the $(D-1)$-dimensional normal space. Define the *fiber* of size $a$ at $u \in M$ to be $L_a(u,M)=T_u^\perp M \bigcap B(u,a)$, where $B(u,a)$ is the $D$-dimensional ball of radius $a$ centered at $u$. If $M$ has boundary $\{v_1,v_2\}$, the fiber of size $a$ at $v_i$ is defined as the limit of $L_a(u,M)$, as $u$ approaches $v_i$ in $M\backslash \{v_1,v_2\}$. The reach of $M$ is the largest number $\tau$ such that the fibers $L_\tau(u,M)$ never intersect. The reach sets a limit on the curvature of a manifold. A manifold with large reach does not come too close to be self-intersecting. For example the reach of an arc of a circle is equal to its radius. The quantity $1/\tau$ is called the *condition number* in [@niyogi2008finding]. For more details see also @federer1959curvature [@chazal2006topology; @genovese2012minimax].\ Each edge of a metric graph $(G,d_G)$ can be seen as a 1-dimensional manifold with boundary. Let the [*local reach*]{} of metric graph $G$ be the minimum reach associated to an edge of $G$. When 2 edges intersect at a vertex $v$ they create an angle, where the angle between two intersecting curves is formally defined as follows. Suppose that $e_1$ and $e_2$ intersect at $x$. Let $B(x,\epsilon)$ be the $D$-dimensional ball of radius $\epsilon$ centered at $x$. Let $\ell_1(\epsilon)$ be the line segment joining the two points $x$ and $\partial B(x,\epsilon)\bigcap e_1$. Let $\ell_2(\epsilon)$ be the line segment joining the two points $x$ and $\partial B(x,\epsilon)\bigcap e_2$. Let $\alpha_\epsilon(e_1,e_2)$ be the angle between $\ell_1(\epsilon)$ and $\ell_2(\epsilon)$. The angle between $e_1$ and $e_2$ is $\alpha(e_1,e_2) = \lim_{\epsilon\to 0}\alpha_\epsilon(e_1,e_2)$. We assume that, for each pair of intersecting edges $e_1$ and $e_2$, the angle $\alpha(e_1,e_2)$ is well-defined. To control points far away in the graph distance, but close in the embedding space, we define $$A_G=\{(x,x') \in G\times G: d_{G}(x,x')\geq \min(b,\tau \alpha)\},$$ where $b$ is the shortest edge of $G$, $\tau$ is the local condition number and $\alpha$ is the smallest angle formed by two edges of $G$. We define the [*global reach*]{} as the infimum of the Euclidean distances among pairs of point in $A_G$, that is $\xi=\inf_{A_G}\Vert x-x'\Vert_2$. Let $(G,d_G)$ be a metric graph and, for a constant $\sigma \geq 0$, let $G_\sigma = \{y:\ \inf_{x\in G}||x-y||_2 \leq \sigma\}$ be the $\sigma$-tube around $G$. If $\sigma=0$, then, trivially, $G_\sigma = G$. Notice that $G_\sigma$ is a set of dimension $D$ if $\sigma > 0$. We will use the assumption that the sample $\mathbb{Y}$ is sufficiently dense in $G_\sigma$ with respect to the Euclidean metric, as formalized below. The sample $\mathbb{Y}=\{y_1,\dots, y_n \} \subset G_\sigma \subset \mathbb{R}^D $ is $\frac{\delta}{2}$-dense in $G_\sigma $ if for every $x \in G_\sigma$, there exists a $y \in \mathbb{Y}$ such that $\Vert x-y \Vert_2 < \frac{\delta}{2}$. \[dense\] The problem of metric graph reconstruction consists of reconstructing a metric graph $G$ given a dense sample $\{y_1, \dots, y_n\} = \mathbb{Y} \subset G_\sigma$ endowed with a distance $d_{\mathbb{Y}}$, which could be the $D$-dimensional Euclidean distance or some more complicate notion of distance. If $\sigma = 0$ we say that the sample $\mathbb{Y}$ is noiseless, while if $\sigma>0$, we say that $\mathbb{Y}$ is a noisy sample. Throughout our analysis we restrict the attention to metric graphs embedded in $\mathbb{R}^D$ that satisfy the following assumptions: - The graphs have finite total length and are free of nodes of degree $2$ (though they may contain vertices of degree $1$ or $3$ and higher). - Each edge is a smooth embedded sub-manifold of dimension 1, of length at least $b>0$ and with reach at least $\tau>0$. - Each pair of intersecting edges forms a well-defined angle of size at least $\alpha>0$. - The global reach is at least $\xi>0$. Assumptions A1 and A2 allow us to consider each edge of a metric graph as a single smooth curve. A3 and A4 are additional regularity conditions on the separation between different edges. Assumptions similar to A1-A4 are common in the literature. For different regularity conditions that allow for corners within an edge see, for example, [@chazal2009sampling] and @chen2010road. Let $\mathcal{G}$ be the set of metric graphs embedded in $\mathbb{R}^D$ that satisfy assumptions A1, A2, A3 and A4, involving the parameters $b$, $\alpha$, $\tau$, $\xi$. We consider two noise models:\ *Noiseless.* We observe data $Y_1, \dots, Y_n \sim P$, where $P \in \mathcal{P}$, a collection of probability distributions supported over metric graphs $(G,d_G)$ in $\mathcal{G}$ having densities $p$ with respect to the length of $G$ bounded from below by a constant $a>0$.\ *Tubular Noise.* We observe data $Y_1, \dots, Y_n \sim P_{G,\sigma}$ where $P_{G,\sigma}$ is uniform on the $\sigma$-tube $G_\sigma$. In this case we consider the collection $\mathcal{P}=\{P_{G,\sigma}: G \in \mathcal{G} \}$.\ We are interested in bounding the minimax risk $$R_n= \inf_{\hat G} \sup_{P \in \mathcal{P}} P^n \Big(\hat G \not\simeq G \Big),$$ where the infimum is over all estimators $\hat G$ of the topology of $(G, d_G)$, the supremum is over the class of distributions $\mathcal{P}$ for $\mathbb{Y}$ and $\hat G \not\simeq G $ means that $\hat G$ and $G$ are not isomorphic.\ In Section \[section::minimax\] we will find lower and upper bounds for $R_n$ in the noiseless case and the tubular noise case.\ We conclude this section by summarizing the many parameters and symbols involved in our analysis. See Table \[tab::param\]. [**Symbol**]{} [**Meaning**]{} ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- $(G,d_G)$ metric graph $\alpha$ smallest angle $b$ shortest edge $\tau$ local reach $\xi$ global reach $\mathcal{G}$ set of metric graphs embedded in $\mathbb{R}^D$, satisfying A1-A4 $\mathcal{P}$ set of distributions on $G$ or $G_\sigma$ $G_\sigma$ $\sigma$ tube around $G$ $\mathbb{Y}$ sample, subset of $G_\sigma$ $\delta$ $\mathbb{Y}$ is a $\delta/2$-dense sample : Summary of the symbols used in our analysis.[]{data-label="tab::param"} Performance Analysis for the Algorithm of @aanjaneya2012metric {#sec:performance} ============================================================== In this section we study the performance of the metric graph reconstruction algorithm of @aanjaneya2012metric, under assumptions A1-A4 and with a choice of parameters adapted to our setting. In Section \[section::minimax\] we will use these results to derive bounds on the minimax rate for topology reconstruction. The metric graph reconstruction algorithm is presented in Algorithm \[alg::MGR\]. Input: sample $\mathbb{Y},d_{\mathbb{Y}}, r, p_{11}$.\ 1: **Labeling points as edge or vertex**\ 2: for all $y \in \mathbb{Y}$ do\ 3: $S_y \leftarrow B(y,r+\delta)\backslash B(y,r)$\ 4: $\text{deg}_r(y) \leftarrow $ Number of connected components of Rips-Vietoris graph $\mathcal{R}_{\delta}(S_y)$\ 5: if $\text{deg}_r(y)=2$ then\ 6: Label $y$ as a edge point\ 7: else\ 8: Label $y$ as a preliminary vertex point.\ 9: end if\ 10: end for.\ 11: Label all points within Euclidean distance $p_{11}$ from a preliminary vertex point as vertices.\ 12: Let $\mathbb{E}$ be the point of $\mathbb{Y}$ labeled as edge points.\ 13: Let $\mathbb{V}$ be the point of $\mathbb{Y}$ labeled as vertices.\ 14: **Reconstructing the graph structure**\ 15: Compute the connected components of the Rips-Vietoris graphs $\mathcal{R}_\delta(\mathbb{E})$ and $\mathcal{R}_\delta(\mathbb{V})$.\ 16: Let the connected components of $\mathcal{R}_\delta(\mathbb{V})$ be the vertices of of the reconstructed graph $\hat G$.\ 17. Let there be an edge between vertices of $\hat G$ if their corresponding connected components in $\mathcal{R}_\delta(\mathbb{V})$ contain points at distance less than $\delta$ from the same connected component of $\mathcal{R}_\delta(\mathbb{E})$.\ Output: $\hat G$. The algorithm takes a (possibly noisy) sample $\mathbb{Y}$ from a metric graph $G$ and a distance $d_\mathbb{Y}$ defined on $\mathbb{Y}$ and returns a graph $\hat G$ that approximates $G$. The key idea is the following: a shell of radius $r$ is constructed around each point in the sample, which is labeled *edge point* if its shell contains 2 well separated clusters of sampled points and *vertex point* otherwise. Several steps of the algorithm require the construction of a Rips-Vietoris graph of parameter $\delta$: $\mathcal{R}_\delta(S_y)$ is a graph whose vertices are all the points of $S_y$ and there is an edge between two points if the Euclidean distance between them is not larger than $\delta$. At Step 11 some of the edge points that are close to vertices are re-labeled as vertex points. This expansion guarantees a precise borderline between clusters of vertex points and clusters of edge points. At steps 15-17 each of these clusters is associated to a vertex or to an edge of the reconstructed graph $\hat G$. We will analyze the algorithm considering the Euclidean distance on the sample $\mathbb{Y}$, that is, $d_\mathbb{Y}= \Vert \cdot \Vert_2$. The inner radius of the shell at Step 3 and the width of the expansion at Step 11 are parameters the user has to specify. Before finding how dense a sample has to be in orderer to guarantee a correct reconstruction of a metric graph, we show that it is sufficient to study a particular metric graph embedded in $\mathbb{R}^2$, which represents the worst case. In other words, if the metric graph algorithm can reconstruct this particular planar graph, then it can reconstruct any other metric graph that satisfies A1-A4. The worst case: a metric graph in $\mathbb{R}^2$ {#sec::worst} ------------------------------------------------ The worst case is the one for which it is hard to distinguish two edges that intersect at a vertex because they are too close in the embedding space.\ Figure \[fig::worst\] (top left) shows an edge $e$ that intersects two edges $e_1,e_2$ with reach $\tau$, forming an angle $\alpha$ at vertex $x$. For simplicity, we consider this metric graph embedded in $\mathbb{R}^3$ ($D=3$). Therefore Figure \[fig::worst\] shows the projections of $e, e_1$ and $e_2$ on the (limit) plane formed by $e_1$ and $e_2$, passing through $x$. ![Even in the worst case, edges $e_1$ and $e_2$ must lie outside of the torii constructed on the fibers $L_\tau(x,e_1)$ and $L_\tau(x,e_2)$.[]{data-label="fig::worst"}](figs/tau.pdf) We focus on edge $e_2$. The blue segment $\overline{AB}$ is the projection of $L_\tau(x,e_2)$, the fiber of size $\tau$ around $x$. In $\mathbb{R}^3$, $L_\tau(x,e_2)$ is a circle of radius $\tau$ centered in $x$. By definition, for any $y \in e_2$, the fiber $L_\tau(y,e_2)$ can not intersect the fiber $L_\tau(x,e_2)$, otherwise the assumption involving the reach would be violated. We represent this condition by taking a circle $C$ of radius $\tau$ centered at $B$ and rotating it around $x$ along the circumference of $L_\tau(x,e_2)$. This procedure forms a torus with an inner loop of radius 0. Edge $e_2$ must lie outside of this torus, so that its fibers do not intersect $L_\tau(x,e_2)$. See the top right plot of Figure \[fig::worst\]. The same reasoning applies to edge $e_1$, which must lie outside of the torus constructed on $L_\tau(x,e_1)$. See the bottom left plot. The worst case is the one for which $e_1$ and $e_2$ are as close as possible: on the same plane and on the boundaries of the two tori. This case is represented in the bottom right plot of Figure \[fig::worst\]. Note that $e_1$ and $e_2$ are simply arcs of circles of radius $\tau$. ![Left: edges $e_1$ and $e_2$ with minimum reach $\tau$ forming the smallest angles $\alpha$ at vertex $x$. Right: same metric graph with a tube of radius $\sigma$ around it.[]{data-label="plot1aa"}](figs/plot1.pdf) We will use basic trigonometric properties of the worst case. In Figure \[plot1aa\] (left), $O$ and $O'$ are the centers of the circles associated to edges $e_1$ and $e_2$. It is easy to see that angle $O\hat x O'$ has width $\pi-\alpha$. It can be shown that $$\begin{aligned} x\hat O O' &= \alpha/2, \label{trick1}\\ T\hat x Q&=\alpha/4. \label{trick2}\end{aligned}$$ Let $\mathbb{Y}$ be a noisy sample of $G$. In other words $\mathbb{Y}$ is a subset of $G_\sigma$, the tube of radius $\sigma \geq 0$ around the metric graph $G$. See Figure \[plot1aa\] (right). Let $Q$ be the midpoint of segment $\overline{OO'}$ and let $T$ be the intersection point of $\overline{OO'}$ and edge $e_1$. For $0 \leq \sigma \leq \overline{QT}= \tau-\tau \cos(\alpha/2)$, the smallest angle formed by the inner faces of the tube around the metric graph is $$\label{eq::alphaPrime} \alpha'= \pi - \arccos \frac{2(\tau-\sigma)^2 - 4 \tau^2 \cos^2(\alpha/2)}{2 (\tau-\sigma)^2},$$ where we applied the cosine law to the triangle $OsO'$ and the fact that angle $O\hat s O'$ has width $\pi-\alpha'$. Note that if $\sigma=0$ then $\alpha'= \alpha$. As in , it can be shown that $$\label{trick3} R\hat s Q= \alpha' /4.$$ The few basic trigonometric equations described above will be used to determine under which conditions on $b, \alpha, \tau, \xi, \sigma$ the metric graph reconstruction algorithm can reconstruct the worst case. Analysis of Algorithm \[alg::MGR\] with Euclidean distance ---------------------------------------------------------- In this section we analyze Algorithm \[alg::MGR\]. It is sufficient to study the worst case of figures \[fig::worst\] and \[plot1aa\] and extend the results to any metric graph in $\mathbb{R}^D$. The Euclidean distance is used at every step of the algorithm, which requires the specification of $r$, the inner radius of the shell, and $p_{11}$, the parameter governing the expansion of Step 11. We set $$\label{eq::inner} r= \frac{\delta}{2}+\sigma + \tau \sin(\alpha/2) - (\tau-\sigma) \sin(\alpha'/2) + \frac{\delta}{2 \sin(\alpha'/4)}$$ and $$\label{eq::p11} p_{11}= \frac{\delta}{2} + \tau \sin(\alpha/2) - (\tau-\sigma) \sin(\alpha'/2)+\frac{r+\delta}{\sin(\alpha'/2)}$$ This choice is justified in the proof of Proposition \[propAlg\].\ Define $$\begin{aligned} &f(b,\alpha,\tau,\xi,\sigma) \nonumber :=\\ & \frac{(\tau-\sigma)\sin\left(\frac{\min(b, \alpha\tau) - (\alpha-\alpha')\tau}{2\tau}\right) - \left[ \tau \sin(\alpha/2) - (\tau-\sigma) \sin(\alpha'/2)\right] \left(1+\frac{2}{\sin(\alpha'/2)} \right) - \frac{2\sigma}{\sin(\alpha'/2)} }{1+3[\sin(\alpha'/2)]^{-1}+[\sin(\alpha'/2)\sin(\alpha'/4)]^{-1} },\label{def::f}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha'$ is given in \[eq::alphaPrime\]. Note that $f(b,\alpha,\tau,\xi,\sigma) $ is a decreasing function of $\sigma$. If $\mathbb{Y}$ is $\frac{\delta}{2}$-dense in $G_\sigma$ and $$0 < r+\delta< \xi - 2\sigma, \label{cond1}$$ $$0 < \delta < f(b,\alpha,\tau,\xi,\sigma), \label{cond2}$$ then the graph $\hat G$ provided by Algorithm 1 (input: $\mathbb{Y},\Vert \cdot \Vert_2, r, p_{11}$) is isomorphic to $G$. \[propAlg\] We will show that under conditions and , Algorithm 1 can reconstruct the worst case described in section \[sec::worst\], formed by edges $e_1$ and $e_2$ of reach $\tau$ forming an angle of width $\alpha$. This will automatically imply that the algorithm can reconstruct the topology of other vertices and edges in the $D$-dimensional space. Condition guarantees that points of $G$ which are far apart in the metric graph distance $d_G$, and close in the embedding space, do not interfere in the construction of the shells at Steps 3-4. The rest of the proof involves condition . Since the sample is $\frac{\delta}{2}$-dense in the tube, there is at least a point $y \in \mathbb{Y}$ inside the ball of radius $\frac{\delta}{2}$ centered at any vertex $x \in G$. When using Algorithm 1 we want to be sure that $y$ is labeled as a vertex, that is, the number of connected components of the shell around $y$ is different than 2 (Steps 3-4). The worst case is depicted in Figure \[plot2b\] (left), where $x$ is the vertex of minimum angle $\alpha$, formed by two edges, $e_1$ and $e_2$ of reach $\tau$. First, we show that for the the value of $r$ selected in , points close to an actual vertex are labeled as vertices at Steps 3-10 and points far from actual vertices are labeled as edges. ![Left: edges $e_1$ and $e_2$ with minimum reach $\tau$ forming the smallest angles $\alpha$ at vertex $x$. Right: The distance $\Vert F-G \Vert_2$ between the two connected components of the shell around an edge point $y'$ must be greater than $\delta$.[]{data-label="plot2b"}](figs/plot2b.pdf) The inner faces of the tube of radius $\sigma$ around $e_1$ and $e_2$ form an angle of width $\alpha'$ at vertex $s$, as described in Section \[sec::worst\]. Let $u$ and $v$ be the two points on the faces of the tube such that they are equidistant from $x$ and $\Vert u-v\Vert_2=\delta$. Since at Step 4 we construct a $\delta$-graph to determine the number of connected components of the shell $S_y$ and we want $y$ to be a vertex, we choose $r$, the inner radius of the shell $S_y$, so that if $u,v \in \mathbb{Y}$ then $r \geq \max\{d_\mathbb{Y}(y,u), d_\mathbb{Y}(y,v)\}$. This guarantees that $\forall t_1,t_2 \in \mathbb{Y}$ with $t_1$ around edge $e_1$, $t_2$ around edge $e_2$ such that $\{t_1,t_2 \}\subset S_y$, we have $d_\mathbb{Y}(t_1,t_2)\geq \delta$, that is $t_1$ and $t_2$ belong to different connected components of the shell around $y$ at Step 4.\ The distance between $y$ and $u$ is bounded by $ \Vert y-x\Vert_2 +\Vert x-s \Vert_2 + \Vert s-u \Vert_2$, where, using , $$\Vert x-s \Vert_2 = \Vert x-Q \Vert_2 - \Vert s-Q \Vert_2 = \tau \sin(\alpha/2) - (\tau-\sigma) \sin(\alpha'/2)$$ and using , $$\Vert s-u \Vert_2 \leq \frac{\delta}{2 \sin(\alpha'/4)} . \label{su}$$ Therefore we require that $r$, the inner radius of the shell of Step 4 satisfies $$\begin{aligned} r & \geq \frac{\delta}{2} + \Vert x-s \Vert_2 +\frac{\delta}{2 \sin(\alpha'/4)} \label{eq::r1} \\ & \geq \Vert y-x\Vert_2 +\Vert x-s \Vert_2 + \Vert s-u \Vert_2. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Another condition on $r$ arises when we label edge points far from actual vertices. See Figure \[plot2b\] (right). If $y' \in \mathbb{Y}$, then it should be labeled as an edge point. That is, at Step 4, the Rips graph $\mathcal{R}_\delta(S_{y'})$ on the shell $S_{y'}$ should have 2 connected components. Therefore the distance $\Vert F-G \Vert_2$ between them must be greater than $\delta$. We require that $$\label{eq::r2} r \geq 2\sigma + \delta/ \sqrt{2}$$ which implies $\Vert F-G \Vert_2 > \delta $ when $r$ is small enough, as implied by .\ Note that the value $r= \frac{\delta}{2}+\sigma + \Vert x-s\Vert_2 + \frac{\delta}{2 \sin(\alpha'/4)}$ satisfies both and . The outer radius of the shell at Steps 3-4 has length $r+\delta$. This guarantees that when the shell around an edge point intersects the tube around $G$ there is at least a point $y \in \mathbb{Y}$ in each connected component of the shell, since $\mathbb{Y}$ is $\frac{\delta}{2}$-dense in $G_\sigma$. In the last part of this proof we show that condition is needed to guarantee that the sample is dense enough and the radius of the shells of Step 3 has the correct size, so that, even in the worst case, each vertex is associated to one set of sampled points at Steps 15-17 and these connected components are correctly linked by sets of sampled points labeled as edge points.\ Let $z\in G_\sigma$ be the point around $e_2$ where the segment of length $r+\delta$, orthogonal to the face of the tube around edge $e_1$, intersects the face of the tube around edge $e_2$. See Figure \[plot2c\]. If this segment does not exist we simply consider the segment of length $r+\delta$ from $s$ to a point $z$ on $e_2$. ![The shell around $z$ is tangent to edge $e_2$. []{data-label="plot2c"}](figs/plot2c.pdf) Suppose $z \in \mathbb{Y}$. Among the points that might be labeled as vertices at Step 6 because of their closeness to vertex $x$, $z$ is the furthest from $x$, since the shell around $z$ is tangent to the tube around $e_1$. At Step 11, in order to control the labelling of the points in the tube between $y$ and $z$ we would like to label all the points in $\{y' \in \mathbb{Y}: \Vert y'-y \Vert_2 \leq \Vert y-z \Vert_2\}$ as vertices. To simplify the calculation we use the following bound $$\begin{aligned} \Vert y-z \Vert_2 &\leq \Vert y-x \Vert_2 + \Vert x-s \Vert_2 + \Vert s-z \Vert_2 , \end{aligned}$$ where, using , $$\Vert s-z\Vert_2 \leq \frac{r+\delta}{\sin(\alpha'/2)} . \label{sz}$$ This justifies the choice of $\displaystyle p_{11}= \frac{\delta}{2} + \Vert x-s\Vert_2+ \frac{r+\delta}{\sin(\alpha'/2)} \geq \Vert y-z\Vert_2 $. Thus, at Step 11 we label all the points in $\{y' \in \mathbb{Y}: \Vert y'-y \Vert_2 \leq p_{11} \text{ and } y \text{ is labeled as vertex at Step 6 }\}$ as vertices. If $z$ is actually labeled as a vertex at Step 6, then through the expansion of Step 11, all the points at distance not greater than $p_{11}$ from $z$ are labeled as vertices.\ Finally we determine under which conditions there is at least a point in the tube around $e_2$ labeled as an edge point after Step 11. Consider the worst case in which $e_1$ and $e_2$ are forming an angle of size $\alpha$ at both their extremes $x$ and $x'$. See Figure \[plot3b\]. ![Edges $e_1$ and $e_2$, forming an angle of size $\alpha$ at both their extremes $x$ and $x'$.[]{data-label="plot3b"}](figs/plot3b.pdf) All the points $y' \in \mathbb{Y}$ such that $\Vert y'-z \Vert_2 \leq p_{11}$ or $\Vert y'-z' \Vert_2 \leq p_{11}$ might be labeled as vertices. When we construct $\mathcal{R}(\mathbb{E})_{\delta}$ and $\mathcal{R}(\mathbb{V})_{\delta}$ at Step 15 the two sets of vertices around $x$ and $x'$ must be disconnected and there must be at least an edge point between them. A sufficient condition is that the length of edge $e_2$ is greater than $2(a_1+a_2+a_3)+a_4$, where - $a_1$ is the length of the arc of $e_2$ formed by the projections of lines $\overline{Ox}$ and $\overline{Os}$ on $e_2$, - $a_2$ is the length of the arc of $e_2$ formed by the projection of the chord of length $\Vert s-z \Vert_2$, - $a_3$ is the length of the arc of $e_2$ formed by the projection of the chord of length $p_{11}$, - $a_4$ is the length of the arc of $e_2$ formed by the projection of the chord of length $\delta$. Note that, in Figure \[plot3b\], $e_2 = 2 \tau \arcsin\left(\frac{\Vert x-x'\Vert_2}{2 \tau} \right)=\alpha\tau$ but in general it might be shorter, so that $e_1$ and $e_2$ might not intersect in $x'$. However, by assumptions A2, $e_2$ must be longer than $b$. Thus we require $$\min(b, \alpha\tau) > 2(a_1+a_2+a_3)+a_4. \label{condition}$$ By simple properties involving arcs and chords we have $$\begin{aligned} a_1&= \left(\frac{\alpha-\alpha'}{2} \right) \tau, \hspace{2cm} a_2= 2\tau \arcsin\left( \frac{\Vert s-z \Vert_2}{2(\tau-\sigma)} \right),\\ a_3&= 2\tau \arcsin\left( \frac{p_{11}}{2(\tau-\sigma)} \right), \quad a_4= 2\tau \arcsin\left( \frac{\delta}{2(\tau-\sigma)} \right).\end{aligned}$$ Since the arcsin is superadditive in $[0,1]$ we require the stronger condition $$\min(b, \alpha\tau) - (\alpha-\alpha')\tau > 2\tau \arcsin\left( \frac{2 \Vert s-z\Vert_2 +2 p_{11} + \delta}{2(\tau-\sigma)} \right),$$ which holds if $$\sin\left(\frac{\min(b, \alpha\tau) - (\alpha-\alpha')\tau}{2\tau}\right) > \frac{2 \frac{r+\delta}{\sin(\alpha'/2)} +2 p_{11} + \delta}{2(\tau-\sigma)}.$$ The last condition is equivalent to . If this condition is satisfied then the graph is correctly reconstructed at Steps 15-17: every connected component of $\mathcal{R}_\delta(\mathbb{V})$ corresponds to a vertex of $G$ and every connected component of $\mathcal{R}_\delta(\mathbb{E})$ corresponds to an edge of $G$. **A Neuron in Three-Dimensions.** We return to the neuron example and we try to apply Propositions \[propAlg\] to the 3D data of Figure \[plot3D\], namely the neuron cr22e from the hippocampus of a rat [@gulyas1999total]. The data were obtained from NeuroMorpho.Org [@ascoli2007neuromorpho]. The total length of the graph is $1750.86 \mu m$. We assume the smallest edge has length $100 \mu m$, the smallest angle $\pi/3$, the local reach $30 \mu m$ and $\xi=50 \mu m$. The conditions of Proposition \[propAlg\] are satisfied for $\delta=2.00 \mu m$. Algorithm \[alg::MGR\] reconstructs the topology of the metric graph starting from a $\delta/2$-dense sample. Figure \[plot3D\]b shows the reconstructed graph. Minimax Analysis {#section::minimax} ================ In this section we derive lower and upper bound for the minimax risk $$R_n= \inf_{\hat G} \sup_{P \in \mathcal{P}} P^n \Big(\hat G \not\simeq G \Big),$$ where, as described in Section \[section::background\], the infimum is over all estimators $\hat G$ of the metric graph $G$, the supremum is over the class of distributions $\mathcal{P}$ for $\mathbb{Y}$ and $\hat G \not\simeq G $ means that $\hat G$ and $G$ are not isomorphic. Lower Bounds ------------ To derive a lower bound on the minimax risk, we make repeated use of Le Cam’s lemma. See, e.g., [@yu1997assouad] and Chapter 2 of @tsybakov2008introduction. Recall that the total variation distance between two measures $P$ and $Q$ on the same probability space is defined by TV$(P,Q)=\sup_A|P(A)-Q(A) |$ where the supremum is over all measurable sets. It can be shown that TV$(P,Q)=P(H)-Q(H)$, where $H=\{y:p(y)\geq q(y) \}$ and $p$ and $q$ are the densities of $P$ and $Q$ with respect to any measure that dominates both $P$ and $Q$. Let $\mathcal{Q}$ be a set of distributions. Let $\theta(Q)$ take values in a metric space with metric $\rho$. Let $Q_1,Q_2 \in \mathcal{Q}$ be any pair of distributions in $\mathcal{Q}$. Let $Y_1,\dots,Y_n$ be drawn iid from some $Q \in \mathcal{Q}$ and denote the corresponding product measure by $Q^n$. Then $$\inf_{\hat\theta} \sup_{Q \in \mathcal{Q}} \mathbb{E}_{Q^n}\left[\rho(\hat \theta, \theta(Q)) \right] \geq \frac{1}{8} \rho(\theta(Q_1), \theta(Q_2)) (1- \text{TV}(Q_1,Q_2))^{2n}$$ where the infimum is over all the estimators of $\theta(Q)$. Below we apply Le Cam’s lemma using several pairs of distributions. Any pair $Q_1,Q_2$ is associated with a pair of metric graphs $G',G'' \in \mathcal{G}$. We take $\theta(Q_1)$ and $\theta(Q_2)$ to be the classes of graphs that are isomorphic to $G'$ and $G''$. We set $\rho(\theta(Q_1), \theta(Q_2))=0$ if $G'$ and $G''$ are isomorphic and $\rho(\theta(Q_1), \theta(Q_2))=1$ otherwise. Figure \[lower\] shows several pairs of metric graphs that are used to derive lower bounds in the noiseless case and in the tubular noise case. In the noiseless case we ignore the $\sigma$-tubes around the metric graphs. ![Pairs of metric graphs used in the derivation of lower bounds in the noiseless case and in the tubular noise case.[]{data-label="lower"}](figs/lower.pdf) \[th::lowerNoiseless\] In the noiseless case ($\sigma=0$), for $b\leq b_0(a)$, $\alpha\leq \alpha_0(a)$, $\xi\leq \xi_0(a)$, $\tau\leq \tau_0(a)$, where $b_0(a), \alpha_0(a), \xi_0(a)$ and $\tau_0(a)$ are constants which depend on $a$, a lower bound on the minimax risk for metric graph reconstruction is $$R_n \geq \exp\Bigl( -2a \min\{b, 2 \sin(\alpha/2), \xi, 2\pi \tau \} n \Bigr).$$ We consider the 4 parameters separately. See Figure \[lower\], ignoring the red lines representing the tubular noise that is not considered in this theorem. [*Shortest edge $b$*]{}. Consider the metric graph $G_1$ consisting of a single edge of length 1+$b$ and metric graph $G_2$ with an edge of length 1 and an orthogonal edge of length $b$ glued in the middle. The density on $G_1$ is constructed in the following way: on the set $G_1 \backslash G_2$ of length $b$ we set $p_1(x)=a$ and the rest of the mass is evenly distributed over the remaining portion of $G_1$. Similarly, for $G_2$ we set $p_2(x)=a$ on $ G_2 \backslash G_1$, which correspond to the orthogonal edge of length $b$. We evenly spread the remaining mass. The two densities differ only on the sets $G_1 \backslash G_2$ and $G_2 \backslash G_1$. Therefore $ \text{TV}(p_1,p_2) \leq a b $ and, by Le Cam’s lemma, $ R_n \geq \frac{1}{8} (1- ab)^{2n} \geq \frac{1}{8} \text{e}^{-2abn} $ for all $b\leq b_0(a)$, where $b_0(a)$ is a constant depending on $a$. [*Smallest angle $\alpha$*]{}. Now consider the metric graphs $G_3$ and $G_4$. $G_3$ consists of two edges of length 2 forming an angle $\alpha$ and a third edge of length $1+2 \sin(\alpha/2)$ glued to the first two. $G_4$ is similar: an edge of length $2\sin(\alpha/2)$ is added to complete the triangle, while the edge on the left has length 1. As in the previous case we set $p_3(x)=a$ on $G_3\backslash G_4$, $p_4(x)=a$ on $G_4\backslash G_3$ and spread evenly the rest of the mass. The total variation distance is $ \text{TV}(p_3,p_4)\leq 2a \sin\left(\frac{\alpha}{2}\right) $ and, by Le Cam’s lemma, $ R_n \geq \frac{1}{8} (1- 2a \sin\left(\alpha/2 \right) )^{2n} \geq \frac{1}{8} \text{e}^{-4a\sin\left(\alpha/2 \right)n} $ for all $\alpha\leq \alpha_0(a)$, where $\alpha_0(a)$ is a constant depending on $a$. [*Global reach $\xi$*]{}. We defined the global reach as the shortest euclidean distance between two points that are far apart in the graph distance. Figure \[lower\] shows metric graph $G_5$ formed by a single edge of length 1 and metric graph $G_6$ consisting of two edges of length $0.5$, $\xi$ apart from each other. Again, we set $p_5(x)=a$ on $G_5 \backslash G_6$, $p_6(x)=a$ on $G_6 \backslash G_5$ and evenly spread the rest. We obtain $ \text{TV}(p_5,p_6)\leq a\xi $ and, by Le Cam’s lemma, $ R_n \geq \frac{1}{8} (1- a\xi)^{2n} \geq \frac{1}{8} \text{e}^{-2a\xi n} $ for all $\xi\leq \xi_0(a)$, where $\xi_0(a)$ is a constant depending on $a$. [*Local reach $\tau$*]{}. The local reach $\tau$ is the smallest reach of the edges forming the metric graph. Consider metric graphs $G_7$ and $G_8$. $G_7$ consists of a loop of radius $\tau$ attached to an edge of length 1 and metric graph $G_8$ is a single edge of length $1+2 \pi \tau$. As in the previous cases $p_7(x)=a$ on $G_7 \backslash G_8$ and $p_8(x)=a$ on $G_8 \backslash G_7$. It follows that $ \text{TV}(p_7,p_8)\leq 2a \pi \tau $ and, by Le Cam’s lemma, $ R_n \geq \frac{1}{8} (1- 2a \pi \tau)^{2n} \geq \frac{1}{8} \text{e}^{-4a \pi \tau n} $ for all $\tau\leq \tau_0(a)$, where $\tau_0(a)$ is a constant depending on $a$. For the tubular noise case we assume that $\sigma$ is small enough to guarantee that $R_n<1$, that is, the problem is not hopeless. In particular, we require that $\sigma$ satisfies conditions and of Proposition \[propAlg\], which can be combined into the following condition $$0 < \min\left\{ \frac{\xi-3\sigma- \tau \sin(\alpha/2) + (\tau-\sigma) \sin(\alpha'/2)}{3/2 +[2 \sin(\alpha'/4)]^{-1}}, \, f(b,\alpha,\tau,\xi,\sigma) \right\}. \label{cond:tube}$$ \[th::lowerNoise\] Assume that $\sigma$ is positive and satisfies condition . In the tubular noise case, for $b\leq b_0(D)$, $\alpha\leq \alpha_0(D)$, $\xi\leq \xi_0(D)$, $\tau\leq \tau_0(D)$, where $b_0(D), \alpha_0(D), \xi_0(D)$ and $\tau_0(D)$ are constants which depend on the ambient dimension $D$, a lower bound on the minimax risk for metric graph reconstruction is $$R_n \geq \frac{1}{8} \exp\Bigl( -2 \min\{ C_{D,1}b, C_{D,2}\sin(\alpha/2), C_{D,3} \xi, C_{D,4} \tau \} n \Bigr),$$ for some constants $C_{D,1},C_{D,2},C_{D,3},C_{D,4}$. As in the proof oh Theorem \[th::lowerNoiseless\] we consider the 4 parameters separately. We compare the pairs of graphs shown in Figure \[lower\], including the tubular regions constructed around them, from which we get samples uniformly. [*Shortest edge $b$*]{}. Consider the metric graph $G_1$ consisting of a single edge of length 1+$b$ and metric graph $G_2$ with an edge of length 1 and an orthogonal edge of length $b$ glued in the middle. Since $\text{vol}(G_1)>\text{vol}(G_2)$, the density $q_1$ at a point in the tube around $G_1$ is lower than the density $q_2$ at a point around $G_2$. From the definition of total variation $TV=q_1(H)-q_2(H)$ where $H$ is the set where $q_1>q_2$, the shaded area in Figure \[lower\]. Note that $q_2(H)=0$ and $$TV(q_1,q_2)=q_1(H)=\frac{\text{vol}(H)}{\text{vol}(G_1)} \leq C_{D,1} \frac{b \sigma^{D-1}}{(1+b)\sigma^{D-1}}\leq C_{D,1} b.$$ By Le Cam’s lemma, $ R_n \geq \frac{1}{8} (1- C_{D,1} b)^{2n} \geq \frac{1}{8} \text{e}^{-2 C_{D,1} bn} $ for all $b\leq b_0(D)$, where $b_0(D)$ is a constant depending on $D$. [*Smallest angle $\alpha$*]{}. Now consider the metric graphs $G_3$ and $G_4$. Since $\text{vol}(G_3)>\text{vol}(G_4)$, the density $q_3$ at a point in the tube around $G_3$ is lower than the density $q_4$ at a point around $G_4$. $TV=q_3(H)-q_4(H)$ where $H$ is the set where $q_3>q_4$, the shaded area in the tube around $G_3$. Note that $q_4(H)=0$ and $$TV(q_3,q_4)=q_3(H)=\frac{\text{vol}(H)}{\text{vol}(G_3)} \leq C_{D,2} \frac{\sin(\alpha/2) \sigma^{D-1}}{(1+\sin(\alpha/2))\sigma^{D-1}}\leq C_{D,2} \sin(\alpha/2).$$ By Le Cam’s lemma, $ R_n \geq \frac{1}{8} (1- C_{D,2} \sin(\alpha/2))^{2n} \geq \frac{1}{8} \text{e}^{-2 C_{D,2} \sin(\alpha/2) n} $ for all $\alpha \leq \alpha_0(D)$, where $\alpha_0(D)$ is a constant depending on $D$. [*Global reach $\xi$*]{}. Figure \[lower\] shows metric graph $G_5$ formed by a single edge of length 1 and metric graph $G_6$ consisting of two edges of length $0.5$, $\xi$ apart from each other. Since $\text{vol}(G_5)>\text{vol}(G_6)$, the density $q_5$ at a point in the tube around $G_5$ is lower than the density $q_6$ at a point around $G_6$. $TV=q_5(H)-q_6(H)$ where $H$ is the set where $q_5>q_6$, the shaded area in the tube around $G_5$. Note that $q_6(H)=0$ and $$TV(q_5,q_6)=q_5(H)=\frac{\text{vol}(H)}{\text{vol}(G_5)} \leq C_{D,3} \frac{ \xi \sigma^{D-1}}{\sigma^{D-1}} = C_{D,3} \xi.$$ By Le Cam’s lemma, $ R_n \geq \frac{1}{8} (1- C_{D,3} \xi)^{2n} \geq \frac{1}{8} \text{e}^{-2 C_{D,3} \xi n} $ for all $\xi \leq \xi_0(D)$, where $\xi_0(D)$ is a constant depending on $D$. [*Local reach $\tau$*]{}. The local reach $\tau$ is the smallest reach of the edges forming the metric graph. Consider metric graphs $G_7$ and $G_8$ in Figure \[lower\]. Since $\text{vol}(G_7)>\text{vol}(G_8)$, the density $q_7$ at a point in the tube around $G_7$ is lower than the density $q_8$ at a point around $G_8$. $TV=q_7(H)-q_8(H)$ where $H$ is the set where $q_7>q_8$, the shaded area in the tube around $G_7$. Note that $q_8(H)=0$ and $$TV(q_7,q_8)=q_7(H)=\frac{\text{vol}(H)}{\text{vol}(G_7)} \leq C_{D,4} \frac{ \tau \sigma^{D-1}}{(1+\tau)\sigma^{D-1}} \leq C_{D,4} \tau.$$ By Le Cam’s lemma, $ R_n \geq \frac{1}{8} (1- C_{D,4} \tau)^{2n} \geq \frac{1}{8} \text{e}^{-2 C_{D,4} \tau n} $ for all $\tau \leq \tau_0(D)$, where $\xi_0(D)$ is a constant depending on $D$. Note that, up to constants, the lower bound obtained in the tubular noise case is identical to the lower bound of Proposition \[th::lowerNoiseless\] for the noiseless case. Upper Bounds ------------ In this section we use the analysis of the performance of Algorithm \[alg::MGR\] to derive an upper bound on the minimax risk. We will use the strategy of @niyogi2008finding to find the sample size that guarantees a $\delta/2$-dense sample with high probability. We will use the following two lemmas. \[**5.1 in @niyogi2008finding**\] \[NSW1\] Let $\{A_i\}$ for $i=1,\dots,l$ be a finite collection of measurable sets and let $\mu$ be a probability measure on $\bigcup_{i=1}^l A_i$ such that for all $1\leq i \leq l$, we have $\mu(A_i)>\gamma$. Let $\bar x=\{x_1,\dots,x_n \}$ be a set of n i.i.d. draws according to $\mu$. Then if $$n\geq \frac{1}{\gamma} \left(\log l + \log \left(\frac{1}{\lambda} \right) \right)$$ we are guaranteed that with probability $> 1-\lambda$, the following is true: $$\forall i, \;\; \bar x \cap A_i \neq \emptyset.$$ Recall that the $\epsilon$-covering number $C(\epsilon)$ of a set $S$ is the smallest number of Euclidean balls of radius $\epsilon$ required to cover the set. The $\epsilon$-packing number $P(\epsilon)$ is the maximum number of sets of the form $B(x,\epsilon) \cap S$, where $x \in S$, that may be packed into $S$ without overlap. For every $\epsilon>0$, $ P(2 \epsilon) \leq C(2 \epsilon) \leq P(\epsilon). $ \[NSW2\] Combining Lemma \[NSW1\] and Proposition $\ref{propAlg}$, we obtain an upper bound on $R_n$ for the noiseless case. In the noiseless case ($\sigma=0$), an upper bound on the minimax risk $R_n$ is given by $$R_n \leq \frac{8 \ \text{length}(G)}{\delta} \ \exp\left\{-\frac{a\, \delta \, n }{4 \ \text{length}(G)} \right\},$$ where $$\delta = \frac{1}{2} \min\left\{\xi \frac{2 \sin(\alpha/4)}{3\sin(\alpha/4)+1}\; , \; \frac{\tau \sin(\alpha/2)\sin(\alpha/4)}{ \sin(\alpha/2)\sin(\alpha/4)+ 3 \sin(\alpha/4)+1} \sin\left(\frac{\min\{b,\alpha \tau \}}{2\tau} \right)\right\}. \label{eq::deltaNoiseless}$$ In the noiseless case, Proposition \[propAlg\] implies that the graph $G$ can be reconstructed from a $\delta/2$-dense sample $\mathbb{Y}$ if $$\delta < \min\left\{\xi \frac{2 \sin(\alpha/4)}{3\sin(\alpha/4)+1}\; , \; f(b,\alpha,\tau,\xi,0) \right\}. \label{cond3}$$ The value of $\delta$ selected in satisfies condition , which follows from conditions and , with $\sigma=0$. We look for the sample size $n$ that guarantees a $\delta/2$-dense sample with high probability. Following the strategy in @niyogi2008finding, we consider a cover of the metric graph $G$ by balls of radius $\delta/4$. Let $\{x_i: 1\leq i \leq l \}$ be the centers of such balls that constitute a minimal cover. We can choose $A_i^{\delta/4}= B_{\delta/4}(x_i) \cap G$. Applying Lemma \[NSW1\] we find that the sample size that guarantees a correct reconstruction with probability at least $1-\lambda$ is $$\label{eq::size1} \frac{1}{\gamma} \left(\log l + \log \frac{1}{\lambda} \right),$$ where $$\displaystyle \gamma \geq \min_i \frac{a \text{ length}(A_i^{\delta/4})}{\text{length}(G)}\geq \frac{a \delta}{4 \text{ length}(G)} \quad,$$ and we bound the covering number $l$ in terms of the packing number, using Lemma \[NSW2\]: $$\quad \displaystyle l \leq \frac{\text{length}(G)}{\min_i \text{length}(A_i^{\delta/8})} \leq \frac{8 \text{ length}(G)}{\delta}.$$ Therefore, from , if $$n = \frac{4 \text{ length } (G)}{a \delta} \left[\log\left(\frac{8 \text{ length}(G)}{\delta} \right) + \log \frac{1}{\lambda} \right] \label{size}$$ we have a $\delta/2$-dense sample with probability at least $1-\lambda$ and, by Proposition \[propAlg\],\ $\mathbb{P}(\hat G \not\simeq G) \leq \lambda$. Rearranging we have the result. Note that, in the noiseless case, the upper and lower bounds are tight up to polynomial factors in the parameters $\tau, b, \xi$. There is a small gap with respect to $\alpha$; closing this gap is an open problem.\ In the tubular noise case, we assume that $\sigma$ is small enough, to guarantee that Algorithm \[alg::MGR\] correctly reconstructs a metric graph starting from a $\delta/2$-dense sample. Assume that $\sigma$ satisfies condition and $0<\sigma < \min\{3\tau/16, \delta/8\}$, where $$\label{eq:deltaC0} \delta= C_0 \min\left\{ \frac{\xi-3\sigma- \tau \sin(\alpha/2) - (\tau-\sigma) \sin(\alpha'/2) }{3/2 +[2 \sin(\alpha'/4)]^{-1}}, \, f(b,\alpha,\tau,\xi,\sigma) \right\},$$ for some $0<C_0<1$. Under the tubular noise model, an upper bound on the minimax risk $R_n$ is given by $$R_n \leq \frac{16 \text{length}(G)}{\delta} \exp\left( -\frac{C_D' \delta (\tau-8\sigma) n}{\tau \, \text{length}(G)} \right),$$ where $C_D'$ is a constant depending on the ambient dimension. Proposition \[propAlg\] implies that the graph $G$ can be reconstructed from a $\delta/2$-dense sample $\mathbb{Y}$ if $$\delta < \min\left\{ \frac{\xi-3\sigma- \tau \sin(\alpha/2) - (\tau-\sigma) \sin(\alpha'/2) }{3/2 +[2 \sin(\alpha'/4)]^{-1}}, \, f(b,\alpha,\tau,\xi,\sigma) \right\}, \label{cond3tube}$$ which is satisfied by the value of $\delta$ selected in . We look for the sample size $n$ that guarantees a $\delta/2$-dense sample in $G_\sigma$ with high probability.\ We consider a cover of the metric graph $G$ by euclidean balls of radius $\delta/8$. Let $\{x_i: 1\leq i \leq l \}$ be the centers of such balls that constitute a minimal cover. Note that $D$-dimensional balls of radius $\delta/8+\sigma \leq \delta/4$ centered at the same $x_i's$ constitute a cover of the tubular region $G_\sigma$. We define $A_i^{\delta/8+\sigma}= B_{\delta/8+\sigma}(x_i) \cap G_\sigma$. Applying Lemma \[NSW1\] we find that the sample size that guarantees a $\delta/2$-dense sample in $G_\sigma$ (and a correct topological reconstruction of $G$) with probability at least $1-\lambda$ is $$\label{eq::size2} \frac{1}{\gamma} \left(\log l + \log \frac{1}{\lambda} \right),$$ where $$\label{eq::gamma} \gamma= \min_i \frac{\text{vol}(A_i^{\delta/8+\sigma})}{\text{vol}(G_\sigma)}.$$ Define $\tilde{A}_i^{\delta}= B_{\delta}(x_i) \cap G.$ The covering number $l$ is bounded in terms of the packing number, using Lemma \[NSW2\], $$\quad \displaystyle l \leq \frac{\text{length}(G)}{\min_i \text{length}(\tilde{A}_i^{\delta/16})} \leq \frac{16 \text{ length}(G)}{\delta}.$$ We construct a lower bound on $\gamma$ by deriving an upper bound on the denominator of and a lower bound on the numerator. **Upper bound on vol$(G_\sigma)$**. Let $N_\sigma$ be the $\sigma$-covering number of $G$ and let $\mathcal{C}_\sigma$ be the set of centers of this cover. By Lemma \[NSW2\], $N_\sigma$ is bounded by the $\sigma/2$-packing number. A simple volume argument gives $ N_\sigma \leq C \text{length}(G)/\sigma, $ for some constant $C$. Note that $2\sigma$ $D$-dimensional balls around each of the centers in $\mathcal{C}_\sigma$ cover $G_\sigma$. Thus vol$(G_\sigma) \leq v_DN_\sigma (2\sigma)^D \leq C_D \text{length}(G) \sigma^{D-1}$ for some constant $C_D$ depending on the ambient dimension. **Lower bound on vol$(A_i^{\delta/8+\sigma})$, for all $i$**. Let $P_{A}(\sigma)$ be the $\sigma$-packing number of $\tilde{A}_i^{\delta/8}$ and let $\mathcal{D}_{A}$ be the set of centers of this packing. Then vol$(A_i^{\delta/8+\sigma})\geq P_{A}(\sigma) v_D \sigma^D$, because the union of $\sigma$ balls around $\mathcal{D}_{A}$ is contained in $A_i^{\delta/8+\sigma}$. Let $C_{A}(2\sigma)$ be the $2\sigma$-covering number of $\tilde{A}_i^{\delta/8}$ and let $\mathcal{C}_{A}=\{z_1,\dots, z_{C_A(2\sigma)} \}$ be the set of centers of this cover. By Lemma \[NSW2\], $$P_A(\sigma) \geq C_A(2\sigma) \geq \frac{\text{length}(\tilde{A}_i^{\delta/8})}{ \max_{z_j \in \mathcal{C}_A} \text{length}(B_{2\sigma}(z_j) \cap \tilde{A}_i^{\delta/8}) } \geq \frac{\delta/8}{ \max_{z_j \in \mathcal{C}_A} \text{length}(B_{2\sigma}(z_j) \cap \tilde{A}_i^{\delta/8}) }$$ and, since $2\sigma<3\tau/8$, by Corollary 1.3 in [@fred2013Note], $$\max_{z_j \in \mathcal{C}_A} \text{length}(B_{2\sigma}(z_j) \cap \tilde{A}_i^{\delta/8}) \leq C_2 \left( \frac{\tau}{\tau-8\sigma} \right) \sigma,$$ for some constant $C_2$. Thus $$\gamma \geq \frac{P_A(\sigma) v_D \sigma^D}{C_D \text{length}(G) \sigma^{D-1}} \geq C_D' \frac{\delta (\tau-8\sigma)}{\tau \text{length}(G) } \quad,$$ where $C_D'$ is a constant depending on the ambient dimension.\ Finally, from , if $$n = \frac{\tau \, \text{ length } (G)}{ C_D' \delta (\tau-8\sigma)} \left[\log\left(\frac{16 \text{ length}(G)}{\delta} \right) + \log \frac{1}{\lambda} \right], \label{size}$$ then the sample is $\delta/2$-dense with probability at least $1-\lambda$ and $\mathbb{P}(\hat G \not\simeq G) \leq \lambda$. Rearranging we obtain $$R_n \leq \exp\left( -\frac{C_D' \delta (\tau-8\sigma) n}{\tau \, \text{length}(G)} + \log\left(\frac{16 \text{length}(G)}{\delta } \right) \right).$$ Discussion {#section::conclusion} ========== In this paper, we presented a statistical analysis of metric graph reconstruction. We derived sufficient conditions on random samples from a graph metric space that guarantee topological reconstruction and we derived lower and upper bounds on the minimax risk for this problem. Various improvements and theoretical extensions are possible. In Proposition \[propAlg\] we have analyzed Algorithm \[alg::MGR\] using the Euclidean distance at every step. It is possible to obtain a similar result using a different notion of distance, for example, the distance induced by a Rips-Vietoris graph constructed on the sample. While in our analysis we mainly relied on the assumption of a dense sample, @aanjaneya2012metric used the more refined but stronger assumption of the sample being an approximation of the metric graph, which we recall: given positive numbers $\varepsilon$ and $R$, we say that $(\mathbb{Y},d_{\mathbb{Y}})$ is an *$(\varepsilon,R)$-approximation* of the metric space $(G, d_G)$ if there exists a correspondence $C\subset G\times \mathbb{Y}$ such that $$(x,y),(x',y') \in C, \min(d_{G}(x,x'), d_{\mathbb{Y}}(y,y')) \leq R \;\; \Longrightarrow \left| d_{G}(x,x')- d_{\mathbb{Y}}(y,y') \right| \leq \varepsilon.$$ As shown in @aanjaneya2012metric, the $(\varepsilon,R)$-approximation assumption is sufficient, for appropriate choice of the parameters $\varepsilon$ and $R$, to recover not only the topology of a metric graph $(G,d_G)$, but also its metric $d_G$ with high accuracy. However, when compared to the dense sample assumption, it demands a larger sample complexity to achieve accurate topological reconstruction. A strategy similar to the one used in this paper could be used to determine the sample size that guarantees an $(\varepsilon, R)$-approximation of the underlying metric graph with high probability. This would guarantee a correct topological reconstruction, as well as an approximation of the metric $d_G$. We are also investigating the idea of combining metric graph reconstruction with the subspace constrained mean-shift algorithm [@fukunaga1975estimation; @comaniciu2002mean; @genovese2012nonparametric] to provide similar guarantees. Our preliminary results indicate that this mixed strategy works very well under more general noise assumptions and with relatively low sample size. 0.2in

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We derive expressions for pion photoproduction amplitudes in the $1/N_c$ expansion of QCD, and obtain linear relations directly from this expansion that relate electromagnetic multipole amplitudes at all energies. The leading-order relations in $1/N_c$ compare favorably with available data, while the next-to-leading order relations seem to provide only a small improvement. However, when resonance parameters are compared directly, the agreement at $O(1/N_c)$ or $O(1/N_c^2)$ is impressive.' author: - 'Thomas D. Cohen' - 'Daniel C. Dakin' - 'Richard F. Lebed' - 'Daniel R. Martin' date: 'December, 2004' title: 'Pion Photoproduction Amplitude Relations in the $1/N_c$ Expansion' --- DOE/ER/40762-331\ UMPP\#05-025 255=255 by 60 255 by-60255 by Introduction \[sec:intro\] ========================== A recent paper [@CDLN] presented the derivation of linear relationships among partial-wave amplitudes for $\pi N \! \rightarrow \! \pi N$ and $\pi N \! \rightarrow \! \pi \Delta$ that hold in large $N_c$ QCD with only $O(1/N_c^2)$ corrections. They were obtained using a model-independent formalism based upon the group structure of the contracted SU(4) spin-flavor symmetry that emerges in the single-baryon sector as $N_c \! \rightarrow \! \infty$; this symmetry by construction ensures consistent $N_c$ power counting for baryon-meson scattering processes [@GS; @DM; @DJM]. The formalism of Ref. [@CDLN] allows for the inclusion of systematic $1/N_c$ corrections to leading-order results [@CL] among $S$ matrix elements, specifically the partial-wave amplitudes. From this expansion one may obtain linear amplitude relations that hold to $O(1/N_c^2)$. As expected, available data support these predictions better than ones holding only to $O(1/N_c)$ [@CDLN]. The approach for deriving $\pi N$ scattering relations can be applied to other processes, including single-nucleon Compton scattering, electron scattering, pion electroproduction ($\gamma^* N \! \rightarrow \! \pi N$) and photoproduction ($\gamma N \! \rightarrow \! \pi N$). In this paper we focus on pion photoproduction, for which the relevant experimentally accessible quantities are the electromagnetic multipole amplitudes $M_{L\pm}$ and $E_{L\pm}$. We present relations among these multipole amplitudes that hold to leading order (LO) and next-to-leading order (NLO) in $1/N_c$ [@lead]. Relations among pion photoproduction amplitudes are not new. They can be derived using models in which baryons are considered as chiral solitons, such as the Skyrme model [@ES; @Report]; the group-theoretical aspects of these models find justification in large $N_c$ QCD, as discussed in Refs. [@EW; @ANW]. However, the calculations in Refs. [@ES; @Report] do not employ large $N_c$ QCD as a constraint; the relations obtained there represent a conglomerate of terms appearing at different orders in $1/N_c$, as discussed in Sec. \[sec:derive\]. Consequently, the relations in Refs. [@ES; @Report] are not results of the $1/N_c$ expansion. In this paper, we derive a model-independent expansion for electromagnetic multipole amplitudes in terms of model-dependent functions whose coefficients are fixed by group theory. As shown in Sec. \[lin\], these model-dependent functions can be algebraically eliminated to yield seven model-independent linear relations. These are compared with experimental data in Sec. \[exp\]. We summarize in Sec. \[concl\]. We begin by considering general processes of the form $\Phi_1 \! + \! B_1 \! \rightarrow \! \Phi_2 \! + \! B_2$, where $B_1$ and $B_2$ are incoming and outgoing nonstrange baryons, and $\Phi_1$ and $\Phi_2$ are incoming and outgoing nonstrange mesons, respectively. It is also possible to generalize to scattering processes in which each pair $B_1$ and $B_2$, and $\Phi_1$ and $\Phi_2$, have a fixed nonzero strangeness [@CLpenta]. Amplitude relations for these processes were first noted in the context of chiral soliton models [@HEHWMK], then as model-independent group-theoretical results derived from a solitonic picture related to the large $N_c$ limit in Refs. [@Mat; @MM], and finally as true model-independent results of the $1/N_c$ expansion in Ref. [@CL]. The derivation of the multipole amplitudes for pion photoproduction is similar to those of Refs. [@CL; @MM], except that $\Phi_1$ now represents a photon rather than a meson (or technically, a meson interpolating field with the quantum numbers of a photon). Although photons are spin 1, one precombines the photon spin with its orbital angular momentum relative to the nucleon target to give the usual multipole angular momentum [@BLP_RQT] in scattering processes involving radiation. With this in mind, one begins with the master expression for meson-baryon partial-wave amplitudes from Refs. [@CL; @MM]: $$\begin{aligned} S_{L_i L_f S_i S_f I J} & = & \sum_{K, \tilde{K}_i, \tilde{K}_f} [K] ([R_i][R_f][S_i][S_f][\tilde{K}_i][\tilde{K}_f])^{1/2} \nonumber \\ & & \times \left\{ \begin{array}{ccc} L_i & i_i & \tilde{K}_i \\ S_i & R_i & s_i \\ J & I & K \end{array} \right\} \left\{ \begin{array}{ccc} L_f & i_f & \tilde{K}_f \\ S_f & R_f & s_f \\ J & I & K \end{array} \right\} \tau_{K \tilde{K}_i \tilde{K}_f L_i L_f}, \label{Mmaster}\end{aligned}$$ where the *reduced amplitude* $\tau$ is a model-dependent function that depends only on energy and the quantum numbers $\{K, \tilde{K}_i, \tilde{K}_f, L_i, L_f\}$. Its explicit form can be found only after a particular model of nucleon dynamics, such as the Skyrme model, is specified. The notation $[X]$ is shorthand for $2X \! + \! 1$, the dimension of the spin-$X$ SU(2) representation. The quantum numbers specified in Eq. (\[Mmaster\]) include the initial (final) spin=isospin of the nucleon $R_i$ ($R_f$), which combines vectorially with the initial (final) meson spin $s_i$ ($s_f$) to give the total intrinsic spin of the system $S_i$ ($S_f$). These in turn combine with the initial (final) meson-baryon relative orbital angular momenta $L_i$ ($L_f)$ to give the total angular momentum $J$. The initial (final) meson isospin $i_i$ ($i_f$) combines with the nucleon isospin to give the total isospin $I$. The effect of constraints from the $1/N_c$ expansion is that the grand spin ${\bf K} \! \equiv \! {\bf I} \! + \! {\bf J}$ and the hybrid quantities $\tilde{\bf K}_i \! \equiv \! {\bf i}_i \! + \! {\bf L}_i$ and $\tilde{\bf K}_f \! \equiv \! {\bf i}_f \! + \! {\bf L}_f$ provide good quantum numbers $K$, $\tilde{K}_i$, and $\tilde{K}_f$. The sums in Eq. (\[Mmaster\]) then run over all values consistent with the $9j$ symbols, meaning that the entries in each row and column satisfy a triangle rule. In using Eq. (\[Mmaster\]) to describe the process $\gamma N \! \rightarrow \! \pi N$, the precombination of photon intrinsic spin with orbital angular momentum relative to the nucleon target into a multipole field of order $\ell$ is represented by a simple mathematical expedient: One sets $s_i \! = \! 0$ and $L_i \! = \! \ell$ in the first $9j$ symbol. Since $\ell$ represents the total of both sources of angular momentum for the photon, the intrinsic spin of the photon may effectively be set to zero. As a side note, the same trick would work for pion electroproduction, where the photon is virtual and can also couple through its spin-0 piece. One important complication must be dealt with before applying Eq. (\[Mmaster\]) to photoproduction processes: The photon has both isoscalar and isovector pieces. In large $N_c$ QCD, the leading isovector coupling of a photon to a ground-state nucleon enters through the combined spin-flavor operator $$\label{isov} G^{ia} \equiv \sum_{\alpha=1}^{N_c} \, q^\dagger_\alpha \left( \frac{\sigma^i}{2} \otimes \frac{\tau^a}{2} \right) q_\alpha \ ,$$ where $\sigma$ and $\tau$ are Pauli matrices in spin and isospin spaces, respectively. $\alpha$ sums over the $N_c$ quark fields $q_\alpha$ in the nucleon, but it should be noted that this operator does not require a quark model to be well defined; in the field-theoretic context, $q$ simply stands for an interpolating field with the quantum numbers of a current quark, whose effect summed over $\alpha$ completely exhausts the full nucleon wave function [@BL]. In the same language, the (spin-dependent) isoscalar coupling enters via the operator $$J^i \equiv \sum_{\alpha=1}^{N_c} \, q^\dagger_\alpha \left( \frac{\sigma^i}{2} \right) q_\alpha \ .$$ The two operators differ in that the matrix elements of the former are $O(N_c^1)$ for ground-state baryons due to the collective effect of the $N_c$ quarks, while the matrix elements of the latter are—by construction—$O(N_c^0)$ for ground-state baryons. Furthermore, since the photon couples through the quark charges, it is straightforward to see that the isovector (isoscalar) couplings have coefficients $e (q_u \! \mp q_d)$, respectively. If one takes the quark charges to have their usual values $q_u \! = \! +\frac 2 3$ and $q_d \! = \! -\frac 1 3$, as is done in this paper, then the relative suppression of isoscalar to isovector amplitudes is $1/N_c$. On the other hand, if one takes the point of view as in Ref. [@BHL], where $q_u \! = \! (N_c \! + \! 1)/(2N_c)$ and $q_d \! = \! (1 \! - \! N_c)/(2N_c)$, then the isoscalar to isovector ratio becomes $1/N_c^2$ (See Ref. [@JJMLM] for a fuller discussion of this point). Equation (\[Mmaster\]) does not manifest this effect. Because the anomalous current coupling is suppressed in large $N_c$ due to the difference in the origin of the isoscalar and isovector pieces, this feature does not arise in the meson scattering derivation of Refs. [@CL; @MM]. It must be put in by hand by adding to the leading isovector ($i_i \! = \! 1$) terms additional isoscalar ($i_i \! = \! 0$) terms suppressed by an explicit factor $1/N_c$. This is purely a feature of isospin breaking in the electromagnetic interaction: Both isoscalar and isovector couplings couple to the photon spin. However, a true spinless isoscalar meson ([*viz.*]{}, the $\eta$), can couple through the operator $$\openone \equiv \sum_{\alpha=1}^{N_c} q^\dagger_\alpha q_\alpha \ ,$$ whose nucleon matrix elements are $O(N_c^1)$, and therefore couples just as strongly to nucleons as do pions through the isovector coupling Eq. (\[isov\]). Derivation \[sec:derive\] ========================= The derivation of the expression for pion photoproduction multipole amplitudes begins by substituting $S_i \! = \! S_f \! = \! \frac 1 2$, $s_i \! = \! s_f \! = \! 0$, $R_i \! = \! R_f \! = \! \frac 1 2$, $i_i \! \equiv i_\gamma \! \in \! \{0,1\}$ (both of which are of course added to give the full physical amplitude), and $i_f \! = \! 1$ into Eq. (\[Mmaster\]): $$\begin{aligned} S_{\ell L \frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{2} I J} = 2 (-1)^{L-\ell} \sum_K [K] \left\{ \begin{array}{ccc} J & \ell & \frac{1}{2} \\ i_\gamma & I & K \\ \end{array} \right\} \left\{ \begin{array}{ccc} J & L & \frac{1}{2} \\ i_f & I & K \\ \end{array} \right\} \tau_{K \ell L} \ . \label{RedMast}\end{aligned}$$ From Eq. (\[RedMast\]) one obtains the form of the multipole amplitudes by including the isospin Clebsch-Gordan coefficients specifying the initial and final nucleon charge states. Using $\nu$ for the pion isospin third component and $m_I$ for that of the incoming nucleon, the multipole amplitude for a specific charge channel is $$\begin{aligned} M_{\ell L J m_I \nu}^{\lambda I i_\gamma} & \! \! \! = \! \! & \left( \! \! \! {\begin{array}{cc} {\begin{array}{cc} 1 & \frac{1}{2} \\ \nu & m_I \! - \! \nu \end{array}} & \! \! \! {\left| {\begin{array}{c} I \\ m_I \\ \end{array}} \right.} \\ \end{array}} \! \! \! \right) \! \! \left( \! \! \! {\begin{array}{cc} {\begin{array}{cc} i_\gamma & \frac{1}{2} \\ 0 & m_I \\ \end{array}} & \! \! \! {\left| {\begin{array}{c} I \\ m_I \\ \end{array}} \right.} \\ \end{array}} \! \! \! \right) \! 2 (-1)^{L-\ell} \sum_K [K] \! \left\{ \begin{array}{ccc} J & \ell & \frac{1}{2} \\ i_\gamma & I & K \end{array} \right\} \! \left\{ \begin{array}{ccc} J & L & \frac{1}{2} \\ 1 & I & K \end{array} \right\} \tau_{K \ell L}^{\lambda} \, . \nonumber \\ & & \label{RedMmast}\end{aligned}$$ The index $\lambda$ indicates the type of multipole, and is determined by the relative parity of $\ell$ and $L$: ($\ell \! - \! L$) odd gives electric (e) multipoles, ($\ell \! - \! L$) even gives magnetic (m) multipoles. This expansion is most useful when written in terms of $t$-channel exchange amplitudes, since large $N_c$ QCD restricts their form as discussed in Refs. [@CDLN; @KapMan]: The leading amplitudes in $1/N_c$ have $I_t \! = \! J_t$ [@MM], and the amplitudes with $|I_t \! - \! J_t| \! = \! n$ are suppressed by a relative factor $1/N_c^n$. Following Ref. [@CDLN], we compute the $t$-channel amplitudes for the separate cases where $i_\gamma \! = \! 1$ and $i_\gamma \! = \! 0$. Using the Biedenharn-Elliot sum rule [@edmonds], one can rewrite the product of $6j$ symbols in Eq. (\[RedMmast\]) as $$\begin{aligned} \left\{ \begin{array}{ccc} J & \ell & \frac{1}{2} \\ i_\gamma & I & K \end{array} \right\} \left\{ \begin{array}{ccc} J & L & \frac{1}{2} \\ i_f & I & K \end{array} \right\} & = & \sum_{{\cal J}} \frac{(-1)^{2{\cal J}-i_f+i_\gamma}[{\cal J}]} {2\sqrt{[i_f][i_\gamma][L][\ell]}} \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} i_f & L & K \\ \ell & i_\gamma & {\cal J} \end{array} \right] \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} i_f & \frac{1}{2} & I \\ \frac{1}{2} & i_\gamma & {\cal J} \end{array} \right] \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} L & \frac{1}{2} & J \\ \frac{1}{2} & \ell & {\cal J} \end{array} \right] \ , \label{BeidEll} \nonumber \\ & &\end{aligned}$$ where the modified $6j$ symbols (called $[6j]$ symbols in Ref. [@CDLN]) are defined by $$\begin{aligned} \left\{ \begin{array}{ccc} a & b & e \\ c & d & f \end{array} \right\} \equiv \frac{(-1)^{-(b+d+e+f)}}{([a][b][c][d])^{\frac{1}{4}}} \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} a & b & e \\ c & d & f \end{array} \right] \ . \label{Red6j}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the $[6j]$ and the usual $6j$ symbols share the same triangle rules. The full $t$-channel multipole amplitude can now be written in terms of $[6j]$ symbols, using Eqs. (\[RedMmast\]) and (\[BeidEll\]) with $i_f \! = \! 1$ ($[1] \! \rightarrow \! 3$) for the pion. It is convenient to define $t$-channel amplitudes by $$\begin{aligned} \tau_{{\cal J} \ell L}^{t \lambda i_\gamma} & \equiv & \frac{(-1)^{2 {\cal J} -1 + i_\gamma} [{\cal J}]} {\sqrt{[1][i_\gamma][L][\ell]}} \sum_{K} \, [K] \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & L & K \\ \ell & i_\gamma & {\cal J} \end{array} \right] \tau_{K \ell L}^{\lambda} \ . \label{t_chan}\end{aligned}$$ Then, for the isovector case ($i_\gamma \! = \! 1$), $$\begin{aligned} \hspace{-1em} M_{\ell L J m_I \nu}^{\lambda I 1} & \! = \! & (-1)^{L-\ell} \left( \! \! \! {\begin{array}{cc} {\begin{array}{cc} 1 & \frac{1}{2} \\ \nu & m_I \! - \! \nu \end{array}} & \! \! \! {\left| {\begin{array}{c} I \\ m_I \\ \end{array}} \right.} \\ \end{array}} \! \! \! \right) \! \! \left( \! \! \! {\begin{array}{cc} {\begin{array}{cc} 1 & \frac{1}{2} \\ 0 & m_I \\ \end{array}} & \! \! \! {\left| {\begin{array}{c} I \\ m_I \\ \end{array}} \right.} \\ \end{array}} \! \! \! \right) \! \sum_{{\cal J}} \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & \frac{1}{2} & I \\ \frac{1}{2} & 1 & {\cal J} \end{array} \right] \! \! \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} L & \frac{1}{2} & J \\ \frac{1}{2} & \ell & {\cal J} \end{array} \right] \tau_{{\cal J} \ell L}^{t \lambda 1} \label{RedMmast_i1} \, .\end{aligned}$$ In the isoscalar case ($i_\gamma \! = \! 0$), the first $6j$ symbol and the second Clebsch-Gordan coefficient in Eq. (\[RedMmast\]) collapse to simple factors times Kronecker $\delta$’s. Including the explicit $1/N_c$ suppression described above, one has $$\begin{aligned} M_{\ell L J m_I \nu}^{\lambda I 0} & = & \frac{(-1)^{L-\ell}}{N_c} \left( \! \! \! {\begin{array}{cc} {\begin{array}{cc} 1 & \frac{1}{2} \\ \nu & m_I \! - \! \nu \end{array}} & \! \! \! {\left| {\begin{array}{c} \frac{1}{2} \\ m_I \\ \end{array}} \right.} \\ \end{array}} \! \! \! \right) \frac{\delta_{I,\frac{1}{2}}}{[1]^{1/4}} \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} L & \frac{1}{2} & J \\ \frac{1}{2} & \ell & 1 \end{array} \right] \tau_{1 \ell L}^{t \lambda 0} \ . \label{RedMmast_i0}\end{aligned}$$ Equations (\[RedMmast\_i1\]) and (\[RedMmast\_i0\]) are analogous to expressions obtained earlier by Eckart and Schwesinger [@ES], if one identifies $\tau_{K \ell L}(i_\gamma \! = \! 1)$ and $\tau_{K \ell L}(i_\gamma \! = \! 0)$ with their dynamical functions $V_{K \ell}^L(k_\gamma,k_\pi)$ and $S_{K \ell}^L(k_\gamma,k_\pi)$, respectively. Reference [@ES] studied photoproduction of baryon resonances in the context of the Skyrme model and derived expressions for the same multipole amplitudes as considered here. Their expansion, however, includes a third dynamical function $R_{K \ell}^L(k_\gamma,k_\pi)$ that does not appear in the present derivation, since it represents Skyrmion angular velocity terms, which vanish at leading order in $1/N_c$. Similarly, our analysis would suppress $S$ compared to $V$ by the aforementioned $1/N_c$ factor. The linear relations derived in Refs. [@ES] and [@Report] are therefore not consequences of large $N_c$ QCD since all the functions $R$, $S$, and $V$ are treated as equally important in their analysis. Because of the extra $1/N_c$ suppression of isoscalar compared to isovector amplitudes, an expansion to consistent order in $1/N_c$ requires the inclusion of NLO amplitudes for just the isovector channel. We parameterize them by following the same procedure as in Ref. [@CDLN]: The LO terms all have $|I_t \! - \! J_t| \! = \! 0$ [@MM], while all linearly independent NLO terms have $|I_t \! = \! J_t| \! = \! 1$ [@CDLN; @KapMan]. Generalizing Eq. (\[RedMmast\_i1\]) in this way gives $$\begin{aligned} M_{\ell L J m_I \nu}^{\lambda I 1 \, (\textrm{NLO})} & \! = & \frac{(-1)^{L-\ell}}{N_c} \left( \! \! \! {\begin{array}{cc} {\begin{array}{cc} 1 & \frac{1}{2} \\ \nu & m_I \! - \! \nu \end{array}} & \! \! \! {\left| {\begin{array}{c} I \\ m_I \\ \end{array}} \right.} \\ \end{array}} \! \! \! \right) \left( \! \! \! {\begin{array}{cc} {\begin{array}{cc} 1 & \frac{1}{2} \\ 0 & m_I \end{array}} & \! \! \! {\left| {\begin{array}{c} I \\ m_I \\ \end{array}} \right.} \\ \end{array}} \! \! \! \right) \nonumber \\ & & \times \left\{ \sum_{x} \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & \frac{1}{2} & I \\ \frac{1}{2} & 1 & x \end{array} \right] \! \! \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} L & \frac{1}{2} & J \\ \frac{1}{2} & \ell & x \! + \! 1 \end{array} \right] \! \tau_{x \ell L}^{t \lambda (+)} + \sum_{y} \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & \frac{1}{2} & I \\ \frac{1}{2} & 1 & y \end{array} \right] \! \! \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} L & \frac{1}{2} & J \\ \frac{1}{2} & \ell & y \! - \! 1 \end{array} \right] \! \tau_{y \ell L}^{t \lambda (-)} \right\}. \nonumber \\ & & \label{RedMmast_NLO}\end{aligned}$$ Note that ${\cal J}$ in Eq. (\[RedMmast\_i1\]), and $x$ and $y$ in Eq. (\[RedMmast\_NLO\]), are dummy labels for $I_t$ in each corresponding sum. The total multipole amplitude expansion, including all LO terms and good to consistent order in $1/N_c$, is the sum of Eqs. (\[RedMmast\_i1\]), (\[RedMmast\_i0\]), and (\[RedMmast\_NLO\]): $$\begin{aligned} M_{\ell L J m_I \nu}^{\lambda I} & = & M_{\ell L J m_I \nu}^{\lambda I 1} + M_{\ell L J m_I \nu}^{\lambda I 0} + M_{\ell L J m_I \nu}^{\lambda I 1 \, (\textrm{NLO})}. \label{TotAmp}\end{aligned}$$ Some general comments apply to Eq. (\[TotAmp\]). First, the NLO amplitude contains only two sums since $|I_t \! - \! J_t|=1$ is satisfied only by $I_t \! = \! J_t \! \pm \! 1$. The sum over ${\cal J}$ is constrained to $0$ and $1$, due to the triangle rule $\Delta(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},{\cal J})$ in the first $[6j]$ symbol in Eq. (\[RedMmast\_i1\]). Similarly, triangle rules in the second $[6j]$ symbol reduce the respective sums over $x$ and $y$ to single terms with $x \! = \! 0$ and $y \! = \! 1$. Equation (\[TotAmp\]) in its simplest expanded form, with free quantum numbers $J$, $L$, $\ell$, $m_I$, and $\nu$, reads $$\begin{aligned} M_{\ell L J}^{\lambda m_I \nu} & = & \sum_{I} (-1)^{L-\ell} \left( \begin{array}{cc} 1 & \frac{1}{2} \\ \nu & m_I \! - \! \nu \\ \end{array} \right| \left. \begin{array}{c} I \\ m_I \\ \end{array} \right) \nonumber \\ & \times & \left[ \left( \begin{array}{cc} 1 & \frac{1}{2} \\ 0 & m_I \\ \end{array} \right| \left. \begin{array}{c} I \\ m_I \\ \end{array} \right) \right. \left\{ \delta_{\ell , L} \tau_{0 L L}^{t \lambda 1} + \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} \left( \delta_{I,\frac{1}{2}}-\frac{1}{2} \delta_{I,\frac{3}{2}} \right) \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} L & \frac{1}{2} & J \\ \frac{1}{2} & \ell & 1 \end{array} \right] \tau_{1 \ell L}^{t \lambda 1} \right. \nonumber \\ & & \left. \left. + \frac{1}{N_c} \left( \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} L & \frac{1}{2} & J \\ \frac{1}{2} & \ell & 1 \end{array} \right] \tau_{0 \ell L}^{t \lambda (+)} + \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} \left( \delta_{I,\frac{1}{2}}-\frac{1}{2} \delta_{I,\frac{3}{2}} \right) \delta_{\ell,L} \tau_{1 L L}^{t \lambda (-)} \right) \right\} \right. \nonumber \\ & & \left. + \frac{1}{N_c} \frac{\delta_{I,\frac{1}{2}}}{[1]^{1/4}} \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} L & \frac{1}{2} & J \\ \frac{1}{2} & \ell & 1 \end{array} \right] \tau_{1 \ell L}^{t \lambda 0} \right] . \label{Final}\end{aligned}$$ Linear Relations \[lin\] ======================== Charge conservation limits the number of pion photoproduction channels to four: $\gamma p \rightarrow \pi^+n$, $\gamma n \rightarrow \pi^-p$, $\gamma p \rightarrow \pi^0p$, $\gamma n \rightarrow \pi^0n$. However, due to isospin invariance of the strong interaction, only three of these are independent. Since the species in $\gamma n \rightarrow \pi^0n$ are neutral, this reaction is difficult to study experimentally and we use isospin freedom to eliminate its amplitudes (separately for total $I \! = \! \frac 1 2$ and $\frac 3 2$ channels) [@neut]. The remaining three charged channels can occur via an electric or magnetic transition. In the magnetic case, the photon and pion have the same orbital angular momentum ($\ell \! = \! L$), whereas in the electric case, there is a change of one unit ($\ell \! = \! L \! \pm \! 1$). Given these restrictions, the set of multipole amplitudes describing these cases can be written in terms of a still [*smaller*]{} set of reduced amplitudes. Thus one expects linear relations among the physically measurable amplitudes. Linear relations can be derived at both LO and NLO in $1/N_c$. In order to find the LO relations, we work with only the LO pieces in Eq. (\[Final\]) (*i.e.*, disregard the $1/N_c$-suppressed terms). To find the relations that hold to NLO, we use the complete expression. The electric and magnetic transitions have distinct expansions and are investigated independently. Let us begin with the expansion of the electric multipole amplitudes. Six physical amplitudes correspond to the two ways, $J \! = \! L \! \pm \! \frac 1 2$, of combining the pion and nucleon angular momenta for each of the three charged reactions. At LO these are expanded in terms of only two reduced amplitudes ($\tau^{t \, \textrm{e} \, 1}_{1, L \pm 1, L}$), implying four relations. Two of these are: $$\begin{aligned} M^{\textrm{e},\, p(\pi^+)n}_{L-1,L,-}=M^{\textrm{e},\, n(\pi^-)p}_{L-1,L,-}+O(N_c^{-1}) \ (L \geq 2),\label{LOEminus} \\ M^{\textrm{e},\, p(\pi^+)n}_{L+1,L,+}=M^{\textrm{e},\, n(\pi^-)p}_{L+1,L,+}+O(N_c^{-1}) \ (L \geq 0) , \label{LOEplus}\end{aligned}$$ where the last subscript in each amplitude is no longer $J$, but represents the equivalent information of the sign in $J \! = \! L \! \pm \! \frac 1 2$. These relations follow simply from isospin symmetry of isovector amplitudes, since the isoscalar component of the photon current is absent at LO. The other two LO relations imply the vanishing of the electric multipole amplitudes for $\gamma p \rightarrow \pi^0 p$ at leading order in $1/N_c \,$: $$\label{pi0e} M_{L\pm1,L,\pm}^{\textrm{e},\, p(\pi^0)p} = O(1/N_c) \ .$$ After extrapolating to the real world of $N_c \! = \! 3$, one expects these amplitudes to be about a factor $N_c \! = \! 3$ smaller (on average) than those of the charge-exchange reactions. Once the NLO terms in Eq. (\[Final\]) are included, four new reduced amplitudes ($\tau^{t \, \textrm{e} (+)}_{0, L \pm 1, L}$ and $\tau^{t \, \textrm{e} \, 0}_{1, L \pm 1 , L}$) appear, leaving no remaining electric multipole relations at NLO. Turning to the magnetic transition, one sees that only two LO reduced amplitudes ($\tau^{t \, \textrm{m} \, 1}_{1 L L}$ and $\tau^{t \, \textrm{m} \, 1}_{0 L L}$) are needed to describe the six physical amplitudes. This yields four LO linear relations: $$\begin{aligned} M^{\textrm{m},\,p(\pi^0)p}_{L,L,-} & = & M^{\textrm{m},\,p(\pi^0)p}_{L,L,+}+O(N_c^{-1}) \ (L \geq 1), \label{LOMnought} \\ M^{\textrm{m},\,p(\pi^+)n}_{L,L,-} & = & M^{\textrm{m},\,n(\pi^-)p}_{L,L,-} = -\frac{L+1}{L}M^{\textrm{m},\,p(\pi^+)n}_{L,L,+} = -\frac{L+1}{L}M^{\textrm{m},\,n(\pi^-)p}_{L,L,+} \ (L \geq 1). \label{LOMchain}\end{aligned}$$ As before, two of these follow from isospin symmetry among the isovector amplitudes. The NLO terms bring in only three more reduced amplitudes ($\tau^{t \, \textrm{m} (+)}_{0 L L}$, $\tau^{t \, \textrm{m} (-)}_{1 L L}$, and $\tau^{t \, \textrm{m} \, 0}_{1 L L}$), meaning that one relation remains at this order. Indeed, one might have anticipated fewer amplitudes in the magnetic rather than the electric transition since, in the former case, only $\ell \! = \! L$ is allowed. The NLO relation is $$M^{\textrm{m},\,p(\pi^+)n}_{L,L,-} = M^{\textrm{m},\,n(\pi^-)p}_{L,L,-} -\left(\frac{L+1}{L}\right) \left[ M^{\textrm{m},\,p(\pi^+)n}_{L,L,+}-M^{\textrm{m},\,n(\pi^-)p}_{L,L,+} \right] +O(N_c^{-2}) \ (L\geq 1).\label{NLO}$$ A casual glance shows this to be a linear combination of the LO relations in Eq. (\[LOMchain\]); it is the unique combination for which the NLO corrections (in brackets) cancel as well. One expects this relation to hold empirically a factor of $N_c \! = \! 3$ better than its LO counterpart. Finally, we point out that a number of relations may be obtained from Eq. (\[Final\]) for pure $I \! = \! \frac 1 2$ or $\frac 3 2$ amplitude combinations, but this merely represents a different basis for representing the charge states. Experimental Tests \[exp\] ========================== In principle, all seven linear relations included in Eqs. (\[LOEminus\])–(\[NLO\]) (for each allowed value of $L$), plus the smallness of Eqs. (\[pi0e\]), can be tested by comparison with available experimental data. The numbers used are the results of partial-wave analysis applied to raw data from experiments in which real photons are scattered off nucleon targets. We use the data presented by the SAID program [@SAID] at George Washington University and the MAID 2003 program [@MAID] at Universität Mainz. Although one requires only a single data set, it is useful to check the extent to which the model dependence of the data analysis used by the two groups affects our comparisons. We find that the difference is not significant for our tests. It is now convenient to introduce the notation used in the experimental data tables. The *electromagnetic multipoles* are given in terms of our multipole amplitudes: $$\begin{aligned} M^{\textrm{e}}_{L-1,L,-} & = & +\beta \sqrt{L(L-1)}\, E_{L-} \nonumber \\ M^{\textrm{e}}_{L+1,L,+} & = & +\beta \sqrt{(L+2)(L+1)} \, E_{L+} \nonumber \\ M^{\textrm{m}}_{L,L,+} & = & -\beta \sqrt{L(L+1)} \, M_{L+} \nonumber \\ M^{\textrm{m}}_{L,L,-} & = & -\beta \sqrt{L(L+1)}\, M_{L-} \label{multipoles}\end{aligned}$$ where [@ES] $$\beta \equiv -F_\pi \sqrt{ \frac{k_\gamma}{8\pi\alpha} } \ ,$$ with $F_\pi \simeq 186 \, {\rm MeV}$ and $k_\gamma$ the photon c.m.3-momentum, is an energy scale that cancels from all linear relations and therefore is irrelevant to this work: From Sec. \[lin\], one notes that each term in any one of our linear relations has the same prefactors of $\beta$ and $L$ entering via Eq. (\[multipoles\]). The relations therefore take the same form when written in terms of the electromagnetic multipoles. It should also be noted that the convention for the signs of $p (\pi^+) n$ amplitudes appearing in data are often reversed (in MAID, for example) compared to those fixed by the standard Condon-Shortley convention used in this paper. In all plots we present both real and imaginary parts of partial wave amplitudes, for values of c.m. energy $W$ of the $\gamma N$ system up to 2 GeV. We begin with an illustration of the electric multipole results, Eqs. (\[LOEminus\])–(\[pi0e\]). In Fig. \[LOEmplot\] we plot the left-hand side (l.h.s.) and right-hand side (r.h.s.) of Eq. (\[LOEminus\]) for $L \! = \! 2$–5, and similarly for Eq. (\[LOEplus\]) with $L \! = \! 0$–5 in Fig. \[LOEpplot\]. It is immediately clear that the relations are convincing, particularly in the energy range below resonances—after all, it has been known for a long time that isoscalar amplitudes are suppressed compared to isovector amplitudes. The $1/N_c$ expansion simply provides an expectation for the relative magnitude of the difference; indeed, the agreement often seems better than $1/N_c$, or 1 part in 3. 2.5 in 2.5 in\ 2.5 in 2.5 in\ 2.5 in 2.5 in\ 2.5 in 2.5 in 2.5 in 2.5 in\ 2.5 in 2.5 in\ 2.5 in 2.5 in\ 2.5 in 2.5 in\ 2.5 in 2.5 in\ 2.5 in 2.5 in Confronting Eq. (\[pi0e\]) with data is more difficult. One may, for example, superimpose plots of $M_{L\pm1,L,\pm}^{\textrm{e},\, p(\pi^0)p}$ with the corresponding charge-exchange amplitudes and ask whether the former are truly $O(1/N_c)$ smaller than the latter. Since both of these amplitudes have their own unique structure as functions of energy, a sort of averaging procedure is necessary, and a decisive result is not immediately visible. We therefore do not include such plots in this work. Indeed, there are certain energy regions where the $\pi^0$ electric multipoles are actually larger than their charged counterparts, particularly for the imaginary parts in the lower partial waves. By and large, however, the $\pi^0$ e amplitudes tend to be smaller at most energies, in general agreement with Eq. (\[pi0e\]). We next plot the two sides of the $\pi^0$ magnetic relation Eq. (\[LOMnought\]) in Fig. \[mag0fig\] for $L \! = \! 1$–5. Agreement for the $L \! = \! 1$ partial wave is particularly poor because of the presence of the $\Delta^+$(P$_{33}$) resonance, which in the large $N_c$ limit is a stable partner of the nucleons. As $L$ increases, however, one observes an increasingly satisfactory comparison. Even in $L \! = \! 2$, where the resonances D$_{13} (1520)$ and D$_{15}(1675)$ appear separated and quite different in amplitude, there is good reason for optimism, as we show below for on-resonance parameters for the charge-changing amplitudes. 2.5 in 2.5 in\ 2.5 in 2.5 in\ 2.5 in 2.5 in\ 2.5 in 2.5 in\ 2.5 in 2.5 in Turning now to the charged magnetic multipole relations, we simultaneously test both LO \[leftmost of Eq. (\[LOMchain\])\] and NLO \[Eq. (\[NLO\])\] relations in a single set of plots, for $L \! = \! 1$–5. In each plot three curves appear, corresponding to $M^{p(\pi^+)n}_{L-}$ \[the l.h.s. of Eqs. (\[LOMchain\]) and (\[NLO\])\] and the r.h.s.’s of the LO and NLO relations. Since NLO relations are more delicate, we present these combinations using both MAID (Fig. \[MAIDmagfig\]) and SAID (Fig. \[SAIDmagfig\]) data. 2.5 in 2.5 in\ 2.5 in 2.5 in\ 2.5 in 2.5 in\ 2.5 in 2.5 in\ 2.5 in 2.5 in 2.5 in 2.5 in\ 2.5 in 2.5 in\ 2.5 in 2.5 in\ 2.5 in 2.5 in\ 2.5 in 2.5 in One can infer several interesting conclusions from these figures. First, the LO relations definitely have merit, particularly in the energy range below the appearance of resonances. This is true for all partial waves, real and imaginary parts alike. However, the addition of NLO terms does not seem to greatly improve agreement between the two curves; indeed, in certain low partial waves ([*e.g.*]{}, $L \! = \! 1$), the addition of NLO terms seems to make the agreement worse. However, a clue to what is happening may be gleaned from the fact the NLO terms in Eq. (\[NLO\]) may introduce resonances completely absent from the LO terms. These plots reveal the strong effect of resonances in the lower partial waves on the quality of our predictions. This was noted earlier by Schwesinger [*et al.*]{} [@Report] when they attempted to compare their Skyrme model relations with experiment. Rather than compare the multipole amplitudes along the full energy range, they proposed an alternate testing method using the resonance couplings (obtainable through the helicity amplitudes) for the relevant resonances. Such an approach is all the more sensible in the $1/N_c$ expansion, where resonances that would be degenerate in the large $N_c$ limit may differ in mass by as much as 300 MeV. For example, the $\Delta$-$N$ mass difference is formally only an $O(1/N_c^1)$ effect. One should not be surprised if LO and NLO terms differ by humps that are shifted with respect to each other. One can proceed in a similar manner to that of Ref. [@Report], once Eqs. (\[LOMchain\]) and (\[NLO\]) are written in terms of the Walker helicity amplitudes [@walker] $A^p$, $A^n$, $B^p$, and $B^n$, which are, respectively, proportional to the helicity amplitudes $A^p_{1/2}$, $A^n_{1/2}$, $A^p_{1/2}$, and $A^n_{3/2}$ at each resonance given in the [*Review of Particle Properties*]{} [@PDG]. In the present case, each of these amplitudes may have either of $J \! = \! L \pm \frac{1}{2}$. The conversion between these amplitudes is outlined in the Appendix; the final result is: $$\begin{aligned} \left[A^p - A^n \right]_{L-} + \frac{1}{2}(L-1)\left[B^p - B^n \right]_{L-} & = & O(N_c^{-1}), \label{coupling1} \\ \left[A^p - A^n \right]_{L-} + \frac{1}{2}(L-1) \left[B^p - B^n \right]_{L-} & & \nonumber \\ + \left[A^p - A^n \right]_{L+} - \frac{1}{2}(L+2) \left[B^p - B^n \right]_{L+} & = & O(N_c^{-2}).\label{coupling2}\end{aligned}$$ We now consider each partial wave and insert the resonance couplings for nearby $I \! = \! \frac 1 2$ resonances into the above formulas (paired $I \! = \! \frac 3 2$ resonances appear to occur too high in energy to significantly influence these plots). After consulting Ref. [@PDG], one sees that only $L \! = \! 2$ provides a meaningful test since D$_{13}$(1520) and D$_{15}$(1675) can be grouped together as distinct resonances appearing in one of the plotted partial waves. This is fortunate, because the $L \! = \! 2$ plot is the most inconclusive of those discussed above. Resonances in other partial waves are either poorly resolved or split too far apart to make a convincing match. We evaluate the l.h.s.’s of Eqs. (\[coupling1\]) and (\[coupling2\]), and also show in curly braces the sum of the absolute values of each term to demonstrate the extent of the cancellations. If the $1/N_c$ expression is working, the l.h.s. in the first should be about 1/3 of the corresponding factor in braces, and that in the second should be about 1/9. $$\begin{aligned} \textrm{l.h.s.} \, (\ref{coupling1}) &=& -38.4 \pm 5.6 \;\; \{ 100.9 \} \;\times 10^{-3} \, \textrm{GeV}^{-1}, \label{1st} \\ \textrm{l.h.s.} \, (\ref{coupling2}) &=& -18.2 \pm 8.5 \;\; \{ 140.2 \} \;\times 10^{-3} \, \textrm{GeV}^{-1} . \label{2nd} $$ Expressed as ratios, the results are $-0.38 \pm 0.06$ and $-0.13 \pm 0.06$, respectively. One sees that the behavior is exactly what one would expect from the $1/N_c$ expansion. Indeed, if anything, the agreement is better than one might expect. For example, a central value in Eq. (\[1st\]) of 20 or 50 would still be acceptable. We conclude that Eq. (\[NLO\]) works well, even though the presence of somewhat separated resonances obscures agreement over the full energy range. Conclusions {#concl} =========== We have presented model-independent expressions, derived from the $1/N_c$ expansion of QCD, for pion photoproduction multipole amplitudes. This expansion yields several nontrivial predictions that can be tested with experimental data. We find that the relations holding to leading order in $1/N_c$ match the data quite well in most cases, particularly in the region between threshold and the onset of resonances. The relations holding at next-to-leading order in $1/N_c$ appear to yield a more modest improvement if one insists on considering the amplitudes at all energy scales, including the resonant region. However, when the same relations are employed using parameters extracted directly from distinct resonances appearing in partial waves on the two sides of these equations, the agreement with the expectations of the $1/N_c$ expansion—at both leading and subleading order—is remarkable. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== D.C.D. would like to thank E. Beise and J.J. Kelly for explaining the SAID and MAID data. The work of T.D.C. and D.C.D. was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG02-93ER-40762. The work of R.F.L. and D.R.M. was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.PHY-0140362. Helicity Amplitudes =================== The magnetic multipoles $M_{L\pm}$ can be rewritten in terms of helicity amplitudes. To do this, one introduces the Walker helicity elements [@walker], $A_{L\pm}$ and $B_{L\pm}$. The labels $A$ and $B$ refer to an initial $\gamma N$ state with total angular momentum $J \! = \! L \! \pm \! \frac{1}{2}$ that has helicity $\frac{1}{2}$ and $\frac{3}{2}$, respectively. They are related for $L \! \ge \! 1$ by \[Ref. [@walker], Eq. (25)\]: $$\begin{aligned} M_{L+} &=& \frac{1}{L+1}\left[A_{L+} - \frac{1}{2}(L+2)B_{L+}\right],\\ M_{L-} &=& \frac{1}{L}\left[A_{L-} + \frac{1}{2}(L-1)B_{L-}\right].\end{aligned}$$ These should be regarded as eight equations, two for each of the four possible pion photoproduction reactions. This is sufficient to obtain Eqs. (\[coupling1\]) and (\[coupling2\]). The Walker helicity elements can be then be written in terms of helicity amplitudes $A^p_{1/2}$, $A^p_{3/2}$, $A^n_{1/2}$, and $A^n_{3/2}$, whose numerical values are tabulated in Ref. [@PDG]. The subscript indicates the helicity of the state, while the superscript indicates the initial nucleon. The relationship between these two representations is given by Eqs. (9.8) and (9.9) of Ref. [@Report]: $$\begin{aligned} {\rm Im} A^\beta_{L \pm} & = & \mp f A^\beta_{1/2} \ , \nonumber \\ {\rm Im} B^\beta_{L \pm} & = & \pm f \sqrt{ \frac{16}{(2J-1)(2J+3)} } A^\beta_{3/2} \ , \nonumber \\ f & = & \sqrt{ \frac{1}{(2J+1) \pi} \frac{k_\gamma}{k_\pi} \frac{M_N}{M_R} \frac{\Gamma_\pi}{\Gamma^2} } \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta$ refers to the initial isospin of the $\gamma N$ system (and therefore subsumes a Clebsch-Gordan coefficient when one refers to a specific nucleon charge state). $k_\gamma$ and $k_\pi$ are the c.m. 3-momenta of the photon and pion, respectively. $M_N$ and $M_R$ are the nucleon and resonance masses, and $\Gamma_\pi$ and $\Gamma$ are the pionic and total widths of the resonance, respectively. [99]{} T.D. Cohen, D.C. Dakin, R.F. Lebed, and A. Nellore, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 056004 (2004). J.-L. Gervais and B. Sakita, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**52**]{}, 87 (1984); Phys. Rev. D [**30**]{}, 1795 (1984). R.F. Dashen and A.V. Manohar, Phys. Lett. B [**315**]{}, 425 (1993); [**315**]{}, 438 (1993). R.F. Dashen, E. Jenkins, and A.V. Manohar, Phys. Rev. D [**49**]{}, 4713 (1994). T.D. Cohen and R.F. Lebed, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 012001 (2003); Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 096008 (2003); Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 056003 (2003). The leading order in absolute terms is $O(e/\sqrt{N_c})$, but this is irrelevant for our calculations. C. Eckart and B. Schwesinger, Nucl. Phys. [**A458**]{}, 620 (1986). B. Schwesinger, H. Weigel, G. Holzwarth, and A. Hayashi, Phys.Reports [**173**]{}, 173 (1989). E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. [**B160**]{}, 57 (1979). G. Adkins, C. Nappi, and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. [**B228**]{}, 552 (1983). T.D. Cohen and R.F. Lebed, Phys. Lett. B [**578**]{}, 150 (2004). A. Hayashi, G. Eckart, G. Holzwarth, and H. Walliser, Phys. Lett., 5 (1984); M.P. Mattis and M. Karliner , Phys. Rev. D [**31**]{}, 2833 (1985). M.P. Mattis and M.E. Peskin, Phys. Rev. D [**32**]{}, 58 (1985); M.P. Mattis, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**56**]{}, 1103 (1986); Phys. Rev. D [**39**]{}, 994 (1989); Phys. Rev. Lett. [**63**]{}, 1455 (1989). M.P. Mattis and M. Mukerjee, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**61**]{}, 1344 (1988). V.B. Berestetskii, E.M. Lifshitz, and L.P. Pitaevskii, [*Relativistic Quantum Theory*]{},\ (Addison-Wesley Publishing, Reading, Massachusetts, 1971). A.J. Buchmann and R.F. Lebed, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 096005 (2000). A.J. Buchmann, J.A. Hester, and R.F. Lebed, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 056002 (2002). E. Jenkins, X. Ji, and A. Manohar, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 242001 (2002); R.F. Lebed and D.R. Martin, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 016008 (2004). D.B. Kaplan and A.V. Manohar, Phys. Rev. C [**56**]{}, 76 (1997). A.R. Edmonds, [*Angular Momentum in Quantum Mechanics*]{} (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 1996). Of course, this is an empirically testable hypothesis on such data as exists. The SAID data is available at George Washington University’s Center for Nuclear Studies website: http://gwdac.phys.gwu.edu. The MAID data is available at the Universität Mainz Institute for Nuclear Physics website: http://www.kph.uni-mainz.de/maid/. R.L. Walker, Phys. Rev. [**182**]{}, 1729 (1969). Particle Data Group, Phys. Lett. B [**592**]{}, 1 (2004).

ArXiv

--- abstract: | Every $\mathbb{A}^{1}-$bundle over $\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2},$ the complex affine plane punctured at the origin, is trivial in the differentiable category but there are infinitely many distinct isomorphy classes of algebraic bundles. Isomorphy types of total spaces of such algebraic bundles are considered; in particular, the complex affine $3$-sphere $\mathbb{S}_{% \mathbb{C}}^{3},$ given by $z_{1}^{2}+z_{2}^{2}+z_{3}^{2}+z_{4}^{2}=1,$ admits such a structure with an additional homogeneity property. Total spaces of nontrivial homogeneous $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundles over $\mathbb{A}% _{\ast }^{2}$ are classified up to $\mathbb{G}_{m}$-equivariant algebraic isomorphism and a criterion for nonisomorphy is given. In fact $\mathbb{S}_{\mathbb{C}}^{3}$ is not isomorphic as an abstract variety to the total space of any $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundle over $\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ of different homogeneous degree, which gives rise to the existence of exotic spheres, a phenomenon that first arises in dimension three. As a by product, an example is given of two biholomorphic but not algebraically isomorphic threefolds, both with a trivial Makar-Limanov invariant, and with isomorphic cylinders. address: - 'Adrien Dubouloz, Institut de Mathématiques de Bourgogne, Université de Bourgogne, 9 avenue Alain Savary - BP 47870, 21078 Dijon cedex, France' - 'Department of Mathematical Sciences, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003' author: - Adrien Dubouloz - 'David R. Finston' title: 'On exotic affine $3$-spheres' --- Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered} ============ Exotic affine spaces emerged in the 1990’s as rather unusual objects in affine algebraic geometry. These are smooth complex affine varieties diffeomorphic to a euclidean space but not algebraically isomorphic to the usual affine space. Actually, the first examples were constructed by Ramanujam in a landmark paper [@Ramanujam1971] in which he also established the non existence of exotic affine planes. Since then, many other examples of smooth contractible affine varieties of any dimension $% n\geq 3$ have been discovered and these objects have progressively become ubiquitous in affine algebraic geometry. The study of these potential exotic $\mathbb{A}^{n}$’s has been a motivation for the introduction and the development of new techniques and “designer” invariants which in turn led to important progress in related questions, such as the Zariski Cancellation Problem (see e.g. [@Zaidenberg1999] for a survey). So far, these invariants have succeeded in distinguishing certain of these varieties from usual affine spaces, most notably the famous Russell cubic threefold $% X=\left\{ x^{2}y+z^{2}+x+t^{3}=0\right\} \subset \mathbb{A}^{4}$ [Kaliman1999,Makar-Limanov1996]{}. But the main difficulty still remains the lack of effective tools to recognize exotic spaces or, equivalently, the lack of effective characterizations of affine spaces among affine varieties. More generally, given any smooth complex affine variety $V$, one can ask if there exists smooth affine varieties $W$ non isomorphic to $V$ but which are biholomorphic or diffeomorphic to $V$ when equipped with their underlying structures of complex analytic or differentiable manifolds. When such exist, these varieties $W$ could be called exotic algebraic structures on $V,$ but it makes more sense to reserve this terminology for the case where the chosen variety $V$ carries an algebraic structure that we consider as the usual one. In addition to affine spaces, a very natural class for which we have such usual algebraic structures consists of non-degenerate smooth complex affine quadrics, i.e., varieties isomorphic to one of the form $\mathbb{S}_{\mathbb{C}}^{n}=\left\{ x_{1}^{2}+\cdots +x_{n+1}^{2}=1\right\} $ equipped with its unique structure of a closed algebraic subvariety of $\mathbb{A}_{\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}$. So an* exotic complex affine $n$-sphere,* if it exists, will be a smooth complex affine variety diffeomorphic to $\mathbb{S}_{\mathbb{C}}^{n}$ but not algebraically isomorphic to it. Since $\mathbb{S}_{\mathbb{C}}^{1}\simeq \mathbb{A}% ^{1}\setminus \left\{ 0\right\} $ is the unique smooth affine curve $C$ with $H_{1}\left( C,\mathbb{Z}\right) \simeq \mathbb{Z}$, there is no exotic affine $1$-sphere. Similarly, there is no exotic affine $2$-sphere and the same phenomenon as for affine spaces occurs: the algebraic structure on a smooth affine surface diffeomorphic to $\mathbb{S}_{\mathbb{C}}^{2}$ is actually uniquely determined by its topology: namely, a smooth affine surface $S$ is algebraically isomorphic to $\mathbb{S}_{\mathbb{C}}^{2}$ if and only if it has the same homology type and the same homotopy type at infinity as $\mathbb{S}_{\mathbb{C}}^{2}$ (see \[thm:NoExotic2-sphere\] in the appendix below). In the context of the cancellation problem for factorial threefolds, S. Maubach and the second author [@Finston2008] studied a family of smooth affine threefolds with the homology type of $\mathbb{S}_{\mathbb{C}}^{3}$ : starting from a Brieskorn surface $S_{p,q,r}=\left\{ x^{p}+y^{q}+z^{r}=0\right\} \subset \mathbb{A}^{3}$, they consider smooth affine threefolds $Z_{m,n}\subset S_{p,q,r}\times \mathbb{A}^{2}$ defined by equations of the form $x^{m}v-y^{n}u=1$, $m\geq n\geq 1$. These varieties come equipped via the first projection with the structure of a locally trivial $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundle $\rho :Z_{m,n}\rightarrow S_{p,q,r}^{\ast }$ over the smooth locus $S_{p,q,r}^{\ast }=S_{p,q,r}\setminus \{(0,0,0)\}$ of $% S_{p,q,r}$ . For a fixed triple $\left( p,q,r\right) $, they are all diffeomorphic to each other and have the Brieskorn sphere $\Sigma \left( p,q,r\right) $ as a strong deformation retract. The main result of [Finston2008]{} asserts in contrast that if $\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}+\frac{1}{r% }<1$, then the isomorphy type of the total space of an $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundle over $S_{p,q,r}^{\ast }$ as an abstract algebraic variety is uniquely determined by its isomorphy class as an $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundle over $S_{p,q,r}^{\ast }$, up to composition by automorphisms of $% S_{p,q,r}^{\ast }$[^1]. This enables in particular the conclusion that the $Z_{m,n}$ are pairwise non isomorphic algebraic varieties, despite the isomorphy of all of the cylinders $ Z_{m,n}\times \mathbb{A}^{1}$. Noting that $\mathbb{S}_{\mathbb{C}}^{3}\cong \mathrm{SL}_{2}\left( \mathbb{C% }\right) =\left\{ xv-yu=1\right\} \subset \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}\times \mathbb{A}^{2}$, where $\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}=\mathrm{Spec}\left( \mathbb{C}% \left[ x,y\right] \right) \setminus \{(0,0)\}$, the previous result strongly suggests that the varieties $$X_{m,n}=\left\{ x^{m}v-y^{n}u=1\right\} \subset \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}\times \mathbb{A}^{2},\quad m+n>2,$$could be exotic affine $3$-spheres. Indeed, for every $m,n\geq 1$, the first projection again induces a Zariski locally trivial $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundle $% \rho :X_{m,n}\rightarrow \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$. The latter being trivial in the euclidean topology, the $X_{m,n}$ are thus all diffeomorphic to $% \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}\times \mathbb{R}^{2}$ and have the real sphere $S^{3}$ as a strong deformation retract. This holds more generally for any Zariski locally trivial $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundle $\rho :X\rightarrow \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$, and so all smooth affine threefolds admitting such a structure are natural candidates for being exotic $3$-spheres. But it turns out that it is a challenging problem to distinguish these varieties from $\mathbb{S}_{% \mathbb{C}}^{3}\simeq X_{1,1}$ since, in contrast with the situation considered in [@Finston2008], the isomorphy type of the total space of an $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundle $\rho :X\rightarrow \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ as an abstract variety is no longer uniquely determined by its structure as an $% \mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundle; for instance, a consequence of our main result is the following rather unexpected fact that for every pair $\left( m,n\right) ,\left( p,q\right) \in \mathbb{Z}_{>0}^{2}$ such that $m+n=p+q\geq 4$, the threefolds $X_{m,n}$ and $X_{p,q}$ are isomorphic as abstract algebraic varieties while they are isomorphic as $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundles over $% \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ only if $\left\{ m,n\right\} =\left\{ p,q\right\} $.[^2] While a complete and effective classification of isomorphy types of total spaces of $\mathbb{A}^{1}$- bundles over $\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ seems out of reach for the moment, we obtain a satisfactory answer for a particular class of bundles containing the varieties $X_{m,n}$ that we call *homogeneous* $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-*bundles*. These are principal $\mathbb{G}% _{a}$-bundles $\rho :X\rightarrow \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ equipped with a lift of the $\mathbb{G}_{m}$-action $\lambda \cdot \left( x,y\right) =\left( \lambda x,\lambda y\right) $ on $\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ which is locally linear on the fibers of $\rho $. This holds for instance on the $X_{m,n}$’s for the lifts $\lambda \cdot \left( x,y,u,v\right) =\left( \lambda x,\lambda y,\lambda ^{-n}u,\lambda ^{-m}v\right) $, which are the analogues of the action of the maximal torus of $X_{1,1}=\mathrm{SL}_{2}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $ on $\mathrm{SL}% _{2}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $ by multiplication on the right. For such bundles, there is natural notion of homogeneous degree for which, in particular, the bundle $X_{m,n}\rightarrow \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ equipped with the previous lift has homogeneous degree $-m-n$. Our main classification result then reads as follows (see Theorem [thm:HomBunIsoType]{}): The total spaces of two nontrivial homogeneous $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundles are $% \mathbb{G}_{m}$-equivariantly isomorphic if and only if they have the same homogeneous degree. In particular, for a fixed $d\geq2,$ the total spaces of nontrivial homogeneous $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundles $\rho:X\rightarrow\mathbb{A}% _{*}^{2}$ of degree $-d$ are all isomorphic as abstract affine varieties. This implies in particular that a variety $X_{m,n}$ with $m+n\geq 3$ equipped with the action above is not $\mathbb{G}_{m}$-equivariantly isomorphic to $X_{1,1}$. We finally derive from a careful study of the effect of algebraic isomorphisms on the algebraic de Rham cohomology of total spaces of $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundles over $\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ that every variety $X_{m,n}$ with $m+n\geq 3$ is indeed an exotic affine $3$-sphere. The criterion we give in Theorem \[thm:DeRhamArg\] also provides an effective tool to construct families of pairwise non isomorphic exotic $3$-spheres : for instance, we show that the varieties $X_{2,2}=\left\{ x^{2}v-y^{2}u=1\right\} $ and $\tilde{X}_{2,2}=\left\{ x^{2}v-y^{2}u=1+xy\right\} $ are non isomorphic exotic affine $3$-spheres yet they are even biholomorphic as complex analytic manifolds. The article is organized as follows. In the first section, the basic properties of $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundles over the punctured plane $\mathbb{A}% _{\ast }^{2}$ are reviewed and the notion of homogeneous $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundle is developed. The second section is devoted to the proofs of the various isomorphy criteria presented above. The third section takes the form of an appendix, in which we give a short proof of the non existence of exotic affine $2$-spheres and establish a refined version of the so-called Danilov-Gizatullin Isomorphy Theorem [@Gizatullin1977] which is used in the proof of the main Theorem \[thm:HomBunIsoType\] Basic facts on $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundles and $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundles over $\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2}$ ============================================================================================== Recollection on algebraic $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundles and $\mathbb{G% }_{a}$-bundles ------------------------------------------------------------------ An $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundle over a scheme $S$ is a morphism $\rho :X\rightarrow S$ for which every point of $S$ has a Zariski open neighborhood $U\subset S$ with a local trivialization such that $\rho ^{-1}\left( U\right) \simeq U\times \mathbb{A}^{1}$ as schemes over $U$. Transition isomorphisms over the intersections $U_{i}\cap U_{j}$ of pairs of such open sets are given by affine transformations of the fiber isomorphy classes of such bundles are thus in one-to-one correspondence with isomorphy classes of Zariski locally trivial principal bundles under the affine group $\mathrm{Aut}\left( \mathbb{A}^{1}\right) \simeq \mathbb{G}_{m}\ltimes \mathbb{G}_{a}$. Additional properties of these bundles can be read from the exact sequence of non-abelian cohomology $$0\rightarrow H^{0}\left( S,\mathbb{G}_{a}\right) \rightarrow H^{0}\left( S,% \mathbb{G}_{m}\ltimes \mathbb{G}_{a}\right) \rightarrow H^{0}\left( S,% \mathbb{G}_{m}\right) \rightarrow H^{1}\left( S,\mathbb{G}_{a}\right) \rightarrow H^{1}\left( S,\mathbb{G}_{m}\ltimes \mathbb{G}_{a}\right) \rightarrow H^{1}\left( S,\mathbb{G}_{m}\right)$$ deduced from the short exact sequence of groups $0\rightarrow \mathbb{G}% _{a}\rightarrow \mathbb{G}_{m}\ltimes \mathbb{G}_{a}\rightarrow \mathbb{G}% _{m}\rightarrow 0$ (see e.g. [@Giraud1971 3.3.1]). For instance, if $S$ is affine then $H^{1}(S,\mathbb{G}_{a})\simeq H^{1}(S,\mathcal{O}% _{S})=\left\{ 0\right\} $ and so every $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundle over $S$ actually carries the structure of a line bundle. Similarly, if the Picard group $\mathrm{Pic}\left( S\right) \simeq H^{1}(S,\mathbb{G}_{m})$ of $S$ is trivial then every $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundle over $S$ can be equipped with the additional structure of a principal $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundle. Furthermore, in this case, the set $H^{1}(S,\mathbb{G}_{m}\ltimes \mathbb{G}_{a})$ of isomorphy classes of $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundles over $S$ is isomorphic to the quotient of $H^{1}(S,\mathbb{G}_{a})$ by the action of $H^{0}(S,\mathbb{G}% _{m})=\Gamma (S,\mathcal{O}_{S}^{\ast })$ via a multiplicative reparametrization: $a\in \Gamma (S,\mathcal{O}_{S}^{\ast })$ sends the isomorphy class of the $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundle $\rho :X\rightarrow S$ with action $\mathbb{G}_{a,S}\times _{S}X\rightarrow X$, $\left( t,x\right) \mapsto t\cdot x$ to the isomorphy class of $\rho :X\rightarrow S$ equipped with the action $\left( t,x\right) \mapsto \left( at\right) \cdot x$. It follows in particular that over the punctured affine plane $\mathbb{A}% _{\ast }^{2}$, which has a trivial Picard group, the notions of $\mathbb{A}% ^{1}$-bundle and $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundle essentially coincide and that isomorphy classes of nontrivial $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundles are in one-to-one correspondence with elements of the infinite dimensional projective space $\mathbb{P}H^{1}(\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}})=H^{1}(\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}})/\mathbb{G}_m$. Every cohomology class in $H^{1}(\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}% _{*}^{2}})$ can be represented by a Čech $1$-cocycle with value in $% \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2}}$ on the the acyclic covering $\mathcal{U}% _{0}$ of $\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2}=\mathrm{Spec}\left(\mathbb{C}\left[x,y\right]% \right)\setminus\left\{ 0,0\right\} $ by the principal affine open subsets $% U_{x}=\mathrm{Spec}\left(\mathbb{C}\left[x^{\pm1},y\right]\right)$ and $% U_{y}=\mathrm{Spec}\left(\mathbb{C}\left[x,y^{\pm1}\right]\right)$, providing an isomorphism of $\mathbb{C}$-vector spaces $$H^{1}(\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2}})\simeq\check{H}% ^{1}(\mathcal{U}_{0},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2}})\simeq\mathbb{C}\left[% x^{\pm1},y^{\pm1}\right]/\langle\mathbb{C}\left[x^{\pm1},y\right]+\mathbb{C}% \left[x,y^{\pm1}\right]\rangle.$$ It follows in particular from this description that $H^{1}(\mathbb{A}% _{*}^{2},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2}})$ is nonzero, which implies in turn that there exists nontrivial algebraic $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundles over $% \mathbb{A}_{*}^{2}$. In contrast, in the differentiable category, all these bundles are globally trivial smooth fibrations with fibers $\mathbb{R}^{2}$ over $\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2}\simeq\mathbb{R}^{4}\setminus\left\{ 0\right\} $ equipped with its euclidean structure of differentiable manifold. Indeed, since the sheaf $\mathcal{F}=\mathcal{C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2},\mathbb{% C})$ of complex valued $\mathcal{C}^{\infty}$-functions on $\mathbb{A}% _{*}^{2}$ is soft (see e.g. [@Grauert1979 Theorem 5, p.25]), every algebraic Čech $1$-cocycle $g\in C^{1}(\mathcal{U}_{0},\mathcal{O}_{% \mathbb{A}_{*}^{2}})$ representing a nontrivial class in $H^{1}(\mathbb{A}% _{*}^{2},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2}})$ is a coboundary when considered as a $1$-cocycle in with values in $\mathcal{F}$. This implies in particular that every algebraic $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundle $\rho:X\rightarrow\mathbb{A}% _{*}^{2}$ admits the real sphere $S^3$ as a $% \mathcal{C}^{\infty}$-strong deformation retract. A well known example of nontrivial algebraic $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundle over $% \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ is given by the morphism $$\rho :\mathrm{SL}_{2}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) =\left\{ \left( \begin{array}{cc} x & u \\ y & v% \end{array}% \right) \in \mathcal{M}_{2}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) ,\,xv-yu=1\right\} \rightarrow \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2},\left( \begin{array}{cc} x & u \\ y & v% \end{array}% \right) \mapsto \left( x,y\right)$$which identifies $\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ with the quotient of $\mathrm{SL}% _{2}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $ by the right action of its subgroup $T\simeq \mathbb{G}_{a}$ of upper triangular matrices with $1$’s on the diagonal. The local trivializations of $\rho $ given by the $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-equivariant isomorphisms $\mathrm{SL}_{2}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) \mid _{U_{x}}\simeq U_{x}\times \mathrm{Spec}\left( \mathbb{C}\left[ x^{-1}u\right] \right) $ and $\mathrm{SL}_{2}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) \mid _{U_{y}}\simeq U_{y}\times \mathrm{Spec}\left( \mathbb{C}\left[ y^{-1}v\right] \right) $ differ over $% U_{x}\cap U_{y}$ by the nontrivial Čech $1$-cocycle $(xy)^{-1}\in C^{1}(% \mathcal{U}_{0},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}})=\mathbb{C}\left[ x^{\pm 1},y^{\pm 1}\right] .$ In contrast, the identity $(xy)^{-1}=\delta (x,y){}^{-1}(\overline{x}y^{-1}+x^{-1}\overline{y})$, where $\delta \left( x,y\right) =\left\vert x\right\vert ^{2}+\left\vert y\right\vert ^{2}\in \mathcal{C}^{\infty }(\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2},\mathbb{R}_{+}^{\ast })$, shows that $(xy)^{-1}\in C^{1}(\mathcal{U}_{0},\mathcal{C}^{\infty }(\mathbb{A}% _{\ast }^{2},\mathbb{C}))$ is a coboundary. Algebraic $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundles with affine total spaces ----------------------------------------------------------- Since $\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ is strictly quasi-affine, the total space of a $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundle over it need not be an affine variety in general. However, we have the following handsome characterization of $% \mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundles with affine total spaces. \[pro:AffineCrit\] A $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundle $\rho:X\rightarrow\mathbb{A}% _{*}^{2}$ has affine total space $X$ if and only if it is nontrivial. See also [@DubFinMet2009] for an alternative argument. The condition is necessary since the total space of the trivial $\mathbb{A}% ^{1}$-bundle $\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}\times \mathbb{A}^{1}$ is again strictly quasi-affine. Conversely, it is equivalent to show that if $\rho :X\rightarrow \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ is a nontrivial $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundle then the composition $$i\circ \rho :X\rightarrow \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}\hookrightarrow \mathbb{A}% ^{2}=\mathrm{Spec}(\Gamma (\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}% _{\ast }^{2}}))$$is an affine morphism. Let $o=\left( 0,0\right) $ be the origin of $\mathbb{A% }^{2}$ and $S=\mathrm{Spec}(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}^{2},o})\rightarrow \mathbb{A}^{2}$ be the natural morphism. Since $\rho :X\rightarrow \mathbb{A}% _{\ast }^{2}$ is an affine morphism, $i\circ \rho $ is affine if and only if the base extension $\mathrm{p}_{1}:S\times _{\mathbb{A}^{2}}X\rightarrow S$ is as well. It follows from a characterization due to Miyanishi [Miyanishi1988]{} that either the restriction of $\mathrm{p}_{1}$ over the complement of the closed point $o$ of $S$ is a trivial $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundle or $S\times _{\mathbb{A}^{2}}X$ is isomorphic to a closed subscheme of $S\times \mathrm{Spec}\left( \mathbb{C}\left[ u,v\right] \right) $ defined by an equation of the form $fv-gu=1$, where $f,g\in \mathcal{O}_{% \mathbb{A}^{2},o}$ is a regular sequence. In the second case, $\mathrm{p}% _{1}^{-1}\left( S\right) =\mathrm{p}_{1}^{-1}(S\setminus \left\{ o\right\} )$ is an affine scheme, and so $\mathrm{p}_{1}$ is an affine morphism. Otherwise, if $\mathrm{p}_{1}^{-1}(S\setminus \left\{ o\right\} )\rightarrow S\setminus \left\{ o\right\} $ is the trivial $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundle, then there exists an open subset $U$ of $\mathbb{A}^{2}$ containing $o$ such that $\rho ^{-1}(U\setminus \left\{ o\right\} )\rightarrow U\setminus \left\{ o\right\} $ is a trivial $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundle. Therefore, $\rho :X\rightarrow \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ can be extended to a $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundle $\overline{\rho }:\overline{X}\rightarrow \mathbb{A}^{2}$ over $% \mathbb{A}^{2}$. But $\mathbb{A}^{2}$ is affine, so $\overline{\rho }:% \overline{X}\rightarrow \mathbb{A}^{2}$ is a trivial $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundle, and as would be $\rho :X\rightarrow \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$, contradicting our hypothesis. \[exa:LocalDesc\] Every non trivial class in $H^{1}(\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}})$ can be represented by a Čech $1$-cocycle of the form $x^{-m}y^{-n}p\left( x,y\right) \in C^{1}(% \mathcal{U}_{0},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}})=\mathbb{C}\left[ x^{\pm 1},y^{\pm 1}\right] $, where $m,n\in \mathbb{N}\setminus \left\{ 0\right\} $ and $p\left( x,y\right) \in \mathbb{C}\left[ x,y\right] $ is a polynomial divisible neither by $x$ nor by $y$ and satisfying $\deg _{x}p<m$ and $\deg _{y}p<n$. A corresponding $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundle $\rho :X\left( m,n,p\right) \rightarrow \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ is obtained as the complement in the variety $$Z_{m,n,p}=\left\{ x^{m}v-y^{n}u=p\left( x,y\right) \right\} \subset \mathbb{A% }_{\ast }^{2}\times \mathrm{Spec}\left( \mathbb{C}\left[ u,v\right] \right)$$of the fiber $\mathrm{pr}_{x,y}\mid _{Z_{m,n,p}}^{-1}\left( 0,0\right) $. The latter is a $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundle when equipped for instance with the restriction of the $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-action $t\cdot \left( x,y,u,v\right) =\left( x,y,u+x^{m}t,v+y^{n}v\right) $ on $Z_{m,n,p}$. Indeed, by construction of $X\left( m,n,p\right) $, with respect to the local $\mathbb{G% }_{a}$-equivariant trivializations $$X\left( m,n,p\right) \mid _{U_{x}}\simeq U_{x}\times \mathrm{Spec}\left( \mathbb{C}\left[ x^{-m}u\right] \right) \simeq U_{x}\times \mathbb{G}% _{a}\quad \text{and}\quad X\left( m,n,p\right) \mid _{U_{y}}\simeq U_{y}\times \mathrm{Spec}\left( \mathbb{C}\left[ y^{-n}v\right] \right) \simeq U_{y}\times \mathbb{G}_{a}$$ the fiber coordinates differ precisely by the Čech $1$-cocycle $% x^{-m}y^{-n}p\left( x,y\right) \in C^{1}(\mathcal{U}_{0},\mathcal{O}_{% \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}})$. \[par:cancelRq\] A consequence of Proposition \[pro:AffineCrit\] above is that the cylinders $X\times \mathbb{A}^{1}$ over the total spaces of nontrivial $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundles $\rho :X\rightarrow \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ are not only all diffeomorphic in the euclidean topology but even all isomorphic as algebraic varieties. Indeed, given to such bundles $X$ and $% X^{\prime }$, the fiber product $X\times _{\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}}X^{\prime } $ is a $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundle over both $X$ and $X^{\prime }$ via the first and the second projections respectively. Since $X$ and $X^{\prime }$ are affine, the latter are both trivial as bundles over $X$ and $X^{\prime }$ respectively providing isomorphisms $X\times \mathbb{A}% ^{1}\simeq X\times _{\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}}X^{\prime }\simeq X^{\prime }\times \mathbb{A}^{1}$. This implies in turn that most of the standard invariants of algebraic varieties which are either of topologico-differentiable nature or stable under taking cylinders fail to distinguish total spaces of nontrivial $% \mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundles $X\rightarrow \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ considered as abstract affine varieties. For instance, algebraic vector bundles on the total space of a nontrivial $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundle $\rho :X\rightarrow \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2} $ are all trivial. Indeed, this holds for $\mathrm{SL}% _{2}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $ by virtue of [@Murthy2000] and the fact that vector bundles on $X\times \mathbb{A}^{1}\simeq \mathrm{SL}_{2}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) \times \mathbb{A}^{1}$ are simultaneously extended from vector bundles on $\mathrm{SL}_{2}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $ and $X$ [Lindel1981/82]{} implies that this holds for arbitrary affine $X$ too. \[rem:ML-triv\] In the context of affine varieties $V$ with $\mathbb{G}% _{a}$-actions, the *Makar-Limanov invariant* $\mathrm{ML}\left( V\right) $, defined as the algebra of regular functions on $V$ that are invariant under *all* algebraic $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-actions on $V$, has been introduced and used by Makar-Limanov [@Makar-Limanov1996] to distinguish certain exotic algebraic structures on the affine $3$-space. Clearly, $\mathrm{ML}\left( \mathrm{SL}_{2}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) \right) =% \mathbb{C}$, and since this invariant is known to be unstable under taking cylinders [@BandmanML2005] [@DuboulozTG2009], it is a natural candidate for distinguishing certain $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundles $\rho :X\rightarrow \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ from $\mathrm{SL}_{2}\left( \mathbb{C}% \right) $. However, one checks easily using the explicit description in [exa:LocalDesc]{} above that $\mathrm{ML}\left( X\right) =\mathbb{C}$ for every non trivial $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundle $\rho :X\rightarrow \mathbb{A}% _{\ast }^{2}$. Actually, if $X=X\left( m,n,p\right) $, where $p\in \mathbb{C}% \left[ x,y\right] $ is a homogeneous polynomial, then Theorem [thm:HomBunIsoType]{} below implies that the total space of $X$ is isomorphic to $X_{1,r}=\left\{ xv-y^{r}u=1\right\} $, where $r+1=m+n-\deg p\geq 2$, which is even a *flexible variety*, i.e., the tangent space at every point of $x$ is spanned by the tangent vectors to the orbits of the $\mathbb{G}_{a} $-actions on $X$ [@ArzhKuyumZai2010]. We do not know if this additional property holds for general $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundles $\rho :X\rightarrow \mathbb{A}% _{\ast }^{2}$. \[sub:HomBunMain\] Homogeneous $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundles ------------------------------------------------------- Here we develop the notion of homogeneous $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundle over $\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ that will be used in the rest of the article. Let $\sigma :\mathbb{G}_{m}\times \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}\rightarrow \mathbb{A% }_{\ast }^{2}$ denote the linear $\mathbb{G}_{m}$-action on $\mathbb{A}% _{\ast }^{2}$ with quotient $\pi :\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}\rightarrow \mathbb{P% }^{1}=\mathrm{Proj}\left( \mathbb{C}\left[ x,y\right] \right) $. Since $\pi $ is an affine morphism and $\pi _{\ast }\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}}\simeq \bigoplus_{d\in \mathbb{Z}}\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( -d\right) $, we have a decomposition $$H^{1}(\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}})\simeq H^{1}(\mathbb{P}^{1},\pi _{\ast }\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}})\simeq \bigoplus_{d\in \mathbb{Z}}H^{1}(\mathbb{P}^{1},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}% ^{1}}\left( -d\right) )\simeq \bigoplus_{d\geq 2}H^{1}(\mathbb{P}^{1},% \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( -d\right) ),$$where for every $d$, $H^{1}(\mathbb{P}^{1},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}% ^{1}}\left( -d\right) )$ can be identified with the vector space of the semi-invariants of weight $-d$ for the representation of $\mathbb{G}_{m}$ on $H^{1}(\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}})$ induced by $\sigma $. Via the one-to-one correspondence between coverings $\mathcal{V% }=\left( V_{i}\right) _{i\in I}$ of $\mathbb{P}^{1}=\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}/% \mathbb{G}_{m}$ by affine open subsets $V_{i}$, $i\in I$ and coverings $% \mathcal{U}=\left( U_{i}\right) _{i\in I}$ of $\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ by $% \mathbb{G}_{m}$-stable affine open subsets $U_{i}=\pi ^{-1}\left( V_{i}\right) $, $i\in I$, a cohomology class in $H^{1}(\mathbb{P}^{1},\pi _{\ast }\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}})$ belongs to $H^{1}(\mathbb{P}% ^{1},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( -d\right) )$ if and only if it can be represented by a Čech $1$-cocycle $\left\{ h_{ij}\right\} _{i,j\in I}\in C^{1}(\mathcal{V},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( -d\right) )\subset C^{1}(\mathcal{V},\pi _{\ast }\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}})\simeq C^{1}(\mathcal{U},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}})$ consisting of rational functions $h_{ij}\in \Gamma (U_{i}\cap U_{j},\mathcal{% O}_{\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}})\subset \mathbb{C}\left( x,y\right) $ that are homogeneous of degree $-d$. These cocycles correspond precisely to $\mathbb{G% }_{a}$-bundles $\tilde{\rho}:\tilde{X}\rightarrow \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ with local trivializations $\tau _{i}:\tilde{X}\mid _{U_{i}}\overset{\sim }{% \rightarrow }U_{i}\times \mathbb{G}_{a}$ for which the isomorphisms $\tau _{i}\circ \tau _{j}^{-1}\mid _{U_{i}\cap U_{j}}$, $(u,t_{j})\mapsto (u,t_{j}+h_{ij}\left( u\right) )$, $i,j\in I$, are equivariant for the actions of $\mathbb{G}_{m}$ on $U_{i}\times \mathbb{G}_{a}$ and $U_{j}\times \mathbb{G}_{a}$ by $\lambda \cdot \left( u,t\right) =(\sigma \left( \lambda ,u\right) ,\lambda ^{-d}t)$. This leads to the following interpretation of the above decomposition in terms of $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundles over $\mathbb{A}% _{\ast }^{2}$. \[pro:HomBunChar\] For a $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundle $\rho:X\rightarrow% \mathbb{A}_{*}^{2}$, the following are equivalent: a\) The isomorphy class of $\rho:X\rightarrow\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2}$ belongs to $% H^{1}(\mathbb{P}^{1},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left(-d\right))\subset H^{1}(\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2}})$, b\) $\rho:X\rightarrow\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2}$ is isomorphic to a $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundle $\tilde{\rho}:\tilde{X}\rightarrow\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2}$ admitting a lift $\tilde{\sigma}:\mathbb{G}_{m}\times\tilde{X}\rightarrow\tilde{X}$ of $% \sigma$ for which there exists a collection of $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-equivariant local trivializations $\tau_{i}:\tilde{X}\mid_{U_{i}}\overset{\sim}{% \rightarrow}U_{i}\times\mathbb{G}_{a}$ over a covering of $\mathbb{A}% _{*}^{2} $ by $\mathbb{G}_{m}$-stable affine open subsets $% \left(U_{i}\right)_{i\in I} $ such that for every $i\in I$, $\tau_{i}$ is $% \mathbb{G}_{m}$-equivariant for the action of $\mathbb{G}_{m}$ on $% U_{i}\times\mathbb{G}_{a}$ defined by $\lambda\cdot\left(u,t\right)=\left(% \sigma\left(\lambda,u\right),\lambda^{-d}t\right)$. A nontrivial $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundle $\rho:X\rightarrow\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2}$ satisfying one of the above equivalent properties for a certain $d\geq2$ is said to be $-d$*-homogeneous*. \[exa:Equiv-Can-cover\] By specializing to the covering $\mathcal{U}_{0}$ of $\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ by the $\mathbb{G}_{m}$-stable principal open subsets $U_{x}$ and $U_{y}$, we obtain a more explicit decomposition: $$H^{1}(\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}})\simeq \check{H}^{1}(\mathcal{U}_{0},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}})\simeq \bigoplus_{d\geq 2}W_{-d}$$ where, for every $d\geq 2$, $W_{-d}\simeq H^{1}(\mathbb{P}^{1},\mathcal{O}_{% \mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( -d\right) )$ denotes the sub-$\mathbb{C}$-vector space of $\mathbb{C}\left[ x^{\pm 1},y^{\pm 1}\right] $ with basis $\mathcal{B}% _{d} $ consisting of rational monomials $x^{-m}y^{-n}$ where $m,n\in \mathbb{% N}\setminus \{0\}$ and $m+n=d$. Note that letting $V_{d-2}\simeq H^{0}(% \mathbb{P}^{1},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}(d-2))$ be the space of binary forms of degree $d-2$, Serre duality for $\mathbb{P}^{1}$ takes the form of a perfect pairing $W_{-d}\times V_{d-2}\rightarrow W_{-2}$ for which the basis $\mathcal{B}_{d}$ is simply the dual of the usual basis of $V_{d-2}$ consisting of monomials $x^{p}y^{q}$ with $p+q=d-2$. Therefore, every non trivial class in $H^{1}(\mathbb{P}^{1},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}(-d))$ is represented by a Čech $1$-cocycle of the form $x^{-m}y^{-n}p\left( x,y\right) \in C^{1}(\mathcal{U}_{0},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}})$, where $p\left( x,y\right) \in \mathbb{C}\left[ x,y\right] $ is a homogeneous polynomial of degree $r=m+n-d\geq 0$. The corresponding $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundle $\tilde{X}=X\left( m,n,p\right) =\left\{ x^{m}v-y^{n}u=p\left( x,y\right) \right\} \setminus \left\{ x=y=0\right\} $ as in [exa:LocalDesc]{} admits an obvious lift $\tilde{\sigma}\left( \lambda ,\left( x,y,u,v\right) \right) =\left( \lambda x,\lambda y,\lambda ^{m-d}u,\lambda ^{n-d}v\right) $ of the $\mathbb{G}_{m}$-action $\sigma $ on $\mathbb{A}% _{\ast }^{2}$ which satisfies b) in Proposition \[pro:HomBunChar\] above. \[par:HomB-Princ\] Proposition \[pro:HomBunChar\] can be interpreted from another point of view as a correspondence between $-d$-homogeneous $% \mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundles $\rho :X\rightarrow \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ and *principal homogeneous bundles* $\nu :Y\rightarrow \mathbb{P}^{1}$ *under the line bundle* $p:\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( -d\right) \rightarrow \mathbb{P}^{1}$. Here we consider the line bundle $p:\mathcal{O}% _{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( -d\right) \rightarrow \mathbb{P}^{1}$ as equipped with the structure of a locally constant group scheme over $\mathbb{P}^{1}$, with group law induced by the diagonal homomorphism of sheaves $\mathcal{O}_{% \mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( d\right) \rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}% ^{1}}\left( d\right) \oplus \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( d\right) $. A principal homogeneous $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( -d\right) $-bundle (or simply an $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( -d\right) $-bundle) is a scheme $\nu :Y\rightarrow \mathbb{P}^{1}$ equipped with an action of $% \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( -d\right) $ such that every point of $% \mathbb{P}^{1}$ has a Zariski open neighborhood $U$ such that $Y\mid _{U}$ is equivariantly isomorphic to $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( -d\right) \mid _{U}$ acting on itself by translations. Isomorphy classes of $\mathcal{O% }_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( -d\right) $-bundles are in one-to-one correspondence with elements of the group $H^{1}(\mathbb{P}^{1},\mathcal{O}_{% \mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( -d\right) )$. Example \[exa:HomBunDesc\] below shows that for a $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundle $\tilde{\rho}:\tilde{X}\rightarrow \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ equipped with a lift $\tilde{\sigma}$ of $\sigma $ as in b), the quotient $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundle $\nu :\tilde{X}/\mathbb{G}% _{m}\rightarrow \mathbb{P}^{1}=\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}/\mathbb{G}_{m}$ comes naturally equipped with the structure of principal homogeneous $\mathcal{O}_{% \mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( -d\right) $-bundle with isomorphy class $\gamma =[% \tilde{X}]\in H^{1}(\mathbb{P}^{1},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( -d\right) )\subset H^{1}(\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}% _{\ast }^{2}})$. \[exa:HomBunDesc\] By virtue of example \[exa:Equiv-Can-cover\] above, every nontrivial $-d$-homogeneous $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundle is isomorphic to one of the form $\tilde{X}=X\left( m,n,p\right) $, where $p\left( x,y\right) \in \mathbb{C}\left[ x,y\right] $ is homogeneous of degree $% r=m+n-d\geq 0$. The latter is equipped with the lift $\tilde{\sigma}\left( \lambda ,\left( x,y,u,v\right) \right) =\left( \lambda x,\lambda y,\lambda ^{m-d}u,\lambda ^{n-d}v\right) $ of $\sigma $ for which we have local $% \mathbb{G}_{m}$-equivariant trivializations $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{X}\mid _{U_{x}}\simeq \mathrm{Spec}\left( \mathbb{C}\left[ x^{-1}y,x^{d-m}u\right] \right) \times \mathbb{G}_{m} &=&\mathrm{Spec}\left( \mathbb{C}\left[ z,w\right] \right) \times \mathbb{G}_{m} \\ \tilde{X}\mid _{U_{y}}\simeq \mathrm{Spec}\left( \mathbb{C}\left[ xy^{-1},y^{d-n}v\right] \right) \times \mathbb{G}_{m} &=&\mathrm{Spec}\left( \mathbb{C}\left[ z^{\prime },w^{\prime }\right] \right) \times \mathbb{G}% _{m}.\end{aligned}$$These induce trivializations $\tau _{x}:\nu ^{-1}\left( U_{x}/\mathbb{G}% _{m}\right) \overset{\sim }{\rightarrow }\mathrm{Spec}\left( \mathbb{C}\left[ z\right] \left[ w\right] \right) $ and $\tau _{y}:\nu ^{-1}\left( U_{y}/% \mathbb{G}_{m}\right) \overset{\sim }{\rightarrow }\mathrm{Spec}\left( \mathbb{C}\left[ z^{\prime }\right] \left[ w^{\prime }\right] \right) $ of the quotient bundle $\nu :\tilde{X}/\mathbb{G}_{m}\rightarrow \mathbb{P}^{1}$ for which the transition isomorphism $\tau _{y}\circ \tau _{x}^{-1}\mid _{U_{x}\cap U_{x}/\mathbb{G}_{m}}$ has the form $\left( z,w\right) \mapsto \left( z^{-1},z^{d}w+z^{m}p\left( z^{-1},1\right) \right) $. To see explicitly the structure of an $O_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}(-d)$ bundle on $\tilde{X}/% \mathbb{G}_{m},$ choose coordinates for the local trivializations of the total space of $O_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}(-d)$ as follows : $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( -d\right) \mid _{U_{x}/\mathbb{G}% _{m}}\simeq \mathrm{Spec}\left( \mathbb{C}\left[ x^{-1}y,x^{d}t\right] \right) &=&\mathrm{Spec}\left( \mathbb{C}\left[ z,\ell \right] \right) \\ \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( -d\right) \mid _{U_{y}/\mathbb{G}% _{m}}\simeq \mathrm{Spec}\left( \mathbb{C}\left[ xy^{-1},y^{d}t\right] \right) &=&\mathrm{Spec}\left( \mathbb{C}\left[ z^{\prime },\ell ^{\prime }% \right] \right) .\end{aligned}$$Then we see that the $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-action $t\cdot \left( x,y,u,v\right) =\left( x,y,u+x^{m}t,v+y^{n}v\right) $ on $\tilde{X}$ descends to the action of $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( -d\right) $ on $\tilde{X}/\mathbb{G}% _{m}$ defined locally by $\ell \cdot w=w+\ell $ and $\ell ^{\prime }\cdot w^{\prime }=w^{\prime }+\ell ^{\prime }$, which equips $\tilde{X}/\mathbb{G}% _{m}$ with the structure of an $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( -d\right) $-bundle. Finally, with our choice of coordinate, the natural isomorphism of $ \mathbb{C}$-vectorspaces $$\phi :C^{1}(\{U_{x},U_{y}\},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}})=\mathbb{C}% \left[ x^{\pm 1},y^{\pm 1}\right] \overset{\sim }{\rightarrow }C^{1}(\{U_{x}/% \mathbb{G}_{m},U_{y}/\mathbb{G}_{m}\},\pi _{\ast }\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}% _{\ast }^{2}})=\mathbb{C}\left[ z^{\pm 1}\right]$$maps a Laurent monomial $x^{i}y^{j}$ to $z^{-i}$, whence sends the Čech cocycle $x^{-m}y^{-n}p\left( x,y\right) $ representing the isomorphy class of the $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundle $\tilde{\rho}:\tilde{X}\rightarrow \mathbb{A}% _{\ast }^{2}$ to the one $z^{m}p\left( z^{-1},1\right) $ representing the isomorphy class of the $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( -d\right) $-bundle $\nu :\tilde{X}/\mathbb{G}_{m}\rightarrow \mathbb{P}^{1}$. The precise correspondence between $-d$-homogeneous $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundles over $\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ and principal $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}% ^{1}}\left( -d\right) $-bundles takes the form of an equivalence of categories extending the one between $\mathbb{G}_{m}$-linearized line bundles on $\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ with respect to the action $\sigma : \mathbb{G}_m \times \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2} \rightarrow \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ and line bundles over $\mathbb{P}^{1}=\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}/\mathbb{G}_{m}$. Recall that a $\mathbb{G}_{m}$-linearized line bundle is a pair $(L,\Phi )$ consisting of a line bundle $p:L\rightarrow \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ and an isomorphism $$\Phi :\sigma ^{\ast }L=(\mathbb{G}_m\times \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2})\times_{\sigma, \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}} L\overset{\sim }{\longrightarrow } \mathrm{p}_{2}^{\ast }L=(\mathbb{G}_m\times \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2})\times_{\mathrm{p}_2, \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}} L$$ of line bundles over $\mathbb{G}_{m}\times \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ satisfying the cocycle condition $(\mu \times \mathrm{id}_{\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}})^{\ast }\Phi =\mathrm{p}_{23}^{\ast }\Phi \circ (\mathrm{id}_{\mathbb{G}_{m}}\times \sigma )^{\ast }\Phi $ over $\mathbb{G}_{m}\times \mathbb{G}_{m}\times \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$, where $\mu :\mathbb{G}_{m}\times \mathbb{G}% _{m}\rightarrow \mathbb{G}_{m}$ denotes the group law of $\mathbb{G}_{m}$ (see e.g. [@Mumford1994 §3, p.30]). A standard argument of faithfully flat descent for the quotient morphism $\pi :\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}\rightarrow \mathbb{P}^{1}=\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}/\mathbb{G}_{m}$ shows that the category of $\mathbb{G}_{m}$-linearized line bundles over $\mathbb{A% }_{\ast }^{2}$ is equivalent to category of line bundles over $\mathbb{P}% ^{1} $. Noting that $\Phi :\sigma ^{\ast }L\overset{\sim }{\rightarrow }% \mathrm{p}_{2}^{\ast }L$ is an isomorphism of group schemes over $\mathbb{G}% _{m}\times \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$, we can define a category $\tilde{\mathbb{% V}}$ whose objects are pairs $\{(L,\Phi ),(\tilde{X},\Psi )\}$ consisting of a $\mathbb{G}_{m}$-linearized line bundle $(L,\Phi )$, a principal $L$-bundle $\tilde{\rho}:\tilde{X}\rightarrow \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$, and a $% \Phi $-equivariant isomorphism $\Psi :\sigma ^{\ast }\tilde{X}\overset{\sim }% {\rightarrow }\mathrm{p}_{2}^{\ast }\tilde{X}$ of principal bundles under $% \sigma ^{\ast }L$ and $\mathrm{p}_{2}^{\ast }L$ respectively, satisfying the cocycle condition $(\mu \times \mathrm{id}_{\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}})^{\ast }\Psi =\mathrm{p}_{23}^{\ast }\Psi \circ (\mathrm{id}_{\mathbb{G}_{m}}\times \sigma )^{\ast }\Psi $ over $\mathbb{G}_{m}\times \mathbb{G}_{m}\times \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$. Then one checks that the previous equivalence extends to a one between $\tilde{\mathbb{V}}$ and the category $\mathbb{V}$ whose objects are pairs $(M,Y)$ consisting of a line bundle $q:M\rightarrow \mathbb{P}^{1}$ and a principal $M$-bundle $\nu :Y\rightarrow \mathbb{P}^{1}$. Recall that for a $\mathbb{G}_{m}$-linearized line bundle $(L,\Phi )$ over $% \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ the morphism $\overline{\sigma }=\mathrm{p}_{2}\circ \Phi ^{-1}:\mathbb{G}_{m}\times L\simeq \sigma ^{\ast }L\rightarrow L$ defines a lift to $L$ of the $\mathbb{G}_{m}$-action $\sigma $ on $\mathbb{A}% _{\ast }^{2}$ which is linear on the fibers of $p:L\rightarrow \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$. Similarly, for $(\tilde{X},\Psi )$ as above, the morphism $\tilde{\sigma}=% \mathrm{p}_{2}\circ \Psi ^{-1}:\mathbb{G}_{m}\times \tilde{X}\simeq \sigma ^{\ast }\tilde{X}\rightarrow \tilde{X}$ is a lift to $\tilde{X}$ of $\sigma $ for which $\tilde{X}$ locally looks like $L$ equipped with the action $\overline{\sigma }$. By specializing to the case of the trivial line bundle $\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}\times \mathrm{% Spec}\left( \mathbb{C}\left[ t\right] \right) $ over $\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ equipped with the $\mathbb{G}_{m}$-linearization given by the lift $\lambda \cdot \left( x,y,\ell \right) =\left( \lambda x,\lambda y,\lambda ^{-d}t\right) $ of $\sigma $, which corresponds to the line bundle $\mathcal{% O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( -d\right) \rightarrow \mathbb{P}^{1}$, the previous equivalence boils down to a one-to-one correspondence between isomorphy classes of principal $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( -d\right) $-bundles over $\mathbb{P}^{1}$ and isomorphy classes of $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundles $\tilde{\rho}:\tilde{X}\rightarrow \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ equipped with a lift $\tilde{\sigma}:\mathbb{G}_{m}\times \tilde{X}\rightarrow \tilde{% X}$ of $\sigma $ as in b) in Proposition \[pro:HomBunChar\]. Isomorphy types of total spaces of $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundles over $% \mathbb{A}_{*}^{2}$ =================================================================== In this section, we give partial answers to the problem of classifying total spaces of nontrivial $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundles over $\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2}$ considered as abstract affine varieties. Base change under the action of $\mathrm{Aut}\left(\mathbb{A}% _{*}^{2}\right)$ -------------------------------------------------------------- Since we are interested in isomorphy types of total spaces of $% \mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundles over $\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ as abstract varieties, regardless of the particular $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundle structure, a natural step is to consider these bundles up to a weaker notion of bundle isomorphism which consists in identifying two nontrivial $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundles $\rho :X\rightarrow \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ and $\rho ^{\prime }:X^{\prime }\rightarrow \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ if there exists a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{X' \ar[d]_{\rho'} \ar[r]^{\Psi} & X \ar[d]^{\rho} \\ \mathbb{A}^2_* \ar[r]^{\psi} & \mathbb{A}^2_*}$$where $\psi $ and $\Psi $ are isomorphisms. This means equivalently that the isomorphy classes of $X$ and $X^{\prime }$ in $\mathbb{P}H^{1}(\mathbb{A}% _{\ast }^{2},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}})$ belong to the same orbit of the action of the group $\mathrm{Aut}\left( \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}\right) $ of automorphisms of $\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ on $\mathbb{P}H^{1}(\mathbb{A}% _{\ast }^{2},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}})$ induced by the linear representation $$\eta :\mathrm{Aut}\left( \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}\right) \rightarrow \mathrm{GL% }(H^{1}(\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}})),\;\psi \mapsto \eta \left( \psi \right) =\psi ^{\ast }:H^{1}(\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2},% \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}})\overset{\sim }{\rightarrow }H^{1}(% \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}})$$of $\mathrm{Aut}\left( \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}\right) $ on $H^{1}(\mathbb{A}% _{\ast }^{2},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}})$, where $\psi ^{\ast }$ maps the isomorphy class of $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundle $\rho :X\rightarrow \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ to that of the $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundle $\mathrm{pr}% _{2}:X\times _{\rho ,\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2},\psi }\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}\rightarrow \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$. \[par:GL2-rep\] The group of automorphisms of $\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ can be identified with the subgroup of $\mathrm{Aut}\left( \mathbb{A}% ^{2}\right) $ consisting of automorphisms of the plane $\mathbb{A}^{2}$ that preserve the origin $o$. As a consequence of Jung’s Theorem [@Jung1942], $\mathrm{Aut}\left( \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}\right) $ is generated by the general linear group $\mathrm{GL}_{2}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $ and the subgroup $U\subset \mathrm{Aut}\left( \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}\right) $ consisting of automorphisms of the form $\left( x,y\right) \mapsto \left( x,y+p\left( x\right) \right) $ where $p\left( x\right) \in x^{2}\mathbb{C}% \left[ x\right] $. Since the representation of $\mathbb{G}_{m}$ on $H^{1}(% \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}})$ induced by the action $\sigma :\mathbb{G}_{m}\times \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}\rightarrow \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ commutes with that of $\mathrm{GL}_{2}\left( \mathbb{% C}\right) $, the decomposition $$H^{1}(\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}})\simeq \bigoplus_{d\geq 2}H^{1}(\mathbb{P}^{1},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( -d\right) )$$provides a splitting of the induced representation $\mathrm{GL}_{2}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) \rightarrow \mathrm{GL}(H^{1}(\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2},% \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}}))$ into a direct sum of representations on the finite dimensional vector spaces $H^{1}(\mathbb{P}^{1},\mathcal{O}_{% \mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( -d\right) )$, $d\geq 2$. Using the identifications $% H^{1}(\mathbb{P}^{1},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( -d\right) )\simeq W_{-d}$ and $H^{0}(\mathbb{P}^{1},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( d-2\right) )\simeq V_{d-2}$ as in example \[exa:Equiv-Can-cover\], the perfect pairing $W_{-d}\times V_{d-2}\rightarrow W_{-2}$ given by Serre duality for $\mathbb{P}^{1}$ yields an isomorphism of representations $% W_{-d}\simeq V_{d-2}^{\ast }\otimes W_{-2},$ where $\mathrm{GL}_{2}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $ acts on the vector space $V_{d-2}$ of binary forms of degree $d-2$ via the standard representation and on $W_{-2}\simeq H^{1}(% \mathbb{P}^{1},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( -2\right) )\simeq \mathbb{C% }$ by the inverse of the determinant. Since triangular automorphisms in $U$ do not preserve the usual degree on $% \mathbb{C}\left[x,y\right]$, the induced representation $U\rightarrow\mathrm{% GL(H^{1}(\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2}}))}$ does not preserve the above decomposition of $H^{1}(\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2},\mathcal{O}_{% \mathbb{A}_{*}^{2}})$ into a direct sum. However, letting $% F_{-d}=\bigoplus_{i=2}^{d}W_{-i}\subset H^{1}(\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2},\mathcal{O}% _{\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2}})$, $d\geq2$, we have the following description. \[lem:Unip-Rep\] For every $d\geq2$, the subspace $F_{-d}$ is $U$-stable and the quotient representation on $F_{-\left(d+1\right)}/F_{-d}\simeq W_{-\left(d+1\right)}$ is the trivial one. It is equivalent to show that the subspace $Q_{-d}^{\ast }$ of the dual of $% H^{1}(\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}})$ that is orthogonal to $F_{-d}$ is stable under the dual representation, and that the quotient representation on $Q_{-d}^{\ast }/Q_{-\left( d+1\right) }^{\ast }$ is the trivial one. By Serre duality again, we have $$\left( H^{1}(\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}})\right) ^{\ast }\simeq (\bigoplus_{i\geq 2}W_{-i})^{\ast }\simeq \prod_{i\geq 2}W_{-i}^{\ast }\simeq \prod_{i\geq 2}V_{i-2},$$the dual representation on $\prod_{i\geq 2}V_{i-2}$ being induced by the action of $U$ on $\mathbb{C}\left[ x,y\right] $ defined by $u\cdot p\left( x,y\right) =p\left( u^{-1}\left( x,y\right) \right) $. For an element $% u=\left( x,y+x^{2}s\left( x\right) \right) \in U$ and a homogeneous polynomial $p_{n}\left( x,y\right) \in V_{n}$ of degree $n\geq 0$, one has $% u\cdot p_{n}\left( x,y\right) =p_{n}\left( x,y\right) +R\left( x,y\right) $, where $R$ is a finite sum of homogeneous polynomials of degrees $>n$. This implies that $$Q_{-d}^{\ast }=\prod_{i>d}V_{i-2}\subset \prod_{i\geq 2}V_{i-2}$$is $U$-stable and that the quotient representation on $Q_{-d}^{\ast }/Q_{-\left( d+1\right) }^{\ast }\simeq V_{d-2}$ is the trivial one, as desired. One cannot expect to have a general effective criterion to decide which isomorphy classes of $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundles or $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundles over $\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ belong to the same orbit of the actions of $% \mathrm{Aut}\left( \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}\right) $ on $H^{1}(\mathbb{A}% _{\ast }^{2},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}})$ and $\mathbb{P}H^{1}(% \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}})$ respectively. But the above description provides at least strong restrictions for certain homogeneous $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundles to be obtained as pull-backs of other ones by an automorphism of $\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$. For instance, the isomorphy class of the $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundle $\mathrm{pr}_{x,y}:\mathrm{SL}% _{2}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) =\left\{ xv-yu=1\right\} \rightarrow \mathbb{A}% _{\ast }^{2}$ is a fixed point of the projective representation of $\mathrm{% Aut}\left( \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}\right) $ on $\mathbb{P}H^{1}(\mathbb{A}% _{\ast }^{2},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}})$, whence is stable under arbitrary base change by an automorphism of $\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$. In the same spirit, for the isomorphy classes of the homogeneous $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundles $$\mathrm{pr}_{x,y}:X_{m,n}=X\left( m,n,1\right) =\left\{ x^{m}v-y^{n}u=1\right\} \rightarrow \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2},$$we have following result (compare with Theorem \[thm:HomBunIsoType\] and example \[exa:HomBundExplIso\] below). The $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundles $X_{m,n}\rightarrow\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2}$ and $% X_{p,q}\rightarrow\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2}$ can be obtained from each other by a base change $\psi:\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2}\overset{\sim}{\rightarrow}\mathbb{A}% _{*}^{2}$ if and only if $\left\{ m,n\right\} =\left\{ p,q\right\} $. It is equivalent to show that for $a\in \mathbb{C}^{\ast }$ the isomorphy classes in $H^{1}(\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}})$ of $X_{p,q}$ and $X_{m,n}\left( a\right) =X\left( m,n,a\right) $ belong to the same orbit of the action of $\mathrm{Aut}\left( \mathbb{A}% _{\ast }^{2}\right) $ if and only if $\left\{ m,n\right\} =\left\{ p,q\right\} $. Since $X_{m,n}\left( a\right) $ and $X_{p,q}$ are homogeneous of degree $-m-n$ and $-p-q$, it follows from Proposition \[pro:HomBunChar\] and Lemma \[lem:Unip-Rep\] that their isomorphy classes $[X_{m,n}(a)]\in W_{-\left( m+n\right) }$ and $[X_{p,q}]\in W_{-\left( p+q\right) }$ belong to the same orbit of $\mathrm{Aut}\left( \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}\right) $ if and only $m+n=p+q=d$ and they belong to the same orbit of the action of $% \mathrm{GL}_{2}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $ on $W_{-d}$. By duality, this holds if and only if the homogeneous polynomials $a^{-1}x^{m-1}y^{n-1}$ and $% x^{p-1}y^{q-1}$ belong to the same orbit of the standard representation of $% \mathrm{GL}_{2}\left( \mathbb{C}\right) $ on $V_{d-2}$, which is the case if and only if $\left\{ m-1,n-1\right\} =\left\{ p-1,q-1\right\} $. Isomorphy types of homogeneous $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundles ------------------------------------------------------- Recall \[sub:HomBunMain\] that a nontrivial $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundle $\rho:X\rightarrow\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2}$ is called $-d$-homogeneous if it represents a cohomology class in $H^{1}(\mathbb{P}^{1},\mathcal{O}_{% \mathbb{P}^{1}}\left(-d\right))\subset H^{1}(\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2},\mathcal{O}_{% \mathbb{A}_{*}^{2}})$ for a certain $d\geq2$. All these bundles come equipped with a lift of the $\mathbb{G}_{m}$-action $\sigma:\mathbb{G}% _{m}\times\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2}\rightarrow\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2}$ as in Proposition \[pro:HomBunChar\], and we have the following characterization: \[thm:HomBunIsoType\] The total spaces of two nontrivial homogeneous $% \mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundles are $\mathbb{G}_{m}$-equivariantly isomorphic if and only if they have the same homogeneous degree. In particular, for a fixed $% d\geq2,$ the total spaces of nontrivial $-d$-homogeneous $\mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundles $\rho:X\rightarrow\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2}$ are all isomorphic as abstract affine varieties. Suppose that $\rho :X\rightarrow \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ and $\rho ^{\prime }:X^{\prime }\rightarrow \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ are homogeneous of degrees $% -d$ and $-d^{\prime }$ respectively. A $\mathbb{G}_{m}$-equivariant isomorphism between $X^{\prime }$ and $X$ descends to an isomorphism $% f:X^{\prime }/\mathbb{G}_{m}\overset{\sim }{\rightarrow }X/\mathbb{G}_{m}$ between the total space of the principal $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( -d\right) $-bundle $\overline{\rho }:X/\mathbb{G}_{m}\rightarrow \mathbb{P}% ^{1}$ and that of the principal $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( -d^{\prime }\right) $-bundle $\overline{\rho }^{\prime }:X^{\prime }/\mathbb{% G}_{m}\rightarrow \mathbb{P}^{1}$ (see \[par:HomB-Princ\]). The Picard group of a principal $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( -i\right) $-bundle $% \nu :Y\rightarrow \mathbb{P}^{1}$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}$, generated for instance by the pull-back $\nu ^{\ast }\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}% ^{1}}\left( -1\right) $ of $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( -1\right) $. Furthermore it follows from the exact sequence $$0\rightarrow \nu ^{\ast }\Omega _{\mathbb{P}^{1}}^{1}\rightarrow \Omega _{Y}^{1}\rightarrow \Omega _{Y/\mathbb{P}^{1}}^{1}\simeq \nu ^{\ast }% \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( i\right) \rightarrow 0$$that $\omega _{Y}=\Lambda ^{2}\Omega _{Y}^{1}\simeq \nu ^{\ast }\mathcal{O}_{% \mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( i-2\right) $. Since the isomorphism $f^{\ast }:\mathrm{% Pic}(X/\mathbb{G}_{m})\overset{\sim }{\rightarrow }\mathrm{Pic}(X^{\prime }/% \mathbb{G}_{m})$ induced by $f$ sends $\omega _{X/\mathbb{G}_{m}}$ to $% \omega _{X^{\prime }/\mathbb{G}_{m}}$, we conclude that $d=d^{\prime }$ necessarily. Suppose conversely that $\rho :X\rightarrow \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ and $\rho ^{\prime }:X^{\prime }\rightarrow \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ are homogeneous of the same degree $-d\leq -2$. The existence of a $\mathbb{G}% _{m}$-equivariant isomorphism between $X^{\prime }$ and $X$ is equivalent to the existence of an isomorphism $f:X^{\prime }/\mathbb{G}_{m}\overset{\sim }{% \rightarrow }X/\mathbb{G}_{m}$ for which $\pi ^{\prime }:X^{\prime }\rightarrow X^{\prime }/\mathbb{G}_{m}$ and $\mathrm{p}_{2}:X\times _{X/% \mathbb{G}_{m}}X^{\prime }/\mathbb{G}_{m}\rightarrow X^{\prime }/\mathbb{G}% _{m}$ are isomorphic as $\mathbb{G}_{m}$-bundles over $X^{\prime }/\mathbb{G}% _{m}$. Since the diagram $$\xymatrix{ X \ar[d]_{\rho} \ar[r] & X/\mathbb{G}_m \ar[d]^{\overline{\rho}} \\ \mathbb{A}^2_* \ar[r] & \mathbb{P}^1=\mathbb{A}^2_*/\mathbb{G}_m,}$$is Cartesian, the isomorphy class of the $\mathbb{G}_{m}$-bundle $% X\rightarrow X/\mathbb{G}_{m}$ in $H^{1}(X/\mathbb{G}_{m},\mathbb{G}% _{m})\simeq \mathrm{Pic}(X/\mathbb{G}_{m})$ coincides with $\overline{\rho }% ^{\ast }\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( -1\right) $, and similarly for $% X^{\prime }\rightarrow X^{\prime }/\mathbb{G}_{m}$. So the $\mathbb{G}_{m}$-equivariant isomorphy of $X$ and $X^{\prime }$ reduces to the existence of an isomorphism $f:X^{\prime }/\mathbb{G}_{m}\overset{\sim }{\rightarrow }X/% \mathbb{G}_{m}$ such that $f^{\ast }\overline{\rho }^{\ast }\mathcal{O}_{% \mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( -1\right) =\overline{\rho ^{\prime }}^{\ast }\mathcal{O% }_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( -1\right) $. Since $\overline{\rho }:X/\mathbb{G}% _{m}\rightarrow \mathbb{P}^{1}$ and $\overline{\rho }^{\prime }:X^{\prime }/% \mathbb{G}_{m}\rightarrow \mathbb{P}^{1}$ are both nontrivial $\mathcal{O}_{% \mathbb{P}^{1}}\left( -d\right) $-bundles, the Danilov-Gizatullin Theorem [@Gizatullin1977 Theorem 5.8.1 and Remark 4.8.6] implies directly the existence of an isomorphism $f:X^{\prime }/\mathbb{G}_{m}\overset{\sim }{% \rightarrow }X/\mathbb{G}_{m}$. Moreover, since $f^{\ast }$ maps generators of $\mathrm{Pic}(X/\mathbb{G}_{m})$ to generators of $\mathrm{Pic}(X^{\prime }/\mathbb{G}_{m})$, it follows that $X^{\prime }$ and $X\times _{X/\mathbb{G}% _{m}}X^{\prime }/\mathbb{G}_{m}$ are isomorphic as locally trivial $\mathbb{A% }_{\ast }^{1}$-bundles over $X^{\prime }/\mathbb{G}_{m}$, which implies the second assertion of the theorem. Finally, the existence of an isomorphism $f$ with the required additional property is guaranteed by Theorem [thm:DanGizIso]{} in the Appendix. \[exa:HomBundExplIso\] As a consequence of Theorem [thm:HomBunIsoType]{} above, we get in particular that if $m+n=m^{\prime }+n^{\prime }$, then the varieties $X_{m,n}$ and $X_{m^{\prime },n^{\prime }} $ are isomorphic. While it appears to be rather difficult to construct an explicit isomorphism between even the first interesting examples $X_{2,2}$ and $X_{3,1}$, one can check that the morphism $$\pi:X_{2,2}=\left\{ x^{2}v-y^{2}u=1\right\} \rightarrow\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2}=% \mathrm{Spec}\left(\mathbb{C}\left[a,b\right]\right)\setminus\left\{ \left(0,0\right)\right\} ,\;\left(x,y,u,v\right)\mapsto(x-\frac{1}{2}y,\frac{% 6x-y}{8}v-\frac{3y-2x}{2}u)$$ is $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundle isomorphic to the one $\rho:X_{3,1}\simeq\left\{ a^{3}v^{\prime }-bu^{\prime }=1\right\} \rightarrow\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2}$. More precisely, letting $$w=\frac{5}{16}v^{2}x+u^{2}x+\frac{5}{2}vux-\frac{1}{32}v^{2}y-\frac{5}{2}% u^{2}y-\frac{5}{4}vuy\in\Gamma(X_{2,2},\mathcal{O}_{X_{2,2}}),$$ a direct computation shows that $\pi^{-1}(U_{a})\simeq U_{a}\times\mathrm{% Spec}(\mathbb{C}\left[a^{-3}(y+a+ab)\right])$, $\pi^{-1}\left(U_{b}\right)% \simeq U_{b}\times\mathrm{Spec}(\mathbb{C}\left[b^{-1}w\right])$ and that $% a^{-3}\left(y+a+ab\right)-b^{-1}w=a^{-3}b^{-1}\in\Gamma(\pi^{-1}(U_{a}\cap U_{b}),\mathcal{O}_{X_{2,2}})$. Thus $\pi:X_{2,2}\rightarrow\mathbb{A}% _{*}^{2}$ is an $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundle with the same associated Čech cocycle $a^{-3}b^{-1}\in C^{1}(\{U_{a},U_{b}\},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}% _{*}^{2}})$ as $\rho:X_{3,1}\rightarrow\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2}$. Existence of exotic affine spheres ---------------------------------- Here we show that exotic affine spheres occur among the total spaces of non trivial $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundles over $\mathbb{A} _{*}^{2}$. To illustrate the idea behind the proof of Theorem \[thm:DeRhamArg\] below, let us first consider the varieties $X_{m,1}=\{x^mv-yu=1\}$, $m\geq 1$. Because $X_{m,1}$ is smooth, the canonical sheaf $\omega_{m}=\omega_{X_{m,1}}$ of $X_{m,1}$ is a free $\mathcal{O}_{X_{m,1}}$-module generated for instance by the global nowhere vanishing 3-form $$\alpha _{m} = x^{-m}dx\wedge dy\wedge du\mid_{X_{m,1}}=-y^{-1}dx\wedge dy\wedge dv\mid_{X_{m,1}}.$$ The pull back of $\alpha_1$ by an isomorphism $\varphi:X_{m,1}\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow} X_{1,1}$ would be a nowhere vanishing algebraic 3-form on $X_{m,1}$ whence a nonzero scalar multiple of $\alpha_m$ since nonzero constants are the only invertible functions $X_{m,1}$. On the other hand, since $X_{m,1}$ has the real sphere $S^3$ as a strong deformation retract, the de Rham cohomology group $H_{dR}^{3}(X_{m,1},\mathbb{C})$ is one dimensional over $\mathbb{C}$. Using the fact that the de Rham cohomology of a smooth complex affine variety equals the cohomology of its algebraic de Rham complex [@Grothendieck1966], it can be checked directly that $H_{dR}^{3}(X_{m,1},\mathbb{C})\simeq \Omega^3_{X_{m,1}}/d\Omega^2_{X_{m,1}}$ is spanned by the class of $x^{m-1}\alpha _{m}=x^{-1}dx\wedge dy\wedge du\mid_{X_{m,1}}$. The isomorphism $\varphi$ would induce an isomorphism in cohomology and since $H_{dR}^{3}(X_{1,1},\mathbb{C})$ is spanned by the class of $\alpha_1$ it would follow that $H_{dR}^{3}(X_{m,1},\mathbb{C})$ is spanned by the class of $\alpha_m$ too. This is absurd since for every $m\geq 2$, $\alpha _{m}$ is an exact form, having for instance the global 2-form $$\frac{dy\wedge du}{(1-m)x^{m-1}}\mid_{X_{m,1}}=\frac{xdy\wedge dv-mvdx\wedge dy}{(1-m)y}\mid_{X_{m,1}}$$ as a primitive. More generally, recall that every non trivial $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundle $\rho :X\rightarrow \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}$ is isomorphic to one of the form $$X\left( m,n,p\right) =\left\{ x^{m}v-y^{n}u=p\left( x,y\right) \right\} \setminus \left\{ x=y=0\right\} \subset \mathbb{A}_{\ast }^{2}\times \mathrm{% Spec}\left( \mathbb{C}\left[ u,v\right] \right)$$where $p\left( x,y\right) \in \mathbb{C}\left[ x,y\right] $ is a polynomial divisible neither by $x$ nor by $y$ and satisfying $\deg _{x}p<m$ and $\deg _{y}p<n$. It turns out that varieties $X\left( m,n,p\right) $ corresponding to a polynomial $p$ of maximum possible degree $m+n-2$ form a distinguished class. Namely, we have the following result: \[thm:DeRhamArg\] Let $X_{1}=X\left(m_{1},n_{1},p_{1}\right)$ and $% X_{2}=X\left(m_{2},n_{2},p_{2}\right)$ be $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundles as above. If $\deg p_{1}=m_{1}+n_{1}-2$ but $\deg p_{2}<m_{2}+n_{2}-2$ then $X_{1}$ and $X_{2}$ are not isomorphic as algebraic varieties. We will show that the cohomology class in $H_{dR}^{3}\left(X,\mathbb{C}% \right)\simeq\mathbb{C}$ of an arbitrary nowhere vanishing algebraic $3$-form $\omega$ on $X=X\left(m,n,p\right)$ is trivial if $\deg p<m+n-2$ and a generator otherwise. This prevents in particular the existence of an isomorphism $f:X_{2}\overset{\sim}{\rightarrow}X_{1}$ : indeed, otherwise, similarly as in the particular case above, the pull-back of a nowhere vanishing algebraic $3$-form $\omega$ on $X_{1}$ would be a nowhere vanishing algebraic $3$-form $f^{*}\omega$ on $X_{2}$ whose cohomology class $[f^{*}\omega]=f^{*}\left[\omega\right]\in H_{dR}^{3}(X_{2},\mathbb{C})\simeq H_{dR}^{3}(X_{1},\mathbb{C})$ would generate $H_{dR}^{3}(X_{2},\mathbb{C})$, a contradiction. Recall [exa:LocalDesc]{} that $X=X\left(m,n,p\right)$ is covered by two principal affine open subsets $X_{x}\simeq U_{x}\times\mathrm{Spec}\left(\mathbb{C}% \left[t_{x}\right]\right)$ and $X_{y}\simeq U_{y}\times\mathrm{Spec}\left(% \mathbb{C}\left[t_{y}\right]\right)$, where $t_{x}=x^{-m}u$ and $% t_{y}=y^{-n}v$. Since every invertible function on $X$ is constant, a nowhere vanishing algebraic $3$-form $\omega$ on $X$ is uniquely determined locally by a pair of $3$-forms $\omega\mid_{X_{x}}=\lambda dx\wedge dy\wedge dt_{x}\in\Omega_{U_{x}\times\mathbb{A}^{1}}^{3}$ and $\omega\mid_{X_{y}}=% \lambda dx\wedge dy\wedge dt_{y}\in\Omega_{U_{y}\times\mathbb{A}^{1}}^{3}$, where $\lambda\in\mathbb{C}^{*}$. Let $(\alpha_{x},\alpha_{y})=(\lambda t_{x}dx\wedge dy,\lambda t_{y}dx\wedge dy)\in\Omega_{U_{x}\times\mathbb{A}% ^{1}}^{2}\times\Omega_{U_{y}\times\mathbb{A}^{1}}^{2}$ be local primitives of $\omega\mid_{X_{x}}$ and $\omega\mid_{X_{y}}$ respectively. By definition of the connecting homomorphism $$\delta:H_{dR}^{2}(X_{x}\cap X_{y},\mathbb{C})\simeq H_{dR}^{2}(U_{x}\cap U_{y},\mathbb{C})\overset{\sim}{\longrightarrow}H_{dR}^{3}\left(X,\mathbb{C}% \right)$$ in the Mayer-Vietoris long exact sequence for the covering of $X$ by $X_{x}$ and $X_{y}$, the cohomology class of $\omega\in\Omega_{X}^{3}$ in $% H_{dR}^{3}\left(X,\mathbb{C}\right)\simeq\Omega_{X}^{3}/d\Omega_{X}^{2}$ coincides with the image by $\delta$ of the cohomology class $\alpha\in H_{dR}^{2}(X_{x}\cap X_{y},\mathbb{C})$ of the $2$-form $$\begin{aligned} (\alpha_{y}-\alpha_{x})\mid_{X_{x}\cap X_{y}} & = & (\lambda t_{y}dx\wedge dy-\lambda t_{x}dx\wedge dy)\mid_{X_{x}\cap X_{y}} \\ & = & \lambda(t_{x}+x^{-m}y^{-n}p\left(x,y\right))dx\wedge dy-\lambda t_{x}dx\wedge dy \\ & = & \lambda x^{-m}y^{-n}p\left(x,y\right)dx\wedge dy\in\Omega_{X_{x}\cap X_{y}/\mathbb{C}}^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ Such a form is exact if and only if $x^{-m}y^{-n}p\left(x,y\right)$ does not contain a term of the form $ax^{-1}y^{-1}$, where $a\in\mathbb{C}^{*}$, that is, if and only if $\deg p<m+n-2$. Thus $\left[\omega\right]% =\delta\left(\alpha\right)\in H_{dR}^{3}\left(X,\mathbb{C}\right)$ is either trivial if $\deg p<m+n-2$ or a generator otherwise. \[cor:Xmn\_are\_exotic\] The total space of a nontrivial homogeneous $% \mathbb{G}_{a}$-bundle $\rho:X\rightarrow\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2}$ of degree $% -d<-2 $ is not isomorphic to $X_{1,1}\simeq\mathrm{SL}_{2}\left(\mathbb{C}% \right)$. The variety $X_{1,1}=X\left(1,1,1\right)=\left\{ xv-yu=1\right\} $ belongs to the class $X\left(m,n,p\right)$ with $\deg p=m+n-2$. On the other hand, by virtue of Theorem \[thm:HomBunIsoType\], we may assume that $X\simeq X\left(d-1,1,1\right)=\left\{ x^{d-1}v-yu=1\right\} $. Since $0=\deg p<d-2$ by hypothesis, the assertion follows from Theorem \[thm:DeRhamArg\] above. Theorem \[thm:DeRhamArg\] implies that the total spaces of the $\mathbb{G}% _{a}$-bundles $$X=\left\{ x^{2}v-y^{2}u=1\right\} \rightarrow\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2}\quad\text{and% }\quad X^{\prime }=\left\{ x^{2}v-y^{2}u=1+xy\right\} \rightarrow\mathbb{A}% _{*}^{2}$$ are not isomorphic as algebraic varieties. However, $X$ and $X^{\prime }$ are biholomorphic $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundles over $\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2}$. Indeed, the Čech $1$-cocycle $(xy)^{-2}\left(1+xy\right)\in C^{1}(\{U_{x},U_{y}\},\mathcal{H}ol_{\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2}})$ defining $% X^{\prime }$ is analytically cohomologous to the one $\left(xy\right)^{-2}% \exp\left(xy\right)$, obtained by multiplying the Čech $1$-cocyle $% \left(xy\right)^{-2}$ defining $X$ by the nowhere vanishing holomorphic function $\exp\left(xy\right)$ on $\mathbb{A}_{*}^{2}$. In contrast with the algebraic situation considered in the proof of Theorem \[thm:DeRhamArg\], the pull back by the corresponding biholomorphism $X\overset{\sim}{% \rightarrow}X^{\prime }$ of the nowhere vanishing algebraic $3$-form $% \omega=x^{-2}dx\wedge dy\wedge du\mid_{X^{\prime }}$ on $X^{\prime }$, whose class generates $H_{dR}^{3}\left(X^{\prime },\mathbb{C}\right)$, is the nowhere vanishing holomorphic $3$-form $x^{-2}\exp\left(-xy\right)dx\wedge dy\wedge du\mid_{X}$. The later is analytically cohomologous to the algebraic $3$-form $-x^{-1}ydx\wedge dy\wedge du\mid_{X}$, whose class generates $H_{dR}^{3}\left(X,\mathbb{C}\right)$. Since the cylinders $X\times\mathbb{A}^{1}$ and $X^{\prime }\times\mathbb{A}% ^{1}$ are algebraically isomorphic (see \[par:cancelRq\]), $X$ and $% X^{\prime }$ above provide a new example of biholomorphic complex algebraic varieties for which algebraic cancellation fails. Of course, $X$ and $% X^{\prime }$ are remote from affine spaces from a topological point of view. But, in contrast with other families of $3$-dimensional counter-examples constructed so far [@Dubouloz2011] [@Finston2008], $X$ and $% X^{\prime }$ have a trivial Makar-Limanov invariant (see \[rem:ML-triv\] above). It is interesting to relate the existing counter-examples to Miyanishi’s characterization of the affine $3$-space $\mathbb{A}^{3}$ [Miyanishi1988]{}, which can be equivalently formulated as the fact that a smooth affine threefold $X$ is algebraically isomorphic to $\mathbb{A}^{3}$ if and only is satisfies the following conditions : \(i) There exists a regular function $f:X\rightarrow\mathbb{A}^{1}$ and a Zariski open subset $U\subset\mathbb{A}^{1}$ such that $f^{-1}\left(U\right)% \simeq U\times\mathbb{A}^{2}$, \(ii) All scheme theoretic fibers of $f$ are UFDs (i.e. $\Gamma\left(X_{c},% \mathcal{O}_{X_{c}}\right)$ is a UFD for every fiber $X_{c}=f^{-1}\left(c% \right)$, $c\in\mathbb{A}^{1}$), \(iii) $H^{3}\left(X,\mathbb{Z}\right)=0$. The counter-examples obtained in [@Dubouloz2011] for contractible affine threefolds satisfy (i) and (iii) but not (ii). On the other hand, $X$ and $X^{\prime }$ above satisfy (i) and (ii) (by choosing for instance the projection $\mathrm{pr}_{x}$ for $f$) but not (iii). The Cancellation Problem for $\mathbb{A}^{3}$ itself is still open but we see that cancellation fails whenever one of the necessary conditions (ii) or (iii) above is relaxed. Appendix ======== The Danilov-Gizatullin Isomorphism Theorem ------------------------------------------ This subsection is devoted to the proof of the following result, which is a slight refinement of the so-called Danilov-Gizatullin Isomorphism Theorem. \[thm:DanGizIso\]Let $\nu:Y\rightarrow\mathbb{P}^{1}$ and $\nu^{\prime }:Y^{\prime }\rightarrow\mathbb{P}^{1}$ be non trivial principal $\mathcal{O}% _{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left(-d\right)$-bundles for a certain $d\geq2$. Then there exists an isomorphism $f:Y^{\prime }\overset{\sim}{\rightarrow}Y$ such that $% f^{*}(\nu^{*}\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left(1\right))\simeq\left(\nu^{% \prime }\right)^{*}\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left(1\right)$. In particular, for a fixed $d\geq2$, the total spaces of non trivial $\mathcal{O% }_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left(-d\right)$-bundles are all isomorphic as abstract algebraic varieties. The Danilov-Gizatullin Theorem [@Gizatullin1977 Theorem 5.8.1 ] is actually stated as the fact that the isomorphy type of the complement of an ample section $C$ in a Hirzebruch surface $\pi_{n}:\mathbb{F}_{n}=\mathbb{P}% \left(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\oplus\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}% ^{1}}\left(-n\right)\right)\rightarrow\mathbb{P}^{1}$, $n\geq0$, (see e.g. [@Hartshorne1977 V.2]) depends only on the self-intersection $C^{2}$ of $C$, whence, in particular, depends neither on the ambient surface nor on the choice of a particular section. The relation with Theorem [thm:DanGizIso]{} above is given by the observation that a non trivial $% \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left(-d\right)$-bundle $\nu:Y\rightarrow\mathbb{% P}^{1}$ always arises as the complement of an ample section $C$ with self-intersection $C^{2}=d$ in a suitable Hirzebruch surface [@Gizatullin1977 Remark 4.8.6]. Indeed, letting $0\rightarrow\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}% ^{1}}\rightarrow\mathcal{E}\rightarrow\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}% ^{1}}\left(d\right)\rightarrow0$ be an extension of locally free sheaves on $% \mathbb{P}^{1}$ representing the isomorphy class of $Y$ in $H^{1}(\mathbb{P}% ^{1},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left(-d\right))\simeq\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathbb{% P}^{1}}^{1}\left(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left(d\right),\mathcal{O}_{% \mathbb{P}^{1}}\right)$, $Y$ is isomorphic to the complement in the $\mathbb{% P}^{1}$-bundle $\pi:S=\mathrm{Proj}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left(\mathrm{Sym}\left(% \mathcal{E}\right)\right)\rightarrow\mathbb{P}^{1}$ of the section $C$ determined by the surjection $\mathcal{E}\rightarrow\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}% ^{1}}\left(d\right)$. Since $\mathcal{E}$ is a decomposable locally free sheaf of rank $2$, degree $-d$, equipped with a surjection onto $\mathcal{O}% _{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left(d\right)$, it is isomorphic $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}% ^{1}}\left(a\right)\oplus\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left(d-a\right)$ for a certain $a\in\mathbb{Z}$ such that, up to replacing $a$ by $d-a$, we have either $a=0$ or $d-a\geq a>0$. Therefore, $S\simeq\mathrm{Proj}_{\mathbb{P}% ^{1}}\left(\mathrm{Sym}\left(\mathcal{E}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}% ^{1}}\left(a-d\right)\right)\right)\simeq\mathbb{F}_{n}$, where $n=d-2a\geq0$, with the section $C$ determined by a surjection $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}% ^{1}}\oplus\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left(-n\right)\rightarrow\mathcal{O}% _{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left(a\right)$. Letting $C_{0}$ be a section with self-intersection $-n\leq0$ and $\ell$ be a fiber of $\pi_{n}$, we have $% C\sim C_{0}+\left(d-a\right)\ell$, which implies that $C^{2}=d$. Furthermore, $a=0$ if and only if the above extension splits, that is, if and only if $\nu:Y\rightarrow\mathbb{P}^{1}$ is the trivial $\mathcal{O}_{% \mathbb{P}^{1}}\left(-d\right)$-bundle. Otherwise, $d-a>n$, and so, $C$ is the support of an ample divisor on $S$ [@Hartshorne1977 2.20 p. 382 ]. \[par:Proof-Strat\] The existence of an isomorphism $f$ with the required property can actually be derived from a careful reading of the recent proof of the Danilov-Gizatullin Theorem given in [@Flenner2009]. However, for the convenience of the reader, we provide a complete argument. Our strategy is very similar to the one in *loc. cit.*: we establish that the total space of a non trivial $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}% ^{1}}\left(-d\right)$-bundle $\nu:Y\rightarrow\mathbb{P}^{1}$ is equipped with a certain type of smooth fibration $\theta:Y\rightarrow\mathbb{A}^{1}$ with general fibers isomorphic to $\mathbb{A}^{1}$ which, for a fixed $% d\geq2 $, admits a unique model $\theta_{d}:S\left(d\right)\rightarrow% \mathbb{A}^{1} $ up to isomorphism of fibrations. Since $\mathrm{Pic}% \left(Y\right)\simeq\mathrm{CaCl}\left(Y\right)$ is generated by the class of a fiber of $\nu$, Theorem \[thm:DanGizIso\] will then follows from the additional observation that one can always choose a special isomorphism of fibrations $\psi:Y\overset{\sim}{\rightarrow}S\left(d\right)$ which maps a suitable fiber of $\nu$ onto a fixed irreducible component $\Delta$ of a fiber of $\theta_{d}$. The fibration $\theta:Y\rightarrow\mathbb{A}^{1}$ is constructed as follows. We may suppose that the non trivial $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}% ^{1}}\left(-d\right)$-bundle $\nu:Y\rightarrow\mathbb{P}^{1}$ is embedded in a Hirzebruch surface $\pi_{n}:\mathbb{F}_{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{P}^{1}$ for a certain $n\geq0$ as the complement of an ample section $C$ with $% C^{2}=d\geq2 $. Now suppose that there exists another section $\tilde{C}$ of $\pi_{n}$ intersecting $C$ in a unique point $q$, with multiplicity $C\cdot% \tilde{C}=d-1$. Letting $\ell=\pi_{n}^{-1}\left(\pi_{n}\left(q\right)\right)$, the divisors $C$ and $\tilde{C}+\ell$ are linearly equivalent and define a pencil of rational curves $g:\mathbb{F}_{n}\dashrightarrow\mathbb{P}^{1}$ with $q$ as a unique proper base point. This pencil restricts on $Y=\mathbb{F% }_{n}\setminus C$ to a smooth surjective morphism $\theta:Y\rightarrow B=% \mathbb{P}^{1}\setminus\left\{ \overline{g}\left(C\right)\right\} \simeq% \mathbb{A}^{1}$ with general fibers isomorphic to $\mathbb{A}^{1}$ and with a unique degenerate fiber, say $\theta^{-1}\left(0\right)$ up to the choice of a suitable coordinate $x$ on $B\simeq\mathbb{A}^{1}$, consisting of the disjoint union of $\tilde{C}_{0}=\tilde{C}\setminus\left\{ q\right\} \simeq% \mathbb{A}^{1}$ and $\ell_{0}=\ell\setminus\left\{ q\right\} \simeq\mathbb{A}% ^{1}$. A minimal resolution $\overline{g}:W\rightarrow\mathbb{P}^{1}$ of $g:% \mathbb{F}_{n}\dashrightarrow\mathbb{P}^{1}$ is obtained from $\mathbb{F}% _{n} $ by blowing up $d$ times the point $q$, with successive exceptional divisors $E_{1},\ldots,E_{d}$, the last exceptional divisor $E_{d}$ being a section of $\overline{g}$. The proper transform of $C$ in $W$ is a full fiber of $\overline{g}$, whereas the proper transforms of $\tilde{C}$ and $% \ell$ are both $-1$-curves contained in the unique degenerate fiber $% \overline{g}^{-1}\left(0\right)=E_{1}+\cdots+E_{d-1}+\tilde{C}+\ell$ of $% \overline{g}$. Since $E_{1}\cup\dots\cup E_{d-1}$ is a chain of $% \left(-2\right)$-curves, by contracting successively $\ell$, $% E_{1},\ldots,E_{d-2}$ and $\tilde{C}$ we obtain a birational morphism $% \overline{\tau}:W\rightarrow\mathbb{F}_{1}$. The later restricts to a morphism $\tau:Y\simeq W\setminus C\cup\bigcup_{i=1}^{d}E_{i}\rightarrow% \mathbb{F}_{1}\setminus C\cup E_{d}\simeq B\times\mathbb{A}^{1}$ of schemes over $B$, inducing an isomorphism $Y\setminus\tilde{C}_{0}\cup\ell_{0}% \overset{\sim}{\rightarrow}B\setminus\left\{ 0\right\} \times\mathbb{A}^{1}$ and contracting $\tilde{C}_{0}$ and $\ell_{0}$ to distinct points supported on $\left\{ 0\right\} \times\mathbb{A}^{1}\subset B\times\mathbb{A}^{1}$ (see Figure \[fig:figBir\] below). (-1.8,4.5)(10,-2) (-3,0) (1.5,-0.3)(1.5,1.65) (2.5,-0.35)(2.5,1.55) (3,-0.3)(3,1.6) (4,1.8)[$\mathbb{F}_n$]{} (0.8,1.3)[[$\tilde{C}$]{}]{} (0,1.3)[(1,-0.2)(1.5,-0.5)(2,-0.7)(2.7,-0.5)(3,-0.3)(3.5,0.1)]{} (2.1,0.45)[[$q$]{}]{} (0,1.3)[(1,-1.1)(1.5,-0.9)(2,-0.7)(2.7,-1)(3,-1.1)(3.5,-1)]{} (0,1.3)[(1,-0.65)(1.5,-0.7)(2,-0.7)(2.7,-0.75)(3,-0.85)(3.5,-0.75)]{} (0,1.3)[(1,-0.5)(1.5,-0.6)(2,-0.7)(2.7,-0.7)(3,-0.75)(3.5,-0.6)]{} (0.8,0.4)[[$C$]{}]{} (0,1.3)[(1,-0.9)(1.5,-0.8)(2,-0.7)(2.7,-0.9)(3,-1)(3.5,-0.9)]{} (2.2,0)[[$\ell$]{}]{} (2,-0.4)(2,1.6) (4,-1.2)[$\mathbb{P}^1$]{} (0,-1)[ (1, -0.3)(2.25,-0.4)(3.5,-0.3)]{} (2.25,-0.5)(2.25,-1.3)(2.6,-0.9)[[$\pi_n$]{}]{} (2.5,3) (3.3,1.3)[$W$]{} (1,1)(3,1) (1.8,1.2)[[$E_d$]{}]{} (2.3,1.2)[[-$1$]{}]{} (3,1)(3,-1) (3.2,0)[[$C$]{}]{} (3.2,-0.4)[[$0$]{}]{} (1,1.1)(1.4,0.2) (0.7,0.8)[[$E_{d-1}$]{}]{} (1.3,0.8)[[-$2$]{}]{} (1.4,0.4)(0.7,-0.6) (0.6,0.1)[[$E_{d-2}$]{}]{} (1.3,-0.1)[[-$2$]{}]{} (0.7,-0.3)(1.2,-1.2) (1.2,-1)(0.8,-1.9) (0.8,-1.2)[[$E_1$]{}]{} (1.1,-1.7)[[-$2$]{}]{} (1,0.5)(1.9,0.5) (1.7,0.3)[[$\tilde{C}$]{}]{} (1.7,0.65)[[-$1$]{}]{} (0.8,-1.5)(1.7,-1.5) (1.6,-1.7)[[$\ell$]{}]{} (1.6,-1.35)[[-$1$]{}]{} (2,1)(2,-1) (2.25,1)(2.25,-1) (2.5,1)(2.5,-1) (1,-2.5)(3,-2.5) (3.3,-2.5)[$\mathbb{P}^1$]{} (2,-1.8)(2,-2.3)(2.3,-2)[[$\overline{g}$]{}]{} (7,0.5) (3.3,1.3)[$\mathbb{F}_1$]{} (1,1)(3,1) (1.8,1.2)[[$E_d$]{}]{} (2.3,1.2)[[-$1$]{}]{} (3,1)(3,-1) (3.2,0)[[$C$]{}]{} (3.2,-0.3)[[$0$]{}]{} (1,1)(1,-1) (1.4,0)[[$E_{d-1}$]{}]{} (1.2,-0.3)[[$0$]{}]{} (1,0.4) (0.6,0.4)[[$\overline{\tau}(\tilde{C})$]{}]{} (1,-0.5) (0.6,-0.5)[[$\overline{\tau}(\ell)$]{}]{} (2,1)(2,-1) (2.25,1)(2.25,-1) (2.5,1)(2.5,-1) (1,-2)(3,-2) (3.3,-2)[$\mathbb{P}^1$]{} (2,-1.2)(2,-1.9)(2.3,-1.5)[[$\pi_1$]{}]{} (2.5,2.5)(1.5,1.5) (6.5,2.5)(7.5,1.5) (7.2,2.2)[[$\overline{\tau}$]{}]{} Up to a suitable choice of coordinate on the second factor of $B\times% \mathbb{A}^{1}$, we may assume that $\tau(\tilde{C}_{0})=\left(0,1\right)$ and $\tau(\ell_{0})=\left(0,0\right)$. It then follows from the construction of $\tau$ that there exists isomorphisms $Y\setminus\ell_{0}\simeq B\times% \mathrm{Spec}\left(\mathbb{C}\left[u_{1}\right]\right)$ and $Y\setminus% \tilde{C}_{0}\simeq B\times\mathrm{Spec}\left(\mathbb{C}\left[u_{2}\right]% \right)$ for which the restrictions of $\tau:Y\rightarrow B\times\mathbb{A}% ^{1}$ to $Y\setminus\ell_{0}$ and $Y\setminus\tilde{C}_{0}$ coincide respectively with the birational morphisms $$Y\setminus\ell_{0}\rightarrow B\times\mathbb{A}^{1},\;\left(x,u_{1}\right)% \mapsto\left(x,xu_{1}+1\right)\quad\text{and}\quad Y\setminus\tilde{C}% _{0}\rightarrow B\times\mathbb{A}^{1},\;\left(x,u_{2}\right)% \mapsto(x,x^{d-1}u_{2}+\sum_{i=1}^{d-2}a_{i}x^{i}),$$ where the complex numbers $a_{1},\ldots,a_{d-1}$ depend on the successive centers of $\overline{\tau}:W\rightarrow\mathbb{F}_{1}$. Replacing $u_{1}$ by $v_{1}=u_{1}-\sum_{i=1}^{d-2}a_{i}x^{i-1}$ yields a new isomorphism $% Y\setminus\ell_{0}\simeq B\times\mathrm{Spec}\left(\mathbb{C}\left[v_{1}% \right]\right)$. Letting $v_{2}=u_{2}$, we can eventually identify $% \theta:Y\rightarrow B$ with the surface $\theta_{d}:S\left(d\right)% \rightarrow B$ obtained by gluing two copies $S_{1}=B\times\mathrm{Spec}% \left(\mathbb{C}\left[v_{1}\right]\right)$ and $S_{2}=B\times\mathrm{Spec}% \left(\mathbb{C}\left[v_{2}\right]\right)$ of $B\times\mathbb{A}^{1}$ along $% \left(B\setminus\left\{ 0\right\} \right)\times\mathbb{A}^{1}$ by the isomorphism $$S_{1}\supset\left(B\setminus\left\{ 0\right\} \right)\times\mathbb{A}% ^{1}\ni\left(x,v_{1}\right)\mapsto\left(x,x^{2-d}v_{1}+x^{1-d}\right)\in% \left(B\setminus\left\{ 0\right\} \right)\times\mathbb{A}^{1}\subset S_{2}.$$ \[par:Section\] Summing up, starting from a section $\tilde{C}$ of $% \pi_{n}$ intersecting $C$ in a unique point $q$ with multiplicity $d-1$, we constructed an isomorphism $Y=\mathbb{F}_{n}\setminus C\overset{\sim}{% \rightarrow}S\left(d\right)$ which maps $\nu^{-1}(\pi_{n}(q))=\ell_{0}$ isomorphically onto the curve $\Delta=\left\{ x=0\right\} \subset S_{2}$. So Theorem \[thm:DanGizIso\] eventually follows from the next lemma (see also [@Gizatullin1977 Prop. 4.8.11]), which guarantees the existence of sections $\tilde{C}$ with the required property. Let $\pi_{n}:\mathbb{F}_{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{P}^{1}$, $n\geq0$, be a Hirzebruch surface and let $C\subset\mathbb{F}_{n}$ be an ample section with self-intersection $d\geq2$. Then given a general point $q\in C$, there exists a section $\tilde{C}$ such that $C\cdot\tilde{C}=\left(d-1\right)q$. The existence of a section $\tilde{C}$ such that $C\cdot\tilde{C}% =\left(d-1\right)q$ for a certain $q\in C$ is equivalent to the existence of a rational section of the induced $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundle $% \nu=\pi_{n}\mid_{Y}:Y=\mathbb{F}_{n}\setminus C\rightarrow\mathbb{P}^{1}$ with a pole of order $d-1$ at the point $\pi_{n}\left(q\right)$. Since $% \nu:Y\rightarrow\mathbb{P}^{1}=\mathrm{Proj}\left(\mathbb{C}\left[w_{0},w_{1}% \right]\right)$ is a non trivial $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\left(-d% \right) $-bundle, we can find local trivializations $\tau_{1}:\nu^{-1}% \left(U_{w_{1}}\right)\overset{\sim}{\rightarrow}U_{w_{1}}\times\mathrm{Spec}% \left(\mathbb{C}\left[u\right]\right)$ and $\tau_{0}:\nu^{-1}\left(U_{w_{0}}% \right)\overset{\sim}{\rightarrow}U_{w_{0}}\times\mathrm{Spec}\left(\mathbb{C% }\left[v\right]\right)$ such that, letting $z=w_{0}/w_{1}$, the isomorphism $% \tau_{0}\circ\tau_{1}^{-1}\mid_{U_{w_{1}}\cap U_{w_{0}}}$ has the form $% \left(z,v\right)\mapsto\left(z^{-1},z^{d}u+p\left(z\right)\right)$ for a nonzero polynomial $p\left(z\right)\in z\mathbb{C}\left[z\right]$ of degree $% \deg p<d$. In these trivializations, a rational section of $\nu$ with pole of order $d-1$ at a point $\lambda=\pi_{n}\left(q\right)\in U_{w_{1}}\cap U_{w_{0}}$ is uniquely determined by a rational function $% f_{1}:U_{w_{1}}\dashrightarrow\mathbb{A}^{1}$, $z\mapsto\left(z-\lambda% \right)^{1-d}s\left(z\right)$ such that $\lambda\neq0$, $s\left(z\right)\in% \mathbb{C}\left[z\right]$ does not vanish at $\lambda$, and such that $% z^{d}s\left(z\right)+\left(z-\lambda\right)^{d-1}p\left(z\right)\in O_{\infty}\left(z^{d-1}\right)$. Indeed, the last condition guarantees that $% z^{d}f_{1}+p\left(z\right)$ extends to a rational function $% f_{0}:U_{w_{0}}\dashrightarrow\mathbb{A}^{1}$ regular at the origin, whence that the local rational sections $f_{1}$ and $f_{0}$ of $\nu$ glue to a global one $\sigma:\mathbb{P}^{1}\dashrightarrow Y$ with a unique pole at $% \lambda\in U_{w_{1}}\cap U_{w_{0}}$, of order $d-1$. Writing $% (z-\lambda)^{d-1}p\left(z\right)=\alpha_{\lambda}\left(z\right)+z^{d}\beta_{% \lambda}\left(z\right)$ where $\alpha_{\lambda}\left(z\right)\in\mathbb{C}% \left[z\right]$ is a non zero polynomial of degree $\deg\alpha_{\lambda}\leq d-1$, we have necessarily $s\left(z\right)=-\beta_{\lambda}\left(z\right)$, which forces in turn $s\left(\lambda\right)=\lambda^{-d}\alpha_{\lambda}% \left(\lambda\right)$. Letting $p\left(z\right)=a_{1}z+\cdots+a_{d-1}z^{d-1}$, a direct computation shows that $$s\left(\lambda\right)=\sum_{i=0}^{d-2}\left(-1\right)^{i+1}\tbinom{d-2}{i}% a_{i+1}\lambda^{i}.$$ Since $r\left(z\right)=\sum_{i=0}^{d-2}\left(-1\right)^{i+1}\tbinom{d-2}{i}% a_{i+1}z^{i}$ is a nonzero polynomial, it follows that for every $% \lambda\in(U_{w_{1}}\cap U_{w_{0}})\setminus V\left(r\left(z\right)\right)$ there exists a (unique) rational section $\sigma:\mathbb{P}% ^{1}\dashrightarrow Y$ with pole of order $d-1$ at $\lambda$. A topological characterization of the affine $2$-sphere ------------------------------------------------------- The fact that a smooth affine surface $X$ diffeomorphic to $% \mathbb{S}_{\mathbb{C}}^{2}=\left\{ z_{1}^{2}+z_{2}^{2}+z_{3}^{2}=1\right\} \subset \mathbb{A}_{\mathbb{C}}^{3}$ is algebraically isomorphic to $\mathbb{% S}_{\mathbb{C}}^{2}$ is probably folklore. We provide a proof because of the lack of an appropriate reference. Let $\mathbb{F}_{0}=\mathbb{P}^{1}\times \mathbb{P}^{1}$ with bi-homogeneous coordinates $(\left[ u_{0}:u_{1}\right] ,\left[ v_{0}:v_{1}\right] )$. Via the open immersion $$j:\mathbb{S}_{\mathbb{C}}^{2}\rightarrow \mathbb{F}_{0},\;\left( z_{1},z_{2},z_{3}\right) \mapsto \left( \left[ z_{1}+iz_{2}:z_{3}+1\right] ,% \left[ z_{1}+iz_{2}:1-z_{3}\right] \right)$$we may identify $\mathbb{S}_{\mathbb{C}}^{2}$ with the complement in $% \mathbb{F}_{0}$ of the diagonal $\Delta =\left\{ u_{0}v_{1}+u_{1}v_{0}=0\right\} $. The restriction to $\mathbb{S}_{\mathbb{C}% }^{2}$ of the first projection $\mathbb{F}_{0}\rightarrow \mathbb{P}^{1}$ is a locally trivial $\mathbb{A}^{1}$-bundle, whence a trivial $\mathbb{R}^{2}$-bundle in the euclidean topology. Thus $$H_{i}\left( \mathbb{S}_{\mathbb{C}}^{2},\mathbb{Z}\right) =% \begin{cases} \mathbb{Z} & \text{if }i=0,2 \\ 0 & \text{otherwise}.% \end{cases}%$$Furthermore, since $\Delta ^{2}=2$, the *fundamental group at infinity* $\pi _{1}^{\infty }\left( \mathbb{S}_{\mathbb{C}}^{2}\right) $ of $\mathbb{S}% _{\mathbb{C}}^{2}$ (see e.g. [@Gurjar1984; @Ramanujam1971]) is isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$. It turns out that these topological invariants provide a characterization of $\mathbb{S}_{\mathbb{C}}^{2}$ among all smooth affine surfaces, namely: \[thm:NoExotic2-sphere\] A smooth affine surface $X$ with the homology type and the homotopy type at infinity of $\mathbb{S}_{\mathbb{C}}^{2}$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb{S}_{\mathbb{C}}^{2}$. The finiteness of $\pi _{1}^{\infty }\left( X\right) $ implies that $X$ has logarithmic Kodaira dimension $\bar{\kappa}(X)=-\infty $ [@Gurjar1988] whence that $X$ is affine ruled. It follows that $X$ admits a completion into a smooth, projective, birationally ruled surface $p:V\rightarrow C$, where $C$ is a smooth projective curve. One can further assume that the boundary $D:=V\setminus X$ is a connected divisor with simple normal crossings that can be written as $D=B\cup $ $G_{0}\cup G_{1}\cup \cdots \cup G_{s},$ where $B$ is a section of $p$ and the $G_{i}$ are disjoint trees of smooth rational curves contained in the fibers of $p$ [@Miyanishi1981 I.2]. In particular, the dual graph of $D$ is a tree. The hypotheses imply that $H_{i}\left( X,\mathbb{Z}\right) =0$ for $i=1,3,4$ and so $H^{i}\left( X,\mathbb{Z}\right) =0$ for $i=1,3,4$, whereas $% H^{2}\left( X,\mathbb{Z}\right) \simeq H_{2}\left( X,\mathbb{Z}\right) \simeq \mathbb{Z}$ by the universal coefficient Theorem. By Poincaré -Lefschetz duality, we have $H^{i}\left( \left( V,D\right) ,\mathbb{Z}% \right) \simeq H_{4-i}\left( X,\mathbb{Z}\right) $ and $H_{i}\left( \left( V,D\right) ,\mathbb{Z}\right) \simeq H^{4-i}\left( X,\mathbb{Z}\right) $, and so, these groups are zero for $i=0,1$ and $3$, and isomorphic to $% \mathbb{Z}$ for $i=2,4$. From the long exact sequences of (co)homology of pairs $$\begin{aligned} & \cdots \rightarrow H_{\ast }\left( D\right) \stackrel{\partial _{\ast }}{\rightarrow} H_{\ast }\left( V\right) \rightarrow H_{\ast }\left( V,D\right) \rightarrow H_{\ast -1}\left( D\right) \rightarrow \cdots & \\ & \cdots \rightarrow H^{\ast -1}\left( D\right) \stackrel{\partial^{\ast }}{ \rightarrow } H^{\ast }\left( V,D\right) \rightarrow H^{\ast }\left( V\right) \rightarrow H^{\ast }\left( D\right) \rightarrow \cdots & \end{aligned}$$ we get $H_{3}\left( D,\mathbb{Z}\right) \simeq H_{3}\left( V,\mathbb{Z}% \right) \simeq 0$ and so $H^{1}\left( V,\mathbb{Z}\right) =0$ by Poincaré duality. Similarly, $H^{3}\left( D,\mathbb{Z}\right) \simeq H^{3}\left( V,% \mathbb{Z}\right) =0$ and $H_{1}\left( V,\mathbb{Z}\right)=0$. It follows that $H^{1}\left( D,\mathbb{Z}\right)$ and $H_{1}\left( D,\mathbb{Z}\right)$ are either simultaneously $0$ or isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}$. In the latter case $D$ would contain a cycle of rational curves, which is impossible from the above description of $D$. Thus $H_{1}\left( D,\mathbb{Z}\right) =0$ and so $D$ is a tree of nonsingular rational curves. This implies in turn that $H^{1}\left( V,\mathcal{O}_{V}\right) =\left\{ 0\right\} $ for otherwise $D$ would be contained in a fiber of the Albanese morphism $q:V\rightarrow {\rm Alb}(V)$, in contradiction with the fact that $D$ is the support of an ample divisor as $X$ is affine. Since $\pi _{1}^{\infty }\left( X\right) \simeq \pi _{1}\left( \mathbb{S}_{\mathbb{C}}^{2}\right) \simeq \mathbb{Z}_{2}$ by hypothesis, Theorem 1 in [@Gurjar1984] and its proof imply that $D$ is a chain. Therefore, up to replacing $V$ by another minimal completion of $X$ obtained from $V$ by a sequence of blow-ups and blow-downs with centers outside $X$, we may assume that $D=D_{0}\cup D_{1}\cup \cdots \cup D_{s}$, where $D_{i}\cdot D_{j}=1$ if $\left\vert i-j\right\vert =1$ and $0$ otherwise, $D_{0}^{2}=D_{1}^{2}=0$ and $D_{i}^{2}\leq -2$ for every $% i=2,\ldots ,s$ (see e.g. [@Dubouloz2004 Lemma 2.7 and 2.9]). With this description, one checks easily that $\pi _{1}^{\infty }\left( X\right) \simeq \mathbb{Z}_{2}$ if and only if $s=2$ and $D_{2}^{2}=-2$. By blowing-up the point $D_{0}\cap D_{1}$ and contracting the proper transforms of $D_{0}$, $D_{1}$ and $D_{2}$, we reach a completion $V_{0}$ of $X$ by a smooth rational curve $B$ with self-intersection $2$. It follows from Danilov-Gizatullin’s classification [@Gizatullin1977] that $V_{0}\simeq \mathbb{F}_{0}$ and that $B$ is of type $\left( 1,1\right) $. Since the automorphism group of $\mathbb{F}_{0}$ acts transitively on the set of smooth curves of type $\left( 1,1\right) $, we finally obtain that $X\simeq \mathbb{F}_{0}\setminus \Delta \simeq \mathbb{S}_{\mathbb{C}}^{2}$. [10]{} I.V. Arzhantsev, K. Kuyumzhiyan, and M. Zaidenberg, *Flag varieties, toric varieties, and suspensions: three instances of infinite transitivity*, preprint arXiv:1003.3164 (2010). T. Bandman and L. Makar-Limanov, *Non-stability of [AK]{}-invariant*, Michigan Math. J. **53** (2005), no. 2, 263–281. A. Dubouloz, *Completions of normal affine surfaces with a trivial makar-limanov invariant*, Michigan Mathematical Journal **52** (2004), no. 2, 289–308. A. Dubouloz, *The cylinder over the [K]{}oras-[R]{}ussell cubic threefold has a trivial [M]{}akar-[L]{}imanov invariant*, Transformation Groups **14** (2009), no. 3, 531–539. A. Dubouloz, D. Finston, and P. D. Metha, *Factorial threefolds with $\mathbb{G}_a$-actions*, preprint arXiv:0902.3873v1 (2009). A. Dubouloz, L. Moser-Jauslin, and P.M. Poloni, *Non cancellation for smooth contractible affine threefolds*, To appear in Proc. of the AMS (2011), preprint arXiv 1004.4723. D.R. Finston and S. Maubach, *The automorphism group of certain factorial threefolds and a cancellation problem*, Israel J. Math. **163** (2008), 369–381. H. Flenner, S. Kaliman, and M. Zaidenberg, *On the [D]{}anilov-[G]{}izatullin isomorphism theorem*, L’Enseignement Mathématique **55** (2009), no. 2, 1–9. J. Giraud, *Cohomologie non abelienne*, Springer [V]{}erlag, 1971. M. H. Gizatullin and V. I. Danilov, *Automorphisms of affine surfaces [II]{}*, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. **41** (1977), no. 1, 54–103. H. Grauert and R. Remmert, *Theory of [S]{}tein spaces*, Springer Verlarg, 1979. A. Grothendieck, *On the de [R]{}ham cohomology of algebraic varieties*, Publ. Math. IHES **29** (1966), 95–103. R. V. Gurjar and M. Miyanishi, *Affine surfaces with $\bar{\kappa}\leq 1$*, Algebraic [G]{}eometry and [C]{}ommutative [A]{}lgebra, Vol. [I]{} (M. Maruyama H. Matsumura M. Miyanishi T. Oda H. Hijikata, H. Hironaka and K. Ueno, eds.), Kinokuniya, Tokyo, 1988, pp. 99–124. R.V. Gurjar and A.R. Shastri, *The fundamental goup at infinity of affine surfaces*, Comment. Math. Helv. **59** (1984), 459–484. R. Hartshorne, *Algebraic geometry*, Grad. [T]{}exts in [M]{}ath., vol. 52, Springer, New [Y]{}ork, 1977. H. Jung, *Über ganze birationale [T]{}ransformationen der [E]{}bene*, J. Reine Angew. Math. **184** (1942), 161–174. S. Kaliman and M. Zaidenberg, *Affine modifications and affine varieties with a very transitive automorphism group*, Transformation Groups **4** (1999), 53–95. H. Lindel, *On the [B]{}ass-[Q]{}uillen conjecture concerning projective modules over polynomial rings*, Invent. Math. **65** (1981/82), 319–­323. L. Makar-Limanov, *On the hypersurface $x + x^2 y + z^2 + t^3 = 0$ in $\mathbb{C}^4$ or a $\mathbb{C}^3$-like threefold which is not $\mathbb{C}^3$*, Israel J. Math. **96** (1996), 419–429. M. Miyanishi, *Noncomplete algebraic surfaces*, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 857, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1981. M. Miyanishi, *Algebraic characterizations of the affine 3-space*, Proceedings of the Algebraic Geometry Seminar (Singapore), 1988, pp. 53–67. D. Mumford, J. Fogarty, and F. Kirwan, *Geometric [I]{}nvariant [T]{}heory*, Ergeb. Math, vol. 34, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994. M.P. Murthy, *Cancellation problem for projective modules over certain affine algebras*, Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Algebra, Arithmetic and Geometry Mumbai, Narosa Publishing House, 2000, pp. 493–507. C.P. Ramanujam, *A topological characterization of the affine plane as an algebraic variety*, Ann. of Maths. **94** (1971), 69–88. M. Zaidenberg, *Exotic algebraic structures on affine spaces*, Algebra i Analiz **11** (1999), no. 5, 3–73. [^1]: In loc. cit., this property is established by algebraic methods involving the computation of the Makar-Limanov invariant of the varieties $Z_{m,n}$, but this can also be seen alternatively as consequence of the fact for $% 1/p+1/q+1/r<1$, the logarithmic Kodaira dimension $\overline{\kappa }% (S_{p,q,r}^{*})$ of $S_{p,q,r}^{*}$ is positive. [^2]: This fact was actually already observed by the authors and P.D Metha in the unpublished paper [@DubFinMet2009].

ArXiv

--- bibliography: - 'example\_paper.bib' nocite: '[@langley00]' --- Introduction ============ Deep reinforcement learning (RL) is poised to revolutionize how autonomous systems are built. In recent years, it has been shown to achieve state-of-the-art performance on a wide variety of complicated tasks [@mnih2015human; @lillicrap2015continuous; @schulman2015trust; @van2016deep; @schulman2017proximal], where being successful requires learning complex relationships between high dimensional state spaces, actions, and long term rewards. However, the current implementations of the latest advances in this field have mainly been tailored to academia, focusing on fast prototyping and evaluating performance on simulated benchmark environments. While interest in applying RL to real problems in industry is high, the current set of implementations and tooling must be adapted to handle the unique challenges faced in applied settings. Specifically, the handling of large datasets with hundreds or thousands of varying feature types and distributions, high dimensional discrete and continuous action spaces, optimized training and serving, and algorithm performance estimates before deployment are of key importance. With this in mind, we introduce Horizon - an open source end-to-end platform for applied RL developed and used at Facebook. Horizon is built in Python and uses PyTorch for modeling and training [@paszke2017pytorch] and Caffe2 for model serving [@jia2014caffe]. It aims to fill the rapidly-growing need for RL systems that are tailored to work on real, industry produced, datasets. To achieve this goal, we designed our platform with the following principles in mind. - *[Ability to Handle Large Datasets Efficiently]{}* - *[Ability to Preprocess Data Automatically & Efficiently]{}* - *[Competitive Algorithmic Performance]{}* - *[Algorithm Performance Estimates before Launch]{}* - *[Flexible Model Serving in Production]{}* - *[Platform Reliability]{}* The rest of this paper goes into the details and features of Horizon, but at a high level Horizon features: *Data preprocessing*: A Spark [@zaharia2010spark] pipeline that converts logged training data into the format required for training numerous different deep RL models. *Feature Normalization*: Logic to extract metadata about every feature including type (float, int, enum, probability, etc.) and method to normalize the feature. This metadata is then used to automatically preprocess features during training and serving, mitigating issues from varying feature scales and distributions which has shown to improve model performance and convergence [@ioffe2015batch]. *Deep RL model implementations*: Horizon provides implementations of Deep Q-networks (DQN) [@mnih2015human], Deep Q-networks with double Q-learning (DDQN) [@van2016deep], Deep Q-networks with dueling architecture (Dueling DQN & Dueling DDQN) [@wang2015dueling] for discrete action spaces, a parametric action version of all the previously mentioned algorithms for handling very large discrete action spaces, and Deep Deterministic Policy Gradients (DDPG) [@lillicrap2015continuous] for continuous action spaces. *Multi-GPU training*: Industry datasets can be very large. At Facebook many of our datasets contain tens of millions of samples per day. Internally, Horizon has functionality to conduct training on many GPUs distributed over numerous machines. This allows for fast model iteration and high utilization of industry sized clusters. Even for problems with very high dimensional feature sets (hundreds or thousands of features) and millions of training examples, we are able to learn models in a few hours (while doing preprocessing and counterfactual policy evaluation on every batch). As part of the initial open source release, Horizon supports CPU, GPU, and multi-GPU training on a single machine. *Counterfactual policy evaluation*: Unlike in pure research settings where simulators offer safe ways to test models and time to collect new samples is very short, in applied settings it is usually rare to have access to a simulator. This makes offline model evaluation important as new models affect the real world and time to collect new observations and retrain models may take days or weeks. Horizon scores trained models offline using several well known counterfactual policy evaluation (CPE) methods. The step-wise importance sampling estimator, step-wise direct sampling estimator, step-wise doubly-robust estimator [@dudikdoubly], sequential doubly-robust estimator [@jiang2016doubly][^1], and MAGIC estimator [@thomas2016data] are all run as part of Horizon’s end-to-end training workflow. *Optimized Serving*: Post training, models are exported from PyTorch to a Caffe2 network and set of parameters via ONNX [@exchange2018onnx]. Caffe2 is optimized for performance and portability, allowing models to be deployed to thousands of machines. *Tested Algorithms*: Testing production RL systems is a new area with no established best practices. We take inspiration from systems best practices and test our core functionality and algorithms in Horizon via unit tests and integration tests. Using custom environments (i.e. Gridworld) and some standard environments from OpenAI’s Gym [@brockman2016openai] we train and evaluate all of our RL models on every pull request. We end the paper discussing examples of how models trained with Horizon outperformed supervised learning and heuristic based policies to send notifications and to stream video at Facebook. We provide details into the formulation and methods used in our approach. Data Preprocessing ================== Many RL models are trained on consecutive pairs of state/action tuples (DQN, DDPG, etc.). However, in production systems data is often logged as it comes in, requiring offline logic to join the data in a format suitable for RL. To assist in creating data in this format, Horizon includes a Spark pipeline (called the *Timeline* pipeline) that transforms logged data collected in the following row format: - *MDP ID*: A unique ID for the Markov Decision Process (MDP) chain that this training example is a part of. - *Sequence Number*: A number representing the location of the state in the MDP (i.e. a timestamp). - *State Features*: The features of the current step that are independent of the action. - *Action*: The action taken at the current step. A string (i.e. ‘up’) if the action is discrete or a set of features if the action is parametric or continuous. - *Action Probability*: The probability that the current system took the action logged. Used in counter factual policy evaluation. - *Reward*: The scalar reward at the current step. - *Possible Actions*: An array of possible actions at the current step, including the action chosen (left blank for continuous action domains). This is optional but enables Q-Learning (vs. SARSA). This data is transformed into data in the row format below. Note, *MDP ID*, *Sequence Number*, *State Features*, *Action*, *Action Probability*, and *Reward* are also present in the data below, but are left out for brevity. - *Next State Features*: The features of the subsequent step that are action-independent. - *Next Action*: The action taken at the next step. - *Sequence Number Ordinal*: A number representing the location of the state in the MDP after the *Sequence Number* was converted to an ordinal number. - *Time Diff*: A number representing the “time difference” between the current state and next state (computed as the difference in non-ordinal sequence numbers between states). Used as an optional way to set varying time differences between states. Particularly useful for MDPs that have been sub-sampled upstream. - *Possible Next Actions*: A list of actions that were possible at the next step. Only present if *Possible Actions* were provided. - *Reward Timeline*: A map containing the future rewards. Each key is the number of timesteps forward, and the value is the reward at that timestep. This column is used to measure model performance in offline evaluation. - *Episode Value*: The sum of discounted future rewards over the MDP. This column is used to measure model performance in offline evaluation. Internally, the *Timeline* operator is run on a Hive table containing logged data in the format described at the beginning of this section. After running the operator, post-timeline data is written to a new Hive table. In the simple examples provided in the open source Horizon repository, we read pre-timeline data from a local JSON file and write post-timeline data to a local JSON file. This is just to provide simple working examples for end users and using the Spark operator on data in other formats (e.g. Hive) is straightforward. Feature Normalization ===================== Data from recommender systems is often sparse, noisy and arbitrarily distributed [@adomavicius2005toward]. Literature has shown that neural networks learn faster and better when operating on batches of features that are normally distributed [@ioffe2015batch]. In RL, where the recurrence can become unstable when exposed to very large features, feature normalization is even more important. For this reason, Horizon includes a workflow that automatically analyzes the training dataset and determines the best transformation function and corresponding normalization parameters for each feature. Developers can override the estimation if they have prior knowledge of the feature that they prefer to use. In the workflow, features are identified to be of type binary, probability, continuous, enum, quantile, or boxcox. A “normalization specification” is then created which describes how the feature should be normalized during training. To identify the type, we follow the process outlined in algorithm \[alg:feature\_norm\]. $F$ is a binary feature $F$ is a probability $F$ is a categorical feature $F$ is a continuous feature $F$ is a boxcox feature $F$ is a quantile feature Although we pre-compute the feature transformation functions prior to training, we do not apply the feature transformation to the dataset until during training. At training time we create a PyTorch network that takes in the raw features and applies the normalization during the forward pass. This allows developers to quickly iterate on the feature transformation without regenerating the dataset. The feature transformation process begins by grouping features according to their identity (see above), and then processing each group as a single batch using vector operations. Model Implementations ===================== Horizon contains implementations of several deep RL algorithms that span to solve discrete action, very large discrete action, and continuous action domains. We also provide default configuration files as part of Horizon so that end users can easily run these algorithms on our included test domains (e.g. OpenAI Gym [@brockman2016openai], Gridworld). Below we describe the current algorithms supported in Horizon. Discrete-Action Deep Q-Network (Discrete DQN) --------------------------------------------- For discrete action domains with a tractable number of actions, we provide a Deep Q-Network implementation [@mnih2015human]. In addition, we provide implementations for several DQN improvements, including double Q-learning [@van2016deep] and dueling architecture [@wang2015dueling]. We plan on continuing to add more improvements to our DQN model (distributional DQN [@bellemare2017distributional], multi-step learning [@sutton1998reinforcement], noisy nets [@fortunato2017noisy]) as these improvements have been shown to stack to achieve state of the art results on numerous benchmarks [@hessel2017rainbow]. Parametric-Action Deep-Q Network (Parametric DQN) ------------------------------------------------- Many domains at Facebook have have extremely large discrete action spaces (more than millions of possible actions) with actions that are often ephemeral. This is a common challenge when working on large scale recommender systems where an RL agent can take the action of recommending numerous different pieces of content. In this setting, running a traditional DQN would not be practical. One alternative is to combine policy gradients with a K-NN search [@dulac2015deep], but when the number of available actions for any given state is sufficiently small, this approach is heavy-handed. Instead, we have chosen to create a variant of DQN called Parametric-Action DQN, in which we input concatenated state-action pairs and output the Q-value for each pair. Actions, along with states, are represented by a set of features. The rest of the system remains as a traditional DQN. Like our Discrete-Action DQN implementation, we also have adapted the double Q-learning and dueling architecture improvements to the Parametric-Action DQN. Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient (DDPG) ----------------------------------------- Other domains at Facebook involve tuning of sets of hyperparameters. These domains can be addressed with a continuous action RL algorithm. For continuous action domains we have implemented Deep Deterministic Policy Gradients (DDPG) [@lillicrap2015continuous]. Support for other deep RL algorithms will be a continued focus going forward. Training ======== Once we have preprocessed data and a feature normalization function for each feature, we can begin training. Training can be done using CPUs, a GPU, or multiple GPUs. Internally, Horizon has functionality to conduct training on many GPUs distributed over numerous machines. We utilize the PyTorch multi-GPU functionality to do distributed training [@paszke2017pytorch]. As part of the open source release, Horizon supports CPU, GPU, and multi-GPU training on a single machine. Multi-GPU training across numerous machines is expected to be added to Horizon open source in the near future. Using GPU and multi-GPU training we are able to train large RL models that contain hundreds to thousands of features across tens of millions of examples in a few hours (while doing feature normalization and counterfactual policy evaluation on every batch). Reporting and Evaluation ======================== There are several metrics that can inform engineers about the performance of their RL models after training. **Temporal difference loss (TD-loss)** measures the function approximation error. For example, in DQN, this measures the difference between the expected value of Q given by the bellman equation, and the actual value of Q output by the model. Note that, unlike supervised learning where the labels are from a stationary distribution, in RL the labels are themselves a function of the model and as a result this distribution shifts. As a result, this metric is primarily used to ensure that the optimization loop is stable. If the TD-loss is increasing in an unbounded way, we know that the optimization step is too aggressive (e.gs. the learning rate is too high, or the minibatch size is too small). **Monte-Carlo Loss (MC-loss)** compares the model’s Q-value to the logged value (the discounted sum of logged rewards). When the logged policy is the optimal policy (for example, in a toy environment), MC-loss is a very effective measure of the model’s policy. Because the logged policy is often not the optimal policy, the MC-loss has limited usefulness for real-world domains. Similar to TD-loss, we primarily monitor MC-loss for extreme values or unbounded increase. Because RL is focused on policy optimization, it is more valuable to evaluate the policy (i.e. what action a model chooses) than to evaluate the model scores directly. Horizon has a comprehensive set of Counterfactual Policy Evaluation techniques. Counterfactual Policy Evaluation -------------------------------- Counterfactual policy evaluation (CPE) is a set of methods used to predict the performance of a newly learned policy without having to deploy it online. CPE is important in applied RL as deployed policies affect the real world. At Facebook, we serve billions of people every day; deploying a new policy directly impacts the experience they have using Facebook. Without CPE, industry users would need to launch numerous A/B tests to search for the optimal model and hyperparameters. These experiments can be time-consuming and costly. With reliable CPE, this search work can be fully automated using hyperparameter sweeping techniques that optimize for a model’s CPE score. CPE also makes an efficient and principled parameter sweep possible by combining counter-factual offline estimates with real-world testing. Horizon includes implementations of the following CPE estimators that are automatically run as part of training: - Step-wise importance sampling estimator - Step-wise direct sampling estimator - Step-wise doubly-robust estimator [@dudikdoubly] - Sequential doubly-robust estimator [@jiang2016doubly] - MAGIC estimator [@thomas2016data] Incorporating the aforementioned estimators into our platform’s training pipeline provides us with two advantages: (1) all feature normalization improvements tailored to training are also available to CPE (2) users of our platform get CPE estimates at the end of each epoch which helps them understand how more training affects model performance. The CPE estimators in Horizon are also optimized for running speed. The implemented estimators incur minimal time overhead to the whole training pipeline. The biggest technical challenge implementing CPE stems from the nature of how batch RL is trained. To decrease temporal correlation of the training data, which is needed for stable supervised learning, a pseudo i.i.d environment is created by uniformly shuffling the collected training data [@mnih2015human]. However, the sequential doubly robust and MAGIC estimators both are built based on cumulative step-wise importance weights [@jiang2016doubly; @thomas2016data], which require the training data to appear in its original sequence. In order to satisfy this requirement while still using the shuffled pseudo i.i.d data in training, we sample and collect training samples during the training workflow. At the end of every epoch we then sort the collected samples to place them back in their original sequence and conduct CPE on the collected data. Such deferral provides the opportunity to calculate all needed Q-values together in one run, heavily utilizing matrix operations. As a side benefit, querying for Q-values at the end of one epoch of training decreases the variance of CPE estimates as the Q-function can be very unstable during training. Through this process we are able to calculate reliable CPE estimations efficiently. TensorboardX ------------ To visualize the output of our training process, we export our metrics to tensorboard using the TensorboardX plugin [@tensorboardx]. TensorboardX outputs tensors from pytorch/numpy to the tensorboard format so that they can be viewed with the Tensorboard web visualization tool. Model Serving ============= At Facebook, we serve deep reinforcement learning models in a variety of production applications. The serving platform is designed to support stochastic policies without requiring online learning. We do this by producing both raw scores and the outcomes from a deterministic policy and softmax sampled policy as part of one forward pass. The deterministic policy always chooses the highest-scoring action. While this policy has no exploration, it is still useful for collecting metrics, especially when doing an A/B test with another deterministic model. The softmax policy converts scores to propensities using a softmax function with temperature [@sutton1998reinforcement] and then samples an action from these propensities. PyTorch 1.0 supports ONNX [@exchange2018onnx], an open source format for model inference. ONNX works by tracing the forward pass of an RL model, including the feature transformation and the policy outputs. The result is a Caffe2 network and a set of parameters that are serializable, portable, and efficient. This package is then deployed to thousands of machines. At serving time, product teams can either execute one of our policies, or fetch the scores from one of our models and develop their own policy. Either way, product teams log the possible actions, the propensity of choosing each of these actions, the action chosen, and the reward received. Depending on the problem domain, it may be hours or even days before we know the reward for a particular sample. Product teams typically log a unique key with each sample so they can later join the logged training data to other data sources that contain the reward. This joined data is then fed back into Horizon to incrementally update the model. Although all of our algorithms are off-policy, they are still limited based on the policy that they are observing, so it is important to train in a closed loop to get the best results. In addition, the data distribution is changing and the model needs to adapt to these changes over time. Platform Testing Practices ========================== Like general software systems, adequate testing in machine learning systems is important for catching algorithmic performance regressions and other issues. To test algorithm performance, Horizon is integrated with both custom environments (i.e. a self made Gridworld environment) and the popular benchmarking library OpenAI Gym [@brockman2016openai]. Internally, when new pull requests are made, a suite of unit tests and integration tests are started that test platform core functionality (data pre-processing, feature normalization, etc.) and also algorithmic performance. Specifically, for algorithmic performance, both our Discrete-Action DQN and Parametric-Action DQN models are evaluated on OpenAI Gym’s Cartpole environment while our DDPG model is evaluated on OpenAI Gym’s Pendulum environment. We evaluate these models with different configurations (using Q-learning vs. SARSA, with and without double Q-learning, etc.) to ensure robustness and correctness. For open source, we have set up a continuous integration test that runs all unit tests upon push to the master branch on Github and on pull request submission. The integration test runs on pre-built Docker images of the target platforms. We have included the Dockerfile used to build the images to ensure that the test environment is reproducible. Case Study: Notifications at Facebook ===================================== Push Notifications ------------------ Facebook sends notifications to people to connect them with the most important updates when they matter, which may include interactions on your posts or stories, updates about your friends, joined groups, followed pages, interested events etc. Push notifications are sent to mobile devices, and a broader set of notifications is accessible from within the app/website. It is primarily used as a channel for sending personalized and time sensitive updates. To make sure we only send the most personally relevant notifications to people, we filter notification candidates using machine learning models. Historically, we have used supervised learning models for predicting click through rate (CTR) and likelihood that the notification leads to meaningful interactions. These predictions are combined into a score that is used to filter the notifications. This however, didn’t capture the long term or incremental value of sending notifications. There can be some signals that appear long after the decision to send or drop is made or can’t be attributed directly to the notification. Additionally, because notification preference varies from person to person, filtering based on a static threshold misses out on the improved experience of tailoring notifications for people with different sensitivities to being notified. We introduced a new policy that uses Horizon to train a Discrete-Action DQN model for sending push notifications to address the problems above. The Markov Decision Process (MDP) is based on a sequence of notification candidates for a particular person. The actions here are sending and dropping the notification, and the state describes a set of features about the person and the notification candidate. There are rewards for interactions and activity on Facebook, with a penalty for sending the notification to control the volume of notifications sent. The policy optimizes for the long term value and is able to capture incremental effects of sending the notification by comparing the Q-values of the send and don’t send action. The model was incrementally retrained daily on data from people exposed to the model with some action exploration introduced during serving. The model is updated with batches of tens of millions of state transitions. We observed this to help online usage metrics as we are doing off policy batch learning. We observed a significant improvement in activity and meaningful interactions by deploying an RL based policy for certain types of notifications, replacing the previous system based on supervised learning. Page Administrator Notifications -------------------------------- In addition to Facebook users, page administrators also rely on Facebook to provide them with timely updates about the pages they manage. In the past, supervised learning models were used to predict how likely page admins were to be interested in such notifications and how likely they were to respond to them. Although the models were able to help boost page admins’ activity in the system, the improvement always came at some trade-off with the notification quality, e.g. the notification click through rate (CTR). With Horizon, a Discrete-Action DQN model is trained to learn a policy to determine whether to send or not send a notification based on the state represented by hundreds of features. The training data spans multiple weeks to enable the RL model to capture page admins’ responses and interactions to the notifications with their managed pages over a long term horizon. The accumulated discounted rewards collected in the training allow the model to identify page admins with long term intent to stay active with the help of being notified. After deploying the DQN model, we were able to improve daily, weekly, and monthly metrics without sacrificing notification quality. More Applications of Horizon ---------------------------- In addition to making notifications more relevant on our platform, Horizon is applied by a variety of other teams at Facebook. The 360-degree video team has applied Horizon in the adaptive bitrate (ABR) domain to reduce bitrate consumption without harming people’s watching experience. This was due to more intelligent video buffering and pre-fetching. While we focused our case studies on notifications, it is important to note that Horizon is a horizontal effort in use or being explored to be used by many organizations within the company. Future Work =========== The most immediate future additions to Horizon fall into 2 categories - 1) New models & model improvements 2) CPE integrated with real metrics. *New models & model improvements*: Specifically, on the model improvement and new models front, we will be adding more incremental improvements to our current models and plan on continually adding the best performing algorithms from the research community. *CPE integrated with real metrics*: Many developers struggle with deriving a single reward scalar that defines the success of a policy. Rather, they look at a suite of metrics and watch how these metrics change in concert as the policy changes. In the future, Horizon will allow developers to input a set of metrics that they are interested in tracking and we will use CPE to estimate the change to these metrics, independent of the reward CPE. With these additional tools, the reward shaping process will become more intuitive and we can eventually support more complicated representations of rewards, such as an objective function subject to a set of constraints. We plan on continuing to improve and add to Horizon going forward and welcome community pull requests, suggestions, and feedback. [^1]: Two variants are implemented; one makes uses of ordinal importance sampling and the other weighted importance sampling.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'The Hamiltonian of persistent current qubit is found within well known quantum mechanical procedure. It allows a selfconsistent derivation of the current operator in a two state basis. It is shown that the current operator is not diagonal in a flux basis. A non diagonal element comes from the finite inductance of the qubit. The results obtained in the paper are important for the circuits where two or more flux qubits are coupled inductively.' author: - 'Ya. S. Greenberg' title: 'The quantization of persistent current qubit. The role of inductance' --- Introduction ============ Josephson-junction qubits are known to be candidates for scalable solid-state quantum computing circuits [@Makhlin]. Here we consider a supercobducting flux qubit which has been first proposed in [@Mooij] and analyzed in [@Orlando] and [@Mooij1]. The qubit consists of three Josephson junctions in a loop with very small inductance $L$, typically in the pH range. This insures effective decoupling from the environment. However, in the practical implementation of flux qubit circuitry it is important to have the loop inductance as much as possible consistent with a proper operation of a qubit. A relative large loop inductance facilitates a qubit control biasing schemes and the formation, control and readout of two-qubit quantum gates. These considerations stimulated some investigations of the role the loop inductance plays in the operation of a flux qubit [@Crankshaw], [@Brink], [@You]. The main goal of these works was the calculation of the corrections to the energy levels due to finite inductance of the loop. In the early work [@Crankshaw] these corrections have been obtained by perturbation expansion of the energy over small parameter $\beta=L/L_J$, where $L_J$ is the Josephson junction inductance. The extension to large $\beta$’s (up to $\beta\approx 10$) had been considered in [@You]. However, it is important to realize that for finite loop inductance the interaction between two state qubit with its own LC circuit cannot in general be neglected. If $\beta$ is not small, as in [@You], this interaction can have substantial influence on the energy levels. Unfortunately, this interaction in [@You] has been completely neglected. In principle, the account for a finite loop inductance (even if it is small) requires the correct construction of quantum mechanical Hamiltonian of a qubit, which contains all relevant interactions. This has been done in [@Brink], where the effective Hamiltonian has been obtained by a rigorous expansion procedure in powers of $\beta$. As was shown in [@Brink], one of the effect of the interaction of a flux qubit with its own LC oscillator is the renormalization of the Josephson critical current. The inclusion of circuit inductances in a systematic derivation of the Hamiltonian of superconducting circuits has been done in [@Bur1]. It allows the correct calculations of the effects of the finite inductance both for flux [@Bur2] and charge [@Bur3] qubits. In this paper we investigate another physical effect which comes from finite loop inductance. Namely, we show that the finite loop inductance results in the additional term of the current operator in the flux basis: $$\label{Cop} \widehat{I}=A\tau_Z+B\tau_X,$$ where $\tau_Z$ and $\tau_X$ are Pauli matrices in the flux basis. The quantities $A$ and $B$ in (\[Cop\]) are calculated in the paper the $B$ being conditioned by the finite loop inductance: for $L=0$ the second term in (\[Cop\]) is absent. Though for the usual qubit design with small loop inductance this second term is relatively small, nevertheless, it might give noticeable effects for large $\beta$’s for the arrangements when two flux qubit are coupled either via a common inductance [@You] or inductively coupled via a term $M\widehat{I}_1\widehat{I}_2$ in the Hamiltonian, where $M$ is a mutual inductance between qubit’s loops, $\widehat{I}_1$, $\widehat{I}_2$ are the current operators of the respective qubits. The paper is organized as follows. In Section II we start with the exact Lagrangian of a flux qubit with finite loop inductance. In section III with the aid of well known procedure we derive rigorously the quantum qubit Hamiltonian. The current operator is studied in Section IV, where we show that in general it is not diagonal in the flux basis. The matrix elements for the current operator are calculated in Section VI, where in order to obtain analytical results we consider a flux qubit with a small loop inductance. Lagrangian for the flux qubit ============================= We consider here a well known design of the flux qubit with three Josephson junctions [@Mooij], [@Orlando], [@Mooij1], which is shown on Fig.\[Fig1\]. Two junctions have equal critical current $I_\mathrm{c}$ and (effective) capacitance $C$, while those of the third junction are slightly smaller: $\alpha I_\mathrm{c}$ and $\alpha C$, with $0.5<\alpha<1$. If the Josephson energy $E_\mathrm{J}=I_\mathrm{c}\Phi_0/2\pi$ is much larger than the Coulomb energy $E_C=e^2\!/2C$, the Josephson phase is well defined. Near $\Phi_\mathrm{x}=\Phi_0/2$, this system has two low-lying quantum states [@Orlando; @Mooij1]. The Lagrangian of this qubit is the difference between the charge energy in the junction capacitors and the sum of Josephson and magnetic energy: $$\label{Lag1} L = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^3 {\frac{{C_i V_i^2 }}{2} + } \sum\limits_{i = 1}^3 {E_J^{(i)} \cos \varphi _i - \frac{{\Phi ^2 }}{{2L}}}$$ where $V_i$ is the voltage across the junction capacitance $C_i$, which is related to the phase $\phi_i$ by the Josephson relation $V_i=(\Phi_0/2\pi) \dot{\phi_i}$; $\Phi$ is the flux trapped in the loop: $$\label{Flux} \Phi = \frac{{\Phi _0 }}{{2\pi }}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^3 {\varphi _i - \Phi _X }$$ Next we make the following definitions: $\phi=\phi_1+\phi_2+\phi_3$, $\phi_1+\phi_2=2\theta$, $\phi_1-\phi_2=2\chi$. In terms of these new phases Lagrangian (\[Lag1\]) takes the form: $$\label{Lag2} L = \frac{{\hbar ^2 }}{{16E_C }}\left( {\dot \varphi _1^2 + \dot \varphi _2^2 } \right) + \alpha \frac{{\hbar ^2 }}{{16E_C }}\dot \varphi _3^2 + 2E_J \cos \theta \cos \chi + \alpha E_J \cos \left( {\varphi - 2\theta } \right) - \frac{{E_J }}{{2\beta }}\left( {\varphi - \varphi _X } \right)^2$$ where $\beta=2\pi LI_C/\Phi_0$. Construction of Hamiltonian =========================== Conjugate variables are defined in a standard way: $$\label{nphi} n_\varphi = \frac{1}{\hbar }\frac{{\partial L}}{{\partial \dot \varphi }} = \alpha \frac{\hbar }{{8E_C }}\left( {\dot \varphi - 2\dot \theta } \right)$$ $$\label{ntet} n_\theta = \frac{1}{\hbar }\frac{{\partial L}}{{\partial \dot \theta }} = \frac{\hbar }{{4E_C }}\dot \theta - \alpha \frac{\hbar }{{4E_C }} \left( {\dot \varphi - 2\dot \theta } \right)$$ $$\label{nhi} n_\chi = \frac{1}{\hbar }\frac{{\partial L}}{{\partial \dot \chi }} = \frac{\hbar }{{4E_C }}\dot \chi$$ From these equations we express phases in terms of conjugate variables: $$\label{Motion1} \dot \varphi = \frac{{8E_C }}{\hbar }\frac{{2\alpha + 1}}{\alpha }n_\varphi + \frac{{8E_C }}{\hbar }n_\theta$$ $$\label{Motion2} \dot \theta = \frac{{4E_C }}{\hbar }n_\theta + \frac{{8E_C }}{\hbar }n_\varphi$$ $$\label{Motion3} \dot \chi = \frac{{4E_C }}{\hbar }n_\chi$$ In terms of conjugate variables Lagrangian (\[Lag2\]) takes the form: $$\begin{aligned} \label{Lag3} L = 2E_C n_\theta ^2 + 2E_C n_\chi ^2 + 4E_C \frac{{1 + 2\alpha }}{\alpha }n_\varphi ^2 + 8E_C n_\theta n_\varphi\\\nonumber +2E_J \cos \theta \cos \chi + \alpha E_J \cos \left( {\varphi - 2\theta } \right) - \frac{{E_J }}{{2\beta }}\left( {\varphi - \varphi _X } \right)^2\end{aligned}$$ The Hamiltonian is constructed according to the well known rule: $$\label{Ham1} H = \hbar n_\varphi \dot \varphi + \hbar n_\theta \dot \theta + \hbar n_\chi \dot \chi - L$$ Finally we obtain: $$\label{Ham2} H = 4E_C \frac{{2\alpha + 1}}{\alpha }n_\varphi ^2 + 2E_C n_\chi ^2 + 2E_C n_\theta ^2 + 8E_C n_\theta n_\varphi+U(\chi, \theta, \varphi)$$ where $$\label{PotEn} U(\chi, \theta, \varphi)= - 2E_J \cos \theta \cos \chi - \alpha E_J \cos \left( {\varphi - 2\theta } \right) + \frac{{E_J }}{{2\beta }}\left( {\varphi - \varphi _X } \right)^2$$ Hence, equations of motion for the phases (\[Motion1\]), (\[Motion2\]), (\[Motion3\]) are simply $\dot \varphi = \frac{1}{\hbar }\frac{{\partial H}}{{\partial n_\varphi }};\;\dot \theta = \frac{1}{\hbar }\frac{{\partial H}}{{\partial n_\theta }};\;\dot \chi = \frac{1}{\hbar }\frac{{\partial H}}{{\partial n_\chi }}$. The equations of motion for conjugate variables are: $$\label{Conj1} \dot n_\varphi = - \frac{1}{\hbar }\frac{{\partial H}}{{\partial \varphi }} = - \frac{{\alpha E_J }}{\hbar }\sin (\varphi - 2\theta ) - \frac{{E_J }}{{\hbar \beta }}\left( {\varphi - \varphi _X } \right)$$ $$\label{Conj2} \dot n_\theta = - \frac{1}{\hbar }\frac{{\partial H}}{{\partial \theta }} = - \frac{{2\alpha E_J }}{\hbar }\sin (\varphi - 2\theta ) - \frac{{2E_J }}{\hbar }\sin \theta \cos \chi$$ $$\label{Conj3} \dot n_\chi = - \frac{1}{\hbar }\frac{{\partial H}}{{\partial \chi }} = - \frac{{2E_J }}{\hbar }\cos \theta \sin \chi$$ Below we consider Hamiltonian (\[Ham2\]) as quantum mechanical with commutator relations imposed on its variables $$\label{Comm1} \left[ {\varphi ,n_\varphi } \right] = i;\quad \left[ {\theta ,n_\theta } \right] = i;\quad \left[ {\chi ,n_\chi } \right] = i$$ Current operator ================ From the first principles a current in the loop is equal to the first derivative of the state energy relative to external flux: $$\label{CurrA} I=\frac{\partial E_n}{\partial \Phi_X}$$ This expression can be rewritten in terms of exact Hamiltonian of a system: $$\label{CurrB} I = \left\langle n \right|\frac{{\partial \hat H}}{{\partial \Phi _X }}\left| n \right\rangle$$ From (\[CurrB\]) we would make ansatz that the current operator is as follows: $$\label{CurrC} \Hat{I} = \frac{{\partial \hat H}}{{\partial \Phi _X }}$$ However (\[CurrC\]) is not a consequence of (\[CurrB\]). Therefore, the ansatz (\[CurrC\]) must be proved in every case, since the current operator in the form of Eq. (\[CurrC\]) has to be consistent with its definition in terms of variables of Hamiltonian $H$. The prove for our case is given below. The current operator across every junction is a sum of a supercurrent and a current through the capacitor: $$\label{Curr1} \hat{I}_i = I_0 \sin \varphi _{_i } + \frac{\hbar }{{2e}}C\ddot \varphi _i \quad \left( {i = 1,2} \right)$$ $$\label{Curr2} \hat{I}_3 = \alpha I_0 \sin \varphi _{_3 } + \alpha \frac{\hbar }{{2e}}C\ddot \varphi _3$$ Since the current in a loop is unique the equations (\[Curr1\]) and (\[Curr2\]) must give identical result. This is indeed the case if we express phases $\phi_i (i=1, 2, 3)$ in terms of $\phi$, $\theta$, $\chi$ and use the equations (\[Motion1\]), (\[Motion2\]), (\[Motion3\]), (\[Conj1\]), (\[Conj2\]), (\[Conj3\]). For every $I_i$ in (\[Curr1\]), (\[Curr2\]) we obtain the same expression $$\label{CurrOp1} \hat{I} = - I_0\frac{{\varphi - \varphi _X }}{\beta }$$ which is independent of parameters of a particular junction in the loop. From the other hand the expression (\[CurrOp1\]) can be obtained from our Hamiltonian (\[Ham2\]) with the aid of (\[CurrC\]). Therefore, the equation (\[CurrC\]) gives us the true expression for the current operator. It is important to note that the proper expression for the current operator (\[CurrOp1\]) cannot be obtained without magnetic energy term in the original Lagrangian (\[Lag1\]). It follows from (\[Ham2\]) and (\[CurrOp1\]) that $\left[ {\hat I,\hat H} \right] \ne 0$. Therefore, an eigenstate of $H$ cannot possess a definite current value. Current operator in a two-state basis ------------------------------------- Suppose a system is well described by two low lying states $|\Psi_\pm\rangle$ with corresponding eigenenergies $E_\pm$: $$\label{Ham3} \widehat{H}|\Psi_\pm\rangle=E_\pm|\Psi_\pm\rangle$$ Within this subspace Hamiltonian can be expressed in terms of Pauli matrices $\sigma_X, \sigma_Y, \sigma_Z$: $$\label{Ham4} \widehat{H}=\frac{E_++E_-}{2}-\frac{E_+-E_-}{2}\sigma_Z$$ with $\sigma_Z|\Psi_\pm\rangle=\mp|\Psi_\pm\rangle$. Now we calculate the matrix elements of the current operator (\[CurrC\]) within this subspace. According to (\[CurrA\]),(\[CurrB\]) and (\[CurrC\]) diagonal matrix elements are: $$\label{Currdi} \left\langle {\Psi _ \pm } \right|\widehat{I}\left| {\Psi _ \pm } \right\rangle = \frac{{\partial E_ \pm }}{{\partial \Phi _X }}$$ In order to find nondiagonal matrix elements of the current operator we use the expression $$\label{nondiag} \left\langle n \right|\frac{{\partial \hat H}}{{\partial \lambda }}\left| {n'} \right\rangle = \left( {E_{n'} - E_n } \right)\left\langle {n\left| {\frac{{\partial n'}}{{\partial \lambda }}} \right.} \right\rangle$$ which is obtained by differentiating of the identity $\left\langle n \right|\hat H\left| {n'} \right\rangle = 0$ with respect to parameter $\lambda$. Hence, the nondiagonal elements of the current operator are: $$\label{Currnd} \left\langle {\Psi _ - } \right|\hat I\left| {\Psi _ + } \right\rangle = \left\langle {\Psi _ + } \right|\hat I\left| {\Psi _ - } \right\rangle = \left( {E_ + - E_ - } \right)\left\langle {\Psi _ - \left| {\frac{{\partial \Psi _ + }}{{\partial \Phi _X }}} \right.} \right\rangle$$ Therefore, we can express the current operator in terms of Pauli matrices: $$\label{CurrOp2} \widehat I = \frac{\partial }{{\partial \Phi _X }}\left( {\frac{{E_ + + E_ - }}{2}} \right)\textbf{I} - \frac{\partial }{{\partial \Phi _X }}\left( {\frac{{E_ + - E_ - }}{2}} \right)\sigma _Z + \left( {E_ + - E_ - } \right)\left\langle {\Psi _ - \left| {\frac{{\partial \Psi _ + }}{{\partial \Phi _X }}} \right.} \right\rangle \sigma _X$$ where $\textbf{I}$ is the unity matrix. Below we consider two low lying states of a flux qubit $$\label{En} E_ \pm = E_0 \pm \sqrt {\varepsilon ^2 + \Delta ^2 }$$ where $E_0$ and the tunneling rate $\Delta$ are independent of the external flux $\Phi_X$, and the quantity $\varepsilon$ is linear function of the flux, $\varepsilon=E_J\lambda f_X$, where $\lambda$ is a numerical factor which depends on qubit parameters $\alpha$ and $g=E_J/E_C$, $f_X=\Phi_X/\Phi_0-1/2$. Therefore, for the flux qubit we get in eigenstate basis: $$\label{Ham3} H = E_0 - \Delta _\varepsilon \sigma _Z$$ $$\label{CurrOp3} \hat I = - \frac{{\partial \Delta _\varepsilon }}{{\partial \Phi _X }}\sigma _Z + 2\Delta _\varepsilon \left\langle {\Psi _ - \left| {\frac{{\partial \Psi _ + }}{{\partial \Phi _X }}} \right.} \right\rangle \sigma _X$$ where $\Delta _\varepsilon = \sqrt {\varepsilon ^2 + \Delta ^2} $. Transformation to the flux basis is obtained via the rotation around $y$ axes in a two level subspace with the aid of the matrix $R = \exp \left( {i\xi \sigma _Y /2} \right)$, where $\cos \xi =\varepsilon/\Delta_\varepsilon$, $\sin \xi =\Delta/\Delta_\varepsilon$: $R^{ - 1} \sigma _Z R = \tau _Z \cos \xi + \tau _X \sin \xi $, $R^{ - 1} \sigma _X R = -\tau _Z \sin \xi + \tau _X \cos \xi $, where $\tau_X, \tau_Z$ are Pauli matrices in a flux basis. Hence, we get for Hamiltonian (\[Ham3\]) and current operator (\[CurrOp3\]) in the flux basis: $$\label{Ham4} H = - \varepsilon \tau _Z - \Delta \tau _X$$ $$\label{CurrOp4} \hat I = - \left( {\frac{{\partial \Delta _\varepsilon }}{{\partial \Phi _X }}\frac{\varepsilon }{{\Delta _\varepsilon }} + 2\Delta _\varepsilon \left\langle {\Psi _ - \left| {\frac{{\partial \Psi _ + }}{{\partial \Phi _X }}} \right.} \right\rangle } \right)\tau _Z - \left( {\frac{{\partial \Delta _\varepsilon }}{{\partial \Phi _X }}\frac{\Delta }{{\Delta _\varepsilon }} - 2\varepsilon \left\langle {\Psi _ - \left| {\frac{{\partial \Psi _ + }}{{\partial \Phi _X }}} \right.} \right\rangle } \right)\tau _X$$ Therefore, the current operator is not diagonal neither in the flux basis nor in the eigenstate basis. The stationary state wave functions $\Psi_\pm$ can be written as the superpositions of the wave functions in the flux basis, $\Psi_L, \Psi_R$ where $L$, $R$ stand for the left, right well, respectively: $\Psi_\pm=\emph{a}_\pm\Psi_L+\emph{b}_\pm\Psi_R$, where $$\label{a,b} a_\pm=\frac{\Delta}{\sqrt{2\Delta_\varepsilon(\Delta_\varepsilon\mp\varepsilon)}}; b_\pm=\frac{% \varepsilon\mp\Delta_\varepsilon}{\sqrt{2\Delta_\varepsilon(\Delta_\varepsilon\mp\varepsilon)}};$$ The coefficients $a_\pm$, $b_\pm$ are defined in such a way, that $\tau_Z|\Psi_L\rangle=-|\Psi_L\rangle$, $\tau_Z|\Psi_R\rangle=+|\Psi_R\rangle$, $\tau_X|\Psi_L\rangle=+|\Psi_R\rangle$, $\tau_X|\Psi_R\rangle=+|\Psi_L\rangle$. In terms of the functions $\Psi_L, \Psi_R$ the cross term $\left\langle {\Psi _ - \left| {\frac{{\partial \Psi _ + }}{{\partial \Phi _X }}} \right.} \right\rangle $ will read $$\label{Crossterm} \left\langle {\Psi _ - \left| {\frac{{\partial \Psi _ + }}{{\partial \Phi _X }}} \right.} \right\rangle = a_ - \frac{{\partial a_ + }}{{\partial \Phi _X }} + b_ - \frac{{\partial b_ + }}{{\partial \Phi _X }} + a_ - a_ + \left\langle {\Psi _L \left| {\frac{{\partial \Psi _L }}{{\partial \Phi _X }}} \right.} \right\rangle + b_ - b_ + \left\langle {\Psi _R \left| {\frac{{\partial \Psi _R }}{{\partial \Phi _X }}} \right.} \right\rangle$$ The results obtained up till now are exact in that we did not make any approximation to the Hamiltonian (\[Ham2\]). However, in order to calculate $\varepsilon$ and cross term $\left\langle {\Psi _ - \left| {\frac{{\partial \Psi _ + }}{{\partial \Phi _X }}} \right.} \right\rangle $ in (\[CurrOp3\]), (\[CurrOp4\]) we need some approximate procedure. Approximation to quantum mechanical Hamiltonian =============================================== In order to calculate the matrix elements of the current operator we have to find the wave functions of two lowest levels of Hamiltonian (\[Ham2\]). First we single out of the potential (\[PotEn\]) the fast variable $\varphi$, which describe the interaction of the qubit with its own $LC$ circuit. The point of minimum $\varphi_C$ of $U(\chi, \theta, \varphi)$ (\[PotEn\]) with respect to $\varphi$ is defined from $\partial U/\partial\phi=0$: $$\label{phiC} \varphi _C = \varphi _X - \alpha \beta \sin \left( {\varphi _C - 2\theta } \right)$$ In the vicinity of $\varphi_C$ the potential $U(\chi, \theta, \varphi)$ can be written as: $$\label{PotEn1} U\left( {\chi ,\theta ,\varphi } \right) \approx U\left( {\chi ,\theta ,\varphi _C } \right) + \frac{{E_J }}{{2\beta }}\widehat{\varphi}^2 + \widehat{\varphi}^2\frac{{\alpha E_J }}{2}\cos \left( {\varphi _C - 2\theta } \right)$$ where $\widehat\varphi$ is a small operator correction to $\varphi_C$: $\varphi=\varphi_C+\widehat\varphi$. As is known the potential $U(\chi, \theta, \varphi_C)$ has a degenerate point at $\Phi_\mathrm{x}=\Phi_0/2$. Assuming $f_X<<1$, $\beta<<1$ we obtain near this point: $$\label{phiC1} \varphi _C = \pi + 2\pi f_X - \alpha \beta \sin 2\theta$$ From (\[CurrOp1\]) and (\[phiC1\]) we find a current operator in “coordinate” representation: $$\label{CurrCoord} \widehat{I}=I_0\alpha \sin 2\theta$$ For $U(\chi, \theta, \varphi_C)$ we obtain near degeneracy point $$\label{PotDeg} U\left( {\chi ,\theta ,\varphi _C } \right) = -2E_J \cos \theta \cos \chi + \alpha E_J \cos 2\theta + \alpha 2\pi f_X E_J \sin 2\theta - \frac{{\alpha ^2 \beta E_J }}{2}\sin ^2 2\theta$$ Below we follow the procedure described in [@Green]. At $f_\mathrm{x}=0$, the potential (\[PotDeg\]) has two minima at $\chi=0$, $\theta=\pm\theta_*$, with $\cos\theta_*=1/2\alpha$ ($\theta_*>0$). Tunnelling lifts their degeneracy, leading to energy levels $E_\pm=E_0 \pm \Delta$. However, at degenerate bias the current vanishes, forcing one to move slightly away from this point. In order to find the levels for $|f_\mathrm{x}|\ll1$ we expand Eq. (\[PotDeg\]) near its minima, retaining linear terms in $f_\mathrm{x}$, $\beta$ and quadratic terms in $\chi,\theta$. Define $\theta^\mathrm{r/l}_*$ as the minima, shifted due to $f_\mathrm{x}$ and $\beta$: $$\label{thetaMin} \theta^\mathrm{r/l}_*=\pm\theta_*+2\pi\!f_\mathrm{x}\frac{1{-}2\alpha^2}{4\alpha^2{-}1}\ \pm \beta \frac{1-2\alpha^2}{2\alpha (4\alpha^2-1)};$$ that is, the upper (lower) sign refers to the right (left) well. The potential energy (\[PotDeg\]) then reads: $$\label{PotQuadr} \frac{{U^{r/l}\left( {\chi ,\theta ,\varphi _C } \right)}}{{E_J }} = U_0^{r/l} + A^{r/l}\widehat{\chi}^2 + B^{r/l}\widehat{\theta}^{2}$$ where the operator correction $\widehat\theta=\theta-\theta_*^{r/l}$, $$\label{U0} U_0^{r/l} = - \alpha - \frac{1}{{2\alpha }} \pm 2\pi f_X \frac{{\sqrt {4\alpha ^2 - 1} }}{{2\alpha }} - \beta \frac{{4\alpha ^2 - 1}}{{8\alpha ^2 }}$$ $$\label{A} A^{r/l} = \frac{1}{{2\alpha }} \mp 2\pi f_X \frac{{2\alpha ^2 - 1}}{{2\alpha \sqrt {4\alpha ^2 - 1} }} + \beta \frac{{2\alpha ^2 - 1}}{{4\alpha ^2 }}$$ $$\label{B} B^{r/l} = 2\alpha - \frac{1}{{2\alpha }} \mp 2\pi f_X \frac{{2\alpha ^2 + 1}}{{2\alpha \sqrt {4\alpha ^2 - 1} }} + \beta \left( { - \frac{1}{4} + \frac{5}{2}\alpha ^2 - 2\alpha ^4 } \right)$$ Combining (\[PotQuadr\]) and (\[PotDeg\]) in (\[Ham2\]) we obtain quadratic quantum mechanical Hamiltonian for the flux qubit in the left and right well near the degeneracy point: $$\begin{aligned} \label{HamQuant} H^{r/l} = E_J U_0^{r/l} + \left[ {\frac{{4\left( {2\alpha + 1} \right)}}{\alpha }E_C \hat n_\varphi ^2 + \frac{{E_J }}{{2\beta }}\hat \varphi ^2 } \right] + \left[ {2E_C \hat n_\chi ^2 + E_J A^{r/l}\hat \chi ^2 } \right] \\ \nonumber + \left[ {2E_C \hat n_\theta ^2 + E_J B^{r/l}\hat \theta ^2 } \right] + 8E_C \hat n_\theta \hat n_\varphi + \frac{{E_J }}{2}C^{r/l}\hat \varphi ^2\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{C} C^{r/l} = \frac{1}{{2\alpha }}\left[ { - 1 \pm 2\pi f_X \left( {\frac{{2\alpha ^2 - 1}}{{\sqrt {4\alpha ^2 - 1} }} + \frac{{\sqrt {4\alpha ^2 - 1} }}{\alpha }} \right) + \frac{\beta }{{2\alpha }}\left( {1 - 2\alpha - \frac{{4\alpha ^2 - 1}}{\alpha }} \right)} \right]$$ The first term in square brackets in (\[HamQuant\]) is the Hamiltonian of $LC$ oscillator of the flux qubit, which is slightly modified by the last term in (\[HamQuant\]). the next two terms in square brackets are oscillator Hamiltonians for the flux qubit variables, $\chi$ and $\theta$, respectively. The interaction of the $\theta$ degree of freedom with the qubit $LC$ circuit is given by next-to-last term in (\[HamQuant\]). Assuming the frequency $(LC)^{-1/2}$ of the qubit $LC$ circuit is much higher than the junctions frequencies $E_J/\hbar$, $E_C/\hbar$ we neglect the interaction of the qubit variables, $\theta$ and $\chi$ with the qubit $LC$ oscillator. This is equivalent to the averaging of Hamiltonian (\[HamQuant\]) over the ground state of the LC Hamiltonian. Therefore, for the qubit Hamiltonian we obtain: $$\label{HamQb} H_{qb} = \left\langle H^{r/l} \right\rangle = E_J U_0^{r/l} + \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon_0 + \frac{{E_J }}{2}C^{r/l}\left\langle {\hat \varphi ^2 } \right\rangle + \left[ {2E_C \hat n_\chi ^2 + E_J A^{r/l}\hat \chi ^2 } \right] + \left[ {2E_C \hat n_\theta ^2 + E_J B^{r/l}\hat \theta ^2 } \right]$$ where $$\varepsilon_0 = \left( {\frac{{8E_C E_J }}{\beta }\frac{{(2\alpha + 1)}}{\alpha }} \right)^{1/2} ;\quad \left\langle {\varphi ^2 } \right\rangle = \frac{1}{2}\left( {\frac{{8\beta E_C }}{{E_J }}\frac{{(2\alpha + 1)}}{\alpha }} \right)^{1/2}$$ Next we confine ourself only to the ground state of (\[HamQb\]) in either of the wells. $$\label{GrState} \varepsilon ^{r/l} = \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon_0 + E_J U_0^{r/l} + E_J \frac{{C^{r/l} }}{2}\left\langle {\varphi ^2 } \right\rangle + \frac{{\hbar \omega _\theta ^{r/l} }}{2} + \frac{{\hbar \omega _\chi ^{r/l} }}{2}$$ where $$\label{omchi} \hbar \omega _\chi ^{r/l} = E_J \sqrt {\frac{4}{{\alpha g}}} \left( {1 \mp 2\pi f_X \frac{{2\alpha ^2 - 1}}{{2\sqrt {4\alpha ^2 - 1} }} + \beta \frac{{2\alpha ^2 - 1}}{{4\alpha }}} \right)$$ $$\label{omtheta} \hbar \omega _\theta ^{r/l} = E_J \sqrt {\frac{{4\left( {4\alpha ^2 - 1} \right)}}{{\alpha g}}} \left( {1 \mp 2\pi f_X \frac{{2\alpha ^2 + 1}}{{2\left( {4\alpha ^2 - 1} \right)^{3/2} }} + \beta \frac{\alpha }{{4\alpha ^2 - 1}}\left( { - \frac{1}{4} + \frac{5}{2}\alpha ^2 - 2\alpha ^4 } \right)} \right)$$ The ground state wave functions in left (right) well are as follows: $$\label{Wave} \Psi_\mathrm{R/L}= \frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi}}\left(\frac{\hbar \omega_{\chi} ^{r/l}\hbar \omega_{\theta} ^{r/l}}{E_C^2}\right)^{1/4} \exp\biggl(-\frac{\hbar\omega_\chi^\mathrm{r/l}}{8E_C}\chi^2 -\frac{\hbar\omega_\theta^\mathrm{r/l}}{8E_C} {(\theta{-}\theta_*^\mathrm{r/l})}^2\biggr)\;,$$ The tunneling between two wells lifts degeneracy yielding the well known result for eigenenergies $E_\pm=(\varepsilon^\mathrm{l}{-}\varepsilon^\mathrm{r})/2\pm \sqrt{(\varepsilon^\mathrm{l}{-}\varepsilon^\mathrm{r})^2\!/4+\Delta^2}$, which was given above in Eq. (\[En\]). The Eqs. (\[GrState\]), (\[omchi\]), (\[omtheta\]) allows us to calculate the numerical factor $\lambda$ in (\[En\]): $$\begin{aligned} \label{lambda} \frac{{\lambda \left( {\alpha ,g} \right)\alpha }}{\pi } = \sqrt {4\alpha ^2 - 1} - \sqrt {\frac{\alpha }{g}} \left( {\frac{{2\alpha ^2 - 1}}{{\sqrt {4\alpha ^2 - 1} }} + \frac{{2\alpha ^2 + 1}}{{4\alpha ^2 - 1}}} \right) +\\\nonumber \sqrt{\beta} \sqrt {\frac{\alpha }{g}} \frac{{\sqrt { 8(2\alpha + 1)} }}{{8\alpha }}\left( {\frac{{2\alpha ^2 - 1}}{{\sqrt {4\alpha ^2 - 1} }} + \frac{{4\alpha ^2 - 1}}{\alpha }} \right)\end{aligned}$$ The average current in eigenstates $E_\pm$ is calculated from (\[CurrA\]): $$\label{CurrEigen} I_\mathrm{q}=\frac{\partial E_\pm}{\partial\Phi_X}=\pm I_\mathrm{c}f_\mathrm{x}\frac{\lambda^2(\alpha, g)}{2\pi}\frac{E_\mathrm{J}}{\sqrt{\varepsilon^2+\Delta^2}},$$ If the deviation from the degeneracy point $f_X=0$ is significant ($\varepsilon>>\Delta$) then the current (\[CurrEigen\]) reduces to its local value in a particular well $I_q\rightarrow \pm I_C \lambda(\alpha,g)/2\pi=\partial\varepsilon^{r/l}/\partial\Phi_X$. The matrix elements of the current operator ------------------------------------------- As is seen from Eqs. (\[CurrOp3\]), (\[CurrOp4\]), it is necessary to calculate the quantity $\langle\Psi_-| \partial\Psi_+/\partial\Phi_X\rangle$. The calculation yields the following result: $$\label{CurrMatrix} \left\langle {\Psi _ - \left| {\frac{{\partial \Psi _ + }}{{\partial \Phi _X }}} \right.} \right\rangle = \frac{{\partial \varepsilon }}{{\partial \Phi _X }}\frac{\Delta }{{2\Delta _\varepsilon ^2 }} + \beta \frac{\pi }{{4\Phi _0 }}\frac{\Delta }{{\Delta _\varepsilon }}F\left( \alpha \right)$$ where $$\label{Falpha} F(\alpha ) = \frac{{\left( {2\alpha ^2 - 1} \right)^2 }}{{4\alpha \sqrt {4\alpha ^2 - 1} }} + \frac{{\alpha \left( {2\alpha ^2 + 1} \right)}}{{\left( {4\alpha ^2 - 1} \right)^2 }}\left( { - \frac{1}{4} + \frac{5}{2}\alpha ^2 - 2\alpha ^4 } \right)$$ The correction due to inductance (second term in r. h. s. of (\[Falpha\])) is usually small, however, it is responsible for nonzero value of non diagonal matrix elements of the current operator in the flux basis. In the eigenstate basis Eq. (\[CurrOp3\]) transforms to: $$\label{CurrOp5} \hat I = \frac{{\partial \varepsilon }}{{\partial \Phi _X }}\frac{1}{{\Delta _\varepsilon }}\left( { - \varepsilon \sigma _Z + \Delta \sigma _X } \right)$$ where we neglect the correction due to inductance. In the flux basis Eq. (\[CurrOp4\]) transforms to: $$\label{CurrOp5} \hat I = - \frac{{\partial \varepsilon }}{{\partial \Phi _X }}\left( {\frac{{\varepsilon ^2 }}{{\Delta _\varepsilon ^2 }} + \frac{\Delta }{{\Delta _\varepsilon }}} \right)\tau _Z + \beta \frac{\pi }{{2\Phi _0 }}\frac{{\varepsilon \Delta }}{{\Delta _\varepsilon }}F(\alpha)\tau _X$$ The Eq. (\[CurrOp5\]) is the main result of our calculations. It shows that the current operator in the flux qubit is not diagonal in the flux basis as it is implicitly assumed in most of papers on the subject. The non diagonal term comes from the finite inductance of the qubit loop. Though for the usual qubit design this term is relatively small, nevertheless, it might give noticeable effects for larger values of $\beta$ in the arrangements when two flux qubit are inductively coupled via a term $M\widehat{I}_1\widehat{I}_2$ in the Hamiltonian, where $M$ is a mutual inductance between qubit’s loops, $\widehat{I}_1$, $\widehat{I}_2$ are the current operators of the respective qubits. In conclusion, we show that the finite loop inductance of a flux qubit results in additional non diagonal term in the current operator in the flux basis. The result is important in the arrangements with magnetic coupling of two or more flux qubits. **Acknowledgements** I thank E. Il’ichev for critical reading of manuscript and fruitful discussions. [99]{} Yu. Makhlin, G. Schön, and A. Shnirman, Rev. Mod. Phys. **73**, 357 (2001). J.E. Mooij, T.P. Orlando, L. Levitov, L. Tian, C.H. van der Wal, and S. Lloyd, Science **285**, 1036 (1999). T.P. Orlando, J.E. Mooij, L. Tian, C.H. van der Wal, L. Levitov, S. Lloyd, and J.J. Mazo, Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{}, 15398 (1999). C.H. van der Wal, A.C.J. ter Haar, F.K. Wilhelm, R.N. Schouten, C.J.P.M. Harmans, T.P. Orlando, S. Lloyd, and J.E. Mooij, Science [**290**]{}, 773 (2000). D. S. Crankshaw and T. P. Orlando, IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. **11**, 1006 (2001). A. Maassen van den Brink, Phys. Rev. B **71**, 064503 (2005). J. Q. You, Y. Nakamura, F. Nori, Phys. Rev. B **71**, 024532 (2005). G. Burkard, R. H. Koch, D. P. DiVincenzo, Phys. Rev. B **69**, 064503 (2004). G. Burkard, D. P. DiVincenzo, P. Bertet, I. Chiorescu, and J. E. Mooij, Phys. Rev. B **71**, 134504 (2005). G. Burkard, Phys. Rev. B **71**, 144511 (2005). Ya. S. Greenberg, A. Izmalkov, M. Grajcar, E. Il’ichev, W. Krech, H.-G. Meyer, M. H. S. Amin and A. Maassen van den Brink, Phys. Rev. B **66**, 214525 (2002).

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'A unit disk graph is the intersection graph of $n$ congruent disks in the plane. Dominating sets in unit disk graphs are widely studied due to their applicability in wireless ad-hoc networks. Because the minimum dominating set problem for unit disk graphs is **NP**-hard, numerous approximation algorithms have been proposed in the literature, including some PTASs. However, since the proposal of a linear-time $5$-approximation algorithm in 1995, the lack of efficient algorithms attaining better approximation factors has aroused attention. We introduce an $O(n+m)$ algorithm that takes the usual adjacency representation of the graph as input and outputs a $44/9$-approximation. This approximation factor is also attained by a second algorithm, which takes the geometric representation of the graph as input and runs in $O(n \log n)$ time regardless of the number of edges. Additionally, we propose a $43/9$-approximation which can be obtained in $O(n^2 m)$ time given only the graph’s adjacency representation. It is noteworthy that the dominating sets obtained by our algorithms are also independent sets.' address: - 'Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil' - 'Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil' - 'Instituto Nacional de Metrologia, Qualidade e Tecnologia, Brazil' author: - 'G.D. da Fonseca' - 'C.M.H. de Figueiredo' - 'V.G. Pereira de Sá' - 'R.C.S. Machado' title: | Efficient sub-$5$ approximations for\ minimum dominating sets in unit disk graphs --- approximation algorithms; dominating set; unit disk graph. Introduction ============ A *unit disk graph* $G$ is a graph whose $n$ vertices can be mapped to points in the plane and whose $m$ edges are defined by pairs of points within Euclidean distance at most $1$ from one another. Alternatively, one can regard the vertices of $G$ as mapped to coplanar disks of unit diameter, so that two vertices are adjacent whenever the corresponding disks intersect. A *dominating set* $D$ is a subset of the vertices of a graph such that every vertex not in $D$ is adjacent to some vertex in $D$. An *independent set* is a subset of mutually non-adjacent vertices. An *independent dominating set* is a dominating set which is also an independent set. Note that any maximal independent set is an independent dominating set. Dominating sets in unit disk graphs are widely studied due to their application in wireless ad-hoc networks [@heuristics]. Since it is **NP**-hard to compute a minimum dominating set of a unit disk graph [@udg], several approximation algorithms have been proposed [@cccg; @erlebach10; @esa-Gibson; @ptas-geometric; @heuristics; @ptas-graph-journal; @zou11]. Such algorithms are of two main types. *Graph-based algorithms* receive as input the adjacency representation of the graph and assume no knowledge of the point coordinates, whereas *geometric algorithms* work in the Real RAM model of computation and receive solely the vertex coordinates as input[^1]. If the coordinates of the $n$ disk centers are known, the $m$ edges of the corresponding graph $G$ can be figured out easily. It can be done in $O(n+m)$ time under the Real RAM model with floor function and constant-time hashing, and in $O(n \log n + m)$ time without those operations [@bentley]. Thus, for the price of a conversion step, graph-based algorithms can be used when the input is a unit disk realization of $G$. However, unless **P**=**NP**, no efficient algorithm exists to decide whether a given graph admits a unit disk realization [@breu], let alone exhibit one. As a consequence, geometric algorithms cannot be efficiently transformed into graph-based algorithms. In this paper, we introduce approximation algorithms of both types, benefiting from the same approximation factor analysis. The proposed graph-based algorithm runs in $O(n+m)$ time, and the geometric algorithm runs in $O(n \log n)$ time regardless of $m$. #### Previous algorithms {#previous-algorithms .unnumbered} A graph-based $5$-approximation algorithm that runs in $O(n+m)$ time was presented in [@heuristics]. The algorithm computes a maximal independent set, which turns out to be a $5$-approximation because unit disk graphs contain no $K_{1,6}$ as induced subgraphs, as shown in that same paper.[^2] Polynomial-time approximation schemes (PTAS) were first presented as geometric algorithms [@ptas-geometric] and later as graph-based algorithms [@ptas-graph-journal]. Also, a graph-based PTAS for the more general disk graphs was proposed in [@esa-Gibson]. Unfortunately, the complexities of the existing PTASs are high-degree polynomials. For example, the PTAS presented in [@ptas-graph-journal] takes $O(n^{225})$ time to obtain a $5$-approximation ( the analysis from [@cccg]). Although its analysis is not tight, the running time is too high even for moderately large graphs. The reason is that these PTASs invoke a subroutine that verifies by brute force whether a graph admits a dominating set with $k$ vertices. The verification takes $n^{O(k)}$ time, and it is unlikely that this can be improved (unless **FPT**=**W\[1\]**, as proved in [@marx]). Such a subroutine is applied to several subgraphs, and the value of $k$ grows as the approximation error decreases. A similar strategy was used in [@ids-ptas] to obtain a PTAS for the minimum independent dominating set. The lack of fast algorithms with approximation factor less than $5$ was recently noticed in [@cccg], where geometric algorithms with approximation factors of $4$ and $3$ and running times respectively $O(n^{9})$ and $O(n^{18})$ were presented. While a significant step towards approximating large instances, those algorithms require the geometric representation of the graph, and their running times are still polynomials of rather high degrees. Linear and near-linear-time approximation algorithms constitute an active topic of research, even for problems that can be solved exactly in polynomial time, such as maximum flow and maximum matching [@maxflow; @matchings]. It is useful to contrast the minimum dominating set problem with the maximum independent set problem. While a maximal independent set is a $5$-approximation to both problems, it is easy to obtain a geometric $3$-approximation to the maximum independent set problem in $O(n \log n)$ time [@nieberg]. In the graph-based version, a related strategy takes roughly $O(n^5)$ time, though. No similar results are known for the minimum dominating set problem. The existing PTASs for the minimum dominating set problem in unit disk graphs are based on some packing constraints that apply to unit disk graphs.[^3] One of these constraints is the *bounded growth property*: the size of an independent set formed by vertices within distance $r$ of a given vertex, in a unit disk graph, is at most $(1+2r)^2$. Note, however, that the bounded growth property is not tight. For example, for $r=1$, it gives an upper bound of $9$ vertices where the actual maximum size is $5$. Since the bounded growth property is strongly connected to the problem of packing circles in a circle, obtaining exact values for all $r$ seems unlikely [@Fodor]. #### Our contribution {#our-contribution .unnumbered} Our main result consists of the two approximation algorithms given in Section \[s:algorithm\]: a graph-based algorithm, which runs in linear $O(n+m)$ time, and its geometric counterpart, which runs in $O(n\log n)$ time in the Real RAM model, regardless of the number of edges. The approximation factor of both algorithms is $44/9$. The strategy in both cases is to construct a $5$-approximate solution using the algorithm from [@heuristics], and then perform local improvements to that initial dominating set. Our main lemma (Lemma \[l:irreducible\]) uses forbidden subgraphs to show that a solution that admits no local improvement is a $44/9$-approximation. Since the dominating sets produced by our algorithms are independent sets, the same approximation factor holds for the independent dominating set problem. Proving that a certain graph is *not* a unit disk graph (and is therefore a forbidden induced subgraph) is no easy feat[^4]. We make use of an assortment of results from discrete geometry in order to prove properties of unit disk graphs that are interesting *per se*. For example, we use universal covers and disk packings to show that the neighborhood of a clique in a unit disk graph contains at most $12$ independent vertices. These properties, along with a tighter version of the bounded growth property, are collected in Section \[s:forbidden\], and allow us to show that certain graphs are not unit disk graphs. Consequently, the analyses of our algorithms employ a broader set of forbidden subgraphs which include, but are not limited to, the $K_{1,6}$. Additionally, in Section \[s:partial\], we show that a possible, somewhat natural refinement to our graph-based algorithm leads to a tighter $43/9$-approximation, albeit for the price of an extra $O(n^2)$ multiplying factor in the time complexity of the algorithm. Forbidden subgraphs {#s:forbidden} =================== In this section, we introduce some lemmas about the structure of unit disk graphs. These lemmas will be applied to prove our approximation factors in Sections \[s:algorithm\] and \[s:partial\]. We start by stating three previous results from the area of discrete geometry. The first lemma comes from the study of universal covers (for a recent survey see [@constants]). \[l:universal\_cover\] If a set of points $P$ has diameter $1$, then $P$ can be enclosed by a circle of radius $1/\sqrt{3}$. Packing congruent disks in a circle is a well-studied problem. Exact bounds on the radius of the smallest circle packing $k$ unitary disks are known for some small values of $k$, namely $k \leq 13$ and $k=19$ [@Fodor]. The bound for $k=13$ will be useful to us. \[l:pack13\] The radius of the smallest circle enclosing $13$ points with mutual distances at least $1$ is $(1+\sqrt{5})/2$. The *density* of a packing is the ratio between the covered area and the total area. The following general upper bound is useful when no exact bound is known. \[l:density\] Every packing of two or more congruent disks in a convex region has density at most $\pi/\sqrt{12}$. Given a graph $G = (V,E)$ and a vertex $v \in V$, let $N(v)$ denote the *open neighborhood* of $v$ and let $N[v] = N(v) \cup \{v\}$ denote the *closed neighborhood* of $v$. More generally, the *open $r$-neighborhood* of a vertex $v$ is the set of vertices $w$ such that the distance between $v$ and $w$ in $G$ is exactly $r$, while the *closed $r$-neighborhood* of a vertex $v$ is the set of vertices $w$ such that the distance between $v$ and $w$ in $G$ is at most $r$. For a set $S \subseteq V$, we let $N_{S}(v) = N(v) \cap S$ and $N_{S}[v] = N[v] \cap S$. Finally, given a subgraph $H$ of $G$, the closed neighborhood of $H$, denoted $N[H]$, is the set of vertices that belong to the closed neighborhood of some vertex of $H$. The following two lemmas concern neighborhoods in unit disk graphs. \[l:clique\] The closed neighborhood of a clique in a unit disk graph contains at most $12$ independent vertices. By Lemma \[l:universal\_cover\], the points which define a clique in a unit disk graph can be enclosed by a circle of radius $1/\sqrt{3}$. Therefore, the points corresponding to the closed neighborhood of such a clique are enclosed by a circle of radius $1 + (1/\sqrt{3})$. By Lemma \[l:pack13\], a circle enclosing $13$ points with mutual distances at least $1$ has radius at least $(1+\sqrt{5})/2$. Since $(1+\sqrt{5})/2 > 1 + (1/\sqrt{3})$, the lemma follows. \[l:2neighborhood\] Given an integer $r \geq 1$, the closed $r$-neighborhood of a vertex in a unit disk graph contains at most $\lfloor \pi (2r+1)^2 / \sqrt{12} \rfloor$ independent vertices. All $n$ disks of diameter $1$ corresponding to the closed $r$-neighborhood of a vertex $v$ must be enclosed by a circle $Z$ of radius $(2r+1)/2$ centered on $v$. Each disk of diameter $1$ has area $\pi/4$ and $Z$ has area $(2r+1)^2 \pi / 4$. Using Lemma \[l:density\], we have $(n\; \pi / 4) / ((2r+1)^2 \pi / 4) \leq \pi/\sqrt{12}$, and the lemma follows. We say that a graph $G$ is *$(k,\ell)$-pendant* if there is a vertex $v$ in $G$ with $k$ vertices of degree $1$ in the open neighborhood of $v$ and $\ell$ vertices of degree $1$ in the open $2$-neighborhood of $v$. We refer to $v$ as a *generator* of the $(k,\ell)$-pendant graph. The following lemma bounds the value of the parameter $\ell$ for $(4,\ell)$-pendant unit disk graphs. \[l:4l-pendant\] If $G$ is a $(4,\ell)$-pendant unit disk graph, then $\ell \leq 8$. Let $v$ be a generator of $G$. Since $K_{1,6}$ is a forbidden induced subgraph [@heuristics] and $v$ has $4$ neighbors of degree $1$, we have that the remaining neighbors of $v$ together with $v$ itself form a clique. By Lemma \[l:clique\], it follows that $4 + \ell \leq 12$. Next, we consider the case of $(3,\ell)$-pendant unit disk graphs. \[l:3l-pendant\] If $G$ is a $(3,\ell)$-pendant unit disk graph, then $\ell \leq 16$. Let $v$ be a generator of $G$. Since two vertices are adjacent if and only if their Euclidean distance is at most $1$, the closed neighborhood of $v$ lies inside a circle of radius $1$ centered at $v$. Let $u$ be a neighbor of $v$ with degree $1$. We divide the aforementioned circle into six congruent sectors $s_1,\ldots,s_6$ in such a way that $u$ sits on the boundary of two adjacent sectors $s_1,s_2$. Since the diameter of each sector is $1$ and $u$ has degree $1$, we have that $s_1 \cup s_2$ only contains vertex $u$. By the same argument, the remaining two neighbors of $v$ that have degree $1$ are contained in two of the remaining four sectors, which we call $s_3,s_4$ (note that the sectors do not necessarily appear in the order $s_1,\ldots,s_6$). Therefore, only sectors $s_5,s_6$ may contain the neighbors of $v$ that have degree greater than $1$. Notice that the neighbors of the vertices in $s_5\cup s_6$ should be located within Euclidean distance at most $1$ from $s_5\cup s_6$. Consequently, the disks of unit diameter corresponding to such vertices should be completely contained in the region defined as the Minkowski sum of $s_5 \cup s_6$ and a disk of radius $1{.}5$, i.e. the region within distance at most $1{.}5$ from $s_5 \cup s_6$. We compute upper bounds to the area of such a region by considering two cases, depending on whether $s_5$ and $s_6$ are opposite sectors (bounded by the same pair of straight lines). First, we consider the case when $s_5$ and $s_6$ are *not* opposite sectors. In this scenario, $s_5 \cup s_6$ is contained in a semicircle of radius $1$ centered at the generator $v$, as represented in Figure \[f:sectors\](a). We define a region $R$ as the locus of points within distance at most $1{.}5$ from the aforementioned semicircle of radius $1$. The area $a$ of $R$ is therefore $a = 3 + 17\pi/4$. By Lemma \[l:density\], the number of disks of unit diameter contained in $R$ is at most $ a \cdot \left(\frac{\pi}{\sqrt{12}} \right) \cdot \left(\frac{1}{\pi/4}\right) < 18{.}8814 < 19.$ Since $k=3$ of these disks are the degree-1 neighbors of $v$, we have $\ell<16$. Second, we consider the case when $s_5$ and $s_6$ are opposite sectors. In this scenario, the region $s_5 \cup s_6$ is not convex. In order to obtain a convex region $R'$, we define $R'$ as the locus of points within distance at most $1{.}5$ from the convex hull of $s_5 \cup s_6$ (see Figure \[f:sectors\](b)). The area $a'$ of $R'$ is therefore $7\sqrt{3}/2 + 43\pi/12$. By Lemma \[l:density\], the number of disks of unit diameter contained in $R'$ is at most $a' \cdot \left(\frac{\pi}{\sqrt{12}} \right) \cdot \left(\frac{1}{\pi/4}\right) < 19{.}9989 < 20.$ Since $k=3$ of these disks are the degree-1 neighbors of $v$, we have $\ell<17$. Finally, the following lemma holds for the general case. \[l:kl-pendant\] If $G$ is a $(k,\ell)$-pendant unit disk graph, then $k + \ell \leq 22$. Immediately from Lemma \[l:2neighborhood\] with $r=2$. Linear-time 44/9-approximation {#s:algorithm} ============================== In this section, we present two 44/9-approximation algorithms. The key property to analyze the approximation factor is presented in Lemma \[l:irreducible\], while the running time analyses are presented in Sections \[s:graph-alg\] and \[s:geo-alg\]. Hereafter, let $G = (V,E)$ be a unit disk graph, and let $D \subseteq V$ be an independent dominating set of $G$. If $v \in D$ and $uv \in E$, we say that $v$ *dominates* $u$ and, conversely, that $u$ *is dominated* by $v$. As already mentioned, unit disk graphs are free of induced $K_{1,6}$. Therefore, at most $5$ vertices of $D$ may belong to the closed neighborhood of any given vertex $v \in V$. A *corona* is a set $C \subseteq D$ consisting of exactly $5$ neighbors of some vertex $c \in V \setminus D$. Such a vertex $c$, which is not necessarily unique, is called a *core* of the corona $C$, whereas the $5$ vertices of the corona are referred to as the corona’s *petals*. Notice that the subgraph induced by a corona $C$ and a corresponding core $c$ is a $K_{1,5}$. Given a dominating set $D$, a corona $C \subseteq D$ is said to be *reducible* if there is a core $c$ of $C$ such that $D \cup \{c\} \setminus C$ is a dominating set. We refer to the operation that converts $D$ into the smaller dominating set $D \cup \{c\} \setminus C$ as a *reduction* of $C$ with respect to $c$. If there is no core allowing for a reduction of $C$, than $C$ is dubbed *irreducible*. If $C$ is an irreducible corona, then, for every core $c$ of $C$, there must exist a vertex $w \in V \setminus (C \cup \{c\})$, such that: (i) $w$ is not adjacent to $c$; (ii) $w$ is only dominated, in $D$, by vertices that belong to $C$. We call $w$ a *witness* of $c$, conveying the idea that the corona having $c$ as a core cannot be reduced with respect to $c$ due to the existence of $w$. \[l:irreducible\] Let $G = (V,E)$ be a unit disk graph, $D$ an independent dominating set in $G$, and $D^*$ a minimum dominating set of $G$. If all coronas in $D$ are irreducible, then $\rho := |D|/|D^*| \leq 44/9$. We use a charging argument to bound the ratio between the cardinalities of $D$ and $D^*$. Consider that each vertex $u \in D$ splits a *unit charge* evenly among the vertices in the closed neighborhood $N_{D^*}[u]$. The function ${f : D^* \to (0,5]}$ below corresponds to the total charge assigned to each vertex $v^* \in D^*$, accumulating the (fractional) charges that $v^*$ receives from the vertices in $N_D[v^*]$: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:fv} f(v^*) = \sum_{u \in N_D[v^*]} \frac{1}{\left|N_{D^*}[u]\right|}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that, since $D$ and $D^*$ are dominating sets, neither $N_{D^*}[u]$ nor $N_{D}[v^*]$ are ever empty, and $f(v^*) \leq |N_D[v^*]|$. Such function $f$ allows us to write the cardinality of $D$ as $$|D| = \sum_{v^* \in D^*} f(v^*).$$ Since $$\rho = \frac{|D|}{|D^*|} = \frac{\sum_{v^* \in D^*} f(v^*)}{|D^*|}$$ is precisely the average value of $f(\cdot)$ over the elements of $D^*$, we obtain the desired bound $\rho \leq 44/9$ by showing that the existence of vertices $c^*$ in $D^*$ with $f(c^*) > 44/9$ is counterbalanced by a sufficiently large number of vertices $r^*$ in $D^*$ with $f(r^*) \leq 4$. Before we continue, note that $f(c^*) > 44/9$ means that $f(c^*) = 5$, because the summation in (\[eq:fv\]) has at most $5$ terms, all of which are of the form $1/i$ for some integer $i \geq 1$. Thus, let $c^*$ be a vertex in $D^*$ with $f(c^*) = 5$. Clearly, $c^* \notin D$, otherwise $f(c^*) \leq |N_D[c^*]| = 1$, because $D$ is an independent set. Moreover, $c^*$ must have exactly $5$ neighbors in $D$, since a larger number of neighbors in $D$ would imply the existence of an induced $K_{1,6}$ in $G$, which is not possible, and a smaller number would imply $f(c^*) \leq |N_D[c^*]| \leq 4$, a contradiction. Therefore, vertex $c^*$ is a core. Now let $C \subseteq D$ be the corona of which $c^*$ is a core. Because there are no reducible coronas in $D$, the core $c^*$ must have a witness $w$. Note that, for all petals $u \in C$, the only vertex in $N_{D^*}[u]$ is the core $c^*$. Otherwise, the contribution of some $u \in C$ in the summation yielding $f(c^*)$ — given by (\[eq:fv\]) — would be at most $1/2$, and $f(c^*)$ would be at most $9/2 < 5$, a contradiction. In particular, the above implies that the witness $w$, which is adjacent to at least one vertex in $C$, cannot belong to $D^*$. But $D^*$ is a dominating set, so there must exist a vertex $r^* \in D^*$ that is adjacent to $w$, and $r^* \neq c^*$ because a witness $w$ is not adjacent to the corresponding core by definition. We call $r^*$ a *reliever* of $c^*$. Figure \[f:witness\] illustrates this situation. We now show that $|N_D[r^*]| \leq 4$. For sake of contradiction, assume $|N_D[r^*]| > 4$. Because $G$ is free of induced $K_{1,6}$, such number must be exactly $5$, so that $r^*$ is the core of a corona $C' \subset D$. Such a corona must be disjoint from corona $C$, otherwise there would be a vertex in adjacent to more than one vertex in $D^*$, namely $c^*$ and $r^*$, contradicting the fact that the only neighbor in $D^*$ of any petal of $C$ is the core $c^*$. Since, by definition, the witness $w$ is only dominated in $D$ by vertices of $C$, we have $N_{C'}(w) = \emptyset$. Hence, $C' \cup \{w\}$ is an independent set of $G$, constituting, along with the core $r^*$, an induced $K_{1,6}$ in $G$. This is a contradiction, because $G$ is a unit disk graph. Thus, $|N_D[r^*]| \leq 4$. Since $f(r^*) \leq |N_D[r^*]|$, we have $f(r^*) \leq 4$. We have just shown that the existence of a vertex $c^*$ in $D^*$ with implies the existence of a vertex $r^* \in D^*$ such that $f(r^*) \leq 4$. Were this correspondence one-to-one, we would be able to state that the average of $f(\cdot)$ over the elements of $D^*$ was no greater than $4{.}5$. Unfortunately, this correspondence is not necessarily one-to-one, as exemplified by the graph in Figure \[f:badgraph\], for which a disk model is given in Figure \[f:badgraph\_model\] with coordinates presented in Table \[t:coordinates\]. Still, the lemmas in Section \[s:forbidden\] allow us to bound the ratio between the number of vertices $c^*$ with $f(c^*) = 5$ and the number of vertices $r^*$ for which the values of $f$ are significantly lower. Let $r^* \in D^*\setminus D$ be a reliever. In order to obtain the claimed bound, we consider two cases depending on the size of $N_D[r^*]$: \(i) $\boldsymbol{|N_D[r^*]| \leq 3.}$ By Lemma \[l:2neighborhood\], the closed $4$-neighborhood of $r^*$ contains at most $73$ independent vertices. Since each corona contains $5$ independent vertices, at most $\lfloor (73 - |N_D[r^*]|)/5 \rfloor = 14$ cores may share a common reliever[^5]. To derive an upper bound, let $c^*_1,\ldots,c^*_{14} \in D^*$ denote such cores. If $|N_D[r^*]| \leq 3$, then the average value of $f(\cdot)$ among $r^*,c^*_1,\ldots,c^*_{14}$ is at most $$\frac{1 \cdot 3 + 14 \cdot 5}{15} < 4{.}867.$$ \(ii) $\boldsymbol{|N_D[r^*]| = 4.}$ By Lemma \[l:4l-pendant\], if $|N_D[r^*]| = 4$, then at most $8$ cores $c^*_1, \ldots,c^*_8$ may have $r^*$ as their common reliever, for otherwise we obtain a $(4,9)$-pendant graph, which cannot be a unit disk graph. Thus, the average value of $f(\cdot)$ among $r^*,c^*_1,\ldots,c^*_8$ is at most $$\frac{1 \cdot 4 + 8 \cdot 5}{9} = 44/9 = 4.888\ldots$$ The worst case is $|N_D[r^*]| = 4$, and therefore $\rho \leq 44/9$, concluding the proof. [|lll|]{} $r^*:(0, 0);$ & &\ $c^*_1:(-2492384, 879081),$ & $w_1:(-492423, 870355),$ &\ $c^*_2:(-1310377, 2686162),$ & $w_2:(-484809, 874619),$ &\ $c^*_3:(1310377, 2686162),$ & $w_3:(484809, 874619),$ &\ $c^*_4:(2492384, 879081),$ & $w_4:(492423, 870355);$ &\ \  $(\pm776025, 3531423),$ & $(\pm1492384, 879081),$ & $(\pm999986, 5235),$\  $(\pm2309705, 2722805),$ & $(\pm3491646, 917468),$ & $(\pm3023782, 31960),$\  $(\pm1776763, 3570742),$ & $(\pm1840296, 1838114),$ & $(\pm2022913, -3866),$\  $(\pm503019, -864274),$ & $(\pm2957226, 1764474),$ & $(\pm810377, 1820137).$\ Graph-based algorithm {#s:graph-alg} --------------------- By Lemma \[l:irreducible\], an independent dominating set with no reducible coronas is a $44/9$-approximation to the minimum dominating set. We now describe how to obtain such a set in linear time given the adjacency list representation of the graph. We can easily compute a maximal independent set $D$, which is a $5$-approximation to the minimum dominating set [@heuristics], in $O(n+m)$ time. An independent dominating set with no reducible coronas can then be obtained by iteratively performing reductions. However, naively performing such reductions leads to a running time of $O(n^2m)$, since (i) there are $O(n)$ candidate cores for a reducible corona, (ii) detecting whether a vertex $v$ is in fact the core of a reducible corona by inspecting the $3$-neighborhood of $v$ takes $O(m)$ time, and (iii) we may need to reduce a total of $O(n)$ coronas. Fortunately, the following algorithm modifies the set $D$ and returns an independent dominating set with no reducible coronas in $O(n+m)$ time. (1) For each vertex $v \in V \setminus D$, compute $N_D(v)$. (2) For each vertex $v \in V \setminus D$, if $|N_D(v)| = 5$, add $N_D(v)$ to the list of coronas ${\mathcal{C}}$ (unless it is already there). (3) Let $B \gets \emptyset$. For each corona $C \in {\mathcal{C}}$, if there is a vertex $c$ such that $D \cup \{c\} \setminus C$ is a dominating set, then add $c$ to the set $B$. (4) Choose a maximal subset $B'$ of $B$ such that the pairwise distance of the vertices in $B'$ is at least $5$. (5) For each vertex $c \in B'$, perform a reduction $D \gets D \cup \{c\} \setminus N_D(c)$. (6) Repeat all the steps above until $B' = \emptyset$. The algorithm is correct since all changes made to $D$ along its execution preserve the property that $D$ is an independent dominating set. Notice that, in step (4), we only reduce coronas that are sufficiently far from each other, in order to guarantee that we do not reduce a corona that may have ceased to be reducible due to a previous reduction. Moreover, the algorithm always terminates because the size of $D$ decreases at every iteration, except for the last one. Next, we show that the running time is $O(n+m)$. Step (1) can be easily implemented to run in $O(n+m)$ time. To execute step (2) in $O(n+m)$ time, we must determine in constant time whether a corona is already in the list ${\mathcal{C}}$. This can be achieved by indexing each corona $C$ by an arbitrary vertex $v \in C$ (say, the one with the lowest index), and by storing with $v$ a list of coronas that are in $\mathcal{C}$ and whose index is $v$. Note that, because of the packing constraints inherent to unit disk graphs, the number of coronas that contain a given vertex is constant. Step (3) can be implemented as follows (for each corona $C \in {\mathcal{C}}$): 1. Let $S_1$ be the union of the open neighborhoods of the $5$ petals of $C$. 2. Let $S_2$ be the set of vertices dominated only be vertices of $C$, i.e., $S$ contains every vertex $w \in S_1$ such that $N_D(w) \subseteq C$. 3. Let $S_3$ be the intersection of the closed neighborhoods $N[v]$ of all $v \in S_2 \cup C$. 4. If $S_3 \neq \emptyset$, then add an arbitrary vertex of $S_3$ to the set $B$. The steps above take $O(n+m)$ total time when executed for all coronas $C \in {\mathcal{C}}$, because the number of coronas that contain or are adjacent to a given vertex is also constant by packing constraints. It is easy to perform steps (4) and (5) in linear time. It remains to show that the whole process is only repeated for a constant number of iterations. Let $B_1, \ldots, B_k$ denote the set of reducible coronas at each iteration of the algorithm with $B_k = \emptyset$. Note that the reductions performed in step (5) never create a new reducible corona. Therefore $B_1 \supsetneq \cdots \supsetneq B_k$. Let $C$ denote a corona that was reduced in the last iteration $k$. If $C$ was not reduced during a previous iteration $i < k$, then another corona within distance $5$ from $C$ was reduced at that very iteration $i$. Since, again by packing constraints, the maximum number of coronas within constant distance from $C$ is itself a constant, we have $k = O(1)$. The following theorem summarizes the result from Section \[s:graph-alg\]. \[thm:graph-alg\] Given the adjacency list representation of a unit disk graph with $n$ vertices and $m$ edges, it is possible to find a $44/9$-approximation to the minimum dominating set problem in $O(n + m)$ time. Geometric algorithm {#s:geo-alg} ------------------- In this section, we describe how to obtain an independent dominating set with no reducible corona in $O(n \log n)$ time given the geometric representation of the graph. The input is therefore a set $P$ of $n$ points. Without loss of generality, we assume that the corresponding unit disk graph is connected (otherwise, we can compute the connected components in $O(n \log n)$ time using a Delaunay triangulation [@cg]). We use terms related to vertices of the graph and to the corresponding points interchangeably. For example, we say a set of points is independent if all pairwise distances are greater than $1$. We want the points of $P$ to be structured in a suitable fashion. Thus, as a preliminary step, we sort the points by $x$-coordinates and by $y$-coordinates separately (such orderings will also be useful later on), and we partition the points of $P$ according to an infinite grid with unitary square cells by performing two sweeps on the sorted points. Without loss of generality, we assume that no point lies on the boundary of a grid cell. Given $p \in P$, let $\sigma(p)$ denote the grid cell that contains $p$. We refer to the set of at most $8$ non-empty grid cells surrounding a cell $Q$ as the *open vicinity* of $Q$, denoted $N(Q)$, and to the union of $Q$ and its open vicinity as the *closed vicinity* of $Q$, denoted $N[Q]$. Note that a point $p$ can only be adjacent to points in the closed vicinity of $\sigma(p)$, that is, $N[p] \subset N[\sigma(p)]$. Each point $p \in P$ stores a pointer to its containing cell $\sigma(p)$. Also, each cell stores the list of points it contains and pointers to the cells in its open vicinity. Since the graph is connected, the diameter of the point set is at most $n-1$, and thus this whole step can be done in $O(n \log n)$ time. We are now able to show how to compute a maximal independent set $D$ efficiently. We begin by making a copy $P'$ of $P$, and by letting $D \gets \emptyset$. Then we repeat the two following steps while set $P'$ is non-empty. (i) Choose an arbitrary point $p \in P'$ and add it to set $D$. (ii) For each point $p'$ in the closed vicinity of $\sigma(p)$, remove $p'$ from $P'$ if $\|pp'\| \leq 1$. When $P'$ becomes empty, $D$ is an independent dominating set. This process takes $O(n)$ time due to the two following facts. First, a cell belongs to the closed vicinity of a constant number of cells. Second, the maximum number of points inside a cell with pairwise distances greater than $1$ is also a constant. We now have that $D$ is a maximal independent set, and therefore a $5$-approximation to the minimum dominating set. Next, we show how to modify $D$ in order to produce an independent dominating set with no reducible corona, therefore a $44/9$-approximation to the minimum dominating set. The algorithm mirrors the one in Section \[s:graph-alg\], but each step takes no more than $O(n \log n)$ time using the geometric representation of the graph. Since $D$ is an independent set and a grid cell $Q$ has side $1$, a simple packing argument shows that $|D \cap Q| \leq 4$. We store the set $D \cap Q$ in the corresponding cell $Q$. In order to compute $N_D(p)$, it suffices to inspect the at most $36$ points in $D \cap Q$ for $Q \in N[\sigma(p)]$. We can then build a list of coronas in $O(n)$ time (steps (1) and (2) of Section \[s:graph-alg\]). To perform step (3), we need to find out whether there is a core $c$ such that $D \cup \{c\} \setminus C$ is a dominating set, for each corona $C = \{p_1,\ldots,p_5\}$. First, we make $S_1$ the union of $N_D(p_i)$ for $1 \leq i \leq 5$. Then, we let $S_2$ be the subset of $S_1$ containing only the points $p$ with $N_D(p) \subseteq C$. These first two steps are similar to steps (3a) and (3b) in Section \[s:graph-alg\]. The remaining sub-steps of step (3) are significantly different, though. We proceed by making $S_3 = S_2 \cup C$. We need to determine whether there is a point $p \in S_3$ that is adjacent to all points in $S_3$. For each $p \in S_3$, let $\beta(p)$ denote the disk of radius $1$ centered at $p$. Let $R$ denote the convex region defined by the intersection of $\beta(p)$ for all $p \in S_3$. A point $p$ is adjacent to all points in $S_3$ if and only if $p \in R$. We can compute the region $R$ in $O(|S_3| \log |S_3|)$ time using divide-and-conquer in a manner analogous to half-plane intersection [@cg]. We can then test whether each point $p \in S_3$ belongs to the region $R$ in logarithmic time using binary search (remember the points were previously sorted). If there is at least one point $p \in S_3 \cap R$, then we add $p$ to the set $B$. Therefore, the whole step (3) takes $O(n \log n)$ time. In step (4) of the geometric algorithm, we choose an alternative set $B' \subset B$ which can be computed in $O(n)$ time as follows. For each $p \in B$, we add $p$ to $B'$ and then remove from $B$ all points that are contained in the cells within Euclidean distance at most $4$ of $\sigma(p)$. Since by packing constraints there are $O(1)$ points in the intersection of $D$ and the closed vicinity of a cell, we can easily perform step (5) in $O(n)$ time. Finally, the number of repetitions triggered by step (6) is constant by an argument identical to the one given for the graph-based algorithm. The following theorem summarizes the result from Section \[s:geo-alg\]. \[thm:geo-alg\] Given a set of $n$ points representing a unit disk graph, it is possible to find a $44/9$-approximation to the minimum dominating set problem in $O(n \log n)$ time in the Real RAM model of computation. Achieving a 43/9-approximation {#s:partial} ============================== In the previous section, a 44/9-approximation was obtained by reducing coronas of a maximal independent set $D$ of graph $G$, that is, by subsequently replacing $5$ petals with $1$ core in $D$ as long as that operation preserved dominance. A natural step to tighten the approximation factor is to allow for *weak reductions*, whereby the $5$ petals of a corona $C$ are removed from the independent dominating set $D$, yet not only is a core $c$ of $C$ inserted into $D$ but also some mutually non-adjacent witnesses of $c$, as long as their number is no greater than $3$ and they dominate all witnesses of $c$. By doing so, the weak reduction of $C$ (with respect to $c$) preserves dominance and still shaves off at least one unit from the size of $D$. If such operation is possible on a corona $C$, then $C$ is said to be *weakly reducible*. A core $c$ which has $4$ (or more) mutually non-adjacent witnesses is said to be an *overwhelmed* core.[^6] We consider the graph-based algorithm presented in Section \[s:graph-alg\] with some modifications to cope with weak reductions. The whole modified algorithm becomes: (1) For each vertex $v \in V \setminus D$, compute $N_D(v)$. (2) For each vertex $v \in V \setminus D$, if $|N_D(v)| = 5$, add $C = N_D(v)$ to the list of coronas ${\mathcal{C}}$ (unless it is already there), and add $v$ to the list $L_C$ containing the cores of $C$. (3) Let $B$ be an initially empty mapping of cores onto sets of witnesses. For each corona $C \in {\mathcal{C}}$, if there is a vertex $c \in L_C$ and an independent set $W_c$ with at most $3$ witnesses of $c$ such that $(D \setminus C) \cup \{c\} \cup W_c$ is a dominating set, then add $(c, W_c)$ to $B$. (4) Choose a maximal subset $B'$ of the cores in $B$ such that the pairwise distance of the vertices in $B'$ is at least $5$. (5) For each vertex $c \in B'$, perform a (weak) reduction $D \gets (D \setminus N_D(c)) \cup \{c\} \cup W_c$. (6) Repeat all the steps above until $B' = \emptyset$. The new step (3) can be implemented as follows (for each corona $C \in {\mathcal{C}}$): 1. Let $S_1$ be the union of the open neighborhoods of the $5$ petals of $C$. 2. Let $S_2$ be the set of all vertices $w \in S_1$ with $N_D(w) \subseteq C$. 3. For each core $c \in L_C$, greedily obtain a maximal independent set $W_c$ of $S_2 \setminus N[c]$. If $|W_c| \leq 3$, add $(c, W_c)$ to $B$ and break. Because each core is evaluated separately as to whether it allows for a weak reduction (whereas in the algorithm of Section \[s:graph-alg\] a constant number of set operations per corona was executed), step (3c) dominates the complexity of the whole sequence of steps (1) to (5), with a total $O(nm)$ time for running on all coronas $C \in {\mathcal{C}}$. Another important difference, as far as time complexity goes, is that in this modified algorithm the number of iterations of the main loop — steps (1) to (5) — is no longer $O(1)$, due to the fact that new (weakly) reducible coronas can be created, as illustrated in Figure \[f:newcoronas\]. However, the number of iterations is certainly $O(n)$, because the size of $D$ decreases by at least $1$ in each iteration. Hence the overall time complexity of the modified algorithm is $O(n^2 m)$. Next, we establish the approximation factor of the modified algorithm. Note that step (3c) asserts that the coronas that are not (weakly) reduced by the algorithm present only overwhelmed cores. \[l:irreducible\_partial\] Let $G = (V,E)$ be a unit disk graph, $D$ an independent dominating set in $G$, and $D^*$ a minimum dominating set of $G$. If all coronas in $D$ have only overwhelmed cores, then $\rho = |D|/|D^*| \leq 43/9$. We follow a strategy similar to that in the proof of Lemma \[l:irreducible\] (also using the concept of reliever defined therein): by employing the same function ${f : D^* \to (0,5]}$ defined in (\[eq:fv\]), we prove there is an appropriate balance among vertices with high ($> 43/9$) and low ($\leq 4$) images under $f$, thus yielding an average value for $f(\cdot)$ that is no greater than $43/9$ — the claimed approximation factor. Let $c^*$ be a vertex in $D^*$ with $f(c^*) > 43/9$. Because $43/9 > 4.5$, and all (at most $5$) terms in the summation that yields $f$ are either $1$ or no greater than $0.5$, we have that $f(c^*) > 43/9$ implies $f(c^*) = 5$. So $c^*$ is a core. By hypothesis, $c^*$ is overwhelmed. Hence, $c^*$ possesses at least $4$ mutually non-adjacent witnesses $w_1, \ldots, w_4$, each one implying the existence of a reliever $r^* \in D^*$ with $f(r^*) \leq 4$. Surely, such relievers need not be all distinct, and different cores may share a common reliever. Still, geometric properties of unit disk graphs allow us to derive upper bounds for the core-to-reliever ratio. We can thus obtain an upper bound to the average value of $f(\cdot)$ in $D^*$, and consequently to the approximation factor of the algorithm. Suppose there are $t$ cores $c^*_i \in D^*$ such that $f(c^*_i) = 5$. For $i = 1, \dots, t$, we let $C_i$ be the corona having $c^*_i$ as a core, $W_i$ be a set of (at least 4) mutually non-adjacent witnesses of $c^*_i$, and $R_i$ be the set of relievers of $c^*_i$. Now, we construct a bipartite multigraph $G'=(C' \cup R', E')$ as follows. The parts of $G'$ are $C'=\{c^*_1,...,c^*_t\}$ and $R'=R_1\cup...\cup R_t$. The multiset $E'$ contains, between each core $c^*_i \in C'$ and reliever $r^*_j \in R'$, a number $\phi(c^*_i, r^*_j)$ of parallel edges that is equal to the number of petals of $C_i$ adjacent to witnesses $w$ (of $c^*_i$) such that $w$ is a neighbor of $r^*_j$. Thus, the total number of edges incident to a core $c^*_i \in C'$ is $$d(c^*_i) = \sum_{r^*_j \in R'} \phi(c^*_i, r^*_j).$$ Analogously, the total number of edges incident to a reliever $r^*_j \in R'$ is $$d(r^*_j) = \sum_{c^*_i \in C'} \phi(c^*_i, r^*_j).$$ We now obtain an upper bound $\rho' = 43/9$ for the average value of $f(\cdot)$ over $C' \cup R'$. Observe that $C'$ contains all vertices $c^*$ of $D^*$ such that $f(c^*) > 43/9$, hence the average value $\rho$ of $f(\cdot)$ over the whole set $D^* \supseteq C' \cup R'$ cannot be any greater. Of course the average value we are interested in depends on the core-to-reliever ratio $|C'| / |R'|$ in $G'$: the more cores (respectively, the fewer relievers) in $C'$ (in $R'$), the greater the average. Therefore, in order to obtain the desired upper bound $\rho'$, we must consider the case in which the elements of $C'$ (respectively, of $R'$) have degrees in $G'$ that are as low (as high) as possible. First, notice that if $c^*$ is a core of corona $C$ and $f(c^*) = 5$, then it is not possible that more than two non-adjacent witnesses of $c^*$ sharing a common reliever $r^*$ are adjacent to the same petal $p \in C$. Otherwise, let $w_1, w_2$ and $w_3$ be such witnesses. Since $p$ and $r^*$ are non-adjacent (due to the image of $c^*$ under $f$ being $5$), the subgraph of $G$ induced by $\{p, r^*,w_1,w_2,w_3\}$ is a $K_{2,3}$. This is a contradiction, because the graph $K_{2,3}$ is not a unit disk graph [@vanLeeuwen]. Thus, since $c^*$ has at least four witnesses, the number of petals of $C$ adjacent to witnesses of $c^*$ — and therefore the degree of each core in $C'$ — is at least $\lceil 4/2 \rceil= 2$. The above lower bound can be improved for cores $c^* \in C'$ having a with exactly four neighbors in $D$. If a reliever $r^*$ has four neighbors in (the independent set) $D$, then the remaining neighbors of $r^*$ form a clique. Since there is a witness $w$ of $c^*$ among these remaining neighbors of $r^*$, then the other (at least) three mutually non-adjacent witnesses of $c^*$ must have relievers distinct from $r^*$. Moreover, by an argument analogous to the one used in the previous paragraph, those witnesses must be adjacent to at least $\lceil 3/2 \rceil= 2$ petals of the corona having $c^*$ as a core. This means there are at least two edges connecting $c^*$ to its relievers in $R' \setminus \{r^*\}$, plus one edge connecting $c^*$ to $r^*$. Hence, the degree of $c^*$ in $G'$ is at least $3$. The maximum degrees of vertices $r^* \in R'$ depend on the number $|N_D(r^*)|$ of neighbors of $r^*$ in $D$, and now we employ some of the geometric lemmas of Section \[s:forbidden\] to infer suitable upper bounds. Recall that any set of petals is an independent set. - If $|N_D(r^*)| = 4$ (implying $f(r^*) \leq 4$), then, by Lemma \[l:4l-pendant\], there are at most $8$ petals in the $2$-neighborhood of $r^*$. Hence, $d(r^*) \leq 8$. - If $|N_D(r^*)| = 3$ (implying $f(r^*) \leq 3$), then, by Lemma \[l:3l-pendant\], there are at most $16$ petals in the $2$-neighborhood of $r^*$. Hence, $d(r^*) \leq 16$. - If $|N_D(r^*)| = 2$ (implying $f(r^*) \leq 2$), then, by Lemma \[l:kl-pendant\], there are at most $20$ petals in the $2$-neighborhood of $r^*$. Hence, $d(r^*) \leq 20$. - If $|N_D(r^*)| = 1$ (implying $f(r^*) \leq 1$), then, by Lemma \[l:kl-pendant\], there are at most $21$ petals in the $2$-neighborhood of $r^*$. Hence, $d(r^*) \leq 21$. For $k = 1, \ldots, 4$, let $n_k$ denote the number of relievers in $G$ containing exactly $k$ neighbors in $D$, so that $|R'| = \sum_{k=1}^4 n_k$. Let also $C'_4 \subseteq C'$ be the set of cores having at least one reliever with exactly $4$ neighbors in $D$,and $C'_3 = C' \setminus C'_4$ be the set of cores whose relievers have at most three neighbors in $D$. Finally, we let $t_3 = |C'_3|$ and $t_4 = |C'_4|$, so that $t = |C'| = t_3 + t_4$. Since $G'$ is bipartite, the number of edges incident to $C'$ and the number of edges incident to $R'$ are the same. Consequently, $$\sum_{c^* \in C'} d(c^*) = \sum_{r^* \in R'} d(r^*),$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:2} 2 t_3 + 3 t_4 \leq 8 n_4 + 16 n_3 + 20 n_2 + 21 n_1.\end{aligned}$$ The same reasoning holds for the subgraph of $G'$ induced by the cores in $C'_3$ and their relievers in $R'$, so $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:3} 2 t_3 \leq 16 n_3 + 20 n_2 + 21 n_1.\end{aligned}$$ By dividing both sides of (\[eq:3\]) by $2$ and adding it to (\[eq:2\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:4} 3(t_3 + t_4) \leq 8 n_4 + 24 n_3 + 30 n_2 + \frac{63}{2} n_1.\end{aligned}$$ As for the average $\rho'$ of $f(\cdot)$ over the elements of $G'$, we can write $$\rho' = \frac{5 (t_3 + t_4) + 4 n_4 + 3 n_3 + 2 n_2 + n_1}{t_3 + t_4 + n_4 + n_3 + n_2 + n_1}.$$ Now, substituting $(t_3 + t_4)$ in the expression above by the upper bound obtained from (\[eq:4\]), we have $$\rho' \leq \frac{\frac{52}{3} n_4 + 43 n_3 + 52 n_2 + \frac{107}{2} n_1}{\frac{11}{3} n_4 + 9 n_3 + 11 n_2 + \frac{23}{2} n_1}.$$ Thus, $\rho'$ is bounded by a multivariate rational function whose maximum is $43/9 = 4{.}777\ldots$, achieved when $n_1=n_2=n_4 = 0$. The following theorem summarizes the result from Section \[s:partial\]. \[thm:graph-alg-partial\] Given the adjacency list representation of a unit disk graph with $n$ vertices and $m$ edges, it is possible to find a $43/9$-approximation to the minimum dominating set problem in $O(n^2 m)$ time. Conclusion and open problems {#s:conclusion} ============================ We introduced novel efficient algorithms for approximating the minimum dominating set and minimum independent dominating set in unit disk graphs. On one hand, a linear-time algorithm was devised attaining a sub-5 approximation factor, namely $44/9 < 4{.}889.$ Nevertheless, the best lower bound we know for the proposed algorithm is $4{.}8$, which corresponds to the unit disk graph given in Figure \[f:badgraph\]. Closing this gap would likely require the development of new tools to prove that certain graphs are not unit disk graphs, for which computer generated proofs may be useful.   --------------------------- -------------------------- --------------------------  $(0,0),$ $(0,4500000),$  $(\pm336577, 3647829),$ $(\pm3372414, 3440722),$ $(\pm3657983, 1789254),$  $(\pm469471, 882947),$ $(\pm2857376, 5297889),$ $(\pm3887452, 5297889),$  $(\pm1043683, 2940723),$ $(\pm2506389, 2940723),$ $(\pm892089, 1789254),$  $(\pm2657983, 1789254),$ $(\pm1775036, 1258725),$ $(\pm529919, 5348048),$  $(\pm997564, 4430244),$ $(\pm4605648, 790625),$ $(\pm5515150, 1274216),$  $(\pm5515150, 2304292),$ $(\pm4605648, 2787883),$ $(\pm1775036, 2258725),$  $(\pm2373785, 4388387),$ $(\pm4657983, 1789254),$ $(\pm3372414, 4440722),$  $(\pm515038, -857167),$ $(\pm999780, 20942),$ $(\pm4371043, 4388387).$ --------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- : \[t:coordinates2\] Coordinates of the centers of the disks in Figure \[f:lowerbound425\]. All diameters are equal to $1000001$. On the other hand, an enhanced approximation factor of $43/9 < 4{.}778$ was obtained by allowing for more local replacements, yet a lower bound of $4{.}25$, corresponding to the unit disk graph given in Figure \[f:lowerbound425\] (with coordinates in Table \[t:coordinates2\]), is the best we are aware of. Notwithstanding the $O(n^2)$ factor increase on its time complexity, such a modified algorithm is still much faster than, say, the state-of-the-art 4-approximation algorithm from [@cccg], which requires a geometric model as input and runs in $O(n^9)$ time. Moreover, since the number of (weak) reductions that are performed remains linear, it may be possible to conceive either a refined analysis or a smarter implementation. [10]{} url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefixhref \#1\#2[\#2]{} \#1[\#1]{} J.L. Bentley, D.F. Stanat, E. Hollins Williams Jr., The complexity of finding fixed-radius near neighbors, Information Processing Letters 6 (6) (1977) 209–212. M. de Berg, O. Cheong, M. van Kreveld, M. Overmars, Computational Geometry: Algorithms and Applications, Springer, 2010. H. Breu, D.G. Kirkpatrick, Unit disk graph recognition is NP-hard, Computational Geometry 9 (1–2) (1998) 3–24. B. N. Clark, C.J. Colbourn, D.S. Johnson, Unit disk graphs, Discrete Mathematics 86 (1–3) (1990) 165–177. P. Christiano, J.A. Kelner, A. Madry, D.A. Spielman, S.-H. Teng, Electrical flows, [L]{}aplacian systems, and faster approximation of maximum flow in undirected graphs, in: Proc. 43rd annual ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing (STOC), 2011, pp. 273–282. M. De, G. Das, S. Nandy, Approximation algorithms for the discrete piercing set problem for unit disk, in: Proc. 23rd Canadian Conference on Computational Geometry (CCCG), 2011, pp. 375–380. T. Erlebach, M. Mihalák, A ($4 + \epsilon$)-approximation for the minimum-weight dominating set problem in unit disk graphs, in: Proc. 7th Workshop on Approximation and Online Algorithms, Vol. 5893 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2010, pp. 135–146. L. Fejes Tóth, Lagerungen in der Ebene, auf der Kugel und im Raum, Springer-Verlag, 1953. F. Fodor, The densest packing of 13 congruent circles in a circle, Contributions to Algebra and Geometry 44 (2) (2003) 431–440. S.R. Frinch, Mathematical Constants, no. 94 in Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, Cambridge, 2003. M. Gibson, I. Pirwani, Algorithms for dominating set in disk graphs: Breaking the $\log n$ barrier, in: Proc. 18th Annual European Symposium on Algorithms (ESA), Vol. 6346 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2010, pp. 243–254. H.B. [Hunt III]{}, M.V. Marathe, V. Radhakrishnan, S. Ravi, D.J. Rosenkrantz, R.E. Stearns, [NC]{}-approximation schemes for [NP]{}- and [PSPACE]{}-hard problems for geometric graphs, Journal of Algorithms 26 (1998) 238–274. J.L. Hurink, T. Nieberg, Approximating minimum independent dominating sets in wireless networks, Information Processing Letters 109 (2) (2008) 155–160. E.J. van Leeuwen, Approximation algorithms for unit disk graphs, Tech. Rep. UU-CS-2004-066, Institute of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University (2004). M.V. Marathe, H.Breu, H.B. [Hunt III]{}, S.S. Ravi, D.J. Rosenkrantz, Simple heuristics for unit disk graphs, Networks 25 (2) (1995) 59–68. D. Marx, Parameterized complexity of independence and domination on geometric graphs, in: Proc. 2nd International Workshop on Parameterized and Exact Computation (IWPEC), Vol. 4169 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2006, pp. 154–165. C. McDiarmid, T. Muller, Integer realizations of disk and segment graphs, preprint arXiv:1111.2931. T. Nieberg, Independent and dominating sets in wireless communication graphs, Ph.D. thesis, University of Twente (2006). T. Nieberg, J. Hurink, W. Kern, Approximation schemes for wireless networks, ACM Transactions on Algorithms 4 (4) (2008) 49:1–49:17. J. Pál, Ein minimumprobleme für ovale, Math. Annalen 83 (1921) 311–319. J. Spinrad, Efficient Graph Representations, Fields Inst. monographs, AMS, 2003. D.E.D. Vinkemeier, S. Hougardy, A linear-time approximation algorithm for weighted matchings in graphs, ACM Transactions on Algorithms 1 (2005) 107–122. F. Zou, Y. Wang, X.-H. Xu, X. Li, H. Du, P. Wan, W. Wu, New approximations for minimum-weighted dominating sets and minimum-weighted connected dominating sets on unit disk graphs, Theoretical Computer Science 412 (3) (2011) 198–208. [^1]: The Real RAM model is a technical necessity, otherwise storing the coordinates of the vertices would require an exponential number of bits [@integer]. [^2]: The graph $K_{1,q}$ consists of a vertex with $q$ pendant neighbors. [^3]: In *packing problems*, one usually wants to enclose non-[overlapping]{} objects into a recipient covering the greatest possible fraction of the recipient area. [^4]: The fastest known algorithm to decide whether a given graph is a unit disk graph is doubly exponential [@spinrad]. [^5]: We would like to thank an anonymous referee for this simplified argument. [^6]: If $c$ is an overwhelmed core of a corona $C$, then it might be the case that a weak reduction on $C$ with respect to $c$ is still possible. If the subgraph $G[W]$ induced by the set $W$ of witnesses of $c$ admits an independent dominating set $W' \subseteq W$ of size no greater than $3$, then $(D \setminus C) \cup \{c\} \cup W' $ is still an independent dominating set of $G$, and its cardinality is strictly less than $|D|$. However, one cannot decide in (close to) linear time whether such a dominating set exists, and that will not be required by our algorithm.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We apply flicker-noise spectroscopy (FNS), a time series analysis method operating on structure functions and power spectum estimates, to study the clinical electroencephalogram (EEG) signals recorded in children/adolescents (11 to 14 years of age) with diagnosed schizophrenia-spectrum symptoms at the National Center for Psychiatric Health (NCPH) of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences. The EEG signals for these subjects were compared with the signals for a control sample of chronically depressed children/adolescents. The purpose of the study is to look for diagnostic signs of subjects’ susceptibility to schizophrenia in the FNS parameters for specific electrodes and cross-correlations between the signals simultaneously measured at different points on the scalp. Our analysis of EEG signals from scalp-mounted electrodes at locations $F_3$ and $F_4$, which are symmetrically positioned in the left and right frontal areas of cerebral cortex, respectively, demonstrates an essential role of frequency-phase synchronization, a phenomenon representing specific correlations between the characteristic frequencies and phases of excitations in the brain. We introduce quantitative measures of frequency-phase synchronization and systematize the values of FNS parameters for the EEG data. The comparison of our results with the medical diagnoses for 84 subjects performed at NCPH makes it possible to group the EEG signals into 4 categories corresponding to different risk levels of subjects’ susceptibility to schizophrenia. We suggest that the introduced quantitative characteristics and classification of cross-correlations may be used for the diagnosis of schizophrenia at the early stages of its development.' address: - 'Karpov Institute of Physical Chemistry, ul. Vorontsovo pole 10, Moscow, 103064 Russia' - 'Institute of Laser and Information Technologies, Russian Academy of Sciences, ul. Pionerskaya 2, Troitsk, 142092 Russia' - 'Institute of Physics, Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University, ul. Kremlevskaya 18, Kazan, 420008 Tatarstan, Russia' - 'USPolyResearch, 906 Spruce St., Ashland, PA 17921, U.S.A.' - 'Department of Human Physiology, Lomonosov Moscow State University, ul. Vorob’ovy Gory 1/12, Moscow, 119991 Russia' author: - 'Serge F. Timashev' - 'Oleg Yu. Panischev' - 'Yuriy S. Polyakov' - 'Sergey A. Demin' - 'Alexander Ya. Kaplan' bibliography: - 'EEG-PhysicaA.bib' title: 'Analysis of cross-correlations in electroencephalogram signals as an approach to proactive diagnosis of schizophrenia' --- Flicker-noise spectroscopy ,Frequency-phase synchronization ,Cross-correlations ,Electroencephalogram signals ,Schizophrenia Introduction {#1} ============ The objective diagnosis of psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia, at the early stages of their development is complicated by the lack of reliable instrumental methods able to adequately describe these disorders at their onset [@Ris2010; @Joh2009; @Bas2008; @Uhl2008]. For example; the methods of electro- and magnetoencephalography are rarely used for the diagnosis of psychiatric disorders, though there are experimental studies suggesting a high potential of these methods [@Kap2005; @Gro2008; @Sim2010]. This implies that clinical electroencephalogram (EEG) studies are of high concern for advancing the state of the art in the analysis, diagnosis, and prognosis of these disorders. Some aspects of the application of spectral methods to the analysis of EEG rhythmic activity in specific frequency ranges were previously discussed by @Bor2005. It was shown that one of the essential population signs of schizophrenia is the dampening of $\alpha$-activity accompanied by the amplification of low-frequency $\delta$- and $\theta$-activity. Segment analysis and statistical combinatorial analysis of spectral and segmental characteristics by pattern recognition were used to study the EEG temporal dynamics. The analysis demonstrated that the patients suffering from schizophrenia were characterized by reduced amplitudes and lengths and increased variabilities of quasistationary $\alpha$-activity segments, as compared to the controls. @Kos2010 observed in patients suffering from schizophrenia an increase in the spectral density of EEG fluctuations in the low-frequency range (below 0.25 Hz). A significant role of stochastic components, specifically flicker noise, in EEG signals was discussed in depth by @We08 [@All09; @Aqu10]. However, these conclusions are just empirical observations that cannot be clearly traced to the internal physiological mechanisms of psychiatric disorders. We believe there is an essential phenomenon of frequency-phase synchronization in the functional activity of some pathology-specific cortex areas that should be studied to provide a better understanding of the physiological aspects of schizophrenia as well as other neurodegenerative and psychiatric disorders. We expect that a cross-correlation analysis of frequency-phase synchronization will be more robust to the individual-specific variations of biomedical signals, which generally impede the conventional diagnosis. It should be noted that such an analysis cannot completely replace the characterization of specific EEG signals, but should rather complement it to develop a more comprehensive picture of the interactions between specific areas of the cortex. Frequency and phase synchronization, manifestation of specific correlations between characteristic frequencies and phases of the excitations in different parts of the cortex (specific neural ensembles), and synchronization of the excitation amplitudes are the necessary conditions for the brain to function as an integral system [@Ros1996; @Sin1993; @Var2001; @War2010]. A normally functioning brain responds to external actions on the human organism by establishing some optimal level of such synchronization. A significant deviation from this optimal level, such as an anomalously high level of synchronization or lack of synchronization, may be considered as an indicator of a pathology in brain activity. In the fields of medicine where digitized data, such as EEG [@Hor2006; @Fer2009] or magnetoencephalograms (MEG) [@Bha2004; @Yul2007], are already recorded for the diagnosis, this optimal level can be estimated by analyzing the correlations between the signals recorded at spatially separated areas. Studies of cooperative neural processes in bioelectric brain activity, which bring about frequency-phase synchronization and other similar phenomena, are relevant not only for the diagnosis of psychiatric disorders, but also for some neurodegenerative disorders, such as Parkinson’s disease [@Tas1998] and temporal lobe epilepsy [@Nor2000], and are important for the understanding of human cognitive abilities [@Bha2001]. The characteristic frequencies and relations between phase differences for EEG and MEG signals recorded at spatially separated electrodes are, as a rule, estimated using the Hilbert and Fourier transforms [@Ros1996; @Ros2004] or wavelet analysis [@Lac1999]. Recently, the methods of cross-correlation analysis were also introduced into the analysis of mutual dynamics of physiological signals [@Pan2010; @Pod2008; @Pod10; @Bob10]. @Pan2010 applied the formalism of memory functions to study stimulated neuromagetic responses, MEG signals simultaneously recorded by different pairs of superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) sensors located in spatially separated cortex areas. The analysis of synchronization effects in the mutual dynamics of neuromagnetic responses to flickering-color stimuli showed an increased level of frequency-phase synchronization in control (healthy) subjects compared to the patient suffering from photosensitive epilepsy. A detrended cross-correlation analysis (DCCA) method was proposed and applied to quantify cross-correlations in the presence of nonstationarity [@Pod2008; @Pod09]. Another method, random matrix theory (RMT), which was developed to measure cross-correlations in collective modes for a large number of simultaneously recorded data [@Lal99; @Ple99], was employed to detect long-range power-law correlations in physiological data [@Pod10]. @Bob10 reported that cross-correlations between pairs of EEG time series are inversely related to dissociative symptoms (psychometric measures) in 58 patients with paranoid schizophrenia. In this study, we look for diagnostic signs of the susceptibility of children and adolescents to schizophrenia at its onset by analyzing the EEG signals recorded from scalp-mounted electrodes at locations $F_3$ and $F_4$. The clinical EEG signals were recorded in children/adolescents (11 to 14 years of age) with diagnosed schizophrenia-spectrum symptoms at the National Center for Psychiatric Health (NCPH) of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences (Moscow, Russia). The EEG signals for these subjects were compared with the signals for a control sample of chronically depressed children/adolescents, also recorded at NCPH. We perform the analysis using flicker-noise spectroscopy (FNS), a time series analysis method that introduces information parameters characterizing the components of stochastic signals in different frequency ranges and two-parameter cross-correlation functions [@Tim06a; @Tim07a; @Tim07b; @Tim08a; @Tim09; @Tim10a; @Tim10b]. The FNS method separates the analyzed signal into three components: low-frequency regular component corresponding to system-specific “resonances" and their interferential contributions, stochastic random-walk component at larger frequencies corresponding to dissipation effects, and highest-frequency inertial “spike" component corresponding to flicker noise . It should be noted that the latter is taken into consideration due to the intermittent dynamics on various space-time scales attributed to complex (multiparticle, nonlinear) interactions, dissipation processes, and inertia characterizing thermodynamically open complex systems [@Bak97]. The FNS method was previously used to study frequency-phase synchronization between spatially separated cortex areas for the case of photosensitive epilepsy [@Tim09; @Tim10b]. Neuromagnetic responses to external flickering-color stimuli, the prolonged action of which can cause epileptic seizures, were examined. The FNS analysis detected a disorder-specific feature, manifestation of high-frequency components (approximately 50 and 100 Hz) in the power spectum estimates for some SQUID-sensors. The analysis of FNS cross-correlation functions showed substantial disruptions in frequency-phase synchronization for the MEG dynamics of patient cortex areas compared to the synchronization level of control subjects [@Tim10b]. The paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, we provide the fundamentals of FNS and present the parameterization algorithm and two-parameter cross-correlation function. In Section 3, we perform the parameterization of EEG signals at electrodes $F_3$ and $F_4$. In Section 4, we present the results of cross-correlation analysis of the signals, which suggest that the level of frequency-phase synchronization can be considered as a diagnostic sign of subjects’ susceptibility to schizophrenia. In Section 5, we introduce quantitative measures of frequency-phase synchronization that allow us to partition all 84 subjects of the clinical study into 4 categories corresponding to different levels of the risk for developing schizophrenia. In Section 6, we discuss the potential capabilities of frequency-phase synchronization analysis for the diagnosis of neurological and psychiatric disorders. Principles of flicker-noise spectroscopy and basic relations {#2} ============================================================ Here, we will only deal with the basic FNS relations needed to understand the parameterization procedure and cross-correlation function. FNS is described in more detail elsewhere [@Tim06a; @Tim07a; @Tim07b; @Tim08a; @Tim10a]. In FNS, all introduced parameters for signal $V(t)$, where $t$ is time, are related to the autocorrelation function $$\psi (\tau) = \left\langle {V(t)V(t + \tau )} \right\rangle_{T-\tau}, \label{eq1}$$ where $\tau$ is the time lag parameter ($0 < \tau \le T_M$) and $T_M$ is the upper bound for $\tau$ ($T_M \le T/2$). This function characterizes the correlation in values of dynamic variable $V$ at higher, $t+\tau$, and lower, $t$, values of the argument. The angular brackets in relation (\[eq1\]) stand for the averaging over time interval $T-\tau$: $$\left\langle {(...)} \right\rangle_{T-\tau} = {1 \over {T-\tau}}\int^{T-\tau}_{0} {(...) \,dt}. \label{eq2}$$ The averaging over interval $T-\tau$ implies that all the characteristics that can be extracted by analyzing functions $\psi(\tau)$ should be regarded as the average values on this interval. To extract the information contained in $\psi (\tau )$ ($\left\langle {V(t)} \right\rangle = 0$ is assumed), the following transforms, or “projections", of this function are analyzed: cosine transforms (power spectrum estimates) $S(f)$, where $f$ is the frequency, $$S(f) = 2 \int^{T_M}_{0} { \left\langle {V(t)V(t + t_1 )} \right\rangle_{T-\tau} \, \cos({2 \pi f t_1}) \,dt_1} \label{eq3}$$ and its difference moments (Kolmogorov transient structure functions) of the second order $\Phi^{(2)} (\tau)$ $$\Phi^{(2)} (\tau) = \left\langle {\left[ {V(t) - V(t+\tau )} \right]^2 } \right\rangle_{T-\tau}. \label{eq4}$$ The information contents of $S(f)$ and $\Phi^{(2)}(\tau)$ are generally different, and the parameters for both functions are needed to solve parameterization problems. By considering the intermittent character of signals under study, interpolation expressions for the stochastic components ${\Phi_s}^{(2)} (\tau)$ and $S_s(f)$ of $S(f)$ and $\Phi^{(2)} (\tau)$, respectively, were derived using the theory of generalized functions by @Tim06a. It was shown that the stochastic components of structure functions $\Phi^{(2)} (\tau)$ are formed only by jump-like irregularities (“random walks"), and stochastic components of functions $S(f)$, which characterize the “energy side" of the process, are formed by spike-like (inertial) and jump-like irregularities. Signal parameterization {#2.1} ----------------------- In FNS parameterization, the original signal $V(t)$ is separated into three components: system-specific “resonances" and their interferential contributions at lower frequencies, stochastic jump-like (“random walk") component at larger frequencies, and stochastic spike-like (inertial) component in the highest frequency range. For simplicity, we will further refer to jump-like and spike-like irregularities as “jumps" and “spikes", respectively. Let us write the basic interpolation expressions for stochastic components. The parameters characterizing the dynamic correlations on every level of the evolution hierarchy are assumed to be the same. Consider the simplest case, in which there is only one characteristic scale in the sequences of spikes and jumps [@Tim06a; @Tim07a]: $$\Phi_s ^{(2)} (\tau ) \approx 2\sigma ^2 \left[ {1 - \Gamma \,^{ - 1} (H_1 ) \cdot \Gamma \,(H_1 ,\tau /T_1 )} \right]^{_2 }, \label{eq5}$$ where $\Gamma (s, x) = \int\limits_x^\infty {\exp(-t) \cdot t^{s - 1}} dt$ and $\Gamma (s) = \Gamma (s, 0)$ are the complete and incomplete gamma functions, respectively ($x \ge 0$ and $s > 0$); $\sigma$ is the standard deviation of the measured dynamic variable with dimension \[$V$\]; $H_1$ is the Hurst constant, which describes the rate at which the dynamic variable “forgets" its values on the time intervals that are less than the correlation time $T_1$. For asymptotic cases, we obtain the formulas: $$\Phi_s^{(2)} (\tau ) = 2\Gamma ^{ - 2} (1 + H_1 ) \cdot \sigma ^2 \left( {{\tau \over {T_1 }}} \right)^{2H_1 } ,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,{\tau \over {T_1 }} \ll 1; \label{eq6}$$ $$\Phi _s^{(2)} (\tau ) = 2\sigma ^{2} \left[ {1 - \Gamma ^{ - 1} (H_1 ) \cdot \left( {{\tau \over {T_1 }}} \right)^{H_1 - 1} \exp\left( { - {\tau \over {T_1 }}} \right)} \right]^2 ,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,{\tau \over {T_1 }} \gg 1. \label{eq7}$$ The interpolating function for power spectrum component $S_{sS}(f)$ formed by spikes can be written as: $$S_{sS} (f) \approx {{S_{sS} (0)} \over {1 + (2\pi f T_0 )^{n_0} }}. \label{eq8}$$ Here, $S_{sS}(0)$ is the parameter characterizing the low-frequency limit of $S_{sS}(f)$ and $n_0$ describes the degree of correlation loss in the sequence of spikes on the time interval $T_0$. The interpolating function for the power spectrum component $S_{cJ}(f)$ formed by jumps is written as: $$S_{sJ} (f) \approx {{S_{sJ} (0)} \over {1 + (2\pi fT_1 )^{2H_1 + 1} }}. \label{eq9}$$ where $S_{sJ}(0)$ is the parameter characterizing the low-frequency limit of $S_{sJ}(f)$. Although the contributions to the overall power spectrum $S_s(f)$ given by Eqs.  (\[eq8\]) and  (\[eq9\]) are similar, the parameters in these equations can be much different: $S_{sJ}(0) \ne S_{sS}(0)$, $T_1 \ne T_0$, and $2H_1 + 1 \ne n_0$. This implies that the parameters in the expressions for the power spectrum and structure function generally have different information contents when the experimental time series $V(t)$ is analyzed. In cases when the contributions of spikes and jumps into the overall stochastic component are comparable, which corresponds to relatively small differences in the values of parameters $n_0$ and $2H_1+1$, it is convenient to use the following interpolating function for $S_s(f)$: $$S_{s} (f) \approx {{S_{s} (0)} \over {1 + (2\pi f T_{01} )^{n} }}. \label{eq10}$$ where $S_s(0)$ and $n$ are phenomenological parameters. The dynamics of complex systems includes both stochastic components, i.e., spikes and jumps, and system-specific slowly varying regular components associated with a set of frequencies. These frequencies correspond to internal and external resonances and their interferences. It should be noted that the whole set of resonance and interferential frequencies may get rearranged during the evolution of an open system. All the specific frequencies and their interferential contributions, which manifest themselves as oscillations in the dynamic variable $V(t)$, will be be further called “resonant". It is assumed that signal $V(t)$ can be presented as a linear superposition of stochastic component $V_s(t)$ and resonant component $V_r(t)$: $$V(t) = V_s (t) + V_r (t). \label{eq11}$$ In this case, the autocorrelation function and power spectrum can be approximated as [@Tim07a; @Tim08a; @Tim09]: $$\psi(\tau) = \psi_s (\tau) + \psi_r (\tau), \label{eq12}$$ $$S(f) = S_s (f) + S_r (f). \label{eq13}$$ Here, we assume that the resonant components are statistically stationary (they depend only on time lag $\tau$). This allows us to estimate $\psi_r (\tau)$ as an “incomplete" cosine transform of $S_r (f)$ by applying the Wiener-Khinchin Theorem: $$\psi _r (\tau ) \approx 2\int\limits_0^{f_{\max } } {S_r (f)\cos(2\pi f\tau )df}, \label{eq14}$$ where $f_{\max } = 0.5 f_d$, $f_d$ is the sampling frequency. It should be noted that Eq. (\[eq14\]) is an approximation applied to a finite discrete time series assuming the wide-sense stationarity of the resonant signal component. The resonant component $\Phi_r^{(2)} (\tau)$ in this case is found by $$\Phi _r^{(2)} (\tau ) = 2\left[ {\psi _r (0) - \psi _r (\tau )} \right]. \label{eq15}$$ The stochastic component of $\Phi^{(2)} (\tau)$ can then be estimated as $$\Phi_{s}^{(2)} (\tau ) \approx \Phi^{(2)} (\tau ) - \Phi _r^{(2)} (\tau ). \label{eq16}$$ Equations (\[eq12\])-(\[eq16\]) allow one to sequentally separate out resonant and stochastic components of structure functions and power spectrum estimates for experimental time series and perform the parameterization of the components, which is demonstrated in Refs. [@Tim07a; @Tim10a]. The complete FNS parameterization algorithm in discrete form is listed in Appendix A. In total, six stochastic FNS parameters are introduced ($T_{01}$, $S_s(T_{01}^{-1})$, $n$, $\sigma$, $T_1$, $H_1$): $T_{01}$, the correlation time for jump- and spike-like irregularities after which the self-similarity observed in power spectrum estimate breaks down; $S_s(T_{01}^{-1})$, the “spikiness" factor – power spectrum estimate at frequency $T_0^{-1}$, which accounts for the “intensity" of jump- and spike-like irregularities in the highest-frequency interval; $n$, the flicker-noise parameter, which characterizes the rate of loss of correlations in the series of high-frequency irregularities in time intervals $T_{01}$; $\sigma$, the standard deviation of the value of the measured dynamic variable from the slowly varying resonant (regular) component, which is based solely on jump-like irregularities; $T_1$, the correlation time for jump-like irregularities in stochastically varying signal $V(t)$; $H_1$, the Hurst exponent (this estimate of the Hurst component is also referred to in literature as the Hausdorff exponent), which describes the rate at which the dynamic variable “forgets" its values on the time intervals that are less than $T_1$. Cross-correlation function {#2.2} -------------------------- The information about the dynamics of correlations in variables $V_i(t)$ and $V_j(t)$, measured at different points $i$ and $j$, can be extracted by analyzing the temporal variations of various cross-correlation functions. Here, we will use the simplest “two-point" correlation expression characterizing the links between $V_i(t)$ and $V_j(t)$ [@Tim07b; @Tim10b]: $$q_{ij} (\tau,\theta _{ij} ) = \left\langle {\left[ {{{V_i (t) - V_i (t + \tau )} \over {\sqrt {\Phi _i^{\left( 2 \right)} \left( \tau \right)} \,\,}}} \right] \left[ {{{V_j (t + \theta _{ij} ) - V_j (t + \theta _{ij} + \tau )} \over {\sqrt {\Phi _j^{\left( 2 \right)} \left( \tau \right)} }}} \right]} \right\rangle _{T - \tau - \left| {\theta _{ij} } \right|},\label{eq17}$$ where $\tau$ is the “lag" time ($\tau > 0$), $\theta_{ij}$ is the “time shift" parameter. The cross-correlation expression $q_{ij} (\tau ;\theta _{ij} )$ is a function of temporal parameters $\tau$ and $\theta_{ij}$, which can be represented as a three-dimensional plot. Of most interest for the analysis are the intervals of $\tau$ and $\theta_{ij}$ where the cross-correlation function $q_{ij}$ approaches positive unity (maximum level of positive correlations) or negative unity (maximum level of negative correlations). The value of $\theta_{ij}$ corresponding to maximum values of cross-correlation $q_{ij} (\tau ;\theta _{ij} )$ characterizes the cause-and-effect relation (“flow direction") between signals $V_i(t)$ and $V_j(t)$. When $\theta_{ij}>0$, the flow moves from point $i$ to point $j$, when $\theta_{ij}<0$, from $j$ to $i$. When the distance between points $i$ and $j$ is fixed, the value of $\theta_{ij}$ can be used to estimate the rate of information transfer between these two points. The magnitude and behavior of the two-parameter expression (\[eq17\]) may significantly depend on the value of selected averaging interval $T$ and upper-bound values of $\tau$ and $\theta_{ij}$, which we will refer to as $\tau_{\max}$ and $\theta_{\max}$. From the statistical reliability point of view, we set a constraint of $\tau_{\max} + |\theta_{\max}| \le T/2$. For conciseness, from now on we will refer to $\theta_{ij}$ as $\theta$. Parameterization of EEG signals at $F_3$ and $F_4$ electrodes {#3} ============================================================= The EEG signals were recorded using Ag/AgCl electrodes (BrainAmp, Brain Products GbmH, Germany) in wakeful relaxed children/adolescents with the eyes closed at 16 electrode sites ($O_1$, $O_2$, $P_3$, $P_4$, $P_z$, $T_5$, $T_6$, $C_3$, $C_4$, $C_z$, $T_3$, $T_4$, $F_3$, $F_4$, $F_7$, and $F_8$) set according to the international 10-20 system. The participants were seated comfortably in a dimly lit, electrically shielded room. The electrodes were monopolarly referenced to coupled ear electrodes. Electrode impedances were monitored and kept below 10 K$\Omega$ during the entire experiment. The EEG signals were continuously recorded at a sampling rate of 256 Hz and then down-sampled off-line to 128 Hz ($f_d$ = 128 Hz). Only artifact-free EEG segments were used for the analysis. For every electrode, 7680 values of the electric potential were examined. Several longitudinal studies of schizophrenia suggest the existence of a cerebral degenerative process in, at least, some patients [@Del97; @Gur98; @Nair97]. According to studies [@Gur98; @Rap99; @Heu11], this neurodegeneration may be most pronounced in the frontal lobes of the cerebrum. For this reason, we chose frontal electrodes $F_3$ and $F_4$ for our analysis. The examined signals $V_{F3}(t)$ and $V_{F4}(t)$ for electrodes $F_3$ and $F_4$, respectively, were recorded in 39 healthy subjects (marked with prefix “S") and 45 subjects susceptible to schizophrenia. This initial grouping was done based on the medical diagnosis by specialists, which was performed at NCPH. Our analysis included the determination of subject-specific FNS parameters for the $F_3$ and $F_4$ signals and examination of cross-correlations between the signals by Eq. (\[eq17\]). This comparative study allowed us to partition the EEG signals of 84 subjects into 4 categories corresponding to different levels of risk for developing schizophrenia, starting with group I (lowest risk) and ending with group 4 (highest risk). The subjects belonging to the first two groups may be characterized according to the medical diagnosis as “healthy" while the last two groups correspond to “susceptible to schizophrenia". For conciseness, in this and next sections we discuss in detail only selected examples of the analysis to illustrate our partitioning logic. The complete classification of all subjects is presented in Section 5. First, we would like to note that the FNS parameterization alone of EEG signals generated in the cortex areas under electrodes $F_3$ and $F_4$ was insufficient to partition all 84 subjects into risk groups due to a high individual-specific variability of FNS parameters for the stochastic components of the signals. To unambiguously partition all subjects into 4 risk groups, we had to complement the FNS parameterization of $F_3$ and $F_4$ signals with their cross-correlation analysis using expression (\[eq17\]). The degree of scatter in the values of FNS parameters can be seen from Table \[tab1\], which shows the values of all FNS parameters for typical subjects of each of the four groups. The FNS parameterization was run using the algorithm listed in Appendix A for the averaging interval $T$ equal to the series length (7680 points). Some typical dependences used in FNS parameterization are illustrated in Figs.  \[fig1\]-\[fig4\]. The complete partitioning of all subjects into four groups corresponding to different risk levels for developing schizophrena together with the values of group-determining FNS parameters and quantitative estimates of cross-correlations is presented in Table \[tab2\]. Table \[tab1\] shows that the values of FNS parameters for subjects assigned to different groups may significantly overlap, which implies that FNS parameterization alone cannot be used for the classification. The combined analysis of FNS parameters and cross-correlations discussed in Sections 4 and 5 allowed us to suggest the spikiness factor $S_s(T_{01}^{-1})$ as the most functionally significant FNS parameter for the classification. Other FNS parameters listed in Table \[tab1\] have a rather limited value for the partitioning: it is possible to draw conclusions only on the form of their variability for subjects of different categories. [|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|]{} Subject & Electr. & $\sigma,$ & $H_1$ & $T_1, \ f_d^{-1}$ & $S_s(T_{01}^{-1}),$ & $n$ & $T_{01}, \ f_d^{-1}$\ $\mathstrut$ & $\mathstrut$ & $\mu$V & $\mathstrut$ & $\mathstrut$ & $\mu$V$^2 f_d^{-1}$ & $\mathstrut$ & $\mathstrut$\ \ **S47** & $F_3$ & 360 & 1.22 & 2.30 & $3.8\times 10^3$ & 3.36 & 2.64\ $\mathstrut$ & $F_4$ & 324 & 1.04 & 2.45 & $5.7\times10^3$ & 2.98 & 2.58\ **S163** & $F_3$ &145 & 1.87 & 0.83 & $42.8$ & 4.45 & 1.30\ $\mathstrut$ & $F_4$ & 158 & 2.03 & 0.86 & 61.8 & 4.43 & 1.48\ **S165** & $F_3$ & 293 & 1.84 & 1.46 & 801.26 & 3.96 & 2.39\ $\mathstrut$ & $F_4$ & 263 & 1.68 & 1.44 & 762.35 & 3.81 & 2.19\ \ **S177\*** & $F_3$ & 209 & 0.02 & $3.2\times10^5$ & 157 & 4.10 & 1.30\ $\mathstrut$ & $F_4$ & 170 & 0.05 & $9.1\times10^5$ & 24 & 4.35 & 0.87\ **156** & $F_3$ & 282 & 1.13 & 4.64 & $2.42\times10^4$ & 2.58 & 6.85\ $\mathstrut$ & $F_4$ & 256 & 1.01 & 5.61 & $2.7\times10^4$ & 2.46 & 7.68\ **S42** & $F_3$ & 196 & 2.24 & 0.57 & 26.27 & 4.95 & 1.04\ $\mathstrut$ & $F_4$ & 151 & 2.77 & 0.37 & 12.68 & 4.98 & 0.86\ \ **575** & $F_3$ & 291 & 1.10 & 2.60 & $6.2\times10^3$ & 2.90 & 3.00\ $\mathstrut$ & $F_4$ & 235 & 1.31 & 1.86 & $2.4\times10^3$ & 3.11 & 2.51\ **S31** & $F_3$ & 382 & 1.12 & 3.24 & $1.5\times10^4$ & 2.89 & 3.95\ $\mathstrut$ & $F_4$ & 415 & 0.85 & 5.45 & $2.7\times10^4$ & 2.73 & 4.96\ **S12** & $F_3$ & 133 & 1.95 & 0.75 & 36.00 & 4.43 & 1.23\ $\mathstrut$ & $F_4$ & 118 & 3.02 & 0.38 & 32.55 & 4.45 & 1.18\ \ **221** & $F_3$ & 558 & 0.56 & 35.9 & $6.04\times10^5$ & 2.20 & 26.5\ $\mathstrut$ & $F_4$ & 520 & 0.56 & 37.9 & $6.58\times10^5$ & 2.10 & 29.8\ **387\_03** & $F_3$ & 356 & 1.28 & 3.65 & $1.2\times10^4$ & 3.07 & 4.89\ $\mathstrut$ & $F_4$ & 311 & 1.35 & 3.21 & $7.8\times10^3$ & 3.11 & 4.56\ **573** & $F_3$ & 232 & 0.33 & 37.15 & $1.7\times10^5$ & 1.72 & 22.7\ $\mathstrut$ & $F_4$ & 228 & 0.46 & 12.25 & $5.9\times10^4$ & 1.87 & 9.51\ The first two groups are denoted as “healthy" (group I) and “conditionally healthy" (group II). It can be seen that the EEG signals of groups I and II are characterized by a relatively rapid loss of correlations in stochastic components, which follows from high values of the Hurst component ($H_1 > 1$) and flicker-noise parameter $n$, and small correlation times $T_1$ and $T_{01}$ (Figs. \[fig3\]a, \[fig3\]b). The group of “conditionally healthy" subjects also includes 5 subjects (S59, S170, S177, 351, S43) with a strong nonstationarity in the EEG signals: the steady-state variance is not reached within the analyzed interval (formally, this corresponds to $H_1 \ll 1$ and $T_1 \gg T$). The subjects in groups I and II are also characterized by moderate values of spikiness factor $S_s(T_{01}^{-1}) < 3 \times 10^4 \mu V^2 f_d^{-1}$. The third and fourth groups are composed of subjects “susceptible to schizophrenia" and “highly susceptible to schizophrenia", respectively. The EEG signals for these categories are characterized by a high degree of correlations in the stochastic irregularities of both types, which can be seen from the lower values of $H_1$ and $n$ as compared to groups I and II, and high values of spikiness factor $S_s(T_{01}^{-1})$ (up to $ 7 \times 10^5 \mu V^2 f_d^{-1})$. The correlation times $T_1$ and $T_{01}$ are small (Figs. \[fig3\]c, \[fig3\]d) in this case as well. ![\[fig1\] (Color online) EEG signals at electrode $F_3$ for typical members of groups I (a), II (b), III (c), and IV (d).](Fig_01){width="14.5cm"} ![\[fig2\] (Color online) Linear-scale power spectrum estimates of EEG signals in Fig. \[fig1\] for typical members of groups I (a), II (b), III (c), and IV (d).](Fig_02){width="14.5cm"} ![\[fig3\] (Color online) Log-log-scale power spectrum estimates of EEG signals in Fig. \[fig1\] for typical members of groups I (a), II (b), III (c), and IV (d); 1 (blue) – power spectrum estimate for the experimental data, 2 (red) – stochastic interpolation $S_s(f)$.](Fig_03){width="14.5cm"} ![\[fig4\] (Color online) Structure functions of EEG signals in Fig. \[fig1\] for typical members of groups I (a), II (b), III (c), and IV (d); 1 (blue) – structure function for the experimental data, 2 (red) – resonant component of the structure function, “cross" (green) – total FNS interpolation.](Fig_04){width="14.5cm"} A significant scatter in the values of characteristic parameters was also observed for low-frequency spectra of the signals, i.e., in the peaks corresponding to a series of “resonances". These “resonance" frequencies can be attributed to individual-specific resonances and interferential effects caused by the interaction of intrinsic and external frequencies. The power spectrum estimates of EEG signals recorded by electrodes $F_3$ and $F_4$ for the subjects of group I (Fig. \[fig1\]a) display clear peaks in the frequency range from 5 to 12 Hz (Fig. \[fig2\]a). These peaks can be attributed to the brain $\alpha$-rythm, which manifests itself at the times of rest, relaxation, or slight meditation with the eyes closed. The dynamics of the difference moment for these EEG signals has a small-scale structure (Fig. \[fig4\]a). The power spectrum estimates of EEG signals for the subjects of group II (Fig. \[fig1\]b) contain more noise on the background of which there are peaks corresponding to brain rythms (Fig. \[fig2\]b). As compared to group I, the magnitude of the peaks is reduced and the peaks themselves are shifted to lower frequencies. These results are in agreement with prior results reported by @Bor2005, where the dampening of $\alpha$-activity and amplification of low-frequency $\delta$- and $\theta$-activity is considered as a diagnostic sign of schizophrenia. The scale of fluctuations in the difference moment is increased compared to the group I case (Fig. \[fig4\]b). The EEG signals for the group III subjects (Fig. \[fig1\]c) are characterized by further reduction of the activity in the range from 5 to 12 Hz and higher peaks in the range of ultralow frequencies ($0.4 - 4$ Hz). The scale of fluctuations in the difference moment gets further increased (Fig. \[fig4\]c). In the group IV subjects (Fig. \[fig1\]d), the ultralow frequency dynamics becomes even more pronounced: peaks in the frequency range higher than 2.5 Hz have no noticeable effect and the large-magnitude peaks in the ultralow frequency range play the dominant role (Fig. \[fig2\]d). This observation is in agreement with the results of study [@Kos2010], where it was noticed that the subjects suffering from schizophrenia have an increased spectral density of EEG signal fluctuations in the low-frequency range. In the group IV subjects, the structure of the difference moment is dominated by large-scale fluctuations (Fig. \[fig4\]d). Frequency-phase synchronization in EEG signals at $F_3$ and $F_4$ electrodes {#4} ============================================================================ We analyzed the dynamics of cross-correlations between EEG signals at electrodes $F_3$ and $F_4$ using Eq. (\[eq17\]). The two-parameter cross-correlation dependences were calculated for adjacent intervals with length $T = 800 f_d^{-1} = 6.25$ s for all 84 subjects. This implies that the studied time interval 7200 $f_d^{-1}$ = 56.25 s was partitioned into 9 subintervals (1...800) $f_d^{-1}$ ,..., (6401...7200) $f_d^{-1}$, for each of which two- and three-dimensional plots of the cross-correlation function were built. The ranges of the input parameters were $0 \le \tau \le \tau_{\max} = 0.1 T$ and $-\theta_{\max} \le \theta \le \theta_{\max}$, where $\theta_{\max} = 0.4 T$. Here, we present plots only for selected subintervals to illustrate the general structure of observed cross-correlation variations. ![\[fig5\] Typical 3-D plots of cross-correlation function $q(\tau,\theta)$ for EEG signals at locations $F_3$ and $F_4$ and their cross-sections at $\tau_0=40 f_d^{-1}$ built for subject S47, group I (a, c) and S177, group II (b, d).](Fig_05.pdf){width="13.5cm"} ![\[fig6\] Typical 3-D plots of cross-correlation function $q(\tau,\theta)$ for EEG signals at locations $F_3$ and $F_4$ and their cross-sections at $\tau_0=40 f_d^{-1}$ built for subject 575, group III (a, c) and 221, group IV (b, d).](Fig_06.pdf){width="13.5cm"} Figures \[fig5\]-\[fig6\] show three-dimensional plots of cross-correlation function $q(\tau,\theta)$ for the $F_3$ and $F_4$ EEG signals of some of the typical subjects that were considered in Section 3. These examples support our working hypothesis stating that the degree of disruption in frequency-phase synchronization within specific cortex areas (in this case, left and right frontal areas) can be used as a diagnostic sign of subjects’ susceptibility to schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Figure \[fig5\] illustrates the cross-correlation function and its plane projections for the EEG signals of subjects S47 (Figs. \[fig5\]a, \[fig5\]c) and S177 (Figs. \[fig5\]b, \[fig5\]d) built for one of the subintervals of length 800 $f_d^{-1}$. Frequency-phase synchronization between the signals $F_3$ and $F_4$ recorded in subject S47 manifests itself as a periodic dependence of $q(\tau,\theta)$ on $\theta$, which can be best illustrated by looking at the cross-section of the three-dimensional plot at $\tau_0 =$ const. Figure \[fig5\]c shows the cross-section at $\tau_0 =40 f_d^{-1}$ (this choice of cross-section will be explained later). The maximum value of cross-correlation function $q(40 f_d^{-1},0) \approx 0.89$ suggests a high level of correlation between simultaneously recorded $V_{F3}$ and $V_{F4}$. A local maximum $q(40 f_d^{-1},-15 f_d^{-1}) \approx 0.35$ points to a correlation between $V_{F3}$ and $V_{F4}$ shifted by $\theta_1 = 15 f_d^{-1}$ backwards. $\theta_1 = 15 f_d^{-1}$ corresponds to a phase shift of $2 \pi f_1 \theta_1 = 2 \pi$, where $f_1 = 1/15 f_d \approx 0.5$ Hz. This implies that signal $V_{F4}(t)$ “lags" from signal $V_{F3}(t)$ by phase $2\pi$. Likewise, if we consider a local maximum $q(40 f_d^{-1},15 f_d^{-1}) \approx 0.25$, we can conclude that signal $V_{F4}(t)$ goes ahead of signal $V_{F3}(t)$ by the same time interval or phase $2\pi$. Therefore, we observe a phase synchronization of signals $V_{F3}$ and $V_{F4}$, which takes place in the cortex of subject S47 within studied time interval. The presence of local maxima $q(40 f_d^{-1},-30 f_d^{-1})$ and $q(40 f_d^{-1},30 f_d^{-1})$ in Fig. \[fig5\]c with values exceeding 0.1 implies that the phase synchronization of signals $V_{F3}$ and $V_{F4}$ occurs with a constant frequency $f_1$, which allows us to use the term “frequency-phase synchronization". It should be noted that the observed frequency $f_1$ is individual-specific and can vary near its base value. The threshold value of 0.1, which was marked on the plane projections of cross-correlation function $q(\tau_0,\theta)$ by a horizontal dashed line, was selected based on the condition of closest agreement between our cross-correlation analysis and medical diagnosis at NCPH. The selection of $\tau_0 = 40 f_d^{-1}$ for the cross-section of cross-correlation function $q(\tau_0,\theta)$ was done based on the observed characteristic period $\approx 15 f_d^{-1}$ in recorded signals. It can be assumed that at time lags $\tau_0$ exceeding two periods of oscillations the correlation links in stochastic components of difference moments are lost and the steady-state variance is reached [@Tim07a; @Tim07b]. The cross-correlation dependences $q(\tau,\theta)$ and $q(40 f_d^{-1},\theta)$ for the $F_3$ and $F_4$ signals of subject S177 also demonstrate the frequency-phase synchronization. But in contrast to S47, here, the number of local maxima exceeding 0.1 is reduced and their shape is significanly deformed. In other words, the effects of frequency-phase synchronization are less pronounced in the case of group II as compared to group I. At the same time, a comparative analysis of frequency-phase synchronization and FNS parameters with medical diagnosis still indicates that the susceptibility to schizophrenia for group II is relatively low. A similar logic applies to the analysis of cross-correlation dependences $q(\tau,\theta)$ and their plane projections $q(40 f_d^{-1},\theta)$ of the EEG signals for groups III and IV (575, 221) (Fig. \[fig6\]). In general, the structure of three-dimensional plots for cross-correlation function gets largely deformed, and the number and magnitude of local maxima substantially decrease for groups with higher identification numbers (III and IV). Classification of EEG signals based on degree of frequency-phase synchronization {#5} ================================================================================ The results presented above suggest that quantitative estimates characterizing the degree of frequency-phase synchronization in signals $V_{F3}(t)$ and $V_{F4}(t)$ should be introduced in addition to FNS parameters for the signals themselves in order to objectively and unambiguously estimate subjects’ susceptibility to schizophrenia. To estimate the degree of synchronization, we can use the plane projection of $q(\tau, \theta)$ at value $\tau_0$ and count the number of pairs of local maxima along the $\theta$ axis, which are symmetric with respect to $\theta = 0$, in the selected range $|\theta| \le 150 f_d^{-1}$ for each subinterval with length $T = 800 f_d^{-1} = 6.25$ s. The selected ranges $|\theta| \le 150 f_d^{-1}$ with respect to $\theta = 0$ are marked by vertical dashed lines in Figs. \[fig5\]-\[fig6\]. The magnitudes of all counted local maxima must exceed a specific threshold value (0.1 in this case). The number of such pairs $n_s$ per unit time averaged for all 9 subintervals can be used to characterize the frequency $f_s=n_s/T$ of “deep synchronization" for signals $V_{F3}(t)$ and $V_{F4}(t)$ and be regarded as the basic criterion in assigning a subject to a specific category. The discreteness of pair number $n_s$ implies that the values of $f_s$ are multiples of 0.16 Hz for the chosen value of $T$. Therefore, the determined values of frequency $f_s$ should only be regarded as rough estimates (“rounded" up to 0.16 Hz). At the same time, the number of observed pairs $n_s$ can be considered as an objective criterion for determining the susceptibility of a child/adolescent to schizophrenia (lower risk for developing schizophrenia in adult age) for the given value of $T$. -------------- -------------- -------------------- -------------- -------------- -------------------- --------------- -------------- -------------------- -------------- -------------- -------------------- Subject $f_s$, Hz $S_s(T_{01}^{-1})$ Subject $f_s$, Hz $S_s(T_{01}^{-1})$ Subject $f_s$, Hz $S_s(T_{01}^{-1})$ Subject $f_s$, Hz $S_s(T_{01}^{-1})$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\times 10^3,$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\times 10^3,$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\times 10^3,$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\times 10^3,$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mu$V$^2/f_d$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mu$V$^2/f_d$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mu$V$^2/f_d$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mu$V$^2/f_d$ **S94** 0.48 0.26 **416** 0.32 0.01 **S12** 0.16 0.04 **113** $<0.01$ 575 **454** 0.48 0.38 **S42** 0.32 0.26 **586** 0.16 0.08 **221** $<0.01$ 658 **S182** 0.48 0.68 **425** 0.32 0.28 **S158** 0.16 0.1 **307** 0.16 7.2 **S165** 0.48 0.8 **S154** 0.32 0.54 **84** 0.16 0.13 **S18** 0.16 7.2 **S20** 0.48 1.67 **S50** 0.32 0.55 **83** 0.16 0.13 **719** 0.16 9.5 **S60** 0.48 2.8 **S53** 0.32 0.6 **S72** 0.16 0.16 **387\_03** 0.16 11.6 **S163** 0.64 0.06 **S152** 0.32 0.8 **517** 0.16 0.2 **314** 0.16 13.3 **S78** 0.64 0.23 **S179** 0.32 0.89 **401** 0.16 0.27 **509** 0.16 16.9 **S155** 0.8 1.26 **S10** 0.32 0.91 **249** 0.16 0.48 **219** 0.16 17.5 **S164** 0.8 4 **S178** 0.32 1.02 **S176** 0.16 0.6 **33** 0.16 20.5 **S85** 0.96 0.06 **88** 0.32 2.1 **485** 0.16 0.74 **155** 0.16 21.1 **S153** 1.28 0.04 **S157** 0.32 5.4 **S169** 0.16 0.8 **423** 0.16 41.3 **S47** 1.28 5.7 **S27** 0.32 5.88 **S174** 0.16 1.26 **22** 0.16 50 **S173** 1.6 2.4 **S55** 0.48 5.1 **229** 0.16 1.72 **683** 0.16 55.8 **276\*** 0.48 0.56 **156** 0.48 26.9 **382** 0.16 2.3 **515** 0.16 138 **342\*** 0.64 0.01 **S26** 0.64 33.2 **32** 0.16 3.6 **573** 0.16 169 **312\*** 0.64 0.22 **351\*** 0.32 0.27 **192** 0.16 4 **S167** 0.16 226 $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ **S170\*** 0.32 0.12 **103** 0.16 4.2 **642** 0.32 336 $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ **S177\*** 0.48 0.16 **575** 0.16 6.2 **508** 0.32 349 $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ **S59\*** 0.48 0.33 **585** 0.32 8.3 $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ **S43\*** 0.48 41.8 **548** 0.32 11.6 $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ **540** 0.32 18.5 $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ **S31** 0.32 27.2 $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ **S196** 0.32 27.6 $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ **429\*** 0.32 1.83 $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ **510\*** 0.16 1 $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ **387\_02\*** 0.16 1.01 $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ $\mathstrut$ -------------- -------------- -------------------- -------------- -------------- -------------------- --------------- -------------- -------------------- -------------- -------------- -------------------- : \[tab2\]Classification of subjects into categories corresponding to different risk levels for developing schizophrenia based on the analysis of $F_3$ and $F_4$ EEG signals: I - “healthy", II - “conditionally healthy", III - “susceptible to schizophrenia", IV - “highly susceptible to schizophrenia". (\*) denotes the cases of strong nonstationarity in EEG signals Our analysis showed that for 23 subjects out of total 84 the frequency $f_s$ was at least 0.48 Hz. For 2 subjects (S47 and S153) this frequency was 1.28 Hz, and for subject S173 it reached the value of 1.6 Hz. These 3 values significantly exceed the average $f_s$ for the group of subjects labeled as “healthy" by NCPH. These anomalies in the level of frequency-phase synchronization require an additional analysis and may be related to possible precursors of a hidden disorder. There are known examples in medicine when the increase of synchronization level in the dynamics of specific cortex areas beyond some threshold value is considered as an indicator of a disorder. An example of an anomalously high activity in neural ensembles associated with an epileptic seizure is discussed in Refs. [@Pan2010; @Tim10b]. It is possible that a similar event took place in subject S47 on some of the considered time subintervals. As the authors do not have any information on the later examinations of these 3 subjects labeled as “healthy" by NCPH, we will assign them to category I (“healthy") in the classification described below. For 23 subjects, the $f_s$ parameter was equal to 0.32 Hz; for 36, $f_s$ = 0.16 Hz; and for the two remaining subjects, $f_s < 0.01$ Hz. The lower values of $f_s$ generally corresponded to a higher risk for developing schizophrenia (determined by medical diagnosis at NCPH). A comparative analysis of the values of $S_s(T_{01}^{-1})$ (maximum value for signals $F_3$ and $F_4$) for the EEG signals belonging to different categories suggested that the spikiness factor can be used together with $f_s$ as a basic diagnostic sign for schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. The higher values of $S_s(T_{01}^{-1})$ and lower values of $f_s$ correspond to higher risks for developing schizophrenia. As a result, the classification presented in Table \[tab2\] was built using the optimality criterion for the values of these two parameters that leads to the minimal discrepancy between the results of medical diagnosis and proposed partitioning. The limiting cases of the partitioning are: (1) large values of parameter $f_s$ accompanied by small values of parameter $S_s(T_{01}^{-1})$ correspond to a healthy subject; (2) small values of $f_s$ with large values of $S_s(T_{01}^{-1})$ correspond to a high risk for developing schizophrenia. In contradictory cases, such as S26, S43, and 156, other FNS parameters were also used to assign the subjects to appropriate groups. For example, the high levels of “deep synchronization" ($f_s \thicksim 0.5$) and stochasticity in subjects S26, S43, and 156 allowed us to conclude that the subjects belong to group II. The complete algorithm for partitioning subjects into 4 groups corresponding to different risk levels for developing schizophrenia is written as: (1) Group I. Necessary condition: $f_s \ge 0.48$ Hz. If $f_s = 0.48$ Hz and $T_1 < T$, the following condition should also hold: $S_s(T_{01}^{-1}) < 3 \times 10^3 \mu$V$^2 f_d^{-1}$. If $f_s = 0.48$ Hz and $T_1 \ge T$ (nonstationary), the following condition should also hold: $S_s(T_{01}^{-1}) < 6 \times 10^2 \mu$V$^2 f_d^{-1}$. If $f_s$ = 0.64 Hz, the following condition should also hold: $S_s(T_{01}^{-1}) < 3 \times 10^2 \mu$V$^2 f_d^{-1}$. (2) Group II. Necessary condition: $0.32 \le f_s \le 0.64$ Hz. If $f_s = 0.32$ Hz and $T_1 < T$, the following condition should also hold: $S_s(T_{01}^{-1}) < 6 \times 10^3 \mu$V$^2 f_d^{-1}$. If $f_s = 0.32$ Hz and $T_1 \ge T$ (nonstationary), the following condition should also be true: $S_s(T_{01}^{-1}) < 3 \times 10^2 \mu$V$^2 f_d^{-1}$. If $f_s = 0.48$ Hz and $T_1 < T$, the following condition should also hold: $3 \times 10^3 \mu$V$^2 f_d^{-1} \le S_s(T_{01}^{-1}) < 5 \times 10^4 \mu$V$^2 f_d^{-1}$. If $f_s = 0.48$ Hz and $T_1 \ge T$ (nonstationary), the following condition should also hold: $6 \times 10^2 \mu$V$^2 f_d^{-1} \le S_s(T_{01}^{-1}) < 5 \times 10^4 \mu$V$^2 f_d^{-1}$. If $f_s$ = 0.64 Hz, the following condition should also hold: $S_s(T_{01}^{-1}) \ge 3 \times 10^2 \mu$V$^2 f_d^{-1}$. (3) Group III. Necessary condition: $0.16 \le f_s \le 0.32$ Hz. If $f_s = 0.16$ Hz and $T_1 < T$, the following condition should also hold: $S_s(T_{01}^{-1}) < 7 \times 10^3 \mu$V$^2 f_d^{-1}$. If $f_s = 0.16$ Hz and $T_1 \ge T$ (nonstationary), the following condition should also be true: $S_s(T_{01}^{-1}) < 2 \times 10^3 \mu$V$^2 f_d^{-1}$. If $f_s = 0.32$ Hz and $T_1 < T$, the following condition should also hold: $ 6 \times 10^3 \mu$V$^2 f_d^{-1} \le S_s(T_{01}^{-1}) < 3 \times 10^4 \mu$V$^2 f_d^{-1}$. If $f_s = 0.32$ Hz and $T_1 \ge T$ (nonstationary), the following condition should also be true: $3 \times 10^2 \mu$V$^2 f_d^{-1} \le S_s(T_{01}^{-1}) < 3 \times 10^3 \mu$V$^2 f_d^{-1}$. (4) Group IV. Necessary condition: $f_s \le 0.32$ Hz. If $f_s = 0.16$ Hz, the following condition should also hold: $S_s(T_{01}^{-1}) \ge 7 \times 10^3 \mu$V$^2 f_d^{-1}$. If $f_s = 0.32$ Hz, the following condition should also hold: $S_s(T_{01}^{-1}) \ge 3 \times 10^4 \mu$V$^2 f_d^{-1}$. It can be seen from Table \[tab2\] that the difference between this partitioning of 84 subjects and medical diagnoses made by interviewing the subjects is 20$\%$, given that the subjects in groups I and II are mapped to the “healthy" group of the medical diagnosis and groups II and IV to the “susceptible to schizophrenia" group. It is known that the signals produced *in vivo* by a human organism contain both a collection of low-frequency (“resonance") components and higher-frequency stochastic variability [@Iva99; @Pen93; @Gol02; @Pen95; @Boc00; @Yul05; @Yul06]. We believe that the random components are responsible for the adjustment of the organism to constantly changing external conditions, which also manifests itself as the rearrangement of resonance components. Our results imply that this general feature of *in vivo* systems can be seen in the analysis of frequency-phase synchronization. Our study shows that the degree of disruption in frequency-phase synchronization can be considered as a diagnostic sign in identifying possible pathological changes in the higher neural activity of children/adolescents. To quantify frequency phase-synchronization and its disruption, we introduced a parameter $f_s$, specific frequency characterizing the synchronization depth, and FNS parameters for stochastic signal components, respectively. It can be assumed that parameter $\sigma$, which varied within the same ranges for subjects in groups I-III and had slightly higher values for group IV, is a measure of the randomness responsible for the adjustment of the organism to changing external conditions. On the other hand, the spikiness factor $S_s(T_{01}^{-1})$, which varied in the analyzed signals up to 4-5 orders of magnitude and was highest for subjects in group IV, appears to be related not just to the stochasticity associated with jump- and spike-like irregularities, but also to the disruption of frequency-phase synchronization. Concluding remarks {#6} ================== Our analysis demonstrates a high specificity of EEG signals and the processes of their space-time synchronization, which may be attributed to an individual-specific set of natural frequencies and their interferential contributions rearranging in time. These rearrangement processes in the brain are most likely associated with the organism’s response to the action of external factors. The specificity of EEG signals is also observed in the behavior of stochastic components, particularly, in the values of FNS parameter $\sigma$, the standard deviation of the value of measured dynamic variable from the slowly varying resonant (regular) component, and in the flicker-noise dependences of stochastic components. This high level of specificity of biomedical signals makes the diagnosis of functional disruptions in organism’s subsystems complex. We show that in the case of schizophrenia one can substantially reduce the effect of specific features of biomedical signals by analyzing the quantitative measures of frequency-phase synchronization between the EEG signals recorded at different cortex areas. According to our working hypothesis, the occurrence of a psychiatric pathology leads to a significant deviation of the frequency-phase synchronization level from it is normal value. As the minimum level of disruptions under normal conditions may be individual-specific, the estimation of “individual norms" should become a topic of high concern. This topic is related to a more general problem of developing the principles for personalized medicine, an emerging medical model emphasizing the customization of healthcare. We believe that the proposed working hypothesis can be applied to the diagnosis of other psychiatric disorders as well as neurodegenerative disorders (Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and Hungtington’s diseases; progressive supranuclear palsy; and epilepsy). This implies that the diagnosis of any of the above disorders requires at least two digitized biomedical signals measured in different cortex areas at the same time. In the presented study, we analyzed the EEG signals from scalp-mounted electrodes at locations $F_3$ and $F_4$ for 84 children/adolescents and were able to classify them into 4 groups based on frequency-phase synchronization levels, which appear to be related (judging from the comparison with medical diagnoses) to the subjects’ risk levels for developing schizophrenia in adult age. For other psychiatric and neurodegenerative disorders, appropriate cortex sites should be selected based on preliminary analysis or available literature. The cross-correlation analysis presented above can also be used to estimate the effectiveness of a therapeutic method by comparing the values of frequency-phase synchronization levels before and after the therapy. Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ================ The authors are grateful to A. F. Iznak, N. L. Gorbachevskiy, and I. A. Kozlova at the National Center for Psychiatric Health of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences for the EEG signal recordings analyzed in this study. This work was partially supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, grants nos. 09-04-12094-ofi\_m, 10-02-01346-a, 11-02-00540-a; Russian Humanities Scientific Fund, grant no. 09-06-00671-a. Parameterization algorithm in discrete form {#A} =========================================== Consider a time series $V_d(k)$. The subscript $d$ here and below is used to denote the discrete form of expressions. Let $N_t$ be the number of points corresponding to the selected averaging interval $T$, $M$ be the number of points used in estimating the autocorrelation function. In this case, the parameterization procedure can be written as follows: 1. Calculate the arithmetic mean for the signal: $$\mu _V = {1 \over {N_t }}\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{N_t} {V_d\left( k \right)}. \label{eqA7}$$ 2. Subtract the arithmetic mean from the series $V_d(k)$: $$\mathop {V_d}\limits^- \left( k \right) = V_d\left( k \right) - \mu _V. \label{eqA8}$$ 3. Calculate the autocorrelation function for the series $\mathop {V_d}\limits^ -$: $$\psi_d (p) = {1 \over {N_t - p}}\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{N_t - p} {\mathop {V_d}\limits^ - \left( k \right)\,\mathop {V_d}\limits^ - \left( {k + p} \right)}, p = 0..M. \label{eqA9}$$ Let the autocorrelation interval $M$ be $T/4$ (higher values of $M$ will result in the loss of statistical information in estimating the autocorrelation function). To go from discrete form to the continuous one, one can use the following expression: $p = N_t \tau/T$. 4. Calculate the discrete cosine transform of the autocorrelation function: $$S_d(q) = \psi_d (0) + \psi_d \left( M \right)\left( { - 1} \right)^q + 2\sum\limits_{p = 1}^{M - 1} {\psi_d (p)\cos \left( {{{\pi \,q\,p} \over M}} \right)}, \label{eqA10}$$ where $q=0..M$. For $q=1..M-1$, $S_d(q)$ should be multiplied by 2, which is the standard procedure for discrete Fourier transforms to take into account the spectral values in the second half of the frequency range. Here, relations $q=2 f f_d^{-1} M$ and $S_d(q)=S(f)\times f_d$ describe the equivalence between the discrete and continuous forms of power spectrum estimate. 5. Calculate $S_{sd}(0)$ as the average value of the power spectrum for the points 1 and 2 (point 0, which corresponds to the zero frequency, is not used in calculating $S_{sd}(0)$): $$S_{sd} \left( 0 \right) = {{S_d\left( 1 \right) + S_d\left( 2 \right)} \over 2}. \label{eqA11}$$ 6. Interpolate $|S_d(q)|$ given by Eq. (\[eqA10\]) using the expression: $$S_{sd} (q) = {{S_{sd} (0)} \over {1 + (\pi {q \over M}T_{01d} )^n }} \label{eqA12}$$ by the method of nonlinear least-square fitting to determine the values of parameters $n$ and $T_{01d}$. The fitting is done on the basis of a double logarithmic scale, dividing the entire series into a set of equal intervals. We used the trust-region algorithm for nonlinear square fitting, which is built in MATLAB v.7 or higher [@Bra99]. 7. Separate out the resonant component: $$S_{rd} \left( q \right) = S_d\left( q \right) - S_{sd} \left( q \right), q = 0..M. \label{eqA13}$$ 8. Calculate the autocorrelation function for the resonant component as the inverse discrete cosine transform of $S_{rd}(q)$. When $q=1..M-1$, divide $S_{rd}(q)$ by 2 to take into account the spectral values in the second half of the frequency range. Then calculate the inverse cosine transform: $$\begin{aligned} \psi_{rd} (p) = {1 \over {2M}} \left\{ {S_{rd} (0) + S_{rd} \left( M \right)\left( { - 1} \right)^p} \right\} \nonumber \\ + {1 \over {2M}} \left\{ {2\sum\limits_{q = 1}^{M - 1} {S_{rd} (q)\cos \left( {{{\pi \,p\,q} \over M}} \right) } } \right\}. \label{eqA14}\end{aligned}$$ 9. Calculate the difference moment for the resonant component: $$\Phi_{rd}^{(2)} (p) = 2\left[ {\psi_{rd} (0) - \psi_{rd} (p)} \right], p = 0..M. \label{eqA15}$$ The continuous equivalent of $\Phi_{rd}^{(2)} (p)$ is $\Phi_{r}^{(2)} (\tau)$. 10. Calculate the difference moment for the experimental series: $$\Phi_d^{(2)} (p\,) = {1 \over {N_t - p}}\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{N_t - p} {\left[ {\mathop {V_d}\limits^ - (k) - \mathop {V_d}\limits^ - (k + p)} \right]^2 }. \label{eqA16}$$ 11. Calculate the difference moment for the random component: $$\Phi _{esd}^{(2)} (p) = \Phi_d ^{\left( 2 \right)} (p) - \Phi _{rd}^{(2)} (p). \label{eqA17}$$ The continuous equivalent of $\Phi_{esd}^{(2)} (p)$ is $\Phi_{es}^{(2)} (\tau)$. 12. Determine the parameters $\sigma$, $H_1$, $T_{1d}$ by fitting $\Phi _{esd}^{(2)} (p)$ in Eq. (\[eqA17\]) to the interpolation expression of the anomalous diffusion type[@Tim10a]: $$\Phi_{sd}^{(2)} (p) = 2\sigma ^2 \times \left[ {1 - \Gamma ^{ - 1} (H_1 ) \times \Gamma (H_1 ,p/T_{1d} )} \right]^{2}, \label{eqA18}$$ where $\Gamma (s,x) = \int\limits_x^\infty {\exp ( - t) t^{s - 1} dt},\, \Gamma (s) = \Gamma (s,0)$, using the same least-square fitting method as in step 6. 13. Calculate $S_{sd}(T_{01d}^{-1})$ by Eq. (\[eqA12\]). 14. After the values of all six FNS parameters - $\sigma$, $T_{01d}$, $T_{1d}$, $H_1$, $n$, $S_{sd}(T_{01d}^{-1})$ - are determined, calculate the dimensional values for $T_{01d}$, $T_{1d}$, $S_{sd}(T_{01d}^{-1})$: $T_0 = T_{01d} \times \Delta t$, $T_1 = T_{1d} \times \Delta t$, $S_s(T_{01}^{-1}) = S_{sd}(T_{01d}^{-1}) \times \Delta t$, where $\Delta t = f_d^{-1}$ . 15. Calculate the relative error $\epsilon_\Phi$ in the interpolation of difference moment $\Phi_d^{(2)} (p)$: $$\epsilon _\Phi = {{\sum\limits_{p = 1}^M {\left| {\Phi_d ^{(2)} \left( p \right) - \Phi _{rd}^{(2)} \left( p \right) - \Phi _{sd}^{(2)} \left( p \right)} \right|} } \over {\sum\limits_{p = 1}^M {\Phi_d ^{(2)} \left( p \right)} }} \times 100\%. \label{eqA19}$$ Here, the error is determined as the ratio of the difference of areas between the experimental structure function and the total interpolation function to the area of the experimental structure function. The areas are calculated by numerical integration using the rectangle method because the original series have a rather large number of points. The parameterization is successful if $\epsilon _\Phi \le 10\% $ [@Tim10a]. Cross-correlation function in discrete form {#B} =========================================== In discrete form, Eq. (\[eq17\]) is written as $$q_{ijd} (n_\tau,n_\theta ) = {{\sum\limits_{k = U\left[ { - n_\theta } \right]\,\left| {n_\theta } \right| + 1}^{N_t - n_\tau - U\left[ {n_\theta } \right]\,\left| {n_\theta } \right|} {\left[ {V_{id} (k) - V_{id} (k + n_\tau )} \right]\,\,\left[ {V_{jd} (k + n_\theta ) - V_{jd} (k + n_\theta + n_\tau )} \right]\,} } \over {\sqrt {\sum\limits_{k = U\left[ { - n_\theta } \right]\,\left| {n_\theta } \right| + 1}^{N_t - n_\tau - U\left[ {n_\theta } \right]\,\left| {n_\theta } \right|} {\left[ {V_{id} (k) - V_{id} (k + n_\tau )} \right]^2 \,} } \,\,\sqrt {\sum\limits_{k = U\left[ { - n_\theta } \right]\,\left| {n_\theta } \right| + 1 + n_\theta }^{N_t - n_\tau - U\left[ {n_\theta } \right]\,\left| {n_\theta } \right| + n_\theta } {\left[ {V_{jd} (k) - V_{jd} (k + n_\tau )} \right]^2 \,} } }}, \label{eqB1}$$ where $n_\tau = \left\lfloor {\tau /\Delta t} \right\rfloor$, $n_\theta = \left\lfloor {\theta _{ij} /\Delta t} \right\rfloor$, $ U\left[ x \right] = \left\{ \matrix{ 1,\,\,\,x \ge 0; \hfill \cr 0,\,\,\,x < 0. \hfill \cr} \right. $

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We show that the Euler system associated to Rankin–Selberg convolutions of modular forms, introduced in our earlier works with Lei and Kings, varies analytically as the modular forms vary in $p$-adic Coleman families. We prove an explicit reciprocity law for these families, and use this to prove cases of the Bloch–Kato conjecture for Rankin–Selberg convolutions.' address: - | Mathematics Institute\ Zeeman Building, University of Warwick\ Coventry CV4 7AL, UK - | Department of Mathematics\ University College London\ Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK author: - David Loeffler - Sarah Livia Zerbes title: 'Rankin–Eisenstein classes in Coleman families' --- *Dedicated to the memory of Robert F. Coleman* Introduction ============ Let $p > 2$ be a prime. The purpose of this paper is to study the $p$-adic interpolation of *étale Rankin–Eisenstein classes*, which are Galois cohomology classes attached to pairs of modular forms $f, g$ of weights ${\geqslant}2$, forming a “cohomological avatar” of the Rankin–Selberg $L$-function $L(f, g, s)$. In a previous work with Guido Kings [@KLZ1b], we showed that these Rankin–Eisenstein classes for *ordinary* modular forms $f, g$ interpolate in 3-parameter $p$-adic families, with $f$ and $g$ varying in Hida families and a third variable for twists by characters. We also proved an “explicit reciprocity law” relating certain specialisations of these families to critical values of Rankin–Selberg $L$-functions, with applications to the Birch–Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture for Artin twists of $p$-ordinary elliptic curves, extending earlier works of Bertolini–Darmon–Rotger [@BDR-BeilinsonFlach; @BDR-BeilinsonFlach2]. In this paper, we generalise these results to non-ordinary modular forms $f, g$, replacing the Hida families by Coleman families: Let $f, g$ be eigenforms of weights ${\geqslant}2$ and levels $N_f, N_g$ coprime to $p$ whose Hecke polynomials at $p$ have distinct roots; and let $f_\alpha, g_\alpha$ be non-critical $p$-stabilisations of $f, g$. Let ${\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}}$ be Coleman families through $f_\alpha, g_\alpha$ (over some sufficiently small affinoid discs $V_1, V_2$ in weight space). Then there exist classes $${{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[{\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}}]}_{m} \in H^1\left({\mathbf{Q}}(\mu_m), D^{{\mathrm{la}}}(\Gamma) {\mathop{\hat\otimes}}M_{V_1}({\mathcal{F}})^* {\mathop{\hat\otimes}}M_{V_2}({\mathcal{G}})^*\right)$$ for each $m {\geqslant}1$ coprime to $p$ and $c > 1$ coprime to $6pN_f N_g$, such that the specialisations of the classes ${{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[{\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}}]}_{m}$ are the Rankin–Eisenstein classes for all specialisations of ${\mathcal{F}}$ and ${\mathcal{G}}$, and all characters of $\Gamma$ for which these classes are defined. Here $M_{V_1}({\mathcal{F}})^*$ and $M_{V_2}({\mathcal{G}})^*$ are families of Galois representations over ${\mathcal{O}}(V_1)$ and ${\mathcal{O}}(V_2)$ attached to ${\mathcal{F}}$ and ${\mathcal{G}}$, and $D^{{\mathrm{la}}}(\Gamma)$ is the algebra of distributions on the cyclotomic Galois group $\Gamma$. A slightly modified version of this theorem holds for weight 1 forms as well. For a precise statement, see Theorem \[thm:3varelt\] below. The proof of Theorem \[thm:3varelt\] reveals some new phenomena which may be of independent interest; the Galois modules in which these classes lie are, in a natural way, étale counterparts of the modules of “nearly overconvergent modular forms” introduced by Urban [@Urban-nearly-overconvergent]. The image of the class ${{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[{\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}}]}_{1}$ under an appropriately defined Perrin-Riou “big logarithm” map is Urban’s 3-variable $p$-adic Rankin–Selberg $L$-function for ${\mathcal{F}}$ and ${\mathcal{G}}$. See Theorem \[thm:explicitrecip\] for a precise statement. In order to define the Perrin-Riou logarithm in this context, one needs to work with triangulations of $(\varphi, \Gamma)$-modules over the Robba ring; we use here results of Ruochuan Liu [@Liu-triangulation], showing that the $(\varphi, \Gamma)$-modules of the Galois representations $M_{V_1}({\mathcal{F}})^*$ and $M_{V_2}({\mathcal{G}})^*$ admit canonical triangulations. Specialising this result at a point corresponding to a critical value of the Rankin–Selberg $L$-function, and applying the Euler system machine of Kolyvagin and Rubin, we obtain a case of the Bloch–Kato conjecture for Rankin convolutions: Let $f, g$ be eigenforms of levels coprime to $p$ and weights $r, r'$ respectively, with $1 {\leqslant}r' < r$; and let $s$ be an integer such that $r' {\leqslant}s {\leqslant}r-1$ (equivalently, such that $L(f, g, s)$ is a critical value of the Rankin–Selberg $L$-function). Suppose $L(f, g, s) \ne 0$. Then, under certain technical hypotheses, the Bloch–Kato Selmer groups $H^1_{\mathrm{f}}({\mathbf{Q}}, M(f) \otimes M(g)(s))$ and $H^1_{\mathrm{f}}({\mathbf{Q}}, M(f)^* \otimes M(g)^*(1-s))$ are both zero, where $M(f)$ and $M(g)$ are the $p$-adic representations attached to $f$ and $g$. One particularly interesting case is when $f = f_E$ is the modular form attached to an elliptic curve $E$, and $g$ is a weight 1 form corresponding to a 2-dimensional odd irreducible Artin representation $\rho$. In this case, the Bloch–Kato Selmer group $H^1_{\mathrm{f}}({\mathbf{Q}}, M(f) \otimes M(g)(1))$ is essentially the $\rho$-isotypical part of the $p$-Selmer group of $E$ over the splitting field of $\rho$, so we obtain new cases of the finiteness of Selmer (and hence Tate–Shafarevich) groups. See Theorem \[thm:sha\] for the precise statement. Since this paper was originally submitted, it has come to light that there are some unresolved technical issues in the paper [@Urban-nearly-overconvergent] upon which Theorem B, and hence Theorem C, relies. We hope that these issues will be resolved in the near future; as a temporary expedient, we have given in §\[sect:appendix\] below an alternate proof of a weaker form of Theorem B which avoids these problems, and thus suffices to give an unconditional proof of Theorem C. This paper could not have existed without the tremendous legacy of mathematical ideas left by the late Robert Coleman. We use Coleman’s work in three vital ways: firstly, Coleman was the first to construct the $p$-adic families of modular forms along which we interpolate; secondly, the Perrin-Riou big logarithm map is a generalisation of Coleman power series in classical Iwasawa theory (introduced in Coleman’s Cambridge Part III dissertation); and finally, the results of [@KLZ1a] giving the link to values of $p$-adic $L$-functions, which are the main input to Theorem B, are proved using Coleman’s $p$-adic integration theory. We are happy to dedicate this paper to the memory of Robert Coleman, and we hope that his work continues to inspire other mathematicians as it has inspired us. Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ---------------- During the preparation of this paper, we benefitted from conversations with a number of people, notably Fabrizio Andreatta, Pierre Colmez, Hansheng Diao, Henri Darmon, Adrian Iovita, Guido Kings, Ruochuan Liu, Jay Pottharst, Karl Rubin and Chris Skinner. We would also like to thank the anonymous referee for several helpful comments and corrections. Large parts of the paper were written while the authors were visiting the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute in Berkeley, California, for the programme “New Geometric Methods in Automorphic Forms”, and it is again a pleasure to thank MSRI for their support and the organisers of the programme for inviting us to participate. Analytic preliminaries {#sect:analyticprelim} ====================== The aim of this section is to extend some of the results of Appendix A.2 of [@LLZ14], by giving a criterion for a collection of cohomology classes to be interpolated by a distribution-valued cohomology class. Continuous cohomology {#sect:banach} --------------------- We first collect some properties of Galois cohomology of profinite groups acting on “large” topological ${{\mathbf{Z}}_p}$-modules (not necessarily finitely generated over ${{\mathbf{Z}}_p}$). A very rich theory is available for groups $G$ satisfying some mild finiteness hypotheses (see e.g. [@Pottharst-analytic §1.1]); but we will need to consider the Galois groups of infinite $p$-adic Lie extensions, which do not have good finiteness properties, so we shall proceed on a somewhat ad hoc basis, concentrating on $H^0$ and $H^1$. (i) If $G$ is a profinite group, a *topological $G$-module* is an abelian topological group $M$ endowed with an action of $G$ which is (jointly) continuous as a map $G \times M \to M$. (ii) For $G$ and $M$ as in (i), we define the cohomology groups $H^*(G, M)$ as the cohomology of the usual complex of *continuous* cochains $C^\bullet(G, M)$. (iii) We equip the groups $C^i(G, M) = \operatorname{Maps}(G^i, M)$ with the compact-open topology (equivalently, the topology of uniform convergence). With these definitions, the groups $C^*(G, -)$ define a functor from topological $G$-modules to complexes of *topological* groups (i.e. the topology is functorial in $M$, and the differentials $C^i(G, M) \to C^{i+1}(G, M)$ are continuous). Hence the cocycles $Z^i(G, M)$ are closed in $C^i(G, M)$. However, the cochains $B^i(G, M)$ need not be closed in general, so the quotient topology on the cohomology groups $H^i(G, M)$ may fail to be Hausdorff; and the subspace and quotient topologies on $B^i(G, M)$ may not agree. Our next goal is to show that these pathologies can be avoided for $i = 1$ and some special classes of modules $M$. Let $A$ be a Noetherian Banach algebra over ${{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}$. Then any finitely-generated $A$-module has a unique Banach space structure making it into a Banach $A$-module [@BGR Proposition 3.7.3/3]. \[prop:boundariesclosed\] Let $M$ be a finitely-generated free $A$-module, equipped with a continuous $A$-linear action of a profinite group $G$. Then: 1. the space $B^1(G, M)$ is closed in $Z^1(G, M)$; 2. the subspace topology induced by $B^1(G, M) {\hookrightarrow}Z^1(G, M)$ coincides with the quotient topology induced by $M {\twoheadrightarrow}B^1(G, M)$; 3. the quotient map $M {\twoheadrightarrow}B^1(G, M)$ has a continuous section (not necessarily $A$-linear or $G$-equivariant). We begin by noting that $Z^1(G, M)$ is, by definition, a closed subspace of the space $C^1(G, M)$ of continuous functions from $G$ to $M$, and since $M$ is Banach, the topology of $Z^1(G, M)$ is the Banach topology induced by the supremum norm on $C^1(G, M)$. However, if $M \cong A^{\oplus d}$ then we have $$C^1(G, M) = C^1(G, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}) {\mathop{\hat\otimes}}_{{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}} M = C^1(G, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}})^{\oplus d} {\mathop{\hat\otimes}}_{{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}} A$$ as a topological $A$-module. Since $C^1(G, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}})^{\oplus d}$ is orthonormalizable as a ${{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}$-Banach space (every ${{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}$-Banach space has this property), it follows that $C^1(G, M)$ is orthonormalizable as an $A$-Banach module, as orthonormalizability is preserved by base extension. However, $B^1(G, M)$ is manifestly finitely-generated as an $A$-module, and any finitely-generated submodule of an orthonormalizable $A$-Banach module is closed [@buzzard-eigenvarieties Lemma 2.8]. This proves (1). Parts (2) and (3) now follow from the open image theorem [@colmez98 Proposition I.1.3], which shows that any continuous surjective map between ${{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}$-Banach spaces has a continuous section (and, in particular, a continuous bijection between ${{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}$-Banach spaces must be a homeomorphism). It seems likely that this result is true for any finitely-generated $A$-module $M$ with $G$-action (without assuming that $M$ be free) but we do not know how to prove this. If $X$ and $Y$ are two ${{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}$-Banach spaces, let ${\mathcal{L}}_w(X, Y)$ denote the space of continuous linear maps $X \to Y$ equipped with the weak topology (the topology of pointwise convergence). Now if $M$ is a ${{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}$-Banach space with a continuous action of a profinite group $G$, then ${\mathcal{L}}_w(X, M)$ also acquires a continuous $G$-action by composition, for any Banach space $X$. Suppose the differential $d: M \to B^1(G, M)$ has a continuous section. Then the differential $${\mathcal{L}}_w(X, M) \to B^1(G, {\mathcal{L}}_w(X, M))$$ also has a continuous section, for any Banach space $X$. Let $\phi: B^1(G, M) \to M$ be a section. We use this to define $\tilde\phi: B^1(G, {\mathcal{L}}_w(X, M)) \to {\mathcal{L}}_w(X, M)$ as follows. Given $\sigma \in B^1(G, {\mathcal{L}}_w(X, M))$, we may compose with an arbitrary $x \in X$ to obtain an element $\sigma_x \in B^1(G, M)$, and $\phi(\sigma_x)$ is then an element of $M$. This defines a map from $B^1(G, {\mathcal{L}}_w(X, M))$ to the space of linear maps $X \to M$; however, for any $\mu \in B^1(G, {\mathcal{L}}_w(X, M))$ we may write $\mu = dL$ for some continuous $L$, and we can then describe the image of $\mu(g)$ as the map obtained by composing $L$ with $M \rTo^d B^1(G, M) \rTo^\phi M$, which is thus continuous. This defines a continuous map $\tilde\phi$ such that the diagram B\^1(G, \_w(X, M)) &\^ & \_w(X, M)\ & &\ B\^1(G, M)&\^& M commutes for every $x \in X$. However, in order to show that the top horizontal arrow is continuous, it suffices (by the definition of the weak topology) to show that the diagonal composition is continuous for every $x$. Since the left vertical arrow is obviously continuous, and $\phi$ is continuous by assumption, this completes the proof. \[prop:infres\] If $M$ is a topological $G$-module, $H \trianglelefteq G$ is a closed subgroup, and there exists a continuous section $B^1(H, M) \to M$, then there is an exact sequence $$0 \to H^1(G/H, M^H) \to H^1(G, M) \to H^1(H, M)^{G/H} \to H^2(G/H, M^H).$$ The injectivity of the first map, and the exactness at $H^1(G, M)$, are easily seen by a direct cocycle computation (which is valid for arbitrary topological $G$-modules). Exactness at $H^1(H, M)^{G/H}$ is much more subtle. Let $\sigma: H \to M$ be a continuous cocycle whose class $[\sigma] \in H^1(H, M)$ is $G$-invariant. Then, for any $g \in G$, the element $\sigma^g - \sigma$ lies in $B^1(H, M)$, where $\sigma^g$ is the cocycle $h \mapsto g \sigma(g^{-1} h g)$. This defines a continuous map $G \to B^1(H, M)$. By hypothesis, the differential $M \to B^1(H, M)$ has a continuous section. Composing this with the above map, we obtain a continuous map $\phi: G \to M$ such that $g\sigma(g^{-1}hg) - \sigma(h) = (h-1) \phi(g)$ for all $h\in H$ and $g \in G$. We may now argue as in the usual proof of the exactness of the inflation-restriction exact sequence for discrete modules [@NSW Proposition 1.6.5] to define a continuous 1-cochain $\tilde\sigma: G \to M$ such that $\tilde\sigma |_{H} = \sigma$ and $d\tilde\sigma \in Z^2(G/H, M^H)$, which gives exactness at $H^1(H, M)^{G/H}$. The hypotheses of this proposition are satisfied, in particular, for any module of the form $M = {\mathcal{L}}_w(X, N)$ where $X$ is any Banach space, $N$ is finitely-generated and free over a Noetherian Banach algebra $A$, and the group $H$ acts $A$-linearly on $N$ and trivially on $X$. This covers all the cases we shall need below. Distributions ------------- For $\lambda \in {\mathbf{R}}_{{\geqslant}0}$, we define the Banach space $C_\lambda({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}})$ of order $\lambda$ functions on ${{\mathbf{Z}}_p}$ as in [@colmez-fonctions]. This has a Banach basis consisting of the functions $p^{\lfloor \lambda\ell(n)\rfloor} \binom{x}{n}$ for $n {\geqslant}0$, where $\ell(n)$ denotes the smallest integer $L {\geqslant}0$ such that $p^L > n$. We define $D_\lambda({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}})$ as the continuous dual of $C_\lambda({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}})$; for $f \in C_\lambda({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}})$ and $\mu\in D_\lambda({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}})$ we shall sometimes write $\int f\, \mathrm{d}\mu$ for the evaluation $\mu(f)$. The space $D_\lambda({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}})$ has a standard norm defined by $$\|\mu\|_{\lambda} = \sup_{n {\geqslant}0} p^{-\lfloor \lambda\ell(n)\rfloor} \left\| \int_{x \in U} \binom{x}{n}\, \mathrm{d}\mu\right\|.$$ \[prop:normbound\] For any integer $h {\geqslant}\lfloor \lambda \rfloor$, the standard norm on $D_\lambda({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}})$ is equivalent to the norm defined by $$\sup_{n {\geqslant}0} \sup_{a \in {{\mathbf{Z}}_p}} p^{-\lfloor \lambda n \rfloor}\left\| \int_{x \in a + p^n {{\mathbf{Z}}_p}}\left( \frac{x-a}{p^n}\right)^h \, \mathrm{d}\mu\right\|.$$ See [@colmez98], Lemma II.2.5. As well as the Banach topology induced by the above norms (the so-called *strong topology*), the space $D_\lambda({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}})$ also has a *weak topology*[^1], which can be defined as the weakest topology making the evaluation maps $\mu \mapsto \int f\, \mathrm{d}\mu$ continuous for all $f \in C_\lambda({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}})$. The weak topology is much more useful for our purposes than the strong topology, since the natural map ${{\mathbf{Z}}_p}{\hookrightarrow}D_0({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}})$ given by mapping $a \in {{\mathbf{Z}}_p}$ to the linear functional $f \mapsto f(a)$ is *not* continuous in the strong topology, while it is obviously continuous in the weak topology. More generally, if $M$ is a ${{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}$-Banach space, we define $D_\lambda({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, M) = \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathrm{cts}}(C_\lambda({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}), M)$; as before, this has a strong topology induced by the operator norm (which we write as $\|-\|_\lambda$), and a weak topology given by pointwise convergence on $C_\lambda({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}})$. \[prop:banachsteinhaus\] Let $X$ be a compact Hausdorff space, and $M$ a Banach space, and let $\sigma: X \to D_\lambda({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, M)$ be a continuous map (with respect to the weak topology on $D_\lambda({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, M)$). Then $\sup\{ \|\sigma(x)\|_{\lambda}: x \in X\} < \infty$. For each $f \in C_\lambda({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}})$, the map $X \to M$ given by $x \mapsto \sigma(x)(f)$ is continuous, and hence bounded. By the Banach–Steinhaus theorem, this implies that the collection of linear maps $\{ \sigma(x) : x \in X\}$ is bounded in the uniform norm. For $h\geq 0$, denote by $LP^{[0, h]}({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}})$ the space of locally polynomial functions on ${{\mathbf{Z}}_p}$ of degree ${\leqslant}h$. If $M$ is a ${{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}$-vector space, write $D_{{\mathrm{alg}}}^{[0, h]}({{\mathbf{Z}}_p},M)$ for the ${{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}$-linear homomorphisms of $LP^{[0, h]}({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}})$ into $M$. An element $\mu\in LP^{[0, h]}({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}})$ is uniquely determined by a collection of values $\int_{a+p^n{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}}x^i\mu(x)$ for $i\in [0,h]$, $a\in{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}$, $n\in\mathbf{N}$, satisfying the compatibility relations $$\int_{a+p^n{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}}x^i\mu(x)=\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\int_{a+kp^n+p^{n+1}{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}}x^i\mu(x).$$ \[lemma:wkconvergence\] Let $(\mu_n)_{n {\geqslant}1}$ be a sequence of elements of $D_\lambda({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, M)$ which is uniformly bounded (i.e. there is a constant $C$ such that $\|\mu_n\|_{\lambda} {\leqslant}C$ for all $n$), let $\mu \in D_\lambda({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, M)$, and let $h {\geqslant}\lfloor \lambda \rfloor$ be an integer. If we have $\int f \, \mathrm{d}\mu_n \to \int f \, \mathrm{d}\mu$ as $n \to \infty$ for all $f\in LP^{[0, h]}({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}})$, then $\mu_n \to \mu$ in the weak topology of $D_\lambda({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, M)$. This is immediate from the density of $LP^{[0, h]}({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}})$ in $C_\lambda({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}})$. Finally, if $U$ is an open subset of ${{\mathbf{Z}}_p}$, we define $D_\lambda(U, M)$ as the subspace of $D_\lambda({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, M)$ consisting of distributions supported in $U$; this is closed (in both weak and strong topology). Cohomology of distribution modules ---------------------------------- We now apply the theory of the preceding sections in the context of representations of Galois groups. Our arguments are closely based on those used by Colmez [@colmez98] for local Galois representations, but also incorporating some ideas from Appendix A.2 of [@LLZ14]. We consider either of the two following settings: either $K$ is a finite extension of ${{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}$ and $G = \operatorname{Gal}(\overline{K} / K)$; or $K$ is a finite extension of ${\mathbf{Q}}$ and $G = \operatorname{Gal}(K^S / K)$, where $K^S$ is the maximal extension of $K$ unramified outside some finite set of places $S$ including all infinite places and all places above $p$. In both cases we write $H^*(K, -)$ for $H^*(G, -)$; this notation is a little abusive in the global setting, but this should not cause any major confusion. We set $K_\infty = K(\mu_{p^\infty})$, and $H = \operatorname{Gal}(\overline{K} / K_\infty)$ (resp. $\operatorname{Gal}(K^S / K_\infty)$ in the global case). Thus $H$ is closed in $G$ and the cyclotomic character identifies $\Gamma = G / H$ with an open subset of ${{\mathbf{Z}}_p}^\times$. More generally, one may take for $K_\infty$ any abelian $p$-adic Lie extension of $K$ of dimension 1; see forthcoming work of Francesc Castella and Ming-Lun Hsieh for an application of this theory in the context of anticyclotomic extensions of imaginary quadratic fields. As in section \[sect:banach\] above, we let $A$ be a a Noetherian ${{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}$-Banach algebra, and $M$ a finite free $A$-module with a continuous $A$-linear action of $H$; and we fix a choice of norm $\|\cdot\|_M$ on $M$ making it into a Banach $A$-module. We shall be concerned with the continuous cohomology $H^1(K_\infty, D_{\lambda}(\Gamma, M))$, where $D_{\lambda}(\Gamma, M)$ is equipped with the weak topology. Note that this cohomology group is endowed with a supremum seminorm, since every continuous cocycle $H \to D_\lambda(\Gamma, M)$ is bounded by Proposition \[prop:banachsteinhaus\]. \[prop:boundfordists\] Let $\lambda \in {\mathbf{R}}_{{\geqslant}0}$. Then $H^1(K_\infty, D_\lambda(\Gamma, M))$ injects into $H^1(K_\infty, D_{{\mathrm{alg}}}^{[0, h]}(\Gamma, M))$ for any integer $h {\geqslant}\lfloor \lambda \rfloor$. An element $\mu \in H^1(K_\infty, D_{{\mathrm{alg}}}^{[0, h]}(K_\infty, M))$ is in the image of this injection if and only if the sequence $$p^{-\lfloor \lambda n\rfloor} \sup_{\gamma \in \Gamma} \left\| \int_{\gamma \Gamma_n} \left(\frac{\chi(x) - \chi(\gamma)}{p^n}\right)^h\, \mathrm{d}\mu\right\| \tag{$\star$}$$ is bounded as $n \to \infty$, where $\left\|\cdot\right\|$ is the norm on $H^1(K_\infty, M)$ induced by the norm of $M$. Moreover, if this condition holds, we have $$\|\mu\|_\lambda {\leqslant}D \sup_{n {\geqslant}0} p^{-\lfloor \lambda n\rfloor} \sup_{\gamma \in \Gamma} \left\| \int_{\gamma \Gamma_n} \left(\frac{\chi(x) - \chi(\gamma)}{p^n}\right)^h\, \mathrm{d}\mu\right\|,$$ where $\|\mu\|_\lambda$ is the supremum seminorm on $H^1(K_\infty, D_\lambda(\Gamma, M))$ and $D$ is a constant independent of $K$ and $M$. For the injectivity, see Proposition II.2.1 of [@colmez98], where this result is proved for arbitrary Banach representations $M$ such that $B^1(K_\infty, M)$ is closed in $Z^1(K_\infty, M)$; Proposition \[prop:boundariesclosed\] shows that this is automatic under our present hypotheses on $M$. (The argument in *op.cit.* is given for $K$ local, but it applies identically in the global case too.) To describe the image of this map, we follow the argument of Proposition II.2.3 of *op.cit.* in which the result is shown for $A = {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}$ and $K$ local. Exactly as in *op.cit.*, given any class in $H^1(K_\infty, D_{{\mathrm{alg}}}^{[0, h]}(\Gamma, M))$ satisfying $(\star)$, then we may represent it by a cocycle $g \mapsto \mu(g)$ in $Z^1(K_\infty, D_{{\mathrm{alg}}}^{[0, h]}(\Gamma, M))$ which also satisfies $(\star)$ in the supremum norm. For each $h \in H$, we see that $\mu(h)$ lies in the image of $D_\lambda(\Gamma, M) {\hookrightarrow}D^{[0, h]}_{{\mathrm{alg}}}(\Gamma, M)$. Thus $\mu$ defines a cocycle on $H$ with values in $D_\lambda(\Gamma, M)$. Moreover, the values $\|\mu(h)\|_\lambda$ for $h \in H$ are bounded above by a constant multiple of the supremum of the sequence in $(\star)$, by Proposition \[prop:normbound\]. It remains to check that the cocycle $g \mapsto \mu(g)$ is continuous (for the weak topology of $D_\lambda(\Gamma, M)$). This is asserted without proof *loc.cit.*, and we are grateful to Pierre Colmez for explaining the argument. Since $H$ is a compact Hausdorff space, it suffices to show that for every convergent sequence $g_n \to g$, the sequence $\mu_n := \mu(g_n)$ converges to $\mu(g)$ in $D_\lambda(\Gamma, M)$. However, by construction we know that $\int f\, \mathrm{d}\mu_n$ converges to $\int f\, \mathrm{d}\mu$ for each $f \in LP^{[0,h]}(\Gamma, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}})$. Since the $\mu_n$ are uniformly bounded, Lemma \[lemma:wkconvergence\] shows that they converge weakly to $\mu(g)$ as required. We now consider a special case of this statement. We impose the stronger assumption that $M$ is a continuous representation of the larger group $G = \operatorname{Gal}(\overline{K}/K)$ (resp. $\operatorname{Gal}(K^S/K)$ in the global case), rather than just of $H$. We equip $D_\lambda(\Gamma, M)$ with an action of $G$ by $$\int_{x \in \Gamma} f(x)\, \mathrm{d}g(\mu) =g \left( \int_{x \in \Gamma} f([g]^{-1} x) \,\mathrm{d}\mu\right)$$ where $[g]$ is the image of $g$ in $\Gamma$. \[prop:unbounded-iwasawa\] Let $\lambda \in {\mathbf{R}}_{{\geqslant}0}$, $h {\geqslant}\lfloor \lambda \rfloor$ an integer, and suppose we are given elements $x_{n, j} \in H^1(K_\infty, M)^{\Gamma_n = \chi^j}$, for all $n {\geqslant}0$ and $0 {\leqslant}j {\leqslant}h$, satisfying the following conditions: - For all $n {\geqslant}0$, we have $\sum_{\gamma \in \Gamma_n / \Gamma_{n + 1}} \chi(\gamma)^{-j} \gamma \cdot x_{n+1, j} = x_{n, j}$. - There is a constant $C$ such that $$\left\| p^{-hn} \sum_{j = 0}^h (-1)^j \binom{h}{j} x_{n, j}\right\| {\leqslant}Cp^{\lfloor \lambda n \rfloor}$$ for all $n$. Then there is a unique element $\mu \in H^1\left(K_\infty, D_\lambda(\Gamma, M)\right)^\Gamma$ satisfying $$x_{n, j} = \int_{\Gamma_n} \chi^j \mu$$ for all $n {\geqslant}0$ and $0 {\leqslant}j {\leqslant}h$; and there is a constant $D$ independent of $K$ and of $M$ such that $$\| \mu\|_\lambda {\leqslant}C D,$$ where $\|\mu\|_\lambda$ is the seminorm on $H^1(K_\infty, D_\lambda(\Gamma, M))$ induced by the norm of $D_\lambda(\Gamma, M)$. We claim first that there is a unique $\mu^{\mathrm{alg}} \in H^1(K_\infty, D_{{\mathrm{alg}}}^{[0, h]}(\Gamma, M))^\Gamma$ such that $$x_{n, j} = \int_{\Gamma_n} \chi^j \mu^{\mathrm{alg}}.$$ This follows from the fact that the functions $\phi_{n, j}(x) \coloneqq x^j \mathbf{1}_{1 + p^n {{\mathbf{Z}}_p}}(x)$ for $n {\geqslant}0$ and $0 {\leqslant}j {\leqslant}h$, and their translates under $\Gamma$, span the space $LP^{[0, h]}(\Gamma, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}})$. By Proposition \[prop:boundfordists\], the existence of the constant $C$ implies that $\mu^{\mathrm{alg}}$ is the image of a class $\mu \in H^1(K_\infty, D_\lambda(\Gamma, M))$, which must itself be $\Gamma$-invariant since the injection $ H^1(K_\infty, D_\lambda(\Gamma, M)) {\hookrightarrow}H^1(K_\infty, D_{{\mathrm{alg}}}^{[0, h]}(\Gamma, M))$ commutes with the action of $\Gamma$. This proposition also shows that $\|\mu\|_\lambda$ is bounded above by $CD$. Using the inflation-restriction exact sequence (and the fact that $\Gamma$ has cohomological dimension 1) we see that $\mu$ lifts to a class in $H^1(K, D_{\lambda}(\Gamma, M))$. This lift is not necessarily unique, but it is unique modulo $H^1(\Gamma, D_\lambda(\Gamma, M^{G_{K_\infty}}))$ (and thus genuinely unique if $M^{G_{K_\infty}} = 0$). Iwasawa cohomology ------------------ We now show that there is an interpretation of the module $H^1(K, D_\lambda(\Gamma, M))$ in terms of Iwasawa cohomology. Since the group $G$ has excellent finiteness properties (unlike its subgroup $H$), we have the general finite-generation and base-change results of [@Pottharst-analytic] at our disposal. We now assume that $A$ is a reduced affinoid algebra over ${{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}$. By a theorem of Chenevier (see [@Chenevier-application Lemma 3.18]) we may find a Banach-algebra norm on $A$, with associated unit ball $A^\circ = \{ a \in A : \|a\| {\leqslant}1\}$, and a compatible Banach $A$-module norm on $M$ with unit ball $M^\circ \subset M$, such that $G$ preserves $M^\circ$ and $M^\circ$ is locally free as an $A^\circ$-module. We set $$H^1_{{\mathrm{Iw}}}(K_\infty, M) = \left( \varprojlim_n H^1(K_n, M^\circ) \right)[1/p].$$ This is evidently independent of the choice of lattice $M^\circ$. The module $H^1_{{\mathrm{Iw}}}(K_\infty, M)$ is finitely-generated over $D_0(\Gamma, A)$, and there are isomorphisms $$\begin{aligned} H^1(K, D_0(\Gamma, M)) &\cong H^1_{{\mathrm{Iw}}}(K_\infty, M),\\ H^1(K, D^{\mathrm{la}}(\Gamma, M)) &\cong D^{\mathrm{la}}(\Gamma, A) \otimes_{D_0(\Gamma, A)} H^1_{{\mathrm{Iw}}}(K_\infty, M). \end{aligned}$$ Let $A^\circ$ be as above. Then the ring $B^\circ = D_0(\Gamma, A^\circ) \cong A^\circ[[X]]$ is Noetherian, and it is complete and separated with respect to the ideal $I = (p, [\gamma] - 1)$, where $\gamma$ is a topological generator of $\Gamma / \Gamma_{\mathrm{tors}}$; moreover, $D_0(\Gamma, M^\circ) = B^\circ \otimes_{A^\circ} M^\circ$ is a flat $B^\circ$-module. Hence [@Pottharst-analytic Theorem 1.1] applies. By part (4) of the theorem, we see that $H^1(K, D_0(\Gamma, M^\circ))$ is finitely-generated over $D_0(\Gamma, A^\circ)$. Moreover, part (3) of the theorem shows that $$H^1(K, D_0(\Gamma, M^\circ)) = \varprojlim_m H^1(K_n, D_0(\Gamma, M^\circ) / I^m),$$ and every power $I^m$ contains the kernel of $D_0(\Gamma, A^\circ) \to A[\Gamma / \Gamma_n]$ for all sufficiently large $n$, so we also have an isomorphism $$H^1(K, D_0(\Gamma, M^\circ)) = \varprojlim_n H^1(K_n, M^\circ \otimes_{A^\circ} A^\circ[\Gamma / \Gamma_n]) = H^1_{{\mathrm{Iw}}}(K_\infty, M^\circ),$$ where the last equality follows by Shapiro’s lemma. Inverting $p$ we obtain the corresponding results with $A$-coefficients. Finally, we obtain the statement with locally analytic distributions by applying Theorem 1.9 of *op.cit.* (in the case $n = \infty$). In the above setting, for any $\lambda \in {\mathbf{R}}_{{\geqslant}0}$ there is a map $$H^1(K, D_{\lambda}(\Gamma, M)) \to D^{\mathrm{la}}(\Gamma, A) \otimes_{D_0(\Gamma, A)} H^1_{{\mathrm{Iw}}}(K_\infty, M)$$ compatible with the natural maps to $H^1(K, M(\chi^{-1}))$ for each character $\chi: M \to A^\times$. This follows from the fact that there is a continuous homomorphism $D_\lambda(\Gamma, A) \to D^{\mathrm{la}}(\Gamma, A)$, which gives (by the functoriality of continuous cohomology) a map $$H^1(K, D_{\lambda}(\Gamma, M)) \to H^1(K, D^{\mathrm{la}}(\Gamma, M)).$$ We now compose this with the second map from the previous proposition. \[prop:iwacoho-unramified\] If $K$ is a global field, then for every prime $v \ne p$, the inflation map $$H^1(K_v^{\mathrm{nr}}, D^{\mathrm{la}}(\Gamma, M^{I_v})) \to H^1(K_v, D^{\mathrm{la}}(\Gamma, M))$$ is an isomorphism. The corresponding statement for Iwasawa cohomology is well-known; and the result now follows by tensoring with $D^{\mathrm{la}}(\Gamma, A)$. A very slightly finer statement is possible if we consider coefficients in a field: \[prop:colmeztautology\] Suppose $V$ is a finite-dimensional $p$-adic representation of $G$. Then $$H^1(K, D_\lambda(\Gamma, V)) = D_\lambda(\Gamma, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}) \otimes_{D_0(\Gamma, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}})} H^1_{{\mathrm{Iw}}}(K_\infty, V).$$ In the local case, this surprisingly nontrivial result is Proposition II.3.1 of [@colmez98]. The proof relies on local Tate duality at one point, so we shall explain briefly how this can be removed in order to obtain the result in the global case as well. Firstly, from the finite generation of $H^2_{{\mathrm{Iw}}}(K_\infty, V)$ as a $\Lambda(\Gamma)$-module, there exists a $k$ such that $H^2_{{\mathrm{Iw}}}(K_\infty, V(k))^{\Gamma} = 0$. We may suppose (by twisting) that we have, in fact, $H^2_{{\mathrm{Iw}}}(K_\infty, V)^{\Gamma} = 0$. Let $\nu_n = (\gamma - 1)^n$ where $\gamma$ is a topological generator of $\Gamma$, and let $T$ be a lattice in $V$. Then the submodules $H^2_{{\mathrm{Iw}}}(K_\infty, T)[\nu_n]$ are an ascending sequence of $\Lambda(\Gamma)$-submodules of the finitely-generated module $H^2_{{\mathrm{Iw}}}(K_\infty, T)$. Since $\Lambda(\Gamma)$ is Noetherian and $H^2_{{\mathrm{Iw}}}(K_\infty, T)$ is finitely-generated, we conclude that this sequence of modules must eventually stabilize. But all the modules in this sequence are finite, since $H^2_{{\mathrm{Iw}}}(K_\infty, V)^{\Gamma}$ vanishes by assumption; this implies that there is a uniform power of $p$ (independent of $n$) which annihilates $H^2_{{\mathrm{Iw}}}(K_\infty, T)[\nu_n]$ for all $n {\geqslant}1$. (Compare the proof of [@LLZ14 Proposition A.2.10], which is a similar argument with $\nu_n = (\gamma - 1)^n$ replaced by $\gamma^{p^n}-1$.) With this in hand we may proceed as in [@colmez98]. We do not know if this result is valid for general $p$-adic Banach algebras (or even for affinoid algebras). It is also significant that the map is *not* an isometry with respect to the natural norms on either side; there is a denominator arising from the torsion in $H^2_{{\mathrm{Iw}}}(K_\infty, T)$, which is difficult to control a priori (and, in particular, could potentially vary as we change the field $K$ in an Euler system argument). We are grateful to Ming-Lun Hsieh for pointing this out. We shall instead control denominators by means of the proposition that follows, in which the denominator depends on an $H^0$ rather than an $H^2$. \[prop:ming-lun-lemma\] Suppose that $V$ is a finite-dimensional ${{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}$-linear representation of $G$ such that $H^0(K_\infty, V) = 0$, and let $D'$ be a constant annihilating the finite group $H^0(K_\infty, V/T)$, for $T$ a $G$-invariant ${{\mathbf{Z}}_p}$-lattice in $V$. Let $x_{n, j}$ be a collection of elements, and $C$ a constant, satisfying the hypotheses of Proposition \[prop:unbounded-iwasawa\]; and let $\mu \in H^1(K, D_\lambda(\Gamma, V))$ be the resulting distribution. Then for every character $\kappa$ of $\Gamma$, we have $$\left\| \int_{\Gamma} \kappa\, \mathrm{d}\mu\right\| {\leqslant}C D D' \|\kappa\|_{\lambda}$$ where on the left-hand side $\|\cdot\|$ denotes the norm on $H^1(K, V(\kappa^{-1}))$ for which the unit ball is the image of $H^1(K, T(\kappa^{-1}))$ (and $D$ is as in Proposition \[prop:boundfordists\]). We know that $\|\mu\|_\lambda {\leqslant}CD$ as elements of $H^1(K_\infty, D_\lambda(\Gamma, V))^\Gamma$. So $\|\int_\Gamma \kappa\, \mathrm{d}\mu\| {\leqslant}CD \|\kappa\|_\lambda$ as elements of $H^1(K_\infty, V(\kappa^{-1}))^\Gamma$. By the definition of the supremum seminorm, this is equivalent to stating that the class $CD \|\kappa\|_\lambda \cdot \int_\Gamma \kappa\, \mathrm{d}\mu$ is the image of a class in $H^1(K_\infty, T(\kappa^{-1}))$. This class is not uniquely determined, and hence not necessarily $\Gamma$-invariant; but the constant $D'$ was chosen to annihilate the kernel of $H^1(K_\infty, T(\kappa^{-1})) \to H^1(K_\infty, V(\kappa^{-1}))$, so $CDD' \|\kappa\|_\lambda \cdot \int_\Gamma \kappa\, \mathrm{d}\mu$ lifts to a $\Gamma$-invariant class. Since $H^0(K_\infty, T) = 0$, we conclude that $H^1(K, T(\kappa^{-1})) \to H^1(K_\infty, T(\kappa^{-1}))^\Gamma$ is an isomorphism; thus $CDD' \|\kappa\|_\lambda \cdot \int_\Gamma \kappa\, \mathrm{d}\mu$ is in the image of the map $H^1(K, T(\kappa^{-1})) \to H^1(K, V(\kappa^{-1}))$ as required. Cyclotomic compatibility congruences ==================================== In this section, we establish that the Beilinson–Flach cohomology classes constructed in [@LLZ14] and [@KLZ1b] satisfy the criteria of the previous section, allowing us to interpolate them by finite-order distributions. Modular curves: notation and conventions {#sect:Galoisrep} ---------------------------------------- For $N {\geqslant}4$, we write $Y_1(N)$ for the modular curve over ${\mathbf{Z}}[1/N]$ parametrising elliptic curves with a point of order $N$. Note that the cusp $\infty$ is not defined over ${\mathbf{Q}}$ in this model, but rather over ${\mathbf{Q}}(\mu_N)$. More generally, for $M, N$ integers with $M + N {\geqslant}5$, we write $Y(M, N)$ for the modular curve over ${\mathbf{Z}}[1/MN]$ parametrising elliptic curves together with two sections $(e_1, e_2)$ which define an embedding of group schemes ${\mathbf{Z}}/M{\mathbf{Z}}\times {\mathbf{Z}}/ N{\mathbf{Z}}{\hookrightarrow}E$ (so that $Y_1(N) = Y(1, N)$). We shall only consider $Y(M, N)$ in the case $M \mid N$, in which case the Weil pairing defines a canonical map from $Y(M, N)$ to the scheme $\mu_M^\circ$ of primitive $M$-th roots of unity, whose fibres are geometrically connected. If $A$ is an integer prime to $MN$, we shall sometimes also consider the curve $Y(M, N(A))$ over ${\mathbf{Z}}[1/AMN]$, parametrising elliptic curves with points $e_1, e_2$ as above together with a cyclic subgroup of order $A$. If $Y$ is one of the curves $Y(M, N)$ or $Y(M, N(A))$, we write ${\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}}$ the relative Tate module of the universal elliptic curve over $Y$, which is an étale ${{\mathbf{Z}}_p}$-sheaf on $Y[1/p]$. If the prime $p$ is clear from context we shall sometimes drop the subscript and write ${\mathscr{H}}$ for ${\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}}$. We write ${\mathscr{H}}_{{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}}$ for the associated ${{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}$-sheaf. We write $\operatorname{TSym}^k {\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}}$ for the sheaf of degree $k$ symmetric tensors over ${\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}}$; note that this is *not* isomorphic to the $k$-th symmetric power, although these coincide after inverting $p$. In this paper we will frequently consider étale cohomology of modular curves $Y(M, N(A))$, or products of pairs of such curves. All the coefficient sheaves we consider will be inverse systems of finite étale sheaves of $p$-power order, and we shall always work over bases on which $p$ is invertible. To lighten the notation, the convention that if $p$ is *not* invertible on $Y$, then $H^*_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}}}(Y, -)$ is a shorthand for $H^*_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}}}(Y[1/p], -)$. Iwasawa sheaves --------------- We recall some definitions and notation from [@KLZ1b]. Let $M, N {\geqslant}1$ be integers with $M \mid N$ and $M + N {\geqslant}5$. Then, associated to the étale sheaf of abelian groups ${\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}}$ on $Y(M, N)[1/p]$, we have a sheaf of Iwasawa algebras $\Lambda({\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}})$ (c.f. Section 2.3 in [*op.cit.*]{}). For $c>1$ coprime to $6MNp$, let $${{}_c{\mathcal{E}}{\mathcal{I}}}_{1,N}\in H^1_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}}}(Y(M, N), \Lambda({\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}})(1))$$ be the Eisenstein–Iwasawa class, as defined in [@KLZ1b §4.3]. We now recall the definition of the Rankin–Iwasawa class on the product $Y(M, N)^2$, which is the image of ${{}_c{\mathcal{E}}{\mathcal{I}}}_{1,N}$ via a three-step procedure. Firstly, let us write $\Lambda({\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}})^{[j]}=\Lambda({\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}}) \otimes \operatorname{TSym}^j\left({\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}}\right)$ for $j {\geqslant}0$. Then we have a morphism of étale sheaves on $Y(M, N)[1/p]$, the *Clebsch–Gordan map*, $$CG^{[j]}: \Lambda({\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}})\rTo \left(\Lambda({\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}})^{[j]}\hat\otimes \Lambda({\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}})^{[j]}\right)(-j)$$ as defined in [@KLZ1b Definition 5.1.1]. Secondly, let $Y(M, N)^2$ denote the fibre product $Y(M, N) \times_{\mu_M^\circ} Y(M, N)$, where $\mu_M^\circ$ is the group of primitive $M$-th roots of unity as above. We denote by $\Lambda^{[j, j]}$ the exterior tensor product $\Lambda({\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}})^{[j]}\boxtimes \Lambda({\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}})^{[j]}$ on $Y(M, N)^2$. Pushforward along the diagonal embedding $\Delta: Y(M, N) {\hookrightarrow}Y(M, N)^2$ gives a map $$\Delta_*: H^1_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}}}\left(Y(M,N), \Lambda({\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}})^{[j]}\hat\otimes \Lambda({\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}})^{[j]}(1-j)\right) \rTo H^3_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}}}\left(Y(M,N)^2,\Lambda^{[j,j]}(2-j)\right).$$ Thirdly, for $a\in {\mathbf{Z}}/ M{\mathbf{Z}}$, denote by $u_a$ the automorphism of $Y(M,N)^2$ which is the identity on the first $Y(M, N)$ factor and is given by $(E,e_1,e_2)\mapsto \left(E,e_1+a\frac{N}{M}e_2,e_2\right)$ on the second factor. For integers $M, N {\geqslant}1$ with $M \mid N$ and $M + N {\geqslant}5$, $j {\geqslant}0$, $a \in {\mathbf{Z}}/ m {\mathbf{Z}}$, $p$ a prime $> 2$, and $c > 1$ coprime to $6 M N p$, define the *Rankin–Iwasawa* class $${{}_c\mathcal{RI}}^{[j]}_{M, N,a} = \left( (u_a)_*\circ \Delta_*\circ CG^{[j]}\right)({}_c{\mathcal{EI}}_{1,N})\in H^3_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}}}\left(Y(M, N)^2,\Lambda^{[j,j]}(2-j)\right).$$ The primary purpose of introducing the Rankin–Iwasawa class is that it is easy to prove norm-compatibility relations for it. Our actual interest is in a second, related class, defined by pushing forward ${{}_c\mathcal{RI}}^{[j]}_{M, N, a}$ via a degeneracy map. \[def:BFelt\] For integers $m {\geqslant}1$ and $N {\geqslant}4$, $j {\geqslant}0$, $a \in {\mathbf{Z}}/ m{\mathbf{Z}}$, and $c > 1$ coprime to $6mNp$, define the *Beilinson–Flach* class $${{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[j]}_{m, N, a} \in H^3\left(Y_1(N)^2 \times \mu_m^\circ, \Lambda^{[j,j]}(2-j)\right)$$ to be the image of ${}_c{\mathcal{RI}}^{[j]}_{m,mN,a}$ under the map $(t_m\times t_m)_*$, where $$t_m:Y(m,mN) \rTo Y_1(N)\times \mu_m^\circ$$ is the map given in terms of moduli spaces as $$(E,e_1,e_2)\mapsto \left( \left(E/\langle e_1\rangle,e_2 \bmod \langle e_1\rangle\right), \langle e_1,Ne_2\rangle_{E[m]}\right).$$ Note that $t_m$ corresponds to $z \mapsto z/m$ on the upper half-plane. Finally, recall that there are natural maps $$1 \otimes \operatorname{mom}^j: \Lambda({\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}}) \to \Lambda({\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}})^{[j]}$$ which, for a geometric generic point $\eta$, are given by the maps $\Lambda({\mathscr{H}}_{\eta}) \to \Lambda({\mathscr{H}}_{\eta}) \otimes \operatorname{TSym}^j {\mathscr{H}}_{\eta}$, $[x] \mapsto [x] \otimes x^{\otimes j}$. Compatibility congruences ------------------------- We now come to the key technical result required for the rest of this paper. Let $h {\geqslant}1$. For each $r {\geqslant}1$, we would like to prove a congruence modulo $p^{hr}$ relating the classes $$\operatorname{Res}_{p^r}^{p^{hr}} \left({{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[j]}_{p^r, N, a}\right)$$ for $0 {\leqslant}j {\leqslant}h$. Here $\operatorname{Res}_{p^r}^{p^{hr}}$ denotes the pullback along the natural map $$Y_1(N) \times \mu_{p^{hr}}^\circ \to Y_1(N) \times \mu_{p^{r}}^\circ,$$ which corresponds classically to restriction of cocycles in Galois cohomology. For an arbitrary $m$, let $Z(m,mN) \subseteq Y(m, m N)^2$ denote the preimage of the diagonal subvariety of $Y_1(N)$ under the natural projection map $Y(m, m N)^2 \to Y_1(N)^2$ (i.e. the map corresponding to the identity on the upper half-plane, *not* the map $t_m$). The subvariety $Z(m,mN)$ is preserved by the action of $\Gamma_1(N) \times \Gamma_1(N)$, and in particular by the action of the element $u_a =\left(1, {\left(\begin{smallmatrix}1 & a \\ 0 & 1\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \right)$ for any $a \in {\mathbf{Z}}/ m {\mathbf{Z}}$. Since $u_a$ is an automorphism, and its inverse is $u_{-a}$, we have $(u_a)_* = (u_{-a})^*$. There is a canonical section of the sheaf $({\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}} \boxtimes {\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}})(-1)$ over the subvariety $Z(m,mN)$, given by the Weil pairing (since along $Z(m,mN)$ the two universal elliptic curves coincide). We call this element $\mathcal{CG}$ (for “Clebsch–Gordan”), since the Clebsch–Gordan map $CG^{[j]}$ is given by cup-product with the $j$-th divided power $\mathcal{CG}^{[j]}$ of this element. For $t {\geqslant}1$, we write $\mathcal{CG}_t$ for the image of $\mathcal{CG}$ modulo $p^t$. Note that we have $$u_a^*\left( \mathcal{CG} \right) = \mathcal{CG}$$ for any $a \in {\mathbf{Z}}/ m{\mathbf{Z}}$, since $\mathcal{CG}$ is independent of the level structure. Let $i$ be the inclusion of $Z(m,mN)$ into $Y(m, m N)^2$, so the diagonal embedding factors as $$Y(m,mN)\rTo^\Delta Z(m,mN)\rTo^i Y(m,mN)^2.$$ By construction, the element ${{}_c\mathcal{RI}}^{[j]}_{m, m N, a}\in H^3_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}}}(Y(m,mN)^2,\Lambda^{[j,j]}(2-j))$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} {{}_c\mathcal{RI}}^{[j]}_{m, m N, a} &=i_* \circ u_{-a}^* \circ\Delta_*\circ CG^{[j]}\left({{}_c{\mathcal{E}}{\mathcal{I}}}_{ 1,mN}\right)\notag \\ &= i_* \circ u_{-a}^* \left( \Delta_*({{}_c{\mathcal{E}}{\mathcal{I}}}_{1,mN}) \cup \mathcal{CG}^{[j]} \right)\notag \\ &= i_* \left( (u_{a} \circ \Delta)_*({{}_c{\mathcal{E}}{\mathcal{I}}}_{1,mN}) \cup \mathcal{CG}^{[j]} \right). \label{cRIdef} \end{aligned}$$ We now take integers $r {\geqslant}1$ and $h {\geqslant}1$ as above, and we assume $p \nmid m$. We also assume that the following condition is satisfied: \[assumptionN\] We have $p^{(h-1)r} \mid N$, so there is a canonical section $Y_{hr}$ of ${\mathscr{H}}_{hr}$ over $Y(mp^r, mp^r N)$. Under this assumption, the moment map modulo $p^{hr}$ is given by cup-product with the element $Y_{hr}$, so we obtain the following somewhat messy formula: For any $a \in {\mathbf{Z}}/ mp^{hr} {\mathbf{Z}}$, we have the following equality modulo $p^{hr}$: $$\begin{gathered} \sum_{j = 0}^h a^{h-j} (h-j)! (1 \otimes \operatorname{mom}^{h-j})^{\boxtimes 2} \operatorname{Res}_{mp^r}^{mp^{hr}} \left( {{}_c\mathcal{RI}}_{mp^r, mp^rN, a}^{[j]} \right) \otimes \zeta_{p^{hr}}^{\otimes j} = \\ i_*\left( (u_{a} \circ \Delta)_* \left({{}_c{\mathcal{E}}{\mathcal{I}}}_{1, m p^r N}\right) \cup \left( a \cdot Y_{hr} \boxtimes Y_{hr} + \mathcal{CG}_{hr} \otimes \zeta_{p^{hr}} \right)^{[h]}\right). \end{gathered}$$ This is a straightforward exercise from the definition of multiplication in the algebra $\operatorname{TSym}^\bullet$. (The factor of $(h-j)!$ appears because $(Y \boxtimes Y)^{[h-j]} = (h - j)! Y^{[h-j]} \boxtimes Y^{[h-j]}$). We can now prove the main theorem of this section: \[thm:congruencesfinal\] Suppose that $p \mid N$. Then for any $a \in {\mathbf{Z}}/ mp^{hr} {\mathbf{Z}}$ and any $m$ coprime to $p$, we have $$\begin{gathered} \sum_{j = 0}^h a^{h-j} (h-j)! \operatorname{Res}_{mp^r}^{mp^{\infty}} (1 \otimes \operatorname{mom}^{h-j})^{\boxtimes 2}\left({{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[j]}_{mp^{r}, N, a}\right) \otimes \zeta_{p^{hr}}^{\otimes j} \\ \in p^{hr} H_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}}}^3\left(Y_1(N)^2 \times\mu_{mp^\infty}^\circ, \Lambda^{[h, h]}({\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}})(2)\right). \end{gathered}$$ It follows from [@KLZ1b Theorem 5.3.1] that if $N'$ is any multiple of $N$ with the same prime divisors as $N$, then ${{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[j]}_{p^{r}, N, a}$ is the image of ${{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[j]}_{p^{r}, N', a}$ under pushforward along the natural degeneracy map $Y_1(N')\rightarrow Y_1(N)$. We can therefore assume without loss of generality that $N$ satisfies Assumption \[assumptionN\]. We may factor the map $(t_{m p^r} \times t_{m p^r})_*$ as the composite of a map on the coefficient sheaves, which is a morphism $$(t_{mp^r} \times t_{mp^r})_\sharp: {\mathscr{H}}\boxtimes {\mathscr{H}}\to t_{m p^r}^*({\mathscr{H}}) \boxtimes t_{m p^r}^*({\mathscr{H}})$$ of sheaves on $Y(mp^r, mp^r N)^2$, followed by the pushforward via $t_{mp^r} \times t_{mp^r}$ on the underlying modular curve. We claim that when restricted to the image of $u_a \circ \Delta: Y(mp^r, mp^r N) \to Z(mp^r, mp^rN)$, the section $a \cdot Y_{r} \boxtimes Y_{r} + \mathcal{CG}_{r} \otimes \zeta_{p^{r}}$ of ${\mathscr{H}}_r \boxtimes {\mathscr{H}}_r$ is in the kernel of $(t_{mp^r} \times t_{mp^r})_\sharp$. This follows from the fact that the map $(t_{mp^r} \times t_{mp^r})_\sharp$ is given by quotienting out by the first component of the level structure in each factor: on the fibre at a point $(E_1, P_1, Q_1) \times (E_2, P_2, Q_2)$ of $Y(mp^r, mp^r N)^2$, the fibre of ${\mathscr{H}}\boxtimes {\mathscr{H}}$ is the Tate module of $E_1 \times E_2$, and the map $(t_{mp^r} \times t_{mp^r})_\sharp$ is the quotient map $E_1 \times E_2 \to E_1 / \langle P_1 \rangle \times E_2 / \langle P_2 \rangle$. A point in the image of $u_a \circ \Delta$ is given by $(E, P, Q) \times (E, P + aNQ, Q)$ for some point $(E, P, Q)$ of $Y(mp^r, mp^r N)$, and the section $\mathcal{CG}_r \otimes \zeta_{p^r}$ is given by $N Q \boxtimes P - P \boxtimes NQ$. Thus we have $$a \cdot Y_{r} \boxtimes Y_{r} + \mathcal{CG}_{r} \otimes \zeta_{p^{r}} = a NQ \boxtimes NQ + (NQ \boxtimes P - P \boxtimes NQ) = NQ \boxtimes (P + a N Q) - P \boxtimes NQ,$$ which is annihilated by $(t_{mp^r} \times t_{mp^r})_\sharp$ as claimed. Since this element is annihilated by $(t_{mp^r} \times t_{mp^r})_\sharp$ modulo $p^r$, its $h$-th tensor power is annihilated by the same map modulo $p^{hr}$. This gives the congruence stated above. \[remark:weasel\] We shall in fact use a slight refinement of this theorem. Let ${\mathcal{E}}$ be the universal elliptic curve over $Y_1(N)$, and let $D' = C - \{0\} \subset {\mathcal{E}}[p]$, where $C$ is the universal level $p$ subgroup. Then there is a subsheaf ${\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}} \langle D' \rangle$ of ${\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}}$, which is the preimage of $D'$ under reduction modulo $p$, and a corresponding sheaf of Iwasawa modules $\Lambda({\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}}\langle D'\rangle)$. The Beilinson–Flach elements for $p \mid N$ are, by construction, the images of elements of the group $$H^3_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}}}\left(Y_1(N) \times \mu_m^\circ, (\Lambda({\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}} \langle D' \rangle) \otimes \operatorname{TSym}^j {\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}})^{\boxtimes 2}(2) \right);$$ and exactly the same argument as above shows that we have a congruence modulo $p^{hr}$ in this group. We will need this below, in order to interpolate our elements in Coleman families. Galois representations: notation and conventions {#sect:galrep} ------------------------------------------------ In this section, we shall fix notations for Galois representations attached to modular forms. Let $f$ be a normalised cuspidal Hecke eigenform of some weight $k+2 {\geqslant}2$ and level $N_f {\geqslant}4$, and let $L$ be a number field containing the $q$-expansion coefficients of $f$. For each prime ${\mathfrak{P}}\mid p$ of $L$, we write $M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f)$ for the maximal subspace of $$H^1_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}}, c}\left(Y_1(N_f)_{\overline{{\mathbf{Q}}}}, \operatorname{Sym}^k {\mathscr{H}}_{{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}}^\vee\right) \otimes_{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}$$ on which the Hecke operator $T_\ell$, for every prime $\ell$, acts as multiplication by $a_\ell(f)$. Dually, we write $M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f)^*$ for the maximal *quotient* of the space $$H^1_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}}}\left(Y_1(N_f)_{\overline{{\mathbf{Q}}}}, \operatorname{TSym}^k({\mathscr{H}}_{{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}})(1) \right) \otimes_{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}$$ on which the dual Hecke operators $T_\ell'$ act as $a_\ell(f)$. Both spaces $M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f)$ and $M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f)^*$ are 2-dimensional $L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}$-vector spaces with continuous actions of $\operatorname{Gal}(\overline{{\mathbf{Q}}} / {\mathbf{Q}})$, unramified outside $S$, where $S$ is the finite set of primes dividing $p N_f$. The twist by 1 implies that the Poincaré duality pairing $$M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f) \times M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f)^* \to L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}$$ is well-defined (and perfect), justifying the notation. If $f$ is new and $f^*$ is the eigenform conjugate to $f$, then the natural map $M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f^*)(1) \to M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f)^*$ is an isomorphism of $L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}$-vector spaces, although we shall rarely use this. If $f$, $g$ are two eigenforms (of some levels $N_f, N_g$ and weights $k+2, k' + 2 {\geqslant}2$) with coefficients in $L$, we write $M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f \otimes g)$ for the tensor product $M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f) \otimes_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}} M_{L_{\mathfrak{P}}}(g)$, and similarly for the dual $M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f \otimes g)^*$. Via the Künneth formula, we may regard $M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f \otimes g)^*$ as a quotient of $H^2_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}}}(Y_1(N)^2_{\overline{{\mathbf{Q}}}},\operatorname{TSym}^{[k,k']}({\mathscr{H}}_{{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}})(2))\otimes_{{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}} L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}$, for any $N {\geqslant}4$ divisible by $N_f$ and $N_g$, where $\operatorname{TSym}^{[k,k']}({\mathscr{H}}_{{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}})$ denotes the étale ${{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}$-sheaf $\operatorname{TSym}^k {\mathscr{H}}_{{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}} \boxtimes \operatorname{TSym}^{k'} {\mathscr{H}}_{{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}}$. Consequences for pairs of newforms ---------------------------------- We now use the congruences of Theorem \[thm:congruencesfinal\], together with the $p$-adic analytic machinery of Section \[sect:analyticprelim\], in order to define “unbounded Iwasawa cohomology classes” interpolating the Beilinson–Flach elements for a given pair $(f, g)$ of eigenforms. We shall prove a considerably stronger result below (incorporating variation in Coleman families) which will mostly supersede Theorem \[thm:cycloBFelts\]: see Theorem \[thm:3varelt\]. However, the proof of the stronger result is much more involved, so for the reader’s convenience we have given this more direct argument. Let us choose two normalised cuspidal eigenforms $f$, $g$, of weights $k + 2, k' + 2$ and levels $N_f, N_g$ respectively, with $k, k' {\geqslant}0$. Let $L$ be a number field containing the coefficients of $f$ and $g$, and ${\mathfrak{P}}$ a prime of $L$ above $p$, so that the Galois representation $M_{L_{\mathfrak{P}}}(f \otimes g)^*$ of §\[sect:galrep\] is defined. Assume that $0\leq j\leq \min\{k,k'\}$, and let $N$ be an integer divisible by $N_f$ and $N_g$ and having the same prime factors as $N_f N_g$. Let $m\geq 1$. Recall from [@KLZ1b Definition 3.3.1] that we have an étale Eisenstein class $${\mathrm{Eis}}^{[k,k',j]}_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}},1,mN}\in H^3_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}}}\left(Y_1(mN)^2,\operatorname{TSym}^{[k,k']}{\mathscr{H}}_{{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}}(2-j)\right),$$ which can be constructed using Beilinson’s Eisenstein symbol (and in particular is the image of a class in motivic cohomology). By abuse of notation, we also denote by ${\mathrm{Eis}}^{[k,k',j]}_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}},1,mN}$ the pull-back of this class to $Y(m,mN)^2$. For $a \in {\mathbf{Z}}/m{\mathbf{Z}}$, define ${\mathcal{BF}}^{[f, g, j]}_{m,a}$ to be the image of $(u_a)_*{\mathrm{Eis}}^{[k,k',j]}_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}},1,mN}$ under the following composition of maps: $$\begin{aligned} H^3_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}}}\left(Y(m, mN)^2,\operatorname{TSym}^{[k,k']}{\mathscr{H}}_{{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}}(2-j)\right) \rTo^{(t_m \times t_m)_*}& H^3_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}}}\left(Y_1(N)^2\times\mu_m^\circ, \operatorname{TSym}^{[k,k']}{\mathscr{H}}_{{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}}(2-j)\right)\\ \rTo& H^1\left({\mathbf{Q}}(\mu_m),H^2_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}}}(Y_1(N)^2_{\overline{{\mathbf{Q}}}},\operatorname{TSym}^{[k,k']}{\mathscr{H}}_{{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}}(2-j)\right)\\ \rTo& H^1\left({\mathbf{Q}}(\mu_m),M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f \otimes g)^*(-j)\right). \end{aligned}$$ This is independent of the choice of $N$. For $c > 1$ coprime to $6mpN_f N_g$, we define $${{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[f, g, j]}_{m,a} \coloneqq \Big(c^2-c^{-(k+k'-2j)} \varepsilon_f(c)^{-1}\varepsilon_g(c)^{-1}\sigma_c^2\Big)\, {\mathcal{BF}}^{[f, g, j]}_{m,a}.$$ Note that for $m = 1$ the class ${\mathcal{BF}}^{[f, g, j]}_{m,a}$ is the Eisenstein class $\operatorname{AJ}_{f,g,{\text{\textup{\'et}}}}\left({\mathrm{Eis}}^{[k, k', j]}_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}},1,N}\right)$ of [@KLZ1a §5.4]. Let us recall the connection between these classes and the Iwasawa-theoretic classes of the previous sections. Recall that we have maps $$\operatorname{mom}^{k-j} \cdot 1: \Lambda({\mathscr{H}}) \otimes \operatorname{TSym}^j({\mathscr{H}}) \to \operatorname{TSym}^k({\mathscr{H}})$$ for each $k {\geqslant}j$. The class ${{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[f, g, j]}_{m,a}$ coincides with the image of $$\left[ (\operatorname{mom}^{k-j} \cdot 1) \boxtimes (\operatorname{mom}^{k'-j} \cdot 1)\right] \left( {{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[j]}_{m, N, a}\right)$$ under projection to the $(f, g)$-eigenspace. We now consider “$p$-stabilised” versions of these objects. If $p \nmid N_f$, we choose a root $\alpha_f \in L$ of the Hecke polynomial of $f$ (after extending $L$ if necessary); and we let $f_\alpha$ be the corresponding $p$-stabilisation of $f$, so $f_\alpha$ is a normalised eigenform of level $N_{f_\alpha}=p N_f$, with $U_p$-eigenvalue $\alpha_f$ and the same $T_\ell$-eigenvalues as $f$ for all $\ell \ne p$. If $p \mid N_f$, then we assume that $a_p(f) \ne 0$, and we set $\alpha_f = a_p(f)$ and (for consistency) $f_\alpha = f$ and $N_{f_\alpha}=N_f$. We define $\alpha_g$ and $g_\alpha$ similarly. If $p \nmid N_f N_g$, then the class ${{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[f_\alpha,g_\alpha,j]}_{m, a}$ for $m$ coprime to $p$ is related to the Eisenstein class for the forms $f, g$ as follows. There is a correspondence ${\operatorname{Pr}}^{\alpha_f}: Y_1(p N_f) \to Y_1(N_f)$ given by $\operatorname{pr}_1 - \frac{\beta}{p^{k + 1}} \operatorname{pr}_2$, and $({\operatorname{Pr}}^{\alpha_f})_*$ gives an isomorphism $$M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f_\alpha)^* \to M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f)^*,$$ and similarly for $g$. For $p \nmid m N_f N_g$, we have $$({\operatorname{Pr}}^{\alpha_f} \times {\operatorname{Pr}}^{\alpha_g})_* \left({\mathcal{BF}}^{[f_\alpha,g_\alpha,j]}_{m, a}\right) = \left(1 - \frac{\alpha_f \beta_g}{p^{1 + j} \sigma_p}\right) \left(1 - \frac{\beta_f \alpha_g}{p^{1 + j}\sigma_p}\right) \left(1 - \frac{\beta_f \beta_g}{p^{1 + j}\sigma_p}\right)\cdot{{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[f, g, j]}_{m, a}.$$ If $p \mid N_f$ but $p \nmid m N_g$, then we have $$(\mathrm{id} \times {\operatorname{Pr}}^{\alpha_g})_* \left({\mathcal{BF}}^{[f, g_\alpha, j]}_{m, a}\right) = \left(1 - \frac{\alpha_f \beta_g}{p^{1 + j}\sigma_p}\right) \cdot{{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[f, g, j]}_{m, a}.$$ This is a restatement of Lemma 5.6.4 and Remark 5.6.5 of [@KLZ1b]. We shall now interpolate the ${{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[f_\alpha, g_\alpha, j]}_{m, a}$ for varying $m$ and $j$, under the following assumption: \[ass:nottwists\] The automorphic representations $\pi_f$ and $\pi_g$ corresponding to $f$ and $g$ are not twists of each other. Assumption \[ass:nottwists\] is automatically satisfied if $k \ne k'$. Let $m$ be coprime to $p$ and $r\geq 1$. Then Assumption \[ass:nottwists\] implies that $H^0({\mathbf{Q}}(\mu_{mp^\infty}),M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f\otimes g))=0$, so the restriction map induces an isomorphism $$H^1\left({\mathbf{Q}}(\mu_{mp^r}),M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f\otimes g)^*(-j)\right)\cong H^1\left({\mathbf{Q}}(\mu_{mp^\infty}),M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f\otimes g)^*\right)^{\Gamma_r=\chi^j}.$$ By abuse of notation, we write ${}_c{\mathcal{BF}}^{[f_\alpha,g_\alpha,j]}_{mp^r,a}$ for the image of the Beilinson-Flach element in $H^1({\mathbf{Q}}({\mu_{mp^\infty}}),M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f_\alpha\otimes g_\alpha)^*)^{\Gamma_r=\chi^{j}}$. These elements satisfy the following compatibility: \[lem:normcompatible\] Let $m\geq 1$ be coprime to $p$, and let $r\geq 0$. Then $$\sum_{\Gamma_r/\Gamma_{r+1}}\chi(\gamma)^{-j}\gamma\cdot\, {}_c{\mathcal{BF}}^{[f_\alpha,g_\alpha,j]}_{mp^{r+1},a}= \begin{cases} (\alpha_f\alpha_g)\, {{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[f_\alpha,g_\alpha,j]}_{mp^{r},a} & \text{if $r>0$}\\ (\alpha_f\alpha_g-p^j\sigma_p)\, {}_c{\mathcal{BF}}^{[f_\alpha,g_\alpha,j]}_{mp^{r},a} & \text{if $r=0$} \end{cases}$$ This follows from the second norm relation for the Rankin-Iwasawa classes (c.f. [@KLZ1b Theorem 5.4.4]). We impose the following “small slope” assumption: $$\label{eq:smallslope} v_p(\alpha_f \alpha_g) < 1 + \min(k, k').$$ \[thm:cycloBFelts\] If the small slope assumption holds, then for any integers $m {\geqslant}1$ coprime to $p$ and $a \in ({\mathbf{Z}}/ mp^\infty {\mathbf{Z}})^\times$, there exists a unique element $${{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[f_\alpha, g_\alpha]}_{m, a} \in D_\lambda(\Gamma, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}) \otimes_{D_0(\Gamma, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}})} H^1_{{\mathrm{Iw}}}({\mathbf{Q}}(\mu_{m p^\infty}), M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f_\alpha \otimes g_\alpha)^*),$$ where $\lambda = v_p(\alpha_f \alpha_g)$, such that for every $r {\geqslant}0$ and $0 {\leqslant}j {\leqslant}\min(k, k')$, the image of ${{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[f_\alpha, g_\alpha]}_{m, a}$ in $H^1({\mathbf{Q}}(\mu_{m p^r}), M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f_\alpha\otimes g_\alpha)^*(-j))$ is given by $$\left.\begin{cases} (\alpha_f \alpha_g)^{-r} & \text{if $r > 0$} \\ 1 - \frac{p^{j} \sigma_p}{\alpha_f \alpha_g} & \text{if $r = 0$} \end{cases}\right\} \times \frac{{{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[f_\alpha, g_\alpha, j]}_{mp^r, a}}{(-a)^j j! \binom{k}{j} \binom{k'}{j}}.$$ Compare Theorem 6.8.4 of [@LLZ14], which is the case $k = k' = 0$. This amounts to reorganizing the output of Theorem \[thm:congruencesfinal\] and Proposition \[prop:unbounded-iwasawa\]. Let $h = \min(k, k')$. Consider the composition of maps $$\begin{aligned} H_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}}}^3\left(Y_1(N)^2 \times \mu_{mp^\infty}, \Lambda^{[h, h]}({\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}})(2-h)\right) & \rTo^{\, \otimes e_h\,} H_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}}}^3\left(Y_1(N)^2 \times \mu_{mp^\infty}, \Lambda^{[h, h]}({\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}})(2)\right)\\ & \rTo H^1\left({\mathbf{Q}}(\mu_{mp^\infty}), H^2_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}}}(Y_1(N)^2_{\overline{{\mathbf{Q}}}},\Lambda^{[h, h]}({\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}})(2))\right)\\ & \rTo H^1\left({\mathbf{Q}}(\mu_{mp^\infty}), H^2_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}}}(Y_1(N)^2_{\overline{{\mathbf{Q}}}}, \operatorname{TSym}^{[k,k']}({\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}})(2))\right)\\ & \rTo H^1\left({\mathbf{Q}}(\mu_{mp^\infty}),M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f_\alpha\otimes g_\alpha)^*\right) \end{aligned}$$ where $e_h$ is the canonical basis of ${{\mathbf{Z}}_p}(h)$ over ${\mathbf{Q}}(\mu_{p^\infty})$, and the third map is given by $(\operatorname{mom}^{k-h} \cdot \operatorname{id}) \boxtimes (\operatorname{mom}^{k'-h} \cdot \operatorname{id})$. An unpleasant manipulation of factorials shows that the image of the expression in Theorem \[thm:congruencesfinal\] under this composition of maps is equal to $$\label{eq:messyeq} \frac{k! (k')!}{(k-h)!(k'-h)! h!} \sum_{j = 0}^{h} (-1)^j \binom{h}{j} y_{r, j},$$ where we write $y_{r, j}$ for the quantity $$\left[(-a)^j j! \binom{k}{j} \binom{k'}{j}\right]^{-1} {{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[f, g, j]}_{mp^r, a} \in H^1\left({\mathbf{Q}}(\mu_{mp^{\infty}}),M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f\otimes g)^*\right)^{\Gamma_r=\chi^j}.$$ The image of $H^2_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}}}(Y_1(N)^2_{\overline{{\mathbf{Q}}}}, \operatorname{TSym}^{[k,k']}({\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}})(2)) \otimes {\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathfrak{P}}}$ in $M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f \otimes g)^*$ is a ${\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathfrak{P}}}$-lattice, and hence it defines a norm $\|\cdot\|$ on $M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f \otimes g)^*$. So Theorem \[thm:congruencesfinal\] gives the norm bound $$\left\| \sum_{j = 0}^{h} (-1)^j \binom{h}{j} y_{r, j}\right\| = O(p^{-hr}),$$ where the implied constant in the $O()$ term depends on $k,k',h$ but not on $r$. Combining this fact with Lemma \[lem:normcompatible\], we deduce that the quantities $$x_{r, j} = (\alpha_f \alpha_g)^{-r} y_{r, j}\in H^1\left({\mathbf{Q}}(\mu_{mp^\infty}), M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f_\alpha\otimes g_\alpha)^*\right)^{\Gamma_r=\chi^j}$$ satisfy the hypotheses of Proposition \[prop:unbounded-iwasawa\], so there exists an element $${}_c{\mathcal{BF}}^{[f_\alpha, g_\alpha]}_{m, a}\in H^1\left({\mathbf{Q}}(\mu_{mp^\infty}),D_\lambda(\Gamma, M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f_\alpha \otimes g_\alpha)^*)\right)^\Gamma$$ interpolating the $x_{r,j}$. Using again that $H^0({\mathbf{Q}}(\mu_{mp^\infty}), M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f_\alpha \otimes g_\alpha)^*)=0$ by Assumption \[ass:nottwists\], this element lifts uniquely to $$D_\lambda(\Gamma, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}) \otimes_{D_0(\Gamma, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}})} H^1_{{\mathrm{Iw}}}({\mathbf{Q}}(\mu_{m p^\infty}), M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f_\alpha \otimes g_\alpha)^*)$$ and has the required interpolation properties, which finishes the proof. We now note, for future use, the following vital property of the classes ${{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[f_\alpha, g_\alpha]}_{m, a}$. Denote by $$\begin{gathered} {\mathcal{L}}_{M_{L_{\mathfrak{P}}}(f_\alpha \otimes g_\alpha)^*}: D^{{\mathrm{la}}}(\Gamma, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}) \otimes_{D_0(\Gamma, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}})} H^1_{{\mathrm{Iw}}}({\mathbf{Q}}_{p, \infty}, M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f_\alpha \otimes g_\alpha)^*) \\ \rTo D^{{\mathrm{la}}}(\Gamma, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}) \otimes_{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}{\mathbf{D}}_{{\mathrm{cris}}}\left(M_{L_{\mathfrak{P}}}(f_\alpha \otimes g_\alpha)^*\right)\end{gathered}$$ Perrin-Riou’s regulator map (c.f. [@PerrinRiou-fonctionsL] and [@LZ Appendix B]). \[prop:vanishing\] If the stronger inequality $$v_p(\alpha_f \alpha_g) < \frac{1 + \min(k, k')}{2}$$ holds, then the projection of ${\mathcal{L}}_{M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f_\alpha \otimes g_\alpha)^*}\left({{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[f_\alpha, g_\alpha]}_{m, a}\right)$ to the $\varphi = (\alpha_f \alpha_g)^{-1}$-eigenspace of ${\mathbf{Q}}(\mu_m) \otimes_{{\mathbf{Q}}} {\mathbf{D}}_{\mathrm{cris}}(M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f_\alpha \otimes g_\alpha)^*)$ is zero. Let $W$ be this eigenspace. It is well known that the projection of ${\mathcal{L}}_{M(f \otimes g)^*}$ to $W$ gives a map $$H^1_{{\mathrm{Iw}}}({\mathbf{Q}}_{p, \infty}, M(_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f_\alpha \otimes g_\alpha)^*) \to D_\lambda(\Gamma, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}) \otimes W,$$ where $\lambda = v_p(\alpha_f \alpha_g)$ as before. So it gives a map $$D_{\lambda}(\Gamma, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}) \otimes_{D_0(\Gamma, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}})} H^1_{{\mathrm{Iw}}}({\mathbf{Q}}_{p, \infty}, M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f_\alpha \otimes g_\alpha)^*) \to D_{2\lambda}(\Gamma, E) \otimes W.$$ However, for any character of $\Gamma$ of the form $z \mapsto z^j \chi(z)$, with $0 {\leqslant}j {\leqslant}\min(k, k')$ and $\chi$ of finite order, the image of ${{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[f_\alpha, g_\alpha]}_{m, a}$ in $H^1({\mathbf{Q}}(\mu_m) \otimes {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f_\alpha \otimes g_\alpha)^*(-j-\chi))$ lies in the Bloch–Kato $H^1_\mathrm{g}$ subspace, by construction (c.f. [@KLZ1b Proposition 3.3.2]). If $\chi$ is non-trivial (so that the interpolation factors relating ${\mathcal{L}}_{M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f_\alpha \otimes g_\alpha)^*}$ to the dual exponential map are invertible, see [@LZ Theorem B.5]), then this implies that ${\mathcal{L}}_{M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f_\alpha \otimes g_\alpha)^*}({{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[f_\alpha, g_\alpha]}_{m, a})(j + \chi) = 0$. So the projection of ${\mathcal{L}}_{M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f_\alpha \otimes g_\alpha)^*}\left({{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[f_\alpha, g_\alpha]}_{m, a}\right)$ to $W$ is an element of $D_{2\lambda}(\Gamma, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}) \otimes W$ which vanishes at all but finitely many characters of the form $j + \chi$ with $j \in \{0, \dots, \min(k, k')\}$ and $\chi$ of finite order. Since $2\lambda < 1 + \min(k, k')$, this projection must be zero as required. We shall in fact show below that the result of Proposition \[prop:vanishing\] is actually true whenever $\alpha_f \alpha_g$ satisfies the weaker assumption (i.e. whenever the class ${{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{f_\alpha, g_\alpha}_{m, a}$ is defined), by deforming Proposition \[prop:vanishing\] along a Coleman family. This vanishing property is natural in the context of Conjecture 8.2.6 of [@LLZ14], which predicts the existence of an element in $\bigwedge^2 H^1_{{\mathrm{Iw}}}({\mathbf{Q}}(\mu_{mp^\infty}), M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f \otimes g)^*)$ from which the Beilinson–Flach elements (for all choices of $\alpha_f$ and $\alpha_g$) can be obtained by pairing with the map ${\mathcal{L}}_{M_{L_{{\mathfrak{P}}}}(f \otimes g)^*}$ and projecting to a $\varphi$-eigenspace. Clearly, pairing an element of $\bigwedge^2$ with the same linear functional twice will give zero. Overconvergent étale cohomology and Coleman families ==================================================== We now recall the construction of $p$-adic families of Galois representations attached to modular forms via “big” étale sheaves on modular curves. We follow the account of [@andreattaiovitastevens §3], but with somewhat altered conventions (for reasons which will become clear later). We also use some results of Hansen [@Hansen-Iwasawa] (from whom we have also borrowed the terminology “overconvergent étale cohomology”). Setup and notation ------------------ We write ${\mathcal{W}}$ for the rigid-analytic space over ${{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}$ parametrizing continuous characters of the group ${{\mathbf{Z}}_p}^\times$. For an integer $m {\geqslant}0$, we shall write ${\mathcal{W}}_m$ for the wide open subspace parametrizing “$m$-accessible” weights, which are those satisfying $v_p(\kappa(t)^{p-1} - 1) > \frac{1}{p^m(p-1)}$ for all $t \in {{\mathbf{Z}}_p}^\times$. Note that ${\mathcal{W}}$ is isomorphic to a disjoint union of $p-1$ open unit discs, and the bounded-by-1 rigid-analytic functions on ${\mathcal{W}}$ are canonically $\Lambda({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}^\times)$; while ${\mathcal{W}}_m$ is the union of the corresponding open subdiscs of radius $p^{-1/p^m(p-1)}$ with centres in ${{\mathbf{Z}}_p}^\times$. Thus ${\mathcal{W}}_0$ (which is the space denoted by ${\mathcal{W}}^*$ in [@andreattaiovitastevens]) contains every ${{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}$-point of ${\mathcal{W}}$, and in particular every weight of the form $z \mapsto z^j$, $j \in {\mathbf{Z}}$. Now let us fix some coefficient field $E$ (a finite extension of ${{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}$) with ring of integers ${\mathcal{O}}_E$. We let $U$ denote a wide open disc defined over $E$, contained in ${\mathcal{W}}_m$ for some $m {\geqslant}0$; and $\Lambda_U$ the ${\mathcal{O}}_E$-algebra of rigid functions on $U$ bounded by 1 (so $\Lambda_U \cong {\mathcal{O}}_E[[u]]$). We write $\kappa_U$ for the universal character ${{\mathbf{Z}}_p}^\times {\hookrightarrow}\Lambda({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}^\times)^\times \to \Lambda_U^\times$. The ring $\Lambda_U$ is endowed with two topologies: the $p$-adic topology (which we shall not use) and the $m_U$-adic topology, which is the topology induced by the ideals $m_U^n$, where $m_U$ is the maximal ideal of $\Lambda_U$. For $m {\geqslant}0$, we write $LA_m({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, \Lambda_U)$ for the space of functions ${{\mathbf{Z}}_p}\to \Lambda_U$ such that for all $a \in {\mathbf{Z}}/ p^m {\mathbf{Z}}$, the function $z \mapsto f(a + p^m z)$ is given by a power series $\sum_{n {\geqslant}0} b_n z^n$ with $b_n \to 0$ in the $m_U$-adic topology of $\Lambda_U$. \[lemma:convergencekappa\] If $U \subseteq {\mathcal{W}}_m$, then the function $z \mapsto \kappa_U(1 + pz)$ is in $LA_m({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, \Lambda_U)$. This is a standard computation, but we have not been able to find a reference, so we shall give a brief sketch of the proof. Let us write $X_m$ for the affinoid rigid-analytic space over ${{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}$ defined by $\{ x: |x - a| {\leqslant}p^{-m}\text{ for some } a \in {{\mathbf{Z}}_p}\} \subseteq \mathbf{A}^1_{\mathrm{rig}}$. Then $LA_m({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, \Lambda_U)$ is precisely the space of functions ${{\mathbf{Z}}_p}\to \Lambda_U$ which extend to rigid-analytic $\Lambda_U$-valued functions on $X_m$. Firstly, the map $x \mapsto \frac{\log(1 + px)}{\log(1 + p)}$ is a bijection from ${{\mathbf{Z}}_p}$ to ${{\mathbf{Z}}_p}$ which extends to a rigid-analytic isomorphism from $X_m$ to itself for every $m$; so it suffices to show that $x \mapsto \kappa_U( (1 + p)^x )$ extends to a $\Lambda_U$-valued rigid-analytic function on $X_m$ whenever $U \subseteq {\mathcal{W}}_m$. It suffices to consider the universal case $U = {\mathcal{W}}_m$. After enlarging the coefficient field $E$ if necessary, we identify $\Lambda_U$ with ${\mathcal{O}}_E[[u]]$ in such a way that $\kappa_U(1 + p) = 1 + \varepsilon u$ where $\varepsilon$ is some element of ${\mathcal{O}}_E$ of valuation $\frac{1}{(p-1)p^m}$. Then $$\kappa_U( (1 + p)^x ) = \sum_{n {\geqslant}0} \binom{x}{n} \varepsilon^n u^n,$$ and we have $\varepsilon^n \binom{x}{m} \in LA_m({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, {{\mathbf{Z}}_p})$ for any $n$, by [@colmez-fonctions Theorem 1.29]. It is important to use the right topology on $\Lambda_U$, because if one takes $U = {\mathcal{W}}_m$ and writes $x \mapsto \kappa_U( 1 + p^{m+1}x )$ as a series $\sum c_n x^n$ with $c_n \in \Lambda_U$, the $c_n$ tend to zero $m_U$-adically (the above argument shows in fact that $c_n \in m_U^n$), but they do *not* tend to zero $p$-adically. The spaces $D_U^\circ(T_0)$ and $D_U^\circ(T_0')$ ------------------------------------------------- Let $H$ be the group ${{\mathbf{Z}}_p}^{\oplus 2}$. We define subsets $T_0, T_0' \subset H$ by $$\begin{aligned} T_0 &\coloneqq {{\mathbf{Z}}_p}^\times \times {{\mathbf{Z}}_p},& T_0' &\coloneqq p{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}\times {{\mathbf{Z}}_p}^\times. \end{aligned}$$ The subset $T_0$ is preserved by right multiplication by the monoid $\Sigma_0(p) = {\begin{pmatrix}{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}^\times & {{\mathbf{Z}}_p}\\ p{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}& {{\mathbf{Z}}_p}\end{pmatrix}} \subset \operatorname{Mat}_{2 \times 2}({{\mathbf{Z}}_p})$, and $T_0'$ by the monoid $\Sigma_0'(p) = {\begin{pmatrix}{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}& {{\mathbf{Z}}_p}\\ p{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}& {{\mathbf{Z}}_p}^\times\end{pmatrix}}$. In particular, both $T_0$ and $T_0'$ are preserved by scalar multiplication by ${{\mathbf{Z}}_p}^\times$. The definition of $T_0$ coincides with that used in [@andreattaiovitastevens] (and our $\Sigma_0(p)$ is their $\Xi(p)$). The subspace $T_0'$ is the image of $T_0$ under right multiplication by ${\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0 & -1 \\ p & 0\end{smallmatrix}\right)}$, and conjugation by this element interchanges $\Sigma_0(p)$ and $\Sigma_0'(p)$. For $m {\geqslant}0$, we write $A^\circ_{U, m}(T_0)$ for the space of functions $$f: T_0 \to \Lambda_U$$ which are homogenous of weight $\kappa_U$, i.e. satisfy $$f(\gamma t) = \kappa_U(\gamma) f(t)$$ for $\gamma \in {{\mathbf{Z}}_p}^\times$, $t \in T_0$, and are such that the function $z\mapsto f(1, z)$ lies in $LA_m({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, \Lambda_U)$. We equip this module with the topology defined by the subgroups $m_U^n A^\circ_{U, m}$. Similarly, we write $A^\circ_{U, m}(T_0')$ for the space of functions $T_0' \to \Lambda_U$ which are homogenous of weight $\kappa_U$ and are such that $z \mapsto f(pz, 1) \in LA_m({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, \Lambda_U)$, again endowed with the $m_U$-adic topology. If $U \subseteq {\mathcal{W}}_m$, then the space $A^\circ_{U, m}(T_0)$ is preserved by the left action of $\Sigma_0(p)$ on functions $T_0 \to \Lambda_U$ defined by $$(\gamma f)(t) = f(t\gamma),$$ and similarly for $A^\circ_{U, m}(T_0')$. We give the proof for $T_0'$; the proof for $T_0$ is similar. Unravelling the definition of the actions, we must show that if $\gamma = {\left(\begin{smallmatrix}a & b \\ pc & d\end{smallmatrix}\right)} \in \Sigma_0'(p)$ and $f \in A^\circ_U(T_0')$, then the function $$z \mapsto \kappa_U(d) \kappa_U(1 + pd^{-1}bz) f\left(p \cdot \frac{c + az}{d + pbz}, 1\right)$$ is in $LA_m({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, \Lambda_U)$. Since $LA_m({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, \Lambda_U)$ is closed under multiplication, and contains ${{\mathbf{Z}}_p}$, it suffices to check that $z \mapsto \kappa_U(1 + pd^{-1}bz)$ and $z \mapsto f\left(p \cdot \frac{c + az}{d + pbz}, 1\right)$ are in this space. For the factor $\kappa_U(1 + pd^{-1}bz)$ this follows from Lemma \[lemma:convergencekappa\]. For the factor $f\left(p \cdot \frac{c + az}{d + pbz}, 1\right)$, we note that the map $z \mapsto \frac{c + az}{d + pbz}$ preserves all the rigid-analytic neighbourhoods $X_m$ of ${{\mathbf{Z}}_p}$, so it preserves the ring of rigid-analytic functions convergent and bounded by 1 on these spaces; thus $z \mapsto g\left(\frac{c + az}{d + pbz}\right)$ is in $LA_m({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, \Lambda_U)$ if $g \in LA_m({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, \Lambda_U)$. For the rest of this section, let $T$ denote either $T_0$ or $T_0'$, and $\Sigma$ either $\Sigma_0$ or $\Sigma'_0$ respectively. Note that as a topological $\Lambda_U$-module, $A^\circ_{U, m}(T)$ is isomorphic to the space of countable sequences $(c_n)_{n=1}^\infty$ with $c_n \in \Lambda_U$ such that $c_n \to 0$ in the $m_U$-adic topology. We write $$D^\circ_{U, m}(T) = \operatorname{Hom}_{\Lambda_U}(A^\circ_{U, m}(T), \Lambda_U),$$ and $D_{U, m}(T) = D^\circ_{U, m}(T)[1/p]$. Note that any linear functional $\mu \in D^\circ_{U, m}(T)$ is necessarily continuous (where we endow both $A^\circ_{U, m}(T)$ and $\Lambda_U$ with their $m_U$-adic topologies). We equip $D^\circ_{U, m}(T)$ with the weak (or more formally weak-star) topology, generated by sets of the form $\{ \mu: \mu(f) \in m_U^n \}$ for $f \in A^\circ_{U, m}(T)$ and $n {\geqslant}0$, i.e. the weakest topology such that all the evaluation-at-$f$ morphisms are continuous (when the target $\Lambda_U$ is equipped with the $m_U$-adic topology). In this topology $D^\circ_{U, m}(T)$ becomes compact; indeed, we have a topological isomorphism $D^\circ_U \to \prod_{n=0}^\infty \Lambda_U$, with the inverse-limit topology. \[lemma:basechange1\] The formation of $D^\circ_{U, m}(T)$ commutes with base-change in $U$, in the sense that for $V \subseteq U$ two open discs defined over $E$, we have $$D^\circ_{U, m}(T) {\mathop{\hat\otimes}}_{\Lambda_U} \Lambda_V = D^\circ_{V, m}(T).$$ Clear by construction. We may write $D^\circ_{U, m}(T)$ as an inverse limit $$D^\circ_{U, m}(T) = \varprojlim_n D^\circ_{U, m}(T)/ \operatorname{Fil}^n,$$ where each $\operatorname{Fil}^n$ is preserved by the action of $\Sigma$, and the quotient $D^\circ_{U, m}(T)/ \operatorname{Fil}^n$ is finite. For $T = T_0$ and $m = 0$ this is [@andreattaiovitastevens Proposition 3.10], and the generalisation to $m {\geqslant}1$ is given in [@Hansen-Iwasawa §2.1]. The case of $T = T_0'$ is proved similarly (or, alternatively, follows from the case of $T = T_0$ via conjugation by ${\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0 & -1 \\ p & 0\end{smallmatrix}\right)}$). Let $D^{{\mathrm{la}}}(T, E)$ be the algebra of $E$-valued locally analytic distributions on $T$. Then there is an isomorphism $$D^{{\mathrm{la}}}(T, E) \to \varprojlim_{U, m} D_{U, m}(T),$$ given by mapping the Dirac distribution $[t]$, for $t \in T$, to the $\Lambda_U$-linear functional on $A^\circ_{U, m}$ given by evaluation at $t$. This map commutes with the action of $\Sigma$ on both sides, and restricts to an isomorphism $$\Lambda_{{\mathcal{O}}_E}(T) \to \varprojlim_{U, m} D_{U, m}^\circ(T).$$ We give the proof for $T_0'$, the proof for $T_0$ being similar. Because of the homogeneity requirement, any function in $A^\circ_{U, m}(T_0')$ is uniquely determined by its restriction to $p{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}\times 1$, and this gives an isomorphism $D^\circ_{U, m}(T) \cong LA_m({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, {\mathcal{O}}_E)^* {\mathop{\hat\otimes}}_{{\mathcal{O}}_E} \Lambda_U$. Both results now follow by passing to the inverse limit. Now let $k \in {\mathcal{W}}$ be an integer weight (i.e. of the form $z \mapsto z^k$ with $k {\geqslant}0$); any such weight automatically lies in ${\mathcal{W}}_0$. As for $U$ above, we may define a space $A^\circ_{k, m}(T)$ of $m$-analytic ${\mathcal{O}}_E$-valued functions on $T$ homogenous of weight $k$, and its dual $D^\circ_{k, m}(T)$, for any $m {\geqslant}0$. Restriction to $T$ gives a natural embedding $P^\circ_k {\hookrightarrow}A^\circ_{k, m}(T)$, where $P^\circ_k$ is the space of *polynomial* functions on ${{\mathbf{Z}}_p}^2$, homogenous of degree $k$, with ${\mathcal{O}}_E$ coefficients. Dually, we obtain a canonical, $\Sigma_0(p)$-equivariant projection $\rho_k: D^\circ_{k, m} \to (P^\circ_k)^* = \operatorname{TSym}^k {\mathcal{O}}_E^2$. \[prop:diagram1\] The following diagram is commutative, for any $U$, any $m$ sufficiently large that $U \subseteq {\mathcal{W}}_m$, and any $k \in U$: \(T) & & D\^\_[U, m]{}(T) & & D\^\_[k, m]{}(T)\ &&&& \_[\_k]{}\ (H) & &\^[\^k]{} && \^k H Here $\operatorname{mom}^k$ is as defined in [@Kings-Eisenstein], and the left vertical arrow is the natural inclusion $T {\hookrightarrow}{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}^{\oplus 2}$. This is clear by construction. The Ohta pairing ---------------- We now define a pairing between distribution modules on $T_0$ and $T_0'$, following [@Ohta95 §4]. Let $H = {{\mathbf{Z}}_p}^{\oplus 2}$, as above. We define a bilinear map $\phi: H \times H \to {{\mathbf{Z}}_p}$ by $$\phi\left( (x_1, y_1), (x_2, y_2)\right) = x_1 y_2 - x_2 y_1.$$ This clearly restricts to a map $T_0 \times T_0' \to {{\mathbf{Z}}_p}^\times$; so the $\Lambda_U$-valued function $\Phi$ on $T_0 \times T_0'$ given by $\Phi(t, t') = \kappa_U(\phi(t, t'))$ is well-defined, homogenous of weight $\kappa_U$ in either variable, and $m$-analytic whenever $U \subseteq {\mathcal{W}}_m$. We write $$\{ -, -\} : D^\circ_{U, m}(T_0) \times D^\circ_{U, m}(T_0') \to \Lambda_U$$ for the bilinear map given by pairing with the function $\Phi \in A^\circ_{U, m}(T_0) {\mathop{\hat\otimes}}_{\Lambda_U} A^\circ_{U, m}(T_0')$. This is evidently $\Lambda_U$-bilinear, and it satisfies $$\{ \mu \gamma, \mu' \gamma\} = \kappa_U(\det \gamma) \cdot \{ \mu, \mu'\}$$ for any $\mu \in D^\circ_{U, m}(T_0)$, $\mu' \in D^\circ_{U, m}(T_0')$, and $\gamma \in U_0(p)$, where $U_0(p) = \Sigma_0(p) \cap \Sigma_0'(p)$ is the Iwahori subgroup of $\operatorname{GL}_2({{\mathbf{Z}}_p})$. Let us describe the above map slightly more concretely. We take $m = 0$, for simplicity; then the functions $f_n( (x, y) ) = \kappa_U(x) \cdot (y/x)^n$ are an orthonormal basis of $A^\circ_{U, 0}(T_0)$, so a distribution $\mu \in D^\circ_{U, 0}(T_0)$ is uniquely determined by its moments $\mu_n = \mu(f_n)$, which can be any sequence of elements of $\Lambda_U$. Similarly, the functions $g_n( (px, y) ) = \kappa_U(y) (x/y)^n$ are an orthonormal basis of $A^\circ_{U, 0}(T_0')$ and any $\mu' \in D^\circ_{U, 0}(T_0')$ is uniquely determined by its moments $\mu_n' = \mu'(g_n)$. Given such $\mu, \mu'$, we define an element of $\Lambda_U$ as follows: the function $\Phi\left( (1, z), (pw, 1) \right) = \kappa_U(1 - p z w)$ can be written as a power series $\sum a_n (wz)^n$, with $a_n \in \Lambda_U$ such that $a_n \to 0$ in the $m_U$-adic topology, by Lemma \[lemma:convergencekappa\]; then $\{ \mu, \mu'\}$ is the value of the convergent sum $\sum_{n {\geqslant}0} a_n \mu_n \mu_n'$. Sheaves on modular curves ------------------------- Let $M, N$ be integers ${\geqslant}1$ with $M \mid N$ and $M + N {\geqslant}5$. We write $Y(M, N)$ for the modular curve over ${\mathbf{Z}}[1/N]$ defined in [@Kato-p-adic §2.1]. We recall the construction of an étale sheaf of abelian groups ${\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}}$, and the corresponding sheaf of Iwasawa algebras $\Lambda({\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}})$, associated to the universal elliptic curve ${\mathcal{E}}$ over $Y(M, N)$; and more generally the sheaf of sets ${\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}}\langle D \rangle$ and sheaf of $\Lambda({\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}})$-modules $\Lambda({\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}}\langle D \rangle)$, where $D$ is a subscheme of ${\mathcal{E}}$ finite étale over $Y(M, N)$. Cf. [@KLZ1b §4.1]. We shall apply this to the curve $Y = Y(1, N(p))$ where $p \nmid N$, parametrising triples $(E, P, C)$ where $E$ is an elliptic curves (over some ${\mathbf{Z}}[1/Np]$-algebra), $P$ is a point of exact order $N$ on $E$, and $C$ is a subgroup of $E$ of order $p$. Let $D = E[p] - C$, which is finite étale over $Y$ of degree $p^2 - p$, and $D' = C - \{ 0\}$, which is finite étale of degree $p-1$; then the sheaves ${\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}}\langle D \rangle$ and ${\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}} \langle D' \rangle$ are defined. Since both $D$ and $D'$ are contained in $E[p]$, there is a multiplication-by-$p$ map $$[p]_*: \Lambda({\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}}\langle D \rangle) \to \Lambda({\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}}),$$ and similarly for $D'$. The pullbacks of the sheaves $\Lambda({\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}})$, and $\Lambda({\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}}\langle D \rangle)$, and $\Lambda({\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}}\langle D' \rangle)$ to the pro-scheme $Y(p^\infty, Np^\infty)$ are isomorphic to the constant sheaves $\Lambda({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}^2)$, $\Lambda(T_0)$, and $\Lambda(T_0')$ respectively; and the maps $[p]_*$ are induced by the natural inclusions $T_0 {\hookrightarrow}{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}^2$ and $T_0' {\hookrightarrow}{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}^2$. It suffices to check the corresponding statement for the inverse systems of sheaves of *sets* ${\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}}$, ${\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}}\langle D \rangle$ and ${\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}}\langle D' \rangle$. However, over $Y(p^\infty, Np^\infty)$ we have two sections $e_1, e_2$ of ${\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}}$ identifying it with the constant sheaf ${{\mathbf{Z}}_p}^2$; and since the level $p$ subgroup $C$ is generated by $e_2 \bmod p$, the sheaf ${\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}}\langle D \rangle$ is precisely the subset of linear combinations $ae_1 + be_2$ such that $a \ne 0 \bmod p$, which is $T_0$, while ${\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}}\langle D' \rangle$ is similarly identified with $T_0'$. Now let $m {\geqslant}0$, and $U$ a wide open disc contained in ${\mathcal{W}}_m$, as before. There are pro-sheaves of $\Lambda_U$-modules ${\mathcal{D}}^\circ_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0)$ and ${\mathcal{D}}^\circ_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0')$ on $Y$, whose pullbacks to $Y(p^\infty, Np^\infty)$ are the constant pro-sheaves $D^\circ_{U, m}(T_0)$ and $D^\circ_{U, m}(T_0')$ respectively; and the Galois group of $Y(p^\infty, Np^\infty) / Y$ acts on $D^\circ_{U, m}(T_0)$ and $D^\circ_{U, m}(T_0')$ via its natural identification with the Iwahori subgroup of $\operatorname{GL}_2({{\mathbf{Z}}_p})$. The above trivialisation of ${\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}}$ over $Y(p^\infty, Np^\infty)$ determines a homomorphism from the étale fundamental group $\pi_1^{{\text{\textup{\'et}}}}(Y)$ to the Iwahori subgroup $U_0(p) \subseteq \operatorname{GL}_2({{\mathbf{Z}}_p})$. Since $D^\circ_{U, m}(T_0)$ is an inverse limit of finite right modules for $U_0(p)$, and any finite right $\pi_1^{{\text{\textup{\'et}}}}(Y)$-module defines an étale sheaf on $Y$, we obtain a pro-sheaf ${\mathcal{D}}^\circ_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0)$, and similarly for $D^\circ_{U, m}(T_0')$. These are sheaves of $\Lambda_U$-modules since the action of $U_0(p)$ on the modules $D^\circ_{U, m}(T_0)$ and $D^\circ_{U, m}(T_0')$ is $\Lambda_U$-linear. Compare [@andreattaiovitastevens §3.3]; the argument is given there for the Kummer étale site on a log rigid space over ${{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}$ (with log-structure given by the cusps), but the argument works equally well in the much simpler case of affine modular curves over ${\mathbf{Q}}$. \[prop:diagram2\] For any $k \in U$ we have commutative diagrams of pro-sheaves on $Y$ (\_[[\_p]{}]{}D ) & & \^\_[U, m]{}(\_0) & & \^\_[k, m]{}(\_0)\ \^[\[p\]\_\*]{} && && \_[\_k]{}\ (\_[[\_p]{}]{}) & & \^[\^k]{} && \^k() and (\_[[\_p]{}]{}D’ ) & & \^\_[U, m]{}(\_0’) & & \^\_[k, m]{}(\_0’)\ \^[\[p\]\_\*]{} && && \_[\_k]{}\ (\_[[\_p]{}]{}) & & \^[\^k]{} && \^k() Here $\operatorname{mom}^k$ is as defined in [@Kings-Eisenstein]. We have the diagram of proposition \[prop:diagram1\], which we may interpret as a diagram of constant pro-sheaves on $Y(p^\infty, Np^\infty)$; and the morphisms in the diagram are all equivariant for the action of the Iwahori subgroup, so they descend to morphisms of sheaves on $Y$. We can similarly construct ${\mathcal{D}}^\circ_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0)$ and ${\mathcal{D}}^\circ_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0')$ as sheaves on $Y(U)$, for any sufficiently small open compact subgroup $U \subseteq \operatorname{GL}_2(\widehat {\mathbf{Z}})$ whose image in $\operatorname{GL}_2({{\mathbf{Z}}_p})$ is contained in the Iwahori subgroup. Moreover, if $g \in \operatorname{GL}_2({\mathbf{Q}}) \cap \Sigma_0(p)$, so there is a natural map $$Y(U) \to Y(g U g^{-1})$$ corresponding to $z \mapsto gz$ on the upper half-plane, then the action of $g$ on $D^\circ_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0)$ gives a map of sheaves on $Y$ $${\mathcal{D}}^\circ_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0) \to g^*\left({\mathcal{D}}^\circ_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0)\right);$$ the same holds with ${\mathscr{H}}_0'$ and $\Sigma_0'$ in place of ${\mathscr{H}}_0$ and $\Sigma_0$. We define $$\begin{aligned} M^\circ_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0) &= H^1_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}}}\left(\overline{Y}, \mathcal{D}_{U, m}^\circ({\mathscr{H}}_0)\right)(-\kappa_U),\\ M^\circ_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0') &= H^1_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}}}\left(\overline{Y}, \mathcal{D}_{U, m}^\circ({\mathscr{H}}'_0)\right)(1). \end{aligned}$$ We also make the same definitions for compactly-supported and parabolic cohomology, which we write as $M^\circ_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0)_c$, $M^\circ_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0)_{\mathrm{par}}$ (and similarly for ${\mathscr{H}}_0'$). These are profinite topological $\Lambda_U$-modules, equipped with continuous actions of $\operatorname{Gal}(\overline{{\mathbf{Q}}} / {\mathbf{Q}})$ unramified outside $N p \infty$. As topological $\Lambda_U$-modules (forgetting the Galois actions) they are isomorphic to more familiar objects: - The space $M^\circ_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0)$ is isomorphic to the group cohomology $H^1\left(\Gamma, \mathcal{D}_{U, m}^\circ(T_0)\right)$, where $\Gamma = \Gamma_1(N(p)) = \Gamma_1(N) \cap \Gamma_0(p)$ (since $Y_1(N(p))({\mathbf{C}})$ has contractible universal cover and its fundamental group is $\Gamma_1(N) \cap \Gamma_0(p)$). - The space $M^\circ_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0)_c$ is isomorphic to the space of *modular symbols* $$\operatorname{Hom}_{\Gamma}\left( \operatorname{Div}^0(\mathbf{P}^1_{{\mathbf{Q}}}), \mathcal{D}_{U, m}^\circ(T_0)\right).$$ The same statements hold with ${\mathscr{H}}_0'$ and $T_0'$ in place of ${\mathscr{H}}_0$ and $T_0$. We shall refer to $M^\circ_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0)$ and $M^\circ_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0')$ as *étale overconvergent cohomology* (of weight $U$, tame level $N$, and degree of overconvergence $m$). We now state some properties of these modules: 1. (Compatibility with specialisation) Let $\varpi_k$ be the ideal of $\Lambda_U$ corresponding to the character $z \mapsto z^k$. For any integer $k {\geqslant}0 \in U$, there is an isomorphism $$M^\circ_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0) / \varpi_k \cong M^\circ_{k, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0).$$ For compactly-supported cohomology this is true for $k {\geqslant}1$, while for $k = 0$ we have an injective map $$M^\circ_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0)_c / \varpi_0 {\hookrightarrow}M^\circ_{0, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0)_c$$ whose cokernel has rank 1 over ${\mathcal{O}}_E$, with the Hecke operator $U_p$ acting as multiplication by $p$. Similar statements hold for ${\mathscr{H}}_0'$ in place of ${\mathscr{H}}_0$. 2. (Control theorem) For any integer $k {\geqslant}0$, the map $$M_{k, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0) \rTo^{\rho_k} H^1_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}}}(\overline{Y}, \operatorname{TSym}^k({\mathscr{H}})(-k))[1/p]$$ is an isomorphism on the $U_p = \alpha$ eigenspace, for any $\alpha$ of valuation $< k + 1$. The same holds for compactly-supported and parabolic cohomology, and for ${\mathscr{H}}_0'$ and $U_p'$ in place of ${\mathscr{H}}_0$ and $U_p$. 3. (Duality) There are $\Lambda_U$-bilinear, $G_{{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}}$-equivariant pairings $$\begin{aligned} M^\circ_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0)_c \times M^\circ_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0') &\to \Lambda_U, \\ M^\circ_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0) \times M^\circ_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0')_c &\to \Lambda_U,\\ M^\circ_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0)_{\mathrm{par}} \times M^\circ_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0')_{\mathrm{par}} &\to \Lambda_U, \end{aligned}$$ which we denote by $\{ - , -\}$. For integers $k {\geqslant}0$ we have $$\operatorname{ev}_k\left( \{ x, x'\} \right) = \{ \rho_k(x), \rho_k(x') \}_k$$ where $\operatorname{ev}_k$ is evaluation at $k$, and on the right-hand side $\{-, -\}_k$ signifies the Poincaré duality pairing. 4. There is an isomorphism $W: M^\circ_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0)_{?} \to M^\circ_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0')_?$ (where $? \in \{ \varnothing, c, \mathrm{par}\}$), intertwining the action of the Hecke operators $T_n$ with the $T_n'$ (including $n = p$); this is compatible via the maps $\rho_k$ with the Atkin–Lehner operator $W_{Np}$ (but **not** with the Galois action). For part (1), see [@andreattaiovitastevens Lemma 3.18]. For compactly-supported cohomology see [@Bellaiche-critical Theorem 3.10]. (Bellaïche works with coefficients in an affinoid disc, rather than a wide-open disc as we do, but the argument is the same.) Part (2) is the celebrated Stevens control theorem; see [@andreattaiovitastevens Theorem 3.16] for $H^1$, and [@PollackStevens-overconvergent Theorem 1.1] for $H^1_c$. For part (3), if we identify ${{\mathbf{Z}}_p}(1)$ with ${{\mathbf{Z}}_p}$ as sheaves on $Y(p^\infty, Np^\infty)$ via the section given by the Weil pairing and our trivialisation of ${\mathscr{H}}$, then the Iwahori subgroup $U_0(p)$ acts on ${{\mathbf{Z}}_p}(1)$ via the determinant character, and hence our pairing of $U_0(p)$-modules $D^\circ_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0) \times D^\circ_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0') \to \Lambda_U$ gives a pairing of étale pro-sheaves on $Y$ $${\mathcal{D}}_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0) \times {\mathcal{D}}_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0) \to \Lambda_U(\kappa_U),$$ where $\kappa_U$ is the composite of the cyclotomic character with the canonical map ${{\mathbf{Z}}_p}^\times \to \Lambda_U^\times$. Hence we have a cup-product pairing $$H^1_c(\overline{Y}, {\mathcal{D}}_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0)(1)) \times H^1(\overline{Y}, {\mathcal{D}}_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0')(1)) \to H^2_c(\overline{Y}, \Lambda_U(2 + \kappa_U)),$$ and since there is a canonical isomorphism $H^2_c(\overline{Y}, {{\mathbf{Z}}_p}(1)) \cong {{\mathbf{Z}}_p}$, this gives a pairing into $\Lambda_U(1 + \kappa_U)$ as claimed. It is clear by construction that this is compatible with the Poincaré duality pairings with $\operatorname{TSym}^k$ coefficients for each $k {\geqslant}0$. Part (4) follows from the fact that the action of the matrix ${\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0 & -1 \\ Np & 0\end{smallmatrix}\right)}$ on $H$ interchanges $T_0$ and $T_0'$. The pairing $\{ - , -\}$ (in any of its various incarnations) is far from perfect (since its specialisation at a classical weight $k {\geqslant}0$ factors through the maps $\rho_k$, so any non-classical eigenclass of weight $k$ must be in its kernel). Nonetheless, we shall see below that it induces a perfect pairing on small slope parts. Slope decompositions -------------------- As before, let $U$ be a wide open disc contained in ${\mathcal{W}}_m$, for some $m$. Let $B_U = \Lambda_U[1/p]$, and let $M$ be one of the $B_U$-modules $M_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0)_?$, for $? \in \{ \varnothing, c, \mathrm{par}\}$, and let $\lambda \in {\mathbf{R}}_{{\geqslant}0}$. We say $M$ has a *slope ${\leqslant}\lambda$ decomposition* if we can write it as a direct sum of $B_U$-modules $$M = M^{({\leqslant}\lambda)} \oplus M^{(> \lambda)},$$ where the following conditions are satisfied: - the action of the Hecke operator $U_p$ preserves the two summands; - the module $M_U^{({\leqslant}\lambda)}$ is finitely-generated over $B_U$; - the restrictions of $U_p$ to $ M_U^{({\leqslant}\lambda)}$ and $M_U^{(> \lambda)}$ have slope ${\leqslant}\lambda$ and slope $> \lambda$ respectively. There are several equivalent definitions of *slope ${\leqslant}\lambda$*, see [@andreattaiovitastevens] for further discussion. We shall use the following formulation: the endomorphism $U_p$ of $M_U^{({\leqslant}\lambda)}$ is invertible, and the sequence of endomorphisms $\left(p^{\lfloor n\lambda\rfloor} \cdot (U_p)^{-n}\right)_{n {\geqslant}0}$ is bounded in the operator norm. Note that the summands $M^{({\leqslant}\lambda)}$ and $M^{(> \lambda)}$ must be stable under the actions of the prime-to-$p$ Hecke operators, and of the Galois group $G_{{\mathbf{Q}}}$, since these commute with the action of $U_p$. Let $k {\geqslant}0$ and $0 {\leqslant}\lambda < k + 1$. Then there exists an open disc $U \ni k$ in ${\mathcal{W}}$, defined over $E$, such that the module $M_{U, 0}({\mathscr{H}}_0)$ has a slope ${\leqslant}\lambda$ decomposition. The same results hold *mutatis mutandis* for $M = M_{U, 0}({\mathscr{H}}_0')$, using the Hecke operator $U_p'$ in place of $U_p$; this follows directly from the previous statement using the isomorphism between the two modules provided by the Atkin–Lehner involution. There are also corresponding statements for compactly-supported and parabolic cohomology. Coleman families ---------------- A considerably finer statement is possible if we restrict to a “neighbourhood” of a classical modular form. We make the following definition: Let $U \subseteq {\mathcal{W}}$ be an open disc such that the classical weights $U \cap {\mathbf{Z}}_{{\geqslant}0}$ are dense in $U$. A *Coleman family* ${\mathcal{F}}$ over $U$ (of tame level $N$) is a power series $${\mathcal{F}}= \sum_{n {\geqslant}1} a_n({\mathcal{F}}) q^n \in \Lambda_U[[q]],$$ with $a_1({\mathcal{F}}) = 1$ and $a_p({\mathcal{F}})$ invertible in $B_U$, such that for all but finitely many classical weights $k \in U \cap {\mathbf{Z}}_{{\geqslant}0}$, the series ${\mathcal{F}}_k = \sum_{n {\geqslant}1} a_n({\mathcal{F}})(k) \in {\mathcal{O}}_E[[q]]$ is the $q$-expansion of a classical modular form of weight $k + 2$ and level $\Gamma_1(N) \cap \Gamma_0(p)$ which is a normalised eigenform for the Hecke operators. This definition is somewhat crude, since for a more satisfying theory one should also consider more general classical weights of the form $z \mapsto z^k \chi(z)$ for $\chi$ of finite order, and allow families indexed by a finite flat rigid-analytic cover of $U$ rather than by $U$ itself. This leads to the construction of the eigencurve. However, the above definition will suffice for our purposes, since we are only interested in small neighbourhoods in the eigencurve around a classical point. \[def:noble\] A *noble eigenform* of tame level $N$ is a normalised cuspidal Hecke eigenform $f_{\alpha}$ of level $\Gamma_1(N) \cap \Gamma_0(p)$ and some weight $k + 2 {\geqslant}2$, with coefficients in $E$, having $U_p$-eigenvalue $\alpha = a_p(f_\alpha)$, such that: - $f_\alpha$ is a $p$-stabilisation of a newform $f$ of level $N$ whose Hecke polynomial $X^2 - a_p(f) X + p^{k+1} \varepsilon_f(p)$ has distinct roots (“$p$-regularity”); - if $v_p(\alpha) = k + 1$, then the Galois representation $M_E(f) |_{G_{{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}}}$ is not a direct sum of two characters (“non-criticality”). \[thm:colemanfamily\] Suppose $f_\alpha$ is a noble eigenform of weight $k_0 + 2$. Then there exists a disc $U \ni k_0$ in ${\mathcal{W}}$, and a unique Coleman family ${\mathcal{F}}$ over $U$, such that ${\mathcal{F}}_{k_0} = f_\alpha$. This follows from the fact that the Coleman–Mazur–Buzzard eigencurve $\mathscr{C}(N)$ of tame level $N$ is étale over ${\mathcal{W}}$ (and, in particular, smooth) at the point corresponding to a noble eigenform $f_\alpha$. See [@Bellaiche-critical]. As remarked in [@Hansen-Iwasawa], the condition that the Hecke polynomial of $f$ has distinct roots is conjectured to be redundant, and known to be so when $f$ has weight 2; and it is also conjectured that the only newforms $f$ of weight ${\geqslant}2$ such that $M_E(f)|_{G_{{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}}}$ splits as a direct sum are those which are of CM type with $p$ split in the CM field. \[thm:colemanrep\] Let $f_\alpha$ be a noble eigenform, and ${\mathcal{F}}$ the Coleman family passing through $f_\alpha$. If the disc $U \ni k_0$ is sufficiently small, then: - The module $$M_U({\mathcal{F}}) \coloneqq M_{U, 0}({\mathscr{H}}_0) \Big[T_n = a_n({\mathcal{F}})\ \forall n {\geqslant}1\Big]$$ is a direct summand of $M_{U, 0}({\mathscr{H}}_0)$ as a $B_U$-module, free of rank 2 over $B_U$, and lifts canonically to $M_{U, 0}({\mathscr{H}}_0)_c$. - The same is true of the module $$M_U({\mathcal{F}})^* \coloneqq M_{U, 0}({\mathscr{H}}_0') \Big[T_n' = a_n({\mathcal{F}})\ \forall n {\geqslant}1\Big].$$ - The pairing $\{-, -\}$ induces an isomorphism of $B_U[G_{{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}}]$-modules $$M_U({\mathcal{F}})^* \cong \operatorname{Hom}_{B_U}(M_U({\mathcal{F}}), B_U).$$ - For each $k {\geqslant}0 \in U$, the form ${\mathcal{F}}_k$ is a classical eigenform, and we have isomorphisms of $E$-linear $G_{{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}}$-representations $$M_U({\mathcal{F}}) / \varpi_k M_U({\mathcal{F}}) = M_E({\mathcal{F}}_k) \quad\text{and}\quad M_U({\mathcal{F}})^* / \varpi_k M_U({\mathcal{F}})^* = M_E({\mathcal{F}}_k)^*.$$ The finite-slope parts of all the various overconvergent cohomology groups can be glued into coherent sheaves on the eigencurve $\mathscr{C}(N)$. In a neighbourhood of a noble point, the eigencurve is étale over weight space and these sheaves are all locally free of rank 2; and the map from $H^1_c$ to $H^1$ is an isomorphism at the noble point, so it must be an isomorphism on some neighbourhood of it. See [@Hansen-Iwasawa Proposition 2.3.5] for further details. Weight one forms ---------------- If $f$ is a cuspidal newform of level $N$ and weight 1, and $f_\alpha$ is a $p$-stabilisation of $f$, then it is *always* the case that $v_p(\alpha) = k_0 + 1 = 0$ and $M_E(f)|_{G_{{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}}}$ splits as a direct sum (since $M_E(f)$ is an Artin representation). Nonetheless, analogues of Theorem \[thm:colemanfamily\] and Theorem \[thm:colemanrep\] do hold for these forms. We say that $f$ has *real multiplication* by a real quadratic field $K$ if there is a Hecke character $\psi$ of $K$ such that $M_E(f) \cong \operatorname{Ind}_{G_K}^{G_{\mathbf{Q}}}(\psi)$. \[thm:colemanrepwt1\] Let $f_\alpha$ be a $p$-stabilisation of a $p$-regular weight 1 eigenform. 1. There is an open disc $U \ni -1$ in ${\mathcal{W}}$, a finite flat rigid-analytic covering $\tilde U \rTo^{\kappa} U$ unramified away from $-1$ and totally ramified at $-1$, and a family of eigenforms ${\mathcal{F}}\in B_{\tilde U}[[q]]$, whose specialisation at $\kappa^{-1}(-1)$ is $f_\alpha$. We may take $\tilde U = U$ if (and only if) $f$ does not have real multiplication by a quadratic field in which $p$ is split. 2. The module $$M_{\tilde U}({\mathcal{F}}) = \left(\kappa^* M_{U, 0}({\mathscr{H}}_0)\right)\left[ T_n = a_n({\mathcal{F}}) \, \forall n {\geqslant}1\right]$$ is a direct summand of $\kappa^* M_{U, 0}({\mathscr{H}}_0)$, free of rank 2 as a $B_{\tilde U}$-module, and lifts canonically to $\kappa^* M_{U, 0}({\mathscr{H}}_0)_c$. 3. The same is true of $$M_{\tilde U}({\mathcal{F}})^* = \left(\kappa^* M_{U, 0}({\mathscr{H}}_0')\right)\left[ T_n' = a_n({\mathcal{F}}) \, \forall n {\geqslant}1\right],$$ and the pairing $\{-, -\}$ induces an isomorphism $M_{\tilde U}({\mathcal{F}})^* \cong \operatorname{Hom}_{B_{\tilde U}}(M_{\tilde U}({\mathcal{F}}), B_{\tilde U})$. Part (1) is exactly the statement that the eigencurve is smooth at the point corresponding to $f_\alpha$, and is étale over weight space except in the real-multiplication setting; see [@BellaicheDimitrov]. Part (2) for compactly supported cohomology is an instance of [@Bellaiche-critical Proposition 4.3]. However, the kernel and cokernel of the map $ M_{U, 0}({\mathscr{H}}_0)_c \to M_{U, 0}({\mathscr{H}}_0)$ are supported on the Eisenstein component of the eigencurve, and since $f_\alpha$ is a smooth point on the cuspidal eigencurve ${\mathscr{C}}^0(N) \subset {\mathscr{C}}(N)$, it does not lie on the Eisenstein component. Hence the kernel and cokernel localise to 0 at $f_\alpha$, implying that for small enough $U$ the ${\mathcal{F}}$-eigenspaces of $M_U({\mathscr{H}}_0)_c$ and $M_U({\mathscr{H}}_0)$ coincide. For part (3) we use the fact that the Ohta pairings induce perfect dualities on the ordinary parts of the modules $M_U({\mathscr{H}}_0)_c$ and $M_U({\mathscr{H}}_0')$ (cf. [@Ohta95]). Parts (1) and (2) of Theorem \[thm:colemanrepwt1\] also hold for non-noble points of weight ${\geqslant}2$ corresponding to the critical $p$-stabilisations of ordinary CM forms, by [@Bellaiche-critical Proposition 4.5]. However, we do not know if part (3) holds in this situation. Rankin–Eisenstein classes in Coleman families ============================================= Coefficient modules {#sect:CG} ------------------- Let $H$ be a group isomorphic to ${{\mathbf{Z}}_p}^2$ (but not necessarily canonically so), for $p$ an odd prime. Then we can regard the modules $\operatorname{TSym}^r H$ as representations of $\operatorname{Aut}(H) \approx \operatorname{GL}_2(\mathbf{Z}_p)$. In this section, we shall show that the Clebsch–Gordan decompositions of the groups $\operatorname{TSym}^r H \otimes \operatorname{TSym}^s H$ can themselves be interpolated as $r$ varies (for fixed $s$), after passing to a suitable completion. In this section we shall refer to morphisms as *natural* if they are functorial with respect to automorphisms of $H$. \[prop:SES1\] For $A$ an open compact subset of $H$ such that $A \cap pH = \varnothing$, and any $r {\geqslant}1$, there is a short exact sequence $$0 \rTo C(A) \otimes \operatorname{Sym}^{j-1}(H^\vee) \otimes \wedge^2(H^\vee) \rTo^{\alpha} C(A) \otimes \operatorname{Sym}^j H^\vee \rTo^\beta C(A) \rTo 0$$ where $C(A)$ is the space of continuous ${\mathcal{O}}_E$-valued functions on $A$. This short exact sequence is natural, and split (but not naturally split). Let us begin by defining the maps. The map $\beta$, which is the simpler of the two, is given by interpreting $\operatorname{Sym}^j H^\vee$ as a subspace of $C(A)$ (consisting of functions which are the restrictions to $A$ of homogenous polynomial functions on $H$ of degree $j$) and composing with the multiplication map $C(A) \otimes C(A) \to C(A)$. The map $\alpha$ is more intricate: it is given by including $\bigwedge^2(H^\vee)$ in $H^\vee \otimes H^\vee$, and grouping the terms as $$(C(A) \otimes H^\vee) \otimes (\operatorname{Sym}^{j-1}(H^\vee) \otimes H^\vee).$$ As above, we have a canonical multiplication map $C(A) \otimes H^\vee \to H^\vee$, and multiplication in the symmetric algebra $\operatorname{Sym}^\bullet(H^\vee)$ gives a map $\operatorname{Sym}^{j-1}(H^\vee) \otimes H^\vee \to \operatorname{Sym}^j H^\vee$, and this gives the first map in the sequence. The composite $\beta \circ \alpha$ is clearly 0, since it factors through the map $\wedge^2 H^\vee \to \operatorname{Sym}^2 H^\vee$. Having defined the maps intrinsically, we may check the exactness of the sequence after fixing a basis of $H$. Let $x$, $y$ be the corresponding coordinate functions, so that $x^j, x^{j-1} y, \dots, y^j$ is a basis of $\operatorname{Sym}^j H^\vee$ and $x \otimes y - y \otimes x$ is a basis of $\wedge^2 H^\vee$. With these identifications we can write the sequence as $$0 \rTo C(A)^{\oplus j} \rTo C(A)^{\oplus (j+1)} \rTo C(A) \rTo 0$$ with the maps being $(f_0, \dots, f_{j-1}) \mapsto (-y f_0, x f_0 - y f_1, \dots, x f_{j-1})$ and $(f_0, \dots, f_j) \mapsto x^j f_0 + \dots + y^j f_j$. The injectivity of $\alpha$ is now clear, since multiplication by $x$ (or by $y$) is injective in $C(A)$. To show that the map $\beta$ is surjective, we write down a (non-canonical) section. We can decompose $A$ as a union $A_1 \sqcup A_2$ where $x$ is invertible on $A_1$ and $y$ is invertible on $A_2$. We define $\delta(f) = (x^{-j} f, 0, \dots, 0)$ on $C(A_1)$ and $\delta(f) = (0, \dots, 0, y^{-j} f)$ on the $C(A_2)$ factor; then $\beta \circ \delta$ is clearly the identity, so $\beta$ is surjective. Finally, let $(f_0, \dots, f_j) \in \ker(\beta)$. Choosing $A = A_1 \sqcup A_2$ as before, we may assume either $x$ or $y$ is invertible on $A$. We treat the first case, the second being similar. We define $\gamma(f_1, \dots, f_j) = (g_0, \dots, g_{j-1})$ where $g_{j-1} = x^{-1} f_j$, $g_{j-2} = x^{-2}(x f_{j-1} + y f_j)$ etc, down to $g_0 = x^{-j}(x^{j-1} f_{1} + \dots + y^{j-1} f_j)$. But then $(\alpha \circ \gamma) + (\beta \circ \delta) = \operatorname{id}$, so we have exactness at the middle term. Now let $C^{{\mathrm{la}}}(A)$ denote the space of locally analytic $E$-valued functions on $A$; exactly the same argument shows that we have an exact sequence analogous to , $$0 \rTo C^{{\mathrm{la}}}(A) \otimes \operatorname{Sym}^{j-1}(H^\vee) \otimes \wedge^2(H^\vee) \rTo^{\alpha} C^{{\mathrm{la}}}(A) \otimes \operatorname{Sym}^j H^\vee \rTo^\beta C^{{\mathrm{la}}}(A) \rTo 0.$$ Let $\delta: C^{{\mathrm{la}}}(A) \to C^{{\mathrm{la}}}(A) \otimes \operatorname{Sym}^j H^\vee$ be the morphism defined in a basis by $$\label{eq:defdelta} \delta(f) = \frac{1}{j!} \sum_{s + t = j} \binom{j}{s} \frac{\partial^j f}{\partial x^s \partial y^t} \otimes x^{s}y^t.$$ Then $\delta$ is natural, and the composite $\beta \circ \delta$ is the endomorphism of $C^{{\mathrm{la}}}(A)$ given by $\frac{1}{j!} \prod_{i = 0}^{j-1}(\nabla - i)$, where $\nabla$ is given by $$(\nabla f)(h) = \left.\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t} f(t h) \right|_{t = 1}.$$ The morphism $\delta$ is simply $\tfrac{1}{j!}$ times the $j$-th power of the total derivative map $C^{{\mathrm{la}}}(A) \to C^{{\mathrm{la}}}(A) \otimes \operatorname{Tan}(A)^*$, combined with the identification $\operatorname{Tan}(A) \cong \operatorname{Tan}(H) \cong H$. From this description the naturality is clear, and a computation shows that it agrees with the more concrete description above. The identity for $\beta \circ \delta$ is easily seen by induction on $j$. It will be convenient to adopt the notation $\binom{\nabla}{j}$ for the endomorphism $\tfrac{1}{j!} \prod_{i=0}^{j-1}(\nabla-i)$. We may regard this as an element of the space $D^{{\mathrm{la}}}({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}^\times)$ of locally analytic distributions on ${{\mathbf{Z}}_p}^\times$. For any $k {\geqslant}j$, the restriction of $\delta$ to the space $\operatorname{Sym}^k H^\vee$ of homogenous polynomials of degree $k$ lands in the subspace $$\operatorname{Sym}^{k-j} H^\vee \otimes \operatorname{Sym}^j H^\vee \subset C^{{\mathrm{la}}}(A) \otimes \operatorname{Sym}^j H^\vee,$$ and the resulting map $\operatorname{Sym}^k H^\vee \to \operatorname{Sym}^{k-j} H^\vee \otimes \operatorname{Sym}^j H^\vee$ is the dual of the symmetrised tensor product map $\operatorname{TSym}^{k-j} H \otimes \operatorname{TSym}^j H \to \operatorname{TSym}^k H$. If $k < j$ then the restriction of $\delta$ to $\operatorname{Sym}^k H^\vee$ is the zero map. It is obvious that $\operatorname{Sym}^k H^\vee$ embeds naturally into $C^{{\mathrm{la}}}(A)$, and its image under $\delta$ is contained in $\operatorname{Sym}^{k-j} H^\vee \otimes \operatorname{Sym}^j H^\vee$. A straightforward computation in coordinates shows that this map sends $x^a y^b$ to $\sum_{s + t = j} \binom{a}{s} \binom{b}{t} \left( x^{a-s} y^{b-t} \otimes x^s y^t\right)$, which coincides with the dual of the symmetrised tensor product. On the other hand it is obvious from equation that $\delta$ vanishes on any polynomial of total degree $< j$. \[cor:deltastar\] There are natural maps $$\delta^*: D^{{\mathrm{la}}}(A) \otimes \operatorname{TSym}^j(H) \to D^{{\mathrm{la}}}(A)$$ and $$\beta^*: D^{{\mathrm{la}}}(A) \to D^{{\mathrm{la}}}(A) \otimes \operatorname{TSym}^j(H),$$ where $\beta^*$ is given on group elements by $[h] \mapsto [h] \otimes h^{[j]}$, and $\delta^*$ satisfies $$\delta^* \circ \beta^* = \binom{\nabla}{j}.$$ Moreover, for any $k {\geqslant}0$ we have $$\operatorname{mom}^k{} \circ \delta^* = \begin{cases} 0 & \text{if $k < j$}, \\ \operatorname{mom}^{k-j} \cdot 1 & \text{if $k {\geqslant}j$}, \end{cases}$$ where $\operatorname{mom}^{k-j} \cdot 1$ denotes the composition $$D^{{\mathrm{la}}}(A) \otimes \operatorname{TSym}^j(H) \rTo^{\operatorname{mom}^{k-j} \otimes 1} \operatorname{TSym}^{k-j} H \otimes \operatorname{TSym}^j H \rTo \operatorname{TSym}^k H$$ (where the second map is the symmetrized tensor product). This follows by dualizing the previous proposition. We now consider varying $j$, for which it is convenient to re-label the maps $\beta^*, \delta^*$ above as $\beta_j^*$ and $\delta_j^*$. \[lemma:composedeltas\] Let $h {\geqslant}j {\geqslant}0$. Then the composition $$\begin{aligned} D^{{\mathrm{la}}}(A) \otimes \operatorname{TSym}^j(H) \rTo^{\beta_{h-j}^* \otimes \operatorname{id}} & D^{{\mathrm{la}}}(A) \otimes \operatorname{TSym}^{h-j} H \otimes \operatorname{TSym}^j H \\ \rTo & D^{{\mathrm{la}}}(A) \otimes \operatorname{TSym}^h H\\ \rTo^{\delta_h^*} & D^{{\mathrm{la}}}(A), \end{aligned}$$ where the unlabelled arrow is given by the symmetrised tensor product, is given by $$\binom{\nabla-j}{h-j}\, \delta_j^*.$$ Explicit computation. Nearly-overconvergent étale cohomology -------------------------------------- We also have an analogue of the Clebsch–Gordan map for the distribution spaces $D^\circ_{U, m}(T_0')$ introduced above, which are completions of $D^{{\mathrm{la}}}(T_0')$. The rigid space ${\mathcal{W}}$ has a group structure, so we can make sense of $U - j$ for any integer $j$. \[prop:AISCG\] There are natural maps $$\beta^*_j: D^\circ_{U, m}(T_0') \to D^\circ_{U - j, m}(T_0') \otimes \operatorname{TSym}^j H$$ and $$\delta^*_j: D^\circ_{U - j, m}(T_0') \otimes \operatorname{TSym}^j H \to D_{U, m}(T_0'),$$ commuting with the action of $\Sigma_0(p)$, such that $\delta_j^* \circ \beta_j^*$ is multiplication by $\binom{\nabla}{j} \in \Lambda_U[1/p]$. We simply transport the constructions of §\[sect:CG\] to the present setting (taking $A = T_0'$). The naturality of these constructions precisely translates into the assertion that the resulting maps commute with the $\Sigma_0(p)$-action. Since the functions in $A_{U, m}$ are homogenous of weight $\kappa_U$ (the canonical character ${{\mathbf{Z}}_p}^\times \to \Lambda_U^\times$), we have $\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t} f(th)|_{t = 1} = \nabla \cdot f(h)$ for all $f \in A_{U, m}$, where on the right-hand side $\nabla$ is regarded as an element of $\Lambda_U[1/p]$; that is, the two actions of $\nabla$ on $A_{U, m}$, as a differential operator and as an element of the coefficient ring, coincide. Note that $\delta^*_j$ takes values in $D_{U, m} = D^\circ_{U, m}[1/p]$, not in $D^\circ_{U, m}$ itself; the denominator arises from the fact that the map $\delta_j$ on $A^\circ_{U, m}$ does not preserve the $\Lambda_U$-lattice $A^\circ_{U, m}$, but rather maps $A^\circ_{U, m}$ to $\frac{1}{j! p^{1+m}} A^\circ_{U, m}$. Note also that if $U \subset {\mathcal{W}}_0$ and $U$ contains none of the integers $\{0, \dots, j-1\}$, then $\binom{\nabla}{j}$ is invertible in $\Lambda_U[1/p]$. The maps of spaces $\beta_j^*$ and $\delta_j^*$ induce maps of étale sheaves on $Y = Y_1(N(p))$ (for any $N$), ${\mathcal{D}}^{\circ}_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0') \to {\mathcal{D}}^\circ_{U-j, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0') \otimes \operatorname{TSym}^j {\mathscr{H}}$ and ${\mathcal{D}}^\circ_{U-j, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0') \otimes \operatorname{TSym}^j {\mathscr{H}}\to {\mathcal{D}}_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0')$, which we denote by the same symbols. We shall refer to the cohomology groups $H^*_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}}}(\overline{Y}, {\mathcal{D}}_{U-j, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0') \otimes \operatorname{TSym}^j {\mathscr{H}})$ as *nearly-overconvergent étale cohomology*, and the map $$\delta_j^*: H^*_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}}}(\overline{Y}, {\mathcal{D}}_{U-j, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0') \otimes \operatorname{TSym}^j {\mathscr{H}}) \to H^*_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}}}(\overline{Y}, {\mathcal{D}}_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0'))$$ as the *overconvergent projector*. The motivation for this terminology is that the sheaves ${\mathcal{D}}_{U-j, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0') \otimes \operatorname{TSym}^j {\mathscr{H}}$, and the maps $\beta_j^*$ and $\delta_j^*$ relating them to the overconvergent cohomology sheaves ${\mathcal{D}}_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0')$, are an étale analogue of the coherent sheaves appearing in the theory of nearly-overconvergent $p$-adic modular forms (see [@Urban-nearly-overconvergent]). Recall from Corollary \[cor:deltastar\] that the composite of $\delta_j^*$ with the moment map $\rho_k$ is zero if $0 {\leqslant}k < j$, which is somewhat undesirable. We can rectify this issue as follows. Recall that we have defined $M_U({\mathscr{H}}_0') = H^1_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}}}(\overline{Y}, {\mathcal{D}}_{U, m}({\mathscr{H}}_0')(1))$. \[prop:defprj\] Let $U$ be an open disc contained in ${\mathcal{W}}_0$, and ${\mathcal{F}}$ a Coleman family defined over $U$. Suppose the following condition is satisfied: for any integer weight $k {\geqslant}0$ in $U$, the projection map $M_k({\mathscr{H}}'_0) \to M_k({\mathcal{F}})^*$ factors through $\rho_k$. Then, for any $j {\geqslant}0$, the composite map $$H^1(\overline{Y}, {\mathcal{D}}_{U-j}({\mathscr{H}}_0') \otimes \operatorname{TSym}^j({\mathscr{H}})(1)) \rTo^{\delta_j^*} M_U({\mathscr{H}}_0') \rTo^{\operatorname{pr}_{{\mathcal{F}}}} M_U({\mathcal{F}})^*$$ takes values in $\nabla (\nabla - 1) \dots (\nabla - j + 1) M_U({\mathcal{F}})^*$, and hence the map $$\operatorname{pr}_{\mathcal{F}}^{[j]} = \frac{1}{\binom{\nabla}{j}} \operatorname{pr}_{{\mathcal{F}}} \circ \mathop{\delta_j^*}: H^1(\overline{Y}, {\mathcal{D}}_{U-j}({\mathscr{H}}_0') \otimes \operatorname{TSym}^j({\mathscr{H}})(1)) \to M_U({\mathcal{F}})^*$$ is well-defined. Note that $\nabla$, regarded as a rigid-analytic function on ${\mathcal{W}}$, takes the value $k$ at an integer weight $k$. So the only points in ${\mathcal{W}}_0$ at which $\nabla (\nabla - 1) \dots (\nabla - j + 1)$ fails to be invertible are the positive integers $\{0, \dots, j-1\}$, and it has simple zeroes at all of these points. If $k$ is one of these integers, then we have $M_U({\mathscr{H}}_0') / (\nabla - k) M_U({\mathscr{H}}_0') = M_k({\mathscr{H}}_0')$. Hence it suffices to show that $\operatorname{pr}_{{\mathcal{F}}} \circ \delta_j^*$ is zero on $M_k({\mathscr{H}}_0')$; but this is immediate since the specialisation of $\operatorname{pr}_{{\mathcal{F}}}$ at $k$ factors through $\rho_k$, and $\rho_k \circ \delta_j^*$ is zero for $0 {\leqslant}k < j$. This shows that $\operatorname{pr}_{\mathcal{F}}\circ \delta_j^*$ lands in the stated submodule. Since $M_U({\mathcal{F}})^*$ is a free $\Lambda_U[1/p]$-module (and $\Lambda_U[1/p]$ is an integral domain), the map $\operatorname{pr}_{\mathcal{F}}^{[j]}$ is therefore well-defined. This proposition can be interpreted as follows: we can renormalise $\delta_j^*$ to be an inverse to $\beta_j^*$, as long as we avoid points on the eigencurve which are non-classical but have classical weights. By construction, the map $\operatorname{pr}^{[j]}_{{\mathcal{F}}}$ has the property that the following diagram commutes: H\^1(, \_[U]{}(\_0’)(1))\ \^[\_j\^\*]{} & \^[\_]{}\ H\^1(, \_[U-j]{}(\_0’) \^j()(1)) & \_[\_\^[\[j\]]{}]{} & M\_U()\^\*. More generally, if $0 {\leqslant}j {\leqslant}h$, then (as in Lemma \[lemma:composedeltas\]) we can consider $\beta_{h - j}^* \cdot \mathrm{id}$ as a map $${\mathcal{D}}_{U-j}({\mathscr{H}}_0') \otimes \operatorname{TSym}^{[j]}({\mathscr{H}}) \to {\mathcal{D}}_{U-h}({\mathscr{H}}_0') \otimes \operatorname{TSym}^{[h]}({\mathscr{H}}),$$ and from Lemma \[lemma:composedeltas\] one computes that $$\label{eq:composedeltas} \operatorname{pr}_{{\mathcal{F}}}^{[h]}\ \circ\ (\beta_{h - j}^* \cdot \mathrm{id}) = \binom{h}{j} \operatorname{pr}_{{\mathcal{F}}}^{[j]}.$$ Two-parameter families of Beilinson–Flach elements -------------------------------------------------- Let $N_1, N_2$ be integers such that $p \nmid N_i$ and $p N_1, p N_2 {\geqslant}4$. We also choose two wide open discs $U_1$ and $U_2$ in ${\mathcal{W}}_0$, and consider the sheaf $$\mathcal{D}^\circ_{[U_1, U_2]} \coloneqq \mathcal{D}^\circ_{U_1}({\mathscr{H}}_0') \boxtimes \mathcal{D}^\circ_{U_2}({\mathscr{H}}_0')$$ on the affine surface $Y_1(N_1(p)) \times Y_1(N_2(p))$. Let $N$ be any integer divisible by $N_1$ and $N_2$ and with the same prime factors as $N_1 N_2$. For any $j {\geqslant}0$ and $m {\geqslant}1$, we define the element $${{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[U_1, U_2, j]}_{m, N_1, N_2, a} \in H^3_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}}}\left(Y_1(N_1(p)) \times Y_1(N_2(p)) \times \mu_m^\circ, \mathcal{D}^\circ_{[U_1, U_2]}(2-j)\right)[1/p]$$ as the image of the class $${{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[j]}_{m, Np, a} \in H^3_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}}}\left(Y_1(Np)^2 \times \mu_m^\circ, (\Lambda({\mathscr{H}}\langle C \rangle) \otimes \operatorname{TSym}^j {\mathscr{H}})^{\boxtimes 2}(2-j)\right),$$ under pushforward along $Y_1(Np)^2 \to Y_1(N_1(p)) \times Y_1(N_2(p))$, composed with the map induced by the morphisms of sheaves $$\begin{aligned} \Lambda({\mathscr{H}}\langle C \rangle) \otimes \operatorname{TSym}^j {\mathscr{H}}&\rTo \mathcal{D}^\circ_{U_i-j}({\mathscr{H}}) \otimes \operatorname{TSym}^j {\mathscr{H}}\\ &\rTo^{\delta^*_j} \mathcal{D}^\circ_{U_i}({\mathscr{H}})[1/p] \end{aligned}$$ for $i = 1, 2$. Here, the first map is given by the natural maps $\Lambda({\mathscr{H}}\langle C \rangle) \to {\mathcal{D}}_{U}^\circ$, for $U = U_i - j$, and the second map is the overconvergent projector $\delta^*_j$ of Proposition \[prop:AISCG\]. We are using implicitly here the fact that the Beilinson–Flach elements can be lifted canonically to classes with coefficients in the sheaves $\Lambda({\mathscr{H}}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}}\langle D' \rangle)$. Cf. Remark \[remark:weasel\] above. The Hochschild–Serre spectral sequence and the Künneth formula give a canonical surjection $$H^3_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}}}\left(Y_1(N_1(p)) \times Y_1(N_2(p))\times \mu_m^\circ, \mathcal{D}^\circ_{[U_1, U_2]}(2-j)\right)[1/p] \to H^1_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}}}\left({\mathbf{Z}}[1/mN_1N_2p, \mu_m], M_{U_1} {\mathop{\hat\otimes}}M_{U_2}(-j)\right),$$ and we (abusively) denote the image of ${{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[U_1, U_2, j]}_{m, N_1, N_2, a}$ under this map by the same symbol. For any integer weights $k_1 \in U_1$ and $k_2 \in U_2$ with $\min(k_1, k_2) {\geqslant}j$, the map $$\rho_{k_1} \boxtimes \rho_{k_2}: \mathcal{D}_{[U_1, U_2]} \to \operatorname{TSym}^{k_1} {\mathscr{H}}\otimes \operatorname{TSym}^{k_2} {\mathscr{H}}$$ sends ${{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[U_1, U_2, j]}_{m, N_1, N_2, a}$ to the pushforward of ${{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[k, k', j]}_{m, Np, a}$. On the other hand, if $0 {\leqslant}k_1 < j$ or $0 {\leqslant}k_2 < j$, then the image of ${{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[U_1, U_2, j]}_{m, N_1, N_2, a}$ under $\rho_{k_1} \boxtimes \rho_{k_2}$ is zero. This follows from the last statement of \[cor:deltastar\], since ${{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[k, k', j]}_{m, Np, a}$ is by definition the image of ${{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[j]}_{m, Np, a}$ under the map $(\operatorname{mom}^{k-j} \cdot \operatorname{id}) \boxtimes (\operatorname{mom}^{k'-j} \cdot \operatorname{id})$. Now let us choose newforms $f, g$, of levels $N_1, N_2$ and weights $k_1 + 2, k_2 + 2 {\geqslant}2$, and roots $\alpha_1, \alpha_2$ of their Hecke polynomials, such that the $p$-stabilisations $f_{i, \alpha_i}$ both satisfy the hypotheses of Theorem \[thm:colemanrep\]. The theorem then gives us families of overconvergent eigenforms ${\mathcal{F}}_1$, ${\mathcal{F}}_2$ passing through the $p$-stabilisations of $f$ and $g$, defined over some discs $U_1 \ni k_1, U_2 \ni k_2$. \[prop:BFtwovar-coleman\] If the discs $U_i$ are sufficiently small, then there exist classes $${{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[{\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}}, j]}_{m, a} \in H^1\left({\mathbf{Z}}\left[\mu_m, \tfrac{1}{mpN_1N_2}\right], M_{U_1}({\mathcal{F}})^* {\mathop{\hat\otimes}}M_{U_2}({\mathcal{G}})^*(-j)\right)$$ such that $$(\operatorname{pr}_{{\mathcal{F}}} \times \operatorname{pr}_{{\mathcal{G}}})\left({{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[U_1, U_2, j]}_{m, a}\right) = \binom{\nabla_1}{j} \binom{\nabla_2}{j} {{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[{\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}}, j]}_{m, a},$$ where $\nabla_i$ denotes the image of $\nabla$ in $\Lambda_{U_i}[1/p]$. After shrinking the discs $U_i$ if necessary so that all integer-weight specialisations of ${\mathcal{F}}$ and ${\mathcal{G}}$ are classical, so that Proposition \[prop:defprj\] applies, we can simply define ${{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[{\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}}, j]}_{m, a}$ as the image of ${{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[j]}_{m, a}$ under $\operatorname{pr}_{{\mathcal{F}}}^{[j]} \times \operatorname{pr}_{{\mathcal{G}}}^{[j]}$. Interpolation in $j$ {#sect:interpj} -------------------- Now let ${\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}}$ be Coleman families over open discs $U_1, U_2$, satisfying the conditions of Proposition \[prop:BFtwovar-coleman\]. \[prop:cyclogrowth\] For any $h {\geqslant}0$, and any $a$, there is a constant $C$ independent of $r$ such that the elements ${{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[{\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}}, j]}_{mp^r, a}$, for $0 {\leqslant}j {\leqslant}h$ and $r {\geqslant}1$, satisfy the following norm bound: $$\left\| \sum_{j = 0}^h (-1)^j \binom{h}{j} \operatorname{Res}_{p^r}^{p^{\infty}}\left( \frac{1}{(-a)^j j!} \cdot {{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[{\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}}, j]}_{mp^r,a}\right) \right\| {\leqslant}Cp^{-hr}.$$ We shall deduce this from Theorem \[thm:congruencesfinal\] (and Remark \[remark:weasel\]). This theorem gives a bound for the classes $$\sum_{j = 0}^h a^{h-j}(h-j)! (1 \otimes \operatorname{mom}^{h-j})^{\boxtimes 2}\operatorname{Res}_{p^r}^{p^{\infty}}\left( {{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[j]}_{mp^r, Np, a}\right).$$ We apply to this the map $\operatorname{pr}_{{\mathcal{F}}}^{[h]} \boxtimes \operatorname{pr}_{{\mathcal{G}}}^{[h]}$. This maps $(1 \otimes \operatorname{mom}^{h-j})^{\boxtimes 2} {{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[j]}$ to $\binom{h}{j}^2 {{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[{\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}}, j]}_{mp^r, a}$, by . So the image of the expression of Theorem \[thm:congruencesfinal\] is $$\sum_{j = 0}^h a^{h-j}(h-j)! \binom{h}{j}^2 \operatorname{Res}_{p^r}^{p^{\infty}}\left({{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[{\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}}, j]}_{mp^r, a}\right),$$ which is exactly $a^h h!$ times the quantity in the proposition. We may ignore the factor $a^h h!$, since it is nonzero and independent of $r$. We now choose *affinoid* discs $V_i$ contained in the $U_i$ (so the $M_{V_i}({\mathcal{F}}_i)^*$ become Banach spaces). \[thm:3varelt\] There is a element $${{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[{\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}}]}_{m, a} \in H^1\left({\mathbf{Q}}(\mu_m), D_{\lambda_1 + \lambda_2}(\Gamma,M_{V_1}({\mathcal{F}})^* {\mathop{\hat\otimes}}M_{V_2}({\mathcal{G}})^*)\right)$$ which enjoys the following interpolating property: for any integers $(k_1, k_2, j)$ with $k_i \in V_i$ and $0 {\leqslant}j {\leqslant}\min(k, k')$, the image of ${{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[{\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}}]}_{m, a}$ at $(k_1, k_2, j)$ is $$\left(1 - \frac{p^j}{a_p({\mathcal{F}}_{k_1})a_p({\mathcal{G}}_{k_2})}\right) \frac{{{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[{\mathcal{F}}_{k_1}, {\mathcal{G}}_{k_2}, j]}_{m, a}}{(-a)^{j} j! \binom{k_1}{j}\binom{k_2}{j}}.$$ We choose an integer $h {\geqslant}\lfloor \lambda_1 + \lambda_2 \rfloor$, and apply Proposition \[prop:unbounded-iwasawa\] with $K = {\mathbf{Q}}(\mu_m)$, $S$ the set of primes dividing $p m N_1 N_2$, $A = {\mathcal{O}}(V_1 \times V_2)$, $M = M_{V_1}({\mathcal{F}})^* {\mathop{\hat\otimes}}M_{V_2}({\mathcal{G}})^*$, $\lambda = \lambda_1 + \lambda_2$, and $$x_{n, j} = (a_p({\mathcal{F}}) a_p({\mathcal{G}}))^{-n} \cdot \frac{{{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[{\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}}, j]}_{mp^n, a}}{(-a)^{j} j! }$$ for $0 {\leqslant}j {\leqslant}h$ and $n {\geqslant}1$. These $x_{n, j}$ are norm-compatible for $n {\geqslant}1$, and we obtain norm-compatible elements for all $n {\geqslant}0$ by defining $$x_{0, j}\coloneqq \operatorname{cores}_{{\mathbf{Q}}(\mu_p) / {\mathbf{Q}}}\left( x_{1, j}\right) = \left(1 - \frac{p^j}{a_p({\mathcal{F}}) a_p({\mathcal{G}})}\right) \frac{{{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[{\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}}, j]}_{m, a}}{(-a)^{j} j!}.$$ Moreover, the bound we have just established in Proposition \[prop:cyclogrowth\] shows that $\left\|p^{-nh}\sum_{j = 0}^h (-1)^j \binom{h}{j}x_{n, j}\right\| {\leqslant}Cp^{\lambda n}$, which is exactly the growth bound required for Proposition \[prop:unbounded-iwasawa\]. It is not difficult to see that $H^0({\mathbf{Q}}_\infty, M_{V_1}({\mathcal{F}})^* {\mathop{\hat\otimes}}M_{V_2}({\mathcal{G}})^*) = 0$, so we obtain a class $$x[h] \in H^1\left({\mathbf{Q}}(\mu_m), D_{\lambda_1 + \lambda_2}(\Gamma,M_{V_1}({\mathcal{F}})^* {\mathop{\hat\otimes}}M_{V_2}({\mathcal{G}})^*)\right)$$ interpolating the classes $x_{n, j}$ for all $n {\geqslant}0$ and all $j \in \{0, \dots, h\}$. However, if we have two integers $h' {\geqslant}h {\geqslant}\lfloor \lambda_1 + \lambda_2\rfloor$, then the element $x[h']$ satisfies an interpolating property strictly stronger than that of $x[h]$, so we deduce that $x[h]$ is in fact independent of $h$ and interpolates $x_{n, j}$ for all $j {\geqslant}0$. We define ${{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[{\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}}]}_{m, a}$ to be this element. The interpolating property is now immediate from the interpolating property of the 2-variable classes ${{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[{\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}}, j]}_{m, a}$ at integers $k_1, k_2 {\geqslant}j$. Phi-Gamma modules and triangulations ==================================== Phi-Gamma modules in families ----------------------------- Let ${\mathscr{R}}$ denote[^2] the Robba ring (of $\mathbf{Q}_p$), which is the ring of formal Laurent series over ${{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}$ in a variable $\pi$, convergent on some annulus of the form $\{x: 0 < v_p(x) < \varepsilon\} \subseteq {\mathbf{A}}^1_{\mathrm{rig}}$; and let ${\mathscr{R}}^+ \subseteq {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}[[\pi]]$ be its subring of elements that are analytic on the whole disc $\{ x: v_p(x) > 0\}$. We endow these with their usual actions of Frobenius $\varphi$ and the group $\Gamma \cong {{\mathbf{Z}}_p}^\times$. We define a left inverse $\psi$ of $\varphi$ by putting $$\varphi\circ\psi f(\pi)=\frac{1}{p}\sum_{\zeta^p=1}f(\zeta(\pi+1)-1)$$ for any $f(\pi)\in {\mathscr{R}}^+$. As is well known, there is a functor ${\mathbf{D}}^{\dag}_{{\mathrm{rig}}}$ mapping $p$-adic representations of $G_{{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}}$ to $(\varphi, \Gamma)$-modules over ${\mathscr{R}}$ (finitely-generated free ${\mathscr{R}}$-modules with commuting ${\mathscr{R}}$-semilinear operators $\varphi$ and $\Gamma$), and this is a fully faithful functor whose essential image is the subcategory of $(\varphi, \Gamma)$-modules of slope 0. Strictly speaking, the definition of the functor ${\mathbf{D}}^{\dag}_{{\mathrm{rig}}}$ depends on the auxilliary choice of a compatible system of $p$-power roots of unity $(\zeta_{p^n})_{n {\geqslant}0}$ in $\overline{{\mathbf{Q}}}_p$. We shall fix, once and for all, such a choice, and in applications to global problems we shall often assume that $\zeta_{p^n}$ corresponds to $e^{2\pi i / p^n} \in {\mathbf{C}}$. Now let $A$ be a reduced affinoid algebra over ${{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}$, and write ${\mathscr{R}}_A = {\mathscr{R}}{\mathop{\hat\otimes}}A$ and similarly for ${\mathscr{R}}_A^+$. We define an *$A$-representation* of $G_{{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}}$ to be a finitely-generated locally free $A$-module endowed with an $A$-linear action of $G_{{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}}$ (continuous with respect to the canonical Banach topology of $M$). For any $A$-representation $M$ of $G_{{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}}$, we may define a finite locally-free ${\mathscr{R}}_A$-module ${\mathbf{D}}^{\dag}_{{\mathrm{rig}}}(V)$, endowed with semilinar continuous actions of $\varphi$ and $\Gamma$, such that $${\mathbf{D}}^{\dag}_{{\mathrm{rig}}}(V_x) \cong {\mathbf{D}}^{\dag}_{{\mathrm{rig}}}(V) / m_{x}$$ for every $x \in \operatorname{Max}(A)$. If $D$ is a $(\varphi, \Gamma)$-module over ${\mathscr{R}}_A$, we define cohomology groups $H^i({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, D)$ as the cohomology of the “Herr complex” $$C_{(\varphi, \gamma)}(D) \coloneqq D \rTo^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}\varphi - 1\\ \gamma - 1 \end{smallmatrix}\right)} D \oplus D \rTo^{(1-\varphi, \gamma - 1)} D$$ and *analytic Iwasawa cohomology* $H^i_{{\mathrm{Iw}}}({\mathbf{Q}}_{p, \infty}, D)$ as the cohomology of the complex $$C_{\psi}(D) \coloneqq 0 \rTo D \rTo^{\psi - 1} D.$$ These groups are compatible with the usual Galois cohomology in the sense that if $M$ is a $A$-representation of $G_{{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}}$, then we have $H^i({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, {\mathbf{D}}^\dag_{{\mathrm{rig}}}(M)) = H^i({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, V)$ and $$H^i_{{\mathrm{Iw}}}({\mathbf{Q}}_{p, \infty}, {\mathbf{D}}^\dag_{{\mathrm{rig}}}(M)) = D^{{\mathrm{la}}}(\Gamma, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}) {\mathop{\hat\otimes}}_{D_0(\Gamma, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}})} \left( \varprojlim_n H^i({\mathbf{Q}}_{p,n}, T) \right),$$ where $T$ is the unit ball for any $G_{{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}}$-invariant Banach-module norm on $M$, by by [@KPX Corollary 4.4.11]. For $M$ an $A$-representation of $G_{{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}}$, we have a canonical isomorphism $$H^1_{{\mathrm{Iw}}}({\mathbf{Q}}_{p, \infty}, {\mathbf{D}}^\dag_{{\mathrm{rig}}}(M)) \cong H^1({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, D^{{\mathrm{la}}}(\Gamma, M)).$$ In particular there is a canonical map $$H^1({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, D_{\lambda}(\Gamma, M)) \to H^1_{{\mathrm{Iw}}}(D)$$ compatible with the natural maps to $H^1({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, M(\eta))$ for every character $\eta$ of $\Gamma$. Let us choose an increasing sequence of affinoid discs $X_n \subseteq {\mathcal{W}}$ whose union is ${\mathcal{W}}$. Since we have $D^{{\mathrm{la}}}(\Gamma, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}) = {\mathcal{O}}({\mathcal{W}}) = \varprojlim_n {\mathcal{O}}(X_n)$, we can regard $D^{{\mathrm{la}}}(\Gamma, M)$ as a locally free sheaf of $G_{{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}}$-representations on ${\mathcal{W}}\times \operatorname{Max} A$, and we deduce that $$H^1({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, D^{{\mathrm{la}}}(\Gamma, M)) = \varprojlim_n H^1({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, {\mathcal{O}}(X_n) {\mathop{\hat\otimes}}M),$$ by [@Pottharst-analytic Theorem 1.7]. For each $n$, $X_n \times \operatorname{Max} A$ is an affinoid space, so we obtain $$H^1({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, {\mathcal{O}}(X_n) {\mathop{\hat\otimes}}M) = H^1({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, {\mathbf{D}}^\dag_{{\mathrm{rig}}}( {\mathcal{O}}(X_n){\mathop{\hat\otimes}}M )),$$ by [@Pottharst-analytic Proposition 2.7]. Finally, the inverse limit of the modules ${\mathbf{D}}^\dag_{{\mathrm{rig}}}( {\mathcal{O}}(X_n){\mathop{\hat\otimes}}M )$ is the module $\mathbf{Dfm}({\mathbf{D}}^\dag_{{\mathrm{rig}}}(M))$ considered in [@KPX Theorem 4.4.8], where it is shown that $$H^1({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, \mathbf{Dfm}(D)) = H^1_{{\mathrm{Iw}}}({\mathbf{Q}}_{p, \infty},D)$$ for any $(\varphi, \Gamma)$-module $D$ over ${\mathscr{R}}_A$. Finally, if the base $A$ is a finite field extension of ${{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}$, then the functors ${\mathbf{D}}_{{\mathrm{cris}}}(-)$ and ${\mathbf{D}}_{{\mathrm{dR}}}(-)$ can be extended from $A$-linear representations of $G_{{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}}$ to the larger category of $(\varphi, \Gamma)$-modules over ${\mathscr{R}}_A$, and one has the following fact: If $A$ is a finite extension of ${{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}$, there exist Bloch–Kato exponential and dual-exponential maps $$\exp_{{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, D}: {\mathbf{D}}_{{\mathrm{dR}}}(D) \to H^1({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, D)$$ and $$\exp^*_{{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, D^*(1)}: H^1({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, D) \to {\mathbf{D}}_{{\mathrm{dR}}}(D)$$ for de Rham $(\varphi, \Gamma)$-modules $D$ over ${\mathscr{R}}_A$, which are functorial in $D$ and are compatible with the usual definitions when $D = {\mathbf{D}}^{\dag}_{{\mathrm{rig}}}(V)$ for a de Rham representation $V$. Perrin-Riou logarithms in families ---------------------------------- Throughout this section, $A$ denotes a reduced affinoid algebra, with supremum norm $\| \cdot \|$, and $\alpha \in A^\times$. We write ${\mathscr{R}}_A(\alpha^{-1})$ for the free rank 1 $(\varphi, \Gamma)$-module over ${\mathscr{R}}_A$ with basis vector $e$ such that $\varphi(e) = \alpha^{-1} e$ and $\gamma e = e$ for all $\gamma \in \Gamma$. We write ${\mathscr{R}}^+_A(\alpha^{-1})$ for the submodule ${\mathscr{R}}^+_A \cdot e$ of ${\mathscr{R}}_A(\alpha^{-1})$. Suppose $\|\alpha\| {\leqslant}1$ and $\alpha - 1$ is not a zero-divisor in $A$. Then $${\mathscr{R}}_A(\alpha^{-1})^{\psi = 1} \subseteq {\mathscr{R}}^+_A(\alpha^{-1}).$$ This follows from Lemma 1.11 of [@Colmez-serie-principale]. Cf. [@Hansen-Iwasawa §4.1]. We use this lemma to define a Perrin-Riou big logarithm map for ${\mathscr{R}}_A(\alpha^{-1})$ when $\alpha-1$ is not a zero-divisor, following closely the construction in [@Hansen-Iwasawa §4.2], as the composition $$\label{eq:BigLog} \begin{aligned} {\mathcal{L}}_{{\mathscr{R}}_A(\alpha^{-1})} : H^1_{{\mathrm{Iw}}}({\mathbf{Q}}_{p, \infty}, {\mathscr{R}}_A(\alpha^{-1})) = {\mathscr{R}}_A(\alpha^{-1})^{\psi = 1} \rTo^\cong& {\mathscr{R}}_A^+(\alpha^{-1})^{\psi = 1}\\ \rTo^{1 - \varphi}& {\mathscr{R}}_A^+(\alpha^{-1})^{\psi = 0}\\ \rTo^{\mathfrak{M}}& A {\mathop{\hat\otimes}}{\mathcal{O}}({\mathcal{W}}) \end{aligned}$$ where the third arrow is the base-extension to $A$ of the Mellin transform (and ${\mathcal{W}}$ is weight space). Note that our assumption that $\alpha - 1$ is not a zero-divisor in $A$ implies that ${\mathscr{R}}_A(\alpha^{-1})^{\varphi = 1} = 0$, and hence that ${\mathcal{L}}_{{\mathscr{R}}_A(\alpha^{-1})}$ is injective. Triangulations -------------- Let $D$ be a $(\varphi, \Gamma)$-module over ${\mathscr{R}}{\mathop{\hat\otimes}}A$ which is locally free of rank 2. A *triangulation* of $D$ is a short exact sequence of $(\varphi, \Gamma)$-modules over ${\mathscr{R}}{\mathop{\hat\otimes}}A$, $$0 \to {\mathscr{F}}^+ D \to D \to {\mathscr{F}}^- D \to 0,$$ where the modules ${\mathscr{F}}^\pm D$ are locally free of rank 1 over ${\mathscr{R}}{\mathop{\hat\otimes}}A$. \[thm:triangulation\] Let $(f, \alpha)$ be as in Theorem \[thm:colemanrep\]. Then one can find an affinoid disc $V \subset {\mathcal{W}}$ containing $k$ such that the $(\varphi, \Gamma)$-module $$D_V({\mathcal{F}})^* \coloneqq {\mathbf{D}}^{\dag}_{{\mathrm{rig}}}(M_V({\mathcal{F}})^*)$$ over ${\mathcal{O}}(V)$ admits a canonical triangulation, with ${\mathscr{F}}^- D_V({\mathcal{F}})^* \cong {\mathscr{R}}_A(\alpha_{{\mathcal{F}}}^{-1})$ and ${\mathscr{F}}^+ D_V({\mathcal{F}})^* \cong {\mathscr{R}}_A(\alpha_{{\mathcal{F}}} \cdot \varepsilon_{{\mathcal{F}}}(p)^{-1})(1 + \kappa_V)$. Eichler–Shimura isomorphisms ---------------------------- The last technical ingredient needed to proceed to the proof of our explicit reciprocity law is the following: \[thm:eichlershimura\] In the setting of Theorem \[thm:triangulation\], after possibly shrinking $V$, there is a canonical ${\mathcal{O}}(V)$-basis vector $$\omega_{{\mathcal{F}}} \in \left({\mathscr{F}}^- D_V({\mathcal{F}})(1+\kappa_V + \varepsilon_{\mathcal{F}}^{(p)})\right)^{\Gamma = 1}$$ such that for every integer weight $t {\geqslant}0$ in $V$, the specialisation of $\omega_{{\mathcal{F}}}$ at $t$ coincides with the image of the differential form $\omega_{f_t}$ attached to the normalised eigenform $f_t$. This is a minor modification of results of Ruochuan Liu (in preparation); we outline the proof below. The starting point is the following theorem: For any integer $k_0 {\geqslant}0$, and real $\lambda < k_0 + 1$, we can find an open disc $V \subset {\mathcal{W}}$ containing $k_0$ and a Hecke-equivariant isomorphism $$H^0(X(w), \omega^{\dagger, \kappa_V + 2}_V)^{{\leqslant}\lambda}\rTo_{\cong}^{\operatorname{comp}_V}\left(H^1_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}}}(Y, {\mathcal{D}}^\circ_{V, m}(1))^{{\leqslant}h} {\mathop{\hat\otimes}}{\mathbf{C}}_p \right)^{G_{{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}}}$$ interpolating Faltings’ Hodge–Tate comparison isomorphisms for each $k \in V$. Here $X(w)$ is a rigid-analytic neighbourhood of the component of $\infty$ in the ordinary locus of the compactification $X$ of $Y$; and $\omega^{\dagger, \kappa_V + 2}_V$ is a certain sheaf of ${\mathcal{O}}(V)$-modules on $X(w)$, whose specialisation at any integer $k {\geqslant}0 \in V$ is the $(k+2)$-th power of the Hodge bundle for every $k \in V$. We translate the statement of the above theorem into the language of $(\varphi, \Gamma)$-modules. For any family of $G_{{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}}$-representations $M$ over an affinoid algebra $A$, we have a canonical isomorphism $$\left(M {\mathop{\hat\otimes}}_{{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}} {\mathbf{C}}_p\right)^{G_{{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}}} \cong {\mathbf{D}}_{\mathrm{Sen}}(M)^{\Gamma},$$ where ${\mathbf{D}}_{\mathrm{Sen}}(M)$ is defined in terms of the $(\varphi, \Gamma)$-module ${\mathbf{D}}^{\dag}_{\mathrm{rig}}(M)$. Moreover, ${\mathbf{D}}_{\mathrm{Sen}}\left({\mathscr{F}}^+ D_V({\mathcal{F}})(1 + \kappa_V)\right)^{\Gamma}$ is zero. Hence, by composing $\operatorname{comp}_V$ with the projection to ${\mathscr{F}}^-$, we have an isomorphism $$H^0(X(w), \omega_V^{\kappa_V + 2})[{\mathcal{F}}] \rTo^\cong {\mathbf{D}}_{\mathrm{Sen}}\left({\mathscr{F}}^- D_V({\mathcal{F}})(1 + \kappa_V)\right)^{\Gamma}.$$ The left-hand side is free of rank 1, spanned by $\tau \cdot {\mathcal{F}}$ where $\tau$ is the Gauss sum of $\varepsilon_{\mathcal{F}}^{(p)}$. On the other hand, since the $(\varphi, \Gamma)$-module $D^- = {\mathscr{F}}^- D_V({\mathcal{F}})(1 + \kappa_V)$ is unramified, we have ${\mathbf{D}}_{\mathrm{Sen}}(D^-)^\Gamma = (D^-)^{\Gamma}$. Under the same hypotheses as Theorem \[thm:eichlershimura\], possibly after shrinking $V$ further, there is a ${\mathcal{O}}(V)$-basis vector $$\eta_{{\mathcal{F}}} \in \left({\mathscr{F}}^+ D_V({\mathcal{F}})\right)^{\Gamma = 1}$$ with the property that for every classical specialisation ${\mathcal{F}}_t$ of ${\mathcal{F}}$, the specialisation of $\eta_{{\mathcal{F}}}$ at $t$ is the unique vector whose cup product with the differential $\omega_{\overline{{\mathcal{F}}_t}}$ attached to the complex conjugate $\overline{{\mathcal{F}}}_t$ of ${\mathcal{F}}_t$ is given by $$\frac{1}{\lambda_N({\mathcal{F}}_t) \cdot \left(1 - \frac{\beta}{\alpha}\right)\left(1 - \frac{\beta}{p\alpha}\right)},$$ where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are the roots of the Hecke polynomial of ${\mathcal{F}}_t$, and $\lambda_N({\mathcal{F}}_t)$ is its Atkin–Lehner pseudo–eigenvalue. This follows by dualising $\omega_{\mathcal{F}}$ using the Ohta pairing $\{-,-\}$; the computations are exactly the same as in the ordinary case, for which see [@KLZ1b Proposition 10.1.2]. The explicit reciprocity law ============================ Regulator maps for Rankin convolutions {#sect:explicitrecip} -------------------------------------- Now let us choose two newforms $f, g$ and $p$-stabilisations $(\alpha_f, \alpha_g)$ satisfying the hypotheses of Theorem \[thm:colemanfamily\]. We write $${\mathscr{F}}^{--} D_{V_1 \times V_2}({\mathcal{F}}\otimes {\mathcal{G}})^*={\mathscr{F}}^- D_{V_1}({\mathcal{F}})^*\hat\otimes {\mathscr{F}}^- D_{V_2}({\mathcal{G}})^*,$$ and similarly for ${\mathscr{F}}^{-+}$, ${\mathscr{F}}^{+-}$ and ${\mathscr{F}}^{++}$. We also define ${\mathscr{F}}^{-\circ} D_{V_1 \times V_2}({\mathcal{F}}\otimes {\mathcal{G}})^*={\mathscr{F}}^- D_{V_1}({\mathcal{F}})^*\hat\otimes D_{V_2}({\mathcal{G}})^*$. \[thm:BFeltisSelmer\] If $V_1$ and $V_2$ are sufficiently small, then (for any $m$ coprime to $p$) the image of ${{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[{\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}}]}_{m, a}$ under projection to the module $H^1_{{\mathrm{Iw}}}({\mathbf{Q}}(\mu_m) \otimes {\mathbf{Q}}_{p, \infty}, {\mathscr{F}}^{--} D_{V_1 \times V_2}({\mathcal{F}}\otimes {\mathcal{G}})^*)$ is zero. By taking the $V_i$ sufficiently small, we may assume that ${\mathscr{F}}^{--} D_{V_1 \times V_2}({\mathcal{F}}\otimes {\mathcal{G}})^*$ is actually isomorphic to ${\mathscr{R}}_A(\alpha^{-1})$, where $\alpha = \alpha_{{\mathcal{F}}} \alpha_{{\mathcal{G}}}$ and $A = {\mathcal{O}}(V_1 \times V_2)$, and that $\|\alpha^{-1}\| < p^{1 + h}$ and $\alpha - 1$ is not a zero-divisor. It suffices, therefore, to show that ${\mathcal{L}}_{{\mathscr{R}}_A(\alpha^{-1})}$ maps the image of ${{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[{\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}}]}_{m, a}$ to zero. However, for each pair of integers $(\ell, \ell') \in V_1 \times V_2$ with $\ell, \ell' {\geqslant}1 + 2h$ and such that ${\mathcal{F}}_\ell$ and ${\mathcal{G}}_{\ell'}$ are not twists of each other, we know that the image of ${\mathcal{L}}_{{\mathscr{R}}_A(\alpha^{-1})}({{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[{\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}}]}_{m, a})$ vanishes when restricted to $(\ell, \ell') \times {\mathcal{W}}\subseteq \operatorname{Max}(A) \times {\mathcal{W}}$, by Proposition \[prop:vanishing\]. Since such pairs $(\ell, \ell')$ are Zariski-dense in $\operatorname{Max}(A)$, the result follows. Cf. [@KLZ1b Lemma 8.1.5], which is an analogous (but rather stronger) statement in the ordinary case. Hence the projection of ${{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[{\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}}]}_{m, a}$ to ${\mathscr{F}}^{- \circ}$ is in the image of the injection $$H^1_{{\mathrm{Iw}}}({\mathbf{Q}}_{p, \infty}, {\mathscr{F}}^{-+} D_{V_1 \times V_2}({\mathcal{F}}\otimes {\mathcal{G}})^*) \to H^1_{{\mathrm{Iw}}}({\mathbf{Q}}_{p, \infty}, {\mathscr{F}}^{-\circ} D_{V_1 \times V_2}({\mathcal{F}}\otimes {\mathcal{G}})^*).$$ Since ${\mathscr{F}}^+ D_{V_2}({\mathcal{G}})^*$ is isomorphic to an unramified module twisted by an $A^\times$-valued character of the cyclotomic Galois group $\Gamma$, we may define a Perrin-Riou logarithm map for ${\mathscr{F}}^{-+} D_{V_1 \times V_2}({\mathcal{F}}\otimes {\mathcal{G}})^*$ by reparametrising the corresponding map for its unramified twist, exactly as in Theorem 8.2.8 of [@KLZ1b]. That is, if we define $${\mathbf{D}}({\mathscr{F}}^{-+} M({\mathcal{F}}\otimes {\mathcal{G}})^*) = \left({\mathscr{F}}^{-+} D({\mathcal{F}}\otimes {\mathcal{G}})^*(-1-\kappa_{V_2})\right)^{\Gamma = 1},$$ which is free of rank 1 over ${\mathcal{O}}(V_1 \times V_2)$, then we obtain the following theorem: There is an injective morphism of ${\mathcal{O}}(V_1 \times V_2 \times W)$-modules $${\mathcal{L}}: H^1_{{\mathrm{Iw}}}({\mathbf{Q}}_{p, \infty}, {\mathscr{F}}^{-+} D_{V_1 \times V_2}({\mathcal{F}}\otimes {\mathcal{G}})^*) \to {\mathbf{D}}({\mathscr{F}}^{-+} M({\mathcal{F}}\otimes {\mathcal{G}})^*) {\mathop{\hat\otimes}}{\mathcal{O}}({\mathcal{W}}),$$ with the following property: for all classical specialisations $f, g$ of ${\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{G}}$, and all characters of $\Gamma$ of the form $\tau = j + \eta$ with $\eta$ of finite order and $j \in {\mathbf{Z}}$, we have a commutative diagram H\^1\_(\_[p, ]{}, \^[-+]{} D\_[V\_1 V\_2]{}()\^\*) & \^ & (\^[-+]{} M()\^\*) ()\ & &\ H\^1([[\_p]{}]{}, \^[-+]{} D(f g)\^\*(-j-)) & & \^[-+]{}\_( M(f g)\^\*(-\_[g, p]{})) in which the bottom horizontal map is given by $$\left.\begin{cases} \left(1 - \frac{p^j}{\alpha_f \beta_g}\right)\left(1 - \frac{\alpha_f \beta_g}{p^{1 + j}}\right)^{-1} & \text{if $r = 0$} \\ \left(\frac{p^{1 + j}}{\alpha_f \beta_g}\right)^{r} G(\varepsilon)^{-1} & \text{if $r > 0$} \end{cases}\right\} \cdot \begin{cases} \tfrac{(-1)^{k'-j}}{(k'-j)!} \log & \text{if $j {\leqslant}k'$,} \\ (j-k'-1)! \exp^* & \text{if $j > k'$,} \end{cases}$$ where $\exp^*$ and $\log$ are the Bloch–Kato dual-exponential and logarithm maps, $\varepsilon$ is the finite-order character $\varepsilon_{g, p} \cdot \eta^{-1}$ of $\Gamma$, $r {\geqslant}0$ is the conductor of $\varepsilon$, and $G(\varepsilon) = \sum_{a \in ({\mathbf{Z}}/ p^r {\mathbf{Z}})^\times} \varepsilon(a) \zeta_{p^r}^a$ is the Gauss sum. The construction of the map ${\mathcal{L}}$ is immediate from . The content of the theorem is that the map ${\mathcal{L}}$ recovers the maps $\exp^*$ and $\log$ for the specialisations of ${\mathcal{F}}$ and ${\mathcal{G}}$; this follows from Nakamura’s construction of $\exp^*$ and $\log$ for $(\varphi, \Gamma)$-modules. \[thm:explicitrecip\] If the $V_i$ are sufficiently small, then we have $$\left\langle {\mathcal{L}}\left({{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[{\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}}]}_{1, 1}\right), \eta_{{\mathcal{F}}} \otimes \omega_{{\mathcal{G}}} \right\rangle = (c^2 - c^{-(\mathbf{k} + \mathbf{k}' - 2\mathbf{j})} \varepsilon_{\mathcal{F}}(c)^{-1} \varepsilon_{\mathcal{G}}(c)^{-1})(-1)^{1+\mathbf{j}} \lambda_N({\mathcal{F}})^{-1} L_p({\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}}, 1 + \mathbf{j}).$$ Here, $L_p({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{G}},1 + \mathbf{j})$ denotes Urban’s $3$-variable $p$-adic $L$-function as constructed in [@Urban-nearly-overconvergent], and $\varepsilon_{\mathcal{F}}$ and $\varepsilon_{\mathcal{G}}$ are the characters by which the prime-to-$p$ diamond operators act on ${\mathcal{F}}$ and ${\mathcal{G}}$. The two sides of the desired formula agree at every $(k, k', j)$ with $k \in V_1$, $k' \in V_2$ and $0 {\leqslant}j {\leqslant}\min(k, k')$, by [@KLZ1a Theorem 6.5.9]. These points are manifestly Zariski-dense, and the result follows. The construction of $\omega_{{\mathcal{G}}}$, and the proof of the explicit reciprocity law, are also valid if ${\mathcal{G}}$ is a Coleman family passing through a $p$-stabilisation $g_\alpha$ of a $p$-regular weight 1 form, as in Theorem \[thm:colemanrepwt1\]; the only difference is that one may need to replace $V_2$ with a finite flat covering $\tilde V_2$. In this setting, $g_\alpha$ is automatically ordinary, so ${\mathcal{G}}$ is in fact a Hida family, and one can use the construction of $\omega_{{\mathcal{G}}}$ given in [@KLZ1b Proposition 10.12.2]. Bounding Selmer groups ====================== Notation and hypotheses ----------------------- Let $f, g$ be cuspidal modular newforms of weights $k + 2, k' + 2$ respectively, and levels $N_f, N_g$ prime to $p$. We *do* permit here the case $k' = -1$. We suppose, however, that $k > k'$, so in particular $k {\geqslant}0$; and we choose an integer $j$ such that $k' + 1 {\leqslant}j {\leqslant}k$. If $j = \frac{k + k'}{2} + 1$, then we assume that $\varepsilon_f \varepsilon_g$ is not trivial, where $\varepsilon_f$ and $\varepsilon_g$ are the characters of $f$ and $g$. As usual, we let $E$ be a finite extension of ${{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}$ with ring of integers ${\mathcal{O}}$, containing the coefficients of $f$ and $g$. Our goal will be to bound the Selmer group associated to the Galois representation $M_{\mathcal{O}}(f \otimes g)(1 + j)$, in terms of the $L$-value $L(f, g, 1 + j)$; our hypotheses on $(k, k', j)$ are precisely those required to ensure that this $L$-value is a *critical* value. It will be convenient to impose the following local assumptions at $p$: - ($p$-regularity) We have $\alpha_f \ne \beta_f$ and $\alpha_g \ne \beta_g$, where $\alpha_f, \beta_f$ are the roots of the Hecke polynomial of $f$ at $p$, and similarly for $g$. - (no local zero) None of the pairwise products $$\{ \alpha_f \alpha_g, \alpha_f \beta_g, \beta_f \alpha_g, \beta_f \beta_g\}$$ is equal to $p^j$ or $p^{1 + j}$, so the Euler factor of $L(f, g, s)$ at $p$ does not vanish at $s = j$ or $s = 1 + j$. - (nobility of $f_\alpha$) If $f$ is ordinary, then either $\alpha_f$ is the unit root of the Hecke polynomial, or $M_E(f) |_{G_{{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}}}$ is not the direct sum of two characters (so the eigenform $f_\alpha$ is noble in the sense of \[def:noble\]). - (nobility of $g_\alpha$ and $g_\beta$) If $k' {\geqslant}0$, then $M_E(g)|_{G_{{{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}}}$ does not split as a direct sum of characters, so both $p$-stabilisations $g_\alpha$ and $g_\beta$ are noble. 1. In our arguments we will use both $p$-stabilisations $g_\alpha$ and $g_\beta$ of $g$, but only the one $p$-stabilisation $f_\alpha$ of $f$; in particular, we do not require that the other $p$-stabilisation $f_\beta$ be noble. 2. Note that the “no local zero” hypothesis is automatic, for weight reasons, unless $k + k'$ is even and $j = \frac{k + k'}{2}$ or $j = \frac{k + k'}{2} + 1$ (so the $L$-value $L(f, g, 1 + j)$ is a “near-central” value). The $p$-regularity hypothesis implies that we have direct sum decompositions $${\mathbf{D}}_{\mathrm{cris}}(M_E(f)^*) = {\mathbf{D}}_{{\mathrm{cris}}}(M_E(f)^*)^{\alpha_f} \oplus {\mathbf{D}}_{{\mathrm{cris}}}(M_E(f)^*)^{\beta_f}$$ where $\varphi$ acts on the two direct summands as multiplication by $\alpha_f^{-1}$, $\beta_f^{-1}$ respectively, and similarly for $g$. This induces a decomposition of ${\mathbf{D}}_{\mathrm{cris}}(M_E(f \otimes g)^*)$ into four direct summands ${\mathbf{D}}_{{\mathrm{cris}}}(M_E(f \otimes g)^*)^{\alpha_f \alpha_g}$ etc. We write $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbf{D}}_{{\mathrm{cris}}}(M_E(f \otimes g)^*)^{\alpha_f \circ} &= {\mathbf{D}}_{{\mathrm{cris}}}(M_E(f \otimes g)^*)^{\alpha_f \alpha_g} \oplus {\mathbf{D}}_{{\mathrm{cris}}}(M_E(f \otimes g)^*)^{\alpha_f \beta_g} \\&= {\mathbf{D}}_{{\mathrm{cris}}}(M_E(f)^*)^{\alpha_f} \otimes_E {\mathbf{D}}_{{\mathrm{cris}}}(M_E(g)^*). \end{aligned}$$ We write $\operatorname{pr}_{\alpha_f}$ for the projection $${\mathbf{D}}_{{\mathrm{cris}}}(M_E(f \otimes g)^*) \to {\mathbf{D}}_{{\mathrm{cris}}}(M_E(f \otimes g)^*)^{\alpha_f \circ}$$ with ${\mathbf{D}}_{{\mathrm{cris}}}(M_E(f \otimes g)^*)^{\beta_f \circ}$ as kernel. If $W$ denotes the Galois representation $M_E(f \otimes g)^*(-j)$, then: - $H^1({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, W)$ is 4-dimensional (as an $E$-vector space), and $H^0({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, W) = H^2({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, W) = 0$; - we have $$H^1_\mathrm{e}({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, W) = H^1_\mathrm{f}({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, W) = H^1_\mathrm{g}({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, W),$$ and this space has dimension 2; - the dual exponential map gives an isomorphism $$\frac{H^1({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, W)}{H^1_\mathrm{f}({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, W)} \rTo^\cong \operatorname{Fil}^0 {\mathbf{D}}_{\mathrm{cris}}(W);$$ - the projection $$\operatorname{Fil}^0 {\mathbf{D}}_{\mathrm{cris}}(W) \rTo^{\operatorname{pr}_{\alpha_f}} {\mathbf{D}}_{{\mathrm{cris}}}(W)^{\alpha_f \circ}$$ is an isomorphism. This is an elementary exercise using local Tate duality, Tate’s local Euler characteristic formula, and the “no local zero” hypothesis. \[thm:ESexists\] Fix some $c > 1$ coprime to $6p N_f N_g$. For each $m {\geqslant}1$ coprime to $pc$, we obtain two classes $$c^{\alpha_f \alpha_g}_m, c^{\alpha_f \beta_g}_m \in H^1({\mathbf{Q}}(\mu_m), M_E(f \otimes g)^*(-j)),$$ with the following properties: (i) for every prime $v \nmid p$ of ${\mathbf{Q}}(\mu_m)$, we have $$\operatorname{loc}_v\left(c^{\alpha_f \alpha_g}_m\right) \in H^1_\mathrm{f}({\mathbf{Q}}(\mu_m)_v, M_E(f \otimes g)^*(-j));$$ (ii) there is a constant $R$ (independent of $m$) such that $$R c^{\alpha_f \alpha_g}_m, Rc^{\alpha_f \beta_g}_m \in H^1({\mathbf{Q}}(\mu_m), M_{{\mathcal{O}}_E}(f \otimes g)^*(-j)) / \{ \text{torsion}\},$$ where $M_{{\mathcal{O}}_E}(f \otimes g)^*$ is the lattice in $M_E(f \otimes g)^*$ which is the image of the étale cohomology with ${\mathcal{O}}_E$-coefficients; (iii) for $\ell \nmid m N_f N_g$, we have $$\operatorname{norm}_{m}^{\ell m} \left(c^{\alpha_f \alpha_g}_{\ell m}\right) = P_\ell(\ell^{-1-j} \sigma_\ell^{-1}) \cdot c^{\alpha_f \alpha_g}_{m},$$ where $P_\ell(X)$ is the local Euler factor of $L(f, g, s)$ at $\ell$, and similarly for $c^{\alpha_f \beta_g}_{\ell m}$; (iv) the images of $c^{\alpha_f \alpha_g}_m$ and $c^{\alpha_f \beta_g}_m$ under the map $$\begin{aligned} H^1({\mathbf{Q}}(\mu_m) \otimes {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, M_E(f \otimes g)^*(-j)) \rTo^{\exp^*}& {\mathbf{Q}}(\mu_m) \otimes_{{\mathbf{Q}}} \operatorname{Fil}^0 {\mathbf{D}}_{{\mathrm{cris}}}(M_{E}(f \otimes g)^*(-j))\\ \rTo^{\operatorname{pr}_{\alpha_f}}& {\mathbf{Q}}(\mu_m) \otimes_{{\mathbf{Q}}} {\mathbf{D}}_{{\mathrm{cris}}}(M_E(f \otimes g)^*)^{\alpha_f \circ} \end{aligned}$$ lie in the subspaces ${\mathbf{D}}_{{\mathrm{cris}}}(M_{E}(f)^*)^{\alpha_f \beta_g}$ and ${\mathbf{D}}_{{\mathrm{cris}}}(M_{E}(f)^*)^{\alpha_f \alpha_g}$ respectively; (v) for $m = 1$, the projections $\operatorname{pr}_{\alpha}\left( \exp^* c^{\alpha_f \alpha_g}_1\right)$ and $\operatorname{pr}_{\alpha}\left( \exp^* c^{\alpha_f \beta_g}_1\right)$ are non-zero (for some suitable choice of $c$) if and only if $L(f \otimes g, 1 + j) \ne 0$. We define the class $c^{\alpha_f \alpha_g}$ as follows. Using the $p$-stabilisations $f_\alpha$ of $f$ and $g_\alpha$ of $g$, Theorem \[thm:3varelt\] gives rise to elements $${{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[{\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}}]}_{m, 1} \in H^1({\mathbf{Q}}(\mu_m), D_\lambda(\Gamma, M_{V_1 \times V_2}({\mathcal{F}}\otimes {\mathcal{G}})^*)$$ where ${\mathcal{F}}$ and ${\mathcal{G}}$ are Coleman families through $f_\alpha$ and $g_\alpha$ (which exist, since $f_\alpha$ is noble, and $g_\alpha$ is either noble of weight ${\geqslant}2$ or $p$-regular of weight 1). Specialising these at $(f_\alpha, g_\alpha, j)$, and identifying $M_E(f_\alpha \otimes g_\alpha)^*$ with $M_E(f \otimes g)^*$ via the maps ${\operatorname{Pr}}^{\alpha_f}$ and ${\operatorname{Pr}}^{\alpha_g}$, we obtain classes $z_m^{\alpha_f \alpha_g} \in H^1({\mathbf{Q}}(\mu_m), M_{E}(f \otimes g)^*(-j))$. These classes satisfy (i), by Proposition \[prop:iwacoho-unramified\]. They also satisfy (ii), by Proposition \[prop:ming-lun-lemma\] (using the fact that $f$ and $g$ have differing weights, by hypothesis, so we have $H^0({\mathbf{Q}}^{\mathrm{ab}}, M_E(f_\alpha \otimes g_\alpha)^*) = 0$). The classes $z_m^{\alpha_f \alpha_g}$ do *not* satisfy (iii); instead, they satisfy the a slightly more complicated norm-compatibility relation $\operatorname{norm}_{m}^{\ell m} \left(c^{\alpha_f \alpha_g}_{\ell m}\right) = Q_\ell(\ell^{-1-j} \sigma_\ell^{-1}) c^{\alpha_f \alpha_g}_{m}$ where $Q_\ell(X) \in X^{-1} {\mathcal{O}}_L[X]$ is a polynomial congruent to $-X^{-1} P_\ell(X)$ modulo $\ell - 1$. However, the “correct” Euler system relation can be obtained by modifying each class $z^{\alpha_f \alpha_g}_m$ by an appropriate element of ${\mathcal{O}}_L[({\mathbf{Z}}/ m{\mathbf{Z}})^\times]$, as in [@LLZ14 §7.3]. This gives classes $c_m^{\alpha_f \alpha_g}$ satisfying (i)–(iv). It remains to verify (iv) and (v). It suffices to prove these for the un-modified classes $z_m^{\alpha_f \alpha_g}$. For (iv), let $K$ denote the completion of ${\mathbf{Q}}(\mu_m)$ at a prime above $p$, and $K_\infty = K(\mu_{p^\infty})$. Then we have a diagram D\^(, [[\_p]{}]{}) \_[D\_0(, [[\_p]{}]{})]{} H\^1\_(K\_, V) & & H\^1\_(K\_, \^[–]{} D )\ & &\ H\^1(K, W) & & H\^1(K, \^[–]{} D)\ \^[\^\*\_[K, W\^\*(1)]{}]{} & & \_[\^\*\_[K, (\^[–]{} D)\^\*(1)]{}]{}\ \_[, K]{}(W) & & \_[, K]{}(\^[–]{} D). Here $W$ denotes the Galois representation $M_E(f \otimes g)^*(-j)$, as above, $D$ denotes ${\mathbf{D}}^\dag_{{\mathrm{rig}}}(V)$, and ${\mathscr{F}}^{--} D$ is the quotient of $D$ (in the category of $(\varphi, \Gamma)$-modules) determined by the triangulations of $M_E(f_\alpha)^*$ and $M_E(f_\beta)^*$. Note that this quotient depends on the choice of $\alpha_f$ and $\alpha_g$, although the Galois representation $W$ does not. The horizontal arrows in the diagram are induced by the morphism of $(\varphi, \Gamma)$-modules $D \to {\mathscr{F}}^{--} D$. We know that the image of ${{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[f_\alpha, g_\alpha]}_{m, 1}$ in $H^1_{{\mathrm{Iw}}}(K_\infty, {\mathscr{F}}^{--} D )$ is zero, by Theorem \[thm:BFeltisSelmer\]; so its image in the bottom right-hand corner is zero. However, the projection ${\mathbf{D}}_{\mathrm{cris}}(V) \to {\mathbf{D}}_{\mathrm{cris}}({\mathscr{F}}^{--} D)$ factors through projection to the eigenspace ${\mathbf{D}}_{\mathrm{cris}}(V)^{\alpha_f \alpha_g}$, and is an isomorphism on this eigenspace; so we recover the statement that $\exp^*(c^{\alpha_f \alpha_g}_m)$ projects to zero in ${\mathbf{D}}_{\mathrm{cris}}(V)^{\alpha_f \alpha_g}$, as required. Finally, we prove (v). For this, we use an analogous commutative diagram with ${\mathscr{F}}^{-\circ}$ in place of ${\mathscr{F}}^{--}$: D\^(, [[\_p]{}]{}) \_[D\_0(, [[\_p]{}]{})]{} H\^1\_(\_[p,]{}, V) & & H\^1\_(\_, \^[-]{} D ) & & H\^1\_(\_[p,]{}, \^[-+]{} D )\ & & & &\ H\^1([[\_p]{}]{}, V) & & H\^1([[\_p]{}]{}, \^[-]{} D) & & H\^1([[\_p]{}]{}, \^[-+]{} D)\ \^[\^\*\_[[[\_p]{}]{}, V\^\*(1)]{}]{} & & \^[\^\*\_[[[\_p]{}]{}, (\^[-]{} D)\^\*(1)]{}]{}& & \_[\^\*\_[[[\_p]{}]{}, (\^[-+]{} D)\^\*(1)]{}]{}\ \_(V) & & \_(\^[-]{} D) & & \_(\^[-+]{} D). The projection ${\mathbf{D}}_{\mathrm{cris}}(V) \to {\mathbf{D}}_{{\mathrm{cris}}}({\mathscr{F}}^{-\circ}D)$ induces an isomorphism $${\mathbf{D}}_{\mathrm{cris}}(V)^{\alpha_f \circ} \rTo^\cong {\mathbf{D}}_{{\mathrm{cris}}}({\mathscr{F}}^{-\circ}D).$$ Theorem \[thm:BFeltisSelmer\] implies that the image of ${{}_c \mathcal{BF}}^{[f_\alpha, g_\alpha]}_1$ in $H^1_{{\mathrm{Iw}}}({\mathbf{Q}}_{p,\infty}, V)$ lies in the image of $H^1_{{\mathrm{Iw}}}({\mathbf{Q}}_{p,\infty}, {\mathscr{F}}^{-+} D )$; and the explicit reciprocity law shows that the image of this class in ${\mathbf{D}}_{{\mathrm{cris}}}({\mathscr{F}}^{-+} D)$ is non-zero if and only if $(c^2 - c^{2j-k-k'} \varepsilon_f(c) \varepsilon_g(c)) L(f, g, 1 + j) \ne 0$. Our hypothesis that $ \varepsilon_f(c) \varepsilon_g(c)$ be nontrivial if $j = \frac{k + k'}{2} + 1$ shows that we can choose $c$ such that the first factor is nonzero. So, for a suitable choice of $c$, the projection of $z_1^{\alpha_f \alpha_g}$ to ${\mathbf{D}}_{{\mathrm{cris}}}(V)^{\alpha_f \beta_g}$ is non-zero if and only if $L(f, g, 1 + j) \ne 0$. This completes the construction of classes $c^{\alpha_f \alpha_g}_m$ with the required properties. The construction of $c^{\alpha_f \beta_g}_m$ is identical, using the $p$-stabilisation $g_\beta$ in place of $g_\alpha$. Bounding the Bloch–Kato Selmer group ------------------------------------ Recall that if $V$ is a geometric $p$-adic representation of $\operatorname{Gal}(\overline{{\mathbf{Q}}} / {\mathbf{Q}})$, then we define $$H^1_{\mathrm{f}}({\mathbf{Q}}, V) = \{ x \in H^1({\mathbf{Q}}, V) : \operatorname{loc}_\ell(x) \in H^1_{\mathrm{f}}({\mathbf{Q}}_\ell, V) \text{ for all finite primes $\ell$} \}.$$ \[thm:BKSel\] Suppose the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:ESexists\] are satisfied, and in addition the following hypothesis is satisfied: - (big image) There exists an element $\tau \in \operatorname{Gal}(\overline{{\mathbf{Q}}} / {\mathbf{Q}}(\mu_{p^\infty}))$ such that $V / (\tau - 1) V$ is 1-dimensional, where $V = M_E(f \otimes g)(1 + j)$. If $L(f, g, 1 + j) \ne 0$, then the Bloch–Kato Selmer group $H^1_{\mathrm{f}}({\mathbf{Q}}, V)$ is zero. It is shown in [@Loeffler-big-image] that, under fairly mild hypotheses on $f$ and $g$, the the “big image” hypothesis is satisfied for all but finitely many primes ${\mathfrak{P}}$ of the coefficient field. Let $H^1_{\mathrm{strict}}({\mathbf{Q}}, V)$ denote the *strict Selmer group*, which is the kernel of the localisation map $$\operatorname{loc}_p: H^1_{\mathrm{f}}({\mathbf{Q}}, V) \to H^1_{\mathrm{f}}({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, V).$$ Let $T$ be a lattice in $V$, and let $A = V / T$. By Theorem \[thm:ESexists\], for some nonzero scalar $R$, the classes $R \cdot c_m^{\alpha_f \alpha_g}$ form a non-zero Euler system for $T^*(1)$ in the sense of [@Rubin-Euler-systems Definition 2.1.1], if we replace condition (ii) in the definition by the alternative condition (ii’)(b) of §9.1 of *op.cit.*. By [@Rubin-Euler-systems Theorem 2.2.3], the existence of any non-zero Euler system for $V^*(1)$, together with the “big image” hypothesis, implies that the $p$-torsion Selmer group $$H^1_{\mathrm{strict}}({\mathbf{Q}}, A) \coloneqq \operatorname{ker}\left( H^1({\mathbf{Q}}, A) \to \bigoplus_\ell \frac{H^1({\mathbf{Q}}_\ell, A)}{H^1_{\mathrm{strict}}({\mathbf{Q}}_\ell, A)}\right)$$ is finite, where $H^1_{\mathrm{strict}}({\mathbf{Q}}_\ell, A)$ is defined as the image of the map $$H^1_{\mathrm{f}}({\mathbf{Q}}_\ell, V) \to H^1({\mathbf{Q}}_\ell, A)$$ for $\ell \ne p$, and $H^1_{\mathrm{strict}}({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, A) = 0$. However, the image of $H^1_{\mathrm{strict}}({\mathbf{Q}}, V)$ in $H^1({\mathbf{Q}}, A)$ is clearly contained in $H^1_{\mathrm{strict}}({\mathbf{Q}}, A)$; so we conclude that $H^1_{\mathrm{strict}}({\mathbf{Q}}, V)$ is zero. In order to refine this, we use Poitou–Tate duality. Let $H^1_{\mathrm{relaxed}}({\mathbf{Q}}, V^*(1))$ (the “relaxed Selmer group”) denote the classes in $H^1({\mathbf{Q}}, V^*(1))$ whose localisation lies in $H^1_\mathrm{f}$ for all $\ell \ne p$ (but may be arbitrary at $p$). Then we have two exact sequences $$0 \rTo H^1_{\mathrm{strict}}({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, V) \rTo H^1_{\mathrm{f}}({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, V)\rTo^{\operatorname{loc}_p^{\mathrm{f}}} H^1_{\mathrm{f}}({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, V)$$ and $$0 \rTo H^1_{\mathrm{f}}({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, V^*(1)) \rTo H^1_{\mathrm{relaxed}}({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, V^*(1)) \rTo^{\operatorname{loc}_p^{\mathrm{s}}} H^1_{\mathrm{s}}({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, V^*(1)),$$ where $H^1_{\mathrm{s}}({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, V^*(1)) = \frac{H^1({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, V^*(1))}{H^1_{\mathrm{f}}({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, V^*(1))}$ (the “singular quotient”). Local Tate duality identifies $H^1_{\mathrm{s}}({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, V^*(1))$ with the dual of $H^1_{\mathrm{f}}({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, V)$; and the Poitou–Tate global duality exact sequence implies that the images of $\operatorname{loc}^{\mathrm{f}}_p$ and $\operatorname{loc}^{\mathrm{s}}_p$ are orthogonal complements of each other; compare [@Rubin-Euler-systems Theorem 1.7.3]. We have constructed two classes in $H^1_{\mathrm{relaxed}}({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, V^*(1))$, namely $c_1^{\alpha_f \alpha_g}$ and $c_1^{\alpha_f \beta_g}$, whose images in $\frac{H^1({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, V^*(1))}{H^1_{\mathrm{f}}({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, V^*(1))}$ are linearly independent (since their images under $\exp^*$ span distinct eigenspaces). So $\operatorname{loc}_p^{\mathrm{s}}$ is surjective, and consequently $\operatorname{loc}^{\mathrm{f}}_p$ is the zero map. As we have already shown that $H^1_{\mathrm{strict}}({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, V) = 0$, this shows that $H^1_{\mathrm{f}}({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, V)$ is zero. The above argument is an adaptation of the ideas of [@DR-diagonal-cycles-II §6.2], in which Poitou–Tate duality is used to bound the image of the map $\operatorname{loc}^\mathrm{f}_p$ for a Galois representation arising from the product of three cusp forms. In our setting, since we have a full Euler system rather than just the two classes $c_1^{\alpha_f \alpha_g}$ and $c_1^{\alpha_f \beta_g}$, we can also bound the kernel of this map. Corollaries ----------- From Theorem \[thm:BKSel\] one obtains a rather precise description of the global cohomology groups. We continue to write $V = M_E(f \otimes g)(1 + j)$. Let $S$ be any finite set of places of ${\mathbf{Q}}$, containing $\infty$ and all primes dividing $p N_f N_g$. Then the action of $\operatorname{Gal}(\overline{{\mathbf{Q}}} / {\mathbf{Q}})$ on $V$ factors through $\operatorname{Gal}({{\mathbf{Q}}^S\!/{\mathbf{Q}}})$, the Galois group of the maximal extension of ${\mathbf{Q}}$ unramified outside $S$. Since the Bloch–Kato local condition coincides with the unramified condition for $\ell \notin S$, we have $$H^1_\mathrm{f}({\mathbf{Q}}, V) = \{ x \in H^1({{\mathbf{Q}}^S\!/{\mathbf{Q}}}, V) : \operatorname{loc}_\ell(x) \in H^1_{\mathrm{f}}({\mathbf{Q}}_\ell, V) \text{ for all $\ell \in S$}\}.$$ Since $\operatorname{Gal}({{\mathbf{Q}}^S\!/{\mathbf{Q}}})$ is the étale fundamental group of ${\mathbf{Z}}[1/S]$, we may interpret any continuous ${{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}$-linear representation of $\operatorname{Gal}({{\mathbf{Q}}^S\!/{\mathbf{Q}}})$ as a $p$-adic étale sheaf on $\operatorname{Spec} {\mathbf{Z}}[1/S]$, and the continuous cohomology groups $H^i({{\mathbf{Q}}^S\!/{\mathbf{Q}}}, -)$ coincide with the étale cohomology groups $H^i_{{\text{\textup{\'et}}}}({\mathbf{Z}}[1/S], -)$. The latter language is used in [@KLZ1b] for instance; but in the present work we have found it easier to use the language of group cohomology, since this makes the arguments of §\[sect:analyticprelim\] easier to state. \[cor:ptduality\] If the hypotheses of Theorem \[thm:BKSel\] hold, then: 1. The localisation maps $$\begin{aligned} H^2({{\mathbf{Q}}^S\!/{\mathbf{Q}}}, V) &\to \bigoplus_{\ell \in S} H^2({\mathbf{Q}}_\ell, V)\quad \text{and}\\ H^2({{\mathbf{Q}}^S\!/{\mathbf{Q}}}, V^*(1)) &\to \bigoplus_{\ell \in S} H^2({\mathbf{Q}}_\ell, V^*(1)) \end{aligned}$$ are isomorphisms. 2. The space $H^1_{\mathrm{f}}({\mathbf{Q}}, V^*(1))$ is zero. 3. The space $H^1_{\mathrm{relaxed}}({\mathbf{Q}}, V^*(1))$ is 2-dimensional, and $c_1^{\alpha_f \alpha_g}$ and $c_1^{\alpha_f \beta_g}$ are a basis. Again by Poitou–Tate global duality, we have an exact sequence $$\begin{gathered} 0 \rTo H^1_{\mathrm{f}}({\mathbf{Q}}, V^*(1)) \rTo H^1({{\mathbf{Q}}^S\!/{\mathbf{Q}}}, V^*(1)) \rTo \bigoplus_{\ell \in S} H^1_{\mathrm{s}}({\mathbf{Q}}_\ell, V^*(1)) \\ \rTo H^1_{\mathrm{f}}({\mathbf{Q}}, V)^* \rTo H^2({{\mathbf{Q}}^S\!/{\mathbf{Q}}}, V^*(1)) \rTo \bigoplus_{\ell \in S} H^2({\mathbf{Q}}, V^*(1)) \rTo 0. \end{gathered}$$ In the situation of the theorem, we have $H^1_{\mathrm{f}}({\mathbf{Q}}, V) = 0$, so the localisation map for $H^2({{\mathbf{Q}}^S\!/{\mathbf{Q}}}, V^*(1))$ is an isomorphism. Now let $c_\ell = \dim H^2({\mathbf{Q}}_\ell, V^*(1))$. Using Tate’s local Euler characteristic formula, for any $\ell \in S \setminus \{p\}$ we have $\dim H^1({\mathbf{Q}}_\ell, V^*(1)) = c_\ell$; while for $\ell = p$ we have $c_p = 0$ and $\dim H^1_{\mathrm{s}}({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, V^*(1)) = 2$. Thus $\dim \bigoplus_{\ell \in S} H^1_{\mathrm{s}}({\mathbf{Q}}_\ell, V^*(1)) = 2 + \sum c_\ell = 2 + \dim H^2({{\mathbf{Q}}^S\!/{\mathbf{Q}}}, V^*(1))$. However, Tate’s global Euler characteristic formula gives $\dim H^1({{\mathbf{Q}}^S\!/{\mathbf{Q}}}, V^*(1)) = 2 +\dim H^2({{\mathbf{Q}}^S\!/{\mathbf{Q}}}, V^*(1))$. Thus the map $H^1({{\mathbf{Q}}^S\!/{\mathbf{Q}}}, V^*(1)) \rTo \bigoplus_{\ell \in S} H^1_{\mathrm{s}}({\mathbf{Q}}, V^*(1))$ is a surjection between finite-dimensional vector spaces of the same dimension, so it is injective and we conclude that $H^1_{\mathrm{f}}({\mathbf{Q}}, V^*(1)) = 0$. Repeating the duality argument with $V^*(1)$ in place of $V$ we now deduce that the localisation map for $H^2({{\mathbf{Q}}^S\!/{\mathbf{Q}}}, V)$ is an isomorphism. Finally, since $H^1_{\mathrm{f}}({\mathbf{Q}}, V^*(1)) = 0$, we deduce that $H^1_{\mathrm{relaxed}}({\mathbf{Q}}, V^*(1))$ maps isomorphically to its image in $H^1_{\mathrm{s}}({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, V^*(1))$; but the images of $c_1^{\alpha_f \alpha_g}$ and $c_1^{\alpha_f \beta_g}$ are a basis of $H^1_{\mathrm{s}}({{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}, V^*(1))$, so these two classes must be a basis of $H^1_{\mathrm{relaxed}}({\mathbf{Q}}, V^*(1))$. Let $L_S(f, g, s) = \prod_{\ell \notin S} P_\ell(\ell^{-s})^{-1}$ be the $L$-function without its local factors at places in $S$. If the hypotheses of Theorem \[thm:BKSel\] are satisfied and $L_S(f, g, 1 + j) \ne 0$, then $H^2({{\mathbf{Q}}^S\!/{\mathbf{Q}}}, M_E(f \otimes g)^*(-j)) = 0$. For primes $\ell \in S$, $\ell \ne p$, let us set $$P_\ell(X) = \det\left( 1 - X \operatorname{Frob}_\ell^{-1} : M_E(f \otimes g)^{I_\ell}\right),$$ and $$P_\ell^0(X) = \det\left( 1 - X \operatorname{Frob}_\ell^{-1} : M_E(f)^{I_\ell} \otimes M_E(g)^{I_\ell}\right).$$ We define $P_p(X) = P_p^0(X) = \det\left( 1 - X \varphi : {\mathbf{D}}_{{\mathrm{cris}}}(M_E(f \otimes g))\right)$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned} L_S(f, g, s) &= L(\pi_f \otimes \pi_g, s) \prod_{\ell \in S} P_\ell(\ell^{-s})\\ &= L(f, g, s) \prod_{\ell \in S} P_\ell^0(\ell^{-s}) \end{aligned}$$ where $L(\pi_f \otimes \pi_g, s)$ (the “primitive” Rankin–Selberg $L$-function) and $L(f, g, s)$ (the “imprimitive” Rankin–Selberg $L$-function) are both holomorphic on the whole complex plane. So if $L_S(f, g, 1 + j)$ is non-zero, then we must have $P_\ell(\ell^{-1-j}) \ne 0$ for all $\ell \in S$, and $L(f, g, 1 + j) \ne 0$. From the definition of $P_\ell(X)$, the fact that $P_\ell(\ell^{-1-j}) \ne 0$ implies that $H^0({\mathbf{Q}}_\ell, M_E(f \otimes g)(1+j)) = 0$ for all $\ell \in S$. Thus $H^2({\mathbf{Q}}_\ell, M_E(f \otimes g)^*(-j)) = 0$ for all $\ell \in S$, and since the global $H^2$ injects into the direct product of these groups, it must also vanish. One can check that the only values of $s$ at which the Euler factors $P_\ell(\ell^{-s})$ may vanish for some $\ell \in S$ are $$s \in \left\{ \frac{k + k'}{2}, \frac{k + k' + 1}{2}, \frac{k + k' + 2}{2}\right\}.$$ Note that the centre of the functional equation, with our normalisations, is at $s = \frac{ k + k' + 3}{2}$. Application to elliptic curves ------------------------------ Theorem \[thm:BKSel\] above allows us to strengthen one of the results of [@KLZ1b] to cover elliptic curves which are not necessarily ordinary at $p$: \[thm:sha\] Let $E / {\mathbf{Q}}$ be an elliptic curve without complex multiplication, and $\rho$ a 2-dimensional odd irreducible Artin representation of $G_{{\mathbf{Q}}}$ (with values in some finite extension $L/{\mathbf{Q}}$). Let $p$ be a prime. Suppose that the following hypotheses are satisfied: (i) The conductors $N_E$ and $N_\rho$ are coprime; (ii) $p {\geqslant}5$; (iii) $p \nmid N_E N_\rho$; (iv) the map $G_{\mathbf{Q}}\to \operatorname{Aut}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}}(T_p E)$ is surjective; (v) $\rho(\operatorname{Frob}_p)$ has distinct eigenvalues. If $L(E, \rho, 1) \ne 0$, then the group $$\operatorname{Hom}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}[\operatorname{Gal}(F / {\mathbf{Q}})]}(\rho, \operatorname{Sel}_{p^\infty}(E / F))$$ (where $F$ is the splitting field of $\rho$) is finite. In particular, $$\operatorname{Hom}_{{{\mathbf{Z}}_p}[\operatorname{Gal}(F / {\mathbf{Q}})]}(\rho, \Sha_{p^\infty}(E / F))$$ is finite. This is exactly Theorem \[thm:BKSel\] applied with $f = f_E$, the weight 2 form attached to $E$, and $g = g_{\rho}$, the weight 1 form attached to $\rho$. Compare Theorem 11.7.4 of [@KLZ1b], which is exactly the same theorem under the additional hypotheses that $E$ is ordinary at $p$ and $\rho(\operatorname{Frob}_p)$ has distinct eigenvalues modulo a prime of $L$ above $p$. Addendum: Remarks on the proof of the reciprocity law {#sect:appendix} ===================================================== In order to formulate the explicit reciprocity law of Theorem \[thm:explicitrecip\], one needs to invoke the main theorem of [@Urban-nearly-overconvergent]: the construction of a 3-variable $p$-adic Rankin–Selberg $L$-function as a rigid-analytic function on $V_1 \times V_2 \times {\mathcal{W}}$, where $V_i$ are small discs in the Coleman–Mazur eigencurve surrounding classical $p$-stabilised eigenforms, and ${\mathcal{W}}$ is weight space. Unfortunately, since the present paper was submitted, it has emerged that there are some unresolved technical issues in the paper [@Urban-nearly-overconvergent], so the existence of this $p$-adic $L$-function is not at present on a firm footing. We hope that this issue will be resolved in the near future; but as a temporary expedient we explain here an unconditional proof of a weaker form of explicit reciprocity law which suffices for the arithmetic applications in the present paper. A three-variable geometric $p$-adic $L$-function ------------------------------------------------ We place ourselves in the situation of §\[sect:explicitrecip\], so $f_\alpha, g_\alpha$ are noble eigenforms, obtained as $p$-stabilisations of newforms $f, g$ of weights $k_0 + 2, k_0' + 2$ and levels prime to $p$; and $V_1, V_2$ are small enough affinoid discs in weight space around $k_0$ and $k_0'$, over which there are Coleman families ${\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}}$ passing through $f_\alpha$, $g_\alpha$. We also allow the possibility that $k'_0 = -1$, $g$ is a $p$-regular weight 1 newform, and $g$ does not have real multiplication by a field in which $p$ splits. (The exceptional real-multiplication case can be handled similarly by replacing $V_2$ with a ramified covering; we leave the details to the reader.) For notational simplicity, we shall suppose that $\varepsilon_{\mathcal{F}}\varepsilon_{{\mathcal{G}}}$ is nontrivial, and is not of $p$-power order. Thus there is a $c > 1$ coprime to $6p N_f N_g$ for which the factor $c^2 - c^{2\mathbf{j} - \mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k}'} \varepsilon_{\mathcal{F}}(c)^{-1} \varepsilon_{{\mathcal{G}}}(c)^{-1}$ is a unit in ${\mathcal{O}}(V_1 \times V_2 \times {\mathcal{W}})$; and we may define ${\mathcal{BF}}^{[{\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}}]}_{1, 1}$ (without $c$) by dividing out by this factor. We shall begin by turning Theorem C on its head, and *defining* a $p$-adic $L$-function to be the output of this theorem: We define $L_p^{\mathrm{geom}}({\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}}) \in {\mathcal{O}}(V_1 \times V_2 \times {\mathcal{W}})$ by $$L_p^{\mathrm{geom}}({\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}}) \coloneqq (-1)^{1 + \mathbf{j}} \lambda_N({\mathcal{F}}) \left\langle \mathcal{L}\left({\mathcal{BF}}^{[{\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}}]}_{1, 1}\right), \eta_{\mathcal{F}}\otimes \omega_{{\mathcal{G}}}\right\rangle.$$ Our goal is now to show that this geometrically-defined $p$-adic $L$-function is related to critical values of complex $L$-functions. Values in the geometric range ----------------------------- By construction, for integer points of $V_1 \times V_2 \times {\mathcal{W}}$ in the “geometric range” – that is, the points $(k, k', j)$ with $0 {\leqslant}j {\leqslant}\min(k, k')$ – the geometric $p$-adic $L$-function interpolates the syntomic regulators of the Rankin–Eisenstein classes. From the computations of [@KLZ1a], we have the following explicit formula for these syntomic regulators. Let $f_{k, \alpha}$ be the $p$-stabilised eigenform that is the specialisation of ${\mathcal{F}}$ in weight $k+2$, and let $\lambda_{f_{k, \alpha}}$ be the unique linear functional on the space $S_{k + 2}^\mathrm{oc}(N_f, E)$ of overconvergent cusp forms that factors through projection to the $f_{k, \alpha}$-isotypical subspace and sends $f_{k, \alpha}$ to 1. We view $\lambda_{f_{k, \alpha}}$ as a linear functional on $S_{k + 2}^\mathrm{oc}(N, E)$, where $N = \operatorname{lcm}(N_f, N_g)$, by composing with the trace map from level $N$ to level $N_f$. For $(k, k', j)$ in the geometric range, with $j > \tfrac{k}{2} -1$, we have $$L_p^{\mathrm{geom}}({\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}})(k, k', j) = N^{k + k' - 2j} \lambda_{f_{k, \alpha}}\left[ \Pi^{\mathrm{oc}}\left( g_{k', \alpha} \cdot F^{[p]}_{k - k', k' - j + 1}\right)\right].$$ Here $F^{[p]}_{k - k', k' - j + 1}$ is a nearly-overconvergent $p$-adic Eisenstein series of weight $k-k'$ and degree of near-overconvergence ${\leqslant}k-j$, whose $p$-adic $q$-expansion (image under the unit-root splitting) is given by $$\sum_{p \nmid n} q^n \sum_{d \mid n} d^{k-j} (d')^{j-1-k'}\left( \zeta_N^{d'} + (-1)^{k-k'} \zeta_N^{-d'}\right).$$ Note that we have $$F^{[p]}_{k-k', k'-j+1} = \theta^{k-j} \left(E^{[p]}_{2j-k-k'}\right),$$ where $\theta = q \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}q}$ and $E^{[p]}_\kappa$, for $\kappa \in {\mathcal{W}}$, denotes the weight $\kappa$ overconvergent Eisenstein series $$\sum_{p \nmid n} q^n \sum_{d \mid n} d^{\kappa-1}\left( \zeta_N^{d} + (-1)^\kappa \zeta_N^{-d}\right).$$ Since $E^{[p]}_{r}$ is overconvergent of weight $r$, it follows that $g_{k', \alpha} \cdot \theta^{k-j}\left(E^{[p]}_{2j-k-k'}\right)$ lies in the space $S_{k + 2}^{\mathrm{n-oc}, k-j}(N)$ of nearly-overconvergent cusp forms of weight $k + 2$ and degree of near-overconvergence $k-j$. The condition $j > \tfrac{k}{2}-1$ implies that $k + 2 > 2(k-j)$, so Urban’s overconvergent projector $\Pi^{\mathrm{oc}}$ is defined on $S_{k + 2}^{\mathrm{n-oc}, k-j}(N)$ [@Urban-nearly-overconvergent §3.3.3]. Thus the right-hand side of the formula in the theorem is defined. Two-variable analytic $L$-functions ----------------------------------- Let us now pick an integer $t {\geqslant}0$, and set $j = k - t$ in the above formulae. Then, for varying $k$ and $k'$ (but $t$ fixed), the forms $g_{k', \alpha} \cdot \theta^t\left(E^{[p]}_{k-k'-2t}\right)$ interpolate to a 2-parameter family of nearly-overconvergent cusp forms over $V_1 \times V_2$ (of weight $\mathbf{k} + 2$ and degree $t$, where $\mathbf{k}$ is the universal weight of $V_1$). Hence we may make sense of $$L_p^{(t)}({\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}}) = N^{2t - \mathbf{k} + \mathbf{k}'}\lambda_{{\mathcal{F}}}\left[ \Pi^{\mathrm{oc}}\left( {\mathcal{G}}\cdot \theta^{t}\left(E^{[p]}_{ \mathbf{k}- \mathbf{k}'-2t}\right)\right)\right]$$ as a meromorphic rigid-analytic function on $V_1 \times V_2$, analytic except possibly for simple poles along $V_1 \cap \{ 0, \dots, 2t-2\}$ [@Urban-nearly-overconvergent §3.3.4]. The important point here is that the power of the differential operator appearing is *constant* in the family; this circumvents the technical issues in [@Urban-nearly-overconvergent], which concern interpolation of families where the degree of near-overconvergence is unbounded. We have the following special sets of integer points $(k, k') \in V_1 \times V_2$: (i) If $k {\geqslant}\max(t, 2t-1)$ and $k' {\geqslant}k-t$, then the “geometric” interpolating property above applies, showing that for these values of $(k, k')$ we have $$L_p^{(t)}({\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}})(k, k') = L_p^{\mathrm{geom}}({\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}})(k, k', k-t).$$ Since such $(k, k')$ are manifestly Zariski-dense in $V_1 \times V_2$, this relation must in fact hold for all points $(\kappa, \kappa') \in V_1 \times V_2$. (ii) If $k' {\geqslant}0$ and $k - k' {\geqslant}2t + 1$, then both $g_{k', \alpha}$ and $E^{[p]}_{k-k'-2t}$ are classical modular forms (since, after possibly shrinking $V_2$, we may arrange that the specialisations of the family ${\mathcal{G}}$ at classical weights are classical). Thus the product $g_{k', \alpha} \cdot \theta^{t}\left(E^{[p]}_{k-k'-2t}\right)$ is a classical nearly-holomorphic form, and on such forms Urban’s overconvergent projector coincides with the holomorphic projector $\Pi^{\mathrm{hol}}$. This shows that the values of $L_p^{(t)}({\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}})(k, k')$ for $(k,k')$ in this range are algebraic, and they compute the values of the Rankin–Selberg $L$-function in the usual way. This also holds for $k' = -1$, as long as we assume that the weight 1 specialisation $g_{k', \alpha}$ is classical (which is no longer automatic). Combining these two statements, we deduce the following version of an explicit reciprocity law: Let $(k, k', j)$ be an integer point of $V_1 \times V_2 \times {\mathcal{W}}$ with $k {\geqslant}0$, $k' {\geqslant}-1$, and $\frac{k + k' + 1}{2} {\leqslant}j {\leqslant}k$; and suppose $f_{k, \alpha}$ and $g_{k', \alpha}$ are $p$-stabilisations of classical forms $f_k, g_{k'}$. Then we have $$L_p^{\mathrm{geom}}({\mathcal{F}}, {\mathcal{G}})(k, k', j) = \frac{{\mathcal{E}}(f_k, g_{k'}, 1 + j)}{{\mathcal{E}}(f_k) {\mathcal{E}}^*(f_k)} \cdot \frac{j! (j- k' -1)!}{\pi^{2j-k'+1} (-1)^{k-k'} 2^{2j + 2 + k - k'} \langle f_k, f_k \rangle_{N_f}} \cdot L(f_k, g_{k'}, 1 + j),$$ where the local Euler factors are given by $$\begin{gathered} \mathcal{E}(f) = \left( 1 - \frac{\beta_f}{p \alpha_f}\right), \qquad \mathcal{E}^*(f) = \left( 1 - \frac{\beta_f}{\alpha_f}\right),\\ \mathcal{E}(f, g, 1+j) = \left( 1 - \frac{p^{j}}{\alpha_f \alpha_g}\right) \left( 1 - \frac{p^{j}}{\alpha_f \beta_g}\right) \left( 1 - \frac{\beta_f \alpha_g}{p^{1+j}}\right) \left( 1 - \frac{\beta_f \beta_g}{p^{1+j}}\right). \end{gathered}$$ This suffices to prove Theorem C of the introduction when $j {\geqslant}\frac{k + k' + 1}{2}$. The remaining cases of Theorem C, when $k' + 1 {\leqslant}j < \frac{k + k' + 1}{2}$, are easily reduced to these cases using the functional equation. It is important to be clear about what this argument does *not* prove: we obtain no information at all about the values of the geometric $p$-adic $L$-function at points of the form $(k, k', j + \chi)$ for a nontrivial finite-order character $\chi$. In particular, we cannot determine by this method whether the specialisation of our 3-variable geometric $L$-function to $\{k_0\} \times \{k_0'\} \times {\mathcal{W}}$ coincides with other existing constructions of a single-variable $p$-adic Rankin–Selberg $L$-function (cf. [@My91]). [BDR15b]{} Fabrizio Andreatta, Adrian Iovita, and Glenn Stevens, [*Overconvergent [E]{}ichler–[S]{}himura isomorphisms* ([link]{})]{}, J. Inst. Math. Jussieu **14** (2015), no. 2, 221–274. [ MR [3315057]{}. ]{} Jo[ë]{}l Bella[ï]{}che, [*Critical [$p$]{}-adic [$L$]{}-functions* ([link]{})]{}, Invent. Math. **189** (2012), 1–60. [ MR [2929082]{}. ]{} Jo[ë]{}l Bella[ï]{}che and Mladen Dimitrov, [*On the eigencurve at classical weight one points* ([link]{})]{}, Duke Math. J. **165** (2016), no. 2, 245–266. Laurent Berger and Pierre Colmez, *Familles de représentations de de [R]{}ham et monodromie [$p$]{}-adique*, Astérisque **319** (2008), 303–337, Repr[é]{}sentations $p$-adiques de groupes $p$-adiques. I. Repr[é]{}sentations galoisiennes et $(\phi,\Gamma)$-modules. [ MR [2493221]{}. ]{} Massimo Bertolini, Henri Darmon, and Victor Rotger, [*[B]{}eilinson–[F]{}lach elements and [E]{}uler systems [I]{}: syntomic regulators and [$p$]{}-adic [R]{}ankin [$L$]{}-series* ([link]{})]{}, J. Algebraic Geom. **24** (2015), no. 2, 355–378. [ MR [3311587]{}. ]{} [to3em]{}, [*[B]{}eilinson–[F]{}lach elements and [E]{}uler systems [II]{}: the [B]{}irch and [S]{}winnerton-[D]{}yer conjecture for [H]{}asse–[W]{}eil–[A]{}rtin [$L$]{}-functions* ([link]{})]{}, J. Algebraic Geom. **24** (2015), no. 3, 569–604. [ MR [3344765]{}. ]{} Siegfried Bosch, Ulrich G[ü]{}ntzer, and Reinhold Remmert, [*Non-[A]{}rchimedean analysis* ([link]{})]{}, Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften \[Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences\], vol. 261, Springer, Berlin, 1984, A systematic approach to rigid analytic geometry. [ MR [746961]{}. ]{} Kevin Buzzard, [*Eigenvarieties* ([link]{})]{}, [$L$]{}-functions and [G]{}alois representations, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., vol. 320, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2007, pp. 59–120. [ MR [2392353]{}. ]{} Ga[ë]{}tan Chenevier, [*Une application des vari[é]{}t[é]{}s de [H]{}ecke des groupes unitaires* ([link]{})]{}, Stabilisation de la formule des traces, vari[é]{}t[é]{}s de [S]{}himura, et applications arithm[é]{}tiques. [II]{}. [A]{}utour des vari[é]{}t[é]{}s de [S]{}himura, to appear. Pierre Colmez, [*Théorie d’[I]{}wasawa des représentations de de [R]{}ham d’un corps local* ([link]{})]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) **148** (1998), no. 2, 485–571. [ MR [1668555]{}. ]{} [to3em]{}, [*Fonctions d’une variable [$p$]{}-adique* ([link]{})]{}, Ast[é]{}risque **330** (2010), 13–59. [ MR [2642404]{}. ]{} [to3em]{}, [*La série principale unitaire de [$\mathrm{GL}_2(\mathbf{Q}_p)$]{}* ([link]{})]{}, Astérisque **330** (2010), 213–262. [ MR [2642407]{}. ]{} Henri Darmon and Victor Rotger, [*Diagonal cycles and [E]{}uler systems [II]{}: the [B]{}irch and [S]{}winnerton-[D]{}yer conjecture for [H]{}asse–[W]{}eil–[A]{}rtin [$L$]{}-series* ([link]{})]{}, preprint, 2014. David Hansen, [*Iwasawa theory of overconvergent modular forms* ([link]{})]{}, preprint, 2015. Kazuya Kato, [*[$P$]{}-adic [H]{}odge theory and values of zeta functions of modular forms* ([link]{})]{}, Ast[é]{}risque **295** (2004), ix, 117–290, Cohomologies $p$-adiques et applications arithm[é]{}tiques. III. [ MR [2104361]{}. ]{} Kiran S. Kedlaya, Jonathan Pottharst, and Liang Xiao, [*Cohomology of arithmetic families of [$(\varphi,\Gamma)$]{}-modules* ([link]{})]{}, J. Amer. Math. Soc. **27** (2014), no. 4, 1043–1115. [ MR [3230818]{}. ]{} Guido Kings, [*Eisenstein classes, elliptic [S]{}oul[é]{} elements and the [$\ell$]{}-adic elliptic polylogarithm* ([link]{})]{}, The [B]{}loch–[K]{}ato conjecture for the [R]{}iemann zeta function (Cambridge) (John Coates, Anantharam Raghuram, Anupam Saikia, and Ramdorai Sujatha, eds.), London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., vol. 418, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2015. Guido Kings, David Loeffler, and Sarah Livia Zerbes, [*[R]{}ankin–[E]{}isenstein classes for modular forms* ([link]{})]{}, preprint, 2015, . [to3em]{}, [*[R]{}ankin–[E]{}isenstein classes and explicit reciprocity laws* ([link]{})]{}, preprint, 2015, . Antonio Lei, David Loeffler, and Sarah Livia Zerbes, [*Euler systems for [R]{}ankin–[S]{}elberg convolutions of modular forms* ([link]{})]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) **180** (2014), no. 2, 653–771. [ MR [3224721]{}. ]{} Ruochuan Liu, [*Triangulation of refined families* ([link]{})]{}, preprint, 2014, . David Loeffler, [*Images of adelic [G]{}alois representations for modular forms* ([link]{})]{}, preprint, 2014, . David Loeffler and Sarah Livia Zerbes, [*Iwasawa theory and [$p$]{}-adic [$L$]{}-functions over [$\mathbf{Z}_p^2$]{}-extensions* ([link]{})]{}, Int. J. Number Theory **10** (2014), no. 8, 2045–2096. [ MR [3273476]{}. ]{} Vinh Quang My, *Rankin non-[A]{}rchimedean convolutions of unbounded growth*, Mat. Sb. (N.S.) **182** (1991), no. 2, 164–174, translation in Math. USSR-Sb. 72 (1992), no. 1, 151–161. Kentaro Nakamura, [*Iwasawa theory of de [R]{}ham [$(\varphi,\Gamma)$]{}-modules over the [R]{}obba ring* ([link]{})]{}, J. Inst. Math. Jussieu **13** (2014), no. 1, 65–118. [ MR [3134016]{}. ]{} J[ü]{}rgen Neukirch, Alexander Schmidt, and Kay Wingberg, *Cohomology of number fields*, Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften \[Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences\], vol. 323, Springer, Berlin, 2000. [ MR [1737196]{}. ]{} Masami Ohta, [*On the [$p$]{}-adic [E]{}ichler-[S]{}himura isomorphism for [$\Lambda$]{}-adic cusp forms* ([link]{})]{}, J. reine angew. Math. **463** (1995), 49–98. [ MR [1332907]{}. ]{} Bernadette Perrin-Riou, [*Fonctions [$L$]{} [$p$]{}-adiques des repr[é]{}sentations [$p$]{}-adiques* ([link]{})]{}, Ast[é]{}risque **229** (1995), 1–198. [ MR [1327803]{}. ]{} Robert Pollack and Glenn Stevens, [*Overconvergent modular symbols and [$p$]{}-adic [$L$]{}-functions* ([link]{})]{}, Ann. Sci. [É]{}cole Norm. Sup. (4) **44** (2011), no. 1, 1–42. [ MR [2760194]{}. ]{} Jonathan Pottharst, [*Analytic families of finite-slope [S]{}elmer groups* ([link]{})]{}, Algebra & Number Theory **7** (2013), no. 7, 1571–1612. [ MR [3117501]{}. ]{} Karl Rubin, *Euler systems*, Annals of Mathematics Studies, vol. 147, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 2000. [ MR [1749177]{}. ]{} Eric Urban, [*Nearly overconvergent modular forms* ([link]{})]{}, Iwasawa Theory 2012: State of the Art and Recent Advances (Berlin) (Thanasis Bouganis and Otmar Venjakob, eds.), Contributions in Mathematical and Computational Sciences, vol. 7, Springer, 2014, pp. 401–441. [^1]: This notation is somewhat misleading; it would be better to describe this as the *weak-star topology*, and to reserve the term *weak topology* for the topology on $D_\lambda({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}})$ induced by its own continuous dual (for the strong topology), in line with the usual terminology in classical functional analysis. However, the above abuse of notation has become standard in the nonarchimedean theory, perhaps because the continuous duals of spaces such as $D_\lambda({{\mathbf{Z}}_p}, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}})$ are too pathological to be of much interest. [^2]: The rings ${\mathscr{R}}$ and ${\mathscr{R}}^+$ are often also denoted by $\mathbf{B}^{\dag}_{\mathrm{rig}, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}}$ and $\mathbf{B}^+_{{\mathrm{rig}}, {{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}}$ respectively; this notation is used in several earlier works of the present authors.

ArXiv

--- abstract: | The hydrostatic pressure effect on the newly discovered superconductor MgB$% _{2}$ has been determined. The transition temperature $T_{c}$ was found to decrease linearly at a large rate of $-1.6$ K/GPa, in good quantitative agreement with the ensuing calculated value of $-1.4$ K/GPa within the BCS framework by Loa and Syassen, using the full-potential linearlized augmented plane-wave method. The relative pressure coefficient, $dlnT_c/dp$, for MgB$_2 $ also falls between the known values for conventional $sp$- and $d$-superconductors. The observation, therefore, suggests that electron-phonon interaction plays a significant role in the superconductivity of the compound. address: | Department of Physics and Texas Center for\ Superconductivity, University of Houston,\ Houston, Texas 77204-5932\ $^{1}$also at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road,\ Berkeley, California 94720\ submitted February 14, 2001; revised March 21, 2001 author: - 'B. Lorenz, R. L. Meng and C. W. Chu$^{1}$' title: 'High Pressure Study on MgB$_{2}$' --- \#1[[$\backslash$\#1]{}]{} The recent discovery [@akimitsu] of superconductivity in MgB$_{2}$ at temperatures as high as 40 K has generated great interest. MgB$_{2}$, which exhibits an AlB$_{2}$ structure with honeycomb layers of boron atoms, appears to be electrically three-dimensional [@kortus] and its grain boundaries have a far less detrimental effect on superconducting current transport.[@finnemore] The new compound may provide a new way to a higher superconducting transition temperature $T_{c}$ and an easier avenue for devices. Two models [@kortus; @hirsch] were subsequently advanced to account for the observation. While both have attributed the superconductivity observed mainly to the conduction bands derived from the boron sublattice, they propose different mechanisms responsible for the superconducting pairing. Based on band calculations, Kortus [*et al.*]{} [@kortus] suggest that it results from the strong electron-phonon interaction and the high phonon frequency associated with the light boron element. A relatively large boron isotope effect on $T_{c}$ has recently been observed,[@budko] consistent with the suggestion. However, Hirsch [@hirsch] offers an alternate explanation in terms of his “universal” mechanism, conjecturing that superconductivity in MgB$_{2}$, similar to that in cuprate superconductors, is driven by the pairing of the heavily dressed holes in bands that are almost full to gain enough kinetic energy to overcome the Coulomb repulsion. A positive pressure effect on $T_{c}$ has also been predicted by Hirsch if the pressure can reduce the B-B intraplane distance. We have therefore decided to determine the hydrostatic pressure effect on $T_{c}$. The $T_{c}$ was found to decrease linearly and reversibly with pressures at a relatively large rate of $dT_{c}/dP \sim -1.6$ K/GPa up to 1.84 GPa. The observation is in good quantitative agreement with the ensuing calculated result of $-1.4$ K/GPa by Loa and Syassen, [@loa] using the full-potential linearized augmented plane-wave method. The observed value of $dlnT_{c}/dP$ also falls within those of conventional $sp$- and $d$-superconductors. The results therefore suggest that electron-phonon interaction plays a major role in the superconductivity of this compound. Polycrystalline MgB$_{2}$ samples examined in the present study were prepared by the solid-state reaction method.[@budko] Small Mg chips (99.8% pure) and B powder (99.7%) with a stoichiometry of Mg:B = 1:2 were sealed inside a Ta tube in an Ar atmosphere. The sealed Ta ampoule was in turn enclosed in a quartz tube. The ingredients were heated slowly up to 950 $^{\circ }$C and kept at this temperature for 2 hours, followed by furnace-cooling to room temperature. The samples so-prepared were granular and porous and were used for measurements without further treatment. The structure was determined by powder X-ray diffraction (XRD), using a Rigaku DMAX-IIIB diffractometer. The resistivity was determined by the standard four-lead technique and the $ac$ magnetic susceptibility by an inductance method with a Linear Research Model LR-700 Bridge. The $dc$ magnetization was measured using a Quantum Design SQUID magnetometer. The thermoelectric power was determined employing a home-made apparatus using a sensitive $ac$ measurement technique. The hydrostatic pressure environment was generated inside a Teflon cell filled with 3M Fluorinert FC 77 acting as the fluid pressure medium and housed in a Be-Cu high pressure clamp.[@chu] The pressure was estimated using a Pb-manometer situated next to the sample. The temperature was measured by a chromel-alumel thermocouple located next to the sample above $\sim 45$ K and by a germanium thermometer housed at the bottom of the high pressure clamp below $\sim 45$ K. The powder XRD pattern of the samples displayed the hexagonal MgB$_{2}$ phase but with a very weak trace of MgO. The deduced lattice parameters are $% =3.084$ Å and $c=3.523$ Å in excellent agreement with the powder diffraction database.[@powder] The Seebeck coefficient ($S$) of MgB$_{2}$ is positive and relatively small and decreases with decreasing temperature, as shown in Fig. \[ST\], similar to a metal with effective hole-type carriers. It also exhibits a rapid drop at 38.9 K and vanishes at 38.1 K, signaling the appearance of a narrow superconducting transition and consistent with the electrical and magnetic results to be described below. The temperature dependence of the resistivity ($\rho $) is shown in the inset to Fig. \[ST\]. It decreases like a metal on cooling, with a resistivity-ratio $\rho $(300 K)/$\rho $(40 K) $\sim 3$, much smaller than the $\sim 20$ reported.[@finnemore] We attributed the resistivity-ratio difference to the porosity and the grain boundary effect of our samples. The $\rho $ starts to drop rapidly at $\sim 39$ K with a rather narrow transition of 0.35 K, defined as the difference between the temperatures at 10% and 90% drops of $\rho $(40 K). Shown in another inset to the same figure is the $dc$ magnetic susceptibility ($% \chi_{dc}$) of the sample, measured at 50 Oe as a function of temperature, in both the zero-field-cooled (ZFC) and the field-cooled (FC) modes. The ZFC-$\chi_{dc}$ shows a sharp superconducting transition starting at $\sim 38.5$ K with a width of $\sim 1$ K and with more than 100% superconducting shielding at 5 K prior to correction of the demagnetization factor. Similar to ZFC-$\chi _{dc}$, FC-$\chi _{dc}$ demonstrates unambiguously a diamagnetic shift at $sim 38.5$ K, but the magnitude of the signal is only $% \sim 1$% of that for the ZFC-$\chi _{dc}$. This is ascribed to the granular nature of the sample and the possible strong pinning of the compound. To determine the pressure effect on $T_{c}$, we chose to measure the $ac$ magnetic susceptibility ($\chi _{ac}$) of the sample in a peak-to-peak field of $\sim 2$ Oe. At ambient pressure, similar to $\chi _{dc}$, $\chi _{ac}$ undergoes a drastic diamagnetic shift with an onset temperature at $\sim 38.5 $ K, characteristic of a superconducting transition with a mid-point temperature of $\sim 37.4$ K, as shown in Fig. \[XT\]. Under pressure, the superconducting transition is shifted toward a lower temperature. The pressure effect on $T_{c}$ is summarized in Fig. \[TP\]. It is evident that $T_{c}$ is suppressed reversibly and linearly at a rate of $% T_{c}/dP=-1.6$ K/GPa up to 1.84 GPa. The numbers in the figure represent the sequential order of the experimental runs. According to the BCS theory, $T_{c}\propto \omega \exp \{-1.02(1+\lambda )/[\lambda (1-\mu ^{\ast })-\mu ^{\ast }]\}$, where $\omega $ is the characteristic phonon frequency, $\mu ^{\ast }$ the Coulomb repulsion, and $% \lambda $ the electron-phonon interaction parameter,[@mcmillan] which is equal to $N(0)<I^{2}{>}/M{<}\omega ^{2}{>}$ with $N(0)$ being the density of states at the Fermi energy, ${<}I^{2}{>}$ the averaged square of the electronic matrix element, $M$ the atomic mass, and ${<}\omega ^{2}{>}$ the averaged square of the phonon frequency. The relative pressure effect on $% T_{c}$ is $dlnT_{c}/dP=dln\omega /dP+1.02/[\lambda (1-\mu ^{\ast })-\mu ^{\ast }]^{2}(d\lambda /dP)$. Recent band calculations by Kortus [*et al.*]{} [@kortus] showed that MgB$_{2}$ is electronically isotropic, the $N(0)$ derived mainly from the B atoms near the Fermi surface is large, and the phonon frequency is high due to the low mass of B, resulting in a large $% \lambda $. Pressure is expected to increase $\omega $, broaden the density of states and it may reduce $N(0)$ resulting in a relatively strong decrease in $T_{c}$. Following the high pressure experiment, Loa and Syassen [@loa] as well as Vogt et al.[@Vogt] carried out the full-potential linearized augmented plane-wave calculation. Loa and Syassen found that MgB$% _{2}$ is isotropic both electronically and mechanically and found that pressure suppresses $N(0)$ with $dlnN(0)/dP=-0.31$%/GPa and enhances $% \omega $ with $dln\omega /dP=+0.71$%/GPa. By assuming $\mu ^{\ast }$ and $I$ to be pressure-independent and by adopting the usual numerical values $\mu ^{\ast }=0.1$ and the zero-pressure $\lambda =0.7$, they obtained within the BCS framework $dlnT_{c}/dP\sim -3.6$%/GPa or $dT_{c}/dP\sim -1.4$ K/GPa for $T_{c}=39$ K. The calculated value may be considered as a crude estimate, however, it is in good quantitative agreement with our measured $% dT_{c}/dP=-1.6$ K/GPa. Vogt et al. calculated a similar pressure coefficient $dlnN(0)/dP=-0.4$%/GPa and argued that the pressure effect on $T_{c}$ can be explained within the BCS- theory and their band structure calculations, assuming reasonable parameters for $\mu ^{\ast }$ ($0.1$) and $\lambda $ ($% 1.0$). It is interesting that in both calculations the pressure induced change of $N(0)$ is relatively small compared with the estimated increase of $\omega $ indicating that the main source of the decrease of $T_{c}$ with pressure is its effect on $\omega $. It has also been demonstrated [@levy] that, within the framework of the BCS theory, the volume effect on $T_{c}$ can be expressed as $% ln(T_{c}/\omega )/dV\equiv \phi ln(\omega /T_{c})$, where $\omega $ is the phonon frequency, $V$ the volume, and $\phi $ a material dependent parameter. For $sp$-superconductors, $\phi \sim 2.5$, while for the $d$superconductors, $\phi <2.5$ and can become negative. The lack of knowledge on $\phi $ and on the compressibility of MgB$_{2}$ prevents us from making a direct comparison between our observation and the predicted $\phi $. However, by examining all available data on the relative pressure effect on the $T_{c}$ of conventional low temperature noncuprate superconductors,[@levy; @brandt; @smith] we found that, in general, $dlnT_{c}/dP<-8\times 10^{-2}$GPa for $sp$-superconductors, but $>-2\times 10^{-2}$/GPa for the $d$superconductors, and the value is not sensitive to impurity except for cases where the Fermi surface topology changes due to applied pressure or impurity content. For MgB$_{2}$, $dlnT_{c}/dP\sim -4.2\times 10^{-2}$/GPa, which lies between the values for the two groups of conventional superconductors. It is interesting to note that $dlnT_{c}/dP\sim -5\times 10^{-1}$/GPa for K$_{3}$C$% _{60}$,[@schirber] in which electron-phonon interaction is considered to play an important role. In an alternate approach, regarding the cuprate high temperature superconductors, Hirsch [@hirsch] proposed that MgB$_{2}$ is a hole-doped superconductor with a conduction band almost completely filled. The $T_{c}$ varies with carrier concentration non-monotonically and peaks at an optimal doping level. Pressure is expected to enhance the $T_{c}$ resulting from the reduction of the B-B intraplane distance. Unfortunately, we found that the $T_{c}$ of MgB$_{2}$ is greatly suppressed by pressure even though MgB$_{2}$ is mechanically isotropic [@loa] and B-B intraplane distance is expected to decrease under pressures. It should be noted that a negative pressure coefficient is possible only if pressure can induce a large change in the carrier concentration and MgB$_{2}$ is overdoped. The positive $S$ observed by us appears to be consistent with the hole-doped scenario of MgB${2}$ suggested, although Hall data and the doping state are still unavailable. In conclusion, the $T_{c}$ of MgB$_{2}$ has been found to decrease linearly and reversibly up to $1.84$ GPa at a large rate of $-1.6$ K/GPa, in good quantitative agreement with the values based on band calculations by Kortus [*et al.*]{} and Loa and Syassen within the BCS framework. The large relative pressure effect on $T_{c}$ of MgB$_{2}$ also falls within those of the conventional $sp$- and $d$-superconductors. The observation favors the proposition that electron-phonon interaction plays a significant role in the superconductivity in this compound. Unless the pressure can induce a large hole-transfer in a possibly overdoped MgB$_{2}$ to compensate for the predicted positive pressure effect on $T_{c}$, the “universal” mechanism cannot account for the observation. The authors wish to thank J. Cmaidalka, J. Lenzi, and Y. S. Wang for assistance in sample synthesis, thermoelectric power, and magnetic measurements, respectively. This work was supported in part by NSF Grant No. DMR-9804325, the T. L. L. Temple Foundation, the John J. and Rebecca Moores Endowment and the State of Texas through the Texas Center for Superconductivity at the University of Houston; and at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory by the Director, Office of Energy Research, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Division of Material Sciences of the U. S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC03-76SF00098. J. Akimitsu, Symposium on Transition Metal Oxides, Sendai, Japan, January 10, 2001. J. Kortus [*et al.*]{}, cond-mat/0101446, 30 January 2001. D. K. Finnemore [*et al.*]{}, cond-mat/0102114, 6 February 2001. J. E. Hirsch, cond-mat/0102115, 8 February 2001. \[Preprint received after initial submission of our manuscript\] I. Loa and K. Syassen, cond-mat/0102462, 26 February 2001. \[Preprint received after initial submission of our manuscript\] T. Vogt, G. Schneider, J. A. Hriljac, G. Yang, and J. S. Abell, cond-mat/0102480, 27 February 2001. S. L. Bud’ko [*et al.*]{}, cond-mat/01014634, 3 February 2001. C. W. Chu and L. R. Testardi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**32**]{}, 766 (1974). Powder Diffraction File, Set 38, p. 509 (JCPDS, 1988). W. L. McMillan, Phys. Rev. [**167**]{}, 331 (1968). M. Levy and J. L. Olsen, Physics of High Pressures and Condensed Phase, Ch. 13 (Amsterdam: North Holland, 1964). N. E. Brandt and N. I. Ginzburg, Sov. Phys.-Uspekhi [**8**]{} 202 (1964); [*ibid.*]{} [**12**]{}, 344 (1969). T. F. Smith, AIP Conf. Proc. [**4**]{}, 293 (1992); J. Low Temp. Phys. [**6**]{}, 171 (1972). G. Sparn [*et al.*]{}, Science [**252**]{}, 1839 (1991).

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We show that shape moduli in sub-millimeter extra dimensional scenarios, addressing the gauge hierarchy problem, can dominate the energy density of the universe today. In our scenario, the volume of the extra dimensions is stabilized at a sufficiently high scale to avoid conflicts with nucleosynthesis and solar-system precision gravity experiments, while the shape moduli remain light but couple extremely weakly to brane-localized matter and easily avoid these bounds. Nonlocal effects in the bulk of the extra dimension generate a potential for the shape moduli. The potential has the right form and order of magnitude to account for the present day cosmic acceleration, in a way analogous to models of quintessence as a pseudo Nambu-Goldstone boson.' address: | $^1$CITA, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, M5S 3H8, Canada\ $^2$Department of Physics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, M5S 1A7, Canada author: - Marco Peloso$^1$ - Erich Poppitz$^2$ title: Quintessence from Shape Moduli --- [\ CITA-2003-32 ]{} Introduction and summary ======================== There is compelling evidence that the universe is undergoing a stage of accelerated expansion. The original indication from supernovae data [@sn] is nicely confirmed by a wealth of independent results [@cmb]. The most immediate explanation for this effect, a vacuum energy $\rho_\Lambda \sim \left( 0.002 \, {\rm eV} \right)^4 \,$, is more than $120$ orders of magnitude smaller than its naturally expected value $\sim M_p^4\,$. For this reason, it is often assumed that—due to some unknown mechanism—$\rho_\Lambda =0\,$, and that the acceleration is instead due to a new form of energy, named [*quintessence*]{}, whose effective equation of state $w$ is sufficiently close to the one of vacuum. Combining the WMAP measurement of the cosmic microwave background radiation anisotropies with supernovae [@sn2] and large scale structure [@2df] observations, gives the upper bound $w \leq -0.7$ at $95\%$ confidence level [@cmb]. As for inflation [@infla], it is assumed that quintessence can be effectively described by a scalar field $Q\,$ [@quint] which is at present slowly rolling down some potential $V\,$. One may think that models of quintessence cannot be much harder to realize than inflationary ones. After all, primordial inflation lasted for more than $\sim 60$ e-folds, while the present accelerated stage only started at redshift $z \sim 0.5$ or so. Hence, the potential of quintessence does not need to be flat for a region of field values as large as in the case of the inflaton. However, the main trouble is now represented by the much lower scales involved. First, as we noted, $V \sim \left( 0.002 \, {\rm eV} \right)^4$ is required. Even worse, the slow roll condition limits the mass of quintessence to be smaller or comparable to the present Hubble parameter, $m_Q \la H_0 \sim 10^{-33} \, {\rm eV}\,$. Both these requirements make the realization of particle physics models of quintessence a particularly challenging task [@kl]. It is natural to invoke some symmetry to protect such low scales. For example, supersymmetric models have been considered [@susyqcd]. However, we know supersymmetry to be broken at least at the TeV scale. Even assuming that the quintessence sector only feels this breaking through gravity typically results in too large a correction to $m_Q\,$. This imposes constraints on models of quintessence in supergravity [@gravity]. As an alternative approach, quintessence has been identified with a pseudo Nambu-Goldstone boson [@pngb]: the quintessence field acquires a mass due to the explicit breaking of some global symmetry. The reasons why the breaking could lead to a value of $m_Q$ which is naturally small are different for the different models considered. In this work we discuss a different approach, with quintessence arising in the context of large extra dimensions. It is sometimes remarked that the scale $V^{1/4}$ of the present energy density of the universe is very close to the inverse size of the radii considered in (ADD) models of large extra dimensions [@add]. Such scenarios are proposed to address the gauge hierarchy problem; the identification of quintessence with some “degree of freedom” of large extra dimensional models would thus relate in a unique framework the two strongest hierarchies of particle physics. In the scheme we have in mind, the volume of the extra dimensions is stabilized at early times, thus guaranteeing standard four dimensional gravity, while the role of quintessence is played by the moduli fields controlling the shape of the extra space. The quintessence potential is due to the Casimir energy of bulk fields. The scale of the potential is naturally related to the size of the extra dimensions and is protected from destabilizing corrections by locality and diffeomorphism invariance of the higher dimensional theory. An analogous mechanism has been already discussed in the literature [@qrad]. However, due to the restricted class of shape deformations considered, it was concluded that it does lead to an equation of state $w \geq - 1/3 \,$, which is unable to account for the observed accelerated expansion. We show that a more optimistic conclusion is reached once generic deformations of the extra space are taken into account, and that indeed such a mechanism can lead to a successful model for quintessence. As we will see, the evolution of the shape moduli strongly resembles the one of quintessence as a pseudo Nambu-Goldstone boson [@pngb]. [^1] In this paper, we focus on the case of two large extra dimensions compactified on a torus, where the generic shape deformations are known and where the Casimir energy can be accurately computed. Our results on the shape moduli as quintessence can be summarized as follows: 1. [In a non supersymmetric context, the correct scale for quintessence is achieved for extra dimensions of size $L \sim 50 \mu$m, corresponding to a fundamental scale of $\sim 7\,$ TeV; remarkably, such a value of $L$ is expected to be soon tested in short distance gravity experiments [@boundl]. However, there is already a stronger bound (less than one order of magnitude smaller than the value we are considering) from the necessity to avoid a too rapid cooling of supernovae [@supernovae].]{} 2. [If, instead, the bulk of the extra dimensions is supersymmetric, while supersymmetry is broken on the Standard Model brane at the fundamental scale (TeV), the Casimir energy potential of the shape moduli acquires an additional suppression factor. We show that the suppression is precisely of the right order of magnitude for the potential to account for the late-time acceleration, once the scale $L$ is taken to be consistent with the supernovae bound.]{} This paper is organized as follows. In section \[areastab\] we discuss the early time stabilization of the volume of the extra dimensions. In section \[shapestab\] we study the Casimir energy responsible for the late time evolution of the shape moduli, and their role as quintessence. The case of a supersymmetric bulk is considered in section \[susystab\]. General setup and area stabilization {#areastab} ==================================== In ADD models [@add], the observed weakness of gravity, i.e. the high value for the effective four dimensional Planck mass $M_p\,$, is due to the large size of some extra dimensional space where gravity propagates. Generally, in models with extra dimensions, $M_p\,$ is proportional to the volume of the extra space. Variations of $M_p$ are strongly limited by the requirement of a conventional four dimensional cosmology from Primordial Nucleosynthesis, starting after about the first second of the universe, up to the present [@cosmo1; @exp]. A massless radion (i.e. the scalar field whose expectation value determines the volume of the extra space) also modifies late time gravity. The radion couples to the trace of the energy momentum tensor of matter fields. While the coupling is naturally expected to be of gravitational strength, a further $\sim 10^{-4}$–$10^{-3}$ suppression is needed to fulfill precision tests of general relativity within the solar system [@gr]. For these reasons, we discuss a mechanism where the volume of the extra space is stabilized at a sufficiently high scale.[^2] Stabilization mechanisms for the extra dimensions have drawn considerable interest. The set-up discussed in [@area] is particularly simple: two extra dimensions compactified on a Riemann surface ($S^2, T^2$, etc.) are considered. The area $\mathcal{A}$ of the surface is stabilized due to an interplay between the six dimensional cosmological constant and a $U \left( 1 \right)$ field in the bulk. Under the effect of a negative $\Lambda_6\,$, it is energetically favored for the extra space to shrink. On the other hand, a gauge field in the extra compact space can have nonvanishing magnetic flux, which (analogous to the Dirac monopole in four dimensions [@dirac]) is quantized in units of inverse charge, $ \Phi \equiv \int d X^4 \, d X^5 \epsilon^{\mu \nu} \, F_{\mu \nu} = 2 \, \pi \, N/e$, where $N$ is an integer and $e$ is the gauge coupling (which has inverse mass dimension). As a consequence, both the magnetic field and its energy are proportional to the inverse of the area $\mathcal{A}\,$, contrasting the shrinking of the extra-space due to the bulk cosmological constant. Minimizing the total energy, one finds that the area $\mathcal{A}$ is stabilized at: $$\begin{aligned} \label{vacuum} &&\langle \mathcal{A} \rangle = \frac{\mu}{\sqrt{- \, \Lambda_6}} \quad\quad,\quad \mu \equiv \frac{\pi \, N}{\sqrt{2} \, e} \nonumber\\ \Rightarrow && \frac{M_p^2}{2} \equiv M_6^4 \, \langle \mathcal{A} \rangle = \frac{M_6^4 \, \mu}{\sqrt{- \, \Lambda_6}} \,\,. \label{min}\end{aligned}$$ A large size of the extra dimensions can be achieved with a sufficiently large number of flux quanta, $N \gg 1\,$. Such a high value is technically natural, since $N$ can not be changed by (perturbative) quantum corrections. [^3] We are interested in studying compactification manifolds which have shape moduli. The simplest example is a toroidal extra dimension. If we place, for example, four branes, with tensions tuned so that each has deficit angle $\pi$, at the four fixed points of $T^2/Z_2$, we obtain a space with the topology of a sphere—a “pillow" with branes at the four corners—with a metric which has all the moduli of the torus (given by eqns. (\[metric\], \[gamma\]) below). We can then apply the mechanism of [@area] to achieve area stabilization. We should note, however, that the magnetic flux/six dimensional cosmological constant configuration of [@area] is not an exact solution of the equations of motion, as can be easily checked by computing the local Einstein equations in the extra dimensions: the backreaction of the magnetic field on the geometry of the extra space is neglected in [@area] (since the backreaction can be considered a perturbation if the energy densities responsible for stabilization are small in units of $M_6$). We used the example studied in [@area] as an illustration, since it only fixes the value of $\mathcal{A}\,$, leaving the other moduli of the extra space free to evolve; however, it is not immediately clear to us if this will still be the case once the backreaction on the geometry is taken into account. We take the mechanism of [@area] as a strong indication that the desired stabilization of the area can be achieved. However, this is not our main focus in this paper; hence, we will not further study this or other possible area stabilizing mechanisms here. In the rest of this work we simply postulate that such a mechanism exists, and focus on the late time evolution of the shape moduli fields. Shape stabilization and quintessence {#shapestab} ==================================== We concentrate on the case of two extra dimensions compactified on a torus. This is the simplest example which allows for deformations of the extra space which preserve a fixed volume. One may regard this case as a prototype of the generic case in which more extra dimensions or shape moduli are present. The torus is parameterized by its area $\mathcal{A}$ and by two real moduli fields $\tau_1, \tau_2$, defining its shape. With the area stabilized, the line interval is given by: $$\label{metric} d s^2 = g_{\mu\nu}(x) \, d x^\mu d x^\nu + \gamma_{ij}(x) \, d y^i dy^j \,\,. \label{line}$$ The $x$ coordinates span the noncompact $3+1$ dimensional space, while $y^i$ are the two extra dimensional coordinates defined in the interval $y^i \in \left[0 , L \right], L = \langle \mathcal{A} \rangle^{1/2}\,$. The four dimensional metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ is the metric of a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universe, while the metric $\gamma_{ij}$ on the torus is: $$\label{gamma} \gamma_{ij} = \frac{1}{\tau_2} \left( \begin{array}{cc} 1 & \tau_1 \\ \tau_1 & |\tau|^{2} \end{array} \right) \,\,,$$ where $\tau = \tau_1 + i \, \tau_2\,$, so that $\gamma$ has determinant one. Integrating over the extra space, we obtain the following action, describing gravitational and moduli physics at scales larger than $L$: $$\begin{aligned} S_g &=& M_6^4 \int d^6 x \sqrt{-G} R \left( G \right) = \nonumber\\ &=& \frac{M_p^2}{2} \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g} \left[ R \left( g \right) + \frac{g^{\mu\nu} \partial_\mu \tau \, \partial_\nu {\bar \tau}}{2 \, \tau_2^2} \right] \,\,, \label{a4d}\end{aligned}$$ where $M_p\,$, the (reduced) Planck mass in four dimensions, was given in eqn. (\[min\]), and $\bar\tau = \tau_1 - i \tau_2$. The Standard Model fields are confined on a $3+1$ dimensional brane and do not couple to the shape[^4] moduli $\tau$; they only probe the geometry of the compact space through the strength of the gravitational interactions set by the volume. On the contrary, the Kaluza-Klein spectrum of any bulk field depends on both the volume and shape of the extra space. Thus, mass differences among KK eigenstates found in accelerator experiments would allow a reconstruction of the geometry of the extra space [@shape]. What is more important for us is that the dependence of the KK spectrum on the shape moduli may provide a stabilization mechanism for $\tau_{1,2}\,$. The Casimir energy of a real massless scalar field obeying periodic boundary conditions in $y^1, y^2$ of eqn. (\[metric\]), generates a potential for the shape moduli given by: $$\begin{aligned} \label{potential} V_s &=& \frac{1}{L^4} \left[ - \, \frac{4 \, \pi^3 \, \tau_2^3}{945} - \frac{1}{2 \, \pi^2 \, \tau_2^2} \, \left( \tau_2^2 \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \tau_2^2} - 3 \, \tau_2 \, \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau_2} + 3 \right) \sum_{p=1}^{\infty} S_p \right] \,\,, \nonumber\\ S_p &\equiv& \frac{1}{p^5} \, \frac{{\rm sinh } \left( 2 \, \pi \, p \, \tau_2 \right)}{{\rm cosh } \left( 2 \, \pi \, p \, \tau_2 \right) - {\rm cos } \left( 2 \, \pi \, p \, \tau_1 \right)} \,\,,\end{aligned}$$ where we correct an overall $1/2$ factor in eqn. (61) of [@stab]. While $V_s$ is the Casimir energy computed in a background (\[metric\]), with $g_{\mu\nu}$—the Minkowski metric, it is easy to see that corrections due to the time-dependent nature of $g_{\mu \nu}$ are of order $H L$, where $H$ is the four dimensional Hubble scale. Using (\[potential\]) in a time-dependent background is then self-consistent provided $H \ll L^{-1}\,$, which is always true for energies below the fundamental scale of the theory. We also require that $V_s$ can be considered to be a perturbation of the volume stabilization mechanism, i.e. the Casimir energy density (\[potential\]) should be (at least) smaller than $M_6^4$. The exponential dependence of (\[potential\]) on the canonically normalized $\phi_2 = \left( M_p / \sqrt{2} \right) \ln \tau_2\,$ thus limits $\phi_2/M_p < {\cal{O}}(10)$ (moreover, assuming an equally spaced probability for the initial value of $\phi_2\,$, values $\tau_2 \sim 1$ are more probable than higher values). It is also important to note that the Casimir potential for the moduli is a nonlocal effect in the bulk: there exist no local generally covariant expressions in 6d that generate a potential for $\tau$. Thus eqn. (\[potential\]) is not subject to divergent radiative corrections—all divergences are absorbed by local counterterms and renormalize the coefficients of various terms in the local action of the model. Nonlocal quantum gravity effects are also expected to be exponentially suppressed if the size of the extra dimension is larger than the fundamental gravity scale $M_6$. The scale of the potential (\[potential\]) is thus naturally related to the size of the extra dimensions. The contributions of other massless bulk fields are easily related to (\[potential\]). For example, the contribution of bulk gravitons and massless periodic bulk Weyl fermions to the moduli potential is $V_g = 9 V_s$ and $V_\psi= - 4 V_s\,$, respectively [@stab]. In the following, we consider a simple extension of the Standard Model characterized by the presence of three right handed neutrinos $N$, as well as gravity. Since $N$ are uncharged under the Standard Model interactions they can be naturally thought as bulk fields [@Dienes:1998sb]. Moreover, we assume that they are sufficiently light and so contribute to the Casimir energy as effectively massless fields (one can also simply postulate the existence of a number of massless bulk fermions). In this example, the total Casimir energy is given by: $$\label{potential2} V = 9 \, V_s - 3 \times 4 \, V_s = - 3 \, V_s \,\,. \label{casimir}$$ The shape moduli potentials (\[potential\], \[potential2\]), induced by the Casimir energy, inherit important symmetries coming from the large diffeomorphisms of the extra compact space, which relate equivalent tori. For example, it is obvious from the form of $S_p$ that $V_s$ is a periodic function of $\tau_1$ with period one. More generally, equivalent tori are connected by SL$\left( 2 ,\, Z \right)$ transformations, $\tau \rightarrow \left( a \, \tau + b \right) / \left( c \, \tau + d \right) \,$, where $a ,\, b ,\, c \,,$ and $d$ are integers obeying $a \, d - b \, c = 1\,$. While this is less obvious from the explicit expression (\[potential\]), the Casimir potential is invariant under the entire group of SL$\left( 2,Z \right)$ transformations; this fact considerably simplifies its study, as we see below. Distinct tori have modular parameters $\tau$ taking values in the fundamental region $\vert \tau \vert \geq 1 ,\, -1/2 \leq \tau_1 < 1/2 ,\, \tau_2 > 0 \,$, so it is enough to study the behavior of the Casimir energy in this region. Two values, $\tau_A = i$ and $\tau_B = {\rm e}^{2 \, \pi \, i/3}\,$, are of special interest, since they are fixed points of the transformations $\tau \rightarrow -1/\tau$ and $\tau \rightarrow - 1 / \left( 1 + \tau \right) \,$, respectively (the ${\cal{S}}$ and ${\cal{S}} {\cal{T}}^{-1}$ generators of SL$\left( 2 ,\, Z \right)$). Hence, they correspond to extrema of the Casimir energy (\[potential\]). To study their stability, we expand the potential (\[potential2\]) up to quadratic order (in practice, only the first few terms in the sum over $p$ in (\[potential\]) are important): $$\begin{aligned} L^4 V\vert_{\tau \simeq \tau_A} &\simeq& 0.9 - 0.7 \, \tau_1^2 + 3.4 \left( \tau_2 - 1 \right)^2 \,\,, \nonumber\\ L^4 V\vert_{\tau \simeq \tau_B}&\simeq& 0.8 + 1.6 \left( \tau_1 + 1/2 \right)^2 + 1.6 \left( \tau_2 - \sqrt{3}/{2} \right)^2 \,\,. \label{exp}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $\tau_A$ is a a saddle point of the potential, while $\tau_B$ is a minimum. In the following, we redefine $V \left( \tau \right) \rightarrow V \left( \tau \right) - V \left( \tau_B \right) \,$ such that the minimum is at zero energy; the additional constant contribution is provided by the mechanism responsible for the cancellation of the total cosmological constant in the vacuum of the theory, as it is usually assumed in models of quintessence. In figure \[fig1\] we show a contourplot of the resulting potential, in the range of parameters of our interest. This will help illustrate the dynamics of the two moduli and their role as quintessence fields. The situation is analogous to the one encountered in models where the role of quintessence is played by a pseudo Nambu-Goldstone boson [@pngb] (axion) $\phi$ with lagrangian: $${\cal L} = \frac{1}{2} \left( \partial_\mu \phi \right) - U \quad,\quad U = U_0 \left( 1 - {\rm cos } \: \frac{2 \, \pi \, \phi}{f} \right) \,\,. \label{potax}$$ In this case, it is assumed that $\phi$ is frozen at the maximum of the potential $U$ until very recent times. This is possible due to the friction provided by the expansion of the universe, as evident from the equation of motion $\ddot{\phi} + 3 \, H \, \dot{\phi} + d U/d \phi = 0 \,$: at early times, the contributions to the Hubble parameter $H$ from matter and radiation are high enough to prevent $\phi$ from moving. As the universe expands, $H$ drops, and eventually $\phi$ starts rolling towards the minimum of $U\,$. If $\phi$ is initially sufficiently close to the saddle point, the first part of its motion occurs in the slow roll regime, and a finite period of inflation—sufficient to take into account the late time acceleration of the universe—can take place. We emphasize that, for this mechanism to work, both the scales of the potential $U_0$ and of the field $f$ have to acquire very precise, yet very different values. On one hand, the potential energy of $\phi$ must dominate the present energy density of the universe, leading to $U_0 \simeq \left( 0.002 \, {\rm eV} \right)^4\,$. On the other hand, if we want the field to be in the slow roll regime today, rather than having settled already to the minimum of $U\,$, its effective mass squared $d^2 U / d \phi^2 \sim U_0 / f^2$ has to be comparable to the present value of $H^2\,$ (this is probably the main obstacle for particle physics models of quintessence). As a consequence, $f$ cannot be taken much smaller than $M_p\,$, unless one is willing to strongly fine-tune the initial value of $\phi$ unnaturally close to the maximum of the potential $U\,$. It is rather remarkable that, in the proximity of the saddle point $\tau_A\,$, the potential (\[casimir\]) for the moduli fields is exactly of the form (\[potax\]), with the two scales $U_0$ and $f$ precisely as required to have a workable model of quintessence. As clear from the expansion (\[exp\]), motion for $\tau \sim \tau_A$ initially occurs along the $\tau_1$ direction, where the potential $V$ has a cos $\tau_1$ dependence. Since the motion of $\tau$ during the slow roll regime is rather limited, the potential experienced during the accelerated stage is effectively of the form (\[potax\]) (one can verify numerically that even a simple quadratic expansion as in (\[exp\]) is sufficient). Thus, the degree of fine tuning on the initial conditions is the same as the one encountered in models of Quintessence as a pseudo Nambu-Goldstone boson field [@pngb]. The scale $f$ of the moduli fields can be easily obtained by direct inspection of their equation of motion (notice the nonstandard kinetic term in eqn. (\[a4d\])), and it amounts to $f \simeq 0.8 M_p\,$. Once shifted to have zero cosmological constant in the minimum, the potential is of order $V \left( \tau \simeq \tau_A \right) \simeq 0.1 / L^4 \,$. This is of the order of the present energy density of the universe for a size of the extra dimensions $L \sim 50 \, \mu $m. In ADD models, this corresponds to a fundamental scale of $\sim 7 \,$ TeV, reasonably close to the electroweak scale. Quite interestingly, gravity experiments give at present the bound $L \la 150 \, \mu $m, and are expected to lower their sensitivity to the value we are considering in the near future [@boundl]. Despite the fact that $L \sim 50 \; \mu$m is compatible with present bounds from gravitational experiments, the production of a large number of light graviton Kaluza-Klein modes leads to rapid cooling of supernovae and places an upper limit on the value of the radius, $R \equiv L/(2 \pi)$. For two extra dimensions the bound is $R \le 0.96 \; \mu$m [@supernovae], while our prediction from late-time domination is $R \sim 7 \; \mu$m. Thus, it appears that the supernovae constraint—which was not taken into account in refs. [@radq], [@qrad]—would rule out the use of shape moduli of two large extra dimensions as quintessence. [^5] However, as we discuss in the next section, if the bulk of the extra dimension is supersymmetric, while supersymmetry is broken on the Standard Model brane at the fundamental scale (TeV), the Casimir energy potential of the shape moduli acquires an additional suppression factor. We will see that the suppression has just the right order of magnitude for the potential to account for the late-time acceleration, even for $L$ small enough to be consistent with the supernovae bounds. To conclude this section, we compare our findings to the ones of [@qrad], where late time changes of the shape of the extra space were discussed as well. Only rectangular $n-$tori were considered in [@qrad], and an exponential potential—unable to provide late tame acceleration—was recovered. In our set-up, the particular class of shape deformations considered in [@qrad] amounts in varying the modulus field $\tau_2\,$, with $\tau_1\,$ fixed to zero. If we do so, we also recover an exponential-like potential, for the canonically normalized field $\phi_2 \propto \ln \tau_2\,$, cf. eqn. (\[potential\]). We see, however, that the dynamics of the system does not generally proceed through fixed $\tau_1\,$. As we have discussed, it is precisely the motion along the $\tau_1$ coordinate which allows for a mechanism suitable for quintessence. Shape stabilization with supersymmetry in the bulk {#susystab} ================================================== In this section, we discuss the evolution of the shape moduli fields in a supersymmetric context, where bulk fields form complete supersymmetric multiplets. If supersymmetry is exact, the contributions to the Casimir energy from bulk fermions and bosons cancel. However, supersymmetry must be broken on our brane, with mass splittings within supermultiplets $\sim {\cal{O}}(1)$ TeV. The supersymmetry breakdown is then communicated to fields in the bulk. We assume that the communication is of gravitational strength, giving a mass splitting within bulk supermultiplets of order $M < {\rm TeV}^2 / M_p\, \sim 10^{-3}$ eV; this scaling is consistent with the assumption of brane-localized supersymmetry breaking, whose effect on the bulk modes should vanish in the infinite volume limit. While the precise bulk spectrum will certainly depend on the details of the model (for example, various coupling factors can occur in the above relation), we stress that our aim here is not to present a complete model of how supersymmetry breaking and its communication to the bulk occur. We are rather interested in the order of magnitude effects on the shape moduli potential. The mass splitting within the bulk multiplets leads to a nonvanishing Casimir potential. For completeness and further use below, we give the expression for the Casimir potential of a massive bulk scalar field obeying periodic boundary conditions in $y^1, y^2\,$. The massless case result, eqn. (\[potential\]), is replaced by: $$\begin{aligned} V_s &=& - \frac{4 \, \left( M R \right)^3 \, \tau_2^{3/2}}{L^4} ~\sum_{p=1}^{\infty} \frac{K_3 \left( 2 \, \pi \, p \, M R / \sqrt{\tau_2} \right)}{p^3} - \frac{1}{2\,\pi^2\,L^4\,\tau_2^2} \, \left[ \sum_{p=1}^\infty \left( \tau_2^2 \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \tau_2^2} - 3 \, \tau_2 \, \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau_2} + 3 \right) {\tilde S}_p \left( x \right) \right] \Bigg\vert_{x = M R /\sqrt{\tau_2}} \,\,\,\,, \nonumber\\ {\tilde S}_p \left( x \right) &\equiv& \sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} {\rm e}^{-2 \, \pi \, p \, \tau_2 \sqrt{n^2 + x^2}} \, \frac{{\rm cos } \left( 2 \, \pi \, p \, n \, \tau_1 \right)}{p^5} \,\,, \label{massive}\end{aligned}$$ where $R = L / \left( 2 \, \pi \right)$ and $K_3$ is a modified Bessel function. As usual, terms that can be absorbed into local bulk or brane counterterms are omitted from (\[massive\]); as discussed in the previous section, such terms are $\tau$-independent. A periodic fermion (of the same mass) would contribute an amount equal to $-4 V_s$. In the case under consideration, $M R \ll 1\,$—recall that $R \le {\cal{O}}(1) \mu$m, while $M < 10^{-3}$ eV—hence it is convenient to expand the potential in a power series in $M R$. The leading contribution is obtained for $M=0\,$ and coincides with the massless expression (\[potential\]). However, the fermionic and bosonic contributions to the Casimir energy cancel for $M=0\,$ (exact supersymmetry in the bulk). The first nonvanishing contribution occurs due to the supermultiplet mass splitting and amounts to: $$\begin{aligned} {\tilde V} &=& \frac{ \left( M R \right)^2}{L^4} \, \left[ \frac{\pi^3 \, \tau_2^2}{45} + \sum_{p=1}^{\infty} F_p \right] \nonumber\\ F \left( \tau_1, \, \tau_2\,, p \right) &=& - \frac{2 \, \pi}{p^2} \, \frac{1 - {\rm cosh } \left( 2 \, \pi \, p \, \tau_2 \right) \, {\rm cos } \left( 2 \, \pi \, p \, \tau_1 \right)}{\left[ {\rm cosh } \left( 2 \, \pi \, p \, \tau_2 \right) - {\rm cos } \left( 2 \, \pi \, p \, \tau_1 \right) \right]^2} + \frac{1}{\tau_2 \, p^3} \, \frac{{\rm sinh } \left( 2 \, \pi \, p \, \tau_2 \right)}{{\rm cosh } \left( 2 \, \pi \, p \, \tau_2 \right) - {\rm cos } \left( 2 \, \pi \, \tau_1 \right)} \,\,. \label{smallm}\end{aligned}$$ Eqn. (\[smallm\]) shows the contribution of a $1/4$ hypermultiplet where the scalar has mass $M$ while the fermion is massless. The contributions of other multiplets with supersymmetry breaking mass splittings can be obtained from eqn. (\[smallm\]), as in the previous section. Each term in the small-$MR$ expansion of (\[massive\]) has the same SL$(2,Z)$ symmetry as eqn. (\[potential\]). In particular, the two points $\tau_{A,B}$ are also extrema of the potential term (\[smallm\]). The quadratic expansions around these points are: $$\begin{aligned} L^4 {\tilde V} \vert_{\tau \simeq \tau_A} &\simeq& \left( M R \right)^2 \, \left[ 1.92 - 0.5 \, \tau_1^2 + 2.5 \left( \tau_2 - 1 \right)^2 \right] \,\,,\nonumber\\ L^4 {\tilde V} \vert_{\tau \simeq \tau_B} &\simeq& \left( M R \right)^2 \, \left[ 1.84 + 1.2 \left( \tau_1 + 1/2 \right)^2 + 1.2 \left( \tau_2 - \sqrt{3}/{2} \right)^2 \right] \,\,. \label{massexp}\end{aligned}$$ Thus the point $\tau_A = i$ is a saddle point, while $\tau_B = e^{2 \pi i/3}$ is the absolute minimum of the potential. To obtain shape moduli stabilization, we then require that the contributions of bulk hypermultiplets (the supersymmetry analogue of the bulk $N$-fields of the previous section) dominate the contributions of the graviton supermultiplet. The situation is thus completely analogous to the one discussed in the previous section, with one important difference: the scale of the potential, after subtracting the value at the minimum, is $(0.1/L^4) (M R)^2$, and is suppressed by the additional $\left( M R \right)^2$ factor, due to the fact that it vanishes in the supersymmetric limit. Because of this suppression, the Casimir energy can now be of the order of the present energy density of the universe for an extra dimension of size $L$ smaller than the $L = 50 \, \mu m$ we found in the previous section. For example, we can now fix $L \sim 6 \, \mu$m at its upper allowed limit from [@supernovae]. The Casimir energy is then of the correct scale for $M \sim 2 \cdot 10^{-3}$ eV; since $V$ scales as $M^2/L^2$ this is also an upper value for $M$ (we absorb in $M$ various model-dependent factors of order one, coming from, e.g., the number of bulk multiplets). As discussed in the beginning of this section, for a supersymmetry breaking scale on the brane of order TeV, communicated gravitationally to the bulk, a supersymmetry breaking splitting of order $10^{-3}$ eV in the bulk is a natural value. Thus, we conclude that shape moduli in large ($L \sim {\cal{O}}(1) \mu$m) extra dimensions with TeV-scale brane-localized supersymmetry breaking naturally provide a viable candidate for quintessence. [*Acknowledgements*]{}   We thank Keith Dienes, Tony Gherghetta, Joel Giedt, and Bob Holdom for useful discussions. [99]{} A. G. Riess [*et al.*]{}, Astron. J. [**116**]{}, 1009 (1998); S. Perlmutter [*et al.*]{}, Astrophys. J. [**517**]{}, 565 (1999). D. N. Spergel [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:astro-ph/0302209. A. G. Riess [*et al.*]{}, Astrophys. J.  [**560**]{}, 49 (2001). M. Colless [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:astro-ph/0106498. A. D. Linde, [*Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology*]{} (Harwood, Chur, Switzerland, 1990). B. Ratra and P. J. Peebles, Phys. Rev. D [**37**]{}, 3406 (1988); R. R. Caldwell, R. Dave and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 1582 (1998). C. F. Kolda and D. H. Lyth, Phys. Lett. B [**458**]{}, 197 (1999). P. Binetruy, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 063502 (1999); A. Masiero, M. Pietroni and F. Rosati, Phys. Rev. D [**61**]{}, 023504 (2000). P. Brax and J. Martin, Phys. Lett. B [**468**]{}, 40 (1999); P. Brax and J. Martin, Phys. Rev. D [**61**]{}, 103502 (2000); E. J. Copeland, N. J. Nunes and F. Rosati, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 123503 (2000). J. A. Frieman, C. T. Hill, A. Stebbins and I. Waga, Phys. Rev.Lett. [**75**]{}, 2077 (1995); S. M. Carroll, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 3067 (1998); J. E. Kim, JHEP [**9905**]{}, 022 (1999); K. Choi, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 043509 (2000); J. E. Kim, JHEP [**0006**]{}, 016 (2000); Y. Nomura, T. Watari and T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B [**484**]{}, 103 (2000); C. T. Hill and A. K. Leibovich, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 075010 (2002) J. E. Kim and H. P. Nilles, Phys. Lett. B [**553**]{} (2003) 1. N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. R. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B [**429**]{}, 263 (1998); I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. R. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B [**436**]{}, 257 (1998). M. Pietroni, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 103523 (2003). L. Pilo, D. A. Rayner and A. Riotto, arXiv:hep-ph/0302087. N. Arkani-Hamed, H. C. Cheng, P. Creminelli and L. Randall, Phys.Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 221302 (2003). E. G. Adelberger \[EOT-WASH Group Collaboration\], arXiv:hep-ex/0202008. S. Cullen and M. Perelstein, Phys. Rev.Lett. [**83**]{}, 268 (1999); for a recent update, see: S. Hannestad and G. G. Raffelt, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 125008 (2003); N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. R. Dvali, Phys. Rev. D [ **59**]{}, 086004 (1999). P. Binetruy, C. Deffayet and D. Langlois, Nucl. Phys.B [**565**]{}, 269 (2000); P. Kanti, I. I. Kogan, K. A. Olive and M. Pospelov, Phys. Lett. B [**468**]{} (1999) 31; C. Csaki, M. Graesser, L. Randall and J. Terning, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{} (2000) 045015. C. M. Will, Living Rev. Rel. [**4**]{} (2001) 4. A. Albrecht, C. P. Burgess, F. Ravndal and C. Skordis, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 123507 (2002). E. Cremmer and J. Scherk, Nucl. Phys. B [**108**]{}, 409 (1976); R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{}, 085010 (1999); N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 064020 (2001). P. A. Dirac, Phys. Rev.  [**74**]{}, 817 (1948). N. Arkani-Hamed, L. J. Hall, D. R. Smith and N. Weiner, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 105002 (2000); Z. Chacko, P. J. Fox, A. E. Nelson and N. Weiner, JHEP [**0203**]{}, 001 (2002); A. Albrecht, C. P. Burgess, F. Ravndal and C. Skordis, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 123506 (2002). K. R. Dienes, Phys. Rev. Lett.  [**88**]{}, 011601 (2002). E. Ponton and E. Poppitz, JHEP [**0106**]{}, 019 (2001). K. R. Dienes, E. Dudas and T. Gherghetta, Nucl. Phys. B [**557**]{}, 25 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9811428\]; N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, G. R. Dvali and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 024032 (2002). L. J. Hall and D. R. Smith, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 085008 (1999). [^1]: Quintessence in (small) extra dimensions and with a potential similar to the one of [@pngb] was obtained also in [@qgauge]. In that work, the extra space is taken to be fixed, and the potential of a Wilson line of a gauge group in the extra space [@gauge] is employed. [^2]: An example of the radion as quintessence is given in [@radq]; the specific form of the potential and kinetic terms and an accurate choice of initial conditions prevent a conflict of the radion time variation with the above bounds. [^3]: One might also hope that a more natural mechanism can be employed, where large extra dimensions are achieved without exponentially large parameters. Some examples are provided in the literature, e.g. [@large]. [^4]: Nonlocal effects in the bulk induce nonderivative couplings between shape moduli and brane-localized matter. However, in addition to the $1/M_p$ suppression of the radion coupling to brane matter, the shape moduli coupling is further suppressed by factors of at least $1/(L M_6) \sim 10^{-15}$. [^5]: There are also cosmological bounds which are more stringent than the value we are predicting. However, they can be more easily evaded than the one from supernovae [@cosmo1; @cosmo2].

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'The fluid theory of plasmas is extended to include the properties of electron spin. The linear theory of waves in a magnetized plasma is presented, and it is shown that the spin effects causes a change of the magnetic permeability. Furthemore, by changing the direction of the external magnetic field, the magnetic permability may become negative. This leads to instabilities in the long wavelength regimes. If these can be controlled, however, the spin plasma becomes a metamaterial for a broad range of frequencies, i.e. above the ion cyclotron frequency but below the electron cyclotron frequency. The consequences of our results are discussed.' author: - 'G. Brodin and M. Marklund[^1]' title: On the possibility of metamaterial properties in spin plasmas --- Introduction ============ The theoretical concept of materials with a negative index of refraction has a long history, while the practical developments are relatively recent in this field. In his Moscow school, Mandelstam presented results for materials exhibiting a negative index of refraction [@Mandelstam1; @Mandelstam2] (see also the historical account in Ref. [@Agranovich-Gartstein]). Negative permittivity and permeability materials, and the consequences of a negative group velocity, were moreover given attention by Pafomov [@Pafomov] and Agranovich and Ginzburg [@Agranovich-Ginzburg], and have since then been discussed by several authors, most notably by Veselago [@Veselago], who gave a detailed analysis of the consequences of such material properties (see also [@Agranovich1; @Agranovich2; @Zhang; @Agranovich-Gartstein]). Although not known to be found naturally, such materials have recently been realized in laboratory environments [@Smith-etal; @Shelby-etal], and the experimental development in conjunction with theoretical insights (see Refs. [@Leonhardt; @Pendry-etal]) has spawned a rapidly growing interest in these materials (see, e.g. [@Pendry; @Ramakrishna] for a review). From a sharp resonance in the material response to the applied external field, one may obtain negative $\varepsilon$ and $\mu$. The normal procedure for obtaining negative-index-of-refraction materials is to put together two structured materials that both have negative permittivity and negative permeability, such that the resulting composite material has a negative refractive index [@Ramakrishna; @Krowne-Zhang]. A nonlinear metamaterial can also be constructed through the nonlinear properties of the constituent materials [@DAguanno-etal; @Scalora-etal], admitting new types of solitary wave structures [@Marklund-Shukla-Stenflo-Brodin; @Marklund-Shukla-Stenflo; @Shadrivov-Kivshar]. The field of quantum plasmas is a rapidly growing field of research. From the non-relativistic domain, with its basic description in terms of the Schrödinger equation, to the strongly relativistic regime, with its natural connection to quantum field theory, quantum plasma physics provides promises of highly interesting and important application, fundamental connections between different areas of science, as well as difficult challenges from a computational perspective. The necessity to thoroughly understand such plasmas motivates a reductive principle of research, for which we successively build more complex models based on previous results. The simplest lower order effect due to relativistic quantum mechanics is the introduction of spin, and as such thus provides a first step towards a partial description of relativistic quantum plasmas. Already in the 1960’s, Pines studied the excitation spectrum of quantum plasmas [@Pines; @pines-book], for which we have a high density and a low temperature as compared to normal plasmas. Recently there has been an increased interest in the properties of quantum plasmas [@Manfredi2005; @haas-etal1; @haas; @shukla; @garcia-etal; @collection2C; @collection2E; @collection2G; @collection2H; @collection2I; @collection2K; @collection2L; @Haas-HarrisSheet; @marklund-brodin; @brodin-marklund; @BM-pairplasma; @shukla-eliasson; @shukla-eliasson2; @shaikh-shukla; @brodin-marklund2]. The studies has been motivated by the development in nanostructured materials [@craighead] and quantum wells [@manfredi-hervieux], the discovery of ultracold plasmas [@li-etal; @fletcher-etal], or a general theoretical interest. The list of quantum mechanical effects that can be included in a fluid picture includes the dispersive particle properties accounted for by the Bohm potential [@Manfredi2005; @haas-etal1; @haas; @shukla; @garcia-etal; @collection2C; @collection2E; @collection2G; @collection2H; @collection2I; @collection2K; @collection2L; @Haas-HarrisSheet], the zero temperature Fermi pressure [@Manfredi2005; @haas-etal1; @haas; @shukla; @garcia-etal], spin properties [@marklund-brodin; @brodin-marklund; @BM-pairplasma; @brodin-marklund2; @Brodin-Marklund-Manfredi] as well as certain quantum electrodynamical effects [@marklund-shukla; @Lundin2007; @lundstrom-etal; @Brodin-etal-2007]. Within such descriptions, [@Manfredi2005; @haas-etal1; @haas; @shukla; @garcia-etal; @marklund-brodin; @brodin-marklund; @Lundin2007; @lundstrom-etal; @Brodin-etal-2007] quantum and classical collective effects can be described within a unified picture, sometimes even showing a surprising overlap between classical and quantum behaviour [@Brodin-Marklund-Manfredi]. Here we study the linear theory of electromagnetic wave propagation in a magnetized plasma, with a special focus on the properties caused by the electron spin. We are then able to present a scheme for such a system to display metamaterial behavior. Specifically this is induced by exposing a low temperature high density plasma to an external magnetic field, which creates a magnetization in the plasma due to the electron spin. By changing the direction of the external magnetic field, the magnetic permeability may become negative. It should be noted that the above procedure induces instabilities in the long wavelength regime. A number of ways to control these instabilities are pointed out. Assuming that this can be done successfully, the spin plasma becomes a metamaterial for a broad range of frequencies, i.e. above the ion cyclotron frequency but below the electron cyclotron frequency. The conditions needed to create a sufficient magnetization is discussed in the final section of the manuscript. Basic equations =============== The theory for quantum plasmas including the effects of particle dispersion [@Manfredi2005; @haas-etal1; @haas; @shukla; @garcia-etal; @collection2C; @collection2E; @collection2G; @collection2H; @collection2I; @collection2K; @collection2L; @Haas-HarrisSheet], the Fermi pressure [@Manfredi2005; @haas-etal1; @haas; @shukla; @garcia-etal] and effects due to the electron spin [@marklund-brodin; @brodin-marklund; @BM-pairplasma] has been described in a number of recent papers. For our purposes it will be sufficient to include the spin effects, as the Fermi pressure and the Bohm-De Broigle potential will not affect whether the plasma is a metamaterial or not.[^2] Furthermore, neglecting terms that are quadratic in the spin vector,[^3] the governing spin plasma equations can be written $$\frac{\partial n_{s}}{\partial t}+\nabla \cdot \left( n_{s}\mathbf{v}% _{s}\right) =0, \label{Eq:cont}$$ $$m_{s}n_{s}\left( \frac{\partial }{\partial t}+\mathbf{v}_{s}\cdot \nabla \right) \mathbf{v}_{s}=q_{s}\left( \mathbf{E}+\mathbf{v}_{s}\times \mathbf{B}% \right) +\frac{2\mu _{s}}{\hbar }s^{a}\nabla B_{a}-\nabla P_{s}, \label{Eq:momentum}$$ together with the spin evolution equation $$\left( \frac{\partial }{\partial t}+\mathbf{v}_{s}\cdot \nabla \right) \mathbf{s=}\frac{2\mu _{s}}{\hbar }\mathbf{s_s\times B.} \label{Eq:spin}$$ Here $q_{s}$ and $m_{s}$ is the charge and mass of species $s$, $\mu _{s}=q_{s}\hbar /2m_{s}$ is the magnetic moment, $P_{s}=$ $% k_{B}T\nabla n_{s}$ is the pressure(for simplicity we use an isothermal pressure model), $n_{s}$ is the number density, $\mathbf{v}_{s}$ is the velocity and $\mathbf{s}_s$ is the spin vector. Next we concentrate on the linear wave modes in a magnetized plasma described by Eqs. (\[Eq:cont\])-(\[Eq:spin\]) together with Maxwell’s equations $$\nabla \times \mathbf{E=-}\frac{\partial \mathbf{B}}{\partial t} \label{Eq:Faraday}$$ and $$\nabla \times \mathbf{B=}\mu _{0}\mathbf{J+}\frac{1}{c^{2}}\frac{\partial \mathbf{E}}{\partial t} \label{Eq:Ampere}$$ where, in addition to the free current density, we include the magnetization current source $$\mathbf{J}_{m}=\nabla \times \mathbf{M}_s = \nabla \times \left( \frac{2\mu _{s}n_{s}}{\hbar }\mathbf{s}_s\right) , \label{Eq:magnetization}$$ For this purpose we chose a coordinate system such that the unperturbed magnetic field is $\mathbf{B}_{0}=B_{0}\widehat{\mathbf{z}}$, the wavevector is $\mathbf{k}=k_{\bot }\widehat{\mathbf{x}}+k_{z}\widehat{\mathbf{z}}$, and the variables are divided into an equilibrium value (index 0) and a perturbed part (index 1). For simplicity index 1 are omitted on the electric field and the velocity, since these variables have a zero unperturbed part. As a preparation, we first consider the linear theory without the spin terms. Using the continuity equation to express the density in terms of the velocity, the momentum equation relates the velocity to the electric field. Then from the momentum equation we solve for the velocity in terms of the electric field to find the susceptibility tensor for each particle species. Combining this with Maxwell’s equations, the result becomes $$\left( \delta _{ij}\left( 1-\frac{k^{2}c^{2}}{\omega ^{2}}\right) +\frac{% k_{i}k_{j}c^{2}}{\omega ^{2}}+\chi _{ij}\right) E^{j}=0 \label{Eq:Matrix-1}$$ with $\delta _{ij}$ is the Kronecker delta and the susceptibility tensor is $$\chi _{ij}=\sum_{s}\left( \begin{array}{ccc} -\frac{\omega _{ps}^{2}(\omega ^{2}-k_{z}^{2}v_{ts}^{2})}{\omega _{d}^{4}} & -i\frac{\omega _{ps}^{2}\omega _{cs}(\omega ^{2}-k_{z}^{2}v_{ts}^{2})}{% \omega \omega _{d}^{4}} & -\frac{\omega _{ps}^{2}k_{\bot }k_{z}v_{ts}^{2}}{% \omega _{d}^{4}} \\ & & \\ i\frac{\omega _{ps}^{2}\omega _{cs}(\omega ^{2}-k_{z}^{2}v_{ts}^{2})}{\omega \omega _{d}^{4}} & -\frac{\omega _{ps}^{2}(\omega ^{2}-k^{2}v_{ts}^{2})}{% \omega _{d}^{4}} & i\frac{\omega _{ps}^{2}\omega _{cs}k_{\bot }k_{z}v_{ts}^{2}}{\omega \omega _{d}^{4}} \\ & & \\ -\frac{\omega _{ps}^{2}k_{\bot }k_{z}v_{ts}^{2}}{\omega _{d}^{4}} & -i\frac{% \omega _{ps}^{2}\omega _{cs}k_{\bot }k_{z}v_{ts}^{2}}{\omega \omega _{d}^{4}} & -\frac{\omega _{ps}^{2}(\omega ^{2}-k_{\bot }^{2}v_{ts}^{2}-\omega _{cs}^{2})}{\omega _{d}^{4}} \end{array} \right) \label{Eq:suscept}$$ where $v_{ts}=\left( k_{B}T/m_{s}\right) ^{1/2}$ is the thermal velocity, $% \omega _{ps}=(n_{0}q_{s}^{2}/\varepsilon _{0}m_{s})^{1/2}$ the plasma frequency, $\omega _{cs}=q_{s}B_{0}/m_{s}$ the gyrofrequency and $\omega _{d}^{4}=\left( \omega ^{2}-k_{\bot }^{2}v_{ts}^{2}\right) \left( \omega ^{2}-k_{z}^{2}v_{ts}^{2}\right) -\omega _{cs}^{2}\left( \omega ^{2}-k_{z}^{2}v_{ts}^{2}\right) -k_{\bot }^{2}k_{z}^{2}v_{ts}^{4}$. The next aim is to add the electron spin contribution, where the spin effects due to the ions is neglected due to their small magnetic moment. In general the spin vector is a dynamical variable whose relation to the EM-field is complex already in the linear theory. Thus from now on, we limit ourselves to the case where the dynamics is slow compared to the spin precession period, which is equivalent to limiting ourselves to frequencies $\omega \ll \left| \omega _{ce}\right| $ In that case we can write the (electron) spin vector as $$\mathbf{s=-}\frac{\hbar }{2}\widehat{\mathbf{B}}\tanh \left( \frac{\mu _{B}B_{0}}{k_{B}T}\right) \label{Eq:spin-vector}$$ where the $\tanh $-factor is due to thermodynamic considerations.[^4] The linearized magnetization current then becomes $$\mathbf{J}_{m}=-\frac{\mu _{B}}{2}\tanh \left( \frac{\mu _{B}B_{0}}{k_{B}T}% \right) \left( \nabla n_{1}\times \widehat{\mathbf{z}}+n_{0}\nabla \times \left( \frac{\mathbf{B}_{1}-B_{1z}\widehat{\mathbf{z}}}{B_{0}}\right) \right) \label{Eq:magn-current}$$ The magnetic field $\mathbf{B}_{1}$ can be expressed in terms of $\mathbf{E}$ from Faradays law, and the density is given in terms of the velocity from the continuity equation, which is expressed in terms of $\mathbf{E}$ from the given susceptibility of each species. Thus the magnetization current (\[Eq:magn-current\]) is also expressed in terms of $\mathbf{E}$. However, before that procedure is implemented, we must also modify the standard susceptibility Eq. (\[Eq:suscept\]) to account for the spin dependent force in the momentum equation. This can be achieved by noting that when solving the momentum equation for the velocity, the magnetic dipole spin force can simply be accounted for by including the different components as ”effective electric fields” .  Thus when solving for the electron velocity in terms of the electric fields, the spin force is included simply by making the substitutions $$\begin{array}{c} \overline{E}_{jx}=E_{x}+\tanh \left( \frac{\mu _{B}B_{0}}{k_{B}T}\right) \frac{i\hbar k_{x}}{m_{e}}B_{1z} \\ \overline{E}_{jy}=E_{y} \\ E_{z}+\tanh \left( \frac{\mu _{B}B_{0}}{k_{B}T}\right) \frac{i\hbar k_{z}}{% m_{e}}B_{1z} \end{array} \label{Eq:subst}$$ Again expressing $B_{1z}$ in terms of $\mathbf{E}$** **through Faraday’s law, these alterations can be expressed as a spin modification of the free current susceptibility. Thus formally we can write $$j^{i}=j_{free}^{i}+j_{sp}^{i}=\chi _{free}^{ij}E_{j}+\chi _{sp}^{ij}E_{j}$$ where the direct spin magnetization contained in $\chi _{sp}^{ij}$ can be determined from (\[Eq:magn-current\]) (by expressing $\mathbf{B}_{1}$ and $% n_{1}$ in terms of $\mathbf{E}$), and the free part of the susceptibility can be divided as $$\chi _{free}^{ij}=\chi _{L}^{ij}+\chi _{md}^{ij}$$ where $\chi _{L}^{ij}$ is the (free current) susceptibility due to the Lorentz force given by (\[Eq:suscept\]), and the contribution from the magnetic dipole force $\chi _{md}^{ij}$ can be found from (\[Eq:suscept\]) combined with the substitution in (\[Eq:subst\]) and the z-component of (\[Eq:Faraday\]). The theory outlined here is straightforward, but results in rather cumbersome formulas. To reduce the complexity, and arrive at more transparent expressions, we introduce the following simplifications: 1. The plasma is quasi-neutral, which is a valid approximation provided $% \omega _{pi}^{2}\gg \omega _{ci}^{2}$ 2. The perpendicular (to the magnetic field) free electron (i.e. non-spin) part of the current can be approximated by the $\mathbf{E\times B}$-drift**,** $\ $which is valid for frequencies well below the electron gyro frequency. 3. The displacement current in Maxwells equations is small. This is valid when point 1 applies together with $\omega _{pi}^{2}\gg \omega ^{2}$, and amounts to neglecting the Kronecker delta term in (\[Eq:Matrix-1\]) 4. Only electron thermal motion is of significance, which is valid if $% k^{2}v_{ti}^{2}\ll \omega ^{2}$. The theory outlined above now reduces to Eq. (\[Eq:Matrix-1\]) with $\chi _{ij}$ given by $$\chi =\left( \begin{array}{ccc} -\frac{\widetilde{\omega }_{pi}^{2}}{\omega ^{2}-\omega _{ci}^{2}} & -i\frac{% \widetilde{\omega }_{pi}^{2}\omega }{\omega _{ci}(\omega ^{2}-\omega _{ci}^{2})} & -\frac{\widetilde{\omega }_{pi}^{2}k_{\bot }k_{z}\widetilde{c}% _{s}^{2}}{\omega _{ci}^{2}} \\ & & \\ i\frac{\widetilde{\omega }_{pi}^{2}\omega }{\omega _{ci}(\omega ^{2}-\omega _{ci}^{2})} & -\frac{\widetilde{\omega }_{pi}^{2}(\omega ^{2}-k^{2}% \widetilde{c}_{s}^{2})}{\omega ^{2}-\omega _{ci}^{2}} & i\frac{\widetilde{% \omega }_{pi}^{2}k_{\bot }k_{z}\widetilde{c}_{s}^{2}}{\omega \omega _{ci}} \\ & & \\ -\frac{\widetilde{\omega }_{pi}^{2}k_{\bot }k_{z}\widetilde{c}_{s}^{2}}{% \omega _{ci}^{2}} & -i\frac{\widetilde{\omega }_{pi}^{2}k_{\bot }k_{z}% \widetilde{c}_{s}^{2}}{\omega \omega _{ci}} & -\frac{\omega _{pi}^{2}}{% \omega ^{2}}\left( 1-\frac{\omega ^{2}}{k_{z}^{2}c_{s}^{2}}\right) \end{array} \right) \label{Eq:sus-spec}$$ where $\widetilde{\omega }_{pi}=\omega _{pi}(1-\mu _{0}M_{0}/B_{0})^{-1/2}$ is the spin modified ion plasma frequency, $\widetilde{c}_{s}=[c_{s}^{2}-(% \mu _{B}B_{0}/m_{i})\tanh (\mu _{B}B_{0}/k_{B}T)]^{1/2}$ is the spin modified ion-acoustic velocity and $c_{s}=v_{ti}(m_{e}/m_{i})^{1/2}$ is the standard ion-acoustic velocity. Furthermore, the unperturbed magnetization $% M_{0}$ is given by $M_{0}=n_{0}\mu _{B}\tanh (\mu _{B}B_{0}/k_{B}T)$. We note that by contrast to the other tensor components, $\chi _{33}$ is not modified by the spin effects. As a specific example, we can investigate the magnetohydrodynamic limit $\omega \ll \omega_{ci} $, in which case we get the dispersion relation $$\left( \omega ^{2}-k_{z}^{2}\widetilde{C}_{A}^{2}\right) \left[ \left( \omega ^{2}-k^{2}\widetilde{C}_{A}^{2}-k_{\perp }^{2}\widetilde{c}% _{s}^{2}\right) \left( \omega ^{2}-k_{z}^{2}c_{s}^{2}\right) -k_{\perp }^{2}k_{z}^{2}\widetilde{c}_{s}^{4}\right] =0. \label{Eq:MHD-DR}$$ by putting the determinant of (\[Eq:Matrix-1\]) to zero. Here $\widetilde{C% }_{A}=C_{A}(1-\mu _{0}M_{0}/B_{0})^{1/2}$ is the spin-modified Alfvén velocity, and $C_{A}=(B_{0}^{2}/\mu _{0}m_{i}n_{0})^{1/2}$ is the standard Alfvén velocity. Eq. (\[Eq:MHD-DR\]) agrees with the results of Refs. [@brodin-marklund2] in the appropriate limiting cases, provided a sign error is corrected in the last term of their dispersion relation. The first factor of Eq. (\[Eq:MHD-DR\]) describes the shear Alfvén mode, whereas the second factor has two roots, describing the fast and slow magnetosonic modes. The possibility of a plasma as a metamaterial ============================================= Next we are interested in the possibilities to get metamaterial properties. As a starting point we note from (\[Eq:sus-spec\]) and (\[Eq:Matrix-1\]) that the (relative) dielectric component $\varepsilon _{xx}$ is given by $$\varepsilon _{xx}=-\frac{\omega _{pi}^{2}}{\omega ^{2}-\omega _{ci}^{2}} \label{Eq:exx}$$ which become negative for frequencies above the ion cycclotron frequency. Here the first Kronecker delta term in (\[Eq:Matrix-1\]) has been neglected due to point 3 above. Next we note that the relative magnetic permeability is given by $\mu _{r}=$ $B_{0}/(B_{0}-\mu _{0}M_{0})$, which causes the transition from $\omega _{pi}^{2}\longrightarrow \widetilde{\omega }_{pi}^{2} $ in (\[Eq:sus-spec\]). In thermodynamic equilibrium, the spin magnetization $M_{0}$ $=\mu _{B}n_{0}\tanh (\mu _{B}B_{0}/k_{B}T)$ enhances the external field, which correspond to a paramagnetic situation where $\mu _{r}>1$. However, let us now assume that we have a laboratory plasma immersed in an external magnetic field, where the internal spin magnetization gives a significant contribution to $B_{0}$. Then consider what happens if we rapidly switch direction of the external field $% 180^{\circ }$, and study the properties before the spin state has time to reach a new thermodynamic equilibrium state. In particular we are interested in the case where the external contribution to $B_{0}$ is smaller than the internal contribution $\mu _{0}M_{0}$, and directed in the opposite direction. The above linearized theory then still applies, but with the difference that $\mu _{r}=$ $B_{0}/(B_{0}-\mu _{0}M_{0})$ is now is a negative quantity. A first observation of the changed properties of this system is that long wavelength waves (i.e. $kC_{A}<$ $\omega _{ci}$) described in (\[Eq:MHD-DR\]) is now unstable, since $\widetilde{C}_{A}^{2}$ changes sign with $\mu _{r}$ and becomes negative for the above scenario. We shall assume that it is still useful to study the stable waves with shorter wavelengths, however. In particular this is of interest in case one of the following conditions apply 1. The plasma system is of a rather small size, and the long wavelength waves ( i.e. $kC_{A}<$ $\omega _{ci}$) are stabilized by inhomogeneities not included in the model. 2. The growth rate $\gamma $ of the long wavelength (at most of the order $\gamma \sim \omega _{ci}$) is slow enough such that there is still time to study the physics on a time scale much shorter than $\omega _{ci}^{-1}$ 3. Some dissipative mechanism not included in our model will be sufficient to stabilize the instability (however, note that the addition of a finite resistivity will not suffice for this purpose). As a specific example we study transverse waves with $\omega >\omega _{ci}$ propagating along $B_{0}$ (that is in the opposite direction of $B_{0}-\mu _{0}M_{0}$). The dispersion relation then reduces to: $$\frac{\omega ^{2}\omega _{ci}}{\omega _{ci}\mp \omega }=k^{2}\widetilde{C}% _{A}^{2} \label{Eq:DR-par}$$ where the $+(-)$ sign corresponds to a right hand (left hand) circular polarization. As described above, both $\mu _{r}$ and $\widetilde{C}_{A}^{2}$ changes sign with $(B_{0}-\mu _{0}M_{0})$, and thus (\[Eq:DR-par\]) confirms that waves are unstable in the long wavelength regime. However, for shorter wavelengths, $\left| k\widetilde{C}_{A}\right| >2\omega _{ci}$, the waves are stable independently of the sign of $\widetilde{C}_{A}^{2}$. Next considering this special case, such that $k$ and $\omega $ are real, we find that the time-averaged Poynting vector $\left\langle \mathbf{S}\right\rangle $ is $$\left\langle \mathbf{S}\right\rangle =\left\langle \mathbf{E\times H}% \right\rangle =\left| \mathbf{E}\right| ^{2}\frac{k}{\omega }\frac{% (B_{0}-\mu _{0}M_{0})}{B_{0}} \label{Eq:Poynting}$$ which apparently changes sign with $B_{0}-\mu _{0}M_{0}$ such that the above system shows the characteristics of a metamaterial. Summary and Conclusion ====================== Previous theories [@marklund-brodin; @brodin-marklund] on magnetized spin plasmas have been extended. In particular, the linear theory have been generalized to cover the frequency range $\omega _{ci}\lessapprox \omega \ll \omega _{ce}$. The purpose have been to investigate whether it is possible to produce the characteristics of a metamaterial. It is found that in principle this is possible by switching the direction of an external magnetic field $180^{\circ }$, provided the spin magnetization of the plasma is sufficiently large. However, it is a great challenge to produce the desired plasma conditions in the laboratory. In particular we need to combine low temperatures with high densities to obtain a sufficient magnetization. Ways to reach high plasma densities have been known for a rather long time, and methods to reach extremely low plasma temperatures has recently been found [@li-etal; @fletcher-etal]. On the other hand, the ultra cold plasmas are still of too low density to be useful for the above purpose. Laser produced plasmas can reach sufficient densities, and it is possible that experiments can be designed to keep the temperature sufficiently low. A challenge with such a setting might be that the plasma background dynamics is too fast for successful experiments of this kind to be done. In conclusion, the production of a plasma metamaterial consists of two challenges. Firstly, to produce a plasma with a sufficient magnetization, and secondly to master the long wavelength instabilities that are introduced when the direction of the external field is changed. [99]{} L.I. Mandelstam, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. **15**, 475 (1945). L.I. Mandelstam, *The 4th Lecture of L.I. Mandelstam given at Moscow State University (05/05/1944)*, Collection of Scientific Works, Vol. 2 (1994) Nauka, Moscow (in Russian). V.M. Agranovich and Yu. N. Gartstein, in *Physics of Negative Refraction and Negative Index Materials*, eds.C.M. Krowne and Y. Zhang (Springer, 2007). V. E. Pafomov, Sov. Phys. JETP **36**, 1321 (1959). V. M. Agranovich and V. L. Ginzburg, *Spatial Dispersion in Crystal Optics and the Theory of Excitons* (John Wiley & Sons, London, 1966); See also V. M. Agranovich and V. L. Ginzburg, *Crystal Optics with Spatial Dispersion of Excitons* (Springer, Berlin, 1984), p. 252. V. G. Veselago, Sov. Phys. Usp. **10**, 509 (1968). V.M. Agranovich *et al.*, Phys. Rev. B **69**, 165112 (2004). V.M. Agranovich *et al.*, J. Luminescence **110**, 167 (2004). Y. Zhang and A. Mascarehnas, Mod. Phys. Lett. B **19**, 21 (2005). D. R. Smith and N. Kroll, Phys. Rev. Lett. **85**, 2933 (2000); D. R. Smith *et al.*, *ibid.* **84**, 4184 (2000). R. A. Shelby, D. R. Smith and S. Schultz, Science **292**, 77 (2001); C. G. Parazzoli *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **90**, 107401 (2003); A. A. Houck *et al.*, *ibid.* **90**, 137401 (2003); P. Parini *et al.*, Nature (London) **426**, 404 (2003). U. Leonhardt, Science **312**, 1777 (2006). J.B. Pendry, D. Schurig, and D.R. Smith, Science **312**, 1780 (2006). J. B. Pendry and D. R. Smith, Phys. Today **57**, 37 (2004); J. B. Pendry, Contemporary Phys. **45**, 191 (2004). S. Anantha Ramakrishna, Rep. Prog. Phys. **68**, 449 (2005). C.M. Krowne and Y. Zhang (eds.), *Physics of Negative Refraction and Negative Index Materials* (Springer, 2007). G. D’Aguanno, N. Mattiucci, M. Scalora, and M. J. Bloemer, Phys. Rev. Lett. **93**, 213902 (2004). M. Scalora *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **95**, 013902 (2005). M. Marklund, P.K. Shukla, L. Stenflo, and G. Brodin, Phys. Lett. A **341**, 231 (2005). M. Marklund, P.K. Shukla, and L. Stenflo, Phys. Rev. E **73**, 037601 (2006). I.V. Shadrivov and Y.S. Kivshar, in *Physics of Negative Refraction and Negative Index Materials*, eds. C.M. Krowne and Y. Zhong (Springer, 2007). D. Pines, J. Nucl. Energy C: Plasma Phys. **2**, 5 (1961). D. Pines, *Elementary Excitations in Solids* (Westview Press, 1999) G. Manfredi, Fields Inst. Comm **46**, 263 (2005) F. Haas, G. Manfredi, and M. R. Feix, Phys. Rev. E **62**, 2763 (2000). F. Haas, Phys. Plasmas **12**, 062117 (2005). L. G. Garcia, F. Haas, L. P. L. de Oliveira, and J. Goedert, Phys. Plasmas **12**, 012302 (2005). P. K. Shukla, Phys. Lett. A **352**, 242 (2006). F. Haas, L. G. Garcia, J. Goedert, and G. Manfredi, Phys. Plasmas **10**, 3858 (2003). L. G. Garcia, F. Haas, L. P. L. de Oliviera, and J. Goedert, Phys. Plasmas **12**, 012302 (2005). P. K. Shukla and L. Stenflo, Phys. Lett. A **355**, 378 (2006). P. K. Shukla, Phys. Lett. A **357**, 229 (2006). P. K. Shukla, L. Stenflo, and R. Bingham, Phys. Lett. A **359**, 218 (2006). P. K. Shukla and B. Eliasson, Phys. Rev. Lett. **96**, 245001 (2006). P. K. Shukla, S. Ali, L. Stenflo, and M. Marklund, Phys. Plasmas **13**, 112111 (2006). F. Haas, Europhys. Lett. **44**, 45004 (2007). M. Marklund and G. Brodin, Phys. Rev. Lett.  **98**, 025001 (2007). G. Brodin and M. Marklund, New J. Phys. **9**, 277 (2007). G. Brodin and M. Marklund, Phys. Plasmas **14**, 112107 (2007). G. Brodin and M. Marklund, Phys. Rev. E **76**, 055403(R) (2007). G. Brodin, M. Marklund and G. Manfredi, Phys. Rev. Lett. **100**, 175001 (2008) P. K. Shukla and B. Eliasson, Phys. Rev. Lett. **96**, 245001 (2006). P. K. Shukla and B. Eliasson, Phys. Rev. Lett. **99**, 096401 (2007). D. Shaikh and P. K. Shukla, Phys. Rev. Lett. **99**, 125002 (2007). H. G. Craighead, Science **290**, 1532 (2000). G. Manfredi and P.-A. Hervieux, Appl. Phys. Lett. **91**, 061108 (2007). W. Li, P. J. Tanner, and T. F. Gallagher, Phys. Rev. Lett. **94**, 173001 (2005). R. S. Fletcher, X. L. Zhang, and S. L. Rolston, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 105003 (2006). M. Marklund and P. K. Shukla, Rev. Mod. Phys. **78**, 591 (2006). E. Lundström et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. **96**, 083602 (2006). G. Brodin, M. Marklund, B. Eliasson and P. K. Shukla, Phys. Rev. Lett. **98**, 125001 (2007) J. Lundin, J. Zamanian, M. Marklund and G. Brodin, Phys. Plasmas, **14**, 062112 (2007). [^1]: E-mail: [email protected] [^2]: This is clear from the dispersionrelation presented in \[52\], where the effect of the Fermi pressure and the Bohm de Broigle potential is incorpatated in an effective thermal velocity, as far as the linear wave modes are concerned. [^3]: The terms that are quadratic in the spin vector can be omitted if the characteristic spatial scale is longer than the thermal de-Broigle wavelength. [^4]: Using Fermi-dirac statistics, the slight overweight of particles with spin orientation in the lower energy state results in a macroscopic spin-vector proportional to $\tanh \left( \mu _{B}B_{0}/k_{B}T\right) $.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'Abstract: We show how affine and projective special Kähler manifolds emerge from the structure of quantization. We quantize them and construct natural (wavefunction) representations for the corresponding coherent states. These in turn are shown to satisfy the precise generalizations of the *BCOV holomorphic anomaly equation* (hep-th/9309140), thus extending the work in hep-th/9306122. As a byproduct of the analysis we construct the explicit general solution to the holomorphic anomaly equation.' author: - | Michael M. Kay\ \ [*Arnold Sommerfeld Center for Theoretical Physics,* ]{}\ [*LMU München, Theresienstraße 37, D-80333 München*]{}\ [*Excellence Cluster Universe, Boltzmannstraße 2, D-85748 Garching*]{} title: On the Quantization of Special Kähler Manifolds --- Introduction ============ Special Kähler manifolds have been studied in the physics literature since the seminal papers [@sierra-townsend], [@specgeopaper1], [@dewit-vanproeyen], [@gates]. These split into two main categories. The first are known as affine special Kähler manifolds (or rigid special Kähler manifolds) while the second as projective special Kähler manifolds (or local special Kähler manifolds). While the former arise as moduli spaces of vector-multiplets in rigid $N=2$ supersymmetric four dimensional gauge theories (e.g. [@sierra-townsend], [@seiberg-witten1], [@seiberg-witten2]), the latter arise analogously in the corresponding (locally supersymmetric) supergravity theories (e.g. [@specgeopaper1][@dewit-vanproeyen], [@stromingerspecgeo]). The structure of projective special Kähler manifolds has also been rediscovered within the framework of string theory ([@cecottiferraragirardello], [@cecottivafa1], [@bcov9309140]), thus providing a microscopical description of the vector-multiplet moduli spaces in the aforementioned four dimensional theories. Mathematically, special Kähler manifolds have been defined both extrinsically ([@cortes], [@bauescortes]) and intrinsically [@freed]. Of great relevance is also [@costelloli], where central results of [@bcov9309140] have been understood and extended within a rigorous mathematical framework. Focusing on the string theory perspective, projective special Kähler manifolds arise as moduli spaces of certain two dimensional closed topological string theories whose underlying topological field theories are obtained as topological twists of $N=(2,2)$ two dimensional conformal field theories, most notably sigma models into complex three dimensional Calabi-Yau manifolds. The fundamental object of study in these topological string theories is the generating functional of all scattering amplitudes of closed topological string states. In fact, much of the attention is reserved to states that correspond to so-called marginal fields. These are fields that induce infinitesimal deformations of the corresponding topological field theory to a “neighboring one". In [@bcov9309140] it was shown that this restricted generating functional satisfies a differential equation, which was named the *holomorphic anomaly equation*. More precisely the restricted generating functional is of the form: $$Z(u, p),$$ where $u$ stands for a choice of marginal field, while $p$ labels the topological conformal field theory within which the scattering of marginal fields takes place. And the name “holomorphic anomaly" is due to the fact that if one departs from genus zero scattering surfaces one finds that the generating functional has non-holomorphic dependence on the space of $p$’s, namely the moduli space of topological field theories attached to a given initial one. In [@witten] it was shown how a similar structure to that of the holomorphic anomaly equation arises if one performs a version of geometric quantization of the moduli space of $B$-model topological conformal field theories, where the special Kähler manifold is a moduli space of complex structures of complex three dimensional Calabi-Yau manifolds. In this paper we expand on the work of [@witten], showing, in fact, how the very structure of special Kähler manifold, both affine and projective, arises as the simplest quantizable geometry. Moreover, in our framework we recover the precise form of the holomorphic anomaly equation of [@bcov9309140], while at the same time providing its general solution. It is important to stress that just as in [@witten], also in the present work, the perspective is not a microscopical one. In particular, our derivation of the holomorphic anomaly equation is not ascribed to the detailed knowledge of the moduli spaces of Riemann surfaces. Crucial to our construction is instead the approach of [@fedosov94] to the quantization of symplectic manifolds. In close analogy to [@witten], though in much greater generality, in this framework the holomorphic anomaly equation translates to a parallel transport equation with respect to a flat connection $A$ on a Hilbert bundle over the classical phase space. The present work develops as follows. In section \[quantizationreview\] we recall the very basics of quantization. In section \[quantsymplectic\] we intend to provide a simple review of the approach in [@fedosov94] to the quantization of symplectic manifolds. In section \[firstorderholo\] we show how affine special Kähler manifolds arise as the “simplest" quantizable spaces. Complementary to the developments of the aforementioned sections is the representation, in \[CTB\], of the coherent states corresponding to the affine special Kähler manifolds. The crucial notion here is that of *coherent tangent bundle*. Subsequently in \[MEsection\] we show how the thus constructed wavefunction, at this point only for strictly Riemannian affine special Kähler manifolds, satisfies a version of the holomorphic anomaly equation, which we shall call throughout simply *master equation*. In \[sol1\] and \[sol2\] we then provide its general solution. In \[conicsk\] we start the study of the projective special Kähler manifolds of interest in the physics literature. These arise as quotients of affine *conic*, but Lorentzian, affine special Kähler manifolds. Thus first we unravel the structure of conic special Kähler manifold in a way best suited for our formalism, also providing a possible quantum interpretation \[quantumconic\] for the conic structure. Subsequently we define the quantization of Lorentzian affine special Kähler manifolds (sections \[LCTB\] and \[lorentzquantum\]) and finally we show how to quantize the quotient, projective special Kähler manifold in \[projsk\]. In this way we arrive at the desired master equation, while simultaneously having provided its general solution. Quantization review {#quantizationreview} =================== In this section we will review the general principles underlying quantization of classical phase spaces. The basic ingredients are a classical phase space, which we will assume to be a smooth manifold $M$, a space of quantum states, which by definition is complex projective space $\mathbb{P}^n$ of a priori arbitrary dimension $n$, and a quantization map. This is a map $$\phi: M \rightarrow \mathbb{P}^n$$ identifying the classical state space (or a portion thereof) as a subset of the space of quantum states[^1]. The image of this map, $\phi(M)$, is known as the space of coherent states. Part of the problem of quantization is the classification of such triples. Complementary to that, is the task of transporting the basic invariants of $\mathbb{P}^n$ via $\phi$ to $M$. The basic algebraic invariant of interest is the maximal compact subgroup $G$ of $\mathrm{Aut}(\mathbb{P}^n)$. This can also be viewed as the group of automorphisms of $\mathbb{P}^n$ endowed with the pairing: $$(x, y) := \frac{|\langle x, y \rangle|}{||x||\,||y||},$$ where $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$ denotes a sesquilinear product on $\mathbb{C}^{n+1}$. It is the result of Wigner’s Theorem, that $G$ is composed exactly of the unitary and antiunitary transformations of $(\mathbb{C}^{n+1}, \langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$). The *space of quantum observables* is the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g} = \mathrm{Lie}(G)$, while what is known as the *algebra of quantum observables* is its universal enveloping algebra $U(\mathfrak{g})$. The algebra of classical observables is recovered as follows. Let $F \in U(\mathfrak{g})$, then its classical counterpart is a complex valued function $f: M \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ given by: $$f(p) = \langle \phi(p), F \phi(p) \rangle.$$ The universal enveloping algebra is represented by the so-called star-product $\star$, which by definition must satisfy: $$(f \star g)(p) := \langle \phi(p), F \cdot G \, \phi(p) \rangle.$$ In the following we will suppress one degree of arbitrariness in the choice of the quantization triple, namely the dimension of projective space. In fact, without loss of generality, we are allowed to consider the direct limit: $$\mathbb{P}^{\infty} := \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \mathbb{P}^n.$$ This in turn can be viewed as $\mathcal{H}/\mathbb{C}^*$, where $\mathcal{H}$ is an infinite dimensional separable Hilbert-space. It is important to remark, as it will be crucial in what follows, that any two such Hilbert-spaces are isomorphic. Before venturing into the more general case, it will be useful to recall the very well known quantization of $\mathbb{R}^{2d}$. The simplest case: $M = \mathbb{R}^{2d}$ {#simplestcase} ---------------------------------------- Given the definition of quantization above, a priori there are a multitude of quantization maps $\phi$ of $\mathbb{R}^{2d}$. However its canonical quantization presupposes a much more rigid structure than that of a smooth manifold. Indeed $\mathbb{R}^{2d}$ is identified with its group of translations $\Gamma$, or more precisely with an orbit, e.g. $\Gamma \cdot e$, where $e$ denotes the identity element $e = 0 \in \mathbb{R}^{2d}$. Then the quantization maps reduce to the projective representations: $$\rho : \Gamma \rightarrow \mathrm{Aut}(\mathbb{P}^{\infty}).$$ As is well known these are in one-to-one correspondence with the family of linear representations: $$\hat{\rho} : \hat{\Gamma} \rightarrow \mathrm{Aut}(\mathcal{H})$$ labeled by a central extension $\hat{\Gamma}$ of $\Gamma$. These in turn are fully specified by the choice of a skew-symmetric bilinear form $\omega^{-1} \in \bigwedge^2 (\mathrm{Lie}(\Gamma))^*$. Passing to the Lie algebra description altogether, $\mathrm{Lie}(\hat{\Gamma})$ is then specified by the following commutation relations: $$[\hat{x}^i, \hat{x}^j] = i\omega^{-1}(x^i, x^j).$$ By a slight abuse of notation, we have multiplied the generators by $i = \sqrt{-1}$, so that these will be represented as self-adjoint operators. We will restrict attention to the case where $\omega^{-1}$ is non-degenerate. Although this is no real loss of generality in the present case, it will be in the following sections, where the space $(\mathbb{R}^{2d}, \omega^{-1})$ is generalized to a Poisson manifold, while we will be solely interested in the symplectic case[^2]. In the non-degenerate case, $\hat{\Gamma}$ is known as a *Heisenberg group*, and these are in fact all equivalent. This simply follows from the fact that any non degenerate skew-symmetric matrix can be brought to canonical form $\epsilon$ by an invertible matrix $\Lambda$, as $$\Lambda^T \omega \Lambda = \epsilon.$$ It will be useful in the following to introduce further canonical objects: $\eta$, the standard euclidean metric, and the complex structure $I$ given by: $$\eta = I\epsilon.$$ Part of the Stone-von-Neumann-Mackey Theorem states that $\hat{\Gamma}$ has a unique, up to isometry, unitary irreducible and infinite dimensional representation on a separable Hilbert-space. In fact, since infinite dimensional separable Hilbert-spaces are all equivalent, we can view each such $\mathcal{H}$ as furnishing such an irreducible representation. Indeed this is realized as follows. First, presupposing canonical form, split $\mathrm{Lie}_{\mathbb{C}}(\hat{\Gamma})$ into raising and lowering subalgebra spanned by the operators: $$\hat{x}^i(\eta + i\epsilon)_{ij} {\hspace{2mm}}{\hspace{2mm}}{\hspace{2mm}}\textrm{and}{\hspace{2mm}}{\hspace{2mm}}{\hspace{2mm}}\hat{x}^i(\eta - i\epsilon)_{ij}$$ respectively. The former are commonly known as annihilation while the latter as creation operators. Then choose an orthonormal basis $\{| n \rangle\}$ of $\mathcal{H}$ enumerated by $n \in \mathbb{N}_0^{d}$. Declare $|0 \rangle$ to be the highest weight vector and let the action of $\hat{x}^i(\eta - i\epsilon)_{ij}$ be specified by: $$\hat{x}^i(\eta - i\epsilon)_{ij} |n \rangle \sim |n + e_j \rangle,$$ where $e_j$ denotes the unit vector in the $j$th direction and $\sim$ indicates equal up to a suitable unique proportionality factor. At this point we can turn to the representation $\hat{\rho}$: $$\hat{\rho}(p) = \exp(i\omega_{ij}x^i \hat{x}^j),$$ where $p = (x^1, \dots, x^{2d})$. Given this representation, it is straightforward to obtain the quantization map: $$\phi(p) = \hat{\rho}(p) |\psi \rangle, \label{cohstate1}$$ where $|\psi \rangle$ is an arbitrary, nonzero, state in $\mathcal{H}$. This choice is irrelevant, it can be removed by an automophism of $\mathbb{P}^n$. If we choose $|\psi\rangle = |0 \rangle$, we recover the canonical notion of coherent state: $$|x\rangle = \exp(i\omega_{ij}x^i \hat{x}^j)|0\rangle \label{poisscohstate}.$$ This in particular satisfies: $$\hat{x}^i(\eta + i\epsilon)_{ij} |x\rangle = x^i(\eta + i\epsilon)_{ij} |x\rangle,$$ namely, it is an eigenstate of the annihilation operators. For the sake of completeness we will sketch how to extract the star-product in the particular case $M = \mathbb{R}^2$ [^3]. While the above notation is convenient as a reference for future sections, we will, solely for this independent appendix to this review section, use the common notation with annihilation operator $a$ and creation operator $a^{\dagger}$, which up to a factor are equivalent to the ones defined above. Then the canonical coherent states are usually denoted as $|\alpha \rangle$, where $\alpha = (1/\sqrt{2})(y^1 + iy^2)$ and $(y^1,y^2)=x$ are the coordinates of a point $p \in \mathbb{R}^2$. Then, from the defining property: $$a |\alpha \rangle = \alpha |\alpha\rangle,$$ one can recover the state $|\alpha \rangle$ as: $$|\alpha \rangle = \exp{\left(-\frac{1}{2}|\alpha|^2\right)}\sum_{n \geq 0} \frac{\alpha^n}{\sqrt{n!}}|n \rangle,$$ where we have normalized $|\alpha \rangle$ to 1. Moreover, in the usual notation: $$\hat{\rho}(p) =: U(\alpha) = \exp(\alpha a^{\dagger} + \overline{\alpha}a).$$ Then $$\begin{aligned} (f \star g)(p) &= \langle \alpha | F \cdot G | \alpha \rangle\\ &= \sum_{n \geq 0} \langle 0 | U(-\alpha) F U(\alpha) \; |n \rangle \langle n | \; U(-\alpha) G U(\alpha) | 0 \rangle\\ &= \sum_{n \geq 0} \frac{1}{n!}\langle 0 | U(-\alpha) F U(\alpha) \; (a^{\dagger})^n | 0 \rangle \langle 0 | a^n \; U(-\alpha) G U(\alpha) | 0 \rangle\\ &= \sum_{n \geq 0} \frac{1}{n!}\langle 0 | \mathrm{ad}_{-a^{\dagger}}^n[U(-\alpha) F U(\alpha)] | 0 \rangle \langle 0 | \mathrm{ad}_{a}^n[U(-\alpha) F U(\alpha)] | 0 \rangle\\ &= \sum_{n \geq 0} \frac{1}{n!} {\left(\frac{\partial^n}{\partial \alpha^n}f\right)}(p){\left(\frac{\partial^n}{\partial \overline{\alpha}^n}g\right)}(p)\\ &= {\left(f \exp{\left(\frac{1}{2}\langle \stackrel \leftarrow \nabla, (\eta^{-1} + i \epsilon^{-1}) \stackrel \rightarrow \nabla\rangle\right)} g\right)}(p).\end{aligned}$$ In order to appreciate the significance of the star product in physics, one should introduce Planck’s constant $\hbar$, which we have implicitly set to $1$. The latter is reintroduced precisely by the following change of coordinates: $(y_1, y_2) \mapsto (\sqrt{\hbar}y_1, \sqrt{\hbar}y_2)$. Then the star product reads: $$(f \star g)(p) = {\left(f \exp{\left(\frac{\hbar}{2}\langle \stackrel \leftarrow \nabla, (\eta^{-1} + i \epsilon^{-1}) \stackrel \rightarrow \nabla\rangle\right)} g\right)}(p).$$ Using the above one can now, in particular, recover Hamilton’s equations of classical mechanics as the classical limit ($\hbar \rightarrow 0$) of Heisenberg’s equations. A more general case: quantization of symplectic manifolds {#quantsymplectic} ========================================================= We are now faced with the problem of generalizing this beautiful yet very special construction for $\mathbb{R}^{2d}$ to the general case of a symplectic manifold $M$ of dimension $2d$. For this, we follow Fedosov’s method [@fedosov91; @fedosov94]. Accordingly we construct quantization maps as follows. First we choose a point $p \in M$ and declare that this be mapped to the point $\phi(p) =: |p \rangle \in \mathbb{P}^{\infty}$. Next, we declare that any other point $p'$ in the vicinity (to be explained later) of $p$ be mapped to the point: $$p' \rightarrow \phi(p') =: U(p', p) | p \rangle,$$ for some $U(p',p) \in \mathrm{Aut}(\mathbb{P}^{\infty})$. In particular it must be continuously connected to the identity, therefore $U(p', p)$ is unitary. In fact, thanks to the $QR$ decomposition of matrices, this is no loss of generality. Let’s now erect a (at this point arbitrary) coordinate system $\{x^k\}$ in a neighborhood $V_{p}$ of $p$. And let’s define the object $$-A(p) = {\left.\frac{\partial}{\partial x^k} U(p', p)\right|}_{p' = p} dx^k.$$ We can interpret $A$ as a flat connection on a $\mathbb{P}^{\infty}$-bundle over $X$. For computational purposes however, it is more convenient to work on the corresponding $\mathcal{H}$-bundle where, by a slight abuse of notation, the connection $A$ is allowed to have holonomies in the centre of $\mathrm{Aut}(\mathbb{P}^{\infty})$ namely $\mathbb{C}^*$. That is, $A$ satisfies the Maurer-Cartan equation: $$dA + A\wedge A \in \Omega^2(M, \mathbb{C}). \label{MC}$$ In other words, $A$ is projectively flat as a connection on the $\mathcal{H}$-bundle. Without loss of generality we can however assume that, as a connection on the $\mathcal{H}$-bundle, $A$ is flat, namely: $$dA + A\wedge A = 0. \label{MC2}$$ For this we simply have to twist the $\mathcal{H}$-bundle by a hermitian line-bundle with a connection whose curvature precisely cancels that of $A$. We shall hitherto refer to the state $|p \rangle$ parallel transported by $A$, viewed as an element in $\mathcal{H}$, as $|p \rangle_A$. Clearly $U(p', p)$ can be written in the form: $$U(p', p) = \mathcal{P}\exp{\left(-\int_{\gamma}A\right)},$$ where $\mathcal{P}$ stands for path-ordered, $\gamma: [0,1] \rightarrow M$ is a path with endpoints $\gamma(0) = p$, $\gamma(1) = p'$, and since $A$ is flat the result of the integration only depends on the homotopy class $[\gamma]$. In particular, if we restrict attention to a simply connected, or even better, contractible neighborhood of $p$, then the result of integration is completely independent of the chosen path and in that case we are allowed to refer to the integral as $\int_p^{p'}$. One could also do this globally if one replaces $M$ with its universal cover altogether. So far the discussion was very general, in that we have not required any special properties of $M$ other than it be smooth and we have traded the notion of quantization map for that of a flat connection on an $\mathcal{H}$-bundle. The interesting step is now to find a good classification of the solutions to (\[MC2\]). We will assume at this point that $M$ is symplectic, and we choose $V_p$ to be a Darboux patch, namely a coordinate neighborhood where the symplectic form $\omega$ is flat. Attached to this flat symplectic form we have a corresponding Heisenberg algebra with generators $\hat{x}^i$ and $\mathcal{H}$ is the corresponding irreducible representation. The intuition behind this is to envisage the tangent space $T_pM$ at each point $p \in M$ as a copy of $\mathrm{Lie}(\Gamma)$. In a suitable sense every self-adjoint operator of $\mathcal{H}$ is an element of $U(\mathrm{Lie}(\Gamma))$. In informal terms, this follows from the following decomposition of the projector on the highest weight state $|0 \rangle$: $$|0 \rangle \langle 0 | = \sum_{\vec{k} \in \mathbb{N}_0^d} (-1)^k\frac{(a^{\dagger})^ka^k}{k!} = \sum_{\vec{k} \in \mathbb{N}_0^d} (-1)^k {a^{\dagger}a \choose k}.$$ In the above we have used multi-index notation. This decomposition allows us to expand $A$ as follows: $$A(p) = i\sum_{l = 0}^{\infty} \sum_{i_1 \leq \dots \leq i_l}(\alpha_{i_1, \dots, i_l, k}(p)\hat{x}^{i_1} \cdots \hat{x}^{i_l} \; + h.c) dx^k. \label{pertexp}$$ Equation (\[MC2\]) thus decomposes into an infinite number of equations. More precisely (\[pertexp\]) is well defined in the topology defined by the seminorms: $$|\langle \psi_1| \, \cdot \, | \psi_2 \rangle| {\hspace{2mm}}\textrm{with } \psi_1 \in \mathcal{S}_d, \psi_2 \in \mathcal{H},$$ where by $\mathcal{S}_d \subset \mathcal{H}$ we denote the space of states whose coefficients $c_n$ in the expansion $\psi_1 = \sum_n c_n |n\rangle$ tend to zero as $||n|| \rightarrow \infty$, faster than any polynomial of $n \in \mathbb{N}_0^d$ [^4]. Thus the notation $\mathcal{S}_d$ is suggestive for Schwarz-space, although this should not be taken literally. At this point we remark that the canonical, Poissonian coherent states of $M = \mathbb{R}^{2d}$ are elements of $\mathcal{S}_d$. What this restriction on the topology implies, is that for the perturbative ansatz (\[pertexp\]) to be well-defined, we should represent the state $|p \rangle_A$ as a wavefunction whose corresponding complete sequence of linear functionals has as corresponding sequence of states, elements of $\mathcal{S}_d$. We will define such wavefunctions in section \[CTB\]. Returning to the infinite sequence of equations encoded in (\[MC2\]), we will see in the following that each equation specifies a certain geometrical structure on $M$. The philosophical perspective one could take about the above expansion is that, as we increase the order in perturbation theory we are chiseling step by step, through equation (\[MC2\]), the geometry of a Darboux patch of $M$. In particular we assume that at each step in perturbation theory the Darboux patch be smooth, however this does not impose that the limiting structure be. In other words, our initial assumption that $M$ be smooth could in principle be omitted for the limiting geometries. As a check, and for matters of convention, let’s recover the simplest case $M = \mathbb{R}^{2d}$ in this formalism. There the perturbation expansion stops at first order: $$A = i (\alpha_k + \omega_{ik}\hat{x}^i)dx^k.$$ Thus, solving (\[MC2\]) yields the following two equations: $$\begin{aligned} d\alpha &= -\frac{1}{2}\omega\\ \partial_k (\omega_{il}\hat{x}^i) dx^k \wedge dx^l &= 0.\end{aligned}$$ The second equation is automatically satisfied. Thus, apart from an irrelevant phase: $$U(p', p) = \mathcal{P}\exp{\left(-i\int_p^{p'}{\left(-\frac{1}{2}\omega_{ik}x^i + \omega_{ik}\hat{x}^i\right)}dx^k\right)}.$$ Somewhere in between: special geometries {#secondorder} ======================================== In this section we shall investigate the geometry of phase-spaces whose associated connection $A$ stops at second order in the perturbative expansion (\[pertexp\]). We will show in section \[gauges\] that these spaces are actually equivalent to the ones whose connection stops at first order. As will become clear in the following sections this class includes affine (Riemannian) special Kähler manifolds. First we will investigate equation (\[MC2\]) to second order. Furthermore we will assume that, to first order, $A$ reduces to the flat case. The connection $A$ then takes the form: $$A = i(\alpha_k + \omega_{ik}\hat{x}^i + D_{ijk}\hat{x}^i \hat{x}^j)dx^k,\label{Asecondorder}$$ where, given that $A$ is hermitian, and without loss of generality, $D_{ijk} \in \mathbb{R}$ and $D_{ijk} = D_{jik}$. Equation (\[MC2\]) becomes: $$\begin{aligned} d\alpha &= -\frac{1}{2}\omega \nonumber\\ \label{GM1} D_{krl} - D_{lrk} &= 0\\ \label{GM2} \partial_kD_{ijl} - \partial_lD_{ijk} - 2(D_{isk}D_{rjl} + D_{jsk}D_{ril})\omega^{sr} &= 0.\end{aligned}$$ We now introduce the following object: $$G_{ki}^j = 2D_{ilk}\omega^{lj}.$$ The symmetry of $D_{ijk}$ in its first two indices translates to: $$G_{ki}^l\omega_{lj} - G_{kj}^l\omega_{li} = 0,$$ that is: $$G_k \omega + \omega G_k^T = 0.$$ In other words, $G_k$ is a symplectic matrix. In terms of $G_k$, equations (\[GM1\]) and (\[GM2\]) read: $$\begin{aligned} G_{lk}^i - G_{kl}^i &= 0\\ \partial_k G_l - \partial_l G_k - [G_k, G_l] &= 0.\end{aligned}$$ We will learn in section \[gauges\] that $G$ is a connection on the tangent bundle of $M$. Then the first equation is the statement that $G$ is torsion-free, while the second means that $G$ is flat. So to summarize, the second order quantizations correspond to symplectic manifolds with a flat symplectic connection [^5]. Kähler manifolds: holomorphic connections {#firstorderholo} ----------------------------------------- We now sharpen our analysis to the case where the phase-space $M$ is a complex symplectic manifold, that is, a Kähler manifold, when endowed with the appropriate compatible metric $g = J\omega$, where $J \in \Gamma(M, \mathrm{End}(TM))$ denotes its complex structure. We then ask when it is that the above constructed quantization map is compatible with $J$. We define compatibility as follows. \[compatibholo\] A quantization map $\phi: M \rightarrow \mathbb{P}^{\infty}$ defined by a projectively flat unitary connection $A$, is compatible with the complex structure of $M$, if $A$ admits the following decomposition: $$A = \frac{1}{2}(B + B^{\dagger}),$$ where $B$ is a holomorphic, projectively flat connection. That is, $\phi$ induces a holomorphic map to $\mathbb{P}^{\infty}$. It is straightforward to check that the above decomposition for $A$ is unique with $B$ given by: $$B = A_r(\delta_k^r + iJ_k^r)dx^k.$$ We will now check, at first order, what conditions on the geometry of $M$ must be imposed in order for the compatibility condition of definition \[compatibholo\] to be fulfilled. The holomorphic connection is given by: $$\begin{aligned} B &= i{\left(\alpha_r + \omega_{ir}\hat{x}^i\right)}(\delta^r_k + iJ^r_k)dx^k\\ &= i{\left((\delta^r_k + iJ^r_k)\alpha_r - (\omega + ig)_{ki}\hat{x}^i\right)}dx^k.\end{aligned}$$ Let $\Omega$ denote the curvature of $B$, then the projective flatness condition reads: $$\begin{aligned} {\left(i\partial_k(\alpha_l + iJ_l^r \alpha_r) - \frac{1}{2}[(g + i\omega)_{ki}\hat{x}^i, (g + i\omega)_{lj}\hat{x}^j]\right)}dx^k \wedge dx^l &= \Omega \label{holocurvature}\\ \partial_k(\omega - ig)_{il} - \partial_l(\omega - ig)_{ik} &= 0. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The second equation reduces to $$\partial_k g_{il} - \partial_l g_{ik} = 0.$$ That is, there are Darboux coordinates where: $$g_{il} = \partial_l f_i = \partial_i f_l = \partial_i \partial_l K,$$ where $f_i$ and $K$ are real valued functions on $M$. In fact it is straightforward to observe that $K$ is a Kähler potential for $M$. Moreover, while an arbitrary Kähler potential is defined up to holomorphic functions, $K$ is defined only up to linear ones. To end the above analysis we shall return to equation (\[holocurvature\]), which now reduces to: $$\Omega = -\frac{i}{2}\omega - J_l^r\partial_r\alpha_k dx^k \wedge dx^l,$$ which, in the gauge: $$\alpha = -\frac{1}{2}J_k^l \partial_l K dx^k \label{canonalpha}$$ becomes: $$\Omega = -\frac{i}{2}\omega.$$ We shall denote this gauge for $\alpha$ as canonical. We now assume that a second order quantizable manifold admits a gauge in which $B$ is of the particular form just considered. This is the case exactly when, in the above Darboux coordinates the flat symplectic connection $G$ vanishes. That is the Darboux coordinates are $(d + G)$-flat. Then, in arbitrary coordinates the constraint on the metric reads: $$\begin{aligned} d_{d + G}J = 0.\end{aligned}$$ We thus obtain exactly the definition of affine special Kähler manifold (see e.g. [@freed]). In the following section we shall finally show the equivalence of first and second order quantizable spaces. To conclude this section we shall formalize our findings with the following A Kähler manifold with quantization map $\phi : M \rightarrow \mathbb{P}^{\infty}$ whose corresponding flat connection $A$ is first-order in a suitable coordinate system, and is compatible with the complex structure of $M$, is precisely an affine special Kähler manifold. Symplectomorphisms as gauge transformations {#gauges} ------------------------------------------- Here we will show how symplectomorphisms act on the coherent state $|p\rangle$, thus allowing us in particular to transform the flat connection $A$ from special to arbitrary Darboux coordinates. In particular we will show that every second order connection $A$ of the form (\[Asecondorder\]) can be brought to first order, under a suitable symplectic change of coordinates. From now on, we shall denote by $A_s$ the first order connection $A$ in special Darboux coordinates. Let $\sigma : M \rightarrow M$ denote a local symplectomorphism on $M$, and let $\Sigma : TM \rightarrow TM$ denote its differential. Then $\sigma$ acts on $\mathcal{H}$ via the unitary map: $$S := \exp (-if -\frac{i}{2}{\left(\log(\Sigma) \omega\right)}_{ij} \hat{x}^i\hat{x}^j),\label{SofSigma}$$ where $f$ is an arbitrary real function and the second term is antihermitian if and only if $\sigma$ is a symplectomorphism. The function $f$ can be included as $\sigma$ should only act projectively on $\mathcal{H}$. To verify that $\sigma$ acts via $S$ we simply need to use the fact that $\mathcal{H}$ is an irreducible representation of the Heisenberg algebra, thus reducing the problem to the following single check: $$S \hat{x}^k S^{-1} = \Sigma_l^k \hat{x}^l.$$ For this we shall consider the one parameter family of symplectomorphisms defined by $\Sigma_t:= \exp(t \log(\Sigma))$ and will show that it is in correspondence with $S_t = \exp(-t(if + \frac{i}{2}{\left(\log(\Sigma) \omega\right)}_{ij} \hat{x}^i\hat{x}^j))$. To this aim we only need to verify that the two families agree in the immediate neighborhood of $t=0$: $$\begin{aligned} \frac{d}{dt} {\left(S_t \hat{x}^k S_t^{-1}\right)|}_{t = 0} &= -\frac{i}{2} (\log(\Sigma)\omega)_{ij} [\hat{x}^i \hat{x}^j, \hat{x}^k]\\ &= -\frac{i}{2} (\log(\Sigma)\omega)_{ij}(i\omega^{ik} \hat{x}^j + i\omega^{jk} \hat{x}^i)\\ &= \frac{1}{2}(\log(\Sigma)^T-\omega^{-1}\log(\Sigma)\omega)\hat{x}\\ &= \log(\Sigma)_l^k \hat{x}^l,\end{aligned}$$ where, in the last step, we have used the fact that $\Sigma$ is a symplectomorphism. On the flat connection $A$, $S$ acts as a gauge transformation. Let’s take $A = A_s$, then, under a coordinate transformation: $$\begin{aligned} (A_s)_k \mapsto \Sigma_k^l{\left(S (A_s)_l S^{-1} + S \partial_l S^{-1}\right)}.\label{gaugetrans}\end{aligned}$$ In order to compute $S\partial_k S^{-1}$ we resort once again to the flows $\Sigma_t$ and $S_t$ and compare the time derivatives at arbitrary time $t$: $$\begin{aligned} \frac{d}{dt} S_t \partial_k S_t^{-1} &= S_t \partial_k{\left(if + \frac{i}{2}{\left(\log(\Sigma)\omega\right)}_{ij}\hat{x}^i\hat{x}^j\right)}S_t^{-1}\\ &= i\partial_k f + \frac{i}{2} (\partial_k(\log(\Sigma)) \omega)_{ij} (\Sigma_t)_r^i (\Sigma_t)_s^j \hat{x}^r \hat{x}^s\\ &= i\partial_k f + \frac{i}{2} (\Sigma_t \partial_k(\log(\Sigma)) \omega \Sigma_t^T)_{rs}\hat{x}^r\hat{x}^s\\ &= i\partial_k f + \frac{i}{2} (\Sigma_t \partial_k(\log(\Sigma))\Sigma_t^{-1}\omega)_{rs}\hat{x}^r\hat{x}^s\\ &= \frac{d}{dt}{\left(it \partial_k f - \frac{i}{2}(\Sigma_t (\partial_k \Sigma_t^{-1})\omega)_{rs}\hat{x}^r \hat{x}^s\right)}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore: $$\begin{aligned} (A_s)_k &\mapsto iS(\Sigma_k^l \alpha_l + \omega_{il}\Sigma_k^l\hat{x}^i)S^{-1} + \frac{i}{2}\Sigma_k^l\partial_l f - \frac{i}{2}\Sigma_k^l(\Sigma(\partial_l \Sigma^{-1})\omega)_{ij}\hat{x}^i\hat{x}^j \nonumber\\ &= i {\left(\Sigma_k^l(\alpha_l + \partial_l f) + \omega_{ik} \hat{x}^i - \frac{1}{2}\Sigma_k^l(\Sigma(\partial_l \Sigma^{-1})\omega)_{ij}\hat{x}^i\hat{x}^j\right)}\label{AstoA}.\end{aligned}$$ We thus recovered the general form (\[Asecondorder\]) and verified that indeed $G$ is a connection on the tangent bundle to $M$. Moreover, in (\[AstoA\]) we also observe that $i\alpha$ should be viewed as a connection on a line-bundle over $M$. More precisely, the transformation properties of $\alpha$ under the gauge transformation $\exp(-if)$ show that this line bundle is precisely the pullback of the unitary tautological bundle $\mathcal{H} \rightarrow \mathbb{P}^{\infty}$, or Hopf-fibration, via the quantization map. Henceforth we shall denote the operator $S$ corresponding to the differential $\Sigma$ as $S_{\Sigma}$. The “coherent" tangent bundle {#CTB} ----------------------------- In this section we will give an explicit realization of the state $|p\rangle_A$ as a wavefunction $Z_A(u,p)$. The following discussion in fact applies to any Kähler manifold. We wish the wavefunction to correspond to a covariant tensor on $M$ thus allowing us to speak of the state $|p \rangle_A$ as a coordinate independent object. We thus define the wavefunction as follows: $$Z_A(u, p) = \, _{p, A} \!\,\langle u | p \rangle_A,$$ where $|u \rangle_{p, A} \in \mathcal{H}$ is a state that corresponds to a point $u^i \partial_i \in T_pM$. As discussed in section \[simplestcase\], the correct choice for $|u \rangle_{p, A} \in \mathcal{H}$ that reflects the vector-space structure of $T_pM$, is that of a coherent-state (\[cohstate1\]). In order to make this state covariant with respect to the choice of the flat connection $A$, we define it through the property: $$\hat{x}^T (g + i\omega) | u \rangle_{p, A} = u^T (g + i\omega) | u \rangle_{p, A}, \label{defup}$$ that is $|u\rangle_{p,A}$ is the eigenstate of the annihilation operators $\hat{x}^i(g + i\omega)_{ij}$ defined according to the Kähler structure and coordinate system induced by the flat connection $A$. Clearly, this state is an element of $\mathcal{S}_d$, hence in the above defined wavefunction realization, our perturbation expansion (\[pertexp\]) is completely well defined. It is worth remarking here, that under the involution $J \rightarrow -J$, $g \rightarrow -g$, $\omega \rightarrow \omega$ or the involution $J \rightarrow J$, $g \rightarrow -g$, $\omega \rightarrow -\omega$ we would map a positive normed state to a “negative normed state", which is therefore non-existent as an element of a (positive) Hilbert-space. We shall forget this remark until we encounter Lorentzian conic special Kähler manifolds in section \[conicsk\]. Here, and until otherwise stated, we will restrict ourselves to Riemannian Kähler manifolds. The fundamental property of $|u\rangle_{p,A}$, is that under a symplectomorphism with differential $\Sigma$ and corresponding unitary operator $S_\Sigma$, it transforms as follows: $$|u \rangle_{p, \tilde{A}} \sim S_{\Sigma}|\Sigma^T u \rangle_{p, A}, \label{cohtang}$$ where by $\sim$ we mean equal up to a phase and where $\tilde{A}$ is the gauge transformed connection (\[gaugetrans\]). Equation (\[cohtang\]) follows immediately from the fact that both the left- and right-hand side satisfy the defining equation (\[defup\]) with $g + i\omega$ replaced by $\tilde{g} + i\tilde{\omega}$. This property translates to the following property for the wavefunction: $$\begin{aligned} Z_{\tilde{A}}(u, p) &= \, _{p, \tilde{A}} \!\,\langle u | p \rangle_{\tilde{A}}\nonumber\\ &= \, _{p, \tilde{A}} \!\,\langle u |S_{\Sigma} S_{\Sigma}^{-1}| p \rangle_{\tilde{A}}\nonumber\\ &= \, _{p, \tilde{A}} \!\,\langle u |S_{\Sigma} | p \rangle_A\nonumber\\ &= \, _{p, A} \!\,\langle \Sigma^T u | p \rangle_{A}\nonumber\\ &\sim Z_A(\Sigma^T u, p), \label{Zastensor}\end{aligned}$$ that is, $Z_A(u,p)$ should be viewed as a section of the line-bundle $\pi^*(\mathcal{L}\otimes \mathcal{L}' \,^{\vee}) \rightarrow TM$ where $\pi :TM \rightarrow M$ is the canonical projection of the tangent-bundle, $\mathcal{L}$ is the pullback, under the quantization map, of the tautological line-bundle on $\mathbb{P}^{\infty}$, and $\mathcal{L}'$ is a, at this point unspecified, unitary line bundle whose introduction is due to the fact that (\[cohtang\]) is an “equation up to a phase". Equivalently, property (\[Zastensor\]) says that the object $Z_A(\cdot, p)$ is an element of $\Gamma(M, (\mathcal{L}\otimes \mathcal{L}' \,^{\vee})\otimes S^{\bullet}TM)$, which is what we set out to achieve. By $S^{\bullet}$ we have denoted symmetric tensors. Now we shall give an explicit expression for $|u \rangle_{p, \tilde{A}}$. To this aim we use the fact that for a Kähler manifold, if $\omega$ is in canonical form, the map transforming Darboux to Riemann normal coordinates erected at a point $p \in M$ is a symplectomorphism at $p$. Let’s denote the differential from Riemann normal coordinates at $p$ by $\Lambda$ and corresponding gauge transformation by $S_{\Lambda}$, then: $$|u \rangle_{p, A} \sim S_{\Lambda}|\Lambda^T u \rangle_{flat},\label{upatapoint}$$ where by $| u \rangle_{flat}$, we denote the canonical, Poissonian coherent state (\[poisscohstate\]). For the following we will need to know how the Heisenberg algebra acts on $|u\rangle_{p, A}$ and also how $|u\rangle_{p, A}$ depends on $p$. Armed with the standard result in the flat case, under the assumption that the state is normalized to $1$, we obtain: $$\hat{x} | u \rangle_{p, A} = {\left(\frac{1}{2}(1 - iJ)^Tu + \frac{1}{2}(g^{-1} - i\omega^{-1})\vec{\nabla}_u + \frac{1}{4}(1 + iJ)^Tu\right)} | u \rangle_{p, A}. \label{defup2}$$ It will be convenient in later sections to introduce the following notation: $$\begin{aligned} v := \frac{1}{2}(1 - iJ)^T u\\ D_v := (1 - iJ) \vec{\nabla}_u.\end{aligned}$$ Thus equation (\[defup2\]) takes the form: $$\hat{x} |u \rangle_{p, A} = {\left(v + \frac{1}{2}g^{-1} D_v + \frac{1}{2} \overline{v}\right)}|u \rangle_{p, A}.$$ We will also be needing the following simple identities. First of all: $$_{p, A} \! \,\langle 0 | u \rangle_{p, A} = \exp{\left(-\frac{1}{4}||u||^2_{g(p)}\right)}$$ and for any state $|\psi\rangle$, $\langle \psi | u \rangle_{p, A} $ is of the form: $$\langle \psi | u \rangle_{p, A} = \exp{\left(-\frac{1}{4}||u||^2_{g(p)}\right)} f_{\psi}((1 - iJ)^Tu),$$ where $f_{\psi}$ is an arbitrary, appropriately normalizable[^6], analytic function. Moreover, if we assume that: $$_{p, A}\! \,\langle 0 | \psi \rangle \neq 0,$$ then we can write $f_{\psi}$ as the exponential of a power series in $u$. Next we turn to the dependence of $|u \rangle_{p, A}$ on $p$. We shall thus analyse the action of the coordinate vectorfields at $p$ on $|u \rangle_{p, A}$: $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial}{\partial x^k} | u \rangle_{p, A} &= \textrm{phase} \cdot {\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x^k} - i\beta_k\right)}S_{\Lambda}| \Lambda^T u \rangle_{flat}\\ &= {\left(-i\beta_k + (\partial_k S_{\Lambda})S_{\Lambda}^{-1} + (\partial_k \Lambda)_r^iu^r (\Lambda^{-1})_i^s \frac{\partial}{\partial u^s}\right)} | u \rangle_{p, A}\\ &= {\left(-i\beta_k + \frac{i}{2}(\Lambda(\partial_k \Lambda^{-1})\omega)_{ij}\hat{x}^i\hat{x}^j - u^r (\Lambda (\partial_k\Lambda^{-1}))_r^s \frac{\partial}{\partial u^s}\right)} | u \rangle_{p, A}.\end{aligned}$$ In the above we have introduced a connection $i\beta = i\beta_k dx^k$ with $\beta_k \in \mathbb{R}$ on $\mathcal{L}'$. Now we use the fact that $\Lambda$ is related to the Levi-Civita connection through: $$\Gamma_k = -\Lambda \partial_k \Lambda^{-1}.$$ Of course the above is valid only at $p$, moreover, because of that, the connection $\beta_k$ should not be expected to be flat. Finally we obtain: $${\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x^k} + i\beta_k - u^r \Gamma_{kr}^s \frac{\partial}{\partial u^s} + \frac{i}{2}(\Gamma_k\omega)_{ij}\hat{x}^i\hat{x}^j\right)} | u \rangle_p = 0 \label{defup3}$$ More explicitly we have: $${\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x^k} + i\beta_k - u^r \Gamma_{kr}^s \frac{\partial}{\partial u^s} + \frac{i}{2}(\Gamma_k\omega)_{ij}(v + \frac{1}{2}g^{-1} D_v + \frac{1}{2} \overline{v})^i(v + \frac{1}{2}g^{-1} D_v + \frac{1}{2} \overline{v})^j\right)} | u \rangle_p = 0.$$ At this point it is important to notice that as we chose the map $\Lambda$ to Riemann normal coordinates we could have also chosen a vielbein[^7]. The difference reflects itself in the choice of connection $\beta$. More generally, the states $|u\rangle_p$ are parallel transported along $M$ (up to a phase) by the lift to the Hilbert bundle of any metric compatible and (quasi-)symplectic connection on $TM$. Choosing the vielbein instead of the map to Riemann normal coordinates corresponds to the Weitzenböck connection [@weitzenboeck1], which while not torsion free as the Levi-Civita connection, is flat. To see this we resort to the defining equation (\[defup\]). Let $B$ denote a connection on $TM$. Choose a path $\gamma : [0,1] \rightarrow M$. The statement that $|u \rangle_p$ is parallel transported (up to a phase) by the lift of $B$ along $\gamma$ is: $${\left|{\left[\mathcal{P}\exp{\left(\int_0^t \gamma^*B \right)}\right]}^Tu\right\rangle}_{\gamma(t)} \sim \mathcal{P}\exp{\left(-\frac{i}{2} \int_0^t (\gamma^*B \omega)_{ij}\hat{x}^i \hat{x}^j\right)} | u \rangle_{\gamma(0)}.$$ The above is equivalent to: $$\begin{aligned} &(g(\gamma(t)) - i\omega)_{ij}\hat{x}^j \mathcal{P}\exp{\left(\frac{i}{2} \int_0^t (\gamma^*B \omega)_{ij}\hat{x}^i \hat{x}^j\right)} | u \rangle_{\gamma(0)}\\ &= (g(\gamma(t)) - i\omega)_{ij}{\left({\left[\mathcal{P}\exp{\left(\int_0^t \gamma^*B \right)}\right]}^Tu\right)}^j \mathcal{P}\exp{\left(\frac{i}{2} \int_0^t (\gamma^*B \omega)_{ij}\hat{x}^i \hat{x}^j\right)}| u \rangle_{\gamma(0)},\end{aligned}$$ which infinitesimally reads: $$\begin{aligned} 0 &= X^k {\left(\partial_k g_{ij} (\hat{x}^j - u^j) - (g - i\omega)_{ij} (B_k)_{l}^j (\hat{x}^l - u^l)\right)}|u \rangle_0\\ &= X^k {\left((\partial_kg_{ij} - (B_k)_i^l g_{lj} - g_{il}(B_k)_j^l) + i ((B_k)_i^l \omega_{lj} + \omega_{il}(B_k)_j^l)\right)}(\hat{x}^j - u^j) |u \rangle_0.\end{aligned}$$ We thus obtain that whatever the choice of $X$ and thus $\gamma$, the above is fulfilled provided $B$ is compatible with both metric and symplectic form. To end this section we shall discuss the normalization condition on $Z_{A}(u,p)$. By this we mean the property that if $|p_0 \rangle_{A}$ is normalized to $1$ for a given point $p_0 \in M$ so will $|p \rangle_{A}$ for any other $p \in M$ due to the fact that the flat connection $A$ induces a unitary parallel transport. In order to express this property in terms of $Z_A(u,p)$, recall that in ordinary quantum mechanics, that is the quantum mechanics of $M = \mathbb{R}^{2d}$, the identity operator is expressed in terms of the coherent states as follows: $$\mathrm{Id} = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^d} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{2n}} \; |u \rangle \langle u | \; du^1 \wedge \dots \wedge du^{2d}.\label{norm1}$$ Thus, resorting to (\[upatapoint\]), in our case we obtain: $$\mathrm{Id} = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^d} \int_{T_pM} \sqrt{\det(g_A(p))} \; |u \rangle_{p, A} \; _{p,A}\!\,\langle u | \; du^1 \wedge \dots \wedge du^{2d},\label{norm2}$$ and therefore: $$1 = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^d} \int_{T_pM} \sqrt{\det(g_A(p))} \; {\left|Z_A(u,p)\right|}^2 \; du^1 \wedge \dots \wedge du^{2d}. \label{norm3}$$ In the above we have denoted the metric by $g_A$ to emphasize that it is expressed in the coordinate system corresponding to $A$. Master equation {#MEsection} --------------- At this point we have all the ingredients to formulate the master equation. By this we mean the statement that $|p\rangle_A$ is parallel transported by the flat connection $A$, expressed as a differential equation for the wavefunction $Z_A (u, p)$. Using (\[defup3\]) we obtain: $$\begin{aligned} 0 &= \, _{p, A} \! \,\langle u | \frac{\partial}{\partial x^k} + A_k | p \rangle_A\\ &= \frac{\partial}{\partial x^k} Z_A(u,p) - \frac{\partial}{\partial x^k} {\left(_{p, A} \! \,\langle u |\right)} | p \rangle_A + \, _{p, A} \! \,\langle u | A_k | p \rangle_A\\ &= {\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x^k} - i\beta_k - u^r \Gamma_{kr}^s \frac{\partial}{\partial u^s}\right)}Z_A(u,p) + \, _{p, A} \! \,\langle u | - \frac{i}{2}(\Gamma_k\omega)_{ij}\hat{x}^i\hat{x}^j + A_k | p \rangle_A\\ &= {\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x^k} - i\beta_k - u^r \Gamma_{kr}^s \frac{\partial}{\partial u^s}\right)}Z_A(u,p) + i\, _{p, A} \! \,\langle u |\alpha_k + \omega_{ik}\hat{x}^i - \frac{1}{2}((\Gamma_k - G_k) \omega)_{ij}\hat{x}^i \hat{x}^j | p \rangle_A.\end{aligned}$$ Resorting to (\[defup2\]) we thus obtain: $$\begin{aligned} &{\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x^k} - u^r \Gamma_{kr}^s \frac{\partial}{\partial u^s} + i (\alpha_k - \beta_k) - i \omega_{ki}(\overline{v} + \frac{1}{2}g^{-1} \overline{D}_v + \frac{1}{2} v)^i\right.}\nonumber\\ &{\left.+ \frac{i}{2}C_{kij}(\overline{v} + \frac{1}{2}g^{-1} \overline{D}_v + \frac{1}{2} v)^i(\overline{v} + \frac{1}{2}g^{-1} \overline{D}_v + \frac{1}{2} v)^j\right)} Z_A(u, p) = 0,\label{masterequation}\end{aligned}$$ where the tensor $C$ is given by: $$C_{kij} = ((\Gamma_k - G_k)\omega)_{ij}.$$ Equation (\[masterequation\]) should be viewed as a version of the holomorphic anomaly equation of [@bcov9309140], which is the master equation for the generating function of topological closed-string amplitudes. However at this point this statement is not completely transparent. Indeed in our case the phase space is an affine special Kähler manifold, while what should play the role of a classical phase space in topological string theory is the vector-multiplet moduli space of $\mathcal{N}=(2,2)$ conformal field theories. This has the structure of a projective special Kähler manifold. We shall tackle this geometry in section \[projsk\]. The crucial point is that projective special Kähler manifolds can be recovered as quotients of affine conic (however Lorentzian) special Kähler manifolds. A further remark, that we will clarify in later sections, is that so far Planck’s constant $\hbar$ has not manifestly appeared in our quantization scheme. At this point, its introduction would be merely as an arbitrary rescaling of the symplectic form. We will instead see in section \[projsk\] how the notion of Planck’s constant arises naturally in the passage from affine to projective geometry. Before delving into these matters we will analyze the solution to the master equation. We shall denote by $|p\rangle^s$ the coherent state of $p \in M$ and $|u\rangle_p^s$ the coherent state of $u \in T_pM$ in special Darboux coordinates gauge. Then, the master equation reduces to: $$\begin{aligned} &{\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x^k} - u^r \Gamma_{kr}^s \frac{\partial}{\partial u^s} + i(\alpha_k - \beta_k) - i\omega_{ki}(\overline{v} + \frac{1}{2} v)^i + \frac{1}{2}(\overline{D}_v)_k\right.}\\ &{\left.+ \frac{i}{2}(\Gamma_k\omega)_{ij}\overline{v}^i\overline{v}^j + \frac{i}{8}(\Gamma_k\omega)_{ij}(g^{-1} \overline{D}_v + v)^i(g^{-1} \overline{D}_v + v)^j\right)}Z_s(u,p) = 0,\end{aligned}$$ where we have used $\omega_{ki}(g^{-1}\overline{D}_v)^i = i (\overline{D})_k$ and the fact that $\Gamma_k \omega$ splits into holomorphic and anti-holomorphic components. This is immediately verified using the explicit formula: $$(\Gamma_k \omega)_{ij} = \frac{1}{2} \partial_i \partial_k \partial_r K J_j^r.$$ Since $C$ is a tensor, it will split in holomorphic and anti-holomorphic components in any coordinate system. Thus the equation above is valid in general with $(\Gamma_k\omega)_{ij}$ replaced by $C_{kij}$. It will be convenient in the following to split the master equation into its holomorphic and anti-holomorphic parts. In the following we shall compute in special Darboux coordinates. The anti-holomorphic part is then given by: $$\begin{aligned} &(1 + iJ)_l^k {\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x^k} - \frac{1}{2}\overline{v}^r \Gamma_{kr}^s (D_v)_s +i(\alpha_k - \beta_k) - \frac{i}{2}\omega_{ki} v^i\right.}\\ &\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad {\left. + \frac{1}{2}(\overline{D}_v)_k + \frac{i}{2}C_{kij}\overline{v}^i\overline{v}^j\right)}Z_s(u,p) = 0,\end{aligned}$$ while the holomorphic part reads: $$\begin{aligned} &(1 - iJ)_l^k {\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x^k} - \frac{1}{2}v^r \Gamma_{kr}^s (\overline{D}_v)_s +i(\alpha_k - \beta_k) - i\omega_{ki}\overline{v}^i\right.}\\ &\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad {\left. + \frac{i}{8}C_{kij}(g^{-1} \overline{D}_v + v)^i(g^{-1} \overline{D}_v + v)^j\right)}Z_s(u,p) = 0.\end{aligned}$$ We shall now assume: $$_{p, A} \! \,\langle 0 | p \rangle_{A} \neq 0. \label{nonzerosection}$$ This is no loss of generality as long as one restricts attention to a small enough neighborhood of $p$. Then as discussed in section \[CTB\], we are allowed to write the following ansatz for $Z_s(u,p)$: $$Z_s(u, p) = \exp{\left(\sum_{n \geq 0}\sum_{i_1, \dots, i_n} \frac{1}{n!} C^n_{i_1, \dots, i_n}\overline{v}^{i_1}\cdots \overline{v}^{i_n} - \frac{1}{4}||u||^2_{g(p)}\right)},$$ where the $C^n$’s are symmetric tensors. For the following we shall need a few identities: $$\begin{aligned} (\overline{D}_v)_k v^l &= 0\\ (\overline{D}_v)_k \overline{v}^l &= (1 + iJ)_k^l\\ ||u||_g^2 &= 2\overline{v}^i v^j g_{ij}.\end{aligned}$$ First we analyze the equation arising from the anti-holomorphic part of the flat connection: $$\begin{aligned} 0 &= \sum_{n \geq 0}\sum_{i_1, \dots, i_n} \frac{1}{n!} \overline{v}^k \partial_k C^n_{i_1, \dots, i_n}\overline{v}^{i_1}\cdots \overline{v}^{i_n}\nonumber\\ &+ \frac{1}{n!} \overline{v}^k \sum_{r = 1}^n C^n_{i_1, \dots, i_n}\overline{v}^{i_1} \cdots \frac{i}{2}\partial_k J_s^{i_r} u^s \cdots \overline{v}^{i_n} \label{Jsub}\\ &+ \frac{1}{(n-1)!} C^n_{i_1, \dots, i_n}\overline{v}^{i_1} \cdots \overline{v}^{i_n}\nonumber\\ & + i\overline{v}^k(\alpha_k - \beta_k) + \frac{i}{2}C_{kij}\overline{v}^k\overline{v}^i\overline{v}^j.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Now we use the fact that in a Kähler manifold, the complex structure is parallel transported by the Levi-Civita connection. In components this reads: $$\partial_k J_s^r + J_s^t \Gamma_{kt}^r - J_t^r \Gamma_{ks}^t = 0.$$ We substitute for $\partial_k J_s^{i_r}$ in (\[Jsub\]). The part of the expression involving the Levi-Civita connection thus becomes: $$\begin{aligned} &\frac{i}{2n!}\overline{v}^k \sum_{r = 1}^n C^n_{i_1, \dots, i_n} \overline{v}^{i_1} \dots {\left[-J_s^t\Gamma_{kt}^{i_r} + J_t^{i_r} \Gamma_{ks}^t\right]}u^s \cdots \overline{v}^{i_n}\\ &= - \frac{1}{n!} \overline{v}^k \Gamma_{ks}^{i_r} \overline{v}^s\sum_{r = 1}^n C^n_{i_1, \dots, i_n} \overline{v}^{i_1} \dots \widehat{\overline{v}^{i_r}} \cdots \overline{v}^{i_n}\\ &= 0.\end{aligned}$$ We thus obtain the following recursive formula: $$C^{n+1}_{i_1, \dots, i_{n+1}} \overline{v}^{i_1} \cdots \overline{v}^{i_{n+1}} = -\overline{v}^k\partial_k C^{n}_{i_1, \dots, i_n} \overline{v}^{i_1} \cdots \overline{v}^{i_n}$$ for all $n \geq 3$, while the lower terms yield: $$\begin{aligned} C^1_{i_1} \overline{v}^{i_1} &= -\overline{v}^k \partial_k C^0 - i\overline{v}^k (\alpha_k - \beta_k)\\ C^2_{i_1, i_2} \overline{v}^{i_1} \overline{v}^{i_2} &= -\overline{v}^k \partial_k C^1_{i_1} \overline{v}^{i_1}\\ C^3_{i_1, i_2, i_3}\overline{v}^{i_1}\overline{v}^{i_2}\overline{v}^{i_3} &= -\overline{v}^k\partial_k C^{2}_{i_1, i_2} \overline{v}^{i_1} \overline{v}^{i_2} - iC_{ijk}\overline{v}^i\overline{v}^j\overline{v}^k.\end{aligned}$$ At this point it is convenient to introduce complex coordinates $(z^1, \dots, z^d)$ with $d = \mathrm{dim}(M)/2$ that we shall label with greek letters. We shall further denote by $\nabla^{(0,1)}$ the anti-holomorphic part of the Levi-Civita covariant derivative. We now introduce the covariant tensors $\mathcal{C}^n$ defined by: $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{C}^n &= \frac{(-1)^n}{2^n}C_{i_1, \dots, i_n}(1 + iJ)_{j_1}^{i_1} \cdots (1 + iJ)_{j_n}^{i_n} dx^{j_1}\cdots dx^{j_n}\\ &= \mathcal{C}^n_{\overline{\mu}_1, \dots, \overline{\mu}_n} dz^{\overline{\mu}_1}\cdots dz^{\overline{\mu}_n},\end{aligned}$$ where by “$\cdot$" we denote the symmetrized tensor product. The above equations then take the form: $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{C}^1 &= \overline{\partial} \mathcal{C}^0 + i(\alpha_{\overline{\mu}} - \beta_{\overline{\mu}})dz^{\overline{\mu}}\label{rec1}\\ \mathcal{C}^3 &= \nabla^{(0, 1)} \mathcal{C}^2 + iC_{\overline{\mu}_1, \overline{\mu}_2, \overline{\mu}_3}dz^{\overline{\mu}_1}dz^{\overline{\mu}_2}dz^{\overline{\mu}_3}\\ \mathcal{C}^{n+1} &= \nabla^{(0, 1)} \mathcal{C}^n \quad \forall n \geq 1, \; n \neq 2.\label{rec3}\end{aligned}$$ Notice, in particular, that the solution to the master equation is completely determined by a single object, $\mathcal{C}^0$. Clearly the latter is given by: $$_p \!\, \langle 0 | p \rangle = \exp(\mathcal{C}^0(p)) =: c(p).$$ Notice, that thanks to property (\[Zastensor\]), this quantity is independent of $A$. Indeed the above is a section of $\mathcal{L} \otimes \mathcal{L}'\,^{\vee} \rightarrow M$ which (by assumption (\[nonzerosection\])) is non-vanishing over the open set under consideration. This section is, in turn, determined by the holomorphic part of the master equation. For its analysis, it is convenient to replace the wavefunction by the inhomogeneous tensor: $$\mathcal{C} = \exp{\left(\sum_{n \geq 0} \frac{(-1)^n}{n!}\mathcal{C}^n\right)}.$$ In terms of this, the anti-holomorhic part of the master equation reads: $${\left(\nabla^{(0,1)} + i(\alpha_{\overline{\mu}} - \beta_{\overline{\mu}})dz^{\overline{\mu}} + d\overline{z}^{\overline{\mu}}\iota_{\partial_{\overline{\mu}}} + \frac{i}{2}C_{\overline{\mu}\overline{\nu}\overline{\rho}}d\overline{z}^{\overline{\mu}}d\overline{z}^{\overline{\nu}}d\overline{z}^{\overline{\rho}}\right)}\mathcal{C} = 0.\label{masterantiholo1}$$ The holomorphic part instead becomes: $${\left(\partial + \frac{i}{2}dz^{\mu} C_{\mu \nu \rho} g^{\nu \overline{\nu}} g^{\rho \overline{\rho}} \iota_{\partial_{\overline{\nu}}} \iota_{\partial_{\overline{\rho}}} + i(\alpha_{\mu} - \beta_{\mu})dz^{\mu} - \frac{i}{2}\omega\right)}\mathcal{C} = 0.\label{masterholo1}$$ The above can be seen as yielding an infinite number of differential equations for the section $c$. Now we shall analyse the integrability of the master equation. As we will see, and as is to be expected, this precisely specifies the line-bundle $\mathcal{L}'$. The result of this computation are the following three equations, namely the $(0,2)$, $(1,1)$ and $(2,0)$ components of the underlying Maurer-Cartan equation respectively: $$\begin{aligned} \partial_{\overline{\mu}} (\alpha_{\overline{\nu}} - \beta_{\overline{\nu}}) - \partial_{\overline{\nu}} (\alpha_{\overline{\mu}} - \beta_{\overline{\mu}}) &= 0\\ i\partial_{\mu} (\alpha_{\overline{\nu}} - \beta_{\overline{\nu}}) - i\partial_{\overline{\nu}}(\alpha_{\mu} - \beta_{\mu}) &=\frac{1}{2}{\left(C_{\mu \rho \sigma}g^{\rho \overline{\rho}} g^{\sigma \overline{\sigma}} C_{\overline{\nu}\overline{\rho}\overline{\sigma}} + 2g_{\mu \overline{\nu}}\right)}\\ \partial_{\mu}(\alpha_{\nu} - \beta_{\nu}) - \partial_{\nu}(\alpha_{\mu} - \beta_{\mu}) &= 0.\end{aligned}$$ In particular, choosing $\alpha$ in canonical form (\[canonalpha\]), we have: $$\begin{aligned} \partial_{\overline{\mu}} \beta_{\overline{\nu}} - \partial_{\overline{\nu}} \beta_{\overline{\mu}} &= 0\\ i\partial_{\mu} \beta_{\overline{\nu}} - i\partial_{\overline{\nu}}\beta_{\mu} &=-\frac{1}{2}C_{\mu \rho \sigma}g^{\rho \overline{\rho}} g^{\sigma \overline{\sigma}} C_{\overline{\nu}\overline{\rho}\overline{\sigma}} = -\frac{1}{2}R_{\mu \overline{\nu}} = \frac{i}{2}\rho_{\mu \overline{\nu}}\\ \partial_{\mu}\beta_{\nu} - \partial_{\nu}\beta_{\mu} &= 0,\end{aligned}$$ where $R_{\mu \overline{\nu}}$ and $\rho_{\mu \overline{\nu}}$ denote the components of the Ricci tensor and Ricci form respectively. See appendix \[appendix\] for the identity used in the second equation. Thus, since smooth line-bundles are completely specified by their first Chern-class we obtain that $\mathcal{L}'$ is isomorphic, as a smooth bundle, to the square-root of the canonical bundle. Moreover $\beta$ is in canonical form: $$\beta = i(\partial - \overline{\partial})\chi$$ and up to holomorphic gauge transformations, we can choose: $$\chi = \frac{1}{4}\log \sqrt{\mathrm{det}g}.$$ We can trivially twist the line-bundle $\mathcal{L}\otimes \mathcal{L}'^{\vee}$ to an anti-holomorphic line-bundle by multiplying $\mathcal{C}$ by an appropriate factor. We thus define: $$\mathcal{S} := {\left(\mathrm{det}\,g\right)}^{\frac{1}{8}}e^{\frac{K}{2}}\mathcal{C}.$$ Finally, in terms of $\mathcal{S}$, the master equation acquires the form of a “(anti-)\ holomorphic-anomaly equation": $$\begin{aligned} {\left(\nabla^{(0,1)} - \overline{\partial}K - \frac{1}{2}\overline{\partial}\log \sqrt{\det g}+ d\overline{z}^{\overline{\mu}}\iota_{\partial_{\overline{\mu}}} + \frac{i}{2}C_{\overline{\mu}\overline{\nu}\overline{\rho}}d\overline{z}^{\overline{\mu}}d\overline{z}^{\overline{\nu}}d\overline{z}^{\overline{\rho}}\right)}\mathcal{S} &= 0 \label{holoaneq1}\\ {\left(\partial + \frac{i}{2}dz^{\mu} C_{\mu \nu \rho} g^{\nu \overline{\nu}} g^{\rho \overline{\rho}} \iota_{\partial_{\overline{\nu}}} \iota_{\partial_{\overline{\rho}}} - \frac{i}{2}\omega\right)}\mathcal{S} &= 0. \label{holoaneq2}\end{aligned}$$ Now, we shall consider the section of the holomorphic line-bundle $(\mathcal{L}\otimes \mathcal{L}' \,^{\vee})_{ahol}$: $$s(p) := \exp(\mathcal{S}^0).$$ The first order component of the holomorphic part of the master equation reads: $$\partial_{\mu} s = -\frac{i}{2}C_{\mu \nu \rho}g^{\nu \overline{\nu}}g^{\rho \overline{\rho}}{\left(D^{(0,1)} D^{(0,1)} s\right)}_{\overline{\nu}\overline{\rho}},\label{holoanomaly}$$ where $D^{(0,1)}$ denotes the anti-holomorphic part of the Levi-Civita connection twisted by the Chern connection on $(\mathcal{L}\otimes \mathcal{L}' \,^{\vee})_{ahol}$, which is naturally a hermitian line-bundle with hermititan form: $$h = (\det g)^{-\frac{1}{4}}e^{-K}.$$ In fact, the integrability of the master equation ensures that a solution $s$ to (\[holoanomaly\]) lifts, through the recursion relations (\[rec1\]–\[rec3\]), to a solution of the full master equation. Of course, a priori, there are, if any, more than one solution to the above equation. indeed in the simplest case, i.e. $M = \mathbb{R}^{2d}$, there are infinitely many solutions. This follows immediately from the fact that, in that particular case, the tensor $C$ vanishes and thus any anti-holomorphic section $s$ solves the problem. Recall that this arbitrariness corresponds to the freedom of choosing the image of a particular marked point on $M$ via the quantization map. The canonical quantization of $\mathbb{R}^{2d}$ has as solution $s = 1$. In the next subsection we will construct the general solution for any affine special Kähler manifold. Constructing the solution I: the role of special coordinates {#sol1} ------------------------------------------------------------ In this section we will give an explicit expression for the Green’s function of the holomorphic anomaly equation, thereby providing its general solution. We start by choosing an arbitrary point $p_0 \in M$ and declare that: $$p_0 \stackrel{\phi}\mapsto |p_0 \rangle_A := |y\rangle_{p_0, A}.$$ Now we ask where a point $p$, in its Darboux neighborhood, is mapped to. For this we shall consider the action of the annihilation operators on $|p \rangle$ $$\begin{aligned} \hat{x}^T(g + i\omega)_{p_0, A}|p \rangle_A &= \hat{x}^T(g + i\omega)_{p_0, A}U(p, p_0)|y \rangle_{p_0, A}\\ &= U_A(p, p_0){\left(U_A(p_0, p) \hat{x}^T U_A(p, p_0)\right)}(g + i\omega)_{p_0, A}|y \rangle_{p_0, A}.\\\end{aligned}$$ The $p$ dependent operator $\hat{x}^T$ is found by computing its infinitesimal variation: $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial}{\partial x^k}{\left(U_A(p, p')\hat{x}^lU_A(p', p)\right|}_{p' = p} &= [A_k, \hat{x}^l]\\ &= i[\omega_{ik}\hat{x}^i - D_{ijk}\hat{x}^i \hat{x}^j, \hat{x}^l]\\ &= -\omega_{ik}\omega^{il} -2D_{ijk}\omega^{jl}\hat{x}^i\\ &= \delta_k^l - G_{k i}^l \hat{x}^i.\end{aligned}$$ Bringing the last term to the left hand side we thus obtain: $$(\partial_k + G_k){\left(U_A(p, p')\hat{x}U_A(p', p)\right|}_{p' = p} = \delta_k^l,$$ therefore: $$U_s(p_0, p)\hat{x}U_s(p, p_0) = \hat{x} + x_{p_0}^p,$$ where $x_{p_0}^p$ is the coordinate vector of $p$ in special Darboux coordinates around $p_0$. Therefore: $$\hat{x}^T(g + i\omega)_{p_0, s}|p \rangle_s = (x_{p_0}^p + y)^T (g + i\omega)_{p_0}|p \rangle_{s},$$ hence: $$|p \rangle_s \sim |x_{p_0}^p + y\rangle_{p_0, A_s}.$$ From the point of view of topological string theory, what the above equation means is that the topological conformal field theory corresponding to the point $p$ is related to the one at $p_0$ by a deformation whose modulus corresponds to the special coordinate vector of $p$ relative to $p_0$. Now we shall fix the phase ambiguity. We will need the following identity: $${\left((\overline{D}_v)_k + \frac{1}{2}(g - i\omega)_{kj}u^j\right)}|u \rangle_p = 0$$ and for simplicity, until otherwise stated we shall denote $x_{p_0}^p$ simply by $x$. Then $$\begin{aligned} 0 &= {\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x^k} + i(\alpha_k - \gamma_k) - i\omega_{ki}\hat{x}^i\right)}|x + y\rangle_{p_0, A_s}\\ &= {\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x^k} + i(\alpha_k - \gamma_k) - i\omega_{ki}(v + \frac{1}{2}g_{p_0}^{-1}D_v + \frac{1}{2}\overline{v})^i\right)}|x + y\rangle_{p_0, A_s}\\ &= i(\alpha_k - \gamma_k - \frac{1}{2}\omega_{kj}(x + y)^j)|x + y\rangle_{p_0, A_s},\end{aligned}$$ where $i\gamma_k = \partial_k \theta$ and $\theta$ is the phase discrepancy. Also, in the present case, $v = (1/2)(1 - iJ)x$. Thus, since we have chosen $\alpha$ in canonical form: $$\begin{aligned} \gamma_k &= \alpha_k - \frac{1}{2}\omega_{kj}(x + y)^j\\ &= -\frac{1}{2}J_k^l \partial_lK - \frac{1}{2}\omega_{kj}(x + y)^j.\end{aligned}$$ So we have: $$|p \rangle_s = \exp{\left(\frac{i}{2}\int_{p_0}^p (J_k^l \partial_l K + \omega_{kj}(x + y)^j) dx^k\right)}|x + y\rangle_{p_0, A_s}.$$ Now we are left to compute the kernel: $$K(u, p; x + y, p_0) := \; _{p, A_s} \! \, \langle u | p\rangle_s^y.\label{propagator1}$$ Given the above, the general solution to the master equation over a special Darboux patch is given by: $$\begin{aligned} Z(u, p)^f = \int_{T_{p_0}M} &\sqrt{\det g_s(p_0)} \, dy^1 \wedge \cdots \wedge dy^{2d}\, K(u, p, x_s + y, p_0)\cdot\\ &\exp{\left(-\frac{1}{4}||y||_{g_s(p_0)}^2\right)}f((1 + iJ_0)y),\label{generalsolution1}\end{aligned}$$ where $f$ is any analytic gaussian-integrable function. The final step is thus to obtain an expression for the states $|u\rangle_{p,s}$ that is valid over an entire Darboux patch, rather than just at a point as we previously defined them in (\[upatapoint\]). Constructing the solution II: revisiting the coherent tangent bundle {#sol2} -------------------------------------------------------------------- In this section we will give a patchwise description of the coherent states $|u \rangle_{p,s}$. The simplest way to find $|u\rangle_p$ is through the defining differential equations (\[defup\], \[defup2\], \[defup3\]). It is convenient to express $|u \rangle_{p,s}$ as the wavefunction $\psi_u(q, J) = \langle q | u \rangle_{p,s}$, where $J$ is the complex structure matrix at the point $p$ and $|q\rangle$ is the eigenstate of $\hat{q}$ with vector of eigenvalues $q$. Here the vector of operators $\hat{q}$ is the upper half of the vector $\hat{x}$ in special Darboux coordinates, that is the position coordinates, rather than the momentum coordinates, which we will not label to avoid confusion with the label $p$ that stands for the point on the manifold on which these wavefunctions are erected. Accordingly we will need to split metric and symplectic form in $d \times d$ blocks: $$\begin{aligned} g =: {\left(\begin{array}{cc} R_1 & R_2 \\ R_2^T & R_4 \end{array}\right)}, {\hspace{2mm}}\omega = {\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & -1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{array}\right)}.\end{aligned}$$ Then (\[defup\]) becomes: $${\left(\begin{array}{cc} R_1 & R_2 + i \\ R_2^T - i & R_4 \end{array}\right)}{\left(\begin{array}{cc} q - u_q \\ -i \nabla_q - u_p \end{array}\right)} \psi_u(q, J) = 0,$$ which is equivalent to: $$\nabla_q \psi_u = (i \tau (q - u_q) + iu_p)\psi_u,\label{cohstatewf2}$$ where $$\tau = R_4^{-1}(i - R_2^T) = -(R_2 + i)^{-1}R_1$$ is a symmetric matrix called the complex modulus and encodes one-to-one the complex structure $J(p)$. In particular $\tau$ is an element of the Siegel upper-half space [@mumford-theta3], which we shall denote as $\mathbb{H}_d$. A consequence of which is that: $$\det \mathrm{Im} \tau > 0.$$ The solution to (\[cohstatewf2\]) is then: $$\psi_u(q, \tau) = \mathcal{N}(\tau, u) \exp {\left(\frac{i}{2}\langle (q - u_q), \tau (q - u_q)\rangle + i u_p q\right)},$$ where $\mathcal{N}(\tau, u)$ is yet to be determined. The latter is however constrained by three conditions. The first is the normalization condition on $|u \rangle_{p,s}$ while the second and third are the defining equations (\[defup2\], \[defup3\]). The first implies: $$\mathcal{N}(\tau, u) = |\mathcal{N}(\tau, u)| e^{i\theta(\tau, u)}$$ where: $$\begin{aligned} |\mathcal{N}| &= {\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} d^d q {\left|\exp {\left(\frac{i}{2}\langle (q - u_q), \tau (q - u_q)\rangle + i u_p q\right)}\right|}^2\right)}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\\ &= \pi^{-d/4} {\left(\mathrm{det} \, \mathrm{Im} \tau\right)}^{1/4}.\end{aligned}$$ Equation (\[defup2\]) then reduces to: $$(\nabla_{u_q} + \overline{\tau}\nabla_{u_p}) \theta = -\frac{1}{2}(u_p + \overline{\tau}u_q).$$ Solving for the real and imaginary parts separately we obtain: $$\theta = -\frac{1}{2}\langle u_q, u_p\rangle + \gamma(\tau).$$ Thus we arrive at the following solution: $$\psi_u(q, \tau) = \pi^{-d/4} {\left(\mathrm{det} \, \mathrm{Im} \tau\right)}^{1/4}\exp{\left(i\gamma(\tau) -\frac{i}{2}\langle u_q, u_p \rangle + \frac{i}{2}\langle (q - u_q), \tau (q - u_q) \rangle + i u_p \, q\right)},$$ where the only undetermined quantity is the phase $\gamma(\tau)$. The phase is fixed (always up to an irrelevant constant), by equation (\[defup3\]) and the choice of the connection $\beta$ on $\mathcal{L}'$. In particular equation (\[defup3\]) yields: $$\partial_k \gamma = -\beta_k - \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}{\left([(\Gamma_k \omega)_{pp}] \mathrm{Im} \tau\right)}.$$ Here we remark the similarity of $\psi_u(q, \tau)$ with the wavefunctions discussed in [@dvv]. At this point we have all the ingredients to compute the kernel (\[propagator1\]) of the master equation. We start with the computation of the overlap between a coherent state at $p_0$, where the complex modulus is $\tau_1$, and one at $p$ with complex modulus $\tau_2$: $$\begin{aligned} &_{\tau_2} \! \, \langle u_2 | u_1 \rangle_{\tau_1} = \int d^d q \overline{\psi}(q, u_2, \tau_2) \psi(q, u_1, \tau_1) =\\ & (2i)^{d/2}\frac{(\det \mathrm{Im} \tau_1)^{1/4} (\det \mathrm{Im} \tau_2)^{1/4}}{(\det (\tau_1 - \overline{\tau_2}))^{1/2}} \cdot\\ & \exp {\left( - \frac{i}{2}\langle u_{q,1}, z_1 \rangle + \frac{i}{2} \langle u_{q,2}, \overline{z}_2\rangle - \frac{i}{2} \langle (z_1 - \overline{z}_2), (\tau_1 - \overline{\tau}_2)^{-1} (z_1 - \overline{z}_2)\rangle\right)}\\ & \cdot \exp{\left(i \int_{p_0}^{p} {\left(\beta + \frac{1}{2} \mathrm{tr} ((\Gamma_k \omega)_{pp} \mathrm{Im} \tau) dx^k\right)}\right)},\end{aligned}$$ where we have introduced the complex coordinates $z = u_p - \tau u_q$. We shall now denote by $z_1$ the coordinates corresponding to $u_1 = x + y$ and by $z_2$ the ones corresponding to $u$, then the kernel is given by: $$\begin{aligned} &K(u, p; x + y, p_0) = (2i)^{d/2}\frac{(\det \mathrm{Im} \tau_1)^{1/4} (\det \mathrm{Im} \tau_2)^{1/4}}{(\det (\tau_1 - \overline{\tau_2}))^{1/2}} \cdot \\ & \exp{\left(-i \int_{p_0}^{p} {\left((\alpha - \beta) - \frac{1}{2}\omega_{kj}(x + y)^j dx^k - \frac{1}{2} \mathrm{tr} ((\Gamma_k \omega)_{pp} \mathrm{Im} \tau) dx^k\right)}\right)}\\ &\exp {\left( - \frac{1}{4}||u||_{g(p)}^2 - \frac{i}{2}\langle u_{q,1}, z_1 \rangle + \frac{1}{4} \langle \overline{z}_2, R_4(p) \overline{z}_2\rangle - \frac{i}{2} \langle (z_1 - \overline{z}_2), (\tau_1 - \overline{\tau}_2)^{-1} (z_1 - \overline{z}_2)\rangle\right)}.\end{aligned}$$ We thus conclude the study of affine Riemannian special Kähler manifolds having provided the general solution (\[generalsolution1\]) to the master equation (\[masterequation\]). Conic special Kähler manifolds {#conicsk} ============================== First of all we shall recover the structure of a projective special Kähler manifold in a way best suited for our quantization technique. Before that we shall recall the standard definitions (see e.g. [@specgeoreview] for a comprehensive review). (**Projective special Kähler manifold - 1**) A projective special Kähler manifold is a holomorphic quotient of an affine conic special Kähler manifold by its defining holomorphic $\mathbb{C}^*$ action. \[defconic1\] (**Conic special Kähler manifold - 1**) An affine conic special Kähler manifold is an affine special Kähler manifold equipped with a free holomorphic $\mathbb{C}^*$ action whose generating holomorphic vectorfield $H$ is a homothetic Killing vectorfield for the flat symplectic connection: $$(d + G)H = \pi^{(1,0)} := \frac{1}{2}(1 - iJ)_k^l \, dx^k \otimes \partial_l.\label{homotheticvf}$$ Recall, that by definition of affine special Kähler: $d_{d + G} \pi^{(1,0)} = 0$. This ensures the existence of a vectorfield that satisfies the equation above. The restriction here, is that this vectorfield is required to be holomorphic. We shall now analyse equation (\[homotheticvf\]) in special Darboux coordinates. We shall introduce the vectorfield $X$ through: $$H = \pi^{(1, 0)} (-iX) = -\frac{i}{2}(1 - iJ) X.$$ Without loss of generality, we can choose $X$ real. Then equation (\[homotheticvf\]) becomes: $$\begin{aligned} \partial_i (- JX)^j &= \delta_i^j\label{homotheticvf1}\\ \partial_i X^j = J_i^j.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, up to an irrelevant constant vectorfield, from the second equation we obtain: $$X^j = \omega^{rj}\partial_rK,$$ which can be recast in the form $$dK = \iota_X \omega,$$ that is, $X$ is the Hamiltonian vectorfield with Hamiltonian the special Kähler potential. From the first equation we obtain: $$\begin{aligned} 0 &= (\partial_i J_k^j) X^k\\ &= (\partial_i g_{kr})\omega^{rj} X^k\\ &= \omega^{rj}(X^k\partial_k g_{ij})\\ &= -\omega^{jr}((L_X g)_{ji} + g([X, \partial_j], \partial_i) + g(\partial_j, [X, \partial_i]))\\ &= -\omega^{jr}((L_X g)_{ji} + \omega_{ji} + \omega_{ij})\\ &= -\omega^{jr}(L_X g)_{ji}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore equation (\[homotheticvf1\]) is equivalent to: $$L_X g = 0. \label{killingX}$$ Since $X$ determines $g$, the above is a differential equation for $K$ and defines a particular class of special Kähler metrics, namely the conical ones. Another way to read equation (\[killingX\]) is as follows: $$\begin{aligned} 0 &= \omega^{kl}\partial_k K \partial_l g_{ij}\\ &= 2 g^{ks} \partial_k K C_{sij}.\end{aligned}$$ From this it follows: $$C_{ijk} H^k = 0.$$ We thus arrive at our best suited definition for conic special Kähler manifolds: (**Conic special Kähler manifold - 2**) A conic special Kähler manifold is an affine special Kähler manifold whose symplectic vectorfield $X$, defined locally through $dK = \iota_X \omega$ is simultaneously a Killing vectorfield for the Kähler metric $g$. The existence of the vectorfield $X$ implies that the function $K$ can be extended from a special Darboux patch to any simply connected patch containing it, in particular to a patch which is dense in $M$. Now we shall shortly digress to recover the above geometric structure from the point of view of quantization. For this we will have to find yet two other ways to write identity (\[killingX\]): $$\begin{aligned} 0 &= \omega^{kl}\partial_kK \partial_lg_{ij}\\ &= \omega^{kl}\partial_kK \partial_l \partial_i \partial_j K\\ &= \partial_i (\omega^{kl}g_{lj} \partial_k K) - \omega^{kl}g_{ik}g_{lj},\end{aligned}$$ which becomes: $$\partial_i (J_j^k \partial_k K) = \omega_{ij}$$ and because of the non-degeneracy of $\omega$ this is equivalent to: $$\partial_i(g^{jk} \partial_k K) = \delta_i^j,$$ which integrates to: $$g^{ik}\partial_k K = x^i,$$ from which: $$\begin{aligned} \partial_k K &= g_{ki}x^i\\ &= \partial_k (\partial_i K x^i) - \partial_k K.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, up to an irrelevant constant that can be absorbed in the definition of $K$: $$2K = \partial_i K x^i = \partial_i K g^{ij} \partial_j K = ||X||_g^2,$$ meaning in particular that $K$ describes a conic special Kähler manifold if and only if it is homogeneous of degree $2$ in special Darboux coordinates. Digression: a guess for the quantum origin of the conic property {#quantumconic} ---------------------------------------------------------------- In this section we shall attempt a guess for the quantum origin of the conic property for a special Kähler manifold. It seems as though it comes from the requirement that the special Kähler potential $K$ be the classical counterpart of a quantum Hamiltonian $\hat{K}$ that preserves the space of coherent states. More precisely, $\hat{K}$ should preserve the space of coherent states as a subspace of $\mathcal{H}$, thus with no phase ambiguities, provided $\alpha_k$ is set to: $$\alpha_k = - \frac{1}{2}\omega_{ik}x^i. \label{canonalphaconic}$$ Thus we have the property: $$K(p) = \! _s\langle p| \hat{K} | p \rangle_s$$ and the statement that $\hat{K}$ preserves the space of coherent states with no phase ambiguities, is: $$\exp(i \hat{K} t) |p \rangle_s = | \chi_t (p) \rangle_s, \label{conicevolution}$$ where by $\chi_t$ we denote the canonical flow of $K$. Infinitesimally the above reads: $$\begin{aligned} i \hat{K} | p \rangle_s &= X^k A_k(p) |p \rangle_s \nonumber\\ &= -i X^k(\alpha_k + \omega_{ik}\hat{x}^i) | p \rangle_s. \label{conicevolutioninf}\end{aligned}$$ Applying $\!_s\langle p|$ to the above equation we obtain the desired result: $$\begin{aligned} K &= \frac{1}{2}X^k \omega_{ik}x^i - \!_s \langle p | \hat{x}^i | p \rangle_s \omega_{ik}X^k\\ &= -\frac{1}{2}\partial_i K x^i + \partial_i K \; \!_s \langle p | \hat{x}^i | p \rangle_s\\ &= \frac{1}{2} \partial_i K x^i.\end{aligned}$$ In the last step we used the fact that $\!_s \langle p | \hat{x}^i | p \rangle_s = x^i$. This follows from: $$\begin{aligned} \partial_j (\; \!_s \langle p | \hat{x}^i | p \rangle_s) &= \!_s \langle p | [A_j(p), \hat{x}^i] | p \rangle_s\\ &= i\omega_{kj}[\hat{x}^k, \hat{x}^i]\\ &= \delta_j^i.\end{aligned}$$ Now we shall ask under what changes of gauge for $\alpha$, equation (\[conicevolutioninf\]) remains unaltered[^8]. Clearly the gauge transformations are reduced to: $$|p \rangle_s \rightarrow \exp(if(p))|p \rangle_s {\hspace{2mm}}{\hspace{2mm}}{\hspace{2mm}}\textrm{with } f \in C^{\infty}(M) {\hspace{2mm}}{\hspace{2mm}}{\hspace{2mm}}\textrm{such that } X \cdot f = 0.$$ Now, the structure of a conic special Kähler manifold is necessary for (\[conicevolution\]) to be fulfilled, but it is by no means sufficient. Indeed, in the simplest case of $\mathbb{R}^{2d}$ one can check that the admissible $K$’s are reduced to quadratic ones. What distinguishes the case $M = \mathbb{R}^{2d}$ is not the connection $A$, but rather an initial choice $|p_0 \rangle_s$ for a definite marked point $p_0 \in M$. Thus turning the argument around, once $K$ is fixed, equation (\[conicevolution\]) puts constraints on this choice. Let $$\Delta(p_2, p_1) := \!_s \langle p_2 | p_1 \rangle_s,$$ then, one such natural constraint is: $$\Delta(p_2, p_1) = \Delta (\chi_t(p_2), \chi_t(p_1)).$$ Infinitesimally, the above becomes the following equation: $$-i (\partial_i K(p_2) - \partial_i K(p_1))\omega^{ik}\frac{\partial}{\partial x_1^k} \Delta(p_2, p_1) = \frac{1}{2}\partial_i K(p_2) (x_2^i - x_1^i)\Delta(p_2, p_1).$$ As stated before, for fixed $K$ this can be viewed as a differential equation for $\Delta$ while, for fixed $\Delta$ it can be viewed as a constraint on the choice of $K$. There is in fact an even more elementary constraint on $K$ if we allow $M$ to contain the point at the origin of the coordinate system. Then, indeed, the only homogeneous degree 2 functions are the quadratic ones. Therefore, in the more general case we need to assume that $0 \notin M$. This condition however is but a consequence of the further requirement entailed in definition \[defconic1\] that the action of $X$ be free as $0$ would clearly be a fixed point. In fact it is the unique fixed point and there the metric is singular. Coping with negative signature {#negsig} ------------------------------ In this section we shall investigate how the definition of quantization should be modified in the case of a non-Riemannian Kähler manifold. This is of interest since precisely moduli spaces of $N = (2,2)$ 2-d super conformal field theories are of this type. Recall that in the discussion of the coherent tangent bundle it was crucial that $M$ be Riemannian, otherwise the definition of coherent state would have implied the existence of negative normed states in the Hilbertspace. Let’s start with the simplest case, namely again $M = \mathbb{R}^2$, this time however we shall change the Kähler structure as follows: $\omega \rightarrow - \omega$, $J \rightarrow J$ and $g \rightarrow -g$. Under this change, the Heisenberg algebra is changed to: $$[\hat{x}, \hat{p}] = -i$$ and in terms of the annihilation operator $a = (1/\sqrt{2})(\hat{x} + i\hat{p})$ and creation operator $b = (1/\sqrt{2})(\hat{x} - i\hat{p})$: $$[a, b] = -1.$$ We shall now define the highest weight state $v_0$ as before through: $$a v_0 = 0.$$ Then a basis for the highest weight representation is furnished by: $$v_n = \frac{b^n}{\sqrt{n!}}v_0, {\hspace{2mm}}n \in \mathbb{N}_0.$$ At this point we realize the impossibility of finding, in this representation, a positive definite sesquilinear bilinear form with respect to which $\hat{x}$ and $\hat{p}$ are self-adjoint. Indeed given such a bilinear form $B$, we would have: $$0 < B(b v_0, b v_0) = B(v_0, a b v_0) = B(v_0, [a, b]v_0) = - B(v_0, v_0),$$ which is clearly contradictory. Instead, what we can require is the existence of two bilinear forms $B_+$ and $B_-$. We shall require the former to be positive definite and sesquilinear, thus introducing a Hilbertspace topology on the representation. However $B_+$ will have the property that $\hat{x}$ and $\hat{p}$ are anti-self-adjoint with respect to it. On the other hand $B_-$ is non-degenerate sesquilinear such that $\hat{x}$ and $\hat{p}$ are self-adjoint, but it will be indefinite. Under the normalization $B_+(v_0, v_0) = B_-(v_0, v_0) = 1$ we thus obtain: $$B_+ (v_m, v_n) = \delta_{m, n} {\hspace{2mm}}{\hspace{2mm}}{\hspace{2mm}}B_-(v_m, v_n) = (-1)^n \delta_{m, n}.$$ Thus $\{v_n\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}_0}$ form an orthonormal basis of the Hilbertspace $\mathcal{H}$. We can define $B_-$ in terms of $B_+$ as: $$B_-(\,\cdot\,, \,\cdot\,) = B_+(\,\cdot\, , (-1)^{ba} \cdot).$$ A suggestive way of interpreting $(-1)^{ba}$ is as $(-1)^F$ where $F$ is a “fermion-number" operator. For this we need to introduce the following decomposition of $\mathcal{H}$: $$\mathcal{H} = \mathcal{H}_{even} \oplus \mathcal{H}_{odd},$$ where $\mathcal{H}_{even}$ is the subspace spanned by $v_n$ with $n$ even and $\mathcal{H}_{odd}$ is defined analogously. Then we define fermion fields $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$ by: $$\begin{aligned} \psi_1 v_{2n} &= 0 {\hspace{2mm}}{\hspace{2mm}}{\hspace{2mm}}{\hspace{2mm}}{\hspace{2mm}}{\hspace{2mm}}\; \psi_1 v_{2n + 1} = v_{2n} {\hspace{2mm}}\\ \psi_2 v_{2n} &= v_{2n + 1} {\hspace{2mm}}{\hspace{2mm}}{\hspace{2mm}}\psi_2 v_{2n + 1} = 0 {\hspace{2mm}}\forall n \in \mathbb{N}_0.\end{aligned}$$ Then $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$ satisfy the following properties: $$\{\psi_1, \psi_2\} = 1$$ and $$B_+(\psi_1 \cdot, \cdot) = B_+(\cdot, \psi_2 \cdot).$$ Finally we can define $F$ by: $$F =\psi_2 \psi_1.$$ On $\mathcal{H}$ we can furthermore define the differential: $$Q = \psi_1 ba.$$ This allows us to single out $v_0$, which is the unique invariant state under the $U(1)$ action: $$R(\theta) := e^{i\theta ba},$$ as the unique representative of $Q$-cohomology $H_Q(\mathcal{H})$. Now let’s turn to coherent states. These are now given by: $$|\alpha \rangle = \exp( - \alpha b + \overline{\alpha} a) v_0 = \exp{\left(\frac{|\alpha|^2}{2}\right)} \sum_{n \geq 0} \frac{(-\alpha)^n}{\sqrt{n!}}v_n.$$ Clearly the translation operator is not unitary any more, that is, it is not an isometry with respect to $B_+$, but it is an isometry with respect to $B_-$. It is in fact unbounded, but clearly its domain includes the coherent states. Now we shall generalize the above discussion to understand the structure of the coherent tangent bundle for an arbitrary Lorentzian Kähler manifold. The coherent tangent bundle in the Lorentzian case {#LCTB} -------------------------------------------------- In this section we will construct the coherent tangent bundle in the case of a general Lorentzian Kähler manifold. An important result will be that contrary to the Riemannian case, in the present case the Hilbert-bundle is not necessarily trivial, in particular it cannot in general be trivialized on an entire Darboux patch. The caveat stems from the fact that in the Lorenztian case one needs to make a choice of two “negative" directions, and this choice depends non trivially, not only on the symplectic form, but also on the metric, which contrary to the symplectic form, cannot be flat on an entire patch unless the Riemann curvature vanishes. In this section we will show however that if one makes a choice of negative directions at a given point $p_0 \in M$, this choice can be extended to an open neighborhood $V_+$ containing $p_0$. Ultimately the detailed choice at $p_0$ will be irrelevant. We start by considering a point $p_0 \in M$ and erect a Darboux coordinate system in the neighborhood of $p_0$ such that at $p_0$ the metric is the standard Lorentzian metric[^9]. The coherent tangent bundle at $p_0$ will then be the collection of states defined by: $$\hat{x}^T (\eta + i\epsilon) | u \rangle_{p_0} = u^T (\eta + i\epsilon) |u \rangle_{p_0}.$$ In particular there will be a state $|0 \rangle_{p_0}$. The representation of the Heisenberg algebra thus obtained with highest weight $|0 \rangle_{p_0}$, as we have observed in the above section, is naturally not a Hilbert space, but rather a vector space equipped with the pairing $B_-$, with respect to which $\hat{x}^i$ are hermitian, which is defined precisely as in section \[negsig\] with $a$ and $b$ corresponding to the first coordinates $x^1$ and $x^{d+1}$. We also observed in the previous section that we can however endow this vectorspace with the structure of a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ with scalar product $B_+$ with respect to which $\hat{x}^1$ and $\hat{x}^{d+1}$ are anti-hermitian while the rest are hermitian. Now we ask how large the Darboux neighborhood $V_+$ of $p_0$ is allowed to be for the coherent states $|u \rangle_p$ for $p \in V_+$ to belong to the same Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$. We shall denote by $Sp^{\epsilon}$ the symplectic group with symplectic form $\epsilon$, then the previous question is clearly equivalent to determining the subset: $$Sp^{\epsilon}_+ := \{ \Lambda \in Sp^{\epsilon} \; | \; |0 \rangle^{\Lambda} \in \mathcal{H}\},$$ where $|0 \rangle^{\Lambda}$ is defined through the condition: $$(\Lambda^T \hat{x})^T (\eta + i\epsilon) | 0 \rangle^{\Lambda} = 0. \label{lambdavacuum}$$ Then, denoting by $V^{max}$ the maximal Darboux patch containing $p_0$: $$V_+^{max} = \{ p \in V^{max} \; | \exists \Lambda \in Sp^{\epsilon}_+ {\hspace{2mm}}s.t. {\hspace{2mm}}g(p) = \Lambda \eta \Lambda^T\}.$$ As we have seen explicitly in section \[CTB\], in the Riemannian case, $Sp_+ = Sp$ and therefore $V_+^{max} = V^{max}$. This is but a consequence of the Stone von Neumann theorem that asserts, in particular, the uniqueness of unitary irreducible representations of the Heisenberg algebra. The Lorentzian case, however, corresponds to non-unitary representations, and indeed, as we will show, $Sp^{\epsilon}_+ \subsetneq Sp^{\epsilon}$. We will show however that $Sp_+^{\epsilon}$ contains an open neighborhood of the identity, a requirement to, at least locally, quantize $M$. As a concrete representation for $\mathcal{H}$ we choose the usual $L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$ where $\hat{x}$ acts as: $$\hat{x} = \tilde{E}{\left(\begin{array}{cc} q \\ -i \nabla_q \end{array}\right)},$$ where: $$\tilde{E} := {\left(\begin{array}{cc} E & 0 \\ 0 & E \end{array}\right)}$$ and: $$E = {\left(\begin{array}{cc} i & 0 \\ 0 & 1_{(d-1 \times d-1)} \end{array}\right)}.$$ Then, resorting to the notation in section \[sol2\], equation (\[lambdavacuum\]) becomes: $$\begin{aligned} {\left(\begin{array}{cc} R_1 & R_2 + iE^2 \\ R_2^T - iE^2 & R_4 \end{array}\right)} \tilde{E}{\left(\begin{array}{cc} q \\ -i \nabla_q \end{array}\right)} \psi_0(q, \Lambda) = 0,\end{aligned}$$ with $\psi_0(q, \Lambda)$ the wavefunction corresponding to $|0\rangle^{\Lambda}$. The above is equally well written as: $$\nabla_q \psi = i\tilde{\tau} q \psi,$$ where: $$\tilde{\tau} := - E^{-1}(R_2 + iE^2)^{-1} R_1E = -E^{-1}R_4^{-1} (R_2^T - iE^2)E,$$ thus: $$\psi(q) = \mathcal{N}\exp(i \langle q, \tilde{\tau} q \rangle)$$ and $\psi \in L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$ provided: $$\mathrm{Im}\,\tilde{\tau} > 0. \label{normalizabilitycond}$$ Since the above is an open set, by local continuity of $\Lambda(p)$, $g(\Lambda)$ and $\tilde{\tau}(g)$, $V_+^{max}$ contains an open neighborhood of $p_0$. One can easily check by way of counterexample that condition (\[normalizabilitycond\]) is non trivial and in particular $Sp^{\epsilon}_+ \subsetneq Sp^{\epsilon}$. Consider now the complex modulus: $$\tau := E \tilde{\tau} E^{-1}.$$ Clearly $\tau$ is in the Siegel upper half space. From this we deduce the complete characterization of $Sp^{\epsilon}_+$: $$Sp^{\epsilon}_+ = \{\Lambda \in Sp^{\epsilon} \; | \mathrm{Im} ( E^{-1}\tau(\Lambda) E) > 0\}.$$ At this point we shall study the states $|u \rangle^{\Lambda}$, which we shall rename $|u \rangle_{\tau}$. Following the analogous steps for $|0\rangle^\Lambda$ we obtain that the corresponding wavefunction $\psi_u (\tau, q)$ is of the form: $$\psi_u (\tau, q) = \mathcal{N}(\tau, u) \exp{\left( \frac{i}{2} \langle (q - E^{-1}u_q), \tilde{\tau} (q - E^{-1}u_q) \rangle + i \langle E^{-1} u_p, q \rangle\right)}.$$ Just as the normalization constant in section \[sol2\], here $\mathcal{N}(\tau, u)$ is fixed by three analogous conditions. The first is a normalization condition with respect to $B_-$ instead of $B_+$: $$1 = \!_{\tau}\langle u | (-1)^F |u \rangle_{\tau} = \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} d^dq\;\overline{\psi}_u(\tau, q) \psi_u(\tau, E^2 q).$$ Solving for $|\mathcal{N}|$ yields: $$|\mathcal{N}(\tau, u)| = \pi^{-d/4}(\det \mathrm{Im}\,\tau)^{1/4}.$$ The second condition on $\psi_u(\tau, q)$ is equation (\[defup2\]) which remains unchanged in the Lorentzian case. As in section \[sol2\], let $\theta$ be defined through: $$\mathcal{N}(\tau, u) = |\mathcal{N}(\tau)|e^{i\theta(\tau, u)}.$$ Then (\[defup2\]) is equivalent to: $$\nabla_{u_q}\theta + E^2 \overline{\tau} E^2 \nabla_{u_p} \theta = -\frac{1}{2} E^2 \overline{\tau} u_q - \frac{1}{2} E^2 u_p,$$ the solution to which is: $$\theta(\tau, u_q, u_p) = -\frac{1}{2}\langle u_p, E^2 u_q\rangle + \gamma(\tau).$$ Therefore in the Lorentzian case, the wavefunction of the coherent state $|u \rangle_{\tau}$ is given by: $$\begin{aligned} \psi_u(\tau, q) &= \pi^{-d/4}(\det \mathrm{Im}\,\tau)^{1/4} \exp (i \gamma(\tau)) \cdot \\ &\exp{\left( \frac{i}{2} \langle (q - E^{-1}u_q), \tilde{\tau} (q - E^{-1}u_q) \rangle + i \langle E^{-1} u_p, q \rangle - \frac{i}{2}\langle u_p, E^2 u_q \rangle\right)}.\end{aligned}$$ Using (\[defup3\]) we can again fix the phase. For $M$ affine special Kähler, on a special Darboux patch we obtain: $$\partial_k \gamma = -\beta_k - \frac{1}{2} \mathrm{tr} ([(\Gamma_k \omega)_{pp}] \,\mathrm{Im} \,\tau \; E^2).$$ At this point we can compute the overlap $\!_{\tau_2}\langle u_2 | (-1)^F |u_1 \rangle_{\tau_1}$, which, as in the Riemannian case, essentially corresponds to the propagator of the master equation: $$\begin{aligned} &\! _{\tau_2}\langle u_2 | (-1)^F|u_1 \rangle_{\tau_1} := \int_{\mathbb{R}^n} \overline{\psi_{u_2}}(\tau_2, q) \psi_{u_1}(\tau_1, E^2 q)\\ &=(2i)^{d/2}\frac{(\det \mathrm{Im} \tau_1)^{1/4} (\det \mathrm{Im} \tau_2)^{1/4}}{(\det (\tau_1 - \overline{\tau_2}))^{1/2}} \cdot \\ &\exp {\left( - \frac{i}{2}\langle E^2u_{q,1}, z_1 \rangle + \frac{i}{2} \langle E^2 u_{q,2}, \overline{z}_2\rangle - \frac{i}{2} \langle E^2(z_1 - \overline{z}_2), (\tau_1 - \overline{\tau}_2)^{-1} (z_1 - \overline{z}_2)\rangle\right)}\cdot\\ & \exp{\left(i \int_{p_0}^{p} {\left(\beta + \frac{1}{2} \mathrm{tr} ((\Gamma_k \omega)_{pp} \mathrm{Im} \tau \, E^2) dx^k\right)}\right)},\end{aligned}$$ where, as in the Riemannian case, we have introduced the complex coordinates $z = u_p - \tau u_q$. Thus the expression is identical to the one in the Riemannian case with the only difference that the bilinear form on configuration space is now the standard Minkowski bilinear form $\langle E^2 \,\cdot\,, \,\cdot\,\rangle$ instead of the standard scalar product. Anlogously to the case of Riemannian affine special Kähler manifolds where the propagator is given by (\[propagator1\]), we shall see in the next section that in the Lorentzian case the propagator is given by: $$\begin{aligned} &K(u, p, x + y, p_0) := \!_{p, A_s} \langle u| (-1)^F | p \rangle_s^y\\ &=(2i)^{d/2}\frac{(\det \mathrm{Im} \tau_1)^{1/4} (\det \mathrm{Im} \tau_2)^{1/4}}{(\det (\tau_1 - \overline{\tau_2}))^{1/2}} \cdot \\ & \exp{\left(-i \int_{p_0}^{p} {\left((\alpha - \beta) - \frac{1}{2}\omega_{kj}(x + y)^j dx^k - \frac{1}{2} \mathrm{tr} ((\Gamma_k \omega)_{pp} \mathrm{Im} \tau \, E^2) dx^k\right)}\right)}\cdot\\ &\exp {\left( - \frac{1}{4}||u||_{g(p)}^2\right)}\cdot\\ &\exp{\left( - \frac{i}{2}\langle E^2 u_{q,1}, z_1 \rangle + \frac{1}{4} \langle \overline{z}_2, R_4(p) \overline{z}_2\rangle - \frac{i}{2} \langle E^2(z_1 - \overline{z}_2), (\tau_1 - \overline{\tau}_2)^{-1} (z_1 - \overline{z}_2)\rangle\right)},\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the same notation as in section \[sol2\]. Remarks on the quantization of Lorentzian conic special Kähler manifolds {#lorentzquantum} ------------------------------------------------------------------------ In this section we shall first discuss how the quantization of Riemannian affine special Kähler manifolds translates to the Lorentzian case, show how to project to positive normed states, and then discuss normalization conditions of the wavefunction $Z(u,p)$ thus presenting the form of the general solution to the master equation. We shall develop the first point in the form of a series of remarks: - To quantize an appropriate Darboux neighborhood ($V_+$) of $p_0 \in M$, one chooses the Darboux coordinates such that $g(p_0) = \eta$. - Locally quantization involves a triple $(V_+, \phi, \mathbb{P}^{\infty})$, but contrary to the Riemannian case, now $\mathbb{P}^{\infty}$ is endowed with the pairing $$(v, w)_- = \frac{|B_-(v, w)|}{{\left(B_-(v,v)B_-(w,w)\right)}^{1/2}}$$ and the group of automorphisms of $\mathbb{P}^{\infty}$ is defined accordingly. - The flat connection $A$ does thus no longer induce a unitary parallel transport, but rather a parallel transport that is an isometry w.r.t. $B_-$. - One must choose generators of the Heisenberg algebra $\hat{x}^i$, such that $\hat{x}^1$ and $\hat{x}^{d + 1}$ are anti-hermitian w.r.t. $B_+$, while the rest are hermitian. - The form of the operator $S_{\Sigma}$ introduced as $S$ in (\[SofSigma\]) is left unchanged, and it is now an isometry w.r.t. $B_-$. - As a consequence in order for the tensorial property (\[Zastensor\]) of $Z(u,p)$ to hold, the definition of the wavefunction must be replaced by: $$Z(u, p) := \, \!_{p, A}\langle u| (-1)^F | p \rangle_A.$$ With the above modifications the quantization procedure of affine Lorentzian special Kähler manifolds proceeds without change as the one for Riemannian affine special Kähler manifolds until the end of section \[MEsection\] with the only exception of the normalization conditions (\[norm1\], \[norm2\], \[norm3\]). One last remark regards section \[quantumconic\] where, in the Lorentzian case, all matrix elements of the form $\langle p_2| \mathcal{O} |p_1\rangle$ must be replaced with $\langle p_2| (-1)^F \mathcal{O} |p_1\rangle$. ### Projecting onto “positive normed" states: the coherent horizontal bundle Let $M$ be a conic special Kähler manifold of dimension $2d$, we shall distinguish between three regions of $M$: $$\begin{aligned} M_{+} &:= \{p \in M | K(p) > 0\},\\ M_0 &:= \{p \in M | K(p) = 0\},\\ M_- &:= \{p \in M | K(p) < 0\}.\end{aligned}$$ As discussed earlier $M_0$ is singular with a conic singularity approaching $x = 0$. Now we shall concentrate on $M_-$. There, an orthonormal basis of negative or “timelike directions" in the tangent bundle $TM_-$ is given by the hamiltonian vectorfield $X$ and $JX$. Indeed: $$g(X, X) = g(JX, JX) = 2K < 0.$$ Therefore, on the orthogonal complement with respect to $g$ of $X$ and $JX$, $g$ is positive definite. We thus define the horizontal bundle as: $$HM := \{V \in TM_- | \; g(V, X) = g(V, JX) = 0\}.$$ In particular $HM$ is the image of a section $P \in \Gamma(M_- , \mathrm{End}(TM_-))$ of projections $P(p)$, which in special coordinates is given by: $$P_k^j = \delta_k^j - \frac{1}{2}\partial_k \log |K| g^{ij} \partial_i K + \frac{1}{2} J_k^l \partial_l \log |K| \omega^{ij} \partial_iK.\label{projection}$$ Corresponding to $HM$ there is a quantum counterpart that we shall name coherent horizontal bundle, defined as the sub-bundle of the trivial Hilbert-bundle, given by the image of the section of projection operators $\mathcal{P} \in \Gamma(M_- , \mathrm{End}(\mathcal{H}))$, where $\mathcal{P}(p, A)$ is an orthogonal projection at every point $p$. This projection is the obvious generalization of the projector onto $v_0$ of section \[\[negsig\]\]. Thus, the action of $\mathcal{P}(p, A_s)$ on the basis $|u \rangle_{p, s}$ is given by: $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{P}(p, A_s) | u \rangle_{p, s} &:= \exp{\left(- \frac{1}{4}||(1 - P(p))u||_{g(p)}^2\right)} | P(p) u \rangle_{p,s}\\ &= \exp{\left(-\frac{1}{2K(p)} |g(H(p), u)|^2\right)} | P(p) u \rangle_{p,s}.\end{aligned}$$ It is an easy exercise to check that $\mathcal{P}$ is self-adjoint w.r.t $B_-$. ### Normalization conditions and the general solution Now we shall pass to normalization conditions. In the Lorentzian case, equations (\[norm2\], \[norm3\]) are modified to: $$\begin{aligned} (-1)^F = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^n} \int_{T_pM_-}&\, du^1 \wedge \cdots \wedge du^{2d} \sqrt{\mathrm{det} \, g}\cdot \\ &\exp{\left(\frac{1}{K(p)} |g(H(p), u)|^2\right)}| Pu - (1-P)u \rangle_{p, A} \;\! _{p, A}\langle u |.\end{aligned}$$ And the normalization is with respect to $B_-$ rather than $B_+$, therefore: $$\begin{aligned} 1 = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^n} \int_{T_pM_-} &\sqrt{\mathrm{det} \, g} \, \exp{\left(\frac{1}{K(p)} |g(H(p), u)|^2\right)} \cdot \\ &\overline{Z_A}( Pu - (1 - P)u, p)Z_A(u, p) \, du^1 \wedge \cdots \wedge du^{2d}.\end{aligned}$$ It follows that the general solution to the master equation is then given by: $$\begin{aligned} Z(u, p)^f = \int_{T_{p_0}M} &dy^1 \wedge \cdots \wedge dy^{2d}\sqrt{\det g_s(p_0)} \exp{\left(\frac{1}{K(p_0)} |g(H(p_0), y)|^2\right)} \cdot \nonumber\\ &K_-(u, p, x_s + y, p_0) \exp{\left(-\frac{1}{4}||y||_{g_s(p_0)}^2\right)}f((1 + iJ_0)y),\label{lorentzsol}\end{aligned}$$ where $f$ is an arbitrary normalizable function w.r.t. $B_-$. The quantization of projective special Kähler manifolds {#projsk} ------------------------------------------------------- In this section we will construct the wavefunction $Z_{red,A}(u, p)$ for an arbitrary projective special Kähler manifold $\tilde{M}$ of dimension $2d$ that arises as a holomorphic quotient of a Lorentzian conic special Kähler manifold $M$ of dimension $2d + 2$. First of all, it is convenient at this point to introduce complex coordinates and express $H$ in terms of these. We shall stay in the special Darboux coordinate system, and erect corresponding holomorphic coordinates $(z^0, \dots, z^d)$. Then (\[homotheticvf\]) becomes: $$\partial_{\mu} H^{\nu} = \delta_{\mu}^{\nu}.$$ Therefore: $$H = z^{\mu}\partial_{\mu},$$ where the vector of complex special coordinates is related to the vector of Darboux coordinates $x = (x_q, x_p)$ via: $$z = x_p - \tau x_q.$$ The quotient of $M$ by $H$ clearly has as holomorphic functions the ones defined on $M$ of homogeneous degree $0$, therefore $\tilde{M}$ can be covered by affine patches as $\tilde{M}_0$ with coordinates $(y^1, \dots, y^d)$ given by: $$(z^0, z^1, \dots, z^{d}) =: (\lambda, \lambda y^1, \dots, \lambda y^d),$$ with $\lambda \neq 0$. In this new coordinate system $(\lambda, y^1, \dots, y^d)$: $$H = \lambda \frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda}.$$ From now on we shall label the coordinates $y$ and $z$ with ($\alpha, \beta, \gamma$) and ($\mu, \nu, \rho, \sigma$) respectively. Analogously we will label the corresponding real coordinates with non-capital and capital latin letters respectively. At this point we can express the projection $P$ introduced in (\[projection\]) in complex coordinates: $$\begin{aligned} P_{\mu}^{\nu} &= \delta_{\mu}^{\nu} - \frac{1}{2} \partial_{\mu} \log |K| g^{\nu \overline{\rho}} \partial_{\overline{\rho}} K + \frac{1}{2} J_{\mu}^{\sigma} \partial_{\sigma} \log |K| \omega^{\nu \overline{\rho}} \partial_{\overline{\rho}} K\\ &= \delta_{\mu}^{\nu} - \frac{1}{2} \partial_{\mu} \log |K| (g^{\nu \overline{\rho}} - i\omega^{\nu \overline{\rho}})\partial_{\overline{\rho}} K \\ &= \delta_{\mu}^{\nu} - \partial_{\mu} \log |K| g^{\nu \overline{\rho}}\partial_{\overline{\rho}} K\\ &= \delta_{\mu}^{\nu} - z^{\nu}\partial_{\mu} \log |K| \\ P_{\overline{\mu}}^{\nu} &= 0\\ P_{\mu}^{\overline{\nu}} &= 0\\ P_{\overline{\mu}}^{\overline{\nu}}&= \delta_{\overline{\mu}}^{\overline{\nu}} - z^{\overline{\nu}}\partial_{\overline{\mu}} \log |K|.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, in particular, in special coordinates we have the following holomorphic frame for the horizontal bundle: $$\begin{aligned} V_{\alpha} &= \Sigma_{\alpha}^{\mu} P_{\mu}^{\nu} \partial_{\nu}\\ &= \frac{\partial z^{\mu}}{\partial y^{\alpha}} (\delta_{\mu}^{\nu} - z^{\nu}\partial_{\mu} \log |K|)\partial_{\nu}\\ &= \frac{\partial}{\partial y^{\alpha}} - {\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial y^{\alpha}} \log |K|\right)} z^{\nu}\partial_{\nu}\\ &= \frac{\partial}{\partial y^{\alpha}} - {\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial y^{\alpha}} \log |K|\right)} \lambda \frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda},\end{aligned}$$ where $\Sigma_{\alpha}^{\mu} = dz^{\mu}/dy^{\alpha}$. We can now define the wavefunction reduced to the projective special Kähler manifold: The quantization of the holomorphic quotient $\tilde{M}$ is given by the reduced wavefunction: $$Z_{red, A}(u, p) := \! _ {p, A}\langle \Sigma^T u | \mathcal{P}^{\dagger}(p, A) (-1)^F | p \rangle_A.$$ Therefore: $$\begin{aligned} Z_{red, A}(u,p) := \exp {\left(-\frac{1}{4}||P(p)\Sigma^T u||^2_{g(p)} - \frac{1}{2K(p)}|g(H(p), \Sigma^T u)|^2\right)}\mathcal{C}_{red}(u^i \partial_i),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{C}_{red} = \iota^* (\mathcal{C}\circ P),\label{Cred}\end{aligned}$$ and by $\iota$ we have denoted the inclusion of the level set $\lambda$ in $M$. In particular we have $$\mathcal{C}_{red} = \exp{\left(\sum_{n \geq 0} \frac{(-1)^n}{n!}\mathcal{C}_{red}^n\right)},$$ with, in special coordinates: $$(\mathcal{C}_{red}^n)_{\overline{\alpha}_1, \dots, \overline{\alpha}_n} = \mathcal{C}^n_{\overline{\mu}_1, \dots, \overline{\mu}_n} {\left(\frac{\partial z^{\overline{\mu}_1}}{\partial y^{\overline{\alpha}_1}} - z^{\overline{\mu}_1} \frac{\partial}{\partial y^{\overline{\alpha}_1}} \log |K|\right)} \cdots {\left(\frac{\partial z^{\overline{\mu}_n}}{\partial y^{\overline{\alpha}_n}} - z^{\overline{\mu}_n} \frac{\partial}{\partial y^{\overline{\alpha}_n}} \log |K|\right)}$$ and: $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial z^{0}}{\partial y^{\alpha}} - z^{0} \frac{\partial}{\partial y^{\alpha}} \log |K| &= - \lambda \frac{\partial}{\partial y^{\alpha}} \log |K|\\ \frac{\partial z^{\beta}}{\partial y^{\alpha}} - z^{\beta} \frac{\partial}{\partial y^{\alpha}} \log |K| &= \lambda {\left(\delta_{\alpha}^{\beta} - y^{\beta} \frac{\partial}{\partial y^{\alpha}} \log |K|\right)}.\end{aligned}$$ We shall extend the $y$ coordinate system to incorporate $y^0 := 1$, and define $h$ through: $$K(z, \overline{z}) = -|\lambda|^2 h(y, \overline{y}),$$ then: $$(\mathcal{C}_{red}^n)_{\overline{\alpha}_1, \dots, \overline{\alpha}_n} = \overline{\lambda}^n \, \mathcal{C}^n_{\overline{\mu}_1, \dots, \overline{\mu}_n} {\left(\delta_{\overline{\alpha}_1}^{\overline{\mu}_1} - y^{\overline{\mu}_1} \frac{\partial}{\partial y^{\overline{\alpha}_1}} \log h\right)} \cdots {\left(\delta_{\overline{\alpha}_n}^{\overline{\mu}_n} - y^{\overline{\mu}_n} \frac{\partial}{\partial y^{\overline{\alpha}_n}} \log h\right)}.$$ At this stage we can determine the master equation satisfied by $\mathcal{C}_{red}$. We shall proceed analogously to the affine case. Thus we start by collecting the following computational building blocks. The first crucial building block is the Kähler structure on the projective manifold $\tilde{M}$: $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{g}_{\alpha \overline{\beta}} &= \Sigma_{\alpha}^{\mu} P_{\mu} ^{\rho} g_{\rho \overline{\sigma}} P_{\overline{\nu}}^{\overline{\sigma}}\Sigma_{\overline{\beta}}^{\overline{\nu}} = \overline{\lambda} \Sigma_{\alpha}^{\mu} P_{\mu}^{\rho} g_{\rho \overline{\beta}} \nonumber \\ &= \Sigma_{\alpha}^{\mu} {\left(g_{\mu \overline{\nu}} - \frac{1}{K} \partial_{\mu} K \partial_{\overline{\nu}} K\right)}\Sigma_{\overline{\beta}}^{\overline{\nu}} \nonumber \\ &= -|\lambda|^2 {\left(\partial_{\alpha}\partial_{\overline{\beta}}h - \frac{1}{h} \partial_{\alpha} h \partial_{\overline{\beta}}h\right)} \nonumber\\ &= K \partial_{\alpha}\partial_{\overline{\beta}} \log h. \label{planckrescaling}\end{aligned}$$ The form obtained in the last step shows that $\tilde{g}$ is indeed a Kähler metric, not on the holomorphic quotient of $M$ by the action of $H$, but rather on the symplectic quotient of $M$ by the action of $X$ where $K$ is constant. Indeed the above precisely defines the Marsden-Weinstein quotient. We thus define the normalized Kähler metric: $$\hat{g}_{\alpha \overline{\beta}} := -\partial_{\alpha} \partial_{\overline{\beta}} \log h.$$ We shortly digress to observe that formula (\[planckrescaling\]) means that the value of $K$ on the corresponding symplectic quotient is related to Planck’s constant via: $$K = -\frac{1}{\hbar}.$$ In other words, Planck’s constant precisely labels the choice of symplectic quotient: $$M_{\hbar} \sim K^{-1}(-\hbar^{-1})/S^1.$$ Here $\sim$ means homeomorphic. Now we shall consider the dependence of $\mathcal{P}(p, A) | \Sigma^T u \rangle_{p, A}$ on $p$. We shall do this in steps. First we shall consider the dependence on $p$ of the canonical coherent state $|\Lambda^T P \Sigma^T u \rangle$, where we have used the same notation as in section \[CTB\]. We obtain: $$\begin{aligned} \partial_K |\Lambda^T P\Sigma^T u \rangle &= \langle \partial_K (\Lambda^T P \Sigma^T)u, \Lambda^{-1} \nabla_{P\Sigma^T u} \rangle | \Lambda^T P \Sigma^T u \rangle \nonumber\\ &= u^T {\left(\Sigma P^T \Gamma_K + \partial_K (\Sigma P^T)\right)} \nabla_{P\Sigma^T u} | \Lambda^T P \Sigma^T u \rangle.\label{canonreduced}\end{aligned}$$ We now introduce the differential $\tilde{\Sigma}$ from $y$ to $z$ coordinates. In particular: $$\tilde{\Sigma}_{\mu}^{\alpha} := \frac{\partial y^{\alpha}}{\partial z^{\mu}}= \lambda^{-1}{\left(\delta_{\mu}^{\alpha} - y^{\alpha}\delta_{\mu}^0\right)}.$$ Then we have: $$P^T \tilde{\Sigma} \Sigma P^T = P^T.$$ Therefore: $$\nabla_{P\Sigma^T u} = P^T \tilde{\Sigma} \nabla_u + (1 - P^T) \nabla_{P\Sigma^T u}.$$ Substituting in (\[canonreduced\]) we obtain: $$\begin{aligned} &\partial_K |\Lambda^T P\Sigma^T u \rangle=\\ &u^T {\left(\tilde{\Gamma}_K \nabla_u + {\left(\Sigma P^T \Gamma_K + \partial_K (\Sigma P^T)\right)} (1 - P^T)\nabla_{P\Sigma^T u}\right)}|\Lambda^T P\Sigma^T u \rangle.\end{aligned}$$ In the above we have defined the connection: $$\tilde{\Gamma}_K = \Sigma P^T \Gamma_K P^T \tilde{\Sigma} + \partial_K(\Sigma P^T) P^T \tilde{\Sigma}.\label{tildeGamma}$$ As we show in appendix \[appB\], the connection $\tilde{\Gamma}$ splits into purely holomorphic and anti-holomorphic components with $\tilde{\Gamma}_{\overline{\alpha} \overline{\beta}}^{\overline{\gamma}} = (\tilde{\Gamma}_{\alpha \beta}^{\gamma})^*$ and can be expressed in terms of the Levi-Civita connection $\hat{\Gamma}$ of $\hat{g}$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{\Gamma}_{\alpha \beta}^{\gamma} &= \hat{\Gamma}_{\alpha \beta}^{\gamma} + \partial_{\alpha} \log |K| \delta_{\beta}^{\gamma}\\ \tilde{\Gamma}_{0 \beta}^{\gamma} &= \lambda^{-1} \delta_{\beta}^{\gamma},\end{aligned}$$ where we have denoted by $0$ the coordinate $\lambda$. In particular $\tilde{\Gamma}$ is compatible with the metric $\tilde{g}$. Now we turn to the dependence on $p$ of the coherent state $\mathcal{P}(p, A)|\Sigma^T u \rangle_{p, A}$ proper. In fact, to tackle the reduced tensor $\mathcal{C}_{red}$ directly we compute: $$\begin{aligned} &\partial_K {\left(\exp {\left(\frac{1}{4}||P(p)\Sigma^T u||^2_{g(p)}\right)} | P\Sigma^T u \rangle_{p, A}\right)} =\\ &{\left( - i\beta_K - \frac{i}{2}(\Gamma_K \omega)_{IJ} \hat{x}^I \hat{x}^J + u^r\tilde{\Gamma}_{Kr}^s \frac{\partial}{\partial u^s}+ u^r {\left({\left(\Sigma P^T \Gamma_K + \partial_K (\Sigma P^T)\right)} (1 - P^T)\right)}_r^S \frac{\partial}{\partial (P\Sigma^Tu)^S}\right)}\cdot\\ &\exp {\left(\frac{1}{4}||P(p)\Sigma^T u||^2_{g(p)}\right)} | P\Sigma^T u \rangle_{p, A}.\end{aligned}$$ In the above we have used the metric compatibility of $\tilde{\Gamma}$. At this point we need to compute the action of $\hat{x}$ on the coherent state. However only the components of $\hat{x}$ along the horizontal bundle act naturally as differential operators. We shall now focus our attention on those: $$\begin{aligned} &\tilde{\Sigma}^T P\hat{x} \, {\left(\exp {\left(\frac{1}{4}||P(p)\Sigma^T u||^2_{g(p)}\right)}| P \Sigma^T u \rangle_{p, A}\right)}\\ &= {\left(\frac{1}{2} \tilde{\Sigma}^T P(1 - iJ)^T P\Sigma^T u + \frac{1}{2} \tilde{\Sigma}^T P(g^{-1} - i \omega^{-1}) P^T \tilde{\Sigma}\nabla_u\right)} \exp {\left(\frac{1}{4}||P(p)\Sigma^T u||^2_{g(p)}\right)}| P\Sigma^T u \rangle_{p, A}\\ &= {\left(\frac{1}{2}(1 - i\hat{J})^T u - \frac{1}{2K} (\hat{g}^{-1} - i \hat{\omega}^{-1})\nabla_u\right)} \exp {\left(-\frac{1}{4}K ||u||^2_{\hat{g}(p)}\right)}| P\Sigma^T u \rangle_{p, A},\end{aligned}$$ Now we shall present the explicit form of the master equation: $$\Sigma P^T \! _{p, A}\langle \Sigma^T u | \mathcal{P}^{\dagger}(p, A) (-1)^F (d + A) | p \rangle_A = 0.$$ Using (\[defup2\]), we arrive at the master equation for $\mathcal{C}_{red}(u^i \partial_i)$: $$\begin{aligned} &{\left((\Sigma P^T \nabla_x)_k - u^r (\hat{\Gamma}_k)_r^s \frac{\partial}{\partial u^s} + i (\Sigma P^T(\alpha - \beta))_k\right.}\nonumber\\ &+ iK\hat{\omega}_{ik} {\left(\frac{1}{2}(1 - i\hat{J})^T u - \frac{1}{2K} (\hat{g}^{-1} - i \hat{\omega}^{-1})\nabla_u\right)}^i\nonumber\\ &+ \frac{i}{2}C_{kij} {\left(\frac{1}{2K} (\hat{g}^{-1} - i \hat{\omega}^{-1})\nabla_u\right)}^i {\left(\frac{1}{2K} (\hat{g}^{-1} - i \hat{\omega}^{-1})\nabla_u\right)}^j\nonumber\\ &+ \frac{i}{2}C_{kij} {\left(\frac{1}{2}(1 - i\hat{J})^Tu\right)}^i{\left(\frac{1}{2}(1 - i\hat{J})^Tu\right)}^j \nonumber\\ &- {\left.u^r (\Sigma P^T)_k^K{\left( {\left(\Sigma P^T \Gamma_K + \partial_K (\Sigma P^T)\right)} (1 - P^T)\right)}_r^S \frac{\partial}{\partial (P\Sigma^Tu)^S}\right)}\mathcal{C}_{red}(u^i \partial_i) = 0. \label{fibreterm}\end{aligned}$$ Before expressing the master equation in holomorphic and anti-holomorphic parts, we shall decompose the last term of (\[fibreterm\]) in holomorphic and anti-holomoprhic parts. Since $\mathcal{C}_{red}$ has only anti-holomorphic legs, in complex coordinates the holomorphic part is given by: $$\begin{aligned} &-(\Sigma P^T)_{\beta}^{\sigma}dy^{\overline{\alpha}} \Sigma_{\overline{\alpha}}^{\overline{\mu}} (\partial_{\sigma} P_{\overline{\mu}}^{\overline{\nu}}) (1 - P)_{\overline{\nu}}^{\overline{\rho}} \iota_{\partial_{\overline{\rho}}} \mathcal{C}_{red}\\ &= (\Sigma P^T)_{\beta}^{\sigma}dy^{\overline{\alpha}} \partial_{\sigma} \partial_{\overline{\alpha}}\log |K| z^{\overline{\rho}}\iota_{\partial_{\overline{\rho}}}\mathcal{C}_{red}\\ &= dy^{\overline{\alpha}} \hat{g}_{\beta \overline{\alpha}} z^{\overline{\rho}} \iota_{\partial_{\overline{\rho}}} \mathcal{C}_{red},\end{aligned}$$ while the anti-holomorphic part reads: $$\begin{aligned} &-(\Sigma P^T)_{\overline{\beta}}^{\overline{\sigma}}dy^{\overline{\alpha}} \Sigma_{\overline{\alpha}}^{\overline{\mu}} (P_{\overline{\mu}}^{\overline{\tau}} \Gamma_{\overline{\sigma} \overline{\tau}}^{\overline{\nu}} + \partial_{\overline{\sigma}} P_{\overline{\mu}}^{\overline{\nu}}) (1 - P)_{\overline{\nu}}^{\overline{\rho}} \iota_{\partial_{\overline{\rho}}} \mathcal{C}_{red}\\ &= 0.\end{aligned}$$ The above is a result of the following identity: $$\begin{aligned} &(P_{\overline{\mu}}^{\overline{\tau}} \Gamma_{\overline{\sigma} \overline{\tau}}^{\overline{\nu}} + \partial_{\overline{\sigma}} P_{\overline{\mu}}^{\overline{\nu}}) (1 - P)_{\overline{\nu}}^{\overline{\rho}}\\ &= (\Gamma_{\overline{\sigma} \overline{\mu}}^{\overline{\nu}} + \partial_{\overline{\sigma}}P_{\overline{\mu}}^{\overline{\nu}})(1 - P)_{\overline{\nu}}^{\overline{\rho}}\\ &= (g^{\overline{\nu} \nu}\partial_{\overline{\sigma}}g_{\nu \overline{\mu}} + \partial_{\overline{\sigma}}P_{\overline{\mu}}^{\overline{\nu}})(1 - P)_{\overline{\nu}}^{\overline{\rho}}\\ &= \frac{1}{K}\partial_{\overline{\sigma}}(z^{\nu} g_{\nu \overline{\mu}})z^{\overline{\rho}} - (\delta_{\overline{\sigma}}^{\overline{\nu}} \partial_{\overline{\mu}} \log |K| + z^{\overline{\nu}} \partial_{\overline{\sigma}}\partial_{\overline{\mu}} \log|K|)z^{\overline{\rho}}\partial_{\overline{\nu}}\log|K| \\ &= \frac{\partial_{\overline{\sigma}}\partial_{\overline{\mu}}K}{K} z^{\overline{\rho}} - \frac{\partial_{\overline{\sigma}}\partial_{\overline{\mu}}K}{K} z^{\overline{\rho}}\\ &= 0.\end{aligned}$$ In the first step above we have used the fact that in special coordinates: $$\begin{aligned} &z^{\overline{\rho}}\Gamma_{\overline{\rho}} = g^{-1}z^{\overline{\rho}}\partial_{\overline{\rho}}g = 0.\label{GammaH}\end{aligned}$$ We are thus left to compute $$z^{\overline{\rho}}\iota_{\partial_{\overline{\rho}}} \mathcal{C}_{red}.$$ For this we need to resort to (\[masterantiholo1\]) using (\[GammaH\]). We obtain: $$\begin{aligned} z^{\overline{\rho}}\iota_{\partial_{\overline{\rho}}}\mathcal{C}_{red} &= {\left(\iota^*{\left(z^{\overline{\rho}}\iota_{\partial_{\overline{\rho}}}\mathcal{C}\right)} \circ P\right)}\\ &= {\left(\iota^*{\left({\left(-z^{\overline{\rho}} \partial_{\overline{\rho}} - i (\alpha - \beta)(\overline{H})\right)}\mathcal{C}\right)} \circ P\right)}\\ &= {\left(- \overline{\lambda} \frac{\partial}{\partial \overline{\lambda}} + dy^{\overline{\alpha}}\iota_{\partial_{\overline{\alpha}}} - i(\alpha - \beta){\left(\overline{\lambda} \frac{\partial}{\partial \overline{\lambda}}\right)}\right)}\mathcal{C}_{red}.\end{aligned}$$ In order to isolate the dependence of $\mathcal{C}_{red}$ on $\lambda$ and $\overline{\lambda}$, we use the fact that in $y$ coordinates $C_{\alpha \beta \gamma}$ is holomorphic homogeneous of degree $2$ in $\lambda$. Thus, we define the normalized $C$ tensor through: $$C_{\alpha \beta \gamma}(\lambda, y) = \lambda^2 \hat{C}_{\alpha \beta \gamma}(y).$$ At this point we have all the ingredients to express the master equation (\[fibreterm\]) in holomorphic and anti-holomoprhic parts. The anti-holomorphic part reads: $$\begin{aligned} &{\left(\nabla^{(0,1)}_{\overline{\alpha}} - (\partial_{\overline{\alpha}} \log h) \overline{\lambda} \frac{\partial}{\partial \overline{\lambda}} + i(\alpha - \beta)_{\overline{\alpha}} - i(\partial_{\overline{\alpha}} \log h) (\alpha - \beta){\left(\overline{\lambda}\frac{\partial}{\partial \overline{\lambda}}\right)}\right.}\nonumber\\ &+{\left.\iota_{\partial_{\overline{\alpha}}} + \frac{i \overline{\lambda}^2}{2} \hat{C}_{\overline{\alpha}\overline{\beta}\overline{\gamma}} dy^{\overline{\beta}}dy^{\overline{\gamma}} \right)}\mathcal{C}_{red} = 0,\label{projmaster1}\end{aligned}$$ while the holomorphic part reads: $$\begin{aligned} &{\left(\partial_{\alpha} - (\partial_{\alpha} \log h) \lambda \frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda} + i(\alpha - \beta)_{\alpha} - i(\partial_{\alpha} \log h) (\alpha - \beta){\left(\lambda\frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda}\right)}\right.}\\ & + dy^{\overline{\beta}} \hat{g}_{\alpha \overline{\beta}} {\left(- \overline{\lambda} \frac{\partial}{\partial \overline{\lambda}} + dy^{\overline{\gamma}}\iota_{\partial_{\overline{\gamma}}} - i(\alpha - \beta){\left(\overline{\lambda} \frac{\partial}{\partial \overline{\lambda}}\right)}\right)} \\ &- {\left.iK \hat{\omega}_{\alpha \overline{\beta}} dy^{\overline{\beta}} + \frac{i\lambda^2}{2K^2} \hat{C}_{\alpha \beta \gamma} \hat{g}^{\beta \overline{\beta}}\hat{g}^{\gamma \overline{\gamma}} \iota_{\partial_{\overline{\beta}}}\iota_{\partial_{\overline{\gamma}}}\right)}\mathcal{C}_{red} = 0.\end{aligned}$$ There are of course two further equations left, inherited from the master equation of the conic affine special Kähler manifold $M$. We have already made full use of the anti-holomorphic part to express the last term in (\[fibreterm\]) as a differential operator on $\mathcal{C}_{red}$. From the holomorphic part we obtain instead: $${\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda} + i(\alpha - \beta){\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda}\right)}\right)} \mathcal{C}_{red}(u^i\partial_i) = 0,\label{fibreholo}$$ which in components reads: $$\begin{aligned} {\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda} + i(\alpha - \beta) {\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda}\right)}\right)} \mathcal{C}_{red}^0 &= 0\\ \mathcal{C}_{red}^n (\lambda, \overline{\lambda}, y, \overline{y}) &= \tilde{\mathcal{C}}_{red}^n(\overline{\lambda}, y, \overline{y}) {\hspace{2mm}}\forall n \geq 1.\end{aligned}$$ With (\[fibreholo\]) the holomorphic part of the master equation simplifies to: $$\begin{aligned} &{\left(\partial_{\alpha} + i(\alpha - \beta)_{\alpha} + dy^{\overline{\beta}} \hat{g}_{\alpha \overline{\beta}} {\left(- \overline{\lambda} \frac{\partial}{\partial \overline{\lambda}} + dy^{\overline{\gamma}}\iota_{\partial_{\overline{\gamma}}}\right)} - dy^{\overline{\beta}} \hat{g}_{\alpha \overline{\beta}}{\left(i(\alpha - \beta){\left(\overline{\lambda} \frac{\partial}{\partial \overline{\lambda}}\right)} - K\right)}\right.}\nonumber\\ &+{\left. \frac{i\lambda^2}{2K^2} \hat{C}_{\alpha \beta \gamma} \hat{g}^{\beta \overline{\beta}}\hat{g}^{\gamma \overline{\gamma}} \iota_{\partial_{\overline{\beta}}}\iota_{\partial_{\overline{\gamma}}}\right)}\mathcal{C}_{red} = 0.\label{projmaster2}\end{aligned}$$ As a last step we will choose for $\alpha$ and $\beta$ the gauge adopted in section \[MEsection\] and we will express the master equation (\[projmaster1\], \[fibreholo\], \[projmaster2\]) as an equation for $\mathcal{S}_{red}$, which analogously to $\mathcal{S}$ in section \[MEsection\], is defined as: $$\mathcal{S}_{red} = {\left(\mathrm{det}\,g\right)}^{\frac{1}{8}}e^{\frac{K}{2}}\mathcal{C}_{red}.$$ Noticing that in this gauge: $$\beta{\left(H\right)} = \beta{\left(\overline{H}\right)} = 0,$$ we obtain that (\[projmaster1\], \[projmaster2\]): $$\begin{aligned} &{\left(\nabla^{(0,1)}_{\overline{\alpha}} - (\partial_{\overline{\alpha}}\log h) \overline{\lambda}\frac{\partial}{\partial \overline{\lambda}}- 2i\beta_{\overline{\alpha}} +\iota_{\partial_{\overline{\alpha}}} + \frac{i \overline{\lambda}^2}{2} \hat{C}_{\overline{\alpha}\overline{\beta}\overline{\gamma}} dy^{\overline{\beta}}dy^{\overline{\gamma}} \right)}\mathcal{S}_{red} = 0,\label{projmasterS1}\\ &{\left(\partial_{\alpha} + dy^{\overline{\beta}} \hat{g}_{\alpha \overline{\beta}} {\left(- \overline{\lambda} \frac{\partial}{\partial \overline{\lambda}} + dy^{\overline{\gamma}}\iota_{\partial_{\overline{\gamma}}}\right)} +\frac{i\lambda^2}{2K^2} \hat{C}_{\alpha \beta \gamma} \hat{g}^{\beta \overline{\beta}}\hat{g}^{\gamma \overline{\gamma}} \iota_{\partial_{\overline{\beta}}}\iota_{\partial_{\overline{\gamma}}}\right)}\mathcal{S}_{red} = 0,\label{projmasterS2}\end{aligned}$$ while (\[fibreholo\]) becomes: $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda} \mathcal{S}_{red} = 0.\label{fibreholoS}\end{aligned}$$ We have finally arrived at the precise generalization (\[projmasterS1\], \[projmasterS2\], \[fibreholoS\]) of the holomorphic anomaly equation of [@bcov9309140] while at the same time having provided its general solution (\[lorentzsol\], \[Cred\]). Concluding remarks ================== In the present paper we have shown how special Kähler manifolds arise from the structure of quantization, and constructed their quantum counterpart. Crucial to our constructions was the central idea developed in [@witten] and the formalism of [@fedosov94]. We have shown how a general version of the holomorphic anomaly equation of [@bcov9309140] arises in our construction while at the same time providing its general solution. The present work needs however to be further developed to understand better the physical, string theoretic, meaning of these solutions. In particular it is still to be understood, from a quantization perspective, how to isolate the analogue of the generating function of closed topological strings in a given D-brane configuration [@neitzke-walcher] . In this regard, it seems as though a starting point for these developments within this work could be the discussion at the end of section \[quantumconic\]. Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ---------------- I would like to thank Ilka Brunner for her constant support and encouragement during the course of this work. I am also grateful to her, Patrick Böhl, Nils Carqueville and Andrés Collinucci for useful comments on the manuscript. A few identities of Special Geometry {#appendix} ==================================== Here we shall just give the form of the Ricci tensor for an affine special Kähler manifold, as it is needed in section \[MEsection\]. For the sake of coherence we will compute it in special Darboux coordinates. We shall need the expression for the Christoffel symbols, that reduces to $$\Gamma_{ij}^k = \frac{1}{2}g^{kr}\partial_r\partial_i\partial_j K$$ and in particular the following identity: $$\begin{aligned} J_i^r \partial_r \partial_k \partial_l K &= -(\partial_k J_i^r)g_{rl}\\ &= -{\left(\partial_k(g_{is}\omega^{sr})\right)}g_{rl}\\ &= \partial_k\partial_i\partial_s K J_l^s {\hspace{2mm}}.\end{aligned}$$ Equivalently the tensor $C$, which in special Darboux coordinates reads $$C_{ijk} = \frac{1}{2}J_i^r\partial_r\partial_j\partial_kK {\hspace{2mm}},$$ is symmetric. Moreover the fact that $\partial_i\partial_j\partial_k K$ is symmetric implies that $C$ splits into holomorphic and anti-holomorphic parts. From the above, in particular, it follows: $$\begin{aligned} \Gamma_{ki}^k &= \frac{1}{2}g^{kr}\partial_r\partial_k\partial_iK\\ &= -\frac{1}{2}\omega^{ks}J_s^r\partial_r\partial_k\partial_iK\\ &= -\frac{1}{2}\omega^{ks}\partial_r\partial_k\partial_s J_i^r\\ &= 0,\end{aligned}$$ hence: $$\begin{aligned} R_{ij} &= \partial_k \Gamma_{ij}^k - \partial_j \Gamma_{ki}^k + \Gamma_{kl}^k \Gamma_{ji}^l - \Gamma_{jl}^k \Gamma_{ki}^l\\ &= \partial_k \Gamma_{ij}^k - \Gamma_{jl}^k \Gamma_{ki}^l {\hspace{2mm}}.\end{aligned}$$ The first term can be rewritten as follows: $$\begin{aligned} \partial_k \Gamma_{ij}^k &= \frac{1}{2}(\partial_k g^{kr})\partial_i\partial_j\partial_r K + \frac{1}{2}g^{kr} \partial_k\partial_i\partial_j\partial_rK\\ &= \frac{1}{2}g^{kr} \partial_k\partial_i\partial_j\partial_rK\\ &= -\frac{1}{2}\partial_i g^{kr} \partial_k\partial_j \partial_r K\\ &= \frac{1}{2}\omega^{ks}\partial_i\partial_s\partial_l K \omega^{lr} \partial_k \partial_j \partial_r K\\ &= 2 g^{ks}C_{isl} g^{lr}C_{kjr} {\hspace{2mm}}.\end{aligned}$$ The second term in the expression for the Ricci tensor can instead be rewritten as: $$\begin{aligned} -\Gamma_{jl}^k\Gamma_{ki}^l &= -\frac{1}{4}g^{kr} \partial_r\partial_j\partial_l K g^{ls}\partial_s\partial_k\partial_i K\\ &= \frac{1}{4} g^{kr}J_r^t J_t^u \partial_u \partial_j \partial_lK g^{ls} \partial_s \partial_k \partial_i K\\ &= \frac{1}{4} g^{kr}J_r^t \partial_t\partial_j\partial_u K J_l^u g^{ls} \partial_s \partial_k \partial_iK\\ &= -\frac{1}{4}g^{kr}J_r^t \partial_t\partial_j\partial_u K g^{lu} J_l^s \partial_s \partial_k \partial_iK\\ &= -g^{kr}C_{rju}g^{lu}C_{lki} {\hspace{2mm}}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, finally: $$R_{ij} = g^{ks}C_{isl} g^{lr}C_{kjr}.$$ The connection on the horizontal bundle {#appB} ======================================= Here we analyze the connection $\tilde{\Gamma}$ defined in (\[tildeGamma\]) and express it in terms of the Levi-Civita connection $\hat{\Gamma}$ of $\hat{g}$. First we will show that $\tilde{\Gamma}$ is compatible with the metric $\tilde{g}$. We thus compute: $$\begin{aligned} &{\left(\partial_K - u^T \tilde{\Gamma}_K \nabla_u\right)}||u||_{\tilde{g}}^2\\ &=u^T\partial_K{\left(\Sigma P^T g P \Sigma^T\right)}u - 2u^T {\left((\Sigma P^T \Gamma_K P^T \tilde{\Sigma} + \partial_K(\Sigma P^T) P^T \tilde{\Sigma})\Sigma P^T g P \Sigma^T\right)}u\\ &= u^T\partial_K{\left(\Sigma P^T g P \Sigma^T\right)}u - 2u^T {\left(\Sigma P^T \Gamma_K P^T g\Sigma^T + \partial_K(\Sigma P^T) P^T g P \Sigma^T\right)}u\\ &= u^T\partial_K{\left(\Sigma P^T g P \Sigma^T\right)}u - 2u^T {\left(\Sigma P^T \Gamma_K g\Sigma^T + \partial_K(\Sigma P^T) g P \Sigma^T\right)}u\\ &= 0.\end{aligned}$$ Now we shall express $\tilde{\Gamma}$ in terms of $\hat{\Gamma}$. We start by expressing the latter using the fact that $\hat{g}$ is Kähler: $$\begin{aligned} \hat{\Gamma}_{\alpha \beta}^{\gamma} =& {\left(K \tilde{\Sigma}^T P g^{-1} P^T \tilde{\Sigma} \partial_{\alpha}{\left(\frac{1}{K} \Sigma P^T g P \Sigma^T\right)}\right)}_{\beta}^{\gamma}\\ =&{\left(\tilde{\Sigma}^T P g^{-1} \overline{P}^T \overline{\tilde{\Sigma}} {\left(\partial_{\alpha}(\overline{\Sigma}\overline{P}^T) g P\Sigma^T + \overline{\Sigma} \overline{P}^T\partial_{\alpha} g P\Sigma^T + \overline{\Sigma} \overline{P}^T g \partial_{\alpha}(P\Sigma^T)\right)}\right)}_{\beta}^{\gamma}\\ &-\partial_{\alpha} \log |K| \delta_{\beta}^{\gamma}\\ =& \tilde{\Sigma}^T P g^{-1} \overline{P}^T \overline{\tilde{\Sigma}} \overline{\Sigma}{\left(\partial_{\alpha}\overline{P}^T g P\Sigma^T\right)} + \tilde{\Gamma}_{\alpha \beta}^{\gamma} - \partial_{\alpha} \log |K| \delta_{\beta}^{\gamma}\\ =& \tilde{\Gamma}_{\alpha \beta}^{\gamma} - \partial_{\alpha} \log |K| \delta_{\beta}^{\gamma}.\end{aligned}$$ The remaining components of $\tilde{\Gamma}$ are given by: $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{\Gamma}_{\overline{\alpha} \beta}^{\gamma} &= {\left(\partial_{\overline{\alpha}}(\Sigma P^T) P^T \tilde{\Sigma}\right)}_{\beta}^{\gamma}\\ &= \Sigma_{\beta}^{\mu}\partial_{\overline{\alpha}}P_{\mu}^{\nu}\lambda^{-1}(\delta_{\nu}^{\gamma} - y^{\gamma}\delta_{\nu}^0)\\ &= \Sigma_{\beta}^{\mu}\partial_{\overline{\alpha}}\partial_{\mu} \log |K| \lambda^{-1}z^{\nu}(\delta_{\nu}^{\gamma} - y^{\gamma}\delta_{\nu}^0)\\ &= 0.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly: $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{\Gamma}_{\overline{0}\beta}^{\gamma} = 0,\end{aligned}$$ while $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{\Gamma}_{0\beta}^{\gamma} &= {\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda}(\Sigma P^T)P^T \tilde{\Sigma}\right)}_{\beta}^{\gamma}\\ &= \frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda} {\left(\lambda \delta_{\beta}^{\mu} - z^{\mu}\partial_{\beta}\log |K|\right)}\lambda^{-1}(\delta_{\mu}^{\gamma} - y^{\gamma}\delta_{\mu}^0)\\ &= \lambda^{-1}\delta_{\beta}^{\gamma}.\end{aligned}$$ Finally: $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{\Gamma}_{\overline{\alpha} \overline{\beta}}^{\overline{\gamma}} &= (\tilde{\Gamma}_{\alpha \beta}^{\gamma})^*\\ \tilde{\Gamma}_{\overline{0}\overline{\beta}}^{\overline{\gamma}} &= (\tilde{\Gamma}_{0\beta}^{\gamma})^*.\end{aligned}$$ [BHLS]{} O. Baues,  V. Cortés, *Realisation of special Kähler manifolds as parabolic spheres*, [[Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. **129** (2001), no. 8, 2403-2407](http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9939-00-05981-5)]{} M. Bershadsky, S. Cecotti, H. Ooguri, C. Vafa, *Kodaira-Spencer theory of gravity and exact results for quantum string amplitudes*, [[Communications in Mathematical Physics **165** 311–427](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02099774)]{}, [[hep-th/9309140](http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9309140)]{} V. Cortés, *On hyper-Kähler manifolds associated to Lagrangian Kähler submanifolds of $T^*C^n$*, [[Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. **350** (1998), 3193Ð3205](http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9947-98-02156-4)]{}. S. Cecotti, S. Ferrara, L. Girardello, *Geometry of type II superstrings and the moduli of superconformal field theories*, [[Int. J. Mod. Phys. A **4** (1989), 2475Ð2529](http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X89000972)]{}. K. Costello,  S. Li, *Quantum BCOV theory on Calabi-Yau manifolds and the higher genus B-model*, [[\[1201.4501 \[math.QA\]\]](http://arXiv.org/abs/1201.4501)]{} S. Cecotti, C. Vafa, *Topological-anti-topological fusion*, [[Nuclear Physics B **367**, 359–461](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(91)90021-O)]{} R. Dijkgraaf,  E. Verlinde, M. Vonk, *On The Partition Sum of The NS Five-Brane*, [[\[hep-th/0205281\]](http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0205281)]{} B. de Wit,  P. G. Lauwers,  R. Philippe,  Su S. -Q.,  A. Van Proeyen, *Gauge and matter fields coupled to $N = 2$ supergravity*, [[Phys. Lett. B **134** (1984) 37](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(84)90979-1)]{}. B. V. Fedosov, *Deformation quantization and asymptotic operator representation*, [[Functional Ananlysis and its Applications **25** (1991), 184–194](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01085488)]{}. B. V. Fedosov, *A simple geometrical construction of deformation quantization*, [J. Differential Geom. **40** (1994), 213–238](http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.jdg/1214455536). D. S. Freed, *Special Kähler Manifolds* [[hep-th/9712042](http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9712042)]{} S. J. Gates, *Superspace formulation of new non-linear sigma models*, [[J. Nucl. Phys. B **238** (1984), 349Ð366](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(84)90456-5)]{} M. A. Lledó,  Ó. Maciá,  A. Van Proeyen,  V. S. Varadarajan, *Special geometry for arbitrary signatures* in *Handbook of Pseudo-Riemannian Geometry and Supersymmetry*, Ed.  V. Cortés, [[IRMA Lectures in Mathematical and Theoretical Physics Vol. 16](http://dx.doi.org/10.4171/079)]{}, European Mathematical Society Publishing House. D. Mumford,  M. Nori,  P. Norman, *Tata Lectures on Theta III*, Progress in Mathematics Vol. 97 (1991), Birkhäuser Basel. A. Neitzke, J. Walcher, *Background Independence and the Open Topological String Wavefunction*, [[\[hep-th/0709.2390\]](http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0709.2390)]{} A. Strominger, *Special geometry*, [Comm. Math. Phys. **133** (1990) 163](http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.cmp/1104201320). N. Seiberg, E. Witten, *Electric-magnetic duality, monopole condensation, and confinement in N = 2 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory*, [[Nucl. Phys. B **430** (1994), 485Ð486](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(94)90124-4)]{}; Erratum, Nucl. Phys. B **430** (1994), 485Ð486, [[\[hep-th/9407087\]](http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9407087)]{}. N. Seiberg,  E. Witten, *Monopoles, duality and chiral symmetry breaking in N = 2 supersymmetric QCD*, [[Nucl. Phys. B **431** (1994), 484Ð550](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(94)90214-3)]{}, [[\[hep-th/9408099\]](http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9408099)]{}. G. Sierra,  P. K. Townsend, *An introduction to N = 2 rigid supersymmetry*, Super- symmetry and Supergravity, 1983 (B. Milewski, ed.), World Scientific, Singapore, 1983, p. 396. R. Weitzenböck, *Invariantentheorie*, Groningen: Noordhoff (1923), [Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Library 2005](http://name.umdl.umich.edu/ABV0733.0001.001). E. Witten, *Quantum Background Independence in String Theory*, [[\[hep-th/9306122\]](http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9306122)]{} B. de Wit,  A. Van Proeyen, *Potentials and symmetries of general gauged N = 2 supergravity-Yang-Mills models*, [[Nucl. Phys. B **245** (1984), 89Ð117](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(84)90425-5)]{}. [^1]: As classical mechanics should in principle be recovered from quantum mechanics, $\phi$ should be in some sense faithful, e.g. an immersion or even embedding. [^2]: Roughly speaking the requirement that the phase-space be symplectic replaces the notion that the quantization map $\phi$ should be “ faithful". [^3]: The more general case $M=\mathbb{R}^{2d}$ is then obtained in a straightforward fashion. [^4]: This space is also known as the space of rapidly decreasing sequences, which can be equipped with a Fréchet topology. [^5]: Recall that a connection that is both compatible with the symplectic form and torsion free is known as a symplectic connection, while if it is not torsion free it is called quasi-symplectic. [^6]: We will discuss normalization conditions shortly. [^7]: Of course this is valid only locally, however for parallelizable manifolds (e.g. Lie groups) this can hold globally. [^8]: Notice that for a conic special Kähler manifold, the gauge (\[canonalphaconic\]) is the same as canonical gauge (\[canonalpha\]). [^9]: This can obviously also be achieved for special Darboux patches in special Kähler manifolds.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'In this short note, we will prove a volume stability theorem which says that if an n-dimensional toric manifold $M$ admits a $\mathbb{T}^n$ invariant Kähler metric $\omega$ with Ricci curvature no less than $1$ and its volume is close to the volume of $\mathbb{CP}^n$, $M$ is bi-holomorphic to $\mathbb{CP}^n$.' author: - Wang Feng title: A volume stability theorem on toric manifolds with positive Ricci curvature --- **Introduction** ================ To understand the geometry of manifolds under various curvature conditions is a fundamental question. In Riemannian geometry, we have Bishop-Gromov’s volume comparison if the Ricci curvature of the manifold is bounded from below. Using this theorem and some techniques in comparison geometry, Colding proved the following result ([@5]): Given $\epsilon>0$, there exists $\delta = \delta(n,\epsilon) > 0$ such that, if an n-dimensional manifold $M$ has $\text{Ric}_M\geq n-1$ and $\text{Vol}(M)>\text{Vol}(\mathbb{S}^n)-\delta,$ then $d_{GH}(M,\mathbb{S}^n)<\epsilon$. Here $d_{GH}$ denotes the Gromov-Hausdorff distance between Riemannian manifolds. By another theorem of Colding (see the appendix in [@4]), we know that $M$ is in fact diffeomorphic to $\mathbb{S}^n$. It is a natural question that how to get a more useful version of Bishop-Gromov’s volume comparison theorem in Kähler geometry and how to state a theorem analogous to the above one. Because we have more structures on the manifold, the volume comparison with space form is not sharp: see [@8] for an improvement of local volume comparison for Kähler manifolds with Ricci curvature bounded from below. More recently, Berman and Berndtsson considered toric manifolds with positive Ricci curvature in [@2] and [@3], and they proved \[Thm-2\] Suppose that $(M,\omega)$ is smooth n-dimensional toric variety with $\mathbb{T}^n$ invariant Kähler form $\omega$ such that Ric $\omega\geq\omega$, then we have $$\begin{aligned} \text{Vol}(M)\leq\text{Vol}(\mathbb{CP}^n). \end{aligned}$$ In fact, their theorem holds if the manifold admits a $\mathbb{C}^*$ action with finite fixed points and the metric is $\mathbb{S}^1$ invariant (see [@3]). The theorem of Berman and Berndtsson partially answered a conjecture in [@10]: \[conj\] Any n-dimensional toric Fano manifold X that admits a Kähler-Einstein metric has anticanonical degree $(-K_X)^n \leq(n + 1)^n$, with equality only for $\mathbb{CP}^n$. In this short note, we will determine when the equality holds in Theorem \[Thm-2\] and in particular we give a complete answer to Conjecture \[conj\]. More precisely, we can prove a rigidity and stability theorem as follows: \[Thm-4\] The equality in Theorem \[Thm-2\] holds if and only if $(M,\omega)$ is isometric to $(\mathbb{CP}^n,\omega_{FS})$. Moreover, there exists a positive number $\epsilon$ which depends only on $n$ such that if $M$ is a toric manifold with a $\mathbb{T}^n$ invariant metric $\omega$ satisfying $\text{Ric }\omega\geq\omega$ and $$\begin{aligned} \text{Vol}(M)\geq(1-\epsilon)\text{Vol}(\mathbb{CP}^n),\end{aligned}$$ $M$ is bi-holomorphic to $\mathbb{CP}^n$. In [@3], Berman and Berndtsson applied a Moser-Trudinger typed inequality established in [@1] to prove Theorem \[Thm-2\] . But so far we can’t prove the rigidity using this analytic method. Inspired by the combinatoric proof by Bo’az Klartag for the Kähler-Einstein case in [@3], we will apply the Grunbaum’s inequality ([@7]) to prove our theorem. In order to use this inequality we should know the position of the barycenter of the moment polytope of $(M,\omega)$. We will use the Ricci curvature condition to achieve this. More detailed analysis gives us the rigidity and stability. **Acknowledgement**: The author is grateful to his advisor Professor Zhu Xiaohua for many helpful conversations. **Preliminaries** ================= At first, we give some basic materials of toric manifolds which are used in our proof. Here a toric manifold means a Kähler manifold $(M,\omega)$ containing $(\mathbb{C}^*)^n$ as a dense subset such that the standard action of $(\mathbb{C}^*)^n$ on itself extends to a holomorphic action on $M$. In general we suppose that the metric is $\mathbb{T}^n$ invariant and we can consider the moment map of $(M,\omega,\mathbb{T}^n)$. A polytope $P\subseteq\mathbb{R}^n$ is called a Delzant polytope if each vertex is contained in exactly n facets, and the normals of the n facets containing a given vertex form an integral basis of $\mathbb{Z}^n$. The image of the moment map above should be a Delzant polytope according to a theorem of Delzant ([@6]): Each Delzant polytope gives rise to a symplectic manifold $(M,\omega)$ with an action of $\mathbb{T}^n$ that preserves $\omega$, and all such symplectic manifolds arise this way. Using the embedding of $(\mathbb{C}^*)^n$ in $M$, we set: $$\begin{aligned} \iota:(\mathbb{C}^*)^n \rightarrow M,\\ \iota^*\omega=\sqrt{-1}\partial\bar{\partial}u.\end{aligned}$$. In toric coordinates: $\exp(x_i)=|z_i|^2 (z_i \text{ are holomorphic coordinates in }(\mathbb{C}^*)^n) $, the invariance of $\omega$ means $u$ is function of $x_i$. Then the image of $\nabla u=(\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_i})_{1\leq i\leq n}$ will be a moment map of $(M,\omega)$. Given a toric manifold $(M,\omega)$, two moment maps may differ by a constant vector. When we choose a basis of group $(\mathbb{C}^*)^n $, these two moment polytopes differ by a translation. A change of basis of group $(\mathbb{C}^*)^n$ corresponds to a change of the integral basis of $\mathbb{Z}^n$, so it transforms Delzant polytopes to Delzant polytopes. The polytope also changes if we choose another $\mathbb{T}^n$ invariant Kähler metric on $M$ with the same complex structure, i.e. we choose another symplectic form compatible with the fixed complex structure. This can be described in the following way: we denote the moment polytope by $$\begin{aligned} P=\{x| \langle l_i,x\rangle\geq \lambda_i, 1\leq i\leq N, x\in\mathbb{R}^n, l_i\in\mathbb{Z}^n, \lambda_i \in \mathbb{R}\}. \end{aligned}$$ Then only $\lambda_i$ $(1\leq i\leq n)$ change while $l_i$ $(1\leq i\leq n)$ remain the same since they are just related to the complex structure (see [@9][@11]). Using the description above, changing the symplectic form corresponds to changing the potential function $u$ on $\mathbb{R}^n$. When the manifold is a Fano variety with $\omega\in 2\pi c_1(M)$, we can get a moment polytope $P$ such that $\lambda_i$ are all equal to $-1$. It’s can be realized in the following way (see [@9]): choose a potential $u$ of $\omega$ such that $$\begin{aligned} |\ln\text{det}u_{ij}+u| \text{ is bounded in }\mathbb{R}^n, \end{aligned}$$ then the image of $\nabla u$ will be such a polytope $P$ with $\lambda_i=-1 (1\leq i\leq n)$. Because the normal vectors of the facets passing any point form an integral basis, we can do a coordinate transformation to change these vectors to the standard basis $e_k=(0,0,...,1,0,...0)$ with $1$ placed at position $k$. We can write this transformation as follows: choosing a vertex $p\in P$ with $l_i (1\leq i\leq n)$ as normal vectors of the facets passing $p$, we can form an affine map: $$\begin{aligned} x\mapsto (\langle l_i,x\rangle)_{1\leq i\leq n}, \end{aligned}$$ which transforms $p$ to $(-1,-1,...,-1)$ and the polytope to $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{P}=\{x| \langle \tilde{l}_i,x\rangle\geq -1, 1\leq i\leq N, x\in\mathbb{R}^n, \tilde{l}_i\in\mathbb{Z}^n, \tilde{l}_k=e_k, 1\leq k\leq n \}.\end{aligned}$$There are only finite many such polytopes in a given dimension. According to Mabuchi’s theorem ([@9]), we know that for a Kähler-Einstein manifold, the origin is the barycenter of $P$. We will prove a similar property of the barycenter of the moment map of a toric manifold admitting $\omega$ with $\text{Ric }\omega\geq\omega$. **Proof of the theorem** ======================== At first we give a lemma which deals with the volume of some specific kind of polytopes. Let $Q$ be the simplex spanned by $$\begin{aligned} (n+1,0,0,...,0),(0,n+1,0,0,...,0),...,(0,0,...,0,n+1). \end{aligned}$$ Recall that the Grunbaum’s inequality ([@7]) says that if $P$ is a convex body, and $K$ denotes the intersection of $P$ with an affine half-space defined by one side of a hyperplane $H$ passing through the barycenter of $P$, then $$\begin{aligned} \text{Vol}(P)\leq(\frac{n+1}{n})^n\text{Vol}(K).\end{aligned}$$ Let $F$ denote the simplex spanned by $(n,0,0,...,0),(0,n,0,0,...,0),...,(0,0,...,0,n)$. We have the following lemma. If the barycenter of a polytope $P$ in the first quadrant lies inside $F$, $$\begin{aligned} \text{Vol}(P)\leq\text{Vol}(Q).\end{aligned}$$ Moreover if the equality holds, $P$ is coincident with $Q.$ The first statement can be seen from Grunbaum’s theorem above: the corresponding $K\subseteq F$. For the second statement, let $X=P\diagdown Q, Y=Q\diagdown P$ and choose a coordinate system $s_i$ with the barycenter as the origin and $(1,1,...,1)$ as the first axis. Then we have $$\begin{aligned} \int_Ps_1dV\leq\int_Qs_1 dV=0, \int_Xs_1dV\leq\int_Ys_1 dv. \end{aligned}$$ But since $$\begin{aligned} s_1(x)\geq s_1(y) \text{ for } x\in X \text{ and }y\in Y, \end{aligned}$$ both $X$ and $Y$ should be empty. In order to apply this lemma to the moment polytope $P$ of $(M,\omega)$, we should know how to place $P$ and where the barycenter is. We are going to use the toric structure on $M$ and explore the Ricci curvature condition. Under the condition of theorem\[Thm-4\], we can write $\text{Ric }\omega=\omega+\beta$ where $\beta$ is a semi-positive 1-1 form. In $(\mathbb{C}^*)^n$, we can choose $u$ such that $\omega=\sqrt{-1}\partial\bar{\partial} u.$ In toric coordinates: $|z_i|^2=\exp(x_i)$, we set: $$\begin{aligned} v=-\ln\text{det} u_{ij}-u.\end{aligned}$$ Using the formula of Ricci curvature and $\frac{\partial^2u}{\partial z_i\partial\bar{ z_j}}=\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x_i\partial x_j}\frac{1}{z_i}\frac{1}{\bar{z_j}}$, we see that $$\begin{aligned} \sqrt{-1}\partial\bar{\partial}v=\text{Ric }\omega-\omega=\beta.\end{aligned}$$ As $\beta$ is semi-positive, $v$ is a convex function. From the following equalities: $$\begin{aligned} \ln\text{det}(u+v)_{ij}+u+v=\ln\text{det}(u+v)_{ij}-\ln\text{det} u_{ij}=\ln\frac{(\text{Ric }\omega)^n}{\omega^n}, \end{aligned}$$ we know that $\ln\text{det}(u+v)_{ij}+u+v$ is bounded, so $\nabla (u+v)$ will be a moment map of $(M,\text{Ric }\omega)$. Denote the image of $\nabla (u+v)$ by $L$. As illustrated in section 2, we can suppose that $(-1,-1,...,-1)$ is a vertex of $L$ and the facets passing it are parallel to coordinate hyperplanes repectively: $$\begin{aligned} L=\{y| \langle l_i,y\rangle\geq -1, 1\leq i\leq N, y\in\mathbb{R}^n, l_i\in\mathbb{Z}^n, l_k=e_k, 1\leq k\leq n \}. \end{aligned}$$ The gradient of $u$ will a moment of $(M, \omega)$. We denote the image of $\nabla u$ by $P$. Without changing $u+v$, we can add a linear function to $u$ and subtract the same one from $v$. This corresponds to a translation of $P$. As we have said above, $P$ can be obtained from $L$ by parallel movement of the facets. So we can translate $P$ so that $(-1,-1,...,-1)$ is a vertex of $P$ and the facets passing this vertex are parallel to coordinate hyperplanes like $L$: $$\begin{aligned} P=\{y| \langle l_i,y\rangle\geq \lambda_i, 1\leq i\leq N, y\in\mathbb{R}^n, l_i\in\mathbb{Z}^n, l_k=e_k, \lambda_k=-1, 1\leq k\leq n \}. \end{aligned}$$ Such a pair of polytopes $(P,L)$ is called an adapted pair of $(M,\omega)$. For an adapted pair $(P,L)$, the coordinates of the barycenter of $P$ are all nonpositive. $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{x_i\rightarrow-\infty}\frac{\partial v}{\partial x_i}=\lim_{x_i\rightarrow-\infty}\frac{\partial (u+v)}{\partial x_i}-\lim_{x_i\rightarrow-\infty}\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_i}=(-1)-(-1)=0 \end{aligned}$$ $\text{ for any }i \text{ and fixed } x_j ( 1\leq j\leq n, j\neq i)$. Because $v$ is convex function we know that all the partial derivatives of $v$ are nonnegative. Denote the coordinates of the barycenter by $a_i$, we have u\_[ij]{}=exp(-u-v), 0, a\_i=\_Py\_idV=\_[R\^n]{}u\_[ij]{}dx \_[R\^n]{}exp(-u-v)dx=0.& The last inequality is the statement of the lemma. Using the notations above, we do a translation which moves $(-1,-1,...,-1)$ to the origin. Then $P$ will be a polytope inside the first quadrant with barycenter inside $F$ by the second lemma. The rigidity follows from this together with the assumption that $\text{Vol}(P)=\text{Vol}(Q)$ by the first lemma. Now we consider the stability. Suppose the statement doesn’t hold, then there is a sequence of manifolds $(M_i,\omega_i)(i=1,2,3...)$ with volume converging to $\text{Vol}(\mathbb{CP}^n)$ and none of them is holomorphic to $\mathbb{CP}^n$. Construct adapted pairs $(P_i,L_i)$ of $(M_i,\omega_i)(i=1,2,3...)$. Because there are only finitely many such $L$, one of them appears infinitely times. We denote it by $B$ and select these $P_i$ corresponding to $B$. These $P_i$ as moment polytopes of different symplectic classes can be obtained from $B$ by parallel movement of $B$’s facets of towards the interior. So $P_i$ can be determined by $N$ real numbers $\lambda_i$ such that $n$ of them are always $-1$. This gives us a correspondence: $$\begin{aligned} P_i \leftrightarrow \lambda^{(i)} \in\mathbb{R}^{N-n}. \end{aligned}$$ Because $P_i$ are inside $B$, these vectors in $\mathbb{R}^{N-n}$ are bounded. We can choose a convergent subsequence, and the limit corresponds to a polytope $P_\infty$. $\text{Vol}(P_\infty)=\text{Vol}(Q)$ and the coordinates of the barycenter of $P_\infty$ are all nonpositive. According to the first lemma, $P_\infty$ should be isomorphic to $Q$ by a translation. We are going to show that $B=P_\infty$: Since $P_i\subseteq B$, we have $P_\infty\subseteq B$. If $P_\infty\varsubsetneqq B$, the integral points in the interior of the facet of $P_\infty$ opposite $(-1,-1,...,-1)$ will be contained in the interior of $B$. But there is only one integral point in the interior of $B$, so we must have $B=P_\infty$. We assumed that $M_i$ are not holomorphic to $\mathbb{CP}^n$, but now $B$ just differs from $Q$ by a translation. It follows that these $M_i$ are all holomorphic to $\mathbb{CP}^n$. It’s a contradiction, so our theorem is proved. [99]{} Berman, R.J. and Berndtsson, B., Moser-Trudinger type inequalities for complex Monge-Ampère operators and Aubin¡¯s ¡°hypothèse fondamentale¡±, arXiv:1109.1263. Berman, R.J. and Berndtsson, B., The projective space has maximal volume among all toric Käler-Einstein manifolds, arXiv:1112.4445. Berman, R.J. and Berndtsson, B., The volume of Kähler-Einstein Fano varieties and convex bodies, arXiv:1204.1308. Cheeger, J and Colding, T., On the structure of spaces with Ricci curvature bounded below I, J. Differential Geometry, 45(1997), 406-480. Colding, T., Shape of manifolds with positive Ricci curvature, Inventiones Mathematicae, Volume 124, Numbers 1-3 (1996), 175-191. Delzant, T., Hamiltoniens périodiques et image convex de l¡¯application moment, Bull. Soc.Math. France, 116 (1988), 315-339. Grunbaum, B., Partitions of mass-distributions and of convex bodies by hyperplanes, Pacific J. Math., Vol. 10, (1960), 1257-1261. Liu, G., Kahler manifolds with Ricci curvature lower bound, arXiv:1108.4232. Mabuchi, T., Einstein¨CKähler forms, Futaki invariants and convex geometry on toric Fano varieties, Osaka Journal of Mathematics 24 (1987), 705¨C737. Nill, B and Paffenholz, A., Examples of non-symmetric Käler-Einstein toric Fano manifolds, Beiträge zur Algebra und Geometrie/Contributions to Algebra and Geometry, October 2011, Volume 52, Issue 2, pp 297-304. Oda, T., Convex bodies and algebraic geometry-an introduction to the theory of toric varieties, Springer-Vergla, 1988. Department of Mathematical Science, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China. Email address: [email protected]

ArXiv

--- abstract: | The High Energy Stereoscopic System (H.E.S.S.) is an array of five imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes. Since 2003 it has been operating in the configuration of four 12m telescopes complemented in 2012 by a much bigger 28m telescope in the centre of the array. It is designed to detect very high energy (VHE) gamma-rays in the range of $\sim 20$GeV to $\sim50$TeV. Over the past decade it performed extremely successful observations of the Galactic plane, which led to the discovery of about 70 sources amongst which the most numerous classes are pulsar wind nebulae, supernova remnants and binary systems. Recently  also discovered the VHE emission from the Vela pulsar, which became the second pulsar detected at TeV energies after the Crab pulsar. An overview of the main  discoveries in our Galaxy and their implications on the understanding of physical processes is discussed in this paper.\ [**Key words:**]{} H.E.S.S., gamma-ray astronomy, Galactic sources\ author: - '*I. Sushch$^{1,2}$[^1], for the H.E.S.S. Collaboration*' title: '**The Galactic sky through H.E.S.S. eyes**' --- [\[.2cm\]\[.2cm\]]{} [\[.2cm\]\[.2cm\]]{} [$^{1}$Centre for Space Research, North-West University, 11 Hoffman Street, 2531, Potchefstroom, South Africa\ $^{2}$Astronomical Observatory of Ivan Franko National University of L’viv, vul. Kyryla i Methodia, L’viv, Ukraine\ ]{} [2]{} introduction {#introduction .unnumbered} ============ Over the past decade, very high energy (VHE; $E>100$GeV) gamma-ray astronomy has become one of the most popular and fast-developing branches of the observational science and a driver of theoretical models in several topical areas of modern astrophysics and cosmology. The current generation of imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes (, VERITAS and MAGIC) represent a breakthrough, opening up a window to the previously largely unexplored VHE Universe and its mysteries. An incredibly successful period of operation of these ground-based instruments resulted in detection of more than 100 VHE gamma-ray sources[^2]. This remarkable scientific breakthrough would not be possible without the High Energy Stereoscopic System (H.E.S.S.), which played a major role in the opening of the field of gamma-ray astronomy, becoming the main instrument in the southern hemisphere.  is an array of five imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes located in the Khomas Highland of Namibia at an altitude of 1800m above sea level . During the summer of 2012 the array of the first four 12m telescopes was completed with the addition of a much larger 28m telescope in the centre of the array. This upgrade expanded the energy coverage of the instrument down to $\sim 20$GeV and increased the system’s sensitivity. For the epoch of the I observations (four telescope array), the sources in our Galaxy can be summarised in the   Galactic Plane Survey (HGPS; Fig.\[hgps\_fig\]) combining the data collected during the period starting from 2004 to 2013 [@HGPS]. The total of roughly 2800 hours of high quality observations in the Galactic longitude range of $250^{\circ}$ to $65^{\circ}$ and Galactic latitude range $\lvert b \rvert < 3.5^{\circ}$ are included in the survey. The HGPS reveals the diverse population of cosmic accelerators in the Galaxy resulting in the catalogue of 77 VHE sources. This includes 13 complex sources (Supernova Remnants, SNRs, and Galactic centre region) which were excluded from the analysis pipeline. Only sources with $\mathrm{TS}>25$ were included in the catalogue[^3]. The data analysis was performed for the energy range of $0.2-100$TeV. The catalogue comprises 12 pulsar wind nebulae (PWNe), 6 SNRs, 6 composite objects and 3 binary systems (Fig.\[class\_pie\]). Fifty sources remain unidentified, mainly due to multiple associations, but also due to the lack of counterparts at other wavebands. Five new sources were discovered in the HGPS: HESSJ1813$-$126, HESSJ1826$-$130, HESSJ1828$-$099, HESSJ1832$-$085, and HESSJ1844$-$030. Most of these sources were not detected before due to their proximity to the other, more extended  sources, and only a highly increased amount of data allowed one to discriminate them from their companions. Some of these new sources are coincident with the known pulsars, which suggests that they might be PWNe. HESSJ1844-030 is coincident with the catalogued SNR G29.4+0.1. [2]{} Beyond our Galaxy, more than 30 sources were discovered and associated with active galactic nuclei (AGNi). This population is dominated by the blazars of the BL Lacertae type. The observational strategy of  has been evolving over the years. During the first years of operation, H.E.S.S. was opening a new field of gamma-ray astronomy, discovering many new sources. Each new detection was treated as a major discovery, but in many cases limited exposure did not allow deep studies of the spectrum and morphology of the source. However, in recent years with the continuously growing population of gamma-ray sources, scientific priorities had shifted towards the better understanding of the nature of the gamma-ray emission from these sources. This led to deeper observations of specific objects in attempt to reveal and explain the physical processes generating VHE emission. The detection of numerous sources belonging to one class of objects (PWNe, SNRs, AGNi) allowed for population studies, which led to the investigation of common properties of sources of the same class. The goal of this paper is to give an overview of the current status of the Galactic sky as seen with H.E.S.S. with an emphasis on the recent results obtained during the last few years. Note that some of the results discussed here are preliminary results which were presented for the first time at the 34th Internation Cosmic Ray Conference in summer of 2015. For the most recent review of the  Galactic sky please consult [@2013AdSpR..51..258D], and for the most recent reviews of the VHE gamma-ray astronomy see, e.g., [@2014BrJPh..44..450H; @2013FrPhy...8..714R]. supernova remnants {#supernova-remnants .unnumbered} ================== Supernova remnants are the remains of the supernova explosions of massive stars at the end of their evolution. As a result of this explosion the outer layers of the star are blown off into the surrounding medium, heating it up. The expansion of the SNR into the medium creates a shock wave at which particles (electrons and protons) can be accelerated to extremely high energies. The theory of diffusive shock acceleration at shock fronts [@1983RPPh...46..973D] predicts the generation of accelerated particle populations in SNRs which, interacting in turn with ambient photon fields (electrons) or ambient matter (protons), can produce VHE gamma rays (see e.g. [@1970RvMP...42..237B]). SNRs are the second most numerous class of VHE gamma-ray Galactic sources. Approximately 50 gamma-ray sources detected in the  Galactic Plane Survey (HGPS) are spatially coincident with SNRs detected in radio and higher frequency observations. However, the VHE emission can firmly be associated with SNRs for only 7  sources: RXJ0852-4622 (Vela Jr.) , RXJ1713.7-3946 , RCW86 [@2009ApJ...692.1500A], SN1006[^4] , G323.7-01.0[^5] [@HGPS], G353.6$-$0.7 , and W28 . All except the last one are shell-type SNRs with a resolved shell-like TeV morphology. For RCW86 the TeV shell was resolved only recently in a detailed morphology study which benefited from significantly improved statistics compared with the discovery paper [@RCW86_proc]. G353.6$-$0.7 (or HESSJ1731$-$347) is the first SNR discovered serendipitously in VHE gamma-rays and only later confirmed by radio and X-ray observations [@2008ApJ...679L..85T; @2010ApJ...712..790T]. A new TeV shell-like source HESSJ1534$-$571 (Fig.\[j1534\]) was detected recently in the HGPS [@HGPS] coincident with the radio SNR G323.7-1.0 and thus firmly identified as SNR [@2015arXiv150903872P]. Moreover, there are several other SNR candidates (with resolved TeV shell-like morphology) with the most prominent example being HESSJ1912$+$101  (Fig.\[j1912\]). These, however, cannot be firmly identified as SNRs due to the lack of SNR counterparts at other wavelengths [@2015arXiv150903872P]. Unfortunately, the TeV data alone are unable to firmly identify the shell-like source as an SNR as there are other astrophysical objects that potentially may appear shell-like while being potential TeV gamma-ray emitters, such as superbubbles or wind-blown cavities into which hadronic particles are diffusing [@2015arXiv150903872P]. The list of shell-type SNRs detected at TeV energies can be completed by the sources detected in the northern sky by VERITAS and MAGIC — CasA , Tycho [@2011ApJ...730L..20A], and IC443 [@2009ApJ...698L.133A; @2007ApJ...664L..87A]. However, only for IC443 could the TeV shell recently be resolved [@IC443_humensky]. The most important question, which studies of the VHE emission from SNRs are expected to be able to answer, pertains to the origin of the Galactic cosmic rays. Galactic cosmic rays are believed to be mainly produced at the shocks of SNRs via acceleration of protons and electrons. When accelerated to very high energies, electrons and protons can in turn generate VHE gamma-rays via inverse Compton scattering on ambient photon fields and the bremsstrahlung process (electrons) and proton-proton interactions (protons). Cosmic rays consist of 99% protons, thus any evidence of hadronic nature of the detected gamma-ray emission from SNRs can be treated as an indirect confirmation of the hypothesis that the Galactic cosmic rays originate in SNRs. The spectral shape of the most of TeV SNRs can be described with both leptonic and hadronic scenarios with a slight preference for the leptonic one. This is not quite surprising as, usually SNRs expand into a rather rarefied medium created by their progenitor stars. However, for several examples in cases where SNRs interact with molecular clouds with much higher matter density, the hadronic scenario is much more preferable. This appear to be the case for such sources as e.g. IC443 [@2009ApJ...698L.133A; @2013Sci...339..807A; @2007ApJ...664L..87A],  SNR W28 , and the GeV SNR detected by  W44 [@2013Sci...339..807A]. Usually these are middle-aged SNRs which feature an escape of high-energy particles which then interact with molecular clouds producing VHE gamma-rays. The spatial offset of the gamma-ray emission region compared to the emission region at lower energies provides evidence for particle escape. Such detections of the SNRs interacting with molecular clouds are the first direct indications of the effective proton acceleration at SNR shocks. Detection of TeV SNRs (or SNR candidates) which do not have counterparts at X-ray energies (such as HESSJ1912$+$101) becomes an important method to trace hadronic dominated SNRs. Lack of non-thermal X-ray emission suggests insufficient amounts of high energy electrons, and thus the gamma-ray emission from such sources can hardly be explained in the leptonic scenario. The focus of  observations on specific sources led to very detailed studies of a number of objects including some SNRs. One of the most remarkable examples is RXJ1713.7-3946. New measurements based on $\sim150$h of observations benefit from improvement in the exposure by factors of 2 (sky maps) to 4 (spectra) over the previous measurements [@j1713_proc]. This improvement allows spectral and morphology studies of unprecedented precision, leading to detailed, spatially dependent studies of the SNR. The angular resolution of better than $0.05^{\circ}$ allows one to perform a detailed investigation of the morphological differences between the TeV and X-ray emission, yielding remarkable results. For the first time in TeV gamma-ray astronomy, VHE data allow one to construct the maps of physical parameters such as magnetic field. The magnetic field map obtained for RXJ1713.7-3946 (Fig.\[j1713\_Bmap\]) shows that this quantity is very variable across the remnant. A comparison of the TeV and X-ray radial profiles shows that the TeV shell is extended beyond the X-ray shell which may point either to particle escape or to a complicated configuration of the magnetic field [@j1713_proc]. In any case these high-precision measurements show how the VHE gamma-ray astronomy can probe acceleration regions and open up new prospects for studies. More than 300 SNRs are detected at radio frequencies, of which about 250 fall into the region of the HGPS, but only $\sim50$ are coincident with VHE sources. This underdetection of SNRs at TeV energies motivated an SNR population study [@SNRpop_proc] providing flux upper limits for 124 sources. The study showed a clear correlation between VHE flux to radio flux ratio and source age. This kind of study might be very useful for future observations of SNR with the Cherenkov Telescope Array (CTA). pulsars {#pulsars .unnumbered} ======= Pulsars are rapidly rotating and highly magnetised neutron stars created as a result of supernovae explosions. They are surrounded by a rotating magnetosphere and feature relativistic outflows. Pulsars emit pulsed emission at all wavelengths and although they were primarily detected at radio frequencies (with $\sim2500$ radio pulsars detected so far), most of their radiation is believed to be emitted at high energies via curvature radiation of charged particles (electrons and positrons) accelerated in the electromagnetic field of the pulsar. This is supported by a rapid increase of pulsar detections at GeV energies in recent years thanks to the new sensitive instruments  and AGILE, with numbers reaching now more than 150 objects [@2013ApJS..208...17A]. The energy spectra of most of the gamma-ray pulsars can be well described by an exponentially cut-off power law, $E^{-\Gamma}\exp\left[-\left(E/E_{\mathrm{cut}}\right)^b\right]$, with $b\leq1$ and cut-off energy $E_{\mathrm{cut}}$ typically between 1 and 10GeV [@2013ApJS..208...17A]. A sub-exponential cut-off supports models of gamma-ray production in the outer magnetopshere, excluding a polar cap model for which a super-exponential cut-off ($b>1$) is expected. The extrapolation of pulsar spectra detected by  to higher energies reveals a dramatic decrease of the gamma-ray flux beyond $10$GeV, which makes the detection of pulsars at energies $\gtrsim100$GeV with current ground-based instruments very unlikely. However, quite surprisingly, the first detection of the Crab pulsar above $25$GeV by MAGIC [@2008Sci...322.1221A] with the flux consistent with the extrapolation of  spectrum was followed by further detections of pulsed gamma-ray emission, first up to 250GeV by VERITAS [@2011Sci...334...69V], and later up to 400GeV by MAGIC . The nature of this emission is still not understood with several explanations being suggested, such as inverse Compton upscattering of the magnetospheric X-ray emission by the pulsar wind electrons [@2012Natur.482..507A] or the IC emission of secondary electrons in the outer magnetosphere [@2012ApJ...754...33L; @2006MNRAS.366.1310T]. Recently 320h of observations allowed MAGIC to extend the spectrum up to $\sim2$TeV [@crabmagic_proc], providing a further support for the IC models. However, VERITAS (with 194h of observations) did not confirm this result, revealing a firm detection of the pulsed emission only up to 400GeV [@2015arXiv150807268N]. One of the major science objectives for the new 28m H.E.S.S. telescope was to pursue the pulsar observation program, providing more information for the understanding of the nature of the pulsed VHE radiation. The principal source chosen for this purpose was the Vela pulsar, the brightest source in the high energy gamma-ray sky with a hint of pulsed emission above 20GeV observed using the  data. The data was taken only with the 28m telescope, in the monoscopic way, providing a firm detection of the pulsed radiation in the energy band from $20$GeV to 120GeV, establishing a second VHE pulsar [@velapulsaar_proc]. pulsar wind nebulae {#pulsar-wind-nebulae .unnumbered} =================== The electron-positron plasma ejected from energetic pulsars in the form of relativistic winds carries most of the rotational energy of the pulsars. The pulsar wind interacting with the ambient medium terminates at a standing shock where particles can be efficiently accelerated. Accelerated leptons can interact with the magnetic field and low-energy photon fields, generating non-thermal emission from radio frequencies to energies as high as $100$TeV. This results in the formation of a synchrotron nebula around the pulsar seen in radio to X-rays and more extended IC nebula at GeV and TeV energies. Pulsar wind nebulae appear to be the most effective gamma-ray emitters in the Galaxy, forming the most numerous class of VHE gamma-ray Galactic objects. The list of 12 firmly identified VHE PWNe detected in the HGPS can be completed by 6 PWNe outside the HGPS and about one third of the 50 unidentified sources which are coincident with young powerful pulsars. TeV PWNe detected by  can naturally be divided into two classes based on their morphology, which in turn serves as an indication of the pulsar age. Young PWNe such as the Crab Nebula , G0.9$+$0.1 , G21.5$-$0.9 [@2008ICRC....2..823D], etc., are generally detected as compact and unresolved objects. In such systems the TeV emission region is coincident with the associated young high spindown luminosity pulsar and is compatible with the X-ray emission region. Older PWNe, such as VelaX , HESSJ1825-137  and HESSJ1303-631 , show much more complicated morphologies, with the TeV emission regions much larger than the X-ray emission regions and pulsars significantly offset from the centre of the nebula. The larger size of the VHE PWN comparing to the X-ray one can be explained by synchrotron cooling of very energetic electrons. Very energetic electrons producing the X-ray emission via synchrotron radiation undergo strong radiative losses and lose their energy relatively fast. At the same time, electrons need less energy to produce TeV emission via IC scattering. These electrons suffer less from radiative cooling and therefore can survive longer and in greater number. This scenario was supported by the detailed energy-dependent morphology studies in HESSJ1825-137 and HESSJ1303-631. Steepening of the spectrum with the distance from the pulsar detected in HESSJ1825-137 (Fig.\[j1825\]) clearly indicates the radiative cooling of electrons and gives an insight into the PWN evolution, allowing one to look into older epoches. Similarly, the energy-dependent morphology study of HESSJ1303-631 showed that the emission region “shrinks” towards the position of the pulsar with the increase of the energy threshold (Fig.\[j1303\]). The offset of the pulsar can be explained by the proper motion of the pulsar due to the initial kick obtained in the supernova explosion and/or by the destruction of a part of the nebula by the reverse shock of an SNR. The latter is believed to be the case for the PWN of Vela pulsar, VelaX. North-eastern and south-western sides of the Vela SNR are believed to be expanding into the media with different particle densities  which leads to faster formation of the reverse shock on the side with higher density [@2001ApJ...563..806B]. Therefore it is possible that on one side the reverse shock has already reached the PWN while on the other side they still did not interact. From the beginning of the VHE astronomy era,  detected many so-called “dark” sources. These are the sources detected only at TeV energies without counterparts at radio or X-ray energies. A majority of these sources are significantly extended, and a lot of them are coincident with energetic pulsars. It has been suggested recently that a substantial fraction of these “dark accelerators” might be the evolved PWNe [@2009arXiv0906.2644D]. It was shown that the magnetic field in PWNe decreases with time, hence leading to the suppression of the synchrotron emission, while the IC emission increases with time until most of the pulsar spindown energy is transferred to the nebula. One of the best examples of previously “dark” emitters which were identified as PWNe is HESSJ1303$-$631. Its identification as a PWN was based on the energy-dependent morphology which indicated the association with the pulsar PSRJ1301$-$6305 and on the subsequent detection of the X-ray counterpart . The source was subsequently detected at GeV energies by , exhibiting a similar morphology as at TeV energies with a larger emission region [@2013ApJ...773...77A]. Recent dedicated radio observations with ATCA did not reveal any significant extended emission associated with the pulsar, but a shell-like structure, possibly an SNR, was detected in the field of view [@2015arXiv150901427S]. In case it is an SNR, it might be the birth place of the pulsar. A large sample of identified TeV PWNe and a comparable amount of PWN candidates detected only in the TeV range motivated the population study of these objects [@2013arXiv1307.7905K; @pwnpop]. For the first time the HGPS also allows for the extraction of flux upper limits from the regions around pulsars without detected TeV emission. All this information allows for a systematic investigation of the evolution of parameters such as luminosity and extension over $\sim10^5$ years after the birth of the pulsar. Population studies reveal some trends in the evolution of PWNe, such as a decrease of spin-down luminsity with age, expansion of PWNe with time and the fading of old PWNe, but there are also sources which exhibit large variations from the average behaviour, which are likely due to the diversity of ambient media and intrinsic initial conditions. gamma-ray binaries {#gamma-ray-binaries .unnumbered} ================== Gamma-ray binaries comprise a relatively small class of VHE sources consisting only of 5 objects. Binary systems are variable sources consisting of a massive star and a compact object such as a black hole or a pulsar. The TeV emission in these systems is believed to originate from the interaction between the two objects, either in the accretion-powered jet, or in the shock between the pulsar wind and the stellar wind. The five binaries detected at TeV energies are PSRB1259$-$63/LS 2883 , LS5039, HESSJ0632$+$057 , LSI$+$61303 [@2008ApJ...679.1427A; @2006Sci...312.1771A], and HESSJ1018$-$589 (1FGL1018.6$-$5856) . HESSJ0632$+$057 is the first binary primarily discovered at TeV energies [@2009ApJ...690L.101H] and the only one which can be observed in both the northern and southern sky. HESSJ1018$-$589 is a new member of the class of the TeV gamma-ray binaries. Recently, re-observations of this point-like source, coincident with the high-energy binary 1FGL1018.6$-$5856 detected by  [@2010ApJS..188..405A], revealed its variability at TeV energies . The consistency of the TeV light curve of the source with the GeV and X-ray light curves (Fig.\[j1018lc\]) confirms the association of HESSJ1018$-$589 with 1FGL1018.6$-$5856. The only TeV binary for which the nature of the compact object is well known is PSRB1259$-$63/LS2883. It consists of a pulsar orbiting a Be star in a very eccentric orbit ($e=0.87$) with a period of $3.4$ years. Since the start of  operation, the periastron passage in the system has occurred four times, in 2004 , 2007 , 2010 , and 2014 [@2015arXiv150903090R], thoroughly observed by each time. In 2014, the source was visible for the first time directly at the periastron crossing and also for the first time it was possible to observe the source both before and after the periastron passage. This allowed for the confirmation of the light curve shape obtained from the combined observation of three previous periastron passages, showing that it does not change from orbit to orbit. VHE observations show no emission far from periastron and a complex light curve at the periastron passage exhibiting two peaks, before and after periastron (Fig.\[psrb1259lc\]). The TeV flux variability has a similar shape as the X-ray and radio emission, featuring peaks at the same orbital phases. The nature of the VHE emission can be explained as IC radiation within the pulsar-wind stellar-wind scenario. The shape of the light curve is not well understood yet, but it is believed that pre- and post-periastron peaks are related to the location of the equatorial circumstellar disk of the Be star which the pulsar crosses twice each orbit. At GeV energies, however, [PSRB1259$-$63/LS2883]{} shows a completely different behaviour, displaying a remarkable post-periastron flare which is time-shifted with respect to the post-periastron peak at other wavebands [@2011ApJ...736L..11A; @2015arXiv150801339C; @2011ApJ...736L..10T; @2015ApJ...798L..26T]. First detected around the 2010 periastron passage, the flare then re-appeared with a slightly lower flux at the same orbital phase during the 2014 periastron passage, revealing a periodic behaviour of this phenomenon. Apart from the flare, GeV observations around 2010 periastron passage also showed a faint detection close to periastron [@2011ApJ...736L..11A; @2011ApJ...736L..10T] which, however, was not confirmed during the 2014 passage [@2015arXiv150801339C; @2015ApJ...798L..26T]. The nature of the flare is still not understood. Several explanations for this have been suggested (see e.g. ), but each has its limitations. In 2014, the source was for the first time observed in the II phase, exploiting the new 28m telescope. The data collected with II allowed for the extention of the spectrum down to $200$GeV, resulting in a spectrum harder than during previous periastrons [@2015arXiv150903090R]. New observations also revealed a rather high flux from the source 50 days after periastron during the period overlaping with the GeV flare. Although these results are still preliminary and careful data analysis is still ongoing, this new information may inspire new efforts towards a better understanding of the unexpected GeV flare. summary {#summary .unnumbered} ======= This paper discusses only those results from the Galactic VHE gamma-ray astronomy that are the most recent and the most interesting according to the admittedly biased opinion of the author. Other VHE gamma-ray astronomy discoveries go far beyond our own Galaxy – e.g. detecting galactic sources in the Large Magelanic Cloud and observing active galactic nuclei up to $z\sim1$. Among the other targets of the gamma-ray astronomy is the search for the dark matter annihilation. The remarkable results achieved over the last decade in the field of the VHE gamma-ray astronomy exceeded all expectations, providing a massive boost to the development of theoretical studies in the fields of particle acceleration and radiation processes. The importance of gamma-ray astronomy was highly recognised by the scientific community, resulting in the development of new projects, such as CTA and HAWC, which will further increase the sensitivity and resolution of the gamma-ray observations thereby providing deep insights into a number of physical problems. [79]{} [ AbdoA.A., AckermannM., AjelloM. et al. 2010, ApJS, 188, 405 AbdoA.A., AckermannM., AjelloM. et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, L11 AbdoA.A., AjelloM., AllafortA. et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 17 Abramowski A., Acero F., Aharonian F. et al. 2011, A&A, 531, A81 Abramowski A., Acero F., Aharonian F. et al. 2012, A&A, 548, A38 AcciariV.A., AliuE., ArlenT. et al. 2009, ApJ, 698, L133 AcciariV.A., AliuE., ArlenT. et al. 2010, ApJ, 714, 163 AcciariV.A., AliuE., ArlenT. et al. 2011, ApJ, 730, L20 AcciariV.A., BeilickeM., BlaylockG. et al. 2008, ApJ, 679, 1427 AceroF., AckermannM., AjelloM. etal. 2013, ApJ, 773, 77 AceroF., AharonianF., AkhperjanianA.G. et al. 2010, A&A, 516, A62 AckermannM., AjelloM., AllafortA. et al. 2013, Science, 339, 807 AharonianF., AkhperjanianA.G., AntonG. et al. 2009, A&A, 507, 389 AharonianF.A., AkhperjanianA.G., AyeK.-M. et al. 2004, Nature, 432, 75 AharonianF., AkhperjanianA.G., AyeK.-M. et al. 2005, A&A, 432, L25 AharonianF., AkhperjanianA.G., AyeK.-M. et al. 2005, A&A, 439, 1013 AharonianF., AkhperjanianA.G., AyeK.-M. et al. 2005, A&A, 442, 1 AharonianF., AkhperjanianA.G., Barres de AlmeidaU. et al. 2008, A&A, 484, 435 AharonianF., AkhperjanianA., BarrioJ. et al. 2001, A&A, 370, 112 AharonianF., AkhperjanianA.G., Bazer-BachiA.R. et al. 2005, A&A, 437, L7 AharonianF.A., AkhperjanianA.G., Bazer-BachiA.R. et al. 2005, A&A, 442, L25 AharonianF., AkhperjanianA.G., Bazer-BachiA.R. et al. 2006, A&A, 448, L43 AharonianF., AkhperjanianA.G., Bazer-BachiA.R. et al. 2006, A&A, 449, 223 AharonianF., AkhperjanianA.G., Bazer-BachiA.R. et al. 2006, A&A, 457, 899 AharonianF., AkhperjanianA.G., Bazer-BachiA.R. et al. 2006, A&A, 460, 365 AharonianF., AkhperjanianA.G., Bazer-BachiA.R. et al. 2007, A&A, 464, 235 AharonianF.A., AkhperjanianA.G., Bazer-BachiA.R. et al. 2007, A&A, 469, L1 AharonianF., AkhperjanianA.G., Bazer-BachiA.R. et al. 2007, ApJ, 661, 236 AharonianF., AkhperjanianA.G., Bazer-BachiA.R. et al. 2008, A&A, 481, 401 AharonianF., AkhperjanianA.G., de AlmeidaU.B. et al. 2009, ApJ, 692, 1500 AharonianF.A., BogovalovS.V. & KhangulyanD. 2012, Nature, 482, 507 AlbertJ., AliuE., AnderhubH. et al. 2006, Science, 312, 1771 AlbertJ., AliuE., AnderhubH. et al. 2007, A&A, 474, 937 AlbertJ., AliuE., AnderhubH. et al. 2007, ApJ, 664, L87 AleksićJ., AlvarezE.A., AntonelliL.A. et al. 2012, A&A, 540, A69 AliuE., AnderhubH., AntonelliL.A. et al. 2008, Science, 322, 1221 AliuE., ArchambaultS., AuneT. et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 168 BlondinJ.M., ChevalierR.A. & FriersonD.M. 2001, ApJ, 563, 806 BlumenthalG.R. & GouldR.J. 1970, Rev. Mod. Phys., 42, 237 BogovalovS.V., KhangulyanD.V., KoldobaA.V. et al. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 63 ChernyakovaM., NeronovA., van SoelenB. et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 1358 DeilC., BrunF., CarriganS. et al. 2015, in [*Proc. of the 34th International Cosmic Ray Conference*]{}, ID773 de JagerO.C., FerreiraS.E.S., Djannati-AtaïA. et al. 2009, \[arXiv:0906.2644\] de Naurois & H.E.S.S.Collaboration. 2013, Advances in Space Research, 51, 258 de Oña WilhelmiE. et al. fortheMAGICcollaboration. 2015, in [*Proc. of the 34th International Cosmic Ray Conference*]{}, ID746 Djannati-AtaïA., deJagerO.C., TerrierR., GallantY.A. & Hoppe S. 2008, in [*Proc. of the the 30th International Cosmic Ray Conference*]{}, 2, 823 DruryL.O. 1983, Reports on Progress in Physics, 46, 973 DubusG., CeruttiB. & HenriG. 2010, A&A, 516, A18 DubusG. & CeruttiB. 2013, A&A, 557, A127 EgerP., ParsonsR.D., BergeD. et al. 2015, in [*Proc. of the 34th International Cosmic Ray Conference*]{}, ID766 EnomotoR., TanimoriT., NaitoT. et al. 2002, Nature, 416, 823 GajdusM. et al. for the H.E.S.S. collaboration. 2015, in [*Proc. of the 34th International Cosmic Ray Conference*]{}, ID841 HahnJ., FernandezD., CasanovaS. et al. 2015, in [*Proc. of the 34th International Cosmic Ray Conference*]{}, ID860 H.E.S.S. Collaboration: AbramowskiA., AceroF., AharonianF. et al. 2012, A&A, 541, A5 H.E.S.S. Collaboration; AbramowskiA., AceroF., AharonianF. etal. 2012, A&A, 548, A46 H.E.S.S. Collaboration: AbramowskiA., AceroF., AharonianF. et al. 2013, A&A, 551, A94 H.E.S.S. Collaboration: AbramowskiA., AharonianF., Ait BenkhaliF. et al. 2015, A&A, 577, A131 HintonJ.A., SkiltonJ.L., FunkS. et al. 2009, ApJ, 690, L101 HolderJ. 2014, Brazilian J. of Physics, 44, 450 HumenskyB. for the VERITAS collaboration. 2015, in [*Proc. of the 34th International Cosmic Ray Conference*]{}, ID875 Jung-RichardtI. for theH.E.S.S. collaboration. 2015, in [*Proc. of the 34th International Cosmic Ray Conference*]{}, ID884 KhangulyanD., AharonianF.A., BogovalovS.V. et al. 2012, ApJ, 752, L17 KlepserS., CarriganS., de Oña WilhelmiE. et al. 2013, \[arXiv:1307.7905\] KlepserS., FörsterA., MayerM., ValeriusK. for the H.E.S.S. collaboration. 2015, in [*Proc. of the 34th International Cosmic Ray Conference*]{}, ID776 KongS.W., ChengK.S. & HuangY.F. 2012, ApJ, 753, 127 LyutikovM., OtteN. & McCannA. 2012, ApJ, 754, 33 NguyenT. for the VERITAS Collaboration. 2015, \[arXiv:1508.0726\] P[ü]{}hlhoferG., BrunF., CapassoM. et al. 2015, \[arXiv:1509.0387\] RiegerF.M., de Oña-WilhelmiE. & AharonianF.A. 2013, Frontiers of Physics, 8, 714 RomoliC., BordasP., MariaudC. et al. 2015, \[arXiv:1509.0309\]. SushchI. & HnatykB. 2014, A&A, 561, A139 SushchI., HnatykB. & NeronovA. 2011, A&A, 525, A154 SushchI., OyaI., SchwankeU., JohnstonS. & DaltonM. 2015, \[arXiv:1509.0142\] TakataJ., ShibataS., HirotaniK. & ChangH.-K. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 1310 TamP.H.T., HuangR.H.H., TakataJ. et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, L10 TamP.H.T., LiK.L., TakataJ. et al. 2015, ApJ, 798, L26 TianW.W., LeahyD.A., HaverkornM. et al. 2008, ApJ, 679, L85 TianW.W., LiZ., LeahyD.A. et al. 2010, ApJ, 712, 790 VERITAS Collaboration; AliuE., ArlenT., AuneT. et al. 2011, Science, 334, 69 ]{} [^1]: [email protected] [^2]: For the current status of the population of the VHE gamma-ray sources check [*TeVCat*]{}, an online TeV gamma-ray catalogue, at [http://tevcat.uchicago.edu]{} [^3]: Test Statistics – the likelihood ratio of a model with the additional source at a specified location and a model without the additional source [^4]: Located outside the Galactic Plane and, thus, not included in the HGPS [^5]: HESSJ1534$-$571 – a new source detected in the HGPS

ArXiv

[ <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cobweb Posets and KoDAG Digraphs are Representing Natural Join of Relations, their di-Bigraphs and the Corresponding Adjacency Matrices.</span>]{}\ Andrzej Krzysztof Kwaśniewski\ [Member of the Institute of Combinatorics and its Applications ]{}\ [High School of Mathematics and Applied Informatics]{}\ [Kamienna 17, PL-15-021 Białystok, Poland ]{}\ [e-mail: [email protected]]{}\ [Abstract:]{} [Natural join of di-bigraphs (directed bi-parted graphs) and their corresponding adjacency matrices is defined and then applied to investigate the so called cobweb posets and their $Hasse$ digraphs called $KoDAGs$. $KoDAGs$ are special **o**rderable **D**irected **A**cyclic **G**raphs which are cover relation digraphs of cobweb posets introduced by the author few years ago. $KoDAGs$ appear to be distinguished family of $Ferrers$ digraphs which are natural join of a corresponding ordering chain of one direction directed cliques called di-bicliques. These digraphs serve to represent faithfully corresponding relations of arbitrary arity so that all relations of arbitrary arity are their subrelations. Being this $chain -way$ complete (compare with **K**ompletne , **K**uratowski $K_{n,m}$ bipartite graphs) their DAG denotation is accompanied with the letter **K** in front of descriptive abbreviation oDAG. The way to join bipartite digraphs of binary into multi-ary relations is the natural join operation either on relations or their digraph representatives. This natural join operation is denoted here by ${\oplus\!\!\to}$ symbol deliberately referring - in a reminiscent manner - to the direct sum $\oplus$ of adjacency matrices as it becomes the case for disjoint di-bigraphs.]{} Key Words: posets, graded digraphs, Ferrers dimension, natural join AMS Classification Numbers: 06A06 ,05B20, 05C7 affiliated to The Internet Gian-Carlo Polish Seminar: *http://ii.uwb.edu.pl/akk/sem/sem\_rota.htm* Introduction to coweb posets ============================ Notation -------- One may identify and interpret some classes of digraphs in terms of their associated posets. (see [@1] Interpretations in terms of posets Section 9) Let $D = (\Phi,\prec)$ be a digraph. $w,v \in \Phi$ are said to be equivalent iff there exists a directed path containing both $w$ and $v$ vertices. We then write: $v \sim w$ for such pairs and denote by $[v]$ the $\sim$ equivalence class of $v \in \Phi$. The poset $P(D)$ associated to $D = (\Phi,\prec)$ is the poset $P(D)= (\Phi / \sim , \leq)$ where $[v] \leq [w]$ iff there exists a directed path from a vertex $x \in [v]$ to a vertex $y \in [w]$. **The graded digraphs case:** **If $D = (\Phi,\prec )$ is graded digraph then $D = (\Phi, \prec )$** is necessarily **acyclic**. Then no two elements of $D = (\Phi,\prec )$ are $\sim$ equivalent and thereby $P(D) = (\Phi / \sim , \leq)$ associated to $D = (V,\prec )$ **is equivalent to**: $P(D) \equiv (\Phi , \leq)$ = transitive, reflexive closure of $D = (\Phi,\prec )$. The cobweb posets where introduced in several paper (see [@2]-[@6] and references therein) in terms of their poset \[Hasse\] diagrams. Here we deliver their equivalent definition preceded by preliminary notation and nomenclature. **Notation : nomenclature, di-bicliques and natural join** In order to proceed proficiently we adopt the following. A digraph $D = (\Phi,\prec\!\!\cdot)$ is transitive irreducible iff transitive $reduction(D) = D$. A poset $P(D) = (\Phi, \leq)$ is associated to a graded digraph $D = (\Phi,\prec )$ iff $P(D)$ is the transitive, reflexive closure of $D = (\Phi, \prec )$ . **Obvious**. $D = (\Phi,\prec\!\!\cdot)$ is transitive irreducible iff transitive $reduction(D) = D$ iff $D = (\Phi,\prec\!\!\cdot )$ is Hasse diagram of the poset $P(D) = (\Phi, \leq)$ associated to $D \equiv D = (\Phi,\prec\!\!\cdot )$ is cover relation $\prec\!\!\cdot$ digraph $\equiv$ $D = (\Phi,\prec\!\!\cdot )$ is $P(D) = (\Phi, \leq)$ poset diagram. Further on we adopt also the following nomenclature. ----------------------------------------------------- We shall use until stated otherwise the convention: $N = \{1,2,...,k,...\}$ . $n \in N \cup \{\infty\}$. The Cartesian product $\Phi_1\times...\times\Phi_k$ of pairwise disjoint sets $\Phi_1, ... , \Phi_k$ is a $k$-ary relation, called sometimes the universal relation and here now on **K**ompletna relation or **K**-relation, (in Professor **K**azimierz **K**uratowski native language this means complete). The purpose of introducing the letter $K$ is to distinguish in what follows \[ for $k = 2$ \] from complete digraphs notions established content. The binary relation $E \subseteq X\times Y$ is being here identified with its bipartite digraph representation $B = (X \cup Y, E)$. **Notation** $\stackrel{\rightarrow}{K_{m,n}}\equiv B = (X \cup Y, E)$ if $|X|= m$ , $|Y| = n$. Colligate with **K**uratowski and $K_{m,n}$. **Comment 1.** Complete $n$-vertex **graphs** for which all pairs of vertices are adjacent are denoted by $K_n$, The letter $K$ had been chosen in honor of Professor **K**azimierz **K**uratowski, a distinguished pioneer in graph theory. The corresponding two widely used concepts for digraphs are called complete digraphs or complete symmetric digraph in which every two different vertices are joined by an arc and complete oriented graphs i.e. tournament graphs. The binary $K$-relation $E = X\times Y$ equivalent to bipartite digraph $B = ( X \cup Y, E) \equiv \stackrel{\rightarrow}{K_{m,n}}$ is called from now on a **di-biclique** following [@6]. **Example of** di-bicliques obtained from **bicliques** : See Fig. 1. If you imagine arrows $\to$ left to the right - you would see two examples of **di-bicliques** ![Examples of di-bicliques if edges are replaced by arrows of join direction \[fig:1\]](fig1.eps){width="50mm"} if you imagine arrows $\leftarrow$ right to the left, you would see another examples of **di-bicliques**. The binary relation $E \subseteq X\times Y$ is identified with its bipartite digraph $B = ( X \cup Y, E)$ unless otherwise denoted distinctively deliberately. **The natural join.** The natural join operation is a binary operation like $\Theta$ **operator in computer science** denoted here by ${\oplus\!\!\to}$ symbol deliberately referring - in a quite reminiscent manner - to direct sum $\oplus$ of adjacency Boolean matrices and - as matter of fact and in effect - to direct the sum $\oplus$ of corresponding biadjacency \[reduced\] matrices of digraphs under natural join. ${\oplus\!\!\to}$ is a natural operator for sequences construction . ${\oplus\!\!\to}$ operates on multi-ary relations according to the scheme: $(n+k)_{ary} {\oplus\!\!\to}(k+m)_{ary}$ = $(n+ k +m)_{ary}$ For example: $(1+1)_{ary} {\oplus\!\!\to}(1+1)_{ary} = (1+ 1 +1)_{ary}$ , binary ${\oplus\!\!\to}$ binary = ternary. Accordingly an action of ${\oplus\!\!\to}$ on these multi-ary relations’ digraphs adjacency matrices is to be designed soon in what follows. **Domain-Codomain $F$-sequence condition** $\mathrm{dom}(R_{k+1}) = \mathrm{ran} (R_k)$, $k=0,1,2,...$ . Consider any natural number valued sequence $F = \{F_n\}_{n\geq 0}$. Consider then any chain of binary relations defined on pairwise disjoint finite sets with cardinalities appointed by $F$ -sequence elements values. For that to start we specify at first a relations’ domain-co-domain $F$ - sequence. **Domain-Codomain $F$-sequence $(|\Phi_n| = F_n )$** $$\Phi_0,\Phi_1,...\Phi_i,...\ \ \Phi_k\cap\Phi_n = \emptyset \ \ for \ \ k \neq n, |\Phi_n|=F_n; \ \ i,k,n=0,1,2,...$$ Let $\Phi=\bigcup_{k=0}^n\Phi_k$ be the corresponding ordered partition \[ anticipating - $\Phi$ is the vertex set of $D = (\Phi,\prec\!\!\cdot$ ) and its transitive, reflexive closure $(\Phi, \leq)$\] . Impose $\mathrm{dom} (R_{k+1}) = \mathrm{ran} (R_k)$ condition , $k\in N \cup \{\infty\}$. What we get is binary relations chain. \[Relation‘s chain\] Let $\Phi=\bigcup_{k=0}^n\Phi_k$ , $\Phi_k \cap \Phi_n = \emptyset$ for $k \neq n$ be the ordered partition of the set $\Phi$ . Let a sequence of binary relations be given such that $$R_0,R_1,...,R_i,...,R_{i+n},...,\ \ R_k\subseteq\Phi_k\times\Phi_{k+1},\ \ \mathrm{dom}(R_{k+1}) = \mathrm{ran}(R_k).$$ Then the sequence $\langle R_k\rangle_{k\geq 0}$ is called natural join (binary) **relation’s chain**. Extension to varying arity relations’ natural join chains is straightforward. As necessarily $\mathrm{dom}(R_{k+1}) = \mathrm{ran}(R_k)$ for relations’ natural join chain any given binary relation’s chain is not just a sequence therefore we use “link to link ” notation for $k, i , n = 1,2,3,...$ ready for relational data basis applications: $$R_0 {\oplus\!\!\to}R_1 {\oplus\!\!\to}... {\oplus\!\!\to}R_i {\oplus\!\!\to}... {\oplus\!\!\to}R_{i+n},... is\ an\ F-chain\ of\ binary\ relations$$ where ${\oplus\!\!\to}$ denotes natural join of relations as well as both natural join of their bipartite digraphs and the natural join of their representative adjacency matrices (see the Section 3.). Relation’s $F$-chain naturally represented by \[identified with\] the chain of theirs **bipartite digraphs** $${ R_0 {\oplus\!\!\to}R_1 {\oplus\!\!\to}... {\oplus\!\!\to}R_i {\oplus\!\!\to}... {\oplus\!\!\to}R_{i+n},... \Leftrightarrow \atop \Leftrightarrow B_0 {\oplus\!\!\to}B_1 {\oplus\!\!\to}... {\oplus\!\!\to}B_i {\oplus\!\!\to}... {\oplus\!\!\to}B_{i+n},... }$$ results in **$F$-partial ordered set** $\langle\Phi,\leq\rangle$ with its Hasse digraph representation looking like specific “cobweb” image \[see figures below\]. Partial order $\leq$ --------------------- The partial order relation $\leq$ in the set of all points-vertices is determined uniquely by the above equivalent $F$- chains. Let $x,y \in \Phi=\bigcup_{k=0}^n\Phi_k$ and let $k, i = 0,1,2,...$. Then $$\label{eq:leq} x\leq y \Leftrightarrow \forall_{x\in\Phi} : x\leq x \vee \Phi_i\ni x < y \in \Phi_{i+k}\ iff\ x(R_i\copyright...\copyright R_{i+k-1})y$$ where “$\copyright$” stays for \[Boolean\] composition of binary relations. **Relation ($\leq$) defined equivalently** : $ x \leq y$ in $(\Phi,\leq)$ iff either $x=y$ or there exist a directed path from $x$ to $y; x,y \in \Phi$. Let now $R_k = \Phi_k\times\Phi_{k+1}, k \in N \cup\{0\}$. For “historical” reasons [@2]-[@6] we shall call such partial ordered set $\Pi = \langle\Phi,\leq\rangle$ the **cobweb poset** as theirs Hasse digraph representation looks like specific “cobweb” image ( imagine and/or draw also their transitive and reflexive cover digraph $\langle\Phi,\leq\rangle$. Cobweb? Super-cobweb ! ...- with fog droplets loops ?) . Cobweb posets ($\Pi = \langle\Phi,\leq\rangle$) ------------------------------------------------- The binary relation $E \subseteq X\times Y$ is identified with its bipartite digraph $B = ( X \cup Y, E)\equiv \stackrel{\rightarrow}{K_{m,n}}$ where $|X|= m, |Y| = n$. \[cobweb poset\] Let $D = (\Phi, \prec\!\!\cdot )$ be a transitive irreducible digraph. Let $n \in N \cup \{\infty\}$. Let $D$ be a natural join $D = {\oplus\!\!\to}_{k=0}^n B_k$ of di-bicliques $B_k = (\Phi_k \cup \Phi_{k+1}, \Phi_k\times\Phi_{k+1} ) , n \in N \cup \{\infty\}$. Hence the digraph $D = (\Phi,\prec\!\!\cdot )$ is graded. The poset $\Pi (D)$ associated to this graded digraph $D = (\Phi,\prec\!\!\cdot )$ is called a cobweb poset. In a case we want to underline that we deal with finite cobweb poset ( a subposet of appropriate - for example infinite $F$-cobweb poset $\Pi (D)$ ) we shall use a subscript and write $P_n$ . See: [@2]-[@6], [@10], [@13], [@18]. **Comment 2.** **Graded graph** is a **natural join** of bipartite graphs that form a chain of consecutive levels \[i.e. graded **graphs’** antichains\] **Graded digraph** is a **natural join** of bipartite digraphs that form a chain of consecutive levels \[i.e. graded **digraphs’** antichains\] **Comment 3.** ([*Definition 6. Recapitulation in brief.*]{}) Cobweb poset is the poset $\Pi = \langle\Phi,\leq\rangle$, where $\Phi = \bigcup_{k=0}^n$ and $\prec\!\!\cdot = {\oplus\!\!\to}_{k=0}^{n-1} \Phi_k\times\Phi_{k+1}, n \in N \cup \{\infty\}$. Cobweb poset is the poset $\Pi = \langle\Phi,\leq\rangle$, where $\Phi = \bigcup_{k=0}^n$ and $\prec\!\!\cdot = {\oplus\!\!\to}_{k=0}^{n-1} \stackrel{\rightarrow}{K_{k,k+1}}, n \in N \cup \{\infty\}$, where $\leq$ is the transitive, reflexive cover of $\prec\!\!\cdot$. **Comment 4.** ([*$F$-partial ordered set*]{}) Cobweb poset $\Pi = \langle\Phi,\leq\rangle$ is naturally graded and sequence $F$ - denominated thereby we call it sometimes **$F$-partial ordered set $\langle\Phi,\leq\rangle$**. Dimension of cobweb posets-revisited. ======================================= oDAG [@7] ----------- \[cobwebs are oDAGs\] In [@2] it was observed that cobweb posets’ Hasse diagrams are the members of so called oDAGs family i.e. cobweb posets’ Hasse diagrams are orderable Directed Acyclic Graphs which is equivalent to say that the associated poset $P(D) = (\Phi, \leq)$ of $D = (\Phi,\prec\!\!\cdot )$ of is of dimension 2. **Recall:** DAGs - hence graded digraphs with minimal elements always might be considered - up to digraphs isomorphism - as natural digraphs [@8] i.e. digraphs with natural labeling (i.e. $x_i < x_j \Rightarrow i < j$ ). A digraph $D = (\Phi,\prec)$ is called the orderable digraph (oDAG) if there exists a dim 2 poset such that its Hasse diagram coincides with the digraph $G$". The statement from [@2] may be now restated as follows: \[oDAG\] Cobweb $P(D) =(\Phi , \leq)$ posets’ Hasse diagrams $D = (\Phi,\prec\!\!\cdot )$ are oDAGs. *Proof*: Obvious. Cobweb posets are posets with minimal elements set $\Phi_0$. Cobweb posets Hasse diagrams are DAGs. Cobweb posets representing the natural join of are then dim 2 posets as their Hasse digraphs are intersection of a natural labeling linear order $L_1$ and its “dual” $L_2$ denominated correspondingly in a standard way by: $L_1$ = natural labeling: chose for the topological ordering $L_1$ the labeling of minimal elements set $\Phi_0$ with labels $1,2,...$, from the left to the right ( see Fig2. ) then proceed up to the next level $\Phi_1$ and continue the labeling “$\to$” from the left to the right \[$\Phi_1$ is now treated as the set o minimal elements if $\Phi_0$ is removed\] and so on. Apply the procedure of subsequent removal of minimal elements i.e. removal of subsequent labeled levels $F_k$ - labeling the vertices along the levels from the left to the right. $L_2$ = “dual” natural labeling: chose for the topological ordering $L_2$ the labeling of minimal elements set $F_0$ with labels $1,2,...$, from the right to the left to ( see Fig1. ) then proceed up to the next level $F_1$ and continue the labeling “$\leftarrow$” from the right to the left \[$\Phi_1$ is now treated as the set o minimal elements if $\Phi_0$ is removed\] and so on. Apply the procedure of subsequent removal of minimal elements i.e. removal of subsequent labeled levels $\Phi_k$ - labeling now the vertices along the levels from the right to the left q.e.d. Brief history of the short oDAG’s name life --------------------------------------------- On the history of oDAG nomenclature with David Halitsky and Others input one is expected to see more in [@15]. See also the December $2008$ subject of The Internet Gian Carlo Rota Polish Seminar ($http://ii.uwb.edu.pl/akk/sem/sem\_rota.htm$). Here we present its sub-history leading the author to note that cobweb posets are oDAGs. According to Anatoly Plotnikov the concept and the name of oDAG was introduced by David Halitsky from Cumulative Inquiry in 2004. **oDAG-2004** (Plotnikov) Quote 1. *“A digraph $G \in D_n$ will be called orderable (oDAG) if there exists are dim 2 poset such that its Hasse diagram coincide with the digraph $G$”*. The Quote 1 comes from [@9] in [@2] i.e. from A.D. *Plotnikov A formal approach to the oDAG/POSET problem* (2004) *$html://www.cumulativeinquiry.com/Problems/solut2.pdf$* (submitted to publication - March 2005) The quote of the Quote 1 is to be found in [@9] oDAG-2005 [@2] Quote 2 *“A digraph G is called the orderable digraph (oDAG) if there exists a dim 2 poset such that its Hasse diagram coincides with the digraph $G$”*. [@2] oDAG-2006 [@7] Quote 3 *“A digraph G is called the orderable if there exists a dim 2 poset such that its Hasse diagram coincides with the digraph $G$”*. [@7] For further use of oDAG nomenclature see [@6], and references therein. For further references and recent results on cobweb posets see [@10] and [@11]. \[KoDAG\] The transitive and reflexive reduction of cobweb poset $\Pi = \langle\Phi,\leq\rangle$ i.e. posets’ $\Pi$ cover relation digraph \[Hasse diagram\] $D = (\Phi, \prec\!\!\cdot)$ is called KoDAG. See [@11]-[@14]. **Comment 5.** Apply Comment 1. **Why** do **we stick** to call KoDAGs graded digraphs with associated poset $\Pi = \langle\Phi,\leq\rangle$ the **orderable** DAGs on their own independently of the nomenclature quoted ? Let $D = (\Phi,\prec\!\!\cdot )$ denotes now any transitive irreducible DAG \[ for example any **graded** digraph including KoDAG digraph for example as above\]. Let poset $P(D) = (\Phi, \leq)$ be associated to $D = (\Phi,\prec\!\!\cdot)$ \[Ferrers dimension\] We say that the poset $P(D) = (\Phi, \leq)$ is of Ferrers dimension $k$ iff it is associated to $D = (\Phi,\prec\!\!\cdot )$ of Ferrers dimension $k$. \[Ferrers dimension\] Cobweb posets are posets of Ferrers dimension equal to one. *Proof.* Apply any of many characterizations of Ferrers digraphs to see that cobweb posets are posets’ cover relation digraphs \[Hasse diagrams\] are Ferrers digraphs. For example consult Section 3 and see that biadjacency matrix does not contain any of two $ 2\times 2$ permutation matrices. **Comment 6.** Any KoDAG digraph $D = (\Phi,\prec\!\!\cdot )$ is the digraph stable under the transitive and reflexive reduction i.e. \[“irreducible”\] Hasse portrait of Ferrers relation $\prec\!\!\cdot$. The positions of 1’s in biadjacecy \[reduced adjacency\] matrix display the support of Ferrers relation $\prec\!\!\cdot$. $D = (\Phi,\prec\!\!\cdot)$ is then interval order relation digraph. The digraph $(\Phi,\leq)$ of the cobweb poset $P(D) = (\Phi, \leq)$ associated to KoDAG digraph $D = (\Phi,\leq )$ is the portrait of Ferrers relation $\leq$. The positions of 1’s in biadjacecy \[reduced adjacency\] matrix display the support of Ferrers relation $\leq$. Note: for $F$-denominated cobweb posets the nomenclature identifies: biajacency \[reduced adjacency\] matrix $\equiv$ zeta matrix i.e. the incidence matrix $\zeta_F$ of the $F$- poset (see: Fig.$\zeta_N$ and Fig.$\zeta_F$ ). Recall that this $F$-partial ordered set $\langle\Phi,\leq\rangle$ is a natural join of $F$-chain of binary $K$-relations (complete or universal relations as called sometimes). These relations are represented by di-bicliques $\stackrel{\rightarrow}{K_{k,k+1}}$ which are on their own the Ferrers dimension one digraphs. As for the other - not necessarily $K$-relations’ chains we may end up with Ferrers or not digraphs in corresponding di-bigraphs’ chain. See below, then Section 4 and more in [@15]. The natural join ${\oplus\!\!\to}$ operation ============================================== We define here the adjacency matrices representation of the natural join ${\oplus\!\!\to}$ operation. Recall -------- Let $D(R) = (V(R)\cup W(R),E(R)) \equiv (V \cup W, E) ; V\cap W = \emptyset , E (R) \subseteq V\times W$. Let $D(R)$ denotes here down the *bipartite digraph of binary relation* $R$ with $\mathrm{dom}(R) = V$ and $\mathrm{rang}(R)=W$. Colligate with the anticipated examples $R = R_k \subseteq \Phi_k\times\Phi_{k+1} \equiv \stackrel{\rightarrow}{K_{k,k+1}}, V(R)\cup W(R)= \Phi_k \cup \Phi_{k+1}$. The adjacency matrices and their natural join. ----------------------------------------------- The adjacency matrix $\mathbf{A}$ of a bipartite graph with **biadjacency** (reduced adjacency [@16]) matrix $\mathbf{B}$ is given by $$\mathbf{A} = \left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & \mathbf{B} \\ \mathbf{B}^T & 0 \\ \end{array} \right).$$ The adjacency matrix $\mathbf{A}[D]$ of a bipartite digraph $D(R)= ( P\cup L , E \subseteq P\times L)$ with biadjacency matrix $\mathbf{B}$ is given by $$\mathbf{A}[D] = \left( \begin{array}{cc} 0_{k,k} & \mathbf{B}(k\times m) \\ 0_{m,k} & 0_{m,m} \\ \end{array} \right).$$ where $k = | P |$, $m = | L |$. $S \copyright R$ = composition of binary relations $S$ and $R \Leftrightarrow \mathbf{B}_{R\copyright S} = \mathbf{B}_R \copyright \mathbf{B}_S$ where ( $|V|= k , |W|= m$ ) $\mathbf{B}_R (k \times m) \equiv \mathbf{B}_R$ is the $(k \times m)$ **biadjacency** \[or another name: **reduced** adjacency\] matrix of the bipartite relations’ $R$ digraph $B(R)$ and $\copyright$ apart from relations composition denotes also Boolean multiplication of these rectangular biadjacency Boolean matrices $B_R , B_S$. What is their form? The answer is in the block structure of the standard square $(n \times n)$ adjacency matrix $A[D(R)]; n = k +m$ . The form of standard square adjacency matrix $A[G(R)]$ of bipartite digraph $D(R)$ has the following apparently recognizable block reduced structure: \[ $O_{s\times s}$ stays for $(k \times m)$ zero matrix \] $$\mathbf{A}[D(R)] = \left[ \begin{array}{ll} O_{k\times k} & \mathbf{A}_R(k\times m) \\ O_{m\times k} & O_{m\times m} \end{array} \right]$$ Let $D(S) = (W(S)\cup T(S),E(S))$; $W\cap T = \emptyset$, $E (S) \subseteq W\times T;$ ($|W|= m, |T|= s$); hence $$\mathbf{A}[D(S)] = \left[ \begin{array}{ll} O_{m\times m} & \mathbf{A}_S(m\times s) \\ O_{s\times m} & O_{s\times s} \end{array} \right]$$ \[natural join condition\] The ordered pair of matrices $\langle \mathbf{A_1}, \mathbf{A_2} \rangle$ is said to satisfy the natural join condition iff they have the block structure of $\mathbf{A}[D(R)]$ and $\mathbf{A}[D(S)]$ as above i.e. iff they might be identified accordingly : $\mathbf{A_1} = \mathbf{A}[D(R)]$ and $\mathbf{A_2} = \mathbf{A}[D(S)]$. Correspondingly if two given digraphs $G_1$ and $G_2$ are such that their adjacency matrices $\mathbf{A_1} = \mathbf{A}[G_1]$ and $\mathbf{A_2} =\mathbf{A}[G_2]$ do satisfy the natural join condition we shall say that $G_1$ and $G_2$ satisfy the natural join condition. For matrices satisfying the natural join condition one may define what follows. First we define the **Boolean reduced** or **natural join composition** ${\copyright\!\!\to}$ and secondly the natural join ${\oplus\!\!\to}$ of adjacent matrices satisfying the natural join condition. (${\copyright\!\!\to}$ composition) $$\mathbf{A}[D(R\copyright S)] =: \mathbf{A}[D(R)] {\copyright\!\!\to}\mathbf{A}[D(S)] = \left[ \begin{array}{ll} O_{k\times k} & \mathbf{A}_{R\copyright S}(k\times s) \\ O_{s\times k} & O_{s\times s} \end{array} \right]$$ where $\mathbf{A}_{R\copyright S}(k\times s) = \mathbf{A}_R(k\times m) \copyright \mathbf{A}_S(m\times s)$. according to the scheme: $$[(k+m) \times (k + m )] {\copyright\!\!\to}[(m + s) \times (m + s)] = [(k+ s) \times (k+ s)] .$$ **Comment 7.** The adequate projection makes out the intermediate, joint in common $\mathrm{dom}(S) = \mathrm{rang}(R)=W$ , $|W|= m$. The above Boolean reduced composition ${\copyright\!\!\to}$ of adjacent matrices technically reduces then to the calculation of just Boolean product of the **reduced** rectangular adjacency matrices of the bipartite relations‘ graphs. We are however now in need of the Boolean natural join product ${\oplus\!\!\to}$ of adjacent matrices already announced at the beginning of this presentation. Let us now define it. As for the **natural join** notion we aim at the morphism correspondence: $$S {\oplus\!\!\to}R \Leftrightarrow M_{S{\oplus\!\!\to}R} = M_R {\oplus\!\!\to}M_S$$ where $S {\oplus\!\!\to}R$ = natural join of binary relations $S$ and $R$ while $M_{S{\oplus\!\!\to}R} = M_R {\oplus\!\!\to}M_S$ = natural join of standard square adjacency matrices (with customary convention: $M[G(R)] \equiv M_R$ adapted). Attention: recall here that the natural join of the above binary relations $R {\oplus\!\!\to}S$ is the ternary relation - and on one results in $k$-ary relations if with more factors undergo the ${\oplus\!\!\to}$ product. As a matter of fact **${\oplus\!\!\to}$ operates on multi-ary relations according to the scheme:** $$(n+k)_{ary} {\oplus\!\!\to}(k+m)_{ary} = (n+ k +m)_{ary} .$$ For example: $(1+1)_{ary} {\oplus\!\!\to}(1+1)_{ary} = (1+ 1 +1)_{ary}, binary {\oplus\!\!\to}binary = ternary$. Technically - the natural join of the $k$-ary and $n$-ary relations is defined accordingly the same way via ${\oplus\!\!\to}$ natural join product of adjacency matrices - the adjacency matrices of these relations’ Hasse digraphs. With the notation established above we finally define the natural join ${\oplus\!\!\to}$ of two adjacency matrices as follows: \[natural join ${\oplus\!\!\to}$ of biadjacency matrices\]. $$A[D(R {\oplus\!\!\to}S)] =: A[D(R)] {\oplus\!\!\to}A[D(S)] =$$ $$= \left[ \begin{array}{ll} O_{k\times k} & A_R(k\times m) \\ O_{m\times k} & O_{m\times m} \end{array} \right] {\oplus\!\!\to}\left[ \begin{array}{ll} O_{m\times m} & A_S(m\times s) \\ O_{s\times m} & O_{s\times s} \end{array} \right] =$$ $$=\left[ \begin{array}{lll} O_{k\times k} & A_R(k\times m) & O_{k\times s}\\ O_{m\times k} & O_{m\times m} & A_S(m\times s) \\ O_{s\times k} & O_{s\times m} & O_{s\times s} \end{array} \right]$$ **Comment 8**. The adequate projection used in natural join operation lefts one copy of the joint in common “intermediate” submatrix $O_{m\times m}$ and consequently lefts one copy of “intermediate” joint in common $m$ according to the scheme: $$[(k+m) \times (k + m )] {\oplus\!\!\to}[(m + s) \times (m + s)] = [(k+ m + s) \times (k+ m + s)] .$$ The biadjacency matrices of the natural join of adjacency matrices. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Denote with $B(A)$ the biadjacency matrix of the adjacency matrix $A$. Let $A(G)$ denotes the adjacency matrix of the digraph $G$ , for example a di-biclique relation digraph. Let $A(G_k)$, $k= 0,1,2,...$ be the sequence adjacency matrices of the sequence $G_k, k=0,1,2,...$ of digraphs. Let us identify $B(A)\equiv B(G)$ as a convention. \[digraphs natural join\] Let digraphs $G_1$ and $G_2$ satisfy the natural join condition. Let us make then the identification $A(G_1 {\oplus\!\!\to}G_2) \equiv A_1 {\oplus\!\!\to}A_2$ as definition. The digraph $G_1 {\oplus\!\!\to}G_2$ is called the digraphs natural join of digraphs $G_1$ and $G_2$. Note that the order is essential. We observe at once what follows. $$B (G_1 {\oplus\!\!\to}G_2) \equiv B (A_1 {\oplus\!\!\to}A_2) = B(A_1)\oplus B(A_2) \equiv B (G_1)\oplus B(G_2)$$ **Comment 9.** The Observation 4 justifies the notation ${\oplus\!\!\to}$ for the natural join of relations digraphs and equivalently for the natural join of their adjacency matrices and equivalently for the natural join of relations that these are faithful representatives of. As a consequence we have. $$B\left({\oplus\!\!\to}_{i=1}^n\right) \equiv B [{\oplus\!\!\to}_{i=1}^n A(G_i)] = \oplus_{i=1}^n B[A(G_i) ] \equiv \mathrm{diag} (B_1 , B_2 , ..., B_n) =$$ $$= \left[ \begin{array}{lllll} B_1 \\ & B_2 \\ & & B_3 \\ & ... & ... & ...\\ & & & & B_n \end{array} \right]$$ $n \in N \cup \{\infty\}$. Applications -------------- Once any natural number valued sequence $F = \{F_n\}_{n\geq 1}$ is being chosen its KoDAG digraph is identified with Hasse cover relation digraph. Its adjacency matrix $\mathbf{A}_F$ is sometimes called Hasse matrix and is given in a plausible form and impressively straightforward way. Just use the fact that the Hasse digraph which is displaying cover relation $\prec\!\!\cdot$ is an $F$ -chain of coined bipartite digraphs - coined each preceding with a subsequent one by natural join operator ${\oplus\!\!\to}$ \[resemblance of ${\oplus\!\!\to}$ to direct matrix sum is not naive - compare “natural join” of disjoint digraphs with no common set of marked nodes (“attributes”) \]. Note: $I (s\times k)$ stays for $(s\times k)$ matrix of ones i.e. $[ I (s\times k) ]_{ij} = 1$; $1 \leq i \leq s, 1\leq j \leq k$. Let us start first with $F = \{F_n\}_{n\geq 1} = N$. See **Fig.2** . Then its associated **$F$-partial ordered set $\langle\Phi,\leq\rangle$** has the following Hasse digraph displaying cover relation of the $\leq$ partial order {width="80mm"} The Hasse matrix $\mathbf{A}_N$ i.e. adjacency matrix of cover relation digraph i.e. adjacency matrix of the Hasse diagram of the $N$-denominated cobweb poset $\langle\Phi,\leq\rangle$ is given by upper triangular matrix $\mathbf{A}_N$ of the form: $$\mathbf{A}_N = \left[ \begin{array}{llllll} O_{1\times 1} & I(1\times 2) & O_{1\times \infty} \\ O_{2\times 1} & O_{2\times 2} & I(2\times 3) & O_{2 \times \infty} \\ O_{3\times 1} & O_{3\times 2} & O_{3\times 3} & I(3\times 4) & O_{3 \times \infty} \\ O_{4\times 1} & O_{4\times 2} & O_{4\times 3} & O_{4\times 4} & I(4\times 5) & O_{4 \times \infty} \\ ... etc & ... & and & so & on ... \end{array} \right]$$ One may see that the zeta function matrix of the $F = N$ choice is geometrical series in $\mathbf{A}_N$ i.e. the geometrical series in the poset $\langle\Phi,\leq\rangle$ Hasse matrix $\mathbf{A}_N$: $$\zeta = (1 - \mathbf{A}_N)^{-1 \copyright}$$ Explicitly: $\zeta = (1-\mathbf{A}_N)^{-1\copyright} \equiv I_{\infty \time \infty} + \mathbf{A}_N + \mathbf{A}_N ^{\copyright 2} + ... = $ $$= \left[ \begin{array}{lllll} I_{1\times 1} & I(1\times \infty) \\ O_{2\times 1} & I_{2\times 2} & I(2\times\infty) \\ O_{3\times 1} & O_{3\times 2} & I_{3\times 3} & I(3\times\infty) \\ O_{4\times 1} & O_{4\times 2} & O_{4\times 3} & I_{4\times 4} & I(4\times\infty) \\ ... etc & ... & and & so & on ... \end{array}\right]$$ $\zeta = (1-\mathbf{A}_N)^{-1\copyright}$ because \[let $\mathbf{A}_N = \mathbf{A}$\] $\mathbf{A}^k_{ij} =$ the number of maximal $k$-chains \[$k>0$\] from the $x_0 \in \Phi_i$ to $x_k \in \Phi_j$ i.e. here $$\mathbf{A}^k_{ij} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 0 & k\neq j-i \\ \frac{j!}{i!} & k=j-k \end{array} \right. \mathrm{ hence }\ \ \mathbf{A}^{\copyright k}_{ij} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 1 & k = j-i \\ 0 & k \neq j-k \end{array} \right. .$$ and the supports (*nonzero matrices blocks*) of $\mathbf{A}^{\copyright k}$ and $\mathbf{A}^{\copyright m}$ are disjoint for $k \neq m$. Indeed: the entry in row $i$ and column $j$ of the inverse $(I - \mathbf{A})^{-1}$ gives *the number of directed paths* from vertex $x_i$ to vertex $x_j$. This can be seen from geometric series with adjacency matrix as an argument $$(I - \mathbf{A})^{-1} = I + \mathbf{A} + \mathbf{A}^2 + \mathbf{A}^3 + ...$$ taking care of the fact that the number of paths from $i$ to $j$ equals the number of paths of length $0$ plus the number of paths of length $1$ plus the number of paths of length $2$, etc. Therefore the entry in row $i$ and column $j$ of the inverse $(I - \mathbf{A})^{-1\copyright}$ gives the answer whether there exists a *directed paths* from vertex $i$ to vertex $j$ (Boolean value 1) or not (Boolean value 0) i.e. whether these vertices are comparable i.e. whether $x_i < x_j$ or not. **Remark:** In the cases - Boolean poset $2^N$ and the “Ferrand-Zeckendorf” poset of finite subsets of $N$ without two consecutive elements considered in [@17] one has $$\zeta = exp[\mathbf{A}] = (1-\mathbf{A})^{-1\copyright} \equiv I_{\infty\times\infty} + \mathbf{A} + \mathbf{A}^{\copyright 2} + ...$$ because in those cases $$\mathbf{A}^k_{ij} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 0 & k\neq j-i \\ k! & k = j - k \end{array} \right. \mathrm{ hence }\ \ \frac{1}{k!} \mathbf{A}^k_{ij} = \mathbf{A}^{\copyright k}_{ij} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 1 & k = j-i \\ 0 & k \neq j-k \end{array} \right. .$$ How it goes in our $F$-case? Just see $\mathbf{A}_N^{\copyright 2}$ and then add $\mathbf{A}_N^{\copyright 0} \vee \mathbf{A}_N^{\copyright 1} \vee \mathbf{A}_N^{\copyright 2} \vee ...$ For example: $$\mathbf{A}_N^{\copyright 2} = \left[ \begin{array}{lllllll} O_{1\times 1} & O_{1\times 2} & I(1\times 3) & O_{1\times \infty} \\ O_{2\times 1} & O_{2\times 2} & O_{2\times 3} & I(2 \times 4) & O_{2\times \infty} \\ O_{3\times 1} & O_{3\times 2} & O_{3\times 3} & O_{3\times 4} & I(3 \times 5) & O_{3\times \infty} \\ O_{4\times 1} & O_{4\times 2} & O_{4\times 3} & O_{4\times 4} & O_{4\times 5} & I(4 \times 6) & O_{4\times\infty} \\ ... etc & ... & and & so & on ... \end{array}\right]$$ Consequently we arrive at the incidence matrix $\zeta = \mathrm{exp}[\mathbf{A}_N]$ for the natural numbers cobweb poset displayed by Fig 3. Note that incidence matrix $\zeta$ representing uniquely its corresponding cobweb poset does exhibits (see below) a staircase structure of zeros above the diagonal which is characteristic to Hasse diagrams of **all** cobweb posets. $$\left[\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccccc} 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & \cdots\\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & \cdots\\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & \cdots\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & \cdots\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & \cdots\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & \cdots\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & \cdots\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & \cdots\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & \cdots\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & \cdots\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & \cdots\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & \cdots\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & \cdots\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & \cdots\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & \cdots\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & \cdots\\ . & . & . & . & . & . & . & . & . & . & . & . & . & . & . & . & . \cdots\\ \end{array}\right]$$ **Figure $\zeta_N$. The incidence matrix $\zeta$ for the natural numbers i.e. N- cobweb poset** **Comment 9.** The given $F$-denominated staircase zeros structure above the diagonal of zeta matrix $zeta$ is the **unique characteristics** of its corresponding **$F$-KoDAG** Hasse digraphs. For example see Fig $\zeta_F$. below (from [@6]). $$\left[\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccccc} 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & \cdots\\ 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & \cdots\\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & \cdots\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & \cdots\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & \cdots\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & \cdots\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & \cdots\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & \cdots\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & \cdots\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & \cdots\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & \cdots\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & \cdots\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & \cdots\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & \cdots\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & \cdots\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & \cdots\\ . & . & . & . & . & . & . & . & . & . & . & . & . & . & . & . & . \cdots\\ \end{array}\right]$$ **Figure $\zeta_F$. The incidence matrix $\zeta$ for the Fibonacci cobweb poset associated to **$F$-KoDAG** Hasse digraph** The zeta matrix i.e. the incidence matrix $\zeta_F$ for the Fibonacci numbers cobweb poset **\[$F$ - KoDAG\]** determines completely its incidence algebra and corresponds to the poset with Hasse diagram displayed by the Fig. 3. {width="80mm"} The explicit expression for zeta matrix $\zeta_F$ via known blocks of zeros and ones for arbitrary natural numbers valued $F$- sequence is readily found due to brilliant mnemonic efficiency of the authors up-side-down notation (see Appendix in [@13]). With this notation inspired by Gauss and the reasoning just repeated with “$k_F$” numbers replacing $k$ - natural numbers one gets in the spirit of Knuth [@18] the clean result: $$\mathbf{A}_F = \left[\begin{array}{llllll} 0_{1_F\times 1_F} & I(1_F \times 2_F) & 0_{1_F \times \infty} \\ 0_{2_F\times 1_F} & 0_{2_F\times 2_F} & I(2_F \times 3_F) & 0_{2_F \times \infty} \\ 0_{3_F\times 1_F} & 0_{3_F\times 2_F} & 0_{3_F\times 3_F} & I(3_F \times 4_F) & 0_{3_F \times \infty} \\ 0_{4_F\times 1_F} & 0_{4_F\times 2_F} & 0_{4_F\times 3_F} & 0_{4_F\times 4_F} & I(4_F \times 5_F) & 0_{4_F \times \infty} \\ ... & etc & ... & and\ so\ on & ... \end{array}\right]$$ and $$\zeta_F = exp_\copyright[\mathbf{A}_F] \equiv (1 - \mathbf{A}_F)^{-1\copyright} \equiv I_{\infty\times\infty} + \mathbf{A}_F + \mathbf{A}_F^{\copyright 2} + ... =$$ $$= \left[\begin{array}{lllll} I_{1_F\times 1_F} & I(1_F\times\infty) \\ O_{2_F\times 1_F} & I_{2_F\times 2_F} & I(2_F\times\infty) \\ O_{3_F\times 1_F} & O_{3_F\times 2_F} & I_{3_F\times 3_F} & I(3_F\times\infty) \\ O_{4_F\times 1_F} & O_{4_F\times 2_F} & O_{4_F\times 3_F} & I_{4_F\times 4_F} & I(4_F\times\infty) \\ ... & etc & ... & and\ so\ on & ... \end{array}\right]$$ **Comment 10.** (ad “upside down notation”) Concerning Gauss and Knuth - see remarks in [@18] on Gaussian binomial coefficients. Let us denote by $\langle\Phi_k\to\Phi_{k+1}\rangle$ (see the authors papers quoted) the di-bicliques denominated by subsequent levels $\Phi_k, \Phi_{k+1}$ of the graded $F$-poset $P(D) = (\Phi, \leq)$ i.e. levels $\Phi_k , \Phi_{k+1}$ of its cover relation graded digraph $D = (\Phi,\prec\!\!\cdot$) \[Hasse diagram\]. Then $$B\left({\oplus\!\!\to}_{k=1}^n \langle\Phi_k\to\Phi_{k+1}\rangle \right) = \mathrm{diag}(I_1,I_2,...,I_n) =$$ $$= \left[ \begin{array}{lllll} I(1_F\times 2_F) \\ & I(2_F\times 3_F) \\ & & I(3_F\times 4_F) \\ & & ... \\ & & & & I(n_F\ times (n+1)_F) \end{array} \right]$$ where $I_k \equiv I(k_F \times (k+1)_F)$, $k = 1,...,n$ and where - recall - $I (s\times k)$ stays for $(s\times k)$ matrix of ones i.e. $[ I (s\times k) ]_{ij} = 1$; $1 \leq i \leq s, 1\leq j \leq k.$ and $n \in N \cup \{\infty\}$. Consider bigraphs’ chain obtained from the above di-biqliqes’ chain via deleting or no arcs making thus \[if deleting arcs\] some or all of the di-bicliques $ \langle\Phi_k\to\Phi_{k+1}\rangle$ not di-biqliques; denote them as $G_k$. Let $B_k = B(G_k)$ denotes their biadjacency matrices correspondingly. Then for any such $F$-denominated chain \[hence any chain \] of bipartite digraphs $G_k$ the general formula is: $$B\left( {\oplus\!\!\to}_{i=1}^n G_i \right) \equiv B [{\oplus\!\!\to}_{i=1}^n A(G_i)] = \oplus_{i=1}^n B[A(G_i) ] \equiv \mathrm{diag} (B_1 , B_2 , ..., B_n) =$$ $$= \left[ \begin{array}{lllll} B_1 \\ & B_2 \\ & & B_3 \\ & & ... \\ & & & & B_n \end{array} \right]$$ $n \in N \cup \{\infty\}$. The $F$-poset $P(G) = (\Phi, \leq)$ i.e. its cover relation graded digraph $G = (\Phi,\prec\!\!\cdot) = {\oplus\!\!\to}_{k=0}^m G_k$ is of Ferrers dimension one iff in the process of deleting arcs from the cobweb poset Hasse diagram $D = (\Phi,\prec\!\!\cdot)$ = ${\oplus\!\!\to}_{k=0}^n \langle\Phi_k\to\Phi_{k+1}\rangle $ does not produces $2\times 2$ permutation submatrices in any bigraphs $G_k$ biadjacency matrix $B_k= B (G_k)$. **Examples** (finite subposets of cobweb posets) Fig.4 and Fig.5 display a Hasse diagram portraits of finite subposets of cobweb posets. In view of the **Observation 2** these subposets are naturally Ferrers digraphs i.e. of Ferrers dimension equal one. {width="100mm"} {width="100mm"} Summary ======= Principal - natural identifications ----------------------------------- Any **KoDAG** is a **di**-bicliques chain $\Leftrightarrow$ Any **KoDAG is a natural join** of complete bipartite **graphs** \[ **di**-bicliques \] = $$( \Phi_0 \cup \Phi_1 \cup ... \cup \Phi_n \cup ..., E_0 \cup E_1\cup ... \cup E_n \cup ...) \equiv D(\bigcup_{k\geq 0}\Phi_k,\bigcup_{k\geq 0} E_k ) \equiv D (\Phi,E)$$ where $E_k = \Phi_k\times \Phi_{k+1} \equiv \stackrel{\rightarrow}{K_{k,k+1}}$ and $E = \bigcup_{k\geq 0}E_k$. Naturally, as indicated earlier any graded posets’ Hasse diagram with finite width including **KoDAGs** is of the form $$D (\Phi , E) \equiv D( \bigcup_{k\geq 0}\Phi_k,\bigcup_{k\geq 0} E_k ) \Leftrightarrow \langle \Phi,\leq \rangle$$ where $E_k \subseteq \Phi_k\times \Phi_{k+1} \equiv \stackrel{\rightarrow}{K_{k,k+1}}$ and the definition of $\leq$ from **1.3.** is applied. In front of all the above presentation the following is clear . “Many” graded digraphs with finite width including **KoDAGs** $D = (V,\prec\!\!\cdot )$ encode bijectively their correspondent $n$-ary relation ($n \in N \cup \{\infty\}$ as seen from its following definition: $ E_k \subseteq \Phi_k \times \Phi_{k+1} \equiv \stackrel{\rightarrow}{K_{k,k+1}}$ where\ $E = {\oplus\!\!\to}_{k=0}^{n-1} E_k \subset \times_{k=0}^n \Phi_k$\ i.e. identified with graded poset $\left\langle V_n, E \right\rangle$ natural join obtained $n+1$-ary relation $E$ is a subset of Cartesian product obtained the universal $n+1$-ary relation identified with cobweb poset digraph $\left\langle V_n,\prec\!\!\cdot \right\rangle$). $V_{\infty}\equiv V$. Which are those “many”? The characterization is arrived at with au rebour point of view. Any $n$-ary relation ($n \in N \cup \{\infty\}$) determines uniquely \[may be identified with\] its correspondent graded digraph with minimal elements set $\Phi_0$ given by the formula $$E = {\oplus\!\!\to}_{k=0}^{n-1} E_k \subset \times_{k=0}^n \Phi_k,$$ where the sequence of binary relations $E_k \subseteq \Phi_k\times \Phi_{k+1} \equiv \stackrel{\rightarrow}{K_{k,k+1}}$ is denominated by the source $n$-ary relation as the following example shows. **Example** (ternary = $Binary_1$ ${\oplus\!\!\to}$ $Binary_2$) Let $T \subset X\times Z\times Y$ where $X =\{ x_1,x_2,x_3\}$, $Z = \{ z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4\}$, $Y = \{y_1,y_2\}$ and $$T = \{ \langle x_1,z_1,y_1 \rangle, \langle x_1,z_2,y_1 \rangle, \langle x_1,z_4,y_2 \rangle, \langle x_2,z_3,y_2 \rangle, \langle x_3,z_3,y_2 \rangle \}.$$ ![Display of example ternary = $Binary_1$ ${\oplus\!\!\to}$ $Binary_2$. \[fig:ternary\]](fig6.eps){width="50mm"} Let $X\times Z \supset E_1= \{ \langle x_1,z_1 \rangle, \langle x_1,z_2 \rangle, \langle x_1,z_4 \rangle, \langle x_2,z_3 \rangle, \langle x_3,z_3 \rangle \}$ and $Z\times Y \supset E_2 = \{ \langle z_1,y_1 \rangle, \langle z_2,y_1\rangle, \langle z_3,y_1\rangle, \langle z_4,y_2\rangle \}$. Then $T = E_1 {\oplus\!\!\to}E_2$. More on that - see [@15] and see references to the authors recent papers therein. **Comment 11.** As a comment to the **Observation 9** and the **Observation 3** consider Fig.7 which was the source of inspiration for cobweb posets birth [@4; @3; @2; @5; @6] and here serves as Hasse diagram $D_{Fib} \equiv (\Phi, \prec\!\!\cdot_{Fib})$ of the poset $P(D_{Fib}) = (\Phi, \leq_{Fib} )$ associated to $D_{Fib}$. Obviuosly, $P(D_{Fib})$ is a subposet of the Fibonacci cobweb poset $P(D)$ and $D_{Fib}$ is a subgraph of the Fibonacci cobweb poset $P(D)$ Hasse diagram $D \equiv (\Phi,\prec\!\!\cdot )$. The Ferrers dimension of $D_{Fib}$ is obviously not equal one. {width="60mm"} **Exercise.** Find the Ferrers dimension of $D_{Fib}$. What is the dimension of the poset $P(D_{Fib}) = (\Phi, \leq_{Fib})$ ? (Compare with **Observation 2**). Find the chain $E_k \subset \Phi_{k}\times\Phi_{k+1}$, $k =0,1,2,...$ of binary relations such that $D_{Fib,n} = {\oplus\!\!\to}_{k=0}^n E_k, n \in N \cup \{\infty\}$. Find the Ferrers dimension of $D_{Fib,n}$. **Ad Bibliography Remark** On the history of oDAG nomenclature with David Halitsky and Others input one is expected to see more in [@15]. See also the December $2008$ subject of The Internet Gian Carlo Rota Polish Seminar ($http://ii.uwb.edu.pl/akk/sem/sem\_rota.htm$). Recommended readings on Ferrers digraphs of immediate use here are [@19]-[@25]. For example see pages 61 an 85 in [@19], see page 2 in [@20]. The J. Riguet paper [@21] is the source paper including also equivalent characterizations of Ferrers digraphs as well as other [@22; @23; @24]. The now classic reference on interval orders and interval graphs is [@25]. **Acknowledgments** Thank are expressed here to the Student of Gdańsk University Maciej Dziemiańczuk for applying his skillful TeX-nology with respect to the present work as well as for his general assistance and cooperation on KoDAGs investigation. [99]{} Jakob Jonsson Simplicial Complexes of Graphs Series, [*Lecture Notes in Mathematics*]{}, Vol. 1928 ,2008, XIV, 382 p. (see \[JJ\] Interpretations in terms of posets Section 9 ) A. Krzysztof Kwaśniewski, [*Cobweb posets as noncommutative prefabs*]{}, Adv. Stud. Contemp. Math. vol. 14 (1) (2007) 37-47. arXiv:math/0503286v4 ,\[v1\] Tue, 15 Mar 2005 04:26:45 GMT A.K.Kwaśniewski, [*The logarithmic Fib-binomial formula*]{}, Adv. Stud. Contemp. Math. v.9 No.1 (2004) 19-26 arXiv:math/0406258v1 \[v1\] Sun, 13 Jun 2004 17:24:54 GMT A.K.Kwaśniewski, [*Fibonomial cumulative connection constants*]{}, Bulletin of the ICA vol. 44 (2005), 81-92, see ArXiv:math/0406006v2 \[v6\] Fri, 20 Feb 2009 02:26:21 GMT , upgrade of Bulletin of the ICA vol. 44 (**2005**) 81-92 paper. A. Krzysztof Kwaśniewski, [*First Observations on Prefab Posets Whitney Numbers*]{}, Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras Volume 18, Number 1 / February, 2008, 57-73, arXiv:0802.1696v1, \[v1\] Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:47:18 GMT A. Krzysztof Kwaśniewski, [*On cobweb posets and their combinatorially admissible sequences*]{}, Adv. Studies Contemp. Math. Vol. **18** (1), **2009** - in press (upgraded version of arXiv:math/0512578v4 \[v4\] Sun, 21 Oct 2007 15:02:09 GMT). Plotnikov, Anatoly D., [*About presentation of a digraph by dim 2 poset.*]{},Adv. Stud. Contemp. Math., Kyungshang 12, No.1, 55-60 (2006). Richard P. Stanley, [*A matrix for counting paths in acyclic digraphs*]{}, J. Combinatorial Theory (A), 74 (1996) 169-172 Ewa Krot, [*Characterization of the Fibonacci Cobweb Poset as oDAG*]{}, arXiv:math/0503295v1 Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:52:45 GMT A. Krzysztof Kwaśniewski, M. Dziemiańczuk, [*Cobweb posets - Recent Results*]{}, Adv. Stud. Contemp. Math. vol. 16 (2) April 2008 . pp. 197-218 ; arXiv: math. /0801.3985 Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:01:28 GMT Ewa Krot-Sieniawska, [*Reduced Incidence algebras description of cobweb posets and KoDAGs*]{}, arXiv:0802.4293 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 Ewa Krot-Sieniawska, [*Characterization of Cobweb Posets as KoDAGs*]{}, arXiv:0802.2980v1 \[v1\] Thu, 21 Feb 2008 05:32:10 GMT A. K. Kwasniewski, M. Dziemianczuk, [*On cobweb posets’ most relevant codings*]{}, arXiv:0804.1728v1 \[v1\] Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:09:26 GMT A. Krzysztof Kwasniewski *On natural join of posets properties and first applications* arXiv:0908.1375v1 \[v1\] Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:45:03 Vadim E. Levit, Eugen Mandrescu, [*Matrices and ?-Stable Bipartite Graphs*]{}, Journal of Universal Computer Science, vol. 13, no. 11 (2007), 1692-1706 Emmanuel Ferrand, [*An analogue of the Thue-Morse sequence*]{}, The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 14 (2007) \#R 30 Donald E. Knuth , [*Two notes on notation*]{}, American Mathematical Monthly Vol. 99 , Issue 5 (May 1992) 403-422 Terry A. McKee and F.R. McMorris, [*Topics in intersection graph theory*]{}, \[SIAM Monographs on Discrete Mathematics and Applications \#2\] Philadelphia 1999 Soumyottam Chatterjee and Shamik Ghosh, [*Ferrers Dimension and Boxicity*]{}, arXiv:0811.1882v1 \[v1\] Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:32:12 GMT J. Riguet, [*Les Relations des Ferrers*]{}, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 232 (1951), 1729. O. Cogis, [*A characterization of digraphs with Ferrers dimension 2*]{}, Rapport de Recherche, 19, G. R. CNRS no. 22, Paris, 1979. M. Sen, S. Das, A. B. Roy and D. B. West, [*Interval Digraphs: An Analogue of Interval Graphs*]{}, J. Graph Theory, 13 (1989), 189-202. I.-J. Lin and M.K. Sen, Douglas B. West, [*Classes of interval digraphs and 0,1-matrices*]{} (with). Proc. 28th SE Conf., Congressus Numer. 125(1997), 201-209 P.C. Fishburn, [*Interval Orders and Interval Graphs: A Study of Partialy Ordered Sets*]{}, John Wiley & Sons, New York,1985.

ArXiv

--- title: 'Measurement of Higgs boson production in the diphoton decay channel in $pp$ collisions at center-of-mass energies of 7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector' --- A measurement of the production processes of the recently discovered Higgs boson is performed in the two-photon final state using 5.4 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions data at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV and 20.3 fb$^{-1}$ at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV collected by the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider. The number of observed Higgs boson decays to diphotons divided by the corresponding Standard Model prediction, called the signal strength, is found to be $\mu = 1.17 \pm 0.27$ at the value of the Higgs boson mass measured by ATLAS, $m_{H}$ = 125.4 GeV. The analysis is optimized to measure the signal strengths for individual Higgs boson production processes at this value of $m_{H}$. They are found to be $\mu_{\mathrm{ggF}} = 1.32 \pm 0.38$, $\mu_{\mathrm{VBF}} = 0.8 \pm 0.7$, $\mu_{\ensuremath{WH}} = 1.0 \pm 1.6 $, $\mu_{\ensuremath{ZH}} = 0.1 ^{+3.7}_{-0.1} $, $\mu_{\ensuremath{t\bar{t}H}} = 1.6 ^{+2.7}_{-1.8} $, for Higgs boson production through gluon fusion, vector-boson fusion, and in association with a $W$ or $Z$ boson or a top-quark pair, respectively. Compared with the previously published ATLAS analysis, the results reported here also benefit from a new energy calibration procedure for photons and the subsequent reduction of the systematic uncertainty on the diphoton mass resolution. No significant deviations from the predictions of the Standard Model are found.

ArXiv

--- abstract: | A binary Cayley graph is a Cayley graph based on a binary group. In 1982, Payan proved that any non-bipartite binary Cayley graph must contain a generalized Mycielski graph of an odd-cycle, implying that such a graph cannot have chromatic number 3. We strengthen this result first by proving that any non-bipartite binary Cayley graph must contain a projective cube as a subgraph. We further conjecture that any homomorphism of a non-bipartite binary Cayley graph to a projective cube must be surjective and we prove some special case of this conjecture. address: - 'CNRS, LIMOS, UMR6158, Univ. Clermont-Ferrand 2, Aubière – France' - 'CNRS, LRI, UMR8623, Univ. Paris-Sud 11, F-91405 Orsay Cedex – France' - 'Collège Militaire Royal du Canada, Kingston, Ontario – Canada' author: - Laurent Beaudou - Reza Naserasr - Claude Tardif bibliography: - 'mybib.bib' title: Homomorphisms of binary Cayley graphs --- Cayley graph ,homomorphism ,projective cube Introduction ============ For classic notation we will follow that of [@GodsilRoyle]. A *binary Cayley* graph is a Cayley graph ${\mbox{Cay}}(\Gamma, \Omega)$ where $\Gamma$ is a binary group (i.e., $x+x=0$ for any element $x$), and $\Omega$ is any subset of $\Gamma$ (normally not including element $0$). The vertices of the graph are the elements of $\Gamma$, and two vertices $u$ and $v$ are adjacent if and only if $u-v \in \Omega$. Thus ${\mbox{Cay}}(\Gamma, \Omega)$ is a simple graph when element $0$ is not in $\Omega$. Hypercubes are the most famous examples of binary Cayley graphs. In fact, for this reason, binary Cayley graphs often are referred to as *cube-like graphs*. Other examples of binary Cayley graphs, which are essential for this work, are the *projective cubes*. A projective cube of dimension $d$, denoted $\mathcal{PC}_d$, is defined as the Cayley graph ${\mbox{Cay}}(\mathbb{Z}_2^d, \{e_1,e_2,\cdots, e_d, J\})$ where $(e_1, e_2, \ldots, e_d)$ is the canonical basis and $J$ is the all-1 vector. Projective cube of dimension $d$ can be built from hypercube of dimension $d+1$ by identifying antipodal vertices. From this fact comes their name. It can also be built, equivalently, from the hypercube of dimension $d$ by adding edges between antipodal pairs of vertices. This satisfies the Cayley graph definition given here. In some literature they are also referred to as *folded cubes*. Projective cubes are studied for their highly symmetric structures. Homomorphisms to projective cubes capture some important packing and edge-coloring problems, see [@N07; @NRS13]. A graph $G$ is a [*core*]{} if it does not admit a homomorphism to a proper subgraph of itself. In this work we show the importance of projective cubes in the study of homomorphisms of Cayley graphs on binary groups. Among other properties, we will need the following results: The projective cube of dimension $2k-1$ is bipartite. Projective cube of dimension $2k$ is of odd girth $2k+1$. Furthermore, any pair of vertices of $\mathcal{PC}_{2k}$ is in a common cycle of length $2k+1$. \[ProjectiveCubeCORE\] The projective cube of dimension $2k$ is a core. In [@Payan98], Payan proved a surprising result that there is no binary Cayley graph of chromatic number 3. His proof was an implication of the following stronger result based on the following definition. Let $G$ be a graph on vertices $v^0_1, v^0_2, \ldots, v^0_n$. The $k$-th level Mycielski graph of $G$, denoted $M^k(G)$, is built from $G$ by adding vertices $v^1_1, v^1_2, \ldots,v^1_n$, $v^2_1, v^2_2, \ldots, v^2_n$ up to $v^k_1, v^k_2, \ldots, v^k_n$ where if $v^0_i$ is adjacent to $v^0_j$, then $v^r_i$ is also adjacent to $v^{r-1}_j$, finally we add one more vertex $w$ which is is joined to all vertices $v^k_i$. We will use the following result of Stiebitz, see [@Matousek2003] for a proof. Let $C$ be an odd-cycle. Then for any $i$, $\chi(M^i(C)) = 4$. Payan proved the following stronger statement: \[Payan\] Given a binary Cayley graph ${\mbox{Cay}}(\Gamma, \Omega)$ of odd-girth $2k+1$, the $k$-th level Mycielski graph $M^k(C_{2k+1})$ is a subgraph of ${\mbox{Cay}}(\Gamma, \Omega)$. This in particular implies that the projective cube of dimension $2k$ contains the graph $M^{k}(C_{2k+1})$ as a subgraph. This fact is also implied from the following view of the projective cubes. First, recall that for any pair of integer $n,k$ with $k < n$, the graph $K(n,k)$ is the [*Kneser graph*]{} of $k$ among $n$. Its vertex set is made by the $n \choose k$ subsets of $[1 \cdot n]$ of size $k$, two of them being adjacent if they are disjoint. Now, for an integer $k$, and a set $\mathcal A$ of size $2k+1$. Vertices of $\mathcal{PC}_{2k}$ can be regarded as the partitions $(A, \bar A)$ of $\mathcal A$. We always assume $A$ is the smaller part. Two such vertices $(A, \bar A)$ and $(B, \Bar B)$ are adjacent if either $A$ or $\bar A$ is obtained from $B$ by adding one more element. This implies that the subgraph induced by vertices $(A, \bar A)$ with $|A|=k$ is isomorphic to the Kneser graph $K(2k+1, k)$. To find $M^k(C_{2k+1})$ in this graph, just take $v^0_1, v^0_2, \ldots v^0_{2k+1}$ to be a $2k+1$-cycle in this Kneser graph. Call $(A_i,\bar{A_i})$ the partition associated with $v^0_i$. Then for each $j$, $A_{j-1}$ and $A_{j+1}$ (indices are taken modulo $2k+1$) have exactly $k-1$ elements in common. Let $A^1_j$ be this subset and define $v^1_j$ to be $(A^1_j \bar A^1_j)$. Continuing by induction each pair $v^i_{j-1}$ and $v^i_{j+1}$ of vertices define a unique set of size $i-1$ which defines $v^{i+1}_{j}$ with the last vertex being $(\emptyset, \mathcal{A})$. In Section \[sec:power\], we strengthen the result of Payan proving that: \[PCasSubgraph\] Given a binary Cayley graph ${\mbox{Cay}}(\Gamma, \Omega)$ of odd-girth $2k+1$, the projective cube $\mathcal{PC}_{2k}$ is a subgraph of $(\Gamma, \Omega)$. Since a $k$-coloring of a graph $G$ is equivalent to a homomorphism of $G$ to $K_k$, the corollary of Payan’s theorem can be restated as follows: \[PayanCorollary\] If a non-bipartite binary Cayley graph admits a homomorphism to $K_4$, then any such homomorphism must be a surjective mapping. Considering the fact that $K_4$ is isomorphic to $\mathcal{PC}_{2}$, we introduce the following conjecture in generalization of Theorem \[PayanCorollary\]. \[MappingToPC2k\] If a non-bipartite binary Cayley graph admits a homomorphism to $\mathcal{PC}_{2k}$, then any such homomorphism must be an onto mapping. In Section \[sec:bintopc\], we reduce this conjecture to properties of homomorphisms among Projective cubes only. Then we prove a special case. Power graphs and pseudo-duality {#sec:power} =============================== Given a set $A$, the [*power set*]{} of $A$ is the set of all subsets of $A$. It is denoted by ${\cal P }(A)$. This set forms a binary group together with the operation of *symmetric difference*. In fact it is isomorphic to $(\mathbb{Z}_{2}^{|A|},+)$, each subset being represented by its characteristic vector. For a graph $G$, let $\widehat{G}$ denote the Cayley graph ${\mbox{Cay}}( {\cal P}(V(G)), E(G))$. This is the graph whose vertices are the subsets of vertices of $G$ where two vertices are adjacent if their symmetric difference is an edge of $G$. It is worth noting that $E(G)$ is the smallest Cayley subset which makes the natural injection of $G$ into $\widehat{G}$ a homomorphism. Recall that a homomorphism is an edge preserving mapping of vertices. The graph $P_n$ is the path on $n$ vertices. The power graph $\widehat{P_n}$ consists of two connected components each isomorphic to the hypercube of dimension $n-1$. For a cycle, $C_n$, the power graph $\widehat{C_n}$ consists of two connected components each isomorphic to the projective cube of dimension $n-1$. In general the following holds. \[1\] For a graph $G$, an integer $n$ and a Cayley graph $H$ on ${\mathbb Z}_2^n$, there exists a homomorphism from $G$ to $H$ if and only if there exists a homomorphism from $\widehat{G}$ to $H$. We will prove Lemma \[1\] in a much more general form, encompassing all varieties of groups. Let ${\cal V}$ be a variety of groups, that is, a class of groups defined by a set of equations. For instance the variety of abelian groups is defined by the equation $xy = yx$, and the groups $\mbox{\Bb Z}_2^n$ are (up to isomorphism) the finite members of the variety of groups defined by the equation $x^2 = 1$. For a graph $G$, we denote by ${\cal F_V}(G)$ the free group on the vertex set of $G$ in the variety ${\cal V}$, and $S_{\cal V}(G)$ the following subset of ${\cal F_V}(G)$: $$S_{\cal V}(G) = \{ u^{-1}v : \{u,v\} \in E(G) \}.$$ The general form of Lemma \[1\] is the following. \[1+\] Let ${\mbox{Cay}}(A,S)$ be a Cayley graph, where $A$ is a group in ${\cal V}$. Then for a graph $G$, there exists a homomorphism of $G$ to ${\mbox{Cay}}(A,S)$ if and only if there exists a homomorphism of ${\mbox{Cay}}({\cal F_V}(G),S_{\cal V}(G))$ to ${\mbox{Cay}}(A,S)$. By definition of $S_{\cal V}(G)$, the inclusion of $V(G)$ in ${\cal F_V}(G)$ gives a natural homomorphism from $G$ to ${\mbox{Cay}}({\cal F_V}(G),S_{\cal V}(G))$. Therefore, if there exists a homomorphism of ${\mbox{Cay}}({\cal F_V}(G),S_{\cal V}(G))$ to ${\mbox{Cay}}(A,S)$, then there exists a homomorphism from $G$ to ${\mbox{Cay}}(A,S)$. Now suppose that there exists a graph homomorphism $\phi: G \rightarrow {\mbox{Cay}}(A,S)$. Then $\phi$ extends to a group homomorphism $\widehat{\phi}: {\cal F_V}(G) \rightarrow A$, and it is easy to see that $\widehat{\phi}$ is also a graph homomorphism of ${\mbox{Cay}}({\cal F_V}(G),S_{\cal V}(G))$ to ${\mbox{Cay}}(A,S)$. Indeed, if the set $\{w_1,w_2\}$ is an edge in ${\mbox{Cay}}({\cal F_V}(G),S_{\cal V}(G))$, then $w_1^{-1}w_2 = u^{-1}v$ for some $\{u,v\} \in E(G)$, whence $\widehat{\phi}(w_1)^{-1}\widehat{\phi}(w_2) = \phi(u)^{-1}\phi(v)$ which is in $S$. Note that when ${\cal V}$ is the variety of all groups, then ${\cal F_V}(G)$ is simply the free group on $V(G)$, and Lemma \[1+\] presents ${\mbox{Cay}}({\cal F_V}(G),S_{\cal V}(G))$ as the smallest Cayley graph into which $G$ admits a homomorphism. By a result of Sabidussi [@sabidussi64] reformulated in [@HahnTardif96], every vertex-transitive graph is a retract of a Cayley graph. Therefore ${\mbox{Cay}}({\cal F_V}(G),S_{\cal V}(G))$ is also the smallest vertex-transitive graph into which $G$ admits a homomorphism. In particular, the chromatic number of ${\mbox{Cay}}({\cal F_V}(G),S_{\cal V}(G))$ is equal to that of $G$; since the chromatic number is defined in terms of homomorphisms into complete graphs, which are Cayley graphs. The fractional chromatic number of $G$ is defined in terms of homomorphisms to Kneser graphs (see [@ScheinermanUllman97]), which are seldom Cayley graphs (see [@Scapellato96]) but nonetheless vertex-transitive; therefore the fractional chromatic number of ${\mbox{Cay}}({\cal F_V}(G),S_{\cal V}(G))$ is equal to that of $G$. When ${\cal V}$ is the variety of abelian groups, then the chromatic number of the Cayley graph ${\mbox{Cay}}({\cal F_V}(G),S_{\cal V}(G))$ is again equal to that of $G$, since the complete graphs are also Cayley graphs on abelian groups. However the fractional chromatic number of ${\mbox{Cay}}({\cal F_V}(G),S_{\cal V}(G))$ may be larger than that of $G$. For instance, it can be shown that the fractional chromatic number of the Petersen graph $P$ is $\frac{5}{2}$, while that of ${\mbox{Cay}}({\cal F_V}(P),S_{\cal V}(P))$ is $3$. Now, the finite groups in the variety ${\cal V}$ defined by the identity $x^2 = 1$ are all isomorphic to $\mbox{\Bb Z}_2^n$ for some $n$. Therefore only the complete graphs whose number of vertices is a power of $2$ are Cayley graphs on groups in ${\cal V}$, so for an arbitrary graph $G$, even the chromatic number of ${\mbox{Cay}}({\cal F_V}(G),S_{\cal V}(G))$ ( which is equal to $\widehat{G}$) may be larger than that of $G$. In essence, Corollary \[PayanCorollary\] goes a step further than this observation, by stating that the number $3$ does not even belong to the range of chromatic numbers of Cayley graphs of groups in ${\cal V}$. Note that $\widehat{C_n}$ consists in two disjoint copies of $\mathcal{PC}_{n-1}$. Thus if $C_{2k+1}$ maps to a binary Cayley graph $G$, then, by Lemma \[1\], the projective cube $\mathcal{PC}_{2k}$ maps to $G$. Furthermore, if $2k+1$ is the length of the shortest odd-cycle of $G$, then in any mapping of $\mathcal{PC}_{2k}$ to $G$ no two vertices of $\mathcal{PC}_{2k}$ can be identified. This proves the claim of Theorem \[PCasSubgraph\]. Mapping binary Cayley graphs to projective cubes {#sec:bintopc} ================================================ By restating Payan’s theorem with the language of homomorphisms, we obtain Theorem \[PayanCorollary\]. This led us to formulate Conjecture \[MappingToPC2k\], suggesting that what makes 4-coloring so special is the fact that $\mathcal{PC}_2$ is isomorphic to $K_4$. In the context of this conjecture, note that since $G$ is not bipartite it contains an odd-cycle. Let $2r+1$ be the length of a shortest odd-cycle of $G$. Since $G$ maps to $\mathcal{PC}_{2k}$ and since the odd-girth of $\mathcal{PC}_{2k}$ is $2k+1$, we have $r\geq k$. On the other hand Theorem \[PCasSubgraph\] tells us that $G$ contains $\mathcal{PC}_{2r}$ as a subgraph. Since $\mathcal{PC}_{2r}$ itself is a binary Cayley graph, Conjecture \[MappingToPC2k\] is equivalent to the following conjecture. \[MappingAmongPC2k\] Given $r\geq k$, any mapping of $\mathcal{PC}_{2r}$ to $\mathcal{PC}_{2k}$ must be onto. When $k$ is equal to 1, this conjecture is equivalent to Payan’s theorem and is implied by the fact that $M^k(C_{2k+1})$ is a subgraph of $\mathcal{PC}_{2k}$ as mentioned in the introduction. The case when $k$ is equal to $r$ is also equivalent to stating that $\mathcal{PC}_{2k}$ is a core as observed by Corollary \[ProjectiveCubeCORE\]. In the next theorem we verify the conjecture for $k=2$ and $r=3$. In other words we prove that any homomorphism of $\mathcal{PC}_6$ into $\mathcal{PC}_4$ should be surjective. We start with a couple of observations that might be useful in general case. \[obs:dist2\] If $f: \mathcal{PC}_{2k+2} \rightarrow \mathcal{PC}_{2k}$ is a homomorphism and $f(x)=f(y)$, then $x$ and $y$ have a common neighbor, i.e., they are at distance 2. Vertices $x$ and $y$ belong to a cycle of length $2k+3$ in $\mathcal{PC}_{2k+2}$. If they are not at distance 2, then there would be a cycle of odd length strictly smaller than $2k+1$ in $\mathcal{PC}_{2k}$ which is a contradiction. (0,0) node \[above\] [$\emptyset$]{}; (0,0) circle (1.5pt); (-6,-3) node \[left\] [$1$]{}; (-3,-3) node \[left\] [$2$]{}; iin [3,4,...,5]{}[ (3\*i- 9,-3) node \[right\] [$\i$]{}; ]{} iin [1,2,...,5]{}[ (3\*i- 9,-3) circle (1.5pt); (0,0) – (3\*i- 9,-3); in [1,2,...,4]{}[ (3\*i- 9,-3) – (.5\*+ 3\*i- 10.25, -4.5); ]{} ]{} (centre) at (0,-10.5); in [90,162,18,234,306]{}[ (a) at ($ (centre) + (\angle:2)$); (b) at ($ (centre) + (\angle-144:2)$); (c) at ($ (centre) + (\angle-144:4)$); (d) at ($ (centre) + (\angle-72:4)$); (e) at ($ (b) + (\angle - 154:1)$); (f) at ($ (b) + (\angle - 134:1)$); (g) at ($ (c) + (\angle - 154:1)$); (h) at ($ (c) + (\angle - 134:1)$); (a) – (b) – (c) – (d); (b) – (e); (b) – (f); (c) – (g); (c) – (h); (b) circle (1.5pt); (c) circle (1.5pt); ]{} ($ (centre) + (18:2)$) node\[below\] [$24$]{}; ($ (centre) + (18:4)$) node\[above\] [$35$]{}; ($ (centre) + (90:2)$) node\[right\] [$34$]{}; ($ (centre) + (90:4)$) node\[right\] [$12$]{}; ($ (centre) + (162:2)$) node\[below\] [$13$]{}; ($ (centre) + (162:4)$) node\[above\] [$45$]{}; ($ (centre) + (234:2)$) node\[right\] [$15$]{}; ($ (centre) + (234:4)$) node\[left\] [$23$]{}; ($ (centre) + (306:2)$) node\[left\] [$25$]{}; ($ (centre) + (306:4)$) node\[right\] [$14$]{}; \[preImageOf5\] If $f: \mathcal{PC}_{2k+2} \rightarrow \mathcal{PC}_{2k}$ is a homomorphism and $|f^{-1}(x)|\geq 5$ for some vertex $x\in V(\mathcal{PC}_{2k})$, then $f^{-1}(x) \subseteq N(a)$ for some $a\in V(\mathcal{PC}_{2k+2})$. Using the poset notation, and without loss of generality we may assume that the vertex associated with the empty set is in $f^{-1}(x)$. Then every other vertex in $f^{-1}(x)$ must be a 2-subset of $[1 \cdot 2k+3]$. Moreover they must be at distance 2 from each other, so that each pair of 2-subsets in $f^{-1}(x)$ have a non-empty intersection. In order to reach four such 2-subsets, there has to be a fixed element (say $i$) in all of them. Let $a$ be the vertex associated with the set $\{i\}$ in $\mathcal{PC}_{2k+2}$, we then have $f^{-1}(x) \subseteq N(a)$. \[obs:noPreimageOf6\] If there exists a homomorphism of $\mathcal{PC}_{6}$ into $\mathcal{PC}_{4}$ which is not surjective and such that a vertex of $\mathcal{PC}_{4}$ has a pre-image of size $6$, then there exists a homomorphism of $\mathcal{PC}_{6}$ into $\mathcal{PC}_{4}$ which is not surjective and with no vertex of $\mathcal{PC}_{4}$ being the image of $6$ vertices of $\mathcal{PC}_{6}$. Let $f$ be a homomorphism of $\mathcal{PC}_{6}$ into $\mathcal{PC}_{4}$ which is not surjective and such that a vertex $x$ of $\mathcal{PC}_{4}$ has a pre-image of size $6$. By Corollary \[preImageOf5\], there exists a vertex $a$ of $\mathcal{PC}_{6}$ such that $f^{-1}(x) \subseteq N(a)$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $a$ is the vertex associated with the empty set and that $f^{-1}(x)$ is made of the singletons from $\{1\}$ to $\{6\}$. Let $y$ be the image of the singleton $\{7\}$. It cannot be the image of $7$ vertices (otherwise it would be the whole neighborhood of a vertex in $\mathcal{PC}_{6}$ but each of the neighbors of $\{7\}$ has one of its neighbors mapped to $x$). Therefore, mapping the singleton $\{7\}$ to $x$ does not create a new vertex of $\mathcal{PC}_{4}$ being the image of $6$ vertices of $\mathcal{PC}_{6}$. One can easily check that it is still a homomorphism and it remains not surjective. We thus have built a homomorphism from $\mathcal{PC}_{6}$ to $\mathcal{PC}_{4}$ which is not surjective and with strictly less vertices of $\mathcal{PC}_{4}$ being the image of exactly $6$ vertices of $\mathcal{PC}_{6}$. We may keep doing so until there is no such vertex. \[obs:5gives5\] Let $f$ be homomorphism of $\mathcal{PC}_{6}$ into $\mathcal{PC}_{4}$. If there is a vertex $x$ of $\mathcal{PC}_{4}$ with a pre-image of size 5 or more, then there is a vertex $y$ adjacent to $x$ with a pre-image of size 5 or more. Moreover the common neighbor of the vertices in the pre-image of $y$ is adjacent to the common neighbor of the vertices in the pre-image of $x$. With Corollary \[preImageOf5\], we may assume that $f^{-1}(x) = \left\{ \{1\}, \{2\}, \{3\}, \{4\}, \{5\} \right\}$, the empty set being the common neighbor of the pre-image of $x$. This last set has twenty-one neighbors in $\mathcal{PC}_{6}$ that must be mapped to the five neighbors of $x$. One of these neighbors of $x$, must have a pre-image of size 5 or more. Let it be $y$. The only vertices having more than five neighbors in $N(f^{-1}(x))$ are the vertices associated with singletons. Therefore the common neighbors to the vertices of the pre-image of $y$ is a singleton which is adjacent to the empty set. \[thm:main\] Any homomorphism of $\mathcal{PC}_{6}$ into $\mathcal{PC}_{4}$ must be onto. For a contradiction, let $f: \mathcal{PC}_{6} \rightarrow \mathcal{PC}_{4}$ be a homomorphism which is not onto. By Observation \[obs:noPreimageOf6\], we may assume that for every vertex $x$ in $\mathcal{PC}_{4}$, the size of $f^{-1}(x)$ is not equal to $6$. We consider two cases: [**Case 1. There is a vertex $\mathbf{x}$ such that $\mathbf{|f^{-1}(x)|=7}$.**]{} We may assume that the pre-images of $x$ are exactly the singletons. Then $f$ maps the twenty-one vertices of size 2 into the five neighbors of $x$, thus there should be a neighbor $y$ of $x$ which is the image of five such vertices. These five vertices must share a common element (same arguments as for Corollary \[preImageOf5\]). Therefore, we may consider that they are associated with the sets $\{1,2\}, \{1,3\}, \ldots, \{1,6\}$. By mapping the empty set and the 2-subset $\{1,7\}$ we still have a non-surjective homomorphism with no pre-image of size 6 (same arguments as for Observation \[obs:noPreimageOf6\]). Therefore, we may assume that $f^{-1}(x)=N(\emptyset)$ and $f^{-1}(y)=N(\{1\})$. The remaining 2-subsets (which are the 2-subsets of $[2 \cdot 7]$) have to be mapped to the four other neighbors of $x$. Among the 3-subsets, the ones containing the element $1$ have to be mapped to the four other neighbors of $y$. The remaining sets are the 3-subsets of $[2 \cdot 7]$. In $\mathcal{PC}_{6}$, they induce a matching, each set being matched to its complement within $[2 \cdot 7]$. The fifteen 2-subsets of $[2 \cdot 7]$ have to be mapped within the four neighbors of $x$ which are not $y$. Two such sets can have the same image only if they share an element. Therefore, the restriction of $f$ to these vertices induce a coloring of the vertices of $K(6,2)$. Since $K(6,2)$ is 4-chromatic, the four neighbors of $x$ have a non-empty pre-image. Same argument works for the neighbors of $y$. In $\mathcal{PC}_{4}$ there are six vertices which are neither adjacent to $x$ nor to $y$. These six vertices induce a matching in $\mathcal{PC}_{4}$. Each of the 3-subsets of $[2 \cdot 7]$ has to be mapped simultaneously to a neighbor of a neighbor of $x$ and a neighbor of a neighbor of $y$. So these twenty vertices are mapped to the aforementioned six vertices of $\mathcal{PC}_{4}$. Both sets induce matchings in their respective graphs, hence if a vertex $a$ is mapped to a vertex $z$, the match of $a$ has to be mapped to the match of $z$. In other words, if some vertex $z$ is not in the image of $f$, its match is not either. Since $f$ is not onto, there must be two such vertices. Thus, all twenty vertices have to be mapped to four vertices and one of these four vertices must have a pre-image of size more than 5. By Corollary \[preImageOf5\], its pre-image is included in the neighborhood of some vertex in $\mathcal{PC}_{6}$. But there is no such 5-tuple among the twenty considered vertices. This is a contradiction. We note that we may actually map the twenty remaining vertices of $\mathcal{PC}_{6}$ to the six remaining vertices of $\mathcal{PC}_{4}$, and then obtain a homomorphism of $\mathcal{PC}_{6}$ into $\mathcal{PC}_{4}$. [**Case 2. For every vertex $\mathbf{x}$ of $\mathbf{\mathcal{PC}_{4}}$, $\mathbf{|f^{-1}(x)| \leq 5}$.**]{} In this case we first note that if $|f^{-1}(x)|=5$ then all five neighbors of $x$ must be in the image of $f$. Otherwise, the twenty-one neighbors of $f^{-1}(x)$ are mapped to only four vertices and therefore we have a neighbor $z$ of $x$ with $|f^{-1}(z)| \geq 6$. Since $f$ is not onto, there is a vertex $z$ in $\mathcal{PC}_{4}$ with an empty pre-image. Then every neighbor is the image of at most four vertices from $\mathcal{PC}_{6}$. [**Case 2.1**]{} Suppose there is a neighbor $t$ of $z$ which has a pre-image of size 4. Without loss of generality, and using Observation \[obs:dist2\] and symmetry arguments, either $f^{-1}(t)=\left\{\{1\},\{2\},\{3\},\{4\}\right\}$ or $f^{-1}(t)=\left\{\emptyset,\{1,2\},\{2,3\},\{1,3\}\right\}$. [**Case 2.1.1**]{} If $f^{-1}(t)=\{\emptyset, \{1,2\}, \{1,3\}, \{2,3\}\}$. Then there are twenty vertices in $N(f^{-1}(t))$ and they must map to four vertices only. So $N(f^{-1}(t))$ should be partitioned into four sets of size 5, each part being vertices with a common neighbor in $\mathcal{PC}_{6}$. But the only vertices having five neighbors in $N(f^{-1}(t))$ are the vertices associated with the empty set, $\{1,2\}$, $\{1,3\}$, and $\{2,3\}$. Thus they should be the center of such partitions, we then denote the corresponding parts by $P_{\emptyset}, P_{\{1,2\}}, P_{\{1,3\}}$ and $P_{\{2,3\}}$. Private neighborhoods give us that vertices $\{4\},\{5\},\{6\}$ and $\{7\}$ are in $P_{\emptyset}$, vertices $\{1,2,4\},\{1,2,5\},\{1,2,6\}$ and $\{1,2,7\}$ are in $P_{\{1,2\}}$, vertices $\{1,3,4\},\{1,3,5\},\{1,3,6\}$ and $\{1,3,7\}$ are in $P_{\{1,3\}}$, and finally vertices $\{2,3,4\},\{2,3,5\},\{2,3,6\}$ and $\{2,3,7\}$ are in $P_{\{2,3\}}$. Moreover, each set then contains exactly one of the four other vertices in $N(f^{-1}(t))$, i.e., $\{1\}, \{2\}, \{3\}, \{1,2,3\}$. Suppose $x$ is the image of five vertices of $P_{\emptyset}$. By Observation \[obs:5gives5\], there must be a neighbor $y$ of $x$ in $\mathcal{PC}_{4}$ and a neighbor $a$ of the empty set in $\mathcal{PC}_{6}$ such that five of the seven neighbors of $a$ are mapped into $y$, let $N'(a)$ be these five vertices. Note that for each $b$ in $\{1,2,3\}$, three of the neighbors of $\{b\}$ are already mapped into $t$, so $a$ cannot be a singleton included in $\{1,2,3\}$. We may then assume without loss of generality that $a$ is the singleton $\{4\}$. Then we observe that for any choice of $N'(a)$, this set $N'(a)$ will have a neighbor in each of the sets $P_{\emptyset}, P_{\{1,2\}}, P_{\{1,3\}}, P_{\{2,3\}}$. Therefore vertices $t, y, f(P_{\emptyset}), f(P_{\{1,2\}}), f(P_{\{1,3\}})$ and $f(P_{\{2,3\}})$ would induce a $K_{2,4}$ in $\mathcal{PC}_{4}$ which is a contradiction. [**Case 2.1.2**]{} If $f^{-1}(t)=\{\{1\}, \{2\}, \{3\} \{4\}\}$. The set $f^{-1}(t)$ has nineteen neighbors in $\mathcal{PC}_{6}$ and they should map, by $f$, to only four neighbors of $t$ in $\mathcal{PC}_{4}$. Thus the neighborhood of $f^{-1}(t)$ is partitioned into four sets, three of which are of size 5 and the last one of size 4. The ones of the size 5 must be common neighbors of a vertex in $\mathcal{PC}_{6}$ and the central vertex itself must be of the form $\{i\}$, but only one such $i$ can be in $\{5, 6, 7\}$. So without loss of generality we may assume that the first two parts of size 5 are subsets of $N(\{1\})$ and $N(\{2\})$. Furthermore since $\{1,2\}$ can only be in one of these two parts, we assume it is not in the first one. Thus the first part is precisely $P=\{\{1,3\},\{1,4\},\{1,5\},\{1,6\},\{1,7\}\}$. Let $x$ be the image of $P$. Then each neighbor of $\emptyset$ and $\{1, 2\}$ except $\{2\}$ is also a neighbor of a vertex in $P$. Furthermore, $f(\{2\})=t$ is also adjacent to $x$. Then if we change $f$ only in these place, namely defining $f'(\emptyset)=f'(\{1,2\})=v$ and $f'(a)=f(a)$ otherwise, we will have a have new homomorphism, $f'$, whose image is a subset of the image of $f$. This new homomorphism $f'$ would have a vertex with a pre-image of size $7$. But by the Case 1, it is impossible. [**Case 2.2**]{} We finally focus our attention on the case where every neighbor of $z$ is the image of at most three vertices of $\mathcal{PC}_{6}$. We remind the reader that we are under the assumption that pre-image of each vertex has size at most 5. With all these assumptions we prove the following claim: \[claim:laclaim\] If vertices $x$ and $y$ of $\mathcal{PC}_{4}$ are such that $|f^{-1}(x)|=|f^{-1}(y)|=5$ and $x$ is adjacent to $y$, then $f^{-1}(x) \subset N(a)$ and $f^{-1}(x) \subset N(b)$ for some vertices $a$ and $b$ of $\mathcal{PC}_{6}$ which are adjacent. Let $a$ be the common neighbor of the vertices in $f^{-1}(x)$. Note that $z$ and $x$ are not adjacent and, therefore, have two common neighbors. Each of these two common neighbors is the image of at most three vertices of $\mathcal{PC}_{6}$. Thus the twenty-one vertices of $N(f^{-1}(x))$ must be partitioned into five sets three of which are of size 5 and the other two of size exactly 3. Then $y$ must be the image of one of the parts of size 5 but these five elements can only be a common neighbor of vertex $b$ at distance 1 from $a$. This concludes the proof of Claim \[claim:laclaim\]. Having this observed note that there is no vertex mapped to $z$ and each neighbor of $z$ is the image of at most three vertices, thus at least forty-nine vertices are mapped to the vertices at distance 2 from $z$. And, therefore, at least nine of them are the image of five vertices. These nine vertices induce a subgraph isomorphic to $P^-$, that is the Petersen graph minus a vertex. Now we consider a mapping $g$ of $P^-$ which sends each of these nine vertices to the center of their pre-images under $f$. By Claim \[claim:laclaim\], this is a homomorphism of $P^-$ into $\mathcal{PC}_{6}$. But $P^-$ contains a $C_5$ while $\mathcal{PC}_{6}$ has odd-girth 7. This contradiction concludes the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\]. From these results, one can derive the following Corollary. Let $G$ be a binary Cayley graph of odd-girth $7$. If $G$ admits a homomorphism to $\mathcal{PC}_{4}$, then any such mapping must be onto. Concluding remarks ================== Conjecture \[MappingAmongPC2k\] can be strengthened in two steps each of which may give a new idea for proving it. The first strengthening is based on the following notation: Given a graph $G$ and a positive integer $l$ we define the *$l$-th walk power* of $G$, denoted $G^{(l)}$ to be a graph with vertices set of $G$ as its vertices where two vertices $x$ and $y$ being adjacent if there is a walk of length $l$ connecting $x$ and $y$ in $G$. It follows from this definition that if $\varphi$ is a homomorphism of $G$ to $H$, then $\varphi$ is also a homomorphism of $G^{(l)}$ to $H^{(l)}$. Since $\mathcal{PC}_{2k}^{(2k-1)}$ is isomorphic to $K_{2^{2k}}$, Conjecture \[MappingAmongPC2k\] would be implied by the following conjecture: For $r\geq k$ we have $\chi(\mathcal{PC}_{2r}^{(2k-1)})\geq 2^{2k}$. It seems then that the methods of algebraic topology used for graph coloring are the best tools to prove this conjecture. To this end we suggest the following stronger conjecture, we refer to [@Matousek2003] for definitions and details required for this conjecture. For $r\geq k$ the simplicial complex associated to $\mathcal{PC}_{2r}^{(2k-1)}$ is $2^{2k}$ connected. Finally, for odd values of $k$ the projective cube $\mathcal{PC}_{k}$ is a bipartite graph and homomorphism problems to or among these graphs are trivial. However the theory becomes more complicated under the notion of signed graph homomorphisms and signed projective cubes as studied in [@NRS13]. Analogue of this work for the case of singed projective cubes is under development.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'In an equilibrium axisymmetric galactic disc, the mean galactocentric radial and vertical velocities are expected to be zero everywhere. In recent years, various large spectroscopic surveys have however shown that stars of the Milky Way disc exhibit non-zero mean velocities outside of the Galactic plane in both the Galactocentric radial and vertical velocity components. While radial velocity structures are commonly assumed to be associated with non-axisymmetric components of the potential such as spiral arms or bars, non-zero vertical velocity structures are usually attributed to excitations by external sources such as a passing satellite galaxy or a small dark matter substructure crossing the Galactic disc. Here, we use a three-dimensional test-particle simulation to show that the global stellar response to a spiral perturbation induces both a radial velocity flow and non-zero vertical motions. The resulting structure of the mean velocity field is qualitatively similar to what is observed across the Milky Way disc. We show that such a pattern also naturally emerges from an analytic toy model based on linearized Euler equations. We conclude that an external perturbation of the disc might not be a requirement to explain all of the observed structures in the vertical velocity of stars across the Galactic disc. Non-axisymmetric internal perturbations can also be the source of the observed mean velocity patterns.' author: - | Carole Faure$^1$[^1], Arnaud Siebert$^1$, Benoit Famaey$^1$\ $^1$Observatoire Astronomique, Université de Strasbourg, CNRS UMR 7550, France title: 'Radial and vertical flows induced by galactic spiral arms: likely contributors to our “wobbly Galaxy”' --- Introduction ============ The Milky Way has long been known to possess spiral structure, but studying the nature and the dynamical effects of this structure has proven to be elusive for decades. Even though its fundamental nature is still under debate today, it has nevertheless started to be recently considered as a key player in galactic dynamics and evolution (e.g., Antoja et al. 2009; Quillen et al. 2011; Lépine et al. 2011; Minchev et al. 2012; Roskar et al. 2012 for recent works, or Sellwood 2013 for a review). However, zeroth order dynamical models of the Galaxy still mostly rely on the assumptions of a smooth time-independent and axisymmetric gravitational potential. For instance, recent determinations of the circular velocity at the Sun’s position and of the peculiar motion of the Sun itself all rely on the assumption of axisymmetry and on minimizing the non-axisymmetric residuals in the velocity field (Reid et al. 2009; McMillan & Binney 2010; Bovy et al. 2012; Schönrich 2012). Such zeroth order assumptions are handy since they allow us to develop dynamical models based on a phase-space distribution function depending only on three isolating integrals of motion, such as the action integrals (e.g., Binney 2013; Bovy & Rix 2013). Actually, an action-based approach does not necessarily have to rely on the axisymmetric assumption, as it is also possible to take into account the main non-axisymmetric component (e.g., the bar, see Kaasalainen & Binney 1994) by modelling the system in its rotating frame (e.g., Kaasalainen 1995). However the other non-axisymmetric components such as spiral arms rotating with a different pattern speed should then nevertheless be treated through perturbations (e.g., Kaasalainen 1994; McMillan 2013). The main problem with such current determinations of Galactic parameters, through zeroth order axisymmetric models, is that it is not clear that assuming axisymmetry and dynamical equilibrium to fit a benchmark model does not bias the results, by e.g. forcing this benchmark model to fit non-axisymmetric features in the observations that are not present in the axisymmetric model itself. This means that the residuals from the fitted model are not necessarily representative of the true amplitude of non-axisymmetric motions. In this respect, it is thus extremely useful to explore the full range of possible effects of non-axisymmetric features such as spiral arms in both fully controlled test-particle simulations as well as self-consistent simulations, and to compare these with observations. With the advent of spectroscopic and astrometric surveys, observational phase-space information for stars in an increasingly large volume around the Sun have allowed us to see more and more of these dynamical effect of non-axisymmetric components emerge in the data. Until recently, the most striking features were found in the solar neighbourhood in the form of moving groups, i.e. local velocity-space substructures shown to be made of stars of very different ages and chemical compositions (e.g., Chereul et al. 1998, 1999; Dehnen 1998; Famaey et al. 2005, 2007, 2008; Pompéia et al. 2011). Various non-axisymmetric models have been argued to be able to represent these velocity structures equally well, using transient (e.g., De Simone et al. 2004) or quasi-static spirals (e.g., Quillen & Minchev 2005; Antoja et al. 2011), with or without the help of the outer Lindblad resonance from the central bar (e.g., Dehnen 2000; Antoja et al. 2009; Minchev et al. 2010; McMillan 2013; Monari et al. 2013). The effects of non-axisymmetric components have also been analyzed a bit less locally by Taylor expanding to first order the planar velocity field in the cartesian frame of the Local Standard of Rest, i.e. measuring the Oort constants $A$, $B$, $C$ and $K$ (Kuijken & Tremaine 1994; Olling & Dehnen 2003), a procedure valid up to distances of less than 2 kpc. While old data were compatible with the axisymmetric values $C=K=0$ (Kuijken & Tremaine 1994), a more recent analysis of ACT/Tycho2 proper motions of red giants yielded $C = -10 \, {\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}\,{\rm kpc}^{-1}$ (Olling & Dehnen 2003). Using line-of-sight velocities of 213713 stars from the RAVE survey (Steinmetz et al. 2006; Zwitter et al. 2008; Siebert et al. 2011a; Kordopatis et al. 2013), with distances $d<2 \,$kpc in the longitude interval $-140^\circ < l < 10^\circ$, Siebert et al. (2011b) confirmed this value of $C$, and estimated a value of $K= +6\,{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}\,{\rm kpc}^{-1}$, implying a Galactocentric radial velocity[^2] gradient of $C+K = \partial V_R / \partial R \simeq - 4\,{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}\,{\rm kpc}^{-1}$ in the solar suburb (extended solar neighbourhood, see also Williams et al. 2013). The projection onto the plane of the mean line-of-sight velocity as a function of distance towards the Galactic centre ($|l|<5^\circ$) was also examined by Siebert et al. (2011b) both for the full RAVE sample and for red clump candidates (with an independent method of distance estimation), and clearly confirmed that the RAVE data are not compatible with a purely axisymmetric rotating disc. This result is not owing to systematic distance errors as considered in Binney et al. (2013), because the [*geometry*]{} of the radial velocity flow cannot be reproduced by systematic distance errors alone (Siebert et al. 2011b; Binney et al. 2013). Assuming, to first order, that the observed radial velocity map in the solar suburb is representative of what would happen in a razor-thin disc, and that the spiral arms are long-lived, Siebert et al. (2012) applied the classical density wave description of spiral arms (Lin & Shu 1964; Binney & Tremaine 2008) to constrain their parameters in the Milky Way. They found that the best-fit was obtained for a two-armed perturbation with an amplitude corresponding to $\sim 15$% of the background density and a pattern speed $\Omega_P \simeq 19 \,{\rm Gyr}^{-1}$, with the Sun close to the 4:1 inner ultra-harmonic resonance (IUHR). This result is in agreement with studies based on the location of moving groups in local velocity space (Quillen & Minchev 2005; Antoja et al. 2011; Pompéia et al. 2011). This study was advocated to be a useful first order benchmark model to then study the effect of spirals in three dimensions. In three dimensions, observations of the solar suburb from recent spectroscopic surveys actually look even more complicated. Using the same red clump giants from RAVE, it was shown that the mean [*vertical*]{} velocity was also non-zero and showed clear structure suggestive of a wave-like behaviour (Williams et al. 2013). Measurements of line-of-sight velocities for 11000 stars with SEGUE also revealed that the mean vertical motion of stars reaches up to 10 km/s at heights of 1.5 kpc (Widrow et al. 2012), echoing previous similar results by Smith et al. (2012). This is accompanied by a significant wave-like North-South asymmetry in SDSS (Widrow et al. 2012; Yanny & Gardner 2013). Observations from LAMOST in the outer Galactic disc (within 2 kpc outside the Solar radius and 2 kpc above and below the Galactic plane) also recently revealed (Carlin et al. 2013) that stars above the plane exhibit a net outward motion with downward mean vertical velocities, whilst stars below the plane exhibit the opposite behaviour in terms of vertical velocities (moving upwards, i.e. towards the plane too), but not so much in terms of radial velocities, although slight differences are also noted. There is thus a growing body of evidence that Milky Way disc stars exhibit velocity structures across the Galactic plane in [*both*]{} the Galactocentric radial and vertical components. While a global radial velocity gradient such as that found in Siebert et al. (2011b) can naturally be explained with non-axisymmetric components of the potential such as spiral arms, such an explanation is [*a priori*]{} less self-evident for vertical velocity structures. For instance, it was recently shown that the central bar cannot produce such vertical features in the solar suburb (Monari et al. 2014). For this reason, such non-zero vertical motions are generally attributed to vertical excitations of the disc by external means such as a passing satellite galaxy (Widrow et al. 2012). The Sagittarius dwarf has been pinpointed as a likely culprit for creating these vertical density waves as it plunged through the Galactic disc (Gomez et al. 2013), while other authors have argued that these could be due to interaction of the disc with small starless dark matter subhalos (Feldmann & Spolyar 2013). Here, we rather investigate whether such vertical velocity structures can be expected as the response to disc non-axisymmetries, especially spiral arms, in the absence of external perturbations. As a first step in this direction, we propose to qualitatively investigate the response of a typical old thin disc stellar population to a spiral perturbation in controlled test particle orbit integrations. Such test-particle simulations have revealed useful in 2D to understand the effects of non-axisymmetries and their resonances on the disc stellar velocity field, including moving groups (e.g., Antoja et al. 2009, 2011; Pompéia et al. 2011), Oort constants (e.g., Minchev et al. 2007), radial migrations (e.g., Minchev & Famaey 2010), or the dip of stellar density around corotation (e.g., Barros et al. 2013). Recent test-particle simulations in 3D have rather concentrated on the effects of the central bar (Monari et al. 2013, 2014), while we concentrate here on the effect of spiral arms, with special attention to mean vertical motions. In Sect. 2, we give details on the model potential, the initial conditions and the simulation technique, while results are presented in Sect. 3, and discussed in comparison with solutions of linearized Euler equations. Conclusions are drawn in Sect. 4. Model ===== To pursue our goal, we use a standard test-particle method where orbits of massless particles are integrated in a time-varying potential. We start with an axisymmetric background potential representative of the Milky Way (Sect. 2.1), and we adiabatically grow a spiral perturbation on it within $\sim 3.5$ Gyr. Once settled, the spiral perturbation is kept at its full amplitude. This is not supposed to be representative of the actual complexity of spiral structure in real galaxies, where self-consistent simulations indicate that it is often coupled to a central bar and/or a transient nature with a lifetime of the order of only a few rotations. Nevertheless, it allows us to investigate the stable response to an old enough spiral perturbation ($\sim 600 \,$Myr to $1 \,$Gyr in the self-consistent simulations of Minchev et al. 2012). The adiabatic growth of this spiral structure is not meant to be realistic, as we are only interested in the orbital structure of the old thin disk test population once the perturbation is stable. We generate initial conditions for our test stellar population from a discrete realization of a realistic phase-space distribution function for the thin disc defined in integral-space (Sect 2.2), and integrate these initial conditions forward in time within a given time-evolving background+spiral potential (Sect. 2.3). We then analyze the mean velocity patterns seen in configuration space, both radially and vertically, and check whether such patterns are stable within the rotating frame of the spiral. Axisymmetric background potential --------------------------------- The axisymmetric part of the Galactic potential is taken to be Model I of Binney & Tremaine (2008). Its main parameters are summarized in Table 1 for convenience. The central bulge has a truncated power-law density of the form $$\rho_b(R,z) = \rho_{b0} \times \left( \frac{\sqrt{R^2 + (z/q_b)^2}}{a_b} \right)^{-\alpha_b} {\rm exp}\left( -\frac{R^2+(z/q_b)^2}{r_b^2} \right)$$ where $R$ is the Galactocentric radius within the midplane, $z$ the height above the plane, $\rho_{b0}$ the central density, $r_b$ the truncation radius, and $q_b$ the flattening. The total mass of the bulge is $M_b = 5.18 \times 10^9 {\ensuremath{{\rm M}_\odot}}$. The stellar disc is a sum of two exponential profiles (for the thin and thick discs): $$\rho_d(R,z) = \Sigma_{d0} \times \left( \sum_{i=1}^{i=2} \frac{\alpha_{d,i}}{2z_{d,i}} {\rm exp}\left(-\frac{|z|}{z_{d,i}}\right) \right) {\rm exp}\left(-\frac{R}{R_d}\right)$$ where $\Sigma_{d0}$ is the central surface density, $\alpha_{d,1}$ and $\alpha_{d,2}$ the relative contributions of the thin and thick discs, $z_{d,1}$ and $z_{d,2}$ their respective scale-heights, and $R_d$ the scale-length. The total mass of the disc is $M_d = 5.13 \times 10^{10} {\ensuremath{{\rm M}_\odot}}$.The disc potential also includes a contribution from the interstellar medium of the form $$\rho_g(R,z) = \frac{\Sigma_g}{2z_g} \times {\rm exp}\left(-\frac{R}{R_g} -\frac{R_m}{R} - \frac{|z|}{z_g}\right)$$ where $R_m$ is the radius within which there is a hole close to the bulge region, $R_g$ is the scale-length, $z_g$ the scale-height, and $\Sigma_g$ is such that it contributes to 25% of the disc surface density at the galactocentric radius of the Sun. Finally, the dark halo is represented by an oblate two-power-law model with flattening $q_h$, of the form $$\begin{aligned} \rho_{h}(R,z)&=&\rho_{h0} \times \left( \frac{\sqrt{R^2 + (z/q_h)^2}}{a_h} \right)^{-\alpha_h}\times\nonumber\\&&\left( 1 + \frac{\sqrt{R^2 + (z/q_h)^2}}{a_h} \right)^{\alpha_h - \beta_h}.\end{aligned}$$ Parameter Axisymmetric potential ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ $M_b({\ensuremath{{\rm M}_\odot}})$ $5.18 \times 10^9$ $M_d({\ensuremath{{\rm M}_\odot}})$ $5.13 \times 10^{10}$ $M_{h, <100 {\ \mathrm{kpc}}}({\ensuremath{{\rm M}_\odot}})$ $6. \times 10^{11}$ $\rho_{b0}({\ensuremath{{\rm M}_\odot}}{\, {\rm pc} }^{-3})$ $0.427$ ${a_{\mathrm{b}}}({\ \mathrm{kpc}})$ $1.$ $r_b({\ \mathrm{kpc}})$ $1.9$ $\alpha_b$ $1.8$ $q_b$ $0.6$ $\Sigma_{d0}+\Sigma_g({\ensuremath{{\rm M}_\odot}}{\, {\rm pc} }^{-2})$ 1905. $R_d({\ \mathrm{kpc}})$ 2. $R_g({\ \mathrm{kpc}})$ 4. $R_m({\ \mathrm{kpc}})$ 4. $\alpha_{d,1}$ $14/15$ $\alpha_{d,2}$ $1/15$ $z_{d,1}({\ \mathrm{kpc}})$ 0.3 $z_{d,2}({\ \mathrm{kpc}})$ 1. $z_g({\ \mathrm{kpc}})$ 0.08 $\rho_{h0}({\ensuremath{{\rm M}_\odot}}{\, {\rm pc} }^{-3})$ 0.711 $a_h({\ \mathrm{kpc}})$ $3.83$ $\alpha_h$ $-2.$ $\beta_h$ $2.96$ $q_h$ $0.8$ : Parameters of the axisymmetric background model potential (Binney & Tremaine 2008)[]{data-label="tab:potaxi"} The potential is calculcated using the GalPot routine (Dehnen & Binney 1998). The rotation curve corresponding to this background axisymmetric potential is displayed in Fig. \[f:rc\]. For radii smaller than $11$ kpc, the total rotation curve (black line) is mostely infuenced by the disc (blue dashed line) and above by the halo (red dotted line). ![Rotation curve corresponding to the background axisymmetric potential[]{data-label="f:rc"}](fig1.ps){width="7cm"} Initial conditions ------------------ The initial conditions for the test stellar population are set from a discrete realization of a phase-space distribution function (Shu 1969, Bienaymé & Séchaud 1997) which can be written in integral space as: $$f(E_R,L_z,E_z)=\frac{\Omega \, \rho_d}{\sqrt{2} \kappa \pi^{\frac{3}{2}} \sigma^2_R \sigma_z} \exp \left( \frac{-(E_R-E_c)}{\sigma^2_R}-\frac{E_z}{\sigma^2_z} \right)$$ in which the angular velocity $\Omega$, the radial epicyclic frequency $\kappa$ and the disc density in the plane $\rho_d$ are all functions of $L_z$, being taken at the radius $R_c(L_z)$ of a circular orbit of angular momentum $L_z$. The scale-length of the disc is taken to be 2 kpc as for the background potential. The energy $E_c(L_z)$ is the energy of the circular orbit of angular momentum $L_z$ at the radius $R_c$. Finally, the radial and vertical dispersions $\sigma^2_R$ and $\sigma^2_z$ are also function of $L_z$ and are expressed as: $$\sigma^2_R=\sigma^2_{R_\odot}\exp\left( \frac{2R_{\odot}-2R_c}{R_{\sigma_R}}\right),$$ $$\sigma^2_z=\sigma^2_{z_\odot}\exp\left( \frac{2R_{\odot}-2R_c}{R_{\sigma_z}}\right)$$ where $R_{\sigma_R}/R_d = R_{\sigma_z}/R_d = 5$. The initial velocity dispersions thus decline exponentially with radius but at each radius, it is isothermal as a function of height. These initial values are set in such a way as to be representative of the old thin disc of the Milky Way after the response to the spiral perturbation. Indeed, the old thin disc is the test population we want to investigate the response of. From this distribution function, $4\times 10^7$ test particle initial conditions are generated in a 3D polar grid between $R=4$ kpc and $R=15$ kpc (see Fig. \[f:rhoini\]). This allows a good resolution in the solar suburb. Before adding the spiral perturbation, the simulation is run in the axisymmetric potential for two rotations ($\sim 500$ Myr), and is indeed stable. ![Initial conditions. Left panel: Number of stars per ${\rm kpc}^2$ (surface density) within the Galactic plane as a function of $R$. Right panel: Stellar density as a function of $z$ at $R=8$ kpc.[]{data-label="f:rhoini"}](fig2a.ps "fig:"){width="4cm"} ![Initial conditions. Left panel: Number of stars per ${\rm kpc}^2$ (surface density) within the Galactic plane as a function of $R$. Right panel: Stellar density as a function of $z$ at $R=8$ kpc.[]{data-label="f:rhoini"}](fig2b.ps "fig:"){width="4cm"} ![Positions of the main radial resonances of the spiral potential. $\Omega(R ) = v_c(R)/r$ is the local circular frequency, and $v_c(R )$ is the circular velocity. The $2:1$ ILR occurs along the curve $\Omega(R ) - \kappa/2$, where $\kappa$ is the local radial epicyclic frequency. The inner $4:1$ IUHR occurs along the curve $\Omega(R ) - \kappa/4$.[]{data-label="f:Omega"}](fig3.ps){width="7cm"} ![Positions of the 4:1, 6:1 and 8:1 vertical resonances. When $\Omega - \Omega_P = \nu/n$, where $\nu$ is the vertical epicyclic frequency, the star makes precisely $n$ vertical oscillations along one rotation within the rotating frame of the spiral.[]{data-label="f:Omeganu"}](fig4.ps){width="7cm"} Spiral perturbation and orbit integration ----------------------------------------- In 3D, we consider a spiral arm perturbation of the Lin-Shu type (Lin & Shu 1964; see also Siebert et al. 2012) with a sech$^2$ vertical profile (a pattern that can be supported by three-dimensional periodic orbits, see e.g. Patsis & Grosb[ø]{}l 1996) and a small ($\sim 100$ pc) scale-height: $$\Phi_{s}(R,\theta,z)=-A \cos\left[m\left( \Omega_P t - \theta+\frac{\ln(R)}{\tan p}\right) \right] {\rm sech}^2 \left(\frac{z}{z_0} \right) \label{spipot}$$ in which $A$ is the amplitude of the perturbation, $m$ is the spiral pattern mode ($m=2$ for a 2-armed spiral), $\Omega_P$ is the pattern speed, $p$ the pitch angle, and $z_0$ is the spiral scale-height. The edge-on shapes of orbits of these thick spirals are determined by the vertical resonances existing in the potential. The parameters of the spiral potential used in our simulation are inspired by the analytic solution found in Siebert et al. (2012) using the classical 2D Lin-Shu formalism to fit the radial velocity gradient observed with RAVE (Siebert et al. 2011b). The parameters used here are summarized in Table 2. The amplitude $A$ which we use corresponds to 1% of the background axisymmetric potential at the Solar radius (3% of the disc potential). The positions of the main radial resonances, i.e. the 2:1 inner Lindblad resonance (ILR) and 4:1 IUHR, are illustrated in Fig. \[f:Omega\]. The presence of the 4:1 IUHR close to the Sun is responsible for the presence of the Hyades and Sirius moving groups in the local velocity space at the Solar radius (see Pompéia et al. 2011), associated to square-shaped resonant orbital families in the rotating spiral frame. Vertical resonances are also displayed in Fig. \[f:Omeganu\]. Such a spiral perturbation can grow naturally in self-consistent simulations of isolated discs without the help of any external perturber (e.g. Minchev et al. 2012). As we are interested hereafter in the global response of the thin disc stellar population to a quasi-static spiral perturbation, we make sure to grow the perturbation adiabatically by multiplying the above potential perturbation by a growth factor starting at $t\approx 0.5$ Gyr and finishing at $t\approx 3.5$ Gyr: $\epsilon (t)=\frac{1}{2}(\tanh(1.7\times t-3.4)+1)$. The integration of orbits is performed using a fourth order Runge-Kutta algorithm run on Graphics Processing Units (GPUs). The growth of this spiral is not meant to be realistic, as we are only interested in the orbital structure of the old thin disk once the perturbation is stable. Parameter Spiral potential -------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ $m$ 2 $A$ (km$^2$ s$^{-2}$) 1000 $p$ (deg) -9.9 $z_0({\ \mathrm{kpc}})$ 0.1 $\Omega_P({\, {\rm km} }{\rm s}^{-1} {\ \mathrm{kpc}}^{-1})$ 18.6 $R_{\rm ILR}({\ \mathrm{kpc}})$ 1.94 $R_{\rm IUHR}({\ \mathrm{kpc}})$ 7.92 ${R_{\mathrm{CR}}}({\ \mathrm{kpc}})$ 11.97 : Parameters of the spiral potential and location of the main resonances[]{data-label="tab:spiral"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} ![Galactocentric radial velocities in the solar suburb, centered at $(R,\theta)=(8\, {\rm kpc}, 26^\circ)$ at $t=4 \,$Gyr. On this plot, the Sun is centered on $(x,y)=(0,0)$, positive $x$ indicates the direction of the Galactic centre, and positive $y$ the direction of galactic rotation (as well as the sense of rotation of the spiral pattern). The spiral potential contours overplotted (same as on Fig. \[f:cartevr\], delimiting the region where the spiral potential is between 80% and 100% of its absolute maximum) would correspond to the location of the Perseus spiral arm in the outer Galaxy. This Figure can be qualitatively compared to Fig. 4 of Siebert et al. (2011b) and Fig. 3 of Siebert et al. (2012).[]{data-label="f:RAVE"}](fig7.ps){width="8cm"} Results ======= Radial velocity flow -------------------- The histogram of individual galactocentric radial velocities, $v_R$, as well as the time-evolution of the radial velocity dispersion profile starting from $t=3.5 \,$Gyr (once the steady spiral pattern is settled) are plotted on Fig. \[f:sigmar\]. It can be seen that these are reasonably stable, and that the mean radial motion of stars is very close to zero (albeit slightly positive). Our test population is thus almost in perfect equilibrium. However, due to the presence of spiral arms, the mean galactocentric radial velocity $\langle v_R \rangle$ of our test population is non-zero at given positions within the frame of the spiral arms. The map of $\langle v_R \rangle$ as a function of position in the plane is plotted on Fig. \[f:cartevr\], for different time-steps (4 Gyr, 5 Gyr, 6 Gyr and 6.5 Gyr). Within the rotating frame of the spiral pattern, the locations of these non-zero mean radial velocities are stable over time: this means that the response to the spiral perturbation is stable, even though the amplitude of the non-zero velocities might slightly decrease with time. Within corotation, the mean $\langle v_R \rangle$ is negative within the arms (mean radial motion towards the Galactic centre) and positive (radial motion towards the anticentre) between the arms. Outside corotation, the pattern is reversed. This is exactly what is expected from the Lin-Shu density wave theory (see, e.g., Eq. 3 in Siebert et al. 2012). If we place the Sun at $(R,\theta)=(8\, {\rm kpc}, 26^\circ)$ in the frame of the spiral, we can plot the expected radial velocity field in the Solar suburb (Fig. \[f:RAVE\]). We see that the galactocentric radial velocity is positive in the inner Galaxy, as observed by Siebert et al. (2011b), because the inner Galaxy in the local suburb corresponds to an inter-arm region located within the corotation of the spiral. Observations towards the outer arm (which should correspond to the Perseus arm in the Milky Way) should reveal negative galactocentric radial velocities. An important aspect of the present study is the behaviour of the response to a spiral perturbation away from the Galactic plane. The spiral perturbation of the potential is very thin in our model ($z_0 = 100 \,$pc) but as we can see on Figs. \[f:cartevrRZ\] and \[f:cartevrRZ\_azimuth\], the radial velocity flow is not varying much as a function of $z$ up to five times the scale-height of the spiral perturber. This justifies the assumption made in Siebert et al. (2012) that the flow observed at $\sim 500 \,$pc above the plane was representative of what was happening in the plane. Nevertheless, above these heights, the trend seems to be reversed, probably due to the higher eccentrities of stars, corresponding to different guiding radii. This could potentially provide a useful observational constraint on the scale height of the spiral potential, a test that could be conducted with the forthcoming surveys. {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} Non-zero mean vertical motions ------------------------------ {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="8cm"} {width="8cm"} If we now turn our attention to the vertical motion of stars, we see on Fig. \[f:sigmaz\] that the total mean vertical motion of stars remains zero at all times, but that there is still a slight, but reasonable, vertical heating going on in the inner Galaxy. What is most interesting is to concentrate on the mean vertical motion $\langle v_z \rangle$ as a function of position above or below the Galactic disc. As can be seen on Fig. \[f:cartevzRZ\] and Fig. \[f:cartevzRZ\_azimuth\], while the vertical velocities are generally close to zero right within the plane, they are non-zero outside of it. At a given azimuth within the frame of the spiral, these non-zero vertical velocity patterns are extremely stable over time (Fig. \[f:cartevzRZ\]). Within corotation the mean vertical motion is directed away from the plane at the outer edge of the arm and towards the plane at the inner edge of the arm. The pattern of $\langle v_z \rangle$ above and below the plane are thus mirror-images, and the direction of the mean motion changes roughly in the middle of the interarm region. This produces diagonal features in terms of isocontours of a given $\langle v_z \rangle$, corresponding precisely to the observation using RAVE by Williams et al. (2013, see especially their Fig. 13), where the change of sign of $\langle v_z \rangle$ precisely occurs in between the Perseus and Scutum main arms. Our simulation predicts that the $\langle v_z \rangle$ pattern is reversed outside of corotation (beyond 12 kpc), where stars move towards the plane on the outer edge of the arm (rather than moving away from the plane): this can indeed be seen, e.g., on the right panel of the second row of our Fig. \[f:cartevzRZ\_azimuth\]. If we now combine the information on $\langle v_R \rangle$ and $\langle v_z \rangle$, we can plot the global meridional velocity flow $\vec{\langle v \rangle} = \langle v_R \rangle \vec{1}_R + \langle v_z \rangle \vec{1}_z$ on Fig. \[f:cartevtotRZ\] and Fig. \[f:cartevtotRZ\_azimuth\]. The picture that emerges is the following: in the interarm regions located within corotation, stars move on average from the inner arm to the outer arm by going outside of the plane, and then coming back towards the plane at mid-distance between the two arms, to finally arrive back on the inner edge of the outer arm. For each azimuth, there are thus “source” points, preferentially on the outer edge of the arms (inside corotation, whilst on the inner edge outside corotation), out of which the mean velocity vector flows, while there are “sink” points, preferentially on the inner edge of the arms (inside corotation), towards which the mean velocity flows. This supports the interpretation of the observed RAVE velocity field of Williams et al. (2013) as “compression/rarefaction” waves. Interpretation from linearized Euler equations ---------------------------------------------- In order to understand these features found in the meridional velocity flow of our test-particle simulation, we now turn to the fluid approximation based on linearized Euler equations, developed, e.g., in Binney & Tremaine (2008, Sect. 6.2). A rigorous analytical treatment of a quasi-static spiral perturbation in a three-dimensional stellar disk should rely on the linearized Boltzmann equations, which we plan to do in full in a forthcoming paper, but the fluid approximation can already give important insights on the shape of the velocity flow expected in the meridional plane. In the full Boltzmann-based treatment, the velocity flow will be tempered by reduction factors both in the radial (see, e.g., Binney & Tremaine 2008, Appendix K) and vertical directions. Let us rewrite our perturber potential of Eq. \[spipot\] as $$\Phi_s= \mathbf{Re} \lbrace \Phi_a(R,z) \X \rbrace$$ with $$\Phi_a = - A \, {\mathrm sech}^2 \left(\frac{z}{z_0} \right) \exp \Big(i \frac{m \ln(R)}{\tan p} \Big).$$ Then if we write solutions to the linearized Euler equations for the response of a cold fluid as $$\left\{ \begin{array}{l} v_{Rs} = \mathbf{Re} \lbrace v_{Ra}(R,z) \X \rbrace\\ \\ v_{zs} = \mathbf{Re} \lbrace v_{za}(R,z)) \X \rbrace\\ \end{array} \right. \label{meanv}$$ we find, following the same steps as in Binney & Tremaine (2008, Sect. 6.2) $$\left\{ \begin{array}{l l} v_{Ra}=& - \frac{ m (\Omega - \Omega_P)}{\Delta} k \Phi_a \\ &+ i \frac{2 \Phi_a}{\Delta} \left( \frac{2 \Omega {\rm tanh}(z/z_0)}{m (\Omega - \Omega_P) z_0} + \frac {m \Omega}{R} \right)\\ \\ v_{za} =& - \frac{ 2 i}{m (\Omega -\Omega_P) z_0} {\rm tanh}\Big( \frac{z}{z_0}\Big) \Phi_a \\ \end{array} \right. \label{va}$$ where $k=m/(R \, {\rm tan \,}p)$ is the radial wavenumber and $\Delta = \kappa^2 - m^2(\Omega-\Omega_P)^2$. If we plot these solutions for $v_{Rs}$ and $v_{zs}$ at a given angle (for instance $\theta=30^\circ$) we get the same pattern as in the simulation (Fig. \[f:euler\]). Of course, the velocity flow plotted on Fig. \[f:euler\] would in fact be damped by a reduction factor depending on both radial and vertical velocity dispersions when treating the full linearized Boltzmann equation, which will be the topic of a forthcoming paper. Nevertheless, this qualitative consistency between analytical results and our simulations is an indication that the velocity pattern observed by Williams et al. (2013) is likely linked to the potential perturbation by spiral arms. Interestingly, this analytical model also predicts that the radial velocity gradient should become noticeably North/South asymmetric close to corotation. Discussion and conclusions ========================== In recent years, various large spectroscopic surveys have shown that stars of the Milky Way disc exhibit non-zero mean velocities outside of the Galactic plane in both the Galactocentric radial component and vertical component of the mean velocity field (e.g., Siebert et al. 2011b; Williams et al. 2013; Carlin et al. 2013). While it is clear that such a behaviour could be due to a large combination of factors, we investigated here whether spiral arms are able to play a role in these observed patterns. For this purpose, we investigated the orbital response of a test population of stars representative of the old thin disc to a stable spiral perturbation. This is done using a test-particle simulation with a background potential representative of the Milky Way. We found non-zero velocities both in the Galactocentric radial and vertical velocity components. Within the rotating frame of the spiral pattern, the location of these non-zero mean velocities in both components are stable over time, meaning that the response to the spiral perturbation is stable. Within corotation, the mean $\langle v_R \rangle$ is negative within the arms (mean radial motion towards the Galactic centre) and positive (radial motion towards the anticentre) between the arms. Outside corotation, the pattern is reversed, as expected from the Lin-Shu density wave theory (Lin & Shu 1964). On the other hand, even though the spiral perturbation of the potential is very thin, the radial velocity flow is still strongly affected above the Galactic plane. Up to five times the scale-height of the spiral potential, there are no strong asymmetries in terms of radial velocity, but above these heights, the trend in the radial velocity flow is reversed. This means that asymmetries could be observed in surveys covering different volumes above and below the Galactic plane. Also, forthcoming surveys like Gaia, 4MOST, WEAVE will be able to map this region of the disc of the Milky Way and measure the height at which the reversal occurs. Provided this measurement is successful, it would give a measurement of the scale height of the spiral potential. In terms of vertical velocities, within corotation, the mean vertical motion is directed away from the plane at the outer edge of the arms and towards the plane at the inner edge of the arms. The patterns of $\langle v_z \rangle$ above and below the plane are thus mirror-images (see e.g. Carlin et al. 2013). The direction of the mean vertical motion changes roughly in the middle of the interam region. This produces diagonal features in terms of isocontours of a given $\langle v_z \rangle$, as observed by Williams et al. (2013). The picture that emerges from our simulation is one of “source” points of the velocity flow in the meridional plane, preferentially on the outer edge of the arms (inside corotation, whilst on the inner edge outside corotation), and of “sink” points, preferentially on the inner edge of the arms (inside corotation), towards which the mean velocity flows. We have then shown that this qualitative structure of the mean velocity field is also the behaviour of the analytic solution to linearized Euler equations for a toy model of a cold fluid in response to a spiral perturbation. In a more realistic analytic model, this fluid velocity would in fact be damped by a reduction factor depending on both radial and vertical velocity dispersions when treating the full linearized Boltzmann equation. In a next step, the features found in the present test-particle simulations will also be checked for in fully self-consistent simulations with transient spiral arms, to check whether non-zero mean vertical motions as found here are indeed generic. The response of the gravitational potential itself to these non-zero motions should also have an influence on the long-term evolution of the velocity patterns found here, in the form of e.g. bending and corrugation waves. The effects of multiple spiral patterns (e.g., Quillen et al. 2011) and of the bar (e.g., Monari et al. 2013, 2014) should also have an influence on the global velocity fiel and on its amplitude. Once all these different dynamical effects and their combination will be fully understood, a full quantitative comparison with present and future datasets in 3D will be the next step. The present work on the orbital response of the thin disc to a small spiral perturbation by no means implies that no external perturbation of the Milky Way disc happened in the recent past, by e.g. the Sagittarius dwarf (e.g., Gomez et al. 2013). Such a perturbation could of course be responsible for parts of the velocity structures observed in various recent large spectrosocpic surveys. For instance, concerning the important north-south asymmetry spotted in stellar densities at relatively large heights above the disc, spiral arms are less likely to play an important role. Nevertheless, any external perturbation will also excite a spiral wave, so that understanding the dynamics of spirals is also fundamental to understanding the effects of an external perturber. The qualitative similarity between our simulation (e.g., Fig. \[f:cartevzRZ\]), as well as our analytical estimates for the fluid approximation (Fig. \[f:euler\]), and the velocity pattern observed by Williams et al. (2013, their Fig. 13) indicates that spiral arms are likely to play a non-negligible role in the observed velocity pattern of our “wobbly Galaxy”. Antoja T., Valenzuela O., Pichardo B., et al., 2009, ApJ, 700, L78 Antoja T., Figueras F., Romero-Gómez M., et al., 2011, MNRAS, 418, 1423 Barros D., Lépine J., Junqueira T., 2013, MNRAS, 435, 2299 Bienaymé O., Séchaud N., 1997, A&A, 323, 781 Binney J., Tremaine S., 2008, Galactic Dynamics, Princeton University Press Binney J., 2013, New Astronomy Reviews, 57, 29 Binney J., Burnett B., Kordopatis G., et al., 2013, arXiv:1309.4285 Bovy J., Allende Prieto C., Beers T., et al., 2012, ApJ, 759, 131 Bovy J., Rix H.-W., 2013, arXiv:1309.0809 Carlin J.L., DeLaunay J., Newberg H. J., et al., 2013, ApJ, 777, L5 Chereul E., Crézé M., Bienaymé O., 1998, A&A, 340,384 Chereul E., Crézé M., Bienaymé O., 1999, A&AS, 135, 5 Dehnen W., 1998, AJ, 115, 2384 Dehnen W., Binney J., 1998, MNRAS, 294, 429 Dehnen W., 2000, AJ, 119, 800 De Simone R., Wu X., Tremaine S., 2004, MNRAS, 350, 627 Famaey B., Jorissen A., Luri X., et al., 2005, A&A, 430, 165 Famaey B., Pont F., Luri X., et al., 2007, A&A 461, 957 Famaey B., Siebert A., Jorissen A., 2008, A&A, 483, 453 Feldmann R., Spolyar D., 2013, arXiv:1310.2243 Gomez F., Minchev I., O’Shea B., et al., 2013, MNRAS, 429, 159 Kaasalainen M., Binney J., 1994, MNRAS, 268, 1033 Kaasalainen M., 1994, MNRAS, 268, 1041 Kaasalainen M., 1995, Phys. Rev. E, 52, 1193 Kordopatis G., Gilmore G., Steinmetz M., et al., 2013, 146, 134 Kuijken K., Tremaine S., 1994, ApJ, 421, 178 Lépine J., Cruz P., Scarano S., et al., 2011, MNRAS, 417, 698 Lin C.C., Shu F.H., 1964, ApJ, 140, 646 McMillan P.J., Binney J., 2010, MNRAS, 402, 934 McMillan P.J., 2013, MNRAS, 430, 3276 Minchev I., Nordhaus J., Quillen A., 2007, ApJ, 664, L31 Minchev I., Famaey B., 2010, ApJ, 722, 112 Minchev I., Boily C., Siebert A., Bienaymé O., 2010, MNRAS, 407, 2122 Minchev I., Famaey B., Quillen A., et al., 2012, A&A, 548, A126 Monari G., Antoja T., Helmi A., 2013, arXiv:1306.2632 Monari G., Helmi A., Antoja T., Steinmetz M., 2014, arXiv:1402.4479 Olling R., Dehnen W., 2003, ApJ, 599, 275 Patsis P.A., Grosb[ø]{}l P., 1996, A&A, 315, 371 Pompéia L., Masseron T., Famaey B., et al., 2011, MNRAS, 415, 1138 Quillen A., Minchev I., 2005, AJ, 130, 576 Quillen A., Dougherty J., Bagley M., et al., 2011, MNRAS, 417, 762 Reid M., Menten K., Zheng X., et al. 2009, ApJ, 700, 137 Roskar R., Debattista V., Quinn T., Wadsley J., 2012, MNRAS, 426, 2089 Schönrich R., 2012, MNRAS, 427, 274 Sellwood J., 2013, Rev. Mod. Phys., arXiv:1310.0403 Shu F.H., 1969, ApJ, 158, 505 Siebert A., Williams M.E.K., Siviero A., et al., 2011a, AJ, 141, 187 Siebert A., Famaey B., Minchev I., et al., 2011b, MNRAS, 412, 2026 Siebert A., Famaey B., Binney J., et al., 2012, MNRAS, 425, 2335 Smith M., Whiteoak S. H., Evans N. W., 2012, ApJ, 746, 181 Steinmetz M., Zwitter T., Siebert A., et al., 2006, AJ, 132, 1645 Widrow L., Gardner S., Yanny B., et al., 2012, ApJ, 750, L41 Williams M., Steinmetz M., Binney J., et al., 2013, MNRAS, 436, 101 Yanny B., Gardner S., 2013, ApJ, 777, 91 Zwitter T., Siebert A., Munari U., et al., 2008, AJ, 136, 421 \[lastpage\] [^1]: [email protected] [^2]: In this paper, [*’radial velocity’*]{} refers to the Galactocentric radial velocity, not to be confused with the line-of-sight (l.o.s.) velocity.

ArXiv

--- bibliography: - 'bibtex/paper.bib' --- Detecting the orientation of magnetic fields in galaxy clusters {#detecting-the-orientation-of-magnetic-fields-in-galaxy-clusters .unnumbered} =============================================================== [ Christoph Pfrommer$^1$, L. Jonathan Dursi$^{2,1}$\ [*$^{1}$[Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 3H8, Canada]{}\ $^{2}$[SciNet Consortium, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 1W5, Canada]{}\ *]{} ]{} [**Clusters of galaxies, filled with hot magnetized plasma, are the largest bound objects in existence and an important touchstone in understanding the formation of structures in our Universe. In such clusters, thermal conduction follows field lines, so magnetic fields strongly shape the cluster’s thermal history; that some have not since cooled and collapsed is a mystery. In a seemingly unrelated puzzle, recent observations of Virgo cluster spiral galaxies imply ridges of strong, coherent magnetic fields offset from their centre. Here we demonstrate, using three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamical simulations, that such ridges are easily explained by galaxies sweeping up field lines as they orbit inside the cluster. This magnetic drape is then lit up with cosmic rays from the galaxies’ stars, generating coherent polarized emission at the galaxies’ leading edges. This immediately presents a technique for probing local orientations and characteristic length scales of cluster magnetic fields. The first application of this technique, mapping the field of the Virgo cluster, gives a startling result: outside a central region, the magnetic field is preferentially oriented radially as predicted by the magnetothermal instability. Our results strongly suggest a mechanism for maintaining some clusters in a ‘non-cooling-core’ state.** ]{} Recent high-resolution radio continuum observations of cluster spirals in Virgo show strongly asymmetric distributions of polarized intensity with elongated ridges located in the outer galactic disk as shown in Fig. \[Fig1\]. The polarization angle is observed to be coherent across the entire galaxy. The origin and persistence of these polarization ridges poses a puzzle as these unusual features are not found in field spiral galaxies where the polarization is generally relatively symmetric and strongest in the inter-arm regions[@2001SSRv...99..243B]. We propose a new model that explains this riddle self-consistently, and has significant consequences for the understanding of galaxy clusters[@2005RMP...77...207V]; the model is illustrated in Fig. \[Fig2\]. A spiral galaxy orbiting through the very weakly magnetized intra-cluster plasma necessarily sweeps up enough magnetic field around its dense interstellar medium (ISM) to build up a dynamically important sheath. This ‘magnetic draping’ effect is well known and understood in space science. It has been observed extensively around Mars[@2004mmis.book.....W], comets[@2004inco.book.....B], Venus[@2005JGRA..11001209B], Earth[@2005AnGeo..23..885C], a moon of Saturn[@2006JGRA..11110220N], and even around the Sun’s coronal mass ejections[@2006JGRA..11109108L]. The magnetic field amplification comes solely from redirecting fluid motions and from the slowing of flow in the boundary layer; it is not from compression of fluid, and indeed happens even in incompressible flows[@lyutikovdraping]. The layer’s strength is set by a competition between ‘ploughing up’ and slipping around of field lines, yielding a magnetic energy density that is comparable to the ram pressure seen by the moving galaxy[@lyutikovdraping; @2008ApJ...677..993D], and is stable against the shear that creates it[@2007ApJ...670..221D]. The magnetic energy density in the so-called draping layer can be amplified by a factor of 100 or even more compared to the value of the ambient field in the cluster. For typical conditions in the intra-cluster medium (ICM) of $n_\rmn{icm}\simeq 10^{-4}\,\mbox{cm}^{-3}$ and galaxy velocities $\vel_\rmn{gal}\simeq1000\,\rmn{km~s}^{-1}$, this leads to a maximum field strength in the draping layer of $B\simeq\sqrt{16\pi\,\rho_\rmn{icm}^{} \vel_\rmn{gal}^2}\simeq7\,\mu\rmn{G}=7\times10^{-10}\,\rmn{T}$. The ram pressure felt by the galaxy as it moves through the ICM displaces and strips some of the outermost layers of ISM gas in the galaxy; but the stars, being small and massive, are largely unaffected. Thus the stars lead the galactic gas at the leading edge of the galaxy, crossing the boundary between ISM and ICM, as is seen in observations, and so overlap with the magnetic drape. As in the bulk of the galaxy, and in our own, these stars produce energetic particles; once these stars end their life in a supernova they drive shock waves into the ambient medium that accelerates electrons to relativistic energies[@1999ApJ...525..357S; @2006ApJ...648L..33V]. These so-called cosmic ray electrons are then constrained to gyrate around the field lines of the magnetic drape, which results in radio synchrotron emission in the draped region, tracing out the field lines there. The size and shape of this synchrotron-illuminated region is determined by the transport of the cosmic rays. The cosmic rays diffuse along field lines, smoothing out emission; but they are largely constrained to stay on any given line, and thus are advected by the lines as they are dragged over the galaxy by the ambient flow. In the draping boundary layer, because of the magnetic back reaction, the flow speed is much smaller than the velocity of the galaxy. These cosmic ray electrons emit synchrotron radiation until they have lost enough energy to no longer be visible. In a magnetic field of $B=7\,\mu\rmn{G}$, cosmic ray electrons with an energy of $E=5$ GeV or equivalently a Lorentz factor of $\gamma=10^4$ radiate synchrotron emission at a frequency of $\nu=5$ GHz; where the polarized radio ridges are observed. The synchrotron cooling timescale $\tau_\rmn{syn}\simeq5\times 10^7\,\rmn{yr}$ of these electrons yields a finite width of the polarization ridge, $L_\rmn{max}\simeq \eta\vel_\rmn{drape}\tau_\rmn{syn}\simeq10\,\rmn{kpc}$, that is set by the advection velocity in the drape, $\vel_\rmn{drape}\simeq100\,\rmn{km~s}^{-1}$ and a geometric factor $\eta\simeq2$ that accounts for an extended cosmic ray electron injection region into the drape (consistent with NGC 4501). For a conservative supernova rate of one per century, we show that the different supernova remnants easily overlap within a synchrotron cooling timescale. This implies a smooth distribution of cosmic ray electrons that follows that of the star light, which is also consistent with the synchrotron emission in our Galaxy[@2009ApJS..180..265G]; for details, see Supplementary Information. Figure \[Fig2\] shows this process of draping magnetic field lines at a galaxy in our simulations with a homogeneous field of two different initial field orientations. During the draping process, the intra-cluster magnetic field is dynamically projected onto the contact surface between the galaxy’s ISM and the intra-cluster plasma that is advected around the galaxy. Outside the draping sheath in the upper hemisphere along the direction of motion, the smooth flow pattern resembles that of an almost perfect potential flow solution[@2008ApJ...677..993D]. This great degree of regularity of the magnetic field in the upstream of the galaxy is then reflected in the resulting projection of magnetic field in the draping layer. In particular, it varies significantly and fairly straightforwardly with different ICM field orientations with respect to the directions of motion. The regularity of the draped field implies then a coherent synchrotron polarization pattern across the entire galaxy (bottom panels in Fig. \[Fig2\]). Thus in the case of known proper motion of the galaxy and with the aid of three-dimensional (3D) magneto-hydrodynamical simulations to correctly model the geometry, it is possible to unambiguously infer the orientation of the 3D ICM magnetic field that the galaxy is moving through (our new method that uses only observables will be demonstrated in the following). We note that this method provides information complementary to the Faraday rotation measure, which gives the integral of the field component along the line-of-sight. The main complication is that the synchrotron emission maps out the magnetic field component only in the plane of the sky, leading to a geometric bias; however, this would be a serious problem only if it led to significant ambiguities—if different field configurations and motions led to similar morphologies of polarized synchrotron emission. We demonstrate with representative figures in the Supplementary Information that this seems not to be the case by running a grid of simulations covering a wide parameter space with differing galactic inclinations, magnetic tilts, and viewing angles. In Fig. \[Fig2\], we showed draping of uniform fields—fields with an infinite correlation length. In a turbulent fluid like the ICM, such regularity of fields is not expected. To study the effects of a varying field, we first look at the physics of the draping process by considering the streamlines around the galaxy as shown in Fig. \[Fig3\]. The boundary layer between the galaxy and the ICM consists of fluid following streamlines very near the stagnation line with an impact parameter that is smaller than a critical value of $p_\rmn{cr}=R/\sqrt{3\beta\M^2}\simeq R/15\simeq1.3$ kpc. Here $R\simeq20$ kpc is an effective curvature radius over the solid angle of this ‘tube’ of streamlines which we assume to be equal to the radius of the galaxy, and we adopted our simulation values of $\beta=100$ for the ratio of thermal-to-magnetic energy density in the ICM, and $\M=\vel_\rmn{gal}/c_\rmn{icm}\simeq1$ for the sonic Mach number of the galaxy that is defined as the galaxy’s velocity $\vel_\rmn{gal}$ in units of the ICM sound speed $c_\rmn{icm}$. Fluid further away from the stagnation line than this critical impact parameter is deflected away from the galaxy and never becomes part of the draping boundary layer. Thus, only fields with correlation lengths $\lambda_B \apgt 2\,p_\rmn{cr}$ transverse to the direction of motion could participate in the draping process; for details, see Supplementary Information. In Fig. \[Fig4\], we see a loss of magnetic draping synchrotron signal long before this for fields on even larger scales. Since variations of the magnetic field in the direction of motion matter most for the synchrotron signal, we consider the simplest case—a uniform field with an orientation that rotates as one moves ‘upwards’ and thereby forms a helical structure. By varying the wavelength of this helix, we see that the magnetic coherence length needs to be at least of order the galaxy’s size for polarized emission to be significant. Otherwise, the rapid change in field orientation leads to depolarization of the emission although there is no strong evidence of numerical reconnection. Thus, the fact that polarized emission is seen in the drape suggests that field coherence lengths are at least galaxy-sized. Note that if the magnetic field coherence length is comparable to the galaxy scale, then the change of orientation of field vectors imprints as a change of the polarization vectors along the vertical direction of the ridge showing a ‘polarization-twist’. This is demonstrated in Fig. \[Fig4\]. The pile-up of field lines in the drape and the reduced speed of the boundary flow means that a length scale across the draping layer $L_\rmn{drape}$ corresponds to a larger length scale of the unperturbed magnetic field ahead of the galaxy $L_\rmn{coh}\simeq\eta L_\rmn{drape}\vel_\rmn{gal}/\vel_\rmn{drape}= \eta\tau_\rmn{syn}\vel_\rmn{gal}$. The finite lifetime of cosmic ray electrons and the non-observation of a polarization-twist in the data limits the coherence length to be $>100$ kpc (for NGC 4501). Radio observations at lower frequencies will enable us to study even larger length scales as the lifetime of lower energy electrons, which emit at these lower radio frequencies, is longer. Figure \[Fig5\] compares two observations of these polarization ridges to two mock observations of our simulations that are also shown with 3D volume renderings. We simulated our galaxy that encountered a homogeneous field with varying inclinations, and changed the magnetic tilt with respect to the plane of symmetry as well as the viewing angle to obtain the best match with the observations. The impressive concordance of the overall magnitude as well as the morphology of the polarized intensities and B-vectors in these cases is a strong argument in favour of our model. Our model naturally predicts coherence of the polarization orientation across the entire galaxy as well as sometimes—dependent on the viewing angle of the galaxy—a coherent polarization pattern at the galaxy’s side with B-vectors in the direction of motion (see NGC 4654). Additionally for inclined spirals, our model predicts the polarized synchrotron intensity to lead the column density of the gas of neutral hydrogen atoms (H [i]{}) as well as slightly trail the optical and far infra-red (FIR) emission of the stars, both of which are observed in the data. The stars have a characteristic displacement from the gas distribution depending on the strength of the ram pressure whereas the thickness of the draping layer is set by the curvature radius of the gas at the stagnation point and the alfvénic Mach number. As the FIR and radio emission in galaxies are tightly coupled by the nearly universal FIR-radio correlation of normal spirals, our model predicts a radio deficit relative to the infra-red emission just upstream the polarization ridge—in agreement with recent findings[@2009ApJ...694.1435M]. We see, then, that magnetic draping—an effect well understood and frequently observed in a solar system context—can easily reproduce the observed polarization ridges seen in Virgo galaxies. Draping is of course not the only way to generate significant regions of polarized synchrotron radiation; but for any other effect to dominate the emission in the ridge, it would have to represent coherent action on galactic scales (to match the observed coherence of polarization vectors over the entire galaxy), and not be limited to the disk of the galaxy (as some ridges are observed to be significantly extra-planar, and others to significantly lead the H [i]{} or even H$\alpha$ emission from the disk.) We also note that, apart from the problem of extraplanar emission, ram pressure compressing the galaxy’s ISM would, by energy conservation at the stagnation line, imply compression to a number density of only $n_\rmn{ism}\simeq n_\rmn{icm}\,\vel_\rmn{gal}^2/c_\rmn{ism}^2\simeq 1\,\rmn{particle~cm}^{-3}$, where we adopted typical conditions in the intra-cluster medium and a sound speed in the ISM of $c_\rmn{ism}\simeq 10\,\rmn{km~s}^{-1}$. Since this number density is at the interstellar mean, we do not expect large compression effects in the ISM (consistent with the observed H [i]{} distribution) and hence only very moderate amplifications of the interstellar magnetic field. Thus the observed properties of the ridges are impossible to explain using purely galactic magnetic field, although it has been attempted; see the Supplementary Information for more detail. We now explain the method of how we can infer the orientation of cluster magnetic fields by using the observation of polarized radio ridges. We use the morphology of the H [i]{} and (if available) the total synchrotron emission to obtain an estimate of the galaxy’s velocity component on the sky. If the galaxy is inclined with the plane of the sky, we determine the projected stagnation point by localizing the ‘H [i]{} hot spot’ and drop a perpendicular to the edge of the galaxy which then points in the opposite direction from the ram-pressure stripped tail (see Fig. \[Fig5\]). If the galaxy is edge-on, we additionally use the location and morphology of the polarized radio emission as an independent estimate while keeping in mind the potential biases that are associated with it. The galaxy’s redshift gives an indication about the velocity component along the line-of-sight. For well resolved galaxies, we then compare the data to our mock observations where we iteratively varied galactic inclination, magnetic tilt, and viewing angle so that they matched the H [i]{} morphology and polarized intensity. Preserving the field line mapping from our simulated polarized intensity map to the upstream orientation of the field in our simulation enables us to infer the an approximate 3D orientation of the upstream magnetic field. In the case of edge-on galaxies (or lower quality data) numerical resolution considerations limited us from running the appropriate galaxy models. Instead, we determine the orientation of the B-vectors in a region around this stagnation point and identify this with the (projected) orientation of the ambient field before it got swept up. With this new tool at hand, we are now able to measure the geometry of the magnetic field in the Virgo galaxy cluster and find it to be preferentially radially aligned outside a central region (see Fig. \[Fig6\])—in stark disagreement with the usual expectation of turbulent fields. The alignment of the field in the plane of the sky is significantly more radial than expected from random chance. Considering the sum of deviations from radial alignment gives a chance coincidence of less than 1.7%. (We point out a major caveat as the statistical analysis presented here does not include systematic uncertainties. In particular, line-of-sight effects could introduce a larger systematic scatter, which is however impossible to address which such a small observational sample at hand.) In addition, the three galaxy pairs that are close in the sky show a significant alignment of the magnetic field. The isotropic distribution with respect to the centre (M87) is difficult to explain with the past activity of the active galactic nucleus in M87 and the spherical geometry argues against primordial fields. In contrast, this finding is very suggestive that the magneto-thermal instability is operating; at these distances outside the cluster centre it encounters a decreasing temperature profile which is the necessary condition for it to operate[@2000ApJ...534..420B]. In the low-collisionality plasma of a galaxy cluster, the heat flux is forced to follow field lines as the collisional mean free path is much larger than the electron Larmor radius[@1965RvPP....1..205B]. On displacing a fluid element on a horizontal field line upwards in the cluster potential, it is conductively heated from the hotter part below, gains energy, and continues to rise—displacing it downwards causes it to be conductively cooled from the cooler part on top and it continues to sink deeper in the gravitational field. As a result, the magnetic field will reorder itself until it is preferentially radial[@2007ApJ...664..135P; @2008ApJ...688..905P] if the temperature gradient as the source of free energy is maintained by constant heating through AGN feedback or shocks driven by gravitational infall. Numerical cosmological simulations suggest that the latter is expected to maintain the temperature gradient as it preferentially heats the central parts of a cluster[@2006MNRAS.367..113P]. Even cosmological cluster simulations that employ isotropic conduction at $1/3$ of the classical Spitzer value are not able to establish an isothermal profile[@2004MNRAS.351..423J; @2004ApJ...606L..97D]. Our result of the global, predominantly radial field orientation in Virgo strongly suggests that gravitational heating seems to stabilize the temperature gradient in galaxy clusters even in the presence of the magneto-thermal instability, hence confirming a prediction of the hierarchical structure formation scenario. These theoretical considerations would imply efficient thermal conduction throughout the entire galaxy cluster except for the very central regions of so-called cooling core clusters which show an inverted temperature profile[@2001MNRAS.328L..37A]. Under these conditions, a different instability, the so-called heat-flux-driven buoyancy instability is expected to operate[@2008ApJ...673..758Q] which saturates by re-arranging the magnetic fields to become approximately perpendicular to the temperature gradient[@2008ApJ...677L...9P]. In principle our new method would also be able to demonstrate its existence if the galaxies that are close-by in projection to the cluster centre can be proven to be within the cooling core region. In fact, NGC 4402 and NGC 4388 are observed in the vicinity of M86[@2008ApJ...688..208R] and the inferred magnetic field orientations at their position would be consistent with a saturated toroidal field from the heat-flux-driven buoyancy instability. Our finding of the radial orientation of the cluster magnetic field at intermediate radii would make it possible for conduction to stabilize cooling, if the radial orientation continued into the cluster core. This could explain the thermodynamic stability of these non-cool core clusters (NCCs); some of which show no signs of merger events. In fact, half of the entire population of galaxy clusters in the [*Chandra*]{} archival sample show cooling times that are longer than 2 Gyr and have high-entropy cores[@2009ApJS..182...12C]. This cool-core/NCC bimodality is indeed real and not due to archival bias as a complementary approach shows with a statistical sample[@2009MNRAS.395..764S]. The centres of these galaxy clusters show no signs of cooling such as H$\alpha$ emission and an absence of blue light that traces regions of newly born stars suggesting that conduction might be an attractive solution to the problem of keeping them in a hot state[@2008ApJ...681L...5V; @2009MNRAS.395..764S]. A global Lagrangian stability analysis shows that there are stable solutions of NCCs that are stabilized primarily by conduction[@2008ApJ...688..859G]. We emphasize that the other half of the galaxy cluster population, in which the cores are cooler and denser, also manage to avoid the cool core catastrophe. The absence of catastrophic cooling in any of these clusters is also a major puzzle, but one that cannot be solved by conduction alone. We show in the Supplementary Information that the Virgo cluster seems to be on its transition to a cool core at the centre but still shows all signs of a NCC on large scales: if placed at a redshift $z>0.13$ it would be indistinguishable from other NCCs in the sample. The findings of a preferentially radially oriented field in the Virgo cluster suggests an evolutionary sequence of galaxy clusters. After a merging event, the injected turbulence decays on an eddy turnover time $\tau_\rmn{eddy}\simeq L_\rmn{eddy}/\vel_\rmn{turb}\sim300\,\rmn{kpc}/ (300\,\rmn{km~s}^{-1})\sim1$ Gyr whereas the magneto-thermal instability grows on a similar timescale of less than 1 Gyr and the magnetic field becomes radially oriented[@2008ApJ...688..905P]. The accompanying efficient thermal conduction stabilizes this cluster until a cooling instability in the centre causes the cluster to enter a cooling core state—similar to Virgo now—and possibly requires feedback by an active galactic nuclei to be stabilized[@2001ApJ...554..261C; @2008ApJ...688..859G]. We note that this work has severe implications for the next generation of cosmological cluster simulations that need to include magnetic fields with anisotropic conduction to realistically model the evolution and global stability of NCC systems. To date, these simulated systems show little agreement with realistic NCCs[@2007MNRAS.378..385P; @2007ApJ...668....1N]. Interesting questions arise from this work such as which are the specific processes that set the central entropy excess: are these mergers or do we need some epoch of pre-heating before the cluster formed? It will be exciting to see the presented tool applied in other nearby clusters to scrutinize this picture. #### Correspondence {#correspondence .unnumbered} and requests for materials should be addressed to CP (email: [email protected]). #### Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} The authors wish to thank A. Chung, B. Vollmer, and M. We[ż]{}gowiec for providing observational data and acknowledge C. Thompson, Y. Lithwick, J. Sievers, and M. Ruszkowski for discussions during the preparation of this manuscript. We also wish to thank our referees for insightful comments. CP gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Computations were performed on the GPC supercomputer at the SciNet HPC Consortium. SciNet is funded by: the Canada Foundation for Innovation under the auspices of Compute Canada; the Government of Ontario; Ontario Research Fund - Research Excellence; and the University of Toronto. 3D renderings were performed with Paraview. #### Author Contributions {#author-contributions .unnumbered} CP initiated this project; performed the analytic estimates; developed an approach for comparing to observations; presented and analyzed the observational data; measured magnetic field angles and discussed their uncertainties; explored consequences for cluster physics. LJD carried out magneto-hydrodynamical simulations with Athena, explored the parameter space, and visualized the simulations. Both authors contributed to the exploratory simulations with Flash, the development of the synchrotron polarization model and post-processing, the statistical analysis, the interpretation of the results, and writing of the paper. #### Competing interests {#competing-interests .unnumbered} The authors declare that they have no competing financial interests. ![ Six-centimetre polarized intensity contours and blue colour overlaid on H [i]{} intensity data[@2009AJ....138.1741C] (red-to-yellow). The short lines represent the polarization vectors rotated by 90 degrees, hence delineating the orientation of the magnetic field in the draping layer uncorrected for Faraday rotation (hereafter referred to as ‘B-vectors’). The contour levels are $(4,8,12,16,20,30,40,50)\times\xi \mu$Jy ($\xi=5$ for NGC 4522; $\xi=8$ for NGC 4388, NGC 4396, NGC 4402, NGC 4654; $\xi=10$ for NGC 4535; $\xi=11$ for NGC 4501) and $(4,5,6)\times 90 \mu$Jy for NGC 4548. We employed an additive colour scheme: if the polarized intensity were perfectly correlated with the H [i]{}, the two colours should add up to ‘white’ at the region of maximum emission. The fact that they do not in most cases is one reason for an extragalactic origin of the radio emission (see text for more detail).[]{data-label="Fig1"}](figures/Fig1_ngc4388_comp.pdf "fig:"){width="2in"} ![ Six-centimetre polarized intensity contours and blue colour overlaid on H [i]{} intensity data[@2009AJ....138.1741C] (red-to-yellow). The short lines represent the polarization vectors rotated by 90 degrees, hence delineating the orientation of the magnetic field in the draping layer uncorrected for Faraday rotation (hereafter referred to as ‘B-vectors’). The contour levels are $(4,8,12,16,20,30,40,50)\times\xi \mu$Jy ($\xi=5$ for NGC 4522; $\xi=8$ for NGC 4388, NGC 4396, NGC 4402, NGC 4654; $\xi=10$ for NGC 4535; $\xi=11$ for NGC 4501) and $(4,5,6)\times 90 \mu$Jy for NGC 4548. We employed an additive colour scheme: if the polarized intensity were perfectly correlated with the H [i]{}, the two colours should add up to ‘white’ at the region of maximum emission. The fact that they do not in most cases is one reason for an extragalactic origin of the radio emission (see text for more detail).[]{data-label="Fig1"}](figures/Fig1_ngc4396_comp.pdf "fig:"){width="2in"} ![ Six-centimetre polarized intensity contours and blue colour overlaid on H [i]{} intensity data[@2009AJ....138.1741C] (red-to-yellow). The short lines represent the polarization vectors rotated by 90 degrees, hence delineating the orientation of the magnetic field in the draping layer uncorrected for Faraday rotation (hereafter referred to as ‘B-vectors’). The contour levels are $(4,8,12,16,20,30,40,50)\times\xi \mu$Jy ($\xi=5$ for NGC 4522; $\xi=8$ for NGC 4388, NGC 4396, NGC 4402, NGC 4654; $\xi=10$ for NGC 4535; $\xi=11$ for NGC 4501) and $(4,5,6)\times 90 \mu$Jy for NGC 4548. We employed an additive colour scheme: if the polarized intensity were perfectly correlated with the H [i]{}, the two colours should add up to ‘white’ at the region of maximum emission. The fact that they do not in most cases is one reason for an extragalactic origin of the radio emission (see text for more detail).[]{data-label="Fig1"}](figures/Fig1_ngc4402_comp.pdf "fig:"){width="2in"}\ ![ Six-centimetre polarized intensity contours and blue colour overlaid on H [i]{} intensity data[@2009AJ....138.1741C] (red-to-yellow). The short lines represent the polarization vectors rotated by 90 degrees, hence delineating the orientation of the magnetic field in the draping layer uncorrected for Faraday rotation (hereafter referred to as ‘B-vectors’). The contour levels are $(4,8,12,16,20,30,40,50)\times\xi \mu$Jy ($\xi=5$ for NGC 4522; $\xi=8$ for NGC 4388, NGC 4396, NGC 4402, NGC 4654; $\xi=10$ for NGC 4535; $\xi=11$ for NGC 4501) and $(4,5,6)\times 90 \mu$Jy for NGC 4548. We employed an additive colour scheme: if the polarized intensity were perfectly correlated with the H [i]{}, the two colours should add up to ‘white’ at the region of maximum emission. The fact that they do not in most cases is one reason for an extragalactic origin of the radio emission (see text for more detail).[]{data-label="Fig1"}](figures/Fig1_ngc4501_comp.pdf "fig:"){width="2in"} ![ Six-centimetre polarized intensity contours and blue colour overlaid on H [i]{} intensity data[@2009AJ....138.1741C] (red-to-yellow). The short lines represent the polarization vectors rotated by 90 degrees, hence delineating the orientation of the magnetic field in the draping layer uncorrected for Faraday rotation (hereafter referred to as ‘B-vectors’). The contour levels are $(4,8,12,16,20,30,40,50)\times\xi \mu$Jy ($\xi=5$ for NGC 4522; $\xi=8$ for NGC 4388, NGC 4396, NGC 4402, NGC 4654; $\xi=10$ for NGC 4535; $\xi=11$ for NGC 4501) and $(4,5,6)\times 90 \mu$Jy for NGC 4548. We employed an additive colour scheme: if the polarized intensity were perfectly correlated with the H [i]{}, the two colours should add up to ‘white’ at the region of maximum emission. The fact that they do not in most cases is one reason for an extragalactic origin of the radio emission (see text for more detail).[]{data-label="Fig1"}](figures/Fig1_ngc4522_comp.pdf "fig:"){width="2in"} ![ Six-centimetre polarized intensity contours and blue colour overlaid on H [i]{} intensity data[@2009AJ....138.1741C] (red-to-yellow). The short lines represent the polarization vectors rotated by 90 degrees, hence delineating the orientation of the magnetic field in the draping layer uncorrected for Faraday rotation (hereafter referred to as ‘B-vectors’). The contour levels are $(4,8,12,16,20,30,40,50)\times\xi \mu$Jy ($\xi=5$ for NGC 4522; $\xi=8$ for NGC 4388, NGC 4396, NGC 4402, NGC 4654; $\xi=10$ for NGC 4535; $\xi=11$ for NGC 4501) and $(4,5,6)\times 90 \mu$Jy for NGC 4548. We employed an additive colour scheme: if the polarized intensity were perfectly correlated with the H [i]{}, the two colours should add up to ‘white’ at the region of maximum emission. The fact that they do not in most cases is one reason for an extragalactic origin of the radio emission (see text for more detail).[]{data-label="Fig1"}](figures/Fig1_ngc4535_comp.pdf "fig:"){width="2in"}\ ![ Six-centimetre polarized intensity contours and blue colour overlaid on H [i]{} intensity data[@2009AJ....138.1741C] (red-to-yellow). The short lines represent the polarization vectors rotated by 90 degrees, hence delineating the orientation of the magnetic field in the draping layer uncorrected for Faraday rotation (hereafter referred to as ‘B-vectors’). The contour levels are $(4,8,12,16,20,30,40,50)\times\xi \mu$Jy ($\xi=5$ for NGC 4522; $\xi=8$ for NGC 4388, NGC 4396, NGC 4402, NGC 4654; $\xi=10$ for NGC 4535; $\xi=11$ for NGC 4501) and $(4,5,6)\times 90 \mu$Jy for NGC 4548. We employed an additive colour scheme: if the polarized intensity were perfectly correlated with the H [i]{}, the two colours should add up to ‘white’ at the region of maximum emission. The fact that they do not in most cases is one reason for an extragalactic origin of the radio emission (see text for more detail).[]{data-label="Fig1"}](figures/Fig1_ngc4548_comp.pdf "fig:"){width="2in"} ![ Six-centimetre polarized intensity contours and blue colour overlaid on H [i]{} intensity data[@2009AJ....138.1741C] (red-to-yellow). The short lines represent the polarization vectors rotated by 90 degrees, hence delineating the orientation of the magnetic field in the draping layer uncorrected for Faraday rotation (hereafter referred to as ‘B-vectors’). The contour levels are $(4,8,12,16,20,30,40,50)\times\xi \mu$Jy ($\xi=5$ for NGC 4522; $\xi=8$ for NGC 4388, NGC 4396, NGC 4402, NGC 4654; $\xi=10$ for NGC 4535; $\xi=11$ for NGC 4501) and $(4,5,6)\times 90 \mu$Jy for NGC 4548. We employed an additive colour scheme: if the polarized intensity were perfectly correlated with the H [i]{}, the two colours should add up to ‘white’ at the region of maximum emission. The fact that they do not in most cases is one reason for an extragalactic origin of the radio emission (see text for more detail).[]{data-label="Fig1"}](figures/Fig1_ngc4654_comp.pdf "fig:"){width="2in"} ![ The grey isosurface represents an upwards moving galaxy in an Athena simulation[@StoneEtAl2008; @2005JCoPh.205..509G; @2008JCoPh.227.4123G]. Representative magnetic field lines and cut planes through the stagnation line of the flow are coloured by the magnitude of the local magnetic field strength. [*(Bottom)*]{} Projected density (red) and a simulated $6\,\rmn{cm}$ synchrotron emission map, with polarized intensity shown in blue contours (using the same contour levels and beam sizes of $18''\times 18''$ as recent observational work; for details, see Supplementary Information). Lines indicate local polarization direction rotated by ninety degrees (‘B-vectors’), to indicate the local magnetic field orientation. The left and right panels differ only in the initial magnetic field orientation; this difference clearly shows up in the simulated radio observations.[]{data-label="Fig2"}](figures/Fig2.jpg){width="6in"} ![ The arrows indicate the magnitude of the flow and the colours the magnetic energy density that they encounter. As the uniform flow approaches the galaxy it decelerates and gets deflected. Only those streamlines initially in a narrow tube of radius $\lambda_\perp$ from the stagnation line become part of the draping layer. The streamlines that do not intersect the tube get deflected away from the galaxy, become never part of the drape and eventually get accelerated as they have less volume to transport the plasma past the galaxy (known as the Bernoulli effect). As we will see in Fig. 4, magnetic field must be coherent along the direction of motion on a scale greater than $2\,\lambda_\parallel$ for a significant draping signal to be seen. We note that the streamlines are almost identical for our simulations with different realizations of the magnetic field. Note a visible kink feature in some draping-layer stream lines as the solution changes from the hydrodynamic potential flow solution to the draped layer, where the back reaction plays a significant role. []{data-label="Fig3"}](figures/Fig3.png){width="4in"} ![ As in Fig. \[Fig2\], but with cluster magnetic fields in a force-free helical configuration with a given coherence length in the direction of motion of the galaxy. [*(Left)*]{} Wavelength of the helix is $14\,\mathrm{kpc}$, less than the radius of the galaxy. [*(Right)*]{} Wavelength is $57\,\mathrm{kpc}$, larger than the diameter of the galaxy. In [**(B)**]{}, we also show representative streamlines in green, with arrow size indicating speed. The flow speed is greatly reduced in the draping boundary layer. The radio emission is greatly reduced for [**(C)**]{} because of depolarization by the superposition of different field orientations in the draping layer. In [**(D)**]{}, note the increased complexity of the B-vectors compared to Fig. \[Fig2\]D which is due to the helical structure of the ambient field.[]{data-label="Fig4"}](figures/Fig4.jpg){width="6in"} ![ H [i]{} emission[@2009AJ....138.1741C] of two spirals ([**A:**]{} NGC 4501, and [**D:**]{} NGC 4654) tracing the neutral hydrogen distribution that is severely affected by the ram pressure resulting from the galaxies’ motion in the intra-cluster plasma (red-to-yellow). Over-plotted are the polarized intensity (PI) of the radio synchrotron ridges at $6\,\rmn{cm}$ (blue and contours) with the B-vectors indicated in white. [*(Middle)*]{} Simulated synchrotron maps that are selected from the uniform field models. [ *(Right)*]{} Shown is a 3D volume rendering of our best matching galaxy model (shown with grey isosurfaces) and representative magnetic field lines (see Supplement for details). The misalignment of the H [i]{} and PI hot spots for NGC 4654 might point to a geometric bias (upstream magnetic field has a non-negligible line-of-sight component) as our numerical model suggests; hence we omitted plotting the projected normal to the PI hot spot for this galaxy.[]{data-label="Fig5"}](figures/Fig5.jpg){width="6in"}

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'Accurately describing work extraction from a quantum system is a central objective for the extension of thermodynamics to individual quantum systems. The concepts of work and heat are surprisingly subtle when generalizations are made to arbitrary quantum states. We formulate an operational thermodynamics suitable for application to an open quantum system undergoing quantum evolution under a general quantum process by which we mean a completely-positive and trace-preserving map. We derive an operational first law of thermodynamics for such processes and show consistency with the second law. We show that heat, from the first law, is positive when the input state of the map majorises the output state. Moreover, the change in entropy is also positive for the same majorisation condition. This makes a strong connection between the two operational laws of thermodynamics.' author: - Felix Binder - Sai Vinjanampathy - Kavan Modi - John Goold bibliography: - 'paper.bib' title: Quantum thermodynamics of general quantum processes --- Introduction ============ The laws of thermodynamics were forged in the furnaces of the industrial revolution, as engineers and scientists refined their picture of energy, studying [*heat*]{} and its interconversion to mechanical [*work*]{} with a view to powering the mines and factories of this new era of human endeavor. Followed by the development of statistical mechanics at the change of the centuries [@gibbs1902], far from its pragmatic inception, thermodynamics is now a theory with a remarkable range of applicability, successfully describing the properties of macroscopic systems ranging from refrigerators to black holes [@universeandrefrig]. Moving on to the 21st century with both industrial and electronic revolutions behind us, technological development is pushing towards and beyond the microscopic scale. With a view to devices operating at a scale where quantum mechanical laws become important we may ask whether the solid grounds of thermodynamics might be challenged, not only by the lack of a thermodynamic limit, but also by the intrinsic uncertainty synonymous with this domain. It comes as no surprise that there has been a concerted effort to understand how the laws of thermodynamics generalize to arbitrary quantum systems [@mahler] both at and away from equilibrium. Such laws will aid in better understanding the relationship between quantum and statistical mechanics, extend our predictability for out-of-equilibrium systems and aid the design of efficient controls for thermal machines. An important question relating to the extension of the first law of thermodynamics into such a regime is to ask “to what extent do the concepts of *work* and *heat* extend to quantum systems?" This is an avenue of research that has been open for several decades [@mahler; @lindblad; @*janet; @*Skrzypczyk]. Without severe assumptions regarding the set of allowed quantum states, coupling strengths and bath-properties it has so far remained a difficult question without any satisfactory general answer. Nevertheless it is central for the formulation of a concrete theory of [*quantum thermodynamics*]{} of both equilibrium and non-equilibrium systems. Some important steps have been made toward providing an answer, such as the formulation of quantum fluctuation relations [@mrev; @*esposito], information theoretical approaches [@delRio2011; @*Dahlsten2011; @*Brandao2011; @*Horodecki2013; @*Aberg2013] (see [@gour] for an overview), and some combination of the two [@landauer]. Finally, central to the work presented here is a work extraction formalism for non-passivity of quantum states [@Allahverdyan]. Despite the range of approaches a more general picture for the thermodynamics of general quantum evolutions is far from clear. In this letter, we take an operational approach to characterising the energy change of an open quantum process described by a *completely-positive trace-preserving* (CPTP) map. Such maps are ubiquitous in modern quantum physics and arguably the most encompassing generic description available for quantum processes (i.e. all processes that can be described by coupling to an initially uncorrelated ancilla, joint unitary evolution, and tracing out over the ancilla). In the context of this paper we will consequently refer to evolutions that are CPTP as ’general quantum processes’. The results presented here rely on processes being both completely-positive and also trace-preserving but are not contingent on a specific description (for instance, in terms of Kraus operators) and the maps may be thought of as an input-output formalism for quantum states. In analogy to the first law of thermodynamics we discuss work done, extractable work, and heat. The concepts of ergotropy and adiabatic work allow us to state our main result: an operational first law for general quantum processes. We show that our operational first law is in agreement with the widely used Hatano-Sasa version of the second law for CPTP maps [@Alicki1979; @Spohn; @*hatano2001steady; @*sagawa2013second] by explicitly stating the Clausius inequality for unital and thermal maps. We then show that both operational heat and the change in von Neumann entropy are positive when the input state of the map majorises the output state. Thermodynamics of quantum systems ================================= The first law of thermodynamics states that the internal energy change in a thermodynamic process can be split into two contributions – work and heat: $d E=\delta Q+\delta W$. For a general quantum system, the internal energy at time $t$ is $E(t)= {\text{tr}}[\rho(t) H(t)]$, implying that the change in the internal energy $dE$ depends only on the end points. Heat and work, on the other hand, are *path-dependent* – hence the different notation for the ‘differentials’. As illustration we may consider the heat expended when pushing a piston into a cylinder filled with gas: It depends not only on the initial and final positions of the piston but also on how fast it is pushed. Using the time-derivative of the internal energy the following two expressions are motivated [@Alicki1979]: $$\begin{aligned} \delta W =& {\text{tr}}\left[\rho(t) {\mbox{\bf d}_t}H(t) \right] dt \notag \quad \mbox{and} \\ \delta Q =&{\text{tr}}\left[H(t) {\mbox{\bf d}_t}\rho(t) \right]dt \label{eq:workheat},\end{aligned}$$ with ${\mbox{\bf d}_t}:=d/dt$. Integrated over a specific evolution this yields (average) values for heat and work $$\begin{aligned} \Delta E =& \int_0^{\tau} \delta W + \int_0^{\tau} \delta Q = {\left< W \right>} + {\left< Q \right>} \notag\\ =&~ {\text{tr}}[\rho(\tau)H(\tau)]-{\text{tr}}[\rho(0)H(0)]. \label{eq:1stlaw_integral}\end{aligned}$$ These definitions fit the understanding that heat corresponds to a change in the state and accordingly, entropy, a function of state. For unitary evolution heat vanishes by virtue of the Liouville-von Neumann equation: ${\mbox{\bf d}_t}\rho(t) = i [H(t), \rho(t)]$. The part corresponding to work, on the other hand, does not relate to a change of the state or its entropy but rather to a change in Hamiltonian. In general, however, it is not easy to compare work and heat for a general quantum process. This is because the integrands in are often neither well-defined nor easy to measure. Only for systems with well-defined descriptors of $\rho(t)$ and ${\mbox{\bf d}_t}\rho(t)$, do we have a closed form for work and heat. For instance, Markov systems are described in a time local form ${\mbox{\bf d}_t}\rho(t) = \mathcal{L}[\rho(t)]$, leading to the well-known results [@Alicki1979]. A related situation presents itself when dropping related assumptions about weak coupling, semigroup properties of the quantum channel, or its infinitesimal divisibility. Here we are specifically interested in the regime where such assumptions do not hold. In this sense our approach shares similar obstacles with the popular description of *thermal operations* [@Brandao2011; @Janzing]. What is different in our scenario is that we do not impose energy-conservation (for instance, in order to derive a second law) but rather ask: Can we meaningfully characterise the energy exchange in a quantum process for which dynamic resolution is not available? It is clear that trying to recover path-dependent quantities as in would be futile since the ‘path’ (that is, the precise system dynamics) is either unknown or not well defined. In our approach the minimal requirements are the existence of meaningful marginals of the system state and Hamiltonian at both the beginning and the end of the process (Restrictively, one could ask for the system-ancilla state to be separable initially and for the Hamiltonian to be a sum of two local Hamiltonians). However, neither the (marginal) system states nor a system Hamiltonian need to be available and moreover thermodynamically meaningful *during* the time-resolved evolution. Far from being an academic issue, this is a very realistic and practical problem. For instance, in a chemical process the Hamiltonian dynamics as well as the reduced state at all times are generally not known. Such stochastic processes can be described by a CPTP map, which may be thought of as a black box relating an input to an output state. In this context, work and heat obtain their meaning in an operational sense: Given a general map $M(\rho)$, how much work can be extracted from the output state $\rho'=M(\rho)$ assuming a fully controllable quantum operation? How much energy is wasted (or gained) in the process? The reader may think of the initial state and the map $M$ as free resources in this scenario. In the next two sections we introduce the concepts of *ergotropy* and *adiabatic work* before stating the main result. Ergotropy and cyclic work extraction ==================================== We proceed with a brief review of work extraction in cyclic unitary evolution [@Allahverdyan; @lenard; @*pusz]: Given a quantum state $\rho$ on a finite-dimensional Hilbert space and a Hamiltonian $H$, we may ask how much work can be extracted via a cyclic unitary process. Cyclicity here means that the system Hamiltonians at the beginning and the end of the process have to be identical, i.e., $H\equiv H(0)=H(\tau)$. For unitary evolution any change in internal energy ${\left< H \right>}$ is due to work. We express the Hamiltonian in its *increasing* spectral decomposition $$H:=\sum \epsilon_n {\left| \epsilon_n \right>}{\left< \epsilon_n \right|} \text{, with } \epsilon_{n+1}\geq\epsilon_n \; \forall \; n.$$ The state $\rho$, on the other hand, is expressed in its *decreasing* eigen-decomposition $$\rho:=\sum r_n {\left| r_n \right>}{\left< r_n \right|}\text{, with } r_{n+1}\leq r_n \; \forall \; n.$$ The goal is to transform $\rho$ into a state with lower internal energy, extracting the difference in internal energy in the process. After maximal cyclic, unitary work extraction no further work can be extracted and the system ends up in a so called *passive* state $\pi$ [@Allahverdyan; @lenard; @*pusz]. A passive state is unique up to degeneracies in the Hamiltonian [^1]. Passive states are diagonal in the Hamiltonian’s eigenbasis with decreasing populations for increasing energy levels. That is, a state $\rho$, as defined above, is passive if ${\left| r_n \right>} = {\left| \epsilon_n \right>} \; \forall \; n$. Gibbs states are consequently passive. The maximum work that can be extracted from a non-passive state $\rho$ with respect to a Hamiltonian $H$ via a cyclic unitary process ($\rho \to \pi$) is called *ergotropy* [@Allahverdyan]: $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{W} :={\text{tr}}[\rho H -\pi H] = \sum_{m,n}r_m \epsilon_n \left[ \left\vert{\left< \epsilon_n \vphantom{r_m} \right| \left. r_m \vphantom{\epsilon_n} \right>}\right\vert^2-\delta_{mn}\right].\end{aligned}$$ Ergotropy is always positive and includes contributions to work extraction from both excitations and coherences. Its relation to quantum correlations has recently been explored in [@Hovhannisyan; @*fannes; @*Campbell]. We may write $\mathcal{W}(\rho,H)$ in order to explicitly state the dependence on the pair $(\rho,H)$ of state and Hamiltonian. Adiabatic work ============== Consider now a non-cyclic, unitary process with different initial and final Hamiltonian $H$ and $H':=\sum\epsilon'_n {\left| \epsilon'_n \right>}{\left< \epsilon'_n \right|}$, again with $\epsilon_{n+1}'\geq \epsilon_n'$. If we restrict the change in the Hamiltonian from $H$ to $H'$ to be adiabatic in the quantum sense, i.e., the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian remain eigenstates at each instant, the final state $\pi'$ will be a passive state with respect to $H'$ if the initial state $\pi_m$ was passive with respect to $H$. Since this transformation is unitary there is no heat, and we call the energy change *adiabatic work*: $$\begin{gathered} \label{eq:Wad} {\left< W \right>}_{ad}={\text{tr}}[\pi' H']-{\text{tr}}[\pi_m H].\end{gathered}$$ In the following we will associate this definition with any process, adiabatic or not, that starts with a passive state and preserves its spectrum. In the case of a general unitary process $(\rho,H)\rightarrow(\rho',H')$ we can combine the ideas of ergotropy and adiabatic work. Since all energy change is work it can be extracted reversibly from the final state if full quantum control is available. The extractable work in $\rho'$ is thus given by $$W={\left< W \right>}_{ad}+{\mathcal{W}}(\rho',H')-{\mathcal{W}}(\rho,H).$$ If the initial state is passive we can think of the ergotropy as *deposited work*, or *inner friction* as in [@Plastina], where initial Gibbs states were considered. Energetics of open quantum evolution ==================================== We now consider the change in internal energy $E$ due to general quantum evolution, i.e. $\rho \to \rho' =: M(\rho)$: $$\begin{gathered} \Delta E={\text{tr}}[\rho' H']-{\text{tr}}[\rho H],\end{gathered}$$ where we have labeled the initial and final system Hamiltonian $H$ and $H'$. We may now use the notions of ergotropy and adiabatic work as introduced above to arrive at an operationally meaningful first law of thermodynamics. Defining $\pi_m:=\sum_nr'_n{\left| \epsilon_n \right>}{\left< \epsilon_n \right|}$ we add and subtract ${\text{tr}}[\pi' H']$, ${\text{tr}}[\pi_m H']$, and ${\text{tr}}[\pi H]$ to $\Delta E$ to get $$\begin{aligned} \Delta E =& {\text{tr}}[\pi H] -{\text{tr}}[\rho H] + {\text{tr}}[\rho' H'] - {\text{tr}}[\pi' H'] \notag \\ & + {\text{tr}}[\pi' H'] - {\text{tr}}[\pi_m H] + {\text{tr}}[\pi_m H] - {\text{tr}}[\pi H].\end{aligned}$$ The first two pairs of terms are simply the ergotropies $-\mathcal{W}(\rho,H) + \mathcal{W}(\rho^\prime,H^\prime) =: \Delta{\mathcal{W}}$, while the next pair is adiabatic work. Defining operational heat $${\left< Q \right>}_{op}= {\text{tr}}[\pi_m H] - {\text{tr}}[\pi H]$$ we state the main result: $$\begin{gathered} \Delta E=\Delta \mathcal{W} +{\left< W \right>}_{ad} + {\left< Q \right>}_{op} . \label{eq:main}\end{gathered}$$ This last equation tells us that the internal energy change in a general quantum process can be split up into a work-like, a heat-like and a third, genuine out-of-equilibrium contribution that equals the difference in ergotropy between initial and final state. In this sense it can be understood as an operational first law of quantum thermodynamics. The definition of heat is justified as the eigenvalues of equilibrium state $\pi_m$ are changed to attain another equilibrium state $\pi$, in analogy to the second term of . This expression of the first law becomes particularly meaningful for processes where the internal energy remains constant but the ergotropy of the state changes – A conventional description of the first law is inadequate for recognising this change. We illustrate this in the next section. ![(Color online.) The process starts with a non-passive state $\rho$ and ends up in state $\rho'=M(\rho)$. We express this out-of-equilibrium change in internal energy between $\rho$ and $\rho'$ (purple) using a plausible, but not necessarily implemented, reverse process of extracting ergotropy $\rho' \to \pi'$ (blue), equilibrium extraction of adiabatic work $\pi' \to \pi_m$ (green), equilibrium heating $\pi_m \to \pi$ (orange), and finally re-depositing ergotropy $\pi \to \rho$ (blue) to close the loop. The relationship between these quantities is given in . It is worth noting that whilst the processes in the graph need not be implemented in practice, they are operationally meaningful as illustrated below. \[fig:map-nonpassive\]](Fig1){width="38.00000%"} Now, we can interpret the CPTP map as a sequence of fictitious thermodynamic processes as illustrated in . Going backwards one can extract an amount of work equal to $\mathcal{W}(\rho',H')+{\left< W \right>}_{ad}$. This is the maximal amount that can be extracted unitarily from $\rho'$ ending up back in $H$. After work extraction the state ends up in $\pi_m$. In order to complete the cycle by also resetting the state a heat step is necessary to return the original spectrum of $\rho$. The heat in this process, going from $\pi_m$ to $\pi$, is given by $-{\left< Q \right>}_{op}$. Finally, we restore coherences and excitations that might have been present in $\rho$ by re-inserting $\mathcal{W}(\rho,H)$. This last step is of course only necessary if the initial state was active. For illustration we now provide an example where the initial state is passive. Example: Initial thermal state {#example-initial-thermal-state .unnumbered} ------------------------------ In a particularily relevant setting we may consider the process to start in a Gibbs state $\tau_\beta=\rho=\pi$. This is a natural setting to consider if, similar to thermal operations, a heat bath at inverse temparature $\beta$ is available as a resource. The setting is the same as before, in , with $\pi=\rho$. As a consequence, no additional deposition of ergotropy is possible at the end of the cycle. As before the ergotropy gained in going from $\rho'$ to $\pi'$ is the maximum work that can be extracted in a cyclic process with initial state $\rho'$ and reference Hamiltonian $H'$. The maximum work that can unitarily be extracted in a non-cyclic process with final Hamiltonian $H$ is given by ${\left< W \right>}_{max}:={\mathcal{W}}'+{\left< W \right>}_{ad}$. Whilst ${\mathcal{W}}'$, being a genuine out-of-equilibrium quantity, is always positive, ${\left< W \right>}_{ad}$ could also be negative. Requiring the process to finish with $H$ (rather than $H'$) could thus in fact be disadvantaguous for work extraction since, depending on $H$, ${\left< W \right>}_{max}<{\mathcal{W}}'$ is possible. In the last step (the green arrow in the graph) the transfer of operational heat going from $\pi_m$ to $\pi(=\tau_\beta)$ corresponds to the very practical scenario of thermalisation at the initial temperature $\beta^{-1}$ and Hamiltonian $H$ after maximal work extraction. This concludes the example. In summary we note that it has long been convenient to express the properties of out-of-equilibrium systems by using quantities that relate to equilibrium states and hence can be computed in a straight-forward fashion. Furthermore, the equilibrium quantities relate to measurements that can predict the non-equilibrium properties of systems of interest. Similar to other works in statistical mechanics relating to fluctuation theorems [@mrev; @esposito] we have broken up the out-of-equilibrium energy change into equilibrium quantities adiabatic work and operational heat, and an operational quantity ergotropy. We now relate these results to the second law of thermodynamics. Operational heat and dephasing ============================== We illustrate the meaning of operational heat for non-equilibrium processes. Similar to thermal operations we consider a time-independent system Hamiltonian $H$ and a unitary $V$ on a composite system-ancilla Hilbert space with $[V,H\otimes\mathbb{1}_A]=0$. In this process the total change of the system’s internal energy is zero as is the work (due to the Hamiltonian’s time-independence). Consequently, the (conventional) heat must also vanish. The ergotropy of the state, however, can change during such a process. For illustration we first consider an example where system and ancilla are both given by a qubit and the evolution happens according to an interaction Hamiltonian $H_{int}=\sigma_z\otimes\sigma_z$ for $0\leq t\leq\tau$. Starting with a generic state $\rho_0=\left( \begin{array}{cc} p & c\\ c^* & 1-p \end{array} \right)$ and an ancilla state $\sigma_0=\left( \begin{array}{cc} \frac{1}{2} & 0\\ 0 & \frac{1}{2} \end{array} \right)$ the dynamics can be solved exactly: $$\rho(t) = \left( \begin{array}{cc} p & c \cos 2t\\ c^*\cos 2t & 1-p \end{array} \right)$$ It is apparent that whilst the state’s internal energy does not change (for a local Hamiltonian in $\sigma_z$-eigenbasis) the ergotropy decreases due to a loss of coherence (periodic revival occurs at times $t=\frac{n}{2}\pi$). According to the main result of this article, the negative change in ergotropy is compensated by an operational heat flow into the system, i.e. $\Delta \mathcal{W}=-{\left< Q \right>}_{op}$. It can be shown that this holds true more generally for systems of arbitrary dimension and all interaction Hamiltonians – time independent or not – that commute with the system Hamiltonian, $[H_{int},H\otimes \mathbb{1}_A]=0$. The populations of the state remain the same but the coherences decrease over time due the open systems dynamics leading to a change in ergotropy which is compensated by operational heat. Note that dephasing channels such as qubit dynamics governed by a master equation in Linblad form: $$\dot\rho=\gamma(t)(\sigma_z\rho\sigma_z-2\rho)$$ are a prominent subset of such dynamics. With this intuition for the operational heat in mind we now relate the operational first law to an operational second law of thermodynamics. Connecting first and second laws ================================ Interestingly, a second law for CPTP maps is well-known [@Spohn; @*hatano2001steady; @*sagawa2013second]. In the context of equilibrium thermodynamics, the Clausius inequality states that the thermodynamic entropy of any system and its environment is non-decreasing. For systems in equilibrium, owing to the notions of temperature $\beta^{-1}$, thermodynamic entropy $\Delta S$ and heat ${\left< Q \right>}$ being well defined, the second law can be stated as $\Delta S \geq \beta {\left< Q \right>}$. To generalize this to the quantum regime, von Neumann entropy, $S(\rho):={\text{tr}}[\rho\log(\rho)]$, is considered in the place of thermodynamic entropy (being equivalent for thermal states). The second law for arbitrary states undergoing CPTP evolution is a direct consequence of the fact that relative entropy, defined as [@vedral2002role] $$S[\rho \Vert \sigma]:={\text{tr}}[\rho\log(\rho)-\rho\log(\sigma)],$$ obeys contractivity under CPTP maps [@lindblad1975completely]: $$S[\rho\Vert\sigma] \geq S[M(\rho) \Vert M(\sigma)].$$ Since we are interested in the change in entropy $\Delta S:=S(M(\rho)) - S(\rho)$, we have the choice of a reference state $\sigma$. The obvious choice of $\sigma$ is the fixed point $\mathfrak{e}$ of the map $M$, i.e. $M(\mathfrak{e})=\mathfrak{e}$. Rearranging the contractivity inequality, we arrive at the quantum version of the Hatano-Sasa inequality [@Spohn; @*hatano2001steady; @*sagawa2013second; @secondLaw]: $$\Delta S\geq -{\text{tr}}[\{M(\rho)-\rho\}\log(\mathfrak{e})].$$ While the first law relates to the partitioning of energy into heat and work, the (Clausius form of the) second law relates only to the increase in entropy. Specifically, the quantum Hatano-Sasa inequality is valid for CPTP evolution where neither heat nor temperature are well defined quantities. Hence, in general it is difficult to verify the internal consistency between a quantum generalization of the first law and a similar generalization of the second law that is applicable to arbitrary CPTP dynamics. However, we establish a relation between the two laws by considering thermal maps. Thermal maps {#thermal-maps .unnumbered} ------------ We call a map thermal if it has a thermal state for a fixed point: $\mathfrak{e}=\tau_\beta=\exp(-\beta\{H-F\})$ at some temperature $\beta^{-1}$, where $F$ is the (Helmholtz) free energy. Such maps, sometimes also called ’Gibbs-preserving maps’, are a superset of thermal operations (as is easy to show and further elaborated in [@faist]). Consequently, all results related to thermal maps presented here equally apply to the popular set of thermal operations. We remind the reader that all thermal states are passive. In order to make the connection to the second law a cyclic process is considered, i.e., $H=H'$. The input and output states $\rho$ and $\rho'$ are not restricted and can both be out-of-equilibrium. The quantum Hatano-Sasa inequality now reduces to the familiar version of the second law: $$\begin{aligned} \Delta S=S(\rho')-S(\rho)\geq&-{\text{tr}}[(\rho'-\rho)\log (\mathfrak{e})] \notag\\ =&\beta \,{\text{tr}}[(\rho'-\rho)(H-F)] \notag\\ =&\beta \, (\Delta \mathcal{W}+{\left< Q \right>}_{op}),\end{aligned}$$ with the change in ergotropy playing the role of heat along with ${\left< Q \right>}_{op}$. This restatement of the quantum Hatano-Sasa inequality is interesting in that it lower bounds the entropic change by the sum of two terms, the change in ergotropy and the operational heat which are both measurable and operationally well defined. Majorisation, entropy, and heat =============================== In order to give a condition for when heat ${\left< Q \right>}_{op}$ is positive (negative) we now introduce the concept of majorisation: A state $\rho$ is said to majorise $\rho'$ (written $\rho \succ \rho'$) if the eigenvalues of the two states satisfy $$\begin{gathered} \sum_{m=1}^nr_m \geq \sum_{m=1}^nr'_m \; \forall \; n\end{gathered}$$ where $\rho' =\sum_m r'_m {\left| r'_m \right>} {\left< r'_m \right|}$ with $r'_{m+1} \ge r'_m$. Note that not all pairs of states obey a majorisation relation – Some states are incomparable. In those cases we cannot make a statement about operational heat based on the states alone – It will also depend on the level spacings. Majorisation provides a sufficient criterion for operational heat to be positive (negative): If $\rho \succ \rho'=M(\rho)$ ($\rho \prec \rho'=M(\rho)$) then ${\left< Q \right>}_{op} \geq 0$ (${\left< Q \right>}_{op} \leq 0$). Since the eigenvalues of the states do not change during ergotropy extraction $\rho \succ \rho'$ implies $\pi \succ \pi'$. Examining the expression for ${\left< Q \right>}_{op}$ we have: $$\begin{aligned} {\left< Q \right>}_{op}=&{\text{tr}}[\pi' H]-{\text{tr}}[\pi H] =\sum (r'_n-r_n)\epsilon_n \notag\\ =&\sum_n(\epsilon_{n+1}-\epsilon_n) \sum_{m=1}^n(r_m-r'_m), \label{eq:difference}\end{aligned}$$ where each term in the last line is positive [^2]. Moreover, if $\pi \succ \pi'$ then $f(\pi') \ge f(\pi)$ for any Schur-concave function $f$ [@Zyczkowski]. The means $S(\rho') \ge S(\rho)$ and therefore $\Delta S \ge 0$. The implication is rather profound: Majorisation guarantees that both the entropy change and operational heat are positive simultaneously. This can be thought of as a version of the second law. In the context of equilibrium thermodynamics, the second law guarantees that ${\left< Q \right>} \geq 0$, $\Delta S\geq0$ and that the latter is at least as big as $\beta$ times the former. But in the context of quantum thermodynamics, no such guarantee exists in general. Consequently, one can have cooling transformations that reduce the entropy of the states [@secondLaw]. Majorisation strongly restricts the set of allowed transformations to those with positive operational heat and increasing entropy. Unital maps {#unital-maps .unnumbered} ----------- Unital maps take the maximally mixed state onto itself: $M_u(\mathbf{I}/d)=\mathbf{I}/d$. This simple condition has strong consequences: The quantum Hardy-Littlewood-Polya theorem [@Bengtson] demonstrates that $\rho \succ M_u(\rho)$ for any $\rho$ if $M_u$ is unital. As a consequence of the majorisation arguments above both ${\left< Q \right>}_{op}$ and $\Delta S$ are thus positive for *any* input state $\rho$ and unital map $M_u$. For all non-unital maps, such as the thermal ones described above, there exists at least one state $\rho$ (the maximally mixed one being a trivial example) that is majorised by the outcome state $\rho'$. In these cases the amount of accessible work increases, i.e., the last term in is non-positive and therefore operational heat is less than or equal to zero. The change in entropy for such a process will also be non-positive. The directionality that comes with the second law of thermodynamics is here reflected in the asymmetry between unital and non-unital maps: A heat-like increase of energy (and entropy) of a state only requires a unital map, whilst extraction corresponding to a negative heat-like contribution necessitates a non-unital channel. The representation of such a channel in terms of an ancilla makes clear that the second law is not ‘violated’ here. In addition to unital maps we may define *anti-unital* maps as those for which any output state majorises the corresponding input state. In such a process the operational heat is always negative. Conclusion ========== In summary, we have established a relation that gives an explicit energy balance for all quantum processes that are completely-positive and trace-preserving. Crucially, we have formulated an operational framework for the thermodynamics of open quantum systems. The important feature of this framework is that it relies only on general quantum processes that connect input and output states. Complete-positivity and trace-preservation guarantee that output states are in fact ’physical’. For such processes we have then operationally defined heat and connected it to an operational second law. Both heat and change in entropy are shown to be positive when the input majorises the output, making a strong connection between the operational laws. Furthermore, we have pointed out that the conventional thermodynamic description of quantum processes in terms of projective energy measurements alone does not suffice to capture the change in work value when coherences and excitations of the state are possible. In such cases a change in extractable work (ergotropy) is compensated by an (operational) heat flow into the system, thus giving a concrete meaning to operational heat. [**Acknowledgments.**]{} The authors thank O. Dahlsten and V. Vedral for insightful comments. FB acknowledges funding by the Rhodes Trust. Centre for Quantum Technologies is a Research Centre of Excellence funded by the Ministry of Education and the National Research Foundation of Singapore. KM acknowledges the Templeton Foundation for support. This work was partially supported by the COST Action MP1209. JG and FB thank Kate Clow, the author of the guide book [*The Lycian way*]{}, a path on which some of the central ideas of this work were conceived. [^1]: Since a passive state’s internal energy is fixed even in the presence of degeneracies they have no bearing on the arguments presented here and the reader may think of passive states as being unique with regard to a given Hamiltonian: $\pi$ will here correspond to $H$, $\pi'$ to $H'$. [^2]: In the same way, adiabatic work is positive when $H' \succ H$. Unlike for operational heat, there is, however, no connection between the majorisation relations for $H$ and $H'$ and the type of map that governs the process.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'Under constant applied force, the separation of double-stranded DNA into two single strands is known to proceed through a series of pauses and jumps. Given experimental traces of constant-force unzipping, we present a method whereby the locations of pause points can be extracted in the form of a pause point spectrum. A simple theoretical model of DNA constant-force unzipping is demonstrated to produce good agreement with the experimental pause point spectrum of [lambda phage]{} DNA. The locations of peaks in the experimental and theoretical pause point spectra are found to be nearly coincident below 6000 bp. The model only requires the sequence, temperature and a set of empirical base pair binding and stacking energy parameters, and the good agreement with experiment suggests that pause points are primarily determined by the DNA sequence. The model is also used to predict pause point spectra for the BacterioPhage PhiX174 genome. The algorithm for extracting the pause point spectrum might also be useful for studying related systems which exhibit pausing behavior such as molecular motors.' author: - 'J. D. Weeks$^*$, J. B. Lucks$^\#$, Y. Kafri$^*$, C. Danilowicz$^*$, D. R. Nelson$^*$ and M. Prentiss$^*$' date: 'April 19, 2004' title: 'Pause Point Spectra in DNA Constant-Force Unzipping' --- Introduction ============ The unbinding of double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) into single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) is a ubiquitous event central to many cellular processes. Much research has focused on understanding the thermal unbinding of dsDNA [@Wartell85]. These studies have revealed quantitative aspects of the thermal unbinding transition through the extraction of sequence-dependent free energy differences between bound and unbound DNA [@SantaLucia96; @Blossey03; @Rouzina99a; @Rouzina99b]. In living cells, however, the unbinding of dsDNA is typically achieved using molecular motors which utilize chemical energy and exert forces to pull apart the strands of dsDNA. To have a quantitative understanding of these processes it is important to first study the simpler case of unbinding of dsDNA by a *constant* external force. This process is typically referred to as ‘unzipping’ of dsDNA. For early experiments which unzip lambda phage DNA with a constant velocity and a *fluctuating* force, see [@Bockelmann02]. Recently, single-molecule experiments have allowed study of this process (see Fig. \[fig:model\] for a schematic illustration of the experiment). Both theory [@Nelson03; @Lubensky00; @Bhattacharjee00; @Sebastian00; @Cocco01; @Cocco02; @Marenduzzo02; @Lubensky02; @Kafri02] and experiments [@Danilowicz03b] show that at a given temperature the dsDNA separates into ssDNA when the applied force exceeds a critical value $F_c$. Moreover, for forces near $F_c$, the dynamics of the unzipping process is highly irregular [@Danilowicz03a], as displayed in the time evolution of the junction between the separated ssDNA and the bound dsDNA. This junction is referred to as the unzipping fork. Rather than a smooth time evolution, the position of the unzipping fork progresses through a series of long pauses separated by rapid bursts of unzipping. ![\[fig:model\] Schematic diagram of the DNA constant-force unzipping experiment. One strand of the dsDNA is attached to a fixed support, typically via a linker DNA strand (not shown). The other strand is pulled with a constant force, $F$, via a magnetic bead (not to scale) attached to the strand. If the force is large enough, the dsDNA separates into two ssDNA strands. The position of this separation, measured in base pairs opened $m(t)$, locates the unzipping fork. See Figure \[fig:exp\_setup\] for a more detailed description of the experimental setup used in this paper.](model_bw_dis.eps) Pauses and jumps in constant-force unzipping can have several origins. For temperatures near the dsDNA melting transition, portions of the dsDNA can unbind and form transient ‘bubbles’ below the unzipping fork. In addition, because of the helical nature of the dsDNA structure, a natural twist can be accumulated during the force-induced unzipping process. If the unzipping fork encounters a thermal bubble in the course of its progress, then we would expect a jump in its position. Furthermore, if the unzipping occurs on time scales much faster than the time scales associated with untwisting, then one would expect pauses when the DNA has to unravel accumulated twist [@Thomen02]. Moreover, since AT and CG base pairs (bp) have different interaction strengths (and associated base pair stacking energies - see Table \[tab:bq\]), pauses and jumps could also be due to effects associated with the particular sequence of the DNA. Experiments on multiple identical copies of the same DNA have shown that locations of pauses are highly conserved from one strand to another, [@Danilowicz03a]. Hence, it seems likely that in these experiments at least, transient bubbles and accumulated twist play only a minor role in determining the jumps and pauses. In this work we study the location of the pause points both experimentally and theoretically. To facilitate this study, we introduce a pause point spectrum which is a function of the number of base pairs unzipped. The locations of peaks in the pause point spectrum signify the location of pause points in unzipping, and peak areas can be used as a measure of the strength of pause points. We predict pause point locations by adapting a model of the dynamics of the unzipping fork in a constant-force unzipping experiment on heterogeneous DNA [@Lubensky02]. The only input information into the analysis is the DNA sequence, free-energy differences between dsDNA and ssDNA obtained using melting experiments, and temperature. Both thermal bubbles and build up of twist are ignored within our treatment. We find that we can predict most experimentally observed pause points, thus confirming that pause point locations are primarily a function of sequence. Our algorithm might also prove useful for analyzing pause points arising in other single molecule experiments, such as RNA polymerase and exonuclease [@Davenport00; @Wang98; @Neuman03; @Perkins03]. The paper is organized as follows: In section \[sec:exp\], we describe constant-force unzipping experiments performed on [lambda phage]{} DNA. In section \[sec:pause\], we present an algorithm for constructing a pause point spectrum from experimental traces of unzipping fork position versus time. Section \[sec:theory:FEL\] describes a theoretical model of DNA constant-force unzipping which defines a free energy landscape as a function of the number of bases unzipped, $m$, used to describe the unzipping process. In section \[sec:theory:MC\], this free energy landscape is used as a surface on which to perform Monte Carlo simulations mimicking the unzipping experiments. In the same way as performed for experimental unzipping trajectories, these trajectories are combined to form theoretical pause point spectra, which are compared with experiment in section \[sec:disc\]. Experimental Method {#sec:exp} =================== The experimental procedure has been discussed previously in [@Danilowicz03a; @Assi02]. As shown in Figure \[fig:exp\_setup\], our setup consisted of two pieces of [lambda phage]{} DNA, covalently bound to each other. One strand of DNA was used as a spacer between the glass capillary and the other strand, which was to be unzipped. The spacer strand of DNA was attached to the capillary with a digoxigenin/anti-digoxigenin antibody bond. The capillary was coated with digoxigenin antibody while the spacer strand of DNA was hybridized with a digoxigenin labeled oligonucleotide. One end of the strand of DNA to be unzipped was hybridized and ligated with a hairpin to prevent the complete separation of the unzipped DNA molecule. The other end of the strand was hybridized and ligated with a biotinylated oligonucleotide which specifically bound to a streptavidin-coated super-paramagnetic bead. When a magnetic field was applied, the force induced on the bead slowly unzipped the DNA. The unzipping direction (order of nucleotides unzipped) was controlled by the selection of oligonucleotides. ![\[fig:exp\_setup\] Molecular construction and square cell. (A) Schematic of the DNA binding to the inner glass capillary and the magnetic bead such that pulling the bead away from the surface will cause the dsDNA shown on the right side of the diagram to be separated into two single DNA strands. Note that the figure is not to scale, considering that lambda DNA contains 48,502 bp. (B) Schematic of the side view of the square capillary containing the round glass capillary to which the DNA molecules are bound. The magnetic tweezer apparatus exerts the controlled force on the magnetic beads, a microscope is used for observation, and two thermoelectric coolers are used to control the temperature of the sample during the initial incubation. The magnetic beads are pulled to the right in a direction parallel to the bottom and top surfaces of the square capillary, and perpendicular to the surface of the round capillary at a height equal to the radius of the round capillary, where we focus the microscope. This design allows us to view DNA molecules that are offset from the surfaces of the square capillary, and to infer the number of separated base pairs (bp) by measuring the separation between the magnetic bead and the surface of the round capillary.](exp_setup.eps) Figure \[fig:exp\_setup\]b shows the round, antibody coated capillary inside an uncoated square microcell. The round capillary was 0.5 mm in diameter, while the square microcell was 0.8 mm across, leaving a space for a solution of DNA, beads and buffer inside the microcell but outside the sealed, empty, round capillary. The capillary was incubated in a solution containing digoxigenin antibody at 5$^o$C for at least two days. The DNA solution and bead suspension were also individually kept at 5$^o$C prior to the experiment. We inserted a digoxigenin antibody coated capillary and the DNA and bead suspension into the microcell and then incubated it at 37$^o$C for 45 minutes, allowing the DNA to bind to the capillary via the antigen-antibody bond. Finally, we rotated the microcell so the beads that had settled on top of the round capillary were hanging off of its side. We focused using a microscope objective on the beads that were attached to the outermost point on the capillary so that we could accurately measure the distance between the beads in our field of view and the capillary. We applied a magnetic force by bringing a stack of small magnets mounted on an xyz translation stage near the microcell. The magnets could be approximated as a solenoid with its long axis in the z-direction, so the field gradient acted in the z-direction only and was essentially uniform [@Assi02] over our field of view, which was much smaller than the solenoid radius. We measured the distance the DNA molecules had unzipped by tracking their attached beads. We took still digital photographs of the field of view through a 10x objective lens once every 10 seconds. An image processing program found the coordinates of each bead in each frame. Figure \[fig:exp\_figs\] shows part of our field of view at two different times. In Figure \[fig:exp\_figs\](a), we had just applied the magnetic field. Figure \[fig:exp\_figs\](b) shows the same beads 28 frames, or just over 3 minutes later. In each experiment, we saw approximately 50 beads in our field of view. Approximately 10 beads unzipped slowly over the course of the experiment, pausing at various points. An individual bead paused at fixed extension until, through thermal fluctuations, the unzipping proceeded. After overcoming an energy barrier which we attribute to sequence heterogeneity, the strand unzipped up to the next pause point, where the same process repeated. Pause points seemed very reproducible in experiment from bead to bead (each attached to a genetically identical DNA), even when force and temperature varied considerably. This statement will be quantified below. In order to compare simulation results to experimental data, we converted microns unzipped to the numbers of base pairs unzipped. The centers of beads attached to fully zipped strands of [lambda phage]{} DNA under a force near 15 pN were observed 16.5[$\mu m$]{} from the round capillary in experiments. The centers of beads attached to fully unzipped strands of [lambda phage]{} DNA under a force of 15 pN were observed 77.4[$\mu m$]{} from the round capillary in experiments. Thus DNA strands being unzipped were stretched to a length of $60.9{\ensuremath{\mu m}}$. Lambda phage DNA is $48,502$ base pairs long, so to convert from [$\mu m$]{} to base pairs, we use the conversion factor $48,502 \mathrm{bp}/60.9 {\ensuremath{\mu m}}\approx 800 \mathrm{bp}/{\ensuremath{\mu m}}$. Since two strands of ssDNA are produced during unzipping, the monomer spacing along a ssDNA strand is found from the inverse of this factor divided by two to be $a\approx 0.6 nm$. Such a linear interpolation seems reasonable given the fairly large forces ($\sim 15-20 pN$) acting on the unzipped ‘handles’. Pause Point Algorithm {#sec:pause} ===================== Figure \[fig:spectrum\_exp\](b-c) displays several experimental unzipping trajectories. As can be seen in the trajectories, the unzipping fork progresses through long pauses at specific locations, separated by rapid transitions between these pauses. Moreover, a sample of trajectories from identical DNA sequences display a uniformity in the locations at which the DNA unzipping pauses. Note also that pauses at certain locations seem consistently longer than others. From these considerations, we are motivated to develop a method for combining many trajectories to form a distribution reflecting the location and relative strengths of pause points. A pause point ‘spectrum’ can be computed as follows (see Figure \[fig:pause\_examp\] for an example): ![\[fig:pause\_examp\]Sample window averaged results. The high resolution (1 bp) pause time histogram is shown in black. The grey spectrum is created by sliding a window of size 400 bp along the x-axis, and assigning a y-value to the midpoint of the window equal to the average of the high resolution histogram within that window. Note that highly localized pause points appear as broad peaks according to a much lower resolution in the window average.](n0p50_hist_window.eps) 1. Create a histogram (area normalized to 1) based on the position of the unzipping fork during the time duration of the experiment for all trajectories using the highest resolution possible. 2. In order to smooth this histogram according to the real experimental resolution, define a window centered around each position of the histogram, with a width equal to the experimental resolution. 3. Compute the average histogram peak height within this window, and assign the value of this average to the position of the center of the window in the pause point spectrum. The location of the peaks in a pause point spectrum correspond to the distances at which the trajectories paused, and thus correspond to pause points. In addition, the peak area is proportional to the amount of time trajectories spent at the peak locations. Hence, relative peak area can be used as a measure of the relative strength of pause points. As can be seen from direct comparison between the spectrum and trajectories (Figure \[fig:spectrum\_exp\]), this method of analysis provides an excellent summary of pauses and jumps observed in experiment. From this intuition, we expect that higher experimental spatial resolution would allow us to resolve further peaks in the spectrum. ![\[fig:spectrum\_exp\] (a) Experimental pause point spectrum alongside sample experimental unzipping trajectories at $T = 298K$ [($25^o C$)]{} with (b) $F = 15 $pN and (c) $F = 20 pN$. The experimental spatial resolution is $0.5{\ensuremath{\mu m}}$ (about 400 bp), which determined the size of the window used to calculate the spectrum. The structure of some peaks indicate multiple underlying pause points that are only partially resolved at this resolution. The full experimental pause point spectrum was computed with 15 experimental trajectories, only 10 of which are shown.](window_exp_traj_bp.eps) The experimental pause point spectrum was computed using 15 unzipping trajectories of which 10 are shown in Figure \[fig:spectrum\_exp\](b-c). In addition to applying the above algorithm, the following steps were taken: Trajectories were first individually shifted so that the starting position of each trajectory was zero [$\mu m$]{}. This was done in order to subtract the linker length from the measured distance for each bead. In order to collect as many trajectories as possible for better statistics, the experimental resolution was 0.5[$\mu m$]{}. The spectrum was thus created with a window of 0.5[$\mu m$]{}, corresponding to about 400 bp. In each of the experimental trajectories, there was a period in the beginning that was noisy due to transient bead adjustments in the turning on of the magnetic field (Figure \[fig:spectrum\_exp\]). These regions were not included in the experimental spectra. To convert from [$\mu m$]{} to bp, we multiplied by (48502 bp/ 60.9 [$\mu m$]{}), which represents the appropriate bp/[$\mu m$]{} factor for [lambda phage]{} under these experimental conditions (Section \[sec:exp\]). Theoretical Study of Pause Points ================================= Defining the Free Energy Landscape {#sec:theory:FEL} ---------------------------------- We consider the DNA unzipping experiment (Figure \[fig:model\]) as a chemical reaction from dsDNA $\to$ 2 ssDNA. This system possesses a natural one-dimensional reaction coordinate, namely the number of base pairs (bp) unzipped $m$, or equivalently the spatial location of the unzipping fork. Theoretical descriptions can then be naturally reduced from a complicated, three-dimensional system to a one-dimensional description with some of the interactions renormalized, expressing the three-dimensional nature of the problem. A very simple one-dimensional effective model [@Lubensky00; @Lubensky02] can then be written down based on the above picture. We define a free energy as a function of the number of bases unzipped, [$\mathcal{E}(m)$]{}, which represents the difference in free energy between the states with $m$ base pairs unzipped and the fully zipped states (${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}(m=0)}}=0$). There is a contribution to ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}(m)}} - {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}(m-1)}}$ from the free energy difference between the bound and unbound $m^{th}$ base pair, $\Delta G_{\mathrm{bp}} = k_B T \widetilde{\eta}(m)$, as well as a contribution due to adding two additional monomers to the free ssDNA strands under a tension, $F$, denoted as $2 k_B T g(F)$. We can write these contributions as $$\label{eq:etatilde} \frac{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}(m)}} - {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}(m-1)}}}{k_B T} = 2g(F) + \widetilde{\eta}(m).$$ The DNA sequence information is stored in the function $\widetilde{\eta}(m)$. In principle, this function might depend on time due to transient bubbles or twists in the DNA. At forces low enough ($F \leq 5 pN$) such that hairpin formation in the unzipped handles is possible [@Montanari01; @Dessinges02], $g(F)$ could also be sequence dependent. These compilations are neglected here. If we iterate equation until we reach $m=0$, we have $$\label{eq:eps} \frac{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}(m)}}}{k_B T} = 2g(F)m + \sum_{n = 0}^m \widetilde{\eta}(n),$$ Here we are setting $\widetilde{\eta}(0) = 0$, which ensures ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}(0)}} = 0$. The long DNA sequences we are considering should be insensitive to such edge effects. Thermodynamically we expect in equilibrium that unzipping of a dsDNA molecule of $M$ bases will occur when ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}(M)}} < {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}(0)}}$, with the transition region between ds and ss DNA occurring when ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}(M)}} = {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}(0)}}$. If we define the shifted function $\eta(n) = \widetilde{\eta}(n) - \overline{\eta}$, where $\overline{\eta}$ is the average of $\widetilde{\eta}(n)$ over the sequence, we can rewrite in the form $$\label{eq:fel} \frac{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}(m)}}}{k_B T} = fm + \sum_{n=0}^m \eta(n)$$ $$f = 2g(F) + \overline{\eta}$$ The parameter $f$ is a reduced-force, which defines the overall tilt of the free energy landscape ([FEL]{}), with the particular base sequence overlaid on this tilt with the function $\sum_{n=0}^m \eta(n)$. With this definition, the critical reduced force is defined by the equation $f = 0$. Values of $f > 0$ represent forces too low to unzip, while values $f < 0$ represent forces where full equilibrium unzipping is thermodynamically favorable. In all of the above, we have assumed that thermal bubbles do not form under the experimental unzipping conditions. This simple model can be defined in a more rigorous fashion by integrating out three-dimensional degrees of freedom in a statistical mechanical microscopic definition of the system. Effects due to bubbles can be incorporated into a coarse grained model, with renormalized parameters [@Lubensky02]. It is interesting to note that even for this simple model, non-trivial phenomena can occur due to the buildup of free energies naturally present in . Indeed, for the case of a completely random base sequence of length $M$, a sum over the independent random variables in would give an energy barrier $\sim k_B T\sqrt{M}$ [@Lubensky02]. Since GC base pairs are $\sim {\ensuremath{k_B}}T$ stronger than AT pairs at room temperature (Table \[tab:bq\]), we expect large peaks to appear due to the presence of long GC-rich regions. For a sequence of length $M = 48,000$, one expects barriers of the order of 200 ${\ensuremath{k_B}}T$. In practice, [FEL]{}’s are computed for a particular genome sequence using the experimentally determined free energies of base quartet formation [@SantaLucia96]. There are 10 distinct base quartets, where $m$ now represents the $m^{\mathrm{th}}$ base quartet, while $\widetilde{\eta}(m)$ represents this base quartet’s free energy (Table \[tab:bq\]). Base Quartet $\Delta G_{qt}/k_B T$ -------------- ----------------------- 5’-GC-3’ 4.46 CG 4.22 GG 3.46 GA 2.79 GT 2.96 CA 2.79 CT 2.20 AA 2.31 AT 1.52 TA 1.33 : \[tab:bq\] Base quartet free energies $\Delta G_{qt}$ for the bound to unbound transition for $T = 298 K$ [($25^o C$)]{} taken from [@SantaLucia96], using $\Delta G_{qt} = \Delta H_{qt} - T\Delta S_{qt}$. Only two nucleotides of the base quartet are shown, the other two obtained from the usual complementarity A-T and G-C. Free energies are expressed in units of $k_B T = 0.59\mathrm{kCal/mol}$ at $T = 298K$ [($25^o C$)]{}. These free energy parameters are determined through thermal denaturation studies on short dsDNA fragments, and were found for temperatures of around 310 $K$. By using base quartet free energies, base stacking interactions are included, which are thought to be more important for overall dsDNA stability than the hydrogen bonds in between base pairs [@Grosberg94; @Blossey03]. To compute [FEL]{}’s for different temperatures, the free energies for a given quartet were calculated from $k_B T \widetilde{\eta}(m) = \Delta G_{qt} = \Delta H_{qt} - T\Delta S_{qt}$. Here $\Delta H_{qt}$ ($\Delta S_{qt}$) is the enthalpy (entropy) difference between the bound and unbound DNA base quartet. Once temperature and $f$ are specified, the [FEL]{} is computed with equation or . The case of [lambda phage]{} DNA is particularly interesting since it is known that this genome consists of a GC-rich half connected to an AT-rich half [^1]. Using the free energy parameters of [@SantaLucia96], one finds that the large GC-rich region creates a peak of approximately $3000 {\ensuremath{k_B}}T$ at $f=0$ and $T=298K$ [($25^o C$)]{}, representing an insurmountable barrier to unzipping, and which is much larger than that expected for a random sequence. For the [lambda phage]{} genome, we thus define an operational critical reduced force of unzipping as the value of $f$ such that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}(0)}} = {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}(m_{\textrm{GC}})}}$, where $m_{\textrm{GC}}$ is the boundary of the GC-rich region. As can be seen in Figure \[fig:lambda\_FEL\], this operational critical reduced force corresponds to approximately $f = -0.15$. Forces greater than this should allow easier unzipping since the AT-rich portion of the [FEL]{} has a negative slope for these forces. However, even at these large forces, there are barriers on the order of 20${\ensuremath{k_B}}T$ to unzip (Figure \[fig:lambda\_FEL\] inset.) Using a Freely-Jointed Chain (FJC) model for the single strands, with monomer spacing, $a = 0.6$nm (corresponding to the bp/[$\mu m$]{} conversion factor in section \[sec:exp\]), and Kuhn length, $b = 1.9$nm [@Smith96], a reduced force value of $f = -0.15$ corresponds to an experimental force value of $F \approx 16 $pN. ![\[fig:lambda\_FEL\] Free energy landscape for the [lambda phage]{} genome at $f = -0.15, T = 298K$ [($25^o C$)]{} corresponding to $F \approx 16 $pN. A closer view is given in the inset. Because the lambda phage genome splits into a GC-rich ‘front end’, followed by an AT-rich region, the effective critical unzipping force is the one shown here, which produces an approximately flat energy landscape for the first $\sim 20,000$ base pairs. Note that there are still energy barriers $\sim 20 k_B T$ in this region due to sequence heterogeneity.](lambda_fn0p15_298_PIP.eps) Dynamics {#sec:theory:MC} -------- To study the location of the pause points one has to study the dynamics related to moving along the chemical reaction coordinate, $m$. Macroscopic unzipping occurs only if $f<0$, when the equilibrium state of the system is unbound. In this case, the experimental traces of DNA unzipping represent the approach of the system toward its equilibrium single-stranded state. As outlined in [@Lubensky02], there are four dynamical time scales associated with DNA constant-force unzipping in the setup shown in Figure \[fig:model\]: [$\tau_\mathrm{end}$]{} and [$\tau_\mathrm{bulk}$]{} represent base pairing and unpairing at the end of the strand and in the bulk, respectively; ${\ensuremath{\tau_\mathrm{ss}}}(m)$ represents the relaxation time of the liberated single strands; and ${\ensuremath{\tau_\mathrm{rot}}}(m)$ represents the relaxation time of twist built up in the zipped portion of the strand due to the helical nature of the DNA. The latter two time scales vary as a function of $m$. The dynamics of unzipping are determined by the slowest of these time scales. Here we assume that this time scale, for any value of $m$, is related to the unbinding of base pairs. In the analysis below, we assume that the slowest timescale is $m$-independent. Furthermore, it can be argued that bubble formation is suppressed in DNA for the relevant experimental conditions because of strong base stacking interactions [@Blossey03]. We will be interested in the unzipping dynamics for $f < 0$, that is for forces above the critical force of unzipping where it is thermodynamically favorable to unzip. However, even under these conditions, the approach to thermodynamic equilibrium is far from simple. Smooth progress of the unzipping fork is hampered by very large energy barriers in [$\mathcal{E}(m)$]{} that can be caused by the buildup of positive $\eta(m)$. As mentioned above, for random DNA sequences of length $M$, these barriers can grow as $\sqrt{M}$. Forces slightly above the critical force are unable to remove these barriers through tilting the landscape, and we expect to observe difficulty in traversing these barriers. Since the barriers are sequence dependent, it is possible that the dynamics of unzipping display characteristic signatures of the sequence. To study the behavior of a particular DNA sequence, and to make direct contact with experiments, it is useful to have a dynamical model that closely mimics the experiment. This can be achieved most simply through Monte Carlo (MC) simulations of a random walker on the one-dimensional [FEL]{} for the specific DNA sequence under study, at the specified reduced force and temperature conditions. The position of the walker on the [FEL]{} represents the position of the unzipping fork in experiments. The walker moves from position $m$ to a nearest neighbor position $m\pm 1$ with the rate $$w[m\to (m\pm 1)] = \min \left\{1,e^{-[{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}(m\pm 1)}} - {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}(m)}}]/{\ensuremath{k_B}}T}\right\}.$$ Details of the algorithm are outlined in Appendix \[app:MC\]. A simulation consists of specifying the [FEL]{} (DNA sequence, temperature and reduced force), and propagating the MC algorithm for a specified number of steps. The initial condition is such that the walker starts at $m = 0$, representing the experimental circumstance of tracking DNA’s that begin as fully zipped. What results is trajectory data, $m(t)$, which contains the same information obtained in experiments. Sample theoretical trajectories are shown in Figure \[fig:theory\_traj\]. There are clear pauses and jumps of the trajectories for reduced forces much higher than the critical force ($ -0.39 \leq f \leq -0.5$). Only extremely large reduced forces ($f = -5 $) are sufficient to remove all barriers and allow smooth unzipping. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \(a) ![\[fig:theory\_traj\] Sample theoretical unzipping trajectories, $m(t)$, where $\tau = 10000$ steps. (a) $f = -0.26$, (b)$f = -0.39$, (c) $f = -0.50$, (d) $f = -5$. For $t/\tau \geq 15$, (a) shows intricate two-state behavior caused by nearly degenerate minima on the [FEL]{}. In (d) the unzipping is smooth, but does not fully unzip in $80,000$ time steps indicating dwell time at some sites. Note that pause points are reproducible in the simulations, and that very large forces are required to smooth out the large barriers present in [lambda phage]{} DNA and allow smooth unzipping.](sample_trajs_fn0p26.eps "fig:") \(b) ![\[fig:theory\_traj\] Sample theoretical unzipping trajectories, $m(t)$, where $\tau = 10000$ steps. (a) $f = -0.26$, (b)$f = -0.39$, (c) $f = -0.50$, (d) $f = -5$. For $t/\tau \geq 15$, (a) shows intricate two-state behavior caused by nearly degenerate minima on the [FEL]{}. In (d) the unzipping is smooth, but does not fully unzip in $80,000$ time steps indicating dwell time at some sites. Note that pause points are reproducible in the simulations, and that very large forces are required to smooth out the large barriers present in [lambda phage]{} DNA and allow smooth unzipping.](sample_trajs_fn0p39.eps "fig:") \(c) ![\[fig:theory\_traj\] Sample theoretical unzipping trajectories, $m(t)$, where $\tau = 10000$ steps. (a) $f = -0.26$, (b)$f = -0.39$, (c) $f = -0.50$, (d) $f = -5$. For $t/\tau \geq 15$, (a) shows intricate two-state behavior caused by nearly degenerate minima on the [FEL]{}. In (d) the unzipping is smooth, but does not fully unzip in $80,000$ time steps indicating dwell time at some sites. Note that pause points are reproducible in the simulations, and that very large forces are required to smooth out the large barriers present in [lambda phage]{} DNA and allow smooth unzipping.](sample_trajs_fn0p50.eps "fig:") \(d) ![\[fig:theory\_traj\] Sample theoretical unzipping trajectories, $m(t)$, where $\tau = 10000$ steps. (a) $f = -0.26$, (b)$f = -0.39$, (c) $f = -0.50$, (d) $f = -5$. For $t/\tau \geq 15$, (a) shows intricate two-state behavior caused by nearly degenerate minima on the [FEL]{}. In (d) the unzipping is smooth, but does not fully unzip in $80,000$ time steps indicating dwell time at some sites. Note that pause points are reproducible in the simulations, and that very large forces are required to smooth out the large barriers present in [lambda phage]{} DNA and allow smooth unzipping.](sample_trajs_fn5.eps "fig:") --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It must be stressed that there is a certain freedom in choosing particular MC algorithms (Appendix \[app:MC\]). Algorithms can differ in how long it takes random walkers to traverse energy barriers, and thus we do not expect to be able to compare timescale information between experiment and theory, quantitatively. Although pause point locations can be predicted, we do not expect pause point strengths to match between experiment and theory. To calculate the theoretical pause point spectra, simulations were performed at a variety of reduced forces, $f$, and on [FEL]{}’s at the same temperature of the experiments. Each simulated trajectory consisted of $10^{7}$ Monte Carlo steps, and 300 trajectories were used to create the theoretical histograms. Corresponding to the 0.5[$\mu m$]{} experimental resolution, the window averages were taken over 400 base pairs with a length per base pair for [lambda phage]{} DNA under these conditions of 60.9[$\mu m$]{}/48502 bp as discussed in Section \[sec:exp\]. For $f$ values in which some of the trajectories reached the fully unzipped state ($m = 48,502$ bp), the trajectories were cutoff past $48,000$ base pairs before being included in the spectra. Discussion {#sec:disc} ========== An examination of a few experimental unzipping trajectories (Figure \[fig:spectrum\_exp\]) reveals that the pausing locations are often encountered by multiple copies of the same DNA. These copies are subject to different realizations of thermal noise, but share the same base sequence, an indication that sequence is a strong factor in governing pause point locations. Experimental and theoretical pause point locations can be compared by examining the peak positions in the corresponding pause point spectra (Table \[tab:peak\_loc\]). Experiment ($\pm 200$ bp) Theory ($\pm 200$ bp) --------------------------- ----------------------- 1000 600 2400 2500 3400 3400 4700 4600 5600 5400 6100 7100 Gap = 6400 Gap = 8800 13500 14200 14700 : \[tab:peak\_loc\] Experimental vs. theoretical pause point locations (bp) for the first 15000 bp corresponding to unzipping the front-half of the lambda phage genome (Figure \[fig:lambda\_FEL\]). The pause point locations are the positions of the centers of the peaks in the pause point spectra (Figure \[fig:exp\_vs\_theory\]), and have errorbars of $\pm$ 200 bp due to experimental resolution. The theoretical pause points include those found for $f = -0.29, -0.39, -0.47, -0.50$. Also listed are the size of the gap regions in the spectra where no pause points are found. Note that every theoretical peak less than 6000 bp is within the errorbars of an experimental peak, and the theoretical and experimental gaps are roughly the same size and in the same location in the pause point spectra. There is strong agreement between experimental and theoretical pause point locations at distances less than 6000 bp. In addition, theory predicts a gap in the pause point spectra of $\sim 9000$ bp starting at 5400 bp, which is similar in size and location to that observed in experiment. The fact that the positions of the pause points and gaps match to such a high degree between experiment and theory are evidence that for these experimental conditions, the approximations inherent in the concept of dynamics on the [FEL]{} representing DNA constant-force unzipping as a model for the experiments are sound. Since the theoretical model only requires the base sequence and thermodynamic parameters for base quartet formation, the agreement is proof that pause point locations are strongly governed by base sequence. The good comparison also shows that neglect of bubble formation for these temperatures is appropriate, as is also found by other means [@Blossey03]. The pause point spectra contain much more information than the pause point locations. Theoretical and experimental pause point spectra are shown in Figure \[fig:exp\_vs\_theory\]. The values of $f$ used in the simulations lie in the range $-0.25 \leq f \leq -0.5$. Recall that $f = -0.15$ corresponds roughly to a flat average [FEL]{} in the GC-rich region of the [lambda phage]{} DNA (Figure \[fig:lambda\_FEL\]). A value of $F \approx 17 $pN corresponds to $f = -0.37$ under these conditions, which is within this range. We have compared experimental and theoretical pause points in the *front* half of the unzipping process. The much steeper energy landscape in the back half (see Figure \[fig:lambda\_FEL\]) eliminates most pause points. As the values of $f$ are gradually decreased from $f= -0.25$, the theoretical pause point spectra grow into more peaks at larger distances, although low base pair peaks are still preserved. Thus the locations of pause points are fairly robust with respect to $f$ values. Once the forces are high enough to allow exploration of the whole [FEL]{}, the location of the peaks in the spectra do not change, and peak areas are adjusted reflecting a changing of the strength of the pause points. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ \(a) ![\[fig:exp\_vs\_theory\] Experiment (black) and theoretical (grey) pause point spectra for [lambda phage]{} at $T = 298K$ [($25^o C$)]{}. Section \[sec:pause\] outlines how the spectra were created using a sliding window average based on a 0.5[$\mu m$]{} experimental resolution. Experiments were done with $F = 15 $pN and $F = 20$ pN, and the spectrum was obtained from 15 experimental traces (see Figure \[fig:spectrum\_exp\]). Theoretical spectra are at (a) $f = -0.29$, (b) $f = -0.39$, (c) $f = -0.47$, (d) $f = -0.50$, and where created using 300 traces of $10^7$ steps each.](exp_comp_bp_RT_fn0p29.eps "fig:") \(b) ![\[fig:exp\_vs\_theory\] Experiment (black) and theoretical (grey) pause point spectra for [lambda phage]{} at $T = 298K$ [($25^o C$)]{}. Section \[sec:pause\] outlines how the spectra were created using a sliding window average based on a 0.5[$\mu m$]{} experimental resolution. Experiments were done with $F = 15 $pN and $F = 20$ pN, and the spectrum was obtained from 15 experimental traces (see Figure \[fig:spectrum\_exp\]). Theoretical spectra are at (a) $f = -0.29$, (b) $f = -0.39$, (c) $f = -0.47$, (d) $f = -0.50$, and where created using 300 traces of $10^7$ steps each.](exp_comp_bp_RT_fn0p39.eps "fig:") \(c) ![\[fig:exp\_vs\_theory\] Experiment (black) and theoretical (grey) pause point spectra for [lambda phage]{} at $T = 298K$ [($25^o C$)]{}. Section \[sec:pause\] outlines how the spectra were created using a sliding window average based on a 0.5[$\mu m$]{} experimental resolution. Experiments were done with $F = 15 $pN and $F = 20$ pN, and the spectrum was obtained from 15 experimental traces (see Figure \[fig:spectrum\_exp\]). Theoretical spectra are at (a) $f = -0.29$, (b) $f = -0.39$, (c) $f = -0.47$, (d) $f = -0.50$, and where created using 300 traces of $10^7$ steps each.](exp_comp_bp_RT_fn0p47.eps "fig:") \(d) ![\[fig:exp\_vs\_theory\] Experiment (black) and theoretical (grey) pause point spectra for [lambda phage]{} at $T = 298K$ [($25^o C$)]{}. Section \[sec:pause\] outlines how the spectra were created using a sliding window average based on a 0.5[$\mu m$]{} experimental resolution. Experiments were done with $F = 15 $pN and $F = 20$ pN, and the spectrum was obtained from 15 experimental traces (see Figure \[fig:spectrum\_exp\]). Theoretical spectra are at (a) $f = -0.29$, (b) $f = -0.39$, (c) $f = -0.47$, (d) $f = -0.50$, and where created using 300 traces of $10^7$ steps each.](exp_comp_bp_RT_fn0p50.eps "fig:") ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There are some noticeable disagreements in pause point location between experiment and theory. In particular, the experimental doublet peak at 7100 bp was not observed in any theoretical spectra for a variety of parameters, including longer simulation times. The pair of peaks centered around 14000 bp in the experimental spectra are also not picked up in the theoretical spectra, rather a single peak lying in the middle of the experimental peaks is found. This most likely does not represent an averaging of the two pause point locations in the theoretical spectrum because we would expect a broad peak covering the two locations in this scenario. The doublet of experimental peaks represents data from two separate runs, and thus a slight miscalibration in the $800 bp/{\ensuremath{\mu m}}$ conversion factor (Section \[sec:exp\]) for those particular runs could cause the two peaks to separate, since a miscalibration has a larger effect for longer distance pause points. For strong enough forces, theoretical pause point spectra also display many more peaks than present in the experimental spectra. It could be that more experimental trajectories need to be included to observe these peaks. While the peak positions in the experimental and theoretical pause point spectra coincide quite well, the peak areas noticeably differ. One source of this discrepancy is due to the time scales of the DNA unzipping. Each step in the Monte Carlo propagation of the unzipping can be thought to occur on the microscopic time scale governing the DNA unzipping, which is estimated to be $\sim 10^{-7}$s [@Danilowicz03a], with a large error in the exponent [@Mathe04]. The accuracy of this figure is not high enough to allow direct comparison with theoretical and experimental time scales. As mentioned above, the particular choice of Monte Carlo algorithm can change the characteristic unzipping times of simulations and could account for the discrepancy between theoretical and experimental time scales. Figure \[fig:spectra\_long\] shows pause point spectra obtained for simulations of $10^8$ steps. A reduced force of $f = -0.39$ is not strong enough to allow DNA’s to unzip under this length of time. Comparing to the $10^7$ step simulations (Figure \[fig:exp\_vs\_theory\]), we see that longer times in this case allow peaks at slightly higher base pair to be observed, but mainly result in a change in peak area. For $f = -0.50$, which allows for some fraction of unzipping even with $10^7$ step runs, longer runs only serve to change peak areas (compare with Figure \[fig:exp\_vs\_theory\]). Longer simulation times do not give spectra that approach the experimental pause point spectrum. We thus expect that even longer times will not provide quantitative agreement of pause point strength with the current MC algorithm. The choice of the Metropolis MC algorithm is an efficient choice to satisfy the detailed balance condition , but it is not the only choice for MC algorithm. Other choices for algorithms can give different pause times at pause points which result in different peak areas in pause point spectra. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \(a) ![\[fig:spectra\_long\]Experimental (black) and theoretical (grey) pause point spectra for [lambda phage]{} simulations of $10^8$ steps at $298K$ [($25^o C$)]{}. (a) $f = -0.39$, (b) $f = -0.50$. The longer run times in the simulations produce different pause point strengths, but similar pause point locations to Figure \[fig:exp\_vs\_theory\].](exp_comp_bp_RT_fn0p39_long.eps "fig:") \(b) ![\[fig:spectra\_long\]Experimental (black) and theoretical (grey) pause point spectra for [lambda phage]{} simulations of $10^8$ steps at $298K$ [($25^o C$)]{}. (a) $f = -0.39$, (b) $f = -0.50$. The longer run times in the simulations produce different pause point strengths, but similar pause point locations to Figure \[fig:exp\_vs\_theory\].](exp_comp_bp_RT_fn0p50_long.eps "fig:") -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The discrepancy of unzipping timescales between experiment and theory is also reflected in the fact that multiple values of $f$ needed to be used to obtain the theoretical pause point information. At low $f$ values, theoretical simulations could not pass certain barriers of the [FEL]{}, as is seen in the abrupt cutoff of peaks in Figure \[fig:exp\_vs\_theory\](a-c), which necessitated further tilting of the landscape. The technique of increasing the force is also used in experiment to probe farther out regions of the unzipping landscape (Figure \[fig:spectrum\_exp\]). However, the range of reduced forces used in the theoretical simulations corresponds roughly to 15-17pN, while the experimental range is roughly 15-30pN [@Danilowicz03b]. We might expect discrepancies between experimental and theoretical pause point locations to be due to large A-rich regions in the genome, since these are more susceptible to bubble formation due to the weaker base pairing and stacking interactions (Table \[tab:bq\]). Thus further investigation into these pause point discrepancies can lead to interesting genomic information. Experiments involving higher temperatures and different ionic conditions will help elucidate these discrepancies [@Danilowicz03b]. This procedure to investigate pause points in DNA unzipping is easily extended to the study of other genomes since all that is required is the base sequence and temperature of interest. As an example, we theoretically investigated the pause point unzipping spectrum for the microvirus Bacteriophage Phi-X174 ([BP-$\phi$X174]{}) ($M = 5386$) [^2]. The [FEL]{} for [BP-$\phi$X174]{} has barriers that are on the order of $\sqrt{M}$, and is a good example of a landscape which can be approximated by an integrated random walk (Figure \[fig:bphi\_FEL\]). Figure \[fig:bp\_traj\] plots several sample simulation trajectories alongside a segment of the [BP-$\phi$X174]{} [FEL]{} for $f = -0.25$, and figure \[fig:bp\_spectra\] plots pause point spectra for several values of $f$, all at $T = 298K$ [($25^o C$)]{}. Once again we see that for low values of $f$, the spectra grow into peaks at higher base pair as the value of $f$ is increased. A value of $f = -0.45$ is large enough to cause unzipping, and we can see that the spectrum at this value has contributions from the whole surface. For [BP-$\phi$X174]{}, $f = -0.45$ corresponds to $F \approx 17 $pN at $298K$ [($25^o C$)]{}. ![\[fig:bphi\_FEL\] Free energy landscape for the [BP-$\phi$X174]{} genome at $f = -0.15, T = 298K$ [($25^o C$)]{} corresponding to $F \approx 16 $pN. A closer view is given in the inset of the approximately horizontal plateau region.](bp_phiX174_fn0p15_298_PIP.eps) ![\[fig:bp\_traj\] Sample simulation trajectories displayed below the relevant segment of the [BP-$\phi$X174]{} [FEL]{} at $f = -0.25$ [($25^o C$)]{}. The three trajectories start at the left of the figure at $m = 600 \mathrm{ bp}, t= 0$. Simulation time has units $\tau = 5385$ steps corresponding to the genome length. Pause points are denoted by arrows on the [FEL]{}. Note that very intricate multi-state behavior is seen in the walker trajectories. In particular, the region from $725-775$ bp shows the presence of several minima of the same depth on the [FEL]{}, and shows up as oscillations in the trajectories.](bp_phiX174_multirun.eps) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ \(a) ![\[fig:bp\_spectra\] Theoretical pause point spectra for [BP-$\phi$X174]{} at $T = 298K$ [($25^o C$)]{}: (a) $f = -0.15$, (b) $f = -0.20$, (c) $f = -0.25$, (d) $f = -0.45$. Each spectrum was created using 300 traces of $10^7$ steps each. A value of $f = -0.45$ corresponds to $F \approx 17 $pN.](bp_phiX174_RT_fn0p15.eps "fig:") \(b) ![\[fig:bp\_spectra\] Theoretical pause point spectra for [BP-$\phi$X174]{} at $T = 298K$ [($25^o C$)]{}: (a) $f = -0.15$, (b) $f = -0.20$, (c) $f = -0.25$, (d) $f = -0.45$. Each spectrum was created using 300 traces of $10^7$ steps each. A value of $f = -0.45$ corresponds to $F \approx 17 $pN.](bp_phiX174_RT_fn0p20.eps "fig:") \(c) ![\[fig:bp\_spectra\] Theoretical pause point spectra for [BP-$\phi$X174]{} at $T = 298K$ [($25^o C$)]{}: (a) $f = -0.15$, (b) $f = -0.20$, (c) $f = -0.25$, (d) $f = -0.45$. Each spectrum was created using 300 traces of $10^7$ steps each. A value of $f = -0.45$ corresponds to $F \approx 17 $pN.](bp_phiX174_RT_fn0p25.eps "fig:") \(d) ![\[fig:bp\_spectra\] Theoretical pause point spectra for [BP-$\phi$X174]{} at $T = 298K$ [($25^o C$)]{}: (a) $f = -0.15$, (b) $f = -0.20$, (c) $f = -0.25$, (d) $f = -0.45$. Each spectrum was created using 300 traces of $10^7$ steps each. A value of $f = -0.45$ corresponds to $F \approx 17 $pN.](bp_phiX174_RT_fn0p45.eps "fig:") ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Conclusion ========== We have presented experimental evidence that the dynamics of DNA constant force unzipping are not smooth, but rather display characteristic pauses and jumps. Furthermore, we have given strong evidence that the locations of these pauses are primarily governed by the DNA sequence at room temperature [($25^o C$)]{}. We have also presented a general scheme for computing pause point spectra for any DNA sequence, with the only inputs being the sequence, temperature, and a set of ten empirical parameters representing DNA duplex stability. The ideas presented above can be applied to any system in which the concept of a pause point can be well defined, or in which a ‘spectrum’ representation of trajectory data can be useful in other ways. We can then enumerate the steps involved in constructing a theoretical representation of the system in order to facilitate comparison with experiments: 1. Using chemical intuition, reduce the system to one degree of freedom. Equilibrium statistical mechanics can be used to justify, or derive, the resulting [FEL]{} description of the system. 2. To model experiments, use Monte Carlo simulation with the appropriate algorithm to create theoretical trajectories. 3. Compute trajectory spectra using the above procedure for both experimental and theoretical trajectories. Such systems, of which DNA constant force unzipping is one, also include topics of current interest such as the motion of molecular motors on biopolymers [@Keller00; @Davenport00; @Wang98; @Neuman03; @Perkins03]. Acknowledgments =============== JBL would like to acknowledge the financial support of the John and Fannie Hertz Foundation. Work by JDW, CD and MP was funded by grants: MURI: Dept. of the Navy N00014-01-1-0782; Materials Research Science and Engineering Center (MRSEC): NSF Grant No. DMR-0213805 and NSF Award PHY-9876929. Work by DRN and YK was supported primarily by the National Science Foundation through the Harvard Materials Research Science and Engineering Laboratory via Grant No. DMR-0213805 and through Grant No. DMR-0231631. YK was also supported through NSF Grant No. DMR-0229243. Monte Carlo Algorithm {#app:MC} ===================== The Monte Carlo technique is designed to sample an ergodic system according to the equilibrium distribution for long simulation times. The distribution is specified by the detailed balance condition $$\label{DB} \frac{w_{m \to m+1}}{w_{m+1 \to m}} = e^{-({\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}(m+1)}}-{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}(m)}})/{\ensuremath{k_B}}T},$$ where $w_{m \to m+1}$ is the rate of taking the step from $m$ to $m+1$ base pairs unzipped. The ratio on the right hand side of insures relaxation to the Boltzmann distribution for long times [@Newman99]. Specifying the distribution, and thus the detailed balance criterion, still offers a large degree of flexibility in choosing an algorithm. Our goal in this study is to be able to predict the pause points of the DNA unzipping process, and to this end, we expect many choices of Monte Carlo algorithm to give equivalent pause points. The simplest algorithm to achieve the detailed balance is known as the Metropolis Criterion [@Newman99]. For an unzipping fork location at $m$, 1. Choose a direction to move ($m + \delta, \delta = \pm 1$). 2. If ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}(m+\delta)}} - {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}(m)}} < 0$, accept the move and `GOTO` 1. 3. If ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}(m+\delta)}} - {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}(m)}} > 0$, accept the move with the probability according to the Boltzmann distribution ($e^{-({\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}(m+\delta)}} - {\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}(m)}})/{\ensuremath{k_B}}T}$). Else stay at this $m$. `GOTO` 1. In order to prevent the random walkers from trying to unzip (rezip) beyond the end (beginning) of the dsDNA strand, we artificially inserted infinite barriers to these transitions in the simulations. [99]{} Assi F., Jenks R., Yang J., Love C., Prentiss M. 2002. Massively parallel adhesion and reactivity measurements using simple and inexpensive magnetic tweezers. [*J. Appl. Phys.*]{} 92:5584-5586. Battacharjee S. M. 2002. Unzipping DNAs: towards the first step of replication. [*J. Phys. A*]{} 33:L423-L428. Blossey R., Carlon E. 2003. Reparameterizing the loop entropy weights: Effect on DNA melting curves. [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} 68:06911. Bockelmann U., Thoman Ph., Essevat-Roulet B., Viasnoff V., Heslot F. 2002. Unzipping DNA with Optical Tweezers: High Sequence Sensitivity and Force Flips. [*Biophys. J.*]{} 82:1537-1553. Cocco S., Marko J. F., Monasson R. 2001. Force and kinetic barriers to unzipping of the DNA double helix. [*Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA*]{} 98:8608-8613. Cocco S., Monasson R., Marko J. F. 2002. Force and kinetic barriers to initiation of DNA-unzipping. [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} 65:041907 Danilowicz C., Coljee V. W., Bouzigues C., Lubensky D. K., Nelson D. R. and Prentiss M. 2003a. DNA unzipped under a constant force exhibits multiple metastable intermediates. [*Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA*]{} 100:1694-1699. Danilowicz C., Kafri, Y., Conroy R. S., Coljee V. W., Weeks J., Prentiss M. 2003b. Measurement of the Phase Diagram of DNA Unzipping in the Temperature- Force Plane cond-mat/0310633. Davenport R. J., Wuite G. J. L., Landick R., Bustamante C. 2000. Single-molecule study of transcriptional pausing and arrest by E-coli RNA polymerase. [*Science*]{} 287:2497-2500. Dessinges M.-N., Maier B., Zhang Y., Peliti M., Bensimon D., Croquette V. 2002. Stretching Single Stranded DNA, a Model Polyelectrolyte [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} 89:248102. Grosberg A. Yu. and Khokhlov A. R. 1994. [*Statistical Physics of Macromolecules*]{} (AIP Press, New York). Kafri Y., Mukamel D., Peliti L. 2002. Melting and Unzipping of DNA. [*European Phys. Jour. B*]{} 27:135-146. Keller D., Bustamante C. 2000. The mechanochemistry of molecular motors. [*Biophys. J.*]{} 78:541-556. Lubensky D. K. and Nelson D.R. 2000. Pulling pinned polymers and unzipping DNA. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} 85:1572-1575. Lubensky D. K. and Nelson D. R. 2002. Single molecule statistics and the polynucleotide unzipping transition. [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} 65:031917. Marenduzzo D., Bhattacharjee S. M., Maritan A., Orlandini E., Seno F. 2002. Dynamical scaling of the DNA unzipping transition. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} 88:028102. Mathé J., Hasina V., Viasnoff V., Rabin Y., Meller A. 2004. Nanopore force spectroscopy of individual DNA hairpin molecules. Submitted to [*PNAS*]{}. Montanari A., Mézard M. 2001. Hairpin Formation and Elongation of Biomolecules. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} 86:2178. Nelson D. R. 2003. Statistical Physics of Unzipping DNA. cond-mat/0309559. Neuman K. C., Abbondanzieri E. A., Landick R., Gelles J., Block S. M. 2003. Ubiquitous transcriptional pausing is independent of RNA polymerase backtracking. [*Cell*]{} 115:437-447. Newman M. E. J. and Barkema G. T. 1999. [*Monte Carlo Methods in Statistical Physics*]{} (Clarendon Press, Oxford). Perkins T. T., Dalal R. V., Mitsis P. G., Block S. M. 2003. Sequence-dependent pausing of single lambda exonuclease molecules. [*Science*]{} 301:1914-1918. Rouzina I., Bloomfield V. A. 1999. Heat Capacity Effects on the Melting of DNA. 1. General Aspects. [*Biophys. J.*]{} 77:3242-3251. Rouzina I., Bloomfield V. A. 1999. Heat Capacity Effects on the Melting of DNA. 2. Analysis of Nearest-Neighbor Base Pair Effects. [*Biophys. J.*]{} 77:3252-3255. SantaLucia J., Allawi H. T., Seneviratne P. A. 1996. Improved Nearest-Neighbor Parameters for Predicting DNA Duplex Stability. [*Biochemistry*]{} 35:3555-3562. Sebastian K. L. 2000. Pulling a polymer out of a potential well and the mechanical unzipping of DNA. [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} 62:1128-1132. Smith S. B., Cui Y, Bustamante C. 1996. Overstretching B-DNA: The Elastic Response of Individual Double-Stranded and Single-Stranded DNA Molecules. [*Science*]{} 271:795-799. Thomen P., Bockelmann U., Heslot F. 2002. Rotational Drag on DNA: A Single Molecule Experiment. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} 88:248102. Tkachenko A. V. 2003. Unfolding and unzipping of single-stranded DNA by stretching cond-mat/0304250. Wang M. D., Schnitzer M. J., Yin H., Landick H., Gelles H., Block S. M. 1998. Force and velocity measured for single molecules of RNA polymerase. [*Science*]{} 282:902-907. Wartell R. M., Benight A. S. 1985. Thermal Denaturation of DNA Molecules: A Comparison of Theory with Experiment. [*Phys. Rep.*]{} 126:67-107. [^1]: The lambda phage genome can be found at http://www.ncbi.nih.gov/ with sequence accession number NC\_001416. [^2]: The [BP-$\phi$X174]{} genome can be found at http://www.ncbi.nih.gov/ with sequence accession number NC\_001422.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We consider interaction of a high-energy electron beam with two counterpropagating femtosecond laser pulses. Nonlinear Compton scattering and electron-positron pair production by the emitted photons result in development of an electromagnetic “shower-type” cascade, which however collapses rather quickly due to energy losses by secondary particles. Nevertheless, the laser field accelerates the low-energy electrons and positrons trapped in the focal region, thus giving rise to development of electromagnetic cascade of another type (“avalanche-type”). This effect of cascade collapse and revival can be observed at the electron beam energy of the order of several GeV and intensity of the colliding laser pulses of the level of $10^{24}$W/cm$^2$. This means that it can be readily observed at the novel laser facilities which are either planned for the nearest future, or are already under construction. The proposed experimental setup provides the most realistic and promissory way to observe the “avalanche-type” cascades.' author: - 'A. A. Mironov' - 'N. B. Narozhny' - 'A. M. Fedotov' date: 'June 2, 2014' title: Collapse and revival of electromagnetic cascades in focused intense laser pulses --- Amazing progress in elaboration of high-power laser technologies was demonstrated in recent decades. By now, laser intensity has already surpassed the level of $10^{22}\text{W/cm}^2$ [@Yanovsky]. Recently, several projects aiming at intensities up to $10^{26}\text{W/cm}^2$ were announced and are currently under active development, see, e.g., [@ELI; @XCELS]. When realized, they would open unique possibilities to observe a variety of yet unexplored exotic QED effects of nonlinear interaction of electromagnetic radiation with matter and vacuum, see reviews [@Review1; @Review2] for the details. Experimental tests of Intense Field QED were pioneered almost two decades ago at SLAC [@SLAC], where both the nonlinear Compton effect and the nonlinear Breit-Wheeler process have been observed for the first time. The forthcoming facilities [@ELI; @XCELS] would allow to reproduce the SLAC-like experiments at a principally new level. Instead of rare events of photon emission and $e^+e^-$-pair creation, the long chains of sequential events of those processes (cascades) would be observed [@Bulanov], see also [@Sokolov]. The cascades discussed in Refs. [@Bulanov; @Sokolov] are very similar to the well studied air showers which are induced by cosmic rays in atmosphere [@Auger; @Gaisser]. For the sake of brevity we will call them hereinafter *S(Shower)-type cascades*. However, another mechanism of cascade development is much more intriguing. The point is that a cascade may occur due to acceleration of charged particles by the laser field and can be seeded even by a particle initially at rest [@Kirk1; @Kirk2; @Laser-limit; @Elkina-STAB]. Such cascades have a lot of similarities with the Townsend discharge in gases [@Townsend], or the avalanche breakdown in insulators or semiconductors, see, e.g., [@Av]. We will call them here *A(Avalanche)-type cascades*. It is worth noting that since an A-type cascade withdraws the energy necessary for its development from the field, it may result in substantial depletion of the laser field [@Kostyukov] and, very likely, even bound the maximally attainable value of laser intensity [@Laser-limit]. In the case of S-type cascades, creation of $e^+e^-$ pairs and hard photons occurs at the expense of kinetic energy of the initial and secondary particles. The multiplication factor for such a cascade depends also on the laser field strength. The higher is the field strength, the higher are the probabilities of particle creation processes and, hence, the multiplication factor. Nevertheless, the S-type cascade collapses at any laser intensity when the energy of secondary particles decreases to some threshold value. On the other hand, occurrence of the A-type cascades does not necessary requires high energy of a primary particle. However, the presence of a very strong electric field is absolutely necessary to ensure fast energy gain for a particle initially at rest [@Laser-limit]. The goal of this paper is to show that it is possible to observe both types of cascades in the same SLAC-like experiment at the forthcoming facilities [@ELI; @XCELS]. This could be possible if the time of collapse for an S-type cascade were small compared to duration time of the laser pulse $\tau_L$. Then, the mechanism of acceleration of relatively slow particles, which did not have enough time to leave the focal region, could turn on giving start of an A-type cascade development. In such a way we could encounter revival of the cascade process. We will consider an electron beam colliding with the field of two counterpopagating circularly polarized intense focused laser pulses with frequency $\omega$ and duration $\tau_L\gg 1/\omega$, so that magnetic component of the field vanishes in the focus of the standing wave and the field there can be considered as a rotating electric field, compare [@Laser-limit; @Elkina-STAB]. As in Ref. [@Elkina-STAB], we assume that for both pulses $E,H\ll E_S$, where $E_S=\frac{m^2c^3}{e\hbar}=1.32\times 10^{16}$V/cm is the QED critical field, and parameter $\xi=e\sqrt{-A^\mu A_\mu}/mc\gg 1$, where $A_\mu$ is the field 4-potential. We assume that the direction of the electron beam coincides with the direction of one of the laser pulses and the initial energy of the electrons $\varepsilon_0\gg mc^2$. For the case of a laser field of optical frequency and ultra-relativistic particles one can use probability rates for photon emission $W_{\gamma}$ and $e^+e^-$-pair creation $W_{cr}$ in the approximation of a locally constant crossed field [@Laser-limit]. Then, they are exclusively determined by the dynamical quantum parameters of participating particles $$\label{eq:chi} \chi_{e,\gamma} = \frac{e\hbar}{m^3c^4}\sqrt{\left(p_0\mathbf{E}+\mathbf{p}\times\mathbf{H}\right)^2-\left(\mathbf{pE}\right)^2},$$ and can be estimated as $$\label{eq:W} W_{\gamma,cr}\sim\frac{\alpha m^2c^4}{\hbar \varepsilon_{e,\gamma}}\chi_{e,\gamma}^{2/3},\;\chi_{e,\gamma}\gtrsim 1,$$ [@probabilities], where 4-momenta $p^\mu$ are: $p^\mu_e=(\varepsilon_e,\mathbf{p}_e)$ for electron or positron, and $k^\mu_\gamma=(\varepsilon_\gamma=\hbar\omega,\mathbf{k}_\gamma)$ for a photon, $\mathbf{E}$ and $\mathbf{H}$ are the local values of the electric and magnetic field. For small values of parameters (\[eq:chi\]), $W_\gamma\sim\frac{\alpha m^2c^4}{\hbar \varepsilon_{e}}\chi_{e}$, while the probability of pair creation is suppressed exponentially $W_{cr}\sim\frac{\alpha m^2c^4}{\hbar \varepsilon_{\gamma}}\chi_{\gamma}\exp(-8/3\chi_\gamma) $. Let us estimate duration of the S-type cascade $\tau_S$ first. The initial value of parameter (\[eq:chi\]) for a primary ultrarelativistic electron can be estimated as $\chi_0\sim \frac{\varepsilon_0}{mc^2}\frac{E_0}{E_S}$, where $E_0$ is the peak value of the electric field strength in the focal region of the cumulative field of two colliding pulses. Any involved particle transforms into two in every event, so that multiplicity of the S-type cascade can be estimated as in Ref. [@Akheizer], $$\label{eq:2n} 2^n=\frac{\chi_0}{\chi_f},$$ where $n$ is the number of generations of secondary particles and $\chi_f$ is the value of parameter (\[eq:chi\]) for the final electrons. Thus, for $\tau_S$ we have $\tau_S\sim t_en$, where $t_e\sim W^{-1}_\gamma(\varepsilon_0, \chi_0)$ is the mean lifetime of a primary electron with respect to hard photon emission. Finally, $$\label{col_time} \tau_S\sim \tau_C\frac{\varepsilon_0}{\alpha mc^2}\chi_0^{-2/3}\log_2\left(\frac{\chi_0}{\chi_f}\right),$$ where $\tau_C=\hbar/mc^2$ is the Compton time. The primary electrons are supposed to be ultrarelativistic, so that $\chi_0>1$. Obviously, the S-type cascade collapses when $\chi_f<1$. We will choose $\chi_f$ to be $\sim 0.1$. At such $\chi_f$, the development of the S-cascade cannot continue since the mean lifetime of a photon with respect to pair production, $t_\gamma\sim W^{-1}_{cr}\sim \exp(8/3\chi_f)$, becomes exponentially large. We are interested in the case when $n>1$ and the collapse time of the S-type cascade is less than the laser pulse duration $\tau_L$. Hence, the following requirements $$\label{req} t_{e,\gamma}<\tau_C\frac{\varepsilon_0}{\alpha mc^2}\chi_0^{-2/3}\log_2(10\chi_0)<\tau_L,$$ should be respected. Let $\varepsilon_0=3$ GeV and $E_0=3.2\times10^{-3}E_S$. Then $\chi_0\approx20$, and the left condition in (\[req\]) is satisfied at the expense of large logarithm $\log_2(10\chi_0)\approx8$. The right condition in (\[req\]) is satisfied for $\tau_L\gtrsim10$ fs. It was shown in Refs. [@Laser-limit; @Elkina-STAB] that a charged particle acquires very large transverse, with respect to the direction of the laser pulses propagation, momentum under the action of rotating electric field, and the dynamical parameter $\chi$ of the particle gains the increment $\Delta\chi\sim1$ within a small fraction $t_{acc}\sim\frac{E_S}{E_0}\sqrt{\frac{mc^2}{\hbar\omega}}\tau_C$ of the rotation period, $\omega t_{acc}\ll1$. If trajectory of the particle contorts so strongly that it can emit a hard photon in the direction transverse with respect to its initial propagation, which by-turn can create a pair, the A-type cascade occurs. In our case, the initial particle has a large longitudinal momentum and accordingly large value of parameter $\chi$. Therefore a noticeable contortion of the particle trajectory necessary for development of the A-type cascade will occur only if $\chi\sim1$. Let us explain this issue in more details. The momentum of a particle moving in the field of two colliding laser pulses can be represented as $\mathbf{p}(t)=\mathbf{p}_{\parallel}(t)+\mathbf{p}_{\perp}(t)$. The longitudinal component of the momentum $\mathbf{p}_{\parallel}(t)$ varies only due to emission of photons, and its characteristic variation time is $t_{\parallel}\sim\tau_S\lesssim\tau_L$. Variation of the transverse momentum component $\mathbf{p}_{\perp}(t)$ is determined by the rotating electric field $\mathbf{E}(t)=\{E_0\cos(\omega t), E_0\sin(\omega t),0\}$, $$\dot{\mathbf{p}}_{\perp}(t)=e\mathbf{E}(t)\,,$$ and thus its characteristic variation time is $t_{\perp}\sim 1/\omega$. We assume that a charged particle arrives at the focal region at the moment $t=0$ with zero transverse momentum, $\mathbf{p}_{\perp}(0)=0$. Then taking into account the relation $t_\parallel/t_\perp\sim\omega\tau_L\gg1$, we can calculate $\chi(t)$ according to Eq. (\[eq:chi\]) and get the formula $$\label{chi*} \chi(t)\approx \sqrt{\chi^2_\parallel(t)+(\Delta\chi_\perp(t))^2},$$ valid within the time interval $\Delta t\lesssim 1/\omega$. Here $\chi_\parallel=\chi(0)=\frac{E_0}{E_S}\sqrt{1+\frac{p^2_{\parallel}}{m^2}}$ has the meaning of the dynamical parameter in the absence of accelerating field, and $\Delta\chi_\perp=2\xi\frac{E_0}{E_S}\sin^2(\frac{\omega t}{2})$, compare to Eq. (9b) in Ref. [@Elkina-STAB]. $\Delta\chi_\perp$ gains the value $\sim1$ within $t_{acc}\ll 1/\omega$. This can essentially contort the trajectory and thus give start to an A-type cascade only if $\chi_\parallel\sim1$, as it is seen from Eq. (\[chi\*\]). So, the A-type cascade will retard with respect to the S-type cascade start and the delay time $\tau_R$ is determined by Eq. (\[col\_time\]) with $\chi_f=1$. Consequently, we can estimate the duration of the A-type cascade $\tau_A$ as $\tau_A\sim\tau_L -\tau_R$. Certainly, the conditions $t_{acc}\ll t_{e,\gamma}<\tau_A$ must be respected. It is easy to check that they hold for the values of $\varepsilon_0, E_0$ and $\tau_L$ adopted above. For more accurate analysis we use Monte-Carlo simulations. We assume $e^-$ and $e^+$ are moving classically between the acts of emission and solve relativistic equations of motion numerically. Timepoints of the quantum events are determined in a manner similar to Refs. [@GEANT4; @Duclous-Kirk]. The code was tested by simulating cascades initiated by high-energy electrons in a constant homogeneous transverse magnetic field and by simulating cascades caused by electron seeded at rest in the uniformly rotating homogeneous electric field. The results are in reasonable agreement with the cascade profiles from Refs. [@Anguelov] and [@Elkina-STAB] respectively. In our simulations we use a realistic model of circularly $e$-polarized focused laser pulses [@Narozhny-Fofanov] with gaussian temporal amplitude envelopes $E\propto \exp[-4(t\mp z)^2/\tau_L^2]$. Frequency of the laser pulse is $\hbar\omega=1$eV, duration $\tau_L=10$fs, and focusing parameter $\Delta=0.1$. Laser pulses propagate along and against $z-$axis and are focused at $z=0$ at the moment $t=0$. Initial parameters of electron beam are chosen so that without laser field electrons move along $z$-axis and reach $z=0$ at $t=0$. The initial energy of electrons $\varepsilon_0=3$ GeV while the peak value of electric field strength $E_0$ was varied in numerical experiments. The results were averaged over $10^3$ simulation runs for each choice of parameters. ![(Color online) Pair creation rate versus time. Solid line is the result of simulation, dashed line — simulation in the absence of Lorentz force, dot-dashed line — difference between the solid and the dashed curves. Initial parameters: $E_0=3.2\times 10^{-3}E_S$, $\varepsilon_0=3$ GeV.[]{data-label="fig:dN"}](dNdt.eps){width="0.99\columnwidth"} The results of the simulations are presented in Figs. \[fig:dN\]-\[fig:theta\_dir\]. All distributions are normalized assuming that cascading was initiated by a single $e^-$. Pair creation rate $dN_{e^-e^+}(t)/dt$ versus time is shown in Fig. \[fig:dN\] for $E_0=3.2\times 10^{-3}E_S$, $\varepsilon_0=3$GeV. Suppose the Lorentz force is “turned off” and electrons are not accelerated by the field. Then they lose energy only due to photon emission and only S-type cascade takes place. Pair creation rate for the case with the “turned off” Lorentz force is represented by the dashed line. The cascading starts immediately after electrons meet the counterpropagating laser pulse and collapses in the time interval $\tau_S\approx 0.6\tau_L$. The solid line shows the total rate. We see that at the initial stage it coincides with the dashed line and this means that in the beginning we have only the S-type cascade. In full agreement with our estimates, after approximately $0.3\tau_L$ the total rate begins to exceed the “no-Lorentz force” rate. Finally, we see the second peak of the solid line signifying revival of the cascading process due to the course of the A-type cascade. The dot-dashed line on Fig. \[fig:dN\] shows the difference between the total and “no-Lorentz force” rates. It corresponds to the A-type cascade which develops due to acceleration of electrons in transverse direction by the laser field. ![(Color online) Pair creation rate versus time for different values of $E_0$. The initial electron energy is $\varepsilon_0=3$ GeV.[]{data-label="fig:dN_E"}](dNdt_diff_2E.eps){width="0.99\columnwidth"} Pair creation rates versus time are presented in Fig. \[fig:dN\_E\] for different values of the field strength $E_0$. One can see that the revival of cascading (represented by the second peak) occurs only for the strong enough field. For the chosen values of laser and electron beam parameters it approximately equals to $E_0=2.8\times 10^{-3}E_S$. Another signature of cascade revival may be found in angular distributions of photons. Ultrarelativistic electrons initiating the S-type cascade emit photons along the direction of their propagation. The A-type cascade arises only after occurrence of fast charged particles accelerated in transverse direction. These particles will predominantly emit photons also in transverse direction. In Fig. \[fig:theta\_dir\] one can see the total number of photons $N_\gamma$, emitted at different angles $\theta$ with respect to the direction of propagation of the initial electron beam, versus time. The number of photons emitted at $\theta=0$ first increases at $t<0$ and then begins to decrease because the S-type cascade collapses but some of the earlier emitted photons can still create pairs at $t>0$. At the same time, the number of photons emitted at $\theta=\pi/2$ starts to increase significantly at $t\geq0$. The times of collapse of the S-type and onset of the A-type cascades are in good agreement with the results presented in Fig.\[fig:dN\]. The substantial difference in the numbers of photons emitted in these two directions can be explained by the numbers of particles involved. The S-type cascade is initiated by a single electron, while much greater number of generated secondary particles participate in the development of the A-type cascade. ![(Color online) The total number of photons emitted in selected directions versus time. Dashed line – the number of photons emitted along the direction of the initial electron beam ($\theta\in[0,\,0.1]$ rad); solid line – the same for transverse direction ($\theta\in[\frac{\pi}{2}-0.05,\,\frac{\pi}{2}+0.05]$ rad). $E_0=3.2\times 10^{-3}E_S$, $\varepsilon_0=3$ GeV.[]{data-label="fig:theta_dir"}](time_theta_directions.eps){width="0.99\columnwidth"} To conclude, we predict the effect of collapse and revival of QED cascading. This effect can be observed in same experiment when a beam of ultrarelativistic electrons collides with an intense laser field. In the setup considered in this letter, the laser field was formed by two counterpropagating circularly polarized laser pulses of optical frequency. We have demonstrated that cascade of Shower-type arises first, and then it collapses rather quickly due to energy losses by the secondary particles. However, when the energy of the secondary charged particles becomes small enough, the mechanism of their acceleration by the laser field turns on. This initiates the development of the avalanche-type cascade and leads to revival of cascading *in toto*. We have shown that the maxima of pair creation rates for two mechanisms of cascading can be distinguished for the chosen setup at the peak value of the field strength $E_0\approx 2.8\times10^{-3}E_S$. This roughly corresponds to the laser intensity of each pulse $I\approx10^{24}\,\mathrm{W/cm}^2$, which is expected to be obtained in the nearest future [@ELI; @XCELS]. The proposed experimental setup provides the most realistic and promissory way to observe the avalanche type cascade. The authors are grateful to G. Mourou, A. Di Piazza, A. Ilderton, H. Takabe and S.P. Kim for helpful discussion and valuable remarks. The research was supported by the Russian Fund for Basic Research (Grant No. 13-02-00372) and the President Grant for Government Support of Young Russian Scientists and the Leading Scientific Schools of the Russian Federation (Grant No. NSh-4829.2014.2). [99]{} V. Yanovsky, V. Chvykov, G. Kalinchenko, *et al*, Opt. Express **16**, 2109 (2008). G. Mourou, G. Korn, W. Sandner and J. K. Collier (eds) ELI – Extreme Light Infrastructure Science and Technology with Ultra-Intense Lasers, Whitebook (Berlin: THOSS Media GmbH, 2011). Exawatt Center for Extreme Light Studies (XCELS), <http://www.xcels.iapras.ru/>. A. Di Piazza, C. Müller, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan and C. H. Keitel, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**84**]{}, 1176 (2012). N. B. Narozhny and A. M. Fedotov, Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics [**223**]{}, 1083 (2014). C.Bula et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. **76**, 3116 (1996); D. L. Burke et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. **79**, 1626 (1997); C.Bamber et al, Phys. Rev. D **60**, 092004 (1999). S. S. Bulanov, C. B. Schroeder, E. Esarey and W. P. Leemans, Phys. Rev. A, [**87**]{}, 062110 (2013). I. V. Sokolov, N. M. Naumova, J. A. Nees and G. A. Mourou, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 195005 (2010). P. Auger, *et al.*, Rev. Mod. Phys. **11**, 288 (1939). T. K. Gaisser, *Cosmic Rays and Particle Physics* (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1990). A. R. Bell and J. G. Kirk, Phys. Rev. Lett. **101**, 200403 (2008). J. G. Kirk, A. R. Bell and I. Arka, Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion **51**, 085008 (2009). A. M. Fedotov, N. B. Narozhny, G. Mourou and G. Korn, Phys. Rev. Lett. **105**, 080402 (2010). N. V. Elkina, A. M. Fedotov, I. Yu. Kostyukov, M. V. Legkov, N. B. Narozhny, E. N. Nerush and H. Ruhl, Phys. Rev. STAB **14**, 054401 (2011). A. M. Howatson, *An Introduction to Gas Discharges* (Pergamon Press, 1976). M. Levinshtein, J. Kostamovaara, S. Vainshtein, *Breakdown Phenomena in Semiconductors and Semiconductor Devices* (World Scientific, Singapore, 2005). E. N. Nerush, I. Yu. Kostyukov, A. M. Fedotov, N. B. Narozhny, N. V. Elkina, and H. Ruhl, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{}, 035001 (2011). A. I. Nikishov and V. I. Ritus, Sov. Phys. JETP **19**, 529 (1964); A. I. Nikishov and V. I. Ritus, Sov. Phys. JETP [**25**]{}, 1135 (1967). A. I. Akhiezer, N. P. Merenkov and A. P. Rekalo, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. **20**, 1499 (1994). R. Duclous, J. G. Kirk and A. R. Bell, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion **53**, 015009 (2011). S. Agostinelli et al., Nucl. Instr. Meth. **506**, 250 (2003). V. Anguelov and H. Vankov, J. Phys. G **25**, 1755 (1999). N. B. Narozhny and M. S. Fofanov, JETP **90**, 753 (2000).

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We compute the Hochschild homology of $A(1)$, the subalgebra of the $2$-primary Steenrod algebra generated by the first two Steenrod squares, $\Sq^1,\Sq^2$. The computation is accomplished using several May-type spectral sequences.' bibliography: - '/home/asalch/texmf/tex/salch.bib' date: January 2015 title: 'The Hochschild homology of $A(1)$.' --- Introduction. ============= The $2$-primary Steenrod algebra $A$, that is, the algebra of stable natural endomorphisms of the mod $2$ cohomology functor on topological spaces, has generators $\Sq^1,\Sq^2,\Sq^3, \dots$, the [*Steenrod squares.*]{} The subalgebra of $A$ generated by the first two Steenrod squares, $\Sq^1$ and $\Sq^2$, is called $A(1)$, and $A(1)$ is an eight-dimensional, graded, noncommutative (not even graded-commutative), co-commutative Hopf algebra over $\mathbb{F}_2$. The homological algebra of $A(1)$-modules effectively determines, via the Adams spectral sequence, the $2$-complete homotopy theory of spaces and spectra smashed with the connective real $K$-theory spectrum $ko$. These ideas are all classical; an excellent reference for the Steenrod algebra is Steenrod’s book [@MR0145525], and an excellent reference for $A(1)$-modules and the Adams spectral sequence is the third chapter of Ravenel’s book [@MR860042]. As a student of homotopy theory, when I first learned the definition of Hochschild homology of algebras, my first reaction was to try to compute the Hochschild homology of $A(1)$. I know at least three other homotopy theorists who have told me that they had the same reaction when learning about Hochschild homology! Computing $HH_*(A(1),A(1))$, however, is a nontrivial task, and it seems that this computation has never been successfully done[^1]. In this paper we compute $HH_*(A(1),A(1))$ by using two different filtrations on $A(1)$ and studying the spectral sequences in Hochschild homology arising from these filtrations. These spectral sequences are the analogues in Hochschild homology of J. P. May’s spectral sequence for computing $\Ext$ over the Steenrod algebra (see [@MR2614527]), so we think of these as “May-type” spectral sequences. The problem of computing $HH_*(A(1),A(1))$ is made rather difficult by the fact that $A(1)$ is noncommutative and so $HH_*(A(1),A(1))$ does not inherit a product from the shuffle product on the cyclic bar complex, and as a consequence, the May-type spectral sequence converging to $HH_*(A(1),A(1))$ that one would construct in the most naïve way is not [*multiplicative*]{}, i.e., it does not have a product satisfying a Leibniz rule. This makes the computation of differentials in that spectral sequence basically intractable. Instead, we take the linear dual of the standard Hochschild chain complex on $A(1)$, and we use the co-commutative coproduct on $A(1)$ to give the cohomology of this linear dual cochain complex a product structure arising from the coproduct on $A(1)$ and the linear dual of the Alexander-Whitney map. In Proposition \[SSs and cocycle reps\] we set up [*multiplicative*]{} spectral sequences computing the cohomology of the linear dual cochain complex of the standard Hochschild chain complex of $A(1)$. By an easy universal coefficient theorem argument (Proposition \[duality between hh and cohh\]), this cohomology is the $\mathbb{F}_2$-linear dual of the desired Hochschild homology $HH_*(A(1),A(1))$. We then compute the differentials in these spectral sequences. In the end there are nonzero $d_1$ and $d_2$ differentials, and no nonzero differentials on any later terms of the spectral sequences. In \[ss e2\] and \[ss e3\] we present charts of the $E_2$ and $E_3\cong E_{\infty}$-pages of the the relevant spectral sequences. Our charts are drawn using the usual Adams spectral sequence conventions, described below. This is the most convenient format if, for example, one wants to use this Hochschild homology as the input for an Adams spectral sequence, and it also makes it easier to see the natural map from this Hochschild homology to the classical Adams spectral sequence computing $\pi_*(ko)^{\widehat{}}_2$, the $2$-complete homotopy groups of the connective real $K$-theory spectrum $ko$, in Proposition \[ss comparison with supertrivial coeffs\] and in the charts \[ss e3\] and \[classical may e3\]. In particular, the chart \[ss e3\] is a chart of the ($\mathbb{F}_2$-linear dual of the) Hochschild homology of $A(1)$, and gives our most detailed description of $HH_*(A(1),A(1))$. We reproduce that chart here: $$\begin{sseq}[grid=none,entrysize=10mm,labelstep=1]{0...11}{0...5} %\begin{equation*}\begin{sseq}[grid=none,entrysize=10mm,labelstep=1,packing=horizontal]{0...11}{0...5}%\label{ss e3} %% the vertices % row 0 \ssmoveto 0 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{1} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{x10} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{x11} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{x10x11} \ssmove 3 0 \ssdropbull % \ssname{x10x11x20} \ssname{x6} % \ssmoveto 0 1 % row 1 \ssmove{-6}{1} \ssdropbull \ssname{h10} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{x10h10} \ssdropbull \ssname{h11} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{x11h10} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{x11h11} \ssmove 2 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{z} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull % \ssname{x10x11x20h10} \ssname{h10x6} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull % \ssname{x10x11x20h11} \ssname{h11x6} % row 2 \ssmove{-7}{1} % \ssmoveto 0 2 \ssdropbull \ssname{h10^2} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{x10h10^2} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{h11^2} \ssmove 3 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{h10z} \ssdropbull \ssname{x10b20} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{h10^2x6} \ssdropbull \ssname{x10^2b20} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{x10^3b20} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{h11^2x6} % \ssmove 2 0 % \ssdropbull % \ssname{b20} % \ssmoveto 0 3 % row 3 \ssmove{-8}{1} \ssdropbull \ssname{h10^3} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{x10h10^3} \ssmove 3 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{h10b20} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{h10^2z} \ssdropbull \ssname{x10h10b20} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{h10^3x6} \ssdropbull \ssname{x10^2h10b20} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{x10^3h10b20} \ssmove 2 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{h10b20z} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{x10h10b20z} % row 4 \ssmove{-10}{1} \ssdropbull \ssname{h10^4} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{x10h10^4} \ssmove 3 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{h10^2b20} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{h10^3z} \ssdropbull \ssname{x10h10^2b20} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{h10^4x6} \ssmove 3 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{h10^2b20z} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{x10h10^2b20z} %% the arrows \ssgoto{1} \ssgoto{x10} \ssstroke \ssgoto{x10} \ssgoto{x11} % \ssstroke[curve=.2] \ssstroke \ssgoto{x11} \ssgoto{x10x11} \ssstroke \ssgoto{1} \ssgoto{h10} \ssstroke \ssgoto{1} \ssgoto{h11} \ssstroke \ssgoto{x10} \ssgoto{x10h10} \ssstroke \ssgoto{x10} \ssgoto{x11h10} \ssstroke \ssgoto{x11} \ssgoto{x11h10} \ssstroke \ssgoto{x11} \ssgoto{x11h11} \ssstroke \ssgoto{x10x11} \ssgoto{x11h11} \ssstroke % \ssgoto{x10x11x20} \ssgoto{x6} % \ssgoto{x10x11x20h10} \ssgoto{h10x6} \ssstroke % \ssgoto{x10x11x20} \ssgoto{x6} % \ssgoto{x10x11x20h11} \ssgoto{h11x6} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h11x6} \ssgoto{h11^2x6} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10} \ssgoto{h10^2} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10} \ssgoto{x10h10} \ssstroke % \ssgoto{h10} % \ssgoto{x11h10} % \ssstroke[curve=.2] \ssgoto{x10h10} \ssgoto{x11h10} \ssstroke[curve=.2] \ssgoto{x10h10} \ssgoto{x10h10^2} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h11} \ssgoto{x11h10} \ssstroke % \ssgoto{h11} % \ssgoto{x11h11} % \ssstroke[curve=.2] \ssgoto{x11h10} \ssgoto{x11h11} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h11} \ssgoto{h11^2} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10^2} \ssgoto{h10^3} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10^3} \ssgoto{h10^4} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10^2} \ssgoto{x10h10^2} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10^3} \ssgoto{x10h10^3} \ssstroke \ssgoto{x10h10^2} \ssgoto{x10h10^3} \ssstroke \ssgoto{x10h10^3} \ssgoto{x10h10^4} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10^3} \ssgoto{x10h10^3} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10^4} \ssgoto{x10h10^4} \ssstroke \ssgoto{z} \ssgoto{h10x6} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10z} \ssgoto{h10^2x6} \ssstroke[curve=-.2] \ssgoto{h10^2z} \ssgoto{h10^3x6} \ssstroke[curve=-.2] \ssgoto{h10^3z} \ssgoto{h10^4x6} \ssstroke[curve=-.2] \ssgoto{z} \ssgoto{h10z} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10z} \ssgoto{h10^2z} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10^2z} \ssgoto{h10^3z} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10x6} \ssgoto{h10^2x6} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10^2x6} \ssgoto{h10^3x6} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10^3x6} \ssgoto{h10^4x6} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10b20} \ssgoto{x10h10b20} \ssstroke[curve=.2] \ssgoto{x10h10b20} \ssgoto{x10^2h10b20} \ssstroke[curve=.2] \ssgoto{x10^2h10b20} \ssgoto{x10^3h10b20} \ssstroke[curve=.2] \ssgoto{x10b20} \ssgoto{x10^2b20} \ssstroke[curve=.2] \ssgoto{x10^2b20} \ssgoto{x10^3b20} \ssstroke[curve=.2] \ssgoto{h10^2b20} \ssgoto{x10h10^2b20} \ssstroke[curve=.2] \ssgoto{h10b20z} \ssgoto{x10h10b20z} \ssstroke%[curve=.2] \ssgoto{h10^2b20z} \ssgoto{x10h10^2b20z} \ssstroke%[curve=.2] \ssgoto{h10b20} \ssgoto{h10^2b20} \ssstroke \ssgoto{x10h10b20} \ssgoto{x10h10^2b20} \ssstroke \ssgoto{x10b20} \ssgoto{x10h10b20} \ssstroke \ssgoto{x10^2b20} \ssgoto{x10^2h10b20} \ssstroke \ssgoto{x10^3b20} \ssgoto{x10^3h10b20} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10b20z} \ssgoto{h10^2b20z} \ssstroke \ssgoto{x10h10b20z} \ssgoto{x10h10^2b20z} \ssstroke \ssgoto{x10b20} \ssgoto{x10^2h10b20} \ssstroke \ssgoto{x10^2b20} \ssgoto{x10^3h10b20} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10^4} \ssmove 0 1 \ssstroke[void,arrowto] \ssgoto{x10h10^4} \ssmove 0 1 \ssstroke[void,arrowto] \ssgoto{h10^3z} \ssmove 0 1 \ssstroke[void,arrowto] \ssgoto{h10^4x6} \ssmove 0 1 \ssstroke[void,arrowto] \ssgoto{h10^2b20} \ssmove 0 1 \ssstroke[void,arrowto] \ssgoto{x10h10^2b20} \ssmove 0 1 \ssstroke[void,arrowto] \ssgoto{h10^2b20z} \ssmove 0 1 \ssstroke[void,arrowto] \ssgoto{x10h10^2b20z} \ssmove 0 1 \ssstroke[void,arrowto] \end{sseq}$$ The vertical axis is homological degree, so the row $s$ rows above the bottom of the chart is the associated graded $\mathbb{F}_2$-vector space of a filtration on $HH_s(A(1),A(1))$. The horizontal axis is, following the tradition in homotopy theory, the Adams degree, i.e., the topological degree (coming from the topological grading on $A(1)$) minus the homological degree. The horizontal lines in the chart describe comultiplications by certain elements in the linear dual Hopf algebra $\hom_{\mathbb{F}_2}(A(1),\mathbb{F}_2)$ of $A(1)$, and the nonhorizontal lines describe certain operations in the linear dual of $HH_*(A(1),A(1))$, described in Convention \[conventions on ss charts\]. The entire pattern described by this chart is repeated every four vertical degrees and every eight horizontal degrees: there is a periodicity class (not pictured) in bidegree $(4,8)$. Information about the $\mathbb{F}_2$-vector space dimension of $HH_*(A(1),A(1))$ in each grading degree is provided by Theorem \[e-p series thm\], which we reproduce below (we do not describe any ring structure on $HH_*(A(1),A(1))$ because $A(1)$ is noncommutative and so there is no ring structure on its Hochschild homology induced by shuffle product on cyclic chains): The $\mathbb{F}_2$-vector space dimension of $HH_n(A(1),A(1))$ is: $$\dim_{\mathbb{F}_2} HH_n(A(1),A(1)) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 2n+5 &\mbox{\ if\ } 2\mid n \\ 2n+6 &\mbox{\ if\ } n\equiv 1 \mod 4 \\ 2n+4 &\mbox{\ if\ } n\equiv 3 \mod 4 .\end{array}\right.$$ Hence the Poincaré series of the graded $\mathbb{F}_2$-vector space $HH_*(A(1),A(1))$ is $$\frac{ 5 + 8s + 9s^2 + 10s^3 + \frac{8s^4}{1-s}}{1-s^4} .$$ If we additionally keep track of the extra grading on $HH_*(A(1),A(1))$ coming from the topological grading on $A(1)$, then the Poincaré series of the bigraded $\mathbb{F}_2$-vector space $HH_{*,*}(A(1),A(1))$ is ( (1+u)(1+u\^2 + su(1+u\^2+u\^5) + s\^2u\^2(1+2u\^5+u\^7) + s\^3u\^3(1+u\^4+u\^5+u\^6+u\^9) + ) + u\^6+su\^2+su\^8+s\^2u\^4) where $s$ indexes the homological grading and $u$ indexes the topological grading. Our computation of $HH_*(A(1),A(1))$ can be used as the input for other spectral sequences in order to make further computations. For example, one could use it as input for the Connes spectral sequence, as in 9.8.6 of [@MR1269324], computing the cyclic homology $HC_*(A(1),A(1))$. This is probably of limited utility, however, since $A(1)$ is an algebra over a field of characteristic $2$, so the cyclic homology of $A(1)$ is probably not a good approximation to the algebraic $K$-theory of $A(1)$. Instead one ought to compute the topological cyclic homology of $A(1)$. For this, one could use our computation of $HH_*(A(1),A(1))$ as input for the Pirashvili-Waldhausen spectral sequence, as in [@MR1181095], computing the topological Hochschild homology $THH_*(A(1),A(1))$, and then one would need to run the necessary homotopy fixed-point spectral sequences to compute $\pi_*(THH(A(1),A(1))^{C_{p^n}})$ and then $TR_*(A(1))$ and finally $TC_*(A(1))$, which, using McCarthy’s theorem (see [@MR3013261]), gives the $2$-complete algebraic $K$-groups $K_*(A(1))^{\widehat{}}_{2}$ (the algebraic $K$-groups completed away from $2$ ought to be much easier: an appropriate noncommutative version of Gabber rigidity, if true, would imply that they vanish in positive degrees. See IV.2.10 of [@MR3076731]). See e.g. [@MR1474979] for a survey of trace method computations of this kind. Those computations are entirely outside the scope of the present paper. We remark that our methods also admit basically obvious extensions to methods for computing $HH_*(A(n),A(n))$ for arbitrary $n$, but one sees that for $n>1$, carrying out such computations would be a daunting task. Our HH-May spectral sequence of Proposition \[SSs and cocycle reps\] surjects on to the classical May spectral sequence computing $\Ext_{A(1)}^*(\mathbb{F}_2,\mathbb{F}_2)$, and for the same reasons, the $n>1$ analogue of our HH-May spectral sequence maps naturally to the classical May spectral sequence computing $\Ext_{A(n)}^*(\mathbb{F}_2,\mathbb{F}_2)$. We suspect that this map is still surjective for $n>1$, although we have made no attempt to verify this. Consequently the computation of $HH_*(A(n),A(n))$ using our methods is of at least the same level of difficulty as the computation of $\Ext_{A(n)}^*(\mathbb{F}_2,\mathbb{F}_2)$. For $n=2$ this is already quite nontrivial. It is worth pointing out that, in [@MR950556], J.-L. Brylinski constructs a spectral sequence related to the present paper’s abelianizing spectral sequence. Brylinski’s spectral sequence computes the Hochschild homology of a noncommutative algebra over a field of characteristic zero, for the purposes of studying Poisson manifolds, and remarks that “\[e\]xamples show that this spectral sequence tends to degenerate at $E^2$,” in particular, that Brylinski’s spectral sequence collapses at the $E^2$-term for the algebra of differential operators on an algebraic or complex-analytic manifold. In the present paper’s computation of $HH_*(A(1), A(1))$ we instead get collapse one term later, at $E_3$ rather than $E_2$. Given a field $k$ and a graded $k$-algebra $A$, there are [*two*]{} notions of the Hochschild homology $HH_*(A,A)$ which are in common circulation: - one can forget the grading, and simply consider the Hochschild homology of the underlying ungraded $k$-algebra of $A$. This is the right thing to do in many applications of Hochschild homology in classical algebra; for example, if one wants to use trace methods to compute the algebraic $K$-groups of (the underlying ungraded algebra of) $A$. (The computations in [@MR972360] are an excellent example of this.) - Alternatively, one can instead compute the “graded algebra Hochschild homology,” which incorporates a sign convention into the cyclic bar complex. This is the right thing to do in many applications of Hochschild homology in algebraic topology; for example, if one wants to use Bökstedt’s spectral sequence to compute topological Hochschild homology of a ring spectrum. (The computations in [@MR1209233] are an excellent example of this.) Since $A(1)$ has characteristic $2$, sign conventions are irrelevant, and both notions of Hochschild homology coincide. This makes the computations in this paper equally applicable in classical algebra as in algebraic topology. Any future odd-primary analogues of these computations, however, would require that one carry out “ungraded” $HH_*$ computations separately from the “graded” $HH_*$-computations. Construction of May-type spectral sequences for Hochschild homology. ==================================================================== [**(May spectral sequence for Hochschild homology.)**]{}\[may ss for hh\] Let $k$ be a field, $A$ an algebra, and $$\label{filt 0} F^0A \supseteq F^1A \supseteq F^2A \supseteq \dots$$ a filtration of $A$ which is multiplicative, that is, if $x\in F^mA$ and $y\in F^nA$, then $xy\in F^{m+n}A$. Then there exists a spectral sequence $$\begin{aligned} E_1^{s,t} \cong HH_{s,t}(E_0A, E_0A) & \Rightarrow HH_s(A,A) \\ d_r^{s,t} : E_r^{s,t} & \rightarrow E_r^{s-1,t+r}. \end{aligned}$$ The bigrading subscripts $HH_{s,t}$ are as follows: $s$ is the usual homological degree, while $t$ is the May degree, defined and computed as follows: given a homology class $x\in HH_s(E^0A,E^0A)$, its May degree is the total degree (in the grading on $E^0A$ induced by the filtration on $A$) of any homogeneous cycle representative for $x$ in the standard Hochschild chain complex. This spectral sequence enjoys the following additional properties: - If the filtration \[filt 0\] is finite, i.e., $F^nA =0$ for some $n\in\mathbb{N}$, then the spectral sequence converges strongly. - If $A$ is also a graded $k$-algebra and the filtration layers $F^nA$ are generated (as two-sided ideals) by homogeneous elements, then this spectral sequence is a spectral sequence of graded $k$-vector spaces, i.e., the differential preserves the grading. - If $A$ is commutative, then so is $E_0A$, and the input for this spectral sequence has a ring structure given by the usual shuffle product on the Hochschild homology of a commutative ring (see e.g. [@MR1269324]), and the spectral sequence is multiplicative, i.e., the differentials in the spectral sequence obey the graded Leibniz rule. Furthermore, the product in the spectral sequence converges to the product induced on the associated graded by the usual shuffle product on $HH_*(A,A)$ (this is the usual situation in spectral sequences of differential graded algebras). - The differential in the spectral sequence is (like any other spectral sequence of a filtered chain complex) computed on a class $x\in HH_{*,*}(E_0A,E_0A)$ by computing a homogeneous cycle representative $y$ for $x$ in the standard Hochschild chain complex for $E_0A$, lifting $y$ to a homogeneous chain $\tilde{y}$ in the standard Hochschild chain complex for $A$, applying the Hochschild differential $d$ to $\tilde{y}$, then taking the image of $d\tilde{y}$ in the standard Hochschild chain complex for $E_0A$. Let $CH_{\bullet}(A,A)$ denote the standard Hochschild chain complex of $A$, and let $F^nCH_{\bullet}(A,A)$ denote the sub-chain-complex of $CH_{\bullet}(A,A)$ consisting of all chains of total filtration degree $\leq n$. Our May spectral sequence is now simply the spectral sequence of the filtered chain complex $$\label{filt 1} CH_{\bullet}(A,A) = F^0CH_{\bullet}(A,A) \supseteq F^1CH_{\bullet}(A,A) \supseteq F^2CH_{\bullet}(A,A)\supseteq \dots .$$ If $A$ is commutative, then filtration \[filt 0\] being multiplicative implies that filtration \[filt 1\] is a multiplicative filtration of the differential graded algebra $CH_{\bullet}(A,A)$, with product given by the shuffle product. It is standard (see. e.g. [@MR0060829]) that the spectral sequence of a multiplicatively-filtered DGA is multiplicative. The product on the spectral sequence being given by the shuffle product is due to the naturality of the construction of $CH_{\bullet}(A,A)$ in the choice of $k$-algebra $A$: if $A$ is commutative, then the multiplication map $A\otimes_k A \rightarrow A$ is a morphism of $k$-algebras, hence we get a map of chain complexes $$CH_{\bullet}(A\otimes_k A, A\otimes_k A) \rightarrow CH_{\bullet}(A,A),$$ which we compose with the Eilenberg-Zilber (i.e., “shuffle”) isomorphism $$CH_{\bullet}(A,A) \otimes_k CH_{\bullet}(A,A) \stackrel{\cong}{\longrightarrow} CH_{\bullet}(A\otimes_k A, A\otimes_k A) .$$ The other claims are also all standard about a spectral sequence of a filtered chain complex, except perhaps the strong convergence claim, which we easily prove as follows: suppose the filtration \[filt 0\] satisfies $F^nA = 0$ for some $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Then the group of $i$-cycles $CH_i(A,A)\cong A^{\otimes_k i+1}$ has no nonzero elements of filtration greater than $(n+1)i$. So the filtration in $E_{\infty}$ of $HH_i(A,A)$ is a finite filtration, and the column in the spectral sequence converging to $HH_i(A,A)$ is zero after the $E_{(n+1)i+2}$-page. So the spectral sequence converges strongly. \[def of cyclic cobar\] Let $k$ be a field and $A$ a coalgebra over $k$ with comultiplication map $\Delta: A \rightarrow A\otimes_k A$. By the [*cyclic cobar construction on $A$*]{} we mean the cosimplicial $k$-vector space $$\xymatrix{ A \ar@<1ex>[r] \ar@<-1ex>[r] & A\otimes_k A \ar[l]\ar@<2ex>[r]\ar[r]\ar@<-2ex>[r] & A\otimes_k A\otimes_k A \ar@<1ex>[l] \ar@<-1ex>[l] \ar@<3ex>[r] \ar@<1ex>[r] \ar@<-1ex>[r] \ar@<-3ex>[r] & \dots \ar@<2ex>[l]\ar[l]\ar@<-2ex>[l] }$$ with coface maps $d^0, d^1,\dots ,d^n: A^{\otimes_k n} \rightarrow A^{\otimes_k n+1}$ given by $$\begin{aligned} d^i(a_0\otimes \dots \otimes a_{n-1}) &= \left\{ \begin{array}{l} a_0 \otimes \dots \otimes a_{i-1}\otimes \Delta(a_i)\otimes a_{i+1} \otimes \dots \otimes a_{n-1} \\ \mbox{if\ } i < n,\\ \tau\left( \Delta(a_0) \otimes a_1 \otimes \dots \otimes a_{n-1}\right) \\ \mbox{if\ } i = n,\end{array}\right. \end{aligned}$$ where $\tau$ is the cyclic permutation toward the left, i.e., $$\tau( a_0 \otimes \dots \otimes a_n) = a_1 \otimes \dots \otimes a_n\otimes a_0.$$ The codegeneracy maps are constructed from the counit (augmentation) map on $A$ in the usual way. By the [*cyclic cobar complex of $A$,*]{} denoted $coCH^{\bullet}(A,A)$, we mean the alternating sign cochain complex of the cyclic cobar construction on $A$. We write $coHH^*(A,A)$ for its cohomology, which we call [*dual Hochschild cohomology.*]{} \[explicit coproduct remark\] Clearly, if $B$ is a finite-dimensional co-commutative Hopf algebra over a field $k$, and if $A$ is the $k$-linear dual of $B$, then the cyclic cobar complex on $A$ is isomorphic to the $k$-linear dual of the cyclic bar complex on $A$, and the cyclic cobar complex then inherits a product from the coproduct on the cyclic bar complex of $B$. It is worthwhile to be very explicit about the coproduct on the cyclic bar complex of a co-commutative Hopf algebra, since this point is not as well documented in the literature as it could be (although it does appear in some places, for example, in [@abbaspourpreprint]). A Hochschild $n$-chain is an element of $A\otimes_k A\otimes_k \dots \otimes_k A$, with $n+1$ tensor factors of $A$; because the tensor factor on the far left plays a special role, we will adopt the common notation $a_0\left[ a_1 \otimes \dots \otimes a_n\right]$ instead of $a_0\otimes a_1\otimes \dots\otimes a_n$ for a (term in a) Hochschild $n$-chain. Then the coproduct on the cyclic bar complex is given by $$\Delta\left( a_0\left[ a_1 \otimes \dots \otimes a_n\right]\right) = \sum_{i=1}^{\ell} \sum_{j=0}^n a_{0,i}^{\prime} \left[ a_1\otimes \dots \otimes a_j\right] \otimes a_{0,i}^{\prime\prime} \left[ a_{j+1}\otimes \dots \otimes a_n\right]$$ where $\ell$ and $\{ a_{0,i}^{\prime},a_{0,i}^{\prime\prime}\}_{i=1, \dots ,\ell}$ are given by the determined by the coproduct in $A$ and the formula $$\Delta(a_0) = \sum_{i=0}^{\ell} a_{0,i}^{\prime}\otimes a_{0,i}^{\prime\prime}.$$ We now give a definition of dual Hochschild cohomology with coefficients in the base field $k$, rather than in the coalgebra $A$ itself. Naturally, one could write down a definition of dual Hochschild cohomology with coefficients in any “$A$-bicomodule,” in a way that is basically obvious once one has taken a glance at Definitions \[def of cyclic cobar\] and  \[def of cyclic cobar with supertrivial coeffs\]. For the purposes of this paper, however, we will only ever need coefficients in $k$ and in $A$. \[def of cyclic cobar with supertrivial coeffs\] Let $k$ be a field and $A$ a copointed coalgebra over $k$, i.e., a coalgebra over $k$ equipped with a morphism of $k$-coalgebras $\eta: k \rightarrow A$. By the [*cyclic cobar construction on $A$ with coefficients in $k$*]{} we mean the cosimplicial $k$-vector space $$\xymatrix{ k \ar@<1ex>[r] \ar@<-1ex>[r] & k\otimes_k A \ar[l]\ar@<2ex>[r]\ar[r]\ar@<-2ex>[r] & k\otimes_k A\otimes_k A \ar@<1ex>[l] \ar@<-1ex>[l] \ar@<3ex>[r] \ar@<1ex>[r] \ar@<-1ex>[r] \ar@<-3ex>[r] & \dots \ar@<2ex>[l]\ar[l]\ar@<-2ex>[l] }$$ with coface maps $d^0, d^1,\dots ,d^n: A^{\otimes_k n} \rightarrow A^{\otimes_k n+1}$ given by $$\begin{aligned} d^i(a_0\otimes \dots \otimes a_{n-1}) &= \left\{ \begin{array}{l} \tilde{\eta}_R(a_0) \otimes a_1 \otimes \dots \otimes a_{n-1} \\ \mbox{if\ } i=0, \\ a_0 \otimes \dots \otimes a_{i-1}\otimes \Delta(a_i)\otimes a_{i+1} \otimes \dots \otimes a_{n-1} \\ \mbox{if\ } 0 < i < n,\\ \tau\left( \tilde{\eta}_L(a_0) \otimes a_1 \otimes \dots \otimes a_{n-1}\right) \\ \mbox{if\ } i = n,\end{array}\right. \end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{\eta}_R: k \rightarrow k\otimes_k A$ is $\eta$ composed with the usual isomorphism $A \stackrel{\cong}{\longrightarrow} k\otimes_k A$ sending $a$ to $1\otimes a$, where $\tilde{\eta}_L: k \rightarrow A\otimes_k k$ is $\eta$ composed with the usual isomorphism $A \stackrel{\cong}{\longrightarrow} A\otimes_k k$ sending $a$ to $a\otimes 1$, and where $\tau$ is as in Definition \[def of cyclic cobar\]. The codegeneracy maps are constructed from the counit (augmentation) map on $A$ in the usual way. By the [*cyclic cobar complex of $A$ with coefficients in $k$,*]{} denoted $coCH^{\bullet}(A,k)$, we mean the alternating sign cochain complex of the cyclic cobar construction on $A$ with coefficients in $k$. We write $coHH^*(A,k)$ for its cohomology, which we call [*dual Hochschild cohomology with coefficients in $k$.*]{} \[duality between hh and cohh\] Let $k$ be a field and let $A$ be a $k$-algebra which is finite-dimensional as a $k$-vector space. Let $A^*$ denote the $k$-linear dual coalgebra of $A$. Then, for each $n\in\mathbb{N}$, the $n$th Hochschild homology $k$-vector space of $A$ and the $n$th dual Hochschild cohomology $k$-vector space of $A^*$ are mutually $k$-linearly dual. That is, we have isomorphisms of $k$-vector spaces: $$\begin{aligned} \label{iso 6} \hom_k( HH_n(A,A), k) &\cong coHH^n(A^*,A^*), \\ \label{iso 7} \hom_k( coHH^n(A^*,A^*), k) &\cong HH_n(A,A),\end{aligned}$$ as well as isomorphisms $$\begin{aligned} \label{iso 8} \hom_k( HH_n(A,k), k) &\cong coHH^n(A^*,k), \\ \label{iso 9} \hom_k( coHH^n(A^*,k), k) &\cong HH_n(A,k).\end{aligned}$$ By construction, the cyclic cobar construction is simply the $k$-linear dual of the usual cyclic bar construction, so by the universal coefficient theorem (in its form for chain complexes), we have isomorphisms $$\begin{aligned} coHH^n(A^*,A^*) &\cong H^n\left( coCH^{\bullet}(A,A)\right) \\ &\cong H^n\left( \hom_k( CH_{\bullet}(A,A), k)\right) \\ &\cong \hom_k\left( H_n( CH_{\bullet}(A,A)), k\right) \\ &\cong \hom_k\left( HH_n(A^*,A^*),k\right),\end{aligned}$$ giving us isomorphism \[iso 6\]. Finite-dimensionality of $A$ as a $k$-vector space implies that $CH_n(A,A)$ is finite-dimensional as a $k$-vector space, hence the double dual of $CH_n(A,A)$ recovers $CH_n(A,A)$ again, giving us isomorphism \[iso 7\]. Essentially the same argument gives isomorphisms \[iso 8\] and  \[iso 9\]. [**(May spectral sequence for dual Hochschild cohomology.)**]{}\[may ss for dual hh\] Let $k$ be a field and let $A$ be a $k$-coalgebra. Let $$\label{filt 0 dual} F_0A \subseteq F_1A \subseteq F_2A \subseteq \dots$$ be a filtration of $A$ which is comultiplicative, that is, if $x\in F_mA$, then $\Delta(x)\in \sum_{n=0}^m F_{n}A\otimes F_{m-n}A$. Then there exists a spectral sequence $$\begin{aligned} E_1^{s,t} \cong coHH^{s,t}(E^0A, E^0A) & \Rightarrow coHH^s(A,A) \\ d_r^{s,t} : E_r^{s,t} & \rightarrow E_r^{s+1,t-r}. \end{aligned}$$ The bigrading superscripts $coHH^{s,t}$ are as follows: $s$ is the usual cohomological degree, while $t$ is the May degree, defined and computed as follows: given a cohomology class $x\in coHH^s(E^0A,E^0A)$, its May degree is the total degree (in the grading on $E^0A$ induced by the filtration on $A$) of any homogeneous cocycle representative for $x$ in the cyclic cobar complex. This spectral sequence enjoys the following additional properties: 1. \[strong convergence property\] If the filtration \[filt 0 dual\] is finite, i.e., $F_nA =0$ for some $n\in\mathbb{N}$, then the spectral sequence converges strongly. 2. \[grading property\] If $A$ is also a graded cocommutative $k$-coalgebra and the filtration layers $F_nA$ are generated (as two-sided coideals) by homogeneous elements, then this spectral sequence is a spectral sequence of graded $k$-vector spaces, i.e., the differential preserves the grading. 3. If $A$ is the underlying coalgebra of the $k$-linear dual Hopf algebra of a commutative Hopf algebra $B$ over $k$, and the filtration \[filt 0 dual\] is a filtration by Hopf ideals, then $E^0A$ is is also a commutative Hopf algebra, and the $E_1$-term and the abutment of the spectral sequence each have a natural ring structure. Furthermore, the spectral sequence is multiplicative, i.e., the differentials in the spectral sequence obey the graded Leibniz rule, and the product in the spectral sequence converges to the product on the abutment, modulo exotic multiplicative extensions (this is the usual situation in spectral sequences of differential graded algebras). 4. \[computability property\] The differential in the spectral sequence is (like any other spectral sequence of a filtered cochain complex) computed on a class $x\in coHH^{*,*}(E^0A,E^0A)$ by computing a homogeneous cocycle representative $y$ for $x$ in the cyclic cobar complex for $E^0A$, lifting $y$ to a homogeneous cochain $\tilde{y}$ in the cyclic cobar complex for $A$, applying the cyclic cobar differential $d$ to $\tilde{y}$, then taking the image of $d\tilde{y}$ in the cyclic cobar complex for $E^0A$. This is, of course, all formally dual to Proposition \[may ss for hh\]. The only thing that needs some explanation is the ring structure. The underlying filtered DGA of this spectral sequence has a ring structure given by the composite $$\begin{aligned} coCH^{\bullet}(A,A) \otimes_{k} coCH^{\bullet}(A,A) &\stackrel{\cong}{\longrightarrow} \left( CH_{\bullet}(B,B)\right)^{*} \otimes_{k} \left(CH_{\bullet}(B,B)\right)^{*} \\ & \stackrel{\cong}{\longrightarrow} \left( CH_{\bullet}(B,B) \otimes_{k} CH_{\bullet}(B,B)\right)^{*} \\ & \stackrel{\simeq}{\longrightarrow} \left( CH_{\bullet}(B\otimes_{k} B,B\otimes_k B)\right)^{*} \\ & \stackrel{\Delta^*}{\longrightarrow} CH_{\bullet}(B,B)^{*} \\ & \stackrel{\cong}{\longrightarrow} coCH^{\bullet}(A,A) ,\end{aligned}$$ where the map marked $\simeq$ is the $k$-linear dual of the Alexander-Whitney map, the map marked $\Delta^*$ is the $k$-linear dual of $CH_{\bullet}$ applied to the comultiplication map on $B$ (which is well-defined, since $CH_{\bullet}$ is functorial on $k$-algebra maps and since $B$ is assumed cocommutative, so that its comultiplication is a $k$-algebra morphism). The rest is formal. [**(May spectral sequence for dual Hochschild cohomology, with coefficients in the base field.)**]{}\[may ss for dual hh, supertrivial coeffs\] Let $k$ be a field and let $A$ be a $k$-coalgebra. Suppose $A$ is equipped with a comultiplicative filtration as in \[filt 0 dual\]. Then there exists a spectral sequence $$\begin{aligned} E_1^{s,t} \cong coHH^{s,t}(E^0A, k) & \Rightarrow coHH^s(A,k) \\ d_r^{s,t} : E_r^{s,t} & \rightarrow E_r^{s+1,t-r}. \end{aligned}$$ The bigrading superscripts $coHH^{s,t}$ are as in Proposition \[may ss for dual hh\]. This spectral sequence enjoys properties \[strong convergence property\],  \[grading property\], and  \[computability property\] from Proposition \[may ss for dual hh\]. Essentially identical to Proposition \[may ss for dual hh\]. The May and abelianizing filtrations. ===================================== We aim to compute $HH_*(A(1), A(1))$, the Hochschild homology of $A(1)$. By Proposition \[duality between hh and cohh\], this amounts to computing $coHH^*(A(1)^*,A(1)^*)$, and then taking the $\mathbb{F}_2$-linear dual. We now go about doing this. Recall that the [*May filtration*]{} on $A(1)$ is the filtration by powers of the augmentation ideal $I$. We write $\dot{F}^n(A(1))$ for the $n$th filtration layer in this filtration, i.e., $\dot{F}^nA(1) = I^n$, and we write $\dot{E}_0A(1)$ for the associated graded $\mathbb{F}_2$-algebra. If $x\in A(1)$, we sometimes write $\dot{x}$ for the associated element in $\dot{E}_0A(1)$. \[assoc graded of may filt\] The $\mathbb{F}_2$-algebra $\dot{E}_0A(1)$ is the graded $\mathbb{F}_2$-algebra with generators $\dot{\Sq}^1$ and $\dot{\Sq}^2$ in grading degrees $1$ and $2$, respectively, and relations $$0= \dot{\Sq}^1\dot{\Sq}^1= \dot{\Sq}^2\dot{\Sq}^2 = \dot{\Sq}^1\dot{\Sq}^2\dot{\Sq}^1\dot{\Sq}^2 + \dot{\Sq}^2\dot{\Sq}^1\dot{\Sq}^2\dot{\Sq}^1.$$ The $\mathbb{F}_2$-linear duals of $A(1)$ and $\dot{E}_0(A(1))$ are, as Hopf algebras, $$\begin{aligned} A(1)^* &= \mathbb{F}_2[\overline{\xi}_1, \overline{\xi}_2]/\overline{\xi}_1^4, \overline{\xi}_2^2, \\ \Delta(\overline{\xi}_2) &= \overline{\xi}_2\otimes 1 + \overline{\xi}_1 \otimes \overline{\xi}_1^2 + 1\otimes \overline{\xi}_2, \\ \left(\dot{E}_0A(1)\right)^* &= \mathbb{F}_2[\overline{\xi}_{1,0}, \overline{\xi}_{1,1},\overline{\xi}_{2,0}]/\overline{\xi}_{1,0}^2, \overline{\xi}_{1,1}^2, \overline{\xi}_{2,0}^2, \\ \Delta(\overline{\xi}_{2,0}) &= \overline{\xi}_{2,0}\otimes 1 + \overline{\xi}_{1,0} \otimes \overline{\xi}_{1,1} + 1\otimes \overline{\xi}_{2,0}, \\\end{aligned}$$ with $\overline{\xi}_1,\overline{\xi}_{1,0},\overline{\xi}_{1,1}$ all primitive. The notation $\overline{x}$ is traditional for the conjugate of $x$ in a Hopf algebra, and in this case, $\overline{\xi}_1 = \xi_1$ and $\overline{\xi}_2 = \xi_2 + \xi_1^3$. The notation $\overline{\xi}_{i,j}$ is used to denote the image of $\overline{\xi}_i^{2^j}\in A(1)$ in $\dot{E}_0(A(1))$. Well-known consequence of the computation of the dual Steenrod algebra, as in [@MR0099653]. \[a(1) and dihedral group\] The $\mathbb{F}_2$-algebra $\dot{E}_0A(1)$ is isomorphic to the group ring $\mathbb{F}_2[D_8]$ of the dihedral group $D_8$. We use the presentation $$D_8 = \langle a,b \mid a^2, b^2, abab = baba\rangle$$ for $D_8$. The $\mathbb{F}_2$-algebra map $$f: \mathbb{F}_2[D_8] \rightarrow \dot{E}_0A(1)$$ given by $$\begin{aligned} f(a) &= 1 + \dot{\Sq^1} \\ f(b) &= 1 + \dot{\Sq^2} \end{aligned}$$ is well-defined, since $f(a)^2 = 1 = f(b)^2$ and $f(a)f(b)f(a)f(b) = f(b)f(a)f(b)f(a)$. (Here it is essential that we are using $\dot{E}_0A(1)$ and not $A(1)$, since $\left(\dot{\Sq^2}\right)^2 = 0$ in $\dot{E}_0A(1)$ but $(\Sq^2)^2 \neq 0$ in $A(1)$.) One checks easily that $(a+1)^2 = 0 = (b+1)^2$ and $(a+1)(b+1)(a+1)(b+1) = (b+1)(a+1)(b+1)(a+1)$, hence we have a $\mathbb{F}_2$-algebra map $$f^{-1}: \dot{E}_0A(1) \rightarrow \mathbb{F}_2[D_8]$$ sending $\dot{\Sq^1}$ to $a+1$ and sending $\dot{\Sq^2}$ to $b+1$. Clearly $f^{-1}$ is inverse to $f$. We now use the well-known computation of the Hochschild homology of group rings (see e.g. Corollary 9.7.5 of [@MR1269324]): \[burghelea thm\] Suppose $G$ is a discrete group, $k$ a field. Let $\langle G \rangle$ be the set of conjugacy classes of elements in $G$, and given a conjugacy class $S$, let $C_G(S)$ denote the centralizer of $S$ in $G$. Then there exists an isomorphism of graded $k$-vector spaces $$HH_*(k[G],k[G]) \cong \oplus_{S\in \langle G\rangle} H_*(C_G(S); k) .$$ (Theorem \[burghelea thm\] seems to be well-known, but I do not know who to attribute the result to, if anyone!) \[assoc gr dimension count\] The dimension of $HH_n(\dot{E}_0A(1), \dot{E}_0A(1))$ as a $k$-vector space is $$\dim_k HH_n(\dot{E}_0A(1), \dot{E}_0A(1)) = 3n+5.$$ We use Proposition \[a(1) and dihedral group\] and Theorem \[burghelea thm\]. There are five conjugacy classes of elements in $D_8= \langle x,y \mid x^2, y^4, xy = y^3 x\rangle$: $$1, \{ x,y^2x\}, \{ yx, y^3x\}, \{ y,y^3\}, \{ y^2\},$$ with centralizers $$D_8, \langle x,y^2\mid x^2,(y^2)^2\rangle, \langle y^2\mid (y^2)^2\rangle , \langle y\mid y^4\rangle , D_8,$$ respectively. These centralizer subgroups are isomorphic to $$D_8, C_2\times C_2, C_2, C_4, D_8,$$ respectively. The homology, with $\mathbb{F}_2$ coefficients, of these groups is well-known: $$\begin{aligned} \dim_{\mathbb{F}_2} H_n(D_8; \mathbb{F}_2) &= n+1 \\ \dim_{\mathbb{F}_2} H_n(C_2\times C_2; \mathbb{F}_2) &= n+1 \\ \dim_{\mathbb{F}_2} H_n(C_2; \mathbb{F}_2) &= 1 \\ \dim_{\mathbb{F}_2} H_n(C_4; \mathbb{F}_2) &= 1 ,\end{aligned}$$ hence $$\begin{aligned} \dim_{\mathbb{F}_2} HH_n(\dot{E}_0A(1), \dot{E}_0A(1)) &= \dim_{\mathbb{F}_2} HH_n(\mathbb{F}_2[D_8], \mathbb{F}_2[D_8]) \\ &= \dim_{\mathbb{F}_2} H_n(D_8; \mathbb{F}_2) + \dim_{\mathbb{F}_2} H_n(C_2\times C_2; \mathbb{F}_2) \\ & + \dim_{\mathbb{F}_2} H_n(C_2; \mathbb{F}_2) + \dim_{\mathbb{F}_2} H_n(C_4; \mathbb{F}_2) \\ & + \dim_{\mathbb{F}_2} H_n(D_8; \mathbb{F}_2) \\ &= 3n+5.\end{aligned}$$ We now define a new filtration on $A(1)$ which we will call [*the abelianizing filtration on $A(1)$*]{}. To notationally distinguish it from the May filtration, we will write $\ddot{F}^n(A(1))$ for its filtration layers, and $\ddot{E}_0(A(1))$ for its associated graded algebra. The abelianizing filtration is defined as follows: $$\begin{aligned} \ddot{F}^0(A(1)) &= A(1) \\ \ddot{F}^1(A(1)) &= ( \Sq^1,\Sq^2) \\ \ddot{F}^2(A(1)) &= ( \Sq^2 ) \\ \ddot{F}^3(A(1)) &= ( \Sq^1\Sq^2, \Sq^2\Sq^1 ) \\ \ddot{F}^4(A(1)) &= ( Q_0 ) \\ \ddot{F}^5(A(1)) &= ( \Sq^1Q_0,\Sq^2Q_0) \\ \ddot{F}^6(A(1)) &= ( \Sq^2Q_0) \\ \ddot{F}^7(A(1)) &= ( \Sq^1\Sq^2Q_0) \\ \ddot{F}^8(A(1)) &= 0, \end{aligned}$$ where $(x)$ is two-sided ideal generated by an element $x$, and where $Q_0$ is Milnor’s notation for the element $\Sq^1\Sq^2+\Sq^2\Sq^1$. If $x\in A(1)$, we sometimes write $\ddot{x}$ for the associated element in $\ddot{E}_0A(1)$. \[assoc graded of abelianizing filt\] The abelianizing filtration on $A(1)$ has the following properties: - The abelianizing filtration is finer than the May filtration, that is, $\dot{F}^n(A(1))\subseteq \ddot{F}^n(A(1))$ for all $n$. - The abelianizing filtration is a multiplicative filtration, that is, if $x\in \ddot{F}^m(A(1))$ and $y\in \ddot{F}^n(A(1))$, then $xy\in \ddot{F}^{m+n}(A(1))$. - Furthermore, the abelianizing filtration is a Hopf filtration, that is, if $x\in \ddot{F}^m(A(1))$, then $$\Delta(x) \in \sum_{i=0}^m \ddot{F}^i(A(1)) \otimes_{\mathbb{F}_2} \ddot{F}^{m-i}(A(1)).$$ - The associated graded Hopf algebra $\ddot{E}_0(A(1))$ of the abelianizing filtration on $A(1)$ is the exterior algebra $E(\ddot{\Sq}^1, \ddot{\Sq}^2,\ddot{Q}_0)$, with $\ddot{\Sq}^1$ and $\ddot{Q}_0$ primitive, and with $\Delta(\ddot{\Sq}^2) = \ddot{\Sq}^2\otimes 1 + \ddot{\Sq}^1 \otimes \ddot{\Sq}^1 + 1\otimes \ddot{\Sq}^2$. The topological degrees (i.e., inherited from the usual grading on the Steenrod algebra) of $\ddot{\Sq}^1, \ddot{\Sq}^2,\ddot{Q}_0$ are $1,3,$ and $4$, respectively, and their abelianizing degrees (i.e., inherited from the abelianizing filtration) are $1,2,$ and $4$, respectively. - The $\mathbb{F}_2$-linear dual Hopf algebra $\left(\ddot{E}_0(A(1))\right)^*$ is $$\left(\ddot{E}_0(A(1))\right)^* \cong \mathbb{F}_2[\overline{\xi}_{1,0}, \overline{\xi}_{2,0}]/\overline{\xi}_{1,0}^4, \overline{\xi}_{2,0}^2,$$ with $\overline{\xi}_{1,0},\overline{\xi}_{2,0}$ both primitive. In particular, $\left(\ddot{E}_0(A(1))\right)^*$ is isomorphic to $\left(\dot{E}_0(A(1))\right)^*$ as $\mathbb{F}_2$-coalgebras (but not as Hopf algebras). Elementary computation. Running the HH-May and abelianizing spectral sequences. ======================================================= Input. ------ \[hochschild homology of exterior alg\] Let $k$ be a field of characteristic two, and give $k[x]/x^2$ the structure of a Hopf algebra over $k$ by letting $\Delta(x) = x\otimes 1 + 1\otimes x$. Then we have an isomorphism of graded Hopf algebras $$HH_*(k[x]/x^2, k[x]/x^2) \cong k[x]/x^2\otimes_k \Gamma_k(\sigma x),$$ where: - $HH_*(k[x]/x^2, k[x]/x^2)$ inherits its coproduct from that of $k[x]/x^2$, as in Remark \[explicit coproduct remark\], - $\Gamma_k(\sigma x)$ denotes the divided power algebra over $k$ on a generator $\sigma x$, - $\sigma x$ denotes the homology class of the $1$-cycle $1[x]$, i.e., $1\otimes x$ (and consequently $\sigma x$ is in homological degree $1$), - $\Delta(x) = x\otimes 1 + 1\otimes x$, and - $\Delta(\gamma_n(\sigma x)) = \sum_{i=0}^n \gamma_i(\sigma x) \otimes \gamma_{n-i}(\sigma x)$, where $\gamma_n$ is the $n$th divided power. Consequently, the linear dual of $HH_*(k[x]/x^2, k[x]/x^2)$, i.e., the cohomology of the cyclic cobar complex of the linear dual of $k[x]/x^2$, is isomorphic as a Hopf algebra to $k[\xi]/\xi^2\otimes_k k[h]$, with $\xi,h$ both primitive, where $\xi$ is the dual basis element to $x$, and $h$ is the dual basis element to $\sigma x$; consequently $\xi,h$ are in grading degrees $0,1$, respectively. Using the cycle representative $1\left[ x\otimes \dots \otimes x\right]$ for $\gamma_n(\sigma x)$, with $n$ tensor factors of $x$, the claims made are easy (and classical) computations of coproducts (using Remark \[explicit coproduct remark\]) and shuffle products in the cyclic bar complex. \[hochschild homology of truncated poly alg\] Let $k$ be a field of characteristic two, and give $k[x,y]/(x^2,y^2)$ the structure of a Hopf algebra over $k$ by letting $\Delta(x) = x\otimes 1 + 1\otimes x$ and by letting $\Delta(y) = y\otimes 1 + x\otimes x + 1\otimes y$. Then we have an isomorphism of graded Hopf algebras $$HH_*\left(k[x,y]/(x^2,y^2), k[x,y]/(x^2,y^2)\right) \cong k[x,y]/(x^2,y^2) \otimes_k \Gamma_k(\sigma x,\sigma y),$$ where: - $HH_*(k[x,y]/(x^2,y^2), k[x,y]/(x^2,y^2))$ inherits its coproduct from that of $k[x,y]/(x^2,y^2)$, as in Remark \[explicit coproduct remark\], - $\Gamma_k(\sigma x,\sigma y)$ denotes the tensor product over $k$ of the divided power algebra over $k$ on a generator $\sigma x$ with the divided power algebra over $k$ on a generator $\sigma y$, - $\sigma x$ (respectively, $\sigma y$) denotes the homology class of the $1$-cycle $1[ x]$ (respectively, $1[y]$), and consequently $\sigma x$ and $\sigma y$ are each in homological degree $1$, - the coproducts $\Delta(x)$ and $\Delta(y)$ are exactly as in $k[x,y]/(x^2,y^2)$, - $\Delta(\gamma_n(\sigma x)) = \sum_{i=0}^n \gamma_i(\sigma x) \otimes \gamma_{n-i}(\sigma x)$, and - $\Delta(\gamma_n(\sigma y)) = \sum_{i=0}^n \gamma_i(\sigma y) \otimes \gamma_{n-i}(\sigma y)$. Consequently, the linear dual of $HH_*(k[x,y]/(x^2,y^2), k[x,y]/(x^2,y^2))$, i.e., the cohomology of the cyclic cobar complex of the linear dual of $k[x,y]/(x^2,y^2)$, is isomorphic as a Hopf algebra to $k[\xi]/\xi^4\otimes_k k[h_x,h_y]$, with $\xi,h_x,h_y$ all primitive, where $\xi$ is the dual basis element to $x$, and $h_x,h_y$ are the dual basis elements to $\sigma x,\sigma y$, respectively; consequently $\xi,h_x,h_y$ are in grading degrees $0,1,1$, respectively. Just as in Lemma \[hochschild homology of exterior alg\]. (Note that $\Delta(\gamma_n(\sigma y))$ does not involve $x$ or $\sigma x$, even though $\Delta(y)$ involves $x$; this is simply because the formula for $\Delta(\sigma y) = \Delta\left( 1\left[ y\right]\right)$, given in Remark \[explicit coproduct remark\], does not actually make any use of the coproduct of $y$ in $k[x,y]/(x^2,y^2)$.) \[SSs and cocycle reps\] There exist four strongly convergent trigraded multiplicative spectral sequences: $$\begin{aligned} \mbox{\em (Abelianizing:)\ } & \\ E_1^{s,t,u} \cong coHH^{s,t,u}\left(\ddot{E}^0(A(1)^*),\ddot{E}^0(A(1)^*)\right) &\Rightarrow coHH^s(A(1)^*,A(1)^*) \\ E_1^{*,*,*} & \cong \mathbb{F}_2[x_{10}]/(x_{10}^4) \otimes_{\mathbb{F}_2} E(x_{20})\otimes_{\mathbb{F}_2} P(h_{10},h_{11},h_{20}) \\ d_r^{s,t,u} : E_r^{s,t,u} &\rightarrow E_r^{s+1,t-r, u}, \\ & \\ \mbox{\em (HH-May:)\ } & \\ E_1^{s,t,u} \cong coHH^{s,t,u}\left(\dot{E}^0(A(1)^*),\dot{E}^0(A(1)^*)\right) &\Rightarrow coHH^s(A(1)^*,A(1)^*) & \\ d_r^{s,t,u} : E_r^{s,t,u} &\rightarrow E_r^{s+1,t-r, u}, \\ & \\ \mbox{\em (HH-May with coeffs. in $\mathbb{F}_2$:)\ } & \\ E_1^{s,t,u} \cong coHH^{s,t,u}\left(\dot{E}^0(A(1)^*),\mathbb{F}_2)\right) &\Rightarrow coHH^s(A(1)^*,\mathbb{F}_2) & \\ d_r^{s,t,u} : E_r^{s,t,u} &\rightarrow E_r^{s+1,t-r, u}, \\ & \\ \mbox{\em (Abelianizing-to-HH-May:)\ } & \\ E_1^{s,t,u} \cong coHH^{s,t,u}\left(\ddot{E}^0(A(1)^*),\ddot{E}^0(A(1)^*)\right) & \Rightarrow coHH^s(\dot{E}^0A(1)^*,\dot{E}^0A(1)^*) \\ E_1^{*,*,*} & \cong \mathbb{F}_2[x_{10}]/(x_{10}^4) \otimes_{\mathbb{F}_2} E(x_{20})\otimes_{\mathbb{F}_2} P(h_{10},h_{11},h_{20}) & \\ d_r^{s,t,u} : E_r^{s,t,u} &\rightarrow E_r^{s+1,t-r, u},\end{aligned}$$ where $P$ denotes a polynomial algebra (over $\mathbb{F}_2$) and $E$ an exterior algebra (over $\mathbb{F}_2$), and there exists a morphism of spectral sequences from the HH-May spectral sequence to the HH-May spectral sequence with coefficients in $\mathbb{F}_2$. We write $s$ for the cohomological degree, $t$ for the filtration degree, and $u$ for the internal/topological degree. Here (and elsewhere) we write $x_{i0}$ for the cohomology class of the cyclic cobar $0$-cocycle $\overline{\xi}_{i,0}$ and $h_{ij}$ for the cohomology class of cyclic cobar $1$-cocycle $1\left[ \overline{\xi}_{i,j}\right]$, where $\overline{\xi}_{1,0},\overline{\xi}_{1,1},\overline{\xi}_{2,0}$ are the dual basis elements to the elements $\ddot{\Sq}^1,\ddot{\Sq}^2,\ddot{Q}_0$, respectively, in $\ddot{E}_0A(1)$. (Of course the machinery we are using produces much more than just these four spectral sequences; but these four are the ones we will actually use in this paper.) The tridegrees of the generators of $coHH^{*,*,*}\left(\ddot{E}^0(A(1)^*),\ddot{E}^0(A(1)^*)\right)$, and cocycle representatives for those cohomology classes in the cyclic cobar complex, are as follows: $$\begin{aligned} %x_{10} &\in coHH^{0,1,1}\left(\ddot{E}^0(A(1)^*),\ddot{E}^0(A(1)^*)\right) \\ x_{10} = [\overline{\xi}_{1,0}] & \in coCH^{0,1,1}\left(\ddot{E}^0(A(1)^*),\ddot{E}^0(A(1)^*)\right) \\ %x_{20} &\in coHH^{0,4,3}\left(\ddot{E}^0(A(1)^*),\ddot{E}^0(A(1)^*)\right) \\ x_{20} = [\overline{\xi}_{2,0}] & \in coCH^{0,4,3}\left(\ddot{E}^0(A(1)^*),\ddot{E}^0(A(1)^*)\right) \\ %h_{10} &\in coHH^{1,1,1}\left(\ddot{E}^0(A(1)^*),\ddot{E}^0(A(1)^*)\right) \\ h_{10} = [1\otimes \overline{\xi}_{1,0}] & \in coCH^{1,1,1}\left(\ddot{E}^0(A(1)^*),\ddot{E}^0(A(1)^*)\right) \\ %h_{11} &\in coHH^{1,3,2}\left(\ddot{E}^0(A(1)^*),\ddot{E}^0(A(1)^*)\right) \\ h_{11} = [1\otimes \overline{\xi}_{1,1}] & \in coCH^{1,2,2}\left(\ddot{E}^0(A(1)^*),\ddot{E}^0(A(1)^*)\right) \\ %h_{20} &\in coHH^{1,4,3}\left(\ddot{E}^0(A(1)^*),\ddot{E}^0(A(1)^*)\right) \\ h_{20} = [1\otimes \overline{\xi}_{2,0}] & \in coCH^{1,4,3}\left(\ddot{E}^0(A(1)^*),\ddot{E}^0(A(1)^*)\right) \end{aligned}$$ Consequence of Propositions \[may ss for dual hh\], \[assoc graded of may filt\] and \[assoc graded of abelianizing filt\] and Lemmas \[hochschild homology of exterior alg\] and \[hochschild homology of truncated poly alg\]. \[ss comparison with supertrivial coeffs\] The HH-May spectral sequence with coefficients in $\mathbb{F}_2$, from Proposition \[SSs and cocycle reps\], is isomorphic (beginning with the $E_1$-term) to the classical May spectral sequence for $A(1)$, $\Ext_{E^0A(1)}^{*,*,*}(\mathbb{F}_2,\mathbb{F}_2) \Rightarrow \Ext_{A(1)}^{*,*}(\mathbb{F}_2,\mathbb{F}_2)$. (See e.g. Example 3.2.7 of [@MR860042] for this spectral sequence.) The cyclic cobar complex of $A(1)$ with coefficients in $\mathbb{F}_2$ is isomorphic to the classical (non-cyclic) cobar complex of $A(1)$, as in Definition A.1.2.11 of [@MR860042]. and the May filtration on one coincides with the May filtration on the other. $d_1$-differentials. -------------------- \[d1 diffs\] In both the abelianizing spectral sequence and the abelianizing-to-HH-May spectral sequence, the $d_1$ differentials are given on the multiplicative generators by $$\begin{aligned} d_1(x_{10}) &= 0, \\ % d_1(x_{11}) &= 0, \\ d_1(x_{20}) &= x_{10}h_{11} + x_{10}^2h_{10}, \\ d_1(h_{10}) &= 0, \\ d_1(h_{11}) &= 0,\mbox{\ and} \\ d_1(h_{20}) &= h_{10}h_{11}.\end{aligned}$$ Using these formulas and the Leibniz rule, we get the $d_1$ differential on all elements of the $E_1$-terms of the abelianizing and abelianizing-to-HH-May spectral sequences. In Proposition \[SSs and cocycle reps\] we gave cocycle representatives for the six multiplicative generators. We then easily compute the $d_1$ differentials on those generators using the method described in Proposition \[may ss for dual hh\]: $$\begin{aligned} d(\overline{\xi}_{1,0}) &= 0 ,\\ % d(\overline{\xi}_{1,1}) &= 0 ,\\ d(\overline{\xi}_{2,0}) &= \overline{\xi}_{1,0}\otimes \overline{\xi}_{1,1} + \overline{\xi}_{1,1}\otimes \overline{\xi}_{1,0} \\ & + 1\otimes \overline{\xi}_{2,0} + \overline{\xi}_{2,0}\otimes 1 \\ & + \overline{\xi}_{2,0}\otimes 1 + 1\otimes \overline{\xi}_{2,0} \\ &= \overline{\xi}_{1,0}\otimes \overline{\xi}_{1,1} + \overline{\xi}_{1,1}\otimes \overline{\xi}_{1,0} \\ d(1\otimes \overline{\xi}_{1,0}) &= 0 ,\\ d(1\otimes \overline{\xi}_{1,1}) &= 0 ,\\ d(1\otimes \overline{\xi}_{2,0}) &= 1\otimes 1\otimes \overline{\xi}_{2,0} + 1\otimes \overline{\xi}_{2,0} \otimes 1 \\ & + 1\otimes \overline{\xi}_{1,0}\otimes \overline{\xi}_{1,1} + 1\otimes 1\otimes \overline{\xi}_{2,0} \\ & + 1\otimes \overline{\xi}_{2,0}\otimes 1 \\ &= 1\otimes \overline{\xi}_{1,0}\otimes \overline{\xi}_{1,1}. \end{aligned}$$ Here $\overline{\xi}_{1,1}$ is the dual basis element to $\Sq^2$, so $\overline{\xi}_{1,1} = \overline{\xi}_{1,0}^2$ in the associated graded of the abelianizing filtration, but $\overline{\xi}_{1,1}$ is indecomposable in the associated graded of the May filtration. Using the product on dual Hochschild cohomology from Proposition \[may ss for dual hh\], we get that these cocycles represent the cohomology classes $0, 0, x_{10}h_{11} + x_{10}^2h_{10}, 0, h_{10}h_{11}$, respectively. Now one has enough information to do a routine computation of the cohomology of the $E_1$-term, and get the $E_2$-term. While $h_{20}$ is not a cocycle in the $E_1$-term, its square is, and we follow the traditional (due to May’s thesis) notational conventions of May spectral sequences by writing $b_{20}$ for $h_{20}^2$. We present the $E_2$-term as a spectral sequence chart. \[conventions on ss charts\] In all the spectral sequence charts in this paper, - the vertical axis is the homological degree, - the horizontal axis is the Adams degree, i.e., the internal/topological degree minus the homological degree, - horizontal lines (whether curved or straight) represent multiplication by $x_{10}$, - vertical lines represent multiplication by $h_{10}$, and - diagonal lines represent multiplication by $h_{11}$. Here is a spectral sequence chart illustrating the $E_2$-term of the abelianizing and abelianizing-to-HH-May spectral sequences (their $E_2$-terms are abstractly isomorphic as bigraded $\mathbb{F}_2$-vector spaces, if one forgets about the filtration degree and only keeps track of the cohomological and Adams degrees), reduced modulo the ideal generated by $b_{20}$: $$\begin{sseq}[grid=none,entrysize=10mm,labelstep=1]{0...10}{0...4} \label{ss e2} %% the vertices \ssmoveto 0 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{1} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{x10} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{x11} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{x10x11} \ssmove 3 0 \ssdropbull % \ssname{x10x11x20} \ssname{x6} % \ssmoveto 0 1 \ssmove{-6}{1} \ssdropbull \ssname{h10} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{x10h10} \ssdropbull \ssname{h11} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{x11h10} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{x11h11} \ssmove 2 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{z} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull % \ssname{x10x11x20h10} \ssname{h10x6} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull % \ssname{x10x11x20h11} \ssname{h11x6} \ssmove{-7}{1} % \ssmoveto 0 2 \ssdropbull \ssname{h10^2} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{x10h10^2} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{h11^2} \ssmove 3 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{h10z} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{h10^2x6} \ssmove 2 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{h11^2x6} % \ssmove 2 0 % \ssdropbull % \ssname{b20} % \ssmoveto 0 3 \ssmove{-8}{1} \ssdropbull \ssname{h10^3} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{x10h10^3} \ssmove 2 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{h11^3} \ssmove 2 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{h10^2z} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{h10^3x6} \ssmove 3 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{h11^3x6} %% the arrows \ssgoto{1} \ssgoto{x10} \ssstroke \ssgoto{x10} \ssgoto{x11} % \ssstroke[curve=.2] \ssstroke \ssgoto{x11} \ssgoto{x10x11} \ssstroke \ssgoto{1} \ssgoto{h10} \ssstroke \ssgoto{1} \ssgoto{h11} \ssstroke \ssgoto{x10} \ssgoto{x10h10} \ssstroke \ssgoto{x10} \ssgoto{x11h10} \ssstroke \ssgoto{x11} \ssgoto{x11h10} \ssstroke \ssgoto{x11} \ssgoto{x11h11} \ssstroke \ssgoto{x10x11} \ssgoto{x11h11} \ssstroke % \ssgoto{x10x11x20} \ssgoto{x6} % \ssgoto{x10x11x20h10} \ssgoto{h10x6} \ssstroke % \ssgoto{x10x11x20} \ssgoto{x6} % \ssgoto{x10x11x20h11} \ssgoto{h11x6} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h11x6} \ssgoto{h11^2x6} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h11^2x6} \ssgoto{h11^3x6} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h11^3x6} \ssmove 1 1 \ssstroke[void,arrowto] \ssgoto{h10} \ssgoto{h10^2} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10} \ssgoto{x10h10} \ssstroke % \ssgoto{h10} % \ssgoto{x11h10} % \ssstroke[curve=.2] \ssgoto{x10h10} \ssgoto{x11h10} \ssstroke[curve=.2] \ssgoto{x10h10} \ssgoto{x10h10^2} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h11} \ssgoto{x11h10} \ssstroke % \ssgoto{h11} % \ssgoto{x11h11} % \ssstroke[curve=.2] \ssgoto{x11h10} \ssgoto{x11h11} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h11} \ssgoto{h11^2} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10^2} \ssgoto{h10^3} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10^2} \ssgoto{x10h10^2} \ssstroke \ssgoto{x10h10^2} \ssgoto{x10h10^3} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h11^2} \ssgoto{h11^3} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10^3} \ssgoto{x10h10^3} \ssstroke \ssgoto{z} \ssgoto{h10x6} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10z} \ssgoto{h10^2x6} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10^2z} \ssgoto{h10^3x6} \ssstroke \ssgoto{z} \ssgoto{h10z} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10z} \ssgoto{h10^2z} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10^2z} \ssmove 0 1 \ssstroke[void,arrowto] \ssgoto{h10x6} \ssgoto{h10^2x6} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10^2x6} \ssgoto{h10^3x6} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10^3x6} \ssmove 0 1 \ssstroke[void,arrowto] \ssgoto{h10^3} \ssmove 0 1 \ssstroke[void,arrowto] \ssgoto{x10h10^3} \ssmove 0 1 \ssstroke[void,arrowto] \ssgoto{h11^3} \ssmove 1 1 \ssstroke[void,arrowto] \end{sseq}$$ The classes whose names are not implied by the lines representing various multiplications are as follows: - the class in bidegree $(1,5)$ is $x_{10}^2(h_{10}x_{20} + x_{10}h_{20})$, which we abbreviate as $z$, - and the class in bidegree $(0,6)$ is $x_{10}^3x_{20}$, which we abbreviate as $x_6$. The spectral sequence’s $E_2$-term is $b_{20}$-periodic, that is, there exists a class (not pictured) $b_{20}$ in bidegree $(2,4)$ each of whose positive integer powers generates an isomorphic copy of the chart \[ss e2\]. Consequently, as a trigraded $\mathbb{F}_2$-algebra, the spectral sequence’s $E_2$-term is isomorphic to: $$\begin{aligned} \mathbb{F}_2[x_{10},h_{10},h_{11},z,x_6,b_{20}] &\mbox{\ modulo relations\ } x_{10}^4,x_{10}h_{11}=x_{10}^2h_{10}, \\ & h_{10}h_{11},x_{10}z = h_{10}x_6, h_{11}z,z^2, \\ & x_{10}x_6, zx_6,x_6^2,\end{aligned}$$ with generators in tridegrees: ---------- --- --- --- --- $x_{10}$ 0 1 1 1 $x_6$ 0 7 6 6 $h_{10}$ 1 1 1 0 $h_{11}$ 1 2 2 1 $z$ 1 7 6 5 $b_{20}$ 2 8 6 4 ---------- --- --- --- --- $d_2$-differentials. -------------------- The abelianizing-to-HH-May spectral sequence collapses at $E_2$, i.e., there are no nonzero differentials longer than $d_1$ differentials. Consequently, the spectral sequence chart \[ss e2\] describes the $E_1$-term (and also the $E_2$-term) of the HH-May spectral sequence, as well as the $E_2$-term of the abelianizing spectral sequence. An easy dimension count on the $E_2$-term \[ss e2\] gives us that the $\mathbb{F}_2$-vector space dimension of the $s$-row is $3s+5$. By Proposition \[duality between hh and cohh\] and Corollary \[assoc gr dimension count\], this is the correct dimension for the $E_{\infty}$-term. So there can no further nonzero differentials in the spectral sequence, since any such differentials would reduce the $\mathbb{F}_2$-vector space dimension of some row. \[d2 differential computation\] The $d_2$ differentials on the multiplicative generators of the $E_2$-term of the HH-May spectral sequence, as well as the abelianizing spectral sequence, are as follows: $$\begin{aligned} d_2(x_{10}) &= 0, \\ % d_2(x_{11}) &= 0, \\ d_2(h_{10}) &= 0, \\ d_2(h_{11}) &= 0, \\ d_2(z) &= 0, \\ d_2(x_{6}) &= 0,\mbox{\ and} \\ d_2(b_{20}) &= h_{11}^3. \end{aligned}$$ Using these formulas and the Leibniz rule, we get the $d_2$ differential on all elements of the $E_2$-term of the abelianizing spectral sequence. For $x_{10},h_{10},$ and $h_{11}$, same computation as Proposition \[d1 diffs\]. For $z,x_6$, inspection of the tridegrees of elements rules out all nonzero possibilities for $d_2$. For the differential $d_2(b_{20})$: we see from inspection of the tridegrees that the only possible nonzero differential on $b_{20}$ would have to hit a scalar multiple of $h_{11}^3$, and this differential indeed occurs, using Proposition \[ss comparison with supertrivial coeffs\] to map the HH-May spectral sequence to the classical May spectral sequence for $A(1)$, in which the differential $d_2(b_{20}) = h_{11}^3$ is classical and well-known (see e.g. Lemma 3.2.10 of [@MR860042]). So the only nonzero $d_2$ differentials are the $d_2$-differential $d_2(b_{20}) = h_{11}^3$ and its products with other classes. By the Leibniz rule, $d_2(b_{20}^2) = 0$, so the spectral sequence’s $E_3$-term is $b_{20}^2$-periodic. We now draw a chart illustrating the $E_3$-term, modulo the two-sided ideal generated by $b_{20}^2$: $$\begin{sseq}[grid=none,entrysize=10mm,labelstep=1]{0...11}{0...5}\label{ss e3} %% the vertices % row 0 \ssmoveto 0 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{1} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{x10} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{x11} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{x10x11} \ssmove 3 0 \ssdropbull % \ssname{x10x11x20} \ssname{x6} % \ssmoveto 0 1 % row 1 \ssmove{-6}{1} \ssdropbull \ssname{h10} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{x10h10} \ssdropbull \ssname{h11} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{x11h10} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{x11h11} \ssmove 2 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{z} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull % \ssname{x10x11x20h10} \ssname{h10x6} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull % \ssname{x10x11x20h11} \ssname{h11x6} % row 2 \ssmove{-7}{1} % \ssmoveto 0 2 \ssdropbull \ssname{h10^2} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{x10h10^2} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{h11^2} \ssmove 3 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{h10z} \ssdropbull \ssname{x10b20} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{h10^2x6} \ssdropbull \ssname{x10^2b20} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{x10^3b20} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{h11^2x6} % \ssmove 2 0 % \ssdropbull % \ssname{b20} % \ssmoveto 0 3 % row 3 \ssmove{-8}{1} \ssdropbull \ssname{h10^3} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{x10h10^3} \ssmove 3 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{h10b20} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{h10^2z} \ssdropbull \ssname{x10h10b20} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{h10^3x6} \ssdropbull \ssname{x10^2h10b20} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{x10^3h10b20} \ssmove 2 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{h10b20z} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{x10h10b20z} % row 4 \ssmove{-10}{1} \ssdropbull \ssname{h10^4} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{x10h10^4} \ssmove 3 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{h10^2b20} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{h10^3z} \ssdropbull \ssname{x10h10^2b20} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{h10^4x6} \ssmove 3 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{h10^2b20z} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{x10h10^2b20z} %% the arrows \ssgoto{1} \ssgoto{x10} \ssstroke \ssgoto{x10} \ssgoto{x11} % \ssstroke[curve=.2] \ssstroke \ssgoto{x11} \ssgoto{x10x11} \ssstroke \ssgoto{1} \ssgoto{h10} \ssstroke \ssgoto{1} \ssgoto{h11} \ssstroke \ssgoto{x10} \ssgoto{x10h10} \ssstroke \ssgoto{x10} \ssgoto{x11h10} \ssstroke \ssgoto{x11} \ssgoto{x11h10} \ssstroke \ssgoto{x11} \ssgoto{x11h11} \ssstroke \ssgoto{x10x11} \ssgoto{x11h11} \ssstroke % \ssgoto{x10x11x20} \ssgoto{x6} % \ssgoto{x10x11x20h10} \ssgoto{h10x6} \ssstroke % \ssgoto{x10x11x20} \ssgoto{x6} % \ssgoto{x10x11x20h11} \ssgoto{h11x6} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h11x6} \ssgoto{h11^2x6} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10} \ssgoto{h10^2} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10} \ssgoto{x10h10} \ssstroke % \ssgoto{h10} % \ssgoto{x11h10} % \ssstroke[curve=.2] \ssgoto{x10h10} \ssgoto{x11h10} \ssstroke[curve=.2] \ssgoto{x10h10} \ssgoto{x10h10^2} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h11} \ssgoto{x11h10} \ssstroke % \ssgoto{h11} % \ssgoto{x11h11} % \ssstroke[curve=.2] \ssgoto{x11h10} \ssgoto{x11h11} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h11} \ssgoto{h11^2} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10^2} \ssgoto{h10^3} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10^3} \ssgoto{h10^4} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10^2} \ssgoto{x10h10^2} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10^3} \ssgoto{x10h10^3} \ssstroke \ssgoto{x10h10^2} \ssgoto{x10h10^3} \ssstroke \ssgoto{x10h10^3} \ssgoto{x10h10^4} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10^3} \ssgoto{x10h10^3} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10^4} \ssgoto{x10h10^4} \ssstroke \ssgoto{z} \ssgoto{h10x6} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10z} \ssgoto{h10^2x6} \ssstroke[curve=-.2] \ssgoto{h10^2z} \ssgoto{h10^3x6} \ssstroke[curve=-.2] \ssgoto{h10^3z} \ssgoto{h10^4x6} \ssstroke[curve=-.2] \ssgoto{z} \ssgoto{h10z} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10z} \ssgoto{h10^2z} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10^2z} \ssgoto{h10^3z} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10x6} \ssgoto{h10^2x6} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10^2x6} \ssgoto{h10^3x6} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10^3x6} \ssgoto{h10^4x6} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10b20} \ssgoto{x10h10b20} \ssstroke[curve=.2] \ssgoto{x10h10b20} \ssgoto{x10^2h10b20} \ssstroke[curve=.2] \ssgoto{x10^2h10b20} \ssgoto{x10^3h10b20} \ssstroke[curve=.2] \ssgoto{x10b20} \ssgoto{x10^2b20} \ssstroke[curve=.2] \ssgoto{x10^2b20} \ssgoto{x10^3b20} \ssstroke[curve=.2] \ssgoto{h10^2b20} \ssgoto{x10h10^2b20} \ssstroke[curve=.2] \ssgoto{h10b20z} \ssgoto{x10h10b20z} \ssstroke%[curve=.2] \ssgoto{h10^2b20z} \ssgoto{x10h10^2b20z} \ssstroke%[curve=.2] \ssgoto{h10b20} \ssgoto{h10^2b20} \ssstroke \ssgoto{x10h10b20} \ssgoto{x10h10^2b20} \ssstroke \ssgoto{x10b20} \ssgoto{x10h10b20} \ssstroke \ssgoto{x10^2b20} \ssgoto{x10^2h10b20} \ssstroke \ssgoto{x10^3b20} \ssgoto{x10^3h10b20} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10b20z} \ssgoto{h10^2b20z} \ssstroke \ssgoto{x10h10b20z} \ssgoto{x10h10^2b20z} \ssstroke \ssgoto{x10b20} \ssgoto{x10^2h10b20} \ssstroke \ssgoto{x10^2b20} \ssgoto{x10^3h10b20} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10^4} \ssmove 0 1 \ssstroke[void,arrowto] \ssgoto{x10h10^4} \ssmove 0 1 \ssstroke[void,arrowto] \ssgoto{h10^3z} \ssmove 0 1 \ssstroke[void,arrowto] \ssgoto{h10^4x6} \ssmove 0 1 \ssstroke[void,arrowto] \ssgoto{h10^2b20} \ssmove 0 1 \ssstroke[void,arrowto] \ssgoto{x10h10^2b20} \ssmove 0 1 \ssstroke[void,arrowto] \ssgoto{h10^2b20z} \ssmove 0 1 \ssstroke[void,arrowto] \ssgoto{x10h10^2b20z} \ssmove 0 1 \ssstroke[void,arrowto] \end{sseq}$$ The entire pattern described by the chart \[ss e3\] repeats: there is the periodicity class (not pictured) $b_{20}^2$ in bidegree $(4,8)$, which maps, under the map of spectral sequences of Proposition \[ss comparison with supertrivial coeffs\], to the element in $\Ext^{4,8}_{A(1)}(\mathbb{F}_2,\mathbb{F}_2)$ which is the image in the associated graded of the Adams filtration of the famous real Bott periodicity element in $\pi_8(ko)$. The classes whose names are not implied by the lines representing various multiplications are as follows, and whose names were not already given in our description of the $E_2$-term, are as follows: - the class in bidegree $(4,3)$ is $h_{10}b_{20}$, which we abbreviate as $w_4$, - the class in bidegree $(5,2)$ is $x_{10}b_{20}$, which we abbreviate as $w_5$, - and the class in bidegree $(9,3)$ is $zb_{20}$, which we abbreviate as $w_9$. Finally, we write $b$ for $b_{20}^2$, so that the spectral sequence’s $E_3$-term is multiplicatively generated by elements: ---------- --- ---- ---- ----- $x_{10}$ 0 1 1 1 $x_6$ 0 7 6 6 $h_{10}$ 1 1 1 0 $h_{11}$ 1 2 2 1 $z$ 1 7 6 5 $w_4$ 3 9 7 4 $w_5$ 2 9 7 5 $w_9$ 3 15 12 9 $b$ 4 16 12 8 . ---------- --- ---- ---- ----- In Proposition \[ss comparison with supertrivial coeffs\] we constructed a map from the HH-May spectral sequence to the classical May spectral sequence computing $\Ext_{A(1)}^{*,*}(\mathbb{F}_2,\mathbb{F}_2)$. We now draw the $E_3\cong E_{\infty}$-term of that classical May spectral sequence, using the same conventions as charts \[ss e2\] and \[ss e3\], so that one can easily see the (surjective) map of spectral sequence $E_3$-terms: $$\begin{sseq}[grid=none,entrysize=10mm,labelstep=1]{0...11}{0...5}\label{classical may e3} %% the vertices \ssmoveto 0 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{1} % \ssmoveto 0 1 \ssmove{0}{1} \ssdropbull \ssname{h10} \ssmove 1 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{h11} \ssmove{-1}{1} % \ssmoveto 0 2 \ssdropbull \ssname{h10^2} \ssmove 2 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{h11^2} \ssmove{-2}{1} \ssdropbull \ssname{h10^3} \ssmove 4 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{h10b20} \ssmove{-4}{1} \ssdropbull \ssname{h10^4} \ssmove 4 0 \ssdropbull \ssname{h10^2b20} %% the arrows \ssgoto{1} \ssgoto{h10} \ssstroke \ssgoto{1} \ssgoto{h11} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10} \ssgoto{h10^2} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h11} \ssgoto{h11^2} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10^2} \ssgoto{h10^3} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10^3} \ssgoto{h10^4} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10^3} \ssgoto{h10^4} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10b20} \ssgoto{h10^2b20} \ssstroke \ssgoto{h10^4} \ssmove 0 1 \ssstroke[void,arrowto] \ssgoto{h10^2b20} \ssmove 0 1 \ssstroke[void,arrowto] \end{sseq}$$ Again, there is a periodicity class (not pictured) $b=b_{20}$ in bidegree $(4,8)$, i.e., cohomological degree $4$ and topological degree $12$ (hence Adams degree $8$). In the abelianizing and the HH-May spectral sequences, all $d_r$ differentials are zero, for all $r>2$. We simply check that there can no nonzero $d_r$ differentials, for $r>2$, on the multiplicative generators $x_{10},x_6,h_{10},h_{11},z,w_4,w_5,w_{9},b$ of the $E_3$-term of the abelianizing, equivalently (starting with $E_3$), the HH-May spectral sequence. In the proof of Proposition \[d2 differential computation\], we showed that $x_{10}, %x_{11} h_{10},h_{11},$ and $x_6$ all do not support differentials of any length whatsoever. The remaining classes are all incapable of supporting nonzero $d_r$ differentials, for $r>2$, for degree reasons: there are no classes in the correct tridegree for any of these classes to hit by a $d_r$ differential, if $r>2$. \[e-p series thm\] The spectral sequence chart \[ss e3\] displays (by reading across the rows) the Hochschild homology $HH_*(A(1),A(1))$. In particular, the $\mathbb{F}_2$-vector space dimension of $HH_n(A(1),A(1))$ is: $$\dim_{\mathbb{F}_2} HH_n(A(1),A(1)) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 2n+5 &\mbox{\ if\ } 2\mid n \\ 2n+6 &\mbox{\ if\ } n\equiv 1 \mod 4 \\ 2n+4 &\mbox{\ if\ } n\equiv 3 \mod 4 .\end{array}\right.$$ Hence the Poincaré series of the graded $\mathbb{F}_2$-vector space $HH_*(A(1),A(1))$ is $$\frac{ 5 + 8s + 9s^2 + 10s^3 + \frac{8s^4}{1-s}}{1-s^4} .$$ If we additionally keep track of the extra grading on $HH_*(A(1),A(1))$ coming from the topological grading on $A(1)$, then the Poincaré series of the bigraded $\mathbb{F}_2$-vector space $HH_{*,*}(A(1),A(1))$ is \[e-p series\] ( (1+u)(1+u\^2 + su(1+u\^2+u\^5) + s\^2u\^2(1+2u\^5+u\^7) + s\^3u\^3(1+u\^4+u\^5+u\^6+u\^9) + ) + u\^6+su\^2+su\^8+s\^2u\^4) where $s$ indexes the homological grading and $u$ indexes the topological grading, as in Proposition \[SSs and cocycle reps\]. This information is read off directly from the spectral sequence chart \[ss e3\]. (Note that the horizontal axis in the chart \[ss e3\] is the Adams degree, i.e., $u-s$, not the internal/topological degree, i.e., $u$, so one must be a little careful in reading off the series \[e-p series\] from the chart.) [^1]: Bökstedt, in his extremely influential unpublished paper on topological Hochschild homology, computes the Hochschild homology of $\pi_*(H\mathbb{F}_p\smash H\mathbb{F}_p)$, i.e., the Hochschild homology of [*the linear dual*]{} of the entire Steenrod algebra, but this is very straightforward, since the dual of the Steenrod algebra is polynomial at $p=2$ and polynomial tensored with exterior at $p>2$. For the same reason, it is also easy to compute the Hochschild homology of [*the linear dual*]{} of $A(1)$. But the linear dual of $A(1)$ is a completely different ring than $A(1)$, so this sheds no light on the Hochschild homology of $A(1)$ itself!

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We present polarisation profiles for 48 southern pulsars observed with the new 10-cm receiver at the Parkes telescope. We have exploited the low system temperature and high bandwidth of the receiver to obtain profiles which have good signal to noise for most of our sample at this relatively high frequency. Although, as expected, a number of profiles are less linearly polarised at 3.1 GHz than at lower frequencies, we identify some pulsars and particular components of profiles in other pulsars which have increased linear polarisation at this frequency. We discuss the dependence of linear polarisation with frequency in the context of a model in which emission consists of the superposition of two, orthogonally polarised modes. We show that a simple model, in which the orthogonal modes have different spectral indices, can explain many of the observed properties of the frequency evolution of both the linear polarisation and the total power, such as the high degree of linear polarisation seen at all frequencies in some high spin-down, young pulsars. Nearly all the position angle profiles show deviations from the rotating vector model; this appears to be a general feature of high-frequency polarisation observations.' author: - | A. Karastergiou$^1$, S. Johnston$^1$ & R. N. Manchester$^2$\ $^1$School of Physics, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia\ $^2$Australia Telescope National Facility, CSIRO, P.O. Box 76, Epping, NSW 1710, Australia\ bibliography: - 'journals.bib' - 'modrefs.bib' - 'psrrefs.bib' - 'crossrefs.bib' date: Released 2004 Xxxxx XX title: 'Polarisation profiles of southern pulsars at 3.1 GHz' --- \[firstpage\] pulsars: general - polarisation Introduction ============ The physics of pulsar magnetospheres can be tackled via two observational routes. Observing single pulses from radio pulsars gives information on the instantaneous plasma conditions, the production of linear and circular polarisation and radiation mechanism. The resulting phenomenology and the underlying physics have been discussed recently for giant pulses [@jr03], drifting subpulses [e.g. @es02; @es03b; @cr04] and circular polarisation effects [@kj04; @ml04a]. However, current sensitivity permits such observations only on a small sample of the total pulsar population, especially at frequencies above about 1 GHz. -------------- -------- ------------ ------------ ---------------------- ----------- ----------- Pulsar Period $S_{1400}$ $S_{3100}$ $\langle L\rangle$/S $W_{50}$ $W_{10}$ (msec) (mJy) (mJy) (%) ($\degr$) ($\degr$) J1012$-$5857 819 1.7 0.6 13 3 9 J1038$-$5831 661 0.8 0.6 26 3 12 J1048$-$5832 123 6.5 2.9 80 13 29 J1110$-$5637 558 1.8 0.7 15 13 16 J1114$-$6100 880 2.0 2.1 - 8 15 J1126$-$6054 202 1.0 0.3 20 7 17 J1133$-$6250 1022 2.9 1.5 - 91 112 J1302$-$6350 48 3.6 2.8 97 256 274 J1306$-$6617 473 2.5 1.3 15 30 47 J1319$-$6056 284 1.2 0.4 39 12 21 J1327$-$6301 196 3.2 0.9 24 15 71 J1338$-$6204 1238 3.8 2.0 25 9 35 J1352$-$6803 628 1.1 0.4 - 18 - J1410$-$7404 278 - 2.0 - 3 - J1413$-$6307 394 0.9 0.5 34 2 8 J1512$-$5759 128 6.0 1.1 - 12 26 J1517$-$4356 650 - 0.3 - 6 - J1522$-$5829 395 4.3 1.4 33 13 25 J1534$-$5405 289 1.2 0.4 - 14 - J1535$-$4114 432 - 1.5 34 10 20 J1539$-$5626 243 4.6 1.8 46 15 24 J1611$-$5209 182 1.2 0.9 - 5 200 J1614$-$5048 231 2.4 0.7 92 4 16 J1615$-$5537 791 0.4 0.3 - 8 - J1630$-$4733 575 4.0 2.9 20 15 33 J1633$-$5015 352 5.7 1.2 - 5 - J1633$-$4453 436 1.9 0.5 19 10 18 J1637$-$4553 118 1.1 0.4 76 11 21 J1640$-$4715 517 1.2 0.6 - 6 19 J1646$-$4346 231 1.0 0.4 50 11 21 J1653$-$3838 305 1.3 1.2 37 4 22 J1655$-$3048 542 - 0.5 - 55 72 J1701$-$4533 322 2.5 0.6 25 18 24 J1707$-$4053 581 7.2 1.7 35 11 18 J1709$-$4429 102 7.3 5.9 93 28 47 J1712$-$2715 255 - 0.9 - 51 70 J1719$-$4006 189 1.1 0.6 - 14 22 J1721$-$3532 280 11.0 6.4 35 14 29 J1722$-$3632 399 1.6 0.8 - 4 29 J1733$-$3716 337 3.4 1.5 31 8 52 J1737$-$3555 397 0.7 0.5 - 8 - J1742$-$4616 412 - 0.5 - 29 - J1749$-$3002 609 3.7 1.1 26 40 47 J1750$-$3157 910 1.2 0.5 - 28 39 J1808$-$3249 364 - 0.9 32 15 26 J1820$-$1818 309 1.1 0.6 - 14 - J1943+0609 446 - 0.4 - 10 - J2007+0809 325 - 2.5 - 68 - -------------- -------- ------------ ------------ ---------------------- ----------- ----------- : The name, period, flux density, fractional linear polarisation and profile width of the observed pulsars. $S_{1400}$ values (apart from J1302$-$6350) were taken from Hobbs et al. (2004). The second observational route comes from a study of the time-averaged polarisation profiles in pulsars. These integrated profiles are extremely stable and thus yield information on the long-term structure of the magnetic field, the average properties of the magnetosphere and the geometry of the star. For example, according to the model of @rc69a, the position angle (PA) of the linear polarisation is tied to the magnetic field in the vicinity of a magnetic pole and therefore changes in a well-defined manner as the beam of the pulsar sweeps past our line of sight. In principle, this allows the geometry of the star to be determined, but this is difficult in practice for two main reasons [@ew01]. Firstly, discontinuous jumps in PA are observed in many pulsars; these jumps are generally close to $90\degr$ and have been associated with emission from orthogonally polarised modes [@mth75; @brc76; @ch77; @crb78], hereafter OPM. Single-pulse studies, supported by the statistical model of @scr+84 and later @mck97 and @ms98, showed that the observed polarisation can be explained to some degree by superposed rays in orthogonally polarised states [@kkj+02]. The superposition of such rays results in the total intensity being the sum of the OPM intensities and the linear polarisation being the difference in linear polarisation in each mode. Secondly, the longitude over which emission occurs is usually very small and additional, non-orthogonal deviations in the PA swing are often seen. These are likely due to propagation effects in the pulsar magnetosphere. Average polarisation profiles have also been used to characterise the various components which make up the pulse profile. @ran83 [@ran83a; @ran86] used average profiles to classify components as core or cone, which have different total power and polarisation properties. @lm88 confirmed the differences between component types, but saw no reason to advocate different emission mechanisms for each type. Rankin also concluded that, on average, significant circular polarisation is only seen in core components, a conclusion disputed by @hmxq98. Also, single pulse studies have since shown significant circular polarisation in cone components [@kjm+03; @kj04]. The frequency dependence of the integrated profile properties has been a research area for many years. In the southern hemisphere, the average polarisation profiles of strong pulsars have been obtained at 400, 600 and 1612 MHz, and presented in a series of papers [@hmak77; @mhma78; @mhm80] with later observations at 800 and 950 MHz [@vdhm97]. Observations at higher frequencies have generally been confined to pulsars visible from the northern hemisphere [e.g. @mgs+81; @hx97; @hkk98]. There are three broad generalisations that can be made about the frequency evolution of pulsar profiles. First, the total power profiles tend to be more complex at high frequencies as outrider components become more prominent compared to the central component [@ran83]. Secondly, the percentage polarisation generally decreases as the frequency increases [@mhm80; @mgs+81]. Finally, the OPM phenomenon also becomes more prevalent at higher frequencies [e.g. @kkj+02], which is thought to be the result of strong diffraction effects that occur lower in the pulsar magnetosphere [e.g. @pet01]. Many new pulsars have been discovered since the end of the 1980s, rather few of which have observed polarisation profiles. We have conducted observations in full polarisation of 48 southern pulsars at 3.1 GHz originating from the [@jlm+92] and [@ebvb01] surveys, to describe total power and polarisation behaviour at this relatively high radio frequency. Some of the pulsars from the Johnston et al. survey have been published in full polarisation, mostly by @qmlg95 [hereafter QMLG] at 1.4 GHz. No published polarisation profiles of the pulsars discovered by Edwards et al. exist to date. We draw a comparison between our current observations and the QMLG observations where appropriate. Observations ============ All observations were carried out with the 64-m radio telescope located in Parkes, Australia. A total of 50 h of observing were obtained in the period 2004 Jan 24 to Jan 27 at a central observing frequency of 3094 MHz. The observations were made using a dual 10/50 cm receiver (see Granet et al. 2004 for a description of the feed). The system has orthogonal linear feeds and cryogenically cooled preamplifiers, giving a system equivalent flux density on cold sky of 49 Jy. A signal can be injected at an angle of 45$^{\circ}$ to the feed probes for calibration purposes. Data were recorded using the wide-band pulsar correlator. A total bandwidth of 1024 MHz was used. Channel bandwidths were 1 MHz and there were typically 1024 phase bins across the pulsar period. The data were folded on-line for an interval of 60 s and written to disk. Total integration times were either 30 or 60 min depending on the flux density of the pulsar. These observations were made during a phase when the correlator was still being commissioned. Unfortunately, some of the observations suffer from artifacts caused by the hardware. In particular, Stokes $I$ sometimes has ‘saw-tooth’ (non Gaussian) baselines and also shows extended ‘shoulders’ before and after the profile peaks as can be seen in some of the Figures (e.g. PSR J1319$-$6056). These artifacts do not affect the other Stokes parameters and have little overall impact on our results. Flux calibration was obtained by observations of Hydra A which is assumed to have a flux density of 20.95 Jy at 3100 MHz. Polarisation calibration was carried out by observing a pulsed signal of known polarisation prior to each observation of a pulsar. Differential gain and delay between the two feed probes could then be accounted for. Off-line processing used the PSRCHIVE software application [@hvm04] specifically written for analysis of pulsar data. Faraday rotation measures, where known, were applied to the data after calibration. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- \ Polarimetric Profiles ===================== The pulsars we observed at 3.1 GHz are listed in Table 1 along with their periods and continuum flux densities at 1.4 GHz [@hfs+04] and 3.1 GHz. They are generally weak at 3.1 GHz, the brightest being J1721$-$3532 with a flux density of 6.4 mJy. The width and average degree of linear polarisation as a fraction of the continuum flux density is also given in the table. However, due to the different dependence on frequency, important changes in the polarisation of individual components may not be paid the attention they merit when using these average values. We present the polarimetric profiles at 3.1 GHz in Figure 1. In the following subsections, we describe the profiles in detail, starting with the highly polarised sources and ending with the sources with low polarisation. Highly polarised sources ------------------------ [**J1048$-$5832.**]{} This young pulsar was observed at 1.4 GHz by QMLG, and exhibits a high degree of linear polarisation and almost no circular. The 3.1 GHz profile has, somewhat surprisingly, even higher linear polarisation than at 1.4 GHz, contrary to the usual de-polarisation observed with increasing frequency. There is also significant circular polarisation at 3.1 GHz. It would be useful to follow up this unexpected behaviour with observations at higher frequencies. [**J1302$-$6350.**]{} This pulsar is well known to have a highly polarised, wide, double profile [@mj95]. The 3.1 GHz profile falls nicely between the 2.2 and 4.8 GHz profiles displayed in @wjm04. Although both components are virtually completely linearly polarised at all frequencies, there is a notable increase in the linear polarisation of the strongest of the two components above 1.5 GHz. The PA profiles at all frequencies are similar, with a negative slope in each component. [**J1539-5626.**]{} The profile at 3.1 GHz is complex and consists of at least two components. The trailing component is very highly linearly polarised with a flat PA. There is a swing in the average circular polarisation from right handed in the middle, brightest component, to left handed in the trailing component and the pulse phase of the change in sense coincides with a minimum in linear polarisation. The poor temporal resolution of the 1.4 GHz profile (QMLG) precludes an accurate comparison, but it appears the trailing component is less polarised at the lower frequency. [**J1614$-$5048.**]{} At 3.1 GHz the profile consists of two components, both of which are highly linearly polarised. Relatively high circular polarisation is seen in the trailing component. The PA profile has a negative slope across the two bright components. The profile at 1.4 GHz shows only one component (QMLG), which we associate with the trailing component of the 3.1 GHz profile. Intermediate and higher frequency observations of this pulsar are warranted to study the frequency evolution. [**J1637$-$4553.**]{} The profile of this pulsar, which consists of a single component, exhibits a high degree of linear polarisation at 3.1 GHz, with a flat PA across the pulse. The swing in PA at the trailing edge is common between this profile and unpublished data at 1.4 GHz. The profile also appears narrower in linear polarisation than in total power: the fractional linear polarisation is significantly less at the edges of the profile than in the middle. A small fraction of right-hand circular polarisation is seen. [**J1709$-$4429.**]{} High linear polarisation and moderate, right-handed circular polarisation are observed in the mean profile of this young pulsar at 3.1 GHz. The wide single-component pulse is identical to the 1.4 GHz profile in QMLG, with a smooth PA profile of positive slope. Moderately polarised sources ---------------------------- [**J1038$-$5831.**]{} The linear polarisation is high enough to permit a determination of the PA across most of the pulse. The kinkiness in the PA profile of QMLG at 1.4 GHz can be seen in the 3.1 GHz profile, where it resembles an orthogonal jump. More specifically, just before the peak of the brightest component, the linear polarisation has a sharp dip which occurs simultaneously with a jump of the PA. A comparison of the linear polarisation profiles at 3.1 GHz and 1.4 GHz reveals some de-polarisation at the leading edge of the pulse. [**J1319$-$6056.**]{} The 3.1 GHz profile suggests moderately high degrees of linear and circular polarisation, similar to the 1.4 GHz profile of QMLG. [**J1413$-$6307.**]{} QMLG remark that this pulsar shows no linear or circular polarisation at 1.4 GHz. However, at 3.1 GHz the profile exhibits moderate linear polarisation towards the trailing edge of the pulse. The mean circular polarisation shows a swing of sense from left- to right-handed. The PA follows a smooth curve across the pulse. [**J1522$-$5829.**]{} The leading component of the 3.1 GHz profile is substantially more polarised than its counterpart at 1.4 GHz in QMLG. At 3.1 GHz the PA profile consists of two flat segments, $\sim 70\degr$ offset from each other, whereas, at 1.4 GHz, the PA profile shows a constant negative slope in both segments. Such differences imply a degree of independence of the PA from the geometry of the pulsar and point towards propagation effects in the pulsar magnetosphere. [**J1535$-$4114.**]{} The moderately high linear polarisation in this pulse profile at 3.1 GHz is characterised by a PA curve with a steep positive gradient. A small amount of left-hand circular polarisation can also be discerned. [**J1630$-$4733.**]{} At 1.4 GHz, the profile of this pulsar is severely scattered. At 3.1 GHz, the high average right-hand circular polarisation resembles the total power profile. The linear polarisation consists of two components, with a small swing at the pulse phase of the local minimum in linear polarisation. [**J1633$-$5015.**]{} At 1.4 GHz, the single-component profile of this pulsar has both high linear and circular polarisation (QMLG). At 3.1 GHz, this component has less linear polarisation. The profile also has a leading component, not seen at 1.4 GHz, which is unpolarised. An orthogonal PA jump can be inferred at the leading edge of the profile, whereas the PA profile is flat over the middle component. [**J1646$-$4346.**]{} This weak pulsar has a profile which consists of multiple components at 3.1 GHz. The degree of linear polarisation is highest at the leading and trailing edges of the pulse, although it remains moderately high under the pulse peak. The PA profile is linear with a negative slope. There is a small amount of right-hand circular polarisation. This pulsar was observed at 1.4 GHz by @cmk01. Although weak, it shows similar characteristics to the higher frequency profile with a somewhat higher degree of linear polarisation. [**J1653$-$3838.**]{} The profile of this pulsar at 3.1 GHz shows a moderate amount of linear polarisation in the trailing component, characterised by a slightly rising PA. The leading component is not linearly polarised and the circular polarisation is not significant across the entire pulse. At 1.4 GHz the profile is similar, although there is a high degree of circular polarisation in the trailing component. [**J1707$-$4053.**]{} The 3.1 GHz profile is characterised by moderate linear polarisation and circular polarisation that swings from right to left handedness. The gradient of the PA profile changes sign at approximately the pulse phase of the profile peak. At 1.4 GHz, the pulse profile is very wide and the PA is flat (QMLG), both most likely caused by interstellar scattering. [**J1721$-$3532.**]{} The total power profile of this pulsar at 3.1 GHz consists of two overlapping components, both with moderately high linear polarisation. Both components can be identified in the scattered 1.4 GHz profile (QMLG), but the trailing one is less linearly polarised at that frequency. The PA profile consists of two, approximately linear segments with a negative slope, each apparently associated to a profile component. There is moderate right-hand circular polarisation across the pulse. [**J1733$-$3716.**]{} Each of the two components of this profile at 3.1 GHz is characterised by a moderate degree of linear polarisation and some right-hand circular polarisation. The PA has a slightly positive slope in the leading component and a slightly negative slope in the trailing component. At 1.4 GHz, the profile looks similar. [**J1749$-$3002.**]{} A comparison of the total power profile at 3.1 GHz to the 1.4 GHz profile in QMLG, shows that the outriders have flatter spectra than the middle component. At 3.1 GHz, there are two orthogonal PA transitions which coincide with the minima in linear polarisation. The circular polarisation shows a left-handed maximum between the leading and middle components. [**J1808$-$3249.**]{} The profile of this weak pulsar at 3.1 GHz shows equal amounts of linear and circular polarisation in the trailing component. Sources with low polarisation ----------------------------- [**J1012$-$5857.**]{} At 1.4 GHz, the profile of this pulsar shows no measurable linear and circular polarisation (QMLG). However, at 3.1 GHz, the measured linear polarisation is sufficient to provide a PA profile across the central part of the profile. The PA exhibits a discontinuity just prior to the peak of the total power profile, where the linear polarisation profile also shows a local minimum. [**J1110$-$5637.**]{} At 3.1 GHz there is measurable linear polarisation in the leading and middle parts of the profile and circular polarisation in the trailing component. The PA has a positive slope in both of these components, with a quasi-orthogonal discontinuity. The 1.4 GHz profile of QMLG has poor resolution and signal-to-noise but better quality (unpublished) data shows the 1.4 and 3.1 GHz profiles to be similar. [**J1114$-$6100.**]{} The profile of this pulsar at 3.1 GHz resembles the profile at 1.4 GHz. It consists of a single, total power component with no measurable linear and circular polarisation. [**J1126$-$6054.**]{} The total power profile of this pulsar at 3.1 GHz has more pronounced “outriders” than the 1.5 GHz profile in @jlm+92. There is a small degree of linear and circular polarisation across the profile. On average, the circular polarisation is right-handed in the leading part of the profile and left-handed in the trailing part of the profile. [**J1133$-$6250.**]{} This pulsar shows no detectable polarisation at 3.1 GHz and is similar to the 1.4 GHz profile in QMLG, except for the fact that leading component is brighter with respect to the trailing component at 3.1 GHz. [**J1306$-$6617.**]{} There is an orthogonal jump in the PA profile of this pulsar at 3.1 GHz, at the trailing edge of the pulse. Both the total power and the polarisation at 3.1 GHz are similar to the 1.4 GHz profile in QMLG, with minor differences mainly due to different temporal resolution. [**J1327$-$6301.**]{} The linear polarisation of the pulsar at 3.1 GHz shows a number of local minima. At the pulse phase of the second minimum, there is an orthogonal PA jump. Both linear and circular polarisation are otherwise low across the pulse. At 1.4 GHz, the total power profile looks the same, however, there is significant circular polarisation that swings from left to right handedness. [**J1338$-$6204.**]{} This profile consists of a middle component flanked by two outriders. Both the linear and circular polarisation profiles appear symmetrical about the peak of the middle component. A comparison with the 1.4 GHz profile of QMLG demonstrates flatter spectra in the outriders with respect to the middle component. It also reveals an increase in linear polarisation of the trailing component. Also, the PA appears to be ascending in the leading component and descending in the trailing component. [**J1410$-$7404.**]{} The profile of this pulsar is very narrow at 3.1 GHz and only slightly linearly polarised. No significant circular polarisation was observed. [**J1512$-$5759.**]{} The simple total-power pulse is characterised by an absence of linear polarisation at 3.1 GHz. There is a hint that the average circular polarisation may be changing sense shortly after the middle of the pulse. [**J1611$-$5209.**]{} At 3.1 GHz, there is an inter-pulse in the profile, exactly $180\degr$ away from the strongest peak. There is little linear and circular polarisation detected in the main pulse and none in the inter-pulse. At 1.4 GHz, the linear polarisation of the main pulse is higher and the PA shows a significant swing. [**J1640$-$4715.**]{} The double component profile of this pulsar at 3.1 GHz shows some linear polarisation in the leading, weak component and no linear or circular polarisation in the strong component. The two measured values of PA in the leading component indicate a positive slope. [**J1655$-$3048.**]{} Despite being weak at 3.1 GHz, significant left- and right-hand average circular polarisation is observed in this profile. The pulse phase of the change in sense approximately coincides with the peak of the profile. Some linear polarisation is observed towards the trailing edge of the profile. [**J1701$-$4533.**]{} The profile of this pulsar at 3.1 GHz resembles the 1.4 GHz profile in QMLG, in that it exhibits small detectable linear and circular polarisation. The PA swing has a negative slope. [**J1722$-$3632.**]{} At 3.1 GHz, this double component profile shows no significant linear polarisation or circular polarisation. The following pulsars are all weak at 3.1 GHz and their profiles exhibit very little or no detectable polarisation: J1352$-$6803, J1517$-$4356, J1534$-$5405, J1615$-$5537, J1633$-$4453, J1712$-$2715, J1719$-$4006, J1737$-$3555, J1742$-$4616, J1750$-$3157, J1820$-$1818, J1943+0609, J2007+0809. Discussion ========== \ The 48 profiles shown in Figure 1 demonstrate the diversity of polarisation properties seen in pulsars. However, systematic features are also present in the data. A well–known example is the fact that abrupt changes in the PA - often approximately orthogonal jumps - occur at the pulse phase of local minima in the linear polarisation. This suggests that one cause of the general de-polarisation with increasing frequency is the superposition of linearly polarised rays with different planes of polarisation. Also, our observations re-enforce the fact that different components of pulse profiles often exhibit different spectral behaviour. This leads to changes in the overall shape of profiles with frequency beyond that of simple radius–to–frequency mapping expectations, as detailed in @kra94. We use our results in the context of the model for polarised emission proposed by @ms98. In that model, the emission consists of two completely polarised modes which are orthogonal to each other. If circular polarisation is ignored then the superposition of these modes at any instant yields the total power (the sum of the intensity of the modes) and the linear polarisation (the difference of the mode intensities). Clearly then, if the mode intensities are roughly equal the linear polarisation is very low; if they are very disparate the linear polarisation will be close to 100 per cent. The question then arises as to how the relative intensities of the modes varies as a function of frequency and/or component type [@kkj+02]. We propose a component classification scheme based on three possible scenarios for the spectral index behaviour of the modes as shown schematically in Figure 2. Note that the sketches are conceptually similar; one mode has a relatively flat spectrum and the other a relatively steep spectrum, that flattens off at low frequencies. In more detail, the scenarios are as follows. 1. The intensity of the flat spectrum mode is always greater than the steep spectrum mode. In this case, the difference between the strengths of the OPM will increase with increasing frequency, which results in higher degrees of linear polarisation at higher frequencies. The total power spectral index is dominated by the mode with the flatter index. Examples from the current work are PSRs J1048$-$5832 and J1539$-$5626 (high polarisation), J1413$-$6307, J1522$-$5829 and J1721$-$3532 (moderate polarisation) and J1012$-$5857 and J1338$-$6204 (low polarisation), where an increase of the degree of linear polarisation is seen in individual components at 3.1 GHz compared to 1.4 GHz. PSRs J1302$-$6350, J1614$-$5048, J1637$-$4533 and J1709$-$4429 are examples of pulsars in this category which have virtually 100 per cent linear polarisation over a large frequency range. Support for this picture also comes from the fact that many pulsars in this category have rather flat spectral indices, especially those with single–component profiles. The average spectral index of pulsars is $-$1.8 [@mkkw00a]; in the current sample, PSRs J1048$-$5832, J1302$-$6350, J1413$-$6307, J1709$-$4429 and J1721$-$3532 all have spectral indices flatter than $-$1.0, two pulsars, PSRs J1614–5048 and J1637–4553 have spectral indices of $-$1.3 and $-$1.6 and the remaining have complex profiles making it hard to determine individual component spectra. 2. The intensity of the steep spectrum mode is initially greater than the flat spectrum mode and the intersection of the two spectra occurs at a high frequency. The consequence of this is high linear polarisation at low frequencies, decreasing towards higher frequencies as a power-law. Decreasing polarisation with frequency is commonly observed and @xsg+95 present evidence for power-law behaviour of fractional polarisation. Under this scenario we predict that the polarisation will eventually increase again at some high frequency. 3. The spectra cross at a frequency near $\sim$1 GHz, within the window where the bulk of current observations lie. Then, when observing from low to high frequencies, the linear polarisation should decrease to zero at the frequency of the intersection and increase again beyond that frequency with an associated orthogonal PA jump. The total power spectrum flattens after the intersection point. There exist a number of pulsars with components that show orthogonal PA jumps at around 1 GHz and as such are candidates for this scenario. We intend to investigate their polarisation behaviour over a wide frequency range. A classification scheme for the polarisation of pulsar profiles was proposed by @hkk98, wherein they recognised examples that constitute both type (i) and type (ii) cases. However, their scheme was based on the global profile properties rather than individual components and was not based on the properties of orthogonally polarised modes. Their observations of PSR B0355+54 at frequencies up to 32 GHz strongly support our picture. In that pulsar, the first component remains highly polarised at all frequencies (i.e. it is of type i), whereas the second component has decreasing polarisation (it is of type ii). The first component has a flatter spectral index than the second component and begins to dominate the profile above 5 GHz exactly as expected in our simple model. Taking the profile as a whole [e.g. @kxj+96], the spectrum [*apparently*]{} shows a break around 5 GHz but this is simply due to the difference in spectral index between the two components and shows the importance of treating components individually. Counter-examples to our model may come from the high frequency observations of @xkj+96. They present some evidence that the polarisation fraction appears to have a spectral break in some pulsars (e.g PSRs B0329+54 and B1133+16). A direct comparison with our ideas is however difficult as our model is based on individual components whereas their study treated the pulse profile as a whole. In any case, it has been mooted that other factors, such as a loss of coherence [@xkjw94], are behind the polarisation effects that are seen at frequencies above 10 GHz, which our model does not account for. The approach we use is based on the linear polarisation and total power spectra resulting from superposed OPM. In this model, the degree of linear polarisation and the total power are therefore tied at a given frequency. The fact that the highly linearly polarised pulsars described in Section 3.1 have flatter spectra than the average (the spectral indices range from $-0.27$ to $-1.56$, compared to the average $-1.6$) is a good indication of this tie. OPM intensities are frequency dependent, which is well documented from previous studies [@kkj+02], and the theoretical interpretations largely involve propagation effects in the magnetosphere. Our challenge to this picture is if and where there is a well defined frequency at which the OPM spectra cross. We expect different physical conditions determining the OPM spectra for components in the different scenaria of our model. Those differences may be due to the location of the component in the emission region or other parameters, such as age or spin-down energy. The geometrical elegance of the rotating vector model and its predictions about PA profiles [@rc69a] provide a basis for understanding the profiles observed. A consequence of the PA being determined purely by geometry is that the PA profiles should be identical at all observing frequencies (apart from relativistic effects, see @ml04). A known deviation from the pure geometrical interpretation of the PA comes from the frequency dependence of OPM, with the possibility of $90\degr$ offsets in PA between parts of the profile at different frequencies. Also, the PA tends to deviate from the simple model at pulse phases where individual components overlap. In the data presented here, we identify two pulsars with notable differences in the PA profiles that go beyond simple orthogonal (or even non-orthogonal) deviations. PSRs J1522$-$5829 and J1707$-$4053 show complicated differences in the PA profiles at 3.1 and 1.4 GHz, which suggest new interpretations are necessary. Recent theoretical advances in understanding the effects of strong refraction in the pulsar magnetosphere [@pet00; @wsve03] have shown the potential of such effects on the total power profiles, but the exact effects on polarisation are yet to be explored. Also, there exists an interesting subset of pulsars with a virtually flat PA profile. These pulsars show very high linear polarisation over a wide frequency range and relatively flat spectral index. Many (but not all) are high spin-down, young objects. Most have simple single Gaussian profiles (e.g. PSR J1048$-$5832), occasionally two widely separated components are seen (e.g. PSR J1302$-$6350). Also, the circular polarisation in these objects tends to have a single handedness. We concur with @man96 that the components in these young pulsars likely originate far from the magnetic pole. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== We would like to thank Alex Judge and the staff at the Parkes telescope for help with the observations. The Australia Telescope is funded by the Commonwealth of Australia for operation as a National Facility managed by the CSIRO. \[lastpage\]

ArXiv

--- abstract: | [We prove Bismut-type formulae for the first and second derivatives of a Feynman-Kac semigroup on a complete Riemannian manifold. We derive local estimates and give bounds on the logarithmic derivatives of the integral kernel. Stationary solutions are also considered. The arguments are based on local martingales, although the assumptions are purely geometric.]{}\ **Keywords:** [Brownian motion ; Feynman-Kac ; Bismut]{} **AMS MSC 2010:** [47D08 ; 53B20; 58J65 ; 60J65]{} author: - - 'James Thompson [^1]' title: '[**[Derivatives of Feynman-Kac semigroups]{}**]{}' --- Introduction ============ Suppose $M$ is a complete Riemannian manifold of dimension $n$ with Levi-Civita connection $\nabla$. Denote by $\Delta$ the Laplace-Beltrami operator, suppose $Z$ is a smooth vector field and set $L:=\frac{1}{2}\Delta +Z$. Any elliptic diffusion operator on a smooth manifold induces, via its principle symbol, a Riemannian metric with respect to which it takes this form. Denote by $x_t$ a diffusion on $M$ starting at $x_0 \in M$ with generator $L$ and explosion time $\zeta(x_0)$. The explosion time is the random time at which the process leaves all compact subsets of $M$. Suppose $V:[0,\infty) \times M \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a smooth function which is bounded below and denote by $P^V_t f$ the associated Feynman-Kac semigroup acting on bounded measurable functions $f$. For $T>0$ fixed, $P^V_tf$ is smooth and bounded on $(0,T] \times M$, satisfies the parabolic equation $$\label{eq:shrod} \partial_t \phi_t = (L - V_t)\phi_t$$ on $(0,T] \times M$ with $\phi_0 = f$ and for $$\label{eq:defnVt} \V_t := e^{-\int_0^t V_{T-s}(x_s) ds}$$ is represented probabilistically by the Feynman-Kac formula $$\label{eq:fkform} P^V_Tf(x_0) = {\mathbb{E}}\left[ \V_T f(x_T)\mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T < \zeta(x_0)\rbrace} \right].$$ In the self-adjoint case, equation corresponds, via Wick rotation, to the Schrödinger equation for a single non-relativistic particle moving in an electric field in curved space. In this sense, the derivative $d P^V_Tf$ corresponds to the momentum of the particle and $L P^V_Tf$ the kinetic energy. In this article we prove probabilistic formulae and estimates for $d P^V_Tf$, $L P^V_Tf$ and also for the Hessian $\nabla d P^V_Tf$. These are the main results; they are summarized below.\ \ Our formula for $dP^V_Tf$ is given by Theorem \[thm:locformone\]. For $v \in T_{x_0}M$ it states $$(dP^V_Tf)(v) = - \mathbb{E}\left[ \V_T f(x_T)\mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T < \zeta(x_0)\rbrace} \int_0^{T} \langle W_s (\dot{k}_s v),//_sdB_s\rangle+dV_{T-s}(W_s (k_sv)) ds \right]$$ where $//_t$ and $W_t$ are the usual parallel and damped parallel transports, respectively, and $B_t$ the martingale part of the antidevelopment of $x_t$ to $T_{x_0}M$. The process $k_t$ is chosen so that it vanishes once $x_t$ exits a regular domain (an open connected subset with compact closure and smooth boundary). In particular, no assumptions are required on the tensor ${\Ric}_Z$. For the case in which ${\Ric}_Z$ is bounded below with $k_t = (T-t)/T$, our formula for $dP^V_tf$ reduces to that of [@ElworthyLi Theorem 5.2]. Formulae in [@ElworthyLi] are derived from the assumption that one can differentiate under the expectation, and thus require global assumptions. Our approach, on the other hand, follows that of [@Thalmaier97] and [@APT] in using local martingales to obtain local formula for which no assumptions are needed. For the case in which $V$ is zero, our formula for $dP^V_tf$ reduces to that of [@Thalmaier97].\ \ Our formula for $LP^V_Tf$ is given by Theorem \[thm:formhalf\]. It states $$\begin{split} &L(P^V_Tf)(x_0) \\ =\text{ }&{\mathbb{E}}\left[ \V_T f(x_T)\mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T<\zeta(x_0)\rbrace}\int_0^T \langle \dot{k}_s Z,//_s dB_s\rangle \right]\\ & +\frac{1}{2}{\mathbb{E}}\left[ \V_T f(x_T)\mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T<\zeta(x_0)\rbrace}\left( \int_0^T \< W_s \dot{l}_s ,//_s dB_s\> + dV_{T-s}(W_s l_s)ds\right)\int_0^T \dot{k}_s W_s^{-1} //_s dB_s\right] \end{split}$$ where the processes $k$ and $l$ are assumed to vanish outside of a regular domain. For the case $Z=0$ and $V=0$, a formula for $\Delta P_T $ acting on differential forms was given in [@EL3]. Our formula therefore extends that result for the case of functions.\ \ Our formula for $\nabla dP_tf$ is given by Theorem \[thm:locformtwo\]. For $v,w \in T_{x_0}M$ it states $$\begin{split} &(\nabla d P^V_Tf)(v,w) \\ =\text{ }& - {\mathbb{E}}\left[ \V_T f(x_T)\mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T < \zeta(x_0)\rbrace}\int_0^T\langle W^{\prime}_s(\dot{k}_sv,w), //_s dB_s\rangle\right]\\ &-{\mathbb{E}}\left[ \V_T f(x_T)\mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T < \zeta(x_0)\rbrace}\int_0^T ((\nabla d V_{T-s})(W_s(k_sv),W_s(w))+(dV_{T-s})(W^{\prime}_s(k_sv,w)))ds\right]\\ &+{\mathbb{E}}\left[ \V_T f(x_T)\mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T < \zeta(x_0)\rbrace}\left(\int_{0}^T \< W_s( \dot{l}_sw),//_s dB_s\> + dV_{T-s}( W_s(l_sw)) ds\right)\right.\\ &\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\left.\cdot\left(\int_0^{T} \<W_s (\dot{k}_sv),//_sdB_s\>+ dV_{T-s}(W_s(k_sv))ds\right)\right] \end{split}$$ where $W^{\prime}_t$ solves a covariant Itô equation determined by the curvature tensor and its derivatives. This result extends [@APT Theorem 2.1] which concerned the case $Z=0$ and $V=0$. Moreover our proof is more direct than the one given there in that it does not rely on the formulation of a stochastic differential equation. It instead uses a commutation relation based on the differential Bianchi identity.\ \ The formulae mentioned above are derived in Section \[sec:localform\]. Solutions to the time independent equation $$(L - V)\phi = -E \phi$$ with $E \in \mathbb{R}$ are subject to a similar analysis, as outlined in Section \[sec:statsolns\]. In Section \[sec:localest\] we use the formulae of Section \[sec:localform\] to derive local and global estimates. We do by choosing the processes $k$ and $l$ appropriately, as in [@Thalmaier97] and [@APT], and applying the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. The local estimates are given by Theorems \[thm:locestone\], \[thm:locestonehalf\] and \[thm:locesttwo\]; the global estimates as corollaries. The global estimates imply the boundedness of $dP^V_tf$, $LP^V_tf$ and $\nabla dP^V_tf$ on $[\epsilon,T]\times M$. These bounds lead to the non-local formulae of Section \[sec:globform\], in which the processes $k$ and $l$ are chosen deterministically. For the case in which $Z$ is gradient, global estimates on the logarithmic derivatives of the integral kernel can then be derived, using Jensen’s inequality. These are given in Section \[sec:kerests\]. For the special case $V=0$, local estimates for the gradient and Hessian can be found in [@ATW] and [@YiLi], repsectively. For the general case, our estimates extend the gradient and Hessian estimates of [@HsuEstimates] and [@StroockTuretsky].\ \ One application of our results is that they can be used to obtain formulae and estimates for the derivatives of the transition density $p^Z_t(x,y)$ of the diffusion with generator $L$ in the *forward* variable $y$. This is because, according to the Fokker-Planck equation, one has the relation $$p^Z_t(x,y) = p^{-Z,-\operatorname{div}Z}_t(y,x)$$ where $p^{-Z,-\operatorname{div}Z}_t(y,x)$ denotes the minimal integral kernel for the semigroup generated by the operator $L^\ast = \frac{1}{2}\Delta -Z -\operatorname{div}Z$. In particular, Bismut-type formulae for the derivatives in $y$ of the right-hand side are given simply by conditioning in the formulae stated above (having replaced $Z$ with $-Z$ and $V$ with $-\operatorname{div}Z$). Further analysis of this problem, including a Bismut-type formula for the forward variable expressed in terms of the original diffusion, as opposed to its dual, will be considered in a subsequent article. Local Formulae {#sec:localform} ============== For the remainder of this article, we fix $T>0$ and set $f_t := P^V_{T-t}f(x_0)$. Gradient {#ss:firstderlocform} -------- Denote by ${\Ric}^\sharp_Z := {\Ric}^\sharp - 2\nabla Z$ the Bakry-Emery tensor (see [@BL2]). Then the damped parallel transport $W_t: T_{x_0}M \rightarrow T_{x_t}M$ is the solution, along the paths of $x_t$, to the covariant ordinary differential equation $$DW_t = - \frac{1}{2}{\Ric}^\sharp_Z W_t$$ with $W_0 = \id_{T_{x_0}M}$. Suppose $D$ is a regular domain in $M$ with $x_0 \in D$ and denote by $\tau$ the first exit time of $x_t$ from $D$. \[lem:locmartone\] Suppose $v \in T_{x_0}M$ and that $k$ is a bounded adapted process with paths in the Cameron-Martin space $L^{1,2}([0,T];\operatorname{Aut}(T_{x_0}M))$ such that $k_t = 0$ for $t \geq T-\epsilon$. Then $$\label{eq:locmartingone} \V_t df_t (W_t (k_tv)) -\V_tf_t(x_t)\int_0^t \< W_s (\dot{k}_sv),//_s dB_s\> -\int_0^t \V_sf_s(x_s)dV_{T-s}(W_s (k_sv)) ds$$ is a local martingale on $[0,\tau \wedge T)$. Setting $N_t(v) := df_t(W_t(v))$ we see by Itô’s formula and the relations $$\begin{split} d \Delta f =& \operatorname{tr}\nabla^2 df - df({\Ric}^\sharp)\\ dZf = & \nabla_Z df + df(\nabla Z)\\ dV_tf = & f dV_t + V_t df \end{split}$$ (the first one is the Weitzenböck formula) that $$\begin{split} dN_t(v) \stackrel{m}{=}\text{ }& df_t(DW_t(v))dt+(\partial_t df_t)(W_t(v))dt + \left(\frac{1}{2}\operatorname{tr}\nabla^2 + \nabla_Z\right)(df_t)(W_t(v))dt \\ =\text{ }& V_{T-t} N_t(v) dt +f_t(x_t) dV_{T-t}(W_t(v))dt \end{split}$$ where $\stackrel{m}{=}$ denotes equality modulo the differential of a local martingale. Recalling the definition of $\V_t$ given by equation , it follows that $$d(\V_t N_t(k_t v) ) \stackrel{m}{=} \V_t N_t(\dot{k}_t v) dt + \V_t f_t(x_t) dV_{T-t}(W_t( k_tv))dt$$ so that $$\V_t N_t( k_tv) -\int_0^t\V_s df_s(W_s(\dot{k}_sv))ds - \int_0^t \V_sf_s(x_s) dV(W_s(k_sv))ds$$ is a local martingale. By the formula $$\V_t f_t(x_t) = f_0(x_0) + \int_0^t \V_s df_s(//_s dB_s)$$ and integration by parts we see that $$\int_0^t\V_s df_s( W_s(\dot{k}_sv))ds - \V_t f_t(x_t) \int_0^t \langle W_s (\dot{k}_sv),//_sdB_s\rangle$$ is also a local martingale and so the lemma is proved. \[thm:locformone\] Suppose $x_0\in D$ with $v \in T_{x_0}M$, $f \in \mathcal{B}_b$, $V$ bounded below and $T>0$. Suppose $k$ is a bounded adapted process with paths in the Cameron-Martin space $L^{1,2}([0,T];\operatorname{Aut}(T_{x_0}M))$ such that $k_0=1$, $k_t=0$ for $t \geq \tau \wedge T$ and $\int_0^{\tau \wedge T} |\dot{k}_s|^2ds \in L^1$. Then $$\label{eq:formulalocone} (dP^V_Tf)(v) = - \mathbb{E}\left[ \V_T f(x_T)\mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T < \zeta(x_0)\rbrace} \int_0^{T} \langle W_s (\dot{k}_s v),//_sdB_s\rangle+dV_{T-s}(W_s (k_sv)) ds \right].$$ As in the proof of [@Thalmaier97 Theorem 2.3], the process $k_t$ can be modified to $k^\epsilon_t$ so that $k^\epsilon_t = k_t$ for $t \leq \tau \wedge (T-2\epsilon)$ and $k^\epsilon_t = 0$ for $t \geq \tau \wedge (T-\epsilon)$, cutting off appropriately in between. Since $(df_t)_x$ is smooth and therefore bounded for $(t,x) \in [0,T-\epsilon]\times D$, it follows from Lemma \[lem:locmartone\] and the strong Markov property that formula holds with $k^\epsilon_t$ in place of $k_t$. The result follows by taking $\epsilon \downarrow 0$. Generator {#ss:secderlocformhalf} --------- Now suppose $D_1$ and $D_2$ are regular domains with $x_0 \in D_1$ and $\overline{D_1}\subset D_2$. Denote by $\sigma$ and $\tau$ the first exit times of $x_t$ from $D_1$ and $D_2$, respectively. \[lem:locmartonehalf\] Suppose $x_0 \in D_1$ and $0<S<T$ and that $k,l$ are bounded adapted processes with paths in the Cameron-Martin space $L^{1,2}([0,T];\mathbb{R})$ such that $k_s=0$ for $s \geq \sigma \wedge S$, $l_s = 1$ for $s \leq \sigma \wedge S$ and $l_s = 0$ for $s \geq \tau \wedge (T-\epsilon)$. Then $$\label{eq:locmartingonehalf} \begin{split} &\V_t(L f_t)(x_t)k_t -\frac{1}{2}\V_t df_t\left(W_t l_t\int_0^t \dot{k}_s W_s^{-1} //_s dB_s\right)\\ &\quad+\frac{1}{2}\V_t f_t(x_t)\int_0^t \< W_s \dot{l}_s,//_s dB_s\>\int_0^t \dot{k}_s W_s^{-1} //_s dB_s\\ &\quad\quad \frac{1}{2}\int_0^t \V_s f_s(x_s) dV_{T-s}( W_sl_s) ds \int_0^t \dot{k}_s W_s^{-1}//_sdB_s\\ &\quad\quad\quad+\V_t f_t(x_t)\int_0^t \langle \dot{k}_s Z- k_s \nabla V_{T-s},//_s dB_s\rangle \\ &\quad\quad\quad\quad-\int_0^t \V_s f_s k_s LV_{T-s}ds \end{split}$$ is a local martingale on $[0,\tau \wedge T)$. Defining $$n_t := \left(L f_t \right)(x_t)$$ we have, by Itô’s formula, that $$\begin{split} d n_t =\text{ }& d(L f_t)_{x_t}//_t dB_t +\partial_t (L f_t)(x_t)dt + L(L f_t)(x_t) dt\\ =\text{ }& d(L f_t)_{x_t}//_t dB_t + L(V_{T-t}f_t)dt\\ =\text{ }& d(L f_t)_{x_t}//_t dB_t + (L V_{T-t})f_t dt+ V_{T-t} n_t dt + \langle df_t, dV_{T-t}\rangle dt. \end{split}$$ It follows that $$d( \V_t n_t k_t) \stackrel{m}{=} \V_t n_t \dot{k}_t + k_t \V_t ( f_t L V_{T-t}+ \langle df_t, dV_{T-t}\rangle ) dt$$ and so $$\V_t(L f_t)(x_t)k_t - \int_0^t \V_s (L f_s)(x_s)\dot{k}_sds - \int_0^t \V_s k_s (f_s LV_{T-s} + \langle df_s, dV_{T-s}\rangle )ds$$ is a local martingale, with $$-(L f_t) (x_t)\dot{k}_tdt= \left(\frac{1}{2}d^\ast d-Z\right) f_t (x_t)\dot{k}_t dt= \left(\frac{1}{2}d^\ast (df_t)-(df_t)(Z)\right)\dot{k}_t dt.$$ By the Weitzenbock formula $$d((df_t)(W_t)) = (\nabla_{//_t dB_t}df_t)(W_t) -V_{T-t} (df_t)(W_t) dt +f_t(x_t) dV_{T-t}(W_t)dt$$ from which it follows that $$d(\V_t(df_t)(W_t)) = \V_t(\nabla_{//_t dB_t}df_t)(W_t) + \V_t f_t(x_t) dV_{T-t}(W_t)dt.$$ Consequently, for an orthonormal basis $\lbrace e_i \rbrace_{i=1}^n$ of $T_{x_0}M$, by integration by parts we have $$\label{eqn:alocalmart} \begin{split} \V_t d^\ast (df_t) \dot{k}_tdt=&-\sum_{i=1}^n \V_t (\nabla_{//_t e_i} df_t)(//_t e_i) \dot{k}_tdt\\ \stackrel{m}{=}&-\V_t(\nabla_{//_t dB_t} df_t) (W_t\dot{k}_tW_t^{-1} //_t dB_t)\\ =&-d(\V_t df_t(W_t \int_0^t \dot{k}_sW_s^{-1} //_s dB_s))\\ &+d\left(\int_0^t \V_s f_s(x_s) dV_{T-s}(W_s)ds \int_0^t \dot{k}_sW_s^{-1} //_s dB_s\right). \end{split}$$ Furthermore $$\int_0^t\V_s df_s( Z)\dot{k}_s ds - \V_t f_t(x_t) \int_0^t \langle \dot{k}_s Z ,//_sdB_s\rangle$$ is a local martingale and therefore $$\begin{split} &\int_0^t \V_s (L f_s)(x_s)\dot{k}_sds \\ &\quad -\frac{1}{2}\V_t df_t(W_t \int_0^t \dot{k}_sW_s^{-1} //_s dB_s)+\frac{1}{2} \int_0^t \V_s f_s(x_s) dV_{T-s}(W_s)ds \int_0^t \dot{k}_sW_s^{-1} //_s dB_s\\ &\quad\quad +\V_t f_t(x_t)\int_0^t \langle \dot{k}_s Z,//_s dB_s\rangle \end{split}$$ is also a local martingale. By the assumptions on $k$ and $l$ it follows from Lemma \[lem:locmartone\] that $$\begin{aligned} O^1_t& =& \V_tdf_t(W_t((l_t-1))) -\mathbb{V}_tf_t(x_t)\int_0^t \< W_s( \dot{l}_s),//_s dB_s\> \\ & &\quad -\int_0^t \V_s f_s(x_s) dV_{T-s}( W_s((l_s-1))) ds,\\ O^2_t &= & \int_0^t \dot{k}_s W_s^{-1}//_sdB_s\end{aligned}$$ are two local martingales. So the product $O^1_tO^2_t$ is also a local martingale, since $O^1 = 0$ on $[0,\sigma \wedge S]$ with $O^2$ constant on $[\sigma \wedge S,\tau \wedge (T-\epsilon))$. Consequently $$\begin{split} &- \V_t df_t\left(W_t\int_0^t \dot{k}_s W_s^{-1} //_s dB_s\right)+\V_t df_t\left(W_t l_t\int_0^t \dot{k}_s W_s^{-1} //_s dB_s\right)\\ &-\V_t f_t(x_t)\int_0^t \< W_s \dot{l}_s,//_s dB_s\>\int_0^t \dot{k}_s W_s^{-1} //_s dB_s\\ & -\int_0^t \V_s f_s(x_s) dV_{T-s}( W_s((l_s-1))) ds \int_0^t \dot{k}_s W_s^{-1}//_sdB_s \end{split}$$ is a local martingale and therefore so is $$\begin{split} &\V_t(L f_t)(x_t)k_t -\frac{1}{2}\V_t df_t\left(W_t l_t\int_0^t \dot{k}_s W_s^{-1} //_s dB_s\right)\\ &+\frac{1}{2}\V_t f_t(x_t)\int_0^t \< W_s \dot{l}_s,//_s dB_s\>\int_0^t \dot{k}_s W_s^{-1} //_s dB_s\\ & +\frac{1}{2}\int_0^t \V_s f_s(x_s) dV_{T-s}( W_sl_s) ds \int_0^t \dot{k}_s W_s^{-1}//_sdB_s\\ &+\V_t f_t(x_t)\int_0^t \langle \dot{k}_s Z,//_s dB_s\rangle\\ & - \int_0^t \V_s k_s (f_s LV_{T-s} + \langle df_s, dV_{T-s}\rangle )ds. \end{split}$$ Since $$\int_0^t \V_s df_s(\nabla V_{T-s}) k_s ds - \V_t f_t(x_t) \int_0^t \langle k_s \nabla V_{T-s} ,//_sdB_s\rangle$$ is a local martingale, the result follows. \[lem:potlemma\] Suppose $x_0\in D_1$, $f \in \mathcal{B}_b$, $V$ bounded below and $0<S<T$. Suppose $k$ is a bounded adapted process with paths in the Cameron-Martin space $L^{1,2}([0,T];\mathbb{R})$ such that $k_s=0$ for $s \geq \sigma \wedge S$, $k_0=1$ and $\int_0^{\sigma \wedge S} |\dot{k}_s|^2ds \in L^1$. Then $$V_T(x_0) P^V_Tf(x_0) = {\mathbb{E}}\left[ \V_T f(x_T)\mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T<\zeta(x_0)\rbrace} \int_0^T (k_s \dot{V}_{T-s}(x_s)-\dot{k}_s V_{T-s}(x_s))ds\right].$$ By Itô’s formula, we have $$d(\V_t V_{T-t} f_t k_t) \stackrel{m}{=} -k_t \V_t \dot{V}_{T-t} f_t + \dot{k}_t \V_t V_{T-t} f_t$$ which implies $$\V_t V_{T-t}f_t k_t - \int_0^t ( \dot{k}_s \V_s V_{T-s} f_s -k_s \V_s \dot{V}_{T-s}f_s)ds$$ is a local martingale on $[0,\tau \wedge T)$. The assumptions on $f$ and $V$ imply it is a martingale on $[0,\tau \wedge T]$, so result follows by taking expectations and applying the strong Markov property. \[thm:formhalf\] Suppose $x_0 \in D_1$, $f \in \mathcal{B}_b$, $V$ bounded below and $0<S<T$. Suppose $k,l$ are bounded adapted processes with paths in the Cameron-Martin space $L^{1,2}([0,T];\mathbb{R})$ such that $k_s=0$ for $s \geq \sigma \wedge S$, $k_0=1$, $l_s = 1$ for $s \leq \sigma \wedge S$, $l_s = 0$ for $s \geq \tau \wedge T$, $\int_0^{\sigma \wedge S} |\dot{k}_s|^2 ds\in L^1$ and $\int_{\sigma \wedge S}^{\tau \wedge T} |\dot{l}_s|^2 ds \in L^1$. Then $$\begin{split} &L(P^V_Tf)(x_0) \\ =\text{ }&{\mathbb{E}}\left[ \V_T f(x_T)\mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T<\zeta(x_0)\rbrace}\int_0^T \langle \dot{k}_s Z,//_s dB_s\rangle \right]\\ & +\frac{1}{2}{\mathbb{E}}\left[ \V_T f(x_T)\mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T<\zeta(x_0)\rbrace}\left( \int_0^T \< W_s \dot{l}_s ,//_s dB_s\> + dV_{T-s}(W_s l_s)ds\right)\int_0^T \dot{k}_s W_s^{-1} //_s dB_s\right]. \end{split}$$ Modifying the process $l_t$ to $l^\epsilon_t$ as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:locformone\], it follows from Lemma \[lem:locmartonehalf\], the strong Markov property, the boundedness of $P^V_tf$ on $[0,T] \times \overline{D}_2$ and the boundedness of $dP_t^Vf$ and $L P_t^Vf$ on $[\epsilon,T] \times \overline{D}_2$ that the formula $$\begin{split} &L(P^V_Tf)(x_0)\\ =\text{ }& {\mathbb{E}}\left[ \V_T f(x_T)\mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T<\zeta(x_0)\rbrace}\left( \int_0^T \langle \dot{k}_s Z,//_s dB_s\rangle - \int_0^T k_s \left( dV_{T-s}(//_s dB_s) + L V_{T-s} ds\right) \right) \right]\\ \text{ }& +\frac{1}{2}{\mathbb{E}}\left[\V_T f(x_T)\mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T<\zeta(x_0)\rbrace}\left( \int_0^T \< W_s \dot{l}_s ,//_s dB_s\> + dV_{T-s}(W_s l_s)ds\right)\int_0^T \dot{k}_s W_s^{-1} //_s dB_s\right] \end{split}$$ holds with $l^\epsilon_t$ in place of $l_t$. The formula also holds as stated, in terms of $l_t$, by taking $\epsilon \downarrow 0$. Applying the Itô formula yields $$\int_0^T k_s \left( dV_{T-s}(//_s dB_s) + L V_{T-s} ds\right) = -V_T(x_0) +\int_0^T (k_s \dot{V}_{T-s}(x_s) -\dot{k}_s V_{T-s}(x_s))ds$$ and therefore $$\begin{split} &(L-V_T(x_0))(P^V_Tf)(x_0)\\ =\text{ }& {\mathbb{E}}\left[\V_T f(x_T)\mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T<\zeta(x_0)\rbrace} \left( \int_0^T \langle \dot{k}_s Z,//_s dB_s\rangle - \int_0^T (k_s \dot{V}_{T-s}(x_s) -\dot{k}_s V_{T-s}(x_s))ds \right) \right]\\ \text{ }& +\frac{1}{2}{\mathbb{E}}\left[\V_T f(x_T)\mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T<\zeta(x_0)\rbrace}\left( \int_0^T \< W_s \dot{l}_s ,//_s dB_s\> + dV_{T-s}(W_s l_s)ds\right)\int_0^T \dot{k}_s W_s^{-1} //_s dB_s\right]. \end{split}$$ The result follows from this by Lemma \[lem:potlemma\]. Hessian {#ss:secderlocform} ------- For each $w \in T_{x_0}M$ define an operator-valued process $W^{\prime}_t(\cdot,w) : T_{x_0}M \rightarrow T_{x_t}M$ by $$\begin{split} W^{\prime}_s(\cdot,w):=\text{ }& W_s \int_0^s W_r^{-1} R(//_r dB_r,W_r(\cdot))W_r (w)\\ &-\frac{1}{2} W_s \int_0^s W_r^{-1}(\nabla {\Ric}^\sharp_Z + d^\star R)(W_r (\cdot),W_r(w))dr. \end{split}$$ The operator $d^\star R$ is defined by $d^\star R(v_1)v_2 := -\operatorname{tr}\nabla_\cdot R(\cdot,v_1)v_2$ and satisfies $$\langle d^\star R(v_1)v_2,v_3\rangle = \langle (\nabla_{v_3} {\Ric}^\sharp) (v_1),v_2\rangle- \langle (\nabla_{v_2} {\Ric}^\sharp) (v_3),v_1\rangle$$ for all $v_1,v_2,v_3 \in T_xM$ and $x \in M$. The process $W^{\prime}_t(\cdot,w)$ is the solution to the covariant Itô equation $$\begin{split} DW^{\prime}_t(\cdot,w) =\text{ }& R(//_tdB_t,W_t( \cdot ))W_t(w)\\ & -\frac{1}{2} \left(d^\star R+\nabla {\Ric}^\sharp_Z\right) (W_t( \cdot),W_t(w))dt\\ &\quad-\frac{1}{2} {\Ric}^\sharp_Z (W^{\prime}_t(\cdot,w))dt \end{split}$$ with $W^{\prime}_0(\cdot,w) = 0$. As in the previous section, suppose $D_1$ and $D_2$ are regular domains with $x_0 \in D_1$ and $\overline{D_1}\subset D_2$. Denote by $\sigma$ and $\tau$ the first exit times of $x_t$ from $D_1$ and $D_2$, respectively. \[lem:locmarttwo\] Suppose $v,w \in T_{x_0}M$, $0<S<T$ and that $k,l$ are bounded adapted processes with paths in the Cameron-Martin space $L^{1,2}([0,T];\operatorname{Aut}(T_{x_0}M))$ such that $k_s=0$ for $s \geq \sigma \wedge S$, $l_s = 1$ for $s \leq \sigma \wedge T$ and $l_s = 0$ for $s \geq \tau \wedge (T-\epsilon)$. Then $$\begin{aligned} &\V_t(\nabla df_t)(W_t(k_tv),W_t(w)) + \V_t(df_t)(W^{\prime}_t (k_tv,w))- \V_tf_t(x_t)\int_0^t\langle W^{\prime}_s(\dot{k}_sv,w), //_s dB_s\rangle\\ &\quad- \int_0^t \V_sf_s (x_s)((\nabla d V_{T-s})(W_s(k_sv),W_s(w))+(dV_{T-s})(W^{\prime}_s(k_sv,w)))ds\\ &\quad\quad+\mathbb{V}_tf_t(x_t)\int_{0}^t \< W_s( \dot{l}_sw),//_s dB_s\>\int_0^{t} \<W_s (\dot{k}_sv),//_sdB_s\>\\ &\quad\quad\quad-\V_tdf_t(W_t(l_tw))\int_0^t \<W_s (\dot{k}_sv),//_sdB_s\> \\ &\quad\quad\quad\quad +\int_{0}^{t} \V_s f_s(x_s) dV_{T-s}( W_s((l_s-1)w)) ds\int_0^{t} \<W_s (\dot{k}_sv),//_sdB_s\> \\ &\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad+\int_0^t \V_sf_s(x_s) dV_{T-s}(W_s(w))\int_0^s \langle W_r(\dot{k}_rv),//_r dB_r\rangle ds\\ &\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad -2\int_0^t \V_s(df_s\odot dV_{T-s})(W_s(k_sv),W_s(w))ds \tag{2}\end{aligned}$$ is a local martingale on $[0,\tau \wedge T)$. Setting $$N^{\prime}_t(v,w) := (\nabla d f_t)(W_t(v),W_t(w)) + (df_t)(W^{\prime}_t (v,w))$$ and $$R^{\sharp,\sharp}_x(v_1,v_2) := R_x(\cdot,v_1,v_2,\cdot)^{\sharp}\in T_xM\otimes T_xM$$ we see by Itô’s formula and the relations $$\begin{split} d \Delta f =& \operatorname{tr}\nabla^2 df - df({\Ric}^\sharp)\\ dZf = & \nabla_Z df + df(\nabla Z)\\ dVf = & f dV + V df\\ \nabla d (\Delta f) =& \operatorname{tr}\nabla^2 (\nabla d f) - 2(\nabla d f)({\Ric}^\sharp \odot \id - R^{\sharp,\sharp}) - df(d^\star R + \nabla {\Ric}^\sharp)\\ \nabla d (Zf) =& \nabla_Z (\nabla d f) + 2(\nabla d f)(\nabla Z \odot \id) + df(\nabla \nabla Z)\\ \nabla d (V_t f) =& f \nabla d V_t + 2df \odot dV_t + V_t \nabla d f \end{split}$$ (the fourth one is a consequence of the differential Bianchi identity; see [@ChowHamilton p. 219]) that $$\begin{split} &dN^{\prime}_t(v,w)\\ =\text{ }& (\nabla_{//_t dB_t} \nabla d f_t)(W_t(v),W_t(w)) + (\nabla d f_t)\left(\frac{D}{dt}W_t(v),W_t(w)\right)dt \\ &+ (\nabla d f_t)\left(W_t(v),\frac{D}{dt}W_t(w)\right)dt\\ &+ \partial_t (\nabla d f_t)(W_t(v),W_t(w))dt + \left(\frac{1}{2}\operatorname{tr}\nabla^2 + \nabla_Z\right) (\nabla d f_t)(W_t(v),W_t(w))dt\\ &+ (\nabla_{//_tdB_t} df_t)(W^{\prime}_t(v,w)) + (df_t)\left(DW^{\prime}_t(v,w)\right) + \langle d(df_t),DW^{\prime}_t(v,w)\rangle\\ & + \partial_t (df_t)(W^{\prime}_t(v,w))dt + \left(\frac{1}{2}\operatorname{tr}\nabla^2 + \nabla_Z\right)(df_t)(W^{\prime}_t(v,w))dt\\ \stackrel{m}{=}\text{ }& f_t(x_t) (\nabla d V_{T-t})(W_t(v),W_t(w))dt + f_t(x_t) (dV_{T-t})(W^{\prime}_t(v,w))dt \\[7pt] &+ 2(df_t\odot dV_{T-t})(W_t(v),W_t(w))dt + V_{T-t} N^{\prime}_t(v,w)dt \end{split}$$ for which we calculated $$\left[ d(df),DW^{\prime}(v,w)\right]_t = (\nabla d f_t)(R^{\sharp,\sharp}(W_t(v),W_t(w)))dt.$$ It follows that $$\begin{split} d(\V_tN^{\prime}_t(k_t v,w)) \stackrel{m}{=}\text{ }& \V_tf_t(x_t) ((\nabla d V_{T-t})(W_t(k_t v),W_t(w))+(dV_{T-t})(W^{\prime}_t(k_tv,w)))dt\\ &+\V_tN_t(\dot{k}_tv,w)dt+ 2\V_t(df_t\odot dV_{T-t})(W_t(k_tv),W_t(w))dt \end{split}$$ so that $$\begin{split} &\V_tN^{\prime}_t(k_t v,w) - \int_0^t \V_s (\nabla d f_s)(W_s(\dot{k}_s v),W_s(w)) ds - \int_0^t \V_s (df_s)(W^{\prime}_s (\dot{k}_s v,w))ds\\ &\quad-2\int_0^t\V_s(df_s \odot dV_{T-s})(W_s(k_sv),W_s(w))ds\\ &\quad\quad- \int_0^t \V_sf_s(x_s) ((\nabla d V_{T-s})(W_s(k_sv),W_sw))+(dV_{T-s})(W^{\prime}_s(k_sv,w)))ds \end{split}$$ is a local martingale. By the formula $$\V_t f_t(x_t) = f_0(x_0) +\int_0^t \V_s df_s(//_sdB_s)$$ and integration by parts we see that $$\int_0^t\V_s(df_s)(W^{\prime}_s(\dot{k}_sv,w)) ds -\V_tf_t(x_t)\int_0^t\langle W^{\prime}_s(\dot{k}_s v,w), //_s dB_s\rangle$$ is a local martingale. Similarly, by the formula $$\V_t df_t(W_t) = df_0 + \int_0^t \V_s(\nabla d f_s)(//_sdB_s,W_s) + \int_0^t \V_s f_s(x_s) dV_{T-s}(W_s)ds$$ and integration by parts we see that $$\begin{split} &\int_0^t \V_s (\nabla d f_s)(W_s(\dot{k}_s v),W_s(w)) ds-\V_tdf_t(W_t(w))\int_0^t \langle W_s(\dot{k}_sv),//_sdB_s\rangle \\ &\quad+\int_0^t \V_sf_s(x_s) dV_{T-s}(W_s(w))\int_0^s \langle W_r(\dot{k}_rv),//_r dB_r\rangle ds \end{split}$$ is yet another local martingale. Therefore $$\begin{split} &\V_t(\nabla d f_t)(W_t(k_tv),W_t(w)) + \V_t(df_t)(W^{\prime}_t (k_tv,w))\\ &\quad- \int_0^t \V_sf_s(x_s) ((\nabla d V_{T-s})(W_s(k_sv),W_s(w))+(dV_{T-s})(k_s W^{\prime}_s(v,w)))ds\\ &\quad\quad - \V_tf_t(x_t)\int_0^t\langle W^{\prime}_s(\dot{k}_s v,w), //_s dB_s\rangle-2\int_0^t \V_s(df_s\odot dV_{T-s})(W_s(k_sv),W_s(w))ds\\ &\quad\quad\quad+\int_0^t \V_sf_s(x_s) dV_{T-s}(W_s(w))\int_0^s \langle W_r(\dot{k}_rv),//_r dB_r\rangle ds\\ &\quad\quad\quad\quad -\V_tdf_t(W_t(w))\int_0^t \langle W_s(\dot{k}_sv),//_sdB_s\rangle \end{split}$$ is a local martingale. By Lemma \[lem:locmartone\] it follows that $$\begin{aligned} O^1_t& =& \V_tdf_t(W_t((l_t-1)w)) -\mathbb{V}_tf_t(x_t)\int_0^t \< W_s( \dot{l}_sw),//_s dB_s\> \\ & &\quad -\int_0^t \V_s f_s(x_s) dV_{T-s}( W_s((l_s-1)w)) ds,\\ O^2_t &= & \int_0^t \<W_s (\dot{k}_sv),//_sdB_s\>\end{aligned}$$ are two local martingales. So the product $O^1_tO^2_t$ is also a local martingale, since $O^1 = 0$ on $[0,\sigma \wedge S]$ with $O^2$ constant on $[\sigma \wedge S,\tau \wedge (T-\epsilon))$. Applying this fact to the previous equation completes the proof. \[thm:locformtwo\] Suppose $x_0 \in D_1$ with $v,w \in T_{x_0}M$, $f \in \mathcal{B}_b$, $V$ bounded below and $0<S<T$. Assume $k,l$ are bounded adapted processes with paths in the Cameron-Martin space $L^{1,2}([0,T];\operatorname{Aut}(T_{x_0}M))$ such that $k_s=0$ for $s \geq \sigma \wedge S$, $k_0=1$, $l_s = 1$ for $s \leq \sigma \wedge S$, $l_s = 0$ for $s \geq \tau \wedge T$, $\int_0^{\sigma \wedge S} |\dot{k}_s|^2 ds\in L^1$ and $\int_{\sigma \wedge S}^{\tau \wedge T} |\dot{l}_s|^2 ds \in L^1$. Then $$\begin{split} &(\nabla d P^V_Tf)(v,w) \\ =\text{ }& - {\mathbb{E}}\left[ \V_T f(x_T)\mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T < \zeta(x_0)\rbrace}\int_0^T\langle W^{\prime}_s(\dot{k}_sv,w), //_s dB_s\rangle\right]\\ &-{\mathbb{E}}\left[ \V_T f(x_T)\mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T < \zeta(x_0)\rbrace}\int_0^T ((\nabla d V_{T-s})(W_s(k_sv),W_s(w))+(dV_{T-s})(W^{\prime}_s(k_sv,w)))ds\right]\\ &+{\mathbb{E}}\left[ \V_T f(x_T)\mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T < \zeta(x_0)\rbrace}\left(\int_{0}^T \< W_s( \dot{l}_sw),//_s dB_s\> + dV_{T-s}( W_s(l_sw)) ds\right)\right.\\ &\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\left.\cdot\left(\int_0^{T} \<W_s (\dot{k}_sv),//_sdB_s\>+ dV_{T-s}(W_s(k_sv))ds\right)\right]. \end{split}$$ Modifying the process $l_t$ to $l^\epsilon_t$ as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:locformone\], it follows from Lemma \[lem:locmarttwo\], the strong Markov property, the boundedness of $P^V_tf$ on $[0,T] \times \overline{D}_2$ and the boundedness of $dP_t^Vf$ and $\nabla d P_t^Vf$ on $[\epsilon,T] \times \overline{D}_2$ that the formula $$\begin{split} &(\nabla d P^V_Tf)(v,w) \\ =\text{ }& - {\mathbb{E}}\left[ \V_T f(x_T)\mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T < \zeta(x_0)\rbrace}\int_0^{T}\langle W^{\prime}_s(\dot{k}_sv,w), //_s dB_s\rangle\right]\\ &+{\mathbb{E}}\left[ \V_T f(x_T)\mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T < \zeta(x_0)\rbrace}\int_{0}^T \< W_s( \dot{l}_sw),//_s dB_s\>\int_0^{T} \<W_s (\dot{k}_sv),//_sdB_s\>\right]\\ &-{\mathbb{E}}\left[\V_Tf(x_T)\mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T < \zeta(x_0)\rbrace} \int_0^{T} ((\nabla d V_{T-s})(W_s(k_sv),W_s(w))+(dV_{T-s})(W^{\prime}_s(k_sv,w)))ds\right]\\ &+{\mathbb{E}}\left[ \V_T f(x_T)\mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T < \zeta(x_0)\rbrace} \int_{0}^T dV_{T-s}( W_s(l_sw)) ds\int_0^{T} \<W_s (\dot{k}_sv),//_sdB_s\>\right] \\ &-{\mathbb{E}}\left[\V_T f(x_T)\mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T < \zeta(x_0)\rbrace}\int_0^{T} \left(\int_0^s dV(W_r(w))dr\right) \langle W_s(\dot{k}_sv),//_s dB_s\rangle \right]\\ & -{\mathbb{E}}\left[ \int_0^{T} \V_sdf_s(W_s(k_s v))dV_{T-s}(W_s(w))ds\right]\\ & -{\mathbb{E}}\left[ \int_0^{T} \V_sdf_s(W_s(w))dV_{T-s}(W_s(k_s v))ds\right] \end{split}$$ holds with $l^\epsilon_t$ in place of $l_t$, and therefore in terms of $l_t$ by taking $\epsilon \downarrow 0$. Paying close attention to the assumptions on $l$ and $k$, it follows from this, by Theorem \[thm:locformone\] and the strong Markov property, that $$\begin{aligned} & -\mathbb{E}\left[ \int_0^{T} \V_sdf_s(W_s (w))dV_{T-s}(W_s(k_s v))ds \right]\\ =\text{ }& +\mathbb{E}\left[ \V_T f(x_T)\mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T < \zeta(x_0)\rbrace} \int_0^{T} \int_r^{T} \<W_s (\dot{l}_sw) ,//_s dB_s\>dV_{T-r}(W_r(k_rv))dr \right]\\ \text{ } & - \mathbb{E}\left[\V_T f(x_T)\mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T < \zeta(x_0)\rbrace}\int_0^{T} \left( \int_0^r dV_{T-u}(W_u (w)) du\right)dV_{T-r}(W_r(k_rv))dr \right]\\ \text{ }&+ \mathbb{E}\left[ \V_T f(x_T)\mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T < \zeta(x_0)\rbrace} \int_0^{T}dV_{T-r}(W_r(k_rv))dr \int_0^{T} dV_{T-s}(W_s( l_sw))ds \right]\\ =\text{ }& +\mathbb{E}\left[ \V_T f(x_T)\mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T < \zeta(x_0)\rbrace} \int_{0}^{T} \<W_s (\dot{l}_sw) ,//_s dB_s\> \int_0^{T} dV_{T-r}(W_r(k_rv))dr \right]\\ \text{ } & - \mathbb{E}\left[\V_T f(x_T)\mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T < \zeta(x_0)\rbrace} \int_0^{T} \left( \int_0^r dV_{T-u}(W_u (w)) du\right)dV_{T-r}(W_r(k_rv))dr \right]\\ \text{ }&+ \mathbb{E}\left[ \V_T f(x_T)\mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T < \zeta(x_0)\rbrace} \int_0^{T}dV_{T-r}(W_r(k_rv))dr \int_0^{T} dV_{T-s}(W_s( l_sw))ds \right]\end{aligned}$$ from which it follows that $$\begin{split} &(\nabla d P^V_Tf)(v,w) \\ =\text{ }& - {\mathbb{E}}\left[ \V_T f(x_T)\mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T < \zeta(x_0)\rbrace}\int_0^T\langle W^{\prime}_s(\dot{k}_sv,w), //_s dB_s\rangle\right]\\ &+{\mathbb{E}}\left[ \V_T f(x_T)\mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T < \zeta(x_0)\rbrace}\int_{0}^T \< W_s( \dot{l}_sw),//_s dB_s\>\int_0^{T} \<W_s (\dot{k}_sv),//_sdB_s\>\right]\\ &-{\mathbb{E}}\left[\V_Tf(x_T)\mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T < \zeta(x_0)\rbrace} \int_0^T ((\nabla d V_{T-s})(W_s(k_sv),W_s(w))+(dV_{T-s})(W^{\prime}_s(k_sv,w)))ds\right]\\ &+{\mathbb{E}}\left[ \V_T f(x_T)\mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T < \zeta(x_0)\rbrace} \int_{0}^T dV_{T-s}( W_s(l_sw)) ds\int_0^{T} \<W_s (\dot{k}_sv),//_sdB_s\>\right] \\ & + \mathbb{E}\left[ \V_T f(x_T) \mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T < \zeta(x)\rbrace}\int_{0}^{T} \<W_s \dot{l}_sw ,//_s dB_s\> \int_0^{T} dV_{T-r}(W_r(k_rv))dr \right]\\ \text{ }&+ \mathbb{E}\left[ \V_T f(x_T) \mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T < \zeta(x)\rbrace} \int_0^{T}dV_{T-r}(W_r(k_rv)) dr \int_0^{T} dV_{T-s}( W_s (l_sw))ds \right]\\ &-{\mathbb{E}}\left[\V_T f(x_T)\mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T < \zeta(x)\rbrace} \int_0^{T}\left( \int_0^s dV_{T-r}(W_r(w))dr\right)\langle W_s(\dot{k}_sv),//_s dB_s\rangle \right]\\ &-{\mathbb{E}}\left[\V_T f(x_T)\mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T < \zeta(x)\rbrace} \int_0^{T}\left( \int_0^s dV_{T-r}(W_r(w))dr\right)dV_{T-s}(W_s(k_sv))ds\right]\\ & -{\mathbb{E}}\left[ \int_0^{T} \V_sdf_s(W_s(k_s v))dV_{T-s}(W_s(w))ds\right]. \end{split}$$ Finally, by the stochastic Fubini theorem [@Veraar Theorem 2.2] we have $$\begin{split} &{\mathbb{E}}\left[\V_T f(x_T)\mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T < \zeta(x_0)\rbrace}\int_0^{T} \int_0^s dV_{T-r}(W_r(w))dr (\langle W_s(\dot{k}_sv),//_s dB_s\rangle +dV_{T-s}(W_sk_sv)ds)\right]\\ =\text{ }&{\mathbb{E}}\left[\V_T f(x_T)\mathbf{1}_{\lbrace T < \zeta(x_0)\rbrace}\int_0^{T} \left(\int_s^{T} \langle W_r(\dot{k}_rv),//_r dB_r\rangle +dV_{T-r}(W_rk_rv)dr\right) dV_{T-s}(W_s(w))ds\right]\\ \end{split}$$ which cancels the final three terms in the previous equation, by the strong Markov property, Theorem \[thm:locformone\] and the assumptions on $k$. For the case $Z=0$ and $V=0$, Theorem \[thm:locformtwo\] reduces to [@APT Theorem 2.1]. \[rem:notsmooth\] We have assumed that $V$ is bounded below and smooth. However, so long as $V$ is bounded below and continuous with $V_t \in C^1$ for each $t \in [0,T]$ and $P^V f\in C^{1,3}([\epsilon,T]\times M)$ then the results of Subsection \[ss:firstderlocform\] evidently remain valid. Similarly, the results of Subsection \[ss:secderlocformhalf\] evidently remain valid if $V$ is bounded below, $C^1$ with $V_t \in C^2$ for each $t \in [0,T]$ and $P^V f\in C^{1,4}([\epsilon,T]\times M)$. Similarly, the results of Subsection \[ss:secderlocform\] evidently remain valid if $V$ is bounded below and continuous with $V_t \in C^2$ for each $t \in [0,T]$ and $P^V f\in C^{1,4}([\epsilon,T]\times M)$. Stationary Solutions {#sec:statsolns} ==================== Now suppose $\phi\in C^2(D) \cap C(\overline{D})$ solves the eigenvalue equation $$(L - V)\phi = -E \phi$$ on the regular domain $D$, for some $E \in \mathbb{R}$ and a function $V\in C^2$ which does not depend on time and which is bounded below. Denoting by $\tau$ the first exit time from $D$ of the diffusion $x_t$ with generator $L$ and assuming $x_0 \in D$, one has, in analogy to the Feynman-Kac formula , the formula $$\phi(x_0) = {\mathbb{E}}\left[ \V_\tau \phi(x_\tau) e^{E\tau}\right].$$ Furthermore, the methods of the previous section can easily be adapted to find formulae for the derivatives of $\phi$. In particular, one simply sets $f_t = \phi$, replaces $V_{T-t}$ with $V-E$ and the calculations carry over almost verbatim (although there is no application of the strong Markov property; in this case the local martingale property is enough). In particular, for the derivative $d\phi$, supposing $k$ is a bounded adapted process with paths in the Cameron-Martin space $L^{1,2}([0,\infty),\operatorname{Aut}(T_{x_0}M))$ with $k_0=1$, $k_t=0$ for $t \geq \tau$ and $\int_0^{\tau} |\dot{k}_s|^2 ds\in L^1$, one obtains $$(d\phi)(v) = - \mathbb{E}\left[ \V_\tau \phi(x_\tau)e^{E \tau} \int_0^{\tau} \langle W_s (\dot{k}_s v),//_sdB_s\rangle+dV(W_s (k_sv)) ds \right]$$ for each $v \in T_{x_0}M$. When $V=0$ and $E=0$ this formulae reduces to the one given in [@Thalmaier97]. Similarly, denoting by $D_1$ a regular domain with $x_0 \in D_1$ and $\overline{D_1}\subset D $ and by $\sigma$ the first exit time of $x_t$ from $D_1$, supposing $k,l$ are bounded adapted processes with paths in the Cameron-Martin space $L^{1,2}([0,\infty);\operatorname{Aut}(T_{x_0}M))$ such that $k_s=0$ for $s \geq \sigma$, $k_0=1$, $l_s = 1$ for $s \leq \sigma$, $l_s = 0$ for $s \geq \tau$, $\int_0^{\sigma} |\dot{k}_s|^2 ds\in L^1$ and $\int_{\sigma }^{\tau} |\dot{l}_s|^2 ds \in L^1$, for the Hessian of $\phi$ one obtains $$\begin{split} &(\nabla d \phi)(v,w) \\ =\text{ }& - {\mathbb{E}}\left[ \V_\sigma \phi(x_\sigma)e^{E \sigma}\int_0^\sigma \langle W^{\prime}_s(\dot{k}_sv,w), //_s dB_s\rangle\right]\\ &-{\mathbb{E}}\left[ \V_\sigma \phi(x_\sigma)e^{E \sigma}\int_0^\sigma ((\nabla d V)(W_s(k_sv),W_s(w))+(dV)(W^{\prime}_s(k_sv,w)))ds\right]\\ &+{\mathbb{E}}\left[ \V_\tau \phi(x_\tau)e^{E \tau}\left(\int_{0}^\tau \< W_s( \dot{l}_sw),//_s dB_s\> + dV( W_s(l_sw)) ds\right)\right.\\ &\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\left.\cdot\left(\int_0^\sigma \<W_s (\dot{k}_sv),//_sdB_s\>+ dV(W_s(k_sv))ds\right)\right] \end{split}$$ for all $v,w \in T_{x_0}M$. Local and Global Estimates {#sec:localest} ========================== Gradient {#ss:firstderlocest} -------- \[thm:locestone\] Suppose $D_0,D$ are regular domains with $x_0 \in \overline{D_0} \subset D$, $V$ bounded below and $T>0$. Set $$\begin{split} \underline{\kappa}_D :=\text{ }& \inf \lbrace {\Ric}_Z(v,v):v \in T_y M,y \in D,|v|=1\rbrace;\\ v_D:=\text{ }& \sup \lbrace |(dV_t)_y(v)|: v \in T_y M,y \in D,|v|=1, t \in [0,T]\rbrace.\\ \end{split}$$ Then there exists a positive constant $C\equiv C(n,T,\inf V,\underline{\kappa}_D,v_D)$ such that $$\label{eq:locesttime} |dP^V_tf_{x_0}| \leq \frac{C}{\sqrt{t}}|f|_\infty$$ for all $0 < t \leq T$, $x_0 \in D_0$ and $f \in \mathcal{B}_b$. According to [@APT], the process $k_t$ appearing in Theorem \[thm:locformone\] can be chosen so that $|k_s| \leq c(T)$ for all $s \in [0,T]$, almost surely, with $$\mathbb{E}\left[ \int_0^{T} |\dot{k}_s|^2 ds\right]^\frac{1}{2}\leq \frac{\tilde{C}}{\sqrt{1-e^{-\tilde{C}^2T}}}$$ for a positive constant $\tilde{C}$ which depend continuously on $\underline{\kappa}$, $n$ and $d(\partial D_0,\partial D)$. The details of this can be found in [@ThalmaierWanggradest]. By Theorem \[thm:locformone\] and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality we have $$|dP^V_Tf|\leq |f|_\infty e^{( -\inf V-\frac{1}{2}(\underline{\kappa}_D \wedge 0)) T} \left( \mathbb{E}\left[ \int_0^{T} |\dot{k}_s|^2 ds\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}+ v_D {\mathbb{E}}\left[\left(\int_0^T |k_s| ds\right)^2\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)$$ so the estimate follows by substituting the bounds on $k$ and $\dot{k}$. \[cor:globestone\] Suppose ${\Ric}_Z$ is bounded below with $|dV|$ bounded and $V$ bounded below. Then for all $T>0$ there exists a positive constant $C\equiv C(n,T)$ such that $$|dP^V_tf_{x}| \leq \frac{C}{\sqrt{t}}|f|_\infty$$ for all $0 < t \leq T$, $x \in M$ and $f \in \mathcal{B}_b$. As explained in the proof of Theorem \[thm:locestone\], the dependence on $D_0$ of the constant appearing there is via the quantity $d(\partial D_0,\partial D)$. If $M$ is compact then the injectivity radius $\operatorname{inj}(M)$ is positive and we can choose $D_0= B_{\operatorname{inj}(M)/4}(x_0)$ and $D= B_{\operatorname{inj}(M)/2}(x_0)$, in which case $d(\partial D_0,\partial D) =\operatorname{inj}(M)/4$. Conversely, if $M$ is non-compact then for each $x_0 \in M$ there exist $D_0,D$ with $x_0 \in \overline{D_0} \subset D$ and $d(\partial D_0,\partial D) = 1$. Consequently, the result follows from Theorem \[thm:locestone\]. Generator {#generator} --------- \[thm:locestonehalf\] Suppose $D_0,D_1,D_2$ are regular domains with $x_0 \in \overline{D_0} \subset D_1$, $\overline{D_1} \subset D_2$, $V$ bounded below and $T>0$. Set $$\begin{split} \kappa_{D_2} :=\text{ }& \sup \lbrace |{\Ric}_Z(v,v)|: v \in T_y M,y \in D_2,|v|=1\rbrace;\\ v_{D_2}:=\text{ }& \sup \lbrace |(dV_t)_y(v)|: v \in T_y M,y \in D_2,|v|=1, t \in [0,T]\rbrace;\\ z_{D_1}:=\text{ }& \sup \lbrace |Z|_y: y \in D_1 \rbrace. \end{split}$$ Then there exists a positive constant $C\equiv C(n,T,\inf V,\kappa_{D_2},v_{D_2},z_{D_1})$ such that $$|L P^V_tf_{x_0}| \leq \frac{C}{t}|f|_\infty$$ for all $0 < t \leq T$, $x_0 \in D_0$ and $f \in \mathcal{B}_b$. According to [@APT], the processes $k_t$ and $l_t$ appearing in Theorem \[thm:formhalf\] can be chosen so that $$\begin{split} &|k_s| \leq c_1(n,\kappa_{D_1},T,d(\partial D_0,\partial D_1)),\\ &|l_s| \leq c_2(n,\kappa_{D_2},T,d(\partial D_0,\partial D_2)) \end{split}$$ for all $s \in [0,T]$, almost surely, with $$\mathbb{E}\left[ \int_0^{T} |\dot{k}_s|^2 ds\right]^\frac{1}{2}\leq \frac{\tilde{C}_1}{\sqrt{1-e^{-\tilde{C}_1^2T}}}, \quad \mathbb{E}\left[ \int_0^{T} |\dot{l}_s|^2 ds\right]^\frac{1}{2}\leq \frac{\tilde{C}_2}{\sqrt{1-e^{-\tilde{C}_2^2T}}}$$ for positive constants $\tilde{C}_1$ and $\tilde{C}_2$ which depend continuously on $\kappa$, $n$ and on $d(\partial D_0,\partial D_1)$ and $d(\partial D_0,\partial D_2)$, respectively. By Theorem \[thm:formhalf\] and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality we have $$\begin{split} &|L(P^V_Tf)(x_0)| \\ \leq\text{ }& e^{-\inf V}|f|_\infty z_{D_1} {\mathbb{E}}\left[\int_0^T |\dot{k}_s|^2ds\right]^\frac{1}{2}\\ & +\frac{1}{2}|f|_\infty e^{T(\kappa_{D_2}-\inf V)} {\mathbb{E}}\left[ \int_0^T |\dot{k}_s|^2ds\right]^\frac{1}{2} \left( {\mathbb{E}}\left[ \int_0^T |\dot{l}_s|^2ds\right]^\frac{1}{2} + v_{D_2} {\mathbb{E}}\left[\int_0^T |l_s|^2 ds\right]^\frac{1}{2}\right) \end{split}$$ so the result follows by substituting the bounds on $k,\dot{k},l$ and $\dot{l}$. \[cor:globesthalf\] Suppose $|{\Ric}_Z|$, $|dV|$, $|Z|$, are bounded with $V$ bounded below. Then there exists a positive constant $C\equiv C(n,T)$ such that $$|L P^V_tf_{x}| \leq \frac{C}{t}|f|_\infty$$ for all $0 < t \leq T$, $x \in M$ and $f \in \mathcal{B}_b$. The result follows from Theorem \[thm:locestonehalf\], since as in Corollary \[cor:globestone\] any dependence of the constant on $D_0,D_1$ and $D_2$ can be eliminated. Hessian {#hessian} ------- \[thm:locesttwo\] Suppose $D_0,D_1,D_2$ are regular domains with $x_0 \in \overline{D_0} \subset D_1$, $\overline{D_1} \subset D_2$, $V$ bounded below and $T>0$. Set $$\begin{split} \kappa_{D_2} :=\text{ }& \sup \lbrace |{\Ric}_Z(v,v)|: v \in T_y M,y \in D_2,|v|=1\rbrace;\\ v_{D_2}:=\text{ }& \sup \lbrace |(dV_t)_y(v)|: v \in T_y M,y \in D_2,|v|=1, t \in [0,T]\rbrace;\\ v'_{D_1}:=\text{ }& \sup \lbrace |(\nabla d V_t)_y(v,v)|: v \in T_y M,y \in D_1,|v|=1,t\in [0,T]\rbrace;\\ \rho_{D_1}:=\text{ }& \sup \lbrace |R(w,v)v|: v,w \in T_y M,y \in D_1,|v|=|w|=1\rbrace;\\ \rho'_{D_1}:=\text{ }& \sup \lbrace |(\nabla{\Ric}^\sharp_Z+d^\star R)(v,v)|: v \in T_y M,y \in D_1,|v|=1\rbrace. \end{split}$$ Then there exists a positive constant $C\equiv C(n,T,\inf V,\kappa_{D_2},v_{D_2},v'_{D_1},\rho_{D_1},\rho'_{D_1})$ such that $$|\nabla d P^V_tf_{x_0}| \leq \frac{C}{t}|f|_\infty$$ for all $0 < t \leq T$, $x_0 \in D_0$ and $f \in \mathcal{B}_b$. Recalling the defining equation for $W'_s(v,w)$, choose the processes $k_t$ and $l_t$ as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:locestonehalf\] and so that additionally $k$ satisfies $$\begin{split} {\mathbb{E}}\left[ \left(\int_0^T\langle \dot{k}_s W_s \int_0^s W_r^{-1} R(//_r dB_r,W_r)W_r , //_s dB_s\rangle\right)^2\right]^\frac{1}{2} &\text{ }\leq \frac{\tilde{C}_3 e^{\kappa_{D_1} T}}{\sqrt{1-e^{-\tilde{C}_3^2 T}}},\\ {\mathbb{E}}\left[ \left(\int_0^T\langle \dot{k}_s W_s \int_0^s W_r^{-1}(\nabla {\Ric}^\sharp_Z + d^\star R)(W_r ,W_r)dr, //_s dB_s\rangle\right)^2\right]^\frac{1}{2}&\text{ }\leq \frac{\tilde{C}_4e^{\kappa_{D_1} T}}{\sqrt{1-e^{-\tilde{C}_4^2 T}}} \end{split}$$ for positive constants $\tilde{C}_3$ and $\tilde{C}_4$ which depend continuously on $\kappa_{D_1}$, $\rho_{D_1}$, $\rho'_{D_1}$, $n$ and on $d(\partial D_0,\partial D_1)$. Such $k$ can always be chosen; the details of this are found in [@Plank Section 4.2], with appropriate bounds for the radial part of the diffusion being given as in the proof of [@Wangbook Corollary 2.1.2]. By Theorem \[thm:locformtwo\] and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality we have $$\begin{split} &|\nabla d P^V_Tf| \\ \leq\text{ }& |f|_\infty e^{T(\kappa_{D_2}-\inf V)}\left(\frac{\tilde{C}_3}{\sqrt{1-e^{-\tilde{C}_3^2 T}}} + \frac{1}{2}\frac{\tilde{C}_4}{\sqrt{1-e^{-\tilde{C}_4^2 T}}}\right)\\ &+|f|_\infty e^{T(\kappa_{D_2}-\inf V)}\left(v'_{D_1} {\mathbb{E}}\left[ \left(\int_0^T |k_s|ds\right)^2\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}+v_{D_2} c_1^2 (\rho_{D_1} \vee \frac{1}{2}\rho'_{D_1}) \frac{T^2}{\sqrt{2}}\right)\\ &+|f|_\infty e^{T(\kappa_{D_2}-\inf V)} \left( {\mathbb{E}}\left[ \int_{0}^T |\dot{l}_s|^2 ds\right]^\frac{1}{2} + v_{D_2}{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left(\int_0^{T} |l_s|ds\right)^2 \right]^\frac{1}{2}\right)\\ &\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\cdot\left( {\mathbb{E}}\left[\int_0^{T} |\dot{k}_s|^2ds\right]^\frac{1}{2}+v_{D_2}{\mathbb{E}}\left[\int_0^{T} |k_s|^2ds\right]^\frac{1}{2}\right) \end{split}$$ so the result follows by substituting the bounds on $k,\dot{k},l$ and $\dot{l}$. \[cor:globesttwo\] Suppose $|{\Ric}_Z|$, $|dV|$, $|\nabla d V|$, $|\nabla{\Ric}^\sharp_Z+d^\star R|$ and $|R|$ are bounded with $V$ bounded below. Then there exists a positive constant $C\equiv C(n,T)$ such that $$|\nabla d P^V_tf_{x}| \leq \frac{C}{t}|f|_\infty$$ for all $0 < t \leq T$, $x \in M$ and $f \in \mathcal{B}_b$. The result follows from Theorem \[thm:locesttwo\], since as in Corollaries \[cor:globestone\] and \[cor:globesthalf\] any dependence of the constant on $D_0,D_1$ and $D_2$ can be eliminated. Non-local Formulae {#sec:globform} ================== If ${\Ric}_Z$ is bounded below then, by [@Wangbook Corollary 2.1.2], the diffusion $x_t$ is non-explosive, which is to say $\zeta(x_0)=\infty$, almost surely. While the formulae in this section require non-explosion and global bounds on the various curvature operators, they are expressed in terms of explicit and deterministic processes $k$ and $l$. \[thm:nonlocformone\] Suppose $x_0\in M$ with $v \in T_{x_0}M$, $f \in \mathcal{B}_b$, $V$ bounded below and $T>0$. Set $$k_s = \frac{T-s}{T}.$$ Suppose ${\Ric}_Z$ is bounded below with $|dV|$ bounded and $V$ bounded below. Then $$(dP^V_Tf)(v) = -\mathbb{E}\left[ \V_T f(x_T)\int_0^{T} \langle W_s (\dot{k}_sv),//_sdB_s\rangle + dV_{T-s}(W_s(k_s v))ds\right].$$ It follows from Corollary \[cor:globestone\] that $|dP^V_t|$ is bounded on $[\epsilon,T] \times M$. Therefore, using $$k^\epsilon_s = \frac{T-\epsilon-s}{T-\epsilon} \vee 0$$ the local martingale is a true martingale. Taking expectations and eliminating $\epsilon$ with dominated convergence yields the above formula. Theorem \[thm:nonlocformone\] is precisely [@ElworthyLi Theorem 5.2], which was also obtained in [@LiThompson] by a slightly different method. \[thm:nonlocformhalf\] Suppose $x_0 \in M$, $f \in \mathcal{B}_b$, $V$ bounded below and $T>0$. Set $$k_s = \frac{T-2s}{T}\vee 0,\quad l_s = 1 \wedge \frac{2(T-s)}{T}.$$ Suppose $|{\Ric}_Z|$, $|dV|$ and $|Z|$ are bounded with $V$ bounded below. Then $$\begin{split} &L(P^V_Tf)(x_0) \\ =\text{ }&{\mathbb{E}}\left[ \V_T f(x_T)\int_0^T \langle \dot{k}_s Z,//_s dB_s\rangle \right]\\ & +\frac{1}{2}{\mathbb{E}}\left[ \V_T f(x_T)\left( \int_0^T \< W_s \dot{l}_s ,//_s dB_s\> + dV_{T-s}(W_s l_s)ds\right)\int_0^T \dot{k}_s W_s^{-1} //_s dB_s\right]. \end{split}$$ It follows from Corollary \[cor:globesthalf\] that $|L P^V_t|$ is bounded on $[\epsilon,T] \times M$. Therefore, using $k_s$ and $$l^\epsilon_s = \left(1 \wedge \frac{T-\epsilon-s}{\frac{T}{2}-\epsilon}\right)\vee 0$$ the local martingale appearing in Lemma \[lem:locmartonehalf\] is a true martingale. Taking expectations, using Lemma \[lem:potlemma\] as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:formhalf\] and eliminating $\epsilon$ with dominated convergence yields the above formula. \[thm:nonlocformtwo\] Suppose $x_0\in M$ with $v,w \in T_{x_0}M$, $f \in \mathcal{B}_b$, $V$ bounded below and $T>0$. Define $k_s$ and $l_s$ as in Theorem \[thm:nonlocformhalf\]. Suppose $|{\Ric}_Z|$, $|dV|$, $|\nabla d V|$, $|\nabla{\Ric}^\sharp_Z+d^\star R|$ and $|R|$ are bounded with $V$ bounded below. Then $$\begin{split} &(\nabla d P^V_Tf)(v,w) \\ =\text{ }& - {\mathbb{E}}\left[ \V_T f(x_T)\int_0^T\langle W^{\prime}_s(\dot{k}_sv,w), //_s dB_s\rangle\right]\\ &-{\mathbb{E}}\left[ \V_T f(x_T)\int_0^T ((\nabla d V_{T-s})(W_s(k_sv),W_s(w))+(dV_{T-s})(W^{\prime}_s(k_sv,w)))ds\right]\\ &+{\mathbb{E}}\left[ \V_T f(x_T)\left(\int_{0}^T \< W_s( \dot{l}_sw),//_s dB_s\> + dV_{T-s}( W_s(l_sw)) ds\right)\right.\\ &\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\left.\cdot\left(\int_0^{T} \<W_s (\dot{k}_sv),//_sdB_s\>+ dV_{T-s}(W_s(k_sv))ds\right)\right]. \end{split}$$ It follows from Corollary \[cor:globesttwo\] that $|d P^V_t|$ and $|\nabla d P^V_t|$ are bounded on $[\epsilon,T] \times M$. Therefore, using $l^\epsilon_s$ defined as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:nonlocformhalf\], the local martingale appearing in Lemma \[lem:locmarttwo\] is a true martingale. Taking expectations, proceeding as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:locformtwo\] and eliminating $\epsilon$ with dominated convergence yields the above formula. For the case $V=0$, Theorem \[thm:nonlocformtwo\] gives the filtered version of the second part of [@ElworthyLi Theorem 3.1], which was proved by differentiating under the expectation for $f \in BC^2$ and which, as observed in [@Plank], contains a slight error, permuting the vectors $v$ and $w$. It is evident that our formulae require either $V\in C^1$ or $V \in C^2$ (see Remark \[rem:notsmooth\]). More generally it is desirable to consider possibly very singular potentials (see for example [@Guneysu]), such as those which appear in many quantum mechanical problems. It was pointed out to the authors of [@ElworthyLi] by G. Da Prato, and to the author of this article by X.-M. Li, that under certain conditions the case of non-smooth $V$ be dealt with using the variation of constants formula. If $P_T$ denotes the minimal semigroup associated to the operator $L$ then the variation of constants formula implies $$P^V_Tf = P_Tf - \int_0^T P_{T-s}(V_s P^V_s f)ds.$$ So long as $P^V_T$ is sufficiently regular, formulae and estimates for $P^V_Tf$ and its gradient can be obtained from formulae and estimates for $P_Tf$ and its gradient, simply by differentiating the above formula and substituting. For the second derivatives one must take care in passing these derivatives through the integral. For the case in which the potential is a bounded Hölder continuous function $V$ which does not depend on time, this can achieved at each point $x_0 \in M$ by shifting $V$ to $V(x_0)=0$. The details of this for, the Hessian, are given in [@Lihess], where the approach taken in based on that of [@ElworthyLi]. Kernel Estimates {#sec:kerests} ================ Now suppose $Z = \nabla h$, for some $h \in C^2$, and consider the $m$-dimensional Bakry-Emery curvature tensor $${\Ric}_{m,n} := {\Ric}^\sharp + \nabla d h - \frac{\nabla h \otimes \nabla h}{m-n}$$ where $m \geq n$ is a constant (see [@Lott]). Denoting by $p^h_t(x,y)$ the density of the diffusion with generator $L$, with respect to the weighted Riemannian measure $e^{h}dy$, it follows, as explained in the proof of [@XDLi Theorem 1.4], that if $\Ric_{m,n} \geq -\kappa$ for some $\kappa \geq 0$ then there exists a positive constant $C\equiv C(\kappa,m,T)$ such that $$\log \left( \frac{p^h_{\frac{t}{2}}(x,z)}{p^h_{t}(x,y)}\right) \leq C\left( 1+ \frac{d^2(x,y)}{t}\right)$$ for all $x,y,z \in M$ and $t \in (0,T]$. Assuming $V$ is bounded, it follows that the same inequality holds for the integral kernel $p^{h,V}_t(x,y)$ of the semigroup $P^V_tf$, since $$p^{h,V}_t(x,y) = p^{h}_t(x,y){\mathbb{E}}\left[ \V_t | x_0=x, x_t =y\right]$$ by the Feynman-Kac formula. It is thus a simple matter to derive from Theorems \[thm:nonlocformone\], \[thm:nonlocformhalf\] and \[thm:nonlocformtwo\] estimates on the logarithmic derivatives of $p^{h,V}_t(x,y)$ by a standard argument based on Jensen’s inequality (see [@Stroock2000 Lemma 6.45]). In particular, the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:nonlocformone\] with $Z=\nabla h$ plus boundedness of $V$ and a lower bound on ${\Ric}_{m,n}$ imply the existence of a constant $C_1(T)$ such that $$|d \log p^{h,V}_t(\cdot,y)_x|^2 \leq C_1(T)\left(\frac{1}{t}+\frac{d^2(x,y)}{t^2}\right)$$ for all $x,y \in M$ and $t \in (0,T]$. The details of this (for the case $h=0$) can be found in [@LiThompson]. Similarly, the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:nonlocformhalf\] with $Z=\nabla h$ plus boundedness of $V$ and a lower bound on ${\Ric}_{m,n}$ imply for the Witten Laplacian $\Delta_h := \frac{1}{2}\Delta + \nabla h$ the existence of a constant $C_2(T)$ such that $$|\Delta_h \log p^{h,V}_t(\cdot,y)(x)| \leq C_2(T)\left(\frac{1}{t}+\frac{d^2(x,y)}{t^2}\right)$$ for all $x,y \in M$ and $t \in (0,T]$. Finally, the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:nonlocformtwo\] with $Z=\nabla h$ plus boundedness of $V$ and a lower bound on ${\Ric}_{m,n}$ imply the existence of a constant $C_3(T)$ such that $$|\nabla d \log p^{h,V}_t(\cdot,y)_x| \leq C_3(T)\left(\frac{1}{t}+\frac{d^2(x,y)}{t^2}\right)$$ for all $x,y \in M$ and $t \in (0,T]$. [10]{} Marc Arnaudon, Holger Plank, and Anton Thalmaier. A [B]{}ismut type formula for the [H]{}essian of heat semigroups. , 336(8):661–666, 2003. Marc Arnaudon, Anton Thalmaier, and Feng-Yu Wang. Gradient estimates and [H]{}arnack inequalities on non-compact [R]{}iemannian manifolds. , 119(10):3653–3670, 2009. D. Bakry and Michel [É]{}mery. Diffusions hypercontractives. In [*Séminaire de probabilités, [XIX]{}, 1983/84*]{}, volume 1123 of [*Lecture Notes in Math.*]{}, pages 177–206. Springer, Berlin, 1985. Bennett Chow and Richard S. Hamilton. Constrained and linear [H]{}arnack inequalities for parabolic equations. , 129(2):213–238, 1997. K. D. Elworthy and X.-M. Li. Formulae for the derivatives of heat semigroups. , 125(1):252–286, 1994. K. David Elworthy and Xue-Mei Li. Bismut type formulae for differential forms. , 327(1):87–92, 1998. Batu G[ü]{}neysu. On generalized [S]{}chrödinger semigroups. , 262(11):4639–4674, 2012. Elton P. Hsu. Estimates of derivatives of the heat kernel on a compact [R]{}iemannian manifold. , 127(12):3739–3744, 1999. Xiang-Dong Li. Hamilton’s [H]{}arnack inequality and the [$W$]{}-entropy formula on complete [R]{}iemannian manifolds. , 126(4):1264–1283, 2016. X.-M. Li. Hessian formulas and estimates for parabolic [S]{}chrödinger operators. arxiv:1610.09538, 2016. X.-M. Li and J. Thompson. First order feynman-kac formula. arxiv:1608.03856, 2016. Yi Li. Li-[Y]{}au-[H]{}amilton estimates and [B]{}akry-[E]{}mery-[R]{}icci curvature. , 113:1–32, 2015. John Lott. Some geometric properties of the [B]{}akry-Émery-[R]{}icci tensor. , 78(4):865–883, 2003. Holger Plank. . PhD thesis, Universität Regensburg, 2002. Daniel W. Stroock. An introduction to the analysis of paths on a [R]{}iemannian manifold. Volume 74 of [*Mathematical Surveys and Monographs*]{}, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2000 Daniel W. Stroock and James Turetsky. Upper bounds on derivatives of the logarithm of the heat kernel. , 6(4):669–685, 1998. Anton Thalmaier. On the differentiation of heat semigroups and [P]{}oisson integrals. , 61(3-4):297–321, 1997. Anton Thalmaier and Feng-Yu Wang. Gradient estimates for harmonic functions on regular domains in [R]{}iemannian manifolds. , 155(1):109–124, 1998. Mark Veraar. The stochastic [F]{}ubini theorem revisited. , 84(4):543–551, 2012. Feng-Yu Wang. . Advanced Series on Statistical Science & Applied Probability, 18. World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Hackensack, NJ, 2014. [^1]: University of Luxembourg, Email: `[email protected]`

ArXiv

--- author: - Judith Lehnert - Thomas Dahms - Philipp Hövel - 'Eckehard Schöll[^1]' title: Loss of synchronization in complex neuronal networks with delay --- Introduction ============ Studies of complex networks have sparked tremendous scientific activities in many research areas and the analysis of network topologies in real-world systems has become a field of large interest. For instance, there is evidence that neuronal networks on the level of single neurons coupled through synapses or gap junctions, as well as on the level of cortex areas and their pathways exhibit the small-world (SW) properties [@WAT98; @SPO00SHE02SPO06HON07SPO07]. The high clustering coefficient of the SW networks enhances local communication efficiency, while the small shortest path length enables efficient global communication [@LAT01]. Thus, the SW architecture is optimal for processing and transmission of signals within and between brain areas. However, the synchronizability of small-world networks depends in a delicate way upon the network topology [@NIS03]. Next to this structural aspect, inhibition plays a prominent role in many neural processes [@HAI06]. Without an inhibitory mechanism, excitation in a compound system would not decay, but spread through the whole network, finally leading to persistent spiking of all neurons. Thus, encoding and processing of information would be impossible. In this Letter, we combine both fundamental aspects – inhibition and SW property – in order to emphasize the important interplay of excitation and inhibition in complex networks. We start with a regular ring network that consists of purely excitatory links with delay. Thus, it exhibits strong and stable synchronization. Depending on the initial conditions, both isochronous and cluster synchronization are possible implying multistability. Additional inhibitory connections, which we include in a SW-like manner [@WAT98; @MON99], result in a loss of synchronization. A similar transition was reported for phase oscillators in Ref. [@TOE10] for unidirectional rings, but the effect of inhibition upon excitable systems could not be treated by that model. For the node dynamics, we consider a generic model to demonstrate the fundamental relevance and importance of our findings in the field of neuroscience. In this area, synchronization can be related to cognitive capacities [@SIN99b] as well as to pathological conditions, e.g., epilepsy [@UHL06]. A better understanding of the loss of synchronization will eventually lead to future therapeutic treatments [@HAU07]. Throughout this Letter, we consider a network of $N$ delay-coupled FitzHugh-Nagumo (FHN) oscillators. The FHN system describes neuronal dynamics by a two-variable model [@FIT61]. Because of its simplicity it can be considered as a paradigmatic model of excitable systems, which also occur in several other natural contexts ranging from cardiovascular tissues to the climate system [@MUR93; @IZH00a]. Here, the network dynamics is described by \[fhn:network\] $$\begin{aligned} \epsilon \dot{u}_i &=& u_i - \frac{u_i^3}{3} - v_i+ C\sum_{j=1}^N G_{ij}[u_j(t-\tau)-u_i]\\ \dot{v}_i &=& u_i + a,\end{aligned}$$ where $u_i$ and $v_i$ denote the activator and inhibitor variables of the nodes $i=1,\ldots,N$, respectively. The parameter $a$ determines the threshold of excitability. A single FHN oscillator is excitable for $a>1$ and exhibits self-sustained periodic firing beyond the Hopf bifurcation at $a=1$. Here, we will focus on the excitable regime with $a=1.3$. The time-scale parameter $\epsilon$ is chosen as $\epsilon = 0.01$. $C$ is the coupling strength. $\mathbf {G}=\{G_{ij}\}$, $i,j=1,\ldots,N$, denotes the coupling matrix that determines the topology of the network. In the following we will assume unity row sum of $\bf G$. This ensures that each neuron receives the same input if the network is synchronized. The delay time $\tau$ takes into account the finite propagation speed of an action potential. We investigate complete synchronization with $(u_i(t),v_i(t))=(u_s(t),v_s(t))\equiv \mathbf{x}_s(t)$ for $i=1,\dots,N$, which is also known as zero-lag or isochronous synchronization. This state is a solution of qs.  and reduces the system’s dynamics to $$\label{eq:sync} \dot{\mathbf{x}}_s = \mathbf{F}(\mathbf{x}_s) + C \mathbf{H} \left[\mathbf{x}_s(t-\tau)-\mathbf{x}_s(t)\right]$$ with $\mathbf{F}(\mathbf{x})=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}[u - u^3/3 -v]/\epsilon\\u+a\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ and the matrix $\mathbf{H} =\left(\begin{smallmatrix}1/\epsilon & 0\\0 & 0\end{smallmatrix}\right)$. The $2(N-1)$ constraints of complete synchronization define a two-dimensional synchronization manifold (SM) in the $2N$-dimensional phase space. ![(Color online) Dynamics in the synchronization manifold in dependence on the coupling strength $C$ and delay $\tau$. The gray scale (color code) indicates the period of spiking oscillations $T$, the black region corresponds to fixed-point dynamics. Left and right insets show time series of the activator $u_s$ for ($C=0.3$, $\tau=1$) and ($C=1.5$, $\tau=1.8$), respectively. Parameters: $a=1.3$, $\epsilon=0.01$.[]{data-label="fig:syncdynamics"}](fig1){width="\columnwidth"} As we operate in the excitable regime, the dynamics on this SM, in particular the period, will depend on the choice of the coupling parameters $C$ and $\tau$ as depicted in fig. \[fig:syncdynamics\]. The grayscale (color code) corresponds to the period $T$ of the oscillations on the SM, which we find to follow $T=\tau+\delta$ with $\delta \ll \tau$ accounting for a short activation time [@SCH08]. For small coupling strength $C$ the incoming signal is not sufficient to trigger oscillations (black region). For small delay times $\tau$ consecutive spikes run into the refractory phase of the previous one, which prevents oscillations as well. From here on we consider $C$ and $\tau$ sufficiently large such that the coupling induces oscillations. Stability analysis ================== In the following we address the question whether the oscillatory solution on this manifold is transversely stable. The master stability function (MSF) [@PEC98] allows us to quantify this transversal stability. It can be calculated as largest Lyapunov exponent $\Lambda$ from eq.  linearized around eq. : $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:msf} \dot{\boldsymbol \zeta}(t)= \left[ D\mathbf{F}(\mathbf{x}_{s}(t)) -C \mathbf{H} \right] \boldsymbol \zeta(t) + (\alpha+i\beta) \textbf{H} \boldsymbol \zeta(t-\tau).\end{aligned}$$ Here, $D\mathbf{F}$ denotes the Jacobian of $\mathbf{F}$. The idea of the MSF is to calculate the stability of a synchronized solution for an arbitrary topology matrix $\mathbf{G}$. For this purpose, the parameter $\alpha + i\beta$ represents a continuous parametrization of $\{C \nu_i\}$, where $\nu_i $, $i=1,\ldots,N$, are the eigenvalues of $\mathbf G$. In the same sense, the vector $\boldsymbol \zeta$ is a generalization of the variational vectors transformed to the corresponding eigensystem. In the ($\alpha$,$\beta$)-plane the MSF typically gives rise to regions with negative $\Lambda$. If all rescaled transversal eigenvalues $\{C \nu_i\}$ of a given network are located within this stable region, perturbations from the SM will decay exponentially and the synchronized dynamics will be stable. Due to the unity row sum condition, $\mathbf G$ will always have one eigenvalue $\nu_1=1$. This longitudinal eigenvalue is associated with perturbations within the SM and is not relevant for the stability of synchronization. $\Lambda(C\nu_1)$ determines the type of dynamics on the SM. For periodic dynamics in the SM, as in the present case, we have $\Lambda(C\nu_1)=0$. Figure \[fig:msf\] depicts the MSF for the network of FHN oscillators given by eqs. . Dark (blue) colors mark the stable region. As an illustration the rescaled eigenvalues $\{C\nu_i\}$ of a bidirectionally coupled ring ($N=8$) are shown as red symbols. The corresponding coupling matrix is given by $G_{i,i+1\bmod{N}}=G_{i,i-1\bmod{N}}=1$ ($i=1,\ldots,N$) and zero otherwise. The rescaled longitudinal eigenvalue $C\nu_1=C$ is depicted by a black (red) square. All rescaled transversal eigenvalues (black (red) circles) lie inside the stable region indicating that the synchronization of the bidirectionally coupled ring is stable. ![(Color online) (a) Master stability function for a network of FHN systems given by eqs. . Dotted curve: $S((0,0),C)$. Red circles (square): Rescaled transversal (longitudinal) eigenvalues $C \nu_i$ of a bidirectionally coupled ring with $N=8$ nodes. Parameters: $a=1.3$, $\epsilon=0.01$, $C=0.3$, $\tau=1$. (b) Scheme of a bidirectional regular network ($N=20$, $k=2$), and (c) a random network ($N=20$, fixed number of links $kN$) with excitatory coupling (gray (green) arrows) on which inhibitory links (black (red) arrows) are superimposed.[]{data-label="fig:msf"}](fig2){width="1.0\linewidth"} Shape of stability region ========================= The MSF must be calculated for each combination of $C$ and $\tau$. Although different $C$ and $\tau$ lead to quantitatively different Lyapunov exponents $\Lambda$, the shape of the stable regions remains qualitatively very similar. In particular, it is in very good approximation given by the circle $S((0,0),C)$ with center at the origin and radius $C$ (dotted circle in fig. \[fig:msf\]) independent of the specific values of $C$ and $\tau$. The rotational symmetry has recently been proved generally for large $\tau$ [@FLU10b]. Only for small $\tau$ and $C$ the stable region is slightly larger than the circle and shows a bulge around $\alpha=-C$, $\beta=0$ [@remark]. The positive $\alpha$-axis is always intersected at $\alpha=C$, which corresponds to $\Lambda(C\nu_1)=0$ as discussed above. For any choice of $\tau$ and $C$ that leads to periodic dynamics on the SM, the circle $S((0,0),C)$ serves as a lower bound for the stability boundary. See the appendix for an analytic derivation of this circle $S((0,0),C)$ in the limit of large coupling strength and as a lower bound for all coupling strengths. We conclude that the stability of the synchronized periodic dynamics, if such a solution exists, depends only on the topology and neither on the coupling strength nor on the delay time. Excitatory coupling =================== For excitatory coupling, i.e., $G_{ij}\geq 0$, all eigenvalues of $\mathbf{G}$ are located inside the stable region. Using Gershgorin’s circle theorem [@EAR03], which gives an upper bound of the eigenvalues, and the constant row sum assumption, all Gershgorin circles ($i=1,\dots,N$), centered at $G_{ii}$ with radius $\sum_{j\neq i}G_{ij} = 1-G_{ii}$ because of the unity row sum, lie inside the unit circle. Thus all rescaled eigenvalues $\{C\nu_i\}$, $i=1,\ldots,N$, are located inside $S((0,0),C)$, i.e., inside the stable region. Networks with purely excitatory coupling will always exhibit stable synchronization. Inhibitory coupling =================== As a consequence of this result, desynchronization can only be achieved by introducing negative entries in the coupling matrix [**G**]{}, i.e., inhibitory coupling between neurons. This inhibition is a crucial feature in neural processes, e.g., to overcome unwanted synchronization associated with pathological states. Particularly, we consider the following variation of the Watts-Strogatz SW network [@WAT98; @MON99]: (i) Start with a one-dimensional ring of $N$ nodes, where every node is connected by excitatory links to its $k$ neighbors on either side. (ii) For each of the $kN$ links of the network add an inhibitory link with probability $p$ connecting two randomly chosen nodes. (iii) Do not allow self-coupling or more than one link between any pair of nodes. (iv) Normalize the entries of the coupling matrix $\textbf{G}$ by dividing each row by the absolute value of its row sum. In the case that the row sum of the $i$th row is negative we set $G_{ii}=2$ to ensure unity row sum. Figure \[fig:msf\](b) illustrates such a SW network for $N=20$ and $k=2$, where gray (green) and black (red) arrows indicate excitatory and inhibitory coupling, respectively. For each realization of such a network, we determine the stability of synchronization by checking whether the full eigenspectrum ${C\nu_i}$ of the coupling matrix is contained in the stable region $S((0,0),C)$. Hereby we compute the fraction $f$ of desynchronized networks. Figure \[fig:phasetrans\] shows $f$ as a function of $p$ for different coupling ranges $k$. This Figure is virtually identical for all delay times, that is, for all parameters within the color shaded area of Fig.1. To obtain this Figure we made use of the circular shape of the stable region of the master stability function. Only for very small delays or coupling strength, the stable region is slightly larger and thus the shape of the curves shown in Figure \[fig:phasetrans\] might be shifted slightly to larger values of $p$. ![(Color online) Fraction of desynchronized networks $f$ vs the probability of additional inhibitory links $p$ for $N=100$. $k$ varies from 6 to 30. Thin black curve: Example fit to $f(p)$ ($p_c=0.20387$, $b=186$) for $k=24$. Number of realizations: 500 for each value of $k$. Parameters as in fig. \[fig:syncdynamics\].[]{data-label="fig:phasetrans"}](fig3){width="\linewidth"} ![(Color online) Critical value $p_c$ for different network sizes, (a) in dependence on $k/N$, (b) in dependence on $k$: SW networks $N=60$ (dark (blue) circles), $N=100$ (dark (purple) squares), and $N=500$ (turquoise triangles). Random networks $N=60$ (black (red) crosses), $N=100$ (light (orange) circles), and $N=500$ (lightgray (yellow) squares). (c) Steepness $b$ for SW (circles) and random (squares) networks vs. $N$ for constant $k/N=0.1$. Inset: Blow-up for random networks. (d) $p_c$ vs. $N$ for $k=10$ for a SW (black (red) filled circles) and a random (black (red) empty squares) network. Number of inhibitory links $\langle I \rangle$ vs. $N$ for constant $k$ for a SW (gray (green) empty circles) and a random (gray (green) filled squares) network. Number of realizations: 500.[]{data-label="fig:pcrit"}](fig4a "fig:"){width="0.48\columnwidth"} ![(Color online) Critical value $p_c$ for different network sizes, (a) in dependence on $k/N$, (b) in dependence on $k$: SW networks $N=60$ (dark (blue) circles), $N=100$ (dark (purple) squares), and $N=500$ (turquoise triangles). Random networks $N=60$ (black (red) crosses), $N=100$ (light (orange) circles), and $N=500$ (lightgray (yellow) squares). (c) Steepness $b$ for SW (circles) and random (squares) networks vs. $N$ for constant $k/N=0.1$. Inset: Blow-up for random networks. (d) $p_c$ vs. $N$ for $k=10$ for a SW (black (red) filled circles) and a random (black (red) empty squares) network. Number of inhibitory links $\langle I \rangle$ vs. $N$ for constant $k$ for a SW (gray (green) empty circles) and a random (gray (green) filled squares) network. Number of realizations: 500.[]{data-label="fig:pcrit"}](fig4b "fig:"){width="0.48\columnwidth"} ![(Color online) Critical value $p_c$ for different network sizes, (a) in dependence on $k/N$, (b) in dependence on $k$: SW networks $N=60$ (dark (blue) circles), $N=100$ (dark (purple) squares), and $N=500$ (turquoise triangles). Random networks $N=60$ (black (red) crosses), $N=100$ (light (orange) circles), and $N=500$ (lightgray (yellow) squares). (c) Steepness $b$ for SW (circles) and random (squares) networks vs. $N$ for constant $k/N=0.1$. Inset: Blow-up for random networks. (d) $p_c$ vs. $N$ for $k=10$ for a SW (black (red) filled circles) and a random (black (red) empty squares) network. Number of inhibitory links $\langle I \rangle$ vs. $N$ for constant $k$ for a SW (gray (green) empty circles) and a random (gray (green) filled squares) network. Number of realizations: 500.[]{data-label="fig:pcrit"}](fig4c "fig:"){width="0.48\columnwidth"} ![(Color online) Critical value $p_c$ for different network sizes, (a) in dependence on $k/N$, (b) in dependence on $k$: SW networks $N=60$ (dark (blue) circles), $N=100$ (dark (purple) squares), and $N=500$ (turquoise triangles). Random networks $N=60$ (black (red) crosses), $N=100$ (light (orange) circles), and $N=500$ (lightgray (yellow) squares). (c) Steepness $b$ for SW (circles) and random (squares) networks vs. $N$ for constant $k/N=0.1$. Inset: Blow-up for random networks. (d) $p_c$ vs. $N$ for $k=10$ for a SW (black (red) filled circles) and a random (black (red) empty squares) network. Number of inhibitory links $\langle I \rangle$ vs. $N$ for constant $k$ for a SW (gray (green) empty circles) and a random (gray (green) filled squares) network. Number of realizations: 500.[]{data-label="fig:pcrit"}](fig4d "fig:"){width="0.48\columnwidth"} For fixed $k$ a steep transition between synchronization and desynchronization takes place as $p$ approaches a critical value $p_c$. This critical value $p_c$ and the steepness $b$ of the transition can be fitted with a sigmoidal function $f(p)=1/[e^{-b(p-p_c)}+1]$. Figure \[fig:pcrit\](a) depicts the critical probability $p_c $ for $f(p_c)=0.5$ in dependence on $k/N$ for different network sizes. It can be seen that for SW networks $p_c$ follows a linear relation $p_c(k/N) = 1.16 k/N -0.07$ independently of the network size $N$. Figure \[fig:pcrit\](c) shows the steepness $b$ as a function of the network size demonstrating that the transition becomes increasingly sharp as $N$ increases. This indicates a first-order nonequililibrium phase transition in the thermodynamic limit [@SCH87]. To verify whether this phase transition and especially its independence of the network size is common in networks with inhibitory links or unique to the SW structure, we construct a different network for comparison: The regular excitatory network is replaced by a random network with fixed number of excitatory links $kN$ equivalently to the regular network used before, as shown in fig. \[fig:msf\](c). We only consider realizations where this underlying excitatory network is fully connected. The construction of the inhibitory links then follows steps (ii-iv) as above. We find that a phase transition to desynchronization still occurs with critical probabilities of inhibitory links $p_c$ as depicted in fig. \[fig:pcrit\](a) by black (red) crosses, gray (orange) circles, and lightgray (yellow) squares for $N=60$, $100$, and $500$, respectively. We observe, however, that the values of $p_c$ are higher, i.e., the random network can tolerate more inhibitory links than the SW network before desynchronizing. Furthermore, the function $p_c(k/N)$ is no longer independent of the network size $N$. Instead, $p_c$ is a function of $\log(k)$ as can be seen in fig. \[fig:pcrit\](b), where $p_c$ is plotted in dependence on $k$ for the different network sizes $N$. Figure \[fig:pcrit\](d) depicts $p_c$ in dependence on $N$ for constant $k=10$ for a random (black (red) empty squares) and for a SW network (red (gray) circles). For random networks, $p_c$ is independent of $N$ for sufficiently large $N$, while for SW networks it approaches zero. Recall that $p_c$ is the mean value of the ratio of inhibitory to excitatory links. Thus, we conclude that in SW networks with increasing network size $N$ but same local structure (constant $k$) an infinitesimally small ratio of inhibition to excitation is needed to prevent synchronization, while in a random network even for very large networks only a non-vanishing ratio impairs synchronization. We find in a SW network with constant $k$ that the mean value of the number of inhibitory links $\langle I \rangle:= p_ckN$ causing desynchronization scales as $\langle I \rangle= 1.16k^2-0.07kN$ for small $N$ and approaches zero for large $N$ (see fig. \[fig:pcrit\](d) green (gray) empty circles). In contrast, in a random network $\langle I \rangle$ is proportional to $N$ (see fig. \[fig:pcrit\](d) green (gray) filled squares), i.e., an increasing number of inhibitory links is needed. This difference to SW networks can be understood in an intuitive way: In a SW, any added inhibitory link is part of a shortest path for many pairs of nodes, as it shortens the mean path length considerably with respect to the underlying regular ring. In the random network, however, where the mean path length is relatively low even without added shortcuts, only few node pairs will gain shorter paths by adding inhibitory links. Considering the dynamics on a network, perturbations from the synchronized state spread along the shortest paths first, changing the response of the receiving node, and information flow along longer paths will reach the receiving node only at a later time and will not influence the change of the initial response. In conclusion, if a large fraction of the inhibitory links is part of the shortest paths - like in the small-world topology superimposed to a regular ring - these inhibitory shortcuts become dominant. Conclusions =========== We have shown how the interplay of excitatory and inhibitory couplings leads to desynchronization in networks of neural oscillators. The desynchronization is achieved via a phase transition from a completely synchronized state. This can be seen as a first step towards an understanding of the robustness of different states of synchrony, e.g., cluster synchronization, in arbitrary networks with weighted links or distributed delays. Note that for appropriate network topologies the framework of the MSF presented above can indeed be extended to cluster synchronization where the oscillators synchronize in $M$ clusters with a constant phase lag $2\pi/M$ between subsequent clusters[@SOR07]. The corresponding SM is $2M$ dimensional. Hence, $M$ longitudinal eigenvalues exist. The MSF, however, is again very well approximated by the circle $S((0,0),C)$ and thus, we observe multistability between zero-lag and cluster synchronization. Excitable systems can be classified into type-I and type-II excitability [@HOD48; @IZH00a]. In addition to the generic type-II FitzHugh-Nagumo model used in this paper, we have considered the normal form of a [*saddle-node bifurcation on an invariant circle*]{} (SNIC) as a generic model of type-I excitability [@HU93a]. For sufficiently large delay times and coupling strength the MSF is again given by the circle $S((0,0),C)$ implying that the previously obtained results persist. In particular, the same phase transition occurs. This indicates that the phenomena observed here are generic for any excitable system. Appendix: Analytic approximation of the stability region ======================================================== The numerical calculation of the master stability function has shown that $S((0,0),C)$ is a lower bound and a very good approximation of the stable region for all $\tau$ and $C$. As $\tau$ and $C$ increase the approximation becomes even better. A Taylor expansion as done in Ref. [@JUS97] for the investigation of time-delayed feedback control of an unstable periodic orbit gives analytic insight in the problem. This analysis is very general and does not use the specific form of the local dynamics in terms of the FHN model. It only assumes that the synchronized dynamics is oscillatory with period $T$. Using a Floquet ansatz ${\boldsymbol \zeta}=e^{(\Lambda+i\Omega)t} \mathbf{Q} (t)$ with the periodic function $ \mathbf{Q} (t)= \mathbf{Q} (t+T)$ in Eq.  yields $$\begin{aligned} &(\Lambda+i\Omega) \mathbf{Q} (t)+\dot{ \mathbf{Q}} (t) \\ &\quad =(D {\bf F} -C {\bf H}) \mathbf{Q} (t) +(\alpha +i \beta)e^{-(\Lambda+i\Omega)\tau}{\bf H} \mathbf{Q} (t-\tau). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $\Lambda+i\Omega$ is the Floquet exponent, whose real part coincides with the Lyapunov exponent in the case of a periodic orbit. Assume $T=\tau$. In the case of the FHN system this is an approximation since the period of the oscillations differs by a small activation time $\delta \ll \tau$ from the delay time $\tau$ following $T=\tau+\delta$. Then $\mathbf{Q}(t-\tau)$ can be substituted by $\mathbf{Q}(t)$: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eiglsa} &(\Lambda+i\Omega) \mathbf{Q} (t)+\dot{ \mathbf{Q}} (t) \\ &\quad =(D {\bf F} ) \mathbf{Q} (t) + \underbrace{[-C+(\alpha+i \beta)e^{-(\Lambda+i\Omega)\tau}]}_{\kappa}{\bf H} \mathbf{Q} (t). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We expand the solution $\Gamma(\kappa)=\Lambda + i\Omega$ of the eigenvalue problem defined by Eq.  in a Taylor approximation: $$\begin{aligned} \Gamma(\kappa)=\Gamma(0)+\Gamma'(0)\kappa+O(\kappa^2).\end{aligned}$$ Using $\Gamma(0) \equiv \lambda+i\omega$ and $\Gamma'(0)\equiv \chi'+i\chi''$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \label{floquetapprox_allg} \Lambda+i\Omega=\lambda+i\omega+(\chi'+i\chi'')[-C+(\alpha+i \beta)e^{-(\Lambda+i\Omega)\tau}].\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\kappa=0$ if $(\alpha,\beta)=(C,0)$ corresponding to the dynamics within the synchronization manifold. Thus the first term in the Taylor approximation corresponds to the Goldstone mode, i.e., $\lambda+i\omega=0$ for $(\alpha,\beta)=(C,0)$. Equation  then becomes $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqlam} \Lambda+i\Omega=\chi' [-C+(\alpha+i \beta)e^{-(\Lambda+i\Omega)\tau}].\end{aligned}$$ Here, we assume $\chi''=0$. Separating Eq.  into real and imaginary part leaves us with $$\begin{aligned} \label{floquetapprox} \Lambda &=& \chi'\{-C+e^{-\Lambda \tau}[\alpha \cos(\Omega \tau)+\beta \sin(\Omega \tau)]\}, \nonumber \\ \Omega &=& \chi' e^{-\Lambda \tau}[-\alpha \sin(\Omega \tau)+\beta \cos(\Omega \tau)].\end{aligned}$$ Equation  can be solved numerically yielding the circular stability region. On the border of the stability the real part of the Floquet exponent vanishes. Using $\Lambda=0$ in Eq.  yields after algebraic manipulations: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:bound3} \alpha_b&=& \frac{-\Omega \sin(\Omega \tau)}{ \chi'} + C \cos(\Omega \tau), \nonumber\\ \beta_b&=& \frac{\Omega \cos(\Omega \tau)}{ \chi'} + C \sin(\Omega \tau),\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_b$ and $\beta_b$ denote the values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$, respectively, on the bounder of stability. Finally we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \label{r_eq:bound3} \alpha_b^2+\beta_b^2= C^2+ \frac{\Omega^2}{\chi'^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Obviously $\alpha_b^2+\beta_b^2> C^2$ holds, demonstrating that $S((0,0),C)$ is a lower bound for the stable region. For large $C$ the term $C^2$ on the right hand side dominates. Thus, the boundary of stability is very well approximated by $S((0,0),C)$ for large coupling strength. This work was supported by DFG in the framework of SFB 910. PH acknowledges support by the BMBF under the grant no. 01GQ1001B (*Förderkennzeichen*). [10]{} D. J. Watts and S. H. Strogatz, Nature [**393**]{}, 440 (1998). O. Sporns, G. Tononi, and G. M. Edelman, Cereb. Cortex [**10**]{}, 127 (2000); O. Shefi [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. E [**66**]{}, 021905 (2002); O. Sporns, Biosystems [**85**]{}, 55 (2006); C. J. Honey [*et al.*]{}, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. [**104**]{}, 10240 (2007); O. Sporns, C. J. Honey, and R. K[ö]{}tter, PLoS ONE [**2**]{}, e1049 (2007). V. Latora and M. Marchiori, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 198701 (2001). T. Nishikawa [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 014101 (2003). B. Haider [*et al.*]{}, J. Neurosci. [**26**]{}, 4535 (2006). R. Monasson, Eur. Phys. J. B [**12**]{}, 555 (1999); M. E. J. Newman and D. J. Watts, Phys. Lett. A [**263**]{}, 341 (1999). R. Tönjes, N. Masuda, and H. Kori, Chaos [**20**]{}, 033108 (2010). IS03 W. Singer, Neuron [**24**]{}, 49 (1999). P. J. Uhlhaas and W. Singer, Neuron [**52**]{}, 155 (2006). C. Hauptmann and P. A. Tass, Biosystems [**89**]{}, 173 (2007). R. FitzHugh, Biophys. J. [**1**]{}, 445 (1961); J. Nagumo, S. Arimoto, and S. Yoshizawa., Proc. IRE [**50**]{}, 2061 (1962). J. D. Murray, [*Mathematical Biology*]{}, Vol. 19 of [*Biomathematics Texts*]{}, 2nd ed. (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 1993); A. S. Mikhailov, [*Foundations of Synergetics Vol. I*]{}, 2 ed. (Springer, Berlin, 1994); J. P. Keener and J. Sneyd, [ *Mathematical physiology*]{} (Springer, New York, Berlin, 1998); C. Koch, [*Biophysics of Computation: Information Processing in Single Neurons*]{} (Oxford University Press, New York, 1999); H. J. W[ü]{}nsche [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 023901 (2001); A. Ganopolski and S. Rahmstorf, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 038501 (2002). E. M. Izhikevich, Int. J. Bifurc. Chaos [**10**]{}, 1171 (2000). E. Sch[ö]{}ll [*et al.*]{}, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A [**367**]{}, 1079 (2009); M. A. Dahlem [*et al.*]{}, Int. J. Bifur. Chaos [**19**]{}, 745 (2009). L. M. Pecora and T. L. Carroll, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 2109 (1998). V. Flunkert [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [ **105**]{}, 254101 (2010). E.g., for $C=0.3$ and $\tau=1$ the radius is 0.303 in the direction of the negative $\alpha$-axis. M. G. Earl and S. H. Strogatz, Phys. Rev. E [**67**]{}, 036204 (2003); C.-U. Choe [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. E [**81**]{}, 025205(R) (2010). F. Sorrentino and E. Ott, Phys. Rev. E [**76**]{}, 056114 (2007); I. Kanter [*et al.*]{}, Europhys. Lett. [**93**]{}, 66001 (2011). A. L. Hodgkin, J. Physiol. [**107**]{}, 165 (1948). G. Hu [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 807 (1993). W. Just [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 203 (1997). E. Sch[ö]{}ll, [*Nonequilibrium Phase Transitions in Semiconductors*]{} (Springer, Berlin, 1987). [^1]: E-mail:

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We explore the feasibility of using current generation, off-the-shelf, indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs) near-infrared (NIR) detectors for astronomical observations. Light-weight InGaAs cameras, developed for the night vision industry and operated at or near room temperature, enable cost-effective new paths for observing the NIR sky, particularly when paired with small telescopes. We have tested an InGaAs camera in the laboratory and on the sky using 12 and 18-inch telescopes. The camera is a small-format, 320x240 pixels of 40$\mu$m pitch, Short Wave Infra-Red (SWIR) device from Sensors Unlimited. Although the device exhibits a room-temperature dark current of $5.7 \times 10^4$ $e^-s^{-1}$ per pixel, we find observations of bright sources and low-positional-resolution observations of faint sources remain feasible. We can record unsaturated images of bright ($J=3.9$) sources due to the large pixel well-depth and resulting high dynamic range. When mounted on an 18-inch telescope, the sensor is capable of achieving milli-magnitude precision for sources brighter than $J=8$. Faint sources can be sky-background-limited with modest thermoelectric cooling. We can detect faint sources ($J=16.4$ at $10\sigma$) in a one-minute exposure when mounted to an 18-inch telescope. From laboratory testing, we characterize the noise properties, sensitivity, and stability of the camera in a variety of different operational modes and at different operating temperatures. Through sky testing, we show that the (unfiltered) camera can enable precise and accurate photometry, operating like a filtered $J$-band detector, with small color corrections. In the course of our sky testing, we successfully measured sub-percent flux variations in an exoplanet transit. We have demonstrated an ability to detect transient sources in dense fields using image subtraction of existing reference catalogs.' author: - Robert Strausbaugh - Rebecca Jackson - Nathaniel Butler title: Night Vision for Small Telescopes --- Introduction ============ The near-infrared (NIR), and particularly the short-wave-infrared (SWIR, $750-2500$ nm), are important wavelength bands in astronomy. There are several advantages to working in these wavelengths. NIR light scatters off interstellar dust at a much lower rate than visible or ultraviolet light, because NIR wavelengths are much longer than the average size of interstellar dust particles [@IRastro]. The redshifted NIR light that reaches us from cosmological distances probes the physics at shorter wavelengths in the rest frame unlike short wavelength light that would be absorbed by the intergalactic medium. Also, many sources of astrophysical interest (e.g., low mass stars) are intrinsically quite red. We are interested here in the potential uses of SWIR detectors on small telescopes to study transient astrophysical objects. In the specific arena of time domain astronomy, there are several science cases for which NIR observations are advantageous. Exoplanet transit light curves are likely to be more sharply defined in the NIR due to the effects of limb darkening [@limbtemp; @limbwavelength], making them easier to identify. The study of exoplanets around smaller, cooler stars (M-type and Brown Dwarfs) is also optimal while operating in the NIR [@IRexo]. Type Ia supernova light curves appear to be more standard in the NIR bands than at visible wavelengths [@SN_ir; @sn_ir_reason]. Gamma-ray Burst (GRB) afterglows have their peak brightness in the NIR, and they tend to fade more slowly in this regime [@afterglow; @ag_length; @ratir]. Finally, the electromagnetic counterpart to gravitational waves from neutron star mergers should have a characteristic NIR signature [@kilo_ir]. There are natural limitations for NIR observations. The terrestrial sky is very bright in the NIR, due to emission from particles, namely hydroxil (OH$^-$), in the atmosphere [@irsky_canada]. As such, ground-based IR astronomy tends to be noise-limited by sky background. This suggests an interesting instrument design path that utilizes inexpensive or off-the-shelf detectors, with higher-than-typical noise properties as compared to state-of-the-art detectors, because the detector noise can still be driven below the limiting sky noise in some situations. We explore the implications for small telescopes, in particular, below. Even when sky noise is not the limiting noise source, as in the case of very bright sources like exoplanet transits, detector stability and stability of the variable night sky in the NIR become key considerations. Astronomers have characterized well the NIR sky brightness, with expected magnitudes of $J=16.6$ per $arcsec^2$ and $H=15.5$ per $arcsec^2$ [@irsky_chile]. It is possible to decrease the resulting sky background by utilizing narrow filters that sit in wavelength space between bright sky lines, which are also highly-time-variable. The FIRE spectrograph on Magellan has achieved a mean inter-line sky continuum level of $Y=20.05\pm 0.04$, $J = 19.55\pm 0.03$, and $H = 18.80\pm 0.02$ (stat.) $\pm0.2$ (sys.) mag arcsec$^{−2}$ [@FIRE]. A narrow $Y$-band filter could exploit one of these gaps (at 960-1080 nm), providing an uninterrupted window for observations [@yband]. We note that all magnitudes presented in this paper are in the AB system. The quantum efficiency (QE) of conventional silicon-based CCD detectors breaks down at wavelengths beyond 1000 nm [@otheringaas]. The current standard for IR astronomy are HgCdTe detectors. These detectors must be cryogenically cooled to decrease detector dark current to acceptable levels and to permit stable readout. Astronomical instruments using these detectors tend to be both expensive and heavy. A different semi-conductor, InGaAs (useful for 700-1700 nm) [@ingaas] [@ingaas2], covers the shorter end of the NIR bandpass [Figure \[atmos\_QE\]; @HgCdTe]. These detectors, which have become commercially available as a result of night vision industry, have decent noise properties at room temperature. InGaAs detectors are cheaper to obtain than HgCdTe detectors, although the available format is currently smaller. Depending on the application (and on the sky brightness per pixel in particular), there is the possibility of operating at relatively high temperature, at or near room temperature. ![Left: An example InGaAs QE curve (from, http://www.sensorsinc.com), plotted in red over the atmospheric transmission spectra in black (from, http://modtran.spectral.com/modtran\_index), with the $Y$, $J$, and $H$ bands labeled. Right: The visible gradient across a dark frame of the detector at 20 C, most likely due to a temperature gradient caused by the ohmic heating of the camera’s electronics.[]{data-label="atmos_QE"}](atmos_QE.png "fig:") ![Left: An example InGaAs QE curve (from, http://www.sensorsinc.com), plotted in red over the atmospheric transmission spectra in black (from, http://modtran.spectral.com/modtran\_index), with the $Y$, $J$, and $H$ bands labeled. Right: The visible gradient across a dark frame of the detector at 20 C, most likely due to a temperature gradient caused by the ohmic heating of the camera’s electronics.[]{data-label="atmos_QE"}](dark.png "fig:") In this study, we characterize a commercially available SWIR camera from the Goodrich corporation in both laboratory and on-sky settings with small telescopes and realistic observing conditions. Below, we show the results of the laboratory testing, including dark rate (and its behavior with temperature), gain, read noise, QE, linearity, and charge persistence. We also present the results of testing the InGaAs detector on the sky. We show the detector’s photometric precision, its color (comparing $J$ band to $Y$ and $H$ bands), and finally present a light curve of HD189733, which shows the predicted dip caused by a known exoplanet transit. Having presented these results, we show that we can account for the noise present in our system by accurately modeling the statistical sources of noise. Using our model for noise, we put limits on what sources we can study. Camera Description and Laboratory Testing {#sec:lab_test} ========================================= We have tested a small-format (320x240 pixel) Short Wave Infra-Red (SWIR) camera from Sensors Unlimited, Inc.[^1], a division of UTC Aerospace Systems. The SU320HX-1.7RT is a Mil-Rugged InGaAs video camera featuring high-sensitivity and wide operating temperature range. It has a compact size ($<$ 3.8 in$^3$) and can be operated over a wide temperature range (-40 to 70 C) with low required power ($<$ 2.9 W at 20 C). The sensor has large pixels (40$\mu$m x 40$\mu$m) and is advertised to have high pixel operability ($>99$%) and high sensitivity ($>65$% QE) from 900 nm to 1.7 $\mu$m. The full-well depth is $10^7$ e$^-$. A built-in thermo-electric cooler (TEC) is designed to maintain a stable sensor temperature of 20 C. The analog signal from the sensor is digitized to 12-bit data in CameraLink format. We use a frame-grabber from National Instruments (NI PCIe-1427) and the NI-IMAQ software[^2] for image acquisition. Custom python scripts have been written to provide a GUI and scripting interface as well as to provide real-time image visualization; this software is called ICACTI (Infrared Camera for Astrophysical and Cosmological Transients Interface) and and has been made freely available[^3]. We set camera modes using the serial interface and use the NI-IMAQ C libraries to store image frames in FITS format. We operate the camera in a continuous read mode of individual 16.3 ms frames which are summed into longer exposure frames as desired. The 16.3 ms frame time is found to offer an acceptable compromise: the noise floor is well-sampled while there is also sufficient dynamic range to avoid saturation due to bright stars. In the sub-sections below, we discuss laboratory measurements of the detector dark current, gain, quantum efficiency, persistence, and linearity. Dark Current, Read Noise, and Sensor Gain ----------------------------------------- Blocking light to the camera, we measure a dark current at the nominal operating temperature (20 C) of $5.7\times10^4$ $e^-s^{-1}$ per pixel (i.e., $3.6\times10^{13} e^-s^{-1}m^{-2}$). A variation in the dark current level is found to be present across the sensor, similar to the pattern discussed for the device in @otheringaas. We find that this gradient persists when the internal TEC is turned off and cannot, therefore, be due to the TEC. A likely explanation for the temperature gradient is ohmic heating due to circuitry behind the sensor. Similar detectors have been characterized [@otheringaas; @taiwaningaas], with similar dark rates at 20 C. The camera studied by @otheringaas has a dark rate of $3.5\times10^{13} e^-s^{-1}m^{-2}$. @taiwaningaas tested an InGaAs detector with a dark rate of $6.6\times10^{14} e^-s^{-1}m^{-2}$. We have also experimented with additional cooling (Figure \[cooling\]) using an external TEC mounted to the side of the aluminum camera housing. We employed a Ferrotec 3-stage Deep Cooling unit, capable of generating a $\Delta T = 111$ C temperature differential between the hot and cold side of the TEC. The entire camera was kept near 0 C in an external, cooled enclosure and insulation was wrapped around the device and 3-stage TEC. However, we did not achieve the expected 111 C temperature differential due to the lack of direct contact between the 3-stage TEC and sensor. By measuring both the signal level (dominated by dark current; Figure \[cooling\]R) and the signal variance in several frames captured over a range of temperatures (Figure \[cooling\]L), we find an inverse gain of approximately 3 e$^-$/ADU. We find a read noise of about 12 e$^-$ per 16.3 ms frame. After moderately cooling the camera (down to -15 C), we achieve a dark current of $1.42\times 10^{13} e^-s^{-1}m^{-2}$. @otheringaas and @taiwaningaas achieve a more significant decrease in the dark current after similar cooling ($1.5 \times 10^{12} e^-s^{-1}m^{-2}$ and $1.4\times10^{13} e^-s^{-1}m^{-2}$, respectively). We have modeled the change in dark current with respect to temperature using simple exponential functions, of the form $D(T)=A e^{B T}+C$, where $D(T)$ is the dark current as a function of temperature, $T$. These exponentials are plotted as a solid green line, for the Goodrich detector, and as a solid blue line, for the @otheringaas, in Figure \[cooling\]. Separating the exponential and constant baseline (the dotted green components in Figure \[cooling\]), demonstrates that both our Goodrich detector, and the @otheringaas detector have similar exponential behavior, with a large discrepancy between the constant offsets. The large constant component still present when cooling the Goodrich detector is most likely due to the fact that we did not directly cool sensor, and instead cooled the entire camera unit. Directly cooling the sensor inside the Goodrich camera would require to disassembly of the camera. We would need to run longer wires from the electronics to the sensor, attach the TEC to the back of the sensor, and run water cooling to pull heat from the hot side of the TEC. This would all need to be enclosed in a larger aluminum case, with fans to dump heat from the water cooling system. Although not yet developed, such a scheme to apply direct cooling to the sensor would likely remove the pattern noise found in the dark frames. An external triggering device could also be housed in the new camera assembly (as motivated in Section \[disc\]). Cooling the sensor directly, we expect to achieve a dark current on the order of the sky background ($\approx 6000 e^-s^-$ per pixel in J-band for the telescopes we have utilized; see Section \[disc\]). We can determine at which temperature this dark current will occur using our exponential fit models; however, this temperature is very sensitive to baseline level. If we assume a similar baseline to the @otheringaas detector, we should achieve a dark current comparable to the sky background level at $T=0C$. Even at a baseline level several times higher than the @otheringaas detector, the temperature needed to achieve sky background levels in the dark current would still be well within the cooling range of the Ferrotec TEC. ![*Left:* The effect of temperature on dark rate, utilizing an external 3-stage TEC. The units on the right side y-axis denote the per pixel dark rate if each detector had the same sized pixels (40 $\mu$m $\times$ 40 $\mu$m). The left y-axis shows the dark rate in terms of area instead of pixels, so that the different detectors can be directly compared. *Right:* The relationship between variance and signal is plotted, with the equation describing the fit shown.[]{data-label="cooling"}](darkvstemp "fig:") ![*Left:* The effect of temperature on dark rate, utilizing an external 3-stage TEC. The units on the right side y-axis denote the per pixel dark rate if each detector had the same sized pixels (40 $\mu$m $\times$ 40 $\mu$m). The left y-axis shows the dark rate in terms of area instead of pixels, so that the different detectors can be directly compared. *Right:* The relationship between variance and signal is plotted, with the equation describing the fit shown.[]{data-label="cooling"}](varsig_big_eq "fig:") We note that our inferred inverse gain value is somewhat smaller than the manufacturer’s value quoted for 16.3 ms frames. This suggests some smoothing present in the analog-to-digital conversion. By calculating the autocorrelation between subsequent frames on a pixel-by-pixel bases, we determine that approximately 15 subsequent frames show signs of correlation. We expect that this smoothing is due to the capacitors present in each pixel read-out. Our measurements of all astronomical sources below were conducted using 1 s integration sums of the 16.3 ms frames, sufficiently long enough to average over this capacitive smoothing. We estimate that the effective inverse gain in a 16.3 ms frame is approximately 5 e$^-$/ADU. Using Figure \[cooling\], we are also able to determine the read noise of the detector. Using the y-intercept, and converting to appropriate units, the read noise corresponds to 12 $e^-frame^{-1}$ (90 $e^-s^{-1}$). Finally, we note that cooling the InGaAs detector strongly comes at a price: the sensitivity to longer wavelength light is degraded for InGaAs (e.g. Figure 4-8[^4]. The sensitivity lost by this detector would occur in the $H$-band, where the sky brightness level is high, perhaps making the loss of sensitivity at longer wavelengths acceptable. Quantum Efficiency, Persistence, and Linearity ---------------------------------------------- We confirmed the advertised QE of the camera by measuring monochromatic light with both the Goodrich camera and a photo-electric diode, with known responsivity. We measure a QE of $>80\%$ between 950-1050 nm and $>60\%$ between 1050-1700 nm. This wavelength range encompasses the entire $J$-band and most of the $H$-band with moderate efficiency ($>60\%$), and importantly, the very clean $Y$-band at high efficiency ($>80\%$). The effects of charge persistence can be important for time domain astronomy, in particular. To quantify the persistence, while the detector was collecting data, a light source was turned on and off. We fit exponentials to this data, resulting in a time constant of 23.9 ms for exponential growth (when the light was turned on) and 16.5 ms for decay (when the light was turned off). These time scales are on the order of the individual frame time (16.3 ms) and are likely to be much shorter than any natural timescales for typical astrophysical transients. We also tested the linearity of our detector to ensure it was suitable to study the wide range of magnitudes inherent in transient astronomy: from bright stars hosting exoplanetary systems, to dim and distant SNe and GRBs. The Goodrich detector exhibits a linear response over a range of 10 e$^-$ per pixel to $3 \times 10^6$ e$^-$ per pixel (a dynamic range of $>10^5$). Sky Testing =========== In order to verify our laboratory device characterization just discussed, we conducted a number of on-sky imaging campaigns (Table \[tabl\]). In addition to confirming device properties utilizing a noise model for sources detected by the camera, which we explore in Section \[sec:noise\] below, there were two major goals of these campaigns: (1) to conduct proof of principle observations of both very bright sources and faint sources near the noise floor of the device, and (2) to observe a sufficient number of field stars to allow for the photometric characterization of the camera in terms of flux and color accuracy. We mounted the Goodrich camera on an 18-inch ($f/4.5$) and 12-inch ($f/10$) telescope and conducted sky testing from a roof top on ASU’s campus in Tempe, Arizona. The sensor has a plate scale of 4.0 arcseconds/pixel on the sky on the 18-inch telescope, with a field of view of 21.4 x 16.0 arcmin$2$. The sensor has a plate scale of 2.7 arcseconds/pixel on the 12-inch telescope, with a field of view of 14.4 x 10.8 arcmin$2$. Due to the large size of the camera’s pixels on the sky, it is sometimes true that the entire full width at half maximum (FWHM) of a star is contained in a single pixel. At site with better seeing, this is likely to be a common occurrence. Single pixel source monitoring could be useful for some high-precision photometric applications which seek to mitigate the effect of intra-pixel and pixel-to-pixel gain variations. The 18-inch Newtonian telescope, manufactured by JMI, features a highly stable, 36 inch split ring polar mount. The primary mirror and secondary diagonals used for telescope are supplied by Galaxy Optics (Buena Vista, CO), which produce high quality, large diameter Newtonian mirrors. It is a precision annealed, 2 inch thick pyrex primary mirror floated on 18-points, which provides even support and prevents pressure areas leading to distortion. The mirrors are manufactured to yield RMS wavefront errors below that of the diffraction limit. The optical coating are custom fit to be effective in the IR band, with a $<$ 1/100 wave center to thickness variation and mirror reflectivity of 98$\%$. The 12-inch telescope is an LX-200 Cassegrain telescope from Meade. Data for the sky tests was collected and saved from the camera using the acquisition software (Section \[sec:lab\_test\]). The data were then analyzed using a pipeline similar to the one used for RATIR [Reionization And Transients Infrared/Optical camera; @RATIR_pipeline], as follows. Images were first reduced using flat-fielding algorithms in Python. Stars in the reduced images are found using Source Extractor [@sextractor], and images are aligned based on those star locations using astrometry.net [@astrometry]. These aligned images are then stacked using SWARP [@swarp]. Finally, photometry is obtained using Source Extractor on the stacked images. The results of running our pipeline on data collected for the fields of the galaxy Centaurus A and HD189733 are shown in Figure \[fields\]. Additional information about the data from these fields, as well as the field HAT-P-36, are shown in Table \[tabl\]. ![*Left:* The field of Centaurus A. Centaurus A is the host galaxy for the recent supernova, SN2016adj. The images at the top are a zoom on the region of SN2016adj, and an image subtraction of the same zoomed area of the sky. The image subtraction removes the foreground star, revealing SN2016adj. *Right:* The field containing the exoplanet orbiting HD189733. The HD189733 system has a transiting exoplanet. The light curve showing a detection of the exoplanet is shown in Figure \[exo\_lightcurve\]. Additional information for these images can be found in Table \[tabl\].[]{data-label="fields"}](sn2016adjcomposite4.png "fig:") ![*Left:* The field of Centaurus A. Centaurus A is the host galaxy for the recent supernova, SN2016adj. The images at the top are a zoom on the region of SN2016adj, and an image subtraction of the same zoomed area of the sky. The image subtraction removes the foreground star, revealing SN2016adj. *Right:* The field containing the exoplanet orbiting HD189733. The HD189733 system has a transiting exoplanet. The light curve showing a detection of the exoplanet is shown in Figure \[exo\_lightcurve\]. Additional information for these images can be found in Table \[tabl\].[]{data-label="fields"}](HD189733_reg_cropped "fig:") Figure Label Target Effective Exposure Time (s) Telescope -------------- ------------- -- -- ----------------------------- --------------- -- 2013\_10\_29 HD 189733 463 12-inch Meade 2016\_02\_16 Centaurus A 8198 12-inch Meade 2016\_04\_14 HAT-P-36 14610 18-inch JMI 2016\_04\_26 HAT-P-36 12245 18-inch JMI : Summary of Astronomical Fields Observed for On-Sky Testing \[tabl\] We targeted HD189733 and HAT-P-36 as they are known to host exoplanets. Centaurus A was imaged a week after the detection of SN2016adj [@sn2016adj]. Despite blending with a nearby ($J=10.8$ mag) star, image subtraction with HOTPANTS [@HOTPANTS], using a convolved 2MASS $J$-band archival image as a reference, reveals the $J\sim 13$ mag supernova (Figure \[fields\]). We collected the HD189733 data on the 12-inch telescope before the 18-inch telescope was operational. The Centaurus A data were collected on the 12-inch telescope due to the galaxy’s location on the sky and the fact that it would have been challenging to point our 18-inch telescope that far South. In the following sub-sections, we use the data from HD189733, Centaurus A, and HAT-P-36 fields to determine the Goodrich camera’s performance on the sky, testing its photometric performance, comparing its color to the established 2MASS [@2mass] and Pan-STARRS [@panstarrs] catalogs, and determining a color correction term to compare our broadband results to these filtered catalogs. We are able to detect exoplanet transits, as evidenced by the dip in the lightcurve of HD189733 (Figure \[exo\_lightcurve\]), associated with the transit of exoplanet HD189733b. Photometric Performance ----------------------- We obtained photometry from as many stars from the HD189733, Centaurus A, and HAT-P-36 fields as possible. In Figure \[photometric\_performance\], we have plotted the apparent magnitude of the fields stars against their respective errors. ![The photometric errors of detected stars compared to a model of statistical noise, described in Section \[disc\]; the dashed line shows a model with a systematic error term, and the dot-dashed line shows the same model without the systematic term. The observations on these nights are detailed in Table \[tabl\].[]{data-label="photometric_performance"}](photometric_precision_4nights.png) The theoretical curves plotted in Figure \[photometric\_performance\], modeling the 18-inch and 12-inch telescopes, are calculated in Section \[disc\]. We note that the models closely match the data, and as such we can use these models to predict whether an exoplanet transit will be visible for stars of a certain magnitude. Following the dot-dashed curve for the 18-inch telescope in Figure \[photometric\_performance\] to brighter sources, we find that milli-magnitude precision should be possible for stars brighter than $J=8$. Color Correction ---------------- If the camera is used without a bandpass filter, as it was in the sky testing presented in this paper, a color-correction term may be needed to compare the measured magnitude of sources to the $J$, $H$, and $Y$ band measurements from established catalogs. We compare our data from the nights described in Table \[tabl\] to catalogs from 2MASS for $J$ and $H$ bands, and Pan-STARRS for $Y$ band. There are no Pan-STARRS data, however, for the Centaurus A field, as that survey did not collect data south of declination -30 degrees. Comparing our magnitude to the $J$ and $H$ bands from 2MASS yields a color term of -0.05$\pm$ 0.03 (Figure \[col\_corr\]). This small color correction term demonstrates that the bulk of light collected by the camera is in the $J$-band, with a small fraction of light in the $H$-band. ![*Left:* A color correction term is given by the slope of the line (-0.05) through the data. This term is important for comparing our instrumental magnitudes with catalog magnitudes ($J$ and $H$ taken from the 2MASS catalog). $J^\prime$ is the expected magnitude, given $J$ and $H$ from the catalog and applying the color correction term. *Right:* The accuracy of the color correction is shown by comparing our measured magnitude relative to the expected magnitude $J^\prime$. The observations on these nights are detailed in Table \[tabl\].[]{data-label="col_corr"}](color_correction_term_4nights.png "fig:") ![*Left:* A color correction term is given by the slope of the line (-0.05) through the data. This term is important for comparing our instrumental magnitudes with catalog magnitudes ($J$ and $H$ taken from the 2MASS catalog). $J^\prime$ is the expected magnitude, given $J$ and $H$ from the catalog and applying the color correction term. *Right:* The accuracy of the color correction is shown by comparing our measured magnitude relative to the expected magnitude $J^\prime$. The observations on these nights are detailed in Table \[tabl\].[]{data-label="col_corr"}](color_correction_accuracy_4nights.png "fig:") The overall photometric accuracy is plotted in the right-most graph in Figure \[col\_corr\]. Including the color term derived above, the photometry is accurate (within the error bars) for both bright ($J\leq 12$) stars and fainter stars where the uncertainties are large. There is also potentially a color correcting in the blue due to the detector response shortward of $J$-band (Figure \[atmos\_QE\]). Comparing our magnitudes with the $J$-band from 2MASS and the $Y$-band from Pan-STARRS, we derive a color correction term of 0.01$\pm$ 0.03 (consistent with zero), as seen in the left graph of Figure \[colorY\]. ![*Left:* The color correction term is given by the slope of the line (0.01) through the data. This term is important for comparing our instrumental magnitudes with catalog magnitudes ($J$ taken from the 2MASS catalog and $Y$ taken from Pan-STARRS). $J^\prime$ is the expected magnitude, given $J$ and $Y$ from the catalogs and applying the color correction term. *Right:* The accuracy of the color correction is shown by comparing our measured magnitude relative to the expected magnitude $J^\prime$. The observations on these nights are detailed in Table \[tabl\].[]{data-label="colorY"}](color_correction_term_y.png "fig:") ![*Left:* The color correction term is given by the slope of the line (0.01) through the data. This term is important for comparing our instrumental magnitudes with catalog magnitudes ($J$ taken from the 2MASS catalog and $Y$ taken from Pan-STARRS). $J^\prime$ is the expected magnitude, given $J$ and $Y$ from the catalogs and applying the color correction term. *Right:* The accuracy of the color correction is shown by comparing our measured magnitude relative to the expected magnitude $J^\prime$. The observations on these nights are detailed in Table \[tabl\].[]{data-label="colorY"}](color_correction_accuracy_y.png "fig:") With the small $J-H$ color correction and the even smaller $J-Y$ color correction of (-0.05 and 0.01, Figures \[col\_corr\] and \[colorY\], respectively), we note that our (unfiltered) camera acts very much like a filtered $J$-band camera. There appears to be an overall blue-ward shift in the color data when using the 12-inch telescope compared to the 18-inch telescope (or a red-ward shift in the 18-inch telescope compared to the 12-inch telescope) as seen in Figures \[col\_corr\] and \[colorY\]. HD189733b Transit ----------------- The exoplanet HD189733b was detected around its host star by @hd189733b using radial velocity measurements. It was verified spectroscopically shortly thereafter by the same group [@hd189733b]. HD189733 is a well studied system, due to the brightness of the star [$J$ and $H\approx7$; @2mass] and the depth of the transiting exoplanet [a $\gtrsim$2% decrease in star brightness; @hd189733b]. Despite non-ideal conditions (bright sky, hot buildings, etc.), the latter half of one transit was recorded. Our light curve is shown in Figure \[exo\_lightcurve\]. Additional information about this observation can be found in Table \[tabl\]. Having demonstrated that we are capable of detecting exoplanet transits, we have continued to work with the Goodrich detector to obtain exoplanet light curves. Lightcurves for the HAT-P-33 system, as well as several others, will be presented, in conjunction with data taken simultaneously with RATIR, in a follow-up paper. ![Unfiltered observation of the transit of the 7th magnitude system HD 189733. This proof of concept observation was taken with the Goodrich detector on a rooftop of a building on the Arizona State campus in Tempe, AZ. We identify the correct transit depth and end time. The data were taken with a 12 inch Meade telescope with a plate scale of 2 arcsec/pixel.[]{data-label="exo_lightcurve"}](hd189733_lightcurve.jpg) Discussion of Noise Properties {#disc} ============================== \[sec:noise\] In order to characterize the quality of our data acquisition and to allow for future observation planning, we must understand the sources of noise for our detector. Equation \[s/n\] summarizes the expected signal-to-noise ratio ($S/N$) as a function of sources of signal in the detector: $$\frac{S}{N}=\frac{N_*}{\sqrt{N_* + n_p N_D + n_p N_S + n_p D_T + n_p RN^2 + (\sigma N_*)^2}}, \label{s/n}$$ where $N_*$ is the electron count from the source during the exposure time, $N_D$ is the number of dark current electrons from the sensor, $N_S$ is the sky brightness in electrons, $N_T$ is the number of electrons due to the thermal emissions of the instrument (telescope, camera window, etc.), $RN$ is the read noise, and $\sigma$ is a systematic term to represent any errors that scale with the source brightness. The factor $n_p$ is the number of pixels used to extract a source from an image. Here, we are assuming the counts ($N_D$, $N_S$, $N_*$, and $N_T$) are Poisson distributed. The read noise is squared in the noise calculation as it is a Gaussian noise source; the systematic term, with error proportional to $\sigma$, is also assumed to be Gaussian. Having thoroughly tested the camera in the laboratory and on the sky, we can now compare our observed measurement uncertainties to calculations of the noise properties, using Equation \[s/n\]. Assuming we cool the camera with its internal TEC ($T\approx$15 C), the dark current, $N_D$, is $5.2\times10^4$ $e^-s^{-1}pixel^{-1}$. Cooling the camera with an external TEC to $-5C$ reduces the dark rate to $2.5\times10^4$ $e^-s^{-1}pixel^{-1}$, as seen in Figure \[cooling\]. It should be noted that we believe this is not the actual temperature of the sensor, but instead the temperature inside the camera; if we were able to directly cool the sensor, the dark should be much lower at $-5C$. We note that the color plots in Figures \[col\_corr\] and \[colorY\], suggest that our detector operates almost exclusively in the $J$-band. Assuming the data from Las Campanas in Chile as a best case scenario, the sky background, $N_S$, has a level of 6600 $e^-s^{-1}pixel^{-1}$ in the $J$-band [@irsky_chile]. In Figure \[cooling\], we show that the read noise ($RN$ in Equation \[s/n\]) of the Goodrich detector is 12 $e^-pixel^{-1}frame^{-1}$. We currently capture data with a frame time of 16 ms, which means that 60 of these frames are added to create a one second exposure. Adding 60 frames together brings the read noise up to 90 $e^-pixel^{-1}s^{-1}$. This read noise is on the order of the sky background, but is much smaller than the contribution of dark noise. The level of the read noise can be reduced dramatically by externally triggering exposures for the entire one second. We have verified this in the laboratory but do not typically use external triggering in our on-sky setup. Assuming the equipment in the experimental setup acts as a black body, the thermal noise registered by the sensor would be 4850 $e^-s^{-1}$ across the entire collecting area. On a pixel level, this noise, $N_T$, is negligible ($<1e^-s^{-1}pixel^{-1}$). The remaining sources of noise in Equation \[s/n\] depend on $N_*$, the flux from the source itself. For a source of a given magnitude, the flux can be calculated using Equation \[mag\], $$mag_{AB}=-2.5\log({\frac{F}{3631\times10^{-23}}}) \label{mag}$$ where $F$ is the flux from the source, and $3631\times10^{-23}$ is a conversion factor from Jansky to cgi units. This flux can be converted into a signal on the detector using Equation \[flux\], $$F=\frac{h\times \nu \times g}{d\nu \times A \times {QE}}\times\frac{C}{dt} \label{flux}$$ where $h$ is Plank’s constant, $\nu$ is the frequency of light, $g$ is the inverse gain of the camera, $d\nu$ is the bandwidth over which the observation is done, $A$ is the collection area of the telescope, $QE$ is the quantum efficiency of the camera and telescope together, $C$ is the number of counts on the detector, and $dt$ is the integration time over which the data are collected. The inverse gain of the camera is 5 e$^-$ per count (Section \[sec:lab\_test\]). The quantity $\nu/d\nu$ is about $0.24$ in the $J$-band, which was the dominant color as seen in Figures \[col\_corr\] and \[colorY\]. When the mirrors of the telescope, both primary and secondary, are taken into account, a conservative estimation of the total $QE$ is around 20%. The two telescopes used for testing have an 18-inch and 12-inch primary mirror respectively, which is used to calculate the area, A. The quantity $C/dt$ is either the count rate from a source of interest or is taken as the number of counts per second from the statistical sources of noise to determine limiting magnitudes. Given the magnitude of a source, we can calculate the theoretical contribution to the noise by statistical sources, using the denominator of Equation \[s/n\]. This is shown in Figure \[photometric\_performance\], with the “Model” curves for both the 18-inch telescope and the 12-inch telescope. The dashed line models in Figure \[photometric\_performance\] include the systematic term, $\sigma$, from Equation \[s/n\], while the dot-dashed line models do not include the systematic term. The data from the 12-inch telescope in Figure \[photometric\_performance\] (the red triangles and orange diamonds) show that there is systematic uncertainty preventing precision better than 10 mmag. Our sensitivity is somewhat better with the 18-inch telescope. In any case, we are confident that this systematic term is not due to the camera, but instead due to poor observing conditions (very bright sky in the Phoenix, AZ metro area). Evidence for this can be seen in Figure \[cooling\] (e.g., the right-most point in the right panel), where we demonstrate stability in the laboratory to better than 1.5 mmag. The dot-dashed lines have been included in Figure \[photometric\_performance\] to show the precision we can expect at a darker site. The dashed line theoretical curves go through the observational data points at lower magnitudes (due to the systematic term, $\sigma$). Optimal ground-based observations tend to be sky-noise-limited. In order for our detector to operate in a regime dominated by sky noise, the detector would need to be cooled directly, which would involve redesigning the camera housing. Following the trend seen in Figure \[cooling\], the Goodrich detector would need to be cooled to 0 C in order to have a dark signal approximately equal to sky emission. As mentioned above (Section \[sec:lab\_test\]), cooling the sensor significantly may lead to a loss of sensitivity at longer wavelengths. This trade-off could be acceptable due to the small fraction of $H$-band light detected, as seen in Figure \[col\_corr\], and the higher sky noise in the $H$-band. Conclusion ========== We have thoroughly tested a Goodrich InGaAs detector in the laboratory and on the sky for use in transient astronomy. Our laboratory testing (e.g., Figure \[cooling\]), indicates that the Goodrich detector performs similarly to previously tested InGaAs detectors. At room temperature (20 C), the Goodrich detector has a dark rate of 57,000 $e^-s^{-1}$ per pixel. We determined the read noise of the detector to be $12 e^-$ per frame, and the gain of the detector to be 5 $e^-$ per count (Figure \[cooling\]). The QE (Figure \[atmos\_QE\]) was confirmed to be between 60-90% over a wavelength range that includes $Y$, $J$, and parts of $H$ band (900-1700 nm). Due to large pixels and highly-stable readout, the detector’s response is linear over a factor of $>10^5$ in dynamic range. Through sky testing, we conclude that the unfiltered detector yields photometry comparable to a filtered $J$-band detector. Comparing our data to 2MASS and Pan-STARRS, we derive a $J-H$ color term of -0.05$\pm$ 0.03 (Figure \[col\_corr\]) and a $J-Y$ color term of 0.01$\pm$ 0.03 (consistent with zero; Figure \[colorY\]). We have shown that we are able to successfully model the noise present in our system (Figure \[photometric\_performance\]), and using that model we can predict whether or not we will be able to study certain transient sources. By catching the tail-end of the transit of HD189733 (Figure \[exo\_lightcurve\]), we have shown that the Goodrich camera is capable of detecting exoplanet transits and that our data-reduction pipeline is capable of extracting meaningful light curves, with better than 1% photometry, from the data. Even though under-sampled, the images are amenable to image subtraction using existing 2MASS catalog data, making possible faint source identification in potentially crowded fields (i.e., SN2016adj in Figure \[fields\]). According to the noise model fits to our data (Figure \[photometric\_performance\]), we expect to achieve milli-magnitude precision for $J<8$ sources on an 18-inch telescope. This level of precision is achieved without any advanced dithering routines, such as the snapshot technique [@dither], or any additional cooling. Implementing these would potentially push our noise ceiling down to a regime dominated by sky background. Overall, we find that mounting to smaller telescopes has the benefit of allowing for a larger area of the sky to be imaged, while also allowing for more sky background to potentially dominate the dark noise at each pixel. With the InGaAs camera mounted to a larger telescope, a finer resolution on the sky is possible; however this combination will tend to lead to a noise budget dominated by dark noise. Based on our work with the InGaAs detector in the laboratory and on the sky, we can place limits on the brightness of sources we can study. For very bright sources, such as exoplanet transits around bright stars, we are limited by the pixel well depth of $10^7$ electrons; if the well depth is achieved in a one second exposure, we can study sources as bright as $J=3.9$, before saturation on an 18-inch telescope at a signal-to-noise level of over 3000 ($0.4$ mmag precision). For dimmer sources, such as distant SNe or GRBs, our thresholds are set by statistical sources of noise. In our best case scenario, we are limited by the sky background; this would require lowering our dark, by cooling the detector to $0^{\circ}C$ (Figure \[cooling\]). If the sky background is the dominant source of noise, we expect to be able to resolve sources of $J=16.35$ at $10\sigma$ in a one minute exposure with the InGaAs detector mounted to an 18-inch telescope. The field of view of the detector on our 18-inch ($f/4.5$) telescope is $16'\times21'$. Current generation, off-the-shelf, InGaAs detectors offer a cost-effective way to study the NIR sky, as they do not need the drastic (and therefore expensive) cooling that HgCdTe detectors require. The low cost of these detectors would make them useful for compound focal planes or to enable arrays of small telescopes each with single or a few detectors. It would, therefore, be possible to build up sky coverage for monitoring multiple bright sources or for conducting wide-field, sky-limited (but relatively shallow) surveys in the NIR. Both of these science cases would benefit from the large detector pixels of the device we have studied. The large well-depth allows for monitoring of very bright sources, while the large pixels (i.e. on the sky) allow us to potentially reach the sky-background limit with modest cooling. Acknowledgements ================ This publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation. Some of the data presented in this paper were obtained from the Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes (MAST). STScI is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555. Support for MAST for non-HST data is provided by the NASA Office of Space Science via grant NNX09AF08G and by other grants and contracts. [widestlabel]{} Becker, A. 2005, “HOTPANTS: High Order Transform of PSF ANd Template Subtraction", Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1504.004 Bertin, E. 2010, “SWarp: Resampling and Co-adding FITS Images Together", Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1010.068 Bertin, E. & Arnouts, S. 1995, “SExtractor: software for source extraction", , 117, 393-404. Bouchy, F., Udry, S., Mayor, M. et al. 2005, , 444, L15–L19 Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N. et al. 2016, ArXiv e-prints, 1612.05560 C. Choi, Im, M., Jeon, Y., Ibrahimov, M., 2012, JKAS, 45, 1, 7-17 van Eerten, H. 2013, ArXiv e-prints, 1309.3869 Friedman, A. S., Wood-Vasey, W. M., Marion, G. H., et al. 2015, , 220, 9 Glass, I. S. 1999, “Handbook of Infrared Astronomy", Cambridge University Press Howarth, I. D. 2011, , 418, 2, 1165-1175 Lang, D. et al. 2010, , 139, 5, 1782-1800 Littlejohns, O. M., Butler, N. R., Cucchiara, A. et al. 2013, , 148, 1 Littlejohns, O. M., Butler, N. R., Cucchiara, A. et al. 2014, , 449, 3, 2919-2936 Mandel, K. S., Narayan, G., & Kirshner, R. P. 2011, , 731, 2 Mann, A. W., Gaidos, E., & Aldering, G. 2011, , 123, 909 Marples, P., Bock, G., & Parker, S. 2016, The Astronomer’s Telegram, No. 8651 Nagayama, T., Takeuchi, N., Kokusho, T. et al. 2014, Proceedings of the SPIE, 9154 Neilson, H. R. & Lester, J. B. 2011, , 530, A65 Norton, P. 2002, OPTO-ELECTRONICS REVIEW, 10, 3 Osterman, S., Ycas, G. G., Diddams, S. A. et al. 2012, Proceedings of the SPIE, 8450 Pearsall, T. P., Hopson Jr., R. W. 1977, Journal of Applied Physics, 48, 4407 Pearsall, T. P., Quillec, M., Pollack, M. A. et al 1979, Applied Physics Letters, 32, 497 Persson, S. E., Murphy, D. C., Gunnels, S. M. et al. 2002, , 124, 1, 619-634 Rau, A., Greiner, J., Klose, S. et al 2003, AIP Conference Proceedings, 727, 439-442 Sivanandam, S., Graham, J. R., Abraham, R. et al. 2012, Proceedings of the SPIE, 8446 Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R. et al. 2010, , 131, 1163-1183 Sullivan, P. W. & Simcoe R. A. 2012, , 124, 922 Sullivan, P. W., Croll, B., & Simcoe, R. A. 2013, , 125, 931 Tanvir, N. R., Levan, A. J., Fruchter, A. S. et al. 2013, , 500, 7464, 547-549 [^1]: http://www.sensorsinc.com [^2]: see, http://www.ni.com [^3]: https://github.com/rstrausb/ICACTI [^4]: https://www.hamamatsu.com/resources/pdf/ssd/infrared\_kird9001e.pdf

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'Grazing Incidence X-ray Diffraction (GIXD) studies of monolayers of biomolecules at the air-water interface give quantitative information of in-plane packing, coherence lengths of the ordered diffracting crystalline domains and the orientation of hydrocarbon chains. Rheo-GIXD measurements revel quantitative changes in the monolayer under shear. Here we report GIXD studies of monolayers of Alamethicin peptide, DPPC lipid and their mixtures at the air-water interface under the application of steady shear stresses. The Alamethicin monolayer and the mixed monolayer show flow jamming transition. On the other hand, pure DPPC monolayer under the constant stress flows steadily with a notable enhancement of area/molecule, coherence length, and the tilt angle with increasing stress, suggesting fusion of nano-crystallites during flow. The DPPC-Alamethicin mixed monolayer shows no significant change in the area/DPPC molecule or in the DPPC chain tilt but the coherence length of both phases (DPPC and Alamethicin) increases suggesting that the crystallites of individual phases are merging to bigger size promoting more separation of phases in the system during flow. Our results show that Rheo-GIXD has the potential to explore in-situ molecular structural changes under rheological conditions for a diverse range of confined biomolecules at the interfaces.' author: - Pradip Kumar Bera - Ajoy Kumar Kandar - Rema Krishnaswamy - Philippe Fontaine - 'Marianne Impéror-Clerc' - Brigitte Pansu - Doru Constantin - Santanu Maiti - 'Milan K. Sanyal' - 'A.K. Sood' title: 'Grazing incidence x-ray diffraction studies of lipid-peptide mixed monolayers during shear flow' --- Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered} ============ Langmuir monolayer, a molecularly thin film of amphiphilic molecules stabilized on a liquid-air interface, is an important model system for studying self-organized biological structures such as cell membranes, lung alveoli, and also has important industrial applications like in foam, emulsion, etc [@als1994principles; @kaganer1999structure; @fuller2012complex; @bera2019experimental]. A combination of Grazing Incidence X-ray Diffraction (GIXD), specular x-ray reflectivity (XR) and more recently electrochemical scanning tunneling microscopy (EC-STM) of Langmuir-Blodgett (LB) monolayers have been used to understand different kinds of phase transitions, molecular structure and orientation within crystalline domains (crystallites), formation of single layer and bi-layers [@kjaer1987ordering; @kjaer1994some; @miller2008probing; @maiti2018structural; @maiti2018understanding]. Mixed systems like lipid-cholesterol and lipid-peptide monolayers have been studied to probe the interactions of lipids with other molecules and their relative orientation [@watkins2009structure; @wu2005interaction; @neville2008protegrin; @ivankin2010cholesterol; @watkins2011membrane; @broniatowski2016studies]. Alamethicin is an antimicrobial peptide, produced by many living organisms to defend against gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria, fungi, enveloped viruses, eukaryotic parasites, and even tumor cells. Alamethicin isolated from $Trichoderma\:viride$ has 20 residue peptides with predominantly $\alpha$-helical structure. In the helical conformation, the length of the molecule is 33 Å. The helix oriented parallel to the interface is called the surface (S) state. If it is inserted into the lipid matrix with the helical axis perpendicular to the interface, it is called the inserted (I) state. The aggregation properties and flow behavior of Alamethicin in the form of Langmuir monolayer were studied using fluorescence microscopy and surface rheology [@krishnaswamy2008aggregation]. Fluorescence microscopy showed the coexistence of liquid-expanded and solid phases. The net area fraction of the solid phase increases with concentration. Interfacial rheology showed that the peptide monolayer at concentration 800 Å$^2$/molecule and above has yield stress which increases with surface concentration. Biological lipid rafts are dynamic self-organized membrane microdomains that can recruit specific peptides and lipids selectively while excluding others [@edidin2003state]. The lipid DPPC shows a variety of different ordered states due to the steric and van der Waals interactions between neighboring head groups and alkyl chains. DPPC monolayers exhibit a disordered liquid-expanded (LE) phase that transforms into a liquid-condensed (LC) phase with long-range orientational and short-range positional order at high concentration. The DPPC monolayer has been studied using in-situ fluorescence microscopy to correlate domain dynamics with shear flow [@espinosa2011shear; @hermans2014interfacial; @kim2011interfacial; @choi2011active]. In the high concentration limit, the thin domain boundaries were only visible by fluorescence and it was proposed that the interlocked domains give rise to the yield stress response of the LC-DPPC monolayer. The domain topology was preserved for small shear rates. The lipid interaction with peptides and their structural organization are governed by electrostatic and hydrophobic interactions. Recently molecular imaging techniques like STM, surface-enhanced infrared absorption (SEIRA) spectroscopy, etc have revealed hexameric pore formation in the lipid membranes [@pieta2012direct; @forbrig2018monitoring]. So far there is no structural study of the model membranes at air-water interface under shear, though in-situ GIXD has been proposed as a potential probe to monitor the dynamic properties of the crystallites of the model membranes [@kim2011interfacial; @fuller2012complex]. In this work, we present in-situ interfacial rheology along with GIXD to understand changes in the membrane lattice structure under the non-equilibrium steady-state flow condition. Rheo-GIXD measurements are done on the three model systems: Alamethicin, DPPC, and DPPC-Alamethicin mixed monolayers, at different applied stress. Experimental Details {#experimental-details .unnumbered} ==================== Materials {#materials .unnumbered} --------- The lipid with two hydrocarbon chains $1,2 \mbox{-} dipalmitoyl \mbox{-} sn \mbox{-} glycero \mbox{-} 3 \mbox{-} phosphocholine$ (DPPC) and the peptide Alamethicin (all from M/s Avanti Polar Lipids, Inc.) were used without further purification. A mixture of chloroform and methanol (1:1 v/v) was used as a volatile solvent to dissolve the peptide and lipid molecules. The required amount of the solution was spread on the air-water interface using a microsyringe (M/s Hamilton, 50 $\mu$L) to obtain the interfacial layer between the bi-cone and the co-centric homemade shear cell, after the evaporation of the solvent [@krishnaswamy2008aggregation]. A deionized water sub-phase (M/s Millipore, with a resistivity of 18.2 M$\Omega$.cm) was used for the DPPC monolayer. For pure Alamethicin and DPPC-Alamethicin (molar ratio \[Alamethicin\]/\[DPPC\] = 1:2) mixed monolayers, the sub-phase was the aqueous solution of 0.1 mole NaCl (pH 7), which was adjusted with 10$^{-3}$ mole phosphate buffer (Na$_{2}$HPO$_{4}$:NaH$_{2}$PO$_{4}$ 1:1, M/s Merck). Rheo-GIXD measurement {#rheo-gixd-measurement .unnumbered} --------------------- ![(Color online) schematic of the in-situ Rheo-GIXD setup, showing the water-filled IRS cell on the rheometer’s peltier base, the position of the bi-cone on the interface and the path of the x-ray beam through the Kapton window striking the annular shaped interface (top). (Bottom left) schematic of the GIXD mechanism: the vertical incidence angle ($\alpha_i$), the horizontal scattering angle ($2\theta$) and the vertical exit angle ($\alpha$); in-plane wave vector q$_{xy} \simeq (4\pi/\lambda) \sin{(2\theta/2)}$ and out-of-plane wave vector q$_{z}=(2\pi/\lambda)(\sin{\alpha} + \sin{\alpha_i})$ are shown. (Bottom right) photograph of the experimental setup showing the x-ray source, the rheometer on a z-stage and the detector assembly attached to the goniometer.[]{data-label="F1"}](F1){width="100.00000%"} We have calibrated our rheo-GIXD set up using behenic acid monolayer as a test sample. The 2D diffraction pattern (see Supporting Information Section A) is matching with literature [@pignat2006ph] and validates our GIXD setup. Also, the sensitivity of the monolayers to the small imposed torque on the measuring bi-cone geometry was checked using test monolayers with cholesterol, which is known for showing very low surface viscosity [@evans1980surface] (see Supporting Information Section B). With the cholesterol and cholesterol mixed monolayers we get very high value of the shear rate ($\dot{\gamma}$) which confirms the good sensitivity of the monolayers even to the very small interfacial stress ($\sigma$ in units of $\mu$Pa-m) imposed by the rheometer. After spreading the solution at 300 K the cell was covered by Teflon cover and then waited for 2000 s to let the spreading solvent evaporate under the slow helium flow. During this, an oscillatory shear of strain amplitude $\gamma_0$ = 0.001 with an angular frequency $\omega$ = 10 rad/s was applied to follow up the formation of the monolayer. To maintain identical initial conditions before each creep measurement, monolayers were presheared at $\sigma$ = 250 $\mu$Pa-m for 200 s and then allowed the system to equilibrate for 300 s. After 500 s from the starting of creep measurements, GIXD measurements were started to scan the system in the steady flow state. The rheo-GIXD experiments were carried out at the SIRIUS beamline of the SOLEIL Synchrotron, France using an x-ray photon energy of 8 keV ($\lambda \approx$ 1.55 Å) at 285 K [@fontaine2014soft]. This low value of temperature is chosen to minimize the evaporation of water which could change the bicone coupling to the interface. A stress-controlled rheometer (M/s Anton Paar, model MCR-501) fitted with a homemade interfacial shear cell (radius = 65 mm) based on the bi-cone geometry (radius = 34.14 mm) was mounted on the SIRIUS beamline. A schematic of the experimental setup is shown in Figure \[F1\]. The dimension of the x-ray beam footprint on the liquid surface was maintained to be $\sim$ 1.5 mm $\times$ 20 mm (velocity-gradient velocity direction) by the slits attached to the x-ray source. As the x-ray grazing angle is very small, the shear cell was slightly overfilled to get a just inverted meniscus. The position of the rheometer was set to have the x-ray beam $\sim$ 5 mm away from the cone edge. After each load, to make the x-ray footprint strike at the same position on the surface, the height of the motorized stage was adjusted in order to bring the liquid surface to the desired height by scanning the specular reflection of the x-ray. Note, the local velocity of the region being scanned is $\approx \dot{\gamma} \times$ $y$ (note $\dot{\gamma}$ is the global shear rate in the system), $y=$ 25 mm; is the distance of the x-ray footprint from the cell wall. Water-saturated helium was injected slowly inside the cell from the top to reduce scattering from the air. The monochromatic x-ray beam was adjusted to strike the interface at an incident angle $\alpha_i$ = 2.28 mrad, which corresponds to 0.85 $\alpha_c$, where $\alpha_c$ is the critical angle of air-water interface [@als1994principles] corresponding to the wavelength. The linear (1D) gas-filled position sensitive detector (PSD) fitted with the goniometer was used to record the diffraction pattern by varying the horizontal angle $2\theta$ from low to high. Soller slits with angular resolution 0.02 degree were used. GIXD Data analysis {#gixd-data-analysis .unnumbered} ------------------ Two dimensional (2D) diffraction plots for all the three monolayers at rest are shown in Figure \[F2\]. As a check, a smooth background is observed in GIXD from the clean water surface without any feature. The in-plane scattering wave vector q$_{xy}$ gives information about Bragg peaks in the velocity-velocity gradient plane (V$\times \nabla$V). On the other hand, the out-of-plane scattering wave vector q$_{z}$ gives information about the Bragg rods [@watkins2011membrane; @als1994principles]. q$_{xy}$ and q$_{z}$ are expressed in terms of vertical incidence angle ($\alpha_i$), horizontal scattering angle ($2\theta$) and vertical exit angle ($\alpha$) as [@kjaer1994some]: $$\label{eqnqxy} \begin{split} \frac{q_{xy}}{k} & = \sqrt{(\cos{\alpha} - \cos{\alpha_i})^2 + 2\cos{\alpha}\cos{\alpha_i}(1 - \cos{2\theta})} \\ & \simeq \sqrt{(1 + \cos{\alpha}^2 - 2\cos{\alpha}\cos{2\theta})} \\ & \simeq 2 \sin{(2\theta/2)} + O(\alpha^2) \\ \end{split}$$ $$\label{eqnqz} \frac{q_{z}}{k} = \sin{\alpha} + \sin{\alpha_i} \\$$ Where $k = 2 \pi/\lambda$ and $\cos{\alpha_i} \approx 1$ for very small value of $\alpha_i$. The observed peaks are well separated in the q$_{xy}$-q$_{z}$ contour plots. We note that the relatively more noise in the data compared to the monolayers prepared in Langmuir trough is expected because our experiments are done on a spread monolayer in place of compressing it from a liquid expanded phase and later, it is in the flow state. [@neville2008protegrin; @watkins2009structure; @watkins2011membrane]. We have adopted the box integration method for each peak as discussed below. Bragg peaks are observed by integrating the contours from q$_{z}$ = 0 Å$^{-1} $ to 0.1 Å$^{-1}$ and from 0.3 Å$^{-1}$ to 0.5 Å$^{-1}$. Bragg peaks are fitted with Voigt function along with background intensity to get the peak centers and the full width at half maximum (FWHM) [@watkins2009structure]. For DPPC, lattice distance d$_{hk}$ = 2$\pi$/q$_{hk}$ are extracted using Bragg peaks q$_{02}$ and q$_{11}$ and then fitted to 2D centered rectangular unit cell model to get the lattice parameters a and b [@watkins2011membrane; @kjaer1994some] and hence area/molecule. With the Scherrer equation, FWHM of the Bragg peaks were used to determine the coherence length L (L= 2$\pi$/FWHM) which can be approximated as the average size of the nano-crystallites. Bragg rod profiles are obtained by integrating the contours for $\Delta$q$_{xy}$ = q$_{02}\pm 0.015$ Å$^{-1}$ (near q$_{02}$), and q$_{11}\pm 0.030$ Å$^{-1}$ (near q$_{11}$) (see Figure \[F2\]). In our GIXD data q$_{02}$ and q$_{11}$ peaks have long tails in upward and downward directions respectively, suggesting large variation in the tilt angle of hydrocarbon chains with respect to the interface normal towards the nearest-neighbor direction (NN). The maximum tilt angle ($\delta$) is calculated using $\delta$ = $\Delta$q$_z$/(2$\pi$/a), where $\Delta$q$_z$ is the peak to peak distance in the I vs q$_z$ plot [@watkins2009structure]. We have restricted our study for q$_{xy} \geq 1.0$ Å$^{-1}$, below this limit, the noise increases significantly towards the direct beam. Results and discussion {#results-and-discussion .unnumbered} ====================== Equilibrium study of Alamethicin, DPPC, DPPC-Alamethicin mixed monolayer {#equilibrium-study-of-alamethicin-dppc-dppc-alamethicin-mixed-monolayer .unnumbered} ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ![(Color online) GIXD intensity contours in (q$_{xy}$, q$_{z}$) plane, Bragg peaks (I vs q$_{xy}$) and Bragg rod profiles (I vs q$_{z}$) of the three monolayers (a) Alamethicin (b) DPPC and (c) DPPC-Alamethicin are shown under no shear condition at 285 K. Solid lines are fits using Voigt function. In (c) for the bottom Bragg peak, the solid line is the resultant fit with two peaks (blue dotted line and red shaded black dotted line). Color bars represent intensity values in contours.[]{data-label="F2"}](F2){width="100.00000%"} Before applying shear to the monolayers at the annular-shaped air-water interface between the bi-cone and the shear cell, their structural properties were characterized. Figure \[F2\] shows the equilibrium diffraction patterns of Alamethicin, DPPC, DPPC-Alamethicin mixed monolayer. The Alamethicin monolayer was prepared for 12 Å$^2$/molecule surface concentration as lower concentrations do not give rise to a measurable diffraction peak in the GIXD. The equilibrium GIXD pattern shows up a strong peak at q$_{xy}$ = 1.514 Å$^{-1}$ near q$_{z}$ = 0 confirming that the Alamethicin molecules are adsorbed on the surface. The observed strong peak due to the Alamethicin corresponds to the pitch of the helix of 4.15 Å(Figure \[F4\]c) which is quite small compared with the pitch of 5.4 Åfor a free $\alpha$-helix. This reduction in helix pitch is due to the compact packing of Alamethicin molecules on the water surface at this high concentration, consistent with the previous study of the helical scattering distribution of Alamethicin [@spaar2004conformation]. The coherence length estimated from the measured linewidth ($\sim$ 475 Å) suggests that there are domains of at least 14 correlated molecules. The expected hexagonal lattice ordering, forming holes inside these domains [@pieta2012direct], with lattice parameters of a = 19 Å, should show a Bragg peak in the low q range which is not seen in our experiments due to high background intensity near the direct beam, and hence we cannot estimate the area/molecule from the GIXD data. The GIXD pattern from DPPC (solution concentration of 0.5 mg/mL) shown in Figure \[F2\]b gives area/molecule = 42.1 Å$^2$/molecule. DPPC has the 2D ordering of molecules on the water surface and gives rise to two well-separated two Bragg peaks (Figure \[F2\]b) at q$_{xy}$ = 1.464 Å$^{-1}$ (q$_{z}$ = 0.43 Å$^{-1}$) and q$_{xy}$ = 1.489 Å$^{-1}$ (q$_{z}$ = 0.03 Å$^{-1}$). The relative intensity of these two peaks is $\sim$ 2:1 as expected for the DPPC monolayer [@watkins2009structure]. The diffraction pattern is analyzed with the centered-rectangular unit cell model of rod-shaped alkyl chains with uniform NN tilts [@watkins2009structure] (Table \[T1\]). The coherence length and the hydrocarbon chain tilt angle are consistent with the previous studies [@watkins2009structure]. The DPPC-Alamethicin mixed monolayer was prepared with a molar ratio of 1:2 and with surface concentrations 12 Å$^2$/Alamethicin-molecule. The GIXD clearly shows three Bragg peaks (Figure \[F2\]c), one is at 1.510 Å$^{-1}$ representing Alamethicin helix pitch and the other two at 1.463 Å$^{-1}$ and 1.496 Å$^{-1}$ with 2:1 intensity ratio, associated with the DPPC molecular ordering in the monolayer. The estimated area/molecule of DPPC is 42.0 Å$^2$/molecule which is very close to the pure DPPC monolayer (Table \[T2\]). The hexagonal structure of Alamethicin in DPPC-Alamethicin [@pieta2012direct] mixture could not be observed due to the high direct-beam leakage intensity at low q$_{xy}$. Note that in equilibrium, the Alamethicin helix peak is on the shoulder of the DPPC q$_{02}$ Bragg peak, but with shear flow coherence lengths corresponding to the DPPC q$_{02}$ peak and the Alamethicin helix peak increase drastically and thus Alamethicin helix peak stands well separated in the GIXD pattern (see Figure \[F6\]b). Stress controlled flow curve {#stress-controlled-flow-curve .unnumbered} ---------------------------- ![Flow curve, shear stress ($\sigma$) versus the shear rate ($\dot{\gamma}$) obtained in the controlled shear stress (CSS) mode with a waiting time of $30 \:s$ for each data point, is shown for DPPC monolayer and DPPC-Alamethicin mixed monolayer at the air-water interface. Solid lines are of slope $\sim 1$. Dotted line is the approximate cutoff of the linear flow region ($\sim 250 \:\mu Pa\mbox{-}m$).[]{data-label="F3"}](F3){width="80.00000%"} For the flow curve and other rheological characterization of Alamethicin monolayers, see Ref. [@krishnaswamy2008aggregation]. Figure \[F3\] shows the stress-controlled flow curves of DPPC, DPPC-Alamethicin mixed monolayers. The flow curves of the monolayers are very similar to the monolayer studied by Majumdar et al (see Figure 3 of Ref. \[[@majumdar2011shear]\]), where surface deformation profile is studied and the flow inhomogeneity or shear banding is reported in the non-linear region. In order to avoid flow inhomogeneity or shear banding, we have chosen the linear flow region as our working region for the two monolayers (as indicated by the blue and black lines with slope $\sim 1$). The approximate upper cutoff stress is the chosen pre-shear stress ($\sigma = 250 \:\mu Pa\mbox{-}m$) for each creep measurement to erase the history of the system (for details please see section Experimental Details). Creep study of the Alamethicin monolayer {#creep-study-of-the-alamethicin-monolayer .unnumbered} ---------------------------------------- ![(Color online) Rheo-GIXD creep data of the Alamethicin monolayer (presheared for 200 s followed by 300 s waiting before each measurement; see text): (a) creep curves; shear rate ($\dot{\gamma}$) vs time (t) (applied stress $\sigma$ is mentioned close to the curves), (b) Bragg peak (I vs q$_{xy}$) for different $\sigma$ are shown. Solid lines are fits using Voigt function. The Bragg peak corresponds to the helix pitch of Alamethicin. (c) Helix pitch (p) and coherence length (L$_p$) are plotted vs $\sigma$. Straight horizontal lines represent average values of p and L$_p$ respectively.[]{data-label="F4"}](F4){width="100.00000%"} We now proceed to examine the structural changes inside the monolayers in non-equilibrium steady-state, under different shear stress conditions. Figure \[F4\]a shows the creep behavior of Alamethicin monolayer studied as a function of applied stress up to 50 $\mu$Pa-m. For all applied stresses ($\sigma$), shear rate ($\dot{\gamma}$) increases linearly with time for $\sim$ 60 s showing significant shear rejuvenation in the monolayer before going to the final steady-state. The stress values ranging from 2.5 $\mu$Pa-m to 50 $\mu$Pa-m are much above the stress resolution (0.3 $\mu$Pa-m) of the rheometer. For 2.5 $\mu$Pa-m $\leq \sigma \leq$ 20 $\mu$Pa-m, the shear rate is $\sim$ 10$^{-2}$ to 10$^{-4}$ s$^{-1}$ (much higher than the resolution $\sim$ 10$^{-7}$ s$^{-1}$). After $\sim$ 200 s, the shear rate decreases and fluctuates about zero, though with a positive value of the average shear rate. This observation of shear rate fluctuating about zero is seen in the stress-induced jamming behavior in bulk rheology of laponite clay suspension [@majumdar2012statistical]. The fluctuations seen in $\dot{\gamma}$ are genuine and their statistical properties (not discussed in the paper as it is outside the scope of this work) are similar to that in Ref. \[ [@majumdar2012statistical]\]. In comparison, at 50 $\mu$Pa-m, $\dot{\gamma}$ attains a steady-state value of $\sim$ 0.06 $s^{-1}$. Figure \[F4\]b shows the GIXD data at four values of stress, integrated over time from 500 s to 2000 s. The helix peak position remains constant with increasing $\sigma$ but the line width shows variation reflecting the changes in the domain size (Figure \[F4\]c). However, there is no systematic variation of the coherence length with applied stress. Creep study of the DPPC monolayer {#creep-study-of-the-dppc-monolayer .unnumbered} --------------------------------- ![(Color online) Rheo-GIXD creep data of the DPPC monolayer (presheared for 200 s followed by 300 s waiting before each measurement; see text): (a) creep curves; $\dot{\gamma}$ vs t, (b) Bragg peak q$_{02}$, (c) Bragg peak q$_{11}$, (d) Bragg rod profile for different $\sigma$ are shown. Solid lines in (b), (c), (d) are fits using Voigt function. Dashed vertical line in (c) has position q$_{xy}$ = 1.451 Å$^{-1}$.[]{data-label="F5"}](F5){width="100.00000%"} The creep behavior of the DPPC monolayer was studied up to 100 $\mu$Pa-m (Figure \[F5\]). Unlike Alamethicin monolayer, DPPC shows neither substantial shear rejuvenation nor flow jamming. For a given $\sigma$, the steady-state shear rate is an order of magnitude low compared to Alamethicin monolayer (50 $\mu$Pa-m data can be compared). The Bragg peaks q$_{02}$, q$_{11}$, and Bragg rod profiles are shown in Figure \[F5\]b,c,d. The peak position of q$_{02}$ does not change with stress whereas q$_{11}$ peak position shifts to lower values, suggesting elongation of the unit cell under shear flow. Additionally, the width of q$_{02}$ decreases with increasing $\sigma$, suggesting the fusion of crystallites during flow. The tilt angle of the hydrocarbon chains increases with $\sigma$ (Figure \[F5\]d). Table-\[T1\] summarizes these results and are plotted in Figure \[F8\]. The Rheo-GIXD data bring out that the DPPC crystallites’ size increases under applied stress. Creep study of the mixed monolayer {#creep-study-of-the-mixed-monolayer .unnumbered} ---------------------------------- ![(Color online) Rheo-GIXD creep data of the DPPC-Alamethicin mixed monolayer with molar ratio P/L=1/2 (presheared for 200 s followed by 300 s waiting before each measurement; see text): (a) creep curves; $\dot{\gamma}$ vs t, (b) Bragg peak q$_{02}$ (blue solid fit), Alamethicin helix peak (red solid fit), (c) Bragg peak q$_{11}$, (d) Bragg rod profile for different $\sigma$ are shown. Solid lines in (b), (c), (d) are fits using Voigt function. Dashed vertical line in (c) has position q$_{xy}$ = 1.463 Å$^{-1}$.[]{data-label="F6"}](F6){width="100.00000%"} Figure \[F6\] shows the creep behavior of the DPPC-Alamethicin mixed monolayer studied up to 150 $\mu$Pa-m. Shear rejuvenation is observed with $\dot{\gamma}$ increasing linearly with time. At 25 $\mu$Pa-m it shows rejuvenation up to 30 s and then goes to the flow jammed state after 60 s of flow similar to the pure Alamethicin monolayer. At 50 $\mu$Pa-m and above it goes to a steady flow state with an enhanced $\dot{\gamma}$ compared to pure Alamethicin monolayer, which is orders of magnitude higher compared to pure DPPC monolayer. This suggests that the DPPC crystalline domains are no longer closely packed in the mixed monolayer and stay phase separated with Alamethicin as evident from the system’s high shear rates. Unlike pure DPPC monolayer, the peak positions of q$_{02}$ and q$_{11}$ do not change during flow (Table \[T2\]). Also, the tilt angle remains fixed with increasing $\sigma$. Strikingly Alamethicin helix coherence length increases with $\sigma$ suggesting that the Alamethicin domains are merging to bigger size promoting more separation of phases in the system. As noted in Ref. \[[@kjaer1994some]\], the Langmuir films are 2D powders of randomly oriented 2D crystallites in the plane. Bragg reflections do not capture the motion of the crystallites (whenever the reflecting plane satisfies the Bragg condition, it contributes to the Bragg peak). In a way, the motion of the crystallites in a circular streamline path rather helps us to get the powder diffraction pattern. Effectively, the scan is not at a fixed position on the sample but rather the pattern is averaged over large number of crystallites passing through the x-ray footprint. ![$q_z$-integrated intensity vs $q_{xy}$ plot for the monolayers during creep flow. The diffraction data from the clean buffer-subphase surface is also shown.[]{data-label="F7"}](F7){width="100.00000%"} ![(Color online) Area/molecule of DPPC (A$_\mathrm{molecule}$), coherence length corresponding to two DPPC Bragg peaks L$_{02}$; L$_{11}$, tilt angle of DPPC chains ($\delta$) for pure DPPC (open circles) and DPPC-Alamethicin mixed (red squares) monolayers are plotted against $\sigma$. Dotted curves are guides to the eyes.[]{data-label="F8"}](F8){width="50.00000%"} Figure \[F7\] shows the log-log plot of $q_z$-integrated intensity vs $q_{xy}$ which decays linearly and confirms the flatness of the interface [@sanyal1991x] during the GIXD measurements. For comparison, we have plotted area/molecule (A$_\mathrm{molecule}$), coherence lengths (L$_{hk}$) and the tilt angle ($\delta$) of DPPC for pure and mixed systems (Figure \[F8\]). For pure DPPC monolayer, the area/molecule (Figure \[F8\]a) increases rapidly with $\sigma$ and saturates at high values, whereas for mixed monolayer it does not change with $\sigma$. For both the systems, the coherence lengths in \[02\] direction (L$_{02}$) increases with the increasing shear rate. The data for 25 $\mu$Pa-m of the mixed monolayer does not follow the trend. We propose that the high value of L$_{02}$ corresponding to 25 $\mu$Pa-m is due to the flow merging of crystalline domains during flow jamming transition. On the other hand, the coherence length in \[11\] direction (L$_{11}$) has a slow increment for the pure DPPC monolayer but shows high value for the mixed monolayer with increasing shear rate. For the pure DPPC monolayer, the tilt angle increases and then saturates at higher $\sigma$, but for the mixed monolayer, it is $\sim$ 17.5 $^{\circ}$ for all $\sigma$. Conclusions {#conclusions .unnumbered} =========== We have described the methodology of Rheo-GIXD, an extension of the well established GIXD technique to study molecular structure under steady shear on the interface by combining interfacial rheology and GIXD. We have demonstrated that the GIXD signal can be captured even when interfacial molecular crystallites move under shear. At low $\sigma$, pure Alamethicin as well as mixed monolayer show jamming behavior after about $\sim$ 100 sec. For a given $\sigma$, the observed steady-state shear rate for the Alamethicin free system is very high confirming the finite flow of the system, but contrary happens for Alamethicin monolayer and the mixed monolayer. Before entering to jammed state, the system flows with a finite shear rate (compare 20 $\mu$ Pa-m data in Figure \[F4\] and Figure \[F5\]) which is sufficiently high to be detected by a commercial rheometer. Thus, we can safely conclude that we have a high signal to noise ratio, and this is a genuine flow jamming behavior. The pure DPPC monolayer shows measurable changes in the lattice parameters and in the tilt angle of the hydrophobic chains. The presence of buffer sub-phase stabilizes the peptide at the air-water interface but does not lead to the binding of the peptide with DPPC head group, as inferred from the observation that, the scattering signal is almost similar in both cases (pure DPPC and DPPC-Alamethicin mixed). The phase separation and the barrel-stave aggregation of an amphipathic peptide in a peptide-lipid matrix in equilibrium [@pieta2012direct] are also consistent with our Rheo-GIXD observations under shear. We have shown that the 2D crystallites grow bigger by merging crystalline domains under shear. The structural properties of hexameric pores could not be probed here due to high direct-beam leakage in low q$_{xy}$ region. Further work along with x-ray reflectivity study on this system will allow us to study the dependence of structural parameters on the velocity gradient. In the future, the underlying transient dynamics will be probed along with the 1D pinhole detector or with the 2D detector. Also, this technique can be used to probe the molecular dynamics near the nonequilibrium phase transition of monolayers under oscillatory shear deformation [@bera2019experimental]. We believe that our results will provide motivation for studying the molecular-level structure of many other membranes in non-equilibrium conditions. **acknowledgement** A.K.S. thanks Department of Science and Technology (DST), India for the support through Year of Science Professorship. M.K.S. acknowledges the support Raja Ramanna Fellowship of Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). R. K. thanks DST for the Ramanujan Fellowship. A.K.K. and P.K.B. thank University Grants Commission (UGC) for the D.S.Kothari fellowship and Senior Research Fellowship, respectively. We thank DST for financial assistance through CEFIPRA-SOLEIL-Synchrotron Programme (20140232, AP14/15) to use the Synchrotron Beamtime. We acknowledge SOLEIL for provision of synchrotron radiation facilities and we thank N. Aubert for assistance in using the beamline SIRIUS. We thank Prof. Jean Daillant for fruitful discussions. [10]{} Jens Als-Nielsen, Didier Jacquemain, Kristian Kjaer, Franck Leveiller, Meir Lahav, and Leslie Leiserowitz. Principles and applications of grazing incidence x-ray and neutron scattering from ordered molecular monolayers at the air-water interface. , 246(5):251–313, 1994. Vladimir M Kaganer, Helmuth M[ö]{}hwald, and Pulak Dutta. Structure and phase transitions in langmuir monolayers. , 71(3):779, 1999. Gerald G Fuller and Jan Vermant. Complex fluid-fluid interfaces: rheology and structure. , 3:519–543, 2012. PK Bera, AK Kandar, R Krishnaswamy, and AK Sood. Experimental signatures of a nonequilibrium phase transition near the crossover point of a langmuir monolayer. , 31(50):504004, 2019. K Kjaer, J Als-Nielsen, CA Helm, LA Laxhuber, and Helmuth M[ö]{}hwald. Ordering in lipid monolayers studied by synchrotron x-ray diffraction and fluorescence microscopy. , 58(21):2224, 1987. Kristian Kjaer. Some simple ideas on x-ray reflection and grazing-incidence diffraction from thin surfactant films. , 198(1-3):100–109, 1994. CE Miller, J Majewski, EB Watkins, DJ Mulder, T Gog, and TL Kuhl. Probing the local order of single phospholipid membranes using grazing incidence x-ray diffraction. , 100(5):058103, 2008. Santanu Maiti, Milan K Sanyal, Mrinmay K Mukhopadhyay, Arnab Singh, Smita Mukherjee, Alokmay Datta, and Philippe Fontaine. Structural and optical properties of two-dimensional gadolinium stearate langmuir monolayer. , 712:177–183, 2018. Santanu Maiti, Sonam Maiti, Andre Maier, Jan Hagenlocher, Andrei Chumakov, Frank Schreiber, and Marcus Scheele. Understanding the formation of conductive mesocrystalline superlattices with cubic pbs nanocrystals at the liquid/air interface. , 123(2):1519–1526, 2018. EB Watkins, CE Miller, DJ Mulder, TL Kuhl, and J Majewski. Structure and orientational texture of self-organizing lipid bilayers. , 102(23):238101, 2009. Guohui Wu, Jaroslaw Majewski, Canay Ege, Kristian Kjaer, Markus Jan Weygand, and Ka Yee C Lee. Interaction between lipid monolayers and poloxamer 188: an x-ray reflectivity and diffraction study. , 89(5):3159–3173, 2005. Frances Neville, Yuji Ishitsuka, Chris S Hodges, Oleg Konovalov, Alan J Waring, Robert Lehrer, Ka Yee C Lee, and David Gidalevitz. Protegrin interaction with lipid monolayers: grazing incidence x-ray diffraction and x-ray reflectivity study. , 4(8):1665–1674, 2008. Andrey Ivankin, Ivan Kuzmenko, and David Gidalevitz. Cholesterol-phospholipid interactions: new insights from surface x-ray scattering data. , 104(10):108101, 2010. EB Watkins, CE Miller, J Majewski, and TL Kuhl. Membrane texture induced by specific protein binding and receptor clustering: active roles for lipids in cellular function. , 108(17):6975–6980, 2011. Marcin Broniatowski, Katarzyna Sobolewska, Micha[ł]{} Flasi[ń]{}ski, and Pawe[ł]{} Wydro. Studies on the interactions of bisphenols with anionic phospholipids of decomposer membranes in model systems. , 1858(4):756–766, 2016. Rema Krishnaswamy, Vikram Rathee, and AK Sood. Aggregation of a peptide antibiotic alamethicin at the air- water interface and its influence on the viscoelasticity of phospholipid monolayers. , 24(20):11770–11777, 2008. Michael Edidin. The state of lipid rafts: from model membranes to cells. , 32(1):257–283, 2003. Gabriel Espinosa, Iv[á]{}n L[ó]{}pez-Montero, Francisco Monroy, and Dominique Langevin. Shear rheology of lipid monolayers and insights on membrane fluidity. , 108(15):6008–6013, 2011. Eline Hermans and Jan Vermant. Interfacial shear rheology of dppc under physiologically relevant conditions. , 10(1):175–186, 2014. KyuHan Kim, Siyoung Q Choi, Joseph A Zasadzinski, and Todd M Squires. Interfacial microrheology of dppc monolayers at the air–water interface. , 7(17):7782–7789, 2011. SQ Choi, S Steltenkamp, JA Zasadzinski, and TM Squires. Active microrheology and simultaneous visualization of sheared phospholipid monolayers. , 2:312, 2011. Piotr Pieta, Jeff Mirza, and Jacek Lipkowski. Direct visualization of the alamethicin pore formed in a planar phospholipid matrix. , 109(52):21223–21227, 2012. Enrico Forbrig, Jana K Staffa, Johannes Salewski, Maria Andrea Mroginski, Peter Hildebrandt, and Jacek Kozuch. Monitoring the orientational changes of alamethicin during incorporation into bilayer lipid membranes. , 34(6):2373–2385, 2018. J Pignat, S Cantin, RCW Liu, M Goldmann, P Fontaine, J Daillant, and F Perrot. ph-dependent kinetics of mgcl 2 adsorption under a fatty-acid langmuir film. , 20(4):387–394, 2006. RW Evans, MA Williams, and J Tinoco. Surface viscosities of phospholipids alone and with cholesterol in monolayers at the air-water interface. , 15(7):524–533, 1980. Philippe Fontaine, Gianluca Ciatto, Nicolas Aubert, and Michel Goldmann. Soft interfaces and resonant investigation on undulator source: a surface x-ray scattering beamline to study organic molecular films at the soleil synchrotron. , 6(11):2312–2316, 2014. Alexander Spaar, Christian M[ü]{}nster, and Tim Salditt. Conformation of peptides in lipid membranes studied by x-ray grazing incidence scattering. , 87(1):396–407, 2004. Sayantan Majumdar, Rema Krishnaswamy, and AK Sood. Shear banding in a yield stress bearing langmuir monolayer. , 7(17):7805–7812, 2011. Sayantan Majumdar and AK Sood. Statistical properties of entropy-consuming fluctuations in jammed states of laponite suspensions: Fluctuation relations and generalized gumbel distribution. , 85(4):041404, 2012. MK Sanyal, SK Sinha, KG Huang, and BM Ocko. X-ray-scattering study of capillary-wave fluctuations at a liquid surface. , 66(5):628, 1991. [| c | c | c | c | c | c |]{} ------------------------------------------------------------------------ $\sigma$ & d-spacings & unit cell & A$_\mathrm{molecule}$ & Coherence & Tilt angle\ $[\mu$Pa-m$]$ & $[$Å$]$ & dimensions $[$Å$]$ & $[$Å$^2]$ & length $[$Å$]$ & $\delta$ $[^{\circ}]$\ 0 & d$_{11}=4.293\pm0.015$ & a$=4.986\pm0.024$ & $42.09\pm0.23$ & L$_{11}=76\pm7$ & $13.8\pm0.4$\ & d$_{02}=4.221\pm0.003$ & b$=8.443\pm0.006$ & & L$_{02}=256\pm15$ &\ 10 & d$_{11}=4.328\pm0.010$ & a$=5.042\pm0.017$ & $42.54\pm0.16$ & L$_{11}=69\pm5$ & $15.9\pm0.3$\ & d$_{02}=4.218\pm0.002$ & b$=8.437\pm0.004$ & & L$_{02}=314\pm40$ &\ 20 & d$_{11}=4.350\pm0.009$ & a$=5.072\pm0.015$ & $42.90\pm0.15$ & L$_{11}=83\pm6$ & $19.3\pm0.5$\ & d$_{02}=4.229\pm0.002$ & b$=8.459\pm0.005$ & & L$_{02}=627\pm103$ &\ 50 & d$_{11}=4.384\pm0.012$ & a$=5.123\pm0.020$ & $43.40\pm0.19$ & L$_{11}=74\pm6$ & $19.9\pm0.9$\ & d$_{02}=4.236\pm0.002$ & b$=8.472\pm0.004$ & & L$_{02}=620\pm55$ &\ 100 & d$_{11}=4.359\pm0.005$ & a$=5.088\pm0.008$ & $43.02\pm0.08$ & L$_{11}=106\pm5$ & $19.7\pm0.5$\ & d$_{02}=4.227\pm0.002$ & b$=8.455\pm0.003$ & & L$_{02}=447\pm29$ &\ \[T1\] [| c | c | c | c | c | c |]{} ------------------------------------------------------------------------ $\sigma$ & DPPC d-spacings, & DPPC unit & DPPC & Coherence length & Tilt angle\ $[\mu$Pa-m$]$ & Alamethicin pitch & cell dimensions & A$_\mathrm{molecule}$ & $[$Å$]$; DPPC L$_{hk}$, & $\delta$ $[^{\circ}]$\ & $[$Å$]$ & $[$Å$]$ & $[$Å$^2]$ & Alamethicin L$_p$ &\ 0 & d$_{11}=4.296\pm0.009$ & a$=4.999\pm0.016$ & $42.00\pm0.16$ & L$_{11}=85\pm6$ & $18.0\pm0.2$\ & d$_{02}=4.201\pm0.003$ & b$=8.402\pm0.005$ & & L$_{02}=314\pm17$ &\ & p$=4.160\pm0.005$ & & & L$_p=396\pm96$ &\ 25 & d$_{11}=4.294\pm0.005$ & a$=4.993\pm0.008$ & $42.02\pm0.10$ & L$_{11}=134\pm8$ & $16.7\pm0.4$\ & d$_{02}=4.208\pm0.003$ & b$=8.416\pm0.007$ & & L$_{02}=741\pm92$ &\ & p$=4.150\pm0.005$ & & & L$_p=1510\pm459$ &\ 50 & d$_{11}=4.284\pm0.007$ & a$=4.981\pm0.012$ & $41.81\pm0.15$ & L$_{11}=134\pm11$ & $16.7\pm0.4$\ & d$_{02}=4.197\pm0.004$ & b$=8.395\pm0.009$ & & L$_{02}=321\pm36$ &\ & p$=4.140\pm0.003$ & & & L$_p=1611\pm305$ &\ 75 & d$_{11}=4.303\pm0.005$ & a$=5.003\pm0.009$ & $42.20\pm0.12$ & L$_{11}=132\pm8$ & $18.3\pm0.7$\ & d$_{02}=4.218\pm0.004$ & b$=8.435\pm0.008$ & & L$_{02}=413\pm58$ &\ & p$=4.153\pm0.006$ & & & L$_p=1250\pm355$ &\ 150 & d$_{11}=4.300\pm0.005$ & a$=4.999\pm0.008$ & $42.14\pm0.07$ & L$_{11}=120\pm17$ & $18.5\pm0.5$\ & d$_{02}=4.215\pm0.001$ & b$=8.429\pm0.001$ & & L$_{02}=772\pm31$ &\ & p$=4.151\pm0.002$ & & & L$_p=1050\pm91$ &\ \[T2\] **SUPPORTING INFORMATION** Section A {#section-a .unnumbered} ========= We have used the Behenic acid as a test sample to calibrate our GIXD setup. We have water filled the cell without the bicone at its measuring position and spread the Behenic acid monolayer to do the GIXD scan. The 2D diffraction plot (Figure \[Behenic2D\]) is matching with literature (article ref. 24). ![(Color online) GIXD pattern from the Behenic acid monolayer resting on the water surface in the cell.[]{data-label="Behenic2D"}](Behenic2D){width="50.00000%"} Section B {#section-b .unnumbered} ========= The sensitivity of the monolayers to the very small stress (corresponding to the small torque imparted by the rheometer) was calibrated using two highly concentrated test samples (i) cholesterol monolayer and (ii) cholesterol+DPPC mixed monolayer. Cholesterol is known for having very low surface viscosity in monolayer from and also it reduces surface viscosity of monolayers of the other dipalmitoyl phospholipids (article ref. 25). The expected shear rate should be very high even for a very small applied stress. Figure \[cholesterol\] and Figure \[cholesterolDPPC\] show the measured shear rate ($\dot{\gamma}$ of the two monolayers during creep flow. The very high values of the shear rate confirm that the torque applied by the rheometer is sufficient enough for the molecularly thin Langmuir films to flow at a finite shear rate.) ![(Color online) Creep flow of cholesterol monolayer with surface concentration 20 Å$^2$/molecule.[]{data-label="cholesterol"}](cholesterol){width="\textwidth"} ![(Color online) Creep flow of cholesterol + DPPC monolayer (mole ratio 4:1; surface concentration 20 Å$^2$/molecule.[]{data-label="cholesterolDPPC"}](cholesterolDPPC){width="\textwidth"}

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We review the phenomenology of UHE neutrino detection. The motivations for looking for such neutrinos, stemming from observational evidence and from the potential for new physics discoveries are enumerated, and their expected sources and fluxes are given. Cross-sections with nucleons at energies all the way upto $10^{20}$ eV and the attenuation of fluxes in the Earth, both of which are physics issues important to their detection, are discussed. Finally, sample event-rates for extant and planned Water/Ice Cerenkov detectors are provided.' address: | Harish-Chandra Research Institute,\ Jhusi, Allahabad, India 211019. author: - Raj Gandhi title: ' Ultra-High Energy Neutrinos: A Review of Theoretical and Phenomenological Issues ' --- Introduction ============ It is now widely beleived that the recent Super Kamiokande (SK) result [[@fuk; @sobel]]{} of an anomaly in the flavour ratios and zenith angle dependance of the atmospheric neutrino flux provides the firmest signal yet of physics beyond the Standard Model (SM)[^1] . The significance of this can be gauged by the fact that a signal for such physics has been sought for in all the varied and intensive experimental probes that the many sectors of the SM have been subjected to over more than twenty-five years. That this signal comes from the neutrino sector of the theory perhaps assumes increased significance when considered in conjuntion with the fact that two other existing experimental anomalies which persist, the solar deficit [@solar] and the LSND result [@lsnd] are also within the neutrino sector. The detailed interpretation of these anomalies and their relation with each other is still a matter of intense and ongoing theoretical and experimental activity. However, neutrino masses, mixings and consequent oscillations have provided the simplest framework for understanding the experimental results [@smir]. What may be said with a reasonable degree of conviction is that once their interpretation is clear, a hitherto unprecedented window into the nature of the physical theory beyond the SM will probably have been opened. It is within this context, perhaps, that one should view the theoretical and experimental efforts that are ongoing in the area of ultra high energy (UHE) neutrino physics (for reviews see [@gqrs; @h1; @r98]). If the physics excitement that we have uncovered in our study of low-energy neutrinos is an indicator, then the study of UHE neutinos should pay rich dividends. In view of the fact that data collection and further upgradation is ongoing for the first generation of UHE neutrino detectors ( AMANDA [@aman] and BAIKAL [@bai]) and that planning, design, testing and deployment is underway for some others (AUGER [@aug], NESTOR [@nest], ICECUBE [@ice], ANTARES [@ant], RICE [@rice]), and NEMO [@nemo]) definitive results of these efforts are still in the future. However, besides the other specific reasons from astrophysics and cosmic ray physics (some of which we discuss below) which provide motivation for such experiments, we note that the energy range covered by these experiments ($E_{\nu} \simeq 1$ Tev to $10^9$ TeV or higher) offers an unprecedented opportunity for particle physics at energies significantly beyond the scope of terrestial accelerators. Although progress is expected to be slow, the potential for serendipitous discovery is undoubtedly high. In what follows, we give specific reasons why the search for UHE neutrinos can be expected to yeild positive results. Possible sources and their fluxes are discussed. Salient features pertinent to the phenomenology of detection are then outlined, and sample rates provided. Why should we search for and expect to detect UHE neutrinos? ============================================================ In addition to the general particle physics motivations mentioned above, there exist specific reasons spanning several fields of research (astrophysics, astronomy, cosmic-ray physics and particle physics) for pursuing the search for UHE neutrinos. Motivation for their detection comes both from observational evidence hinting towards their production in astrophysical sites and the potential for new physics discoveries. The Observed Cosmic-Ray Spectrum: --------------------------------- Perhaps one the strongest reasons comes from the observed cosmic-ray (CR) spectrum. We briefly discuss its observational features prior to making the connection to UHE neutrinos. Over a period of several decades, a sizeable and impressive body of observations spanning twelve orders of magnitude in energy have been compiled by workers in this field. (For general discussions see [@ber; @gai], and for updates on observational efforts and data see [@icrc99].) An examination of the all-particle CR spectrum reveals a power-law behaviour over almost the entire spectral range, with breaks at what is referred to as the “knee” (corresponding to $E_{primary} \simeq 4 \times 10^{15} $ eV) and the “ankle”(corresponding to $E_{primary} \simeq 10^{19} $ eV). Upto the knee region, the spectrum exhibits a power-law with index $-2.7$, there onwards steepening to about $- 3$, and flattening again in the ankle region. The steep fall in the flux and the consequent increasing difficulty in detection is reflected in the fact that the number of primaries falls from about one particle per m$^{2}$ per sec at energies of about 10$^{11}$ eV to roughly one per km$^2$ per century around the ankle (10$^{19}$ eV). It is thus necessary to employ very different techniques of detection depending on the energy of the primary. The direct observation of a CR primary is only possible in a detector mounted on a spacecraft or a balloon, due to interactions in the atmosphere. Such detection, however can collect enough statistics only upto primary energies of about 10$^{14}$ eV. At higher energies, indirect methods involving detection of secondaries produced by interaction of the primaries in the atmosphere is necessary. The most widely used indirect method has been the deployment of Extensive Air Shower (EAS) arrays (for example Yakutsk [@yak6] and AGASA [@aga8]). These sample a lateral cross-section of the multi-particle shower initiated by a CR primary high up in the atmosphere. Clearly, the determination of the energy of the primary from the charged hadrons, electrons, muons and photons detected by the ground-based array is a non-trivial task. However, present Monte Carlo techniques allow this to be accomplished with an accuracy of about $30\%$. Still less trivial is the determination of the nature of the primary, which is complicated by fluctuations from shower to shower. In recent years another experimental technique, which focusses on the detection of secondary nitrogen fluorescence radiation excited by shower secondaries has been succesfully implemented by Fly’s Eye [@fly7]. Using the modes of detection discussed above, a general but incomplete picture of the nature of CR primaries has emerged. Essentially, below primary energies of $10^{14}$ eV, the composition is fairly accurately known, from a variety of direct detection experiments, to be $98\%$ hadrons, mainly protons. Above these energies, where only indirect detection techniques can be employed, the composition appears to retain a significant hadronic fraction, even though the question as to whether the primaries are protons or heavier nuclei is yet unresolved. Very low statistics hampers any definitive conclusions about the composition of CR beyond the knee upto the highest energies (at and above the GKZ cutoff, which is discussed below). However, we stress that all or most of the by now numerous EAS events appear to have a muon content consistent with hadronic primaries. For our purpose it is sufficient to say that it appears almost certain from the CR observations that there are astophysical sites in the universe which acclerate hadrons upto energies of $10^{15}$ eV, and there is a reasonable probability that they are accelerated to higher energies, perhaps all the way upto $\approx 10^{20}$ eV. The mechanisms by which this happens are not completely understood. However, hadronic collisions, like $p + p$ or $p + \gamma$, always result in copious pion production. These follow the decay chain $\pi \rightarrow \mu + \nu_{\mu}, \mu \rightarrow e + \nu_{\mu} + \nu_e$ resulting in a flux ratio of 2:1 for $\nu_{\mu} : \nu_{e}$. The neutrino is expected to retain about 20$\%$ of the energy of the parent pion on the average, and in general, UHE neutrino fluxes are guaranteed if hadronic collisions play a role in UHE CR production. The precise shape of the spectrum, of course, depends on the nature of the source and the process of acceleration. The GKZ Effect --------------- In addition to neutrino production at the source, a UHE CR proton with energy in excess of about $5 \times 10^{19}$ eV traversing interstellar space will interact with the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) to photo-produce pions, and hence neutrinos. (Representative fluxes are given in [@proth].) The interaction in question, the $\Delta$ resonance for single and multiple pion production, sets in at a center-of-mass energy of about $1.5$ GeV and is responsible for an expected abrupt fall-off in the proton primary spectrum at and above these energies. This was first pointed out by Greisen, Kuzmin and Zatsepin [@gkz21; @gkz22] and is called the GKZ cutoff. [^2] Galactic CR Interactions with Inter-stellar matter --------------------------------------------------- A diffuse UHE neutrino flux is also expected from interactions of galactic CR with interstellar matter, at energies around and below the knee region. For fluxes and related references, see [@proth] Gamma-Ray Bursts ---------------- Yet another potentially important source of UHE neutrinos could be Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRB) [@eli]. There appears to be observational support for a “fireball” model for GRBs [@pij364]. The physics of this involves an initial merger or collapse of blackholes, neutron stars or some other highly magnetized compact object. The collapse to a small radius object is followed by a very rapid expansion, by about a factor of $10^5$ in a time frame of the order of a second. This ultra-relativistic acceleration of the plasma of protons, electrons, positrons and photons leads, at some radius at which the plasma is optically thin to radiation which is detected as the GRB. At the same time, second-order Fermi shocks cause charged particle acceleration, and the ensuing $p-\gamma$ interactions lead to neutrino fluxes, which have been estimated in [@waxb; @pij366] for instance (See figure \[fig:fluxes\]). Active Galactic Nuclei ----------------------- Active Galactic Nuclei (AGNs) are also expected to be an important source of UHE neutrinos. These are a class of highly compact bright objects powered presumably by black holes causing acceleration and accretion of matter, characterised usually by high powered jet emmission. High energy gamma-rays (MeV, GeV and TeV) are expected and have been observed from $\approx 40$ AGN sites. The acceleration of hadronic matter, as in proton-blazar models, again leads to subsequent $p-\gamma$ (and perhaps $p-p$) interactions, from which neutrinos are expected. (Figure \[fig:fluxes\]). We note, however, that if only electrons are accelerated, as in the electron-blazar models, then a neutrino flux will be absent. Topological Defects and Decays of other Massive Relics ------------------------------------------------------- There also exist mechanisms which do not involve the acceleration of matter but can still yeild UHE fluxes of protons, photons and neutrinos. These are the “top-down” (TD) scenarios (for a comprehensive review of these see [@pij]) in which CR beyond the knee could originate in the decay of GUT scale massive particles produced due to topological defects like monopoles, cosmic strings, etc. Massive unstable relic particles [@b2] originating in various unification scenarios like string and supergravity theories which give rise to UHE neutrino fluxes have received attention recently in connection with the observed absence of a GKZ cut-off see also, for instance [@subir; @gel]. In addition, the photon fluxes from such exotic decays may be energetic enough to pair-produce muons off the CMBR photons [@ak], with consequent neutrino production. Although such exotic sources produce low fluxes, it may be possible to see a signal in future detectors; see for instance the discussion in [@almun] regarding their detectability in ICECUBE. Some representative fluxes for such sources are shown in Figure \[fig:fluxes\]. Additional Physics Motivations ------------------------------ The detection of UHE neutrinos from all the above sources is expected to help answer many important questions in CR physics and the astrophysics of highly energetic sources. Their detection above $10^{16}-10^{18}$ eV from AGNs would provide important support for hadronic blazar (versus electron blazar) models. Secondly, the observation of an isotropic neutrino flux beyond GKZ energies would signal that the events are due to universal CR activity rather than a nearby single source and would shed light on the nature of the primaries responsible for these events. In addition, as emphasized in [@waxb], very sensitive tests of gravitational couplings are possible via the detection of neutrinos co-related with GRB’s. Finally, important confirmation of the SK atmospheric result, which now firmly indicates that muon-neutrinos are most likely oscillating to tau-neutinos, is possible. UHE Neutrinos which are produced by any of the modes or sources discussed above are not expected to have any significant component of $\nu_{\tau}$, originating as they do in $p-p$ and/or $p-\gamma$ interactions. However, the ultra-high energies and mega-parsec distances they travel prior to detection, when folded in with SK values for mass-squared differences and mixing angles, lead to a $\nu_{\tau}$ component in the flux which is as large as the $\nu_{\mu}$ and the $\nu_e$ components. It may be possible to detect this via the observation of the tau lepton it can produce in the detector [@pak]. In addition, the shadowing (in the earth) for $\nu_{\tau}$ is interestingly different compared to that for $\nu_{\mu}$ and $\nu_e$, as pointed out in [@halzen]. Specifically, the $\nu_{\tau}$ component of the flux does not get significantly absorbed in the rock, but its energy spectrum gets modified, and its zenith angle distribution is relatively flat. The detection possibilities for such UHE $\nu_{\tau}$ are discussed in [@sar; @ath]. UHE Neutrino Fluxes =================== In Figure \[fig:fluxes\] we show some of the flux calculations for UHE neutrinos from AGNs, GRBs and TD sources. We refer the reader to the references for details on the models used to obtain the predicted fluxes. The fluxes are labeled as AGN-M95 [@r49], AGN-SS91 [@r56], AGN-P96 [@r48] for Active Galactic Nuclei, GRB-WB [@r50] for Gamma Ray Bursts and TD-WMB12 [@r52], TD-WMB16 [@r52], TD-SLSC [@slsc] for top-down models. References and spectra for the remaining sources mentioned above may be found in [@proth], along with a discussion of their origins and sources. It is important to stress here that fluxes for all the three sources in Figure \[fig:fluxes\] are still being modified as our understanding of the nature of the source, the interactions involved and the constraints placed by observations on them improve. For instance, it has been pointed out [@wb] that observations of the CR spectrum place important constraints on the neutrino flux from sources which are optically thin with respect to neutrons and photons. This argument could significantly restrict several AGN models, but the exact upper bound is presently being debated. In [@mpr], for instance, it is argued that this bound depends on the assumption that the overall CR injection spectrum $dN/dE \propto E^{-2}$ upto energies of $10^{19}$ eV, and that injection spectra for many sources of CR producing shocks may be different, and, for a given source, may not extend all the way upto $10^{19}$ eV. The importance of using CR and other observations to constrain the physics occuring in the sources, and the neutrino fluxes emmitted as emphasized in [@wb] however, cannot be disputed. We also refer the reader to the discussion of fluxes from TD models and decaying massive relics in [@subir2], where problems with some of the existing flux calculations are pointed out. The Detection of UHE Neutrinos: General Considerations ====================================================== Having discussed potential sources for UHE neutrinos, we next review some salient points relevant to their detection. The main mode of detection discussed in the literature and implemented at extant detectors has been the observation of long range muons produced via charged current (CC) neutrino-nucleon interactions. The low fluxes necessitate the deployment of large volume water or ice detectors like AMANDA [@aman], BAIKAL [@bai], NESTOR [@nest] and ANTARES [@ant]. These are shielded from above by several kilometers of water-equivalent (kmwe) rock volume in order to supress the otherwise overwhelming background from muons produced by CR interactions in the atmosphere. Indeed, for a considerable portion of the UHE range (100 TeV and lower), the detection of downward moving muons by Cerenkov radiation in water produced by contained events is less advantageous than that of upward moving ones produced in the rock below the detector. The emphasis in existing detectors has thus been on looking mainly for muons which, after losses due to passage in the earth, still retain sufficient energy to be observed above threshold. In general, a 10 TeV muon will travel several km in rock before its energy is degraded down to 1 TeV, which is a typical detector threshold. [^3] Whereas serious neutrino astronomy results are not expected with present detector volumes, the actively underway upgradation of existing facilities and the addition of new ones should yeild significant physics results in the next few years. The first AMANDA [@aman] detector has seen about 170 UHE atmospheric neutrino events, and its upgraded version, AMANDA II is presently taking data. A km$^{3}$ extension, ICECUBE [@ice], is also planned. BAIKAL [@bai] has also observed UHE neutrinos and set limits on the UHE fluxes using its prelimnary observation, with analysis of another 3 years of data currently underway. The ANTARES project [@ant], off the French coast, is exploring the design and implementation of a km$^3$ scale deep sea detector for underground muons. Similarly, NESTOR [@nest] is doing the same southwest of the coast of Greece, while NEMO [@nemo] is yet another planned deep sea detector off the southern Italian coast. The RICE project in the Antacrtic [@rice] will be a pioneering attempt to detect $\nu_e$ via radio waves. An UHE electron produced subsequent to a CC interaction in the rock transfers most of its energy to an electromagnetic shower. Positrons produced in the shower annhilate and additional atomic electrons scatter into the shower, causing a charge imbalance which corresponds to a ball of negative charge moving through the rock. The consequent Cerenkov emission gives radio waves ($\lambda \simeq 10$ cm), which are detected by receivers buried in the ice. Finally, the Pierre Auger Observatory [@aug], primarily designed to detect CR showers, should also be able to detect UHE neutrino induced showers close to the horizon. Rate calculations for this array are given in [@r98]. An important consideration for calculating event rates for muon neutrinos is the attenuation of neutrinos in the earth due to the rapid rise in the CC cross-section (discussed below) with energy. The interaction length of a neutrino in rock is approximately equal to the diameter of the earth at $40$ TeV. A convienient quantity relevant to flux attenuation and event rate calculations is the ’shadow factor’, $S$, which is defined to be an effective solid angle divided by $2\pi$ for upward muons and is a function of the energy-dependant cross-section for neutrinos in the earth [@gqrs]: $$S(E_\nu)={1\over 2\pi}\int_{-1}^{\:0} d\cos\theta\int d\phi \exp \left[-z(\theta)/{\mathcal L}_{{\mathrm int}}(E_\nu) \right]. \label{Sdef} $$ Here $ {\mathcal L}$ is the interaction length for the neutrino, defined by $${\mathcal L}_{\mathrm{int}}= \frac{1}{\sigma_{\nu N}(E_{\nu})N_{\mathrm{A}}}\;, \label{Lint}$$ where $N_{\mathrm{A}} = 6.022 \times 10^{23}\hbox{ mol}^{-1}=6.022 \times 10^{23}\hbox{ cm}^{-3}$ (water equivalent) is Avogadro’s number. $z$ represents the column-depth as a function of the nadir angle $\theta$. Figure \[fig:shadow\] (from Ref [@gqrs]) shows that from almost no attenuation at $10^{12}$ eV, about $93\%$ of the flux is shadowed out at the highest energies at which CR have been observed ($\approx 10^{21}$ eV). It is this effect that makes the (low) downward rate for muons produced within the instrumented volume competetive with the upward rate at energies above $10^{15}$ eV, where the atmospheric background is essentially absent. The Neutrino-Nucleon Deep Inelastic Scattering Cross-Section at UHE =================================================================== Of crucial importance to the attenuation and the event-rate calculations is the UHE neutrino-nucleon DIS cross-section. This is given by $$\nu_\mu N \rightarrow \mu^- + \rm{anything} ,$$ where $N\equiv\displaystyle{\frac{n+p}{2}}$ is an isoscalar nucleon, in the renormalization group-improved parton model. The differential cross section is written in terms of the Bjorken scaling variables $x = Q^2/2M\nu$ and $y = \nu/E_\nu$ as $$\begin{aligned} \frac{d^2\sigma}{dxdy} & = & \frac{2 G_F^2 ME_\nu}{\pi} \left( \frac{M_W^2}{Q^2 + M_W^2} \right)^{\!2} \nonumber \\ & & \left[xq(x,Q^2) + x \overline{q}(x,Q^2)(1-y)^2 \right] , \label{eqn:sigsig}\end{aligned}$$ where $-Q^2$ is the invariant momentum transfer between the incident neutrino and outgoing muon, $\nu = E_\nu - E_\mu$ is the energy loss in the lab (target) frame, $M$ and $M_W$ are the nucleon and intermediate-boson masses, and $G_F = 1.16632 \times 10^{-5}~\rm{GeV}^{-2}$ is the Fermi constant. The quark distribution functions are $$\begin{aligned} q(x,Q^2) & = & \frac{u_v(x,Q^2)+d_v(x,Q^2)}{2} + \nonumber \\ & &\frac{u_s(x,Q^2)+d_s(x,Q^2)}{2} + \nonumber\\ & & s_s(x,Q^2) + b_s(x,Q^2) \\[12pt] \overline{q}(x,Q^2) & = & \frac{u_s(x,Q^2)+d_s(x,Q^2)}{2} + \nonumber \\ & & c_s(x,Q^2) + t_s(x,Q^2),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the subscripts $v$ and $s$ label valence and sea contributions, and $u$, $d$, $c$, $s$, $t$, $b$ denote the distributions for various quark flavors in a proton. At the energies of interest here, perturbative QCD corrections are small and can safely be neglected. A parallel calculation similarly leads to the neutral-current cross section. In our calculations we have used results from the $ep$ collider HERA [@r9545; @r9546; @r9548; @r9549] which have greatly enhanced our knowledge of parton distributions and are particularly significant for the present calculation. The usual procedure is to begin with parametrizations of parton distribution functions obtained from data at low values of $Q^{2}$ and evolve them to the desired high scale using the Altarelli-Parisi equations [@ap]. For UHE neutrino-nucleon scattering, however, the $W$-boson propagator forces increasing contributions from smaller and smaller values of $x$ as the neutrino energy $E_{\nu}$ increases. In the UHE domain, the most important contributions to the $\nu N$ cross section come from $x \sim M_{W}^{2}/2ME_{\nu}$. Up to $E_{\nu}\approx 10^{5}{\hbox{ GeV}}$, the parton distributions are sampled at values of $x$ where they have been constrained by experiment. At higher energies, we require parton distributions at such small values of $x$ that direct experimental constraints are not available, not even at low values of $Q^{2}$. Thus the theoretical uncertainties that enter the evaluation of the UHE neutrino-nucleon cross section arise from the low-$Q^{2}$ parametrization, the evolution of the parton distribution functions to large values of $Q^{2}\sim M_{W}^{2}$, and the extrapolation to small values of $x$. Of these, the last named contributes the greatest uncertainty. In addition to the traditional approach, followed, for instance, in the CTEQ [@cteq] distributions, ( [*i.e.*]{}, to determine parton densities for $Q^{2}>Q_0^{2}$ by solving the next-to-leading-order Altarelli-Parisi [@ap] evolution equations numerically) a second approach to small-$x$ evolution attempts to solve the Balitskiĭ-Fadin-Kuraev-Lipatov (BFKL) equation [@bfkl], which is a leading $\alpha_s\ln(1/x)$ resummation of soft gluon emissions. The BFKL approach predicts a singular behavior in $x$ and a rapid $Q^{2}$-variation, $$xq_s(x,Q^2) \sim \sqrt{Q^2} \:x^{-0.5}. \label{eqn:bfkl}$$ On the other hand, applying the Altarelli-Parisi equations to singular input distributions $\propto x^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ leads to a less rapid growth with $Q^{2}$, $$xq_s(x,Q^2) \sim \ln{(Q^2)} x^{-0.5}. \label{eqn:apev}$$ In the case of ultrahigh-energy neutrino-nucleon interactions, the region of interest is small-$x$ and large-$Q^2$, which requires a resummation of both $\ln 1/x$ and $\ln Q^2/Q_0^2$ contributions. An attempt to incorporate elements of the BFKL approach into the standard AP approach has recently been made in [@kms]. That this leads to cross-sections which are comparable (to within 10-15 % at the highest energies) with those obtained by next-to-leading order AP evolution is an indication that barring radically new physics, the cross-section calculation even at the highest energies appears to be reasonably reliable. In Figure \[fig:signuN4\] (from [@r98]) we show the CC, NC and total cross-sections for $\nu - N$ interactions resulting from the SM using the AP approach to small $x$ extrapolation. Modifications to the cross-sections can occur, of course, as a result of physics beyond the SM. Many of these modifications are strongly constrained by unitarity and for a broad class of plausible extensions are much smaller than the SM cross-section, as shown in [@r47]. However, since it appears certain that neutrino primaries with SM interactions cannot account for the “post-GKZ” CR events mentioned earlier [^4] the possibility of a neutrino-nucleon cross-section rendered high due to non-standard interactions has garnered substantial interest. This is in no small measure due to the fact that among the known particle candidates, the neutrino is the only possible primary that can make it without absorption over the tens or hundreds of Mpc distances that such primaries have almost certainly travelled prior to detection. Possibilities leading to higher neutrino-nucleon cross-sections which have been discussed in the literature and some of the mechanisms considered include leptoquark excitations [@r45], superpartner contributions [@r42] and strong FCNC interactions [@r46]. One suggestion that has attracted a lot of interest recently is the speculation that the string scale may be widely separated from the Planck scale, and be as low as a few tens of TeV [@add]. For neutrino-nucleon scattering, this leads to a large (strong interaction-like) cross-section either due to higher dimensional gravitational contributions [@jmr] or the possibility that the post-GKZ events are already in the string regime, with an exponentially growing level density of Kaluza-Klein excitations [@dom; @dom2; @dom3]. For a useful general discussion of issues related to theories with TeV scale quantum gravity and compact dimensions see [@shr]. Detection Rates =============== The event-rate for an underground detector of area $A$ (events/sr/year) is calculable via $$\begin{aligned} {\mathrm Rate} = A \int_{E_{\mu}^{\mathrm{min}}}^{E^{\mathrm{max}}} dE_\nu\: P_\mu(E_\nu;E_\mu^{\rm min}) S(E_\nu){\frac{dN}{ dE_\nu}}. \label{rateqn}\end{aligned}$$ Here $P_\mu(E_\nu,E_\mu^{\rm min}$ is the probability that a muon produced in a charged-current interaction arrives in a detector with an energy above the muon energy threshold $E_\mu^{\mathrm min}$ and is given by $$P_\mu(E_\nu,E_\mu^{\rm min}) = N_{\mathrm{A}}\, \sigma_{\rm CC}(E_\nu) \langle R(E_\nu;E_\mu^{\rm min} )\rangle , \label{pmudef}$$ where $\langle R(E_\nu;E_\mu^{\rm min})\rangle$ is the average range of a muon in rock. $S(E_\nu)$ is the shadow factor defined earlier and $dN/dE_\nu$ is the (isotropic) neutrino flux. We give a set of sample rates below and refer the reader to [@r98] for a more extensive set of predictions.. Let us consider for illustration a detector with effective area $A=0.1{\hbox{ km}}^{2}$. This choice of size is intermediate to existing detectors and the planned future facilities. We show in Tables \[tab:eth1\] and \[tab:eth10\] the annual event rates for upward-going muons with observed energies exceeding $1{\hbox{ TeV}}$ and $10{\hbox{ TeV}}$, respectively. We tabulate rates for the full upward-going solid angle of $2\pi$, as well as for the detection of “nearly horizontal” muons with nadir angle $\theta$ between $60^{\circ}$ and $90^{\circ}$. The predicted event rates, shown here for the CTEQ4–DIS parton distributions, are very similar for other modern parton distributions. We note that the atmospheric background overwhelms the signal when the threshold is 1 TeV. However, signals should emerge above background for 10 TeV and 100 TeV thresholds. Above 100 TeV, we have the rare case of “all signal and no background”, as the atmospheric muon flux disappears. Also evident in Table 2 is the effect of shadowing, with a majority of signal events in the “nearly horizontal” direction, where the neutrino traverses less rock prior to detection. In addition to the (upward) partially contained events and the (downward) fully contained ones which become important at energies above which the atmospheric background diappears , it may be possible to detect cascade neutrino interactions at extremely high energies ($\geq 10^{17}$ eV) in the proposed Pierre Auger Cosmic Ray Observatory [@aug]. This will consist of both a ground array with detectors distributed over a very large area ($\approx 3000$ km$^2$) and nitrogen fluorescence detectors. At these energies, the probability of a horizontally incoming neutrino interacting with the atmosphere is non-negligible. The events are thus rendered distinguishable from CR showers initiated by proton or other primaries by their incoming direction and their tendency to shower late into the atmosphere. The predictions for these are given in [@r98]. Conclusions =========== We have made an attempt to review the essential motivations and phenomenological issues related to the interactions and detection of UHE neutrinos and provided expected event rates for water/ice Cerenkov detectors. Although present detector capabilities and sizes do not allow them to see above atmospheric backgrounds, with upgradations and several new large-scale experiments underway, the detection of UHE neutrinos from astrophysical sources may be very likely in the near future. Besides the potential for serendipitous discovery, the unmatched (terrestially) energies may lead to new particle physics discoveries. In addition, these experiments may help clarify the astrophysical mechanism responsible for the ultra-relativistic acceleration of matter in these sources and answer important questions in CR physics, and, finally, provide sensitive tests of gravitational couplings and oscillations. For those working in UHE neutrino physics and astronomy, the anticipation is palpable. Acknowledgements ================ I thank Chris Quigg, Mary Hall Reno and Ina Sarcevic for a stimulating collaboration, several results of which are presented here. I also acknowledge useful discussions over the years with Pijush Bhattacharjee, Gabor Domokos, Susan-Kovesi Domokos and Francis Halzen, who have contributed to my knowlwdge of UHE neutrinos. \[fig:shadow\] ------------------------------- ---------------------- ------------------------- Flux $0^\circ - 90^\circ$ $60^{\circ} - 90^\circ$ ATM [@volkova] 1100. 570. ATM [@volkova] + charm [@prs] 1100. 570. AGN-SS91 [@r56] 500. 380. AGN-M95 ($p\gamma$) [@r49] 31. 18. AGN-P96 ($p\gamma$) [@r48] 45. 39. GRB-WB [@waxb] 12. 8.1 TD-SLSC [@slsc] 0.005 0.0046 TD-WMB12 [@r52] 0.50 0.39 TD-WMB16 [@r52] 0.00050 0.00039 ------------------------------- ---------------------- ------------------------- : Upward $\mu^{+}+\mu^{-}$ event rates per year arising from $\nu_{\mu}N$ and $\bar{\nu}_{\mu}N$ interactions in rock, for a detector with effective area $A = 0.1{\hbox{ km}}^{2}$ and muon energy threshol d $E_\mu^{\mathrm{min}}=1{\hbox{ TeV}}$. The rates are shown integrated over all angles below the horizon and restricted to “nearly horizontal” nadir angles $60^{\circ} < \theta < 90^\circ$. \[tab:eth1\] ------------------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------- Flux $0^\circ - 90^\circ$ $60^{\circ} - 90^\circ$ ATM [@volkova] 17. 10. ATM [@volkova] + charm [@prs] 19. 11. AGN-SS91 [@r56] 270. 210. AGN-M95 ($p\gamma$) [@r49] 5.7 4.3 AGN-P96 ($p\gamma$) [@r48] 28. 25. GRB-WB [@waxb] 5.4 4.0 ------------------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------- : Upward $\mu^{+}+\mu^{-}$ event rates per year arising from $\nu_{\mu}N$ and $\bar{\nu}_{\mu}N$ interactions in rock, for a detector with effective area $A = 0.1{\hbox{ km}}^{2}$ and muon energy threshold $E_\mu^{\mathrm{min}}=10{\hbox{ TeV}}$. The rates are shown integrated over all angles below the horizon and restricted to “nearly horizontal” nadir angles $60^{\circ} < \theta < 90^\circ$. \[tab:eth10\] [99]{} Y. Fukuda [*et. al*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B 433**]{}, 9 (1998); Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 1562 (1998). S. Fukuda et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 3999, (2000) (e-print hep-ex 0009001). R. Becker-Szendy et al, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl [**38**]{}, 331, (1995). For a discussion and references see, for instance, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia and C. Pena-Garay, e-print hep-ph 0009041 and M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, C. Pena-Garay and A. Yu. Smirnov, e-print hep-ph 0012313. LSND Collaboration; C. Athanassopoulos et. al; Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1774 (1998). For a recent discussion of global neutrino data from various experiments, see M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia et al, e-print hep-ph 0009350. R. Gandhi, C. Quigg, M. H. Reno and I. Sarcevic, Astroparticle Physics, [**5**]{}, 81, (1996); T. Gaisser, F. Halzen and T. Stanev, Phys. Reports [**258**]{}, 173 (1995). R. Gandhi, C. Quigg, M. H. Reno and I. Sarcevic, Phys. Rev. [**D58**]{} (1998) 093009. E. Andres et al, (AMANDA Collaboration), e-print astro-ph 0009242 ; R. Wischnewski at al, , [141]{}, [2000]{}. For general information see [http://www.ifh.de/baikal/baikalhome.html]{}; also see V. Balkanov et al, (BAIKAL Collaboration), e-print astro-ph 0001151. D. Zavrtanik, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**85**]{}, 324, (2000); see also [http://www.auger.org/]{}. L. Resvanis, , [448]{}, [2000]{}. F. Halzen, Am. Astron. Soc. Meeting 192 (1998) \# 62 28; AMANDA collaboration; C. Spiering, e-print astro-ph 0012532. For general information see [http://antares.in2p3.fr/antares/antares.html]{}; see also F. Montanet for the ANTARES Collaboration, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**87**]{}, 436 (2000) (e-print astro-ph 0001380). D. Seckel in Proceedings of [*The Next Generation Nucleon Decay and Neutrino Detector*]{} (NNN99), M.V. Diwan and C.K. Jung (editors) AIP Publications, (Melville NY) (2000); and C. Allen et al (RICE Collaboration), e-print astro-ph 9709223. NEMO Collaboration, e-print hep-ex 0006031. V. S. Berezinsky, S. V. Bulanov, V. A. Dogiel, V. L. Ginzburg, and V. S. Ptuskin, [*Astrophysics of Cosmic Rays*]{} (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1990). T. K. Gaisser, [*Cosmic Rays and Particle Physics*]{}, Cambridge University Press (Cambridge, England, 1990) B. L. Dingus, [*ed.*]{} Proc. 26th [*International Cosmic Ray Conference*]{}, Utah, 1999, (AIP, New York, 2000). N. N. Efimov et al., Proceedings of ICRR 90, Kofu, Japan, M. Nagano and F. Takahara, [*eds.*]{}, (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991), p. 20. N. Hayashida et al., Astrophys. J. [**522**]{}, 225 (1999), e-print astro-ph 0008102; M. Takeda et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 1163. D. J. Bird et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 71 (1993) 3401; Astrophys. J. 424 (1994) 491; ibid. 441 (1995) 144. R. Protheroe, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**77**]{} 465 (1999). K. Greisen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 16 (1966) 748. G. T. Zatsepin and V. A. Kuzmin, Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 4 (1966) 114 \[JETP. Lett. 4 (1966) 78\]. G. Sigl, e-print astro-ph 0008364. See E. Waxman, e-print hep-ph 0009152. T. Piran, Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.) 70 (1999) 431; Phys. Rept. 314 (1999) 575. E. Waxman and J. N. Bahcall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997) 2292. M. Vietri, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (1998) 3690. P. Bhattacharjee and G. Sigl, preprint astro-ph 9811011, Phys. Rep. [**327**]{}, (2000), 109. V. Berezinsky, M. Kachelrie$\beta$ and A. Vilenin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, (1997), 4302. M. Birkel and S. Sarkar, Astropart. Phys. 9 (1998), 297. G. Gelmini and A. Kusenko, Phys. Rev. Lett 84, (2000) 1378. A. Kusenko and M. Postma, hep-ph 0007246. J. Alvarez-Muniz and F. Halzen, astro-ph 0007329. J. Learned and S. Pakvasa, Astro. Part. Phys. [**3**]{}, (1995) 267. F. Halzen and D. Saltzberg, Phys. Rev. Lett [**81**]{}, (1998), 4305 . S. Iyer Dutta, M.H. Reno and I. Sarcevic, Phys. Rev [**D62**]{}, (2000) 123001 ( e-print hep-ph 0005310). H. Athar, G. Parente and E. Zas, Phys. Rev [**D62**]{}, (2000) 093010 (e-print hep-ph 0006123). K. Mannheim, [[*Astropart. Phys.*]{} [**3**]{} (1995) 295]{}. F. W. Stecker, C. Done, M. H. Salamon, and P. Sommers, [Phys. Rev. Lett. [**66,**]{} 2697 (1991)]{}; [[*ibid.*]{} [**69**]{} (1992) 2738E]{}. Revised estimates of the neutrino flux appear in F. W. Stecker and M. H. Salamon, “High Energy Neutrinos from Quasars,” Space Science Reviews **75,** 341 (1996) [(electronic archive: astro–ph/9501064)]{}, where it is assumed that all the observed AGN x-ray luminosity arises from hadronic interactions. We have scaled this flux by a factor of 0.3. R. J. Protheroe, “High-Energy Neutrinos from Blazars” [(electronic archive: astro–ph/9607165)]{} in *Accretion Phenomena and Related Outflows, IAU Colloquium 163,* Volume 121 of the ASP Conference Series, ed. D. T. Wickramasinghe, G. V. Bicknell, and L. Ferrario (Astronomical Society of the Pacific, San Francisco, 1997). E. Waxman and J. Bahcall, [Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78,**]{} 2292 (1997)]{}. U. F. Wichoski, J. H. MacGibbon, and R. H. Brandenberger, [(electronic archive: hep–ph/9805419)]{}. G. Sigl, S. Lee, D. N. Schramm and P. Coppi, [[Phys. Lett.]{} [**B392,**]{} 129 (1997)]{}. M. Derrick, [[*et al.*]{}]{} (ZEUS Collaboration), [[*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B316**]{} (1993) 412]{}. I. Abt, [[*et al.*]{}]{} (H1 Collaboration), [[*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B407**]{} (1993) 515]{}. G. Wolf, “HERA Physics,” in *High Energy Phenomenology,* Proceedings of the 42nd Scottish Universities Summer School in Physics, St. Andrews, 1–21 August 1993, edited by K. J. Peach and L. L. J. Vick (SUSSP Publications, Edinburgh, and Institute of Physics Publishing, London, 1994), p. 135. M. Derrick, [[*et al.*]{}]{} (ZEUS Collaboration), [[*Z. Phys. C*]{}[**65**]{} (1995) 379]{}. T. Ahmed, [[*et al.*]{}]{} (H1 Collaboration), [[*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B439**]{} (1995) 471]{}. H. Lai, [[*et al.*]{}]{} (CTEQ Collaboration), [[*Phys. Rev. D*]{}[**51**]{} (1995) 4763]{}. G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, [[*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B126**]{} (1977) 298]{}. See also V. N. Gribov and L. N. Lipatov, [[*Yad. Fiz.*]{} [**15**]{} (1972) 781 \[English transl.: [*Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**15**]{} (1972) 438\]]{}; L. N. Lipatov, [[*Yad. Fiz.*]{} [**20**]{} (1974) 181 \[English transl.: [*Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**20**]{} (1974) 94\]]{}; Yu. L. Dokshitser, [[*Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.*]{} [**73**]{} (1977) 1216 \[English translation: [*Sov. Phys.–JETP* ]{} [**46**]{} (1977) 641\]]{}. E. A. Kuraev, L. N. Lipatov, and V. S. Fadin, [[*Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.*]{} [**71**]{} (1976) 840 \[English translation: [*Sov. Phys.–JETP* ]{} [**44**]{} (1976) 443\]]{}; [[*Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.*]{} [**72**]{} (1977) 377 \[English translation: [*Sov. Phys.–JETP* ]{} [**45**]{} (1977) 199\]]{}; Ya. Ya. Balitskiĭ, and L. N. Lipatov, [[*Yad. Fiz.*]{} [**28**]{} (1978) 1597 \[English transl.: [*Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**28**]{} (1978) 822\]]{}; L. N. Lipatov, [[*Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.*]{} [**90**]{} (1986) 1536 \[English translation: [*Sov. Phys.–JETP* ]{} [**63**]{} (1986) 904\]]{}; L. N. Lipatov, “Pomeron in Quantum Chromodynamics,” in [*Perturbative Quantum Chromodynamics,*]{} edited by A. H. Mueller (World Scientific, Singapore, 1989), p. 411. J. Kwiecinski, A. Martin and A. Stasto, hep-ph 9905307 and Acta. Phys. Polon. [**B30**]{} (1999) 3763. G. Burdman, F. Halzen, and R. Gandhi, [[Phys. Lett.]{} [**B417,**]{} 107 (1998)]{}. T. Weiler, e-print hep-ph 9710431 and Astro. Part. Phys. [**11**]{} (1999) 303. M. A. Doncheski and R. W. Robinett, [[Phys. Rev. D.]{} [**56,**]{} 7412 (1997)]{}; R. W. Robinett, [[Phys. Rev. D.]{} [**37,**]{} 84 (1988)]{}. M. Carena, D. Choudhury, S. Lola, and C. Quigg, Phys. Rev. [**D58**]{} (1998) 095003 J. Bordes, [[*et al.*]{}]{}, [[*Astropart. Phys.*]{} [**8**]{} (1998) 135]{}. E. Waxman and J. Bahcall, Phys. Rev. [**D59**]{}, (1999) 023002. J Rachen [*et al*]{}; asto-ph 9908031. S. Sarkar, talk at COSMO 99, hep-ph 0005256. L. V. Volkova, [[*Yad. Fiz.*]{} [**31**]{} (1980) 1510 \[English transl.: [*Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**31**]{} (1980) 784\]]{}. G. Sigl, S. Lee, D. N. Schramm and P. Coppi, [[Phys. Lett.]{} [**B392,**]{} 129 (1997)]{}. L. Pasquali, M. H. Reno, and I. Sarcevic, talk at ICRC 99, hep-ph 9905389. J. Lykken, [[Phys. Rev. D.]{} [**54,**]{} 3693 (1996)]{}; N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B 429 (1998) 263; I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B 436 (1998) 257; N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. Dvali, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 086004. G. Domokos and S. Kovesi-Domokos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 1366. S. Nussinov and R. Shrock, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 105002. P. Jain, D. McKay, S. Panda, and J. Ralston, Phys. Lett B484, (2000) 267. G. Domokos, S. Kovesi-Domokos and P. Mikulski, hep-ph 0006328. G. Domokos, S. Kovesi-Domokos, W. Burgett and J. Wrinkle, hep-ph 0011156. [^1]: The first hints of this anomaly were provided by atmospheric neutrino data from the IMB detector, [@IMB] [^2]: This cutoff is at present associated with one of the most significant puzzles in CR physics (see [@gsigl] for a recent review), because CR events with energies in excess of $10^{20}$ eV have been convincingly detected by several experiments employing different detection techniques. Although we do not go into this puzzle in any detail here, or the apparent absence of a GKZ cutoff signalled by the highest energy CR, we note that the existence of the cutoff is demanded by well-tested low-energy SM physics. Additionally, the observation of such post-GKZ events has relevance for UHE neutrino-nucleon cross-sections in non-standard scenarios, which we discuss briefly in Section 5. [^3]: A charged particle moving through rock suffers two types of energy losses, continuous and discrete. Continous losses are mainly due to ionization of the medium, and their rate depends weakly (logarithmically) on the energy. Discrete losses stem from bremstrahllung, electromagnetic interactions with nuclei and direct $e^+e^-$ production. In general, such losses are proportional to the energy, but for muons gain importance only at higher energies. The most important loss mechanism, bremstrahllung, is proportional to the inverse square of the mass of the charged particle, and hence is highly suppressed for muons relative to electrons. [^4]: For an interesting proposal that attempts to resolve this puzzle using neutrinos with SM interactions which travel most, but not all of the distance to the earth before producing a hadronic primary see [@tweil]

ArXiv

--- abstract: | A well known theorem due to Koksma states that for Lebesgue almost every $x>1$ the sequence $(x^n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is uniformly distributed modulo one. In this paper we give sufficient conditions for an analogue of this theorem to hold for self-similar measures. Our approach applies more generally to sequences of the form $(f_{n}(x))_{n=1}^{\infty}$ where $(f_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is a sequence of sufficiently smooth real valued functions satisfying a nonlinearity assumption. As a corollary of our main result, we show that if $C$ is equal to the middle third Cantor set and $t\geq 1$, then with respect to the Cantor-Lebesgue measure on $C+t$ the sequence $(x^n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is uniformly distributed for almost every $x$.\ *Mathematics Subject Classification 2010*: 11K06, 28A80.\ *Key words and phrases*: Self-similar measures, uniform distribution, powers of real numbers. author: - | Simon Baker\ \ *School of Mathematics,*\ *University of Birmingham,*\ *Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.*\ Email: [email protected]\ title: 'Equidistribution results for self-similar measures' --- Introduction ============ A sequence $(x_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ of real numbers is said to be uniformly distributed modulo one if for every pair of real numbers $u,v $ with $0\leq u <v\leq 1$ we have $$\lim_{N\to\infty}\frac{\#\{1\leq n \leq N:x_n\bmod 1\in [u,v]\}}{N}=v-u.$$ The study of uniformly distributed sequences has its origins in the pioneering work of Weyl [@Weyl] from the early $20$th century. From these beginnings this topic has developed into an important area of mathematics, with many deep connections to Ergodic Theory, Number Theory, and Probability Theory. It is a challenging problem to determine whether a given sequence of real numbers is uniformly distributed. Often the sequences one considers are of dynamical or number theoretic origins. For an overview of this topic we refer the reader to [@Bug; @KN] and the references therein. One of the most well known results from uniform distribution theory states that for any integer $b\geq 2,$ for Lebesgue almost every $x\in \mathbb{R}$ the sequence $(b^nx)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is uniformly distributed modulo one. This result due to Borel is commonly referred to as Borel’s normal number theorem [@Bor]. In what follows we say that $x$ is $b$-normal if $(b^nx)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is uniformly distributed modulo one. For an arbitrary Borel probability measure $\mu$ supported on $\mathbb{R}$ which is defined independently from the dynamical system $x\to bx \bmod 1,$ it is natural to wonder whether $x$ is $b$-normal for $\mu$ almost every $x$. The following metaconjecture encapsulates many important results in this direction. Suppose $\mu$ is a Borel probability measure that is “independent" from the dynamical system $x\to bx \bmod 1$. Then $\mu$ almost every $x$ is $b$-normal. Of course the important detail in this conjecture is what exactly it means for a Borel probability measure to be independent from the dynamical system $x\to bx \bmod 1$. The first instances of this metaconjecture being verified are found in the papers of Cassels [@Cas] and Schmidt [@Sch]. These authors were motivated by a question of Steinhaus as to whether there exists an $x$ that is $b$-normal for infinitely many $b$ but not all $b$. They answered this question in the affirmative by proving that with respect to the Cantor-Lebesgue measure on the middle third Cantor set, almost every $x$ is $b$-normal if $b$ is not a power of three. The underlying independence here comes from the middle third Cantor set being defined by similarities with contraction ratios equal to $1/3,$ and $b$ having a prime factor not equal to $3$. The current state of the art in this area are the following two theorems due to Hochman and Shmerkin [@HocShm], and Dajan, Ganguly, and Weiss [@DGW]. [[@HocShm]]{} \[HocShm\] Let $\{\varphi_i(x)=r_i x +t_i\}_{i\in \A}$ be an iterated function system satisfying the open set condition. Suppose $b\geq 2$ is such that $\frac{\log |r_i|}{\log b}\notin \mathbb{Q}$ for some $i\in \A,$ then for every fully supported[^1] non-atomic self-similar measure $\mu$, $\mu$ almost every $x$ is $b$-normal. [[@DGW]]{} \[DaGaWe\] Let $\{\varphi_i(x)=\frac{x}{b} +t_i\}_{i\in \A}$ be an iterated function system. Suppose $t_i-t_j\notin \mathbb{Q}$ for some $i,j\in \A$, then for every fully supported non-atomic self-similar measure $\mu$, $\mu$ almost every $x$ is $b$-normal. The independence in Theorem \[HocShm\] comes from the existence of a contraction ratio satisfying $\frac{\log |r_i|}{\log b}\notin \mathbb{Q}.$ Whereas in Theorem \[DaGaWe\] the independence comes from the existence of translation parameters $t_i,t_j$ satisfying $t_i-t_j\notin \mathbb{Q}.$ Other important contributions in this area include the papers by Kaufman [@Kau], and Queffélec and Ramaré [@QR], who constructed Borel probability measures supported on subsets of the badly approximable numbers whose Fourier transforms converged to zero polynomially fast. Importantly, if the Fourier transform of a Borel probability measure converges to zero polynomially fast, then it can be shown that almost every point with respect to this measure is $b$-normal for any $b\geq 2$. Kaufman later went on to show that such measures also exist for the set of $\alpha$-well approximable numbers [@Kau2]. The results of Kaufman [@Kau], and Queffélec and Ramaré [@QR], were later extended by Jordan and Sahlsten to a general class of measures [@JorSah]. In a more recent paper, Simmons and Weiss [@SimWei] proved that if $X$ is a self-similar set satisfying the open set condition, then with respect to the natural measure on $X$[^2], the orbit under the Gauss map ($x\to 1/x \bmod 1$) of almost every $x$ equidistributes with respect to the Gauss measure. Here the important point is that the natural measure on $X$ is defined independently from the dynamics of the Gauss map. After Borel’s normal number theorem, one of the next uniform distribution results one likely encounters is a theorem due to Koksma [@Koks]. This theorem states that for Lebesgue almost every $x>1$ the sequence $(x^n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is uniformly distributed modulo one. The motivation behind this paper comes from this theorem and the results stated above. More specifically, given a Borel probability measure $\mu$ supported on $[1,\infty)$ that is defined “independently" from the family of maps $\{f_{n}(x)=x^n\}_{n=1}^{\infty},$ we are interested in determining whether for $\mu$ almost every $x$ the sequence $(x^n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is uniformly distributed modulo one. The study of the distribution of the sequence $(x^n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ modulo one dates back to the work of Hardy [@Hardy] and Pisot [@Pisot2; @Pisot]. It is a challenging problem to describe the distribution of $(x^n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ modulo one for specific values of $x$. It is still unknown whether there exists a transcendental $x>1$ such that $d(x^{n},\mathbb{N})\to 0$ as $n\to\infty.$ For some recent results on the distribution of the sequence $(x^n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ we refer the reader to [@A; @AB; @Bak; @Bug; @BLR; @BugMos; @Dub] and the references therein. We remark that any self-similar set is defined by a finite collection of affine maps, whereas for any $n\geq 2$ the map $f_{n}(x)=x^n$ is certainly not affine. One could view this observation as some measure of independence. With the above results in mind, the following conjecture seems plausible. \[motivating conjecture\] Let $\mu$ be a non-atomic self-similar measure with support contained in $[1,\infty)$. Then for $\mu$ almost every $x$ the sequence $(x^n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is uniformly distributed modulo one. One of the challenges faced when addressing this conjecture is that, at least to the best of the author’s knowledge, there is no dynamical system which effectively captures the distribution of $(x^n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ modulo one. As such one cannot rely upon techniques from Ergodic Theory to prove this conjecture. Techniques from Ergodic Theory were previously applied with great success in the proofs of Theorem \[HocShm\] and Theorem \[DaGaWe\]. In this paper we do not prove the full Conjecture \[motivating conjecture\]. We instead prove the following general statement which lends significant weight to its validity. \[power theorem\] Let $\{\varphi_i(x)=rx+t_i\}_{i\in \A}$ be an equicontractive iterated function system satisfying the convex strong separation condition with self-similar set $X$ contained in $[1,\infty)$. Moreover let $(p_i)_{i\in \A}$ be a probability vector satisfying $$\frac{1}{2}<\frac{-\sum_{i\in \A}p_i\log p_i}{-\log |r|}.$$ Then with respect to the self-similar measure $\mu$ corresponding to $(p_i)_{i\in \A}$, for $\mu$ almost every $x$ the sequence $(x^n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is uniformly distributed modulo one. We define what it means for an iterated function system to be equicontractive and to satisfy the convex strong separation condition in the next section. Importantly both of these conditions are satisfied by the iterated function system $\{\phi_{1}(x)=\frac{x+2t}{3},\phi_{2}(x)=\frac{x+2+2t}{3}\}$ for any $t\in \mathbb{R}.$ The self-similar set for this iterated function system is $C+t$ where $C$ is the middle third Cantor set. Taking $(p_i)_{i=1}^2=(1/2,1/2)$ to be our probability vector, and using the fact that the self-similar measure for this choice of $(p_i)_{i=1}^2$ coincides with the Cantor Lebesgue measure on $C+t,$ we see that Theorem \[power theorem\] immediately implies the following corollary. Let $C$ be the middle third Cantor set. Then for any $t\geq 1,$ with respect to the Cantor-Lebesgue measure on $C+t,$ for almost every $x$ the sequence $(x^n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is uniformly distributed modulo one. Theorem \[power theorem\] is implied by the following more general theorem which applies to a wider class of functions. \[main theorem\] Let $\{\varphi_i(x)=rx+t_i\}_{i\in \A}$ be an equicontractive iterated function system satisfying the convex strong separation condition with self-similar set $X$ contained in $[1,\infty)$. Let $(f_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ be a sequence of functions satisfying the following properties: 1. $f_{n}\in C^3(\text{conv}(X),\mathbb{R})$ for each $n.$[^3] 2. There exists $C_1,C_2>0$ such that for any $m,n$ with $m<n$ we have: $$|f_{n}'(x)-f_{m}'(x)|\leq C_1n^{C_2}x^{n-1}$$ for all $x\in \text{conv}(X)$. 3. There exists $C_3>0$ such that for all $n$ sufficiently large, for any $m<n$ we have: $$|f_{n}''(x)-f_{m}''(x)|\geq C_{3}x^{n-2}$$ for all $x\in \text{conv}(X).$ 4. For any $m,n$ with $m<n$ we have either $$f_{n}'''(x)-f_{m}'''(x)\geq 0$$ for all $x\in \text{conv}(X),$ or $$f_{n}'''(x)-f_{m}'''(x)\leq 0$$ for all $x\in \text{conv}(X).$ Moreover let $(p_i)_{i\in \A}$ be a probability vector satisfying $$\frac{1}{2}<\frac{-\sum_{i\in \A}p_i\log p_i}{-\log |r|}.$$ Then with respect to the self-similar measure $\mu$ corresponding to $(p_i)_{i\in \A}$, for $\mu$ almost every $x$ the sequence $(f_{n}(x))_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is uniformly distributed modulo one. The hypothesis of Theorem \[main theorem\] is satisfied by many sequences of functions. For instance we could take $f_{n}(x)=x^n+x^{n-1}+\cdots+x+1$ for all $n$. Alternatively we could fix a polynomial $g$ with strictly positive coefficients and let $f_{n}(x)=g(x)x^n$ for all $n$, or $f_{n}(x)=g(n)x^n$ for all $n$. Each of these sequences of functions satisfies the hypothesis of Theorem \[main theorem\]. The rest of the paper is organised as follows. In Section $2$ we recall the necessary preliminaries from Fractal Geometry and the theory of uniform distribution. In Section $3$ we prove Theorem \[main theorem\]. Preliminaries ============= Fractal Geometry ---------------- We call a map $\varphi:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ a similarity if it is of the form $\varphi(x)=rx +t$ for some $r\in(-1,0)\cup(0,1)$ and $t\in \mathbb{R}$. We call a finite collection of similarities $\{\varphi_i\}_{i\in \A}$ an iterated function systems or IFS for short. Here and throughout $\A$ denotes an arbitrary finite set. Given an IFS $\{\varphi_i(x)=r_ix+t_i\}_{i\in \A},$ we say that it is equicontractive if there exists $r\in(-1,0)\cup(0,1)$ such that $r_i=r$ for all $i\in \A$. Throughout this paper we will assume that if $\{\varphi_i\}_{i\in \A}$ is an equicontractive IFS then $r\in(0,1)$. For each of our theorems there is no loss of generality in making this assumption. This is due to the fact that if $\{\varphi_i\}_{i\in \A}$ is an equicontractive IFS then $\{\varphi_i\circ \varphi_j\}_{(i,j)\in \A^2}$ is an equicontractive IFS with $r\in(0,1)$. An important result due to Hutchinson [@Hut] states that for any IFS $\{\varphi_i\}_{i\in \A},$ there exists a unique non-empty compact set $X$ satisfying $$X=\bigcup_{i\in \A}\varphi_i(X).$$ $X$ is called the self-similar set of $\{\varphi_i\}_{i\in \A}$. The middle third Cantor set and the von-Koch snowflake are well known examples of self-similar sets. Given a finite word $\a=(a_1,\ldots,a_M)\in \bigcup_{k=1}^{\infty}\A^k$ we let $$\varphi_{\a}:=\varphi_{a_1}\circ \cdots \circ \varphi_{a_M} \text{ and }X_{\a}:=\varphi_{\a}(X).$$ For distinct $\a,\b\in \A^M$ we let $$|\a\wedge\b|:=\inf\left\{1\leq k\leq M:a_k\neq b_k\right\}.$$ Given an IFS $\{\varphi_i\}_{i\in \A}$ and a probability vector $\p:=(p_i)_{i\in \A},$ there exists a unique Borel probability measure $\mu_{\p}$ satisfying $$\label{self-similar measure} \mu_{\p}=\sum_{i\in \A}p_i\cdot \mu_{\p} \circ \varphi_{i}^{-1}.$$ We call $\mu_\p$ the self-similar measure corresponding to $\{\varphi_i\}_{i\in \A}$ and $\p.$ For our purposes it is important that the relation can be iterated and for any $M\in\mathbb{N}$ we in fact have $$\label{iterated self-similar measure} \mu_{\p}=\sum_{\a\in\A^{M}}p_{\a}\cdot \mu_{\p} \circ \varphi_{\a}^{-1},$$ where $p_{\a}=\prod_{k=1}^{M}p_{a_k}$ for $\a=(a_1,\ldots,a_M).$ Given a probability vector $\p$ we define the entropy of $\p$ to equal $$h(\p):=-\sum_{i\in \A}p_i\log p_i.$$ We emphasise that this quantity appears in the hypothesis of Theorem \[power theorem\] and Theorem \[main theorem\]. When the choice of $\p$ is implicit we simply denote $\mu_{\p}$ by $\mu$. Many results in the study of self-similar sets require additional separation conditions on the IFS. Often one restricts to the case when the IFS satisfies the strong separation condition or the open set condition (see [@Fal1; @Fal2]). In this paper we will require a slightly stronger separation condition that is still satisfied by many well known self-similar sets. Given an IFS $\{\varphi_i\}_{i\in \A}$, we say that $\{\varphi_i\}_{i\in \A}$ satisfies the convex strong separation condition if the convex hull of $X$ satisfies the following: $$\varphi_{i}(\textrm{conv}(X))\subseteq \textrm{conv}(X)\, \forall i\in \A \text{ and } \varphi_{i}(\textrm{conv}(X))\cap \varphi_{j}(\textrm{conv}(X))=\emptyset\, \forall i\neq j.$$ To help with our exposition we state here an identity that will be used numerous times in our proof of Theorem \[main theorem\]. Suppose $\{\varphi_i\}_{i\in \A}$ is an equicontractive IFS and $f\in C^{1}(\textrm{conv}(I),\mathbb{R})$. Then for any $\a\in \A^{M},$ it follows from the chain rule that $$(f\circ \varphi_{\a})'(x)=r^{M}f'(\varphi_{\a}(x)).$$ Uniform distribution -------------------- To prove Theorem \[main theorem\] we make use of the well known criterion due to Weyl for uniform distribution in terms of exponential sums, and a result due to Davenport, Erdős, and LeVeque (see [@Bug; @DEL; @Weyl]). Combining these results we may deduce the following statement. \[Important prop\] Let $\mu$ be a Borel probability measure on $\mathbb{R}$ and $(f_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ be a sequence of continuous real valued functions. If for any $l\in \mathbb{Z}\setminus\{0\}$ the series $$\sum_{N=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{N}\int \left|\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^{N}e^{2\pi i lf_{n}(x)}\right|^2 d\mu$$ converges, then for $\mu$ almost every $x$ the sequence $(f_{n}(x))_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is uniformly distributed modulo one. Proposition \[Important prop\] is the tool that enables us to prove Theorem \[main theorem\]. We will also rely on the following technical lemma due to van der Corput, for a proof of this lemma see [@KN Lemma 2.1.] \[van der Corput\] Let $\phi:[a,b]\to\mathbb{R}$ be differentiable. Assume that $|\phi'(x)|\geq \gamma$ for all $x\in [a,b]$, and $\phi'$ is monotonic on $[a,b]$. Then $$\left|\int_{a}^be^{2\pi i\phi(x)}\, dx\right|\leq \gamma^{-1}.$$ **Notation.** Throughout this paper we will use $\exp(x)$ to denote $e^{2\pi i x}.$ Given two complex valued functions $f$ and $g$, we write $f=\O(g)$ if there exists $C>0$ such that $|f(x)|\leq C|g(x)|$ for all $x$. If the underlying constant depends upon some parameter $s$ and we want to emphasise this dependence we write $f=\O_{s}(g)$. Given an interval $I$ we let $|I|$ denote the Lebesgue measure of $I$. Proof of Theorem \[main theorem\] ================================= Let us now fix an IFS $\{\varphi_{i}\}_{i\in \A}$, a probability vector $\p,$ and a sequence of functions $(f_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ so that the hypothesis of Theorem \[main theorem\] is satisfied. In what follows we let $$I:=\textrm{conv}(X).$$ Moreover, given a word $\a\in \cup_{k=1}^{\infty}\A^k$ we let $I_{\a}:=\varphi_{\a}(I).$ For technical reasons it is useful to restrict our arguments to subsets of the self-similar set that are a uniform distance away from $1$. With this in mind we introduce the parameter $\kappa>0$ to be any small number such that $1+\kappa\notin X.$ It follows from the convex strong separation condition that $\kappa$ exists and can be taken to be arbitrarily small. Given such a $\kappa>0,$ we fix $\delta_{\kappa}>0$ to be any sufficiently small real number so that if we let $$\begin{aligned} \Gamma_{\kappa}:=\max\Bigg\{ &r^{\delta_{\kappa}},\frac{1}{r^{2\delta_{\kappa}}}\left(\frac{e^{2(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{r}\right)^{\frac{\log 1+\kappa}{-2\log r}},\frac{1+\delta_{\kappa}}{r^{3\delta_{\kappa}}}\left(\frac{e^{2(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{r}\right)^{\frac{\log 1+\kappa}{-2\log r}},\\ &\frac{1+\delta_{\kappa}}{r^{3\delta_{\kappa}}}\left(\frac{e^{-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa}}}{r^{\delta_{\kappa}}}\right)^{\frac{\log 1+\kappa}{-2\log r}}\Bigg\},\end{aligned}$$then $\Gamma_{\kappa}<1$. Such a $\delta_{\kappa}>0$ exists because of our underlying assumption $$\frac{1}{2}<\frac{h(\p)}{-\log r},$$ which is equivalent to $$\frac{e^{-2h(\p)}}{r}<1.$$ Moreover given such a $\kappa$ and $\delta_{\kappa},$ we fix $N_{\kappa}$ to be any sufficiently large natural number so that $$\max_{\a\in \A^{N_{\kappa}}}\sup_{x,y\in I_{\a}}\frac{x}{y}<1+\delta_{\kappa},$$ and for any $\a\in \A^{N_{\kappa}}$ we have either $$\sup I_{\a}<1+\kappa \textrm{ or }\inf I_{\a}>1+\kappa.$$ Such an $N_{\kappa}$ exists since $1+\kappa\notin X$ and $X$ is compact. Given a word $\c\in \cup_{k=1}^{\infty}\A^{k}$ we let $$\tmu_{\c}:=\frac{\mu|_{X_{\c}}}{\mu(X_{\c})}.$$ It is a consequence of the convex strong separation condition that $\tmu_{\c}=\mu\circ \varphi_{\c}^{-1}$. We will use this equality during our proof of Theorem \[main theorem\]. The following proposition provides the necessary estimates for us to successfully apply Proposition \[Important prop\] in our proof of Theorem \[main theorem\]. \[decay prop\] Assume that $\{\varphi_i\}_{i\in \A}$, $\p,$ and $(f_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ satisfy the hypothesis of Theorem \[main theorem\]. Then for any $\kappa>0$ such that $1+\kappa\notin X,$ there exists $\gamma:=\gamma(\kappa,\p)\in(0,1)$ such that for any $l\in \mathbb{Z}\setminus\{0\},$ $n>m,$ and $\c\in\A^{N_{\kappa}}$ satisfying $\inf I_{\c}>1+\kappa$, we have $$\int \exp(l(f_{n}(x)-f_{m}(x)))\, d\tmu_{\c}=\O_{\kappa,l}(\gamma^n).$$ We now include the argument explaining how Theorem \[main theorem\] follows from Proposition \[decay prop\]. It will be shown below that Proposition \[decay prop\] implies that for any $\kappa>0$ such that $1+\kappa\notin X,$ if $\c\in\{1,\ldots,n\}^{N_{\kappa}}$ is such that $\inf I_{\c}>1+\kappa$ then for $\tmu_{\c}$ almost every $x$ the sequence $(f_{n}(x))_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is uniformly distributed. It then follows from the definition of $N_{\kappa}$ and the self-similarity of $\mu,$ i.e. , that this statement implies that for $\mu$ almost every $x>1+\kappa$ the sequence $(f_{n}(x))_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is uniformly distributed. Since there exists arbitrarily small $\kappa>0$ satisfying $1+\kappa\notin X$ it is clear that Theorem \[main theorem\] follows. It therefore suffices to show that our initial statement is true. Let us now fix $\kappa>0$ such that $1+\kappa\notin X$ and $\c\in \{1,\ldots,n\}^{N_{\kappa}}$ such that $\inf I_{\c}>1+\kappa.$ By Proposition \[Important prop\] to prove that for $\tmu_{\c}$ almost every $x$ the sequence $(f_{n}(x))_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is uniformly distributed, it suffices to show that for any $l\in \mathbb{Z}\setminus\{0\}$ $$\label{suffices to show} \sum_{N=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{N}\int \left|\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^{N}\exp(lf_{n}(x))\right|^2d\tmu_{\c}(x)<\infty.$$ Expanding this expression we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \label{Expanded} &\sum_{N=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{N}\int \left|\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^{N}\exp(lf_{n}(x))\right|^2d\tmu_{\c}(x)\nonumber\\ =&\sum_{N=1}^{\infty}\left(\frac{1}{N^2}+\frac{1}{N^3}\sum_{\stackrel{1\leq n,m\leq N}{n\neq m}}\int \exp(l(f_{n}(x)-f_{m}(x)))\, d\tmu_{\c}\right). \end{aligned}$$ The $1/N^2$ term appearing in does not effect the convergence properties of this series. As such it suffices to consider the remaining terms, which we can rewrite as $$\begin{aligned} \label{expand2}\sum_{N=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{N^3}\sum_{\stackrel{1\leq n,m\leq N}{n\neq m}}\int \exp(l(f_{n}(x)-f_{m}(x)))d\tmu_{\c} =&\sum_{N=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{N^3}\sum_{n=2}^{N}\sum_{m=1}^{n-1}\int \exp(l(f_{n}(x)-f_{n}(x)))\, d\tmu_{\c}\\ +&\overline{\sum_{N=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{N^3}\sum_{n=2}^{N}\sum_{m=1}^{n-1}\int \exp(l(f_{n}(x)-f_{m}(x)))\, d\tmu_{\c}}\nonumber. \end{aligned}$$ Substituting the bound provided by Proposition \[decay prop\] into we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \left|\sum_{N=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{N^3}\sum_{\stackrel{1\leq n,m\leq N}{n\neq m}}\int \exp(l(f_{n}(x)-f_{m}(x)))d\tmu_{\c}\right|&= \O_{\kappa,l}\left(\sum_{N=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{N^3}\sum_{n=2}^{N}\sum_{m=1}^{n-1}\gamma^n\right)\\ &=\O_{\kappa,l}\left(\sum_{N=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{N^3}\sum_{n=2}^{N}n\gamma^n\right)\\ &=\O_{\kappa,l}\left(\sum_{N=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{N^3}\right)\\ &<\infty. \end{aligned}$$Therefore holds for any $l\in \mathbb{Z}\setminus\{0\}$ and our proof is complete. Proof of Proposition \[decay prop\] ----------------------------------- Throughout this section the parameter $\kappa$ is fixed. We also assume that $\delta_{k}$ and $N_{\kappa}$ have been chosen so that the properties stated at the start of this section are satisfied. We also fix a word $\c\in \A^{N_{\kappa}}$ satisfying $\inf X_{\c}>1+\kappa$. We define $x_0$ and $x_1$ to be such that $$I_{\c}=[x_0,x_1].$$ Recall that by the definition of $N_{\kappa}$ we have $$\label{same growth} \frac{x_1}{x_0}<1+\delta_{\kappa}.$$Given $l\in \mathbb{Z}\setminus\{0\}$ and $n\in \mathbb{N}$ we define $$M=M(\c,l,\kappa,n):=\left \lfloor 1+\frac{\log 2\pi C_1|l||I|+C_2\log n+(n-1)\log x_1}{-2\log r}\right \rfloor+\delta_k n.$$ Importantly $M$ has the property that $$\label{M property} r^{\delta_{\kappa} n +N_{\kappa}+2}\leq 2\pi C_{1}|l||I|n^{C_2}x_1^{n-1}r^{N_{\kappa}+2M}\leq r^{\delta_{\kappa} n +N_{\kappa}}.$$Given $k\in \mathbb{N}$ we let $$B(k):=\left\{\a\in\A^{k}: p_{\a}\geq e^{k(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}\right\}.$$ It follows from a well known large deviation result due to Hoeffding [@Hoe] that for any $k\in\mathbb{N}$ there exists $\eta:=\eta(\kappa,\p)>0$ such that $$\label{Hoeffding bound} \sum_{\a\in B(k)}p_{\a}\leq e^{-\eta k}.$$ For $M$ as above we define $$G_{M}:=\left\{\a\in \A^{M}:(a_1,\ldots a_k)\notin B(k),\, \forall \lfloor \delta_{\kappa} M\rfloor \leq k \leq M\right\}.$$ It follows from and properties of geometric series that $$\label{good word bound} \sum_{\stackrel{\a\in \A^{M}}{\a\notin G_{M}}}p_{\a}=\O_{\kappa}(e^{-\eta\delta_{\kappa} M}).$$ Given an $m<n$ we also define the function $$W_{M}(x):=\sum_{\a\in G_{M}}p_{\a}\exp(l(f_{n}(\varphi_{\c\a}(x))-f_{m}(\varphi_{\c\a}(x)))).$$ The proof of the following lemma is inspired by the proof of Lemma 6.1 from [@JorSah]. This lemma essentially allows us to bound from above the integral appearing in Proposition \[decay prop\] by the $L^2$ norm of $W_{M}$ multiplied by a constant that grows exponentially with $n$. \[L2 bound\]Let $m<n$ and $l\in \mathbb{Z}\setminus\{0\}.$ For $M$ as defined above we have $$\left|\int \exp(l(f_{n}(x)-f_{m}(x)))\,d\tmu_{\c}\right|\leq \frac{e^{M(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{|I|\cdot r^{M+2\delta_{\kappa}n}}\int_{I}|W_{M}(x)|^2\, dx + \O_{\kappa}(r^{\delta_{\kappa}n}+e^{-\eta\delta_{\kappa} M}).$$ Using first of all the relation $\tmu_{\c}=\mu\circ \varphi_{\c}^{-1},$ then the self-similarity of $\mu$ , we can rewrite our integral as follows: $$\begin{aligned} \int \exp(l(f_{n}(x)-f_{m}(x)))\, d\tmu_{\c}&=\int \exp(l(f_{n}(\varphi_{\c}(x))-f_{m}(\varphi_{\c}(x))))\, d\mu\\ &=\int \sum_{\a\in \A^{M}}p_{\a}\exp(l(f_{n}(\varphi_{\c\a}(x))-f_{m}(\varphi_{\c\a}(x))))\, d\mu.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore it suffices to show that the latter integral satisfies the required bounds. By we see that $$\label{good word split} \int \sum_{\a\in \A^{M}}p_{\a}\exp(l(f_{n}(\varphi_{\c\a}(x))-f_{m}(\varphi_{\c\a}(x))))\, d\mu = \int W_{M}(x)\, d\mu + \O_{\kappa}(e^{-\eta\delta_{\kappa} M}).$$Let $$R_{M}:=\{\a\in G_{M}:\sup_{x\in X_{\a}}|W_{M}(x)|\geq 2r^{\delta_{\kappa}n}\}.$$ Note that if $\a'\in R_{M},$ then by the mean value theorem, , and our assumptions on the sequence of functions $(f_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$, for all $x\in I_{\a'}$ we have: $$\begin{aligned} &|W_{M}(x)|\\ \geq &2r^{\delta_{\kappa}n}-\sup_{y\in I_{\a'}}|W_{M}'(y)|\cdot |I_{\a'}|\\ = &2r^{\delta_{\kappa}n} - \sup_{y\in I_{\a'}}\Big|\sum_{\a\in G_{M}}p_\a \cdot 2\pi i l r^{N_{\kappa}+M}(f_{n}'(\varphi_{\c\a}(y))-f_{m}'(\varphi_{\c\a}(y)))\exp(l(f_{n}(\varphi_{\c\a}(y))-f_{m}(\varphi_{\c\a}(y))))\Big|\cdot r^{M}|I|\\ \geq &2r^{\delta_{\kappa}n} - \sup_{y\in I_{\a'}}\Big(\sum_{\a\in G_{M}}p_\a \cdot 2\pi |l| r^{N_{\kappa}+M}C_{1}n^{C_2}\varphi_{\c\a}(y)^{n-1}\Big)\cdot r^{M}|I| \\ \geq &2r^{\delta_{\kappa}n} - \Big(\sum_{\a\in G_{M}}p_\a \cdot 2\pi |l| r^{N_{\kappa}+M}C_{1}n^{C_2}x_{1}^{n-1}\Big)\cdot r^{M}|I| \\ \geq &2r^{\delta_{\kappa}n} - 2\pi C_1 |l||I|n^{C_2}x_{1}^{n-1}r^{N_{\kappa}+2M} \\ \geq & 2r^{\delta_{\kappa}n}- r^{\delta_{\kappa}n+N_{\kappa}}\\ \geq &r^{\delta_{\kappa}n}\end{aligned}$$ We have shown that $|W_{M}(x)|\geq r^{\delta_{\kappa}n}$ for all $x\in I_{\a'}$ for any $\a'\in R_{M}.$ Applying this bound we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{\a\in R_{M}}\int_{X_{\a}}|W_{M}(x)|\, d\mu\leq \sum_{\a\in R_{M}} p_{\a}&\leq \frac{e^{M(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{|I|\cdot r^{M+2\delta_{\kappa}n}}\sum_{\a\in R_{M}}r^M|I|\cdot r^{2\delta_{\kappa}n}\\ &\leq\frac{e^{M(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{|I|\cdot r^{M+2\delta_{\kappa}n}}\sum_{\a\in R_{M}}\int_{I_{\a}}|W_{M}(x)|^2\, dx\\ &\leq \frac{e^{M(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{|I|\cdot r^{M+2\delta_{\kappa}n}}\int_{I}|W_{M}(x)|^2\, dx.\end{aligned}$$ In the last line we used that for distinct $\a,\b\in\A^{M}$ the intervals $I_{\a}$ and $I_{\b}$ are disjoint. It follows that $$\begin{aligned} \left|\int W_{M}(x)\,d\mu\right|\leq \int |W_{M}(x)|\,d\mu &=\sum_{\a\in G_{M}\setminus R_{M}}\int_{X_\a} |W_{M}(x)|\,d\mu+\sum_{\a\in R_{M}}\int_{X_{\a}} |W_{M}(x)|\,d\mu\\ &\leq 2r^{\delta_{\kappa}n} + \frac{e^{M(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{|I|\cdot r^{M+2\delta_{\kappa}n}}\int_{I}|W_{M}(x)|^2\, dx. \end{aligned}$$Substituting this bound into we obtain $$\left|\int \sum_{\a\in \A^{M}}p_{\a}\exp(l(f_{n}(\varphi_{\c\a}(x))-f_{m}(\varphi_{\c\a}(x))))\, d\mu\right| \leq \frac{e^{M(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{|I|\cdot r^{M+2\delta_{\kappa}n}}\int_{I}|W_{M}(x)|^2\, dx + \O(r^{\delta_{\kappa}n} +e^{-\eta\delta_{\kappa} M})$$as required. To complete our proof of Proposition \[decay prop\] it is necessary to obtain good upper bounds for $\int_{I} |W_{M}(x)|^2\, dx.$ These bounds are provided by the following lemma. \[Lebesgue integral bound\] Let $m<n$ and $l\in \mathbb{Z}\setminus\{0\}.$ For $M$ as defined above we have $$\int_{I} |W_{M}(x)|^2\, dx=|I|\cdot e^{M(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}+\O_{\kappa,l}\left(\frac{1}{r^{M+\lfloor \delta_{\kappa} M\rfloor}x_0^{n}}+\frac{e^{M(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{r^{2M}x_0^{n}}\right).$$ We start by expanding $\int_I |W_{M}(x)|^2\, dx$: $$\begin{aligned} \label{L^2 expansion} &\int_I |W_{M}(x)|^2\, dx\nonumber\\ =&|I|\sum_{\a\in G_{M}}p_{\a}^2 +\sum_{\stackrel{\a,\b\in G_{M}}{\a\neq \b}}p_{\a}\cdot p_{\b}\int_{I} \exp(l(f_{n}(\varphi_{\c\a}(x))-f_{m}(\varphi_{\c\a}(x))-f_{n}(\varphi_{\c\b}(x))+f_{m}(\varphi_{\c\b}(x))))\, dx\nonumber\\ =&|I|\cdot e^{M(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}+\sum_{\stackrel{\a,\b\in G_{M}}{\a\neq \b}}p_{\a}\cdot p_{\b}\int_{I} \exp(l(f_{n}(\varphi_{\c\a}(x))-f_{m}(\varphi_{\c\a}(x))-f_{n}(\varphi_{\c\b}(x))+f_{m}(\varphi_{\c\b}(x)))\, dx.\end{aligned}$$ To bound the integral appearing in the summation in we will use Lemma \[van der Corput\]. Before doing this we demonstrate below that the hypotheses of this lemma are satisfied.\ **Verifying the hypothesis of Lemma \[van der Corput\].** Fix $\a,\b\in G_{M}$ such that $\a\neq\b$. Let $$\phi(x):=l\left(f_{n}(\varphi_{\c\a}(x))-f_{m}(\varphi_{\c\a}(x))-f_{n}(\varphi_{\c\b}(x))+f_{m}(\varphi_{\c\b}(x))\right).$$ By the chain rule we have $$\phi'(x)=r^{N_{\kappa}+M}l\left(f_{n}'(\varphi_{\c\a}(x))-f_{m}'(\varphi_{\c\a}(x))-f_{n}'(\varphi_{\c\b}(x))+f_{m}'(\varphi_{\c\b}(x))\right).$$ Define $$h_{n,m}(x):=f_{n}'(x)-f_{m}'(x).$$ Then $$\phi'(x)=r^{N_{\kappa}+M}l\left(h_{n,m}(\varphi_{\c\a}(x))-h_{n,m}(\varphi_{\c\b}(x))\right).$$ Applying the mean value theorem to the function $h_{n,m},$ we see that there exists $z\in [\varphi_{\c\a}(x),\varphi_{\c\b}(x)]$ such that $$\label{derivative} \phi'(x)=r^{N_{\kappa}+M}l\left(\varphi_{\c\a}(x)-\varphi_{\c\b}(x)\right)\left(f_{n}''(z)-f_{m}''(z)\right).$$ It follows from the convex strong separation condition that there exists $c_0>0$ such that $$\label{lower bound1} |\varphi_{\c\a}(x)-\varphi_{\c\b}(x)| \geq c_0r^{N_{\kappa}+|\a\wedge \b|}$$ for all $x\in I$. Using our assumptions on the sequence $(f_n)_{n=1}^{\infty},$ and the fact $z \in I_{\c}$ so $z\geq x_0$, it follows that $$\label{lower bound2} |f_{n}''(z)-f_{m}''(z)|\geq C_3z^{n-2} \geq C_3x_{0}^{n-2}.$$ Substituting and into , we see that for all $x\in I$ we have $$\label{Part one} |\phi'(x)|\geq c_0C_3lr^{2N_{\kappa}+M+|\a\wedge \b|}x_0^{n-2}.$$ is the lower bound on $|\phi'(x)|$ required by Lemma \[van der Corput\]. It remains to check that $\phi'$ satisfies the monotonicity condition of Lemma \[van der Corput\]. Differentiating $\phi'$ and applying the chain rule we have $$\begin{aligned} \phi''(x)=r^{2(N_{\kappa}+M)}l\left(f_{n}''(\varphi_{\c\a}(x))-f_{m}''(\varphi_{\c\a}(x))-f_{n}''(\varphi_{\c\b}(x))+f_{m}''(\varphi_{\c\b}(x))\right). \end{aligned}$$ Applying the mean value theorem as above, this time to the function $f_{n}''(x)-f_{m}''(x),$ we may deduce that there exists $z\in[\varphi_{\c\a}(x),\varphi_{\c\b}(x)]$ such that $$\phi''(x)=r^{2(N_{\kappa}+M)}l(\varphi_{\c\a}(x)-\varphi_{\c\b}(x))(f_{n}'''(z)-f_{m}'''(z)).$$ By our assumptions on $(f_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ we know that $f_{n}'''(z)-f_{m}'''(z)\geq 0$ for all $z\in [\varphi_{\c\a}(x),\varphi_{\c\b}(x)]$ or $f_{n}'''(z)-f_{m}'''(z)\leq 0$ for all $z\in [\varphi_{\c\a}(x),\varphi_{\c\b}(x)]$. What is more, it follows from the convex strong separation condition that the sign of $\varphi_{\c\a}(x)-\varphi_{\c\b}(x)$ is independent of $x$ and depends solely upon $\a$ and $\b$. Therefore we must have $\phi''(x)\leq 0$ for all $x\in I$ or $\phi''\geq 0$ for all $x\in I$. In either case $\phi'$ is monotonic and we have shown that the monotonicity condition of Lemma \[van der Corput\] is satisfied.\ **Return to the proof of Lemma \[Lebesgue integral bound\].** Applying Lemma \[van der Corput\] and we obtain $$\label{integral bound} \int_{I} \exp(l(f_{n}(\varphi_{\c\a}(x))-f_{m}(\varphi_{\c\a}(x))-f_{n}(\varphi_{\c\b}(x))+f_{m}(\varphi_{\c\b}(x))))\, dx=\O_{\kappa,l}\left(\frac{1}{r^{M+|\a\wedge \b|}x_0^{n}}\right).$$ Substituting the bound provided by into the summation appearing in , and using the definition of $G_{M},$ the following holds: $$\begin{aligned} &\sum_{\stackrel{\a,\b\in G_M}{\a\neq \b}}p_{\a}\cdot p_{\b}\int_{I} \exp(l(f_{n}(\varphi_{\c\a}(x))-f_{m}(\varphi_{\c\a}(x))-f_{n}(\varphi_{\c\b}(x))+f_{m}(\varphi_{\c\b}(x))))\, dx\\ =&\O_{\kappa,l}\left(\frac{1}{r^{M}x_0^{n}}\sum_{\a \in G_{M}}p_{\a}\sum_{k=1}^{M}\sum_{\stackrel{\b\in G_{M}}{|\a\wedge \b|=k}}\frac{p_{\b}}{r^{k}}\right)\\ =&\O_{\kappa,l}\left(\frac{1}{r^{M}x_0^{n}}\sum_{\a \in G_{M}}p_{\a}\sum_{k=1}^{M}\frac{\prod_{j=1}^kp_{\a_j}}{r^{k}}\right)\\ =&\O_{\kappa,l}\left(\frac{1}{r^{M}x_0^{n}}\sum_{\a \in G_{M}}p_{\a}\left(\sum_{k=1}^{\lfloor\delta_{\kappa} M\rfloor -1}\frac{\prod_{j=1}^kp_{\a_j}}{r^{k}}+\sum_{k=\lfloor\delta_{\kappa} M\rfloor}^{M}\frac{\prod_{j=1}^kp_{\a_j}}{r^{k}}\right)\right)\\ =&\O_{\kappa,l}\left(\frac{1}{r^{M}x_0^{n}}\sum_{\a \in G_{M}}p_{\a}\left(\sum_{k=1}^{\lfloor\delta_{\kappa} M\rfloor -1}\frac{1}{r^{k}}+\sum_{k=\lfloor\delta_{\kappa} M\rfloor}^{M}\frac{e^{k(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{r^{k}}\right)\right)\\ =&\O_{\kappa,l}\left(\frac{1}{r^{M}x_0^{n}}\sum_{\a \in G_{M}}p_{\a}\left(\frac{1}{r^{\lfloor \delta_{\kappa} M\rfloor}}+\frac{e^{M(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{r^{M}}\right)\right)\\ =&\O_{\kappa,l}\left(\frac{1}{r^{M+\lfloor \delta_{\kappa} M\rfloor}x_0^{n}}+\frac{e^{M(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{r^{2M}x_0^{n}}\right)\end{aligned}$$Substituting this bound into we obtain $$\int_{I}|W_{M}(x)|^2\,dx=|I|\cdot e^{M(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}+\O_{\kappa,l}\left(\frac{1}{r^{M+\lfloor \delta_{\kappa} M\rfloor}x_0^{n}}+\frac{e^{M(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{r^{2M}x_0^{n}}\right)$$ as required. We are now in a position to prove Proposition \[decay prop\] and in doing so complete our proof of Theorem \[main theorem\]. Assume that $m<n$. Combining Lemma \[L2 bound\] and Lemma \[Lebesgue integral bound\] we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \label{Mario} &\left|\int \exp(l(f_{n}(x)-f_{m}(x)))\,d\tmu_{\c}\right|\nonumber\\ \leq & \frac{e^{2M(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{r^{M+2\delta_{\kappa} n}}+\O_{\kappa,l}\left(\frac{e^{M(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{r^{2M+2\delta_{\kappa}n+\lfloor \delta_{\kappa} M\rfloor}x_0^{n}}+\frac{e^{2M(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{r^{3M+2\delta_{\kappa}n}x_0^{n}}+r^{\delta_{\kappa} n} +e^{-\eta \delta_{\kappa} M}\right).\end{aligned}$$ It remains to show that the terms on the right hand side of decay to zero exponentially fast with respect to $n$. To do this it is useful to recall the definition of $\Gamma_{\kappa}$ and recall that we chose $\delta_{\kappa}$ in such a way that $\Gamma_{\kappa}<1$: $$\begin{aligned} \Gamma_{\kappa}:=\max\Bigg\{ &r^{\delta_{\kappa}},\frac{1}{r^{2\delta_{\kappa}}}\left(\frac{e^{2(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{r}\right)^{\frac{\log 1+\kappa}{-2\log r}},\frac{1+\delta_{\kappa}}{r^{3\delta_{\kappa}}}\left(\frac{e^{2(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{r}\right)^{\frac{\log 1+\kappa}{-2\log r}},\\ &\frac{1+\delta_{\kappa}}{r^{3\delta_{\kappa}}}\left(\frac{e^{-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa}}}{r^{\delta_{\kappa}}}\right)^{\frac{\log 1+\kappa}{-2\log r}}\Bigg\}.\end{aligned}$$ As we will see, most of the terms on the right hand side of can be bounded in terms of $\Gamma_{\kappa}.$ To help our exposition we bound the terms appearing outside the big O bracket and those appearing within the bracket separately. We start by bounding the term outside the bracket. A useful inequality that follows from the definition of $M$ is that for $n$ sufficiently large: $$\label{M growth} M\geq n\cdot\frac{\log x_1}{-2\log r}.$$ Applying , the fact $x_1\geq 1+\kappa$, and the definition of $\Gamma_{\kappa},$ we see that the following holds for $n$ sufficiently large: $$\begin{aligned} \label{bound1} \frac{e^{2M(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{r^{M+2\delta_{\kappa} n}}= \frac{1}{r^{2\delta_{\kappa} n}}\left(\frac{e^{2(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{r}\right)^{M}&\leq \left(\frac{1}{r^{2\delta_{\kappa} }}\left(\frac{e^{2(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{r}\right)^{\frac{\log x_1}{-2\log r}}\right)^n\nonumber\\ &\leq \left(\frac{1}{r^{2\delta_{\kappa} }}\left(\frac{e^{2(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{r}\right)^{\frac{\log 1+\kappa}{-2\log r}}\right)^n\nonumber\\ &\leq \Gamma_{\kappa}^n\end{aligned}$$ We now concentrate on the terms within the big O bracket in . Applying , , , the fact $x_1\geq 1+\kappa$, and the definition of $\Gamma_{\kappa},$ we see that the following holds: $$\begin{aligned} \label{bound 2} &\frac{e^{M(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{r^{2M+2\delta_{\kappa}n+\lfloor \delta_{\kappa} M\rfloor}x_0^{n}}+\frac{e^{2M(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{r^{3M+2\delta_{\kappa}n}x_0^{n}}+r^{\delta_{\kappa} n} +e^{-\eta \delta_{\kappa} M}\nonumber\\ \leq&\frac{e^{M(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{r^{2M+2\delta_{\kappa}n+\lfloor \delta_{\kappa} M\rfloor}x_0^{n}}+\frac{e^{2M(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{r^{3M+2\delta_{\kappa}n}x_0^{n}}+\Gamma_{\kappa}^n+e^{-\eta \delta_{\kappa} M}\nonumber\\ \leq&\frac{e^{M(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{r^{2M+2\delta_{\kappa}n+\lfloor \delta_{\kappa} M\rfloor}x_1^{n}}\left(\frac{x_1}{x_0}\right)^n+\frac{e^{2M(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{r^{3M+2\delta_{\kappa}n}x_1^{n}}\left(\frac{x_1}{x_0}\right)^n+\Gamma_{\kappa}^n+e^{-\eta \delta_{\kappa} M}\nonumber\\ \stackrel{\eqref{same growth}}{\leq}&\frac{e^{M(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{r^{2M+2\delta_{\kappa}n+\lfloor \delta_{\kappa} M\rfloor}x_1^{n}}\left(1+\delta_{\kappa}\right)^n+\frac{e^{2M(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{r^{3M+2\delta_{\kappa}n}x_1^{n}}\left(1+\delta_{\kappa}\right)^n+\Gamma_{\kappa}^n+e^{-\eta \delta_{\kappa} M}\nonumber\\ \stackrel{\eqref{M property}}{=}&\O_{\kappa,l}\left(\frac{n^{C_2}e^{M(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{r^{3\delta_{\kappa}n+\lfloor \delta_{\kappa} M\rfloor}}\left(1+\delta_{\kappa}\right)^n+\frac{n^{C_2}e^{2M(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{r^{M+3\delta_{\kappa}n}}\left(1+\delta_{\kappa}\right)^n+\Gamma_{\kappa}^n+e^{-\eta \delta_{\kappa} M}\right)\nonumber\\ =&\O_{\kappa,l}\left(n^{C_2}\left(\left(\frac{1+\delta_{\kappa}}{r^{3\delta_{\kappa}}}\right)^n\left(\frac{e^{(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{r^{\delta_{\kappa} }}\right)^{M}\right)+n^{C_2}\left(\left(\frac{1+\delta_{\kappa}}{r^{3\delta_{\kappa}}}\right)^n\left(\frac{e^{2(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{r}\right)^{M}\right)+\Gamma_{\kappa}^n+e^{-\eta \delta_{\kappa} M}\right)\nonumber\\ \stackrel{\eqref{M growth}}{=}&\O_{\kappa,l}\left(n^{C_2}\left(\frac{1+\delta_{\kappa}}{r^{3\delta_{\kappa}}}\left(\frac{e^{(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{r^{\delta_{\kappa} }}\right)^{\frac{\log x_1}{-2\log r}}\right)^n+n^{C_2}\left(\frac{1+\delta_{\kappa}}{r^{3\delta_{\kappa}}}\left(\frac{e^{2(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{r}\right)^{\frac{\log x_1}{-2\log r}}\right)^n+\Gamma_{\kappa}^n+e^{-\eta \delta_{\kappa} M}\right)\nonumber\\ =&\O_{\kappa,l}\left(n^{C_2}\left(\frac{1+\delta_{\kappa}}{r^{3\delta_{\kappa}}}\left(\frac{e^{(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{r^{\delta_{\kappa} }}\right)^{\frac{\log 1+\kappa}{-2\log r}}\right)^n+n^{C_2}\left(\frac{1+\delta_{\kappa}}{r^{3\delta_{\kappa}}}\left(\frac{e^{2(-h(\p)+\delta_{\kappa})}}{r}\right)^{\frac{\log 1+\kappa}{-2\log r}}\right)^n+\Gamma_{\kappa}^n+e^{-\eta \delta_{\kappa} M}\right)\nonumber\\ =&\O_{\kappa,l}\left(n^{C_2}\Gamma_{\kappa}^n+e^{-\eta \delta_{\kappa} M}\right)\nonumber\\ =&\O_{\kappa,l}\left(\Gamma_{\kappa}^{n/2}+e^{-\eta \delta_{\kappa} M}\right)\nonumber\\ =&\O_{\kappa,l}\left(\Gamma_{\kappa}^{n/2}+e^{\frac{\eta \delta_{\kappa}\log x_1}{2\log r}\cdot n}\right)\nonumber\\ =&\O_{\kappa,l}\left(\Gamma_{\kappa}^{n/2}+e^{\frac{\eta \delta_{\kappa}\log 1+\kappa}{2\log r}\cdot n}\right)\end{aligned}$$ Substituting and into we obtain $$\left|\int \exp(l(f_{n}(x)-f_{m}(x)))\,d\tmu_{\c}\right|=\O_{\kappa,l}\left(\Gamma_{\kappa}^{n/2}+e^{\frac{\eta \delta_{\kappa}\log 1+\kappa}{2\log r}\cdot n}\right)=\O(\max\{\Gamma_{\kappa}^{1/2},e^{\frac{\eta \delta_{\kappa}\log 1+\kappa}{2\log r}}\}^n).$$ Taking $\gamma=\max\{\Gamma_{\kappa}^{1/2},e^{\frac{\eta \delta_{\kappa}\log 1+\kappa}{2\log r}}\}$ completes our proof. [100]{} C. Aistleitner, *Quantitative uniform distribution results for geometric progressions,* Israel J. Math. 204 (2014), no. 1, 155–197. C. Aistleitner, S, Baker, *On the pair correlations of powers of real numbers,* arXiv:1910.01437 \[math.NT\]. S. Baker, *On the distribution of powers of real numbers modulo 1. Unif. Distrib. Theory* 10 (2015), no. 2, 67–75. E. Borel, *Les probabilités dénombrables et leurs applications arithmétiques,* Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo (1909), 27: 247–271. Y. Bugeaud, *Distribution modulo one and Diophantine approximation,* Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, 193. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012. Y. Bugeaud, L. Liao, M. Rams, *Metrical results on the distribution of fractional parts of powers of real numbers.* Proc. Edinburgh Math. Soc. 62 (2019), 505–521 Y. Bugeaud, V. Moshchevitin, *On fractional parts of powers of real numbers close to $1$*, Math. Z. 271 (2012), no. 3–4, 627–637. J.W.S. Cassels, *On a problem of Steinhaus about normal numbers,* Colloq. Math. 7 (1959), 95–101. Y. Dajan, A. Ganguly, B. Weiss, *Random walks on tori and normal numbers in self similar sets,* arXiv:2002.00455 \[math.DS\]. H. Davenport, P. Erdős, W.J. LeVeque, *On Weyl’s criterion for uniform distribution,* Michigan Math. J. 10 (1963), 311–314. A. Dubickas, *On the powers of some transcendental numbers,* Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. [**76**]{} (2007), no. 3, 433–440. K. Falconer, *Fractal geometry. Mathematical foundations and applications,* Third edition. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, 2014. xxx+368 pp. ISBN: 978-1-119-94239-9. K. Falconer, *Techniques in fractal geometry,* John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, 1997. xviii+256 pp. ISBN: 0-471-95724-0 G. H. Hardy, *A problem of Diophantine approximation,* J. Indian Math. Soc. [**11**]{} (1919), 162–166. W. Hoeffding, *Probability inequalities for sums of bounded random variables,* J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 58 1963 13–30. M. Hochman, P. Shmerkin, *Equidistribution from fractal measures,* Invent. Math. 202 (2015), no. 1, 427–479. J. Hutchinson, *Fractals and self-similarity*, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 30 (1981), no. 5, 713–747. T. Jordan, T. Sahlsten, *Fourier transforms of Gibbs measures for the Gauss map* , Math. Ann. 364(3-4), 983–1023, 2016. R. Kaufman, *Continued fractions and Fourier transforms,* Mathematika 27(2), 262–267 (1980). R. Kaufman, O*n the theorem of Jarník and Besicovitch,* Acta Arith. 39 (1981), no. 3, 265–267. J. F. Koksma, *Ein mengentheoretischer Satz über die Gleichverteilung modulo Eins,* Compositio Math. 2 (1935), 250–258. L. Kuipers, H. Niederreiter, *Uniform distribution of sequences,* Wiley-Interscience, John Wiley & Sons, New York-London-Sydney, 1974. C. Pisot, *La répartition modulo 1 et les nombres algébriques,* Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (2) [**7**]{} (1938), no. 3–4, 205–248. C. Pisot, *Sur la répartition modulo $1$ des puissances successives d’un même nombre,* C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris [**204**]{} (1937), 312–314. M. Queffélec, O. Ramaré, *Analyse de Fourier des fractions continues à quotients restreints,* Enseign. Math. (2) 49 (2003), no. 3-4, 335–356. W. Schmidt, *On normal numbers,* Pacific J. Math. 10 (1960), 661–672. D. Simmons, B. Weiss, *Random walks on homogeneous spaces and Diophantine approximation on fractals,* Invent. Math. 216 (2019), no. 2, 337–394. H. Weyl, *Über die Gleichverteilung von Zahlen mod. Eins,* Math. Ann. 77 (1916), no. 3, 313–352. [^1]: We say that a self-similar measure is fully supported if the corresponding probability vector $(p_i)_{i\in \A}$ satisfies $p_i>0$ for all $i\in \A$. [^2]: The natural measure on $X$ can be taken to be $\mathcal{H}^{\dim_{H}(X)}|_{X}.$ This measure is positive and finite when the open set condition is satisfied. [^3]: Here $\text{conv}(X)$ denotes the convex hull of $X$.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'A pseudo-Anosov surface automorphism $\phi$ has associated to it an algebraic unit $\lambda_\phi$ called the dilatation of $\phi$. It is known that in many cases $\lambda_\phi$ appears as the spectral radius of a Perron-Frobenius matrix preserving a symplectic form $L$. We investigate what algebraic units could potentially appear as dilatations by first showing that every algebraic unit $\lambda$ appears as an eigenvalue for some integral symplectic matrix. We then show that if $\lambda$ is real and the greatest in modulus of its algebraic conjugates and their inverses, then $\lambda^n$ is the spectral radius of an integral Perron-Frobenius matrix preserving a prescribed symplectic form $L$. An immediate application of this is that for $\lambda$ as above, $\log\left(\lambda^n\right)$ is the topological entropy of a subshift of finite type.' author: - 'R. Ackermann' title: 'Achievable spectral radii of symplectic Perron-Frobenius matrices' --- Introduction {#S:Introduction} ============ We recall that a self-homeomorphism $\phi$ of a surface $F$ with $\chi\left(F\right) < 0$ is called *pseudo-Anosov* if it leaves invariant a pair of transverse, singular, measured foliations $\mathfrak{F}^s$, $\mathfrak{F}^u$ called the stable and unstable foliations, respectively. Associated to such a map is an algebraic unit $\lambda_\phi$ called the *dilatation* of $\phi$ which measures how the map stretches $\mathfrak{F}^s$ and shrinks $\mathfrak{F}^u$. The dilatation encodes a variety of dynamical properties, for example the topological entropy of $\phi$ is $log(\lambda_\phi)$. Recently there has been a great deal of interest in the dilatations of pseudo-Anosov automorphisms, including a recent paper of Farb, Leininger, and Margalit which explores connections between low dilatation pseudo-Anosovs and 3-manifolds (see [@FLM]). More generally, the question of which dilatations can be realized by some pseudo-Anosov has received attention (see for example [@F] and [@LT]). There are a number of ways to find the dilatation $\lambda_\phi$ of a pseudo-Anosov $\phi$. By taking suitable branched coverings, $\lambda_\phi$ can be made to appear as the largest root of an integral symplectic matrix. In fact, in [@P] Penner describes a symplectic pairing which is preserved by the action of $\phi$ by an integral Perron-Frobenius matrix. This matrix encodes the action of $\phi$ on a train track $\tau$ which carries it, and the dilatation appears as the spectral radius of the matrix (for more on train tracks and pseudo-Anosovs, see [@BH], [@P], and  [@FM]). Different train tracks and different pseudo-Anosovs will have different symplectic pairings associated to them. The pairing in general may have degeneracies, but in large classes of examples the pairing is non-degenerate (and in fact a symplectic form). The motivation for this paper came from thinking about what algebraic units appear as spectral radii of integral symplectic Perron-Frobenius matrices, and hence could potentially appear as dilatations of pseudo-Anosov automorphisms. Additionally, we want to be able to construct these matrices to preserve a prescribed symplectic form. Let $\lambda \in {\mathbb{R}}$ be an algebraic unit, that is, $\lambda$ is the root of a polynomial which is irreducible over the integers and of the form $p\left(t\right) = t^g + a_{g}t^{g-1} + ... + a_2t \pm 1$. If also $| \lambda | > 1$, $\lambda$ has algebraic multiplicity $1$, and for all other roots $\omega$ of $p\left(t\right)$ we have $| \lambda + \lambda^{-1} | > | \omega + \omega^{-1} |$ we will say $\lambda$ is a *Perron unit*. From $p\left(t\right)$, we can form a self-reciprocal (or palindromic) polynomial $q\left(t\right) = t^g p\left(t\right) p\left(t^{-1}\right)$ for which $\lambda$ and $\lambda^{-1}$ are both roots. If $\lambda$ is a Perron unit, then it is the unique largest root of $q\left(t\right)$. We want to find Perron units which appear as the spectral radius of a symplectic Perron-Frobenius matrix. In particular, we will prove:\ Let $\lambda$ be a Perron unit, and let $L$ be any integral symplectic form. Then for some $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$, $\lambda^n$ is the spectral radius of an integral Perron-Frobenius matrix which preserves the symplectic form $L$. The proof is constructive enough that it is possible to find a matrix for $\lambda$ with the assistance of a computer. The rest of this paper is divided into three parts. In the first part, we give a canonical form for integral symplectic matrices so that it is easy to construct a matrix preserving a given symplectic form and having a given self-reciprocal polynomial as its characteristic polynomial. In the second part, we show how to conjugate a power of these matrices to be Perron-Frobenius. In particular, we prove:\ Let $M$ be an integral matrix with a unique, real eigenvalue of largest modulus greater than 1. Suppose also that this eigenvalue has algebraic multiplicity 1, and that $M$ preserves a symplectic form $L$. Then $\exists n \in {\mathbb{N}}$ and $B\in{\mathrm{GL}}\left(2g\right)$ such that $B^{-1} M^n B$ is an integral, Perron-Frobenius matrix. Furthermore, $B^{-1} M^n B$ will also preserve $L$. In the final section, we give an immediate application of some of these results to subshifts of finite type. Given an integral Perron-Frobenius matrix, it is always possible to build a larger Perron-Frobenius matrix whose entries are all either 0 or 1. This new matrix will have the same spectral radius as the original one, so the results above show that every Perron unit appears as the spectral radius of a such a matrix. In fact, up to multiplaction by $t^k$, the characteristic polynomial of the new matrix is the same as the one it was built from. We include this discussion both as a simple application and because it may also be useful in studying pseudo-Anosovs. Although the motivation for this paper was to study pseudo-Anosov maps, there are applications of these results outside the study of surface automorphisms. See for example [@H]. To the author’s knowledge these results are unknown, though some may seem like basic facts. Acknowledgements ---------------- The author would like to thank his advisor, Darren Long, for numerous helpful conversations while working on the results of this paper. He would also like to thank Jon McCammond and Tom Howard for insightful conversations about the symplectic group and Perron-Frobenius matrices, respectively. A Canonical Form for Self-Reciprocal Polynomials {#S:CanonicalSympForm} ================================================ In this section, we establish a canonical form for integral matrices with self-reciprocal characteristic polynomial. These matrices preserve a symplectic form which is standard in the sense that it arises naturally from the study of surface automorphisms. A polynomial $p\left(t\right)$ over the integers is *self-reciprocal* if its coefficients are palindromic, i.e, $p\left(t\right)$ has the form $$\label{E:Palindromic} p\left(t\right) = 1 - a_2 t - a_3 t^2 - ... - a_{g+1} t^g - a_g t^{g+1} - ... - a_2 t^{2g - 1} + t^{2g}$$ Let ${\mathrm{Sp}\left(2g\right)}$ be the symplectic group over $\mathbb{R}^{2g}$. Up to change of basis, we may represent any non-degenerate, skew-symmetric bilinear form by either $$J = \left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0 & 1 & & & 0 \\-1 & 0 & & & \\ & & \ddots & & \\ & & & 0 & 1 \\0 & & & -1 & 0\end{array}\right)$$ or $$K = \left(\begin{array}{cc}0 & I \\-I & 0\end{array}\right)$$ Where $I$ represents the $g {\times}g$ identity matrix. We specify $J$ because it is the symplectic form we usually think of when considering the action of a surface automorphism on the first homology group of the surface. We include $K$ because it is easier to work with in obtaining the results of this section. We now define two standard forms for a matrix which has the self-reciprocal polynomial $p\left(t\right)$ as its characteristic polynomial. We will also show that each preserves one of the standard symplectic forms above. The first canonical form, denoted $A$ below, preserves $J$ (that is, $A^T J A = J$). $$A = \left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc} 0 & \hdots & & & & & \hdots & 0 & -1 \\ 0 & a_2 & 0 & a_3 & \hdots & 0 & a_g & 1 & a_{g+1} \\ 1 & 0 & & & & & & & a_2 \\ 0 & 1 & & & & & & & 0 \\ \vdots & & \ddots & & & & & & a_3 \\ & & & & & & & & \vdots \\ & & & & \ddots & & & & 0 \\ & & & & & 1 & 0 & & a_g \\ 0 & \hdots & & & \hdots & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0\end{array}\right)$$ By performing the change of basis which carries $J$ to $K$, we obtain a second canonical form, denoted $B$, which preserves $K$. $$B = \left(\begin{array}{cccccccc} 0 & \hdots & & & & & \hdots & -1 \\ 1 & & & & & & & a_2 \\ & \ddots & & & & & & a_3 \\ & & \ddots & & & & & \vdots \\ & & & 1 & a_2 & a_3 & \hdots & a_{g+1} \\ & & & & \ddots & & & 0 \\ & & & & & \ddots & & \vdots \\ 0 & & & & & & 1 & 0 \end{array}\right)$$ The proofs of this section could be considered tedious, and the uninterested reader should have no problems skipping to section \[S:ChangeBasisToPF\] after first reading theorem \[T:AlgUnitsAreSymplectic\].\ \[L:PreservesForm\] $A$ preserves the symplectic form $J$ and $B$ preserves the symplectic form $K$. It suffices to show that $B$ preserves $K$. Let $\{ e_1, ... , e_{2g} \}$ denote the standard basis vectors for $\mathbb{R}^{2g}$. We note that the action of $B$ on $e_i$ is: $$\begin{aligned} & B e_i = e_{i + 1} & \mathrm{if} \ 1 \leq i \leq g \\ & B e_i = a_{i - g + 1} e_{g+1} + e_{i+1} & \mathrm{if} \ g + 1 \leq i \leq 2g - 1 \\ & B e_{2g} = -e_1 + \sum_{i = 2}^{g + 1} a_i e_i &\end{aligned}$$ We now show that if $<~,~>$ is the bilinear form coming from $K$, $<B e_i, B e_k>\ =\ <e_i , e_k>$. Since this is all computational, we will do only a few cases here. A key observation to simplify calculations is that for $1 \leq i \leq g$ we have $< e_i, e_k > \neq 0$ if and only if $k = g + i$. In particular, $< e_i, e_{g + 1} > \neq 0$ if and only if $i = 1$. First we will let $ 1 \leq i \leq g$. Then: $$<B e_i, B e_k>\ =\ < e_{i+1}, B e_k>\ = \begin{cases} < e_{i + 1}, e_{k + 1} > & \mbox{if } 1 \leq k \leq g \\ < e_{i + 1}, a_{k - g + 1} e_{g+1} > + < e_{i + 1}, e_{k+1} > & \mbox{if } g + 1 \leq k \leq 2g - 1 \\ < e_{i + 1}, -e_1 > + < e_{i + 1}, \sum_{j = 2}^{g + 1} a_j e_j > & \mbox{if } k = 2g \end{cases}$$ But checking our form $K$, we see that $$<B e_i, B e_k>\ = \begin{cases} 0 & \mbox{if } 1 \leq k \leq g \\ 0 + 1 & \mbox{if } k = g + i \mbox{ and } g + 1 \leq k \leq 2g - 1 \\ 0 + 0 & \mbox{if } k \neq g + i \mbox{ and } g + 1 \leq k \leq 2g - 1 \\ 1 + 0 & \mbox{if } i = g \mbox{ and } k = 2g \\ 0 + 0 & \mbox{if } i \neq g \mbox{ and } k = 2g \end{cases}$$ A slightly more complicated case occurs if we let $ g+1 \leq i \leq 2g-1 $ and $ k = 2g$. Then: $$\begin{aligned} < B e_i, B e_k > & = a_{i - g + 1} <e_{g+1}, B e_{2g} > + < e_{i+1}, B e_{2g} > \\ & = a_{i - g + 1} + 0 + 0 + \sum_{j = 2}^{g + 1} a_j < e_{i+1}, e_j > \\ & = a_{i - g + 1} - a_{i - g + 1} \\ & = 0\end{aligned}$$ The other cases are not more difficult than the two above. Now we will show that $A$ and $B$ both have characteristic polynomials of form (\[E:Palindromic\]).\ \[L:CharPoly\] The characteristic polynomials of $A$ and $B$ are both $p\left(t\right) = 1 - a_2 t - a_3 t^2 - ... - a_{g+1} t^g - a_g t^{g+1} - ... - a_2 t^{2g - 1} + t^{2g}$. As with the proof of lemma \[L:PreservesForm\], we prove our result for $B$ and the result immediately follows for $A$. Let $B_0 = B - tI$, and let $B_{k+1}$ be the matrix obtained from $B_k$ by blocking off the first row and first column. Then the $\left(0, 2g-k\right)$ minor of $B_k$ is $1$ for $0 \leq k < g$. Thus we see that $$\label{E:1} \det \left(B - tI\right) = 1 + a_2 \left(-t\right) + \left(-a_3\right) \left(-t\right)^2 + ... + \left(-1\right)^g a_g \left(-t\right)^{g - 1} + \left(-t\right)^g \det{B_g}$$ Where $B_g$ has form: $$B_g = \left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc} a_2 -t & a_3 & \hdots & \hdots & a_{g+1} \\ 1 & -t & & & 0 \\ & \ddots & \ddots & & \vdots \\ & & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots \\ 0 & & & 1 & -t \end{array} \right)$$ Let $D_g = B_g$ and for $l \geq g$ let $D_{l-1}$ be the matrix obtained from $D_l$ by blocking off the last row and last column. Then for $g \geq l > 2$, the $\left(0, l\right)$ minor of $D_l$ is $1$. Thus we have: $$\begin{aligned} \det{B_g} & = \left(-1\right)^{g + 1} a_{g+1} + ... + \left(-t\right)^{i} \left(-1\right)^{g + 1 - i} a_{g + 1 - i} + ... + \left(-t\right)^{g-3} \left(-1\right)^4 a_4 + \left(-t\right)^{g-2} \det{D_2} \nonumber \\ & = \left(-1\right)^{g+1} a_{g+1} + ... + \left(-1\right)^{g+1} t^i + ... + \left(-1\right)^{g+1} t^{g-3} + \left(-t\right)^{g-2} \det{D_2} \label{E:2}\end{aligned}$$ Notice that in the equation above that if $g$ is even, then every coefficient is negative. If $g$ is odd, every coefficient is positive. Now, $$\label{E:3} \det{D_2} = \det{ \left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc} a_2 - t & a_3 \\ 1 & -t \end{array}\right) } = t^2 - a_2 t - a_3$$ Now by substituting (\[E:3\]) into (\[E:2\]) into (\[E:1\]), we obtain our result. Putting lemmas \[L:PreservesForm\] and \[L:CharPoly\] together, we have the following theorem:\ \[T:AlgUnitsAreSymplectic\] Every algebraic unit is an eigenvalue of some symplectic matrix. Let $\lambda$ be an algebraic unit with minimum polynomial $q\left(t\right) = 1 + b_2t + b_3 t^2 + ... + b_g t^{g - 1} + t^g$. Then $t^g q\left(t\right)q\left(t^{-1}\right)$ is a self-reciprocal polynomial. Applying lemmas \[L:PreservesForm\] and \[L:CharPoly\] we obtain our result. Changing Basis to be Perron-Frobenius {#S:ChangeBasisToPF} ===================================== We say a real matrix $M$ is *Perron-Frobenius* if it has all nonnegative entries and $M^k$ has strictly positive entries for some $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$. Such matrices have important applications in dynamical systems, graph theory, and in studying pseudo-Anosov surface automorphisms. A key result about such matrices was proved in the early 20th century:\ Let $M$ be Perron-Frobenius. Then $M$ has a unique eigenvalue of largest modulus $\lambda$. Furthermore, $\lambda$ is real, positive, and has an associated real eigenvector with all positive entries. The eigenvalue $\lambda$ is called the *spectral radius* or *growth rate* of $M$. The main purpose of this section is to find integral matrices which can be conjugated to be Perron-Frobenius. We’d also like to do this in a way which preserves a fixed symplectic form (for example, the symplectic form $J$ from section \[S:CanonicalSympForm\]). In particular, we prove the following:\ \[T:PFConjugation\] Let $M \in {\mathrm{Sp} \left(2g, {\mathbb{Z}}, L\right)}$ such that $M$ has a unique, real eigenvalue of largest modulus greater than 1. Suppose also that this eigenvalue has algebraic multiplicity 1. Then $\exists n \in {\mathbb{N}}$ and $B \in {\mathrm{GL}}\left(2g\right)$ such that $B^{-1} M^n B$ is a Perron-Frobenius matrix in ${\mathrm{Sp} \left(2g, {\mathbb{Z}}, L\right)}$. Here we denote by ${\mathrm{Sp} \left(2g, {\mathbb{Z}}, L\right)}$ the group of $2g {\times}2g$ integer matrices which preserve a fixed symplectic form $L$. When we do not care to fix a particular symplectic form, we will use the notation ${\mathrm{Sp}\left(2g\right)}$ to mean the group of symplectic linear transformations on ${\mathbb{R}^{2g}}$. We also obtain a similar result for integral, nonsingular matrices (see corollary \[C:NoSymplectic\]). Given a matrix $M$ with a unique real eigenvalue of largest modulus greater than $1$, we will denote this eigenvalue $\lambda_M$ and its associated eigenvector $v_M$. We will refer to $\lambda_M$ and $v_M$ as the dominating eigenvalue and dominating eigenvector, respectively. The idea behind the proof will be to find an integral basis $\{ b_1, ..., b_{2g} \}$ for ${\mathbb{R}^{2g}}$ such that $v_M$ is contained in the cone determined by $b_1, ... ,b_{2g}$. We also need that if $W$ is the co-dimension $1$ invariant subspace of $M$ such that $v_M \notin W$, then $b_1, ... , b_{2g}$ all lie on the same side of $W$ as $v_M$. To make the notion of side precise, denote by $W^+$ as the set of all vectors in ${\mathbb{R}^{2g}}$ that can be written as $a v_M + w$ where $a \in \mathbb{R}^+$ and $w \in W$.\ \[L:PFBasis\] Let $M$ be a matrix with a dominating real eigenvalue $\lambda_M$ and associated real eigenvector $v_M$. Say $\{ b_1, ..., b_{2g} \}$ is a basis for ${\mathbb{R}^{2g}}$ such that $b_1, ..., b_{2g} \in W^+$ and $v_M$ is contained in the interior of the cone determined by $b_1, ..., b_{2g}$. Then for some $n \in \mathbb{N}$, $M^n$ has all positive entries after changing to the basis above. Since we can replace $M$ by $M^2$ if necessary, we may assume $\lambda_M$ is positive. Let $\lambda_2, ..., \lambda_n$ be the other eigenvalues of $M$ and let $v_M, v_2, ..., v_{2g}$ be a Jordan basis for $M$ (i.e, a basis in which the linear transformation represented by $M$ is in Jordan canonical form). Note that $v_2, ..., v_{2g}$ span $W$. Consider a Jordan block associated to some eigenvalue $\lambda_i$ of $M$: $$J_i = \left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc} \lambda_i & 1 & & \\ & \lambda_i & \ddots & & \\ & & \ddots & 1 & \\ & & & \lambda_i & \\ \end{array} \right)$$ The definition of matrix multiplication guarantees that each entry of $J_i^k$ will be a polynomial in $\lambda_i$. Each diagonal entry will equal $\lambda_i^k$ and every other entry of $J_i^k$ will have degree strictly less than $k$. Thus we see that if $v_j$ is a Jordan basis vector corresponding to the eigenvalue $\lambda_i$ we get $\displaystyle \frac{J_i^k v_j}{\lambda_M^k} {\xrightarrow{~}} 0$ as $k {\xrightarrow{~}} \infty$, which implies: $$\label{E:JordanGrowth} \displaystyle \frac{M^k v_j}{\lambda_M^k} {\xrightarrow{~}} 0 ~ \mathrm{as} ~ k {\xrightarrow{~}} \infty$$ Since $v_M$ is in the interior of the cone determined by $b_1, ..., b_{2g}$, for positive real scalars $a_1, ..., a_{2g}$ we have $v_M = a_1 b_1 + ... + a_{2g} b_{2g}$. Furthermore, since $b_i \in W^+$, for some positive real scalar $c_i$ and $w \in W$ we have $b_i = c_i v_M + w$. Since $w$ may be expressed as a linear combination of $v_2, ..., v_{2g}$, we see that $\displaystyle \frac{M^k b_i}{\lambda_M^k} {\xrightarrow{~}} c_i v_M$ as $k {\xrightarrow{~}} \infty$ by (\[E:JordanGrowth\]). Rewriting $v_M$ and $w$ as (real) linear combinations of $b_1, ..., b_{2g}$, we see that for $k$ large enough $M^k b_i$ is a positive linear combination of $b_1, ..., b_{2g}$. Hence, $M^k$ has all positive entries in the basis $b_1, ..., b_{2g}$. The last paragraph of the proof above also gives us a quick but important corollary. We will use $|| \cdot ||$ to denote the standard Euclidean norm.\ \[C:SuckedIn\] Let $M$ as in lemma \[L:PFBasis\] and $v \in W^+$. Then the distance between $\displaystyle \frac{M^k v}{|| M^k v ||}$ and $\displaystyle \frac{v_M}{|| v_M ||}$ approaches $0$ as $k {\xrightarrow{~}} \infty$. Our goal is now to construct a matrix $B \in {\mathrm{Sp} \left(2g, {\mathbb{Z}}, L\right)}$ such that the columns of $B$ form a basis satisfying the hypotheses of lemma \[L:PFBasis\]. The idea will be to construct a set of symplectic basis vectors which define a very narrow cone, and then apply a slightly perturbed symplectic isometry of ${\mathbf{S}^{2g-1}}$ to move that cone into the correct position. A symplectic linear transformation $\tau$ is a (symplectic) transvection if $\tau \neq 1$, $\tau$ is the identity map on a codimension 1 subspace $U$, and $\tau v - v \in U$ for all $v \in {\mathbb{R}^{2g}}$. Geometrically, a tranvection is a shear fixing the hyperplane $U$. A symplectic transvection preserving the symplectic form $J$ can be written $$\tau_{u, a} v = v + a J\left(v, u\right) u$$ for some scalar $a$ and vector $u \in {\mathbb{R}^{2g}}$. Note that the fixed subspace is $<u>^\perp$ and that it contains $u$. ${\mathrm{Sp}\left(2g\right)}$ is generated by transvections (see [@Grove]). If we wish to preserve a symplectic form $L$ different from $J$, simply replace $J$ with $L$ in the formula. Let $u \in {\mathbb{R}^{2g}}$ be the vector $\left(-1, 1, ... , -1, 1\right)$ and set $a = 1$. Let $e_1, ..., e_{2g}$ be the standard basis for ${\mathbb{R}^{2g}}$. Notice $J\left(e_i, u\right) = 1$, so $\tau_{u, 1} e_i = e_i + u$. Thus, in matrix form: $$\tau_{u, 1} = \left( \begin{array}{ccccc} 0 & -1 & & -1 & -1 \\ 1 & 2 & & 1 & 1 \\ \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots \\ -1 & -1 & & 0 & -1 \\ 1 & 1 & & 1 & 2 \\ \end{array} \right)$$ Composing this with transvections $\tau_{e_k, 2}$ with $k$ even, we get the symplectic matrix $$A = \left( \begin{array}{ccccc} 2 & 3 & & 1 & 1 \\ 1 & 2 & & 1 & 1 \\ \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots \\ 1 & 1 & & 2 & 3 \\ 1 & 1 & & 1 & 2 \\ \end{array} \right)$$ This matrix preserves the symplectic form $J$, and is also Perron-Frobenius. In fact, we can find such a matrix for any integral symplectic form:\ \[L:SPFExists\] There is a Perron-Frobenius matrix in ${\mathrm{Sp} \left(2g, {\mathbb{Z}}, L\right)}$ for any integral symplectic form $L$. Non-degeneracy of $L$ guarantees that there is $u \in {\mathbb{Q}}^{2g}$ such that $L\left(e_i, u\right) = 1$ for every basis vector $e_i$. Let $w = \left(1, 1, ..., 1\right) \in {\mathbb{Q}}^{2g}$, and notice that $L\left(u, w\right) = -2g$. Then $\tau_{u, a}e_i = e_i + a u$ for for $a$ very large we have that $\tau_{u, a} e_i$ is close to $c u$ for some $c \in {\mathbb{N}}$. Now by continuity, $L\left(\tau_{u, a}e_i, w \right) = l < 0$ and for $b \in {\mathbb{N}}$ we have $\tau_{w, -b}\tau_{u, a} e_i = \tau_{u, a} e_i - b l w$. Thus for $b$ large enough, $\tau_{w, -b} \tau_{u, a} e_i$ is a rational vector with positive entries for all $i$. This transformation has Perron-Frobenius matrix representation. If it is not integral, we can adjust the values of $a$ and $b$ to clear denominators. Let ${\mathrm{U}\left(g\right)}$ denote the group of unitary linear transformations of ${\mathbb{C}}^g$. Equivalently, we can think of the unitary group as a group of matrices: ${\mathrm{U}\left(g\right)}= \{ M | M \in \mathrm{GL}\left(g, {\mathbb{C}}\right), M^*M = I \}$ where $M^*$ denotes the conjugate transpose of $M$. We identify ${\mathrm{U}\left(g\right)}$ with a subgroup of $\mathrm{GL}\left(2g, {\mathbb{R}}\right)$ as follows: Let $M \in {\mathrm{U}\left(g\right)}$. Replace every entry $m = r e^{\left(i \theta \right)} \in {\mathbb{C}}$ in $M$ by the scaled $2 {\times}2$ rotation matrix $R = \left( \begin{array}{ccccc} r\cos\left(\theta\right) & -r\sin\left(\theta\right) \\ r\sin\left(\theta\right) & r\cos\left(\theta\right) \end{array} \right)$ We now can consider ${\mathrm{U}\left(g\right)}$ as a group of real matrices acting on ${\mathbb{R}^{2g}}$. Notice that if $m \mapsto R$, then $\bar{m} \mapsto R^T$. Thus, if $M =\left[m_{i,j}\right] \in {\mathrm{U}\left(g\right)}$ is identified with $N = \left[R_{i,j}\right]$, we have $M^*M = \left[\bar{m}_{i,j}\right]^T \left[m_{i,j}\right] \mapsto \left[R_{i,j}^T\right]^T \left[R_{i,j}\right] = N^T N = I$. Hence with this identification ${\mathrm{U}\left(g\right)}$ is a subgroup of the real orthogonal group $\mathrm{O}\left(2g\right)$ (in fact it is a subgroup of $\mathrm{SO\left(2g\right)}$). Notice that the symplectic form $J$ gets identified with the complex matrix $$\left(\begin{array}{ccccc} -i & & \\ & \ddots & \\ & & -i \\ \end{array} \right)$$ which is in the center of ${\mathrm{U}\left(g\right)}$. Then if $M \in {\mathrm{U}\left(g\right)}$ we have $M^* J M = J$, and thus ${\mathrm{U}\left(g\right)}$ is a subgroup of ${\mathrm{Sp}\left(2g\right)}$. Below is a more powerful result which is proved in [@MS] as lemma 2.17.\ \[L:UnitaryIntersection\] ${\mathrm{Sp}\left(2g\right)}\cap {\mathrm{O} \left(2g \right)}= {\mathrm{U}\left(g\right)}$ We also need the following fact:\ \[L:UnitaryTransitive\] The unitary group ${\mathrm{U}\left(g\right)}$ acts transitively on ${\mathbf{S}^{2g-1}}\subseteq {\mathbb{R}^{2g}}$. The ${\mathbf{S}^{2g-1}}$ sphere can be thought of as all vectors in ${\mathbb{C}}^g$ having unit length. Let $v \in {\mathbf{S}^{2g-1}}$ and $\{e_1, ... , e_g\}$ be the standard basis for ${\mathbb{C}}^g$. Using the Gram-Schmidt process, we can extend $v$ to an orthonormal basis $\{v, v_2, ..., v_g\}$ for ${\mathbb{C}}^g$. Then the change of basis matrix is in ${\mathrm{U}\left(g\right)}$ and sends $e_1$ to $v$. At one point during the proof of our main theorem, it will become important to know that ${\mathrm{Sp} \left(2g, {\mathbb{Q}}\right)}$ is dense in ${\mathrm{Sp}\left(2g\right)}$. This follows quickly from the Borel Density Theorem, but we include an elementary proof.\ \[L:SymplecticDense\] ${\mathrm{Sp} \left(2g, {\mathbb{Q}}\right)}$ is dense in ${\mathrm{Sp}\left(2g\right)}$. Let $M' \in \mathrm{Sp}\left(2g, {\mathbb{R}}, J\right)$. Perturb the entries of $M'$ by a small amount to obtain a matrix $M$ with rational entries. We will systematically modify the columns $a_1, b_1, ..., a_g, b_g$ of $M$ to form a new $M$ which preserves $J$ and still differs from $M'$ by a small amount. Here for convience we let $<~,~>$ denote the symplectic form given by $J$. We iterate the following procedure for each pair of columns $a_i$, $b_i$, starting with $a_1$, $b_1$. First, say $<a_i, b_i> = 1 + \eta_i$ where $\eta_i$ is a small, rational number (its magnitude depends on the size of the perturbation of $M'$). Replace $a_i$ with $\displaystyle \frac{a_i}{1 + \eta_i}$, so that now $<a_i, b_i> = 1$. Now we modify each pair of columns $a_j, b_j$ with $j > i$. Set ${\epsilon}_{i,j} = < a_i, a_j >$ and $\delta_{i,j} = < b_i, a_j >$. Replace $a_j$ with $a_j - {\epsilon}_{i,j} b_i - \delta_{i,j} a_i$, so that now $< a_i, a_j > = <b_i, a_j > = 0$. Note that ${\epsilon}_{i,j}$ and $\delta_{i,j}$ are also small rational numbers. Now modify $b_j$ by a similar procedure, so that $< a_i, b_j > = <b_i, b_j > = 0$. Now repeat the procedure with the columns $a_{i+1}$, $b_{i+1}$. After modifying every column we obtain a new $M$ which is in $\mathrm{Sp}\left(2g, {\mathbb{Q}}, J\right)$. Furthermore, since at each stage the modifications to the columns are small, $M$ is still close to $M'$. We’re now ready to prove theorem \[T:PFConjugation\]. Throughout we will use the notation that if $v \in {\mathbb{R}^{2g}}\setminus \{0\}$ then $\hat{v}$ denotes the normalization $v / ||v|| \in {\mathbf{S}^{2g-1}}$. If $M$ is a matrix with no zero columns, then $\hat{M}$ will denote the matrix obtained by normalizing each of the columns. Let $M \in {\mathrm{Sp} \left(2g, {\mathbb{Z}}, L\right)}$ with dominating real eigenvalue $\lambda$ and associated eigenvector $v_M$. Let $W$ be the co-dimension $1$ invariant subspace of $M$ with $v_M \notin W$, and $W^+$ the component of ${\mathbb{R}^{2g}}\setminus W$ containing $v_M$. Set ${\epsilon}$ to be the minimal distance in ${\mathbf{S}^{2g-1}}$ from $\hat{v}_M$ to $W \cap {\mathbf{S}^{2g-1}}$. Then by lemma \[L:SPFExists\] and corollary \[C:SuckedIn\], there exists $n \in \mathbb{N}$ and $A \in {\mathrm{Sp} \left(2g, {\mathbb{Z}}, L\right)}$ such that $A$ is Perron-Frobenius and the convex hull $H$ of the columns of $\widehat{A^n}$ has diameter less than ${\epsilon}$ (here we take $H \subseteq {\mathbf{S}^{2g-1}}$ and measure distance in ${\mathbf{S}^{2g-1}}$). Let $\nu$ be in the interior of $H$. Since ${\mathrm{U}\left(g\right)}$ acts transitively on ${\mathbf{S}^{2g-1}}$ (lemma \[L:UnitaryTransitive\]), there is $S \in {\mathrm{U}\left(g\right)}$ such that $S\nu = \hat{v_M}$. As a real linear transformation, $S$ is orthogonal and hence $\mathrm{diam}\left(H\right) = \mathrm{diam}\left(S\left(H\right)\right)$. Thus the columns of $S\widehat{A^n}$ are contained in $W^+$. ${\mathrm{U}\left(g\right)}$ is a subgroup of ${\mathrm{Sp}\left(2g\right)}$ (lemma \[L:UnitaryIntersection\]), so $S \in {\mathrm{Sp}\left(2g\right)}$. Furthermore, by lemma \[L:SymplecticDense\] we may perturb $S$ slightly so that now $S \in {\mathrm{Sp} \left(2g, {\mathbb{Q}}, L \right)}$. Set $B' = SA^n$, note $B' \in {\mathrm{Sp} \left(2g, {\mathbb{Q}}, L \right)}$. Scale $B'$ by an integer $\alpha$ so that $B = \alpha B' $ is a nonsingular, integral matrix. Set $d = \det B$. Then $B^{-1} = \frac{1}{d} C$, where $C$ is the adjugate of $B$. In particular, $C$ is integral. Consider the projection map $\mathrm{SL}\left(2g, {\mathbb{Z}}\right) \rightarrow \mathrm{SL}\left(2g, {\mathbb{Z}}/ d{\mathbb{Z}}\right)$. Since $\mathrm{SL}\left(2g, {\mathbb{Z}}/ d{\mathbb{Z}}\right)$ is finite, for some $m \in {\mathbb{N}}$ we have $M^m$ in the kernel of this map. Hence, we can write $M^m = I + d \Lambda$ for some integral matrix $\Lambda$. Putting this together, we have: $$\begin{aligned} B{^{-1}}M^m B & = \frac{1}{d} C \left(I + d \Lambda \right) B \\ & = I + C \Lambda B \end{aligned}$$ In particular, $B{^{-1}}M^m B$ is integral. By construction, the columns of $B$ give a basis satisfying the conditions of lemma \[L:PFBasis\], so for large enough $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$ we have $B{^{-1}}M^{m k} B$ is Perron-Frobenius and integral. Furthermore $B{^{-1}}M^{m k} B$ is symplectic since $B$ is a scaled symplectic matrix. Using theorems \[T:AlgUnitsAreSymplectic\] and \[T:PFConjugation\], we can prove our main result, which we restate here:\ Let $\lambda$ be a Perron unit, and let $L$ be any integral symplectic form. Then for some $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$, $\lambda^n$ is the spectral radius of an integral Perron-Frobenius matrix which preserves the symplectic form $L$. Using the canonical form of section \[S:CanonicalSympForm\], we can build a matrix $M \in {\mathrm{Sp} \left(2g, {\mathbb{Z}}, J \right)}$ with $\lambda$ its spectral radius. For some $B' \in {\mathrm{GL}}\left(2g, {\mathbb{Q}}\right)$ we have $\left(B'\right)^T J B' = L$. Scale $B'$ by an integer $\alpha$ so that $B = \alpha B'$ is integral. Now proceeding with the argument at the end of the proof for theorem \[T:PFConjugation\], we get that $B{^{-1}}M^r B \in {\mathrm{Sp} \left(2g, {\mathbb{Z}}, L\right)}$. Now we can apply theorm \[T:PFConjugation\] to obtain our result. We end this section by noting that if the matrix $M$ is not symplectic, we can modify the hypotheses slightly to achieve a result similar to theorm \[T:PFConjugation\]. The proof uses similar ideas, but is actually significantly easier.\ \[C:NoSymplectic\] Let $M$ be an integral, nonsingular matrix with a unique, real eigenvalue of largest modulus greater than 1. Suppose also that this eigenvalue has algebraic multiplicity 1. Then $\exists n \in {\mathbb{N}}$ such that $M^n$ is conjugate to an integral Perron-Frobenius matrix. Let $\delta = \det{M}$, and pick a $B' \in {\mathrm{SL}}\left(r, {\mathbb{Q}}\right)$ such that the columns of $B'$ satisfy the conditions of lemma \[L:PFBasis\]. Choose $\alpha \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $\widetilde{B} = \alpha B'$ has integer entries and $\delta$ divides every entry of $\widetilde{B}$. Assuming we also chose $\alpha$ to be large, we may set $B = \widetilde{B} + I$ and the columns of $B$ will still satisfy lemma \[L:PFBasis\]. Consider $d = \det{B}$. Calculating the determinant by cofactor expansion, we see that $d = \left(sum~of~terms~divisible~by~ \delta \right) + 1$. In particular, $\delta$ is relatively prime to $d$, so $M$ has a projection to ${\mathrm{GL}}\left(r, {\mathbb{Z}}/ d{\mathbb{Z}}\right)$. We now raise $M$ to a power $m$ so that $M^m = I + d \Lambda$ and proceed with the argument of theorem \[T:PFConjugation\]. Subshifts of Finite Type {#S:SoFT} ======================== We will now apply the previous two sections to symbolic dynamics, in particular to subshifts of finite type. Let $M$ be an $n {\times}n$ matrix of 0’s and 1’s. Let $A_n = \{ 1, 2, ..., n \}$, and form $\Sigma_n = A_n {\times}{\mathbb{Z}}$. We can think of $\Sigma_n$ as the set of all bi-infinite sequences in symbols from $A_n$, and we endow it with the product topology. Now we form a subset $\Lambda_M \subseteq \Sigma_n$ by saying $\left(s_i\right) \in \Lambda_M$ if the $s_i, s_{i + 1}$ entry of $M$ is equal to $1$ for all $i$. We can think of the $i, j$ entry of $M$ as telling us whether it is possible to transition from state $i$ to state $j$. Now let $\sigma$ be the automorphism of $\Lambda_M$ obtained by shifting every sequence one place to the left. The dynamical system $\left(\Lambda_M, \sigma \right)$ is called a *subshift of finite type*, and can be thought of as a zero-dimensional dynamical system. These dynamical systems have relatively easy to understand dynamics and are often used to model more complicated systems (for example, pseudo-Anosov automorphisms). Let $M = \left[ m_{i,j}\right]$ be a square matrix with nonnegative, integer entries. We form a directed graph $G$ from $M$ as follows. $G$ has one vertex for each row of $M$. Then connect the $i$-th vertex to the $j$-th vertex by $m_{i,j}$ edges, each directed from vertex $i$ to vertex $j$. We call $M$ the *transition matrix* for $G$. If $M$ is Perron-Frobenius, then the graph $G$ will be strongly connected and the $i, j$-th entry of $M^k$ represents the number of paths of length $k$ from vertex $i$ to vertex $j$. The spectral radius $\lambda$ of $M$ can be interpreted as the growth rate of the number of paths of length $k$ in $G$, i.e. $\displaystyle \lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \frac{M^k}{\lambda^k} = P \neq 0$. We now show how to go from an integral Perron-Frobenius matrix $M$ to another matrix with the same spectral radius whose entries are all $0$ or $1$. This construction can also be found in [@F]. Given a directed graph $G$ with Perron-Frobenius transition matrix $M$, label the edges of $G$ as $e_1, ..., e_n$ and the vertices $v_1, ..., v_m$. From $G$, we form a directed graph $H$ as follows: the vertex set $w_1, ..., w_n$ of $H$ is in 1 - 1 correspondence with the edge set of $G$ ($w_i \leftrightarrow e_i$). If the edge $e_i$ terminates at the vertex from which $e_j$ emanates, then we place an edge in $H$ from $w_i$ to $w_j$. Let $N$ be the transition matrix of $H$. Note that by construction, every entry of $N$ is either a $0$ or a $1$.\ A subgraph of a graph G is a *cycle* if it is connected and every vertex has in and out valence $1$. If $M$ is a transition matrix for $G$, it is possible to reformulate the calculation of the characteristic polynomial $p\left(t\right) = \det\left(t I - M \right)$ in terms of cycles in $G$ (see [@BrH]):\ \[L:CharPolyOfGraph\] Let $G$ be a graph with transition matrix $M$. Denote by $\mathbf{C_i}$ the collection of all subgraphs which have $i$ vertices and are the disjoint union of cycles. For $C \in \mathbf{C_i}$, denote by $\#\left(C\right)$ the number of cycles in $C$. Then the characteristic polynomial $p\left(t\right) = \det\left(t I - M \right)$ is $$p\left(t\right) = t^m + \sum_{i = 1}^m c_i t^{m - i}$$ where $m$ is the number of vertices in $G$ and $$c_i = \sum_{C \in \mathbf{C_i}} \left(-1\right)^{\#\left(C\right)}$$ Using this formula, we can prove that the characteristic polynomial of $N$ (as above) has a nice form, and in particular that the spectral radius of $N$ is the same as the spectral radius of $M$.\ Let $M$ be the transition matrix for a graph with $m$ vertices and let $N$ be an $n {\times}n$ matrix of 0’s and 1’s built from $M$ by the construction above. Then if $p\left(t\right) = \det\left(t I - M \right)$ is the characteristic polynomial of $M$, the characteristic polynomial of $N$ is $q\left(t\right) = t^{n - m} p\left(t\right)$ Let $G$ be the graph associated to $M$, and $H$ the graph associated with $N$. Order the vertices of $G$, and for each vertex $v$ fix a lexicographic order of (*in-edge*, *out-edge*) pairs of edges incident to $v$. Let $\mathbf{D_i}$ be the collection of subgraphs of $H$ which can be written as a union of disjoint cycles with $i$ total vertices. For $D \in \mathbf{D_i}$, there is a canonical projection of $D$ to a collection of paths in $G$ (using the fact that vertices in $H$ come from edges in $G$). Let $\mathbf{D_i^*}$ be the subset of $\mathbf{D_i}$ containing those disjoint unions of cycles in $H$ which do not project to a disjoint union of cycles in $G$. We will show that there is a bijection between elements of $\mathbf{D_i^*}$ having an odd number of components and elements of $\mathbf{D_i^*}$ having an even number of components. Let $D \in \mathbf{D_i^*}$ and say $D$ has an odd number of components. Call $C$ its projection to a collection of paths in $G$. Since $C$ is not a disjoint union of cycles, there must be vertices of $G$ that are either visited by two different paths in $C$ and/or are visited twice by the same path. Choose $v$ to be the minimal such vertex in the ordering of vertices of $G$, and note that $v$ must have in-valence and out-valence both of at least $2$. Choose two in/out-edge pairs, $\left(e, f\right)$ and $\left(e', f'\right)$, such that each pair occurs in some path in $C$ and so that they are minimal among such pairs in the ordering of edges incident to $v$. Note that $D$ contains vertices in $H$ corresponding to $e, e', f, f'$ and must contain edges from $e$ to $f$ and from $e'$ to $f'$. Build $D' \in \mathbf{D_i^*}$ by letting $D'$ have the same vertex collection as $D$, but instead of containing edges from $e$ to $f$ and from $e'$ to $f'$ it contains edges from $e$ to $f'$ and $e'$ to $f$ (call this operation an *edge swap*). If the pairs $\left(e, f\right)$ and $\left(e', f'\right)$ are both part of the same cycle in $D$, then $D'$ will have one more component than $D$. If they are part of two different cycles, then $D'$ will have one less component. In either case, $D'$ has an even number of components and we have constructed a well-defined map from elements of $\mathbf{D_i^*}$ having odd components to elements having even components. Note also that the projection $C'$ of $D'$ still visits $v$ twice, and contains in/out-edge pairs $\left(e, f'\right)$ and $\left(e', f\right)$. Thus we can define the inverse of this map in exactly the same way, and hence we have a bijection. Because of the bijection we built above, we see that disjoint unions of cycles in $\mathbf{D_i^*}$ cancel out when $q\left(t\right)$ when it is computed using lemma \[L:CharPolyOfGraph\]. Elements of $\mathbf{D_i} \setminus \mathbf{D_i^*}$ are in bijective correspondence with cycles in $\mathbf{C_i}$, so we get our conclusion. Finally, we have:\ Let $\lambda$ be a Perron unit. Then there is $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$ such that $\log\left(\lambda^k\right)$ is the topological entropy of some subshift of finite type. This follows directly from theorems \[T:PFConjugation\], \[T:AlgUnitsAreSymplectic\], and comments of Fathi, Laudenbach, and Poéaru on subshifts of finite type (see [@FS]). [CFP2]{} M. Bestvina and M. Handel. Train-tracks for surface homeomorphisms. *Topology*, 34(1):109-140, 1995. Philip Boyland. Topological methods in surface dynamics. *Topology and its Applications*, 58:223-298, 1994. Andries H. Brouwer and Willem H. Haemers. Spectra of graphs. Course notes, 2003. `http://homepages.cwi.nl/\simaeb/math/ipm.pdf` Andrew J. Casson and Steven A. Bleiler. *Automorphisms of Surfaces after Nielsen and Thurston*, volume 9 of *London Mathematical Society Student Texts*. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1988. Benson Farb. Some problems on mapping class groups and moduli space, 2008. Preprint: arXiv:math/0606432v1 Benson Farb, Christopher J. Leininger, and Dan Margalit. Small dilatation pseudo-Anosovs and 3-manifolds, 2009. Preprint arXiv:0905.0219v1. Albert Fathi, Francois Laudenbach, and Valentin Poéaru. *Travaux de Thurston sur les surfaces*, volume 66 of *Astérisque*. Société Mathématique de France, Paris, 1979. Séminaire Orsay, With an English summary. Benson Farb and Dan Margalit. *A Primer on mapping class groups.* To appear in Princeton Mathematical Series. Princeton Univ. Press, 2011. Version 5.0. `www.math.utah.edu/\simmargalit/primer/` John M. Franks. *Homology and Dynamical Systems*, volume 49 of *Regional Conference Series in Mathematics*. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1982. Larry C. Grove. *Classical Groups and Geometric Algebra*, volume 39 of *Graduate Studies in Mathematics*. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2002. Tom Howard. Representations of monomial algebracs have poly-exponential complexities, 2010. Preprint arXiv:1011.3554v2. Erwan Lanneau, Jean-Luc Thiffeault. On the minimum dilatation of pseudo-Anosov homeomorphisms on surfaces of small genus, 2010. Preprint arXiv:0905.1302v3. Dusa McDuff and Dietmar Salamon. *Introduction to Symplectic Topology*. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1995. R. C. Penner and J. L. Harer. *Combinatorics of train tracks*, volume 125 of *Annals of Mathematics Studies*. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1992. William P. Thurston. On the geometry and dynamics of homeomorphisms of surfaces, *Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.)*, 19(2):417-431, 1988. Department of Mathematics,\ University of California, Santa Barbara\ Santa Barbara, CA 93106.\ Email: [email protected]\

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We propose a refined version of trans-Planckian censorship conjecture (TCC), which could be elaborated from the strong scalar weak gravity conjecture combined with some entropy bounds. In particular, no fine-tuning on the inflation model-building is required in the refined TCC, and it automatically passes the tests from those stringy examples that support the original TCC. Furthermore, our refined TCC could be consistent with hilltop eternal inflation.' author: - 'Rong-Gen Cai' - 'Shao-Jiang Wang' bibliography: - 'ref.bib' title: 'A refined trans-Planckian censorship conjecture' --- Introduction {#sec:int} ============ Decades of explorations along string theory as a promising candidate for quantum gravity reveal us a landscape [@Susskind:2003kw] of a huge number of low-energy effective theories, beyond which are conjectured mostly in the swampland [@Vafa:2005ui] that admit no consistent completion into quantum gravity in the ultraviolet (UV). The string-inspired swampland criteria (see, for example, a review [@Palti:2019pca]) have been proposed to discriminate those seemingly innocent theories consistent at low-energy in the infrared (IR). The difficulties of locating de Sitter (dS) vacua in string theory have inspired the swampland dS conjecture (SdSC) [@Obied:2018sgi] and its refinements [@Dvali:2018fqu; @Andriot:2018wzk; @Rudelius:2019cfh; @Ooguri:2018wrx; @Garg:2018reu; @Andriot:2018mav]. The original SdSC [@Obied:2018sgi] simply forbids any dS local extrema, which is in direct tension with the standard model Higgs potential [@Denef:2018etk; @Cicoli:2018kdo; @Murayama:2018lie; @Choi:2018rze; @Hamaguchi:2018vtv] (see also [@Han:2018yrk]) that has a dS local maximum. Therefore, the refined SdSC [@Dvali:2018fqu; @Andriot:2018wzk; @Rudelius:2019cfh; @Ooguri:2018wrx; @Garg:2018zdg; @Andriot:2018mav] was proposed to relax the constraint so that only dS local minima is forbidden. In particular, both requirements of no quantum broken dS [@Dvali:2018fqu; @Dvali:2018jhn] and no eternal inflation [@Rudelius:2019cfh] disfavour any stable dS local minima. Similarly, the trans-Planckian censorship conjecture (TCC) [@Bedroya:2019snp] was recently proposed to further relax the constraint that, all modes that exit the Hubble horizon at the end of inflation should have their physical length larger than the Planck length at the beginning of inflation, namely, $a_i/(a_fH_f)>1/M_\mathrm{Pl}$. This strongly constrains the duration of inflation on the elapsed e-folding number, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:TCC} \mathrm{e}^N<\frac{M_\mathrm{Pl}}{H_f}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, TCC further relaxes the swampland dS criteria by forbidding any stable dS local minima but sparing the life of metastable dS local minima. As an immediate result, inflation cannot be eternal both into the past [@Borde:2001nh] and future directions [@Dvali:2018fqu; @Dvali:2018jhn; @Rudelius:2019cfh; @Seo:2019wsh]. When applied to the inflationary phenomenology [@Bedroya:2019tba], TCC sets an upper bound on the inflationary Hubble scale and corresponding tensor-to-scalar ratio by $$\begin{aligned} H&<\mathrm{e}^{-N}M_\mathrm{Pl}\approx\mathcal{O}(10)\,\mathrm{MeV},\\ r&\equiv\frac{2}{\pi^2\mathcal{P}_\mathcal{R}}\left(\frac{H}{M_\mathrm{Pl}}\right)^2<6.8\times10^{-33},\end{aligned}$$ where $N=(1/3)\ln(M_\mathrm{Pl}/H_0)\approx46.2$ for an instantaneous reheating history [@Bedroya:2019tba; @Mizuno:2019bxy] and $\mathcal{P}_\mathcal{R}\approx2.1\times10^{-9}$ from Planck 2018 [@Aghanim:2018eyx]. This imposes a severe fine-tuning problem on the inflationary model-building with initial condition on slow-roll parameter down to $\epsilon\approx10^{-33}$, which could be relaxed by invoking non-instantaneous reheating history [@Mizuno:2019bxy] at the price of ultra-low reheating temperature (see [@Cai:2019igo] for its implicaitons on the mass of primordial black holes). Other trials of model-building within TCC include inflationary dark matter [@Tenkanen:2019wsd], warm inflation [@Das:2019hto; @Goswami:2019ehb], initial states [@Cai:2019hge; @Brahma:2019unn], non-standard post-inflationary history [@Dhuria:2019oyf; @Torabian:2019zms], D-term hybrid inflation [@Schmitz:2019uti], multi-stage inflation [@Berera:2019zdd; @Li:2019ipk; @Torabian:2019qgl], inflection-point inflation [@Okada:2019yne], negative running of spectral index [@Kadota:2019dol]. Beyond the original statement of TCC, [@Lin:2019pmj] proposed a generalized TCC to save $k$-inflation [@ArmendarizPicon:1999rj] from the problem that sub-Planckian fluctuations could exit Hubble horizon without violating the original TCC. Furthermore, [@Saito:2019tkc] casts the doubt on TCC as an universal swampland criterion but proposes a probabilistic interpretation. Although TCC requires all trans-Planckian quantum modes to remain their quantum nature by never exiting the Hubble horizon, the apparent physical consequences of having trans-Planckian fluctuations stretched out of the Hubble horizon are unclear (see, however, [@Dvali:2010bf][@Dvali:2010jz][@Dvali:2014ila] for self-completeness of Einstein gravity), which should be elaborated with other more established arguments. One inspiration comes from some earlier variants of refined SdSC [@Dvali:2018fqu; @Dvali:2018jhn; @Rudelius:2019cfh] that also prohibit long-lasting dS vacua. Therefore, although the refined SdSC in [@Ooguri:2018wrx] is silent about the dS lifetime, the arguments they used to obtain the refined SdSC could shed light on the physical interpretation of TCC. Recall that the refined SdSC [@Ooguri:2018wrx] was found following from the swampland distance conjecture (SDC) [@Ooguri:2006in] combined with the Bousso entropy bound [@Bousso:1999xy] applied to an accelerating universe, which could also be used in [@Seo:2019wsh] to derive an entropic quasi-dS instability time. In particular, TCC was recently elaborated from SDC [@Brahma:2019vpl] in the large field excursion limit, which coud also be derived from some entropy bounds [@Kehagias:2019iem]. To elaborate TCC over the whole field space, we use a strong version [@Gonzalo:2019gjp] of scalar weak gravity conjecture (WGC) [@Palti:2017elp] combined with some entropy bounds, and then a weaker version of TCC is obtained to naturally evade the fine-tuning problem of initial conditions without turning to any exotic model-building. The outline for this paper is as follows: In Sec. \[sec:SWGC\], we review the scalar WGC and then derive a bound for the species number from both scalar WGC and its strong version. In Sec. \[sec:TCC\], using previous bound on species number, we propose a refined TCC from two separate arguments of UV-IR hierarchy and entropy bounds. In Sec. \[sec:eternal\], the refined TCC is reformulated for eternal inflation. In Sec. \[sec:con\], we conclude the result and discuss the refined TCC implications for inflation without fine-tuning problem. Scalar weak gravity conjecture {#sec:SWGC} ============================== The scalar WGC [@Palti:2017elp] implements the belief that the net force mediated by scalar fields should be larger than the gravitational force. In specific, one considers a complex scalar field $\varphi$ with a field-dependent mass term $m^2(\phi)|\varphi|^2$, where a canonically normalized scalar field $\phi$ mediates the scalar force between $\varphi$ particles via a trilinear coupling term $\partial_\phi m^2(\phi_0)\delta\phi|\varphi|^2$ when expanding $\phi=\phi_0+\delta\phi$ around a vacuum expectation value (vev) $\phi_0$. By requiring the scalar force larger than the gravity, $$\begin{aligned} F_\mathrm{scalar}\equiv\frac{(\partial_\phi m)^2}{4\pi r^2}>\frac{m^2}{8\pi M_\mathrm{Pl}^2r^2}\equiv F_\mathrm{gravity},\end{aligned}$$ the scalar WGC reads $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:SWGC} 2(\partial_\phi m)^2>\frac{m^2}{M_\mathrm{Pl}^2},\end{aligned}$$ Similar form also holds for fermion or massless multi-scalar fields $\phi^i$ with kinetic term $g_{ij}\partial\phi^i\partial\phi^j$, that is, there should have a state with mass $m$ satisfying the bound $$\begin{aligned} 2g^{ij}(\partial_{\phi^i}m)(\partial_{\phi^j}m)>\frac{m^2}{M_\mathrm{Pl}^2}.\end{aligned}$$ In particular, as an explicit fulfillment of , SDC [@Ooguri:2006in] allows for a large distance replacement (corresponding to weak coupling limit) over the modui space without a potential (or field space in the effective theory with a potential [@Klaewer:2016kiy; @Baume:2016psm]) if a tower of light states with mass $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:SDC} m(\phi)\sim m(\phi_0)\mathrm{e}^{-\alpha\frac{\Delta\phi}{M_\mathrm{Pl}}}\end{aligned}$$ descends from the UV with some $\mathcal{O}(1)$ constant $\alpha>0$. Note that the scalar WGC is formulated for any field value in field space, while the SDC holds most straightforwardly at large distances in field space. Therefore, our use of scalar WGC in replacement of SDC is a non-trivial generalization of the argument used in [@Seo:2019wsh]. Nevertheless, we all arrive at the same dS lifetime as shown in the end. A bound for species number {#subsec:SWGC} -------------------------- Since both scalar WGC and SDC could constrain the mass scale of an infinite tower of states for a scalar theory coupled to gravity, the effective description of the scalar theory might be jeopardized by including sufficient number of states. Therefore, there exit a bound on the number of states included, above which we are not in any weakly-coupled gravitational regime but a strong coupling regime, or equivalently, for given $N_s$ particle states, gravity becomes strongly coupled above a dubbed species scale (conjecture) [@Veneziano:2001ah; @Dvali:2001gx; @ArkaniHamed:2005yv; @Distler:2005hi; @Dimopoulos:2005ac; @Dvali:2007hz; @Dvali:2007wp; @Dvali:2009ks], $$\begin{aligned} \Lambda_s\equiv\frac{M_\mathrm{Pl}}{\sqrt{N_s}}.\end{aligned}$$ Recall that, for example, the number of Kaluza-Klein (KK) modes $N_s$ we can include in the lower $d$ dimensional gravity theory before the true quantum gravity cutoff scale $M_\mathrm{Pl}^D$ of the higher $D$ dimensional gravity theory is $N_s\sim M_\mathrm{Pl}^D/m_\mathrm{KK}$. Likewise, $N_s\sim\Lambda_s/m$ is expected in general (see, for example, [@Palti:2019pca] around Eq. (5.17)). Hence the species number reads $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:Ns} N_s\sim\left(\frac{M_\mathrm{Pl}}{m(\phi)}\right)^\frac23,\end{aligned}$$ which, after the use of scalar WGC , becomes $$\begin{aligned} (\partial_\phi\ln N_s)^2\gtrsim\frac29M_\mathrm{Pl}^{-2}.\end{aligned}$$ This could be integrated directly to give $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:NsDphi} \ln N_s\gtrsim\frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}\frac{|\Delta\phi|}{M_\mathrm{Pl}}.\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, if $\phi$ also derives the background expansion with Hubble rate $H$, one could define the corresponding Hubble slow-roll parameter as $$\begin{aligned} \epsilon_H\equiv-\frac{\dot{H}}{H^2}=\frac{\dot{\phi}^2}{2M_\mathrm{Pl}^2H^2},\end{aligned}$$ where we use the Friedmann equation $M_\mathrm{Pl}^2\dot{H}=-\frac12\dot{\phi}^2$ in the last step. The e-folding number during given field excursion in the non-eternal inflationary regime is well-known, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:dNdphi} |\Delta N|&=\int_{t_i}^{t_f}H\mathrm{d}t=\int_{\phi_i}^{\phi_f}\frac{H}{\dot{\phi}}\mathrm{d}\phi=\int_{\phi_i}^{\phi_f}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\epsilon_H}}\frac{|\mathrm{d}\phi|}{M_\mathrm{Pl}}\nonumber\\ &\equiv\left\langle\frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon_H}}\right\rangle\frac{|\Delta\phi|}{\sqrt{2}M_\mathrm{Pl}},\end{aligned}$$ where in the second line we define the averaged value for the inverse square-root of Hubble slow-roll parameter. Therefore, Eq. becomes $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:NsN1} N_s>\mathrm{e}^{\frac23|\Delta N|/\langle\epsilon_H^{-1/2}\rangle}\equiv\mathrm{e}^{\frac23N_\epsilon},\end{aligned}$$ where the abbreviation $N_\epsilon\equiv|\Delta N|/\langle\epsilon_H^{-1/2}\rangle$ is introduced for convenience. The physical meaning of bound is illuminating: for given inflationary potential in an effective theory valid below $\Lambda_s$, the e-folding number is bounded from above by , otherwise larger e-folding number leads to larger field excursion, and hence larger number of light particle states would be included to spoil the effectiveness of original theory unless lowering $\Lambda_s$ accordingly. A strong scalar weak gravity conjecture {#subsec:SSWGC} --------------------------------------- However, there are some concerns [@Gonzalo:2019gjp] on the scalar WGC, for example, it does not apply to all scalar fields (e.g. the massless mediator $\phi$ itself), and it does not simultaneously accomodate SDC for both $\phi\to\pm\infty$. Furthermore, it is not consistent with axion-like particles and fifth-force constraints, and it might be be in phenomenological tension [@Shirai:2019tgr] with the (refined) swampland dS conjecture [@Obied:2018sgi; @Dvali:2018fqu; @Andriot:2018wzk; @Rudelius:2019cfh; @Ooguri:2018wrx; @Garg:2018reu; @Andriot:2018mav]. As a result, a stronger version of scalar WGC was proposed in [@Gonzalo:2019gjp] for any canonically normalized real scalar $\phi$ coupled to gravity, the scalar potential $V(\phi)$ at any field value should meet $$\begin{aligned} 2(V''')^2-V''V''''\geq\frac{(V'')^2}{M_\mathrm{Pl}^2},\end{aligned}$$ which, after writing $m^2=V''$, becomes $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:SSWGC} 2(\partial_\phi m^2)^2-m^2(\partial_\phi^2m^2)\geq\frac{(m^2)^2}{M_\mathrm{Pl}^2}.\end{aligned}$$ The above bound posses clear physical meaning [@Kusenko:2019kcu] that the first and second terms on the left-hand-side denote the attractive and repulsive scalar forces, respectively. Therefore, this strong version of scalar WGC simply states that the net scalar force should surpass the gravity force over the whole field space. To see whether the bound is still held in the strong version of scalar WGC, we could insert into and found $$\begin{aligned} 9(\partial_\phi\ln N_s)^2+3\partial_\phi^2\ln N_s\geq M_\mathrm{Pl}^{-2},\end{aligned}$$ which could be directly solved as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:NsN} N_s\geq \cosh^\frac13\frac{|\Delta\phi|}{M_\mathrm{Pl}}>\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}N_\epsilon}.\end{aligned}$$ Apart from a $\mathcal{O}(1)$ factor difference in the exponent, this is the same as Eq. , which could also be derived from applying SDC on in specific form of $m(\phi)$ with $m(\phi_0)\sim M_\mathrm{Pl}$. However, our derivation of is quite generic in the sense that it follows for any scalar field at any field value, and does not rely on the slow-roll approximation. Refined trans-Planckian censorship conjecture {#sec:TCC} ============================================= Armed with Eq. , a refined TCC could be targeted with following two separate arguments: UV-IR hierarchy {#subsec:hierarchy} --------------- The Hubble horizon as an IR cutoff scale should be bounded by the UV cutoff scale set by the species scale [@Brahma:2019vpl], $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:UVIR} H<\Lambda_s\equiv\frac{M_\mathrm{Pl}}{\sqrt{N_s}}<M_\mathrm{Pl}\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{\sqrt{2}}{6}N_\epsilon},\end{aligned}$$ with Eq. used in the last step, from which a refined TCC could be directly read off, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:TCC2} \mathrm{e}^{\frac{\sqrt{2}}{6}N_\epsilon}<\frac{M_\mathrm{Pl}}{H}.\end{aligned}$$ The original TCC serves as a stronger statement than since $N_\epsilon\ll |\Delta N|$ for slow-roll inflation with $\epsilon_H\ll1$. Therefore, all those stingy examples that support original TCC also automatically hold for the refined TCC. The physical consequence of refined TCC could be understood in the following way: for given potential with expansion history $\langle\epsilon_H^{-1/2}\rangle$ fixed, the violation occurs for large enough $|\Delta N|$, which leads to large field excursion $|\Delta\phi|$. Hence the species number $N_s$ would be so large that the UV scale set by species scale $\Lambda_s$ could be even smaller than the IR scale set by Hubble horizon $H$, which is not allowed by the hierarchy of scales. Entropy bounds {#subsec:entropy} -------------- Consider a spherical region of size $R$ consisting of $N_s$ species number of particles as radiations at temperature $T$, the total energy and entropy scale as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:SR} E\sim N_sR^3T^4, \quad S\sim N_sR^3T^3.\end{aligned}$$ The absence of black hole formation imposes $R>R_\mathrm{BH}\sim E/M_\mathrm{Pl}^2\sim N_s R^3T^4/M_\mathrm{Pl}^2$, which leads to a maximum radius $R<M_\mathrm{Pl}/(\sqrt{N_s}T^2)$, or equivalently a maximum entropy $S\sim N_sR^3T^3<M_\mathrm{Pl}^3/(\sqrt{N_s}T^3)$. This maximum entropy should be bounded by the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy, $S_\mathrm{BH}\sim M_\mathrm{Pl}^2R^2<M_\mathrm{Pl}^4/(N_sT^4)$, as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:SRSBH} \frac{M_\mathrm{Pl}^3}{\sqrt{N_s}T^3}<\frac{M_\mathrm{Pl}^4}{N_sT^4},\end{aligned}$$ which in turn gives rise to a maximum temperature $T<M_\mathrm{Pl}/\sqrt{N_s}$ [@Dvali:2007wp; @Brustein:1999md; @Brustein:2001di] larger than the Hubble temperature, $$\begin{aligned} \frac{H}{2\pi}<\frac{M_\mathrm{Pl}}{\sqrt{N_s}}<M_\mathrm{Pl}\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{\sqrt{2}}{6}N_\epsilon},\end{aligned}$$ namely, $$\begin{aligned} \mathrm{e}^{\frac{\sqrt{2}}{6}N_\epsilon}<\frac{M_\mathrm{Pl}}{H}.\end{aligned}$$ Similar bound could also be obtained if the radiation entropy is bounded by the Hubble entropy [@Veneziano:1999ty; @Brustein:2007hd], $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:SRSH} N_sR^3T^3<M_\mathrm{Pl}^2R^3H.\end{aligned}$$ Hence there is also a maximum temperature, $T<(M_\mathrm{Pl}^2H/N_s)^{1/3}$, which should be larger than the Hubble temperature, $$\begin{aligned} H^3<\frac{M_\mathrm{Pl}^2H}{\sqrt{N_s}}<M_\mathrm{Pl}^2H\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{\sqrt{2}}{6}N_\epsilon},\end{aligned}$$ namely, $$\begin{aligned} \mathrm{e}^{\frac{\sqrt{2}}{12}N_\epsilon}<\frac{M_\mathrm{Pl}}{H}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that similar arguments of using entropy bounds are adopted in [@Kehagias:2019iem] to elaborate SDC. The above arguments implicitly assume that all $N_s$ species number of particles have their masses spectrum below the temperature. However, it is fairly possible that some of the particle masses are heavier than the temperature so that they have contribution to the total energy $E\sim k_BN_sT$ ($k_B\equiv1$ hereafter) but no contribution to the total entropy, which should be bounded by the Bekenstein entropy [@Bekenstein:1972tm; @Bekenstein:1973ur; @Bekenstein:1974ax] for any weakly gravitating matter fields, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:SB} S_\mathrm{matter}\leq2\pi ER\sim2\pi N_sTR.\end{aligned}$$ If the matter inside the sphere is gravitationally stable so that black hole does not form, the Bekenstein entropy should be further bounded by the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:SBSBH} 2\pi N_sTR\leq M_\mathrm{Pl}^2R^2.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, there is a maximum temperature $T<M_\mathrm{Pl}^2R/(2\pi N_s)$, which should be larger than the Hubble temperature, $$\begin{aligned} \frac{H}{2\pi}<\frac{M_\mathrm{Pl}^2R}{2\pi N_s}<\frac{M_\mathrm{Pl}^2}{2\pi H}\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}N_\epsilon},\end{aligned}$$ namely, $$\begin{aligned} \mathrm{e}^{\frac{\sqrt{2}}{6}N_\epsilon}<\frac{M_\mathrm{Pl}}{H}.\end{aligned}$$ The same bound could also be obtained by bounding the Bekenstein entropy with Hubble entropy , $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:SBSH} 2\pi N_sTR\leq M_\mathrm{Pl}^2R^3H.\end{aligned}$$ Hence there is also a maximum temperature $T<M_\mathrm{Pl}^2HR^2/(2\pi N_s)$, which should be larger than the Hubble temperature, $$\begin{aligned} \frac{H}{2\pi}<\frac{M_\mathrm{Pl}^2HR^2}{2\pi N_s}<\frac{M_\mathrm{Pl}^2}{2\pi H}\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}N_\epsilon},\end{aligned}$$ namely, $$\begin{aligned} \mathrm{e}^{\frac{\sqrt{2}}{6}N_\epsilon}<\frac{M_\mathrm{Pl}}{H}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the entropy bound alone is not sufficient to guarantee the refined TCC, since the UV-IR hierarchies $H<T$ and $R<H^{-1}$ are still needed for the relevant derivation of inequalities. In summary, with Eq. , the refined TCC is always implied by entropy bounds either from radiation entropy or Bekenstein entropy , which are bounded by either Bekenstein-Hawking entropy or Hubble entropy . Eternal inflation {#sec:eternal} ================= There are three types of eternal inflation frequently discussed in the literatures: old eternal inflation (a trapped dS vacuum) [@Guth:1980zm; @Guth:1982pn], stochastic eternal inflation [@Starobinsky:1986fx; @Linde:1986fc; @Aryal:1987vn] (a hilltop potential [@Barenboim:2016mmw]), and topological eternal inflation [@Vilenkin:1994pv; @Linde:1994hy; @Linde:1994wt] (an eternally inflating topological defeat from a hilltop potential [@Boubekeur:2005zm]). Whether the eternal inflation is in the swampland is an important question currently under debate [@Matsui:2018bsy; @Dimopoulos:2018upl; @Kinney:2018kew; @Brahma:2019iyy; @Wang:2019eym; @Rudelius:2019cfh; @Blanco-Pillado:2019tdf; @Lin:2019fdk]. The old eternal inflation is generically inconsistent with the original SdSC [@Matsui:2018bsy; @Dimopoulos:2018upl], but the stochastic eternal inflation was argued to be marginally consistent with the refined SdSC [@Kinney:2018kew], which, however, was questioned with perturbative [@Brahma:2019iyy] and entropic [@Wang:2019eym] arguments. Nevertheless, [@Rudelius:2019cfh] speculated a possibility that some variants of SdSC should be regarded as approximate consequences of the absence of eternal inflation. Furthermore, some topological eternal inflation models could be constructed to evade the swampland criteria for an eternally inflating bubble wall [@Blanco-Pillado:2019tdf] and domain wall on the brane [@Lin:2019fdk]. Our refined TCC is elaborated from the arguments of Eq. , and . Note that Eq. is restricted to the non-eternal inflationary regime where the field excursion is dominated by the classical rolling. For eternal inflation, the elapsed e-folding number could be arbitrarily large as long as the field excursion is limited in the range where the quantum fluctuations dominate over classical rolling. In this case, one could use and directly without to render the general version of our refined TCC, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:eternal0} \mathrm{e}^{\frac{\sqrt{2}}{6}\frac{|\Delta\phi|}{M_\mathrm{Pl}}}<\frac{M_\mathrm{Pl}}{H},\end{aligned}$$ which shares a similar form derived in [@Scalisi:2018eaz] from SDC on inflation. To see whether the stochastic eternal inflation could survive above criterion, we use a quadratic hilltop potential $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:hilltop} V(\phi)=V_0-\frac12m^2\phi^2, \quad m^2>0,\end{aligned}$$ where the eternal inflation is allowed in the small field region $|\Delta\phi|<\phi_c$ when the averaged quantum random walks dominate over classical rolling during each Hubble time, $H/(2\pi)\equiv\langle\delta\phi\rangle_Q>\delta\phi_C\equiv|\dot{\phi}|/H$. $\phi_c$ is therefore solved from $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:phic} \mathcal{P}_\zeta(\phi_c)\equiv\left(\frac{H^2(\phi_c)}{2\pi\dot{\phi}_c}\right)^2\approx \frac{V(\phi_c)}{24\pi^2M_\mathrm{Pl}^4\epsilon_V(\phi_c)}=1.\end{aligned}$$ Our refined TCC is ensured provided that $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:eternalc} \mathrm{e}^{\frac{\sqrt{2}}{6}\frac{\phi_c}{M_\mathrm{Pl}}}<\frac{M_\mathrm{Pl}}{H(\phi_c)},\end{aligned}$$ which could be solved numerically as shown in Fig. \[fig:hilltop\] with blue solid line. ![The parameter space for a quadratic hilltop eternal inflation out of swampland by our refined TCC enclosed by the red and blue solid lines. The slow-roll approximation is also checked with the blue and red dashed lines.[]{data-label="fig:hilltop"}](Hilltop.pdf "fig:"){width="47.00000%"}\ Furthermore, automatically guarantees the slow-roll condition for $\epsilon_V$ (blue dashed lines), $$\begin{aligned} \epsilon_V(\phi_c)<\frac{1}{8\pi^2}\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}\frac{\phi_c}{M_\mathrm{Pl}}}<1.\end{aligned}$$ The slow-roll condition $|\eta_V(\phi_c)|\ll1$ for $\eta_V(\phi_c)$ (red dashed lines) also automatically guarantees $\eta_V>-3$ [@Rudelius:2019cfh] so that the exponentially suppressed probability to stay within $|\Delta\phi|<\phi_c$ beats the exponential expansion of the universe. On the other hand, the perturbativity argument [@Brahma:2019iyy] further requires $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{P}_\zeta<\frac{1}{16[3(\eta_V-\epsilon_V)-\epsilon_V(\eta_V-\epsilon_V)-\epsilon_V\eta_V]^2},\end{aligned}$$ which is shown in Fig. \[fig:hilltop\] with red solid line. Therefore, there is a parameter space for the quadratic hilltop eternal inflation out of swampland by our refined TCC . Conclusion and discussions {#sec:con} ========================== In this paper, we proposed a refined TCC as a consequence of a strong version of scalar WGC combined with either UV-IR hierarchy or some entropy bounds, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:eternal} \mathrm{e}^{\frac{|\Delta\phi|}{M_\mathrm{Pl}}/\mathcal{O}(1)}<\mathcal{O}(1)\frac{M_\mathrm{Pl}}{H},\end{aligned}$$ which is consistent with the hilltop eternal inflation. For non-eternal inflation, it further reduces to $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:TCC3} \mathrm{e}^{N_\epsilon/\mathcal{O}(1)}<\mathcal{O}(1)\frac{M_\mathrm{Pl}}{H_f}.\end{aligned}$$ where the $\mathcal{O}(1)$ factor on the left-hand-side is associated to certain combination of spacetime dimension, which could be easily worked out from previous arguments, and the $\mathcal{O}(1)$ factor on the right-hand-side is already mentioned in a footnote in [@Bedroya:2019snp], which could be the sound speed in the generalized TCC in [@Lin:2019pmj]. The presence of an averaged Hubble slow-roll parameter in the exponent $N_\epsilon\equiv N/\langle\epsilon_H^{-1/2}\rangle$ would prolong the dS lifetime by $$\begin{aligned} \Delta t_\mathrm{dS}<\frac{1}{H_f}\int_{t_i}^{t_f}H\mathrm{d}t=\frac{1}{H_f}\ln\frac{a_f}{a_i}<\frac{\langle\epsilon_H^{-1/2}\rangle}{H_f}\ln\frac{M_\mathrm{Pl}}{H_f},\end{aligned}$$ which resembles the form of the entropic quasi-de Sitter instability time [@Seo:2019wsh] (such a logarithmic correction to the Hubble time also appears in the scrambling time [@Sekino:2008he; @Bedroya:2019snp]). Now the constraint on the Hubble scale could be greatly relaxed, for instance, $N_\epsilon\equiv N/\langle\epsilon_H^{-1/2}\rangle\approx N/10=6$ for an illustrative $\epsilon_H\approx0.01$ and e-folding number $N=60$, to $$\begin{aligned} H<\mathrm{e}^{-N_\epsilon}M_\mathrm{Pl}\approx6\times10^{15}\,\mathrm{GeV}.\end{aligned}$$ The same relaxation could also be achieved even for a near critical expansion with $\epsilon_H\approx1$ due to the presence of a $\mathcal{O}(1)$ factor on the left-hand-side of , for example, as shown in , $$\begin{aligned} H<\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{\sqrt{2}}{6}N}M_\mathrm{Pl}\approx2\times10^{12}\,\mathrm{GeV},\end{aligned}$$ for the same illustrative $N=60$. Therefore, our refined TCC resolves the fine-tuning problem of inflationary initial conditions without invoking any exotic model-building. Furthermore, since our refined TCC is a weaker version of original TCC, it would automatically supported by those stringy examples that also hold for the original TCC. We thank Suddhasattwa Brahma, Mark Hertzberg, Ken Olum, Eran Palti, Fabrizio Rompineve, Shan-Ming Ruan, Alexander Vilenkin, and Masaki Yamada for helpful discussions and correspondences. R.G.C. was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China Grants No. 11435006, No. 11647601, No. 11690022, No. 11821505 and No. 11851302, and by the Strategic Priority Research Program of CAS Grant No. XDB23030100, and by the Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences of CAS. SJW is supported by the postdoctoral scholarship of Tufts University from NSF.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We prove a Gauss-Bonnet formula for the extrinsic curvature of complete surfaces in hyperbolic space under some assumptions on the asymptotic behaviour.' address: | Departament de Matemàtiques\ Univeristat Autònoma de Barcelona\ Edifici Cc. Campus de la UAB\ 08193 Bellaterra author: - Gil Solanes title: Total curvature of complete surfaces in hyperbolic space --- Introduction and main results ============================= In this paper we prove a Gauss-Bonnet formula for the total extrinsic curvature of complete surfaces in hyperbolic space. Our result is analogous to those obtained by Dillen and Kühnel in [@kuehnel] for submanifolds of euclidean space, where the total curvature of a submanifold $S$ is given in terms of the Euler characteristic $\chi(S)$, and the geometry of $S$ at infinity (cf. also [@dutertre]). Our starting point is the following well-know equality for $S\subset\mathbb H^3$, a compact surface with boundary in hyperbolic 3-space $$\label{motivacio} \int_S K dS=2\pi\chi(S)+F(S)-\int_{\partial S}k_g ds$$ being $K$ the extrinsic curvature of $S$, $F(S)$ the area, and $k_g$ the geodesic curvature of $\partial S$ in $S$. We plan to make $S$ expand over a complete non-compact surface, but the last two terms in are likely to become infinite. To avoid an indeterminate form, we add and subtract the *area* enclosed by the curve $\partial S$. Such a notion was defined by Banchoff and Pohl (cf. [@banchoff.pohl] and also [@teufel]) for any closed space curve $C$ as $$\mathcal A(C):=\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{\mathcal{L}}\lambda^2(\ell,C)d\ell$$ where $\mathcal{L}$ is (in our case) the space of geodesics in $\mathbb H^3$, $d\ell$ is the invariant measure on $\mathcal L$ (unique up to normalization), and $\lambda(\ell,\partial S)$ is the linking number of $\partial S$ with $\ell\in\mathcal L$. This definition was motivated by the Crofton formula which states $$\label{crofton} F(S)=\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{\mathcal L}\#(\ell\cap S)d\ell,$$ where $\#$ stands for the cardinal. Hence, we can rewrite as follows $$\label{type}\notag \int_S K dS=2\pi\chi(S)+\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{\mathcal{L}}(\#(\ell\cap S)-\lambda^2(\ell,\partial S))d\ell-\mathcal A(\partial S)+\int_{\partial S}k_gds$$ Our main result is a similar formula for complete surfaces in $\mathbb H^3$ defining a smooth curve $C$ at infinity. In that case, the last two terms of the previous equation are replaced by a conformal invariant of the geometry of $C$ in the ideal boundary of $\mathbb H^3$. To be precise, our result applies to surfaces with cone-like ends in the sense defined next. A similar notion of cone-like ends for submanifolds in euclidean space appears in [@kuehnel]. Let $f\colon S\looparrowright \mathbb H^3$ be an immersion of a $\mathcal C^2$-differentiable surface $S$ in hyperbolic space. We say $S$ has *cone-like ends* if 1. $S$ is the interior of a compact surface with boundary $\overline S$, and taking the Poincaré half-space model of hyperbolic space, $f$ extends to an immersion $f:\overline{S}\looparrowright\mathbb R^3$, 2. $C=f(\partial \overline S)$ is a collection of disjoint simple closed curves contained in $\partial_\infty \mathbb H^3$, the boundary of the model, and 3. $f(\overline S)$ is orthogonal to $\partial_\infty\mathbb H^3$ along $C$. In particular, such a surface is complete with the induced metric. We will see that surfaces with cone-like ends have finite total extrinsic curvature. There are also examples of complete non-compact surfaces with finite total extrinsic curvature which do not fulfill $i)$ or $ii)$ in the previous definition. Condition $iii)$ however is necessary for the total curvature to be finite: the limit of the extrinsic curvature of $S$ at an ideal point $x\in C$ is $\cos^2(\beta)$ where $\beta$ is the angle between $S$ and $\partial_\infty\mathbb H^3$ at $x$. In the Klein (or projective) model, the definition reads the same, but replacing the word ‘orthogonal’ by ‘transverse’. We will mainly work with the Poincaré half-space model. Unless otherwise stated all the metric notions (such as length, area or curvature) will refer to the hyperbolic metric. We shall use the words ‘smooth’ or ‘differentiable’ as synonymous of $\mathcal C^1$-differentiable. For simplicity, we will abuse the notation by identifying immersed surfaces and their image. Given an oriented curve $C\subset \partial_\infty\mathbb H^3\equiv \mathbb R^2$, and a pair of distinct points $x,y\in C$, let us consider the oriented angle at $x$ from $C$ to the oriented circle through $x$ that is positively tangent to $C$ at $y$. This angle admits a unique continuous determination $\theta:C\times C\rightarrow \mathbb R$ that vanishes on the diagonal. Note that $\theta(y,x)=\theta(x,y)$ and $\theta$ is independent of the orientation of $C$. We will prove the following result. \[main\] Let $S\subset \mathbb H^3$ be a simply connected surface of class $\mathcal C^2$, embedded in the Poincaré half-space model of hyperbolic space, and with a (connected) cone-like end $C\subset\partial_\infty\mathbb H^3$. Then, the integral over $S$ of the extrinsic curvature $K$ is $$\label{eqmain} \int_S KdS=\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{\mathcal{L}}(\#(\ell\cap S)-\lambda^2(\ell,C))d\ell-\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{C\times C}\theta\sin\theta\frac{dxdy}{\|y-x\|^2}$$where - $d\ell$ is an invariant measure on the space of geodesics $\mathcal L$, - $\lambda^2(\ell,C)$ is 1 if the ideal endpoints of $\ell$ are on different components of $\partial_\infty \mathbb H^3\setminus C$ and $0$ otherwise, and - $dx, dy$ denote length elements on $C$ with respect to an euclidean metric $\|\cdot \|$ on $\partial_\infty\mathbb H^3\equiv\mathbb R^2$. The integrals in are absolutely convergent. The idea of the proof is roughly the following. We pull-back $d\ell$ to the space of chords of $S$. Integration gives the first term on the right hand side of . Applying Stokes theorem yields then the result. This procedure was already used in [@pohl], but here we use a different form having $d\ell$ as exterior derivative. This leads to a somehow dual construction, where the total curvature instead of the area appears. This dual viewpoint could not be taken in euclidean space. The form $dx dy/\|y-x\|^2$, as well as $\theta(x,y)$, are invariant under Möbius transformations. Hence, the last term in is invariant under the action of the Möbius group on $\partial_\infty\mathbb H^3$. We call this term the [*ideal defect*]{} of $S$. Similar expressions for space curves appear often in the study of conformally invariant knot energies (cf.[@langevin.ohara]). From the previous theorem one gets easily a formula for a general surface with cone-like ends. Let $S\looparrowright \mathbb H^3$ be a $\mathcal C^2$-immersed complete surface with cone-like ends $C_1,\ldots , C_n$, the curves $C_i$ being disjoint and connected. Then $$\begin{gathered} \int_S KdS=2\pi(\chi(S)-n)+\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{\mathcal{L}}(\#(\ell\cap S)-\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda^2(\ell,C_i))d\ell\\-\frac{1}{\pi}\sum_{i=1}^n\int_{C_i\times C_i}\theta\sin\theta\frac{dxdy}{\|y-x\|^2},\end{gathered}$$ and the previous integrals are absolutely convergent. Take a compact set $K\subset\mathbb H^3$ with smooth boundary $\partial K$ transverse to $S$, and such that $S\setminus K=S_1\cup \ldots\cup S_n$, where each $S_i$ is an embedded topological cylinder over $C_i$. Applying and to $R=S\cap K$ yields $$\label{erra} \int_R KdR=2\pi\chi(R)-\int_{\partial R} k_g(s)ds+\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{\mathcal L}\#(\ell\cap R)d\ell$$ where $k_g$ is the geodesic curvature in $R$. Let $R_i$ be a compact surface with boundary such that $T_i=R_i\cup S_i$ is a complete embedded simply connected surface. Combining again and , $$\label{ri} \int_{R_i} KdR_i=2\pi-\int_{\partial R_i} k_g(s)ds+\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{\mathcal L}\#(\ell\cap R_i)d\ell.$$ Applying Theorem \[main\] to each $T_i$, and comparing with yields $$\begin{aligned} \label{si} \int_{S_i} KdS_i=-2\pi+\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{\mathcal{L}}(\#(\ell\cap S_i)-\lambda^2(\ell,C_i))d\ell\\-\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{C_i\times C_i}\theta\sin\theta\frac{dxdy}{\|y-x\|^2}+\int_{\partial R_i}k_g(s)ds.\notag\end{aligned}$$ Addition of and finishes the proof. The ideal defect ---------------- The last term in , which we call the [*ideal defect*]{}, can be described in the following way. Let $C\subset\partial_\infty\mathbb H^3$ be a closed simple (connected) curve of class $\mathcal C^2$. Let $\Omega\subset \partial_\infty\mathbb H^3$ be one of the domains bounded by $C$. Then $$\int_{C\times C}\theta\sin\theta\frac{dxdy}{\|y-x\|^2}=4\int_{NT(\Omega)}\frac{dzdw}{\|z-w\|^4}$$ where $NT(\Omega)\subset\Omega\times\Omega$ is the set of point pairs $(z,w)$ such that any circle $\xi\subset\partial_\infty\mathbb H^3$ containing $z$ and $w$ intersects $\partial_\infty\mathbb H^3\setminus \Omega$ (i.e. $z,w\in \xi\Rightarrow \xi\not\subset\Omega$.) Let $Q\subset\mathbb H^3$ be the convex hull of $\Omega^c=\partial_\infty\mathbb H^3\setminus \Omega$; i.e. $Q$ is the minimal convex set containing $\Omega^c$. Using the Klein model, $Q$ can be seen as the euclidean convex hull of $\Omega^c$. Let us consider the boundary $S=\partial Q\subset\mathbb H^3$, which is a surface of class $\mathcal C^1$. Next we construct a sequence of convex sets $Q_n\subset\mathbb H^3$ such that: $Q_n\supset Q_{n+1}$, $Q=\cap_{n=1}^\infty Q_n$, and $S_n=\partial Q_n$ is a $\mathcal C^2$ surface with cone-like end $C$. First, let $X\in\mathfrak X(\mathbb R^3)$ be a vector field in the Klein model such that $X$ vanishes only at $C$, and $X|_\Omega$ points to the interior of the model. Then, for small $t>0$, the flow $\varphi_t$ brings $\Omega$ to a surface $\varphi_t(\Omega)$ with a cone-like end on $C$, and bounding a convex domain $D$. On the other hand, let $Q$ be approximated by a decreasing sequence $Q_n'\subset\mathbb R^3$ of euclidean convex sets with smooth boundary (cf. [@schneider]). Then, smoothening the corners of $D\cap Q_n'$ yields the desired sequence. By Theorem \[main\] $$\int_{S_n}K(x)dx= \frac{1}{\pi}\int_{\mathcal L}(\#(\ell\cap S_n)-\lambda^2(\ell,C))d\ell-\int_{C\times C}\theta\sin\theta\frac{dxdy}{\|y-x\|^2}.$$ Using, for instance, the arguments in [@crasp], one can show $$\lim_n \int_{S_n}K(x)dx=0.$$ On the other hand, by monotone convergence, $$\lim_n \int_{\mathcal L}(\#(\ell\cap S_n)-\lambda^2(\ell,C))d\ell=\int_{\mathcal L}(\#(\ell\cap S)-\lambda^2(\ell,C))d\ell.$$ Hence, $$\int_{C\times C}\theta\sin\theta\frac{dxdy}{\|y-x\|^2}=\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{\mathcal L}(\#(\ell\cap S)-\lambda^2(\ell,C))d\ell.$$ The right hand side above is the measure of geodesics intersecting $Q$ but not $\Omega$. We determine each geodesic $\ell\in\mathcal L$ by its ideal endpoints. From equation below, one easily computes $$\label{dzdw} d\ell=4\frac{dzdw}{\|z-w\|^4}.$$ Finally, we just need to note that a geodesic $\ell$ intersects the convex hull $Q$ if and only if every geodesic 2-plane containing $\ell$ intersects $\Omega$. Integral of the inverse of the chord ------------------------------------ Next we find an alternative description of the ideal defect. Let $C\subset \partial_\infty\mathbb H^3$ be a connected smooth simple closed curve, and consider $S=C\times(0,\infty)\subset\mathbb H^3$. We may think of $S$ as a surface with one end by closing the top end at infinity with an infinitesimally small surface. Then, the total curvature of $S$ equals $2\pi$, and Theorem \[main\] applied to $S$ yields $$2\pi+\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{C\times C}\theta\sin\theta \frac{dxdy}{\|y-x\|^2}=\frac{2}{\pi}\int_{\mathbb R^2\times\mathbb R^2}(\#(\overline{zw}\cap C)-\lambda^2(z,w;C))\frac{dzdw}{\|w-z\|^4}$$$$\label{exemple} =\frac{2}{\pi}\int_{A(2,1)}\sum_{x, y\in L\cap C}\frac{(-1)^{\#(\overline{xy}\cap C)}}{\|y-x\|}dL$$ where $\overline{zw}$ denotes the line segment joining $z,w\in \mathbb R^2$, and $dL$ is the invariant measure on the space $A(2,1)$ of (unoriented) lines of $\mathbb R^2$, normalized as in [@santalo]. The first equality uses . The second equality follows from $dzdw=\|t-s\|dsdtdL$ where $s,t$ are arc-length parameters of $z,w$ along $L$ (cf.[@santalo], equation (4.2)). As a consequence, the integral in is invariant under Möbius transformations, which was *a priori* not obvious. In fact, if $C$ bounds a convex domain $\Omega$, this integral is $$\frac{4}{\pi}\int_{A(2,1)}\frac{1}{\sigma(L\cap\Omega)}dL \label{corda}$$ where $\sigma(L\cap\Omega)$ is the chord length. The previous functional is one of the so-called Franklin invariants of convex sets, defined by Santaló in [@santalo.franklin] as a generalization of a functional introduced by Franklin with motivations from stereology (cf.[@franklin]). These functionals had the nice property of being invariant by dilatations. For instance, functional could be used to estimate, by means of line sections, the number of particles in a plane region, if these particles have the same shape but possibly different size. An immediate consequence of our results is that is in fact invariant under the Möbius group. An interesting question is to determine which of the Franklin functionals enjoy this bigger invariance. Besides, it was conjectured that the Franklin invariants are minimal for balls (cf.[@franklin] and [@santalo.franklin]). This was shown by Franklin among ellipsoids while Santaló obtained some general non-sharp inequalities. As a consequence of our results, we can prove this conjecture in the plane case. For a convex set $\Omega\subset\mathbb R^2$ we have $$\label{conjectura}\int_{A(2,1)}\frac{1}{\sigma(L\cap \Omega)}dL\geq \frac{\pi^2}{2}$$ where $\sigma$ is the length of the chord, and $A(2,1)$ is the space of lines. Equality holds in if and only if $\Omega$ is a round disk. Moreover, the left hand side of is invariant by Möbius transformations (keeping $\Omega$ convex). By we have $$\frac{4}{\pi}\int_{A(2,1)}\frac{1}{\sigma(L\cap \Omega)}dL=2\pi+\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{C\times C}\theta\sin\theta\frac{dxdy}{\|y-x\|^2}\geq 2\pi,$$ and the equality occurs if and only if $\theta\equiv 0$. Indeed, since $C$ is convex it is easy to see that $-\pi<\theta<\pi$. The author wishes to thank W.Kühnel, R.Langevin, J.O’Hara and E.Teufel for valuable discussions during the preparation of this work. Preliminaries ============= The space of geodesics ---------------------- Let $\mathcal F=\{(x;g_1,g_2, g_3)\}$ be the bundle of positive orthonormal frames of $\mathbb H^3$; i.e., each $(g_i)_{i=1,2,3}$ is a positive orthonormal basis of $T_x\mathbb H^3$. We consider on $\mathcal F$ the dual and the connection forms $$\omega_i=\langle dx,g_i\rangle, \qquad \omega_{ij}=\langle \nabla g_i,g_j\rangle,$$ where $\langle\,,\,\rangle$ denotes the (hyperbolic) metric in $\mathbb H^3$, and $\nabla$ is the corresponding riemanninan connection. The structure equations read $$\label{estructura}d\omega_i=\omega_j\wedge\omega_{ji},\qquad d\omega_{ij}=\omega_i\wedge\omega_j+\omega_{ik}\wedge\omega_{kj}.$$ Let $\mathcal L^+$ be the space of oriented geodesics of $\mathbb H^3$. Consider $\pi_1:\mathcal F\rightarrow \mathcal L^+$ given by $\pi_1(x;g_1,g_2,g_3)=\ell$ with $x\in \ell$, and $g_1\in T_x\ell$ pointing in the positive direction. The space $\mathcal L^+$ can be endowed with a differentiable structure such that $\pi_1$ is a smooth submersion. Moreover, $\mathcal L^+$ admits a volume form $d\ell$ invariant under isometries of $\mathbb H^3$, which is unique up to normalization, and characterized by (cf.[@santalo]) $$\label{mesura} \pi_1^*(d\ell)=\omega_{2}\wedge\omega_3\wedge\omega_{12}\wedge\omega_{13}.$$ Similarly, one can consider $\mathcal L_2$, the space of (unoriented) totally geodesic surfaces (geodesic planes) of $\mathbb H^3$. We will use the flag space $\mathcal L_{1,2}=\{(\ell,\wp)\in\mathcal L^+\times\mathcal L_2|\ell\subset\wp\}$, and the canonical projection $\pi\colon\mathcal L_{1,2}\rightarrow \mathcal L^+$ which makes $\mathcal L_{1,2}$ a principal $\mathbb S^1$-bundle over $\mathcal L^+$. Let us project $\pi_{1,2}\colon\mathcal F\rightarrow \mathcal L_{1,2}$ so that $\pi_{1,2}(x;(g_i))=(\ell,\wp)$ with $\wp\supset\ell=\pi_1(x;(g_i))$ and $g_3\bot T_x\wp$. Then $\omega_{23}=\pi_{1,2}^*\varphi$ for a certain form $\varphi\in\Omega^1(\mathcal L_{1,2})$, which is an invariant global angular form (or connection) of the bundle $\pi$. Next we show some useful properties of the corresponding curvature form. \[p1\] There exists a unique 2-form $\alpha\in\Omega^2(\mathcal{L}^+)$ such that $$\pi^*(\alpha)=d\varphi\in\Omega^2(\mathcal L_{1,2}).$$Moreover $\alpha\wedge\alpha=-2d\ell$, so that $d(\pi^*\alpha\wedge \varphi)=-2\pi^*d\ell$, where $\varphi$ is the global angular form of $\pi$. Assuming $\alpha$ exists, structure equations give $$\label{alpha} \pi^*\alpha=d\omega_{23}=\omega_2\wedge\omega_3-\omega_{12}\wedge\omega_{13},$$ whence $$\pi^*(\alpha\wedge\alpha)=-2\omega_2\wedge\omega_3\wedge\omega_{12}\wedge\omega_{13}=-2\pi^*d\ell.$$ Therefore $\alpha\wedge\alpha=-2d\ell$ (as $d\pi_1$ is exhaustive). Let $X\in\mathfrak X(\mathcal L_{1,2})$ be the tangent vector field along the fibers of $\pi$ such that $\varphi(X)=1$. By , for any $\widetilde X\in\mathfrak X(\mathcal F)$ such that $d\pi_{1,2}\widetilde X=X$, $$\pi_{1,2}^*(i_Xd\varphi)=i_{\widetilde X}d\omega_{23}=0,$$ whence $i_Xd\varphi=0$. Then $L_X\varphi=0$, and $$L_Xd\varphi=d L_X\varphi=0.$$Hence, $d\varphi$ is constant along the fibers of $\pi$, and null on their tangent vectors, which shows the existence of $\alpha$. The uniqueness follows from the injectivity of $\pi^*$. The forms $\varphi,\alpha$ are in a sense dual to the forms $\omega_1,dI$ used in [@pohl]. In fact, many of the subsequent constructions are parallel to those of [@pohl]. However, choosing $\alpha$ leads us to the total curvature, while $dI$ made the area appear. This choice could not be done in an euclidean ambient since there $\alpha\wedge\alpha=0$. The following notation will be used throughout the paper: $$A{\!\ltimes\!}B:=\{(x,y)\in A\times B\ |\ x\neq y\}.$$ The following complex valued 2-form on $\mathbb {CP}^1{\!\ltimes\!}\mathbb {CP}^1$, invariant under the diagonal action of $Sl(2,\mathbb C)$, was called the *infinitesimal cross-ratio* in [@langevin.ohara] $$\omega_{cr}=\frac{dwdz}{(w-z)^2}.$$ By considering the ideal endpoints of each geodesic, $\mathcal{L}^+$ is identified with $\mathbb {CP}^1{\!\ltimes\!}\mathbb {CP}^1$. Then, it is not difficult to see that $\alpha/8=\mathfrak{Im}(\omega_{cr})$, the imaginary part of the infinitesimal cross-ratio. \[geometric\] $i)$ Consider $\Psi\colon\mathbb H^3{\!\ltimes\!}\mathbb H^3\rightarrow \mathcal L^+$ such that $\Psi(x,y)$ goes first through $x$ and then through $y$. Given unit vectors $u\in T_x\mathbb H^3$, $v\in T_y\mathbb H^3$, and considering $\overline u=(u,0),\overline v=(0,v)\in T_x\mathbb H^3\oplus T_y\mathbb H^3$, a computation shows $$\label{dxdy}\Psi^*\alpha(\overline u,\overline v)=\frac{\sin\beta_x\sin\beta_y\sin\theta\cosh r}{\sinh^2 r}$$ where $\beta_x\in[0,\pi)$ (resp. $\beta_y$) is the angle at $x$ (resp. $y$) between $\ell=\Psi(x,y)$ and $u$ (resp. $\ell$ and $v$), and $r$ denotes the distance between $x,y$. As for $\theta\in[0,2\pi)$, it is the oriented angle (with respect to the orientation of $\ell$) between the two oriented geodesic planes $\wp_x,\wp_y\in\pi^{-1}\ell$ given respectively by $u\wedge w_x$ and $v\wedge w_y$, where $w_x\in T_x\ell,w_y\in T_y\ell$ point in the positive direction of $\ell$. $ii)$ Similarly, given unit vectors $u,v\in T_x\mathbb H^3$, and denoting $\overline u=(u,0),\overline v=(v,0)\in T_x\mathbb H^3\oplus T_y\mathbb H^3$, one has $$\label{dxdx}\Psi^*\alpha(\overline u,\overline v)=-\frac{\det(u,v,t)}{\sinh^2r}$$ where $t\in T_x\Psi(x,y)$ is the positive unit tangent vector. The space of chords ------------------- Given a $\mathcal C^2$-differentiable manifold $S'$ (without boundary), the *space of chords* of $S'$ is a $\mathcal C^1$-differentiable manifold $M_{S'}$ with boundary, introduced by Whitney in [@whitney], and described with detail in [@pohl]. The interior of $M_{S'}$ is $S'{\!\ltimes\!}S'$, and the boundary is $T^1 S'$, the bundle of oriented tangent directions of $S'$. Next we describe the differentiable structure of $M_{S'}=(S'{\!\ltimes\!}S')\cup T^1S'$ in case $S'$ has dimension two. On the one hand, the interior $S'{\!\ltimes\!}S'\subset M_{S'}$ is diffeomorphically identified to the open set $S'{\!\ltimes\!}S'\subset S'\times S'$. On the other hand, given local coordinates $(x_1,x_2)$ on $U\subset S'$, a neighborhood of $T^1U$ in $M_{S'}$ is diffeomorphic to the hypersurface with boundary $L\subset U\times U\times \mathbb S^1$ given by $$\begin{gathered} L=\{((x_1,x_2),(y_1,y_2),(\cos\theta,\sin\theta))\in U\times U\times \mathbb S^1|\\\sin\theta(y_1-x_1)=\cos\theta(y_2-x_2),\quad \cos\theta(y_1-x_1)\geq 0\}.\end{gathered}$$ The diffeomorphism is as follows: $L\ni(x,y,v)\mapsto (x,y)\in M_{S'}$ for $x\neq y$, and $L\ni(x,x,\cos\theta,\sin\theta)\mapsto v\cdot \mathbb R^+\in T^1S'=\partial M_{S'}$ where $v=\cos\theta\partial/\partial{x_1}+\sin\theta\partial/\partial{x_2}\in T_xS$. With this differentiable structure, the mappings $p_1,p_2:M_{S'}\rightarrow S'$ given by $p_i(x_1,x_2)=x_i$ for $(x_1,x_2)\in S'{\!\ltimes\!}S'$, and $p_i(x,v)=x$ for $v\in T_xS'$, are smooth submersions. We will consider $M_{S'}$ oriented so that the inclusion $S'{\!\ltimes\!}S'\subset M_{S'}$ preserves the product orientation. \[trans\] Given a regular $\mathcal C^2$-differentiable curve $x:[0,a)\rightarrow S'$, we can define $c:[0,a)\rightarrow M_{S'}$ by $c(t)=(x(0),x(t))$ if $t\in(0,a)$, and $c(0)=\dot{x}(0)\cdot\mathbb R^+\in T^1S$. Using suitable coordinates in the above description, it is clear that $c$ is smooth (also at $t=0$) and meets $\partial M_{S'}$ transversely. Let now ${S\subset S'}$ be a compact surface with boundary, embedded in $S'$. We consider $M_S:=p_1^{-1}(S)\cap p_2^{-1}(S)\subset M_{S'}$, the subset of *chords* of $S'$ having both ends in $S$. It should be noticed that $M_S$ is not a manifold with (smooth) boundary. Indeed, denoting $C=\partial S\subset S'$, we can describe $M_S$ as the intersection of two regions $p_1^{-1}(S), p_2^{-1}(S)$ bounded respectively by the smooth hypersurfaces $ Q'_1=p_1^{-1}(C), Q'_2=p_{2}^{-1}(C)$. It will be convenient to denote $Q'_0=T^1{S'}\subset M_{S'}$, and $Q_0=T^1S=Q_0'\cap M_S$. Set $Q_1=\overline{C{\!\ltimes\!}S}\subset Q'_1\cap M_S$, $Q_2=\overline{S{\!\ltimes\!}C}\subset Q_2'\cap M_S$, the topological closures in $M_{S'}$. In other wrods, $Q_1\setminus (C{\!\ltimes\!}S)$ consists of the inner tangent vectors of $S$ along $C=\partial S$, and $Q_2\setminus (S{\!\ltimes\!}C)$ caontains exterior vectors. We shall denote $\partial M_S:=Q_0\cup Q_1\cup Q_2$. In fact, $Q_0\cup Q_1\cup Q_2$ is the boundary of $M_S$ as a topological manifold with boundary. \[qus\] By Remark \[trans\], it is easy to see that $Q_0'$ is transverse to both $Q_1'$ and $Q_2'$. It is even easier to check that $Q_1'$ and $Q_2'$ intersect transversely at points of $C{\!\ltimes\!}C$. However, at $Q_0'\cap Q_1'\cap Q_2'=T^1C$, the hypersurfaces $Q_1'$ and $Q_2'$ intersect tangently. Indeed, $Q_1'\cap Q_2'=(C{\!\ltimes\!}C)\cup T^1S|_C$, so they can not be transverse. Again by Remark \[trans\], the surfaces $(C{\!\ltimes\!}C)\cup T^1C(\equiv M_C)$ and $T^1S|_C$ are transverse inside $Q'_1$, and also in $Q'_2$. Let now $S\subset \mathbb H^3$ be a compact surface with boundary embedded in hyperbolic space. Then we can consider $S$ included in an embedded surface $S'$ without boundary. Consider $\Phi:S'{\!\ltimes\!}S'\rightarrow \mathcal L^+$ such that $\Phi(x,y)$ is the oriented geodesic going first through $x$ and then through $y$ (in the notation of Remark \[geometric\], $\Phi=\Psi|_{S'{\!\ltimes\!}S'}$). One can extend $\Phi$ to a smooth mapping $\Phi\colon M_{S'}\rightarrow\mathcal L^+$. This was shown by Pohl for submanifolds in euclidean space (cf.[@pohl]). Using the Klein model of hyperbolic space it is clear that the same holds for surfaces in $\mathbb H^3$. The following is the hyperbolic version of equation (6.5) in [@pohl] (with $n=3$, $m=2$). We include the proof for the sake of completeness. \[p3\] Let $S$ be a compact surface with boundary $C=\partial S$ embedded in $\mathbb H^3$. Then $$\int_{M_S}\Phi^*(d\ell)=\frac{-1}{2}\int_{\mathcal{L}^+}(\#(\ell\cap S)-\lambda^2(\ell,C))d\ell.$$ By the coarea formula $$\int_{M_S}\Phi^*(d\ell)=\int_{\mathcal L^+}\mu(\ell)d\ell$$ where $$\mu(\ell)=\sum_{z\in\Phi^{-1}(\ell)}\varepsilon(z)$$ and $\varepsilon(z)= 1$ (resp. $-1$) if $\Phi$ locally preserves (resp. reverses) orientations at $z\in M_S$. Since a generic line $\ell$ is transverse to $S$, we can consider $z=(x,y)\in S{\!\ltimes\!}S$. Then $\varepsilon(z)=\epsilon(x)\epsilon(y)$, being $\epsilon(w)$ the sign at $w$ of the algebraic intersection $\ell\cdot S$. Now, let $p$ (resp. $q$) be the number of points of $\ell\cap S$ with $\epsilon=1$ (resp. $\epsilon=-1$), so that $$\#(\ell\cap S)=p+q,\qquad \lambda(\ell,C)=\ell\cdot S=p-q.$$ Then $\Phi^{-1}(\ell)$ contains $(p(p-1)+q(q-1))/2$ elements with $\varepsilon=1$, and $pq$ elements with $\varepsilon=-1$. Therefore $2\mu(\ell)=p(p-1)+q(q-1)-2pq=\lambda^2(\ell,C)-\#(\ell\cap S)$. Compact surfaces with boundary ============================== From here on we assume $S\subset\Omega\subset\mathbb H^3$ is a compact simply connected surface with boundary, contained in a strictly convex set $\Omega$, with $C=\partial S\subset \partial \Omega$. In this case we say that $S$ has *convex boundary*. We consider $S\subset S'$ with $S'\subset \mathbb H^3$ a simply connected surface without boundary. In this section we get a Gauss-Bonnet formula for $S$. By a limit procedure, this formula will lead to Theorem \[main\]. Constructing the section {#construccio} ------------------------ Consider the pull-back by $\Phi$ of the $\mathbb S^1$-bundle $\pi\colon \mathcal{L}_{1,2}\rightarrow \mathcal L^+$; i.e. $\Phi^*(\mathcal L_{1,2})=\{(x,(\ell,\wp))\in M_{S'}\times \mathcal L_{1,2}\ |\ \Phi(x)=\ell\}$, and the following diagram (with the obvious mappings) commutes $$\label{diagrama}\begin{CD} \Phi^*(\mathcal L_{1,2}) @>\overline\Phi >> \mathcal L_{1,2}\\ @VV{\Phi^*(\pi)}V @VV{\pi}V\\ {M_{S'}} @>\Phi>> {\mathcal L^+} \end{CD}$$ Next we aim to construct a global section $s$ of $\Phi^*(\pi)$. Moreover, we try to adapt $s$ to ${S}$ by imposing some boundary conditions. After doing this, we shall apply Stokes theorem to $s^*\overline \Phi^* \varphi\wedge \Phi^*\alpha$ on $M_S$. Let $\Theta_0:Q_0\rightarrow \mathcal L_{2}$ be such that $\Theta_0(x)$ is tangent to ${S}$ at $p_1(x)$. For $a=1,2$, let $$\Theta_a\colon Q_a\setminus T^1C\longrightarrow \mathcal L_{2}$$ be such that $\Theta_a(x)$ contains $\Phi(x)$, and is tangent to $C$ at $p_a(x)$. This mapping is well defined since $\Phi(v)\cap S\subset\Phi(T^1_yC)\cap \Omega=\{y\}$ for all $(y,v)\in T^1C$. Clearly, $\Theta_0$ and $\Theta_a$ coincide on $ Q_0\cap ( Q_a\setminus T^1C)=T^1 S|_C\setminus T^1C$ for $a=1,2$. However, $\Theta_1$ and $\Theta_2$ do **not** coincide on $C{\!\ltimes\!}C= Q_1\cap Q_2\setminus T^1C$. We define $$\begin{aligned} \label{seccio} s\colon\partial M_{S}\setminus (C{\!\ltimes\!}C)&\longrightarrow& \Phi^*(\mathcal{L}_{1,2})\\ x&\longmapsto&(x,(\Phi(x),\Theta(x))).\notag\end{aligned}$$ where $\Theta(x)=\Theta_a(x)$ whenever $x\in Q_a$ for some $a\in\{0,1,2\}$. We are assuming $S$ and $S'$ are simply connected. This makes the topology of $\Phi^*(\pi)$ quite simple, as shown by the following proposition. \[P4\] $\Phi^*(\pi)$ is a trivial principal $\ \mathbb S^1$-bundle over $M_{S'}$. Moreover, there is a bundle isomorphism $\tau\colon\Phi^*(\mathcal L_{1,2})\longrightarrow M_{ S'}\times \mathbb S^1$, such that $\tau\circ s$ lifts over the covering $q\colon M_S\times \mathbb R\rightarrow M_S\times \mathbb S^1$; i.e., exists a continuous function $$g\colon\partial M_{S}\setminus (C{\!\ltimes\!}C)\rightarrow \mathbb R$$ such that $q(x,g(x))=\tau\circ s(x)$ for every $x\in \partial M_{S}\setminus(C{\!\ltimes\!}C)$. Consider an isotopy of embeddings $H\colon {S'}\times[0,1]\rightarrow \mathbb H^3$ such that $H_0=id$, and $H_1({S'})$ is contained in a plane $\wp\in \mathcal L_2$. We can assume moreover that $H_t(S)$ has convex boundary. For each $t\in[0,1]$ we have $\Phi_t:M_{S'}\rightarrow \mathcal L^+$, and the corresponding family of $\mathbb S^1$-bundles $\Phi_t^*(\pi)\colon \Phi_t^*(\mathcal L_{1,2})\rightarrow M_{S'}$, as well as sections $s_t$ defined on $\partial M_{S}\setminus (C{\!\ltimes\!}C)$ as above. By the homotopy covering theorem (cf. [@spivak], Thm.13.4), the maps $\Phi_t$ induce bundle isomorphisms $\sigma_t:\Phi_t^*(\mathcal L_{1,2})\rightarrow \Phi_1^*(\mathcal L_{1,2})$. Note that $x\mapsto(\Phi(x),\wp)$ is a global section of $\Phi_1^*(\pi)$. Then, a bundle isomorphism $\tau_1:\Phi_1^*(\mathcal L_{1,2})\rightarrow M_{S'}\times\mathbb S^1$ exists such that $\tau_1 \circ s_1\equiv 1\in\mathbb S^1$. In particular, $\phi_t^*(\pi)$ is trivial $\forall t$. As for the second part, take $\tau=\tau_1\circ\sigma_0$, and note that $\tau_1\circ \sigma_t\circ s_t:\partial M_{S}\setminus (C{\!\ltimes\!}C)\rightarrow M_{S'}\times \mathbb {S}^1$ is a homotopy from $\tau\circ s$ to $\tau_1\circ s_1$, and the latter is constant in the second component. \[dif\] On each of the hypersurfaces with boundary $Q_0$, $Q_1\setminus Q_2$, $Q_2\setminus Q_1$, the restriction of $g$ is smooth. Given $x\in Q_1\setminus Q_{2}$ (resp. $x\in Q_2\setminus Q_1$), let $\alpha(x)\in (0,\pi/2]$ be the angle between $\Phi(x)$ and $T_{p_1(x)}C$ (resp. $T_{p_2(x)}C$). Then $\sin(\alpha)\, dg\in T^*(Q_1\setminus Q_2)$ (resp. $T^*(Q_2\setminus Q_1))$ is bounded with respect to any continuous norm on $T^*Q_1$ (resp. $T^*Q_2$). From the relation $q(x,g(x))=\tau\circ s(x)$, to show that $g$ is smooth it is enough to check the smoothness of $s$. Indeed, $q$ and $\tau$ are local diffeomorphisms. Now $s$ is clearly differentiable on $Q_0$, also at the boundary, since $s$ can be naturally extended over $T^1S'$. To show $s$ is smooth on $Q_1\setminus Q_2$ it remains to check the smoothness of $\Theta_1:Q_1\setminus Q_2\rightarrow \mathcal L_2$. Using the Klein model of hyperbolic space we can write $$\Theta_1(x)=p_1(x)+(Z(x)\wedge V(x)),$$ where $Z,V:Q_1\setminus Q_2\rightarrow \mathbb{RP}^2$, and $\wedge:\mathbb{RP}^2{\!\ltimes\!}\mathbb{RP}^2\rightarrow \mathbb{RP}^2$ are smooth mappings given by $$Z(x)=\Phi(x)-p_1(x),\qquad V(x)=T_{p_1(x)}C,\qquad a,b\bot a\wedge b.$$ Thus, $\Theta_1$ and therefore $g$ is differentiable on $Q_1\setminus Q_2$. By symmetry, $g$ is differentiable on $Q_2\setminus Q_1$. In order to prove that $\sin\alpha dg$ is bounded, it is enough to show that $\sin\alpha d\Theta_1\in T^*(Q_1\setminus Q_2)\otimes T\mathcal L$ is bounded, with respect to any continuous norm on $T^*Q_1\otimes T\mathcal L$. If $z,v\in\mathbb S^2$ are local lifts of $Z,V\in \mathbb{RP}^2$, then $Z\wedge V=\pm(z\wedge v)/\|z\wedge v\|$, and $$d\Theta_1=dp_1\pm\left(\frac{dz\wedge v+z\wedge dv}{\|z\wedge v\|}-\left((dz\wedge v+z\wedge dv)\cdot\frac{z\wedge v}{\|z\wedge v\|}\right)\frac{z\wedge v}{\|z\wedge v\|}\right)$$ Now $dp_1,dz,dv$ are bounded since $p_1,Z,V$ are differentiable all over $Q_1$ which is compact. Finally, $\|z\wedge v\|\geq A|\sin\alpha|$ for some constant $A$, since the euclidean and the hyperbolic metrics are equivalent on compact sets of the Klein model. Next we define a function on $\partial M_{S}$ that coincides with $g$ outside a neighborhood of $C{\!\ltimes\!}C$. In order to define this neighborhood, let us consider ${\psi:\mathbb S^1\times[0,1)\rightarrow {S}}$, a smooth embedding with $\psi(\mathbb S^1\times \{0\})=C$. For every $\varepsilon\in[0,1)$ let $F_{1,\varepsilon}:\mathbb S^1\times [0,1]\times[0,1)\longrightarrow Q_1$ be given by $$\label{defF} F_{1,\varepsilon}(r,s,t)=\left\{\begin{array}{c} (\psi(r,0),\psi(r+s,\varepsilon t s(1-s))),\quad\mbox{if } s\in(0,1)\\ \left.\frac{d \psi(u,0)}{du}\right|_{u=0}+\varepsilon t(1-2s)\left.\frac{d \psi(r,v)}{dv}\right|_{v=0}\quad\mbox{if }s=0,1. \end{array}\right.$$ where we identify $\mathbb S^1\equiv \mathbb R/\mathbb Z$. This mapping is smooth in the following sense: taking local coordinates in $M_S$, the resulting local expression of $F_{1,\varepsilon}$ extends to a smooth mapping in a neighborhood in $\mathbb S^1\times\mathbb R^2$ of every point in $\mathbb S^1\times [0,1]\times [0,1)$. Symmetrically we consider $F_{2,\varepsilon}:\mathbb S^1\times [0,1]\times(-1,0]\rightarrow Q_2$ given by $$F_{2,\varepsilon}(r,s,t)=\left\{\begin{array}{c} (\psi(r,-\varepsilon t s(1-s)),\psi(r+s,0)),\quad\mbox{if } s\in(0,1)\\ \left.\frac{d \psi(u,0)}{du}\right|_{u=0}+\varepsilon t(1-2s)\left.\frac{d \psi(r,v)}{dv}\right|_{v=0}\quad\mbox{if }s=0,1. \end{array}\right.$$These two maps can be joined to give a homeomorphism $$F_\varepsilon:\mathbb S^1\times [0,1]\times(-1,1)\longrightarrow U_\varepsilon:=im F_{1,\varepsilon}\cup im F_{2,\varepsilon}(\subset \partial M_S).$$ \[deff\] For every $\varepsilon\geq 0$, let $f_\varepsilon:\partial M_{S}\rightarrow \mathbb R$ be defined by the following conditions 1. ${f_\varepsilon}(x)=g(x)$ for $x\in\partial M_{S}\setminus U_\varepsilon$ 2. ${f_\varepsilon}\circ F_\varepsilon(r,s,t)=\frac{1}{2}((1+\rho(t))g( F_\varepsilon(r,s,1))+(1-\rho(t))g(F_\varepsilon(r,s,-1)))$ being $\rho:\mathbb R\rightarrow [-1,1]$ a smooth function with $\rho(t)=-1$ for $t\leq -1$, and $\rho(t)=1$ for $t\geq 1$. Then $s_\varepsilon:\partial M_{S}\rightarrow \phi^*(\mathcal L_{1,2})$ is defined as $s_\varepsilon(x)=\tau^{-1}\circ q(x,f_\varepsilon(x))$. \[dif2\]The restriction of $f_\varepsilon$ is smooth on each of the hypersurfaces $Q_0,Q_1,Q_2$. Moreover $\varepsilon df_\varepsilon$ is uniformly bounded over $U_\varepsilon$; i.e. after fixing some continuous norm $\|\cdot\|$ on $T^*Q_1\cup T^*Q_2$, exists $A>0$ such that $$\|\varepsilon (df_\varepsilon)_x\|\leq A,\qquad \forall \varepsilon>0,\forall x\in U_\varepsilon.$$ The smoothness of $f_\varepsilon$ follows from Proposition \[dif\] and the smoothness of $F_{a,\epsilon}$. Let $z,v$ be as in the proof of Propostion \[dif\]. Consider the signed angle $\beta$ in the Klein model between $z$ and $v$. We give $\beta$ locally a sign according to some local orientation of $S$; i.e. $\sin\beta=N\cdot (z\wedge v)$ where $N$ is a unit normal vector. Then $\beta(r,s,\epsilon):=\beta\circ F_\varepsilon(r,s,1)=\beta\circ F_1(r,s, \varepsilon)$ is a smooth function on $\mathbb S^1\times [0,1]\times [0,1)$. Since $C$ is in the boundary of a strictly convex set, $\beta$ vanishes only at points of the form $(r_0,0,0)$ or $(r_0,1,0)$. Taylor expansion near $(r_0,0,0)$ yields $$\beta(r,s,\varepsilon)=a(r_0) \varepsilon +b(r_0) s +O((r-r_0)^2+s^2+\varepsilon^2)$$ for some functions $a,b>0$. After a similar analysis near $(r_0,1,0)$, it follows that $\beta(r,s,\varepsilon)>C\varepsilon$ for some constant $C>0$. Similarly, $\beta\circ F_\varepsilon(r,s,-1)>C'\varepsilon$ for some $C'>0$. Finally, Proposition \[dif\] gives the result, since $\beta/\alpha$ is bounded on compact sets of the Klein model. There exists a smooth function on $M_{S'}$ extending $f_\varepsilon$. By remark \[qus\], we can define $\xi\in T_z^*M_{S'}$ at every $z\in \partial M_{S'}$ so that $\xi$ coincides with $df_\varepsilon$ on each of the faces $Q_a$ concurring at $z$. Then Whitney’s extension theorem (cf. [@whitney.extension]) applies, providing an extension of $f_\varepsilon$ to a neighborhood of every point of $\partial M_S$. Using partitions of unity, the extension exists globally on $M_{S'}$. Abusing the notation, we denote the extension by $f_\varepsilon$. We also denote by $s_\varepsilon\colon M_{S'}\rightarrow \phi^*(\mathcal L_{1,2})$ the corresponding section of $\Phi^*(\pi)$. Stokes Theorem -------------- \[stokes\] If $S\subset\mathbb H^3$ is a compact simply connected surface with convex boundary, then $$\label{eqstokes} \int_{\mathcal{L}^+}(\#(\ell\cap S)-\lambda^2(\ell,C))d\ell=\int_{\partial M_S}\Phi^*\alpha\wedge s_\varepsilon^*\overline\varphi,$$ where $\overline \varphi=\overline\Phi^*\varphi$ is the global angular form of $\Phi^*\pi$, and $\partial M_S$ has the orientation induced by $M_S$. Since the diagram commutes we have $\Phi^*=s_{\varepsilon}^*\circ\overline\Phi^*\circ\pi^*$. Then Proposition \[p1\] yields $$\Phi^*(d\ell)=\frac{-1}{2}d(\Phi^*\alpha\wedge s_{\varepsilon}^*\overline\varphi).$$ Next we apply Stokes theorem for domains with piecewise smooth boundary (cf. for instance [@marsden]) to $M_S\subset M_{S'}$, to get $$\int_{M_S}\Phi^*(d\ell)=\frac{-1}{2}\int_{\partial M_S}\Phi^*\alpha\wedge s_{\varepsilon}^*\overline\varphi.$$ The proof is finished by Proposition \[p3\]. \[stokes2\]Let $S\subset\mathbb H^3$ be a compact simply connected surface with convex boundary. Then $$\int_S KdS=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathcal L}(\#(\ell\cap S)-\lambda^2(\ell,C))d\ell+\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{S{\!\ltimes\!}C }\Phi^*\alpha\wedge s^*\overline\varphi+\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{C{\!\ltimes\!}C}\theta\ \Phi^*\alpha$$ where $\theta\colon C{\!\ltimes\!}C\rightarrow \mathbb R$ is given by $$\label{jump} \theta(x,y)=\lim_{z\rightarrow y}g(x,z)-\lim_{z\rightarrow x}g(z,y)\qquad x,y\in C, z\in S\setminus C,$$ being $g$ as in Proposition \[P4\]. Starting from , we split $\partial M_S=Q_0\cup U_\varepsilon\cup(Q_1\cup Q_2)\setminus U_\varepsilon$, and we begin by integrating over $Q_0= T^1S$: given $(x,v)\in T^1S$ we have $\overline\Phi\circ s(x,v)=(\Phi(x,v),\wp)$ where $\wp$ is tangent to $S$ at $x$. Let $(x;e_1,e_2,e_3)$ be a positive orthonormal frame with $e_1=v$, $e_3\bot T_x\wp=T_xS$. Then by $$\int_{Q_0}\Phi^*\alpha\wedge s^*\overline\varphi=\int_{T^1S}\omega_{12}\wedge\omega_{13}\wedge\omega_{23}=2\pi\int_{S}KdS.$$ where we use the natural orientation on $T^1S$ which is opposite to the one induced by $M_S$. Next we integrate on $U_\varepsilon$, and we pull-back by $F_\varepsilon$ $$\int_{U_\varepsilon}\Phi^*\alpha\wedge s_\varepsilon^*\overline\varphi=\int_{\mathbb S^1}\int_0^1\int_{-1}^1 F_\varepsilon^*\Phi^*\alpha\wedge F_\varepsilon^*s_\varepsilon^*\overline\varphi\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial r},\frac{\partial}{\partial s},\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\right)dtdsdr.$$ The previous integrand is uniformly bounded in the following sense: $\exists A>0$ such that $$\label{acotat} |(F_\varepsilon^*\Phi^*\alpha\wedge F_\varepsilon^*s_\varepsilon^*\overline\varphi)\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial r},\frac{\partial}{\partial s},\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\right)|<A$$ everywhere on ${\mathbb S^1}\times[0,1]\times [-1,1]$ and $\forall \varepsilon>0$. Indeed, since $\Phi$ and $F_\varepsilon$ are smooth for $\varepsilon\geq 0$, and $F_\varepsilon(r,s,t)=F_1(r,s,\varepsilon t)$, the functions $$F_\varepsilon^*\Phi^*\alpha\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial r},\frac{\partial}{\partial s}\right),\quad \varepsilon^{-1} F_\varepsilon^*\Phi^*\alpha\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial r},\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\right),\quad \varepsilon^{-1} F_\varepsilon^*\Phi^*\alpha\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial s},\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\right)$$are uniformly bounded. Since $g$ is bounded, it follows directly from Definition \[deff\] that $F_\varepsilon^*s_\varepsilon^*\overline\varphi({\partial}/{\partial t})$ is uniformly bounded. From Proposition \[dif2\], $\varepsilon df_\varepsilon\circ dF_\varepsilon (\partial/\partial r),\varepsilon df_\varepsilon\circ dF_\varepsilon (\partial/\partial s)$ are uniformly bounded. Therefore, $$\varepsilon F_\varepsilon^*s_\varepsilon^*\overline\varphi\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\right),\quad \varepsilon F_\varepsilon^*s_\varepsilon^*\overline\varphi\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial s}\right)$$are uniformly bounded. Altogether shows , and we may apply Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem to the limit $\varepsilon\rightarrow 0$. Thus $$\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\int_{U_\varepsilon}\Phi^*\alpha\wedge s_\varepsilon^*\overline\varphi=\int_{\mathbb S^1}1\int_0^1\int_{-1}^1 F_0^*\Phi^*\alpha(\partial r,\partial s) \lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0} \overline \varphi(ds_\varepsilon\circ dF_\varepsilon(\partial t))dtdsdr$$ Now, $$\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0} \overline \varphi(ds_\varepsilon\circ dF_\varepsilon(\partial t))=\frac{1}{2}\rho'(t)\theta(\psi(r,0),\psi(r+s,0)).$$ Integrating with respect to $t$ yields $$\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\int_{U_\varepsilon}\Phi^*\alpha\wedge s_\varepsilon^*\overline\varphi=\int_{C\times C}(\Phi^*\alpha)\theta.$$ Finally, we just need to note that by symmetry, $$\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\int_{(Q_1\cup Q_2)\setminus U_\varepsilon}\Phi^*\alpha\wedge s_\varepsilon^*\overline\varphi=\int_{(S{\!\ltimes\!}C)\cup(C{\!\ltimes\!}S)}\Phi^*\alpha\wedge s^*\overline\varphi=2\int_{S{\!\ltimes\!}C}\Phi^*\alpha\wedge s^*\overline\varphi$$ Complete surfaces ================= In this section we prove Theorem \[main\]. From here on, $S\subset \mathbb H^3$ will denote a complete simply connected surface with a cone-like end $C\subset\partial_\infty \mathbb H^3$. In the following $\mathbb H^3$ will denote the Poincaré half-space model. Unless otherwise stated, all the metric notions (such as length or curvature) will be referred to the hyperbolic metric $\langle\, ,\,\rangle$. For $h>0$, let $S_h=\{x\in S|x_3\geq h\}$ which is a compact surface with convex boundary $C_h=\partial S_h=\{x\in S|x_3=h\}$. We will use the following standard notation: given two functions $f,g$ (or sequences), $f=O(g)$ means that $|f|<A |g|$ for some constant $A>0$. When $f_n,g_n$ are sequences of functions, $f_n=O(g_n)$ must be understood uniformly: $\exists A$ such that $|f_n|<A\,|g_n|,\ \forall n$. \[segonaff\]For $x=(x_1,x_2,x_3)\in S$, let ${I\!I}(x)$ be the second fundamental form of $S$ at $x$. If $\|{I\!I}(x)\|_\infty$ is the maximum of $|{I\!I}(x)(u,v)|$ over all unit vectors $u,v\in T_x^1S$, then $$\|{I\!I}(x)\|_\infty=O( {x_3}), \qquad \forall x\in S.$$ Fix $y\in S$, and let $e_1,e_2,e_3$ be an orthonormal frame on $y$ with $e_3=y_3\partial/\partial x_3$, and $e_2\in T_yS$. We can assume $e_i=y_3\partial/\partial x_i$, $i=1,2$ and consider the global orthonormal frame $e_i(x)=x_3\partial/\partial x_i$, for all $x\in\mathbb H^3$. The connection forms $\theta_{ij}=\langle \nabla e_i,e_j\rangle$ are then given by $$\theta_{i3}=\frac{dx_i}{x_3},\quad \theta_{ij}=0\qquad \mbox{for } i,j\neq 3$$ Let $v_1,v_2,v_3$ be a frame locally defined on $S$ (around $y$) so that $v_2(y)=e_2$, and $v_1(x),v_2(x)\in T_xS$. Then $v_i(x)=a_{ij}(x)e_j(x)$ for an orthogonal matrix $(a_{ij}(x))\in \mathrm O(3)$. In particular $v_1(y)=\cos\alpha e_1+\sin\alpha e_3, v_3(y)=-\sin\alpha e_1+\cos\alpha e_3$ for some $\alpha\in[0,2\pi)$. Then $\omega_{i3}(y)=\langle dv_i,v_3\rangle_y$ are given by $$\omega_{13}(y)=-\sin\alpha da_{11}+\cos\alpha da_{13}+\frac{dx_1}{y_3},$$ $$\omega_{23}(y)=-\sin\alpha da_{21}+\cos\alpha da_{23}+{\cos\alpha}\frac{dx_2}{y_3}.$$ Therefore $\omega_{i3}(v_j)=O( y_3)$ for $i,j=1,2$, since $\cos\alpha=\langle e_3,v_3\rangle=O( y_3)$. The latter can be seen using a second order approximation of $S$ at points of $C\subset\partial_\infty\mathbb H^3$, and bearing in mind that $C$ is a curvature line of $\overline S=S\cup C$. \[p7\]If $K$ denotes the extrinsic curvature of $S$, and $dS$ is the area element, then $$\int_SKdS$$ is absolutely convergent. In particular $$\lim_{h\rightarrow 0}\int_{S_h}KdS=\int_S KdS.$$ From Lemma \[segonaff\], we have $K(x)=O( (x_3)^2)$. Then, note that $dS=dS^e/(x_3)^2$ where $dS^e$ is the euclidean area element of $S$. \[p8\]If $\lambda(\ell,C_h)$ is the linking number of a geodesic $\ell$ with the curve $C_h$ then $$\label{mono} \lim_{h\rightarrow 0}\int_{\mathcal{L}^+}(\#(\ell\cap S_h)-\lambda^2(\ell,C_h))d\ell=\int_{\mathcal{L}^+}(\#(\ell\cap S)-\lambda^2(\ell,C))d\ell$$ where $\lambda(\ell,C)$ is the limit of $\lambda(\ell,C_h)$ when $h\rightarrow 0$. Let $\ell\in\mathcal L^+$ be transverse to $S$, which happens for almost every $\ell$. Then $\ell\cap S$ is discrete, and $\#(\ell\cap S_h)-\lambda^2(\ell, C_h)$ is a monotone function in $h$. Hence, follows by monotone convergence. We will see *a posteriori*, that the limit in is finite. This will follow from and the finiteness of the other terms. \[p9\]For every $h>0$ consider the section $s_h$ defined over $\partial M_{S_h}\setminus C_h{\!\ltimes\!}C_h$ in . Then $$\label{odios} \lim_{h\rightarrow 0}\int_{S_h{\!\ltimes\!}C_h}\Phi^*\alpha\wedge s_h^*\overline\varphi=0$$ Let $(y;e_1,e_2,e_3)$ be a local frame associated to $(x,y)\in S_h{\!\ltimes\!}C_h$ with $e_1\in T_y\Phi(x,y), e_3\bot \Theta_2(x,y)$. Recall $x,y\in \Theta_2(x,y)$, and $C_h,\Theta_2(x,y)$ are tangent at $y$. Then we can write $$\Phi^*\alpha\wedge s_h^*\overline\varphi=\pm\omega_{12}\wedge\omega_{13}\wedge\omega_{23}.$$ Let $v$ be an euclidean unit tangent vector to $C_h$ at $y$, and $u_1,u_2\in T_xS$ orthonormal (with respect to the euclidean metric) with $u_1$ tangent to the plane $\Theta_2(x,y)$. It is not difficult to see $\omega_{13}(u_1)=\omega_{13}(v)=\omega_{23}(u_1)=0$. Then $$\begin{aligned} \Phi^*\alpha\wedge s_h^*\overline\varphi\left(u_1,u_2,v\right)=\pm \omega_{12}\left(u_1\right)\omega_{13}\left(u_2\right)\omega_{23}\left(s\right)=\Phi^*\alpha\left( u_1,u_2\right)s_h^*\overline\varphi\left(v\right).\end{aligned}$$ By , the latter converges to 0 when $h\rightarrow 0$ and $(x,y)$ converge to a point in $S{\!\ltimes\!}C$. Moreover, Lemmas \[general1\] and \[general2\] of the next section give $A>0$ such that $$\label{control} |\Phi^*\alpha\wedge s_h^*\overline\varphi|\leq A \frac{|dx\wedge dy|}{\|y-x\|^2+x_3-y_3},\qquad \forall h>0$$ where $dx$ (resp. $dy$) denotes the euclidean area (resp. length) element of $S$ (resp. $C_h$) at $x$ (resp. $y$). Now we consider a sequence of diffeomorphisms $\psi_h:S\rightarrow S_h$ with the euclidean norm of $d\psi_h$ uniformly bounded. Set $\Psi_h=\psi_h\times\psi_h|_C:S\times C\rightarrow S_h\times C_h$. Then $$\label{ineqpsi}\left|\Psi_h^*(\phi^*\alpha\wedge s_h^*\overline\varphi)\right|\leq A\left|\Psi_h^*\left(\frac{dx\wedge dy}{\|y-x\|^2+x_3-h}\right)\right|\leq A'\left|\frac{dx\wedge dy}{\|y-x\|^2+x_3}\right|$$ for some uniform constants $A,A'>0$. The right hand side of has finite integral over $S{\!\ltimes\!}C$. Thus, we can apply Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem, and the result follows. \[p10\]Let $\theta_h$ be the function defined on $C_h{\!\ltimes\!}C_h$ by , and denote $\theta=\lim_{h\rightarrow 0}\theta_h$. Then $$\label{ultim}\lim_{h\rightarrow 0}\int_{C_h{\!\ltimes\!}C_h}\theta_h\Phi^*\alpha =2\int_{C{\!\ltimes\!}C}\theta\sin\theta\frac{dx dy}{\|y-x\|^2}$$ where $dx, dy$ are the length elements of $C$ at $x,y$ respectively, with respect to the euclidean metric $\|\cdot \|$ on $\partial_\infty\mathbb H^3\equiv\mathbb R^2$. Moreover, the right hand side of is finite. By Lemma \[general\] of the next section, $$|\Phi^*\alpha|\leq A \frac{|dx\wedge dy|}{\|y-x\|}$$ for some $A>0$. On the other hand, it is not hard to see $$\label{tau} \theta=O\left( \frac{\tau \|y-x\|}{h}\right)=O({\|y-x\|})$$ where $\tau$ is the maximal (hyperbolic) torsion of $C_h$. Hence, Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem applies. A computation in the model shows $$\label{comp} x_3y_3\sinh r=\|y_\infty-x_\infty\|R$$where $x_\infty=(x_1,x_2,0)\in\partial_\infty\mathbb H^3$, and $y_\infty=(y_1,y_2,0)\in\partial_\infty\mathbb H^3$, and $R$ is the euclidean radius of the half-circle representing the geodesic $\Phi(x,y)$. Equations , and yield $$\lim_{h\rightarrow 0}\Phi^*\alpha(\frac{\partial}{\partial x},\frac{\partial}{\partial y})=\lim_{h\rightarrow 0}\frac{\sin\beta_x\sin\beta_y\sin\theta\cosh r}{h^2\sinh^2 r}=\lim_{h\rightarrow 0} \frac{\sin\theta}{\|y_\infty-x_\infty\|R}=\frac{2\sin\theta}{\|y-x\|^2}.$$ Finally, the finiteness of the right hand side of follows at once from . For every $h$, we apply Theorem \[stokes2\] to $S_h$. Then make $h\rightarrow 0$, and use Propositions \[p7\], \[p8\], \[p9\] and \[p10\]. Asymptotic estimations ====================== Here we prove some estimations that have been used before. \[tecnic\]Let $x,y\in \mathbb H^3$ be two points in the half-space model, at hyperbolic distance $r$ from each other. Then $$\label{util1} i)\qquad x_3 y_3\sinh r\geq\frac{1}{2} \|y-x\|^2,$$ $$\label{util} ii)\qquad \max\{x_3,y_3\}\sinh r\geq \|y-x\|.$$ We prove $i)$ in case the geodesic through $x,y$ is a circle of radius $R<\infty$ (the case $R=\infty$ is straightforward). We will use . Given $\|y_\infty-x_\infty\|$, and $R$ it is clear that $\|y_\infty-x_\infty\|/\|y-x\|$ is maximum when $x$ or $y$ are in $\partial_\infty \mathbb H^3$. In this case, classical plane geometry yields $\|y_\infty-x_\infty\|/\|y-x\|=\|y-x\|/(2R)$. To show $ii)$ we use that the length $h$ of an arc of horocycle from $x$ to $y$ is $2\sinh(r/2)$. Moreover, this is bigger than the hyperbolic length $s$ of the euclidean segment joining $x,y$. Thus $$\sinh r=2\sinh (r/2)\cosh(r/2)\geq 2\sinh(r/2)=h\geq s\geq \frac{\|y-x\|}{\max\{x_3,y_3\}}.$$ \[general\] Given a surface $S\subset\mathbb H^3$ with cone-like ends, there exists some constant $A>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned} |(\Phi^*\alpha)(u, v)|\leq \frac{A}{\|y-x\|} && \forall z=(x,y)\in S{\!\ltimes\!}S, \\ && \forall u=(u,0)\in T_x^1S\oplus 0\subset T_z (S\times S),\\&& \forall v=(0,v)\in 0\oplus T_y^1S\subset T_z(S\times S)\end{aligned}$$ where $T^1S$ denotes the euclidean unit tangent bundle of $S$ in the model. Assume two sequences $(x(n),u(n)), (y(n),v(n))\in TS$ with $\|u(n)\|=\|v(n)\|=1$ such that $|(\Phi^*\alpha(u(n),v(n)))|{\|y(n)-x(n)\|}$ is unbounded. We look for a contradiction. For notation simplicity we will omit the index $n$ of these two sequences. In case the distance $r$ between $x,y$ is bounded below, by and we get $$|(\Phi^*\alpha)(u, v)|=O\left(\frac{\sin\theta}{x_3 y_3\sinh r}\right)\leq O\left(2\frac{\sin\theta}{\|y-x\|^2}\right).$$ We show next that $\sin\theta=O(\|y-x\|)$. Firstly, we define a sequence of isometries $f'=f'_n$ of $\mathbb H^3$ given by $f'(z)=\rho^{-1}z$ where $\rho:=\|y-x\|$. Then $\|f'(x)-f'(y)\|=1$ which, together with $\inf r>0$, implies $y_3/\rho,x_3/\rho\in\mathbb R$ are bounded above. Then, taking isometries $f=f'\circ \tau$ with suitable horizontal translations $\tau$, will make $f(y)$ and $f(x)$ converge (after taking subsequences if necessary) in $\overline{\mathbb H^3} =\mathbb H^3\cup \partial_\infty \mathbb H^3$. If $P$ is the vertical plane that contains $\lim f(x),\lim f(y)$ one can see that $P\cap K$ is approached by $f(S)\cap K$ for every compact neigborhood $K$ of $\lim x$ or $\lim y$. This convergence is in the $\mathcal C^11$ topology, and has order $\rho$. In particular, $\exists(x',u')$,$(y',v')\in T^1P$ at distance of order $\rho$ from $(f(x),f_*u)$, $(f(y),f_*v)\in T^1f(S)$ respectively. Now consider $\theta$ as a function defined on $\overline{\mathbb H^3}{\!\ltimes\!}\overline{\mathbb H^3}\times \mathbb S^2\times \mathbb S^2$. It is easy to see that $\theta$ is smooth, and therefore it is Lipschitz over the set $\{(x,y)\in \overline{\mathbb H^3}\times\overline{\mathbb H^3}|\|y-x\|=1\}\times S^2\times S^2$. Then $$\theta(x,y,u,v)=\theta(f(x),f(y),f_*(u),f_*(v))=O(\rho)$$ since $\theta(x',y',u',v')=0$, as $\theta$ vansihes on points and vectors of a common plane. We have thus seen $\theta=O(\|y-x\|).$ In case $\inf r = 0$, we take a subsequence with $r\rightarrow 0$. Then, by and (\[util\]), $$|(\Phi^*\alpha)(u, v)|=O\left(\frac{\sin\beta_x\sin\beta_y\sin\theta}{\sinh r\|y-x\|}\max\{\frac{x_3}{y_3},\frac{y_3}{x_3}\}\right)$$ and the last factor is bounded since $r$ is bounded. We shall see $\sin\beta_x\sin\beta_y\sin\theta=O( \sinh r)$. To this end, we rescale by $x_3^{-1}$ and we compose with horizontal translations so that $x,y$ converge to some point $q\in\mathbb H^3$. Then $\sinh r=O(\|y-x\|)$. On the other side, if $v'$ is the parallel transport of $v\in T_y\mathbb H^3$ to $T_x\mathbb H^3$ along the geodesic, then $$\begin{gathered} \sin\beta_x\sin\beta_y\sin\theta=\frac{1}{\|y-x\|\|v'\|}\det(u,v',y-x)\\=\frac{1}{\|y-x\|\|v'\|}(\det(u,v'-(v'\cdot n) n,y-x) +(v'\cdot n) \det(u,n,y-x)\\=O\left(\frac{(y-x)\cdot n}{\|y-x\|}\right) +O\left (v'\cdot n\right),\end{gathered}$$ where $n$ is the euclidean unit normal to $S$ at $x$, and $\cdot$ denotes the euclidean scalar product. The first term has the order of $\|y-x\|$, since the euclidean normal curvatures of the rescaled surface $S$ are uniformly bounded. As for the last term note that $\|v'-v\|=O(\|y-x\|)$, and thus $v'\cdot n= (v'- v)\cdot n+v\cdot n=O(\|y-x\|)$. \[general1\]Given a surface $S\subset\mathbb H^3$ with cone-like ends, there exists some constant $A>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned} |(\Phi^*\alpha)(u,v)|\leq \frac{A}{\|y-x\|}&& \forall z=(x,y)\in S{\!\ltimes\!}S,\\ &&\forall u=(u,0),v=(v,0)\in T_x^1S\oplus T^1_y S\subset T_z(S\times S).\end{aligned}$$ If $\beta$ denotes the angle at $x$ of the geodesic $\Phi(x,y)$ with $T_xS$, then by and inequality (\[util\]) $$|(\Phi^*\alpha)(u,v)|\leq\frac{\sin\beta}{t^2\sinh^2r} \leq\frac{\sin\beta}{\|y-x\|^2}=O\left( {\|y-x\|}^{-1}\right).$$ The last equality follows from $\sin\beta=O(\|y-x\|)$ which can be proven with arguments similar to those of the previous lemma. \[general2\]Given a surface $S\subset\mathbb H^3$ with cone-like ends, there exists some constant $A>0$ such that $\forall h\in (0,1/2)$ and $\forall x\in S_h, \forall y\in C_h$ $$|s_h^*\overline\varphi(v)|\leq \frac{A}{\|y-x\|+\cos\varphi},$$where $v\in T^1_yC_h$ and $\cos\beta=(y_3-x_3)/\|y-x\|$; i.e. $\beta=\angle(y-x,\partial/\partial x_3))$ . Let us consider the curve $C=S\cap (y+(\partial/\partial x_3)^\bot)$; so that $v\in T_yC$. A couple of geometric arguments give $$|s_h^*\overline\varphi(v)|=\left|\frac{K \sin\zeta}{y_3\sin\gamma}\right|$$ where $\zeta$ is the angle between $\wp_1$, the hyperbolic osculating geodesic plane of $C$, and $\wp_2$, the geodesic plane tangent to $C$ that contains $x$. As for $\gamma$, it denotes the angle between the (hyperbolic) geodesic segment $xy$ and $C$. Finally $K$ is the geodesic curvature of $C$ in $\mathbb H^3$. This is uniformly bounded so we can forget about. Next we show $y_3^{-1}\sin\zeta$ is uniformly bounded. Consider $\zeta_1$ the angle of the osculating plane $\wp_1$ with the vertical direction at $y$, and $\zeta_2$ the angle of the plane $\wp_2$ with the vertical direction at $y$. Then $\sin\zeta\leq \sin\zeta_1+\sin\zeta_2$. A simple computation shows $\zeta_1=O(y_3)$. Also $\zeta_2=O(y_3)$, since the plane $\wp_2$ has a uniformly bounded radius. Indeed, a small sphere centered at $\partial_\infty\mathbb H^3$ intersects $S$ in a curve with only one critical point of the function $x_3$. Altogether yields $\sin\zeta=O( y_3)$. Therefore we have $|s_h^*\overline\varphi(v)|=O( 1/\sin\gamma)$, and we must control the latter. After some elementary euclidean computations one finds $$\sin\gamma\geq \sin\gamma'=\frac{d+2y_3\cos\beta}{\sqrt{4y_3^2+d^2+4y_3d\cos\beta}}$$ where $\gamma'$ is the angle between the geodesic segment and the horizontal plane, and $d=\|y-x\|$. Now $$\frac{1}{\sin^2\gamma}\leq\frac{d^2+4y_3^2\cos^2\beta+4y_3d\cos\beta}{d^2+4y_3^2+4y_3d\cos\beta}=1+\frac{4y_3^2\cos^2\beta}{(d+2y_3\cos\beta)^2} \leq1+\frac{4y_3^2}{(d+2y_3\cos\beta)^2}$$$$\leq 1+\frac{1}{(d+\cos\beta)^2}<\frac{(d+\cos\beta)^2+1}{(d+\cos\beta)^2}\leq\frac{A^2}{(d+\cos\beta)^2}$$ for some $A$, where we have used $y_3<1/2$, and the compacity of $S$. R.Abraham, J.Marsden, T.Ratiu, . Springer, 1988. T.Banchoff, W.Pohl, J.Differential Geom. [**6**]{} (1971), 175–192. F.Dillen, W.Kühnel, Tohoku Math.J., [**57**]{} (2005), 171–200. N.Dutertre, (2008), 33–51. J.Franklin, SIAM J.of App. Math., [**33**]{}, n.2 (1977), 267–278. R.Langevin, J.O’Hara, Journal of the Inst. of Math. Jussieu, [**4**]{} (2) (2005), 219–280. W.Pohl, Amer.J. Math., [**90**]{}, n.4 (1968), 1321–1345. L.A.Santaló, L.A.Santaló, , [Ann. New York Acad. Sci.]{}, [440]{}, [128–131]{}, [New York Acad. Sci.]{}, [1985]{}, R.Schneider, G.Solanes, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 358 (2006), no. 3, 1105–1115. M.Spivak, E.Teufel, Results in Math., [**22**]{} (1992), 622–630. R.Langevin, J.O’Hara, (2005), 219–280. R.Langevin, G.Solanes, (2003), no. 1, 47–50. H.Whitney, n.2 (1944), 220–246. H.Whitney, (1934), 63–89.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We investigate the applicability of a random-matrix model to the description of non-collective excitations in heavy-ion reactions around the Coulomb barrier. To this end, we study fusion in the reaction $^{16}$O + $^{208}$Pb, taking account of the known non-collective excitations in the $^{208}$Pb nucleus. We show that the random-matrix model for the corresponding couplings reproduces reasonably well the exact calculations, obtained using empirical deformation parameters. This implies that the model may provide a powerful method for systems in which the non-collective couplings are not so well known.' author: - 'S. Yusa' - 'K. Hagino' - 'N. Rowley' title: ' Non-collective excitations in low-energy heavy-ion reactions: applicability of the random-matrix model ' --- Introduction ============ Heavy-ion reactions around the Coulomb barrier often show a behavior that cannot be accounted for by a simple potential model [@dasgupta; @BT98; @HT12]. They have thus provided a good opportunity to investigate the role of internal degrees of freedom in the reaction process. One of the well known examples is a large enhancement of sub-barrier fusion cross sections due to the couplings between the relative motion of the projectile and target nuclei and their internal degrees of freedom, such as surface vibrations for spherical nuclei, or rotational motion for nuclei possessing a static, intrinsic deformation. It is well recognized that these couplings lead to a distribution of potential barriers [@DLW83], and a method was proposed by Rowley, Satchler and Stelson to extract the barrier distributions directly from experimental fusion cross sections [@RSS91]. The barrier distributions extracted in this way are found to be sensitive to details of the couplings, often showing a characteristic structured behavior [@dasgupta; @L95; @LRL93]. Similar heavy-ion barrier distributions can also be defined for large-angle quasi-elastic scattering [@timmers; @HR04]. In order to analyze experimental data for these low-energy heavy-ion reactions, the coupled-channels method has been employed as a standard approach [@ccfull; @HT12]. This method describes the reaction in terms of the internal excitations of the colliding nuclei, representing the total wave function of the system as a superposition of wave functions for the relevant reaction channels. Conventionally, a few low-lying collective excitations, that are strongly coupled to the ground state, are taken into account in these calculations. Such analyses have successfully accounted for the strong enhancement of sub-barrier fusion cross sections, and have successfully reproduced the structure of the fusion and quasi-elastic barrier distributions for many systems [@dasgupta; @HT12]. Recently, quasi-elastic barrier distributions have been measured for the $^{20}$Ne +$^{90,92}$Zr systems [@piasecki]. The corresponding coupled-channels calculations show that the main structure of these barrier distributions is determined by the rotational excitations of the strongly deformed nucleus $^{20}$Ne. The calculated barrier distributions are in fact almost identical for the two systems, even when the collective excitations of the Zr isotopes are taken into account. It was, therefore, surprising when the two experimental barrier distributions were found to be different in an important respect. That is, the barrier distribution for $^{20}$Ne + $^{92}$Zr exhibits a much more smeared behavior than that for the $^{20}$Ne + $^{92}$Zr system. The origin of this difference has been conjectured in Ref. [@piasecki] to be the multitude of non-collective excitations of the Zr isotopes, that are generally ignored in a coupled-channels analysis. In fact, the two extra neutrons in the $^{92}$Zr nucleus lead to a significantly larger number of non-collective excited states compared with $^{90}$Zr, since this latter possesses an $N=50$ closed shell (the difference is reflected by the number of known states up to an excitation energy of 5 MeV; one finds 35 for $^{90}$Zr and 87 for $^{92}$Zr [@bnl]). There are many ways to describe non-collective excitations in heavy-ion reactions [@YHR10; @YHR12; @DHD08; @B10; @B102; @KPW76; @AKW78; @BSW78; @akw1; @akw2; @akw3; @akw4]. In the 1970’s, Weidenmüller [*et al.*]{} introduced a random-matrix model for such excitations in order to study deep inelastic collisions [@KPW76; @AKW78; @BSW78; @akw1; @akw2; @akw3; @akw4]. In Ref. [@YHR10], we have used a similar model in a schematic one-dimensional barrier-penetration problem, in order to study the role of these non-collective excitations in low-energy reactions. On the other hand, in Ref. [@YHR12], we have explicitly taken into account in the coupled-channels formalism all of the 70 known non-collective states in $^{208}$Pb below 7.382 MeV [@WCHM75; @LBF73] without resorting to the random-matrix model, and have analysed in this way the experimental data for the $^{16}$O+$^{208}$Pb reaction. Although some discrepancies between the experimental and theoretical barrier distributions remain after the inclusion of non-collective excitations, we have shown in Ref. [@YHR12] that these excitations play a more important role as the incident energy increases. We have also compared there the role of non-collective excitations in the fusion and quasi-elastic barrier distributions, and have shown that they affect both distributions in a similar fashion. Given that exact calculations with a realistic spectrum for non-collective states is possible here, it is intriguing to also apply the random-matrix model to this system in order to test its applicability. This theoretical test is the main aim of this paper, and we achieve it by comparing our new results with those obtained in Ref. [@YHR12]. Note that, in contrast to $^{208}$Pb, the properties of the non-collective states in $^{90,92}$Zr are not known sufficiently well. As we will show in this paper, the random-matrix model provides a good method for a description of non-collective excitations in such a situation. The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we explain the coupled-channels formalism with non-collective excitations based on the random-matrix model. In Sec. III, we discuss the strength distribution and fusion cross sections obtained with this model. We then compare these with calculations using the more exact couplings and discuss the applicability of the random-matrix model. The paper is summarised in Sec. IV. Coupled-channels method with non-collective excitations ======================================================= In order to describe internal excitations during the reaction process, we assume the following Hamiltonian, $$\begin{aligned} H = -\frac{\hbar^2}{2\mu}\nabla^2 + V_{\rm rel}(r) + H_0(\{\xi\}) + V_{\rm coup}({\mbox{\boldmath $r$}},\{\xi\}), \end{aligned}$$ where ${\mbox{\boldmath $r$}}$ is the separation of the projectile and target nuclei, and $\mu$ is the reduced mass. In this equation, $H_0(\{\xi\})$ is the intrinsic Hamiltonian with $\{\xi\}$ representing a set of internal degrees of freedom. The optical potential for the relative motion is $V_{\rm rel}(r)$, and it includes an imaginary part to simulate the fusion process (that is, strong absorption into compound-nucleus degrees of freedom inside the Coulomb barrier). The coupling Hamiltonian between the relative motion and the intrinsic degrees of freedom is denoted by $V_{\rm coup}({\mbox{\boldmath $r$}},\{\xi\})$. The coupled-channels equations for this Hamiltonian are obtained by expanding the total wave function in terms of the eigenfunctions of $H_0(\{\xi\})$. The equations read, $$\begin{aligned} \left[-\frac{\hbar^2}{2\mu}\frac{d^2}{dr^2} + \frac{J(J+1)\hbar^2}{2\mu r^2} + V_{\rm rel}(r) + \epsilon_n - E\right]u_n^{J}(r) \nonumber&&\\ + \sum_m V_{nm}(r)u_m^{J}(r) = 0,\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon_n$ is the excitation energy for the $n$-th channel. In deriving these equations, we have employed the iso-centrifugal approximation [@HT12; @LR84; @NRL86; @NBT86; @ELP87; @T87; @GAN94]. In this approximation, the orbital angular momentum in the centrifugal potential is replaced by the total angular momentum $J$, thereby considerably reducing the dimension of the coupled-channels equations. In solving these equations, we impose the following asymptotic boundary conditions, $$\begin{aligned} u_n^{J}(r) \rightarrow H_{J}^{(-)}(k_n r)\delta_{n,0} - \sqrt{\frac{k_0}{k_n}}S_n^{J}H_{J}^{(+)}(k_n r), \end{aligned}$$ for $r \rightarrow \infty$, together with the regular boundary condition at the origin. Here, $k_n = \sqrt{2\mu(E - \epsilon_n)/\hbar^2}$ is the wave number for the $n$-th channel, where $n=0$ corresponds to the entrance channel. $S_n^{J}$ is the nuclear $S$-matrix, and $H_{J}^{(-)}(kr)$ and $H_{J}^{(+)}(kr)$ are the incoming and the outgoing Coulomb wave functions, respectively. The fusion cross sections are then obtained as $$\begin{aligned} \sigma_{\rm fus}(E) = \frac{\pi}{k_0^2}\sum_J(2J+1) \left(1 - \sum_n\left|S_{n}^{J}\right|^2\right).\end{aligned}$$ In the random-matrix model [@KPW76; @AKW78; @BSW78; @akw1; @akw2; @akw3; @akw4], one assumes an ensemble of coupling matrix elements whose first moment satisfies $$\begin{aligned} \overline{V_{nn^\prime}^{II^\prime}(r)} = 0,\end{aligned}$$ while the second moment satisfies $$\begin{aligned} &\ \ \ \ \ \overline{V_{nn^\prime}^{II^\prime}(r)V_{n^{\prime\prime}n^{\prime\prime\prime}}^{I^{\prime\prime}I^{\prime\prime\prime}}(r^\prime)} \nonumber \\ &= \left\{\delta_{nn^{\prime\prime}}\delta_{n^{\prime}n^{\prime\prime\prime}} \delta_{II^{\prime\prime}}\delta_{I^{\prime}I^{\prime\prime\prime}} + \delta_{nn^{\prime\prime\prime}}\delta_{n^{\prime}{n^{\prime\prime}}} \delta_{II^{\prime\prime\prime}}\delta_{I^{\prime}{I^{\prime\prime}}} \right\} \nonumber \\ &\ \ \ \ \times \sqrt{(2I+1)(2I^\prime+1)}\, \nonumber \sum_{\lambda} \left( \begin{array}{ccc} I & \lambda & I^{\prime} \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array} \right)^{2} \nonumber\\ &\ \ \ \ \times \alpha_{\lambda}(n,n^\prime;I,I^\prime;r, r^\prime). \label{second_moment}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $I$ is the spin of the intrinsic state labeled by $n$, and $\alpha_{\lambda}$ is the coupling form factor. In this paper, for simplicitly, we assume that the non-collective excitations couple only to the ground state, as in the linear coupling approximation employed in our previous work [@YHR12]. For the form factor $\alpha_{\lambda}$, we assume the following dependence $$\begin{aligned} \alpha_{\lambda}(n,0;I,0;r, r^\prime) = \frac{w_\lambda}{\sqrt{\rho(\epsilon_n)}} e^{-\frac{\epsilon_n^2}{2\Delta^2}} e^{-\frac{(r-r^{\prime})^2}{2\sigma^2}} h(r)h(r^{\prime}), \label{form_factor}\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho(\epsilon_n)$ is the level density at an excitation energy $\epsilon_n$, and ($w_{\lambda}, \Delta, \sigma$) are adjustable parameters. The appearance of the level density in the denominator reflects the complexity of the non-collective excited states, as discussed in Ref. [@akw1]. For the function $h(r)$, we adopt the derivative of the Woods-Saxon potential, that is, $$\begin{aligned} h(r) = \frac{e^{(r-R)/a}} {\left[1 + e^{(r-R)/a}\right]^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that this choice of the form factor corresponds to the coupling Hamiltonian in the linear coupling approximation derived from the Woods-Saxon potential. Applicability of random-matrix model ==================================== Strength distribution --------------------- ![The continuous level density for $^{208}$Pb obtained as a first derivative of the fitting function $f(\epsilon)$ shown in Fig. \[fig7.5\].[]{data-label="fig7.6"}](fig1.eps){width="78mm"} ![The continuous level density for $^{208}$Pb obtained as a first derivative of the fitting function $f(\epsilon)$ shown in Fig. \[fig7.5\].[]{data-label="fig7.6"}](fig2.eps){width="78mm"} Let us now apply the random-matrix model to the $^{16}$O+$^{208}$Pb reaction and discuss its applicability. We first discuss the strength distribution for the non-collective excitations in $^{208}$Pb obtained with the random-matrix model. To this end, we define the strength distribution as $$\begin{aligned} b_I &= \sqrt{ \sum_{\lambda} \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 0 & \lambda & I \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array} \right)^2 \sqrt{\frac{2I+1}{\rho(\epsilon)}} e^{-\frac{\epsilon^2}{2\Delta^2}} } \nonumber \\ &= \sqrt{ \sqrt{\frac{2I+1}{\rho(\epsilon)}} e^{-\frac{\epsilon^2}{2\Delta^2}} }. \label{strength_dist}\end{aligned}$$ This quantity essentially corresponds to the square root of Eq. (\[second\_moment\]), except for an overall scale factor (here we have assumed $w_{\lambda} = w$ for all $\lambda$ and omitted $w_{\lambda}$ in the definition for the strength function). The level density in Eq. (\[strength\_dist\]) is treated in the following way. It is originally defined by $$\begin{aligned} \rho(\epsilon) = \sum_n \delta(\epsilon - \epsilon_n)\end{aligned}$$ for a discrete spectrum. For practical purposes, we define the function $$\begin{aligned} N(\epsilon) = \int^\epsilon_0 \rho(\epsilon^\prime)d\epsilon^\prime =\sum_n\theta(\epsilon-\epsilon_n), \label{num_levels}\end{aligned}$$ that gives the number of levels up to the excitation energy $\epsilon$. We fit this function with a polynomial in $\epsilon$, and then define a continuous level density by differentiating this polynomial. Figure \[fig7.5\] shows the experimental $N(\epsilon)$ for $^{208}$Pb [@WCHM75] in the interval between 4 MeV and 7.5 MeV (solid line) and its fit with a polynomial $\displaystyle f(\epsilon) = \sum_{n=0}^6 a_n\epsilon^n$ (dashed line). The values of $a_n$ are $a_0=-7479, a_1=6969$ (MeV$^{-1}$), $a_2=-2612$ (MeV$^{-2}$), $a_3=497.5$ (MeV$^{-3}$), $a_4=-49.59$ (MeV$^{-4}$), $a_5=2.347$ (MeV$^{-5}$), and $a_6=-0.03632$ (MeV$^{-6}$). The continuous level density, $\rho(\epsilon)=df(\epsilon)/d\epsilon$, is shown in Fig. \[fig7.6\]. ![(Color online) The strength distributions for $^{208}$Pb as a function of excitation energy $\epsilon$. The dashed line shows the distribution of the experimental deformation parameters, while the solid line is obtained based on the random-matrix model using Eq. (\[strength\_dist\]). Both distributions are smeared with a Gaussian function with a width of 0.15 MeV. An overall scaling factor is introduced to the dashed line as the dimension is different between the two curves (see text).[]{data-label="comp_str_dist"}](fig3.eps){width="80mm"} The strength distribution $b_{I}$ calculated with this level density is shown in Fig. \[comp\_str\_dist\] by the solid line as a function of excitation energy $\epsilon$. The parameter $\Delta$ in Eq. (\[strength\_dist\]) is chosen to be 7 MeV, as in Refs. [@akw3; @akw4]. For comparison, the figure also shows the distribution of the experimental deformation parameters $\beta_{I}$ [@WCHM75], smeared with a gaussian function with a width of 0.15 MeV (dashed line). We have also performed the same smearing for the strength distribution $b_I$. Also, since the dimensions of $\beta_{I}$ and $b_{I}$ are not the same, the deformation parameters $\beta_I$ are scaled by a factor 10 so that the heights of the first peaks at about 4.3 MeV match one another. Although there exists a small deviation for the peaks between 5 MeV and 7 MeV, the overall structure of the strength distribution is well reproduced by this model. Fusion cross sections --------------------- ![(Color online) (a) and (b) Fusion cross sections $\sigma_{\rm fus}$ and (c) fusion barrier distributions $D_{\rm fus}(E)=d^2{E\sigma_{\rm fus}(E)}{dE^2}$ for the $^{16}$O + $^{208}$Pb system obtained from three different calculations. Dashed lines show results obtained with the experimental, non-collective deformation parameters, whereas the solid lines are obtained from the random-matrix model. Dotted lines result from calculations that include only the $^{208}$Pb collective excitations. []{data-label="fusion"}](fig4.eps){width="85mm"} The strength distribution discussed in the previous subsection determines the coupling strength to each excited state. Let us then examine how the random-matrix model can be compared with the exact results in terms of the fusion cross sections for the $^{16}$O + $^{208}$Pb system. For this purpose, we use the same Woods-Saxon potential for the nuclear potential as in Ref. [@YHR12]; it has a surface diffuseness $a=0.671$ fm, a radius $R = 8.39$ fm and a depth $V_0$ = 550 MeV. For the couplings to the collective excitations, we take into account the vibrational $3^-$ state at 2.615 MeV, the $5^-$ state at 3.198 MeV, and the $2^+$ state at 4.085 MeV in $^{208}$Pb. The octupole mode is included up to the two-phonon states, while the other, weaker, vibrational modes are taken into account only up to their one-phonon states. The deformation parameters for these vibrational modes are estimated from the measured electromagnetic transition probabilities. They are $\beta_3 $ = 0.122, $\beta_5 $ = 0.058, and $\beta_2 $ = 0.058 together with a radius parameter of $r_0$=1.2 fm. Although we took into account the octupole phonon state of $^{16}$O in our preivous study [@YHR12], for simplicity we do not include it in the present calculations, since its effect can be well described by an adiabatic renormalization of the potential depth [@HT12; @THAB94]. For the parameter $\sigma$ in Eq. (\[form\_factor\]), we follow Refs. [@akw3; @akw4] and use $\sigma = 4$ fm. On the other hand, the parameter $w_{\lambda}=w$ is chosen to be $w = 38000$ MeV$^{3/2}$ so that the height of the main peak in the fusion barrier distribution is reproduced by the random-matrix model. Figures \[fusion\] (a) and \[fusion\] (b) show the $^{16}$O+$^{208}$Pb fusion excitation function on linear and logarithmic scales respectively. The dashed lines show the results obtained with the [*measured*]{} deformation parameters for the non-collective excitations, while the solid lines show the results obtained using the random-matrix approximation. For comparison, the dotted lines show results that account only for the collective excitations. Although a small overall shift can be seen, it is clear that the random-matrix model reproduces the exact results reasonably well. In order to highlight the energy dependence, Fig. \[fusion\] (c) shows the fusion barrier distribution $D_{\rm fus}(E)=d^2(E\sigma_{\rm fus})/dE^2$ [@dasgupta; @HT12; @RSS91; @L95]. Although the main peak is slightly shifted in energy, this confirms that the random-matrix model reproduces well the exact results. That is, with respect to the dotted line, the change in the energy dependence of fusion cross sections due to the non-collective excitations is similar in the two calculations. In particular, both barrier distributions are smeared out in a similar way at energies around 80 MeV, and both calculations yield a similar second peak around 87.5 MeV. (We note that if the strength $w_0$ was somewhat larger, the second peak could appear at even higher energies, possibly reflecting the broad bump seen at around 97 MeV in the experimental data.) As we have argued in Ref. [@YHR10], the higher-energy peaks in the barrier distribution are affected more by non-collective excitations than are the lower-energy peaks. Unfortunately this is not easy to see in Fig. \[fusion\] because the peaks obtained with purely collective couplings are not resolved. This difference can, however, be easily understood using perturbation theory. That is, the eigenchannels corresponding to the higher-energy peaks in the barrier distribution couple more strongly to the non-collective states via their ground state component simply because the energy differences are smaller. Higher peaks are thus redistributed more, effectively removing much of their strength from that region of energy. From these calculations, it is evident that the effects of non-collective excitations are not sensitive to details of the non-collective couplings, and that the random-matrix model is applicable to the description of non-collective excitations, so long as the relevant parameters are chosen appropriately. Summary ======= We have investigated the applicability of the random-matrix model for the description of non-collective excitations in low-energy heavy-ion reactions. To this end, we have calculated the fusion excitation function for the $^{16}$O +$^{208}$Pb system, where the role of the non-collective excitations has already been investigated in our previous study using empirical deformation parameters. We have first shown that the coupling strength distribution obtained with the random-matrix model agrees well with the experimental distribution. The fusion cross section and barrier distribution for the $^{16}$O + $^{208}$Pb system obtained with empirical non-collective couplings are also well reproduced by the random-matrix model with appropriately chosen parameters. These results provide a validation of the random-matrix model for the description of non-collective couplings. For the $^{208}$Pb nucleus, detailed properties of non-collective states are known over a large energy range. However, this is not always the case for other systems. That is, for many nuclei, even though the energies and spin-parity may be relatively well known for many non-collective states, the coupling strengths are poorly determined. In such a situation, the present study suggests that the random matrix model provides a powerful tool to treat these coupling strengths. A good example is the quasi-elastic barrier distribution for the $^{20}$Ne + $^{90,92}$Zr systems, where it has been suggested that non-collective excitations may play an important role. Analyses for these systems within the random-matrix model are under way. We shall report the results in a separate publication [@YHR13]. This work was supported by the Global COE Program “Weaving Science Web beyond Particle-Matter Hierarchy” at Tohoku University, and by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research under the program number (C) 22540262. [99]{} M. Dasgupta, D.J. Hinde, N. Rowley, and A.M. Stefanini, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [**48**]{}, 401(1998). A. B. Balantekin and N. Takigawa, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**70**]{}, 77(1998). K. Hagino and N. Takigawa, Prog. Theor. Phys., 128, 1061 (2012). C.H. Dasso, S. Landowne, and A. Winther, Nucl. Phys. [**A405**]{}, 381 (1983); [**A407**]{}, 221 (1983). N. Rowley, G.R. Satchler and P.H. Stelson, Phys. Lett. [**B254**]{} 25, (1991). J.R. Leigh [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C[**52**]{}, 3151 (1995). J. R. Leigh, N. Rowley, R. C. Lemmon, D. J. Hinde, J. O. Newton, J. X. Wei, J. C. Mein, C. R. Morton, S. Kuyucak, and A. T. Kruppa, Phys. Rev. C[**47**]{}, R437(1993). H. Timmers, J.R. Leigh, M. Dasgupta, D.J. Hinde, R.C. Lemmon, J.C. Mein, C.R. Morton, J.O. Newton, and N. Rowley, Nucl. Phys. [**A584**]{}, 190 (1995). K. Hagino and N. Rowley, Phys. Rev.C [**69**]{}, 054610(2004). K. Hagino, N. Rowley, A. T. Kruppa, Compt. Phys. Comm. [**123**]{}, 143 (1999). E. Piasecki, Ł. Świderski, W. Gawlikowicz, J. Jastrzebski, N. Keeley, M. Kisieliński, S. Kliczewski, A. Kordyasz, M. Kowalczyk, S. Khlebnikov, E. Koshchiy, E. Kozulin, T. Krogulski, T. Loktev, M. Mutterer, K. Piasecki, A. Piórkowska, K. Rusek, A. Staudt, M. Sillanpää, S. Smirnov, I. Strojek, G. Tiourin, W. H. Trzaska, A. Trzcińska, K. Hagino, and N. Rowley, Phys. Rev. C[**80**]{}, 054613 (2009). Brookhaven National Laboratory, Evaluated Nuclear Structure Data File, <http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/ensdf/>, and references therein. S. Yusa, K. Hagino, and N. Rowley, Phys. Rev. C[**82**]{}, 024606(2010). S. Yusa, K. Hagino, and N. Rowley, Phys. Rev. C[**85**]{}, 054601(2012). A. Diaz-Torres, D. J. Hinde, M. Dasgupta, G. J. Milburn, and J. A. Tostevin, Phys. Rev. C [**78**]{}, 064604 (2008). A. Diaz-Torres, Phys. Rev. C [**81**]{}, 041603(R) (2010). A. Diaz-Torres, Phys. Rev. C [**82**]{}, 054617 (2010). C. M. Ko, H. J. Pirner, and H. A. Weidenmüller, [Phys. Lett. [**62B**]{}, 248 (1976)]{}. D. Agassi, H. A. Weidenmüller, and C. M. Ko, [Phys. Lett. [**73B**]{}, 284 (1978)]{}. B. R. Barrett, S. Shlomo, and H. A. Weidenmüller, [Phys. Rev. C [**17**]{}, 544 (1978)]{}. D. Agassi, C.M. Ko, and H.A. Weidenmüller, Ann. Phys [**107**]{}, 140(1977). C.M. Ko, D. Agassi, and H.A. Weidenmüller, Ann. Phys [**117**]{}, 237(1979). D. Agassi, C.M. Ko, and H.A. Weidenmüller, Ann. Phys [**117**]{}, 407 (1979). D. Agassi, C.M. Ko, and H.A. Weidenmüller, Phys. Rev. C [**18**]{}, 223(1978). W. T. Wagner, G. M. Crawley, G. R. Hammerstein, and H. McManus, Phys. Rev. C[**12**]{}, 757(1975). M. B. Lewis, F. E. Bertrand, and C. B. Fulmer, Phys. Rev. C[**7**]{}, 1966(1973). R. Lindsay and N. Rowley, J. Phys. [**G10**]{}, 805 (1984). M.A. Nagarajan, N. Rowley, and R. Lindsay, J. Phys. [**G12**]{}, 529 (1986). M.A. Nagarajan, A.B. Balantekin, and N. Takigawa, Phys. Rev. C[**34**]{}, 894 (1986). H. Esbensen, S. Landowne, and C. Price, Phys. Rev. C[**36**]{}, 1216 (1987); C[**36**]{}, 2359 (1987). O. Tanimura, Phys. Rev. C[**35**]{}, 1600 (1987); Z. Phys. [**A327**]{}, 413 (1987). J. Gomez-Camacho, M.V. Andres, and M.A. Nagarajan, Nucl. Phys. [**A580**]{}, 156 (1994). N. Takigawa, K. Hagino, M. Abe, and A.B. Balantekin, Phys. Rev. C[**49**]{}, 2630 (1994). S. Yusa, K. Hagino, and N. Rowley, to be published.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'The ’t Hooft six quark flavor mixing interaction ($N_f=3$) is bosonized by the path integral method. The considered complete Lagrangian is constructed on the basis of the combined ’t Hooft and $U(3) \times U(3)$ extended chiral four fermion Nambu – Jona-Lasinio interactions. The method of the steepest descents is used to derive the effective mesonic Lagrangian. Additionally to the known lowest order stationary phase (SP) result of Reinhardt and Alkofer we obtain the contribution from the small quantum fluctuations of bosonic configurations around their stationary phase trajectories. It affects the vacuum state of hadrons at low energies: whereas without the inclusion of quantum fluctuations the vacuum is uniquely defined for a fixed set of the model parameters, fluctuations give rise to multivalued solutions of the gap equations, marked at instances by drastic changes in the quark condensates. We derive the new gap equations and analyse them in comparison with known results. We classify the solutions according to the number of extrema they may accomodate. We find up to four solutions in the $0<m_u, m_s<3$ GeV region.' address: 'Centro de Física Teórica, Departamento de Física da Universidade de Coimbra, 3004-516 Coimbra, Portugal' author: - 'Alexander A. Osipov[^1] and Brigitte Hiller' title: 'Path Integral Bosonization of the ’t Hooft Determinant: Fluctuations and Multiple Vacua' --- Introduction ============ The global $U_L(3)\times U_R(3)$ chiral symmetry of the QCD Lagrangian (for massless quarks) is broken by the $U_A(1)$ Adler-Bell-Jackiw anomaly of the $SU(3)$ singlet axial current $\bar{q}\gamma_\mu\gamma_5q$. Through the study of instantons [@Hooft:1976; @Diakonov:1995], it has been realized that this anomaly has physical effects with the result that the theory contains neither a conserved $U(1)$ quantum number, nor an extra Goldstone boson. Instead the effective $2N_f$ quark interactions arise, which are known as ’t Hooft interactions. In the case of two flavors they are four-fermion interactions, and the resulting low-energy theory resembles the old Nambu – Jona-Lasinio model [@Nambu:1961]. In the case of three flavors they are six-fermion interactions which are responsible for the correct description of $\eta$ and $\eta'$ physics, and additionally lead to the OZI-violating effects [@Bernard:1988; @Kunihiro:1988], $$\label{Ldet} {\cal L}_{\mbox{det}}=\kappa (\mbox{det}\bar{q}P_Rq +\mbox{det}\bar{q}P_Lq)$$ where the matrices $P_{R,L}=(1\pm\gamma_5)/2$ are projectors and determinant is over flavor indices. The physical degrees of freedom of QCD at low-energies are mesons. The bosonization of the effective quark interaction (\[Ldet\]) by the path integral approach has been considered in [@Reinhardt:1988], where the lowest order stationary phase approximation (SPA) has been used to estimate the leading contribution from the ’t Hooft determinant. In this approximation the functional integral is dominated by the stationary trajectories $r_{\mbox{st}}(x)$, determined by the extremum condition $\delta S(r)=0$ of the action $S(r)$. The lowest order SPA corresponds to the case in which the integrals associated with $\delta^2 S(r)$, for the path $r_{\mbox{st}}(x)$ are neglected and only $S(r_{\mbox{st}})$ contributes to the generating functional. The next natural step in this scenario is to complete the semiclassical result of Reinhardt and Alkofer by including the contribution from the integrals associated with the second functional derivative $\delta^2 S(r_{\mbox{st}})$, and this is the subject of our paper. An alternative method of bosonizing the ’t Hooft determinant has been reviewed in [@Diakonov:1998]. The special path integral representation for the quark determinant has been obtained by considering $N_c$ as an algebraically large parameter. One should not forget that the ’t Hooft’s determinant interactions are induced by instantons and only can be written in the simple determinantal form (\[Ldet\]) in the limit of large number of colours – otherwise the many-fermion interactions have a more complicated structure. For our calculations it means, in particular, that the terms of the bosonized Lagrangian induced by the ’t Hooft’s determinant interaction (\[Ldet\]) should be of order $1$, corresponding to the standard rules of $N_c$ counting. In this respect it is worthwhile to note that we have found that the meson vertices, induced by the ’t Hooft’s determinant interactions in the lowest order SPA and the term from the integral associated with the second functional derivative $\delta^2 S(r_{\mbox{st}})$ have the same $N_c$-order and should be considered on the same footing. Path Integral Bosonization ========================== To be definite, let us consider the theory of the quark fields in four dimensional Minkowski space, with dynamics defined by the Lagrangian density $$\label{totlag} {\cal L}={\cal L}_{\mbox{NJL}}+{\cal L}_{\mbox{det}}.$$ The first term here is the extended version of the Nambu – Jona-Lasinio (NJL) Lagrangian ${\cal L}_{\mbox{NJL}}={\cal L}_0+{\cal L}_{\mbox{int}}$, consisting of the free field part $${\cal L}_0=\bar{q}(i\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu -\hat{m})q,$$ and the $U(3)_L\times U(3)_R$ chiral symmetric four-quark interaction $${\cal L}_{\mbox{int}}=\frac{G}{2}[(\bar{q}\lambda_aq)^2+ (\bar{q}i\gamma_5\lambda_aq)^2].$$ We assume that quark fields have color and flavor indices running through the set $i=1,2,3$; $\lambda_a$ are the standard $U(3)$ Gell-Mann matrices with $a=0,1,\ldots ,8$. The current quark mass, $\hat{m}$, is a nondegenerate diagonal matrix with elements $\mbox{diag}(\hat{m}_u, \hat{m}_d, \hat{m}_s)$, it explicitly breaks the global chiral $U(3)_L\times U(3)_R$ symmetry of the ${\cal L}_{\mbox{NJL}}$ Lagrangian. The second term in (\[totlag\]) is given by (\[Ldet\]). Letting $$\label{param} s_a=-\bar{q}\lambda_aq, \quad p_a=\bar{q}i\gamma_5\lambda_aq, \quad s=s_a\lambda_a, \quad p=p_a\lambda_a$$ yields $$\label{mdet} {\cal L}_{\mbox{det}}=-\frac{\kappa}{64}\left[ \mbox{det}(s+ip)+\mbox{det}(s-ip)\right]$$ with determinants written in terms of the mesonic type quark bilinears. This identity is a first step to the bosonization of the theory with Lagrangian (\[totlag\]). The dynamics of the system is described by the vacuum transition amplitude in the form of the path integral $$\label{genf1} Z=\int {\cal D}q{\cal D}\bar{q}\exp\left(i\int d^4x{\cal L}\right).$$ By means of a simple trick, suggested by Reinhardt and Alkofer, it is easy to write down this amplitude as $$\label{genf2} Z=\int {\cal D}q{\cal D}\bar{q}{\cal D}\sigma_a {\cal D}\phi_a{\cal D}r_1^a{\cal D}r_2^a \exp\left(i\int d^4x{\cal L}'\right)$$ with $$\begin{aligned} \label{lagr1} {\cal L}'&=&\bar{q}(i\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu -\hat{m}-\sigma +i\gamma_5\phi )q -\frac{1}{2G}\left[(\sigma_a)^2+(\phi_a)^2\right] +r_1^a(\sigma_a+G\bar{q}\lambda_aq) \nonumber \\ &+&r_2^a(\phi_a-G\bar{q}i\gamma_5\lambda_aq) -\frac{\kappa}{(4G)^3}\left[ \mbox{det}(\sigma+i\phi ) +\mbox{det}(\sigma-i\phi )\right].\end{aligned}$$ Eq.(\[genf2\]) defines the same expression as Eq.(\[genf1\]). To see this one has to integrate first over auxiliary fields $r_1^a,\ r_2^a$. It leads to $\delta$-functionals which can be integrated out by taking integrals over $\sigma_a$, and $\phi_a$, and which bring us back to the expression (\[genf1\]). From the other side, it is easy to rewrite Eq.(\[genf2\]) in a form appropriate to finish the bosonization, i.e., to calculate the integrals over quark fields and integrate out from $Z$ the unphysical part of the auxiliary $r_1^a,\ r_2^a$ scalar fields. Indeed, introducing new variables $\sigma\rightarrow\sigma +Gr_1,\ \phi\rightarrow\phi +Gr_2$, and after that $r_1\rightarrow 2r_1-\sigma /G ,\ r_2\rightarrow 2r_2-\phi/G$ we have $$\label{genf3} Z=\int {\cal D}\sigma_a{\cal D}\phi_a {\cal D}q{\cal D}\bar{q} \exp\left(i\int d^4x{\cal L}_q(\bar{q},q,\sigma ,\phi )\right) \int {\cal D}r_{1a}{\cal D}r_{2a} \exp\left(i\int d^4x{\cal L}_r(\sigma ,\phi ,r_1,r_2)\right)$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \label{lagr2} {\cal L}_q&=&\bar{q}(i\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu -\hat{m}-\sigma +i\gamma_5\phi )q, \\ \label{lagr3} {\cal L}_r&=&2G\left[(r_{1a})^2+(r_{2a})^2\right] -2(r_{1a}\sigma_a+r_{2a}\phi_a) -\frac{\kappa}{8}\left[ \mbox{det}(r_{1}+ir_{2}) +\mbox{det}(r_{1}-ir_{2})\right].\end{aligned}$$ The Fermi fields enter the action bilinearly, we can always integrate over them, because in this case we deal with the standard Gaussian type integral. At this stage one should also shift the scalar fields $\sigma_a\rightarrow\sigma_a+\Delta_a$ by demanding that the vacuum expectation values of the shifted fields vanish $<0|\sigma_a|0>=0$. In other words, all tadpole graphs in the end should sum to zero, giving us gap equations to fix parameters $\Delta_a$. Here $\Delta_a = m_a - \hat{m}_a$, with $m_a$ denoting the constituent quark masses [^2]. To evaluate path integrals over $r_{1,2}$ one has to use the method of stationary phase, or, after the formal analytic continuation in the time coordinate $x_4=ix_0$, the method of steepest descents. Let us consider this task in some detail. The Euclidean (imaginary time) version of the path integral under consideration is $$\label{intJ} J(\sigma ,\phi )=\int^{+\infty}_{-\infty}{\cal D}r_{1a} {\cal D}r_{2a} \exp\left(\int d^4x{\cal L}_r(\sigma ,\phi ,r_1,r_2)\right).$$ This integral is hopelessly divergent even if $\kappa=0$. One should say at this point that we are not really interested in (\[intJ\]) but only in its analytic continuation. Let us suppose we analytically change ${\cal L}_r(\sigma ,\phi ,r_1,r_2)$ in some way such that we go from this situation back to the one of interest. To keep the integral convergent, we must distort the contour of integration into the complex plane following the standard procedure of the method of the steepest descents. This method gives the first term in an asymptotic expansion of $J(\sigma ,\phi )$, valid for $\hbar\rightarrow 0$. We lead the contour along the straight line which is parallel to the imaginary axis and crosses the real axis at the saddle point $r^a_{\mbox{st}}$. It is in the sense of this continuation that the integral $J(\sigma ,\phi )$ of (\[intJ\]) is to be interpreted as $$\label{ancJ} J(\sigma ,\phi )= \int^{+i\infty+r_{\mbox{st}}}_{-i\infty +r_{\mbox{st}}} {\cal D}r_{1a}{\cal D}r_{2a} \exp\left(\int d^4x{\cal L}_r(\sigma ,\phi ,r_1,r_2)\right).$$ Near the saddle point $r^a_{\mbox{st}}$, $$\label{lagr4} {\cal L}_r\approx {\cal L}_r(r_{\mbox{st}}) +\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\alpha ,\beta }\tilde{r}_\alpha {\cal L}''_{\alpha\beta}(r_{\mbox{st}})\tilde{r}_\beta$$ where the saddle point, $r^a_{\mbox{st}}$, is a solution of the equations ${\cal L}'_r(r_1,r_2)=0$ determining a flat spot of the surface ${\cal L}_r(r_1,r_2)$. $$\label{saddle} \left\{ \begin{array}{rcl} 2Gr^a_1-(\sigma +\Delta )_a -\frac{3\kappa}{8}A_{abc}(r_1^br_1^c-r_2^br_2^c)&=&0 \\ 2Gr^a_2-\phi_a+\frac{3\kappa}{4}A_{abc}r_1^br_2^c&=&0. \end{array} \right.$$ This system is well-known from [@Reinhardt:1988]. The totally symmetric constants, $A_{abc}$, come from the definition of the flavor determinant: $\det r=A_{abc}r^ar^br^c$, and equal to $$\label{A} A_{abc}=\frac{1}{3!}\epsilon_{ijk}\epsilon_{mnl}(\lambda_a)_{im} (\lambda_b)_{jn}(\lambda_c)_{kl}.$$ They are closely related with the $U(3)$ constants $d_{abc}$. We use in (\[lagr4\]) symbols $\tilde{r}^a$ for the differences $(r^a-r^a_{\mbox{st}})$. To deal with the multitude of integrals in (\[ancJ\]) we define a column vector $\tilde{r}$ with eighteen components $\tilde{r}_\alpha =(\tilde{r}^a_1, \tilde{r}^a_2)$ and with the matrix ${\cal L}''_{\alpha\beta}(r_{\mbox{st}})$ being equal to $$\label{Qab} {\cal L}''_{\alpha\beta}(r_{\mbox{st}})=4GQ_{\alpha\beta}, \quad Q_{\alpha\beta}=\left( \begin{array}{cc} \delta_{ab}-\frac{3\kappa}{8G}A_{abc}r_{1\mbox{st}}^{c} &\frac{3\kappa}{8G}A_{abc}r_{2\mbox{st}}^{c}\\ \frac{3\kappa}{8G}A_{abc}r_{2\mbox{st}}^{c} &\delta_{ab}+\frac{3\kappa}{8G}A_{abc}r_{1\mbox{st}}^{c} \end{array} \right).$$ Eq.(\[ancJ\]) can now be concisely written as $$\label{ancJ2} J(\sigma ,\phi )=\exp\left(\int d^4x {\cal L}_r(r_{\mbox{st}}) \right) \int^{+i\infty}_{-i\infty} {\cal D}\tilde{r}_{\alpha} \exp\left(2G\int d^4x\tilde{r}^{\mbox{t}}Q(r_{\mbox{st}}) \tilde{r} \right)\left[1+{\cal O}(\hbar )\right].$$ Our next task is to evaluate the integrals over $\tilde{r}_{\alpha}$. Before we do this, though, some comments should be made about what we have done so far: \(1) The first exponential factor in Eq.(\[ancJ2\]) is not new. It has been obtained by Reinhardt and Alkofer in [@Reinhardt:1988]. A bit of manipulation with expressions (\[lagr3\]) and (\[saddle\]) leads us to the result $$\label{Lrst} {\cal L}_r(r_{\mbox{st}})=\frac{2}{3}\left\{ G[(r_{1\mbox{st}}^a)^2+(r_{2\mbox{st}}^a)^2] -2[(\sigma +\Delta)_ar^a_{1\mbox{st}} +\phi_ar^a_{2\mbox{st}}]\right\}.$$ One can try to solve Eqs.(\[saddle\]) looking for solutions $r^a_{1\mbox{st}}$ and $r^a_{2\mbox{st}}$ in the form of increasing powers in $\sigma_a , \phi_a$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{rst} r^a_{1\mbox{st}}&=&h_a+h_{ab}^{(1)}\sigma_b +h_{abc}^{(1)}\sigma_b\sigma_c +h_{abc}^{(2)}\phi_b\phi_c+\ldots \\ r^a_{2\mbox{st}}&=&h_{ab}^{(2)}\phi_b +h_{abc}^{(3)}\phi_b\sigma_c +\ldots \end{aligned}$$ Putting these expansions in Eqs.(\[saddle\]) one can obtain the series of selfconsistent equations to determine the constants $h_a$, $h^{(1)}_{ab}$, and $h^{(2)}_{ab}$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{ha} &&2Gh_a-\Delta_a-\frac{3\kappa}{8}A_{abc}h_bh_c=0, \\ &&2G\left(\delta_{ac}-\frac{3\kappa}{8G}A_{acb}h_b \right)h^{(1)}_{ce}=\delta_{ae}, \\ &&2G\left(\delta_{ac}+\frac{3\kappa}{8G}A_{acb}h_b \right)h^{(2)}_{ce}=\delta_{ae}. \end{aligned}$$ The other constants can be obtained from these ones, for instance, we have $$h^{(1)}_{abc}=\frac{3\kappa}{8}h^{(1)}_{a\bar a}h^{(1)}_{b\bar b} h^{(1)}_{c\bar c}A_{\bar a\bar b\bar c}, \quad h^{(2)}_{abc}=-\frac{3\kappa}{8}h^{(1)}_{a\bar a}h^{(2)}_{b\bar b} h^{(2)}_{c\bar c}A_{\bar a\bar b\bar c}, \quad h^{(3)}_{abc}=-\frac{3\kappa}{4}h^{(2)}_{a\bar a}h^{(2)}_{b\bar b} h^{(1)}_{c\bar c}A_{\bar a\bar b\bar c}.$$ As a result the effective Lagrangian (\[Lrst\]) can be expanded in powers of meson fields. Such an expansion (up to the terms which are cubic in $\sigma_a, \phi_a$) looks like $$\label{lam} {\cal L}_r(r_{\mbox{st}})=-2h_a\sigma_a -h_{ab}^{(1)}\sigma_a\sigma_b -h_{ab}^{(2)}\phi_a\phi_b +{\cal O}(\mbox{field}^3).$$ \(2) Our result (\[ancJ2\]) has been based on the assumption that all eigenvalues of matrix $Q$ are positive. It is true, for instance, if $\kappa =0$. It may happen, however, that some eigenvalues of $Q$ are negative for some range of parameters $G$ and $\kappa$. In these cases there are no conceptual difficulties, for from the very beginning we deal with well defined Gaussian integrals and the integration over the corresponding $\tilde{r}_\alpha$ simply does not require analytic continuation. We now turn to the evaluation of the path integral in Eq.(\[ancJ2\]). In order to define the measure ${\cal D}\tilde{r}_\alpha$ more accurately let us expand $\tilde{r}_\alpha$ in a Fourier series $$\tilde{r}_\alpha (x)=\sum^\infty_{n=1}c_{n,\alpha}\varphi_n(x),$$ assuming that suitable boundary conditions are imposed. The set of the real functions $\{\varphi_n(x)\}$ form an orthonormal and complete sequence $$\label{compl} \int d^4x\varphi_n(x)\varphi_m(x)=\delta_{nm},\quad \sum_{n=1}^\infty\varphi_n(x)\varphi_n(y)=\delta (x-y).$$ Therefore $$\label{ancJ3} \int{\cal D}\tilde{r}_{\alpha} \exp\left(2G\int d^4x\tilde{r}^{\mbox{t}}Q(r_{\mbox{st}}) \tilde{r}\right)=\int dc_{n,\alpha} \exp\left\{2G\sum c_{n,\alpha}\lambda^{\alpha\beta}_{nm}c_{m,\beta} \right\}=\frac{C}{\sqrt{\det (2G\lambda^{\alpha\beta}_{nm})}}.$$ The normalization constant $C$ is not important for the following. The matrix $\lambda^{\alpha\beta}_{nm}$ is equal to $$\lambda^{\alpha\beta}_{nm}=\int d^4x\varphi_n(x)Q_{\alpha\beta}(x) \varphi_m(x).$$ From (\[Qab\]) and (\[compl\]) it follows that $$\label{Qab2} 2G\lambda^{\alpha\beta}_{nm} =\left( \begin{array}{cc} h^{(1)-1}_{ac}&0\\ 0&h^{(2)-1}_{ac} \end{array} \right)_{\alpha\sigma} \left(\delta_{\sigma\beta}\delta_{nm} +\int d^4x\varphi_n(x)F_{\sigma\beta}(x)\varphi_m(x) \right)$$ with $$F_{\sigma\beta}=\frac{3\kappa}{4}A_{eba}\left( \begin{array}{cc} -h^{(1)}_{ce}(r^a_{1\mbox{st}}-h_a)& h^{(1)}_{ce}r^a_{2\mbox{st}}\\ h^{(2)}_{ce}r^a_{2\mbox{st}}& h^{(2)}_{ce}(r^a_{1\mbox{st}}-h_a) \end{array} \right)_{\sigma\beta}.$$ Only the matrix $F_{\sigma\beta}$ depends here on fields $\sigma , \phi$. By absorbing in $C$ the irrelevant field independent part of $2G\lambda^{\alpha\beta}_{nm}$, and expanding the logarithm in the representation $\det (1+F)=\exp\mbox{tr}\ln (1+F)$, one can obtain finally for the integral in (\[ancJ2\]) $$\label{Sr} J(\sigma ,\phi )=C'e^{S_r}, \quad S_r=\int d^4x\left\{ {\cal L}_r(r_{\mbox{st}})+ \frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{(-1)^n}{n}\mbox{tr}\left[ F^n_{\alpha\beta}(r_{\mbox{st}})\right]\sum_{m=1}^\infty \varphi_m(x)\varphi_m(x)\right\}.$$ The sum over $m$ in this expression, however, is not well defined and needs to be regularized. One can regularize it by introducing a Gaussian cutoff $M$ damping the contributions from the large momenta $k^2$ $$\sum_{m=1}^\infty\varphi_m(x)\varphi_m(x)=\delta (0) \sim \int^{\infty}_{-\infty}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4} \exp\left(-\frac{k^2}{M^2}\right) =\frac{M^4}{16\pi^2}$$ This procedure does not decrease the predictability of the model, for anyway one has to regularize the quark loop contributions in (\[genf3\]). Alternatively, following ideas presented in [@Jackiw:2000], one can introduce the Ansatz: $$\label{Sra} S_r=\int d^4x\left\{ {\cal L}_r(r_{\mbox{st}})+ \frac{a}{2G^2}\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{(-1)^n}{n}\mbox{tr}\left[ F^n_{\alpha\beta}(r_{\mbox{st}})\right]\right\}$$ proposing that the undetermined dimensionless constant $a$ will be fixed by confronting the model with experiment afterwards. The Ground State ================ Let us study the ground state of the model under consideration, then properties of the excitations will follow naturally. To make further progress let us note that Eqs.(\[ha\]) have non-trivial solutions for $h_0,h_3,h_8$, corresponding to the spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry in the physical vacuum state with order parameters $\Delta_i\neq 0\quad (i=u,d,s)$. We may then use this fact to rewrite Eqs.(\[ha\]) as a system of only three equations to give $h_i$ $$\label{hi} 2Gh_i-\Delta_i=\frac{\kappa}{8}t_{ijk}h_jh_k$$ where the totally symmetric coefficients $t_{ijk}$ are equal to zero except for $t_{uds}=1$. They are related to coefficients $A_{abc}$ by the embedding formula $3\omega_{ia}A_{abc}e_{bj}e_{ck}=t_{ijk}$ where matrices $\omega_{ia}$, and $e_{ai}$ are defined as follows -- -- -- -- $$e_{ai}=\frac{1}{2\sqrt 3}\left( \begin{array}{ccc} \sqrt 2&\sqrt 2&\sqrt 2 \\ \sqrt 3&-\sqrt 3& 0 \\ 1&1&-2 \end{array} \right),\qquad \omega_{ia}=\frac{1}{\sqrt 3}\left( \begin{array}{ccc} \sqrt 2&\sqrt 3& 1 \\ \sqrt 2&-\sqrt 3& 1 \\ \sqrt 2&0&-2 \end{array} \right).$$ Here the index $a$ runs $a=0,3,8$ (for the other values of $a$ the corresponding matrix elements are equal to zero). We have also $h_a=e_{ai}h_i$, and $h_i=\omega_{ia}h_a$. Similar relations can be obtained for $\Delta_i$ and $\Delta_a$. In accordance with these notations we will use, for instance, that $h^{(1)}_{ci}= \omega_{ia}h^{(1)}_{ca}$. A tadpole graphs calculation gives for the gap equations the following result $$\label{gap} 2h_i+\frac{3a\kappa}{8G^2} \left(h^{(2)}_{ab}-h^{(1)}_{ab}\right)A_{abc} h^{(1)}_{ci}=\frac{N_c}{2\pi^2}m_iJ_0(m_i^2)$$ where the left hand side is the contribution from (\[Sra\]) and the right hand side is the contribution of the quark loop from (\[genf3\]) with a regularized quadratically divergent integral $J_0(m^2)$ being defined as $$J_0(m^2)=\int_0^\infty\frac{dt}{t^2}e^{-tm^2}\rho (t,\Lambda^2),\qquad \rho (t,\Lambda^2)=1-(1+t\Lambda^2)\exp (-t\Lambda^2).$$ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- The second term on the left hand side of Eq.(\[gap\]) is the correction resulting from the Gaussian integrals of the steepest descent method, comprising the effects of small fluctuations around the stationary path. If one puts for a moment $a=0$ in Eq.(\[gap\]), and combines the result with Eqs.(\[hi\]), one finds gap equations which are very similar to the ones obtained in [@Bernard:1988] (see equation (2.12) therein). At fixed input parameters $G,\kappa ,\Lambda$ of the model, the gap equations can be solved giving us the constituent quark masses $m_i$ as functions of the current quark masses, $m_i=m_i(\hat{m}_j)$. Alternatively, by fixing $\hat{m}_i$, one can obtain from the gap equations the non-trivial solutions $m_i=m_i(G,\kappa ,\Lambda )$. In particular, when $\hat{m}_u=\hat{m}_d$, these equations can be solved for $G$ and $\kappa$, giving expressions $$\label{Gk} G=\left(\frac{2\pi^2}{N_c}\right) \frac{m_u\Delta_uJ_0(m^2_u)-m_s\Delta_sJ_0(m^2_s)}{ m_u^2J_0^2(m^2_u)-m_s^2J_0^2(m^2_s)},\qquad \kappa=\left(\frac{8\pi^2}{N_c}\right)^2 \frac{m_s\Delta_uJ_0(m^2_s)-m_u\Delta_sJ_0(m^2_u)}{ m_uJ_0(m_u^2)[ m_u^2J_0^2(m^2_u)-m_s^2J_0^2(m^2_s)]}.$$ In Fig.\[fig1\] we plot the curves of $G$ and $\kappa$ versus $m_u$ keeping constant $\Lambda =0.87\ \mbox{GeV},\ m_s=572\ \mbox{MeV},\ \hat{m}_s=200\ \mbox{MeV},\ \hat{m}_u=6\ \mbox{MeV}$. One can readily see that at given values for $(m_u,m_s)$ the curves yield unique values of $(G,\kappa )$, i.e. the vacuum state is well-defined in this case. -- -- -- -- Let us consider now the general case which we have when $a>0$ in Eq.(\[gap\]). To illustrate the qualitative difference with the previous case we put for definiteness $a=1$ and look again for the solutions $G=G(m_u)$ and $\kappa =\kappa (m_u)$ with the same set of fixed parameters. The corresponding curves are plotted in Fig.\[fig2\]. If the mass $m_u$ is sufficiently low that $m_u<m_u^{(min)}$, (in the figures denoted by the region left the turning point $c$) or sufficiently high that $m_u^{(max)}<m_u<m_s$, (in the figures denoted by the region right to the turning point $b$), then there exists again a single solution with unique values of $(G,\kappa )$. However, there is now a region for $m_u$ in which $m_u^{(min)}<m_u<m_u^{(max)}$, where three values of couplings $(G,\kappa)$ are possible. Conversely, one can study the solutions: $m_u=m_u(G,\kappa ),\ m_s=m_s(G,\kappa$ at fixed values of input parameters: $\Lambda ,\hat{m}_u=\hat{m}_d,\hat{m}_s)$. As starting input values for the couplings $G$ and $\kappa$ in the gap equations we take the ones already determined along the path $abcd$ shown in Fig.\[fig2\], obtained at a constant value of the strange quark mass, $m_s=572$ MeV. For a chosen value of the set $(G,\kappa )$ we then search for further solutions $(m_u,m_s)$ of the Eq.(\[gap\]), displaying results in Fig.\[fig3\] for $m_u$ and in Fig.\[fig4\] for $m_s$, correspondingly. The dashed curves are the repetition of the solutions encountered in Fig.\[fig2\]. The bold dashes in Fig.\[fig3\] indicate that we only find this one solution at fixed values of $G,\kappa$. Combining the information of Figs.\[fig3\] and \[fig4\], one sees that one has up to four solutions at fixed $G,\kappa$. Indeed, travelling along the original path $abcd$ one observes the following: the branch $ab$ is accompanied by three other branches, marked as $A,B$ and $C$ which belong to the same class of solutions. One sees that these solutions have negative $\kappa$ values. From the turning point $b$ until the maximum value of $G$ (and corresponding $\kappa$) (bold dashes) we have no other solutions to the gap equations, as already stated. From this maximum $G$ value to the turning point $c$ and further along the $cd$ arm we encounter further two branches, denoted by $D$ and $E$ to the solutions of Eqs.(\[gap\]) with same $G,\kappa$. They are positive $\kappa$ solutions. This very rich structure of the vacuum solutions implies the possibility of having several different values of the quark condensates for the same $G,\kappa$ parameters, embracing also the possibility which has been considered in connection with generalized chiral perturbation theory (see e.g. section 4 in [@Leutwyler:1996]). We give here only a few examples. At $G=4.54\ \mbox{GeV}^{-2}, \kappa=153.04\ \mbox{GeV}^{-5}$ we have three solutions. The solution $m_u=346\ \mbox{MeV}, m_s=572\ \mbox{MeV}$, on the $cd$ arm has the quark condensates $<\bar{u}u>^{1/3}=-236.8\ \mbox{MeV}$, $<\bar{s}s>^{1/3}=-183.5\ \mbox{MeV}$ and the ratio $R={(<\bar{s}s>/<\bar{u}u>)}^{1/3}=0.775$; the second solution, on the $E$ branch with $m_u=535\ \mbox{MeV}, m_s=732\ \mbox{MeV}$ has condensates $<\bar{u}u>^{1/3}=-249\ \mbox{MeV}$, $<\bar{s}s>^{1/3}=-183\ \mbox{MeV}$ and the ratio $R=0.738$; the third solution, located at the $D$ branch with $m_u=46\ \mbox{MeV}, m_s=418\ \mbox{MeV}$ has condensates $<\bar{u}u>^{1/3}=-131\ \mbox{MeV}$, $<\bar{s}s>^{1/3}=-172\ \mbox{MeV}$ and $R=1.313$. We chose the next example at $G=8.126\ \mbox{GeV}^{-2}, \kappa=-544.81\ \mbox{GeV}^{-5}$, where there are four solutions. The solution $m_u=316\ \mbox{MeV}, m_s=572\ \mbox{MeV}$, on the $ab$ arm has the quark condensates $<\bar{u}u>^{1/3}=-233\ \mbox{MeV}$, $<\bar{s}s>^{1/3}=-184\ \mbox{MeV}$ and $R=0.787$; the second solution, on the $B$ branch with $m_u=624\ \mbox{MeV}, m_s=205\ \mbox{MeV}$ has condensates $<\bar{u}u>^{1/3}=-249\ \mbox{MeV}$, $<\bar{s}s>^{1/3}=-56.7\ \mbox{MeV}$ and $R=0.227$; the third solution, located at the $A$ branch with $m_u=421\ \mbox{MeV}, m_s=1.84\ \mbox{GeV}$ has condensates $<\bar{u}u>^{1/3}=-14.4\ \mbox{MeV}$, $<\bar{s}s>^{1/3}=-86\ \mbox{MeV}$ and $R=0.353$. The fourth solution, on the $C$ branch, with $m_u=1.394\ \mbox{GeV}, m_s=1.594\ \mbox{GeV}$ has condensates $<\bar{u}u>^{1/3}=-230\ \mbox{MeV}$, $<\bar{s}s>^{1/3}=-120\ \mbox{MeV}$ and the ratio $R=0.524$. As a final example we take the solutions at $G=11.96\ \mbox{GeV}^{-2}\simeq G_{max}, \kappa=371.491\ \mbox{GeV}^{-5}$, where the branches $D$ and $E$ emerge and are very close to each other with $m_u=1.56\ \mbox{GeV}, m_s=1.72\ \mbox{GeV}$. The corresponding condensates are $<\bar{u}u>^{1/3}=-224\ \mbox{MeV}$, $<\bar{s}s>^{1/3}=-105\ \mbox{MeV}$ and $R=0.467$. The other solution is at the path $bc$ with $m_u=290\ \mbox{MeV}, m_s=572\ \mbox{MeV}$ with condensates $<\bar{u}u>^{1/3}=-229\ \mbox{MeV}$, $<\bar{s}s>^{1/3}=-184\ \mbox{MeV}$ and $R=0.8$. To summarize, we have found that in the presence of the ’t Hooft interaction, treated beyound the lowest order SPA, several solutions to the gap equations are possible at some range of input parameters, i.e. the same values of $G,\kappa ,\Lambda ,\hat{m}_i$ lead to different sets of constituent quark masses $(m_u, m_s)$ and, therefore, to different values of the quark condensates. A quite different scenario emerges for the hadronic vacuum, which can now be multivalued. It makes our result essentially different from the ones obtained in [@Reinhardt:1988; @Bernard:1988]. These findings must be further analysed in order to establish which of the extrema correspond to minima or maxima of the effective potential. This step will be done elsewhere in conjunction with the determination of the meson mass spectrum, as it also requires dealing with the terms with two powers of the meson fields in the ansatz of solutions Eq.(\[rst\]) and in the related Lagrangian (\[lam\]). Concluding remarks ================== The purpose of this work has been twofold. Firstly we have developed the technique which is necessary to go beyound the lowest order SPA in the problem of the path integral bosonization of the ’t Hooft six quark interaction. We have shown how the pre-exponential factor, connected with the steepest descent approach and which is responsible for the quantum fluctuations around the classical path, can be treated exactly, order by order, in a scheme of increasing number of mesonic fields, while preserving all chiral symmetry requirements. This technique is rather general and can be readily used in other applications. Second, we have explored with considerable detail the implications of taking the quantum fluctuations in account in the description of the hadronic vacuum. A very complex multivalued vacuum emerges at fixed values of the input parameters $G$, $\kappa$, $\Lambda$ and current quark masses. We encountered several classes of solutions. Searching in an interval of constituent quark masses from zero to $\simeq 3$GeV, we found $G,\kappa$, regions caracterized by one, three and four solutions. The multiple vacua may have very interesting physical consequences and applications. Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ================ We are grateful to Dmitri Diakonov for valuable correspondence. We thank Dmitri Osipov and Pedro Costa for their help in converting the “Mathematica” generated figures into the final ones. This work is supported by grants provided by Fundao para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, POCTI/35304/FIS/2000 and NATO “Outreach” Cooperation Program. plus 2pt minus 2pt [99]{} A. M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B 59 (1975) 82; Nucl. Phys. B 121 (1977) 429. A. A. Belavin, A. M. Polyakov, A. Schwartz and Y. Tyupkin, Phys. Lett. B 59 (1975) 85. G. ’t Hooft, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37 (1976) 8; Phys. Rev. D 14 (1976) 3432. C. Callan, R. Dashen and D. J. Gross, Phys. Lett. B 63 (1976) 334. R. Jackiw and C. Rebbi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37 (1976) 172. S. Coleman, “The uses of instantons” Erice Lectures, 1977. D. Diakonov, “Chiral symmetry breaking by instantons”, Lectures at the Enrico Fermi School in Physics, Varenna, June 27 - July 7 (1995); [hep-ph/9602375]{}. Y. Nambu, G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev. 122 (1961) 345; 124 (1961) 246; V. G. Vaks, A. I. Larkin ZhETF 40 (1961) 282. V. Bernard, R. L. Jaffe, U.-G. Meißner, Nucl. Phys. B 308 (1988) 753. T. Kunihiro and T. Hatsuda, Phys. Lett. B 206 (1988) 385. T. Hatsuda, Phys. Lett. B 213 (1988) 361. Y. Kohyama, K. Kubodera and M. Takizawa, Phys. Lett. B 208 (1988) 165. M. Takizawa, Y. Kohyama and K. Kubodera, Prog. Theor. Phys. 82 (1989) 481. H. Reinhardt and R. Alkofer, Phys. Lett. B 207 (1988) 482. D. Diakonov, “Chiral quark-soliton model”, Lectures at the Advanced Summer School on non-perturbative field theory, Peniscola, Spain, June 2-6 (1997); [hep-ph/9802298]{}. A.A. Osipov and B. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 114013; idem Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 094009. R. Jackiw, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 14 (2000) 2011; [hep-th/9903044]{}. H. Leutwyler, Talk given at the Conf. on Fundamental Interactions of Elem. Part., ITEP, Moscow, Russia, 1995, CERN-TH/96-25; [hep-ph/9602255]{}. [^1]: On leave from the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Laboratory of Nuclear Problems, 141980 Dubna, Moscow Region, Russia. [^2]: The shift by the current quark mass is needed to hit the correct vacuum state, see e.g. [@Osipov:2001].

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We obtain the Hölder regularity of time derivative of solutions to the dual semigeostrophic equations in two dimensions when the initial potential density is bounded away from zero and infinity. Our main tool is an interior Hölder estimate in two dimensions for an inhomogeneous linearized Monge-Ampère equation with right hand side being the divergence of a bounded vector field. As a further application of our Hölder estimate, we prove the Hölder regularity of the polar factorization for time-dependent maps in two dimensions with densities bounded away from zero and infinity. Our applications improve previous work by G. Loeper who considered the cases of densities sufficiently close to a positive constant.' address: 'Department of Mathematics, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA' author: - 'Nam Q. Le' title: ' Hölder regularity of the 2D dual semigeostrophic equations via analysis of linearized Monge-Ampère equations ' --- [^1] Introduction and statement of the main results ============================================== In this paper, we obtain the Hölder regularity of time derivative of solutions to the dual semigeostrophic equations in two dimensions when the initial potential density is bounded away from zero and infinity; see Theorem \[GSthm\]. Our main tool is an interior Hölder estimate in two dimensions for an inhomogeneous linearized Monge-Ampère equation with right hand side being the divergence of a bounded vector field when the Monge-Ampère measure is only assumed to be bounded between two positive constants; see Theorem \[Holder\_int\_thm\]. As a further application of our Hölder estimate, we prove the Hölder regularity of the polar factorization for time-dependent maps in two dimensions with densities bounded away from zero and infinity; see Theorems \[H\_thm\_1\] and \[peri\_thm\]. Our applications improve previous work by Loeper [@Loe] who considered the cases of densities sufficiently close to a positive constant. The dual semigeostrophic equations on ${{\mathbb T}}^2$ {#SG_sec1} ------------------------------------------------------- The semigeostrophic equations are a simple model used in meteorology to describe large scale atmospheric flows. As explained for example in Benamou-Brenier [@BB Section 2.2], Loeper [@Loe2 Section 1.1], and Cullen [@Cu], the semigeostrophic equations can be derived from the three-dimensional incompressible Euler equations, with Boussinesq and hydrostatic approximations, subject to a strong Coriolis force. Since for large scale atmospheric flows the Coriolis force dominates the advection term, the flow is mostly bi-dimensional. Here we focus on the dual semigeostrophic equations. Note that, using solutions to the dual equations together with the $W^{2,1}$ regularity for Aleksandrov solutions to the Monge-Ampère equations obtained by De Philippis and Figalli [@DPF], Ambrosio-Colombo-De Philippis-Figalli [@ACDF12] established global in time distributional solutions to the original semigeostrophic equations on the two dimensional torus. For more on the Monge-Ampère equations and Aleksandrov solutions, see the books by Figalli [@Fi] and Gutiérrez [@G01]. The [*dual equations*]{} of the semigeostrophic equations on the two dimensional torus ${{\mathbb T}}^2={{\mathbb R}}^2/{{\mathbb Z}}^2$ are the following system of nonlinear transport equations $$\label{GS:dual} \left\{\begin{array}{rll} \partial_t \rho_t(x) + {\mbox{div}\,}(\rho_t(x) U_t(x)) &=0 & (t,x)\in [0,\infty)\times{{\mathbb T}}^2,\\ U_t(x) &= (x-\nabla P_t^{\ast}(x) )^\perp & (t,x)\in [0,\infty)\times{{\mathbb T}}^2,\\ \det D^2 P_t^{\ast}(x) &= \rho_t(x)& (t,x)\in [0,\infty)\times{{\mathbb T}}^2,\\ P_t^{\ast}(x) \text{ convex }& & (t,x)\in {{\mathbb T}}^2,\\ \rho_0(x)&= \rho^0(x)& x\in {{\mathbb T}}^2 \end{array}\right.$$ for $(\rho_t, P_t^{\ast})$ with the boundary condition $$\label{SGbdr} P_t^{\ast}-|x|^2/2 ~\text{is}~ {{\mathbb Z}}^2- \text{periodic}.$$ Here the initial potential density $\rho^0$ is a probability measure on ${{\mathbb T}}^2$. Throughout, we use $w^\perp$ to denote the rotation by $\pi/2$ vector $(-w_2, w_1)$ for $w = (w_1, w_2)\in{{\mathbb R}}^2$ and $f_t(\cdot)$ to denote the function $f(t,\cdot)$. Existence of global weak solutions for the (\[GS:dual\])-(\[SGbdr\]) system has been established via time discretization in Benamou-Brenier [@BB] and Cullen-Gangbo [@CG]. To be precisely, in these cited papers, the proof is given in ${{\mathbb R}}^3$, but it can be rewritten verbatim on the two-dimensional torus by using the optimal transport maps; see [@ACDF12 Theorems 2.1 and 3.1] for further details. When $\rho^0$ is Hölder continuous and bounded away from zero and infinity on ${{\mathbb T}}^2$, Loeper [@Loe2] showed that there is a unique, short-time, Hölder solution $\rho$ to (\[GS:dual\])-(\[SGbdr\]); the time interval for this Hölder solution depends only on the bounds on $\rho^0$. However, when $\rho^0$ is only a general probability measure, the uniqueness of weak solutions is still an open question. Due to this lack of uniqueness and to avoid unnecessary confusions, we make the following definition on weak solutions (as already established in [@BB] and [@CG]) to (\[GS:dual\])-(\[SGbdr\]) that we are going to use throughout the paper. By a weak solution to (\[GS:dual\])-(\[SGbdr\]), we mean a pair of functions $(\rho_t, P_t^\ast)$ on ${{\mathbb R}}^2$ with the following properties: [1cm]{} (i) $P_t^\ast$ is convex on ${{\mathbb R}}^2$ with $P_t^{\ast}-|x|^2/2$ being ${{\mathbb Z}}^2$ periodic; $\rho_t$ is ${{\mathbb Z}}^2$ periodic;\ (ii) $P_t^\ast$ is an Aleksandrov solution to the Monge-Ampère equation $$\det D^2 P_t^\ast=\rho_t \text{ in }{{\mathbb T}}^2.$$ (iii) $U_t(x) = (x-\nabla P_t^{\ast}(x) )^\perp$ and $\rho_t$ satisfy the equations $\partial_t \rho_t(x) + {\mbox{div}\,}(\rho_t(x) U_t(x)) =0$ and $\rho_0=\rho^0$ on ${{\mathbb T}}^2$ in the distributional sense, that is, $$\displaystyle\int\int_{{{\mathbb T}}^2} \left\{{\partial}_t \varphi_t(x) + \nabla \varphi_t(x) \cdot U_t(x)\right\}\rho_t(x) dx dt +\int_{{{\mathbb T}}^2} \varphi_0(x)\rho^0(x) dx =0$$ for every $\varphi\in C_{0}^{\infty}([0,\infty)\times {{\mathbb R}}^2)$ ${{\mathbb Z}}^2$-periodic in the space variable. For completeness, we briefly indicate how to obtain distributional solutions to the original semigeostrophic equations from solutions $(\rho_t, P_t^\ast)$ of the dual equations (\[GS:dual\])-(\[SGbdr\]); see [@ACDF12] for a rigorous treatment. Let us denote by $P_t$ the Legendre transform of $P_t^{\ast}$, that is, $$P_t(x) =\sup_{y\in {{\mathbb R}}^2}(x\cdot y-P_t^{\ast}(y)).$$ Let $p^0(x)= P_0(x)-|x|^2/2$ and $$\left\{ \begin{array}{rl} p_t (x) &:=P_t(x)-|x|^2/2,\\ u_t (x) &:= ({\partial}_t \nabla P_t^{\ast})\circ \nabla P_t(x) + D^2 P_t^{\ast}(\nabla P_t(x))\cdot (\nabla P_t(x)-x)^{\perp}. \end{array} \right.$$ Then $(p_t, u_t)$ is a global Eulerian solution to the original semigeostrophic equations: $$\label{SG_ori} \left\{\begin{array}{rll} \partial_t \nabla p_t(x) + (u_t(x)\cdot\nabla) \nabla p_t(x) -(\nabla p_t(x))^{\perp} + u_t(x) &= 0 & (t,x)\in [0,\infty)\times{{\mathbb T}}^2,\\ {\mbox{div}\,}u_t(x) &= 0& (t,x)\in [0,\infty)\times{{\mathbb T}}^2,\\ p_0(x)&= p^0(x)& x\in {{\mathbb T}}^2. \end{array}\right.$$ In (\[SG\_ori\]), the functions $u_t$ and $p_t$ represent respectively the [*velocity*]{} and the [*pressure*]{}. The quantity $u_t^g$ related to the system (\[SG\_ori\]) defined by $u_t^g(x) = (\nabla p_t(x))^\perp$ is called the [*semi-geostrophic*]{} wind. We now return to the regularity of solutions to (\[GS:dual\])-(\[SGbdr\]) in the typical case where the initial density $\rho^0$ is bounded between two positive constants $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$. The space regularity of the solutions is now well understood thanks to regularity results for the Monge-Ampère equations which are mainly due to Caffarelli, De Philippis, Figalli, Savin, and Schmidt [@C; @C1; @C2; @C3; @DPF; @DPFS; @Sch]. We will recall these results in Theorems \[thm\_collect\] and \[Cthm\]. Regarding the regularity with respect to time, to the best of our knowledge, the most refined result so far is due to Loeper [@Loe] under the condition that $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$ are close. More precisely, Loeper shows that if the initial potential density $\rho^0$ is sufficiently close to a positive constant, say, $1-{\varepsilon}_0\leq\rho^0\leq 1+ {\varepsilon}_0$ on ${{\mathbb T}}^2$ for some ${\varepsilon}_0>0$ small, then ${\partial}_t P_t,{\partial}_t P_t^{\ast} \in L^{\infty}((0,\infty), C^{\alpha_0}({{\mathbb T}}^2))$ where $\alpha_0>0$ depends only on ${\varepsilon}_0$; see [@Loe Theorems 2.2, 2.3 and 9.2]. It is thus an interesting problem to study the Hölder continuity of ${\partial}_t P_t^{\ast}$ and ${\partial}_t P_t$ in the system (\[GS:dual\])-(\[SGbdr\]) when the closeness of the density $\rho^0$ to $1$ is removed. This is precisely what we prove in the following theorem. \[GSthm\] Let $\rho^0$ be a probability measure on ${{\mathbb T}}^2$. Suppose that that $\lambda \leq \rho^0 \leq \Lambda$ in ${{\mathbb T}}^2$ for positive constants $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$. Let $(\rho_t, P_t^{\ast})$ solve (\[GS:dual\])-(\[SGbdr\]). Let $P_t$ be the Legendre transform of $P_t^{\ast}$. Then, there exist $\alpha=\alpha(\lambda, \Lambda) \in (0,1)$ and $C=C(\lambda,\Lambda)>0$ such that $$\|{\partial}_t P_t^{\ast}\|_{L^{\infty}((0,\infty), C^{\alpha}({{\mathbb T}}^2))} + \|{\partial}_t P_t\|_{L^{\infty}((0,\infty), C^{\alpha}({{\mathbb T}}^2))} \leq C.$$ We will prove Theorem \[GSthm\] in Section \[SG\_sec\], using Theorem \[Holder\_int\_thm\] and following the strategy in [@Loe]. Let us briefly explain how to prove the Hölder continuity of ${\partial}_t P_t^{\ast}$ and ${\partial}_t P_t$ in (\[GS:dual\])-(\[SGbdr\]). To simplify the presentation, we assume all functions involved are smooth but the estimates we wish to establish will depend only on $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$. Since ${\mbox{div}\,}U_t=0$, the $L^{\infty}({{\mathbb T}}^2)$ norm of $\rho_t$ is preserved in time; see also [@BB Proposition 5.2] and [@Loe Lemma 9.1]. Thus, for all $t\geq 0$, we have $\lambda \leq \rho_t \leq \Lambda$ in ${{\mathbb T}}^2$. Differentiating both sides of $\det D^2 P_t^{\ast} = \rho_t$ with respect to $t$, and using the first and second equations of (\[GS:dual\]), we find that ${\partial}_t P_t^{\ast}$ solves the linearized Monge-Ampère equation $$\label{SGLMA} \nabla \cdot (M_{P_t^{\ast}}(D^2 P_t^{\ast}) \nabla (\partial_t P_t^{\ast})) = {\partial}_t \rho_t= {\mbox{div}\,}(-\rho_t U_t):= {\mbox{div}\,}F_t,$$ where $M_{P_t^{\ast}}(D^2 P_t^{\ast})$ represents the matrix of cofactors of the Hessian matrix $D^2 P_t^{\ast}$. With the bounds $\lambda\leq \rho_t\leq\Lambda$ on $\rho_t$, (\[SGLMA\]) is a degenerate elliptic equation because we only know that the coefficient matrix $M=M_{P_t^{\ast}}(D^2 P_t^{\ast})$ in (\[SGLMA\]) is positive definite (due to the convexity of $P_t^{\ast}$) and satisfies $$\lambda\leq \det M= \det D^2 P_t^{\ast}\leq \Lambda.$$ Moreover, we can bound $F_t$ in $L^{\infty}({{\mathbb T}}^2)$ and ${\partial}_t P_t^{\ast}$ in $L^{2}({{\mathbb T}}^2)$, uniformly in $t$; see Theorem \[thm\_collect\](i, ii, iii). The Hölder regularity of ${\partial}_t P_t^{\ast}$ hence relies on the Hölder regularity of solutions to equation of the type (\[SGLMA\]) given the $L^p$ bounds on the solutions, where $F_t$ is a bounded vector field. At this point, Loeper’s approach and assumption on the initial potential density $\rho^0$ and ours differ. The key tools used by Loeper [@Loe] are global and local maximum principles for solutions of degenerate elliptic equations proved by Murthy and Stampacchia [@MuSt] and Trudinger [@Tr], and a Harnack inequality of Caffarelli and Gutiérrez [@CG97] for solutions of the homogeneous linearized Monge-Ampère equation; see Theorem \[CGthm\]. [*These results hold in all dimensions $n\geq 2$.*]{} The results of Murthy-Stampacchia and Trudinger, that we will recall in Theorems \[2corlocal\] and \[2main4\], require the high integrability of the coefficient matrix of the degenerate elliptic equations. In application to the dual semigeostrophic equations (\[GS:dual\])-(\[SGbdr\]), this high integrability translates to the high integrability of the matrix $M_{P_t^{\ast}}(D^2 P_t^{\ast})$ in (\[SGLMA\]), or equivalently, to the high integrability of $D^2 P_t^{\ast}$. In view of Caffarelli’s $W^{2,p}$ estimates for the Monge-Ampère equation [@C] and Wang’s counterexamples [@W], the last point forces the closeness of the density $\rho^0$ to 1. This is exactly the assumption on $\rho^0$ in [@Loe Theorems 2.2, 2.3 and 9.2]. Our main tool in proving Theorem \[GSthm\] is the Hölder estimate in Theorem \[Holder\_int\_thm\] for the inhomogeneous linearized Monge-Ampère equation of the type (\[SGLMA\]) in two dimensions, [*without relying on $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$ being close.* ]{}This is the topic of the next section. Hölder estimates for inhomogeneous linearized Monge-Ampère equation ------------------------------------------------------------------- Let $\Omega \subset {{\mathbb R}}^n$ ($n\geq 2$) be a bounded convex set with nonempty interior and let $\varphi \in C^2(\Omega)$ be a convex function such that $$\label{MAbound} \lambda\leq \det D^2\varphi \leq \Lambda~\text{in}~\Omega$$ for some positive constants $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$. Let $\Phi= (\Phi^{ij})_{1\leq i, j\leq n}=(\det D^2\varphi)(D^2\varphi)^{-1}$ denote the cofactor matrix of the Hessian matrix $$D^2 \varphi=\left(\varphi_{ij}\right)_{1\leq i, j\leq n}\equiv\left(\frac{{\partial}^2\varphi}{{\partial}x_i{\partial}x_j}\right)_{1\leq i, j\leq n}.$$ Note that, in terms of the notation of the previous Section \[SG\_sec1\], we have $\Phi= M_{\varphi}(D^2\varphi)$. We are interested in obtaining interior Hölder estimates for solutions to the inhomogeneous linearized Monge-Ampère equation $$\sum_{i, j=1}^n\Phi^{ij} u_{ij}={\mbox{div}\,}F \label{main_eq}$$ in terms of $L^p$ bounds on the solutions where $F:\Omega\rightarrow {{\mathbb R}}^n$ is a bounded vector field. Our motivation comes from the regularity of the semigeostrophic equations [@ACDF12; @BB; @CG; @F] as mentioned in Section \[SG\_sec1\]. Since the matrix $\Phi$ is divergence free; that is, $\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^n {\partial}_j \Phi^{ij}=0~\text{for all } i=1, \cdots n, $ the equation (\[main\_eq\]) can also be written in the divergence form $$\label{main_eq_div} \sum_{i, j=1}^n{\partial}_j (\Phi^{ij} u_i)\equiv \nabla\cdot (\Phi\nabla u)={\mbox{div}\,}F.$$ When $F\equiv 0$, interior Hölder estimates for solutions to (\[main\_eq\]), under the condition (\[MAbound\]) on the Monge-Ampère measure of $\varphi$, were established by Caffarelli and Gutiérrez in their fundamental work [@CG97]. It is worth mentioning that one of the motivations of the work [@CG97] was Lagrangian models of atmospheric and oceanic flows, including the dual semigeostrophic equations. When $F\not\equiv 0$, we are able to obtain in this paper the Hölder estimates for solutions to (\[main\_eq\]) in two dimensions; see Theorem \[Holder\_int\_thm\]. The important point to note here is that our Hölder exponent depends only on the bounds $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$ of the Monge-Ampère measure of $\varphi$. Besides its application to the semigeostrophic equations, Theorem \[Holder\_int\_thm\] also applies to the Hölder regularity of the polar factorization for time dependent maps in two dimensions with densities bounded away from zero and infinity, improving previous results by Loeper [@Loe]; see Section \[app\_sec\]. To state our estimates for (\[main\_eq\]), we recall the notion of sections of a convex function $\varphi \in C^1(\Omega)$. Given $x \in \Omega$ and $h >0$, the Monge-Ampère section of $\varphi$ centered at $x$ with height $h$ is defined by $$S_\varphi(x,h):= \{y \in \Omega: \varphi(y) < \varphi(x) + \nabla \varphi(x)\cdot (y-x) + h\}.$$ Our main Hölder estimate is contained in the following theorem. \[Interior Hölder estimate for the inhomogeneous linearized Monge-Ampère equation in two dimensions\] \[Holder\_int\_thm\] Assume $n=2$. Let $\varphi \in C^2(\Omega)$ be a convex function satisfying (\[MAbound\]). Let $F:\Omega\rightarrow {{\mathbb R}}^n$ is a bounded vector field. Given a section $S_\varphi(x_0, 4h_0) \subset \subset \Omega$. Let $p \in (1, \infty)$. There exist a universal constant $\gamma >0$ depending only on $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$ and a constant $C >0$, depending only on $p$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda, h_0$ and ${\text{diam}}(\Omega)$ with the following property. For every solution $u$ to $$\Phi^{ij} u_{ij}=\emph{div} F$$ in $S_{\varphi}(x_0, 4h_0)$, and for all $x\in S_{\varphi}(x_0, h_0)$, we have the Hölder estimate: $$|u(x)-u(x_0)|\leq C(p,\lambda,\Lambda, \emph{diam}(\Omega), h_0) \left( \|F \|_{L^{\infty}(S_\varphi(x_0, 2h_0))} + \|u\|_{L^{p}(S_\varphi(x_0, 2h_0))} \right)|x-x_0|^{\gamma}.$$ We will prove Theorem \[Holder\_int\_thm\] in Section \[LMA\_est\_proof\_sec\]. Our main technical tools, in addition to Caffarelli-Gutiérrez’s Harnack inequality for solutions to the homogeneous linearized Monge-Ampère equation in Theorem \[CGthm\], are new $L^{\infty}$ interior and global estimates for solutions to the inhomogeneous linearized Monge-Ampère equation (\[main\_eq\]) in Theorems \[gl\_thm\] and \[int\_thm\]. Caffarelli and Gutiérrez [@CG97] proved Theorem \[CGthm\] by using basically the non-divergence form of (\[main\_eq\]); while we prove Theorems \[gl\_thm\] and \[int\_thm\] by exploiting the divergence form character of (\[main\_eq\]). They are related to fine properties of Green’s function $G_{\varphi}$ of the degenerate operator $-{\partial}_i (\Phi^{ij}{\partial}_j)$. The crucial observation here (see also [@L; @L2]) is that Green’s function $G_{\varphi}$ has, in all dimensions, the same integrability as that of the Laplace operator $\displaystyle \Delta=\sum_{i=1}^n {\partial}_{ii}$ which corresponds to the case $\varphi(x)=\frac{|x|^2}{2}$. On the other hand, in two dimensions, the gradient of $G_{\varphi}$ has almost integrability as that of the Laplace operator. We do not know whether the last fact is true or not in higher dimensions. Thus, it is an open question if the Hölder estimate in Theorem \[Holder\_int\_thm\] holds for dimensions $n\geq 3$. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section \[Est\_sec\], we provide key global and local estimates in Theorem \[gl\_thm\] and \[int\_thm\] for the inhomogeneous linearized Monge-Ampère equation and discuss related results by Murthy-Stampacchia and Trudinger. In Section \[sec:prelim\], we recall several basics of the Monge-Ampère equation and its linearization. We present the proof of Theorem \[GSthm\] in Section \[SG\_sec\]. We prove Theorems \[Holder\_int\_thm\], \[gl\_thm\] and \[int\_thm\] in Section \[LMA\_est\_proof\_sec\]. In Section \[app\_sec\], we apply Theorem \[Holder\_int\_thm\] to the regularity of polar factorization of time dependent maps in two dimensions. The proofs of technical results concerning Green’s function that we use in the proofs of Theorems \[gl\_thm\] and \[int\_thm\] are presented in Section \[auxi\_sec\]. The proofs of rescaling properties of the Monge-Ampère equation and its linearization will be given in the final section, Section \[res\_proof\]. Estimates for linearized Monge-Ampère equations and related results {#Est_sec} =================================================================== In this section, we state key global and local estimates for solutions to the inhomogeneous linearized Monge-Ampère equation $\Phi^{ij} u_{ij}={\mbox{div}\,}F$ and discuss related results by Murthy-Stampacchia and Trudinger regarding solutions to degenerate elliptic equations. Estimates for the equation $\Phi^{ij} u_{ij}={\mbox{div}\,}F$ ------------------------------------------------------------- Our key estimates are the following theorems. Assume $n=2$. Let $\varphi \in C^2(\Omega)$ be a convex function satisfying (\[MAbound\]). Let $F:\Omega\rightarrow {{\mathbb R}}^n$ is a bounded vector field. \[gl\_thm\] There exist a universal constant $\delta >0$ depending only on $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$ such that for every section $S_\varphi(x_0, h)$ with $S_\varphi(x_0, 2h_0) \subset \subset \Omega$ for $h_0\geq h$ and every solution $u$ to $$\label{u:PDE:S} \left\{\begin{array}{rl} \Phi^{ij} u_{ij} & =\emph{div }F \quad \mbox{ in}\quad S_\varphi(x_0, h),\\ u &=0 \qquad \quad \,\mbox{on}\quad \partial S_\varphi(x_0, h), \end{array}\right.$$ we have $$\label{gl_ineq} \sup_{S_\varphi(x_0, h)} |u|\leq C(\lambda,\Lambda,\emph{diam}(\Omega), h_0) \|F\|_{L^{\infty}(S_\varphi(x_0, h))} h^{\delta}.$$ \[int\_thm\] Assume $n=2$. Let $\varphi \in C^2(\Omega)$ be a convex function satisfying (\[MAbound\]). Let $F:\Omega\rightarrow {{\mathbb R}}^n$ is a bounded vector field. Given $p \in (1, \infty)$, there exists a constant $C >0$, depending only on $p$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$ and $\emph{diam}(\Omega)$ with the following property: Every solution $u$ of $$\Phi^{ij} u_{ij}={\mbox{div}\,}F$$ in a section $S_\varphi(x_0, h)$ with $S_\varphi(x_0, 2h) \subset \subset \Omega$ satisfies $$\label{main_int_ineq} \sup_{S_\varphi(x_0, h/2)} |u|\leq C(p, \lambda,\Lambda,\emph{diam}(\Omega)) \left(\|F\|_{L^{\infty}(S_\varphi(x_0, h))} + h^{-1/p}\|u\|_{L^{p}(S_\varphi(x_0, h))}\right).$$ We will prove Theorems \[gl\_thm\] and \[int\_thm\] in Section \[LMA\_est\_proof\_sec\]. Given Theorems \[gl\_thm\] and \[int\_thm\], we can easily prove Theorem \[Holder\_int\_thm\] by combining them with Caffarelli-Gutiérrez’s Harnack inequality [@CG97 Theorem 5] for the homogeneous linearized Monge-Ampère equation. For completeness, we recall their result here. \[Caffarelli-Gutiérrez’s Harnack inequality for the linearized Monge-Ampère equation\] \[CGthm\] Assume $n\geq2$. Let $\varphi \in C^2(\Omega)$ be a convex function satisfying (\[MAbound\]). Let $u\in W^{2, n}_{\text{loc}}(\Omega)$ be a nonnegative solution of the homogeneous linearized Monge-Ampère equation $$\Phi^{ij} u_{ij}=0$$ in a section $S_\varphi (x_0, 2h)\subset\subset \Omega$. Then $$\sup_{S_{\varphi}(x_0, h)} u\leq C(n, \lambda, \Lambda) \inf_{S_{\varphi}(x_0, h)} u. \label{HI2}$$ The main technical tool in the proof of Theorem \[gl\_thm\] is the $L^{1+\kappa}$ estimate $(\kappa>0)$ stated in Proposition \[G2\_thm\] for Green’s function associated to the operator $-{\partial}_j(\Phi^{ij}{\partial}_i)=-\Phi^{ij}{\partial}_{ij}$. We will prove Theorem \[int\_thm\] using the Moser iteration. The main technical tool is the Monge-Ampère Sobolev inequality stated in Proposition \[sob\_ineq\]. We state these results in Section \[tools\_sec\]. Integrability of Green’s function and its gradient and Monge-Ampère Sobolev inequality {#tools_sec} -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let $\Omega \subset {{\mathbb R}}^2$ be a bounded convex set with nonempty interior and let $\varphi \in C^2(\Omega)$ be a convex function satisfying (\[MAbound\]). Let $g_S(x, y)$ be Green’s function of the divergence form operator $\displaystyle L_\varphi:=-\sum_{i,j=1}^2{\partial}_j(\Phi^{ij}{\partial}_i)$ on the section $S:= S_\varphi(x_0, h)\subset\subset\Omega$; that is, for each $y\in S$, $g_S(\cdot, y)$ is a positive solution of $$\label{Green:S} \left\{\begin{array}{rl} L_\varphi g_S(\cdot, y)&=\delta_y \,\, \quad \mbox{ in}\quad S,\\ g_S(\cdot, y) &=0 \qquad \mbox{on}\quad \partial S. \end{array}\right.$$ Here $\delta_y$ is the Dirac measure centered at $y$. Due to the divergence free property of $\Phi$, we will also use interchangeably $L_\varphi=-\Phi^{ij}{\partial}_{ij}$ for simplicity. The main technical tool in the proof of Theorem \[gl\_thm\] is the following global $L^{1+ \kappa}$ estimates for $\nabla g_S$. \[$L^{1+ \kappa}$ estimates for gradient of Green’s function\] \[G2\_thm\] Assume $n=2$. Let $\varphi \in C^2(\Omega)$ be a convex function satisfying (\[MAbound\]). Assume that $S_\varphi(x_0, 2h_0)\subset\subset\Omega$. Let $g_S(x, y)$ be Green’s function of the operator $L_\varphi:=-\Phi^{ij}{\partial}_{ij}$ on $S:= S_\varphi(x_0, h)$ where $h\leq h_0$, as in (\[Green:S\]). There exist universal constants $\kappa, \kappa_1 > 0$ depending only on $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$ such that for every $y\in S$, we have $$\left(\int_S |\nabla_x g_S (x, y)|^{1+\kappa} dx\right)^{\frac{1}{1+\kappa}} \leq C(\lambda,\Lambda, {\emph{diam}(\Omega)}, h_0) h^{\kappa_1}.$$ Let ${\varepsilon}_\ast={\varepsilon}_\ast(\lambda,\Lambda)>0$ be the universal constant in De Philippis-Figalli-Savin and Schmidt’s $W^{2, 1+{\varepsilon}}$ estimate for the Monge-Ampère equation (\[MAbound\]); see [@DPFS; @Fi; @Sch] and (\[w21est\]). Then we can choose $\kappa$ and $\kappa_1$ in Proposition \[G2\_thm\] as follows: $$\kappa = \frac{{\varepsilon}}{2+{\varepsilon}}, \kappa_1= \frac{{\varepsilon}_\ast-{\varepsilon}}{2(1+{\varepsilon}_\ast)(1+{\varepsilon})}$$ where ${\varepsilon}$ is any fixed number in the interval $(0,{\varepsilon}_\ast)$. In the case of $\varphi(x)=|x|^2/2$, $L_{\varphi}=-\Delta$, we have ${\varepsilon}_\ast =\infty$. Thus, in this case, $\kappa$ can be chosen to be any positive number less than $1$, which is optimal. The main technical tool in the proof of Theorem \[int\_thm\] is the following Monge-Ampère Sobolev inequality; it is a two dimensional counterpart of the higher dimensional result in [@TiW08 Theorem 3.1]. \[sob\_ineq\] Assume $n=2$. Let $\varphi \in C^2(\Omega)$ be a convex function satisfying (\[MAbound\]). Suppose that $S_\varphi (x_0, 2)\subset\subset\Omega$ and $B_1(0)\subset S_\varphi (x_0, 1)\subset B_2(0)$. Then, for every $p\in (2,\infty)$ there exists a constant $K>0$, depending only on $\lambda,\Lambda$ and $p$, such that $$\label{Sob:Phi} \left(\int_{S_\varphi(x_0, 1)} |w|^{p}dx\right)^{1/p}\leq K \left(\int_{S_\varphi(x_0, 1)} \Phi^{ij} w_i w_jdx\right)^{1/2} \quad \text{for all }w\in C^1_0(S_\varphi(x_0, 1)).$$ The proofs of Propositions \[G2\_thm\] and \[sob\_ineq\] are based on the following high integrability of $g_S$ when $n=2$ whose proof is based on [@L]. \[G1\_thm\] Assume $n=2$. Let $\varphi \in C^2(\Omega)$ be a convex function satisfying (\[MAbound\]). Let $S:= S_{\varphi}(x_0, h)$ where $S_\varphi(x_0, 2h)\subset\subset\Omega$. Let $g_S(x, y)$ be Green’s function of the operator $L_\varphi:=-\Phi^{ij}{\partial}_{ij}$ on $S$, as in (\[Green:S\]). Then, for any $p\in (1,\infty)$, we have $$\int_S g_S^p(x, y) dx \leq C(\lambda,\Lambda, p) h \quad \text{for all }y \in S.$$ We will prove Propositions \[G2\_thm\], \[sob\_ineq\] and \[G1\_thm\] in Section \[auxi\_sec\]. Related results by Murthy-Stampacchia and Trudinger {#MST_sect} --------------------------------------------------- Since the matrix $\Phi=(\Phi^{ij})$ in our Theorems \[gl\_thm\] and \[int\_thm\] are divergence free, the equation $$\Phi^{ij} u_{ij}={\mbox{div}\,}F$$ can be written in the divergence form $${\mbox{div}\,}(\Phi \nabla u)={\mbox{div}\,}F.$$ In this section, we discuss related results by Murthy-Stampacchia [@MuSt] and Trudinger [@Tr] concerning the maximum principle, local and global estimates, local and global regularity for degenerate elliptic equations in the divergence form $$\label{2divforme} {\mbox{div}\,}(M(x)\nabla u(x))= {\mbox{div}\,}V(x)~\text{in}~\Omega\subset{{\mathbb R}}^n.$$ where $M= (M_{ij})_{1\leq i, j\leq n}$ is nonnegative symmetric matrix, and $V$ is a bounded vector field in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$. Without any special structure on the matrix M, it is difficult to obtain the $L^{\infty}$ bound on the solution $u$ to (\[2divforme\]) in terms of the $L^{\infty}$ bound on the vector field $V$ for equation (\[2divforme\]) with Dirichlet boundary data, or in terms of the $L^{\infty}$ bound on the vector field $V$ and an integral bound on the solution $u$ in a larger domain. To the best of our knowledge, some of the strongest results in this generality are due to Murthy-Stampacchia [@MuSt] and Trudinger [@Tr]. To obtain these results, they require high integrability of the matrix $M$ and its inverse. That is, the usual strict ellipticity condition in the classical De Giorgi-Nash-Moser theory (see, for example, Chapter 8 in Gilbarg-Trudinger [@GT]) $$\lambda |\xi|^2 \leq M_{ij}\xi_i\xi_j \leq \Lambda |\xi|^2 ~\text{for some positive constants }\lambda~\text{and }\Lambda, \text{ and for all } \xi \in {{\mathbb R}}^n,$$ is replaced by the following condition: $$\lambda_{M,1}^{-1},~\lambda_{M, 2} \in L^p_{loc}(\Omega) \text{ for some } p>n,$$ where $\lambda_{M, 1}(x)$ and $\lambda_{M,2}(x)$ are the smallest and largest eigenvalues of $M(x)$. We denote by $S_n^+$ the set of $n\times n$ nonnegative symmetric matrices. For reader’s convenience, we state the following well known results. (*Bound for Dirichlet boundary data*; *see* [@MuSt Chapter 7] *and* [@Tr Theorem 4.2]) \[2corlocal\] Let $M=(M_{ij})_{1\leq i, j\leq n}: \Omega \to S_n^+$ be such that $\lambda_{M,1}^{-1}$ is in $L^p_{\text{loc}}(\Omega; S_n^+)$ for some $p>n$. Let $V$ be in $L^{\infty}(\Omega;{{\mathbb R}}^n)$. If $u$ is a solution of (\[2divforme\]) in $B_R(y) \subset\subset \Omega $ and $u= 0$ on $\partial B_R(y)$, then $$\sup_{B_R(y)} |u| \leq C(n, p)\|\lambda_{M, 1}^{-1}\|_{L^p(B_R(y))}\|V\|_{L^{\infty}(B_R(y))} R^{1-\frac{n}{p}}.$$ (*Bound without boundary data*; *see* [@MuSt Chapter 8] *and* [@Tr Corollary 5.4]) \[2main4\] Let $M= (M_{ij})_{1\leq i, j\leq n}: \Omega \to S_n^+$ be such that $\lambda_{M,2}, \lambda_{M, 1}^{-1}$ are both in $L^p_{loc}(\Omega)$, with $p>n$. Let $V$ be in $L^{\infty}(\Omega; {{\mathbb R}}^n)$. Let $u$ be a solution of (\[2divforme\]) in $\Omega$. Then we have for any ball $B_{2R}(y) \subset \subset \Omega$ and $q>0$ $$\sup_{B_R(y)} |u| \leq C(\|u\|_{L^{q}(B_{2R}(y))} + \|V\|_{L^{\infty}(B_{2R}(y))})$$ where $C$ depends on $n, R, q, p, \|\lambda_{M, 2}\|_{L^p(B_{2R}(y))}$ and $\| \lambda_{M, 1}^{-1}\|_{L^p(B_{2R}(y))}$. In our Theorems \[gl\_thm\] and \[int\_thm\] in two dimensions, the matrix $\Phi$ belongs to $L^{1+{\varepsilon}_\ast}_{\text{loc}}(\Omega)$, by De Philippis-Figalli-Savin and Schmidt’s $W^{2, 1+{\varepsilon}}$ estimates for the Monge-Ampère equation [@DPFS; @Sch]. Thus, the smallest and largest eigenvalues $\lambda_{\Phi, 1}$ and $\lambda_{\Phi, 2}$ of $\Phi$ satisfies $\lambda_{\Phi, 1}^{-1},\lambda_{\Phi, 2}\in L^{1+{\varepsilon}_\ast}_{\text{loc}}(\Omega)$. The exponent ${\varepsilon}_\ast = {\varepsilon}_\ast(\lambda,\Lambda)>0$ is small and can be taken to be arbitrary close to $0$ when the ratio $\Lambda/\lambda$ is large, by Wang’s examples [@W]. In particular, when $\Lambda/\lambda$ is large, and when $M=\Phi$, the assumptions in Theorems \[2corlocal\] and \[2main4\] on the eigenvalues of $M$ are not satisfied. On the other hand, in any dimension, when we impose either the continuity or closeness to a positive constant of $\det D^2\varphi$, then by Caffarelli’s $W^{2,p}$ estimates for the Monge-Ampère equation [@C], $\lambda_{\Phi, 1}^{-1}$ and $\lambda_{\Phi, 2}$ belong to $L^p_{\text{loc}}(\Omega)$ for any $p\in (1,\infty)$. Thus, we can apply Theorems \[2corlocal\] and \[2main4\] to (\[main\_eq\]). This is what Loeper used in his proofs of the Hölder regularity of the polar factorization for time-dependent maps and the semigeostrophic equations in [@Loe Theorems 2.2, 2.3 and 9.2]. Preliminaries on the Monge-Ampère equation and its linearization {#sec:prelim} ================================================================ Throughout this section we fix a bounded convex set with nonempty interior $\Omega \subset {{\mathbb R}}^n$ and assume that $\varphi \in C^2(\Omega)$ is a strictly convex function satisfying $$\label{mu:1} \lambda \leq \det D^2 \varphi \leq \Lambda \quad \text{in } \Omega,$$ for some $0 < \lambda \leq \Lambda$. The results in this section hold for all dimensions $n\geq 2$. Basics of the Monge-Ampère equation ----------------------------------- We recall in this section some well-known results on the Monge-Ampère equation that we will use in later sections of the paper. Universal constants {#universal-constants .unnumbered} ------------------- Constants depending only on $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$ in as well as on dimension $n$ will be called *universal* constants. Monge-Ampère sections {#monge-ampère-sections .unnumbered} --------------------- Given $x \in \Omega$ and $h >0$, the Monge-Ampère section of $\varphi$ centered at $x$ and with height $h$ is defined as $$S_\varphi(x,h):= \{y \in \Omega: \varphi(y) < \varphi(x) + \nabla \varphi(x)\cdot (y-x) + h\}.$$ A section $S_\varphi(x,h)$ is said to be *normalized* if it satisfies the following inclusions $$B_1(0) \subset S_\varphi(x, h) \subset B_n(0),$$ where $B_r(0)$ denotes the $n$-dimensional ball centered at $0$ and with radius $r >0$. Recall that, by John’s lemma, every open bounded convex set with non-empty interior can be normalized by affine transformations. Volume estimates for sections {#volume-estimates-for-sections .unnumbered} ----------------------------- There exists a universal constant $C(n, \lambda, \Lambda) > 0$ such that for every section $S_\varphi(x, h)\subset\subset\Omega$, we have the following volume estimates: $$\label{vol-sec1} C(n, \lambda, \Lambda)^{-1}h^{n/2} \leq |S_\varphi(x, h)| \leq C(n, \lambda, \Lambda) h^{n/2},$$ see [@G01 Corollary 3.2.4]. $W^{2, 1+{\varepsilon}}$ estimate {#w2-1varepsilon-estimate .unnumbered} --------------------------------- By De Philippis-Figalli-Savin and Schmidt’s $W^{2, 1+{\varepsilon}}$ estimates for the Monge-Ampère equation [@DPFS; @Sch] (see also [@Fi Theorem 4.36]), there exists ${\varepsilon}_\ast = {\varepsilon}_\ast(n,\lambda,\Lambda)>0$ such that $D^2 \varphi\in L^{1+{\varepsilon}_\ast}_{loc}(\Omega)$. More precisely, if $S_\varphi(x_0, 1)$ is a normalized section and $S_\varphi(x_0, 2)\subset\subset \Omega$ then $$\label{w21est} \|\Delta\varphi\|_{L^{1+{\varepsilon}_\ast}(S_\varphi(x_0, 1))}\leq C(n,\lambda,\Lambda).$$ In the following lemma, we estimate the $L^{1+{\varepsilon}_\ast}$ norm of $\Delta\varphi$ and the $C^{\alpha}$ norm of $D\varphi$ on a section $S_{\varphi}(x_0, h)\subset\subset\Omega$. They will be applied to Theorem \[Holder\_int\_thm\] and Proposition \[G2\_thm\] for $h=h_0$. \[DPFS\_lem\] Let $\varphi \in C^2(\Omega)$ be a convex function satisfying (\[MAbound\]). Let ${\varepsilon}_{\ast}$ be as in (\[w21est\]). There exist positive universal constants $\alpha\in (0,1),\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ depending only on $\lambda$, $\Lambda$ and $n$ such that the following statements hold. If $S_\varphi(x_0, 2h) \subset \subset \Omega$ then [1cm]{} (i) $$\|\Delta\varphi\|_{L^{1+{\varepsilon}_\ast}(S_{\varphi}(x_0, h))} \leq C(\lambda,\Lambda, n,{\emph{diam}}(\Omega)) h^{-\alpha_2}.$$ (ii) $$|D\varphi(x)-D\varphi(y)|\leq C(\lambda,\Lambda, n,{\emph{diam}}(\Omega))h^{-\alpha_1} |x-y|^{\alpha}~\text{for all }x, y\in S_{\varphi}(x_0, h/2).$$ The proof of Lemma \[DPFS\_lem\] will be given in Section \[res\_proof\]. Rescaling properties for the equation $\Phi^{ij} u_{ij}={\mbox{div}\,}F$ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Here we record how the equation changes with respect to normalization of a section $S_\varphi(x_0, h)\subset\subset\Omega$ of $\varphi$. By subtracting $\varphi(x_0) + \nabla\varphi(x_0)\cdot (x-x_0) + h$ from $\varphi$, we may assume that $\varphi\mid_{{\partial}S_\varphi(x_0, h)} =0$ and $\varphi$ achieves its minimum $-h$ at $x_0$. By John’s lemma, there exists an affine transformation $Tx =A_h x+ b_h$ such that $$\label{normSh} B_1 (0)\subset T^{-1} (S_\varphi(x_0, h))\subset B_n(0).$$ Introduce the following rescaled functions on $T^{-1} (S_\varphi(x_0, h))$: $$\label{def:tildes} \left\{ \begin{array}{rl} \tilde \varphi(x) &:= (\det A_h)^{-2/n} \varphi(Tx),\\ \tilde u(x) &:= u(Tx),\\ \tilde F(x) &:=(\det A_h)^{\frac{2}{n}} A_h^{-1} F(Tx). \end{array} \right.$$ Then, we have $$\lambda \leq \det D^2 \tilde \varphi \leq \Lambda~\text{in}~T^{-1} (S_\varphi(x_0, h)), \label{detD2tilde}$$ with $\tilde \varphi =0$ on ${\partial}T^{-1}(S_\varphi(x_0, h))$ and $$B_1(0)\subset \tilde S:=T^{-1}(S_\varphi(x_0, h)) = S_{\tilde \varphi}(\tilde x_0, (\det A_h)^{-2/n} h)\subset B_n(0),$$ where $\tilde x_0$ is the minimum point of $\tilde \varphi$ in $T^{-1} (S_\varphi(x_0, h))$. The following lemma records how the equation changes with respect to the normalization of a section $S_\varphi(x_0, h)\subset\subset\Omega$ of $\varphi$. \[res\_eq\_lem\] Let $\varphi \in C^2(\Omega)$ be a convex function satisfying (\[MAbound\]). Let $F:\Omega\rightarrow {{\mathbb R}}^n$ is a bounded vector field. Assume that $S_\varphi(x_0, 2h)\subset\subset\Omega$. Under the rescaling , the linearized Monge-Ampère equation $$\Phi^{ij} u_{ij}={\mbox{div}\,}F \text{ in } S_{\varphi}(x_0, h)$$ becomes $$\begin{aligned} \tilde \Phi^{ij}\tilde u_{ij}= \emph{div} \tilde F~\text{in}~\tilde S \label{eqSh1}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\|\tilde F\|_{L^{\infty}(\tilde S)}\leq C(\lambda,\Lambda, n,{\emph{diam}}(\Omega))h^{1-\frac{n}{2}}\|F\|_{L^{\infty}(S_\varphi(x_0, h))} \label{tFbound}$$ and, for any $q > 1$, we have $$\label{tilde_u_Lq} C^{-1}(n,\lambda,\Lambda, q) h^{-\frac{n}{2q}}\|u\|_{L^{q}(S_{\varphi(x_0, h)})}\leq \|\tilde u\|_{L^{q}(\tilde S)} \leq C(n,\lambda,\Lambda, q) h^{-\frac{n}{2q}}\|u\|_{L^{q}(S_{\varphi(x_0, h)})}.$$ The proof of Lemma \[res\_eq\_lem\] will be given in Section \[res\_proof\]. Proof of Theorem \[GSthm\] {#SG_sec} ========================== In this section, we prove Theorem \[GSthm\]. We first collect some regularity properties of weak solutions to (\[GS:dual\])-(\[SGbdr\]) from previous work by Benamou-Brenier [@BB], Cullen-Feldman [@CF], Loeper [@Loe]; see also the lecture notes by Figalli [@F]. ([@BB; @CF; @F; @Loe]) \[thm\_collect\] Let $\rho^0$ be a probability measure on ${{\mathbb T}}^2$. Suppose that that $ \lambda \leq \rho^0 \leq \Lambda$ in ${{\mathbb T}}^2$ for positive constants $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$. Let $(\rho_t, P_t^{\ast})$ solve (\[GS:dual\])-(\[SGbdr\]). Let $P_t$ be the Legendre transform of $P_t^{\ast}$. Then: [1cm]{} (i) $\lambda \leq \rho_t\leq \Lambda$ in ${{\mathbb T}}^2$ for all $t\geq 0$,\ (ii) $\|U_t\|_{L^{\infty}({{\mathbb T}}^2)}\leq \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}$ for all $t\geq 0$,\ (iii) There is a positive constant $\kappa=\kappa (\lambda,\Lambda)$ such that for all $t>0$, we have $$\int_{{{\mathbb T}}^2} \rho_t(x) |{\partial}_t \nabla P_t^{\ast}(x)|^{1+\kappa}dx\leq C(\lambda,\Lambda).$$ (iv) For all $t>0$, $P_t$ is an Aleksandrov solution to the Monge-Ampère equation $$\rho_t(\nabla P_t)\det D^2 P_t =1 \text{ on } {{\mathbb T}}^2.$$ Combining the previous theorem with the known regularity results for strictly convex Aleksandrov solutions to the Monge-Ampère equation, we have the following theorem. ([@C1; @C2; @C3; @DPFS; @Sch]) \[Cthm\] Let $\rho^0$ be a probability measure on ${{\mathbb T}}^2$. Suppose that that $ \lambda \leq \rho^0 \leq \Lambda$ in ${{\mathbb T}}^2$ for positive constants $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$. Let $(\rho_t, P_t^{\ast})$ solve (\[GS:dual\])-(\[SGbdr\]) with the normalization $\int_{{{\mathbb T}}^2} P_t^\ast(x) dx=0$. Let $P_t$ be the Legendre transform of $P_t^{\ast}$. Then: [1cm]{} (i) There exist universal constants $\beta=\beta(\lambda,\Lambda)\in (0, 1)$ and $C= C(\lambda,\Lambda)>0$ such that $$\|P_t^\ast\|_{C^{1,\beta}({{\mathbb T}}^2)} + \|P_t\|_{C^{1,\beta}({{\mathbb T}}^2)} \leq C.$$ (ii) $P_t, P_t^{\ast}\in L^{\infty}([0,\infty), W^{2, 1+{\varepsilon}_{\ast}}({{\mathbb T}}^2))$ for some ${\varepsilon}_{\ast}>0$ depending only on $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$. By [@F Theorem 4.5], the positive constants $\kappa$ in Theorem \[thm\_collect\] and ${\varepsilon}_\ast$ in Theorem \[Cthm\] are related by $$\kappa=\frac{{\varepsilon}_\ast}{2+{\varepsilon}_\ast}.$$ Moreover, the constant ${\varepsilon}_\ast$ in Theorem \[Cthm\] can be chosen to be the same ${\varepsilon}_\ast$ in (\[w21est\]) when $n=2$. By an approximation argument as in [@ACDF12; @Loe], we only need to establish the bounds in $L^{\infty}((0,\infty); C^{\alpha}({{\mathbb T}}^2))$ for ${\partial}_t P_t^\ast$ and ${\partial}_t P_t$ when the solution $(\rho_t, P_t^\ast)$ is smooth as long as these bounds depend only on $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$. Thus, we can assume in what follows, $\rho_t, U_t$, $P_t^{\ast}$ and $P_t$ are smooth. We will use $C$ to denote a generic positive constant depending only on $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$; its value may change from line to line. By Theorem \[thm\_collect\](i), for all $t\geq 0$, we have $$\label{rho_ineq} \lambda \leq \rho_t \leq \Lambda~\text{in } {{\mathbb T}}^2.$$ Differentiating both sides of $\det D^2 P_t^{\ast} = \rho_t$ with respect to $t$, we find that ${\partial}_t P_t^{\ast}$ solves the linearized Monge-Ampère equation $$\nabla \cdot (M_{P_t^{\ast}} \nabla (\partial_t P_t^{\ast})) = {\partial}_t \rho_t$$ where $M_{P_t^{\ast}}$ represents the matrix of cofactors of $D^2 P_t^{\ast}$; that is, $M_{P_t^{\ast}}= (\det D^2 P_t^\ast) (D^2 P_t^\ast)^{-1}$. Using the first and second equations of (\[GS:dual\]), we get $$\label{GS_diff} \nabla \cdot (M_{P_t^{\ast}} \nabla (\partial_t P_t^{\ast}))={\mbox{div}\,}F_t$$ where $F_t=-\rho_t U_t$ with the following bound obtained from Theorem \[thm\_collect\](ii): $$\label{Finfty} \|F_t\|_{L^{\infty}({{\mathbb T}}^2)} \leq \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}\Lambda.$$ By Theorem \[thm\_collect\](i, iii), we have $$\label{Ptkappa} \int_{{{\mathbb T}}^2} |{\partial}_t \nabla P_t^{\ast}(x)|^{1+\kappa}dx\leq C.$$ By subtracting a constant from $P_t^{\ast}$, we can assume that for each $t\in (0,\infty)$, $$\int_{{{\mathbb T}}^2} P_t^{\ast}(x)dx =0. \label{Pnormal}$$ Thus, we deduce from (\[Ptkappa\]), (\[Pnormal\]) and the Sobolev imbedding theorem that $$\|{\partial}_t P_t^{\ast}\|_{L^2({{\mathbb T}}^2)}\leq C. \label{L2bound}$$ From (\[Pnormal\]) and Caffarelli’s global $C^{1,\beta}$ estimates [@C3] (see also Theorem \[Cthm\]), we find universal constants $\beta=\beta(\lambda,\Lambda)\in (0, 1)$ and $C= C(\lambda,\Lambda)>0$ such that $$\label{C1alpha} \|P_t^\ast\|_{C^{1,\beta}({{\mathbb T}}^2)} + \|P_t\|_{C^{1,\beta}({{\mathbb T}}^2)} \leq C.$$ Using (\[C1alpha\]) together with the ${{\mathbb Z}}^2$-periodicity of $P_t^{\ast}-|x|^2/2$, we can find positive constants $h_0(\lambda,\Lambda)$ and $R_0(\lambda,\Lambda)$ such that $${{\mathbb T}}^2\subset S_{P_t^\ast}(x_0, h_0)\subset S_{P_t^\ast}(x_0, 4h_0)\subset B_{R_0}(0)~\text{for all } x_0\in {{\mathbb T}}^2. \label{Sconfine}$$ Again, using the ${{\mathbb Z}}^2$-periodicity of $P_t^{\ast}-|x|^2/2$ and $F_t$, we deduce from (\[Finfty\]) and (\[L2bound\]) that $$\|F_t\|_{L^{\infty}(B_{R_0}(0))} + \|{\partial}_t P_t^{\ast}\|_{L^2(B_{R_0}(0))}\leq C(\lambda,\Lambda). \label{L2bound2}$$ With (\[rho\_ineq\]), (\[Sconfine\]) and (\[L2bound2\]) in hand, we can apply Theorem \[Holder\_int\_thm\] to (\[GS\_diff\]) in each section $S_{P_t^\ast}(x_0, 4h_0)$ with $p=2$ and $\Omega= B_{R_0}(0)$ to conclude that: For some $\gamma=\gamma(\lambda,\Lambda)\in (0,1)$, we have $$\label{tPt1} \|{\partial}_t P_t^{\ast}\|_{L^{\infty}((0,\infty), C^{\gamma}({{\mathbb T}}^2))} \leq C(\lambda, \Lambda).$$ For the Hölder regularity of $\partial_t P_t$, we use the equation $$\partial_t P_t(x) = - \partial_t P_t^{\ast}(\nabla P_t(x))~\text{for } x\in {{\mathbb R}}^2 \label{PPt_eq}$$ which follows from differentiating with respect to $t$ the equation $$P_t(x)+ P_t^{\ast}(\nabla P_t(x))= x\cdot \nabla P_t(x) ~\text{for } x\in {{\mathbb R}}^2.$$ Combining (\[tPt1\]) with (\[C1alpha\]), we obtain from (\[PPt\_eq\]) the following Hölder estimate for ${\partial}_t P_t$: $$\|{\partial}_t P_t\|_{L^{\infty}((0,\infty), C^{\gamma\beta}({{\mathbb T}}^2))} \leq C(\lambda, \Lambda).$$ The proof of Theorem \[GSthm\] is complete by setting $\alpha=\gamma\beta$. Proof of Theorems \[Holder\_int\_thm\], \[gl\_thm\], and \[int\_thm\] ===================================================================== In this section, we prove Theorems \[Holder\_int\_thm\], \[gl\_thm\], and \[int\_thm\]. \[Proof of Theorem \[Holder\_int\_thm\]\] The conclusion of the theorem follows from Lemma \[DPFS\_lem\] and the following oscillation estimate: For every $h\leq h_0$, we have $$\operatorname*{osc}(u, S_\varphi(x_0, h))\leq C(p,\lambda,\Lambda, {\text{diam}}(\Omega), h_0) \left( \|F \|_{L^{\infty}(S_\varphi(x_0, 2h_0))} + \|u\|_{L^{p}(S_\varphi(x_0, 2h_0))} \right)h^{\gamma_0} \label{key_osc}$$ where $\gamma_0\in (0, 1)$ depends only on $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$. Here and what follows, we use the following notation for a function $f$ defined on a set $E$: $$\operatorname*{osc}(f, E):= \sup\limits_{E} f - \inf\limits_{E} f.$$ Indeed, suppose (\[key\_osc\]) is established. For each $x\in S_{\varphi}(x_0, h_0)\backslash \{x_0\}$, we can find some $h\in (0, h_0]$ such that $x\in {\partial}S_{\varphi}(x_0, h)$. By the mean value theorem, we can find some $z$ in the interval from $x_0$ to $x$ such that $$h=\varphi(x)-\varphi(x_0)-\nabla \varphi(x_0)\cdot (x-x_0)= (\nabla \varphi(z)-\nabla \varphi(x_0))\cdot (x-x_0).$$ The $C^{1,\alpha}$ estimate in Lemma \[DPFS\_lem\] applied to $z, x_0\in S_{\varphi}(x_0, h_0)$ then gives $$h\leq C(\lambda,\Lambda, {\text{diam}}(\Omega), h_0)|z-x_0|^{\alpha}|x-x_0|\leq C(\lambda,\Lambda, {\text{diam}}(\Omega), h_0)|x-x_0|^{1+ \alpha}.$$ Using (\[key\_osc\]), we find that $$\begin{aligned} |u(x)-u(x_0)|&\leq& C(p,\lambda,\Lambda, {\text{diam}}(\Omega), h_0) (\|F \|_{L^{\infty}(S_\varphi(x_0, 2h_0))} + \|u\|_{L^{p}(S_\varphi(x_0, 2h_0))} )h^{\gamma_0}\\ & \leq& C(p,\lambda,\Lambda, {\text{diam}}(\Omega), h_0) \left( \|F \|_{L^{\infty}(S_\varphi(x_0, 2h_0))} + \|u\|_{L^{p}(S_\varphi(x_0, 2h_0))} \right)|x-x_0|^{\gamma}\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma=\gamma_0(1+\alpha).$ The conclusion of Theorem \[Holder\_int\_thm\] follows. It remains to prove (\[key\_osc\]). On the section $S_{\varphi}(x_0, h)$ with $h\leq h_0$, we split $u$ as $u= v + w$ where $$\left\{\begin{array}{rl} \Phi^{ij} v_{ij} & ={\mbox{div}\,}F \quad \mbox{ in}\quad S_\varphi(x_0, h),\\ v &=0 \qquad \quad \,\mbox{on}\quad \partial S_\varphi(x_0, h), \end{array}\right.$$ and $$\left\{\begin{array}{rl} \Phi^{ij} w_{ij} & = 0\quad\quad \quad \mbox{ in}\quad S_\varphi(x_0, h),\\ w &=u \qquad \quad \,\mbox{on}\quad \partial S_\varphi(x_0, h). \end{array}\right.$$ By Theorem \[gl\_thm\] applied to the equation for $v$, we can find a universal constant $\delta=\delta(\lambda,\Lambda)$ such that $$\label{vSh} \sup_{S_\varphi(x_0, h)} |v|\leq C(\lambda,\Lambda, {\text{diam}}(\Omega), h_0) \|F \|_{L^{\infty}(S_\varphi(x_0, h))} h^{\delta}.$$ On the other hand, as a consequence of Theorem \[CGthm\] (see also the Corollary in [@CG97 p.455]), we have from the homogeneous linearized Monge-Ampère equation for $w$ that $$\operatorname*{osc}(w, S_\varphi(x_0, h/2)) \leq \beta \operatorname*{osc}(w, S_\varphi(x_0, h))$$ for some $\beta=\beta(\lambda, \Lambda) \in (0,1)$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned} \label{uvwsplit} \operatorname*{osc}(u, S_\varphi(x_0, h/2)) &\leq& \operatorname*{osc}(w, S_\varphi(x_0, h/2)) + \operatorname*{osc}(v, S_\varphi(x_0, h/2))\nonumber\\ &\leq& \beta \operatorname*{osc}(w, S_\varphi(x_0, h)) + 2 {\left\Vertv\right\Vert}_{L^\infty(S_\varphi(x_0, h/2))}.\end{aligned}$$ Using the maximum principle to $\Phi^{ij} w_{ij}=0$, we have $$\begin{aligned} \operatorname*{osc}(w, S_\varphi(x_0, h)) = \operatorname*{osc}(w, {\partial}S_\varphi(x_0, h))=\operatorname*{osc}(u, {\partial}S_\varphi(x_0, h))\leq \operatorname*{osc}(u, S_\varphi(x_0, h)).\end{aligned}$$ Together with (\[uvwsplit\]) and (\[vSh\]), we find for every $h \leq h_0$ $$\operatorname*{osc}(u, S_\varphi(x_0, h/2))\leq \beta \operatorname*{osc}(u, S_\varphi(x_0, h)) + C(\lambda,\Lambda, {\text{diam}}(\Omega), h_0) \|F \|_{L^{\infty}(S_\varphi(x_0, h_0))} h^{\delta}.$$ Hence, by a standard argument (see, for example, Han-Lin [@HL Lemma 4.19]), we have for all $h\leq h_0$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{osc_est1} \operatorname*{osc}(u, S_\varphi(x_0, h)) &\leq& C\left(\frac{h}{h_0} \right)^{\gamma_0} \left( \operatorname*{osc}(u, S_\varphi(x_0, h_0)) + C_1(\lambda,\Lambda, {\text{diam}}(\Omega), h_0) \|F \|_{L^{\infty}(S_\varphi(x_0, h_0))} h_0^{\delta} \right) \nonumber\\&\leq& C \left(\frac{h}{h_0} \right)^{\gamma_0} \left(2\|u\|_{L^{\infty}(S_\varphi(x_0, h_0))}+ C_1\|F \|_{L^{\infty}(S_\varphi(x_0, h_0))} h_0^{\delta} \right) \end{aligned}$$ for a structural constant $\gamma_0=\gamma_0(\lambda,\Lambda) \in (0,1)$ and some constant $C_1= C_1(\lambda,\Lambda,{\text{diam}}(\Omega), h_0)$.\ By Theorem \[int\_thm\], we have $$\|u\|_{L^{\infty}(S_\varphi(x_0, h_0))}\leq C(p, \lambda,\Lambda,{\text{diam}}(\Omega)) \left(\|F\|_{L^{\infty}(S_\varphi(x_0, 2h_0))} + h_0^{-1/p}\|u\|_{L^{p}(S_\varphi(x_0, 2h_0))}\right).$$ The above estimate combined with (\[osc\_est1\]) gives (\[key\_osc\]). The proof of Theorem \[Holder\_int\_thm\] is complete. \[LMA\_est\_proof\_sec\] Let $g_S(x, y)$ be Green’s function of the operator $L_\varphi=-{\partial}_j(\Phi^{ij}{\partial}_i)=-\Phi^{ij}{\partial}_{ij}$ on $S= S_\varphi(x_0, h)$, that is, $g_S$ satisfies . Then, by using that $u$ solves $\Phi^{ij} u_{ij}=\nabla \cdot F$ with $u=0$ on $\partial S$, we get $$u(y)=-\int_{S}g_S(y, x) \nabla \cdot F (x) dx \quad \text{for all }y \in S.$$ Using symmetry of Green’s function and integrating by parts, we obtain for all $y\in S$ $$\label{rep:u:F} u(y)=-\int_{S}g_S(x, y) \nabla \cdot F (x) dx = \int_{S} \langle \nabla_x g_S(x, y), F (x) \rangle dx.$$ It follows that for all $y\in S$, we have $$\begin{aligned} |u(y)|\leq \|F\|_{L^{\infty}(S)} \int_{S}| \nabla_x g_S(x, y)| dx \leq \|F\|_{L^{\infty}(S)} \left(\int_{S}| \nabla_x g_S(x, y)|^{1+\kappa} dx\right)^{\frac{1}{1+\kappa}} |S|^{\frac{\kappa}{1+\kappa}}. \end{aligned}$$ From the $L^{1+\kappa}$-bound for $\nabla g_S$ in Proposition \[G2\_thm\], we have $$\left(\int_{S}| \nabla_x g_S(x, y)|^{1+\kappa} dx\right)^{\frac{1}{1+\kappa}}\leq C(\lambda,\Lambda, {\text{diam}}(\Omega), h_0) h^{\kappa_1}$$ Thus, by the volume estimates for sections in , we obtain the asserted $L^{\infty}(S)$ bound for $u$ from $$\|u\|_{L^{\infty}(S)}\leq C(\lambda,\Lambda, {\text{diam}}(\Omega), h_0) \|F\|_{L^{\infty}(S)} h^{\kappa_1}|S|^{\frac{\kappa}{1+\kappa}}\leq C(\lambda,\Lambda, {\text{diam}}(\Omega), h_0) \|F\|_{L^{\infty}(S)} h^{\kappa_1 + \frac{\kappa}{1+\kappa}}.$$ The rest of this section is devoted to the proof of Theorem \[int\_thm\] using Moser’s iteration. The key step is to prove the theorem when the section $S_{\varphi}(x_0, h)$ is normalized (that is, when it is comparable to the unit ball) and when we have a high integrability of the solution. This is the content of Proposition \[int\_thm\_v2\]. After this, the theorem easily follows from a rescaling argument. \[int\_thm\_v2\] Assume $n=2$. Let $\varphi \in C^2(\Omega)$ be a convex function satisfying (\[MAbound\]). Let $F:\Omega\rightarrow {{\mathbb R}}^n$ is a bounded vector field. There exist universally large constants $C_0 > 1$ and $p_0 > 2$ depending only on $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$ such that for every solution $u$ of (\[main\_eq\]) in a section $S_\varphi(x_0, 2)\subset\subset\Omega$ with $B_1(0)\subset S_\varphi (x_0, 1)\subset B_2(0),$ we have $$\sup_{S_\varphi(x_0, 1/2)} |u|\leq C_0 \left( \|u\|_{L^{p_0}(S_\varphi(x_0, 1))}+ \|F\|_{L^{\infty}(S_\varphi(x_0, 1))}\right). \label{int_ineq_v2}$$ Note that, by the volume estimates (\[vol-sec1\]), any normalized section $S_{\varphi}(x_0, h)\subset\subset\Omega$ has height $h$ with $c(\lambda,\Lambda)\leq h\leq C(\lambda,\Lambda)$. Our proof of Proposition \[int\_thm\_v2\] works for all these $h$. However, to simplify the presentation, we choose to work with $h=1$ in Proposition \[int\_thm\_v2\]. By combining Proposition \[int\_thm\_v2\] and Lemma \[res\_eq\_lem\] we immediately obtain: \[int\_thm\_v3\] Assume $n=2$. Let $\varphi \in C^2(\Omega)$ be a convex function satisfying (\[MAbound\]). Let $F:\Omega\rightarrow {{\mathbb R}}^2$ is a bounded vector field. There exist a universal constant $p_0=p_0(\lambda,\Lambda)$ and a constant $C_1$ depending only on $\lambda,\Lambda$ and $\emph{diam}(\Omega)$ such that for every solution $u$ of in a section $S_\varphi(x_0, 2h) \subset \subset \Omega$, we have $$\sup_{S_\varphi(x_0, h/2)} |u| \leq C_1\left(\|F\|_{L^{\infty}(S_\varphi(x_0, h))} + h^{-\frac{n}{2p_0}} \|u\|_{L^{p_0}(S_\varphi(x_0, h))}\right). \label{int_ineq_v3}$$ Now, with Corollary \[int\_thm\_v3\], we are ready to give the proof of Theorem \[int\_thm\]. We show that (\[main\_int\_ineq\]) follows from (\[int\_ineq\_v3\]). The proof is based on a simple rescaling argument as in the classical proof of the local boundedness of solutions to uniformly elliptic equations (see, for example, [@HL Theorem 4.1]) with Euclidean balls replaced by sections of $\varphi$. By [@G01 Theorem 3.3.10(i)], there exist universal constants $c_1 >0$ and $\mu >0$ such that for every $\theta \in (0,1)$ and $y \in S_\varphi(x_0, \theta h)$ we have the inclusion $$\label{inc:Sy:Sx0} S_\varphi(y, c_1 (1-\theta)^{\mu} h) \subset S_\varphi(x_0, h).$$ Then, by applying to $u$ on the section $S_\varphi(y, c_1 (1-\theta)^{\mu} h)$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned} |u(y)| &\leq& \sup_{S_\varphi(y, c_1 (1-\theta)^{\mu} h/2)} |u| \\ &\leq& C_1 (\lambda,\Lambda,\text{diam}(\Omega))\left(\|F\|_{L^{\infty}(S_\varphi(y, c_1 (1-\theta)^{\mu} h))} + (1-\theta)^{-\frac{\mu}{p_0}}h^{-\frac{1}{p_0}}\|u\|_{L^{p_0}(S_\varphi(y, c_1 (1-\theta)^{\mu} h))}\right). \end{aligned}$$ Varying $y\in S_{\varphi}(x_0, \theta h)$ and recalling , we obtain $$\label{mvi_theta} {\left\Vertu\right\Vert}_{L^\infty(S_\varphi(x_0, \theta h))} \leq C_1 (\lambda,\Lambda,\text{diam}(\Omega))\left(\|F\|_{L^{\infty}(S_\varphi(x_0, h))} + (1-\theta)^{-\frac{\mu}{p_0}}h^{-\frac{1}{p_0}}\|u\|_{L^{p_0}(S_\varphi(x_0, h))}\right).$$ Now, given $p \in (1, p_0)$ we obtain from the estimate $${\left\Vertu\right\Vert}_{L^\infty(S_\varphi(x_0, \theta h))} \leq C_1\left(\|F\|_{L^{\infty}(S_\varphi(x_0, h))} + ((1-\theta)^{\mu} h)^{-\frac{1}{p_0}}{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}_{L^\infty(S_\varphi(x_0, h))}^{1-\frac{p}{p_0}} \|u\|^{\frac{p}{p_0}}_{L^{p}(S_\varphi(x_0, h))}\right).$$ By Young’s inequality with two exponents $p_0/p$ and $p_0/(p_0 - p)$, we have $$\begin{gathered} C_1((1-\theta)^{\mu} h)^{-\frac{1}{p_0}}{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}_{L^\infty(S_\varphi(x_0, h))}^{1-\frac{p}{p_0}} \|u\|^{\frac{p}{p_0}}_{L^{p}(S_\varphi(x_0, h))}= {\left\Vertu\right\Vert}_{L^\infty(S_\varphi(x_0, h))}^{1-\frac{p}{p_0}} C_1((1-\theta)^{\mu} h)^{-\frac{1}{p_0}} \|u\|^{\frac{p}{p_0}}_{L^{p}(S_\varphi(x_0, h))}\\ \leq (1-\frac{p}{p_0}){\left\Vertu\right\Vert}_{L^\infty(S_\varphi(x_0, h))} + \frac{p}{p_0}C_1^{\frac{p_0}{p}} ((1-\theta)^{\mu} h)^{-\frac{1}{p}}\|u\|_{L^{p}(S_\varphi(x_0, h))}.\end{gathered}$$ Hence, for every $\theta \in (0,1)$ we have for a constant $C_2$ depending only on $\lambda,\Lambda, \text{diam}(\Omega)$ $$\begin{aligned} {\left\Vertu\right\Vert}_{L^\infty(S_\varphi(x_0, \theta h))} \leq (1-\frac{p}{p_0}) {\left\Vertu\right\Vert}_{L^\infty(S_\varphi(x_0, h))} + C_2 \left(\|F\|_{L^{\infty}(S_\varphi(x_0, h))} + (1-\theta)^{-\frac{\mu}{p}} h^{-\frac{1}{p}}\|u\|_{L^{p}(S_\varphi(x_0, h))}\right).\end{aligned}$$ It is now standard (see [@HL Lemma 4.3]) that for every $p \in (1, p_0)$, we get $$\begin{aligned} {\left\Vertu\right\Vert}_{L^\infty(S_\varphi(x_0, \theta h))} \leq C_3 \left(\|F\|_{L^{\infty}(S_\varphi(x_0, h))} + (1-\theta)^{-\frac{\mu}{p}}h^{-\frac{1}{p}}\|u\|_{L^{p}(S_\varphi(x_0, h))}\right)\end{aligned}$$ for a constant $C_3$ depending only on $p, \lambda,\Lambda$ and $\text{diam}(\Omega)$. Theorem \[int\_thm\] follows from the above estimate by setting $\theta=1/2$. To complete the proof of Theorem \[int\_thm\], it remains to prove Proposition \[int\_thm\_v2\]. Let ${\varepsilon}={\varepsilon}_\ast(\lambda,\Lambda)>0$ be the universal constant in De Philippis-Figalli-Savin and Schmidt’s $W^{2, 1+{\varepsilon}}$ estimate; see [@DPFS; @Sch] and (\[w21est\]). Then, by the convexity of $\varphi$, we have in two dimensions $$\|\Phi\|_{L^{1+{\varepsilon}}(S_\varphi(x_0, 1))}= \|D^2 \varphi\|_{L^{1+{\varepsilon}}(S_\varphi(x_0, 1))} \leq \|\Delta\varphi\|_{L^{1+{\varepsilon}}(S_\varphi(x_0, 1))}\leq C(\lambda,\Lambda). \label{W21}$$ We prove the proposition for a large constant $C_0$ depending only on $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$ and $$p_0:=2 \frac{{\varepsilon}+1}{{\varepsilon}}.$$ By the homogeneity of , we can assume that $$\|F\|_{L^{\infty}(S_\varphi(x_0, 1))} + \|u\|_{L^{p_0}(S_\varphi(x_0, 1))}\leq 1. \label{Fbound}$$ In order to prove , we then need to show that, for some universal constant $C_0 > 0$, we have $$\label{uboundC} \sup_{S_\varphi(x_0, 1/2)} |u|\leq C_0.$$ We will use Moser’s iteration to prove the proposition. Given $r \in (0, 1]$, let us put $$S_r:= S_\varphi(x_0, r) ~\text{and } S:= S_1=S_\varphi(x_0, 1).$$ Let $\eta\in C^1_0(S)$ be a cut-off function to be determined later. Let $\beta\geq 0$. By testing (\[main\_eq\]) against $|u|^{\beta} u \eta^2$ using its divergence form (\[main\_eq\_div\]), we get $$\begin{aligned} \int_S F \cdot \nabla (|u|^{\beta} u \eta^2)dx&=& \int_S \Phi^{ij} u_i (|u|^{\beta} u \eta^2)_jdx\nonumber \\&=& (\beta+1)\int_S \Phi^{ij} u_i u_j |u|^{\beta} \eta^2 dx + 2\int_S \Phi^{ij} u_i \eta_j \eta |u|^\beta u dx. \label{Ftest} \end{aligned}$$ Next, the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality gives $$\begin{aligned} \left|2\int_S \Phi^{ij} u_i \eta_j \eta |u|^\beta u dx\right|&\leq& 2 \left(\int_S\Phi^{ij}u_i u_j |u|^{\beta} \eta^2 dx\right)^{1/2} \left(\int_S\Phi^{ij}\eta_i\eta_j |u|^{\beta+2}dx\right)^{1/2}\nonumber\\ &\leq& \frac{1}{2}\int_S\Phi^{ij}u_i u_j |u|^{\beta} \eta^2 dx + 2\int_S\Phi^{ij}\eta_i \eta_j |u|^{\beta+2} dx. \label{CS_ineq}\end{aligned}$$ It follows from (\[Ftest\]) that $$(\beta +\tfrac{1}{2})\int_S\Phi^{ij}u_i u_j |u|^{\beta} \eta^2 dx - 2\int_S\Phi^{ij}\eta_i \eta_j |u|^{\beta+2}dx\leq \int_S F \cdot \nabla (|u|^{\beta} u \eta^2)dx:=M. \label{eq_test1}$$ We now handle the right hand side $M$ of (\[eq\_test1\]). First, using (\[Fbound\]), we have $$\begin{aligned} M=\int_S F \cdot \nabla (|u|^{\beta} u \eta^2) dx&=& (\beta + 1)\int_S F \cdot \nabla u |u|^{\beta} \eta^2 dx + 2\int_S F \cdot \nabla \eta \eta |u|^{\beta} u dx \\ &\leq& (\beta + 1)\int_S |\nabla u| |u|^{\beta} \eta^2 dx + 2\int_S |\nabla \eta| \eta |u|^{\beta+1} dx\end{aligned}$$ Second, using $\det D^2\varphi\geq\lambda$ and the following inequality $\Phi^{ij} v_{i}(x) v_{j}(x) \geq \frac{\det D^2 \varphi |\nabla v|^2}{\Delta \varphi} $ whose simple proof can be found in [@CG97 Lemma 2.1], we deduce that $$M \leq (\beta + 1)\int_S \lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}} \left(\Phi^{ij} u_i u_j \Delta \varphi\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}|u|^{\beta} \eta^2 dx + 2\int_S \lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}} \left(\Phi^{ij} \eta_i \eta_j \Delta \varphi\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\eta |u|^{\beta+1}dx.$$ Using the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} M &\leq& \frac{\beta+ 1}{4}\int_S\Phi^{ij}u_i u_j |u|^{\beta} \eta^2 dx + C(\lambda)(\beta+1) \int_S \Delta\varphi |u|^{\beta} \eta^2 dx\\ &+& C(\lambda)\int_S \Delta\varphi |u|^{\beta} \eta^2 dx + \int_S\Phi^{ij}\eta_i \eta_j |u|^{\beta+2} dx \\&\leq & \frac{\beta+ 1}{4}\int_S\Phi^{ij}u_i u_j |u|^{\beta} \eta^2 dx + C(\lambda)(\beta+1) \int_S \Delta\varphi |u|^{\beta} \eta^2 dx + \int_S\Phi^{ij}\eta_i \eta_j |u|^{\beta+2} dx. \end{aligned}$$ It follows from (\[eq\_test1\]) that $$\label{eq_test6} \frac{\beta+ 2}{8}\int_S\Phi^{ij}u_i u_j |u|^{\beta} \eta^2 dx\leq C(\lambda)(\beta+2) \int_S \Delta\varphi |u|^{\beta} \eta^2 dx + 3\int_S\Phi^{ij}\eta_i \eta_j |u|^{\beta+2} dx.$$ Consider the quantity $$\begin{aligned} \label{Qdef} Q&:=& \int_S \Phi^{ij} (|u|^{\beta/2} u \eta)_i (|u|^{\beta/2} u \eta)_j dx \nonumber\\ &=& \frac{(\beta+2)^2}{4} \int_S\Phi^{ij}u_i u_j |u|^{\beta} \eta^2 dx + (\beta +2 )\int_S \Phi^{ij} u_i\eta_j \eta |u|^{\beta} u dx + \int_S\Phi^{ij}\eta_i \eta_j |u|^{\beta+2} dx.\end{aligned}$$ Using (\[CS\_ineq\]), we obtain $$\begin{gathered} Q\leq \frac{(\beta+2)^2}{4} \int_S\Phi^{ij}u_i u_j |u|^{\beta} \eta^2 dx + \frac{\beta+2}{4}\int_S\Phi^{ij}u_i u_j |u|^{\beta} \eta^2 dx\\ + (\beta+2)\int_S\Phi^{ij}\eta_i \eta_j |u|^{\beta+2} dx + \int_S\Phi^{ij}\eta_i \eta_j |u|^{\beta+2} dx\\ \leq (\beta+2)^2 \int_S\Phi^{ij}u_i u_j |u|^{\beta} \eta^2 dx + (\beta +4)\int_S\Phi^{ij}\eta_i \eta_j |u|^{\beta+2} dx.\end{gathered}$$ By (\[eq\_test6\]), we have $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq_test7} \frac{24}{\beta +2} \int_S\Phi^{ij}\eta_i \eta_j |u|^{\beta+2} dx + C(\lambda) \int_S \Delta\varphi |u|^{\beta} \eta^2 dx &\geq& \int_S\Phi^{ij}u_i u_j |u|^{\beta}\eta^2 dx \\ &\geq & \left[Q- (\beta+4)\int_S\Phi^{ij}\eta_i \eta_j |u|^{\beta+2} dx\right]\frac{1}{(\beta+2)^2}. \end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we have $$24(\beta +2) \int_S\Phi^{ij}\eta_i \eta_j |u|^{\beta+2} dx + C(\lambda) (\beta+2)^2 \int_S \Delta\varphi |u|^{\beta} \eta^2 dx\geq Q. \label{eq_test3}$$ We will bound from above each term on the left hand side of (\[eq\_test3\]). Using Hölder’s inequality and (\[W21\]), we get $$\label{Q1ineq} \int_S\Phi^{ij}\eta_i \eta_j |u|^{\beta+2} dx\leq \|\nabla \eta\|^2_{L^\infty(S)} \|\Phi\|_{L^{1+{\varepsilon}}(S)} \|u\|^{\beta+2}_{L^{\frac{(\beta+2)({\varepsilon}+1)}{{\varepsilon}}}(S)} \leq C\|\nabla \eta\|^2_{L^\infty(S)} \|u\|^{\beta+2}_{L^{\frac{(\beta+2)({\varepsilon}+1)}{{\varepsilon}}}(S)}$$ and $$\begin{gathered} \label{Q2ineq} \int_S \Delta\varphi |u|^{\beta} \eta^2 dx\leq C\|\eta\|^2_{L^\infty(S)} \|u\|^{\beta}_{L^{\frac{\beta({\varepsilon}+1)}{{\varepsilon}}}(S)}\|\Delta\varphi\|_{L^{1+{\varepsilon}}(S)} \\ \leq C\|\eta\|^2_{L^\infty(S)} |S|^{\frac{2{\varepsilon}}{({\varepsilon}+1)(\beta+2)}} \|u\|^{\beta}_{L^{\frac{(\beta+2)({\varepsilon}+1)}{{\varepsilon}}}(S)} \leq C\|\eta\|^2_{L^\infty(S)} \|u\|^{\beta}_{L^{\frac{(\beta+2)({\varepsilon}+1)}{{\varepsilon}}}(S)}.\end{gathered}$$ We now apply the Sobolev inequality in Proposition \[sob\_ineq\] to the function $w= |u|^{\beta/2}u \eta$ and the exponent $q= 4 \frac{{\varepsilon}+1}{{\varepsilon}}$. We then have from the definition of $Q$ in (\[Qdef\]) that $$Q\geq C\|w\|_{L^q(S)}^2= C\left(\int_S |u|^{2(\beta+2)\frac{{\varepsilon}+1}{{\varepsilon}}} \eta^q dx\right)^{2/q}.$$ Thus, invoking (\[Q1ineq\]) and (\[Q2ineq\]), we obtain from (\[eq\_test3\]) the estimate $$\left(\int_S |u|^{2(\beta+2)\frac{{\varepsilon}+1}{{\varepsilon}}} \eta^q dx\right)^{2/q} \leq C (\beta +2)\|\nabla \eta\|^2_{L^{\infty}(S)} \|u\|^{\beta+2}_{L^{\frac{(\beta+2)({\varepsilon}+1)}{{\varepsilon}}}(S)} + C(\beta+2)^2\|\eta\|^2_{L^\infty(S)} \|u\|^{\beta}_{L^{\frac{(\beta+2)({\varepsilon}+1)}{{\varepsilon}}}(S)}.$$ Let $\gamma := (\beta+2) \frac{{\varepsilon}+1}{{\varepsilon}}.$ Then $$\left(\int_S |u|^{2\gamma}\eta^q dx\right)^{\frac{\beta+2}{2\gamma}}\leq C\gamma^2\max\{\|\nabla \eta\|^2_{L^{\infty}(S)},\|\eta\|^2_{L^{\infty}(S)}\} \max\left\{1, \|u\|^{\beta+2}_{L^{\gamma}(S)}\right\}. \label{eq_test4}$$ Now, it is time to select the cut-off function $\eta$ in (\[eq\_test4\]). Assume that $0<r<R\leq 1$. Using the Aleksandrov maximum principle [@G01 Theorem 1.4.2], we find that $$\label{drR} {\text{dist}}(S_r,{\partial}S_R)\geq c(\lambda,\Lambda)(R-r)^{\alpha},~\alpha=2.$$ Indeed, by subtracting $R+ \varphi(x_0)+ \nabla\varphi(x_0)\cdot (x-x_0)$ from $\varphi(x)$, we can assume that $\varphi=0$ on ${\partial}S_R$. Thus, $\varphi=-(R-r)$ on ${\partial}S_r$. By the Aleksandrov maximum principle, we have for any $x\in {\partial}S_r$ $$\begin{aligned} (R-r)^2 =|\varphi(x)|^2 &\leq& C {\text{dist}}(x,{\partial}S_R) {\text{diam}}(S_R)\int_{S_R} \det D^2 \varphi (x) dx\\ &\leq& C(\Lambda) {\text{dist}}(x,{\partial}S_R) {\text{diam}}(S_R)|S_R| \leq C(n,\Lambda) {\text{dist}}(x,{\partial}S_R).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we obtain (\[drR\]) as claimed. With (\[drR\]), we can choose a cut-off function $\eta\equiv 1$ in $S_r$, $\eta=0$ outside $S_R$, $0\leq \eta\leq 1$ and $$\|\nabla \eta\|_{L^{\infty}(S)}\leq \frac{C(\lambda,\Lambda)}{(R-r)^{\alpha}}.$$ It follows from (\[eq\_test4\]) that $$\begin{aligned} \label{ineq_iter} \max\{1, \|u\|_{L^{2\gamma}(S_r)}\}&\leq& [C\gamma^2 (R-r)^{-2\alpha}]^{\frac{1}{\beta+ 2}}\max\{1, \|u\|_{L^{\gamma}(S_R)}\} \nonumber\\ &=&[C\gamma^2 (R-r)^{-2\alpha}]^{\frac{{\varepsilon}+1}{{\varepsilon}\gamma}}\max\{1,\|u\|_{L^{\gamma}(S_R)}\}.\end{aligned}$$ Now, for a nonnegative integer $j$, set $$r_{j}:= \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2^j}, \quad \gamma_{j}:= 2^j\gamma_0, \quad \text{where} \quad \gamma_0:= p_0=2({\varepsilon}+1)/{\varepsilon}.$$ Then $r_j- r_{j+1}= \frac{1}{2^{j+1}}$. Applying the estimate (\[ineq\_iter\]) to $R= r_j$, $r= r_{j+1}$ and $\gamma=\gamma_j$, we get $$\begin{aligned} \max\{1,\|u\|_{L^{\gamma_{j+1}}(S_{r_{j+1}})}\} &\leq& [C\gamma_j^2 (r_j-r_{j+1})^{-2\alpha}]^{\frac{{\varepsilon}+1}{{\varepsilon}\gamma_j}}\max\{1, \|u\|_{L^{\gamma_j}(S_{r_j})}\} \\&\leq& [C\gamma_0^2 16^{j(\alpha+1)}]^{\frac{{\varepsilon}+1}{{\varepsilon}2^j\gamma_0}}\max\{1, \|u\|_{L^{\gamma_j}(S_{r_j})}\}.\end{aligned}$$ By iterating, we obtain for all nonnegative integer $j$ $$\begin{aligned} \displaystyle\max\{1,\|u\|_{L^{\gamma_{j+1}}(S_{r_{j+1}})}\} &\leq& \displaystyle C^{\sum_{j=0}^{\infty} \frac{{\varepsilon}+1}{{\varepsilon}2^j\gamma_0}}16^{\sum_{j=0}^{\infty} \frac{({\varepsilon}+1)(\alpha+1)j}{{\varepsilon}\gamma_0 2^j} }\max\{1,\|u\|_{L^{\gamma_0}(S_{r_0})}\}\\ &=:& C_0 \max\{1, \|u\|_{L^{\gamma_0}(S_{r_0})}\} = C_0\max\{1, \|u\|_{L^{p_0}(S)}\}=C_0.\end{aligned}$$ Letting $j\rightarrow \infty$ in the above inequality, we obtain (\[uboundC\]). The proof of Proposition \[int\_thm\_v2\] is complete. Regularity for Polar Factorization of time-dependent maps in two dimensions {#app_sec} =========================================================================== In this section we use Theorem \[Holder\_int\_thm\] to prove the local Hölder regularity for the polar factorization of time-dependent maps in two dimensions with densities bounded away from zero and infinity. Our applications improve previous work by Loeper who considered the cases of densities sufficiently close to a positive constant. Our presentation in this section closely follows [@Loe]. Throughout, we use $|E|$ to denote the Lebesgue measure of a Lebesgue measurable set $E\subset{{\mathbb R}}^n$. Polar factorization ------------------- Let us start with the polar factorization. The polar factorization of vector-valued mappings was introduced by Brenier in his influential paper [@Br]. He showed that given a bounded open set $\Omega$ of ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ (which we can assume that $0\in\Omega$) such that $|\partial\Omega|=0$, every Lebesgue measurable mapping $X\in L^2(\Omega; {{\mathbb R}}^n)$ satisfying the non-degeneracy condition $$\label{2N} |X^{-1}(B)|=0 ~\text{for all measurable~} B\subset{{\mathbb R}}^n \text{ with } |B|=0$$ can be factorized into: $$\label{2polar} X=\nabla P\circ g,$$ where $P$ is a convex function defined uniquely up to an additive constant and $g:\Omega\rightarrow\Omega$ is a Lebesgue-measure preserving mapping of $\Omega$; that is, $$\label{2meas-pres} \int_{\Omega}f(g(x)) \ dx =\int_{\Omega}f(x) \ dx~\text{for all }f \in C_b(\Omega),$$ where $C_b$ is the set of bounded continuous functions. If $\mathcal{L}_{\Omega}$ denotes the Lebesgue measure of $\Omega$, the push-forward of $\mathcal{L}_{\Omega}$ by $X$, that we denote $X\# \mathcal{L}_{\Omega}$, is the measure $\rho$ defined by $$\label{2defrho} \int_{{{\mathbb R}}^n} f(x) d\rho(x)=\int_{\Omega} f(X(y))dy~\text{for all } f\in C_b({{\mathbb R}}^n).$$ One can see that the condition (\[2N\]) is equivalent to the absolute continuity of $\rho$ with respect to the Lebesgue measure, or $\rho\in L^1({{\mathbb R}}^n, dx)$. By (\[2polar\])-(\[2defrho\]), $P$ is a [*Brenier solution*]{} to the Monge-Ampère equation $$\rho(\nabla P(x))\det D^2 P(x)=1 ~\text{in }\Omega,$$ that is, $$\label{2defPhi} \int_{\Omega}\Psi(\nabla P(y))dy =\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^n} \Psi(x)d\rho(x) \text{ for all } \Psi\in C_b({{\mathbb R}}^n).$$ Moreover, $P$ satisfies the following second boundary condition $$\label{SBC} \nabla P(\Omega)=\Omega^{\ast}$$ where $\Omega^{\ast}$ is the support of $\rho$. Let us denote by $P^{\ast}$ the Legendre transform of $P$; that is, $P^{\ast}$ is defined by $$\label{2deflegendre} P^{\ast}(y) = \sup_{x\in \Omega} \{x\cdot y -P(x)\}.$$ Then $P^{\ast}$ is a Brenier solution to the Monge-Ampère equation $$\det D^2 P^{\ast}(x)=\rho(x) ~\text{in } \Omega^{\ast},$$ that is, $$\label{2defPsi} \int_{{{\mathbb R}}^n} f(\nabla P^{\ast}(x))d\rho(x)=\int_\Omega f(y)dy \text{ for all }f\in C_b(\Omega).$$ Moreover, $P^{\ast}$ satisfies the following second boundary condition $$\label{SBC2} \nabla P^{\ast}(\Omega^\ast)=\Omega.$$ Note that the Brenier solution to the Monge-Ampère equation is in general not the Aleksandrov solution. However, Caffarelli showed in [@C2] that if $\Omega^{\ast}$ is convex then $P$ is an Aleksandrov solution to $\rho(\nabla P(x))\det D^2 P(x)=1. $ In [@Loe], Loeper investigated the regularity of the polar factorization of time-dependent maps $X_t\in L^2(\Omega;{{\mathbb R}}^n)$ where $t$ belongs to some open interval $I\subset{{\mathbb R}}$. The open, bounded set $\Omega \subset {{\mathbb R}}^n$ is now assumed further to be smooth, strictly convex and has Lebesgue measure one. As above, we assume that for each $t\in I$, $X_t$ satisfies (\[2N\]). For each $t\in I$, let $d\rho_t=X_t\# \mathcal{L}_{\Omega}$ be as in (\[2defrho\]). Then, from $|\Omega|=1$, we find that $\rho_t$ is a probability measure on ${{\mathbb R}}^n$. Let $P_t$ and $P_t^{\ast}$ be as in (\[2defPhi\]) and (\[2defPsi\]). Since $P_t$ is defined up to a constant, we impose the condition $$\label{mean:Phi} \int_\Omega P_t( x) {\, dx}= 0 \quad \text{for all }t \in I$$ to guarantee uniqueness. Consider the function $g_t$ in the polar decomposition of $X_t$ as in (\[2polar\]), that is $$\label{fact:X:Phi:g} X_t(x)= \nabla P_t(g_t(x)) \quad \text{for all }x \in \Omega,$$ $g_t: \Omega \to \Omega$ is a Lebesgue-measure preserving mapping. For each $t \in I$, the convex function $P_t$ is a Brenier solution to the following Monge-Ampère equation in $\Omega$ $$\label{MA:Phi} \rho_t(\nabla P_t) \det D^2 P_t = 1.$$ On the other hand, $P_t^\ast$ is a Brenier solution to the Monge-Ampère equation $$\det D^2 P_t^{\ast} = \rho_t~\text{in}~\Omega_t^*:= \nabla P_t(\Omega) \label{psit_eq}$$ with the boundary condition $\nabla P_t^{\ast}(\Omega_t^\ast)=\Omega$. In [@Loe], Loeper investigated the regularity of the curve $t\rightarrow (g_t, P_t, P_t^{\ast})$ under the assumptions: [1cm]{} $\bullet$ $X_t$ and $\partial_t X_t$ belong to $L^\infty(I \times \Omega)$;\ $\bullet$ $\rho_t$ belongs to $L^{\infty}(I\times {{\mathbb R}}^n)$. We note that in this case $$\Omega_t^{\ast}\subset B_{R^{\ast}}(0)\equiv B_{R^*}~ \text{where } R^{\ast}=\|X_t\|_{L^{\infty}(I\times \Omega)}.$$ Several results were obtained in [@Loe]. Among other results, Loeper proved (see [@Loe Theorems 2.1, 2.3 and 2.3]): [1cm]{} 1. For a.e. $t\in I$, ${\partial}_t g_t$ and ${\partial}_t \nabla P_t$ are bounded measures in $\Omega$. In particular, letting $\mathcal{M}(\Omega)$ denote the set of vector-valued bounded measures on $\Omega$, we have $$\|\partial_t \nabla P_t\|_{\mathcal{M}(\Omega)}\leq C(R^{\ast},n,\Omega)\|\rho_t\|^{\frac{1}{2}}_{L^{\infty}(I\times B_{R^{\ast}})} \|\partial_t X_t\|_{L^{\infty}(I\times \Omega)}.$$ 2. The Hölder continuity of $\partial_t P_t^{\ast}$ under the additional assumption that the density $\rho_t$ is sufficiently close to a positive constant.\ 3. The Hölder continuity of ${\partial}_t P_t$ under the additional assumptions that $\Omega_t^{\ast}$ is convex and the density $\rho_t$ is sufficiently close to a positive constant. In Theorem \[H\_thm\_1\] below, we are able to obtain the local Hölder regularity for $\partial_t P_t^{\ast}$ and ${\partial}_t P_t$ [**in two dimensions**]{} without assuming the closeness to 1 of the density $\rho_t$. Instead, we just assume it to be bounded away from zero and infinity, that is, for some positive constants $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$, we have $$\label{rho:lambdas} \lambda \leq \rho_t\leq \Lambda~\text{on }\Omega_t^\ast~\text{for all }t\in I.$$ \[Hölder regularity of polar factorization of time-dependent maps in two dimensions\] \[H\_thm\_1\] Let $n=2$. Let $\Omega$ be a smooth, strictly convex set in ${{\mathbb R}}^2$ with $|\Omega|=1$. Let $I\subset{{\mathbb R}}$ be an open interval. Assume that $X_t$ satisfies (\[2N\]), $X_t$ and ${\partial}_t X_t$ belong to $L^\infty(I \times \Omega)$ with $R^{\ast}=\|X_t\|_{L^{\infty}(I\times \Omega)}$. Let $d\rho_t=X_t\# \mathcal{L}_{\Omega}$. Assume that the density $\rho_t$ satisfies . Let $P_t$ and $P_t^{\ast}$ be as in (\[2defPhi\]) and (\[2defPsi\]). Assume (\[mean:Phi\]) holds. Then [1cm]{} (i) For any $\omega^\ast \subset\subset \Omega_t^{\ast}$, $\partial_t P_t^{\ast} \in C^{\alpha}(\omega^*)$ for some constant $\alpha =\alpha(\lambda,\Lambda) \in (0,1)$ with $$\|{\partial}_t P_t^{\ast}\|_{C^{\alpha}(\omega^\ast)}\leq C(\lambda,\Lambda, R^{\ast}, \emph{dist} (\omega^\ast, {\partial}\Omega_t^\ast), \|\nabla P_t^\ast\|_{C^{\delta}(\hat\omega)}, \Omega)$$ where $\delta =\delta(\lambda,\Lambda) \in (0,1)$. Here $\hat w$ is the set of points in $\Omega_t^{\ast}$ of distance at least $\frac{1}{2}(\omega^\ast, {\partial}\Omega_t^\ast)$ from ${\partial}\Omega_t^\ast$.\ (ii) If $\Omega_t^{\ast}$ is convex then for any $\omega\subset\subset\Omega$, ${\partial}_t P_t \in C^{\beta}(\omega)$ for some constant $\beta=\beta(\lambda,\Lambda) \in (0,1)$ with $$\|{\partial}_t P_t\|_{C^{\beta}(\omega)}\leq C(\lambda,\Lambda, R^{\ast}, \emph{dist} (\omega^\ast, {\partial}\Omega_t^\ast), \emph{dist}(\omega,{\partial}\Omega),\Omega_t^{\ast},\Omega).$$ Since $P_t^\ast$ is a Brenier solution to (\[psit\_eq\]) on $\Omega_t^\ast$ with the boundary condition $\nabla P_t^\ast(\Omega_t^\ast)=\Omega$ where $\Omega$ is convex, we deduce from (\[rho:lambdas\]) and Caffarelli’s regularity results for the Monge-Ampère equation [@C1; @C2] that $P_t^\ast$ is locally $C^{1,\delta}$ with $\delta\in (0,1)$ depends only on $\Lambda/\lambda$. Note that $P_t$ is not $C^1$ in general.\ (i) In [@Loe Section 4], Loeper constructed an adequate smooth approximation of the polar factorization problem for time-dependent maps when $X_t$ and $\partial_t X_t$ belong to $L^\infty(I \times \Omega)$ and $\rho_t$ belongs to $L^{\infty}(I\times {{\mathbb R}}^n)$. Thus, we will assume in what follows, all functions $P_t$ and $P_t^\ast$ are smooth. However, our estimates will not depend on the smoothness. Differentiating both sides of (\[psit\_eq\]) with respect to t, we obtain the following linearized Monge-Ampère for ${\partial}_t P_t^{\ast}$ $$\nabla \cdot (M_{P_t^{\ast}} \nabla (\partial_t P_t^{\ast})) = {\partial}_t \rho_t$$ where $M_{P_t^{\ast}}$ represents the matrix of cofactors of $D^2 P_t^{\ast}$; that is, $M_{P_t^{\ast}}=(\det D^2 P_t^{\ast})(D^2 P_t^\ast)^{-1}$.\ Loeper’s important insight (see [@Loe Section 4]) is that $\rho_t$ satisfies a continuity equation of the form $$\partial_t\rho_t + {\mbox{div}\,}(\rho_t v_t) = 0$$ where $v_t$ is a smooth vector field on ${{\mathbb R}}^2$ and $$\label{bound:v} {\left\Vertv_t \right\Vert}_{L^\infty({{\mathbb R}}^2, d\rho_t)} \leq {\left\Vert{\partial}_t X_t\right\Vert}_{L^\infty(\Omega)}.$$ In fact, $v_t$ can be computed explicitly via $g_t$, $P_t^{\ast}$ and $P_t$ by the formula (see, [@Loe p. 345] ) $$v_t= {\partial}_t \nabla P_t(\nabla P_t^{\ast}) + D^2 P_t w_t(\nabla P_t^{\ast})~\text{where}~ w_t(x)={\partial}_t g_t(g_t^{-1}(x)).$$ Therefore, ${\partial}_t P_t^{\ast}$ satisfies the linearized Monge-Ampère equation $$\label{LMApsi} \nabla \cdot (M_{P_t^{\ast}} \nabla (\partial_t P_t^{\ast})) = {\mbox{div}\,}(-\rho_t v_t).$$ We now divide the proof into several steps.\ [*Step 1:*]{} Given a section $S_{P_t^{\ast}}(x_0, 4h_0) \subset \subset \Omega_t^*$ and $x \in S_{P_t^\ast}(x_0, h_0)$, by Theorem \[Holder\_int\_thm\] applied to (\[LMApsi\]), we can find a constant $\gamma\in (0,1)$ depending only on $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$ such that $$\begin{gathered} \label{HPt} |{\partial}_t P_t^{\ast}(x)-{\partial}_t P_t^{\ast}(x_0)|\\ \leq C(\lambda,\Lambda, {\text{diam}}(\Omega_t^{\ast}), h_0) \left( \|{\partial}_t P_t^{\ast}\|_{L^{2}(S_{P_t^{\ast}}(x_0, 2h_0))}+ \|\rho_t v_t \|_{L^{\infty}(S_{P_t^{\ast}}(x_0, 2h_0))} \right)|x-x_0|^{\gamma}. \end{gathered}$$ Since $P_t$ is the Legendre transform of $P_t^\ast$, we have $$P_t(x)+ P_t^{\ast}(\nabla P_t(x))= x\cdot \nabla P_t(x)~\text{in }\Omega.$$ Differentiating both sides of the above equation with respect to $t$, and using $\nabla P_t^\ast(\nabla P_t(x))=x$, we obtain $$\label{ptPP} \partial_t P_t (x)= - \partial_t P_t^{\ast}(\nabla P_t(x))~~\text{in }\Omega.$$ By changing variables $y:=\nabla P_t(x)$ we have from (\[MA:Phi\]) that $$\label{L2:psi:phi} \int_{\Omega_t^*} |\partial_t P_t^{\ast}(y)|^2 d\rho_t(y) = \int_{\Omega} |\partial_t P_t(x)|^2 {\, dx}.$$ From the condition and the Poincaré-Sobolev embedding theorem $W^{1,1}(\Omega) \hookrightarrow L^{2}(\Omega)$ for the convex set $\Omega\subset {{\mathbb R}}^2$, we can find a positive constant $C(\Omega) > 0$ depending only on $\Omega$ such that $$\label{CP:omega} \|{\partial}_t P_t\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \leq C(\Omega) \int_\Omega |\nabla \partial_t P_t(x)| {\, dx}.$$ By [@Loe Theorem 2.1], we have $$\int_\Omega |\nabla \partial_t P_t(x)| {\, dx}\leq C(R^\ast,\Omega)\|\rho_t\|^{\frac{1}{2}}_{L^{\infty}(I\times B_{R^{\ast}})} \|\partial_t X_t\|_{L^{\infty}(I\times \Omega)}.$$ Therefore, by combining and , we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \label{L2Pt} \|\partial_t P_t^{\ast}\|_{L^{2}(S_{P_t^{\ast}}(y_0, 2h_0), d\rho_t)} \leq \|{\partial}_t P_t\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \leq C(R^\ast,\Omega)\|\rho_t\|^{\frac{1}{2}}_{L^{\infty}(I\times B_{R^{\ast}})} \|\partial_t X_t\|_{L^{\infty}(I\times \Omega)}.\end{aligned}$$ Putting (\[bound:v\]), (\[L2Pt\]) and (\[HPt\]) all together, we have $$|{\partial}_t P_t^{\ast}(x)-{\partial}_t P_t^{\ast}(x_0)|\leq C(\lambda,\Lambda, R^{\ast}, h_0,\Omega) \|\partial_t X_t\|_{L^{\infty}(I\times \Omega)}|x-x_0|^{\gamma}.$$ [*Step 2:*]{} Suppose now $\omega^\ast\subset\subset\Omega^{\ast}_t$. Let $\hat w$ be the set of points in $\Omega_t^{\ast}$ of distance at least $\frac{1}{2}(\omega^\ast, {\partial}\Omega_t^\ast)$ from ${\partial}\Omega_t^\ast$. Then, there is $h_0>0$ depending only on $\lambda,\Lambda, {\text{diam}}(\Omega)$, $ \|\nabla P_t^\ast\|_{C^{\delta}(\hat \omega)}$ and ${\text{dist}}(\omega^\ast,{\partial}\Omega_t^\ast)$ such that $$S_{P_t^\ast}(x_0, 4h_0)\subset\subset\hat \omega.$$ Indeed, the strict convexity of $P_t^\ast$ implies the existence of $h_0>0$ such that $S_{P_t^\ast}(x_0, 4h_0)\subset\subset\hat\omega.$ For any of these sections, we first use the $C^{1,\delta}$ property of $P_t^\ast$ to deduce that $$S_{P_t^\ast}(x_0, 4h_0)\supset B_{c_1 h_0^{\frac{1}{1+\delta}}}(x_0), \text{where }c_1= \|\nabla P_t^\ast\|^{-\frac{1}{1+\delta}}_{C^{\delta}(\hat\omega)}.$$ The volume estimates (\[vol-sec1\]) give $|S_{P_t^\ast}(x_0, 4h_0)|\leq C(\lambda,\Lambda)h_0.$ Using the convexity of $S_{P_t^\ast}(x_0, 4h_0)$, we easily find that $$S_{P_t^\ast}(x_0, 4h_0) \subset B_{C(\lambda, \Lambda, c_1) h_0^{\frac{\delta}{1+\delta}}}(x_0).$$ Thus, $h_0>0$ can be chosen to depend only on $\lambda,\Lambda, {\text{diam}}(\Omega)$, $ \|\nabla P_t^\ast\|_{C^{\delta}(\hat \omega)}$ and ${\text{dist}}(\omega^\ast,{\partial}\Omega_t^\ast)$ so that $S_{P_t^\ast}(x_0, 4h_0)\subset\subset\hat \omega\subset\subset\Omega_t^\ast$. Now, we can conclude from [*Step 1*]{} and [*Step 2*]{} the Hölder continuity of ${\partial}_t P_t^{\ast}$ as asserted in (i).\ (ii) Because $P_t$ is the Brenier solution to the Monge-Ampère equation with the second boundary condition $\nabla P_t (\Omega)\subset \Omega_t^{\ast}$, and $\Omega_t^{\ast}$ is convex, it is also the Aleksandrov solution as proved by Caffarelli [@C2]. The hypothesis yields that, in the sense of Aleksandrov, $$\Lambda^{-1} \leq \det D^2 P_t \leq \lambda^{-1}~ \text{in }\Omega.$$ Hence, Caffarelli’s global regularity result [@C3] yields $P_t\in C^{1,\delta}(\overline{\Omega})$ and $P^\ast_t\in C^{1,\delta}(\overline{\Omega_t^\ast})$. These combined with and (i) give the conclusion of (ii) with $\beta=\gamma\delta$. The proof of Theorem \[H\_thm\_1\] is complete. Polar factorization of time-dependent maps on the torus ------------------------------------------------------- The polar factorization of maps on general Riemannian manifolds has been treated by McCann [@Mc], and also in the particular case of the flat torus ${{\mathbb T}}^n= {{\mathbb R}}^n/{{\mathbb Z}}^n$ by Cordero-Erausquin [@CE]. Given a mapping $X$ from ${{\mathbb T}}^n$ into itself, then under the non-degeneracy condition (\[2N\]), there is a unique pair $(P, g)$ such that [1cm]{} 1. $X= \nabla P \circ g,$\ 2. $g: {{\mathbb T}}^n \to {{\mathbb T}}^n$ is a Lebesgue-measure preserving map,\ 3. $P: {{\mathbb R}}^n \to {{\mathbb R}}$ is convex and $P - \frac{|x|^2}{2}$ is ${{\mathbb Z}}^n$-periodic. The analogue of Theorem \[H\_thm\_1\] for the regularity of polar factorization of time-dependent maps on the two-dimensional torus is the following theorem. \[Hölder regularity of polar factorization of time-dependent maps on the 2D torus\] \[peri\_thm\] Let $I\subset{{\mathbb R}}$ be an open interval. Suppose that $X_t,{\partial}_t X_t \in L^\infty(I \times {{\mathbb T}}^2)$ where $X_t:{{\mathbb T}}^2\rightarrow {{\mathbb T}}^2$ satisfies (\[2N\]) for all $t\in I$. Let $d\rho_t=X_t\# \mathcal{L}_{{{\mathbb T}}^2}$. Suppose that $ \lambda \leq \rho_t\leq \Lambda$ on ${{\mathbb T}}^2$ for some positive constants $\lambda, \Lambda$ and all $t \in I $. Let $P_t$ and $P_t^{\ast}$ be as in (\[2defPhi\]) and (\[2defPsi\]) where $\Omega$ is now replaced by ${{\mathbb T}}^2$. Then, there exist $\alpha=\alpha(\lambda, \Lambda) \in (0,1)$ and $C=C(\lambda,\Lambda)>0$ such that $$\|{\partial}_t P_t^{\ast}\|_{L^{\infty}(I, C^{\alpha}({{\mathbb T}}^2))} + \|{\partial}_t P_t\|_{L^{\infty}(I, C^{\alpha}({{\mathbb T}}^2))} \leq C.$$ As in the proof of Theorem \[H\_thm\_1\], the density $\rho_t$ satisfies the continuity equation $ \partial_t\rho_t + {\mbox{div}\,}(\rho_t v_t) = 0 $ where $v_t$ is a bounded vector field with ${\left\Vertv_t \right\Vert}_{L^\infty({{\mathbb T}}^2)} \leq {\left\Vert{\partial}_t X_t\right\Vert}_{L^\infty({{\mathbb T}}^2)}. $ This vector field $v_t$ is similar to the vector field $U_t$ in Theorem \[GSthm\] where the only information we used is its uniform boundedness in $t$. Moreover, for all $t>0$, we still have (see [@F Theorem 4.5]) $$\int_{{{\mathbb T}}^2} \rho_t(x) |{\partial}_t \nabla P_t^{\ast}(x)|^{1+\kappa}dx\leq C(\lambda,\Lambda)~\text{where } \kappa= \kappa (\lambda,\Lambda)>0.$$ Thus, Theorem \[peri\_thm\] follows from the same arguments as in the proof of Theorem \[GSthm\]. Green’s function and The Monge-Ampère Sobolev inequality {#auxi_sec} ======================================================== In this section, we prove Propositions \[G2\_thm\], \[sob\_ineq\] and \[G1\_thm\]. Recall that in these propositions and this section, $\Omega \subset {{\mathbb R}}^2$ is a bounded convex set with nonempty interior and $\varphi \in C^2(\Omega)$ is a convex function such that $$\lambda\leq \det D^2\varphi \leq \Lambda$$ for some positive constants $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$. Given a section $S=S_\varphi(x_0, h)\subset\subset\Omega$ of $\varphi$, we let $g_S(x, y)$ be Green’s function of the operator $L_\varphi:=-{\partial}_j (\Phi^{ij} {\partial}_i)=-\Phi^{ij}{\partial}_{ij}$ on $S$, as in (\[Green:S\]). To prove Proposition \[G1\_thm\], we recall the following fact regarding Green’s function in 2D. \[smallV\] Suppose that $S= S_\varphi(x_0, h)\subset\subset\Omega$ and $S_{\varphi}(y, \eta h)\subset S_\varphi(x_0, h)$ for some $\eta\in (0, 1)$. Then [1cm]{} (i) ([@L2 Section 6]) For all $x\in {\partial}S_{\varphi}(y,\frac{\eta}{2}h)$, we have $g_S(x, y)\leq C(\lambda,\Lambda,\eta).$\ (ii) ([@L Lemma 3.2]) For all $0<h_1<\frac{\eta}{4}h$, we have $$\max_{x\in{\partial}S_\varphi(y, h_1)} g_S(x, y)\leq C (\lambda,\Lambda) + \max_{z\in {\partial}S_\varphi(y, 2h_1)} g_S(z, y).$$ For reader’s convenience, we explain how to derive Lemma \[smallV\](i) from [@L2]. By Lemma 6.1 in [@L2] and the volume estimates (\[vol-sec1\]), we obtain $$\int_{S} g_S (x, y) dx\leq C(\lambda)|S|\leq C(\lambda,\Lambda)h.$$ Applying Lemma 6.2 in [@L2] to $g_S(\cdot, y)$ in $S_{\varphi}(y,\eta h)$, we obtain for all $x\in {\partial}S_{\varphi}(y,\frac{\eta}{2}h)$ the estimate $$g_S(x, y)\leq C(\lambda,\lambda) h (\eta h)^{-1} \leq C(\lambda,\Lambda,\eta).$$ Lemma \[smallV\] implies the following lemma: \[g\_decay\_lem\] Assume that $S= S_\varphi(x_0, h)\subset\subset\Omega$ and $S_{\varphi}(y, \eta h)\subset S_\varphi(x_0, h)$ for some $\eta\in (0, 1)$. Let $\tau_0=C(\lambda,\Lambda, \eta) + C(\lambda,\Lambda)$ where $C(\lambda,\Lambda, \eta)$ and $ C(\lambda,\Lambda) $ are as in Lemma \[smallV\]. Then for all $\tau> \tau_0$, we have $$\{x\in S: g_{S}(x, y)>\tau\}\subset S_{\varphi}(y, \eta h 2^{-\tau/\tau_0}).$$ If $\tau>\tau_0$ then by the maximum principle, we can find $h_1<\eta h/2$ such that $$\label{ytau} \{x\in S: g_{S}(x, y)>\tau\}\subset S_{\varphi}(y, h_1).$$ Let $m$ be a positive integer such that $\eta h/2\leq 2^m h_1<\eta h$. Iterating Lemma \[smallV\](ii), we find that $$\max_{x\in{\partial}S_\varphi(y, h_1)} g_S(x, y)\leq m C(\lambda,\Lambda) + \max_{x\in{\partial}S_\varphi(y, 2^m h_1)} g_S(x, y).$$ The maximum principle and Lemma \[smallV\](i) give $$\max_{x\in{\partial}S_\varphi(y, 2^m h_1)} g_S(x, y) \leq \max_{x\in{\partial}S_\varphi(y, \eta h/2)} g_S(x, y)\leq C(\lambda,\Lambda,\eta).$$ Hence, $$\max_{x\in{\partial}S_\varphi(y, h_1)} g_S(x, y)\leq m (C(\lambda,\Lambda,\eta)+ C(\lambda,\Lambda))\leq m\tau_0\leq \tau_0 \log_2 (\eta h/h_1).$$ Thus, we obtain from (\[ytau\]) the estimate $\tau\leq \tau_0 \log_2 (\eta h/h_1).$ It follows that $h_1\leq \eta h 2^{-\tau/\tau_0}.$ Lemma \[g\_decay\_lem\] now follows from (\[ytau\]). Now we are ready to give the proof of Proposition \[G1\_thm\]. \[Proof of Proposition \[G1\_thm\]\] Recall that $S=S_{\varphi}(x_0, h)$ with $S_{\varphi}(x_0, 2h)\subset\subset\Omega$.\ [*Step 1: Special case.*]{} We first prove $$\int_S g_S^p(x, y) dx \leq C(\lambda,\Lambda, p) h. \label{center_reduce}$$ in the special case that $S_{\varphi}(y, \eta h)\subset S_{\varphi}(x_0, h) $ for some universal constant $\eta\in (0,1)$ depending only on $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$. In this case, by Lemma \[g\_decay\_lem\], we find that for all $\tau>\tau_0(\lambda,\Lambda)$, $$\{x\in S: ~ g_S(x,y)> \tau \}\subset S_{\varphi}(y, \eta h 2^{-\tau/\tau_0}).$$ Using the upper bound on the volume of sections in (\[vol-sec1\]), we find that $$|\{x\in S: ~ g_S(x,y)> \tau \}| \leq C(\lambda,\Lambda) h 2^{-\tau/\tau_0}.$$ It follows from the layer cake representation and the volume estimate $|S|\leq C(\lambda,\Lambda)h$ that $$\begin{aligned} \int_S g_S^p(x, y) dx&=&\int_0^{\infty} p\tau^{p-1} |\{x\in S: ~ g_S(x,y)> \tau \}| d\tau\\ &\leq& \int_0^{\tau_0} p\tau^{p-1} |\{x\in S: ~ g_S(x,y)> \tau \}| d\tau + \int_{\tau_0}^{\infty} p\tau^{p-1} |\{x\in S: ~ g_S(x,y)> \tau \}| d\tau \\ &\leq &\tau_0^p |S| + \int_{\tau_0}^{\infty} p\tau^{p-1} C(\lambda,\Lambda)h 2^{-\tau/\tau_0} d\tau\leq C(p,\lambda,\Lambda)h.\end{aligned}$$ Hence (\[center\_reduce\]) is proved. [*Step 2: General case.*]{} It remains to prove the proposition for the general case $y\in S_{\varphi}(x_0, h)$. By [@G01 Theorem 3.3.10(i)], there is a universal constant $\eta\in (0,1)$ depending only on $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$ such that for all $y\in S_{\varphi}(x_0, h)$, we have $$S_{\varphi}(y, \eta h)\subset S_{\varphi}(x_0, \frac{3}{2} h). \label{yaway2}$$ Thus, for any $x\in S_{\varphi}(x_0, h)$, we have $g_{S_{\varphi}(x_0, \frac{3}{2} h)}(x, y)\geq g_{S_{\varphi}(x_0, h)}(x, y)$ by the maximum principle. It follows that $$\int_{S_{\varphi}(x_0, h)} g_{S_{\varphi}(x_0, h)}^p(x, y) dx \leq \int_{S_{\varphi}(x_0, \frac{3}{2}h)} g_{S_{\varphi}(x_0, \frac{3}{2} h)}^p(x, y) dx \leq C(p, \lambda,\Lambda)h.$$ In the last inequality, we applied the estimate (\[center\_reduce\]) to the section $S_{\varphi}(x_0, \frac{3}{2} h)$ and the point $y$ in $S_{\varphi}(x_0, \frac{3}{2} h)$ that satisfies (\[yaway2\]). The proof of Proposition \[G1\_thm\] is now complete. Note that, Proposition \[G2\_thm\] is closely related to [@L Theorem 1.1(iii)]. For reader’s convenience we provide the detailed proof of Proposition \[G2\_thm\] here. Recall that $S=S_{\varphi}(x_0, h)$. Fix $y\in S$ and set $$v(x) := g_S(x, y) + 1\quad \text{for all }x \in \overline{S}.$$ Then $v\geq 1$ in $S$, $v=1$ on ${\partial}S$ and ${\partial}_i(\Phi^{ij}v_j)=-\delta_y$ in $S$. Let $\hat S= S_{\varphi}(x_0, 2h)$ and extend $v$ to be $1$ in $\hat S\backslash S$. Then $v\geq 1$ in $\hat S$. Using the divergence-free property of $(\Phi^{ij})$, we have ${\partial}_i(\Phi^{ij}v_j)=-\delta_y$ in $\hat S$.\ [*Step 1: Integral bound for $\log v$.*]{} We show that $$\int_S \Phi^{ij} (\log v)_i (\log v)_j dx\equiv \int_S \Phi^{ij} v_i v_j\frac{1}{ v^2} dx \leq C(\lambda,\Lambda). \label{log_ineq}$$ Indeed, given $w \in C^1_0 (\hat S)$, multiply the inequality ${\partial}_i (\Phi^{ij} v_j)\leq 0$ by $\frac{w^2}{v}\geq 0$ and then integrate by parts to get $$0\geq - \int_{\hat S} \Phi^{ij} v_j {\partial}_i \left(\frac{w^2}{ v}\right)dx =- \int_{\hat S} 2\Phi^{ij} w_i v_j \frac{w}{ v} dx + \int_{\hat S} \Phi^{ij} v_i v_j\frac{w^2}{ v^2} dx.$$ By the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we obtain $$\int_{\hat S} \Phi^{ij} \frac{v_i v_j w^2}{ v^2} dx \leq \int_{\hat S} 2\Phi^{ij} \frac{w_i v_j w}{ v} dx \leq 2 \left(\int_{\hat S} \Phi^{ij}\frac{v_i v_j w^2}{ v^2}dx\right)^{1/2} \left(\int_{\hat S} \Phi^{ij} w_i w_j dx\right)^{1/2}$$ and therefore $$\int_{\hat S} \Phi^{ij} v_i v_j\frac{w^2}{ v^2} dx\leq 4 \int_{\hat S} \Phi^{ij} w_i w_j dx. \label{phivh}$$ By choosing a suitable $0\leq w\leq 1$ as in the proof of Theorem 6.2 in Maldonado [@Mal4], and using the volume estimates in (\[vol-sec1\]), we obtain (\[log\_ineq\]). For completeness, we include a construction of $w$. By subtracting $\varphi(x_0)+\nabla \varphi(x_0)\cdot (x-x_0)$ from $\varphi$, we can assume that $\varphi(x_0)=0$ and $\nabla \varphi(x_0)=0$. Therefore $\varphi\geq 0$ on $\hat S=S_{\varphi}(x_0, 2h)$. Let $\gamma:{{\mathbb R}}\rightarrow [0, 1]$ be a smooth function supported in $[0, 2]$ with $\gamma\equiv 1$ on $[0, 1]$ and $\|\gamma'\|_{L^{\infty}({{\mathbb R}})}\leq 10$. Let $w(x):=\gamma(\varphi(x)/h)$. Then $w\in C^1_0(\hat S)$ with $w\equiv 1$ on $S_{\varphi}(x_0, h)=S$ and $$\nabla w(x) = \frac{1}{h}\gamma^{'}(\varphi(x)/h) \nabla \varphi(x).$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned} \int_{\hat S} \Phi^{ij} w_i w_j dx&=&\frac{1}{h^2}\int_{\hat S} (\gamma^{'}(\varphi(x)/h))^2 \Phi^{ij} \varphi_i\varphi_j dx \leq \frac{\|\gamma'\|^2_{\infty}}{h^2} \int_{\hat S} \Phi^{ij} \varphi_i\varphi_j dx \\ &\leq& \frac{100}{h^2}\int_{\hat S} \langle \Phi \nabla (2h-\varphi(x)), \nabla (2h-\varphi (x))\rangle dx.\end{aligned}$$ Integrating by parts the last term and using $\sum_{i=1}^2{\partial}_i \Phi^{ij}=0$ for all $j=1,2$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \int_{\hat S} \Phi^{ij} w_i w_j dx &\leq& - \frac{100}{h^2}\int_{\hat S} {\mbox{div}\,}[\Phi \nabla (2h-\varphi(x))] (2h-\varphi (x)) dx = \frac{100}{h^2}\int_{\hat S} {\text{trace}}[\Phi D^2 \varphi] (2h-\varphi (x)) dx\\ &=& \frac{100}{h^2}\int_{\hat S} 2(\det D^2\varphi) (2h-\varphi (x)) dx \leq \frac{400\Lambda}{h}|\hat S|\leq C(\lambda,\Lambda).\end{aligned}$$ In the last inequality, we used the upper bound on volume of sections in (\[vol-sec1\]) to get $|\hat S|\leq C(\lambda,\Lambda)h$. Therefore, (\[log\_ineq\]) now follows from (\[phivh\]) and the above inequalities. [*Step 2: $L^{1+\kappa}$ estimate for $v$.*]{} By Proposition \[G1\_thm\] and the inequality $v^q(x) \leq C(q) ( g^q_S(x, y)+ 1),$ together with the volume bound on $S$, we find that $v\in L^q(S)$ for all $q<\infty$ with the bound $$\|v\|_{L^q(S)}\leq C(\lambda,\Lambda, q) h^{\frac{1}{q}}. \label{Glq}$$ Next, we use the following inequality $\Phi^{ij} v_{i}(x) v_{j}(x) \geq \frac{\det D^2 \varphi |\nabla v|^2}{\Delta \varphi}$ whose simple proof can be found in [@CG97 Lemma 2.1]. It follows from (\[log\_ineq\]) that $$\int_S \frac{|\nabla v|^2}{\Delta\varphi}\frac{1}{v^2}dx\leq C(\lambda,\Lambda).$$ Now, for all $1<p<2$, using the Holder inequality to $|\nabla v|^p= \frac{|\nabla v|^p}{(\Delta \varphi)^{\frac{p}{2}}} \frac{1}{v^p} \left((\Delta\varphi)^{\frac{p}{2}} v^p\right)$ with exponents $\frac{2}{p}$ and $\frac{2}{2-p}$, we have $$\begin{aligned} \|\nabla v\|_{L^p(S)} \leq \left[\int_S \frac{|\nabla v|^2}{\Delta\varphi}\frac{1}{v^2}dx\right]^{\frac{1}{2}} \left(\int_S(\Delta \varphi)^{\frac{p}{2-p}} v^{\frac{2p}{2-p}}dx\right)^{\frac{2-p}{2p}} \leq C(\lambda,\Lambda) \|(\Delta\varphi)v^2\|_{L^{\frac{p}{2-p}}(S)}^{\frac{1}{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ Let ${\varepsilon}_\ast = {\varepsilon}_\ast(\lambda,\Lambda)>0$ be as in (\[w21est\]). Let us fix any $0<{\varepsilon}<{\varepsilon}_\ast$ and $$p = \frac{2(1+{\varepsilon})}{2+{\varepsilon}},~\text{that is},~ \frac{p}{2-p}= 1+{\varepsilon}.$$ Thus, recalling $h_0\geq h$, Lemma \[DPFS\_lem\] and (\[Glq\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \|\nabla v\|_{L^p(S)} \leq \|(\Delta\varphi)v^2\|^{\frac{1}{2}}_{L^{1+{\varepsilon}}(S)} &\leq& \|\Delta\varphi\|^{\frac{1}{2}}_{L^{1+{\varepsilon}_\ast}(S)} \|v\|_{L^{\frac{2(1+{\varepsilon}_\ast)(1+{\varepsilon})}{{\varepsilon}_\ast-{\varepsilon}}}(S)} \\&\leq& C(\lambda,\Lambda,{\varepsilon},{\varepsilon}_\ast) \|\Delta\varphi\|^{\frac{1}{2}}_{L^{1+{\varepsilon}_\ast}(S_{\varphi}(x_0, h_0))} h^{\frac{{\varepsilon}_\ast-{\varepsilon}}{2(1+{\varepsilon}_\ast)(1+{\varepsilon})}} \\&\leq& C(\lambda,\Lambda,{\text{diam}}(\Omega), h_0)h^{\frac{{\varepsilon}_\ast-{\varepsilon}}{2(1+{\varepsilon}_\ast)(1+{\varepsilon})}} .\end{aligned}$$ The proof of Proposition \[G2\_thm\] is complete by choosing $\kappa = p-1= \frac{{\varepsilon}}{2+{\varepsilon}}$ and $\kappa_1= \frac{{\varepsilon}_\ast-{\varepsilon}}{2(1+{\varepsilon}_\ast)(1+{\varepsilon})}.$ Suppose that $S_\varphi(x_0, 2)\subset\subset\Omega$ and $S_\varphi(x_0, 1)$ is normalized. Set $S:=S_\varphi(x_0, 1)$. Let $g_S(x,y)$ be Green’s function of $S$ with respect to $L_\varphi:=-{\partial}_j(\Phi^{ij}{\partial}_i)=-\Phi^{ij}{\partial}_{ij}$ with pole $y\in S$, that is, $g_S(\cdot, y)$ is a positive solution of . By Proposition \[G1\_thm\], for any $q>1$, there exists a constant $K>0$, depending on $q$, $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$, such that for every $y\in S$ we have $$\label{dist-est-Green2} |\{x\in S: ~ g_S(x,y)> \tau \}|\leq K \tau^{-\frac{q}{2}}~ \text{ for all }\tau>0.$$ As the operator $L_\varphi$ can be written in the divergence form with symmetric coefficients, we infer from Grüter-Widman [@GW Theorem 1.3] that $g_S(x,y)=g_S(y,x)$ for all $x,y\in S$. This together with (\[dist-est-Green2\]) allows us to deduce that, for every $x\in S$, there holds $$|\{y\in S: ~ g_S(x,y)> \tau \}| =|\{y\in S: ~ g_S(y,x)>\tau \}| \leq K \tau^{-\frac{q}{2}}~ \text{for all } \tau >0.$$ Then, one can use Lemma 2.1 in Tian-Wang [@TiW08] to conclude . Proofs of Lemmas \[DPFS\_lem\] and \[res\_eq\_lem\] {#res_proof} =================================================== For $x\in \tilde S:=T^{-1}(S_\varphi(x_0, h))$, we have $$D \tilde \varphi(x) = (\det A_h)^{-2/n} A_h^{t} D\varphi (Tx), ~D^2 \tilde \varphi(x) = (\det A_h)^{-2/n} A_h^{t}D^2\varphi(Tx) A_h.$$ and $$D \tilde u (x)= A_h^{t} Du(Tx),~D^2 \tilde u(x) = A_h^{t}D^2 u (Tx)A_h.$$ In the variables $y:=Tx$ and $x\in \tilde S$, we have the relation $\nabla_x= A_h^{t}\nabla_y.$ Thus, letting $\langle, \rangle$ denote the inner product on ${{\mathbb R}}^n$, we have $$\begin{aligned} \label{Fh} \nabla_x\cdot \tilde F(x)=\langle \nabla_x, \tilde F(x) \rangle= \langle A_h^{t}\nabla_y, (\det A_h)^{\frac{2}{n}} A_h^{-1} F(Tx) \rangle&=& \langle \nabla_y, (\det A_h)^{\frac{2}{n}} F(Tx) \rangle \nonumber\\&=&(\det A_h)^{\frac{2}{n}} (\nabla\cdot F)(Tx).\end{aligned}$$ The cofactor matrix $\tilde \Phi= (\tilde \Phi^{ij}(x))_{1\leq i, j\leq n}$ of $D^2 \tilde \varphi(x)$ is related to $\Phi(Tx)$ and $A_h$ by $$\begin{aligned} \tilde \Phi(x) = (\det D^2 \tilde \varphi(x))(D^2 \tilde \varphi(x))^{-1}&=&(\det D^2 \varphi(Tx)) (\det A_h)^{2/n} A_h^{-1} (D^2 \varphi(Tx))^{-1} (A_h^{-1})^{t}\nonumber\\ &=& (\det A_h)^{2/n} A_h^{-1} \Phi(Tx) (A_h^{-1})^{t}. \label{tildeU}\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\tilde \Phi^{ij} \tilde u_{ij} (x)= {\text{trace}}(\tilde \Phi (x)D^2\tilde u(x))= (\det A_h)^{2/n} {\text{trace}}(\Phi(Tx) D^2 u(Tx))= (\det A_h)^{2/n} \Phi^{ij} u_{ij}(Tx)$$ and hence, recalling (\[main\_eq\]) and (\[Fh\]), $$\begin{aligned} \tilde \Phi^{ij} \tilde u_{ij} (x) = (\det A_h)^{2/n} (\nabla\cdot F)(Tx)= \nabla\cdot \tilde F={\mbox{div}\,}\tilde F(x)~\text{in}~\tilde S.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we get (\[eqSh1\]) as asserted. Next, we claim that $${\text{dist}}(S_\varphi(x_0, h), {\partial}S_\varphi(x_0, 2h)) \geq \frac{c(\lambda,\Lambda, n) h^{n/2}}{[{\text{diam}}(\Omega)]^{n-1}}. \label{dist_est_h}$$ Indeed, let $\hat{\varphi}= \varphi-h$. Then, by our assumption that $\varphi|_{{\partial}S_\varphi(x_0, h)}=0$, we have $\hat{\varphi}=0$ on ${\partial}S_\varphi(x_0, 2h)$. Applying the Aleksandrov maximum principle (see [@G01 Theorem 1.4.2]) to $\hat{\varphi}$ on $S_\varphi(x_0, 2h)$, we have for any $x\in S_\varphi(x_0, h)$, $$\begin{aligned} h^n\leq |\hat{\varphi}(x)|^n&\leq& C(n) {\text{dist}}(x,{\partial}S_\varphi(x_0, 2h)) [{\text{diam}}(S_\varphi(x_0, 2h))]^{n-1} \int_{S_\varphi(x_0, 2h)}\det D^2 \hat{\varphi} ~dx \\&\leq& C(\Lambda, n) {\text{dist}}(x,{\partial}S_\varphi(x_0, 2h)) [{\text{diam}}(\Omega)]^{n-1} |S_\varphi(x_0, 2h)| \\&\leq & C(\lambda, \Lambda, n) {\text{dist}}(x,{\partial}S_\varphi(x_0, 2h)) [{\text{diam}}(\Omega)]^{n-1} h^{n/2}\end{aligned}$$ where in the last inequality we used the volume estimates in (\[vol-sec1\]). Thus, we obtain (\[dist\_est\_h\]) as claimed. Using (\[dist\_est\_h\]) and the convexity of $\varphi$, we find that $$\label{Dvar_est} \|D\varphi\|_{L^{\infty}(S_\varphi(x_0, h))}\leq \frac{h}{{\text{dist}}(S_\varphi(x_0, h), {\partial}S_\varphi(x_0, 2h))} \leq C(\lambda,\Lambda, n,{\text{diam}}(\Omega)) h^{1-\frac{n}{2}}.$$ It follows that $S_\varphi(x_0, h)\supset B(x_0, c_1h^{\frac{n}{2}})$ for some constant $c_1= c_1(n,\lambda,\Lambda,{\text{diam}}(\Omega))$, which combined with (\[normSh\]) implies that $$\|A_h^{-1}\|\leq C(n,\lambda,\Lambda,{\text{diam}}(\Omega))h^{-\frac{n}{2}}. \label{Anorm}$$ On the other hand, by means of the volume estimates in (\[vol-sec1\]), we find from (\[normSh\]) that $$C(n,\lambda,\Lambda)^{-1} h^{n/2}\leq \det A_h \leq C(n,\lambda,\Lambda) h^{n/2}. \label{detAh}$$ Hence (\[tFbound\]) follows from (\[def:tildes\]), (\[Anorm\]) and (\[detAh\]). Finally, using $$\|\tilde u\|_{L^{q}(\tilde S)}=(\det A_h)^{-1/q} \|u\|_{L^q(S_{\varphi}(x_0, h))}$$ together with (\[detAh\]), we obtain (\[tilde\_u\_Lq\]). \(i) Rescaling as in , we have for all $x\in S_{\varphi}(x_0, h)$ $$D^2\varphi(x) = (\det A_h)^{\frac{2}{n}} (A_h^{-1})^t D^2 \tilde\varphi (T^{-1}x) A_h^{-1}.$$ Using the inequality $\text{trace} (AB)\leq \|A\| \text{trace} (B)$ for nonnegative definite matrices $A, B$, we thus have $$\Delta\varphi (x)\leq \|A_h^{-1}\|^2 (\det A_h)^{\frac{2}{n}}\Delta\tilde\varphi(T^{-1}x).$$ By the $W^{2, 1+{\varepsilon}}$ estimate (\[w21est\]) applied to $\tilde\varphi$ and its normalized section $\tilde S=T^{-1}(S_{\varphi}(x_0, h))$, we have $$\|\Delta\tilde\varphi\|_{L^{1+{\varepsilon}_\ast}(\tilde S)}\leq C(n,\lambda,\Lambda)$$ for some ${\varepsilon}_\ast={\varepsilon}_{\ast}(n,\lambda,\Lambda)>0$ depending only on $n,\lambda$ and $\Lambda$. Using (\[Anorm\]) and (\[detAh\]), we find that $$\begin{aligned} \|\Delta\varphi\|_{L^{1+{\varepsilon}_\ast}(S_{\varphi}(x_0, h))} &\leq& \|A_h^{-1}\|^2 (\det A_h)^{\frac{2}{n}} \|\Delta\tilde\varphi\circ T^{-1}\|_{L^{1+{\varepsilon}_\ast}(S_{\varphi}(x_0, h))} \\&=& \|A_h^{-1}\|^2 (\det A_h)^{\frac{2}{n}+\frac{1}{1+{\varepsilon}_\ast} }\|\Delta\tilde\varphi\|_{L^{1+{\varepsilon}_\ast}(\tilde S)} \\&\leq& C(\lambda,\Lambda, n,{\text{diam}}(\Omega))h^{-n} h^{1+ \frac{n}{2} \frac{1}{1+{\varepsilon}_\ast}} \leq C(\lambda,\Lambda, n,{\text{diam}}(\Omega)) h^{-\alpha_2}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\alpha_2=\alpha_2(\lambda,\Lambda, n)= n-1- \frac{n}{2} \frac{1}{1+{\varepsilon}_\ast}> 0.$$ (ii) Rescaling as in , we have for $x\in S_{\varphi}(x_0, h)$ $$D\varphi(x) = (\det A_h)^{\frac{2}{n}} (A_h^{-1})^t D \tilde\varphi (T^{-1}x). \label{DD1}$$ Suppose that $x, y\in S_{\varphi}(x_0, h/2)$. Then $T^{-1}x, T^{-1}y\in S_{\tilde \varphi}(\tilde x_0, (\det A_h)^{-2/n} h)$. Applying the $C^{1,\alpha}$ estimate for the Monge-Ampère equation, due to Caffarelli [@C1], to $\tilde\varphi$, we have $$|D \tilde \varphi (T^{-1}x)-D \tilde \varphi (T^{-1}y)|\leq C(\lambda,\Lambda, n)|T^{-1}x-T^{-1}y|^{\alpha}. \label{DD2}$$ where $\alpha=\alpha (n,\lambda,\Lambda) \in (0,1)$. In terms of the function $\varphi$, we infer from (\[DD1\]) and (\[DD2\]) that $$|D\varphi(x)-D\varphi(y)|\leq C(\lambda,\Lambda, n) (\det A_h)^{2/n} \|A_h^{-1}\|^{1+\alpha}|x-y|^{\alpha}. \label{DD3}$$ Using the volume estimates (\[vol-sec1\]), we obtain from (\[DD3\]) and (\[Anorm\]) the following estimate: $$|D\varphi(x)-D\varphi(y)|\leq C(\lambda,\Lambda, n, {\text{diam}}(\Omega)) h^{-\alpha_1}\||x-y|^{\alpha}~\text{for all }x, y\in S_{\varphi}(x_0, h/2)$$ where $\alpha_1= -1+\frac{n}{2}(\alpha+1)>0.$ [**Acknowledgments.**]{} The author would like to thank the anonymous referee for the pertinent comments and the careful reading of the paper together with his/her constructive criticisms. [10]{} Ambrosio, L.; Colombo, M.; De Philippis, G.; Figalli A. Existence of Eulerian solutions to the semigeostrophic equations in physical space: the 2-dimensional periodic case. [*Comm. Partial Differential Equations*]{} [**[37]{}**]{} (2012), no. 12, 2209–2227. Benamou, J. D.; Brenier, Y. Weak existence for the semigeostrophic equations formulated as a coupled Monge-Ampère/transport problem. [*SIAM J. Appl. Math.*]{} [**58**]{} (1998), no. 5, 1450–1461. Brenier, Y. Polar factorization and monotone rearrangement of vector-valued functions. [*Comm. Pure Appl. Math.*]{} [**44**]{} (1991), no. 4, 375–417. Caffarelli, L. A. Interior $W^{2,p}$ estimates for solutions to the Monge-Ampère equation. [*Ann. of Math.*]{} [**131**]{} (1990), no. 1, 135–150. Caffarelli, L. A. Some regularity properties of solutions of Monge-Ampère equation. [*Comm. Pure Appl. Math.*]{} [**44**]{} (1991), no. 8-9, 965–969. Caffarelli, L. A. The regularity of mappings with a convex potential. [*J. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**5**]{} (1992), no. 1, 99–104. Caffarelli, L. A. Boundary regularity of maps with convex potentials. [*Comm. Pure Appl. Math.*]{} [**45**]{} (1992), no. 9, 1141–1151. Caffarelli, L. A.; Gutiérrez, C. E. Properties of the Solutions of the Linearized [M]{}onge–[A]{}mpère equation. [*Amer. J. Math.*]{} [**119**]{} (1997), no. 2, 423–465. Cordero-Erausquin, D. Sur le transport de mesures périodiques. [*C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math.*]{} [**329**]{} (1999), no. 3, 199–202. Cullen, M. A Mathematical Theory of Large-Scale Atmosphere/Ocean Flow. London: Imperial College Press, 2006. Cullen, M.; Feldman, M. Lagrangian solutions of semigeostrophic equations in physical space. [*SIAM J. Math. Anal.*]{} [**37**]{} (2006), no. 5, 1371–1395. Cullen, M.; Gangbo, W. A variational approach for the 2-dimensional semi-geostrophic shallow water equations. [*Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.*]{} [**156**]{} (2001), no. 3, 241–273. De Philippis, G.; Figalli, A. $W^{2,1}$ regularity for solutions of the Monge-Ampère equation. [*Invent. Math.*]{} [**192**]{} (2013), no. 1, 55–69. De Philippis, G.; Figalli, A.; Savin, O. A note on interior $W^{2, 1+{\varepsilon}}$ estimates for the Monge-Ampère equation. [*Math. Ann.*]{} [**357**]{} (2013), 11–22. Figalli, A. [*The Monge-Ampère equation and its applications.*]{} Zurich Lectures in Advanced Mathematics. European Mathematical Society (EMS), Zürich, 2017. Figalli, A. Global existence for the semigeostrophic equations via Sobolev estimates for Monge-Ampère. CIME Lecture Notes, Springer, to appear. Gilbarg, D.; Trudinger, N. S. [*Elliptic partial differential equations of second order.*]{} Springer–Verlag, New York, 2001. Grüter, M.; Widman, K. O. The Green function for uniformly elliptic equations. [*Manuscripta Math.*]{} [**37**]{} (1982), no. 3, 303–342. Gutiérrez, C. E. [*The Monge-Ampère Equation.*]{} Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and their Applications, vol.44, Birkhaüser, Boston, 2001. Han, Q.; F. Lin, F. H. [*Elliptic partial differential equations*]{}. 2nd ed. Courant Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1. Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York; American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2011. Le, N. Q. Remarks on the Green’s function of the linearized Monge-Ampère operator. [*Manuscripta Math.*]{} [**149**]{} (2016), no. 1, 45–62. Le, N. Q. Boundary Harnack inequality for the linearized Monge-Ampère equations and applications. [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**369**]{} (2017), no. 9, 6583–6611. Loeper, G. On the regularity of the polar factorization for time dependent maps. [*Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations*]{} [**22**]{} (2005), no. 3, 343–374. Loeper, G. A fully nonlinear version of the incompressible Euler equations: the semigeostrophic system. [*SIAM J. Math. Anal.*]{} [**38**]{} (2006), no. 3, 795–823. Maldonado, D. On the $W^{2,1+{\epsilon}}$-estimates for the Monge-Ampère equation and related real analysis. [*Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations*]{} [**50**]{} (2014), 94–114. McCann, R. J. Polar factorization of maps on Riemannian manifolds. [*Geom. Funct. Anal.*]{} [**11**]{} (2001), no. 3, 589–608. Murthy, M. K. V.; Stampacchia, G. Boundary value problems for some degenerate-elliptic operators. [*Ann. Mat. Pura Appl.*]{} (4) [**80**]{} (1968), 1–122. Schmidt, T. $W^{2, 1 +{\varepsilon}}$ estimates for the Monge-Ampère equation, [*Adv. Math.*]{} [**240**]{} (2013), 672–689. Tian, G. J.; Wang, X. J. A class of Sobolev type inequalities. [*Methods Appl. Anal.*]{} [**15**]{} (2008), no. 2, 263–276. Trudinger, N.S. Linear elliptic operators with measurable coefficients. [*Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa*]{} (3) [**27**]{} (1973), 265–308. Wang, Xu-Jia. Some counterexamples to the regularity of Monge-Ampère equations. [*Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**123**]{} (1995), no. 3, 841–845. [^1]: The research of the author was supported in part by NSF grant DMS-1500400.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'From the microscopic theory, we derive a number conserving quantum kinetic equation, valid for a dilute Bose gas at any temperature, in which the binary collisions between the quasi-particles are mediated by phonon-like excitations (called “condenson”). This different approach starts from the many-body Hamiltonian of a Boson gas and uses, in an appropriate way, the generalized random phase approximation. As a result, the collision term of the kinetic equation contains higher order contributions in the expansion in the interaction parameter. This different expansion shows up that a scattering involves the emission and the absorption of a phonon-like excitation. The major interest of this particular mechanism is that, in a regime where the condensate is stable, the collision process between condensed and non condensed particles is totally blocked due to a total annihilation of the mutual interaction potential induced by the condensate itself. As a consequence, the condensate is not constrained to relax and can be superfluid. Furthermore, a Boltzmann-like H-theorem for the entropy exists for this equation and allows to distinguish between dissipative and non dissipative phenomena (like vortices). We also illustrate the analogy between this approach and the kinetic theory for a plasma, in which the excitations correspond precisely to a plasmon. Finally, we show the equivalence of this theory with the non-number conserving Bogoliubov theory at zero temperature.' author: - Patrick Navez title: Collisionless dynamics of the condensate predicted in the random phase approximation --- Introduction ============ Superfluidity and H-theorem --------------------------- A lot of studies have been devoted to the theoretical understanding of statistical and dynamical properties of a weakly interacting Bose condensed gas. In particular, many works have been accomplished on the derivation of quantum kinetic equations (QKE) that govern the evolution of the condensate fraction together with his thermal excitations [@Zaremba; @Walser; @Kirkpatrick; @HM; @LevichYakhot; @Stoof; @Gardiner; @Stoof2; @Pomeau; @Khalatnikov; @Proukakis]. In a simple microscopic model of an homogeneous gas, one can describe the condensate by the atoms that populate the lowest ground state of energy and the thermal excitations by the atoms contained in the excited energy levels. The population of atoms in each level evolves according to the probability of scattering between the atoms. In the case of a uniform gas, the so-called Uehling-Uhlenbeck quantum kinetic equation (UUQKE) is a non-linear integral equation which describes the detailed balance of the population transfer of atoms for each mode of the wave-vector through a binary collision term [@Balescu]. This term depends linearly on the scattering differential cross section and nonlinearly on the mode population. It has also the remarkable properties to allow the QKE to obey conservation laws. These laws guarantee that the total number, the total momentum and the total kinetic energy of particles are preserved during the collision processes. More striking is the law stating that the production of entropy must be always positive, guaranteeing that the system obeys the second law of thermodynamics and, consequently, that it is always dissipative. This important requirement is known as the Boltzmann H-theorem established for a classical gas. The UUQKE has been derived in a weak coupling approximation, valid for a diluted gas for which the kinetic energy is much higher than the potential energy. The collision term is indeed a second order expansion in the interaction potential between atoms leading to an expression of the differential cross section in the Born approximation. One could use such a QKE in a regime below the critical point of condensation. In particular, for an inhomogeneous gas in a trap potential, the kinetic equation describes the evolution of the Wigner function and must contain additional terms, taking into account the free propagation of the atoms, the influence of the external potential and the Hartree-Fock mean field. The conservation laws are still valid and allow to express the hydrodynamic equations, including the equation for the local entropy production. Despite these consistencies, the resulting QKE suffers from the lack of understanding of an important phenomenon: [*superfluidity*]{} [@Leggett2]. If this phenomenon really exists for a dilute gas [@Cornell], then the second order theory must necessarily be revisited as it does not take into account the frictionless motion. Indeed according to the H-theorem, the homogeneous gas with a zero total momentum evolves towards a statistical equilibrium state characterized by the Bose-Einstein particle number distribution $n^{eq}_{{\mathbf{k}}}=1/[\exp(\beta(\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}}-\mu))-1]$ where ${\mathbf{k}}$ is the wave-vector, $\beta=1/k_B T$ the inverse temperature, $\mu$ the chemical potential, and $\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}}={\mathbf{k}}^2/2m$ the particle kinetic energy respectively ($\hbar=1$). For $\mu \rightarrow 0$ and ${\mathbf{k}} \rightarrow 0$, the ground state has a macroscopic population $n_{{\mathbf{0}}}= 1/[\exp(-\beta\mu)-1]$ having no relative velocity with the non condensed part of the gas. A non zero relative velocity corresponds to a non equilibrium situation and collisions between condensed and non condensed atoms will irrevocably damp this velocity towards zero. From this observation, we conclude that the second order theory is no longer valid as far as superfluidity is concerned. Obviously, at zero temperature, only the potential energy is the dominant contribution since the condensate is at rest and no thermal excitation subsists. Moreover, other indications confirm that an improved description of a weakly interacting Bose gas requires a higher order analysis in the interaction parameter. Among them, let us mention that the entropy of the condensate must be zero or close to zero while the H-theorem predicts an entropy $S_0 \sim \log n_{{\mathbf{0}}}$ corresponding to a system in the Grand Canonical ensemble with large statistical fluctuations of the particle number compared to his average value $\delta n_{{\mathbf{0}}}/ n_{{\mathbf{0}}} \sim 1$ [@Huang]. This is due to the Bose enhancement factor which stimulates the collision rate in a huge manner as long as a condensed particle is involved in the process. On the other hand, the equilibrium statistical approach based on the partition function formalism indicates that the presence of a small interaction lowers considerably the fluctuations to an amount irrelevant in the thermodynamic limit $\delta n_{{\mathbf{0}}}/ n_{{\mathbf{0}}} \rightarrow 0$ [@4eme]. Landau was the first to give an explanation of the superfluidity mechanism. He found a necessary but not sufficient condition for which this phenomenon happens [@LL; @HM]. He showed that a superfluid interacting with an external body (for example the wall) cannot release its energy, unless it evolves with a velocity higher than a critical one. The argument is based on the impossibility to satisfy the momentum-energy conservation requirement because the excitation emitted by the superfluid has a phonon-like dispersion relation. Beyond the second order perturbation theory ------------------------------------------- Attempts to analyze contribution coming from higher terms have been carried out with some success ( see [@Leggett; @Pines] for a review). At zero temperature, Bogoliubov has calculated corrections to the ground state energy. The result is non analytic in the interaction parameter, due to infrared divergencies, and is obtained through a re-summation of an infinite number of contributions. Moreover, the theory predicts the existence of a phonon-like excitation, necessary in order to justify the Landau mechanism for superfluidity. Using Green function techniques, Beliaev improved the description of the phonon like excitation namely by calculating its damping rate. Later on, Hugenholtz and Pines (HP) demonstrated that this excitation must necessarily be gapless. If at zero temperature, the theory seems well understood and widely accepted, for finite temperature it seems rather controversial. Popov was one of the first to extent the Bogoliubov and Beliaev works using the Matsubara formalism at finite temperature [@Popov]. However, this approach is essentially valid for a weakly depleted gas and thus for temperatures much below the critical one $T_c$. To take into account a strong depletion, Girardeau derived the Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (HFB) mean field equations which unfortunately, have, the strong inconvenient of having a gap in the quasi-particle energy spectrum [@Girardeau]. Since then, many attempts, have been made, in order to suppress this gap and “rescue” the HFB equations, with the purpose to go beyond the Bogoliubov phonon-like dispersion relation. [@Griffin; @Gapless; @PN]. A very popular one is the so-called “Popov approximation” which consists in suppressing the product of anomalous term in the HFB equations [@Griffin]. Another consists in the renormalization of the HFB equations but at the price of making the approximation of a weakly depleted Bose gas [@Gapless]. Consequently, these approaches are only strictly valid for temperatures much below $T_c$. [*A derivation of a well-defined theory, which is able to describe the weakly interacting Bose gas for any regime of temperature, is still an open problem and remains to be established*]{} (see the conclusion of [@NP2]). By well-defined, we mean that the expansion in the small interaction parameter must be valid, whether the condensate is strongly depleted or not. Nevertheless, using these approaches, QKE have been derived taking into account these higher order effects in the collision term. While some authors use the dispersion relation resulting from the Bogoliubov theory [@Gardiner; @Kirkpatrick; @Imamovic], others use the one resulting form the renormalized HFB theory [@Walser]. Superfluidity can be achieved in these models. Indeed, the resulting QKE can preserve detailed balance even for metastable states, in which a non zero relative velocity persists. In this situation, the Bogoliubov dispersion relation becomes asymmetric - due to a Lagrange multiplier representing the relative velocity - and remains non negative, as long as this velocity does not exceed the sound velocity. Otherwise, the dispersion relation is negative and the gas becomes unstable [@Huang]. Although these models represent a considerable amount of work, they do not yet provide a full account of the conservation laws and the H-theorem that might be deduced from their QKE. However, let us mention that a QKE has been proposed valid in principle for temperatures close to $T_c$ [@Zaremba; @Pomeau]. The main problem of this approach is that the dispersion relation has a gap and thus fails to explain the superfluidity. In general, in all these models, collisions between condensed and non condensed atoms are possible and their rate is huge because of the Bose enhancement factor in the same way as in the UUQKE. If we follow the same reasoning as above and if an H-theorem really exists, we might expect a condensate entropy of the same order of magnitude $S_0 \sim \log n_{{\mathbf{0}}}$. As a consequence, the particle number fluctuations of the condensed mode are also huge, in contradiction with estimations made from the partition function formalism [@4eme]. The random phase approximation approach --------------------------------------- The present paper is devoted to provide a possible alternative explanation to the problem of superfluidity in a diluted Bose gas. For this purpose a different QKE is derived in the random phase approximation (RPA) in which higher order terms in the interaction parameter are retained in the binary collision term (in some work, the RPA QKE refers to the UUQKE and thus has a different meaning from this paper [@LevichYakhot]). [ *Furthermore, in comparison with other approaches, the QKE is valid for any regime of temperature below and above $T_c$ since, under no circumstances, the approximation of weak depletion has been used.*]{} The RPA is commonly used to describe the collective excitations in the quantum plasma of an electron liquid [@NP]. The idea behind this approximation is to neglect contribution containing average over pair of field operators that are not oscillating in phase but rather randomly. In the terminology of optics, we neglect contribution that are not phase matching. These contributions come essentially from averages over pairs of different modes which oscillate with a relative random phase. The reason for using the RPA in a diluted plasma is that, we expect that the excitations propagate over a sufficiently long time that non phase-matching terms are destroyed by interference. By analogy with optics, we make somehow the far field approximation. The analysis of collective excitations in plasma using RPA reveals that the coulombian interaction potential between the electrons is shielded at long distance, due to the dynamic dielectric function. In fact, these results generalize the Debye theory predicting the screening of the potential between a charged ion due to the presence of other surrounding ions. As an extension, the RPA includes also the dynamical aspects of these charged particles. A QKE for the plasma has been derived [@QBalescu; @WP]. It predicts that the coulombian interaction potential for the cross section is shielded precisely by this dynamic dielectric factor. The classical version of this equation is known as the BGL kinetic equation (Balescu-Guernsey-Lenard) [@Balescu]. For deriving it, Balescu uses a re-summation of the so-called ring diagrams, which is another approach equivalent to the RPA [@QBalescu]. Later on, Wyld and Pines established a connection between the QKE and the plasmon theory [@WP]. In their approach, the shielded potential results from a more subtile dynamical mechanism, in which the two electrons must emit and reabsorb an intermediate plasmon during their interaction. The dispersion relation of the plasmon corresponds precisely to the collective mode of the plasma and its decay rate to the Landau damping. In this paper, an identical type of approach will be reproduced in the case of a dilute Bose gas. It is already known that the RPA allows to recover the Bogoliubov results for the ground state energy but with one important difference [@Pines]. Namely, in the RPA, there is no need of a spontaneous breaking of the symmetry $U(1)$ but rather, during the derivation, the total particle number is kept conserved. Note that a number-conserving formalism has been already used to derive a QKE [@Gardiner]. But this formalism is based on a $1/N$ expansion [@GCD] and thus differs from the one in the RPA [@Pines]. These considerations allow to derive a number conserving QKE in which the interaction potential is also modified by the presence of a dynamic dielectric function resulting from collective excitations. However, in contrast to a plasma, this function presents a strange behavior according to the kind of quasi-particles interaction it mediates. [*When the interaction involves a particle of the macroscopic condensate, it has the effect to totally annihilate the potential, forbidding any binary collision to occur.*]{} This surprising result allows to explain why a metastable condensate cannot decay into a state of lower energy. Simply, it is forbidden for a particle of the condensate to scatter with the excited particle and to become thus excited. No exchange of particle can occur between the two fluids. This unexpected phenomenon is a consequence of the collective behavior induced by the presence of a macroscopic condensate. In short, collision cannot happen because an induced mean field force, generated by the condensate, compensates exactly the interaction force felt by the condensed and non condensed particle. The net result is the absence of an effective interaction force preventing any scattering. In other words, the dielectric function used to attenuate the binary interaction potential becomes simply infinite. This phenomenon of “collision blockade” also influences the mechanism of condensate formation. Since particle cannot be exchanged with the macroscopic condensate, other mechanisms must be found. A closer analysis reveals that the collision blockade happens only when the Bose gas is stable. By stable we mean that the collective oscillations are always damped. Precisely, the Landau damping plays this role in both a plasma and a condensate as long as we are close to equilibrium [@Balescu; @SK]. However, for some non equilibrium situation, it has been shown for a plasma that the oscillations can grow exponentially leading to an instability [@instB; @FR]. Such behavior happens also for a Bose gas which becomes thus unstable. For example, we will show that this is the case when the relative velocity between the normal and superfluid is higher than the speed of sound. In such instable regime, the picture of a collision blockade is no longer valid and the QKE gets more complicated. Such more sophisticated QKE can describe the exchange of particle with the condensate [@instB; @FR] and provides an alternative explanation for the condensate formation [@Keterlee2; @BZS; @Gardiner2]. Another possibility is to exchange them on the edge region where the condensate is not macroscopically populated so that scattering can occur. But this requires also a really specific analysis. Therefore, the present QKE derived here will not address the important issue of particle exchange with the condensate. Assuming that collision processes are local in space, the derivation can be extended for a weakly inhomogeneous Bose gas. In this way, we recover the generalized Gross-Pitaevskii equation for the condensate, but with the difference that the absence of a binary collision term in this equation has now a clear justification. When the normal cloud is in a local thermal equilibrium, no dissipation exists anymore and we can derive a set of coupled equations defining the superfluid regime for any finite temperature below $T_c$. The paper is divided as follows. We first begin by a heuristic approach of the “collision blockade” mechanism in section 2. In section 3, we derive the QKE for a homogeneous Bose gas. We review the simple RPA in which only the Hartree or direct term is considered and the generalized RPA (GRPA) in which both Hartree and exchange Fock terms are considered [@NP]. An equation of motion for the particle-hole pair operator is derived from which the collective and scattering excitation energy spectra are deduced. The solution of the equation of motion allows to calculate the collision term and to predict the collision blockade phenomenon. We show that the QKE conserves the total particle number, the total momentum and the total energy (kinetic and Hartree-Fock) and that a Boltzmann-like H-theorem exists. In section 4, the reasoning of the previous section is extended to the case of a weakly inhomogeneous Bose gas. From the resulting QKE, we delimitate the superfluid regime i.e. the regime in which there is no local production of entropy. In section 5, by analogy with plasmon theory, we interpret the collision phenomenon as the result of the exchange of an intermediate boson (condenson). In section 6, we show how the number conserving RPA theory allows to recover the Bogoliubov results for the ground state energy. Finally, section 7 is devoted to conclusions and perspectives The “collision blockade” phenomenon =================================== Preliminary definitions ----------------------- We start from the Hamiltonian: $$\begin{aligned} H=\sum_{{\mathbf{k}}} \epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}} c^\dagger_{{\mathbf{k}}} c_{{\mathbf{k}}} +\sum_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k'}},{\mathbf{q}}} \frac{U_{\mathbf{q}}}{2V} c^\dagger_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}}c^\dagger_{{\mathbf{k'}}-{\mathbf{q}}} c_{{\mathbf{k}}}c_{{\mathbf{k'}}}\end{aligned}$$ $c^\dagger_{{\mathbf{k}}}$ and $c_{\mathbf{k}}$ are the creation and annihilation operators obeying the commutation relations $[c_{\mathbf{k}},c^\dagger_{\mathbf{k'}}]=\delta_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k'}}}$ $[c_{\mathbf{k}},c_{\mathbf{k'}}]=[c_{\mathbf{k}}^\dagger,c^\dagger_{\mathbf{k'}}]=0$. $\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}}=\frac{{\mathbf{k}}^2}{2m}$ is the kinetic energy of the particle. $U_{{\mathbf{q}}}$ is the interaction potential expressed in Fourier transform. Since we are concerned only with low energy binary collisions in the channel $l=0$, it is common to replace the potential $U_{{\mathbf{q}}}$ by a pseudo-potential or contact potential that we treat in the Born approximation [@LL]: $$\begin{aligned} \label{U0} U_{{\mathbf{q}}}=\frac{4\pi a}{m} [1+\frac{4\pi a}{mV}\sum_{{\mathbf{q'}}} \frac{1}{\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}} +\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k'}}-{\mathbf{q}}} -\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}}-\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k'}}}}] $$ where $a$ is the scattering length. Usually we consider only the first linear term in the scattering length. The second term is ultra-violet divergent and is only present to renormalize the theory by removing eventual high energy divergencies. In what follows we will concentrate on a repulsive contact interaction $a > 0$. The so-called annihilation and creation operators of the particle-hole pair are of interest: $$\begin{aligned} \rho_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{q}}}=c^\dagger_{{\mathbf{k}}}c_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}} \ \ \ \ \ \rho^\dagger_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{q}}}=c^\dagger_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}}c_{{\mathbf{k}}}\end{aligned}$$ They represent an excitation of momentum ${\mathbf{q}}$ created from a particle which transfers its momentum from ${\mathbf{k}}$ to ${\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}$. The kinetic energy transfer for this excitation is given by $\omega_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{q}}}= \epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}} -\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}}$. In particular, we define the density fluctuation operator $\rho_{{\mathbf{q}}}=\sum_{{\mathbf{k}}} \rho_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{q}}}= \rho^\dagger_{{\mathbf{-q}}}$, the number operator $\hat n_{{\mathbf{k}}}=\rho_{{\mathbf{k}},0}$ and the total number $\hat N = \sum_{{\mathbf{k}}} \hat n_{{\mathbf{k}}}$. In terms of these operators, the Hamiltonian becomes: $$\begin{aligned} H=\sum_{{\mathbf{k}}} \frac{{\mathbf{k}}^2}{2m} \hat n_{{\mathbf{k}}} +\sum_{{\mathbf{q}}} \frac{U_{{\mathbf{q}}}}{2V} (\rho^\dagger_{{\mathbf{q}}}\rho_{{\mathbf{q}}}- \hat N)\end{aligned}$$ Heuristic approach ------------------ Assume a macroscopic condensate containing $n_{{\mathbf{k_s}}}$ particle evolving with momentum ${\mathbf{k_s}}$. In the absence of excitations, there are no fluctuations of the density operator i.e. $\langle \rho_{\mathbf{q}}\rangle^{eq}= \delta_{{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{0}}}n_{{\mathbf{k_s}}}$. Suppose that an external potential is turned on creating locally fluctuations of the density of the condensate. Expressing these perturbations in Fourier space, we can characterize the external potential $\phi_{ext}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)$ and the density fluctuations $\delta n({\mathbf{q}},\omega)= \langle \delta \rho_{\mathbf{q}}\rangle= \langle \rho_{\mathbf{q}} \rangle- \langle \rho_{\mathbf{q}} \rangle^{eq}$ in terms of its wave-vector ${\mathbf{q}}$ and frequencies $\omega$ components. The Hamiltonian created by this external potential is given by $H_{ext}(t)=\sum_{{\mathbf{q}}} \rho_{{\mathbf{q}}}^\dagger e^{-i\omega t}\phi_{ext}({\mathbf{q}},\omega) + c.c.$ The linear response to this potential is given by the formula: $$\begin{aligned} \label{resp1} \delta n({\mathbf{q}},\omega) =\chi ({\mathbf{q}},\omega) \phi_{ext}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)\end{aligned}$$ where $\chi ({\mathbf{q}},\omega)$ is the susceptibility function. This response function can be calculated formally by treating $H_{ext}(t)$ as a perturbation in the first order. Without the presence of a binary interaction potential between the particle, this function is given by [@NP]: $$\begin{aligned} \chi_0 ({\mathbf{q}},\omega)= \frac{n_{{\mathbf{k_s}}}}{ \omega-\omega_{{\mathbf{k_s}},{\mathbf{q}}}+i0_+} - \frac{n_{{\mathbf{k_s}}}}{ \omega+\omega_{{\mathbf{k_s-q}},{\mathbf{q}}}+i0_+}\end{aligned}$$ It represents the transition amplitude for a condensed particle to increase its kinetic energy by an amount $\omega_{{\mathbf{k_s}},{\mathbf{q}}}=\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k_s}}+{\mathbf{q}}} -\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k_s}}}$ minus the amplitude for an excited particle to be transferred to the condensate releasing the energy $-\omega_{{\mathbf{k_s-q}},{\mathbf{q}}}=\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k_s}}-{\mathbf{q}}} -\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k_s}}}$. An infinitesimal quantity $i0_+$ has been added to ensure the convergence and is due to the adiabatic switching process of external perturbation. In the presence of the interaction, the condensate acquires a self-interaction potential energy given by $U_{{\mathbf{0}}}n_{{\mathbf{k_s}}}^2/(2V)$. Moreover, according to the RPA, the presence of fluctuation density changes the potential energy by the amount $\delta H_{int}= \sum_{{\mathbf{q}}} \rho_{{\mathbf{q}}}^\dagger e^{-i\omega t}\delta \phi({\mathbf{q}},\omega) + c.c.$ where $\delta \phi({\mathbf{q}},\omega)=(U_{{\mathbf{q}}}/V) \langle \delta \rho_{{\mathbf{q}}} \rangle$ is the potential induced by the presence of the density fluctuations. Consequently, the global response of the system becomes: $$\begin{aligned} \label{resp2} \delta n({\mathbf{q}},\omega) &=&\chi_0 ({\mathbf{q}},\omega) \left(\phi_{ext}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)+\delta \phi({\mathbf{q}},\omega)\right) \nonumber \\ &=&\chi_0 ({\mathbf{q}},\omega) \left(\phi_{ext}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)+(U_{{\mathbf{q}}}/V)\delta n({\mathbf{q}},\omega)\right)\end{aligned}$$ Comparison between $(\ref{resp1})$ and $(\ref{resp2})$ allows to deduce: $$\begin{aligned} \label{susc} \chi ({\mathbf{q}},\omega)=\frac{\chi_0 ({\mathbf{q}},\omega)} {1- (U_{{\mathbf{q}}}/V)\chi_0 ({\mathbf{q}},\omega)}\end{aligned}$$ The total potential created inside the system $\phi_{tot}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)= \phi_{ext}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)+\delta \phi({\mathbf{q}},\omega)$ is related to the external potential through the dynamical dielectric function: $$\begin{aligned} \label{heur} {\tilde {\cal K}}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)= \frac{\phi_{ext}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)}{ \phi_{tot}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)}= 1 - \frac{U_{{\mathbf{q}}}}{V}\chi_0 ({\mathbf{q}},\omega) $$ In the electromagnetism language, the gradient of $\phi_{ext}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)$ corresponds to the electrical displacement, while the gradient of $\phi_{tot}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)$ corresponds to the electric field. These are respectively the external and total field force acting on the particle. The dielectric function usually has the effect of attenuating the external field force by means of an induced force so that the total field force is smoothed out. In particular, we notice that this function is infinitely resonant for frequencies $\omega=\omega_{{\mathbf{k_s}},{\mathbf{q}}} , -\omega_{{\mathbf{k_s}}-{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{q}}}$ which means that the induced potential exactly compensates the external one. For these frequencies, the external potential affects the density fluctuations but has no local influence anymore on the condensate particle itself. This important observation is at the origin of the collision blockade phenomenon. Indeed, assume that the source of this finite external potential results from the transition of an excited particle of momentum ${\mathbf{k'}}$ towards another excited state with a momentum ${\mathbf{k'}}-{\mathbf{q}}$. The released energy during this process is $\omega=-\omega_{{\mathbf{k'}},-{\mathbf{q}}}$. According to the Fermi golden rule, a collision occurs between the condensed and non condensed ingoing particles if the transfer energy are equal $-\omega_{{\mathbf{k'}},-{\mathbf{q}}}=\omega_{{\mathbf{k_s}},{\mathbf{q}}}$ or equivalently the total energy is conserved $\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k_s}}}+\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k'}}}= \epsilon_{{\mathbf{k_s}}+{\mathbf{q}}}+\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k'}}-{\mathbf{q}}}$. But then, the dielectric function becomes infinitely resonant ${\tilde {\cal K}}({\mathbf{q}},\omega) \rightarrow \infty$ causing the total potential $\phi_{tot}({\mathbf{q}},\omega) \rightarrow 0$. Thus the interaction potential felt by the condensate particle becomes non-existent, since the induced mean field cancels the external potential generated by the excited particle. That precise phenomenon is responsible for the absence of an effective scattering process since, without interaction potential, no scattering amplitude can appear. The same effect happens when the scattering involves an outgoing particle in the condensate whereas, in such a case, the transfer energy $-\omega_{{\mathbf{k_s-q}},{\mathbf{q}}}$ causes the infinite resonance. Thus, these giant resonances have the effect to protect the condensate particle from scattering with the others. We must notice that this mechanism works only if the condensate population is macroscopic, otherwise, no induced potential is generated in the thermodynamic limit since, for $n_{{\mathbf{k_s}}}/V \rightarrow 0$, ${\tilde {\cal K}}({\mathbf{q}},\omega) \rightarrow 1$. As we shall see in the next sections, a more elaborated model confirms this prediction in the more general case of a non equilibrium Bose gas, in which the condensate can be strongly depleted. Kinetic theory in the RPA ========================= Many methods have been developed to derive kinetic equations for a dilute Bose gas [@Walser; @Imamovic]. In order to arrive rapidly to the final result , instead of using complicated many body techniques, we base the derivation on an operatorial method developed in [@NP] which appeared to be a simpler way to reach results without loss of generality. The approximations are the followings: 1) homogeneous Bose gas, 2) thermodynamic limit, 3) generalized RPA, 4) instantaneous collisions (Markovian QKE), 5) no fragmentation of the condensate (only one macroscopic population mode). The random phase approximation ------------------------------ In this subsection, we give a brief overview of the RPA developed in [@NP]. This approximation has been used quite extensively for the quantum electron liquid for describing the screening effect. The dynamic of $\rho_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{q}}}$ is given by the Heisenberg equation motion. Using the relation: $$\begin{aligned} [\rho_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{q}}},\rho_{{\mathbf{k'}},{\mathbf{q'}}}] =\delta_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{k'}}} \rho_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k'}}+{\mathbf{q'}}-{\mathbf{k}}} -\delta_{{\mathbf{k}}-{\mathbf{q'}},{\mathbf{k'}}} \rho_{{\mathbf{k'}},{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}-{\mathbf{k'}}}\end{aligned}$$ we find $$\begin{aligned} \label{he} i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\rho_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{q}}} =[\rho_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{q}}},H] =(\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}} -\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}}) \rho_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{q}}} \nonumber \\ +\sum_{{\mathbf{q'}}}\frac{U_{{\mathbf{q'}}}}{2V} [\rho_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{q}}+{\mathbf{q'}}} -\rho_{{\mathbf{k}}-{\mathbf{q'}},{\mathbf{q}}+{\mathbf{q'}}}, \rho^\dagger_{{\mathbf{q'}}}]_+\end{aligned}$$ where the brackets refer to to an anti-commutator. Two cases in the RPA are generally considered in systems close to equilibrium [@NP]. The simple RPA, in which only the Hartree or direct terms contribute, and the generalized RPA, in which the Fock or exchange terms are also retained. We shall concentrate on the second approximation, since for a contact potential Hartree and Fock terms are identical. Only for the condensate-condensate interaction, the Fock term does not appear. In the GRPA, we consider that operator $\rho_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{q}}}$ with non zero momentum transfer ${\mathbf{q}}\not=0$ gives a negligible contribution in comparison to $\hat n_{{\mathbf{k}}}$, as it involves different modes oscillating with a random relative phase. The procedure to get the non equilibrium RPA equations is as follows. For a momentum transfer ${\mathbf{q}}=0$ the Eq.(\[he\]) is kept unchanged. For ${\mathbf{q}}\not=0$, however, we keep among all terms those combinations of creation and annihilation operators involving product of $\rho_{{\mathbf{k'}},{\mathbf{q}}}$ and $\hat n_{{\mathbf{k''}}}$ for all possible values of ${\mathbf{k'}}$ and ${\mathbf{k''}}$, and neglect those combinations that cannot be written in this form. These removed contributions are quadratic in the operator $\rho_{{\mathbf{k'}},{\mathbf{q'}}}$ with ${\mathbf{q'}}\not={\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{0}}$. In this approximation, only contributions conserving the momentum transfer are relevant, the others coupling the various $\rho_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{q}}}$ with different momentum transfers are neglected. We expect that the excitations of momentum ${\mathbf{q}}$ propagate, without interfering with the others, over an enough long time determined by the dilution of the gas, that (this would correspond to the far field limit). The result is for ${\mathbf{q}}=0$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{n} i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\hat n_{{\mathbf{k}}} =\sum_{{\mathbf{q'}}}\frac{U_{{\mathbf{q'}}}}{2V} [\rho_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{q'}}} -\rho_{{\mathbf{k}}-{\mathbf{q'}},{\mathbf{q'}}}, \rho^\dagger_{{\mathbf{q'}}}]_+\end{aligned}$$ and for ${\mathbf{q}}\not=0$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{rho} i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\rho_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{q}}} &=& (\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}} -\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}}) \rho_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{q}}} \nonumber \\ &+&\sum_{{\mathbf{k'}}}[\frac{U_{{\mathbf{k}}-{\mathbf{k'}}+{\mathbf{q}}}} {2V}\hat n_{{\mathbf{k'}}}- \frac{U_{{\mathbf{k}}-{\mathbf{k'}}-{\mathbf{q}}}} {2V}\hat n_{{\mathbf{k'+q}}},\rho_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{q}}}]_+ \nonumber \\ &+&\sum_{{\mathbf{k'}}\not= {\mathbf{k}} }\frac{U_{{\mathbf{q}}}}{2V} [\hat n_{{\mathbf{k}}}- \hat n_{{\mathbf{k+q}}},\rho_{{\mathbf{k'}},{\mathbf{q}}}]_+ \nonumber \\ &+&\sum_{{\mathbf{k'}}\not={\mathbf{k}}-{\mathbf{q}}}\frac{U_{{\mathbf{k}}-{\mathbf{k'}}}} {2V}[\hat n_{{\mathbf{k}}},\rho_{{\mathbf{k'}},{\mathbf{q}}}]_+ \nonumber \\ &-&\sum_{{\mathbf{k'}}\not={\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}}\frac{U_{{\mathbf{k}}-{\mathbf{k'}}}} {2V}[\hat n_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}},\rho_{{\mathbf{k'}},{\mathbf{q}}}]_+\end{aligned}$$ Eq.(\[rho\]) is an integral operatorial equation linear in $\rho_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{q}}}$. We can linearize this equation by averaging all possible bilinear contributions. Since the homogeneity of the gas imposes $\langle \rho_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{q}}} \rangle =0$ if ${\mathbf{q}}\not= {\mathbf{0}}$, we are left with the average on the number operator $\langle \hat n_{{\mathbf{k}}} \rangle= n_{{\mathbf{k}}}$ and we obtain an integral equation which possesses the same structure as Eq.(5.183) p. 318 of [@NP]: $$\begin{aligned} \label{rho3} \left[i\frac{\partial}{\partial t} -(\epsilon^{HFA}_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}}-\epsilon^{HFA}_{{\mathbf{k}}})\right] \rho_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{q}}}= (n_{{\mathbf{k}}}-n_{{\mathbf{k+q}}}) \sum_{{\mathbf{k'}}\not={\mathbf{k}}}\frac{U_{{\mathbf{q}}}}{V}\rho_{{\mathbf{k'}},{\mathbf{q}}} \nonumber \\ +n_{{\mathbf{k}}} \sum_{{\mathbf{k'}}\not={\mathbf{k}}-{\mathbf{q}}}\frac{U_{{\mathbf{k}}-{\mathbf{k'}}}} {V} \rho_{{\mathbf{k'}},{\mathbf{q}}} -n_{{\mathbf{k+q}}}\sum_{{\mathbf{k'}}\not={\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}}\frac{U_{{\mathbf{k}}-{\mathbf{k'}}}} {V}\rho_{{\mathbf{k'}},{\mathbf{q}}} \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ Indeed, in the term containing the bracket, we recognize the difference $\omega_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{q}}}= \epsilon^{HFA}_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}}- \epsilon^{HFA}_{{\mathbf{k}}}$ between the quasi-particle energy calculated in Hartree-Fock approximation (HFA): $$\begin{aligned} \epsilon^{HFA}_{{\mathbf{k}}}=\frac{{\mathbf{k}}^2}{2m} + \sum_{{\mathbf{k'}}}\frac{U_{{\mathbf{0}}}}{V}n_{{\mathbf{k'}}}+ \sum_{{\mathbf{k'}}}\frac{U_{{\mathbf{k}}-{\mathbf{k'}}}}{V}n_{{\mathbf{k'}}}\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, in the integral terms, both Hartree and Fock terms are present. However, Eq.(\[rho3\]) shows some differences: firstly, since we are dealing with bosons, the Fock terms have the opposite sign compared to fermions; secondly, since a macroscopic condensate might appear, we should be cautious not to count twice terms between the same modes. We have avoided this difficulty by excluding carefully in the sum over the modes those leading to a double counting and which appear only in the integral terms. Finally, another difference is that $n_{{\mathbf{k}}}$ is still a function depending on the time, generalizing in this way the RPA approach for systems in non equilibrium. For comparison, Zaremba et al. [@Zaremba] have derived a QKE in an approximation which would correspond to a different equation for $\rho_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{q}}}$. As we shall see below, their analysis is equivalent to removing the integral terms in (\[rho3\]) and to approximating the quasi-particle energy by $$\begin{aligned} \label{ZNG} \epsilon^{ZNG}_{{\mathbf{k}}}=\frac{{\mathbf{k}}^2}{2m} + \sum_{{\mathbf{k'}}}\frac{U_{{\mathbf{0}}}}{V}n_{{\mathbf{k'}}}+ \sum_{{\mathbf{k'}}\not={\mathbf{k}}}\frac{U_{{\mathbf{k}}-{\mathbf{k'}}}}{V}n_{{\mathbf{k'}}}\end{aligned}$$ We notice immediately that they have avoided a double counting in the exchange term. As a consequence, in the particular case of a contact potential and for ${\mathbf{k_s}}=0$, the energy difference that they obtained has a gap: $$\begin{aligned} \epsilon^{ZNG}_{{\mathbf{k}}}-\epsilon^{ZNG}_{{\mathbf{0}}}= \frac{{\mathbf{k}}^2}{2m}+{\frac{4\pi a}{m}}\frac{n_{{\mathbf{0}}}}{V} \stackrel{{\mathbf{k}}\rightarrow 0}{\rightarrow}{\frac{4\pi a}{m}}\frac{n_{{\mathbf{0}}}}{V}\end{aligned}$$ Clearly, for ${\mathbf{k}} \rightarrow 0$ and if the mode ${\mathbf{k_s}}=0$ is macroscopically populated, this finite gap cannot be neglected in the scattering energy spectrum. In our approach, however, this gap does not appear anymore in $\epsilon^{HFA}_{{\mathbf{k}}}$. The two operatorial equations (\[n\]) and (\[rho3\]) are the equations leading to the QKE. Collective and scattering excitations ------------------------------------- It is instructive to analyze the frequency spectrum solution of the eigenvalue problem given by Eq.(\[rho3\]). In an electron liquid, the linear equation possesses two kinds of eigenvectors: (i) the scattering solutions involving the presence of only one particle and (ii) the collective solutions involving the presence of many particles. For reasons we will explain below, let us concentrate on the problem of calculating the impulsion response or dielectric propagator ${\cal U}_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k_1}},t)$ to an initial particle having a momentum ${\mathbf{k_1}}$. We replace the operator $\rho_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{q}}}$ by this function and we substitute the interaction potential by its first order expression in (\[U0\]). After simplifications, the integral equation for this function is: $$\begin{aligned} \label{U} [i\frac{\partial}{\partial t} - \frac{{\mathbf{k}}.{\mathbf{q}}}{m}-\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m}] {\cal U}_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k_1}},t) \nonumber \\ ={\frac{4\pi a}{m}}\big[\frac{(n_{{\mathbf{k}}}-n_{{\mathbf{k+q}}})}{V} \sum_{{\mathbf{k'}}\not= {\mathbf{k}}} {\cal U}_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k'}},{\mathbf{k_1}},t) \nonumber \\ +\frac{n_{{\mathbf{k}}}}{V} \sum_{{\mathbf{k'}}\not={\mathbf{k}}-{\mathbf{q}}} {\cal U}_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k'}},{\mathbf{k_1}},t) -\frac{n_{{\mathbf{k+q}}}}{V}\sum_{{\mathbf{k'}}\not={\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}} {\cal U}_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k'}},{\mathbf{k_1}},t)\big]\end{aligned}$$ with the initial condition: $$\begin{aligned} {\cal U}_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k_1}},t=0)= \delta_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k_1}}}\end{aligned}$$ If $n_{{\mathbf{k}}}$ varies slowly in time and thus can be considered as constant during the evolution of the impulsion response, Eq.(\[rho3\]) can be solved exactly in the thermodynamic limit. Similar equations have been solved in the field of plasma physics [@Ichimaru]. For this purpose, we define the Laplace transform as: $$\begin{aligned} {\cal U}_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k_1}},\omega) =\int_0^\infty \!\!\!dt\, e^{i(\omega+i0_+)t}{\cal U}_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k_1}},t)\end{aligned}$$ A $0_+$ has been added in order to ensure convergence of the integral. If we suppose that ${\mathbf{k_s}}$ is the wave-vector for the superfluid mode, then we can make the decomposition between a normal component and components involving the superfluid mode: $$\begin{aligned} {\cal U}_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k_1}},\omega)= {\tilde {\cal U}}_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k_1}},\omega) +\delta_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k_s}}} {\cal U}_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k_s}},{\mathbf{k_1}},\omega) \nonumber \\ +\delta_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k_s}}-{\mathbf{q}}} {\cal U}_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k_s}}-{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{k_1}},\omega)\end{aligned}$$ Also, we distinguish the normal mode population $n'_{{\mathbf{k}}}= (1-\delta_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k_s}}})n_{{\mathbf{k}}}$ from the condensed mode. Plugging this decomposition into (\[rho3\]) and neglecting some $n'_{{\mathbf{k}}}$ by taking the thermodynamic limit, we obtain for the superfluid modes: $$\begin{aligned} \label{col1} [\omega+i0_+ - \frac{{\mathbf{k_s}}.{\mathbf{q}}}{m}-\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m}] {\cal U}_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k_s}},{\mathbf{k_1}},\omega) =i\delta_{{\mathbf{k_s}},{\mathbf{k_1}}} \nonumber \\ +{\frac{4\pi a}{m}}\frac{n_{{\mathbf{k_s}}}}{V} (\sum'_{{\mathbf{k'}}} 2\tilde{{\cal U}}_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k'}},{\mathbf{k_1}},\omega) + {\cal U}_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k_s}},{\mathbf{k_1}},\omega) \nonumber\\ + {\cal U}_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k_s}}-{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{k_1}},\omega))\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{col2} [\omega+i0_+ - \frac{{\mathbf{k_s}}.{\mathbf{q}}}{m}+\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m}] {\cal U}_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k_s}}-{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{k_1}},\omega) =i\delta_{{\mathbf{k_s}}-{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{k_1}}} \nonumber \\ - {\frac{4\pi a}{m}}\frac{n_{{\mathbf{k_s}}}}{V} (\sum'_{{\mathbf{k'}}} 2\tilde{{\cal U}}_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k'}},{\mathbf{k_1}},\omega) + {\cal U}_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k_s}},{\mathbf{k_1}},\omega) \nonumber \\ + {\cal U}_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k_s}}-{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{k_1}},\omega))\end{aligned}$$ and for the normal component: $$\begin{aligned} \label{col3} [\omega+i0_+ - \frac{{\mathbf{k}}.{\mathbf{q}}}{m}-\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m}] {\cal U}_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k_s}}-{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{k_1}},\omega) =i\delta_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k_1}}} \nonumber \\ + \frac{8\pi a}{m} \frac{(n_{{\mathbf{k}}}-n_{{\mathbf{k+q}}})}{V} (\sum'_{{\mathbf{k'}}} \tilde{{\cal U}}_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k'}},{\mathbf{k_1}},\omega) + {\cal U}_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k_s}},{\mathbf{k_1}},\omega) \nonumber \\ + {\cal U}_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k_s}}-{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{k_1}},\omega))\end{aligned}$$ The prime in the sum excludes terms involving the condensate mode. This close set of equations is solved in the Appendix A. For ${\mathbf{k}}\not= {\mathbf{k_s}}, {\mathbf{k_s}}-{\mathbf{q}}$, the scattering solutions are $\omega= \epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}}-\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}}$. For excitations involving a superfluid mode ${\mathbf{k}}= {\mathbf{k_s}}, {\mathbf{k_s}}-{\mathbf{q}}$, the presence of interaction with the macroscopic condensate transforms the scattering solutions into collective solutions of the discriminant equation: $$\begin{aligned} \label{disprel} \Delta({\mathbf{q}},\omega)= {\cal K}_n({\mathbf{q}},\omega)[(\omega+i0_+ - \frac{{\mathbf{k_s}}.{\mathbf{q}}}{m})^2 - {\epsilon^B_{{\mathbf{q}}}}^2] \nonumber \\+ ({\cal K}_n({\mathbf{q}},\omega)-1)\frac{8\pi a n_{{\mathbf{k_s}}}}{mV} \frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{m}=0\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \epsilon^B_{{\mathbf{q}}}= \sqrt{c^2 {\mathbf{q}}^2 + (\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m})^2}\end{aligned}$$ is the Bogoliubov excitation energy, $$\begin{aligned} c=\sqrt{\frac{4\pi a n_{{\mathbf{k_s}}}}{m^2 V}} \end{aligned}$$ is the sound velocity and $$\begin{aligned} \label{kn} {\cal K}_n({\mathbf{q}},\omega)= 1- \frac{8\pi a }{mV}\sum_{{\mathbf{k}}} \frac{n'_{{\mathbf{k}}}-n'_{{\mathbf{k+q}}}}{ \omega+i0_+ - \frac{{\mathbf{k}}.{\mathbf{q}}}{m}-\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m}}\end{aligned}$$ is the dynamic dielectric function of the normal fluid. Eq.(\[disprel\]) allows to find a dispersion relation for any function $n_{{\mathbf{k}}}$ possibly in non thermodynamic equilibrium. In this sense, it generalizes the dispersion relation that is obtained equivalently from the density fluctuations response formalism for a gas at equilibrium [@SK; @PN; @GriffinB; @Minguzzi; @Giorgini]. Note that in [@Giorgini] the non number conserving Beliaev formalism has been used to derive the dispersion relation up to the next order beyond the Bogoliubov theory. The solution can be put in the complex form: $\omega=\omega_{{\mathbf{q}}}-i\gamma_{{\mathbf{q}}}$ where $\gamma_{{\mathbf{q}}}$ corresponds to the Landau damping. For the particular case of a weakly depleted Bose gas, we can solve analytically Eq.(\[disprel\]). In that case, we can approximate [@SK]: $$\begin{aligned} \label{Knapp} {\cal K}_n({\mathbf{q}},\omega) \simeq 1+i{\rm Im} {\cal K}_n({\mathbf{q}},\omega)\end{aligned}$$ Eq.(\[disprel\]) is obtained considering in a first approximation that the imaginary term can be neglected. We find that the real part corresponds to the Bogoliubov spectrum: $$\begin{aligned} \label{reo} \omega_{{\mathbf{q}}} \simeq \frac{{\mathbf{k_s}}.{\mathbf{q}}}{m} \pm \epsilon^B_{{\mathbf{q}}}\end{aligned}$$ The imaginary part corresponds to the Landau damping and can be calculated perturbatively assuming $|\gamma_{{\mathbf{q}}}| \ll \omega_{{\mathbf{q}}}$ which is the case for a weakly depleted condensate. We find, up to the first order, $$\begin{aligned} \label{imo} \gamma_{{\mathbf{q}}} \simeq {\rm Im}{\cal K}_n({\mathbf{q}},\omega_{{\mathbf{q}}}) \frac{\frac{4\pi a n_{{\mathbf{k_s}}}}{mV} \frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{m}}{\omega_{{\mathbf{q}}}-\frac{{\mathbf{k_s}}.{\mathbf{q}}}{m}}\end{aligned}$$ By analogy with plasma physics, we say that a Bose gas is stable provided that $\gamma_{{\mathbf{q}}} \geq 0$ and unstable otherwise. In a stable condensate the collective oscillations are damped, while in a unstable condensate they are amplified exponentially. For the case of thermal equilibrium (\[neq\]) with ${\mathbf{v_n}}=0$, $\mu=0$ and a temperature close to zero, ${\rm Im}{\cal K}_n({\mathbf{q}},\omega_{{\mathbf{q}}})$ is calculated in appendix B and is a positive function for $\omega_{{\mathbf{q}}} \geq 0$ and negative otherwise. Thus, from (\[imo\]) the stability condition could be written as: $$\begin{aligned} \label{stab} \epsilon^B_{{\mathbf{q}}}-\frac{{\mathbf{k_s}}.{\mathbf{q}}}{m} \geq 0\end{aligned}$$ We can check that this inequality is fulfilled for all values of the momentum at the condition that $|{\mathbf{k_s}}/m| \leq c$. In other words, the condensate is stable if its velocity relative to the normal fluid is much less than the sound velocity. Anticipating the next subsections, this condition corresponds to the Landau criterion for superfluidity for a weakly depleted Bose gas. More generally, the occurrence of instability depends on the form of $n_{\mathbf{k}}$ which influences the spectrum obtained from (\[disprel\]). In the case of a plasma, this problem has been studied long time ago [@instB; @FR]. Finally, in the absence of a macroscopic condensate i.e. $n_{\mathbf{k_s}}/V \rightarrow 0$, we recover the two scattering solutions for the superfluid: $$\begin{aligned} \omega \stackrel{n_{{\mathbf{k_s}}}\rightarrow 0}{=} \frac{{\mathbf{k_s}}.{\mathbf{q}}}{m}\pm\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m}\end{aligned}$$ and the collective solution is given by $$\begin{aligned} {\cal K}_n({\mathbf{q}},\omega)=0\end{aligned}$$ According to [@SK], at equilibrium, this collective solution contains only an imaginary part and thus no collective oscillation can be observed in the system. Therefore, any collective oscillation results specifically from the condensation which transforms the scattering solution of the condensed mode into a collective solution. Derivation of the kinetic equation ---------------------------------- From the results of the previous section, we are now ready to derive a generalized Boltzmann like equation for the Bose condensed gas. We define the spatial correlation function as the average $\langle \rho_{{\mathbf{k'}},-{\mathbf{q}}}\rho_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{q}}} \rangle$. Using Eq.(\[rho3\]), we derive the following equation for the correlation function: $$\begin{aligned} \label{K1} [i\frac{\partial}{\partial t} + \frac{({\mathbf{k'}}-{\mathbf{k}}).{\mathbf{q}}}{m}-\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{m}] \langle \rho_{{\mathbf{k'}},-{\mathbf{q}}} \rho_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{q}}} \rangle \nonumber \\ =\frac{4\pi a}{mV} \sum_{{\mathbf{k''}}}\big[n_{{\mathbf{k}}} (2-\delta_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k''}}}-\delta_{{\mathbf{k}}-{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{k''}}}) \nonumber \\ -n_{{\mathbf{k+q}}} (2-\delta_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k''}}}-\delta_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{k''}}}) \big] \langle \rho_{{\mathbf{k'}},-{\mathbf{q}}} \rho_{{\mathbf{k''}},{\mathbf{q}}} \rangle \nonumber \\ +\big[ n_{{\mathbf{k'}}} (2-\delta_{{\mathbf{k'}},{\mathbf{k''}}}-\delta_{{\mathbf{k'}}+{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{k''}}}) \nonumber \\ -n_{{\mathbf{k'-q}}} (2-\delta_{{\mathbf{k'}},{\mathbf{k''}}}-\delta_{{\mathbf{k'}}-{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{k''}}}) \big] \langle \rho_{{\mathbf{k''}},-{\mathbf{q}}}\rho_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{q}}} \rangle\end{aligned}$$ This function can be decomposed as a non interacting part and an interacting part [@Balescu]: $$\begin{aligned} \label{g} \langle \rho_{{\mathbf{k'}},-{\mathbf{q}}} \rho_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{q}}} \rangle= (n_{{\mathbf{k}}}+1)n_{{\mathbf{k'}}} \delta_{{\mathbf{k'}}-{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{q}}} \nonumber\\ +n_{{\mathbf{k}}}n_{{\mathbf{k'}}} \delta_{{\mathbf{q}},0}(1-\delta_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k'}}}) -n_{{\mathbf{k}}}\delta_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k'}}}\delta_{{\mathbf{q}},0} +g_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k'}})\end{aligned}$$ where $g_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k'}})$ represents the correlation function due to the interactions. For ${\mathbf{q}} \not= 0$ or ${\mathbf{k}} \not= {\mathbf{k'}}$, the non interacting part follows the Wick’s decomposition and since the system is homogeneous $\langle c^\dagger_{\mathbf{k}} c_{\mathbf{k'}} \rangle = \delta_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k'}}} n_{\mathbf{k}}$. For ${\mathbf{q}}= 0$ or ${\mathbf{k}}={\mathbf{k'}}$, however, it reduces to the quadratic average population that we choose to be $\langle {\hat n}_{\mathbf{k}}^2 \rangle = n_{\mathbf{k}}^2$. Would we have used the Wick’s decomposition in that case then $\langle {\hat n}_{\mathbf{k}}^2 \rangle = 2 n_{\mathbf{k}}^2$ which corresponds to non zero particle number fluctuations $\langle \delta^2 {\hat n}_{\mathbf{k}} \rangle = n_{\mathbf{k}}^2$ and the total particle number would display fluctuations as well. Indeed, since $\langle {\hat n}_{\mathbf{k}} {\hat n}_{\mathbf{k'}}\rangle= n_{\mathbf{k}}n_{\mathbf{k'}}$ for ${\mathbf{k}}\not={\mathbf{k'}}$, we calculate $\langle \delta^2 {\hat N} \rangle= \sum_{{\mathbf{k}}} n_{\mathbf{k}}^2$. In the presence of condensation, these fluctuations are huge i.e. of the same order of the average value [@4eme]. Consequently, in an isolated system where the total particle number is conserved, this unphysical situation must be excluded. Taking the average over each side of Eq.(\[n\]), a comparison with (\[g\]) allows to deduce: $$\begin{aligned} \label{n2} i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}n_{{\mathbf{k}}} =\sum_{{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{k'}}}\frac{2\pi a}{mV} \big(g_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k'}})- g_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k}}-{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{k'}}) \nonumber \\ +g_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k'}},{\mathbf{k}})- g_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k'}},{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}})\big)\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, inserting this definition into Eq.(\[K1\]) and using (\[n2\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \label{K2} [i\frac{\partial}{\partial t} + \frac{({\mathbf{k'}}-{\mathbf{k}}).{\mathbf{q}}}{m}-\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{m}] g_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k'}}) \nonumber \\ =Q_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k'}})+ \frac{4\pi a}{mV} \sum_{{\mathbf{k''}}} \big[n_{{\mathbf{k}}} (2-\delta_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k''}}}-\delta_{{\mathbf{k}}-{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{k''}}}) \nonumber \\ -n_{{\mathbf{k+q}}} (2-\delta_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k''}}}-\delta_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{k''}}}) \big]g_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k''}},{\mathbf{k'}}) \nonumber \\ +\big[n_{{\mathbf{k'}}} (2-\delta_{{\mathbf{k'}},{\mathbf{k''}}}-\delta_{{\mathbf{k'}}+{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{k''}}}) \nonumber \\ -n_{{\mathbf{k'-q}}} (2-\delta_{{\mathbf{k'}},{\mathbf{k''}}}-\delta_{{\mathbf{k'}}-{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{k''}}}) \big]g_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k''}})\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \label{Q} Q_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k'}})= \frac{8\pi a }{mV} \big[(n_{{\mathbf{k}}}-n_{{\mathbf{k+q}}})(n_{{\mathbf{k'-q}}}+1)n_{{\mathbf{k'}}} \nonumber \\ +(n_{{\mathbf{k'}}}-n_{{\mathbf{k'-q}}})(n_{{\mathbf{k}}}+1)n_{{\mathbf{k+q}}}\big] \nonumber \\ -\frac{4\pi a n_{{\mathbf{k_s}}}^2}{mV}( \delta_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k_s}}} \delta_{{\mathbf{k'}},{\mathbf{k_s}}} -\delta_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k_s}}-{\mathbf{q}}} \delta_{{\mathbf{k'}},{\mathbf{k_s}}+{\mathbf{q}}}) \nonumber \\ \left[(1+n_{{\mathbf{k_s}}})n_{{\mathbf{k_s}}+{\mathbf{q}}}+(1+n_{{\mathbf{k_s}}-{\mathbf{q}}})n_{{\mathbf{k_s}}} \right]\end{aligned}$$ is the inhomogeneous term. To get (\[Q\]), we eliminate terms involving delta functions which will give negligible contribution to the QKE in the thermodynamic limit. Both Eq.(\[n2\]) and Eq.(\[K2\]) form a close set in which $g_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k'}})$ must be eliminated in order to get a kinetic equation for $n_{{\mathbf{k}}}$. This elimination is done following an analog procedure to that of Ichimaru [@Ichimaru]. We assume that the correlations due to the interactions are non-existent for $t \rightarrow -\infty$. This requirement is usual in kinetic theory and allows to provide the following initial condition $g_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k'}})|_{t \rightarrow -\infty} =0$. Also, we assume that $n_{{\mathbf{k}}}$ evolves on a much more long time scale than the duration of a collision $g_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k'}})$ and so is considered as constant in solving Eq.(\[K2\]). This approximation amounts to claiming that the binary collision process is instantaneous in comparison with the time associated to the relaxation of the system. Inspired by the previous subsections and by [@Ichimaru], we can check that the solution, satisfying both Eq.(\[K2\]) and the initial condition, is expressed in terms of the dielectric propagator as: $$\begin{aligned} \label{K3} g_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k'}},t)= -i\int_0^\infty \!\!\!\!\!dt' \sum_{{\mathbf{k_1}},{\mathbf{k'_1}}} \nonumber \\ {\cal U}_{{\mathbf{q}}}({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k_1}},t') {\cal U}_{-{\mathbf{q}}}({\mathbf{k'}},{\mathbf{k'_1}},t') Q_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k_1}},{\mathbf{k'_1}},t-t')\end{aligned}$$ We have inserted the explicit time dependence in the functions. If the creation of such correlations is much faster in comparison with the relaxation time for $n_{{\mathbf{k}}}$, $Q_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k_1}},{\mathbf{k'_1}},t-t') \simeq Q_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k_1}},{\mathbf{k'_1}},t)$ and we obtain a Markovian equation. We re express the dielectric propagator in Fourier transform according to, $$\begin{aligned} {\cal U}_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k_1}},t) =\frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{\cal C} d\omega e^{-i\omega t} {\cal U}_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k_1}},\omega)\end{aligned}$$ where the contour ${\cal C}$ extends from $-\infty$ to $+\infty$ along a path in the upper half of the $\omega$ plane in such a way that all the singularities lie below it. The substitution allows to carry out successively integrations over $t'$ and $\omega'$ by closing the contour in the upper half plane in order to get: $$\begin{aligned} \label{K4} g_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k'}})= \int_{-\infty}^\infty \!\!\!\frac{d\omega}{2\pi i}\sum_{{\mathbf{k_1}},{\mathbf{k'_1}}} \nonumber \\ {\cal U}_{{\mathbf{q}}}({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k_1}},\omega) {\cal U}_{-{\mathbf{q}}}({\mathbf{k'}},{\mathbf{k'_1}},-\omega) Q_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k_1}},{\mathbf{k'_1}},t)\end{aligned}$$ Calculations in appendix C allow to find an explicit expression for $g_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k'}})$ in terms of the one particle distribution function, provided the Landau damping factor is always positive. The substitution into (\[n2\]) allows finally to get the GRPA kinetic equation for a stable Bose gas: $$\begin{aligned} \label{K5} \frac{\partial}{\partial t}n_{{\mathbf{k}}}= {\cal C}^T_{{\mathbf{k}}}[n_{{\mathbf{k'}}};{\mathbf{k_s}}]= {\cal C}_{{\mathbf{k}}}[n_{{\mathbf{k'}}};{\mathbf{k_s}}]+ {\tilde {\cal C}}_{{\mathbf{k}}}[n_{{\mathbf{k'}}};{\mathbf{k_s}}]\end{aligned}$$ where we define the collision terms as a functional of $n_{{\mathbf{k'}}}$ and a function of ${\mathbf{k_s}}$. The first term describes the collision rate between particles of the normal fluid: $$\begin{aligned} \label{K6} {\cal C}_{{\mathbf{k}}}[n_{{\mathbf{k'}}};{\mathbf{k_s}}] =\sum_{{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{k'}}} \left| \frac{\frac{8\pi a}{mV}} {{\cal K}({\mathbf{q}},\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}}-\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}})} \right|^2 \!\! (1-\delta_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k_s}}}-\delta_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{k_s}}}- \delta_{{\mathbf{k'}},{\mathbf{k_s}}}-\delta_{{\mathbf{k'}}-{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{k_s}}}) \pi \delta(\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}}+\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k'}}-{\mathbf{q}}}- \epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}}-\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k'}}}) \nonumber \\ \big[n_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}}n_{{\mathbf{k'}}-{\mathbf{q}}} (n_{{\mathbf{k}}}+1)(n_{{\mathbf{k'}}}+1)- n_{{\mathbf{k}}}n_{{\mathbf{k'}}}(n_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}}+1)(n_{{\mathbf{k'}}-{\mathbf{q}}}+1)\big]\end{aligned}$$ The second term describes the collision rate between condensed and non condensed particles, the condensed particle is either the input or the output state in the scattering process: $$\begin{aligned} \label{K7} {\tilde{\cal C}}_{{\mathbf{k}}}[n_{{\mathbf{k'}}};{\mathbf{k_s}}] =&\displaystyle \sum_{{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{k'}}} \frac{\left(\frac{8\pi a}{mV}\right)^2} {\left|{\cal K}^*({\mathbf{q}},\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}}-\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}}) {\tilde{\cal K}}({\mathbf{q}},\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}}-\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}})\right|} (\delta_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k_s}}}+\delta_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{k_s}}}+ \delta_{{\mathbf{k'}},{\mathbf{k_s}}}+\delta_{{\mathbf{k'}}-{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{k_s}}}) \nonumber \\ &\pi \delta(\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}}+\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k'}}-{\mathbf{q}}}- \epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}}-\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k'}}}) \big[n_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}}n_{{\mathbf{k'}}-{\mathbf{q}}} (n_{{\mathbf{k}}}+1)(n_{{\mathbf{k'}}}+1)- n_{{\mathbf{k}}}n_{{\mathbf{k'}}}(n_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}}+1)(n_{{\mathbf{k'}}-{\mathbf{q}}}+1)\big]\end{aligned}$$ In the first expression (\[K6\]), the contact potential has been replaced by an effective one depending on the transfer particle energy $\omega=\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}}-\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}}$: $$\begin{aligned} \label{ueff} U^{eff}_{{\mathbf{q}}}(\omega) =\frac{\frac{8\pi a}{mV}} {{\cal K}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)}\end{aligned}$$ The correcting term is the dynamic dielectric constant: $$\begin{aligned} \label{kal} &&{\cal K}({\mathbf{q}},\omega) \nonumber \\ &=& \frac{\frac{8\pi a n_{{\mathbf{k_s}}}}{mV} \frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{m}} {(\omega+i0_+ - \frac{{\mathbf{k_s}}.{\mathbf{q}}}{m})^2-(\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m})^2+ \frac{4\pi a n_{{\mathbf{k_s}}}}{mV} \frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{m}}+{\cal K}_n({\mathbf{q}},\omega) \nonumber \\ &=& \frac{\Delta({\mathbf{q}},\omega)} {(\omega+i0_+ -\frac{{\mathbf{k_s}}.{\mathbf{q}}}{m})^2-(\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m})^2+ \frac{4\pi a n_{{\mathbf{k_s}}}}{mV} \frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{m}}\end{aligned}$$ In the second expression (\[K7\]), we define another dynamical dielectric function: $$\begin{aligned} \label{kalc} {\cal \tilde{K}}({\mathbf{q}},\omega) =\frac{\Delta({\mathbf{q}},\omega)} {(\omega+i0_+ -\frac{{\mathbf{k_s}}.{\mathbf{q}}}{m})^2-(\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m})^2}\end{aligned}$$ This result generalizes (\[heur\]) in the case where $n'_{{\mathbf{k}}} \not= 0$. Plugging this expression into Eq.(\[K7\]), the energy conservation imposes the two choices $\omega=\frac{{\mathbf{k_s}}.{\mathbf{q}}}{m} \pm \frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m}$ when a particle of the condensate participates to the collision process. But, with such an energy transfer and for a macroscopic population of the condensate, this dynamic dielectric function gets infinite: $$\begin{aligned} \label{kalc2} {\cal \tilde{K}}({\mathbf{q}},\omega) |_{\omega=\frac{{\mathbf{k_s}}.{\mathbf{q}}}{m} \pm \frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m}} \rightarrow \infty\end{aligned}$$ leading to ${\tilde{\cal C}}_{{\mathbf{k}}}[n_{{\mathbf{k'}}};{\mathbf{k_s}}] \rightarrow 0$. In this situation, surprisingly, no collision involving the condensate particle occurs. As a consequence, in a uniform Bose gas, no transfer of particle is possible between the condensate and the normal component. Indeed, due to the absence of Fock interaction term in the GRPA, the effective potential has a different expression when a particle of the condensate is involved in a scattering. As said in section 2, a potential induced by the condensate compensates exactly the potential created by the excited particle susceptible to scatter. As a consequence, the dielectric function suppresses the effectiveness of the potential which thus becomes invisible to the condensate and totally shelters it from collision. Furthermore, let us note that this shielding remains unchanged for any momentum ${\mathbf{k_s}}$ which preserves the stability of the condensate. If the Landau damping factor $\gamma_{{\mathbf{q}}}$ becomes negative, then an instability occurs and therefore Eq.(\[K6\]) and Eq.(\[K7\]) are not longer valid, as well as all considerations concerning collision blockade. In that case, a more elaborated derivation must be carried out that could allow particle exchange with the condensate. The expressions (\[B2\]) and (\[B3\]) must be recalculated taking into account the instability [@instB; @FR]. In this way, the GRPA kinetic equation provides a different understanding of the superfluidity phenomenon as it describes the motion of two independent fluids that cannot transfer particle through collisions. Since $\frac{\partial}{\partial t}n_{{\mathbf{k_s}}}=0$, $n_{\mathbf{k_s}}$ is really a constant of motion independent of the dynamics of the normal fluid. The collision blockade is the consequence of a higher order expansion in the interaction parameter. Since ${\cal \tilde{K}}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)|_{a \rightarrow 0}=1$, up to the second order in the interaction, we recover the UUQKE allowing collisions with the condensate. Only an infinite re-summation of appropriate higher order contributions through GRPA generates collectively a perfect collision blockade. Also, in the limit where the condensate is not macroscopically populated $n_{{\mathbf{k_s}}}/V \rightarrow 0$, then ${\cal \tilde{K}}({\mathbf{q}},\omega) \rightarrow {\cal K}_n({\mathbf{q}},\omega)$ and ${\cal K}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)\rightarrow {\cal K}_n({\mathbf{q}},\omega)$ and collisions with particle of the mode ${\mathbf{k_s}}$ become again possible. The Eq.(\[K5\]) is a different version of the kinetic equations formulated by Zaremba et al. [@Zaremba] in which collisions are possible with the condensate particle. Indeed, in their approach, the authors have done an approximation which is equivalent to replacing the energy $\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}}$ by (\[ZNG\]) and to suppressing the integral terms of the right hand side in (\[rho3\]). As a consequence, they obtained a QKE in which the dielectric function does not appear and with the feature of having a gap in the transition of a particle to the condensate. Let us notice that the same phenomenon occurs for the simple RPA where the exchange terms have been omitted. In the SRPA the calculation is similar to those leading to the quantum kinetic equation for a plasma. For details of such derivation, see Balescu [@QBalescu]. The only difference is that the coulombian potential becomes a contact potential and that the fermion now becomes a boson, meaning that any factor $1-n_{{\mathbf{k}}}$ now becomes $1+n_{{\mathbf{k}}}$ in the collision term. In that case, the dielectric function has the same form for both the condensed and the normal modes [@SK]: $$\begin{aligned} \label{ksrpa} {\cal K}^{SRPA}({\mathbf{q}},\omega) &=&1- \frac{4\pi a }{mV}\sum_{{\mathbf{k}}} \frac{n_{{\mathbf{k}}}-n_{{\mathbf{k+q}}}}{ \omega+i0_+ - \frac{{\mathbf{k}}.{\mathbf{q}}}{m}-\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m}} \nonumber \\ &=& \frac{\frac{4\pi a n_{{\mathbf{k_s}}}}{mV} \frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{m}} {(\omega+i0_+ - \frac{{\mathbf{k_s}}.{\mathbf{q}}}{m})^2-(\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m})^2} \nonumber \\ &&+{\cal K}^{SRPA}_n({\mathbf{q}},\omega)\end{aligned}$$ The normal dielectric component ${\cal K}^{SRPA}_n({\mathbf{q}},\omega)$ is of the same form as Eq.(\[kn\]), except that the exchange interaction term has been removed. Similarly, the particles of the condensate are protected from any collision with the surrounding. Nevertheless, in the SRPA, collisions involving low level excited states are strongly prevented because the energy transfer $\omega$ is close to the one corresponding to the condensate. On the contrary, in the GRPA, a supplementary term coming from the exchange effect $\frac{4\pi a n_{{\mathbf{k_s}}}}{mV}$ ensures a reasonable value for the effective potential guaranteeing an efficient collision rate, even with particle in the energy levels close to the condensate level. Properties of the RPA collision term ------------------------------------ The collision term exhibits a number of remarkable properties analog to those encountered by other kinetic equations [@Ichimaru]. These allow to establish the particle number, momentum and energy conservation laws as well as the Boltzmann H-theorem. Since the condensed particles do not participate to the collision process, these concerns only the excited particles of the normal fluid. Three of them can be stated as: $$\begin{aligned} \sum'_{{\mathbf{k}}}{\cal C}_{{\mathbf{k}}}[n_{{\mathbf{k'}}};{\mathbf{k_s}}] =0 \\ \sum'_{{\mathbf{k}}} {\mathbf{k}} {\cal C}_{{\mathbf{k}}}[n_{{\mathbf{k'}}};{\mathbf{k_s}}]=0 \\ \sum'_{{\mathbf{k}}} \epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}}{\cal C}_{{\mathbf{k}}} [n_{{\mathbf{k'}}};{\mathbf{k_s}}]=0\end{aligned}$$ These three integral relations are checked easily by dividing the collision term in four equal parts. After carrying out the successive changes of the integration variables ${\mathbf{k}} \leftrightarrow {\mathbf{k'}}, \, {\mathbf{q}} \leftrightarrow -{\mathbf{q}}$ on the second term, ${\mathbf{k}} \leftrightarrow {\mathbf{k'}}-{\mathbf{q}}, \, {\mathbf{k'}} \leftrightarrow {\mathbf{k}}+ {\mathbf{q}}$ on the third term and a successive combination of these two variable changes in the fourth term, these four terms cancel each other if we use the relation ${\cal{K}}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)={\cal{K}}^\star(-{\mathbf{q}},-\omega)$. As a consequence, for a uniform Bose gas, the total particle number, the total momentum and the total kinetic energy, associated with the normal component are independent of the time i.e. $(d/dt)\sum_{{\mathbf{k}}} n'_{{\mathbf{k}}}=0$, $(d/dt)\sum_{{\mathbf{k}}} {\mathbf{k}}n'_{{\mathbf{k}}}=0$ and $(d/dt)\sum_{{\mathbf{k}}} \epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}} n'_{{\mathbf{k}}}=0$. These properties together with the conservation of $n_{\mathbf{k_s}}$ imply that the total energy in the Hartree-Fock approximation is also conserved [@Zaremba] i.e.: $$\begin{aligned} \frac{d}{dt} [\sum_{{\mathbf{k}}} \epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}} n'_{{\mathbf{k}}} + \frac{4\pi a}{mV} (N^2 - \frac{1}{2} n^2_{\mathbf{k_s}})]=0 \end{aligned}$$ Another crucial property is the Boltzmann H-theorem. The entropy, due to thermal excitations, has the expression: $$\begin{aligned} \label{S} S=\sum'_{{\mathbf{k}}}[(1+n'_{{\mathbf{k}}})\ln (1+n'_{{\mathbf{k}}})- n'_{{\mathbf{k}}}\ln n'_{{\mathbf{k}}}]\end{aligned}$$ The time evolution of the entropy is always positive. A similar derivation using the change of variables allows to calculate a positive production of entropy: $$\begin{aligned} \label{H} \frac{dS}{dt} =\!\! \sum_{{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k'}}} \left| \frac{\frac{8\pi a}{mV}} {{\cal K}({\mathbf{q}},\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}}-\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}})} \right|^2 \!\! \frac{\pi}{4} \delta(\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}}+\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k'}}-{\mathbf{q}}}- \epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}}-\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k'}}}) \ln\left[\frac{n'_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}}n'_{{\mathbf{k'}}-{\mathbf{q}}} (n'_{{\mathbf{k}}}+1)(n'_{{\mathbf{k'}}}+1)}{ n'_{{\mathbf{k}}}n'_{{\mathbf{k'}}}(n'_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}}+1)(n'_{{\mathbf{k'}}-{\mathbf{q}}}+1)}\right] \nonumber \\ \left[n'_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}}n'_{{\mathbf{k'}}-{\mathbf{q}}} (n'_{{\mathbf{k}}}+1)(n'_{{\mathbf{k'}}}+1)- n'_{{\mathbf{k}}}n'_{{\mathbf{k'}}}(n'_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}}+1)(n'_{{\mathbf{k'}}-{\mathbf{q}}}+1)\right] \geq 0\end{aligned}$$ The positivity is a consequence of the mathematical relation $\ln(x/y)(x-y)\geq 0$. The equality is achieved for $x=y$. From Eq.(\[H\]) we deduce that the entropy always increases until the system reaches a stationary equilibrium distribution. This occurs when the production of entropy becomes zero. In that situation, $$\begin{aligned} \frac{n'_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}}n'_{{\mathbf{k'}}-{\mathbf{q}}}} {(n'_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}}+1)(n'_{{\mathbf{k'}}-{\mathbf{q}}}+1)} =\frac{n'_{{\mathbf{k}}}n'_{{\mathbf{k'}}}}{(n'_{{\mathbf{k}}}+1)(n'_{{\mathbf{k'}}}+1)}\end{aligned}$$ This relation holds only for the Bose-Einstein distribution function [@Balescu]: $$\begin{aligned} \label{neq} n'_{{\mathbf{k}}}=n^{eq}_{{\mathbf{k}}}= \frac{1}{\exp{[\beta(\epsilon_{\mathbf{k}}-{\mathbf{k}}.{\mathbf{v_n}}-\mu)]}-1}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathbf{v_n}}$ is the average velocity of the normal component. In this way, the inverse temperature $\beta$ and the chemical potential $\mu$ are defined as the free parameters of the equilibrium solution. Although similar, the properties of the thermodynamic equilibrium predicted by the H-theorem in the RPA are really different from the one predicted by the calculation of the ensemble partition functions of an ideal Bose gas [@Huang]. The superfluid and normal components can move relatively with two different velocities ${\mathbf{v_s}}$ and ${\mathbf{v_n}}$. The relative difference ${\mathbf{v_s}}-{\mathbf{v_n}}$ and $\mu$ are subject to the only constraint of stability which gives a limitation. As said in the previous subsection, for ${\mathbf{v_n}}=0$, and the temperature close to zero, and using (\[kn4\]) in (\[imo\]), this constraint is realized provided that $\mu=0$ and that the relative velocity does not exceed the sound velocity (see Eq.(\[stab\])). Otherwise, the condensate becomes instable. Thus, we recover the Landau criterion for the weakly interacting Bose gas. Note that this result differs from the ZNG approach since it corresponds to an equilibrium fugacity of the normal fluid equal to one (see Eq.(44) in [@Zaremba]). On the contrary, the statistical equilibrium ensemble formalism for an ideal Bose gas imposes a zero relative velocity and a chemical potential close to zero when condensation occurs [@Huang]. This contradiction might be explained if we remind that in this formalism we postulate an equal [*a priori*]{} probability of any possible configuration of the gas [@Huang; @Balescu]. This basic assumption of equilibrium statistical mechanics originates from the observation that, over a long time range, the collision process will mix statistically these configurations. But, since in the GRPA kinetic equation the collision is blocked, the equal [*a priori*]{} probability might not work as far as the condensate mode is concerned. This observation suggests that the condensed particle population for an homogeneous systems is not distributed anymore but has a well defined value. Condensate formation -------------------- The kinetic equation (\[K5\]) does not explain the condensate formation through, for example, evaporative cooling [@Keterlee2; @BZS; @Gardiner2]. If we start indeed from an initially condensed gas with a Bose-Einstein momentum distribution whose the tail has been cut, then according to the RPA model, the irreversible evolution process towards equilibrium will undergo a strange behavior. Instead of populating the lowest energy level which is forbidden, the excited particles will be transferred to the lowest excited levels in which a macroscopic population can eventually appear. In that situation, we are led to a fragmentation of the condensate into at least two energy levels. But such two macroscopic states contradict the assumption made at the beginning that only one macroscopic state does exist. A more elaborated model can take into account more than one level macroscopically populated. Although this more general description must not be excluded, for energetic reason, this phenomenon is not likely to happen [@GSS]. A fragmented condensate has a much higher potential energy than a non-fragmented one due to the presence of a Fock interaction energy between two fragmented parts. To explain the condensate formation and if we exclude fragmentation, we must assume either that the Bose gas must be instable due to a far non-equilibrium situation or that it must be inhomogeneous with regions of strong depletion. Indeed, in those regions - like the edge of the gas - the condensate population is not macroscopic anymore and so collisions between the two fluids may happen. Extension to a weakly inhomogeneous Bose gas ============================================ Inhomogeneous equations ----------------------- The extension of the previous equations to inhomogeneity is important in order to understand how the evolution of the condensate and the thermal excitations are coupled through mean field forces. In what follows, we assume that the gas is weakly inhomogeneous i.e. most of the quasi-particles collide inside a sufficiently small volume that can be considered as homogeneous. To quantify the level of acceptable inhomogeneity, we divide the volume $V$ of the gas into small cubic volume $\Omega$. The edge $l$ of each volume $\Omega=l^3$ is adjusted in such a way to be infinitesimal so that the gas is homogeneous inside it, but big enough to contain a large amount of particle whose dynamic obeys still locally the homogeneous equation. In the literature [@Balescu], $l$ is referred as the hydrodynamic scale and is estimated from the formula $l({\mathbf{r}},t)= \rho_e({\mathbf{r}},t)/\nabla_{{\mathbf{r}}} \rho_e({\mathbf{r}},t)$ where $\rho_e({\mathbf{r}},t)$ is the normal fluid density and ${\mathbf{r}}$ is the position in space of the small volume. This length scale must be much greater than the mean free path which can be estimated more less as $1/(\rho_e\sigma)$ where $\sigma=8\pi a^2$ is the total cross section [@Balescu]. In this infinitesimal volume, we define the local condensate wave function $$\begin{aligned} \Psi({\mathbf{r}},t)=\sqrt{n_c({\mathbf{r}},t)} e^{i\theta ({\mathbf{r}},t)}\end{aligned}$$ which corresponds to the eigenfunction of the density matrix with the highest macroscopic eigenvalue [@Leggett]. The local momentum of the condensate depends also on the position and the time through the relation $$\begin{aligned} {\mathbf{k_s}}({\mathbf{r}},t)=\nabla_{\mathbf{r}} \theta ({\mathbf{r}},t)\end{aligned}$$ Up to a constant phase, the amplitude and the local momentum of the condensate characterize fully $\Psi({\mathbf{r}},t)$. In this volume, we define also the local particle number distribution or Wigner function $n'_{{\mathbf{k}}}({\mathbf{r}},t)$ (for clarity, explicit dependence of time has been added). Also the particles feel an external local potential $V_{eff}({\mathbf{r}})$. Up to the first order in the interaction potential, the local energy density is divided into the kinetic part, an external potential part and the Hartree-Fock part [@Zaremba; @BZS]: $$\begin{aligned} {\cal E}({\mathbf{r}},t)= \frac{|\nabla_{{\mathbf{r}}}\Psi({\mathbf{r}},t)|^2}{2m} + V_{eff}({\mathbf{r}})|\Psi({\mathbf{r}},t)|^2 \nonumber \\ +\sum_{\mathbf{k}} \left(\frac{{\mathbf{k}}^2}{2m} +V_{eff}({\mathbf{r}})\right) n'_{{\mathbf{k}}}({\mathbf{r}},t) +\frac{2\pi a}{mV}\big[|\Psi({\mathbf{r}},t)|^4 + \nonumber \\ 4 |\Psi({\mathbf{r}},t)|^2 \sum_{{\mathbf{k}}} n'_{{\mathbf{k}}}({\mathbf{r}},t) +2 (\sum_{{\mathbf{k}}} n'_{{\mathbf{k}}}({\mathbf{r}},t))^2 \big]\end{aligned}$$ This energy density varies slowly in space. The gradients produced by these variations govern the dynamic of the gas particle between each small volume $\Omega$. The local energy per excited particle with a momentum ${\mathbf{k}}$ is given by the derivative of the local energy density with respect to the particle number [@Zaremba]: $$\begin{aligned} \epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}}({\mathbf{r}},t)= \frac{d {\cal E}}{d n'_{{\mathbf{k}}}({\mathbf{r}},t)} = \frac{{\mathbf{k}}^2}{2m}+ {V}_e({\mathbf{r}},t)\end{aligned}$$ where we define the effective potentials felt by the condensate and the particle $$\begin{aligned} {V}_e({\mathbf{r}},t)= V_{ext}({\mathbf{r}})+ \frac{8\pi a}{mV} \left[ |\Psi({\mathbf{r}},t)|^2 + \sum_{{\mathbf{k}}} n'_{{\mathbf{k}}}({\mathbf{r}},t) \right]\end{aligned}$$ Between each infinitesimal volume, particles are transferred due to the gradients of the particle density and of the potential energy. As a consequence, the kinetic equations must be modified in order to take into account locally the modifications inside $\Omega$. If we consider that the excited particle moves classically, then the dynamic of transfer is given by the Liouville operator acting on the distribution function: $$\begin{aligned} \{\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}}({\mathbf{r}},t),n'_{{\mathbf{k}}}({\mathbf{r}},t)\} \nonumber \\ =\nabla_{{\mathbf{k}}}\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}}({\mathbf{r}},t). \nabla_{{\mathbf{k}}}n'_{{\mathbf{k}}}({\mathbf{r}},t) -\nabla_{{\mathbf{r}}}\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}}({\mathbf{r}},t). \nabla_{{\mathbf{k}}}n'_{{\mathbf{k}}}({\mathbf{r}},t)\end{aligned}$$ The condensate particles however move locally according to the quantum wave function, which obeys to the generalized Gross-Pitaevskii equation with the effective potential [@Zaremba]: $$\begin{aligned} {V}_c({\mathbf{r}},t)=V_{ext}({\mathbf{r}})+ \frac{4\pi a}{mV} \left[|\Psi({\mathbf{r}},t)|^2 + 2 \sum_{{\mathbf{k}}} n'_{{\mathbf{k}}}({\mathbf{r}},t) \right]\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, we assume that locally in the small volume $\Omega$: 1) the system is sufficiently homogeneous so that the expressions (\[K6\]) and (\[K7\]) remain valid and the condensate is not affected by collision; 2) the condensate is locally macroscopically populated. Combining these results together with the collision terms, we can write the kinetic equations for weakly inhomogeneous and stable Bose gas in the region of condensation. We find two coupled set of equations, one for the condensate, the other for the normal fluid: $$\begin{aligned} \label{inhomo} i\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \Psi({\mathbf{r}},t) &=&\left[-\frac{\nabla_{\mathbf{r}}^2}{2m} +{V}_c({\mathbf{r}},t) \right]\Psi({\mathbf{r}},t) \\ \label{inhomo2} \frac{\partial}{\partial t} n'_{{\mathbf{k}}}({\mathbf{r}},t) &=& \left[-\frac{{\mathbf{k}}}{m}.\nabla_{\mathbf{r}} +\nabla_{\mathbf{r}}V_{e}({\mathbf{r}},t) .\nabla_{\mathbf{k}}\right]n'_{{\mathbf{k}}}({\mathbf{r}},t) +{\cal C}_{{\mathbf{k}}}[n_{{\mathbf{k'}}}({\mathbf{r}},t);{\mathbf{k_s}}({\mathbf{r}},t)]\end{aligned}$$ With the exception of the collision term, the Eq.(\[inhomo\]) and (\[inhomo2\]) are identical to the kinetic equations formulated by Zaremba et al. [@Zaremba]. The inhomogeneous kinetic equations satisfy locally the conservation laws in these regions of highly populated condensate. We can derive indeed a conservation equation for the local particle number $N({\mathbf{r}},t)=\sum_{\mathbf{k}}n_{{\mathbf{k}}}({\mathbf{r}},t)$, the local momentum $P({\mathbf{r}},t)=\sum_{\mathbf{k}}{\mathbf{k}} n_{{\mathbf{k}}}({\mathbf{r}},t)$ and the total local energy ${\cal E}({\mathbf{r}},t)$ [@Zaremba]. It is also easy to verify that the production of the local entropy $S({\mathbf{r}},t)$ is always positive [@Balescu]. The local production of entropy stops when we reach the local equilibrium: $$\begin{aligned} \label{neqin} n'^{eq}_{{\mathbf{k}}}({\mathbf{r}},t) = \frac{1}{\exp{[\beta({\mathbf{r}},t)(\epsilon_{\mathbf{k}}-{\mathbf{k}}.{\mathbf{v_n}}({\mathbf{r}},t) -\mu({\mathbf{r}},t))]}-1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta({\mathbf{r}},t)$, ${\mathbf{v_n}}({\mathbf{r}},t)$ and $\mu({\mathbf{r}},t)$ are now local functions of the position and the time. A gap shows up between the energies of the condensed and non condensed particles since ${V}_c({\mathbf{r}},t) < {V}_e({\mathbf{r}},t)$. This is not a problem as long as in the region of the gap the transfer of particle is forbidden. The transfer of particle is only possible in the region where there is no gap i.e. when the condensate population is not macroscopic. Therefore, on the basis of these non-equilibrium considerations, the Hartree-Fock model showing up this forbidden gap does not suffer from any inconsistency related to the conservation of energy. The superfluid universe at finite temperature --------------------------------------------- Using the expression (\[neqin\]) as the solution of the kinetic equation, we can find a set of equations describing the non dissipative motion of the condensed gas at finite temperature. If we assume that ${\mathbf{v_n}}({\mathbf{r}},t)=0$ then the substitution of (\[neqin\]) in Eq.(\[inhomo2\]) imposes that $n'^{eq}_{{\mathbf{k}}}({\mathbf{r}},t)$ must be stationary in time, that $\beta({\mathbf{r}},t)=\beta$ is a constant and that $\mu({\mathbf{r}},t)=-V_e({\mathbf{r}},t)+\mu_e$, where $\mu_e$ is a chemical potential independent of the position controlling the number of excited particles. As a consequence, after carrying out the integration over the momentum, the local number of excited particle is given by the closed equation: $$\begin{aligned} \label{super1} N_e^{eq}({\mathbf{r}})= \sum_{{\mathbf{k}}} n'^{eq}_{{\mathbf{k}}}({\mathbf{r}}) \nonumber \\ =V \left(\frac{m}{2\pi \beta}\right)^{3/2} \!\!\!\! g_{3/2}\left(e^{\beta[ \mu_e - V_{ext}({\mathbf{r}})- \frac{8\pi a}{mV} (|\Psi({\mathbf{r}},t)|^2 + N_e^{eq}({\mathbf{r}}) )]} \right) \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ where $g_{l}(x)=\sum_{j=1}^\infty j^{-l}x^j$. Since the system is stationary, the macroscopic condensate wave function has the form: $$\begin{aligned} \Psi({\mathbf{r}},t)= e^{-i\mu_c t}\Psi_c({\mathbf{r}})\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu_c$ is the chemical potential of controlling the population of the condensate particle. The substitution of this form into Eq.(\[inhomo\]) produces: $$\begin{aligned} \label{super2} \left[-\frac{\nabla_{\mathbf{r}}^2}{2m} + V_{ext}({\mathbf{r}})+ \frac{4\pi a}{mV} (|\Psi_c({\mathbf{r}})|^2 + 2N_e^{eq}({\mathbf{r}}) ) \right]\Psi_c({\mathbf{r}}) \nonumber \\ = \mu_c \Psi_c({\mathbf{r}})\end{aligned}$$ The coupled set of equations (\[super1\]) and (\[super2\]) describe locally all the non dissipative or superfluid phenomena. These are valid provided the gas is stable. As an example, they describe the superfluid moving with a different velocity than the normal fluid. In that case when $V_{ext}({\mathbf{r}})=0$, the solution is a plane wave function: $$\begin{aligned} \Psi_c({\mathbf{r}})=e^{i{\mathbf{k_s}}.{\mathbf{r}}} n_{{\mathbf{k_s}}}^{1/2}\end{aligned}$$ and $N_e^{eq}({\mathbf{r}})$ is a constant. More generally, any non dissipative complex structure at finite temperature, like vortices, should be a solution of (\[super1\]) and (\[super2\]). In contrast to previous studies, non-dissipative phenomena are not a requirement or assumption of a model but rather a prediction of the GRPA kinetic theory. Another difference is that the chemical potential for both fluids $\mu_c$ and $\mu_e$ must not be necessarily identical, contrary to the equilibrium statistical mechanics which imposes equality [@Huang]. In our example, $\mu_e=(8\pi a N)/(mV) \not= \mu_c={\mathbf{k_s}}^2/(2m) + 4\pi a (2 N_e+n_{{\mathbf{k_s}}})/(mV)$ at the difference of [@Zaremba] where $\mu_e=\mu_c$ for ${\mathbf{k_s}}=0$. Analogy with plasmon theory =========================== The derivation leading to the QKE for a Bose gas is similar to the one leading to the QKE equation for plasma physics [@QBalescu; @Ichimaru; @WP] except that, in these equations, the collective excitations are derived in the SRPA. In plasma physics, the Coulomb interactions potential for the collision process is screened beyond the Debye wavelength. The dynamic dielectric function displays this screening and removes the singularity in the Coulomb potential in the long wavelength limit. Static screening is well known since the Debye theory. However, for dynamic screening, Wyld and Pines have proposed an interpretation in terms of the plasmon theory. This theory is an alternative version of the kinetic theory of a plasma which emphasizes the role played by the collective modes. According to their work, the effective potential interaction is the result of a plasmon mediating the interaction with the quasi particles. In other words, during a collision process, a quasi-particle emits an intermediate plasmon on the energy shell with the momentum transfer ${\mathbf{q}}$. Later on, this plasmon is eventually absorded by another quasiparticle which acquires a new momentum and a new energy. The energy spectrum for this plasmon corresponds precisely to the frequency spectrum of the collective excitations in a plasma. In the case of a Bose condensed gas, the collective excitations spectrum corresponds to the Bogoliubov frequency spectrum for low temperature. This property suggests the interpretation that these phonon-like excitations play also the role of mediators during collisions between quasi-particles. Thus, the Bose condensation has the effect to transform the scattering modes, used for collision involving condensed particle, into a collective mode used for mediating the interaction between non condensed particles. The plasmon theory has been derived using the theory of quantum electrodynamics. In principle, for a Bose gas, a similar approach must be carried out taking into account that, at a more fundamental level, the interaction potential originates from processes involving the absorption and the emission of photons. In this paper, we shall not rederive a similar theory but rather recover heuristically the analogy with the plasmon theory. Following this approach, this intermediate excitation behaves like a particle characterized by its own distribution function $f_{{\mathbf{q}}}$ and that we shall call by analogy “condenson”. The energy spectrum of the condenson is given by the zeroes of the dynamic dielectric function i.e. by the solution of $\Delta({\mathbf{q}},\omega)=0$. We consider the simple case of an homogenous condensate at rest ${\mathbf{k_s}}=0$ and weakly depleted. In that case, the solution is the complex number $\omega=\omega_{{\mathbf{q}}}-i\gamma_{{\mathbf{q}}}$, where the real part represents the energy spectrum $\omega_{{\mathbf{q}}}= \epsilon_{{\mathbf{q}}}^B$ and the imaginary part represents the decay rate of the condenson given by Eq.(\[imo\]). Then, looking at Eq.(7) and Eq.(8) in [@WP], we can write two coupled equations, one for the dynamic evolution of the quasi-particle and the other for the evolution of the condenson. They describe the time rate change of these quantities due to the emission and absorption of a condenson by a quasi-particle: $$\begin{aligned} \label{WP1} \frac{\partial}{\partial t} n'_{{\mathbf{k}}} &=&\frac{8\pi a}{mV}\!\! \sum_{{\mathbf{q}}} \frac{8\pi a n_{\mathbf{0}} {\mathbf{q}}^2}{m^2 V\omega_{\mathbf{q}}} \big[ \pi \delta(\omega_{{\mathbf{q}}}+ \epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}}-\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}}) \left( (n'_{{\mathbf{k}}}+1)n'_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}} (f_{{\mathbf{q}}}+1) -n'_{{\mathbf{k}}}(n'_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}}+1)f_{{\mathbf{q}}} \right) \nonumber \\ && +\pi\delta(\omega_{{\mathbf{q}}}- \epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}}+\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}-{\mathbf{q}}}) \left( (n'_{{\mathbf{k}}}+1)n'_{{\mathbf{k}}-{\mathbf{q}}}f_{{\mathbf{q}}} -n'_{{\mathbf{k}}}(n'_{{\mathbf{k}}-{\mathbf{q}}}+1)(f_{{\mathbf{q}}}+1) \right) \big] \\ \label{WP2} \frac{\partial}{\partial t}f_{{\mathbf{q}}}&=& -2\gamma_{{\mathbf{q}}}f_{{\mathbf{q}}} +\frac{8\pi a }{mV} \frac{8\pi a n_{\mathbf{0}} {\mathbf{q}}^2}{m^2V\omega_{\mathbf{q}}} \sum_{{\mathbf{k}}}\pi\delta(\omega_{{\mathbf{q}}}- \epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}}+\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}-{\mathbf{q}}}) n'_{{\mathbf{k}}}(n'_{{\mathbf{k}}-{\mathbf{q}}}+1)\end{aligned}$$ Similarly to the reasoning of Wyld and Pines, the kinetic equation (\[K6\]) can be rederived from Eq.(\[WP1\]) and Eq.(\[WP2\]) by eliminating adiabatically $f_{\mathbf{q}}$. We assume that the time derivative in Eq.(\[WP2\]) is zero and the elimination allows to obtain an equation for $n'_{{\mathbf{k}}}$ only. Eq.(\[K6\]) is recovered, provided that the condensate is weakly depleted. Under these circonstances, the square of the effective potential has a narrow Lorentzian shape whose two peaks and widths correspond to the condenson energy and decay rate respectively (see [@WP]). It plays the role of a propagator for the mediated interaction. This supposes that the dielectric function can be approximated around the resonant frequencies as (see Eq.(25) in [@WP] for comparison): $$\begin{aligned} \label{ka} {\cal K}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ccc} \frac{m^2 V\omega_{{\mathbf{q}}}}{4\pi a n_{\mathbf{0}} {\mathbf{q}}^2} (\omega -\omega_{{\mathbf{q}}}+i\gamma_{{\mathbf{q}}}),& \omega \sim \omega_{{\mathbf{q}}}\\ -\frac{m^2 V\omega_{-{\mathbf{q}}}}{4\pi a n_{\mathbf{0}} {\mathbf{q}}^2} (\omega + \omega_{-{\mathbf{q}}}-i\gamma_{-{\mathbf{q}}}),& \omega \sim -\omega_{-{\mathbf{q}}} \end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$ leading to the approximation: $$\begin{aligned} \frac{1}{|{\cal K}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)|^2} = \frac{\pi}{\gamma_{{\mathbf{q}}}} \left(\frac{4\pi a n_{\mathbf{0}} {\mathbf{q}}^2}{m^2 V\omega_{\mathbf{q}}}\right)^2 \!\!\!\!\left( \delta(\omega-\omega_{{\mathbf{q}}})+ \delta(\omega+\omega_{{\mathbf{q}}}) \right)\end{aligned}$$ These coupled equations suggest that a weakly interacting Bose condensed gas is in reality composed of two kind of bosonic particles: the quasi-particles that become the real particles in the limit of an ideal Bose gas and the condensons that result from a mediation (see Fig.1). At thermal equilibrium, the various particles obey to the Bose-Einstein statistics: $$\begin{aligned} \label{neq2} n'_{{\mathbf{k}}}=n^{eq}_{{\mathbf{k}}}= \frac{1}{\exp{[\beta(\epsilon_{\mathbf{k}}-\mu)]}-1}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \label{feq} f_{{\mathbf{q}}}= \frac{1}{\exp{(\beta \omega_{{\mathbf{q}}})}-1}\end{aligned}$$ In this way, the condenson distribution function has the same form as the excitations distribution function predicted by Bogoliubov [@Pines]. But there is an important difference however: [ *In the Bogoliubov theory, the Bogoliubov excitations correspond to the quasi-particle. On the contrary, in the GRPA model, the Bogoliubov excitations correspond to the condensons and, in this respect, are not the quasi-particles.*]{} The QKEs proposed by [@Imamovic; @Walser; @Kirkpatrick; @Gardiner] suggest instead that the Bogoliubov excitations correspond to the quasi-particle. We must be cautious with this interpretation since the GRPA model is not an exact one. It might be that, to a next order expansion in the interaction, the quasi-particles have a different energy spectrum that is linear in the momentum. Without any further investigation, we cannot claim that the Goldstone boson, that would be normally predicted from the $U(1)$ theory, is the condenson or the quasi-particle. The condenson has a decay rate $2\gamma_{{\mathbf{q}}}$. Thus, a duration of the collision is limited by its lifetime and can be considered as instantaneous, if much lower than the inverse relaxation rate. Assuming that the particle has a mean velocity $1/(\beta m)^{1/2}$, this requirement imposes for the typical values: $\gamma_{{\mathbf{q}}} \gg \rho_e \sigma /(\beta m)^{1/2}$. If it is not fulfilled, then the long lifetime of the condenson suggests that its dynamic evolution is not instantaneous and that the full set of equations (\[WP1\]) and (\[WP2\]) must be rather used. Equivalence with the Bogoliubov theory ====================================== The RPA model presents important differences compared to any previous model for finite temperature. However for zero temperature, it allows to recover the next order correction for the ground state energy and the static structure factor usually obtained from the Bogoliubov theory. Such a derivation has already been made by Nozières and Pines for an electron gas using the density response formalism. They were also able to apply this formalism to the condensate [@Pines]. The nice result of this section is that, precisely, the formalism developed in this paper allows to recover exactly the same results for the ground state energy and the structure factor. Indeed, the correlation function defined in (\[g\]) allows to calculate the correction to the energy but also to the total particle momentum distribution $N_{{\mathbf{k}}}$. This new distribution differs from the quasi-particles population distribution $n_{{\mathbf{k}}}$. We start initially from the distribution without interaction $N_{{\mathbf{k}}}=\delta_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{0}}} n_{{\mathbf{0}}}$ where only the condensed mode ${\mathbf{k_s}}=0$ is populated. Then, we switch on adiabatically the interaction and the correlations appear in a form given by (\[K3\]). As a consequence, the condensate becomes weakly depleted and the total kinetic and potential energy gets modified. These corrections can be calculated directly the static structure factor which, using (\[g\]) and for ${\mathbf{q}} \not= 0$, is given by: $$\begin{aligned} \label{SF} N S({\mathbf{q}})=\langle \rho^\dagger_{{\mathbf{q}}}\rho_{{\mathbf{q}}} \rangle= \sum_{{\mathbf{k}}}(n_{{\mathbf{k}}}+1)n_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}} + \sum_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k'}}} g_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k'}}) \end{aligned}$$ where $N=\sum_{{\mathbf{k}}}N_{{\mathbf{k}}}=\sum_{{\mathbf{k}}} n_{{\mathbf{k}}}$. An expression for this integral can be found in the appendix C. In contrast, Nozières and Pines express the structure factor in terms of the susceptibility function (\[susc\]) of the ground state as [@NP]: $$\begin{aligned} \label{SFNP} NS({\mathbf{q}})=\langle \rho^\dagger_{{\mathbf{q}}}\rho_{{\mathbf{q}}} \rangle =- \int_0^\infty \frac{d\omega}{\pi} {\rm Im} \chi ({\mathbf{q}},\omega)\end{aligned}$$ At zero temperature, the limit $n'_{{\mathbf{k}}} \rightarrow 0$ must be taken carefully. It implies that the Landau damping $\gamma_{{\mathbf{q}}} \rightarrow 0$ but this parameter is different from $0_+$. The limit $0_+ \rightarrow 0$ must be carried out before the limit $\gamma_{{\mathbf{q}}} \rightarrow 0$ and this procedure can be done by adjusting adequately the infinitesimal value of $0_+$ and $n'_{{\mathbf{k}}}$. In particular, for a normal fluid in equilibrium, this amounts to prescribing to take the limit $0_+$ to zero and then after taking the limit $\beta \rightarrow \infty$ in Eq.(\[neq\]). The physical reason for such a procedure is that the presence of infinitesimal fraction of excited particles will force the system to create the correct equilibrium correlation. In these conditions and using Eq.(\[Knapp\]) and Eq.(\[imo\]), we can re express for ${\mathbf{k_s}}=0$: $$\begin{aligned} \label{disprel1} \Delta({\mathbf{q}},\omega) \rightarrow (\omega+i\gamma_{{\mathbf{q}}})^2- {\epsilon^B_{{\mathbf{q}}}}^2\end{aligned}$$ Also, we note the relation: $$\begin{aligned} {\rm Im}A'({\mathbf{q}},\omega)= -\frac{mV}{8\pi a} \frac{1}{\exp(\beta \omega)-1} {\rm Im}{\cal K}_n ({\mathbf{q}},\omega)\end{aligned}$$ Inserting these results and (\[imo\]) into (\[intg\]), setting to zero the real part of ${\cal K}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)$ and $A'({\mathbf{q}},\omega)$, and setting $A_0 ({\mathbf{q}},\omega)=N/[\omega+i0^+ +{\mathbf{q}}^2/(2m)]$ then Eq.(\[SF\]) becomes: $$\begin{aligned} S({\mathbf{q}}) &=&1 - \int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{d\omega}{\pi} \frac{\omega^2-\left(\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m}\right)^2 + \frac{4\pi a N}{mV}\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{m}} {|(\omega+i\gamma_{{\mathbf{q}}})^2- {\epsilon^B_{{\mathbf{q}}}}^2|^2} \nonumber \\ \nonumber && \times \left(\omega-\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m} \frac{e^{\beta \omega}+1}{e^{\beta \omega}-1}\right) {\rm Im}{\cal K}_n ({\mathbf{q}},\omega)\\ \label{T0'} &\stackrel{\begin{array}{c} \gamma_{{\mathbf{q}}} \rightarrow 0 \\ \beta \rightarrow \infty \end{array}}{=}& \frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m\epsilon^B_{{\mathbf{q}}}}\end{aligned}$$ In order to get (\[T0’\]), the integration has been carried out transforming the Lorentzian factors into delta functions and using (\[imo\]). This result is identical to that obtained from the Bogoliubov theory. This result can also been obtained substituting (\[susc\]) into (\[SFNP\]) and carry out the integration over $\omega$. Instead of evaluating the total energy and the correction to the particle number distribution directly, some useful tricks allow to avoid some complex calculation [@NP]. The total ground state energy is a functional of the interaction $a$ and the dispersion relation $\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}}$ (in what follows, we consider only the first term in (\[U0\])). It can be expressed in terms of the matrix element $E(a,\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}})= \langle \psi| H |\psi \rangle$ where $|\psi \rangle$ is the ground state depending also on $a$ and $\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}}$. Using the property that $|\psi \rangle$ is a normalized eigenfunction, the first derivative with respect to these parameters produces: $$\begin{aligned} \label{da} a \frac{\partial E(a,\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}})} {\partial a}&=& E_{int}(a,\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}}) \\ \label{de} \frac{\partial E(a,\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}})} {\partial \epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}}}&=& N_{{\mathbf{k}}}\end{aligned}$$ The total interaction energy can be expressed in terms of the structure factor: $$\begin{aligned} \label{T01} E_{int}(a,\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}})= \frac{2\pi a}{{mV}}\left[ N(N-1)+N\sum_{{\mathbf{q}}\not=0} (S({\mathbf{q}})-1)\right]\end{aligned}$$ At zero temperature and without interaction, all the particles are in the ground state and thus $E(0,\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}})=N\epsilon_{{\mathbf{0}}}$. With this initial condition, an integration over $a$ allows to calculate the total energy: $$\begin{aligned} \label{T03} E(a,\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}})=N\epsilon_{{\mathbf{0}}}+ \int_0^a \frac{da'}{a'} E_{int}(a',\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}}) \nonumber \\ + (\frac{2\pi a N}{V})^2\sum_{{\mathbf{q}}\not=0}\frac{2m}{{\mathbf{q}}^2}\end{aligned}$$ where a supplementary term coming from (\[U0\]) has been added to remove ultra-violet divergencies. The structure factor can be recalculated for any arbitrary dispersion relation $\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}}$. Plugging this new expression into (\[T01\]) and carrying out the integral over $a$, we obtain: $$\begin{aligned} \label{T04} E(a,\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}})= N\epsilon_{{\mathbf{0}}}+ \frac{2\pi a N^2}{mV}+ \frac{1}{2} \sum_{{\mathbf{q}}\not=0} \bigg[ (\frac{2\pi a N}{V})^2\frac{m}{{\mathbf{q}}^2}+ \nonumber \\ \sqrt{\Delta\epsilon_{{\mathbf{q}}}^2+\frac{8\pi a N}{mV} \Delta\epsilon_{{\mathbf{q}}}}-\Delta\epsilon_{{\mathbf{q}}} -\frac{4\pi a N}{mV} \bigg]\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta\epsilon_{{\mathbf{q}}}= (\epsilon_{{\mathbf{q}}}+\epsilon_{-{\mathbf{q}}}- 2\epsilon_{{\mathbf{0}}})/2$. In the usual case, $\Delta\epsilon_{{\mathbf{q}}}= {\mathbf{q}}^2/2m$ and an integration over the momentum ${\mathbf{q}}$ allows to find the ground state energy [@Huang]: $$\begin{aligned} \label{Ecor} E(a)= \frac{2\pi a N^2}{mV} [1+ \frac{128}{15}\sqrt{\frac{a^3 N}{\pi V}}]\end{aligned}$$ Finally, the derivative with respect to $\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}}$ gives the first correction to the momentum particle distribution. We get for ${\mathbf{k}}\not= 0$: $$\begin{aligned} \label{ncor} N_{{\mathbf{k}}}=\left. \frac{\partial E(a,\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}})} {\partial \epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}}}\right|_{ \epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}}=\frac{{\mathbf{k}}^2}{2m}} =\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{ \frac{{\mathbf{k}}^2}{2m}+\frac{4\pi a N}{mV}}{ \epsilon^B_{{\mathbf{k}}}}-1\right)\end{aligned}$$ and for ${\mathbf{k}}=0$: $$\begin{aligned} N_{{\mathbf{0}}}=N- \sum_{{\mathbf{k}}\not=0}N_{{\mathbf{k}}} =N[1-\frac{32}{3}\sqrt{\frac{a^3 N}{\pi V}}]\end{aligned}$$ From our number conserving approach, we recover the well-known results usually obtained from the Bogoliubov approach at zero temperature, i.e. the first order energy correction in (\[Ecor\]) and the first order correction to the number of excited particles (\[ncor\]) showing a depletion of the condensate particle. In principle, the present method can be extended to finite temperature, since the relations (\[da\]) and (\[de\]) are valid also for any excited state labeled by the occupation number $n_{{\mathbf{k}}}$. The only problem remains the explicit calculation of $\langle \rho^\dagger_{{\mathbf{q}}}\rho_{{\mathbf{q}}} \rangle$. Conclusions and Perspectives ============================ We attempted to reexamine the kinetic theory of the weakly interacting and stable Bose condensed gas with the objective to explain superfluidity for any temperature and, ultimately, to be able to distinguish between its dissipative and superfluid behaviors. A different QKE, taking into account some higher order terms in the interaction parameter, has been derived from the microscopic theory and has the merit to predict a collision blockade between condensed and non condensed particle. [*More precisely, the condensate remains invisible to any thermal quasi-particle due to an induced force, which acts as a “ coarse-graining ”, removing any local force necessary for binary scattering.*]{} In this way a metastable state can be built locally with a non-zero relative velocity. For the homogeneous gas, a microscopic derivation has been carried out using the same expansion procedure as that for deriving the QKE for a quantum plasma. The only difference is that our approach takes into account the exchange term which is of the same order of magnitude than the direct term. For the weakly inhomogeneous gas, the derivation needs some supplementary justifications from first principles, in particular, for the way to obtain the generalized Gross-Pitaevskii equation from a number conserving approach, but also for the limit of use of the collision terms (\[K6\]) and (\[K7\]). The generalized RPA is the basic approximation which is at the origin of the prediction of the collision blockade phenomenon. It is not only a method to achieve results but has also the deep meaning that average contributions that are not oscillating in phase can be neglected for diluted gas. The RPA does not serve only to predict the QKE; it allows to build a genuine alternative theory that can be compared with all previous approaches. The main advantages of this theory are: 1) it is number conserving; 2) the statistical equilibrium is not imposed as a postulate but is deduced from the QKE and allows superfluidity; 3) it is valid for any range of temperature below and above the transition point. The predictions calculated from this theory, namely the collective excitations, could be compared with results predicted mainly by the Popov theory or by the Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov theory in the Popov approximation [@Popov; @Griffin]. The RPA theory allows also to determine the correlation function $g_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k'}})$ with which one can calculate the next order correction. In particular, we recover the Bogoliubov results for the next correction to the ground state energy and for the particle momentum distribution. In principle, these corrections can also be determined at finite temperature and compared with other previous works. Another interesting quantity is the static structure factor $S({\mathbf{q}})$ which can be evaluated directly from the correlation function. The RPA theory for dilute Bose gas has some resemblance with the plasma kinetic theory. Both predict that scattering proceeds by means of an intermediate excitation. For a plasma, this excitation is a plasmon responsible for the collective plasma oscillation. For a Bose gas, it is a phonon-like excitation with a Bogoliubov energy spectrum at zero temperature and that, by analogy, we can call “condenson”. Let us also mention the limitation of the present theory. Firstly, this theory preserves the existence of a gap in apparent contradiction with the Hugenholtz-Pines theorem [@Pines]. We consider only the Hartree-Fock approximation for the potential energy of the quasi-particle, excluding in this way higher order correlated term. This contradiction might be solved by claiming that the poles of the one particle Green function have a richer structure; namely one gapless pole which represents the Bogoliubov or condenson excitation spectrum and another pole which may have a gap and which represents the quasi-particle spectrum. In this way, we recover the compatibility with the HP theorem. Secondly, in principle, the calculation must start with the real potential and not the effective contact potential (\[U0\]). A resummation of all ladder diagrams should allow to reexpress the effective interaction in terms of the $T$ matrix for the binary collision. Then the limit of low energy allows to deduce the expression (\[U0\]) [@Stoof]. If rather the $T$ many body matrix is considered, then the effective interaction could depend also non linearly on the quasi-particle number. Thirdly, the assumption that the gas is weakly homogeneous might not be true, due to a sharp trap potential realized in real experiment. The theory must be improved by decomposing the one particle Wigner function in terms of its eigenfunctions and by deriving an equation of motion for each of them [@Leggett]. Finally, all the predictions, that the RPA theory might suggest, must be ultimately confronted to experiments in order to be validated. In particular, the analysis of the various modes for the collective excitations and its damping must be recovered [@JZ]. Solution of the equation of motion for the excitations ====================================================== The system (\[col1\]) (\[col2\]) and (\[col3\]) can be solved exactly. We isolate the dielectric propagator on the left hand side of each equation. After summing over the superfluid and normal modes separately and using (\[kn\]), we obtain after rearranging: $$\begin{aligned} \label{col12} [(\omega+i0_+ - \frac{{\mathbf{k_s}}.{\mathbf{q}}}{m})^2-{\epsilon^B_{{\mathbf{q}}}}^2] \left({\cal U}_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k_s}},{\mathbf{k_1}},\omega) + {\cal U}_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k_s}}-{\mathbf{q}} ,{\mathbf{k_1}},\omega) \right)-\frac{8\pi a n_{{\mathbf{k_s}}}}{mV} \frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{m}\sum'_{{\mathbf{k'}}} \tilde{{\cal U}}_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k'}},{\mathbf{k_1}},\omega) = \nonumber \\ i [\omega+i0_+ - \frac{{\mathbf{k_s}}.{\mathbf{q}}}{m}+\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m}] \delta_{{\mathbf{k_s}},{\mathbf{k_1}}} +i [\omega+i0_+ - \frac{{\mathbf{k_s}}.{\mathbf{q}}}{m}-\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m}] \delta_{{\mathbf{k_s}}-{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{k_1}}}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{col32} \left({\cal K}_n({\mathbf{q}},\omega)-1 \right) \left({\cal U}_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k_s}},{\mathbf{k_1}},\omega) + {\cal U}_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k_s}}-{\mathbf{q}} ,{\mathbf{k_1}},\omega) \right) + {\cal K}_n({\mathbf{q}},\omega) \sum'_{{\mathbf{k'}}} \tilde{{\cal U}}_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k'}},{\mathbf{k_1}},\omega) = i\frac{1-\Pi_{{\mathbf{k_1}}} }{\omega+i0_+ - \frac{{\mathbf{k_1}}.{\mathbf{q}}}{m}-\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m}}\end{aligned}$$ where we define the function $\Pi_{{\mathbf{k}}}=\delta_{{\mathbf{k_s}},{\mathbf{k}}}+ \delta_{{\mathbf{k_s}}-{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{k}}}$. Using the definition (\[disprel\]), the solution of this coupled set of equations gives: $$\begin{aligned} \label{col13} {\cal U}_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k_s}},{\mathbf{k_1}},\omega) + {\cal U}_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k_s}}-{\mathbf{q}} ,{\mathbf{k_1}},\omega) = i\frac{{\cal K}_n({\mathbf{q}},\omega)\Pi_{{\mathbf{k_1}}} \left[(\omega+i0_+ - \frac{{\mathbf{k_s}}.{\mathbf{q}}}{m})^2-(\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m})^2\right] +\frac{8\pi a n_{{\mathbf{k_s}}}}{mV}\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{m} (1-\Pi_{{\mathbf{k_1}}}) }{\Delta({\mathbf{q}},\omega) [\omega+i0_+ - \frac{{\mathbf{k_1}}.{\mathbf{q}}}{m}-\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m}]}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \label{col33} \sum'_{{\mathbf{k'}}} \tilde{{\cal U}}_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k'}},{\mathbf{k_1}},\omega) = i\frac{(1-{\cal K}_n({\mathbf{q}},\omega)) \left[(\omega+i0_+ - \frac{{\mathbf{k_s}}.{\mathbf{q}}}{m})^2-(\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m})^2\right] \Pi_{{\mathbf{k_1}}}+ [(\omega+i0_+ - \frac{{\mathbf{k_s}}.{\mathbf{q}}}{m})^2-{\epsilon^B_{{\mathbf{q}}}}^2] (1-\Pi_{{\mathbf{k_1}}}) }{\Delta({\mathbf{q}},\omega) [\omega+i0_+ - \frac{{\mathbf{k_1}}.{\mathbf{q}}}{m}-\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m}]}\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, the definitions (\[kalc\]) and (\[kalc2\]) allow to write $$\begin{aligned} \label{col34} \sum_{{\mathbf{k'}}} {\cal U}_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k'}},{\mathbf{k_1}},\omega) =\frac{i}{\omega+i0_+ - \frac{{\mathbf{k_1}}.{\mathbf{q}}}{m}-\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m}} \left(\frac{1-\Pi_{{\mathbf{k_1}}}}{{\cal K}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)} +\frac{\Pi_{{\mathbf{k_1}}}}{{\tilde {\cal K}}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)}\right)\end{aligned}$$ Plugging these results into the r.h.s. of (\[col1\]) (\[col2\]) and (\[col3\]), the integral terms do not appear anymore and we get the solution: $$\begin{aligned} \label{Ur} {\cal U}_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k_1}},\omega) =\frac{i}{ \omega+i0_+ - \frac{{\mathbf{k}}.{\mathbf{q}}}{m}-\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m}} \left[\delta_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k_1}}}+ \frac{ \frac{8\pi a }{mV} (n_{{\mathbf{k}}}-n_{{\mathbf{k+q}}}){\cal K}^{-1}_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k_1}}}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)} { \omega+i0_+ - \frac{{\mathbf{k_1}}.{\mathbf{q}}}{m}-\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m}} \right]\end{aligned}$$ where we define the reverse dielectric function $$\begin{aligned} \label{reverse} {\cal K}^{-1}_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k_1}}}({\mathbf{q}},\omega) = \frac{(1-\Pi_{{\mathbf{k}}})(1-\Pi_{{\mathbf{k_1}}})} {{\cal K}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)} + \frac{(1-\Pi_{{\mathbf{k}}})\Pi_{{\mathbf{k_1}}}+ \Pi_{{\mathbf{k}}}(1-\Pi_{{\mathbf{k_1}}})+ \Pi_{{\mathbf{k}}}\Pi_{{\mathbf{k_1}}}\left(1-{\cal K}_n({\mathbf{q}},\omega)/2\right)} {{\tilde {\cal K}}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)}\end{aligned}$$ This function can be rewritten in matrix notation, where we distinguish in the column and the row the channel ${\mathbf{k_s}}$ and ${\mathbf{k_s}}-{\mathbf{q}}$ from the other channels: $$\begin{aligned} \label{reversem} {\cal K}^{-1}_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k_1}}}({\mathbf{q}},\omega) \equiv \left( \begin{array}{cc} {\cal K}^{-1}({\mathbf{q}},\omega) & {\tilde {\cal K}}^{-1}({\mathbf{q}},\omega) \\ {\tilde {\cal K}}^{-1}({\mathbf{q}},\omega) & (1-\frac{{\cal K}_n({\mathbf{q}},\omega)}{2}) {\tilde {\cal K}}^{-1}({\mathbf{q}},\omega) \end{array} \right)\end{aligned}$$ Calculation of the normal dielectric function at equilibrium ============================================================ The expression (\[kn\]) can be put in the form of an integral over $t$: $$\begin{aligned} \label{kn1} {\cal K}_n({\mathbf{q}},\omega)-1= \nonumber \\ i\frac{8\pi a }{mV}\sum_{{\mathbf{k}}} \int_0^\infty \!\!\!dt \, e^{i(\omega+i0_+ - \frac{{\mathbf{k}}.{\mathbf{q}}}{m}-\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m})t} (n'^{eq}_{{\mathbf{k}}}-n'^{eq}_{{\mathbf{k+q}}})\end{aligned}$$ Using the development: $$\begin{aligned} \label{kn2} n'^{eq}_{{\mathbf{k}}}= \sum_{j=1}^\infty e^{-\beta j(\frac{{\mathbf{k}}^2}{2m}-\mu)}\end{aligned}$$ we can carry out the integration over the momentum ${\mathbf{k}}$ to get: $$\begin{aligned} \label{kn3} {\cal K}_n({\mathbf{q}},\omega)= 1+ \frac{16\pi a }{m} \int_0^\infty \!\!\!dt\, e^{i(\omega+i0_+)t} \sin(\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m}t) \nonumber \\ \sum_{j=1}^\infty \left(\frac{m}{2 \pi \beta j}\right)^{3/2} e^{\beta j \mu-\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2 t^2}{2\beta j m}}\end{aligned}$$ As far as the imaginary part is concerned the integral over the time can be done analytically. The result is: $$\begin{aligned} \label{kn4} {\rm Im}{\cal K}_n({\mathbf{q}},\omega) = \frac{2a m}{\beta |{\mathbf{q}}|} \ln\left(\frac{1-e^{-\beta[ m\frac{(\omega+\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m})^2}{2{\mathbf{q}}^2} -\mu]}} {1-e^{-\beta[ m\frac{(\omega-\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m})^2}{2{\mathbf{q}}^2} -\mu]}}\right) $$ For the real part the expression, (\[kn3\]) needs to be developed in series. For low temperature, ${\rm Re}{\cal K}_n({\mathbf{q}},\omega) \simeq 1$. These results are in agreement with [@SK] but with the difference that we have included the exchange term which doubles the interaction strength. Calculation of the collision term ================================= As said in section 3, the calculation in the SRPA is easy since it presents strong resemblance with the plasma gas. The extension to GRPA is more complicated because now the condensed and normal modes cannot be treated on the same foot anymore, as long as the interaction energy per particle is not the same. Nevertheless, the method developed by Ichimaru for a classical plasma can be adapted straightforwardly. Here we shall give the intermediate steps of the calculations. Before doing so, few symmetry properties are interesting: $$\begin{aligned} g_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k'}})&=&g^*_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k-q}},{\mathbf{k'+q}}) \\ \left({\cal K}^{-1}_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k_1}}}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)\right)^* &=&{\cal K}^{-1}_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k_1}}}(-{\mathbf{q}},-\omega)\end{aligned}$$ The first property can be checked from the definition (\[g\]) and the third one is straightforward. Using the first property and (\[n2\]), the collision term defined in Eq.(\[K5\]) can be expressed in terms of the imaginary part of the correlation function: $$\begin{aligned} \label{B1} {\cal C}^T_{{\mathbf{k}}}[n_{{\mathbf{k'}}};{\mathbf{k_s}}]= \sum_{{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{k'}}}\frac{4\pi a}{mV} {\rm Im}(g_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k'}}) -g_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k}}-{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{k'}}))\end{aligned}$$ Let us define: $$\begin{aligned} A'({\mathbf{q}},\omega)= \sum_{{\mathbf{k}}}(1-\Pi_{{\mathbf{k}}}) \frac{(n_{{\mathbf{k}}}+1)n_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}}} {\omega+i0^+ -\frac{{\mathbf{k}}.{\mathbf{q}}}{m}-\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m}}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} A_0({\mathbf{q}},\omega) =\sum_{{\mathbf{k}}} \Pi_{{\mathbf{k}}} \frac{(n_{{\mathbf{k}}}+1)n_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}}} {\omega+i0^+ -\frac{{\mathbf{k}}.{\mathbf{q}}}{m}-\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m}}\end{aligned}$$ With these definitions together with (\[col34\]), (\[Ur\]) and (\[Q\]), carrying out the sum over ${\mathbf{k_1}}$ and ${\mathbf{k'_1}}$ and taking the thermodynamic limit, after a straightforward but lengthly calculation we find the following expressions for (\[K4\]): $$\begin{aligned} \label{B2} \sum_{{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{k'}}}(1- \Pi_{\mathbf{k}}) g_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k'}}) = -\sum_{{\mathbf{q}}} \int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{d\omega}{2\pi i} \frac{1}{\omega+i0_+ - \frac{{\mathbf{k}}.{\mathbf{q}}}{m}-\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m}} \bigg\{ (n_{{\mathbf{k}}}+1)n_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}} \left(\frac{1}{{{\cal K}^*({\mathbf{q}},\omega)}}-1 \right) \nonumber \\ + \frac{8\pi a }{mV}(n_{{\mathbf{k}}}-n_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}}) \bigg[\frac{(1-{{\cal K}^*({\mathbf{q}},\omega)})A'({\mathbf{q}},\omega) -A'^*({\mathbf{q}},\omega)}{|{{\cal K}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)}|^2} + \frac{A_0({\mathbf{q}},\omega)(1-{\cal K}^*({\mathbf{q}},\omega))- A^*_0({\mathbf{q}},\omega)} {|{\tilde{\cal K}}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)|^2} \bigg] \bigg\}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{B3} \sum_{{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{k'}}} g_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k_s}},{\mathbf{k'}}) = -\sum_{{\mathbf{q}}} \int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{d\omega}{2\pi i} \frac{1}{\omega+i0_+ - \frac{{\mathbf{k_s}}.{\mathbf{q}}}{m}-\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m}} \bigg\{ (n_{{\mathbf{k_s}}}+1)n_{{\mathbf{k_s}}+{\mathbf{q}}} \left(\frac{1}{{\tilde{{\cal K}}^*({\mathbf{q}},\omega)}}-1 \right) \nonumber \\ + \frac{8\pi a }{mV}(n_{{\mathbf{k_s}}}-n_{{\mathbf{k_s+q}}}) \bigg[\frac{(1-{{\cal K}^*({\mathbf{q}},\omega)})A'({\mathbf{q}},\omega) -A'^*({\mathbf{q}},\omega)}{{\tilde{{\cal K}}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)} {{\cal K}^*({\mathbf{q}},\omega)}} + (1-\frac{{\cal K}_n({\mathbf{q}},\omega)}{2}) \frac{A_0({\mathbf{q}},\omega)(1-{\tilde{\cal K}}^*({\mathbf{q}},\omega))- A^*_0({\mathbf{q}},\omega)} {|{\tilde{\cal K}}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)|^2} \bigg] \bigg\}\end{aligned}$$ Equivalently $\sum_{{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{k'}}} g_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k_s}}-{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{k'}})$ is obtained by substituting ${\mathbf{k_s}}$ by ${\mathbf{k_s}}-{\mathbf{q}}$ in (\[B3\]). The domain of integration over $\omega$ can be extended in the complex plane. Since the various reverse dielectric functions in (\[reversem\]) converge to unity when $|\omega| \rightarrow \infty$, the integrand goes to zero in this limit faster than $1/|\omega|$. As a consequence, the integral over $\omega$ can be carried out by closing the contour either in the upper half plane or in the lower half plane. Since, we assume that the Bose gas is in a stable regime, the poles of the dielectric functions have their imaginary part in the lower half of the complex plane, while the complex conjugate of these functions have their imaginary part in the upper half plane. Thus in (\[B2\]) and in (\[B3\]), contributions in which poles only lie in one of these half planes are canceled since, in that case, the contour of integration can be chosen in such a way that no pole is surrounded. On the other hand, in order to simplify the Eqs. (\[B2\]) and (\[B3\]), we can also add arbitrary contributions in which poles lie only in one of these half planes. Taking into account these considerations, we arrive at: $$\begin{aligned} \label{B5} \sum_{{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{k'}}}(1- \Pi_{\mathbf{k}}) g_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k'}}) = -\sum_{{\mathbf{q}}} \int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{d\omega}{2\pi i} \frac{1}{\omega+i0_+ - \frac{{\mathbf{k}}.{\mathbf{q}}}{m}-\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m}} \bigg\{ \frac{(n_{{\mathbf{k}}}+1)n_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}} 2i{\rm Im}{{\cal K}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)}} {|{{\cal K}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)}|^2}+ \nonumber \\ + \frac{8\pi a }{mV}(n_{{\mathbf{k}}}-n_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}}) \bigg[\frac{2i {\rm Im}A'({\mathbf{q}},\omega) }{|{{\cal K}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)}|^2} + \frac{2i {\rm Im} A_0({\mathbf{q}},\omega)} {|{\tilde{\cal K}}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)|^2} \bigg] \bigg\}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{B6} \sum_{{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{k'}}} g_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k_s}},{\mathbf{k'}}) = -\sum_{{\mathbf{q}}} \int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{d\omega}{2\pi i} \frac{1}{\omega+i0_+ - \frac{{\mathbf{k_s}}.{\mathbf{q}}}{m}-\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m}} \bigg\{ (n_{{\mathbf{k_s}}}+1)n_{{\mathbf{k_s}}+{\mathbf{q}}} 2i{\rm Im}\left(\frac{{\cal K}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)} {{\tilde{\cal K}}^*({\mathbf{q}},\omega){\cal K}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)}\right) \nonumber \\ + \frac{8\pi a}{mV}(n_{{\mathbf{k_s}}}-n_{{\mathbf{k_s+q}}}) \bigg[\frac{2i {\rm Im} A'({\mathbf{q}},\omega)} {{\tilde{{\cal K}}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)} {{\cal K}^*({\mathbf{q}},\omega)}} + (1-\frac{{\cal K}_n({\mathbf{q}},\omega)}{2}) 2i{\rm Im}\left(\frac{A_0({\mathbf{q}},\omega)} {|{\tilde{\cal K}}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)|^2} \right) \bigg] \bigg\}\end{aligned}$$ These expressions can be further simplified if we neglect some irrelevant infinitesimal terms proportional to $0_+$. Up to these infinitesimal term and using the change of variable ${\mathbf{k'}}={\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}$ and the formula ${\rm Im}[1/(x+i0_+)]=\pi \delta(x)$, we notice that for the two different limits $n_{{\mathbf{k_s}}}/V \rightarrow 0$ or $n_{{\mathbf{k_s}}}/V$ finite: $$\begin{aligned} {\rm Im}{{\cal K}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)} ={\rm Im} {{\cal K}_n({\mathbf{q}},\omega)} \nonumber \\ = \frac{8\pi a }{mV}\sum_{{\mathbf{k'}}} (n'_{{\mathbf{k'-q}}}-n'_{{\mathbf{k'}}}) \pi\delta(\omega - \frac{{\mathbf{k'}}.{\mathbf{q}}}{m}+\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^2}{2m})\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} {\rm Im}\left(\frac{{\cal K}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)} {{\tilde{\cal K}^*({\mathbf{q}},\omega)}{{\cal K}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)}}\right) = \frac{{\rm Im}{\cal K}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)} {|{\tilde{\cal K}^*({\mathbf{q}},\omega)}{{\cal K}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)}|}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} {\rm Im}\left(\frac{A_0({\mathbf{q}},\omega)} {|{\tilde{\cal K}}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)|^2}\right) =\frac{ {\rm Im} A_0({\mathbf{q}},\omega)} {|{\tilde{\cal K}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)}{{\cal K}^*({\mathbf{q}},\omega)}|}\end{aligned}$$ Finally, it remains to take the imaginary part of these expressions, integrate them over $\omega$ and plug the results into (\[B1\]). The integration is easy since it involves only delta functions. After rearranging terms we notice that, in Eq.(\[B6\]), the term proportional to $1-{\cal K}_n({\mathbf{q}},\omega)/2$ will not contribute. Note that, concerning the term $g_{\mathbf{q}}({\mathbf{k}}-{\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{k'}})$, we must carry out the change of variable ${\mathbf{q}} \rightarrow -{\mathbf{q}}$ and ${\mathbf{k'}}-{\mathbf{q}} \rightarrow {\mathbf{k'}}$. In this way, we obtain Eq.(\[K6\]) and Eq.(\[K7\]). Using (\[col34\]), a similar reasoning allows also to find the expression: $$\begin{aligned} \label{intg} \sum_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k'}}} g_{{\mathbf{q}}}({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k'}})= - \int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{d\omega}{2\pi i} 2i {\rm Im} \bigg[\frac{1}{{\cal K}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)} \left(\frac{1}{{\cal K}^*({\mathbf{q}},\omega)}-1\right) A'({\mathbf{q}},\omega) + \frac{1}{{\tilde{\cal K}}({\mathbf{q}},\omega)} \left(\frac{1}{{\tilde{\cal K}}^*({\mathbf{q}},\omega)}-1\right) A_0({\mathbf{q}},\omega)\bigg]\end{aligned}$$ **ACKNOWLEDGMENTS** PN thanks E. Cornell and W. Ketterle for a useful discussion about superfluidity, N. Cerf for encouraging me to do this work and V. Belyi for remarks on the manuscript. PN acknowledges financial support from the Communauté Française de Belgique under grant ARC 00/05-251, from the IUAP programme of the Belgian government under grant V-18, from the EU under project RESQ (IST-2001-35759). [99]{} R. Walser, J. Williams, J. Cooper, M. Holland, Phys. Rev. A, [**59**]{}, 3878 (1999); J. Wachter, R. Walser, J. Cooper & M. Holland, Phys. Rev. A [**64**]{}, 053612 (2001). E. Zaremba, T. Nikuni, and A. Griffin, J. Low Temp. Phys. [**116**]{}, 227 (1999). N.P. Proukakis, K. Burnett and H.T.C. Stoof, Phys. Rev. A [**57**]{}, 1230 (1998). P.C. Hohenberg and P.C. Martin, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [**34**]{}, 291 (1965). E. Levich and V. Yakhot, J. Phys. A [**11**]{}, 2237 (1978). T.R. Kirkpatrick and J.R. Dorfman, J. Low Temp. Phys. [**58**]{}, 308 (1985); [**58**]{}, 399 (1985). C.W. Gardiner and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A [**61**]{}, 033601 (2000). N.P. Proukakis, J. Phys B [**34**]{}, 4737 (2001). H.T.C. Stoof, J. Low Temp. Phys.,[**114**]{}, 11 (1999). I.M. Khalatnikov, [*An introduction to the theory of superfluidity*]{} (Benjamin, New York, 1965). Y. Pomeau, M. E. Brachet, S. Metens, and S. Rica, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris IIb [**327**]{}, 791 (1999). R. Balescu, [*Equilibrium and non equilibrium statistical mechanics*]{} (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1975). A. J. Leggett, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**73**]{}, 307 (2001). P. Engels, I. Coddington, P. C. Haljan, V. Schweikhard, and E. A. Cornell, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 170405 (2003). K. Huang, [*Statistical Mechanics*]{} (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1987). P. Navez, D. Bitouk, M. Gajda, Z. Idziaszek and K. Rzażewski, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 1789 (1997); Z. Idziaszek, M. Gajda, P. Navez, M. Wilkens, and K. Rzażewski, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 4376 (1999); S. Giorgini, L. P. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 5040-5043 (1998). L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, [Statistical Physics: Part 2]{}, (Pergamon Press, 1980). D. Pines, [*The Many-Body Problem*]{}, (Benjamin, New York, 1961). A. J. Leggett, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**71**]{}, S318 (1999). Popov V.N., Sov. Phys.- JETP, [**20**]{} 1185 (1965). M. Girardeau and R. Arnowitt, Phys. Rev. [**113**]{}, 755 (1959). A. Griffin, Phys. Rev. B, [**53**]{} 9341 (1996). D.A.W. Hutchinson, K. Burnett, R.J. Dodd, S.A. Morgan, M. Rusch, E. Zaremba, N.P. Proukakis, M. Edwards and C.W. Clark, J. Phys. B [**33**]{}, 3825 (2000). P. Navez, Mod. Phys. Lett. [**12**]{}, 705 (1998); M. Olshanii, L. Pricoupenko, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 010402 (2002). P. Nozières, D. Pines, [*The Theory of Quantum Liquids: Superfluid Bose Liquids (Vol. 2*]{}, (Perseus Book Group, 1990). M. Imamovic-Tomasovic, A. Griffin, J. Low Temp. Phys. [**122**]{}, 617 (2001). D. Pines and P. Nozières, [*The theory of Quantum Liquids*]{}, vol 1 (Benjamin, New York,1966). R. Balescu, Phys. of Fluids [**4**]{}, 94 (1961). H.W. Wyld and D. Pines, Phys. Rev. [**127**]{}, 1851 (1962). C.W. Gardiner, Phys. Rev. A [**56**]{}, 1414 (1997); Y. Castin and R. Dum, Phys. Rev. A [**57**]{}, 3008 (1998). P. Szepfalusy and I. Kondor, Ann. Phys. [**82**]{}, 1-53 (1974), J. Reidl, A. Csordás, R. Graham, and P. Szépfalusy, Phys. Rev. A [**61**]{}, 043606 (2000). E. Frieman and P. Rutherford, Ann. Phys. [**82**]{}, 134 (1964). R. Balescu, J. Math. Phys. [**4**]{}, 1009 (1963). M.J. Bijlsma, E. Zaremba and, H.T.C. Stoof, Phys. Rev. A [**62**]{}, 063609 (2000). H.-J. Miesner, D.M. Stamper-Kurn, M.R. Andrews, D.S. Durfee, S. Inouye, and W. Keterlee, Science [**279**]{}, 1005 (1998). C. W. Gardiner, M. D. Lee, R. J. Ballagh, M. J. Davis, and P. Zoller Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 5266-5269 (1998). A. Minguzzi and M.P. Tosi, J. Phys: Cond. Mat., [**9**]{} 10211 (1997). A. Griffin, [Excitations in a Bose-Condensed Liquid]{} (University Press, Cambridge, 1993). S. Giorgini, Phys. Rev. A [**61**]{}, 063615 (2000). S.Ichimaru, [*Frontier in Physics: Statistical Plasma Physics, Vol I: Basic Principle*]{} (Addison Wesley, 1992). see P.Nozières in A. Griffin, D.W. Snoke and S. Stringari, [*Bose-Einstein Condensation*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995). B. Jackson and E. Zaremba, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 100404 (2001), B. Jackson and E. Zaremba, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 180402 (2002), B. Jackson and E. Zaremba, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 150402 (2002).

ArXiv

--- author: - 'J. Zierenberg' - 'N. G. Fytas[^1]' - 'M. Weigel' - 'W. Janke' - 'A. Malakis' title: ' Scaling and universality in the phase diagram of the 2D Blume-Capel model ' --- Introduction {#secIntroduction} ============ The Blume-Capel (BC) model is defined by a spin-1 Ising Hamiltonian with a single-ion uniaxial crystal field anisotropy [@blume; @capel]. The fact that it has been very widely studied in statistical and condensed-matter physics is explained not only by its relative simplicity and the fundamental theoretical interest arising from the richness of its phase diagram, but also by a number of different physical realizations of variants of the model, ranging from multi-component fluids to ternary alloys and $^{3}$He–$^{4}$He mixtures [@lawrie]. Quite recently, the BC model was invoked by Selke and Oitmaa in order to understand properties of ferrimagnets [@selke-10]. The zero-field model is described by the Hamiltonian $$\label{eqHamiltonian} \mathcal{H} =-J\sum_{\langle ij\rangle}\sigma_{i}\sigma_{j}+\Delta\sum_{i}\sigma_{i}^{2} =E_{J}+\Delta {E_{\Delta}},$$ where the spin variables $\sigma_{i}$ take on the values $-1, 0$, or $+1$, $\langle ij\rangle$ indicates summation over nearest neighbors only, and $J>0$ is the ferromagnetic exchange interaction. The parameter $\Delta$ is known as the crystal-field coupling and it controls the density of vacancies ($\sigma_{i}=0$). For $\Delta\rightarrow -\infty$, vacancies are suppressed and the model becomes equivalent to the Ising model. Note the decomposition on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eqHamiltonian\]) into the bond-related and crystal-field-related energy contributions $E_J$ and $E_\Delta$, respectively, that will turn out to be useful in the context of the multicanonical simulations discussed below. Since its original formulation, the model has been studied in mean-field theory as well as in perturbative expansions and numerical simulations for a range of lattices, mostly in two and three dimensions, see, e.g., Refs. [@fytas_BC; @zierenberg2015]. Most work has been devoted to the two-dimensional model, employing a wide range of methods including real space renormalization [@berker1976rg], Monte Carlo (MC) simulations and MC renormalization-group calculations [@landau1972; @kaufman1981; @selke1983; @selke1984; @landau1986; @xavier1998; @deng2005; @silva2006; @hurt2007; @malakis; @kwak2015], $\epsilon$-expansions [@stephen1973; @chang1974; @tuthill1975; @wegner1975], high- and low-temperature series expansions [@fox1973; @camp1975; @burkhardt1976] and a phenomenological finite-size scaling (FSS) analysis [@beale1986]. In the present work, we focus on the nearest-neighbor square-lattice case and use a combination of multicanonical and cluster-update Monte Carlo simulations to examine the first-order and second-order regimes of the ferromagnet-paramagnet phase boundary. One focus of this work is a study of the correlation length of the model, a quantity which to our knowledge has not been studied before in this context. We locate transition points in the phase diagram of the model for a wide temperature range, thus allowing for comparisons with previous work. In the second-order regime, we show that the correlation-length ratio $\xi/L$ for finite lattices tends to the exactly known value of the 2D Ising universality class, thus nicely illustrating universality. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[secLiterature\] we briefly review the qualitative and some simple quantitative features of the phase diagram in two dimensions. Section \[secNumerical\] provides a thorough description of the simulation methods, the relevant observables and FSS analyses. In Sec. \[secFSS\] we use scaling techniques to elucidate the expected behaviors in the first-order regime as well as the universality of the exponents and the ratio $\xi/L$ for the parameter range with continuous transitions. In particular, here we demonstrate Ising universality by the study of the size evolution of the universal ratio $\xi/L$. Finally, Sec. \[secSummary\] contains our conclusions. Phase diagram of the Blume-Capel model {#secLiterature} ====================================== The general shape of the phase diagram of the model is that shown in Fig. \[figPhaseDiagram\]. While this presentation, comprising selected previous results [@beale1986; @silva2006; @malakis; @kwak2015] together with estimates from the present work, is for the square-lattice model, the general features of the phase diagram are the same for higher dimensions also [@blume; @capel]. The phase boundary separates the ferromagnetic (F) from the paramagnetic (P) phase. The ferromagnetic phase is characterized by an ordered alignment of $\pm 1$ spins. The paramagnetic phase, on the other hand, can be either a completely disordered arrangement at high temperature or a $\pm1$-spin gas in a $0$-spin dominated environment for low temperatures and high crystal fields. At high temperatures and low crystal fields, the F–P transition is a continuous phase transition in the Ising universality class, whereas at low temperatures and high crystal fields the transition is of first order [@blume; @capel]. The model is thus a classic and paradigmatic example of a system with a tricritical point $(\Delta_{\rm t},T_{\rm t})$ [@lawrie], where the two segments of the phase boundary meet. At zero temperature, it is clear that ferromagnetic order must prevail if its energy $zJ/2$ per spin (where $z$ is the coordination number) exceeds that of the penalty $\Delta$ for having all spins in the $\pm 1$ state. Hence the point $(\Delta_0=zJ/2,T=0)$ is on the phase boundary [@capel]. For zero crystal-field $\Delta$, the transition temperature $T_0$ is not exactly known, but well studied for a number of lattice geometries. ![\[figPhaseDiagram\] Phase diagram of the square-lattice, zero-field BC model in the $\Delta$–$T$ plane. The phase boundary separates the ferromagnetic (F) phase from the paramagnetic (P) phase. The solid line indicates continuous phase transitions and the dotted line marks first-order phase transitions. The two lines merge at the tricritical point $(\Delta_{\rm t}, T_{\rm t})$, as highlighted by the black diamond. The data shown are selected estimates from previous studies as well as the present work. The numerical values of all individual estimates are summarized in Table \[tabResults\] below. ](fig_phase-diagram.pdf) In the following, we consider the square lattice and fix units by choosing $J=1$ and $k_{\rm B}=1$. The estimates shown in Fig. \[figPhaseDiagram\] for this case are based on phenomenological FSS using the transfer matrix for systems up to size $L=10$ [@beale1986], standard Wang-Landau simulations up to $L=100$ [@malakis], two-parameter Wang-Landau simulations up to $L=16$ [@silva2006] and $L=48$ [@kwak2015], as well as the results of the present work, using parallel multicanonical simulations at fixed temperature up to $L=128$ ($T>T_{\rm t}$) and $L=96$ ($T<T_{\rm t}$). A subset of these results is summarized in Table \[tabResults\] for comparison. Note that in the multicanonical simulations employed in the present work we fix the temperature $T$ while varying the crystal field $\Delta$ [@zierenberg2015], whereas crossings of the phase boundary at constant $\Delta$ were studied in most other works. In general, we find excellent agreement between the recent large-scale simulations. Some deviations of the older results, especially in the first-order regime, are probably due to the small system sizes studied. We have additional information for $T=0$ where $\Delta_0 = zJ/2 = 2$ and for $\Delta=0$, where results from high- and low-temperature series expansions for the spin-1 Ising model provide $T_0=1.690(6)$ [@fox1973; @camp1975; @burkhardt1976], while phenomenological finite-size scaling yields $T_0\simeq1.695$ [@beale1986], one-parametric Wang-Landau simulations give $T_0=1.693(3)$ [@malakis], and two-parametric Wang-Landau simulations arrive at $T_0=1.714(2)$ [@silva2006]. Overall, the first three results are in very good agreement. The deviations observed for the result of the two-parametric Wang-Landau approach [@silva2006] can probably be attributed to the relatively small system sizes studied there. Determinations of the location of the tricritical point are technically demanding as the two parameters $T$ and $\Delta$ need to be tuned simultaneously. Early attempts include MC simulations, $[\Delta_{\rm t}=1.94,T_{\rm t}=0.67]$ [@landau1972; @selke1983; @selke1984], and real-space renormalization-group calculations, $[\Delta_{\rm t}=1.97, T_{\rm t}=0.580]$ [@berker1976rg; @burkhardt1976rg; @burkhardt1977rg; @kaufmann1981rg; @yeomans1981rg]. More precise and mostly mutually consistent estimates were obtained by phenomenological finite-size scaling, $[\Delta_{\rm t}=1.9655(50),T_{\rm t}=0.610(5)]$ [@beale1986], MC renormalization-group calculations, $[\Delta_{\rm t}=1.966(15),T_{\rm t}=0.609(3)]$ [@landau1986], MC simulations with field mixing, $[\Delta_{\rm t}=1.9665(3), T_{\rm t}=0.608(1)]$ [@wilding1996] and $[\Delta_{\rm t}= 1.9665(3),T_{\rm t}=0.608(1)]$ [@plascak2013], transfer matrix and conformal invariance, $[\Delta_{\rm t}= 1.965(5),T_{\rm t}=0.609(4)]$ [@xavier1998], and two-parametric Wang-Landau simulations, $[\Delta_{\rm t}=1.966(2),T_{\rm t}=0.609(3)]$ [@silva2006] and $[\Delta_{\rm t}=1.9660(1),T_{\rm t}=0.6080(1)]$ [@kwak2015]. Below the tricritical temperature, $T<T_{\rm t}$, or for crystal fields $\Delta > \Delta_{\rm t}$, the model exhibits a [*first-order*]{} phase transition. This is signaled by a double peak in the probability distribution of a field-conjugate variable. This is commonly associated with a free-energy barrier and the corresponding interface tension. Finite-size scaling for first-order transitions predicts a shift of pseudo-critical points according to [@binder] $$\label{eqShiftFirst} \Delta_{L}^{\ast} = \Delta^{\ast} + a L^{-D},$$ where $\Delta^{\ast}$ denotes the transition field in the thermodynamic limit and $D$ is the dimension of the lattice. Note that a completely analogous expression holds for the shifts $T_L^\ast$ in temperature when crossing the phase boundary at fixed $\Delta$. Higher-order corrections are of the form $V^{-n}=L^{-nD}$ with $n\ge 2$, where $V$ is the system volume, but exponential corrections can also be relevant for smaller system sizes [@janke1st]. The phase coexistence at the transition point is connected with the occurrence of a latent heat or latent magnetization that lead to a divergence of the specific heat $C$ and the magnetic susceptibility $\chi$, evaluated at the pseudo-critical point, where both show a pronounced peak: $C_L^{\ast}=C(\Delta_L^{\ast})\sim L^D$ and $\chi_L^{\ast}=\chi(\Delta_L^{\ast})\sim L^D$. Above the tricritical temperature $T>T_{\rm t}$, or for crystal fields $\Delta < \Delta_{\rm t}$, the model exhibits a [*second-order*]{} phase transition. This segment of the phase boundary is expected to be in the Ising universality class [@beale1986]. The shifts of pseudo-critical points hence follow [@LandBind00] $$\label{eqShiftSecond} \Delta_{L}^{\ast} = \Delta_{\rm c} + a L^{-1/\nu},$$ where $\nu$ is the critical exponent of the correlation length. An analogous expression can again be written down for the case of crossing the phase boundary at constant $\Delta$. The relevant exponents for the Ising universality class are the well-known Onsager ones, i.e., $\alpha = 0$, $\beta = 1/8$, $\gamma = 7/4$, and $\nu = 1$. Corrections to the form can include analytic and confluent terms, for a discussion see, e.g., Ref. [@cardy_book]. Since $\alpha=0$ we expect a merely logarithmic divergence of the specific-heat peaks, $C_L^{\ast}\sim\ln L$. The peaks of the magnetic susceptibility should scale as $\chi_L^{\ast} \sim L^{\gamma/\nu}$. We recall that critical exponents are not the only universal quantities [@cardy_book], as these are accompanied by critical amplitude ratios such as the ratio $U_\xi = f^+/f^-$ of the amplitude of the correlation length scaling $\xi \sim f^\pm t^{-\nu}$ above and below the critical point [@pelissetto2002]. Less universal are dimensionless quantities in finite-size scaling such as the ratio of the correlation length and the system size, $\xi/L$, which for Ising spins on $L\times L$ patches of the square lattice with periodic boundary conditions for $L\to\infty$ approaches the value [@salas2000] $$(\xi/L)_\infty = 0.905\,048\,829\,2(4). \label{eq:ratio-exact}$$ We will study this ratio below for the present system in the second-order regime. Another weakly universal quantity is the fourth-order magnetization cumulant (Binder parameter) $V_4$ at criticality [@selke2005; @pelissetto2002]. Simulation methods and observables {#secNumerical} ================================== For the present study we used a combination of two advanced simulational setups. The bulk of our simulations are performed using a generalized parallel implementation of the multicanonical approach. Comparison tests and illustrations of universality are conducted via a hybrid updating scheme combining Metropolis and generalized Wolff cluster updates. The multicanonical approach is particularly well suited for the first-order transition regime of the phase diagram and enables us to sample a broad parameter range (temperature or crystal field). It also yields decent estimates for the transition fields in the second-order regime and the corresponding quantities of interest. For such continuous transitions, the hybrid approach may then be applied subsequently in the vicinity of the already located pseudo-critical points in order to obtain results of higher accuracy. In all our simulations we keep a constant temperature and cross the phase boundary along the crystal-field axis, in analogy to our recent study in three dimensions [@zierenberg2015]. Parallel multicanonical approach {#secMuca} -------------------------------- The original multicanonical (muca) method [@berg1991; @janke1992] introduces a correction function to the canonical Boltzmann weight $\exp(-\beta E)$, where $\beta = 1/(k_{\rm B}T)$ and $E$ is the energy, that is designed to produce a flat histogram after iterative modification. This can be interpreted as a generalized ensemble over the phase space $\{\phi\}$ of configurations ($\{\phi\} = \{\sigma_i\}$ for the BC model) with weight function $W[{\cal H}(\{\phi\})]$, where ${\cal H}$ is the Hamiltonian and $E = {\cal H}(\{\phi\})$. The corresponding generalized partition function is $$Z_{\rm muca} = \int_{\{\phi\}} W[{\cal H}(\{\phi\})]\,\mathrm{d}\{\phi\} = \int \Omega(E)W(E)\,\mathrm{d}E.$$ As the second form shows, a flat energy distribution $P_\mathrm{muca}(E)=\Omega(E)W(E)/Z_\mathrm{muca}={\rm const}.$ is achieved if $W(E)\propto\Omega^{-1}(E)$, i.e., if the weight is inversely proportional to the density of states $\Omega(E)$. For the weight function $W^{(n)}(E)$ in iteration $n$, the resulting normalized energy histogram satisfies $\langle H^{(n)}(E)\rangle = P^{(n)}(E) = \Omega(E) W^{(n)}(E)/Z^{(n)}$. This suggests to choose as weight function $W^{(n+1)}(E)=W^{(n)}(E)/H^{(n)}(E)$ for the next iteration, thus iteratively approaching $W(E) \propto \Omega^{-1}(E)$. In each of the ensembles defined by $W^{(n)}$, we can still estimate canonical expectation values of observables $O=O(\{\phi\})$ without systematic deviations as $$\langle O\rangle_{\beta} =\frac{\langle O(\{\phi\}) e^{-\beta {\cal H}(\{\phi\})}W^{-1}[ {\cal H}(\{\phi\})] \rangle_{\rm muca}} {\langle e^{-\beta {\cal H}(\{\phi\}) }W^{-1}[ {\cal H}(\{\phi\})] \rangle_{\rm muca}}. \label{eq:muca-reweight}$$ For the present problem we apply the generalized ensemble approach to the crystal-field component $E_\Delta$ of the energy only, thus allowing us to continuously reweight to arbitrary values of $\Delta$ [@zierenberg2015]. To this end, we fix the temperature and apply a generalized configurational weight according to $$e^{-\beta(E_{J}+\Delta {E_{\Delta}})} \rightarrow e^{-\beta E_{J}}~W\left({E_{\Delta}}\right).$$ The procedure of weight iteration is applied in exactly the same way as before. Data from a final production run with fixed $W({E_{\Delta}})$ may be reweighted to the canonical ensemble via a generalization of Eq. , $$\label{eqReweightDelta} \langle O \rangle_{\beta,\Delta} =\frac{\langle O e^{-\beta\Delta{E_{\Delta}}}W^{-1}({E_{\Delta}}) \rangle_{\rm muca}} {\langle e^{-\beta\Delta{E_{\Delta}}}W^{-1}({E_{\Delta}}) \rangle_{\rm muca}}.$$ As was demonstrated in Ref. [@zierenberg2013], the multicanonical weight iteration and production run can be efficiently implemented in a parallel fashion. To this end, parallel Markov chains sample independently with the same fixed weight function $W^{(n)}({E_{\Delta}})$. After each iteration, the histograms are summed up and form independent contributions to the probability distribution $H^{(n)}({E_{\Delta}})=\sum_i H^{(n)}_i({E_{\Delta}})$. In the present case, we ran our simulations with $64$ parallel threads and demanded a flat histogram in the range ${E_{\Delta}}\in[0,V]$ with a total of $200$ transits, where $V = L^2$ is the total number of lattice sites. A transit was here defined as a single Markov chain traveling from one energy boundary to another. Using this parallelized multicanonical scheme we performed simulations at various fixed temperatures, cf. the data collected below in Table \[tabResults\] in the summary section. For each $T$, we simulated system sizes up to $L_{\rm max} = 128$ in the second-order regime of the phase diagram ($T>T_{\rm t}$) and up to $L_{\rm max} \leq 96$ (depending on the temperature) in the first-order regime ($T<T_{\rm t}$). At one particular temperature, namely $T = 1.398$, we were able to compare with several previous, in part contradictory, studies [@beale1986; @silva2006; @malakis]. Hybrid approach {#secHybrid} --------------- For the second-order regime of the phase boundary, our simulations need to cope with the critical slowing down effect that is not explicitly removed by the multicanonical approach. Here, we make use of a suitably constructed cluster-update algorithm to achieve precise estimates close to criticality. While the Fortuin-Kasteleyn representation of the Ising and Potts models [@Fortuin1972] allows for a drastic reduction or, in some cases, removal of critical slowing down using cluster updates [@swendsen:87a], the situation is more involved for the BC model, where no complete transformation to a dual bond language is available. As suggested previously in Refs. [@Blote95; @hasen2010; @malakis12], we therefore rely on a partial transformation, applying a cluster update only to the spins in the $\pm 1$ states, ignoring the diluted sites with $\sigma_i = 0$. This approach alone is clearly not ergodic as the number and location of $\sigma_i = 0$ sites is invariant, and we hence supplement it by a local Metropolis update. For the cluster update of the $\pm 1$ spins we use the single-cluster algorithm due to Wolff [@Wolff1989]. In the present hybrid approach an elementary MC step (MCS) is the following heuristically determined mixture: after each Wolff step we attempt $3\times L$ Metropolis spin flips and the elementary step consists of $L$ such combinations. In other words, a MCS has $3$ Metropolis sweeps and $L$ Wolff steps. The convergence of the hybrid approach may be easily checked for every lattice size used in the simulations. For instance, to observe convergence for $L=24$ we used $3$ different runs consisting of $12800\times V$, $25600\times V$, and $51200\times V$ (about $30\times 10^6$) MCS, whereas for $L=48$ we compared another set of $3$ different runs consisting of $2560\times V$, $5120\times V$, and $10240\times V$ (about $23\times 10^6$) MCS. In all our simulations a first large number of MCS was disregarded until the system was well equilibrated. Our runs using this technique covered a range of different temperatures in the second-order regime and, in particular, the selected temperature $T = 1.398$ mentioned above, using system sizes up to $L_{\rm max} = 128$. For each $L$, we used up to $100$ independent runs performed in parallel to increase our statistical accuracy. \(a) (b) ![\[figCChi\] Specific heat (a) and susceptibility (b) curves as a function of the crystal field $\Delta$ obtained from parallel multicanonical simulations at $T = 1.4$ The lines show simulation results as continuous functions of $\Delta$ from reweighting, the individual points indicate the size of statistical errors.](fig_canonical_T1-4_C.pdf "fig:") ![\[figCChi\] Specific heat (a) and susceptibility (b) curves as a function of the crystal field $\Delta$ obtained from parallel multicanonical simulations at $T = 1.4$ The lines show simulation results as continuous functions of $\Delta$ from reweighting, the individual points indicate the size of statistical errors.](fig_canonical_T1-4_chi.pdf "fig:") Observables {#secObservables} ----------- For the purpose of the present study we focused on the specific heat, the magnetic susceptibility and the correlation length. As in our simulations we cross the transition line at fixed temperature, it is reasonable to study the crystal-field derivative $\partial \langle E\rangle/\partial \Delta$ instead of the temperature gradient $\partial \langle E\rangle/\partial T$. As was pointed out in Ref. [@zierenberg2015], the singular behavior is also captured in the simpler quantity $$\label{eqC} C \equiv \frac{\partial \langle E_J\rangle}{\partial\Delta}\frac{1}{V} = - \beta \left(\langle E_J{E_{\Delta}}\rangle - \langle E_J\rangle\langle{E_{\Delta}}\rangle\right)/V.$$ The magnetic susceptibility is defined as the field derivative of the absolute magnetization, and this yields $$\label{eqChi} \chi = \beta\left(\langle M^2\rangle-\langle |M|\rangle^2\right)/V,$$ where $M=\sum_i\sigma_i$. As we will discuss below, however, the use of the modulus $|M|$ to break the symmetry on a finite lattice leads to some subtleties for the BC model, especially in the first-order regime. Exemplary plots of $C$ and $\chi$ as a function of the crystal field $\Delta$ obtained from the multicanonical simulations are shown in Fig. \[figCChi\]. It is obvious from these plots that both $C(\Delta)$ and $\chi(\Delta)$ show a size-dependent maximum, together with a shift behavior of peak locations. Let us define $\Delta^{\ast}_{L,C}$ and $\Delta^{\ast}_{L,\chi}$ as the crystal-field values which maximize $C(\Delta)$ and $\chi(\Delta)$, respectively. These are pseudo-critical points that should scale according to Eqs.  and , respectively. They are numerically determined by a bisection algorithm that iteratively performs histogram reweighting in the vicinity of the peak, detecting the point of locally vanishing slope. Error bars are obtained by repeating this procedure for 32 jackknife blocks [@efron1982]. Similarly, we denote by $C^{\ast}_L=C(\Delta^{\ast}_{L,C})$ and $\chi^{\ast}_L=\chi(\Delta^{\ast}_{L,\chi})$ the values of the specific heat and the magnetic susceptibility at their pseudo-critical points, respectively. These may be directly evaluated as canonical expectation values according to Eq. (\[eqReweightDelta\]). We finally also studied the second-moment correlation length $\xi$ [@cooper1989; @ballesteros2001]. This involves the Fourier transform of the spin field $\hat{\sigma}(\mathbf{k}) = \sum_{\bf x}\sigma_{\bf x}e^{i{\bf kx}}$. If we set [$F = \left\langle |\hat{\sigma}(2\pi/L,0)|^2+|\hat{\sigma}(0,2\pi/L)|^2\right\rangle/2$]{}, the correlation length can be obtained via [@ballesteros2001] $$\xi \equiv \frac{1}{2\sin(\pi/L)}\sqrt{\frac{\langle M^2\rangle}{F}-1}. \label{eq:xi}$$ From $\xi$ we may compute the ratio $\xi/L$, which tends to a weakly universal constant for $L\to\infty$ as discussed above in Sec. \[secLiterature\]. Numerical results {#secFSS} ================= ![\[figProbDist\] Canonical probability distribution $P(E_{\Delta})$ at the transition field $\Delta_{L,C}^\ast$ for various temperatures for $L=48$. Note the logarithmic scale on the vertical axis. ](fig_probabilityDistribution_L048.pdf) In this section we present our main finite-size scaling analysis, covering both first- and second-order transition regimes of the phase diagram of the square-lattice model. We begin by presenting the canonical probability distribution $P({E_{\Delta}})$ at the pseudo-critical crystal fields $\Delta^{\ast}_{L,C}$ for different temperatures. Figure \[figProbDist\] shows $P({E_{\Delta}})$ for the temperature $T=0.5$, which is in the first-order regime, and for $T=0.8$ and $1.4$, which are in the second-order regime of the transition line, for a system size $L=48$. Well inside the first-order transition regime the system shows a strong suppression of transition states, connected to a barrier between two coexisting phases. This is characteristic of a discontinuous transition. Here, the barrier separates a spin-$0$ dominated (small ${E_{\Delta}}$, $\Delta>\Delta^{\ast}$) and a spin-$\pm 1$ dominated (large ${E_{\Delta}}$, $\Delta<\Delta^{\ast}$) phase. In this regime, the model qualitatively describes the superfluid transition in $^3$He-$^4$He mixtures. As the temperature increases and exceeds the tricritical point $T_{\rm t}\approx 0.608$, the barrier disappears and the probability distribution shows a unimodal shape, characteristic of a continuous transition. In this regime the model qualitatively describes the lambda line of $^3$He-$^4$He mixtures. #### First-order regime: Here we focus on one particular temperature, namely $T=0.5$, to verify the expected scaling discussed in Sec. \[secLiterature\]. Figure \[figScalingT0.5\](a) shows a finite-size scaling analysis of the pseudo-critical fields for which we expect shifts of the form $$\Delta^{\ast}_{L,O} = \Delta^{\ast} + a_O L^{-x}. \label{eq:field-fit-form}$$ We performed simultaneous fits to $\Delta^{\ast}_{L,C}$ and $\Delta^{\ast}_{L,\chi}$ with a common value of $x$. Including the full range of data $L=8-96$ we obtain $\Delta^{\ast}=1.987\,893(6)$ and $x=2.03(4)$ with $Q\approx0.98$.[^2] This is consistent with the most recent and very precise estimate $\Delta^{\ast} = 1.987\,89(1)$ by Kwak et al. [@kwak2015], and the theoretical prediction $x = D = 2$. We note that for all fits performed here, we chose a minimum system size to include in the fit such that a goodness-of-fit parameter $Q>0.1$ was achieved. For the specific heat at the maxima, we expect the leading behavior $C^{\ast}_L \sim L^D$. Scaling corrections at first-order transitions are in inverse integer powers of the volume [@janke1st], $L^{-nD}$, $n=1$, $2$, $\ldots$, so we attempted the fit form $$C^{\ast}_L = b_C L^{x} \left(1+b^\prime_C L^{-2}\right) \label{eq:cscaling}$$ and we indeed find an excellent fit for the full range of system sizes, yielding $x=1.9999(2)$ and $Q=0.78$ — note that due to the value of $x$, the $1/L^2$ correction simply corresponds to an additive constant. The amplitudes are $b_C = 0.8065(6)$ and $b^\prime_C = 0.84(5)$. This fit and the corresponding data are shown in Fig. \[figScalingT0.5\](b). \(a) (b) ![\[figScalingT0.5\] Finite-size scaling analysis in the first-order transition regime ($T=0.5$) based on the specific heat and magnetic susceptibility. (a) Simultaneous fit of the functional form to the pseudo-critical fields of the specific heat and susceptibility. (b) Scaling of the values $C_L^\ast$ and $\chi_L^\ast$ at these maxima together with fits of the form and to the data. ](fig_fss-first_T0-50_delta.pdf "fig:") ![\[figScalingT0.5\] Finite-size scaling analysis in the first-order transition regime ($T=0.5$) based on the specific heat and magnetic susceptibility. (a) Simultaneous fit of the functional form to the pseudo-critical fields of the specific heat and susceptibility. (b) Scaling of the values $C_L^\ast$ and $\chi_L^\ast$ at these maxima together with fits of the form and to the data. ](fig_fss-first_T0-50_maxima.pdf "fig:") For the magnetic susceptibility, on the other hand, the correction proportional to $L^{-2}$ is not sufficient to describe the data down to small $L$, and neither are higher orders $L^{-4}$, $L^{-6}$ etc. We also experimentally included an exponential correction which is expected to occur in the first-order scenario and occasionally can be relevant for small $L$ [@janke1st], but this also did not lead to particularly good fits. Using an additional $1/L$ correction, on the other hand, i.e., a fit form $$\chi^{\ast}_L = b_\chi L^{x}\left(1+b^\prime_\chi L^{-1}+b^{\prime\prime}_\chi L^{-2}\right) \label{eq:chiscaling}$$ yields excellent results with $Q=0.98$ and $x=2.001(1)$ for the full range $L=8$–$96$ of system sizes, the corresponding fit and data are also shown in Fig. \[figScalingT0.5\](b). Here, $b_\chi = 0.458(2)$, $b^\prime_\chi = -0.94(5)$ and $b^{\prime\prime}_\chi = 2.5(3)$. A $1/L$ correction term is not expected at a first-order transition [@janke1st], but its presence is rather clear from our data. Some further consideration reveals that it is, in fact, an artifact resulting from the use of the modulus $|M|$ in defining $\chi$ in Eq. . To see this, consider the shape of the magnetization distribution function at the transition point $\Delta^\ast_{L,\chi}$ shown for different system sizes in Fig. \[figScalingT0.5chiM2\](a). The middle peak corresponds to the disordered phase dominated by $0$-spins, while the peaks on the left and right represent the ordered $\pm 1$ phases. While in $P(M)$, the middle peak is symmetric around zero and hence $\langle M\rangle_d = 0$ in the disordered phase, the modulus $|M|$ will lead to an average $\langle |M|\rangle_d = O(L)$ of the order of the peak width[^3]. Since $\chi$ measures the square width of the distribution of $|M|$, this will have a $1/L$ correction stemming from this $O(L)$ contribution to $|M|$. This problem can be avoided by employing a different method of breaking the symmetry on a finite lattice. One possible definition could be $$\label{eq:mtilde} \widetilde{M} = \left\{ \begin{array}{l@{\hspace{0.75em}}l} M & \mbox{for}\;\;|M|/V < 0.5 \\ |M| & \mbox{for}\;\;|M|/V \ge 0.5 \end{array} \right.,$$ which only folds the $-1$-peak onto the $+1$-peak, but leaves the $0$-peak untouched. As is seen from the data and fits shown in Fig. \[figScalingT0.5chiM2\](b) in contrast to $\chi$ the scaling of the corresponding susceptibility $\widetilde{\chi} = \beta(\langle\widetilde{M}^2\rangle - \langle\widetilde{M}\rangle^2)/V$ does not show a $1/L$ correction, but only the volume correction $\propto 1/L^2$ expected for a first-order transition. Overall, it is apparent that our simulations nicely reproduce the behavior expected for a first-order transition, whereas a conventional canonical-ensemble simulation scheme would be hampered by metastability and hyper-critical slowing down. \(a) (b) ![\[figScalingT0.5chiM2\] (a) Canonical probability distribution $P(M)$ of the magnetization at $T=0.5$ and the pseudo-critical point $\Delta_{L,\chi}^{\ast}$ for selected lattice sizes. The middle peak corresponds to the disordered phase with a majority of $\sigma_i = 0$ states, while the peaks on the left and right stem from the ordered phases with pre-dominance of $\sigma_i = \pm 1$. (b) Corrections to the finite-size scaling of the magnetic susceptibility $\chi$ of Eq.  and to $\widetilde{\chi} = \beta(\langle\widetilde{M}^2\rangle - \langle\widetilde{M}\rangle^2)/V$ with $\widetilde{M}$ according to Eq. (\[eq:mtilde\]). The solid lines show a fit of the form $a+b/L+c/L^2$, including an inversely linear term, for $\chi$ ($Q=0.85$) and a fit of the form $a+b/L^2$ for $\widetilde{\chi}$ ($Q=0.30$). Both quantities are evaluated at the locations $\Delta_{L,\chi}^{\ast}$ of the maxima of $\chi$. ](fig_magnetization_T0-50.pdf "fig:") ![\[figScalingT0.5chiM2\] (a) Canonical probability distribution $P(M)$ of the magnetization at $T=0.5$ and the pseudo-critical point $\Delta_{L,\chi}^{\ast}$ for selected lattice sizes. The middle peak corresponds to the disordered phase with a majority of $\sigma_i = 0$ states, while the peaks on the left and right stem from the ordered phases with pre-dominance of $\sigma_i = \pm 1$. (b) Corrections to the finite-size scaling of the magnetic susceptibility $\chi$ of Eq.  and to $\widetilde{\chi} = \beta(\langle\widetilde{M}^2\rangle - \langle\widetilde{M}\rangle^2)/V$ with $\widetilde{M}$ according to Eq. (\[eq:mtilde\]). The solid lines show a fit of the form $a+b/L+c/L^2$, including an inversely linear term, for $\chi$ ($Q=0.85$) and a fit of the form $a+b/L^2$ for $\widetilde{\chi}$ ($Q=0.30$). Both quantities are evaluated at the locations $\Delta_{L,\chi}^{\ast}$ of the maxima of $\chi$. ](fig_fss-first_T0-50_chi-corrections.pdf "fig:") #### Second-order regime: We continue with the second-order regime, again focusing on one particular temperature, $T=1.2$, in order to verify the expected scaling as discussed in Sec. \[secLiterature\]. We restrict ourselves here to the leading-order scaling expressions, $$\begin{aligned} \Delta^{\ast}_{L,O} &=& \Delta_{\rm eff} + a_O L^{-1/\nu_{\rm eff}}, \label{eq:second-order-fits1} \\ C^{\ast}_L &=& b_C + b_C^\prime \ln L, \label{eq:second-order-fits2} \\ \chi^{\ast}_L &=& b_\chi L^{\gamma/\nu}, \label{eq:second-order-fits3}\end{aligned}$$ taking scaling corrections into account by systematically omitting data from the small-$L$ side of the full range $L=8-128$. Figure \[figScalingT1.2\] shows the FSS analysis for $T=1.2$. A simultaneous fit of the pseudo-critical fields in Fig. \[figScalingT1.2\](a) yields $Q\approx0.26$ for $L\ge 32$ with $\Delta_{\rm eff}=1.4161(6)$ and $\nu_{\rm eff}=1.09(3)$. This is only marginally consistent with the expected Ising value $\nu=1$. We attribute this effect to the presence of scaling corrections. We hence performed a further finite-size scaling analysis of $\Delta_{\rm eff}$ and $\nu_{\rm eff}$ as a function of the inverse lower fit range $1/L_{\rm min}$ to effectively take these corrections into account. For a quadratic fit in $1/L$ for $\nu_{\rm eff}$ we find $\nu=0.97(10)$, while a linear fit for $\Delta_{\rm eff}$ yields $\Delta_{\rm c}=1.4169(7)$, see the inset of Fig. \[figScalingT1.2\](b). We further checked for consistency with the Ising universality by considering the scaling of the maxima of the specific heat and magnetic susceptibility as shown in Fig. \[figScalingT1.2\](b). The specific heat shows a clear logarithmic scaling behavior for $L\ge 12$ with $Q\approx0.16$ in strong support of $\alpha=0$. Moreover, a power-law fit to the magnetic susceptibility peaks yields for $L\geq32$ a value $\gamma/\nu=1.750(3)$ with $Q\approx0.24$, in perfect agreement with the Ising value $\gamma/\nu=7/4$. Overall, this reconfirms the Ising universality class, with similar results for other $T>T_{\rm t}$. \(a) (b) ![\[figScalingT1.2\] Finite-size scaling analysis in the second-order transition regime ($T=1.2$) based on the specific heat and magnetic susceptibility from data of the multicanonical simulations. Panel (a) shows a simultaneous fit of the pseudo-critical fields to the leading-order ansatz (\[eq:second-order-fits1\]). The effective estimates are further subjected to an extrapolation in $1/L_\mathrm{min}$ as shown in the inset ($\Delta_{\rm eff}$ linear and $\nu_{\rm eff}$ quadratic in the lower-fit bound $1/L_{\rm min}$). Panel (b) shows fits of the maxima at the pseudo-critical points with the predicted behavior. The results verify the expected Ising universality class. ](fig_fss-second_T1-20_delta.pdf "fig:") ![\[figScalingT1.2\] Finite-size scaling analysis in the second-order transition regime ($T=1.2$) based on the specific heat and magnetic susceptibility from data of the multicanonical simulations. Panel (a) shows a simultaneous fit of the pseudo-critical fields to the leading-order ansatz (\[eq:second-order-fits1\]). The effective estimates are further subjected to an extrapolation in $1/L_\mathrm{min}$ as shown in the inset ($\Delta_{\rm eff}$ linear and $\nu_{\rm eff}$ quadratic in the lower-fit bound $1/L_{\rm min}$). Panel (b) shows fits of the maxima at the pseudo-critical points with the predicted behavior. The results verify the expected Ising universality class. ](fig_fss-second_T1-20_maxima.pdf "fig:") #### Correlation length: We now turn to a discussion of the correlation length $\xi$. This is where we used the results of the hybrid method for improved precision. We determined the second-moment correlation length according to Eq.  and then used the quotient method to determine the limiting value of the ratio $\xi/L$ [@amit05; @night; @bal96; @fytas_PRL]. We define a series of pseudo-critical points $\Delta_{(L,2L)}^{\ast}$ as the value of the crystal field where $\xi_{2L}/\xi_L=2$. These are the points where the curves of $\xi/L$ for the sizes $L$ and $2L$ cross. A typical illustration of this crossing is shown in the inset of Fig. \[figXiUniversality\](a) for $T=1.398$. The pair of system sizes considered is ($8$, $16$) and the results shown are obtained via both the hybrid method (data points) and the multicanonical approach through quasi continuous reweighting (lines). Denote the value of $\xi/L$ at these crossing points as $(\xi/L)^{\ast}$. The size evolution of $(\xi/L)^{\ast}$ and its extrapolation to the thermodynamic limit, denoted by $(\xi/L)_{\infty}$, will provide us with the desired test of universality. In Fig. \[figXiUniversality\](a) we illustrate the $L\rightarrow \infty$ extrapolation of $(\xi/L)^{\ast}$ for the previously studied case $T = 1.398$ and compare the two simulation schemes, hybrid and multicanonical. The sequence of pairs of system sizes considered is as follows: ($8$, $16$), ($12$, $24$), ($16$, $32$), ($24$, $48$), ($32$, $64$), ($48$, $96$), and ($64$,$128$). It is seen that the results obtained with the hybrid method suffer less from statistical fluctuations. It is found that a second-order polynomial in $1/L$ describes the data for $(\xi/L)$ well and a corresponding fit yields $$(\xi/L)_{\infty}^{\rm (hybrid)} = 0.906(2).$$ A similar fitting attempt to the multicanonical data gives an estimate of $$(\xi/L)_{\infty}^{\rm (muca)} = 0.913(9),$$ consistent with but less accurate than $(\xi/L)_{\infty}^{\rm (hybrid)}$. Both estimates are fully consistent with the exact value $(\xi / L)_{\infty} = 0.905\,048\,8292(4)$ [@salas2000]. \(a) (b) ![\[figXiUniversality\] Finite-size scaling of the correlation length crossings $(\xi/L)^{\ast}$. The dashed horizontal line in both panels shows the asymptotic value for the square-lattice Ising model with periodic boundaries according to Eq. . (a) Results for $T=1.398$, comparing data from the multicanonical and hybrid methods. The line shows a quadratic fit in $1/L$ to the data from the hybrid method. The inset demonstrates the crossing point of $L=8$ and $L=16$ from both muca (lines) and hybrid (data points). (b) Simultaneous fit for several temperatures obtained from multicanonical simulations. The inset shows results from direct fits for a range of temperatures in comparison to the asymptotic value of Eq. . Well above the tricritical point, $(\xi/L)^{\ast}$ nicely converges towards the Ising value. Towards the tricritical point, additional corrections emerge. ](fig_fss-second_T1-398_xi-L.pdf "fig:") ![\[figXiUniversality\] Finite-size scaling of the correlation length crossings $(\xi/L)^{\ast}$. The dashed horizontal line in both panels shows the asymptotic value for the square-lattice Ising model with periodic boundaries according to Eq. . (a) Results for $T=1.398$, comparing data from the multicanonical and hybrid methods. The line shows a quadratic fit in $1/L$ to the data from the hybrid method. The inset demonstrates the crossing point of $L=8$ and $L=16$ from both muca (lines) and hybrid (data points). (b) Simultaneous fit for several temperatures obtained from multicanonical simulations. The inset shows results from direct fits for a range of temperatures in comparison to the asymptotic value of Eq. . Well above the tricritical point, $(\xi/L)^{\ast}$ nicely converges towards the Ising value. Towards the tricritical point, additional corrections emerge. ](fig_fss-second_xi-L.pdf "fig:") In Fig. \[figXiUniversality\](b) we present a complementary illustration using data from the multicanonical approach and several temperatures in the second-order transition regime of the phase diagram, as indicated by the different colors. In particular, we show the values $(\xi/L)^{\ast}$ for several pairs of system sizes from ($8$, $16$) up to ($64$, $128$). The solid lines are second-order polynomial fits in $1/L$, imposing a common $L\rightarrow \infty$ extrapolation $(\xi/L)_{\infty}$. The result obtained in this way is $0.907(6)$, again well compatible with the exact Ising value. We note that following the discussion in Ref. [@salas2000], a correction with exponent $1/L^2$ or possibly $1/L^{7/4}$ is expected, but a term proportional to $1/L$ is not. Here, however, we do not find consistent fits with $1/L^{7/4}$ or $1/L^2$ only, and using a second-order polynomial in $1/L^w$ instead we find $w=0.91(27)$, consistent with the two terms $1/L$ and $1/L^2$. A possible explanation for this behavior might be a non-linear dependence of the scaling fields on $L$ as a linear correction in reduced temperature $t$ produces a term $L^{-1/\nu}$ in FSS, and $\nu = 1$ [@pelissetto2002]. In the inset of Fig. \[figXiUniversality\](b) we show the values of $(\xi/L)_{\infty}$ for various further temperatures. In this case, each estimate of $(\xi/L)_{\infty}$ is obtained from individual quadratic fits on each data set without imposing a common thermodynamic limit. The departure from the Ising value $0.905$, which is again marked by the dashed line, is clear as $T \rightarrow T_{\rm t}$. There, additional higher-order corrections due to the crossover to tricritical scaling become relevant. Finally, we also considered the behavior of the susceptibility and specific heat from runs of the hybrid method, evaluated at the pseudo-critical points $\Delta_{(L,2L)}^{\ast}$ from the crossings of $\xi/L$. For $\chi$ we find an excellent fit for the full range of lattice sizes with the pure power-law form , resulting in $\gamma/\nu = 1.75(2)$ ($Q=0.96$). Similarly, a fully consistent fit is found over the full lattice size range for the specific heat using the logarithmic form ($Q=1.0$). #### Full temperature range: Having established the common first-order scaling for $T<T_{\rm t}$ and the Ising universality class for $T>T_{\rm t}$, we attempted to improve the precision in the location of the phase boundary for the square lattice model. To this end, we considered simultaneous fits of the scaling ansätze Eqs. (\[eqShiftFirst\]) and (\[eqShiftSecond\]) to the peak locations $\Delta^{\ast}_{L,C}$ and $\Delta^{\ast}_{L,\chi}$, depending on whether the considered temperature is in the first-order or in the second-order regime, $$\begin{aligned} \Delta^{\ast}_{L,O} &=& \Delta^{\ast} + a_O L^{-D} \hspace{5.0em}\text{for $T<T_{\rm t}$}, \\ \Delta^{\ast}_{L,O} &=& \Delta_{\rm c} + a_O L^{-1/\nu} \hspace{4.5em}\text{for $T>T_{\rm t}$},\end{aligned}$$ with $D=2$ and $\nu=1$ fixed. As before, we take corrections to scaling into account by systematically omitting data from the small-$L$ side until fit qualities $Q>0.1$ are achieved. The results for the transition fields are listed in Table \[tabResults\], including fit errors. Well inside the first-order regime, fits are excellent and cover the full data set ($L\geq 8$), so scaling corrections are not important there. Around the tricritical point, fits become difficult. For example, a simultaneous fit for $T=0.65$ with $L\geq64$ still yields $Q\approx0.07$. This is, of course, no surprise as we should see a crossover to the tricritical scaling there. Moving away from the tricritical point into the second-order regime, fits become more feasible. Corrections appear to be smallest between $T=0.9$ and $T=1.0$ where we could include the full data set, $L\geq8$, with $Q\approx0.4$ each. Increasing the temperature, we then again find stronger corrections. Particularly for $T=1.6$ fits with $L\geq64$ are required to obtain $Q>0.1$. We attribute this effect to the fact that our variation of $\Delta$ is almost tangential to the phase boundary there, so field-mixing effects should be quite strong [@wilding1996]. Overall, we find very good agreement with recent previous studies, but often increased precision, cf. the data in Table \[tabResults\]. [ll|llllll]{} & & & Silva et al. & Malakis et al. & Kwak et al. & This work\ & & & Ref. [@silva2006] & Ref. [@malakis] & Ref. [@kwak2015] &\ $\Delta$ & $T$ & $\Delta$ & $T$ & $T$ & $T$ & $\Delta$ & $\Delta$\ 0 & & & 1.695& 1.714(2)& 1.693(3)& &\ & 1.6 & & & & & & 0.375(2)\ & 1.5 & & & & & & 0.7101(5)\ 0.5 & & & 1.567& 1.584(1)& 1.564(3)& &\ & 1.4 & & & & & & 0.9909(4)\ & 1.398& & & & & & 0.9958(4)\ 1.0 & & & 1.398& 1.413(1)& 1.398(2)& &\ & 1.3 & & & & & & 1.2242(4)\ & 1.2 & & & & & & 1.4167(2)\ 1.5 & & & 1.15 & 1.155(1)& 1.151(1)& &\ & 1.1 & & & & & & 1.5750(2)\ & 1.0 & & & & & & 1.70258(7)\ 1.75 & & & & & 0.958(1)& &\ & 0.9 & & & & & & 1.80280(6)\ & 0.8 & 1.87 & & & & & 1.87879(3)\ 1.9 & & & & 0.755(3)& 0.769(1)& &\ & 0.7 & 1.92 & & & & & 1.93296(2)\ 1.95 & & & & 0.651(2)& 0.659(2)& &\ & 0.65 & 1.95 & & & & 1.9534 (1) & 1.95273(1)\ & 0.61 & 1.9655 & & & & &\ & 0.608& & & & & 1.96604 (1) &\ & 0.6 & 1.969 & & & & 1.96825 (1) & 1.968174(3)\ 1.975& & & & & 0.574(2)& &\ 1.992& & & & 0.499(3)& & &\ & 0.5 & 1.992 & & & & 1.98789 (1) & 1.987889(5)\ & 0.4 & & & & & 1.99681 (1) & 1.99683(2)\ Summary and outlook {#secSummary} =================== In this paper we have reviewed and extended the phase diagram of the 2D Blume-Capel model in the absence of an external field, providing extensive numerical results for the model on the square lattice. In particular, we studied in some detail the universal ratio $\xi/L$ that allows to confirm the Ising universality class of the model in the second-order regime of the phase boundary. In contrast to most previous work, we focused on crossing the phase boundary at constant temperature by varying the crystal field $\Delta$ [@zierenberg2015]. Employing a multicanonical scheme in $\Delta$ allowed us to get results as continuous functions of $\Delta$ and to overcome the free-energy barrier in the first-order regime of transitions. A finite-size scaling analysis based on a specific-heat-like quantity and the magnetic susceptibility provided us with precise estimates for the transition points in both regimes of the phase diagram that compare very well to the most accurate estimates of the current literature. We have been able to probe the first-order nature of the transition in the low-temperature phase and to illustrate the Ising universality class in the second-order regime of the phase diagram. We are also able to provide accurate estimates of the critical exponents $\nu$ and $\gamma/\nu$, as well as to clearly confirm the logarithmic divergence of the specific-heat peaks. Using additional simulations based on a hybrid cluster-update approach we studied the correlation length in the second-order regime. Via a detailed scaling analysis of the universal ratio $\xi/L$, we could show that it cleanly approaches the value $(\xi/L)_\infty = 0.905\ldots$ of the Ising universality class for all temperatures up to the tricritical point. In the first-order regime we found a somewhat surprising $1/L$ correction in the scaling of the conventional susceptibility defined according to Eq. . As it turns out, this is due to the explicit symmetry breaking by using $|M|$ instead of $M$ in the definition of $\chi$. For a modified symmetry breaking prescription that leaves the disordered peak invariant, this correction disappears. It would be interesting to see whether similar corrections are found in other systems with first-order transitions, such as the Potts model. To conclude, the Blume-Capel model serves as an extremely useful prototype system for the study of phase transitions, exhibiting lines of second-order and first-order transitions that meet in a tricritical point. Apart from the interest in tricritical scaling, this model hence also allows to investigate the effect of disorder on phase transitions of different order within the same model. A study of the disordered version of the model is thus hoped to shed some light on questions of universality between the continuous transitions in the disordered case that correspond to different transition orders in the pure model [@fytas_PRE]. [100]{} M. Blume, Phys. Rev. [**141**]{}, 517 (1966) H.W. Capel, Physica (Utr.) [**32**]{}, 966 (1966); H.W. Capel, Physica (Utr.) [**33**]{}, 295 (1967); H.W. Capel, Physica (Utr.) [**37**]{}, 423 (1967) I.D. Lawrie, S. Sarbach, in: C. Domb, J.L. Lebowitz (Eds.), Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena, Vol. 9 (Academic Press, London, 1984) W. Selke, J. Oitmaa, J. Phys. C [**22**]{}, 076004 (2010) N.G. Fytas, Eur. Phys. J. B [**79**]{}, 21 (2011) J. Zierenberg, N.G. Fytas, W. Janke, Phys. Rev. E [**91**]{}, 032126 (2015) A.N. Berker, M. Wortis, Phys. Rev. B [**14**]{}, 4946 (1976) D.P. Landau, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**28**]{}, 449 (1972) M. Kaufman, R.B. Griffiths, J.M. Yeomans, M. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B [**23**]{}, 3448 (1981) W. Selke, J. Yeomans, J. Phys. A [**16**]{}, 2789 (1983) W. Selke, D.A. Huse, D.M. Kroll, J. Phys. A [**17**]{}, 3019 (1984) D.P. Landau, R.H. Swendsen, Phys. Rev. B [**33**]{}, 7700 (1986) J.C. Xavier, F.C. Alcaraz, D. Pena Lara, J.A. Plascak, Phys. Rev. B [**57**]{}, 11575 (1998) Y. Deng, W. Guo, H.W.J. Blöte, Phys. Rev. E [**72**]{}, 016101 (2005) C.J. Silva, A.A. Caparica, J.A. Plascak, Phys. Rev. E [**73**]{}, 036702 (2006) D. Hurt, M. Eitzel, R.T. Scalettar, G.G. Batrouni, in: Computer Simulation Studies in Condensed Matter Physics XVII, Springer Proceedings in Physics, Vol. 105, eds. D.P. Landau, S.P. Lewis, H.-B. Schüttler (Springer, Berlin, 2007) A. Malakis, A.N. Berker, I.A. Hadjiagapiou, N.G. Fytas, Phys. Rev. E [**79**]{}, 011125 (2009); A. Malakis, A.N. Berker, I.A. Hadjiagapiou, N.G. Fytas, T. Papakonstantinou, Phys. Rev. E [**81**]{}, 041113 (2010) W. Kwak, J. Jeong, J. Lee, D.-H. Kim, Phys. Rev. E [**92**]{}, 022134 (2015) M.J. Stephen, J.L. McColey, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**44**]{}, 89 (1973) T.S. Chang, G.F. Tuthill, H.E. Stanley, Phys. Rev. B [**9**]{}, 4482 (1974) G.F. Tuthill, J.F. Nicoll, H.E. Stanley, Phys. Rev. B [**11**]{}, 4579 (1975) F.J. Wegner, Phys. Lett. [**54A**]{}, 1 (1975) P.F. Fox, A.J. Guttmann, J. Phys. C [**6**]{}, 913 (1973) W.J. Camp, J.P. Van Dyke, Phys. Rev. B [**11**]{}, 2579 (1975) T.W. Burkhardt, R.H. Swendsen, Phys. Rev. B [**13**]{}, 3071 (1976) P.D. Beale, Phys. Rev. B [**33**]{}, 1717 (1986) T.W. Burkhardt, Phys. Rev. B [**14**]{}, 1196 (1976) T.W. Burkhardt, H.J.F. Knops, Phys. Rev. B. [**15**]{}, 1602 (1977) M. Kaufman, R.B. Griffiths, J.M. Yeomans, M.E. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B [ **23**]{}, 3448 (1981) J.M. Yeomans, M.E. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B [**24**]{}, 2825 (1981) N.B. Wilding, P. Nielaba, Phys. Rev. E [**53**]{}, 926 (1996) J.A. Plascak, P.H.L. Martins, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**184**]{}, 259 (2013) K. Binder, D.P. Landau, Phys. Rev. B [**30**]{}, 1477 (1984); M.S.S. Challa, D.P. Landau, K. Binder, Phys. Rev. B [**34**]{}, 1841 (1986) W. Janke, [*First-Order Phase Transitions*]{}, in: [*Computer Simulations of Surfaces and Interfaces, NATO Science Series, II. Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry - Vol. 114, Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Study Institute, Albena, Bulgaria, 9–20 September 2002*]{}, eds. B. Dünweg, D.P. Landau, A.I. Milchev (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2003), pp. 111–135; W. Janke, R. Villanova, Nucl. Phys. B [**489**]{}, 679 (1997) D.P. Landau, K. Binder, *Monte Carlo Simulations in Statistical Physics* (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000) J. Cardy, *Scaling and Renormalization in Statistical Physics* (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996) A. Pelissetto and E. Vicari, Phys. Rep. [**368**]{}, 549 (2002) J. Salas, A.D. Sokal, J. Stat. Phys. [**98**]{}, 551 (2000) W. Selke, L.N. Shchur, J. Phys. A [**38**]{}, L739 (2005) B.A. Berg, T. Neuhaus, Phys. Lett. B [**267**]{}, 249 (1991); B.A. Berg, T. Neuhaus, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 9 (1992) W. Janke, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C [**03**]{}, 1137 (1992); W. Janke, Physica A [**254**]{}, 164 (1998) J. Zierenberg, M. Marenz, W. Janke, Comput. Phys. Comm. [**184**]{}, 1155 (2013); J. Zierenberg, M. Marenz, W. Janke, Physics Procedia [**53**]{}, 55 (2014) C.M. Fortuin, P.W. Kasteleyn, Physica [**57**]{}, 536 (1972) R.H. Swendsen and J.S. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**58**]{}, 86 (1987) H.W.J. Blöte, E. Luijten, J.R. Heringa, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**28**]{}, 6289 (1995) M. Hasenbusch Phys. Rev. B [**82**]{}, 174433 (2010) A. Malakis, A.N. Berker, N.G. Fytas, T. Papakonstantinou, Phys. Rev. E [**85**]{}, 061106 (2012) U. Wolff, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**62**]{}, 361 (1989) B. Efron, [*The Jackknife, the Bootstrap and other Resampling Plans*]{} (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, 1982); B. Efron, R.J. Tibshirani, [*An Introduction to the Bootstrap*]{} (Chapman and Hall, Boca Raton, 1994) F. Cooper, B. Freedman, D. Preston, Nucl. Phys. B [**210**]{}, 210 (1982) H.G. Ballesteros, L.A. Fern[á]{}ndez, V. Mart[í]{}n-Mayor, A. Mu[ñ]{}oz Sudupe, G. Parisi, J.J. Ruiz-Lorenzo, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**32**]{}, 1 (1999) P. Young, [*Everything You Wanted to Know About Data Analysis and Fitting but Were Afraid to Ask*]{}, SpringerBriefs in Physics (Springer, Berlin, 2015) D. Amit, V. Martín-Mayor, [*Field Theory, the Renormalization Group and Critical Phenomena*]{}, 3rd edition (World Scientific, Singapore, 2005) M.P. Nightingale, Physica (Amsterdam) [**83A**]{}, 561 (1976) H.G. Ballesteros, L.A. Fernández, V. Martín-Mayor, A. Muñoz-Sudupe, Phys. Lett. B [**378**]{}, 207 (1996) N.G. Fytas, V. Martín-Mayor, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, 227201 (2013) P.E. Theodorakis, N.G. Fytas, Phys. Rev. E [**86**]{}, 011140 (2012) [^1]: [^2]: $Q$ is the probability that a $\chi^2$ as poor as the one observed could have occurred by chance, i.e., through random fluctuations, although the model is correct [@young2015]. [^3]: The width of the peak is estimated from the fact that $O(V)$ spins in the disordered phase equal $+1$ and $O(V)$ others equal $-1$. Hence their sum is of order $O(\sqrt{V}) = O(L)$.

ArXiv

--- author: - 'Benjamin Godfrey,' - 'Tyler Anderson,' - 'Earl Breedon,' - 'Jacob Cutter,' - 'Navneet Dhaliwal,' - 'Olivia Dalager,' - 'Seth Hillbrand,' - 'Michael Irving,' - 'Aaron Manalaysay,' - 'Juan Montoya,' - 'James Morad,' - 'Christian Neher,' - 'Dustin Stolp,' - 'Mani Tripathi,' - Ryan Wilson bibliography: - 'References.bib' title: On the Evaluation of Silicon Photomultipliers for use as Photosensors in Liquid Xenon Detectors --- Introduction ============ Dual-phase noble element time projection chambers (TPCs) are a commonly used technology ([@DarksideOverview], [@LUXTotalResults], [@XENON100Overview], [@ArDMOverview], [@LZOverview]) for the direct detection of weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs). They record primary, prompt scintillation from interaction with the liquid target (S1) and secondary, delayed luminescence from ionized electrons drifted up in the liquid and extracted into the gas phase (S2)[@TPCOverview]. Photosensors positioned around the noble-element volume are then used to detect the S1 and S2 signals. Traditionally, these sensors have been photomultiplier tubes (PMTs), which are typically deployed on the top and bottom surfaces of a cylindrical liquid volume. The walls of the volume are constructed using a high-reflectivity material, such as polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE). Recent major detectors have achieved light collection efficiencies (LCE) in the 30-40% range ([@LCE_LUX], [@LCE_Xenon1T]), resulting in a photon detection efficiency of 9-12% due to the  30% quantum efficiency. One approach towards increasing the LCE of noble-element TPCs would be to replace PTFE reflectors with an active detection element. However, PMTs are not suitable because they will not operate in the high electric field in that region of the TPC. Solid-state substitutes to PMTs are silicon photomultipliers (SiPMs), which are arrays of avalanche photodiodes operating in Geiger mode. Their small size, low operating voltage, single-photoelectron sensitivity, and continually decreasing cost make them competitive alternatives for PMTs [@SiPMCSeries]. ![(Left) A schematic depiction of a section of the TPC volume. SiPMs, tiled on field-shaping rings that form the cylindrical shell of a TPC chamber, allow for increased light detection coverage. (Right) A schematic diagram of the DAX TPC instrumented with the SiPM array.[]{data-label="fig:ExampleTPC"}](Figures/Three_Rings.jpg "fig:"){width="3.1in"} ![(Left) A schematic depiction of a section of the TPC volume. SiPMs, tiled on field-shaping rings that form the cylindrical shell of a TPC chamber, allow for increased light detection coverage. (Right) A schematic diagram of the DAX TPC instrumented with the SiPM array.[]{data-label="fig:ExampleTPC"}](Figures/cutter_tpc_sipm_system_diagram.pdf "fig:"){width="2.4in"} In our proposed design, SiPMs are mounted on the field shaping rings forming a cylindrical shell, as shown in Figure  \[fig:ExampleTPC\] (Left). This design, however, assumes both operation of these devices in high electric fields and at the low temperatures of the liquid noble-element. Furthermore, the SiPMs must have a non-zero quantum efficiency (QE) for photo-electric conversion of photons in the UV wavelengths of interest. Previously, we reported ([@DustyPaper]) on using a wavelength shifting material in conjunction with SiPMs to achieve this. Herein, we report on investigations of the suitability of SiPMs to be used in the proposed design concept by operating an array of SiPMs in a liquid xenon detector. In a separate experiment, we measured dark count rates as a function of temperature down to 170 K. These results extend work that has been done characterizing SiPMs in low temperature cryogenic environments ([@OldAprile] [@Catalanotti], [@Lightfoot]) to SensL’s C-series SiPMs. In a third setup, we measured dark counts, gain, and photon detection efficiency (PDE) of Sensl MicroFC-10035-SMT SiPMs in a constant electric field of 3.2 kV/cm, as a function of the field direction. Operating a SiPM Array in Liquid Xenon ====================================== A schematic diagram of the experimental setup, involving the Davis Xenon (DAX) detector, is shown in Figure \[fig:ExampleTPC\] (Right). DAX is designed to be a flexible detector that can be configured in various modes to serve as a liquid-phase or a dual-phase xenon detector. For these measurements, the cathode consisted of a copper plate, and the anode was made up of a patterned foil. An array of seven SiPMs, as shown in Figure \[fig:SIPM\_Flange\], was deployed at the top. The SiPMs were mounted on a PCB, which was sandwiched inside two flanges - the front facing flange had a fused silica window, which was coated with a UV-transparent 600 nm thick layer of tetraphenyl-butadiene (TPB) supplied by Sigma-Aldrich, and the back face had a DB-25 connector used for providing bias voltages and bringing out the standard output (SOUT) signals from the SiPMs. The thickness of TPB was optimized in our earlier work [@DustyPaper]. ![Photographs of the front (Left) and back (Right) of the SiPM flange assembly. The front face shows the fused silica window, with TPB deposited on the inside, and the array of seven SiPMs.[]{data-label="fig:SIPM_Flange"}](Figures/SIPM_array_1.jpg "fig:"){width="1.25in"} ![Photographs of the front (Left) and back (Right) of the SiPM flange assembly. The front face shows the fused silica window, with TPB deposited on the inside, and the array of seven SiPMs.[]{data-label="fig:SIPM_Flange"}](Figures/SIPM_array_2.jpg "fig:"){width="1.5in"} A custom power supply, with an adjustable range of 27-32V per channel, provided individually optimized bias voltages for each SiPM. The SiPM signals were amplified using custom shaping amplifiers and digitized using the DDC-10 data acquisition system [@DDC-10]. An optical fiber was introduced into the volume to provide UV light pulses from an LED. This was used for initial testing of the SiPM array to prove responsiveness of the array to UV light but was not used for calibrations. The DDC-10 system was operated in a self-triggered mode, resulting in the capture of an 80 $\mu$s window, digitized to 14 bits at 100 Msps, corresponding to 8,000 ADC samples centered at the trigger time stamp. Pulse areas were determined using a custom pulse finding algorithm [@DustyPaper]. ![Histograms of pulse areas collected from all SiPM channels. (Left) Response to $\alpha$-particles created from the decay of Po-210, and (Right) Dark counts measured in all channels.[]{data-label="fig:SIPM_pulses"}](Figures/pulseArea_all.png "fig:"){width="2.9in"} ![Histograms of pulse areas collected from all SiPM channels. (Left) Response to $\alpha$-particles created from the decay of Po-210, and (Right) Dark counts measured in all channels.[]{data-label="fig:SIPM_pulses"}](Figures/DarkCountPretrigger.png "fig:"){width="2.9in"} Figure \[fig:SIPM\_pulses\] (left) shows a histogram of S1 pulse areas recorded by all of the SiPMs in response to $\alpha$-particles, created from the decay of a Po-210 source, deposited on the cathode [@JacobPaper]. The multiple photoelectron peaks are clearly visible. However, the 7 mm$^2$ area of the SIPMs was insufficient to collect enough photons to reconstruct the energy of the incident $\alpha$-particle. This study determines the ability of a SiPM-TPB combination to detect 175 nm scintillation photons in a liquid xenon detector. These data were also used to characterize dark counts and cross-talk rate variations for the seven SiPM channels. We searched for pulses in the digitized sample *preceding* the trigger to accumulate a sample of dark counts per channel. Figure \[fig:SIPM\_calibrations\] (Left) shows the relative variations in response pulse areas and pulse heights, normalized to the mean of the seven channels. Also shown is the variation in k-factor, defined as the fraction of pulses with an area greater than one photoelectron out of the total number of pulses. The dark count rate, averaged over the seven channels, was 25$\pm$5 Hz/$\text{mm}^{2}$. This corresponds to a dark current of 0.59$\pm$0.12 nA [@SensLDatasheet]. ![(Left) Relative variations in gain parameters and cross-talk, as described in the text, for the seven SiPM channels. (Right) Dark count dependence on temperature for both cooling (descending) and heating (ascending) curves. The point labeled as *SensL Reference* is obtained from [@CSeriesReference]. Below 240 K the dark count rate is averaged to be 19.1 Hz $\pm$ 1.2 Hz. The point labeled as *DAX data* is the measurement made in the previous section.[]{data-label="fig:SIPM_calibrations"}](Figures/OverlayCalibrations.png "fig:"){width="3.3in"} ![(Left) Relative variations in gain parameters and cross-talk, as described in the text, for the seven SiPM channels. (Right) Dark count dependence on temperature for both cooling (descending) and heating (ascending) curves. The point labeled as *SensL Reference* is obtained from [@CSeriesReference]. Below 240 K the dark count rate is averaged to be 19.1 Hz $\pm$ 1.2 Hz. The point labeled as *DAX data* is the measurement made in the previous section.[]{data-label="fig:SIPM_calibrations"}](Figures/RedoneTemperaturePlot.png "fig:"){width="2.3in"} In order to measure dark counts versus temperature, an unmodified SensL MicroFC-SMA-10035 evaluation board was placed inside a copper vessel that was filled with thermally conductive foil. This vessel, in turn, was placed inside a Styrofoam container, in which liquid nitrogen was poured, to provide cooling. The SiPM was reverse biased at 28.4 V, and the SOUT signal was fed into a wide bandwidth amplifier, which was then digitized by a DDC-10 digitizer. Temperature was monitored and controlled using a cryogenic temperature controller connected to a silicone-rubber heat sheet deployed inside the vessel. Data acquisition was split into two parts: Cooling and heating. This was done in order to check for consistency and remove any systematic error in the setup. Temperature was monitored continuously using the temperature controller. Data were recorded in 80 ms blocks, corresponding to $8*10^{6}$ ADC samples, by the DDC-10, which was externally triggered by a 5 kHz square wave. Dark count peaks were counted in software using the same pulse finding script described previously. All temperatures recorded during each 80 ms window were averaged to give a mean temperature associated with the number of dark count peaks. Figure \[fig:SIPM\_calibrations\] (Right) shows the measured dark count rate as a function of temperature. Heating and cooling curves reliably lie on top of one another confirming consistency of the setup. The dark count rate falls sharply from 300 K to about 260 K, and below 240 K it is nearly constant with an average of 19.1 Hz $\pm$ 1.2 Hz. High Electric Field Tests {#section:ElectricField} ========================= An outline of the setup is detailed in Figure \[fig:ElectricFieldSetup\]. A high electric field was created between two circular, aluminum plates, approximately 25 cm in diameter and 1/16" thick, held approximately 3.1 cm apart. High voltage was supplied from a PS365 programmable power supply from Stanford Research Systems. ![(Left) A schematic diagram of the setup for testing dark counts, gain, and PDE of SensL MicroFC-10035-SMT SiPMs in high electric fields with definition of the servo angles underneath. At $0^\circ$ the SiPM faces the top plate and at $-180^\circ$ the SiPM faces the bottom plate. $-180^\circ$ and $+180^\circ$ refer to the same angle, but the servo is unable to go beyond $+115^\circ$, so $+180^\circ$ is not discussed. (Right) Relative QE, dark counts, and gain as a function of angle.[]{data-label="fig:ElectricFieldSetup"}](Figures/E-field.jpg "fig:"){width="3.0in"} ![(Left) A schematic diagram of the setup for testing dark counts, gain, and PDE of SensL MicroFC-10035-SMT SiPMs in high electric fields with definition of the servo angles underneath. At $0^\circ$ the SiPM faces the top plate and at $-180^\circ$ the SiPM faces the bottom plate. $-180^\circ$ and $+180^\circ$ refer to the same angle, but the servo is unable to go beyond $+115^\circ$, so $+180^\circ$ is not discussed. (Right) Relative QE, dark counts, and gain as a function of angle.[]{data-label="fig:ElectricFieldSetup"}](Figures/QE_DarkCount_Gain.png "fig:"){width="2.8in"} A SiPM mounted on a custom PCB was placed at the end of a 15 cm long G-10 fiberglass rod. The board was held near the center of the two plates in the uniform field region. The rod was connected to a Dynamixel AX-12A actuator, computer controlled through a serial link. Throughout these tests, the SiPM was reverse biased at a fixed 28.4 V, and was electrically isolated from the HV power supply such that the entire board was allowed to float to any voltage. To evaluate the performance of the SiPM in arbitrarily oriented electric fields, the board, attached to the actuator’s fiberglass rotor, was positioned at the fixed angles of $-180\degree$, $-135\degree$, $-90\degree$, $-45\degree$, $0\degree$, $45\degree$, and $90\degree$. Positive and negative angles are defined in Figure \[fig:ElectricFieldSetup\]. The upper and lower bounds were set by hardware limitations of the actuator. Data collection steps were repeated with the electric field on and off. As before, the SOUT signal of the SiPM was fed into a shaping amplifier and digitized by a DDC-10 in 80 ms windows. Dark counts were collected eight times for each angle setting, which were then averaged to determine the rate. The standard deviation among the eight sets was considered to be a systematic error likely due variations in the illumination from the LED light source. A relative measurement for various quantities was computed as the ratio of field-on and field-off data. As seen in Figure \[fig:SIPM\_pulses\] (Right), the first peak (centered around 1 p.e.) is due to single photoelectrons, while the second is mostly due to optical crosstalk, which is common in SiPMs  [@CSeriesReference]. A Gaussian fit was performed on both of these peaks, and the gain is defined as the difference in the mean values as given in [@SensLOverview]. The QE of the SiPM is defined as the probability that an incident photon will produce a pulse from one of its microcells [@SensLOverview]. Since the number of incident photons on the SiPM when the HV is on is the same as when it is off, the relative QE is given by Equation \[eq:RelativeQE\]. For the QE measurement, two Arduino-controlled LEDs were added to the dark box to ensure ample illumination of the SiPM at all angles. $$\textnormal{Relative QE} = \frac{\textnormal{Counts with HV on and LED on - Counts with HV on and LED off}}{\textnormal{Counts with HV off and LED on - Counts with HV off and LED off}} \label{eq:RelativeQE}$$ Possible systematic error due to the effects of crosstalk and after-pulsing was determined to be negligible. Since only the number of peaks are being considered, crosstalk does not affect this ratio. Furthermore, since the number of counts due to after-pulsing is proportional to the total number of counts, any possible effects cancel out when doing a relative measurement. For each angle, eight pulse-area histograms were created from which eight gains were recorded and averaged. For the relative QE measurement, the SiPM was rotated through all angles with HV on and LED on, then HV on and LED off, then HV off and LED on, and, finally, HV off LED off. In addition, a five-minute delay after the LED was turned on, and a 30-second delay after the LED was turned off, were included to give the temperature of the dark box time to stabilize. Figure \[fig:ElectricFieldSetup\] (Right) shows these relative measurements as a function of angle. There is no significant deviation from unity for all three ratios, thus demonstrating that there is no discernible effect of the electric field on these quantities. Conclusions =========== We have observed that dark count rate, gain, and QE are independent of electric field strength up to 3.2 kV/cm. Combined with greatly reduced dark count rates at near-cryogenic temperatures, SiPMs show promise not only as alternative photon detectors for large-area coverage in noble element TPCs but also in other low-temperature, high electric field environments where sensitive photo-detection is required. Acknowledgments =============== This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration under Award Number: DE-NA0000979 through the Nuclear Science and Security Consortium. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or limited, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

ArXiv

--- author: - title: | QuPARA: **Qu**ery-Driven Large-Scale **P**ortfolio\ **A**ggregate **R**isk **A**nalysis on MapReduce ---

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'Many robotic applications, such as search-and-rescue, require multiple agents to search for and perform actions on targets. However, such missions present several challenges, including cooperative exploration, task selection and allocation, time limitations, and computational complexity. To address this, we propose a decentralized multi-agent decision-making framework for the search and action problem with time constraints. The main idea is to treat time as an allocated budget in a setting where each agent action incurs a time cost and yields a certain reward. Our approach leverages probabilistic reasoning to make near-optimal decisions leading to maximized reward. We evaluate our method in the search, pick, and place scenario of the Mohamed Bin Zayed International Robotics Challenge (MBZIRC), by using a probability density map and reward prediction function to assess actions. Extensive simulations show that our algorithm outperforms benchmark strategies, and we demonstrate system integration in a Gazebo-based environment, validating the framework’s readiness for field application.' author: - 'Takahiro Miki, Marija Popović, Abel Gawel, Gregory Hitz and Roland Siegwart [^1].' bibliography: - 'references/bibliography.bib' title: | **Multi-agent Time-based Decision-making\ for the Search and Action Problem** --- =4 ACKNOWLEDGMENT {#acknowledgment .unnumbered} ============== This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 644227 and from the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI) under contract number 15.0029, and was partially sponsored by the Mohamed Bin Zayed International Robotics Challenge. \[sec:proof\] [^1]: Authors are with the Autonomous Systems Lab., ETH Zurich, Switzerland. [email protected],{mpopovic, gawela, hitzg, rsiegwart}@ethz.ch

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'This paper concerns K3 surfaces with automorphisms of order 11 in arbitrary characteristic. Specifically we study the wild case and prove that a generic such surface in characteristic 11 has Picard number 2. We also construct K3 surfaces with an automorphism of order 11 in every characteristic, and supersingular K3 surfaces whenever possible.' address: 'Institut für Algebraische Geometrie, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Welfengarten 1, 30167 Hannover, Germany' author: - Matthias Schütt date: 'September 30, 2013' title: K3 surfaces with an automorphism of order 11 --- [^1] Introduction ============ Automorphisms of K3 surfaces have gained considerable attention in recent years. Over ${\mathbb{C}}$ they usually lend themselves to lattice theoretic investigations while positive characteristic often requires more delicate considerations. Order 11 is special in the sense that by [@N] it is the first prime order which over ${\mathbb{C}}$ does not allow symplectic automorphisms (leaving the regular 2-form invariant). This result carries over to any positive characteristic except for $p=11$. In fact, it is this wild case which our primary interest lies in. The wild case was studied in great detail in [@DK], and our main aim is to solve the problem of the Picard number which was left open there (see [@DK Rem. 3.6]): \[thm\] Let $k$ denote an algebraically closed field of characteristic $11$. Then a generic K3 surface with an automorphism of order $11$ over $k$ has Picard number $\rho=2$. K3 surfaces with a wild automorphism of order $11$ come in 1-dimensional families where each surface is a torsor of a jacobian elliptic K3 surface, see Section \[s:background\]. This allows us to reduce the proof of Theorem \[thm\] to the family of jacobian elliptic K3 surfaces with a wild automorphism of order $11$ as studied in [@DK]. Then it suffices to exhibit a member of this family with Picard number $\rho=2$. Our method to achieve this is arguably elementary as we simply compute the zeta functions of the elliptic K3 surfaces over ${\mathbb{F}}_{11}$ in question. In contrast, the way to derive the zeta function in an effective fashion is quite non-elementary, as it makes essential use of the automorphisms. As a by-product we also compute the heights of the K3 surfaces over ${\mathbb{F}}_{11}$ which attain the finite maximum $h=10$ (Corollary \[Cor:h\]). The paper is organised as follows. After reviewing the background, particularly from [@DK], in Section \[s:background\], we give the proof of Theorem \[thm\] in Section \[s:proof\]. The paper concludes with considerations for other characteristics in Section \[s:p\]: Proposition \[prop\] states that any characteristic $p$ admits K3 surfaces with automorphisms of order $11$, and whenever possible (i.e. $p=11$ or there is some $\nu$ such that $p^\nu\equiv -1\mod 11$), there are supersingular examples. This answers two questions from [@DK Rem. 6.6] in a surprisingly uniform manner. Background {#s:background} ========== Let $k$ denote an algebraically closed field of characteristic $p=11$. Let $X$ be a K3 surface over $k$ admitting an automorphism $\varphi$ of order $11$. Then by [@DK Thm. 1.1] $X$ admits an elliptic fibration that is compatible with $\varphi$ and its induced action on $\varphi'{\mathbb{P}}^1$. That is, there is a commutative diagram $$\begin{array}{ccc} X & \stackrel{\varphi}\longrightarrow & X\\ \downarrow && \downarrow\\ {\mathbb{P}}^1 & \stackrel{\varphi'}\longrightarrow & {\mathbb{P}}^1 \end{array}$$ In fact, $X$ is $\langle\varphi\rangle$-equivariantly isomorphic to a torsor over a specific jacobian elliptic K3 surface $X_{\varepsilon}$ which can be given as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:Xe} X_\varepsilon:\;\; y^2 = x^3 + \varepsilon x^2 + t^{11} - t \;\;\; (\varepsilon\in k).\end{aligned}$$ The K3 surface $X_\varepsilon$ admits an automorphism of order $11$ given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:phi} \varphi: (x,y,t) \mapsto (x,y,t+1).\end{aligned}$$ Generically the elliptic fibration over ${\mathbb{P}}^1_t$ has the following singular fibres: a cuspidal cubic at $t=\infty$ and 22 nodal cubics at the roots of the affine discriminant $$\Delta=-(t^{11}-t)(5t^{11}-5t+4\varepsilon^3).$$ Visibly, for $\varepsilon=0$, the discriminant degenerates to a square, and the nodal cubics degenerate to cuspidal ones. In fact, the special member $X_0$ is isomorphic to the Fermat quartic over $k$. Here’s a conceptual line of argument to see this which we will refer to again in the proof of Proposition \[prop\]. To start with, $X_0$ arises from the singular K3 surface $$X: \;\; y^2 = x^3 + t^{11} - 11 t^6 -t$$ over ${\mathbb{Q}}$ by way of reduction. Here the term [*singular*]{} refers to the Picard number attaining the maximum of $20$ over ${\mathbb{C}}$, and it was proved in [@shioda] that $X$ is in fact singular of discriminant $-300$. In particular, this implies that $X$ is modular, i.e. associated to $X$ there is a modular form $f$ with complex multiplication by ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-3})$. By virtue of the vanishing of the Fourier coefficients of $f$, $X$ has supersingular reduction at any prime $p_0\equiv -1\mod 3$: $$\rho(X\otimes\bar{{\mathbb{F}}}_{p_0})=22, \;\;\; \text{ and in particular, } \;\; \rho(X_0)=22.$$ Then by [@Shimada Proposition 1.0.1] any of the supersingular reductions has Artin invariant $1$. Another such example is the Fermat quartic in any characteristic $p_1\equiv -1\mod 4$. But then supersingular K3 surfaces with Artin invariant 1 are unique up to isomorphism over an algebraically closed field by [@Ogus]. Hence $X_0$ is isomorphic to the Fermat quartic over $k$. Note how we derived in a rather indirect way the Picard number of $X_0$. In comparison, the Picard number of $X_{\varepsilon}$ does not seem to be known for ${\varepsilon}\neq 0$. In this paper, we will prove that generically $$\rho(X_{\varepsilon})=2$$ by verifying the claim for all ${\varepsilon}\in{\mathbb{F}}_p^\times$. Our proof will make use of Lefschetz’ fixed point formula for $l$-adic étale cohomology ($l\neq p$). In the remainder of this section, we review some basic results from [@DK] and set up the notation. A key step in [@DK] is to show that $${H_\text{\'et}^2(X_{\varepsilon},{\mathbb{Q}}_l)}^{\varphi^*=1} = U\otimes{\mathbb{Q}}_l,$$ where $U$ is the hyperbolic plane generated by general fibre $F$ and zero section $O$. In particular, the orthogonal complement with respect to cup-product, $$V=U^\bot\subset{H_\text{\'et}^2(X_{\varepsilon},{\mathbb{Q}}_l)},$$ decomposes into 10 equidimensional eigenspaces for $\varphi^*$. With $\zeta$ a primitive eleventh root of unity in $\bar{\mathbb{Q}}_l$, we obtain the 2-dimensional ${\mathbb{Q}}_l(\zeta)$-vector spaces $$V_i = {H_\text{\'et}^2(X_{\varepsilon},{\mathbb{Q}}_l)}^{\varphi^*=\zeta^i} \;\;\; (i=0,\hdots,10)$$ such that $V=\oplus_{i=1}^{10} V_i$ and $V_0 = U\otimes{\mathbb{Q}}_l$. This eigenspace decomposition can be used to show that $\rho(X_{\varepsilon})=2,12$ or $22$. In fact, there is a simple argument to prove that $\rho\neq 12$ for infinitely many $\varepsilon\in k$. Namely $X_{\varepsilon}$ admits a $k$-isomorphic model $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:gamma} X_\gamma:\;\;\; y^2 = x^3 + \gamma x+ t^{11}-t\end{aligned}$$ which comes equipped with the automorphism $\varphi$ of order $11$ as in and with an automorphism $\imath$ of order $4$: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:imath} \imath: \;\; (x,y,t) \mapsto (-x,\sqrt{-1} y,-t).\end{aligned}$$ Since the automorphism $\imath$ does not commute with $\varphi$, its impact does not translate directly onto the cohomology eigenspaces $V_i$. There is, however, an indirect argument for any $X_\gamma$ defined over some field ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ with $q=p^r, r$ odd. Namely, because of the symmetry encoded in , the pair $(x,t)\in{\mathbb{F}}_q^2$ gives a non-zero square in ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ upon substituting in the right-hand side of if and only if $(-x,-t)$ gives a non-square. That is to say, the numbers of ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-rational points on the fibres $F_t$ and $F_{-t}$ of $X_\gamma$ add up to a constant number: $$\# F_t({\mathbb{F}}_q) + \# F_{-t}({\mathbb{F}}_q) = 2q+2 \;\;\; (t\in{\mathbb{P}}^1({\mathbb{F}}_q)).$$ As a consequence, we deduce that $$\# X_\gamma({\mathbb{F}}_q) = (q+1)^2.$$ In comparison, Lefschetz’ fixed point formula gives, with the decomposition ${H_\text{\'et}^2(\bar X_{\varepsilon},{\mathbb{Q}}_l)} = U\otimes{\mathbb{Q}}_l \oplus V$, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:lef} \;\;\;\; \# X({\mathbb{F}}_q) = 1 + {\mathop {\rm tr}}{{\mathop {\rm Frob}}}^*_q({H_\text{\'et}^2(\bar X_{\varepsilon},{\mathbb{Q}}_l)}) + q^2 = 1 + 2q + {\mathop {\rm tr}}{{\mathop {\rm Frob}}}^*_q(V) + q^2.\end{aligned}$$ Thus we deduce that $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:0} {\mathop {\rm tr}}{{\mathop {\rm Frob}}}^*_q(V) = 0 \;\;\; \text{for any }\; q=p^r, r \text{ odd}.\end{aligned}$$ Denote by $\mu_q(T)$ the characteristic polynomial of ${\mathop {\rm Frob}}^*_q$ on $V$. Then implies $$\mu_q(T) = \nu_q(T^2),\;\;\; \nu_q(T)\in{\mathbb{Z}}[T],\; \deg(\nu_q)=10.$$ In fact we deduce right away that $$\mu_{q^2}(T) = \nu_q(T)^2.$$ Now one can argue with the roots of this characteristic polynomial as in the following section and appeal to the Tate conjecture to rule out the alternative $\rho(X_\gamma)=12$. Proof of Theorem \[thm\] {#s:proof} ======================== Essentially our proof of Theorem \[thm\] amounts to computing the characteristic polynomials $\mu_p$ of ${\mathop {\rm Frob}}^*_p$ on $V$ for (any of) the surfaces $X=X_\gamma$ or $X_{\varepsilon}$ for $\gamma, {\varepsilon}\in{\mathbb{F}}_p^\times$. Then we use that the Galois group always acts through a finite group on ${\mathop{\rm NS}}(X)$, so that via the cycle class map ${\mathop{\rm NS}}(X)\otimes{\mathbb{Q}}_l(-1)\hookrightarrow{H_\text{\'et}^2(\bar X,{\mathbb{Q}}_l)}$ $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:Tate} \;\;\;\; \rho(X) \leq \#\{\text{zeroes of $\mu_p(T)$ of the shape $\xi p$ for some root of unity $\xi$}\}.\end{aligned}$$ Here equality is subject to the Tate conjecture [@Tate] which holds for elliptic K3 surfaces by [@ASD]. Without having to appeal to the Tate conjecture, we will find that the right-hand side of gives an upper bound of $2$ for $\rho(X)$, thus infering $\rho(X)=2$ by virtue of the classes of fibre and zero section generating $U$. This will enable us to prove Theorem \[thm\] for the family of jacobian elliptic K3 surfaces with an automorphism of order $11$. From this we will infer the full statement of Theorem \[thm\] in \[ss:full\]. Strategy -------- We shall now outline the strategy how to compute the characteristic polynomials of ${\mathop {\rm Frob}}^*_p$ quite easily. We will use Lefschetz’ fixed point formula as in . Without further machinery it would require to count points as deep as down to the field ${\mathbb{F}}_{p^{10}}$ to find $\mu_p(T)$. Presently we circumvent this by using the automorphism $\varphi$. The crucial property is that $\varphi$ commutes with ${\mathop {\rm Frob}}_p$. Hence the induced linear transformations on ${H_\text{\'et}^2(\bar X,{\mathbb{Q}}_l)}$ can be diagonalised simultaneously, and we can define the relative trace of Frobenius: $$a_i(q) = {\mathop {\rm tr}}{{\mathop {\rm Frob}}}^*_q(V_i) \;\;\; (i=0,\hdots,10).$$ Note that $a_0(q)=2q$ always and ${\mathop {\rm tr}}{{\mathop {\rm Frob}}}^*_q({H_\text{\'et}^2(\bar X,{\mathbb{Q}}_l)}) = \sum_{i=0}^{10} a_i(q).$ Since $\varphi$ and ${\mathop {\rm Frob}}_p$ commute, we have by definition $${\mathop {\rm tr}}(\varphi^n\circ{{\mathop {\rm Frob}}}_q)^*(V_i) = \zeta^{ni}a_i(q).$$ As a consequence, we find $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:tr_n} \;\;\; {{\mathop {\rm tr}}}_n(q) = {\mathop {\rm tr}}(\varphi^n\circ{{\mathop {\rm Frob}}}_q)^*({H_\text{\'et}^2(\bar X,{\mathbb{Q}}_l)}) = \sum_{i=0}^{10} \zeta^{ni}a_i(q) \;\;\; (n=0,\hdots,10).\end{aligned}$$ Note that ${\mathop {\rm tr}}_n(q)\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ for any $n\in\{0,\hdots,10\}$, and this integer can be computed by Lefschetz’ fixed point formula again. Conversely, we can calculate each $a_i(q)$ from the collection of ${{\mathop {\rm tr}}}_n(q)$’s. We continue by discussing how to efficiently compute ${{\mathop {\rm tr}}}_n(q)$. Lefschetz’ fixed point formula gives $$\# \mbox{Fix}(\varphi^n\circ{{\mathop {\rm Frob}}}_q) = 1 + {{\mathop {\rm tr}}}_n(q) + q^2.$$ For $n=0$, the fixed locus is simply $X({\mathbb{F}}_q)$. We shall now analyse the fixed locus for ${n>0}$ and reduce the computations again to the field ${\mathbb{F}}_q$. Clearly $\mbox{Fix}(\varphi^n\circ{{\mathop {\rm Frob}}}_q)$ contains $q+1$ rational points on the zero section and at the fibre at $\infty$ exactly the ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-rational points; these contribute $2q+1$ rational points in total. It remains to study the fixed locus on the affine chart given in or . Suppose that $(x,y,t)$ is a fixed point of $\varphi^n\circ {{\mathop {\rm Frob}}}_q$. Keeping in mind $n>0$, the resulting conditions are first of all $$x^q=x, y^q=y, t^q+n=t \;\; {\Longrightarrow} \;\; x,y\in{\mathbb{F}}_q, t\not\in{\mathbb{F}}_q.$$ But then we infer from the defining equation (over ${\mathbb{F}}_q$) that $t^p-t=c\in{\mathbb{F}}_q$, and any such $c$ occurs for exactly $p$ fibres. Directly this implies $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:c} -n = t^q-t=c+c^p+\hdots+c^{p^{r-1}}={{\mathop {\rm tr}}}_{{\mathbb{F}}_q/{\mathbb{F}}_p} c.\end{aligned}$$ We are now ready to compute all the quantities $\# \mbox{Fix}(\varphi^n\circ{{\mathop {\rm Frob}}}_q)$ at once. Fix ${\varepsilon}$ or $\gamma$ and pick any $(x,y)\in{\mathbb{F}}_q^2$. Then this determines $c=t^p-t$ by or . Compute $n$ by . Then the affine point $(x,y)\in{\mathbb{F}}_q^2$ contributes exactly $p$-times to $\# \mbox{Fix}(\varphi^n\circ{{\mathop {\rm Frob}}}_q)$, namely once for each fibre $F_t$ at a root of $t^p-t=c$. Thus we can easily distribute all $(x,y)\in{\mathbb{F}}_q^2$ over all the fixed loci $ \mbox{Fix}(\varphi^n\circ{{\mathop {\rm Frob}}}_q)$. Execution {#ss:exe} --------- For ${\varepsilon}, \gamma\in{\mathbb{F}}_p$, the above procedure enables us to calculate the characteristic polynomials of Frobenius on ${H_\text{\'et}^2(\bar X,{\mathbb{Q}}_l)}$ solely from computations over ${\mathbb{F}}_p$ and ${\mathbb{F}}_{p^2}$. Below we tabulate the results for $V(1)$, i.e. we give the characteristic polynomial $$\tilde\mu_p(T) = \mu_p(pT)/p^{20}$$ on the 20-dimensional vector space $V$ with Galois representation shifted so that all eigenvalues have absolute value $1$. Due to the shape of the equation, the characteristic polynomials only depend on the property whether respectively ${\varepsilon}$ or $\gamma$ is a square mod $p$ or not. $$\begin{array}{c|l} \hline {\varepsilon}& \tilde\mu(T)\\ \hline 1,3,4,5,9 & T^{20}+T^{19}+2 T^{18}+T^{17}+T^{16}+2 T^{15}+3 T^{14}+5 T^{13}+4 T^{12}+3 T^{11}\\ & \; +\frac{23}{11} T^{10}+3 T^9+4 T^8+5 T^7+2 T^5+3 T^6+T^4+T^3+2 T^2+T+1\\ \\ 2,6,7,8,10& T^{20}-T^{19}+2 T^{18}-T^{17}+T^{16}-2 T^{15}+3 T^{14}-5 T^{13}+4 T^{12}-3 T^{11}\\ & \; +\frac{23}{11} T^{10}-3 T^9+4 T^8-5 T^7-2 T^5+3 T^6+T^4-T^3+2 T^2-T+1\\ \\ \hline \gamma & \tilde\mu(T)\\ \hline 1,3,4,5,9 & 1-4T^2+10 T^4-18 T^6+25 T^8-\frac{307}{11} T^{10}\\ & \;\;\;\; +25 T^{12}-18 T^{14}+10 T^{16}-4 T^{18}+T^{20}\\ \\ 2,6,7,8,10 & 1-5T^2+12 T^4-18 T^6+20 T^8-\frac{219}{11} T^{10}\\ & \;\;\;\; +20 T^{12}-18 T^{14}+12 T^{16}-5 T^{18}+T^{20} \end{array}$$ All four characteristic polynomials are irreducible over ${\mathbb{Q}}$. Since they are not integral, they are not cyclotomic. Hence there are no roots of unity as zeroes, and we deduce that $\rho(X)=2$ by . This proves Theorem \[thm\] for the family $\{X_\varepsilon\}$ (or equivalently $\{X_\gamma\}$), i.e. for those K3 surfaces with a jacobian elliptic fibration compatible with the automorphism of order $11$. Easy consequences ----------------- Before continuing with the proof of Theorem \[thm\] for all K3 surfaces, we note two corollaries. The first is straight-forward: Any elliptic K3 surface over ${\mathbb{C}}$ reducing mod $p$ to some $X_{\varepsilon}$ or $X_\gamma$ for ${\varepsilon},\gamma\in{\mathbb{F}}_p^\times$ has Picard number $2$. For the second corollary, we recall the notion of height for a K3 surface $X$ in positive characteristic. Generally this is defined in terms of the formal Brauer group $\hat{{\mathop{\rm Br}\nolimits}}(X)$ and ranges through $\{1,2,\hdots,10\}$ and $\infty$ where the last case was coined [*supersingular*]{} by Artin [@A]. Note that in case of finite height $h$, there is an inequality $$\rho\leq b_2-2h.$$ If the K3 surface is defined over some finite field, then the height translates into arithmetic through the Newton polygon of the characteristic polynomial of Frobenius. This collects the $\pi$-adic valuations of all eigenvalues at some prime $\pi$ above $p$ in the splitting field of the characteristic polynomial. For instance, height $1$ corresponds to the so-called [*ordinary*]{} case where Hodge and Newton polygon coincide, i.e. some eigenvalue is a $\pi$-adic unit. Equivalently, ${{\mathop {\rm tr}}}\, {{\mathop {\rm Frob}}}^*_q({H_\text{\'et}^2(\bar X,{\mathbb{Q}}_l)}) \not\equiv 0\mod p$. Presently we find that all pairs of complex conjugate eigenvalues on the $20$-dimensional subspace $V\subset {H_\text{\'et}^2(\bar X,{\mathbb{Q}}_l)}$ have evaluations $9/10, 11/10$. Hence we get the following corollary: \[Cor:h\] The K3 surfaces $X_{\varepsilon}$ and $X_\gamma$ for ${\varepsilon},\gamma\in{\mathbb{F}}_p^\times$ have height $10$. It is instructive to note that while our K3 surfaces are not supersingular (in either sense, $h=\infty$ or $\rho=22$), in terms of height they are as close to being supersingular as possible. We should also point out that we are not aware of any other explicit examples of K3 surfaces of height $10$. Proof of Theorem \[thm\] {#ss:full} ------------------------ Recall that K3 surfaces with an automorphism $\varphi$ of order $11$ come in families consisting of torsors over the family $\{X_{\varepsilon}\}$. In fact, any such K3 surface $X$ comes with an elliptic fibration whose jacobian $\mbox{Jac}(X)$ equals $X_{\varepsilon}$ for some ${\varepsilon}\in k$. Generally one has by [@CD Cor. 5.3.5] $$\rho(X) = \rho(\mbox{Jac}(X)).$$ Hence the result from \[ss:exe\] that a generic member of the family $\{X_{\varepsilon}\}$ has Picard number $2$ carries over directly to all other families. This proves Theorem \[thm\]. Remark ------ We should like to emphasise the conceptual difference to the standard case of symplectic automorphisms over ${\mathbb{C}}$. Given a finite group $G$ of automorphisms acting symplectically on a complex K3 surface $X$, Nikulin proved in [@N] that there is an abstract lattice $\Omega_G$ of fairly large rank such that $$(H^2(X,{\mathbb{Z}})^G)^\bot = \Omega_G.$$ Since the transcendental lattice $T(X)$ is contained in $H^2(X,{\mathbb{Z}})^G$ by assumption, we deduce that $X$ has fairly large Picard number. In contrast, symplectic automorphisms of order $11$ (necessarily wild) imply generally $\rho=2$ as we have seen. Other characteristics {#s:p} ===================== In [@DK Rem. 6.6], the authors give an elliptic K3 surface over ${\mathbb{Q}}$ with a non-symplectic automorphism of order $11$ and good reduction outside $\{2,3,11\}$. They ask whether there is a K3 surface with an automorphism of order 11 in characteristic $2$ and $3$ as well. Moreover they pose the problem whether there is a supersingular example in any possible characteristic, i.e. by [@Ny] whenever there is some $\nu$ such that $p^\nu\equiv -1\mod 11$. Equivalently $p$ is a non-square in ${\mathbb{F}}_{11}$. Here we present a uniform answer in terms of the extended Weierstrass form $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:uni} y^2 + xy = x^3+t^{11}.\end{aligned}$$ \[prop\] Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field and $X$ the elliptic K3 surface given by the Weierstrass form over $k$. Then $X$ admits an automorphism of order $11$. Moreover $X$ is supersingular with $\rho(X)=22$ whenever char$(k)$ either equals $11$ or is a non-square modulo $11$. It is easily computed that gives indeed an elliptic K3 surface $X$ of discriminant $t^{11}(432\,t^{11}+1)$. There are singular fibres of Kodaira type $II$ at $\infty$, $I_{11}$ at $0$ and, depending on $p=$ char$(k)$, - 11 fibres of type $I_1$ at the roots of $432\,t^{11}+1$ if $p\neq 2,3,11$; - 1 fibre of type $I_{11}$ at $t=7$ if $p=11$; - no other singular fibres if $p=2,3$ as there is wild ramification of index $11$ at $\infty$. On the one hand, if $p\neq 11$, then the automorphism of order $11$ thus is given by $t\mapsto \zeta t$ for a primitive 11th root of unity $\zeta\in k$. On the other hand, if $p=11$, then we read off ${\mathop{\rm NS}}(X)=U+A_{10}^2$. In particular, $\rho(X)=22$ and $X$ is a supersingular K3 surface of Artin invariant $\sigma=1$. As such, it is unique up to isomorphism by [@Ogus]. As in Section \[s:background\], $X$ is therefore isomorphic to $X_0$ from . We conclude that $X$ admits an automorphism of order $11$. To prove Proposition \[prop\] it remains to justify the claim about supersingularity for non-squares $p$ modulo $11$. For this purpose, we note that $X$ is a Delsarte surface covered by the Fermat surface $S$ of degree $11$. Writing affinely $$S=\{u^{11}+v^{11}+w^{11}+1=0\}\subset{\mathbb{P}}^3,$$ the dominant rational map is given by $$\begin{aligned} S\;\;\;\;\; & \dasharrow & \;\;\;\;\;X\\ (u,v,w) & \mapsto & (x,y,t) = (-u^{11}v^{11},-u^{22}v^{11}, -wu^3v^2)\end{aligned}$$ Since $S$ is unirational over $\bar{\mathbb{F}}_p$ for any non-square $p$ modulo $11$ by [@KS], so is $X$. Thus the supersingularity of $X$ follows from Shioda’s theorem [@Sh-unirat]. For char$(k)=0$ or a non-zero square modulo $11$, the argument with the covering Fermat surface can be used to show that $\rho(X)=2$ by [@Sh]. Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ---------------- I thank Igor Dolgachev and JongHae Keum for enlightening discussions and the referee for his/her helpful comments. [99]{} Artin, M.: *Supersingular $K3$ surfaces*, Ann. Scient. Éc. Norm. Sup. (4) [**7**]{} (1974), 543–568. Artin, M., Swinnerton-Dyer, P.: *The Shafarevich-Tate conjecture for pencils of elliptic curves on $K3$ surfaces*, Invent. Math. [**20**]{} (1973), 249–266. Cossec, F. R., Dolgachev, I. V.: *Enriques surfaces*. I. Progress in Math. [**76**]{}. Birkhäuser (1989). Dolgachev, I., Keum, J.H.: *K3 surfaces with a symplectic automorphism of order 11*, JEMS [**11**]{} (2009), 799–818. Katsura, T., Shioda, T.: *On Fermat varieties*, Tohoku Math. J. (2) [**31**]{} (1979), no. 1, 97–115. Nikulin, V.V.: *Finite groups of automorphisms of Kählerian K3 surfaces*, Trudy Moskov. Mat. Obshch. [**38**]{} (1979), 75–137. English translation: Trans. Moscow Math.Soc. [**38**]{} (1980), 71–135. Nygaard, N.: *Higher de Rham-Witt complexes of supersingular K3 surfaces*, Compositio Math. [**42**]{} (1980/81), 245–271. Ogus, A.: *Supersingular K3 crystals*, Journées de Géométrie Algébrique de Rennes (Rennes 1978), Vol. II, 3–86, Astérisque [**64**]{}, Soc. Math. France, Paris, 1979. Shimada, I.: *Transcendental lattices and supersingular reduction lattices of a singular $K3$ surface*, Trans AMS [**361**]{} (2009), 909–949. Shioda, T.: *An example of unirational surfaces in characteristic p*, Math. Ann. [**211**]{} (1974), 233–236. Shioda, T.: *An explicit algorithm for computing the Picard number of certain algebraic surfaces*, Amer. J. Math. [**108**]{}, No. 2 (1986), 415–432. Shioda, T.: [*The Mordell-Weil lattice of $y^2=x^3 + t^5 - 1/t^5 -11$*]{}, Comment. Math. Univ. St. Pauli [**56**]{} (2007), 45–70. Tate, J.: [*Algebraic cycles and poles of zeta functions*]{}, in: [*Arithmetical Algebraic Geometry*]{} (Proc. Conf. Purdue Univ., 1963), 93–110, Harper & Row (1965). [^1]: Funding by ERC StG 279723 (SURFARI) is gratefully acknowledged

ArXiv

--- abstract: | In this paper, direct and inverse problems for a space fractional advection dispersion equation on a finite domain are studied. The inverse problem consists in determining the source term from a final observation. We first drive the fundamental solution to the direct problem and we show that the relation between source and the final observation is linear. Moreover, we study the well-posedness of both problems: existence, uniqueness and stability. Finally, we illustrate the results with a numerical example. ### keywords {#keywords .unnumbered} space fractional advection dispersion equation; inverse source problem; ill-posedness, Tikhonov author: - | [Abeer Aldoghaither, Taous-Meriem Laleg-Kirati and Da-Yan Liu ]{}\ [E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected] ]{}\ [Mathematical and Computational Sciences and Engineering Division, King Abdullah University of Science]{}\ [and Technology (KAUST), Thuwal, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia]{} bibliography: - 'gAPAguide.bib' title: '*Direct and Inverse Source Problem for a Space Fractional Advection Dispersion Equation* ' --- Introduction ============ Fractional calculus has been used in many applications in various fields of sciences and engineering, such as physics, chemistry, biology, Control, electrical and mechanical engineering, signal processing, and finance [@podl; @Meerschaert; @Xiong]. For instance, when describing anomalous diffusion, such as contaminants transport in the soil, oil flow in porous media, groundwater flow and turbulence [@Wei; @Schumer1; @Xiong], there is an evidence that fractional models are efficient to capture some important features of particles transport, such as particles with velocity variation and long-rest periods [@Schumer2]. This is due to the nonlocal property of the fractional operator. While direct problem in fractional diffusion equation is widely considered, work on inverse problem is more recent. Mainardi [@MainardiF], solved a fractional diffusion wave equation in a one dimensional bounded domain by applying the Laplace transform. Sakamoto *et al* [@SakamotoI], considered a fractional diffusion equation where they established the unique existence of the weak solution based on eigenfuction expansion. Moreover, they studied the stability and the uniqueness for the backward problem and for the inverse source problem. Pedas *et al* [@PedasN], presented a numerical solution by a piecewise polynomial collocation method. Brunner *et al* [@BrunnerN], presented an algorithm based on an adaptive time stepping and adaptive spatial basis selection approach, to solve a 2D fractional subdiffusion problem. Wei *et al* [@Wei], considered an inverse source problem for a space fractional diffusion equation, where they numerically solved the inverse problem using the best perturbation method based on the Tikhonov regularization. Bondarenko *et al* [@BondarenkoG; @BondarenkoN], obtained an exact analytic solution of a time fractional diffusion equation where they determined the diffusion coefficient and the derivative order. They also presented a conditionally stable weighted difference scheme and give numerical results by solving a minimization problem with the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm. Unlike the fractional diffusion equation which attracted many researchers, work on fractional advection dispersion equation is less-well covered. Salim *et al* [@SalimA], presented an analytic solution for the time fractional advection dispersion equation with a reaction term, by applying the Fourier and Laplace transform. Zheng *et al* [@Zheng], presented a spectral regularization method, based on the solution given by the Fourier method for the Cauchy problem for a time fractional advection dispersion equation. Chen *et al* [@ChenAD], considered a two-dimensional fractional advection dispersion equation on a finite domain. They presented an unconditionally stable second order difference method based on the Directions Implicit-Euler method (ADI-Euler) and the unshifted Grunwald formula. Liu *et al* [@LiuN], presented a numerical method for a space fractional advection dispersion equation, where the partial differential equation was transferred into an ODE by applying the method of lines. Chi *et al* [@Chi], considered an inverse problem for a space fractional advection dispersion equation where they determined the space-dependent source magnitude from a final observation. They have solved the inverse problem numerically in presence and in absence of noises using an optimal perturbation regularization algorithm. However, the stability of the proposed method depends on the initial guess and the choice of some base functions. Zhang *et al* [@Zhang], have solved this inverse problem using the same optimal perturbation regularization algorithm when the fractional order, the diffusion coefficient and the average velocity are unknown.\ Huang *et al* [@Huang], derived the fundamental solution for the direct problem for the time and space fractional dispersion equations in terms of the Green function. However, they only considered homogenous equations in their study. To the authors’ best knowledge, except [@Huang], there is no other work on the mathematical analysis of the space fractional advection dispersion equation. In this paper, we are interested in mathematical analysis of a space fractional advection dispersion equation that can be used in modeling underground water transport in heterogeneous porous media [@Schumer1]. The space fractional advection dispersion equation is in fact used to model particles with velocity variation, while time fractional advection dispersion equation is used to model particles with long-rest period [@Schumer1]. In addition to the physical importance of such a model, inverse problems play an important role, where unknown physical quantities are estimated from available measurements. For instance, in ground water contaminant transport an estimation of the concentration of the source can provide information on its structure, whether it is a heavy metal, an organic substance, or a specific material hazardous the environment. The goal of this paper is to mathematically analyze direct and inverse source problems for a space fractional advection dispersion equation. The inverse problem consists in recovering the source term using final observations by assuming that the source is time independent. This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, the problem and some primarily definitions will be introduced. In section 3, starting from the results obtained in [@Huang] on the solution of a homogeneous fractional dispersion equation, an exact analytic solution for the non-homogeneous case will be drived. However, to overcome some obstacles, superposition and Duhamel’s principles are used. Moreover, existence and uniqueness of the solution will be established. Section 4 will show that the relation between the unknown source and the final observation is in fact linear which simplifies the mathematical and numerical analysis of the inverse problem. We will also study the well-posedness of the inverse problem in term of existence, uniqueness and stability of the solution [@Kirsch]. A numerical method based on the Tikhonov regularization will be presented in section 5 and in section 6, a numerical example will be given. Finally, a conclusion will summarize the obtained results. Problem Statement ================= We consider the following fractional advection dispersion equation $$\label{FADE} \left\{ \begin{array}{ l ll} \dfrac{\partial c(x,t)}{\partial t} = -\nu \dfrac{\partial c(x,t)}{\partial x} + d \dfrac{\partial ^ \alpha c(x,t) }{\partial x^\alpha} + r(x), &\quad \quad 0<x < L, & \quad t >0 , \\ c(x,0)=g_0(x), \\ c(0,t)=0, \\ c(L,t)=0, \\ \end{array} \right.$$ where $c$ is the concentration, $\nu$ is the average velocity, $d$ the is dispersion coefficient, $r$ is the source term, and $\alpha$ is the fractional order for the space derivative with $1 < \alpha \le 2 $. We assume that $\nu$ and $d$ are constant and the source term depends only on $x$.\ By assuming that we have both left-to-right and right-to-left flows, we consider the Riesz-Feller fractional derivative of order $\alpha$, defined as follows [@Huang]: $$\label{Riesz_feller} \begin{split} D^\alpha_\theta c(x,t) = \frac{\Gamma(1+\alpha)}{\pi} \left \{ \sin[\frac{(\alpha+\theta)\pi}{2}] \int_{- \infty}^{+\infty} \frac{c(x+\xi,t)-c(x,t)}{\xi ^{1+\alpha}} {\rm d} \xi \right. \\ \left. + \sin[\frac{(\alpha-\theta)\pi}{2}] \int_{- \infty}^{+\infty} \frac{c(x-\xi,t)-c(x,t)}{\xi ^{1+ \alpha}} {\rm d} \xi \right \}, \end{split}$$ where $\theta$ is the skewness with $|\theta| \le \min \{ \alpha, 2-\alpha \}$. The Riesz-Feller fractional derivative can also be defined by [@ZhengT]: $$\label{Riesz_feller} \begin{split} D^\alpha_\theta c(x,t) = -\frac{1}{\Gamma(2-\alpha) \sin(\alpha \pi)} \left \{ \sin \frac{(\alpha-\theta)\pi}{2} \frac{{\rm d}^2}{{\rm d} x^2} \int_{-\infty}^{x} \frac{c(\xi,t)}{(x - \xi) ^{\alpha-1}} {\rm d} \xi \right. \\ \left. + \sin \frac{(\alpha+\theta)\pi}{2} \frac{{\rm d}^2}{{\rm d} x^2} \int_x^{+\infty} \frac{c(\xi,t)}{(\xi-x) ^{1+ \alpha}} {\rm d} \xi \right \}. \end{split}$$ The Fourier transform of the Riesz-Feller fractional derivative is defined by [@Huang]: $$\label{FT_RF} \mathcal{F}\{ D^\alpha _\theta c(x,t)\} = -\psi_\theta ^\alpha(k) \hat c(k,t),$$ with $$\label{psi} \psi_\theta ^\alpha(k)= |k|^\alpha e^{{\rm i}(sign (k))\theta \pi/2},$$ where $\hat c$ denotes the Fourier transform of $c$, and $k$ is the variable in the frequency domain. We consider the inverse problem that consists in finding the source term $r$ where the concentration $c$ is also unknown except at a final time $t=T$: $$\begin{aligned} \label{prior1} \begin{array}{ll} c(x,T)=g_T(x), & 0 < x < L, \end{array} \end{aligned}$$ where $g_T$ is the measured concentration. We assume that the velocity $\nu$, the dispersion coefficient $d$, and the derivative order $\alpha$ are known. In this paper, we first solve the direct problem and present an exact analytic solution to (\[FADE\]). We show that the operator relating the unkown source to the final observation is linear which simplifies the analysis of the properties of the inverse problem and its numerical solution. Direct Problem ============== In this section, we construct a closed-form analytic solution for the direct problem of (\[FADE\]), which gives a linear operator which simplifies the mathematical analysis of existence and uniqueness of the solution. Analytic Solution ------------------ We propose to use the Fourier transform method, which is commonly used to solve fractional differential equations and transfer non-linear equation to linear equation [@ZhengT; @QianO]. Then, we use the integrating factor to obtain the solution of the direct problem. In order to apply the Fourier transform to (\[FADE\]), we propose to extend $c$ and $r$ to the whole real line by defining: $\forall x \in \mathbb{R}, \, \forall t \in \mathbb{R}^*_+$, $$u(x,t)=c(x,t) \cdot p(x),$$ $$f(x) = r(x)\cdot p(x),$$ where $$p(x)= \left \{ \begin{array}{ll} 1, & \text{ if } \, \, x \in ]0,L[, \\ 0, & \text{ else}. \end{array} \right.$$ Then, we propose to solve the following equation: $$\label{u_FADE} \left\{ \begin{array}{ l ll} \dfrac{\partial u(x,t)}{\partial t} = -\nu \dfrac{\partial u(x,t)}{\partial x} + d \dfrac{\partial ^ \alpha u(x,t) }{\partial x^\alpha} + f(x), & \quad \quad x \in \mathbb{R}, &\quad t >0 , \\ u(x,0)=g_0(x). \\ \end{array} \right.$$ Assuming that $f ,g_0\in L^{2}(\mathbb{R})$, then there exists a solution of the system (\[u\_FADE\]), which can be given as follows: $$\label{Solution_DP} u(x,t)= \int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} \left \{ \int_{0}^{t} G_\alpha^\theta(x-y,t-\tau) {\rm d} \tau \right \} f(y) {\rm d} y + \int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} G_\alpha^\theta(x-y,t) g_0(y) {\rm d} y,$$ where $$\label{Green} G_\alpha^\theta(x,t)= \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} {\rm e}^{-{\rm i} kx} \hat G_\alpha^\theta(k,t){\rm d} k,$$ with $$\label{F_Green} \hat G_\alpha^\theta (k,t)= {\rm e}^{({\rm i} \nu k- d \psi_\theta^\alpha(k))t }.$$ We refer to Appendix A for more details about the green function $G_\alpha^\theta$. Applying the superposition principle, the solution of equation (\[u\_FADE\]) can be written as $u = v + w$, where $w$ and $v$ are solutions to the following equations, respectively. $$\label{w} \left\{ \begin{array}{ l ll} \dfrac{\partial w(x,t)}{\partial t} = -\nu \dfrac{\partial w(x,t)}{\partial x} + d \dfrac{\partial^\alpha w(x,t)}{\partial x^\alpha}, & \quad \quad x \in \mathbb{R}, & \quad t>0, \\ w(x,0)=g_0 (x), \\ \end{array} \right.$$ $$\label{v} \left\{ \begin{array}{ l ll} \dfrac{\partial v(x,t)}{\partial t} = -\nu \dfrac{\partial v(x,t)}{\partial x} + d \dfrac{\partial^\alpha v(x,t)}{\partial x^\alpha} + f(x), & \quad \quad x \in \mathbb{R}, &\quad t>0, \\ v(x,0)=0. \\ \end{array} \right.$$ Applying the Duhamel’s principle [@Jeffrey], the solution $v$ of (\[v\]) is given by $$\label{D_principle} v(x,t)= \int_0^t V(x,t,\tau) {\rm d} \tau,$$ where $\tau$ is fixed with $\tau \in ]0,t[$ and $V(\cdot,\cdot:\tau)$ is the solution of the following equation: $$\label{V} \left\{ \begin{array}{ l ll} \dfrac{\partial V(x,t;\tau)}{\partial t} = -\nu \dfrac{\partial V(x,t;\tau)}{\partial x} + d \dfrac{\partial^\alpha V(x,t;\tau)}{\partial x^\alpha}, & \quad \quad x \in \mathbb{R}, & \quad t>0, \\ V(x;t=\tau)= f(x).\\ \end{array} \right.$$ Therefore, we start solving (\[V\]) by applying the Fourier transform. Then we get: $$\mathcal{F} \{\frac{\partial V(x,t)}{\partial t}\} = -\nu \mathcal{F}\{ \frac{\partial V(x,t)}{\partial x}\}+ d \mathcal{F} \{\frac{\partial ^ \alpha V(x,t) }{\partial x^\alpha}\},$$ $$\frac{\partial \hat{V}(k,t)}{\partial t} = -\nu (-{\rm i} k)^1 \hat{V}(k,t) - d \psi^\alpha_\theta (k) \hat{V}(k,t),$$ where the Fourier transform $\hat V$ of $V$ is obtained using formulas (\[FT\_RF\]) and (\[psi\]).\ Then, we have: $$\label{eq_1} \frac{\partial \hat{V}(k,t)}{\partial t} = \left [ \nu {\rm i} k - d \psi^\alpha_\theta (k) \right ]\hat{V}(k,t).$$ By multiplying (\[eq\_1\]) by the integrating factor $exp[\int - [ \nu {\rm i} k - d \psi^\alpha_\theta (k)] {\rm d}t] = exp \{ [- \nu {\rm i} k + d \psi^\alpha_\theta (k)]t\} $, we get: $$\frac{\partial \hat{V}(k,t)}{\partial t} {\rm e}^{ [- \nu {\rm i} k + d \psi^\alpha_\theta (k)]t} - {\rm e}^{ [- \nu {\rm i} k + d \psi^\alpha_\theta (k)]t} [ \nu k {\rm i} - d \psi^\alpha_\theta(k)] \hat{V}(k,t) =0,$$ $$\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}t} \left ( \hat{V}(k,t) {\rm e}^{ [- \nu {\rm i} k + d \psi^\alpha_\theta (k)]t} \right ) = 0.$$ Then, by integrating with respect to $t$, it yields: $$\label{constant} \hat{V}(k,t) = {\rm e}^{ [ \nu {\rm i} k - d \psi^\alpha_\theta (k)]t} c_1,$$ where $c_1 \in \mathbb{R}$ is a constant. Applying the initial condition $\hat{V}(k,t=\tau)=\hat{f}(k)$ to (\[constant\]) gives us: $$\hat f(k) ={\rm e}^{ [ \nu {\rm i} k - d \psi^\alpha_\theta (k)]\tau} c_1,$$ $$\label{c_1} c_1= {\rm e}^{ - [ \nu {\rm i} k - d \psi^\alpha_\theta (k)]\tau} \hat f(k).$$ Substituting (\[c\_1\]) into (\[constant\]) gives us the solution of (\[V\]): $$\label{V_fourier} \hat{V}(k,t) = {\rm e}^{ [ \nu {\rm i} k - d \psi^\alpha_\theta (k)](t-\tau)} \hat f(k).$$ Applying the inverse Fourier Transformation to (\[V\_fourier\]), we obtain: $$V(x,t) = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {\rm e}^{ [ \nu {\rm i} k - d \psi^\alpha_\theta (k)](t-\tau)} \hat f(k) {\rm e}^{-{\rm i} kx} {\rm d} k.$$ Finally, using (\[D\_principle\]) gives us the solution $v$ of (\[v\]): $$v(x,t)= \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{0}^{t} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {\rm e}^{ [ \nu {\rm i} k - d \psi^\alpha_\theta (k)](t-\tau)} \hat f(k) {\rm e}^{-{ \rm i} kx} {\rm d} k {\rm d} \tau,$$ which can be written as: $$\label{solution_v} v(x,t)= \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{0}^{t} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \hat G_\alpha^\theta (k,t-\tau) \hat f(k) {\rm e}^{-{\rm i} kx} {\rm d} k {\rm d} \tau.$$ Using the same technique the solution $w$ of (\[w\]) can be obtained: $$\label{solution_w} w(x,t)= \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} \hat G_\alpha^\theta(k,t) \hat g_0(k) {\rm e}^{-{\rm i} kx} {\rm d} k,$$ where $\hat{g}_0$ is the Fourier transform of $g_0$. Then, by adding (\[solution\_v\]) and (\[solution\_w\]), we can get the solution of (\[u\_FADE\]): $$\label{DP_solution} u(x,t)= \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{t} \int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} \hat G_\alpha^\theta(k,t-\tau) \hat f(k) {\rm e}^{-{\rm i} kx} {\rm d} k {\rm d} \tau + \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} \hat G_\alpha^\theta(k,t) \hat g_0(k) {\rm e}^{-{\rm i} kx} {\rm d} k.$$ By inverting the Fourier transform of $\hat f$ and $\hat g_0$ in (\[DP\_solution\]), we get: $$\begin{split} u(x,t)= & \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{t} \int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} {\rm e}^{-{\rm i} kx} \hat G_\alpha^\theta(k,t-\tau) \int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} f(y) {\rm e}^{{\rm i} ky} {\rm d} y {\rm d} k {\rm d} \tau \\ & + \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} {\rm e}^{-{\rm i} kx} \hat G_\alpha^\theta(k,t) \int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} g_0(y) {\rm e}^{{\rm i} ky} {\rm d} y {\rm d} k, \end{split}$$ $$\begin{split} = & \int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} \left \{ \int_{0}^{t} \left [ \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} {\rm e}^{-{\rm i} k(x-y)} \hat G_\alpha^\theta(k,t-\tau) {\rm d} k \right ] {\rm d} \tau \right \} f(y) {\rm d} y \\ & + \int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} \left [\frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} {\rm e}^{-{\rm i} k(x-y)} \hat G_\alpha^\theta(k,t) {\rm d} k \right ] g_0(y) {\rm d} y. \end{split}$$ Then, the fundamental solution of (\[u\_FADE\]) is: $$\label{Solution_DP} u(x,t)= \int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} \left \{ \int_{0}^{t} G_\alpha^\theta(x-y,t-\tau) {\rm d} \tau \right \} f(y) {\rm d} y + \int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} G_\alpha^\theta(x-y,t) g_0(y) {\rm d} y.$$ Uniqueness ---------- The uniqueness of the solution is a direct result from the linearity of the integral operator. Let $u_1$ and $u_2$ be two solutions of (\[u\_FADE\]) with sources $f_1$ and $f_2$, respectively. Then, the condition $f_1=f_2$ implies that $u_1=u_2$. Suppose that $f_1-f_2=0$. Since $u_1$ and $u_2$ are solutions of (\[u\_FADE\]), we have: $$u_1(x,t)= \int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} \left \{ \int_{0}^{t} G_\alpha^\theta(x-y,t-\tau) d\tau \right \} f_1(y) {\rm d} y + \int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} G_\alpha^\theta(x-y,t) g_0(y) { \rm d} y,$$ $$u_2(x,t)= \int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} \left \{ \int_{0}^{t} G_\alpha^\theta(x-y,t-\tau) {\rm d} \tau \right \} f_2(y) {\rm d} y + \int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} G_\alpha^\theta(x-y,t) g_0(y) {\rm d} y.$$ Then the following equality $$u_1(x,t) - u_2(x,t)= \int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} \left \{ \int_{0}^{t} G_\alpha^\theta(x-y,t-\tau) {\rm d} \tau \right \} [f_1(y) - f_2(y)] {\rm d} y =0$$ completes the proof. Inverse Problem =============== In this section, we study some properties of the inverse source problem (ISP) consisting in the estimation of the source from the knowledge of the concentration at time $t=T$: $$f = K(g_T) \quad \quad \quad (ISP)$$ We will study the ill-posedness of the problem in the sense of Hadamard [@Kirsch]. Existence ---------- The following theorem shows that the measurement can determine the source term. Assuming that $f, g_0 \in L^2(\mathbb{R})$, then the solution of the inverse problem for the system (\[u\_FADE\]), which determines the source term $f$ using the measurement given in (\[prior1\]), exists. Substituting (\[prior1\]) into (\[Solution\_DP\]), we get: $$g_T(x)= \int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} \left \{ \int_{0}^{T} G_\alpha^\theta(x-y,T-\tau) d\tau \right \} f(y) {\rm d} y + \int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} G_\alpha^\theta(x-y,T) g_0(y) {\rm d} y.$$ Then $f$ is the solution of the following equation: $$\label{conv} \int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} \left \{ \int_{0}^{T} G_\alpha^\theta(x-y,T-\tau) d\tau \right \} f(y) {\rm d} y = h(x),$$ where $$h(x):=g_T(x) - \int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} G_\alpha^\theta(x-y,T) g_0(y) {\rm d} y.$$ Since (\[conv\]) is a convolution, the solution exists. Uniqueness ---------- In this section, we prove the unique determination of the source term from a given measurements at a specific or a final time. \[T\_2\] Let $u_1(\cdot,T)$ and $u_2(\cdot,T)$ be solutions of (\[u\_FADE\]) with sources $f_1$ and $f_2$, respectively. Then, the condition $u_1(\cdot,T)=u_2(\cdot,T)$ implies that $f_1=f_2$ almost everywhere. Let $u_1(x,T)=u_2(x,T)$. Since $u_1$ and $u_2$ are solutions of (\[u\_FADE\]), then using (\[DP\_solution\]) we get: $$u_1(x,T) - u_2(x,T) = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{T} \int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} \hat G_\alpha^\theta(k,T-\tau) [\hat f_1(k) -\hat f_2(k)] {\rm e}^{-{\rm i}kx} {\rm d} k \, {\rm d} \tau,$$ which is equivalent to: $$0 = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{T} \int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} \hat G_\alpha^\theta(k,T-\tau) [\hat f_1(k) -\hat f_2(k)] {\rm e}^{-{\rm i} kx} {\rm d} k \, {\rm d} \tau.$$ By applying the Fourier transform, we get: $$\label{uni} \int_{0}^{T} \hat G_\alpha^\theta(k,T-\tau) {\rm d} \tau\, [\hat f_1(k) -\hat f_2(k)] = 0.$$ Computing the following integration gives us: $$\int_{0}^{T} \hat G_\alpha^\theta(k,T-\tau) {\rm d}\tau = \frac{1 }{(i\nu k- d \psi_\theta^\alpha(k))} \left [ {\rm e}^{(i\nu k- d \psi_\theta^\alpha(k))T }- 1 \right ].$$ Therefore, equation (\[uni\]) holds if and only if $$\frac{1 }{({\rm i}\nu k- d \psi_\theta^\alpha(k))} \left [ {\rm e}^{({\rm i}\nu k- d \psi_\theta^\alpha(k))T }- 1 \right ] = 0 \Longleftrightarrow ({\rm i}\nu k- d \psi_\theta^\alpha(k))T = 0,$$ which implies that: $$\begin{array}{ccc} Re({\rm i}\nu k- d \psi_\theta^\alpha(k))=0, & \:\:\:\mbox{and}\:\:\: &Im( {\rm i}\nu k- d \psi_\theta^\alpha(k))=0. \end{array}$$ The real part $$Re({\rm i}\nu k- d \psi_\theta^\alpha(k))=0,$$ if $$\nu k \pm d |k|^\alpha \sin \theta \pi /2= 0.$$ Then either $k=0$, or $\theta=1$, but $\theta \neq 1$, since $\theta \le 2-\alpha$ and $\alpha >1$.\ The imaginary part $$Im({\rm i}\nu k- d \psi_\theta^\alpha(k))=0,$$ if $$\nu k \pm d |k|^\alpha \sin \theta \pi /2= 0,$$ $$\Rightarrow \left\{ \begin{array}{ l } k=0 \\ \eta(k):= \frac{|k|^\alpha}{k} = \mp \frac{\nu}{d \sin(\theta \frac{\pi}{2})} \\ \end{array} \right. .$$ This implies that: $$\begin{array}{ll} \int_{0}^{T} \hat G_\alpha^\theta(k,T-\tau) {\rm d}\tau \neq 0, & \quad \quad \forall k \in \mathbb{R}. \end{array}$$ Therefore $$\hat f_1(k) - \hat f_2(k)=0,$$ which completes the proof. Stability --------- In this subsection, we show that the third Hadamard condition [@Kirsch], is not satisfied, $ i.e.$ an arbitrarily small error in the measurement data lead to a large error in the solution [@Kirsch]. To prove this unstability, we show that a bounded perturbation in the source will not affect the final observation of the concentration [@Kirsch]. The inverse problem ISP is not stable in the sense of Hadamard. We asume that $u$ and $u^\delta$ are solutions of (\[u\_FADE\]) with sources $f$ and $f^\delta$ respectively. We suppose that there exists $\delta_n = f_{\delta_n} - f $ with $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}{\parallel \delta_n\parallel} =\delta$, $\delta\neq 0$ and we show that $ {\left\lVert u^\delta(\cdot,T) - u(\cdot,T)\right\rVert} \rightarrow 0$. We take $\delta_n(x)=A \sin(\frac{n\pi x}{L})$, where $A$ is a constant, we obtain: $$\begin{aligned} {\left\lVertf^ \delta (x) - f(x)\right\rVert}_2^2 = {\left\lVertf(x) + A \sin(\frac{n\pi x}{L})- f(x)\right\rVert}_2^2 \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} = {\left\lVert A \sin(\frac{n\pi x}{L})\right\rVert}_2^2 = \int_0^L A^2 \sin^2(\frac{n\pi x}{L}) {\rm d} x = \frac{1}{2} A^2 L \neq 0. \end{aligned}$$ $${\left\lVertu^\delta(x,T) - u(x,T)\right\rVert}_2^2 = {\left\lVert\int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} \left \{ \int_{0}^{T} G_\alpha^\theta(x-y,T-\tau) {\rm d} \tau \right \} [ f^\delta(y) - f(y)] {\rm d} y\right\rVert} _2^2.$$ Then, applying the Riemann-Lebesgue lemma we get [@Furdui]: $${\left\lVert u^\delta(x,T) - u(x,T)\right\rVert}_2^2 = {\left\lVert\int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} \left \{ \int_{0}^{T} G_\alpha^\theta(x-y,T-\tau) {\rm d} \tau \right \} [ A \sin(\frac{n\pi y}{L}))] {\rm d} y \right\rVert}_2^2 \longrightarrow 0.$$ Numerical Analysis ================== In this section, we present a numerical solution to reconstruct the source term for the space fractional advection dispersion equation (\[FADE\]) from the measurement $c(\cdot,T)$. Finite Difference Method for the Direct Problem ----------------------------------------------- For the direct problem, we discretize (\[FADE\]) using a finite difference scheme similar to the one introduced by Meerschaert and Tadjeran [@Meerschaert]. The shifted Grunwald formula is used to discretize the Risze-Feller fractional derivative [@ZhengT; @ZhangN; @MeerschaertF], as follows: $$\label{shifted_G} D^\alpha _\theta c(x,t) = -[a_r \, _{-\infty}D_x^\alpha c(x,t)+ a_l \, _xD_{\infty}^\alpha c(x,t)],$$ where $$_{-\infty}D_x^\alpha c(x,t) = \lim_{N \to \infty} \dfrac{1}{h^\alpha} \sum_{k=0}^N \xi_{\alpha, k} c[x-(k-1)h,t],$$ $$_xD_{\infty}^\alpha c(x,t)= \lim_{N \to \infty} \dfrac{1}{h^\alpha} \sum_{k=0}^{N-i+1} \xi_{\alpha, k} c[x+(k-1)h,t],$$ $$\begin{array}{ll} a_r= \dfrac{\sin \frac{(\alpha-\theta)\pi}{2}}{\sin (\alpha \pi)}, & a_l= \dfrac{\sin \frac{(\alpha+\theta)\pi}{2}}{\sin (\alpha \pi)}, \end{array}$$ and $\xi_{\alpha, k}$ is the normalized Grunwald weight defined by: $$\xi_{\alpha,k}=\frac{\Gamma (k-\alpha)}{\Gamma (-\alpha) \Gamma (k+1)}.$$ Then, the explicit Euler and the finite difference methods are used to discretize the time and the spatial derivatives, respectively [@Meerschaert]: $$\label{Euler_finite} \begin{array}{ccc} \dfrac{\partial c(x,t)}{\partial t}=\dfrac{c_i^{j+1}-c_i^j}{\Delta t }, & & \dfrac{\partial c(x,t)}{\partial x}=\dfrac{c_{i}^{j+1}-c^{j+1}_{i-1}}{\Delta x }, \end{array}$$ where $\Delta t$ and $\Delta x$ are the time step and space step, respectively. Substituting (\[shifted\_G\]) and (\[Euler\_finite\]) in (\[FADE\]), we get the following discretization form: $$\label{dis_2} \frac {c^{j+1}_i - c^{j}_i}{\Delta t} = - \nu \frac{(c^{j+1}_{i} - c^{j+1}_{i-1})}{\Delta x} + d \, \delta_{\alpha, x} c^{j+1}_i+ r^{j+1}_i,$$ where $$\delta_{\alpha,x} c^j_i =- \frac{1}{(\Delta x)^\alpha} [ a_r \sum_{k=0}^{i+1} \xi_{\alpha,k} c^j_{i-k+1} + a_l \sum_{k=0}^{N-i+1} \xi_{\alpha,k} c^j_{i+k-1}] ,$$ with $ i=1,\dots, N-1 \, \, \mathrm{and} \, \, j=1,2,\dots$ with $t_j=j\Delta t$, $x_i=i \Delta x$, $c^j_i=c(x_i,t_j)$, $r_i=r(x_i)$, $c_0^j=0$, and $c_{N}^j=0.$\ Then, we get: $$\label{discrete_form} \begin{array}{lll} (1-d \Delta t \delta _{\alpha, x}) c^{j+1}_i + \dfrac{\Delta t}{\Delta x} \nu (c^{j+1}_{i} - c_{i-1}^{j+1} )= c_i^j+r_i \Delta t. \end{array}$$ Thus, the matrix form of the implicit finite difference scheme (\[discrete\_form\]) is given by: $$\label{matrix 1} [({\textrm{\bf I}} - {\textrm{\bf G }} - {\textrm{\bf L}})+{\textrm{\bf V}}] {\textrm{\bf C}}^{j+1} ={\textrm{\bf C}}^j + {\textrm{\bf R}}$$ for $n=1,2,\cdots, N-1$ and $m=1,2,\cdots,N-1$, where $${\textrm{\bf G}}(m,n)=a_r\frac{d (\Delta t) }{(\Delta x)^\alpha} \left\{ \begin{array}{l l} \xi_{\alpha,m-n+1} & n\le m-1, \\ \xi_{\alpha,1} & n= m, \\ \xi_{\alpha,0} & n= m+1, \\ 0 & \text{ else}.\\ \end{array} \right.$$ $${\textrm{\bf L}}(m,n)=a_l\frac{d (\Delta t) }{(\Delta x)^\alpha} \left\{ \begin{array}{l l} \xi_{\alpha,m-n+1} & n\ge m+1, \\ \xi_{\alpha,1} & n= m, \\ \xi_{\alpha,0} & n= m-1, \\ 0 & \text{ else}.\\ \end{array} \right.$$ $${\textrm{\bf {\textrm{\bf V}}}}(m, n)= \frac{v \Delta t }{\Delta x} \left\{ \begin{array}{l l l} 1 & n=m, \\ -1 & m=n-1, \\ 0 & \text{ else}. \\ \end{array} \right.$$ $${\textrm{\bf R}}= \Delta t \times[ r_1, r_2, \cdots, r_{N-1}]^{\rm T},$$ $${\textrm{\bf C}}^{j+1}=[ c_1^{j+1}, c_2^{j+1}, \cdots, c_{N-1}^{j+1}]^{\rm T}.$$ Consequently, when estimating the source term, the direct problem can be solved using the implicit difference method. Inverse Problem --------------- Let ${\textrm{\bf A}} = [({\textrm{\bf I}} - {\textrm{\bf G}} - {\textrm{\bf L}})+{\textrm{\bf V}}] ^{-1}$, then equation (\[matrix 1\]) can be written as: $${\textrm{\bf C}}^{j+1}= {\textrm{\bf A}} ({\textrm{\bf C}}^{j} + {\textrm{\bf R}}).$$ By induction, we get the following equation: $$\label{equation 2} {\textrm{\bf C}}^N-{\textrm{\bf A}}^N {\textrm{\bf C}}^0=({\textrm{\bf I}}-{\textrm{\bf A}})^{-1} ({\textrm{\bf I}}-{\textrm{\bf A}}^N){\textrm{\bf A}} {\textrm{\bf R}},$$ which can be written in the following form: $${\textrm{\bf Y}}={\textrm{\bf K}}{\textrm{\bf R}},$$ where $${\textrm{\bf K}}=({\textrm{\bf I}}-{\textrm{\bf A}})^{-1} ({\textrm{\bf I}}-{\textrm{\bf A}})^N {\textrm{\bf A}},$$ and $${\textrm{\bf Y}}={\textrm{\bf C}}^N-{\textrm{\bf A}}^N {\textrm{\bf C}}^0.$$ In order to estimate the unknown source, we propose to minimize the following cost function with the Tikhonov regularization: $$\label{cost_fun} J_{\lambda}( {\textrm{\bf R}})= {\left\lVert {\textrm{\bf Y}} - {\textrm{\bf KR}}\right\rVert}_2^2 + \lambda \, \Omega( {\textrm{\bf R}}),$$ where $ {\textrm{\bf Y}}$ is the observation and $\Omega( {\textrm{\bf R}})= {\left\lVert\dfrac{{\rm d} ^m {\textrm{\bf R}}}{{\rm d} x^m}\right\rVert}$ with $m=0,1$ is a stabilization functional of $ {\textrm{\bf R}}$ which usually includes a priori information on the problem. The regularization parameter $\lambda$ can be determined using the L-curve [@Kirsch]. Numerical Example ================= Let us consider the following space fractional advection dispersion equation: $$\begin{aligned} \label{example_1} \begin{array}{lll} \dfrac{\partial c(x,t)}{\partial t} = -0.3 \dfrac{\partial c(x,t)}{\partial x} + 3 \dfrac{\partial ^ {1.5} c(x,t) }{\partial x^{1.5}} + r(x), & 0<x< 7, & t >0, \end{array} \end{aligned}$$ with the following initial and Dirichlet boundary conditions: $$\begin{aligned} \label{condition_1} \left\{ \begin{array}{ l } c(x,0)=0, \\ c(0,t)=0, \\ c(7,t)=0. \\ \end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$ In this example, we assume that the source term $r(x) =5 \sin \frac{2\pi}{7} x$ is unknown.\ Figure \[DP\], represents the numerical solution of (\[example\_1\]) with the conditions (\[condition\_1\]) at time $T=1$, which will be used as the exact solution when recovering the source term numerically. ![Numerical solution of the direct problem.[]{data-label="DP"}](figure1.eps){width="3in"} ![Solution of the inverse problem without noise.[]{data-label="Inverse"}](figure2.eps){width="3in"} ![Solution of the inverse problem with and without regularization with $5\%$ noisy measurements.[]{data-label="IP"}](figure3.eps){width="3in"} ![The exact and the regularized solution with different noise levels.[]{data-label="noises"}](figure4.eps){width="3in"} Figure \[Inverse\], represents the approximated solution $r^\delta$ of the inverse problem without regularization in noise free case. As we can see, if we have the exact measurement ($i.e.$ without noise) then, the numerical solution matches the approximated solution. While, recovering the source term from noisy measurements is severely ill-posed (see Figure \[IP\]). In Figure \[IP\], a comparison of the approximated solutions with and without regularization, between the exact source term and the approximated $r^\lambda$ is given, where the stabilization functional is $\Omega({\textrm{\bf R}}) = {\left\lVert{\textrm{\bf R}}\right\rVert} $. Clearly from the figure, the presence of noise in the data affects greatly the reconstruction and with the use of the Tikhonov regularization the numerical results are quite satisfactory. In Figure \[noises\], comparisons under different noise levels $1\%$, $2\%$ and $ 5\%$, between the exact source term and the approximated $r^\lambda$ are given. In all three cases, the results are stable and reasonable, which are further confirmed by the errors in Table \[Table\_2\]. As shown in Figure \[noises\], the Tikhonov regularization with $\Omega({\textrm{\bf R}}) = {\left\lVert{\textrm{\bf R}}\right\rVert} $ produces a stable solution, but the solution is not smooth enough. Therefore, we minimized the cost function given in (\[cost\_fun\]) with $$\label{smooth} \Omega({\textrm{\bf R}}) = {\left\lVert \dfrac{{\rm d} {\textrm{\bf R}}}{{\rm d} x} \right\rVert},$$ which produces a smooth solution (see Figures \[fig\_1\] and \[fig\_2\]). Better results obtained using (\[smooth\]) is due to regularity of the source term considered. Thus, minimizing (78) with the stabilization functional given in (\[smooth\]) will force the solution to be smooth. In Tables 1 and 2, the relative errors of the approximated source term $r^\delta$ to the exact source $r$ are given. It can be seen that the smaller the noise level, the better the approximative effect. ![Exact solution and the regularization solution with $5\%$ noisy measurement.[]{data-label="fig_1"}](figure5.eps){width="3in"} ![The exact and the regularized solution with different noise levels.[]{data-label="fig_2"}](figure6.eps){width="3in"} \[Tab\_1\] $N$ 5% noise 3% noise 1% noise --------- ---------- ---------- ---------- $40$ $10.18$ $7.98$ $4.53$ $60$ $8.97$ $6.91$ $4.25$ $80$ $7.81$ $5.62$ $4.13$ $100$ $6.84$ $5.76$ $4.80$ $120$ $9.56$ $7.4$ $4.13$ $140$ $7.93$ $6.30$ $4.26$ $160$ $6.16$ $4.88$ $3.06$ \[1ex\] : The relative errors: $\Omega(R) = \parallel R' \parallel$, $\theta = 0.3$. \[Table\_2\] ------------------ ------------------------- -------------------------- $\Omega(F)$ $\sigma_{noise}$ $\parallel F \parallel$ $\parallel F' \parallel$ $5 \%$ $20.23$ $6.84$ $2\%$ $16.06$ $5.76$ $1\%$ $11.14$ $4.80$ \[1ex\] ------------------ ------------------------- -------------------------- : The relative errors with different stabilizing functional $\Omega(R)$ when: $N=100$, $\theta=0.3$. Conclusion ========== In this paper, we have analyzed the mathematical properties of the direct and the inverse problem for a space fractional advection dispersion equation. For the direct problem, we have presented an analytic solution by applying the Fourier transform method and the Duhamel�s principle. Moreover, we have proved the uniqueness of the solution. Due to the linearity of the operator, we have proved the unique determination of the source term from a final observation. Moreover, we have analytically showed that the inverse source problem is ill-posed due to the lack stability requirements. Furthermore, a numerical solution based on the Tikhonov regularization has been presented. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== The authors would like to express great appreciation to Prof. Manuel Ortigueira and Prof. William Rundell for their valuable suggestions and comments. Appendix A. Properties of the Green’s Function $G_\alpha^\theta(\cdot,\cdot)$[@Huang]: {#greens_fuction .unnumbered} ====================================================================================== $$\label{equation3} \hat G_\alpha^\theta (k,t)= e^{[i\nu k- d \psi_\theta^\alpha(k)]t }= e^{i\nu k t} e^{- d \psi_\theta^\alpha(k)t }=\hat P_1^1(k;-\nu t) \hat P^\theta_\alpha(k;td),$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \begin{array}{ll} \hat P^\theta_\alpha(k;c) = e^{-c\psi_\theta^\alpha(k)} , & c \in \mathbb{R}. \end{array}\end{aligned}$$ Using the following scale rule for the Fourier transformation, $$\begin{aligned} f(cx) \longleftrightarrow^\mathcal{F} |a|^{-1}\hat f(k/c), \end{aligned}$$ we get $$\begin{aligned} P_\alpha^\theta(x;c)= |c|^{-1} p_\alpha^\theta(x/c^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}),\end{aligned}$$ which is non-negative, since $p_\alpha^\theta$ is a probability density function whose Fourier transformation is $\hat p_\alpha^\theta(k)=e^{-\psi_\theta^\alpha(k)}$. Therefore, the inverse Fourier transformation of (\[equation3\]) is: $$\begin{aligned} G_{\alpha}^{\theta}(x,t)= \int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} P_1^1(x-k;\nu t) P^\theta_\alpha(k;td) {\rm d}k,\end{aligned}$$ where $G_{\alpha}^{\theta}(x,t)= \int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} P_1^1(x-k;\nu t) P^\theta_\alpha(k;td) {\rm d}k $ is real and normalized [@Huang].

ArXiv

[**Amplitude Variations in Pulsating Yellow Supergiants**]{} [**John R. Percy and Rufina Y.H. Kim\ Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics\ University of Toronto\ Toronto ON\ Canada M5S 3H4**]{} [**Abstract**]{} It was recently discovered that the amplitudes of pulsating red giants and supergiants vary significantly on time scales of 20-30 pulsation periods. Here, we analyze the amplitude variability in 29 pulsating [*yellow*]{} supergiants (5 RVa, 4 RVb, 9 SRd, 7 long-period Cepheid, and 4 yellow hypergiant stars), using visual observations from the AAVSO International Database, and Fourier and wavelet analysis using the AAVSO’s VSTAR package. We find that these stars vary in amplitude by factors of up to 10 or more (but more typically 3-5), on a mean time scale (L) of 33 $\pm$4 pulsation periods (P). Each of the five sub-types shows this same behavior, which is very similar to that of the pulsating red giants, for which the median L/P was 31. For the RVb stars, the lengths of the cycles of amplitude variability are the same as the long secondary periods, to within the uncertainty of each. [**1. Introduction**]{} The amplitudes of pulsating stars are generally assumed to be constant. Those of multi-periodic pulsators may appear to vary because of interference between two or more modes, though the amplitudes of the individual modes are generally assumed to stay constant. Polaris (Arellano Ferro 1983) and RU Cam (Demers and Fernie 1966) are examples of “unusual" Cepheids which have varied in amplitude. The long-term, cyclic changes in the amplitudes of RR Lyrae stars – the Blazhko effect – are an ongoing mystery (Kolenberg 2012), period-doubling being a viable explanation. There are many reports, in the literature, of Mira stars which have varied systematically in amplitude. Percy and Abachi (2013) recently reported on a study of the amplitudes of almost a hundred pulsating red giants. They found that, in 59 single-mode and double-mode SR variables, the amplitudes of the modes varied by factors of 2-10 on time scales of 30-45 pulsation periods, on average. Percy and Khatu (2014) reported on a study of 44 pulsating red [*supergiants*]{}, and found similar behavior: amplitude variations of a factor of up to 8 on time scales of 18 pulsation periods, on average. In the present paper, we study the amplitudes of 29 pulsating [*yellow*]{} supergiants, including 9 RV Tauri (RV) stars, 9 SRd stars, 7 long-period Cepheids, and 4 yellow hypergiants. RV stars show alternating deep and shallow minima (to a greater or lesser extent). RVa stars have constant mean magnitude. RVb stars vary slowly in mean magnitude; they have a “long secondary period". SRd stars are semiregular yellow supergiants. Actually, there seems to be a smooth spectrum of behavior from RV to SRd and possibly to long-period Population II Cepheid (Percy [*et al.*]{} 2003). Population I (Classical) Cepheids and yellow hypergiants differ from RV and SRd stars in that they are massive, young stars, whereas the latter two classes are old, lower-mass stars. Classical Cepheids tend to have shorter periods in part because the period is inversely proportional to the square root of the mass. We did not analyze short-period Cepheids because, with visual observations, it is necessary to have much denser coverage (a large number of observations per period) in order to beat down the observational error, which is typically 0.2-0.3 magnitude per observation. Bright short-period Cepheids such as $\delta$ Cep should have enough photoelectric photometry, over time, to detect amplitude variations if they exist. We recommend that such a study be carried out. We analyzed the prototype Population II Cepheid, W Vir, but the period is short (17.27 days), and the data sparse, so the results are not very meaningful. The periods of the yellow hypergiants are poorly defined, partly because the pulsation is semi-regular at best, and partly because the light curves are affected by the heavy mass loss and occational “eruptions" in these stars (e.g. Lobel [*et al.*]{} 2004). Furthermore: the periods are so long that the number of cycles of amplitude variation is very poorly-determined. [**2. Data and Analysis**]{} We used visual observations, from the AAVSO International Database, of the yellow supergiant variables listed in Table 1. See “Notes on Individual Stars", and the last two columns in Table 1 for remarks on some of these. Our data extend for typically 10,000-30,000 days; not all the stars have the same length of dataset. Percy and Abachi (2013) discussed some of the limitations of visual data which must be kept in mind when analyzing the observations, and interpreting the results. In particular: some of the stars have pronounced seasonal gaps in the data, which can produce “alias" periods, and some difficulty in the wavelet analysis. The data, extending over the range of Julian Date given in Table 1, were analyzed with the AAVSO’s VSTAR time-series analysis package (Benn 2013; www.aavso.org/vstar-overview), especially the Fourier (DCDFT) analysis and wavelet (WWZ) analysis routines. The JD range began where the data were sufficiently dense for analysis. The DCDFT routine was used to determine the best period for the JD range used. It was invariably in good agreement with the literature period; in any case, the results are not sensitive to the exact value of period used. For the RV stars, we used the dominant period: either the “half" period – the interval between adjacent minima – or the “full" period, the interval between deep minima. We found that, whichever of these two periods we used, the value of L/P was the same to within the uncertainty. For the wavelet analysis, the default values were used for the decay time c (0.001) and time division $\Delta$t (50 days). The results are sensitive to the former, but not to the latter. For the WWZ analysis: around each of the adopted periods, we generated the amplitude versus JD graph, and determined the range in amplitude, and the number (N) of cycles of amplitude increase and decrease, as shown in Figures 1-10. N can be small and ambiguous (see below), so it is not a precise number. For a few stars with slow amplitude variations, we checked and confirmed the amplitude variability by using the DCDFT routine to determine the amplitude over sub-intervals of the range of JD chosen. [**3. Results**]{} Table 1 lists the results. It gives the name of the star, the type of variability, the adopted period P in days, the range of JD of the observations, the maximum and minimum amplitude, the number N of cycles of amplitude increase and decrease, the average length L in days of the cycles as determined from the JD range and N, the ratio L/P, a rough measure D of the average density of the light curve relative to the period (1 = densest, 3 = least dense), and a rough measure R of the robustness or reliability of the amplitude versus JD curve (1 = most reliable, 3 = least reliable). The least reliable curves have gaps, much scatter, and are generally the ones that are least dense. The Cepheids tended to be less reliable, because of their shorter periods, lower density, and smaller amplitudes. They also tend to be less well-observed visually because observers assume that they are best observed photoelectrically. The yellow hypergiants are even less reliable, because of their long periods, small amplitudes, and irregularity. Note that the stars in Table 1 have a wide range of amplitudes, and amplitude ranges. The maximum and minimum amplitudes were determined with due regard to the scatter in the amplitude versus JD curves. The process of counting the number of cycles was somewhat subjective, but was similar to that used by Percy and Abachi (2013) and Percy and Khatu (2014) and is therefore consistent. Figures 1 and 2 show examples of the process for the RVa star AC Her and the SRd star SX Her, and its uncertainty. They also show the difference between the amplitude versus JD curves for a shorter-period star and a longer-period one. The other figures show examples of the amplitude versus JD curves for other representative stars. Table 2 presents summary statistics for the sub-groups of stars: Cepheids, RVa, RVb, SRd, and hypergiant. Note that the mean L/P is the same, within the standard error of the mean (SEM), for all groups, and is the same as the median L/P (31) for pulsating red giants (Percy and Abachi 2013). The values for the hypergiants are very uncertain, so we have listed only approximate numbers. The last line (“Robust") refers to the stars whose amplitude versus JD curves appear to be the most dependable. {height="5cm"} {height="5cm"} {height="5cm"} {height="5cm"} {height="5cm"} {height="5cm"} {height="5cm"} {height="5cm"} {height="5cm"} {height="5cm"} [**3.1 Notes on Individual Stars**]{} These notes are given in the same order as the stars are listed in Table 1. See also the last two columns in Table 1 for information about the denseness of the light curves, and the robustness of the amplitude versus JD curves. [*SU Gem:*]{} The seasonal gaps are very conspicuous. [*AC Her:*]{} The increase in amplitude since JD 2455000 is confirmed by the AAVSO photoelectric photometry. [*Z Aur:*]{} This star shows periods of 112 and 135 days, and switches between them (Lacy 1973). There is some evidence that the amplitude of pulsation decreases before a switch takes place. [*TZ Cep:*]{} The data are sparse since JD 2454200. [*DE Her:*]{} This star shows 1.5 cycles of a long secondary period, but is classified as SRd rather than RVb. [*UU Her:*]{} This star switches between periods of 45-6 and 72 days (Zsoldos and Sasselov, 1992). [*RS Lac:*]{} The amplitude variation is apparent from the light curve. [*SX Lac:*]{} The data are initially sparse. [*S Vul:*]{} The middle of the dataset is sparse. [*V509 Cas:*]{} Later in the visual dataset, the dominant period is 259 days. The photoelectric V data, however, show periods between 350 and 500 days. [*V1302 Aql:*]{} The period is suspeciously close to one year. Furthermore: the data are sparse and the amplitude is small. [**4. Discussion**]{} We have found that almost all of the pulsating yellow supergiants that we have studied vary in pulsation amplitude by a factor of up to 10 on a time scale of about 33$\pm$ pulsation periods. The behavior is similar in each of the subtypes of variables, and that behavior is similar to that of pulsating red giants (Percy and Abachi 2013). In particular: the RV Tauri variables showed similar L/P to the other types, whether the half-period or the full period was dominant. These results were pleasantly surprising to us, as we had no [*a priori*]{} reason to think that these stars would show amplitude variations or, if so, that these would be similar to those in red giants and supergiants. In some cases, however, the amplitude variation in these stars is visible in the light curve. We note that, for the RVb stars, the lengths of the cycles of amplitude variability are the same as the lengths of the long secondary periods, within the uncertainties of each. For SU Gem, L = 683, LSP = 682; for IW Car: L = 1326, LSP = 1430; for DF Cyg: L = 780, LSP = 784; for AI Sco: L = 977, LSP = 975, the units being days in each case. Percy (1993) noted that, during the long secondary minima in the RVb star U Mon, the pulsation amplitude was low. This coincidence between L and LSP may help to elucidate the cause of both the RVb phenomenon, and the amplitude variation. Percy and Abachi (2013) proposed two possible explanations for the amplitude variation in pulsating red giants: (i) the rotation of a star with large inhomogeneities in its photosphere; and (ii) stochastic excitation and decay of pulsations, driven by convection (this possibility was suggested to us by Professor Tim Bedding). Red giants and supergiants are highly convective, and there is evidence (e.g. Kiss [*et al.*]{} 2006, Xiong and Deng 2007) that the convection interacts with the pulsation. Cepheid pulsations are excited by the kappa (opacity) mechanism; hydrodynamic models (e.g. Stobie 1969) show that the pulsation amplitude grows until the pulsational energy generation is balanced by dissipation. As for the amplitude [*variations*]{}: since yellow supergiants are not expected to show large inhomogeneities in their photospheres, stochastic excitation and decay is the more likely explanation. All of the stars in our sample are cooler than the sun (their (B-V)s range from +0.9 to +1.8) so they all have significant external convection zones. We note that, in the long-period Cepheids U Car and SV Vul (Figures 8 and 9), the amplitude fluctuations are relatively small, but there are also slow changes in amplitude as well as the small, rapid ones. In addition to the possibility of stochastic excitation, these stars are subject to possible non-linear effects such as period doubling and chaos (Buchler and Kovacs 1987, Fokin 1994, Buchler [*et al.*]{} 1996, Buchler [*et al.*]{} 2004). Amplitude variations complicate the study of these stars in the sense that, to compare photometric behavior with other types of behavior – spectroscopic, for instance – the observations must be made within a few pulsation periods of each other. The AAVSO provides an important service by monitoring many of these stars. [**5. Conclusions**]{} We have studied the amplitude variation in 29 pulsating yellow supergiants of several types: RV Tauri stars (RVa and RVb), SRd stars, long-period Cepheids, and hypergiants. In each case, we find amplitude variations of a factor of up to 10 (but more typically 3-5) on a time scale of 33 pulsation periods. The behavior is similar for each type of star, and is similar to that found by Percy and Abachi (2013) in pulsating red giants. [**Acknowledgements**]{} We thank the hundreds of AAVSO observers who made the observations which were used in this project, and we thank the AAVSO staff for processing and archiving the measurements, and making them publicly available. We also thank the team which developed the VSTAR package, and made it user-friendly and publicly available. We thank the University of Toronto Work-Study Program for financial support. This project made use of the SIMBAD database, which is operated by CDS, Strasbourg, France. [**References**]{} Arellano Ferro, A., 1983, [*Astrophys. J.*]{}, [**274**]{}, 755. Benn, D. 2013, VSTAR data analysis software (http://www.aavso.org/node/803). Buchler, J.R., and Kovács, G., 1987, [*Astrophys. J.*]{}, [**320**]{}, 57. Buchler, J.R., Kolláth, Z., Serre, T., and Mattei, J.A., 1996, [*Astrophys. J.*]{}, [**462**]{}, 489. Buchler, J.R., Kolláth, Z., and Cadmus, R.R. Jr., 2004, [*Astrophys. J.*]{}, [**613**]{}, 532. Demers, S., and Fernie, J.D., 1966, [*Astrophys. J.*]{}, [**144**]{}, 440. Fokin, A.B., 1994, [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{}, [**292**]{}, 133. Kiss, L.L., Szabó, G.M. and Bedding, T.R. 2006, [*Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.*]{}, [**372**]{}, 1721. Kolenberg, K., 2012, [*JAAVSO*]{}, [**40**]{}, 481. Lacy, C.H., 1973, [*Astron. J.*]{}, [**78**]{}, 90. Lobel, A. [*et al.*]{}, 2004, in [*Stars as Suns: Activity, Evolution, and Planets*]{}, IAU Symposium 219, Astronomical Society of the Pacific, San Francisco, CA, 903. Percy, J.R. 1993, in [*Non-Linear Phenomena in Stellar Variability*]{}, ed. M. Takeuti and J.-R. Buchler, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 123. Percy, J.R., Hosick, J., and Leigh, N.W.C., 2003, [*Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacific*]{}, [**115**]{}, 59. Percy, J.R. and Abachi, R., 2013, [*JAAVSO*]{}, [**41**]{}, 193. Percy, J.R. and Khatu, V., 2014, [*JAAVSO*]{}, in press. Stobie, R.S., 1969, [*Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.*]{}, [**144**]{}, 461. Xiong, D.R., and Deng, L., 2007, [*Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.*]{}, [**378**]{}, 1270. Zsoldos, E., and Sasselov, D.D., 1992, [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{}, [**256**]{}, 107. Star Type P(d) JD Range A Range N L/P D R ------------ -------- -------- ----------------- ----------- ------ ------ --- --- AG Aur SRd 96.13 2441000-2456600 0.15-0.78 11 14.8 2 2 AV Cyg SRd 87.97 2429012-2456630 0.11-0.57 9 34.9 1 1 SU Gem RVb 24.98 2446000-2456250 0.00-1.35 15 27.4 3 3 AC Her RVa 37.69 2435500-2456600 0.28-0.49 12.5 44.8 1 2 SX Her SRd 103.50 2425000-2456631 0.08-0.44 6.5 47.0 1 1 TT Oph RVa 30.51 2427946-2456615 0.25-0.76 39 24.1 1 2 UZ Oph RVa 43.71 2445500-2456626 0.20-0.70 9.5 26.8 1 1 TX Per RVa 76.38 2427964-2456654 0.12-0.75 7.5 50.1 2 1 V Vul RVa 76.31 2446000-2456649 0.20-0.35 6.5 21.5 1 1 IW Car RVb 71.96 2446037-2456646 0.05-0.24 8 18.4 1 2 DF Cyg RVb 24.91 2441000-2456600 0.20-0.86 20 31.3 2 1 AI Sco RVb 35.76 2445000-2455750 0.15-1.10 11 27.3 2 2 Z Aur SR/SRd 110.40 2423000-2456651 0.20-0.76 15 20.3 1 1 TZ Cep SRd 82.44 2451426-2456635 0.33-0.76 2.2 28.7 2 1 DE Her SRd 173.10 2442000-2456622 0.13-0.64 1.5 56.3 1 1 UU Her SRd 44.93 2432000-2456622 0.02-0.18 15 36.5 2 2 RS Lac SRd 237.57 2427592-2456635 0.35-1.02 3.5 34.9 1 1 SX Lac SRd 195.48 2446000-2456282 0.10-0.17 3.75 14.0 2 1 W Vir CWA 17.27 2425000-2456458 0.16-1.29 41 16.3 2 3 T Mon DCEP 27.03 2441500-2456400 0.28-0.53 15 36.7 1 2 X Pup DCEP 25.96 2434287-2456416 0.15-1.04 15 56.8 3 3 L Car DCEP 35.54 2426096-2456609 0.22-0.42 12 71.5 1 3 U Car DCEP 38.83 2443617-2456627 0.33-0.63 9 37.2 1 2 S Vul DCEP 68.30 2439626-2456558 0.10-1.20 11 22.5 3 2 SV Vul DCEP 44.98 2439622-2456637 0.33-0.54 13.5 28.0 1 1 $\rho$ Cas YHG 659 2433000-2456723 0.02-0.07 1.35 26.7 1 1 V509 Cas YHG 878 2446923-2456719 0.03-0.06 0.25 44.6 2 1 V766 Cen YHG 871 2446933-2456709 0.09-0.15 0.40 28.1 1 1 V1302 Aql YHG 359 2442542-2455368 0.02-0.09 1.5 23.8 2 1 : Amplitude Variability of Pulsating Yellow Supergiants. Type Mean P (SD) Mean L/P (SEM) Mean D Mean R ------------- ---------------- ---------------- -------- -------- Cepheids 41.09 (14.45) 38.46 (7.38) 1.71 2.29 RVa 52.92 (21.89) 33.45 (5.83) 1.20 1.40 RVb 39.40 (22.30) 26.11 (2.72) 2.00 2.00 SRd 125.72 (2.30) 31.94 (4.75) 1.44 1.22 Hypergiants 700: 31: 1.5 1 Robust 104.73 (65.12) 32.82 (3.67) 1.33 1.00 : Summary Statistics: Amplitude Variability of Pulsating Yellow Supergiants.

ArXiv

--- author: - 'N. Wijsen' - 'A. Aran' - 'J. Pomoell' - 'S. Poedts' date: 'Received 26 July 2018 / Accepted 18 November 2018' title: 'Modelling three-dimensional transport of solar energetic protons in a corotating interaction region generated with EUHFORIA' --- [ We introduce a new solar energetic particle (SEP) transport code that aims at studying the effects of different background solar wind configurations on SEP events. In this work, we focus on the influence of varying solar wind velocities on the adiabatic energy changes of SEPs and study how a non-Parker background solar wind can trap particles temporarily at small heliocentric radial distances ($\lesssim 1.5$ AU) thereby influencing the cross-field diffusion of SEPs in the interplanetary space.]{} [Our particle transport code computes particle distributions in the heliosphere by solving the focused transport equation (FTE) in a stochastic manner. Particles are propagated in a solar wind generated by the newly developed data-driven heliospheric model, EUHFORIA. In this work, we solve the FTE, including all solar wind effects, cross-field diffusion, and magnetic-field gradient and curvature drifts. As initial conditions, we assume a delta injection of 4 MeV protons, spread uniformly over a selected region at the inner boundary of the model. To verify the model, we first propagate particles in nominal undisturbed fast and slow solar winds. Thereafter, we simulate and analyse the propagation of particles in a solar wind containing a corotating interaction region (CIR). We study the particle intensities and anisotropies measured by a fleet of virtual observers located at different positions in the heliosphere, as well as the global distribution of particles in interplanetary space. ]{} [ The differential intensity-time profiles obtained in the simulations using the nominal Parker solar wind solutions illustrate the considerable adiabatic deceleration undergone by SEPs, especially when propagating in a fast solar wind. In the case of the solar wind containing a CIR, we observe that particles adiabatically accelerate when propagating in the compression waves bounding the CIR at small radial distances. In addition, for $ r \gtrsim 1.5$ AU, there are particles accelerated by the reverse shock as indicated by, for example, the anisotropies and pitch-angle distributions of the particles. Moreover, a decrease in high-energy particles at the stream interface (SI) inside the CIR is observed. The compression/shock waves and the magnetic configuration near the SI may also act as a magnetic mirror, producing long-lasting high intensities at small radial distances. We also illustrate how the efficiency of the cross-field diffusion in spreading particles in the heliosphere is enhanced due to compressed magnetic fields. Finally, the inclusion of cross-field diffusion enables some particles to cross both the forward compression wave at small radial distances and the forward shock at larger radial distances. This results in the formation of an accelerated particle population centred on the forward shock, despite the lack of magnetic connection between the particle injection region and this shock wave. Particles injected in the fast solar wind stream cannot reach the forward shock since the SI acts as a diffusion barrier. ]{} Introduction ============ Occasionally, particle monitors on board spacecraft will register sudden strong increases in particle fluxes over a wide range of energies. The origin of these particles typically lies in eruptive events occurring at the Sun, and they are therefore commonly known as solar energetic particles (SEPs). The majority of these SEPs are expected to have gained high energies either by means of stochastic acceleration mechanisms in a parent flare region or by means of first-order Fermi acceleration at shock waves driven by coronal mass ejections (CMEs). Apart from solar eruptive events, corotating interaction regions (CIRs) are considered an important source of energetic particles in the heliosphere [@richardson04]. At larger heliocentric distances, these CIRs are typically bounded by a forward shock wave propagating in the slow solar wind, and a reverse shock wave propagating in the fast solar wind [see e.g. @richardson18]. Like the shock wave in front of a CME, the shock waves associated with a CIR can potentially also accelerate particles to high energies [@fisk80; @classen98]. Once particles escape from their acceleration site, they travel through the heliosphere, spiralling around the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) lines. During their journey, particles interact with small-scale magnetic turbulence omnipresent in the solar wind. This turbulence can scatter the particles, and hence determines their mean free path. A large number of studies have been conducted that focus on quantifying the amount of magnetic turbulence in the solar wind, and studying the effect of different mean free paths on particle events [e.g. @beeck89; @kunow91; @bieber94 and references therein]. This has typically been done by assuming a Parker solar wind configuration [@parker58] and describing the effect of turbulence on particle transport through diffusive processes in the particle’s spatial coordinate or pitch-angle. Aside from the characteristics of small-scale magnetic-field turbulence, energetic particle transport, and hence SEP events, can also strongly be affected by the global solar wind configuration. In reality, the latter is seldom described well by a steady-state Parker configuration, since the characteristics of solar wind source regions, like coronal streamers and coronal holes, are very different from one another, leading to varying solar wind speeds and densities. Apart from that, transient solar eruptive events strongly affect the conditions in interplanetary (IP) space. Therefore, it is important to include these varying solar wind conditions in SEP transport models, in order to achieve a better understanding of SEP events. In this work we introduce a new energetic particle transport code that aims at studying the effects of a solar wind that is more complex than a nominal Parker wind configuration on SEP events. The new three-dimensional (3D) particle transport code solves the focused transport equation (FTE) and computes particle distributions in the heliosphere by means of a Monte Carlo simulation. This code is coupled to a newly developed data-driven heliospheric model that solves the 3D magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) equations in IP space, the EUropean Heliospheric FORecasting Information Asset (EUHFORIA) model [@pomoell18]. This model allows us to obtain realistic solar wind configurations in which we then propagate the energetic particles. Other previous efforts have coupled 3D MHD simulations of the solar wind and CME-driven shocks with particle FTE transport codes with different levels of simplification. For example, [@gasen11; @gasen14] used the Shock-and-Particle modelling approach [e.g. @pomoell15; @aran08; @lario98] to model the propagation of a CME-driven shock from near the Sun (i.e. $4 R_{\odot}$) to 1 AU and coupled it with a transport model describing the propagation of protons, under nominal upstream solar wind conditions, to describe the variation of SEP event peak intensities with the radial, longitudinal and latitudinal position of the observers. The SEPMOD model developed by [@luhmann07; @luhmann10; @luhmann17] describes the scatter-free transport of SEP events generated by CME-driven shocks (from 0.1 AU), in non-uniform solar wind conditions simulated by using the ENLIL model [@odstrcil04; @odstrcil05]. The outputs of SEPMOD are available through the Community Coordinated Modelling Center [@luhmann17]. [@kozarev10] also used the ENLIL model to simulate the propagation of particles from the observed intensities at 1 AU to further distances from the Sun during the events in October-November 2003. The propagation model they used, the Energetic Particle Radiation Environment Module (EPREM), can be applied to any interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) configuration by solving the perpendicular diffusion and drift separately from the rest of the transport effects included in the FTE equation [@schwadron10 and references therein]. More recently, [@kozarev13] coupled the EPREM model with the Block Adaptive Tree Solar-Wind Roe Upwind Scheme (BATSRUS) model [e.g. @toth12; @manchester12] to study the acceleration and transport of protons in the solar corona during the 2005 May 13 SEP event. [@schwadron14] introduce the The Coronal-Solar Wind Energetic Particle Acceleration (C-SWEPA) models by simulating the space weather effects of a synthetic extreme SEP event. The SEP transport and acceleration is modelled with EPREM. These authors highlight the importance of the particle cross-field diffusion in the longitudinal spreading of particle distributions. In this work, we employ the standard-drift guiding centre FTE equation [e.g. @leRoux09] with the addition of a perpendicular spatial diffusion term. We first briefly illustrate the transport effects for protons travelling in a nominal slow or fast Parker solar wind configuration. Subsequently, we present a detailed study of SEP transport in a EUHFORIA-generated slow solar wind with an embedded fast solar wind stream, forming a shock bounded CIR at large heliospheric radial distances ($r\gtrsim 1.5$ AU). [@Giacalone02] introduced an analytical model for a CIR at small radial distances ($r\sim 1$ AU) where the forward and reverse shocks have not yet formed, to study its effect on interstellar pickup-ions. This analytical model was later used by for example [@03kocharov; @kocharov08a] to illustrate that corotating compression regions can modify the time-intensity profiles, anisotropies, and energy spectra of SEP events. Both [@Giacalone02] and [@03kocharov] also illustrated that a forward or reverse compression wave can act as a magnetic mirror, temporarily trapping energetic particles at small radial distances. The analytical CIR model of [@Giacalone02] has however its limitations, since it includes either a forward or a reverse compression wave, but not both. Therefore, in their model, only IMF lines of the slow (fast) solar wind can intersect the forward (reverse) compression wave, and as a result, the inner structure of the CIR is relatively simple, resembling a compressed Parker spiral magnetic field. However, in reality, there will often be both a forward and reverse compression or shock wave bounding the CIR. In between those waves, magnetic field lines can converge to a stream interface (SI), which separates the compressed fast and slow solar wind plasmas, and which is expected to have a non-negligible influence on energetic particle transport [see e.g. @intriligator01]. Such a CIR-structure is captured by our MHD simulation, and we show that it can have significant effects on the time intensity and anisotropy profiles of SEP events. In addition to the above, we study how the magnetic field configuration inside the CIR can amplify the efficiency of cross-field diffusion, without requiring high levels of turbulence. The structure of the article is as follows. In Section \[sec:paricle\_transport\] we introduce the equations that our particle transport model uses to describe the pitch-angle dependent transport of energetic particles in the heliosphere. Subsequently, in Section \[sec:the\_code\] we describe the numerical details of the transport code, and its coupling to EUHFORIA. As a verification test, Section \[sec:parker\_seps\] presents the performance of the model when describing the transport of protons under nominal slow and fast solar wind conditions. The effects of a different solar wind speeds on the particle distributions are discussed. In Section \[sec:mixed\_solar\_wind\] we present the results when propagating protons in a solar wind containing a CIR with different cross-field diffusion conditions. Finally, in Section \[sec:summary\] we summarise the results presented in this work and give the conclusions. Three-dimensional solar energetic particle transport model {#sec:paricle_transport} ========================================================== The evolution of the gyrotropic phase-space distribution function $f({{\mathbf{}}}{x},p,\mu,t)$ is described by the FTE, which can be written as [e.g. @roelof69; @isenberg97; @zhang09; @leRoux09] $$\label{eq:FTE} \begin{aligned} {\frac{\partialf}{\partialt}} &+{\frac{d {{\mathbf{}}}{x}}{d t}}\cdot\nabla{f}+{\frac{d \mu}{d t}}{\frac{\partialf}{\partial\mu}} +{\frac{d p}{d t}} {\frac{\partialf}{\partialp}} \\ &= {\frac{\partial}{\partial\mu}}\left(D_{\mu\mu}{\frac{\partialf}{\partial\mu}}\right) + \nabla\cdot\left(\bm{\kappa}_\perp\cdot\nabla f\right), \end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned} {\frac{d {{\mathbf{}}}{x}}{d t}} &= & {{\mathbf{}}}{V}_{\rm sw}+ {{\mathbf{}}}{V}_d+\mu \varv{{\mathbf{}}}{b} \label{eq:fte_spat}\\ {\frac{d \mu}{d t}}&=& \frac{1-\mu^2}{2}\Bigg(\varv \nabla\cdot{{\mathbf{}}}{b} + \mu \nabla\cdot{{\mathbf{}}}{{{\mathbf{}}}{V}_{\rm sw}} - 3 \mu {{\mathbf{}}}{b}{{\mathbf{}}}{b}:\nabla{{\mathbf{}}}{{{\mathbf{}}}{V}_{\rm sw}}\label{eq:fte_mu}\\ \notag &&- \frac{2}{\varv}{{\mathbf{}}}{b}\cdot{\frac{d {{\mathbf{}}}{{{\mathbf{}}}{V}_{\rm sw}}}{d t}} \Bigg) \\ {\frac{d p}{d t}} &=& \Bigg( \frac{1-3\mu^2}{2}({{\mathbf{}}}{b}{{\mathbf{}}}{b}:\nabla{{\mathbf{}}}{{{\mathbf{}}}{V}_{\rm sw}}) - \frac{1-\mu^2}{2}\nabla\cdot{{\mathbf{}}}{{{\mathbf{}}}{V}_{\rm sw}}\label{eq:fte_p} \\ \notag && -\frac{\mu }{\varv}{{\mathbf{}}}{b}\cdot{\frac{d {{\mathbf{}}}{{{\mathbf{}}}{V}_{\rm sw}}}{d t}}\Bigg) p.\end{aligned}$$ Here ${{\mathbf{}}}{x}$ is the spatial coordinate, ${p}$ the momentum, $\varv$ the speed, $\mu$ the pitch-angle cosine, ${{\mathbf{}}}{V}_{sw}$ is the solar wind velocity, and ${{\mathbf{}}}{b}$ the unit vector in the direction of the mean magnetic field. $D_{\mu\mu}$ is the pitch-angle diffusion coefficient, $\bm{\kappa}_\perp$ the spatial cross-field diffusion tensor, and ${{\mathbf{}}}{V}_d$ the particle drift due to the gradient and curvature of the mean magnetic field. The FTE is written in mixed coordinates, which means that the spatial coordinate is measured in the fixed inertial frame of the observer, whereas the momentum and pitch-angle cosine are measured in a reference frame co-moving with the solar wind [e.g. @zhang09 and references therein]. In the latter frame, the average electric field equals zero, leaving the Lorentz force only capable of changing the propagation direction of the particle and not its energy. However, we note that the co-moving frame is not inertial, and therefore fictitious forces will act on the particle, altering its energy and pitch-angle. This results in a monotonic decrease of the momentum of the particle in the co-moving frame when travelling in the expanding solar wind. We note that this is true even in the absence of particle scattering caused by magnetic turbulence. This constant loss of energy is often termed adiabatic deceleration, yet if the particle travels in a converging flow, for example at shocks or compression regions, the particle will accelerate instead of decelerate. In addition to adiabatic deceleration, [@dalla15] have shown that magnetic gradient and curvature drifts can also lead to a substantial deceleration of SEPs, especially at high energies and high latitude. These drift-induced energy losses are included in the momentum terms Eq.  and Eq.  of the FTE, as shown by [@leRoux09]. However, the standard FTE normally does not include any effects due to magnetic drifts in the spatial convection term Eq. . By extending this spatial term to include the missing drifts, one obtains the standard-drift guiding centre equation [@leRoux09]. This extension of the FTE is done in Eq. , where the effects of gradient/curvature drifts are included in the spatial part of the equation through $${{\mathbf{}}}{V}_d = \frac{\varv p}{QB}\left[\frac{1-\mu^2}{2} \left( (\nabla\times {{\mathbf{}}}{b})_\parallel + \frac{{{\mathbf{}}}{b}\times\nabla B}{B}\right) + \mu^2 (\nabla\times {{\mathbf{}}}{b})_\perp \right],$$ where $Q$ is the particle charge, and the subscripts $\parallel$ and $\perp$ denote, respectively, the parallel and perpendicular components with respect to the magnetic field ${{\mathbf{}}}{B}$. We note that with this extension, the spatial coordinate ${{\mathbf{}}}{x}$ in the FTE represents the coordinates of the guiding center of a particle. In the above description, the effects of the polarization drift are not taken into account; [@dalla13] illustrated that this drift is significantly smaller than the sum of the gradient and curvature drifts. On their journey through the heliosphere, particles are subjected to electromagnetic forces resulting from the turbulence present in the solar wind. Since compressible wave modes are readily damped out in the solar wind, Alfvén waves are typically considered as one of the main contributors to the solar wind turbulence [@Howes13]. To first order, the main effect of these waves is to scatter energetic particles elastically in the reference frame moving with the wave. Since the Alfvén speed is small compared to the speed of the solar wind, one can assume that the wave and solar wind frames coincide, meaning that the magnetic fluctuations are convected with the solar wind. Quasi-linear theory (QLT) then allows the description of the effects of magnetic slab turbulence by means of a diffusion process in pitch-angle space, with a diffusion coefficient given by [@jokipii66; @jaekel92] $$D_{\mu\mu} = \frac{\pi}{2}\frac{1-\mu^2}{\varv |\mu|}\left(\frac{\Omega}{B}\right)^2P\left(k=\frac{\Omega}{|\mu| \varv}\right),$$ where $\Omega$ denotes the gyrofrequency of the particle, $k$ the parallel wave number, and $P$ the power spectrum of the magnetic turbulence. Assuming a power-law for the latter, that is, $P= Ck^{-q}$ with $C$ a proportionality constant, the diffusion coefficient adopts the form $$\label{eq:D_std} {D_{\mu\mu} = \frac{C\pi}{2} \left(\frac{|Q|}{m}\right)^{2-q}B^{-q}\varv^{q-1}\left(|\mu|^{q-1} +H\right)\left(1-\mu^2\right)},$$ where $m$ denotes the particle mass and the parameter $H$ is added to describe the scattering through $\mu =0$ [see, e.g. @beeck86]. When using this form of the diffusion coefficient in numerical applications, caution is needed since $\partial D_{\mu\mu} /\partial\mu$ has a pole at $\mu = 0$. This pole needs to be treated carefully in order to obtain correct pitch-angle distributions (PADs). In order to overcome any potential numerical issues caused by this pole, we follow the approach adopted by [@agueda08] and assume the following form for the pitch-angle diffusion coefficient $$\label{eq:D_neus} {D_{\mu\mu} = \frac{\nu_0}{2} \left(\frac{|Q|}{m}\right)^{2-q}B^{-q}\varv^{q-1}\left(\frac{|\mu|}{1 + |\mu|} + \epsilon\right)\left(1-\mu^2\right)},$$ which has the advantage that $\partial D_{\mu\mu} /\partial\mu$ is bounded for $\mu \in [-1,1]$. [@agueda13] illustrated that the diffusion coefficients defined in and closely match when the parameter $\epsilon$ is chosen carefully. The functional form for the pitch-angle diffusion coefficient is in particular interesting for Monte Carlo simulations, since it allows an efficient implementation as explained in the following section and in [@agueda08]. In addition to pitch-angle diffusion, Eq.  contains a cross-field spatial diffusion process described by the diffusion tensor $\bm{\kappa}_\perp$. This term is not part of the standard FTE, yet is often added to the equation to describe the motion of particles perpendicular to mean magnetic field lines [see, e.g. @zhang09; @droge10; @strauss15]. This diffusion tensor is typically chosen as $$\label{eq:perp} \bm{\kappa}_\perp = \kappa_\perp\left(\mathbb{I}-{{\mathbf{}}}{bb}\right),$$ where $\mathbb{I}$ is the unit tensor and ${{\mathbf{}}}{bb}$ is a dyadic product. In a reference frame aligned with the magnetic field, $\bm{\kappa}_\perp$ becomes then a diagonal matrix with only two non-zero elements. The perpendicular diffusion coefficient $ \kappa_\perp $ can be prescribed by using for example the non-linear guiding centre theory [@matthaeus03; @shalchi10]. We note that the functional form for the perpendicular diffusion tensor cannot describe perpendicular motions due to particle drifts induced by turbulence, since this would require $\bm{\kappa}_\perp$ to have an anti-symmetric part. Similarly to [@droge10], we assume a perpendicular mean free path which scales with the gyro-radius of the particle. Averaging over the pitch-angle gives then the following diffusion coefficient $$\label{eq:kappa_perp} { \bm{\kappa}_\perp = \frac{\pi }{12}\frac{\alpha\varv \lambda^r_\parallel}{ b^2_r}\frac{B_0}{B}},$$ where $\lambda^r_\parallel$ is the proton radial mean free path and $\alpha$ is a free parameter that determines the ratio between the parallel and perpendicular mean free path at a reference magnetic field strength $B_0$. Denoting the angle between the radial and the IMF direction by $\psi$, the radial mean free path is defined as $\lambda^r_{\parallel} = \lambda_{\parallel} \cos^2{\psi}=\lambda_{\parallel}b_r^2$. Moreover, the radial mean free path is related to the diffusion coefficient $D_{\mu\mu}$ through [@hasselmann70] $$\lambda_\parallel^r = \frac{3\varv b_r^2}{8}\int_{-1}^{1}\frac{\left( 1 - \mu^2\right)^2}{D_{\mu\mu}}d\mu,$$ and is often assumed to be constant [e.g. @bieber94]. This allows one to fix the proportionality constants $C$ and $\nu_0$ in Eqs.  and , respectively. Similar to [@droge10], we will throughout this work assume a constant radial mean free path of 0.3 AU for 4 MeV protons. Numerical aspects of the model {#sec:the_code} ============================== Particle transport ------------------ The FTE is a five-dimensional parabolic partial differential equation that can be solved using for example a finite difference method [see, e.g. @ruffolo95; @lario98; @schwadron10; @leRoux12; @wang12] or by taking a stochastic approach [see, e.g. @vainio98; @agueda08; @zhang09; @droge10; @strauss17]. We take the latter approach and solve the FTE by means of a time-forward Monte Carlo simulation. In this section, we explain the numerical methods employed to propagate particles in phase space. The time-forward stochastic differential equation (SDE) describing the spatial part of Eq.  is given by $$\label{eq:sde_spatial} d{{\mathbf{}}}{x} = \left({\frac{d {{\mathbf{}}}{x}}{d t}} +\nabla\cdot\bm{\kappa}_\perp \right)dt +{{\mathbf{}}}{A}\cdot d{{\mathbf{}}}{w}_{{\mathbf{}}}{x},$$ where ${{\mathbf{}}}{w}_{{\mathbf{}}}{x}$ is a Wiener process, and ${{\mathbf{}}}{A}$ is a $3\times 3$ matrix that satisfies ${{\mathbf{}}}{A}{{\mathbf{}}}{A}^ T = 2\bm{\kappa}_\perp$ [@gardiner04; @pei10; @strauss17]. To integrate Eq.  we use the standard Euler–Maruyama method. To update the variable $\mu$, the standard SDE approach would be to use the Euler-Maruyama method to integrate $$d\mu =\left({\frac{d \mu}{d t}} +{\frac{\partialD_{\mu\mu}}{\partial\mu}} \right)dt + \sqrt{2D_{\mu\mu}}dw_\mu,$$ where $dw_\mu$ is a Wiener process. The behaviour of $\partial{D_{\mu\mu}}/\partial{\mu}$ near $\mu = 0$ requires the use of a very small time step to obtain correct PADs for values of $\mu$ near zero. In order to circumvent this and to gain computational efficiency, we instead apply the same method as [@agueda08] to update the cosine of the pitch-angle. In this approach, we integrate Eq , which only contains deterministic terms, forward in time using the standard Euler method. To model the stochastic pitch-angle variations, we note that the diffusion coefficient, , consists of an isotropic pitch-angle scattering process described by $$D^{\rm iso}_{\mu\mu} = \epsilon \frac{\nu}{2}\left(1-\mu^2\right),$$ and an anisotropic pitch-angle scattering process described by $$D^{\rm aniso}_{\mu\mu} = \frac{\nu}{2}\left(1-\mu^2\right)\left(\frac{|\mu|}{1 + |\mu|} \right),$$ where in both cases $\nu = \nu_0\left({|Q|}/{m}\right)^{2-q}B^{-q}\varv^{q-1}$. The anisotropic scattering process can be made isotropic by performing a coordinate transformation; thus, pitch-angle scattering in our model is treated by means of two isotropic scattering processes [see details in @agueda08]. For an isotropic scattering process with scattering frequency $\nu$, the pitch-angle distribution around the propagation direction of the unscattered particle is, after a certain time $\delta t \ll \nu^{-1}$, given by [@torsti96; @vainio98] $$\label{eq:scatter_distr} F(\vartheta,\varphi,\delta t)d\Omega = \frac{1}{2\pi}\left[\frac{1}{2 \nu \delta t} \exp\left(-\frac{\vartheta^2}{2 \nu \delta t} \right)d\vartheta^2\right]d\varphi,$$ where $\vartheta$ is the angle between propagation directions of the unscattered and scattered particle trajectory, and $\varphi$ is the phase angle around the scattering axis. Following Eq. , the new cosine of the pitch-angle, $\mu_{\rm new}$, is then related to the pitch-angle cosine $\mu_{\rm old}$ from before the scattering process through [@vainio98] $$\mu_{\rm new} = \mu_{\rm old}\cos\vartheta + \sqrt{1-\mu_{\rm old}^2}\sin\vartheta\cos\varphi.$$ Finally, the magnitude of the particle’s momentum is updated by integrating Eq.  forward in time using the Euler method. By solving the FTE in a time-forward manner, we obtain the particle differential flux $j({{\mathbf{}}}{x},p,\mu)$, defined here as the number density of particles in phase space element $2 \pi d{{\mathbf{}}}{x}dpd\mu$, and related to the particle distribution function $f({{\mathbf{}}}{x},p,\mu)$ through $j = p^2f$. In practice, we calculate $j(t,{{\mathbf{}}}{x},E,\mu)$ by sampling the simulated particles in five-dimensional volume elements defined as $({{\mathbf{}}}{x}+\Delta{{\mathbf{}}}{x},E+\Delta E,\mu+\Delta\mu)$, where $E=p^2/(2m)$ represents the kinetic energy of the particle, and $m_p$ its mass. To increase the statistics, we average over a time period $t + \Delta t$ to obtain a representation of $j(t,{{\mathbf{}}}{x},E,\mu)$. Representing the time step of the particle code by $\delta t$, and choosing $\Delta t = n \delta t$, with $n \in \mathbb{N}$, we obtain the differential flux thus as $$\frac{1}{\Delta t} \int_{t}^{t+\Delta t} \frac{ dN}{2 \pi d{{\mathbf{}}}{x}d\mu dE/\varv}dt \approx \frac{1}{\Delta t}\sum_{k =0}^{n} \frac{\varv \Delta N_k}{2 \pi \Delta{{\mathbf{}}}{x}\Delta E\Delta\mu}{\delta t}$$ where $\Delta N_k$ gives the number of particles in a five-dimensional sampling volume at time $t + k\delta t$. For the results presented in this work, we chose $\Delta{{\mathbf{}}}{x} =(0.025 \rm{\,AU})^3 $, $d\mu = 0.1$, $\Delta E = 0.2$ MeV, and $\Delta t = 10$ minutes. The sampling volumes cover the entire region of interest in phase space, allowing a continuous coverage in energy and pitch-angle space at any location in the heliosphere. Finally we note that the code has reflective inner and absorptive outer boundary conditions. The outer boundary is placed at sufficiently large radial distance such that it does not affect the simulation results. Coupling with EUHFORIA ---------------------- In order to describe the transport of particles in the 3D heliosphere, a model is needed for the description of the IP medium in which particles are accelerated and transported. The SEP transport model presented in this work is able to propagate particles in a solar wind generated by the EUHFORIA model [@pomoell18]. EUHFORIA consists of a data-driven coronal model and an MHD heliospheric model. The coronal part can use observations of the photospheric magnetic field to construct a model of the coronal large-scale magnetic field which, in turn, is used to obtain solar wind plasma parameters at 0.1 AU, by employing a set of empirical relations. Subsequently, the heliospheric model utilises these plasma parameters as boundary conditions to solve the ideal MHD equations augmented with gravity up to a prescribed outer boundary, which can be several astronomical units. We have set this outer boundary to 5 AU in order not to introduce any artificial effects due to a limited domain on the particle distributions obtained. Although it is not used in this work, EUHFORIA also allows the ejection of CMEs in the ambient solar wind of the heliospheric model. For further details about the implementation of EUHFORIA, we refer to [@pomoell18]. We note that the particle transport model propagates particles in a grid-free numerical scheme, whereas EUHFORIA provides the solar wind plasma variables on a numerical grid. Therefore, to integrate the particle transport equations, we interpolate the EUHFORIA variables to the location of the particle at each time step by means of tri-linear interpolation. The solar wind configuration used in this work is stationary in the corotating frame (see Section \[sec:mixed\_solar\_wind\]). Therefore, by performing a suitable coordinate rotation, the MHD and particle time steps coincide. Propagation of solar energetic particles in uniform wind conditions {#sec:parker_seps} ==================================================================== ![Diagram of the ecliptic illustrating the particle streaming zone (blue) for an injection over an azimuthal range of $30^\circ$. The markers represent the different observers introduced in the text. The triangles are stationary observers A (cyan) and B (orange), whereas the stars are the corotating observers C (red) and D (green). The dashed lines represent magnetic field lines. []{data-label="fig:diagram"}](diag){width="40.00000%"} -------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- {width="40.00000%"} {width="40.00000%"} -------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- As a verification test, we present in this section the results obtained when propagating particles in a nominal IMF for slow ($400$ km/s) and fast ($700$ km/s) solar wind configurations. Both solar winds are computed assuming a constant sidereal solar rotation period of $25.4$ days. Similar to [@droge10], we consider an impulsive event of $4$ MeV protons, injected uniformly at the solar equator over a longitudinal range of $30$ degrees and at a radial distance of $0.05$ AU. For each simulation presented in this section, we propagated $10^6$ particles. As illustrated in the diagram shown in Fig. \[fig:diagram\], we place four different observers in the solar equatorial plane. The two observers marked by triangles are stationary. Observer A (cyan triangle) is initially located in the SEP streaming zone, close to the eastern boundary, while observer B (orange triangle) is initially located outside the SEP streaming zone, near the western boundary. Eventually, the corotation of the particles with the magnetic field leaves observer A outside the SEP streaming zone, whereas observer B moves into the SEP streaming zone. The two remaining observers, C (red star) and D (green star), are corotating with the centre of the particle streaming zone and located at heliocentric radial distances of $0.3$ AU and $1$ AU, respectively. As a first test, we transport particles considering neither energy losses due to adiabatic deceleration nor particle drifts. Therefore, the particles retain their original $4$ MeV injection energy throughout the entire simulation. We also neglect solar wind convection, but include the corotation effect. Similar assumptions were made by [@droge10], and their results are used here to verify the results of the transport code. With this aim, we assume $\epsilon =0.048$ in Eq. \[eq:D\_neus\], to characterise $D_{\mu\mu}$. This value was obtained from minimizing the sum of the squared differences between and for $H=0.05$, as this latter value was used by [@droge10]. We assume a constant radial mean free path, $\lambda_\parallel^r =0.3$ AU, and perform simulations both with and without spatial cross-field diffusion. For the cases with cross-field diffusion, we assume $\alpha=10^{-4}$ in Eq. , which corresponds to a relatively small perpendicular mean free path. We note that for example [@droge16], [@qin15], and [@strauss17b] use a $\kappa_{\perp}$ of the order of $\sim 0.01\kappa_{\parallel}$, that is, about $100$ times larger than the value we assume. Figure \[fig:noDecParker\] shows the intensity, $ I = \frac{1}{2}\int_{-1}^{1} j(\mu)d\mu$, and the anisotropy, $A = 3\int_{-1}^{1} \mu f(\mu)d\mu / \int_{-1}^{1} f(\mu)d\mu$, measured by the two stationary observers described above. The intensity profiles depicted in the left panel of this figure (observer A) for the cases where particles travel in the slow solar wind (blue and orange curves) reproduce the profiles shown in the right panel of Fig. 8 of [@droge10]. The effects of cross-field diffusion are seen when observers A and B leave and enter, respectively, the particle streaming zone. For observer A and for both solar winds, the cut-off in the particle intensity observed after ${\sim} 7$ hours becomes more gradual due to cross-field diffusion. For observer B (right panel of Fig. \[fig:noDecParker\]), the effect of cross-field diffusion is to shift the particle onset to an earlier time. ----------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- {width="40.00000%"} {width="40.00000%"} {width="40.00000%"} {width="40.00000%"} ----------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- The effect of the different solar wind speeds is relatively weak for these simulations and merely reflects the difference in the IMF curvature of the solar wind configuration, that is, the distance a particle needs to travel to reach $1$ AU reduces for larger values of the solar wind speed. In contrast, the effect of the solar wind speed becomes much more pronounced when all terms of the FTE are included in the simulations. Particle intensity-time profiles and anisotropies obtained from such simulations are shown in Fig. \[fig:DecParker\] for the same observers and different energy channels, in the range of 2.2–4.0 MeV. Panel A of Fig. \[fig:DecParker\] shows the results for observer A when located in the slow solar wind. Recalling that all particles were injected with the same initial energy of $4$ MeV, the effect of adiabatic deceleration becomes very clear. Only during the first one and a half hours after the particle onset time, is the main contribution to the total intensities due to particles from the highest energy channel, which subsequently falls off rapidly by several orders of magnitude, leaving $3.4 \pm 0.2$ MeV as the most populated energy channel. The latter remains the main contributor to the total intensity until the observer leaves the particle streaming zone, and all intensities drop to zero. Panel B of Fig. \[fig:DecParker\] shows the particle intensities for observer A, but this time for the fast solar wind case. The comparison between panels A and B shows that adiabatic deceleration is much stronger in the fast solar wind. In this latter case, the majority of particles have already decelerated out of the highest-energy channel upon reaching $1$ AU. At a time of$~5$ hours, the $3.0 \pm 0.2.$ MeV channel becomes the most populated energy channel, a transition that does not occur for the intensities measured in the slow solar wind case. In addition, a considerable number of particles are registered in the $2.6 \pm 0.2$ MeV channel in the fast solar wind case, whereas this channel is only scarcely populated in the slow solar wind simulation. The strong dependence of adiabatic deceleration on the solar wind speed can be understood by writing Eq.  for the case of a constant radial velocity, giving $d{p}/d{t} \propto V_{sw}$ [see, e.g. @ruffolo95]. The bottom panels of Fig. \[fig:DecParker\] show the intensity and anisotropy time profiles for the two corotating observers. At 0.3 AU (panel C), the event onset is characterised by a sharp peak of SEPs populating the highest-energy channel (red curve). This peak reflects the impulsive mono-energetic delta injection, and corresponds to the particles that have not yet scattered significantly on their path from $0.05$ to $0.3$ AU. Moreover, we note that the intensity of the highest-energy channel shows a kink around \~1 hour, corresponding to the time from when the majority of the particles start coming from the anti-sunward direction, as indicated by the change of sign seen in the corresponding anisotropy time profile. The intensity and anisotropy profiles for the corotating observer located at $1$ AU (Panel D) show similar features to those in Panel B, with the exception that after \~11 hours the lowest-energy channel depicted becomes the most populated one because the corotating observer remains in the particle streaming zone. In addition to the effects of adiabatic deceleration, the qualitative differences between the intensity profiles for the corotating observers at 0.3 AU and 1.0 AU are partly due to the fact that particles with the highest energy have the hardest time travelling back in sunward direction due the magnetic mirroring effect, which is proportional to both the speed of the particle and the magnetic field magnitude. Therefore, at $0.3$ AU, the strong focusing/mirroring effect drives particles of higher energy more effectively towards large radial distances than particles of low energy. This explains why the transition from energy channel $3.0 \pm 0.2$ MeV being the most populated to $2.6 \pm 0.2.$ MeV being the most populated occurs earlier in panel C than in panel D. Propagation of solar energetic particles in mixed solar wind conditions {#sec:mixed_solar_wind} ======================================================================= A corotating interaction region {#sec:cir} -------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} --------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- ![Longitudinal profiles of the radial velocity (top panel), scaled thermal pressure (middle panel), and scaled magnetic field magnitude (bottom panel) at different radial distances. []{data-label="fig:euh_lon"}](longitude_profiles_HR){width="40.00000%"} Now, we study the propagation of SEPs in a non-nominal solar wind configuration computed by EUHFORIA. We demonstrate the performance of the coupling of the SEP transport model with the EUHFORIA model by propagating particles in a synthetically generated solar wind. In particular, we simulate a fast solar wind stream embedded in a slow solar wind. Such a configuration is obtained by prescribing a solar wind with a speed of $330$ km s$^{-1}$ everywhere at the inner boundary of the heliospheric model of EUHFORIA, except for the points with longitude and latitude satisfying $$\label{eq:fsw} {(\rm{longitude}-75^\circ)^2 + (\rm{latitude}-5^\circ)^2}< (20^\circ)^2,$$ where we prescribe a faster solar wind with a speed of $v_{\rm fsw} = 660$ km s$^{-1}$. To some extent, this is reminiscent of a coronal hole located close to the solar equatorial plane. The fast solar wind region described by is surrounded by a transition region of an angular width of $6^\circ$, in which the speed changes linearly from the slow to the fast solar wind speed. EUHFORIA also requires the prescription of the polarity of the magnetic field at the inner boundary. We choose a dipolar polarity structure, with the current sheet tilted by $40^\circ$ with respect to the solar equatorial plane, intersecting the latter at longitudes $165^\circ$ and $345^\circ$. In this configuration, the fast solar wind stream is completely embedded in a magnetic field of positive polarity. As described in [@pomoell18], the number density $n$, and the magnetic field vector are prescribed at the inner boundary $R_b$, so that a constant kinetic energy density is obtained. This is done by choosing these variables as follows $$\begin{aligned} \left(Br, B_\theta, B_\phi\right) &=& \left({\rm sgn} (B_{\rm dp})B_{\rm fsw}v_r/v_{\rm fsw},0,-(B_r/v_r)R_b\Omega_\odot \sin\theta\right)\\ n &=& n_{\rm fsw}(v_{\rm fsw}/v_r)^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $n_{\rm fsw} = 300 \, \rm cm^{-3}$ and $B_{\rm fsw} = 300 \, \rm nT$ are the number density and magnetic field strength of the fast solar wind, respectively, and ${\rm sgn} (B_{\rm dp})$ is the sign of the magnetic dipolar structure described above. Finally, the plasma thermal pressure on the inner boundary is chosen to be constant and equal to $P = 3.3\, \rm nPa$. The EUHFORIA simulation is performed with a radial resolution of $1.03$R$_\odot$, and an angular resolution of $1^\circ$ for both longitude and colatitude, resulting in a numerical grid consisting of $1024\times120\times360$ cells. The simulation is started by performing a relaxation in which the MHD equations are advanced in time until a fully steady-state solar wind is obtained in the corotating frame. Figure \[fig:euh\_color\] displays snapshots of the solar wind simulation showing the radial velocity (left panel) and the scaled magnetic field magnitude, $rB$, (right panel), in the solar equatorial plane. Despite the simple inner boundary conditions, the generated solar wind contains a non-trivial structure. The substantial difference between the prescribed speeds of the slow and fast winds, combined with a relatively narrow transition region, results in the formation of a CIR from relatively small radial distances outwards ($r > 1.1$ AU). This CIR is bounded by a forward shock wave moving into the slow solar wind and a reverse shock wave moving into the fast solar wind and the rarefaction region behind the fast solar wind. We note that due to the finite resolution of the simulation, the width of the shock wave in the simulation is larger than it would be for a real interplanetary CIR shock. This makes it difficult to exactly pinpoint where the boundaries of the CIR evolve from a large amplitude wave to a fully formed shock wave. Hence, to estimate the location of the shock formation, we searched for strong jumps in radial and longitudinal profiles of various MHD quantities. As an example, Fig. \[fig:euh\_lon\] shows, from top to bottom, the longitudinal profiles of the radial velocity, the scaled thermal pressure, and the scaled magnetic field magnitude at different radial distances (colour coded as indicated in the inset). By examining the top panel and following the curves in the direction of decreasing longitude, we see that at 1 AU (blue curve) the increase in the radial speed profile is still relatively smooth. From 2 AU outward, the increase splits into two steps, indicating the formation of the forward-reverse pair of shocks between 1 and 2 AU, that become increasingly clearly separated at larger radial distances. We note that the second increase in solar wind speed is simultaneously seen with a decrease in both the solar wind pressure and IMF profiles, as respectively shown in the middle and bottom panels of Fig. \[fig:euh\_lon\], indicating the presence of a reverse shock. Although at 1 AU the longitudinal profile of the radial velocity does not show a separation between the forward and the reverse shock, the pressure profile does exhibit a clear two-step transition, indicating that the shocks are starting to form. Both the forward and reverse shock locations become apparent in Fig. \[fig:euh\_color\]. The forward shock wave is seen in the radial speed contours (left panel) as sudden colour jumps from purple to blue, and from pinkish to yellow in the scaled magnetic field (right panel). In this forward shock, the slow solar wind plasma is accelerated and compressed and the magnetic field magnitude increases significantly in the downstream region. We also note that the current sheet, indicated as a dip in the magnetic field intensity, crosses the forward shock at a distance of ${\sim} 3$ [AU]{} (see the right panel of Fig. \[fig:euh\_color\]). At small radial distances ($r<2.5$ AU), the reverse shock is observed as colour jumps from yellow to reddish orange in both left and right panels of Fig. \[fig:euh\_color\]. At larger radial distances, the reverse shock becomes much more clear as indicated by the sharp colour transitions from purple to blue (left panel) and from blue to black (right panel). The reverse shock decelerates and compresses the fast solar wind, and increases the magnetic field in the shocked plasma. We point out that, in our simulation, the reverse shock is in fact travelling in the rarefaction region behind the fast solar wind stream at large radial distances. This is due to the relatively small size of the source region of the fast solar wind. ![Longitudinal velocity profile of the solar wind in the heliographic equatorial plane, illustrating the streaming interface (the yellow stripe separating the blue and reddish bands). The black dashed lines are magnetic field lines, drawn with a constant longitudinal separation of $3.5^\circ$ at $r = 1$ AU. []{data-label="fig:SI"}](SI_vlon){width="50.00000%"} As illustrated in Fig \[fig:SI\], the SI is characterised by a reversal of the longitudinal solar wind flow angle [(see the yellow stripe separating the blue and reddish bands)]{}, since the shock waves and the interaction between the two shocked plasmas deflect the solar wind in different directions. Figure \[fig:SI\] also shows how the IMF converges towards the SI inside the CIR; thus embedding the SI in a strong magnetic field. In addition, although not shown here, the SI is characterised by a relatively abrupt change in plasma density. As discussed below, the different properties of the shocked fast and slow solar wind plasmas, and their SI, may have a non-negligible effect on the energy changes of energetic particles. SEP transport in the heliosphere -------------------------------- {width="90.00000%"} We consider a delta injection in time of $10^8$ protons with an energy of 4 MeV, an isotropic pitch-angle distribution, and uniformly distributed over a spatial region described by $$\label{eq:inj_region} (\rm{longitude},\rm{latitude})\in [75^\circ,105^\circ]\times [-5^\circ, 5^\circ]$$ at the inner boundary of the heliospheric model. Compared to the source of the fast solar wind (see Eq. ), the particle injection region covers a small part of the slow solar wind, the transition zone, and a significant part of the fast solar wind. Such a configuration, in which energetic particles are impulsively injected near the boundary of a coronal hole, may especially be representative for $^3$He-rich SEP events [see e.g. @wang06; @kocharov08; @bucik18]. The choice of our injection region also ensures that the particles do not interact with the current sheet during the 16 hours that we propagate the particles. The effects of the current sheet on the particle distributions near a CIR is left for future work. Using a mono-energetic particle injection allows us both to study the energy changes of the particles more easily and to compare the results with those obtained in Section \[sec:parker\_seps\]. As in Section \[sec:parker\_seps\], we assume a constant radial mean free path $\lambda_\parallel^r = 0.3$ AU for 4 MeV protons throughout the entire heliosphere. Since we are using a constant radial mean free path, the actual parallel mean free path will vary according to $\lambda_\parallel = \lambda_\parallel^r/b_r^ 2 $. At a fixed radial distance, $b_r$ is larger in the fast solar wind than in the slow solar wind, and hence we have a smaller parallel mean free path in the former as compared to the latter. In the CIR, the parallel mean free path will have values between those of the fast and slow solar winds. Observations have shown that the parallel mean free path in the fast solar wind is typically smaller than in the slow solar wind [see, e.g. @erdos99]. Nevertheless, we remark that the mean free path of the particles might vary rather strongly across solar wind regimes with different flow speed [see, e.g. @pacheco17], and hence our assumption of a constant $\lambda_\parallel^r$ might underestimate this variation. We perform simulations both with and without cross-field diffusion. We note that the simulations without cross-field diffusion do include the effect of particle drifts, and hence there is a possibility for the particle to move perpendicular to the IMF, although these drifts are very small for 4 MeV protons travelling at low latitudes. To characterise $\kappa_{\perp}$ we assume as in Section \[sec:parker\_seps\] that $\alpha=10^{-4}$ in Eq. . Moreover, we choose the reference magnetic field magnitude $B_0$ to be the maximum magnetic field strength at 1 AU, that is, $B_0 = \max_{r=1\rm \, AU}B = 9.7 \, \rm nT$. This maximum is obtained in the compressed shocked slow solar wind, and hence the cross-field diffusion is the smallest there. In contrast, the shocked fast solar wind contains a magnetic field (${\sim}2\, \rm nT$ ) that is significantly smaller than that of the shocked slow solar wind. This means that the cross-field diffusion will be stronger in the shocked fast solar wind. The SI separates these plasma populations and therefore also acts as a boundary across which almost no particle can diffuse in our simulations. This is clearly seen in our simulations when injecting particles only in the fast solar wind regime (not shown here). Since our injection region is connected to magnetic field lines at both sides of the SI, we do not see a sudden dip in the overall particle intensity near the SI, something that is often observed in energetic particle events related to CIRs [see e.g. @strauss16; @dwyer97]. However, as described in Section \[sec:observers\], near the SI we do see a decrease in intensity of the high-energy channels, since the magnetic field lines immediately on either side of the SI originate from the transition region itself. These IMF lines therefore do not intersect the compression or shock waves bounding the CIR, where the particles may accelerate or reflect. We also note that in our simulations, the reason why the SI acts as a diffusion barrier is because of the increase in magnetic field strength in the shocked slow solar wind. However, [@strauss16] argue that the reduction in cross-field diffusion near the SI is due to strong damping of magnetic field fluctuations perpendicular to the SI, leading to an anisotropic cross-field diffusion. Finally, we note that at 1 AU the ratio of the perpendicular mean free path to the parallel mean free path in the CIR is, in our simulations, at most $\lambda_\perp/\lambda_\parallel = 3.81\times10^{-4}$. This is small compared to the values obtained by [@dwyer97], who find ratios of the order of unity for three CIRs using data from the Wind spacecraft. However, in our results below we show that the magnetic field topology inside a CIR may increase the effect of the cross-field diffusion, without necessitating increased amounts of turbulence or large values of $\lambda_\perp/\lambda_\parallel $. Figure \[fig:all\_particles\] shows the total particle density drawn in grey shades on top of the radial velocity profile of the background solar wind in the solar equatorial plane, 16 hours after the particle injection. The left panel of Fig. \[fig:all\_particles\] corresponds to the simulation assuming $\kappa_{\perp} = 0$, while the right panel corresponds to the simulation with $\kappa_{\perp} \ne 0$. In contrast to the cases discussed in Section \[sec:parker\_seps\] with a Parker solar wind configuration, the difference between the simulations is significant. At $1$ AU, the longitudinal extent of the particle zone for the case with cross-field diffusion is more than twice that of the case without cross-field diffusion, although this extended area shows a particle density two orders of magnitude smaller than in the main streaming zone. We also performed a simulation where we injected particles only in the slow solar wind of the EUHFORIA simulation and obtained similar results as for as for the simulations shown in Section \[sec:parker\_seps\], that is, the cross-field diffusion had only a weak effect. The reason why the cross-field diffusion becomes more effective in the CIR is because the CIR contains compressed IMF lines that are widely separated in the unperturbed solar wind (see Fig. \[fig:all\_particles\]). An example of such magnetic field lines is the pair of orange lines in Fig. \[fig:all\_particles\]. Even a very small cross-field motion in the CIR can transport a particle across these magnetic field lines. This results in a significant angular spread of the particle density for $r\lesssim 2$ AU, when particles return from the CIR to the unperturbed fast or slow solar wind. Such a reversal in the propagation direction of particles travelling inside the CIR is facilitated due to the IMF lines converging towards the SI, hence acting as a magnetic mirror. Apart from the SI, the forward and reverse shock waves may also mirror the particles. As a consequence of the existence of these three magnetic mirrors, there is a significant amount of sunward propagating particles and particle densities remain high at small radial distances for a prolonged amount of time, as shown in Section \[sec:observers\]. Particle acceleration {#sec:acc} --------------------- {width="90.00000%"} The FTE contains the necessary physics for modelling the acceleration of particles travelling in converging or accelerated flows for example. The different mechanisms that alter the energy of the particles can be more easily understood by rewriting Eq.  in the following form [@leRoux12]: $$\label{eq:dpdtLeRoux} \frac{1}{p}{\frac{d p}{d t}} = -\frac{1}{3}\nabla\cdot{{\mathbf{}}}{V_{sw}} + \frac{1}{2}(1-3\mu^2){{\mathbf{}}}{bb}:\bm{\sigma} - \frac{\mu}{\varv} {{\mathbf{}}}{b}\cdot{\frac{d {{\mathbf{}}}{V_{\rm{sw}}}}{d t}},$$ where $\bm{\sigma}$ denotes the shear tensor given by $$\sigma_{ij} = \frac{1}{2}\left({\frac{\partialV_{\rm{sw},i}}{\partialx_j}} + {\frac{\partialV_{\rm{sw},j}}{\partialx_i}} - \frac{2}{3}{\frac{\partialV_{\rm{sw},i}}{\partialx_j}} \delta_{ij}\right).$$ The first term on the right hand side of Eq.  illustrates the effect of converging or diverging flows on the energy of the particles. A particularly important example of a converging flow is found at a shock wave, where the plasma flow has a negative divergence. Each time the particles cross the shock they will therefore accelerate, a mechanism known as diffusive shock acceleration or first-order Fermi acceleration. As discussed in Section \[sec:cir\], the EUHFORIA simulation contains two separate shock waves bounding the CIR which, as shown below, accelerate particles. Such diffusive particle acceleration at the forward and reverse CIR shock waves is considered as a likely mechanism to explain the particle intensity peaks often measured at CIRs [see e.g. @richardson04 and references therein]. As already noted before, the finite resolution of the MHD simulation will unavoidably smear out the shocks over a spatial region larger than the width of real CIR shocks, making the terminology “shock acceleration” not strictly applicable to our results. However, as long as the particle mean free path across the shock is much larger than the width of the shock, the particles will gain energy due to their motion and scattering in rapidly converging flows, similar to what happens during first-order Fermi shock acceleration [see also @Giacalone02 for a discussion]. For the same reason, particles will gain energy when crossing the large amplitude compression waves bounding the transition region between the slow and fast solar wind at small radial distances, before the CIR and its bounding shocks have formed. These compression waves are indeed also characterised by a negative flow divergence, and hence particles will gain energy when crossing them due to the interaction with converging scattering centres. This mechanism was proposed by [@Giacalone02] as the main acceleration mechanism in CIRs, producing energetic particle populations at small radial distances, before the forward and reverse shocks are formed. In our simulation, IMF lines to which the majority of the particles are injected are initially diverging while residing in the unperturbed slow or fast solar wind, and converging once entering the transition zone or CIR at larger radial distances. Hence, particles injected on those IMF lines will initially lose energy due to adiabatic deceleration, and will later gain energy due to adiabatic acceleration. In addition, there are also particles injected in the transition zone itself that therefore follow IMF lines which never cross any compression or shock wave and that are immediately adjacent to the SI in the CIR. Due to the lack of any compression or shock wave crossings, these particles will not experience any substantial acceleration. However, inside the CIR the flows are slowly converging towards the SI, which may result in weak adiabatic acceleration. The other two mechanisms contained in Equation  that alter the momentum of the particle are the flow shearing and flow acceleration, respectively represented in the last two terms on the right hand side of Eq. . These terms are non-zero at the shock waves, and it is the cosine of the pitch angle which determines whether the particle gains or loses energy upon crossing the shock. For example, the acceleration (deceleration) of the solar wind across the forward (reverse) shock will increase (decrease) the energy of a particle when it travels from the downstream to the upstream region, and vice-versa. We note that there is also flow shear in the CIR, especially at the streaming interface, where the shocked decelerated fast solar wind meets the shocked accelerated slow solar wind. Figure \[fig:euh\_acc\_channels\] shows, at $t = 12$ hours, the particle density of protons accelerated above their initial energy, registered in two energy channels: $4.2\pm 0.2$ MeV (top row) and $4.6\pm 0.2$ MeV (bottom row). The left (right) column shows the results for the simulation without (with) cross-field diffusion. The background in the top and bottom row depict, respectively, the radial velocity and the scaled pressure, $r^2P$, of the solar wind. The four panels of Figure \[fig:euh\_acc\_channels\] clearly show the existence of an accelerated particle population centred on the reverse shock wave. As seen in the temporal evolution of this particle population (available as an online movie), the $4.2\pm 0.2$ MeV channel starts being populated $2$ hours and $40$ minutes after the injection, and at a radial distance of ${\sim}1.2$ AU, while the $4.6\pm 0.2$ MeV channel starts getting populated about 1 hour and 40 minutes later, at a slightly larger radial distance (${\sim}1.35$ AU). By calculating the length of the field line on which the first accelerated particles appear, a particle of 4 MeV would need ${\sim}2.2$ hours to reach the acceleration zone if it were to travel scatter-free. When travelling towards the reverse shock, the particles will however lose momentum due to adiabatic deceleration, and hence will arrive at the shock wave with an energy lower than 4 MeV. As shown in Section \[sec:parker\_seps\], this energy loss can be significant, especially since the particles are travelling in a fast solar wind during their journey towards the reverse shock wave. Therefore, the particles may need more than one shock crossing to reach energies above 4 MeV. Multiple shock wave crossings are facilitated due to the focusing/mirroring effect at both sides of the shock. When travelling in the sunward direction, particles will eventually be mirrored and focused in the direction of the shock as a consequence of the converging magnetic field lines near the sun. After crossing the shock wave, particles will propagate in the CIR where the magnetic field lines are converging towards the SI, and hence particles are likely to eventually get mirrored and focussed back towards the shock. Apart from particle mirroring due to the mean magnetic field, scattering of the particles due to turbulence will also facilitate multiple shock crossings. A notable difference between the simulations with and without cross-field diffusion is the existence of a second population of accelerated particles for the former case. Centred on the forward shock of the CIR, this population is only visible in the $4.2\pm 0.2$ MeV energy channel (see the top right panel of Fig. \[fig:euh\_acc\_channels\]) and from ${\sim} 6$ hours after the particle injection, at a radial distance of ${\sim}1.6$ AU. The IMF lines originating from the injection zone do not traverse the forward shock at these large radial distances, and hence these particles are there as a result of cross-field motions inside the shocked slow solar wind. We further note that both populations of accelerated particles are separated by the SI. The existence of this additional population of accelerated particles illustrates that a weak cross-field diffusion can have noticeable effects on energetic particle populations when the particles are travelling in a non-nominal solar wind configuration. Proton fluxes measured by virtual observers {#sec:observers} ------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- {width="40.00000%"} {width="40.00000%"} ----------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- We now analyse the proton intensities and anisotropies measured by a fleet of virtual observers located in the solar equatorial plane, covering the entire zone where energetic particles travel during the first 16 hours after their injection. We have studied 47 stationary observers positioned at radial distances of 0.28 AU, 1 AU, 1.5 AU and 2 AU from the Sun. In order to illustrate the richness and variety of different time profiles encountered, even when looking at observers located relatively close to each other, we have selected six observers to be discussed. These observers are indicated by the various markers in Fig. \[fig:all\_particles\]. All the intensities are normalised to the maximum intensity measured at 1 AU in the $3.8\pm 0.2$ energy channel by the observer located at $56.11^\circ $ in longitude (not shown here). In this section, we mainly focus on the simulations done with cross-field diffusion, except for the observers located at 1.5 AU, for which we discuss also the case $\kappa_\perp = 0$ Figure \[fig:tp0.28AU\] shows 2.0–4.8 MeV proton intensity-time profiles (top panels) and anisotropy time profiles (bottom panels) gathered by two observers located at a radial distance of $0.28$ AU, which corresponds to the closest planned perihelion for Solar Orbiter. The left panel of Fig. \[fig:tp0.28AU\] shows the results for the observer located at a longitude of $76.5^\circ$ represented by the cyan left-facing triangle in Fig. \[fig:all\_particles\]. This observer is positioned in the fast solar wind during the entire simulation. Initially, at $t = 0$ hours, the observer is magnetically connected to the reverse shock at $r\sim1.2$ AU, yet we note that this connection point moves towards larger radial distances due to the corotation of the reverse shock with the Sun. The early sharp intensity peak of the $3.8\pm 0.2$ MeV energy channel (solid purple curve) reflects the mono-energetic delta time injection of the 4 MeV protons. However, the $3.4\pm 0.2$ MeV energy channel (dot-dashed red curve) and even the lower-energy channels are quickly populated due to efficient adiabatic deceleration, since particles travel in a fast wind stream. A particularly interesting feature is that the intensity of the $3.8\pm 0.2$ energy channel switches from rapidly decreasing to gradually increasing after ${\sim}4$ hours. This increase is due to particles that got mirrored at the reverse shock or in converging IMF lines inside the CIR. The reason why these particles have not yet adiabatically decelerated to lower energy channels is because they have gained energy at the reverse shock, counteracting the energy losses they suffer when travelling in the fast solar wind. The right panel of Fig. \[fig:tp0.28AU\] shows the intensity and anisotropy profiles for an observer located at a longitude of $87.5^\circ$. Like in the previous instance, this observer is positioned in the fast solar wind, but this time close to the transition region towards the slow solar wind (see the right-facing orange triangle in Fig. \[fig:all\_particles\]). The main difference with respect to the former observer is that the intensity profile of the $3.8\pm 0.2$ MeV protons does not show this double peaked structure, but instead it monotonically decreases after onset. This is because the IMF lines connecting the observer move already at small radial distances ( $< 1$ AU) into the transition zone between the fast and slow solar wind, and hence the magnetic mirrors are much closer to the observer. At these distances, the forward and reverse shock waves are not yet formed and hence there is no significant acceleration of particles. Despite the absence of a real shock wave, the particles may adiabatically gain energy upon crossing the compression wave between the fast solar wind and the transition zone, keeping the $3.8\pm 0.2$ MeV energy channel populated. We conclude therefore that the combination of acceleration and mirroring at the compression/shock waves explains why, for both observers at 0.28 AU, the intensities in all energy channels remain high throughout the simulation, which is in sharp contrast with the intensity profiles shown in the lower-left panel of Fig. \[fig:DecParker\] for an observer in a Parker spiral at a similar radial distance. ----------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- {width="40.00000%"} {width="40.00000%"} ----------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Next we consider two observers located at a radial distance of $1$ AU. The first of these observers is located at a longitude of $52^\circ$ (green upright triangle in the right panel of Fig. \[fig:all\_particles\]). The proton intensity and anisotropy profiles for this observer are shown in the left panel of Fig. \[fig:tp1AU\]. As for the observers at 0.28 AU, particles propagate towards this observer in the fast solar wind and hence low-energy channels close to 4 MeV are populated rapidly due to adiabatic deceleration. During the entire simulation, the IMF lines passing through the stationary observer cross the reverse shock at a radial distance of around 1.3 AU. The observer is thus constantly closely connected to the reverse shock at the location where the first population of accelerated particles is generated (see Section \[sec:acc\]). As a consequence, this observer measures relatively high particle intensities in the $4.2\pm 0.2$ MeV (brown curve) and $4.6\pm 0.2$ MeV (pink curve) energy channels, which are populated by those shock-accelerated particles. Since the observer is connected to the reverse shock at a radial distance larger than 1 AU, and the magnetic field is pointing away from the sun, the anisotropies of the accelerated particles are all negative. We note that after ${\sim}3$ hours, the anisotropy for the $3.8\pm 0.2$ MeV channel (purple curve) is negative, suggesting that this channel is also mainly populated by particles that interacted with the shock. This explains the slow decrease of the $3.8\pm 0.2$ MeV proton intensities after ${\sim}3$ hours which is in sharp contrast to the intensity profiles discussed in Section \[sec:parker\_seps\] for particles travelling in a Parker solar wind (see e.g. the lower-right panel of Fig. \[fig:DecParker\] for comparison). The second observer at $1$ AU is located at a longitude of $59.3^\circ$ (see the downward-facing red triangle in the right panel of Fig. \[fig:all\_particles\]). Initially, this observer is positioned on the compression wave between the slow solar wind and the transition region. Later on, the transition region rotates past the observer until it crosses the boundary between the transition region and the fast solar wind near the end of the simulation. The intensity and anisotropy profiles for this observer are shown in the right panel of Fig. \[fig:tp1AU\]. The most remarkable feature is the distinct shape of the $3.8\pm 0.2$ MeV energy channel, and the relatively big time gap between the arrival of particles of energy channels $3.8\pm 0.2$ MeV and $3.4\pm 0.2$ MeV, as compared to the first observer at 1 AU (see the left panel of Fig. \[fig:tp1AU\]). These features can be explained as a consequence of the interplay between adiabatic acceleration and deceleration as follows. The first particles reaching the observer at ${\sim} 2$ hours are following IMF lines that start in the slow solar wind, and hence they are adiabatically decelerated during the first part of their journey. However, as explained in Section \[sec:parker\_seps\], this adiabatic deceleration will only be limited due to the slow wind speed (${\sim} 330$ km s$^{-1}$). Before reaching the observer, the particles leave the slow solar wind and cross the compression wave bounding the transition zone, where they may accelerate to some extent. The net result is that more particles remain in their initial $3.8\pm 0.2$ MeV energy channel. After ${\sim} 5$ hours, the intensity of the $3.8\pm 0.2$ MeV energy channel starts decreasing more rapidly until ${\sim} 10$ hours. During that decrease, the observer is connected to IMF lines that are (almost) entirely inside the transition region at small radial distances and at larger radial distances they lie adjacent to the SI. Hence, as explained in Section \[sec:acc\], due to the lack of converging flows, the particles following these field lines will mostly adiabatically decelerate. In addition, these particles do not experience the magnetic mirroring effect of the compression or shock waves. Later on, after ${\sim} 10$ hours, the intensity of the $3.8\pm 0.2$ MeV energy channel starts decreasing more gradually, since the observer becomes connected to IMF lines that cross the compression wave between the fast solar wind and the transition zone, where the particles may accelerate. Near ${\sim} 12$ hours, the observer enters the fast solar wind and establishes connection with IMF lines crossing the reverse shock at radial distances larger than 1 AU. We note that the observer already receives particles with energies above 4 MeV before 12 hours. However these particles are there solely due to cross-field diffusion since they are not observed in the simulations with zero cross-field diffusion (not shown here). {width="80.00000%"} ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- {width="31.00000%"} {width="31.00000%"} {width="31.00000%"} ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- For the two observers located at $1.5$ AU, we discuss the resulting profiles for both the simulations with and without cross-field diffusion. The first observer we consider (pink square in Fig. \[fig:all\_particles\]) is located at a longitude of $29.8^\circ$. The top (bottom) graphs in the left column of Fig. \[fig:tp1.5AU\] show the particles’ intensity and anisotropy profiles seen by this observer for the case with (without) cross-field diffusion. This observer is particularly interesting because it crosses the particle acceleration site at the reverse shock, after ${\sim}$7 hours and 30 minutes. This is indicated by the anisotropies of the energy channels containing accelerated particles which switch sign around that time. This becomes clear after inspecting the pitch-angle distributions (PADs). Figure \[fig:pad1.5AU\] shows, for the case with cross-field diffusion, the proton PADs at three time instances for two different energy channels, $4.2\pm 0.6$ MeV (purple curves) and $3.0\pm 0.6$ MeV (red curves). The left panel corresponds to 4 hours and 30 mins after the injection, when the shock is between the Sun and the observer, whereas the right panel shows the PADs at 9 hours and 30 minutes, when the observer is located between the Sun and the shock. The middle panel shows the intermediate situation, that is, when the observer is located on the shock. The $4.2\pm 0.6$ MeV channel is mainly populated with shock-accelerated particles and hence, the corresponding PAD (purple curves) turns over during the shock passage, i.e. the PAD evolves from an increasing to a decreasing function of $\mu$. At the shock passage, the PAD becomes more horizontal, reflecting the less anisotropic conditions there. In contrast, the $3.0\pm 0.6$ MeV channel is mostly populated by particles adiabatically decelerated at smaller radial distances. Therefore, the PAD of this energy channel remains an increasing function of $\mu$ during and after the observer crossing the shock. We also note that in Fig. \[fig:tp1.5AU\], the $2.2\pm 0.2$ MeV channel is almost completely depleted of any particles for this observer. This is in contrast to what is observed at 0.28 AU and at 1 AU, where this energy channel shows significant intensities. This difference can be attributed to the combined effect of shock acceleration and adiabatic compression in the CIR occurring at radial distances larger than 1 AU. The drop in intensities after ${\sim}10$ hours is because the observer moves out of the particle streaming zone due to the corotation effect, as is clearly seen in the case without cross-field diffusion (bottom left panel of Fig. \[fig:tp1.5AU\]). At the same time, the top panel of Fig. \[fig:tp1.5AU\] shows that the cross-field diffusion has a stronger effect compared to the cases discussed in Section \[sec:parker\_seps\]. The second observer at $1.5$ AU is located at a longitude of $37.54^\circ$ (yellow diamond in Fig. \[fig:all\_particles\]). This observer is initially positioned in the slow solar wind outside the particles’ streaming zone, and only enters this zone after $> 6 $ hours due to the corotation of the particles with the IMF, as shown by the intensity and anisotropy time profiles in the right column of Fig. \[fig:tp1.5AU\]. Comparing the cases with (top panel) and without (bottom panel) cross-field diffusion, the onset of the particle event occurs about 4 hours earlier in the former case. For this case, the first observed particles are all high-energy particles (channel $3.8\pm 0.2$ MeV) showing a negative anisotropy. This agrees with the finding above that the cross-field diffusion is more effective at large radial distances in the CIR, such that high-energy particles are initially affected more strongly because they travel faster to those distances. This also explains the time-gap between the arrival of particles populating the $3.8\pm 0.2$ MeV and $3.4\pm 0.2$ MeV channels. The negative anisotropy is again an indication of the mirroring effects of the CIR. Also of interest is the first small bump of $4.2\pm 0.2$ MeV protons seen only in the simulation with cross-field diffusion, around 9 hours. This bump is due to particles accelerated by the forward shock, and corresponds to the second accelerated particle population discussed in Section \[sec:acc\] that reached those IMF lines due to cross-field motions. At the end of the particle event, this observer detects a second increase of intensity in the $4.2\pm 0.2$ MeV channel for the case with cross-field diffusion, since the observer approaches the reverse shock wave. For the simulation assuming $\kappa_\perp=0$ (see the bottom right panel of Fig. \[fig:tp1.5AU\]), after a prompt onset, the $3.8\pm 0.2$ MeV proton intensity-time profile shows a rounded plateau-shape similar to that obtained for the observer at 1 AU depicted in the right panel of Fig. \[fig:tp1AU\]. This shape can again be attributed to the non-trivial interplay between acceleration/deceleration processes occurring in the slow solar wind, the transition zone and the forward shock. The sharp decrease between 13 and 15 hours is again due to the passage of the SI and its adjacent magnetic field lines, that is, the field lines that do not cross any shock/compression wave where the particles can accelerate and mirror. Summary and Conclusions {#sec:summary} ======================= In this article, we present and test a new particle transport code that obtains solutions of the focused transport equation by means of a Monte-Carlo simulation. The focused transport equation that we solve is extended from the standard formulation by including for the first time both the effects of the magnetic gradient/curvature drifts and cross-field diffusion. The new code is a fully parallelized 3D time-dependent particle transport code, able to propagate particles in complex solar wind configurations generated by 3D MHD models like EUHFORIA. In Section \[sec:parker\_seps\] we tested the code by propagating particles in a nominal IMF for slow and fast solar wind configurations. We started with presenting the results of simulations both with and without cross-field diffusion, yet neglecting particle convection and adiabatic energy losses in the solar wind. These simulations illustrated how cross-field diffusion can make sharp cut-offs in particle intensities more gradual, a result previously shown by [@droge10]. Subsequently we included all terms of the FTE, and illustrated how particles are considerably more adiabatically decelerated in the fast solar wind than in the slow solar wind. For a fixed source of particles near the Sun, [@ruffolo95] and [@kocharov98] quantified the decay rate of proton intensities for 1 AU observers due to adiabatic deceleration. We have shown instead the substantial energy loss of particles in the fast solar wind by depicting how the 4 MeV injected protons populated lower-energy channels in the case of observers located at two different radial distances. Comparing, for those observers, the most populated energy channels at every time instance reveals differences that reflect the dependence of magnetic focusing on the velocity of a particle and on the radially decreasing magnetic field strength. In the second part of the article we propagated particles in a solar wind generated by EUHFORIA. In particular we modelled a slow solar wind configuration with an embedded fast solar wind stream. The substantial difference between the slow and fast solar wind speeds resulted in the formation of a CIR bounded by a forward and a reverse shock at relatively small radial distances (${\sim}1.5$ AU onwards). Hence, unlike previous simulations of impulsive SEP events in CIRs [@Giacalone02; @kocharov08a], we use a 3D MHD simulation that includes both the forward and reverse shock waves in the same set-up, which allows a more complete description of the particles’ intensity-time profiles obtained by virtual observers placed at different locations in the ecliptic plane. We considered an impulsive injection of 4 MeV protons at the inner boundary of EUHFORIA, uniformly spread over a region covering a small part of the slow solar wind and a substantial part of the fast solar wind stream. The particles were propagated both with and without cross-field diffusion. Despite using a small perpendicular mean free path, the differences between both cases were substantial. When cross-field diffusion was switched on, particles spread over a much larger region in the heliosphere, more than doubling its longitudinal extent in the solar equatorial plane. In contrast, this feature was not observed in the simulations using a simple Parker solar wind, despite using a similar cross-field diffusion. Therefore, the increase of efficiency of the cross-field diffusion in the simulation containing the embedded fast solar wind stream can be attributed to the more complex magnetic field configuration found in the CIR. In particular, inside the CIR, magnetic field lines are converging such that small cross-field motions can transport particles to magnetic field lines that are widely separated in the unperturbed solar wind. This increase of efficiency of cross-field diffusion at the boundary between a slow and fast solar wind stream could potentially help explain some of the actual measured particle events that show a large angular spread in the heliosphere. We note that we are using a rather simplified model for the cross-field diffusion. However since we use a very weak cross-field diffusion, which is in addition minimal at the CIR shocks and at the SI due to its inverse scaling with the magnetic field strength, it is likely that a more realistic treatment of the cross-field motions will influence the particle densities in the heliosphere in a similar or even stronger way. Our simulations also show the formation of an accelerated particle population centred on the reverse shock of the CIR. In particular, the acceleration site of the particles is mainly situated at a radial distance of ${\sim}1.5$ AU, yet this location merely reflects the magnetic connection between the reverse shock and the particles injection region. There are also field lines originating from the particle injection region that cross the boundary between the slow or fast solar wind and the transition zone at small radial distances, i.e. before the compression waves have steepened into shock waves. The particles following these field lines already show signatures of strongly reduced adiabatic deceleration and even adiabatic acceleration. This is exemplified by the plateau shape in the $3.8\pm 0.2$ MeV energy channel during the first hours of the particle event (see, e.g. the right panel of Fig. \[fig:tp1AU\]). A second population of accelerated particles, centred on the forward shock near ${\sim}1.6$ AU, appeared in the case of the simulation with cross-field diffusion. This population of accelerated particles was not present in the case without cross-field diffusion, since no magnetic field lines connected the particle injection region with the forward shock at those larger radial distances. Remark that these forward shock accelerated particles were injected in the slow solar wind, since particles injected in the fast solar wind cannot reach the forward shock due to the SI acting as a diffusion barrier. The formation of an extra population of accelerated particles solely as a consequence of cross-field diffusion illustrates again how a weak cross-field motion can significantly alter the particle population in the heliosphere when the solar wind is more complex than a simple Parker configuration. This is particularly important since in reality, a Parker configuration is relatively rare, and can, most of the time, only be found during solar minimum. We conclude by noting that the more complex magnetic field configuration of the CIR produced particle time-intensity profiles that differ strongly in shape from the ones obtained when using a nominal IMF. By placing virtual observers at different locations in the heliosphere, we illustrated that the intensity profiles can largely vary from one to the other, even for observers located closely to each other, that is, separated by $<10^\circ$ in longitude. These differences can only be attributed to the varying solar wind conditions since the particles were injected uniformly over the selected region at the inner boundary of EUHFORIA. Hence, the background solar wind can have a major influence on the particle transport, which illustrates the necessity for using more realistic background solar wind configurations when studying SEP events. Magnetohydrodynamic codes like EUHFORIA can, to some extent, provide such realistic background winds. N. Wijsen is a PhD Fellowship of the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO). The computational resources and services used in this work were provided by the VSC (Flemish Supercomputer Center), funded by the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) and the Flemish Government – department EWI. The work at University of Barcelona was partly supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitivity under the project AYA2016-77939-P, funded by the European Union’s European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), and under the project MDM-2014-0369 of ICCUB (Unidad de Excelencia ‘María de Maeztu’). The work at University of Helsinki was carried out in the Finnish Centre of Excellence in Research of Sustainable Space (Academy of Finland grant numbers 312390 and 312351). The authors thank Neus Agueda, Blai Sanahuja, and Rami Vainio for valuable discussions.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We measure the smoothness of the infrared sky using the COBE DIRBE maps, and obtain interesting limits on the production of the diffuse cosmic infrared background (CIB) light by matter clustered like galaxies. The predicted fluctuations of the CIB with the DIRBE beam size of 0.7are of the order of 10%, and the maps are smooth at the level of $\delta\nu I_\nu \sim $ a few 2sr rms from 2.2 to 100 . The lowest numbers are achieved at mid- to far-IR where the foreground is bright but smooth; they are $\sqrt{C(0)}$$\leq$$(1-1.5)$ 2sr at $\lambda=$ 10-100 . If the CIB comes from clustered matter evolving according to typical scenarios, then the smoothness of the maps implies CIB levels less than $\sim (10-15) $ 2sr over this wavelength range.' author: - 'A. Kashlinsky, J. C. Mather, S. Odenwald' title: 'Clustering of the Diffuse Infrared Light from the COBE DIRBE maps. An all-sky survey of $C(0)$.' --- epsf \#1[=]{} \#1 2sr [Wm$^{-2}$sr$^{-1}$ ]{} 2m4sr2 [W$^2$m$^{-4}$sr$^{-2}$ ]{} 2sr [nWm$^{-2}$sr$^{-1}$ ]{} \#1[10$^{#1}$]{} Introduction ============ The cosmic infrared background (CIB) contains information about the conditions in the post-recombination Universe and links the microwave background, which probes the last scattering surface, and the optical part of the cosmic spectrum, which probes the conditions in the Universe today at $z\sim 0$. Numerous models have been developed to predict the properties of the CIB at wavelengths from the near-IR ($\lambda \sim $1-10 $\mu$m) to the far-IR (e.g. Bond, Carr and Hogan 1986; Beichman and Helou 1991; Franceschini 1991). The predicted spectral properties and the amplitude of the CIB depend on the various cosmological assumptions used, such as the cosmological density parameter, the history of star formation, and the power spectrum of the primordial density field among others. A typical prediction over the range of wavelengths probed by the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) DIRBE (Diffuse Infrared Background Experiment), 1.25 - 240 $\mu$m, is $\nu I_\nu \sim 10$ 2sr (e.g. Pagel 1993 and references therein). It is difficult to measure such levels directly because the foreground emissions from stars and interstellar and interplanetary dust are bright. An alternative to direct photometric measurements of the uniform (DC) component of the CIB is to study its spatial structure. In such a method, the groundwork for which has been laid in Kashlinsky, Mather, Odenwald and Hauser (1996; hereafter Paper I), one compares the predicted fluctuations of the CIB with the measured angular correlation function of the maps. Here we apply the method to the all-sky DIRBE maps and show that it imposes interesting limits on the CIB from clustered matter, particularly in the mid- to far-IR. We review the theoretical basis for the analysis and improve it over Paper I, discuss the data sets and the methods of map construction and analysis, and conclude with the results and limits they set on the CIB. Theory ====== The angular correlation function for the CIB has been studied for a variety of cosmological models (e.g. Bond, Carr and Hogan 1986, Wang 1991, Coles, Treyer and Silk 1990, Paper I). In general, the intrinsic correlation function of the diffuse background, $C(\theta) \equiv \langle \nu \delta I_\nu({\bf x}) \cdot \nu \delta I_\nu ({\bf x}+\theta)\rangle$, where $\delta I \equiv I- \langle I \rangle$ is the map of spatial fluctuations produced by a population of emitters (e.g. galaxies) clustered with a 3-dimensional correlation function $\xi(r)$, is given in the small angle limit ($\theta \ll 1$) by $$C(\theta) = \int_0^\infty A_\theta(z) (\frac{d\nu I_\nu}{dz})^2 [\Psi^2(z) (1+z)^2 \sqrt{1+\Omega z}] dz, \label{e1}$$ where it was assumed that the cosmological constant is zero, $\Psi(z)$ is the factor accounting for the evolution of the clustering pattern, and $A_\theta (z)= 2R_H^{-1} \int_0^\infty \xi(\sqrt{v^2 + \frac{x^2(z)\theta^2}{(1+z)^2}}\;) dv$. Here $R_H=cH_0^{-1}$, and $x(z)$ is the comoving distance. In case of non-zero cosmological constant, $\Lambda \equiv 3 H_0^2 \lambda$, the $\sqrt{1+\Omega z}$ term in the parentheses above should be replaced with $\sqrt{1+\Omega z +\lambda [(1+z)^{-2}-1]}$. After convolving Eq. \[e1\] with the beam, the zero-lag correlation function (mean square deviation) becomes $$C_\vartheta(0) = \int_0^\infty A_\vartheta(z) (\frac{d\nu I_\nu}{dz})^2 [\Psi^2 (1+z)^2 \sqrt{1+\Omega z}] dz, \label{e2}$$ $$A_\vartheta(z)=\frac{1}{2\pi R_H} \int_0^\infty P_{3,0}(k) k W(\frac{kx(z)\vartheta}{1+z}) dk. \label{e3}$$ For the top-hat beam of DIRBE the window function is $W(x)=[2J_1(x)/x]^2$ and $\vartheta$=0.46. In Eq. \[e3\], $P_{3,0}(k)$ is the spectrum of galaxy clustering at the present epoch. If $\xi$ is known, the measurement of $C(\theta)$ can give information on the diffuse background due to material clustered like galaxies (e.g. Gunn 1965, Peebles 1980). Such a method was successfully applied in the V (Shectman 1973, 1974) and UV bands (Martin and Bowyer 1989). In the rest of the paper we omit the subscript $\vartheta$ in Eq. \[e3\], with $C(0)$ referring to the DIRBE convolved zero-lag correlation signal; the mean square of the map $\langle (\nu \delta I_\nu)^2\rangle$. This $C(0)$ is just the mean square confusion noise. As was shown in Paper I, for scales dominating the integral in Eq. \[e2\] the 2-point correlation function at the present epoch can be approximated as a power-law. In that case, in the Friedman-Robertson-Walker Universe, $A_\vartheta(z)$ would reach a minimum at $z\geq 1$ whose value is almost independent of $\Omega$. Here we generalize the argument to a more realistic $\xi(r)$. We computed $A_\vartheta(z)$ using the correlation data from the APM (Maddox 1990) survey, with the APM power spectrum taken from: 1) the inversion technique of Baugh and Efstathiou (1993; hereafter BE), and; 2) the empirical fit to the APM data on the projected galaxy correlation function from Kashlinsky (1992; hereafter K92). The resultant $A_\vartheta(z)$ is shown in Fig. 1 for $\Omega$=1 (upper sets of lines) and 0.1 (lower sets). The solid lines correspond to BE and the dashed lines to K92 spectra $P_{3,0}(k)$. Both were normalized to the Harrison-Zeldovich spectrum at wavenumbers smaller than those probed by the APM data, as required by the COBE/DMR observations (Bennett 1996). The three sets of curves for each $\Omega$ indicate the $ 1\sigma$ uncertainty from the APM data from the BE inversion and a roughly similar uncertainty from the K92 empirical fit. The minimum of $A_\vartheta(z)$ is clear, and for the scales probed by the DIRBE beam the value at the minimum is practically independent of $\Omega$. Following Paper I we can rewrite Eq. \[e2\] as an inequality to derive an upper limit on a measure of the CIB flux from clustered material from any upper limit on $C(0)$ derived from the DIRBE data: $$(\nu I_\nu)_{z,rms} \leq B \sqrt{C(0)} \label{e4}$$ where $B \equiv 1/\sqrt{{\rm min}\{A_\vartheta(z)\}}= (11-14)$ over the entire range of parameters, and the measure of the CIB flux used in Eq. \[e4\] is defined as $[(\nu I_\nu)_{z,rms}]^2 \equiv \int (\frac{d\nu I_\nu}{dz})^2 [\Psi^2(z)(1+z)^2\sqrt{1+\Omega z}] dz$. The latter is $\simeq \int (\frac{d\nu I_\nu}{dz})^2 dz$ since the term in the brackets has little variation with $z$ for two extremes of clustering evolution, when it is stable in either proper or comoving coordinates (Peebles 1980). Thus the CIB produced by objects clustered like galaxies should have significant fluctuations, $\sim 10\%$ of the total flux, on the angular scale subtended by the DIRBE beam. As Eq. \[e2\] shows, if the bulk of the CIB comes from higher redshifts this would lead to smaller relative $\delta I/I$ and vice versa (cf. Wang 1991). Data and analysis ================= The COBE was launched in 1989 (Boggess 1992). The DIRBE is one of the three instruments, and mapped the sky in ten bands from the near-IR (J, K, L bands at $\lambda$=1.25, 2.2 and 3.5 $\mu$m) to the far-IR at 240 $\mu$m. Four of the bands match the IRAS bands. The instrument is a photometer with an instantaneous field of view of 0.7$\times$0.7. It was designed to have a mission-averaged, instrumental noise less than 1 2sr in the first eight bands; at 140 and 240  the instrumental noise is higher. We analyzed maps for all 10 DIRBE bands derived from the entire 41 week DIRBE data set available from the NSSDC. A parametrized model developed by the DIRBE team (Reach et al. 1996) was used to remove the time-varying zodiacal component from each weekly map (Paper I). The maps were pixelized using the quadrilateralized spherical cube as described by Chan and O’Neill (1974) and Chan and Laubscher (1976). After the maps were constructed, the sky was divided into 384 patches of 32$\times$32 pixels $\simeq 10\deg\times$10  each. Each field was cleaned of bright sources by the program developed by the DIRBE team, in which the large scale flux distribution in each patch was modeled with a fourth order polynomial. As in Paper I, pixels with fluxes $> N_{\rm cut}$ standard deviations above the fitted model were removed along with the surrounding 8 pixels. Three values of $N_{\rm cut}$ were used: $N_{\rm cut}$ =7, 5, 3.5. Since any large-scale gradients in the emission are clearly due to the local foregrounds, a fourth order polynomial was also removed from each patch after desourcing. The extragalactic contribution to $C(0)$ should come predominantly from small scales, so removing large scale gradients would not remove any significant part of the extragalactic $C(0)$. In any case, we confirmed that removing the local gradients with lower order polynomials makes little difference in the final results. We also verified that there is a good correlation between removed bright objects in the 1.25, 2.2, and 3.5  bands at $N_{\rm cut}=7 $ and the stars from the SAO catalog; at lower $N_{\rm cut}$ many of the removed peaks would be too dim to enter the catalog. The results of the calculations of $C(0)$ for all 384 patches at $N_{\rm cut}=3.5$ for wavelengths from 1.25 to 100 are shown in Plate 1 in Galactic coordinates. Sixteen shades are used with a logarithmic increment of $\simeq$1.8 in $C(0)$ starting at the minimal values in each band. The fluctuations in all bands are strongest where the foregrounds are brightest in the Galactic or Ecliptic plane. The histograms for the $C(0)$ maps in each band show that the range of values for $C(0)$ are very different in the near-IR (1.25 - 4.9 ) and mid- to far-IR (12-100 ) bands. In the near-IR where Galactic stars dominate the fluctuations of the foreground, there is the expected dependence of the minimal value of $C(0)$ on the desourcing parameter $N_{\rm cut}$. At mid- to far-IR there is very little change in the distribution of $C(0)$ with $N_{\rm cut}$ since the foreground emission is extended with little small-scale structure. In the near-IR bands where Galactic stars dominate the foreground there is a strong correlation between the residual value of $C(0)$ and the Galactic latitude: $C(0)$$\propto$$(\sin |b|)^{-\alpha}$ with $\alpha$$\simeq$2. From least square fits we found $\alpha$=2.2, 2.4, 2.5 and 1.7 for 1.25, 2.2, 3.5, and 4.9  respectively. At longer wavelengths the correlation with $b$ is significantly less pronounced due to appreciable contributions from the zodiacal foreground. At short wavelengths (1.25 - 4.9 ) the remaining fluctuations are still mainly due to point sources, which are recognizable as small groups of bright pixels in the original maps. This is confirmed by inspection of the histograms of the pixel brightnesses, which are asymmetric as expected for a distribution of point sources at various distances (Paper I, Fig. 5). Because point sources clearly dominate the fluctuations, the choice of $N_{\rm cut}$ is important in the near-IR. On the other hand, removal of large scale gradients using a variety of polynomial fits after removing point sources makes little difference to the calculation of $C(0)$ for these bands. At longer wavelengths the situation is quite different. The sky brightness is dominated in most directions outside the Galactic Plane by the interplanetary dust, which is very smoothly distributed except for a cusp in the Ecliptic plane and some faint dust bands within a few degrees of it. There are also clouds of dust grains in resonance with the Earth’s orbit, which appear in the Ecliptic plane 90 from the Sun (Reach 1995b). Outside these regions, the main foreground structures are interstellar dust, which has typical size scales larger than the DIRBE beam ( Waller and Boulanger, 1994; Low and Cutri, 1994). Therefore it makes a difference whether large scale gradients are removed before computation of $C(0)$. The distribution of pixel brightnesses is also more nearly Gaussian and much less asymmetrical than at short wavelengths, and the choice of the desourcing parameter $N_{\rm cut}$ makes little difference. Because the measured fluctuations in the mid-IR are so small relative to the total brightness, and point sources are not the obvious source of fluctuations, we must evaluate instrument noise effects. Inspection of the raw data shows that the detector noise is comparable to the digitization roundoff noise for each detector sample except in Bands 9 and 10 where the detector noise dominates. The onboard phase sensitive detection algorithm obtains 8 digital samples per chopper cycle of the analog preamplifier outputs. The DIRBE beam scan rate is such that four of these chopper cycles are averaged to obtain a single photometric measure of the sky brightness at each each pixel location. The rms conversion noise is $12^{-0.5}$ digital units per sample, so that for a single pixel measurement consisting of 32 digital values, one obtains an rms digital noise of 0.051 digital units. The preamplifier gain is 16 for the sky observations, so that the conversion of the digital units to photometric units yields digitization noise levels of 3.2, 1.7, and 0.4 2sr in the J, K and L bands, 0.6 - 0.9 2sr for the bands between 4.9 and 100   , and 1.7-5.6 2sr in the 140 and 24  bands. These digitization noise estimates are further reduced by a factor of 17 by averaging the individual photometric measures for each pixel, since each pixel is observed about 15 times per week, and 20 weeks per year. Regions near the ecliptic poles are observed substantially more frequently. During this time the brightness of the interplanetary dust changes dramatically because of the Earth’s motion through the dust cloud, so wide ranges of the digitizer are exercised. Therefore the digitization errors are randomized so that they do not introduce obvious band structures in the completed annual map. We verified this from an average map made without subtracting a model for the interplanetary dust. On the other hand, we make a separate correction for the interplanetary dust contribution for each weekly map. Systematic errors in the corrections can produce artificial stripes in the computed average map, which are seen most easily in the Ecliptic plane where the signals and their rates of change are greatest. These stripes have not been entirely eliminated by the dust model we used, and are one reason why the $C(0)$ maps show increases near the Ecliptic plane even though the dust emission is expected to be very smooth. These stripes have least effect at the Ecliptic poles. We conclude that the measured values for the fluctuations are upper limits on the fluctuations of the CIB. The upper limits estimated below come from the quietest patch in each band for the entire sky. For brevity we omit the histogram distribution of $C(0)$, but its inspection shows that the minimum is estimated from around 30-80 patches in each of the bands making it a reliable and unbiased estimate of the true upper limit. Since the distribution of $C(0)$ is highly anisotropic on the sky, the signal must come from the foreground emission and it is thus further unlikely that any of the truly cosmological contributions have been removed in the process. Plate 1 shows that the lowest $C(0)$ for the adjacent bands come from neighbouring patches. In the near IR these are located around Galactic poles; in the mid-IR they are near Ecliptic poles and in the far-IR they shift back to the Galactic poles. Our data processing does not remove real fluctuations unless they appear to come from point sources, or to have very large scale gradients. The instrument digitization noise, estimated to be below 1.0 2sr in all bands after averaging, is not a problem at the level probed here. Results and conclusions ======================= The measured upper limits on the fluctuations of the CIB offer a powerful test of any model for its sources. Fig. 2 summarizes our results at all except the two longest wavelength DIRBE bands. Triangles show the upper limits we set on $\sqrt{C(0)}$. These upper limits were calculated by selecting the sky patch with the lowest value of $C(0)$ from among the ensemble of 384 patches. Translating these into limits on the uniform part of the CIB is somewhat theory-dependent. Assuming typically 10% fluctuations on the scale of the DIRBE beam, our results lead to quite low upper limits on the CIB fluxes from clustered material, particularly at mid- to far-IR bands. They are less interesting at 140 and 240  because of higher DIRBE detector noise. The darkest DIRBE sky limits from weekly maps are presented with $\times$-s as reported by DIRBE (Hauser 1993). (A typical pixel is observed for 20 weeks during the mission). The vertical bars show the residual fluxes from the fits reported by Hauser (1996a) after removal of Galactic and zodiacal foregrounds, but they were not described as detections because of uncertainties in the foreground modeling. At wavelengths $ >$$10$ they are comparable to the levels that may be derived from the interpretation of the spectra of $\gamma$-ray sources, where gamma rays interact with the CIB by pair production. One method of calculation gives the result as $\nu I_\nu$$\simeq$$6 h (\frac{\lambda}{\mu \rm m})^{0.55}$2sr (Dwek and Slavin 1994), plotted with solid lines for h=$H_0$/100kmsec$^{-1}$Mpc$^{-1}$=1 (upper line) and 0.5. If these are treated as detections our upper limits on $C(0)$ would suggest that the bulk of the CIB at these wavelengths is produced at very high $z$, leading to the decrease of $(\nu I_\nu)_{z,rms}$ for given $\nu I_\nu$. In other words this would require $\delta I/I$$\leq$$2$$\times$$10^{-2} h^{-1} (\frac{\lambda}{40\mu{\rm m}})^{-0.55}$, so the background must come from high redshifts. An alternative interpretation would be that the CIB estimated from the $\gamma$-rays is not produced by clustered material. The latter is however unlikely since the CIB is expected to be produced by material that collapsed due to local gravity, and hence its structure should reflect that of the primordial density field. At the J, K, L (1.25 - 3.5 ) bands the no-evolution (Paper I) or reasonable evolution (Veeraraghavan 1996) models of the zero lag correlation function in the CIB produced by normal galaxies give numbers for $\sqrt{C(0)}$ around (1.5-3, 0.5-1.5, 0.5-1.5) 2sr respectively. Our limits at 1.25  are almost an order of magnitude higher, but at 2.2 and 3.5  they are comparable in magnitude. If there were an extra population of galaxies at early times they would contribute an additional signal (see e.g. the Cole, Treyer and Silk (1992) model designed to fit simultaneously the deep K- and B-counts). Any other sources of emission that may have been active in the early Universe in addition to normal galaxies would increase the above theoretical estimates. Further improvements in the analysis of the DIRBE maps are possible, as are new instruments or new applications of old instruments. They may yield the first clear sign of a cosmic infrared background radiation. We are grateful to Carlton Baugh for providing us with the APM power spectrum data, and to Michael Hauser for a careful reading of an early draft of this paper. This work was supported by NASA Long Term Space Astrophysics grant. The DIRBE software team developed the data sets and the software used for removing sources and interplanetary dust models. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration/Goddard Space Flight Center (NASA/GSFC) is responsible for the design, development, and operation of the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE). GSFC is also responsible for the development of the analysis software and for the production of the mission data sets. The COBE program is supported by the Astrophysics Division of NASA’s Office of Space Science and Applications. [**References**]{} -1pc Baugh, C.M. and Efstathiou, G. 1993, MNRAS, [**265**]{}, 145. Beichman, C.A. and Helou, G. 1991, Ap.J., [**370**]{}, L1. Bennett, C.L. 1996, Ap.J., accepted. Bernard, J.P. 1994, A&A, [**291**]{}, L5. Boggess, N.W. 1992, Ap.J., [**397**]{}, 420. Bond, J.R. 1986, Ap.J., [**306**]{}, 428. Bond, J.R. 1991, Ap.J., [**367**]{}, 420. COBE 1995a, COBE Skymap Information, National Space Sciences Data Center,\ http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/astro/cobe/skymap\_\_info.html COBE 1995b, DIRBE Explanatory Supplement, eds. M.G. Hauser, T. Kelsall, D. Leisawitz, and J. Weiland, National Space Sciences Data Center, anonymous FTP from nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov. Cole, S., Treyer, M. and Silk, J. 1992, Ap.J., [**385**]{}, 9. Chan, F.K. and O’Neill 1975, Computer Sciences Corporation EPRF Report 2-75. Chan, F.K. and Laubscher, R.E. 1976, Computer Sciences Corporation EPRF Report 3-76. Dwek, E. and Slavin, J. 1994, Ap.J., [**436**]{}, 696. Franceschini, A. 1991, Ap.J.Suppl., [**89**]{}, 285. Gunn, J. 1965, Ph.D. Thesis, Caltech. (unpublished) Hauser, M. , 1984, Ap.J. (Letters), [**278**]{}, L15. Hauser, M. 1993, in “Back to the Galaxy," AIP Conf. Proc. [**278**]{}, eds. S. Holt and F. Verter, (AIP:NY), 201. Hauser, M. 1996a, in Proc. IAU Symposium 168, “Examining the Big Bang and Diffuse Background Radiations", M. Kafatos and Y. Kondo, eds., Kluwer, Dordrecht., p. 99. Hauser, M. 1996b, in “Unveiling the Cosmic Infrared Background," AIP Conf. Proc., [**348**]{}, ed. E. Dwek, (AIP:NY), 11-24. Kashlinsky, A. 1992, Ap.J., [**399**]{}, L1. Kashlinsky, A., Mather, J., Odenwald, S. and Hauser, M. 1996, Ap.J., accepted (Paper I) Koo, D. and Kron, R.R. 1992, ARAA, [**30**]{}, 613. Low, F.J and Cutri, R.M. 1994, IR Physics and Tech. 35, 291. Maddox, S. 1990, MNRAS, [**242**]{}, 43P. Martin, C. and Bowyer, S. 1989, Ap.J, [**338**]{}, 677. Pagel, B.E.J. 1993, in “The Cold Universe," eds. Montmerle , Editions Frontieres, p.345 Peebles, P.J.E. 1980, “Large Scale Structure of the Universe," Princeton Univ. Press. Reach, W. , 1995b, Nature, TBD, TBD. Reach, W. , 1996, in “Unveiling the Cosmic Infrared Background," 1996, AIP Conf. Proc., [**348**]{}, (AIP: New York), 37-46. Veeraraghavan, S. 1996, in “Unveiling the Cosmic Infrared Background," AIP Conf. Proc, [**348**]{}, (AIP: New York), 122-126. Waller, W. and Boulanger, F. 1994, ASP Conference Series, v. 58, 129. Wang, B. 1991, Ap.J., [**374**]{}, 465. Weiland, J.L. , 1996, in “Unveiling the Cosmic Infrared Background," AIP Conf. Proc. [**348**]{}, (AIP: New York), 74-80. White, R.A., and Mather, J.C. 1991, “Databases from the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE)," Databases & On-line Data in Astronomy. Astrophysics and Space Science Library, eds. M.A. Albrecht and D. Egret, (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 171, pp. 30-34. [**Figure captions**]{}\ Fig. 1. $A_\vartheta(z)$ is plotted vs $z$ for 1) zero cosmological constant with $\Omega$=1 (uppermost curves) and $\Omega$=0.1 (lowermost curves) and 2) flat Universe with $\Omega =0.1$ and non-zero cosmological constant (middle curves). Dashed lines correspond to the APM fit spectrum from K92 and solid lines to BE. Three sets of each line correspond to one-sigma uncertainty in the BE fit and approximately the same uncertainty for K92.\ \ Fig. 2. Triangles show the upper limits on $\sqrt{C(0)}$ set by our analysis. $\times$-s are the lowest upper limits from the darkest part of the DIRBE weekly sky maps from (Hauser 1993). Vertical bars show the range of the residual DIRBE fluxes left after Galaxy modelling and removal (Hauser 1996a,b). Solid lines are the possible detections from Dwek and Slavin (1994); the upper line is for $H_0$=100 km/sec/Mpc and the lower one is for 50km/sec/Mpc. All fluxes are in 2sr .\ \ Plate 1. Maps of $C(0)$ in Galactic coordinates for DIRBE Bands 1-8, 1.25 - 100  . The grey scale shows logarithmic steps at intervals of 1.8. For Bands 1-8, the minimum log($C(0)$) are -4.2, -4.7, -5.1, -5.4, -6.0, -4.1, -3.3 and -2.5 respectively. =1.0 =1.0 =1.0

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We present a model for the kinetics of spontaneous membrane domain (raft) assembly that includes the effect of membrane recycling ubiquitous in living cells. We show that the domains have a broad power-law distribution with an average radius that scales with the 1/4 power of the domain lifetime when the line tension at the domain edges is large. For biologically reasonable recycling and diffusion rates the average domain radius is in the tens of nm range, consistent with observations. This represents one possible link between signaling (involving rafts) and traffic (recycling) in cells. Finally, we present evidence that suggests that the average raft size may be the same for all [*scale-free*]{} recycling schemes.' author: - 'Matthew S. Turner${}^{1}$, Pierre Sens${}^{2}$ and Nicholas D. Socci${}^3$' title: 'Non-equilibrium raft-like membrane domains under continuous recycling' --- Liquid-liquid phase separation in mixed membranes is now a well known phenomenon. Separated domains in vesicles have been observed by fluorescence labelling and the size of circular sphingomyelin (SM)-enriched domains can reach almost half that of a 20$\mu$m-sized vesicle [@baumgart; @kahya; @kellerprl]. These domains quickly reassumed their circular shape if deformed, and merged with each other to create circular domains, all phenomena consistent with the existence of strongly immiscible liquid domains. There has been much recent biological interest in “lipid rafts” which are believed to be liquid ordered membrane microdomains containing certain proteins and enriched in glycosphingolipids and cholesterol [@raft1; @raft2; @edidinreview]. These are thought to have many important functions, including in signal transduction and in the sorting of proteins. Experimental estimates of the size of lipid rafts [*in vivo*]{} are in the few tens to 100 nm range [@pralle; @dietrich; @simonsreview; @rao; @keller] or even smaller [@fret]. We refer to these as “intermediate” sized domains in what follows to distinguish them from the micron scale (or larger) domains observed in reconstituted membranes that are close to equilibrium. We first review why intermediate sized domains are not expected to form on two component membranes at equilibrium in the absence of long range interactions [@seul] or recycling [@edidin]. We assume that the surface coverage of domains remains small and write a simple Flory-Huggins model for the grand potential energy per area as a function of the distribution of the sizes of domains, defined by the dimensionless concentration $c_{n}$ of domains containing $n$ monomers. All concentrations are per monomeric area $s=\pi(b/2)^{2}$ with the monomer diameter perhaps $b\sim5$nm if we identify the effective monomeric unit [*in vivo*]{} as a typical raft-resident proteins together with its associated lipid “skirt” [@vereb]. $$\G=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} c_{n}\left(\log\frac{c_{n}}e -\mu n +\gamma\sqrt{n}\right) \label{FH}$$ Here and below all energies are measured in units of $\kT$. A line tension $\gamma/(2\sqrt{\pi s})$ acts at the perimeters of all the domains. The chemical potential $\mu$ is conjugate to the total area fraction of domains $\phi=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} n\>c_{n}$. Thermodynamic equilibrium then corresponds to $$c_{n}=e^{-\gamma\sqrt{n}+\mu n} \label{ceq}$$ The average domain size is $\bar n=\phi/N$ with $N=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} c_{n}$ the total density of domains of all sizes. When $\phi$ is very small $\mu(\phi)\sim\log\phi$ is large and negative and almost all domains are very small (monomeric) in size. For $\mu=0$ there exists a [*critical*]{} total area fraction $\phi_{c}=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} ne^{-\gamma\sqrt{n}}$, again made up of small domains provided $\gamma\gg1$. There is a phase transition for $\phi>\phi_{c}$ beyond which the area fraction of finite-sized, essentially monomeric, domains $\phi_{c}$ remains constant but the distribution becomes highly bimodal with a few very large domains accounting for the remainder $\phi-\phi_{c}$ [^1]. This is at odds with many experimental observations and hence motivates a non-equilibrium model, involving recycling, which will occupy the remainder of this paper. Non-equilibrium: recycling {#theory} ========================== The evolution of the domain size distribution on an infinite membrane may be written via the following master equation $$\begin{aligned} {\frac{dc_{n}}{dt}}&=\sigma(n)+\sum_{m=1}^{\infty} k_{n,m} \>c_{n+m}-k'_{n,m}\>c_{n}c_{m}\hskip1cm{} \nonumber\\ &+\frac12\sum_{m=1}^{n-1}k'_{m,n-m}\>c_{n-m}c_{m}-k_{m,n-m}\>c_{n} \label{master}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\sigma(n)$ controls the lipid recycling, as will be discussed in further detail below; $\sigma=0$ when there is no recycling. The kernals $k_{n,m}$ and $k'_{n,m}$ control, respectively, the rates of domain scission in which one domain of $n+m$ monomers breaks into two, of size $n$ and $m$, and domain fusion, in which two domains containing $n$ and $m$ monomers fuse to form a single domain of size $n+m$, see Fig 1a. A similar approach has been rather successful in describing the kinetics of wormlike micelles [@Tur90]. We assume that two domains fuse whenever they diffuse into contact. Thus $k'=D/s$ with $D$ a characteristic diffusion constant for the domains and $s$ the area of the smallest (monomeric) domains. The characteristic, microscopic “diffusion” time scale $\tauD=1/k'=s/D\approx 10^{-5}$s for biological membranes. We propose to neglect any size-dependence of the diffusion constant of the domains, which is a fair approximation [@saffman]. This simplifies the analytic analysis and should only weakly affect our results, which rely primarily on the fact that the recycling rate is much slower than $1/\tauD$. The scission kernal $k_{n,m}$ is now determined by the principle of detailed balance, an approach that is appropriate provided the longest intra-domain relaxation time following a fusion or scission event is shorter than the domain collision time. This should be satisfied on average for fluid domains [@DLOvsDLD] where the rate of subsequent inter-domain events should then converge to that found at equilibrium for each (pair of) domain(s), in spite of the fact that the size distribution may be far from equilibrium. By inspection of Eq (\[master\]) together with Eq (\[ceq\]) $$k_{n,m}=e^{-\gamma(\sqrt{n}+\sqrt{m}-\sqrt{n+m})}k'_{n,m} \label{k}$$ where $k'_{n,m}=k'=1/\tauD$ is treated as a constant in what follows. This kinetic scheme, without recycling, will yield asymptotic domain growth reminiscent of the coarsening of crystal domains [@lifshitzslyozov]. In order to analyse the effect of lipid recycling we first consider the “monomer deposition / raft removal” (MDRR) recycling scheme in which raft lipids and proteins are brought to the membrane at random as single ‘monomer’ sized units with a rate $\jon$ and entire rafts are lost from the membrane at random with a rate $\joff$, irrespective of their size, see Fig 1b. Thus $\sigma(n)$ appearing in Eq (\[master\]) takes the form $$\sigma(n)=\jon\delta_{n,1}-\joff c_{n} \label{sigmamonomerraft}$$ with $\delta_{i,j}$ the usual Kronecker delta. It is easily shown that $\phi=\jon/\joff$ at steady state. In general Eq (\[master\]) requires numerical solution, see Fig 2 and [^2], although an asymptotic solution is possible in the most interesting regime $\gamma\gg 1$, as discussed below. It can be seen from Fig 2 that the domain size distribution is broad, indeed there is significant contribution to the total area fraction from domains with $n\lesssim\bar n^{2}$. The distribution depends only weakly on $\gamma$ when $\gamma$ is itself large because all domain scission events are then rare. To investigate this ‘scissionless’ large $\gamma$ regime further we proceed by neglecting all scission terms in Eq (\[master\]) and obtain $${\frac{dc_{n}}{dt}}=\sigma(n)-k'N\>c_{n} +k'\frac12\sum_{m=1}^{n-1} c_{n-m}c_{m}\label{asymptoticmaster}$$ where we will later have to check our solutions for self-consistency, which will translate to establishing a lower bound for $\gamma$. The equations $\dot c_{n}=0$ for $n=1,2\dots$ can then be used to build up $c_{n}$ recursively. For MDRR recycling given by Eq (\[sigmamonomerraft\]) this yields $$c_{n}=A_{n}(\jon\tauD)^{n}/(\joff\tauD+N)^{2n-1}\label{termn}$$ with $A_{n}=(2n-2)!/(2^{n-1}n!(n-1)!)$. Eq (\[termn\]) still involves $N$ and so the size distribution is only explicitly determined after solving for $N=\sum c_n$. The resulting $c_n$ appears as the solid curve on Fig 2. In the most biologically relevant regime [^3] $\phi/(\joff\tauD)\gg 1$ and $N=\sqrt{2\phi\joff\tauD}$. Eq \[termn\] then approaches $$c_{n}\approx \sqrt{\phi\joff\tauD/(2\pi)}\>n^{-3/2}\quad{\rm for}\quad1\ll n \ll {\bar n}^{2} \label{capproxasymp}$$ which appears as the dashed curve on Fig 2. The average domain area in this regime is $$\bar n=\sqrt{\phi/(2\joff\tauD)} \label{nbarasymp}$$ as shown in Fig 3 (dashed line). When scission is rare the average domain radius is found to be $R=10$–$70$nm, for $b=1$–5nm respectively for recycling with rate $\joff=10^{-2}{\rm s}^{-1}$, see Fig 3. As can be seen from the raft area Eq (\[nbarasymp\]) the raft radius scales only with the 1/4 power of the recycling rate or diffusion time and hence is in the tens to $\sim 100$nm range for all reasonable physiological values. Restoring dimensionality the threshold line tension $\gamma^{\star}\approx10$ is about $0.6\kT$/nm when $b=5$nm. The line tension between different membrane phases may have several origins. Hydrophobic thickness mismatch [^4] gives rise to line tensions that depend upon the elastic properties of the membrane and are in the $\kT$/nm range. Other, more directly chemical or ordering-related, incompatibilities may also contribute. Thus the asymptotic results of this section, in which we assumed that the domains rarely break, may have wide applicability and full numerical solution of the master equation may not always be necessary. The scission rate Eq (\[k\]) has a maximum at $m=1$ corresponding to shedding single monomers. For domains with $n\gg 1$, such as those of the average size, the maximal rate is $k_{1,n-1}\approx e^{-\gamma}k'$ which can be used to establish a self-consistency condition: Only if the number of monomeric scission events in the typical residence time of a domain is much less than $\bar n$ will the scission rate be negligible. The product of this rate and the lifetime $\joff^{-1}$ is much less than $\bar n$ whenever $\gamma\gg\gamma^\star$ with $\gamma^{\star}=\frac12\log{\frac2{\phi\joff\tauD}}$. Another intuitive ‘scale free’ recycling scheme is the “monomer deposition / monomer removal” (MDMR) scheme in which raft lipids and proteins are again assumed to be brought to the membrane at random as small ‘monomer’ sized units with a rate $\jon$ but domain material (raft lipids and proteins) are removed from the membrane in monomeric units, at random, with a rate $\joff$, irrespective of the size of the raft on which they reside. While perhaps of less biological relevance this scheme, together with MDRR, form the most extreme examples of an entire class of possible recycling schemes: they correspond to the removal of monomers, through to whole rafts, respectively and involve no characteristic size scales for the recycling. As such it would be surprising if any intermediate ‘partial raft’ recycling scheme produced behavior that was not bounded qualitatively by the two extremes that we consider. Within this scheme $$\sigma(n)=\jon\delta_{n,1}-\joff(n c_{n}-(n+1)c_{n+1}) \label{sigmamonomermonomer}$$ with $\phi=\jon/\joff$ at steady state, as before. The general solution of Eq (\[master\]) is again obtained numerically, see Fig 4. Fig 5 shows that the mean domain size is the same for both of these recycling schemes, suggesting that this is true for [*all*]{} scale-free recycling schemes. To understand this note that the lifetime of every domain monomer is the same under both schemes. It is possible to propose other schemes that are not scale-free but rather have intrinsic size scales and it is far from clear that such schemes may not be biologically relevant. Such scales might correspond to a characteristic raft size at which endocytosis occurs. While it is straightforward to treat such schemes by an appropriate choice of $\sigma(n)$ the mechanisms by which lipids are recycled in the cell are still rather poorly understood [@recycling] and a thorough investigation of the numerous possible schemes lies outside the scope of the present work. Discussion ========== We have shown how the non-equilibrium nature of membranes can lead to steady-state domain sizes that are [*intermediate*]{} in size, typically in the tens to 100nm range for all biologically reasonable recycling rates and membrane diffusion constants. This result seems to agree well with experimental observations of lipid rafts on the plasma membranes of different cells and is marked contrast to the large domains observed on artificial membranes as they approach equilibrium. We believe that our results will be of interest to those working to realise membrane recycling in model (bio)chemical systems as well as those seeking candidates models that may provide a better understanding of lipid rafts in living cells. It is now being realized that signaling and traffic in cells may be closely related processes. Our model shows how the regulation of membrane traffic (recycling) might simultaneously control the raft sizes. It is also quite plausible that the size of rafts controls certain aspects of their function and this would give a direct connection between signaling and traffic. We are currently studying the potentially important effects of finite (cell) membrane area, which may result in a failure of the mean field approach for the largest rafts. Also of interest is the response of the raft size distribution to perturbations in the recycling, such as a step change in the monomer deposition rate. This will provide a biologically accessible way of relating response time(s) to this model and hence the rate of the underlying recycling mechanism. [10]{} W. W. Baumgart T, Hess ST, Nature [**425**]{}, 6960 (2003). N. Kahya [*et al.*]{}, J. Biological Chemistry [**278**]{}, 28109 (2003). S. L. Veatch and S. L. Keller, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 268101 (2002). K. Simons and E. Ikonen., Nature [**387**]{}, 569 (1997). K. Simons and E. Ikonen., Science [**290**]{}, 1721 (2000). M. Edidin, Trends Cell Biol. [**11**]{}, 492 (2001). A. Pralle [*et al.*]{}, J. Cell. Bio. [**148**]{}, 997 (2000). C. Dietrich [*et al.*]{}, Biophys. J [**82**]{}, 274 (2002). K. Simons and W. L. C. Vaz, Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. [**33**]{}, 269 (2004). S. Mayor and M. Rao, Traffic [**5**]{}, 231 (2004). S. L. Veatch, I. V. Polozov, K. Gawrisch, and S. L. Keller, Biophys. J. [ **86**]{}, 2910 (2004). P. Sharma [*et al.*]{}, Cell [**116**]{}, 577 (2004). M. Seul and D. Andelman, Science [**267**]{}, 476 (1995). L. A. Gheber and M. Edidin, Biophys. J. [**77**]{}, 3163 (1999). G. Vereb [*et al.*]{}, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. [**100**]{}, 8053 (2003). M. S. Turner and M. E. Cates, J. Physique [**51**]{}, 307 (1990). P. Saffman and M. Delbuck, Proc, Nat. Acad. Sci. [**72**]{}, 3111 (1975). A. Filippov, G. Oradd, and G. Lindlom, Biophys. J. [**86**]{}, 891 (2004). I. M. Lifshitz and V. V. Slyozov, J. Phys. Chem. Solids [**19**]{}, 35Ð (1961). F. R. Maxfield and T. E. McGraw, Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. [**5**]{}, 121 (2004). H. A. Rinia, M. M. Snel, J. P. van der Eerden, and B. de Kruijff, FEBS Lett. [**501**]{}, 92Ð (2001). FIGURE CAPTIONS\ \ Fig 1. The model: (a) all domains can undergo scission and fusion (b) domains are deposited and removed from the membrane stochastically.\ \ Fig 2. The steady state domain size distribution for MDRR recycling with $\phi=\jon/\joff=0.1$, $\joff\tauD=10^{-3}$ and $\gamma=2$ ($\diamond$) 4 ($\triangle$) and 6 ($\square$). The mean domain contains 1.3, 2.3 and 5.3 monomers respectively, rather small because a fast recycling rate was chosen for numerical convenience. The asymptotic variation for large line tensions Eq (\[termn\]) is shown (solid line) as is Eq (\[capproxasymp\]) (dashed line) appropriate for sizes $1<<n<<\bar n^{2}$.\ \ Fig 3. The variation of the mean domain size $\bar n$ and radius $R$ with $\phi/(\joff\tauD)$ (solid line) assuming that the domain scission rate is negligible and $b=5$nm. The power law variation for large, but physiologically relevant, $\phi/(\joff\tauD)$ is also shown (dashed line) as is the average residence time of the domains $\tauoff$, with $\tauD=10^{-5}$s and $\phi=0.1$.\ \ Fig 4. The steady state domain size distribution for the MDMR recycling scheme. The same values as Fig 2 are used except $\gamma=3$ ($\diamond$) 6 ($\triangle$) and 9 ($\square$). The mean domain contains 1.5, 5.2 and 7.0 monomers respectively, larger than in Fig 2 because of the larger line tension $\gamma$. The asymptotic behavior for the MDRR scheme at large line tensions Eq (\[termn\]) is shown (solid line), as is Eq (\[capproxasymp\] (dashed line), but it overestimates the very small number density of the largest domains present under this scheme.\ \ Fig 5. The steady state mean domain size $\bar n$ as a function of $\gamma$ for both MDRR (polygons) and MDMR (crosses) recycling, with $\phi=0.1$ and $\joff\tauD=10^{-1}$ ($\times$ and $\triangle$) $\joff\tauD=10^{-3}$ ($+$ and $\square$) $\joff\tauD=10^{-4}$ (crosses and pentagons). The asymptotic values of $\bar n$ for $\gamma\gg\gamma^{\star}$ from Fig 3 are shown as dashed lines at $\bar n= 1.4$ ($\joff\tauD=10^{-1}$), $\bar n= 7.6$ ($\joff\tauD=10^{-3}$) and $\bar n= 23$ ($\joff\tauD=10^{-4}$). The corresponding values of the crossover tension $\gamma^{\star}$ are 2.6, 5.0 and 6.1 respectively and are close to each inflection point. \[kinetics\] Fig 1 \[numerical\] Fig 2 \[lognbarofphit\] Fig 3 \[numerical2\] Fig 4 \[nbartwoschemes\] 3.5in Fig 5 [^1]: If instead $\gamma\lesssim 1$ the behaviour is physically rather uninteresting, approaching a gas of non-interacting, primarily monomeric, domains for all $\phi\ll 1$. [^2]: See EPAPS Document No. \[...\] for movies showing the evolution of the size distribution. [^3]: $\phi\approx0.1$, $\tauD\approx 10^{-5}$s and $\joff\gtrsim100$s [@vereb] might be typical. [^4]: AFM measurements on artificial bilayers report [@simonsreview; @riniaAFM] report mismatches of order $10\%$ between liquid ordered and disordered domains.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We investigate the gravitational instability of galactic discs, treating stars and cold interstellar gas as two distinct components, and taking into account the phenomenology of turbulence in the interstellar medium (ISM), i.e. the Larson-type scaling relations observed in the molecular and atomic gas. Besides deriving general properties of such systems, we analyse a large sample of galaxies from The H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> Nearby Galaxy Survey (THINGS), and show in detail how interstellar turbulence affects disc instability in star-forming spirals. We find that turbulence has a significant effect on both the inner and the outer regions of the disc. In particular, it drives the inner gas disc to a regime of transition between two instability phases and makes the outer disc more prone to star-dominated instabilities.' date: 'Accepted 2012 July 5. Received 2012 July 5; in original form 2012 March 6' title: The effect of ISM turbulence on the gravitational instability of galactic discs --- \[firstpage\] instabilities – turbulence – ISM: kinematics and dynamics – ISM: structure – galaxies: ISM – galaxies: kinematics and dynamics. INTRODUCTION ============ Today, 30 years after the pioneering work by Larson (1981), observations and simulations of the interstellar medium (ISM) are revealing its turbulent nature with higher and higher fidelity (see, e.g., Elmegreen & Scalo 2004; McKee & Ostriker 2007; Romeo et al. 2010). A fundamental aspect of ISM turbulence is the existence of scaling relations between the mass column density ($\Sigma$), the 1D velocity dispersion ($\sigma$), and the size of the region over which such quantities are measured ($\ell$): $$\Sigma\propto\ell^{a},\;\;\; \sigma\propto\ell^{b}.$$ The values of $a$ and $b$, and the range of scales spanned by $\ell$ depend on which ISM component we consider. In this paper we focus on cold interstellar gas, which is highly supersonic and hence strongly compressible, and which is known to play an important role in the gravitational instability of galactic discs (e.g., Lin & Shu 1966; Jog & Solomon 1984a,b; Bertin & Romeo 1988, and references therein). In the molecular gas, $\mathrm{H}_{2}$, the scaling exponents are $a\approx0$ and $b\approx\frac{1}{2}$, and Eq. (1) holds up to scales of a few 100 pc. In fact, both Galactic and extragalactic giant molecular clouds (GMCs) are fairly well described by Larson’s scaling laws, $\Sigma=constant$ and $\sigma\propto\ell^{1/2}$, although the uncertainties are still large (e.g., Larson 1981; Solomon et al. 1987; Bolatto et al. 2008; Heyer et al. 2009; Hughes et al. 2010; Kauffmann et al. 2010; Lombardi et al. 2010; Sánchez et al. 2010; Azimlu & Fich 2011; Ballesteros-Paredes et al. 2011; Field et al. 2011; Kritsuk & Norman 2011; Roman-Duval et al. 2011; Beaumont et al. 2012). Besides, Larson-type scaling relations have now been observed, for the first time, in the dense star-forming clumps of a high-redshift galaxy (Swinbank et al. 2011). In the atomic gas, H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span>, the scaling exponents are instead $a\sim\frac{1}{3}$ and $b\sim\frac{1}{3}$, and Eq. (1) seems to hold up to scales of a few kpc. A Kolmogorov scaling for both $\sigma$ and $\Sigma$ is suggested by the observed power spectra of H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> intensity fluctuations, and is also consistent with other measurements (e.g., Lazarian & Pogosyan 2000; Elmegreen et al. 2001; Begum et al. 2006; Kim et al. 2007; Dutta et al. 2008; Roy et al. 2008; Dutta et al. 2009a,b; Block et al. 2010; Bournaud et al. 2010; Dutta et al. 2010; Dutta 2011; Combes et al. 2012; Zhang et al. 2012). Note, however, that the uncertainties are larger than in the $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ case. For example, high-resolution simulations of supersonic turbulence suggest a Burgers scaling for both $\sigma$ and $\Sigma$, i.e. $a\sim\frac{1}{2}$ and $b\sim\frac{1}{2}$ (e.g., Fleck 1996; Kowal & Lazarian 2007; Kowal et al. 2007; Kritsuk et al. 2007; Schmidt et al. 2008; Price & Federrath 2010). Other recent simulation surveys suggest that the scaling exponent $a$ is significantly affected by turbulence forcing (Federrath et al. 2009, 2010) and self-gravity (Collins et al. 2012). In spite of such a burst of interest in ISM turbulence, and in spite of the dynamical importance of cold interstellar gas, there have been very few theoretical works aimed at evaluating the effect of turbulence on disc instability. In fact, traditional stability analyses do not take into account the scale-dependence of $\sigma$ (or $\Sigma$), but identify $\sigma$ with the typical 1D velocity dispersion observed at galactic scales. The first theoretical work devoted to the gravitational instability of turbulent gas discs was made by Elmegreen (1996), who assumed Larson-type scaling relations \[see Eq. (1)\] and investigated the case $a=-1$ and $b=\frac{1}{2}$. He found that the disc is always stable at large scales and unstable at small scales. Romeo et al. (2010) also assumed Larson-type scaling relations, but explored the whole range of values for $a$ and $b$. They showed that turbulence has an important effect on the gravitational instability of the disc: it excites a rich variety of stability regimes, several of which have no classical counterpart. See in particular the ‘*stability map of turbulence*’ (fig. 1 of Romeo et al. 2010), which illustrates such stability regimes and populates them with observations, simulations and models of interstellar turbulence. In the gravitational instability of galactic discs, there is an important interplay between stars and cold interstellar gas (e.g., Agertz et al. 2009; Elmegreen 2011; Forbes et al. 2011; Cacciato et al. 2012). The gravitational coupling between these two components does not alter the form of the local stability criterion, $Q_{\mathrm{eff}}\geq1$, but makes the effective $Q$ parameter different from both the stellar and the gaseous Toomre (1964) parameters (Bertin & Romeo 1988; Romeo 1992, 1994; Elmegreen 1995; Jog 1996; Rafikov 2001; Shen & Lou 2003; Elmegreen 2011; Romeo & Wiegert 2011). The gravitational coupling between stars and gas also changes the least stable wavelength (Jog 1996), among other diagnostics. What is the effect of ISM turbulence in this more realistic context? The first published attempt to answer this question was made by Shadmehri & Khajenabi (2012). They considered two-component discs of stars and turbulent gas, chose $a$ and $b$ so as to sample five of the seven stability regimes found by Romeo et al. (2010), and studied the dispersion relation numerically. Their study suggests that turbulence has a significant effect on disc instability even when stars are taken into account. The goal of our paper is to answer the question above in detail, extending previous work along two directions: 1. We perform a rigorous stability analysis of two-component turbulent discs, motivated by observations of ISM turbulence in nearby galaxies. In particular, we consider two complementary cases: H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> plus $\mathrm{H}_{2}$, and gas plus stars. In the first case, we examine the dispersion relation analytically, and illustrate how the gravitational coupling between H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> and $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ modifies the main stability regimes of gas turbulence, which were originally derived neglecting such a coupling (Romeo et al. 2010). In the second case, we show that there are four stability regimes of galactic interest, similar to those analysed above, but in only one of them do stars play a non-negligible role. We then focus on such a regime, and illustrate how gas turbulence affects the onset of gravitational instability in the disc, i.e. the local stability threshold and the corresponding characteristic wavelength. 2. We apply this analysis to a large sample of star-forming spirals from The H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> Nearby Galaxy Survey (THINGS), previously analysed by Leroy et al. (2008) and Romeo & Wiegert (2011), and illustrate how ISM turbulence affects a full set of stability diagnostics: the condition for star-gas decoupling, the effective $Q$ parameter, and the least stable wavelength. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The (in)stability of two-component turbulent discs is analysed in Sect. 2, our application to THINGS spirals is shown in Sect. 3, the relation between our results and those of Shadmehri & Khajenabi (2012) is discussed in Sect. 4, and the conclusions are drawn in Sect. 5. (IN)STABILITY OF TWO-COMPONENT TURBULENT DISCS ============================================== Summary of the one-component case --------------------------------- Here we summarize some of the results found by Romeo et al. (2010), which are fundamental to a proper understanding of Sects 2.2–2.4. The dispersion relation of a turbulent and realistically thick gas disc is $$\omega^{2}=\kappa^{2}-2\pi G\Sigma(k)\,k+\sigma^{2}(k)\,k^{2},$$ where $\omega$ and $k$ are the frequency and the wavenumber of the perturbation, and $\kappa$ is the epicyclic frequency. $\Sigma(k)$ and $\sigma(k)$ are the mass column density and the 1D velocity dispersion measured over a region of size $\ell=1/k$, as inferred from observations (see, e.g., Elmegreen & Scalo 2004; McKee & Ostriker 2007; Romeo et al. 2010): $$\Sigma(k)=\Sigma_{0}\left(\frac{k}{k_{0}}\right)^{-a},\;\;\; \sigma(k)=\sigma_{0}\left(\frac{k}{k_{0}}\right)^{-b}.$$ If the disc has volume density $\rho$ and scale height $h$, then $\Sigma\approx2\rho\ell$ for $\ell\la h$ and $\Sigma\approx2\rho h$ for $\ell\ga h$. The range $\ell\la h$ corresponds to the case of 3D turbulence (GMCs and H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> at small scales), whereas the range $\ell\ga h$ corresponds to the case of 2D turbulence (H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> at large scales). The quantity $\ell_{0}=1/k_{0}$ introduced in Eq. (3) is the fiducial scale at which $\Sigma$ and $\sigma$ are observed. This is also the scale at which the Toomre parameter $Q$ and other stability quantities are measured, so that $Q_{0}=\kappa\sigma_{0}/\pi G\Sigma_{0}$. The scaling exponents $a$ and $b$ have an important effect on the shape of the dispersion relation \[Eq. (2)\], and hence on the condition for local gravitational instability ($\omega^{2}<0$). As $a$ and $b$ vary, turbulence drives the disc across seven stability regimes, three of which are densely populated by observations, simulations and models of galactic turbulence (see fig. 1 of Romeo et al. 2010): - For $b<\frac{1}{2}\,(1+a)$ and $-2<a<1$ (hereafter *Regime A*), the stability of the disc is controlled by $Q_{0}$: the disc is stable at all scales if and only if $Q_{0}\geq\overline{Q}_{0}$, where $\overline{Q}_{0}$ depends on $a$, $b$ and $\ell_{0}$. This is the domain of H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> turbulence. Both H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> observations and high-resolution simulations of supersonic turbulence are consistent with the scaling $a=b$. In such a case, the local stability criterion degenerates into $Q_{0}\geq1$, as if the disc were non-turbulent and infinitesimally thin. - For $b>\frac{1}{2}\,(1+a)$ and $-2<a<1$ (hereafter *Regime C*), the stability of the disc is no longer controlled by $Q_{0}$: the disc is always unstable at small scales (i.e. as $k\rightarrow\infty$) and stable at large scales (i.e. as $k\rightarrow0$). - For $b=\frac{1}{2}\,(1+a)$ and $-2<a<1$ (hereafter *Regime B*), the disc is in a phase of transition between stability à la Toomre (Regime A) and instability at small scales (Regime C). This is the domain of $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ turbulence. Note, however, that even small deviations from Larson’s scaling laws can drive the disc into Regime A or Regime C, and thus have a strong impact on its gravitational instability.  Since Regimes A–C are fundamental to a proper understanding of Sects 2.2–2.4, we show them in Fig. 1. Note, however, that this simple figure is not meant to be a substitute for fig. 1 of Romeo et al. (2010), which illustrates all seven stability regimes and their relation to the phenomenology of ISM turbulence. Dispersion relation and general properties ------------------------------------------ Until now we have considered H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> and $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ separately. How does the stability scenario change when H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> and $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ are considered together? And how does it change when both gas and stars are taken into account? We will answer these questions here and in Sects 2.3 and 2.4. When H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> and $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ are considered together, their gravitational coupling changes how the disc responds to perturbations. The dispersion relation can be expressed in a form that is particularly useful for discussing the stability properties of the disc: $$\left(\omega^{2}-\mathcal{M}_{1}^{2}\right) \left(\omega^{2}-\mathcal{M}_{2}^{2}\right)= \left(\mathcal{P}_{1}^{2}-\mathcal{M}_{1}^{2}\right) \left(\mathcal{P}_{2}^{2}-\mathcal{M}_{2}^{2}\right),$$ where $$\mathcal{M}_{i}^{2}\equiv \kappa^{2}-2\pi G\Sigma_{i}(k)\,k+\sigma_{i}^{2}(k)\,k^{2},$$ $$\mathcal{P}_{i}^{2}\equiv \kappa^{2}+\sigma_{i}^{2}(k)\,k^{2},$$ and $i=1,2$.[^1] Note that $\omega^{2}=\mathcal{M}_{i}^{2}(k)$ is the one-component dispersion relation for potential-density waves \[cf. Eq. (2)\], while $\mathcal{P}_{i}^{2}(k)$ describes sound waves modified by rotation (and turbulence). Since $\mathcal{M}_{i}^{2}(k)-\mathcal{P}_{i}^{2}(k)$ represents the self-gravity of component $i$, the right-hand side of Eq. (4) measures the strength of gravitational coupling between the two components. Eqs (4)–(6) are also applicable to two-component discs of gas and stars, even though the stellar component is collisionless and non-turbulent. This is because stars can be accurately treated as a fluid when analysing the stability of galactic discs (Bertin & Romeo 1988; Rafikov 2001), and because the equations above are valid whether each fluid is turbulent or not. Remember, in fact, that the phenomenology of turbulence is encapsulated in $\Sigma_{i}(k)$ and $\sigma_{i}(k)$ without altering the form of those equations. When the disc is made of gas (g) and stars ($\star$), $\Sigma_{\mathrm{g}}(k)$ and $\sigma_{\mathrm{g}}(k)$ are given by Eq. (3), while the stellar quantities are not. $\Sigma_{\star}(k)$ is the reduced surface density, $\Sigma_{\star}(k)=\Sigma_{\star}/(1+kh_{\star})$, where the $k$-dependent factor results from the finite scale height of the stellar layer (Vandervoort 1970; Romeo 1992, 1994; Elmegreen 2011). In contrast, $\sigma_{\star}$ is the radial velocity dispersion and does not depend on $k$, since the pressure term in the dispersion relation is unaffected by disc thickness (see again Vandervoort 1970). The gaseous and stellar Toomre parameters are then defined as $Q_{\mathrm{g}0}=\kappa\sigma_{\mathrm{g}0}/\pi G\Sigma_{\mathrm{g}0}$ and $Q_{\star}=\kappa\sigma_{\star}/\pi G\Sigma_{\star}$.  As Eq. (4) is quadratic in $\omega^{2}$, it can be solved with elementary methods. The discriminant is positive, so there are two real roots: $$\omega_{\pm}^{2}= \frac{1}{2}\left[\left(\mathcal{M}_{1}^{2}+\mathcal{M}_{2}^{2}\right) \pm\sqrt{\Delta}\,\right],$$ $$\Delta= \left(\mathcal{M}_{1}^{2}-\mathcal{M}_{2}^{2}\right)^{2}+4 \left(\mathcal{P}_{1}^{2}-\mathcal{M}_{1}^{2}\right) \left(\mathcal{P}_{2}^{2}-\mathcal{M}_{2}^{2}\right).$$ This means that the dispersion relation has two branches that do not cross, $\omega_{+}^{2}(k)\neq\omega_{-}^{2}(k)$, except possibly as $k\rightarrow0$ or $k\rightarrow\infty$. The functions $\omega_{\pm}^{2}(k)$ satisfy two basic properties, which constrain the gravitational instability of the disc and generalize the stability constraints found in the classical two-component case (Jog & Solomon 1984a; Bertin & Romeo 1988). Such properties are stated and proved below, and can easily be visualized with the help of Fig. 2. The cases illustrated represent a disc made of marginally stable H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> (in Regime A) and unstable $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ (in Regimes A–C). - *Property I:* $\omega_{-}^{2}(k)$ lies below both $\mathcal{M}_{1}^{2}(k)$ and $\mathcal{M}_{2}^{2}(k)$, i.e. a two-component self-gravitating disc is more unstable (or less stable) than each component, whether this is turbulent or not. This can be proved by noting that $\Delta$ is larger than $(\mathcal{M}_{1}^{2}-\mathcal{M}_{2}^{2})^{2}$, so that $\sqrt{\Delta}>|\mathcal{M}_{1}^{2}-\mathcal{M}_{2}^{2}|$. In turn, this implies that $\omega_{-}^{2}<\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{min}}^{2}$, where $\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{min}}^{2}$ is the smallest $\mathcal{M}_{i}^{2}$ for a given $k$. - *Property II:* $\omega_{+}^{2}(k)$ is bounded by $\mathcal{P}_{1}^{2}(k)$ and $\mathcal{P}_{2}^{2}(k)$, i.e. this branch is always stable and represents sound waves modified by rotation (and turbulence). To prove this, note that the inequality $\sqrt{\Delta}>|\mathcal{M}_{1}^{2}-\mathcal{M}_{2}^{2}|$ also implies that $\omega_{+}^{2}>\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{max}}^{2}$, where $\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{max}}^{2}$ is the largest $\mathcal{M}_{i}^{2}$ for a given $k$. Note also that $\omega_{+}^{2}$ cannot be smaller than $\mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{min}}^{2}$ or larger than $\mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{max}}^{2}$, otherwise Eq. (4) would not hold. Therefore it must be $\mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{min}}^{2}\leq\omega_{+}^{2}\leq \mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{max}}^{2}$. plus $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ ---------------------- In Sect. 2.1, we have summarized the main stability regimes of one-component turbulent discs. Let us now extend the discussion to two-component discs of H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> and $\mathrm{H}_{2}$, analysing three cases of galactic interest (see again Fig. 2). ### $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ in Regime A The response of each component is driven by pressure at small scales and by rotation at large scales, while self-gravity acts more strongly at intermediate scales (see sect. 2.7 of Romeo et al. 2010). This means that the gravitational coupling between the two components is negligible as $k\rightarrow0$ and $k\rightarrow\infty$, and so is the right-hand side of Eq. (4). Therefore the two branches of the dispersion relation behave asymptotically as $\mathcal{M}_{1}^{2}(k)$ and $\mathcal{M}_{2}^{2}(k)$, i.e. they converge to $\kappa^{2}$ as $k\rightarrow0$ and diverge positively as $k\rightarrow\infty$. Since the potentially unstable branch $\omega_{-}^{2}(k)$ lies below $\mathcal{M}_{i}^{2}(k)$ (cf. Property I) and $\mathcal{M}_{i}^{2}(k)$ has a minimum for $k>0$, $\omega_{-}^{2}(k)$ must also have a global minimum below $\kappa^{2}$. Thus the disc is stable à la Toomre, like each component (see left panel of Fig. 2). ### $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ in Regime C The response of H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> is similar to the previous case, while $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ behaves differently (see sect. 2.5 of Romeo et al. 2010). The self-gravity term gets dominant for large $k$ and makes $\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{H}2}^{2}(k)$ negative. So $\omega_{-}^{2}(k)$ is also negative in this limit (cf. Property I). For small $k$, $\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{H}2}^{2}(k)$ is positive since it is dominated by the pressure term ($b>1$) and/or the rotation term ($b\leq1$). As neither $\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{H2}}^{2}(k)$ nor $\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{HI}}^{2}(k)$ is driven by self-gravity at large scales, the right-hand side of Eq. (4) is negligible as $k\rightarrow0$. So $\omega_{-}^{2}(k)$ is positive in this limit, like $\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{HI}}^{2}(k)$ and $\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{H2}}^{2}(k)$. The disc is then unstable at small scales and stable at large scales, like $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ itself (see right panel of Fig. 2). ### $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ in Regime B The behaviour of $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ is intermediate between the previous two cases (see sect. 2.3 of Romeo et al. 2010). A similar flow of arguments shows that the disc is in a phase of transition between stability à la Toomre and instability at small scales, like $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ itself. The middle panel of Fig. 2 illustrates the phase of small-scale instability, which occurs for $k_{0}\leq k_{\mathrm{J2,0}}=2\pi G\Sigma_{\mathrm{H2,0}}/\sigma_{\mathrm{H2,0}}^{2}$ (see Hoffmann 2010 for a detailed analysis). Note how the two components contribute to the gravitational instability of the disc, and how their coupling widens the range of unstable scales. Gas plus stars -------------- This case involves three components: H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span>, $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ and stars. In nearby spiral galaxies, H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> and $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ have distinct domains: H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> dominates the outer regions of the gas disc, while $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ dominates the inner regions (e.g., Leroy et al. 2008). We can then consider H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> and $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ separately. This makes sense here because we already know how the gravitational coupling between H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> and $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ modifies the main stability regimes of gas turbulence (see Sect. 2.3). What we now want to understand is the role that stars play in this stability scenario. Let us then distinguish two cases: 1. *Stars plus $\mathrm{H}_{2}$.* Since the stellar component populates Regime A (like H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span>) and $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ populates Regimes A–C, this case is qualitatively similar to the set of cases analysed in Sect. 2.3. So there are three stability regimes: stability à la Toomre, instability at small scales, and a phase of stability transition. Note that such a variety of regimes is driven by $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ turbulence. The stellar component can only modify the shape of the dispersion relation; it cannot change the type of stability regime. Note also that there is a mismatch between two important scales. One is the characteristic scale of stellar instabilities, $L_{\star}=\sigma_{\star}^{2}/\pi G\Sigma_{\star}$, which is typically $\sim1\;\mbox{kpc}$ (see, e.g., Binney & Tremaine 2008). The other is the largest scale at which $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ turbulence has been observed, $L_{\mathrm{H2}}\sim100\;\mbox{pc}$ (e.g., Bolatto et al. 2008). Since $L_{\star}$ is one order of magnitude larger than $L_{\mathrm{H2}}$, the stellar component cannot play a significant role in such stability regimes. Therefore this is essentially a one-component case, driven and dominated by $\mathrm{H}_{2}$. In Sect. 3, we will show that such stability regimes can indeed be frequent in nearby star-forming spirals. 2. *Stars plus .* As both components populate Regime A, this is a case of stability à la Toomre: $\omega_{-}^{2}(k)$ has a global minimum, which determines whether the disc is stable for all wavenumbers or not (cf. Sect. 2.3.1). In contrast to case (i), H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> turbulence reaches scales as large as 1–10 kpc (e.g., Kim et al. 2007; Dutta 2011). This makes it possible for the stellar component to ‘interact’ with H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> turbulence and contribute significantly to two-fluid instabilities, as in the classical case of stars plus non-turbulent gas. As discussed above, case (ii) represents the only stability regime in which stars play a non-negligible role. We then focus on this case, and analyse how gas turbulence affects the onset of gravitational instability in the disc, i.e. the local stability threshold and the corresponding characteristic wavelength. The effect of disc thickness is well known in this context (Romeo 1992, 1994; Elmegreen 2011; Romeo & Wiegert 2011). So we do not take that effect into account. ### The stability threshold As this is a Toomre-like case, the local stability criterion can be expressed in the usual form $Q_{\mathrm{eff}}\geq1$, where $Q_{\mathrm{eff}}$ is the effective $Q$ parameter. In the classical case of stars plus non-turbulent gas, $Q_{\mathrm{eff}}$ depends on three parameters: $Q_{\star}$, $Q_{\mathrm{g}}$ and $s=\sigma_{\mathrm{g}}/\sigma_{\star}$. For analysing $Q_{\mathrm{eff}}$ in detail, it is useful to factor out the dependence on $Q_{\star}$, $Q_{\mathrm{eff}}=Q_{\star}/\,\overline{Q}$, and study the stability threshold $\overline{Q}$ as a function of $s$ and $q=Q_{\mathrm{g}}/Q_{\star}$ (Romeo & Wiegert 2011). When gas turbulence is taken into account via Eq. (3), $\overline{Q}$ depends on five parameters: $$s_{0}\equiv\frac{\sigma_{\mathrm{g}0}}{\sigma_{\star}},\;\;\; q_{0}\equiv\frac{Q_{\mathrm{g}0}}{Q_{\star}},$$ $a$, $b$ and $$\mathcal{L}_{0}\equiv\ell_{0}\,k_{\mathrm{T}\star},$$ where $k_{\mathrm{T}\star}=\kappa^{2}/2\pi G\Sigma_{\star}$ is the stellar Toomre wavenumber. A general five-parameter study of $\overline{Q}$ is not more useful than a targeted few-parameter analysis. This is because $a$, $b$ and $\mathcal{L}_{0}$ are tightly constrained by observations, and because their observed values fall within a single stability regime (remember that this is a region of the parameter space where the disc has similar stability properties). For these reasons, we analyse $\overline{Q}$ as a function of $s_{0}$ and $q_{0}$, choosing observationally motivated values of $a$, $b$ and $\mathcal{L}_{0}$: $a=b=\frac{1}{3}$, which is the typical scaling of H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> turbulence (see Sect. 1), and $\mathcal{L}_{0}=1.0\pm0.5$, which are the median and $1\sigma$ scatter of $\mathcal{L}_{0}$ in the outer discs of THINGS spirals (where H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> dominates; see Sect. 3). The range $0.5\leq\mathcal{L}_{0}\leq1.5$ is also representative of clumpy galaxies at intermediate and high redshifts.[^2]  Fig. 3 shows a contour map of the stability threshold $\overline{Q}$ for classical and turbulent discs. Consider the classical case first, and look at the contour levels $\overline{Q}=1.1$ and $\overline{Q}=1.4$. Their slope changes abruptly across the line $q_{0}=1$, showing that there are two distinct stability regimes. This fact has a simple explanation in terms of star-gas decoupling (Bertin & Romeo 1988; Romeo & Wiegert 2011). When $s_{0}\la0.2$ and $q_{0}\sim1$, $\omega_{-}^{2}(k)$ has two minima: one at small $k$, where the response of the stellar component peaks; and the other at large $k$, where gas dominates. For $q_{0}<1$, the gaseous minimum is deeper than the stellar one, and therefore it controls the onset of disc instability. Vice versa, for $q_{0}>1$, it is the stellar minimum that determines the stability threshold. The line $q_{0}=1$ separates gas- from star-dominated regimes even when $s_{0}\ga0.2$, but the transition is smooth in this case since $\omega_{-}^{2}(k)$ has a single minimum. In the turbulent case, each contour level is on average shifted down. As $\overline{Q}$ increases in the same direction, this means that turbulence lowers the stability threshold, i.e. it tends to stabilize the disc. In Sect. 3, we will evaluate the statistical significance of this effect. ### The characteristic wavelength The global minimum of $\omega_{-}^{2}(k)$ provides another useful stability diagnostic: the least stable wavelength $\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}=2\pi/k_{\mathrm{min}}$ (see Jog 1996 for the classical case). When the disc is marginally stable, the value of $\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}$ is of particular interest. It is the wavelength at which instability first appears as $Q_{\star}$ drops below $\overline{Q}$. This wavelength can be written as $\overline{\lambda}=\overline{\Lambda}\,\lambda_{\mathrm{T}\star}$, where $\lambda_{\mathrm{T}\star}=2\pi/k_{\mathrm{T}\star}$. The characteristic wavelength $\overline{\Lambda}$ depends on the same parameters as $\overline{Q}$. So we adopt the same approach as before, and analyse $\overline{\Lambda}$ as a function of $s_{0}$ and $q_{0}$ for observationally motivated values of $a$, $b$ and $\mathcal{L}_{0}$.  Fig. 4 shows a contour map of the characteristic wavelength $\overline{\Lambda}$ for classical and turbulent discs. In the classical case, the contour levels $\overline{\Lambda}=0.1$ and $\overline{\Lambda}=0.2$ are truncated above $q_{0}=1$. This tells us that such short characteristic wavelengths occur only when stars and gas are decoupled and gas dominates. In fact, star-dominated instabilities appear at longer wavelengths: $\overline{\Lambda}\ga0.3$ (Bertin & Romeo 1988). Note also that the contour $\overline{\Lambda}=0.5$ is a separatrix. Levels below 0.5 are on the left of this curve (and connected to the transition line), while levels above 0.5 are on the right. In the turbulent case, each contour level below 0.3 is on average shifted to the right, i.e. in the direction of increasing $\overline{\Lambda}$. This means that turbulence shortens the characteristic wavelength when stars and gas are decoupled and gas dominates. An opposite, although weaker, effect is detectable for $\overline{\Lambda}\geq1$. Other regimes are also affected, but in a more complex way. This is especially true for $\overline{\Lambda}\sim0.5$, since the separatrix of the parameter plane shifts to larger values. Last but not least, note how turbulence bends the transition line down, favouring star-dominated regimes. In Sect. 3, we will analyse these effects in detail. APPLICATION TO THINGS SPIRALS ============================= We now consider a sample of twelve nearby star-forming spirals from THINGS: NGC 628, 3198, 3184, 4736, 3351, 6946, 3627, 5194, 3521, 2841, 5055, and 7331. For these galaxies, a detailed analysis by Leroy et al. (2008) provides high-quality measurements of kinematics, as well as stellar and gaseous surface densities, at a constant spatial resolution of 800 pc. Leroy et al. (2008) also analysed the stability of those galaxies, treating the ISM as a single non-turbulent component, gravitationally coupled to stars, with surface density $\Sigma_{\mathrm{g}}=\Sigma_{\mathrm{HI}}+\Sigma_{\mathrm{H2}}$ and velocity dispersion $\sigma_{\mathrm{g}}=11\;\mbox{km\,s}^{-1}$. Such a value of $\sigma_{\mathrm{g}}$ fits the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> data well, but is twice as large as the typical $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ velocity dispersion observed in nearby spiral galaxies (Wilson et al. 2011). To represent both H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> and $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ well, we choose $\sigma_{\mathrm{g}}=8\;\mbox{km\,s}^{-1}$. This value lies within the $1\sigma$ scatter of $\sigma_{\mathrm{HI}}$ ($11\pm3\;\mbox{km\,s}^{-1}$; Leroy et al. 2008) and $\sigma_{\mathrm{H2}}$ ($6.1\pm2.9\;\mbox{km\,s}^{-1}$; Wilson et al. 2011), and therefore allows us to carry out an unbiased stability analysis of THINGS spirals. The constant spatial resolution of 800 pc used by Leroy et al. (2008) makes their data particularly appropriate for analysing the effect of H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> turbulence at galactic scales. H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> dominates the gas surface density in the outer disc, typically for $R>0.43\;R_{25}$, where $R_{25}$ is the optical radius (Leroy et al. 2008). We then treat gas as turbulent for $R>0.43\;R_{25}$, and assume Larson-type scaling relations \[see Eq. (3)\] with $\ell_{0}=800\;\mbox{pc}$, $\Sigma_{\mathrm{g}0}=\Sigma_{\mathrm{g}0}(R)$ as tabulated by Leroy et al. (2008), and $\sigma_{\mathrm{g}0}=8\;\mbox{km\,s}^{-1}$ (see above). Concerning $a$ and $b$, we analyse the case $a=b=\frac{1}{3}$ in detail, since it represents H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> observations fairly well (see Sect. 1). We have also studied the case $a=b=\frac{1}{2}$, as representative of high-resolution simulations of supersonic turbulence (see Sect. 1), but here we will only mention it when discussing the results of our stability analysis. Hereafter we will refer to the model described above as *Model 1*. The condition for star-gas decoupling -------------------------------------  In Sect. 2.4, we have seen that there is a region in the parameter plane where $\omega_-^2(k)$ has two minima. This is the two-phase region introduced by Bertin & Romeo (1988) and further investigated by Romeo & Wiegert (2011). Fig. 5 shows the two-phase region for classical and turbulent discs. Within this region, stars and gas are dynamically decoupled and the disc is susceptible to instabilities at two different wavelengths, where the responses of the two components peak. In the stellar phase the disc is more susceptible to long-wavelength instabilities, whereas in the gaseous phase it is dominated by short-wavelength instabilities. Along the transition line between the phases, neither component dominates and instabilities occur both at short and at long wavelengths. Outside the two-phase region, the two components are strongly coupled and instabilities occur at intermediate wavelengths. We populate the parameter plane with measurements taken from the sample of spiral galaxies, and colour-code them by radius. We draw the turbulent two-phase region corresponding to the median and $1\sigma$ scatter of $\mathcal{L}_0$ for $R > 0.43 \; R_{25}$. Note the following points: 1. The two-phase region of a classical disc is symmetric about $q = 1$. This symmetry is broken for a turbulent disc because gas (dominant for $q < 1$) follows turbulent scaling, but stars (dominant for $q > 1$) do not. 2. The turbulent two-phase region is larger than the classical one. This follows from the fact that turbulence pushes the minima of $\omega_-^2(k)$ further apart, and the maximum between them further up, so as to favour star-gas decoupling. 3. The transition line appears unaffected by the scatter of $\mathcal{L}_0$. This is because the shape of the two-phase region depends on $s$ and $q$, and $q$ is not affected by turbulence ($q=q_0$) if $a=b$. 4. Turbulence increases the size of the stellar phase more than that of the gaseous phase. Recall that the boundary of the two-phase region is marked by the disappearance of the non-dominant peak, i.e. the gas peak in the stellar phase and vice versa. Since turbulence affects the gaseous peak more than the stellar peak, the size of the stellar phase is affected more than that of the gaseous phase. For $R > 0.43 \; R_{25}$, this causes a significant number of measurements to populate the stellar phase. 5. For $R \leq 0.43 \; R_{25}$, we find that $f_2 = 61\%$ of all points populate the two-phase region, two-thirds of them in the gaseous phase. In such cases, the onset of gravitational instability is controlled by H$_2$. Turbulence is expected to play an important role in this process at scales smaller than about $100 \; \mathrm{pc}$ (see Sect. 2.4). For $R > 0.43 \; R_{25}$, only $4\%$ of all points populate this region for a classical disc. This fraction increases to $22\%$ for a turbulent disc with $a = b = \frac{1}{3}$, and to $52\%$ for $a=b=\frac{1}{2}$. The effective $Q$ parameter ---------------------------  Fig. 6 shows radial profiles of the effective $Q$ parameter, $Q_{\mathrm{eff}} = Q_{\mathrm{eff}}(R)$, for our sample of galaxies. In the left panel, we neglect gas turbulence. On the right, we consider turbulent H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> ($a=b=\frac{1}{3}$) for $R > 0.43 \; R_{25}$. Values of $Q_{\mathrm{eff}}$ smaller than unity mean gravitational instability. We indicate the median and $1\sigma$ scatter of $Q_{\mathrm{eff}}$ for radii smaller and larger than $R = 0.43 \; R_{25}$. We also colour-code the component that contributes more to disc instability according to the classical condition: gas for $Q_{\mathrm{g}0} < Q_\star$, and stars for $Q_\star < Q_{\mathrm{g}0}$ (Romeo & Wiegert 2011). For $R \leq 0.43 \; R_{25}$, $Q_{\mathrm{eff}}$ spans a wide range of values, with $13\%$ of points in the unstable regime. Here $56\%$ of points are gas-dominated and tend to be less stable than the star-dominated points (the median value of $Q_\mathrm{eff}$ is $Q_{\mathrm{eff,g}} \approx 1.3$ and $Q_{\mathrm{eff},\star} \approx 2.3$ in the two cases). For $R > 0.43 \; R_{25}$, the range spanned by $Q_{\mathrm{eff}}$ is tighter and only $4\%$ of measurements are in the unstable regime. Here the majority ($61\%$) of points are star-dominated, and there is no clear difference in $Q_{\mathrm{eff}}$ between star- and gas-dominated points ($Q_{\mathrm{eff,g}} \approx 1.3$ and $Q_{\mathrm{eff},\star} \approx 1.7$). Introducing turbulent scaling for $R > 0.43 \; R_{25}$ only has a small effect on the measurements. For $a = b = \frac{1}{3}$, the median of $Q_{\mathrm{eff}}$ increases by $3\%$ and the $1\sigma$ scatter by $15\%$. For $a = b = \frac{1}{2}$, the median increases by $6\%$ and the $1\sigma$ scatter by $26\%$. This suggests that turbulence tends to stabilize the disc (the median increases), although the magnitude of this effect is small and depends on the non-turbulent value of $Q_{\mathrm{eff}}$ (the scatter increases). The stabilizing effect of turbulence seems at odds with results from Romeo et al. (2010), who found that the stability of gaseous discs is unaffected by turbulence if $a = b$. The difference lies, of course, in the gravitational coupling of stars and gas. Consider the approximation for the effective $Q$ parameter introduced by Romeo & Wiegert (2011): $$\frac{1}{Q_{\mathrm{eff}}}= \left\{\begin{array}{ll} {\displaystyle\frac{W}{Q_{\star}}+\frac{1}{Q_{\mathrm{g}}}} & \mbox{if\ }Q_{\star}\geq Q_{\mathrm{g}}\,, \\ & \\ {\displaystyle\frac{1}{Q_{\star}}+\frac{W}{Q_{\mathrm{g}}}} & \mbox{if\ }Q_{\mathrm{g}}\geq Q_{\star}\,, \end{array} \right.$$ $$W= \frac{2\sigma_{\star}\sigma_{\mathrm{g}}} {\sigma_{\star}^{2}+\sigma_{\mathrm{g}}^{2}}\,.$$ We see that, even if $Q_{\mathrm{g}} = Q_{\mathrm{g}0}$, the scaling $\sigma_{\mathrm{g}} = \sigma_{\mathrm{g}0} ( \ell / \ell_0 )^{b}$ affects the weight factor $W(\sigma_\star,\sigma_{\mathrm{g}})$. The strength of this effect is determined by the power-law slope $b$. Therefore the effective $Q$ parameter of turbulent discs always differs from the classical case. The least stable wavelength ---------------------------  Fig. 7 shows radial profiles of the least stable wavelength, $\lambda_{\mathrm{min}} = \lambda_{\mathrm{min}}(R)$, for our sample. On the left we neglect gas turbulence, whereas on the right we consider turbulent H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> for $R > 0.43 \; R_{25}$. Colour-coding indicates the component that dominates gravitational instability. As before, the median and $1\sigma$ scatter are indicated separately for small and large radii. For $R \leq 0.43 \; R_{25}$, there is a clear gap between gas- and star-dominated points (the median value of $\lambda_\mathrm{min}$ is $\lambda_{\mathrm{min,g}} \approx 0.7 \; \mathrm{kpc}$ and $\lambda_{\mathrm{min},\star} \approx 8.2 \; \mathrm{kpc}$ in the two cases). So the gas-dominated points are characterized by much smaller values of $\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}$. The discrepancy is less significant for $R > 0.43 \; R_{25}$, apart from a few measurements close to $R = 0.43 \; R_{25}$ ($\lambda_{\mathrm{min,g}} \approx 3.9 \; \mathrm{kpc}$ and $\lambda_{\mathrm{min},\star} \approx 6.3 \; \mathrm{kpc}$). Introducing a turbulent gas component for $R > 0.43 \; R_{25}$ causes a significant increase in $\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}$. For $a = b = \frac{1}{3}$, the median of $\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}$ increases by $28\%$ and the $1\sigma$ scatter by $34\%$. For $a = b = \frac{1}{2}$, the median increases by $41\%$ and the increase in $1\sigma$ scatter is again $34\%$. This suggests a tendency of turbulence to boost the least stable wavelength. As for $Q_{\mathrm{eff}}$, the magnitude of this effect depends on the non-turbulent value of $\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}$. There is a small number of gas-dominated measurements for which the least stable wavelength decreases, but these have large uncertainties. Why does turbulence affect $\lambda_{\mathrm{eff}}$ more than $Q_{\mathrm{eff}}$? The answer is twofold. First, for a purely gaseous disc $\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}$ increases markedly with $Q_{\mathrm{eff}}$ (Romeo et al. 2010), so that any change in $Q_{\mathrm{eff}}$ will be amplified in $\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}$. Second, as stars are taken into account, gas-dominated points can enter the star-dominated regime, where $\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}$ is much larger (see Sect. 2.4). Both effects depend on the power-law slopes $a$ and $b$. They sum up and drive $\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}$ to significantly larger values. Robustness of the results ------------------------- Modelling the gas disc as a single component with an intermediate value of $\sigma_{\mathrm{g}}$ is not the best that can be done. Here we will no longer follow this traditional approach. We will model the gas disc as made of two components, each with the more representative value of $\sigma_{\mathrm{g}}$. A simple way to do it is to treat the inner part of the disc as $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ dominated and the outer part as H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> dominated. We then set $\sigma_{\mathrm{g}}=6\;\mbox{km\,s}^{-1}$ for $R\leq0.43\;R_{25}$ and $\sigma_{\mathrm{g}}=11\;\mbox{km\,s}^{-1}$ for $R>0.43\;R_{25}$ (cf. introductory part of Sect. 3). Besides $\sigma_{\mathrm{g}}$, there is another quantity that deserves particular attention: the stellar radial velocity dispersion, which we now denote with $\sigma_{R\star}$. Leroy et al. (2008) inferred $\sigma_{R\star}$ from the vertical velocity dispersion, $\sigma_{z\star}$, assuming that $(\sigma_{z}/\sigma_{R})_{\star}=0.6$. In turn, $\sigma_{z\star}$ was inferred from the stellar exponential scale height, $H_{\star}$, using the relation $H_{\star}=\sigma_{z\star}^{2}/2\pi G\Sigma_{\star}$. Gerssen & Shapiro Griffin (2012) showed that $(\sigma_{z}/\sigma_{R})_{\star}$ decreases markedly from early- to late-type spirals. The average Hubble stage of THINGS spirals is $\langle T\rangle=4$, which corresponds to galaxy type Sbc (the mean and the median of $T$ are equal). The best-fitting model of Gerssen & Shapiro Griffin (2012) then yields $(\sigma_{z}/\sigma_{R})_{\star}=0.5$ (see their fig. 4). Concerning $H_{\star}$, the relation used by Leroy et al. (2008) is not correct. It is the total surface density in the disc that determines the stellar exponential scale height: $H_{\star}=\sigma_{z\star}^{2}/2\pi G\Sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$, where $\Sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}=\Sigma_{\star}+\Sigma_{\mathrm{g}}$ (Bahcall & Casertano 1984; Romeo 1992). In view of these facts, we set $(\sigma_{z}/\sigma_{R})_{\star}=0.5$ and use the correct relation for $H_{\star}$. Finally, we implement gas turbulence as in Model 1, i.e. only for $R>0.43\;R_{25}$, where the disc is H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> dominated. This is simply because the constant spatial resolution of 800 pc used by Leroy et al. (2008) is too coarse to probe the range of scales affected by $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ turbulence \[see Sect. 2.4, case (i)\]. Hereafter we will refer to the model described above as *Model 2*. Model Radial Range $a$ $b$ $f_2$^a^ $f_{2,\mathrm{g}}$^b^ $f_\mathrm{u}$^c^ $f_\mathrm{g}$^d^ $Q_\mathrm{eff}$^e^ $\lambda_\mathrm{min}$^f^ $\left[ \mathrm{kpc} \right]$ ------- ------------------------- ------- ------- ---------- ----------------------- ------------------- ------------------- --------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- $1$ $R \leq 0.43 \, R_{25}$ $0$ $0$ $61\%$ $68\%$ $13\%$ $56\%$ $1.67 \pm 0.68$ $1.64 \pm 2.17$ $R > 0.43 \, R_{25}$ $0$ $0$ $4\%$ $100\%$ $4\%$ $39\%$ $1.50 \pm 0.46$ $4.76 \pm 1.67$ $1/3$ $1/3$ $22\%$ $41\%$ $3\%$ $39\%$ $1.55 \pm 0.53$ $6.10 \pm 2.24$ $1/2$ $1/2$ $52\%$ $9\%$ $3\%$ $39\%$ $1.59 \pm 0.58$ $6.70 \pm 2.23$ $2$ $R \leq 0.43 \, R_{25}$ $0$ $0$ $73\%$ $76\%$ $25\%$ $77\%$ $1.50 \pm 0.91$ $0.67 \pm 0.62$ $R > 0.43 \, R_{25}$ $0$ $0$ $4\%$ $100\%$ $0.5\%$ $39\%$ $1.99 \pm 0.57$ $9.32 \pm 3.40$ $1/3$ $1/3$ $19\%$ $48\%$ $0.5\%$ $39\%$ $2.09 \pm 0.66$ $11.10 \pm 2.78$ $1/2$ $1/2$ $52\%$ $5\%$ $0.5\%$ $39\%$ $2.14 \pm 0.72$ $12.00 \pm 2.43$ ^a^ Fraction of data that fall within the two-phase region.\ ^b^ Fraction of the data points in ^a^ that populate the gaseous phase.\ ^c^ Fraction of data such that $Q_\mathrm{eff} < 1$.\ ^d^ Fraction of data such that $Q_{\mathrm{g}0} < Q_\star$.\ ^e^ Median and $1\sigma$ scatter of $Q_\mathrm{eff}$.\ ^f^ Median and $1\sigma$ scatter of $\lambda_\mathrm{min}$.\ Table 1 summarizes the dynamical differences between Model 2 and Model 1. On the whole, the stability diagnostics are moderately affected by the model. The most sensitive diagnostic is $\lambda_\mathrm{min}$, which differs by a factor of 2–3. $Q_\mathrm{eff}$ is more robust, with a difference well below a factor of 2. In Model 2, both $\lambda_\mathrm{min}$ and $Q_\mathrm{eff}$ are smaller for $R \leq 0.43 \; R_{25}$ and larger for $R > 0.43 \; R_{25}$. Despite these differences, the effect of turbulence is comparable in the two models. For $R \leq 0.43 \; R_{25}$, $f_2$ and $f_{2,\mathrm{g}}$ are slightly larger in Model 2. So H$_2$ is more decoupled from stars and slightly more dominant. For $R > 0.43 \; R_{25}$, $f_2$ is almost identical in the two models, irrespective of the value of $a=b$. Turbulence increases the median value of $Q_\mathrm{eff}$ by less than 10% in both models. In contrast, the median value of $\lambda_\mathrm{min}$ increases by 20–30% in Model 2, i.e. less than in Model 1. Summarizing, the effect of H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> turbulence in Model 2 is only slightly weaker than in Model 1. This points to the robustness of our results. DISCUSSION ========== Our results cannot be directly compared with those of Shadmehri & Khajenabi (2012), hereafter SK12. This is partly because of the wider scope of our paper, which embraces a brand-new application to THINGS spirals, and because most of the analysis carried out by SK12 cannot be easily interpreted. SK12 analysed five stability regimes of gas turbulence: $a>1$ and $b<\frac{1}{2}\,(1+a)$; $a=1$ and $b\neq1$; and Regimes A–C. The first regime corresponds to a fractal dimension $D=a+2$ higher than 3, and is therefore beyond the natural range of $a$ (see fig. 1 and sect. 3 of Romeo et al. 2010). In the second regime, the volume density is scale-independent ($D=3$), so the medium is incompressible and hence subsonic. Cold interstellar gas is instead dominated by compressible structures and supersonic motions. Therefore even this regime is of marginal interest (see again fig. 1 and sect. 3 of Romeo et al. 2010). Regimes B and C are populated by $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ turbulence, which manifests itself at scales less than $L_{\mathrm{H2}}\sim100\;\mbox{pc}$. In turn, $L_{\mathrm{H2}}$ is one order of magnitude smaller than the characteristic scale of stellar instabilities. Therefore stars play a negligible role in these stability regimes \[see Sect. 2.4, case (i)\]. SK12 reached the opposite conclusion. But this is because they assumed Larson-type scaling relations even at kpc scales, disregarding the type of turbulence associated with such regimes. Regime A is populated by both $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ and H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> turbulence. While the $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ case raises the same issue as Regimes B and C, the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> case is conceptually simpler. H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> turbulence manifests itself at all scales of galactic interest, so stars can play a significant role in this stability regime \[see Sect. 2.4, case (ii)\]. SK12 reached a similar conclusion. However, even in this case, their approach is different from ours. They chose $a$, $b$ and $\mathcal{L}_{0}$ so as to sample Regime A, and studied the dispersion relation numerically. We have instead examined the whole regime analytically (see Sect. 2.3.1). We have then chosen observationally motivated values of $a$, $b$ and $\mathcal{L}_{0}$, and analysed the onset of gravitational instability in the disc (see in particular Sects 2.4.1 and 2.4.2). In conclusion, there is a fundamental difference between our analysis and that of SK12. Our analysis takes into account the astrophysical relevance of the various stability regimes, as well as the tight constraints imposed by observations of ISM turbulence in the Milky Way and nearby galaxies. These are important aspects of the problem, which are missing from their analysis. CONCLUSIONS =========== Our analysis of THINGS spirals shows that H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> turbulence has a triple effect on the outer regions of galactic discs: (i) it weakens the coupling between gas and stars in the development of disc instabilities, (ii) it makes the disc more prone to star-dominated than gas-dominated instabilities, and (iii) it typically increases the least stable wavelength by 20–40% (the steeper the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> scaling relations, the larger the effect). This is in contrast to the typical 3–8% increase predicted for the effective $Q$ parameter. The effect of H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> turbulence is in a sense complementary to the effect of disc thickness. In fact, disc thickness increases the effective $Q$ parameter by 20–50% (Romeo & Wiegert 2011) but hardly changes the least stable wavelength (Romeo 1992, 1994) or the condition for star-gas decoupling (Romeo & Wiegert 2011). Our analysis of THINGS spirals also suggests that $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ turbulence has a significant effect on the inner regions of galactic discs. For $R\la0.4\,R_{25}$, i.e. where $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ dominates over H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span>, 60–70% of the data fulfil the condition for star-gas decoupling and 70–80% of these points represent gas-dominated stability regimes. In such cases, the onset of gravitational instability is controlled by $\mathrm{H}_{2}$. Turbulence is expected to play an important role in this process at scales smaller than about 100 pc (see Sect. 2.4). If $a=0$ and $b=\frac{1}{2}$, then $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ turbulence drives the disc to a regime of transition between instability at small scales and stability à la Toomre, as was first pointed out by Romeo et al. (2010) in the case of one-component turbulent discs. Since this is a regime of transition, even small deviations from the standard $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ scaling laws ($a=0$ and $b=\frac{1}{2}$) can have a strong impact on the gravitational instability of the disc. This is true even when the mass densities of H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span> and $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ are comparable, since small-scale instabilities are more actively controlled by $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ (see Sect. 2.3). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== We are very grateful to Oscar Agertz, Christoph Federrath, Mathieu Puech and Joachim Wiegert for useful discussions. We are also grateful to an anonymous referee for constructive comments and suggestions, and for encouraging future work on the topic. ABR thanks the warm hospitality of both the Department of Physics at the University of Gothenburg and the Department of Fundamental Physics at Chalmers. Agertz O., Lake G., Teyssier R., Moore B., Mayer L., Romeo A. B., 2009, MNRAS, 392, 294 Azimlu M., Fich M., 2011, AJ, 141, 123 Bahcall J. N., Casertano S., 1984, ApJ, 284, L35 Ballesteros-Paredes J., Hartmann L. W., Vázquez-Semadeni E., Heitsch F., Zamora-Avilés M. A., 2011, MNRAS, 411, 65 Beaumont C. N., Goodman A. A., Alves J. F., Lombardi M., Román-Zúñiga C. G., Kauffmann J., Lada C. J., 2012, preprint (arXiv:1204.2557) Begum A., Chengalur J. N., Bhardwaj S., 2006, MNRAS, 372, L33 Bertin G., Romeo A. B., 1988, A&A, 195, 105 Binney J., Tremaine S., 2008, Galactic Dynamics. Princeton University Press, Princeton Block D. L., Puerari I., Elmegreen B. G., Bournaud F., 2010, ApJ, 718, L1 Bolatto A. D., Leroy A. K., Rosolowsky E., Walter F., Blitz L., 2008, ApJ, 686, 948 Bournaud F., Elmegreen B. G., Teyssier R., Block D. L., Puerari I., 2010, MNRAS, 409, 1088 Cacciato M., Dekel A., Genel S., 2012, MNRAS, 421, 818 Collins D. C., Kritsuk A. G., Padoan P., Li H., Xu H., Ustyugov S. D., Norman M. L., 2012, ApJ, 750, 13 Combes F. et al., 2012, A&A, 539, A67 Dutta P., 2011, Probing Turbulence in the Interstellar Medium Using Radio-Interferometric Observations of Neutral Hydrogen. PhD thesis, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur (arXiv:1102.4419) Dutta P., Begum A., Bharadwaj S., Chengalur J. N., 2008, MNRAS, 384, L34 Dutta P., Begum A., Bharadwaj S., Chengalur J. N., 2009a, MNRAS, 397, L60 Dutta P., Begum A., Bharadwaj S., Chengalur J. N., 2009b, MNRAS, 398, 887 Dutta P., Begum A., Bharadwaj S., Chengalur J. N., 2010, MNRAS, 405, L102 Elmegreen B. G., 1995, MNRAS, 275, 944 Elmegreen B. G., 1996, in Block D. L., Greenberg J. M., eds, New Extragalactic Perspectives in the New South Africa. Kluwer, Dordrecht, p. 467 Elmegreen B. G., 2011, ApJ, 737, 10 Elmegreen B. G., Scalo J., 2004, ARA&A, 42, 211 Elmegreen B. G., Kim S., Staveley-Smith L., 2001, ApJ, 548, 749 Federrath C., Klessen R. S., Schmidt W., 2009, ApJ, 692, 364 Federrath C., Roman-Duval J., Klessen R. S., Schmidt W., Mac Low M.-M., 2010, A&A, 512, A81 Field G. B., Blackman E. G., Keto E. R., 2011, MNRAS, 416, 710 Fleck R. C. Jr., 1996, ApJ, 458, 739 Forbes J., Krumholz M., Burkert A., 2011, preprint (arXiv:1112.1410) Gerssen J., Shapiro Griffin K., 2012, preprint (arXiv:1204.3430) Heyer M., Krawczyk C., Duval J., Jackson J. M., 2009, ApJ, 699, 1092 Hoffmann V., 2011, The Effect of Turbulence on the Gravitational Instability of Galactic Discs. MSc thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden Hughes A. et al., 2010, MNRAS, 406, 2065 Jog C. J., 1996, MNRAS, 278, 209 Jog C. J., Solomon P. M., 1984a, ApJ, 276, 114 Jog C. J., Solomon P. M., 1984b, ApJ, 276, 127 Kauffmann J., Pillai T., Shetty R., Myers P. C., Goodman A. A., 2010, ApJ, 716, 433 Kim S. et al., 2007, ApJS, 171, 419 Kowal G., Lazarian A., 2007, ApJ, 666, L69 Kowal G., Lazarian A., Beresnyak A., 2007, ApJ, 658, 423 Kritsuk A. G., Norman M. L., 2011, preprint (arXiv:1111.2827) Kritsuk A. G., Norman M. L., Padoan P., Wagner R., 2007, ApJ, 665, 416 Larson R. B., 1981, MNRAS, 194, 809 Lazarian A., Pogosyan D., 2000, ApJ, 537, 720 Leroy A. K., Walter F., Brinks E., Bigiel F., de Blok W. J. G., Madore B., Thornley M. D., 2008, AJ, 136, 2782 Lin C. C., Shu F. H., 1966, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 55, 229 Lombardi M., Alves J., Lada C. J., 2010, A&A, 519, L7 McKee C. F., Ostriker E. C., 2007, ARA&A, 45, 565 Price D. J., Federrath C., 2010, MNRAS, 406, 1659 Puech M., 2010, MNRAS, 406, 535 Rafikov R. R., 2001, MNRAS, 323, 445 Roman-Duval J., Federrath C., Brunt C., Heyer M., Jackson J., Klessen R. S., 2011, ApJ, 740, 120 Romeo A. B., 1992, MNRAS, 256, 307 Romeo A. B., 1994, A&A, 286, 799 Romeo A. B., Wiegert J., 2011, MNRAS, 416, 1191 Romeo A. B., Burkert A., Agertz O., 2010, MNRAS, 407, 1223 Roy N., Peedikakkandy L., Chengalur J. N., 2008, MNRAS, 387, L18 Sánchez N., Añez N., Alfaro E. J., Odekon M. C., 2010, ApJ, 720, 541 (Erratum in ApJ, 723, 969) Schmidt W., Federrath C., Klessen R., 2008, Phys. Rev. Lett., 101, 194505 Shadmehri M., Khajenabi F., 2012, MNRAS, 421, 841 Shen Y., Lou Y.-Q., 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1340 Solomon P. M., Rivolo A. R., Barrett J., Yahil A., 1987, ApJ, 319, 730 Swinbank A. M. et al., 2011, ApJ, 742, 11 Toomre A., 1964, ApJ, 139, 1217 Vandervoort P. O., 1970, ApJ, 161, 87 Wilson C. D. et al., 2011, MNRAS, 410, 1409 Zhang H.-X., Hunter D. A., Elmegreen B. G., 2012, preprint (arXiv:1205.3793) \[lastpage\] [^1]: The dispersion relation of an $N$-component turbulent disc is $\sum_{i=1}^{N} (\mathcal{M}_{i}^{2}-\mathcal{P}_{i}^{2}) / (\omega^{2}-\mathcal{P}_{i}^{2}) = 1$, as can easily be inferred from eq. (22) of Rafikov (2001). This equation cannot be expressed in a form similar to Eq. (4), and will not be used in the rest of the paper. [^2]: Puech (2010) analysed two such galaxy samples at $z\approx0.6$ and $z\approx2$. The median properties of the discs are summarized in his table 1 (see also his sect. 3.2). Using those data, we find that the stellar Toomre wavenumber is $k_{\mathrm{T}\star}\approx0.3\;\mbox{kpc}^{-1}$ at $z\approx0.6$ and $k_{\mathrm{T}\star}\approx0.2\;\mbox{kpc}^{-1}$ at $z\approx2$. The spatial resolution is $\ell_{0}\approx7\;\mbox{kpc}$ and $\ell_{0}\approx5\;\mbox{kpc}$ in the two cases (Puech, private communication). This yields $\mathcal{L}_{0}\approx2$ at $z\approx0.6$ and $\mathcal{L}_{0}\approx1$ at $z\approx2$. Thus, even at intermediate and high redshifts, $\mathcal{L}_{0}$ is remarkably close to unity and lies within the $1\sigma$ scatter computed from THINGS.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'Loop quantum cosmology is shown to provide both the dynamical law and initial conditions for the wave function of a universe by one discrete evolution equation. Accompanied by the condition that semiclassical behavior is obtained at large volume, a unique wave function is predicted.' address: | Center for Gravitational Physics and Geometry, The Pennsylvania State University,\ 104 Davey Lab, University Park, PA 16802, USA author: - 'Martin Bojowald[@Email]' title: Dynamical Initial Conditions in Quantum Cosmology --- psfig CGPG–01/4–3\ gr-qc/0104072\ [2]{} Traditionally, physical systems are modeled mathematically by providing laws governing the dynamical behavior and specifying initial (or boundary) conditions. The latter select a particular solution to the laws, but usually all of them are allowed and describe the system under different conditions. However, in cosmology the situation is different: there is only one universe, and therefore only one fixed set of initial conditions can lead to the physically realized situation. In this context, the big bang singularity is regarded as the point of “creation” of the universe at which initial conditions (or equivalent restricting requirements) have to be imposed. Since gravity is strong at that stage and classical general relativity breaks down (signaled by the appearance of a classical singularity), a quantization of the gravitational field is needed bringing us in the realm of quantum cosmology. The standard approach to quantum cosmology consists in quantizing a minisuperspace model which is obtained by specifying symmetry conditions, usually homogeneity and isotropy, for the allowed metrics in space-like slices of a universe. This reduces the infinitely many degrees of freedom of general relativity to finitely many ones allowing standard quantum mechanical methods [@DeWitt; @Misner]. Due to general covariance the dynamical law is provided by a constraint equation which takes the form of a second order differential equation—the Wheeler–DeWitt equation—for the wave function $\psi(a,\phi)$ depending on the scale factor $a>0$ (conventionally used as internal time) and matter degrees of freedom collectively denoted by $\phi$. However, the classical singularity remains, and no initial conditions are provided by the formalism which leads at least to a two-parameter family (not counting matter degrees of freedom) of solutions and not a unique (up to norm) one. The original hopes [@DeWitt] that there might be a unique solution to the constraint equation are not realized. To address this issue, proposals have been developed by several authors. However, these proposals have considerable arbitrariness since they are driven primarily by the authors’ intuition as to how the classical singularity might be smoothed out by quantum gravity. Most well-known are the “no-boundary” proposal [@nobound] and the “tunneling” proposal [@tunneling] which both describe the “creation” of a universe at the place of the classical singularity. In all those approaches matter is regarded as being irrelevant in the early stages, and so the wave function $\psi$ is assumed (implicitly or explicitly [@SIC]) to be independent of the variables $\phi$ for small $a$; this is already an initial condition which strongly restricts the $\phi$-dependence of $\psi$. We will take the same point of view concerning matter degrees of freedom here, which we regard as being justified thanks to the dominance of gravity in early stages of the evolution. But still, there is a two-parameter family of solutions $\psi(a)$ from which one parameter has to be fixed (since the norm is irrelevant). This not only influences the wave function close to the singularity, but also its late time behavior because it selects a particular linear combination of the expanding and contracting components in a WKB-approximation. However, as an initial condition it is specified at the classical singularity (e.g., by fixing the value $\psi(0)$ [@DeWitt; @Konto] or by introducing an ad hoc “Planck potential” [@SIC]), and thus involves Planck scale physics for which we need a full quantum theory of gravity. One candidate for a quantization of general relativity is quantum geometry (see e.g. [@Nonpert; @Rov:Loops]) which predicts discrete eigenvalues of geometrical operators like area and volume [@AreaVol; @Area; @Vol2]. A symmetry reduction [@SymmRed] of the quantized (kinematical) theory to cosmological models leads to loop quantum cosmology [@cosmoI], in which the discreteness of the volume is preserved [@cosmoII]. All techniques used in this framework of quantum cosmology are very close to those of [*full*]{} quantum gravity, in contrast to standard quantum cosmology which is based on a [*classical*]{} symmetry reduction to a simple mechanical system and subsequent quantization. Hence, the results of loop quantum cosmology should be more reliable, in particular close to the classical singularity where the two approaches show the largest differences. In fact, loop quantum cosmology has a [*discrete*]{} evolution equation [@cosmoIII; @cosmoIV] which replaces the Wheeler–DeWitt equation and is [*singularity-free*]{} [@Sing; @InvScale; @IsoCosmo]. The fact that the Hamiltonian constraint operator of loop quantum cosmology [@cosmoIII] is very close to that of the full theory [@QSDI] gives rise to the hope that the results of [@Sing] can be extended to less symmetric models. Loop and standard quantum cosmology deviate most when applied right at the classical singularity. In this letter we will show that the particular form of the evolution equation of loop quantum cosmology, applied at vanishing scale factor, leads to a consistency condition for the initial data. In this way the evolution equation provides both the dynamical law and initial conditions: [*dynamics dictates the initial conditions*]{}. Accompanied by a classicality condition for the solutions, a unique (up to norm) wave function is predicted. #### Isotropic loop quantum cosmology. {#isotropic-loop-quantum-cosmology. .unnumbered} In the triad representation of isotropic loop quantum cosmology [@IsoCosmo] the scale factor $a\in{\Bbb R}^+$ is replaced by a discrete label $n\in{\Bbb Z}$ which parameterizes eigenvalues of the triad operator. An orthonormal basis of the kinematical Hilbert space is given by quantum states $|n\rangle$ labeled by the triad eigenvalue $n$ which also determines volume eigenvalues: $\hat{V}|n\rangle= V_{(|n|-1)/2} |n\rangle$ with $$\label{Vj} V_j=(\gamma l_{\rm P}^2)^{\frac{3}{2}} \sqrt{\case{1}{27}j(j+\case{1}{2})(j+1)}$$ ($\gamma\in{\Bbb R}^+$, which is of order one, is the Barbero–Immirzi parameter labeling inequivalent representations of the classical Poisson algebra, and $l_{\rm P}=\sqrt{\kappa\hbar}$ with $\kappa=8\pi G$ is the Planck length). The volume operator has eigenvalue zero with threefold degeneracy (for the states $|\pm 1\rangle$ and $|0\rangle$), but only one of them, $|0\rangle$, has degenerate triad and so corresponds to the classically singular state. The wave function $\psi(a,\phi)$ of standard quantum cosmology is replaced by the coefficients $s_n(\phi)$ of a state $|s\rangle=\sum_n s_n|n\rangle$. For large $|n|$ the correspondence between $a$ and $n$ is $|n(a)|\sim 6a^2\gamma^{-1} l_{\rm P}^{-2}$ which follows from the volume spectrum ($|n|=2j+1$). The Hamiltonian constraint equation for spatially flat models takes the form of a discrete evolution equation (see [@IsoCosmo] for the case of models with positive spatial curvature): $$\begin{aligned} \label{Lor} &&\case{1}{4} (1+\gamma^{-2}) A_n^{(8)} s_{n+8}(\phi)- A_n^{(4)} s_{n+4}(\phi) - 2 A_n^{(0)} s_n(\phi)\nonumber\\ && - A_n^{(-4)} s_{n-4}(\phi) +\case{1}{4} (1+\gamma^{-2}) A_n^{(-8)} s_{n-8}(\phi) \nonumber\\ &&\quad = -\case{1}{3}\gamma\kappa\l_{\rm P}^2 \,\hat{H}_{\phi}(n)\, s_n(\phi)\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned} A_n^{(\pm 8)} &:=& \left(V_{|n\pm 8|/2}- V_{|n\pm 8|/2-1}\right) k_{n\pm 8}^{\pm}k_{n\pm 4}^{\pm} \\ A_n^{(\pm 4)} &:=& \left(V_{|n\pm 4|/2}- V_{|n\pm 4|/2-1}\right)\\ A_n^{(0)} &:=& \left(V_{|n|/2}- V_{|n|/2-1}\right) \nonumber\\ && \times\left(\case{1}{8} (1+\gamma^{-2}) (k_n^-k_{n+4}^++ k_n^+k_{n-4}^-) -1\right)\end{aligned}$$ where $V_j$ are the eigenvalues (\[Vj\]) of the volume operator with $V_{-1}=0$, and the coefficients $k_n^{\pm}$ can be chosen to be non-vanishing by a suitable ordering of the extrinsic curvature operator and are approximately ${\rm sgn} (n)$ for large $|n|$ (see [@IsoCosmo] for explicit expressions in terms of the volume eigenvalues). Here we introduced a matter Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_{\phi}$ whose particular form is irrelevant. It only matters that it acts diagonally in the triad degrees of freedom which is always the case in the absence of curvature couplings. #### Pre-Classicality. {#pre-classicality. .unnumbered} Compared to the standard Wheeler–DeWitt equation of second order the discrete evolution equation is of order sixteen. So the problem of a unique solution seems to be more severe at first sight, but many of the additional solutions can easily be seen to not correspond to a semiclassical solution. Let us call a wave function $s_n$ [*pre-classical*]{} if and only if, at large volume ($n\gg 1$), it is not strongly varying at the Planck scale (increasing the large label $n$ by one), although it may oscillate on much larger scales (increasing $n$ by a macroscopic amount). Note that a difference equation with [*fixed step size*]{}, as is always the case here, may have solutions which are very different from those of an approximating differential equation even though all solutions of the differential equation are well approximated when the step size goes to zero [@SIAM]. A common possibility is a solution with alternating sign between successive $n$, which cannot correspond to a continuous solution of a differential equation. Due to instabilities there can also be solutions with exponentially increasing absolute value, even in regimes where the solutions of the differential equation are purely oscillating (i.e. in the classically allowed range in a WKB approximation). A precise formulation of the phrase “not strongly varying” can be given in the following way. Note first that the Barbero–Immirzi parameter $\gamma$ enters $a(n)=\gamma l_{\rm P}^2n/6$, which is used here as internal time. Although the physical value of $\gamma$ is fixed and of order one [@ABCK:LoopEntro], we can use the $\gamma\to0$ limit, together with $n\to\infty$ such that $a(n)$ is fixed, to decide whether a wave function is pre-classical. In this limit the difference $a(n+1)-a(n)$ becomes infinitesimal implying a continuum limit. A wave function $s_n$ is pre-classical if and only if its limit $\gamma\to0$, $n\to\infty$ exists, providing a rigorous check of the pre-classicality condition. Note that $\kappa$ and $\hbar$, and so $l_{\rm P}$, are fixed in this limit and we are still dealing with quantum cosmology. In fact, standard quantum cosmology can be shown to be the above limit of loop quantum cosmology. Our condition picks out only those solutions which are oscillatory on large scales but almost constant on the Planck scale. Since this is a pre-requisite for a subsequent WKB-approximation, we call it pre-classicality. Whenever it is fulfilled, a discrete wave function $s_n(\phi)$ can be approximated at large $n$ by a standard continuous wave function $\psi(a):=s_{n(a)}$ with $n(a)=6a^2 \gamma^{-1}l_{\rm P}^{-2}$ as above, which approximately solves the standard Wheeler–DeWitt equation up to corrections of order $\sqrt{\gamma}l_{\rm P}/a$ [@Sing; @IsoCosmo]. Thus, standard quantum cosmology is realized only as an approximation valid at large volume where the discreteness of quantum geometry is irrelevant (see Fig. \[deSitter\]). Since the Wheeler–DeWitt equation is of second order and so has two independent solutions, there can be at most two independent pre-classical solutions $s^{\pm}$ of our discrete evolution equations, such that any pre-classical solution can be written as $s=as^++bs^-$ with $a,b\in{\Bbb C}$. To demonstrate this explicitly, we introduce $$\begin{aligned} t_m &:=& \gamma^{-1}l_{\rm P}^{-2}(V_{2|m|}-V_{2|m|-1})s_{4m}\\ P(m) &:=& \case{1}{3}\gamma\kappa l_{\rm P}^2H_{\phi}(m) (V_{2|m|}-V_{2|m|-1})^{-1}\,,\end{aligned}$$ using the expectation value $H_{\phi}(n)$ of $\hat{H}_{\phi}(n)$ in a matter state, such that for $|n|\gg1$, where $k_n^{\pm}\sim{\rm sgn}(n)$, the evolution equation (\[Lor\]) takes the form $$\begin{aligned} &&\case{1}{4}(1+\gamma^{-2}) t_{m+2}-t_{m+1}+ (\case{1}{2}(3-\gamma^{-2})+ P(m))t_m\nonumber\\ &&-t_{m-1}+ \case{1}{4}(1+\gamma^{-2}) t_{m-2}=0\,. \label{LorSimp}\end{aligned}$$ In a classical regime $|m|$ is large and $P(m)\sim \frac{2}{3}\kappa H_{\phi}/a$ is approximately constant on a range small compared to $|m|$. In this case we have a linear difference equation with constant coefficients whose solutions can be found by an ansatz $t_m\propto e^{im\theta}$ with $\theta\in{\Bbb C}$ which in (\[LorSimp\]) yields the quadratic equation $$(1+\gamma^{-2})\cos^2\theta-2\cos\theta+1-\gamma^{-2}+ P=0$$ which has solutions $$\cos\theta=(1+\gamma^{-2})^{-1}\left(1\pm\sqrt{\gamma^{-4}- (1+\gamma^{-2})P}\right)$$ being real with modulus smaller than one such that $\theta$ is real when $\gamma$ is of the order one and $P$ is small. If the matter does not contribute a Planck size energy, $P$ is small and we have $\cos\theta_0= 1-\epsilon+O(\epsilon^2)$ or $\cos\theta_1= (1+\gamma^{-2})^{-1} (1-\gamma^{-2})+ \epsilon+O(\epsilon^2)$ with $0<\epsilon:=\frac{1}{2}\gamma^2P\ll 1$. The first possibility, expanding $\cos\theta_0= 1-\frac{1}{2}\theta_0^2+O(\theta_0^4)$, leads to two solutions $\theta_0=\gamma\sqrt{P}+O(P)$ and $-\theta_0$ with $|\theta_0|\ll 1$ both of which imply pre-classical $t_m^{\pm}=e^{\pm im\theta_0}$. Because $\gamma$ is not large compared to one, the second possibility $\cos\theta_1$ leads to $\theta_1$ which violates pre-classicality (e.g., for $\gamma=1$ we have $\theta_1=\pm\pi/2$ and $t_m\propto (\pm i)^m$). All 16 independent solutions $t_{n/4}=\gamma^{-1}l_{\rm P}^{-2} (V_{|n|/2}-V_{|n|/2-1})s_n$ of (\[Lor\]) can be obtained as $$\begin{aligned} t_{n/4} &=& e^{\pm in\theta_0/4},\: e^{\pm in\theta_1/4},\\ && (-1)^n e^{\pm in\theta_0/4},\: (-1)^n e^{\pm in\theta_1/4},\\ && \sigma^n e^{\pm in\theta_0/4} \mbox{ or } \sigma^n e^{\pm in\theta_1/4}\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma$ can be $+i$ or $-i$. Obviously, only the first two are pre-classical. The definition using $\gamma\to0$ ($a$ finite) is applied as follows: with $n=6a^2\gamma^{-1}l_{\rm P}^{-2}$ we have $$\begin{aligned} \lim_{\gamma\to0} \gamma^{-1} l_{\rm P}^{-2} (V_{|n|/2}- V_{|n|/2-1})= a/2\,,\\ \lim_{\gamma\to0}e^{\pm in\theta_0/4}= \exp\left(\pm \case{3}{2} i\sqrt{P} a^2/l_{\rm P}^2\right)\,, \end{aligned}$$ whereas $\lim_{\gamma\to0} \theta_1= \pi$ and so the limit for $\gamma\to0$, $n\to\infty$ does not exist for the remaining 14 solutions. Thus, by using the pre-classicality requirement, which is a prerequisite for any semiclassical analysis, we arrive at the same situation as in standard quantum cosmology: there are two independent solutions from which we have to select a linear combination up to norm. #### Dynamical Initial Conditions. {#dynamical-initial-conditions. .unnumbered} Up to now we considered only the semiclassical regime, but there is an additional feature of loop quantum cosmology [*which emerges right at the classical singularity*]{}, deeply in the Planck regime where the approximation by standard quantum cosmology breaks down: the highest order (or lowest order when we evolve backwards) coefficient vanishes when we try to determine $s_0$. At first sight, it seems that this is a breakdown of the evolution similar to the classical situation. However, as demonstrated in [@Sing; @IsoCosmo], this is not the case in the particular factor ordering of the constraint chosen above because $s_0$ completely drops out of the evolution equation. (This observation depends crucially on the fact that $\hat{H}_{\phi}s_0(\phi)=0$ which is always true in quantum geometry [@InvScale; @IsoCosmo] but would be impossible without space-time discreteness.) Instead of determining $s_0$ the evolution equation leads to a [*consistency condition for the initial data*]{}: starting from a general pre-classical solution $s_n=as_n^++bs_n^-$ for large $n$ and evolving backwards, we eventually arrive at a point where we have to apply (\[Lor\]) for $n=8$. At this value of $n$ the lowest order coefficient $A_8^{(-8)}$ vanishes as noted above causing $s_0$ to drop out. Since by assumption we have already determined all $s_n$ for $n>0$ (for which there is no vanishing coefficient in the evolution equation), the would-be equation for $s_0$ leads to a further condition for higher $s_n$ ($s_4$, $s_8$, $s_{12}$ and $s_{16}$) which upon inserting the general pre-classical solution $s_n=as_n^++bs_n^-$ implicitly yields a linear relation between the two free parameters $a$ and $b$. [*This leaves us with a unique solution*]{} (up to norm). #### Conclusions. {#conclusions. .unnumbered} We have shown that loop quantum cosmology implies a discrete evolution equation which uniquely determines a state (up to norm) behaving semiclassically at large volume. It is important to adapt the standard condition for semiclassicality in a WKB approximation taking the discreteness of time into account. This leads already to a strong reduction of the allowed solutions, but the crucial condition for the uniqueness arises only from the particular structure of the evolution equation in quantum geometry. We remark that in general it is only possible to require pre-classicality at one connected domain of large volume. If one evolves through a classical singularity, the wave function may pick up components which oscillate at the Planck scale (see Fig. \[deSitter\]). The precise form of these oscillations depends on factor ordering ambiguities (in the coefficients $k_n^{\pm}$ entering the constraint) and the use of the Lorentzian (versus Euclidean) theory. Such a unique wave function generally differs from those obtained with boundary proposals of standard quantum cosmology. By choosing a real prefactor it is always real (for flat spatial slices the evolution equation has real coefficients; this no longer holds true for spatially curved models) and so cannot coincide with the “tunneling” wave function [@tunneling]. While the “no-boundary” proposal [@nobound] also leads to a real wave function, it is imposed on the standard Wheeler–DeWitt equation at the Planck scale where large deviations to loop quantum cosmology occur. Thus, in general its wave function of a universe is different from the unique pre-classical solution found here. The consistency condition for the initial data in loop quantum cosmology may be expressed as $s_0=0$ which is reminiscent of DeWitt’s $\psi(0)=0$ [@DeWitt] (to achieve this, an ad hoc Planck potential has been introduced in [@SIC]). However, since these two conditions are imposed on completely different evolution equations, the selected solutions in general differ. As Fig. \[deSitter\] shows, there may be a good coincidence in certain models, but only if the curvature is small at all times which can happen only in the absence of matter. Contrary to all other proposals for boundary conditions in quantum cosmology, our [*dynamical initial conditions*]{} are not chosen to fulfill an a priori intuition about the “creation” of a universe but derived from the evolution equation which, in turn, is derived from quantum geometry, a candidate for a complete theory of quantum gravity. Therefore, one equation provides both the dynamical law and initial conditions. As we have seen, the critical condition, which crucially depends on quantum geometry, emerges from evaluating the evolution equation at the state which corresponds to the classical singularity. So in contrast to the classical situation where a singularity leads to unpredictability, in quantum geometry the regime of the classical singularity fixes ambiguities in the wave function of a universe. #### Acknowledgements. {#acknowledgements. .unnumbered} The author is grateful to A. Ashtekar for discussions and a careful reading of the manuscript. This work was supported in part by NSF grant PHY00-90091 and the Eberly research funds of Penn State. [99]{} E-mail address: [[email protected]]{} B. S. DeWitt, Phys. Rev. [**160**]{}, 1113 (1967). C. W. Misner, Phys. Rev. [**186**]{}, 1319 (1969). J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D [**28**]{}, 2960 (1983). A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D [**30**]{}, 509 (1984). H. D. Conradi and H. D. Zeh, Phys. Lett. A [**154**]{}, 321 (1991). N. Kontoleon and D. L. Wiltshire, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{}, 063513 (1999). A. Ashtekar, [*Lectures on non-perturbative canonical gravity*]{} (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991). C. Rovelli, Living Reviews in Relativity [**1**]{}, (1998). C. Rovelli and L. Smolin, Nucl. Phys. B [**442**]{}, 593 (1995), erratum: Nucl. Phys. B [**456**]{}, 753 (1995). A. Ashtekar and J. Lewandowski, Class. Quantum Grav. [**14**]{}, A55 (1997). A. Ashtekar and J. Lewandowski, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**1**]{}, 388 (1997). M. Bojowald and H. A. Kastrup, Class. Quantum Grav. [**17**]{}, 3009 (2000). M. Bojowald, Class. Quantum Grav. [**17**]{}, 1489 (2000). M. Bojowald, Class. Quantum Grav. [**17**]{}, 1509 (2000). M. Bojowald, Class. Quantum Grav. [**18**]{}, 1055 (2001). M. Bojowald, Class. Quantum Grav. [**18**]{}, 1071 (2001). M. Bojowald, Absence of Singularity in Loop Quantum Cosmology, gr-qc/0102069 (Phys. Rev. Lett., in press). M. Bojowald, The Inverse Scale Factor in Isotropic Quantum Geometry, in preparation. M. Bojowald, Isotropic Loop Quantum Cosmology, in preparation. T. Thiemann, Class. Quantum Grav. [**15**]{}, 839 (1998). J. M. Sanz-Serna, SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput. [**6**]{}, 923 (1985). A. Ashtekar, J. C. Baez, A. Corichi, and K. Krasnov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 904 (1998); A. Ashtekar, J. C. Baez, and K. Krasnov, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**4**]{}, 1 (2001).

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We study the influence of topology on the quench dynamics of a system driven across a quantum critical point. We show how the appearance of certain edge states, which fully characterise the topology of the system, dramatically modifies the process of defect production during the crossing of the critical point. Interestingly enough, the density of defects is no longer described by the Kibble-Zurek scaling, but determined instead by the non-universal topological features of the system. Edge states are shown to be robust against defect production, which highlights their topological nature.' author: - 'A. Bermudez$^1$, D. Patanè$^{2,3}$, L. Amico$^{2,3}$, and M. A. Martin-Delgado$^{1}$' title: Topology induced anomalous defect production by crossing a quantum critical point --- Phase transitions occur between two different states of matter with different orders. When a critical point is crossed with a certain rate, the order can be established only partially, and the system displays a non-vanishing density of defects. The Kibble-Zurek (KZ) mechanism is the paradigm to analyze the dynamics of a system driven across a phase transition$\text{\cite{Kibble,Zurek}}$. Accordingly, the density of defects produced during the crossing is uniquely determined by the universality class of the system. Remarkably enough, this mechanism accurately describes also quantum phase transitions, occurring at absolute zero temperature${\text{\cite{KZ1,KZ2, KZ3, KZ4, KZ5, KZ6, KZ7, KZ8, KZ9}}}$; the effect of crossing a quantum critical line was shown in ${\text{\cite{KZline,sengupta}}}$. Here we show that the topology of the system may induce an anomalous defect production which strongly deviates from the KZ scaling law. We demonstrate that such deviation is caused by the properties of the characteristic edge states, which are a fingerprint of the system non-trivial topology. The effect of boundary conditions is peculiar for the class of systems possessing a topological order [@wen_book]. In fact, such systems are characterized by a ground state degeneracy that strongly depends on the topology of the of the manifold on which they live. Besides, a hallmark of topological order is the appearance of states localised at the boundary of the system, the so-called edge states. Edge states emerge naturally in a wide variety of systems, such as the fractional quantum Hall effect [@wen_fqh], one-dimensional spin models [@aklt], or Majorana fermions on a lattice [@kitaev]. Recently, edge states have been realized experimentally in topological insulators connected with quantum spin Hall effect [@koenig; @hsieh]. The subject of this letter is to investigate the effects of topology in the out-of-equilibrium dynamics induced by the crossing of a quantum critical point. In this context, the preparation of topological order via adiabatic evolution was addressed in [@hamma]. Moreover, the scaling of defects created by crossing a line of quantum critical points of topological nature was studied in [@sengupta]. The scenario that emerged supports the KZ mechanism, with a generalized scaling law that takes into account the infinite number of critical points crossed. Let us remark that no peculiar behavior induced by the topological nature of the system has been found so far. In the following we will show how edge states dramatically modify the KZ scaling law, thus indicating the need of a new paradigm to describe the dynamics of topological defect production. To address this problem we consider a specific model originally proposed by Creutz in [@creutz]. As we shall discuss below, this system offers a rich scenario where to study the influence of topology on the defect production across a quantum critical point, and may serve as a paradigmatic model for more general topological systems. The Creutz model describes the dynamics of a spinless electron moving in the ladder system depicted in Fig. \[creutz\_ladder\_scheme\], as dictated by the following Hamiltonian $$\label{creutz_hamiltonian_b_field} \begin{split} H:=&-\sum_{n=1}^{L}\left[K\left({{\rm e}}^{-{{\rm i}}\theta}a^{\dagger}_{n+1}a_n+{{\rm e}}^{{{\rm i}}\theta}b^{\dagger}_{n+1}b_n\right)+\right . \\ &\left. +K\left(b^{\dagger}_{n+1}a_n+a^{\dagger}_{n+1}b_n\right)+M a^{\dagger}_{n}b_n+\text{h.c.}\right], \end{split}$$ where we have introduced the fermionic operators $a_n$, and $b_n$ associated to the $n-$th site of the upper and lower chain respectively. The hopping along horizontal and diagonal links is described by the parameter $K$, and the vertical one by $M$; additionally a magnetic flux $\theta\in[-\pi/2,\pi/2]$ is induced by a perpendicular magnetic field. [periodic\_ladder\_scheme\_bis.eps]{} (17,30.5)[$K$]{} (-5,25)[$M$]{} (50,22.5)[$K$]{} (98,23)[$\theta$]{} For small vertical hopping $M<2 K$, the model has a second order quantum phase transition at $\theta_c=0$ with equilibrium critical exponents $\nu=z=1$ (see Eq. \[periodic\_spectrum\]). The quantum critical point separates two band insulators with topologically distinct configuration of currents (leading to opposite circulation of thereof along the ladder). We thus focus on a quench of the magnetic flux $\theta(t):=v_qt-\pi/2\in[-\pi/2,\pi/2]$ at constant rate $v_q$. According to the KZ mechanism, as the system crosses the critical point and the energy gap vanishes, excitations are unavoidably produced as $P^{\text{KZ}}_{\text{def}}\propto v_q^{\frac{d\nu}{z\nu+1}}$, where $d$ is the system dimension. We now explore the influence of the ladder topology on the dynamics across a quantum critical point and describe the circumstances where strong deviations from the KZ scaling arise. Let us first discuss the quench dynamics of a ladder with periodic boundary conditions $a_{L+1}=a_1$, $b_{L+1}=b_1$, which impose a closed topology on the system. Introducing the fermionic operators in momentum space $a_q:=\sum_n a_n{{\rm e}}^{{{\rm i}}q n}$, and $ b_q:=\sum_n b_n{{\rm e}}^{{{\rm i}}q n}$, where $q:=\frac{2\pi}{L}j$ with $j=1,...,L$, the Hamiltonian in equation  reads $$\label{creutz_hamiltonian_b_field_momentum} H=-2K\sum_q(a^{\dagger}_q,b^{\dagger}_q)\left(\begin{array}{cc} \cos(q-\theta) & m+\cos q \\ m+\cos q & \cos(q+\theta) \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c} a_q \\b_q \end{array}\right),$$ where $m:=M/2K$ is the relative vertical hopping, and $K$ fixes the energy scale. Hence, the phase diagram depends upon the parameters $m$ and $\theta$ with the following energy spectrum $E_{q\pm}:=E/2K$ $$\label{periodic_spectrum} E_{q\pm}=-\cos q\cos \theta\pm\sqrt{\text{sin}^2q\sin^2\theta+(m+\cos q)^2}.$$ In the following we will focus on the regime with $m=0$ (see fig. \[theta\_periodic\_energy\_spectrum\]). Let us notice however that the results obtained are robust under small fluctuations of $m<1$. We shall consider an initial ground state corresponding to $\theta(0)=-\pi/2$ and localised within a plaquette at $(n,n+1)$, ${|-2K\rangle}_{n}:=\half(-{{\rm i}}a^{\dagger}_n+b^{\dagger}_n+a^{\dagger}_{n+1}-{{\rm i}}b^{\dagger}_{n+1}){|0\rangle} $. Such state arises due to the destructive interference between different hopping paths, which forbids electron tunneling to next-nearest neighboring rungs $n\nrightarrow n\pm 2$. At the end of the quench $\theta(t_{\text{f}})=+\pi/2$, the system shall be found in a state $|\Psi(t_{\text{f}})\rangle$ given by the superposition of the ground state still localised within the plaquette (adiabatic evolution of the initial state), and de-localized defects which have been excited close to the critical point. This dynamics, schematically depicted in fig. \[plaquette\_theta\_quench\], can be rigorously described as a collection of $L$ Landau-Zener processes [@LZ; @LZ_bis] (see eq. ). The total density of excitations at the end of the quench is $P_{\text{def}}=\sum_{E>0}|\langle E | \Psi(t_{\text{f}})\rangle|^2$, $\langle E|$ being the eigenvectors of the Hamiltonian. In fig. \[kz\_quench\], we present the density of produced defects as the thermodynamic limit is approached. It readily follows that the density of defects is accurately described by the scaling $P_{\text{def}}\propto\sqrt{v_q}$, which is in complete agreement with the KZ prediction for the critical exponents of the model. In fact, despite the non linear nature of the quench of $\theta$, equation can be linearized close to gapless mode $q_g=\pi/2$ at $\theta_c$, yielding thus the conventional scenario where the KZ scaling holds. Once the periodic ladder has been thoroughly described, we may study the influence of a different topology on the quench dynamics of the ladder. In the case of open boundary conditions $a_{L+1}=0$, $b_{L+1}=0$, the translational invariance of the system is lost. The dynamics can no longer be described as a collection of $L$ uncoupled two-level systems associated to a given mode $q$, and transitions between all energy levels occur. We observe that the quantum phase transitions in fig. \[theta\_open\_energy\_spectrum\] still resembles the periodic case in fig. \[theta\_periodic\_energy\_spectrum\]. However, the opening of the chain is crucially accompanied by the appearance of two new levels whose energies lie close to zero. Such levels, which correspond to edge states pinned at the ends of the lattice, are a direct consequence of the ladder topology (i.e. whether it is an open quasi-one-dimensional chain, or a closed quasi-one-dimensional ring). Below, we study the effects of these new states, and thus the effects of topology, in the ladder quench dynamics. For open boundary conditions, we can initialise the system in two qualitatively different localised states, namely, the plaquette-like state localised at the bulk (or boundary), or the topological edge state located at either side of the ladder ${|l\rangle}:=\textstyle{\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(a_1^{\dagger}-{{\rm i}}b_1^{\dagger}){|0\rangle}$, and $ {|r\rangle}:=\textstyle{\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(-{{\rm i}}a_L^{\dagger}+b_L^{\dagger}){|0\rangle}$ (see fig. \[edge\_state\_m\_quench\]). In the case in which the system is initialised in a plaquette-like state, the density of defects scales according to the KZ mechanism $P_{\text{def}}\propto\sqrt{v_q}$. Being plaquette-like states independent on the ladder topology, we consistently find the same scaling obtained in the periodic case. Moreover, KZ scaling holds regardless of the plaquette position within the ladder, either located at the bulk (fig. \[theta\_kz\_bulk\_plaq\]) or edge (fig. \[theta\_kz\_edge\_plaq\]). These results rule out the existence of a non-topological attraction mechanism at the boundaries, which would modify the ladder quench dynamics. Let us now focus on the quench dynamics of a topological edge state localised in the left side of the ladder ${|l\rangle}$. Interestingly enough, the energy gap between this edge state and the remaining excitations shows a similar scaling as the gap of a localised plaquette, and thus the KZ mechanism would results in a similar scaling $P^{\text{KZ}}_{\text{def}}\propto\sqrt{v_q}$. Contrarily, we have found (see Fig. \[theta\_kz\_edge\_state\]) the surprising result that the scaling of the density of defects for an initial topological edge state deviates pronouncedly from the KZ theory $$\label{non_KZ_scaling} P_{\text{def}}\propto v_q^{1.35}.$$ Accordingly, edge states are more robust (with respect to non-topological states) because a smaller amount of defects is generated during adiabatic quenches $v_q\ll1$. This anomalous scaling is due to topological constraints that decouple the edge states from the excitations that lie close to the gapless mode, whose universal density of states gives rise to the KZ scaling. Therefore, we can state that the quench dynamics of these topological edge states is not dictated by the universality class of the system, but rather induced by non-universal effects of the topology. It is precisely this fact which does not allow a theoretical prediction of Eq.  based on the critical properties of the quantum phase transition. Summarizing, in this letter we have presented a detailed study of the effect of the topology on the quench dynamics. We have shown that the influence of edge states, which constitute a clear signature of the system topology, leads to a peculiar scaling of quench defects. In this respect, we have presented an insightful model, the so-called Creutz ladder, where the influence of these edge states on the quench dynamics can be neatly described. As we noticed, an adiabatic quench of the magnetic flux produces a smaller amount of defects when the ladder is initially in a topological edge state. Being the presence of in-gap edge states a generic feature of topological band insulators [@kane; @fu; @lee], we expect that an anomaly in the defect production could emerge beyond the specific model we considered. We would like to conclude the letter commenting on the relevance of our results for quantum information. The suppression of the defects production law suggests that the edge states are particularly suitable candidates to implement a protected quantum memory, even in the presence of strong fluctuation of a magnetic field that may drive the system across a critical point. Let us finally note that a natural candidate to experimentally implement this topological quench dynamics is that of spinor Fermi gases in optical lattices [@ol_review]. The two species of fermionic operators in the ladder may correspond to the fermionic operators associated to different spin-components, whereas the non-interacting regime is reached by means of Feschbach resonances. [*Acknowledgments.*]{} A.B. and M.A.M.D acknowledge financial support from the Spanish MEC project FIS2006-04885, the project CAM-UCM/910758, and, together with D.P, the ESF Science Programme INSTANS 2005-2010. Additionally, A. B. acknowledges support from a FPU MEC grant. T. W. B. Kibble, [J. Phys. A]{} **9**, 1387 (1976). W. H. Zurek, [ Nature]{} **317**, 505 (1985). W. H. Zurek, U. Dorner, and P. Zoller, [ Phys. Rev. Lett. ]{} **95**, 105701 (2005). A. Polkovnikov, [Phys. Rev. B]{} **72**, 161201(R) (2005). J. Dziarmaga, [ Phys. Rev. Lett. ]{} **95**, 245701 (2005); R. W. Cherng, and L.S. Levitov, [ Phys. Rev. A]{} **73**, 043614 (2006). A. Lamacraft, [ Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} **98**, 160404 (2007). B. Damski, and W. H. Zurek, [ Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} **99**, 130402 (2007). F. M. Cucchietti, B. Damski, J. Dziarmaga, and W. H. Zurek, [ Phys. Rev. A]{} **75**, 023603 (2007). V. Mukherjee , U. Divakaran, A. Dutta, and D. Sen, [Phys. Rev. B]{} **76**, 174303 (2007). J. Dziarmaga, J. Meisner, and W. H. Zurek, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} **101**, 115701 (2008). F. Pellegrini, S. Montangero, G. E. Santoro and R. Fazio, Phys. Rev. B **77** 140404(R) (2008); U. Divakaran, A. Dutta and D. Sen, Phys. Rev. B **78** 144301 (2008); S. Deng, G. Ortiz and L. Viola, Europhys. Lett., **84** 67008 (2008). K. Sengupta, D. Sen, and S. Mondal, [ Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} **100**, 077204 (2008). X. Wen, [*Quantum Field Theory of Many-body Systems: From the Origin of Sound to an Origin of Light and Electrons*]{} (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 2004). X. Wen, [ Advances in Physics]{}, **44**, 405 (1995). I. Affleck, T. Kennedy, E. H. Lieb, and H. Tasaki, [ Phys. Rev. Lett. ]{} **59**, 799 (1987). Y. Kitaev, [ Phys.-Usp.]{} **44**, 131 (2001). M. Koenig et al., [ Science]{} **318**, 766 (2007). D. Hsieh et al., [Nature]{} **452**, 970 (2008). A. Hamma, and A. D. Lidar, [ Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} **100**, 030502 (2008). M. Creutz, [ Phys. Rev. Lett]{} **83**, 2636 (1999). C. Zener, [ Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A]{} **137**, 696 (1932). L. D. Landau, and E. M. Lifshitz, [*Quantum Mechanics: Non-Relativistic Theory*]{} (Pergamon, Oxford, 1965). Kane, C.L. $\&$ Mele, E.J., [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} **95**, 226801 (2005). L. Fu, C. L. Kane, and E. J. Mele, [ Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} **98**, 106803 (2007). D. -H. Lee, G.-M. Zhang, and T. Xiang,[ Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} **99**, 196805 (2007). M. Lewenstein [*et al.*]{}, Adv. Phys. **56**, 243 (2007).

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'The relationships between thin elements, commutative shells and connections in cubical -categories are explored by a method which does not involve the use of pasting theory or nerves of -categories (both of which were previously needed for this purpose; see [@A-B-S02], Section 9). It is shown that composites of commutative shells are commutative and that thin structures are equivalent to appropriate sets of connections; this work extends to all dimensions the results proved in dimensions 2 and 3 in [@B-M99; @B-M04].' author: - | Philip J. Higgins[^1],\ Department of Mathematical Sciences,\ Science Laboratories,\ South Rd.,\ Durham, DH1 3LE, U.K. title: | Thin Elements and Commutative Shells\ in Cubical -categories --- [**UWB Maths Preprint 04.16**]{} Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered} ============ Thin structures in simplicial sets were introduced by Dakin in [@D77] and were applied to cubical sets in [@B-H77; @B-H81; @B-H81a]. In the cubical case a thin structure is equivalent to an -groupoid structure. In this paper we use the term *thin structure* in a weaker sense which is appropriate for cubical -categories and does not imply the existence of inverses. This concept was introduced in the 2-dimensional case in [@S-W], as arising from a pair of connections in dimension 2, and the equivalence of these notions in this dimension was shown in [@B-M99]. We extend this result to all dimensions (Theorem 3.1). The definition of thin structure depends on the notion of *commutative cube* or *commutative shell*. This was studied in the 3-dimensional case in [@S-W] for certain ‘special’ double categories, and in [@B-M04] as part of the proof of a van Kampen theorem for homotopy double groupoids. A key result there (see also [@S-W Proposition 3.11]) was that any composition of commutative 3-shells is commutative; we prove this result in all dimensions. We also prove in the general case that thin elements are precisely those which can be expressed as composites using only identity elements and connections (Theorem 2.8). These results, which were proved for -groupoids in [@B-H81], can be deduced for -categories from results in [@A-B-S02]. However, the methods used in [@A-B-S02] depend on the use of pasting theory and nerves of -categories which tend to obscure the intuitive nature of thinness and commutativity. The approach used below is simpler and more direct. The basic simplification is the use of a “partial folding operation" $\Psi$ in place of the full folding operation $\Phi_n$ used in [@A-B-S02]. The operation $\Phi_n$ is needed to prove the equivalence between cubical -categories with connections and globular -categories, but the simpler $\Psi$ suffices for a detailed study of thinness and commutativity. This direct approach should facilitate applications to homotopy theory (cf.[@B-M99; @B-M04; @Spencer; @S-W]) and to concurrency theory in computer science (cf. [@Gaucher; @Goubault]). Composing the faces of a cube {#S:1} ============================= Let ${\mathsf{C}}$ be a cubical -category as defined in [@A89] and [@A-B-S02]; for the moment we do not assume the existence of connections. If $x \in {\mathsf{C}}_n$ is an $n$-cube in ${\mathsf{C}}$ one may ask which of its $(n-1)$-faces have common $(n-2)$-faces and can be composed in ${\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}$. The answer is that the following pairs of faces (and in general only these pairs) can be composed: $$(\partial^{-}_i x, \partial^{+}_{i+1} x), \qquad (\partial^{+}_i x, \partial^{-}_{i+1} x), \qquad i=1,2,\ldots,n-1.$$ Thus the faces of $x$ (by which we mean its $(n-1)$-faces) divide naturally into two sequences $$(\partial^{-}_1 x,\partial^{+}_2 x,\partial^{-}_3 x,\ldots,\partial^{\pm}_n x) \mbox{ and } (\partial^{+}_1 x,\partial^{-}_2 x,\partial^{+}_3 x,\ldots,\partial^{\mp}_n x)$$ in which neighbouring pairs can be composed. We call these respectively the *negative* and the *positive* faces of $x$. This agrees with the terminology of [@A-B-S02]. We will frequently use 2-dimensional arrays of elements of ${\mathsf{C}}_n$, and these will be shown in tabular form such as $$\vcenter{\xymatrix@M=0pt @=0.5pc{ \ar @{-} [dddd] \ar @{-} [rrrrrr] &&\ar @{-} [dddd] && \ar @{-} [dddd] && \ar @{-} [dddd] \\ & a & & b & & c & \\ \ar @{-} [rrrrrr] &&&&&& \\ & d& & f & & g & \\ \ar @{-} [rrrrrr] &&&&&&}} \quad {\def\objectstyle{\scriptstyle} \objectmargin={0pt} \xy (0,4)*+{}="a",(0,-2)*+{\rule{0em}{1.5ex}i}="b",(7,4)*+{\;j}="c" \ar@{->} "a";"b" \ar @{->}"a";"c" \endxy }$$ When using this notation we will always assume that pairs of adjacent elements in the table have a common face in the relevant direction, in this case $i$ or $j$. Thus in the array above we assume that $\partial ^+_ja = \partial ^-_j b$, $\partial ^+_ia = \partial ^-_i d$, etc. The array can then be composed [*by rows*]{}: $(a \circ _j b \circ _j c) \circ _i ( d \circ _j f \circ _jg)$, or [*by columns*]{}: $(a \circ _i d) \circ _j(b \circ _i f) \circ _j(c \circ _ig)$. It is a consequence of the interchange law that these two elements of ${\mathsf{C}}_n$ are equal, and we call their common value the [*composite*]{} of the array. To emphasise our implicit assumptions, we will use the term [*composable array*]{}. More general composites in the form of rectangular partitions of a rectangle will also be used. The simplest is of the form $$\vcenter{\xymatrix@M=0pt @=0.5pc{\ar @{-} [dddd] \ar @{-} [rrrr] &&\ar @{-} [dd] && \ar @{-} [dddd]\\ &a&&b& \\ \ar @{-} [rrrr]&&&&\\ && c&& \\ \ar @{-} [rrrr]&&&&}} \quad {\def\objectstyle{\scriptstyle} \objectmargin={0pt} \xy (0,4)*+{}="a",(0,-2)*+{\rule{0em}{1.5ex}i}="b",(7,4)*+{\;j}="c" \ar@{->} "a";"b" \ar @{->}"a";"c" \endxy }$$ Here the implicit assumptions are that $\partial ^+_ja= \partial ^-_j b$ and $\partial ^+_i(a \circ _j b) = \partial ^-_i c$, and so the composite $(a \circ _j b) \circ_i c$ can be formed. For a more general (finite) partition of a rectangle by rectangles, labelled by members of ${\mathsf{C}}_n$, we will assume that two elements, or composites of elements, with a common edge in the partition, have a common face at this edge, so allowing the composition in the corresponding direction. For example, in the partition $$\vcenter{\xymatrix@M=0pt @=0.5pc{\ar @{-} [dddddd] \ar @{-} [rrrrrr] &&\ar @{-} [dddd] && \ar @{-} [dddddd]&& \ar @{-} [dddddd]\\ &&&& &d& \\ &a&&b&\ar @{-} [rr]&& \\ &&&&&&\\ \ar @{-} [rrrr]&&&&&f& \\ && c&& &&\\ \ar @{-} [rrrrrr]&&&&&&}} \quad { {\def\objectstyle{\scriptstyle} \objectmargin={0pt} \xy (0,4)*+{}="a",(0,-2)*+{\rule{0em}{1.5ex}i}="b",(7,4)*+{\;j}="c" \ar@{->} "a";"b" \ar @{->}"a";"c" \endxy }}$$ we assume, in addition to the relations above, that $$\partial^+_i d =\partial^-_i f \quad \text{ and } \quad \partial^+_j[(a \circ_j b)\circ_i c] = \partial ^-_j(d \circ_i f)$$ and so the composite $ [(a \circ_j b)\circ_i c]\circ_j(d \circ_i f)$ can be formed. We shall call such diagrams [*composable partitions*]{} provided that some sequence of compositions exist which combines all the elements to form a composite of the partition. We will specify the sequence if there is any ambiguity. Now suppose that ${\mathsf{C}}$ is a *cubical -category with connections*, that is, it has for each $n$ and for $i=1,2,\ldots,n$, extra structure maps $\Gamma^{+}_i,\Gamma^{-}_i: {\mathsf{C}}_n \to {\mathsf{C}}_{n+1}$ (called connections) satisfying the identities set out, for example, in [@A89] and in Section 2 of [@A-B-S02]. We shall make free use of the defining identities in [@A-B-S02] without further comment. (In fact, the existence of connections in ${\mathsf{C}}$ implies that all composites of a given composable partition are equal. This is because, using connections, any composable partition can be refined to a composable [*array*]{}, and any composite of the partition must be equal to the unique composite of this array: see [@B-M99] and [@D-P]. We do not need to use this general theorem.) The ‘degenerate’ elements $\Gamma^{+}_{k} x, \Gamma^{-}_{k} x$ and $\varepsilon_k x$ will sometimes be represented in composable arrays by the symbols ${\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\rule[1.54ex]{0.7em}{0.2ex}}}, {\mbox{\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.04em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}$ and $({\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\hspace{0.6em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}\mbox{ or } {\mbox{\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.7em}\rule[1.5ex]{0.70em}{0.2ex}}})$ respectively. The symbol ${\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\hspace{-0.00em}\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.7em}\rule[1.54ex]{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.03em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}\;$ will be used to denote an element that is an identity for both the horizontal and vertical compositions. These symbols will be used only where the elements of ${\mathsf{C}}_n$ they represent are uniquely determined by the composability of the array. (The lines in these symbols are designed to indicate that the corresponding faces are identities in the direction of these edges.) For example, the array $$\vcenter{\xymatrix@M=0pt @=0.7pc{ \ar @{-} [dddd] \ar @{-} [rrrr] &&\ar @{-} [dddd] && \ar @{-} [dddd] \\& x & & {\mbox{\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.7em}\rule[1.5ex]{0.70em}{0.2ex}}}& \\ \ar @{-} [rrrr] &&&& \\ & {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\hspace{0.6em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}& & {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\hspace{-0.00em}\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.7em}\rule[1.54ex]{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.03em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}& \\ \ar @{-} [rrrr] &&&&}} \raisebox{2ex}{{\def\objectstyle{\scriptstyle} \objectmargin={0pt} \xy (0,4)*+{}="a",(0,-2)*+{\rule{0em}{1.5ex}i}="b",(7,4)*+{\;j}="c" \ar@{->} "a";"b" \ar @{->}"a";"c" \endxy }} \quad \raisebox{0ex}{ denotes } \quad \vcenter{\xymatrix@M=0pt @=0.5pc{ \ar @{-} [dddd] \ar @{-} [rrrr] &&\ar @{-} [dddd] && \ar @{-} [dddd] \\& x & & \varepsilon_j \partial^{+}_j x& \\ \ar @{-} [rrrr] &&&& \\ & \varepsilon_i \partial^{+}_i x& & \varepsilon_i \partial^{+}_j \varepsilon_j \partial^{+}_j x & \\ \ar @{-} [rrrr] &&&&}} \quad {{\def\objectstyle{\scriptstyle} \objectmargin={0pt} \xy (0,4)*+{}="a",(0,-2)*+{\rule{0em}{1.5ex}i}="b",(7,4)*+{\;j}="c" \ar@{->} "a";"b" \ar @{->}"a";"c" \endxy }}$$ whose composite is $x$ itself; and the array $$\def\labelstyle{\textstyle} \vcenter{\xymatrix@M=0pt @=0.7pc{ \ar @{-} [dddd] \ar @{-} [rrrr] &&\ar @{-} [dddd] && \ar @{-} [dddd] |(0.25){a \rule[-0.5ex]{0em}{2ex}} |(0.75){b \rule[-0.3ex]{0em}{2ex}} \\& {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\rule[1.54ex]{0.7em}{0.2ex}}}& & {\mbox{\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.7em}\rule[1.5ex]{0.70em}{0.2ex}}}& \\ \ar @{-} [rrrr] &&&&& \\ & {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\hspace{0.6em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}& & {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\rule[1.54ex]{0.7em}{0.2ex}}}& \\ \ar @{-} [rrrr]|(0.25){ \rule{0.2em}{0ex}a} |(0.75){\,b\,} &&&&}} { {\def\objectstyle{\scriptstyle} \objectmargin={0pt} \xy (0,4)*+{}="a",(0,-2)*+{\rule{0em}{1.5ex}i}="b",(7,4)*+{\;i+1}="c" \ar@{->} "a";"b" \ar @{->}"a";"c" \endxy }} \quad \text{ denotes \quad} \vcenter{\xymatrix@M=0pt @=0.5pc{ \ar @{-} [dddd] \ar @{-} [rrrr] &&\ar @{-} [dddd] && \ar @{-} [dddd] \\& \Gamma^{+}_i a & & \varepsilon_{i+1} a& \\ \ar @{-} [rrrr] &&&& \\ & \varepsilon_i a& & \Gamma^{+}_i b & \\ \ar @{-} [rrrr] &&&&}}\quad {\def\objectstyle{\scriptstyle} \objectmargin={0pt} \xy (0,4)*+{}="a",(0,-2)*+{\rule{0em}{1.5ex}i}="b",(7,4)*+{\;i+1}="c" \ar@{->} "a";"b" \ar @{->}"a";"c" \endxy }$$ whose composite, according to the transport law [@A-B-S02 (2.6)], is $\Gamma^{+}_i(a \, \o_i \, b)$. (Here the labels on the edges denote the corresponding faces of elements of the array.) The following identities (see [@A-B-S02 (2.7)]) will be important in what follows: $$\txtstyle \vcenter{\xymatrix@M=0pt @=0.7pc{ \ar @{-} [dd] \ar @{-} [rrrr]|(0.75){\,a\,} && \ar @{-} [dd] && \ar @{-} [dd] \\& {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\rule[1.54ex]{0.7em}{0.2ex}}}& & {\mbox{\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.04em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}& \\ \ar @{-} [rrrr] |(0.25){\,a\,} &&&&}} \; = \; \vcenter{\xymatrix@M=0pt @=0.7pc{ \ar @{-} [dd] \ar @{-} [rr]|{\;a\,} && \ar @{-} [dd] \\& {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\hspace{0.6em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}&\\ \ar @{-} [rr] | {\;a\,}&&}} \raisebox{1mm}{ {\def\objectstyle{\scriptstyle} \objectmargin={0pt} \xy (0,4)*+{}="a",(0,-2)*+{\rule{0em}{1.5ex}i}="b",(7,4)*+{\;i+1}="c" \ar@{->} "a";"b" \ar @{->}"a";"c" \endxy }} \raisebox{0mm}{ and \quad} \vcenter{\xymatrix@M=0pt @=0.7pc{ \ar @{-} [dddd]|(0.75){ a \rule[-0.5ex]{0em}{2ex}} \ar @{-} [rr] && \ar @{-} [dddd] |(0.25){a \rule[-0.5ex]{0em}{2ex}}\\& {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\rule[1.54ex]{0.7em}{0.2ex}}}& \\ \ar @{-} [rr] && \\ a & {\mbox{\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.04em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}& \\ \ar @{-} [rr] &&}} \; = \; \vcenter{\xymatrix@M=0pt @=0.7pc{ \ar @{-} [dd]|{a \rule[-0.5ex]{0em}{2ex}} \ar @{-} [rr] && \ar @{-} [dd]|{a \rule[-0.5ex]{0em}{2ex}} \\& {\mbox{\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.7em}\rule[1.5ex]{0.70em}{0.2ex}}}&\\ \ar @{-} [rr] &&}} \raisebox{1mm}{ {\def\objectstyle{\scriptstyle} \objectmargin={0pt} \xy (0,4)*+{}="a",(0,-2)*+{\rule{0em}{1.5ex}i}="b",(7,4)*+{\;i+1}="c" \ar@{->} "a";"b" \ar @{->}"a";"c" \endxy }}$$ that is, $\Gamma^{+}_i a \; \o_{i+1} \; \Gamma^{-}_i a = \varepsilon_i a$ and $\Gamma^{+}_i a \; \o_i \; \Gamma^{-}_i a = \varepsilon_{i+1}a$. We now define the *elementary folding operations* $\psi_i: {\mathsf{C}}_n \to {\mathsf{C}}_n, \,(i=1,2,\ldots,n-1)$ by $$\psi_i x = \vcenter{\xymatrix@M=0pt @=0.7pc{ \ar @{-} [dd] \ar @{-} [rrrrrr] &&\ar @{-}[dd] && \ar @{-} [dd] && \ar @{-} [dd] \\ & {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\rule[1.54ex]{0.7em}{0.2ex}}}& & x & & {\mbox{\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.04em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}& \\ \ar @{-} [rrrrrr] &&&&&&}} \quad {\def\objectstyle{\scriptstyle} \objectmargin={0pt} \xy (0,4)*+{}="a",(0,-2)*+{\rule{0em}{1.5ex}i}="b",(7,4)*+{\;i+1}="c" \ar@{->} "a";"b" \ar @{->}"a";"c" \endxy }$$ The chief identities satisfied by these operations are set out in Proposition 3.3(i) of [@A-B-S02]; we shall not need the “braid relations" proved in Theorem 5.2 of that paper. As the picture suggests, the effect of $\psi_i$ is to “fold" the faces $\partial^{-}_{i+1} x$ and $\partial^{+}_{i+1} x$ to the $i^{th}$ direction so that they abut the faces $\partial^{+}_i x$ and $\partial^{-}_i x$ respectively, and to compose the two pairs of faces. The composition of all the negative (and positive) faces of $x$, together with certain faces of the connections, can therefore be achieved by the folding operation $\Psi: {\mathsf{C}}_n \to{\mathsf{C}}_n$ defined by $\Psi = \psi_1 \psi_2 \ldots \psi_{n-1}$. We note that $\Psi$ is not the full folding operation $\Phi_n$ of [@A-B-S02] (which maps ${\mathsf{C}}_n$ into its globular part (see Proposition 3.5 of [@A-B-S02]), but $\Psi$ is sufficient for the study of thin elements and commutative shells. We will return to this point later. For now, the two most important faces of $\Psi x$, namely $$Px = \partial^{+}_1 \Psi x \mbox{\; and \;} Nx = \partial^{-}_1 \Psi x,$$ are to be viewed as convenient embodiments of the positive and negative boundaries of $x$. \[L:1.1\] 1. $\psi_1 \psi_2 \ldots \psi_{r-1} \varepsilon_r = \varepsilon_1: {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1} \to {\mathsf{C}}_n \mbox{ for } 1 \leqslant r \leqslant n-1.$ 2. If $y \in {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}$ then $\Psi \varepsilon_j y \in \varepsilon_1 {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1} \mbox{ for } 1 \leqslant j \leqslant n-1$. [**Proof** ]{}(i) This follows immediately from the identities $\psi_i \varepsilon_{i+1} = \varepsilon_i$.\ (ii) similarly, using $\psi_i \varepsilon_j = \varepsilon_j \psi_{i-1}$ for $j < i$ and $\psi_j \varepsilon_j = \varepsilon_j$, we have $$\begin{aligned} \Psi \varepsilon_j&= \psi_1 \psi_2 \ldots \psi_{n-1} \varepsilon_j \\ &= \psi_1 \psi_2 \ldots \psi_j \varepsilon_j \psi_j \psi_{j+1} \ldots \psi_{n-2}\\ &= \psi_1 \psi_2 \ldots \psi_{j-1} \varepsilon_j \psi_j \psi_{j+1} \ldots \psi_{n-2}\\ &= \varepsilon_j \psi_j \psi_{j+1} \ldots \psi_{n-2} \mbox{ by (i).} \tag*{$\Box$}\end{aligned}$$ If $x \in {\mathsf{C}}_n$, the *shell* $\bpartial x$ of $x$ is the family consisting of all its faces $\partial^{\alpha}_i x \; (i=1,2,\ldots,n; \alpha = + , -)$. Let ${\mathsf{C}}$ be a cubical -category with connections and $x \in {\mathsf{C}}_n$. Then 1. all faces $\partial^{\alpha}_i \Psi x$ with $i \geqslant 2$ are of the form $\varepsilon_1 z^{\alpha}_i$, where $z^{\alpha}_i \in {\mathsf{C}}_{n-2}$; 2. $\bpartial Nx = \bpartial Px $; 3. $\bpartial \Psi x$ is uniquely determined by $Nx $ and $Px $. [**Proof** ]{} 1. We have $\partial^{\alpha}_i \psi_j = \psi_j \partial^{\alpha}_i$ for $i > j+1$, so for $i \geqslant 2$, $$\partial^{\alpha}_i \Psi x = \partial^{\alpha}_i \psi_1 \ldots \psi_{n-1} x = \psi_1 \psi_2 \ldots \psi_{i-2} \partial^{\alpha}_i \psi_{i-1}, \ldots, \psi_{n-1} x,$$ (if $i =2$, the $\psi_1 \ldots, \psi_{i-2}$ are missing). But $\partial^{\alpha}_i \psi_{i-1} = \varepsilon_{i-1} \partial^{\alpha}_{i-1} \partial^{\alpha}_i$, so $$\begin{aligned} \partial^{\alpha}_i \Psi x &= \psi_1 \psi_2 \ldots \psi_{i-2} \varepsilon_{i-1} z^{\alpha}_i \mbox{ where } z^{\alpha}_i \in {\mathsf{C}}_{n-2} \\ &= \varepsilon_1 z^{\alpha}_i \mbox{ by Lemma1.1 (i) } .\end{aligned}$$ 2. This follows from (i) because $$\partial^{\alpha}_i Nx = \partial^{\alpha}_i \partial^{-}_1 \Psi x = \partial^{-}_1 \partial^{\alpha}_{i+1} \Psi x = \partial^{-}_1 \varepsilon_1 z^{\alpha}_{i+1} = z^{\alpha}_{i+1}$$ and similarly $\partial^{\alpha}_i P_x = z^{\alpha}_{i+1}$. 3. The faces of $\Psi x$ are $Nx,\, Px $ and the elements $\varepsilon_1 z$ where $z$ is a face of $Nx$ (or $Px$). [$\Box$]{}\ In the abstract, an $\emph{$n$-shell}$ in ${\mathsf{C}}$ is a family $\s = \{ s^{\alpha}_i; s^{\alpha}_i \in {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}; i = 1,2,\ldots,n; \alpha = +, -\}$ where the $s^{\alpha}_i$ satisfy the incidence relation $$\partial^{\beta}_j s^{\alpha}_i = \partial^{\alpha}_{i-1} s^{\beta}_j \mbox{ for } 1 \leqslant j < i \leqslant n \mbox{ and } \alpha, \beta \in \{+, -\}.$$ We denote by $\square \,{\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}$ the set of such shells. The usual cubical incidence relations imply that $\bpartial x \in \square \,{\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}$ for all $x \in {\mathsf{C}}_n$. If $\{{\mathsf{C}}_0, {\mathsf{C}}_1, \ldots, {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}\}$ is a cubical $(n-1)$-category with connections, then $\square {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}$ has naturally defined operations $\o_i \;(1 \leqslant i \leqslant n)$, and connections $\mathbf{\Gamma}^{\alpha}_j:{\mathsf{C}}_{n-1} \to \square {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1} \; (1 \leqslant j \leqslant n-1)$ which, together with the obvious structure maps $\partial^{\alpha}_i: \square \, {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1} \to {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}$ and $\bvarepsilon_j: {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1} \to \square \, {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}$, make $\{{\mathsf{C}}_0, {\mathsf{C}}_1,\ldots, {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}, \square \, {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}\}$ a cubical $n$-category with connections (cf. [@B-H81], section 5). Thus we can define folding maps $\psi_i, \Psi: \square {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1} \to \square {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}$ which obviously satisfy: \[L:1.2\] In a cubical $n$-category $({\mathsf{C}}_1, {\mathsf{C}}_2, \ldots, {\mathsf{C}}_n)$ with connections, the map $$x \mapsto \bpartial x : {\mathsf{C}}_n \to \square {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1},$$ together with identity maps in lower dimensions, gives a morphism of cubical $n$-categories with connections from $({\mathsf{C}}_1, {\mathsf{C}}_2, \ldots, {\mathsf{C}}_n)$ to $({\mathsf{C}}_1, {\mathsf{C}}_2, \ldots, {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}, \square {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1})$. In particular $$\mathbf{\Gamma}^{\alpha}_i x = \bpartial \Gamma^{\alpha}_i x, \;\psi_j \bpartial x = \bpartial \psi_j x, \;\Psi \bpartial x = \bpartial \Psi x,$$ $$N \bpartial x = \bpartial N x, \; P \bpartial x = \bpartial Px \mbox{ and } \bpartial \varepsilon_j x = \bvarepsilon_j x.$$ [$\Box$]{} \[T:1.4\] Let ${\mathsf{C}}$ be a cubical -category (or a cubical $m$-category) with connections. Let $a \in {\mathsf{C}}_n$ and $\s \in \square {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}$. A necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of $x \in {\mathsf{C}}_n$ such that $$\bpartial x = \s \mbox{ and } \Psi x = a$$ is that $$\Psi \s = \bpartial a.$$ If $x$ exists, it is unique. [**Proof** ]{}The necessity of $\Psi \s = \bpartial a$ follows from $\bpartial \Psi x = \Psi \bpartial x$ (Lemma 1.2). The existence and uniqueness will be deduced from: \[L:1.5\] Let $a \in {\mathsf{C}}_n$ and $\s \in \square {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}$ satisfy $\bpartial a = \psi_j \s$ for some $j \in \{1,2,\ldots,n-1\}$. Then there is a unique $x$ in ${\mathsf{C}}_n$ such that $\bpartial x = \s$ and $\psi_j x = a$. [**Proof** ]{}First suppose that $x$ exists, and consider the array $$A: \quad \vcenter{\xymatrix@M=0pt @=0.7pc{ \ar @{-} [dddddd] \ar @{-} [rrrrrr] &&\ar @{-} [dddddd] && \ar @{-} [dddddd] && \ar @{-} [dddddd] \\ & {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\hspace{-0.00em}\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.7em}\rule[1.54ex]{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.03em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}& & {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\hspace{0.6em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}& & {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\rule[1.54ex]{0.7em}{0.2ex}}}& \\ \ar @{-} [rrrrrr] &&&&&& \\ & {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\rule[1.54ex]{0.7em}{0.2ex}}}& & x & & {\mbox{\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.04em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}& \\ \ar @{-} [rrrrrr] &&&&&& \\ & {\mbox{\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.04em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}& & {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\hspace{0.6em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}& & {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\hspace{-0.00em}\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.7em}\rule[1.54ex]{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.03em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}& \\ \ar @{-} [rrrrrr] &&&&&&}} \quad {\def\objectstyle{\scriptstyle} \objectmargin={0pt} \xy (0,4)*+{}="a",(0,-2)*+{\rule{0em}{1.5ex}j}="b",(7,4)*+{\;j+1}="c" \ar@{->} "a";"b" \ar @{->}"a";"c" \endxy }$$ where the elements surrounding $x$ are determined by the faces of $x$ so that all rows and columns are composable. The composite of the middle row is $\psi_j x = a$. The elements of the first and third rows are determined by the faces of $x$, i.e. by $\s$. Hence the composite of $A$ is determined by $a$ and $\s$. But if we compose $A$ by columns and use the law $\mathbf{\Gamma}^{+}_j t \, \o_j \, \mathbf{\Gamma}^{-}_j t = \bvarepsilon_{j+1} t$, we see that the composite of $A$ is $x$ itself. Hence $x$ is unique. To prove existence, we note that the array $A$ gives a formula for $x$ in terms of $a$ and $\s$. So, given $a$ and $\s$ we define $x$ to be the composite of the composable partition $$x= \quad \vcenter{\xymatrix@M=0pt @=0.5pc{ \ar @{-} [dddddd] \ar @{-} [rrrr] &&\ar @{-}[dd] && \ar @{-} [dddddd] \\ & \varepsilon_j s^{-}_j & & \Gamma^{+}_j s^{+}_{j+1} & \\ \ar @{-} [rrrr] &&&& \\ && a \rule[-0.5ex]{0mm}{2ex} && \\ \ar @{-} [rrrr] && \ar @{-}[dd] && \\ & \Gamma^{-}_j s^{-}_{j+1}& & \varepsilon_j s^{+}_j & \\ \ar @{-} [rrrr] &&&&}} \quad { {\def\objectstyle{\scriptstyle} \objectmargin={0pt} \xy (0,4)*+{}="a",(0,-2)*+{\rule{0em}{1.5ex}j}="b",(7,4)*+{\;j+1}="c" \ar@{->} "a";"b" \ar @{->}"a";"c" \endxy }}$$ Here the first and third rows are the same as those in the array $A$, except that the 2-fold identities ${\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\hspace{-0.00em}\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.7em}\rule[1.54ex]{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.03em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}$ have been omitted, being redundant. Because we are assuming that $\bpartial a= \psi_j \s$, the faces $\partial ^-_j a$ and $\partial ^+_j a$ are the same as the upper and lower faces of the composite $\vcenter{ \xymatrix@M=0pt @=0.3pc{\ar @{-} [rrrrrr] \ar@{-} [dd] && \ar@{-} [dd]&&\ar@{-} [dd]& &\ar@{-} [dd] \\ & {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\rule[1.54ex]{0.7em}{0.2ex}}}&& x && {\mbox{\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.04em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}&\\ \ar @{-} [rrrrrr] &&&&&&}}$ in $A$. Hence the partition is composable and we can compute $x$ from $a$ and $\s$, by composing rows first. It remains to verify that $\psi_j x = a$ and $\bpartial x = \s$. The faces $\partial^{\pm}_{j+1} x$ of $x$ are $\o_j$-composites as indicated in the diagram $$x= \quad\txtstyle \vcenter{\xymatrix@M=0pt @=0.7pc{ \ar @{-} [dddddd] |(0.2)\e |(0.5)\e |(0.8){s^{+}_{j+1} \rule[-1ex]{0mm}{3ex} } \ar @{-} [rrrr] &&\ar @{-}[dd] &&\ar @{-} [dddddd] |(0.2){s^{+}_{j+1} \rule[-1ex]{0mm}{2.5ex} }|(0.5)\e |(0.8)\e\\ & \rule{0mm}{3ex} \qquad & & \qquad & \\ \ar @{-} [rrrr] &&&& \\ && a && \\ \ar @{-} [rrrr] && \ar @{-}[dd] && \\ & \rule{0mm}{3ex} \qquad & & \qquad & \\ \ar @{-} [rrrr] &&&&}} \quad { {\def\objectstyle{\scriptstyle} \objectmargin={0pt} \xy (0,4)*+{}="a",(0,-2)*+{\rule{0em}{1.5ex}j}="b",(7,4)*+{\;j+1}="c" \ar@{->} "a";"b" \ar @{->}"a";"c" \endxy }}$$ where the faces labelled $e$ are identities for $\o_j$. (Note that $\partial^{\pm}_{j+1} a$ are identities because $\bpartial a = \psi_j \s)$. Hence $$\psi_j x = \quad \vcenter{ \xymatrix@M=0pt @=0.5pc{\ar @{-} [dddddd] \ar @{-} [rrrrrrrr] &&\ar @{-}[dddddd] && \ar@{-} [dd] && \ar @{-} [dddddd] && \ar @{-} [dddddd]\\ & {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\hspace{-0.00em}\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.7em}\rule[1.54ex]{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.03em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}&& \varepsilon_j s^{-}_j && \Gamma^{+}_j s^{+}_{j+1} && \Gamma^{-}_j s^{+}_{j+1} & \\ \ar @{-} [rrrrrrrr] &&&&&&&& \\ & {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\hspace{-0.00em}\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.7em}\rule[1.54ex]{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.03em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}&&& a \rule[-1ex]{0em}{3ex} &&& {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\hspace{-0.00em}\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.7em}\rule[1.54ex]{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.03em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}& \\ \ar @{-} [rrrrrrrr] &&&&\ar@{-} [dd] &&&& \\ & \Gamma^{+}_j s^{-}_{j+1} && \Gamma^{-}_j s^{-}_{j+1} && \varepsilon_j s^{+}_j && {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\hspace{-0.00em}\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.7em}\rule[1.54ex]{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.03em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}& \\ \ar @{-} [rrrrrrrr] &&&&&&&&}} \quad { {\def\objectstyle{\scriptstyle} \objectmargin={0pt} \xy (0,4)*+{}="a",(0,-2)*+{\rule{0em}{1.5ex}j}="b",(7,4)*+{\;j+1}="c" \ar@{->} "a";"b" \ar @{->}"a";"c" \endxy }}$$ Here, the first and third columns are the relevant connections expanded by the transport law and then simplified. The diagram can be viewed as a $3 \times 3$ array in which two elements happen to be horizontal composites; therefore we may compute $\psi_j x$ by composing the rows first instead of the columns. Using the law $\Gamma^{+}_j t \, \o_{j+1} \, \Gamma^{-}_j t = \varepsilon_j t$, we find that $\psi_j x = a$, as required. Finally $\bpartial x$ is the composite (by rows) of $$\vcenter{\xymatrix@M=0pt @=0.5pc{ \ar @{-} [dddddd] \ar @{-} [rrrr] &&\ar @{-}[dd] && \ar @{-} [dddddd] \\ & \bpartial \varepsilon_j s^{-}_j & & \bpartial \Gamma^{+}_j s^{+}_{j+1} & \\ \ar @{-} [rrrr] &&&& \\ && \rule[-1ex]{0mm}{3ex} \bpartial a \rule[-1ex]{0mm}{3ex}&& \\ \ar @{-} [rrrr] && \ar @{-}[dd] && \\ & \bpartial \Gamma^{-}_j s^{-}_{j+1} & & \bpartial \varepsilon_j s^{+}_j & \\ \ar @{-} [rrrr] &&&&}} \quad {\def\objectstyle{\scriptstyle} \objectmargin={0pt} \xy (0,4)*+{}="a",(0,-2)*+{\rule{0em}{1.5ex}j}="b",(7,4)*+{\;j+1}="c" \ar@{->} "a";"b" \ar @{->}"a";"c" \endxy }$$ Since $\bpartial a = \psi_j \s$, this is the composite in $\square \, {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}$ of the array $$\vcenter{\xymatrix@M=0pt @=0.7pc{ \ar @{-} [dddddd] \ar @{-} [rrrrrr] &&\ar @{-} [dddddd] && \ar @{-} [dddddd] && \ar @{-} [dddddd] \\ & {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\hspace{-0.00em}\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.7em}\rule[1.54ex]{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.03em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}& & {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\hspace{0.6em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}& & {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\rule[1.54ex]{0.7em}{0.2ex}}}& \\ \ar @{-} [rrrrrr] &&&&&& \\ & {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\rule[1.54ex]{0.7em}{0.2ex}}}& & \mathsf{s} & & {\mbox{\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.04em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}& \\ \ar @{-} [rrrrrr] &&&&&& \\ & {\mbox{\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.04em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}& & {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\hspace{0.6em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}& & {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\hspace{-0.00em}\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.7em}\rule[1.54ex]{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.03em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}& \\ \ar @{-} [rrrrrr] &&&&&&}} \quad {\def\objectstyle{\scriptstyle} \objectmargin={0pt} \xy (0,4)*+{}="a",(0,-2)*+{\rule{0em}{1.5ex}j}="b",(7,4)*+{\;j+1}="c" \ar@{->} "a";"b" \ar @{->}"a";"c" \endxy }$$ which, as before, is just $\s$. [$\Box$]{}\ We now use induction on $r \leqslant n-1$ to show that if $\bpartial a = \psi_1 \psi_2 \ldots \psi_r \s$, then there is a unique $x \in {\mathsf{C}}_n$ such that $\psi_1 \psi_2 \ldots \psi_r x = a$ and $\bpartial x = \s$. The case $r=1$ is covered by Lemma 1.5. Suppose that the result is true when $r = t-1 < n-1$ and that $\bpartial a = \psi_1 \psi_2 \ldots \psi_r \s$. Then, by induction hypothesis, there is a unique $y \in {\mathsf{C}}_n$ such that $\psi_1 \psi_2 \ldots \psi_{r-1} y = a$ and $\bpartial y = \psi_t \s$. But, again by Lemma 1.5, there is then a unique $x \in {\mathsf{C}}_n$ with $\psi_t x = y$ and $\bpartial x = \s$, completing the induction. The case $r=n-1$, completes the proof of the theorem. [$\Box$]{} Thin elements and commutative shells ==================================== We say that an element $x \in {\mathsf{C}}_n$ is [*thin*]{} if $\Psi x \in \varepsilon_1 {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}$. Then $\Psi x = \varepsilon_1 Nx = \varepsilon_1 Px $. We say that a shell $\s \in \square \, {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}$ is *commutative* if $N \s = P \s$. \[P:2.1\] Let ${\mathsf{C}}$ be a cubical $\omega$-category (or cubical $m$-category) with connections. 1. The shell of a thin element of ${\mathsf{C}}_n$ is a commutative $n$-shell. 2. A commutative $n$-shell is the same thing as a thin element of $\square \, {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}$. 3. Any commutative $n$-shell $\s$ has a unique thin filler (i.e. a thin element $x \in {\mathsf{C}}_n$ with $\bpartial x = \s$). [**Proof** ]{}(i) Let $x \in {\mathsf{C}}_n$ be thin. Then $\Psi x = \varepsilon_1 z$ for some $z \in {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}$, so $Nx=Px =z$. Therefore $N \bpartial x= \bpartial Nx = \bpartial Px = P \bpartial x$, by Lemma 1.3.\ (ii) If $\s \in \square \, {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}$ is commutative, then $N \s = P \s = u$, say. The other faces of $\Psi \s$ are all of the form $\varepsilon_1 v$, where $v$ is a face of $u$. These faces determine the shell $\Psi \s$ and identify it as $\bvarepsilon_1 u$, so $\s$ is thin. The converse is obvious.\ (iii) Let $\s$ be a commutative $n$-shell. Let $u = N \s = P \s$ and put $a = \varepsilon_1 u \in {\mathsf{C}}_n$. Then $\bpartial a = \bvarepsilon_1 u = \Psi \s$, by (ii) and Lemma 1.3. By Theorem 1.4, there is a unique $x \in {\mathsf{C}}_n$ with $\bpartial x = \s$ and $\Psi x = a = \varepsilon_1 u$. [$\Box$]{} \[P:2.2\] Let ${\mathsf{C}}$ be a cubical -category (or a cubical $m$-category) with connections. 1. Elements in ${\mathsf{C}}$ of the form $\varepsilon_i c$ or $\Gamma^{\alpha}_i c$ are thin. 2. If $a, b \in {\mathsf{C}}_n$ are thin and $c = a \circ_{i} b$ then $c$ is thin. [**Proof** ]{}(i) The thinness of $\varepsilon_i c$ has been proved in Lemma 1.1. To prove thinness of $\Gamma^{\alpha}_i c$, we first establish some formulae involving the $\psi_i$ and $\Gamma^{\alpha}_i$. \[L:2.3\] 1. $\psi_i \Gamma^{\alpha}_i = \varepsilon_i$. 2. $\psi_j \Gamma^{\alpha}_i = \Gamma^{\alpha}_i \psi_{j-1}$, if $j > i+1$. 3. $\psi_i \psi_{i+1} \Gamma^{+}_i c = \varepsilon_i(\Gamma^{+}_i \partial^{-}_{i+1} c \; \o_{i+1} \; c)$.\ $\psi_i \psi_{i+1} \Gamma^{-}_i c = \varepsilon_i(c \; \o_{i+1} \; \Gamma^{-}_i \partial^{+}_{i+1} c).$ [**Proof** ]{}(i) $$\begin{aligned} \psi_i \Gamma^{+}_i c&= \Gamma^{+}_i \partial^{-}_{i+1} \Gamma^{+}_i c \; \o_{i+1} \; \Gamma^{+}_i c \; \o_{i+1} \; \Gamma^{-}_i \partial^{+}_{i+1} \Gamma^{+}_i c. \\ &= \Gamma^{+}_i \varepsilon_i \partial^{-}_{\alpha} c \; \o_{i+1} \; \Gamma^{+}_i c \; \o_{i+1} \; \Gamma^{-}_i c \\ &= \varepsilon_{i+1} \varepsilon_{i} \partial^{-}_{\alpha} c \; \o_{i+1} \; \Gamma^{+}_i c \; \o_{i+1} \; \Gamma^{-}_i c \\ &= \Gamma^{+}_i c \; \o_{i+1} \; \Gamma^{-}_i c \\ &= \varepsilon_i c.\end{aligned}$$ The proof for $\Gamma^{-}_i$ is similar.\ (ii) This is proved similarly by using standard laws from pp. 80-81 of [@A-B-S02].\ (iii) When we try to compute $\psi_{i+1} \Gamma^{+}_i$, we are hindered by the lack of a simple law involving $\Gamma^{-}_{i+1} \Gamma^{+}_i c$. However, when we compute $\psi_i \psi_{i+1} \Gamma^{+}_i c$, this difficulty disappears. We note that if $i+1 < j$ then $\psi_i ( a \; \o_j \; b) = \psi_i a \; \o_j \; \psi_i b$. So $$\begin{aligned} \psi_i \psi_{i+1} \Gamma^{+}_i c&= \psi_i (\Gamma^{+}_{i+1} \partial^{-}_{i+2} \Gamma^{+}_i c \; \o_{i+2} \; \Gamma^+_i c \; \o_{i+2} \; \Gamma^{-}_{i+1} \partial^{+}_{i+2} \Gamma^{+}_i c)\\ &= \psi_i \Gamma^{+}_{i+1} \partial^{-}_{i+2}\Gamma^{+}_i c \; \o_{i+2} \; \psi_i \Gamma^+_i c \; \o_{i+2} \; \psi_i \Gamma^{-}_{i+1} \partial^{+}_{i+2} \Gamma^{+}_i c \\ &= \psi_i \Gamma^{+}_{i+1} \Gamma^{+}_i \partial^{-}_{i+1} c \; \o_{i+2} \; \varepsilon_i c \; \o_{i+2} \; \psi_i \Gamma^{-}_{i+1} \Gamma^{+}_i \partial^{+}_{i+1} c.\end{aligned}$$ We calculate the first and last terms separately: $$\begin{aligned} \psi_i \Gamma^{+}_{i+1} \Gamma^{+}_i&= \psi_i \Gamma^{+}_i \Gamma^{+}_i = \varepsilon_i \Gamma^{+}_i \mbox{ by (i) } \\ \intertext{and } \psi_i \Gamma^{-}_{i+1} \Gamma^{+}_i y&= \Gamma^{+}_i \partial^{-}_{i+1} \Gamma^{-}_{i+1} \Gamma^{+}_i y \; \o_{i+1} \; \Gamma^{-}_{i+1} \Gamma^{+}_i y \; \o_{i+1} \; \Gamma^{-}_i \partial^{+}_{i+1}\Gamma^-_{i+1} \Gamma^{+}_i y \\ &= (\Gamma^{+}_i \Gamma^{+}_i y \; \o_{i+1} \; \Gamma^{-}_{i+1} \Gamma^{+}_i y ) \; \o_{i+1} \; \Gamma^{-}_i \varepsilon_{i+1}\partial^+_{i+1} \Gamma^+_i y \\ &= (\Gamma^{+}_{i+1} \Gamma^{+}_i y \; \o_{i+1} \; \Gamma^{-}_{i+1} \Gamma^{+}_i y ) \; \o_{i+1} \; \Gamma^{-}_i\varepsilon_{i+1} y \\ &= \varepsilon_{i+2} \Gamma^{+}_i y \; \o_{i+1} \; \varepsilon_{i+2} \Gamma^{-}_i y \\ &= \varepsilon_{i+2} (\Gamma^{+}_i y \; \o_{i+1} \; \Gamma^{-}_i y) \\ &= \varepsilon_{i+2} \varepsilon_i y. \intertext{Hence} \psi_i \psi_{i+1} \Gamma^{+}_i c&= ( \varepsilon_i \Gamma^{+}_i \partial^{-}_{i+1} c \; \o_{i+2} \; \varepsilon_i c) \; \o_{i+2} \; \varepsilon_{i+2} \varepsilon_i \partial ^+_{i+1} c \\ &= \varepsilon_i(\Gamma^{+}_i \partial^{-}_{i+1} c \; \o_{i+1} \; c).\end{aligned}$$ The proof is similar for $\Gamma^{-}_i$. This completes the proof of Lemma 2.3. $\Box$\ Returning to Proposition 2.2(i), the proof that $\Gamma^{\alpha}_i c$ (for $ c \in {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1})$ is thin is now straightforward: $$\begin{aligned} \Psi \Gamma^{\alpha}_i c&= \psi_1 \psi_2 \ldots \psi_{n-1} \Gamma^{\alpha}_i c \\ &= \psi_1 \psi_2 \ldots \psi_i \psi_{i+1} \Gamma^{\alpha}_i c \psi_{i+1} \ldots \psi_{n-2} c, \mbox{ by 2.3(ii) }\\ &= \psi_1 \psi_2 \ldots \psi_{i-1} \varepsilon_i z \mbox{ for some $z \in {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}$, by 2.3(iii)} \\ &= \varepsilon_1 z \mbox{\quad by 1.1(i), as required. }\end{aligned}$$ \(ii) To prove that composites of thin elements are thin we introduce a subsidiary definition: if $ x \in {\mathsf{C}}_n$ and $1 \leqslant j \leqslant n-1$, we say that $x$ is *$j$-thin* if $\psi_1 \psi_2 \ldots \psi_j x \in \varepsilon_1 {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}$. Thus, for elements of ${\mathsf{C}}_n, \;(n-1)$-[*thin*]{} means *thin*. We take “$x \in {\mathsf{C}}_n$ is $0$-thin" to mean $x \in \varepsilon_1 {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}$. \[L:2.4\] If $j \geqslant 1$, then $x$ is $j$-thin if and only if $\psi_j x$ is $(j-1)$-thin. [$\Box$]{} \[L:2.5\] If $x=y \o_i z$ in $ {\mathsf{C}}_n$ and $y,z \in \varepsilon_j \,{\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}$ then $x \in \varepsilon_j \, {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}$. (Note that in the case $i=j$, the hypotheses imply $x=y=z$.)[$\Box$]{} \[L:2.6\] If $x \in \varepsilon_k \, {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}$, then $x$ is $(k-1)$-thin. [**Proof** ]{}$\psi_1 \psi_2 \ldots \psi_{k-1} x = \psi_1 \psi_2 \ldots \psi_{k-1} \varepsilon_k y = \varepsilon_1 y$ by (1.1)(i). [$\Box$]{}\ We now use induction on $j$ to prove:\ $$\text{If } a, b \in {\mathsf{C}}_n \text{ are } j\text{-thin and } c= a \o_i b \text{ for some } 1 \leqslant i \leqslant n \text{ then } c \mbox{ is } j\text{-thin. } \tag{*}$$ The case $j=0$ is contained in Lemma 2.5. Suppose that (\*) is true for $j=0,1,\ldots, k-1$, where $1 \leqslant k \leqslant n-1$. We will deduce (\*) for $j=k$. Let $c = a \o_i b$ in ${\mathsf{C}}_n$ and assume that $a$ and $b$ are $k$-thin. We examine $\psi_k c = \psi_k(a \, \o_i \, b)$ in order to prove that it is $(k-1)$-thin.\ **Case 1:** $k < i-1$ or $k > i$. In this case $\psi_k c = \psi_k a \, \o_i \, \psi_k b$ and $\psi_k a$ and $\psi_k b$ are $(k-1)$-thin. By induction hypothesis, $\psi_k c$ is $(k-1)$-thin and so $c$ is $k$-thin by 2.4.\ **Case 2:** $k=i-1$. Then $$\begin{aligned} \psi_k c &= \; \psi_{i-1} (a \, \o_i \, b) \\ & \\ & =\; \vcenter{ \xymatrix@M=0pt @=0.7pc{ \ar @{-} [dd] \ar @{-} [rrrrrrrr] && \ar @{-} [dd] && \ar @{-} [dd] && \ar @{-} [dd] && \ar @{-} [dd] \\ & {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\rule[1.54ex]{0.7em}{0.2ex}}}& & a & & b & & {\mbox{\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.04em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}& \\ \ar @{-} [rrrrrrrr] &&&&&&&&&&}} \quad {\def\objectstyle{\scriptstyle} \objectmargin={0pt} \xy (0,4)*+{}="a",(0,-2)*+{\rule{0em}{1.5ex}i-1}="b",(7,4)*+{\;i}="c" \ar@{->} "a";"b" \ar @{->}"a";"c" \endxy } \\ &\\ & =\; \vcenter{ \xymatrix@M=0pt @=0.7pc{ \ar @{-} [dddd] \ar @{-} [rrrrrrrrrr] && \ar @{-} [dddd] && \ar @{-} [dddd] && \ar @{-} [dddd] && \ar @{-} [dddd] && \ar @{-} [dddd] \\ & {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\hspace{-0.00em}\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.7em}\rule[1.54ex]{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.03em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}& & {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\hspace{0.6em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}& & {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\rule[1.54ex]{0.7em}{0.2ex}}}& & b & & {\mbox{\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.04em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}& \\ \ar @{-} [rrrrrrrrrr] &&&&&&&&&& \\ & {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\rule[1.54ex]{0.7em}{0.2ex}}}& & a & & {\mbox{\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.04em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}& & {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\hspace{0.6em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}& & {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\hspace{-0.00em}\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.7em}\rule[1.54ex]{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.03em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}& \\ \ar @{-} [rrrrrrrrrr] &&&&&&&&&& }} \quad {\def\objectstyle{\scriptstyle} \objectmargin={0pt} \xy (0,4)*+{}="a",(0,-2)*+{\rule{0em}{1.5ex}i-1}="b",(7,4)*+{\;i}="c" \ar@{->} "a";"b" \ar @{->}"a";"c" \endxy }\\ &\\ &=\; \vcenter{ \xymatrix@M=0pt @=0.7pc{ \ar @{-} [dddd] \ar @{-} [rrrrr] && \ar @{-} [dd] && & \ar @{-} [dddd] \\ & \varepsilon_{i-1} u &&&**[l] \psi_{i-1} b & \\ \ar @{-} [rrrrr] &&&\ar@{-}[dd]&& \\ &**[r] \psi_{i-1} a && &\varepsilon_{i-1} v & \\ \ar @{-} [rrrrr] &&&&& }} \quad {\def\objectstyle{\scriptstyle} \objectmargin={0pt} \xy (0,4)*+{}="a",(0,-2)*+{\rule{0em}{1.5ex}i-1}="b",(7,4)*+{\;i}="c" \ar@{->} "a";"b" \ar @{->}"a";"c" \endxy }\\ &\\ &= \; \vcenter{\xymatrix@M=0pt @=0.7pc{ \ar @{-} [dddd] \ar @{-} [rrrrr] && \ar @{-} [dd] && & \ar @{-} [dddd] \\ & \varepsilon_{k} u &&&**[l] \psi_k b & \\ \ar @{-} [rrrrr] &&&\ar@{-}[dd]&& \\ &**[r] \psi_{k} a && &\varepsilon_{k} v & \\ \ar @{-} [rrrrr] &&&&& }} \quad {\def\objectstyle{\scriptstyle} \objectmargin={0pt} \xy (0,4)*+{}="a",(0,-2)*+{\rule{0em}{1.5ex}i-1}="b",(7,4)*+{\;i}="c" \ar@{->} "a";"b" \ar @{->}"a";"c" \endxy }\end{aligned}$$ where $u = \partial^{-}_{i-1} a, v = \partial^{+}_{i-1} b$. Now $\psi_k a$ and $\psi_k b$ are $(k-1)$-thin, by 2.4, and $\varepsilon_k u, \varepsilon_k v$ are $(k-1)$-thin, by 2.6. So $\psi_k c$, being a composite of these, is $(k-1)$-thin by induction hypothesis. Hence $c$ is $k$-thin.\ **Case 3:** $k=i$. This is similar using the formula $$\begin{aligned} \psi_k c &= \; \psi_i (a \, \o_i \, b) \\ \quad\\ & =\; \vcenter{ \xymatrix@M=0pt @=0.5pc{ \ar @{-} [dddd] \ar @{-} [rrrrrr] && \ar @{-} [dddd] && \ar @{-} [dddd] && \ar @{-} [dddd]\\ & & & a & & & \\ & \quad {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\rule[1.54ex]{0.7em}{0.2ex}}}\quad & \ar @{-} [rr] &&& \quad {\mbox{\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.04em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}\quad & \\ & & & b & & & \\ \ar @{-} [rrrrrr] &&&&&& }} \quad {\def\objectstyle{\scriptstyle} \objectmargin={0pt} \xy (0,4)*+{}="a",(0,-2)*+{\rule{0em}{1.5ex}i}="b",(7,4)*+{\;i+1}="c" \ar@{->} "a";"b" \ar @{->}"a";"c" \endxy }\\ &\\ & =\; \vcenter{ \xymatrix@M=0pt @=0.7pc{ \ar @{-} [dddd] \ar @{-} [rrrrrrrrrr] && \ar @{-} [dddd] && \ar @{-} [dddd] && \ar @{-} [dddd] && \ar @{-} [dddd] && \ar @{-} [dddd] \\ & {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\rule[1.54ex]{0.7em}{0.2ex}}}& & {\mbox{\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.7em}\rule[1.5ex]{0.70em}{0.2ex}}}& & a & & {\mbox{\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.04em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}& & {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\hspace{0.6em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}& \\ \ar @{-} [rrrrrrrrrr] &&&&&&&&&& \\ & {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\hspace{0.6em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}& & {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\rule[1.54ex]{0.7em}{0.2ex}}}& & b & & {\mbox{\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.7em}\rule[1.5ex]{0.70em}{0.2ex}}}& & {\mbox{\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.04em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}& \\ \ar @{-} [rrrrrrrrrr] &&&&&&&&&& }} \quad {\def\objectstyle{\scriptstyle} \objectmargin={0pt} \xy (0,4)*+{}="a",(0,-2)*+{\rule{0em}{1.5ex}i}="b",(7,4)*+{\;i+1}="c" \ar@{->} "a";"b" \ar @{->}"a";"c" \endxy }\\ &\\ & =\; \vcenter{ \xymatrix@M=0pt @=0.7pc{ \ar @{-} [dddd] \ar @{-} [rrrrr] &&& \ar @{-} [dd] && \ar @{-} [dddd] \\ & **[r] \psi_i a &&& \varepsilon_i s & \\ \ar @{-} [rrrrr] & & \ar @{-} [dd] &&&& \\ & \varepsilon_i t && &**[l] \psi_i b & \\ \ar @{-} [rrrrr] &&&&& }} \quad \quad {\def\objectstyle{\scriptstyle} \objectmargin={0pt} \xy (0,4)*+{}="a",(0,-2)*+{\rule{0em}{1.5ex}i}="b",(7,4)*+{\;i+1}="c" \ar@{->} "a";"b" \ar @{->}"a";"c" \endxy }\end{aligned}$$ where $s = \partial^{+}_{i+1} b, t = \partial^{-}_{i+1} a$. Thus, in all cases, $c$ is $k$-thin, so the induction is complete. The case $j=n-1$ of (\*) completes the proof of Proposition 2.2. [$\Box$]{} \[C:2.7\] Let ${\mathsf{C}}$ be a cubical -category (or $m$-category) with connections. 1. $n$-shells of the form $\bvarepsilon_i c$ or $\mathbf{\Gamma}^{\alpha}_i c$ for $c \in {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}$ are commutative. 2. Composites of commutative shells are commutative.[$\Box$]{} From Proposition 2.2 we easily deduce \[T:2.8\] Let ${\mathsf{C}}$ be a cubical -category (or $m$-category) with connections. An element $c$ in ${\mathsf{C}}_n$ is thin if and only if it is a composite of elements of the form $\varepsilon_i a$ or $\Gamma^{\alpha}_i a \;(a \in {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1})$. [**Proof** ]{}Proposition 2.2 shows that any such composite is thin. For the converse, suppose that $c \in {\mathsf{C}}_n$ is thin. Then $\Psi c = \psi_1 \psi_2 \ldots \psi_{n-1} c = \varepsilon_1 z$ for some $z \in {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}$. Now we saw in the proof of Lemma 1.5 that any element $x \in {\mathsf{C}}_n$ can be written as a composite of $\psi_j x$ and elements of type $\varepsilon_i a, \Gamma^{\alpha}_i a$, namely $$x = \quad \vcenter{ \xymatrix@M=0pt @=0.7pc{ \ar @{-} [dddddd] \ar @{-} [rrrrrr] &&\ar @{-} [dd] && \ar @{-} [dd] && \ar @{-} [dddddd] \\ & {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\hspace{-0.00em}\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.7em}\rule[1.54ex]{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.03em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}& & {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\hspace{0.6em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}& & {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\rule[1.54ex]{0.7em}{0.2ex}}}& \\ \ar @{-} [rrrrrr] && \ar @{.} [dd] && \ar @{.} [dd] && \\ & {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\rule[1.54ex]{0.7em}{0.2ex}}}& & x & & {\mbox{\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.04em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}& \\ \ar @{-} [rrrrrr] && \ar @{-} [dd] && \ar @{-} [dd] && \\ & {\mbox{\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.04em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}& & {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\hspace{0.6em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}& & {\mbox{\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}\hspace{-0.00em}\rule{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.7em}\rule[1.54ex]{0.7em}{0.2ex}\hspace{-0.03em}\rule{0.08em}{1.7ex}}}& \\ \ar @{-} [rrrrrr] &&&&&&}} \quad {\def\objectstyle{\scriptstyle} \objectmargin={0pt} \xy (0,4)*+{}="a",(0,-2)*+{\rule{0em}{1.5ex}j}="b",(7,4)*+{\;j+1}="c" \ar@{->} "a";"b" \ar @{->}"a";"c" \endxy }$$ (here the dotted segments indicate that $\psi_j x$ is first partitioned as shown and the $3 \times 3$ array is then completed so as to be composable.) By iteration, $x$ can be written as a composite of $\varepsilon_1 z$ and elements of type $\varepsilon_i a, \Gamma^{\alpha}_i a$. [$\Box$]{} \[C:2.9\] An $n$-shell is commutative if and only if it can be written as a composite of shells of type $\bvarepsilon_i a, \mathbf{\Gamma}^{\alpha}_i a$, where $a \in {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}$. [$\Box$]{} **Remark 1.** It is not clear from the proof of 2.8 whether a thin element can always be written as a composite of an [*array*]{} of elements of type $\varepsilon_i a, \Gamma^{\alpha}_i a$.\ **Remark 2.** The particular folding map $\Psi$ used to define thin elements depends on a number of choices and conventions. Theorem 2.8 shows that the notion of thinness is intrinsic and does not depend on these choices. Thus, for example, one might use $\Psi' = \psi_{n-1} \psi_{n-2} \ldots \psi_1$ instead of $\Psi$ but, by symmetry and Theorem 2.8, this would give the same concept. Similarly, the more complicated full folding operation $\Phi_n$ used in [@A-B-S02] gives the same concept of thinness (see Section 9 of that paper, especially Proposition 9.2 and Theorem 9.3). It is particularly reassuring that the concept of commutative shell is independent of the choice of foldings. Thin structures and connections =============================== We now consider cubical -categories (or $m$-categories) without the assumption of the extra structure of connections. Of course elements $\varepsilon_i a$ and shells $\bvarepsilon_i a $ exist for such -categories so, in view of Theorem 2.8, it is not surprising that there is a close relationship between existence of thin elements and the existence of connections. An equivalence between them in the 2-dimensional case was proved in [@B-M99]. We extend this result to all dimensions. Let ${\mathsf{C}}$ be a cubical -category (or $m$-category). Suppose that ${\mathsf{C}}$ has connections $\; \Gamma^{-}_i, \Gamma^{+}_i: {\mathsf{C}}_{k-1} \to {\mathsf{C}}_k$, defined for all $k=1,2,\ldots,n-1$, satisfying the usual laws, up to that dimension (see [@A-B-S02].) We aim to characterize possible definitions of thin elements in ${\mathsf{C}}_n$ without first introducing more connections there. As mentioned in Section 1, the $n$-category $({\mathsf{C}}_0, {\mathsf{C}}_1, \ldots, {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}, \square \, {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1})$ does have connections in dimension $n$ as well as those in lower dimension, so we can define folding operations $\psi_1, \psi_2, \ldots, \psi_{n-1}, \Psi: \square \, {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1} \to \square \, {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}$. As a result, the idea of a commutative $n$-shell is available, and we denote by ${\square \hspace{-2.9mm}\raisebox{0.75mm}{\scriptsize $\diagdown$ }}\, {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}$ the set of commutative $n$-shells in $\square \, {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}$. Clearly, by Corollary 2.7, $({\mathsf{C}}_0, {\mathsf{C}}_1, \ldots, {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}, {\square \hspace{-2.9mm}\raisebox{0.75mm}{\scriptsize $\diagdown$ }}\, {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1})$ is a sub-(cubical $n$-category with connections) of $({\mathsf{C}}_0, {\mathsf{C}}_1, \ldots, {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}, \square \, {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}).$\ **Definition** A *thin structure* on ${\mathsf{C}}_n$ is a morphism $$\theta: ({\mathsf{C}}_0, {\mathsf{C}}_1, \ldots, {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}, {\square \hspace{-2.9mm}\raisebox{0.75mm}{\scriptsize $\diagdown$ }}\, {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}) \to ({\mathsf{C}}_0, {\mathsf{C}}_1, \ldots, {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}, {\mathsf{C}}_n)$$ of cubical $n$-categories which is the identity on ${\mathsf{C}}_0, {\mathsf{C}}_1, \ldots,{\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}$. Such a thin structure defines “thin" elements in ${\mathsf{C}}_n$, namely elements of the form $\theta(\mathbf{s})$ for a commutative $n$-shell $\s$. Note that $\theta$ is necessarily injective on ${\square \hspace{-2.9mm}\raisebox{0.75mm}{\scriptsize $\diagdown$ }}\, {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}$ (because it preserves faces) and the image of $\theta$ must be a sub-$n$-category of ${\mathsf{C}}$. Consequently, every commutative $n$-shell in ${\mathsf{C}}$ has a unique “thin" filler in ${\mathsf{C}}_n$, and the composites of “thin" elements are “thin". Furthermore, we may now define $\Gamma^{\alpha}_i: {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1} \to {\mathsf{C}}_n$ by $\Gamma^{\alpha}_i a = \theta \bGamma^{\alpha}_i a$. Because $\theta$ preserves the lower dimensional $\Gamma^{\alpha}_i$, $ \o_i, \; \partial^{\alpha}_i$ and $\varepsilon_i$, these newly defined $\Gamma^{\alpha}_i$ satisfy the required laws making $({\mathsf{C}}_0, {\mathsf{C}}_1, \ldots, {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}, {\mathsf{C}}_n)$ a cubical $n$-category with connections. The thin elements of ${\mathsf{C}}_n$ defined using these $\Gamma^{\alpha}_i$ are precisely the same as the “thin" elements defined by $\theta$, because of Proposition 2.1. Conversely, if we are given connections $\Gamma^{\alpha}_i: {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1} \to {\mathsf{C}}_n$ making $({\mathsf{C}}_0, {\mathsf{C}}_1, \ldots, {\mathsf{C}}_n)$ a cubical $n$-category with connections, there is a unique thin structure $\theta$ with $\theta \bGamma^{\alpha}_i a = \Gamma^{\alpha}_i a$ for all $a \in {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1}, \alpha \in \{+,-\}, i \in \{1,2,\ldots,n-1\}$. This is because the morphism $\theta$ must map $\bvarepsilon_i a$ to $\varepsilon_i a$ and therefore, when it is defined on the $\bGamma^{\alpha}_i a$, it is uniquely determined on all commutative shells, by Corollary 2.9. That such a $\theta$ exists is easily deduced from Proposition 2.1, and the thin elements defined by the two methods again coincide. Hence \[T:3.1\] Let ${\mathsf{C}}= ({\mathsf{C}}_0, {\mathsf{C}}_1, \ldots, {\mathsf{C}}_n)$ be a cubical $n$-category and suppose that $$({\mathsf{C}}_0, {\mathsf{C}}_1, \ldots, {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1})$$ has the structure of cubical $(n-1)$-category with connections. Then there is a natural bijection between thin structures $\theta: {\square \hspace{-2.9mm}\raisebox{0.75mm}{\scriptsize $\diagdown$ }}\,{\mathsf{C}}_{n-1} \to {\mathsf{C}}_n$ and sets of connections $\Gamma^{+}_i, \Gamma^{-}_i: {\mathsf{C}}_{n-1} \to {\mathsf{C}}_n$ making $({\mathsf{C}}_0, {\mathsf{C}}_1, \ldots, {\mathsf{C}}_n)$ a cubical $n$-category with connections. The thin elements defined by the connections coincide in all cases with the thin elements defined by the corresponding $\theta$. **Remark** It would be useful to have a simple description of what is meant by a cubical $T$-complex, that is a weak thin structure (in all dimensions) on a cubical *complex*. The aim would be to impose axioms on the set of “thin" elements in each dimension which would be equivalent to the existence of a cubical -category structure with connections. A simple description does exist in the groupoid case (see [@D77; @B-H81a]), but seems to be more difficult in the category case. [**Acknowledgement**]{} It is a pleasure to record my indebtedness to Ronnie Brown for many discussions on the content of this paper, for support of its typing through his Leverhulme Emeritus Fellowship, and for care to the production of the diagrams in xypic. Our long and fruitful collaboration in the area of higher dimensional algebra and homotopy has been a major source of inspiration to me over the years. [10]{} F. Al-Agl, [*Aspects of multiple categories*]{}, Ph.D. thesis, University of Wales, Bangor (1989). F. Al-Agl, R. Brown and R. Steiner, ‘Multiple categories: the equivalence between a globular and cubical approach’, [*Advances in Mathematics*]{}, 170 (2002) 71–118. R. Brown and P. J. Higgins, ‘Sur les complexes croisés, $\omega$-groupoïdes et $T$-complexes’, [*C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. A.*]{} 285 (1977) 997–999. R. Brown and P. J. Higgins, ‘The algebra of cubes’, [*J. Pure Appl. Algebra*]{}, 21 (1981) 233–260. R. Brown and P. J. Higgins, ‘The equivalence of $\omega$-groupoids and cubical $T$-complexes’, [*Cah. Top. Géom. Diff.*]{} 22 (1981) 349–370. R. Brown, K. H. Kamps and T. Porter, ‘A van Kampen theorem for the homotopy double groupoid of a Hausdorff space’, UWB Math Preprint 04.01 (2004). R. Brown and G. H. Mosa, ‘Double categories, [$2$]{}-categories, thin structures and connections’, [*Theory Applications Categories*]{}, 5 (1999) 163–175. M.K. Dakin, [*Kan complexes and multiple groupoid structures*]{}, Ph.D. thesis, University of Wales, Bangor, (1977). R. Dawson and R. Paré, ‘General associativity and general composition for double categories’, [*Cah. Top. Géom. Diff.*]{}, 34 (1993) 57-79. P. Gaucher, ‘Combinatorics of branchings in higher dimensional automata’, [*Theory Applications Categories*]{}, 8 (2001) 324-376. E. Goubault, ‘Some geometric perspectives in concurrency theory’, [*Homotopy, homology and applications*]{}, 5 (2003) 95-136. C.B. Spencer, ‘An abstract setting for homotopy pushouts and pullbacks’, [*Cah. Top. Géom. Diff.*]{}, 18 (1977) 409-430. C.B. Spencer and Y.L. Wong, ‘Pullback and pushout squares in a special double category with connection’, [*Cah. Top. Géom. Diff.*]{}, 24 (1983) 161-192. [^1]: email: [email protected]

ArXiv

--- author: - Kangxue Yin - Zhiqin Chen - Hui Huang - 'Daniel Cohen-Or' - Hao Zhang bibliography: - 'points.bib' title: 'LOGAN: Unpaired Shape Transform in Latent Overcomplete Space' --- Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. Thanks also go to Haipeng Li and Ali Mahdavi-Amiri for their discussions, and Akshay Gadi Patil for proofreading. This work was supported by NSERC Canada (611370), gift funds from Adobe, NSF China (61761146002,61861130365), GD Science and Technology Program (2015A030312015), LHTD (20170003), ISF (2366/16), and ISF-NSFC Joint Research Program (2472/17).

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'The main substance of the paper concerns the growth rate and the classification (ergodicity, transience) of a family of random trees. In the basic model, new edges appear according to a Poisson process of parameter $\lambda$ and leaves can be deleted at a rate $\mu$. The main results lay the stress on the famous number $e$. A complete classification of the process is given in terms of the intensity factor $\rho=\lambda/\mu\,$: it is ergodic if $\rho\leq e^{-1}$, and transient if $\rho>e^{-1}$. There is a phase transition phenomenon: the usual region of null recurrence (in the parameter space) here does not exist. This fact is rare for countable Markov chains with exponentially distributed jumps. Some basic stationary laws are computed, e.g. the number of vertices and the height. Various bounds, limit laws and ergodic-like theorems are obtained, both for the transient and ergodic regimes. In particular, when the system is transient, the height of the tree grows linearly as the time $t\to\infty$, at a rate which is explicitly computed. Some of the results are extended to the so-called multiclass model.' author: - Guy Fayolle - Maxim Krikun - 'Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [^1]' - 'Guy Fayolle[^2]' - 'Maxim Krikun [^3]' - 'Jean-Marc Lasgouttes[^4] [^5]' date: 'Received May 2002, revised August 2003' title: 'Birth and Death Processes on Certain Random Trees: Classification and Stationary Laws' --- #### Key words Random trees, ergodicity, transience, nonlinear differential equations, phase transition Introduction and model description {#NOTATION} ================================== So far, very few results seem to exist for random trees as soon as insertions and deletions are simultaneously permitted (see e.g. [@MAH]). We shall study one of the simplest models in this class, which offers both interesting and non trivial properties. Broadly speaking, one might think of a vertex as being a node of a network (e.g. the Internet) or of some general data structure. This paper is a self-contained continuation of the report [@FAY]. Let $G=\{G(t),t\geq 0\}$ be a continuous time Markov chain with state space the set of finite directed trees rooted at some fixed vertex $v_{0}$. Throughout the study, the *distance* between two vertices is the number of edges in the path joining them, and the *height* $h(v)$ of a vertex $v$ is the distance from the root. The set of vertices having the same height $k$ form the $k$-th *level* of the tree, the root $v_{0}$ being at level $0$. Hence the height of $G$ is a stochastic process $\{H_G(t),t\geq 0\}$, where $$H_G(t)\egaldef\max_{v\in G(t)} h(v).$$ $N_G(t)$ will stand for the *volume* of $G(t)$ (*i.e.* its total number of vertices). Wherever the meaning is clear from the context, we shall omit the subscript $G$ and simply write $H$ or $N$. The *indegree* of a vertex $v$ is the number of edges starting at $v$ and a vertex with indegree $0$ is a *leaf*. Finally, we will also need the classical notion of *subtree* with root $v$, which goes without saying. At time $t=0$, $G(0)$ consists of the single vertex $v_{0}$. Then at time $t>0$, the transitions on $G$ are of two types: - **Adjunction.** At each vertex $v$, a new edge having its origin at $v$ can be appended to the tree at the epochs of a Poisson process with parameter $\lambda>0$. In this case, the *indegree* of $v$ is increased by one and the new edge produces a new leaf. - **Deletion.** From its birth, a leaf (but the root) can be deleted at a rate $\mu$. In other words, a vertex *as long as it has no descendant* has an exponentially distributed lifetime with parameter $\mu \geq 0$. Organization of the paper, results and related studies ------------------------------------------------------ Section \[DELETE\] is devoted to the birth and death model described above, with $\lambda, \mu>0$. An exact and complete classification of $G$ is given. Indeed, necessary and sufficient conditions are derived for the process to be ergodic ($\mu\ge\lambda e$) or transient ($\mu<\lambda e$). A phase transition phenomenon is enlightened, which corresponds precisely to the absence of a null recurrence region. When the system is ergodic, the stationary distributions of the volume and of the height of the tree are computed in section \[DISTRIBUTIONS\]. Section \[GROWTH\] deals with limit laws and scalings for $H_G(t)$ and $N_G(t)$ in the transient case. The main outcome is a kind of ergodic theorem for $H_G(t)$, valid for any $\mu\ge0$. It allows, in the particular case $\mu=0$ (pure birth-process), to rediscover the magic growth rate $\lambda e$, originally derived e.g. in [@DEV; @PIT]. Finally, section \[MULTI\] proposes an extension to a multiclass model, in which the parameters of the process depend possibly on the class, the key result being a qualitative theorem for ergodicity. Recently, the authors were made aware of a model studied in [@PUH1; @LIG]. The setting considered there is a contact process on a $d$-ary ordered tree, also known as a Catalan tree, where $d\geq 2$ is an arbitrary *finite* integer. The main difference with our model resides in the fact that each empty descendant of an occupied vertex can become occupied at a rate $\beta>0$. The classification of the process was obtained for $d=2$ in [@PUH1], and [@LIG] extends the result to any finite $d$, but nothing was said for $d=\infty$. It turns out that most of the points presented in our study (ergodicity, zero-one laws, etc.) cannot be obtained by simply letting $d\to\infty$ in [@PUH1; @LIG]. Likewise, reversibility arguments (which should theoretically lead to explicit invariant measures) used in the latter papers do not seem to be effective when $d$ is infinite (see section \[DISTRIBUTIONS\]). The birth and death case: $\lambda>0,\mu>0$ {#DELETE} =========================================== The random tree $G$ evolves according to the rules given in the introduction, the first important question being to find exact conditions for this process to be recurrent or transient. Main results in this respect are stated in theorem \[TH2\]. For convenience, we define the *lifetime* $\tau_v$ of an arbitrary vertex $v$, which measures the length of the time interval between the birth and the death of $v$ (for consistency $\tau_v=\infty$ if $v$ is never erased). \[SYS\] All vertices, but the root, have the same lifetime distribution $p(t)$, which satisfies the following system (S) $$\begin{aligned} \beta(t) & = & \DD \mu\exp\Bigl\{-\lambda\int_0^t(1-p(x))dx\Bigr\}, \label{EQU1} \\[0.2cm] \beta(t) & = & \DD\frac{dp(t)}{dt} + \int_0^t \beta(t-y)dp(y), \label{EQU2}\end{aligned}$$ with the initial condition $p(0)=0$. Let $v$ be a particular vertex of $G(t)$ and consider the related random subtree with root $v$. Its evolution does not depend on anything below $v$, as long as $v$ exists. Therefore all these subtrees are identically distributed and, accordingly, their vertices have the same lifetime distribution. To capture more precisely the evolution of the process, we associate with each vertex $v$ with age $t$ its number $X_v(t)$ of direct descendants (i.e. who are located at a distance $1$ from $v$). At rate $\lambda$, a vertex $v$ produces descendants whose lifetimes are independent, with the common distribution $p(t)$. As soon as $X_v(t)=0$, $v$ can die at rate $\mu$, in which case the process of production stops. It is actually useful to extend $X_v(t)$ for all $t\ge0$ by deciding that, instead of deleting $v$, a *$\mu$-event* occurs without stopping the production of descendants. With this convention, the number of descendants of the root vertex $v_0$ evolves as $X_{v_0}(t)$, for all $t\ge 0$. Let $\tau_v$ denote the random epoch of the first $\mu$-event, which is distributed according to $p(t)$. Clearly the process $X_v$ is regenerative with respect to the $\mu$-events. Thus the random variables $X_v(t)$ and $X_v(\tau_v+t)$ have the same distribution. For any fixed $t$, we write down a sum of conditional probabilities, expressing the fact that $v$ had exactly $k$ descendants, who all have died in $[0,t]$, their birth-times being independent and uniformly spread over $[0,t]$. This yields at once equation (\[EQU1\]), since $$\begin{aligned} {\mathsf{P}}\{X_v(t)=0\} & = &\sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{e^{-\lambda t}(\lambda t)^k}{k!} \bigg(\int\limits_0^{t} \frac{p(x)dx}{t}\bigg)^k \nonumber \\ & = &\exp\Big\{-\lambda\int\limits_0^{t}(1-p(x))dx\Big\}. \label{PX0}\end{aligned}$$ By means of a regenerative argument, it is also possible to rewrite the above probability in another way, starting from the decomposition $$\label{DECOMP1} {\mathsf{P}}\{X_v(t)=0\} = {\mathsf{P}}\{X_v(t)=0,\tau_v\ge t\} + {\mathsf{P}}\{X_v(t)=0,\tau_v < t\}.$$ In fact, we have the trite relations $$\begin{cases} \DD\frac{dp(t)}{dt} = \mu{\mathsf{P}}\{X_v(t)=0,\tau_v\ge t\},\\[0.3cm] {\mathsf{P}}\{X_v(t)=0,\tau_v < t\} = {\mathsf{P}}\{X_v(t-\tau_v)=0,\tau_v < t\}, \\[0.3cm] {\mathsf{P}}\{\tau_v\in(y,y+dy)\} = dp(y) , \end{cases}$$ which yield in particular, $${\mathsf{P}}\{X_v(t)=0,\tau_v < t\} = \int_0^{t} {\mathsf{P}}\{X_v(t - y)=0\}dp(y).$$ Hence, putting $\beta(t)\egaldef\mu{\mathsf{P}}\{X_v(t)=0\}$, one sees that (\[DECOMP1\]) corresponds term by term to (\[EQU2\]). The proof of the lemma is concluded. It is convenient to introduce now $\tau\egaldef\tau_{v_0}$, which is the random variable representing the epoch of the first $\mu$-event for the root of the tree. Nonetheless in the sequel, especially in sections \[DISTRIBUTIONS\] and \[GROWTH\], $\tau$ will also often refer to the lifetime of an arbitrary generic vertex $v$, owing to the fact that all these quantities have the same distributions. We are ready to state the main result of this section. \[TH2\] - The Markov chain $G$ is ergodic if, and only if, $$\label{ERG} \rho\egaldef\frac{\lambda}{\mu} \leq \frac{1}{e}\,.$$ - When the system is ergodic, the mean lifetime $m\egaldef{\mathsf{E}}\tau$ is given by $$m = \frac{r}{\lambda},$$ where $r\leq 1$ denotes the smallest root of the equation $$\label{ROOT} re^{-r}=\rho$$ and represents the mean number of descendants of an arbitrary vertex at steady state. - When $\rho > \DD \frac{1}{e}$, then the system is transient. In this case, $$\lim_{t\to\infty} p(t)\egaldef \ell<1.$$ As a rule, $x$ being the positive root of $xe^x=\rho^{-1}$, we have for any $\rho$ $$x \le \ell \le \min \Bigl(1,\frac{1}{\rho}\Bigr)\quad \mathrm{and}\ \lim_{\rho\to\infty} \rho\ell =1 .$$ The proof of the theorem is spread over the next two subsections. Ergodicity {#ERGODICITY} ---------- Relying on standard theory of Markov chains with countable state space (see [@FEL vol. I]), we claim the system ergodic if, and only if, $m<\infty$. As a matter of fact, the $\mu$-events are regeneration points for the process $X(t)$, which represents exactly the number of descendants of the *root* $v_0$. Hence when ${\mathsf{E}}\tau<\infty$ (i.e. $\beta(\infty)>0$), the event $\{X(t)=0\}$ has a positive probability, so that $G$ is ergodic. Conversely, if ${\mathsf{E}}\tau=\infty$ then $X(t)$ is transient and so is $G$. For an arbitrary positive function $f$, denote by $f^*$ its ordinary Laplace transform $$f^*(s)\egaldef \int_0^{\infty} e^{-st}f(t)dt, \quad \Re (s) \geq 0.$$ Later on we will also need the associated inversion formula (see e.g. [@FUC]) $$\label{LAP} f(t) =\frac{1}{2i\pi} \int_{\sigma-i\infty}^{\sigma+i\infty} e^{st}f^*(s)ds, \quad \Re (\sigma) >0.$$ To show the necessity of condition (\[ERG\]), we suppose $G$ is ergodic. In this case, by (\[EQU1\]), the quantity $\DD \lim_{t\to\infty} \beta(t)$ does exist and $$\mu e^{-m}\leq\beta(t)\leq \mu ,$$ so that we can apply a limiting relation of Abelian type (see e.g. [@FUC]). Hence equations (\[EQU1\]) and (\[EQU2\])—the latter belonging to the Volterra class—yield respectively $$\label{NEC} \begin{cases} \DD\lim_{t\to\infty}\beta(t) = \lim_{s\to 0} s\beta^*(s) = \lim_{s\to 0}\frac{s^2p^*(s)}{1-sp^*(s)} = \frac{1}{m} ,\\[0.3cm] \DD\lim_{t\to\infty}\beta(t) = \mu e^{-\lambda m}, \end{cases}$$ whence the equality $$\rho = \lambda m e^{-\lambda m}.$$ As the function $xe^{-x}$ reaches its maximum $e^{-1}$ at $x=1$, we conclude that necessarily $\rho\leq e^{-1}$. In order to prove the sufficiency of (\[ERG\]), we have to get a deeper insight into system (S). There will be done along two main steps. #### (a) Although (S) reduces to a second order nonlinear integro-differential equation, this does not help much. What is more useful is that all derivatives $p^{(n)}(0)$, $\beta^{(n)}(0)$, taken at the the origin in the complex $t$-plane, can be recursively computed for all $n$. This can be checked at once, rewriting (\[EQU1\]) in the differential form $$\label{EQU3} \frac{d\beta(t)}{dt}+ \lambda (1-p(t))\beta(t)=0.$$ Noticing the derivatives $p^{(n)}(0)$ and $\beta^{(n)}(0)$ have alternate signs when $n$ varies, it is direct to verify that $\beta$ and $p$ are analytic functions around the origin, and that their respective power series have a non-zero radius of convergence. The first singularities of $p$ and $\beta$ are on the negative real axis, but not easy to locate precisely. Thus (S) has a solution, which is unique, remarking also that uniqueness is a mere consequence of the Lipschitz character of $dp(t)/dt$ with respect to $\beta$ in the Volterra integral equation (\[EQU2\]) (see e.g. [@CAR]). En passant, it is worth noting that the solution in the whole complex plane—which is not really needed for our purpose—could be obtained by analytic continuation directly on system (S). #### (b) When (\[ERG\]) holds, the next stage consists in exhibiting a *non-defective* probabilistic solution $p(t)$ \[necessarily unique by step (a)\], with a finite mean $m<\infty$. This is more intricate and will be achieved by constructing a converging iterative scheme. Consider the system $$\label{ITE} \begin{cases} \beta_{0}(t) & = \ \mu, \quad t\ge 0 \,, \\[0.2cm] \beta_k(t) & = \ \DD\frac{dp_{k}(t)}{dt} + \int_0^t \beta_{k}(t-y) dp_{k}(y), \\[0.3cm] \beta_{k+1} (t) & = \ \DD\mu\exp\Bigl\{-\lambda\int_0^t\bigl(1-p_k(y)\bigr)dy\Bigr\},\\[0.3cm] p_k(0) & = \ 0, \ \forall k \ge 0\,. \end{cases}$$ The second equation in (\[ITE\]) is equivalent to $$\label{CONV} sp_k^*(s)= \frac{\beta_k^*(s)}{1+\beta_k^*(s)},$$ allowing to derive $p_k$ from $\beta_k$ by means of (\[LAP\]) (see also [@FEL] for various inversion formulas in the real plane). Then the computational algorithm becomes simple: 1. $p_0(t)= 1-e^{-\mu t}$. 2. Compute $\beta_1(t)= \mu\exp\bigl[-\rho (1-e^{-\mu t})\bigr]$. 3. Compute $p_1(t)$, then $\beta_2(t), p_2(t)$, etc. In the scheme (\[ITE\]), the initial condition $\beta_0(t)=\mu$ is tantamount to take an implicit fictitious function, say $p_{-1}$, satisfying $p_{-1}(t)=1,\ \forall t\ge 0$. At each step, the successive $p_k$’s are non-defective probability distributions, with finite means denoted by $m_k$. The scheme (\[ITE\]) enjoys two nice properties. **(i)** It is monotone *decreasing*. Suppose $p_k(t)\leq p_{k-1}(t)$, which is in particular true for $k=1$. In the third equation of (\[ITE\]), $\beta_{k+1}(t)/\mu$ is simply the probability of being empty for an <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">m/g/$\infty$</span> queue with arrival rate $\lambda$ and service time distribution function $p_k$. It is therefore possible, by a coupling argument, to build two <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">m/g/$\infty$</span> queues corresponding to $\beta_k(t)$ and $\beta_{k+1}(t)$ such that the $\mu$-event pertaining to level $k+1$ will always occur later than the one for level $k$. Thus $p_{k+1}(t)\leq p_k(t)$. So, the positive sequences $\{p_k(t), \beta_k(t), k\geq 0\}$ are uniformly bounded and non-increasing for each fixed $t$. Consequently, $$p(t) = {\mathop{\mathrm{lim}\scriptstyle\searrow}\limits}_{k\to\infty} p_k(t) \quad \textrm{and} \quad \beta(t) = {\mathop{\mathrm{lim}\scriptstyle\searrow}\limits}_{k\to\infty} \beta_k(t)$$ form the unique solutions of (S). **(ii)** Letting $r_k\egaldef\lambda m_k$ and combining the two main equations of (\[ITE\]), we get $$r_{k+1}=\rho e^{r_k}, \ \forall k\ge 0, \quad \textrm{with} \ r_0=\rho.$$ When $\rho\leq e^{-1}$, the $r_k$’s form an increasing sequence of positive real numbers, with a finite positive limit $r$ satisfying equation (\[ROOT\]). Since $1- p_k(t)$ is also an increasing sequence of positive functions, the theorem of Beppo Levi ensures the equality $$\label{LIM} \int_{0}^{\infty} (1-p(t))dt = \lim_{k\to\infty}\int_{0}^{\infty} (1-p_k(t))dt = \lim_{k\to\infty} m_k = \frac{r}{\lambda}.$$ It is worth to point out that (\[ITE\]) is equivalent to the construction of a sequence of trees $\{G_k,k\ge 0\}$, such that, for any finite $k$, $G_k$ is ergodic and has a height not greater than $k$. This completes the proof of points (A) and (B) of the theorem. Transience {#TRANSIENCE} ---------- It turns out that the classification of the process for $\rho>e^{-1}$ can be obtained from analytic arguments. Recalling that $\DD \ell = \lim_{t\to\infty} p(t)$, we define $$\label{TRANS0} \DD\varepsilon(t)\egaldef\lambda\int_0^t(\ell-p(x))dx, \quad \lim_{t\to\infty} \uparrow \varepsilon(t)\egaldef \bar{\varepsilon},$$ and it will be convenient to write $\varepsilon'(t)\egaldef \frac{d\varepsilon(t)}{dt}$. The quantity $\bar{\varepsilon}$ exists, but a priori is not necessarily finite. It represents the mean number of descendants of an arbitrary vertex $v$, conditioning on the fact that $v$ is the root of an almost surely finite tree. In fact we will show that if $\rho>e^{-1} $ then $\ell<1$, in which case the system is transient. Thus there is no null-recurrence region in the parameter space. However, $\bar{\varepsilon}$ given by (\[TRANS0\]) will appear to be *finite for all $\rho>0$*. Unless otherwise stated, $s$ in this subsection will stand for a positive real variable. Then by a direct computation we get $$\beta^*(s) =\mu \int_0^\infty \exp \bigl[-\bigl(\varepsilon(t)+(\lambda(1-\ell)+s)t\bigr)\bigr] dt ,$$ together with the functional equation $$\label{TRANS} \frac{s^2\varepsilon^*(s)}{\lambda} = \frac{\ell + (\ell-1)\beta^*(s)}{1+ \beta^*(s)}.$$ **(i)** *Suppose now for a while $\ell=1$*. Then (\[TRANS\]) reduces to $$\label{TRANS1} s^2\varepsilon^*(s)\bigl[1 + \beta^*(s)\bigr] = \lambda ,$$ and the idea is to show that, for $\rho>e^{-1}$, (\[TRANS1\]) *has no admissible solution, i.e. a solution such that ${\mathop{\mathrm{lim}\scriptstyle\searrow}\limits}_{t\to\infty}\varepsilon'(t)=0$*. By well known theorems for Laplace transforms (see e.g. [@FUC]), we have the relations $$\lim_{s\to 0}s\varepsilon^*(s) = \bar{\varepsilon},\quad \lim_{s\to 0}s^2\varepsilon^*(s) = 0, \quad \lim_{s\to 0}s\beta^*(s) = \mu\exp (-\bar{\varepsilon}).$$ When the system is ergodic, $\bar{\varepsilon}<\infty$ and the above limit equations give at once $$\label{TAUBER}\lim_{s\to 0}s^2\varepsilon^*(s)\beta^*(s)=\mu \bar{\varepsilon}\exp(-\bar{\varepsilon}).$$ In the case $\bar{\varepsilon} =\infty$, the question is more difficult and (\[TAUBER\]) does not hold without additional conditions on $\varepsilon(t)$, as for instance slow variation (see tauberian theorems in [@FEL]). The only cheap by-product of (\[TRANS1\]) is the existence of the decreasing limit $$\lim_{s\to0} \uparrow s^2\varepsilon^*(s)\beta^*(s) = \lambda - {\mathop{\mathrm{lim}\scriptstyle\searrow}\limits}_{s\to0}s^2\varepsilon^*(s).$$ To get deeper insight into (\[TRANS1\]), we remark that the quantity $s\varepsilon^*(s)\beta^*(s)$ can be viewed as the Laplace transform of a convolution measure with density $$\int_0^t\varepsilon'(z)\exp[-\varepsilon(t-z)]dz,$$ so that (\[TRANS1\]) is equivalent to the integro-differential equation $$\label{TRANS2} \rho = \frac{1}{\mu} \varepsilon'(t)+ \int_0^t\varepsilon'(z) \exp[-\varepsilon(t-z)]dz.$$ It is worth remembering that we are searching for solutions of (\[TRANS2\]) in the class of functions $\varepsilon(t)$ which have positive monotone decreasing derivatives \[this property can in fact be established by taking derivatives of higher order in (\[TRANS2\])\], and satisfy the intial condition $\varepsilon(0)=0$. Hence, as $t\to\infty$, the limit of the integral in (\[TRANS2\]) exists and $$\lim_{t\to\infty} \int_0^t \varepsilon'(z)\exp[-\varepsilon(t-z)]dz = \rho - {\mathop{\mathrm{lim}\scriptstyle\searrow}\limits}_{t\to\infty} \frac{\varepsilon'(t)}{\mu} >0.$$ Choose $T, 0<t<T$. Then the decomposition $$\rho = \frac{1}{\mu} \varepsilon'(T) + \int_0^t\varepsilon'(z)\exp[-\varepsilon(T-z)]dz + \int_t^T\varepsilon'(z)\exp[-\varepsilon(T-z)]dz$$ yields by monotonicity $$\label{TAUBER1} \rho \le \frac{1}{\mu} \varepsilon'(T) + \varepsilon(t) \exp[-\varepsilon(T-t)] + \int_t^T\varepsilon'(z)\exp[-\varepsilon(T-z)]dz.$$ Putting $T=2t$ in (\[TAUBER1\]) and using $\varepsilon'(2t) \le\varepsilon'(t)$, we obtain the main inequality $$\label{TAUBER2} \rho - \varepsilon(t)\exp[-\varepsilon(t)] \le \varepsilon'(t) \biggl[ \frac{1}{\mu} + \int_0^t\exp[-\varepsilon(z)]dz\biggr].$$ On the other hand, (\[TRANS2\]) shows immediately that the right-hand side member of (\[TAUBER2\]) is bounded by $\rho$. Finally, any solution of (\[TRANS2\]) must satisfy $$\label{TRANS3} \rho - \varepsilon(t)\exp[-\varepsilon(t)] \le \varepsilon'(t) \biggl[ \frac{1}{\mu} + \int_0^t\exp[-\varepsilon(z)]dz\biggr] \le \rho.$$ *Assume also now* $\rho>e^{-1}$. Then $$\sup_{t\ge0} \bigl[\rho - \varepsilon(t) \exp[-\varepsilon(t)]\bigr]\egaldef\xi>0,$$ so that (\[TRANS3\]) implies $$\label{TRANS4} \xi \le \varepsilon'(t) \biggl[ \frac{1}{\mu} + \int_0^t\exp[-\varepsilon(z)]dz\biggr] \le \rho.$$ Let $a\in[\xi,\rho]$ be a real parameter and consider the differential equation $$\label{TRANS5} f'(t) \biggl[ \frac{1}{\mu} + \int_0^t\exp[-f(z)]dz\biggr] = a.$$ The next step is to show that all solutions of (\[TRANS4\]) are located in the *strip* delimited by the maximal and minimal solutions of (\[TRANS5\]). Setting $g(t)= \exp[-f(t)]$, a simple calculation gives $$\label{DIFF} \begin{cases} \DD g'(t)= -a \log \bigl(1+\mu g(t)\bigr) +1\ge 0, \\[0.2cm] \DD \int_0^{g(t)} \frac{dy}{1- a\log (1+\mu y)} = t. \end{cases}$$ The first equation of (\[DIFF\]) yields $1+\mu g(t) \le\DD e^{\frac{1}{a}}$, whence $\sup_{t\ge 0} g(t) <\infty$. On the other hand, the second equation of (\[DIFF\]) implies, for any fixed $t$, that $g(t)$ (resp. $f'(t)$) is decreasing (resp. increasing) with respect to $a$. Thus the maximal and minimal solutions of (\[TRANS5\]) take place respectively for $a=\rho$ and $a=\xi$, and we have $$\inf_{t\ge 0}f'(t)\ge \xi \exp [\xi^{-1}], \quad \forall a \in[\xi,\rho].$$ Consequently, by (\[TRANS4\]), ${\mathop{\mathrm{lim}\scriptstyle\searrow}\limits}_{t\to\infty}\varepsilon'(t)>0$, which contradicts null-recurrence, and shows finally that if $\rho>e^{-1}$ then necessarily $\ell<1$ (the announced transience). **(ii)** Consider now the case $\ell<1$. Letting $s\to 0$ in (\[TRANS\]) yields immediately $$\beta^*(0)= \frac{\ell}{1-\ell}.$$ Then rewriting (\[TRANS\]) in the form $$\label{TRANSbis} \frac{s\varepsilon^*(s)}{\lambda} = \frac{(1-\ell)[\beta^*(0) - \beta^*(s)]}{s+ s\beta^*(s)},$$ letting again $s\to 0$ in (\[TRANSbis\]) and using l’Hôpital’s rule, we obtain $$\bar{\varepsilon} = \lambda(1-\ell)^2 \int_0^\infty t\beta(t)dt <\infty .$$ The exact computation of $\ell$ proves to be a difficult project. Actually, since one can hardly expect more than approximate formulas, we shall present various results, both formal and concrete, some of them yielding bounds for $\ell$. ### Formal approach Using the definition (\[TRANS0\]), it appears that the right-hand side member of (\[TRANS\]) can be analytically continued to the region $\Re (s) < -\lambda(1-\ell)$. Thus an analysis of singularities becomes theoretically possible, which should hopefully allow to compute $\ell$. We roughly sketch the method, without giving an exhaustive presentation of all technicalities. Owing to the inversion formula (\[LAP\]), we can rewrite (\[TRANS\]) in the functional form $$\label{FUNC} \frac{1}{2i\pi} \int_{\sigma-i\infty}^{\sigma+i\infty} e^{st}\beta^*(s)ds = \mu\exp \biggl[\frac{-\lambda}{2i\pi} \int_{\sigma-i\infty}^{\sigma+i\infty}\frac{e^{st}ds}{s^2\bigl(1+\beta^*(s) \bigr)}\biggr],\quad \Re (\sigma) >0.$$ Arguing by analytic continuation in (\[FUNC\]), it is possible to prove that $\beta^*(s)$ is a meromorphic function with real negative poles. Hence, $\beta(t)$ can be represented by the Dirichlet series $$\label{BETA} \beta(t) = C\exp \biggl[\frac{-\lambda t}{1+\beta^*(0)}\biggr] + \sum_{i\ge0}u_i e^{-\sigma_i t},$$ where $C$ is a constant, the $\sigma_i$’s form a sequence of positive increasing numbers satisfying $$\sigma_i> \frac{\lambda}{1+\beta^*(0)}, \quad \forall i\ge 0,$$ and the $u_i$’s are *ad hoc* residues. In the ergodic case $\beta^*(0)=\infty$ and the first term in (\[BETA\]) reduces to the constant $C$. Then, $\varepsilon(t)$ could be obtained by formal inversion of $\beta^*(s)$. Alas, the computation becomes formidable and we did not get an exact tractable form (if any at all !) for $\ell$, since this is equivalent to compute $u_i, \sigma_i,i\ge0$. ### Bounds and tail distribution Beforehand, it is worth quoting some simple facts. First, the value of $\ell$ does solely depend on $\rho$, as can be seen by scaling in system (\[EQU1\]–\[EQU2\]), with the new functions $$\widetilde{\beta}(t)=\frac{1}{\mu}\beta\Bigl(\frac{t}{\mu}\Bigr), \quad \widetilde{p}(t)=p\Bigl(\frac{t}{\mu}\Bigr).$$ Secondly, combining (\[EQU1\]) and (\[EQU2\]) leads to the inequality $$\beta(t) \le \mu - \lambda p(t),$$ which yields $$\label{LBOUND} \ell \le \min \Bigl(1,\frac{1}{\rho}\Bigr), \quad \forall \rho < \infty .$$ In Section \[ERGODICITY\], we also could have considered the scheme $$\label{ITE1} \begin{cases} \gamma_{0}(t) & = \ \mu e^{-\lambda t} , \quad t\ge 0 \,, \\[0.2cm] \gamma_{k}(t) & = \ \DD\frac{dq_{k}(t)}{dt} + \int_0^t \gamma_{k}(t-y) dq_{k}(y), \\[0.3cm] \gamma_{k+1} (t) & = \ \DD\mu\exp\Bigl\{-\lambda\int_0^t\bigl(1-q_k(y)\bigr)dy\Bigr\},\\[0.3cm] q_k(0) & = \ 0, \ \forall k \ge 0\,, \end{cases}$$ which differs from (\[ITE\]) only by its first equation, but this is a crucial difference, corresponding in some sense to a fictitious function $q_{-1}(t)=0,\ \forall t\ge 0$. Actually, this scheme produces a sequence of trees $\{L_k, k\ge 0\}$, with the property that the leaves of $L_k$ at level $k$ never die. Its basic properties are the following: - the $q_k$’s form an *increasing* sequence of *defective* distributions; - for all $k\ge0$, the tail distribution of $q_k$ dominates a defective exponential distribution with density of the form $a_kb_ke^{-b_kt}$. Moreover, under condition (\[ERG\]), we have $$\lim_{k\to\infty}a_k = 1,\quad\lim_{k\to\infty}b_k = \frac{\lambda}{r}$$ and $q_k$ converges in $L_1$ to the proper distribution $p$. The iterative scheme (\[ITE1\]) is convergent *for all* $\rho$, but the distributions $q_k(t)$, $k\ge 0$, are *defective*, their limit being proper if and only if $\rho\leq e^{-1}$. When $\rho>e^{-1}$, the limiting function $p(t)$ remains defective and $$\lim_{t\to\infty}p(t)= \lim_{k\to\infty}\lim_{t\to\infty}q_k(t)=\ell <1.$$ We shall derive bounds on $\ell$, in showing by induction that $q_k(t)$, for $t$ sufficiently large, dominates an exponential distribution. The idea of proof will appear from the very first step $k=1$. Actually, we have $$\begin{cases} q_0(t)= \ell_0(1-e^{-\theta_0t}) , \\[0.2cm] \DD \ell_0 = \frac{\mu}{\lambda+\mu}, \quad \theta_0=\lambda+\mu , \\[0.2cm] \DD \gamma_1(t) = \mu \exp \Bigl[-\lambda\bigl(1-\ell_0\bigr)t + \frac{\lambda \ell_0}{\theta_0}\big(e^{-\theta_0t}-1\bigr)\Bigr], \end{cases}$$ and the Laplace transform $\gamma^*_1(s)$ has an explicit form, based on the formula (which involves the incomplete gamma function, see e.g. [@GR]) $$\label{eq:gamma} {\mathcal{I}}(x,y)=\int_0^\infty \exp \Bigl[-xt+ye^{-t}\Bigr] dt= \sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{y^n}{n!(x+n)} , \quad \Re (x) >0.$$ By scaling, for any constant $c>0$, we have $$\label{SCALE} \frac{1}{c}{\mathcal{I}}\bigg(\frac{x}{c},y\bigg)= \int_0^\infty \exp \Bigl[-xt+ye^{-ct}\Bigr] dt ,$$ so that $$\gamma^*_1(s)= \frac{\mu}{\theta_0} \exp \biggl(\frac{-\lambda \ell_0}{\theta_0}\biggr) {\mathcal{I}}\biggl[\frac{s +\lambda (1-\ell_0)}{\theta_0}, \frac{\lambda \ell_0}{\theta_0}\biggr], \quad \Re \bigl(s+ \lambda (1-\ell_0)\bigr)> 0.$$ The series in equation (\[eq:gamma\]) shows that $\gamma^*_1(s)$ can be analytically continued as a meromorphic function of $s$, with simple poles $s_n= -\lambda (1-\ell_0)-n, n\ge 0$. Similarly, one checks easily the roots in $s$ of $\gamma^*_1(s)+1=0$ are simple, real and negative. Denoting them by $-z_n, n\ge 0$, we have the following \[LEVEL1\] $$q_1^*(s)= \frac{\gamma_1^*(s)}{s(1+\gamma_1^*(s))}$$ is a meromorphic function of $s$, with poles at $0,-z_0, -z_1,\ldots$, where $$\lambda (1-\ell_0) + n\theta_0 < z_n < \lambda (1-\ell_0) + (n+1)\theta_0, \quad n\ge 0,$$ with the more precise bounds $$\label{ZERO} \frac{\mu \theta_0}{\mu + \theta_0}\exp \biggl(\frac{-\lambda\ell_0}{\theta_0}\biggr) \le z_0 -\lambda (1-\ell_0)\le \min \biggl[\theta_0, \mu \exp\biggl(\frac{-\lambda\ell_0}{\theta_0}\biggr) \biggr].$$ Hence $$\label{STEP1} q_1(t) = \ell_1 - \sum_{n\ge 0} r_n e^{-z_nt},$$ where the residue $r_n$ of $q_1^*(s) e^{st}$ at the pole $z_n, n\ge 0$, is positive and given by the linear relation $$r_n z_n \frac{d\gamma^*_1}{ds}_{\mid s=-z_n} + 1 = 0,$$ and $$\ell_1 = \sum_{n\ge 0} r_n = \frac{\gamma^*_1(0)}{1+\gamma^*_1(0)}.$$ Moreover, (\[STEP1\]) yields $$\label{INDUC} \ell_1 (1- e^{-z_0\, t}) \le q_1(t) \le \ell_1.$$ Only the first part of (\[ZERO\]) needs some explanation. It is obtained by checking that, for all $y\ge0$, the first negative root in $x$ of the equation $$\mu x\exp (-y) {\mathcal{I}}(x, y) +\theta x = 0, \ y\ge 0,$$ satisfies $$\begin{cases} x\theta_0 \ge - \mu e^{-y} \\[0.3cm] \DD x^2+\bigl(1+\frac{\mu}{\theta_0}\bigr) + \frac{\mu}{\theta_0}e^{-y}\le 0. \end{cases}$$ We shall prove by induction that $p(t)$ dominates a *reasonable* exponential distribution. To this end, assume $$\ell_k (1- e^{-\theta_k\, t}) \le q_k(t),$$ which is in particular true for $k=0,1$, as shown in lemma \[LEVEL1\]. Then the calculus which led to (\[INDUC\]) yields also $$\ell_{k+1} (1- e^{-\theta_{k+1}\, t}) \le q_{k+1}(t),$$ where $(\ell_{k+1},\theta_{k+1})$ can be derived from $(\ell_k,\theta_k)$ by the formulas $$\label{LBOUND1} \begin{cases} \DD \alpha_k = \frac{\mu}{\theta_k} \exp \biggl(\frac{-\lambda \ell_k}{\theta_k}\biggr) {\mathcal{I}}\biggl[\frac{\lambda (1-\ell_k)}{\theta_k},\frac{\lambda \ell_k}{\theta_k}\biggr], \\[0.5cm] \DD \ell_{k+1} = \frac{\alpha_k}{1+\alpha_k}. \end{cases}$$ and $\theta_{k+1}$ is the first positive root of the equation $$\label{LBOUND2} \frac{\mu}{\theta_k} \exp \biggl(\frac{ -\lambda \ell_k}{\theta_k}\biggr) {\mathcal{I}}\biggl[\frac{-\theta_{k+1}+\lambda (1-\ell_k)}{\theta_k},\frac{\lambda \ell_k}{\theta_k}\biggr] + 1 = 0.$$ Replacing $\theta_0$ and $z_0$ in (\[ZERO\]) by $\theta_k$ and $\theta_{k+1}$ respectively, one can prove the existence of $$\lim_{k\to\infty}(\ell_k,\theta_k)= (\ell_d,\theta), \quad \theta < \infty, \ \ell_d \le \ell \le 1,$$ where $0<\theta <\infty$ when $\ell<1$. The numerical computation of $\ell_d$ is freakish in the ergodicity region (where the determination of the $\theta_k$’s is a source of numerical instability), but proves very satisfactory for $\rho\gg e^{-1}$. Next, instead of providing as in lemma \[LEVEL1\] a stochastic ordering for all $t$, we get a tail-ordering, which has the advantage of achieving the *exact* value $\ell=1$ for $\rho \le e^{-1}$. \[LEVEL2\] $$\label{IND} q_k(t) \ge a_k (1- e^{-b_kt})+o(e^{-b_kt}), \quad \forall\ k\ge 0,$$ where the sequence $(a_k, b_k)$ satisfies the recursive scheme $$\label{REC} \begin{cases} \DD a_{k+1}b_{k+1}= \mu \exp\Bigl(\frac{-\lambda a_k}{b_k}\Bigr), \\[0.5cm] \DD b_{k+1}(1-a_{k+1})= \lambda (1-a_k), \end{cases}$$ with $a_0 = \mu/(\lambda+\mu)$ and $b_0 = \lambda+\mu$. Setting $\DD a\egaldef\lim_{k\to\infty}a_k$ and $\DD b\egaldef\lim_{k\to\infty}b_k$ in (\[REC\]), one has the limits $$\label{AB} \begin{cases} \DD a=1,\ b=\frac{\lambda}{r}, \ \mathrm{if} \quad \rho \le e^{-1},\\[0.2cm] a=x, \ b= \lambda, \ \mathrm{if} \quad \rho \ge e^{-1}, \end{cases}$$ where $x\le 1$ is the root of the equation $$\label{ROOT2} xe^x= \frac{1}{\rho}.$$ In the course of the proof of lemma \[LEVEL2\], we will have to characterize positive measures when then are defined from a Laplace transform of the form $\frac{f^*(s)}{1+f^*(s)}$, as for instance in (\[CONV\]), which a priori does not correspond to a *completely monotone* function, according to the classical definition of [@FEL]. The following lemma does address this question and might be of intrinsic interest. \[MONO\] Let $Q$ be a measure concentrated on $[0,\infty[$, and its corresponding Laplace transform $Q^{*}(s)=\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-st}dQ(t)$, for any complex $s$ with $\Re(s)\ge 0$. Define $$\begin{aligned} \psi(s) &\egaldef& \int_0^\infty \mu e^{-(\lambda Q(t) + st)}dt, \\ \omega(s)&\egaldef&\frac{\psi(s)}{1 +\psi(s)}.\end{aligned}$$ Then $\omega(s+\mu)$ is the Laplace transform of a positive measure $\Delta_Q$ $[0,\infty[$. In addition $\Delta_Q$ is a decreasing functional of $Q$, in the sense that, for all $ R\ge Q$, $R$ being $Q$-continuous, $$\Delta_R\le\Delta_Q.$$ For any complex number $s$ with $\Re (s)\ge 0$, $\widetilde{\psi}(s) \egaldef \psi(s+\mu)$ can be viewed as the the Laplace transform of a positive measure $U$ having the density $\mu e^{-(\lambda Q(t)+\mu t)}$. Thus $$\label{CONT} {\mathsf{P}}\{U\leq t\} = \int_0^t\mu e^{-(\lambda Q(t)+\mu t)}dt \leq 1-e^{-\mu t}\leq 1,$$ and the following expansion holds $$\label{CONT1} \omega(s+\mu)= \sum_{k=0}^\infty (-1)^k\widetilde{\psi}^{k+1}(s),$$ where $\widetilde{\psi}^k(s)$ stands for the transform of the $k$-fold convolution of $U$ defined in (\[CONT\]). A function being uniquely determined—up to values in a set of measure zero—by the values of its Laplace transform in the region $\Re (s)\ge\mu$, the first part of the lemma is proved. As for the monotony, one can differentiate the inverse of (\[CONT1\]) term by term (with respect to $Q$): since each term is multiplied by $(-\lambda)^k$, the resulting series is negative and the conclusion follows. Most of the ingredients reside in the integral representation of $\gamma^*_1(s)$ by means of formula (\[eq:gamma\]), and we shall present the main lines of argument. Fix a number $D,\,b_0<D<\infty$. Then (\[SCALE\]) yields the inequality $$\label{PSI1} \gamma^*_1(s) \ge \psi_1(s) \egaldef \frac{\mu}{D} \exp \biggl(\frac{-\lambda a_0}{b_0}\biggr) {\mathcal{I}}\biggl[\frac{s+\lambda (1-a_0)}{D}, \frac{\lambda a_0}{b_0}\biggl],$$ whence $$sq_1^*(s)= \frac{\gamma_1^*(s)}{1+\gamma_1^*(s)}\ge \frac{\psi_1(s)}{1+\psi_1(s)}, \quad \forall s>0.$$ Setting $$\label{PSI2} u(s) = \mu\exp \biggl(\frac{-\lambda a_0}{b_0}\biggr) \frac{1}{\lambda (1-a_0) + s},$$ and isolating the first term is the power series expansion of (\[PSI1\]) by means of (\[eq:gamma\]), we obtain after a routine algebra $$\label{PSI3} \frac{\psi_1(s)}{1+\psi_1(s)} = \frac{u(s)}{u(s)+1} + \frac{w(s,D)}{D}.$$ Remarking the first pole of $w(s,D)$ is the root of $u(s)+1=0$, we can use lemma \[MONO\] and a term by term inversion of (\[PSI3\]) to obtain $$q_1(t) \ge a_1(1-e^{-b_1 t}) + \frac{\mathcal{O}(e^{-b_1 t})}{D} ,$$ where the couples $(a_1,b_1),(a_0,b_0)$ satisfy system (\[REC\]). At step $k=2$, one would introduce a constant, say $D_{1}$, and repeat the same procedure to obtain (\[IND\]). It might be useful to note that it is not possible to take $D=\infty$, since this would create an atom at $t=0$, in which case lemma \[MONO\] does not work in general. At last, it is a simple exercise (therefore omitted) to verify the existence of $(a,b) =\lim_{k\to\infty} (a_k,b_k)$, given by (\[AB\]). The proof of the lemma is terminated. Now, to conclude the proof of theorem \[TH2\], it merely suffices to note that, by (\[ROOT2\]), $$\rho^{-1}- \rho^{-2}\le x \le \ell \le \rho^{-1}, \quad \forall \rho \ge e^{-1}.$$ #### Subsidiary comments The method of schemes to analyze nonlinear operators in a probabilistic context is extremely powerful (see e.g. [@DEL] for problems related to systems in thermodynamical limit), and in some sense deeply related to the construction of Lyapounov functions. Up to sharp technicalities, the schemes (\[ITE\]) and (\[ITE1\]) can be exploited to derive precise information about the speed of convergence as $t\to\infty$, for any $\rho,\, 0<\rho<\infty$, and when pushing exact computations slightly farther, one perceives underlying relationships with intricate continued fractions. Finally, we note that the question of transience could be studied from a large deviation point of view, by considering $\varepsilon(t)$ as the member of a family indexed by the parameter $(\rho-e^{-1})$—see in this respect section \[GROWTH\]. Some stationary distributions {#DISTRIBUTIONS} ============================= In this section, we derive the stationary laws of some performance measures of interest when the system is ergodic, i.e. $\rho\leq e^{-1}$. Incidentally, note that the only process studied so far, that is the number $X$ of vertices attached to the root, behaves like the number of customers in a <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">m/g/$\infty$</span> queue with arrival rate $\lambda$ and service time distribution $p$, so that $$\lim_{t\to\infty}{\mathsf{P}}\{X(t)=k\} = e^{-r}\frac{r^k}{k!},\ \forall k\ge 0.$$ Another point worth mentioning is that, as for the model in [@PUH1], the Markov process $G(t)$ is reversible and hence has an explicit invariant measure. To see this, notice that at each vertex $v$, leaves are added at rate $\lambda$, and removed at rate $\mu\eta(v)$, where $\eta(v)$ stands for the number of leaves attached to $v$. Therefore, the stationary probability of some configuration $G$ is $$\pi(G)\egaldef K\frac{\rho^{N_G}}{\prod_{v\in G}\eta(v)!},$$ where $K$ is a normalization constant. The ergodicity of the Markov process $G(t)$ is then equivalent to the convergence of the series $\sum\pi(G)$, where the sum is taken over all admissible trees $G$. However, while counting Catalan trees as in [@PUH1] is not that difficult, the combinatorics is more involved in the present setting, and this direction will be pursued no further. Volume of the tree ------------------ Let $N\egaldef\lim_{t\to\infty}N(t)$, where $N(t)$ introduced in section \[NOTATION\] stands for the volume of $G(t)$ and the limit is taken in distribution. \[thm.lawN\] When $\rho\leq e^{-1}$, the distribution of the stationary volume $N$ is given by $$\label{eq.N=k} {\mathsf{P}}\{N=k\} = \frac{1}{r}\frac{k^{k-1}}{k!}\rho^k,$$ where $r$ is given by (\[ROOT\]). Moreover, the mean value of $N$ is given by $$\label{eq.meanN} {\mathsf{E}}N = \frac{1}{1-r}.$$ We proceed as in lemma \[SYS\], saying that the number of vertices in the tree at time $t$ is equal to $1$ plus the numbers of vertices in all the descendants that have appeared in $[0,t]$ and are not yet dead. The construction mimics the former proposed for the process $X_v(t)$: the volume of a subtree rooted at some vertex $v$ is distributed as $N(t)$ for $t\leq \tau_v$. For any complex number $z$, $|z|<1$, we have therefore $$\begin{aligned} {\mathsf{E}}z^{N(t)} &=& z\sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{e^{-\lambda t}(\lambda t)^k}{k!} \biggl\{\int_0^t \frac{dx}{t}{\mathsf{E}}\Bigl[z^{N(x){{\leavevmode\hbox{\rm \small1\kern-0.35em\normalsize1}}_{\{x\leq\tau\}}}} \Bigr]\biggr\}^k\nonumber\\[0.2cm] &=& z\exp\biggl\{\lambda {\mathsf{E}}\Bigl[\int_0^t\bigl(z^{N(x)}-1\bigr) {{\leavevmode\hbox{\rm \small1\kern-0.35em\normalsize1}}_{\{x\leq\tau\}}}dx\Bigr]\biggr\}, \label{eq.lawNt}\end{aligned}$$ and, letting $t\to\infty$, $${\mathsf{E}}z^{N} = z\exp\biggl\{\lambda {\mathsf{E}}\Bigl[\int_0^\tau\bigl(z^{N(x)}-1\bigr) dx\Bigr]\biggr\} = \frac{\rho z}{r}\exp\biggl\{\lambda {\mathsf{E}}\Bigl[\int_0^\tau z^{N(x)} dx\Bigr]\biggr\}.\label{eq.lawN}$$ It is easy to write a renewal equation similar to (\[EQU2\]), namely $${\mathsf{E}}z^{N(t)} = {\mathsf{E}}[z^{N(t)}{{\leavevmode\hbox{\rm \small1\kern-0.35em\normalsize1}}_{\{t\leq\tau\}}}] + \int_0^t {\mathsf{E}}z^{N(t-y)}dp(y),$$ which, after setting $\phi(z,t)\egaldef{\mathsf{E}}z^{N(t)}$ and $\widetilde\phi(z,t)\egaldef{\mathsf{E}}[z^{N(t)}{{\leavevmode\hbox{\rm \small1\kern-0.35em\normalsize1}}_{\{t\leq\tau\}}}]$, and taking Laplace transforms with respect to $t$, yields the equation $$\phi^*(z,s)=\widetilde\phi^*(z,s)+\phi^*(z,s)sp^*(s).$$ Then, as in the case of (\[NEC\]), using the boundedness of $z^{N(t)}$, we get $$\phi(z) \egaldef \lim_{t\to\infty}\phi(z,t) = \frac{1}{m}\int_0^\infty\widetilde\phi(z,t)dt = \frac{1}{m}{\mathsf{E}}\Bigl[\int_0^\tau z^{N(x)}dx\Bigr].$$ Then (\[eq.lawN\]) can be rewritten as $$\label{eq.phi} r\phi(z) = \rho z \exp\bigl\{r\phi(z)\bigr\},$$ and hence $r\phi(z)=C(\rho z)$, where $C$ stands for the classical Cayley tree generating function (see e.g. [@SED]). Using the well-known series expansion for $C$ (which follows from Lagrange’s inversion formula), we get (\[eq.N=k\]), since $$\phi(z) = \frac{1}{r}\sum_{k=0}^\infty\frac{k^{k-1}}{k!}(\rho z)^k.$$ The mean (\[eq.meanN\]) is obtained by differentiating (\[eq.phi\]) with respect to $z$ and taking $z=1$. The analysis of the asymptotics of (\[eq.N=k\]) with respect to $k$ confirms an interesting change of behavior when $\rho=e^{-1}$. Indeed, for $k$ sufficiently large, Stirling’s formula yields $${\mathsf{P}}\{N=k\} = \frac{1}{r}\frac{k^{k-1}}{k!}\rho^{k} \approx \frac{1}{r}\frac{k^{k-1}}{\sqrt{2\pi k}\,k^k\,e^{-k}}\rho^k = \frac{1}{r}\frac{(\rho e)^{k}}{\sqrt{2\pi}\,k^{\frac{3}{2}}}.$$ Moreover, a straightforward Taylor expansion of (\[ROOT\]) gives the following estimate of ${\mathsf{E}}N$, as $\rho\to e^{-1}$: $${\mathsf{E}}N = \frac{1}{1-r}\approx\frac{1}{\sqrt{2(1-\rho e)}}.$$ Thus, while all moments of $N$ exist for $\rho<e^{-1}$, there is no finite mean as soon as $\rho=e^{-1}$. We note in passing that this phenomenon appears sometimes in branching processes and can be viewed as a phase transition inside the parameter region, as already remarked in [@FAY]. Height of the tree ------------------ Let $H\egaldef\lim_{t\to\infty}H(t)$, where $H(t)$ introduced in section \[NOTATION\] stands for the height of $G(t)$. The distribution of $H$ is given by the following theorem. \[thm.lawH\] 1. For $\rho\leq e^{-1}$, the following relations hold: $$\begin{aligned} {\mathsf{P}}\{H= 0\} & = & e^{-r} , \label{eq.lawH0}\\ {\mathsf{P}}\{H> h+1\} & = & 1-\exp\Bigl[-r{\mathsf{P}}\{H> h\}\Bigr], \quad \forall h \ge 0 \,.\label{eq.lawH}\end{aligned}$$ 2. If $\rho<e^{-1}$, then there exists a positive constant $\theta(r,1)$, such that $$\label{eq.asymptHexp} {\mathsf{P}}\{H>h\} = \theta(r,1) r^{h+1} + O\Bigl(\frac{r^{2h}}{1-r}\Bigr)\,$$ where the function $\theta(r,x)$ is the locally analytic w.r.t. $x$ solution of the functional Schröder equation $$\theta(r,1-e^{-rx}) = r\theta(r,x),$$ subject to the boundary condition $$\label{eq:condschroder} \frac{\partial\theta}{\partial x}(r,0)=1.$$ 3. When $\rho=e^{-1}$, $$\label{eq.asymptHexp1} {\mathsf{P}}\{H>h\} = \frac{2}{h}+O\Bigl(\frac{\log h}{h^2}\Bigr)\,.$$ As in the previous proof, one writes the height of the tree at time $t$ is less than $h+1$ if, and only if, all the descendants that have appeared in $[0,t]$ are either dead or have a height smaller than $h$: $$\begin{aligned} {\mathsf{P}}\bigl\{H(t)\leq h+1\bigr\} &=& \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{e^{-\lambda t}(\lambda t)^k}{k!} \Bigl\{\int_0^t \frac{dx}{t} \bigl[1- {\mathsf{P}}\bigl\{H(x)>h, x\leq\tau\bigr\}\bigr]\Bigr\}^k\\ &=& \exp\Bigl\{-\lambda\int_0^t{\mathsf{P}}\bigl\{H(x)>h,x\leq\tau\bigr\}dx \Bigr\}.\end{aligned}$$ Letting $t\to\infty$ and arguing as in theorem \[thm.lawN\], we can write $${\mathsf{P}}\bigl\{H\leq h+1\bigr\} = \exp\Bigl[-r {\mathsf{P}}\bigl\{H>h\bigr\}\Bigr],$$ which proves (\[eq.lawH\]). On the other hand, equation (\[eq.lawH0\]) is immediate, since it is in fact a plain rewriting of (\[PX0\]). To prove the remainder of the theorem, let $d_0\egaldef x$, where $x$ is a positive real number, and consider the sequence $$\label{RECdh} d_{h+1}= 1 - e^{-rd_h}, \ h=0,1,...$$ When $x=1$, note that we have exactly $d_{h+1}={\mathsf{P}}\bigl\{H>h\bigr\}$. The question that faces us now is to compute and to estimate the iterates of an analytic function, in the circumstances $1-e^{-rx}$. This subject concerns a wide branch of mathematics (including functional equations, automorphic functions, boundary value problems), and it has received considerable attention since the nineteen twenties. We shall employ classical arguments without further comment, referring the interested reader to e.g. [@KUC] and [@deB] for a more extensive treatment. A Taylor expansion up to second order in (\[RECdh\]) gives $$\label{TAYdh} rd_h \ge d_{h+1} = 1 - e^{-r d_h} \ge r d_h -\frac{r^2d_h^2}{2},$$ which implies that $r^{-h} d_h$ is a decreasing sequence with $\DD\lim_{h\to\infty} \downarrow d_h=0$ (that we already knew!) and $$\label{GEOM} d_h\le xr^{h}.$$ As $h\to\infty$, the asymptotic behavior of $d_{h}$ has a twofold nature, depending on whether $r=1$ or $r<1$. #### Case $r=1$. This is the easy part. Writing $$\frac{1}{d_{h+1}}= \dfrac{1}{1 - e^{-d_h}}= \frac{1}{d_h}+\frac{1}{2} +O(d_h),$$ we get immediately $d_h= O\Bigl(\frac{1}{h}\Bigr)$, and hence $$\frac{1}{d_h}= \frac{h}{2} +O\Bigl(\sum_{k=0}^{h-1}d_k\Bigr) = \frac{h}{2} +O(\log h),$$ which leads to (\[eq.asymptHexp1\]). #### Case $r<1$. The analysis is less direct. From (\[TAYdh\]) and (\[GEOM\]), we infer that, when $h\to\infty$, $r^{-h}d_h$ has a limit denoted by $\theta(r,x)$, with $$0\le r^{-h}d_h - \theta(r,x) \le\frac{rx^2}{2}\frac{r^h}{1-r}.$$ First let us show that $\theta(r,x)$ is strictly positive. Indeed, $$\label{PROD} \frac{d_{h+1}}{r^{h+1}} = x\prod_{m=0}^h \bigl(1 -\varphi_{m}(r,x)\bigr),$$ where, $\forall m\ge 0$, the quantity $\varphi_{m}(r,x) = O(r^{m+1})$ is an analytic function of the pair of real variables $(r,x)$ in the region $[0,1[\times[0,A]$, with $0\le A<\infty$. Hence, as $h\to\infty$, the infinite product in (\[PROD\]) converges uniformly to a strictly positive value, $\forall x>0$, so that $\theta(r,x)$ is also analytic of $(r,x)$ in the aforementioned region. To summarize, $$\lim_{h\to\infty} r^{-h} d_h \egaldef \theta(r,x) > 0.$$ The pleasant fact is that $\theta$, taken as a function of $x$, satisfies the so-called Schröder equation $$\label{SCH} \theta(r,1-e^{-rx}) = r\theta(r,x).$$ While it is clear that $\theta(r,0)=0$, (\[SCH\]) does not impose any constraint on $\DD\frac{\partial\theta}{\partial x}(r,0)$. However, it is easy to show by induction that $d_h(x)$ (where the dependency on $x$ is for a while explicitly written) satisfies $$\DD\frac{\partial d_h}{\partial x}_{|x=0}= r^h, \ \forall h>0,$$ and thus condition (\[eq:condschroder\]) also holds for $\theta$. To conclude the proof of (\[eq.asymptHexp\]), it suffices to choose $x=1$. #### Remark We have taken the variable $x$ on the positive real half-line to get sharper bounds, e.g. (\[GEOM\]). Actually, arguing as above, it is immediate to check that $\theta$ has an analytic continuation in the complex $x$-plane in a a neighborhood of the origin. In this respect, without going into a full discussion, we mention the relationships with automorphic functions and boundary value problems, which would allow integral representations. For our purpose, simply writing $$\theta(r,x) =\sum_{i\ge 0} \theta_{i}x^i, \quad \theta_0=0, \ \theta_1= 1 ,$$ we see that all the $\theta_i$’s can be computed recursively. Furthermore the iteration of (\[SCH\]) yields $$\theta(r,d_{h}) = r^h \theta(r,x).$$ from which we obtain $$d_{h}= \omega \bigl(r,r^h\theta(r,x)\bigr),$$ where $\omega (r,x)$ denotes the inverse function of $\theta$ with respect to the variable $x$ and satisfies the functional relation $$\label{INV} 1-\exp \{-r\omega(r,y)\} = \omega(r,ry).$$ We have $$\omega(r,y) =\sum_{{i\ge 0}} \omega_{i}y^i , \quad \omega_0=0, \ \omega_1=1,$$ and again the $\omega_{i}$’s are obtained recursively. Scaling and limit laws in the transient case {#GROWTH} ============================================ In this section, we present some limit laws for $N(t)$ and $H(t)$, which are especially of interest when the system is transient. Beforehand, for every integer $k$ and all $t>0$, we define the quantities $$\begin{cases} \DD X_k(t) \ \egaldef \ \#\bigl\{v \in G(t): h(v) = k \bigr\},\\[0.3cm] \DD Y_k(t) \ \egaldef \ \sum_{j=k}^{\infty} X_j(t){{\leavevmode\hbox{\rm \small1\kern-0.35em\normalsize1}}_{\{t\leq\tau\}}}. \end{cases}$$ So, $X_k(t)$ stands for the number of vertices at level $k$ in the whole tree at time $t$. Scaling for $N(t)$ in the pure birth case $\mu=0$ ------------------------------------------------- \[lem.meanXn\] When $\mu=0$, ${\mathsf{E}}X_n(t)$ has the explicit form $$\label{Xn} {\mathsf{E}}X_n(t)=\frac{(\lambda t)^n}{n!}.$$ Since $${\mathsf{P}}\bigl\{X_n(t+dt)=X_n(t)+1\big|X_n(t),X_{n-1}(t)\bigr\} = \lambda X_{n-1}(t)dt+o(dt),$$ we obtain $$\begin{cases} \dfrac{d}{dt}{\mathsf{E}}X_n(t)=\lambda {\mathsf{E}}X_{n-1}(t), \quad n\geq 1, \\[0.3cm] {\mathsf{E}}X_0(t)=1, \end{cases}$$ and the result is immediate by induction. \[thm.birthN\] When $\mu=0$, the expected volume at time $t$ is given by $$\label{eq.birthN.mean} {\mathsf{E}}N(t) = e^{\lambda t},$$ and $$\label{eq.birthN.law} \lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{N(t)}{{\mathsf{E}}N(t)} = \mathrm{Exp}(1) \,,$$ where the limit is taken in distribution and $\mathrm{Exp}(1)$ denotes an exponentially distributed variable with parameter $1$. Equation (\[eq.birthN.mean\]) is a mere consequence of lemma \[lem.meanXn\], since $${\mathsf{E}}N(t) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}{\mathsf{E}}X_n(t) = e^{\lambda t}.$$ Let now $\phi(z,t)\egaldef{\mathsf{E}}z^{N(t)}$, for $z$ complex with $|z|<1$. We start from equation (\[eq.lawNt\]), in which we take $\tau=\infty$. Then the following relation holds: $$\phi(z,t) = z\exp\biggl\{\lambda \Bigl[\int_0^t\bigl(\phi(z,x)-1\bigr) dx\Bigr]\biggr\}.$$ Differentiating with respect to $t$ yields $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\phi(z,t) = \lambda\bigl[\phi(z,t)-1\bigr]\phi(z,t),$$ whence $$\frac{1-\phi(z,t)}{\phi(z,t)} = K e^{\lambda t},$$ where $K$ does not depend on $t$. Since $\phi(z,0)=z$, we deduce $K = z^{-1}-1$, and finally $$\phi(z,t) = \frac{1}{\DD 1+[z^{-1}-1]e^{\lambda t}}.$$ The Laplace transform of $e^{-\lambda t}N(t)$ is, for $\Re (s)\ge 0$, $$\begin{aligned} {\mathsf{E}}\exp\bigl\{-s e^{-\lambda t}N(t)\bigr\} &=& \phi\Bigl(\exp\bigl\{-se^{-\lambda t}\bigr\},t\Bigr)\\ &=& \frac{1}{\DD 1 + \bigl[\exp\{se^{-\lambda t}\}-1\bigr]e^{\lambda t}},\end{aligned}$$ so that, letting $t\to\infty$, $$\lim_{t\to\infty} {\mathsf{E}}\exp\bigl\{-s e^{-\lambda t}N(t)\bigr\} = \frac{1}{1+s}.$$ Now (\[eq.birthN.law\]) follows directly from Feller’s continuity theorem (see [@FEL]). An ergodic theorem for $H(t)$ ----------------------------- The key result of this section concerns the height of the tree and is formulated in the next theorem. Let $$\label{BSC} b(s,c)\egaldef \frac{s}{c} + \log \left[\frac{\lambda(1-sp^*(s))}{s}\right], \quad \Re(s)\ge 0.$$ \[thm.transientH\] With probability $1$, $$\lim_{t\to\infty} \frac{H(t)}{t} = \delta,$$ where $\delta \ge 0$ is uniquely defined from the system of equations $$b(s,\delta)=\frac{\partial b(s,\delta)}{\partial s}=0.$$ In the ergodic case, $\delta=0$. The proof is constructed around the three forthcoming lemmas. \[LEMMA-AB\] Define the events $$A_c=\Bigl\{\liminf_{t\to\infty}\frac{H(t)}{t}\ge c\Bigr\}, \qquad B_c=\Bigl\{\limsup_{t\to\infty}\frac{H(t)}{t}\le c\Bigr\}.$$ Then ${\mathsf{P}}\{A_c\}=0$ or $1$ and ${\mathsf{P}}\{B_c\}=0$ or $1$. In other words, $A_c$ and $B_c$ satisfy a zero-one law and can only be trivial events (i.e. sure or impossible). Fixing an arbitrary $t_0$, with $G(t_0)=G_0$, we want to show that $A_c$ does not depend on $G_0$. For this purpose, consider the random process $G'(t)\subset G(t)$ constructed as follows: for $t\le t_0$, it consists only of the root, and for $t>t_0$ it contains exactly that part of $G$ grown from the root after time $t_0$. Then the probability that $A_c$ holds for $G'$ is clearly equal to the probability that $A_c$ holds for $G$ without conditioning. In other words, since $H_G(t)\ge H_{G'}(t)$, we have $${\mathsf{P}}\{A_c\mid G(t_0)=G_0\} \ge {\mathsf{P}}\{A_c\}.$$ Then basic properties of the conditional expectation yield $${\mathsf{E}}[{\mathsf{P}}\{A_c\mid G(t_0)\}] = {\mathsf{P}}\{A_c\},$$ so that $$\label{EventA} {\mathsf{P}}\{A_c\mid G(t_0)=G_0\} = {\mathsf{P}}\{A_c\}$$ for any $G_0$. On conditioning with respect to $G(t_0), G(t_1),\ldots, G(t_k)$, for any arbitrary increasing sequence of times $t_k$, we see (\[EventA\]) still holds. Hence, the assertion for $A_c$ is a direct consequence of the zero-one law for martingales (see e.g. [@KAL]). Quite similarly, if the event $B_c$ holds for $G$, then it is also in force for any subtree rooted at a vertex of $G_0$, which reads $${\mathsf{P}}\{B_c\mid G(t_0)=G_0\} \le {\mathsf{P}}\{B_c\}.$$ The lemma is proved. \[ZERO-ONE\] 1. If, for some integer $n$ and real number $c>0$, ${\mathsf{E}}[Y_n(n/c)]>1$, then $${\mathsf{P}}\{A_{c}\}=1.$$ 2. If, for some $n$ and real number $c>0$, $\DD \sum_{k=0}^\infty {\mathsf{E}}[X_{kn}(kn/c)]<\infty$, then $${\mathsf{P}}\{B_{c}\}=1.$$ \ For the sake of brevity, let $J_n(k)$ denote the time interval $[kn/c, (k+1)n/c]$. *(i)* Consider a standard branching process ${\xi_k,k\ge0}$, endowed with an offspring distribution equal to that of $Y_n(n/c)$. From the condition in 4.3(i), this process has a probability of non extinction which is strictly positive and will be denoted by $y(n,c)$. The key point is that ${\xi_k}$ can be viewed as defining a subtree $G'\subset G$ such that $H_{G'}(kn/c)\ge kn$. Then ${\mathsf{P}}\{A_{c}\}\ge y(n,c)>0$, and we have ${\mathsf{P}}\{A_{c}\}=1$ by lemma \[LEMMA-AB\]. Indeed, to build such a subtree $G'$, we associate with each generation of $\xi_k$ a set of vertices $s_k\subset G(k\tau)$, such that $\xi_k=|s_k|$. Let $s_0=\{v_0\}$ and, for each $v\in s_k,k\ge0$, let $G_v$ be a subtree rooted at $v$ and born during $J_n(k)$ (by convention $G_v$ is empty if $v$ dies). We put $$s_{k+1}=\bigcup_{v\in s_k} \{v'\in G_v: d(v',v)\ge n\}.$$ This construction produces the desired tree, since the volume of each set belonging to the above union is exactly distributed as $Y_n(n/c)$, and because $s_k$ consists of vertices located at a distance at least $kn$ from the root. *(ii)* Let $a_k=o(k)$ be a sequence of non-decreasing positive integers. Then for any fixed integer $k_0$, we have the inequality $${\mathsf{P}}(B_c) \ge {\mathsf{P}}\Bigl\{\sup_{t\in J_n(k)} H(t)<(k+1)n+a_k, \forall k \ge k_0 \Bigr\}.$$ We observe the height of the tree decreases at a rate not faster than $\mu$, so that, given the event $\{H((k+1)n/c)<(k+1)n\}$, the supremum of $H(.)$ on the interval $J_n(k)$ is bounded by $$\sup_{t\in J_n(k)} H(t) \le (k+1)n + \pi(\mu n/c),$$ where $\pi(x)$ denotes a Poisson random variable with rate $x$. Thus we have $$\label{POS} {\mathsf{P}}(B_c) \ge {\mathsf{P}}\{H(kn/c) < kn, \forall k \ge k_0 \} \prod_{k\ge k_0} {\mathsf{P}}\{\pi(\mu n/c) < a_k \},$$ and we will show that the right-hand side of (\[POS\]) can be rendered positive. First, we remark that $$\begin{aligned} {\mathsf{P}}\{H(kn/c)<kn, \forall k \ge k_0 \} &\ge & 1-\sum_{k\ge k_0} {\mathsf{P}}\{H(kn/c)\ge kn\} \\[0.2cm] &\ge & 1-\sum_{k\ge k_0} {\mathsf{E}}[X_{kn}(kn/c)]\to 1, \ \mathrm{as}\ {k_0\to\infty}.\end{aligned}$$ Secondly, we choose the sequence $$a_k=j, \ \forall k\in[j(j-1)/2 +1,\, j(j+1)/2], \forall j\ge 1,$$ which consists of blocks of repeated integers satisfying $a_k=\mathcal{O}\bigl(k^{1/2}\bigr)$. Setting $\nu\egaldef\mu n/c$, the product in (\[POS\]) will be positive, provided that the following sum is finite $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{k\ge k_0} {\mathsf{P}}\{\pi(\nu)\ge a_k \} &\le & \sum_{k\ge k_0} e^{-\nu} \frac{\nu ^{a_k}}{a_k!} \Big(1-\frac{\nu}{a_k}\Big)^{-1} \\ &\le &\sum_{j\ge \sqrt{k_0}} e^{-\nu} \frac{\nu^j}{(j-1)!}\Big(1-\frac{\nu}{j}\Big)^{-1} \le \nu \Big(1-\frac{\nu}{\sqrt{k_0}}\Big)^{-1} < \infty ,\end{aligned}$$ and hence *(ii)* follows from the zero-one property of $B_c$. The proof of the lemma is concluded. \[lem.lapl\] For any $\Re(s)>0$, let $\varphi_k(s)$ and $\wt\varphi_k(s)$ be the Laplace transforms $$\begin{aligned} \varphi_k(s) &\egaldef& \int_0^\infty {\mathsf{E}}X_k(t)\,e^{-st}dt,\\ \wt\varphi_k(s) &\egaldef& \int_0^\infty {\mathsf{E}}\bigl[X_k(t){{\leavevmode\hbox{\rm \small1\kern-0.35em\normalsize1}}_{\{t\leq\tau\}}}\bigr]\,e^{-st}dt.\end{aligned}$$ Then $$\begin{aligned} \varphi_k(s) &=& \frac{\lambda^k (1-sp^*(s))^k}{s^{k+1}} , \\ \wt\varphi_k(s) &=& \frac{\lambda^k (1-sp^*(s))^{k+1}}{s^{k+1}}.\end{aligned}$$ It is not difficult to check the following relations $$\begin{aligned} {\mathsf{E}}X_k(t) &=& \int_0^t {\mathsf{E}}\bigl[X_{k-1}(y){{\leavevmode\hbox{\rm \small1\kern-0.35em\normalsize1}}_{\{y\leq\tau\}}}\bigr] \lambda dy, \quad k\ge 1 \\ {\mathsf{E}}X_k(t) &=& {\mathsf{E}}\bigl[X_k(t){{\leavevmode\hbox{\rm \small1\kern-0.35em\normalsize1}}_{\{t\leq\tau\}}}\bigr] + \int_0^t {\mathsf{E}}X_k(t-y) dp(y), \end{aligned}$$ with the initial condition ${\mathsf{E}}X_0(t)=1$. Actually, the first equation follows from an argument already employed before. Namely, the number of vertices at level $k$ are the direct descendants of vertices at level $(k-1)$ still alive at time $t$, remarking that each such descendant on $[0,t]$ appears independently at rate $\lambda$. The second equation is a straight regeneration relation. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned} \varphi_k(s) &=& \frac{\lambda\wt\varphi_{k-1}(s)}{s} \quad k\ge 1, \\[0.2cm] \varphi_k(s) &=& \wt\varphi_k(s) + \varphi_k(s)sp^*(s),\end{aligned}$$ whence, since $\varphi_0(s)=1/s$, $$\varphi_k(s) = \frac{\lambda \bigl(1-sp^*(s)\bigr)\varphi_{k-1}(s)}{s}= \frac{\lambda^k\bigl(1-sp^*(s)\bigr)^k}{s^{k+1}} ,$$ and the result follows. We are now in a position to prove theorem \[thm.transientH\]. The proof is split into two parts, each one corresponding respectively to criteria *(i)* and *(ii)* of lemma \[ZERO-ONE\]. First we shall find the *largest* $c$, denoted by $c_{\text{inf}}$, ensuring criterion *(i)* of lemma \[ZERO-ONE\] is fulfilled. Applying the results of lemma \[lem.lapl\] and the inversion formula (\[LAP\]), we have $$\begin{aligned} {\mathsf{E}}[Y_n(n/c)] &=& \sum_{j=n}^\infty \frac{1}{2i\pi}\int_{\sigma-i\infty}^{\sigma+i\infty} \wt\varphi_j(s)e^{sn/c}ds \nonumber \\[0.2cm] &=&\frac{1}{2i\pi}\int_{\sigma-i\infty}^{\sigma+i\infty} \left[\frac{\lambda(1-sp^*(s))}{s}e^{s/c}\right]^n \frac{1-sp^*(s)}{s-\lambda(1-sp^*(s))}ds,\nonumber \\[0.2cm] &=& \frac{1}{2i\pi}\int_{\sigma-i\infty}^{\sigma+i\infty} \frac{e^{nb(s,c)}\,[1-sp^*(s)]} {s-\lambda(1-sp^*(s))}ds, \qquad\label{INTYn} \end{aligned}$$ in the region $\DD{\mathcal{U}}\egaldef \bigl\{\sigma>0,\ \sigma>\lambda (1-\sigma p^*(\sigma))\bigr\}$, where $b(s,c)$ has been defined in (\[BSC\]). When the system is ergodic, it is immediate to check the region ${\mathcal{U}}$ coincides with the complex half-plane $\Re (s)>0$. On the other hand, in the transient case, the equation $$s= \lambda(1-sp^*(s))$$ has exactly one root, which is real and belongs to the open interval $]0,\lambda[$. Computing the residues of the integral (\[INTYn\]) (by shifting the line of integration to the left, after analytic continuation of $p^*(s)$ to the region $\sigma =-\epsilon$, for some $\epsilon>0$) is a tedious task, in particular due to the pole of order $n$ at $s=0$. We will rather proceed by a kind of *saddle-point* approach (see e.g. [@FUC]). The form of the integrand in (\[INTYn\]) shows that, as $n\to\infty$, the boundedness of ${\mathsf{E}}[Y_n(n/c)]$, depends primarily on the value of the modulus of $b(s,c)$. In fact one can see precisely that ${\mathsf{E}}[Y_n(n/c)]$, for each fixed $c$, does not tend to zero iff the minimum of $b(s,c)$ is non-negative at any possible real saddle-point $s\in{\mathcal{U}}$, where $$\frac{\partial b(s,c)}{\partial s}=0, \quad s \in{\mathcal{U}}.$$ It follows that $c_{\text{inf}}$ is the unique real solution of the system $$\label{CC} b(s,c_{\text{inf}})= \frac{\partial b(s,c_{\text{inf}})}{\partial s}=0, \quad s\in{\mathcal{U}}.$$ Without presenting a detailed discussion, we shall simply stress that in the real plane $(s,y)$ the curves $$y=s/c \quad \text{and}\quad y= -\log \left[\frac{\lambda(1-sp^*(s))}{s}\right]$$ are tangent (resp. intersecting, non-intersecting) for $c=c_{\text{inf}}$ (resp. $c>c_{\text{inf}}$, $c<c_{\text{inf}}$). As for the second part of the theorem, the question is to find the value $c_{\text{sup}}$, equal to the smallest positive number $c$ satisfying criterion *(ii)* of lemma \[ZERO-ONE\], which implies the finiteness of the quantity $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{k=0}^\infty {\mathsf{E}}[X_{kn}(kn/c)] &=& \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{1}{2i\pi}\int_{\sigma-i\infty}^{\sigma+i\infty} \varphi_{kn}(s)e^{skn/c}ds \nonumber \\[0.2cm] &=& \frac{1}{2i\pi}\int_{\sigma-i\infty}^{\sigma+i\infty} \frac{ds}{s}\left[1-\left(\frac{\lambda(1-sp^*(s))}{s}e^{s/c}\right)^n \right]^{-1} \nonumber \\[0.2cm] &=& \frac{1}{2i\pi}\int_{\sigma-i\infty}^{\sigma+i\infty} \frac{ds}{s}\bigl[1-e^{nb(s,c)}\bigr]^{-1}, \qquad\label{INTXn} \end{aligned}$$ where (\[INTXn\]) holds in the region ${\mathcal{V}}\egaldef \bigl\{\sigma>0,\ \sigma> \lambda(1-\sigma p^*(\sigma)) e^{\sigma/c}\bigr\}$. Clearly, the existence of the last integral in (\[INTXn\]), as $n\to\infty$, amounts again to find the sign of $\Re (b(s,c))$, for $s\in{\mathcal{V}}$. Arguing exactly as above, one can find at once the equality $$c_{\text{sup}}=c_{\text{inf}}\egaldef\delta.$$ When the system is ergodic, $\lim_{s\to 0} b(s,c)= \log \lambda m = \log r \le 0$, which yields $\delta=0$ as might be expected. The proof of the theorem is concluded. As a by-product, we state the following corollary, of which the almost sure convergence part has been derived in [@DEV; @PIT] through different and less terse methods. \[MU0\] In the pure birth case $\mu=0$, almost surely and in $L_1$, $$\label{eq:MU0} \lim_{t\to\infty} \frac{H(t)}{t} = \lambda e .$$ Instantiating equation (\[Xn\]) in criteria *(i)* and *(ii)* of lemma \[ZERO-ONE\] yields directly the first part of (\[eq:MU0\]). On the other hand, it is immediate to check that the function ${\mathsf{E}}H(t)$ is superadditive (this would be not true for $\mu\ne0$), namely $${\mathsf{E}}H(s+t) \geq {\mathsf{E}}H(s) + {\mathsf{E}}H(t),$$ so that, by a variant of Kingman’s theorem (see [@KAL]), the limit $\DD\lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{{\mathsf{E}}H(t)}{t}$ does exist. Then the convergence in $L_{1}$ will follow if one can show $${\mathsf{E}}H(t)\le At , \quad \forall t>0,$$ for some positive constant $A$. Using the obvious inequality $${\mathsf{P}}\{H(t)\ge k\}={\mathsf{P}}\{X_k(t)>0\}\le {\mathsf{E}}X_k(t),$$ we can write $${\mathsf{E}}H(t)=\sum_{k=1}^\infty {\mathsf{P}}\{H(t)\ge k\} \le \sum_{k=1}^{k_0} 1 + \sum_{k=k_0+1}^\infty \frac{(\lambda t)^k}{k!}.$$ Then, taking $k_0=\lceil \lambda et \rceil$ and using Stirling’s formula, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} {\mathsf{E}}H(t) &\le & k_0+\frac{(\lambda t)^{k_0+1}}{(k_0+1)!} \sum_{k=0}^\infty\Bigl(\frac{\lambda t}{k_0+1}\Bigr)^k \le \lambda et+\frac{(\lambda t)^{\lambda et+1}} {(\lambda t)^{\lambda et}\sqrt{2\pi \lambda et}} \frac{e}{e-1}\\ &\le& \lambda et + \frac{\sqrt{\lambda et}}{\sqrt{2\pi}(e-1)}.\end{aligned}$$ Extension to the multiclass case {#MULTI} ================================ The extension of the results of section \[DELETE\] to models encompassing several classes of vertices is very tempting, although not quite evident. We solve hereafter a case where the birth and death parameters depend on classes in a reasonably general way. Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be a finite set of classes. Then the multiclass Markov chain $G_{\mathcal{C}}$ has the following evolution. - At any given vertex of class $c$, a new edge of class $c'\in{\mathcal{C}}$ can be added at the epochs of a Poisson process with parameter $\lambda_{cc'}\geq0$. - Any leaf attached to an edge of class $c'$ and having an ancestor of class $c$ can be deleted at rate $\mu_{cc'}>0$. - The root $v_0$ of the tree belongs to class $c\in{\mathcal{C}}$, say with probability $\pi_c$, with $\sum_{c\in{\mathcal{C}}}\pi_c=1$, albeit these probabilities will not really matter in our analysis. Let $p_{cc'}$ be the lifetime distribution of a vertex of class $c'$ which descend from a vertex of class $c$. Also, $X_c(t)$ will denote the distribution of the number of direct descendants of a vertex of class $c$. The following lemma is the analogous of lemma \[SYS\]. The lifetime distributions $p_{cc'}$, $c,c'\in{\mathcal{C}}$ satisfy the following set of equations. $$\begin{aligned} {\mathsf{P}}\{X_c(t)=0\} &=& \exp\Bigl\{-\sum_{c'\in{\mathcal{C}}}\lambda_{cc'} \int_0^t(1-p_{cc'}(x))dx\Bigr\} \label{eq.alphaexp},\\ {\mathsf{P}}\{X_{c}(t)=0\} &=& \frac{1}{\mu_{bc}}\frac{dp_{bc}(t)}{dt} +\int_0^t{\mathsf{P}}\{X_c(t-y)=0\} dp_{bc}(y),\ \forall b\in{\mathcal{C}}, \nonumber \\ \label{eq.alphareg}\end{aligned}$$ with the initial conditions $p_{cc'}(0)=0, \forall c, c'\in{\mathcal{C}}$. Details are omitted, as it suffices to mimic the proof of lemma \[SYS\]. Note however that the dependency with respect to $c'$ disappears surprisingly enough in (\[eq.alphareg\]). Indeed, while the lifetime of a vertex depends on the class of its direct ascendant, the distribution of the number of its descendants merely depends on its own class. In the setting of this section, it is actually not easy to come up with a natural explicit extension of theorem \[TH2\]. However, the following theorem provides a necessary and sufficient condition for ergodicity. The following notation will be useful in the theorem: $$\begin{aligned} \rho_{cc'}&\egaldef&\frac{\lambda_{cc'}}{\mu_{cc'}},\ \forall c, c'\in{\mathcal{C}}\\ \rho_c&\egaldef&\sum_{c'\in{\mathcal{C}}}\rho_{cc'},\ \forall c\in{\mathcal{C}}.\end{aligned}$$ We will also denote by $\rho\ge0$ the Perron-Frobenius eigenvalue (see [@GAN]) of the non-negative matrix $\bigl(\rho_{cc'}\bigr)_{c,c'\in{\mathcal{C}}}$. \[th-MULTI\] 1. \[item.ergomulti\] The Markov chain $G_{\mathcal{C}}$ is ergodic if, and only if, the nonlinear system $$\label{eq.rc} y_c =\sum_{d\in{\mathcal{C}}}\rho_{cd} \,\exp\{y_d\},\ \forall c\in{\mathcal{C}},$$ has at least one real-valued (and obviously non-negative) solution. In this case, the mean lifetime of a vertex of class $c$ with an ascendant of class $b$ can be written as $$\label{eq.mc} m_{bc} = \frac{1}{\mu_{bc}}\exp\{r_c\}\,,$$ where the $r_c$ form the smallest solution of (\[eq.rc\]), that is $r_c\leq y_c$, $\forall c\in{\mathcal{C}}$. Note that (\[eq.rc\]) implies that $r_c\geq \rho_c$. 2. \[item.ergomulti.suf\] A simple sufficient condition for ergodicity is $$\label{eq.ergomulti.suf} \rho_c\leq\frac{1}{e},\ \forall c\in{\mathcal{C}}$$ in which case $r_c\leq \rho_c e$. 3. \[item.ergomulti.nec\] A simple necessary condition for ergodicity is $$\label{eq.ergomulti.nec} \rho \leq\frac{1}{e}.$$ #### Remark Before stating the proof of the theorem, it is worth pointing out that equation (\[eq.rc\]) may in general have several real solutions (as in dimension $1$). Therefore, there is no guarantee that the solution $y_c$ is the correct one. However, its sole existence proves ergodicity and (\[eq.mc\]). Assume first that $G_{\mathcal{C}}$ is ergodic. Then, as in theorem \[TH2\], we let $t\to\infty$ in (\[eq.alphaexp\])–(\[eq.alphareg\]) to obtain the relation $$\frac{1}{\mu_{bc} m_{bc}} = \exp\Bigl\{-\sum_{c'\in{\mathcal{C}}}\lambda_{cc'}m_{cc'}\Bigr\},$$ which in its turn yields (\[eq.rc\]) and (\[eq.mc\]), just choosing $$y_c = r_c \egaldef\sum_{c'\in{\mathcal{C}}}\lambda_{cc'}m_{cc'}.$$ As for the proof of sufficiency in item \[item.ergomulti\], we introduce the following modified version of scheme (\[ITE\]): $$\label{eq.itemulti} \begin{cases} p_{cc';0}(t) & = 1,\ t\ge0 \,, \\[0.2cm] \alpha_{c;k+1} (t) & = \ \DD\exp\Bigl\{-\sum_{c'\in{\mathcal{C}}}\lambda_{cc'} \int_0^t\bigl(1-p_{cc';k}(y)\bigr)dy\Bigr\},\ k\ge 0, \\[0.4cm] \alpha_{c;k}(t) & = \ \DD\frac{1}{\mu_{bc}}\frac{dp_{bc;k}(t)}{dt} + \int_0^t\alpha_{c;k}(t-y)dp_{bc;k}(y),\ k\ge1,\\[0.3cm] p_{cc';k}(0) & = \ 0, \ k \ge 1\,. \end{cases}$$ Then, for any $b,c\in{\mathcal{C}}$, we have $$\alpha_{c;1}(t) = 1 \quad\mbox{and}\quad p_{bc;1}(t) = 1-e^{-\mu_{bc}t}\ \leq\ p_{bc;0}(t).$$ Here again, the positive sequences $\{p_{cc';k}(t);k\geq 0\}$ and $\{\alpha_{c;k}(t); k\geq 0\}$ are uniformly bounded and non-increasing, for each fixed $t>0$. Consequently, $$p_{cc'}(t) = {\mathop{\mathrm{lim}\scriptstyle\searrow}\limits}_{k\to\infty} p_{cc';k}(t) \quad \textrm{and} \quad \alpha_c(t) = {\mathop{\mathrm{lim}\scriptstyle\searrow}\limits}_{k\to\infty} \alpha_{c;k}(t)$$ form the unique solution of (\[eq.alphaexp\])–(\[eq.alphareg\]), uniqueness resulting from the Lipschitz character of equation (\[eq.alphareg\]). Letting $m_{cc';k}$ denote the finite mean associated with each distribution $p_{cc';k}$ and $$r_{c;k} \egaldef \sum_{c'\in{\mathcal{C}}} \lambda_{cc'}m_{cc';k} \,,$$ we can write the following recursive equation $$r_{c;k+1}=\sum_{c'\in{\mathcal{C}}}\rho_{cc'}\exp\{r_{c';k}\},\ \forall c\in{\mathcal{C}}.$$ The $p_{cc';k}$’s are decreasing sequences, and hence the $r_{c;k}$’s are non-decreasing, with $r_{c;0}=0, \forall c\in {\mathcal{C}}$. If (\[eq.rc\]) has a solution, then the relation $$r_{c;k+1} - y_c \,=\, \sum_{c'\in{\mathcal{C}}}\rho_{cc'}\bigl[\exp\{r_{c';k}\}-\exp\{y_{c'}\}\bigr]$$ yields $r_{c;k}\leq y_c$, for all $c\in{\mathcal{C}}$. Therefore, each sequence $r_{c;k}$ converges as $k\to\infty$ to a finite value $r_c\leq y_c$, and $G_{\mathcal{C}}$ is ergodic since, by (\[eq.mc\]), the $m_{cc'}$’s are also finite. When (\[eq.ergomulti.suf\]) holds, the same line of argument shows that the sequences $r_{c;k}$ are non-decreasing and bounded from above by $\rho_c e$. Finally, to prove (\[eq.ergomulti.nec\]), we use the following inequality (see [@GAN]), valid for any $x_c>0$, $c\in{\mathcal{C}}$: $$\rho \leq \max_{c\in{\mathcal{C}}} \sum_{c'\in{\mathcal{C}}} \frac{\rho_{cc'}x_{c'}}{x_c}.$$ When the $r_c$’s satisfy (\[eq.rc\]), the choice $x_c=\exp\{r_c\}$ implies $$\rho \leq \max_{c\in{\mathcal{C}}} \biggl[\sum_{c'\in{\mathcal{C}}} \rho_{cc'}\exp\{r_{c'}\}\exp\{-r_c\}\biggr] = \max_{c\in{\mathcal{C}}} \Bigl[r_c \exp\{-r_c\}\Bigr] \leq \frac{1}{e},$$ which concludes the proof of the theorem. It is possible to extend the results of section \[DISTRIBUTIONS\] to the multiclass case. We will only sketch the proofs in what follows, since they are very similar to their single class counterparts. At time $t>0$, let $N_{cd}(t)$ be the number of vertices of class $d$ inside a tree, the root of which is of class $c$. Then, as in proof of theorem \[thm.lawN\], if $z_{c}$ is a complex number such that $|z_{c}|<1$, $\forall c\in{\mathcal{C}}$, $${\mathsf{E}}\Bigl[\prod_{d\in{\mathcal{C}}}z_{d}^{N_{cd}(t)}\Bigr] = z_c \exp\biggl\{\sum_{c'\in{\mathcal{C}}}\lambda_{cc'} {\mathsf{E}}\Bigl[\int_0^t \Bigl(\prod_{d\in{\mathcal{C}}}z_{d}^{N_{c'd}(x)}-1\Bigr) {{\leavevmode\hbox{\rm \small1\kern-0.35em\normalsize1}}_{\{x\leq\tau_{cc'}\}}}dx\Bigr]\biggr\}$$ Assume the system is ergodic, let $N_{cd}\egaldef \lim_{t\to\infty}N_{cd}(t)$ and $$\phi_c(\vec{z})\egaldef {\mathsf{E}}\Bigl[\prod_{d\in{\mathcal{C}}}z_{d}^{N_{cd}}\Bigr].$$ Then computations similar to the ones in theorem \[thm.lawN\] yield $$\label{eq.lawNc} \phi_c(\vec{z})=z_c\exp\biggl\{\sum_{c'\in{\mathcal{C}}}\lambda_{cc'}m_{cc'} (\phi_{c'}(\vec{z})-1)\biggr\},\ c\in{\mathcal{C}}.$$ Unfortunately, no closed form solution is known for $\phi_c$ from this equation. It is however possible, as for (\[eq.meanN\]), to write down a system of equations for the expectations of the $N_{cd}$’s. $${\mathsf{E}}\bigl[N_{cd}\bigr] = {{\leavevmode\hbox{\rm \small1\kern-0.35em\normalsize1}}_{\{c=d\}}}+\sum_{c'\in{\mathcal{C}}}\rho_{cc'}\exp\{r_{c'}\}{\mathsf{E}}\bigl[N_{c'd}\bigr].$$ This system admits of a non-negative matrix solution if, and only if, the Perron-Frobenius eigenvalue of the matrix $$M\egaldef\Bigl(\rho_{cc'}\exp\{r_{c'}\}\Bigr)_{c, c'\in{\mathcal{C}}}$$ is smaller than $1$. A simple necessary condition for this to hold is (\[eq.ergomulti.suf\]). Finally, the same line of argument allows to extend (\[eq.lawH\]). If $H_c$ is the height in stationary regime of a tree which root is of class $c\in{\mathcal{C}}$, then $$\begin{aligned} {\mathsf{P}}\{H_c= 0\} & = & e^{-r_c} , \\ {\mathsf{P}}\{H_c> h+1\} & = & 1-\exp\biggl[-\sum_{c'\in{\mathcal{C}}}\rho_{cc'}\exp\{r_{c'}\} {\mathsf{P}}\{H_{c'}> h\}\biggr], \quad \forall h \ge 0 \,.\end{aligned}$$ The authors thank V.A. Malyshev for bringing the single-class problem to their attention and Th. Deneux for skillful and useful numerical experiments. They also want to thank the anonymous referee for his (her) careful reading of the manuscript. [25]{} <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">N. G. de Bruijn</span> (1961) *Asymptotic Methods in Analysis*, North-Holland, second edition. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">H. Cartan</span> (1977) *Cours de calcul différentiel*, Hermann, Collection Méthodes. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">F. Delcoigne and G. Fayolle</span> (1999) Thermodynamical limit and propagation of chaos in polling systems, *Markov Processes and Related Fields*, 5 (1), pp. 89–124. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">L. Devroye</span> (1987) Branching processes in the analysis of the height of trees, *Acta Informatica*, 24, pp. 277–298. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">G. Fayolle and M. Krikun</span> (2002) Growth rate and ergodicity conditions for a class of random trees, *Mathematics and Computer Science II*, Birkhaüser Verlag Basel/Switzerland. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">W. Feller</span> (1971) *An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications*, Vol. I and II, Wiley. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">B. A Fuchs and V. I. Levin</span> (1961) *Functions of a Complex Variable*, Vol. II, Pergamon Press. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">F. R. Gantmacher</span> (1960) *The Theory of Matrices*, Vol. II, Chelsea Publishing Company. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">I.S. Gradshteyn and I.M Ryzhik</span> (1980) *Table of Integrals, Series, and Products*, Academic Press, corrected and enlarged edition. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">O. Kallenberg</span> (2001) *Foundations of Modern Probability*, Springer, Probability and its Applications. (2000) Height of a random tree, [*Markov Processes and Related Fields*]{}, 6 (2), pp. 135–146. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">M. Kuczma</span> (1968) *Functional Equations in a Single Variable*, Polska Akademia Nauk, 46, Warszawa. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">T. M. Liggett</span> (2000) Monotonicity of conditional distributions and growth models on trees, *The Annals of Probability*, 28 (4), pp. 1645–1665. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">H. M. Mahmoud</span> (1992) *Evolution of Random Search Trees*, Wiley-Intersciences Series. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">B. Pittel</span> (1994) Note on the heights of random recursive trees and random $m$-ary search trees *Random Structures and Algorithms*, 5, pp. 337–347. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A. L. Puha</span> (1999) A reversible nearest particle system on the homogeneous tree, *Journal of Theoretical Probability*, 12 (1), pp. 217–253. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">R. Sedgewick, Ph. Flajolet</span> (1996) *An Introduction to the Analysis of Algorithms*, Addison-Wesley. [^1]: J.-M. Lasgouttes worked partly on the present study while spending a sabbatical at EURANDOM in Eindhoven. [^2]: `[email protected]` – INRIA – Domaine de Voluceau, Rocquencourt BP 105, 78153 Le Chesnay Cedex, France [^3]: `[email protected]` – Laboratory of Large Random Systems – Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Moscow State University, 119899, Moscow, Russia [^4]: `[email protected]` – INRIA – Domaine de Voluceau, Rocquencourt BP 105, 78153 Le Chesnay Cedex, France. [^5]: J.-M. Lasgouttes worked partly on the present study while spending a sabbatical at EURANDOM in Eindhoven.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'The prediction of ferromagnetism at room temperature in Co-ZnO thin films has generated a large interest in the community due to the possible applications. However, the results are controversial, going from ferromagnetism to non-ferromagnetism, leading to a large debate about its origin (secondary phase, Co clusters or not). By carefully studying the micro-structure of various Co-ZnO films, we show that the Co$^{2+}$ partly substitutes the ZnO wurtzite matrix without forming Co clusters.Surprisingly, the ferromagnetism nature of the films disappears as the Co content increases[**.**]{} In addition, our results suggest that the observed ferromagnetism is likely associated to a large amount of defects- close to the interface and strongly depending on the growth temperature- which may explained the spreading of the results.' author: - 'A. Fouchet' - 'W. Prellier[^1]' - 'B. Mercey' title: 'Influence of the microstructure on the magnetism of Co-doped ZnO thin films.' --- Introduction ============ Recently, Diluted Magnetic Semiconductors (DMS)[@DMS1; @DMS2; @DMS3; @DMS3b] have become a very attractive subject due to the possibility of room temperature ferromagnetism in wide–band gap oxides.[@WidBand] Such materials might be integrated into semiconductors devices opening the route to spin-electronic technology at high temperature. First reports were dedicated to the cobalt-doped ZnO,[@CoZnO2] and TiO$_2$,[@DMS2; @CoTiO1] and the manganese-doped ZnO.[@MnZnO] Following these results, many materials showing ferromagnetism have been isolated so far.[@F; @F5; @F15; @F16] Surprisingly, other reports did not evidence any ferromagnetism in the compounds [@NoFM; @NoFM1; @NoFM2; @NoFM7] especially when made in bulk materials,[@NoFM3] which has led to a hot debate about the origin of ferromagnetism in these materials. In particular, it is not clear whether ferromagnetism is originated from clusters,[@Clusters; @clusters1; @clusters2] secondary phases [@Second] or it is an intrinsic phenomenon.[@Int2a; @Int1] Thus, it is important to answer the following questions: - why are there so many non-reproducible reports? - why is ferromagnetism relatively independent of the dopant and its concentration?[@Int1] - is the ferromagnetism intrinsic in Co-doped ZnO films? During the last 5 years, several theoretical predictions raised the possibility of ferromagnetism with Curie temperature (T$_C$) above room temperature in $3d$-transition-metal-doped ZnO. Dietl [*et al.*]{}[@DMS1] suggested that wide band gap semiconductors are candidates for a high T$_C$ and a large magnetization when 5% Mn is substituted into $p$-type \[10$^{20}$cm$^{-3}$\]. Using $ab$-initio band structure calculation, Sato [*et al.*]{}[@DMS4] predicted a stabilization of the ferromagnetic state in $3d$-transition metal doped ZnO. Recently, Coey [*et al.*]{}[@Int1] proposed a model for high temperature ferromagnetism in dilute $n$-type magnetic semiconductor. This model is based on the formation of bound polaron magnetic mediated by shallow donor electrons. &gt;From these different theories and the experimental results, it appears that the role of defects is important.[@Bouzenar] Different scenarios are thusly possible. First, the presence of oxygen vacancies or interstitial zinc possibly result in an increase of the conductivity since they may create donor electrons.[@Int1] Second, a large amount of cationic defect or excess of dopant can also lead to cluster or secondary phases. In addition, the defects might come from the growth techniques and the conditions used (temperature, oxygen pressure).[@DMS3b] The spreading of the results by the different groups probably comes from the strong influence of the deposition parameters on the structure which is correlated to the magnetic properties. In order to elucidate the origin of ferromagnetism and answer some of these questions, we have first undertaken a detailed microstructural analysis using transmission electron microscopy on the host matrix, ZnO, grown at various temperature. Second, we have correlated the magnetic properties and the microstructure of a series of cobalt-doped ZnO films. Third, we find the experimental tendency that the presence of defects in Co-ZnO films is necessary for the observation of room temperature ferromagnetism. Finally, we turn to an interpretation based on theoretical model. Experimental ============ The ZnO and Co-ZnO films were grown utilizing the pulsed laser deposition technique (Lambda Physik, KrF laser $\lambda =248$ $nm$)[@PLD] by firing the laser alternatively on a zinc metal target (99.995 $\%$) and on a cobalt metal target (99.995 $\%$). These target were purchased (NEYCO, France) and were used without further preparation. All films are deposited on (0001)-oriented Al$_2$O$_3$ substrates at a constant temperature under a flux of pure oxygen gas. Typical thickness of the films is about 300nm.The structural study was done by X-Ray diffraction (XRD) using a Seifert XRD 3000P for the $\Theta -2\Theta $ scans and the $\omega $-scan (tilting) with (Cu, K$\alpha 1$ radiation $\lambda =0.15406$ $nm$). The electron diffraction (ED) and electron microscopy observations were performed on JEOL 2011FEG electron microscope (tilt $\pm 45{{}^{\circ }}$) equipped with Energy Dispersive Spectrometer (EDS) analyzer. This microscope is also fitted with a Scanning Transmission Electron Microscope equipment (STEM) to carry out high resolution scanning electron microscopy or EDS cartography. The resistivity measurements were measured in a Physical Properties Measurements System (PPMS) Quantum Design. Silver electrodes were deposited by thermal evaporation through a mask and contact between thin film and sample holder were realized with ultrasonic bonding (wire of Al-Si 99/1). The magnetization measurements were collected using a superconducting quantum interference device based magnetometer SQUID (Quantum Design MPMS-5). Results ======= Temperature-dependance of the microstructure of ZnO films --------------------------------------------------------- Before understanding the magnetic properties of the cobalt-doped ZnO, a study of the influence of the deposition parameters on microstructure of the host matrix, ZnO, was performed. For this, the structural quality of a series of ZnO films grown under different growth conditions was investigated. One of the main deposition parameter is the substrate temperature (which is known to be of the most important parameter)[@JAPArnaud] and the films were investigated using the XRD. Out-of-plane lattice parameter close 0.518 nm was obtained in the temperature range 500-700 ${{}^{\circ }}C$, in agreement with the expected one.[@bulkvalue] In addition, the rocking curve recorded around the (0002) reflection measured for the films grown at 500, 600 and 700 ${{}^{\circ }}C$ are 0.4, 0.25 and 0.32${^{\circ }}$[, respectively. Such values are commonly obtained for an oxide thin film and reflect, at least from these measurements, an average good crystallinity of the overall film (the instrument resolution is close to 0.2]{}${{}^\circ}$)[. ]{}This means that, using a routine XRD analysis, there is no noticeable change and indicates that the subtle differences can only be seen with deeper analysis such as asymmetrical XRD or optical measurements.[@JAPArnaud] To complete this analysis at such atomic scale, a microstructural analysis using transmission electron microscopy (TEM) was undertaken. Figure 1 (a) and (b) show typical TEM images of two films grown at 600 and 700${{}^{\circ }}C$, respectively. The corresponding selected area diffraction are also presented. The images show a good crystallinity of the films. More precisely, the electron diffraction patterns (inset of Fig.1a, 1b) reveal two interesting features. First, the ED patterns reveal 6 spots as expected from a wurtzite structure (in agreement with the XRD)[@JAPArnaud] and a film oriented with the $c$-axis perpendicular to the plane of the substrate. Second, the spots are well defined for the film at 700 ${% {}^{\circ }}C$ but some broadening or parasite spots can be observed for the film grown at 600 ${{}^{\circ }}C$. This suggests that the film is less crystallized when the temperature of the substrate is decreased, in agreement with our previous reports.[@JAPArnaud] Note that the decrease of the crystalline quality with temperature is confirmed by the analysis of the films deposited at a temperature lower than 600 ${{}^{\circ }}C$ (not shown).  Furthermore, Fig.1c shows a plane view of the interfacial area between the film and the substrate of a film grown at 700 ${{}^{\circ }}C$. In this picture a ”moiré” contrast, resulting from the superimposition of the two lattices, is observed. The Fourier transform from this part of the image (insert of Fig.1c) clearly shows that the two lattices are slightly misoriented (about 1${{}^{\circ }}$). However this result raises the understanding of the misorientation of 30${{}^{\circ }}$ between the film and the substrate already observed by the XRD.[@JAPArno1] In order to explain such a discrepancy, two features can be put forward. Firstly, this picture shows only the early stage of the growth, i.e. the first few cells grew on top of the substrate. The array of the oxygen atoms of the sapphire substrate, provides a good template to accommodate the first zinc ad-atoms despite the large difference between the lattice parameters of the two structures (lattice mismatch 16 %).[@LMismatch] Secondly, when the thicker layers are grown, the lattice mismatch between the two structures plays the most important role and the cell of the film will rotate in order to accommodate this large mismatch. The thickness of this ”accommodation layer” depends on the temperature of the growth. In others words, this ”accommodation layer” is thin when the temperature is high whereas the ”accommodation layer” is thick at a lower temperature. Such result is in agreement with Ashkenov [*et al*]{}. where a very thin nucleation layer (2-3 monolayers) with no cracks is observed on top of the Al$_2$O$_3$ substrate for a ZnO film grown at high temperature (800 ${{}^{\circ }}C$).[@nucleation; @layer] Since the crystallinity of the film grown at 700 ${{}^{\circ }}C$ is higher than the one at 600 ${{}^{\circ }}C$, we have chosen to look only at a less crystallized film (i.e. 600 ${{}^{\circ }}C$) and its evolution along the $c$-axis direction. Different areas of a film grown at 600 ${{}^{\circ }}C$ were thusly observed. Figure 2 shows the electron diffraction patterns of this film, close to the surface (Fig.2 (a)) and close to the interface (Fig.2 (d)) and in between (Fig.2 (b) and (c)). When considering at the evolution of the ED patterns, it is clear that the 6 well defined peaks, close to the surface becomes a series of two rings, indicating a poor crystallization close to the interface. These diffraction images show that the film shows a gradient of crystallinity from the interface to the surface which is mostly due to the important lattice mismatch between the substrate and the film. However, we have noticed that such effect is enhanced when decreasing the temperature of the substrate. In other words, the less crystallized layer of the film close to the interface is increased when the temperature of deposition is decreased. It is also important to note that the polycrystalline layers close to the interface can not be observed with the standard XRD characterizations. Thus, it is necessary to perform microstructural measurements because it gives a local characterization whereas the XRD measurements give only an idea of the average crystallinity of the film. To explain the divergence of the 30${{}^{\circ }}$ rotation observed by XRD measurements between the two lattices and the ”moiré” with a tilting of 1${{}^{\circ }}$ at the interface observed by HRTEM, the lattice mismatch must also be taken into account. To summarize, the large strain induces the formation of a buffer layer at the interface, which can be polycrystalline. However, it can be reduced by an increasing of the deposition temperature (see above). This means that a stabilization of the structure with a rotation of the film parameters of 30${% {}^{\circ }}$ compared to the substrate is favoring by the increasing of the substrate temperature. Moreover, the use of high temperature increases the mobility of the ad-atoms and the size of the ZnO crystallites.[@JAPArnaud] We believe that this is an explanation of the difference observed in the literature of Co-doped ZnO films as detailed hereafter. To confirm this, we have undertaken similar microstructural study of Co-doped ZnO film, following the same approach. Temperature-dependance of the microstructure of Co-doped ZnOfilms ----------------------------------------------------------------- ### The case of 1.66 % Co A low cobalt concentration (1.66 %) has been chosen in agreement with previous results because for such a composition, the presence of a secondary phase in the film is unlikely. The dependance of the magnetic properties on the growth conditions of a Co-ZnO film was analyzed. The films were grown at different deposition temperatures (500, 600 and 700 ${{}^{\circ }}C$) and the pressure of oxygen was varying from 0.05 to 0.15 $Torr$. As seen previously, the temperature tunes the crystallinity of the film. The oxygen pressure influences the resistivity with the creation of oxygen non-stoichiometry or intersticial zinc. Furthermore the study of the resistivity of the film could help us to understand the cause of the magnetic properties in the films. By looking at the series of films, we find a tendency: the films are non-ferromagnetic when grown at 700 ${{}^{\circ }}C$ and are all ferromagnetic when deposited at 500 ${{}^{\circ }}C$ whatever the oxygen pressure is. This is evidenced in Figure 3, where the film synthesized at 500 ${{}^{\circ }}C$ displays an hysteresis loop in the ($M-H$) curve with a saturation value of 1.35 $emu/cm^3$ (corresponding to a saturation magnetization, $M_S=0.3$ $\mu _{{\bf B}}/Co$) and a coercive field of $% \approx $100 $Oe$ (see inset of Fig. 3). A Curie temperature slightly above 300K is also observed on the $M(T)$ curve, confirming the ferromagnetic behavior.. Below 50 $K$, a rapid increase of the magnetization is also observed. This paramagnetic contribution might be due to the low concentration of Co ions in the film which are not coupled to each other.[@JHKim] On the contrary, the film deposited at a higher temperature (700${{}^{\circ }}C$) does not show any hysteresis loop and its magnetization is close to zero. The situation is more complicated for the films grown at an intermediate temperature (for example at 600${}$ ${^{\circ }}C$). Indeed, these films can display a ferromagnetic (as seen in a previous report)[@JAPArno1] or a paramagnetic behavior. However, we have not be able to find a precise correlation between the observed magnetic behavior and the growth conditions of the films deposited at 600 ${{}^{\circ }}C$. This indicates some lack of reproducibility which is more important at this temperature because 600 ${{}^{\circ }}C$ is an intermediate temperature between the two regions, and thus a very sensitive one.[@NonRepro1; @NonRepro2] To summarize, this study demonstrates first, the importance of temperature growth on the magnetic properties.[@ZnOTemp] Second, the variation of oxygen pressure at a fixed temperature does not show any influence on the magnetic measurements: a magnetic transition is observed around 300 $K$ for all the films grown at 500${}$ ${^{\circ }}C$. Resistivity measurements show that the values at 300 $K$ are 0.86 $\Omega .cm$ and 387 $% \Omega .cm.$ for the film grown at 0.05 Torr and 0.15 $Torr$, respectively. The rocking curve is constant to a value around 0.43${{}^{\circ }}$, close to the instrumental limit of 0.15${{}^{\circ }}$ and the one of the Al$_2$O$% _3$ substrate of 0.2${{}^\circ}$. This indicates that the oxygen pressure does not have a strong influence on the average crystallinity of the film.[** **]{}The inhomogeneity in the transport measurements compared to the constant value Curie temperature confirms the independence of the number of carriers on the magnetic properties, in contradiction with previous reports.[@DMS1; @F] The presence of ferromagnetic or ferrimagnetic Co-based phases can also be excluded [*a priori*]{}, due to the low concentration of cobalt since it is difficult to believe that a small amount of Co will lead to a magnetic phase that is not observed neither in XRD measurements nor in HRTEM analysis. Furthermore, the shape of the $M(T)$ curve does not exhibit superparamagnetic behavior with a blocking temperature, but a well defined Curie transition which means that there is not individual domains of elements that have ferromagnetic properties.[@SuperPara] Anyway, these results indicate a correlation between the crystallinity of the film and their magnetic properties. Surprisingly, an ill crystallize films (rocking curve around 0.4-0.5${{}^{\circ }}$) always leads to a ferromagnetic transition whereas a highly crystallized one (rocking curve around 0.26-0.3${% {}^{\circ }}$ for the films grown at 700 ${{}^{\circ }}C$) is rarely ferromagnetic. Thus, we think that a large number of defects is necessary to observe the ferromagnetic properties which will be discuss later.[@defects] ### Variation with Co content Similar kind of study was done keeping the oxygen pressure to 0.1 Torr (since it is not influencing the magnetic characteristics) but varying the Co concentration from 5 to 10 %, and changing the deposition temperature between 500 and 700 ${{}^{\circ }}C$. The results show that only the film grown at 500 ${{}^{\circ }}C$ with 5 % of Co doping exhibit a (weak) magnetic signal with a magnetization of 0.1 $emu/cm^3$ (under a magnetic field of 100 $Oe$) , while the film at 10 % cobalt is paramagnetic. In addition, transport measurements revealed that all films are highly resistive with a value at 300 $K$ of 350 $\Omega .cm$ for the film at 5 % and, more than 450 $\Omega .cm$ for the film with 10 % of Co. This confirms the previous study[@CoZnO2] where the crystallinity was decreasing with the concentration of cobalt in the film and leads to the creation of acceptors, increasing the resistivity of the film. In order to confirm the relations between magnetism and defects, two films at high (10 %) and low Co-doping (1.66 %) were analyzed by TEM (Figure 4). Fig.4 (a) shows a cross section TEM of a film having 10 % of Co. At the interface, a difference of crystallinity between the substrate and the film is seen. Furthermore, the diffraction pattern of this part shows a well aligned diffraction peaks assimilate to the substrate with a c-axis perpendicular to the interface. The film presents different rings, clearly showing the polycrystalline nature of the structure close to the interface. Different ED analysis performed on several areas of the film showed that the crystallinity is increased when approaching the surface. Fig. 4 (b) shows similar images for a 1.6 % Co-doped films. Despite a good crystal quality showed also by ED, some defects can be observed. In the insert of figure 4 (b) is zoomed a tilt of the structure of 60${{}^{\circ }}$. This analysis at the atomic scale (few nm) must show the presence of any clusters having a size of minimum 6 nm to be seen by HRTEM.[@clusterTEM] This investigation was carried out on a high number of different crystals for both films, but no clusters have been detected and cobalt seems to have a good dilution in the matrix. An analysis with STEM also confirms the good distribution of the cobalt in ZnO. Discussion ========== Close to the substrate interface, the crystallinity of the film influenced by the growth temperature and the Co content, is not satisfactory or at least, not as good as in the upper layers: a low substrate temperature leads to a high disorder of the Co-doped ZnO film. This is due to the large lattice mismatch between the film and the substrate. The effect of the temperature can be well understood by the increase of kinetic energy of the particles at the surface of the film, which improves the crystallinity and, consequently decreases the number of defects.[@Revue; @ZnO][** **]{}For this reason, Saeki [*et al*]{}. have used a ZnO buffer layer to improve the quality of the Co-ZnO films. However, in that case a post-annealing was necessary to obtain a ferromagnetism behavior in the film since in the as-grown the Co-ZnO is antiferromagnetic.[@NonRepro1] In the present study, it has been showed that in order to get a ferromagnetic film at 300 $K$, a low Co concentration [*and*]{} a low growth temperature are required. If the Co concentration is larger than 5 %, then the magnetization becomes negligible. Thus, despite the disorder increasing in the structure with the amount of cobalt,[@JAPArno1] the magnetization shows a paramagnetic behavior. Furthermore, the formation of any clusters or second phases was [*a priori*]{} minimized because of the particular deposition technique which is alternative deposition. This process indeed favors the dispersion of the cobalt inside the structure. For this, two metallic targets are held on a carrousel. The laser, using the rotation of the two targets, fired on the zinc followed by the cobalt target. For example, to obtain 5 % cobalt doped film, it is necessary to fire 19 pulses on Zn target and then 1 pulse on the Co target. The deposition rate is close to 0.052 $nm/pulse$. Thus, one cobalt pulse is sandwiched between 2 ZnO layers made up 19 pulses each. It is unlikely that the quantity of cobalt between two layers of ZnO is sufficient to create some cobalt clusters. Furthermore, a gradient of diffusion (due to the temperature of the substrate) will appear, favoring the migration and the dilution of cobalt in the ZnO structure. A low growth temperature unlikely decreases the Co diffusion, and might induce the presence of Co-rich phases (i.e. Co clusters or secondary phases). These phases can lead to ferromagnetism or ferrimagnetism behaviors. Such result might explain the similarity between the films grown at 500${{}^{\circ }}C$ under various oxygen pressure. However, based on the XRD and the HRTEM no Co-rich phases have been evidenced and, this model can not explain the antiferromagnetic behavior at high Co concentration. Another possible explanation for the observation of ferromagnetic is as follow, depending on the crystallinity and the Co concentration. At low doping, the short interactions mechanisms like superexchange and Zener double-exchange interaction can be avoided, because of the low probability to have two cobalt neighbor atoms. At longer range ferromagnetic exchange, the $RKKY$ model can be also avoided due to the $n$-type behavior of ZnO and the low number of carriers in the films. Thus, these models can not be used to explain the ferromagnetism. We believe that the recent model of the bound magnetic polaron used in the $n$-type semiconductors by shallow donors is more appropriate.[@Int1] In this model, Coey [*et al*]{}. utilized the general formula for the oxide: $(A_{1-x}Co_x)(O\square _\partial )$ where $A$ is nonmagnetic cation and $\partial $ is the donor defect.[@Int1] Experimentally, this means that the ferromagnetism appears only with a high probability of donor defects in the film, at low deposition temperature compared to 700${}$ ${^{\circ }}C$ where the crystal defects are less present. Finally, the high defect concentration close to the interface leads to the formation of an impurity band, which is polarized by exchange with magnetic elements. This is confirmed by the value of the saturation magnetization which is equal to ($0.3\pm 0.1)$ $\mu _B/Co.$ Surprisingly, this value is smaller compared to the Co${{}^2}$$^{+}$ spin state in a tetrahedral crystal field (low spin= $1$ $\mu _B$ or high spin= $3$ $\mu _B$). However, if we only consider the cobalt atoms having an environment of defects that are at the origin of ferromagnetism (i.e. for example, $1/3$ of the film), the value would be in the order of $1$ $\mu _B/Co$. This reinforced the fact that the ferromagnetism originated from the ”bulk” material and this is likely the origin of ferromagnetism at low doping concentration.[@Bulk] It should also be pointed out that in these experiments, the oxygen pressure induces large changes in resistivity (see above). As consequence and, based on this model, the oxygen pressure should have an effect on the magnetization. Since it is not the case, this means that a detailed study on the nature of the defects is required (structural defects, oxygen and zinc vacancies, interstitials etc.).[@defectsa] At high doping, the situation is more simple. Due to the antiferromagnetic coupling between the Co atoms, which comes from the short magnetic interactions (resulting from the high probability to have two cobalt neighbors), the sample exhibits paramagnetism. Conclusion ========== The comparison of microstructural and macrostructural analysis of a series of Co-doped ZnO films clarified the conditions to obtain interesting magnetic properties. Only the films at low cobalt doping [*and*]{} grown at low temperature display ferromagnetism at room temperature. Whereas the number of carrier in the film does not seem to control the magnetism, the defects are necessary to observe ferromagnetic properties. In spite of the high concentration of cobalt in the structure, the microstructural analysis do not show cobalt clusters, revealing an homogeneous cobalt distribution in the ZnO matrix. This is confirmed by the magnetic measurement which do not exhibiting superparamagnetism behavior. Based on these experiments, we believe that the ferromagnetism is intrinsic and result from long-range interactions induced by the defects. The determination of synthesis condition favoring the reproducibility of magnetic properties might be the beginning point from the elaboration of some devices for the spin polarization. Partial financial support from the Center Franco-Indien pour la promotion de la recherche Avancée/Indo-French Center for the promotion of advanced Research (CEFIPRA/IFCPAR) under Project No. 2808-1 is acknowledged. The Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) and the ”Conseil Régional de Basse Normandie” is also supporting this work through a BDI fellowship. [00]{} T. Dietl, H. Ohno, F. Matsukura, J. Cibert, and D. Ferrand, Science 287 (2000) 1019. Y. Matsumoto, M. Murakami, T. Shono, T. Hasegawa, T. Fukumura, M. Kawasaki, P. Ahmet, T. Chikyow, S. Koshihara, and H. Koinuma, Science 291 (2001) 894. W. Prellier, A. Fouchet and B. Mercey, J. Phys.: Cond. Mat. 15 (2003) R1583. R. Janisch, P. Gopal and N.A. Spaldin, J. Phys.: Cond. Mat. 17 (2005) R657. S.J. Pearton, C.R. Abernathy, M.E. Overberg, G.T. Thaler, and D.P. Norton, N. Theodoropoulou and A.F. Hebard, Y. D. Park, F. Ren and J. Kim, L. A. Boatner, J. Appl. Phys. 93 (2003) 1. W. Prellier, A. Fouchet, B. Mercey, Ch. Simon and B. Raveau, Appl. Phys. Lett. 82 (2003) 3490. S.R. Shinde, S.B. Ogale, S. Das Sarma, J.R. Simpson, H.D. Drew, S.E. Lofland, C. Lanci, J.P. Buban, N.D. Browning, V.N. Kulkarni, J. Higgins, R.P. Sharma, R.L. Greene, T. Venkatesan, Phys. Rev. B 67 (2003) 115211. P. Sharma, A. Gupta, K. V. Rao, F. J. Owens, R. Sharma, R. Ahuja, J. M. Osorio Guillen, B. Johansson and G. A. Gehring, Nature Mater. 2 (2003) 673. S.N. Kale, S.B. Ogale, S.R. Shinde, M. Sahasrabuddhe, V.N. Kulkarni, R.L. Greene, T. Venkatesan, Appl. Phys. Lett. 82 (2003) 2100. K. Rode, A. Anane, R. Mattana, and J.-P. Contour, O. Durand and R. Lebourgeois, J. Appl. Phys. 93 (2003) 7676. Z. Yin, N. Chen, C. Chai and F. Yang, J. Appl. Phys. 96 (2004) 5093. A. S. Risbud, N. A. Spaldin, Z. Q. Chen, S. Stemmer and R. Seshadri, Phys. Rev. B 68 (2003) 205202. Z. Jin, T. Fukumura and M. Kawasaki, K. Ando and H. Saito, T. Sekiguch, Y. Z. Yoo, M. Murakami, Y. Matsumoto, T. Hasegawa and H. Koinuma, Appl. Phys. Lett. 78 (2001) 3824. S. Kolesnik and B. Dabrowski, J. Appl. Phys. 96 (2004) 5379. G. Lawes, S. Risbud, P. Ramirez, Ram Seshadri, Phys.Rev. B 71 (2005) 045201. R. C. Budhani, P. Pant, R.K. Rakshit, K. Senapati, S. Mandal, N.K. Pandey and J. Kumar, J. Phys. Cond. Matter 17 (2005) 75. S. W. Yoon, S.-B. Cho, S. C. We, S. Yoon, and B. J. Suh, H. K. Song and Y. J. Shin, J. App. Phys. 93 (2003) 7879. J.H. Park, M.G. Kim, H.M. Jang and S. Ryu, Appl.Phys. Lett. 84 (2004) 1338. D.H. Kim, J.S. Yang, KW. Lee, S. D. Bu and T. W. Noh, S.-J. Oh, Y.-W. Kim, J.-S. Chung, H. Tanaka, H.Y. Lee, and T. Kawai, Appl. Phys. Lett. 81 (2002) 2421. D.P. Norton, M.E. Overberg, S.J. Pearton, and K. Pruessner, J.D. Budai, L.A. Boatner and M.F. Chisholm, J.S. Lee, Z.G. Khim, and Y.D. Park, R.G. Wilson, Appl. Phys. Lett. 83 (2003) 5488. D.C. Kundaliya, S.B. Ogale, S.E. Lofland, S. Dhar, C. J. Metting, S. R. Shinde, Z. Ma, B. Varughese, K. V. Ramanujachary, L. Salamanca-Riba and T. Venkatesan, Nature Mater. 3 (2004) 709. N.H. Hong, J. Sakai and W. Prellier, Phys. Rev. B 70 (2004) 195204. K. Sato and H. Katayama-Yoshida, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 39 (2000) L555. J.H Park, M.G. Kim, H.M. Jang, S. Ryu and Y.M.Kim, Appl. Phys. Lett. 84 (2004) 1338. J.M.D. Coey, M. Venkatesan and C.B. Fitzgerald, Nature Materials 4 (2005) 173. G. Bouzerar,T. Ziman and J. Kudrnovský, Phys. Rev. B 72 (2005) 125207. E. Rauwel Buzin, W. Prellier, Ch. Simon, S. Mercone, B. Mercey, B. Raveau, J. Sebek and J. Hejtmanek, Appl. Phys. Lett. 79 (2001) 674. A. Fouchet, W. Prellier, B. Mercey, L. Méchin, V.N. Kulkarni, T. Venkatesan, J. Appl. Phys. 96 (2004) 3228. JCPSDS-International Center for diffraction Data, Card No. 05-0664 (2001), R.R. Reeber, J. Appl. Phys. 41 (1970) 5063. A. Fouchet, W. Prellier, P. Padhan, Ch. Simon and B. Mercey, V.N. Kulkarni and T. Venkatesan, J. Appl. Phys. 95 (2004) 7187. R.D. Vispute, V. Talyansky, Z. Trajanovic, S. Choopun, M. Downes, R.P. Sharma and T. Venkatesan, M.C. Woods, R.T. Lareau and K.A. Jones, A.A. Iliadis, Appl. Phys. Lett. 70 (1997) 2735. N. Ashkenov, B.N. Mbenkum, C. Bundesmann, V. Riede, M. Lorenz, D. Spemann, E. M. Kaidashev, A. Kasic, M. Schubert and M. Grundmann, G. Wagner, H. Neumann, V. Darakchieva, H. Arwin, and B. Monemar, J. Appl. Phys. 93 (2003) 126. H.-J. Lee, S-Y. Jeong, C.R. Cho and C.H. Park, Appl. Phys. Lett. 81 (2002) 4020, J.H. Kim, W.K. Choo, H. Kim, D. Kim and Y. Ihm, J. Korean Phys. Soc. 42 (2003) S258. H. Saeki, H. Matsui, T. Kawai and H. Tabata, J.Phys. Cond. Matter 16 (2004) S5533. K. Ueda, H. Tabata and T. Kawai, Appl. Phys. Lett. 79 (2001) 988. A.K. Pradhan, K. Zhang, S. Mohanty, J.B. Dadson, D. Hunter, J. Zhang, D.J. Sellmyer, U.N. Roy, Y. Cui, A. Burger, S. Mathews, B. Joseph, B.R. Sekhar and B.K. Roul, Appl. Phys. Lett. 86 (2005) 152511. N.H. Hong, J. Sakai and N.T. Huong, N. Poirot, A. Ruyter, Phys. Rev. B 72 (2005) 45336. S.R. Shinde, S.B. Ogale, J.S. Higgins, H. Zheng, A.J. Millis, V.N. Kulkarni, R. Ramesh, R.L. Greene and T. Venkatesan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 166601. Ü. Özgür, Ya. I. Alivov, C. Liu, A. Teke, M. Reshchikov, S. Dogan, V. Avrutin, S.-J. Cho, and H. Morkoç, J. Appl. Phys. 98 (2005) 041301. In that case, ”bulk” is associated to intrinsic phenomena. It means the overall ”bulk” film by opposition to the clusters or secondary phase present in a film. A.F. Kohan, G. Ceder, and D. Morgan, Chris G. Van de Walle, Phys. Rev. B 61 (2000) 15019.  Figures Captions: Figure 1: High resolution transmission electron microscopic image of ZnO film and Fourier transformation pattern (inset). All crystal fragments are oriented with c-axis parallel to the electron beam. (a) Film grown at 600 ${% {}^{\circ }}C$ with on the Fourier transformation, 6 peaks characteristic of the 6-fold symmetry of ZnO. The pattern (b) and (c) are film grown at T=700 $% {{}^{\circ }}C.$ The first one shows HRTEM of crystal in film and the last one shows the interface with ”moiré” phenomena. Figure 2: Different diffraction pattern taken from the interface of the film until close to the surface. An evolution of the crystallinity is observed with 6 well defined peaks close to the surface and a broadening of these diffraction peaks along the $c$-axis until the interface. Figure 3: (M-T) curve of zero field cooled and field cooled (100 Oe) for a Co:ZnO: 1.66 % thin film grown at 500 ${{}^{\circ }}C$. The inset presents the (M-H) curves at 10K of films grown at 500 and 700 ${{}^{\circ }}C.$ The coercive field of the film grown at 500 ${{}^{\circ }}C$ is about 100 $Oe$. All these curves have corrected from the substrate component. Figure 4: HRTEM images of Co-ZnO films deposited at 600 ${{}^{\circ }}C.$ (a) is a cross section of a high doping Co-ZnO: 10 %. The well crystallized right part is the substrate and at left the film. The inset is the diffraction pattern of the interface. The aligned peaks are the substrate and the rings are due to the film. (b) is the film doped with 1.6 % cobalt with $a$ and $b$ axis in-plane. [^1]: [email protected]

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We introduce TensorFlow Quantum (TFQ), an open source library for the rapid prototyping of hybrid quantum-classical models for classical or quantum data. This framework offers high-level abstractions for the design and training of both discriminative and generative quantum models under TensorFlow and supports high-performance quantum circuit simulators. We provide an overview of the software architecture and building blocks through several examples and review the theory of hybrid quantum-classical neural networks. We illustrate TFQ functionalities via several basic applications including supervised learning for quantum classification, quantum control, and quantum approximate optimization. Moreover, we demonstrate how one can apply TFQ to tackle advanced quantum learning tasks including meta-learning, Hamiltonian learning, and sampling thermal states. We hope this framework provides the necessary tools for the quantum computing and machine learning research communities to explore models of both natural and artificial quantum systems, and ultimately discover new quantum algorithms which could potentially yield a quantum advantage.' author: - Michael Broughton - Guillaume Verdon - Trevor McCourt - 'Antonio J. Martinez' - | \ Jae Hyeon Yoo - 'Sergei V. Isakov' - Philip Massey - Murphy Yuezhen Niu - Ramin Halavati - | \ Evan Peters - Martin Leib - Andrea Skolik - Michael Streif - David Von Dollen - | \ Jarrod R. McClean - Sergio Boixo - Dave Bacon - 'Alan K. Ho' - Hartmut Neven - Masoud Mohseni bibliography: - 'lib.bib' title: | TensorFlow Quantum:\ A Software Framework for Quantum Machine Learning --- Introduction ============ Quantum Machine Learning ------------------------ Machine learning (ML) is the construction of algorithms and statistical models which can extract information hidden within a dataset. By learning a model from a dataset, one then has the ability to make predictions on unseen data from the same underlying probability distribution. For several decades, research in machine learning was focused on models that can provide theoretical guarantees for their performance [@murphy2012machine; @suykens1999least; @wold1987principal; @jain2010data]. However, in recent years, methods based on heuristics have become dominant, partly due to an abundance of data and computational resources [@lecun2015deep]. Deep learning is one such heuristic method which has seen great success [@ImageNetConv_NIPS2012; @goodfellow2016deep]. Deep learning methods are based on learning a representation of the dataset in the form of networks of parameterized layers. These parameters are then tuned by minimizing a function of the model outputs, called the loss function. This function quantifies the fit of the model to the dataset. In parallel to the recent advances in deep learning, there has been a significant growth of interest in quantum computing in both academia and industry [@preskill2018quantum]. Quantum computing is the use of engineered quantum systems to perform computations. Quantum systems are described by a generalization of probability theory allowing novel behavior such as superposition and entanglement, which are generally difficult to simulate with a classical computer [@Feynman1982]. The main motivation to build a quantum computer is to access efficient simulation of these uniquely quantum mechanical behaviors. Quantum computers could one day accelerate computations for chemical and materials development [@cao2019quantum], decryption [@shor1994algorithms], optimization [@farhi2014quantum], and many other tasks. Google’s recent achievement of quantum supremacy [@arute2019quantum] marked the first glimpse of this promised power. How may one apply quantum computing to practical tasks? One area of research that has attracted considerable interest is the design of machine learning algorithms that inherently rely on quantum properties to accelerate their performance. One key observation that has led to the application of quantum computers to machine learning is their ability to perform fast linear algebra on a state space that grows exponentially with the number of qubits. These quantum accelerated linear-algebra based techniques for machine learning can be considered the first generation of quantum machine learning (QML) algorithms tackling a wide range of applications in both supervised and unsupervised learning, including principal component analysis [@Mohseni14_qpca], support vector machines [@Mohseni14_support], k-means clustering [@Mohseni13_clustering], and recommendation systems [@QRS2016]. These algorithms often admit exponentially faster solutions compared to their classical counterparts on certain types of quantum data. This has led to a significant surge of interest in the subject [@biamonte2017quantum]. However, to apply these algorithms to classical data, the data must first be embedded into quantum states [@giovannetti2008quantum], a process whose scalability is under debate [@arunachalam2015robustness]. Additionally, there is a scaling variation when these algorithms are applied to classical data mostly rendering the quantum advantage to become polynomial [@Tang2018]. Continuing debates around speedups and assumptions make it prudent to look beyond classical data for applications of quantum computation to machine learning. With the availability of Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum (NISQ) processors [@Preskill18_0], the second generation of QML has emerged [@biamonte2017quantum; @farhi2018classification; @farhi2014quantum; @peruzzo2014variational; @killoran2018continuous; @wecker2015progress; @biamonte2017quantum; @zhou2018quantum; @mcclean2016theory; @hadfield2017quantum; @grant2018hierarchical; @khatri2019quantum; @schuld2019quantum; @mcardle2018variational; @benedetti2019adversarial; @nash2019quantum; @jiang2018majorana; @steinbrecher2018quantum; @fingerhuth2018quantum; @larose2018variational; @cincio2018learning; @situ2019variational; @chen2018universal; @verdon2017quantum; @preskill2018quantum]. In contrast to the first generation, this new trend in QML is based on heuristic methods which can be studied empirically due to the increased computational capability of quantum hardware. This is reminiscent of how machine learning evolved towards deep learning with the advent of new computational capabilities [@Mohseni17]. These new algorithms use parameterized quantum transformations called parameterized quantum circuits (PQCs) or Quantum Neural Networks (QNNs) [@farhi2018classification; @chen2018universal]. In analogy with classical deep learning, the parameters of a QNN are then optimized with respect to a cost function via either black-box optimization heuristics [@Verdon2019metalearning] or gradient-based methods [@sweke2019stochastic], in order to learn a representation of the training data. In this paradigm, *quantum machine learning is the development of models, training strategies, and inference schemes built on parameterized quantum circuits*. Hybrid Quantum-Classical Models {#sec:intro-hqcm} ------------------------------- Near-term quantum processors are still fairly small and noisy, thus quantum models cannot disentangle and generalize quantum data using quantum processors alone. NISQ processors will need to work in concert with classical co-processors to become effective. We anticipate that investigations into various possible *hybrid quantum-classical machine learning* algorithms will be a productive area of research and that quantum computers will be most useful as hardware accelerators, working in symbiosis with traditional computers. In order to understand the power and limitations of classical deep learning methods, and how they could be possibly improved by incorporating parameterized quantum circuits, it is worth defining key indicators of learning performance: *Representation capacity*: the model architecture has the capacity to accurately replicate, or extract useful information from, the underlying correlations in the training data for some value of the model’s parameters. *Training efficiency*: minimizing the cost function via stochastic optimization heuristics should converge to an approximate minimum of the loss function in a reasonable number of iterations. *Inference tractability:* the ability to run inference on a given model in a scalable fashion is needed in order to make predictions in the training or test phase. *Generalization power*: the cost function for a given model should yield a landscape where typically initialized and trained networks find approximate solutions which generalize well to unseen data. In principle, any or all combinations of these attributes could be susceptible to possible improvements by quantum computation. There are many ways to combine classical and quantum computations. One well-known method is to use classical computers as outer-loop optimizers for QNNs. When training a QNN with a classical optimizer in a quantum-classical loop, the overall algorithm is sometimes referred to as a *Variational Quantum-Classical Algorithm*. Some recently proposed architectures of QNN-based variational quantum-classical algorithms include Variational Quantum Eigensolvers (VQEs) [@McClean_2016; @mcclean2016theory], Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithms (QAOAs) [@farhi2014quantum; @zhou2018quantum; @verdon2019quantum; @wang2019xy], Quantum Neural Networks (QNNs) for classification [@farhi18_QNN; @mcclean2018barren], Quantum Convolutional Neural Networks (QCNN) [@Cong_2019], and Quantum Generative Models [@lloyd2018quantum]. Generally, the goal is to optimize over a parameterized class of computations to either generate a certain low-energy wavefunction (VQE/QAOA), learn to extract non-local information (QNN classifiers), or learn how to generate a quantum distribution from data (generative models). It is important to note that in the standard model architecture for these applications, the representation typically resides entirely on the quantum processor, with classical heuristics participating only as optimizers for the tunable parameters of the quantum model. Various forms of gradient descent are the most popular optimization heuristics, but an obstacle to the use of gradient descent is the effect of *barren plateaus* [@mcclean2018barren], which generally arises when a network lacking structure is randomly initialized. Strategies for overcoming these issues are discussed in detail in section \[sec:random\_circuits\]. While the use of classical processors as outer-loop optimizers for quantum neural networks is promising, the reality is that near-term quantum devices are still fairly noisy, thus limiting the depth of quantum circuit achievable with acceptable fidelity. This motivates allowing as much of the model as possible to reside on classical hardware. Several applications of quantum computation have ventured beyond the scope of typical variational quantum algorithms to explore this combination. Instead of training a purely quantum model via a classical optimizer, one then considers scenarios where the model itself is a hybrid between quantum computational building blocks and classical computational building blocks [@verdon2018universal; @romero2019variational; @bergholm2018pennylane; @verdon2019quantumVQT] and is trained typically via gradient-based methods. Such scenarios leverage a new form of automatic differentiation that allows the backwards propagation of gradients in between parameterized quantum and classical computations. The theory of such hybrid backpropagation will be covered in section \[sec:gradients\]. In summary, *a hybrid quantum-classical model is a learning heuristic in which both the classical and quantum processors contribute to the indicators of learning performance defined above.* Quantum Data {#sec:quantum_data} ------------ Although it is not yet proven that heuristic QML could provide a speedup on practical classical ML applications, there is some evidence that hybrid quantum-classical machine learning applications on “*quantum data*” could provide a quantum advantage over classical-only machine learning for reasons described below. Abstractly, any data emerging from an underlying quantum mechanical process can be considered quantum data. This can be the classical data resulting from quantum mechanical experiments, or data which is directly generated by a quantum device and then fed into an algorithm as input. A quantum or hybrid quantum-classical model will be at least partially represented by a quantum device, and therefore have the inherent capacity to capture the characteristics of a quantum mechanical process. Concretely, we list practical examples of classes of quantum data, which can be routinely generated or simulated on existing quantum devices or processors: *Quantum simulations*: These can include output states of quantum chemistry simulations used to extract information about chemical structures and chemical reactions. Potential applications include material science, computational chemistry, computational biology, and drug discovery. Another example is data from quantum many-body systems and quantum critical systems in condensed matter physics, which could be used to model and design exotic states of matter which exhibit many-body quantum effects. *Quantum communication networks*: Machine learning in this class of systems will be related to distilling small-scale quantum data; e.g., to discriminate among non-orthogonal quantum states [@Mohseni2004; @chen2018universal], with application to design and construction of quantum error correcting codes for quantum repeaters, quantum receivers, and purification units. *Quantum metrology*: Quantum-enhanced high precision measurements such as quantum sensing and quantum imaging are inherently done on probes that are small-scale quantum devices and could be designed or improved by variational quantum models. *Quantum control*: Variationally learning hybrid quantum-classical algorithms can lead to new optimal open or closed-loop control [@niu2019universal], calibration, and error mitigation, correction, and verification strategies [@Carolan2020] for near-term quantum devices and quantum processors. Of course, this is not a comprehensive list of quantum data. We hope that, with proper software tooling, researchers will be able to find applications of QML in all of the above areas and other categories of applications beyond what we can currently envision. TensorFlow Quantum ------------------ Today, exploring new hybrid quantum-classical models is a difficult and error-prone task. The engineering effort required to manually construct such models, develop quantum datasets, and set up training and validation stages decreases a researcher’s ability to iterate and discover. TensorFlow has accelerated the research and understanding of deep learning in part by automating common model building tasks. Development of software tooling for hybrid quantum-classical models should similarly accelerate research and understanding for quantum machine learning. To develop such tooling, the requirement of accommodating a heterogeneous computational environment involving both classical and quantum processors is key. This computational heterogeneity suggested the need to expand TensorFlow, which is designed to distribute computations across CPUs, GPUs, and TPUs [@tf_whitepaper], to also encompass quantum processing units (QPUs). This project has evolved into TensorFlow Quantum. TFQ is an integration of Cirq with TensorFlow that allows researchers and students to simulate QPUs while designing, training, and testing hybrid quantum-classical models, and eventually run the quantum portions of these models on actual quantum processors as they come online. A core contribution of TFQ is seamless backpropagation through combinations of classical and quantum layers in hybrid quantum-classical models. This allows QML researchers to directly harness the rich set of tools already available in TF and Keras. The remainder of this document describes TFQ and a selection of applications demonstrating some of the challenges TFQ can help tackle. In section \[sec:software\_arch\], we introduce the software architecture of TFQ. We highlight its main features including batched circuit execution, automated expectation estimation, estimation of quantum gradients, hybrid quantum-classical automatic differentiation, and rapid model construction, all from within TensorFlow. We also present a simple “Hello, World" example for binary quantum data classification on a single qubit. By the end of section \[sec:software\_arch\], we expect most readers to have sufficient knowledge to begin development with TFQ. For readers who are interested in a more theoretical understanding of QNNs, we provide in section \[sec:theory\] an overview of QNN models and hybrid quantum-classical backpropagation. For researchers interested in applying TFQ to their own projects, we provide various applications in sections \[sec:basic\_app\] and \[sec:advanced\_applications\]. In section \[sec:basic\_app\], we describe hybrid quantum-classical CNNs for binary classification of quantum phases, hybrid quantum-classical ML for quantum control, and MaxCut QAOA. In the advanced applications section \[sec:advanced\_applications\], we describe meta-learning for quantum approximate optimization, discuss issues with vanishing gradients and how we can overcome them by adaptive layer-wise learning schemes, Hamiltonian learning with quantum graph networks, and quantum mixed state generation via classical energy-based models. We hope that TFQ enables the machine learning and quantum computing communities to work together more closely on important challenges and opportunities in the near-term and beyond. Software Architecture & Building Blocks {#sec:software_arch} ======================================= As stated in the introduction, the goal of TFQ is to bridge the quantum computing and machine learning communities. Google already has well-established products for these communities: Cirq, an open source library for invoking quantum circuits [@Cirq], and TensorFlow, an end-to-end open source machine learning platform [@tf_whitepaper]. However, the emerging community of quantum machine learning researchers requires the capabilities of both products. The prospect of combining Cirq and TensorFlow then naturally arises. First, we review the capabilities of Cirq and TensorFlow. We confront the challenges that arise when one attempts to combine both products. These challenges inform the design goals relevant when building software specific to quantum machine learning. We provide an overview of the architecture of TFQ and describe a particular abstract pipeline for building a hybrid model for classification of quantum data. Then we illustrate this pipeline via the exposition of a minimal hybrid model which makes use of the core features of TFQ. We conclude with a description of our performant C++ simulator for quantum circuits and provide benchmarks of performance on two complementary classes of random and structured quantum circuits. Cirq {#sec:cirq} ---- Cirq is an open-source framework for invoking quantum circuits on near term devices [@Cirq]. It contains the basic structures, such as qubits, gates, circuits, and measurement operators, that are required for specifying quantum computations. User-specified quantum computations can then be executed in simulation or on real hardware. Cirq also contains substantial machinery that helps users design efficient algorithms for NISQ machines, such as compilers and schedulers. Below we show example Cirq code for calculating the expectation value of $\hat{Z}_1 \hat{Z}_2$ for a Bell state: (q1, q2) = cirq.GridQubit.rect(1,2) c = cirq.Circuit(cirq.H(q1), cirq.CNOT(q1, q2)) ZZ = cirq.Z(q1) * cirq.Z(q2) bell = cirq.Simulator().simulate(c).final_state expectation = ZZ.expectation_from_wavefunction( bell, dict(zip([q1,q2],[0,1]))) Cirq uses SymPy [@sympycite] symbols to represent free parameters in gates and circuits. You replace free parameters in a circuit with specific numbers by passing a Cirq object with your circuit to the simulator. Below we construct a parameterized circuit and simulate the output state for $\theta =1$: theta = sympy.Symbol('theta') c = cirq.Circuit(cirq.Rx(theta).on(q1)) resolver = cirq.ParamResolver({theta:1}) results = cirq.Simulator().simulate(c, resolver) TensorFlow {#sec:tensorflow} ---------- TensorFlow is a language for describing computations as stateful dataflow graphs [@tf_whitepaper]. Describing machine learning models as dataflow graphs is advantageous for performance during training. First, it is easy to obtain gradients of dataflow graphs using backpropagation [@rumelhart1986learning], allowing efficient parameter updates. Second, independent nodes of the computational graph may be distributed across independent machines, including GPUs and TPUs, and run in parallel. These computational advantages established TensorFlow as a powerful tool for machine learning and deep learning. TensorFlow constructs this dataflow graph using *tensors* for the directed edges and *operations* (ops) for the nodes. For our purposes, a rank $n$ tensor is simply an $n$-dimensional array. In TensorFlow, tensors are additionally associated with a data type, such as integer or string. Tensors are a convenient way of thinking about data; in machine learning, the first index is often reserved for iteration over the members of a dataset. Additional indices can indicate the application of several filters, e.g., in convolutional neural networks with several feature maps. In general, an op is a function mapping input tensors to output tensors. Ops may act on zero or more input tensors, always producing at least one tensor as output. For example, the addition op ingests two tensors and outputs one tensor representing the elementwise sum of the inputs, while a constant op ingests no tensors, taking the role of a root node in the dataflow graph. The combination of ops and tensors gives the backend of TensorFlow the structure of a directed acyclic graph. A visualization of the backend structure corresponding to a simple computation in TensorFlow is given in Fig. \[fig:tf\_simple\]. ![A simple example of the TensorFlow computational model. Two tensor inputs $A$ and $B$ are added and then multiplied against a third tensor input $C$, before flowing on to further nodes in the graph. Blue nodes are tensor injections (*ops*), arrows are *tensors* flowing through the computational graph, and orange nodes are tensor transformations (*ops*). Tensor injections are ops in the sense that they are functions which take in zero tensors and output one tensor.[]{data-label="fig:tf_simple"}](figures/tf_simple.png){width="0.8\columnwidth"} It is worth noting that this tensorial data format is not to be confused with Tensor Networks [@biamonte2017tensor], which are a mathematical tool used in condensed matter physics and quantum information science to efficiently represent many-body quantum states and operations. Recently, libraries for building such Tensor Networks in TensorFlow have become available [@roberts2019tensornetwork], we refer the reader to the corresponding blog post for better understanding of the difference between TensorFlow tensors and the tensor objects in Tensor Networks [@TNTFblog]. The recently announced TensorFlow 2 [@tf2_effective] takes the dataflow graph structure as a foundation and adds high-level abstractions. One new feature is the Python function decorator , which automatically converts the decorated function into a graph computation. Also relevant is the native support for Keras [@chollet2015keras], which provides the and constructs. These abstractions allow the concise definition of machine learning models which ingest and process data, all backed by dataflow graph computation. The increasing levels of abstraction and heterogenous hardware backing which together constitute the TensorFlow stack can be visualized with the orange and gray boxes in our stack diagram in Fig. \[fig:tfq\_software\_stack\]. The combination of these high-level abstractions and efficient dataflow graph backend makes TensorFlow 2 an ideal platform for data-driven machine learning research. Technical Hurdles in Combining Cirq with TensorFlow --------------------------------------------------- There are many ways one could imagine combining the capabilities of Cirq and TensorFlow. One possible approach is to let graph edges represent quantum states and let ops represent transformations of the state, such as applying circuits and taking measurements. This approach can be called the “states-as-edges" architecture. We show in Fig. \[fig:states-as-edges\] how to reformulate the Bell state preparation and measurement discussed in section \[sec:cirq\] within this proposed architecture. ![The states-as-edges approach to embedding quantum computation in TensorFlow. Blue nodes are input tensors, arrows are tensors flowing through the graph, and orange nodes are TF Ops transforming the simulated quantum state. Note that the above is not the architecture used in TFQ but rather an alternative which was considered, see Fig. \[fig:expectation\_graph\] for the equivalent diagram for the true TFQ architecture.[]{data-label="fig:states-as-edges"}](figures/tfq_bad_bell.png){width="0.8\columnwidth"} This architecture may at first glance seem like an attractive option as it is a direct formulation of quantum computation as a dataflow graph. However, this approach is suboptimal for several reasons. First, in this architecture, the structure of the circuit being run is static in the computational graph, thus running a different circuit would require the graph to be rebuilt. This is far from ideal for variational quantum algorithms which learn over many iterations with a slightly modified quantum circuit at each iteration. A second problem is the lack of a clear way to embed such a quantum dataflow graph on a real quantum processor: the states would have to remain held in quantum memory on the quantum device itself, and the high latency between classical and quantum processors makes sending transformations one-by-one prohibitive. Lastly, one needs a way to specify gates and measurements within TF. One may be tempted to define these directly; however, Cirq already has the necessary tools and objects defined which are most relevant for the near-term quantum computing era. Duplicating Cirq functionality in TF would lead to several issues, requiring users to re-learn how to interface with quantum computers in TFQ versus Cirq, and adding to the maintenance overhead by needing to keep two separate quantum circuit construction frameworks up-to-date as new compilation techniques arise. These considerations motivate our core design principles. TFQ architecture {#sec:tfq_architecture} ---------------- ### Design Principles and Overview To avoid the aforementioned technical hurdles and in order to satisfy the diverse needs of the research community, we have arrived at the following four design principles: 1. **Differentiability**. \[prin:diff\] As described in the introduction, gradient-based methods leveraging autodifferentiation have become the leading heuristic for optimization of machine learning models. A software framework for QML must support differentiation of quantum circuits so that hybrid quantum-classical models can participate in backpropagation. 2. **Circuit Batching**.\[prin:batch\] Learning on quantum data requires re-running parameterized model circuits on each quantum data point. A QML software framework must be optimized for running large numbers of such circuits. Ideally, the semantics should match established TensorFlow norms for batching over data. 3. **Execution Backend Agnostic**. \[prin:agnostic\] Experimental quantum computing often involves reconciling perfectly simulated algorithms with the outputs of real, noisy devices. Thus, QML software must allow users to easily switch between running models in simulation and running models on real hardware, such that simulated results and experimental results can be directly compared. 4. **Minimalism**.\[prin:min\] Cirq provides an extensive set of tools for preparing quantum circuits. TensorFlow provides a very complete machine learning toolkit through its hundreds of ops and Keras high-level API, with a massive community of active users. Existing functionality in Cirq and TensorFlow should be used as much as possible. TFQ should serve as a bridge between the two that does not require users to re-learn how to interface with quantum computers or re-learn how to solve problems using machine learning. First, we provide a bottom-up overview of TFQ to provide intuition on how the framework functions at a fundamental level. In TFQ, circuits and other quantum computing constructs are tensors, and converting these tensors into classical information via simulation or execution on a quantum device is done by ops. These tensors are created by converting Cirq objects to TensorFlow string tensors, using the function. This takes in a or object and creates a string tensor representation. The objects may be parameterized by SymPy symbols. ![The TensorFlow graph generated to calculate the expectation value of a parameterized circuit. The symbol values can come from other TensorFlow ops, such as from the outputs of a classical neural network. The output can be passed on to other ops in the graph; here, for illustration, the output is passed to the absolute value op.[]{data-label="fig:expectation_graph"}](figures/expectation_graph.png){width="0.8\columnwidth"} These tensors are then converted to classical information via state simulation, expectation value calculation, or sampling. TFQ provides ops for each of these computations. The following code snippet shows how a simple parameterized circuit may be created using Cirq, and its $\hat{Z}$ expectation evaluated at different parameter values using the tfq expectation value calculation op. We feed the output into the op to show that tfq ops integrate naively with tf ops. qubit = cirq.GridQubit(0, 0) theta = sympy.Symbol('theta') c = cirq.Circuit(cirq.X(qubit) ** theta) c_tensor = tfq.convert_to_tensor([c] * 3) theta_values = tf.constant([[0],[1],[2]]) m = cirq.Z(qubit) paulis = tfq.convert_to_tensor([m] * 3) expectation_op = tfq.get_expectation_op() output = expectation_op( c_tensor, ['theta'], theta_values, paulis) abs_output = tf.math.abs(output) We supply the expectation op with a tensor of parameterized circuits, a list of symbols contained in the circuits, a tensor of values to use for those symbols, and tensor operators to measure with respect to. Given this, it outputs a tensor of expectation values. The graph this code generates is given by Fig. \[fig:expectation\_graph\]. The expectation op is capable of running circuits on a simulated backend, which can be a Cirq simulator or our native TFQ simulator qsim (described in detail in section \[sec:qsim\]), or on a real device. This is configured on instantiation. The expectation op is fully differentiable. Given that there are many ways to calculate the gradient of a quantum circuit with respect to its input parameters, TFQ allows expectation ops to be configured with one of many built-in differentiation methods using the interface, such as finite differencing, parameter shift rules, and various stochastic methods. The interface also allows users to define their own gradient calculation methods for their specific problem if they desire. ![The software stack of TFQ, showing its interactions with TensorFlow, Cirq, and computational hardware. At the top of the stack is the data to be processed. Classical data is natively processed by TensorFlow; TFQ adds the ability to process quantum data, consisting of both quantum circuits and quantum operators. The next level down the stack is the Keras API in TensorFlow. Since a core principle of TFQ is native integration with core TensorFlow, in particular with Keras models and optimizers, this level spans the full width of the stack. Underneath the Keras model abstractions are our quantum layers and differentiators, which enable hybrid quantum-classical automatic differentiation when connected with classical TensorFlow layers. Underneath the layers and differentiators, we have TensorFlow ops, which instantiate the dataflow graph. Our custom ops control quantum circuit execution. The circuits can be run in simulation mode, by invoking qsim or Cirq, or eventually will be executed on QPU hardware.[]{data-label="fig:tfq_software_stack"}](figures/TFQ_stack.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"} The tensor representation of circuits and Paulis along with the execution ops are all that are required to solve any problem in QML. However, as a convenience, TFQ provides an additional op for in-graph circuit construction. This was found to be convenient when solving problems where most of the circuit being run is static and only a small part of it is being changed during training or inference. This functionality is provided by the op. It is expected that all but the most dedicated users will never touch these low-level ops, and instead will interface with TFQ using our that provide a simplified interface. The tools provided by TFQ can interact with both core TensorFlow and, via Cirq, real quantum hardware. The functionality of all three software products and the interfaces between them can be visualized with the help of a “software-stack" diagram, shown in Fig. \[fig:tfq\_software\_stack\]. In the next section, we describe an example of an abstract quantum machine learning pipeline for hybrid discriminator model that TFQ was designed to support. Then we illustrate the TFQ pipeline via a Hello Many-Worlds example, which involves building the simplest possible hybrid quantum-classical model for a binary classification task on a single qubit. More detailed information on the building blocks of TFQ features will be given in section \[sec:building\_blocks\]. ### The Abstract TFQ Pipeline for a specific hybrid discriminator model {#sec:abstract_pipeline} Here, we provide a high-level abstract overview of the computational steps involved in the end-to-end pipeline for inference and training of a hybrid quantum-classical discriminative model for quantum data in TFQ. ![Abstract pipeline for inference and training of a hybrid discriminative model in TFQ. Here, $\bm{\Phi}$ represents the quantum model parameters and $\bm{\theta}$ represents the classical model parameters.[]{data-label="fig:abstract_pipeline"}](figures/abstract_pip.pdf){width="0.95\columnwidth"} **(1) Prepare Quantum Dataset:** In general, this might come from a given black-box source. However, as current quantum computers cannot import quantum data from external sources, the user has to specify quantum circuits which generate the data. Quantum datasets are prepared using unparameterized objects and are injected into the computational graph using . **(2) Evaluate Quantum Model:** Parameterized quantum models can be selected from several categories based on knowledge of the quantum data’s structure. The goal of the model is to perform a quantum computation in order to extract information hidden in a quantum subspace or subsystem. In the case of discriminative learning, this information is the hidden label parameters. To extract a quantum non-local subsystem, the quantum model disentangles the input data, leaving the hidden information encoded in classical correlations, thus making it accessible to local measurements and classical post-processing. Quantum models are constructed using objects containing SymPy symbols, and can be attached to quantum data sources using the layer. **(3) Sample or Average:** Measurement of quantum states extracts classical information, in the form of samples from a classical random variable. The distribution of values from this random variable generally depends on both the quantum state itself and the measured observable. As many variational algorithms depend on mean values of measurements, TFQ provides methods for averaging over several runs involving steps (1) and (2). Sampling or averaging are performed by feeding quantum data and quantum models to the or layers. **(4) Evaluate Classical Model:** Once classical information has been extracted, it is in a format amenable to further classical post-processing. As the extracted information may still be encoded in classical correlations between measured expectations, classical deep neural networks can be applied to distill such correlations. Since TFQ is fully compatible with core TensorFlow, quantum models can be attached directly to classical objects such as . **(5) Evaluate Cost Function:** Given the results of classical post-processing, a cost function is calculated. This may be based on the accuracy of classification if the quantum data was labeled, or other criteria if the task is unsupervised. Wrapping the model built in stages (1) through (4) inside a gives the user access to all the losses in the module. **(6) Evaluate Gradients & Update Parameters:** After evaluating the cost function, the free parameters in the pipeline is updated in a direction expected to decrease the cost. This is most commonly performed via gradient descent. To support gradient descent, TFQ exposes derivatives of quantum operations to the TensorFlow backpropagation machinery via the interface. This allows both the quantum and classical models’ parameters to be optimized against quantum data via hybrid quantum-classical backpropagation. See section \[sec:theory\] for details on the theory. In the next section, we illustrate this abstract pipeline by applying it to a specific example. While simple, the example is the minimum instance of a hybrid quantum-classical model operating on quantum data. ### Hello Many-Worlds: Binary Classifier for Quantum Data Binary classification is a basic task in machine learning that can be applied to quantum data as well. As a minimal example of a hybrid quantum-classical model, we present here a binary classifier for regions on a single qubit. In this task, two random vectors in the X-Z plane of the Bloch sphere are chosen. Around these two vectors, we randomly sample two sets of quantum data points; the task is to learn to distinguish the two sets. An example quantum dataset of this type is shown in Fig. \[fig:quantum\_dataset\]. The following can all be run in-browser by navigating to the Colab example notebook at [$$\footnotesize\Colorbox{bkgd}{\color{orange-red}\href{https://github.com/tensorflow/quantum/blob/research/binary_classifier/binary_classifier.ipynb}{\code{research/binary\_classifier/binary\_classifier.ipynb}}}$$]{} Additionally, the code in this example can be copy-pasted into a python script after installing TFQ. To solve this problem, we use the pipeline shown in Fig. \[fig:abstract\_pipeline\], specialized to one-qubit binary classification. This specialization is shown in Fig. \[fig:binary\_classifier\]. ![Quantum data represented on the Bloch sphere. States in category $a$ are blue, while states in category $b$ are orange. The vectors are the states around which the samples were taken. The parameters used to generate this data are: $\theta_a = 1$, $\theta_b = 4$, and $N = 200$.[]{data-label="fig:quantum_dataset"}](figures/quantum_dataset.png){width="0.5\columnwidth"} The first step is to generate the quantum data. We can use Cirq for this task. The common imports required for working with TFQ are shown below: import cirq, random, sympy import numpy as np import tensorflow as tf import tensorflow_quantum as tfq The function below generates the quantum dataset; labels use a one-hot encoding: def generate_dataset( qubit, theta_a, theta_b, num_samples): q_data = [] labels = [] blob_size = abs(theta_a - theta_b) / 5 for _ in range(num_samples): coin = random.random() spread_x, spread_y = np.random.uniform( -blob_size, blob_size, 2) if coin < 0.5: label = [1, 0] angle = theta_a + spread_y else: label = [0, 1] angle = theta_b + spread_y labels.append(label) q_data.append(cirq.Circuit( cirq.Ry(-angle)(qubit), cirq.Rx(-spread_x)(qubit))) return (tfq.convert_to_tensor(q_data), np.array(labels)) We can generate a dataset and the associated labels after picking some parameter values: qubit = cirq.GridQubit(0, 0) theta_a = 1 theta_b = 4 num_samples = 200 q_data, labels = generate_dataset( qubit, theta_a, theta_b, num_samples) ![ (1) Quantum data to be classified. (2) Parameterized rotation gate, whose job is to remove superpositions in the quantum data. (3) Measurement along the Z axis of the Bloch sphere converts the quantum data into classical data. (4) Classical post-processing is a two-output SoftMax layer, which outputs probabilities for the data to come from category $a$ or category $b$. (5) Categorical cross entropy is computed between the predictions and the labels. The Adam optimizer [@kingma2014adam] is used to update both the quantum and classical portions of the hybrid model.[]{data-label="fig:binary_classifier"}](figures/tfq_pipeline.png){width="1\columnwidth"} As our quantum parametric model, we use the simplest case of a universal quantum discriminator [@chen2018universal; @Carolan2020], a single parameterized rotation (linear) and measurement along the $Z$ axis (non-linear): theta = sympy.Symbol('theta') q_model = cirq.Circuit(cirq.Ry(theta)(qubit)) q_data_input = tf.keras.Input( shape=(), dtype=tf.dtypes.string) expectation = tfq.layers.PQC( q_model, cirq.Z(qubit)) expectation_output = expectation(q_data_input) The purpose of the rotation gate is to minimize the superposition from the input quantum data such that we can get maximum useful information from the measurement. This quantum model is then attached to a small classifier NN to complete our hybrid model. Notice in the code below that quantum layers can appear among classical layers inside a standard Keras model: classifier = tf.keras.layers.Dense( 2, activation=tf.keras.activations.softmax) classifier_output = classifier(expectation_output) model = tf.keras.Model(inputs=q_data_input, outputs=classifier_output) We can train this hybrid model on the quantum data defined earlier. Below we use as our loss function the cross entropy between the labels and the predictions of the classical NN; the ADAM optimizer is chosen for parameter updates. optimizer=tf.keras.optimizers.Adam( learning_rate=0.1) loss=tf.keras.losses.CategoricalCrossentropy() model.compile(optimizer=optimizer, loss=loss) history = model.fit( x=q_data, y=labels, epochs=50) Finally, we can use our trained hybrid model to classify new quantum datapoints: test_data, _ = generate_dataset( qubit, theta_a, theta_b, 1) p = model.predict(test_data)[0] print(f"prob(a)={p[0]:.4f}, prob(b)={p[1]:.4f}") This section provided a rapid introduction to just that code needed to complete the task at hand. The following section reviews the features of TFQ in a more API reference inspired style. TFQ Building Blocks {#sec:building_blocks} ------------------- Having provided a minimum working example in the previous section, we now seek to provide more details about the components of the TFQ framework. First, we describe how quantum computations specified in Cirq are converted to tensors for use inside the TensorFlow graph. Then, we describe how these tensors can be combined in-graph to yield larger models. Next, we show how circuits are simulated and measured in TFQ. The core functionality of the framework, differentiation of quantum circuits, is then explored. Finally, we describe our more abstract layers, which can be used to simplify many QML workflows. ### Quantum Computations as Tensors {#sec:q_tensors} As pointed out in section \[sec:cirq\], Cirq already contains the language necessary to express quantum computations, parameterized circuits, and measurements. Guided by principle \[prin:min\], TFQ should allow direct injection of Cirq expressions into the computational graph of TensorFlow. This is enabled by the function. We saw the use of this function in the quantum binary classifier, where a list of data generation circuits specified in Cirq was wrapped in this function to promote them to tensors. Below we show how a quantum data point, a quantum model, and a quantum measurement can be converted into tensors: q0 = cirq.GridQubit(0, 0) q_data_raw = cirq.Circuit(cirq.H(q0)) q_data = tfq.convert_to_tensor([q_data_raw]) theta = sympy.Symbol('theta') q_model_raw = cirq.Circuit( cirq.Ry(theta).on(q0)) q_model = tfq.convert_to_tensor([q_model_raw]) q_measure_raw = 0.5 * cirq.Z(q0) q_measure = tfq.convert_to_tensor( [q_measure_raw]) This conversion is backed by our custom serializers. Once a or is serialized, it becomes a tensor of type . This is the reason for the use of when creating inputs to Keras models, as seen in the quantum binary classifier example. ### Composing Quantum Models {#sec:q_models} After injecting quantum data and quantum models into the computational graph, a custom TensorFlow operation is required to combine them. In support of guiding principle \[prin:batch\], TFQ implements the layer for combining tensors of circuits. In the following code, we use this functionality to combine the quantum data point and quantum model defined in subsection \[sec:q\_tensors\]: add_op = tfq.layers.AddCircuit() data_and_model = add_op(q_data, append=q_model) To quantify the performance of a quantum model on a quantum dataset, we need the ability to define loss functions. This requires converting quantum information into classical information. This conversion process is accomplished by either **sampling** the quantum model, which stochastically produces bitstrings according to the probability amplitudes of the model, or by specifying a measurement and taking **expectation values**. ### Sampling and Expectation Values {#sec:quantum_classical_conversion} Sampling from quantum circuits is an important use case in quantum computing. The recently achieved milestone of quantum supremacy [@arute2019quantum] is one such application, in which the difficulty of sampling from a quantum model was used to gain a computational edge over classical machines. TFQ implements , a Keras layer which enables sampling from batches of circuits in support of design objective \[prin:batch\]. The user supplies a tensor of parameterized circuits, a list of symbols contained in the circuits, and a tensor of values to substitute for the symbols in the circuit. Given these, the layer produces a of shape , where the n\_qubits dimension is ragged to account for the possibly varying circuit size over the input batch of quantum data. For example, the following code takes the combined data and model from section \[sec:q\_models\] and produces a tensor of size \[1, 4, 1\] containing four single-bit samples: sample_layer = tfq.layers.Sample() samples = sample_layer( data_and_model, symbol_names=['theta'], symbol_values=[[0.5]], repetitions=4) Though sampling is the fundamental interface between quantum and classical information, differentiability of quantum circuits is much more convenient when using **expectation values**, as gradient information can then be backpropagated (see section \[sec:theory\] for more details). In the simplest case, expectation values are simply averages over samples. In quantum computing, expectation values are typically taken with respect to a measurement operator $M$. This involves sampling bitstrings from the quantum circuit as described above, applying $M$ to the list of bitstring samples to produce a list of numbers, then taking the average of the result. TFQ provides two related layers with this capability: In contrast to sampling (which is by default in the *standard computational basis*, the $\hat{Z}$ eigenbasis of all qubits), taking expectation values requires defining a measurement. As discussed in section \[sec:cirq\], these are first defined as objects and converted to tensors. TFQ implements , a Keras layer which enables the extraction of measurement expectation values from quantum models. The user supplies a tensor of parameterized circuits, a list of symbols contained in the circuits, a tensor of values to substitute for the symbols in the circuit, and a tensor of operators to measure with respect to them. Given these inputs, the layer outputs a tensor of expectation values. Below, we show how to take an expectation value of the measurement defined in section \[sec:q\_tensors\]: expectation_layer = tfq.layers.Expectation() expectations = expectation_layer( circuit = data_and_model, symbol_names = ['theta'], symbol_values = [[0.5]], operators = q_measure) In Fig. \[fig:expectation\_graph\], we illustrate the dataflow graph which backs the expectation layer, when the parameter values are supplied by a classical neural network. The expectation layer is capable of using either a simulator or a real device for execution, and this choice is simply specified at run time. While Cirq simulators may be used for the backend, TFQ provides its own native TensorFlow simulator written in performant C++. A description of our quantum circuit simulation code is given in section \[sec:qsim\]. Having converted the output of a quantum model into classical information, the results can be fed into subsequent computations. In particular, they can be fed into functions that produce a single number, allowing us to define loss functions over quantum models in the same way we do for classical models. ### Differentiating Quantum Circuits We have taken the first steps towards implementation of quantum machine learning, having defined quantum models over quantum data and loss functions over those models. As described in both the introduction and our first guiding principle, differentiability is the critical machinery needed to allow training of these models. As described in section \[sec:tensorflow\], the architecture of TensorFlow is optimized around backpropagation of errors for efficient updates of model parameters; one of the core contributions of TFQ is integration with TensorFlow’s backpropagation mechanism. TFQ implements this functionality with our differentiators module. The theory of quantum circuit differentiation will be covered in section \[sec:gradients\]; here, we overview the software that implements the theory. Since there are many ways to calculate gradients of quantum circuits, TFQ provides the interface. Our and layers rely on classes inheriting from this interface to specify how TensorFlow should compute their gradients. While advanced users can implement their own custom differentiators by inheriting from the interface, TFQ comes with several built-in options, two of which we highlight here. These two methods are instances of the two main categories of quantum circuit differentiators: the finite difference methods and the parameter shift methods. The first class of quantum circuit differentiators is the finite difference methods. This class samples the primary quantum circuit for at least two different parameter settings, then combines them to estimate the derivative. The differentiator provides most basic version of this. For each parameter in the circuit, the circuit is sampled at the current setting of the parameter. Then, each parameter is perturbed separately and the circuit resampled. For the 2-local circuits implementable on near-term hardware, methods more sophisticated than finite differences are possible. These methods involve running an ancillary quantum circuit, from which the gradient of the the primary circuit with respect to some parameter can be directly measured. One specific method is gate decomposition and parameter shifting [@parameter_shift_gradients], implemented in TFQ as the differentiator. For in-depth discussion of the theory, see section \[sec:gradients\_parameter\_shift\]. The differentiation rule used by our layers is specified through an optional keyword argument. Below, we show the expectation layer being called with our parameter shift rule: diff = tfq.differentiators.ParameterShift() expectation = tfq.layers.Expectation(differentiator=diff) For further discussion of the trade-offs when choosing between differentiators, see the gradients tutorial on our GitHub website: [$$\footnotesize\Colorbox{bkgd}{\color{orange-red}\href{https://github.com/tensorflow/quantum/blob/master/docs/tutorials/gradients.ipynb}{\code{docs/tutorials/gradients.ipynb}}}$$]{} ### Simplified Layers Some workflows do not require control as sophisticated as our , , and layers allow. For these workflows we provide the and layers. Both of these layers allow parameterized circuits to be updated by hybrid backpropagation without the user needing to provide the list of symbols associated with the circuit. The layer provides automated Keras management of the variables in a parameterized circuit: q = cirq.GridQubit(0, 0) (a, b) = sympy.symbols("a b") circuit = cirq.Circuit( cirq.Rz(a)(q), cirq.Rx(b)(q)) outputs = tfq.layers.PQC(circuit, cirq.Z(q)) quantum_data = tfq.convert_to_tensor([ cirq.Circuit(), cirq.Circuit(cirq.X(q))]) res = outputs(quantum_data) When the variables in a parameterized circuit will be controlled completely by other user-specified machinery, for example by a classical neural network, then the user can call our layer: outputs = tfq.layers.ControlledPQC( circuit, cirq.Z(bit)) model_params = tf.convert_to_tensor( [[0.5, 0.5], [0.25, 0.75]]) res = outputs([quantum_data, model_params]) Notice that the call is similar to that for PQC, except that we provide parameter values for the symbols in the circuit. These two layers are used extensively in the applications highlighted in the following sections. Quantum Circuit Simulation with qsim {#sec:qsim} ------------------------------------ Concurrently with TFQ, we are open sourcing qsim, a software package for simulating quantum circuits on classical computers. We have adapted its C++ implementation to work inside TFQ’s TensorFlow ops. The performance of qsim derives from two key ideas that can be seen in the literature on classical simulators for quantum circuits [@smelyanskiy2016; @haner2017]. The first idea is the fusion of gates in a quantum circuit with their neighbors to reduce the number of matrix multiplications required when applying the circuit to a wavefunction. The second idea is to create a set of matrix multiplication functions specifically optimized for the application of two-qubit gates to state vectors, to take maximal advantage of gate fusion. We discuss these points in detail below. To quantify the performance of qsim, we also provide an initial benchmark comparing qsim to Cirq. We note that qsim is significantly faster on both random and structured circuits. We further note that the qsim benchmark times include the full TFQ software stack of serializing a circuit to ProtoBuffs in Python, conversion of ProtoBuffs to C++ objects inside the dataflow graph for our custom TensorFlow ops, and the relaying of results back to Python. ### Comment on the Simulation of Quantum Circuits To motivate the qsim fusing algorithm, consider how circuits are applied to states in simulation. Suppose we wish to apply two gates $G_1$ and $G_2$ to our initial state $\ket{\psi}$, and suppose these gates act on the same two qubits. Since gate application is associative, we have $(G_2 G_1) \ket{\psi} = G_2 (G_1 \ket{\psi})$. However, as the number of qubits $n$ supporting $\ket{\psi}$ grows, the left side of the equality becomes much faster to compute. This is because applying a gate to a state requires broadcasting the parameters of the gate to all $2^{n}$ elements of the state vector, so that each gate application incurs a cost scaling as $2^{n}$. In contrast, multiplying two-qubit matrices incurs a small constant cost. This means a simulation of a circuit will be fastest if we pre-multiply as many gates as possible, while keeping the matrix size small, before applying them to a state. This pre-multiplication is called *gate fusion* and is accomplished with the qsim fusion algorithm. ### Gate Fusion with qsim ![Visualization of the qsim fusing algorithm. After contraction, only two-qubit gates remain, increasing the speed of subsequent circuit simulation.[]{data-label="fig:qsim"}](figures/qsim_diagram.pdf){width="1\columnwidth"} The core idea of the fusion algorithm is to multiply each two-qubit gate in the circuit with all of the one-qubit gates around it. Suppose we are given a circuit with $N$ qubits and $T$ timesteps. The circuit can be interpreted as a two dimensional lattice: the row index $n$ labels the qubit, and the column index $t$ labels the timestep. Fusion is initialized by setting a counter $c_n = 0$ for each $n\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$. Then, for each timestep, check each row for a two-qubit gate $A$; when such a gate is found, the search pauses and $A$ becomes the anchor gate for a round of *gate fusion*. Suppose $A$ is supported on qubits $n_a$ and $n_b$ and resides at timestep $t$. By construction, on row $n_a$ all gates from timestep $c_{n_a}$ to $t-1$ are single qubit gates; thus we can multiply them all together and into $A$. We then continue down row $n_a$ starting at timestep $t+1$, multiplying single qubit gates into $A$, until we encounter another two-qubit gate, at time $t_a$. The fusing on this row stops, and we set $c_{n_a} = t_a$. Then we do the same for row $n_b$. After this process, all one-qubit gates that can be reached from $A$ have been absorbed. If at this point $c_{n_a} = c_{n_b}$, then the gate at timestep $t_a$ is a two-qubit gate which is also supported on qubits $n_a$ and $n_b$; thus this gate can also be multiplied into the anchor gate $A$. If a two-qubit gate is absorbed in this manner, the process of absorbing one-qubit gates starts again from $t_a + 1$. This continues until either $c_{n_a} \neq c_{n_b}$, which means a two-qubit gate has been encountered which is not supported on both $n_a$ and $n_b$, or $c_{n_a} = c_{n_b} = T$, which means the end of the circuit has been reached on these two qubits. Finally, gate $A$ has completed its fusion process, and we continue our search through the lattice for unprocessed two-qubit anchor gates. The qsim fusion algorithm is illustrated on a simple three-qubit circuit in Fig. \[fig:qsim\]. After this process of gate fusion, we can run simulators optimized for the application of two-qubit gates. These simulators are described next. ### Hardware-Specific Instruction Sets With the given quantum circuit fused into the minimal number of two-qubit gates, we need simulators optimized for applying $4\times4$ matrices to state vectors. TFQ offers three instruction set tiers, each taking advantage of increasingly modern CPU commands for increasing simulation speed. The simulators are adaptive to the user’s available hardware. The first tier is a general simulator designed to work on any CPU architecture. The next is the SSE2 instruction set [@sse2], and the fastest uses the modern AVX2 instruction set [@avx2]. These three available instruction sets, combined with the fusing algorithm discussed above, ensures users have maximal performance when running algorithms in simulation. The next section illustrates this power with benchmarks comparing the performance of TFQ to the performance of parallelized Cirq running in simulation mode. In the future, we hope to expand the range of custom simulation hardware supported to include GPU and TPU integration. ### Benchmarks {#sec:benchmarks} Here, we demonstrate the performance of TFQ, backed by qsim, relative to Cirq on two benchmark simulation tasks. As detailed above, the performance difference is due to circuit pre-processing via gate fusion combined with performant C++ simulators. The benchmarks were performed on a desktop equipped with an Intel(R) Xeon(R) W-2135 CPU running at 3.70 GHz. This CPU supports the AVX2 instruction set, which at the time of writing is the fastest hardware tier supported by TFQ. In the following simulations, TFQ uses a single core, while Cirq simulation is allowed to parallelize over all available cores using the Python module and the function. ![Performance of TFQ (orange) and Cirq (blue) on simulation tasks. The plots show the base 10 logarithm of the total time to solution (in seconds) versus the number of qubits simulated. Simulation of 500 random circuits, taken in batches of 50. Circuits were of depth 40. (a) At the largest tested size of 20 qubits, we see approximately 7 times savings in simulation time versus Cirq. (b) Simulation of structured circuits. The smaller scale of entanglement makes these circuits more amenable to compaction via the qsim Fusion algorithm. At the largest tested size of 20 qubits, we see TFQ is up to 100 times faster than parallelized Cirq. []{data-label="fig:qsim_benchmark"}](figures/tfq_benchmarks_figure.pdf){width="1\columnwidth"} The first benchmark task is simulation of 500 supremacy-style circuits batched 50 at a time. These circuits were generated using the Cirq function . These circuits are only tractable for benchmarking due to the small numbers of qubits involved here. These circuits have very little structure, involving many interleaved two-qubit gates to generate entanglement as quickly as possible. In summary, at the largest benchmarked problem size of 20 qubits, qsim achieves an approximately 7-fold improvement in simulation time over Cirq. The performance curves are shown in Fig. \[fig:qsim\_benchmark\]. We note that the interleaved structure of these circuits means little gate fusion is possible, so that this performance boost is mostly due to the speed of our C++ simulators. When the simulated circuits have more structure, the Fusion algorithm allows us to achieve a larger performance boost by reducing the number of gates that ultimately need to be simulated. The circuits for this task are a factorized version of the supremacy-style circuits which generate entanglement only on small subsets of the qubits. In summary, for these circuits, we find a roughly 100 times improvement in simulation time in TFQ versus Cirq. The performance curves are shown in Fig. \[fig:qsim\_benchmark\]. Thus we see that in addition to our core functionality of implementing native TensorFlow gradients for quantum circuits, TFQ also provides a significant boost in performance over Cirq when running in simulation mode. Additionally, as noted before, this performance boost is despite the additional overhead of serialization between the TensorFlow frontend and qsim proper. Theory of Hybrid Quantum-Classical Machine Learning {#sec:theory} =================================================== In the previous section, we reviewed the building blocks required for use of TFQ. In this section, we consider the theory behind the software. We define quantum neural networks as products of parameterized unitary matrices. Samples and expectation values are defined by expressing the loss function as an inner product. With quantum neural networks and expectation values defined, we can then define gradients. We finally combine quantum and classical neural networks and formalize hybrid quantum-classical backpropagation, one of core components of TFQ. Quantum Neural Networks {#sec:2qnn} ----------------------- A Quantum Neural Network ansatz can generally be written as a product of layers of unitaries in the form $$\label{eq:full_par_circ} \hat{U}(\bm{\theta}) = \prod_{\ell=1}^L\hat{V}^{\ell}\hat{U}^{\ell}(\bm{\theta}^{\ell}),$$ where the $\ell^\text{th}$ layer of the QNN consists of the product of $\hat{V}^{\ell}$, a non-parametric unitary, and $\hat{U}^{\ell}(\bm{\theta}^{\ell})$ a unitary with variational parameters (note the superscripts here represent indices rather than exponents). The multi-parameter unitary of a given layer can itself be generally comprised of multiple unitaries $\{\hat{U}_{j}^{\ell}(\theta^{\ell}_{j})\}_{j=1}^{M_\ell}$ applied in parallel: $$\hat{U}^{\ell}(\bm{\theta}^{\ell})\equiv \bigotimes_{j=1}^{M_\ell} \hat{U}_{j}^{\ell}(\theta^{\ell}_{j}).$$ Finally, each of these unitaries $\hat{U}_{j}^{\ell}$ can be expressed as the exponential of some generator $\hat{g}_{j\ell}$, which itself can be any Hermitian operator on $n$ qubits (thus expressible as a linear combination of $n$-qubit Pauli’s), $$\label{eq:Pauli_decomp} \hat{U}^{\ell}_{j}(\theta^{\ell}_{j})= e^{-i\theta^{\ell}_{j} \hat{g}_j^{\ell }}, \quad \hat{g}_j^{\ell} = \sum_{k=1}^{K_{j\ell}} \beta^{j\ell}_k \hat{P}_k,$$ where $\hat{P}_k \in \mathcal{P}_n$, here $\mathcal{P}_n$ denotes the Paulis on $n$-qubits [@Gottesman1997], and $\beta^{j\ell}_k\in \mathbb{R}$ for all $k,j,\ell$. For a given $j$ and $\ell$, in the case where all the Pauli terms commute, i.e. $[\hat{P}_k,\hat{P}_m]=0$ for all $m,k$ such that $\beta^{j\ell}_m,\beta^{j\ell}_k\neq 0$, one can simply decompose the unitary into a product of exponentials of each term, $$\label{eq:} \hat{U}^{\ell}_{j}(\theta^{\ell}_{j}) = \prod_k e^{-i\theta^{\ell}_{j} \beta^{j\ell}_k \hat{P}_k}.$$ Otherwise, in instances where the various terms do not commute, one may apply a Trotter-Suzuki decomposition of this exponential [@suzuki1990fractal], or other quantum simulation methods [@Campbell_2019]. Note that in the above case where the unitary of a given parameter is decomposable as the product of exponentials of Pauli terms, one can explicitly express the layer as $$\label{eq:cs_decomp} \hat{U}^{\ell}_{j}(\theta^{\ell}_{j}) = \prod_k \left[\cos({\theta^{\ell}_{j} \beta^{j\ell}_k })\hat{I} -i \sin({\theta^{\ell}_{j} \beta^{j\ell}_k })\hat{P}_k\right].$$ The above form will be useful for our discussion of gradients of expectation values below. ![ High-level depiction of a multilayer quantum neural network (also known as a parameterized quantum circuit), at various levels of abstraction. (a) At the most detailed level we have both fixed and parameterized quantum gates, any parameterized operation is compiled into a combination of parameterized single-qubit operations. (b) Many singly-parameterized gates $W_j(\theta_j)$ form a multi-parameterized unitary $V_l(\Vec{\theta}_l)$ which performs a specific function. (c) The product of multiple unitaries $V_l$ generates the quantum model $U(\bm{\theta})$ shown in (d). []{data-label="fig:qnn_compiled"}](figures/layers_compiled.png){width="0.9\columnwidth"} Sampling and Expectations ------------------------- To optimize the parameters of an ansatz from equation , we need a cost function to optimize. In the case of standard variational quantum algorithms, this cost function is most often chosen to be the expectation value of a cost Hamiltonian, $$\label{eq:cost} f(\bm{\theta}) = \braket{\hat{H}}_{\bm{\theta}} \equiv \bra{\Psi_0}\hat{U}^\dagger(\bm{\theta})\hat{H}\hat{U}(\bm{\theta})\ket{\Psi_0}$$ where $\ket{\Psi_0}$ is the input state to the parameterized circuit. In general, the cost Hamiltonian can be expressed as a linear combination of operators, e.g. in the form $$\label{eq:cost_lincomb} \hat{H} = \sum_{k=1}^N \alpha_k\hat{h}_k \equiv \bm{\alpha}\cdot \bm{\hat{h}},$$ where we defined a vector of coefficients $\bm{\alpha}\in \mathbb{R}^N$ and a vector of $N$ operators $\bm{\hat{h}}$. Often this decomposition is chosen such that each of these sub-Hamiltonians is in the $n$-qubit Pauli group $\hat{h}_k \in\mathcal{P}_n$. The expectation value of this Hamiltonian is then generally evaluated via quantum expectation estimation, i.e. by taking the linear combination of expectation values of each term $$\label{eq:qee_lincomb} f(\bm{\theta}) =\braket{\hat{H}}_{\bm{\theta}} = \sum_{k=1}^N \alpha_k \braket{\hat{h}_k}_{\bm{\theta}} \equiv \bm{\alpha}\cdot \bm{h}_{\bm{\theta}},$$ where we introduced the vector of expectations $\bm{h}_{\bm{\theta}} \equiv \braket{\bm{\hat{h}}}_{\bm{\theta}} $. In the case of non-commuting terms, the various expectation values $\braket{\hat{h}_k}_{\bm{\theta}}$ are estimated over separate runs. Note that, in practice, each of these quantum expectations is estimated via sampling of the output of the quantum computer [@mcclean2016theory]. Even assuming a perfect fidelity of quantum computation, sampling measurement outcomes of eigenvalues of observables from the output of the quantum computer to estimate an expectation will have some non-negligible variance for any finite number of samples. Assuming each of the Hamiltonian terms of equation admit a Pauli operator decomposition as $$\hat{h}_j = \sum_{k=1}^{J_{j}} \gamma^{j}_k \hat{P}_k,$$ where the $\gamma^{j}_k$’s are real-valued coefficients and the $\hat{P}_j$’s are Paulis that are Pauli operators [@Gottesman1997], then to get an estimate of the expectation value $\braket{ \hat{h}_j }$ within an accuracy $\epsilon$, one needs to take a number of measurement samples scaling as $\sim\mathcal{O}(\lVert \hat{h}_k\rVert_*^2/\epsilon^2)$, where $\lVert \hat{h}_k\rVert_* = \sum_{k=1}^{J_{j}} |\gamma^{j}_k|$ is the Pauli coefficient norm of each Hamiltonian term. Thus, to estimate the expectation value of the full Hamiltonian accurately within a precision $\varepsilon = \epsilon\sum_k|\alpha_k|^2$, we would need on the order of $\sim\mathcal{O}(\tfrac{1}{\epsilon^2}\sum_k|\alpha_k|^2\lVert \hat{h}_k\rVert_*^2) $ measurement samples in total [@rubin2018application; @wecker2015progress], as we would need to measure each expectation independently if we are following the quantum expectation estimation trick of . This is in sharp contrast to classical methods for gradients involving backpropagation, where gradients can be estimated to numerical precision; i.e. within a precision $\epsilon$ with $\sim\mathcal{O}(\text{PolyLog}(\epsilon))$ overhead. Although there have been attempts to formulate a backpropagation principle for quantum computations [@verdon2018universal], these methods also rely on the measurement of a quantum observable, thus also requiring $\sim\mathcal{O}(\tfrac{1}{\epsilon^2})$ samples. As we will see in the following section \[sec:gradients\], estimating gradients of quantum neural networks on quantum computers involves the estimation of several expectation values of the cost function for various values of the parameters. One trick that was recently pointed out [@harrow2019low; @sweke2019stochastic] and has been proven to be successful both theoretically and empirically to estimate such gradients is the stochastic selection of various terms in the quantum expectation estimation. This can greatly reduce the number of measurements needed per gradient update, we will cover this in subsection \[sec:stoc\_ge\]. Gradients of Quantum Neural Networks {#sec:gradients} ------------------------------------ Now that we have established how to evaluate the loss function, let us describe how to obtain gradients of the cost function with respect to the parameters. Why should we care about gradients of quantum neural networks? In classical deep learning, the most common family of optimization heuristics for the minimization of cost functions are gradient-based techniques [@lecun1998gradient; @bottou2010large; @ruder2016overview], which include stochastic gradient descent and its variants. To leverage gradient-based techniques for the learning of multilayered models, the ability to rapidly differentiate error functionals is key. For this, the backwards propagation of errors [@lecun1988theoretical] (colloquially known as *backprop*), is a now canonical method to progressively calculate gradients of parameters in deep networks. In its most general form, this technique is known as *automatic differentiation* [@baydin2017automatic], and has become so central to deep learning that this feature of *differentiability* is at the core of several frameworks for deep learning, including of course TensorFlow (TF) [@abadi2016tensorflow], JAX [@frostig2018compiling], and several others. To be able to train hybrid quantum-classical models (section \[sec:hqcm-th\]), the ability to take gradients of quantum neural networks is key. Now that we understand the greater context, let us describe a few techniques below for the estimation of these gradients. ### Finite difference methods {#sec:gradients_finite_difference} A simple approach is to use simple finite-difference methods, for example, the central difference method, $$\label{eq:central_diff} \partial_k f(\bm{\theta}) = \frac{f(\bm{\theta} + \varepsilon\bm{\Delta}_k)-f(\bm{\theta} - \varepsilon\bm{\Delta}_k)}{2\varepsilon} +\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^2)$$ which, in the case where there are $M$ continuous parameters, involves $2M$ evaluations of the objective function, each evaluation varying the parameters by $\varepsilon$ in some direction, thereby giving us an estimate of the gradient of the function with a precision $\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^2)$. Here the $\bm{\Delta}_k$ is a unit-norm perturbation vector in the $k^{\text{th}}$ direction of parameter space, $(\bm{\Delta}_k)_j = \delta_{jk}$. In general, one may use lower-order methods, such as forward difference with $\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon)$ error from $M+1$ objective queries [@farhi2018classification], or higher order methods, such as a five-point stencil method, with $\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^4)$ error from $4M$ queries [@abramowitz20061965]. ### Parameter shift methods {#sec:gradients_parameter_shift} As recently pointed out in various works [@schuld2018evaluating; @harrow2019low], given knowledge of the form of the ansatz (e.g. as in ), one can measure the analytic gradients of the expectation value of the circuit for Hamiltonians which have a single-term in their Pauli decomposition (or, alternatively, if the Hamiltonian has a spectrum $\{\pm \lambda\}$ for some positive $\lambda$). For multi-term Hamiltonians, in [@schuld2018evaluating] a method to obtain the analytic gradients is proposed which uses a linear combination of unitaries. Here, instead, we will simply use a change of variables and the chain rule to obtain analytic gradients of parametric unitaries of the form without the need for ancilla qubits or additional unitaries. For a parameter of interest $\theta^{\ell}_{j}$ appearing in a layer $\ell$ in a parametric circuit in the form , consider the change of variables $\eta_{k}^{j\ell} \equiv \theta^{\ell}_{j}\beta_k^{j\ell}$, then from the chain rule of calculus [@newton1999principia], we have $$\label{eq:chain_rule} \frac{\partial f}{\partial \theta^{\ell}_{j}} = \sum_k \frac{\partial f}{\partial \eta_{k}^{j\ell}} \frac{\partial \eta_{k}^{j\ell}}{\partial \theta^{\ell}_{j}} = \sum_k \beta_k^{j\ell} \frac{\partial f}{\partial \eta_k}.$$ Thus, all we need to compute are the derivatives of the cost function with respect to $\eta^{j\ell}_k$. Due to this change of variables, we need to reparameterize our unitary $\hat{U}(\bm{\theta})$ from as $$\hat{U}^{\ell}(\bm{\theta}^{\ell}) \mapsto \hat{U}^{\ell}(\bm{\eta}^{\ell}) \equiv \bigotimes_{j\in \mathcal{I}_{\ell}} \Big(\prod_k e^{-i\eta^{j\ell}_k \hat{P}_k}\Big),$$ where $\mathcal{I}_{\ell} \equiv \{1,\ldots, M_{\ell} \}$ is an index set for the QNN layers. One can then expand each exponential in the above in a similar fashion to : $$e^{-i\eta^{j\ell}_k \hat{P}_k} = \cos(\eta^{j\ell}_k)\hat{I} -i \sin(\eta^{j\ell}_k)\hat{P}_k.$$ As can be shown from this form, the analytic derivative of the expectation value $f(\bm{\eta}) \equiv \bra{\Psi_0}\hat{U}^\dagger(\bm{\eta})\hat{H}\hat{U}(\bm{\eta})\ket{\Psi_0} $ with respect to a component $\eta_k^{j\ell}$ can be reduced to following parameter shift rule [@mitarai2018quantum; @harrow2019low; @sweke2019stochastic]: $$\label{eq:parshift_grad} \tfrac{\partial}{\partial \eta^{j\ell}_k} f(\bm{\eta}) = f(\bm{\eta}+\tfrac{\pi}{4}\bm{\Delta}_{k}^{j\ell})-f(\bm{\eta}-\tfrac{\pi}{4}\bm{\Delta}_{k}^{j\ell})$$ where $\bm{\Delta}_{k}^{j\ell}$ is a vector representing unit-norm perturbation of the variable $\eta^{j\ell}_k$ in the positive direction. We thus see that this shift in parameters can generally be much larger than that of the numerical differentiation parameter shifts as in equation . In some cases this is useful as one does not have to resolve as fine-grained a difference in the cost function as an infinitesimal shift, hence requiring less runs to achieve a sufficiently precise estimate of the value of the gradient. Note that in order to compute through the chain rule in for a parametric unitary as in , we need to evaluate the expectation function $2K_\ell$ times to obtain the gradient of the parameter $\theta_j^\ell$. Thus, in some cases where each parameter generates an exponential of many terms, although the gradient estimate is of higher precision, obtaining an analytic gradient can be too costly in terms of required queries to the objective function. To remedy this additional overhead, Harrow et al. [@harrow2019low] proposed to stochastically select terms according to a distribution weighted by the coefficients of each term in the generator, and to perform gradient descent from these stochastic estimates of the gradient. Let us review this stochastic gradient estimation technique as it is implemented in TFQ. ### Stochastic Parameter Shift Gradient Estimation {#sec:stoc_ge} Consider the full analytic gradient from and , if we have $M_{\ell}$ parameters and $L$ layers, there are $\sum_{\ell=1}^L M_{\ell}$ terms of the following form to estimate: $$\label{eq:expansion1} \frac{\partial f}{\partial \theta^{\ell}_{j}} = \sum_{k=1}^{K_{j\ell}} \beta_k^{j\ell} \frac{\partial f}{\partial \eta_k} = \sum_{k=1}^{K_{j\ell}} \Big[\sum_{\pm}\pm\beta_k^{j\ell} f(\bm{\eta}\pm\tfrac{\pi}{4}\bm{\Delta}_{k}^{j\ell})\Big] .$$ These terms come from the components of the gradient vector itself which has the dimension equal to that of the total number of free parameters in the QNN, $\text{dim}(\bm{\theta})$. For each of these components, for the $j^\text{th}$ component of the $\ell^\text{th}$ layer, there $2K_{j\ell}$ parameter-shifted expectation values to evaluate, thus in total there are $\sum_{\ell=1}^L 2K_{j\ell}M_{\ell}$ parameterized expectation values of the cost Hamiltonian to evaluate. For practical implementation of this estimation procedure, we must expand this sum further. Recall that, as the cost Hamiltonian generally will have many terms, for each quantum expectation estimation of the cost function for some value of the parameters, we have $$\label{eq:expansion2} f(\bm{\theta}) =\braket{\hat{H}}_{\bm{\theta}} = \sum_{m=1}^N \alpha_m \braket{\hat{h}_m}_{\bm{\theta}} = \sum_{m=1}^N\sum_{q=1}^{J_{m}} \alpha_m\gamma^{m}_{q} \braket{\hat{P}_{qm}}_{\bm{\theta}},$$ which has $\sum_{j=1}^NJ_{j}$ terms. Thus, if we consider that all the terms in are of the form of , we see that we have a total number of $\sum_{m=1}^N\sum_{\ell=1}^L 2J_{m}K_{j\ell}M_{\ell}$ expectation values to estimate the gradient. Note that one of these sums comes from the total number of appearances of parameters in front of Paulis in the generators of the parameterized quantum circuit, the second sum comes from the various terms in the cost Hamiltonian in the Pauli expansion. As the cost of accurately estimating all these terms one by one and subsequently linearly combining the values such as to yield an estimate of the total gradient may be prohibitively expensive in terms of numbers of runs, instead, one can *stochastically* estimate this sum, by randomly picking terms according to their weighting [@harrow2019low; @sweke2019stochastic]. One can sample a distribution over the appearances of a parameter in the QNN, $k\sim\text{Pr}(k|j,\ell) = |\beta_k^{j\ell}|/(\sum_{o=1}^{K_{j\ell}} |\beta_o^{j\ell}|)$, one then estimates the two parameter-shifted terms corresponding to this index in and averages over samples. We consider this case to be *simply stochastic gradient estimation* for the gradient component corresponding to the parameter $\theta^{\ell}_{j}$. One can go even further in this spirit, for each of these sampled expectation values, by also sampling terms from according to a similar distribution determined by the magnitude of the Pauli expansion coefficients. Sampling the indices $ \{q,m\} \sim\text{Pr}(q,m) = |\alpha_m\gamma^{m}_{q}|/( \sum_{d=1}^N\sum_{r=1}^{J_{d}} |\alpha_d\gamma^{d}_{r}|)$ and estimating the expectation $\braket{\hat{P}_{q_m}}_{\bm{\theta}}$ for the appropriate parameter-shifted values sampled from the terms of according to the procedure outlined above. This is considered *doubly stochastic gradient estimation*. In principle, one could go one step further, and per iteration of gradient descent, randomly sample indices representing subsets of *parameters* for which we will estimate the gradient component, and set the non-sampled indices corresponding gradient components to 0 for the given iteration. The distribution we sample in this case is given by $\theta^{\ell}_{j} \sim \text{Pr}(j,\ell) = \sum_{k=1}^{K_{j\ell}}|\beta_k^{j\ell}|/(\sum_{u=1}^L \sum_{i=1}^{M_u}\sum_{o=1}^{K_{iu}} |\beta_o^{iu}|)$. This is, in a sense, akin to the SPSA algorithm [@bhatnagarstochastic], in the sense that it is a gradient-based method with a stochastic mask. The above component sampling, combined with doubly stochastic gradient descent, yields what we consider to be *triply stochastic gradient descent*. This is equivalent to simultaneously sampling $\{j,\ell,k,q,m\} \sim \text{Pr}(j,\ell,k,q,m) = \text{Pr}(k|j,\ell)\text{Pr}(j,\ell)\text{Pr}(q,m)$ using the probabilities outlined in the paragraph above, where $j$ and $\ell$ index the parameter and layer, $k$ is the index from the sum in equation , and $q$ and $m$ are the indices of the sum in equation . In TFQ, all three of the stochastic averaging methods above can be turned on or off independently for stochastic parameter-shift gradients. See the details in the module of TFQ on GitHub. Now that we have reviewed various ways of obtaining gradients of expectation values, let us consider how to go beyond basic variational quantum algorithms and consider fully hybrid quantum-classical neural networks. As we will see, our general framework of gradients of cost Hamiltonians will carry over. Hybrid Quantum-Classical Computational Graphs {#sec:hqcm-th} --------------------------------------------- ![High-level depiction of a quantum-classical neural network. Blue blocks represent Deep Neural Network (DNN) function blocks and orange boxes represent Quantum Neural Network (QNN) function blocks. Arrows represent the flow of information during the feedforward (inference) phase. For an example of the interface between quantum and classical neural network blocks, see Fig. \[fig:backprop\]. []{data-label="fig:hqc-graph"}](figures/qnn-dnn-meta-net.png){width="\columnwidth"} ### Hybrid Quantum-Classical Neural Networks Now, we are ready to formally introduce the notion of Hybrid Quantum-Classical Neural Networks (HQCNN’s). HQCNN’s are meta-networks comprised of quantum and classical neural network-based function blocks composed with one another in the topology of a directed graph. We can consider this a rendition of a hybrid quantum-classical computational graph where the inner workings (variables, component functions) of various functions are abstracted into boxes (see Fig. \[fig:hqc-graph\] for a depiction of such a graph). The edges then simply represent the flow of classical information through the meta-network of quantum and classical functions. The key will be to construct parameterized (differentiable) functions $f_{\bm{\theta}}:\mathbb{R}^M\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^N$ from expectation values of parameterized quantum circuits, then creating a meta-graph of quantum and classical computational nodes from these blocks. Let us first describe how to create these functions from expectation values of QNN’s. As we saw in equations and , we get a differentiable cost function $f: \mathbb{R}^M \mapsto \mathbb{R}$ from taking the expectation value of a single Hamiltonian at the end of the parameterized circuit, $f(\bm{\theta}) =\braket{\hat{H}}_{\bm{\theta}}$. As we saw in equations and , to compute this expectation value, as the readout Hamiltonian is often decomposed into a linear combination of operators $\hat{H} = \bm{\alpha}\cdot \bm{\hat{h}}$ (see ), then the function is itself a linear combination of expectation values of multiple terms (see ), $\braket{\hat{H}}_{\bm{\theta}} = \bm{\alpha}\cdot \bm{h}_{\bm{\theta}} $ where $\bm{h}_{\bm{\theta}} \equiv \braket{\bm{\hat{h}}}_{\bm{\theta}} \in \mathbb{R}^N$ is a vector of expectation values. Thus, before the scalar value of the cost function is evaluated, QNN’s naturally are evaluated as a vector of expectation values, $\bm{h}_{\bm{\theta}}$. Hence, if we would like the QNN to become more like a classical neural network block, i.e. mapping vectors to vectors $ \bm{f}:\mathbb{R}^M \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^N$, we can obtain a vector-valued differentiable function from the QNN by considering it as a function of the parameters which outputs a vector of expectation values of different operators, $$\bm{f}:\bm{\theta}\mapsto \bm{h}_{\bm{\theta}}$$ where $$\label{eq:exp_vec} (\bm{h}_{\bm{\theta}})_k = \braket{\hat{h}_k}_{\bm{\theta}} \equiv \bra{\Psi_0}\hat{U}^\dagger(\bm{\theta})\hat{h}_k\hat{U}(\bm{\theta})\ket{\Psi_0}.$$ We represent such a QNN-based function in Fig. \[fig:backprop\]. Note that, in general, each of these $\hat{h}_k$’s could be comprised of multiple terms themselves, $$\hat{h}_k = \sum_{t=1}^{N_k} \gamma_t \hat{m}_t$$ hence, one can perform Quantum Expectation Estimation to estimate the expectation of each term as $\braket{\hat{h}_k}= \sum_t \gamma_t\braket{\hat{m}_t}$. Note that, in some cases, instead of the expectation values of the set of operators $\{\hat{h}_k\}_{k=1}^M$, one may instead want to relay the histogram of measurement results obtained from multiple measurements of the eigenvalues of each of these observables. This case can also be phrased as a vector of expectation values, as we will now show. First, note that the histogram of the measurement results of some $\hat{h}_k$ with eigendecomposition $\hat{h}_k = \sum_{j=1}^{r_k}\lambda_{jk} \ket{\lambda_{jk}}\bra{\lambda_{jk}}$ can be considered as a vector of expectation values where the observables are the eigenstate projectors $\ket{\lambda_{jk}}\!\bra{\lambda_{jk}}$. Instead of obtaining a single real number from the expectation value of $\hat{h}_k$, we can obtain a vector $ \bm{h}_k\in \mathbb{R}^{r_k}$, where $r_k = \text{rank}(\hat{h}_k)$ and the components are given by $ ( \bm{h}_k)_j \equiv \braket{\ket{\lambda_{jk}}\!\bra{\lambda_{jk}}}_{\bm{\theta}} $. We are then effectively considering the categorical (empirical) distribution as our vector. Now, if we consider measuring the eigenvalues of multiple observables $\{\hat{h}_k\}_{k=1}^M$ and collecting the measurement result histograms, we get a 2-dimensional tensor $(\bm{h}_{\bm{\theta}})_{jk} = \braket{\ket{\lambda_{jk}}\!\bra{\lambda_{jk}}}_{\bm{\theta}} $. Without loss of generality, we can flatten this array into a vector of dimension $\mathbb{R}^R$ where $R = \sum_{k=1}^M r_k$. Thus, considering vectors of expectation values is a relatively general way of representing the output of a quantum neural network. In the limit where the set of observables considered forms an informationally-complete set of observables [@Gross_2010], then the array of measurement outcomes would fully characterize the wavefunction, albeit at an overhead exponential in the number of qubits. We should mention that in some cases, instead of expectation values or histograms, single samples from the output of a measurement can be used for direct feedback-control on the quantum system, e.g. in quantum error correction [@Gottesman1997]. At least in the current implementation of TFQuantum, since quantum circuits are built in Cirq and this feature is not supported in the latter, such scenarios are currently out-of-scope. Mathematically, in such a scenario, one could then consider the QNN and measurement as map from quantum circuit parameters $\bm{\theta}$ to the conditional random variable $\Lambda_{\bm{\theta}}$ valued over $\mathbb{R}^{N_k}$ corresponding to the measured eigenvalues $\lambda_{jk}$ with a probability density $\text{Pr}[(\Lambda_{\bm{\theta}})_{k}\equiv \lambda_{jk}]= p(\lambda_{jk}|\bm{\theta})$ which corresponds to the measurement statistics distribution induced by the Born rule, $ p(\lambda_{jk}|\bm{\theta}) = \braket{\ket{\lambda_{jk}}\!\bra{\lambda_{jk}}}_{\bm{\theta}} $. This QNN and single measurement map from the parameters to the conditional random variable $\bm{f}:\bm{\theta}\mapsto \Lambda_{\bm{\theta}}$ can be considered as a classical stochastic map (classical conditional probability distribution over output variables given the parameters). In the case where only expectation values are used, this stochastic map reduces to a deterministic node through which we may backpropagate gradients, as we will see in the next subsection. In the case where this map is used dynamically per-sample, this remains a stochastic map, and though there exists some algorithms for backpropagation through stochastic nodes [@schulman2015gradient], these are not currently supported natively in TFQ. Autodifferentiation through hybrid quantum-classical backpropagation {#sec:qnn_grad} -------------------------------------------------------------------- As described above, hybrid quantum-classical neural network blocks take as input a set of real parameters $\bm{\theta}\in \mathbb{R}^M$, apply a circuit $\hat{U}(\bm{\theta})$ and take a set of expectation values of various observables $$(\bm{h}_{\bm{\theta}})_k = \braket{\hat{h}_k}_{\bm{\theta}}.$$ The result of this parameter-to-expected value map is a function $ \bm{f}:\mathbb{R}^M \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^N$ which maps parameters to a real-valued vector, $$\bm{f}:\bm{\theta}\mapsto \bm{h}_{\bm{\theta}} .$$ This function can then be composed with other parameterized function blocks comprised of either quantum or classical neural network blocks, as depicted in Fig. \[fig:hqc-graph\]. To be able to backpropagate gradients through general meta-networks of quantum and classical neural network blocks, we simply have to figure out how to backpropagate gradients through a quantum parameterized block function when it is composed with other parameterized block functions. Due to the partial ordering of the quantum-classical computational graph, we can focus on how to backpropagate gradients through a QNN in the scenario where we consider a simplified quantum-classical network where we combine all function blocks that precede and postcede the QNN block into monolithic function blocks. Namely, we can consider a scenario where we have $\bm{f}_\text{pre}:\bm{x}_{\text{in}}\mapsto \bm{\theta}$ ($\bm{f}_\text{pre}:\mathbb{R}^{\text{in}}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^M$) as the block preceding the QNN, the QNN block as $\bm{f}_{\text{qnn}}:\bm{\theta}\mapsto \bm{h}_{\bm{\theta}}$, ($\bm{f}_{\text{qnn}}:\mathbb{R}^M \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^N$), the post-QNN block as $\bm{f}_\text{post}:\bm{h}_{\bm{\theta}}\mapsto\bm{y}_{\text{out}}$ ($\bm{f}_\text{post}:\mathbb{R}^M \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^N_{\text{out}}$) and finally the loss function for training the entire network being computed from this output $\mathcal{L}:\mathbb{R}^N_{\text{out}}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$. The composition of functions from the input data to the output loss is then the sequentially composited function $(\mathcal{L}\circ \bm{f}_\text{post} \circ \bm{f}_{\text{qnn}} \circ \bm{f}_\text{pre})$. This scenario is depicted in Fig. \[fig:backprop\]. Now, let us describe the process of backpropagation through this composition of functions. As is standard in backpropagation of gradients through feedforward networks, we begin with the loss function evaluated at the output units and work our way back through the several layers of functional composition of the network to get the gradients. The first step is to obtain the gradient of the loss function $\partial\mathcal{L}/\partial \bm{y}_{\text{out}}$ and to use classical (regular) backpropagation of gradients to obtain the gradient of the loss with respect to the output of the QNN, i.e. we get $\partial(\mathcal{L}\circ \bm{f}_\text{post})/\partial \bm{h}$ via the usual use of the chain rule for backpropagation, i.e., the contraction of the Jacobian with the gradient of the subsequent layer, $\partial(\mathcal{L}\circ \bm{f}_\text{post})/\partial \bm{h} = \tfrac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial{\bm{y} }}\cdot\tfrac{ \partial{\bm{f}_\text{post} }}{\partial{\bm{h} }}$. Now, let us label the evaluated gradient of the loss function with respect to the QNN’s expectation values as $$\label{eq:grad} \bm{g} \equiv \left.\tfrac{\partial(\mathcal{L}\circ \bm{f}_\text{post})}{\partial \bm{h}}\right|_{\bm{h} = \bm{h}_{\bm{\theta}}}.$$ We can now consider this value as effectively a constant. Let us then define an *effective backpropagated Hamiltonian* with respect to this gradient as $$\hat{H}_{\bm{g}} \equiv \sum_k g_k\hat{h}_k,$$ where $g_k$ are the components of . Notice that expectations of this Hamiltonian are given by $$\braket{\hat{H}_{\bm{g}}}_{\bm{\theta}} = \bm{g} \cdot \bm{h}_{\bm{\theta}},$$ and so, the gradients of the expectation value of this Hamiltonian are given by $$\tfrac{\partial}{\partial{\theta_j}}\braket{\hat{H}_{\bm{g}}}_{\bm{\theta}} = \tfrac{\partial}{\partial{\theta_j}}(\bm{g} \cdot \bm{h}_{\bm{\theta}}) = \sum_k g_k \tfrac{\partial h_{\bm{\theta}\!,k}}{\partial \theta_j}$$ which is exactly the Jacobian of the QNN function $\bm{f}_{\text{qnn}}$ contracted with the backpropagated gradient of previous layers. Explicitly, $$\partial(\mathcal{L}\circ \bm{f}_\text{post}\circ \bm{f}_\text{qnn})/\partial \bm{\theta} = \tfrac{\partial}{\partial{\bm{\theta}}}\braket{\hat{H}_{\bm{g}}}_{\bm{\theta}}.$$ Thus, by taking gradients of the expectation value of the backpropagated effective Hamiltonian, we can get the gradients of the loss function with respect to QNN parameters, thereby successfully backpropagating gradients through the QNN. Further backpropagation through the preceding function block $\bm{f}_\text{pre}$ can be done using standard classical backpropagation by using this evaluated QNN gradient. Note that for a given value of $\bm{g}$, the effective backpropagated Hamiltonian is simply a fixed Hamiltonian operator, as such, taking gradients of the expectation of a single multi-term operator can be achieved by any choice in a multitude of the methods for taking gradients of QNN’s described earlier in this section. ![Example of inference and hybrid backpropagation at the interface of a quantum and classical part of a hybrid computational graph. Here we have classical deep neural networks (DNN) both preceding and postceding the quantum neural network (QNN). In this example, the preceding DNN outputs a set of parameters $\bm{\theta}$ which are used as then used by the QNN as parameters for inference. The QNN outputs a vector of expectation values (estimated through several runs) whose components are $(\bm{h}_{\bm{\theta}})_k = \braket{\hat{h}_k}_{\bm{\theta}}$. This vector is then fed as input to another (post-ceding) DNN, and the loss function $\mathcal{L}$ is computed from this output. For backpropagation through this hybrid graph, one first backpropagates the gradient of the loss through the post-ceding DNN to obtain $g_k = \partial\mathcal{L}/\partial{h_k}$. Then, one takes the gradient of the following functional of the output of the QNN: $f_{\bm{\theta}} = \bm{g}\cdot\bm{h}_{\bm{\theta}} = \sum_k g_k h_{\bm{\theta}\!,k} = \sum_k g_k \braket{\hat{h}_k}_{\bm{\theta}}$ with respect to the QNN parameters $\bm{\theta}$ (which can be achieved with any of the methods for taking gradients of QNN’s described in previous subsections of this section). This completes the backpropagation of gradients of the loss function through the QNN, the preceding DNN can use the now computed $\partial{\mathcal{L}}/\partial{\bm{\theta}}$ to further backpropagate gradients to preceding nodes of the hybrid computational graph. []{data-label="fig:backprop"}](figures/hqcnn-backprop.png){width="\columnwidth"} Backpropagation through parameterized quantum circuits is enabled by our interface. We offer both finite difference, regular parameter shift, and stochastic parameter shift gradients, while the general interface allows users to define custom gradient methods. Basic Quantum Applications {#sec:basic_app} ========================== The following examples show how one may use the various features of TFQ to reproduce and extend existing results in second generation quantum machine learning. Each application has an associated Colab notebook which can be run in-browser to reproduce any results shown. Here, we use snippets of code from those example notebooks for illustration; please see the example notebooks for full code details. Hybrid Quantum-Classical Convolutional Neural Network Classifier ---------------------------------------------------------------- To run this example in the browser through Colab, follow the link: [$$\footnotesize\Colorbox{bkgd}{\color{orange-red}\href{https://github.com/tensorflow/quantum/blob/master/docs/tutorials/qcnn.ipynb}{\code{docs/tutorials/qcnn.ipynb}}}$$]{} ### Background {#sec:HQCNN_bg} Supervised classification is a canonical task in classical machine learning. Similarly, it is also one of the most well-studied applications for QNNs [@chen2018universal; @havlivcek2019supervised; @grant2018hierarchical; @Miles_TN; @Mohseni14_support]. As such, it is a natural starting point for our exploration of applications for quantum machine learning. Discriminative machine learning with hierarchical models can be understood as a form of compression to isolate the information containing the label [@tishby2015deep]. In the case of quantum data, the hidden classical parameter (real scalar in the case of regression, discrete label in the case of classification) can be embedded in a non-local subsystem or subspace of the quantum system. One then has to perform some disentangling quantum transformation to extract information from this non-local subspace. To choose an architecture for a neural network model, one can draw inspiration from the symmetries in the training data. For example, in computer vision, one often needs to detect corners and edges regardless of their position in an image; we thus postulate that a neural network to detect these features should be invariant under translations. In classical deep learning, an example of such translationally-invariant neural networks are *convolutional neural networks*. These networks tie parameters across space, learning a shared set of filters which are applied equally to all portions of the data. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there is no strong indication that we should expect a quantum advantage for the classification of classical data using QNNs in the near term. For this reason, we focus on classifying quantum data as defined in section \[sec:quantum\_data\]. There are many kinds of quantum data with translational symmetry. One example of such quantum data are cluster states. These states are important because they are the initial states for measurement-based quantum computation [@walther2005; @clusterstate2006]. In this example we will tackle the problem of detecting errors in the preparation of a simple cluster state. We can think of this as a supervised classification task: our training data will consist of a variety of correctly and incorrectly prepared cluster states, each paired with their label. This classification task can be generalized to condensed matter physics and beyond, for example to the classification of phases near quantum critical points, where the degree of entanglement is high. Since our simple cluster states are translationally invariant, we can extend the spatial parameter-tying of convolutional neural networks to quantum neural networks, using recent work by Cong, et al. [@Cong_2019], which introduced a Quantum Convolutional Neural Network (QCNN) architecture. QCNNs are essentially a quantum circuit version of a MERA (Multiscale Entanglement Renormalization Ansatz) network [@Vidal_2008]. MERA has been extensively studied in condensed matter physics. It is a hierarchical representation of highly entangled wavefunctions. The intuition is that as we go higher in the network, the wavefunction’s entanglement gets renormalized (coarse grained) and simultaneously a compressed representation of the wavefunction is formed. This is akin to the compression effects encountered in deep neural networks [@shwartzziv2017opening]. Here we extend the QCNN architecture to include classical neural network postprocessing, yielding a Hybrid Quantum Convolutional Neural Network (HQCNN). We perform several low-depth quantum operations in order to begin to extract hidden parameter information from a wavefunction, then pass the resulting statistical information to a classical neural network for further processing. Specifically, we will apply one layer of the hierarchy of the QCNN. This allows us to partially disentangle the input state and obtain statistics about values of multi-local observables. In this strategy, we deviate from the original construction of Cong et al. [@Cong_2019]. Indeed, we are more in the spirit of classical convolutional networks, where there are several families of filters, or *feature maps*, applied in a translationally-invariant fashion. Here, we apply a single QCNN layer followed by several feature maps. The outputs of these feature maps can then be fed into classical convolutional network layers, or in this particular simplified example directly to fully-connected layers. **Target problems**: 1. Learn to extract classical information hidden in correlations of a quantum system 2. Utilize shallow quantum circuits via hybridization with classical neural networks to extract information **Required TFQ functionalities**: 1. Hybrid quantum-classical network models 2. Batch quantum circuit simulator 3. Quantum expectation based back-propagation 4. Fast classical gradient-based optimizer ### Implementations As discussed in section \[sec:abstract\_pipeline\], the first step in the QML pipeline is the preparation of quantum data. In this example, our quantum dataset is a collection of correctly and incorrectly prepared cluster states on 8 qubits, and the task is to classify theses states. The dataset preparation proceeds in two stages; in the first stage, we generate a correctly prepared cluster state: def cluster_state_circuit(bits): circuit = cirq.Circuit() circuit.append(cirq.H.on_each(bits)) for this_bit, next_bit in zip( bits, bits[1:] + [bits[0]]): circuit.append( cirq.CZ(this_bit, next_bit)) return circuit Errors in cluster state preparation will be simulated by applying $R_x(\theta)$ gates that rotate a qubit about the X-axis of the Bloch sphere by some amount $0 \leq \theta \leq 2\pi$. These excitations will be labeled 1 if the rotation is larger than some threshold, and -1 otherwise. Since the correctly prepared cluster state is always the same, we can think of it as the initial state in the pipeline and append the excitation circuits corresponding to various error states: cluster_state_bits = cirq.GridQubit.rect(1, 8) excitation_input = tf.keras.Input( shape=(), dtype=tf.dtypes.string) cluster_state = tfq.layers.AddCircuit()( excitation_input, prepend=cluster_state_circuit(cluster_state_bits)) Note how is a standard Keras data ingester. The datatype of the input is to account for our circuit serialization mechanics described in section \[sec:q\_tensors\]. ![The quantum portion of our classifiers, shown on 4 qubits. The combination of quantum convolution (blue) and quantum pooling (orange) reduce the system size from 4 qubits to 2 qubits.[]{data-label="fig:conv_pool"}](figures/conv_and_pool.pdf){width="0.5\columnwidth"} Having prepared our dataset, we begin construction of our model. The quantum portion of all the models we consider in this section will be made of the same operations: *quantum convolution* and *quantum pooling*. A visualization of these operations on 4 qubits is shown in Fig. \[fig:conv\_pool\]. Quantum convolution layers are enacted by applying a 2 qubit unitary $U( \vec{\theta} )$ with a stride of 1. In analogy with classical convolutional layers, the parameters of the unitaries are tied, so that the same operation is applied to every nearest-neighbor pair of qubits. Pooling is achieved using a different 2 qubit unitary $G( \vec{\phi})$ designed to disentangle, allowing information to be projected from 2 qubits down to 1. The code below defines the quantum convolution and quantum pooling operations: def quantum_conv_circuit(bits, syms): circuit = cirq.Circuit() for a, b in zip(bits[0::2], bits[1::2]): circuit += two_q_unitary([a, b], syms) for a, b in zip(bits[1::2], bits[2::2] + [bits[0]]): circuit += two_q_unitary([a, b], syms) return circuit def quantum_pool_circuit(srcs, snks, syms): circuit = cirq.Circuit() for src, snk in zip(srcs, snks): circuit += two_q_pool(src, snk, syms) return circuit In the code, constructs a general parameterized two qubit unitary [@sousa2006universal], while represents a CNOT with general one qubit unitaries on the control and target qubits, allowing for variational selection of control and target basis. With the quantum portion of our model defined, we move on to the third and fourth stages of the QML pipeline, measurement and classical post-processing. We consider three classifier variants, each containing a different degree of hybridization with classical networks: 1. Purely quantum CNN 2. Hybrid CNN in which the outputs of a truncated QCNN are fed into a standard densely connected neural net 3. Hybrid CNN in which the outputs of multiple truncated QCNNs are fed into a standard densely connected neural net ![Architecture of the purely quantum CNN for detecting excited cluster states.[]{data-label="fig:quantum_cnn"}](figures/qcnn_1.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"} The first model we construct uses only quantum operations to decorrelate the inputs. After preparing the cluster state dataset on $N=8$ qubits, we repeatedly apply the quantum convolution and pooling layers until the system size is reduced to 1 qubit. We average the output of the quantum model by measuring the expectation of Pauli-Z on this final qubit. Measurement and parameter control are enacted via our object. The code for this model is shown below: readout_operators = cirq.Z( cluster_state_bits[-1]) quantum_model = tfq.layers.PQC( create_model_circuit(cluster_state_bits), readout_operators)(cluster_state) qcnn_model = tf.keras.Model( inputs=[excitation_input], outputs=[quantum_model]) In the code, is a function which applies the successive layers of quantum convolution and quantum pooling. A simplified version of the resulting model on 4 qubits is shown in Fig. \[fig:quantum\_cnn\]. With the model constructed, we turn to training and validation. These steps can be accomplished using standard Keras tools. During training, the model output on each quantum datapoint is compared against the label; the cost function used is the mean squared error between the model output and the label, where the mean is taken over each batch from the dataset. The training and validation code is shown below: qcnn_model.compile(optimizer=tf.keras.Adam, loss=tf.losses.mse) (train_excitations, train_labels, test_excitations, test_labels ) = generate_data(cluster_state_bits) history = qcnn_model.fit( x=train_excitations, y=train_labels, batch_size=16, epochs=25, validation_data=( test_excitations, test_labels)) In the code, the function builds the excitation circuits that are applied to the initial cluster state input, along with the associated labels. The loss plots for both the training and validation datasets can be generated by running the associated example notebook. ![A simple hybrid architecture in which the outputs of a truncated QCNN are fed into a classical neural network.[]{data-label="fig:hqcnn1"}](figures/qcnn_2.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} We now consider a hybrid classifier. Instead of using quantum layers to pool all the way down to 1 qubit, we can truncate the QCNN and measure a vector of operators on the remaining qubits. The resulting vector of expectation values is then fed into a classical neural network. This hybrid model is shown schematically in Fig. \[fig:hqcnn1\]. This can be achieved in TFQ with a few simple modifications to the previous model, implemented with the code below: # Build multi-readout quantum layer readouts = [cirq.Z(bit) for bit in cluster_state_bits[4:]] quantum_model_dual = tfq.layers.PQC( multi_readout_model_circuit(cluster_state_bits), readouts)(cluster_state) # Build classical neural network layers d1_dual = tf.keras.layers.Dense(8)(quantum_model_dual) d2_dual = tf.keras.layers.Dense(1)(d1_dual) hybrid_model = tf.keras.Model(inputs=[excitation_input], outputs=[d2_dual]) In the code, applies just one round of convolution and pooling, reducing the system size from 8 to 4 qubits. This hybrid model can be trained using the same Keras tools as the purely quantum model. Accuracy plots can be seen in the example notebook. The third architecture we will explore creates three independent quantum filters, and combines the outputs from all three with a single classical neural network. This architecture is shown in Fig. \[fig:hqcnn2\]. This multi-filter architecture can be implemented in TFQ as below: ![A hybrid architecture in which the outputs of 3 separate truncated QCNNs are fed into a classical neural network.[]{data-label="fig:hqcnn2"}](figures/qcnn_3.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} # Build 3 quantum filters QCNN_1 = tfq.layers.PQC( multi_readout_model_circuit(cluster_state_bits), readouts)(cluster_state) QCNN_2 = tfq.layers.PQC( multi_readout_model_circuit(cluster_state_bits), readouts)(cluster_state) QCNN_3 = tfq.layers.PQC( multi_readout_model_circuit(cluster_state_bits), readouts)(cluster_state) # Feed all QCNNs into a classical NN concat_out = tf.keras.layers.concatenate( [QCNN_1, QCNN_2, QCNN_3]) dense_1 = tf.keras.layers.Dense(8)(concat_out) dense_2 = tf.keras.layers.Dense(1)(dense_1) multi_qconv_model = tf.keras.Model( inputs=[excitation_input], outputs=[dense_2]) We find that that for the same optimization settings, the purely quantum model trains the slowest, while the three-quantum-filter hybrid model trains the fastest. This data is shown in Fig. \[fig:hybrid\_qcnn\_loss\]. This demonstrates the advantage of exploring hybrid quantum-classical architectures for classifying quantum data. ![Mean squared error loss as a function of training epoch for three different hybrid classifiers. We find that the purely quantum classifier trains the slowest, while the hybrid architecture with multiple quantum filters trains the fastest.[]{data-label="fig:hybrid_qcnn_loss"}](figures/hybrid_qcnn_loss.png){width="0.8\columnwidth"} Hybrid Machine Learning for Quantum Control {#sec:qctrl} ------------------------------------------- To run this example in the browser through Colab, follow the link: [$$\footnotesize\Colorbox{bkgd}{\color{orange-red}\href{https://github.com/tensorflow/quantum/blob/research/control/control.ipynb}{\code{research/control/control.ipynb}}}$$]{} Recently, neural networks have been successfully deployed for solving quantum control problems ranging from optimizing gate decomposition, error correction subroutines, to continuous Hamiltonian controls. To fully leverage the power of neural networks without being hobbled by possible computational overhead, it is essential to obtain a deeper understanding of the connection between various neural network representations and different types of quantum control dynamics. We demonstrate tailoring machine learning architectures to underlying quantum dynamics using TFQ in [@Niu2020]. As a summary of how the unique functionalities of TFQ ease quantum control optimization, we list the problem definition and required TFQ toolboxes as follows. **Target problems**: 1. Learning quantum dynamics. 2. Optimizing quantum control signal with regard to a cost objective 3. Error mitigation in realistic quantum device **Required TFQ functionalities**: 1. Hybrid quantum-classical network model 2. Batch quantum circuit simulator 3. Quantum expectation-based backpropagation 4. Fast classical optimizers, both gradient based and non-gradient based We exemplify the importance of appropriately choosing the right neural network architecture for the corresponding quantum control problems with two simple but realistic control optimizations. The two types of controls we have considered cover the full range of quantum dynamics: constant Hamiltonian evolution vs time dependent Hamiltonian evolution. In the first problem, we design a DNN to machine-learn (noise-free) control of a single qubit. In the second problem, we design an RNN with long-term memory to learn a stochastic non-Markovian control noise model. ### Time-Constant Hamiltonian Control {#sec:time_invar_control} ![Architecture for hybrid quantum-classical neural network model for learning a quantum control decomposition.[]{data-label="fig:quantum_control_example1"}](figures/control_diagram.pdf){width="1\columnwidth"} If the underlying system Hamiltonian is time-invariant the task of quantum control can be simplified with open-loop optimization. Since the optimal solution is independent of instance by instance control actualization, control optimization can be done offline. Let $\bf{x}$ be the input to a controller, which produces some control vector $\mathbf{g} = F(\mathbf{x})$. This control vector actuates a system which then produces a vector output $H(\mathbf{g})$. For a set of control inputs $\mathbf{x_j}$ and desired outputs $\mathbf{y_j}$, we can then define controller error as $e_j(F) = |\mathbf{y_j} - H(F(\mathbf{x_j}))|$. The optimal control problem can then be defined as minimizing $\sum_j e_j(F)$ for $F$. This optimal controller will produce the optimal control vector $\mathbf{g^*_j}$ given $\mathbf{x_j}$ This problem can be solved exactly if $H$ and the relationships between $\mathbf{g_j^*}$ and $\mathbf{x_j}$ are well understood and invertible. Alternatively, one can find an approximate solution using a parameterized controller $F$ in the form of a feed-forward neural network. We can calculate a set of control pairs of size $N$: $\{\mathbf{x_i}, \mathbf{y_i}\}$ with $i\in [N]$. We can input $\mathbf{x_i}$ into $F$ which is parameterized by its weight matrices $\{W_i\}$ and biases $\{\mathbf{b}_i\}$ of each $i$th layer. A successful training will find network parameters given by $\{W_i\}$ and $\{\mathbf{b}_i\}$ such that for any given input $\bf{x_i}$ the network outputs $\mathbf{g_i}$ which leads to a system output $H(\mathbf{g_i}) \approxeq \mathbf{y_i}$. This architecture is shown schematically in Fig. \[fig:quantum\_control\_example1\] There are two important reasons behind the use of supervised learning for practical control optimization. Firstly, not all time-invariant Hamiltonian control problems permit analytical solutions, so inverting the control error function map can be costly in computation. Secondly, realistic deployment of even a time-constant quantum controller faces stochastic fluctuations due to noise in the classical electronics and systematic errors which cause the behavior of the system $H$ to deviate from ideal. Deploying supervised learning with experimentally measured control pairs will therefore enable the finding of robust quantum control solutions facing systematic control offset and electronic noise. However, this necessitates seamlessly connecting the output of a classical neural network with the execution of a quantum circuit in the laboratory. This functionality is offered by TFQ through . We showcase the use of supervised learning with hybrid quantum-classical feed-forward neural networks in TFQ for the single-qubit gate decomposition problem. A general unitary transform on one qubit can be specified by the exponential $$\label{eqn:gen_unitary} U(\phi, \theta_1, \theta_2)=e^{-i \phi (\cos\theta_1\hat{Z} + \sin\theta_1(\cos\theta_2\hat{X} + \sin\theta_2\hat{Y}))}.$$ However, it is often preferable to enact single qubit unitaries using rotations about a single axis at a time. Therefore, given a single qubit gate specified by the vector of three rotations $\{\phi,\theta_1, \theta_2 \}$, we want find the control sequence that implements this gate in the form $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn:zyz} U(\beta, \gamma, \delta) &=e^{i\alpha} e^{ -i \frac{\beta}{2} \hat{Z}}e^{ -i \frac{\gamma}{2} \hat{Y}} e^{ -i \frac{\delta}{2} \hat{Z}}.\end{aligned}$$ This is the optimal decomposition, namely the Bloch theorem, given any unknown single-qubit unitary into hardware friendly gates which only involve the rotation along a fixed axis at a time. The first step in the training involves preparing the training data. Since quantum control optimization only focuses on the performance in hardware deployment, the control inputs and output have to be chosen such that they are experimentally observable. We define the vector of expectation values $\mathbf{y_i}= [\langle\hat{X}\rangle_{\mathbf{x_i}}, \langle\hat{Y}\rangle_{\mathbf{x_i}}, \langle\hat{Z}\rangle_{\mathbf{x_i}}]$ of all single-qubit Pauli operators given by the quantum state prepared by the associated input $\bf{x_i}$: $$\begin{aligned} \ket{\psi_{0}^i} = & \hat{U}_o^i\ket{0}\\ \ket{\psi}_{\mathbf{x}} = & e^{ -i \frac{\beta}{2} \hat{Z}}e^{ -i \frac{\gamma}{2} \hat{Y}} e^{ -i \frac{\delta}{2} \hat{Z}}\ket{\psi_{0}^i},\\ \langle\hat{X}\rangle_{\mathbf{x}} =& \bra{\psi}_{\mathbf{x}} \hat{X}\ket{\psi}_{\mathbf{x}}, \\ \langle\hat{Y}\rangle_{\mathbf{x}} =& \bra{\psi}_{\mathbf{x}} \hat{Y}\ket{\psi}_{\mathbf{x}},\\ \langle\hat{Z}\rangle_{\mathbf{x}} =& \bra{\psi}_{\mathbf{x}} \hat{Z}\ket{\psi}_{\mathbf{x}}.\end{aligned}$$ Assuming we have prepared the training dataset, each set consists of input vectors $\mathbf{x_i}=[\phi , \theta_1, \theta_2]$ which derives from the randomly drawn $\textbf{g}$, unitaries that prepare each initial state $\hat{U}_0^i$, and the associated expectation values $\mathbf{y_i}=[ \langle\hat{X}\rangle_{\bf{x_i} }, \langle\hat{Y}\rangle_{\bf{x_i} }, \langle\hat{Z}\rangle\}_{\bf{x_i}}]$. Now we are ready to define the hybrid quantum-classical neural network model in Keras with TensforFlow API. To start, we first define the quantum part of the hybrid neural network, which is a simple quantum circuit of three single-qubit gates as follows. control_params = sympy.symbols('theta_{1:3}') qubit = cirq.GridQubit(0, 0) control_circ = cirq.Circuit( cirq.Rz(control_params[2])(qubit), cirq.Ry(control_params[1])(qubit), cirq.Rz(control_params[0])(qubit)) We are now ready to finish off the hybrid network by defining the classical part, which maps the target params to the control vector $\mathbf{g}=\{\beta, \gamma, \delta\}$. Assuming we have defined the vector of observables , the code to build the model is: circ_in = tf.keras.Input( shape=(), dtype=tf.dtypes.string) x_in = tf.keras.Input((3,)) d1 = tf.keras.layers.Dense(128)(x_in) d2 = tf.keras.layers.Dense(128)(d1) d3 = tf.keras.layers.Dense(64)(d2) g = tf.keras.layers.Dense(3)(d3) exp_out = tfq.layers.ControlledPQC( control_circ, ops)([circ_in, x_in]) Now, we are ready to put everything together to define and train a model in Keras. The two axis control model is defined as follows: model = tf.keras.Model( inputs=[circ_in, x_in], outputs=exp_out) To train this hybrid supervised model, we define an optimizer, which in our case is the Adam optimizer, with an appropriately chosen loss function: model.compile(tf.keras.Adam, loss='mse') We finish off by training on the prepared supervised data in the standard way: history_two_axis = model.fit(... The training converges after around 100 epochs as seen in Fig. \[fig:quantum\_control\_example1result\], which also shows excellent generalization to validation data. ![Mean square error on training dataset, and validation dataset, each of size 5000, as a function training epoch.[]{data-label="fig:quantum_control_example1result"}](figures/problem1trainingdata.png){width="0.8\columnwidth"} ### Time-dependent Hamiltonian Control Now we consider a second kind of quantum control problem, where the actuated system $H$ is allowed to change in time. If the system is changing with time, the optimal control $\mathbf{g^*}$ is also generally time varying. Generalizing the discussion of section \[sec:time\_invar\_control\], we can write the time varying control error given the time-varying controller $F(t)$ as $e_j(F(t), t) = |\mathbf{y_j} - H(F(\mathbf{x_j},t),t)|$. The optimal control can then be written as $\mathbf{g^*(t)} = \bar{\mathbf{g}^*} + \mathbf{\delta(t)}$. This task is significantly harder than the problem discussed in section \[sec:time\_invar\_control\], since we need to learn the hidden variable $ \mathbf{\delta}(t)$ which can result in potentially highly complex real-time system dynamics. We showcase how TFQ provides the perfect toolbox for such difficult control optimization with an important and realistic problem of learning and thus compensating the low frequency noise. One of the main contributions to time-drifting errors in realistic quantum control is $1/f^\alpha$- like errors, which encapsulate errors in the Hamiltonian amplitudes whose frequency spectrum has a large component at the low frequency regime. The origin of such low frequency noise remains largely controversial. Mathematically, we can parameterize the low frequency noise in the time domain with the amplitude of the Pauli Z Hamiltonian on each qubit as: $$\begin{aligned} \hat{H}_{\text{low}}(t) = \alpha t^{e} \hat{Z}. \end{aligned}$$ A simple phase control signal is given by $\omega(t) = \omega_0 t$ with the Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_0(t) = \omega_0 t \hat{Z}$. The time-dependant wavefunction is then given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{eqn:time_dep_hammy} \ket{\psi(t_i)} = \mathbb{T}[e^{\int_0^{t_i}(\hat{H}_{\text{low}}(t) +\hat{H}_0(t)) dt} ]\ket{+}.\end{aligned}$$ We can attempt to learn the noise parameters $\alpha$ and $e$ by training a recurrent neural network to perform time-series prediction on the noise. In other words, given a record of expectation values $\{ \bra{\psi(t_i)} \hat{X}\ket{\psi(t_i)}\}$ for $t_i \in \{0, \delta t, 2\delta t,\dots, T\}$ obtained on state $\ket{\psi(t)}$, we want the RNN to predict the future observables $\{ \bra{\psi(t_i)} \hat{X}\ket{\psi(t_i)}\}$ for $t_i \in \{T, T+ \delta t, T+ 2\delta t,\dots, 2T\}$. There are several possible ways to build such an RNN. One option is recording several timeseries on a device a-priori, later training and testing an RNN offline. Another option is an online method, which would allow for real-time controller tuning. The offline method will be briefly explained here, leaving the details of both methods to the notebook associated with this example. ![Mean square error on LSTM predictions on 500 randomly generated inputs.[]{data-label="fig:quantum_control_example2result"}](figures/LSTMoutcome.png){width="0.8\columnwidth"} First, we can use TFQ or Cirq to prepare several timeseries for testing and validation. The function below performs this task using TFQ: def generate_data(end_time, timesteps, omega_0, exponent, alpha): t_steps = linspace(0, end_time, timesteps) q = cirq.GridQubit(0, 0) phase = sympy.symbols("phaseshift") c = cirq.Circuit(cirq.H(q), cirq.Rz(phase_s)(q)) ops = [cirq.X(q)] phases = t_steps*omega_0 + t_steps**(exponent + 1)/(exponent + 1) return tfq.layers.Expectation()( c, symbol_names = [phase], symbol_values = transpose(phases), operators = ops) We can use this function to prepare many realizations of the noise process, which can be fed to an LSTM defined using as below: model = tf.keras.Sequential([ tf.keras.layers.LSTM( rnn_units, recurrent_initializer='glorot_uniform', batch_input_shape=[batch_size, None, 1]), tf.keras.layers.Dense(1)]) We can then train this LSTM on the realizations and evaluate the success of our training using validation data, on which we calculate prediction accuracy. A typical example of this is shown in Fig. \[fig:quantum\_control\_example2result\]. The LSTM converges quickly to within the accuracy from the expectation value measurements within 30 epochs. Quantum Approximate Optimization {#sec:QAOA} -------------------------------- To run this example in the browser through Colab, follow the link: [$$\footnotesize\Colorbox{bkgd}{\color{orange-red}\href{https://github.com/tensorflow/quantum/blob/research/qaoa/qaoa.ipynb}{\code{research/qaoa/qaoa.ipynb}}}$$]{} ### Background {#background} In this section, we introduce the basics of Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithms and show how to implement a basic case of this class of algorithms in TFQ. In the advanced applications section \[sec:advanced\_applications\], we explore how to apply meta-learning techniques [@chen2016learning] to the optimization of the parameters of the algorithm. The Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm was originally proposed to solve instances of the MaxCut problem [@farhi2014quantum]. The QAOA framework has since been extended to encompass multiple problem classes related to finding the low-energy states of Ising Hamiltonians, including Hamiltonians of higher-order and continuous-variable Hamiltonians [@verdon2019quantum]. In general, the goal of the QAOA for binary variables is to find approximate minima of a pseudo Boolean function $f$ on $n$ bits, $f(\bm{z})$, $\bm{z}\in\{-1,1\}^{\times n}$. This function is often an $m^{\text{th}}$-order polynomial of binary variables for some positive integer $m$, e.g., $f(\bm{z}) = \sum_{p\in\{0,1\}^m}\alpha_{\bm{p}}\bm{z}^{\bm{p}}$, where $\bm{z}^{\bm{p}}=\prod_{j=1}^n z_j^{p_j}$. QAOA has been applied to NP-hard problems such as Max-Cut [@farhi2014quantum] or Max-3-Lin-2 [@farhi2014quantumbounded]. The case where this polynomial is quadratic ($m=2$) has been extensively explored in the literature. It should be noted that there have also been recent advances using quantum-inspired machine learning techniques, such as deep generative models, to produce approximate solutions to such problems [@hartnett2020_density; @hartnett2020_selfsupervised]. These 2-local problems will be the main focus in this example. In this tutorial, we first show how to utilize TFQ to solve a MaxCut instance with QAOA with $p=1$. The QAOA approach to optimization first starts in an initial product state $\ket{\psi_0}^{\otimes n}$ and then a tunable gate sequence produces a wavefunction with a high probability of being measured in a low-energy state (with respect to a cost Hamiltonian). Let us define our parameterized quantum circuit ansatz. The canonical choice is to start with a uniform superposition $\ket{\psi_0}^{\otimes n} = \ket{+}^{\otimes n} = \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2^n}}(\sum_{\bm{x}\in\{0,1\}^n}\ket{\bm{x}})$, hence a fixed state. The QAOA unitary itself then consists of applying $$\label{eq:QAOA} \hat{U}(\bm{\eta},\bm{\gamma}) = \prod_{j=1}^{P}e^{-i\eta_{j}\hat{H}_M}e^{-i\gamma^{j} \hat{H}_C},$$ onto the starter state, where $\hat{H}_M = \sum_{j\in\mathcal{V}}\hat{X}_j$ is known as the *mixer Hamiltonian*, and $\hat{H}_C \equiv f( \bm{\hat{\bm{Z}}})$ is our *cost Hamiltonian*, which is a function of Pauli operators $\bm{\hat{Z}} = \{\hat{Z}_j\}_{j=1}^n$. The resulting state is given by $\ket{\Psi_{\bm{\eta}\bm{\gamma}}} = \hat{U}(\bm{\eta},\bm{\gamma}) \ket{+}^{\otimes n}$, which is our parameterized output. We define the energy to be minimized as the expectation value of the cost Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_C \equiv f( \bm{\hat{\bm{Z}}})$, where $\bm{\hat{Z}} = \{\hat{Z}_j\}_{j=1}^n$ with respect to the output parameterized state. **Target problems**: 1. Train a parameterized quantum circuit for a discrete optimization problem (MaxCut) 2. Minimize a cost function of a parameterized quantum circuit **Required TFQ functionalities**: 1. Conversion of simple circuits to TFQ tensors 2. Evaluation of gradients for quantum circuits 3. Use of gradient-based optimizers from TF ### Implementation For the MaxCut QAOA, the cost Hamiltonian function $f$ is a second order polynomial of the form, $$\label{eq:maxcut_ham} \hat{H}_{C} = f( \bm{\hat{\bm{Z}}}) = \sum_{\{j,k\}\in{\mathcal{E}}} \tfrac{1}{2}(\hat{I}- \hat{Z}_j \hat{Z}_k),$$ where $\mathcal{G}=\{\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E}\}$ is a graph for which we would like to find the MaxCut; the largest size subset of edges (cut set) such that vertices at the end of these edges belong to a different partition of the vertices into two disjoint subsets [@farhi2014quantum]. To train the QAOA, we simply optimize the expectation value of our cost Hamiltonian with respect to our parameterized output to find (approximately) optimal parameters; $\bm{\eta}^*,\bm{\gamma}^* = \text{argmin}_{\bm{\eta},\bm{\gamma}}\mathcal{L}(\bm{\eta},\bm{\gamma}) $ where $\mathcal{L}(\bm{\eta},\bm{\gamma}) = \bra{\Psi_{\bm{\eta}\bm{\gamma}}}\hat{H}_{C}\ket{\Psi_{\bm{\eta}\bm{\gamma}}} $ is our loss. Once trained, we use the QPU to sample the probability distribution of measurements of the parameterized output state at optimal angles in the standard basis, $\bm{x} \sim p(\bm{x}) = |\braket{\bm{x}|\Psi_{\bm{\eta}^*\bm{\gamma}^*}}|^2$, and pick the lowest energy bitstring from those samples as our approximate optimum found by the QAOA. Let us walkthrough how to implement such a basic QAOA in TFQ. The first step is to generate an instance of the MaxCut problem. For this tutorial we generate a random 3-regular graph with $10$ nodes with NetworkX [@hagberg2008exploring]. # generate a 3-regular graph with 10 nodes maxcut_graph = nx.random_regular_graph(n=10,d=3) The next step is to allocate $10$ qubits, to define the Hadamard layer generating the initial superposition state, the mixing Hamiltonian $H_\mathrm{M}$ and the cost Hamiltonian $H_\mathrm{P}$. # define 10 qubits cirq_qubits = cirq.GridQubit.rect(1, 10) # create layer of hadamards to initialize the superposition state of all computational states hadamard_circuit = cirq.Circuit() for node in maxcut_graph.nodes(): qubit = cirq_qubits[node] hadamard_circuit.append(cirq.H.on(qubit)) # define the two parameters for one block of QAOA qaoa_parameters = sympy.symbols('a b') # define the the mixing and the cost Hamiltonians mixing_ham = 0 for node in maxcut_graph.nodes(): qubit = cirq_qubits[node] mixing_ham += cirq.PauliString(cirq.X(qubit)) cost_ham = maxcut_graph.number_of_edges()/2 for edge in maxcut_graph.edges(): qubit1 = cirq_qubits[edge[0]] qubit2 = cirq_qubits[edge[1]] cost_ham += cirq.PauliString(1/2*(cirq.Z(qubit1)*cirq.Z(qubit2))) With this, we generate the unitaries representing the quantum circuit # generate the qaoa circuit qaoa_circuit = tfq.util.exponential(operators = [cost_ham, mixing_ham], coefficients = qaoa_parameters) Subsequently, we use these ingredients to build our model. We note here in this case that QAOA has no input data and labels, as we have mapped our graph to the QAOA circuit. To use the TFQ framework we specify the Hadamard circuit as input and convert it to a TFQ tensor. We may then construct a tf.keras model using our QAOA circuit and cost in a TFQ PQC layer, and use a single instance sample for training the variational parameters of the QAOA with the Hadamard gates as an input layer and a target value of $0$ for our loss function, as this is the theoretical minimum of this optimization problem. This translates into the following code: # define the model and training data model_circuit, model_readout = qaoa_circuit, cost_ham input_ = [hadamard_circuit] input_ = tfq.convert_to_tensor(input_) optimum = [0] # Build the Keras model. optimum = np.array(optimum) model = tf.keras.Sequential() model.add(tf.keras.layers.Input(shape=(), dtype=tf.dtypes.string)) model.add(tfq.layers.PQC(model_circuit, model_readout)) To optimize the parameters of the ansatz state, we use a classical optimization routine. In general, it would be possible to use pre-calculated parameters [@streif2019training] or to implement for QAOA tailored optimization routines [@1808.10816]. For this tutorial, we choose the Adam optimizer implemented in TensorFlow. We also choose the mean absolute error as our loss function. model.compile(loss=tf.keras.losses.mean_absolute_error, optimizer=tf.keras.optimizers.Adam()) history = model.fit(input_,optimum,epochs=1000,verbose=1) Advanced Quantum Applications {#sec:advanced_applications} ============================= The following applications represent how we have applied TFQ to accelerate their discovery of new quantum algorithms. The examples presented in this section are newer research as compared to the previous section, as such they have not had as much time for feedback from the community. We include these here as they are demonstration of the sort of advanced QML research that can be accomplished by combining several building blocks provided in TFQ. As many of these examples involve the building and training of hybrid quantum-classical models and advanced optimizers, such research would be much more difficult to implement without TFQ. In our researchers’ experience, the performance gains and the ease of use of TFQ decreased the time-to-working-prototype from *weeks* to *days* or even *hours* when it is compared to using alternative tools. Finally, as we would like to provide users with advanced examples to see TFQ in action for research use-cases beyond basic implementations, along with the examples presented in this section are several notebooks accessible on Github: [$$\footnotesize\Colorbox{bkgd}{\color{orange-red}\href{https://github.com/tensorflow/quantum/tree/research}{\code{github.com/tensorflow/quantum/tree/research}}}$$]{} We encourage readers to read the section below for an overview of the theory and use of TFQ functions and would encourage avid readers who want to experiment with the code to visit the full notebooks. Meta-learning for Variational Quantum Optimization -------------------------------------------------- To run this example in the browser through Colab, follow the link: [$$\footnotesize\Colorbox{bkgd}{\color{orange-red}\href{https://github.com/tensorflow/quantum/blob/research/metalearning_qaoa/metalearning_qaoa.ipynb}{\code{research/metalearning\_qaoa/metalearning\_qaoa.ipynb}}}$$]{} ![Quantum-classical computational graph for the meta-learning optimization of the recurrent neural network (RNN) optimizer and a quantum neural network (QNN) over several optimization iterations. The hidden state of the RNN is represented by $\bm{h}$, we represent the flow of data used to evaluate the meta-learning loss function. This meta loss function $\mathcal{L}$ is a functional of the history of expectation value estimate samples $\bm{y} = \{y_t\}_{t=1}^T$, it is not directly dependent on the RNN parameters $\bm{\varphi}$. TFQ’s hybrid quantum-classical backpropagation then becomes key to train the RNN to learn to optimize the QNN, which in our particular example was the QAOA. Figure taken from [@Verdon2019metalearning], originally inspired from [@chen2016learning]. []{data-label="fig:RNN"}](figures/qnn-rnn.png){width="44.00000%"} In section \[sec:QAOA\], we have shown how to implement basic QAOA in TFQ and optimize it with a gradient-based optimizer, we can now explore how to leverage classical neural networks to optimize QAOA parameters. To run this example in the browser via Colab, follow the link: In recent works, the use of classical recurrent neural networks to learn to optimize the parameters [@Verdon2019metalearning] (or gradient descent hyperparameters [@wilson2019optimizing]) was proposed. As the choice of parameters after each iteration of quantum-classical optimization can be seen as the task of generating a sequence of parameters which converges rapidly to an approximate optimum of the landscape, we can use a type of classical neural network that is naturally suited to generate sequential data, namely, recurrent neural networks. This technique was derived from work by DeepMind [@chen2016learning] for optimization of classical neural networks and was extended to be applied to quantum neural networks [@Verdon2019metalearning]. The application of such classical learning to learn techniques to quantum neural networks was first proposed in [@Verdon2019metalearning]. In this work, an RNN (long short term memory; LSTM) gets fed the parameters of the current iteration and the value of the expectation of the cost Hamiltonian of the QAOA, as depicted in Fig. \[fig:RNN\]. More precisely, the RNN receives as input the previous QNN query’s estimated cost function expectation $y_{t} \sim p(y|\bm{\theta}_t) $, where $y_t $ is the estimate of $\braket{\hat{H}}_t$, as well as the parameters for which the QNN was evaluated $\bm{\theta}_t$. The RNN at this time step also receives information stored in its internal hidden state from the previous time step $\bm{h}_t$. The RNN itself has trainable parameters $\bm{\varphi}$, and hence it applies the parameterized mapping $$\bm{h}_{t+1}, \bm{\theta}_{t+1} = \text{RNN}_{\bm{\varphi}}(\bm{h}_t,\bm{\theta}_{t},y_t)$$ which generates a new suggestion for the QNN parameters as well as a new hidden state. Once this new set of QNN parameters is suggested, the RNN sends it to the QPU for evaluation and the loop continues. The RNN is trained over random instances of QAOA problems selected from an ensemble of possible QAOA MaxCut problems. See the notebook for full details on the meta-training dataset of sampled problems. The loss function we chose for our experiments is the *observed improvement* at each time step, summed over the history of the optimization: $$\label{eq:OI} \mathcal{L}(\bm{\varphi}) = \mathbb{E}_{f,\bm{y}}\left[\textstyle\sum\limits_{t=1}^T \text{min}\{f(\bm{\theta}_t) - \min_{j<t}[f(\bm{\theta}_j)], 0 \}\right],$$ The observed improvement at time step $t$ is given by the difference between the proposed value, $f(\bm{\theta}_t)$, and the best value obtained over the history of the optimization until that point, $\min_{j<t}[f(\bm{\theta}_j)]$. In our particular example in this section, we will consider a time horizon of 5 time steps, hence the RNN will have to learn to very rapidly approximately optimize the parameters of the QAOA. Results are featured in Fig. \[fig:meta\_qaoa\]. The details of the implementation are available in the Colab. Here is an overview of the problem that was tackled and the TFQ features that facilitated this implementation: **Target problems**: 1. Learning to learn with quantum neural networks via classical neural networks 2. Building a neural-network-based optimizer for QAOA 3. Lowering the number of iterations needed to optimize QAOA **Required TFQ functionalities**: 1. Hybrid quantum-classical networks and hybrid backpropagation 2. Batching training over quantum data (QAOA problem instances) 3. Integration with TF for the classical RNN ![The path chosen by the RNN optimizer on a 12-qubit MaxCut problem after being trained on a set of random 10-qubit MaxCut problems. We see that the neural network learned to generalize its heuristic to larger system sizes, as originally pointed out in [@Verdon2019metalearning].[]{data-label="fig:meta_qaoa"}](figures/meta_qaoa_figure.png){width="20.00000%"} Vanishing Gradients and Adaptive Layerwise Training Strategies {#sec:random_circuits} -------------------------------------------------------------- ### Random Quantum Circuits and Barren Plateaus When using parameterized quantum circuits for a learning task, inevitably one must choose an initial configuration and training strategy that is compatible with that initialization. In contrast to problems more known structure, such as specific quantum simulation tasks [@peruzzo2014variational] or optimizations [@FarhiQAOA], the structure of circuits used for learning may need to be more adaptive or general to encompass unknown data distributions. In classical machine learning, this problem can be partially addressed by using a network with sufficient expressive power and random initialization of the network parameters. Unfortunately, it has been proven that due to fundamental limits on quantum readout complexity in combination with the geometry of the quantum space, an exact duplication of this strategy is doomed to fail [@Jarrod_QNN]. In particular, in analog to the vanishing gradients problem that has plagued deep classical networks and historically slowed their progress [@glorot2010understanding], an exacerbated version of this problem appears in quantum circuits of sufficient depth that are randomly initialized. This problem, also known as the problem of barren plateaus, refers to the overwhelming volume of quantum space with an exponentially small gradient, making straightforward training impossible if on enters one of these dead regions. The rate of this vanishing increases exponentially with the number of qubits and depends on whether the cost function is global or local [@cerezo2020cost]. While strategies have been developed to deal with the challenges of vanishing gradients classically [@Bengio:2012], the combination of differences in readout complexity and other constraints of unitarity make direct implementation of these fixes challenging. In particular, the readout of information from a quantum system has a complexity of $O(1/\epsilon^\alpha)$ where $\epsilon$ is the desired precision, and $\alpha$ is some small integer, while the complexity of the same task classically often scales as $O(\log 1/\epsilon)$  [@Knill2007Optimal]. This means that for a vanishingly small gradient (e.g. $10^{-7}$), a classical algorithm can easily obtain at least some signal, while a quantum-classical one may diffuse essentially randomly until $\sim 10^{14}$ samples have been taken. This has fundamental consequences for the methods one uses to train, as we detail below. The requirement on depth to reach these plateaus is only that a portion of the circuit approximates a unitary $2-$design which can occur at a depth occurring at $O(n^{1/d})$ where $n$ is the number of qubits and $d$ is the dimension of the connectivity of the quantum circuit, possibly requiring as little depth as $O(\log(n))$ in the all-to-all case [@boixo2018characterizing]. One may imagine that a solution to this problem could be to simply initialize a circuit to the identity to avoid this problem, but this incurs some subtle challenges. First, such a fixed initialization will tend to bias results on general datasets. This challenge has been studied in the context of more general block initialization of identity schemes [@grant2019initialization]. Perhaps the more insidious way this problem arises, is that training with a method like stochastic gradient descent (or sophisticated variants like Adam) on the entire network, can accidentally lead one onto a barren plateau if the learning rate is too high. This is due to the fact that the barren plateaus argument is one of volume of space and quantum-classical information exchange, and random diffusion in parameter space will tend to lead one onto a plateau. This means that even the most clever initialization can be thwarted by the impact of this phenomenon on the training process. In practice this severely limits learning rate and hence training efficiency of QNNs. For this reason, one can consider training on subsets of the network which do not have the ability to completely randomize during a random walk. This layerwise learning strategy allows one to use larger learning rates and improves training efficiency in quantum circuits [@Skolik:2020]. We advocate the use of these strategies in combination with appropriately designed local cost functions in order to circumvent the dramatically worse problems with objectives like fidelity [@Jarrod_QNN; @cerezo2020cost]. TFQ has been designed to make experimenting with both of these strategies straightforward for the user, as we now document. For an example of barren plateaus, see the notebook at the following link: [$$\footnotesize\Colorbox{bkgd}{\color{orange-red}\href{https://github.com/tensorflow/quantum/blob/master/docs/tutorials/barren_plateaus.ipynb}{\code{docs/tutorials/barren\_plateaus.ipynb}}}$$]{} ### Layerwise quantum circuit learning So far, the network training methods demonstrated in section \[sec:basic\_app\] have focused on simultaneous optimization of all network parameters, or end-to-end training. As alluded to in the section on the Barren Plateaus effect (\[sec:random\_circuits\]), this type of strategy, when combined with a network of sufficient depth, can force reduced learning rates, even with clever initialization. While this may not be the optimal strategy for every realization of a quantum network, TFQ is designed to easily facilitate testing of this idea in conjunction with different cost functions to enhance efficiency. An alternative strategy that has been beneficial is layerwise learning (LL) [@Skolik:2020] , where the number of trained parameters is altered on the fly. In this section, we will learn to alter the architecture of a circuit while it trains, and restrict attention to blocks of size insufficient to randomize onto a plateau. Among other things, this type of learning strategy can help us avoid initialization or drifting throughout training of our QNN onto a barren plateau [@Jarrod_QNN; @Skolik:2020]. In [@Kiani2020], it is also shown that gradient based algorithms are more successful in finding global minima with overparameterized circuits, and that shallow circuits approach this limit when increasing in size. It is not necessarily clear when this transition occurs, so LL is a cost-efficient strategy to approach good local minima.\ **Target problems**: 1. Dynamically building circuits for arbitrary learning tasks 2. Manipulating circuit structure and parameters during training 3. Reducing the number of trained parameters and circuit depth 4. Avoid initialization on or drifting to a barren plateau **Required TFQ functionalities**: 1. Parameterized circuit layers 2. Keras weight manipulation interface 3. Parameter shift differentiator for exact gradient computation To run this example in the browser through Colab, follow the link: [$$\footnotesize\Colorbox{bkgd}{\color{orange-red}\href{https://github.com/tensorflow/quantum/blob/research/layerwise_learning/layerwise_learning.ipynb}{\code{research/layerwise\_learning/layerwise\_learning.ipynb}}}$$]{} As an example to show how this functionality may be explored in TFQ, we will look at randomly generated layers as shown in section \[sec:random\_circuits\], where one layer consists of a randomly chosen rotation gate around the $X$, $Y$, or $Z$ axis on each qubit, followed by a ladder of $CZ$ gates over all qubits. def create_layer(qubits, layer_id): # create symbols for trainable parameters symbols = [ sympy.Symbol( f'{layer_id}-{str(i)}') for i in range(len(qubits))] # build layer from random gates gates = [ random.choice([ cirq.Rx, cirq.Ry, cirq.Rz])( symbols[i])(q) for i, q in enumerate(qubits)] # add connections between qubits for control, target in zip( qubits, qubits[1:]): gates.append(cirq.CZ(control, target)) return gates, symbols We assume that we don’t know the ideal circuit structure to solve our learning problem, so we start with the shallowest circuit possible and let our model grow from there. In this case we start with one initial layer, and add a new layer after it has trained for 10 epochs. First, we need to specify some variables: # number of qubits and layers in our circuit n_qubits = 6 n_layers = 8 # define data and readout qubits data_qubits = cirq.GridQubit.rect(1, n_qubits) readout = cirq.GridQubit(0, n_qubits-1) readout_op = cirq.Z(readout) # symbols to parametrize circuit symbols = [] layers = [] weights = [] We use the same training data as specified in the TFQ MNIST classifier example notebook available in the TFQ Github repository, which encodes a downsampled version of the digits into binary vectors. Ones in these vectors are encoded as local $X$ gates on the corresponding qubit in the register, as shown in [@farhi2018classification]. For this reason, we also use the readout procedure specified in that work where a sequence of $XHX$ gates is added to the readout qubit at the end of the circuit. Now we train the circuit, layer by layer: for layer_id in range(n_layers): circuit = cirq.Circuit() layer, layer_symbols = create_layer( data_qubits, f'layer_{layer_id}') layers.append(layer) circuit += layers symbols += layer_symbols # set up the readout qubit circuit.append(cirq.X(readout)) circuit.append(cirq.H(readout)) circuit.append(cirq.X(readout)) readout_op = cirq.Z(readout) # create the Keras model model = tf.keras.Sequential() model.add(tf.keras.layers.Input( shape=(), dtype=tf.dtypes.string)) model.add(tfq.layers.PQC( model_circuit=circuit, operators=readout_op, differentiator=ParameterShift(), initializer=tf.keras.initializers.Zeros)) model.compile( loss=tf.keras.losses.squared_hinge, optimizer=tf.keras.optimizers.Adam( learning_rate=0.01)) # Update model parameters and add # new 0 parameters for new layers. model.set_weights( [np.pad(weights, (n_qubits, 0))]) model.fit(x_train, y_train, batch_size=128, epochs=10, verbose=1, validation_data=(x_test, y_test)) qnn_results = model.evaluate(x_test, y_test) # store weights after training a layer weights = model.get_weights()[0] In general, one can choose many different configurations of how many layers should be trained in each step. One can also control which layers are trained by manipulating the symbols we feed into the circuit and keeping track of the weights of previous layers. The number of layers, layers trained at a time, epochs spent on a layer, and learning rate are all hyperparameters whose optimal values depend on both the data and structure of the circuits being used for learning. This example is meant to exemplify how TFQ can be used to easily explore these choices to maximize the efficiency and efficacy of training. See our notebook linked above for the complete implementation of these features. Using TFQ to explore this type of learning strategy relieves us of manually implementing training procedures and optimizers, and autodifferentiation with the parameter shift rule. It also lets us readily use the rich functionality provided by TensorFlow and Keras. Implementing and testing all of the functionality needed in this project by hand could take up to a week, whereas all this effort reduces to a couple of lines of code with TFQ as shown in the notebook. Additionally, it lets us speed up training by using the integrated qsim simulator as shown in section \[sec:benchmarks\]. Last but not least, TFQ provides a thoroughly tested and maintained QML framework which greatly enhances the reproducibility of our research. Hamiltonian Learning with Quantum Graph Recurrent Neural Networks ----------------------------------------------------------------- ### Motivation: Learning Quantum Dynamics with a Quantum Representation Quantum simulation of time evolution was one of the original envisioned applications of quantum computers when they were first proposed by Feynman [@Feynman1982]. Since then, quantum time evolution simulation methods have seen several waves of great progress, from the early days of Trotter-Suzuki methods, to methods of qubitization and randomized compiling [@Campbell_2019], and finally recently with some methods for quantum variational methods for approximate time evolution [@cirstoiu2019variational]. The reason that quantum simulation has been such a focus of the quantum computing community is because we have some indications to believe that quantum computers can demonstrate a quantum advantage when evolving quantum states through unitary time evolution; the classical simulation overhead scales exponentially with the depth of the time evolution. As such, it is natural to consider if such a potential quantum simulation advantage can be extended to the realm of quantum machine learning as an inverse problem, that is, given access to some black-box dynamics, can we learn a Hamiltonian such that time evolution under this Hamiltonian replicates the unknown dynamics. This is known as the problem of Hamiltonian learning, or quantum dynamics learning, which has been studied in the literature [@Wiebe_2014; @Carolan2020]. Here, we use a Quantum Neural Network-based approach to learn the Hamiltonian of a quantum dynamical process, given access to quantum states at various time steps. As was pointed out in the barren plateaus section \[sec:random\_circuits\], attempting to do QML with no prior on the physics of the system or no imposed structure of the ansatz hits the quantum version of the no free lunch theorem; the network has too high a capacity for the problem at hand and is thus hard to train, as evidenced by its vanishing gradients. Here, instead, we use a highly structured ansatz, from work featured in [@verdon2019quantumgraph]. First of all, given that we know we are trying to replicate quantum dynamics, we can structure our ansatz to be based on Trotter-Suzuki evolution [@suzuki1990fractal] of a learnable parameterized Hamiltonian. This effectively performs a form of parameter-tying in our ansatz between several layers representing time evolution. In a previous example on quantum convolutional networks \[sec:HQCNN\_bg\], we performed parameter tying for spatial translation invariance, whereas here, we will assume the dynamics remain constant through time, and perform parameter tying across time, hence it is akin to a quantum form of recurrent neural networks (RNN). More precisely, as it is a parameterization of a Hamiltonian evolution, it is akin to a quantum form of recently proposed models in classical machine learning called Hamiltonian neural networks [@greydanus2019hamiltonian]. Beyond the quantum RNN form, we can impose further structure. We can consider a scenario where we know we have a one-dimensional quantum many-body system. As Hamiltonians of physical have local couplings, we can use our prior assumptions of locality in the Hamiltonian and encode this as a graph-based parameterization of the Hamiltonian. As we will see below, by using a Quantum Graph Recurrent Neural network [@verdon2019quantumgraph] implemented in TFQ, we will be able to learn the effective Hamiltonian topology and coupling strengths quite accurately, simply from having access to quantum states at different times and employing mini-batched gradient-based training. Before we proceed, it is worth mentioning that the approach featured in this section is quite different from the learning of quantum dynamics using a classical RNN feature in previous example section \[sec:qctrl\]. As sampling the output of a quantum simulation at different times can become exponentially hard, we can imagine that for large systems, the Quantum RNN dynamics learning approach could have primacy over the classical RNN approach, thus potentially demonstrating a quantum advantage of QML over classical ML for this problem. **Target problems**: 1. Preparing low-energy states of a quantum system 2. Learning Quantum Dynamics using a Quantum Neural Network Model **Required TFQ functionalities**: 1. Quantum compilation of exponentials of Hamiltonians 2. Training multi-layered quantum neural networks with shared parameters 3. Batching QNN training data (input-output pairs and time steps) for supervised learning of quantum unitary map ### Implementation Please see the tutorial notebook for full code details: [$$\footnotesize\Colorbox{bkgd}{\color{orange-red}\href{https://github.com/tensorflow/quantum/blob/research/qgrnn_ising/qgrnn_ising.ipynb}{\code{research/qgrnn\_ising/qgrnn\_ising.ipynb}}}$$]{} Here we provide an overview of our implementation. We can define a general Quantum Graph Neural Network as a repeating sequence of exponentials of a Hamiltonian defined on a graph, $\hat{U}_{\textsc{qgnn}}(\mbox{\boldmath$\eta$}, \mbox{\boldmath$\theta$}) = \prod_{p=1}^{P}\big[\prod_{q=1}^{Q}e^{-i\eta_{pq}\hat{H}_q(\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$})}\big]$ where the $\hat{H}_{q}(\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$})$ are generally 2-local Hamiltonians whose coupling topology is that of an assumed graph structure. In our Hamiltonian learning problem, we aim to learn a target $\hat{H}_{\text{target}}$ which will be an Ising model Hamiltonian with $J_{jk}$ as couplings and $B_{v}$ for site bias term of each spin, i.e., $\hat{H}_{\text{target}} = \sum_{j,k} J_{jk} \hat{Z}_j \hat{Z}_k + \sum_{v} B_v \hat{Z}_v + \sum_{v} \hat{X}_v$, given access to pairs of states at different times that were subjected to the target time evolution operator $\hat{U}(T) = e^{-i\hat{H}_{\text{target}}T}$. We will use a recurrent form of QGNN, using Hamiltonian generators $\hat{H}_1(\bm{\theta}) = \sum_{v\in\mathcal{V}} \alpha_v \hat{X}_v$ and $\hat{H}_2(\bm{\theta}) = \sum_{\{j,k\}\in\mathcal{E}} \theta_{jk} \hat{Z}_j \hat{Z}_k + \sum_{v\in\mathcal{V}} \phi_v \hat{Z}_v$, with trainable parameters[^1] {$\theta_{jk},\phi_{v},\alpha_{v}\}$, for our choice of graph structure prior $\mathcal{G} = \{\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E}\}$. The QGRNN is then resembles applying a Trotterized time evolution of a parameterized Ising Hamiltonian $\hat{H}(\bm{\theta}) = \hat{H}_1(\bm{\theta}) + \hat{H}_2(\bm{\theta}) $ where $P$ is the number of Trotter steps. This is a good parameterization to learn the effective Hamiltonian of the black-box dynamics as we know from quantum simulation theory that Trotterized time evolution operators can closely approximate true dynamics in the limit of $|\eta_{jk}|\rightarrow0$ while $P\rightarrow\infty$. For our TFQ software implementation, we can initialize Ising model & QGRNN model parameters as random values on a graph. It is very easy to construct this kind of graph structure Hamiltonian by using Python NetworkX library. N = 6 dt = 0.01 # Target Ising model parameters G_ising = nx.cycle_graph(N) ising_w = [dt * np.random.random() for _ in G.edges] ising_b = [dt * np.random.random() for _ in G.nodes] Because the target Hamiltonian and its nearest-neighbor graph structure is unknown to the QGRNN, we need to initialize a new random graph prior for our QGRNN. In this example we will use a random 4-regular graph with a cycle as our prior. Here, is a list of trainable parameters of the QGRNN. # QGRNN model parameters G_qgrnn = nx.random_regular_graph(n=N, d=4) qgrnn_w = [dt] * len(G_qgrnn.edges) qgrnn_b = [dt] * len(G_qgrnn.nodes) theta = ['theta{}'.format(e) for e in G.edges] phi = ['phi{}'.format(v) for v in G.nodes] params = theta + phi Now that we have the graph structure, weights of edges & nodes, we can construct Cirq-based Hamiltonian operator which can be directly calculated in Cirq and TFQ. To create a Hamiltonian by using ’s or ’s, we need to assign appropriate qubits on them. Let’s assume is the Hamiltonian preparation function to generate cost Hamiltonian from interaction weights and mixer Hamiltonian from bias terms. We can bring qubits of Ising & QGRNN models by using . qubits_ising = cirq.GridQubit.rect(1, N) qubits_qgrnn = cirq.GridQubit.rect(1, N, 0, N) ising_cost, ising_mixer = Hamiltonian( G_ising, ising_w, ising_b, qubits_ising) qgrnn_cost, qgrnn_mixer = Hamiltonian( G_qgrnn, qgrnn_w, qgrnn_b, qubits_qgrnn) To train the QGRNN, we need to create an ensemble of states which are to be subjected to the unknown dynamics. We chose to prepare a low-energy states by first performing a Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE) [@mcclean2016theory] optimization to obtain an approximate ground state. Following this, we can apply different amounts of simulated time evolutions onto to this state to obtain a varied dataset. This emulates having a physical system in a low-energy state and randomly picking the state at different times. First things first, let us build a VQE model def VQE(H_target, q) # Parameters x = ['x{}'.format(i) for i, _ in enumerate(q)] z = ['z{}'.format(i) for i, _ in enumerate(q)] symbols = x + z circuit = cirq.Circuit() circuit.append(cirq.X(q_)**sympy.Symbol(x_) for q_, x_ in zip(q, x)) circuit.append(cirq.Z(q_)**sympy.Symbol(z_) for q_, z_ in zip(q, z)) Now that we have a parameterized quantum circuit, we can minimize the expectation value of given Hamiltonian. Again, we can construct a Keras model with . Because the output expectation values are calculated respectively, we need to sum them up at the last. circuit_input = tf.keras.Input( shape=(), dtype=tf.string) output = tfq.layers.Expectation()( circuit_input, symbol_names=symbols, operators=tfq.convert_to_tensor( [H_target])) output = tf.math.reduce_sum( output, axis=-1, keepdims=True) Finally, we can get approximated lowest energy states of the VQE model by compiling and training the above Keras model.[^2] model = tf.keras.Model( inputs=circuit_input, outputs=output) adam = tf.keras.optimizers.Adam( learning_rate=0.05) low_bound = -np.sum(np.abs(ising_w + ising_b)) - N inputs = tfq.convert_to_tensor([circuit]) outputs = tf.convert_to_tensor([[low_bound]]) model.compile(optimizer=adam, loss='mse') model.fit(x=inputs, y=outputs, batch_size=1, epochs=100) params = model.get_weights()[0] res = {k: v for k, v in zip(symbols, params)} return cirq.resolve_parameters(circuit, res) Now that the VQE function is built, we can generate the initial quantum data input with the low energy states near to the ground state of the target Hamiltonian for both our data and our input state to our QGRNN. H_target = ising_cost + ising_mixer low_energy_ising = VQE(H_target, qubits_ising) low_energy_qgrnn = VQE(H_target, qubits_qgrnn) The QGRNN is fed the same input data as the true process. We will use gradient-based training over minibatches of randomized timesteps chosen for our QGRNN and the target quantum evolution. We will thus need to aggregate the results among the different timestep evolutions to train the QGRNN model. To create these time evolution exponentials, we can use the function to exponentiate our target and QGRNN Hamiltonians[^3] exp_ising_cost = tfq.util.exponential( operators=ising_cost) exp_ising_mix = tfq.util.exponential( operators=ising_mixer) exp_qgrnn_cost = tfq.util.exponential( operators=qgrnn_cost, coefficients=params) exp_qgrnn_mix = tfq.util.exponential( operators=qgrnn_mixer) Here we randomly pick the 15 timesteps and apply the Trotterized time evolution operators using our above constructed exponentials. We can have a quantum dataset $\{(|\psi_{T_j}\rangle, |\phi_{T_j}\rangle) | j = 1..M\}$ where $M$ is the number of data, or batch size (in our case we chose $M=15$), $|\psi_{T_j}\rangle=\hat{U}^j_{\text{target}}|\psi_0\rangle$ and $|\phi_{T_j}\rangle=\hat{U}^j_{\textsc{qgrnn}}|\psi_0\rangle$. def trotterize(inp, depth, cost, mix): add = tfq.layers.AddCircuit() outp = add(cirq.Circuit(), append=inp) for _ in range(depth): outp = add(outp, append=cost) outp = add(outp, append=mix) return outp batch_size = 15 T = np.random.uniform(0, T_max, batch_size) depth = [int(t/dt)+1 for t in T] true_states = [] pred_states = [] for P in depth: true_states.append( trotterize(low_energy_ising, P, exp_ising_cost, exp_ising_mix)) pred_states.append( trotterize(low_energy_qgrnn, P, exp_qgrnn_cost, exp_qgrnn_mix)) Now we have both quantum data from (1) the true time evolution of the target Ising model and (2) the predicted data state from the QGRNN. In order to maximize overlap between these two wavefunctions, we can aim to maximize the fidelity between the true state and the state output by the QGRNN, averaged over random choices of time evolution. To evaluate the fidelity between two quantum states (say $\ket{A}$ and $\ket{B}$) on a quantum computer, a well-known approach is to perform the *swap test* [@Cincio_2018]. In the swap test, an additional observer qubit is used, by putting this qubit in a superposition and using it as control for a Fredkin gate (controlled-SWAP), followed by a Hadamard on the observer qubit, the observer qubit’s expectation value in the encodes the fidelity of the two states, $|\braket{A|B}|^2$. Thus, right after Fidelity Swap Test, we can measure the swap test qubit with Pauli $\hat{Z}$ operator with , $\langle\hat{Z}_{test}\rangle$, and then we can calculate the average of fidelity (inner product) between a batch of two sets of quantum data states, which can be used as our classical loss function in TensorFlow. # Check class SwapTestFidelity in the notebook. fidelity = SwapTestFidelity( qubits_ising, qubits_qgrnn, batch_size) state_true = tf.keras.Input(shape=(), dtype=tf.string) state_pred = tf.keras.Input(shape=(), dtype=tf.string) fid_output = fidelity(state_true, state_pred) fid_output = tfq.layers.Expectation()( fid_output, symbol_names=symbols, operators=fidelity.op) model = tf.keras.Model( inputs=[state_true, state_pred], outputs=fid_output) Here, we introduce the average fidelity and implement this with custom Keras loss function. $\begin{matrix}L(\theta, \phi) & = & 1 - \frac{1}{B} \sum^{B}_{j=1} |\langle \psi_{T_j} | \phi_{T_j}\rangle|^2 \\ & = &1 - \frac{1}{B} \sum^{B}_{j=1} \langle \hat{Z}_{test} \rangle_j\end{matrix}$ def average_fidelity(y_true, y_pred): return 1 - K.mean(y_pred) Again, we can use Keras model fit. To feed a batch of quantum data, we can use because the quantum circuits are already in . In this case, we know that the lower bound of fidelity is 0, but the is not used in our custom loss function . We set learning rate of Adam optimizer to $0.05$. y_true = tf.concat(true_states, axis=0) y_pred = tf.concat(pred_states, axis=0) model.compile( loss=average_fidelity, optimizer=tf.keras.optimizers.Adam( learning_rate=0.05)) model.fit(x=[y_true, y_pred], y=tf.zeros([batch_size, 1]), batch_size=batch_size, epochs=500) The full results are displayed in the notebook, we see for this example that our time-randomized gradient-based optimization of our parameterized class of quantum Hamiltonian evolution ends up learning the target Hamiltonian and its couplings to a high degree of accuracy. ![Left: True (target) Ising Hamiltonian with edges representing couplings and nodes representing biases. Middle: randomly chosen initial graph structure and parameter values for the QGRNN. Right: learned Hamiltonian from the trained QGRNN.[]{data-label="fig:qgrnn_result"}](figures/target_ham.png "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"} ![Left: True (target) Ising Hamiltonian with edges representing couplings and nodes representing biases. Middle: randomly chosen initial graph structure and parameter values for the QGRNN. Right: learned Hamiltonian from the trained QGRNN.[]{data-label="fig:qgrnn_result"}](figures/prior_ham.png "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"} ![Left: True (target) Ising Hamiltonian with edges representing couplings and nodes representing biases. Middle: randomly chosen initial graph structure and parameter values for the QGRNN. Right: learned Hamiltonian from the trained QGRNN.[]{data-label="fig:qgrnn_result"}](figures/learned_ham.png "fig:"){width="0.32\columnwidth"} Generative Modelling of Quantum Mixed States with Hybrid Quantum-Probabilistic Models ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ### Background {#background-1} Often in quantum mechanical systems, one encounters so-called *mixed states*, which can be understood as probabilistic mixtures over pure quantum states [@MichaelIsaacQC]. Typical cases where such mixed states arise are when looking at finite-temperature quantum systems, open quantum systems, and subsystems of pure quantum mechanical systems. As the ability to model mixed states are thus key to understanding quantum mechanical systems, in this section, we focus on models to learn to represent and mimic the statistics of quantum mixed states. As mixed states are a combination of a classical probability distribution and quantum wavefunctions, their statistics can exhibit both classical and quantum forms of correlations (e.g., entanglement). As such, if we wish to learn a representation of such mixed state which can generatively model its statistics, one can expect that a hybrid representation combining classical probabilistic models and quantum neural networks can be an ideal. Such a decomposition is ideal for near-term noisy devices, as it reduces the overhead of representation on the quantum device, leading to lower-depth quantum neural networks. Furthermore, the quantum layers provide a valuable addition in representation power to the classical probabilistic model, as they allow the addition of quantum correlations to the model. Thus, in this section, we cover some examples where one learns to generatively model mixed states using a hybrid quantum-probabilistic model [@verdon2019quantum]. Such models use a parameterized ansatz of the form $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:qhbm_model} \hat{\rho}_{\bm{\theta\phi}} = \hat{U}(\bm{\phi}) \hat{\rho}_{\bm{\theta}}\hat{U}^\dagger(\bm{\phi}), \quad \hat{\rho}_{\bm{\theta}}=\sum_{\bm{x}} p_{\bm{\theta}}(\bm{x})\ket{\bm{x}}\!\bra{\bm{x}}\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{U}(\bm{\phi})$ is a unitary quantum neural network with parameters $\bm{\phi}$ and $p_{\bm{\theta}}(\bm{x})$ is a classical probabilistic model with parameters $\bm{\theta}$. We call $\hat{\rho}_{\bm{\theta\phi}}$ the *visible* state and $\hat{\rho}_{\bm{\theta}}$ the *latent* state. Note the latent state is effectively a classical distribution over the standard basis states, and its only parameters are those of the classical probabilistic model. As we shall see below, there are methods to train both networks simultaneously. In terms of software implementation, as we have to combine probabilistic models and quantum neural networks, we will use a combination of TensorFlow Probability [@dillon2017tensorflow] along with TFQ. A first class of application we will consider is the task of generating a thermal state of a quantum system given its Hamiltonian. A second set of applications is given several copies of a mixed state, learn a generative model which replicates the statistics of the state. **Target problems**: 1. Incorporating probabilistic and quantum models 2. Variational Quantum Simulation of Quantum Thermal States 3. Learning to generatively model mixed states from data **Required TFQ functionalities**: 1. Integration with TF Probability [@dillon2017tensorflow] 2. Sample-based simulation of quantum circuits 3. Parameter shift differentiator for gradient computation ### Variational Quantum Thermalizer Full notebook of the implementations below are available at: [$$\footnotesize\Colorbox{bkgd}{\color{orange-red}\href{https://github.com/tensorflow/quantum/blob/research/vqt_qmhl/vqt_qmhl.ipynb}{\code{research/vqt\_qmhl/vqt\_qmhl.ipynb}}}$$]{} Consider the task of preparing a thermal state: given a Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$ and a target inverse temperature $\beta = 1/T$, we want to variationally approximate the state $$\begin{aligned} \hat{\sigma}_{\beta} = \tfrac{1}{\mathcal{Z}_{\beta}}e^{-\beta \hat{H}},\quad \mathcal{Z}_\beta = \text{tr}(e^{-\beta \hat{H}}),\end{aligned}$$ using a state of the form presented in equation . That is, we aim to find a value of the hybrid model parameters $\{\bm{\theta}^*,\bm{\phi}^*\}$ such that $\hat{\rho}_{\bm{\theta}^*\bm{\phi}^*} \approx \hat{\sigma}_{\beta}$. In order to converge to this approximation via optimization of the parameters, we need a loss function to optimize which quantifies statistical distance between these quantum mixed states. If we aim to minimize the discrepancy between states in terms of quantum relative entropy $D(\hat{\rho}_{\bm{\theta\phi}}\Vert \hat{\sigma}_\beta) = -S(\hat{\rho}_{\bm{\theta\phi}}) - \text{tr}(\hat{\rho}_{\bm{\theta\phi}}\log \hat{\sigma}_\beta)$, (where $ S(\hat{\rho}_{\bm{\theta\phi}}) = -{\text{tr}}(\hat{\rho}_{\bm{\theta\phi}}\log \hat{\rho}_{\bm{\theta\phi}})$ is the entropy), then, as described in the full paper [@verdon2019quantumVQT] we can equivalently minimize the free energy[^4], and hence use it as our loss function: $$\mathcal{L}_{\textsc{fe}}(\bm{\theta},\bm{\phi}) =\beta \text{tr}(\hat{\rho}_{\bm{\theta\phi}}\hat{H}) -S(\hat{\rho}_{\bm{\theta\phi}}).$$ The first term is simply the expectation value of the energy of our model, while the second term is the entropy. Due to the structure of our quantum-probabilistic model, the entropy of the visible state is equal to the entropy of the latent state, which is simply the classical entropy of the distribution, $S(\hat{\rho}_{\bm{\theta\phi}})= S(\hat{\rho}_{\bm{\theta}}) = - \sum_{\bm{x}} p_{\bm{\theta}}(\bm{x})\log p_{\bm{\theta}}(\bm{x})$. This comes in quite useful during the optimization of our model. Let us implement a simple example of the VQT model which minimizes free energy to achieve an approximation of the thermal state of a physical system. Let us consider a two-dimensional Heisenberg spin chain $$\begin{aligned} \hat{H}_{\textsc{heis}} = &\sum_{\langle ij\rangle_h} J_{h} \hat{\bm{S}}_i \cdot \hat{\bm{S}}_j + \sum_{\langle ij\rangle_v} J_{v} \hat{\bm{S}}_i \cdot \hat{\bm{S}}_j\end{aligned}$$ where $h$ ($v$) denote horizontal (vertical) bonds, while $\langle \cdot \rangle $ represent nearest-neighbor pairings. First, we define this Hamiltonian on a grid of qubits: def get_bond(q0, q1): return cirq.PauliSum.from_pauli_strings([ cirq.PauliString(cirq.X(q0), cirq.X(q1)), cirq.PauliString(cirq.Y(q0), cirq.Y(q1)), cirq.PauliString(cirq.Z(q0), cirq.Z(q1))]) def get_heisenberg_hamiltonian(qubits, jh, jv): heisenberg = cirq.PauliSum() # Apply horizontal bonds for r in qubits: for q0, q1 in zip(r, r[1::]): heisenberg += jh * get_bond(q0, q1) # Apply vertical bonds for r0, r1 in zip(qubits, qubits[1::]): for q0, q1 in zip(r0, r1): heisenberg += jv * get_bond(q0, q1) return heisenberg For our QNN, we consider a unitary consisting of general single qubit rotations and powers of controlled-not gates. Our code returns the associated symbols so that these can be fed into the op:\ def get_rotation_1q(q, a, b, c): return cirq.Circuit( cirq.X(q)**a, cirq.Y(q)**b, cirq.Z(q)**c) def get_rotation_2q(q0, q1, a): return cirq.Circuit( cirq.CNotPowGate(exponent=a)(q0, q1)) def get_layer_1q(qubits, layer_num, L_name): layer_symbols = [] circuit = cirq.Circuit() for n, q in enumerate(qubits): a, b, c = sympy.symbols( "a{2}_{0}_{1} b{2}_{0}_{1} c{2}_{0}_{1}".format(layer_num, n, L_name)) layer_symbols += [a, b, c] circuit += get_rotation_1q(q, a, b, c) return circuit, layer_symbols def get_layer_2q(qubits, layer_num, L_name): layer_symbols = [] circuit = cirq.Circuit() for n, (q0, q1) in enumerate(zip(qubits[::2], qubits[1::2])): a = sympy.symbols("a{2}_{0}_{1}".format(layer_num, n, L_name)) layer_symbols += [a] circuit += get_rotation_2q(q0, q1, a) return circuit, layer_symbols It will be convenient to consider a particular class of probabilistic models where the estimation of the gradient of the model parameters is straightforward to perform. This class of models are called *exponential families* or *energy-based models* (EBMs). If our parameterized probabilistic model is an EBM, then it is of the form: $$\label{eq:EBM} p_{\bm{\theta}}(x) = \tfrac{1}{\mathcal{Z}_{\bm{\theta}}} e^{-E_{\bm{\theta}}(\bm{x})}, \quad \mathcal{Z}_{\bm{\theta}} \equiv\textstyle \sum_{\bm{x}\in\Omega}e^{-E_{\bm{\theta}}(\bm{x})}.$$ For gradients of the VQT free energy loss function with respect to the QNN parameters, $\partial_{\bm{\phi}} \mathcal{L}_{\textsc{fe}}(\bm{\theta},\bm{\phi}) =\beta\partial_{\bm{\phi}} \text{tr}(\hat{\rho}_{\bm{\theta\phi}}\hat{H})$, this is simply the gradient of an expectation value, hence we can use TFQ parameter shift gradients or any other method for estimating the gradients of QNN’s outlined in previous sections. As for gradients of the classical probabilistic model, one can readily derive that they are given by the following covariance: [$$\begin{split} \partial_{\bm{\theta}} &\mathcal{L}_{\textsc{fe}} \!=\!\mathbb{E}_{\bm{x}\sim p_{\bm{\theta}}(\bm{x})}\Big[(E_{\bm{\theta}}(\bm{x})-\beta H_{\bm{\phi}}(\bm{x}) ) \nabla_{\bm{\theta}}E_{\bm{\theta}}(\bm{x}) \Big]\\&\!\!\!-\! ( \mathbb{E}_{\bm{x}\sim p_{\bm{\theta}}(\bm{x})}\big[E_{\bm{\theta}}(\bm{x})\!-\!\beta H_{\bm{\phi}}(\bm{x}) \big]) ( \mathbb{E}_{\bm{y}\sim p_{\bm{\theta}}(\bm{y})}\big[\nabla_{\bm{\theta}}E_{\bm{\theta}}(\bm{y})\big] ) , \end{split}$$ ]{}\[eq:fe-classical-gradient\] where $H_{\bm{\phi}}(\bm{x}) \equiv \bra{\bm{x}}\hat{U}^\dagger({\bm{\phi}})\hat{H}\hat{U}({\bm{\phi}})\ket{\bm{x}}$ is the expectation value of the Hamiltonian at the output of the QNN with the standard basis element $\ket{\bm{x}}$ as input. Since the energy function and its gradients can easily be evaluated as it is a neural network, the above gradient is straightforward to estimate via sampling of the classical probabilistic model and the output of the QPU. For our classical latent probability distribution $p_{\bm{\theta}}(\bm{x})$, as a first simple case, we can use the product of independent Bernoulli distributions $p_{\bm{\theta}}(\bm{x}) = \prod_j p_{{\theta}_j}(x_j) =\prod_j \theta_j^{x_j}(1-\theta_j)^{1-x_j} $, where $x_j\in\{0,1\}$ are binary values. We can re-phrase this distribution as an energy based model to take advantage of equation . We move the parameters into an exponential, so that the probability of a bitstring becomes $p_{\bm{\theta}}(\bm{x}) = \prod_je^{\theta_jx_j}/(e^{\theta_j} + e^{-\theta_j})$. Since this distribution is a product of independent variables, it is easy to sample from. We can use the TensorFlow Probability library [@dillon2017tensorflow] to produce samples from this distribution, using the object: def bernoulli_bit_probability(b): return np.exp(b)/(np.exp(b) + np.exp(-b)) def sample_bernoulli(num_samples, biases): prob_list = [] for bias in biases.numpy(): prob_list.append( bernoulli_bit_probability(bias)) latent_dist = tfp.distributions.Bernoulli( probs=prob_list, dtype=tf.float32) return latent_dist.sample(num_samples) After getting samples from our classical probabilistic model, we take gradients of our QNN parameters. Because TFQ implements gradients for its expectation ops, we can use to obtain these derivatives. Note that below we used $\Colorbox{bkgd}{\lstinline{tf.tile}}$ to give our Hamiltonian operator and visible state circuit the correct dimensions: bitstring_tensor = sample_bernoulli( num_samples, vqt_biases) with tf.GradientTape() as tape: tiled_vqt_model_params = tf.tile( [vqt_model_params], [num_samples, 1]) sampled_expectations = expectation( tiled_visible_state, vqt_symbol_names, tf.concat([bitstring_tensor, tiled_vqt_model_params], 1), tiled_H) energy_losses = beta*sampled_expectations energy_losses_avg = tf.reduce_mean(energy_losses) vqt_model_gradients = tape.gradient( energy_losses_avg, [vqt_model_params]) Putting these pieces together, we train our model to output thermal states of the 2D Heisenberg model on a 2x2 grid. The result after 100 epochs is shown in Fig. \[fig:vqt\_result\]. A great advantage of this approach to optimization of the probabilistic model is that the partition function $\mathcal{Z}_{\bm{\theta}}$ does not need to be estimated. As such, more general more expressive models beyond factorized distributions can be used for the probabilistic modelling of the latent classical distribution. In the advanced section of the notebook, we show how to use a Boltzmann machine as our energy based model. Boltzmann machines are EBM’s where for bitstring $x \in \{0, 1\}^n$, the energy is defined as $E(x) = -\sum_{i, j}w_{ij} x_i x_j - \sum_i b_i x_i$. It is worthy to note that our factorized Bernoulli distribution is in fact a special case of the Boltzmann machine, one where only the so-called *bias terms* in the energy function are present: $E(x) = - \sum_i b_i x_i$. In the notebook, we start with this simpler Bernoulli example of the VQT, the resulting density matrix converges to the known exact result for this system, as shown in Fig. \[fig:vqt\_result\]. We also provide a more advanced example with a general Boltzmann machine. In the latter example, we picked a fully visible, fully-connected classical Ising model energy function, and used MCMC with Metropolis-Hastings [@robert2015metropolishastings] to sample from the energy function. ![Final density matrix output by the VQT algorithm run with a factorized Bernoulli distribution as classical latent distribution, trained via a gradient-based optimizer. See notebook for details. []{data-label="fig:vqt_result"}](figures/vqt_ebm_trained.png){width="0.65\columnwidth"} ### Quantum Generative Learning from Quantum Data Now that we have seen how to prepare thermal states from a given Hamiltonian, we can consider how we can learn to generatively model mixed quantum states using quantum-probabilistic models in the case where we are given several copies of a mixed state rather than a Hamiltonian. That is, we are given access to a data mixed state $ \hat{\sigma}_{\mathcal{D}} $, and we would like to find optimal parameters $\{\bm{\theta}^*,\bm{\phi}^*\}$ such that $\hat{\rho}_{\bm{\theta}^*\bm{\phi}^*} \approx \hat{\sigma}_{\mathcal{D}}$, where the model state is of the form described in . Furthermore, for reasons of convenience which will be apparent below, it is useful to posit that our classical probabilistic model is of the form of an *energy-based model* as in equation . If we aim to minimize the quantum relative entropy between the data and our model (in reverse compared to the VQT) i.e., $D(\hat{\sigma}_{\mathcal{D}} \Vert \hat{\rho}_{\bm{\theta\phi}}) $ then it suffices to minimize the quantum cross entropy as our loss function $$\mathcal{L}_{\textsc{xe}}(\bm{\theta,\phi}) \equiv - \text{tr}(\hat{\sigma}_{\mathcal{D}} \log \hat{\rho}_{\bm{\theta}\bm{\phi}} ).$$ By using the energy-based form of our latent classical probability distribution, as can be readily derived (see [@verdon2019quantumVQT]), the cross entropy is given by $$\mathcal{L}_{\textsc{xe}}(\bm{\theta,\phi}) = \mathbb{E}_{\bm{x}\sim \sigma_{\bm{\phi}}(\bm{x})}[E_{\bm{\theta}}(\bm{x})] + \log \mathcal{Z}_{\bm{\theta}},$$ where $\sigma_{\bm{\phi}}(\bm{x}) \equiv \bra{\bm{x}}\hat{U}^\dagger(\bm{\phi})\hat{\sigma}_{\mathcal{D}}\hat{U}(\bm{\phi})\ket{\bm{x}}$ is the distribution obtained by feeding the data state $\hat{\sigma}_{\mathcal{D}}$ through the inverse QNN circuit $\hat{U}^\dagger(\bm{\phi})$ and measuring in the standard basis. As this is simply an expectation value of a state propagated through a QNN, for gradients of the loss with respect to QNN parameters we can use standard TFQ differentiators, such as the parameter shift rule presented in section \[sec:theory\]. As for the gradient with respect to the EBM parameters, it is given by $$\partial_{\bm{\theta}}\mathcal{L}_{\textsc{xe}}(\bm{\theta,\phi})=\mathbb{E}_{\bm{x}\sim \sigma_{\bm{\phi}}(\bm{x})}[\nabla_{\bm{\theta}} E_{\bm{\theta}}(\bm{x})] - \mathbb{E}_{\bm{y}\sim p_{\theta}(\bm{y})} [\nabla_{\bm{\theta}}E_{\bm{\theta}}(\bm{y})].$$ Let us implement a scenario where we were given the output density matrix from our last VQT example as data, let us see if we can learn to replicate its statistics from data rather than from the Hamiltonian. For simplicity we focus on the Bernoulli EBM defined above. We can efficiently sample bitstrings from our learned classical distribution and feed them through the learned VQT unitary to produce our data state. These VQT parameters are assumed fixed; they represent a quantum datasource for QMHL. We use the same ansatz for our QMHL unitary as we did for VQT, layers of single qubit rotations and exponentiated CNOTs. We apply our QMHL model unitary to the output of our VQT to produce the pulled-back data distribution. Then, we take expectation values of our current best estimate of the modular Hamiltonian: def get_qmhl_weights_grad_and_biases_grad( ebm_deriv_expectations, bitstring_list, biases): bare_qmhl_biases_grad = tf.reduce_mean( ebm_deriv_expectations, 0) c_qmhl_biases_grad = ebm_biases_derivative_avg(bitstring_list) return tf.subtract(bare_qmhl_biases_grad, c_qmhl_biases_grad) Note that we use the functionality to obtain the gradients of the QMHL model unitary. This functionality is enabled by our TFQ differentiators module. The classical model parameters can be updated according to the gradient formula above. See the VQT notebook for the results of this training.\ Closing Remarks =============== The rapid development of quantum hardware represents an impetus for the equally rapid development of quantum applications. In October 2017, the Google AI Quantum team and collaborators released its first software library, OpenFermion, to accelerate the development of quantum simulation algorithms for chemistry and materials sciences. Likewise, TensorFlow Quantum is intended to accelerate the development of quantum machine learning algorithms for a wide array of applications. Quantum machine learning is a very new and exciting field, so we expect the framework to change with the needs of the research community, and the availability of new quantum hardware. We have open-sourced the framework under the commercially friendly Apache2 license, allowing future commercial products to embed TFQ royalty-free. If you would like to participate in our community, visit us at: [$$\footnotesize\Colorbox{bkgd}{\color{orange-red}\href{https://github.com/tensorflow/quantum/}{\code{https://github.com/tensorflow/quantum/}}}$$]{} Acknowledgements ================ The authors would like to thank Google Research for supporting this project. M.B., G.V., T.M., and A.J.M. would like to thank the Google Quantum AI Lab for their hospitality and support during their respective internships, as well as fellow team members for several useful discussions, in particular Matt Harrigan, John Platt, and Nicholas Rubin. The authors would like to also thank Achim Kempf from the University of Waterloo for sponsoring this project. M.B. and J.Y. would like to thank the Google Brain team for supporting this project, in particular Francois Chollet, Yifei Feng, David Rim, Justin Hong, and Megan Kacholia. G.V. would like to thank Stefan Leichenauer, Jack Hidary and the rest of the Quantum@X team for support during his Quantum Residency. G.V. acknowledges support from NSERC. D.B. is an Associate Fellow in the CIFAR program on Quantum Information Science. A.S. and M.S. were supported by the USRA Feynman Quantum Academy funded by the NAMS R&D Student Program at NASA Ames Research Center and by the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), NYSTEC-USRA Contract (FA8750-19-3-6101). X, formerly known as Google\[x\], is part of the Alphabet family of companies, which includes Google, Verily, Waymo, and others ([www.x.company](www.x.company)). [^1]: For simplicity we set $\alpha_{v}$ to constant 1’s in this example. [^2]: Here is some tip for training. Setting the output true value to theoretical lower bound, we can minimize our expectation value in the Keras model fit framework. That is, we can use the inequality $\langle \hat{H}_{\text{target}} \rangle = \sum_{jk}J_{jk}\langle Z_jZ_k\rangle + \sum_{v}B_{v}\langle Z_v\rangle + \sum_{v}\langle X_v\rangle \ge \sum_{jk}(-)|J_{jk}| -\sum_{v}|B_{v}| - N $. [^3]: Here, we use the terminology *cost* and *mixer* Hamiltonians as the Trotterization of an Ising model time evolution is very similar to a QAOA, and thus we borrow nomenclature from this analogous QNN. [^4]: More precisely, the loss function here is in fact the inverse temperature multiplied by the free energy, but this detail is of little import to our optimization.

ArXiv