text
stringlengths 5
1.89M
| meta
dict | domain
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|
---
author:
- |
\
[^1]
title: 'Optimal Deterministic Polynomial-Time Data Exchange for Omniscience'
---
\[sec:model\]
\[sec:comb\]
[1]{}
S. El Rouayheb, A. Sprintson, and P. Sadeghi, “[On coding for cooperative data exchange]{},” in *Proceedings of ITW*, 2010.
A. Sprintson, P. Sadeghi, G. Booker, and S. El Rouayheb, “[A randomized algorithm and performance bounds for coded cooperative data exchange]{},” in *Proceedings of ISIT*, 2010, pp. 1888–1892.
T. Courtade, B. Xie, and R. Wesel, “[Optimal Exchange of Packets for Universal Recovery in Broadcast Networks]{},” in *Proceedings of Military Communications Conference*, 2010.
S. Tajbakhsh, P. Sadeghi, and R. Shams, “A model for packet splitting and fairness analysis in network coded cooperative data exchange.”
D. Ozgul and A. Sprintson, “An algorithm for cooperative data exchange with cost criterion,” in *Information Theory and Applications Workshop (ITA), 2011*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emIEEE, pp. 1–4.
I. Csisz[á]{}r and P. Narayan, “[Secrecy capacities for multiple terminals]{},” *IEEE Transactions on Information Theory*, vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 3047–3061, 2004.
J. Orlin, “A faster strongly polynomial time algorithm for submodular function minimization,” *Mathematical Programming*, vol. 118, no. 2, pp. 237–251, 2009.
S. Pradhan and K. Ramchandran, “Distributed source coding using syndromes (discus): Design and construction,” *Information Theory, IEEE Transactions on*, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 626–643, 2003.
——, “Generalized coset codes for distributed binning,” *Information Theory, IEEE Transactions on*, vol. 51, no. 10, pp. 3457–3474, 2005.
V. Stankovic, A. Liveris, Z. Xiong, and C. Georghiades, “On code design for the slepian-wolf problem and lossless multiterminal networks,” *Information Theory, IEEE Transactions on*, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 1495–1507, 2006.
C. Chan, “[Generating Secret in a Network]{},” Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2010.
A. Schrijver, *Combinatorial optimization*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emSpringer, 2003.
S. Fujishige, *[Submodular functions and optimization]{}*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emElsevier Science, 2005.
J. Edmonds, “Submodular functions, matroids, and certain polyhedra,” *Combinatorial structures and their applications*, pp. 69–87, 1970.
S. Fujishige and N. Tomizawa, “A note on submodular functions on distributive lattices,” *Journal of the Operations Research Society of Japan*, vol. 26, pp. 309–318, 1983.
K. Nagano, Y. Kawahara, and S. Iwata, “[Minimum Average Cost Clustering]{},” *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, vol. 23, 2010.
S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, *Convex optimization*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emCambridge Univ Pr, 2004.
N. Harvey, D. Karger, and K. Murota, “Deterministic network coding by matrix completion,” in *Proceedings of the sixteenth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms*, 2005, pp. 489–498.
S. Jaggi, P. Sanders, P. Chou, M. Effros, S. Egner, K. Jain, and L. Tolhuizen, “[Polynomial time algorithms for multicast network code construction]{},” *IEEE Transactions on Information Theory*, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 1973–1982, 2005.
D. Bertsekas, *Network optimization: Continuous and discrete methods*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emAthena Scientific (Belmont, Mass.), 1998.
R. Koetter and M. Medard, “An [A]{}lgebraic [A]{}pproach to [N]{}etwork [C]{}oding,” *IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking*, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 782 – 795, 2003.
T. Ho, M. M[é]{}dard, R. Koetter, D. Karger, M. Effros, J. Shi, and B. Leong, “A random linear network coding approach to multicast,” *Information Theory, IEEE Transactions on*, vol. 52, no. 10, pp. 4413–4430, 2006.
J. Hadamard, “Résolution d’une question relative aux déterminant,” *Bull. Sci. Math*, vol. 17, pp. 240–246, 1893.
[^1]: This research was funded by the NSF grants (CCF-0964018, CCF-0830788), a DTRA grant (HDTRA1-09-1-0032), and in part by an AFOSR grant (FA9550-09-1-0120).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
We study the speed of convergence to the asymptotic cone for Cayley graphs of nilpotent groups. Burago showed that $\{({\mathbb{Z}}^d,\frac{1}{n}\rho,id)\}_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ converges to $({\mathbb{R}}^d,d_{\infty},id)$ and its speed is $O(\frac{1}{n})$ in the sense of Gromov-Hausdorff distance. Later Breuillard and Le Donne gave estimates for non-abelian cases, and constructed an example whose speed of convergence is slower than $O(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}})$.
For $2$-step nilpotent groups, we show that if the Mal’cev completion is non-singular, then the speed of convergence is $O(\frac{1}{n})$ for any choice of generating set. In terms of subFinsler geometry, this condition is also equivalent to the absence of abnormal geodesics on the asymptotic cone.
author:
- Kenshiro Tashiro
title: 'On the speed of convergence to the asymptotic cone for non-singular nilpotent groups'
---
Introduction {#sec0}
============
Let $\Gamma$ be a torsion free nilpotent group generated by a finite symmetric subset $S\subset \Gamma$, and $\rho_S$ the associated word metric. The asymptotic cone of $(\Gamma,\rho_S,id)$ is the Gromov-Hausdorff limit of the sequence $\{(\Gamma,\frac{1}{n}\rho_S,id)\}_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}$. In general, the existence and the uniqueness of the limit is not trivial, however, Pansu showed that the asymptotic cone of $(\Gamma,\rho_S,id)$ is uniquely determined up to isometry in [@pan]. The limit space $(N,d_{\infty},id)$ is a simply connected nilpotent Lie group endowed with a subFinsler metric (see section \[sec23\]). In particular, if $\Gamma$ is a $2$-step nilpotent group, $N$ is isomorphic to the Mal’cev completion of $\Gamma$.
The asymptotic cone and the original metric space are sometimes close in the following sense. Burago [@bur] showed that a Cayley graph of every free abelian group is $(1,C)$-quasi-isometric to its asymptotic cone for some $C>0$. This implies that the unit ball of a scaled down Cayley graph centered at the identity, denote $B_{\frac{1}{n}\rho_S}(1)$, converges to that of the asymptotic cone rapidly. Namely, $$d_{GH}(B_{\frac{1}{n}\rho_S}(1),B_{d_{\infty}}(1))=O(n^{-1}),$$ where $d_{GH}$ is the Gromov-hausdorff distance.
Motivated by this result, Gromov [@gro2] asked whether a Cayley graph of a nilpotent group is $(1,C)$-quasi-isometric to its asymptotic cone, and if not, what is the speed of convergence. The first result on non-abelian nilpotent groups is given by Krat [@kra], who showed that the discrete $3$-Heisenberg group $H_3({\mathbb{Z}})$ endowed with a word metric is $(1,C)$-quasi isometric to its asymptotic cone. For general cases, Breuillard and Le Donne first gave estimates in [@bre2]. Later the result is sharpened by Gianella [@gia], who showed that $$d_{GH}(B_{\frac{1}{n}\rho_S}(1),B_{d_{\infty}}(1))=O(n^{-\frac{1}{r}}),$$ where $r$ is the nilpotency class of $\Gamma$. Moreover, Breuillard and Le Donne also showed in [@bre2] that for the $2$-step nilpotent group ${\mathbb{Z}}\times H_3({\mathbb{Z}})$, there is a generating set such that the estimates $O(n^{-\frac{1}{2}})$ is sharp. From this example, they observed a relationship between the speed of convergence and an [*abnormal geodesic*]{} on the asymptotic cone (see Definition \[dfnabn\]).
\[obs1\] The speed of convergence to the asymptotic cone of ${\mathbb{Z}}\times H_3({\mathbb{Z}})$ becomes slow around the endpoint of an abnormal geodesic on the asymptotic cone.
In fact, their example is based on the idea that the unit sphere of the asymptotic cone ${\mathbb{R}}\times H_3({\mathbb{R}})$ has a cusp around the endpoint of an abnormal geodesic. This relationship between abnormal geodesics and cusps of the sphere is established in [@led3]. However, there is no quantitative proof for the $(1,C)$-quasi isometricity between a Cayley graph and the asymptotic cone in the case of no abnormal geodesics.
Our interest is when Cayley graphs of nilpotent groups are $(1,C)$-quasi isometric to their asymptotic cones. To this problem, Fujiwara[@fuj2] asked the following question.
\[ques1\] Let $\Gamma$ be a lattice in a simply connected strictly non-singular nilpotent Lie group, and $\rho_S$ a word metric associated to a finite generating set $S$. Then are $(\Gamma,\rho_S)$ and its asymptotic cone $(1,C)$-quasi isometric for some $C>0$?
Here a simply connected nilpotent Lie group $N$ is [*strictly non-singular*]{} if for all $z\in Z(N)$, the center of $N$, and all $x\in N\setminus Z(N)$, there is $y\in N$ such that $[x,y]=x^{-1}y^{-1}xy=z$. It is equivalent to the absence of abnormal geodesics on the asymptotic cone within the class of $2$-step nilpotent groups (see Section \[sec4\]). For $2$-step nilpotent groups, that condition is simply called [*non-singular*]{}, defined as below.
A simply connected $2$-step nilpotent Lie group $N$ is called non-singular if for all $z\in [N,N]$ and all $x\in N\setminus [N,N]$, there is $y\in N$ such that $[x,y]=z$.
Under this condition, we obtain the following theorem.
\[thm1\] Let $\Gamma$ be a lattice of a simply connected non-singular $2$-step nilpotent group $N$, and $\rho_S$ a word metric on $\Gamma$. Then there is $C>0$ such that $(\Gamma,\rho_S)$ is $(1,C)$-quasi isometric to its asymptotic cone.
Theorem \[thm1\] is on a finitely generated group, which is related to a claim on a nilpotent Lie group by using the following result by Stoll.
\[prop0\] Let $\Gamma$ be a finitely generated torsion free $2$-step nilpotent group, $\rho_S$ a word metric on $\Gamma$, and $N$ the Mal’cev completion of $\Gamma$. Then there is a left invariant subFinler metric $d_S$ on $N$ and $C>0$ such that $(\Gamma,\rho_S)$ is $(1,C)$-quasi isometric to $(N,d_S)$ by the natural inclusion map.
He constructed such a metric $d_S$ explicitly, now called the [*Stoll metric*]{}. It is easy to see that the asymptotic cones of $(\Gamma,\rho_S,id)$ and $(N,d_S,id)$ are isometric, hence the following theorem implies Theorem \[thm1\].
\[thm3\] Let $N$ be a simply connected non-singular $2$-step nilpotent Lie group endowed with a left invariant subFinsler metric $d$. Then there is $C>0$ such that $(N,d)$ is $(1,C)$-quasi isometric to its asymptotic cone.
The following proposition, which establishes relationships between Observation \[obs1\] and Question \[ques1\], may be well known for experts, however we cannot find references, so we note here.
Let $\Gamma$ be a torsion free nilpotent group generated by a finite symmetric set $S$, and $\rho_S$ the associated word metric. Then the followings are equivalent.
- The Mal’cev completion of $\Gamma$ is non-singular,
- There are no abnormal geodesics on the asymptotic cone of $(\Gamma,\rho_S,id)$.
Hence Theorem \[thm1\] is a partial confirmation of Observation \[obs1\].
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
The author would like to express his great thanks to Professor Koji Fujiwara for many helpful suggestions and comments. He would like to thank Professor Enrico Le Donne for sharing information on his work with him.
The asymptotic cone of a nilpotent Lie group endowed with a left invariant subFinsler metric {#sec2}
============================================================================================
Let $N$ be a simply connected $2$-step nilpotent Lie group, and $d$ a left invariant subFinsler metric on $N$. In this section, we shall construct the asymptotic cone of $(N,d,id)$.
Nilpotent Lie groups and nilpotent Lie algebras {#sec21}
-----------------------------------------------
Let ${\mathfrak{n}}$ be the Lie algebra associated to $N$. It is known that the exponential map from ${\mathfrak{n}}$ to $N$ is a diffeomorphism. By the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula, the group operation on $N$ is written by $$\exp(X)\cdot\exp(Y)=\exp(X+Y+\frac{1}{2}[X,Y]).$$ In particular, we can identify the commutator on $N$ and the Lie bracket on ${\mathfrak{n}}$ as $$[\exp(X),\exp(Y)]=\exp([X,Y]).$$ Hence we sometimes identify elements in $N$ and ${\mathfrak{n}}$ via the exponential map.
Let $V_{\infty}$ be a subspace of ${\mathfrak{n}}$ such that $$V_{\infty}\cap[{\mathfrak{n}},{\mathfrak{n}}]=(0) ~~\text{and}~~ V_{\infty}+[{\mathfrak{n}},{\mathfrak{n}}]={\mathfrak{n}}.$$ Then ${\mathfrak{n}}$ is spanned by the direct sum $V_{\infty}\oplus[{\mathfrak{n}},{\mathfrak{n}}]$ and any element in ${\mathfrak{n}}$ will be written by $X+Y$, where $X\in V_{\infty}$ and $Y\in[{\mathfrak{n}},{\mathfrak{n}}]$.
To such a decomposition, we can define the following two endomorphisms of $N$ and ${\mathfrak{n}}$.
\
We may associate a Lie algebra automorphism $\delta_t:{\mathfrak{n}}\to{\mathfrak{n}}$ $(t\in{\mathbb{R}}_{>0})$ which is determined by $$\delta_t(X+Y)=tX+t^2Y.$$ This Lie algebra automorphism is called the [*dilation*]{}. It induces the diffeomorphism of $N$ via the exponential map (we also denote that diffeomorphism by $\delta_t$).
\
Set a mapping $\pi:{\mathfrak{n}}\to V_{\infty}$ by $\pi(X+Y)=X$. By the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula, it is easy to see that $\pi\circ\log:N\to V_{\infty}$ is a surjective group homomorphism, as we see $V_{\infty}$ an abelian Lie group. We will simply denote the homomorphism $\pi\circ\log$ by $\pi$.
Left invariant subFinsler metrics {#sec22}
---------------------------------
Let $N$ be a connected Lie group with the associated Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{n}}$. Suppose a vector subspace $V\subset{\mathfrak{n}}$ and a norm $\|\cdot\|$ on $V$ are given. Then $V$ induces the left invariant subbundle $\Delta$ of the tangent bundle of $N$. Namely, a vector $v$ at a point $p\in N$ is an element of $\Delta$ if $(L_p)^{\ast}v\in V$. For such $v$, we set $\|v\|:=\|(L_p)^{\ast}v\|$. This $\Delta$ is called a [*horizontal distribution*]{}.
One says that an absolutely continuous curve $c:[a,b]\to N$ with $a,b\in{\mathbb{R}}$ is [*horizontal*]{} if the derivative $\dot c(t)$ is in $\Delta$ for almost all $t\in[a,b]$. Then for $x,y\in N$, one may define a subFinsler metric as $$d(x,y)=\inf\left\{\int_a^b\|\dot c(t)\|dt\Big|c~\text{is horizontal}~,c(a)=x,c(b)=y\right\}.$$ Note that such $d$ is left invariant.
Chow showed that any two points in $N$ are connected by a horizontal path if and only if $V$ is [*bracket generating*]{}, that is, $$V+[V,V]+\cdots+\underbrace{[V,[V,[\cdots]\cdots]}_r={\mathfrak{n}}.$$ In particular, the subspace $V_{\infty}$, given in Section \[sec21\], is bracket generating.
The asymptotic cone {#sec23}
-------------------
Roughly speaking, an asymptotic cone is a metric space which describes how a metric space looks like when it is seen from very far. This is characterized by the Gromov-Hausdorff distance between compact metric spaces.
Let $(X,d,p)$ be a pointed proper metric space. If the sequence of pointed proper metric spaces $\{(X,\frac{1}{n}d,p)\}_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ converges to a metric space $(X_{\infty},d_{\infty},p_{\infty})$ in the Gromov-Hausdorff topology, then $(X_{\infty},d_{\infty},p_{\infty})$ is called the asymptotic cone of $(X,d,p)$.
It is not trivial whether the limit exists or not. For nilpotent Lie groups endowed with left invariant subFinsler metrics, the existence and the uniqueness of the limit is shown in [@bre]. For more precise information, see [@van]
Let us recall the definition of the Gromov-Hausdorff topology on the set of pointed proper metric spaces. A sequence of pointed proper metric spaces $\{(X_n,d_n,p_n)\}_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ is said to converge to the pointed metric space $(X_{\infty},d_{\infty},p_{\infty})$ if for any $R>0$, the sequence of metric balls $\{B_{d_n}(p_n,R)\}_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ converges to $B_{d_{\infty}}(p_{\infty},R)$ in the Gromov-Hausdorff topology on the set of compact metric spaces.
The Gromov-Hausdorff topology on the set of compact metric spaces is characterized by the Gromov-Hausdorff distance. For compact metric spaces $(X,d_X)$ and $(Y,d_Y)$, it is determined by $$d_{GH}(X,Y):=\inf\left\{d_{H,Z}(X,Y)\Big|Z=X\sqcup Y,d_Z|_X=d_X,d_Z|_Y=d_Y\right\},$$ Here $d_{H,Z}$ is the Hausdorff distance on compact subsets on $Z$, namely the smallest $r>0$ such that $X$ lies in the $r$-neighborhood of $Y$ and $Y$ lies in the $r$-neighborhood of $X$.
Suppose a left invariant subFinsler metric $d$ on $N$ is determined by a bracket generating subspace $V\subset {\mathfrak{n}}$ and a norm $\|\cdot\|$ on $V$. By using the homomorphism $\pi$, define a left invariant subFinsler metric $d_{\infty}$ on $N$ which is determined by the subspace $V_{\infty}\subset{\mathfrak{n}}$ and the norm $\|\cdot\|_{\infty}$ on $V_{\infty}$ whose unit ball is $\pi(B_{\|\cdot\|}(1))$, where $B_{\|\cdot\|}(1)$ is the unit ball of the normed space $(V,\|\cdot\|)$ cntered at $0$.
\[thm210\]
For any sequence $\{g_i\}_{i\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ on $N$ such that $d(g_i)\to\infty$ as $i\to\infty$, $$\lim_{i\to\infty}\frac{d_{\infty}(g_i)}{d(g_i)}=1.$$
In particular, the asymptotic cone of $(N,d,id)$ is isometric to $(N,d_{\infty},id)$.
The pair $(N,V_{\infty})$ is called a [*polarized group*]{}. If a subFinsler metric is induced from a polarized group, such as $d_{\infty}$, then it satisfies the following properties.
\[fact20\]
- For every horizontal path $c$, $$length(c)=length(\pi\circ c).$$ In particular, $$\|\pi(g)\|_{\infty}\leq d_{\infty}(g),$$ and the equality holds if and only if $g\in \exp(V_{\infty})$.
- For $x,y\in N$, $$d_{\infty}(\delta_t(x),\delta_t(y))=td_{\infty}(x,y).$$
Notice that a general subFinsler metric, such as $d$, does not satisfies Fact \[fact20\].
- By its definition, $\pi|_V$ sends $R$-balls in $(V,\|\cdot\|)$ onto $R$-balls in $(V_{\infty},\|\cdot\|_{\infty})$.
- By Fact \[fact20\](a), $\pi$ sends $R$-balls in $(N,d_{\infty})$ onto $R$-balls in $(V_{\infty},\|\cdot\|_{\infty})$.
- In Lemma \[prop1\], we shall see that $\pi$ sends $R$-balls in $(N,d)$ onto $R$-balls in $(V_{\infty},\|\cdot\|_{\infty})$.
Geodesics in $(N,d)$ {#sec9}
====================
Let $N$ be a simply connected $2$-step nilpotent Lie group, and $d$ a left invariant subFinsler metric on $N$ determined by a subspace $V\subset {\mathfrak{n}}$ and a norm $\|\cdot\|$ on $V$. In this section, we study geodesics in $(N,d)$.
For $g\in (N,d)$, let $c$ be a geodesic from $id$ to $g$ with its length $t=d(g):=d(id,g)$. Divide $c$ into $M$ pieces so that each lengths are $\frac{t}{M}$. In other words, $c$ is the concatenation of paths $c_i:[0,\frac{t}{M}]\to N$, $i=1,\dots ,M$, which are geodesics from $id$ to $h_i=c(\frac{i-1}{M}t)^{-1}c(\frac{i}{M}t)$. Notice that $g=h_1\cdots h_{M}$. Set $$I(c,M,R)=\left\{i\in\{1,\dots M\}~|~\|\pi(h_i)\|_{\infty}< Rd(h_i)=R\frac{t}{M}\right\}$$ for $0<R\leq1$. The goal of this section is to show the following proposition.
\[prop90\]
There exists $K>0$ such that for any $M\in{\mathbb{N}}$, if $t\geq M$ then $$|I(c,M,R)|\leq \frac{K}{(1-R)^2}.$$
\[ex0\] The $3$-Heisenberg Lie group $H_3({\mathbb{R}})$ is the $2$-step nilpotent Lie group diffeomorphic to ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ equipped with a group operation $$(x_1,y_1,z_1)\cdot(x_2,y_2,z_2)=(x_1+x_2,y_1+y_2,z_1+z_2+\frac{x_1y_2-x_2y_1}{2}).$$ The associated Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{h}}_3$ is spanned by three vectors $\{X,Y,Z\}$ such that $[X,Y]=Z$, and its derived Lie algebra is $[{\mathfrak{h}}_3,{\mathfrak{h}}_3]=Span(Z)$. Then $V_{\infty}=\langle X,Y\rangle\subset {\mathfrak{h}}_3$ and we can identify it to the plane $\{(x,y,0)\}\subset H_3$ via the exponential map.
(1)Let $\|\cdot\|_1$ be the $l^1$ norm on a vector subspace $V_{\infty}$, and $d_1$ the induced left invariant subFinsler metric on $(H_3,V_{\infty},\|\cdot\|_1)$.
The shape of geodesics in $(H_3,d_1)$ is given in [@duc]. For example, a geodesic $c$ from $(0,0,0)$ to $(0,0,\frac{t^2}{16})$ is the concatenation of $4$ linear paths as in Figure \[fig1\]. Here we say a curve is linear if it is represented by $c(t)=\exp(tX)$ for $X\in V_{\infty}$. We can catch precise shape of geodesics by projecting the curve to the plane $\{(x,y,0)\}$. As in Figure \[fig2\], it starts and ends at $(0,0)$ forming the square.
Divide $c$ into $4$-pieces and denote them by $c_i$ $(i=1,2,3,4)$. Then $c_i$’s are the linear paths. It is easy to see that $length(c_i)=length(\pi\circ c_i)=\frac{t}{4}$ for all $i$. Hence $I(c,4,1)=0$ independent of $t$.
[0.5]{} {width="6cm"}
[0.5]{} {width="5.5cm"}
(2)Let $\|\cdot\|_2$ be the $l^2$ norm on $V_{\infty}$, and $d_2$ the induced subFinsler (subRiemannian) metric on $(H_3,V_{\infty},\|\cdot\|_2)$. A geodesic $c$ from $(0,0,0)$ to $(0,0,\frac{t^2}{4\pi})$ is given as in Figure \[fig3\]. If the geodesic is projected to $\left\{(x,y,0)\right\}$ by $\pi$, then the projected path starts and ends at $(0,0)$ rounding the circle of radius $\frac{t}{2\pi}$. This curve is not a concatenation of linear paths, however Proposition \[prop90\] holds.
Notice that the length of $c$ is $t$, which is the circumference of the projected circle in $V_{\infty}$. As in Figure \[fig4\], divide $c$ into $4$ pieces, and denote them by $c_i$ $(i=1,2,3,4)$. Each arc $c_i$’s have length $\frac{t}{4}$. On the other hand, each chords in Figure \[fig4\] is a geodesic in $(W,\|\cdot\|_2)$ whose length is $2\frac{t}{2\pi}\sin(\frac{\pi}{4})=\frac{t}{\pi\sqrt{2}}$. Hence $h_i$’s, the endpoints of $c_i$’s, satisfy $$\|\pi(h_i)\|_2=\frac{t}{\pi\sqrt{2}}.$$ It means that $I(c,4,R)=0$ for $R\leq \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{\pi}$.
[0.5]{} {width="7cm"}
[0.5]{} {width="5cm"}
We start to prove easy lemmas. Fix a norm $\|\cdot\|_{[N,N]}$ on $[N,N]$.
\[lem90\] There exists $K_1>0$ such that for any $r\geq1$, $$\sup\{\|g^{-1}h\|_{[N,N]}~|~g,h\in B_{d_{\infty}}(r),g^{-1}h\in[N,N]\}=K_1r^2.$$
Take $g,h\in B_{d_{\infty}}(r)$ so that $g^{-1}h\in[N,N]$. By Fact \[fact20\](b), $g'=\delta_{\frac{1}{r}}(g)$ and $h'=\delta_{\frac{1}{r}}(h)$ are in $B_{d_{\infty}}(1)$.
Set $X=X_1+X_2=\log(g)$ and $Y=X_1+Y_2=\log(h)$, where $X_1\in V_{\infty}$ and $X_2,
Y_2 \in[{\mathfrak{n}},{\mathfrak{n}}]$. Here we can take the common $X_1$ since $g^{-1}h\in[N,N]$. By the definition of $\delta_{\frac{1}{r}}$, $\log(g')=\frac{1}{r}X_1+\frac{1}{r^2}X_2$ and $\log(h')=\frac{1}{r}X_1+\frac{1}{r^2}Y_2.$
Then $$\begin{aligned}
g^{-1}h&=\exp(-X_1-X_2)\exp(X_1+Y_2)\\
&=\exp(-X_2+Y_2)\\
&=\exp(r^2\frac{1}{r^2}(-X_2+Y_2))\\
&=\exp(\frac{1}{r^2}(-X_2+Y_2))^{r^2}\\
&=(g^{\prime -1}h')^{r^2}.\end{aligned}$$ We obtain the desired equality $$\begin{aligned}
&\sup\left\{\|g^{-1}h\|_{[N,N]}~|g,h\in B_{d_{\infty}}(r),g^{-1}h\in[N,N]\right\}\\
&=r^2\sup\{\|x^{-1}y\|_{[N,N]}~|x,y\in B_{d_{\infty}}(1),x^{-1}y\in[N,N]\}\\
&=K_1r^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $K_1=\sup\{\|x^{-1}y\|_{[N,N]}~|x,y\in B_{d_{\infty}}(1),x^{-1}y\in[N,N]\}<\infty$.
\[lem89\] For any $h\in[N.N]\setminus\{id\}$, there are $X,Y\in\partial B_{\|\cdot\|_{\infty}}(1)$ such that $$\label{eq7}
[\exp(X),\exp(Y)]\in h^{{\mathbb{R}}_{>0}}=\exp({\mathbb{R}}_{>0}\log(h)).$$ Moreover, assume that $\|[\exp(X),\exp(Y)]\|_{[N,N]}$ is maximal within the condition (\[eq7\]). Then there is $L=L(d_{\infty},\|\cdot\|_{[N,N]})>0$, independent of $h$, such that $\|[\exp(X),\exp(Y)]\|_{[N,N]}\geq L$
Since $h\in[N,N]\setminus\left\{id\right\}$, there are $x,y\in N$ such that $h=[x,y]$. Set $X_1,Y_1\in V_{\infty}$ and $X_2,Y_2\in[{\mathfrak{n}},{\mathfrak{n}}]$ such that $X_1+X_2=\log(x)$ and $Y_1+Y_2=\log(y)$. Since $X_2,Y_2$ are in the center of ${\mathfrak{n}}$, $$[\pi(x),\pi(y)]=[X_1,Y_1]=[X_1+X_2,Y_1+Y_2]=\log(h).$$ Set $X'=\frac{1}{\|X_1\|_{\infty}}X_1$ and $Y'=\frac{1}{\|Y_1\|_{\infty}}Y_1$, It is clear that these $X',Y'$ are in $\partial B_{\|\cdot\|_{\infty}}(1)$ and satisfy $[\exp(X'),\exp(Y')]\in h^{{\mathbb{R}}_{>0}}$. It completes the former part of this lemma.
The latter part is trivial since the restricton of the commutator $[\cdot,\cdot]$ to $\exp(V_{\infty})\times \exp(V_{\infty})\subset N\times N$ is a submersion.
Next we study a length preserving translation of a element in $(V_{\infty},\|\cdot\|_{\infty})$ to $(V,\|\cdot\|)$ and vice versa.
\[prop1\]
For any $g\in N$, there exists $Y_g\in\pi|_V^{-1}(\pi(g))$ such that
- $\|Y_g\|=\|\pi(g)\|_{\infty}=d(\exp(Y_g))=\inf\{d(h)|h\in\pi^{-1}(\pi(g))\},$
- An infinite path $c:{\mathbb{R}}_{\geq 0}\to N$, $t\mapsto\exp\left(t\frac{Y_g}{\|Y_g\|}\right)$ is a geodesic ray i.e. for any $t_1,t_2\in{\mathbb{R}}_{\geq 0}$, $d(c(t_1),c(t_2))=|c_1-c_2|$.
From the construction of the asymptotic cone of $(N,d,id)$,\
$\pi|_V(B_{\|\cdot\|}(R))=B_{\|\cdot\|_{\infty}}(R)$ for any $R>0$. Thus for any $g\in N$, we can take $Y_g$ in $V$ such that $\|Y_g\|=\|\pi(g)\|_{\infty}$.
We shall see that this $Y_g$ is the desired one. Clearly $\|Y_g\|\geq d\left(\exp(Y_g)\right)$ since the curve $c:[0,\|Y_g\|]\to N$, $c(t)=\exp\left(t\frac{Y_g}{\|Y_g\|}\right)$ is a horizontal path from $id$ to $\exp(Y_g)$ such that $length(c)=\|Y_g\|$.
We claim the converse by showing the inequality $$\label{eq32}
\|\pi(g)\|_{\infty}\leq d\left(\exp(Y_g)\right).$$ Let $c_1:\left[0,d\left(\exp(Y_g)\right)\right]\to N$ be a geodesic from $id$ to $\exp(Y_g)$ in $(N,d)$. Then we obtain the horizontal path $c_2$ in $(N,d_{\infty})$ by letting the derivative $c_2^{\prime}(t)=\pi(c_1^{\prime}(t))$ for each $t\in[0,d\left(\exp(Y_g)\right)]$. Since $\pi$ is distance non-increasing, $length(c_2)\leq length(c_1)$. By using Fact \[fact20\](a), $\pi\circ c_2$ is a path in $V_{\infty}$ from $id$ to $\pi(Y_g)=\pi(g)$ whose length equals that of $c_2$. Now we have constructed the path $\pi\circ c_2$ in $(V_{\infty},\|\cdot\|_{\infty})$ from $id$ to $\pi(g)$ whose length is shorter than $length(c_1)$, which yields the inequality (\[eq32\]).
The construction of $\pi\circ c_2$ from $c_1$ is applied to any $h\in \pi^{-1}(\pi(g))$ and any geodesic $c_1$ from $id$ to $h$. Hence the inequality $d(h)\geq \|\pi(g)\|_{\infty}$ holds. This argument yields the last part of the equality.
The second part of this lemma follows in the same way. The above arguments imply that $c:[0,d(\exp(Y_g))]\to N$, $c(t)=\exp\left(t\frac{Y_g}{\|Y_g\|}\right)$ is a geodesic from $id$ to $\exp(Y_g)$. By the choice of $Y_g$, we can show the second part of this lemma if $\|tY_g\|=\|t\pi(g)\|_{\infty}$ for $t\in{\mathbb{R}}_{\geq 0}$. It is trivial since the mapping $\pi$ is a linear homomorphism.
\[lem91\]
There is $K_2>0$ such that for any $g\in N$, $$\frac{1}{K_2}d(g)-K_2\leq d_{\infty}(g)\leq K_2d(g)+K_2.$$
Now we pass to the proof of Proposition \[prop90\].
Fix $M\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and $0<R\leq 1$. Let $c$ be a geodesic from $id$ to $g\in N$ with $length(c)=t\geq M$. We consider an upper bound of the cardinality of $I=I(c,M,R)$. Divide $c$ into $M$ pieces, and denote each by $c_i$. Let $h_i$ be the endpoint of $c_i$, that is, $h_i=c\left(\frac{t}{M}(i-1)\right)^{-1}c\left(\frac{t}{M}i\right)$. Deform $c$ and $c_i$ as follows.
- If $i\in I$, set $\tilde{c}_i:[0,\|Y_{h_i}\|]\to N$, $$\tilde{c}_i(t)=\frac{Y_{h_i}}{\|Y_{h_i}\|}t,$$ where $Y_{h_i}$ are given as in Lemma \[prop1\]
- If $i\notin I$, set $\tilde{c}_i=c_i$.
- Set $\tilde{c}$ to be the concatenation of $\tilde{c}_i$’s starting at the identity.
[0.5]{} {width="6.5cm"}
[0.5]{} {width="6.5cm"}
This $\tilde{c}$ is a horizontal path in $(N,d)$. Let $\tilde{g}$ be the endpoint of $\tilde{c}$, and $\tilde{h}_i$ the endpoint of $\tilde{c}_i$. Hence $\tilde{h}_i=Y_{h_i}$ for $i\in I$ and $\tilde{h}_i=h_i$ for $i\notin I$. By the triangle inequality, $d\left(\tilde{g}\right)$ is bounded above by $$\label{equ1}
\sum_{i\in I}d\left(\tilde{h}_i\right)+\sum_{i\notin I}\frac{t}{M}.$$
By using (\[equ1\]) and Lemma \[prop1\], $$\begin{aligned}
d(g)-d\left(\tilde{g}\right)&\geq\sum_{i\in I}\left(\frac{t}{M}-d\left(\tilde{h}_i\right)\right)\\
&=\sum_{i\in I}\left(\frac{t}{M}-d\left(Y_{h_i}\right)\right)\\
&=\sum_{i\in I}\left(\frac{t}{M}-\|\pi(h_i)\|_{\infty}\right)\\
&\geq\frac{t}{M}\left(1-R\right)|I|.\end{aligned}$$ We shall see that $d(g)-d\left(\tilde{g}\right)$ is linearly bounded above by $t$.
Set $h=\tilde{g}^{-1}g$. By the triangle inequality, $$d(g)-d\left(\tilde{g}\right)\leq d(h).$$ Since each $\tilde{h}_i^{-1}h_i$ is in the center of $N$, $$h=\tilde{g}^{-1}g=\tilde{h}_M^{-1}\cdots \tilde{h}_1^{-1}h_1\cdots h_M=\prod_{i\in I}\tilde{h}_i^{-1}h_i=\prod_{i\in I}Y_{h_i}^{-1}h_i\in[N,N].$$ By Lemma \[lem89\], we can choose $X,Y\in\partial (B_{\|\cdot\|}(1)))$ such that
- $[\exp(X),\exp(Y)]=[X,Y]\in h^{{\mathbb{R}}_{>0}}\subset N$, and
- $\|[X,Y]\|_{[N,N]}\geq L$.
Set $r\in{\mathbb{R}}_{\geq 0}$ such that $$[\sqrt{r}X,\sqrt{r}Y]=r[X,Y]=h.$$ Then we can construct a horizontal path from $id$ to $h$ (equivalently, can construct a path from $\tilde{g}$ to $g$ by translating the starting point) by connecting the following four paths: $c_1(s)=-Xs$, $c_2(s)=-Ys$, $c_3(s)=Xs$ and $c_4(s)=Ys$ for $s\in[0,\sqrt{r}]$.
{width="6.5cm"}
By the triangle inequality, we obtain $$d(h)\leq 4\sqrt{r}.$$
By the definition of $X,Y$ and $r$, $\|h\|_{[N,N]}=\|r[X,Y]\|_{[N,N]}=r\|[X,Y]\|_{[N,N]}$. Hence we obtain $$r\leq \frac{\|h\|_{[N,N]}}{L}.$$ Finally we can estimate $\|h\|_{[N,N]}$ by using Lemma \[lem90\] and Lemma \[lem91\], $$\begin{aligned}
\|h\|_{[N,N]}&=\|\prod_{i\in I}Y_{h_i}^{-1}h_i\|_{[N,N]}\\
&\leq\sum_{i\in I}\|Y_{h_i}^{-1}h_i\|_{[N,N]}\\
&\leq |I|K_1\left(\max\left\{d_{\infty}(h_i),d_{\infty}(Y_{h_i})\right\}\right)^2\\
&\leq |I|K_1\left(\max\left\{K_2d(h_i)+K_2,K_2d(Y_{h_i})+K_2\right\}\right)^2\\
&\leq 4K_1K_2^2\frac{t^2}{M^2}|I|.\end{aligned}$$
To be summarized, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{t}{M}(1-R)|I|&\leq d(g)-d\left(\tilde{g}\right)\\
&\leq d(h)\\
&\leq 4\sqrt{r}\\
&\leq 4\sqrt{\frac{\|h\|_{[N,N]}}{L}}\\
&\leq 8K_2\frac{t}{M}\sqrt{\frac{K_1|I|}{L}}.\end{aligned}$$
Solve the quadratic inequality for $\sqrt{|I|}$, then we have $$|I|\leq\frac{64K_1K_2^2}{L(1-R)^2}=\frac{K}{(1-R)^2},$$
where $K=\frac{64K_1K_2^2}{L}$.
Another choice of a norm may inherit another constant $K>0$, however it does not affect the later arguments. If necessary, we can take the infimum one among obtained $K$ since our method can be applied to any norm.
Proof of the main theorem
=========================
In the arguments of Section \[sec9\], one does not need the non-singularity. If $N$ is non-singular, then we obtain the following lemma.
\[lem92\]
There exists $L_0>0$ such that for all $r_1,r_2\in{\mathbb{R}}_{>0}$ and all $g\in \pi^{-1}(\partial B_{\|\cdot\|_{\infty}}(0,r_1))$, $$B_{\|\cdot\|_{[N,N]}}(L_0r_1r_2)\subset[g,B_{d_{\infty}}(r_2)].$$
Before the proof, we confirm some easy facts on $[g,B_{d_{\infty}}(r_2)]$.
\[sub91\] $[g,B_{d_{\infty}}(r_2)]$ is a compact star convex neighborhood around $id\in[N,N]$.
$[g,B_{d_{\infty}}(r_2)]$ is compact since the mapping $[g,\cdot]:N\to[N,N]$ is continuous and $B_{d_{\infty}}(r_2)$ is compact. Moreover it is a neighborhood around the identity since $[g,\cdot]$ is a submersion by non-singular condition.
Next we show the set is star convex. For any $h\in[g,B_{d_{\infty}}(r_2)]$, we can choose $Y\in B_{\|\cdot\|_{\infty}}(r_2)$ such that $h=[g,\exp(Y)]$. By Campbell-Baker-Haudorff formula, for $s\in[0,1]$, $$h^s=[g,\exp(Y)]^s=[g,\exp(sY)].$$ By Fact \[fact20\](b), $$d_{\infty}(\exp(sY))=sd_{\infty}(\exp(Y))\leq r_2.$$ Hence $h^s\in[g,B_{d_{\infty}}(r_2)]$, that is, $[g,B_{d_{\infty}}(r_2)]$ is star convex.
\[rmk90\] From the proof of Sublemma \[sub91\], we have $$\partial[g,B_{d_{\infty}}(r_2)]=[g,\exp(\partial B_{\|\cdot\|_{\infty}}(r_2))].$$
First of all, we find $L_0>0$ such that for any\
$g\in \pi^{-1}\left(\partial B_{\|\cdot\|_{\infty}}(1)\right)$, $B_{\|\cdot\|_{[N,N]}}(L_0)\subset[g,B_{d_{\infty}}(1)]$.
By Sublemma \[sub91\], there exists $L(g)>0$ such that $$B_{\|\cdot\|_{[N,N]}}(L(g))\subset[g,B_{d_{\infty}}(1)].$$ We can assume $L(g_1)=L(g_2)$ if $\pi(g_1)=\pi(g_2)$, since\
$[g_1,B_{d_{\infty}}(1)]=[g_2,B_{d_{\infty}}(1)]$. Since $[\cdot,\cdot]$ is continuous, we may take $L(g)$ continuously for $g\in\pi^{-1}(\partial B_{\|\cdot\|_{\infty}}(1))$. Hence $$L_0=\min\{L(g)|g\in\pi^{-1}(\partial B_{\|\cdot\|_{\infty}}(1))\}$$ exists and is non-zero.
Next we consider the general case. Since $[g,B_{d_{\infty}}(r_2)]$ is star convex, we only need to show that all points at the boundary of $[g,B_{d_{\infty}}(r_2)]$ are at least $L_0r_1r_2$ away from the identity.\
$h\in\partial[g,B_{d_{\infty}}(r_2)]$ is represented by $h=[\exp(\pi(g)),\exp(Y)]$, where $Y\in\partial B_{\|\cdot\|_{\infty}}(r_2)$ as we mentioned in Remark \[rmk90\]. Set $X'=\frac{1}{r_1}\pi(g)$ and $Y'=\frac{1}{r_2}Y$, then we have $$\|h\|_{[N,N]}=\|[\exp(\pi(g)),\exp(Y)]\|_{[N,N]}=r_1r_2\|[\exp(X'),\exp(Y')]\|_{[N,N]}\geq L_0r_1r_2.$$
\[rmkinv\]
We can replace $[g,B_{d_{\infty}}(r_2)]$ to $[g,B_d(r_2)]$ in Lemma \[lem92\], since $\pi(B_d(r_2))=\pi(B_{d_{\infty}}(r_2))$ implies $$[g,B_{d_{\infty}}(r_2)]=[g,B_d(r_2)].$$
By using the previous lemmas, we show the following theorem, which is a precise statement of Theorem \[thm3\].
\[thmneo\] Let $N$ be a simply connected non-singular $2$-step nilpotent Lie group endowed with a left invariant subFinsler metric $d$, and $(N,d_{\infty},id)$ the asymptotic cone of $(N,d,id)$. Then there is $C>0$ such that for any $g\in N$, $$\left|d(g)-d_{\infty}(g)\right|<C.$$
First we show that $d_{\infty}(g)-d(g)$ is uniformly bounded above. Fix $0<R<1$ and $M>0$ sufficiently large so that $M-|I(c,M,R)|\neq0$ for any geodesic $c$ with $length(c)\geq M$. It is possible by Proposition \[prop90\]. It suffices to show the case where $g\in N\setminus B_d(M)$, since $d$ and $d_{\infty}$ are proper metrics on $N$.
Let $t=d(g)$ and $c$ a geodesic from $id$ to $g$ in $(N,d)$. We will construct a horizontal path $\breve{c}$ in $(N,d_{\infty})$ which starts at the identity and ends at $g$, and show that the length of $\breve{c}$ is not so long relative to that of $c$.
It needs two steps to construct a path $\breve{c}$. First, Deform $c$ into a horizontal path $\tilde{c}$ in $(N,d_{\infty})$ as follows.
- Divide $c$ into $M$ pieces of geodesics $c_i$ as in Proposition \[prop90\]. Since $d$ is left invariant, we may see each $c_i$ a geodesic from $id$ to $h_i\in N$ with $h_1\cdots h_M=g$.
- Divide $c_i$ into $m=\left[\frac{t}{M}\right]$ pieces of geodesics $c_{ij}$ and set $h_{ij}$ in the same way, where $[~\cdot~]$ is the Gaussian symbol.
- Set $\tilde{c}$ the concatenation of $\tilde{c_{ij}}(s)=s\frac{\pi(h_{ij})}{\|\pi(h_{ij})\|_{\infty}}$, $s\in[0,\|\pi(h_{ij})\|_{\infty}]$. By Lemma \[prop1\], $length\left(\tilde{c}\right)=\sum\|\pi(h_{ij})\|_{\infty}\leq\sum d(h_{ij})=d(g)$.
- Let $\tilde{c}_i$ be the concatenation of paths $\tilde{c}_{i1},\dots,\tilde{c}_{im}$.
Let $\tilde{g}$ be the endpoint of $\tilde{c}$ and set $h=\tilde{g}^{-1}g$. Since $\pi(h_{ij})^{-1}h_{ij}\in[N,N]$, $$h=\pi(h_{Mm})^{-1}\cdots \pi(h_{11})^{-1}h_{11}\cdots h_{Mm}\in[N,N].$$
By using the path $\tilde{c}$, we shall construct a horizontal path $\breve{c}$. By definition of $I$, $\|\pi(h_i)\|_{\infty}\geq Rd(h_i)=R\frac{t}{M}$ for $i\notin I$. In particular, $h_i\notin[N,N]$ for $i\notin I$. By Lemma \[lem92\], there exists $X_i\in\partial\pi(B_{\|\cdot\|_{\infty}}(1)))$ such that $[h_i,X_i]\in h^{{\mathbb{R}}_{>0}}$ and that $\|[h_i,X_i]\|_{[N,N]}\geq L_0$. Set $r\in{\mathbb{R}}_{\geq 0}$ so that $$\prod_{i\notin I}[h_i,rX_i]=(\prod_{i\notin I}[h_i,X_i])^r=h.$$ Define $\breve{c}$ as the concatenation of $\breve{c}_i$, $i=1,\dots,M$, given as follows.
- For $i\notin I$, let $\breve{c}_i$ be a concatenation of three paths; $\breve{c}_{i1}(s)=-sX_i ~~(s\in[0,r])$, $\tilde{c}_i$, and $\breve{c}_{i2}(s)=sX_i ~~(s\in[0,r])$. Hence the length of $\breve{c}_i$ is $2r+\sum_j\|\pi(h_{ij})\|_{\infty}$.
- For $i\in I$, set $\breve{c}_i=\tilde{c}_i$.
[0.5]{} {width="6.5cm"}
[0.5]{} {width="6.5cm"}
[0.5]{} {width="6.5cm"}
[0.5]{} {width="6.5cm"}
This path $\breve{c}$ starts at the identity and ends at $g$ by the Campbell-Baker-Hausdorff formula. The length of $\breve{c}$ is $$length\left(\breve{c}\right)=\sum\|\pi(h_{ij})\|_{\infty}+2r(M-|I|)\leq d(g)+2r(M-|I|).$$ The rest of the proof is to find an upper bound of $r(M-|I|)$.
By Lemma \[lem92\], $$\|[h_i,X_i]\|_{[N,N]}=\|[\pi(h_i),X_i]\|_{[N,N]}\geq R\frac{t}{M}L_0.$$ Since each $[h_i,rX_i]$ is in $h^{{\mathbb{R}}_{>0}}$, we obtain $$\label{eq110}
\|h\|_{[N,N]}=\left\|\prod_{i\notin I}[h_i,rX_i]\right\|_{N,N]}=r\sum_{i\notin I}\|[h_i,X_i]\|_{[N,N]}\geq r(M-|I|)R\frac{t}{M}L_0.$$ Hence our goal is changed to find an upper bound of $\|h\|_{[N,N]}$. By using Lemma \[lem90\] and Lemma \[lem91\],
$$\begin{aligned}
\|h\|_{[N,N]}&=\left\|\pi(h_{mM})^{-1}\cdots \pi(h_{11})^{-1}h_{11}\cdots h_{mM}\right\|_{[N,N]}\\
&=\left\|\prod\pi(h_{ij})^{-1}h_{ij}\right\|_{[N,N]}\\
&\leq\sum\|\pi(h_{ij})^{-1}h_{ij}\|_{[N,N]}\\
&\leq mM\sup\left\{\|g^{-1}h\|_{[N,N]}~\bigg\vert~g,h\in B_d\left(\frac{t}{mM}\right),g^{-1}h\in[N,N]\right\}\\
&\leq mM\sup\left\{\|g^{-1}h\|_{[N,N]}~\bigg\vert~g,h\in B_{d_{\infty}}\left(K_2\frac{t}{mM}+K_2\right),g^{-1}h\in[N,N]\right\}\\
&\leq mMK_1\left(K_2\frac{t}{mM}+K_2\right)^2\\
&\leq 4mMK_1K_2^2\frac{t^2}{m^2M^2}\\
&\leq 4tK_1K_2^2.\end{aligned}$$
Hence $\|h\|_{[N,N]}$ is linearly bounded by $t$.
Combining with the equation(\[eq110\]), we obtain $$r(M-|I|)\leq \frac{4K_1K_2^2M}{RL_0}.$$ We have constructed a path $\breve{c}$ which is sufficiently short relative to the original path $c$, hence we have $$d_{\infty}(g)\leq d(g)+\frac{8K_1K_2^2M}{RL_0}.$$
The other side of the inequality follows in a similar way. The difference is only the construction of $\tilde{c}$ and $\breve{c}$. In the construction of $\tilde{c}$, we let $\tilde{c}_{ij}(s)=s\frac{Y_{h_{ij}}}{\|Y_{h_{ij}}\|}$. In the construction of $\breve{c}$, we let $\breve{c}_{i1}(s)=-sY_{X_i}$ and $\breve{c}_{i2}(s)=sY_{X_i}$. The rest of the proof follows in the same way.
Non-singularity and abnormal geodesics in the asymptotic cone {#sec4}
=============================================================
In this section, we study relationships between non-singularity of nilpotent Lie groups and abnormal geodesics on the asymptotic cones, which may be well known to the experts.
Short introduction to optimal control theory
--------------------------------------------
In order to define an abnormal geodesic, we recall the Pontryagin Maximum principle (for more precise information on this subject, see [@agr]).
Let $M$ be a smooth manifold, $U\subset \mathbb{R}^p$ an arbitrary subset, and $\left\{f_u\right\}_{u\in U}$ a family of vector fields on $M$. We call a family of dynamical systems $$\dot{q}=f_u(q),~~~~q\in M,~~~~u\in U$$ a [*control system*]{}. One assumes that $q\mapsto f_u(q)$ is smooth for a fixed $u\in U$, $(q,u)\mapsto f_u(q)$ is continuous for $q\in M$ and $u\in \overline{U}$, and $(q,u)\mapsto (\frac{\partial f_u}{\partial q_1}(q),\dots,\frac{\partial f_u}{\partial q_n}(q))$ is continuous for any coordinates $\left\{(q_1,\dots,q_n)\right\}$ around $q\in M$.
Let $I_T=[0,T]$ be an interval. We call a mapping $u:I_T\to U$ an [*admissible control*]{} if it is measurable and locally bounded. The following ordinary differential equation has a unique solution with respect to a fixed admissible control $u(t)$ and an initial data $q(0)=q_0$. $$\frac{dq}{dt}=f_{u(t)}(q).$$ We denote that solution by $q_u:I_T\to M$.
In this setting, one formulates the following problem.
\[time\] Minimize the time $T$ among all admissible control $u:I_T\to U$, for which the corresponding solution $q_u(t)$ of the ordinary differential equation $$\frac{dq}{dt}=f_{u(t)}(q)$$ with the boundary condition $$q(0)=q_0,~~~~q(T)=q_1.$$
In short, Problem \[time\] is written as follows. $$\begin{aligned}
&\dot{q}=f_u(q),~~~~q\in M,~~~~u\in U\subset\mathbb{R}^p,\label{time1}\\
&q(0)=q_0,~~~~q(T)=q_1,\label{time2}\\
&T\to \min.\label{time3}\end{aligned}$$ A solution $u$ of this problem is called an [*optimal control*]{}, and the corresponding $q_u$ is called an [*optimal trajectory*]{}.
Here we use the notations given in Example \[ex0\]. In the global coordinate $\left\{(x,y,z)\right\}$, left invariant vector fields $X,Y$ and $Z$ are represented by $$\begin{cases}
X(x,y,z)=\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+\frac{1}{2}y\frac{\partial}{\partial z},\\
Y(x,y,z)=\frac{\partial}{\partial y}-\frac{1}{2}x\frac{\partial}{\partial z},\\
Z(x,y,z)=\frac{\partial}{\partial z}.
\end{cases}$$ A derivative of a horizontal path $c:I_T\to H_3$ in $(H_3,W)$ is represented by $\dot{c}(t)=u_1(t)X(c(t))+u_2(t)Y(c(t))$ almost everywhere. So finding a geodesic from $id$ to $g\in H_3$ is equivalent to finding an optimal trajectory corresponding to the following time optimal control problem; $$\begin{aligned}
&\dot{q}=u_1X(q)+u_2Y(q),~~~~q\in H_3,~~~~(u_1,u_2)\in \partial B_{\|\cdot\|},1)\subset W\simeq \mathbb{R}^2,\\
&q(0)=id,~~~~q(T)=g,\\
&T\to\min.\end{aligned}$$
Let $T^{\ast}M$ be the cotangent bundle of $M$. Then one obtains the canonical symplectic form $\sigma$ on $T^{\ast}M$. For a function $h:T^{\ast}M\to {\mathbb{R}}$, one obtains the vector field $\vec{h}$ on $T^{\ast}M$ by $\sigma(\cdot,\vec{h})=dh$. One calls such a function $h$ a [*Hamiltonian function*]{}, and calls the corresponding $\vec{h}$ a [*Hamiltonian vector field*]{}.
The following [*Pontryagin maximum principle*]{} (later simply call PMP) gives a necessary condition for an admissible control being optimal.
\[pmp\] Let $\tilde{u}:I_T\to M$ be an optimal control for problem (\[time1\]), (\[time2\]) and (\[time3\]). Define a Hamiltonian function by $$\label{hamiltonian}
h_u^{\nu}(\xi)=\langle\xi,f_u\rangle+\nu,~~~~\xi\in T^{\ast}_q M,
u\in U,
\nu\in{\mathbb{R}}.$$ Then there is a Lipschitzian curve $\lambda:I_T\to T^{\ast}M$ such that the following conditions hold. $$\begin{aligned}
&(\nu,\lambda(t))\in {\mathbb{R}}_{\leq 0}\times T^{\ast}_{q_{\tilde{u}}(t)}M\setminus\left\{(0,0)\right\}~~~~\text{for all} ~~t\in I_T,\label{nontriviality}\tag{PMP1}\\
&\dot{\lambda}(t)=\vec{h}^{\nu}_{\tilde{u}}(\lambda(t))~~~~\text{for almost all}~~t\in I_T,\label{geodesicequation}\tag{PMP2}\\
&h^{\nu}_{\tilde{u}(t)}(\lambda_t)=\max_{u\in U}\left\{h_u^{\nu}(\lambda_t)\right\}=0~~~~\text{for almost all} ~~t\in I_T.\label{maximalcondition}\tag{PMP3}\end{aligned}$$
It is well known that in the canonical coordinates $\left\{(x_1,\dots,x_n,\xi_1,\dots,\xi_n)\right\}$, the differential equation (\[geodesicequation\]) reads $$\begin{cases}
\dot{x_i}=\frac{\partial h_u^{\nu}}{\partial \xi_i},\\
\dot{\xi_i}=-\frac{\partial h_u^{\nu}}{\partial x_i}.
\end{cases}$$
An abnormal geodesic is a kind of solution $q_{\tilde{u}(t)}$ as follows.
\[dfnabn\]
- $\lambda:I_T\to T^{\ast}M$ in Theorem \[pmp\] is called an [*abnormal extremal*]{} if $\nu=0$.
- A path $c:I_T\to M$ is an [*abnormal geodesic*]{} if it is the projection of an abnormal extremal.
PMP for $2$-step nilpotent Lie groups
-------------------------------------
Let $N$ be a simply connected $2$-step nilpotent Lie group, ${\mathfrak{n}}$ the associated Lie algebra of $N$, $V_{\infty}$ a subspace of ${\mathfrak{n}}$ such that $V_{\infty}\oplus [{\mathfrak{n}},{\mathfrak{n}}]={\mathfrak{n}}$, and $\|\cdot\|_{\infty}$ a norm on $V_{\infty}$. The triple $(N,V_{\infty},\|\cdot\|_{\infty})$ induces the left invariant subFinsler metric $d_{\infty}$ on $N$. Let $X_1,\dots,X_n$ be left invariant vector fields on $N$ such that $\left\{X_1,\dots,X_p\right\}$ form a basis of $V_{\infty}$ and $\left\{X_{p+1},\dots,X_n\right\}$ form a basis of $[{\mathfrak{n}},{\mathfrak{n}}]$. The time optimal control problem for $(N,d_{\infty})$ is written by $$\begin{aligned}
&\dot{q}=\sum_{i=1}^pu_iX_i(q),~~~~q\in N,~~(u_1,\dots,u_p)\in\partial B_{\|\cdot\|_{\infty}}(0,1)\subset{\mathbb{R}}^p,\\
&q(0)=id,~~~~q(T)=g.\\
&T\to\min.\end{aligned}$$
We describe PMP for $(N,d_{\infty})$ in the global coordinates $\exp:\sum_{i=1}^nx_iX_i\mapsto (x_1,\dots,x_n)\in N$. By the Campbell-Baker-Hausdorff formula, $X_i(x_1,\dots,x_n)$ is written by $$\label{eq40}
X_i(x_1,\dots x_n)=\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^n\sum_{k=p+1}^n x_jc_{ji}^k\frac{\partial}{\partial x_k},$$ where $c_{ji}^k$ is the structure constant $[X_j,X_i]=\sum_{k=1}^nc_{ji}^kX_k$. Hence our control system is $$\dot{q}=\sum_{i=1}^p u_i X_i(x_1,\dots,x_n)=\sum_{i=1}^p u_i\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^n\sum_{k=p+1}^n x_jc_{ji}^k\frac{\partial}{\partial x_k}\right).$$ Moreover, the Hamiltonian function (\[hamiltonian\]) is written by $$\label{hamiltonian2}
h_u^{\nu}(\sum_{k=1}^n \xi_k dx_k|_{(x_1,\dots,x_n)})=\sum_{k=1}^p\xi_ku_k+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=p+1}^n\xi_k\sum_{i=1}^p\sum_{j=1}^nx_ju_ic_{ji}^k+\nu,$$ and the differential equation (\[geodesicequation\]) reads $$\label{pmpfornil}
\begin{cases}
\dot{x}_k=u_k~~~~\text{for}~~k=1,\dots,p,\\
\dot{x}_k=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^p\sum_{j=1}^nx_ju_ic_{ji}^k~~~~\text{for}~~k=p+1,\dots,n,\\
\dot{\xi_j}=-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=p+1}^n\sum_{i=1}^p\xi_ku_ic_{ji}^k~~~~\text{for}~~j=1,\dots,n.
\end{cases}$$
Abnormal geodesics and non-singularity
--------------------------------------
Non-singular condition is written as follows by using the structure constants.
\[lemnon\] Let $N$ be a simply connected $2$-step nilpotent Lie group. The followings are equivalent.
- $N$ is non-singular,
- For any $(u_1,\dots,u_p)\in {\mathbb{R}}^p\setminus\left\{0\right\}$, the $(n-p,p)$-matrix $$\begin{pmatrix}
\sum_{i=1}^p u_i c_{i1}^{p+1} & \cdots & \sum_{i=1}^p u_i c_{ip}^{p+1}\\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
\sum_{i=1}^p u_i c_{i1}^n & \cdots &\sum_{i=1}^p u_i c_{ip}^n
\end{pmatrix}$$ is has rank $n-p$,
- for any $(u_1,\dots,u_p)\in{\mathbb{R}}^p\setminus\left\{0\right\}$, the $(p,n-p)$-matrix $$\begin{pmatrix}
\sum_{i=1}^p u_i c_{i1}^{p+1} & \cdots & \sum_{i=1}^p u_i c_{i1}^{n}\\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
\sum_{i=1}^p u_i c_{ip}^{p+1} & \cdots &\sum_{i=1}^p u_i c_{ip}^n
\end{pmatrix}$$ has rank $n-p$.
The proof is straightforward, so we skip it. The following lemma is well known for experts.
\[lemabn\] An extremal $\lambda:[0,T]\to T^{\ast}N$ is abnormal if and only if $\langle \lambda(t),X_i\rangle=0$ for almost all $t\in [0,T]$ and all $i=1,\dots,p$.
If $\lambda$ is abnormal, $\max_{u}\left\{h_{u}^0(\lambda(t))\right\}=0$ by (\[maximalcondition\]) for almost all $t\in I_T$. Suppose that there are $\tilde{u}\in \partial B_{\|\cdot\|_{\infty}}$ and $\tilde{t}\in I_T$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&h_{\tilde{u}}^0\left(\lambda\left(\tilde{t}\right)\right)=\langle\lambda\left(\tilde{t}\right),\tilde{u}\rangle<0, ~~~~\text{and}\\
&\max_u\left\{h_u^{0}\left(\lambda\left(\tilde{t}\right)\right)\right\}=0.\end{aligned}$$ Then $-\tilde{u}\in \partial B_{\|\cdot\|}(0,1)$ and $h_{-u}^0\left(\lambda\left(\tilde{t}\right)\right)>0$, so it contradicts to the maximality condition. Hence for any $u\in V_{\infty}$, $h_{u}^0(\lambda(t))=0$ almost everywhere. It implies that $\lambda(t)$ is normal to the distribution $V_{\infty}$, namely $\langle\lambda(t),X_i\rangle=0$ for all $i=1,\dots,p$.
The converse is trivial.
\[propabn\] Let $N$ be a simply connected nilpotent Lie group, $V_{\infty}$ a subspace in ${\mathfrak{n}}$ such that $V_{\infty}\oplus [{\mathfrak{n}},{\mathfrak{n}}]={\mathfrak{n}}$, and $\|\cdot\|_{\infty}$ a norm on $V_{\infty}$. Then the followings are equivalent.
- $N$ is non-singular,
- All abnormal geodesics in $(N,V_{\infty},\|\cdot\|_{\infty})$ are constant curves.
Assume that $N$ is non-singular. Let $\lambda$ be an abnormal extremal. By Lemma \[lemabn\], $\langle\lambda(t),X_i\rangle=0$ for almost all $t\in [0,T]$ and all $i=1,\dots,p$. Since $\langle\lambda(t),X_i\rangle$ are constantly zero, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
0&=\frac{d}{dt}\langle\lambda(t),X_i(x(t))\rangle\\
&\overset{(\ast)}{=}\langle\lambda(t),[\sum_{j=1}^p u_jX_j,X_i]\rangle\\
&=\langle\lambda(t),\sum_{j=1}^p\sum_{k=p+1}^nu_jc_{ji}^k\frac{\partial}{\partial x_k}\rangle\\
&=\sum_{j=1}^p\sum_{k=p+1}^nu_j\xi_kc_{ji}^k,
\end{aligned}$$ for all $i=1,\dots,p$. Here the equality $(\ast)$ is shown in an easy method as in [@led]. Hence we obtain $$\begin{pmatrix}
0\\
\vdots\\
0
\end{pmatrix}=
\begin{pmatrix}
\sum_{j=1}^pu_jc_{j1}^{p+1} & \cdots & \sum_{j=1}^p u_jc_{j1}^n\\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
\sum_{j=1}^pu_jc_{jp}^{p+1} & \cdots & \sum_{j=1}^pu_jc_{jp}^n
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\xi_{p+1}\\
\vdots\\
\xi_n
\end{pmatrix}$$
Suppose the case $(u_1,\dots,u_p)\neq 0$. By Lemma \[lemnon\], $(\xi_{p+1},\dots,\xi_n)=0$ for almost all $t\in I_T$. By assumption, $$\begin{aligned}
0&=\langle\lambda(t),X_i\rangle\\
&=\xi_i+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^n\sum_{k=p+1}^n x_j\xi_kc_{ji}^k\\
&=\xi_i,
\end{aligned}$$ thus we also obtain $(\xi_1,\dots,\xi_p)=0$. However, it contradicts to (\[nontriviality\]). Consequently we have shown that $(u_1,\dots,u_p)=0$ for almost all $t\in I_T$, It implies that the associated solution $q_u$, that is the projection of $\lambda$, is a constant curve. Hence all abnormal geodesics are constant curves.
Conversely, we can construct a non-trivial abnormal geodesics if $N$ is not non-singular. If $N$ is not non-singular, there are left invariant vector fields $Z_0\in[{\mathfrak{n}},{\mathfrak{n}}],X_0\in \partial B_{\|\cdot\|_{\infty}}(1)\subset V_{\infty}$ such that for any $Y\in {\mathfrak{n}}$, $[X_0,Y]\neq Z_0$. Set $\lambda_0:I_1\to T^{\ast}M$ by $\lambda_0(t)=(\exp(tX_0),Z_0^{\ast})$. Notice that $\langle\lambda_0(t),[X_0,Y]\rangle=0$ for all $Y\in {\mathfrak{n}}$.
Clearly the projection of $\lambda_0$, namely $\exp(tX_0)$, is a geodesic from $id$ to $\exp(X_0)\in N$, so there is a Lipschitzian curve $\lambda:I_1\to T^{\ast}N$ such that (\[nontriviality\]), (\[geodesicequation\]) and (\[maximalcondition\]) hold by PMP. We shall see that the curve $\lambda_0$ is one such a Lipschitzian curve.
(\[nontriviality\]) is trivial, so we see the latter two parts. For $X_0=\sum_{i=1}^pv_iX_i$ and $Z_0=\sum_{i=p+1}^nw_iX_i$, $\lambda_0(t)=(x_1(t),\dots,x_n(t),\xi_1(t),\dots,\xi_n(t))$ satisfies the following differential equation; $$\begin{cases}
\dot{x}_k=v_k~~~~\text{for}~~k=1,\dots,p,\\
\dot{x}_k=0~~~~\text{for}~~k=p+1,\dots,n,\\
\dot{\xi}_j=0~~~~\text{for}~~j=1,\dots,n
\end{cases}$$
On the other hand, the right hand side of (\[pmpfornil\]) is written by $$\begin{aligned}
u_k(t)=v_k~~~~\text{for}~~k=1,\dots,p,
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^p\sum_{j=1}^nx_j(t)u_i(t)c_{ji}^k&=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^p\sum_{j=1}^ptv_jv_ic_{ji}^k\\
&=\frac{t}{2}[X_0,X_0]=0~~~~\text{for}~~k=p+1,\dots,n,
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=p+1}^n\sum_{i=1}^p\xi_k(t)u_i(t)c_{ji}^k&=-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=p+1}^n\sum_{i=1}^pw_kv_ic_{ji}^k\\
&=-\frac{1}{2}\langle Z_0^{\ast},[\sum_{j=1}^p X_i,X_0]\rangle=0~~~~\text{for}~~j=1,\dots,n.
\end{aligned}$$ Hence $\lambda_0$ satisfies the differential equation (\[geodesicequation\]).
Finally we pass to check the condition (\[maximalcondition\]) for $\nu=0$. For any $u=(u_1,\dots,u_p)\in\partial B_{\|\cdot\|_{\infty}}(1)$, the following equality holds by the definition of $\lambda_0$ and (\[eq40\]); $$\begin{aligned}
h_u^{\nu}(\lambda_0(t))&=\langle\lambda_0(t),\sum_{i=1}^p u_iX_i(x(t))\rangle\\
&=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=p+1}^n\sum_{i=1}^p\sum_{j=1}^nx_j(t)u_i\xi_k(t)c_{ji}^k\\
&=\frac{t}{2}\sum_{k=p+1}^n\sum_{i=1}^p\sum_{j=1}^nv_ju_iw_kc_{ji}^k\\
&=\frac{t}{2}\langle Z_0^{\ast},[X_0,\sum_{i=1}^p u_iX_i]\rangle=0.
\end{aligned}$$ Hence $\lambda_0$ satisfies (\[maximalcondition\]) and is an abnormal extremal.
[99]{}
A. Agrachev and Y. Sachkov, Control theory from the geometric viewpoint, [*Encycropaedia of Mathematical Science*]{}, [**87**]{}, Springer, Berlin, 2004.
D. Bariari, U. Boscain, E. Le Donne and M. Sigalotti, Sub-Finsler structure from the time-optimal control viewpoint for some nilpotent distributions, [*J. of Dynam. and Cont. Syst.*]{}, [**23**]{} (3), 547-575, 2017.
E. Breuillard, Geometry of locally compact groups of polynomial growth and shape of large balls, [*Groups, Geom. Dynam.*]{}, [**8**]{} (3), 669-732, 2014.
E. Breuillard and E. Le Donne, Nilpotent groups, asymptotic cone and subFinsler geometry, https://www.math.u-psud.fr/ breuilla/Balls.pdf, 2012.
D.Y.Burago, Periodic metrics, [*Representation Theory and Dynamical Systems, Adv. Soviet Math.*]{}, [**9**]{}, 205-210, 1992.
M. Duchin and C. Mooney, Fine asymptotic geometry in the Heisenberg group, [*Indiana univ. Math jounal,*]{} [**63**]{}(3), 885-916, 2014.
K. Fujiwara, Can one hear the shape of a group? [*Geom. and Topol. of Manifolds*]{}, 10th China-Japan Conference 2014, 139-146, 2016.
V. Gianella, On the asymptotics of the growth of nilpotent groups, [*Doctorial thesis in research-collection.ethz.ch*]{}, 2017.
M. Gromov, Asymptotic invariants of infinite groups, in [*Geometric group theory,*]{} Vol.2 (Sussex 1991), London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser. [**182**]{}, 1-295, 1993.
S.A. Krat, Asymptotic properties of the Heisenberg group, [*J. Math. Sci.*]{}, [**110**]{} (4), 2824-2840, 2002.
E. Le Donne and S. Nicolussi Golo, Regularity properties of spheres in homogeneous groups, [*Trans. AMer. Math. Soci.*]{}, [**370**]{}(3), 2057-2084, 2018.
E. Le Donne, R. Montgomery, A. Ottazzi, P. Pansu, and D. Vittone, Sard property for the endpoint map on some Carnot groups, [*Annales de l’institute Henri Poincaré C, analyse non linéaire*]{}, [**33**]{}(6), 1639-1666, 2016.
R. Montgomery, A tour of subRiemannian geometries,their geodesics and applications, [*Mathematical surveys and monograph,*]{} Vol91, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2002.
P. Pansu, Croissance des boules et des géodésiques fermées dans les nilvariétés, [*Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems,*]{} [**3**]{}(3), 415-445, 1993.
M. Stoll, Coarse length can be unbounded in $3$-step nilpotent Lie groups, preprint, 2010.
M. Stoll, On the asymptotics of the growth of $2$-step nilpotent groups, [*London Math. Soc.*]{}, [**58**]{} (1), 38-48, 1998.
L. van der dries and A. J. Wilkie, Gromov’s theorem on groups of polynomial growth and elementary logic, [*J. Algebra*]{}, [**89**]{} (2), 349-374, 1984.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We show how neutrino mixing leads to a softening of the UV behavior of neutrino loops, and can give rise to anomaly-like, but manifestly UV finite amplitudes. This mechanism may be of special significance for the coupling of dark matter-like particles to the Standard Model, as we illustrate with a one-loop example involving the coupling to $W$-bosons.'
author:
- 'Adam Latosi[ń]{}ski$^1$, Krzysztof A. Meissner$^{1,2}$ and Hermann Nicolai$^3$'
title: Neutrino loops from neutrino mixing
---
In this letter we explain a mechanism specific to neutrino loop diagrams in the minimally extended Standard Model (SM) with right-chiral neutrinos. This effect not only improves the UV behavior of loop amplitudes but, more importantly, can lead to anomaly-like amplitudes and effective couplings in processes involving dark matter-like particles. Although elementary (and used implicitly in our previous work [@MN]) this mechanism has not been spelled out explicitly so far in the existing literature to the best of our knowledge. It relies crucially on neutrino mixing, and on the simultaneous presence of Majorana- and Dirac-like mass and Yukawa terms for the right-chiral fields. While reminiscent of Pauli-Villars regularization, it involves only real particles, and no ghosts appear. Remarkably, this appears to be the only context where anomaly-like effects can arise from triangle diagrams [*without*]{} the linear UV divergences that one commonly associates with anomalous amplitudes.
The relevant diagrams typically involve amplitudes with ‘dark matter’ (axion-like) particles on one side of the diagram, and ‘visible’ SM particles on the other. Our results pertain in particular to scenarios where the ‘heavy’ neutrinos are not so heavy after all [@MN; @MS], in contradistinction to the more common see-saw scenarios with Majorana mass scales of $\cO( 10^{10} \,{\rm GeV})$ or more [@seesaw]. For these we arrive at amplitudes which are not only UV and IR finite, but also can explain in a perfectly natural manner the extreme smallness of dark matter couplings to SM particles, and this without any fine-tuning or the need to adduce the kind of ‘shadow matter’ invoked by numerous other currently popular scenarios.
For simplicity, we consider a one family model with right-chiral neutrinos. Using Weyl spinors to express the 4-component neutrino spinor $\cN \equiv (\cN_L, \cN_R)\equiv (\nu_\al , \bar{N}^{\dot\al} )$ and its conjugate in terms of $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ spinors, the neutrino part of the kinetic Lagrangian reads &=& (\^ \_|\^ + N\^ \_|N\^ + [c.c.]{}) -\
&& - m\^N\_-m\^\*|\_|[N]{}\^ - N\^N\_-|[N]{}\_|[N]{}\^ \[kinterms\] where we have included both Dirac and Majorana mass terms (for the two-component formalism see e.g. [@BW]). In the SM these are supposed to arise via spontaneous symmetry breaking, such that $m= Y_\nu \langle H\rangle$ and $M= Y_M \langle\phi\rangle$ with appropriate Yukawa couplings $Y_\nu$ and $Y_M$, and non-vanishing vacuum expectation values for the SM Higgs field $H(x)$ and a further complex (electroweak singlet) scalar field $\phi (x)$ [^1]. We assume $m$ and $M$ real, as this can be achieved by appropriate phase rotations.
The standard procedure to deal with (\[kinterms\]) consists in diagonalizing the mass matrix, introducing new fields
’\
N’
=
& -\
&
\
N
\[combination\] in terms of which the kinetic terms become diagonal &=& (’\^ \_|’\^ + N’\^ \_|N’\^ + [c.c]{}) -\
&& -( ’\^’\_+ |’\_|’\^) - ( N’\^N’\_+ |[N]{}’\_|[N]{}’\^)A simple calculation gives 2= and the mass eigenvalues $m'$ and $M'$ m’ = -M, M’ = M \[mM’\] Notice that $m'M' < 0$, so $m'$ and $M'$ always come with [*opposite signs*]{}. The propagators then take the standard diagonal form, ’\_(x) |’\_(y) &=& \^[-p (x-y)]{} \[prop1\]\
’\_(x) ’\^(y) &=& \^[-p (x-y)]{} \[prop2\] with analogous expressions for the $N'$ propagators after replacing $m'\to M'$. With the redefinitions (\[combination\]) the SM interaction vertices involving neutrinos are now [*off-diagonal*]{}, and any Feynman diagram computation will involve a sum of contributions for each vertex. We will refer to this description (diagonal propagators, off-diagonal vertices) as the ‘propagation picture’, because it is more natural if we ask about the eigenstates of propagation.
As shown in our previous work [@LMN], however, there is another description (which we refer to as the ‘vertex picture’) where the vertices remain diagonal, while instead the propagators are off-diagonal. This picture is better adapted to the fact that the weak interactions in the SM involve only left-chiral particles. In that picture all diagrams with both heavy and light neutrinos circulating in the loops are manifestly [*UV finite*]{}, due to the unusual fall-off properties of the propagator components for large momenta. More specifically, the propagators are determined by inverting the kinetic matrix A=
0 & \^ & m\^ & 0\
\^ & 0 & 0 & -m\^\
m\^ & 0 & M\^ & \^\
0 & -m\^ & \^ & -M\^
with the result (in momentum space) \_\_&=& Mm\^2 (p) \_\
\_|\_ &=& (p\^2- M\^2 - m\^2)(p) \_\
N\_N\_&=& M p\^2(p) \_\
N\_|[N]{}\_ &=& (p\^2-m\^2)(p) \_\
\_N\_&=& m(p\^2- m\^2 )(p) \_\
\_|[N]{}\_ &=& -mM (p) \_where $ \cD(p):= \big[ (p^2)^2 - p^2(2m^2 + M^2) + m^4 \big]^{-1}$. In this description the finiteness of the neutrino loop diagrams is a consequence of the fall-off properties of the propagators $\langle \nu_\al \nu_\be \rangle$ and $\langle \nu_\al \bar{N}_{\dot\be}\rangle$ which both decay faster than $1/p^2$.
Alternatively, this effect can be understood in the ‘propagation picture’, where the propagators have the usual fall-off properties. Namely, the cancellations are now due to the fact that off-diagonal vertices give rise to several propagator contributions that must be summed over for a given diagram, and thus follow from the formula relating the $\nu$, $N$ and $\nu'$, $N'$ propagators via (\[combination\]), \_|N\_ &=& (- ’\_|’\_ + N’\_|N’\_ ) \[1stcancel\]\
\_\^&=& \^2’\_’\^+ \^2N’\_N’\^\[2ndcancel\] Cancellation of the leading terms for large $|p|$ in (\[1stcancel\]) is obvious, while cancellation in (\[2ndcancel\]) is due to the relation $m'\cos^2 \theta + M'\sin^2\theta = 0$, that is, happens thanks to the opposite signs of $m'$ and $M'$, cf. (\[mM’\]). In both cases the cancellation is thus due to the fact that there are two propagator components contributing [*with opposite signs*]{} in the loop, just like in Pauli-Villars regularization.
Let us illustrate this mechanism with a simple example. The SM with right-chiral fermions and spontaneously broken $SU(2)_w\times U(1)_Y$ symmetry in particular contains the following vertices (cf. for example [@Pok]) \_ && - W\_\^+ e\_L\^\^\_|\^ - W\_\^- \^\^\_|[e]{}\_L\^ +\
&& - a (N\^N\_- |N\_ |N\^) where the Yukawa interaction arises from a Majoron-like coupling $\frac12 Y_M (\phi N^\al N_\al + {\rm c.c.})$ [@CMR] upon expanding (x) = (x) (a(x)/) = + a(x) + . Consequently, the field $a(x)$ carries the charge of a spontaneously broken global symmetry, and therefore couples like a Goldstone boson (in [@MN] this symmetry is lepton number symmetry). In this model, we now consider the one-loop $aW^+ W^-$ amplitude, shown in Fig. 1a, which is a sum of two diagrams with either $\nu N$ or $\nu \bar{N}$ propagators in the loop in the ‘vertex picture’. It reads && -\^\_[aWW]{}(p,q) =\
&=& { \^\_[\_1\_1]{} |[e]{}\_L\^[\_1]{}e\_L\^[\_2]{} (k-p) \^\_[\_2\_2]{} .\
&& }\
&=& {\^|\^\^|\^}\
&& For small axion momentum $q^\mu$, it suffices to retain only the leading terms in $q^\mu$ and $m'$, so we get && -\^\_[aWW]{}(p,q) -q\^ {\^|\^\^|\^}\
&& where we have now substituted the mass eigenvalues $m'$ and $M'$ for $m$ and $M$. Since the integrand decays as $\sim |k|^{-7}$ for large $k^2$ the integral is UV convergent. There is no IR divergence either, which justifies taking the limit $m'\rarr 0$ in the denominator.
The similarities with the standard anomalous triangle diagram are evident, but we here arrive at a perfectly finite expression, without the need of any regularization. Because {\^|\^\^|\^} &=&\
&& = 2(\^ \^-\^\^+\^\^- \^)the result contains both ‘parity-even’ and ‘parity-odd’ contributions, reflecting the fact that parity is maximally broken in the SM. In particular, we do get a contribution $\propto\eps^{\sigma\mu\lambda\nu}$ mimicking the anomaly.
Using Feynman parameters, we can perform the integral over momenta and get && -\^\_[aWW]{}(p,q) q\^ \[res\]\
&& {\^|\^\^|\^} \_0\^1 dy\_0\^1 dx x(1-x)y\^3\
&& For small $p^2$ we obtain ($\al_W \equiv g_W^2/{4\pi}$, $\eta_e \equiv m_e/M$) && -\^\_[aWW]{}(p,q)\
&& -q\^ {\^|\^\^|\^}\
&& (the singularity for $\eta_e=1$ is spurious). For large $p^2$ && -\^\_[aWW]{}(p,q)\
&& where we have written out the trace. The result contains the manifestly non-gauge invariant pieces corresponding to the first three terms in brackets, which are expected in accordance with the fact that the electroweak $SU(2)_w\times U(1)_Y$ symmetry is broken [^2]. In addition, there is an anomaly-like contribution $\propto a \, \eps^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} \partial_\mu W^+_\nu \partial_\rho W^-_\sigma$. The full amplitude falls off linearly in $p^\mu$, whence this ‘form factor’ will also improve the UV behavior of higher loop diagrams when inserted as a subdiagram [@LMN].
Because $a(x)$ is a Goldstone boson, one momentum factor can always be pulled out of the diagram. With unbroken gauge invariance, this would only leave the ‘anomaly-like’, but in this case manifestly UV finite amplitude, whereas with external $W$ or $Z$ bosons there also appear the manifestly non-gauge invariant contributions displayed above. By contrast, for higher loop diagrams with external gluons of the type considered in [@LMN], only the anomaly-like interaction can survive, because $SU(3)_c$ remains unbroken, and the Chern-Simons-like coupling $\partial_\mu a \, \cJ^\mu_{CS} \cong a \, {\rm Tr}\, \tilde{G}G$ is the only possibility to reconcile gauge invariance with the Goldstone property of $a(x)$. Similar comments apply to the coupling of $a(x)$ to photons, which comes out proportional to $a\tilde{F}F$. This explains why in both cases the amplitude acquires an ‘axion-like’ form.
We conclude with three remarks. First of all, similar results and conclusions are obtained for the analogous diagram with external $Z$-bosons shown in Fig. 1b, where the triangle loop is ‘purely neutrino’. Secondly, the mechanism exhibited here persists in more realistic scenarios with three families, as is most easily seen in the ‘vertex picture’. In this case, we have correspondingly more complicated mass matrices, =
0 & 0 & m \^ & 0\
0 & 0 & 0 & -m\^\*\^\
m\^T\^ & 0 & M\^ & 0\
0 & -m\^\^ & 0 & -M\^
where $m$ is now a [*complex*]{} 3-by-3 matrix, and $M$ a real diagonal 3-by-3 matrix. With the usual see-saw assumption of a large hierarchy between $m$ and $M$ the heavy neutrino masses are given approximately by the eigenvalues of $M$, while the squared mass eigenvalues of the light neutrinos follow by diagonalizing the hermitean matrix $M^{-1/2}m^\dagger m M^{-1/2}$ (for a recent discussion of corrections to these formulae see e.g. [@ML]).
Finally, in [@MN] we have proposed to actually [*identify*]{} the field $a(x)$ (usually referred to as the ‘Majoron’) with the axion, in which case the smallness of various axion couplings can be explained very naturally, and without the need to invoke any large intermediate mass scales. This proposal is based on the fact that the effective couplings of $a(x)$ to gluons and photons assume the standard axionic form. In this Letter, we have provided a direct argument explaining why this happens. We hope that the new effect exhibited here will lend more credence to this proposal, which in our opinion possesses attractive features in comparison to other axion models.
[99]{}
K.A. Meissner and H. Nicolai, Phys. Lett. [**B648**]{} (2007) 312; Eur.Phys. J. [**C 57**]{} (2008) 493;
M. Shaposhnikov, arXiv:[0708.3550 \[hep-th\]]{} and references therein.
P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. [**B67**]{} (1977) 421; T. Yanagida, Progress of Theoretical Physics 64 (1980) 1103–1105; M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky in Supergravity ed. by P. van Nieuwenhuizen and D. Z. Freedman, North Holland, 1979; S. L. Glashow, in Proceedings of the 1979 Carg[è]{}se Summer Institute on Quarks and Leptons, Plenum Press 1980; R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**44**]{} (1980) 912.
J. Bagger and J. Wess, [*Supersymmetry and Supergravity*]{}, Princeton University Press, 1984.
A. Latosinski, K.A. Meissner, H. Nicolai, Axions without Peccei-Quinn Symmetry, arXiv:[1010.5417 \[hep-ph\]]{}
S. Pokorski [*Gauge Field Theories*]{}, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2nd edition (2000).
Y. Chikashige, R.N. Mohapatra, R.D. Peccei, Phys. Lett. [**98**]{} (1981) 265
H. Hettmansperger, M. Lindner, W. Rodejohann, JHEP [**1104**]{} (2011) 123.
 \[fig:figure1\]
 \[fig:figure2\]
Fig 1. a) a-W-W diagram b) a-Z-Z diagram
[^1]: Recall that the neutrino mass hierarchy can be implemented by taking $Y_\nu \sim \cO(10^{-5})$ [@MN; @MS], that is, [*without*]{} introducing a large intermediate mass scale by hand. In this case, the heavy neutrinos typically assume mass values in a range [*below $\cO(1\,{\rm TeV})$*]{}.
[^2]: This link is somewhat indirect, but readers should keep in mind that without spontaneous symmetry breaking this diagram would be absent altogether.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We present the results of two [*XMM-Newton*]{} observations of Jupiter carried out in 2003 for 100 and 250 ks (or 3 and 7 planet rotations) respectively. X-ray images from the EPIC CCD cameras show prominent emission from the auroral regions in the 0.2$-$2.0 keV band: the spectra are well modelled by a combination of emission lines, including most prominently those of highly ionised oxygen (OVII and OVIII). In addition, and for the first time, [*XMM-Newton*]{} reveals the presence in both aurorae of a higher energy component (3$-$7 keV) which is well described by an electron bremsstrahlung spectrum. This component is found to be variable in flux and spectral shape during the Nov. 2003 observation, which corresponded to an extended period of intense solar activity. Emission from the equatorial regions of the Jupiter’s disk is also observed, with a spectrum consistent with that of solar X-rays scattered in the planet’s upper atmosphere. Jupiter’s X-rays are spectrally resolved with the RGS which clearly separates the prominent OVII contribution of the aurorae from the OVIII, FeXVII and MgXI lines, originating in the low-latitude disk regions of the planet.'
author:
- 'G. Branduardi-Raymont'
- 'A. Bhardwaj'
- 'R. F. Elsner'
- 'G. R. Gladstone'
- 'G. Ramsay'
- 'P. Rodriguez'
- 'R. Soria'
- 'J. H. Waite, Jr'
- 'T. E. Cravens'
title: '[*XMM-Newton*]{} observations of X-ray emission from Jupiter'
---
Introduction
============
Jupiter was first detected as an X-ray source with the [*Einstein*]{} observatory [@Met:83]. By analogy with the Earth’s aurorae, the emission was expected to be produced via bremsstrahlung by energetic electrons precipitating from the magnetosphere. However, the observed spectrum is softer (0.2$-$3 keV) and the observed fluxes larger than predicted from this mechanism. Model calculations by @Sing:92 confirmed that the expected bremsstrahlung flux is lower by 1 to 2 orders of magnitude compared with the observed $<$2 keV X-ray flux. The alternative process is K shell line emission from ions, mostly of oxygen, which charge exchange, are left in an excited state and then decay back to the ground state (see Bhardwaj and Gladstone, 2000, for a review of early work on planetary auroral emissions). The ions were thought to originate in Jupiter’s inner magnetosphere, where an abundance of sulphur and oxygen, associated with Io and its plasma torus, is expected [@Met:83].
The first [*ROSAT*]{} soft X-ray (0.1$-$2.0 keV) observations produced a spectrum much more consistent with recombination line emission than with bremsstrahlung (Waite et al., 1994; Cravens et al., 1995). Subsequent [*ROSAT*]{} observations also revealed low-latitude ‘disk’ emission from Jupiter [@Waite:97], and this too was attributed to charge exchange. However, the X-rays were brightest at the planet’s limb corresponding to the position of the subsolar point relative to the sub-Earth point, suggesting that a solar-driven mechanism may be at work [@gla:98]. Scattering of solar X-rays, both elastic (by atmospheric neutrals) and fluorescent (of carbon K-shell X-rays off methane molecules below the Jovian homopause), was put forward as a way to explain the disk emission [@mau:00].
With the advent of the [*Chandra*]{} observatory we gained the clearest view yet of Jupiter’s X-ray emission, but more questions arose as well: HRC-I observations in Dec. 2000 and Feb. 2003 clearly resolve two bright, high-latitude sources associated with the aurorae, as well as low-latitude emission from the planet’s disk (Gladstone et al., 2002; Elsner et al., 2005). However, the Northern X-ray hot spot is found to be magnetically mapped to distances in excess of 30 Jovian radii, rather than to the inner magnetosphere and the Io plasma torus. Since in the outer magnetosphere ion fluxes are insufficient to explain the observed X-ray emission, another ion source (solar wind?) and/or acceleration mechanism are required. Strong 45 min quasi-periodic X-ray oscillations were also discovered using [*Chandra*]{} data in the North auroral spot in Dec. 2000, without any correlated periodicity being observed in [*Cassini*]{} upstream solar wind data, or in [*Galileo*]{} and [*Cassini*]{} energetic particle and plasma wave measurements [@gla:02]. [*Chandra*]{} ACIS-S observations [@els:05] show that the auroral X-ray spectrum is made up of oxygen line emission consistent with mostly fully stripped ions. Line emission at lower energies could be from sulphur and/or carbon. The high charge states and the observed fluxes imply that the ions must have undergone acceleration, independently from their origin, magnetospheric or solar wind. Rather than periodic oscillations, chaotic variability of the auroral X-ray emission was observed, with power peaks in the 20$-$70 min range. A promising mechanism which could explain this change in character of the variability, from organised to chaotic, is pulsed reconnection at the day-side magnetopause, as suggested by @bun:04.
[*XMM-Newton*]{} observations
=============================
[*XMM-Newton*]{} observed Jupiter twice in 2003: between Apr. 28, 16:00 and Apr. 29: 22:00 UT (for a total observing time of 110 ks; see Fig. \[fig1:single\], from Branduardi-Raymont et al., 2004, BR1 hereafter), and between Nov. 25, 23:00 and Nov. 29, 12:00 UT (245 ks, split over two spacecraft revolutions, no.s 0726 and 0727; Branduardi-Raymont et al., 2006a,b).
![ Smoothed [*XMM-Newton*]{} EPIC image of Jupiter (2.9”pixels), Apr. 2003. North is to the top, and East to the left. Colour code: Red: 0.2–0.5 keV; Green: 0.5–0.7 keV; Blue: 0.7–2.0 keV. The equatorial emission is clearly harder than that from the auroral regions. A graticule showing Jupiter orientation with 30$^{\rm o}$ intervals in latitude and longitude is overlaid. The circular mark indicates the sub-solar point; the sub-Earth point is at the centre of the graticule. \[fig1:single\] ](fig1.ps){height="0.8\linewidth"}
Temporal behaviour
------------------
Lightcurves from the Nov. 2003 observation, shown in Fig. \[fig2:single\], resemble very closely those obtained the previous April (BR1). The planet 10 hr rotation period is clearly seen in the data of the North and South auroral spots, but not in the equatorial region. The bottom panel in Fig. \[fig2:single\] shows the System III Central Meridian Longitude (CML). The North spot is brightest around CML = 180$^{\rm o}$, similar to the Dec. 2000 [*Chandra*]{} and the Apr. 2003 [*XMM-Newton*]{} results. A 40% increase in the equatorial flux between the first and the second spacecraft revolution is noticeable in Fig. \[fig2:single\], and is found to be correlated with a similar increase in solar X-ray flux (see Bhardwaj et al., 2005, for a detailed study of the temporal behaviour of the low-latitude disk emission, which appears to be controlled by the Sun). A search for periodic behaviour on short time-scales in the auroral X-rays (i.e. the [*Chandra*]{} 45 min oscillations) leads to a null result (as for the Apr. 2003 [*XMM-Newton*]{} data). This supports the view that over time the character of the variability in the auroral X-ray emissions can change from well organised to chaotic.
![Jupiter lightcurves from the Nov. 2003 [*XMM-Newton*]{} observation. Middle three panels: Low-latitude disk and auroral emissions (0.2–2.0 keV, 300 s bins). Top panel: Lightcurve at energies $>$10 keV, showing periods of high background (excluded from the analysis) at the end of the two spacecraft orbits. Bottom panel: System III Central Meridian Longitude (CML). \[fig2:single\] ](fig2.ps){width="1.05\linewidth"}
EPIC spectral images
--------------------
The [*XMM-Newton*]{} observation of Jupiter in Apr. 2003 gave the first clear indication that the Jovian auroral and disk X-ray emissions have different spectra. Fig. \[fig1:single\] (BR1) is the planet’s image colour-coded depending on X-ray energy: the equatorial disk emission is clearly harder that that of the aurorae. The auroral spectra can be modelled with a superposition of emission lines, including most prominently those of highly ionised oxygen (OVII and OVIII). Instead, Jupiter’s low-latitude X-ray emission displays a spectrum consistent with that of solar X-rays scattered in the planet’s upper atmosphere (BR1). These results are strengthened by the Nov. 2003 observation.
Figs. \[fig3:double\] shows the combined EPIC-pn [@stru:01] and -MOS [@tur:01] CCD images in narrow spectral bands corresponding to the OVII, OVIII, FeXVII and MgXI lines detected in Jupiter’s spectra: OVII emission is concentrated mostly in the North and (more weakly) the South auroral spots, OVIII extends to lower latitudes, while FeXVII and MgXI display a rather uniform distribution over the planet’s disk, consistent with an origin from scattered solar X-rays.
Although most of the X-ray emission of Jupiter is confined to the 0.2$-$2 keV band, a search at higher energies has produced very interesting results. Fig. \[fig4:double\] (right) is an image of Jupiter in the 3$-$10 keV band, which shows the presence of higher energy emission from the auroral spots, but not so from the planet’s disk.
EPIC spectra
------------
EPIC CCD spectra of Jupiter’s auroral zones and low-latitude disk emission were extracted using the regions outlined in Fig. \[fig4:double\]; the spectral ‘mixing’ (due to the [*XMM-Newton*]{} Point Spread Function) was corrected for by subtracting appropriate fractions of disk and auroral emissions from the aurorae and the disk spectra respectively. Fig. \[fig6:single\] compares the resulting spectra of the North and South auroral spots and the disk for the Nov. 2003 observation.
As first pointed out by BR1, there are clear differences in the shape of the spectra, with the auroral emission peaking at lower energy (0.5$-$0.6 keV) than the disk (0.7$-$0.8 keV). Emission features in the range 1$-$2 keV are visible in all the spectra, but are stronger in the disk [@bra:06b]. The presence of a high energy component from the aurorae is confirmed, while this is missing in the disk emission. Variability in the auroral spectra is also observed (Fig. \[fig7:single\]): the high energy part of the auroral spectra varies between the two Nov. 2003 [*XMM-Newton*]{} revolutions, and changes are also observed at low energies.
EPIC spectral fits
------------------
A collisional plasma model ([mekal]{} in XSPEC) with temperature kT = 0.46 $\pm$ 0.03 keV is a good representation of the low-latitude disk spectrum (Fig. \[fig8:single\]), after including additional MgXI and SiXIII emission (at 1.35 and 1.86 keV respectively, likely consequences of enhanced solar activity) and a small contribution of OVII (0.57 keV) and OVIII (0.65 keV, both residual auroral contamination).
The auroral spectra are well fitted by a model comprising two thermal bremsstrahlung continua and four gaussian emission lines: these are found at 0.32 keV (C and/or S), 0.57 (OVII), 0.69 (OVII and FeXVII) and 0.83 keV (Fe XVII) for the rev. 0726 spectra; in rev. 0727 and in Apr. 2003 the lowest energy line is not present but one is needed at 1.35 keV (MgXI, probably residual contamination from scattered solar X-rays). The bremsstrahlung continua reflect the presence of two distinct spectral components dominating at the low and high energy end respectively. The temperature of the low energy component is fairly stable, ranging between 0.1 and 0.3 keV and being practically the same for both aurorae. For the higher energy component, the rev. 0726 spectra require a much higher bremsstrahlung temperature than those from the two other epochs. At the same time the addition of an emission line is needed in order to explain a peak at 0.3$-$0.4 keV. In actual fact, the spectral shape at the higher energies is better matched by a very flat power law (photon index $\sim$0.2) than a hot thermal bremsstrahlung. The spectrum and best fit for the North aurora from the Nov. 2003, rev. 0726 observation are shown in Fig. \[fig9:single\].
Fig. \[fig10:single\] displays the high energy continuum model components fitted to the Nov. 2003 auroral data (flat power law for rev. 0726 and steeper bremsstrahlung for rev. 0727) and compares them with the predictions of Singhal et al. (1992) for bremsstrahlung emissions by electrons of energies between 10 and 100 keV. The bremsstrahlung fit of rev. 0727 lies remarkably close to the predicted spectrum for both the North and South aurorae. The models for rev. 0726, however, suggest a very different electron distribution for both aurorae.
RGS spectrum
------------
Fig. \[fig11:single\] shows the RGS spectrum of Jupiter obtained by coadding the RGS1 and 2 data (first order only) from both [*XMM-Newton*]{} revolutions in Nov. 2003: the image is colour-coded according to the detected flux, and displays the spatial distribution of the emission in the cross dispersion direction versus X-ray wavelength. The RGS clearly separates the emission lines of OVII (21.6$-$22.1 Å, or 0.56$-$0.57 keV), OVIII (19.0 Å, or 0.65 keV) and FeXVII (15.0 and $\sim$17.0 Å, or $\sim$0.73 and 0.83 keV). Interestingly, the RGS spectrum also shows evidence for the different spatial extension of the line emitting regions, in agreement with the EPIC spectral mapping of Fig. \[fig3:double\]: OVII photons are well separated into the two aurorae, while the other lines are filling in the low latitude/cross dispersion range. The higher resolution RGS spectrum, which includes X-ray light from the whole planet, agrees well, in flux and profile, with the EPIC one integrated over the full disk of Jupiter (Fig. \[fig12:single\]).
Discussion and Conclusions
==========================
[*XMM-Newton*]{} observations of Jupiter on two epochs in Apr. and Nov. 2003 convincingly demonstrate that auroral and low-latitude disk X-ray emissions are different in spectral shape and origin. The Jovian auroral soft X-rays ($<$ 2 keV) are most likely due to charge exchange by energetic ions from the outer magnetosphere, or solar wind, or both. For the first time a higher energy component in the auroral spectra has been identified, and has been found to be variable over timescales of days: its spectral shape is consistent with that predicted from bremsstrahlung of energetic electrons precipitating from the magnetosphere. The variability observed in its flux and spectrum is likely to be linked to changes in the energy distribution of the electrons producing it and may be related to the particular period of intense solar activity reported in Oct. - Nov. 2003 by a number of spacecraft mesurements.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work is based on observations obtained with [*XMM-Newton*]{}, an ESA science mission with instruments and contributions directly funded by ESA Member States and the USA (NASA). The MSSL authors acknowledge financial support from PPARC.
Bhardwaj, A. & Gladstone, G. R. 2000, Rev. Geophys., 38, 295
Bhardwaj, A., Branduardi-Raymont, G., Elsner, R. et al. 2005, , 32, L03S08
Branduardi-Raymont, G., Elsner, R., Gladstone, G. et al. 2004, A&A, 424, 331 (BR1)
Branduardi-Raymont, G., Elsner, R., Gladstone, G. et al. 2006, A&A, in preparation
Branduardi-Raymont, G., Elsner, R., Gladstone, G. et al. 2006b, Planetary and Space Science, in preparation
Bunce, E., Cowley, S., Yeoman, T., 2004, JGR, 109, A09S13
Cravens, T. E., Howell, E., Waite, J. H., Jr., & Gladstone, G. R. 1995, , 100, 17153
Elsner, R., Lugaz, N., Waite, J. et al. 2005, , 110, A01207
Gladstone, G. R., Waite, J. H., Jr. & Lewis, W. S. 1998, , 103, 20083
Gladstone, G. R., Waite, J. H., Jr., Grodent, D. et al. 2002, Nat, 415, 1000
Maurellis, A. N., Cravens, T. E., Gladstone, G. R. et al. 2000, , 27, 1339
Metzger, A. E., Luthey, J. L., Gilman, D. A. et al. 1983, , 88, 7731
Singhal, R. P., Chakravarty, S. C., Bhardwaj, A. & Prasad, B. 1992, , 97, 18245
Strüder, L., Briel, U., Dennerl, K. et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L18
Turner, M. J. L., Abbey, A., Arnaud, M. et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L27
Waite, J. H., Jr., Bagenal, F., Seward, F. et al. 1994, , 99, 14799
Waite, J. H., Jr., Gladstone, G. R., Lewis, W. S. et al. 1997, Sci, 276, 104
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We give a complete characterization of the positive trigonometric polynomials $Q(\theta,\varphi)$ on the bi-circle, which can be factored as $Q(\theta,\varphi)=|p(e^{i\theta},e^{i\varphi})|^2$ where $p(z, w)$ is a polynomial nonzero for $|z|=1$ and $|w|\leq1$. The conditions are in terms of recurrence coefficients associated with the polynomials in lexicographical and reverse lexicographical ordering orthogonal with respect to the weight $\frac{1}{4\pi^2Q(\theta,\varphi)}$ on the bi-circle. We use this result to describe how specific factorizations of weights on the bi-circle can be translated into identities relating the recurrence coefficients for the corresponding polynomials and vice versa. In particular, we characterize the Borel measures on the bi-circle for which the coefficients multiplying the reverse polynomials associated with the two operators: multiplication by $z$ in lexicographical ordering and multiplication by $w$ in reverse lexicographical ordering vanish after a particular point. This can be considered as a spectral type result analogous to the characterization of the Bernstein-Szegő measures on the unit circle.'
address:
- 'JG, School of Mathematics, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332–0160, USA'
- 'PI, School of Mathematics, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332–0160, USA'
author:
- 'Jeffrey S. Geronimo'
- Plamen Iliev
date: 'June 6, 2012'
title: 'Fejér-Riesz factorizations and the structure of bivariate polynomials orthogonal on the bi-circle'
---
[^1]
[^2]
Introduction
============
The factorization of positive polynomials as a sum of squares of polynomials or rational functions is an important problem in mathematics and led Hilbert to pose his 17th problem which was solved by Artin. In the case of trigonometric polynomials one of the simplest factorization results is the lemma of Fejér-Riesz which states that every positive trigonometric polynomial $Q_n(\theta)$ of degree $n$ can be written as $Q_n(\theta)=|p_n(e^{i\theta})|^2$ where $p_n(z)$ is a polynomial of degree $n$ in $z$. This result has been useful for the trigonometric moment problem, orthogonal polynomials, wavelets, and signal processing.
Extensions of this result to the multivariable case cannot be generic as a simple degree of freedom calculation on the coefficients shows. Recently [@GW1] these results have been extended to two variable factorizations $$\label{1.1}
Q_{n,m}(\theta,\varphi)=|p_{n,m}(e^{i\theta},e^{i\varphi})|^2$$ where $n$ and $m$ are the degrees of $Q_{n,m}$ in $\theta$ and $\varphi$, respectively, in the case when $p_{n,m}(z,w)$ is a polynomial of degree $n$ in $z$ and $m$ in $w$ which is nonzero for $|z|\leq 1$ and $|w|\leq1$. This augments results obtained earlier by Kummert [@Ku] (see also Ball [@B]), Cole and Wermer [@CW], and Agler and McCarthy [@AM] (see also Knese [@Kn]). In particular, using the results of Knese [@Kn1] it is easy to see that, except for certain special cases, the polynomials $p_{n,m}$ in cannot be associated with the distinguished varieties defined by Agler and McCarthy [@AM]. Some extensions to more than two variables of the above results have also recently been obtain by Grinshpan et al [@GKVW], Bakonyi and Woerdeman [@BW], and Woerdeman [@W]. In this paper we extend the results in [@GW1] in a different direction. We characterize completely positive trigonometric polynomials $Q_{n,m}(\theta,\varphi)$, which can be factored as in where $p_{n,m}(z, w)$ is a polynomial which is nonzero for $|z|=1$ and $|w|\leq1$. The conditions can be written in a relatively simple form if we use the orthogonal polynomials in lexicographical and reverse lexicographical ordering introduced in [@GW2] with respect to the weight $\frac{1}{4\pi^2Q_{n,m}(\theta,\varphi)}$ on the bi-circle. More precisely, in [Theorem \[th2.4\]]{} we prove that holds if and only if certain matrices (which represent recurrence coefficients) ${{\mathcal K}}_{n,m}$, ${{\mathcal K}}^1_{n,m}$, ${{\tilde{\Gamma}}}_{n,m}$, ${{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^1_{n,m}$ satisfy the equations $$\label{1.2}
{{\mathcal K}}_{n,m}[{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^1_{n,m}{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^{\dagger}_{n,m}]^{j}({{\mathcal K}}^1_{n,m})^T=0, \text{ for }j=0,1,
\dots,n-1.$$ There are two important cases when equation holds:
- The case when ${{\mathcal K}}_{n,m}=0$ characterizes the [*stable factorizations*]{} of $Q_{n,m}$ discussed in [@GW1] (i.e. equation holds with a polynomial $p_{n,m}(z,w)$ which is nonzero for $|z|\leq 1$ and $|w|\leq1$).
- The case when ${{\mathcal K}}^{1}_{n,m}=0$ characterizes the [*anti-stable factorizations*]{} of $Q_{n,m}$. In this case holds with a polynomial $p_{n,m}(z,w)$ such that $z^np_{n,m}(1/z,w)\neq0$ for $|z|\leq 1$ and $|w|\leq1$).
We derive several corollaries of the above result which are of independent interest. For instance, we characterize the Borel measures on the bi-circle for which the recurrence coefficients ${{\hat{E}}}_{k,l}$, ${\tilde{{\hat{E}}}}_{k,l}$ multiplying the reverse polynomials associated with the two operators: multiplication by $z$ in lexicographical ordering and multiplication by $w$ in reverse lexicographical vanish after a particular point, see [Theorem \[th2.10\]]{}. This can be considered as a spectral theory type result analogous to the characterization of Bernstein-Szegő measures on the circle. We also show that in this case the space of orthogonal polynomials can be decomposed as an appropriate direct sum of two sets of orthogonal polynomials associated with the stable and the anti-stable factorizations described above, see [Theorem \[th2.7\]]{}.
The paper is organized as follows. In [Section \[se2\]]{} we introduce the notation used throughout the paper including the recurrence formulas and state the main theorems. In [Section \[se3\]]{} some preliminary results are proved and certain relations among the recurrence coefficients developed in [@GB] and their consequences are discussed. In [Section \[se4\]]{} we prove the first main theorem which yields the factorizations with $p_{n,m}(z,w)$ nonzero for $|z|=1$ and $|w|\leq1$. In the forward direction, we use the Gohberg-Semencul formula, parametric and matrix-valued orthogonal polynomials to show that if holds, then the recurrence coefficients ${{\hat{E}}}_{k,l}$ for the polynomials in lexicographical ordering associated with the weight $\frac{1}{4\pi^2 Q_{n,m}(\theta,\varphi)}$ vanish after a particular point. This leads to . The heart of the proof in the opposite direction is based on a very subtle decomposition of the space of polynomials in the reverse lexicographical ordering as the sum of two subspaces possessing a lot of extra orthogonality properties. Using this decomposition, we construct an appropriate rotation on the space of polynomials which gives the polynomial $p_{n,m}(z,w)$ satisfying . All these constructions are missing in the stable case: the space decomposition is trivial (one of the subspaces is empty) and the rotation is simply the identity transformation. Thus, in our construction, the polynomial $p_{n,m}(z,w)$ is no longer the first column of the inverse of the Toeplitz matrix associated with the trigonometric moments, but instead is a linear combination of the columns in the first block column of this matrix. One can use also the general theory of Helson and Lowdenslager [@HL] and the constructions in Delsarte et al [@DGK2] to obtain factorizations of positive functions $Q(\theta,\varphi)$ on the bi-circle. Note, however, that their approach works in a rather general setting and will provide (in general) non-polynomial factorizations of $Q_{n,m}$, even when holds with a polynomial $p_{n,m}(z,w)$. In [Section \[se5\]]{} we prove all remaining statements and corollaries. In [Section \[se6\]]{} some examples are presented as illustrations of the main theorems.
Statement of results {#se2}
====================
Basic notations {#ss2.1}
---------------
We denote ${{\mathbb T}}=\{z\in{\mathbb{C}}:|z|=1\}$ the unit circle and $${{\mathbb T}}^2=\{(z,w):|z|=|w|=1\},$$ the bi-circle (torus) in ${\mathbb{C}}^2$. Throughout the paper, we will use the parametrization $z=e^{i\theta}$ and $w=e^{i\varphi}$, where $\theta,\varphi\in[-\pi,\pi]$.
We consider moment matrices associated with the lexicographical ordering which is defined by $$(k,\ell)<_{\rm lex} (k_1,\ell_1)\Leftrightarrow k<k_1\mbox{ or }
(k=k_1\mbox{ and } \ell<\ell_1),$$ and the reverse lexicographical ordering defined by $$(k,\ell)<_{\rm revlex} (k_1,\ell_1)\Leftrightarrow
(\ell,k)<_{\rm lex} (\ell_1,k_1).$$ Both of these orderings are linear orders and in addition they satisfy $$(k,\ell)<(m,n)\Rightarrow (k+p,\ell+q)<(m+p,n+q).$$ Let ${\Pi^{n,m}}$ denote the bivariate Laurent linear subspace ${\mathrm{span}}\{z^kw^l,\, -n\le k\le n,\,-m\le l\le m\}$ and let ${\mathcal{L}}$ be a linear functional defined on ${\Pi^{n,m}}$ such that $${\mathcal{L}}(z^{-k}w^{-l})=c_{k,l}= \overline{{\mathcal{L}}(z^k w^l)}.$$ We will call $c_{k,l}$ the $(k,l)$ moment of ${\mathcal{L}}$ and ${\mathcal{L}}$ a moment functional. If we form the $(n+1)(m+1)\times(n+1)(m+1)$ matrix $C_{n,m}$ for ${\mathcal{L}}$ in the lexicographical ordering then it has the special block Toeplitz form $$\label{2.1}
C_{n,m} = \left[
\begin{matrix}
C_0 & C_{-1} & \cdots & C_{-n}
\\
C_1 & C_0 & \cdots & C_{-n+1}
\\
\vdots & & \ddots & \vdots \\
C_n & C_{n-1} & \cdots & C_{0}
\end{matrix}
\right],$$ where each $C_k$ is an $(m+1)\times(m+1)$ Toeplitz matrix as follows $$\label{2.2}
C_k=\left[
\begin{matrix}
c_{k,0}& c_{k,-1} & \cdots & c_{k,-m}
\\
\vdots & &\ddots & \vdots \cr c_{k,m} & & \cdots &
c_{k,0}
\end{matrix}
\right],\qquad k=-n,\dots, n.$$ Thus $C_{n,m}$ has a doubly Toeplitz structure. If the reverse lexicographical ordering is used in place of the lexicographical ordering we obtain another moment matrix ${{\tilde{C}}}_{n,m}$ where the roles of $n$ and $m$ are interchanged. We say that the moment functional ${\mathcal{L}}:{\Pi^{n,m}}\to{\mathbb{C}}$ is positive if $$\label{2.3}
{\mathcal{L}}\left[p(z,w){\bar{p}}(1/z,1/w)\right]>0$$ for every nonzero polynomial $p(z,w)\in{\Pi^{n,m}}\cap{\mathbb{C}}[z,w]$. Here and later we set ${\bar{p}}(z,w)=\overline{p(\bar{z},\bar{w})}$. It follows from a simple quadratic form argument that ${\mathcal{L}}$ is positive if and only if its moment matrix $C_{n,m}$ is positive definite. We now perform the Gram-Schmidt procedure on the monomials using the lexicographical ordering. The study of orthogonal polynomials on the bi-circle with this ordering was begun by Delsarte et al. [@DGK1] and extended in [@GW2]. Given a positive definite linear functional ${\mathcal{L}}:{\Pi^{N,M}}\to{\mathbb{C}}$ we perform the Gram-Schmidt procedure using the lexicographical ordering on the spaces ${\mathrm{span}}\{z^kw^l:0\leq k\leq n,\,0\leq l\leq m\}$ where $n\leq N$, $m\leq N$. Thus we define the orthonormal polynomials $\phi_{n,m}^s(z,w),\ 0\le n\le N,\, 0\le m\le M, \, 0\le s\le m,$ by the equations $$\label{2.4}
\begin{split}
&{\mathcal{L}}(\phi_{n,m}^s(z,w) z^{-k}w^{-l})=0, \quad 0\le k<n\ \text{ and }\
0\le l\le m\text{ or }\ k=n \text{ and }\ 0\le l< s,\\
&{\mathcal{L}}(\phi_{n,m}^s(z,w)\bar{\phi}_{n,m}^s(1/z,1/w))=1,
\end{split}$$ and $$\label{2.5}
\phi_{n,m}^{s}(z,w) = k^{n,s}_{n,m,s} z^n w^s + \sum_{(k,l)<_{\rm
lex}(n,s)} k^{k,l}_{n,m,s}z^kw^l.$$ With the convention $k^{n,s}_{n,m,s}>0$, the above equations uniquely specify $\phi^s_{n,m}$. Polynomials orthonormal with respect to ${\mathcal{L}}$ but using the reverse lexicographical ordering will be denoted by ${\tilde{\phi}}^s_{n,m}$. They are uniquely determined by the above relations with the roles of $n$ and $m$ interchanged. Set $$\label{2.6}
\Phi_{n,m}(z,w)=\left[\begin{matrix} \phi_{n,m}^{m}\\ \phi_{n,m}^{m-1}\\[-2pt]
\vdots\\ \phi_{n,m}^{0} \end{matrix}\right] =
K_{n,m}\left[\begin{matrix} z^n w^m\\ z^n w^{m-1}\\[-2pt] \vdots\\ 1\end{matrix}\right],$$ where the $(m+1)\times(n+1)(m+1)$ matrix $K_{n,m}$ is given by $$\label{2.7}
K_{n,m}=\left[\begin{matrix} k_{n,m,m}^{n,m}&
k_{n,m,m}^{n,m-1}&\cdots & \cdots&\cdots& k_{n,m,m}^{0,0} \\ 0&
k_{n,m,m-1}^{n,m-1}&\cdots & \cdots&\cdots&
k_{n,m,m-1}^{0,0}\\\vdots &\ddots&\ddots&\ddots&\ddots&\ddots
\\0&\cdots& k_{n,m,0}^{n,0}& k_{n,m,0}^{n-1,m}&\cdots &
k_{n,m,0}^{0,0}\end{matrix}\right].$$ As indicated above denote $$\label{2.8}
{\tilde{\Phi}}_{n,m} (z,w)=\left[\begin{matrix} {\tilde{\phi}}_{n,m}^{n}\\
{\tilde{\phi}}_{n,m}^{n-1}\\ \vdots\\ {\tilde{\phi}}_{n,m}^{0}\end{matrix}\right]
={\tilde{K}}_{n,m}\left[\begin{matrix}w^m z^n \\ w^m z^{n-1}\\[-3pt] \vdots\\ 1
\end{matrix}\right],$$ where the $(n+1)\times(n+1)(m+1)$ matrix ${\tilde{K}}_{n,m}$ is given similarly to with the roles of $n$ and $m$ interchanged. For the bivariate polynomials $\phi^s_{n,m}(z,w)$ above we define the reverse polynomials ${\overleftarrow{\phi}}^s_{n,m}(z,w)$ by the relation $$\label{2.9}
{\overleftarrow{\phi}}^s_{n,m}(z,w)=z^n w^m\bar{\phi}_{n,m}^s(1/z,1/w).$$ With this definition ${\overleftarrow{\phi}}^s_{n,m}(z,w)$ is again a polynomial in $z$ and $w$, and furthermore $$\label{2.10}
{\overleftarrow{\Phi}}_{n,m}(z,w):= \left[\begin{matrix}{\overleftarrow{\phi}}_{n,m}^{m}\\
{\overleftarrow{\phi}}_{n,m}^{m-1}\\
\vdots\\ {\overleftarrow{\phi}}_{n,m}^{0} \end{matrix}\right]^T.$$ An analogous procedure is used to define ${\overleftarrow{\tilde{\phi}}}^s_{n,m}$. We use $M^{m,n}$ to denote the space of all $m\times n$ matrices. In [@GW2] it was shown:
\[recurrencefor\] Given $\{\Phi_{n,m}\}$ and $\{{\tilde{\Phi}}_{n,m}\}$, $0\le n\le N$, $0\le m\le M$, the following recurrence formulas hold:
\[2.11\] $$\begin{aligned}
& A_{n,m}\Phi_{n,m} = z\Phi_{n-1,m} - {{\hat{E}}}_{n,m}{\overleftarrow{\Phi}}_{n-1,m}^T , \label{2.11a}
\\
&\Phi_{n,m}+ A^{\dagger}_{n,m}{{\hat{E}}}_{n,m}(A^T_{n,m})^{-1}{\overleftarrow{\Phi}}_{n,m}^T=
A^{\dagger}_{n,m}z\Phi_{n-1,m}, \label{2.11b}
\\
&{{\Gamma}}_{n,m} \Phi_{n,m} = \Phi_{n,m-1} - {{{\mathcal K}}}_{n,m} {\tilde{\Phi}}_{n-1,m},
\label{2.11c}
\\
&{{\Gamma}}_{n,m}^1 \Phi_{n,m} = w \Phi_{n,m-1} - {{{\mathcal K}}}^1_{n,m}{\overleftarrow{\tilde{\Phi}}}_{n-1,m}^T,
\label{2.11d}
\\
&\Phi_{n,m}=I_{n,m} {\tilde{\Phi}}_{n,m} + {{\Gamma}}^{\dagger}_{n,m} \Phi_{n,m-1}
\label{2.11e},
\\
&{\overleftarrow{\Phi}}_{n,m}^T=I_{n,m}^1 {\tilde{\Phi}}_{n,m} + ({{\Gamma}}^1_{n,m})^T{\overleftarrow{\Phi}}_{n,m-1}^T
\label{2.11f},\end{aligned}$$
where
\[2.12\] $$\begin{aligned}
{{\hat{E}}}_{n,m} & = \langle z\Phi_{n-1,m},{\overleftarrow{\Phi}}_{n-1,m}^T\rangle={{\hat{E}}}_{n,m}^T \in
M^{m+1,m+1}, \label{2.12a}\\
A_{n,m} & = \langle z\Phi_{n-1,m},\Phi_{n,m}\rangle \in
M^{m+1,m+1}, \label{2.12b}\\
{{{\mathcal K}}}_{n,m} & = \langle \Phi_{n,m-1}, {\tilde{\Phi}}_{n-1,m}\rangle \in
M^{m,n}, \label{2.12c}\\
{{\Gamma}}_{n,m} & = \langle \Phi_{n,m-1}, \Phi_{n,m} \rangle \in M^{m,m+1},\label{2.12d}\\
{{{\mathcal K}}}^1_{n,m} & = \langle w \Phi_{n,m-1}, \overleftarrow{{\tilde{\Phi}}}_{n-1,m}^T\rangle \in M^{m,n},\label{2.12e}\\
{{\Gamma}}^1_{n,m} & = \langle w \Phi_{n,m-1}, \Phi_{n,m} \rangle \in
M^{m,m+1}, \label{2.12f}\\
I_{n,m} & = \langle \Phi_{n,m}, {\tilde{\Phi}}_{n,m}\rangle \in
M^{m+1,n+1}, \label{2.12g}\\
I^1_{n,m} & = \langle {\overleftarrow{\Phi}}_{n,m}^T, {\tilde{\Phi}}_{n,m}\rangle \in
M^{m+1,n+1}. \label{2.12h}\end{aligned}$$
From now on we adapt the following convention. For every statement (resp. formula) we will refer to the analogous statement (resp. formula) with the roles of $z$ and $w$ exchanged as the tilde analog. For instance, the tilde analog of formula is ${{\tilde{A}}}_{n,m}{\tilde{\Phi}}_{n,m} = w{\tilde{\Phi}}_{n,m-1} - {\tilde{{\hat{E}}}}_{n,m}{\overleftarrow{\tilde{\Phi}}}_{n,m-1}^T$.
Finally, we note that $${{\tilde{\mathcal K}}}_{n,m}={{\mathcal K}}_{n,m}^{\dagger}\quad\text{ and }\quad {{\tilde{\mathcal K}}}^{1}_{n,m}=({{\mathcal K}}^{1}_{n,m})^{T}.$$
Main results
------------
We say that a polynomial $p(z,w)\in{\mathbb{C}}\left[z,w\right]$ is of degree $(n,m)$ where $n$ and $m$ are the minimal nonnegative integers such that $p(z,w)\in{\Pi^{n,m}}$. We say that the polynomial $p(z,w)$ is [*stable*]{} if it does not vanish for $|z|\leq 1$ and $|w|\leq 1$. Similarly, for a trigonometric polynomial $Q(\theta,\varphi)=p(e^{i\theta},e^{i\varphi})$, we define the degree as the ordered pair $(n,m)$, where $n$ and $m$ are the minimal nonnegative integers such that $p(z,w)\in{\Pi^{n,m}}$.
We can now state our main results.
\[th2.3\] For a positive moment functional ${\mathcal{L}}$ defined on the space ${\Pi^{n,m}}$ the following conditions are equivalent:
- There exists a polynomial $p(z,w)$ of degree at most $(n,m)$, nonzero for $ |z|=1$ and $|w|\leq1$, such that $$\label{2.13}
{\mathcal{L}}(z^kw^l)=\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\int\limits_{[-\pi,\pi]^2}\frac{e^{ik\theta}e^{il\varphi}}{|p(e^{i\theta},e^{i\varphi})|^2}\,d\theta\,d\varphi.$$
- The coefficients ${{\mathcal K}}_{n,m}$, ${{\mathcal K}}^1_{n,m}$, ${{\tilde{\Gamma}}}_{n,m}$, ${{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^1_{n,m}$ satisfy $$\label{2.14}
{{\mathcal K}}_{n,m}[{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^1_{n,m}{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^{\dagger}_{n,m}]^{j}({{\mathcal K}}^1_{n,m})^T=0, \text{ for }j=0,1,
\dots,n-1.$$
Moreover, if the conditions above hold, we have $$\label{2.15}
\begin{split}
|p(z,w)|^2=&\Phi_{n,m}(z,w)^{T}\overline{\Phi_{n,m}(z,w)}-\Phi_{n,m-1}(z,w)^{T}\overline{\Phi_{n,m-1}(z,w)}\\
=&{\tilde{\Phi}}_{n,m}(z,w)^{T}\overline{{\tilde{\Phi}}_{n,m}(z,w)}-{\tilde{\Phi}}_{n-1,m}(z,w)^{T}\overline{{\tilde{\Phi}}_{n-1,m}(z,w)}, \\
&\qquad\qquad \qquad\qquad \text{ for }(z,w)\in{{\mathbb T}}^2.
\end{split}$$
The polynomial $p(z,w)$ in [Theorem \[th2.3\]]{} can be computed from equation in [Section \[se4\]]{}, which depends on the matrices ${\tilde{U}}$ and ${\tilde{V}}$ constructed from ${{\mathcal K}}_{n,m}$, ${{\mathcal K}}^{1}_{n,m}$, ${{\tilde{\Gamma}}}_{n,m}$ and ${{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^{1}_{n,m}$ in [Lemma \[le4.6\]]{} and [Lemma \[le4.8\]]{}, see [Remark \[re4.5\]]{} for more details.
As an immediate corollary of the above theorem and the maximum entropy principle [@BN] we obtain the first Fejér-Riesz factorization.
\[th2.4\] Suppose that $Q(\theta,\varphi)$ is a strictly positive trigonometric polynomial of degree $(n,m)$. Then $Q(\theta,\varphi)=|p(e^{i\theta},e^{i\varphi})|^2$ where $p(z,w)$ is a polynomial of degree $(n,m)$ such that $p(z,w)\neq 0$ for $ |z|=1$, $|w|\leq 1$ if and only if the coefficients ${{\mathcal K}}_{n,m}$, ${{\mathcal K}}^1_{n,m}$, ${{\tilde{\Gamma}}}_{n,m}$, ${{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^1_{n,m}$ associated with the measure $\frac{d\theta\, d\varphi}{4\pi^2 Q(\theta,\varphi)}$ on $[-\pi,\pi]^2$ satisfy equation .
Analogous results hold with the roles of $z$ and $w$ and $n$ and $m$ interchanged if the coefficients in the reverse lexicographical ordering satisfy the tilde analogs of equation (see equation below). In the case when both sets of conditions hold we find:
\[th2.5\] For a positive moment functional ${\mathcal{L}}$ defined on the space ${\Pi^{n,m}}$ the following conditions are equivalent:
- There exist stable polynomials $p(z,w)$ and $q(z,w)$ of degrees $(n_1,m_1)$ and $(n_2,m_2)$ with $n_1+n_2\leq n$, $m_1+m_2\leq m$ such that $$\label{2.16}
{\mathcal{L}}(z^kw^l)
=\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\int\limits_{[-\pi,\pi]^2}\frac{e^{ik\theta}e^{il\varphi}}{|p(e^{i\theta},e^{i\varphi})q(e^{-i\theta},e^{i\varphi})|^2}\,d\theta\,d\varphi.$$
- The coefficients ${{\mathcal K}}_{n,m}$, ${{\mathcal K}}^1_{n,m}$, ${{\Gamma}}_{n,m}$, ${{\Gamma}}^1_{n,m}$, ${{\tilde{\Gamma}}}_{n,m}$, ${{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^{1}_{n,m}$ satisfy
\[2.17\] $$\begin{aligned}
&{{\mathcal K}}_{n,m}[{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^1_{n,m}{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^{\dag}_{n,m}]^{j}({{\mathcal K}}^1_{n,m})^T=0, \text{ for }j=0,1,\dots,n-1, \label{2.17a} \\
&{{\mathcal K}}_{n,m}^{\dag}[{{\Gamma}}^1_{n,m}{{\Gamma}}^{\dag}_{n,m}]^{l} {{\mathcal K}}^1_{n,m}=0, \text{ for }l=0,1,\dots,m-1. \label{2.17b}\end{aligned}$$
As in [Theorem \[th2.3\]]{}, given the coefficients in the recurrence formulas, the polynomial $p(z,w)z^{n_2}q(1/z,w)$ can be computed by (see also [Remark \[re4.5\]]{}). In view of equation , we say in the rest of the paper that a functional satisfying the equivalent conditions in the above theorem belongs to the [*splitting case*]{}. [Theorem \[th2.5\]]{} can also be recast as a Fejér-Riesz factorization.
\[th2.6\] Suppose that $Q(\theta,\varphi)$ is a strictly positive trigonometric polynomial of degree $(n,m)$. Then $Q(\theta,\varphi)=|p(e^{i\theta},e^{i\varphi})q(e^{-i\theta},e^{i\varphi})|^2$ where $p(z,w)$ and $q(z,w)$ are stable polynomials of degrees $(n_1,m_1)$ and $(n_2,m_2)$ respectively, with $n_1+n_2= n$, $m_1+m_2= m$ if and only if the coefficients ${{\mathcal K}}_{n,m}$, ${{\mathcal K}}^1_{n,m}$, ${{\Gamma}}_{n,m}$, ${{\Gamma}}^1_{n,m}$, ${{\tilde{\Gamma}}}_{n,m}$, ${{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^{1}_{n,m}$ associated with the measure $\frac{d\theta\, d\varphi}{4\pi^2\,Q(\theta,\varphi)}$ on $[-\pi,\pi]^2$ satisfy equations .
In this case when the equivalent conditions in [Theorem \[th2.5\]]{} hold we have the following structural theorem.
\[th2.7\] Suppose that holds, where $p(z,w)$ and $q(z,w)$ are stable polynomials of degrees $(n_1,m_1)$ and $(n_2,m_2)$, respectively. Let ${\Phi^{p}}_{k,l}(z,w)$ and ${\Phi^{q}}_{k,l}(z,w)$ be the the (vector) polynomials orthogonal with respect to the measures $\frac{d\theta\,d\varphi}{4\pi^2|p(e^{i\theta},e^{i\varphi})|^2}$ and $\frac{d\theta\,d\varphi}{4\pi^2|q(e^{i\theta},e^{i\varphi})|^2}$, respectively. Then $$\label{2.18}
{\Phi^{p}}_{n_1,m_1}(z,w)=\left[\begin{matrix} {\overleftarrow{p}}(z,w)\\[-6pt] \\ {\Phi^{p}}_{n_1,m_1-1}(z,w) \end{matrix}\right], \quad
{\Phi^{q}}_{n_2,m_2}(z,w)=\left[\begin{matrix} {\overleftarrow{q}}(z,w)\\[-6pt]\\ {\Phi^{q}}_{n_2,m_2-1}(z,w) \end{matrix}\right].$$ Moreover, if we set $n=n_1+n_2$ and $m=m_1+m_2$, then there exist unitary matrices $U\in M^{m,m}$, $V\in M^{m+1,m+1}$ such that
\[2.19\] $$\label{2.19a}
U^{\dagger}\Phi_{n,m-1}(z,w)=\left[\begin{matrix} z^{n_2}q(1/z,w) {\Phi^{p}}_{n_1,m_1-1}(z,w) \\[-6pt]\\
{\overleftarrow{p}}(z,w) w^{m_2-1}\overline{{\Phi^{q}}_{n_2,m_2-1}}(z,1/w)\end{matrix}\right],$$ and $$\label{2.19b}
V^{\dagger}\Phi_{n,m}(z,w)=\left[\begin{matrix} {\overleftarrow{p}}(z,w)z^{n_2}q(1/z,w)\\[-6pt] \\ z^{n_2}q(1/z,w) {\Phi^{p}}_{n_1,m_1-1}(z,w) \\[-6pt]\\
{\overleftarrow{p}}(z,w) w^{m_2}\overline{{\Phi^{q}}_{n_2,m_2-1}}(z,1/w)\end{matrix}\right].$$
Roughly speaking, the above theorem allows to decompose the space of orthogonal polynomials associated with the functional in as a sum of the two extreme cases:
- the [*stable case*]{} when $q(z,w)=1$;
- the [*anti-stable*]{} case when $p(z,w)=1$.
As a corollary of the the proof we obtain also the following characterizations of these situations.
\[co2.8\] For a positive moment functional ${\mathcal{L}}$ defined on the space ${\Pi^{n,m}}$ the following statements hold.
- There exists a stable polynomial $p(z,w)$ of degree at most $(n,m)$ such that $$\label{2.20}
{\mathcal{L}}(z^kw^l)
=\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\int\limits_{[-\pi,\pi]^2}\frac{e^{ik\theta}e^{il\varphi}}{|p(e^{i\theta},e^{i\varphi})|^2}\,d\theta\,d\varphi$$ if and only if ${{\mathcal K}}_{n,m}=0$. Moreover, we can take $p(z,w)={\overleftarrow{\phi}}_{n,m}^{m}(z,w)$.
- There exists a stable polynomial $q(z,w)$ of degree at most $(n,m)$ such that $$\label{2.21}
{\mathcal{L}}(z^kw^l)
=\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\int\limits_{[-\pi,\pi]^2}\frac{e^{ik\theta}e^{il\varphi}}{|q(e^{-i\theta},e^{i\varphi})|^2}\,d\theta\,d\varphi$$ if and only if ${{\mathcal K}}^{1}_{n,m}=0$.
As a consequence of the above corollary, we obtain a simple characterization of the functionals which are tensor products of functionals on the circle.
\[co2.9\] Let ${\mathcal{L}}$ be a positive moment functional on the space ${\Pi^{n,m}}$. Then, there exist a positive functional ${\mathcal{L}}_z$ defined on ${\mathrm{span}}\{z^k:|k|\leq n\}$ and a positive functional ${\mathcal{L}}_w$ defined on ${\mathrm{span}}\{w^l:|l|\leq m\}$ such that ${\mathcal{L}}(z^kw^l)={\mathcal{L}}_z(z^k){\mathcal{L}}_w(w^l)$ if and only if ${{\mathcal K}}_{n,m}={{\mathcal K}}^{1}_{n,m}=0$. In this case, ${\overleftarrow{\phi}}_{n,m}^{m}(z,w)=\alpha(z)\beta(w)$, where $\alpha(z)$ and $\beta(w)$ are stable polynomials of degrees at most $n$ and $m$, respectively and $$\label{2.22}
{\mathcal{L}}(z^kw^l)
=\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\int\limits_{[-\pi,\pi]^2}\frac{e^{ik\theta}e^{il\varphi}}{|\alpha(e^{i\theta})\beta(e^{i\varphi})|^2}\,d\theta\,d\varphi.$$
Finally, the above results can be used to completely characterize the measures on ${{\mathbb T}}^2$ for which the corresponding coefficients ${{\hat{E}}}_{k,l}$ and ${\tilde{{\hat{E}}}}_{k,l}$ vanish after a particular point.
\[th2.10\] Let $\mu$ be a positive Borel measure supported on the bi-circle. Then $\mu$ is absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue measure with $$\label{2.23}
d\mu=\frac{d\theta\, d\varphi}{4\pi^2|p(e^{i\theta},e^{i\varphi})q(e^{-i\theta},e^{i\varphi})|^2},$$ where $p(z,w)$ and $q(z,w)$ are stable polynomials of degrees $(n_1,m_1)$ and $(n_2,m_2)$, respectively, with $n_1+n_2\leq n$, $m_1+m_2\leq m$ if and only if $$\label{2.24}
{{\hat{E}}}_{k,l}=0\text{ and }{\tilde{{\hat{E}}}}_{k,l}=0\text{ for all }k\geq n+1,\quad l\geq m+1.$$ Moreover, in this case we have $$\label{2.25}
{{\hat{E}}}_{k,l}=0, \text{ for } k\geq n+1,\ l\geq m-1\text{ and }{\tilde{{\hat{E}}}}_{k,l}=0,
\text{ for } k\geq n-1,\ l\geq m+1.$$
Preliminary results {#se3}
===================
Connection between bivariate and matrix orthogonal polynomials {#ss3.1}
--------------------------------------------------------------
The vector polynomial $\Phi_{n,m}(z,w)$ defined in can be written as
\[3.1\] $$\label{3.1a}
\Phi_{n,m}(z,w)=\Phi^{m}_{n}(z)\left[\begin{matrix} w^{m}\\ w^{m-1}\\ \vdots \\ 1\end{matrix}\right],$$ where $\Phi^{m}_{n}(z)$ is a unique $(m+1)\times(m+1)$ matrix polynomial of degree $n$ in $z$. Similarly, the vector polynomial ${\tilde{\Phi}}_{n,m}(z,w)$ defined in can be written as $$\label{3.1b}
{\tilde{\Phi}}_{n,m}(z,w)={\tilde{\Phi}}^{n}_{m}(w)\left[\begin{matrix} z^{n}\\ z^{n-1}\\ \vdots \\ 1\end{matrix}\right],$$
where ${\tilde{\Phi}}^{n}_{m}(w)$ is a unique $(n+1)\times(n+1)$ matrix polynomial of degree $m$ in $w$. The recurrence relation and its tilde-analog are equivalent to the recurrence relations for the matrix-valued polynomials $\{\Phi^{m}_{n}(z)\}_{n\geq 0}$ and $\{{\tilde{\Phi}}^{n}_{m}(w)\}_{m\geq 0}$.
We will also need the following Christoffel-Darboux formula, which is a tilde analog of formula (4.1a)-(4.1c) in [@GW2] $$\label{3.2}
\begin{split}
&{\overleftarrow{\tilde{\Phi}}}_{n,m}(z,w){\overleftarrow{\tilde{\Phi}}}_{n,m}(z_1,w_1)^{\dagger}-{\overleftarrow{\tilde{\Phi}}}_{n-1,m}(z,w){\overleftarrow{\tilde{\Phi}}}_{n-1,m}(z_1,w_1)^{\dagger} \\
&\quad -w{\bar{w}}_1\left[{\tilde{\Phi}}_{n,m}(z,w)^{T} \overline{{\tilde{\Phi}}_{n,m}(z_1,w_1)}-{\tilde{\Phi}}_{n-1,m}(z,w)^{T} \overline{{\tilde{\Phi}}_{n-1,m}(z_1,w_1)}\right]\\
&\qquad =(1-w{\bar{w}}_1)\Phi_{n,m}(z,w)^{T} \overline{\Phi_{n,m}(z_1,w_1)},
\end{split}$$ and its corollary (see equation (4.2) in [@GW2]) $$\label{3.3}
\begin{split}
&\Phi_{n,m}(z,w)^{T}\,\overline{\Phi_{n,m}(z_1,w_1)}- \Phi_{n,m-1}(z,w)^{T}\,\overline{\Phi_{n,m-1}(z_1,w_1)}\\
&\quad = {\tilde{\Phi}}_{n,m}(z,w)^{T}\,\overline{{\tilde{\Phi}}_{n,m}(z_1,w_1)}-{\tilde{\Phi}}_{n-1,m}(z,w)^{T}\,\overline{{\tilde{\Phi}}_{n-1,m}(z_1,w_1)}.
\end{split}$$
Relations among the coefficients {#ss3.2}
--------------------------------
We list below different relations among the coefficients defined in needed in the paper.
The tilde analog of formula (3.52) on page 811 in [@GW2] can be written as follows $$\label{3.4}
\begin{split}
{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}_{k+1,l}^{1}{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}_{k+1,l}^{\dagger}=&{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}_{k,l}^{\dagger}{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}_{k,l}^{1}
+{{\tilde{I}}}_{k,l}{{\hat{E}}}_{k+1,l}({{\tilde{I}}}^{1}_{k,l})^{T}\\
&\quad +{{\tilde{\mathcal K}}}^{1}_{k+1,l}(\bar{A}_{k+1,l-1})^{-1}{{\hat{E}}}_{k+1,l-1}^{\dagger}A_{k+1,l-1}{{\tilde{\mathcal K}}}^{\dagger}_{k+1,l}.
\end{split}$$
We also need formulas (3.1), (3.4) and (3.6) from [@GB]:
\[3.5\] $$\begin{aligned}
&{{\hat{E}}}_{k+1,l-1}={{\Gamma}}_{k,l}{{\hat{E}}}_{k+1,l}({{\Gamma}}^1_{k,l})^{T}+{{\mathcal K}}_{k,l}({{\mathcal K}}^{1}_{k,l})^{T},\label{3.5a}\\
&{{\Gamma}}_{k,l}{{\hat{E}}}_{k+1,l}I^{1}_{k,l}=A_{k+1,l-1}{{\mathcal K}}_{k+1,l}-{{\mathcal K}}_{k,l}{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^{1}_{k,l},\label{3.5b}\\
&I_{k,l}^{\dagger}{{\hat{E}}}_{k+1,l}({{\Gamma}}^{1}_{k,l})^{T}
=({{\mathcal K}}^{1}_{k+1,l})^{T}A_{k+1,l-1}^{T}-{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^{\dagger}_{k,l}({{\mathcal K}}^{1}_{k,l})^{T}.\label{3.5c}\end{aligned}$$
Recall that if ${{\hat{E}}}_{k,l}=0$ then $A_{k,l}=I_{l+1}$ is the identity $(l+1)\times(l+1)$ matrix. Using this fact and the above formulas, we see that the following lemma holds.
\[le3.1\] If $$\label{3.6}
{{\hat{E}}}_{k+1,l}=0 \text{ and }{{\hat{E}}}_{k+1,l-1}=0,$$ then
\[3.7\] $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathcal K}}_{k,l}({{\mathcal K}}^{1}_{k,l})^{T}&=0,\label{3.7a}\\
{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}_{k+1,l}^{1}{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}_{k+1,l}^{\dagger}&={{\tilde{\Gamma}}}_{k,l}^{\dagger}{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}_{k,l}^{1},\label{3.7b}\\
{{\mathcal K}}_{k+1,l}&={{\mathcal K}}_{k,l}{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^{1}_{k,l},\label{3.7c}\\
({{\mathcal K}}^{1}_{k+1,l})^{T}&={{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^{\dagger}_{k,l}({{\mathcal K}}^{1}_{k,l})^{T}.\label{3.7d}\end{aligned}$$
Stability criterion {#ss3.3}
-------------------
Throughout the paper we will use several times the following fact: a polynomial $p(z,w)$ is stable (i.e. non-vanishing for $|z|\leq 1$ and $|w|\leq 1$) if and only if
- $p(z,w)\neq 0$ for $|z|=1$ and $|w|\leq 1$, and
- $p(z,w)\neq 0$ for $|z|\leq1$ and $|w|= 1$.
The above criterion is a simple corollary from the well-known stability criteria for bivariate polynomials, see for instance [@DGK3].
One sided stable polynomials {#se4}
============================
In this section we prove [Theorem \[th2.3\]]{}.
Proof of the implication (i)$\Rightarrow$(ii) in [Theorem \[th2.3\]]{}
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Assume first that the conditions in [Theorem \[th2.3\]]{}(i) hold, i.e. the moment functional ${\mathcal{L}}$ is defined on ${\Pi^{n,m}}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathcal{L}}(z^kw^l)=\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\int\limits_{[-\pi,\pi]^2}\frac{e^{ik\theta}e^{il\varphi}}{|p(e^{i\theta},e^{i\varphi})|^2}\,d\theta\,d\varphi,{\nonumber}\\
&\quad\text{where $p(z,w)$ is of degree $(n,m)$ nonzero for $ |z|=1$ and $|w|\leq1$.}\label{4.1}\end{aligned}$$ We can use to extend the functional ${\mathcal{L}}$ on the space of all Laurent polynomials ${\mathbb{C}}[z,z^{-1},w,w^{-1}]$. Thus we can define vector polynomials $\Phi_{k,l}(z,w)$ for all $k,l\in{\mathbb{N}}_0$.
For every fixed $z=e^{i\theta}\in{{\mathbb T}}$, we denote by ${\mathcal{L}^{\theta}}$ the corresponding positive moment functional on the space ${\mathbb{C}}[w,w^{-1}]$ given by $$\label{4.2}
{\mathcal{L}^{\theta}}(w^l)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int\limits_{-\pi}^{\pi}\frac{e^{il\varphi}}{|p(e^{i\theta},e^{i\varphi})|^2}\,d\varphi.$$ Similarly, for a polynomial $\phi(z,w)$ of degree $(k,l)$ we can fix $z=e^{i\theta}$ on the unit circle and consider the corresponding polynomial $\phi(e^{i\theta},w)$ of degree $l$ in $w$ which depends on the parameter $\theta$. We will denote by ${\overleftarrow{{\phi}^{\theta}}}(e^{i\theta},w)$ the reverse polynomial of $\phi(e^{i\theta},w)$, i.e. we set $${\overleftarrow{{\phi}^{\theta}}}(e^{i\theta},w)=w^{l}{\bar{\phi}}(e^{-i\theta},1/w).$$
\[le4.1\] Suppose that holds. Then with respect to ${\mathcal{L}^{\theta}}$ we have
\[4.3\] $$\begin{aligned}
& p(e^{i\theta},w)\perp \{w^{l}:l>0\},\label{4.3a}\\
&{\overleftarrow{{p}^{\theta}}}(e^{i\theta},w) \perp \{w^{l}:l<m\},\label{4.3b}\end{aligned}$$
and $\left\|p(e^{i\theta},w)\right\|=\left\|{\overleftarrow{{p}^{\theta}}}(e^{i\theta},w)\right\|=1$.
We have $${\mathcal{L}^{\theta}}\left(w^{l}\,\overline{p(e^{i\theta},w)}\right)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int\limits_{-\pi}^{\pi}\frac{e^{il\varphi}\overline{p(e^{i\theta},e^{i\varphi})}}{|p(e^{i\theta},e^{i\varphi})|^2}d\varphi=-\frac{i}{2\pi}\oint\limits_{{{\mathbb T}}}\frac{w^{l-1}}{p(e^{i\theta},w)}dw=0,$$ for $l>0$ by Cauchy’s residue theorem, establishing . The second orthogonality follows by a similar computation. The assertion about the norms of $p(e^{i\theta},w)$ and ${\overleftarrow{{p}^{\theta}}}(e^{i\theta},w)$ is straightforward.
We would like to construct now polynomials $\{{{\phi_{l}^{\theta}}}(w)\}_{l\geq 0}$ orthonormal with respect to ${\mathcal{L}^{\theta}}$. From [Lemma \[le4.1\]]{} it follows that we can take $$\label{4.4}
{{\phi_{l}^{\theta}}}(w)=w^{l-m}{\overleftarrow{{p}^{\theta}}}(e^{i\theta},w), \text{ for }l\geq m.$$
Let us denote by ${C_{l}^{\theta}}$ the $(l+1)\times (l+1)$ Toeplitz matrix associated with ${\mathcal{L}^{\theta}}$, i.e. if we put ${c_{j}^{\theta}}={\mathcal{L}^{\theta}}(w^{-j})$ then $${C_{l}^{\theta}} = \left[
\begin{matrix}
{c_{0}^{\theta}} & {c_{-1}^{\theta}} & \cdots & {c_{-l}^{\theta}}
\\
{c_{1}^{\theta}} & {c_{0}^{\theta}} & \cdots & {c_{-l+1}^{\theta}}
\\
\vdots & & \ddots & \vdots \\
{c_{l}^{\theta}} & {c_{l-1}^{\theta}} & \cdots & {c_{0}^{\theta}}
\end{matrix}
\right].$$ Recall that we can use the coefficients of the orthonormal polynomial ${{\phi_{l}^{\theta}}}(w)$ to compute the inverse of ${C_{l-1}^{\theta}}$ via the Gohberg-Semencul formula [@GF Theorem 6.2, page 88]. Explicitly, if we set $$\label{4.5}
\overleftarrow{{{\phi_{l}^{\theta}}}}(w)=\sum_{j=0}^{l}r^{l}_jw^j,$$ then $$\begin{aligned}
({C_{l-1}^{\theta}})^{-1}&=
\left[\begin{matrix}r^{l}_0 && &\bigcirc\\
r^{l}_1 &\ddots\\
\vdots \\
r^{l}_{l-1} &\cdots & &r^{l}_0
\end{matrix}\right]
\left[\begin{matrix}\overline{r^{l}_0} & \overline{r^{l}_1} &\dots & \overline{r^{l}_{l-1}}\\
&\ddots \\
& \\
\bigcirc && & \overline{r^{l}_0}\end{matrix}\right]{\nonumber}\\
&\qquad -
\left[\begin{matrix}\overline{r^{l}_{l}} && &\bigcirc\\
\overline{r^{l}_{l-1}} &\ddots\\
\vdots \\
\overline{r^{l}_{1}} &\cdots & &\overline{r^{l}_l}
\end{matrix}\right]
\left[\begin{matrix}r^{l}_l & r^{l}_{l-1} &\dots & r^{l}_{1}\\
&\ddots \\
& \\
\bigcirc && & r^{l}_{l}\end{matrix}\right].\label{4.6}\end{aligned}$$
\[le4.2\] Suppose that holds for all $(k,l)\in{\mathbb{Z}}^2$. Then $$\label{4.7}
{{\hat{E}}}_{k,l}=0 \text{ for }k\geq n+1 \text{ and }l\geq m-1.$$
Note that for fixed $l\geq m-1$, the matrix polynomials $\{\Phi_k^{l}(z)\}_{k\geq 0}$ defined in [Subsection \[ss3.1\]]{} are orthonormal on $[-\pi,\pi]$ with respect to the matrix weight $\frac{1}{2\pi}{C_{l}^{\theta}}$, i.e. $$\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\Phi^{l}_{k}(e^{i\theta}){C_{l}^{\theta}}
[\Phi^{l}_{j}(e^{i\theta})]^{\dagger}d\theta=\delta_{kj}I_{l+1}.$$ From the theory of matrix-valued orthogonal polynomials it will follow that ${{\hat{E}}}_{k,l}=0$ for $k\geq n+1$ if we can show that $({C_{l}^{\theta}})^{-1}$ is a (matrix) trigonometric polynomial in $\theta$ of degree at most $n$. This follows immediately from , and .
\[le4.3\] Suppose that equation holds. Then $$\label{4.8}
{{\mathcal K}}_{k,l}\left[{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^{1}_{k,l}{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^{\dagger}_{k,l}\right]^j({{\mathcal K}}^{1}_{k,l})^{T}=0,
\text{ for all }j\geq 0,\quad k\geq n,\quad l\geq m.$$
From [Lemma \[le3.1\]]{} we see that equations hold as long as $k\geq n$ and $l\geq m$. First, we would like to show by induction on $j\in{\mathbb{N}}_0$ that $$\label{4.9}
{{\mathcal K}}_{k+j,l}({{\mathcal K}}^{1}_{k+j,l})^{T}={{\mathcal K}}_{k,l}\left[{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^{1}_{k,l}{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^{\dagger}_{k,l}\right]^j({{\mathcal K}}^{1}_{k,l})^{T}, \text{ for }k\geq n,\quad l\geq m.$$ If $j=0$, the above statement is obvious. Suppose now that holds for some $j\geq 0$. From it follows that $$\left[{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^{1}_{k,l}{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^{\dagger}_{k,l}\right]^{j+1}
={{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^{1}_{k,l}\left[{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^{1}_{k+1,l}{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^{\dagger}_{k+1,l}\right]^{j} {{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^{\dagger}_{k,l}.$$ Using the above formula we find $$\begin{aligned}
&{{\mathcal K}}_{k,l}\left[{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^{1}_{k,l}{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^{\dagger}_{k,l}\right]^{j+1}({{\mathcal K}}^{1}_{k,l})^{T}
= {{\mathcal K}}_{k,l}{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^{1}_{k,l}\left[{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^{1}_{k+1,l}{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^{\dagger}_{k+1,l}\right]^{j} {{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^{\dagger}_{k,l}({{\mathcal K}}^{1}_{k,l})^{T}\\
&\qquad={{\mathcal K}}_{k+1,l}\left[{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^{1}_{k+1,l}{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^{\dagger}_{k+1,l}\right]^{j} ({{\mathcal K}}^{1}_{k+1,l})^{T}\text{ (by equations \eqref{3.7c} and \eqref{3.7d})}\\
&\qquad={{\mathcal K}}_{k+1+j,l}({{\mathcal K}}^{1}_{k+1+j,l})^{T} \text{ (by the induction hypothesis)},\end{aligned}$$ establishing for $j+1$ and completing the induction. From we see that the left-hand side of is equal to $0$ leading to .
The proof follows immediately from [Lemma \[le4.2\]]{} and [Lemma \[le4.3\]]{}.
Proof of the implication (ii)$\Rightarrow$(i) in [Theorem \[th2.3\]]{}
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The key ingredient of the proof in the opposite direction, which also explains the construction of the polynomial $p(z,w)$, is the following lemma.
\[le4.4\] Let ${\mathcal{L}}$ be a positive moment functional defined on ${\Pi^{n,m}}$. Suppose that there exist unitary matrices ${\tilde{U}}\in M^{n,n}$ and ${\tilde{V}}\in M^{n+1,n+1}$ such that
\[4.10\] $$\begin{aligned}
{\tilde{U}}^{\dagger}{\tilde{\Phi}}_{n-1,m}(z,w)&=\left[\begin{matrix}{\tilde{\Psi}}_{n-1,m}^{(1)}(z,w)\\ {\tilde{\Psi}}_{n-1,m}^{(2)}(z,w)\end{matrix} \right],\label{4.10a} \\
\intertext{ and }
{\tilde{V}}^{\dagger}{\tilde{\Phi}}_{n,m}(z,w)&=\left[\begin{matrix}{\tilde{\psi}}_{n,m}^{n}(z,w)\\ z{\tilde{\Psi}}_{n-1,m}^{(1)}(z,w)\\ {\tilde{\Psi}}_{n-1,m}^{(2)}(z,w)\end{matrix} \right],\label{4.10b}\end{aligned}$$
where ${\tilde{\Psi}}_{n-1,m}^{(j)}(z,w)$ is an $n_j$-dimensional vector whose components are polynomials of degrees at most $(n-1,m)$ with $n_1+n_2=n$, and ${\tilde{\psi}}_{n,m}^{n}(z,w)$ is a polynomial of degree at most $(n,m)$. Then $$\label{4.11}
p(z,w)={\overleftarrow{\tilde{\psi}}}_{n,m}^{n}(z,w)=z^{n}w^{m}\overline{{\tilde{\psi}}_{n,m}^{n}(1/{\bar{z}},1/{\bar{w}})}$$ is a polynomial of degree at most $(n,m)$, nonzero for $|z|=1$, $|w|\leq 1$ and equations and hold.
From equations and it follows that
\[4.12\] $$\begin{aligned}
&{\overleftarrow{\tilde{\Phi}}}_{n,m}(z,w){\overleftarrow{\tilde{\Phi}}}_{n,m}(z_1,w_1)^{\dagger}-{\overleftarrow{\tilde{\Phi}}}_{n-1,m}(z,w){\overleftarrow{\tilde{\Phi}}}_{n-1,m}(z_1,w_1)^{\dagger} {\nonumber}\\
&\quad =p(z,w)\overline{p(z_1,w_1)} \qquad\text{ for }z{\bar{z}}_1=1,\label{4.12a}
\intertext{and}
&{\tilde{\Phi}}_{n,m}(z,w)^{T} \overline{{\tilde{\Phi}}_{n,m}(z_1,w_1)}
-{\tilde{\Phi}}_{n-1,m}(z,w)^{T} \overline{{\tilde{\Phi}}_{n-1,m}(z_1,w_1)} {\nonumber}\\
&\qquad = {\overleftarrow{p}}(z,w)\overline{{\overleftarrow{p}}(z_1,w_1)} \qquad\text{ for }z{\bar{z}}_1=1,
\label{4.12b}\end{aligned}$$
where ${\overleftarrow{p}}(z,w)=z^{n}w^{m}\overline{p(1/{\bar{z}},1/{\bar{w}})}$. Plugging equations in we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&p(z,w)\overline{p(1/{\bar{z}},w_1)} -w{\bar{w}}_1{\overleftarrow{p}}(z,w)\overline{{\overleftarrow{p}}(1/{\bar{z}},w_1)}{\nonumber}\\
&\qquad =(1-w{\bar{w}}_1)\Phi_{n,m}(z,w)^{T} \overline{\Phi_{n,m}(1/{\bar{z}},w_1)}.
\label{4.13}\end{aligned}$$ Using the last equation we can prove that $p(z,w)$ is nonzero for $|z|=1$ and $|w|\leq 1$. Recall first that the vector polynomials $\Phi_{n,m}(z,w)$ can be connected to the matrix polynomials $\Phi^{m}_{n}(z)$ via . Moreover the matrix-valued orthogonal polynomials $\{\Phi_{k,m}(z)\}_{k=0}^{n}$ constructed in [Subsection \[ss3.1\]]{} are orthonormal with respect to the matrix inner product
\[4.14\] $$\label{4.14a}
\langle A, B\rangle={\mathcal{L}}(AM_{m}(w)B^{\dagger}),$$ where $M_m(w)$ is the $(m+1)\times (m+1)$ Toeplitz matrix $$\begin{aligned}
M_m(w)&=
\left[\begin{matrix} w^{m}\\ w^{m-1}\\ \vdots \\ 1\end{matrix}\right]\,
\left[\begin{matrix} w^{-m} & w^{-m+1} & \dots & 1\end{matrix}\right]{\nonumber}\\
& \qquad=
\left[
\begin{matrix}
1 & w & \dots & w^{m}
\\
w^{-1} & 1 & \dots & w^{m-1}
\\
\vdots & & \ddots & \vdots \\
w^{-m} & w^{-m+1} & \dots & 1
\end{matrix}
\right].\label{4.14b}\end{aligned}$$
In particular, from the theory of matrix-valued orthogonal polynomials we know that $\det[\Phi^{m}_{n}(z)]\neq0$ for $|z|\geq 1$. This implies that $$\label{4.15}
\Phi_{n,m}(z,w) \text{ is a nonzero vector for }|z|=1 \text{ and } w\in{\mathbb{C}}.$$ Suppose first that $p(z_0,w_0)=0$ for some $|z_0|=1$ and $|w_0|<1$. Then using with $z=z_0$ and $w=w_1=w_0$ we obtain $$-|w_0|^2|{\overleftarrow{p}}(z_0,w_0)|^2=(1-|w_0|^2)\Phi_{n,m}(z_0,w_0)^{T} \overline{\Phi_{n,m}(z_0,w_0)}.$$ Since the left-hand side of the above equation is $\leq 0$ and the right-hand side is $\geq 0$, we see that $\Phi_{n,m}(z_0,w_0)$ must be the zero vector, which contradicts .
Suppose now that $p(z_0,w_0)=0$ for some $|z_0|=1$ and $|w_0|=1$. Then ${\overleftarrow{p}}(z_0,w_0)=0$ and therefore equation with $z=z_0$, $w=w_0$ and $w_1\neq w_0$ gives $$\Phi_{n,m}(z_0,w_0)^{T} \overline{\Phi_{n,m}(z_0,w_1)}=0 \text{ for all }
w_1\neq w_0,$$ which implies that $\Phi_{n,m}(z_0,w_0)$ is the zero vector leading to a contradiction, thus proving the required stability for $p(z,w)$.
Note that equation follows easily from and . Thus, it remains to prove that equation holds. Let us denote by $p_l(z)$ the coefficient of $w^l$ in $p(z,w)$, i.e. we set $$p(z,w)=\sum_{l=0}^{m}p_l(z)w^{l}.$$ Then a straightforward computation shows that for $|z|=1$ we have $$\label{4.17}
\begin{split}
&\frac{p(z,w)\overline{p(z,w_1)} -w{\bar{w}}_1{\overleftarrow{p}}(z,w)\overline{{\overleftarrow{p}}(z,w_1)}}{1-w{\bar{w}}_1}\\
&\quad=\left[\begin{matrix} 1 & w & \cdots &w^{m}\end{matrix}\right]
\left(\rule{0cm}{1.4cm}\right.
\left[\begin{matrix}p_0(z) && &\bigcirc\\
p_1(z) &\ddots\\
\vdots \\
p_{m}(z) &\cdots & &p_0(z)
\end{matrix}\right]
\left[\begin{matrix}\overline{p_0(z)} & \overline{p_1(z)} &\dots &
\overline{p_m(z)}\\
&\ddots \\
& \\
\bigcirc && & \overline{p_0(z)}\end{matrix}\right]\\
&\qquad -
\left[\begin{matrix}0 && & &\bigcirc\\
\overline{p_m(z)} &\ddots\\
\vdots \\
\overline{p_1(z)} &\cdots & & \overline{p_m(z)}& 0
\end{matrix}\right]
\left[\begin{matrix}0 & p_m(z) &\dots & p_1(z)\\
&\ddots & &\vdots\\
& & &p_m(z)\\
\bigcirc && & 0\end{matrix}\right]
\left. \rule{0cm}{1.4cm}\right)
\left[\begin{matrix} 1 \\ {\bar{w}}_1 \\ \vdots \\ {\bar{w}}_1^{m}\end{matrix}\right].
\end{split}$$ From we see that $$\label{4.18}
\Phi_{n,m}(z,w)^{T} \overline{\Phi_{n,m}(z,w_1)}=
\left[\begin{matrix} 1 & w & \cdots &w^{m}\end{matrix}\right] J_m\Phi^{m}_{n}(z)^{T} \overline{\Phi^{m}_{n}(z)}J_m
\left[\begin{matrix} 1 \\ {\bar{w}}_1 \\ \vdots \\ {\bar{w}}_1^{m}\end{matrix}\right],$$ where $J_m=[\delta_{i,m-j}]_{0\leq i,j\leq m}$. From equations , and it follows that for $|z|=1$ we have $$\label{4.19}
\begin{split}
&\left[\begin{matrix}p_0(z) && &\bigcirc\\
p_1(z) &\ddots\\
\vdots \\
p_{m}(z) &\cdots & &p_0(z)
\end{matrix}\right]
\left[\begin{matrix}\overline{p_0(z)} & \overline{p_1(z)} &\dots &
\overline{p_m(z)}\\
&\ddots \\
& \\
\bigcirc && & \overline{p_0(z)}\end{matrix}\right]\\
&\qquad -
\left[\begin{matrix}0 && & &\bigcirc\\
\overline{p_m(z)} &\ddots\\
\vdots \\
\overline{p_1(z)} &\cdots & & \overline{p_m(z)}& 0
\end{matrix}\right]
\left[\begin{matrix}0 & p_m(z) &\dots & p_1(z)\\
&\ddots & &\vdots\\
& & &p_m(z)\\
\bigcirc && & 0\end{matrix}\right]\\
&\qquad =J_m\Phi^{m}_{n}(z)^{T} \overline{\Phi^{m}_{n}(z)}J_m.
\end{split}$$ Since $p(z,w)$ is nonzero for $|z|=1$ and $|w|\leq 1$ we see that for fixed $z=e^{i\theta}$ on the unit circle, ${{\phi_{m}^{\theta}}}(w)=w^{m}\overline{p(e^{i\theta},1/{\bar{w}})}$ is an orthonormal polynomial of degree $m$ with respect to the (parametric) moment functional ${\mathcal{L}^{\theta}}$, with moments $$\label{4.20}
{c_{l}^{\theta}}={\mathcal{L}^{\theta}}(w^{-l})=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int\limits_{-\pi}^{\pi}\frac{e^{-il\varphi}}{|p(e^{i\theta},e^{i\varphi})|^2}\,d\varphi, \text{ for }|l|\leq m.$$ From Gohberg-Semencul formula (see [@GF Theorem 6.1, page 86]) it follows that the left-hand side of equation is the inverse of the Toeplitz matrix $${C_{m}^{\theta}} = \left[
\begin{matrix}
{c_{0}^{\theta}} & {c_{-1}^{\theta}} & \cdots & {c_{-m}^{\theta}}
\\
{c_{1}^{\theta}} & {c_{0}^{\theta}} & \cdots & {c_{-m+1}^{\theta}}
\\
\vdots & & \ddots & \vdots \\
{c_{m}^{\theta}} & {c_{m-1}^{\theta}} & \cdots & {c_{0}^{\theta}}
\end{matrix}
\right].$$ Since $J_m^2=I_{m+1}$ and $J_m{C_{m}^{\theta}} J_m=({C_{m}^{\theta}})^{T}$, equation gives $$\label{4.21}
{C_{m}^{\theta}}=[\Phi^{m}_{n}(z)^{\dagger}\,\Phi^{m}_{n}(z)]^{-1}, \text{ where }z=e^{i\theta}.$$ From the theory of matrix-valued orthogonal polynomials we know that the matrix weight on the right-hand side of generates the same matrix-valued orthonormal polynomials $\{\Phi^{m}_{k}(z)\}_{0\leq k\leq n}$ and therefore $${\mathcal{L}}(z^{k}M_m(w))=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int\limits_{-\pi}^{\pi}e^{ik\theta}{C_{m}^{\theta}}d\theta\quad \text{ for }-n\leq k\leq n.$$ From the first row of the last matrix equation we find that for $-n\leq k\leq n$ we have $$\label{4.22}
{\mathcal{L}}(z^{k}w^{l})=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int\limits_{-\pi}^{\pi}e^{ik\theta}{c_{-l}^{\theta}}d\theta.$$ The proof of follows at once from equations and .
\[re4.5\] To complete the proof of [Theorem \[th2.3\]]{} we need to show that equation implies the existence of unitary matrices ${\tilde{U}}$ and ${\tilde{V}}$ such that equations hold. For moment functionals satisfying the existence of such matrices follows easily from the tilde analog of formulas . In general (for one-sided stability) the construction of ${\tilde{U}}$ and ${\tilde{V}}$ is the content of the next two lemmas.
Note also that if we know ${\tilde{V}}$ we can compute explicitly $p(z,w)$ in equation from and . In [Theorem \[th2.3\]]{} we gave the simplest formula for $|p(z,w)|^2$, which involves only the orthogonal polynomials. However, one can easily extract from the proof of [Lemma \[le4.4\]]{} other formulas which can be used in practice to compute $p(z,w)$. For instance, we can use (which is stronger than ), or setting $w_1=0$ in we obtain $$p(z,w){\bar{p}}(1/z,0)=\Phi_{n,m}(z,w)^{T} \overline{\Phi_{n,m}}(1/z,0),$$ which gives $p(z,w)$ up to a factor depending only on $z$.
\[le4.6\] Let ${{\mathcal K}}$ and ${{\mathcal K}}^{1}$ be $m\times n$ matrices, and let $r= {\mathrm{rank}}({{\mathcal K}})$, $r^{1}={\mathrm{rank}}({{\mathcal K}}^{1})$. Then the following conditions are equivalent:
- ${{\mathcal K}}({{\mathcal K}}^{1})^{T}=0$;
- We have $$\label{4.23}
{{\mathcal K}}=US{\tilde{U}}^{\dagger}, \qquad {{\mathcal K}}^{1}=U^{1}S^{1}{\tilde{U}}^{T},$$ where $U, U^{1}\in M^{m,m}$, ${\tilde{U}}\in M^{n,n}$ are unitary and $S,S^{1}$ are $m\times n$ “diagonal” matrices with block structures of the form
\[4.24\] $$\label{4.24a}
S=\left[\begin{array}{ccc|c}
s_1 & & & \\
& \ddots & & 0 \\
& & s_{r} & \\
\hline
& 0& & 0
\end{array}\right],$$ and $$\label{4.24b}
S^{1}=\left[\begin{array}{c|ccc}
0 & & 0 & \\
\hline
& s^{1}_1 & & \\
0 & & \ddots & \\
& & & s^{1}_{r^1}
\end{array}\right],$$
with positive $s_{1},\dots s_{r}$, $s^{1}_{1},\dots,s^{1}_{r^1}$ and $r+r^{1}\leq n$.
Note the the condition $r+r^1\le n$ implies $S(S^1)^T=0$.
We focus on the implication (i) $\Rightarrow$ (ii), since the other direction is obvious. Consider $A={{\mathcal K}}^{\dagger}{{\mathcal K}}$ and $B=({{\mathcal K}}^{1})^{T}\,\overline{{{\mathcal K}}^{1}}$. Note that $A$ and $B$ are hermitian $n\times n$ matrices such that $AB=BA=0$. Hence, there exists an orthonormal basis $({\tilde{u}}_1,{\tilde{u}}_2,\dots, {\tilde{u}}_n)$ for ${\mathbb{C}}^n$ which diagonalizes $A$ and $B$, i.e. $$\label{4.25}
{{\mathcal K}}^{\dagger}{{\mathcal K}}{\tilde{u}}_j=\lambda_j {\tilde{u}}_j,\quad ({{\mathcal K}}^{1})^{T}\overline{{{\mathcal K}}^{1}} {\tilde{u}}_j=\mu_j{\tilde{u}}_j
\text{ and }
{\tilde{u}}_i^{\dagger} {\tilde{u}}_j=\delta_{ij}.$$ Let ${\tilde{U}}$ be the unitary matrix with columns ${\tilde{u}}_1,\dots, {\tilde{u}}_n$. From we see that $$\lambda_j=\|{{\mathcal K}}{\tilde{u}}_j\|^2\ge 0\text{ and } \mu_j=\|\overline{{{\mathcal K}}^{1}} {\tilde{u}}_j\|^2\ge 0.$$ Moreover, the fact ${{\mathcal K}}({{\mathcal K}}^{1})^{T}=0$ implies that $\lambda_j\mu_j=0$ for all $j$. Suppose now that
- $\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\dots\lambda_r$ are positive and $\lambda_{r+1}=\cdots = \lambda_n=0$;
- $\mu_{n-r^{1}+1},\dots, \mu_n$ are positive and $\mu_1=\mu_2=\cdots=\mu_{n-r^{1}}=0$.
Set $$\begin{aligned}
&s_i =\sqrt{\lambda_i}&& \text{for }i=1,2,\dots,r\\
&s^{1}_j =\sqrt{\mu_{n-r^{1}+j}} &&\text{for }j=1,2,\dots,r^{1}.\end{aligned}$$ Consider the sets of vectors
\[4.26\] $$\begin{aligned}
T&=\left\{ u_i=\frac{{{\mathcal K}}{\tilde{u}}_i}{s_i}: i=1,2,\dots, r\right\} \label{4.26a}\\
\intertext{and}
T_1&=\left\{ u_j=\frac{{{\mathcal K}}^{1} \bar{{\tilde{u}}}_{j+n-m}}{s^{1}_{j-m+r^1}}:
j=m-r^{1}+1,\dots, m\right\}.\label{4.26b}\end{aligned}$$
Using it is easy to see that $T$ and $T_1$ are orthonormal sets of vectors. Extending the set $T$ to an orthonormal basis for ${\mathbb{C}}^m$ and constructing a matrix with columns these vectors we obtain a unitary $m\times m$ matrix $U$; extending the set $T_1$ to an orthonormal basis for ${\mathbb{C}}^m$ and constructing a matrix with columns these vectors we obtain a unitary $m\times m$ matrix $U^1$. With these matrices one can check that holds.
\[re4.7\] If know that ${{\mathcal K}}({{\mathcal K}}^1)^T=0$ and ${{\mathcal K}}^{\dagger}{{\mathcal K}}^1=0$ (which are satisfied by the matrices ${{\mathcal K}}={{\mathcal K}}_{n,m}$ and ${{\mathcal K}}^1={{\mathcal K}}^1_{n,m}$ in [Theorem \[th2.5\]]{}) then we can choose $U=U^{1}$ in equation . Indeed, using the notations in the proof of [Lemma \[le4.6\]]{} we see that vectors in $T$ are perpendicular to the vectors in $T_1$. Extending the orthonormal set $T\cup T_1$ to an orthonormal basis for ${\mathbb{C}}^m$ we can construct a unitary matrix $U=U^1$ with columns these vectors.
\[le4.8\] Let $G$ be an $n\times n$ matrix. Suppose that $$\label{4.27}
\begin{split}
(G^k)_{i,j}=0 \text{ for all }&i=1,2,\dots,r, \quad j=n-r^{1}+1,n-r^{1}+2,\dots,n,\\
\text{ and }& k=1,2,\dots,n-1,
\end{split}$$ where $r+r^{1}<n$. Then, there exists a unitary $n\times n$ block matrix ${{\tilde{\mathcal{E}}}}$ of the form $$\label{4.28}
{{\tilde{\mathcal{E}}}}=\left[
\begin{array}{c|c|c}
I_{r}&0&0\\
\hline
0& *&0\\
\hline
0& 0& I_{r^{1}}
\end{array}\right],$$ such that the matrix ${{\tilde{\mathcal{E}}}}^{\dagger}G{{\tilde{\mathcal{E}}}}$ has the following block structure $$\label{4.29}
{{\tilde{\mathcal{E}}}}^{\dagger}G {{\tilde{\mathcal{E}}}}=\left[
\begin{array}{c|c}
*&0\\
\hline
*& *
\end{array}\right],$$ where the zero block in equation above is an $n_1\times n_2$ matrix with $n_1\geq r$, $n_2\geq r^{1}$ and $n_1+n_2=n$.
Let $\{e_1,e_2,\dots,e_n\}$ be the standard basis for ${\mathbb{C}}^n$, and let $$W_0={\mathrm{span}}\{e_{n-r^{1}+1},e_{n-r^{1}+2},\dots,e_{n}\}.$$ Consider the space $$\label{4.30}
W=W_0+GW_0+\cdots+G^{n-1}W_0.$$ By Cayley-Hamilton theorem, $W$ is the minimal subspace of ${\mathbb{C}}^n$ which is $G$-invariant and contains $W_0$. From equation it follows that $$\label{4.31}
{\mathrm{span}}\{e_1,e_2,\dots,e_r\}\subset W^{\perp}.$$ Let
- $\{v_1,v_2,\dots,v_{n_1}\}$ be an orthonormal basis for $W^{\perp}$ which extends $\{e_1,e_2,\dots,e_r\}$, i.e. $v_j=e_j$ for $j=1,2,\dots,r$;
- $\{v_{n_1+1},v_{n_1+2},\dots,v_{n}\}$ be an orthonormal basis for $W$ which extends $\{e_{n-r^{1}+1},e_{n-r^{1}+2},\dots,e_{n}\}$, i.e. $v_j=e_j$ for $j>n-r^{1}$.
Then the unitary matrix ${{\tilde{\mathcal{E}}}}$ with columns $v_1,v_2,\dots,v_{n}$ will have the block structure given in , and the $G$-invariance of $W$ implies equation .
Applying [Lemma \[le4.6\]]{} with $${{\mathcal K}}={{\mathcal K}}_{n,m}\quad\text{ and }\quad {{\mathcal K}}^{1}={{\mathcal K}}^{1}_{n,m}$$ we see that there exist unitary matrices $U,U^{1}\in M^{m,m}$, ${\tilde{U}}\in M^{n,n}$ such that equations , hold. Moreover, applying [Lemma \[le4.8\]]{} with $$G={\tilde{U}}^{\dagger}{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^{1}_{n,m}{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^{\dagger}_{n,m} {\tilde{U}},$$ we see that ${\tilde{U}}$ can be modified (if necessary), so that equations , hold and $$\label{4.32}
G={\tilde{U}}^{\dagger}{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^{1}_{n,m}{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^{\dagger}_{n,m} {\tilde{U}}=\left[
\begin{array}{c|c}
*&0\\
\hline
*& *
\end{array}\right],$$ where the zero block in the equation above is an $n_1\times n_2$ matrix with $n_1\geq r={\mathrm{rank}}({{\mathcal K}}_{n,m})$, $n_2\geq r^{1}={\mathrm{rank}}({{\mathcal K}}^{1}_{n,m})$ and $n_1+n_2=n$.
Replacing ${{\mathcal K}}_{n,m}$ and ${{\mathcal K}}^{1}_{n,m}$ in the tilde analogs of equations and with the expressions given in we find
\[4.33\]
$${\tilde{U}}^{\dagger}{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}_{n,m} {\tilde{\Phi}}_{n,m} = {\tilde{U}}^{\dagger}{\tilde{\Phi}}_{n-1,m} - S^{T} U^{\dagger}\Phi_{n,m-1}, \eqno{(\text{\ref{4.33}c})}$$ and $${\tilde{U}}^{\dagger}{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}_{n,m}^1 {\tilde{\Phi}}_{n,m} = z {\tilde{U}}^{\dagger}{\tilde{\Phi}}_{n-1,m} - (S^1)^{T}(U^1)^{T}{\overleftarrow{\Phi}}_{n,m-1}^T. \eqno{(\text{\ref{4.33}d})}$$ With $n_1$ and $n_2$ fixed above, we will use the following notation: for an $n$-dimensional vector ${\tilde{\Psi}}$, we denote by ${\tilde{\Psi}}^{(1)}$ (resp. ${\tilde{\Psi}}^{(2)}$) the vector which consists of the first $n_1$ (resp. the last $n_2$) entries of the vector ${\tilde{\Psi}}$. Thus if we set $$\label{4.34}
{\tilde{\Psi}}_{n-1,m}={\tilde{U}}^{\dagger}{\tilde{\Phi}}_{n-1,m},$$ then the vector ${\tilde{\Psi}}_{n-1,m}$ can be represented in the block form $$\label{4.35}
{\tilde{\Psi}}_{n-1,m}=\left[\begin{matrix}{\tilde{\Psi}}_{n-1,m}^{(1)}\\ {\tilde{\Psi}}_{n-1,m}^{(2)}\end{matrix}\right].$$ With this choice of a unitary matrix ${\tilde{U}}$, we want to show that there exists a unitary matrix ${\tilde{V}}$ such that holds. Since the bottom $n_2$ rows of the matrix $S^T$ are equal to $0$, we see from equations (\[4.33\]c) and that
\[4.36\]
$$({\tilde{U}}^{\dagger}{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}_{n,m} {\tilde{\Phi}}_{n,m})^{(2)} = {\tilde{\Psi}}_{n-1,m}^{(2)}. \eqno{(\text{\ref{4.36}c})}$$ Similarly, since the first $n_1$ rows of the matrix $(S^{1})^T$ are equal to $0$, we see from equations (\[4.33\]d) and that $$({\tilde{U}}^{\dagger}{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}_{n,m}^1 {\tilde{\Phi}}_{n,m})^{(1)} = z{\tilde{\Psi}}_{n-1,m}^{(1)}. \eqno{(\text{\ref{4.36}d})}$$ Equations show that the entries of the vector polynomials $z{\tilde{\Psi}}_{n-1,m}^{(1)}$ and ${\tilde{\Psi}}_{n-1,m}^{(2)}$ are linear combinations of the entries of the vector polynomial ${\tilde{\Phi}}_{n,m}$ and therefore, they are orthogonal with respect to ${\mathcal{L}}$ to all monomials of degree at most $(n,m-1)$. Moreover, since ${\tilde{U}}$ is unitary, it follows from and that the entries of each of the vectors $z{\tilde{\Psi}}_{n-1,m}^{(1)}$ and ${\tilde{\Psi}}_{n-1,m}^{(2)}$ form orthonormal sets of polynomials of degrees at most $(n,m)$ with respect to ${\mathcal{L}}$. Finally, from equations and we see that the entries of the vector $z{\tilde{\Psi}}_{n-1,m}^{(1)}$ are perpendicular to the entries of the vector ${\tilde{\Psi}}_{n-1,m}^{(2)}$. Therefore, all the entries in the vectors $z{\tilde{\Psi}}_{n-1,m}^{(1)}$ and ${\tilde{\Psi}}_{n-1,m}^{(2)}$ form an orthonormal set of $n$ polynomials, which can be extended by adding a polynomial ${\tilde{\psi}}_{n,m}^{n}(z,w)$ to an orthonormal set of polynomials of degree at most $(n,m)$, perpendicular to all polynomials of degree at most $(n,m-1)$. The transition matrix between this set and the orthonormal polynomials $\{{\tilde{\phi}}_{n,m}^{s}(z,w)\}_{s=0,1,\dots,n}$ is a unitary matrix whose transpose is a unitary matrix ${\tilde{V}}$ satisfying equation . The proof now follows from [Lemma \[le4.4\]]{}.
Proofs of the theorems in the splitting case {#se5}
============================================
Proof of [Theorem \[th2.5\]]{} {#ss5.1}
------------------------------
The proof of implication (i)$\Rightarrow$(ii) follows easily from [Theorem \[th2.3\]]{} and its tilde analog. Indeed, note that if holds, then we have
\[5.1\] $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{L}}(z^kw^l)
&=\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\int\limits_{[-\pi,\pi]^2}\frac{e^{ik\theta}e^{il\varphi}}
{|P(e^{i\theta},e^{i\varphi})|^2}\,d\theta\,d\varphi\label{5.1a}\\
&=\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\int\limits_{[-\pi,\pi]^2}\frac{e^{ik\theta}e^{il\varphi}}
{|Q(e^{i\theta},e^{i\varphi})|^2}\,d\theta\,d\varphi\label{5.1b}\end{aligned}$$
where
\[5.2\] $$\label{5.2a}
\begin{split}
P(z,w)&=p(z,w)z^{n_2}q(1/z,w) \text{ is a polynomial of degree at}\\
&\text{most $(n,m)$, stable for $|z|=1$ and $|w|\leq 1$,}
\end{split}$$ and $$\label{5.2b}
\begin{split}
Q(z,w)&=p(z,w)w^{m_2}\bar{q}(z,1/w) \text{ is a polynomial of degree at}\\
&\text{most $(n,m)$, stable for $|z|\leq 1$ and $|w|= 1$.}
\end{split}$$ Therefore, equation follows from [Theorem \[th2.3\]]{} (i)$\Rightarrow$(ii) for the polynomial $P(z,w)$ and equation follows from the tilde analog of [Theorem \[th2.3\]]{} (i)$\Rightarrow$(ii) for the polynomial $Q(z,w)$.
Conversely, suppose that equations hold. Then, by [Theorem \[th2.3\]]{} (ii)$\Rightarrow$(i) and its tilde analog, we deduce that there exist polynomials $P(z,w)$ and $Q(z,w)$ of degrees at most $(n,m)$ such that equations hold and
- $P(z,w)$ is stable for $|z|=1$ and $|w|\leq 1$
- $Q(z,w)$ is stable for $|z|\leq1$ and $|w|= 1$.
Without any restrictions, we can assume that $P(z,w)$ and $Q(z,w)$ are not divisible by $z$ and $w$. From equation for $P(z,w)$ and $Q(z,w)$ we see that $|P(z,w)|^2=|Q(z,w)|^2$ for all $(z,w)\in{{\mathbb T}}^2$ which implies that in the ring of Laurent polynomials ${\mathbb{C}}[z,z^{-1},w,w^{-1}]$ we have $$\label{5.3}
P(z,w)\bar{P}(1/z,1/w)=Q(z,w)\bar{Q}(1/z,1/w).$$ Suppose now that we factor $P(z,w)$ into a product of irreducible factors $p_j(z,w)$ in ${\mathbb{C}}[z,w]$. Likewise we can factor $Q(z,w)$ into a product of irreducible factors $q_l(z,w)$ in ${\mathbb{C}}[z,w]$. Using we see that we can factor $P(z,w)\bar{P}(1/z,1/w)=Q(z,w)\bar{Q}(1/z,1/w)$ in ${\mathbb{C}}[z,z^{-1},w,w^{-1}]$ in two ways as a product of irreducible factors $$\label{5.4}
\begin{split}
&P(z,w)\bar{P}(1/z,1/w)
=\prod_{j}p_j(z,w){\bar{p}}_j(1/z,1/w)\\
&\qquad\qquad=\prod_{l}q_l(z,w){\bar{q}}_l(1/z,1/w)=Q(z,w)\bar{Q}(1/z,1/w).
\end{split}$$ Since ${\mathbb{C}}[z,z^{-1},w,w^{-1}]$ is a unique factorization domain, it follows that for every $j$, there exists a unique $l$ such that exactly one of the following holds:
- $p_j(z,w)$ and $q_l(z,w)$ are associates in ${\mathbb{C}}[z,z^{-1},w,w^{-1}]$;
- $p_j(z,w)$ and ${\bar{q}}_l(1/z,1/w)$ are associates in ${\mathbb{C}}[z,z^{-1},w,w^{-1}]$.
Note that the units in ${\mathbb{C}}[z,z^{-1},w,w^{-1}]$ are of the form $cz^sw^r$, where $c\neq 0$, $s,r\in{\mathbb{Z}}$. Thus, we see that if (I) holds then with the normalization chosen above ($P$ and $Q$ are not divisible by $z$ and $w$) we must have $p_j(z,w)=c q_l(z,w)$ where $c$ is a nonzero constant. From properties (a) and (b) of the polynomials $P(z,w)$ and $Q(z,w)$ we deduce that $p_j(z,w)=c q_l(z,w)\neq 0$ when $|z|=1$, $|w|\leq 1$, and likewise $p_j(z,w)=c q_l(z,w)\neq 0$ when $|z|\leq 1$, $|w|= 1$. This shows that if (I) holds, then $p_j(z,w)\neq 0$ when $|z|\leq 1$ and $|w|\leq 1$.
If (II) holds then $p_j(z,w)=cz^{s_j}w^{r_j}{\bar{q}}_l(1/z,1/w)$ where $c\neq 0$, and $s_j,r_j$ are the minimal nonnegative integers for which $z^{s_j}w^{r_j}{\bar{q}}_l(1/z,1/w)$ belongs to ${\mathbb{C}}[z,w]$. It is easy to see that $p_j(z,w)$ and $q_l(z,w)$ have the same degree $(s_j,r_j)$. From property (a) of the polynomial $P(z,w)$ we deduce that $z^{s_j}p_j(1/z,w)=cw^{r_j}{\bar{q}}_l(z,1/w)\neq 0$ when $|z|=1$, $|w|\leq 1$. From property (b) of the polynomial $Q(z,w)$ we conclude that $z^{s_j}p_j(1/z,w)=cw^{r_j}{\bar{q}}_l(z,1/w)\neq 0$ when $|z|\leq 1$, $|w|=1$. Thus we see that if (II) holds, then the polynomial $z^{s_j}p_j(1/z,w)$ has no zeros when $|z|\leq 1$ and $|w|\leq 1$.
Let $J_1$ (resp. $J_2$) denote the set of indices $j$ for which (I) (resp. (II)) holds. Then the polynomials $p(z,w)=\prod_{j\in J_1}p_j(z,w)$ and $q(z,w)=\prod_{j\in J_2}z^{s_j}p_j(1/z,w)$ satisfy the conditions in [Theorem \[th2.5\]]{}(i), completing the proof.
Proof of [Theorem \[th2.7\]]{} {#ss5.2}
------------------------------
For the proof of [Theorem \[th2.7\]]{} we summarize first some basic properties of the vector orthogonal polynomials $\Phi_{k,l}(z,w)$ associated with a moment functional ${\mathcal{L}}$ of the form $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathcal{L}}(z^kw^l)=\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\int\limits_{[-\pi,\pi]^2}\frac{e^{ik\theta}e^{il\varphi}}{|p(e^{i\theta},e^{i\varphi})|^2}\,d\theta\,d\varphi,{\nonumber}\\
&\quad\text{where $p(z,w)$ is of degree $(n,m)$ nonzero for $ |z|\leq1$ and $|w|\leq1$.}\label{5.5}\end{aligned}$$ We define as usual ${\overleftarrow{p}}(z,w)=z^{n}w^{m}\overline{p(1/{\bar{z}},1/{\bar{w}})}$.
\[le5.1\] If holds then
\[5.6\] $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{L}}(p(z,w)z^{-k}w^{-l})&=0 && \text{for all }\quad k\in{\mathbb{Z}}, \quad l>0,\label{5.6.a}\\
{\mathcal{L}}({\overleftarrow{p}}(z,w)z^{-k}w^{-l})&=0 && \text{for all }\quad k<n, \quad l\in{\mathbb{Z}}.\label{5.6.b}\end{aligned}$$
The proof of follows immediately by computing first the $w$ integral and by using equation in [Lemma \[le4.1\]]{}. The proof of follows by a similar computation, by evaluating first the $z$ integral.
\[le5.2\] Suppose that holds. Then the vector polynomial $\Phi_{n,m}(z,w)$ has the following block structure $$\label{5.7}
\Phi_{n,m}(z,w)=\left[\begin{matrix} {\overleftarrow{p}}(z,w)\\ \Phi_{n,m-1}(z,w) \end{matrix}\right].$$ Moreover, $$\label{5.8}
{\mathcal{L}}(\Phi_{n,m-1}(z,w)z^{-k}w^{-l})=0 \qquad \text{for all }k<n, \quad l\geq0.$$
Equation follows from Theorem 7.2 in [@GW2]. Plugging and its tilde analog in we obtain the following identity $$\begin{split}
&p(z,w)\overline{p(z_1,w_1)}-{\overleftarrow{p}}(z,w)\overline{{\overleftarrow{p}}(z_1,w_1)}\\
&\qquad=(1-w{\bar{w}}_1)\Phi_{n,m-1}(z,w)^{T}\,\overline{\Phi_{n,m-1}(z_1,w_1)}\\
&\qquad\quad+(1-z{\bar{z}}_1){\overleftarrow{\tilde{\Phi}}}_{n-1,m}(z,w)\,{\overleftarrow{\tilde{\Phi}}}_{n-1,m}(z_1,w_1)^{\dagger}.
\end{split}$$ Thus, if take $z=z_1$ on the unit circle the last term above will vanish and we can rewrite the equation as follows $$\frac{p(z,w){\bar{p}}(1/z,{\bar{w}}_1)-{\overleftarrow{p}}(z,w) z^{-n}{\bar{w}}_1^{m}p(z,1/{\bar{w}}_1)}{1-w{\bar{w}}_1}=\Phi_{n,m-1}(z,w)^{T}\,\overline{\Phi_{n,m-1}(z,w_1)}.$$ Using the matrix-valued polynomial $\Phi^{m-1}_{n}(z)$ defined in and its reverse ${\overleftarrow{\Phi}}^{m-1}_{n}(z)=z^{n}\overline{\Phi^{m-1}_{n}(1/{\bar{z}})^{T}}$ we can replace in the last equation $\overline{\Phi_{n,m-1}(z,w_1)}$ by $$z^{-n}{\overleftarrow{\Phi}}^{m-1}_{n}(z)^{T}\left[\begin{matrix} {\bar{w}}_1^{m-1} & {\bar{w}}_1^{m-2} & \cdots &1\end{matrix}\right]^{T},$$ and therefore we obtain $$\label{5.9}
\frac{p(z,w)z^n{\bar{p}}(1/z,{\bar{w}}_1)-{\overleftarrow{p}}(z,w) {\bar{w}}_1^{m}p(z,1/{\bar{w}}_1)}{1-w{\bar{w}}_1}=\Phi_{n,m-1}(z,w)^{T}\,{\overleftarrow{\Phi}}^{m-1}_{n}(z)^{T}
\left[\begin{matrix} {\bar{w}}_1^{m-1} \\ {\bar{w}}_1^{m-2} \\ \vdots \\1\end{matrix}\right].$$ Let us denote by $S(z,w,{\bar{w}}_1)$ the function on the left-hand side above. Note that we can rewrite $S(z,w,{\bar{w}}_1)$ as follows $$\label{5.10}
S(z,w,{\bar{w}}_1)=p(z,w)\frac{A(z,1/w,{\bar{w}}_1)}{w}+{\overleftarrow{p}}(z,w)\frac{B(z,1/w,{\bar{w}}_1)}{w},$$ where $$A(z,1/w,{\bar{w}}_1)=\frac{z^{n}{\bar{p}}(1/z,{\bar{w}}_1)-z^{n}{\bar{p}}(1/z,1/w)}{1/w-{\bar{w}}_1}$$ and $$B(z,1/w,{\bar{w}}_1)=\frac{w^{-m}p(z,w)-{\bar{w}}_1^{m}p(z,1/{\bar{w}}_1)}{1/w-{\bar{w}}_1}$$ are polynomials in $z$, $1/w$ and ${\bar{w}}_1$ of degrees at most $n$, $m-1$ and $m-1$, respectively. Thus, there exist $1\times m$ vectors $A_m(z,1/w)$ and $B_m(z,1/w)$ whose entries are polynomials in $z$ and $1/w$ of degrees at most $n$ and $m-1$, respectively, such that $$A(z,1/w,{\bar{w}}_1)=A_m(z,1/w)\left[\begin{matrix} {\bar{w}}_1^{m-1} \\ {\bar{w}}_1^{m-2} \\ \vdots \\1\end{matrix}\right]
\text{ and }
B(z,1/w,{\bar{w}}_1)=B_m(z,1/w)\left[\begin{matrix} {\bar{w}}_1^{m-1} \\ {\bar{w}}_1^{m-2} \\ \vdots \\1\end{matrix}\right].$$ Combining the last equation with equations and we see that $$p(z,w)\frac{A_m(z,1/w)}{w}-{\overleftarrow{p}}(z,w)\frac{B_m(z,1/w)}{w} =\Phi_{n,m-1}(z,w)^{T}\,{\overleftarrow{\Phi}}^{m-1}_{n}(z)^{T}.$$ From the theory of matrix-valued orthogonal polynomials we know that $\det({\overleftarrow{\Phi}}^{m-1}_{n}(z))\neq0$ for $|z|\leq1$. Therefore, the entries of the matrix $[{\overleftarrow{\Phi}}^{m-1}_{n}(z)^{T}]^{-1}$ are analytic functions on closed unit disk $|z|\leq 1$ and we have $$\Phi_{n,m-1}(z,w)^{T}=\left(p(z,w)\frac{A_m(z,1/w)}{w}-{\overleftarrow{p}}(z,w)\frac{B_m(z,1/w)}{w}\right)\left[{\overleftarrow{\Phi}}^{m-1}_{n}(z)^{T}\right]^{-1}.$$ Equation follows immediately from the last equation and [Lemma \[le5.1\]]{}.
The block structure of the vector polynomials given in equation follows immediately from equation in [Lemma \[le5.2\]]{}. Let us denote by ${\mathcal{L}_{p}}$ and ${\mathcal{L}_{q}}$ the positive moment functionals corresponding to the stable polynomials $p(z,w)$ and $q(z,w)$, i.e. $${\mathcal{L}_{p}}(z^kw^l)=\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\int\limits_{[-\pi,\pi]^2}\frac{e^{ik\theta}e^{il\varphi}}{|p(e^{i\theta},e^{i\varphi})|^2}\,d\theta\,d\varphi$$ and $${\mathcal{L}_{q}}(z^kw^l)=\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\int\limits_{[-\pi,\pi]^2}\frac{e^{ik\theta}e^{il\varphi}}{|q(e^{i\theta},e^{i\varphi})|^2}\,d\theta\,d\varphi.$$ To prove that there exists a unitary matrix $U$ such that holds, it is enough to show two things:
- the entries of the vector polynomial on the right-hand side of form an orthonormal set of polynomials of degrees at most $(n,m-1)$ with respect to ${\mathcal{L}}$;
- the entries of the vector polynomial on the right-hand side of are orthogonal with respect to ${\mathcal{L}}$ to all polynomials of degrees at most $(n-1,m-1)$.
Clearly, the entries of the vector polynomial on the right-hand side of are polynomials of degrees at most $(n,m-1)$ and it is easy to see that they all have norm $1$. The fact that they are mutually orthogonal follows from the following direct computation $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathcal{L}}(z^{-n_2}{\bar{q}}(z,1/w)\overline{{\Phi^{p}}_{n_1,m_1-1}}(1/z,1/w)\,{\overleftarrow{p}}(z,w)w^{m_2-1}\overline{{\Phi^{q}}_{n_2,m_2-1}}(z,1/w)^{T})\\
&\qquad
=-\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\int\limits_{{{\mathbb T}}}\left[\int\limits_{{{\mathbb T}}}\frac{{\overleftarrow{\Phi}}^{p}_{n_1,m_1-1}(z,w)^{T}\, w^{m_2-1}\overline{{\Phi^{q}}_{n_2,m_2-1}}(z,1/w)^{T}}
{p(z,w)z^{n_2}q(1/z,w)}\,dw\right]\frac{dz}{z}\\
&\qquad=0,\end{aligned}$$ since the $w$-integral is zero by Cauchy’s residue theorem. Thus, it remains to check (ii). Below we compute the inner products with the monomials $z^{k}w^{l}$ where $0\leq k\leq n-1=n_1+n_2-1$ and $0\leq l\leq m-1=m_1+m_2-1$.
For the first $m_1$ entries on the right-hand side of we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathcal{L}}(z^{n_2}q(1/z,w){\Phi^{p}}_{n_1,m_1-1}(z,w) z^{-k}w^{-l})\\
&\qquad=-\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\int\limits_{{{\mathbb T}}^2}\frac{{\Phi^{p}}_{n_1,m_1-1}(z,w) z^{n_2-k}w^{-l}}{|p(z,w)|^2{\bar{q}}(z,1/w)}\frac{dz}{z}\frac{dw}{w}\\
&\qquad={\mathcal{L}_{p}}\left({\Phi^{p}}_{n_1,m_1-1}(z,w) \;\frac{z^{n_2-k}}{w^{l}{\bar{q}}(z,1/w)}\right)=0,\end{aligned}$$ by equation in [Lemma \[le5.2\]]{} and the computation for the last $m_2$ entries on the right-hand side of is similar. The fact that there exists a unitary matrix $V$ such that holds can be established along the same lines.
\[re5.3\] The decomposition in [Theorem \[th2.7\]]{} can be naturally connected to a decomposition of a Christoffel-Darboux type formula. Indeed, for a polynomial $h(z,w)$ let us consider the corresponding Christoffel-Darboux kernel $$L^{h}(z,w;\eta) = \frac{h(z,w)\overline{h(1/{\bar{z}},\eta)} - {\overleftarrow{h}}(z,w)\overline{{\overleftarrow{h}}(1/\bar{z},\eta)}}{1-w\bar{\eta}}.$$ Using the notations in [Theorem \[th2.7\]]{}, we set $q^{w}(z,w)=z^{n_2}q(1/z,w)$ and $h(z,w)=p(z,w)q^{w}(z,w)$. Then it is easy to see that $$L^{h}(z,w;\eta)=q^{w}(z,w)\overline{q^{w}(1/{\bar{z}},\eta)}L^{p}(z,w;\eta)+{\overleftarrow{p}}(z,w)\overline{{\overleftarrow{p}}(1/{\bar{z}},\eta)}L^{q^{w}}(z,w;\eta).$$ The point now is that the polynomials $p(z,w)$ and $q(z,w)$ are stable for $|z|\leq 1$, $|w|\leq 1$ and therefore the corresponding kernels possess a great many orthogonality relations (see for instance [@GIK]) which can be used to prove equations and thus give an alternate proof of the implication (i)$\Rightarrow$(ii) in [Theorem \[th2.5\]]{}.
It is a challenging problem to find a direct algebro-geometric proof of the implication (i)$\Rightarrow$(ii) in [Theorem \[th2.3\]]{} (i.e. if we have stability only with respect to one of the variables). If we use the notations in [Theorem \[th2.3\]]{} and [Lemma \[le4.4\]]{}, the heart of the problem is the following: start with a polynomial $p(z,w)$ which is stable for $|z|=1$ and $|w|\leq 1$ and give an explicit description (or prove existence) of the spaces $H_1$ and $H_2$, where $H_j$ is the space spanned by the entries of the vector polynomials ${\tilde{\Psi}}^{(j)}_{n-1,m}(z,w)$ in [Lemma \[le4.4\]]{}. These spaces must be mutually orthogonal and must satisfy additional extra orthogonality properties in view of equation . Since the orthogonality relations can be expressed in terms of residues, constructing bases for these spaces amounts to an interesting interpolation problem on a zero-dimensional variety, which involves appropriate zeros of $p(z,w)$ and ${\overleftarrow{p}}(z,w)$. Equivalently, this would give a subtle decomposition of the Christoffel-Darboux kernel associated with $p(z,w)$.
Proofs of Corollaries \[co2.8\] and \[co2.9\] {#ss5.3}
---------------------------------------------
The statement in (i) is proved in [@GW2 Theorem 7.2] but we sketch it briefly below since it follows easily from the constructions in this paper. If holds then the defining relation for ${{\mathcal K}}_{n,m}$ and [Lemma \[le5.2\]]{} show that ${{\mathcal K}}_{n,m}=0$. Conversely, suppose that ${{\mathcal K}}_{n,m}=0$. Equation and its tilde analog imply that $$\label{5.11}
\Phi_{n,m}(z,w)=\left[\begin{matrix} \phi_{n,m}^{m}(z,w)\\[-6pt] \\ \Phi_{n,m-1}(z,w) \end{matrix}\right], \quad
{\tilde{\Phi}}_{n,m}(z,w)=\left[\begin{matrix} {\tilde{\phi}}_{n,m}^{n}\\[-6pt]\\ {\tilde{\Phi}}_{n-1,m}(z,w) \end{matrix}\right].$$ Using the second equation above and [Lemma \[le4.4\]]{} (with ${\tilde{U}}$ and ${\tilde{V}}$ being the identity matrices), we see that equation holds where $p(z,w)={\overleftarrow{\phi}}_{n,m}^{m}(z,w)$ is stable for $|z|=1$ and $|w|\leq1$. Since $\phi_{n,m}^{m}(z,w)={\tilde{\phi}}_{n,m}^{n}(z,w)$ we can use the first equation in and the tilde analog of [Lemma \[le4.4\]]{} to deduce that $p(z,w)$ is stable also for $|z|\leq 1$ and $|w|=1$, which shows that $p(z,w)$ is stable for $|z|\leq 1$ and $|w|\leq 1$ completing the proof of (i).\
Suppose now that holds. Applying [Theorem \[th2.7\]]{} and its tilde analog we see that there exist unitary matrices $U\in M^{m,m}$, ${\tilde{U}}\in M^{n,n}$ such that $$\Phi_{n,m-1}(z,w)=w^{m-1}U\overline{{\Phi^{q}}_{n,m-1}}(z,1/w), \quad
{\tilde{\Phi}}_{n-1,m}(z,w)=z^{n-1}{\tilde{U}}\tilde{\Phi}^q_{n-1,m}(1/z,w).$$ Plugging these formulas in the definition of ${{\mathcal K}}^{1}_{n,m}$ we find $${{\mathcal K}}^{1}_{n,m}=U\,\overline{\langle {\Phi^{q}}_{n,m-1}(1/z,w) , \tilde{\Phi}^q_{n-1,m}(1/z,w)\rangle}\, {\tilde{U}}^{T}.$$ Note that the inner product in the expression above gives the matrix ${{\mathcal K}}_{n,m}$ for the measure $\frac{d\theta\,d\varphi}{4\pi^2|q(e^{i\theta},e^{i\varphi})|^2}$, and therefore is zero from the first part of the corollary. Thus, ${{\mathcal K}}^{1}_{n,m}=0$.
Conversely, suppose now that ${{\mathcal K}}^{1}_{n,m}=0$. From and its tilde analog we see that there exist unitary matrices $V\in M^{m+1,m+1}$, ${\tilde{V}}\in M^{n+1,n+1}$ such that $$\label{5.12}
V^{\dagger}\Phi_{n,m}(z,w)=\left[\begin{matrix} \psi_{n,m}^{m}(z,w)\\ w\Phi_{n,m-1}(z,w) \end{matrix}\right], \quad
{\tilde{V}}^{\dagger}{\tilde{\Phi}}_{n,m}(z,w)=\left[\begin{matrix} {\tilde{\psi}}_{n,m}^{n}(z,w)\\ z{\tilde{\Phi}}_{n-1,m}(z,w) \end{matrix}\right].$$ From [Lemma \[le4.4\]]{} we deduce that holds with $q(z,w)=z^n{\overleftarrow{\tilde{\psi}}}_{n,m}^{n}(1/z,w)$, which is stable for $|z|=1$ and $|w|\leq1$. We want to show next that ${\tilde{\psi}}_{n,m}^{n}(z,w)$ and ${\overleftarrow{\psi}}_{n,m}^{m}(z,w)$ are equal up to a unimodular constant, i.e. $$\label{5.13}
{\tilde{\psi}}_{n,m}^{n}(z,w)=\epsilon {\overleftarrow{\psi}}_{n,m}^{m}(z,w), \text{ where }|\epsilon|=1.$$ Note that if we can prove the above equation, we can use the tilde analog of [Lemma \[le4.4\]]{} to deduce that $q(z,w)=\bar{\epsilon}z^n\psi_{n,m}^{m}(1/z,w)$ is stable for $|z|\leq 1$ and $|w|=1$, thus proving that $q(z,w)$ is stable for $|z|\leq 1$ and $|w|\leq1$.
The proof of follows from the characteristic properties of $\psi_{n,m}^{m}(z,w)$ and ${\tilde{\psi}}_{n,m}^{n}(z,w)$. Indeed, from the first equation in it is easy to see that $\psi_{n,m}^{m}(z,w)$ is the unique (up to a unimodular constant) orthonormal vector in ${\Pi^{n,m}}$ such that $$\psi_{n,m}^{m}(z,w)\perp\{z^kw^l:0\leq k\leq n-1,\; 0\leq l\leq m\}\cup\{z^nw^l:1\leq l\leq m\}.$$ Similarly, from the second equation in we see that ${\tilde{\psi}}_{n,m}^{m}(z,w)$ is the unique (up to a unimodular constant) orthonormal vector in ${\Pi^{n,m}}$ such that $${\tilde{\psi}}_{n,m}^{m}(z,w)\perp\{z^kw^l:0\leq k\leq n,\; 0\leq l\leq m-1\}\cup\{z^kw^m:1\leq k\leq n\}.$$ The above characteristic properties of $\psi_{n,m}^{m}(z,w)$ and ${\tilde{\psi}}_{n,m}^{n}(z,w)$ establish , thus completing the proof.
Assume first that ${\mathcal{L}}(z^kw^l)={\mathcal{L}}_z(z^k){\mathcal{L}}_w(w^l)$. If we denote by $\{\alpha_k(z)\}_{0\leq k\leq n}$ the (one-variable) polynomials orthonormal with respect to ${\mathcal{L}}_z$ and by $\{\beta_l(w)\}_{0\leq l\leq m}$ the (one-variable) polynomials orthonormal with respect to ${\mathcal{L}}_w$, then it easy to see that $$\Phi_{n,m}(z,w)=\alpha_n(z)\left[\begin{matrix} \beta_{m}(w)\\ \beta_{m-1}(w)\\[-2pt]
\vdots\\ \beta_{0}(w) \end{matrix}\right] ,
\text{ and }
{\tilde{\Phi}}_{n,m}(z,w)=\beta_m(w)\left[\begin{matrix} \alpha_{n}(z)\\ \alpha_{n-1}(z)\\[-2pt]
\vdots\\ \alpha_{0}(z) \end{matrix}\right].$$ From these explicit formulas and the defining relations , for ${{\mathcal K}}_{n,m}$ and ${{\mathcal K}}^{1}_{n,m}$ it easy to see that ${{\mathcal K}}_{n,m}={{\mathcal K}}^{1}_{n,m}=0$.
Conversely, suppose that ${{\mathcal K}}_{n,m}={{\mathcal K}}^{1}_{n,m}=0$. Note that if $h(z,w)$ is a polynomial of degree $(k,l)$ such that $h(z,w)$ and $z^{k}h(1/z,w)$ are stable, then $h(z,w)$ is independent of $z$ (i.e. $k=0$). Using this observation, [Corollary \[co2.8\]]{} and arguments similar to the ones we used in the proof of the implication (ii)$\Rightarrow$(i) in [Theorem \[th2.5\]]{}, we see that ${\overleftarrow{\phi}}_{n,m}^{m}(z,w)=\alpha(z)\beta(w)$, where $\alpha(z)$ and $\beta(w)$ are stable polynomials of degrees at most $n$ and $m$, respectively and that equation holds, completing the proof.
Proof of [Theorem \[th2.10\]]{} {#ss5.4}
-------------------------------
With the measure $d\mu$ we will associate the positive moment functional ${\mathcal{L}}$ defined on ${\mathbb{C}}[z,z^{-1},w,w^{-1}]$ by $$\label{5.14}
{\mathcal{L}}(z^kw^l)
=\int\limits_{{{\mathbb T}}^2}z^kw^ld\mu.$$
First suppose that equation holds where $p(z,w)$ and $q(z,w)$ are stable polynomials of degrees $(n_1,m_1)$ and $(n_2,m_2)$, respectively, with $n_1+n_2\leq n$, $m_1+m_2\leq m$. Then we can represent ${\mathcal{L}}$ as in equations where $P(z,w)$ and $Q(z,w)$ are given in equations . Using [Lemma \[le4.2\]]{} and its tilde analog, we see that equation holds. To complete the proof of the theorem, it remains to show that equation implies the existence of stable polynomials $p(z,w)$ and $q(z,w)$ of degrees $(n_1,m_1)$ and $(n_2,m_2)$, with $n_1+n_2\leq n$, $m_1+m_2\leq m$ such that holds. From [Lemma \[le4.3\]]{} and its tilde analog we see that
\[5.15\] $$\begin{aligned}
&{{\mathcal K}}_{k,l}\left[{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^{1}_{k,l}{{\tilde{\Gamma}}}^{\dagger}_{k,l}\right]^j({{\mathcal K}}^{1}_{k,l})^{T}=0,
\text{ for all }j\geq 0,\quad k\geq n+2,\quad l\geq m+2, \label{5.15a}\\
&({{\mathcal K}}_{k,l})^{\dagger}\left[{{\Gamma}}^{1}_{k,l}{{\Gamma}}^{\dagger}_{k,l}\right]^j{{\mathcal K}}^{1}_{k,l}=0,
\text{ for all }j\geq 0,\quad k\geq n+2,\quad l\geq m+2. \label{5.15b}\end{aligned}$$
By [Theorem \[th2.5\]]{} we deduce that there exist stable polynomials $p(z,w)$ and $q(z,w)$ of degrees $(n_1,m_1)$ and $(n_2,m_2)$, with $n_1+n_2\leq n+2$, $m_1+m_2\leq m+2$ such that holds for all $(k,l)$ satisfying $|k|\leq n+2$, $|l|\leq m+2$. Moreover, from equations we see that $$\label{5.16}
\begin{split}
&p(z,w){\bar{p}}(1/z,1/w)q(1/z,w){\bar{q}}(z,1/w)\\
&={\tilde{\Phi}}_{n+2,m+2}(z,w)^{T}\overline{{\tilde{\Phi}}_{n+2,m+2}}(1/z,1/w)
-{\tilde{\Phi}}_{n+1,m+2}(z,w)^{T}\overline{{\tilde{\Phi}}_{n+1,m+2}}(1/z,1/w) \\
&=\Phi_{n+2,m+2}(z,w)^{T}\overline{\Phi_{n+2,m+2}}(1/z,1/w)
-\Phi_{n+2,m+1}(z,w)^{T}\overline{\Phi_{n+2,m+1}}(1/z,1/w).
\end{split}$$ Recall that if ${{\hat{E}}}_{k,l}=0$ then $A_{k,l}=I_{l+1}$ and therefore by we obtain
\[5.17\] $$\label{5.17a}
\Phi_{k,l}(z,w)=z\Phi_{k-1,l}(z,w).$$ Similarly, if ${\tilde{{\hat{E}}}}_{k,l}=0$ then $$\label{5.17b}
{\tilde{\Phi}}_{k,l}(z,w)=w\Phi_{k,l-1}(z,w).$$
Using we see that equations hold for all $k\geq n+1$ and $l\geq m+1$, which combined with shows that
\[5.18\] $$\begin{aligned}
&p(z,w){\bar{p}}(1/z,1/w)q(1/z,w){\bar{q}}(z,1/w){\nonumber}\\
&={\tilde{\Phi}}_{k,l}(z,w)^{T}\overline{{\tilde{\Phi}}_{k,l}}(1/z,1/w)
-{\tilde{\Phi}}_{k-1,l}(z,w)^{T}\overline{{\tilde{\Phi}}_{k-1,l}}(1/z,1/w) \label{5.18a}\\
\intertext{ for $k\geq n+2$, $l\geq m$, and }
&p(z,w){\bar{p}}(1/z,1/w)q(1/z,w){\bar{q}}(z,1/w){\nonumber}\\
&=\Phi_{k,l}(z,w)^{T}\overline{\Phi_{k,l}}(1/z,1/w)
-\Phi_{k,l-1}(z,w)^{T}\overline{\Phi_{k,l-1}}(1/z,1/w)\label{5.18b}\end{aligned}$$
for $k\geq n$, $l\geq m+2$. From [Theorem \[th2.3\]]{} we see that equation holds for all $k,l\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ which establishes . It remains to show now that in fact $n_1+n_2\leq n$ and $m_1+m_2\leq m$. To see this, we will use the following two observations:
- If $p(z,w)$ and $q(z,w)$ are stable polynomials of degrees $(n_1,m_1)$ and $(n_2,m_2)$, then $P(z,w)=p(z,w)z^{n_2}q(1/z,w)$ is a polynomial of degree $(n_1+n_2,m_1+m_2)$ which is not divisible by $z$ and $w$ (i.e. $P(0,w)\not\equiv0$ and $P(z,0)\not\equiv0$).
- If $P(z,w)$ is a polynomial of degree $(n_0,m_0)$, which is not divisible by $z$ and $w$ such that $P(z,w)\bar{P}(1/z,1/w)\in{\Pi^{n,m}}$, then $n_0\leq n$ and $m_0\leq m$.
From (i) we see that the polynomial $P(z,w)=p(z,w)z^{n_2}q(1/z,w)$ is a polynomial of degree $(n_1+n_2,m_1+m_2)$ which is not divisible by $z$ and $w$. From equation with $k=n+2$, $l=m$ and equation with $k=n$, $l=m+2$ we see that $$P(z,w)\bar{P}(1/z,1/w)\in \Pi^{n+2,m}\cap\Pi^{n,m+2}={\Pi^{n,m}},$$ which combined with (ii) completes the proof.
Examples {#se6}
========
We now consider some examples that exhibit the properties of the theorems proved earlier.
One-sided
---------
Our first example will be a polynomial of degree (2,2) that is stable for $|z|=1$, $|w|\le 1$. We will construct the polynomial using the algorithm given in [@GW2]. Setting $u_{0,0}=1$, $u_{2,0}=1/4, u_{-1,2}=\frac{1-a^2}{1+a^2}$, $u_{2,2}=-\frac{\sqrt{15}(1-a^2)}{60 a}$, $u_{-2,2}=-\frac{a(1-a^2)}{(1+a^2)^2}$ with $(-3+\sqrt{13})/2< a< (3+\sqrt{13})/2$ and $u_{i,j}=0$, for $(i,j)\in\{(0,1),(1,0),(0,2),(-1,1),(1,1),(1,2),(-2,1),(2,1)\}$ we construct the orthogonal polynomials up to level (2,2). In this case we find using Maple or Mathematica that $${{{\mathcal K}}}_{2,2}=\frac{2\sqrt{15}(1-a^2)}{15(1+a^2)}\left[\begin{matrix}0&0\\ 2&-1\end{matrix}\right],$$ $${{{\mathcal K}}}^1_{2,2}=-\frac{\sqrt{15}(1-a^2)}{60a}\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 2 \\0&0 \end{bmatrix},$$ $${{\Gamma}}_{2,2}=\begin{bmatrix} 0&1&0\\0&0&\frac{\sqrt{3c}}{3(1+a^2)}\end{bmatrix},$$ $${{\Gamma}}^1_{2,2}=\begin{bmatrix}\frac{2\sqrt{3d}}{3\sqrt{c}}&0&\frac{\sqrt{3}(1-a^4)}{12 a\sqrt{c}}\\0&1&0\end{bmatrix},$$ $$\tilde{{{\Gamma}}}_{2,2}=\begin{bmatrix}0&\frac{5\sqrt{c}}{\sqrt{e}}&\frac{8\sqrt{15}(1-a^2)^2}{15(1+a^2)\sqrt{f}}\\0&0&\frac{\sqrt{15 f}}{15(1+a^2)} \end{bmatrix},$$ and $$\tilde{{{\Gamma}}}^1_{2,2}=\begin{bmatrix} \frac{\sqrt{5d}}{2\sqrt{c}}&-\frac{(1-a^4)(1-a^2)\sqrt{e}}{4af\sqrt{c}}&\frac{\sqrt{15}g}{30a\sqrt{f}}\\0&\frac{5(1+a^2)\sqrt{c}}{2a\sqrt{e}}&\frac{4\sqrt{15}(1-a^2)^2}{15a\sqrt{f}} \end{bmatrix}$$ where $c=14 a^2-a^4-1$, $d=11a^2-a^4-1$, $e=55+190 a^2+55 a^4$, $f=11+38 a^2+11 a^4$, $g=4a^4+7a^2+4$.
It is not difficult to see that ${{{\mathcal K}}}_{2,2}({{{\mathcal K}}}^1_{2,2})^T=0={{{\mathcal K}}}_{2,2}^{\dag}{{{\mathcal K}}}_{2,2}^1$, and using Maple or Mathematica we find $${{{\mathcal K}}}_{2,2}\tilde{{{\Gamma}}}^1_{2,2}\tilde{{{\Gamma}}}_{2,2}^{\dag}({{{\mathcal K}}}^1_{2,2})^T=0$$ while $$\label{kdg1gk}
{{{\mathcal K}}}_{2,2}^{\dag}{{{\Gamma}}}^1_{2,2}{{{\Gamma}}}_{2,2}^{\dag}{{{\mathcal K}}}^1_{2,2}=\frac{(1-a^2)^2}{15a(1+a^2)}\begin{bmatrix}-1&-2\\\frac{1}{2}&1\end{bmatrix}\ne0.$$ Using [Remark \[re4.5\]]{} we find a candidate for $p(z,w)$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{p}(z,w)=&(4a(1-a^2)w^2-3(1+a^2)^2)z^2+3((1-a^4)w^2+3a(1+a^2))z\\
&\qquad-13a(1-a^2)w^2+12a^2.\end{aligned}$$ Using the Schur-Cohn test it is not difficult to see that $\hat{p}(z,w)$ is nonzero for $|z|=1$ and $|w|\le1$. Applying [Lemma \[le4.6\]]{} (see also [Remark \[re4.7\]]{}) we see that equations and hold with $r=r^{1}=1$, $s_1=\frac{2(1-a^2)}{\sqrt{3}(1+a^2)}$, $s^{1}_1=\frac{1-a^2}{4\sqrt{3}a}$, $$U^{1}=U=\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix},
\text{ and }
{\tilde{U}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}\begin{bmatrix}2&-1\\-1&-2\end{bmatrix}.$$ Next we find ${\tilde{\Psi}}_{1,2}(z,w)$ in by computing $${\tilde{\Psi}}_{1,2}(z,w)={\tilde{U}}^{\dagger}{\tilde{\Phi}}_{1,2}(z,w)=\frac{\sqrt{5}}{10a}\begin{bmatrix}4azw^2-w^2-a^2 w^2+z-a^2 z\\
-2azw^2-2w^2-2a^2w^2+2z-2a^2 z\end{bmatrix}.$$ We look for a unitary matrix ${\tilde{V}}$ such that equation holds with $n_1=n_2=1$.
This uniquely specifies $\tilde V$ (except the first column, which can be multiplied by an arbitrary complex number of modulus $1$) as $${\tilde{V}}=\begin{bmatrix} \frac{\sqrt{3}a}{\sqrt{c}} & \frac{\sqrt{d}}{\sqrt{c}} & 0\\
\frac{2\sqrt{3}(1+a^2)\sqrt{d}}{\sqrt{cf}} & -\frac{6a(1+a^2)}{\sqrt{fc}}&-\frac{\sqrt{c}}{\sqrt{f}}\\
-\frac{\sqrt{d}}{\sqrt{f}} & \frac{\sqrt{3}a}{\sqrt{f}} & -\frac{2\sqrt{3}(1+a^2)}{\sqrt{f}}
\end{bmatrix}.$$ The first entry of the vector polynomial ${\tilde{\Psi}}_{2,2}(z,w)={\tilde{V}}^{\dagger}{\tilde{\Phi}}_{2,2}(z,w)$ is $\frac{\sqrt{15}}{30a\sqrt{d}}\overleftarrow{\hat p}(z,w)$. Thus, [Lemma \[le4.4\]]{} shows that $p(z,w)=\frac{\sqrt{15}}{30a\sqrt{d}}\hat p(z,w)$.
Splitting case
--------------
The second example we will consider illustrates [Theorem \[th2.5\]]{}. In this case we chose $u_{0,0}=1$, $u_{-1,1}=a$, $u_{1,1}=b$, $u_{2,0}=ab=u_{0,2}$ and $u_{i,j}=0,\ (i,j)\in\{ (0,1),(1,0),(1,2),(-1,2),(2,1),(-2,1),(2,2),(-2,2)\}$ where $-1<a<1$ and $-1<b<1$. Using the algorithm given in [@GW2] we find that $${{{\mathcal K}}}_{2,2}=\begin{bmatrix}a&0\\0&0 \end{bmatrix},$$ $${{{\mathcal K}}}^{1}_{2,2}=\begin{bmatrix}0&0\\0&b \end{bmatrix},$$ $${{\Gamma}}_{2,2}=\begin{bmatrix}0&\sqrt{1-a^2}&0\\0&0&1 \end{bmatrix}=\tilde{{{\Gamma}}}_{2,2},$$ $${{\Gamma}}^1_{2,2}=\begin{bmatrix}1&0&0\\0&\sqrt{1-b^2}&0 \end{bmatrix}=\tilde{{{\Gamma}}}^1_{2,2}.$$ It is easy to check that equations are satisfied. Moreover, we find that $$\label{PPP}
P(z,w)\bar{P}(1/z,1/w)={\tilde{\Phi}}_{2,2}(z,w)^{T}\overline{{\tilde{\Phi}}}_{2,2}(1/z,1/w)
-{\tilde{\Phi}}_{1,2}(z,w)^{T}\overline{{\tilde{\Phi}}}_{1,2}(1/z,1/w)$$ where $$P(z,w)=\frac{(1-bzw)(z-aw)}{\sqrt{(1-a^2)(1-b^2)}}$$ is stable for $|z|=1$ and $|w|\leq 1$. It is easy to see that the polynomial $P(z,w)$ above is the unique polynomial (up to a multiplicative constant of modulus 1) of degree at most $(2,2)$ which is stable for $|z|=1$ and $|w|\leq 1$ and which satisfies . Finally, note that $$P(z,w)=p(z,w)zq(1/z,w)$$ where $$p(z,w)=\frac{1-bzw}{\sqrt{1-b^2}}, \quad \text{ and }\quad q(z,w)=\frac{1-azw}{\sqrt{1-a^2}}$$ are stable polynomials. We can obtain all this also by following the steps of Example 1. Indeed, we see that we can take $U={\tilde{U}}=I_2$ the identity $2\times 2$ matrix and $${\tilde{V}}=\begin{bmatrix}0&1&0\\1&0&0\\0&0&1\end{bmatrix}.$$ The first entry of the vector polynomial ${\tilde{\Psi}}_{2,2}(z,w)={\tilde{V}}^{\dagger}{\tilde{\Phi}}_{2,2}(z,w)$ is $P(z,w)$. Note that if $a=0$ then ${{{\mathcal K}}}_{2,2}=0$ and the functional is in the stable case, while if $b=0$ then ${{{\mathcal K}}}^1_{2,2}=0$ and the functional is in the anti-stable case.
[xx]{}
J. Agler and J. E. McCarthy, [*Distinguished varieties*]{}, Acta Math. 194 (2005), no. 2, 133–153.
M. Bakonyi and G. Naevdal, [*On the matrix completion method for multidimensional moment problems*]{}, Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged) 64 (1998), no. 3-4, 547–558.
M. Bakonyi and H. J. Woerdeman, [*Matrix completions, moments, and sums of Hermitian squares*]{}, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2011.
J. A. Ball, [*Multidimensional circuit synthesis and multivariable dilation theory*]{}, Multidimens. Syst. Signal Process. 22 (2011), no. 1-3, 27–44.
B. J. Cole and J. Wermer, [*Ando’s theorem and sums of squares*]{}, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 48 (1999), no. 3, 767–791.
Ph. Delsarte, Y. V. Genin and Y. G. Kamp, [*Planar least squares inverse polynomials. I. Algebraic properties*]{}, IEEE Trans. Circuits and Systems 26 (1979), no. 1, 59–66. Ph. Delsarte, Y. V. Genin and Y. G. Kamp, [*Half-plane Toeplitz systems*]{}, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 26 (1980), no. 4, 465–474. Ph. Delsarte, Y. V. Genin and Y. G. Kamp, [*A simple proof of Rudin’s multivariable stability theorem*]{}, IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal Process. 28 (1980), no. 6, 701–705.
J. Geronimo and P. Benge, [*Parameters associated with bivariate Bernstein-Szegő measures on the bi-circle*]{}, to appear in Complex Anal. Oper. Theory.
J. Geronimo, P. Iliev and G. Knese, [*Orthogonality relations for bivariate Bernstein-Szegő measures*]{}, to appear in Contemp. Math. (arXiv:1111.5658).
J. Geronimo and H. J. Woerdeman, [*Positive extensions, Fejér-Riesz factorization and autoregressive filters in two variables*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) 160 (2004), no. 3, 839–906.
J. Geronimo and H. J. Woerdeman, [*Two variable orthogonal polynomials on the bicircle and structured matrices*]{}, SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 29 (2007), no. 3, 796–825.
I. C. Gohberg and I. A. Fel’dman, [*Convolution equations and projection methods for their solution*]{}, Translations of Mathematical Monographs, Vol. 41, American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1974.
A. Grinshpan, D. S. Kaliuzhnyi-Verbovetskyi, V. Vinnikov and H. J. Woerdeman, [*Classes of tuples of commuting contractions satisfying the multivariable von Neumann inequality*]{}, J. Funct. Anal. 256 (2009), no. 9, 3035–3054.
H. Helson and D. Lowdenslager, [*Prediction theory and Fourier series in several variables*]{}, Acta Math. 99 (1958), 165–202.
G. Knese, [*Bernstein-Szegő measures on the two dimensional torus*]{}, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 57 (2008), no. 3, 1353–1376.
G. Knese, [*Polynomials defining distinguished varieties*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 362 (2010), no. 11, 5635–5655.
A. Kummert, [*Synthesis of two-dimensional lossless $m$-ports with prescribed scattering matrix*]{}, Circuits Systems Signal Process. 8 (1989), no. 1, 97–119.
H. J. Woerdeman, [*A general Christoffel-Darboux type formula*]{}, Integral Equations Operator Theory 67 (2010), no. 2, 203–213.
[^1]: JG is supported in part by Simons Foundation Grant \#210169.
[^2]: PI is supported in part by NSF Grant \#0901092.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
address: 'University of M[ü]{}nster, D-48149 M[ü]{}nster, Germany'
author:
- 'T. Peitzmann'
- for the WA98 Collaboration
title: 'Direct Photon Production in 158 [*A*]{} GeV $^{208}$Pb+$^{208}$Pb Collisions'
---
Introduction
============
The observation of a new phase of strongly interacting matter, the quark gluon plasma (QGP), is one of the most important goals of current nuclear physics research. To study QGP formation photons (both real and virtual) were one of the earliest proposed signatures [@Fei76; @Shu78]. They are likely to escape from the system directly after production without further interaction, unlike hadrons. Thus, photons carry information on their emitting sources from throughout the entire collision history, including the initial hot and dense phase. Recently, it was shown by Aurenche et al. [@Aur98] that photon production rates in the QGP when calculated up to two loop diagrams, are considerably greater than the earlier lowest order estimates[@Kap91]. Following this result, Srivastava [@Sri99] has shown that at sufficiently high initial temperatures the photon yield from quark matter may significantly exceed the contribution from the hadronic matter to provide a direct probe of the quark matter phase.
A large number of measurements of prompt photon production at high transverse momentum ($p_{T} > 3 \, \mathrm{GeV}/c$) exist for proton-proton, proton-antiproton, and proton-nucleus collisions (see e.g. [@VW]). First attempts to observe direct photon production in ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions with oxygen and sulphur beams found no significant excess [@Ake90; @Alb91; @Bau96; @Alb96]. The WA80 collaboration [@Alb96] provided the most interesting result with a $p_{T}$ dependent upper limit on the direct photon production in S+Au collisions at 200$A$GeV. In this paper we report on the first observation of direct photon production in ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions.
Data Analysis
=============
The results are from the CERN experiment WA98 [@misc:wa98:proposal:91] which consists of large acceptance photon and hadron spectrometers. Photons are measured with the WA98 lead-glass photon detector, LEDA, which consisted of 10,080 individual modules with photomultiplier readout. The detector was located at a distance of 21.5 m from the target and covered the pseudorapidity interval $2.35 < \eta < 2.95$ $(y_{cm}=2.9)$. The particle identification was supplemented by a charged particle veto detector in front of LEDA.
The results presented here were obtained from an analysis of the data taken with Pb beams in 1995 and 1996. The 20% most peripheral and the 10% most central reactions have been selected from the minimum bias cross section ($\sigma_{min.bias} \approx 6300 \, \mathrm{mb}$) using the measured transverse energy $E_{T}$. In total, $\approx 6.7 \cdot 10^{6}$ central and $\approx 4.3 \cdot
10^{6}$ peripheral reactions have been analyzed.
The extraction of direct photons in the high multiplicity environment of heavy-ion collisions must be performed on a statistical basis by comparison of the measured inclusive photon spectra to the background expected from hadronic decays. Neutral pions and $\eta$ mesons are reconstructed via their $\gamma\gamma$ decay branch. For a detailed description of the detectors and the analysis procedure see [@wa98photonslong].
![The inclusive photon (circles) and $\pi^0$ (squares) transverse momentum distributions for peripheral (open points) and central (solid points) 158$~$[*A*]{} GeV $^{208}$Pb+$^{208}$Pb collisions. The data have been corrected for efficiency and acceptance. Only statistical errors are shown. []{data-label="fig:photon_pi0_pt"}](prl1_final_pi_gam.eps)
![The $\gamma_{\rm Meas}/\gamma_{\rm Bkgd}$ ratio as a function of transverse momentum for peripheral (part a)) and central (part b)) 158 [*A*]{} GeV $^{208}$Pb+$^{208}$Pb collisions. The errors on the data points indicate the statistical errors only. The $p_T$-dependent systematical errors are indicated by the shaded bands. []{data-label="fig:gamma_excess"}](prl2_gam_excess.eps)
The final measured inclusive photon spectra are then compared to the calculated background photon spectra to check for a possible photon excess beyond that from long-lived radiative decays. The background calculation is based on the measured $\pi^0$ spectra and the measured $\eta/\pi^0$-ratio. The spectral shapes of other hadrons having radiative decays are calculated assuming $m_{T}$-scaling [@Bor76] with yields relative to $\pi^0$’s taken from the literature. It should be noted that the measured contribution (from $\pi^0$ and $\eta$) amounts to $\approx 97 \% $ of the total photon background.
Results
=======
Fig. \[fig:photon\_pi0\_pt\] shows the fully corrected inclusive photon spectra for peripheral and central collisions. The spectra cover the $p_{T}$ range of $0.3 - 4.0 \,\mathrm{GeV}/c$ (slightly less for peripheral collisions) and extend over six orders of magnitude. Fig. \[fig:photon\_pi0\_pt\] also shows the distributions of neutral pions which extend over a similar momentum range with slightly larger statistical errors.
![The invariant direct photon multiplicity for central 158 [*A*]{} GeV $^{208}$Pb+$^{208}$Pb collisions. The error bars indicate the combined statistical and systematical errors. Data points with downward arrows indicate unbounded 90% CL upper limits. Results of several direct photon measurements for proton-induced reactions have been scaled to central $^{208}$Pb+$^{208}$Pb collisions for comparison. []{data-label="fig:gamma_excess_cs"}](prl3_excess_pp_scaled.eps)
The ratio of measured photons to calculated background photons is displayed in Fig. \[fig:gamma\_excess\] as a function of transverse momentum. The upper plot shows the ratio for peripheral collisions which is seen to be compatible with one, i.e. no indication of a direct photon excess is observed. The lower plot shows the same ratio for central collisions. It rises from a value of $\approx 1$ at low $p_{T}$ to exhibit an excess of about 20% at high $p_{T}$.
A careful study of possible systematical errors is crucial for the direct photon analysis. The largest contributions are from the $\gamma$ and $\pi^0$ identification efficiencies and the uncertainties related to the $\eta$ measurement. It should be emphasized that the inclusive photon and neutral meson (the basis for the background calculation) yields have been extracted from the same detector for exactly the same data sample. This decreases the sensitivity to many detector related errors and eliminates all errors associated with trigger bias or absolute yield normalization. Full details on the systematical error estimates are given in [@wa98photonslong]. The total $p_{T}$-dependent systematical errors are shown by the shaded regions in Fig. \[fig:gamma\_excess\]. A significant photon excess is clearly observed in central collisions for $p_{T} > 1.5 \,
\mathrm{GeV}/c$.
The final invariant direct photon yield per central collision is presented in Fig. \[fig:gamma\_excess\_cs\]. The statistical and asymmetric systematical errors of Fig. \[fig:gamma\_excess\] are added in quadrature to obtain the total upper and lower errors shown in Fig. \[fig:gamma\_excess\_cs\]. An additional $p_T$-dependent error is included to account for that portion of the uncertainty in the energy scale which cancels in the ratios. In the case that the lower error is less than zero a downward arrow is shown with the tail of the arrow indicating the 90% confidence level upper limit ($\gamma_{Excess}+1.28\,\sigma_{Upper}$).
No published prompt photon results exist for proton-induced reactions at the $\sqrt{s}$ of the present measurement. Instead, prompt photon yields for proton-induced reactions on fixed targets at 200 GeV are shown in Fig. \[fig:gamma\_excess\_cs\] for comparison [@plb:ada95; @prl:mcl83; @zpc:bad86]. These results have been scaled for comparison with the present measurements according to the calculated average number of nucleon-nucleon collisions (660) for the central Pb+Pb event selection and according to the beam energy under the assumption that $E
d^3\sigma_{\gamma}/dp^3 = f(x_T)/s^2$, where $x_T=2p_T/\sqrt{s}$ [@rmp:owe87]. This comparison indicates that the observed direct photon production in central $^{208}$Pb+$^{208}$Pb collisions has a shape similar to that expected for proton-induced reactions at the same $\sqrt{s}$ but a yield which is enhanced.
Summary
=======
The first observation of direct photons in ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions has been presented. While peripheral Pb+Pb collisions exhibit no significant photon excess, the 10% most central reactions show a clear excess of direct photons in the range of $p_T$ greater than about $1.5 \, \mathrm{GeV}/c$. The invariant direct photon multiplicity as a function of transverse momentum was presented for central $^{208}$Pb+$^{208}$Pb collisions and compared to proton-induced results at similar incident energy. The comparison indicates excess direct photon production in central $^{208}$Pb+$^{208}$Pb collisions beyond that expected from proton-induced reactions. The result suggests modification of the prompt photon production in nucleus-nucleus collisions, or additional contributions from pre-equilibrium or thermal photon emission. The result should provide a stringent test for different reaction scenarios, including those with quark gluon plasma formation, and may provide information on the initial temperature attained in these collisions.
[99]{} M.C. Abreu et al., Phys. Lett. B [**410**]{}, 337 (1997). E. Andersen et al., Phys. Lett. B [**449**]{}, 401 (1999). E.L. Feinberg, Nuovo Cimento [**34**]{} A, 391 (1976). E. Shuryak, Phys. Lett. B [**78**]{}, 150 (1978). P. Aurenche, F. Gelis, H. Zaraket, and R. Kobes, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{}, 085003 (1998). J. Kapusta, P. Lichard, and D. Seibert, Phys. Rev. D [**44**]{}, 2774 (1991). D.K. Srivastava, Eur. Phys. J. C [**10**]{}, 487 (1999). W. Vogelsang and M.R. Whalley, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. [ **23**]{}, A1 (1997). HELIOS Collaboration, T. [Å]{}kesson et al., Z. Phys. C [**46**]{}, 369 (1990). WA80 Collaboration, R. Albrecht et al., Z. Phys. C [**51**]{}, 1 (1991). CERES Collaboration, R. Baur et al, Z. Phys. C [**71**]{}, 571 (1996). WA80 Collaboration, R. Albrecht et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 3506 (1996). WA98 Collaboration, [*Proposal for a large acceptance hadron and photon spectrometer*]{}, 1991, Preprint CERN/SPSLC 91-17, SPSLC/P260 WA98 Collaboration, M.M. Aggarwal et al, nucl-ex/0006007, submitted to Phys. Rev. C. M. Bourquin and J.-M. Gaillard, Nucl. Phys. B [ **114**]{}, 334 (1976). E704 Collaboration, D.L. Adams et al., Phys. Lett. B [**345**]{}, 569 (1995). E629 Collaboration, M. McLaughlin et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**51**]{}, 971 (1983). NA3 Collaboration, J. Badier et al., Z. Phys. C [**31**]{}, 341 (1986). J.F. Owens, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**59**]{}, 465 (1987).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'For functions $f$ in Dirichlet-type spaces $D_{\alpha}$, we study how to determine constructively optimal polynomials $p_n$ that minimize $\|p f-1\|_\alpha$ among all polynomials $p$ of degree at most $n$. Then we give upper and lower bounds for the rate of decay of $\|p_{n}f-1\|_{\alpha}$ as $n$ approaches $\infty$. Further, we study a generalization of a weak version of the Brown-Shields conjecture and some computational phenomena about the zeros of optimal polynomials.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, Tampa, FL 33620, USA.'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Florida Gulf Coast University, 10501 FGCU Boulevard South, Fort Myers, FL 33965-6565, USA.'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Baylor University, One Bear Place \#97328, Waco, TX 76798-7328, USA.'
- 'Departament de Matemàtiques, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain.'
- 'Statistical Laboratory, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, University of Cambridge, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB3 0WB, UK.'
author:
- Catherine Bénéteau
- 'Alberto A. Condori'
- Constanze Liaw
- Daniel Seco
- 'Alan A. Sola'
date: 'January 17, 2013'
title: 'Cyclicity in Dirichlet-type spaces and extremal polynomials'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Cyclicity in spaces of analytic functions
-----------------------------------------
In this paper, we study certain Hilbert spaces of analytic functions in the open unit disk ${{\mathbb D}}$, denoted $D_{\alpha}$ and referred to as *Dirichlet-type spaces of order $\alpha$*. For $-\infty<\alpha<\infty$, the space $D_{\alpha}$ consists of all analytic functions $f\colon{{\mathbb D}}\rightarrow {{\mathbb C}}$ whose Taylor coefficients in the expansion $$f(z)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}a_kz^k, \quad z \in {{\mathbb D}},$$ satisfy $$\|f\|^2_\alpha=\sum_{k=0}^\infty (k+1)^{\alpha}|a_k|^2< \infty.
$$ It is easy to see that $D_{\alpha}\subseteq D_{\beta}$ when $\alpha\geq\beta$, and $f\in D_{\alpha}$ if and only if the derivative $f'\in D_{\alpha-2}$.
Three values of $\alpha$ correspond to spaces that have been studied extensively and are often defined in terms of integrability:
- $\alpha=-1$ corresponds to [*the Bergman space $B$*]{}, consisting of functions with $$\int_{{{\mathbb D}}}|f(z)|^2dA(z)<\infty, \quad dA(z)=\frac{dxdy}{\pi},$$
- $\alpha=0$ corresponds to [*the Hardy space $H^2$*]{}, consisting of functions with $$\sup_{0<r<1}\ \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}|f(re^{i\theta})|^2d\theta<\infty,$$
- and $\alpha=1$ corresponds to the usual [*Dirichlet space $D$*]{} of functions $f$ with $$\int_{{{\mathbb D}}}|f'(z)|^2dA(z)<\infty.$$
A description similar to that of the Dirichlet space, in terms of an integral, is possible for the $D_\alpha$ spaces for $\alpha < 2.$ Indeed, $f \in D_{\alpha}$ if and only if
$$\label{dalfaf}
D_\alpha (f)= \int_{{{\mathbb D}}} |f'(z)|^2 ( 1 - |z|^2)^{1 - \alpha} dA(z) <
\infty.$$
This expression can be used to define an equivalent norm for $f \in D_{\alpha}$, which we use in Section \[s-GRADIENT\]. We refer the reader to the books [@Durbook], [@DS04] and [@HKZ00] for in-depth treatments of Hardy and Bergman spaces; recent surveys concerning the Dirichlet space $D$ include [@ARSW11] and [@Ross06].
A function $f \in D_{\alpha}$ is said to be *cyclic* in $D_\alpha$ if the closed subspace generated by polynomial multiples of $f$, $$[f]=\overline{\textrm{span}\{z^kf\colon k=0,1,2,\ldots\}},$$ coincides with $D_{\alpha}$. Note that cyclicity in $D_\alpha$ implies cyclicity in $D_\beta$ for all $\beta < \alpha$. The [*multiplier space*]{} $M(D_{\alpha})$ consists of analytic functions $\psi$ such that the induced operator $M_{\psi}\colon f\mapsto \psi f$ maps $D_{\alpha}$ into itself; such a function $\psi$ is called a *multiplier*. Thus cyclic functions are precisely those that are cyclic with respect to the operator $M_z$. Since polynomials are dense in $D_\alpha$, we have $[1]=D_{\alpha}$. It is well known (see [@BS84]) that an equivalent (and more useful) condition for the cyclicity of $f$ is that there exist a sequence of polynomials $\{p_n\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ such that $$\|p_n f-1\|_\alpha\rightarrow 0, \quad \textrm{as}\ n\rightarrow \infty.$$ We note that for certain values of $\alpha$, the multiplier spaces of $D_{\alpha}$ are relatively easy to determine. For $\alpha\leq 0$, we have $M(D_{\alpha})=H^{\infty}$, and when $\alpha>1$ the multiplier space coincides with $D_{\alpha}$ itself (see [@BS84 p. 273]).
In general, it is not an easy problem to characterize cyclic functions in a space of analytic functions. However, a complete answer to the cyclicity problem for $H^2$ (the case $\alpha=0$) is given by a theorem of Beurling (see [@Durbook Chapter 7]): $f$ is cyclic if and only if $f$ is an outer function. In particular, a cyclic function $f\in H^2$ cannot vanish in ${{\mathbb D}}$. In the Bergman space, the situation is considerably more complicated (see [@HKZ00 Chapter 7]). A common feature of all $D_{\alpha}$ is that cyclic functions have to be non-vanishing in ${{\mathbb D}}$. If $\alpha>1$, to be non-vanishing in the [*closed*]{} unit disk, or equivalently, $$|f(z)|>c>0, \quad z \in {{\mathbb D}},$$ is a necessary and sufficient condition (see [@BS84]) for cyclicity. However, when $\alpha\leq 1$, functions may still be cyclic if their zero set on the boundary, that is, the unit circle ${{\mathbb T}}$, is not too big. Here, we define the zero set in an appropriate sense via, for instance, non-tangential limits.
In [@BS84], L. Brown and A.L. Shields studied the phenomenon of cyclicity in the Dirichlet space. In particular, they established the following equivalent condition for cyclicity: $f$ is cyclic in $D_{\alpha}$ if and only if there exists a sequence of polynomials $\{p_n\}$ such that $$\sup_n\|p_nf-1\|_{\alpha}<\infty
\label{cyclicitycond:unifbound}$$ and, pointwise as $n\rightarrow \infty$, $$p_n(z)f(z)\rightarrow 1, \quad z \in {{\mathbb D}}.
\label{cyclicitycond:pointwise}$$ Brown and Shields also obtained a number of partial results towards a characterization of cyclic vectors in the Dirichlet space $D$. Their starting point was a result of Beurling, stating that, for any $f \in D$, the non-tangential limit $f^*(\zeta)=\lim_{z \rightarrow \zeta}f(z)$ exists [*quasi-everywhere*]{}, that is, outside a set of logarithmic capacity zero. Brown and Shields proved that if the zeros of $f^*$, $$\mathcal{Z}(f^*)=\{\zeta \in {{\mathbb T}}\colon f^*(\zeta)=0\},$$ form a set of positive logarithmic capacity, then $f$ cannot be cyclic. On the other hand, they also proved that $(1-z)^{\beta}$ is cyclic for any $\beta>0$ and showed that any polynomial without zeros in ${{\mathbb D}}$ is cyclic. Hence, they asked if being outer and having $\textrm{cap}(\mathcal{Z}(f^*))=0$ is sufficient for $f$ to be cyclic. This problem remains open and is commonly referred to as the [*[Brown-Shields conjecture]{}*]{}; see however [@EKR09] for recent progress by El-Fallah, Kellay, and Ransford, and for background material. Subsequent to the Brown and Shields paper, Brown and Cohn showed (see [@BC85]) that sets of logarithmic capacity zero do support zeros of cyclic functions, and later Brown (see [@Brown90]) proved that if $f\in D$ is invertible, that is $1/f\in D$, then $f$ is cyclic. However, there are cyclic functions $f$ for which $1/f\notin D$, e.g. $f(z)=1-z$.
The problem of cyclicity in $D$ has been addressed in many papers. An incomplete list includes [@HS90], where sufficient conditions for cyclicity are given in terms of Bergman-Smirnov exceptional sets; the paper [@EKR06], where these ideas are developed further, and examples of uncountable Bergman-Smirnov exceptional sets are found; and [@RS92] where multipliers and invariant subspaces are discussed, leading, for instance, to a proof that non-vanishing univalent functions in the Dirichlet space are cyclic.
Plan of the paper {#s-Plan}
-----------------
In this paper, we set out to improve understanding of cyclicity by studying certain classes of cyclic functions in detail. Many of the results in this paper are variations of the following questions: Given a cyclic function $f \in D_{\alpha}$, can we obtain an explicit sequence of polynomials $\{p_n\}$ such that $$\|p_nf-1\|_{\alpha}\to 0\;\text{ as }n\to\infty?$$ Can we give an estimate on the rate of decay of these norms as $n
\rightarrow \infty$? What can we say about the approximating polynomials?
A natural first guess is to take $\{p_n\}$ as the Taylor polynomials of the function $1/f$. Since $1/f$ is analytic in ${{\mathbb D}}$ by the cyclicity assumption, we have $p_n\rightarrow 1/f$ pointwise, and hence is satisfied. However, it may be the case that norm boundedness in fails. This is certainly true for the Taylor polynomials $T_n(1/f)$ in the case $f(z)=1-z$; indeed, $1/f\notin B\supset H^2\supset D$ and a computation shows that $$\|T_n(1/f)f-1\|^2_{D}=\|z^{n+1}\|^2_{D}=n+2.$$
Much of the development that follows is motivated by our goal of finding concrete substitutes for the Taylor polynomials of $1/f$.
Let $f \in D_\alpha$. We say that a polynomial $p_n$ of degree at most $n$ is an [*optimal approximant*]{} of order $n$ to $1/f$ if $p_n$ minimizes $\|p f-1\|_\alpha$ among all polynomials $p$ of degree at most $n$. We call $\|p_{n}f-1\|_{\alpha}$ the *optimal norm* of degree $n$ associated with $f$.
In other words, $p_{n}$ is an optimal polynomial of order $n$ to $1/f$ if $$\|p_{n}f-1\|_{\alpha}=\operatorname{dist}_{D_{\alpha}}(1,f\cdot\operatorname{{\mathcal P}}_{n}),$$ where $\operatorname{{\mathcal P}}_{n}$ denotes the space of polynomials of degree at most $n$ and $$\operatorname{dist}_{X}(x,A)=\inf\{\|x-a\|_X: a\in A\}$$ for any normed space $X$, $A\subseteq X$ and $x\in X$.
Notice that, given $f\in D_{\alpha}\setminus\{0\}$, the existence and uniqueness of an optimal approximant of order $n$ to $1/f$ follows immediately from the fact that $f\cdot\operatorname{{\mathcal P}}_{n}$ is a finite dimensional subspace of the Hilbert space $D_{\alpha}$. Thus, $f$ is cyclic if and only if the optimal approximants $p_n$ of order $n$ to $1/f$ satisfy $\|p_n f -1\|_\alpha\rightarrow 0$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$. Furthermore, since $\|p_n f-1\|_\alpha \leq \|f-1\|_\alpha,$ it follows from and that $f$ is cyclic if and only if the sequence of optimal approximants $\{p_n\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ converges pointwise to $1/f$.
In Section \[s-GRADIENT\], we describe a constructive approach for computing the coefficients of the optimal approximant of order $n$ to $1/f$ for a general function $f$. In particular, Theorem \[t-LINEAR\] below states that the coefficients of the optimal approximants can be computed as ratios of determinants of matrices whose entries can be explicitly computed via the moments of the derivative of $f$. When $f$ itself is a polynomial, these matrices are banded (see Proposition \[t-2tdiagonal\]). As a simple but fundamental example, we compute optimal approximants to the function $1/f$ when $f(z)=1-z$.
We are also interested in the rate of convergence of optimal norms. Since optimal norms decay exponentially for any function $f$ such that $1/f$ is analytic in the closed unit disk, functions that have zeros on the unit circle are of particular interest. In Section \[OptimalNormBounds\], we examine the question of whether all functions with no zeros in the open unit disk but with zeros on the boundary, admitting an analytic continuation to the closed disk, have optimal norm achieving a similar rate of decay. In Theorem \[OptimalRate\], we prove that this is indeed the case.
In Section \[log\], we deal with a generalization to all $D_\alpha$ of a subproblem of the Brown-Shields conjecture. We ask the question whether a function $f$ satisfying $f \in D_\alpha$ and $\log f \in D_\alpha$, must be cyclic in $D_\alpha$. We note that this is true in the simple cases of $\alpha = 0$ or $\alpha>1$. In Theorem \[solvelog\] we are able to answer affirmatively in the case $\alpha=1$. Then, Theorem \[cyclic1\] shows that for the case $\alpha < 1, \alpha \neq 0,$ the same holds with an additional technical condition. We do not know if this condition is necessary; however, it is satisfied by a large class of examples, namely, all of the functions constructed in Brown-Cohn ([@BC85]).
We conclude, in Section 5, by presenting some open questions and basic computations connected to the zero sets $\mathcal{Z}(p_n)$ of the optimal approximants $p_n$ of $1/f$ for cyclic functions $f$.
Construction of optimal approximants {#s-GRADIENT}
====================================
The optimal approximants $p_n$ of order $n$ to $1/f$ are determined by the fact that $p_nf$ is the orthogonal projection of $1$ onto the space $f\cdot\operatorname{{\mathcal P}}_n$, and hence, in principle, if $f\in D_{\alpha}\setminus\{0\}$, they can be computed using the Gram-Schmidt process. More precisely, once a basis for $f\cdot\operatorname{{\mathcal P}}_n$ is chosen, one can construct an orthonormal basis for $f\cdot\operatorname{{\mathcal P}}_{n}$ and then compute the coefficients of $p_n$ with respect to this orthonormal basis.
In this section, we present a simple method which yields the optimal approximants $p_n$ without the use of the Gram-Schmidt process, for $\alpha <2$. To that end, we make use of the integral norm of $D_{\alpha}$, namely, $$\|f\|_{\alpha}^{2}=|f(0)|^{2}+D_{\alpha}(f),$$ where $D_\alpha(f)$ was defined in .
Recall that we seek an explicit solution to
*Problem 1.* Let $n\in{{\mathbb N}}$. Given $f\in D_{\alpha}\setminus\{0\}$ such that $1\notin f\cdot\operatorname{{\mathcal P}}_{n}$, $$\text{ minimize }\quad\|p f-1\|_{\alpha}\;\text{ over }p\in\operatorname{{\mathcal P}}_{n}.$$
Construction of optimal approximants via determinants
-----------------------------------------------------
As mentioned in Section \[s-Plan\], there is a unique optimal approximant $p_{n}\in\operatorname{{\mathcal P}}_{n}$ of order $n$ to $1/f$ that solves Problem 1, that is, $$\|p_{n}f-1\|_{\alpha}=\operatorname{dist}_{D_{\alpha}}(1,f\cdot\operatorname{{\mathcal P}}_{n}).$$ Observe that for any polynomial $p(z) =\sum_{k=0}^{n}c_{k}z^{k}\in\operatorname{{\mathcal P}}_{n}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\|pf-1\|_{\alpha}^{2}
&=|p(0)f(0)-1|^{2}+\int_{{{\mathbb D}}}|(pf)^{\prime}|^{2}d\mu_{\alpha}\\
&=|p(0)f(0)-1|^{2}+\int_{{{\mathbb D}}}\left|\sum_{k=0}^{n}c_{k}(z^{k}f)^{\prime}\right|^{2}
d\mu_{\alpha},\end{aligned}$$ where $d\mu_{\alpha}(z)=(1-|z|^{2})^{1-\alpha}\, dA(z)$. It follows that if the optimal approximant of order $n$ to $1/f$ vanishes at the origin, then $\|pf-1\|_{\alpha}^{2}$ is minimal if and only if $c_{0}=c_{1}=\ldots=c_{n}=0$. Consequently, we may assume without loss of generality that the optimal approximant $p_{n}$ of order $n$ to $1/f$ does not vanish at the origin. By replacing $f$ with $p_{n}(0)f$, we may also assume that $p_{n}(0)=1$ because the optimal approximant of order $n$ to $1/(p_{n}(0)f)$ is $[p_{n}(0)]^{-1}p_{n}$. Hence, under this latter assumption, $p_{n}(z) =1+\sum_{k=1}^{n}c_{n}^{*}z^{k}$ is the optimal approximant of order $n$ to $1/f$ if and only if $(c_1^{*},\ldots,c_n^{*})\in{{\mathbb C}}^{n}$ is the unique solution to
*Problem 2.* Let $n\in{{\mathbb N}}$. Given $f\in D_{\alpha}\setminus\{0\}$ such that $1\notin f\cdot\operatorname{{\mathcal P}}_{n}$, $$\text{ minimize }\quad
\int_{{{\mathbb D}}}\left|f^{\prime}+\sum_{k=1}^{n}c_{k}(z^{k}f)^{\prime}\right|^{2}
d\mu_{\alpha}\text{ over }(c_1,\ldots,c_{n})\in{{\mathbb C}}^{n}.$$ It is evident that $(c_1^{*},\ldots,c_n^{*})\in{{\mathbb C}}^{n}$ is the unique solution to Problem 2 if and only if $$g=\sum_{k=1}^{n}c_{k}^{*}(z^{k}f)^{\prime}\;\text{ satisfies }\;
\|f^{\prime}+g\|_{L^{2}(\mu_{\alpha})}=\operatorname{dist}_{L^{2}(\mu_{\alpha})}(f^{\prime},Y),$$ where $Y=\operatorname{span}\{(z^{k} f)^{\prime}: 1\leq k\leq n\}$. Equivalently, $f^{\prime}+g$ is orthogonal to $Y$ with respect to the $L^{2}(\mu_{\alpha})$ inner product; that is, for each $j$, $1\leq j\leq n$, $$\langle -f^{\prime}, (z^{j} f)^{\prime}\rangle_{L^{2}(\mu_{\alpha})}
=\langle g, (z^{j} f)^{\prime}\rangle_{L^{2}(\mu_{\alpha})}.$$ Hence, $(c_1^{*},\ldots,c_n^{*})\in{{\mathbb C}}^{n}$ is the unique solution to Problem 2 if and only if it is the solution to the non-homogeneous system of linear equations $$\label{keySystem}
\sum_{k=1}^{n}c_{k}
\langle (z^{k} f)^{\prime},(z^{j}f)^{\prime}\rangle_{L^{2}(\mu_{\alpha})}
=\langle -f^{\prime}, (z^{j} f)^{\prime}\rangle_{L^{2}(\mu_{\alpha})},\quad 1\leq k\leq n,$$ with $(c_1,\ldots,c_{n})\in{{\mathbb C}}^{n}$.
\[t-LINEAR\] Let $n\in{{\mathbb N}}$ and $f\in D_{\alpha}\setminus\{0\}$. Suppose $1\notin f\cdot\operatorname{{\mathcal P}}_{n}$ and let $M$ denote the $n\times n$ matrix with entries $\langle (z^{k} f)^{\prime},(z^{j}f)^{\prime}\rangle_{L^{2}(\mu_{\alpha})}$. Then the unique $p_{n}\in\operatorname{{\mathcal P}}_{n}$ satisfying $$\|p_{n}f-1\|_{\alpha}=\operatorname{dist}_{D_{\alpha}}(1,f\cdot\operatorname{{\mathcal P}}_{n})$$ is given by $$\label{pnFormula}
p_{n}(z)=p_{n}(0) \left( 1 +\sum_{k=1}^{n} \frac{\det M^{(k)}}{\det M}z^{k}\right),$$ where $M^{(k)}$ denotes the $n\times n$ matrix obtained from $M$ by replacing the $k$th column of $M$ by the column with entries $\langle -f^{\prime}, (z^{j} f)^{\prime}\rangle_{L^{2}(\mu_{\alpha})}$, $1\leq j\leq n$.
As mentioned before, if $p_n$ is the optimal approximant of order $n$ to $f$ and $p_{n}(0)\neq 0$, then the optimal approximant of order $n$ to $1/f_n$ is $[p_{n}(0)]^{-1}p_{n}$, where $f_{n}=p_{n}(0)f$. If $[p_{n}(0)]^{-1}p_{n}(z)
=1+\sum_{k=1}^{n}c_{k}^{*}z^{k}$, then $(c_1^{*},\ldots,c_n^{*})\in{{\mathbb C}}^{n}$ is the unique solution to the system in because $$\langle (z^{k} f_{n})^{\prime},(z^{j}f_{n})^{\prime}\rangle_{L^{2}(\mu_{\alpha})}
=|p_{n}(0)|^{2}\langle (z^{k} f)^{\prime},(z^{j}f)^{\prime}\rangle_{L^{2}(\mu_{\alpha})}$$ for $0\leq k\leq n$ and $1\leq j\leq n$. It follows now that the $n\times n$ matrix $M$ with entries $\langle (z^{k} f)^{\prime},(z^{j}f)^{\prime}\rangle_{L^{2}(\mu_{\alpha})}$ has non-zero determinant and thus $$c_{k}^{*}=\frac{\det M^{(k)}}{\det M},\quad 1\leq k\leq n,$$ by Cramer’s rule, where $M^{(k)}$ denotes the $n\times n$ matrix obtained from $M$ by replacing the $k$th column of $M$ by the column with entries $\langle -f^{\prime}, (z^{j} f)^{\prime}\rangle_{L^{2}(\mu_{\alpha})}$, $1\leq j\leq n$. Hence $p_{n}$ is given by .
If $f$ is a polynomial, then the computation of the determinants appearing in can be simplified in view of the following proposition.
\[t-2tdiagonal\] Suppose $f$ is a polynomial of degree $t$. Then the matrix $M$ in Theorem \[t-LINEAR\] is banded and has bandwidth at most $2t+1$.
The orthogonality of $z^l$ and $z^m$ for $l \neq m$ (under the $L^{2}(\mu_{\alpha})$ inner product) implies that the $(j,k)$-entry of $M$ equals $0$ if the degree of $(z^{k}f)^{\prime}$ is strictly less than $j-1$ or if the degree of $(z^{j} f)^{\prime}$ is strictly less than $k-1$; that is, $k+t-1<j-1$ or $j+t-1<k-1$. Therefore, the only entries of $M$ that do not necessarily vanish are the ones whose indices $j$ and $k$ satisfy $-t\leq j-k\leq t$. Thus, $M$ is banded and has bandwidth at most $2t+1$.
An explicit example of optimal approximants {#optimalPnEx}
-------------------------------------------
Now, we calculate explicitly optimal approximants to $1/f$, where $f(z)=1-z$. Even though $f$ is a low order polynomial, this example is already interesting because $f$ is cyclic in $D_\alpha$ for $\alpha \le 1$, even though it is not invertible for any $\alpha\ge -1$.
We begin with some general computations. Let $\beta=1-\alpha$. Then $$\|z^{m}\|_{L^{2}(\mu_{\alpha})}^{2}=\int_{0}^{1}u^{1-\alpha}(1-u)^{m}\,du\nonumber =\prod_{\ell=1}^m \frac{\ell}{\ell+\beta}\label{zmL2Norm}$$ holds for any non-negative integer $m$. Therefore, if $f(z) =\sum_{i=0}^{t}a_{i}z^{i}$, we have[^2] $$\begin{aligned}
\langle (z^{k} f)^{\prime},(z^{j}f)^{\prime}\rangle_{L^{2}(\mu_{\alpha})}
&=\sum_{i=0}^{t}\sum_{\ell=0}^{t}a_{i}\bar{a}_{\ell}(i+k)(\ell+j)
\langle z^{i+k-1},z^{\ell+j-1}\rangle_{L^{2}(\mu_{\alpha})}\nonumber\\
&=\sum_{i=0}^{t}a_{i}\bar{a}_{i+k-j}(i+k)^{2}\|z^{i+k-1}\|_{L^{2}(\mu_{\alpha})}^2\nonumber\\
&=\sum_{i=0}^{t}a_{i}\bar{a}_{i+k-j}
(i+k)\prod_{\ell=1}^{i+k} \frac{\ell}{\ell+\beta}\label{L2InnerProducts}\end{aligned}$$ because $z^l$ and $z^m$ are orthogonal for $l \neq m$ under the $L^{2}(\mu_{\alpha})$ inner product.
We simplify notation by calling, for $k \in {{\mathbb N}}$, $$\Lambda_\beta(k)= k\prod_{\ell=1}^k\frac{\ell}{\ell+\beta}.$$ Since $a_0=1$ and $a_1=-1$, it follows from that $$\begin{aligned}
\langle (z^{k} f)^{\prime},(z^{k-1}f)^{\prime}\rangle_{L^{2}(\mu_{\alpha})}
&=-\Lambda_\beta(k),\\
\langle (z^{k} f)^{\prime},(z^{k}f)^{\prime}\rangle_{L^{2}(\mu_{\alpha})}
&=\Lambda_\beta(k)+\Lambda_\beta(k+1),\\
\langle (z^{k} f)^{\prime},(z^{k+1}f)^{\prime}\rangle_{L^{2}(\mu_{\alpha})}
&=-\Lambda_\beta(k+1),\;\text{ and }\\
\langle -f^{\prime},(z^{j}f)^{\prime}\rangle_{L^{2}(\mu_{\alpha})}
&=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\Lambda_\beta(1) & \text{ if }j=1\\
0 & \text{ if }j\geq 2.
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, in view of , the coefficients of $p_{n}$ satisfy the sytem of equations $$\begin{aligned}
c_{1}\left[\Lambda_\beta(1)+\Lambda_\beta(2)\right]
-c_{2}\left[\Lambda_\beta(2)\right]&=\Lambda_\beta(1)\\
-c_{j-1}\left[\Lambda_\beta(j)\right]+
c_{j}\left[\Lambda_\beta(j)+\Lambda_\beta(j+1)\right]
-c_{j+1}\left[\Lambda_\beta(j+1)\right]&=0\\
-c_{n-1}\left[\Lambda_\beta(n)\right]
+c_{n}\left[\Lambda_\beta(n)+\Lambda_\beta(n+1)\right]&=0\end{aligned}$$ or, interpreting $c_{n+1}=0$, equivalently, for all $2\leq j \leq
n+1$: $$\Lambda_\beta(j)(c_j - c_{j-1}) = \Lambda_\beta(1) (c_1-1).$$ For fixed $k$, $2\leq k\leq n+1$, by a repeated use of the previous identity, we obtain the following: $$\label{generalCkFormula}
c_{k}=\left[\Lambda_\beta(1) \sum_{j=1}^k
\frac{1}{\Lambda_\beta(j)}\right](c_1-1)+1$$
In particular, we have $$c_1-1=-\Lambda_\beta(n+1)c_{n}$$ and so, we can recover the value of $c_1$, $$c_1-1=-\frac{1}{\Lambda_\beta(1)\sum_{j=1}^{n+1}\frac{1}{\Lambda_\beta(j)}}.$$ Finally, we obtain the explicit solution, which can be expressed as follows, for $1\leq k\leq n$: $$c_{k}=\left[\sum_{j=k+1}^{n+1}\frac{1}{j}
\prod_{\ell=2}^j \left(1+\frac{\beta}{\ell}\right)\right]
\left[\sum_{j=1}^{n+1}\frac{1}{j}
\prod_{\ell=2}^j\left(1+\frac{\beta}{\ell}\right)\right]^{-1}.
\label{CkFormulaWithBetas}$$
Alternatively, in the case of the Dirichlet space, we can compute the coefficients $c_k$, $1\leq k \leq n$, using determinants as follows. For $n\in{{\mathbb N}}$, let $M_{n}=M$ and $M^{(k)}_{n}=M^{(k)}$ be the $n\times n$ matrices corresponding to $f$ as in Theorem \[t-LINEAR\]. By Proposition \[t-2tdiagonal\], the matrix $M_{n}$ is tridiagonal and so it suffices to compute the coefficients above and below each entry of its main diagonal. The coefficients in the $j$th column of $M_{n}$ are given by $$\langle (z^{j+\ell} f)^{\prime},(z^{j}f)^{\prime}\rangle_{L^{2}}
=a_{0}\bar{a}_{\ell}(j+\ell)+a_{1}\bar{a}_{1+\ell}(j+\ell+1)$$ where $\ell=-1,0,1$. Since $a_0=1$ and $a_1=-1$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\langle (z^{j-1} f)^{\prime},(z^{j}f)^{\prime}\rangle_{L^{2}}
&=-j,\\
\langle (z^{j} f)^{\prime},(z^{j}f)^{\prime}\rangle_{L^{2}}
&=2j+1,\\
\langle (z^{j+1} f)^{\prime},(z^{j}f)^{\prime}\rangle_{L^{2}}
&=-(j+1),\\
\text{ and }\;\langle -f^{\prime},(z^{j}f)^{\prime}\rangle_{L^{2}}
&=\bar{a}_{1-j}.
\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, $$M_{1}=3,\qquad M_{1}^{(1)}=1,$$ $$\begin{aligned}
M_{2}&=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
3 & -2\\
-2 & 5
\end{array}\right),\qquad
M_{2}^{(1)}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & -2\\
0 & 5
\end{array}\right),\qquad
M_{2}^{(2)}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
3 & 1\\
-2 & 0
\end{array}\right)
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
M_{3}=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
3 & -2 & 0\\
-2 & 5 & -3\\
0 & -3 & 7
\end{array}\right),\qquad
&M_{3}^{(1)}=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & -2 & 0\\
0 & 5 & -3\\
0 & -3 & 7
\end{array}\right), \, \hdots
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
M_{4}=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
3 & -2 & 0 & 0\\
-2 & 5 & -3 & 0\\
0 & -3 & 7 & -4\\
0 & 0 & -4 & 9
\end{array}\right),\qquad
&M_{4}^{(1)}=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & -2 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 5 & -3 & 0\\
0 & -3 & 7 & -4\\
0 & 0 & -4 & 9
\end{array}\right), \, \hdots
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the optimal approximants to $f$ of orders 1, 2, 3, and 4 are $$\begin{aligned}
p_{1}(z)&=p_{1}(0)\left(1+\frac{1}{3}z\right),\\
p_{2}(z)&=p_{2}(0)\left(1+\frac{5}{11}z+\frac{2}{11}z^2\right),\\
p_{3}(z)&=p_{3}(0)\left(1+\frac{13}{25}z+\frac{7}{25}z^2+\frac{3}{25}z^3\right),
\;\text{ and }\\
p_{4}(z)&=p_{4}(0)\left(1+\frac{77}{137}z+\frac{47}{137}z^2
+\frac{27}{137}z^3+\frac{12}{137}z^4\right).
\end{aligned}$$
What we have shown is that, for any integer $n,$ the optimal approximant for the Dirichlet space is an example of a generalized Riesz mean polynomial: more specifically, defining $H_{n}=\sum_{j=1}^{n}\frac{1}{j}$ and $H_0 = 0,$ $$p_n(z) = p_{n}(0) \left(\sum_{k=0}^{n}\left(1-\frac{H_{k}}{H_{n+1}}\right)z^{k}\right).$$
Moreover, for the Hardy space, the optimal approximant is a modified Cesàro mean polynomial, $$p_n(z) = p_{n}(0)\left(\sum_{k=0}^{n}
\left(1-\frac{k+H_{k}}{n+1+H_{n+1}}\right)z^{k}\right),$$ and for the Bergman space, the optimal approximants are $$p_n(z) = p_{n}(0)\left(1+\sum_{k=1}^{n}
\left(1-\frac{k(k+7)+4H_{k}}{(n+1)(n+8)+4H_{n+1}}\right)z^{k}\right).$$ We will return to these polynomials in Section \[OptimalNormBounds\].
Rate of decay of the optimal norms {#OptimalNormBounds}
==================================
In this section, we obtain estimates for $\operatorname{dist}_{D_{\alpha}}(1,f\cdot\operatorname{{\mathcal P}}_{n})$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$, $f\in D_{\alpha}$. It turns out that the example of $f(z) = 1-z$ in the previous section is a model example for the rate of decay of $\operatorname{dist}_{D_{\alpha}}(1,f\cdot\operatorname{{\mathcal P}}_{n})$. We first examine the rate of decay for this function, then establish such estimates when $f$ is a polynomial whose zeros are simple and lie in ${{\mathbb C}}\setminus{{\mathbb D}}$, and then extend our results to arbitrary polynomials. We conclude with estimates on functions that admit an analytic continuation to the closed unit disk yet have at least one zero on the circle.
To simplify notation, define the auxiliary function $\varphi_{\alpha}$ on $[0,\infty)$ to be $$\varphi_{\alpha}(s)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
s^{1-\alpha},\;&\text{ if }\alpha<1\\
\log^+(s),&\text{ if }\alpha=1.
\end{array}\right.$$
\[sharp1\] If $f(z) = \zeta - z,$ for $\zeta \in {{\mathbb T}},$ then $\operatorname{dist}_{D_{\alpha}}^{2}(1,f\cdot\operatorname{{\mathcal P}}_{n})$ is comparable to $\varphi_{\alpha}^{-1}(n+1)$ for all sufficiently large $n$.
First notice that, for any polynomial $p$ and $\zeta \in {{\mathbb T}}$, the polynomial $q(z)=\zeta p(\zeta z)$ satisfies $\|p(z)(\zeta-z)-1\|_{\alpha}=\|q(z)(1-z)-1\|_{\alpha}$ because rotation by $\zeta$ is an isometry in $D_{\alpha}$. Therefore, it is enough to consider the case when $\zeta=1$, i.e. $f(z) = 1 - z$.
Now, recall that by , if $f(z)=1-z$, the optimal approximant of order $n$ to $1/f$ is $$p_{n}(z)=p_{n}(0)\sum_{k=0}^{n}c_{k}z^{k},$$ where $$c_k=\left[\sum_{j=k+1}^{n+1}\frac{1}{j}
\prod_{\ell=2}^j \left(1+\frac{\beta}{\ell}\right)\right]
\left[\sum_{j=1}^{n+1}\frac{1}{j}
\prod_{\ell=2}^j\left(1+\frac{\beta}{\ell}\right)\right]^{-1},
\;0\leq k\leq n,$$ and $\beta=1-\alpha$. We claim that $\|p_{n}f-1\|_{\alpha}^{2}$ is comparable to $\varphi_{\alpha}^{-1}(n+1)$ for all sufficiently large $n$.
First of all, notice that $$p_{n}(z)f(z)-1=p_{n}(0)-1+p_{n}(0)
\left[\sum_{k=1}^{n}(c_{k}-c_{k-1})z^{k}-c_{n}z^{n+1}\right].$$ To simplify notation, define for $1\leq k\leq n$ $$a_{k}=c_{k}-c_{k-1}=-
\left[\frac{1}{k}\prod_{\ell=2}^k \left(1+\frac{\beta}{\ell}\right)\right]
\left[\sum_{j=1}^{n+1}\frac{1}{j}
\prod_{\ell=2}^j\left(1+\frac{\beta}{\ell}\right)\right]^{-1}$$ and $a_{n+1}=-c_{n}$. Then $$\label{sumAks}
\sum_{k=1}^{n}k^{\alpha}|a_{k}|^{2}
=\left[\sum_{j=1}^{n+1}
\frac{1}{j}\prod_{\ell=2}^j\left(1+\frac{\beta}{\ell}\right)\right]^{-2}
\sum_{k=1}^{n}k^{\alpha-2}
\left[\prod_{\ell=2}^k \left(1+\frac{\beta}{\ell}\right)\right]^{2}.$$ Recalling that $2^{-1}x\leq\log(1+x)\leq x$ holds for all $x\in[0,1]$, we see that $$\prod_{\ell=2}^k \left(1+\frac{\beta}{\ell}\right)
=\exp\left[\sum_{\ell=2}^k \log \left(1+\frac{\beta}{\ell}\right)\right]$$ is comparable to $$\exp\left[\beta\sum_{\ell=2}^{k}\frac{1}{\ell}\right],$$ and so comparable to $k^{\beta}$, when $1\leq k\leq n+1$. Thus, the sum in and $$(n+1)^{\alpha}|a_{n+1}|^{2}=(n+1)^{\alpha}\left[\frac{1}{n+1}
\prod_{\ell=2}^{n+1}\left(1+\frac{\beta}{\ell}\right)\right]^{2}
\left[\sum_{j=1}^{n+1}\frac{1}{j}
\prod_{\ell=2}^j\left(1+\frac{\beta}{\ell}\right)\right]^{-2}$$ are comparable to $$\left[\sum_{j=1}^{n+1}\frac{1}{j^{\alpha}}\right]^{-2}
\sum_{k=1}^{n}\frac{1}{k^{\alpha}}\quad\text{ and }\quad
\frac{1}{(n+1)^{\alpha}}
\left[\sum_{j=1}^{n+1}\frac{1}{j^{\alpha}}\right]^{-2},$$ respectively. Since $\sum_{j=1}^{n}j^{-\alpha}$ is comparable to $\varphi_{\alpha}(n+1)$, the sum $$\sum_{k=1}^{n+1}k^{\alpha}|a_{k}|^{2}$$ is comparable to $\varphi_{\alpha}^{-1}(n+1)$ when $n\geq 2$. This proves the lemma.
Let us now examine the rate of decay of optimal norms for polynomials whose zeros are simple and lie in ${{\mathbb C}}\setminus{{\mathbb D}}$. To begin, let us introduce some notation. Let $A({{\mathbb T}})$ denote the [*Wiener algebra*]{}, that is, $A({{\mathbb T}})$ consists of functions $f$, defined on ${{\mathbb T}}$, whose Fourier coefficients are absolutely summable, and is equipped with the norm $$\|f\|_{A({{\mathbb T}})}=\sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty}|a_k|.$$ The positive Wiener algebra consists of analytic functions whose Fourier coefficients satisfy $\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}|a_k|<\infty$; in particular, these functions belong to $H^{\infty}$, the space of bounded analytic functions in ${{\mathbb D}},$ and $\|f\|_{H^{\infty}}\leq \|f\|_{A({{\mathbb T}})}$ holds for all $f$ in the positive Wiener algebra, where $\|f\|_{H^{\infty}}=\sup\{|f(z)|\colon z\in{{\mathbb D}}\}$.
\[prop43\] Let $\alpha\leq 1$, $t \in{{\mathbb N}}$ and $f\in\operatorname{{\mathcal P}}_{t}$. If the zeros of $f$ are simple and lie in ${{\mathbb C}}\backslash{{\mathbb D}}$, then for each $n>t$ there is $p_{n}\in\operatorname{{\mathcal P}}_{n}$ such that $(p_{n}f)(0)=1$, $$\label{distPhiEstimate}
\|p_{n} f -1 \|^2_\alpha \leq C \varphi_{\alpha}^{-1}(n+1)$$ holds for some constant $C$ that depends on $f$ and $\alpha$ but not on $n$, and such that the sequence $\{p_{n} f\}_{n>t}$ is bounded in $A({{\mathbb T}})-$norm.
Suppose $f$ has simple zeros $z_1,\ldots, z_{t}\in{{\mathbb C}}\setminus{{\mathbb D}}$. Then there are constants $d_1,\ldots,d_{t}$ such that $$\frac{1}{f(z)}=\sum_{j=1}^{t}\frac{d_{j}}{z_{j}-z}
=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\left(\sum_{j=1}^{t}\frac{d_{j}}{z_{j}^{k+1}}\right)z^{k}.$$ Define $b_{k}=\sum_{j=1}^{t}d_{j} z_{j}^{-(k+1)}$ for $k\geq 0$. It follows that the sequence $\{b_{k}\}_{k=0}^{\infty}$ is bounded in modulus by $\sum_{j=1}^{t}|d_{j}|$, and the Taylor series representations of $f$ and $1/f$ centered at the origin are of the form $$f(z)=\sum_{k=0}^{t}a_kz^k\;\text{ and }\;
\frac{1}{f(z)}=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}b_k z^k,$$ for some $a_0,\ldots,a_{t}\in{{\mathbb C}}$. Set $a_{k}=0$ for $k>t$. Consequently, $$\label{cancellationLemma}
\sum_{j=0}^k b_j a_{k-j}=0\quad\text{ for }k\in{{\mathbb N}}\backslash\{0\}.$$
Consider the polynomial $p_{n}(z) = \sum_{k=0}^n c_k z^k$ with coefficients $$c_{0}=a_{0}^{-1}\quad\text{ and }\quad
c_k = \left(1-\frac{\varphi_{\alpha}(k)}{\varphi_{\alpha}(n+1)}\right) b_k
\text{ for }1\leq k\leq n.$$ For convenience of notation, let $c_k = 0$ if $k >n$. Evidently, $(p_{n}f)(0)=1$. Let us prove . To estimate $\|p_{n}f-1\|_{\alpha}^{2}$, we consider separately the norms of $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf mp}&=\sum_{k=t+1}^{n+t}\left(\sum_{i=0}^k c_i a_{k-i}\right)z^k,\;\text{ and }\\
{\bf sp}&=\sum_{k=1}^t\left(\sum_{i=0}^k c_i a_{k-i}\right)z^k,
\end{aligned}$$ and note that $$\label{sumOfNorms}
\|p_{n}f-1\|_{\alpha}^{2}=\|{\bf mp}\|_{\alpha}^{2}+\|{\bf sp}\|_{\alpha}^{2}$$ and $$\label{coeffCk}
\sum_{i=0}^k c_i a_{k-i}=
\frac{-1}{\varphi_{\alpha}(n+1)}\sum_{i=0}^k \varphi_{\alpha}(i)b_{i}a_{k-i}$$ by . To estimate the norm of [**mp**]{}, we need the following result.
\[fundamental\] Under the assumptions of Proposition \[prop43\], if $k>t$, there is a constant $C=C(\alpha,f)$ such that $$\left|\sum_{i=0}^k \varphi_{\alpha}(i) b_i a_{k-i}\right|
\leq \frac{C}{(k+1)^{\alpha}}.$$
We finish the proof of Proposition \[prop43\] before proving the Control Lemma.
By and the Control Lemma \[fundamental\], $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\bf mp}\|^2_\alpha
&=\sum_{k=t+1}^{n+t} \left|\sum_{i=0}^k c_ia_{k-i}\right|^2 (k+1)^\alpha\\
&=\frac{1}{\varphi_{\alpha}^{2}(n+1)}\sum_{k=t+1}^{n+t} \left|\sum_{i=0}^k
\varphi_{\alpha}(i)b_{i}a_{k-i}\right|^2 (k+1)^\alpha\\
&\leq\frac{C_{1}}{\varphi_{\alpha}^{2}(n+1)}\sum_{k=t+1}^{n+t}
\frac{1}{(k+1)^{\alpha}}
\end{aligned}$$ for some constant $C_{1}=C_{1}(\alpha,f)$. It follows now from the estimates $$\sum_{k=t+1}^{n+t} \frac{1}{(k+1)^{\alpha}}\leq\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
n(n+t+1)^{-\alpha}\;&\text{ if }\alpha\leq0,\\
(1-\alpha)^{-1}[(n+t+1)^{1-\alpha}-(t+1)^{1-\alpha}]&\text{ if }0<\alpha<1,\\
\log(n+t+1)-\log(t+1)&\text{ if }\alpha=1
\end{array}\right.$$ and the elementary inequalities $$\begin{array}{ll}
(n+t+1)^{-\alpha}\leq2^{-\alpha}(n+1)^{-\alpha}\;&\text{ for }\alpha\leq0,\\
(n+t+1)^{1-\alpha}\leq2^{1-\alpha}(n+1)^{1-\alpha}&\text{ for }\alpha>0,
\,\text{ and }\\
\log(n+t+1)-\log(t+1)\leq\log(n+1),
\end{array}$$ that there is a constant $C_{2}=C_{2}(\alpha,f)$ such that $$\label{sumEstimate}
\sum_{k=t+1}^{n+t}\frac{1}{(k+1)^{\alpha}}
\leq C_{2}\varphi_{\alpha}(n+1),$$ and so $$\label{mpEstimate}
\|{\bf mp}\|^2_\alpha\leq\frac{C_{1}C_{2}}{\varphi_{\alpha}(n+1)}.$$
Next, we estimate the norm of [**sp**]{}. Recalling , we see that $$\|{\bf sp}\|^2_\alpha
=\frac{1}{\varphi_{\alpha}^{2}(n+1)}\sum_{k=1}^t \left|\sum_{i=0}^k
\varphi_{\alpha}(i)b_{i}a_{k-i}\right|^2 (k+1)^\alpha.$$ By the Triangle inequality and since $\varphi$ is increasing, if $1\leq k\leq t$, then $$\label{triangleIneqEstimate}
\left|\sum_{i=0}^k \varphi_{\alpha}(i)b_{i}a_{k-i}\right|
\leq\|b\|_{\ell^{\infty}}\|a\|_{\ell^{\infty}}(t+1)\varphi_{\alpha}(t),$$ where $a=\{a_{k}\}_{k=0}^{\infty}$ and $b=\{b_{k}\}_{k=0}^{\infty}$. Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\bf sp}\|^2_\alpha
&\leq\frac{1}{\varphi_{\alpha}^{2}(n+1)}\|b\|_{\ell^{\infty}}^{2}
\|a\|_{\ell^{\infty}}^{2}(t+1)^{2}\varphi_{\alpha}^{2}(t)
\sum_{k=1}^t (k+1)^{\alpha},
\end{aligned}$$ and so $$\label{spEstimate}
\|{\bf sp}\|^2_\alpha\leq\frac{C_{3}}{\varphi_{\alpha}(n+1)}$$ as $\varphi_{\alpha}(t)\leq\varphi_{\alpha}(n+1)$. Hence, follows from , and .
Finally, we show that the sequence $\{p_{n} f\}_{n>t}$ is bounded in $A({{\mathbb T}})$. Notice that, for $1\leq k\leq t$, and imply $$\label{absSumEstimateSp}
\left|\sum_{i=0}^{k}c_{i}a_{k-i}\right|
\leq\|b\|_{\ell^{\infty}}\|a\|_{\ell^{\infty}}(t+1)$$ because $\varphi_{\alpha}(t)\leq\varphi_{\alpha}(n+1)$. On the other hand, for $t<k\leq n+t$, and the Control Lemma \[fundamental\] imply $$\label{absSumEstimateMp}
\left|\sum_{i=0}^{k}c_{i}a_{k-i}\right|
\leq\frac{C}{(k+1)^{\alpha}}\varphi_{\alpha}^{-1}(n+1)$$ for some constant $C=C(\alpha,f)$. Therefore, by , , and , $$\begin{aligned}
\|p_{n}f\|_{A({{\mathbb T}})}&=\sum_{k=1}^{n+t}\left|\sum_{i=0}^{k}c_{i}a_{k-i}\right|\\
&\leq\sum_{k=1}^{t}\|b\|_{\ell^{\infty}}\|a\|_{\ell^{\infty}}(t+1)
+\frac{C}{\varphi_{\alpha}(n+1)}\sum_{k=t+1}^{n+t}\frac{1}{(k+1)^{\alpha}}\\
&\leq\|b\|_{\ell^{\infty}}\|a\|_{\ell^{\infty}}(t+1)t
+C\cdot C_{2}
\end{aligned}$$ and so $\{p_{n} f\}_{n>t}$ is bounded in $A({{\mathbb T}})$. This completes the proof.
We now proceed to prove Lemma \[fundamental\].
For $k-t\leq s\leq k$, $$\label{phiPrimeEstimate}
\varphi^{\prime}_{\alpha}(s)\leq\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(1-\alpha)k^{-\alpha}\;&\text{ if }\alpha<0\\
(1-\alpha)(k-t)^{-\alpha}&\text{ if }0\leq\alpha<1\\
(k-t)^{-1}&\text{ if }\alpha=1.
\end{array}\right.$$ Thus, the Mean Value Theorem, , and the inequality $$(k-t)^{-\alpha}\leq(t+2)^{\alpha}(k+1)^{-\alpha}
\;\text{ for }\alpha\geq0\text{ and }k\geq t+1,$$ imply that there is a constant $C=C(\alpha,t)$ such that $$\varphi_{\alpha}(k)-\varphi_{\alpha}(i)\leq C(k-i)(k+1)^{-\alpha}\;\text{ for }k\geq i.$$ Recalling and that $a_{i}=0$ for $i>t$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\sum_{i=0}^k \varphi_{\alpha}(i) b_i a_{k-i}\right|
&\leq\left|\sum_{i=0}^k [\varphi_{\alpha}(k)-\varphi_{\alpha}(i)] b_i a_{k-i}\right|\\
&\leq \sum_{i=k-t}^k [\varphi_{\alpha}(k)-\varphi_{\alpha}(i)]\cdot |b_i a_{k-i}|\\
&\leq\|a\|_{\ell^{\infty}}\|b\|_{\ell^{\infty}}C(k+1)^{-\alpha}\sum_{i=k-t}^k(k-i),\end{aligned}$$ where $a=\{a_{i}\}_{i=0}^{\infty}$ and $b=\{b_{i}\}_{i=0}^{\infty}$. Hence, the conclusion holds with constant $\|a\|_{\ell^{\infty}}\|b\|_{\ell^{\infty}}Ct(t+1)/2$.
It seems natural to ask whether the proof of Theorem \[prop43\] can be extended to polynomials $f$ whose zeros are not necessarily simple. However, even in the simple case of $f(z)=(1-z)^2$, the coefficients of the Taylor series representation centered at the origin of $1/f$ are not bounded; consequently, the proof of Proposition \[prop43\] cannot be extended directly because the boundedness of these coefficients is needed. Nevertheless, if $f$ is an arbitrary polynomial, we can obtain an estimate for $\operatorname{dist}_{D_{\alpha}}(1,f\cdot\operatorname{{\mathcal P}}_{n})$. Moreover, using Lemma \[sharp1\], we will be able to show this rate of decay is sharp.
\[distForPol\] Let $\alpha\leq 1$. If $f$ is a polynomial whose zeros lie in ${{\mathbb C}}\setminus{{\mathbb D}}$, then there exists a constant $C=C(\alpha,f)$ such that $$\label{distEstimate}
\operatorname{dist}_{D_{\alpha}}^{2}(1,f\cdot\operatorname{{\mathcal P}}_{m})
\leq C\varphi_{\alpha}^{-1}(m+1)$$ holds for all sufficiently large $m$. Moreover, this estimate is sharp in the sense that if such a polynomial $f$ has at least one zero on ${{\mathbb T}}$, then there exists a constant $\tilde{C}= \tilde{C}(\alpha,f)$ such that $$\tilde{C} \varphi_{\alpha}^{-1}(m+1) \leq \operatorname{dist}_{D_{\alpha}}^{2}(1,f\cdot\operatorname{{\mathcal P}}_{m}).$$
Suppose $f$ has factorization $$f(z)=K \prod_{k=1}^s (z-z_k)^{r_k}$$ with $r_{1},\ldots,r_{s}\in{{\mathbb N}}$, $z_1,\ldots,z_{s}\in{{\mathbb C}}\setminus{{\mathbb D}}$ are distinct, and $K \in{{\mathbb C}}\setminus\{0\}$. Define $$g(z)=\prod_{k=1}^{s}(z-z_k)\quad\text{ and }\quad
h(z) =K^{-1}\prod_{k=1}^s (z-z_k)^{\gamma- r_k},$$ where $\gamma=\max\{r_1,\ldots,r_s\}$, and let $d$ equal the degree of $h$. Then $fh=g^{\gamma}$, $$\label{distEstimateForProduct}
\operatorname{dist}_{D_{\alpha}}(1,f\cdot\operatorname{{\mathcal P}}_{n+d})
\leq\operatorname{dist}_{D_{\alpha}}(1,fh\cdot\operatorname{{\mathcal P}}_{n})\;\text{ for }n\in{{\mathbb N}},$$ and the zeros of $g$ are simple and lie in ${{\mathbb C}}\backslash{{\mathbb D}}$.
By Proposition \[prop43\], for $n>s$, we can choose $q_{n}\in\operatorname{{\mathcal P}}_{n}$ such that $(q_{n}g)(0)=1$ and $$\label{qnEstimate}
\|q_{n}g-1\|^2_\alpha\leq C_{1}\varphi_{\alpha}^{-1}(n+1)$$ holds for some $C_{1}=C_{1}(\alpha,g)$, and such that the sequence $\{q_{n} g\}_{n>s}$ is bounded in $A({{\mathbb T}})$.
Let $d\mu_{\alpha}(z)=(1-|z|^{2})^{1-\alpha}\, dA(z)$. Recalling that $\|p\|_{\alpha}^2$ is comparable to $|p(0)|^{2}+D_{\alpha}(p)=|p(0)|^{2}+\|p^{\prime}\|_{L^{2}(\mu_{\alpha})}^{2}$ for all $p\in D_{\alpha}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\|q_{n}^{\gamma}g^{\gamma} -1\|^2_\alpha
&\leq C_{2}\|(q_{n}^{\gamma}g^{\gamma})^{\prime}\|^2_{L^{2}(\mu_{\alpha})}\nonumber\\
&= C_{2}\|(q_n g)^{\gamma-1}\gamma (q_n^{\prime}g
+q_n g^{\prime})\|^2_{L^{2}(\mu_{\alpha})}\nonumber\\
&\leq C_{2}\gamma^{2}\|q_n g\|_{H^{\infty}}^{2\gamma-2}
\|q_n^{\prime}g+q_n g^{\prime}\|^2_{L^{2}(\mu_{\alpha})}\nonumber\\
&\leq C_{3}\gamma^{2}\|q_n g\|_{H^{\infty}}^{2\gamma-2}
\|q_{n}g-1\|^{2}_{\alpha}\nonumber\\
&\leq C_{3}\gamma^{2}\|q_n g\|_{A({{\mathbb T}})}^{2\gamma-2}
\|q_{n}g-1\|^{2}_{\alpha}\label{gGammaEstimate}\end{aligned}$$ for some constants $C_{2}=C_{2}(\alpha)$ and $C_{3}=C_{3}(\alpha)$, as $(q_{n}g)(0)=1$. Therefore, and imply that there is a constant $C_{4}=C_{4}(\alpha,\gamma, g)$ such that $$\operatorname{dist}_{D_{\alpha}}^{2}(1,g^{\gamma}\cdot\operatorname{{\mathcal P}}_{n\gamma})
\leq C_{4}\varphi_{\alpha}^{-1}(n+1)$$ because $q_{n}^{\gamma}\in\operatorname{{\mathcal P}}_{n\gamma}$ and $\{q_{n} g\}_{n>s}$ is bounded in $A({{\mathbb T}})$. Thus, by , $$\label{distLinear}
\operatorname{dist}_{D_{\alpha}}^{2}(1,f\cdot\operatorname{{\mathcal P}}_{n\gamma+d})
\leq C_{4}\varphi_{\alpha}^{-1}(n+1)\;\text{ when }n>s.$$
Let $m>d+(s+1)\gamma$. Then there exists an integer $a$ and an $n\in{{\mathbb N}}$ such that $0\leq a<\gamma$ and $m-d=n\gamma+a$. In particular, $n>s$ and $$\label{distC4m}
\operatorname{dist}_{D_{\alpha}}^{2}(1,f\cdot\operatorname{{\mathcal P}}_{m})
\leq C_{4}\varphi_{\alpha}^{-1}(n+1)$$ follows from as $m\geq n\gamma+d$. Finally, the elementary inequalities $$(1+n\gamma+d+a)\leq(\gamma+d)(1+n)\;\text{ and }\;
(1+n\gamma+d+a)\leq(1+n)^{2\gamma+d}$$ valid for all $n\in{{\mathbb N}}$ imply the existence of a constant $C_{5}=C_{5}(\alpha,\gamma,d)$ such that $$\label{phiC5m}
\varphi_{\alpha}(m+1)\leq C_{5}\varphi_{\alpha}(n+1).$$ Hence, holds for $m>d+(s+1)\gamma$ by and .
Let us now show that the inequality is sharp. If $f$ is any polynomial with zeros outside ${{\mathbb D}}$ that has at least one zero on ${{\mathbb T}},$ then $f(z) = h(z)(\zeta - z)$ for some polynomial $h$ of degree say $d.$ Then for any polynomial $p_m$ of degree at most $m,$ $$\| p_m(z) h(z) (\zeta - z) - 1 \|_{\alpha}^2 \geq \operatorname{dist}_{D_{\alpha}}^{2}(1,(\zeta - z) \cdot\operatorname{{\mathcal P}}_{m+d}).$$ By Lemma \[sharp1\], there exists a constant $C_1 = C_1(\alpha)$ such that $$\operatorname{dist}_{D_{\alpha}}^{2}(1,(\zeta - z) \cdot\operatorname{{\mathcal P}}_{m+d}) \geq C_1 \varphi^{-1}_{\alpha}(m+d+1).$$ Now, in a manner similar to , we can choose a constant $C_2 = C_2(\alpha, d)$ such that $$\varphi_{\alpha}^{-1}(m+d+1) \geq C_2 \varphi_{\alpha}^{-1}(m+1).$$ Finally, letting $\tilde{C} = C_1 C_2$ and noting that the polynomial $p_m$ was arbitrary, we obtain the desired result that $$\operatorname{dist}_{D_{\alpha}}^{2}(1,f\cdot\operatorname{{\mathcal P}}_{m}) \geq \tilde{C} \varphi_{\alpha}^{-1}(m+1).\qedhere$$
In fact, the rates in Theorem \[distForPol\] hold for more general functions $f$, namely functions that have an analytic continuation to the closed unit disk. Since such functions can be factored as $f(z) = h(z) g(z),$ where $h$ is a polynomial with a finite number of zeros on the circle and $g$ is a function analytic in the closed disk with no zeros there, the estimates in Theorem \[distForPol\] hold for $h$. Moreover, we can obtain estimates on $g$ that will allow us to give upper bounds on the product $h(z) g(z)$. The estimates needed for $g$ are contained in the following lemma.
\[estimates\_analytic\_continuable\] Let $\alpha\leq 1$ and let $g$ be analytic in the closed disk. If $T_n(g)$ is the Taylor polynomial of degree $n$ of $g$, then $$\| g-T_n(g)\|^2_\alpha = o\left( \varphi_{\alpha}^{-1}(n+1)\right),$$ and there exists a constant $C= C(\alpha)$ such that $$\|T_n(g)\|_{M(D_{\alpha})} \leq C.$$
Suppose $g(z) = \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} d_k z^k$ is convergent in the closed unit disk. Then there exist constants $R> 1$ and $C_1>0$ such that $|d_k| \leq C_1 R^{-k}$. Therefore
$$\begin{aligned}
\| g-T_n(g)\|^2_\alpha &= \sum_{k = n+1}^{\infty} (k+1)^{\alpha} |d_k|^2\\
&\leq C_1 R^{-2n} \sum_{j = 1}^{\infty} (j+n+1)^{\alpha} R^{-2j}\\
&\leq C_1 R^{-2n} (n+1)^{\alpha} C_2,\end{aligned}$$
where $C_2=C_2(\alpha, R) = \sum_{j = 1}^{\infty} (j+1)^{\alpha} R^{-2j} $ if $\alpha \geq 0$ and $C_2 = \sum_{j = 1}^{\infty} R^{-2j} $ if $\alpha < 0$. In either case, $C_2 < \infty$ and is independent of $n$. Therefore, we have that for all $\alpha\leq 1,$ $$\| g-T_n(g)\|^2_\alpha \leq C_1 C_2 R^{-2n} (n+1)^{\alpha}.$$ Noting that $R^{-2n}$ decays exponentially as $n \rightarrow \infty$ while $\varphi^{-1}_{\alpha}$ decays at a polynomial or logarithmic rate, we obtain that $$\| g-T_n(g)\|^2_\alpha = o\left( \varphi_{\alpha}^{-1}(n+1)\right).$$
The same type of argument can be used to show that the Taylor polynomials $T_n(g)$ have uniformly bounded multiplier norms. Indeed, if $f(z) = \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} a_k z^k \in D_{\alpha},$ then in a manner similar to that above, using the exponential decay of the coefficients $d_k$ of $g$, one can easily show that for every integer $k,$ $$\| d_k z^k \cdot f \|_{\alpha} \leq R^{-k}C_{1}C_3 \| f\|_{\alpha},$$ where $C_3 = C_3(k,\alpha) = (k+1)^{\alpha/2}$ if $\alpha \geq 0,$ otherwise, $C_3 = 1$. Therefore, $$\| T_n(g) \cdot f \|_{\alpha} \leq\sum_{k=0}^n \| d_k z^k \cdot f \|_{\alpha}
\leq \left( \sum_{k = 0}^{n} C_{1}C_3 R^{-k} \right) \| f \|_{\alpha}.$$ Since the series $C = \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} C_1 C_3 R^{-k}$ converges, we obtain $$\|T_n(g)\|_{M(D_{\alpha})} \leq C,$$ as desired.
\[OptimalRate\] Let $\alpha\leq 1$. If $f$ is a function admitting an analytic continuation to the closed unit disk and whose zeros lie in ${{\mathbb C}}\setminus{{\mathbb D}}$, then there exists a constant $C=C(\alpha,f)$ such that $$\operatorname{dist}_{D_{\alpha}}^{2}(1,f\cdot\operatorname{{\mathcal P}}_{m})
\leq C\varphi_{\alpha}^{-1}(m+1)$$ holds for all sufficiently large $m$. Moreover, this estimate is sharp in the sense that if such a function $f$ has at least one zero on ${{\mathbb T}}$, then there exists a constant $\tilde{C}= \tilde{C}(\alpha,f)$ such that $$\tilde{C} \varphi_{\alpha}^{-1}(m+1) \leq \operatorname{dist}_{D_{\alpha}}^{2}(1,f\cdot\operatorname{{\mathcal P}}_{m}).$$
Let us first examine the upper bound. Without loss of generality, $f$ is not identically $0,$ and therefore can only have a finite number of zeros on the unit circle ${{\mathbb T}}.$ Write $f(z) = h(z) g(z),$ where $h$ is the polynomial formed from the zeros of $f$ that lie on ${{\mathbb T}},$ and $g$ is analytic in the closed disk with no zeros there. Therefore, $1/g$ is also analytic in the closed unit disk (and obviously has no zeros there), and hence Lemma \[estimates\_analytic\_continuable\] applies to $1/g$. Notice also that $g$ and $g'$ are bounded in the disk, and therefore $g$ is a multiplier for $D_{\alpha}.$
Now, for $m\in{{\mathbb N}}$, let $q_m$ be the optimal approximant of order $m$ to $1/h$ and define $p_m = q_m T_m(1/g)$. By the Triangle Inequality, $$\|p_m f -1\|_\alpha \leq \|T_m(1/g) g(q_m h -1) \|_\alpha + \|T_m(1/g) g -1\|_\alpha.$$ Since we know that $g$ is a multiplier for $D_{\alpha}$, that the $q_m$ are optimal for $h$, and that $T_m(1/g)$ are uniformly bounded in multiplier norm by Lemma \[estimates\_analytic\_continuable\], we see that the square of the first summand on the right-hand side is dominated by a constant times $\varphi_{\alpha}(m+1)$, for some constant independent of $m$. On the other hand, by the second part of Lemma \[estimates\_analytic\_continuable\], the square of the second summand is $o(\varphi_{\alpha}(m+1)),$ and thus is negligible by comparison. Therefore, $$\operatorname{dist}_{D_{\alpha}}^{2}(1,f\cdot\operatorname{{\mathcal P}}_{m}) \leq C\varphi_{\alpha}^{-1}(m+1)$$ for some constant $C=C(\alpha,f),$ as desired.
Let us now address the lower bound for such functions $f.$ Notice first that if the lower bound holds for functions of the form $(\zeta - z) g(z),$ where $g$ is analytic and without zeros in the closed unit disk, then the conclusion holds for $f.$ Moreover, as in the proof of Lemma \[sharp1\], it is enough to consider $\zeta = 1.$ Therefore, we write $f(z) = h(z) g(z),$ where $h(z) = 1-z$ and $g$ as above. Again, since $g$ is analytic and has no zeros in the closed disk, note that both $g$ and $1/g$ are multipliers for $D_{\alpha}.$ Therefore, if $p_m$ is any polynomial of degree less than or equal to $m,$ $$\|p_m f - 1\|_{\alpha} \leq \|g\|_{M(D_{\alpha})} \|p_m h - 1/g\|_{\alpha} \leq \|g\|_{M(D_{\alpha})} \|1/g\|_{M(D_{\alpha})} \|p_m f - 1\|_{\alpha}.$$
Now, let’s choose $p_m$ to be the optimal approximants of degree less than or equal to $m$ to $1/f$. Then by the above discussion, we can assume $p_m h - 1/g \rightarrow 0$ in $D_{\alpha}$, and in particular, the norms $\|p_m h \|_{\alpha}$ are bounded. We thus obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\|p_m f - 1 \|_{\alpha}& = & \| p_m h (g - T_m(g)+T_m(g)) - 1\|_{\alpha} \\
& \geq & \| p_m h T_m(g) - 1\|_{\alpha} - \| p_m h (g - T_m(g))\|_{\alpha}\end{aligned}$$ Now, by Lemma \[sharp1\], $ \| p_m h T_m(g) - 1\|_{\alpha}^2$ is greater than or equal to a constant times $\varphi^{-1}_{\alpha}(2m+1), $ which in turn is comparable to $ \varphi^{-1}_{\alpha}(m+1).$ On the other hand, $$\| p_m h (g - T_m(g))\|_{\alpha} \leq \|p_mh\|_{\alpha}\|g - T_m(g)\|_{M(D_{\alpha})},$$ so by Lemma \[estimates\_analytic\_continuable\] and since the norms of $\|p_m h \|_{\alpha}$ are bounded, this term decays at an exponential rate. Therefore, there exist constants $C_1$ and $C_2$ such that $$\operatorname{dist}_{D_{\alpha}}^{2}(1,f\cdot\operatorname{{\mathcal P}}_{m}) = \|p_m f - 1 \|_{\alpha}^2 \geq C_1 \| p_m h T_m(g) - 1\|_{\alpha} \geq C_2 \varphi^{-1}_{\alpha}(m+1),$$ as desired.
The methods used in the proofs of Theorems \[distForPol\] and \[OptimalRate\] yield an independent proof of the upper bound for the optimal norm in the Dirichlet space (the case $\alpha=1$), valid for a class of functions with the property that the Fourier coefficients of $f$ and of $1/f$ exhibit simultaneously rapid decay. More specifically, if $\{a_j\}$ denotes the sequence of Taylor coefficients of a function $f \in D$ and $\{b_i\}$ denotes the coefficients of $1/f$, we say that $f$ is a *strongly invertible function* if $f$ has no zeros in ${{\mathbb D}}$ and, if for all $j$ and $k$, we have $|a_j| \leq C(j+1)^{-3},$ and $|b_k| \leq C(k+1)^{-1},$ for some constant $C$. For example, one can show that if $f$ is strongly invertible, then $1/f$ is in the Dirichlet space. (In fact, much more is true; $1/f \in D_2$.) That is, strongly invertible implies invertible in the Dirichlet space, and such functions are known to be cyclic (see [@BS84], p. 274), and are therefore of interest. By defining polynomials analogous to those at the end of Section 2, namely, $$P_n(z)=
\sum_{k=0}^n \left(1-\frac{H_{k}}{H_{n+1}}\right)b_k z^k,$$ one can use the stronger condition on the decay of the coefficients of $1/f$ to prove a version of the Control Lemma \[fundamental\] with the coefficients $H_k$ and then one can obtain the conclusion of Theorem \[OptimalRate\] for these strongly invertible functions. In particular, it can be shown that the following holds.
Let $f$ be a strongly invertible function, $\gamma \in {{\mathbb N}}$ and $g=f^\gamma$. Then there exist polynomials $q_n$ of degree at most $n$ for which $\|q_n g -1 \|^2_D \leq C/\log (n+2)$.
It would be natural to investigate whether these Riesz-type polynomials provide close to optimal approximants for more general functions, in particular functions of the form $f_{\beta}(z)=(1-z)^{\beta}$, when $\beta<1$. Another interesting question would be whether the rate of decay that we have observed for functions admitting an analytic continuation to the closed disk holds for other functions that vanish precisely on the same set.
Logarithmic conditions {#log}
======================
It is well-known that if $f$ is invertible in the Hardy or Dirichlet space, then $f$ is cyclic in that space. In addition, it is easy to see that if both $f$ and $1/f$ are in $D_\alpha$ and $f$ is bounded then $\log f \in D_\alpha,$ but the converse does not hold. The condition that $\log f \in D_\alpha$ can be thought of as an intermediate between $f \in D_\alpha$ and $1/f \in D_\alpha$. Indeed, $\log f \in D_\alpha$ is equivalent to $f'/f$ being a $D_{\alpha-2}$ function. On the other hand, $f \in
D_\alpha$ if and only if $f' \in D_{\alpha-2},$ while $1/f \in D_\alpha$ if and only if $f'/f^2 \in D_{\alpha-2}$. We therefore want to study the following question:
\[prob1\] Is any function $f \in D_\alpha$, with logarithm $q= \log f \in
D_\alpha$, cyclic in $D_\alpha$?
In several cases the statement is true: If $\alpha >1$ or $\alpha = 0$, and $f \in D_\alpha$ with its logarithm $q= \log f \in D_\alpha$, then $f$ is cyclic in $D_\alpha$. Indeed, for $\alpha >1$, $\log f \in D_\alpha$ implies $1/f \in
H^\infty$, which is equivalent to the cyclicity of $f$ (see p. 274 of [@BS84]). For $\alpha=0$, it is easy to see that if $\log f \in H^1,$ then $\log|f(0)| = (1/2\pi) \int_0^{2\pi} \log|f(e^{i \theta})| d \theta,$ and therefore $f$ is outer, that is, cyclic in $H^2$. Moreover, the logarithmic condition implies the following interpolation result, valid for all $\alpha <2$.
\[interpolation\] Suppose $f \in D_{\alpha}$ and $\log f \in D_{\alpha}$. Then, for any $\tau \in (0,1]$, we have $$D_{\alpha}(f^{\tau})\leq {\tau}^2\left(D_{\alpha}(f)+D_{\alpha}(\log f)\right),$$ and consequently, $f^{\tau} \in D_{\alpha}$.
It suffices to establish the bound on $D_{\alpha}(f^{\tau})$. To this end, we write $$\begin{aligned}
D_{\alpha}(f^{\tau}) &=&\int_{{{\mathbb D}}}|(f^{\tau})'(z)|^2d\mu_{\alpha}(z)={\tau}^2\int_{{{\mathbb D}}}\left|\frac{f'(z)}{f(z)}\right|^2|f(z)|^{2\tau}d\mu_{\alpha}(z)\\
&=&{\tau}^2\int_{\mathbb{{{\mathbb D}}}}\left|\frac{f'(z)}{f(z)}\right|^2|f(z)|^{2\tau}\chi_{\{z\in{{\mathbb D}}\colon |f(z)|< 1\}}d\mu_{\alpha}(z)\\
&&+\,{\tau}^2\int_{{{\mathbb D}}}\left|\frac{f'(z)}{f(z)}\right|^2|f(z)|^{2\tau}\chi_{\{z\in{{\mathbb D}}\colon |f(z)|\geq 1\}}d\mu_{\alpha}(z)\\
&\leq& {\tau}^2\int_{{{\mathbb D}}}\left|\frac{f'(z)}{f(z)}\right|^2\chi_{\{z\in{{\mathbb D}}\colon |f(z)|< 1\}}d\mu_{\alpha}(z)\\&&+\,
{\tau}^2\int_{{{\mathbb D}}}|f'(z)|^2\chi_{\{z\in{{\mathbb D}}\colon |f(z)|\geq 1\}}d\mu_{\alpha}(z),\end{aligned}$$ and the resulting integrals can be bounded in terms of $D_{\alpha}(f)$ and $D_{\alpha}(\log f)$, as claimed.
This lemma allows us to show that for a function $f$ in the Dirichlet space $D$, corresponding to the case $\alpha=1$, the condition $\log f\in D$ does imply the cyclicity of $f$. The proof relies on the following theorem due to Richter and Sundberg (see [@RS92 Theorem 4.3] and let $\mu$ be Lebesgue measure).
If $f\in D$ is an outer function, and if $\tau>0$ is such that $f^{\tau}\in D$, then $[f]=[f^{\tau}]$.
In [@RS92], Richter and Sundberg applied this theorem by showing that if $f$ is univalent and non-vanishing, then $f^\tau\in D,$ and hence is cyclic. In what follows, we do not require univalence.
\[solvelog\] Suppose $f\in D$ and $\log f \in D$. Then $f$ is cyclic in the Dirichlet space.
As discussed above, the logarithmic condition $\log f\in D$ implies that $f$ is outer. Next, by Lemma \[interpolation\], $f^{\tau} \in D$ for all $\tau>0$, and so $[f]=[f^{\tau}]$ for each $\tau$. Since the Lemma also implies $f^{\tau}\rightarrow 1$ in $D$ as $\tau\rightarrow 0$, we have $[f]=[1]$, and the assertion follows.
The following is the main result for the remaining cases $\alpha <
0$ and $0<\alpha <1$.
\[cyclic1\] Let $f \in H^\infty$ and $q=\log f \in D_\alpha$. Suppose there is a sequence of polynomials $\{q_n\}$ that approach $q$ in $D_\alpha$ norm with $$2 \sup_{z \in {{\mathbb D}}} \mathrm{Re}(q(z)-q_n(z)) + \log
(\|q-q_n\|^2_\alpha) \leq C$$ for some constant $C>0$. Then $f$ is cyclic in $D_\alpha$.
An immediate consequence of Theorem \[cyclic1\] is that if $q = \log f$ can be approximated in $D_{\alpha}$ by polynomials $\{q_n\}$ with $\sup_{z \in {{\mathbb D}}}
\mathrm{Re}(q(z)-q_n(z)) < C$, then $f$ is cyclic. Brown and Cohn proved (see [@BC85 Theorem B]) that for any closed set of logarithmic capacity zero $E \subset
\partial {{\mathbb D}}$, there exists a cyclic function $f$ in $D$ such that $\mathcal{Z}(f^*) =E$. The functions they build satisfy this hypothesis on $q_n$, and therefore, these assumptions are always satisfied by at least one cyclic function, for any potential cyclic function zero set.
We can assume $\alpha \leq 1$, because otherwise the statement is immediate. As discussed earlier in this section, the function $f$ is in $D_\alpha$. Now, for any sequence of polynomials $p_n,$ by the triangle inequality $$\|p_n f -1\|_\alpha \leq \|p_n f - e^{-q_n}f\|_\alpha +
\|e^{-q_n} f -1\|_\alpha. \label{trineq}$$
The first summand on the right hand side can be bounded by $$\|(p_n-e^{-q_n})f\|_\alpha \leq \|p_n -
e^{-q_n}\|_{M(D_{\alpha})} \|f\|_\alpha.$$ Moreover, for $\alpha \leq 1,$ the multiplier norm of a function is controlled by the $H^\infty$ norm of its derivative. Hence, a good choice of approximating polynomials is to select $\{p_n\}$ so that $p_n(0)=e^{-q_n(0)}$ and $\|p'_n + q'_n e^{-q_n}\|_{H^\infty} \leq
1/n$, which is possible by Weierstrass’ Theorem. With this choice, the first summand on the right hand side in approaches $0$ as $n \rightarrow \infty$.
Note that these polynomials $p_n$ converge pointwise to $1/f,$ and therefore, to prove the cyclicity of $f$, it is sufficient to show that the norms of $p_n f-1$ stay bounded. So what remains to show is that, as $n$ goes to infinity, $\|e^{-q_n}f-1\|^2_\alpha $ is uniformly bounded. To evaluate this expression for large $n$, we use the norm in terms of the derivative: $$\|e^{-q_n}f-1\|^2_\alpha \approx \|-q'_n e^{-q_n}f + e^{-q_n}f'\|^2_{\alpha-2} + |e^{-q_n(0)}f(0)-1|^2.$$ The last term tends to $0$ since $q_n$ approaches $q$ pointwise.
In the first summand on the right hand side, taking out a common factor, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\|-q'_n e^{-q_n}f + e^{-q_n}f'\|^2_{\alpha-2} & \leq &
\|e^{q-q_n}\|^2_{H^{\infty}} \left\|\frac{f'}{f} -
q'_n\right\|^2_{\alpha-2} \\
& \leq & C e^{2\sup \mathrm{Re}(q-q_n)} \|q - q_n\|^2_{\alpha}\end{aligned}$$ for some constant $C$. Given our assumptions on $q_n$, the right hand side is less than a constant. This concludes the proof.
It would be interesting to determine whether the required approximation property of the polynomials $q_n$ in Theorem \[cyclic1\] is a consequence of the other hypotheses.
Asymptotic zero distributions for approximating polynomials
===========================================================
In this paper we have primarily been interested in functions $f\in D_{\alpha}$ that are cyclic and have $f^*(\zeta)=0$ for at least one $\zeta\in \mathbb{T}$. Prime examples of such a function are $$f_{\beta}(z)=(1-z)^{\beta}, \quad \beta \in [0,\infty),$$ which we have examined closely in this paper for $\beta$ a natural number.
Numerical experiments, described below, suggest that a study of the zero sets $\mathcal{Z}(p_n)$ of approximating polynomials may be interesting from the point of view of cyclicity. It seems that the rate at which zeros approach the circle is related to the extent to which the corresponding polynomials furnish approximants in $D_{\alpha}$. For instance, we have compared the zero sets associated with the Taylor polynomials of $1/f_{\beta}$ with those of Riesz-type polynomials, $$\mathcal{R}_n\left(\frac{1}{f_{\beta}}\right)(z)=
\sum_{k=0}^n\left(1-\frac{H_{k}}{H_{n+1}}\right)b_kz^k, \quad n\geq
1. \label{rieszpolyszeros}$$
\
Intuitively, since $1/f_{\beta}$ has a pole at $z=1$, we should expect the approximating polynomials $p_n$ to be “large” in the intersection of disks of the form $B(1,r)$ with the unit disk. On the other hand, the remainder functions $p_nf-1$ have to tend to zero in norm (and hence pointwise). We note that since $1/f_{\beta}$ has a pole on ${{\mathbb T}}$, the Taylor series of $1/f_{\beta}$ cannot have radius of convergence greater than $1$. It therefore follows from Jentzsch’s theorem that every point on ${{\mathbb T}}$ is a limit point of the zeros of the sequence $\{T_n(1/f_{\beta})\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$. We refer the reader to [@Vargas12] for background material concerning sections of polynomials, and for useful computer code.
We start with the simplest case $f_1(z)=1-z$. The zeros of the Taylor polynomials $T_n(1/f)$, the Cesàro polynomials $C_n(1/f)$, and the Riesz polynomials $R_n(1/f)$, for $n=1,\ldots, 50$, can be found in Figure \[oneminuszeefig\]. All the zeros of these polynomials are located outside the unit disk, and inside a certain cardioid-like curve. In the case of the Taylor polynomials, the explicit formula $$T_n(1/f_1)(z)=\frac{1-z^{n+1}}{1-z}$$ holds, and so $\mathcal{Z}(T_ n)$ simply consists of the $n$-th roots of unity, minus the point $\zeta=1$. Replacing Taylor polynomials by Cesàro polynomials has the effect of repelling zeros away from the unit circle, and into the exterior of the disk. This effect is even more pronounced for the Riesz polynomials , where it appears that convergence of roots to the unit circumference, and the roots of unity in particular, is somewhat slower. Note also the relative absence of zeros close to the pole of $1/f_1$, and the somewhat tangential approach region at $\zeta=1$.
Next, we turn to a function with two simple zeros on ${{\mathbb T}}$, namely $$f=1-z+z^2.$$ Plots of zeros of successive approximating polynomials are displayed in Figure \[oneminuszeepluszee2fig\]. While $\mathcal{Z}(T_n)$ is more complicated, the general features of Figure \[oneminuszeefig\] persist. We again note a relative absence of zeros close to the two poles of $1/f$, and the zeros of the Cesàro and Riesz polynomials are again located in the exterior disk, and seem to tend to ${{\mathbb T}}$ more slowly. We observe approach regions with vertices at the symmetrically placed poles, and the angle at these vertices seems to decrease as we move from Taylor polynomials through Cesàro polynomials to the polynomials in .
It seems natural to suspect that locally the picture would be similar for a polynomial with a large number of zeros on the unit circle.
\
It would be interesting to investigate whether there is a relationship between zeros of approximating polynomials, the region of convergence of the Taylor series of $1/f,$ and the cyclicity of $f$ in future work.
*Acknowledgments.* The authors would like to thank Omar El-Fallah, H[å]{}kan Hedenmalm, Dima Khavinson, Artur Nicolau, Boris Shekhtman, and Dragan Vukotić for many helpful conversations during the writing of this paper.
[1]{}
N. Arcozzi, R. Rochberg, E.T. Sawyer, and B.D. Wick, The Dirichlet space: a survey, New York Math. J. [**17A**]{} (2011), 45-86.
L. Brown, Invertible elements in the Dirichlet space, Canad. Math. Bull. [**33**]{} (1990), 419-422.
L. Brown and W. Cohn, Some examples of cyclic vectors in the Dirichlet space, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**95**]{} (1985), 42-46.
L. Brown and A.L. Shields, Cyclic vectors in the Dirichlet space, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**285**]{} (1984), 269-304.
P.L. Duren, Theory of $H^p$ spaces, Academic Press, New York, 1970.
P.L. Duren and A. Schuster, *Bergman Spaces*, American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 2004.
O. El-Fallah, K. Kellay, and T. Ransford, Cyclicity in the Dirichlet space, Ark. Mat. [**44**]{} (2006), 61-86.
O. El-Fallah, K. Kellay, and T.Ransford, On the Brown-Shields conjecture for cyclicity in the Dirichlet space, Adv. Math. [**222**]{} (2009), 2196-2214.
H. Hedenmalm, B. Korenblum, and K. Zhu, Theory of Bergman spaces, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 2000.
H. Hedenmalm and A. Shields, Invariant subspaces in Banach spaces of analytic functions, Michigan Math. J. [**37**]{} (1990), 91-104.
S. Richter and C. Sundberg, Multipliers and invariant subspaces in the Dirichlet space, J. Operator Theory [**28**]{} (1992), 167-186.
W.T. Ross, The classical Dirichlet space, in [*Recent advances in operator-related function theory*]{}, Contemp. Math. [**393**]{} (2006), 171-197.
A.R. Vargas, Zeros of sections of some power series, preprint available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.5186
[^1]: CL is partially supported by the NSF grant DMS-1261687. DS is supported by the MEC/MICINN grant MTM-2008-00145. AS acknowledges support from the EPSRC under grant EP/103372X/1. CB, DS and AS would like to thank the Institut Mittag-Leffler and the AXA Research Fund for support while working on this project. AC, CL and DS would like to thank B. Wick for organizing the Internet Analysis Seminar at which they were initially introduced to the problem of cyclicity in the Dirichlet space.
[^2]: Under the usual convention that $a_{i}=0$ for any integer $i<0$ or $i>t$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'This paper elaborates on four previously proposed rules of engagement between conscious states and physiological states. A new rule is proposed that applies to a continuous model of conscious brain states that cannot precisely resolve eigenvalues. If two apparatus states are in superposition, and if their eigenvalues are so close together that they cannot be consciously resolved on this model, then it is shown that observation will not generally reduce the superposition to just one of its member eigenstates. In general, the observation of a quantum mechanical superposition results in another superposition.'
author:
- 'Richard Mould[^1]'
title: '**Conscious Pulse I:** '
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
The author has proposed four rules that describe the relationship between conscious states of the brain and quantum physiology. In one paper, the rules are successfully applied to a typical quantum mechanical interaction between a particle and a detector [@RM1]; and in another paper, they are successfully applied to two different versions of the Schrödinger cat experiment [@RM2]. In this paper, the third rule is expanded to cover the case of continuous brain states; and in a future paper, a final rule will be added that also applies to this continuous .
The first rule of the previous papers introduce quantum mechanical probability through the positive flow of *probability current* $J$, which is equal to the time rate of change of square modulus. Probability is not otherwise defined in this treatment.
**Rule (1)** *For any subsystem of n components in an isolated system with a square modulus equal to s, the probability per unit time of a stochastic choice of one of those components at time t is given by $(\Sigma_nJ_n)/s$, where the net probability current $J_n$ going into the $n^{th}$ component at that time is positive.*
The *ready brain state* referred to in rule (2) is not conscious by definition, but it is physiologically capable of becoming conscious if it is stochastically chosen.
**Rule (2)***If the Hamiltonian gives rise to new components that are not classically continuous with the old components or with each other, then all active brain states that are included in the new components will be ready brain states.*\[Active brain states are either conscious or ready states.\].
The third rule describes a state reduction like Penrose’s process **R**. It is understood to provide a new boundary condition.
**Rule (3)**: *If a component that is entangled with a ready brain state B is stochastically chosen, then B will become conscious, and all other components will be immediately reduced to zero.*
The fourth rule is added to prevent certain anomalies from occurring as a result of the first three rules by themselves.
**Rule (4)***A transition between two components is forbidden if each is an entanglement containing a ready brain state of the same observer*
As was our practice in the previous papers, a conscious brain state will be represented by an underlined $\underline{B}$, and a ready brain state $B$ will appear without an underline. In this paper, the different brain types $\underline{B}_k(\alpha)$ and $B_k(\alpha)$ for a particular state variable $k$ are given as a function of brain variables $\alpha$. For both types we require. $$\int \!\!d\alpha\,\underline{B}_r(\alpha)^*\underline{B}_s(\alpha) = \delta(r-s) \hspace{.5cm}\mbox{and
}\hspace{.3cm}
\int \!\!d\alpha\,{B}_r(\alpha)^*{B}_s(\alpha) = \delta(r-s)$$
A Conscious Brain Pulse - Rule (3a) {#a-conscious-brain-pulse---rule-3a .unnumbered}
===================================
I assume that there is a limit to how sharply a conscious experience can be defined. It is unphysical to imagine that a precisely defined physiological state can support a knife-edge slice of consciousness. That is, a physiological state $\underline{B}_k$ with exact eigenvalues cannot be expected to support “recognizable" consciousness without involving other states in its immediate neighborhood. Any real conscious experience therefore engages a group of neighboring states that will hereafter be designated by the symbol $\{\underline{B}_k\}$, where the brackets around $\underline{B}_k$ specify a group of states with $\underline{B}_k$ at its center. I call this collection of states a *conscious brain pulse*, or just a *conscious pulse*. It is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\{\underline{B}_k\} \!\!\!&=& \!\!\!\int \!\!du\,F_k(u)\underline{B}_u \\
where \!\!\!&&\!\!\!\int \!\!du\,F_k(u)^*F_k(u) = 1\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The states in $\{B_k\}$ are not a statistical mixture because $F_k(u)$ represents the coefficients of a continuous superposition of quantum mechanical states $\underline{B}_u$. Although these have macroscopic dimension, they cannot display local interference effects because of environmental decoherence as explained in .
The *conscious experience* that is associated with a conscious brain pulse will result from the collective effect of all the conscious states in the pulse neighborhood, where the width of this pulse reflects a limit on the ability of the brain to resolve the experience.
A ready brain state is not conscious; nonetheless, it will generally exist as a similar collection of states $\{B_k\}
= \int \!\!du\,F_k(u)B_u$ that will be called a *ready brain pulse*[^2]. If current flows into a component containing a pulse of ready brain states, and if one of those states given by $B_{sc}$ is stochastically chosen from the pulse according to rule (1), then it will become conscious according to rule (3). What happens after that is determined by the properties of the brain. Specifically, the final result of a stochastic selection is not just the single state $\underline{B}_{sc}$, but the entire conscious pulse $\{\underline{B}_{sc}\}$. After the pulse is formed, the special status of $\underline{B}_{sc}$ is lost, except as it identifies the maximum of the resulting pulse. It follows from the above definitions that the conscious and ready brain pulses are themselves normalized. $$\int \!\!d\alpha\,{\{\underline{B}}_k\}^*\{\underline{B}_k\} = 1 \hspace{.4cm}\mbox{and}\hspace{.4cm}
\int \!\!d\alpha\,{\{B}_k\}^*\{B_k\} = 1$$
We will now supplement rule (3) by adding rule (3a). This describes what happens to a stochastically chosen ready brain state in the present model. The rule (3) conversion to a conscious state, and the reduction of all other states to zero is assumed to take place in a single instant of time. After that, the brain’s Hamiltonian will form a conscious pulse at a more leisurely physiological pace.
**Rule (3a)**: *The Hamiltonian of the brain will convert a chosen conscious state into a conscious pulse whose width reflects the ability of the brain to resolve the conscious experience.*
Classically, a conscious experience is prompted by an external stimulus that may be very sharply defined; and yet, there is a limit to how sharply it can be experienced by the viewer. We classically deal with this by assuming that such an incoming ‘sharp’ signal is spread out by physiological constraints contained in the Hamiltonian. In the same way, rule (3a) claims that a single stochastically chosen conscious state is converted by the brain into a conscious pulse, thereby providing a space in the brain for a full conscious experience.
When a sharply defined stochastically chosen state dissolves into a broadly defined pulse, discharge current will flow from it to its immediate neighbors. In the process a normalized single state $\underline{B}_k$ becomes a normalized pulse $\{\underline{B}_k\}$, thereby conserving current.
An Interaction {#an-interaction .unnumbered}
==============
In an interaction like the one described in the previous paper, a conscious brain state is initially correlated with an apparatus state $A_1(t)$, where the system evolves under Schrödinger into a ready brain state that is correlated with another apparatus state $A_2(t)$. Rule (2) requires the evolution of ready brain states only. Let $A_1(t)$ be normalized to 1.0 at $t_0$ = 0 and decrease in time, and let $A_2(t)$ be zero at $t_0$ and increase in time. We now amend the previous description given in refs. 1 and 2 to refer to pulses rather than states.
Let the initial state of the system be given by $A_1(t)\{\underline{B}_1\}$, where $\{\underline{B}_1\}$ is the initial conscious pulse of the observer who is aware of the apparatus state $A_1$; and let every individual brain state in this pulse evolve under Schršödinger into a corresponding ‘ready’ brain state. The emerging component in eq. 4 is then $A_2(t)\{B_2\}$, and the system prior to a stochastic choice at $t_{sc}$ is $$\Phi(t_{sc} > t \ge t_0) = A_1(t)\{\underline{B}_1\} + A_2(t)\{B_2\}$$ where the entanglement $A_1(t)\{B_2\}$ is initially equal to zero.[^3]
At the time of stochastic choice, a single ready state $B_{sc}$ in $\{B_2\}$ is selected and made conscious, with all other components going to zero as per rule (3). $$\Phi(t_{sc})= A_2(t_{sc})F_2(sc)\underline{B}_{sc}$$ Rule (3a) requires that the single state $\underline{B}_{sc}$ subsequently becomes a pulse in physiological time. $$\Phi(t > t_{sc}) = A_2(t_{sc})F_2(sc)\{\underline{B}_{sc}\}$$ The probability that the state (sc) in $\{B_2\}$ is stochastically chosen can be found from the second component of eq. 4 by using the Born rule. $$\begin{aligned}
P(sc) \!\!\!&=& \!\!\!(1/\!s)\!\!\int \!\!dx\!\!\int \!\!d\alpha\,
A_2^*A_2F_2(sc)^*F_2(sc)\{\underline{B}_{sc}\}^*\{\underline{B}_{sc}\}\nonumber\\
&=& \!\!\!(1/\!s)F_2(sc)^*F_2(sc)\!\!\int \!\!dx\, A_2^*A_2 \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $x$ refers to the apparatus variables, and $s$ is the square modulus of the first component in eq. 4. The total probability of a stochastic hit in the ready pulse is then found by integrating over $d(sc)$. $$P = (1/\!s) \!\!\int \!\!d(sc)\,F_2(sc)^*F_2(sc)\!\!\int \!\!dx\,A_2^*A_2 = (1/\!s)\!\!\int \!\!dx \,A_2^*A_2$$ where $A_2^*A_2$ is the square modulus when the interaction is complete.
The central state $\underline{B}_{sc}$ of the conscious pulse in eq. 5 is included in the original ready pulse $\{B_2\}$, but it is not necessarily the central state $B_2$. Therefore, the stochastically chosen state cannot be exactly determined by the Hamiltonian, due to the inability of the brain to fully resolve the ready brain states that are candidates for stochastic selection. As in previous cases, the reduction in eq. 5 is not normalized. This does not affect probability calculations so long as is faithfully followed.
Unresolvable Observation {#unresolvable-observation .unnumbered}
========================
Let the system be a stationary superposition of apparatus states $A_1$ and $A_2$ at time $t_0$. $$\Phi(t_0) = (A_1 + A_2)\{\underline{X}\}$$ where $\{\underline{X}\}$ is an unknown conscious state of an observer who has not yet interacted with the apparatus. At time $t_{ob}$ the observer looks at the apparatus, and the system becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi(t \ge t_{ob} > t_0) \!\!\!&=& \!\!\![A_1(t) + A_2(t)]\{X\}\nonumber\\
&+& \!\!\!A_1'(t)\{B_1\} + A_2'(t)\{B_2\}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ following rule (2). The primed components are zero at $t_0$. Substituting eq. 2 $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi(t \ge t_{ob} > t_0) \!\!\!&=& \!\!\![A_1(t) + A_2(t)]\{X\}\nonumber\\
&+& \!\!\!\int \!\!du\,[A_1'(t)F_1(u) + A_2'(t)F_2(u)]B_u\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the primed components in the second row increase and the unprimed components in the first row go to zero in physiological time. As current flows from the first to the second row, there is certain to be a stochastic hit on one of the ready brain states according to rule (1). Looking at the system at the moment rule (3) applies, but before rule (3a) can take effect, we find the reduction $$\Phi(t = t_{sc} > t_{ob}) = [A_1'(t_{sc})F_1(sc) + A_2'(t_{sc})F_2(sc)]\underline{B}_{sc}$$ Rule (3a) now requires that the state $\underline{B}_{sc}$ dissolve into a pulse. $$\Phi(t > t_{sc}) = [A_1(t_{sc})F_1(sc) + A_2(t_{sc})F_2(sc)]\{\underline{B}_{sc}\}$$ where the primes on $A_1$ and $A_2$ are dropped.
If the functions $F_1(sc)$ and $F_2(sc)$ do not overlap, then a stochastic choice will pick out a state in either $F_1$ or $F_2$. However, it is possible that the pulses do overlap as shown in fig. 1, and that the stochastic choice picks out a state in the overlap. In that case, the amplitude of the chosen pulse will be the entire bracketed coefficient of the pulse that appears in eq. 7.
Evidently the initial apparatus superposition in eq. 6 is replaced by a different superposition in eq. 7. The observer fails to reduce the initial superposition to just one of the two eigenstates, because he cannot fully resolve the two eigenvalues.
The experimental meaning of the superposition in eq. 7 can be clarified by disabling one of the apparatus states, say $A_1$, and noting the probability that $A_2$ continues to be observed. For example, imagine that the observable associated with $A_1$ is a spot of light appearing on a screen, and the observable associated with $A_2$ is another spot of light that is so close to the first that it cannot be fully resolved by the observer. To decide if he is looking at the first or the second spot following a stochastic choice, the observer turns off the first source of light, and notes that the spot does or does not remain. When that is done at , becomes $$\Phi(t \ge t_{o\!f\!f} > t_{sc}) = A_2(t_{sc})F_2(sc)\{\underline{B}_{sc}\}$$ The probability that the spot is observed in the second apparatus state can be found by integrating the square modulus of this expression and making use of the Born rule. $$P_2^{(sc)} (t> t_{o\!f\!f}) = (1/\!s)\!\!\int \!\!dx\!\!\int \!\!d\alpha \,\Phi^*\Phi = (1/\!s)\!\!\int \!\!dx\,
A_2^*A_2F_2(sc)^*F_2(sc)$$ where $s$ is the square modulus of eq. 6.
If the experiment is performed many times, then summing over all the possible stochastic choices, the probability of observing the second apparatus eigenvalue will be $$\begin{aligned}
P_2 (t> t_{o\!f\!f}) \!\!\!&=& \!\!\!\int \!\!d(sc)\,P_2^{(sc)} (t> t_{o\!f\!f})\nonumber\\
&=& \!\!\!(1/\!s)\!\!\int \!\!dx\,A_2^*A_2\!\!\int \!\!d(sc)\,F_2(sc)^*F_2(sc)\nonumber\\
&=& \!\!\!(1/\!s)\!\!\int \!\!dx\,A_2^*A_2 \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ This is the same result that one would expect if the states $\{B_1\}$ and $\{B_2\}$ were completely resolvable.
It should be noted that if the observer becomes disengaged from the apparatus at some time $t_{dis}$ after the stochastic hit in eq. 7, the system would become $$\Phi(t \ge t_{dis}> t_{sc}) = [A_1(t_{sc})F_1(sc) + A_2(t_{sc})F_2(sc)]\{X\}$$ where $\{X\}$ is the disengaged state that evolves from $\{\underline{B}_{sc}\}$ in physiological time. This expression makes the independence of the observer and the system more apparent. The effect of the observation has therefore been to change the system from the initial apparatus superposition $(A_1 + A_2)$ in eq. 6 to the superposition $A_1(t_{sc})F_1(sc) + A_2(t_{sc})F_2(sc)$ in eq. 8. The observation brings about a state reduction, but it does not reduce the state to either $A_1$ or $A_2$ as would normally be expected. As previously stated, this is because the observer cannot clearly resolve the two possibilities, so he cannot clearly reduce the system to one or the other eigenstate.
The probability of the final state of the system in eq. 7 is found by integrating the variables $dx$, $d\alpha$, and $d(sc)$ over the entire time of the physiological interaction leading to eq. 7. $$\begin{aligned}
P_2 (t> t_{sc}) \!\!\!&=&\!\!\!(1/\!s)\!\!\int \!\!dx\!\!\int \!\!d\alpha\!\!\int \!\!d(sc)\,[A_1F_1(sc) +
A_2F_2(sc)]^*\nonumber\\ & & \hspace{2.74cm}
\times\,[A_1F_1(sc) +,A_2F_2(sc)]\{\underline{B}_{sc}\}^*\{\underline{B}_{sc}\}
\nonumber\\ &=& \!\!\!(1/\!s)\!\!\int \!\!dx \,[A_1^*A_1 + A_2^*A_2 ] \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ which is the same as the probability of the initial state in eq. 6.
If the unknown state $\{X\}$ in eq. 6 is a single unconscious state, then the resulting ready brain states that engage the apparatus will also be single states $B_1$ and $B_2$. In that case, it will always be possible for the reduction to make an unambiguous choice between $B_1$ and $B_2$. This does not mean that the observer will be able to psychologically resolve the two, but only that the rule (3) reduction will not lead to a superposition in these circumstances.
Pulse Drift {#pulse-drift .unnumbered}
===========
Rule (2) requires that all newly emerging and discrete active brain states are ready states. Clearly, the states within a conscious pulse are intended to be psychologically indistinguishable from one another; however, distinguishability or discreteness in the sense of rule (2) will be given a more narrow meaning. If the conscious pulse $\{\underline{B}_k\}$ is said to include the *immediate* neighborhood of $\underline{B}_k$ (i.e., those states that are psychologically indistinguishable from $\underline{B}_k$), then I will say that only the *most immediate* neighbors of $\underline{B}_k$ are the ones that are exempt from rule (2), and are thereby directly influenced by $\underline{B}_k$ . Only these states are pulled directly into existence by $\underline{B}_k$ during pulse formation, and they will have a lesser amplitude than $\underline{B}_k$. They, in turn, will pull their most immediate neighbors into the pulse, again with lesser amplitude. In this way, the entire pulse is drawn into being around the initial central state $\underline{B}_k$.
This means that the pulse does not have a definite edge. However, there is still a decisive limit to the influence of each state within the pulse, beyond which rule (2) applies to interactions involving that particular state.
With this understanding, there is nothing in the rules that would prevent a conscious pulse from drifting continuously about the brain, moving over a wide range of brain states without the necessity of hopping stochastically from one place to another. As a pulse of this kind drifts forward, the conscious states in its leading edge will gain amplitude, and those in its trailing edge will lose amplitude, without engaging ready brain states as required by .
Now consider what will happen when the conscious pulse drifts continuously over the brain in this way, while at the same time giving rise to a ready brain pulse as in eq. 4. A ready brain pulse cannot move like an ordinary pulse. Its trailing edge cannot feed current to its leading edge because of rule (4), so the amplitude of a single component of the ready pulse can only increase by virtue of current coming from the conscious pulse[^4]. The moment that current stops for any reason, the ready component will become a stationary “phantom" component that serves no further purpose[^5]. It will not follow the motion of the conscious pulse. So instead of there being a moving ready brain pulse that parallels the motion of a conscious pulse of decreasing amplitude, there will be a trail of ready states that become phantoms the moment they settle down to a constant amplitude.
Intensity of a Conscious Experience {#intensity-of-a-conscious-experience .unnumbered}
===================================
In classical physics, intensity is proportional to square amplitude; whereas in standard quantum mechanics, intensity is implicit in the definition of a state rather than in its amplitude. That’s because the square modulus in a quantum mechanical state refers *only* to probability in a standard quantum mechanical treatment; and in the present treatment it doesn’t even do that. So in the quantum case, a non-zero conscious state is always *fully* conscious, independent of its amplitude. This is why we require that a stochastically chosen conscious state $\underline{B}_k$ is normalized to 1.0. It will be either on or off. It can have no intermediate value. This is also why a conscious pulse $\{\underline{B}_k\}$ is normalized to 1.0. It too can have no intermediate value. Of course the component in which the state or pulse appears can have intermediate values, but the on-off nature of consciousness is represented here by the normalization of a state or a pulse, not by a component.
The quality of consciousness (including intensity) is governed in every case by the Hamiltonian. So the intensity of a psychological experience that is associated with a conscious pulse $\{\underline{B}_k\}$ is a function of the definition of the states that are involved. It is one thing if a state constitutes an experience on a landscape, and another if it is an experience in a darkened basement. In either case, the Hamiltonian of the state will assign a lesser intensity to the neighborhood states surrounding the central state. This means that the intensity of the observer’s experience will fade out at the edge of a conscious pulse. We represent this modulation of intensity by the function $F_k(u)$ in eq. 2.
If we quantify the “intrapulse" intensity $I$ by saying that it equals 1.0 for each conscious pulse (corresponding to each pulse being fully conscious), then will be the *relative intensity* of the differential range of states in the vicinity of $\underline{B}_k$. The square modulus of $\underline{B}_k$ does not have a formal interpretation in this treatment, but its intensity relative to other states within a pulse can certainly be represented in this way.
Fading in and out {#fading-in-and-out .unnumbered}
=================
The question then is: does a fully conscious experience arise discontinuously when a conscious pulse comes into being? And conversely, is the experience turned off discontinuously as a conscious pulse is reduced to zero? The rules are flexible enough to allow the Hamiltonian to introduce or withdraw consciousness continuously over finite intervals of time.
The first stage in fig. 2 shows the stochastically chosen state the moment it is created. The Hamiltonian reduces its amplitude in the second stage, giving rise to a pulse that only involves its “most immediate" neighbors. In the third stage, the initial state is completely absorbed into the pulse, and the width of the pulse has expanded to a degree that allows a full conscious experience. Although the initial state is technically conscious, it is too narrow to support a recognizable psychological experience. The number of states involved in the second stage of fig. 2 will support some degree of the full experience, but only the third stage supports the full experience. This sequence allows the observer to become gradually aware of the pulse on a time scale that is governed by the Hamiltonian. At the same time, it does not violate the on-off principle that is represented in the normalization of the state-plus-pulse.
The converse cannot be true in the same way. Rule (3) requires that a conscious state will go immediately to zero if there is a stochastic choice of another state; and this suggests that there can be no gradual phasing out of a conscious experience. However, there may be another mechanism that will come to the rescue. The Hamiltonian might provide for the existence of an “after glow" of any terminated conscious experience. This could occur through another interaction that is in parallel with the primary interaction; and it might well be related to the interaction that puts any conscious experience into short-term memory. If that is true, then the Hamiltonian would control the extent to which the observer fades in or out of consciousness, and that is certainly the desired result.
[99]{}
R.A. Mould, “Consciousness: The rules of engagement", quant-ph/0206064 R.A. Mould, “Schrödinger’s Cat: The rules of engagement",
quant-ph/0206065 R.A. Mould, to be called “Conscious Pulse II: The rules of engagement"
[^1]: Department of Physics and Astronomy, State University of New York, Stony Brook, 11794-3800; http://nuclear.physics.sunysb.edu/ \~mould
[^2]: A ready pulse generally evolves from a conscious pulse, and will therefore take on the functional form of that pulse. However, a ready state may also evolve under Schrödinger from a single ‘unconscious’ state, in which case it will be a *single* ready state.
[^3]: As in previous papers, the pre-interaction apparatus states $A_1$ or $A_2$ are different than the entangled apparatus states in eq. 4 because the latter include the “low level" physiology of the observer. In this case, the entangled apparatus states must fan-out at the physiology end into a superposition that connects with each component of the brain pulses.
[^4]: This is another example of how rule (4) prevents an anomalous increase in probability. Trailing edge current flowing into the leading edge would otherwise cause extraneous reductions. Other examples are in refs. 1 and 2.
[^5]: The properties of a phantom component are defined in ref. 1.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Laser control of ultrafast double proton transfer is investigated for a two-dimensional model system describing stepwise and concerted transfer pathways. The pulse design has been done by employing optimal control theory in combination with the multiconfiguration time-dependent Hartree wave packet propagation. The obtained laser fields correspond to multiple pump-dump pulse sequences. Special emphasis is paid to the relative importance of stepwise and concerted transfer pathways for the driven wave packet and its dependence on the parameters of the model Hamiltonian as well as on the propagation time. While stepwise transfer is dominating in all cases considered, for high barrier systems concerted transfer proceeding via tunneling can make a contribution.'
address:
- 'Chemistry Department, Faculty of Science, Beni-Suef University, Beni-Suef, Egypt'
- 'Institut für Physik, Universität Rostock, D-18051 Rostock, Germany'
author:
- 'Mahmoud Abdel-Latif'
- Oliver Kühn
title: 'Infrared Laser Driven Double Proton Transfer. An Optimal Control Theory Study'
---
proton transfer ,laser control
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Laser pulse design has developed into a powerful method for controlling molecular dynamics [@SfbBook; @rice01; @shapiro03; @brixner03:418; @wohlleben05:850; @vivie-riedle07:5082]. In particular laser control of proton transfer reactions in the electronic ground state has triggered considerable theoretical efforts [@kuhn06:71]. A straightforward method for laser-driven proton transfer between two minima on a potential energy surface (PES) is the so-called pump-dump approach adapted from the study of isomerization reactions [@combariza91:10351; @korolkov96:10874; @jakubetz97:375]. In Ref. [@doslic98:292] pump-dump control was demonstrated for a two-dimensional (2D) model mimicking the situation in malonaldehyde derivatives. The first pump-pulse promotes the system from the localized reactant state into a delocalized state above the reaction barrier from where it is dumped into the product well by a second pulse. The optimization of the pulse parameters can be done by hand, but it was found that optimal control theory (OCT) [@peirce88:4950; @zhu98:1953; @werschnik07:r175] applied to this problem essentially yields a similar pump-dump pulse field [@doslic98:9645; @doslic99:1249]. OCT provides a means for controlling the pulse intensity via a penalty factor. Increasing the penalty for strong pulses in the case of proton transfer reactions resulted in a change of the mechanism from above barrier transfer to tunneling through the barrier[@doslic98:9645; @doslic99:1249]. In this case the resulting driving field resembles a few-cycle pulse and the associated dynamics in isolated and dissipative systems was investigated in some detail, e.g., in Refs. [@naundorf99:163; @geva02:1629] (for applications of few-cycle pulses to isomerization reactions, see e.g. Refs. [@uiberacker04:11532; @mitric07:031405]). Besides these efforts along a quantum mechanical description, there have been attempts to trigger transfer in a double minimum PES using classical trajectory-based local control theory [@grafe06:271].
Laser control of double proton transfer (DPT) reactions has received less attention. Nishikawa et al. [@nishikawa05:665] considered control of stepwise DPT in an asymmetrically substituted tetraflouro-porphyrin model using the stimulated Raman adiabatic passage (STIRAP) method. Assuming a stepwise transfer the description has been reduced to two independent one-dimensional potentials obtained from intrinsic reaction coordinate calculations. It was shown that STIRAP can achieve population inversion related to stepwise DPT on a time scale of some tens of picoseconds. Shapiro and coworker [@thanopulos05:14434] have investigated DPT in the context of DNA radiation damage and repair for a dinucleotide model. They developed a two-dimensional potential energy surface for DPT comprising a linear reaction coordinate for the concerted DPT supplemented by an out-of-plane squeezing type vibrational mode. Employing coherently controlled adiabatic passage, detection and repair of DPT related mutation has been demonstrated. Finally, Thanopulos et al. [@thanopulos08:445202] have shown the implications of DPT control for single molecule charge transfer. Considering a thio-functionalized porphyrin derivative attached to four gold electrodes it was found from molecular orbital analysis that the different trans-forms essentially provide orthogonal pathways for electron transfer. Laser controlled switching was discussed in a stepwise model comprising two bond coordinates for the first step and a single linear reaction coordinate for the second one.
The motivation for the present study has been twofold. First, porphyrin-derivatives are not only interesting for charge transfer, but are used in the context of excitation energy transfer as well [@balzani03]. The rate for excitation energy transfer between two chromophores depends on the relative orientation between their transition dipole moments [@may04]. Since this orientation is affected by DPT in the electronic ground state one can, at least in principle, envision a laser-triggered ultrafast switch built into an energy transfer device. Second, previous studies on controlled DPT considered either stepwise or concerted pathways. The decision for a pathway which is dominating in an actual system is often not that clear-cut (see discussion of the porphycene, a structural isomer of porphine in Ref. [@smedarchina07:314]) and may depend on the experimental conditions such as temperature [@lopez-del-amo09:2193]. Furthermore, the mechanism of DPT is commonly inferred from thermal rate constants or line splittings in absorption spectra. Driving a system with a control pulse, however, is likely to establish a pronounced nonequilibrium situation. Here, it is not evident that the system will follow the same reaction path as in the quasi-equilibrium case.
In the following Section \[sec:model\] we will present a two-dimensional model Hamiltonian which comprises concerted and stepwise DPT. This allows us to identify their relative importance in dependence on the applied control field. Laser control is achieved employing OCT in the frame of a multiconfiguration time-dependent Hartree (MCTDH) simulation of the wave packet dynamics [@beck00:1; @MCTDH09]. Respective results will be discussed in Section \[sec:res\].
Theory {#sec:model}
======
Model Hamiltonian
-----------------
The DPT Hamiltonian will first be given in terms of single proton transfer coordinates $x_1$ and $x_2$ which are assumed to describe the linear translocation of the particles between donor and acceptor sites. The simplest form is obtained by combining two quartic potentials coupled via a bilinear interaction $$\label{eq:U12}
U_{\rm sym}(x_1,x_2) =\frac{U_0}{x_0^4} \left[ (x_1^2-x_0^2)^2 + (x_2^2-x_0^2)^2 \right] - \frac{g U_0}{x_0^2} x_1x_2 \,.$$ This type of potential has been used extensively by Smedarchina and coworkers [@smedarchina07:174513; @smedarchina08:1291]. It has two equivalent global minima (called “trans” in the following) and two equivalent local minimum (called “cis”) which correspond to the transfer of a single proton. In eq. (\[eq:U12\]), $U_0$ is the barrier for uncorrelated single proton transfer, $x_0$ is half the transfer distance, and $g$ is the dimensionless bilinear coupling strength. Since we are aiming at an analysis in terms of concerted and stepwise transfer, this potential is more conveniently expressed in terms of the symmetric and asymmetric transfer coordinates $x_s=(x_1+x_2)/2$ and $x_a=(x_1-x_2)/2$, respectively. This transformation gives for eq. (\[eq:U12\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:U0as}
U_{\rm sym}(x_s,x_a) & = & 2U_0 + \frac{U_0}{x_0^2}
\left[(g-4)x_a^2-(g+4)x_s^2\right] \nonumber \\
& + & \frac{2U_0}{x_0^4}(x_s^4+x_a^4+6x_s^2x_a^2) \,.\end{aligned}$$ For the purpose of laser control of DPT it is useful to consider the case of asymmetric molecules in order to allow for a clear identification of initial and final states. Two types of asymmetry can be introduced into the model Hamiltonian, that is, with respect to the trans and cis states: $$\label{eq:Uasym}
U_{\rm asym}(x_s,x_a)=\frac{\alpha_{\rm trans} U_0}{x_0} x_s + \frac{\alpha_{\rm cis} U_0}{x_0}x_a$$ where $\alpha_{\rm trans}$ and $\alpha_{\rm cis}$ are dimensionless parameters characterizing the detuning between the trans and cis states, respectively.
We will choose parameters such as to highlight in particular cases of high and low barriers for the concerted DPT. The reference case will be the high barrier scenario with equivalent cis minima shown in Fig. \[fig:pes\] (for parameters see figure caption). Note that we do not address any specific system in our study, although the energetics of the PES can be considered to be typical for DPT molecules. Here, in particular porphycene derivatives offer a tunability of the energetics over a wide range (see, e.g., [@waluk07:245]).
The total Hamiltonian is given by $$\label{eq:ham}
H=-\frac{\hbar^2}{2 m}\left( \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_s^2}+\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_a^2}\right) + U_{\rm sym}(x_s,x_a) + U_{\rm asym}(x_s,x_a)$$ where it is assumed that the moving particles are H-atoms and thus the mass for the collective coordinates is $m=2 m_{\rm H}$.
For the interaction with the laser field we assume that the permanent dipole moment depends only linearly on the coordinates, i.e., $$\label{eq:field}
H_{\rm field}(t)= -(d_a x_a + d_s x_s ) E(t)$$ where $d_{a/s}$ is the derivative of the dipole moment with respect to $x_{a/s}$ and $E(t)$ is the laser field. For the case of symmetric systems like porphycene the dipole moment changes only along the asymmetric coordinate (for simplicity we have chosen $d_a=1.0 $e). This will be used in the reference case. In order to investigate the principal effect of a dipole gradient along $x_s$ due to asymmetric substitution we will also consider a variation along $x_s$.
Quantum Dynamics
----------------
The two-dimensional time-dependent Schrödinger equation $$\label{eq:sgl}
i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \Psi(x_a,x_s;t) = (H+H_{\rm field}(t)) \Psi(x_a,x_s;t)$$ has been solved using the MCTDH approach as implemented in the Heidelberg program package [@mctdh83]. To this end the two-dimensional wave function $\Psi(x_a,x_s;t)$ is represented on a grid in terms of a harmonic oscillator discrete variable representation (64 points within \[-2.5:2.5\]a$_{\rm 0}$). The actual propagation is performed using the variable mean field scheme in combination with a 6-th order Adams-Bashforth-Moulton integrator. Using 20 single particle functions per coordinate the largest natural orbital populations have been typically on the order of $10^{-6}$. Selected eigenstates of the time-independent Hamiltonian, $\phi_i$, are obtained by improved relaxation [@meyer06:179].
The shape of the laser field is determined using OCT, that is, the following functional is maximized at some final time $T$ [@rabitz03:64; @sundermann1896:00] $$\label{eq:J}
J(E, T) = \langle \Psi(T) | \hat{O} | \Psi(T) \rangle - \kappa \int_0^T dt \frac{E^2(t)}{\sin^2(\pi t /T)}$$ where $\hat{O}$ is the target operator and $\kappa$ the penalty factor. The iterative optimization of the field has been performed by using the implementation within the MCTDH program package by Brown and coworkers as detailed in Ref. [@schroder08:850]. Note that their approach doesn’t follow the standard iteration procedure which is not suitable in the context of MCTDH. Instead an extrapolation scheme is used following the suggestion of Ref. [@wang06:014102].
The pulses will be characterized in terms of their XFROG trace $$I_{\rm XFROG}(\omega,t)=\left|\int d\tau E(\tau)G(\tau-t)e^{-i\omega \tau}\right|^2$$ where $G(t)$ is a step-like gate function with Gaussian tails [@schroder08:850].
It will be assumed that initially the system is in the vibrational ground state which is localized in the left part of the potential due to the asymmetry term $\alpha_{\rm trans}$. The target operator will be taken as the projector onto that state which is localized in the right well of the potential, i.e. $ \hat{O}=|\phi_1\rangle\langle \phi_1|$ (see Fig. \[fig:3\]). In order to elucidate the mechanism of DPT, i.e., stepwise vs. concerted, we have defined step-like operators dividing the different regions of transfer between the two trans-forms as shown in Fig. \[fig:pes\]. Here, transfer is counted as concerted if the wave packet passes a narrow range in the vicinity of the second order saddle point of the PES. The width of that range is, of course, arbitrary and we have used the width of the ground state distribution. Furthermore, note that this definition of ”stepwise«« doesn’t imply the existence of a stable intermediate in the sense of traditional kinetic considerations.
The results reported below have been obtained for different numbers of OCT iterations starting with a sin$^2$-shaped guess field. The convergence of the control functional has been monotonic. The iteration number has been chosen such that the change in the control yield between two iterations was below 10$^{-4}$. The guess field frequency we have chosen to correspond, for the high barrier case, to the transition between the ground state and the first excited state along the $x_s$ coordinate which is slightly red-shifted as compared with the strong IR active first excited state along the $x_a$ coordinate. For the low barrier case the resonance to the $x_a$ coordinate has been chosen. Lowering the guess frequency, e.g. by 20 cm$^{-1}$, resulted in zero yield, an increase by the same amount gave a similar convergence behavior of the control yield.
Results and Discussion {#sec:res}
======================
Dependence on Pulse Duration
----------------------------
The OCT optimization problem depends on the final time $T$ at which the optimization goal shall be reached. The obvious question is to what extent will the OCT field and the associated wave packet dynamics depend on the pulse duration. Fig. \[fig:2\] compares OCT pulses for $T=500$ (a) and 1500 fs (d). Inspecting their XFROG traces in panels (b) and (e) we notice that upon increasing $T$ one obtains a pulse train like structure with an increasing number of overlapping subpulses.
The dynamics can be analyzed in terms of populations of eigenstates of the field-free Hamiltonian. A level scheme as well as densities for selected states are given in Fig. \[fig:3\]. In total there are 24 states below the barrier for concerted DPT. Also shown are the localized initial, $\phi_0$, and target, $ \phi_1$, states which differ by 38 cm$^{-1}$ for the chosen $\alpha_{\rm trans}$. The population dynamics for $T=500$ fs is presented in Fig. \[fig:pophigh500\]. Panel (a) shows that the initial state is almost completely depopulated during the first $\sim$180 fs whereas the target state becomes populated after $\sim$300 fs reaching a final population of 0.74. Since the dipole moment changes along the $x_a$ direction only, we would expect that the laser pulse excites a wave packet along this direction. Indeed the initial excitation is to state $\phi_6$ which has a node along $x_a$. But already the next state which is populated, i.e. $\phi_{16}$, is of mixed character containing excitations along both directions. This mixing is, of course, a consequence of the anharmonicity of the potential. Both states are excited by the first pulse within about 200 fs. The mismatch between the $\phi_0\rightarrow \phi_6$ and $\phi_6 \rightarrow \phi_{16}$ transitions amounts to a 65 cm$^{-1}$ redshift which is covered by the pulse spectrum. The latter also shows a slight down-chirp. Due to the delocalized nature of states $\phi_{16}$ and $\phi_{17}$ the first pulse actually excites a superposition of these two states, what can be seen from the rise of the population of state $\phi_{17}$ around 100 fs in Fig. \[fig:pophigh500\]. The second pulse which is centered around 300 fs acts as a dump pulse transferring the populations according to the scheme $\phi_{17} \rightarrow \phi_7 \rightarrow \phi_1$. In between the two main pulses there is a minor feature at $\sim$220 fs spectrally located around 200 cm$^{-1}$. It is related to the population of states which are energetically above the barrier for concerted transfer (see, Fig. \[fig:3\]). In fact the two main pulses excite and de-excite state $\phi_{24}$ according to $\phi_{16} \rightarrow \phi_{24}$ and $\phi_{24} \rightarrow \phi_{17}$, respectively. The subpulse centered around 200 cm$^{-1}$ switches populations according to $\phi_{24} \rightarrow \phi_{27} \rightarrow \phi_{24}$. This effect is most likely not relevant for the DPT control.
The population dynamics for the $T=1500$ fs case is shown in Fig. \[fig:pophigh1500\]. As compared with the $T=500$ fs case it is more complex. Only the effect of the first pulse is comparable, that is, the excitation scheme $\phi_0\rightarrow \phi_6 \rightarrow \phi_{16}/\phi_{17}$ applies. Some features of the dynamics triggered by the other subpulses are: (i) The initial state is repopulated around 600 fs and subsequently depopulated until about 900 fs. (ii) A population/depopulation is also observed for the target state around 1000 fs. (iii) Above barrier states are populated directly by transitions from below barrier states. Finally, the population of the target state at 1500 fs is 0.91, thus exceeding the one for the 500 fs case, i.e. the convergence is faster for the longer pulse.
Since the reference case contains a dipole moment in $x_a$ direction only one expects that the laser driven wave packet is bound to move toward the product well in a stepwise fashion, i.e. passing through the regions S$_1$ and S$_2$ in Fig. \[fig:pes\]. Indeed this is the major pathway as shown for different pulse durations in Figs. \[fig:2\]c and f. We further notice that the rise of the target state population is closely related to the decay of the probability of being in the regions S$_1$ and S$_2$. For example, for $T=1500$fs (Fig. \[fig:2\]d-f) the latter has decayed by $\sim$ 1200 fs which coincides with a steep rise of $P_1$. In other words, it takes about 1200 fs for the major part of the laser-driven wave packet to reach the product well via a stepwise mechanism. Similar arguments hold for the $T=500$ fs case where this transition takes place around 300 fs.
Comparing the results for the two propagation lengths one notices a difference as far as the dynamics in the range of concerted DPT is concerned. Inspecting the densities of the different populated states it is clear that the contribution to the concerted pathway is mostly due to the pair $\phi_{16}$ and $\phi_{17}$. A superposition of these states is excited already by the first pulse and the subsequent dynamics will be that of a two-level system. The energy mismatch between these two states of 51 cm$^{-1}$ yields a time scale of $\sim$650 fs for a round trip between the two minima, i.e. the transfer from the reactant to the product well takes about 325 fs. Given the approximate nature of this estimate, e.g. due to preparation process, one finds this time scale for the motion through the concerted region in the $T=500$ fs case. For the $T=1500$ fs case the time that the wave packet spends in the $C$ region is about 900 fs and from Fig. \[fig:2\]f one notices that there are three maxima of the $C$ region population during this period. Since $\phi_{16}$ and $\phi_{17}$ are energetically below the barrier, one can conclude that the contribution to concerted DPT is mostly due to tunneling.
Dependence on Model Parameters {#sec:para}
------------------------------
Lowering the reaction barriers has a substantial influence on the OCT field and the wave packet dynamics. Exemplarily we show the case of $T=1500$ fs in Fig. \[fig:6\]. First, we notice that, in contrast to the high barrier case, the OCT pulse consists of only three subpulses. These pulses drive the wave packet essentially via the stepwise pathways as seen in Fig. \[fig:6\]c. This is somehow counter-intuitive since one would expect that upon lowering the barrier for concerted DPT, tunneling becomes even more effective. However, for the present parameters there is essentially only one state below the barrier having locally an excited $x_a$ character, namely $\phi_5$; see Fig. \[fig:7\]. This state is not appreciably mixed with other states, say of $x_s$ excitation character. Instead it is delocalized encompassing both trans as well as the cis regions. The population dynamics in Fig. \[fig:8\] shows that the dominant pathway is indeed $\phi_0 \rightarrow \phi_5 \rightarrow \phi_1$ triggered in a pump-dump like fashion. The spectrally broad pulses also excite state $\phi_7$ which in turn causes an excitation of an above barrier state, $\phi_{12}$. The latter state clearly will lead to a contribution of the concerted pathway, but this time not by virtue of tunneling. However, it’s effect is rather minor as can be traced from the population of the concerted region in Fig. \[fig:6\]c. Finally, we note that due to the sparser energy level structure the OCT iteration converges faster and a 99% population of the target state is achieved.
Next we explore the effect of adding an asymmetry to the two cis configurations for the high barrier reference case. We have chosen $\alpha_{\rm cis}=0.01$ which translates into an energetic difference of 77 cm$^{-1}$ between the two cis minima. In the symmetric case the populations of the different cis regions S$_1$ and S$_2$ reflect the oscillation of the wave packet excited in the more stable trans well as seen in Fig. \[fig:9\]a. That means, if the major part of the wave packet moves via S$_1$ there is a minimum in the population of S$_2$ and vice versa. Overall there is no net preference for a pathway. If the S$_2$ region is energetically more favorable OCT prefers this way as seen from Fig. \[fig:9\]b.
Finally, we address the case where there is a nonvanishing dipole moment along both directions, exemplarily we have chosen $d_a/d_s=4$. Here, direct excitation of the $x_s$ coordinate becomes possible and one would expect the importance of the concerted pathway to increase. Indeed this is the case and for the optimized field the integrated populations for both pathways during the time interval up to 1500 fs are obtained to give a ratio of C$_{\rm tot}/{\rm S_{tot}}=0.144$. This value exceeds the 0.130 obtained from Fig. \[fig:2\]f. However, the extra gain in concerted DPT is small. In fact the OCT pulse populates a state of $x_s$ excitation character ($\phi_4$) which is $\sim$36 cm$^{-1}$ below $\phi_6$. The population, however, doesn’t exceed 10% and is subsequently also promoted to $\phi_{16}$. Thus the smallness of the gain in concerted DPT is due to the fact that $\phi_{16}$, which plays the dominant role for the concerted DPT, can be reached from the $x_a$ and $x_s$ fundament excitation state $\phi_6$ and $\phi_4$, respectively. That is, there is no substantial net effect due to the (competing) excitation of the symmetric coordinate.
In summary, optimal control theory has been used to devise laser fields which trigger ultrafast double proton transfer in a simple two-dimensional potential supporting stepwise and concerted mechanisms. The optimized pulses are of (multiple) pump-dump character. stepwise transfer was found to be dominant for all cases considered. Concerted transfer has been shown to become relevant if almost degenerate pairs of states exist which are mostly localized in the reactant or product well but can be excited simultaneously. In order to excite such a superposition state for the situation where the dipole moment changes along the asymmetric coordinate only, the states have to be of mixed character with respect to symmetric and asymmetric excitations. This situation is likely to be met for high barrier cases which support many locally excited states, that attain mixed character with increasing energy due to the anharmonicity of the potential energy surface. In such a situation a dipole change along the symmetric coordinate does not provide an additional means for concerted DPT. For low reaction barriers already fundamental excitations of the asymmetric coordinate can be delocalized such as to provide a direct pump-dump pathway involving a mostly single intermediate state.
The present use of a rather simple model Hamiltonian facilitates application to specific molecular systems by virtue of its straightforward parametrization. An extension of the latter might be necessary, however, since it is known that the effect of heavy atom motions on the proton transfer and the mechanism of DPT can be substantial. In this respect the used OCT-MCTDH approach is ideally suited for studying driven multidimensional quantum dynamics.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This work has been financially supported by a scholarship from the Ministry of Higher Education of the Arab Republic of Egypt. We are grateful to M. Schröder (University of Alberta) for his helpful comments concerning the MCTDH-OCT calculations.
[10]{}
O. Kühn, L. Wöste (Eds.), Analysis and control of ultrafast photoinduced reactions, Vol. 87 of Springer Series in Chemical Physics, Springer, Heidelberg, 2007.
S. Rice, M. Zhao, Optimal control of molecular dynamics, Wiley, New York, 2001.
M. Shapiro, P. Brumer, Principles of the quantum control of molecular processes, Wiley, Hoboken, 2003.
T. Brixner, G. Gerber, ChemPhysChem 4 (2003) 418.
W. Wohlleben, T. Buckup, J. Herek, M. Motzkus, ChemPhysChem 6 (2005) 850.
R. de Vivie-Riedle, U. Troppmann, Chem. Rev. 107 (2007) 5082.
O. Kühn, L. González, in: J. T. Hynes, J. P. Klinman, H.-H. Limbach, R. L. Schowen (Eds.), Handbook of Hydrogen transfer. Vol. 1, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2006, p. 71.
J. E. Combariza, B. Just, J. Manz, G. K. Paramonov, J. Phys. Chem. 95 (1991) 10351.
M. V. Korolkov, J. Manz, G. K. Paramonov, J. Chem. Phys. 105 (1996) 10874.
W. Jakubetz, B. L. Lan, Chem. Phys. 217 (1997) 375.
N. Došlić, O. Kühn, J. Manz, Ber. Bunsenges. Phys. Chem. 102 (1998) 292.
A. Peirce, M. Dahleh, H. Rabitz, Phys. Rev. A 37 (1988) 4950.
W. Zhu, J. Botina, H. Rabitz, J. Chem. Phys. 108 (1998) 1953.
J. Werschnik, E. K. U. Gross, J. Phys. B 40 (2007) R175.
N. Došlić, O. Kühn, J. Manz, K. Sundermann, J. Phys. Chem. A 102 (1998) 9645.
N. Došlić, K. Sundermann, L. González, O. Mo, J. Giraud-Girard, O. Kühn, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 1 (1999) 1249.
H. Naundorf, K. Sundermann, O. Kühn, Chem. Phys. 240 (1999) 163.
E. Geva, J. Chem. Phys. 116 (2002) 1629.
C. Uiberacker, W. Jakubetz, J. Chem. Phys. 120 (2004) 11532.
R. Mitrić, V. Bonačić-Koutecký, Phys. Rev. A 76 (2007) 031405.
S. Gräfe, P. Marquetand, V. Engel, J. Photochem. Photobiol. A: Chem. 180 (2006) 271.
K. Nishikawa, T. Ito, K. Sugimori, Y. Ohta, H. Nagao, Int. J. Quant. Chem. 102 (2005) 665.
I. Thanopulos, M. Shapiro, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 127 (2005) 14434.
I. Thanopulos, E. Paspalakis, V. Yannopapas, Nanotechnology 19 (2008) 445202.
V. Balzani, A. Credi, M. Venturi, Molecular devices and machines, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2003.
V. May, O. Kühn, Charge and energy transfer dynamics in molecular systems, 2nd revised and enlarged edition, Wiley–VCH, Weinheim, 2004.
Z. Smedarchina, M. F. Shibl, O. Kühn, A. Fernández-Ramos, Chem. Phys. Lett. 436 (2007) 314.
J. M. [Lopez del Amo]{}, U. Langer, V. Torres, M. Pietrzak, G. Buntkowsky, H.-M. Vieth, M. F. Shibl, O. K[ü]{}hn, M. Br[ö]{}ring, H.-H. Limbach, J. Phys. Chem. A 113 (2009) 2193.
M. H. Beck, A. Jäckle, G. A. Worth, H.-D. Meyer, Phys. Rep. 324 (2000) 1.
H.-D. Meyer, F. Gatti, G. Worth (Eds.), Multidimensional quantum dynamics: MCTDH theory and applications, VCH-Wiley, Weinheim, 2009.
Z. Smedarchina, W. Siebrand, A. Fernandez-Ramos, J. Chem. Phys. 127 (2007) 174513.
Z. Smedarchina, W. Siebrand, A. Fernández-Ramos, R. Meana-Pañeda, Z. Phys. Chem. 222 (2008) 1291.
J. Waluk, in: J. Hynes, J. Klinman, H.-H. Limbach, R. Schowen (Eds.), Hydrogen transfer reactions, Vol. 1, VCH-Wiley, Weinheim, 2007, Ch. 8, p. 245.
G. Worth, M. Beck, A. Jäckle, H.-D. Meyer, The MCTDH package, version 8.3, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg (2002).
H.-D. Meyer, F. L. Quere, C. Leonard, F. Gatti, Chem. Phys. 329 (2006) 179.
H. Rabitz, Theor. Chem. Acc. 109 (2003) 64.
K. Sundermann, R. de Vivie-Riedle, J. Chem. Phys. 110 (2000) 1896.
M. Schröder, J.-L. Carreon-Macedo, A. Brown, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 10 (2008) 850.
L. Wang, H.-D. Meyer, V. May, J. Chem. Phys. 125 (2006) 014102.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We discuss a class of teleparallel scalar-torsion theories of gravity, which is parametrized by five free functions of the scalar field. The theories are formulated covariantly using a flat, but non-vanishing spin connection. We show how the actions of different theories within this class are related via conformal transformations of the tetrad and redefinitions of the scalar field, and derive the corresponding transformation laws for the free function in the action. From these we construct a number of quantities which are invariant under these transformations, and use them to write the action and field equations in different conformal frames. These results generalize a similar formalism for scalar-tensor theories of gravity, where the invariants have been used to express observables independently of the conformal frame.'
author:
- Manuel Hohmann
bibliography:
- 'scaltors.bib'
title: |
Scalar-torsion theories of gravity III:\
analogue of scalar-tensor gravity and conformal invariants
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
An important and well-studied class of gravity theories, which have been used to address cosmological observations such as the accelerating expansion of the Universe at present and early times in its history, is given by scalar-tensor gravity theories [@Faraoni:2004pi; @Fujii:2003pa]. These theories have in common that they contain one or more scalar fields, which in general is non-minimally coupled to the metric of spacetime. The gravitational dynamics of the theory is then determined through the curvature of the Levi-Civita connection of the metric, as well as the dynamics of the scalar fields. A class of such theories of particular interest is defined in terms of four free functions in the action functional, where any specific choice of these functions defines a concrete theory [@Flanagan:2004bz].
An curious property of the aforementioned class of scalar-tensor theories is their behavior under conformal transformations. It has been shown that said transformations constitute maps between different theories within this class [@Flanagan:2004bz]. It is an ongoing debate whether these conformally related theories are equivalent in their physical predictions [@Catena:2006bd; @Faraoni:2006fx; @Deruelle:2010ht; @Chiba:2013mha; @Postma:2014vaa; @Faraoni:1998qx; @Capozziello:2010sc; @Rondeau:2017xck]. An important contribution to this debate is the definition of a number of invariant quantities, which can then be used to express physical observables such that they become independent of the choice of the conformal frame [@Jarv:2014hma; @Kuusk:2015dda].
Another thoroughly studied class of gravity theories is given by teleparallel models of gravity, where the gravitational interaction is attributed not to the curvature of the Levi-Civita connection, but to the torsion of a flat connection [@Moller:1961; @Aldrovandi:2013wha; @Maluf:2013gaa; @Golovnev:2018red]. The underlying teleparallel geometry provides another possible starting point for constructing new gravity theories by coupling scalar fields to torsion, and a number of such models have been studied [@Geng:2011aj; @Izumi:2013dca; @Chakrabarti:2017moe; @Otalora:2013tba; @Jamil:2012vb; @Chen:2014qsa], as well as the question of conformal transformations. However, in these studies it is conventional to assume a fixed, vanishing spin connection, which potentially leads to the issue of local Lorentz symmetry breaking [@Li:2010cg; @Sotiriou:2010mv], as spurious degrees of freedom may appear [@Li:2011rn; @Ong:2013qja; @Izumi:2013dca; @Chen:2014qtl], and only recently the covariant formulation of teleparallel gravity [@Krssak:2015oua] has been adopted to scalar-torsion gravity [@Hohmann:2018rwf].
The aim of our work is to combine several aspects of the aforementioned studies. We study a class of teleparallel scalar-torsion theories of gravity in the covariant formulation, which is constructed in analogy to the aforementioned class of scalar-(curvature)-tensor gravity theories, and contains scalar-tensor gravity as a subclass. Any specific theory of this class is determined by a particular choice of five free functions of the scalar field. We study the behavior of these theories under conformal transformations of the underlying teleparallel geometry, and show that such transformations relate different theories to each other. We then show that such classes of conformally related theories can be characterized by a number of invariant quantities, in full analogy to their scalar-tensor counterparts, and use these to define particular conformal frames.
This article belongs to a series of three articles on teleparallel scalar-torsion theories of gravity in the covariant formulation. In the first article [@Hohmann:2018vle] we discussed the most general class of theories in which a scalar field is coupled to the tetrad and spin connection of teleparallel gravity, with the only restriction that the action is invariant under local Lorentz transformations and the matter fields do not couple to the spin connection (while allowing a coupling to the scalar field). The results derived in the first article were then used and applied to a particular subclass of scalar-torsion theories, which we called $L(T, X, Y, \phi)$ theories, in the second article [@Hohmann:2018dqh]. The class of theories we discuss in this article is a further restriction of the aforementioned class of $L(T, X, Y, \phi)$ theories.
The outline of this article is as follows. In section \[sec:action\] we briefly review the dynamical fields of scalar-torsion theory based on teleparallel geometry and define the class of theories we consider here by giving their action functionals. The field equations for this class of theories are shown in section \[sec:feqs\]. We then turn our focus to conformal transformations. In section \[sec:conformal\] we derive how conformal transformations and scalar field redefinitions act on the scalar-torsion action. We then identify a set of invariant quantities under these transformations in section \[sec:invariant\]. These are used to define particular conformal frames in section \[sec:frames\]. In section \[sec:multi\] we show how these results can be generalized to multiple scalar fields. Specific examples are shown in section \[sec:examples\], in particular the relation to scalar-tensor theories of gravity. We end with a conclusion in section \[sec:conclusion\].
Dynamical fields and action {#sec:action}
===========================
We start our discussion by introducing the dynamical fields and for the class of teleparallel scalar-torsion theories we consider in this article. Similarly to our previous work [@Hohmann:2018vle; @Hohmann:2018dqh] the dynamical fields are given by a coframe field $\theta^a = \theta^a{}_{\mu}{\mathrm{d}}x^{\mu}$, a flat spin connection ${\overset{\bullet}{\omega}\vphantom{\omega}}^a{}_b = {\overset{\bullet}{\omega}\vphantom{\omega}}^a{}_{b\mu}{\mathrm{d}}x^{\mu}$ and a scalar field $\phi$. The frame field dual to the coframe field $\theta^a$ will be denoted $e_a = e_a{}^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}$. We denote quantities related to the flat spin connection with a bullet ($\bullet$). This in particular applies to the torsion tensor $$T^{\rho}{}_{\mu\nu} = e_a{}^{\rho}\left(\partial_{\mu}e^a{}_{\nu} - \partial_{\nu}e^a{}_{\mu} + {\overset{\bullet}{\omega}\vphantom{\omega}}^a{}_{b\mu}e^b{}_{\nu} - {\overset{\bullet}{\omega}\vphantom{\omega}}^a{}_{b\nu}e^b{}_{\mu}\right)\,,$$ the superpotential $$S_{\rho\mu\nu} = \frac{1}{2}\left(T_{\nu\mu\rho} + T_{\rho\mu\nu} - T_{\mu\nu\rho}\right) - g_{\rho\mu}T^{\sigma}{}_{\sigma\nu} + g_{\rho\nu}T^{\sigma}{}_{\sigma\mu}$$ and the torsion scalar $$\label{eqn:torsscal}
T = \frac{1}{2}T^{\rho}{}_{\mu\nu}S_{\rho}{}^{\mu\nu}\,.$$ Here we made use of the metric $$\label{eqn:metric}
g_{\mu\nu} = \eta_{ab}\theta^a{}_{\mu}\theta^b{}_{\nu}\,,$$ where $\eta_{ab} = \mathrm{diag}(-1,1,1,1)$ is the Minkowski metric. Quantities associated to the Levi-Civita connection ${\overset{\circ}{\nabla}\vphantom{\nabla}}_{\mu}$ will be denoted with an open circle ($\circ$). Further, we define the scalar field kinetic term $$\label{eqn:defx}
X = -\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}\phi_{,\mu}\phi_{,\nu}\,,$$ as well as the derivative coupling term $$\label{eqn:defy}
Y = g^{\mu\nu}T^{\rho}{}_{\rho\mu}\phi_{,\nu}\,,$$ which will enter the gravitational action introduced below.
The class of scalar-torsion theories we consider in this article has been studied, e.g., in the context of $f(T,B)$ theories [@Wright:2016ayu], where $$\label{eqn:boundary}
B = {\overset{\circ}{R}\vphantom{R}} + T = 2{\overset{\circ}{\nabla}\vphantom{\nabla}}_{\nu}T_{\mu}{}^{\mu\nu}\,.$$ The gravitational part of the action we use here is given by $$\label{eqn:classactiong}
S_g\left[\theta^a, {\overset{\bullet}{\omega}\vphantom{\omega}}^a{}_b, \phi\right] = \frac{1}{2\kappa^2}\int_M\left[-\mathcal{A}(\phi)T + 2\mathcal{B}(\phi)X + 2\mathcal{C}(\phi)Y - 2\kappa^2\mathcal{V}(\phi)\right]\theta{\mathrm{d}}^4x\,,$$ where $\mathcal{A}, \mathcal{B}, \mathcal{C}, \mathcal{V}$ are free functions of the scalar field and $\theta = \det\theta^a{}_{\mu}$ is the volume element of the tetrad. Note that the action is reminiscent of scalar-tensor gravity, where a similar class of actions may be considered [@Flanagan:2004bz]. This similarity is not by accident, and we will explore it further in section \[ssec:stg\]. One immediately sees that this action is of the form $$\label{eqn:confaction}
S_g\left[\theta^a, {\overset{\bullet}{\omega}\vphantom{\omega}}^a{}_b, \phi\right] = \int_ML\left(T, X, Y, \phi\right)\theta{\mathrm{d}}^4x\,,$$ where the Lagrangian is given by $$\label{eqn:actionsrels}
L = \frac{1}{2\kappa^2}\left[-\mathcal{A}(\phi)T + 2\mathcal{B}(\phi)X + 2\mathcal{C}(\phi)Y\right] - \mathcal{V}(\phi)\,.$$ This class of actions has been studied in our previous work [@Hohmann:2018dqh], and it follows that all results derived therein also apply to the theories we study in this article. We will make use of this relation in the following section for deriving the field equations.
We further remark that alternatively we could study the action $$\label{eqn:classactionb}
S_g\left[\theta^a, {\overset{\bullet}{\omega}\vphantom{\omega}}^a{}_b, \phi\right] = \frac{1}{2\kappa^2}\int_M\left[-\mathcal{A}(\phi)T + 2\mathcal{B}(\phi)X - \tilde{\mathcal{C}}(\phi)B - 2\kappa^2\mathcal{V}(\phi)\right]\theta{\mathrm{d}}^4x\,,$$ which is equivalent to the action for $\mathcal{C} = \tilde{\mathcal{C}}'$, up to a boundary term. However, we will not do so for two reasons. First, the action allows for an arbitrary shift $\tilde{\mathcal{C}} \mapsto \tilde{\mathcal{C}} + \tilde{\mathcal{C}}_0$ of the function $\tilde{\mathcal{C}}$ by a constant $\tilde{\mathcal{C}}_0$, which changes the action by a boundary term, and hence does not alter the field equations. This arbitrariness is not present in the action . Further, we will see in section \[sec:multi\] that the action allows for a larger class of generalizations to multiple scalar fields, which affects the possibilities to choose particular conformal frames.
In addition to the gravitational part of the action, we now define a matter part. Also in analogy to scalar-tensor gravity we consider a matter coupling to a conformally rescaled tetrad, such that the matter action is of the form $$\label{eqn:classactionm}
S_m[\theta^a, \phi, \chi^I] = S_m^{\mathfrak{J}}\left[e^{\alpha(\phi)}\theta^a, \chi^I\right] = S_m^{\mathfrak{J}}\left[\theta^{\mathfrak{J}\,a}, \chi^I\right]\,,$$ with another free function $\alpha$ of the scalar field, and where we defined $\theta^{\mathfrak{J}\,a} = e^{\alpha(\phi)}\theta^a$. The notation involving a superscript $\mathfrak{J}$ will be explained in section \[ssec:jordan\]. For the variation of the matter action we write $$\label{eqn:matactvar}
\delta S_m[\theta^a, \phi, \chi^I] = \int_M\left(\Theta_a{}^{\mu}\delta\theta^a{}_{\mu} + \vartheta\delta\phi + \varpi_I\delta\chi^I\right)\theta{\mathrm{d}}^4x\,.$$ It follows from the structure of the matter action that its variation can also be written as $$\delta S_m^{\mathfrak{J}}\left[\theta^{\mathfrak{J}\,a}, \chi^I\right] = \int_M\left(\Theta^{\mathfrak{J}}_a{}^{\mu}\delta\theta^{\mathfrak{J}\,a}{}_{\mu} + \varpi^{\mathfrak{J}}_I\delta\chi^I\right)\theta^{\mathfrak{J}}{\mathrm{d}}^4x = \int_M\left[\Theta^{\mathfrak{J}}_a{}^{\mu}e^{\alpha}\left(\delta\theta^a{}_{\mu} + \alpha'\theta^a{}_{\mu}\delta\phi\right) + \varpi^{\mathfrak{J}}_I\delta\chi^I\right]\theta^{\mathfrak{J}}{\mathrm{d}}^4x\,.$$ By comparing with the general variation of the matter action we find that the matter terms $\Theta_a{}^{\mu}$ and $\vartheta$, which appear as coefficients of the variations $\delta\theta^a{}_{\mu}$ and $\delta\phi$ and which will enter the scalar and tetrad field equations, are related by $$\label{eqn:classenmomtens}
\vartheta = \alpha'\theta^a{}_{\mu}\Theta_a{}^{\mu} = \alpha'\Theta\,.$$ We will make use of this relation when we display the field equations. These will be discussed in the following section.
Field equations {#sec:feqs}
===============
We now come to the field equations for the class of scalar-torsion theories introduced in the previous section, which are derived from the action and . For brevity, we will not display the full derivation of the field equations here, but make use of the relation to the class of theories defined by the action , whose field equations have been derived explicitly in our previous work [@Hohmann:2018dqh].
It follows from the structure of the dynamical fields that there are field equations derived by variations of the tetrad, the flat spin connection and the scalar field. However, it follows from the local Lorentz invariance of the action that the connection field equations are identical to the antisymmetric part of the tetrad field equations, so that the spin connection becomes a pure gauge degree of freedom, and only the symmetric part of the tetrad field equations remains independent; see [@Hohmann:2018vle] for a detailed discussion. Here we make use of this fact and display only the independent parts of the field equations. For this purpose we compare the action with that of the more general $L(T, X, Y, \phi)$ theory [@Hohmann:2018dqh] and derive the terms $$L_T = -\frac{\mathcal{A}(\phi)}{2\kappa^2}\,, \quad L_X = \frac{\mathcal{B}(\phi)}{\kappa^2}\,, \quad L_Y = \frac{\mathcal{C}(\phi)}{\kappa^2}\,, \quad L_{\phi} = \frac{1}{2\kappa^2}\left[-\mathcal{A}'(\phi)T + 2\mathcal{B}'(\phi)X + 2\mathcal{C}'(\phi)Y\right] - \mathcal{V}'(\phi)\,.$$ which enter the gravitational field equations. We start with the symmetric part of the tetrad field equations, which take the form $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal{A}'S_{(\mu\nu)}{}^{\rho}\phi_{,\rho} + \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{A}\left(2{\overset{\circ}{\nabla}\vphantom{\nabla}}_{\rho}S_{(\mu\nu)}{}^{\rho} - S_{(\mu}{}^{\rho\sigma}T_{\nu)\rho\sigma} + Tg_{\mu\nu}\right) + \left(\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{B} - \mathcal{C}'\right)\phi_{,\rho}\phi_{,\sigma}g^{\rho\sigma}g_{\mu\nu}\\
- (\mathcal{B} - \mathcal{C}')\phi_{,\mu}\phi_{,\nu} + \mathcal{C}\left(S_{(\mu\nu)}{}^{\rho}\phi_{,\rho} + {\overset{\circ}{\nabla}\vphantom{\nabla}}_{\mu}{\overset{\circ}{\nabla}\vphantom{\nabla}}_{\nu}\phi - {\overset{\circ}{\square}\vphantom{\square}}\phi g_{\mu\nu}\right) + \kappa^2\mathcal{V}g_{\mu\nu} = \kappa^2\Theta_{\mu\nu}\,,\end{gathered}$$ where we used the fact that $$S_{(\mu\nu)}{}^{\rho}\phi_{,\rho} = T_{(\mu\nu)}{}^{\rho}\phi_{,\rho} + T^{\rho}{}_{\rho(\mu}\phi_{,\nu)} - T_{\rho}{}^{\rho\sigma}\phi_{,\sigma}g_{\mu\nu}\,.$$ We can further simplify this expression using the identity $${\overset{\circ}{\nabla}\vphantom{\nabla}}_{\rho}S_{(\mu\nu)}{}^{\rho} - \frac{1}{2}S_{(\mu}{}^{\rho\sigma}T_{\nu)\rho\sigma} + \frac{1}{2}Tg_{\mu\nu} = {\overset{\circ}{R}\vphantom{R}}_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2}{\overset{\circ}{R}\vphantom{R}}g_{\mu\nu}$$ for the Einstein tensor, such that the symmetric part of the tetrad field equations finally reads $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:clafeqtets}
\left(\mathcal{A}' + \mathcal{C}\right)S_{(\mu\nu)}{}^{\rho}\phi_{,\rho} + \mathcal{A}\left({\overset{\circ}{R}\vphantom{R}}_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2}{\overset{\circ}{R}\vphantom{R}}g_{\mu\nu}\right) + \left(\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{B} - \mathcal{C}'\right)\phi_{,\rho}\phi_{,\sigma}g^{\rho\sigma}g_{\mu\nu}\\
- (\mathcal{B} - \mathcal{C}')\phi_{,\mu}\phi_{,\nu} + \mathcal{C}\left({\overset{\circ}{\nabla}\vphantom{\nabla}}_{\mu}{\overset{\circ}{\nabla}\vphantom{\nabla}}_{\nu}\phi - {\overset{\circ}{\square}\vphantom{\square}}\phi g_{\mu\nu}\right) + \kappa^2\mathcal{V}g_{\mu\nu} = \kappa^2\Theta_{\mu\nu}\,.\end{gathered}$$ The antisymmetric part of the tetrad field equations, which is identical to the connection field equations, is given by $$\label{eqn:clafeqcon}
(\mathcal{A}' + \mathcal{C})T^{\rho}{}_{[\mu\nu}\phi_{,\rho]} = 0\,.$$ Finally, the scalar field equation takes the form $$\label{eqn:clafeqscal}
\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{A}'T - \mathcal{B}{\overset{\circ}{\square}\vphantom{\square}}\phi - \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{B}'g^{\mu\nu}\phi_{,\mu}\phi_{,\nu} + \mathcal{C}{\overset{\circ}{\nabla}\vphantom{\nabla}}_{\mu}T_{\nu}{}^{\nu\mu} + \kappa^2\mathcal{V}' = \kappa^2\alpha'\Theta\,,$$ where the trace $\Theta = \theta^a{}_{\mu}\Theta_a{}^{\mu} = g^{\mu\nu}\Theta_{\mu\nu}$ of the energy-momentum tensor enters the scalar field equation through the relation . These are the field equations for the class of theories defined by the action and .
If one naively tries to solve these field equations one encounters the difficulty that the scalar field equation contains second derivatives of both the tetrad and the scalar field. In order to find solutions, it is more convenient to remove the second derivatives of the tetrad by a suitable linear combination of the tetrad field equations; this procedure is also called “debraiding” [@Bettoni:2015wta]. Using the identity $S_{\mu}{}^{\mu\nu} = -2T_{\mu}{}^{\mu\nu}$, we take the trace $$-2\left(\mathcal{A}' + \mathcal{C}\right)T_{\mu}{}^{\mu\nu}\phi_{,\nu} - \mathcal{A}{\overset{\circ}{R}\vphantom{R}} + \left(\mathcal{B} - 3\mathcal{C}'\right)g^{\mu\nu}\phi_{,\mu}\phi_{,\nu} - 3\mathcal{C}{\overset{\circ}{\square}\vphantom{\square}}\phi + 4\kappa^2\mathcal{V} = \kappa^2\Theta$$ of the symmetric part . Together with the relation we find the debraided scalar field equation $$\label{eqn:clafeqdeb}
(\mathcal{A}' + \mathcal{C})\left(\mathcal{A}T - 2\mathcal{C}T_{\mu}{}^{\mu\nu}\phi_{,\nu}\right) - \left(2\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B} + 3\mathcal{C}^2\right){\overset{\circ}{\square}\vphantom{\square}}\phi + (\mathcal{B}\mathcal{C} - \mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}' - 3\mathcal{C}\mathcal{C}')g^{\mu\nu}\phi_{,\mu}\phi_{,\nu} + 2\kappa^2(\mathcal{A}\mathcal{V}' + 2\mathcal{C}\mathcal{V}) = \kappa^2(2\mathcal{A}\alpha' + \mathcal{C})\Theta\,.$$ We see that the trace $\Theta$ may act as the source of the scalar field through the coupling term $Y$ in the gravitational action also when the matter action is independent of the scalar field. Hence, it is reasonable to say that the scalar field is minimally coupled when the debraided equation is source-free, $2\mathcal{A}\alpha' + \mathcal{C} = 0$; otherwise, we call it non-minimally coupled.
The debraided scalar field equation contains no second derivatives of the tetrad. However, it is not possible to remove the second derivatives of the scalar field from the tetrad field equations by the same procedure. In order to achieve a full debraiding of this type, one has to perform a conformal transformation to a particular frame. We will discuss conformal transformations in the following section, and show how this debraiding is done in section \[ssec:debraiding\].
Conformal transformations {#sec:conformal}
=========================
We now discuss the behavior of the action and introduced in section \[sec:action\] under conformal transformations of the tetrad and redefinitions of the scalar field. Under this type of transformation the dynamical variables change according to $$\label{eqn:conftrans}
\bar{\theta}^a{}_{\mu} = e^{\gamma(\phi)}\theta^a{}_{\mu}\,, \quad \bar{e}_a{}^{\mu} = e^{-\gamma(\phi)}e_a{}^{\mu}\,, \quad \bar{\phi} = f(\phi)\,,$$ while the spin connection ${\overset{\bullet}{\omega}\vphantom{\omega}}^a{}_b$ and matter variables $\chi$ are not affected. As a consequence, also the terms in the gravitational part of the action change according to the rules $$\label{eqn:scaltrans}
\bar{T} = e^{-2\gamma}\left(T + 4\gamma'Y + 12(\gamma')^2X\right)\,, \quad
\bar{Y} = e^{-2\gamma}f'(Y + 6\gamma'X)\,, \quad
\bar{X} = e^{-2\gamma}(f')^2X\,;$$ see [@Hohmann:2018dqh] for a more detailed derivation.
We then consider a different action functional $\bar{S}$ with gravitational part $\bar{S}_g$ and matter part $\bar{S}_m$, which is obtained from the original action and by replacing the parameter functions $\mathcal{A}, \mathcal{B}, \mathcal{C}, \mathcal{V}, \alpha$ with a new set of parameter functions $\bar{\mathcal{A}}, \bar{\mathcal{B}}, \bar{\mathcal{C}}, \bar{\mathcal{V}}, \bar{\alpha}$. Evaluating this new action functional for the transformed fields $\bar{\theta}^a$ and $\bar{\phi}$ we find, making use of the relations and in turn also , that the gravitational part $\bar{S}_g$ of the new action satisfies $$\label{eqn:classacttransg}
\begin{split}
\bar{S}_g\left[\bar{\theta}^a, {\overset{\bullet}{\omega}\vphantom{\omega}}^a{}_b, \bar{\phi}\right] &= \frac{1}{2\kappa^2}\int_M\left[-\bar{\mathcal{A}}(\bar{\phi})\bar{T} + 2\bar{\mathcal{B}}(\bar{\phi})\bar{X} + 2\bar{\mathcal{C}}(\bar{\phi})\bar{Y} - 2\kappa^2\bar{\mathcal{V}}(\bar{\phi})\right]\bar{\theta}{\mathrm{d}}^4x\\
&= \frac{1}{2\kappa^2}\int_M\bigg\{-e^{2\gamma(\phi)}\bar{\mathcal{A}}(f(\phi))T + 2e^{2\gamma(\phi)}\left[\bar{\mathcal{C}}(f(\phi))f'(\phi) - 2\bar{\mathcal{A}}\gamma'(\phi)\right]Y - 2\kappa^2e^{4\gamma(\phi)}\bar{\mathcal{V}}(f(\phi))\\
&\phantom{=}+ 2e^{2\gamma(\phi)}\left[\bar{\mathcal{B}}(f(\phi))f'^2(\phi) - 6\bar{\mathcal{A}}(f(\phi))\gamma'^2(\phi) + 6\bar{\mathcal{C}}(f(\phi))f'(\phi)\gamma'(\phi)\right]X\bigg\}\theta{\mathrm{d}}^4x\,,
\end{split}$$ while for its matter part $\bar{S}_m$ holds $$\label{eqn:classacttransm}
\bar{S}_m\left[\bar{\theta}^a, \bar{\phi}, \chi^I\right] = S_m^{\mathfrak{J}}\left[e^{\bar{\alpha}(\bar{\phi})}\bar{\theta}^a, \chi^I\right] = S_m^{\mathfrak{J}}\left[e^{\bar{\alpha}(f(\phi)) + \gamma(\phi)}\theta^a, \chi^I\right]\,.$$ By comparison to the original action and we find that the new action $\bar{S}$, evaluated at the transformed (barred) fields, reproduces the original action $S$, evaluated at the untransformed (unbarred) fields, $$\bar{S}_g\left[\bar{\theta}^a, {\overset{\bullet}{\omega}\vphantom{\omega}}^a{}_b, \bar{\phi}\right] = S_g\left[\theta^a, {\overset{\bullet}{\omega}\vphantom{\omega}}^a{}_b, \phi\right]\,, \quad
\bar{S}_m\left[\bar{\theta}^a, \bar{\phi}, \chi^I\right] = S_m\left[\theta^a, \phi, \chi^I\right]\,,$$ provided that the parameter functions of the two actions are related to each other by the rules
\[eqn:pftrans\] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A} &= e^{2\gamma}\bar{\mathcal{A}}\,,\label{eqn:pftransA}\\
\mathcal{B} &= e^{2\gamma}\left(\bar{\mathcal{B}}f'^2 - 6\bar{\mathcal{A}}\gamma'^2 + 6\bar{\mathcal{C}}f'\gamma'\right)\,,\label{eqn:pftransB}\\
\mathcal{C} &= e^{2\gamma}\left(\bar{\mathcal{C}}f' - 2\bar{\mathcal{A}}\gamma'\right)\,,\label{eqn:pftransC}\\
\mathcal{V} &= e^{4\gamma}\bar{\mathcal{V}}\,,\label{eqn:pftransV}\\
\alpha &= \bar{\alpha} + \gamma\,.\label{eqn:pftransalpha}\end{aligned}$$
Here we have omitted the function arguments for brevity; it is understood that transformed (barred) functions depend on $\bar{\phi} = f(\phi)$, while all other (unbarred) functions depend on $\phi$. Hence, we may say that the action functionals $S$ and $\bar{S}$, with parameter functions related by , are related by the conformal transformation . Since they are of the same form, we may also say that the transformation preserves the form of the action.
We finally remark that the transformation of the matter action also induces a transformation of the matter terms in the field equations, which can be written in the form $$\label{eqn:mattermtrans}
\Theta_{\mu\nu} = e^{2\gamma}\bar{\Theta}_{\mu\nu}\,, \quad
\Theta = e^{4\gamma}\bar{\Theta}\,, \quad
\vartheta = e^{4\gamma}(\gamma'\bar{\Theta} + f'\bar{\vartheta})\,;$$ see [@Hohmann:2018dqh] for a detailed derivation. These relations will be used later, when we apply the conformal transformations to the field equations. Note also that the transformations , together with the relation , preserve the relation in the sense that $\bar{\theta} = \bar{\alpha}'\bar{\Theta}$.
One can see from the transformation behavior of the parameter functions that there exist particular quantities constructed from these functions which transform trivially under conformal transformations. We will explicitly construct such quantities in the following section.
Invariant quantities {#sec:invariant}
====================
We have seen in the previous section that the class of theories we consider in this article exhibits a form invariance of their actions under conformal transformations of the tetrad and redefinitions of the scalar field. This form invariance and the corresponding transformation of its constituting parameter functions $\mathcal{A}, \mathcal{B}, \mathcal{C}, \mathcal{V}, \alpha$ is reminiscent of scalar-tensor gravity, where a similar transformation behavior can be found [@Flanagan:2004bz]. In the latter class of theories it has motivated the introduction of a set of invariant functions [@Jarv:2014hma]; these functions have subsequently been used to express a number of physical observables in a frame independent form [@Jarv:2015kga; @Kuusk:2016rso; @Jarv:2016sow; @Karam:2017zno]. We now show that the same type of invariants can also be introduced for the class of scalar-torsion theories we consider here, and we expect them to be of similar use for expressing physical observables independently of the choice of the conformal frame, as we will argue in more detail towards the end of this section.
From the transformation rules , and one can see immediately that the functions $$\label{eqn:cinv12}
\mathcal{I}_1 = \frac{e^{2\alpha}}{\mathcal{A}}\,, \quad
\mathcal{I}_2 = \frac{\mathcal{V}}{\mathcal{A}^2}$$ are invariant under conformal transformations and scalar field redefinitions. Here invariance means that under a transformation of the form they change according to $$\label{eqn:invtrans}
\bar{\mathcal{I}}_i(\bar{\phi}(x)) = \bar{\mathcal{I}}_i(f(\phi(x))) = \mathcal{I}_i(\phi(x))\,,$$ which means that the functional forms of $\mathcal{I}_i$ and $\bar{\mathcal{I}}_i$ differ, but their values evaluated at each spacetime point $x$ agree, provided that the scalar field is appropriately transformed, for $i = 1, 2$. In contrast, the functions $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{H}$ defined by $$\label{eqn:cinvfh}
\mathcal{F} = \frac{2\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B} - 3\mathcal{A}'[2\mathcal{C} + \mathcal{A}']}{4\mathcal{A}^2}\,, \quad
\mathcal{H} = \frac{\mathcal{C} + \mathcal{A}'}{2\mathcal{A}}\,.$$ are invariant under conformal transformations of the tetrad, but transform covariantly under redefinitions of the scalar field. This means that they incur an additional factor, and transform as $$\label{eqn:fhtrans}
\bar{\mathcal{F}}(\bar{\phi}) = \frac{1}{f'^2(\phi)}\mathcal{F}(\phi)\,, \quad
\bar{\mathcal{H}}(\bar{\phi}) = \frac{1}{f'(\phi)}\mathcal{H}(\phi)\,,$$ as can be seen from the transformation rules and . The same behavior can be found also for the quantities $$\label{eqn:cinvgk}
\mathcal{G} = \frac{\mathcal{B} - 6\alpha'[\mathcal{C} + \alpha'\mathcal{A}]}{2e^{2\alpha}}\,, \quad
\mathcal{K} = \frac{\mathcal{C} + 2\alpha'\mathcal{A}}{2e^{2\alpha}}\,,$$ i.e., they likewise transform as $$\label{eqn:gktrans}
\bar{\mathcal{G}}(\bar{\phi}) = \frac{1}{f'^2(\phi)}\mathcal{G}(\phi)\,, \quad
\bar{\mathcal{K}}(\bar{\phi}) = \frac{1}{f'(\phi)}\mathcal{K}(\phi)\,.$$ They are related to the previously defined invariants by the relations $$\label{eqn:fhgk}
\mathcal{F} = \mathcal{I}_1\mathcal{G} + 3\frac{\mathcal{I}_1'}{\mathcal{I}_1}\left(\mathcal{I}_1\mathcal{K} - \frac{\mathcal{I}_1'}{4\mathcal{I}_1}\right)\,, \quad \mathcal{H} = \mathcal{I}_1\mathcal{K} - \frac{\mathcal{I}_1'}{2\mathcal{I}_1}\,.$$ The invariant $\mathcal{K}$ is closely related to the notion of minimal coupling we introduced at the end of section \[sec:feqs\]. We see that the scalar field is minimally coupled, i.e., the debraided field equation is source-free, if and only if $\mathcal{K} = 0$. This condition is invariant under conformal transformations and scalar field redefinitions.
The are numerous possibilities to construct further invariants from those introduced above. For example, one may find quantities which are also invariant under scalar field redefinitions by taking the indefinite integrals $$\int\sqrt{\mathcal{F}(\phi)}{\mathrm{d}}\phi\,, \quad \int\mathcal{H}(\phi){\mathrm{d}}\phi\,,$$ and similarly for $\mathcal{G}$ and $\mathcal{K}$. Also note that quotients $\mathcal{I}_i'/\mathcal{I}_j'$ of invariants are again invariants, and that one may form invariant derivative operators; however, we will not pursue this direction further within the scope of this article, since these constructions are identical to those that may be defined in the case of scalar-tensor theories of gravity [@Jarv:2014hma]. Instead, we will make use of the invariants to construct particular conformal frames, and derive expressions for the action functional and field equations which are invariant under conformal transformations. This will be done in the next section.
Conformal frames {#sec:frames}
================
We have seen in section \[sec:conformal\] that under a conformal transformation of the tetrad and a redefinition of the scalar field of the form the action and retains its form, provided that the defining functions of the scalar field are also transformed using the rules . This freedom of transforming the action is also present in scalar-tensor theories of gravity, where it is commonly used to transform the action into two particular classes of parametrizations, known as Jordan and Einstein frames, in which the action and field equations exhibit additional properties. It has further been shown that these frames in scalar-tensor theories of gravity can be expressed in terms of a particular set of invariant quantities. We will now show that the same is possible also for the class of scalar-torsion theories we discuss in this article, making use of the invariants we defined in the preceding section.
We start by making use of the similarity to scalar-tensor gravity to define the Jordan frame in section \[ssec:jordan\] and the Einstein frame in section \[ssec:einstein\]. We will see that in contrast to scalar-tensor gravity, the naively defined Einstein frame does not to a complete debraiding of the scalar and tetrad field equations, as discussed at the end of section \[sec:feqs\]. However, we will define another frame in section \[ssec:debraiding\] in which this debraiding is obtained. Note that we will leave the scalar field unchanged in this section, $\bar{\phi} = \phi$, unless otherwise noted.
Jordan frame {#ssec:jordan}
------------
We start with the Jordan frame, whose associated tetrad we define as $$\label{eqn:jframedef}
\theta^{\mathfrak{J}\,a} = e^{\gamma^{\mathfrak{J}}(\phi)}\theta^a = e^{\alpha(\phi)}\theta^a\,, \quad
\gamma^{\mathfrak{J}}(\phi) = \alpha(\phi)\,.$$ It follows directly from this definition that the Jordan frame tetrad is invariant under conformal transformations and scalar field redefinitions of the original field variables in the sense that $$\theta^{\mathfrak{J}\,a} = e^{\alpha(\phi)}\theta^a = e^{\bar{\alpha}(\bar{\phi}) + \gamma(\phi)}\theta^a = e^{\bar{\alpha}(\bar{\phi})}\bar{\theta}^a = \bar{\theta}^{\mathfrak{J}\,a}\,.$$ Using the definition for the function $\gamma^{\mathfrak{J}}$, substituting it into the transformation rules and comparing the obtained transformed (barred) parameter functions with the invariants detailed in section \[sec:invariant\], we find the relations $$\label{eqn:pfjordan}
\mathcal{A}^{\mathfrak{J}} = \frac{1}{\mathcal{I}_1}\,, \quad
\mathcal{B}^{\mathfrak{J}} = 2\mathcal{G}\,, \quad
\mathcal{C}^{\mathfrak{J}} = 2\mathcal{K}\,, \quad
\mathcal{V}^{\mathfrak{J}} = \frac{\mathcal{I}_2}{\mathcal{I}_1^2}\,, \quad
\alpha^{\mathfrak{J}} = 0\,,$$ where we have replaced the bars with superscripts $\mathfrak{J}$, in order to indicate that this is the Jordan frame parametrization. The action can now be written in the form $$\label{eqn:jfaction}
S^{\mathfrak{J}}\left[\theta^{\mathfrak{J}\,a}, {\overset{\bullet}{\omega}\vphantom{\omega}}^a{}_b, \phi, \chi^I\right] = \frac{1}{2\kappa^2}\int_M\left[-\frac{1}{\mathcal{I}_1(\phi)}T^{\mathfrak{J}} + 4\mathcal{G}(\phi)X^{\mathfrak{J}} + 4\mathcal{K}(\phi)Y^{\mathfrak{J}} - 2\kappa^2\frac{\mathcal{I}_2(\phi)}{\mathcal{I}_1^2(\phi)}\right]\theta^{\mathfrak{J}}{\mathrm{d}}^4x + S_m^{\mathfrak{J}}\left[\theta^{\mathfrak{J}\,a}, \chi^I\right]\,.$$ A number of remarks are in order. First, note that the matter action functional in the Jordan frame action agrees with the action functional we used in the definition of the matter action; this is the reason for using the notation involving the superscript $\mathfrak{J}$. Further, we see that $S_m^{\mathfrak{J}}$ depends only on the Jordan frame tetrad and matter fields, and carries no additional, explicit dependence on the scalar field besides the implicit dependence through the definition . This is the most important advantage and typical reason for using the Jordan frame, since also the resulting matter field equations $\varpi^{\mathfrak{J}}_I = 0$ are expressed in terms of the Jordan frame tetrad and matter fields only, without further dependence on the scalar field. It further follows that the term $\vartheta^{\mathfrak{J}}$ obtained from varying the matter action $S_m^{\mathfrak{J}}$ with respect to the scalar field, while keeping the Jordan frame tetrad fixed, vanishes, and hence does not appear in the field equations, which we will show below.
We also remark that the gravitational part of the Jordan frame action is defined only up to a redefinition of the scalar field. This means that we may we define a different Jordan frame action $\bar{S}^{\mathfrak{J}}$ by replacing the invariant parameter functions $\mathcal{I}_1, \mathcal{I}_2, \mathcal{G}, \mathcal{K}$ by their barred counterparts $\bar{\mathcal{I}}_1, \bar{\mathcal{I}}_2, \bar{\mathcal{G}}, \bar{\mathcal{K}}$, which we then evaluate at the transformed scalar field, $$\bar{S}^{\mathfrak{J}}\left[\theta^{\mathfrak{J}\,a}, {\overset{\bullet}{\omega}\vphantom{\omega}}^a{}_b, \bar{\phi}, \chi^I\right] = \frac{1}{2\kappa^2}\int_M\left[-\frac{1}{\bar{\mathcal{I}}_1(\bar{\phi})}T^{\mathfrak{J}} + 4\bar{\mathcal{G}}(\bar{\phi})\bar{X}^{\mathfrak{J}} + 4\bar{\mathcal{K}}(\bar{\phi})\bar{Y}^{\mathfrak{J}} - 2\kappa^2\frac{\bar{\mathcal{I}}_2(\bar{\phi})}{\bar{\mathcal{I}}_1^2(\bar{\phi})}\right]\theta^{\mathfrak{J}}{\mathrm{d}}^4x + S_m^{\mathfrak{J}}\left[\theta^{\mathfrak{J}\,a}, \chi^I\right]\,.$$ Substituting $\bar{\phi} = f(\phi)$ we then find that the new action $\bar{S}^{\mathfrak{J}}$, evaluated at $\bar{\phi}$, agrees with the original action $S^{\mathfrak{J}}$, evaluated at $\phi$, provided that their defining parameter functions obey the transformation rules and . Note that we do not need to transform the matter part of the action here, as it is independent of the scalar field.
We now express the field equations in the Jordan frame. The symmetric tetrad field equations $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:jfeqtets}
2\frac{\mathcal{H}}{\mathcal{I}_1}S^{\mathfrak{J}}_{(\mu\nu)}{}^{\rho}\phi_{,\rho} + \frac{1}{\mathcal{I}_1}\left({\overset{\circ}{R}\vphantom{R}}^{\mathfrak{J}}_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2}{\overset{\circ}{R}\vphantom{R}}^{\mathfrak{J}}g^{\mathfrak{J}}_{\mu\nu}\right) + \left(\mathcal{G} - 2\mathcal{K}'\right)\phi_{,\rho}\phi_{,\sigma}g^{\mathfrak{J}\,\rho\sigma}g^{\mathfrak{J}}_{\mu\nu}\\
- 2(\mathcal{G} - \mathcal{K}')\phi_{,\mu}\phi_{,\nu} + 2\mathcal{K}\left({\overset{\circ}{\nabla}\vphantom{\nabla}}^{\mathfrak{J}}_{\mu}{\overset{\circ}{\nabla}\vphantom{\nabla}}^{\mathfrak{J}}_{\nu}\phi - {\overset{\circ}{\square}\vphantom{\square}}^{\mathfrak{J}}\phi g^{\mathfrak{J}}_{\mu\nu}\right) + \kappa^2\frac{\mathcal{I}_2}{\mathcal{I}_1^2}g^{\mathfrak{J}}_{\mu\nu} = \kappa^2\Theta^{\mathfrak{J}}_{\mu\nu}\,.\end{gathered}$$ and connection field equations $$\label{eqn:jfeqcon}
\mathcal{H}T^{\mathfrak{J}\,\rho}{}_{[\mu\nu}\phi_{,\rho]} = 0\,.$$ are essentially unchanged compared to their general frame forms and , while the scalar field equation becomes $$\label{eqn:jfeqscal}
-\frac{\mathcal{I}_1'}{2\mathcal{I}_1^2}T^{\mathfrak{J}} - 2\mathcal{G}{\overset{\circ}{\square}\vphantom{\square}}^{\mathfrak{J}}\phi - \mathcal{G}'g^{\mathfrak{J}\,\mu\nu}\phi_{,\mu}\phi_{,\nu} + 2\mathcal{K}{\overset{\circ}{\nabla}\vphantom{\nabla}}^{\mathfrak{J}}_{\mu}T^{\mathfrak{J}}_{\nu}{}^{\nu\mu} + \kappa^2\frac{\mathcal{I}_1\mathcal{I}_2' - 2\mathcal{I}_1\mathcal{I}_2'}{\mathcal{I}_1^3} = 0\,,$$ and hence does not contain the matter energy-momentum tensor. Note, however, that the matter energy-momentum still acts as a source for the scalar field through the debraiding discussed at the end of section \[sec:feqs\]. This can be seen from the debraided scalar field equation , which reads $$\label{eqn:jfeqdeb}
2\frac{\mathcal{H}}{\mathcal{I}_1}\left(\frac{1}{\mathcal{I}_1}T^{\mathfrak{J}} + 2\mathcal{K}S^{\mathfrak{J}}_{\mu}{}^{\mu\nu}\phi_{,\nu}\right) - 4\frac{\mathcal{F} + 3\mathcal{H}^2}{\mathcal{I}_1^2}{\overset{\circ}{\square}\vphantom{\square}}^{\mathfrak{J}}\phi + \left[4\mathcal{K}(\mathcal{G} - 3\mathcal{K}') - 2\frac{\mathcal{G}'}{\mathcal{I}_1}\right]g^{\mathfrak{J}\,\mu\nu}\phi_{,\mu}\phi_{,\nu} + 2\kappa^2\frac{4\mathcal{H}\mathcal{I}_2 + \mathcal{I}_2'}{\mathcal{I}_1^3} = 2\kappa^2\mathcal{K}\Theta^{\mathfrak{J}}\,.$$ in the Jordan frame.
Einstein frame {#ssec:einstein}
--------------
We then come to the Einstein frame, which we construct following essentially the same procedure as for the Jordan frame above, but using the conformal transformation defined by $$\label{eqn:eframedef}
\theta^{\mathfrak{E}\,a} = e^{\gamma^{\mathfrak{E}}(\phi)}\theta^a = \sqrt{\mathcal{A}(\phi)}\theta^a\,, \quad
\gamma^{\mathfrak{E}}(\phi) = \frac{1}{2}\ln\mathcal{A}(\phi)\,.$$ Similarly to the Jordan frame, also the Einstein frame tetrad is invariant under conformal transformations and scalar field redefinitions of the original field variables, $$\theta^{\mathfrak{E}\,a} = \sqrt{\mathcal{A}(\phi)}\theta^a = \sqrt{\bar{\mathcal{A}}(\phi)}e^{\gamma(\phi)}\theta^a = \sqrt{\bar{\mathcal{A}}(\phi)}\bar{\theta}^a = \bar{\theta}^{\mathfrak{E}\,a}\,.$$ Using the transformation rules and the invariant quantities defined in section \[sec:invariant\], we find that the parameter functions in the Einstein frame in terms of invariants are given by $$\label{eqn:pfeinstein}
\mathcal{A}^{\mathfrak{E}} = 1\,, \quad
\mathcal{B}^{\mathfrak{E}} = 2\mathcal{F}\,, \quad
\mathcal{C}^{\mathfrak{E}} = 2\mathcal{H}\,, \quad
\mathcal{V}^{\mathfrak{E}} = \mathcal{I}_2\,, \quad
\alpha^{\mathfrak{E}} = \frac{1}{2}\ln\mathcal{I}_1\,.$$ In this case the action takes the form $$\label{eqn:efaction}
S^{\mathfrak{E}}\left[\theta^{\mathfrak{E}\,a}, {\overset{\bullet}{\omega}\vphantom{\omega}}^a{}_b, \phi, \chi^I\right] = \frac{1}{2\kappa^2}\int_M\left[-T^{\mathfrak{E}} + 4\mathcal{F}(\phi)X^{\mathfrak{E}} + 4\mathcal{H}(\phi)Y^{\mathfrak{E}} - 2\kappa^2\mathcal{I}_2(\phi)\right]\theta^{\mathfrak{E}}{\mathrm{d}}^4x + S_m^{\mathfrak{J}}\left[\sqrt{\mathcal{I}_1(\phi)}\theta^{\mathfrak{E}\,a}, \chi^I\right]\,.$$ Also in this case we add a few remarks. First, note that we have expressed the matter part of the action through the Jordan frame action functional $S_m^{\mathfrak{J}}$. This is necessary in order to implement the particular relation between the dependences of the action on the tetrad and the scalar field imposed by the structure of the action . We also see that in this case the matter action carries an explicit dependence on the scalar field, in addition to the implicit dependence incurred from the Einstein frame tetrad. In contrast, the scalar field does not appear in the term involving the torsion scalar $T^{\mathfrak{E}}$. This is the characteristic property of the Einstein frame if one follows the analogy to scalar-tensor gravity, where the scalar field does not couple to the Ricci scalar ${\overset{\circ}{R}\vphantom{R}}^{\mathfrak{E}}$ in the Einstein frame.
We further remark that also in this case the action is uniquely defined only up to scalar field redefinitions, as is is also the case in the Jordan frame, i.e., if we define a new action $\bar{S}^{\mathfrak{E}}$ such that $$\bar{S}^{\mathfrak{E}}\left[\theta^{\mathfrak{E}\,a}, {\overset{\bullet}{\omega}\vphantom{\omega}}^a{}_b, \bar{\phi}, \chi^I\right] = \frac{1}{2\kappa^2}\int_M\left[-T^{\mathfrak{E}} + 4\bar{\mathcal{F}}(\bar{\phi})X^{\mathfrak{E}} + 4\bar{\mathcal{H}}(\bar{\phi})Y^{\mathfrak{E}} - 2\kappa^2\bar{\mathcal{I}}_2(\bar{\phi})\right]\theta^{\mathfrak{E}}{\mathrm{d}}^4x + S_m^{\mathfrak{J}}\left[\sqrt{\bar{\mathcal{I}}_1(\bar{\phi})}\theta^{\mathfrak{E}\,a}, \chi^I\right]\,,$$ and substitute the transformed scalar field $\bar{\phi} = f(\phi)$, then we reproduce the original action for $\phi$, provided that the invariant parameter functions satisfy the transformation rules and . Also in this case the matter part $S_m^{\mathfrak{J}}$ of the action is invariant, since $\bar{\mathcal{I}}_1(\bar{\phi}) = \mathcal{I}_1(\phi)$ by the definition of the invariants.
Next, we come to the field equations. We find that the symmetric tetrad field equations are given by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:efeqtets}
2\mathcal{H}S^{\mathfrak{E}}_{(\mu\nu)}{}^{\rho}\phi_{,\rho} + {\overset{\circ}{R}\vphantom{R}}^{\mathfrak{E}}_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2}{\overset{\circ}{R}\vphantom{R}}^{\mathfrak{E}}g^{\mathfrak{E}}_{\mu\nu} + \left(\mathcal{F} - 2\mathcal{H}'\right)\phi_{,\rho}\phi_{,\sigma}g^{\mathfrak{E}\,\rho\sigma}g_{\mu\nu}\\
- 2(\mathcal{F} - \mathcal{H}')\phi_{,\mu}\phi_{,\nu} + 2\mathcal{H}\left({\overset{\circ}{\nabla}\vphantom{\nabla}}^{\mathfrak{E}}_{\mu}{\overset{\circ}{\nabla}\vphantom{\nabla}}^{\mathfrak{E}}_{\nu}\phi - {\overset{\circ}{\square}\vphantom{\square}}^{\mathfrak{E}}\phi g^{\mathfrak{E}}_{\mu\nu}\right) + \kappa^2\mathcal{I}_2g^{\mathfrak{E}}_{\mu\nu} = \kappa^2\Theta^{\mathfrak{E}}_{\mu\nu}\,.\end{gathered}$$ the connection field equations read $$\label{eqn:efeqcon}
\mathcal{H}T^{\mathfrak{E}\,\rho}{}_{[\mu\nu}\phi_{,\rho]} = 0\,.$$ and the scalar field equation takes the form $$\label{eqn:efeqscal}
-2\mathcal{F}{\overset{\circ}{\square}\vphantom{\square}}^{\mathfrak{E}}\phi - \mathcal{F}'g^{\mathfrak{E}\,\mu\nu}\phi_{,\mu}\phi_{,\nu} + 2\mathcal{H}{\overset{\circ}{\nabla}\vphantom{\nabla}}^{\mathfrak{E}}_{\mu}T^{\mathfrak{E}}_{\nu}{}^{\nu\mu} + \kappa^2\mathcal{I}_2' = \kappa^2\alpha'\Theta^{\mathfrak{E}}\,,$$ Finally, after debraiding we find the scalar field equation in the form $$\label{eqn:efeqdeb}
2\mathcal{H}\left(T^{\mathfrak{E}} + 2\mathcal{H}S^{\mathfrak{E}}_{\mu}{}^{\mu\nu}\phi_{,\nu}\right) - 4\left(\mathcal{F} + 3\mathcal{H}^2\right){\overset{\circ}{\square}\vphantom{\square}}^{\mathfrak{E}}\phi + \left[4\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{F} - 3\mathcal{H}') - 2\mathcal{F}'\right]g^{\mathfrak{E}\,\mu\nu}\phi_{,\mu}\phi_{,\nu} + 2\kappa^2(4\mathcal{H}\mathcal{I}_2 + \mathcal{I}_2') = 2\kappa^2\mathcal{K}\mathcal{I}_1\Theta^{\mathfrak{E}}\,.$$ From the symmetric part we see an important difference between scalar-tensor and scalar-torsion theories of gravity: in the scalar-tensor case there are no second derivatives of the scalar field in the metric field equation in the Einstein frame, leading to a complete debraiding of the metric and scalar field equations [@Bettoni:2015wta]; this is not the case for the tetrad field equations of the class of scalar-torsion theories we discuss here, since the second order derivatives enter with a non-vanishing factor $\mathcal{C}^{\mathfrak{E}} = 2\mathcal{H}$. Hence, the Einstein frame loses its debraiding property. One may argue that this fact renders the name Einstein frame questionable; we will comment on this below. Our choice to define the Einstein frame via $\mathcal{A}^{\mathfrak{E}} = 1$ is motivated simply by its analogy to scalar-tensor gravity.
Debraiding frame {#ssec:debraiding}
----------------
As we have seen above, the Einstein frame in the class of scalar-torsion gravity theories we consider in this article does not have the debraiding property that the field equations for the tetrad do not contain second derivatives of the scalar field. However, one can see from the structure of the field equations that also in this case a debraiding can be achieved by performing a conformal transformation such that in the new frame, which we indicate by a superscript $\mathfrak{D}$, the condition $\mathcal{C}^{\mathfrak{D}} = 0$ is satisfied. By comparison with the transformation rule we then find that this conformal transformation must satisfy $${\gamma^{\mathfrak{D}}}'(\phi) = -\frac{\mathcal{C}(\phi)}{2\mathcal{A}(\phi)}\,.$$ Note that in contrast to the algebraic conditions and for the Jordan and Einstein frame transformations we obtain a differential equation, which fixes $\gamma^{\mathfrak{D}}$ only up to an additive constant. Hence, also the corresponding debraiding tetrad $\theta^{\mathfrak{D}\,a} = e^{\gamma^{\mathfrak{D}}(\phi)}\theta^a$ is determined only up to a constant factor. This could be fixed by the additional constraint that $\gamma^{\mathfrak{D}}(\phi_0) = \gamma^{\mathfrak{D}}_0$ for some $\phi_0$, such that $$\gamma^{\mathfrak{D}}(\phi) = \gamma^{\mathfrak{D}}_0 - \frac{1}{2}\int_{\phi_0}^{\phi}\frac{\mathcal{C}(\tilde{\phi})}{\mathcal{A}(\tilde{\phi})}{\mathrm{d}}\tilde{\phi}\,.$$ However, this constraint would depend on the original frame, since also the frame transition function $\gamma^{\mathfrak{D}}$ itself depends on the original frame. Hence, we will not follow this route. We will discuss other choices below, which do not have this problem.
Even without fixing the free constant factor in the definition of the debraiding tetrad $\theta^{\mathfrak{D}\,a}$ one can determine the parameter functions in the debraiding frame up to a constant factor (or an additive constant in the case of $\alpha^{\mathfrak{D}}$). By comparison with the invariants introduced in section \[sec:invariant\] and using the condition $\mathcal{C}^{\mathfrak{D}} = 0$ we find the relations
\[eqn:pfdebraid\] $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\ln\mathcal{A}^{\mathfrak{D}}\right)' &= 2\mathcal{H}\,,\label{eqn:pfdebraidA}\\
\left(\ln\mathcal{B}^{\mathfrak{D}}\right)' &= \left[\ln\left(\mathcal{F} + 3\mathcal{H}^2\right)\right]' + 2\mathcal{H}\,,\label{eqn:pfdebraidB}\\
\mathcal{C}^{\mathfrak{D}} &= 0\,,\label{eqn:pfdebraidC}\\
\left(\ln\mathcal{V}^{\mathfrak{D}}\right)' &= \left(\ln\mathcal{I}_2\right)' + 4\mathcal{H}\,,\label{eqn:pfdebraidV}\\
{\alpha^{\mathfrak{D}}}' &= \mathcal{I}_1\mathcal{K}\,.\label{eqn:pfdebraidalpha}\end{aligned}$$
From the last line we see that the condition $\alpha^{\mathfrak{D}}(\phi_0) = \alpha^{\mathfrak{D}}_0$, such that $$\alpha^{\mathfrak{D}}(\phi) = \alpha^{\mathfrak{D}}_0 + \int_{\phi_0}^{\phi}\mathcal{I}_1(\tilde{\phi})\mathcal{K}(\tilde{\phi}){\mathrm{d}}\tilde{\phi}\,,$$ now uniquely fixes $\alpha^{\mathfrak{D}}$ independently of the original frame, since it is expressed fully in terms of invariants. Note that this also fixes the remaining parameter functions $\mathcal{A}^{\mathfrak{D}}, \mathcal{B}^{\mathfrak{D}}, \mathcal{V}^{\mathfrak{D}}$, since they can be expressed in terms of invariants and $\alpha^{\mathfrak{D}}$ through the definitions and , and thus take the form $$\mathcal{A}^{\mathfrak{D}} = \frac{e^{2\alpha^{\mathfrak{D}}}}{\mathcal{I}_1}\,, \quad
\mathcal{B}^{\mathfrak{D}} = 2\frac{e^{2\alpha^{\mathfrak{D}}}}{\mathcal{I}_1}(\mathcal{F} + 3\mathcal{H}^2)\,, \quad
\mathcal{V}^{\mathfrak{D}} = \frac{e^{4\alpha^{\mathfrak{D}}}\mathcal{I}_2}{\mathcal{I}_1^2}\,.$$ Finally, it also fixes the frame transition function through $\gamma^{\mathfrak{D}} = \alpha - \alpha^{\mathfrak{D}}$. Hence, this condition uniquely fixes the debraiding frame and only leaves the freedom to redefine the scalar field. One easily checks that this definition of the debraiding frame is now indeed independent of the original frame, since $$\theta^{\mathfrak{D}\,a} = e^{\gamma^{\mathfrak{D}}(\phi)}\theta^a = e^{\alpha(\phi) - \alpha^{\mathfrak{D}}(\phi)}\theta^a = e^{-\alpha^{\mathfrak{D}}(\phi)}\theta^{\mathfrak{J}\,a}\,,$$ and both $\alpha^{\mathfrak{D}}$ and the Jordan frame tetrad $\theta^{\mathfrak{J}\,a}$ are invariants.
We are now in the position to express the action and field equations in the debraiding frame. We start with the action, which now takes the form $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:dfaction}
S^{\mathfrak{D}}\left[\theta^{\mathfrak{D}\,a}, {\overset{\bullet}{\omega}\vphantom{\omega}}^a{}_b, \phi, \chi^I\right] = \frac{1}{2\kappa^2}\int_M\left\{-\frac{e^{2\alpha^{\mathfrak{D}}(\phi)}}{\mathcal{I}_1(\phi)}T^{\mathfrak{D}} + 4\frac{e^{2\alpha^{\mathfrak{D}}(\phi)}}{\mathcal{I}_1(\phi)}[\mathcal{F}(\phi) + 3\mathcal{H}^2(\phi)]X^{\mathfrak{D}} - 2\kappa^2\frac{e^{4\alpha^{\mathfrak{D}}(\phi)}\mathcal{I}_2(\phi)}{\mathcal{I}_1^2(\phi)}\right\}\theta^{\mathfrak{D}}{\mathrm{d}}^4x\\
+ S_m^{\mathfrak{J}}\left[e^{\alpha^{\mathfrak{D}}(\phi)}\theta^{\mathfrak{D}\,a}, \chi^I\right]\,,\end{gathered}$$ and hence does not contain the term $Y$. We remark that also in this frame one still has the freedom to redefine the scalar field, as it is also the case in the Jordan and Einstein frames we discussed before. We then come to the symmetric part of the tetrad field equations, which reads $$\label{eqn:dfeqtets}
2\mathcal{H}S^{\mathfrak{D}}_{(\mu\nu)}{}^{\rho}\phi_{,\rho} + {\overset{\circ}{R}\vphantom{R}}^{\mathfrak{D}}_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2}{\overset{\circ}{R}\vphantom{R}}^{\mathfrak{D}}g^{\mathfrak{D}}_{\mu\nu} + (\mathcal{F} + 3\mathcal{H}^2)\left(\phi_{,\rho}\phi_{,\sigma}g^{\mathfrak{D}\,\rho\sigma}g^{\mathfrak{D}}_{\mu\nu} - 2\phi_{,\mu}\phi_{,\nu}\right) + \kappa^2\frac{e^{2\alpha^{\mathfrak{D}}}\mathcal{I}_2}{\mathcal{I}_1}g^{\mathfrak{D}}_{\mu\nu} = \frac{\kappa^2\mathcal{I}_1}{e^{2\alpha^{\mathfrak{D}}}}\Theta^{\mathfrak{D}}_{\mu\nu}\,.$$ The antisymmetric part , which is identical to the connection field equations, becomes $$\label{eqn:dfeqcon}
\mathcal{H}T^{\mathfrak{D}\,\rho}{}_{[\mu\nu}\phi_{,\rho]} = 0\,.$$ Finally, the scalar field equation is given by $$\label{eqn:dfeqscal}
\mathcal{H}T^{\mathfrak{D}} - 2(\mathcal{F} + 3\mathcal{H}^2){\overset{\circ}{\square}\vphantom{\square}}^{\mathfrak{D}}\phi - \left(\mathcal{F}' + 2\mathcal{F}\mathcal{H} + 6\mathcal{H}^3 + 6\mathcal{H}\mathcal{H}'\right)g^{\mathfrak{D}\,\mu\nu}\phi_{,\mu}\phi_{,\nu} + \kappa^2\frac{e^{2\alpha^{\mathfrak{D}}}}{\mathcal{I}_1}(4\mathcal{I}_2\mathcal{H} + \mathcal{I}_2') = \frac{\kappa^2\mathcal{I}_1^2\mathcal{K}}{e^{2\alpha^{\mathfrak{D}}}}\Theta^{\mathfrak{D}}\,.$$ We see that now indeed the tetrad and scalar field equations are debraided, i.e., the former contains only second derivatives of the tetrad, while the latter contains only second derivatives of the scalar field.
We conclude our discussion of the debraiding frame with a final remark. One may argue that this frame could more rightfully be called the Einstein frame, since the debraiding essentially turns the scalar field into another source term for the tetrad instead of interrelating their dynamics. One could equally well argue that there is no Einstein frame, since even in the debraiding frame the scalar field is non-minimally coupled to torsion through the term $\mathcal{A}^{\mathfrak{D}}(\phi)T$ in the action. However, we will not enter this discussion here, as it is merely a question of nomenclature.
This concludes our discussion of scalar-torsion theories of gravity with a single field coupled to the tetrad and the spin connection. It is natural to ask whether the results we obtained also apply to theories with multiple scalar fields. This question will be explored in the following section.
Generalization to multiple scalar fields {#sec:multi}
========================================
In the previous sections we have considered a single scalar field in addition to the tetrad and spin connection as the dynamical variables of the gravitational interaction. We now generalize our statements and results to multiple scalar fields. This will be done in several steps. We define the generalized action in section \[ssec:maction\], and derive the corresponding field equations in section \[ssec:mfeqs\]. Conformal transformations are discussed in section \[ssec:mconformal\]. From these we finally derive invariants in section \[ssec:minv\] and discuss particular conformal frames in section \[ssec:mframes\].
Action {#ssec:maction}
------
Instead of a single scalar field $\phi$ we now consider a scalar field multiplet $\boldsymbol{\phi} = (\phi^A, A = 1, \ldots, N)$ of $N$ scalar fields. This imposes two changes to the class of scalar-torsion theories defined by the action and . First, instead of the single kinetic and derivative coupling terms $X$ and $Y$ one may now form the terms $$X^{AB} = -\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}\phi^A_{,\mu}\phi^B_{,\nu}\,, \quad Y^A = T_{\mu}{}^{\mu\nu}\phi^A_{,\nu}\,,$$ making use of all scalar fields. Note that $X^{AB}$ is symmetric, $X^{[AB]} = 0$. Second, the free parameter functions on the action may now depend on all scalar fields. Hence, we generalize the action such that it reads $$\label{eqn:multiclassactiong}
S_g\left[\theta^a, {\overset{\bullet}{\omega}\vphantom{\omega}}^a{}_b, \phi^A\right] = \frac{1}{2\kappa^2}\int_M\left[-\mathcal{A}(\boldsymbol{\phi})T + 2\mathcal{B}_{AB}(\boldsymbol{\phi})X^{AB} + 2\mathcal{C}_A(\boldsymbol{\phi})Y^A - 2\kappa^2\mathcal{V}(\boldsymbol{\phi})\right]\theta{\mathrm{d}}^4x\,.$$ We remark that now also the functions $\mathcal{B}_{AB}$ and $\mathcal{C}_A$ carry scalar field indices, which are contracted with the corresponding indices of $X^{AB}$ and $Y^A$. Note that $\mathcal{B}_{AB}$ must be symmetric, $\mathcal{B}_{[AB]} = 0$, since any antisymmetric contribution would cancel in the contraction with the symmetric term $X^{AB}$. Also in the matter action the free function $\alpha$, which determines the conformally related tetrad coupled to matter, now depends on all scalar fields, $$\label{eqn:multiclassactionm}
S_m[\theta^a, \phi^A, \chi^I] = S_m^{\mathfrak{J}}\left[e^{\alpha(\boldsymbol{\phi})}\theta^a, \chi^I\right]\,.$$ The particular form of the matter action now imposes a relation between the sources $\vartheta_A$ in the scalar field equations, which are obtained from the variation $$\label{eqn:multicmatactvar}
\delta S_m[\theta^a, \phi^A, \chi^I] = \int_M\left(\Theta_a{}^{\mu}\delta\theta^a{}_{\mu} + \vartheta_A\delta\phi^A + \varpi_I\delta\chi^I\right)\theta{\mathrm{d}}^4x\,,$$ and the energy-momentum tensor $\Theta_a{}^{\mu}$, which generalizes the relation and reads $$\label{eqn:mclassenmomtens}
\vartheta_A = \alpha_{,A}\theta^a{}_{\mu}\Theta_a{}^{\mu}\,.$$ This relation will be used during the remainder of this section.
We now also see why we favored the form over the equivalent form . A similar generalization of the latter to multiple scalar fields would yield an action of the form $$\label{eqn:multiclassactionb}
S_g\left[\theta^a, {\overset{\bullet}{\omega}\vphantom{\omega}}^a{}_b, \phi^A\right] = \frac{1}{2\kappa^2}\int_M\left[-\mathcal{A}(\boldsymbol{\phi})T + 2\mathcal{B}_{AB}(\boldsymbol{\phi})X^{AB} - \tilde{\mathcal{C}}(\boldsymbol{\phi})B - 2\kappa^2\mathcal{V}(\boldsymbol{\phi})\right]\theta{\mathrm{d}}^4x\,,$$ which is equivalent to the action (up to a boundary term) only if $\mathcal{C}_A = \tilde{\mathcal{C}}_{,A}$, where we use the comma notation to indicate derivatives with respect to scalar fields $\phi^A$. This imposes an additional restriction on the parameter functions $\mathcal{C}_A$, and in particular implies $\mathcal{C}_{[A,B]} = 0$. Here we will not make this restriction, and work with the action with arbitrary parameter functions $\mathcal{C}_A$.
Field equations {#ssec:mfeqs}
---------------
We can then proceed with the field equations for the multi-scalar-torsion theories. As we did in the single field case in section \[sec:feqs\], we omit their derivation here, since the action is a special case of the more general multi-scalar-torsion generalization of the $L(T, X, Y, \phi)$ class of theories [@Hohmann:2018dqh], where the Lagrangian is given by $$L = \frac{1}{2\kappa^2}\left[-\mathcal{A}(\boldsymbol{\phi})T + 2\mathcal{B}_{AB}(\boldsymbol{\phi})X^{AB} + 2\mathcal{C}_A(\boldsymbol{\phi})Y^A\right] - \mathcal{V}(\boldsymbol{\phi})\,.$$ Hence, we can make use of the field equations derived for this more general theory, together with the variational derivatives $$L_T = -\frac{\mathcal{A}}{2\kappa^2}\,, \quad L_{X^{AB}} = \frac{\mathcal{B}_{AB}}{\kappa^2}\,, \quad L_{Y^A} = \frac{\mathcal{C}_A}{\kappa^2}\,, \quad L_{\phi^A} = \frac{1}{2\kappa^2}\left[-\mathcal{A}_{,A}T + 2\mathcal{B}_{BC,A}X^{BC} + 2\mathcal{C}_{B,A}Y^B\right] - \mathcal{V}_{,A}\,.$$ Here we restrict ourselves to displaying the final form of the field equation as given in section \[sec:feqs\]. For the symmetric part we find $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:multiclafeqtets}
\left(\mathcal{A}_{,A} + \mathcal{C}_A\right)S_{(\mu\nu)}{}^{\rho}\phi^A_{,\rho} + \mathcal{A}\left({\overset{\circ}{R}\vphantom{R}}_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2}{\overset{\circ}{R}\vphantom{R}}g_{\mu\nu}\right) + \left(\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{B}_{AB} - \mathcal{C}_{(A,B)}\right)\phi^A_{,\rho}\phi^B_{,\sigma}g^{\rho\sigma}g_{\mu\nu}\\
- \left(\mathcal{B}_{AB} - \mathcal{C}_{(A,B)}\right)\phi^A_{,\mu}\phi^B_{,\nu} + \mathcal{C}_A\left({\overset{\circ}{\nabla}\vphantom{\nabla}}_{\mu}{\overset{\circ}{\nabla}\vphantom{\nabla}}_{\nu}\phi^A - {\overset{\circ}{\square}\vphantom{\square}}\phi^Ag_{\mu\nu}\right) + \kappa^2\mathcal{V}g_{\mu\nu} = \kappa^2\Theta_{\mu\nu}\,.\end{gathered}$$ while the antisymmetric part reads $$\label{eqn:multiclafeqcon}
3(\mathcal{A}_{,A} + \mathcal{C}_A)T^{\rho}{}_{[\mu\nu}\phi^A_{,\rho]} + 2\mathcal{C}_{[A,B]}\phi^A_{,\mu}\phi^B_{,\nu} = 0\,,$$ and the scalar field equations are given by $$\label{eqn:multiclafeqscal}
\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{A}_{,A}T - \mathcal{B}_{AB}{\overset{\circ}{\square}\vphantom{\square}}\phi^B - \left(\mathcal{B}_{AB,C} - \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{B}_{BC,A}\right)g^{\mu\nu}\phi^B_{,\mu}\phi^C_{,\nu} + \mathcal{C}_A{\overset{\circ}{\nabla}\vphantom{\nabla}}_{\mu}T_{\nu}{}^{\nu\mu} + 2\mathcal{C}_{[A,B]}T_{\mu}{}^{\mu\nu}\phi^B_{,\nu} + \kappa^2\mathcal{V}_{,A} = \kappa^2\alpha_{,A}\Theta\,.$$ Note the appearance of a few additional terms containing $\mathcal{C}_{[A,B]}$, which do not appear in the single field case detailed in section \[sec:feqs\], since they vanish due to the antisymmetrization brackets, and which would also vanish if we used the action . Finally, we may also perform a debraiding of the scalar field equations, i.e., remove the second order derivatives of the tetrad by adding a suitable multiple of the trace $$-2\left(\mathcal{A}_{,A} + \mathcal{C}_A\right)T_{\mu}{}^{\mu\nu}\phi^A_{,\nu} - \mathcal{A}{\overset{\circ}{R}\vphantom{R}} + \left(\mathcal{B}_{AB} - 3\mathcal{C}_{A,B}\right)g^{\mu\nu}\phi^A_{,\mu}\phi^B_{,\nu} - 3\mathcal{C}_A{\overset{\circ}{\square}\vphantom{\square}}\phi^A + 4\kappa^2\mathcal{V} = \kappa^2\Theta\,.$$ The resulting field equations then take the form $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:multiclafeqdeb}
\mathcal{A}(\mathcal{A}_{,A} + \mathcal{C}_A)T + \left[4\mathcal{A}\mathcal{C}_{[A,B]} - 2\mathcal{C}_A(\mathcal{A}_{,B} + \mathcal{C}_B)\right]T_{\mu}{}^{\mu\nu}\phi^B_{,\nu} - \left(2\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}_{AB} + 3\mathcal{C}_A\mathcal{C}_B\right){\overset{\circ}{\square}\vphantom{\square}}\phi^B\\
+ (\mathcal{C}_A\mathcal{B}_{BC} - 2\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}_{AB,C} + \mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}_{BC,A} - 3\mathcal{C}_A\mathcal{C}_{B,C})g^{\mu\nu}\phi^B_{,\mu}\phi^C_{,\nu} + 2\kappa^2(\mathcal{A}\mathcal{V}_{,A} + 2\mathcal{C}_A\mathcal{V}) = \kappa^2(2\mathcal{A}\alpha_A + \mathcal{C}_A)\Theta\,.\end{gathered}$$ One may pose the question whether also the second derivatives of the scalar field can be removed from the tetrad field equations in a suitable frame; we will see in section \[ssec:mconformal\] that this is not always possible.
Conformal transformations {#ssec:mconformal}
-------------------------
Turning our attention to conformal transformations, we see that also the action and retains its form under conformal transformations and scalar field redefinitions given by $$\label{eqn:multiconftrans}
\bar{\theta}^a{}_{\mu} = e^{\gamma(\boldsymbol{\phi})}\theta^a{}_{\mu}\,, \quad \bar{e}_a{}^{\mu} = e^{-\gamma(\boldsymbol{\phi})}e_a{}^{\mu}\,, \quad \bar{\phi}^A = f^A(\boldsymbol{\phi})\,,$$ in the same sense as explained in detail in section \[sec:conformal\]. In the following we will also collectively write $\bar{\boldsymbol{\phi}} = \boldsymbol{f}(\boldsymbol{\phi})$ for the scalar field redefinition. Proceeding in analogy to the calculation and and comparing the transformed action to its original form, we find that the functions parametrizing the action must transform as
\[eqn:multipftrans\] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A} &= e^{2\gamma}\bar{\mathcal{A}}\,,\label{eqn:multipftransA}\\
\mathcal{B}_{AB} &= e^{2\gamma}\left(\bar{\mathcal{B}}_{CD}\frac{\partial\bar{\phi}^C}{\partial\phi^A}\frac{\partial\bar{\phi}^D}{\partial\phi^B} - 6\bar{\mathcal{A}}\gamma_{,A}\gamma_{,B} + 6\bar{\mathcal{C}}_C\frac{\partial\bar{\phi}^C}{\partial\phi^{(A}}\gamma_{,B)}\right)\,,\label{eqn:multipftransB}\\
\mathcal{C}_A &= e^{2\gamma}\left(\bar{\mathcal{C}}_B\frac{\partial\bar{\phi}^B}{\partial\phi^A} - 2\bar{\mathcal{A}}\gamma_{,A}\right)\,,\label{eqn:multipftransC}\\
\mathcal{V} &= e^{4\gamma}\bar{\mathcal{V}}\,,\label{eqn:multipftransV}\\
\alpha &= \bar{\alpha} + \gamma\,.\label{eqn:multipftransalpha}\end{aligned}$$
This transformation behavior generalizes the relations . Note that instead of the derivative $f'$ we now find the Jacobian of the function $\boldsymbol{f}$.
Finally, we remark that also in the case of multiple scalar fields the corresponding relation between the source terms in the field equations is preserved under their conformal transformation, which is given by $$\label{eqn:multimattermtrans}
\Theta_{\mu\nu} = e^{2\gamma}\bar{\Theta}_{\mu\nu}\,, \quad
\Theta = e^{4\gamma}\bar{\Theta}\,, \quad
\vartheta_A = e^{4\gamma}\left(\gamma_{,A}\bar{\Theta} + \frac{\partial\bar{\phi}^B}{\partial\phi^A}\bar{\vartheta}_B\right)\,,$$ which generalizes the transformation rule .
Invariant quantities {#ssec:minv}
--------------------
The form of the transformations motivates the definition of a number of quantities which are invariant under conformal transformations and either invariant or covariant under redefinitions of the scalar fields, proceeding in full analogy to the quantities defined in section \[sec:invariant\]. First note that the transformation behavior , and of the functions $\mathcal{A}, \mathcal{V}, \alpha$ agrees with the single field case given by the relations , and . Hence, the quantities $\mathcal{I}_1$ and $\mathcal{I}_2$ retain their invariant character, and we keep their definitions . For the remaining quantities, which carry scalar field indices in the case of multiple scalar fields, we must adapt their definitions. For $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{H}$ we extend the definitions to $$\label{eqn:multicinvfh}
\mathcal{F}_{AB} = \frac{2\mathcal{A}\mathcal{B}_{AB} - 6\mathcal{A}_{,(A}\mathcal{C}_{B)} - 3\mathcal{A}_{,A}\mathcal{A}_{,B}}{4\mathcal{A}^2}\,, \quad
\mathcal{H}_A = \frac{\mathcal{C}_A + \mathcal{A}_{,A}}{2\mathcal{A}}\,,$$ while the definitions of $\mathcal{G}$ and $\mathcal{K}$ generalize to $$\label{eqn:multicinvgk}
\mathcal{G}_{AB} = \frac{\mathcal{B}_{AB} - 6\alpha_{,(A}\mathcal{C}_{B)} - 6\alpha_{,A}\alpha_{,B}\mathcal{A}}{2e^{2\alpha}}\,, \quad
\mathcal{K}_A = \frac{\mathcal{C}_A + 2\alpha_{,A}\mathcal{A}}{2e^{2\alpha}}\,.$$ By comparison with the transformations we then see that these quantities are invariant under conformal transformations, but transform covariantly under scalar field redefinitions, $$\label{eqn:multifhgktrans}
\bar{\mathcal{F}}_{AB} = \frac{\partial\phi^C}{\partial\bar{\phi}^A}\frac{\partial\phi^D}{\partial\bar{\phi}^B}\mathcal{F}_{CD}\,, \quad
\bar{\mathcal{H}}_A = \frac{\partial\phi^B}{\partial\bar{\phi}^A}\mathcal{H}_B\,, \quad
\bar{\mathcal{G}}_{AB} = \frac{\partial\phi^C}{\partial\bar{\phi}^A}\frac{\partial\phi^D}{\partial\bar{\phi}^B}\mathcal{G}_{CD}\,, \quad
\bar{\mathcal{K}}_A = \frac{\partial\phi^B}{\partial\bar{\phi}^A}\mathcal{K}_B\,,$$ where we again encounter the inverse Jacobian of the function $\boldsymbol{f}$. It is worth noting that this transformation behavior has the same form as that of tensor fields on a manifold, whose points are the values of the multiplet of scalar fields, under general coordinate transformations. However, we will not pursue this interpretation here, as it would exceed the scope of this article. We also remark that the quantities and are related to each other by $$\label{eqn:multifhgk}
\mathcal{F}_{AB} = \mathcal{I}_1\mathcal{G}_{AB} + 3\frac{\mathcal{I}_1'}{\mathcal{I}_1}\left(\mathcal{I}_1\mathcal{K} - \frac{\mathcal{I}_1'}{4\mathcal{I}_1}\right)\,, \quad
\mathcal{H}_A = \mathcal{I}_1\mathcal{K}_A - \frac{\mathcal{I}_{1,A}}{2\mathcal{I}_1}\,,$$ which generalizes the similar relations .
Conformal frames {#ssec:mframes}
----------------
We finally also generalize the particular conformal frames discussed in section \[sec:frames\] to multiple scalar fields. For the Jordan frame shown in section \[ssec:jordan\] this is straightforward. Starting from the conformal transformation we find that the relations generalize to $$\label{eqn:mpfjordan}
\mathcal{A}^{\mathfrak{J}} = \frac{1}{\mathcal{I}_1}\,, \quad
\mathcal{B}_{AB}^{\mathfrak{J}} = 2\mathcal{G}_{AB}\,, \quad
\mathcal{C}_A^{\mathfrak{J}} = 2\mathcal{K}_A\,, \quad
\mathcal{V}^{\mathfrak{J}} = \frac{\mathcal{I}_2}{\mathcal{I}_1^2}\,, \quad
\alpha^{\mathfrak{J}} = 0\,.$$ Also the Einstein frame detailed in section \[ssec:einstein\] immediately generalizes. From the transformation we find the parameter functions $$\label{eqn:mpfeinstein}
\mathcal{A}^{\mathfrak{E}} = 1\,, \quad
\mathcal{B}_{AB}^{\mathfrak{E}} = 2\mathcal{F}_{AB}\,, \quad
\mathcal{C}_A^{\mathfrak{E}} = 2\mathcal{H}_A\,, \quad
\mathcal{V}^{\mathfrak{E}} = \mathcal{I}_2\,, \quad
\alpha^{\mathfrak{E}} = \frac{1}{2}\ln\mathcal{I}_1\,.$$ Proceeding in analogy to section \[sec:frames\], one may now express the action shown in section \[ssec:maction\] and field equations shown in section \[ssec:mfeqs\] in these conformal frames. We will not explicitly display the result here, as it is essentially the same as in the single field case and easy to derive.
The situation is qualitatively different for the debraiding frame introduced in section \[ssec:debraiding\]. One can see from the symmetric tetrad field equation that the second order derivatives of the scalar fields can be removed from the tetrad field equations in a particular “debraiding” frame $\mathfrak{D}$ only by imposing $\mathcal{C}_A^{\mathfrak{D}} = 0$. By comparison to the transformations and we then find the condition $$\gamma^{\mathfrak{D}}_{,A}(\phi) = -\frac{\mathcal{C}_A(\phi)}{2\mathcal{A}(\phi)}\,,$$ which can be satisfied only if there exists some function $\tilde{\mathcal{H}}$ such that $\mathcal{H}_A = \tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{,A}$.
This concludes our general discussion of scalar-torsion and multi-scalar-torsion theories of gravity. In order to show the applicability of our results and relate them to other works, we will provide a few examples in the following section.
Examples {#sec:examples}
========
We finally connect our results to a number of example theories. Note that some authors use different sign conventions, in particular for the signature of the metric tensor; however, these can simply be absorbed into a suitable redefinition of the parameter functions in the action. Here we discuss teleparallel dark energy and its generalizations in section \[ssec:darkenergy\], include a non-minimal coupling to the boundary term in section \[ssec:boundcoup\] and come to the multi-scalar-torsion equivalent of $F(T, B)$ gravity theories in section \[ssec:ftb\]. Finally, we show how our results reduce to a number of well-known results in multi-scalar-tensor gravity in section \[ssec:stg\].
Teleparallel dark energy and its generalizations {#ssec:darkenergy}
------------------------------------------------
The first example we show is the classical teleparallel dark energy model [@Geng:2011aj]. Its action can be written in the form $$S_g = \int_M\left[-\frac{T}{2\kappa^2} + \frac{1}{2}\left(g^{\mu\nu}\phi_{,\mu}\phi_{,\nu} - \xi\phi^2T\right) - V(\phi)\right]\theta{\mathrm{d}}^4x\,,$$ with coupling constant $\xi$ and potential $V$. By comparison with the general form we find the parameter functions $$\mathcal{A} = 1 + 2\kappa^2\xi\phi^2\,, \quad
\mathcal{B} = -\kappa^2\,, \quad
\mathcal{C} = 0\,, \quad
\mathcal{V} = V\,.$$ One usually considers this model to be given in the Jordan frame, such that $\alpha = 0$. Various generalizations of this model has been considered:
1. Interacting dark energy [@Otalora:2013tba]: $$S_g = \int_M\left[-\frac{T}{2\kappa^2} + \frac{1}{2}\left(g^{\mu\nu}\phi_{,\mu}\phi_{,\nu} - \xi F(\phi)T\right) - V(\phi)\right]\theta{\mathrm{d}}^4x\,,$$ where the function $\mathcal{A}$ is replaced by $\mathcal{A} = 1 + 2\kappa^2\xi F(\phi)$.
2. Brans-Dicke type action with a general coupling to torsion [@Izumi:2013dca]: $$S_g = \int_M\left[-\frac{F(\phi)}{2\kappa^2}T - \omega g^{\mu\nu}\phi_{,\mu}\phi_{,\nu} - V(\phi)\right]\theta{\mathrm{d}}^4x\,,$$ where $\mathcal{A} = F(\phi)$ and $\mathcal{B} = 2\kappa^2\omega$.
3. Brans-Dicke type action with a dynamical kinetic term [@Chen:2014qsa]: $$S_g = \int_M\left[-\frac{\phi}{2\kappa^2}T - \frac{\omega(\phi)}{\phi}g^{\mu\nu}\phi_{,\mu}\phi_{,\nu} - V(\phi)\right]\theta{\mathrm{d}}^4x\,,$$ where $\mathcal{A} = \phi$ and $\mathcal{B} = 2\kappa^2\omega(\phi)/\phi$.
Note that all these models satisfy $\mathcal{K} = 0$, and so are considered minimally coupled according to our convention, despite their non-minimal coupling between the scalar field and the torsion scalar. This is due to the fact that this type of coupling does not introduce the trace $\Theta$ of the energy-momentum tensor as a source into the debraided scalar field equation .
Non-minimal coupling to the boundary term {#ssec:boundcoup}
-----------------------------------------
In addition to the torsion scalar, as in the original teleparallel dark energy model [@Geng:2011aj] discussed above, one may also include a similar type of coupling to the boundary term $B = {\overset{\circ}{R}\vphantom{R}} + T = 2{\overset{\circ}{\nabla}\vphantom{\nabla}}_{\mu}T^{\mu\nu}{}_{\nu}$. The corresponding action functional reads [@Bahamonde:2015hza] $$S_g = \int_M\left[-\frac{T}{2\kappa^2} + \frac{1}{2}\left(g^{\mu\nu}\phi_{,\mu}\phi_{,\nu} - \xi\phi^2T - \chi\phi^2B\right) - V(\phi)\right]\theta{\mathrm{d}}^4x$$ with constants $\xi, \chi$ and a general potential $V$. We see that this action is of the form , with parameter functions given by $$\mathcal{A} = 1 + 2\kappa^2\xi\phi^2\,, \quad
\mathcal{B} = -\kappa^2\,, \quad
\tilde{\mathcal{C}} = 2\kappa^2\chi\phi^2\,, \quad
\mathcal{V} = V\,.$$ It follows that the action may be brought to the form by integration by parts, where the remaining parameter functions becomes $$\mathcal{C} = \tilde{\mathcal{C}}' = 4\kappa^2\chi\phi\,.$$ Note that for $\xi + \chi = 0$ the action reduces to scalar-tensor gravity with a non-minimally coupled scalar field, while for $\chi = 0$ one obtains the teleparallel dark energy model [@Geng:2011aj] shown in section \[ssec:darkenergy\]. Also in this case one usually considers $\alpha = 0$. We further remark that also more general models with multiple scalar fields coupled to the boundary term are considered, which may similarly be written in the form [@Bahamonde:2018miw].
Scalar-torsion equivalent of $F(T, B)$ gravity {#ssec:ftb}
----------------------------------------------
A more general action involving the boundary term $B$ is given by $F(T, B)$ gravity and reads [@Wright:2016ayu] $$S_g = \frac{1}{2\kappa^2}\int_MF(T, B)\theta{\mathrm{d}}^4x\,.$$ In order to bring it to the form one introduces two auxiliary scalar fields $\phi_{1,2}$, and replaces the arguments of $F$ with these fields. Enforcing $\phi_1 = T$ and $\phi_2 = B$ via Lagrange multipliers and eliminating the Lagrange multipliers from the action one obtains $$S_g = \frac{1}{2\kappa^2}\int_M\left[F^{(1,0)}(\boldsymbol{\phi})T + F^{(0,1)}(\boldsymbol{\phi})B + F(\boldsymbol{\phi}) - \phi_1F^{(1,0)}(\boldsymbol{\phi}) - \phi_2F^{(0,1)}(\boldsymbol{\phi})\right]\theta{\mathrm{d}}^4x\,.$$ Comparison with the action yields the parameter functions $$\mathcal{A} = -F^{(1,0)}\,, \quad
\mathcal{B} = 0\,, \quad
\tilde{\mathcal{C}} = -F^{(0,1)}\,, \quad
\mathcal{V} = \frac{1}{2\kappa^2}\left(\phi_1F^{(1,0)} + \phi_2F^{(0,1)} - F\right)\,.$$ Again we can integrate by parts to bring the action to the form , and finally obtain $$\mathcal{C}_1 = -F^{(1,1)}\,, \quad
\mathcal{C}_2 = -F^{(0,2)}\,.$$ We also remark that in the case that $F$ does not depend on its second argument the scalar field $\phi_2$ drops out, and the action reduces to the scalar-torsion equivalent of $F(T)$ gravity [@Izumi:2013dca].
(Multi-)scalar-tensor gravity {#ssec:stg}
-----------------------------
We finally discuss a special case for the function $\mathcal{C}$, which is given by the relation $\mathcal{C} = -\mathcal{A}'$, and which can invariantly be formulated as $\mathcal{H} = 0$. In this case the terms containing $T$ and $Y$ in the action can be combined, $$-\mathcal{A}T - 2\mathcal{A}'Y = -\mathcal{A}T - 2\partial_{\mu}\mathcal{A}T_{\nu}{}^{\nu\mu} = \mathcal{A}\left(2{\overset{\circ}{\nabla}\vphantom{\nabla}}_{\mu}T_{\nu}{}^{\nu\mu} - T\right) - 2{\overset{\circ}{\nabla}\vphantom{\nabla}}_{\mu}\left(\mathcal{A}T_{\nu}{}^{\nu\mu}\right) = \mathcal{A}{\overset{\circ}{R}\vphantom{R}} - 2{\overset{\circ}{\nabla}\vphantom{\nabla}}_{\mu}\left(\mathcal{A}T_{\nu}{}^{\nu\mu}\right)\,.$$ It follows that up to a boundary term, which we neglect here, the gravitational part of the action reduces to the well-known scalar-tensor gravity action [@Flanagan:2004bz] $$\label{eqn:stgactiong}
S_g\left[\theta^a, {\overset{\bullet}{\omega}\vphantom{\omega}}^a{}_b, \phi\right] = \frac{1}{2\kappa^2}\int_M\left[\mathcal{A}(\phi){\overset{\circ}{R}\vphantom{R}} + 2\mathcal{B}(\phi)X - 2\kappa^2\mathcal{V}(\phi)\right]\theta{\mathrm{d}}^4x\,.$$ This becomes apparent also at the level of the field equations. In the symmetric field equation the terms involving the superpotential cancel, and the remaining terms take the usual form $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:stgfeqmet}
\mathcal{A}\left({\overset{\circ}{R}\vphantom{R}}_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2}{\overset{\circ}{R}\vphantom{R}}g_{\mu\nu}\right) + \left(\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{B} + \mathcal{A}''\right)\phi_{,\rho}\phi_{,\sigma}g^{\rho\sigma}g_{\mu\nu}\\
- (\mathcal{B} + \mathcal{A}'')\phi_{,\mu}\phi_{,\nu} - \mathcal{A}'\left({\overset{\circ}{\nabla}\vphantom{\nabla}}_{\mu}{\overset{\circ}{\nabla}\vphantom{\nabla}}_{\nu}\phi - {\overset{\circ}{\square}\vphantom{\square}}\phi g_{\mu\nu}\right) + \kappa^2\mathcal{V}g_{\mu\nu} = \kappa^2\Theta_{\mu\nu}\,.\end{gathered}$$ The connection field equations are identically satisfied, since the action is independent of the spin connection. Finally, also the scalar field equation reduces to its well-known scalar-tensor form, which reads $$\label{eqn:stgfeqscal}
-\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{A}'{\overset{\bullet}{R}\vphantom{R}} - \mathcal{B}{\overset{\circ}{\square}\vphantom{\square}}\phi - \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{B}'g^{\mu\nu}\phi_{,\mu}\phi_{,\nu} + \kappa^2\mathcal{V}' = \kappa^2\alpha'\Theta\,.$$ We finally remark that in this case also the invariant quantities introduced in section \[sec:invariant\] reduce to their scalar-tensor counterparts [@Jarv:2014hma].
One easily checks that also the multi-scalar-torsion action allows for a similar choice of the parameter functions, which is given by the condition $\mathcal{C}_A = -\mathcal{A}_{,A}$ and thus generalizes the scalar-tensor condition discussed above. In terms of invariants this condition is expressed as $\mathcal{H}_A = 0$. In this case the action reduces in a similar fashion as the action and now becomes $$\label{eqn:mstgactiong}
S_g\left[\theta^a, {\overset{\bullet}{\omega}\vphantom{\omega}}^a{}_b, \phi^A\right] = \frac{1}{2\kappa^2}\int_M\left[\mathcal{A}(\phi){\overset{\circ}{R}\vphantom{R}} + 2\mathcal{B}_{AB}(\phi)X^{AB} - 2\kappa^2\mathcal{V}(\phi)\right]\theta{\mathrm{d}}^4x\,.$$ From this one recognizes the action functional of multi-scalar-tensor gravity [@Damour:1992we; @Berkin:1993bt], with metric field equation given by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:mstgfeqmet}
\mathcal{A}\left({\overset{\circ}{R}\vphantom{R}}_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2}{\overset{\circ}{R}\vphantom{R}}g_{\mu\nu}\right) + \left(\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{B}_{AB} + \mathcal{A}_{,AB}\right)\phi^A_{,\rho}\phi^B_{,\sigma}g^{\rho\sigma}g_{\mu\nu}\\
- (\mathcal{B}_{AB} + \mathcal{A}_{,AB})\phi^A_{,\mu}\phi^B_{,\nu} - \mathcal{A}_{,A}\left({\overset{\circ}{\nabla}\vphantom{\nabla}}_{\mu}{\overset{\circ}{\nabla}\vphantom{\nabla}}_{\nu}\phi^A - {\overset{\circ}{\square}\vphantom{\square}}\phi^Ag_{\mu\nu}\right) + \kappa^2\mathcal{V}g_{\mu\nu} = \kappa^2\Theta_{\mu\nu}\,,\end{gathered}$$ while the scalar field equation reduces to $$\label{eqn:mstgfeqscal}
-\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{A}_A{\overset{\bullet}{R}\vphantom{R}} - \mathcal{B}_{AB}{\overset{\circ}{\square}\vphantom{\square}}\phi^B - \left(\mathcal{B}_{AB,C} - \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{B}_{BC,A}\right)g^{\mu\nu}\phi^B_{,\mu}\phi^C_{,\nu} + \kappa^2\mathcal{V}_{,A} = \kappa^2\alpha_{,A}\Theta\,.$$ Finally, one finds that the invariants introduced in section \[sec:invariant\] reduce to their multi-scalar-tensor expressions [@Kuusk:2015dda]. We also remark that the invariant $\mathcal{K}_A$ reduces to the vector of non-minimal coupling defined in [@Hohmann:2016yfd].
This concludes our discussion of example theories. We have seen that the framework we developed in this article has a wide range of possible future applications, and that it reduces to the known calculations in (multi)-scalar-tensor for a suitably chosen class of actions.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
In this article we have discussed a class of teleparallel scalar-torsion theories of gravity defined by five free functions of the scalar field, whose action has a similar structure to that of scalar-tensor gravity. We have studied their field equations and behavior under conformal transformations of the tetrad, as well as redefinitions of the scalar field. In particular, we have shown that such transformations relate different theories of this class, defined by a set of transformed parameter functions, to each other. As one of the main results we have derived a number of functions of the scalar field, which are composed from the free functions in the action, and which are either invariant or transform covariantly under these transformations. Further, we have discussed different conformal frames, and obtained conditions for minimally coupling of the scalar field and for separating the highest order derivatives in the field equations. We also generalized our results to multiple scalar fields.
The framework of invariants we developed generalizes the formerly developed framework of invariants in scalar-tensor and multi-scalar-tensor gravity theories [@Jarv:2014hma; @Kuusk:2015dda]. It allows to easily translate the action and field equations of any scalar-torsion theory of gravity, defined in an arbitrary frame, to any other frame, and in particular to the Jordan and Einstein frames known from scalar-tensor gravity. We have also shown that our framework reduces to the (multi-)scalar-tensor framework of invariants in the case that one of the scalar-torsion invariants vanishes. We expect this framework to be of the same use in describing phenomenological aspects of scalar-torsion gravity in a frame independent fashion, as it is also the case for its scalar-tensor counterpart [@Jarv:2015kga; @Kuusk:2016rso; @Jarv:2016sow].
As another interesting result we have shown that a naively defined Einstein frame, in which there is no direct coupling between the scalar field and the torsion scalar, does not lead to a “debraiding” of the field equations as it is the case in scalar-tensor theories [@Bettoni:2015wta]. Instead, debraiding is achieved in a different class of frames, in which the coefficient of the kinetic coupling term of the scalar field vanishes, and which is defined only up to a free parameter. We also demonstrated that in the case of multiple scalar fields such a frame choice is possible only for a restricted class of actions.
Our results invite for a number of further studies of the class of theories we discussed. From the phenomenological point of view, observational properties such as the post-Newtonian limit, speed and polarisations of gravitational waves or cosmological parameters may be determined for a generic scalar-torsion action, in analogy to a similar treatment of scalar-tensor gravity. By comparison with observations this would yield constraints on the free functions in the action. Further, foundational aspects of this class of theories may be studied, such as the number of degrees of freedom of the presence of energy conditions. We finally remark that an analogous discussion of conformal transformations, invariants and frames should also be possible for a similar class of theories in which the scalar field is non-minimally coupled to nonmetricity instead of torsion [@Jarv:2018bgs].
The author thanks Martin Krššák and Christian Pfeifer for helpful comments and discussions. He gratefully acknowledges the full financial support of the Estonian Ministry for Education and Science through the Institutional Research Support Project IUT02-27 and Startup Research Grant PUT790, as well as the European Regional Development Fund through the Center of Excellence TK133 “The Dark Side of the Universe”.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We investigate magneto-transport properties of a $\theta$ shaped three-arm mesoscopic ring where the upper and lower sub-rings are threaded by Aharonov-Bohm fluxes $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$, respectively, within a non-interacting electron picture. A discrete lattice model is used to describe the quantum network in which two outer arms are subjected to binary alloy lattices while the middle arm contains identical atomic sites. It is observed that the presence of the middle arm provides localized states within the band of extended regions and lead to the possibility of switching action from a high conducting state to a low conducting one and vice versa. This behavior is justified by studying persistent current in the network. Both the total current and individual currents in three separate branches are computed by using second-quantized formalism and our idea can be utilized to study magnetic response in any complicated quantum network. The nature of localized eigenstates are also investigated from probability amplitudes at different sites of the quantum device.'
author:
- Srilekha Saha
- 'Santanu K. Maiti'
- 'S. N. Karmakar'
title: 'Magneto-transport in a quantum network: Evidence of a mesoscopic switch'
---
Introduction
============
Theoretical and experimental investigations in low-dimensional systems lead to the opportunity of visualizing various novel quantum mechanical effects [@Jaya1; @Jaya2] in a tunable way. Persistent current being one such exotic quantum mechanical phenomenon observed in normal metal mesoscopic rings and nanotubes pierced by Aharonov-Bohm (AB) flux
$\phi$. Prior to its experimental evidence, the possibility of a non-decaying current in normal metal rings was first predicted by Büttiker, Imry and Landauer [@Butti] in a pioneering work, and, in the sub-sequent years theoretical attempts were made [@gefen; @altshu; @schmid; @maiti1; @san5; @bell; @chen; @wu; @li1; @li2; @san1; @san3; @san4; @san6] to understand the actual mechanism behind it. The experimental realization of this phenomenon of non-decaying current in metallic rings/cylinders has been established quite in late. It has been first examined by Levy [*et al.*]{} [@levy] and later many other experiments [@chand; @mailly; @blu] have confirmed the existence of non-dissipative currents in such quantum systems.
Although the studies involving simple mesoscopic rings have already generated a wealth of literature there is still need to look deeper into the problem to address several important issues those have not yet been explored, as for example the understanding of the behavior of persistent current in multiply connected quantum network, specially in presence of disorder. It is well known that in presence of random site-diagonal disorder in an one-dimensional ($1$D) mesoscopic ring all the energy levels are localized [@ander], and accordingly, the persistent current gets reduced enormously in presence of disorder compared to that of an ordered ring. But there are some $1$D disordered systems which support extended eigenstates along with the localized energy levels, and these materials may provide several interesting issues, mainly to provide a localization to delocalization transition and vice versa. For example, in a pioneering work Dunlap [*et al.*]{} [@Phillip1] have shown that even in 1D disordered systems extended eigenstates are possible for certain kind of topological correlations among the atoms. They have proposed that any physical system which can be described by the random dimer model should exhibit the transmission resonances and a huge enhancement in the transmission takes place when the Fermi level coincides with the unscattered states. In a consecutive year Wu [*et al.*]{} [@Phillip2] have argued that the random dimer model can also be used to explain the insulator to metal transition in polyaniline as a result of the movement of the Fermi level to extended region. Later, several other works [@liu; @hu1; @hu2; @arun1; @arun2] have also been carried out in such type of materials to exhibit many important physical results.
The existence of localized energy eigenstates together with the extended states in a simple ring geometry has been explored in some recent works by Jiang [*et al.*]{} [@hu1; @hu2]. They have analyzed the nature of these states by evaluating persistent current and the wave amplitudes at different sites of the ring. In these systems localized states appear by virtue of disorder. But, in our present work we make an attempt to establish localized eigenstates, even in the absence of disorder, along with extended states simply by considering the effect of topology of the system. To the best of our knowledge, this behavior has not been addressed earlier in the literature. Here we consider a three-arm mesoscopic ring in which two outer arms are subjected to binary alloy lattices and the middle one contains identical lattice sites, and, we show that due to the presence of the middle arm quasi-localized energy eigenstates are observed within the band of extend regions. It leads to the possibility of getting switching action from a high conducting state to a low one and vice versa as a result of the movement of the Fermi level. We illustrate this behavior by studying persistent current in the quantum network and explore the nature of energy eigenstates in terms of the probability amplitude in different lattice sites of the geometry. Our present analysis can be utilized to study magnetic response in any complicated quantum network and we believe that this work offers an excellent opportunity to study the simultaneous effects of topology and the magnetic fields threaded by two sub-rings in our three-arm ring system.
With an introduction in Section I we organize the paper as follows. In Section II, first we present the model, then describe the theoretical formalism which include the Hamiltonian and the formulation of persistent currents in individual branches of the network. In Section III we analyze the results and finally in Section IV we draw our conclusions.
Model and Theoretical Formulation
=================================
The model and the Hamiltonian
-----------------------------
Let us refer to Fig. \[ring\]. A three-arm mesoscopic ring where the upper and lower sub-rings are threaded by AB fluxes $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$, respectively. The outer arms are subjected to binary alloy lattices (consisting of A and B types of atoms) and the middle arm contains identical lattice sites (atomic sites labeled by C) except those on the boundaries. The filled colored circles correspond to the positions of the atomic sites. Within a tight-binding framework the Hamiltonian for such a network reads as, $$\begin{aligned}
H & = & \sum_{j} \epsilon_{j} c_j^\dag
c_{j} + t \sum_{j} \left(c_{j}^{\dag} c_{j+1}
e^{-i\theta_1} + h.c.\right) \nonumber \\
& + &\sum_{l} \epsilon_{l} c_{l}^\dag
c_{l} + v \sum_{l} \left(c_{l}^{\dag} c_{l+1}
e^{-i\theta_2} + h.c.\right)
\label{eq4}\end{aligned}$$ where, $\epsilon_j$ represents the site energy for the outer arms, while for the middle arm it is assigned by $\epsilon_l$. In the outer ring $\epsilon_j=\epsilon_A$ or $\epsilon_B$ alternately so that it forms a binary alloy. On the other hand, $\epsilon_l=\epsilon_C$ for the atomic sites those are referred by C atoms. $t$ and $v$ are the nearest-neighbor hopping integrals in the outer and middle arms, respectively. Due to the presence of magnetic fluxes $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ in two sub-rings, phase factors $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ appears into the Hamiltonian. They are expressed as follows: $\theta_1=2\pi(\phi_1+\phi_2)/(N_U+N_L)$ and $\theta_2=2\pi(\phi_1-\phi_2)/2 N_M$. Here the fluxes are measured in units of the elementary flux-quantum $\phi_0$ ($=ch/e$), and, $N_U$, $N_M$ and $N_L$ represent the total number of single bonds (each single bond is formed by connecting two neighboring lattice sites) in the upper, middle and lower arms, respectively. It reveals that $N_U+N_M+N_L-1$ number of atomic sites in the quantum network. $c_j^{\dag}$ ($c_j$) corresponds to the creation (annihilation) operator of an electron at the $j~\mbox{th}$ site, and, a similar definition also goes for the atomic sites $l$.
Calculation of persistent current
---------------------------------
In the second quantized notation the general expression of charge current operator is in the form [@san2], $$I=\frac{2\pi i e \alpha}{L}\sum_n \left(c_n^{\dag}c_{n+1}-
c_{n+1}^{\dag}c_n\right).$$ Here, $L$ is the length of the arm in which we are interested to calculate the current and $\alpha$ represents the nearest-neighbor hopping strength. The nearest-neighbor hopping strength ($\alpha$) is equal to $t$ for the outer arms, while for the middle arm it becomes identical to $v$. Therefore, for a particular eigenstate $|\psi_k\rangle$ the persistent current becomes, $I^k=\langle \psi_k|I|\psi_k \rangle$, where $|\psi_k\rangle=\sum_p a_p^k |p\rangle$. Here $|p\rangle$’s are the Wannier states and $a_p^k$’s are the corresponding coefficients.
Following the above relations, now we can write down the expressions for persistent currents in the individual branches for a given eigenstate $|\psi_k\rangle$. They are as follows.\
0.1cm For the upper arm: $$I_U^k=\frac{2\pi i e t}{N_U+N_L} \sum_j \left(a_j^{k*} a_{j+1}^k
e^{-i \theta_1} - h.c.\right)
\label{eq44}$$ where, summation over $j$ spans from $1$ to $N_U$. 0.1cm In the case of middle-arm: $$I_M^k=\frac{\pi i e v}{N_M} \sum_l \left(a_l^{k*} a_{l+1}^k
e^{-i \theta_2} - h.c.\right)
\label{eq5}$$ here, the net contribution comes from $N_M$ bonds. 0.1cm Finally, for the case of lower arm: $$I_L^k=\frac{2\pi i e t}{N_U+N_L} \sum_j \left(a_j^{k*} a_{j+1}^k
e^{-i \theta_1} - h.c.\right)
\label{eq6}$$ In this case the net contribution comes from the lower bonds. The lattice constant $a$ is set equal to $1$.
At absolute zero temperature ($T=0\,$K), the net persistent current in any branch of the quantum network for a particular electron filling can be obtained by taking sum of the individual contributions from the energy levels with energies less than or equal to Fermi energy $E_F$. Therefore, for $N_e$ electron system total persistent in any branch becomes $I_{\beta}=\sum_k^{N_e} I^k_{\beta}$, where $\beta=U$, $M$ and $L$, for the upper, middle and lower arms, respectively. Once $I_U$, $I_M$ and $I_L$ are known, the net persistent current for the full network can be easily obtained simply adding the contributions of the individual arms, and hence the total current is given by $I_T=I_U+I_M+I_L$.
The net persistent current ($I_T$) can also be determined in some other ways as available in the literature. Most probably the easiest way of calculating persistent current is to take first order derivative of ground state energy with respect to magnetic flux [@maiti1; @san5]. However in this method it is not possible to find the distribution of persistent current in individual arms of the network with a high degree of accuracy. On the other hand in our present scheme, the so-called second-quantized approach, there are certain advantages compared to other available procedures. Firstly, we can easily calculate persistent current in any branch of a network. Secondly, the determination of individual responses in separate arms provides much deeper insight to the actual mechanism of electron transport in a transparent way.
In the present work we investigate all the essential feature of magneto-transport at absolute zero temperature and choose the units where $c=e=h=1$. Throughout the numerical work we set $t=v=-1$ and measure the energy scale in unit of $t$.
Numerical results and discussion
================================
Quantum network with
---------------------
We first start with a perfect quantum system where $\epsilon_A$ and $\epsilon_B$ and $\epsilon_C$ are all identical to each other and we set $\epsilon_A=\epsilon_B \epsilon_C=0$. To have a
clear idea about the magnetic response of the model quantum system, first we illustrate the behavior of energy spectra as a function of flux $\phi_1$ for different values of flux $\phi_2$ threaded by the lower sub-ring. The results are presented in Fig. \[energy1\], where (a) and (b) correspond to $\phi_2=0$ and $\phi_0/4$, respectively. In the absence of flux $\phi_2$, energy levels near the edges of the spectrum become more dispersive than those lying in the central region (see Fig. \[energy1\](a)) and near the center of the spectrum the energy levels are almost non-dispersive with respect to flux $\phi_1$. This feature implies that the persistent current amplitude becomes highly sensitive to the electron feeling i.e., the Fermi energy $E_F$ of the system, since the current is directly proportional to the slope of the energy levels [@maiti1]. The situation becomes much more interesting when we add a magnetic flux in the lower sub-ring. Here, the energy levels near the central region of the spectrum becomes more dispersive in nature
than the energy levels near the edges (Fig. \[energy1\](b)), and it increases gradually with flux $\phi_2$, which gives a possibility of getting higher current amplitude with increasing the total number of electrons $N_e$ in the system. A similar kind of energy spectrum is also observed if we plot the energy levels as a function of flux $\phi_2$ instead of $\phi_1$, keeping $\phi_1$ as a constant. All these energy levels exhibit $\phi_0$ ($=1$, in our choice of units $c=e=h=1$) flux-quantum periodicity. Thus, for such a simple quantum network persistent current amplitude might be regulated for a particular filling simply by tuning the magnetic flux threaded by anyone of two such sub-rings, and, its detailed descriptions are available in the sub-sequent parts.
In Fig. \[current1\] we present the variation of persistent current in individual arms of the three-arm quantum network as a function of flux $\phi_1$ for some fixed values of $\phi_2$. The panels from the top correspond to the results for the upper, middle and lower arms, respectively,
and in all these cases the current is determined for the half-filled band case i.e., $N_e=42$. The left column represents the current for $\phi_2=0$, and the right column gives the current when $\phi_2$ is fixed at $\phi_0/4$. From the spectra we notice that in some cases current shows continuous like behavior while in some other cases it exhibits saw-tooth like nature as a function of flux $\phi_1$ threaded by the upper sub-ring. This saw-tooth or continuous like feature solely depends on the behavior of the ground state energy for a particular filling ($N_e$). It is to be noted that in a conventional ordered AB ring we always get saw-tooth like behavior of persistent current irrespective of the filling of the electrons [@maiti1]. In the saw-tooth variation a sudden change in direction of persistent current takes place across a particular value of magnetic flux which corresponds to a phase reversal from the diamagnetic nature to the paramagnetic one or vice versa. In our three-arm geometry we also observe that though the current in the upper arm or in the lower arm is not so sensitive to the flux $\phi_2$, but the current amplitude in the middle arm changes remarkably, even an order of magnitude, in presence of flux $\phi_2$, which leads to a net larger current since the total current is obtained by adding the contributions from the individual arms.
To explore the filling dependent behavior of persistent current, in Fig. \[currentne\] we display persistent currents for three different arms as a function of flux $\phi_1$ for a typical value of $\phi_2$. Here, $\phi_2$ is set at $\phi_0/4$. The red, green and blue lines represent the currents for $N_e=10$, $15$ and $20$, respectively. The current in different arms shows quite a complex structure which strongly depends on the electron filling as well as magnetic flux $\phi_2$. In all these cases persistent current provides $\phi_0$ flux-quantum periodicity, like a traditional single-channel mesoscopic ring or a multi-channel cylinder.
Quantum network with
---------------------
Now we focus our attention to the geometry where site energies in the outer arms are no longer identical to each other i.e., $\epsilon_A \ne \epsilon_B$. In this case energy spectrum gets modified significantly compared to the
previous one where site energies are uniform ($\epsilon_A=\epsilon_B$). To illustrate it in Fig. \[energy2\] we plot the energy-flux characteristics for a three-arm quantum network considering $\epsilon_A=-\epsilon_B=1$, where (a) and (b) correspond to the identical meaning as given in Fig. \[energy1\]. Since the upper and lower arms of the network are subjected to the binary alloy lattices we get two sets of discrete energy levels spaced by a finite gap around $E=0$ (see Fig. \[energy2\]). Quite interestingly we see that the energy levels near the two extreme edges of the spectrum are more dispersive in nature than those situated along the inner region. With increasing the difference in site energies ($|\epsilon_A-\epsilon_B|$), we get more less dispersive energy levels in the inner region and for large enough value of $|\epsilon_A-\epsilon_B|$ these levels become almost non-dispersive and they practically contribute nothing to the current. Thus, for such a system a mixture of quasi-extended and quasi-localized energy levels are found out and it can provide a very large or almost zero current depending on the electron filling. For a very
large system size, the energy separation between two successive levels in each set of discrete energy levels gets reduced and we get two quasi-band of energies separated by a finite gap, where the gap is controlled by the parameter values. It is important to note that, unlike the previous one (Fig. \[energy1\]), for this case the energy spectrum is not so sensitive to flux $\phi_2$ (Fig. \[energy2\]). The presence of C-type of atoms in the middle arm which divides the binary alloy ring into two sub-rings is responsible for the existence of quasi-localized energy levels near the inside edges of two quasi-band of energies. Thus we get more non-dispersive energy levels with increasing the length of the middle arm.
The existence of nearly extended and localized states becomes much more clearly visible from our current-flux spectra. As illustrative example, in Fig. \[current2\] we display the variation of persistent current in
individual arms including the total current of a three-arm ring considering $\epsilon_A=-\epsilon_B=1$ for the quarter-filled ($N_e=21$) band case. The flux $\phi_2$ is set equal to $\phi_0/4$. From the spectra it is clearly observed that the current in each arm provides a non-zero value (Figs. \[current2\](a)-(c)), and accordingly, the system supports a finite current as shown in Fig. \[current2\](d). The situation becomes completely opposite when the filling factor is changed. Quite remarkably we notice that persistent current almost vanishes in three separate branches which provides almost vanishing net current in the half-filled band case. The results are illustrated in Fig. \[current3\], where (a)-(d) correspond to the identical meaning as in Fig. \[current2\]. The vanishing nature at half-filling and the non-vanishing behavior of current when the system is quarterly filled can be easily understood from the following argument. The total current in any branch or in the complete system mainly depends on the contributions coming from the higher occupied energy levels, while the contributions from the other occupied energy levels cancel with each other. Therefore, for the quarter-filled band case, the net contribution comes from the energy levels which are quasi-extended in nature and a non-zero current appears. On the other hand, for the half-filled band case, the net contribution arises from the levels those are almost localized, and hence, nearly vanishing current is obtained. Thus, we can emphasize that the three-arm ring leads to a possibility of getting high-amplitude to low-amplitude (almost zero) persistent current simply by tuning the filling factor $N_e$ i.e., the Fermi energy $E_F$, and, hence the network can be used as a mesoscopic switch.
The high-conducting to low-conducting switching action with the change of electron filling $N_e$ in our topology can also be very well explained from the spectrum given in Fig. \[drude\], where we measure the conducting nature by calculating charge stiffness constant, the so-called Drude weight ($D$), in accordance with the idea originally put forward by Kohn [@kohn]. The Drude weight for the system can be easily determined by taking the second order derivative of the ground state energy for a particular filling with respect to flux $\phi_1$ ($\phi_1 \rightarrow 0$) threaded by the ring [@kohn; @san3; @san33]. Kohn has shown that $D$ decays exponentially to zero for an insulating system, while it becomes finite for a conducting system. A nice feature of the result shown in Fig. \[drude\] is that, the charge stiffness constant almost drops to zero around the half-filled region which reveals the insulating phase, while away from this region it ($D$) has a finite non-zero value that indicates a conducting nature. This feature corroborates the findings presented in Figs. \[current2\] and \[current3\].
To ensure the extended or localized nature of energy eigenstates, finally we demonstrate the variation of probability amplitude (P.A.) of the eigenstates as a function site index $n$. The probability amplitude of getting an electron at any site $n$ for a particular eigenstate $|\psi_k\rangle$ is obtained from the factor $|a_n^k|^2$. Here we analyze the localization behavior for two different energy eigenstates, viz, $21$-st and $42$-nd states. For the first one the energy is located well inside a quasi-band, while for the other the energy is placed at the edge of this band. The results are given in Fig. \[probability\] for a three-arm ring with $84$ atomic sites. The red dashed lines are used to separate the three distinct regions of the network. In Fig. \[probability\](a) we present the probability amplitudes of the 21st eigenstates and see that the probability amplitude becomes finite for any site $n$ which indicates that the energy eigenstate is quasi-extended. While, for the other state ($42$-nd) the probability amplitude almost vanishes at every site of the upper and lower arms of the network. Only at the atomic sites of the middle arm we have finite probability amplitudes. This state does not contribute anything to the current and we can refer the state as a localized one.
Conclusion
==========
To summarize, in the present work we have explored the magneto-transport properties of a $\theta$ shaped three-arm quantum ring in the non-interacting electron framework. The upper and lower sub-rings of the network are threaded by magnetic fluxes $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$, respectively. We have used a single-band tight-binding Hamiltonian to illustrate the model quantum system, where the outer arms are subjected to the binary alloy lattices and the middle arm has identical lattice sites. In the absence of the middle arm, all the energy eigenstates are extended, but the inclusion of the middle arm produces some quasi localized states within the band of extended states and provides a possibility of getting a high conducting state to the low conducting one upon the movement of the Fermi energy. Thus, the system can be used a mesoscopic switch. We have verified the switching action from high- to low-conducting state and vice versa by investigating the persistent current and charge stiffness constant in the network for different band fillings. We have numerically computed both the total current and the individual currents in separate branches by using second-quantized approach. We hope our present analysis may be helpful for studying magneto-transport properties in any complicated quantum network. Finally, we have also examined the nature of the energy eigenstates in terms of the probability amplitude in different sites of the geometry.
[99]{}
A. M. Jayannavar and P. S. Deo, Phys. Rev. B **51**, 10175 (1995).
T. P. Pareek, P. S. Deo, and A. M. Jayannavar, Phys. Rev. B **52**, 14657 (1995).
M. B[ü]{}ttiker, Y. Imry, and R. Landauer, Phys. Lett. **96A**, 365 (1983).
H. F. Cheung, Y. Gefen, E. K. Riedel, and W. H. Shih, Phys. Rev. B **37**, 6050 (1988).
B. L. Altshuler, Y. Gefen, and Y. Imry, Phys. Rev. Lett. **66**, 88 (1991).
A. Schmid, Phys. Rev. Lett. **66**, 80 (1991).
S. K. Maiti, Physica E **31**, 117 (2006).
S. K. Maiti, Phys. Status Solidi B **248**, 1933 (2011).
S. Belluci and P. Onorato, Physica E **41**, 1393 (2009).
X. Chen, Z. Deng, W. Lu, and S. C. Shen, Phys. Rev. B **61**, 2008 (2000).
H. -C. Wu, Y. Guo, X. -Y. Chen, and B. -L. Gu, Phys. Rev. B **68**, 125330 (2003).
H. -M. Li and J. -L. Xiao, Physica B **396**, 91 (2007).
H. -M. Li, Y. -L. Huang, and J. -L. Xiao, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B **22**, 2255 (2008).
S. K. Maiti, S. Saha, and S. N. Karmakar, Eur. Phys. J. B **79**, 209 (2011).
S. K. Maiti, M. Dey, S. Sil, A. Chakrabarti, and S. N. Karmakar, Europhys. Lett. **95**, 57008 (2011).
S. K. Maiti, Solid State Commun. **150**, 2212 (2010).
S. K. Maiti, J. Chowdhury, and S. N. Karmakar, Solid State Commun. **135**, 278 (2005).
L. P. Levy, G. Dolan, J. Dunsmuir, and H. Bouchiat, Phys. Rev. Lett. **64**, 2074 (1990).
V. Chandrasekhar, R. A. Webb, M. J. Brady, M. B. Ketchen, W. J. Gallagher, and A. Kleinsasser, Phys. Rev. Lett. **67**, 3578 (1991).
D. Mailly, C. Chapelier, and A. Benoit, Phys. Rev. Lett. **70**, 2020 (1993).
H. Bluhm, N. C. Koshnick, J. A. Bert, M. E. Huber, and K. A. Moler, Phys. Rev. Lett. **102**, 136802 (2009).
P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. **109**, 1492 (1958).
D. H. Dunlap, H. L. Wu, and P. W. Phillips, Phys. Rev. Lett. **65**, 88 (1990).
H. -L. Wu and P. Phillips, Phys. Rev. Lett. **66**, 1366 (1991).
Y. M. Liu, R. W. Peng, X. Q. Huang, M. Wang, A. Hu, and S. S. Jiang, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **72**, 346 (2003).
X. F. Hu, Z. H. Peng, R. W. Peng, Y. M. Liu, F. Qiu, X. Q. Huang, A. Hu, and S. S. Jiang, J. Appl. Phys. **95**, 7545 (2004).
R. L. Zhang, R. W. Peng, X. F. Hu, L. S. Cao, X. F. Zhang, M. Wang, A. Hu, and S. S. Jiang, J. Appl. Phys. **99**, 08F710 (2006).
A. Chakrabarti, S. N. Karmakar, and R. K. Moitra, Phys. Rev. B **50**, 13276 (1994).
A. Chakrabarti, S. N. Karmakar, and R. K. Moitra, Phys. Rev. Lett. **74**, 1403 (1995).
S. K. Maiti, J. Appl. Phys. **110**, 064306 (2011).
W. Kohn, Phys. Rev. **133**, A171 (1964).
S. K. Maiti, J. Chowdhury, and S. N. Karmakar, Phys. Lett. A **332**, 497 (2004).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We investigate the formation of a [*locally naked singularity*]{} in the collapse of radiation shells in an expanding Vaidya-deSitter background. This is achieved by considering the behaviour of non-spacelike and radial geodesics originating at the singularity. A specific condition is determined for the existence of radially outgoing, null geodesics originating at the singularity which, when this condition is satisfied, becomes locally naked. This condition turns out to be the same as that in the collapse of radiation shells in an asymptotically flat background. Therefore, we have, at least for the case considered here, established that the asymptotic flatness of the spacetime is not essential for the development of a [*locally*]{} naked singularity. Our result then unequivocally supports the view that no special role be given to asymptotic observers (or, for that matter, any set of observers) in the formulation of the Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis.'
author:
- |
S.M. Waghand S.D. Maharaj\
\
\
[E-mail : [email protected]]{}\
\
[E-mail : [email protected]]{}\
title: 'Naked Singularity of the Vaidya-deSitter Spacetime and Cosmic Censorship Conjecture'
---
=5000 =50000 =5000 =-0.5in =9.0in =6.2in =-0.2in =-0.6in =1.0in
[*Keywords:*]{} gravitational collapse – naked singularity – cosmic censorship\
[*Running head:*]{} Naked Singularity of Vaidya-deSitter —\
Introduction
============
Recently a detailed examination of several gravitational collapse scenarios has shown \[1\] the development of [*locally*]{} naked singularities in a variety of cases such as the collapse of radiation shells, spherically symmetric self-similar collapse of perfect fluid, collapse of spherical inhomogeneous dust cloud \[2\], spherical collapse of a massless scalar field \[3\] and other physically relevant situations. It is indeed remarkable that in all these cases families of non-spacelike geodesics emerge from the naked singularity; consequently these cases can be considered to be serious examples of locally naked singularity of strong curvature type as can be verified in each individual case separately. Such studies are expected to lead us to a proper formulation of the Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis.
Note that all the scenarios considered so far (see \[1\] for details) are spherically symmetric and asymptotically flat, and that the singularity obtained is [*locally naked*]{}. We may then ask if the occurrence of a locally naked singularity in these cases is an artefact of the special symmetry. Or, since the real universe has no genuine asymptotically flat objects, whether the local nakedness of the singularity in these cases is, in some way, a manifestation of the asymptotic flatness of the solutions considered.
The question of special symmetry playing any crucial role in these situations is a hard one to settle and this possibility cannot be ruled out easily. However, the question of asymptotic flatness playing any special role in the development of a locally naked singularity, at least in the collapse of radiation shells, is an easy one to settle since the Vaidya metric in an expanding background is already known \[4\].
It is the purpose of this paper to investigate the collapse of radiation shells in an expanding deSitter background to find out if the locally naked singularity occurs in this situation and to compare any difference with the similar collapse in the asymptotically flat case. We refer the reader to \[1\] for the details of the latter situation and also for references pertaining to it. We should point out, for the benefit of those interested in the end result, that our conclusion is that the locally naked singularity of the Vaidya-deSitter metric is the same as that obtained in the asymptotically flat case. Therefore, asymptotic flatness of the solutions considered so far does not manifest itself in the nakedness of the singularity arising in these situations. This result then supports the view that the asymptotic observer be not given any special role in the formulation of the cosmic censorship hypothesis \[5\] as will be discussed later.
Outgoing Radial Null Geodesics of the Vaidya-deSitter Metric
============================================================
The Vaidya-deSitter metric, or the Vaidya metric in a deSitter background, is \[4\] ds\^2=-dv\^2+2dvdr+r\^2d\^2 where $d\Omega^2\,=\,d\theta^2\,+\,\sin^2\theta\,d\phi^2$, $v$ is the advanced time coordinate as is appropriate for the collapse situation, $\Lambda$ is the cosmological constant and $m(v)$ is called the mass function. In this form the metric (1) describes the collapse of radiation. The radiation collapses at the origin $r = 0$.
As is well-known, the energy-momentum tensor for the radial influx of radiation is : T\_&=&U\_U\_\
\
&=&[[dm]{}]{}U\_ U\_ where the null 4-vector $U_{\alpha}$ satisfies $$U_{\alpha}\;=\;-\,\delta^{v}_{\alpha},
\;\;\;\;U_{\mu}U^{\mu} = 0$$ and represents the radial inflow of radiation, in the optic limit, along the world-lines $v = constant$. Clearly, for the weak energy condition $\left( T_{\alpha\beta}U^{\alpha}U^{\beta}\,\geq \,0 \right)$ we require 0to be satisfied.
Now, let us consider the situation of radially injected flow of radiation in an initially empty region of the deSitter universe. The radiation is injected into the spacetime at $v = 0$ and, hence, we have $m(v) = 0$ for $v < 0$ and the metric is that of a pure deSitter universe. \[Therefore, the inside of the radiation shells, to begin with, is an empty region of the deSitter metric and not the flat Minkowski metric.\] The metric for $v = 0$ to $v = T$ is the Vaidya-deSitter metric representing a Schwarzschild field of growing mass $m(v)$ embedded in a deSitter background. The first radiation shell collapses at $r = 0$ at time $v = 0$. The subsequent shells collapse at $r = 0$ successivly till $v = T$ when, finally, there is a singularity of total mass $m(T) = m_o$ at $r = 0$. For $v > T$, all the radiation is assumed to have collapsed and the spacetime to have settled to the Schwarzschild field of constant mass $m(T) = m_o$ embedded in a deSitter background \[6\].
To simplify the calculations, we choose $m(v)$ as a linear function 2m(v)=v,> 0 This linear mass-function was introduced by Papapetrou \[7\] in the asymptotically flat case of the Vaidya metric. Hence, in our case, the Vaidya-Papapetrou-deSitter spacetime is described by the following mass function for the metric (1) : m(v) = 0 &v < 0 &\
2m(v) = v & 0 < v < T &\
m(v) = m\_o & v > T & We note at the outset that the Vaidya-deSitter spacetime for linear mass-function as in (5) is not homothetically Killing unlike the asymptotically flat Vaidya metric. In fact, the line element (1) does not admit any proper conformal Killing symmetries.
Consider the geodesic equations of motion for the Vaidya-deSitter metric as in (1). Let the tangent vector of a geodesic be K\^=( , , , ) or, equivalently, K\_ g\_K\^ &=& ( K\_v, K\_r, K\_, K\_ )\
&& ( g\_[vv]{}K\^v+K\^r, K\^v, r\^2K\^, r\^2\^2K\^ ) Then, the geodesic equations can be obtained from the Lagrangian 2[L]{}=K\_K\^
For our purpose here it is sufficient to consider only the radiallly outgoing, future-directed, null geodesics originating at the singularity. Such geodesics can be obtained directly from the above Lagrangian as the following equation : = which, for the linear mass function as in (5), is : =
Now for the geodetic tangent to be uniquely defined and to exist at the singular point, $r = 0$, $v = 0$, of equation (9) the following must hold \_[v 0r 0]{} = \_[v 0 r 0]{}=X\_o say, and when the limit exists, $X_o$ is real and positive. In this last situation, we obtain a future-directed, non-spacelike geodesic originating from the singularity $r = 0$, $v = 0$ if we further demand that $2{\cal L}
\leq 0$. Then, the singularity will, at least, be [*locally naked*]{}. On the other hand, if there is no real and positive $X_o$, then there is no non-spacelike geodesic from the singularity to any observer and, hence, the singularity is not visible to any observer. Then, we may show that the singularity is covered by a null hypersurface (the horizon) and the spacetime is a black hole spacetime.
Then as we approach the singular point of the differential equation (9) we have, using equations (9) and (10), 2-X\_o+X\_o\^2=0 after suitable rearrangement of the terms. Thus for the real values of the tangent to a radially outgoing, null, future-directed geodesic originating in the singularity we obtain X\_o=a\_=Clearly, we require for $X_o = \lim_{v \rightarrow 0\;r \rightarrow 0} v/r$ to be real in the situation considered.
Note that the equation (10) is the same as that obtained by Dwivedi & Joshi \[8\] when the metric (1) is asymptotically flat i. e. , $\Lambda = 0$. Consequently the values $a_{\pm}$ for the geodetic tangent and the condition (11) for these values to be real are the same as those obtained for the asymptotically flat situation when the mass function $m(v)$ is linear in $v$ as in equation (4).
Discussion
==========
The present-day picture of the gravitational collapse imagines that a sufficiently massive body compressed in too small a volume undergoes an unavoidable collapse leading to a singularity in the very structure of the spacetime. Of course, the deduction that a singularity will form as a result of such collapse tacitly assumes that we disregard those principles of the still-ellusive quantum theory of gravity which alter the nature of the spacetime from that given by the classical theory of gravitation - the general theory of relativity.
Within the limits of applicability of the classical general relativity, we characterize such unavoidable collapse by demanding the existence of a point or of a hypersurface, called the [*trapped surface*]{}, whose future lightcone begins to reconverge in every direction along the cone. The deduction that a spacetime singularity will form is then obtained from the well-known Hawking-Penrose Singularity Theorems \[9\]. These theorems require further physically reasonable assumptions such as the positivity of energy and total pressure, the absence of closed timelike curves and some notion of the genericity of the collapse situation. However, note that the existence of a trapped surface does not imply the absence of a naked singularity or its absence does not imply the presence of a naked singularity. The assumption of a trapped surface (or some other equivalent assumption) is, however, required to infer the occurrence of the spacetime singularity. \[ See \[9\] for further details on this and other related issues. \]
Now, our notion of the classical black hole situation is that of a spacetime singularity completely covered by an absolute event horizon. Unfortunately, the chronology of the developments related to now-famous black hole solutions emphasized the observers at future null infinity, ${\cal I}^+$, in earlier ideas of the cosmic censor. We note that there is no theory concerning what happens as a result of the appearance of a spacetime singularity. And, hence, the observer witnessing any such singularity will not be able to account for the observed physical behaviour of processes involving the singularity in any manner whatsoever. The cosmic censorship is then necessary to avoid precisely such situations. The black hole solutions, while emphasizing the role of observers at the future null infinity, led us into demanding that in the region between the absolute event horizon - the boundary $\partial I^+ [{\cal I}^+]$ of the past of ${\cal I}^+$ - and the set of observers at infinity, ${\cal I}^+$, no spacetime singularity occurs.
However, it is not hard to imagine a situation in which an observer and a collapsing body, both, are within a larger trapped surface. Thus, no information reaches ${\cal I}^+$ from this region. But, that trapped observer would be able to witness the forming spacetime singularity. We are, in essence, discussing here the case of a locally naked singularity. For such an observer, however, it would be impossible to account for the physical behaviour of systems involving the singularity since there is no theory for that. The purpose of a cosmic censor, being that of avoiding precisely such unpredictable physical situations for legitimate observers, is then lost on its formulation in terms of the observers at infinity since any such formulation cannot help the above observer.
It is for avoiding such situations that we require some reasonable formulation of the cosmic censorship which does not single out the set of observers at infinity. One such formulation is that of Strong Cosmic Censorship as given by Penrose \[5\].
Since our main interest here is to explore the role of asymptotic flatness in the development of a naked singularity in the situation of collapsing radiation shells, further analysis than that presented in Section 2 is not necessary to draw definite conclusions about it. The very fact that we have obtained a condition for the occurrence of a naked singularity in the collapse of radiation shells in an expanding background which is the same as that obtained when the background is non-expanding and asymptotically flat establishes that it is not the asymptotic flatness of the solutions considered that manifests, in some sense, in the development of a [*locally*]{} naked singularity. In other words, whether the spacetime is asymptotically flat or not does not make any difference to the occurrence of a locally naked singularity. This is evident in at least the situation of collapsing radiation shells as considered here.
Furthermore the example considered above shows that the asymptotic observer has no role to play in the occurrence or non-occurrence of a naked singularity in the collapse of radiation shells. This means that the same asymptotic observer cannot have any special role to play in the formulation of the Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis which is being envisaged as a basic principle of nature, a physical law. Also, the above result is then consistent with the viewpoint that if the cosmic censorship is to be any basic principle of nature then it has to operate at a local level. Hence, no special role can be given to any set of observers in the formulation of such a basic principle; since the general theory of relativity as a theory of gravitation provides no fundamental length scale. Then, the present result unequivocally supports Penrose’s \[5\] Strong Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis which, in essence, states that singularities should not be visible to any observer or, equivalently, no observer sees a singularity unless and until it is actually encountered.
[**Acknowledgements :**]{}
We are grateful to Ramesh Tikekar for discussions and to an anonymous referee for critical reading of the manuscript and helpful suggestions.
[99]{} P S Joshi (1993) [*Global Aspects in Gravitation and Cosmology*]{} (Clarendon Press, Oxford) (chapters 6 and 7) T P Singh and P S Joshi (1996) [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**13**]{}, 559 R S Hama’de and J M Stewart (1996) [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**13**]{}, 497 P C Vaidya and K B Shah (1957) [*Proc. Nat. Inst. of Sci. (India)*]{} [**23**]{}, 534 R Penrose (1979) in [*General Relativity - an Einstein Centenary Survey*]{} edited by S W Hawking and W Israel (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) G C Mcvittie (1933) [*Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.*]{} [**93**]{}, 325 A Papapetrou (1985) in [*A Random Walk in Relativity and Cosmology*]{} edited by N Dadhich, J Krishna Rao, J V Narlikar and C V Vishveshwara (Wiley Eastern, New Delhi) I H Dwivedi and P S Joshi (1989) [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**6**]{}, 1599; I H Dwivedi and P S Joshi (1991) [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**8**]{}, 1339 R Penrose (1998) in [Black Holes and Singularities - S. Chandrasekhar Symposium]{} Eds. R S Wald (Yale Univ. Press).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we study convex analysis and its theoretical applications. We first apply important tools of convex analysis to Optimization and to Analysis. We then show various deep applications of convex analysis and especially infimal convolution in Monotone Operator Theory. Among other things, we recapture the Minty surjectivity theorem in Hilbert space, and present a new proof of the sum theorem in reflexive spaces. More technically, we also discuss autoconjugate representers for maximally monotone operators. Finally, we consider various other applications in mathematical analysis.'
author:
- |
Francisco J. Aragón Artacho[^1], Jonathan M. Borwein[^2], Victoria Martín-Márquez[^3],\
and LiangjinYao[^4]
date: 'July 19, 2013'
title: '**Applications of Convex Analysis within Mathematics**'
---
[**2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:**]{}\
[Primary 47N10, 90C25; Secondary 47H05, 47A06, 47B65]{}\
[**Keywords:**]{} Adjoint, Asplund averaging, autoconjugate representer, Banach limit, Chebyshev set, convex functions, Fenchel duality, Fenchel conjugate, Fitzpatrick function, Hahn–Banach extension theorem, infimal convolution, linear relation, Minty surjectivity theorem, maximally monotone operator, monotone operator, Moreau’s decomposition, Moreau envelope, Moreau’s max formula, Moreau–Rockafellar duality, normal cone operator, renorming, resolvent, Sandwich theorem, subdifferential operator, sum theorem, Yosida approximation.
Introduction
============
While other articles in this collection look at the applications of Moreau’s seminal work, we have opted to illustrate the power of his ideas theoretically within optimization theory and within mathematics more generally. Space constraints preclude being comprehensive, but we think the presentation made shows how elegantly much of modern analysis can be presented thanks to the work of Jean-Jacques Moreau and others.
Preliminaries
-------------
Let $X$ be a real Banach space with norm $\|\cdot\|$ and dual norm $\|\cdot\|_*$. When there is no ambiguity we suppress the $*$. We write $X^*$ and $\langle\,\cdot\,,\cdot\,\rangle$ for the real dual space of continuous linear functions and the duality paring, respectively, and denote the closed unit ball by $B_X:= \{x \in
X \mid \|x\| \le 1\}$ and set ${\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}:=\{1,2,3,\ldots\}$. We identify $X$ with its canonical image in the bidual space $X^{**}$. A set $C \subseteq X$ is said to be [*convex*]{} if it contains all line segments between its members: $\lambda x + (1 - \lambda) y \in C$ whenever $x,y \in C$ and $0 \le \lambda \le 1$.
Given a subset $C$ of $X$, ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{int}}}C$ is the *interior* of $C$ and $\overline{C}$ is the *norm closure* of $C$. For a set $D\subseteq X^*$, $\overline{D}^{{\ensuremath{\operatorname{w*}}}}$ is the weak$^{*}$ closure of $D$. The *indicator function* of $C$, written as $\iota_C$, is defined at $x\in X$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\iota_C (x):=\begin{cases}0,\,&\text{if $x\in C$;}\\
+\infty,\,&\text{otherwise}.\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ The *support function* of $C$, written as $\sigma_C$, is defined by $\sigma_C(x^*):=\sup_{c\in C}\langle c,x^*\rangle$. There is also a naturally associated (metric) [*distance function*]{}, that is, $$\label{note:distance-function}
{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}}}_C(x) := \inf\left\{\|x - y\| \mid y \in C\right\}.$$ Distance functions play a central role in convex analysis, both theoretically and algorithmically.
Let $f\colon X\to {\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$ be a function. Then ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f:= f^{-1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb R}})$ is the *domain* of $f$, and the *lower level sets* of a function $f:X \to {\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$ are the sets $\{x \in X\mid f(x) \le \alpha\}$ where $\alpha \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}$. The *epigraph* of $f$ is ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{epi}}}f := \{(x,r)\in
X\times{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}\mid f(x)\leq r\}$. We will denote the set of points of continuity of $f$ by ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{cont}}}f$. The function $f$ is said to be *convex* if for any $x,y\in{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f$ and any $\lambda\in[0,1]$, one has $$f(\lambda x+(1-\lambda)y)\leq\lambda f(x)+(1-\lambda)f(y).$$ We say $f$ is proper if ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f\neq\varnothing$. Let $f$ be proper. The *subdifferential* of $f$ is defined by $$\partial f\colon X{\ensuremath{\rightrightarrows}}X^*\colon
x\mapsto \{x^*\in X^*\mid {\langle{{x^*},{y-x}}\rangle}\leq f(y)-f(x), \text{ for all }y\in X\}.$$ By the definition of $\partial f$, even when $ x \in {\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f$, it is possible that $\partial f( x)$ may be empty. For example $\partial f(0)=\varnothing$ for $f(x):=-\sqrt{x}$ whenever $x\geq 0$ and $f(x):=+\infty$ otherwise. If $x^* \in \partial f(
x)$ then $x^*$ is said to be a [*subgradient*]{} of $f$ at $
x$. An important example of a subdifferential is the [*normal cone*]{} to a convex set $C \subseteq X$ at a point $x \in C$ which is defined as $N_C(x):=\partial \iota_C(x)$.
Let $g\colon X\rightarrow{\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$. Then the *inf-convolution* $f\Box g$ is the function defined on $X$ by $$f\Box g\colon
x \mapsto \inf_{y\in X}
\big\{f(y)+g(x-y)\big\}.$$ (In [@M63] Moreau studied inf-convolution when $X$ is an arbitrary commutative semigroup.) Notice that, if both $f$ and $g$ are convex, so it is $f\Box g$ (see, e.g., [@Mnotes p. 17]).
We use the convention that $(+\infty)+(-\infty)=+\infty$ and $(+\infty)-(+\infty)=+\infty$. We will say a function $f:X \to {\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$ is [*Lipschitz on a subset $D$*]{} of ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f$ if there is a constant $M \ge 0$ so that $|f(x) - f(y)|
\le M\|x - y\|$ for all $x,y \in D$. In this case $M$ is said to be a [*Lipschitz constant*]{} for $f$ on $D$. If for each $x_0 \in D$, there is an open set $U \subseteq D$ with $x_0 \in U$ and a constant $M$ so that $|f(x) - f(y)| \le M\|x - y\|$ for all $x,y \in U$, we will say $f$ is [*locally Lipschitz on $D$*]{}. If $D$ is the entire space, we simply say $f$ is Lipschitz or locally Lipschitz respectively.
Consider a function $f:X \to {\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$; we say $f$ is *lower-semicontinuous* (lsc) if $\liminf_{x \to {\bar x}} f(x) \ge
f({\bar x})$ for all ${\bar x}\in X$, or equivalently, if ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{epi}}}f$ is closed. The function $f$ is said to be *sequentially weakly lower semi-continuous* if for every ${\bar x}\in X$ and every sequence $(x_n)_{n\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}$ which is weakly convergent to ${\bar x}$, one has $\liminf_{n \to \infty} f(x_n) \ge f({\bar x})$. This is a useful distinction since there are infinite dimensional Banach spaces (*Schur spaces* such as $\ell^1$) in which weak and norm convergence coincide for sequences, see [@BorVan p. 384, esp. Thm 8.2.5].
Structure of this paper
-----------------------
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section \[s:aux\], we describe results about Fenchel conjugates and the subdifferential operator, such as Fenchel duality, the Sandwich theorem, etc. We also look at some interesting convex functions and inequalities. In Section \[SecChev:1\], we discuss the Chebyshev problem from abstract approximation. In Section \[SecMon:1\], we show applications of convex analysis in Monotone Operator Theory. We reprise such results as the Minty surjectivity theorem, and present a new proof of the sum theorem in reflexive spaces. We also discuss Fitzpatrick’s problem on so called autoconjugate representers for maximally monotone operators. In Section \[Sec:Other\] we discuss various other applications.
Subdifferential operators, conjugate functions & Fenchel duality {#s:aux}
================================================================
We begin with some fundamental properties of convex sets and convex functions. While many results hold in all locally convex spaces, some of the most important such as \[basic-prin:E4\](b) in the next Fact do not.
*(Basic properties [[@BorVan Ch. 2 and 4]]{}.)*\[basic-prin\] The following hold.
1. \[basic-prin:E1\] The (lsc) convex functions form a convex cone closed under pointwise suprema: if $f_{\gamma}$ is convex (and lsc) for each $\gamma \in \Gamma$ then so is $x \mapsto\sup_{\gamma \in \Gamma} f_{\gamma}(x)$.
2. A function $f$ is convex if and only if ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{epi}}}f$ is convex if and only if $\iota_{{\ensuremath{\operatorname{epi}}}f}$ is convex.
3. Global minima and local minima in the domain coincide for proper convex functions.
4. \[basic-prin:E4\] Let $f$ be a proper convex function and let $x\in{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f$. (a) $f$ is locally Lipschitz at $x$ if and only $f$ is continuous at $x$ if and only if $f$ is locally bounded at $x$. (b) Additionally, if $f$ is lower semicontinuous, then $f$ is continuous at every point in ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{int}}}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f$.
5. \[basic-prin:E5\]A proper lower semicontinuous and convex function is bounded from below by a continuous affine function.
6. If $C$ is a nonempty set, then ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}}}_C(\cdot)$ is non-expansive (i.e., is a Lipschitz function with constant one). Additionally, if $C$ is convex, then ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}}}_C(\cdot)$ is a convex function.
7. If $C$ is a convex set, then $C$ is weakly closed if and only if it is norm closed.
8. \[three-slope\]*Three-slope inequality*: Suppose $f:{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}\to]-\infty,\infty]$ is convex and $a<b<c$. Then $$\frac{f(b)-f(a)}{b-a}\leq\frac{f(c)-f(a)}{c-a}\leq \frac{f(c)-f(b)}{c-b}.$$
The following trivial fact shows the fundamental significance of subgradients in optimization.
\[Subdifferential at optimality\] \[1.4.3\] Let $f \colon X \rightarrow {\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$ be a proper convex function. Then the point ${\bar x}\in {\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f$ is a (global) minimizer of $f$ if and only if $0 \in \partial f({\bar x})$.
The [*directional derivative*]{} of $f$ at $\bar x \in {\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f$ in the direction $d$ is defined by \[note:directional-derivative\] $$f^\prime(\bar x;d) := \lim_{t \to 0^+} \frac{f(\bar x + td) - f(\bar
x)}{t}$$ if the limit exists. If $f$ is convex, the directional derivative is everywhere finite at any point of ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{int}}}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f$, and it turns out to be Lipschitz at ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{cont}}}f$. We use the term directional derivative with the understanding that it is actually a [*one-sided*]{} directional derivative.
If the directional derivative $f'(\bar x,d)$ exists for all directions $d$ and the operator $f'({\bar x})$ defined by $\langle f'({\bar x}),\cdot\,\rangle:=f'({\bar x};\cdot\,)$ is linear and bounded, then we say that $f$ is [*Gâteaux differentiable*]{} at $\bar x$, and $f'({\bar x})$ is called the *Gâteaux derivative*. Every function $f:X \to {\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$ which is lower semicontinuous, convex and Gâteaux differentiable at $x$, it is continuous at $x$. Additionally, the following properties are relevant for the existence and uniqueness of the subgradients.
*(See [[@BorVan Fact 4.2.4 and Corollary 4.2.5]]{}.)* \[GatPC\] Suppose $f: X \to {\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$ is convex.
1. If $f$ is Gâteaux differentiable at ${\bar x}$, then $f^\prime({\bar x}) \in \partial f({\bar x})$.
2. If $f$ is continuous at ${\bar x}$, then $f$ is Gâteaux differentiable at ${\bar x}$ if and only if $\partial f({\bar x})$ is a singleton.
We show that part (ii) in Proposition \[GatPC\] is not always true in infinite dimensions without continuity hypotheses.
1. The indicator of the Hilbert cube $C:=\{x=(x_1,x_2,\ldots) \in \ell^2: |x_n| \le 1/n, \forall n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}\}$ at zero or any other non-support point has a unique subgradient but is nowhere Gâteaux differentiable.
2. *Boltzmann-Shannon entropy* $x \mapsto \int_0^1 x(t)\log(x(t)){\rm d} t$ viewed as a lower semicontinuous and convex function on $L^1[0,1]$ has unique subgradients at $x(t)>0$ a.e. but is nowhere Gâteaux differentiable (which for a lower semicontinuous and convex function in Banach space implies continuity).
That Gâteaux differentiability of a convex and lower semicontinuous function implies continuity at the point is a consequence of the Baire category theorem. [$\Diamond$]{}
The next result proved by Moreau in 1963 establishes the relationship between subgradients and directional derivatives, see also [@Mnotes page 65]. Proofs can be also found in most of the books in variational analysis, see e.g. [@BZ05 Theorem 4.2.7].
\[thm:max-formula\] Let $f \colon X \rightarrow {\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$ be a convex function and let $d \in X$. Suppose that $f$ is continuous at $\bar x $. Then, $\partial f(\bar x) \ne \varnothing$ and $$\begin{aligned}
f'(\bar x;d) = \max\{\langle x^*,d\rangle \mid x^* \in \partial f(\bar x)\}.\end{aligned}$$
Let $f:X\rightarrow[-\infty,+\infty]$. The [*Fenchel conjugate*]{} (also called the [*Legendre-Fenchel conjugate*]{}[^5] or [*transform*]{}) of $f$ is the function \[note:Fenchel-conjugate\] $f^*:X^* \to [-\infty,+\infty]$ defined by $$f^*(x^*) := \sup_{x \in X} \{\langle x^*,x \rangle - f(x) \}.$$ We can also consider the conjugate of $f^*$ called the [*biconjugate*]{} of $f$ and denoted by $f^{**}$. This is a convex function on $X^{**}$ satisfying $f^{**}|_X\leq f$. A useful and instructive example is $\sigma_C = \iota_C^*$.
\[ex:conj\_norm\] Let $1 < p < \infty$ . If $f(x):=\frac{\|x\|^p}{p}$ for $x\in X$ then $f^*(x^*)=\frac{\|x^*\|_*^q}{q}$, where $\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}=1$. Indeed, for any $x^*\in X^*$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
f^*(x^*)=\sup_{\lambda\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}_+}\sup_{\|x\|=1}\left\{\langle x^*,\lambda x\rangle -\frac{\|\lambda x\|^p}{p}\right\}=\sup_{\lambda\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}_+}\left\{\lambda \|x^*\|_*-\frac{\lambda^p}{p}\right\}=\frac{\|x^*\|_*^q}{q}.\end{aligned}$$ [$\Diamond$]{}
By direct construction and Fact \[basic-prin\] \[basic-prin:E1\], for any function $f$, the conjugate function $f^*$ is always convex and lower semicontinuous, and if the domain of $f$ is nonempty, then $f^*$ never takes the value $-\infty$. The conjugate plays a role in convex analysis in many ways analogous to the role played by the Fourier transform in harmonic analysis with infimal convolution, see below, replacing integral convolution and sum replacing product [@BorVan Chapter 2.].
Inequalities and their applications
-----------------------------------
An immediate consequence of the definition is that for $f,g:X \to
[-\infty,+\infty]$, the inequality $f \ge g$ implies $f^* \le g^*$. An important result which is straightforward to prove is the following.
\[prop:Fenchel-Young-fd\] Let $f:X \to
{\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$. All points $x^* \in X^*$ and $x \in {\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f$ satisfy the inequality $$f(x) + f^*(x^*) \ge \langle x^*,x\rangle.
\label{eq:Fenchel-Young-ineq-fd}$$ Equality holds if and only if $x^* \in \partial f(x)$.
\[prop:Young\] By taking $f$ as in Example \[ex:conj\_norm\], one obtains directly from Proposition \[prop:Fenchel-Young-fd\] $$\frac{\|x\|^p}{p}+\frac{\|x^*\|_*^q}{q}\geq\langle x^*,x\rangle,$$ for all $x\in X$ and $x^*\in X^*$, where $p>1$ and $\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}=1$. When $X={\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}$ one recovers the original Young inequality.[$\Diamond$]{}
This in turn leads to one of the workhorses of modern analysis:
\[prop:Holder\] Let $f$ and $g$ be measurable on a measure space $(X,\mu)$. Then $$\label{eq:Holder}
\int_X fg\ \mathrm{d}\mu\leq\|f\|_p\|g\|_q,$$ where $1 < p < \infty$ and $\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}=1$. Indeed, by rescaling, we may assume without loss of generality that $\|f\|_p=\|g\|_q=1$. Then Young’s inequality in Example \[prop:Young\] yields $$|f(x)g(x)|\leq\frac{|f(x)|^p}{p}+\frac{|g(x)|^q}{q}\quad\text{for } x\in X,$$ and follows by integrating both sides. The result holds true in the limit for $p=1$ or $p=\infty$.[$\Diamond$]{}
We next take a brief excursion into special function theory and normed space geometry to emphasize that “convex functions are everywhere."
\[ex:bohr\] The *Gamma function* defined for $x>0$ as $$\Gamma(x):=\int_0^\infty e^{-t}t^{x-1}{\mathrm{d}}t=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{n!\,n^x}{x(x+1)\cdots(x+n)}$$ is the unique function $f$ mapping the positive half-line to itself and such that (a) $f(1)=1$, (b) $xf(x)=f(x+1)$ and (c) $\log f$ is a convex function.
Indeed, clearly $\Gamma(1)=1$, and it is easy to prove (b) for $\Gamma$ by using integration by parts. In order to show that $\log \Gamma$ is convex, pick any $x,y>0$ and $\lambda\in(0,1)$ and apply Hölder’s inequality with $p=1/\lambda$ to the functions $t\mapsto e^{-\lambda t}t^{\lambda(x-1)}$ and $t\mapsto e^{-(1-\lambda)t}t^{(1-\lambda)(y-1)}$. For the converse, let $g:=\log f$. Then (a) and (b) imply $g(n+1+x)=\log\left[x(1+x)\ldots (n+x) f(x)\right]$ and thus $g(n+1)=\log(n!)$. Convexity of $g$ together with the three-slope inequality, see Fact \[basic-prin\]\[three-slope\], implies that $$g(n+1)-g(n)\leq\frac{g(n+1+x)-g(n+1)}{x}\leq g(n+2+x)-g(n+1+x),$$ and hence, $$x\log(n)\leq \log\left(x(x+1)\cdots(x+n)f(x)\right)-\log(n!)\leq x\log(n+1+x);$$ whence, $$0\leq g(x)-\log\left(\frac{n!\,n^x}{x(x+1)\cdots(x+n)}\right)\leq x\log\left(1+\frac{1+x}{n}\right).$$ Taking limits when $n\to\infty$ we obtain $$f(x)=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{n!\,n^x}{x(x+1)\cdots(x+n)}=\Gamma(x).$$ As a bonus we recover a classical and important limit formula for $\Gamma(x)$.
Application of the Bohr–Mollerup theorem is often *automatable* in a computer algebra system, as we now illustrate. Consider the *beta function* $$\begin{aligned}
\beta(x,y) &:=& \int_0^1 t^{x-1}(1-t)^{y-1}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}}}t \label{beta-def}\end{aligned}$$ for $\mathrm{Re}(x), \mathrm{Re}(y) > 0$. As is often established using polar coordinates and double integrals $$\begin{aligned}
\beta(x,y) &=& \frac{\Gamma(x)\,\Gamma(y)}{\Gamma(x+y)}.
\label{eq:bint}\end{aligned}$$ We may use the Bohr–Mollerup theorem with $$f:=x \to \beta(x,y)\,\Gamma(x+y)/\Gamma(y)$$ to prove (\[eq:bint\]) for real $x, y$.
Now (a) and (b) from Example \[ex:bohr\] are easy to verify. For (c) we again use Hölder’s inequality to show $f$ is log-convex. Thus, $f=\Gamma$ as required. [$\Diamond$]{}
\[ex:Blaschke-theorem\] The volume of a unit ball in the $\|\cdot\|_p$-norm, $V_n(p)$ is $$\begin{aligned}
V_n(p) \ &=& \ 2^n \frac{\Gamma(1+\frac{1}{p})^n}{\Gamma(1+\frac{n}{p})}. \label{volp}\end{aligned}$$ as was first determined by Dirichlet. When $p=2$, this gives $$\begin{aligned}
V_n &=& 2^n \frac{\Gamma(\frac 32)^n }{\Gamma(1+\frac n2)} \; = \;
\frac{\Gamma(\frac 12)^n}{\Gamma(1+\frac n2)},\end{aligned}$$ which is more concise than that usually recorded in texts.
Let $C$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^n$ be a [*convex body*]{} which is symmetric around zero, that is, a closed bounded convex set with nonempty interior. Denoting $n$-dimensional Euclidean volume of $S\subseteq {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^n$ by $V_n(S)$, the [*Blaschke–Santaló*]{} inequality says $$\label{eq:BS}
V_n(C)\,V_n(C^\circ) \ \leq \ V_n(E)\,V_n(E^\circ) \ =\
V_n^2(B_n(2))$$ where maximality holds (only) for *any symmetric* ellipsoid $E$ and $B_n(2)$ is the Euclidean unit ball. It is *conjectured* the minimum is attained by the 1-ball and the $\infty$-ball. Here as always the polar set is defined by $C^\circ \ := \ \{y\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^n \colon \langle
y,x\rangle \le 1 \mbox{ for all } x\in C\}.$
The $p$-ball case of (\[eq:BS\]) follows by proving the following convexity result:
*The function $$V_\alpha(p):=2^\alpha {\Gamma\left(1+\frac{1}{p}\right)^\alpha/
\Gamma\left(1+\frac{\alpha}{p}\right)}$$ satisfies $$\label{eqV}
V_\alpha(p)^\lambda\,V_\alpha(q)^{1-\lambda}\ < \
V_\alpha\left(\frac{1}{\frac{\lambda}{p}+\frac{1-\lambda}{q}}\right),$$ for all $\alpha>1$, if $p,q>1$, $p\ne q$, and $\lambda\in(0,1)$.*
Set $\alpha:=n$, $\frac1p+\frac1q=1$ with $\lambda=1-\lambda
=1/2$ to recover the $p-$norm case of the Blaschke–Santaló inequality. It is amusing to deduce the corresponding lower bound. This technique extends to various substitution norms. Further details may be found in [@BorBai08 §5.5]. Note that we may easily explore $V_\alpha(p)$ graphically. [$\Diamond$]{}
The biconjugate and duality
---------------------------
The next result has been associated by different authors with the names of Legendre, Fenchel, Moreau and Hörmander; see, e.g., [@BorVan Proposition 4.4.2].
(**Hörmander**[^6])*(See [@Zalinescu Theorem 2.3.3] or [@BorVan Proposition 4.4.2(a)].)* Let $f: X \to {\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$ be a proper function. Then $$f\text{ is convex and lower semicontinuous }{\ensuremath{\Leftrightarrow}}f=f^{**}|_X.$$
[(See [@BorIN Theorem 1].)]{} We may compute conjugates by hand or using the software *SCAT* [@BorHam]. This is discussed further in Section \[ssec:CAS\]. Consider $f(x):=e^x$. Then $f^*(x)=x\log(x)-x$ for $x \ge 0$ (taken to be zero at zero) and is infinite for $x<0$. This establishes the convexity of $x\log(x)-x$ in a way that takes no knowledge of $x\log(x)$.
A more challenging case is the following (slightly corrected) conjugation formula [@BorLew p. 94, Ex. 13] which can be computed algorithmically: Given real $\alpha_1,\alpha_2, \ldots ,\alpha_m > 0$, define $\alpha := \sum_i
\alpha_i$ and suppose a real $\mu$ satisfies $\mu > \alpha + 1$. Now define a function $f:{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^m \times {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}\mapsto {\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
f(x,s) :=\begin{cases}
\mu^{-1}s^\mu \prod_i x_i^{-\alpha_i} & \mbox{if}~x \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^m_{++},~s \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}_+; \\ \\
0 & \mbox{if}~\exists x_i=0,\, x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^m_+, ~s=0; \\
+\infty & \mbox{otherwise}.
\end{cases},\quad\forall x:=(x_n)^m_{n=1}\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^m,\, s\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}.\end{aligned}$$ It transpires that $$\begin{aligned}
f^*(y,t) = \begin{cases}
\rho \nu^{-1} t^\nu \prod_i (-y_i)^{-\beta_i}
& \mbox{if}~y \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^m_{--},~t \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}_+ \\
0 & \mbox{if}~y \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^m_{-},~t \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}_- \\
+\infty & \mbox{otherwise}
\end{cases},\quad\forall y:=(y_n)^m_{n=1}\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^m,\, t\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}.\end{aligned}$$ for constants $$\nu := \frac{\mu}{\mu - (\alpha + 1)},~~
\beta_i := \frac{\alpha_i}{\mu - (\alpha + 1)},~~
\rho := \prod_i \Big( \frac{\alpha_i}{\mu} \Big)^{\beta_i}.$$ We deduce that $f=f^{**}$, whence $f$ (and $f^*$) is (essentially strictly) convex. For attractive alternative proof of convexity see [@Mar]. Many other substantive examples are to be found in [@BorLew; @BorVan].[$\Diamond$]{}
The next theorem gives us a remarkable sufficient condition for convexity of functions in terms of the Gâteaux differentiability of the conjugate. There is a simpler analogue for the Fréchet derivative.
*(See [[@BorVan Corollary 4.5.2]]{}.)*\[th:convex\_conj\_suff\] Suppose $f:X \to {\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$ is such that $f^{**}$ is proper. If $f^*$ is Gâteaux differentiable at all $x^* \in {\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}\partial f^*$ and $f$ is sequentially weakly lower semicontinuous, then $f$ is convex.
Let $f:X \to {\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$. We say $f$ is [*coercive*]{} if $\lim_{\|x\| \to
\infty} f(x) = +\infty$. We say $f$ is [*supercoercive*]{} if $\lim_{\|x\| \to
\infty} \frac{f(x)}{\|x\|} = +\infty$.
*(See [@BorVan Fact 4.4.8].)*\[CorEquiv\] If $f$ is proper convex and lower semicontinuous at some point in its domain, then the following statements are equivalent.
1. $f$ is coercive.
2. There exist $\alpha > 0$ and $\beta \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}$ such that $f \ge \alpha\|\cdot\| + \beta$.
3. $\liminf_{\|x\| \to \infty} f(x)/\|x\| > 0$.
4. $f$ has bounded lower level sets.
Because a convex function is continuous at a point if and only if it is bounded above on a neighborhood of that point (Fact \[basic-prin\]\[basic-prin:E4\]), we get the following result; see also [@H55 Theorem 7] for the case of the indicator function of a bounded convex set.
\[Moreau-Rockafellar2\] Let $f:X \to {\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$ be convex and lower semicontinuous at some point in its domain, and let $x^* \in X^*$. Then $f - x^*$ is coercive if and only if $f^*$ is continuous at $x^*$.
“$\Rightarrow$": By Fact \[CorEquiv\], there exist $\alpha > 0$ and $\beta \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}$ such that $f \ge x^*+\alpha\|\cdot\| + \beta$. Then $f^*\leq-\beta+\iota_{\{x^*+\alpha B_{X^*}\}}$, from where $x^*+\alpha B_{X^*}\subseteq{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f^*$. Therefore, $f^*$ is continuous at $x^*$ by Fact \[basic-prin\]\[basic-prin:E4\].
“$\Leftarrow$": By the assumption, there exists $\beta\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}$ and $\delta>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
f^*(x^*+z^*)\leq \beta,\quad\forall z^*\in\delta B_{X^*}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, by Proposition \[prop:Fenchel-Young-fd\], $$\langle x^*+z^*, y\rangle-f(y) \leq \beta,\quad\forall z^*\in\delta B_{X^*},\,\forall y\in X;$$ whence, taking the supremum with $z^*\in\delta B_{X^*}$, $$\delta\|y\|-\beta\leq f(y)-\langle x^*, y\rangle,\quad\forall y\in X.$$ Then, by Fact \[CorEquiv\], $f-x^*$ is coercive.
\[ex:Moreau-Rockafellar\] Given a set $C$ in $X$, recall that the negative polar cone of $C$ is the convex cone $$C^-:=\{x^*\in X^*\mid \sup \langle x^*, C\rangle\leq0\}.$$ Suppose that $X$ is reflexive and let $K\subseteq X$ be a closed convex cone. Then $K^-$ is another nonempty closed convex cone with $K^{--} :=(K^-)^-=K$. Moreover, the indicator function of $K$ and $K^-$ are conjugate to each other. If we set $f:=\iota_{K^-}$, the indicator function of the negative polar cone of $K$, Theorem \[Moreau-Rockafellar2\] applies to get that
$x\in {\ensuremath{\operatorname{int}}}K$ if and only if the set $\{x^*\in K^- \mid \langle
x^*,x\rangle\geq \alpha\}$ is bounded for any $\alpha\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}$.
Indeed, since $x\in {\ensuremath{\operatorname{int}}}K={\ensuremath{\operatorname{int}}}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}\iota^*_{K^-}$ if and only if $\iota^*_{K^-}$ is continuous at $x$, from Theorem \[Moreau-Rockafellar2\] we have that this is true if and only if the function $\iota_{K^-}-x$ is coercive. Now, Fact \[CorEquiv\] assures us that coerciveness is equivalent to boundedness of the lower level sets, which implies the assertion. [$\Diamond$]{}
\[Moreau\] Let $f:X \to (-\infty,+\infty]$ be a lower semicontinuous convex function. Then $f$ is continuous at $0$ if and only if $f^*$ has weak$^*$-compact lower level sets.
Observe that $f$ is continuous at $0$ if and only if $f^{**}$ is continuous at $0$ ([@BorVan Fact 4.4.4(b)])if and only if $f^*$ is coercive (Theorem \[Moreau-Rockafellar2\]) if and only if $f^*$ has bounded lower level sets (Fact \[CorEquiv\]) if and only if $f^*$ has weak$^*$-compact lower level sets by the Banach-Alaoglu theorem (see [@Rudin Theorem 3.15]).
\[f-superc-iff-f\*-bndonbnd\] Suppose $f: X \to {\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$ is a lower semicontinuous and proper convex function. Then
1. $f$ is supercoercive if and only if $f^*$ is bounded (above) on bounded sets.
2. $f$ is bounded (above) on bounded sets if and only if $f^*$ is supercoercive.
\(a) “$\Rightarrow$”: Given any $\alpha > 0$, there exists $M$ such that $f(x) \ge \alpha \|x\|$ if $\|x\| \ge M$. Now there exists $\beta \ge 0$ such that $f(x) \ge -\beta$ if $\|x\| \le M$ by Fact \[basic-prin\]\[basic-prin:E5\]. Therefore $f \ge \alpha\|\cdot\| + (-\alpha M-\beta)$. Thus, it implies that $f^*\leq \alpha(\|\cdot\|)^*(\frac{\cdot}{\alpha}) + \alpha M+\beta$ and hence $f^* \le \alpha M+\beta$ on $\alpha B_{X^*}$.
“$\Leftarrow$”: Let $\gamma > 0$. Now there exists $K$ such that $f^* \le K$ on $\gamma B_{X^*}$. Then $f \ge \gamma \|\cdot\| - K$ and so $\liminf_{\|x\| \to \infty} \frac{f(x)}{\|x\|} \ge \gamma$. Hence $\liminf_{\|x\| \to \infty} \frac{f(x)}{\|x\|}=+\infty$.
(b): According to (a), $f^*$ is supercoercive if and only if $f^{**}$ is bounded on bounded sets. By [@BorVan Fact 4.4.4(a)] this holds if and only if $f$ is bounded (above) on bounded sets.
We finish this subsection by recalling some properties of infimal convolutions. Some of their many applications include smoothing techniques and approximation. We shall meet them again in Section \[SecMon:1\]. Let $f,g:X\rightarrow{\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$. Geometrically, the infimal convolution of $f$ and $g$ is the largest extended real-valued function whose epigraph contains the sum of epigraphs of $f$ and $g$ (see example in Figure \[fig:convolution\]), consequently it is a convex function. The following is a useful result concerning the conjugate of the infimal convolution.
*(See [@BorVan Lemma 4.4.15] and [@Mnotes pp. 37-38].)* \[lem:conjugate-convo\] If $f$ and $g$ are proper functions on $X$, then $(f \Box g)^* = f^* + g^*$. Additionally, suppose $f,g$ are convex and bounded below. If $f:X \to {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}$ is continuous (resp. bounded on bounded sets, Lipschitz), then $f \Box g$ is a convex function that is continuous (resp. bounded on bounded sets, Lipschitz).
Suppose $C$ is a nonempty convex set. Then ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}}}_C = \|\cdot\|\Box \iota_C$, implying that ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}}}_C$ is a Lipschitz convex function.[$\Diamond$]{}
Consider $f,g:{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}\to {\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$ given by $$f(x):=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
-\sqrt{1-x^2},& \text{for } -1\leq x\leq 1,\\
+\infty& \text{otherwise,}
\end{array}\right. \quad and \quad g(x):=|x|.$$ The infimal convolution of $f$ and $g$ is $$(f\Box g)(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
-\sqrt{1-x^2},& -\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}\leq x\leq -\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2};\\
|x|-\sqrt{2}, & \text{otherwise.}
\end{array}\right.,$$ as shown in Figure \[fig:convolution\].[$\Diamond$]{}
![Infimal convolution of $f(x)=-\sqrt{1-x^2}$ and $g(x)=|x|$.[]{data-label="fig:convolution"}](convolution.pdf){width=".6\textwidth"}
The Hahn-Banach circle
----------------------
Let $T:X \to Y$ be a linear mapping between two Banach spaces $X$ and $Y$. The [*adjoint*]{} of $T$ is the linear mapping $T^*:Y^*\to X^*$ defined, for $y^*\in Y^*$, by $$\langle T^*y^*,x\rangle = \langle y^*, Tx\rangle\quad \text{for all } x \in X.$$ A flexible modern version of Fenchel’s celebrated duality theorem is:
\[thm:Fenchel-duality-fd\] Let $Y$ be another Banach space, let $f \colon X \rightarrow {\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$ and $g \colon Y \rightarrow {\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$ be convex functions and let $T \colon X \rightarrow Y$ be a bounded linear operator. Define the primal and dual values $p,d \in [-\infty,+\infty]$ by solving the [Fenchel problems]{} $$\begin{aligned}
p &:= \inf_{x \in X} \{f(x)+g(Tx)\} \nonumber
\\
d &:= \sup_{y^* \in Y^*} \{-f^{*}(T^{*}y^*) - g^{*}(-y^*)\}.
\label{eq:Fenchel_Dual_P}\end{aligned}$$ Then these values satisfy the [weak duality]{} inequality $p \geq d$.
Suppose further that $f$, $g$ and $T $satisfy either $$\bigcup_{\lambda>0} \lambda\left[{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}g - T{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f\right]
=Y\,\ \mbox{and both}\ f \mbox{ and } g \mbox{ are lower semicontinuous}, \label{eq:Fen-dual-1}$$ or the condition $${\ensuremath{\operatorname{cont}}}g \cap T{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f \ne \varnothing. \label{eq:Fen-dual-2}$$ Then $p=d$, and the supremum in the dual problem is attained when finite. Moreover, the perturbation function $h(u):=\inf_x f(x)+g(Tx+u)$ is convex and continuous at zero.
Generalizations of Fenchel duality Theorem can be found in [@BotWank1; @BotGradWank]. An easy consequence is:
\[infc\] Under the hypotheses of the Fenchel duality theorem \[thm:Fenchel-duality-fd\] $(f + g)^*(x^*)=(f^* \Box g^*)(x^*)$ with attainment when finite.
Another nice consequence of Fenchel duality is the ability to obtain primal solutions from dual ones, as we now record.
Suppose the conditions for equality in the Fenchel duality Theorem \[thm:Fenchel-duality-fd\] hold, and that $\bar y^* \in Y^*$ is an optimal dual solution. Then the point $\bar x \in X$ is optimal for the primal problem if and only if it satisfies the two conditions $T^* \bar
y^* \in \partial f(\bar x)$ and $-\bar y^*\in \partial g(T\bar x)$.
The regularity conditions in Fenchel duality theorem can be weakened when each function is *polyhedral*, i.e., when their epigraph is polyhedral.
*(See [@BorLew Corollary 5.1.9].)*\[thm:Fenchel-duality-poly\] Suppose that $X$ is a finite-dimensional space. The conclusions of the Fenchel duality Theorem \[thm:Fenchel-duality-fd\] remain valid if the regularity condition is replaced by the assumption that the functions $f$ and $g$ are polyhedral with $${\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}g \cap T {\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f \neq\varnothing.$$
Fenchel duality applied to a linear programming program yields the well-known Lagrangian duality.
\[cor:FLC\] Given $c\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^n$, $b\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^m$ and $A$ an $m\times n$ real matrix, one has $$\label{eq:fenchel_LP}
\inf_{x \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^n} \{c^Tx \mid Ax\leq b \} \geq
\sup_{\lambda \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^m_+} \{ -b^T \lambda \mid A^T \lambda=-c \},$$
where ${\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^m_+:=\big\{(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_m)\mid x_i\geq0,\ i=1,2,\cdots,m\big\}$. Equality in holds if $b\in{\ensuremath{\operatorname{ran}}}A+{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^m_+$. Moreover, both extrema are obtained when finite.
Take $f(x):=c^Tx$, $T:=A$ and $g(y):=\iota_{b_\geq}(y)$ where $b_\geq:=\{y\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^m\mid y\leq b\}$. Then apply the polyhedral Fenchel duality Theorem \[thm:Fenchel-duality-poly\] observing that $f^*=\iota_{\{c\}}$, and for any $\lambda\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^m$, $$g^*(\lambda)=\sup_{y\leq b}y^T\lambda=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
b^T \lambda, & \text{if } \lambda\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^m_+;\\
+\infty,& \text{otherwise};
\end{array}\right.$$ and follows, since ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}g\cap A{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f=\{Ax\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^m\mid Ax\leq b\}$.
One can easily derive various relevant results from Fenchel duality, such as the Sandwich theorem, the subdifferential sum rule, and the Hahn-Banach extension theorem, among many others.
\[thm:sandwich-utility\] Let $X$ and $Y$ be Banach spaces and let $T:X \to Y$ be a bounded linear mapping. Suppose that $f:X \rightarrow {\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$, $g:Y \rightarrow {\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$ are proper convex functions which together with $T$ satisfy either or . Assume that $f\geq-g\circ T$. Then there is an affine function $\alpha: X \to {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}$ of the form $\alpha(x) = \langle T^*y^*,x\rangle + r$ satisfying $f \ge \alpha \ge - g \circ T$. Moreover, for any $\bar x$ satisfying $f(\bar x) = (-g\circ T)(\bar x)$, we have $-y^* \in \partial g(T\bar x)$.
With notation as in the Fenchel duality Theorem \[thm:Fenchel-duality-fd\], we know $d = p$, and since $p \ge 0$ because $f(x) \ge - g(Tx)$, the supremum in $d$ is attained. Therefore there exists $y^* \in Y^*$ such that $$0\leq p=d=-f^*(T^*y^*)-g^*(-y^*).$$ Then, by Fenchel-Young inequality , we obtain $$\label{eq:proof_sandwich}
0 \le p \le f(x)-\langle T^*y^*,x\rangle + g(y)+\langle y^*,y\rangle,$$ for any $x\in X$ and $y\in Y$. For any $z \in X$, setting $y = Tz$ in the previous inequality, we obtain $$a:=\sup_{z \in X} [-g(Tz) - \langle T^* y^*,z\rangle]\le
b:=\inf_{x \in X}[f(x) - \langle T^* y^*, x\rangle]$$ Now choose $r \in [a,b]$. The affine function $\alpha(x) := \langle T^*
y^*,x\rangle + r$ satisfies $f \ge \alpha \ge - g \circ T$, as claimed.
The last assertion follows from simply by setting $x=\bar x$, where $\bar x$ satisfies $f(\bar x) = (-g\circ T)(\bar x )$. Then we have $\sup_{y\in Y}\{\langle-y^*,y\rangle-g(y)\}\leq (-g\circ T)(\bar x )-\langle T^*y^*,\bar x\rangle$. Thus $g^*(-y^*)+ g(T\bar x)\leq-\langle y^*,T\bar x\rangle$ and hence $-y^* \in \partial g(T\bar x)$.
When $X=Y$ and $T$ is the identity we recover the classical Sandwich theorem. The next example shows that without a constraint qualification, the sandwich theorem may fail.
Consider $f,g:{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}\to {\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$ given by $$f(x):=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
-\sqrt{-x},& \text{for } x\leq 0,\\
+\infty& \text{otherwise,}
\end{array}\right.\quad and \quad
g(x):=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
-\sqrt{x},& \text{for } x\geq 0,\\
+\infty& \text{otherwise.}
\end{array}\right.$$ In this case, $\bigcup_{\lambda>0} \lambda\left[{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}g - {\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f\right]=\left[0,+\infty\right[\neq{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}$ and it is not difficult to prove there is not any affine function which separates $f$ and $-g$, see Figure \[fig:sandwich\].[$\Diamond$]{}
The prior constraint qualifications are sufficient but not necessary for the sandwich theorem as we illustrate in the next example.
Let $f,g:{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}\to {\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$ be given by $$f(x):=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{1}{x},& \text{for } x> 0,\\
+\infty& \text{otherwise,}
\end{array}\right.\quad and \quad
g(x):=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
-\frac{1}{x},& \text{for } x< 0,\\
+\infty& \text{otherwise.}
\end{array}\right.$$ Despite that $\bigcup_{\lambda>0} \lambda\left[{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}g - {\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f\right]=\left]-\infty,0\right[\neq{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}$, the affine function $\alpha(x):=-x$ satisfies $f\geq\alpha\geq -g$, see Figure \[fig:sandwich\].[$\Diamond$]{}
![On the left we show the failure of the sandwich theorem in the absence of the constraint qualification; of the right we show that the constraint qualification is not necessary.[]{data-label="fig:sandwich"}](sandwich.pdf "fig:"){height=".4\textwidth"}![On the left we show the failure of the sandwich theorem in the absence of the constraint qualification; of the right we show that the constraint qualification is not necessary.[]{data-label="fig:sandwich"}](sandwich2.pdf "fig:"){height=".4\textwidth"}
\[thm:sum-rule\] Let $X$ and $Y$ be Banach spaces, and let $f:X \to {\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$ and $g:Y \to {\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$ be convex functions and let $T:X \to Y$ be a bounded linear mapping. Then at any point $x \in X$ we have the sum rule $$\partial(f + g\circ T)(x) \supseteq \partial f(x) + T^*(\partial g(Tx))$$ with equality if (\[eq:Fen-dual-1\]) or (\[eq:Fen-dual-2\]) hold.
The inclusion is straightforward by using the definition of the subdifferential, so we prove the reverse inclusion. Fix any $x\in X$ and let $x^*\in\partial(f+g\circ T)( x)$. Then $0\in\partial(f-\langle x^* ,\cdot\,\rangle+g\circ T)( x)$. Conditions for the equality in Theorem \[thm:Fenchel-duality-fd\] are satisfied for the functions $f(\cdot)-\langle x^*,\cdot\,\rangle$ and $g$. Thus, there exists $y^*\in Y^*$ such that $$f( x)-\langle x^*, x\rangle +g(T x)=-f^*(T^*y^*+x^*)-g^*(-y^*).$$ Now set $z^*:=T^*y^*+x^*$. Hence, by the Fenchel-Young inequality , one has $$0\leq f( x)+f^*(z^*)-\langle z^*, x\rangle=-g(T x)-g^*(-y^*)-\langle T^*y^*, x\rangle\leq0;$$ whence, $$\begin{aligned}
f( x)+f^*(z^*)=\langle z^*, x\rangle\\
g(T x)+g^*(-y^*)=\langle -y^*,T x\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore equality in Fenchel-Young occurs, and one has $z^*\in\partial f( x)$ and $-y^*\in\partial g(T x)$, which completes the proof.
The subdifferential sum rule for two convex functions with a finite common point where one of them is continuous was proved by Rockafellar in 1966 with an argumentation based on Fenchel duality, see [@R66 Th. 3]. In an earlier work in 1963, Moreau [@M63_2] proved the subdifferential sum rule for a pair of convex and lsc functions, in the case that infimal convolution of the conjugate functions is achieved, see [@Mnotes p. 63] for more details. Moreau actually proved this result for functions which are the supremum of a family of affine continuous linear functions, a set which agrees with the convex and lsc functions when $X$ is a locally convex vector space, see [@M62] or [@Mnotes p. 28]. See also [@HUMSV; @HUP; @BotWank1; @BBY2] for more information about the subdifferential calculus rule.
\[Hahn-Banach\] Let $X$ be a Banach space and let $f \colon X \rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}$ be a continuous sublinear function with ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f=X$. Suppose that $L$ is a linear subspace of $X$ and the function $h \colon L \rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}$ is linear and [*dominated*]{} by $f$, that is, $f \geq h$ on $L$. Then there exists $x^*\in X^*$, dominated by $f$, such that $$h(x)=\langle x^*,x\rangle,\text{~for all~} x\in L.$$
Take $g:=-h+\iota_L$ and apply Theorem \[thm:Fenchel-duality-fd\] to $f$ and $g$ with $T$ the identity mapping. Then, there exists $x^*\in X^*$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
0&\leq\inf_{x\in X}\left\{f(x)-h(x)+\iota_L(x)\right\}\nonumber\\
&=-f^*(x^*)-\sup_{x\in X}\{\langle -x^*,x\rangle +h(x) -\iota_L(x) \}\nonumber\\
&=-f^*(x^*)+\inf_{x\in L}\{\langle x^*,x\rangle-h(x)\};\label{eq:H-B}\end{aligned}$$ whence, $$f^*(x^*)\leq \langle x^*,x\rangle-h(x),\quad\text{for all } x\in L.$$ Observe that $f^*(x^*)\geq 0$ since $f(0)=0$. Thus, being $L$ a linear subspace, we deduce from the above inequality that $$h(x)=\langle x^*,x\rangle,\quad\text{for all } x\in L.$$ Then implies $f^*(x^*)=0$, from where $$f(x)\geq\langle x^*,x\rangle ,\quad\text{for all } x\in X,$$ and we are done.
(Moreau’s max formula, Theorem \[thm:max-formula\])—a true child of Cauchy’s principle of steepest descent—can be also derived from Fenchel duality. In fact, the non-emptiness of the subdifferential at a point of continuity, Moreau’s max formula, Fenchel duality, the Sandwich theorem, the subdifferential sum rule, and Hahn-Banach extension theorem are all equivalent, in the sense that they are easily inter-derivable.
In outline, one considers $h(u):=\inf_x \big(f(x)+g(Ax+u)\big)$ and checks that $\partial h(0) \neq \emptyset$ implies the Fenchel and Lagrangian duality results; while condition or implies $h$ is continuous at zero and thus Theorem \[thm:max-formula\] finishes the proof. Likewise, the polyhedral calculus [@BorLew §5.1] implies $h$ is polyhedral when $f$ and $g$ are and shows that polyhedral functions have ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}h = {\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}\partial h$. This establishes Theorem \[thm:Fenchel-duality-poly\]. This also recovers abstract LP duality (e.g., semidefinite programming and conic duality) under condition . See [@BorLew; @BorVan] for more details.[$\Diamond$]{}
Let us turn to two illustrations of the power of convex analysis within functional analysis.
A *Banach limit* is a bounded linear functional $\Lambda$ on the space of bounded sequences of real numbers $\ell^\infty$ such that
1. $\Lambda((x_{n+1})_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}})=\Lambda((x_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}})$ (so it only depends on the sequence’s tail),
2. $\liminf_k x_k \le \Lambda\big((x_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}\big) \le \limsup_k x_k$
where $(x_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}=(x_1,x_2,\ldots)\in \ell^{\infty}$ and $(x_{n+1})_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}=(x_2,x_3,\ldots)$. Thus $\Lambda$ agrees with the limit on $c$, the subspace of sequences whose limit exists. Banach limits care peculiar objects!
The Hahn-Banach extension theorem can be used show the existence of Banach limits (see Sucheston [@SUCH] or [@BorVan Exercise 5.4.12]). Many of its earliest applications were to summability theory and related fields. We sketch Sucheston’s proof as follows.
\[banal\] *(See [@SUCH].)* Banach limits exist.
Let $c$ be the subspace of convergent sequences in $\ell^{\infty}$. Define $f:\ell^{\infty}\rightarrow{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:limit_Banach}
x:=(x_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}\mapsto\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left
(\sup_{j}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n x_{i+j}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Then $f$ is sublinear with full domain, since the limit in always exists (see [@SUCH p. 309]). Define $h$ on $c$ by $h:=\lim_n x_n$ for every $x:=(x_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}$ in $c$. Hence $h$ is linear and agrees with $f$ on $c$. Applying the Hahn-Banach extension Theorem \[Hahn-Banach\], there exists $\Lambda\in (\ell^{\infty})^*$, dominated by $f$, such that $\Lambda=h$ on $c$. Thus $\Lambda$ extends the limit linearly from $c$ to $\ell^{\infty}$. Let $S$ denote the forward shift defined as $S((x_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}):=(x_{n+1})_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}$. Note that $f(Sx-x)=0$, since $$|f(Sx-x)|=\left|\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(\sup_{j}\frac{1}{n}(x_{j+n+1}-x_{j+1})\right)\right|\leq\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{2}{n}\sup_j|x_j|=0.$$ Thus, $\Lambda(Sx)-\Lambda(x)=\Lambda(Sx-x) \le 0$, and $\Lambda(x)-\Lambda(Sx)=\Lambda(x-Sx)\leq f(x-Sx)=0;$ that is, $\Lambda$ is indeed a Banach limit.
One of the referees kindly pointed out that in the proof of Theorem \[banal\], the function $h$ can be simply defined by $h:\{0\}\rightarrow{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}$ with $ h(0)=0$.
*(See ([@BorVan Example 1.4.8].)* \[ex:pub\] Let $Y$ be another Banach space and $T_\alpha \colon X \to Y$ for $\alpha \in \mathcal A$ be bounded linear operators. Assume that $\sup_{\alpha \in A}\|T_\alpha(x)\| < +\infty$ for each $x$ in $X$. Then $\sup_{\alpha \in A}\|T_\alpha\| <+\infty.$
Define a function $f_A$ by $$f_A(x):=\sup_{\alpha \in
A}\|T_\alpha(x)\|$$ for each $x$ in $X$. Then, as observed in Fact \[basic-prin\]\[basic-prin:E1\], $f_A$ is convex. It is also lower semicontinuous since each mapping $x \mapsto \|T_\alpha(x)\|$ is continuous. Hence $f_A$ is a finite, lower semicontinuous and convex (actually sublinear) function. Now Fact \[basic-prin\]\[basic-prin:E4\] ensures $f_A$ is continuous at the origin. Select $\varepsilon >0$ with $\sup\{
f_A(x) \mid\|x\| \le \varepsilon\} \le 1+f_A(0)=1$. It follows that $$\sup_{\alpha \in A}\|T_\alpha\|=\sup_{\alpha \in A}\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\sup_{\|x\| \le
\varepsilon}\|T_\alpha(x)\|=\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\sup_{\|x\| \le \varepsilon}\sup_{\alpha \in
A}\|T_\alpha(x)\| \le \frac{1}{\varepsilon}.$$ Thus, uniform boundedness is revealed to be continuity of $f_A$.
The Chebyshev problem {#SecChev:1}
=====================
Let $C$ be a nonempty subset of $X$. We define the [*nearest point mapping*]{} by \[note:nearest-pt\] $$P_C(x) := \{v \in C \mid \|v - x\| = {\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}}}_C(x)\}.$$ A set $C$ is said to be a *Chebyshev set* if $P_C(x)$ is a singleton for every $x \in X$. If $P_C(x) \ne\varnothing$ for every $x \in X$, then $C$ is said to be [*proximal*]{}; the term [*proximinal*]{} is also used.
In 1961 Victor Klee [@K61] posed the following fundamental question: Is every Chebyshev set in a Hilbert space convex? At this stage, it is known that the answer is affirmative for weakly closed sets. In what follows we will present a proof of this fact via convex duality. To this end, we will make use of the following fairly simple lemma.
*(See [@BorVan Proposition 4.5.8].)* \[prop:reflexive-weakly-closed-Chebyshev\] Let $C$ be a weakly closed Chebyshev subset of a Hilbert space $H$. Then the nearest point mapping $P_C$ is continuous.
Let $C$ be a nonempty weakly closed subset of a Hilbert space $H$. Then $C$ is convex if and only if $C$ is a Chebyshev set.
For the direct implication, we will begin by proving that $C$ is proximal. We can and do suppose that $0\in C$. Pick any $x\in H$. Consider the convex and lsc functions $f(z):=-\langle x,z\rangle + \iota_{B_H}(z)$ and $g(z):=\sigma_C(z)$. Notice that $\bigcup_{\lambda>0} \lambda\left[{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}g - {\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f\right]=H$ (in fact $f$ is continuous at $0\in{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f\cap{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}g$). With the notation of Theorem \[thm:Fenchel-duality-fd\], one has $p=d$, and the supremum of the dual problem is attained if finite. Since $f^*(y)=\|x+y\|$ and $g^*(y)=\iota_{C}(y)$, as $C$ is closed, the dual problem takes the form $$d=\sup_{y\in H} \{-\|x+y\|-\iota_C(-y)\}=-{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}}}_C(x).$$ Choose any $c\in C$. Observe that $0\leq {\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}}}_C(x)\leq \|x-c\|$. Therefore the supremum must be attained, and $P_C(x)\neq\varnothing$. Uniqueness follows easily from the convexity of $C$.
For the converse, consider the function $f:=\frac{1}{2}\|\cdot\|^2+\iota_C$. We first show that $$\partial f^*(x) = \{P_C(x)\}, \ \mbox{for all}\ x \in H. \label{eq:Zal02-3.69}$$ Indeed, for $x \in H$, $$\begin{aligned}
f^*(x) &= \sup_{y\in C}\left\{\langle x,y \rangle-\frac{1}{2}\langle y,y\rangle \right \}\\
&= \frac{1}{2}\langle x,x\rangle + \frac{1}{2}\sup_{y\in C}\left\{-\langle x,x\rangle +2\langle x,y \rangle-\langle y,y\rangle\right \}\\
&= \frac{1}{2}\|x\|^2-\frac{1}{2}\inf_{y\in C}\|x-y\|^2=\frac{1}{2}\|x\|^2-\frac{1}{2}d^2_C(x)\\
&=\frac{1}{2} \|x\|^2 - \frac{1}{2} \|x - P_C(x)\|^2 = \langle x,P_C(x) \rangle -\frac{1}{2} \|P_C(x)\|^2 \\
&= \langle x,P_C(x) \rangle - f(P_C(x)).\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, by Proposition \[prop:Fenchel-Young-fd\], $P_C(x) \in \partial f^*(x)$ for $x \in X$. Now suppose $y \in \partial f^*(x)$, and define $x_n = x + \frac{1}{n} (y - P_C(x))$. Then $x_n \to x$, and hence $P_C(x_n) \to P_C(x)$ by Lemma \[prop:reflexive-weakly-closed-Chebyshev\]. Using the subdifferential inequality, we have $$0 \le \langle x_n - x, P_C(x_n) - y \rangle = \frac{1}{n} \langle y - P_C(x), P_C(x_n) - y \rangle.$$ This now implies: $$0 \le \lim_{n \to \infty} \langle y - P_C(x), P_C(x_n) - y\rangle = - \|y - P_C(x)\|^2.$$ Consequently, $y = P_C(x)$ and so (\[eq:Zal02-3.69\]) is established.
Since $f^*$ is continuous and we just proved that $\partial f^*$ is a singleton, Proposition \[GatPC\] implies that $f^*$ is Gâteaux differentiable. Now $-\infty < f^{**}(x)\leq f(x)=\frac{1}{2}\|x\|^2$ for all $x\in C$. Thus, $f^{**}$ is a proper function. One can easily check that $f$ is sequentially weakly lsc, $C$ being weakly closed. Therefore, Theorem \[th:convex\_conj\_suff\] implies that $f$ is convex; whence, ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f=C$ must be convex.
Observe that we have actually proved that *every Chebyshev set with a continuous projection mapping is convex* (and closed). We finish the section by recalling a simple but powerful “hidden convexity" result.
[(See [@BacBorw].)]{} Let $C$ be a closed subset of a Hilbert space $H$. Then there exists a continuous and convex function $f$ defined on $H$ such that ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}}}_C^2(x) =\|x\|^2-f(x),\,\forall x\in H$. Precisely, $f$ can be taken as $x\mapsto\sup_{c\in C}\{2\langle x,c\rangle-\|c\|^2\}$.
Monotone operator theory {#SecMon:1}
========================
Let $A\colon X\rightrightarrows X^*$ be a *set-valued operator* (also known as a relation, point-to-set mapping or multifunction), i.e., for every $x\in X$, $Ax\subseteq X^*$, and let ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}A :=
{\big\{{(x,x^*)\in X\times X^*} \mid {x^*\in Ax}\big\}}$ be the *graph* of $A$. The *domain* of $A$ is ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}A:= {\big\{{x\in X} \mid {Ax\neq\varnothing}\big\}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{ran}}}A:=A(X)$ is the *range* of $A$. We say that $A$ is *monotone* if $${\langle{{x-y},{x^*-y^*}}\rangle}\geq 0,\quad \text{for all } (x,x^*),(y,y^*)\in{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}A,$$ and *maximally monotone* if $A$ is monotone and $A$ has no proper monotone extension (in the sense of graph inclusion). Given $A$ monotone, we say that $(x,x^*)\in X\times X^*$ is *monotonically related to* ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}A$ if $$\begin{aligned}
\langle x-y,x^*-y^*\rangle\geq0,\quad\text{for all } (y,y^*)\in{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}A.\end{aligned}$$ Monotone operators have frequently shown themselves to be a key class of objects in both modern Optimization and Analysis; see, e.g., [@Bor1; @Bor2; @Bor3; @BY2], the books [@BC2011; @BorVan; @BurIus; @ph; @Si; @Si2; @RW-1998; @Zalinescu; @Zeidler2A; @Zeidler2B] and the references given therein.
Given sets $S\subseteq X$ and $D\subseteq X^*$, we define $S^\bot$ by $S^\bot := \{x^*\in X^*\mid\langle x^*,x\rangle= 0,\quad \forall
x\in S\}$ and $D_{\bot}$ by $D_\bot := \{x\in X\mid\langle
x,x^*\rangle= 0,\quad \forall x^*\in D\}$ [@PheSim]. Then the *adjoint* of $A$ is the operator $A^*:X^{**}\rightrightarrows
X^*$ such that $${\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}A^* :=
{\big\{{(x^{**},x^*)\in X^{**}\times X^*} \mid {(x^*,-x^{**})\in({\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}A)^{\bot}}\big\}}.$$ Note that the adjoint is always a *linear relation*, i.e. its graph is a linear subspace.
The *Fitzpatrick function* [@Fitz88] associated with an operator $A$ is the function $F_A:X\times X^* \to {\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{defFA}F_A(x, x^*):= \sup_{(a,a^*)\in{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}A}\Big( \langle x,a^*\rangle+\langle a,x^*\rangle-\langle a,a^*\rangle\Big).\end{aligned}$$ Fitzpatrick functions have been proved to be an important tool in modern monotone operator theory. One of the main reasons is shown in the following result.
*(See ([@Fitz88 Propositions 3.2&4.2, Theorem 3.4 and Corollary 3.9].)* \[f:Fitz\] Let $A\colon X{\ensuremath{\rightrightarrows}}X^*$ be monotone with ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}A\neq\varnothing$. Then $F_A$ is proper lower semicontinuous in the norm $\times$ weak$^{*}$-topology $\omega (X^{*}, X)$, convex, and $F_A=\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ on ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}A$. Moreover, if $A$ is maximally monotone, for every $(x,x^*)\in X\times X^*$, the inequality $${\langle{{x},{x^*}}\rangle}\leq F_A(x,x^*)\leq F^*_A(x^*,x)$$ is true, and the first equality holds if and only if $(x,x^*)\in{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}A$.
The next result is central to maximal monotone operator theory and algorithmic analysis. Originally it was proved by more extended direct methods than the concise convex analysis argument we present next.
*(See [@ph Theorem 2.2.8].)* \[pheps:11\]Let $A:X{\ensuremath{\rightrightarrows}}X^*$ be monotone with ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{int}}}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}A\neq\varnothing$. Then $A$ is locally bounded at $x\in{\ensuremath{\operatorname{int}}}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}A$, i.e., there exist $\delta>0$ and $K>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{y^*\in Ay}\|y^*\|\leq K,\quad \forall y\in x+\delta B_X.\end{aligned}$$
Let $x\in{\ensuremath{\operatorname{int}}}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}A$. After translating the graphs if necessary, we can and do suppose that $x=0$ and $(0,0)\in{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}A$. Define $f:X\rightarrow{\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
y\mapsto\sup_{(a,a^*)\in{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}A,\,\|a\|\leq1}\langle y-a, a^*\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ By Fact \[basic-prin\]\[basic-prin:E1\], $f$ is convex and lower semicontinuous. Since $0\in{\ensuremath{\operatorname{int}}}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}A$, there exists $\delta_1>0$ such that $\delta_1 B_X\subseteq{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}A$. Now we show that $
\delta_1 B_X\subseteq{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f$. Let $ y\in\delta_1 B_X$ and $y^*\in Ay$. Thence, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\langle y-a,y^*-a^*\rangle\geq0,\quad\forall (a,a^*)\in{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}A,\,\|a\|\leq1\\
&\Rightarrow \langle y-a,y^*\rangle\geq\langle y-a,a^*\rangle,\quad\forall (a,a^*)\in{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}A,\,\|a\|\leq1\\
&\Rightarrow +\infty >(\|y\|+1)\cdot\|y^*\|\geq\langle y-a,a^*\rangle,\quad\forall (a,a^*)\in{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}A,\,\|a\|\leq1\\
&\Rightarrow f(y)<+\infty\quad\Rightarrow y\in{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f.\end{aligned}$$ Hence $\delta_1 B_X\subseteq{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f$ and thus $0\in{\ensuremath{\operatorname{int}}}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f$. By Fact \[basic-prin\]\[basic-prin:E4\], there is $\delta>0$ with $\delta\leq\min\{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\delta_1\}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
f(y)\leq f(0)+1,\quad\forall y\in2\delta B_X.
\end{aligned}$$ Now we show that $f(0)=0$. Since $(0,0)\in{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}A$, then $f(0)\geq0$. On the other hand, by the monotonicity of $A$, $\langle a, a^*\rangle=\langle a-0, a^*-0\rangle\geq0$ for every $(a,a^*)\in{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}A$. Then we have $f(0)=\sup_{(a,a^*)\in{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}A,\,\|a\|\leq1}\langle 0-a, a^*\rangle\leq0$. Thence $f(0)=0$.
Thus, $$\langle y,a^*\rangle\leq \langle a, a^*\rangle+1,\quad\forall y\in2\delta B_X, (a,a^*)\in{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}A,\,
\|a\|\leq\delta,$$ whence, taking the supremum with $y\in2\delta B_X$, $$\begin{aligned}
&2\delta\|a^*\|\leq \|a\|\cdot\|a^*\|+1\leq \delta\|a^*\|+1,\quad \forall (a,a^*)\in{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}A,\,
a\in\delta B_X \\
&\Rightarrow\|a^*\|\leq\frac{1}{\delta},\quad\forall (a,a^*)\in{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}A,\,
a\in\delta B_X.
\end{aligned}$$ Setting $K:=\frac{1}{\delta}$, we get the desired result.
Generalizations of Theorem \[pheps:11\] can be found in [@Si2; @BorFitz] and [@BY3 Lemma 4.1].
Sum theorem and Minty surjectivity theorem
------------------------------------------
In the early 1960s, Minty [@Min62] presented an important characterization of maximally monotone operators in a Hilbert space; which we now reestablish. The proof we give of Theorem \[MonMinty\] is due to Simons and Z[ă]{}linescu [@SimZal Theorem 1.2]. We denote by ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Id}}}$ the *identity mapping* from $H$ to $H$.
\[MonMinty\] Suppose that $H$ is a Hilbert space. Let $A:H\rightrightarrows H$ be monotone. Then $A$ is maximally monotone if and only if ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{ran}}}(A+{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Id}}})=H$.
“$\Rightarrow$": Fix any $x^*_0\in H$, and let $B:H\rightrightarrows H$ be given by ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}B:= {\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}A-\{(0,x^*_0)\}$. Then $B$ is maximally monotone. Define $F:H\times H\rightarrow{\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
(x, x^*)\mapsto F_B(x,x^*)+\frac{1}{2}\|x||^2+\frac{1}{2}\|x^*||^2.\end{aligned}$$ Fact \[f:Fitz\] together with Fact \[basic-prin\]\[basic-prin:E5\] implies that $F$ is coercive. By [@Zalinescu Theorem 2.5.1(ii)], $F$ has a minimizer. Assume that $(z, z^*)\in H\times H$ is a minimizer of $F$. Then we have $(0,0)\in \partial F(z,z^*)$. Thus, $ (0,0)\in
\partial F_B(z,z^*)+(z,z^*) $ and $(-z,-z^*)\in \partial F_B(z,z^*)$. Then $$\big\langle (-z,-z^*), (b,b^*)-(z,z^*)\big\rangle\leq
F_B(b,b^*)-F_B(z,z^*),\quad\forall (b,b^*)\in{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}B,$$ and by Fact \[f:Fitz\], $$\big\langle (-z,-z^*), (b,b^*)-(z,z^*)\big\rangle\leq
\langle b,b^*\rangle-\langle z,z^*\rangle,\quad\forall
(b,b^*)\in{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}B;$$ that is, $$0\leq
\langle b,b^*\rangle-\langle z,z^*\rangle+\langle z,b\rangle+\langle z^*,b^*\rangle-\|z\|^2-\|z^*\|^2,\quad\forall (b,b^*)\in{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}B.\label{Mint:1}$$ Hence, $$\big\langle b+z^*, b^*+z\big\rangle=\langle b,b^*\rangle+\langle z,b\rangle+\langle z^*,b^*\rangle+\langle z,z^*\rangle\geq\|z+z^*\|^2\geq 0,\quad\forall (b,b^*)\in{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}B,$$ which implies that $(-z^*,-z)\in{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}B$, since $B$ is maximally monotone. This combined with implies $0\leq -2
\langle z,z^*\rangle-\|z\|^2-\|z^*\|^2$. Then we have $z=-z^* $, and $(z,-z)=(-z^*,-z)\in{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}B$, whence $(z,-z)+(0,x^*_0)\in{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}A$. Therefor $x^*_0\in Az+z$, which implies $x^*_0\in{\ensuremath{\operatorname{ran}}}(A+{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Id}}})$.
“$\Leftarrow$": Let $(v,v^*)\in H\times H$ be monotonically related to ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}A$. Since ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{ran}}}(A+{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Id}}})=H$, there exists $(y,y^*)\in{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}A$ such that $v^*+v=y^*+y$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
-\|v-y\|^2=
\big\langle v-y, y^*+y-v-y^*\big\rangle=
\big\langle v-y, v^*-y^*\big\rangle\geq0.\end{aligned}$$ Hence $v=y$, which also implies $v^*=y^*$. Thus $(v,v^*)\in{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}A$, and therefore $A$ is maximally monotone.
The extension of Minty’s theorem to reflexive spaces (in which case it asserts the surjectivity of $A+J_X$ for the normalized duality mapping $J_X$ defined below) was originally proved by Rockafellar. The proof given in [@BorVan Proposition 3.5.6, page 119] which uses Fenchel’s duality theorem more directly than the one we gave here, is only slightly more complicated than that of Theorem \[MonMinty\].
Let $A$ and $B$ be maximally monotone operators from $X$ to $X^*$. Clearly, the *sum operator* $A+B\colon X{\ensuremath{\rightrightarrows}}X^*\colon x\mapsto
Ax+Bx: = {\big\{{a^*+b^*} \mid {a^*\in Ax\;\text{and}\;b^*\in Bx}\big\}}$ is monotone. Rockafellar established the following important result in 1970 [@Rock70], the so-called “sum theorem”: Suppose that $X$ is reflexive. If ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}A\cap{\ensuremath{\operatorname{int}}}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}B\neq\varnothing$, then $A+B$ is maximally monotone. We can weaken this constraint qualification to be that $\bigcup_{\lambda>0} \lambda\left[{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}A-{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}B\right]$ is a closed subspace (see [@AttRiaThe; @Si2; @SiZ; @BorVan; @AlDa]).
We turn to a new proof of this generalized result. To this end, we need the following fact along with the definition of the partial inf-convolution. Given two real Banach spaces $X,Y$ and $F_1,
F_2\colon X\times Y\rightarrow{\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$, the *partial inf-convolution* $F_1\Box_2 F_2$ is the function defined on $X\times
Y$ by $$F_1\Box_2 F_2\colon
(x,y)\mapsto \inf_{v\in Y} \big\{F_1(x,y-v)+F_2(x,v)\big\}.$$.
*(See [@SiZ Theorem 4.2] or [@Si2 Theorem 16.4(a)].)*\[F4\] Let $X, Y$ be real Banach spaces and $F_1, F_2\colon X\times Y \to {\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$ be proper lower semicontinuous and convex bifunctionals. Assume that for every $(x,y)\in X\times Y$, $$(F_1\Box_2 F_2)(x,y)>-\infty$$ and that $\bigcup_{\lambda>0} \lambda\left[P_X{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}F_1-P_X{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}F_2\right]$ is a closed subspace of $X$. Then for every $(x^*,y^*)\in X^*\times Y^*$, $$(F_1\Box_2 F_2)^*(x^*,y^*)=\min_{u^*\in X^*}
\left\{F_1^*(x^*-u^*,y^*)+F_2^*(u^*,y^*)\right\}.$$
We denote by $J_X$ *the duality map* from $X$ to $X^*$, which will be simply written as $J$, i.e., the subdifferential of the function $\tfrac{1}{2}\|\cdot\|^2$. Let $F\colon X\times
Y\rightarrow{\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$ be a bifunctional defined on two real Banach spaces. Following the notation by Penot [@Penot2] we set $$F^\intercal\colon Y\times X\colon (y,x)\mapsto F(x,y).$$
\[MonSum1\] Suppose that $X$ is reflexive. Let $A, B:X\rightrightarrows X$ be maximally monotone. Assume that $\bigcup_{\lambda>0}
\lambda\left[{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}A-{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}B\right]$ is a closed subspace. Then $A+B$ is maximally monotone.
Clearly, $A+B$ is monotone. Assume that $(z,z^*)\in X\times X^*$ is monotonically related to ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}(A+B)$.
Let $F_1:=F_A\Box_2 F_B$, and $F_2:=F_1^{*\intercal}$. By [@BWY3 Lemma 5.8], $\bigcup_{\lambda>0} \lambda\left[P_X({\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}F_A)-P_X({\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}F_B)\right]$ is a closed subspace. Then Fact \[F4\] implies that $$\begin{aligned}
F_1^*(x^*,x)=\min_{u^*\in X^*}
\left\{F_A^*(x^*-u^*,x)+F_B^*(u^*,x)\right\},\quad\text{for all } (x,x^*)\in X\times X^*.\label{monSum:e2}\end{aligned}$$ Set $G:X\times X^*\rightarrow{\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
(x,x^*)\mapsto F_2(x+z,x^*+z^*)-\langle x, z^*\rangle-\langle z, x^*\rangle
+\frac{1}{2}\|x\|^2+\frac{1}{2}\|x^*\|^2.\end{aligned}$$ Assume that $(x_0, x_0^*)\in X\times X^*$ is a minimizer of $G$. ([@Zalinescu Theorem 2.5.1(ii)] implies that minimizers exist since $G$ is coercive). Then we have $(0,0)\in \partial G(x_0,
x_0^*)$. Thus, there exists $v^*\in Jx_0, v\in J_{X^*}x_0^* $ such that $(0,0)\in \partial F_2(x_0+z,x^*_0+z^*)+(v^*,v )+(-z^*,-z) $, and then $$\begin{aligned}
(z^*-v^*,z-v)\in \partial F_2(x_0+z,x^*_0+z^*).\end{aligned}$$ Thence $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\langle(z^*-v^*,z-v),(x_0+z,x^*_0+z^*)\Big\rangle =F_2(x_0+z,x^*_0+z^*)+F^*_2(z^*-v^*,z-v).\label{monSum:e5}\end{aligned}$$ Fact \[f:Fitz\] and show that $$\begin{aligned}
F_2\geq\langle \cdot,\cdot\rangle,\quad F_2^{*\intercal}=\overline{F_1}\geq\langle \cdot,\cdot\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Then by , $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\langle(z^*-v^*,z-v),(x_0+z,x^*_0+z^*)\Big\rangle &=F_2(x_0+z,x^*_0+z^*)+F^*_2(z^*-v^*,z-v)\nonumber\\
&\geq \big\langle x_0+z,x^*_0+z^*\big\rangle +\big\langle z^*-v^*,z-v\big\rangle.\label{monSum:e5b}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, since $v^*\in Jx_0, v\in J_{X^*}x_0^*$, $$\begin{aligned}
0\leq\delta&:=\Big\langle(z^*-v^*,z-v),(x_0+z,x^*_0+z^*)\Big\rangle
-\big\langle x_0+z,x^*_0+z^*\big\rangle -\big\langle z^*-v^*,z-v\big\rangle \\
&=\big\langle -x_0-v,x^*_0+v^*\big\rangle = \langle -x_0,x^*_0\rangle-\langle x_0,v^*\rangle-\langle v,x^*_0\rangle -\langle v,v^*\rangle\\
&=\langle -x_0,x^*_0\rangle -\frac{1}{2}\|x_0^*\|^2-\frac{1}{2}\|x_0\|^2-\frac{1}{2}\|v^*\|^2-\frac{1}{2}\|v\|^2-\langle v,v^*\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ which implies $$\delta=0\quad\text{and}\quad\langle x_0,x^*_0\rangle +\frac{1}{2}\|x_0^*\|^2+\frac{1}{2}\|x_0\|^2=0;$$ that is, $$\delta=0\quad\text{and}\quad x^*_0\in -Jx_0.\label{monSum:e6}$$ Combining and , we have $F_2(x_0+z,x^*_0+z^*)=
\big\langle x_0+z,x^*_0+z^*\big\rangle$. By and Fact \[f:Fitz\], $$\begin{aligned}
(x_0+z,x^*_0+z^*)\in{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}(A+B).\label{monSum:e7}\end{aligned}$$ Since $(z,z^*)$ is monotonically related to ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}(A+B)$, it follows from that $$\big\langle x_0,x^*_0\big\rangle=\big\langle x_0+z-z,x^*_0+z^*-z^*\big\rangle\geq0,$$ and then by , $$-\|x_0\|^2=-\|x^*_0\|^2\geq0,$$ whence $(x_0, x^*_0)=(0,0)$. Finally, by , one deduces that $(z,z^*)\in {\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}(A+B)$ and $A+B$ is maximally monotone.
It is still unknown whether the reflexivity condition can be omitted in Theorem \[MonSum1\] though many partial results exist, see [@Bor2; @Bor3] and [@BorVan §9.7].
Autoconjugate functions {#sec:main}
-----------------------
Given $F\colon X\times X^*\rightarrow{\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$, we say that $F$ is *autoconjugate* if $F=F^{*\intercal}$ on $X\times X^*$. We say $F$ is a *representer* for ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}A$ if $${\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}A=\big\{(x,x^*)\in X\times X^*\mid F(x,x ^*)=\langle x, x^*\rangle\big\}.$$ Autoconjugate functions are the core of representer theory, which has been comprehensively studied in Optimization and Partial Differential Equations (see [@BW09; @BWY3; @PenotZ; @Si2; @BorVan; @Ghou]).
Fitzpatrick posed the following question in [@Fitz88 Problem 5.5]:
> *If $A:X\rightrightarrows X^*$ is maximally monotone, does there necessarily exist an autoconjugate representer for A*?
Bauschke and Wang gave an affirmative answer to the above question in reflexive spaces by construction of the function $\mathcal{B}_A$ in Fact \[GFF:1\]. The first construction of an autoconjugate representer for a maximally monotone operator satisfying a mild constraint qualification in a reflexive space was provided by Penot and Zălinescu in [@PenotZ]. This naturally raises a question:
> Is $\mathcal{B}_A$ still an autoconjugate representer for a maximally monotone operator $A$ in a general Banach space?
We give a negative answer to the above question in Example \[FPEX:au1\]: in certain spaces, $\mathcal{B}_A$ fails to be autoconjugate.
*(See [@BW09 Theorem 5.7].)* \[GFF:1\] Suppose that $X$ is reflexive. Let $A\colon X{\ensuremath{\rightrightarrows}}X^*$ be maximally monotone. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{B}_A \colon X\times X^*&\to {\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}\nonumber\\
(x,x^*)&\mapsto
\inf_{(y,y^*)\in X\times X^* }\Big\{
\tfrac{1}{2}F_A(x+y,x^*+y^*)+
\tfrac{1}{2}F^{*\intercal}_A(x-y,x^*-y^*)+\tfrac{1}{2}\|y\|^2
+\tfrac{1}{2}\|y^*\|^2\Big\} \label{e:GFF:1}\end{aligned}$$ is an autoconjugate representer for $A$.
We will make use of the following result to prove Theorem \[Theoauc:1\] below.
\[Sduu:1\]*(See [@Si2 Corollary 10.4].)* Let $f_1, f_2, g\colon X\rightarrow {\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$ be proper convex. Assume that $g$ is continuous at a point of ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f_1
-{\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}f_2$. Suppose that $$\begin{aligned}
h(x):=\inf_{z\in X}\left\{\tfrac{1}{2} f_1(x+z)+\tfrac{1}{2} f_2(x-z)+\tfrac{1}{4}g(2z)\right\}>-\infty,\quad\forall x\in X.\end{aligned}$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
h^*(x^*)=\min_{z^*\in X^*}\left\{\tfrac{1}{2} f^*_1(x^*+z^*)+\tfrac{1}{2} f^*_2(x^*-z^*)+\tfrac{1}{4}g^*(-2z^*)\right\},\quad\forall x^*\in X^*.\end{aligned}$$
Let $A:X\rightrightarrows X^*$ be a linear relation. We say that $A$ is *skew* if ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}A \subseteq {\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}(-A^*)$; equivalently, if $\langle x,x^*\rangle=0,\; \forall (x,x^*)\in{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}A$. Furthermore, $A$ is *symmetric* if ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}A
\subseteq{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}A^*$; equivalently, if ${\langle{{x},{y^*}}\rangle}={\langle{{y},{x^*}}\rangle}$, $\forall (x,x^*),(y,y^*)\in{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}A$. We define the *symmetric part* and the *skew part* of $A$ via $$\label{Fee:1}
P := {\ensuremath{\tfrac{1}{2}}}A + {\ensuremath{\tfrac{1}{2}}}A^* \quad\text{and}\quad
S:= {\ensuremath{\tfrac{1}{2}}}A - {\ensuremath{\tfrac{1}{2}}}A^*,$$ respectively. It is easy to check that $P$ is symmetric and that $S$ is skew.
*(See [@BBWY3 Theorem 3.7].)* \[PBABD:2\] Let $A: X^*\rightarrow X^{**}$ be linear and continuous. Assume that ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{ran}}}A \subseteq X$ and that there exists $e\in X^{**}\backslash X$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\langle Ax^*,x^*\rangle=\langle e,x^*\rangle^2,\quad \forall x^*\in X^*.\end{aligned}$$ Let $ P$ and $S$ respectively be the symmetric part and skew part of $A$. Let $T:X\rightrightarrows X^*$ be defined by $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}T&:=\big\{(-Sx^*,x^*)\mid x^*\in X^*, \langle e, x^*\rangle=0\big\}
=\big\{(-Ax^*,x^*)\mid x^*\in X^*, \langle e, x^*\rangle=0\big\}.\label{PBABA:a1}\end{aligned}$$ Then the following hold.
1. \[PBAB:em01\] $A$ is a maximally monotone operator on $X^*$ .
2. \[PBAB:emmaz1\] $Px^*=\langle x^*,e\rangle e,\ \forall x^*\in X^*.$
3. \[PBAB:em1\] $T$ is maximally monotone and skew on $X$.
4. \[PBAB:emma1\] ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}T^*=\{(Sx^*+re,x^*)\mid x^*\in X^*,\ r\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}\}$.
5. \[PBAB:em2\] $F_T=\iota_C$, where $
C:=\{(-Ax^*,x^*)\mid x^*\in X^*\}$.
We next give concrete examples of $A,T$ as in Fact \[PBABD:2\].
\[FPEX:1\][(See [@BBWY3 Example 4.1].)]{} Let $X: = c_0$, with norm $\|\cdot\|_{\infty}$ so that $X^* = \ell^1$ with norm $\|\cdot\|_{1}$, and $X^{**}=\ell^{\infty}$ with its second dual norm $\|\cdot\|_{*}$ (i.e., $\|y\|_{*}:=\sup_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}|y_n|,\, \forall
y:=(y_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}\in \ell^{\infty}$). Fix $\alpha:=(\alpha_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}\in\ell^{\infty}$ with $\limsup
\alpha_n\neq0$, and let $A_{\alpha}:\ell^1\rightarrow\ell^{\infty}$ be defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def:Aa}
(A_{\alpha}x^*)_n:=\alpha^2_nx^*_n+2\sum_{i>n}\alpha_n \alpha_ix^*_i,
\quad \forall x^*=(x^*_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}\in\ell^1.\end{aligned}$$ Now let $ P_{\alpha}$ and $S_{\alpha}$ respectively be the symmetric part and skew part of $A_{\alpha}$. Let $T_{\alpha}:c_{0}\rightrightarrows X^*$ be defined by $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}T_{\alpha}&
:=\big\{(-S_{\alpha} x^*,x^*)\mid x^*\in X^*,
\langle \alpha, x^*\rangle=0\big\}
=\big\{(-A_{\alpha} x^*,x^*)\mid x^*\in X^*,
\langle \alpha, x^*\rangle=0\big\}\nonumber\\
&=\big\{\big((-\sum_{i>n}
\alpha_n \alpha_ix^*_i+\sum_{i<n}\alpha_n \alpha_ix^*_i)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}, x^*\big)
\mid x^*\in X^*, \langle \alpha, x^*\rangle=0\big\}.\label{PBABA:Eac1}\end{aligned}$$ Then
1. \[BCCE:A01\] $\langle A_{\alpha}x^*,x^*\rangle=\langle \alpha , x^*\rangle^2,
\quad \forall x^*=(x^*_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}\in\ell^1$ and is well defined.
2. \[BCCE:SA01\] $A_{\alpha}$ is a maximally monotone.
3. \[BCCE:A1\] $T_{\alpha}$ is a maximally monotone operator.
4. \[BCCE:A6\] Let $G:\ell^1\rightarrow\ell^{\infty} $ be *Gossez’s operator* [@Gossez1] defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\big(G(x^*)\big)_n:=\sum_{i>n}x^*_i-
\sum_{i<n}x^*_i,\quad \forall(x^*_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}\in\ell^1.\end{aligned}$$ Then $T_e: c_0{\ensuremath{\rightrightarrows}}\ell^1$ as defined by $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}T_e:=\{(-G(x^*),x^*)\mid x^*\in\ell^1, \langle x^*, e\rangle=0\}\end{aligned}$$ is a maximally monotone operator, where $e:=(1,1,\ldots,1,\ldots)$.[$\Diamond$]{}
We may now show that $ \mathcal{B}_T$ need not be autoconjugate.
\[Theoauc:1\] Let $A: X^*\rightarrow X^{**}$ be linear and continuous. Assume that ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{ran}}}A \subseteq X$ and that there exists $e\in X^{**}\backslash X$ such that $\|e\|<\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\langle Ax^*,x^*\rangle=\langle e,x^*\rangle^2,\quad \forall x^*\in X^*.\end{aligned}$$ Let $ P$ and $S$ respectively be the symmetric part and skew part of $A$. Let $T, C$ be defined as in Fact \[PBABD:2\]. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{B}_T(-Aa^*, a^*)>\mathcal{B}^*_T( a^*,-Aa^*),\quad\forall a^*\notin\{e\}_{\bot}.
\end{aligned}$$ In consequence, $ \mathcal{B}_T$ is not autoconjugate.
First we claim that $$\begin{aligned}
\iota_C^{*\intercal}|_{X\times X^*}=\iota_{{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}T}.\label{autoNW:1}\end{aligned}$$ Clearly, if we set $D:=\{(A^*x^*, x^*)\mid x^*\in X^*\}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\iota^{*\intercal}_C=\sigma_C^{\intercal}=\iota_{C^{\bot}}^{\intercal}=\iota_D,\label{autoNW:2}\end{aligned}$$ where in the second equality we use the fact that $C$ is a subspace. Additionally, $$\begin{aligned}
A^*x^*\in X&\Leftrightarrow (S+P)^*x^*\in X\Leftrightarrow
S^*x^*+P^*x^*\in X\Leftrightarrow -Sx^*+Px^*\in X\nonumber\\
&\Leftrightarrow -Sx^*-Px^*+2Px^*\in X
\Leftrightarrow 2Px^*-Ax^*\in X
\Leftrightarrow Px^*\in X\quad\text{(since ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{ran}}}A\subseteq X$)}\nonumber\\
&\Leftrightarrow \langle x^*,e\rangle e\in X\quad\text{(by Fact~\ref{PBABD:2}\ref{PBAB:emmaz1})}\nonumber\\
&\Leftrightarrow \langle x^*,e\rangle=0\quad\text{(since $e\notin X$)}.\label{autoNW:3}\end{aligned}$$ Observe that $Px^*=0$ for all $x^*\in\{e\}_{\bot}$ by Fact \[PBABD:2\]\[PBAB:emmaz1\]. Thus, $A^* x^*=-Ax^*$ for all $x^*\in\{e\}_{\bot}$. Combining and , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\iota^{*\intercal}_C|_{X\times X^*}=\iota_{D\cap(X\times X^*)}=\iota_{{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}T},\end{aligned}$$ and hence holds.
Let $a^*\notin\{e\}_{\bot}$. Then $\langle a^*,e\rangle\neq0$. Now we compute $\mathcal{B}_T(-Aa^*, a^*)$. By Fact \[PBABD:2\]\[PBAB:em2\] and , $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathcal{B}_T(-Aa^*, a^*)\nonumber\\
&=\inf_{(y,y^*)\in X\times X^* }\left\{
\iota_C(-Aa^*+y, a^*+y^*)+
\iota_{{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}T}(-Aa^*-y,a^*-y^*)+\tfrac{1}{2}\|y\|^2
+\tfrac{1}{2}\|y^*\|^2\right\}.\label{autoNW:4}\end{aligned}$$ Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{B}_T(-Aa^*, a^*)
&=\inf_{y=-Ay^* }\left\{
\iota_{{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}T}(-Aa^*-y,a^*-y^*)+\tfrac{1}{2}\|y\|^2
+\tfrac{1}{2}\|y^*\|^2\right\}\nonumber\\
&=\inf_{y=-Ay^*,\,\langle a^*-y^*,e\rangle=0 }\left\{
\tfrac{1}{2}\|y\|^2
+\tfrac{1}{2}\|y^*\|^2\right\}=\inf_{\langle a^*-y^*,e\rangle=0 }\left\{
\tfrac{1}{2}\|Ay^*\|^2
+\tfrac{1}{2}\|y^*\|^2\right\}\nonumber\\
&\geq\inf_{\langle a^*-y^*,e\rangle=0 }\langle Ay^*,y^*\rangle=\inf_{\langle a^*-y^*,e\rangle=0 }\langle e,y^*\rangle^2\nonumber\\
&=\langle e,a^*\rangle^2.
\label{autoNW:5}\end{aligned}$$ Next we will compute $\mathcal{B}^*_T( a^*,-Aa^*)$. By Fact \[Sduu:1\] and , we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathcal{B}^*_T( a^*,-Aa^*)\nonumber\\
&=\min_{(y^*,y^{**})\in X^*\times X^{**} }\left\{
\frac{1}{2}\iota^*_C( a^*+y^*,-Aa^*+y^{**})+
\frac{1}{2}\iota^*_{{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}T}(a^*-y^*,-Aa^*-y^{**})+\tfrac{1}{2}\|y^{**}\|^2
+\tfrac{1}{2}\|y^*\|^2\right\}\nonumber\\
&=\min_{(y^*,y^{**})\in X^*\times X^{**} }\left\{
\iota_{D}( -Aa^*+y^{**}, a^*+y^*)+
\iota_{({\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}T)^{\bot}}(a^*-y^*,-Aa^*-y^{**})+\tfrac{1}{2}\|y^{**}\|^2
+\tfrac{1}{2}\|y^*\|^2\right\}\quad\text{(by \eqref{autoNW:2})}\nonumber\\
&\leq\iota_{D}( -Aa^*+2Pa^*, a^*)+
\iota_{({\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}T)^{\bot}}(a^*,-Aa^*-2Pa^*)+\tfrac{1}{2}\|2Pa^*\|^2\quad\text{(by taking $y^*=0, y^{**}=2Pa^*$)}\nonumber\\
&=
\iota_{{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}(-T^*)}(-Aa^*-2Pa^*,a^*)+\tfrac{1}{2}\|2Pa^*\|^2\nonumber\\
&=\tfrac{1}{2}\|2Pa^*\|^2\quad\text{(by Fact~\ref{PBABD:2}\ref{PBAB:emma1})}\nonumber\\
&=\tfrac{1}{2}\|2\langle a^*,e\rangle e\|^2\quad\text{(by Fact~\ref{PBABD:2}\ref{PBAB:emmaz1})}\nonumber\\
&=2\langle a^*,e\rangle^2\| e\|^2.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ This inequality along with , $\langle e,
a^*\rangle\neq0$ and $\|e\|<\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$, yield $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{B}_T(-Aa^*, a^*)\geq \langle e,a^*\rangle^2>2\langle a^*,e\rangle^2\| e\|^2\geq\mathcal{B}^*_T( a^*,-Aa^*),\quad\forall a^*\notin\{e\}_{\bot}.
\end{aligned}$$ Hence $ \mathcal{B}_T$ is not autoconjugate.
\[FPEX:au1\] Let $X: = c_0$, with norm $\|\cdot\|_{\infty}$ so that $X^* = \ell^1$ with norm $\|\cdot\|_{1}$, and $X^{**}=\ell^{\infty}$ with its second dual norm $\|\cdot\|_{*}$. Fix $\alpha:=(\alpha_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}\in\ell^{\infty}$ with $\limsup
\alpha_n\neq0$ and $\|\alpha\|_{*}<\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$, and let $A_{\alpha}:\ell^1\rightarrow\ell^{\infty}$ be defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def:Aa}
(A_{\alpha}x^*)_n:=\alpha^2_nx^*_n+2\sum_{i>n}\alpha_n \alpha_ix^*_i,
\quad \forall x^*=(x^*_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}\in\ell^1.\end{aligned}$$ Now let $ P_{\alpha}$ and $S_{\alpha}$ respectively be the symmetric part and skew part of $A_{\alpha}$. Let $T_{\alpha}:c_{0}\rightrightarrows X^*$ be defined by $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}T_{\alpha}&
:=\big\{(-S_{\alpha} x^*,x^*)\mid x^*\in X^*,
\langle \alpha, x^*\rangle=0\big\}
=\big\{(-A_{\alpha} x^*,x^*)\mid x^*\in X^*,
\langle \alpha, x^*\rangle=0\big\}\nonumber\\
&=\big\{\big((-\sum_{i>n}
\alpha_n \alpha_ix^*_i+\sum_{i<n}\alpha_n \alpha_ix^*_i)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}, x^*\big)
\mid x^*\in X^*, \langle \alpha, x^*\rangle=0\big\}.\label{PBABA:Ea1}\end{aligned}$$ Then, by Example \[FPEX:1\] and Theorem \[Theoauc:1\], $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{B}_{T_{\alpha}}(-Aa^*, a^*)>\mathcal{B}^*_{T_{\alpha}}( a^*,-Aa^*),\quad\forall a^*\notin\{e\}_{\bot}.
\end{aligned}$$ In consequence, $ \mathcal{B}_{T_{\alpha}}$ is not autoconjugate.[$\Diamond$]{}
The latter raises a very interesting question:
Is there a maximally monotone operator on some (resp. every) non-reflexive Banach space that has no autoconjugate representer?
The Fitzpatrick function and differentiability
----------------------------------------------
The *Fitzpatrick function* introduced in [@Fitz88] was discovered precisely to provide a more transparent convex alternative to the earlier saddle function construction due to Krauss [@BorVan]—we have not discussed saddle-functions but they produce interesting maximally monotone operators [@Rock70 §33 & §37]. At the time, Fitzpatrick’s interests were more centrally in the differentiation theory for convex functions and monotone operators.
The search for results relating when a maximally monotone $T$ is single-valued to differentiability of $F_T$ did not yield fruit, and he put the function aside. This is still the one area where to the best of our knowledge $F_T$ has proved of very little help—in part because generic properties of ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}F_T$ and of ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{dom}}}(T)$ seem poorly related.
That said, monotone operators often provide efficient ways to prove differentiability of convex functions. The discussion of Mignot’s theorem in[@BorVan] is somewhat representative of how this works as is the treatment in [@ph]. By contrast, as we have seen the Fitzpatrick function and its relatives now provide the easiest access to a gamut of solvability and boundedness results.
Other results {#Sec:Other}
=============
Renorming results: Asplund averaging
------------------------------------
Edgar Asplund [@Asplund] showed how to exploit convex analysis to provide remarkable results on the existence of equivalent norms with nice properties. Most optimizers are unaware of his lovely idea which we recast in the language of inf-convolution. Our development is a reworking of that in Day [@DayBook]. Let us start with two equivalent norms $\|\cdot\|_1$ and $\|\cdot\|_2$ on a Banach space $X$. We consider the quadratic forms $p_0:=\|\cdot\|_1^2/2$ and $q_0:=\|\cdot\|_2^2/2$, and average for $n\geq0$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sumn} p_{n+1}(x):=\frac{p_n(x)+q_n(x)}{2}\mbox{~and~}
q_{n+1}(x):=\frac{(p_n \Box q_n)(2x)}2.\end{aligned}$$ Let $C>0$ be such that $q_0\leq p_0\leq (1+C)q_0$. By the construction of $p_n$ and $q_n$, we have $q_n\leq p_n\leq
(1+4^{-n}C)q_n$ ([@Asplund Lemma]) and so the sequences $(p_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}$, $(q_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}$ converge to a common limit: a convex quadratic function $p$.
We shall show that the norm $\|\cdot\|_3:=\sqrt{2p}$ typically inherits the good properties of both $\|\cdot\|_1$ and $\|\cdot\|_2$. This is based on the following fairly straightforward result.
*(See [@Asplund Theorem 1].)*\[RenTh:1\] If either $p_0$ or $q_0$ is strictly convex, so is $p$.
We make a very simple application in the case that $X$ is reflexive. In [@LiDES1], Lindenstrauss showed that every reflexive Banach space has an equivalent strictly convex norm. The reader may consult [@BorVan Chapter 4] for more general results. Now take $\|\cdot\|_1$ to be an equivalent strictly convex norm on $X$, and take $\|\cdot\|_2$ to be an equivalent smooth norm with its dual norm on $X^*$ strictly convex. Theorem \[RenTh:1\] shows that $p$ is strictly convex. We note that by Corollary \[infc\] and Fact \[lem:conjugate-convo\] $$q_{n+1}^*(x^*):=\frac{q_n^*(x^*)+q_n(x^*)}{2}\mbox{~ and~}p_{n+1}^*(x^*):=\frac{(p_n^* \Box q_n^*)(2x^*)}2$$ so that Theorem \[RenTh:1\] applies to $p_0^*$ and $q_0^*$. Hence $p^*$ is strictly convex (see also [@Diestel Proof of Corollary 1, page 111]). Hence $\|\cdot\|_3(:=\sqrt{2p})$ and its dual norm ($:=\sqrt{2p^*}$) are equivalent strictly convex norms on $X$ and $X^*$ respectively.
Hence $\|\cdot\|_3$ is an equivalent strictly convex and smooth norm (since its dual is strictly convex). The existence of such a norm was one ingredient of Rockafellar’s first proof of the Sum theorem.
Resolvents of maximally monotone operators and connection with convex functions
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is well known since Minty, Rockafellar, and Bertsekas-Eckstein that in Hilbert spaces, monotone operators can be analyzed from the alternative viewpoint of certain nonexpansive (and thus Lipschitz continuous) mappings, more precisely, the so-called resolvents. Given a Hilbert space $H$ and a set-valued operator $A\colon
H\rightrightarrows H$, the *resolvent* of $A$ is $$J_A:=({\ensuremath{\operatorname{Id}}}+A)^{-1}.$$ The history of this notion goes back to Minty [@Min62] (in Hilbert spaces) and Brezis, Crandall and Pazy [@BCP70] (in Banach spaces). There exist more general notions of resolvents based on different tools, such as the normalized duality mapping, the Bregman distance or other maximally monotone operators (see [@KT-2008; @AB-1997; @BWY-2010]). For more details on resolvents on Hilbert spaces see [@BC2011].
The Minty surjectivity theorem (Theorem \[MonMinty\] [@Min62]) implies that a monotone operator is maximally monotone if and only if the resolvent is single-valued with full domain. In fact, a classical result due to Eckstein-Bertsekas [@EB-1992] says even more. Recall that a mapping $T:H\to H$ is *firmly nonexpansive* if for all $x,y\in H$, $\|Tx-Ty\|\leq \langle Tx-ty,x-y\rangle$.
\[thm:maxmon-firmnonexp\] Let $H$ be a Hilbert space. An operator $A\colon H\rightrightarrows
H$ is (maximal) monotone if and only if $J_A$ is firmly nonexpansive (with full domain).
Given a closed convex set $C\subseteq H$, the normal cone operator of $C$, $N_C$, is a maximally monotone operator whose resolvent can be proved to be the metric projection onto $C$. Therefore, Theorem \[thm:maxmon-firmnonexp\] implies the firm nonexpansivity of the metric projection.[$\Diamond$]{}
In the particular case when $A$ is the subdifferential of a possibly non-differentiable convex function in a Hilbert space, whose maximal monotonicity was established by Moreau [@M65] (in Banach spaces this is due to Rockafellar [@R-1970], see also [@BZ05; @BorVan]), the resolvent turns into the proximal mapping in the following sense of Moreau. If $f:H\to {\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$ is a lower semicontinuous convex function defined on a Hilbert space $H$, the *proximal or proximity* mapping is the operator ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{prox}}}_f : H\to H$ defined by $${\ensuremath{\operatorname{prox}}}_f(x):=\underset{y\in H}{\textrm{argmin}}\left\{f(y)+\frac{1}{2}\|x-y\|^2\right\}.$$ This mapping is well-defined because $\textrm{prox}_f(x)$ exists and is unique for all $x\in H$. Moreover, there exists the following subdifferential characterization: $u = \textrm{prox}_f(x)$ if and only if $x-u\in\partial f(u)$.
*Moreau’s decomposition* in terms of the proximal mapping is a powerful nonlinear analysis tool in the Hilbert setting that has been used in various areas of optimization and applied mathematics. Moreau established his decomposition motivated by problems in unilateral mechanics. It can be proved readily by using the conjugate and subdifferential.
Given a lower semicontinuous convex function $f:H\to {\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$, for all $x\in H$, $$x={\ensuremath{\operatorname{prox}}}_f(x) + {\ensuremath{\operatorname{prox}}}_{f^*}(x).$$
Note that for $f:=\iota_C$, with $C$ closed and convex, the proximal mapping turns into the projection onto a closed and convex set $C$. Therefore, this result generalizes the decomposition by orthogonal projection on subspaces. In particular, if $K$ is a closed convex cone (thus $\iota_K^*=\iota_{K^-}$, see Example \[ex:Moreau-Rockafellar\]), Moreau’s decomposition provides a characterization of the projection onto $K$:
$x=y+z$ with $y\in K$, $z\in K^-$ and $\langle y,z\rangle=0$ $\Leftrightarrow $ $y=P_K x$ and $z=P_{K^-} x$.
This illustrates that in Hilbert space, the Moreau decomposition can be thought of as generalizing the decomposition into positive and negative parts of a vector in a normed lattice [@BorVan §6.7] to an arbitrary convex cone.[$\Diamond$]{}
There is another notion associated to an operator $A$, which is strongly related to the resolvent. That is the *Yosida approximation* of index $\lambda>0$ or the *Yosida $\lambda$-regularization*: $$A_\lambda:=(\lambda {\ensuremath{\operatorname{Id}}}+A^{-1})^{-1} = \frac{1}{\lambda}({\ensuremath{\operatorname{Id}}}-J_{\lambda A}).$$ If the operator $A$ is maximally monotone, so is the Yosida approximation, and along with the resolvent they provide the so-called *Minty parametrization* of the graph of $A$ that is Lipschitz continuous in both directions [@RW-1998]: $$(J_{\lambda A}(z),A_\lambda(z))=(x,y) \Leftrightarrow z=x+y, (x,y)\in {\ensuremath{\operatorname{gra}}}A.$$
If $A=\partial f$ is the subdifferential of a proper lower semicontinuous convex function $f$, it turns out that the Yosida approximation of $A$ is the gradient of the *Moreau envelope* of $f$ $e_\lambda f$, defined as the infimal convolution of $f$ and $\|\cdot\|^2/2\lambda$, that is, $$e_\lambda f(x):= f\,\Box\, \frac{\|\cdot\|^2}{2\lambda}=\inf_{y\in H}
\left\{f(y)+\frac{1}{2\lambda}\|x-y\|^2\right\}.$$ This justifies the alternative term Moreau-Yosida approximation for the mapping $(\partial f)_\lambda =(\lambda {\ensuremath{\operatorname{Id}}}+(\partial f)^{-1})^{-1}$. This allows to obtain a proof in Hilbert space of the connection between the convexity of the function and the monotonicity of the subdifferential (see [@RW-1998]): *a proper lower semicontinuous function is convex if and only its *Clarke subdifferential* is monotone*.
It is worth mentioning that generally the role of the Moreau envelope is to approximate the function, with a regularizing effect since it is finite and continuous even though the function may not be so. This behavior has very useful implications in convex and variational analysis.
Symbolic convex analysis {#ssec:CAS}
------------------------
The thesis work of Hamilton [@BorHam] has provided a conceptual and effective framework (the SCAT *Maple* software) for computing conjugates, subdifferentials and infimal convolutions of functions of several variables. Key to this is the notion of *iterated conjugation* (analogous to iterated integration) and a good data structure.
As a first example, with some care, the convex conjugate of the function $$f:x \mapsto \log \left(\frac{\sinh \left(3\,x \right)}{ \sinh
x } \right)$$ can be symbolically nursed to obtain the result $$\begin{aligned}
g: y \mapsto \frac y2 \cdot \log \left(\frac{y+\sqrt{16-3y^2}}{4-2y}\right)+ \log \left(\frac{\sqrt{16-3y^2}-2}6\right),\end{aligned}$$ with domain $[-2,2]$.
Since the conjugate of $g$ is much more easily computed to be $f$, this produces a symbolic computational proof that $f$ and $g$ are convex and are mutually conjugate.
Similarly, *Maple* produces the conjugate of $x \mapsto \exp(\exp(x))$ as $y \mapsto y\left(\log \left( y \right)-W \left( y \right) -1/W \left( y \right)\right)$ in terms of the *Lambert’s W* function—the multi-valued inverse of $z \mapsto z e^z$. This function is unknown to most humans but is built into both *Maple* and *Mathematica*. Thus Maple knows that to order five $$g(y)=-1+ \left(-1+\log y \right) y-{\frac {1}{2}}{y}^{2}+
{\frac {1}{3}}{y}^{3}-{\frac {3}{8}}{y}^{4}+O \left( {y}^{5} \right).$$
Figure \[fig:expexp\] shows the *Maple*-computed conjugate after the *SCAT* package is loaded:
![The conjugate and subdifferential of $\exp\exp$.[]{data-label="fig:expexp"}](expexp.pdf){height=".66\textwidth"}
There is a corresponding numerical program *CCAT* [@BorHam]. Current work is adding the capacity to symbolically compute convex compositions—and so in principle Fenchel duality.
Partial Fractions and Convexity {#partial-fractions}
-------------------------------
We consider a network [*objective function*]{} $p_N$ given by $$p_N(q):=\sum_{\sigma \in S_N} \left(\prod_{i=1}^N
\frac{q_{\sigma(i)}}{\sum_{j=i}^N q_{\sigma(j)}}\right)
\left(\sum_{i=1}^N \frac{1}{\sum_{j=i}^N q_{\sigma(j)}}\right),$$ summed over [*all*]{} $N!$ permutations; so a typical term is $$\left(\prod_{i=1}^N \frac{q_i}{\sum_{j=i}^N q_j}\right)
\left(\sum_{i=1}^N \frac{1}{\sum_{j=i}^n q_j}\right).$$ For example, with $N=3$ this is $$q_1q_2q_3\left(\frac{1}{q_1+q_2+q_3}\right)\left(\frac{1}{q_2+q_3}\right)
\left(\frac{1}{q_3}\right)
\left(\frac{1}{q_1+q_2+q_3}+\frac{1}{q_2+q_3}+\frac{1}{q_3}\right).$$ This arose as the objective function in research into coupon collection. The researcher, Ian Affleck, wished to show $p_N$ was [*convex*]{} on the positive orthant.
First, we tried to simplify the expression for $p_N$. The [*partial fraction decomposition*]{} gives: $$\begin{aligned}
p_1(x_1)&={\frac 1 {x_1}}, \label{par-simple}\\
p_2(x_1,x_2)&={\frac 1 {x_1}}+{\frac 1 {x_2}} - {\frac 1 {x_1+x_2}},\nonumber\\
p_3(x_1,x_2,x_3) &= {\frac 1 {x_1}}+{\frac 1 {x_2}}+{\frac 1{x_3}}
-{\frac 1{x_1+x_2}}-{\frac 1{x_2+x_3}}- {\frac 1{ x_1+x_3}}\nonumber
+{\frac 1{x_1+x_2+x_3}}.\end{aligned}$$ In [@SenZik], the simplified expression of $P_N$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
p(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_N)&:=
\sum_{i=1}^N\frac{1}{x_i}-\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq N}\frac{1}{x_i+x_j
}+\sum_{1\leq i<j<k \leq N}\frac{1}{x_i+x_j+x_k
}\\
&\quad-\ldots+(-1)^{N-1}\frac{1}{x_1+x_2+\ldots+x_N}.\end{aligned}$$ Partial fraction decompositions are another arena in which computer algebra systems are hugely useful. The reader is invited to try performing the third case in by hand. It is tempting to predict the “same” pattern will hold for $N=4$. This is easy to confirm (by computer if not by hand) and so we are led to:
For each $N\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}$, the function $$\begin{aligned}
\label{par-int} p_N(x_1,\cdots,x_N) =
\int_0^1\left(1-\prod_{i=1}^N (1-t^{x_i})\right) {\frac{dt} t}\end{aligned}$$ is convex; indeed $1/p_N$ is concave.
One may check symbolically that this is true for $N<5$ via a large Hessian computation. But this is impractical for larger $N$. That said, it is easy to numerically sample the Hessian for much larger $N$, and it is always positive definite. Unfortunately, while the integral is convex, the integrand is not, or we would be done. Nonetheless, the process was already a success, as the researcher was able to rederive his objective function in the form of (\[par-int\]).
A year after, Omar Hjab suggested re-expressing (\[par-int\]) as the [*joint expectation*]{} of Poisson distributions.[^7] Explicitly, this leads to:
[[@BBG §1.7]]{} \[joint-expectation\] If $x=(x_1,\cdots,x_n)$ is a point in the positive orthant ${\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}_{++}^n,$ then $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^\infty\left(1-\prod_{i=1}^n(1-e^{-tx_i})\right)\,dt &=
\left(\prod_{i=1}^n x_i\right)\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}_{++}^n}e^{-\langle
x,y\rangle}\max(y_1,\cdots,y_n)\,dy, \nonumber \\[-6pt]
&\strut \label{j-exp}\end{aligned}$$ where $\langle x,y\rangle=x_1y_1+\cdots+x_ny_n$ is the Euclidean inner product.
It follows from the lemma—which is proven in [@BBG] with no recourse to probability theory—that $$p_N(x) =\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}_{++}^N}e^{-(y_1+\cdots+y_N)} \max\left(\frac
{y_1}{x_1},\cdots,\frac {y_N}{x_N}\right)\,dy,$$ and hence that $p_N$ is positive, decreasing, and convex, as is the integrand. To derive the stronger result that $1/p_N$ is concave we refer to [@BBG §1.7]. Observe that since $\frac{2ab}{a+b}\le\sqrt{ab}\le(a+b)/2$, it follows from that $p_N$ is log-convex (and convex). A little more analysis of the integrand shows $p_N$ is strictly convex on its domain. The same techniques apply when $x_k$ is replaced in or by $g(x_k)$ for a concave positive function $g$.
Though much nice related work is to found in [@SenZik], there is still no truly direct proof of the convexity of $p_N$. Surely there should be! This development neatly shows both the power of computer assisted convex analysis and its current limitations.
Lest one think most results on the real line are easy, we challenge the reader to prove the empirical observation that $$p\mapsto \sqrt{p}\int_0^\infty\left|\frac{\sin x}{x}\right|^p\,d x$$ is *difference convex* on $(1,\infty)$, i.e. it can be written as a difference of two convex functions [@BacBorw].
Concluding comments
===================
All researchers and practitioners in convex analysis and optimization owe a great debt to Jean-Jacques Moreau—whether they know so or not. We are delighted to help make his seminal role more apparent to the current generation of scholars. For those who read French we urge them to experience the pleasure of [@M62; @M63; @M63_2; @M65] and especially [@Mnotes]. For others, we highly recommend [@M66], which follows [@M65] and of which Zuhair Nashed wrote in his *Mathematical Review* MR0217617: “There is a great need for papers of this kind; the present paper serves as a model of clarity and motivation."
#### Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the three anonymous referees for their pertinent and constructive comments. The authors also thank Dr. Hristo S. Sendov for sending them the manuscript [@SenZik]. The authors were all partially supported by various Australian Research Council grants.
[99]{}
Y. Alber and D. Butnariu, “Convergence of Bregman projection methods for solving consistent convex feasibility problems in reflexive Banach spaces", *Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications*, vol. 92, pp. 33–61, 1997.
M. Alimohammady and V. Dadashi, “Preserving maximal monotonicity with applications in sum and composition rules", *Optimization Letters*, vol. 7, pp. 511–517, 2013.
E. Asplund, “Averaged norms", *Israel Journal of Mathematics* vol. 5, pp. 227–233, 1967.
H. Attouch, H. Riahi, and M. Thera, “Somme ponctuelle d’operateurs maximaux monotones" \[Pointwise sum of maximal monotone operators\] Well-posedness and stability of variational problems. *Serdica. Mathematical Journal*, vol. 22, pp. 165–190, 1996.
M. Bacák and J.M. Borwein, “On difference convexity of locally Lipschitz functions", *Optimization*, pp. 961–978, 2011.
H.H. Bauschke, J.M. Borwein, X. Wang, and L. Yao, “Construction of pathological maximally monotone operators on non-reflexive Banach spaces”, *Set-Valued and Variational Analysis*, vol. 20, pp. 387–415, 2012.
H.H. Bauschke and P.L. Combettes, *Convex Analysis and Monotone Operator Theory in Hilbert Spaces*, Springer, 2011.
H.H. Bauschke and X. Wang, “The kernel average for two convex functions and its applications to the extension and representation of monotone operators”, *Transactions of the American Mathematical Society*, vol. 36, pp. 5947–5965, 2009.
H.H. Bauschke, X. Wang, and L. Yao, “Monotone linear relations: maximality and Fitzpatrick functions”, *Journal of Convex Analysis*, vol. 16, pp. 673–686, 2009.
H.H. Bauschke, X. Wang, and L. Yao, “Autoconjugate representers for linear monotone operators”, *Mathematical Programming (Series B)*, vol. 123, pp. 5-24, 2010.
H.H. Bauschke, X. Wang, and L. Yao, “General resolvents for monotone operators: characterization and extension”, in *Biomedical Mathematics: Promising Directions in Imaging, Therapy Planning and Inverse Problems*, Medical Physics Publishing, pp. 57–74, 2010.
J.M. Borwein, “A generalization of Young’s $\ell^p$ inequality", *Mathematical Inequalities & Applications*, vol. 1, pp. 131–136, 1998.
J.M. Borwein, “Maximal monotonicity via convex analysis”, *Journal of Convex Analysis*, vol. 13, pp. 561–586, 2006.
J.M. Borwein, “Maximality of sums of two maximal monotone operators in general Banach space”, *Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society*, vol. 135, pp. 3917–3924, 2007.
J.M. Borwein, “Fifty years of maximal monotonicity”, *Optimization Letters*, vol. 4, pp. 473–490, 2010.
J.M. Borwein and D.H. Bailey, *Mathematics by Experiment: Plausible Reasoning in the 21st Century*, A.K. Peters Ltd, Second expanded edition, 2008.
J.M. Borwein, D.H. Bailey and R. Girgensohn, *Experimentation in Mathematics: Computational Paths to Discovery*, A.K. Peters Ltd, 2004. ISBN: 1-56881-211-6. J.M. Borwein and S. Fitzpatrick, “Local boundedness of monotone operators under minimal hypotheses", *Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society*, vol. 39, pp. 439–441, 1989.
J.M. Borwein, R.S Burachik, and L. Yao, “Conditions for zero duality gap in convex programming”, *Journal of Nonlinear and Convex Analysis*, in press; <http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.4953v2>.
J.M. Borwein and C. Hamilton, “Symbolic Convex Analysis: Algorithms and Examples," *Mathematical Programming*, [**116**]{} (2009), 17–35. *Maple* packages *SCAT* and *CCAT* available at <http://carma.newcastle.edu.au/ConvexFunctions/SCAT.ZIP>.
J.M. Borwein and A.S. Lewis, *Convex Analyis andd Nonsmooth Optimization*, Second expanded edition, Springer, 2005.
J.M. Borwein and J.D. Vanderwerff, *Convex Functions*, Cambridge University Press, 2010.
J.M. Borwein and L. Yao, “Structure theory for maximally monotone operators with points of continuity”, *Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications*, vol 157, pp. 1–24, 2013 (Invited paper).
J.M. Borwein and L. Yao, “Recent progress on Monotone Operator Theory”, *Infinite Products of Operators and Their Applications*, Contemporary Mathematics, in press; <http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.3401v2>.
J.M. Borwein and Q.J. Zhu, *Techniques of variational analysis*, CMS Books in Mathematics/Ouvrages de Mathématiques de la SMC, 20. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2005.
R.I. Boţ S. Grad, and G. Wanka, *Duality in Vector Optimization*, Springer, 2009.
R.I. Boţ and G. Wanka, “A weaker regularity condition for subdifferential calculus and Fenchel duality in infinite dimensional spaces", *Nonlinear Analysis*, vol. 64, pp. 2787–2804, 2006.
R.S. Burachik and A.N. Iusem, *Set-Valued Mappings and Enlargements of Monotone Operators*, Springer, vol. 8, 2008.
H. Brezis, G. Crandall and P. Pazy, Perturbations of nonlinear maximal monotone sets in Banach spaces, *Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics*, vol. 23, pp. 123–144, 1970.
J. Diestel, *Geometry of Banach spaces*, Springer-Verlag, 1975
M.M. Day, *Normed linear spaces*, Third edition, Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1973.
J. Eckstein and D.P. Bertsekas, “On the Douglas–Rachford splitting method and the proximal point algorithm for maximal monotone operators”, *Mathematical Programming*, vol. 55, pp. 293–318, 1992.
S. Fitzpatrick, “Representing monotone operators by convex functions”, in *Workshop/Miniconference on Functional Analysis and Optimization (Canberra 1988)*, Proceedings of the Centre for Mathematical Analysis, Australian National University, vol. 20, Canberra, Australia, pp. 59–65, 1988.
N. Ghoussoub, *Self-dual partial differential systems and their variational principles. Springer Monographs in Mathematics*, Springer, 2009.
J.-P. Gossez, “On the range of a coercive maximal monotone operator in a nonreflexive Banach space”, *Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society*, vol. 35, pp. 88–92, 1972.
J.-B. Hiriart-Urruty, M. Moussaoui, A. Seeger, and M. Volle, “Subdifferential calculus without qualification conditions, using approximate subdifferentials: a survey", *Nonlinear Analysis*, vol. 24, pp. 1727–1754, 1995.
J.-B. Hiriart-Urruty and R. Phelps, “Subdifferential Calculus Using $\varepsilon$-Subdifferentials", *Journal of Functional Analysis* vol. 118, pp. 154–166, 1993.
L. Hörmander, “Sur la fonction d’appui des ensembles convexes dans un espace localement convexe”, *Arkiv för Matematik*, vol. 3, pp. 181–186, 1955.
V. Klee, “Convexity of Chebysev sets", *Mathematische Annalen*, vol. 142, pp. 292–304, 1961.
F. Kohsaka and W. Takahashi, “Existence and approximation of fixed points of firmly nonexpansivetype mappings in Banach spaces”, *SIAM Journal on Optimization*, vol. 19, pp. 824–835, 2008.
J. Lindenstrauss, “On nonseparable reflexive Banach spaces", *Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society*, vol. 72, pp. 967–970, 1966.
P. Maréchal, “A convexity theorem for multiplicative functions", *Optimization Letters*, vol. 6, pp. 357–362, 2012.
G. Minty, “Monotone (nonlinear) operators in a Hilbert space", *Duke Mathematical Journal*, vol. 29, pp. 341–346, 1962.
J.J. Moreau, “Fonctions convexes en dualité”, Faculté des Sciences de Montpellier, Séminaires de Mathématiques Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, 1962.
J.J. Moreau, “Fonctions à valeurs dans $[-\infty,+\infty]$; notions algébriques”, *Faculté des Sciences de Montpellier, Séminaires de Mathématiques*, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, 1963.
J.J. Moreau, “Étude locale d’une fonctionnelle convexe”, Faculté des Sciences de Montpellier, Séminaires de Mathématiques Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, 1963.
J.J. Moreau, “Sur la function polaire d’une fonctionelle semi-continue supérieurement", *Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences*, vol. 258, pp. 1128–1130, 1964.
J.J. Moreau, “Proximité et dualité dans un espace hilbertien", *Bulletin de la Société Mathématique de France*, vol. 93, pp. 273–299, 1965.
J.J. Moreau, *Fonctionnelles convexes*, Séminaire Jean Leray, College de France, Paris, pp. 1–108, 1966–1967. Available at <http://carma.newcastle.edu.au/ConvexFunctions/moreau66-67.pdf>.
J.J. Moreau, “Convexity and duality", pp. 145–169 in *Functional Analysis and Optimization*, Academic Press, New York, 1966.
J.-P. Penot, “The relevance of convex analysis for the study of monotonicity”, *Nonlinear Analysis*, vol. 58, pp. 855–871, 2004.
J.-P. Penot and C. Zălinescu, “Some problems about the representation of monotone operators by convex functions”, *The Australian New Zealand Industrial and Applied Mathematics Journal*, vol. 47, pp. 1–20, 2005.
R.R. Phelps, *Convex Functions, Monotone Operators and Differentiability*, 2nd Edition, Springer-Verlag, 1993.
R.R. Phelps and S. Simons, “Unbounded linear monotone operators on nonreflexive Banach spaces”, *Journal of Nonlinear and Convex Analysis*, vol. 5, pp. 303–328, 1998.
R.T. Rockafellar, “Extension of Fenchel’s duality theorem for convex functions”, *Duke Mathematical Journal*, vol. 33, pp. 81–89, 1966.
R.T. Rockafellar, “On the maximal monotonicity of subdifferential mappings”, *Pacific Journal of Mathematics*, vol. 33, pp. 209–216, 1970.
R.T. Rockafellar, “On the maximality of sums of nonlinear monotone operators”, *Transactions of the American Mathematical Society*, vol. 149, pp. 75–88, 1970.
R.T. Rockafellar and R.J-B Wets, Variational analysis. Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften \[Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences\], 317. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998 (3rd Printing, 2009).
R. Rudin, *Functional Analysis*, Second Edition, McGraw-Hill, 1991.
H.S. Sendov and R. Zitikis, “The shape of the Borwein-Affleck-Girgensohn function generated by completely monotone and Bernstein functions", *Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications*, in press.
S. Simons, *Minimax and Monotonicity*, Springer-Verlag, 1998.
S. Simons, *From Hahn-Banach to Monotonicity*, Springer-Verlag, 2008.
S. Simons and C. Z[ă]{}linescu, “A new proof for Rockafellar’s characterization of maximal monotone operators”, *Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society*, vol. 132, pp. 2969–2972, 2004.
S. Simons and C. Z[ǎ]{}linescu, “Fenchel duality, Fitzpatrick functions and maximal monotonicity”, *Journal of Nonlinear and Convex Analysis*, vol. 6, pp. 1–22, 2005.
L. Sucheston, “Banach limits", *American Mathematical Monthly*, vol. 74, pp. 308–311, 1967.
C. Zălinescu, *Convex Analysis in General Vector Spaces*, World Scientific Publishing, 2002.
E. Zeidler, *Nonlinear Functional Analysis and its Applications II/A: Linear Monotone Operators*, Springer-Verlag, 1990.
E. Zeidler, *Nonlinear Functional Analysis and its Applications II/B: Nonlinear Monotone Operators*, Springer-Verlag, 1990.
[^1]: Centre for Computer Assisted Research Mathematics and its Applications (CARMA), University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia. E-mail: `[email protected]`
[^2]: Centre for Computer Assisted Research Mathematics and its Applications (CARMA), University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia. E-mail: `[email protected]`. Laureate Professor at the University of Newcastle and Distinguished Professor at King Abdul-Aziz University, Jeddah.
[^3]: Departamento de Análisis Matemático, Universidad de Sevilla, Spain. E-mail: `[email protected]`
[^4]: Centre for Computer Assisted Research Mathematics and its Applications (CARMA), University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia. E-mail: `[email protected]`.
[^5]: Originally the connection was made between a monotone function on an interval and its inverse. The convex functions then arise by integration.
[^6]: Hörmander first proved the case of support and indicator functions in [@H55] which led to discovery of general result.
[^7]: See “Convex, II” [*SIAM Electronic Problems and Solutions*]{} at <http://www.siam.org/journals/problems/downloadfiles/99-5sii.pdf>.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We have calculated ac polarizabilities of the $2 \ ^3S$ and $2 \ ^1S$ states of both $^4$He and $^3$He in the range 318 nm to 2.5 $\mu$m and determined the magic wavelengths at which these polarizabilities are equal for either isotope. The calculations, only based on available *ab initio* tables of level energies and Einstein A coefficients, do not require advanced theoretical techniques. The polarizability contribution of the continuum is calculated using a simple extrapolation beyond the ionization limit, yet the results agree to better than $1\%$ with such advanced techniques. Several promising magic wavelengths are identified around 320 nm with sufficient accuracy to design an appropriate laser system. The extension of the calculations to $^3$He is complicated due to the additional hyperfine structure, but we show that the magic wavelength candidates around 320 nm are predominantly shifted by the isotope shift.'
author:
- 'R.P.M.J.W.'
- 'R.J.'
- 'K.A.H.'
- 'W.'
bibliography:
- 'HeliumMagicWavelength\_references.bib'
title: 'Magic wavelengths for the $2 \ ^3S \to 2 \ ^1S$ transition in helium'
---
INTRODUCTION
============
In recent years a growing number of experimental tests of QED in atomic physics have surpassed the accuracy of theory, allowing new determinations of fundamental constants. High-precision spectroscopy in atomic hydrogen has been achieved with sufficient accuracy to allow a determination of the proton size from QED calculations [@Mohr1], and spectroscopy in muonic hydrogen has allowed an even more accurate determination [@Pohl2; @Antognini1]. Interestingly, the muonic hydrogen result currently differs by $7\sigma$ from the proton size determined by hydrogen spectroscopy and electron-proton collision experiments. So far there has not been a satisfying explanation for this discrepancy, which is aptly named the proton radius puzzle [@Pohl1]. Research in this field has expanded to measurements in muonic helium ions, a hydrogenic system which has a different nuclear charge radius [@Nebel1]. As this work is done for both naturally occurring isotopes of helium ($^4$He and $^3$He), the absolute charge radii of the $\alpha$-particle and the helion may be determined at an aimed relative precision of $3 \times 10^{-4}$ (0.5 attometer), providing a very interesting testing ground for both QED and few-body nuclear physics.
Parallel to these developments, high-precision spectroscopy in neutral helium has become an additional contribution to this field in recent years. Although QED calculations for three-body systems are not as accurate as for hydrogen(ic) systems, mass-independent uncertainties cancel when considering the isotope shift [@Drake4; @Morton1]. Therefore isotope-shift measurements in neutral helium can provide a crucial comparison of the nuclear charge radius difference determined in the muonic helium ion and planned electronic helium ion measurements.
High-precision spectroscopy in helium is a well-established field, and transitions ranging from wavelengths of 51 nm to 2058 nm [@CancioPastor1; @Zelevinski1; @Eyler1; @Borbely1; @Kandula1; @Smiciklas1; @Rooij1; @CancioPastor2; @Luo1; @*Luo1_erratum; @Luo2; @Notermans1] have been measured in recent years both from the ground state and from several (metastable) excited states. Only two transitions have been measured in both helium isotopes with sufficient precision for accurate nuclear charge radius difference determinations. The $2 \ ^3S \to 2 \ ^3P$ transition at 1083 nm [@CancioPastor2] and the doubly-forbidden $2 \ ^3S \to 2 \ ^1S$ transition at 1557 nm [@Leeuwen1; @Rooij1] are measured at accuracies exceeding $10^{-11}$, providing an extracted nuclear charge radius difference with 0.3% and 1.1% precision, respectively. Interestingly, the determined nuclear charge radius differences from both experiments currently disagree by $4\sigma$ [@CancioPastor2].
In order to determine the nuclear charge radius difference with a precision comparable to the muonic helium ion goal, we aim to measure the $2 \ ^3S \to 2 \ ^1S$ transition with sub-kHz precision. One major improvement to be implemented is the elimination of the ac Stark shift induced by the optical dipole trap (ODT) in which the transition is measured. Many high-precision measurements involving optical (lattice) traps solve this problem by implementation of a so-called magic wavelength trap [@Poli1; @Ludlow1]. In a magic wavelength trap the wavelength is chosen such that the ac polarizabilities of both the initial and final states of the measured transition are equal, thereby cancelling the differential ac Stark shift.
In this paper we calculate the wavelength-dependent (ac) polarizabilities of both metastable $2 \ ^3S$ (lifetime $\approx 7800$ s) and $2 \ ^1S$ (lifetime $\approx 20$ ms) states and identify wavelengths at which both are equal for either $^4$He or $^3$He. Generally one will find multiple magic wavelengths over a broad wavelength range, but our goal is to identify the most useful magic wavelength for our experiment. Currently [@Rooij1; @Notermans1] we employ a 1557 nm ODT at a power of a few 100 mW, providing a trap depth of a few $\mu$K and a scattering lifetime of $>$ 100 s (the actual lifetime in the trap is limited to 10’s of seconds due to background collisions). A good overview on calculating trap depths and scattering rates in ODTs is given in [@Grimm1], and the specific calculations for our ODT are discussed in the Appendix. For our future magic wavelength trap we need to produce a similar trap depth with sufficient laser power at that wavelength. Furthermore, the scattering rate should be low enough to have a lifetime of at least a few seconds, providing enough time to excite the atoms with a 1557-nm laser.
The purpose of this paper is to show that it is possible to calculate magic wavelengths with sufficient accuracy to design an appropriate laser system solely based on *ab initio* level energies and Einstein A coefficients without having to resort to advanced theoretical techniques [@Yan1; @Mitroy1]. Based on the calculations reported here, we are currently building a laser system at 319.82 nm with a tuning range of 300 GHz based on similar designs [@Wilson1; @Lo1].
The polarizabilities for the $2 \ ^3S$ and $2 \ ^1S$ states of $^4$He are presented over a wavelength range from 318 nm to 2.5 $\mu$m. In this range all magic wavelengths including estimated required ODT powers and corresponding trap lifetimes are calculated. From these results we identify our best candidate for a magic wavelength trap. A lot of work, both theoretical and experimental, has been done for the dc polarizability of the $2 \ ^3S$ and $2 \ ^1S$ states (see Table \[table:dcpolarizabilities\] for an overview). Therefore these are used as a benchmark for our calculations by also calculating the polarizabilities in the dc limit $(\lambda \to \infty)$, as discussed in Sec. \[sec:results\]. Calculations of the ac polarizability of the $2 \ ^3S$ and $2 \ ^1S$ states [@Mitroy2; @Chen1] states allows for comparison of the polarizability calculations at finite wavelengths.
Finally we present a simple extension to $^3$He which has a hyperfine structure that needs to be taken into account. Although different theoretical challenges arise due to the hyperfine interaction, we can get an estimation of the $^3$He magic wavelength candidates and show that they are equal to the $^4$He results approximately shifted by the hyperfine and isotope shift.
THEORY FOR $^4$He {#sec:theory}
=================
For an atomic state with angular momentum *J* and magnetic projection $M_J$, the polarizability $\alpha$ induced by an electromagnetic wave with polarization state $q$ ($q = 0, \pm 1$) and angular frequency $\omega$ due to a single opposite parity state is [@Sobel1]
$$\begin{aligned}
\alpha^{(n)}(J,M_J,J',M_{J}',q) = 6 \pi \epsilon_0 c^3 (2J'+1)
\begin{pmatrix}
J & 1 & J' \\
-M_J & q & M_J'
\end{pmatrix}
^2 \frac{A_{nJJ'}}{\omega_{nJJ'}^2 (\omega_{nJJ'}^2 - \omega^2)}. \label{eqn:indv_polarizability}\end{aligned}$$
Here $\omega_{nJJ'}$ is the $2 \ ^{1,3}S_J \to n \ ^{1,3}P_{J'}$ transition frequency and $A_{nJJ'}$ the Einstein A coefficient of the transition. The term between two brackets represents the $3j$ symbol of the transition. The total polarizability $\alpha (J,M_J,q)$ is given by a sum over all opposite-parity states as $$\alpha (J,M_J,q) = \sum_n \sum_{J'} \alpha^{(n)}(J,M_J,J',M_{J}',q). \label{eqn:polarizability}$$ In a general way the polarizability $\alpha$ can be written as the sum of a scalar polarizability, independent of $M_J$, and a tensorial part describing the splitting of the $M_J$ levels [@Mitroy1; @Mitroy3]. Within the $LS$ coupling scheme the tensor polarizability of the $2 \ ^3S_1$ and $2 \ ^1S_0$ states in $^4$He is zero and the polarizability is defined by averaging over all $M_J$ states and therefore independent of $M_J$. As our experimental work specifically concerns the spin-stretched $2 \ ^3S_1 \ (M_J = +1)$ state [@Rooij1; @Notermans1], Eqns. \[eqn:indv\_polarizability\] and \[eqn:polarizability\] are used to calculate the polarizability for the $M_J = +1$ state assuming linearly polarized light ($q=0$). For $^3$He the calculations specifically concern the spin-stretched $2 \ ^3S \ F = 3/2 \ (M_F = +3/2)$ and $2 \ ^1S \ F = 1/2 \ (M_F = +1/2)$ states.
The higher-order contribution to the Stark shift, the hyperpolarizability, is estimated using calculations of a similar system [@Takamoto1]. The contribution is many orders of magnitude smaller than the accuracy of our calculations and therefore neglected.
The summation in Eqn. \[eqn:polarizability\] can be explicitly calculated for $2 \ ^{1,3}S \to n \ ^{1,3}P$ transitions up to $n = 10$, as accurate *ab initio* energy level data and Einstein A coefficients are available [@Drake1]. Extrapolation of both the energy levels and the Einstein A coefficients is required to calculate contributions of dipole transition matrix elements with states beyond $n = 10$. A straightforward quantum defect extrapolation can be used to determine the energies using the effective quantum number $n^*$ [@Drake2]: $$\begin{aligned}
n^* = n - \sum_{r = 0}^{\infty} \frac{\delta_r}{n^{*r}}, \label{eqn:effquantnumb}\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta_r$ are fit parameters and the quantity $n - n^*$ is commonly referred to as the quantum defect. For both the singlet and triplet series, Eqn. \[eqn:effquantnumb\] is used to fit the literature data up to $n = 10$ and to extrapolate to arbitrary $n$. This method is tested using a dataset provided by Drake [@Drake2].
Extrapolation of the Einstein A coefficients is more complicated as there is no relation such as Eqn. \[eqn:effquantnumb\] for Einstein A coefficients. Furthermore, the sum-over-states method does not provide straightforward extrapolation beyond the ionization limit, as the energy levels converge to the ionization limit for $n \to \infty$. Both problems can be solved by calculating the polarizability contribution of a single transition $2 \ ^3S_1 \to n \ ^3P_{J'}$ (or $2 \ ^1S_0 \to n \ ^1P_1$) as given in Eqn. \[eqn:polarizability\] and defining the polarizability density per upper state energy interval as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\Delta \alpha^{(n)}}{\Delta E} = \frac{2 \alpha^{(n)}}{E_{n+1}-E_{n-1}}, \label{eqn:poldensity}\end{aligned}$$ which is evaluated at $E_n$. $E_{n+1}$ and $E_{n-1}$ are the energies of the neighbouring upper states with the same value of $J'$. The energies are given by the Rydberg formula $E_n(n^*) = E_{\text{IP}}- R_{\infty}/n^{*2}$, where $E_{\text{IP}}$ is the ionization potential of the ground state. For ease of notation we have omitted all the dependent variables of $\alpha^{(n)}$ as defined in Eqn. \[eqn:indv\_polarizability\]. The polarizability density is a function of energy and can not only be used to calculate the polarizability contribution from dipole transition matrix elements to highly excited (Rydberg) states, but additionally allows extrapolation beyond the ionization potential. Using the Rydberg formula, the polarizability density becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\Delta \alpha^{(n)}}{\Delta E} = \frac{\alpha^{(n)}}{R_{\infty}} \frac{(n^{*2}-1)^2}{2 n^*}, \label{eqn:poldensity2}\end{aligned}$$ where we have made the approximation that $n - n^*$ is constant for increasing $n$. This approximation already works better than $1\%$ for $n = 2$. In the limit $n \gg 1$, the polarizability contribution per energy interval can be written as
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d \alpha^{(n)}}{d E} = \frac{6 \pi \epsilon_0 c^3}{R_{\infty}} (2J' + 1)
\begin{pmatrix}
J & 1 & J' \\
-M_J & q & M_J'
\end{pmatrix}
^2 \frac{C_{nJJ'}(n^*)}{\omega^2_{nJJ'}(\omega^2_{nJJ'} - \omega^2)}, \label{eqn:poldensity3} \end{aligned}$$
where we define $$\begin{aligned}
C_{nJJ'}(n^*) \equiv \frac{A_{nJJ'}(n^{*2}-1)^2}{2 n^*}. \label{eqn:Aextrap}\end{aligned}$$ As there is no exact analytical model for $A_{nJJ'}$ as function of energy, the method of extrapolation is based on a simple low-order polynomial fit of the $C_{nJJ'}(n^*)$ as function of $E(n^*)$ for the $n \leq 10$ levels. The result is a function $C_{nJJ'}(E)$ that is used to extrapolate $A_{nJJ'}$ to arbitrary upper states and calculate the corresponding polarizability contributions. This method can be used to calculate the finite polarizability contributions of all Rydberg states for $n \to \infty$. As the general behaviour of the Einstein A coefficients is proportional to $n^{*-3}$ for the Rydberg states, $C_{nJJ'}(E)$ will have a finite value at the ionization potential indicating that contributions from the continuum have to be taken into account as well. As the extrapolation is a function of energy, it is extended beyond the ionization potential to calculate additional continuum contributions to the polarizability. This omits all higher order effects such as resonances to doubly-excited states or two-photon excitations into the continuum, and it should be considered as an approximation of the continuum.
For a large enough quantum number $n$, the discrete sum-over-states method smoothly continues as an integration-over-states method following Eqn. \[eqn:poldensity3\]. The ionization potential serves as a natural choice as the energy at which the calculation would switch from the discrete sum to the integration method. But even for large enough $n$ there is a negligible numerical error in varying the exact cutoff energy $E_c$ at which we switch between these methods. The calculation of the total polarizability is therefore performed using the sum-over-states method to an arbitrary cutoff at $E_c = E_{\text{IP}} - R_{\infty}/n_{max}^{*2}$ and continued with an integration over the remaining states as $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha^{\text{cont}} (J,M_J) = \sum_{J'} \int_{E_c}^{\infty} \frac{d \alpha^{(n)}}{d E} \text{d}E, \label{eqn:continuum}\end{aligned}$$ where $E$ is the energy of the corresponding state. A low-order polynomial fit of Eqn. \[eqn:Aextrap\] is used to calculate $d \alpha^{(n)} / d E$ such that the integral of Eqn. \[eqn:continuum\] provides an analytical solution. The total polarizability is therefore easily calculated as a sum-over-states part and an analytical expression $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha (J,M_J) = \alpha^{\text{cont}} + \sum_{n=1}^{n=n_{max}} \sum_{J'} \alpha^{(n)}. \label{eqn:totpol} \end{aligned}$$
Numerical uncertainties {#sec:numuncertainties}
=======================
In this section we discuss the sources of any numerical errors in our calculations, which are purely based on the technical execution of our method. The accuracy of our calculations due to our estimation of the continuum contribution will be discussed in Sec. \[sec:results\] where our results are compared to other calculations.
The numerical convergence of Eqn. \[eqn:totpol\] is tested by varying $n_{max}$. The polarizability converges as $n_{max}^{-2}$ and even for $n_{max} = 20$ the polarizability is within a fraction $10^{-4}$ of the polarizability calculated using $n_{max} = 5000$. The computation of Eqn. \[eqn:totpol\] therefore poses no numerical problems.
A more crucial matter is the fact that our calculations are based on two extrapolations: that of the level energies and the Einstein A coefficients. For the $n \leq 10$ levels in helium the *ab initio* calculations of the level energies and Einstein A coefficients are used [@Drake1]. The higher level energies are extrapolated using Eqn. \[eqn:effquantnumb\] and include up to fifth order ($r = 5$) contributions. Variation of the total number of orders ($r = 4,6$) or using a different dataset (such as the NIST database [@NIST1] as used in other recent work [@Mitroy2]) affects the polarizabilities at the $10^{-8}$ level and is negligible.
The limiting factor in the accuracy of the calculations is the choice of extrapolation of the Einstein A coefficients through extrapolation of $C_{nJJ'}(E)$. As mentioned before, no advanced methods are used to calculate transtion matrix elements to higher states or doubly excited states in the continuum. The heuristic approach we use instead, is to choose an extrapolation function that is smooth, continuous and provides a convergent integral in Eqn. \[eqn:continuum\]. A number of different functions have been tried which provide a similar quality of the fit, and their effect on the calculation of the continuum contribution can lead to a polarizability shift which is a significant fraction of the continuum contribution itself. In our calculations this is the limiting factor in the accuracy of the calculated magic wavelengths. A second order polynomial function is chosen to extrapolate $C_{nJJ'}(E)$ as it has the additional advantage of providing an analytical solution of the continuum contributions.
The absolute accuracy of the calculations will be discussed in Sec. \[sec:uncertainties\] and determines the accuracy given in the calculated magic wavelengths in Sec. \[sec:magicwavelengths\].
RESULTS {#sec:results}
=======
In order to discuss the absolute accuracy of the calculations, we first present our polarizabilities calculated in the dc limit $(\lambda \to \infty)$ as a lot of literature is available for these calculations. After comparison with the dc polarizabilities in Sec. \[sec:uncertainties\], the ac polarizabilities are given in Sec. \[sec:magicwavelengths\] including the magic wavelengths at which they are equal for the $2 \ ^3S_1 \ (M_J = +1)$ and $2 \ ^1S_0$ states. Experimental characteristics, such as the required trapping power and scattering lifetime at the magic wavelengths, are estimated in order to discuss which magic wavelength candidate is most suitable for our experiment. In Sec. \[sec:tuneout\] the tune-out wavelength (where the polarizability is zero) of the $2 \ ^3S_1$ state near 414 nm is compared to the result calculated by Mitroy and Tang [@Mitroy2].
dc polarizabilities {#sec:uncertainties}
-------------------
An overview of previously calculated and measured dc polarizabilities for the $2 \ ^1S_0$ and $2 \ ^3S_1$ states of $^4$He is given in Table \[table:dcpolarizabilities\] together with our results. For convenience the polarizabilities are given in atomic units $a_0^3$ ($a_0$ is the Bohr radius), but they can be converted to SI units through multiplication by $4 \pi \epsilon_0 a_0^3 \approx 1.64877 \times 10^{-41}$ JV$^{-2}$m$^{2}$. Furthermore, the dc polarizabilities are calculated using the common convention of averaging over all $M_J$ states and all possible polarizations $q$ [@Mitroy1].
There is general agreement between our results and previously calculated dc polarizabilities, but comparison with the work of Yan and Babb [@Yan1], which provides the most accurate calculated dc polarizabilities to date, shows that both our $2 \ ^1S_0$ and $2 \ ^3S_1$ dc polarizabilities are slightly larger ($0.1\%$ and $0.6\%$, respectively). The difference is comparable to the uncertainty in the calculated continuum contributions as discussed in Sec. \[sec:numuncertainties\], and we conclude that our absolute accuracy is indeed limited by the exact calculation of the continuum contributions. It should be noted that the continuum contributions in the dc limit are $7.1 \ a_0^3$ and $3.6 \ a_0^3$, respectively. This only contributes $1\%$ to the total polarizability in contrast to e.g. ground-state hydrogen for which the continuum contribution is 20% of the total polarizability [@Castillejo1].
[Author (year)]{} [Ref.]{} [$2 \ ^1S_0$]{} [$2 \ ^3S_1$]{}
-------------------------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------- --------------------
[Crosby and Zorn (1977) \[Experiment\]]{} [[@Crosby1]]{} [$729(88)$]{} [$301(20)$]{}
[Ekstrom *et al.* (1995) \[Experiment\]]{} [[@Ekstrom1; @Molof1]]{} [$322(6.8)$]{}
[Chung and Hurst (1966)]{} [[@Chung1]]{} [$801.95$]{} [$315.63$]{}
[Drake (1972)]{} [[@Drake3]]{} [$800.2$]{} [$315.608$]{}
[Chung (1977)]{} [[@Chung2]]{} [$801.10$]{} [$315.63$]{}
[Glover and Weinhold (1977)]{} [[@Glover1]]{} [$803.31$]{} [$316.24$]{}
[Lamm and Szabo (1980)]{} [[@Lamm1]]{} [$790.8$]{} [$318.7$]{}
[Bishop and Pipin (1993)]{} [[@Bishop1]]{} [$315.631$]{}
[Rérat *et al.* (1993)]{} [[@Rerat1]]{} [$803.25$]{}
[Chen (1995)]{} [[@Chen1]]{} [$800.31$]{}
[Chen and Chung (1996), *B* Spline]{} [[@Chen2]]{} [$315.630$]{}
[Chen and Chung (1996), Slater]{} [[@Chen2]]{} [$315.611$]{}
[Yan and Babb (1998)]{} [[@Yan1]]{} [$800.316\,66$]{} [$315.631\,468$]{}
[Mitroy and Tang (2013), hybrid]{} [[@Mitroy2]]{} [$315.462$]{}
[Mitroy and Tang (2013), CPM]{} [[@Mitroy2]]{} [$316.020$]{}
[This work]{} [$801.19$]{} [$317.64$]{}
[c c d d c c]{} & $d\alpha/d\lambda \ [a_0^3\text{/nm}]$ & & & &\
318.611 & $-7.00 \times 10^4$ & -809.2 & & &\
319.815 & [$-4.40 \times 10^3$]{} & 189.3 & 0.7 & 3 & [$2 \ ^3S_1 \to 4 \ ^3P_{0,1,2}$]{}\
321.409 & [$-5.38 \times 10^2$]{} & 55.3 & 2.3 & 6 & [$2 \ ^3S_1 \to 4 \ ^3P_{0,1,2}$]{}\
323.587 & [$-1.48 \times 10^2$]{} & 17.2 & 7.3 & 6 & [$2 \ ^3S_1 \to 4 \ ^3P_{0,1,2}$]{}\
326.672 & [$-5.48 \times 10^1$]{} & -1.2 & & &\
331.268 & [$-2.37 \times 10^1$]{} & -13.5 & & &\
338.644 & [$-1.08 \times 10^1$]{} & -24.2 & & &\
352.242 & [$-5.33$]{} & -39.0 & & &\
411.863 & [$-2.00$]{} & 4.5 & 28.0 & 4 & [$2 \ ^3S_1 \to 3 \ ^3P_{0,1,2}$]{}\
1557.3 & [$0.0$]{} & 603.8 & 0.2 & 205 & [$2 \ ^3S_1 \to 2 \ ^3P_{0,1,2}$]{}
Magic wavelengths {#sec:magicwavelengths}
-----------------
We have calculated the ac polarizabilities of the $2 \ ^1S_0$ and $2 \ ^3S_1 \ (M_J = +1)$ states in the range of 318 nm to 2.5 $\mu$m and an overview of the identified magic wavelengths is shown in Table \[table:magicwavelengths\]. The slope of the differential polarizability is also given in order to estimate the sensitivity of the determined magic wavelength due to the accuracy of the calculated polarizabilities. Table \[table:magicwavelengths\] furthermore provides the trapping beam power required to produce a trap depth of $5 \ \mu$K and the corresponding scattering lifetime (see the Appendix) to indicate the experimental feasibility of each magic wavelength.
The magic wavelengths in the range 318-327 nm, as shown in Fig. \[fig:318-327nm\], are mainly due to the many resonances in the singlet series. The most promising magic wavelength for application in the experiment is at 319.815 nm, as the polarizability is large enough to provide sufficient trap depth at reasonable laser powers while the estimated scattering lifetime is still acceptable (see Table \[table:magicwavelengths\]).
The magic wavelengths at 318.611 nm and 326.672 nm are not useful for our experiment as the absolute $2 \ ^3S_1$ polarizability is negative and therefore a focused laser beam does not provide a trapping potential. There are more magic wavelengths for $\lambda < 318.611$ nm, but the polarizability of the $2 \ ^3S_1$ state will stay negative until the ionization wavelength of the $2 \ ^1S$ state around 312 nm. In the range 327-420 nm, shown in Fig. \[fig:327-420nm\], there are four more magic wavelengths. The magic wavelength at 411.863 nm, previously predicted with nm accuracy [@Eyler1], is the only one in this region with a small yet positive $2 \ ^3S_1$ polarizability (see inset in Fig. \[fig:327-420nm\]). There are no more magic wavelengths in the range 420 nm-2.5 $\mu$m, which is shown in Fig. \[fig:420-2500nm\], and the polarizabilities converge to the dc polarizabilities for $\lambda > 2.5 \ \mu$m.
The ac polarizability of the $2 \ ^1S_0$ state can be compared to previous polarizability calculations from dc to 506 nm [@Chen1]. Combined with the dc polarizability comparison and the tune-out wavelength result for the $2 \ ^3S_1$ state, as discussed in the Sect. \[sec:tuneout\], we find that the accuracy of our calculations is limited by the exact calculation of the continuum contributions. We note that around 320 nm the absolute continuum contributions ($26 \ a_0^3$ and $5.5 \ a_0^3$ for the $2 \ ^1S$ and $2 \ ^3S$ states, respectively) and the corresponding uncertainty have increased, as the shorter wavelengths are closer to the $2 \ ^1S$ ionization limit at 312 nm. The uncertainty in the absolute value of the polarizabilities translates to an uncertainty in the absolute value of the magic wavelength through the slope $d\alpha / d\lambda$ of the differential polarizability at the zero crossing. For the magic wavelength at 319.815 nm this gives a frequency uncertainty of 10 GHz (0.003 nm), yet for the magic wavelength near 412 nm the uncertainty is approximately 1 nm due to the very small slope at the zero crossing. However, the latter magic wavelength is not suitable for our experiment as the absolute polarizability is very small.
{width="82.00000%"}
{width="82.00000%"}
{width="82.00000%"}
Tune-out wavelength of the $2 \ ^3S_1$ state {#sec:tuneout}
--------------------------------------------
The zero crossings of the absolute polarizability of a single state occur at so-called tune-out wavelengths. Mitroy and Tang calculated several tune-out wavelengths for the $2 \ ^3S_1$ state [@Mitroy2], of which the candidate at 413.02 nm is the most sensitive to the absolute value of the polarizability due to a very small slope at the zero crossing. We find this tune-out wavelength at 414.197 nm (see inset in Fig. \[fig:327-420nm\]), which is considerably larger. However, the slope of the polarizability at the zero crossing can be used to calculate that the difference in tune-out wavelength is equivalent to a difference in the calculated absolute polarizabilities. Comparison of the calculated dc polarizabilities (see Table \[table:dcpolarizabilities\]) shows a similar difference, so within a constant offset of the absolute polarizability our tune-out wavelength is in agreement with Mitroy and Tang’s result.
EXTENSION TO $^3$He
===================
The $2~^3S \to 2~^1S$ transition is also measured in $^3$He in order to determine the isotope shift of the transition frequency [@Rooij1]. Hence a magic wavelength trap for $^3$He will be required as well. As $^3$He has a nuclear spin ($I = 1/2$), the measured hyperfine transition is $2~^3S~F = 3/2~(M_F = +3/2) \to 2~^1S~F = 1/2~(M_F = +1/2)$ and the magic wavelengths need to be calculated for these two spin-stretched states.
The mass-dependent (isotope) shift of the energy levels is taken into account by using $^3$He energy level data [@Morton2] and recalculating the quantum defects using Eqn. \[eqn:effquantnumb\]. The Einstein A coefficients of the transitions also change due to the different reduced mass of the system [@Drake1], but this effect is negligible compared to the accuracy of the calculations. In total, the mass-dependent shift of the magic wavelengths is dominated by the shift of the nearest transitions and is approximately -45 GHz.
The fine-structure splitting decreases as $1/n^3$ whereas the hyperfine splitting converges to a constant value for increasing $n$ [@Vassen1]. In this regime the $(LS)JIF$ coupling scheme is not the best coupling scheme because $J$ is no longer a good quantum number. Instead an alternative coupling scheme is used which first couples the nuclear spin quantum number $I$ and total electron spin $S$ to a new quantum number $K$ [@Sulai1]. This new quantum number $K$ then couples to $L$ to form the total angular momentum $F$. In this coupling scheme the transition strengths can be calculated with better precision compared to the $(LS)JIF$ coupling scheme, and can be applied for states with $n \geq 3$. Although this coupling scheme does not work perfectly for $n = 2$ (which in any case is far-detuned from the magic wavelengths), it provides an estimate of the transition strengths that is sufficiently accurate for our purposes.
For increasing $n$, the strong nuclear spin interaction with the $1s$ electron becomes comparable with the exchange interaction between the $1s$ and $np$ electrons [@Vassen1]. This leads to mixing of the singlet and triplet states as the total electron spin $S$ is no longer a good quantum number. The solution requires exact diagonalization of the Rydberg states, which provides the singlet-triplet mixing and the energy shifts of the states. The mixing parameter is then used to correct the Einstein A coefficients and the energies of the states. Although this is implemented in the calculations, these corrections lead to shifts in the magic wavelengths that are below the absolute accuracy of the calculations.
Due to the two hyperfine states of $^3$He$^+$ in the $1s$ ground state, there are two Rydberg series in the $^3$He atom. For even higher $n$ than discussed before, this leads to mixing of Rydberg states with different $n$ [@Vassen1]. The resulting shifts in the polarizabilities are well below the accuracy of the calculations and are therefore neglected.
Using the aforementioned adaptations, the polarizability of the $2~^3S~F = 3/2~(M_F = +3/2)$ and $2~^1S~F=1/2~(M_F = +1/2)$ states can be calculated using Eqn. \[eqn:indv\_polarizability\], but with substituted quantum numbers $(J,M_J \to F,M_F)$, Einstein A coefficients and transition frequencies. The numerical calculation of the polarizabilities and discussion of the numerical accuracies is similar to the $^4$He case. An additional uncertainty of $1.0 \ a_0^3$ is added in the calculation of the polarizabilities of the $^3$He states based on a conservative estimate of the shifts caused by the hyperfine interaction. It should be noted that the states of interest, $2~^1S$ and $2~^3S$, both have angular momentum $L = 0$ and both are in the fully spin-stretched state. Therefore neither $^3$He nor $^4$He has a tensor polarizability for the states discussed in this paper.
A comparison between the $^4$He and $^3$He magic wavelengths is presented in Table \[tab:He3magic\]. Magic wavelengths up to 330 nm are all shifted by the isotope shift with small corrections due the abovementioned effects. The frequency difference between the two isotopes (third column of Table \[tab:He3magic\]) grows with increasing wavelengths because $d\alpha / d\lambda$ decreases and the results become more sensitive to the absolute accuracy ($1.0 \ a_0^3$) of the calculations, as can be seen from the growing uncertainties associated with the shifts. The isotope shifts for magic wavelengths with $\lambda > 324$ nm have been omitted in Table \[tab:He3magic\] as they are not useful due to the large relative uncertainty.
The difference of the magic wavelengths between the two isotopes is well within the tuning range of our designed laser system near 320 nm. Furthermore there is no significant change in the absolute polarizability or the slope $d\alpha / d\lambda$ at the magic wavelengths. This means that an ODT at these wavelengths has a comparable performance for either isotope.
--------- --------- ---------------------
318.611 318.626 $-45.03(4)$
319.815 319.830 $-43.1(7)$
321.409 321.423 $-38(5)$
323.587 323.602 $-4(2) \times 10^1$
--------- --------- ---------------------
: Comparison of magic wavelengths $\lambda_m$ calculated for the $^4$He $2 \ ^3S_1 \ (M_J = +1) \to 2 \ ^1S_0$ and $^3$He $2 \ ^3S \ F = 3/2 \ (M_F = +3/2) \to 2 \ ^1S \ F = 1/2 \ (M_F = +1/2)$ transitions and the corresponding frequency shift. The uncertainty in the shift is due to the additional $1.0 \ a_0^3$ absolute uncertainty in the polarizabilities of $^3$He.
\[tab:He3magic\]
CONCLUSION
==========
We have calculated the dc and ac polarizabilities of the $2 \ ^1S$ and $2 \ ^3S$ states for both $^4$He and $^3$He in the wavelength range of 318 nm to $2.5 \ \mu$m and determined the magic wavelengths at which these polarizabilities are equal for either isotope. The accuracy of our simple method is limited by the extrapolation of the polarizability contributions of the continuum states. This is less than achievable through more sophisticated methods which calculate the transition matrix elements explicitly. However, the purpose of this paper is to show that using a simple extrapolation method it is possible to achieve an accuracy on the order of 10 GHz for the magic wavelengths that are of experimental interest, which is required to design an appropriate laser system for the required wavelengths.
Most experimentally feasible magic wavelength candidates are in the range of 319-324 nm, as the absolute polarizability of the $2 \ ^3S_1$ state in this range is positive and large enough to create reasonable ($\sim\mu$K) trap depths in a crossed-beam ODT with a few Watts of laser power. The estimated scattering rates at these wavelengths and intensities are low enough to perform spectroscopy on the doubly-forbidden $2 \ ^3S \to 2 \ ^1S$ transition.
The calculations are extended to also calculate magic wavelengths in $^3$He. Although the hyperfine structure, which is absent in $^4$He, leads to complications in the calculation of the polarizabilities, these effects are very limited for the $2 \ ^1S$ and $2 \ ^3S$ states. The magic wavelengths of interest, around 320 nm, are shifted relative to the $^4$He magic wavelengths by predominantly the isotope shift.
This work is part of the research programme of the Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter (FOM), which is financially supported by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO).
a crossed-beam optical dipole trap
==================================
An overview of optical dipole traps (ODTs) and the equations used in this Appendix can be found in [@Grimm1]. The depth $U$ of a crossed-beam ODT, as currently used in our experiment [@Rooij1; @Notermans1], is $$\begin{aligned}
U = 2 \frac{\alpha}{2 \epsilon_0 c} \frac{2 P}{\pi w_0^2}, \label{eqn:trapdepth}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha$ is the polarizability of the $2 \ ^3S_1 \ (M_J = +1)$ state, $P$ the power of the incident trapping laser beam and $w_0$ the beam waist. In our experiment, the first ODT beam is reused by refocusing it through the original focus ($w_0 \approx 85 \ \mu$m) at an angle of $19^{\circ}$ with respect to the original beam. At the currently used ODT wavelength of 1557 nm the polarizability is $\alpha = 603.8 \ a_0^3$ (see Table \[table:magicwavelengths\]) which gives a trap depth of approximately $5 \ \mu$K at an ODT beam power of $P = 210$ mW. In Table \[table:magicwavelengths\] we used Eqn. \[eqn:trapdepth\] to calculate the trapping power at the different magic wavelengths corresponding to a trap depth of $5 \ \mu$K to indicate the required beam power that should be produced at that magic wavelength.
As a good approximation of the lifetime of the atoms in the ODT due to scattering, one can take the nearest transition into account to calculate the corresponding scattering rate. The scattering rate $\Gamma_{sc}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{sc} = \frac{6 \pi c^2 \omega^3}{\hbar} \Bigg( \frac{\Gamma}{\omega_0^2(\omega_0^2-\omega^2)} \Bigg)^2 I_0,\end{aligned}$$ where $I_0$ is the total intensity of the light, $\omega$ the angular frequency of the trapping light and $\omega_0$ and $\Gamma$ the transition frequency and linewidth (all in $\textit{rad} \ s^{-1}$). The nearest transitions are given in Table \[table:magicwavelengths\], and the lifetime $1/\Gamma_{sc}$ is given for each magic wavelength trap using the required trapping beam power calculated to provide a $5 \ \mu$K deep trap.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Robots must reliably interact with refractive objects in many applications; however, refractive objects can cause many robotic vision algorithms to become unreliable or even fail, particularly feature-based matching applications, such as structure-from-motion. We propose a method to distinguish between refracted and Lambertian image features using a light field camera. Specifically, we propose to use textural cross-correlation to characterise apparent feature motion in a single light field, and compare this motion to its Lambertian equivalent based on 4D light field geometry. Our refracted feature distinguisher has a 34.3% higher rate of detection compared to state-of-the-art for light fields captured with large baselines relative to the refractive object. Our method also applies to light field cameras with much smaller baselines than previously considered, yielding up to 2 times better detection for 2D-refractive objects, such as a sphere, and up to 8 times better for 1D-refractive objects, such as a cylinder. For structure from motion, we demonstrate that rejecting refracted features using our distinguisher yields up to 42.4% lower reprojection error, and lower failure rate when the robot is approaching refractive objects. Our method lead to more robust robot vision in the presence of refractive objects.'
author:
- 'Dorian Tsai$^{1}$, Donald G. Dansereau$^{2}$, Thierry Peynot$^{1}$ and Peter Corke$^{1}$[^1] [^2] [^3]'
bibliography:
- 'IEEEabrv.bib'
- 'DorianTsaiReferencesBib.bib'
title: '**Distinguishing Refracted Features using Light Field Cameras with Application to Structure from Motion** '
---
INTRODUCTION
============
Robots for the real world will inevitably interact with refractive objects. Robots must contend with wine glasses and clear water bottles in domestic applications [@kemp2007challengesRobotManipulation]; glass and clear plastic packaging for quality assessment and packing in manufacturing [@ihrke2010transparentSurvey]; as well as water and ice for outdoor operations [@dansereau2014Thesis]. All of these applications typically require either object structure and/or robot motion to automate. Structure from motion (SfM) is a technique to recover both scene structure and camera pose from 2D images, and is widely applicable to many systems in computer and robotic vision [@hartley2003multiViewGeometry; @wei2013structureFromMotionSurvey]. Many of these systems assume the scene is Lambertian, in that a 3D point’s appearance in an image does not change significantly with viewpoint. However, non-Lambertian effects, including specular reflections, occlusions, and refraction, violate this assumption. They pose a major problem for modern robotic vision systems because their appearance depends on the camera’s viewing pose and the visual texture of the object’s background.
Image features are distinct points of interest in the scene that can be repeatedly and reliably identified from different viewpoints, and have been used in SfM, but also many other robotic vision algorithms, such as object recognition, image segmentation, visual servoing, visual odometry, and simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM). In SfM, features are often used for image registration. When reconstructing a scene containing a refractive object, such as Fig. \[fig:title\], image features occluded by the object appear to move differently from the rest of the scene. They can cause inconsistencies, errors, and even failures for modern robotic vision systems.
\
Light field (LF) cameras offer a potential solution to the problem of refractive objects. LF cameras simultaneously capture multiple images of the same scene from different viewpoints in a regular and dense sampling. The LF could allow robots to more reliably and efficiently capture the behaviour of refractive objects in a single shot by exploiting the known geometry of the multiple views. We take 2D image features from the central view of the LF, and determine which of these exhibit refractive behaviour in the 4D LF, which we refer to as a refracted feature, and use this as a method of distinguishing good features for SfM.
Our main contributions are the following.
- We extend previous work to develop a light field feature distinguisher for refractive objects. In particular, we detect the differences between the apparent motion of non-Lambertian and Lambertian features in the 4D light field to distinguish refractive objects more reliably than previous work.
- We propose a novel approach to describe the apparent motion of a feature observed within the 4D light field based on textural cross-correlation.
- We extend refracted feature distinguishing capabilities to lenslet-based LF cameras that are limited to much smaller baselines by considering non-uniform, non-Lambertian apparent motion in the light field. All light fields captured for these experiments will be available online at *https://tinyurl.com/LFRefractive*.
Our method outperforms the state of the art in terms of detecting refracted features, including small-baseline LF cameras for the first time. We also show that rejecting refracted features before the SfM pipeline can yield lower reprojection error in the presence of refractive objects, provided there are a sufficient number of Lambertian features remaining. The main limitation of our method is that it requires background visual texture distorted by the refractive object. Our method’s effectiveness depends on the extent to which the appearance of the object is warped in the light field. This depends on the geometry and refractive indices of the object involved. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. We describe the related work, provide background on LF geometry, and explain our method for distinguishing refracted features. Then we show our experimental results for extraction of a feature’s apparent motion, detection with different camera baselines and object types, and validation in the context of monocular SfM. Finally, we conclude the paper and explore future work.
RELATED WORK
============
A variety of strategies for detecting, and even reconstructing refractive objects using vision have been investigated [@ihrke2010transparentSurvey]. However, many of these methods require known light sources with bulky configurations that are impractical for mobile robot applications. Multiple monocular images have been used to recover refractive object shape and pose [@benezra2003transparent]; however, image features were manually tagged throughout camera motion, emphasizing the difficulty of automatically identifying and tracking refracted features due to the severe magnification of the background, and changes in image intensities when passing through the object.
LFs have recently been used to explore refractive objects. Wanner et al. considered planar refractive surfaces and reconstructed different depth layers that accounted for both refraction through a thin sheet of glass, and the reflection caused by its glossy surface [@wanner2013reflectiveTransparentFromEPI]. However, this work was limited to thin planar surfaces and single reflections. Which depth layer was Lambertian, reflective or refractive was not distinguished, and refractive objects that caused significant distortion were not handled. Although our work does not determine the dense structure of the refractive object, our approach can distinguish features from objects that significantly distort the LF. For refractive object recognition, Maeno et al. proposed a light field distortion feature (LFD), which models an object’s refraction pattern as image distortion based on differences in the corresponding image points between the multiple views of the LF, captured by a large-baseline (relative to the refractive object) LF camera array [@maeno2013light]. However, the authors observed significantly poor recognition performance due to specular reflections, as well as changes in camera pose.
Xu et al. used the LFD as a basis for refractive object image segmentation [@xu2015transparentObjectSegmentation]. Corresponding image features from all views in the LF were fitted to the single normal of a 4D hyperplane in the least-squares sense using singular value decomposition (SVD). The smallest singular value was taken as a measure of error to the hyperplane of best fit, for which a threshold was applied to distinguish refracted features. However, as we will show in this paper, a 3D point cannot be described by a single hyperplane in 4D. Instead, it manifests as a plane in 4D that has two orthogonal normal vectors. Our approach builds on Xu’s method, and solves for both normals to find the plane of best fit in 4D; thus allowing us to distinguish more types of refractive objects with a higher rate of detection.
Furthermore, a key difficulty in feature-based approaches in the LF is obtaining the corresponding feature locations between multiple views. Both Maeno and Xu used optical flow between two views for correspondence, which does not exploit the unique geometry of the LF. We propose a novel textural cross-correlation method to correspond features in the LF by describing their apparent motion in the LF, which we refer to as feature curves. This method directly exploits LF geometry and provides insight on the 4D nature of features in the LF.
Our interest in LF cameras stems from robot applications that often have mass, power and size constraints. Thus, we are interested in employing compact lenslet-based LF cameras to deal with refractive objects. However, most previous works have utilized gantries [@wanner2013reflectiveTransparentFromEPI], or large camera arrays [@maeno2013light; @xu2015transparentObjectSegmentation]; their results do not transfer to LF cameras with much smaller baselines, where refractive behaviour is less apparent, as we show later. We then demonstrate the performance of our method over two different LF camera baselines, and two different LF camera architectures. We demonstrate refracted feature identification with a lenslet-based LF camera, which to the best of our knowledge, has not been done before.
For LF cameras, LF-specific features have been investigated. SIFT features augmented with “slope”, an LF-based property related to depth, were proposed by the authors for visual servoing using a LF camera [@tsai2016lfvisualservo]; however, refraction was not considered in prior work. Tosic developed a scale-invariant, single pixel, edge detector by finding local extrema in a combined scale, depth, and image space [@tosic2014lightFieldScaleSpace]. However, these LF features did not differentiate between Lambertian and refracted features, nor were they designed for reliable matching between LFs captured from different viewpoints. In this paper, we detect unique keypoints that reject refracted content and work well for SfM. Recent work by Teixeira found SIFT features in all views of the LF and projected them into their corresponding epipolar plane images (EPI). These projections were filtered and grouped onto straight lines in their respective EPIs, then counted. Features with higher counts were observed in more views, and thus considered more reliable [@teixeira2017epipolarLightfieldSift]. However, their approach did not consider any non-linear feature behaviour, while our proposed method aims at detecting these non-Lambertian features, and is focused on characterising them. This could be useful for many feature-based algorithms, including recognition, segmentation, visual servoing, simultaneous localization and mapping, visual odometry, and SfM. We are interested in exploring the impact of our refracted feature distinguisher in a SfM framework. While there has been significant development in SfM in recent years [@wei2013structureFromMotionSurvey], Johannsen was the first to consider LFs in the SfM framework [@johannsen2015linear]. As a first step, our work does not yet explore LF-based SfM. Instead, we investigate SfM’s performance with respect to refracted features, which has not yet been fully explored. We show that rejecting refracted features reduces reprojection error and failure rate near refractive objects.
LIGHT FIELD BACKGROUND
======================
We parameterize the LF using the relative two-plane parameterization (2PP) [@tsai2016lfvisualservo]. A ray with coordinates $\vec{\phi}=[s,t,u,v]^T$, where $^T$ represents the vector transpose, is described by two points of intersection with two parallel reference planes; an $s,t$ plane conventionally closest to the camera, and a $u,v$ plane conventionally closer to the scene, separated by arbitrary distance $D$.
For a Lambertian point in space $\vec{P} = [P_x, P_y, P_z]^T \in \mathbb{R}^3 $, the rays follow a linear relationship $$\begin{bmatrix}
u \\
v
\end{bmatrix}
= \begin{pmatrix}
\frac{D}{P_{z}}
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
P_{x} - s \\
P_{y} - t
\end{bmatrix},
\label{eq:ptPlane4D}$$ where each of these equations describes a hyperplane in 4D. In this paper, a hyperplane is defined as a vector subspace that has 1 dimension less than the space it is contained within [@hyperplane]. Thus a hyperplane in 4D is a 3-dimensional manifold, and can be described by a single equation $$n_1 s + n_2 t + n_3 u + n_4 v + n_5 = 0,
\label{eq:hyperplaneAlgebraic}$$ where $\vec{n} = [n_1, n_2, n_3, n_4]^T$ is the normal of the hyperplane. Similarly, a plane is defined as a 2-dimensional manifold; in other words, it can be described by two linearly independent vectors. Therefore, a plane in 4D can be defined by the intersection of two hyperplanes
and (\[eq:ptPlane4D\]) can be re-written in the form, $$\begin{aligned}
\underbrace{
\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{D}{P_z} & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & \frac{D}{P_z} & 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}
}_\text{$\vec{m}$}
\begin{bmatrix}
s\\t\\u\\v
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{D P_x}{P_z} \\ \frac{D P_y}{P_z}
\end{bmatrix},
\label{eq:plane4D_2PP}\end{aligned}$$ where $\vec{m}$ contains the two orthogonal normals to the plane. Therefore, a Lambertian point in 3D manifests itself as a plane in 4D, which is characterized by two linearly-independent normal vectors that each define a hyperplane in 4D. In the literature, this relationship is sometimes referred to as the point-plane correspondence.
Light field slope $w$ relates the rate of change of image plane coordinates, with respect to viewpoint position, for all rays emanating from a point in the scene. In the literature, slope is sometimes referred to as “orientation” [@wanner2013reflectiveTransparentFromEPI], and other works compute slope as an angle [@tosic2014lightFieldScaleSpace]. The slope comes directly from (\[eq:ptPlane4D\]) as $$w = -\frac{D}{P_z},$$ and is clearly related to depth. Importantly, slope is uniform; it is identical for the $s,u$ and $t,v$ planes for a Lambertian point.
DISTINGUISHING REFRACTIVE FEATURES
==================================
Epipolar planar images (EPIs) graphically illustrate the apparent motion of a feature across multiple views [@bolles1987epipolar]. If the entire light field $L$ is given as $L(s,t,u,v)$, EPIs represent a 2D slice of the 4D LF. A horizontal EPI is given as $L(s,t^*,u,v^*)$, and a vertical EPI is denoted as $L(s^*,t,u^*,v)$, where $^*$ indicates a variable is fixed while others are allowed to vary. The central view of the LF is given as $L(s_0,t_0,u,v)$, and is equivalent to what a monocular camera would provide from the same pose. As shown in Fig. \[fig:FeatureBehaviour\], features from a Lambertian scene point are linearly distributed with respect to viewpoint, unlike features from highly-distorting refractive objects. We compare this difference in apparent motion between Lambertian and non-Lambertian features to distinguish refracted features.
\
\
Fig. \[fig:exEpi2\] shows the central view and an example EPI of a crystal ball LF (large baseline) from the New Stanford Light Field Archive [@stanfordLightfieldArchiveNew]. A Lambertian point forms a straight line in the EPI, which represents one of the point’s hyperplanes in 4D, as illustrated by the Lambertian scene content in Fig. \[fig:exVertEpi\], i.e. to the top ($v < 100$), and bottom ($v > 200$) of the crystal ball. The relation between slope and depth is also apparent in this EPI.
For a refracted feature, such as those seen in Fig. \[fig:exVertEpi\] for $100 < v < 200$ pix, detection in the LF simplifies to finding features that violate (\[eq:ptPlane4D\]) via identifying non-linear feature curves in the EPIs and/or inconsistent slopes between two independent EPI lines, such as the vertical and horizontal EPIs. We note that occlusions and specular reflections also violate (\[eq:ptPlane4D\]). Occlusions appear as straight lines, but have intersections in the EPI. Edges of the refractive objects, and objects with low distortion also appear Lambertian. Specular reflections appear as a superposition of lines in the EPI. We will address these issues in future work. For now, we discuss how we extracted these 4D feature curves, and then describe how we identify refracted features.
Extracting Feature Curves
-------------------------
For a given feature from the central view at coordinates $(u_0, v_0)$, we must determine the feature correspondences $(u^\prime,v^\prime)$ from the other views, which is equivalent to finding the feature’s apparent motion, or curves in the LF. In this paper, we start by detecting SIFT features [@lowe2004distinctive] in the central view, although the proposed method is agnostic to feature type. Next, we select a template surrounding the feature which is $k$-times the feature’s scale. We determined $k=5$ to yield the most consistent results. 2D Gaussian-weighted normalized cross-correlation (WNCC) is used across views to yield images, such as Fig. \[fig:viewCorr\]. To reduce computation, we only apply WNCC along a subset of the central row and column relative to the central view of the LF.
For Lambertian features, we plot the feature’s correlation response with respect to the views to yield a correlation EPI. Illustrated in Fig. \[fig:epiCorr\], the peaks of the correlation EPI correspond to the feature curve from original EPI.
\
For refracted features, we hypothesize that the correlation response will be sufficiently strong that peak values of the correlation EPI will still correspond to the desired feature curve. As such, we threshold the correlation EPI into a binary mask to reduce the area considered for the feature curve. We then take the peak values of the connected component that contains our feature. We apply several line consistency thresholds to remove incorrectly-detected feature curves due to edge boundaries or peak values corresponding to the wrong features. Thresholds were tailored for the specific application. This textural cross-correlation method allows us to focus on the image structure, as opposed to the image intensities, can be applied to any LF camera, and directly exploits the geometry of the LF.
Fitting 4D Planarity to Feature Curves
--------------------------------------
Similar to [@xu2015transparentObjectSegmentation], we consider the feature ray $\phi(0,0,u_0,v_0)$. The corresponding feature coordinates in other views are $\phi^\prime(s,t,u^\prime,v^\prime)$. The LFD is then defined as the set of relative differences between $\phi$ and $\phi^\prime$: $$LFD(u,v) = \{(s,t,\Delta u, \Delta v) | (s,t) ~= (0,0)\},
\label{eq:lfd}$$ where $\Delta u = u^\prime - u_0$, and $\Delta v = v^\prime - v_0$ are feature disparities.
As illustrated in Fig. \[fig:XuLinear\], these disparities are linear with respect to linear camera translation. The disparities from refracted features deviate from this linear relation. Fitting them to (\[eq:ptPlane4D\]) yields the plane of best fit in 4D, and the error of this fit provides a measure of whether or not our feature is Lambertian.
This plane in 4D can be estimated from the feature correspondences given by the feature curves $f_h(s,t^*,\Delta u,v^* - v_0)$, and $f_v(s^*,t,u^* - u_0,\Delta v)$ that we extract from the horizontal and vertical EPIs, respectively. As discussed in Section III, our plane in 4D has two orthogonal normals, $\vec{n}_h$ and $\vec{n}_v$. The 4D plane containing $\phi$ can be given as $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{bmatrix}
n_{h,1} & n_{h,2} & n_{h,3} & n_{h,4} \\
n_{v,1} & n_{v,2} & n_{v,3} & n_{v,4}
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
s\\t\\ \Delta u\\ \Delta v
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
0 \\ 0
\end{bmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the constants on the right-hand side of (\[eq:plane4D\_2PP\]) cancel out because we consider the differences relative to $u_0$ and $v_0$. The positions for $s,t$ can be obtained by calibration [@dansereau2013decoding], although the non-linearity behaviour still holds when working with units of “views” for $s,t$.
We can estimate $\vec{n}_h$ and $\vec{n}_v$ by fitting the $N$ points from $f_h$ and $M$ points from $f_v$ into the system, $$\begin{aligned}
\underbrace{
\begin{bmatrix}
(s, & t^*, & \Delta u, & v^*-v_0)_1 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\
(s, & t^*, & \Delta u, & v^*-v_0)_N \\
(s^*, & t, & u^*-u_0, & \Delta v)_1 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\
(s^*, & t, & u^*-u_0, & \Delta v)_M \\
\end{bmatrix}
}_\text{$\vec{A}$}
\underbrace{
\begin{bmatrix}
n_1\\
n_2\\
n_3\\
n_4
\end{bmatrix}
}_\text{$\vec{n}$}
=
\vec{0}.
\label{eq:svd}\end{aligned}$$
We then use SVD on $\vec{A}$ to compute the singular vectors, and corresponding singular values. The 2 smallest singular values, $e_1$ and $e_2$, correspond to 2 normals $\vec{n}_1$ and $\vec{n}_2$ that best satisfy (\[eq:svd\]) in the least-squares sense. The magnitude of the singular values provides an error measure of the planar fit. Smaller errors imply stronger linearity, while larger errors imply that the feature deviates from the 4D plane.
The norm of $e_1$ and $e_2$ may be taken as a single measure of planarity; however, doing so masks the case where a refractive object has unequal errors between the two EPIs, such as a 1D refractive object (glass cylinder) that is highly refractive along one direction, but almost Lambertian along the other. Therefore, we reject those features that have large errors in either horizontal or vertical hyperplanes, according to an empirical threshold. This planar consistency, along with the slope consistency measure discussed in the following section, make the proposed method more sensitive to refracted texture than prior work that considers only hyperplanar consistency [@xu2015transparentObjectSegmentation].
While Xu also applies occlusion handling and a graph segmentation framework to complete their transparent object image segmentation algorithm, simply taking the smallest singular value allows us to directly compare the underlying principles for our feature distinguisher.
Measuring Slope Consistency
---------------------------
Slope consistency is a measure of how similar the slopes are between the two hyperplanes for a given feature. As seen in (\[eq:ptPlane4D\]), these slopes must be equal for Lambertian points. We can compute the slopes for each hyperplane given their normals. For the horizontal hyperplane, we solve for in-plane vector $\vec{q} = [q_s, q_u]^T$, by taking the inner product of the two vectors in $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{bmatrix}
n_{h,1} & n_{h,3} \\
n_{v,1} & n_{v,3}
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
q_s \\
q_u
\end{bmatrix}
= \vec{0},\end{aligned}$$ where $\vec{q}$ is constrained to the $s,u$ plane, because we choose the first and third elements of $\vec{n}_h$ and $\vec{n}_v$. This system is solved using SVD, and the minimum singular vector yields $\vec{q}$. The slope for the horizontal hyperplane, $w_{su}$ is then $$w_{su} = \frac{q_s}{q_u}.$$ The slope for the vertical hyperplane $w_{tv}$ is similarly computed from the second and fourth elements of the normal vectors. Alternatively, one can also find the line of best fit for the $s,u$-values in $f_h$, and the $t,v$-values in $f_v$. Slope inconsistency $c$ is calculated as the square of differences between slopes. Finally, a threshold for slope inconsistency is applied, which is tuned for the application. Features with very inconsistent slopes and large planar errors are identified as belonging to a highly-distorting refractive object, which we refer to as a refracted feature.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
====================
First, we present our experimental set-up. Second, we present results of our feature extraction method for Lambertian and refracted features. Third, we apply our methods to LFs captured with different baselines. Fourth, we apply our methods to LFs captured with a lenslet-based LF camera to compare different refractive object types. Finally, we use our method to reject refracted features for monocular SfM in the presence of refractive objects, and investigate the impact of our approach.
Experimental Set-up
-------------------
We used the Stanford New Light Field Database [@stanfordLightfieldArchiveNew], which provided LFs captured from a Lego gantry with a $17\times17$ grid of rectified $1024\times1024$-pixel images that were down-sampled to $256\times256$ pixels to reduce computation. We focused on two LFs that both captured the same scene of a crystal ball surrounded by textured tarot cards. The first was captured with a large baseline (16.1 mm/view over 275 mm), while the second was captured with a smaller baseline (3.7 mm/view over 64 mm). This allowed us to compare the effect of LF camera baseline for refracted features.
Even smaller baselines were considered using a lenslet-based LF camera. Also known as a plenoptic camera, these LF cameras are of interest to robotics due to their simultaneous view capture, and typically lower size and mass, compared to LF camera arrays and gantries. In this section, the Lytro Illum was used to capture LFs with $15\times15$ views, each $433\times625$ pixels. Dansereau’s Light Field Toolbox was used to decode the LFs from raw LF imagery to the 2PP [@dansereau2013decoding]. To compensate for the extreme lens distortion of the Illum, we removed the outer views, reducing our LF to $13\times13$ views. The LF camera was fixed at 100 mm zoom. For these optics, the Illum was roughly equivalent to a 1.1 mm/view over 16.6 mm LF camera array. It is important to remember that our results depend on a number of factors. First, the shape and size of the object dictates how the light is refracted. Higher curvature and thickness yield more warping. Second, viewing distance, and background distance to the object directly affect how much distortion can be observed. The closer either is to the object, the more refraction can be observed. Similarly, a larger camera baseline captures more refraction. When possible, these factors were held constant throughout different experiments.
Feature Curve Extraction
------------------------
We first considered our textural cross-correlation approach, which worked well for Lambertian features. For such a feature the correlation EPI is shown as a surface in Fig. \[fig:lambCorrelationEpi\] with the feature from the central view shown as the red dot. The corresponding peaks from the other views are shown as the red line. This line corresponds to the feature curve in the image space, as shown in Fig. \[fig:lambFeatureCurve\]. Line consistency thresholds were implemented to ensure consistent feature curves. Although not implemented, we can limit the cross-correlation space, since we know the features move with some maximum slope, to further reduce computation.
For refracted features, our approach captured the feature curves. For a typical refracted SIFT feature, the correlation EPI is shown in Fig. \[fig:nccEpiFlat\]. We observed that while the correlation function often had a much weaker response compared to the Lambertian case, local maxima were still observed near the original feature’s spatial location in the central view. Thus, taking the local maxima of the correlation EPI still yielded the desired feature curve, as shown in Fig. \[fig:nccLine\]. Our method relies on thresholds that we have set empirically, which results in limited flexibility to changing environmental conditions. As future work, we are considering implementing ridge-following methods to improve the feature curve extraction. Nonetheless, our textural cross-correlation method enabled us to extract refracted feature curves without focusing on image intensities in a way that exploited the geometry of the LF.
\
Refracted Feature Comparison for LF Camera Baseline
---------------------------------------------------
For implementation, the thresholds for planarity and slope consistency were manually applied in order to provide optimal results for both Xu’s and our approach, independently. For metrics, the number of refracted feature detections and false positives were counted, and compared. The true positive rate (TPR) was given as the number of refracted features detected in the central view within the image space occupied by the refractive object, over the number of actual refracted features, obtained via a mask identified by the author for the refractive object in the central view. The false positive rate (FPR) was calculated as the number of features falsely identified as refracted over the number of features not refracted.
Table \[tbl:comparison\] shows the results for baseline comparison, with the large baseline case shown at the top in Fig. \[fig:comparison\]. For large baselines, a significant apparent motion was observed in the EPIs, and thus refracted features yielded non-linear curves, which strongly deviated from the hyperplanes in 4D. In contrast, the non-linear characteristics of refracted feature curves were much less apparent in shorter-baseline LFs. Fig. \[fig:exEpiSmall\] shows the horizontal and vertical EPIs for a sample refracted feature taken from the small baseline LF. The feature curves appear almost straight, despite being refracted by the crystal ball. However, we observed that the slopes were inconsistent in this particular example, which could still be used to distinguish refracted features.
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xu’s Method Our Method
![Comparison of Xu’s method (left), and our method (right), detecting Lambertian (blue), and refracted (red) SIFT features. In the top row, the crystal ball captured with a large baseline LF is shown (cropped) [@stanfordLightfieldArchiveNew], where both methods detect refracted features; however, our method outperforms Xu’s. In the second and third rows, a cylinder and sphere captured with a small-baseline lenslet-based LF camera. Our method successfully detects more refracted features with fewer false positives, while Xu’s method does not reliably detect refracted features for small baselines. ](Figures/crystalLarge_LFFeatures_XuHyperplanarityThresh.png "fig:"){width="0.47\columnwidth" height="0.34\columnwidth"} ![Comparison of Xu’s method (left), and our method (right), detecting Lambertian (blue), and refracted (red) SIFT features. In the top row, the crystal ball captured with a large baseline LF is shown (cropped) [@stanfordLightfieldArchiveNew], where both methods detect refracted features; however, our method outperforms Xu’s. In the second and third rows, a cylinder and sphere captured with a small-baseline lenslet-based LF camera. Our method successfully detects more refracted features with fewer false positives, while Xu’s method does not reliably detect refracted features for small baselines. ](Figures/crystalLarge_LFFeatures_DdRefractive.png "fig:"){width="0.47\columnwidth" height="0.34\columnwidth"}
![Comparison of Xu’s method (left), and our method (right), detecting Lambertian (blue), and refracted (red) SIFT features. In the top row, the crystal ball captured with a large baseline LF is shown (cropped) [@stanfordLightfieldArchiveNew], where both methods detect refracted features; however, our method outperforms Xu’s. In the second and third rows, a cylinder and sphere captured with a small-baseline lenslet-based LF camera. Our method successfully detects more refracted features with fewer false positives, while Xu’s method does not reliably detect refracted features for small baselines. ](Figures/Cyl30_IMG_5201__Decoded_LFFeatures_XuHyperplanarityThresh.png "fig:"){width="0.47\columnwidth"} ![Comparison of Xu’s method (left), and our method (right), detecting Lambertian (blue), and refracted (red) SIFT features. In the top row, the crystal ball captured with a large baseline LF is shown (cropped) [@stanfordLightfieldArchiveNew], where both methods detect refracted features; however, our method outperforms Xu’s. In the second and third rows, a cylinder and sphere captured with a small-baseline lenslet-based LF camera. Our method successfully detects more refracted features with fewer false positives, while Xu’s method does not reliably detect refracted features for small baselines. ](Figures/Cyl30_IMG_5201__Decoded_LFFeatures_DdRefractive.png "fig:"){width="0.47\columnwidth"}
![Comparison of Xu’s method (left), and our method (right), detecting Lambertian (blue), and refracted (red) SIFT features. In the top row, the crystal ball captured with a large baseline LF is shown (cropped) [@stanfordLightfieldArchiveNew], where both methods detect refracted features; however, our method outperforms Xu’s. In the second and third rows, a cylinder and sphere captured with a small-baseline lenslet-based LF camera. Our method successfully detects more refracted features with fewer false positives, while Xu’s method does not reliably detect refracted features for small baselines. ](Figures/Sph04_IMG_5131__Decoded_LFFeatures_XuHyperplanarityThresh.png "fig:"){width="0.47\columnwidth"} ![Comparison of Xu’s method (left), and our method (right), detecting Lambertian (blue), and refracted (red) SIFT features. In the top row, the crystal ball captured with a large baseline LF is shown (cropped) [@stanfordLightfieldArchiveNew], where both methods detect refracted features; however, our method outperforms Xu’s. In the second and third rows, a cylinder and sphere captured with a small-baseline lenslet-based LF camera. Our method successfully detects more refracted features with fewer false positives, while Xu’s method does not reliably detect refracted features for small baselines. ](Figures/Sph04_IMG_5131__Decoded_LFFeatures_DdRefractive.png "fig:"){width="0.47\columnwidth"}
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[fig:comparison\]
Our method’s TPR was 34.3% higher Xu’s method for the large baseline case, which we attributed to more accurately fitting the plane, as opposed to the single hyperplane in 4D. For the small baseline case, we attributed our 38.9% TPR increase to accounting for slope consistency, which Xu did not address. Our slightly higher FPR would not be problematic as long as there are sufficiently many features. These false positives were due to occlusions, which are not yet distinguished in our implementation. However, this may still be beneficial as occlusions are non-Lambertian, and thus undesirable for most algorithms. Sampling from all the views in the LF would likely improve the results for both Xu’s and our methods, as more data would improve the planar fit.
[c cc cc]{}[ ]{} [ & &\
& **TPR** & **FPR** & **TPR** & **FPR** **Baseline** & & & &\
large (275 mm) & 37.1% & **1.3%** & **71.4%** & 3.5%\
small (64 mm) & 16.6% & **0%** & **55.5%** & 3.9%\
**Object** & & & &\
cylinder & 12.7% & 14.8% & **90.9%** & **10.1%**\
sphere & 27.4% & 54.2% & **53.4%** & **6.2%** ]{}
Detection with the Lenslet-based LF Camera
------------------------------------------
We investigated two different types of refractive objects, including a glass sphere and an acrylic cylinder, shown in the bottom two rows of Fig. \[fig:comparison\]. The sphere exhibited significant refraction along both the horizontal and vertical viewing axes; however, the cylinder only exhibited significant refraction perpendicular to its longitudinal axis. The refractive objects were placed within a textured scene in order to create textural details on the refractive surface.
Table \[tbl:comparison\] shows the results of over 10 LFs taken from a variety of different viewing poses of the given refractive object. Planar error did not appear to be a strong indicator of refraction for the lenslet-based LF camera. Fig \[fig:comparison\] shows a sample detection for the cylinder. Xu’s method was unable to detect the refractive cylinder, while our method succeeded. Since the cylinder was aligned with the vertical axis, we expected non-linear behaviour for cylinder features along the horizontal axis. However, the small baseline of the camera reduced this effect, yielding EPIs similar to Fig. \[fig:exEpiSmall\], and so the warping due to refraction through the cylinder was not apparent from this measure alone. On the other hand, slope consistency was a very strong indicator of refraction. A refractive sphere was also investigated. A comparison of Xu’s and our method is shown in Fig. \[fig:comparison\], whereby our method successfully detected the refracted features, while Xu’s failed to reliably detect the sphere. Features that were located close to the edge of the sphere appear more linear, and thus were not always detected. Other missed detections were due to specular reflections, that appeared like well-behaved Lambertian points. Finally, there are some missed detections near the middle of the sphere, where there is identical apparent motion in the horizontal and vertical hyperplanes.
Rejecting Refracted Features for Structure from Motion
------------------------------------------------------
We validated our method by examining the impact of refracted features on an SfM pipeline. We captured a sequence of LFs that gradually approached a refractive object using a lenslet-based LF camera; thus the image sequence had an increasing number of refracted features. We used Colmap, a publicly-available, modular SfM implementation [@schoenberger2016sfmRevisited]. The centre view of the LF was used as input to SfM. Incremental SfM was performed on an image sequence where each successive image had an increasing number of refracted features, making it increasingly difficult for SfM to converge. If SfM converged, a sparse reconstruction was produced, and the reprojection error was computed.
For each LF, SIFT features in the central view were detected, creating an unfiltered list of features, some of which were refractive. Our distinguisher was then used to remove refracted features, creating a filtered list of features. Both the unfiltered, and filtered lists of features were imported separately into the SfM pipeline, which included its own outlier rejection and bundle adjustment.
Outlier rejection schemes, such as RANSAC, are often used to reject inconsistent features, which includes refracted features. And while we observed some sequences where RANSAC successfully rejected most of the refracted features, more than 53% of inliers were actually refracted features in some cases. This suggested that in the presence of refractive objects, RANSAC is insufficient on its own for robust and accurate structure and motion estimation.
We measured the ratio of refracted features $r = i_{r} / i_{t}$, where $i_{r}$ is the number of refracted features in the image (obtained via a manually-defined mask), and $i_{t}$ is the total number of features detected in the image. We considered the reprojection error as it varied with $r$. The results are shown in Fig. \[fig:sfmResults\], in which, unsurprisingly, the error for the unfiltered case was consistently significantly higher (up to 42.4% higher for $r < 0.6$ in the red case), and increased much faster than the filtered case, except when the number of inlier features became too low ($<30$). This suggested that having a more consistent (non-refractive) feature set improves the accuracy of reconstruction. Additionally, in many cases the unfiltered case failed to converge, while the filtered case was still successful, suggesting better convergent properties. Sample scenes that prevented SfM from converging are shown in Fig. \[fig:cylinderFail\], and \[fig:sphereFail\]. These scenes could not be used with SfM without our refracted feature distinguisher.
\
However, rejecting refracted features prior SfM does not guarantee convergence for SfM, which can fail for a number of reasons. Perhaps most significantly, removing all of the refracted features reduces the number of candidate features for matching, sometimes below the threshold for minimum number of features required by Colmap to register images. In these situations, the unfiltered case is sometimes more likely to converge (albeit with much larger error) simply due to having more inlier features. This is seen in filtered case 2 in Fig. \[fig:sfmResults\]. Additionally, as we move closer, the number of detected features naturally decreases, making SfM in the presence of refractive objects even more challenging.
For the cases where SfM was able to converge in the presence of refractive objects, we observed “phantom points” in the SfM reconstruction. Phantom points are points that were placed in empty space near—but not on—the refractive object by SfM, due to refracted features counted as inliers. With our method, there were little to no such phantom points in the reconstruction. This is a subtle but important difference since the absence of information is treated very differently from incorrect information in robotics. For example, phantom points might incorrectly fill an occupancy map, preventing a robot from grasping refractive objects.
CONCLUSIONS
===========
In this paper, we proposed a method to distinguish refracted features based on a planar fit in 4D and slope consistency. To achieve this, we extracted feature curves from the 4D LF using textural cross-correlation. For large baselines, our approach yielded higher rates of detection than previous work; however, for smaller baselines, including a lenslet-based LF camera, previous methods were unable to detect refracted objects, while our approach was successful. For these baselines, slope inconsistency proved to be a much stronger indicator of refraction than planar consistency. This is appealing for mobile robot applications, such as domestic robots that are limited in size and mass, but will have to navigate and eventually interact with refractive objects. We also demonstrated that rejecting refracted features in monocular SfM yields lower reprojection errors, which may imply better reconstructions of the non-refractive parts of the scene in the presence of refractive objects. Further research into slope consistency, the distribution of refracted features, and LF-specific features may lead towards recovering refractive shape from features.
It is important to note that while we have developed a set of criteria for refracted features in the LF, these criteria are not necessarily limited to refracted features. Depending on the surface, specular reflections may appear as non-linear. Poor camera calibrations may also cause Lambertian features to appear refractive in the light field. Occlusions are also occasionally detected, though they must be properly identified in future work. These types of features are typically undesirable, and so we retain features that are strongly Lambertian, and thus good candidates for matching, which ultimately leads to more robust robot performance in the presence of refractive objects. Finally, in this paper, we explored the effect of removing the refractive content from the scene. In future work, we plan to exploit the refractive content for robot motion and refractive shape recovery.
[^1]: This research was partly supported by the Australian Research Council (ARC) Centre of Excellence for Robotic Vision (CE140100016).
[^2]: $^{1}$D. Tsai, T. Peynot and P. Corke are with the Australian Centre for Robotic Vision (ACRV), Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, Australia [{dy.tsai, t.peynot, peter.corke}@qut.edu.au]{}
[^3]: $^{2}$D. Dansereau is with the Stanford Computational Imaging Lab, Stanford University, CA, USA. [[email protected]]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Atomic vapors are systems well suited for nonlinear optics studies but very few direct measurements of their nonlinear refractive index have been reported. Here we use the z-scan technique to measure the Kerr coefficient, $n_2$, for a Cs vapor. Our results are analyzed through a four-level model, and we show that coherence between excited levels as well as cross-population effects contribute to the Kerr-nonlinearity.'
author:
- 'Michelle O. Araújo, Hugo L. D. de S. Cavalcante, Marcos Oriá, Martine Chevrollier and Thierry Passerat de Silans.'
- 'Romeu Castro, Danieverton Moretti.'
title: Measurement of the Kerr nonlinear refractive index of Cs vapor
---
INTRODUCTION
============
Atomic vapors are systems well suited for studies of optical nonlinearities. First of all, they are easy to saturate, which enables the observation of nonlinear effects with low intensity continuous-wave laser light [@Ashkin74; @Suter93]. At the same time, atomic vapors are damage-free which is important, for instance, for filamentation studies [@Abraham90]. Second, as the resonances are sharp the nonlinear parameters can be easily modified by finely tuning the frequency near or across a resonance [@Boller91]. This allows to play with the relative contributions of linear and nonlinear effects by changing the laser wavelength. Third, atomic systems allow for a variety of level schemes exploring fine, hyperfine and Zeeman levels such as: two-level systems [@Labeyrie2003; @Saffman04], $\Lambda$ three-level schemes [@Boller91], double-$\Lambda$ four-level schemes [@Lukin00; @Passerat11], five-level schemes [@Andersen01] and so on. Fourth, in most experiments, when one can ignore radiation trapping and collisional effects, atomic vapors behave as locally saturable media and are thus easy to model [@Ackemann98].\
As atomic vapors are isotropic media, the first nonlinear contribution to the polarization is a third-order term in the electric field ($\chi^{(3)}E^3$), in the dipole approximation [@Chi2]. The third-order susceptibility $\chi^{(3)}$ is responsible for phenomena such as EIT [@Boller91], four-wave mixing [@Liao78], third-harmonic generation [@Harris71], self-focusing and self-trapping effects [@Chiao64; @Grischkowsky70]. Those phenomena are expected to have applications, for instance, in correlated photons generation [@Lett09], nondemolition measurement [@Xiao08] and generation of optical solitons [@Suter93]. In this article, we are interested in the self-focusing of a light beam, which originates from the real part of the third-order susceptibility and results in a Kerr-like term in the medium refraction index: $n=n_0+n_2I$. Self-focusing was observed in the early seventies [@Grischkowsky70]. The change from self-focusing to self-defocusing behavior when one scans the laser frequency through an atomic resonance has recently been used to generate an error signal for frequency stabilization [@ANGELLS; @ANGELLS2].\
A very simple and easy-to-implement technique to measure the Kerr coefficient, $n_2$, is the well known z-scan technique [@Sheik]. Despite the potential of atomic samples for self-focusing study, very few direct experimental measurements of $n_2$ have been carried on. The z-scan technique was used to probe Na [@Sinha02] and Rb [@Mccormick04; @Mccormick03] vapors and for clouds of cold Cs atoms [@Saffman04]. To our knowledge, no measurements have been made exploring the D2 line of hot Cs vapors, on which we report in this article. As alkali atomic vapors have sharp resonances, with linewidths of a few MHz for cold atomic clouds to hundreds of MHz for Doppler-broadened resonances, the behavior of $n_2$ with detuning is rich and accessible to lasers with relatively narrow tuning ranges. This makes atomic systems qualitatively different from solid-state and liquid systems, these two last exhibiting nonlinear properties varying weakly with frequency. In [@Sinha02] are reported measurements in a sample of Na vapor, carried out far from central resonance. In this limit, $n_2$ has a well-known behavior $n_2\sim1/\delta^3$ [@Grischkowsky70], where $\delta$ is the frequency detuning. Experimental results for detunings of a few Doppler widths from Rb resonance [@Mccormick04] indicate that a model of velocity-integration of the resonant lineshape, simulated by the derivative of a Gaussian function, is more adequate than the $1/\delta^3$ behavior. There are no reports on the observation of the two regimes of detuning in the same system. Moreover, the expressions used in [@Sinha02; @Mccormick04] are derived from a two-level model, which is a reasonable approximation in these systems where the Doppler width is much larger than the hyperfine spacing. However, as the Cs 6P$_{3/2}$ hyperfine sublevel spacing is close to the Doppler width of the D2 transition, one has to consider a four-level system in order to get a more realistic description. In this article we measure $n_2$ for a hot Cs vapor in both the close-to- and the far-from-resonance regimes and develop a four-level model, consisting in one ground and three excited levels. We show that cross-population and excited coherence terms give important contributions to the $n_2$ value. The experimentally measured $n_2$ values are shown to be much more consistent with this four-level theory.
THEORETICAL MODELS
==================
Self-focusing of a laser beam in a nonlinear medium is a third-order nonlinear effect, i.e., it is induced by the intensity-dependent term in the refractive index $n=n_0+n_2I$. The Kerr coefficient, $n_2$, is related to the third-order susceptibility, $\chi^{(3)}$ by [@Boyd]: $$n_2=\frac{3}{4n^2_0\epsilon_0c}\Re{\chi^{(3)}}, \label{n2Chi}$$ where $n_0$ is the intensity-independent refractive index ($n_0\approx1$ for a dilute vapor), $\epsilon_0$ is the vacuum permittivity, $c$ is the speed of light in vacuum and $\Re{\chi^{(3)}}$ is the real part of $\chi^{(3)}$.\
The third-order susceptibility can be calculated, using the density matrix formalism, as: $$\chi^{(3)}=\frac{N}{3E^3\epsilon_0}\sum_j\left(\mu_{j0}\rho^{(3)}_{0j}+\mu_{0j}\rho^{(3)}_{j0}\right), \label{chi3}$$ where $\left|j\right\rangle$ denotes the excited states, $\left|0\right\rangle$ denotes the ground state, $N$ is the atomic density, $E$ is the electric field amplitude and $\mu_{0j}=\left\langle 0\right|\hat{\mu}\left|j\right\rangle$ is the ground-excited electric dipole matrix element. In (\[chi3\]), the density matrix has been expanded in a series of powers of $E$: $\rho=\sum\limits_{l}\rho^{(l)}$ and $\rho^{(3)}_{0j}$ is the ground-excited coherence term that has a cubic dependence with $E$.\
For an atomic vapor, one has to integrate the velocity-dependent coherence term, $\rho_{0j}(v)$, over the Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution, $W(v)$, to take into account the Doppler shift induced by the atomic motion. Thus, $$\rho_{0j}=\int dv\: W(v)\rho_{0j}(v).$$
In the following, we will calculate the Kerr coefficient first for a general two-level system, and then for the specific Cs D2 line, for which we take into account one hyperfine ground state and three hyperfine excited levels.\
Two-level system
----------------
We write a Hamiltonian for a closed two-level system in the rotating-wave and dipole approximations, which is given by: $$H=\hbar\omega_j\left|j\right\rangle\left\langle j\right|-\hbar\Omega_j e^{i\omega t}\left|0\right\rangle\left\langle j\right|-\hbar\Omega_j e^{-i\omega t}\left|j\right\rangle\left\langle 0\right|, \label{twoH}$$
where $\hbar\omega_j$ is the energy of the excited state $\left|j\right\rangle$ (the ground state is taken at zero energy), $\Omega_j=\mu_{0j} E/\hbar$ is the Rabi frequency and $\omega$ is the field frequency.
For an atom with velocity component $v$ along the beam axis, it is well known that the real part of the susceptibility can be written as [@Boyd]: $$\Re{\chi_v}=\frac{4N\mu_{0j}}{E \epsilon_0}\frac{\Omega_j\delta_v/\Gamma^2}{\left(1+\frac{4\delta_v^2}{\Gamma^2}+\frac{8\Omega^2}{\Gamma^2}\right)^2}, \label{2levelChi}$$ where $\delta_v=\omega-\omega_j-kv=\delta-kv$, $k$ is the wavenumber and $\Gamma$ is the homogeneous linewidth. For a weak light intensity one can expand the expression (\[2levelChi\]) and obtain [@Wang04]: $$\Re{\chi^{(3)}_v}=\frac{32N\mu_{0j}^4}{3\epsilon_0\hbar^3}\frac{\delta_v/\Gamma^4}{\left(1+\frac{4\delta_v^2}{\Gamma^2}\right)^2}, \label{2levelRChi}$$ which gives the contribution to the third-order susceptibility from atoms in each class of velocity. To sum the contributions of all the atoms of the vapor, one integrates (\[2levelRChi\]) over the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of atomic velocities: $$\Re{\chi^{(3)}}=\int dv \Re{\chi^{(3)}_v}W(v). \label{2levelIntegration}$$
Notice that $\chi^{(3)}$ has a strong spectral dependence around the frequency of atomic transitions. Therefore, we will now consider two asymptotic regimes for the velocity integration: i) close to resonance, and under the condition $\Gamma\ll\Gamma_D$ ($\Gamma_D$ is the Doppler width), and ii) far from resonance.\
Close to resonance, the main contribution to the integral (\[2levelIntegration\]) comes from the classes of velocity for which the detuning is given by $\delta_v=\pm\Gamma/\sqrt{12}$ in the atomic reference frame (maximum of expression (\[2levelRChi\])). Thus, $n_2$ is proportional to the difference of population densities for which $\delta-kv=\pm\Gamma/\sqrt{12}$. Therefore, $n_2$ is proportional to the derivative of a Gaussian lineshape [@Mccormick04]: $$n_2(\text{cm}^2\text{/W})=10^4\times\frac{8\pi^{7/2}\mu_{0j}^4N}{3c\epsilon_0^2h^3}\frac{2\pi\delta}{\Gamma(ku)^3} e^{-4\pi^2\delta^2/(ku)^2},\label{Close}$$ where $u$ is the width of the atomic velocity distribution.\
For a radiation tuned far from atomic resonance, all velocity classes that have a sizable population comply with the condition $\left|\delta_v\right|\gg0$. Thus, the contribution of all the atoms is essentially nonresonant, and all the velocity classes contribute in the same way (weighted by the population density) to the integral (\[2levelIntegration\]). The Kerr coefficient is then given by the far-from-resonance limit of expression (\[2levelRChi\]) and exhibits the well known $\delta^{-3}$ behavior ($\delta_v\gg\Gamma_D$) [@Sinha02; @Mccormick04]: $$n_2(\text{cm}^2\text{/W})=10^4\times\frac{\mu_{0j}^4N}{2c\epsilon^2_0\hbar^3\delta^{3}}. \label{far}$$
![(Color online) Calculated $n_2$ values (two-level model, Eq.(\[2levelIntegration\])) as a function of the laser detuning and the close- (red dashed, Eq. (\[Close\])) and far-from-resonance (blue dots, Eq. (\[far\])) asymptotic behavior, in a log$_{10}$-log$_{10}$ scale.[]{data-label="fig:DoisniveisIntegracao"}](Fig1.eps)
To obtain $n_2$ in the intermediate detuning range, one has to integrate equation (\[2levelIntegration\]). In order to compare the obtained result with the two asymptotic expressions (\[Close\]) and (\[far\]), we show in figure \[fig:DoisniveisIntegracao\] the $n_2(\delta)$ curve numerically calculated from (\[2levelIntegration\]), for a large detuning range on the blue side of the resonance, together with the close (Eq. (\[Close\])) and far (Eq. (\[far\])) from resonance asymptotic curves. Similar results are obtained on the red side of the resonance since $\chi^{(3)}$ has an antisymmetric lineshape with detuning in a two-level model. To our knowledge, previous measurements of $n_2$ have been limited to one of the asymptotic regimes [@Sinha02; @Mccormick04], and no one has explored all the detuning range. The observation of the Kerr coefficient in a large range of detunings is one of the accomplishments reported in this article.
Multi-level system
------------------
The D2 transition of alkali atoms has multiple excited hyperfine levels. In Cs atoms, the hyperfine energy splitting is of the same order of magnitude as the Doppler width. As a consequence, this hyperfine structure must be taken into account in the $n_2$ lineshape calculation. On the other hand, the splitting between fundamental hyperfine levels is much larger than the typical laser linewidth and the Doppler width of the D2 transition, so that we only take one ground state into account. Therefore, we consider cesium atoms as closed four-level systems consisting of one fundamental hyperfine level and three dipole-accessible excited hyperfine levels of the D2 transition (see Figure \[fig:Fig2\]a). The Hamiltonian considered here is a generalization of the Hamiltonian written above (eq. \[twoH\]) for the two-level system: $$H=\hbar\sum_j\omega_j\left|j\right\rangle\left\langle j\right|-\sum_j\left[\hbar\Omega_j e^{i\omega t}\left|0\right\rangle\left\langle j\right|-\hbar\Omega_j e^{-i\omega t}\left|j\right\rangle\left\langle 0\right|\right],$$
and its expansion in powers of $I$ is not straightforward. To gain a direct insight into $\chi^{(3)}$, we consider a perturbative expansion of the density matrix elements $\rho=\sum\limits_{l}\rho^{(l)}$ (see Appendix), and calculate $\chi^{(3)}$ using (\[chi3\]). The steady-state solutions for this third-order density matrix ground-excited coherence are given by: $$\rho^{(3)}_{0j}=\frac{-i\delta_j-\Gamma/2}{\delta_j^2+\Gamma^2/4}\left[2i\Omega_j\rho^{(2)}_{jj}+i\sum_{l\neq j}\Omega_j\rho^{(2)}_{ll}+i\sum_{l\neq j}\Omega_l\rho^{(2)}_{lj}\right] \label{rho3}$$
Analyzing the contribution to $n_2$ (eq. \[n2Chi\]) of the first term inside the brackets in equation (\[rho3\]), we notice that it simply consists in the summation of three independent two-level systems. Since the electric dipole moments are different for every hyperfine transition, the resulting lineshape is slightly asymmetric, as depicted in Figure \[fig:Fig2\]. The $F=4\rightarrow F'=5$ contribution dominates because of its larger dipole moment, since $n_2$ scales as $\mu^4$. This first term is the index effect of population exchange between the ground state and the excited level $\left|j\right\rangle$ and we call it the [*self-population*]{} contribution. The change in population in the other excited states is at the origin of the second term inside the brackets in equation (\[rho3\]) and we call it the [*cross-population*]{} contribution. This term results from the ground state depopulation and enhances the $n_2$ values, modifying the lineshape towards a more symmetric shape than the self-population term. The third term inside the brackets in equation (\[rho3\]) comes from a coherence build-up between excited states [@Asadpour12], and its relative contribution to $n_2$ is greater at large detunings (see Figure \[fig:Fig2\]c).\
![(Color online) a) Schematic representation of the relevant sub-levels of the Cs $6S_{1/2} (F=4)\rightarrow 6P_{3/2}(F'=3,4,5)$ transition (out of scale). b) Calculated values of $n_2$ using the ground-excited coherence from the four-level model (equation \[rho3\]). The contributions of the self-population (dashed, red), cross-population (dots, green) and the coherence between excited levels (dot-dashed, blue) are shown, together with the total Kerr coefficient (solid, black). c) Same as b) for blue-detuned frequencies relative to the Cs $6S_{1/2}(F=4)\rightarrow 6P_{3/2}(F'=5)$ transition, in log$_{10}$-log$_{10}$ scale.[]{data-label="fig:Fig2"}](Fig2.eps)
In the far-from-resonance asymptotic regime all terms in equation (\[rho3\]) scale as $\delta^{-3}$ and one obtains back the same $n_2$ values given by expression (\[far\]). In this limit, the self-population contributes one-half of the signal while the cross-population and the excited coherence terms contribute one-fourth each.\
EXPERIMENT
==========
![(Color online) Experimental setup. The laser beam passes through a single-mode optical fiber to generate a fundamental Gaussian profile. After the fiber, the beam passes through a 20-cm-focal lens and is detected in the far field region after a circular aperture, placed 39 cm from the focus point. A Cs vapor cell of thickness 1 mm is scanned along the beam path ($z$-axis). A Fabry-Perot interferometer (F-P) and a saturated absorption (SA) set-up allow to monitor the laser frequency. OF is an optical fiber, L are lenses, M is a mirror, BS is a beamspliter and PD is a photodetector.[]{data-label="fig:Fi3"}](Fig3.eps)
We measured the Kerr nonlinearity of a hot Cs vapor with a setup of the well known z-scan technique [@Sheik]. The experimental configuration is shown in Fig. (\[fig:Fi3\]). We collimate a Gaussian beam of diameter $3$ mm at the output of a monomode fiber. This beam is then focused by a 20-cm-focal lens and detected in the far field after the focal point. The shape of the beam and its diameter are checked all along the beam path using the knife-edge technique [@Arnaud71; @Khosrofian83]. The beam is linearly polarized. No magnetic shielding is used, nor is applied any external magnetic field, so that the system is submitted to the geomagnetic field only. An aperture is placed before the detector to spatially filter the beam. The far-from-resonance aperture transmittance is $S=0.6$. When a 1-mm-thick cell containing Cs vapor is displaced along the beam accross the focal point, the light intensity transmitted through the aperture is modified due to self-focusing/defocusing effects in the vapor. The cell thickness is shorter than the Rayleigh length ($\sim 5$ mm) so that beam shaping due to propagation and nonlinear refraction in the vapor is negligible [@Sheik]. The aperture transmittance as a function of the cell position $z$, relative to the focal point, is given by [@Sheik]:\
$$T=1-\frac{4\,\Delta\Phi_0 x}{\left(x^2+9\right)\left(x^2+1\right)},\label{transmission}$$ where $x=z/z_R$, $z_R$ is the Rayleigh length and $\Delta\Phi_0$ is the on-axis phase shift at focal point [@Sheik; @Mccormick04].\
Fitting equation (\[transmission\]) to the experimental curve one obtains the Kerr coefficient through: $$n_2=\frac{\lambda}{2\pi I_0L}\Delta \Phi_0$$ where $\lambda$ is the light beam wavelength, $L$ is the cell thickness and $I_0$ is the light intensity at focal point. The on-axis phase shift is proportional to the peak-to-peak amplitude of the transmission signal ($\Delta T$) [@Sheik], $$\Delta\Phi_0=\Delta T/\left[0.406\left(1-S\right)^{0.25}\right] \label{DT}.$$
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
====================
For the slightly heated Cs vapor we used ($T\approx70^\circ C$ , $N=2.4\times10^{12}$ atoms/cm$^3$ [@density]), the Doppler width is $\Gamma_D\sim2\pi\times250\times10^6\:\text{s}^{-1}$ . We have measured $n_2$ for red detuning $\left|\delta\right|\geq 2\pi\times600\times10^6\:\text{s}
^{-1}$ = 2.4 $\Gamma_D$ relative to the cyclic hyperfine transition. The intensity transmitted through the aperture is affected by defects of the moving elements. Thus, we have normalized the z-scan signal at the frequencies of interest by the $z$-scan signal at a frequency detuned $4$ GHz to the red side of the resonance. Furthermore, for the range of detuning from $600$ MHz to $800$ MHz, the nonlinear absorption is not negligible and we have further normalized the signal of the aperture transmission by an open-aperture signal. This procedure showed to be enough to obtain good values of $n_2$, even though, for a rigorous approach one should take into account the attenuation of the intensity through the vapor for those frequencies (the linear absorption ranges from $40\%$ for $\delta=2\pi\times600\times10^6\:\text{s}^{-1}$ to $10\%$ for $\delta=2\pi\times800\times10^6\:\text{s}^{-1}$) [@Mccormick03].\
In figure \[fig:Fig4\] we show two typical normalized z-scan curves obtained when the laser is detuned to the red side (Fig. \[fig:Fig4\]a) or to the blue side (Fig. \[fig:Fig4\]b) of the resonance. Note that, typically, a change of a few percent in the aperture transmission is obtained. For red detunings ($n_2<0$), the medium is self-defocusing and, as a consequence, the aperture transmission is increased when the cell is before the focal point and diminished when the cell is beyond it (Fig. \[fig:Fig4\]a). Conversely, for blue-detuned laser frequencies ($n_2>0$), the medium is self-focusing and a decrease followed by an increase of the signal is observed when the cell goes through the laser focus (Fig. \[fig:Fig4\]b). The signals were fitted using equation (\[transmission\]) and the fit parameters allow to obtain values of $n_2$.\
For equation (\[transmission\]) the condition $\Delta\Phi_0\ll1$ must be fulfilled while for equation (\[DT\]) $\Delta\Phi_0<\pi$ gives good enough values [@Sheik]. In our experiment the maximum value of $\Delta\phi_0$ is $0.4$ which gives good measured $n_2$ values. Ideally, one should use low-intensity beams to avoid higher order effects in the refractive index expansion ($n_4I^2$). Nevertheless, as $n_2$ decreases rapidly with detuning, the signal-to-noise ratio becomes small for low-intensity beams ($\Delta\Phi_0\propto n_2I\rightarrow0$). We have thus repeated the measurements for a few intensity values and fitted the measured $n_2(I)$ by a saturation law $n_2(I)=n_{2}^{ns}/(1+I/I_S)$, where $n_2^{ns}$ is the desired non-saturated Kerr coefficient value and $I_S$ is the detuning-dependent saturation intensity, which is kept as a fit parameter.\
![(Color online) Z-scan curve for (a) red detuning, $\omega-\omega_{45}=-2\pi\times1000\times10^6\:\text{s}^{-1}$ and $N=2.8\times10^{12}$ atoms/cm$^3$; (b) blue detuning, $\omega-\omega_{45}=2\pi\times600\times10^6\:\text{s}^{-1}$ and $N=2.4\times10^{12}$ atoms/cm$^3$. Black curves: experimental data. The red curves are best fits to the experimental curves and are calculated from equation (\[transmission\]).[]{data-label="fig:Fig4"}](Fig4.eps)
We have repeated the z-scan measurements for a variety of detunings and plotted the respective values of $n_2^{ns}$ as a function of $\delta$ in Figure \[fig:ResultsExp\]. Two asymptotic regimes are clearly identified: for small detunings, $n_2^{ns}$ follows the derivative of a Gaussian lineshape, while, for large detunings, a $\delta^{-3}$ dependence is observed. In Figure \[fig:ResultsExp\], we also show the theoretical values of $n_2$, calculated from the ground-excited coherence given by equation (\[rho3\]), as well as the particular contribution of each term separately. The theoretical $n_2$ curve fits well the experimental values, showing that considering simply a summation of independent two-level models is not enough to accurately calculate $n_2$.\
We have estimated an upper limit for the error, of 30% of the nonsaturated $n_2$ values. Splitting between Zeeman sublevels can be ignored since the maximum magnetic splitting due to geomagnetic field is smaller than 1 MHz. However, the Zeeman structure modifies the atom-field interaction, introducing, for instance, optical pumping between sublevels, which results in changes in the saturation intensity [@Mccormick03]. The good agreement between experiment and calculated values indicates that the contribution of the Zeeman structures to the signal is inside the errors bars. The difference between the values of $n_2$ obtained with the two-level and the four-level models is larger than the error bars for detunings below 1600 MHz.
![(Color online) Values of $n_2$ for red detuned frequencies relative to $F=4\rightarrow F'=5$ transition, and $T=70^\circ C$ ($N=2.4\times10^{12}$ atoms/cm$^3$). Triangle: experimental data. Other curves: different contributions to the theoretical calculation (see equations (\[chi3\]) and (\[rho3\])) together with the Kerr coefficient calculated for a two level model $F=4\rightarrow F'=5$. The error bars are estimated to be $30\%$ of $n_2^{ns}$ values.[]{data-label="fig:ResultsExp"}](Fig5.eps)
The ratio between measured $n_2^{ns}$ values and the vapor atomic densities ranges from $n_2/N=1.5\times10^{-16}$ cm$^5$/W for detunings of the order of two Doppler widths to $n_2/N=5\times10^{-20}$ cm$^5$/W for large detunings. The obtained values are comparable to the ones obtained in [@Mccormick04] for a Rb vapor, $n_2/N=10^{-19}$ cm$^5$/W for a detuning of 1 GHz.
CONCLUSION
==========
We have measured the Kerr coefficient for a Cs vapor for a large range of frequencies. The obtained $n_2^{ns}$ values vary over four decades as a function of the laser detuning. The experimental results clearly show two asymptotic regimes: a lineshape as the derivative of a Gaussian-like curve for detunings of the order of two times the Doppler widths, and a $\delta^{-3}$ behavior for much larger detunings. To interpret these asymptotic behaviors, the velocity integration for a two-level model was used and showed that it is not accurate for the prediction of $n_2$ values on the full detuning range. We have used a four-level model (one ground and three excited hyperfine levels) that correctly predicts the experimental results. From this multilevel model we showed that cross-population contribution and the build up of coherence between excited levels must be taken into account to accurately calculate $n_2$. Further refinement of the theory, such as considering the Zeeman structure, does not seem to be necessary for the level of measurement precision we have.
This work was partially funded by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq, contract 472353/2009-8, 470834/2012-9 and 484774/2011-5), Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES/Pró-equipamentos) and Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (FINEP).
APPENDIX: DETAILS OF THE MULTI-LEVEL CALCULATIONS {#appendix-details-of-the-multi-level-calculations .unnumbered}
=================================================
The Hamiltonian of the system is written in the dipole and in the rotating wave approximation as: $$H=\hbar\sum_j\omega_j\left|j\right\rangle\left\langle j\right|-\sum_j\left[\hbar\Omega_j e^{i\omega t}\left|0\right\rangle\left\langle j\right|-\hbar\Omega_j e^{-i\omega t}\left|j\right\rangle\left\langle 0\right|\right],$$ where the Rabi frequencies are written $\Omega_j=\mu_{0j}E/\hbar$. The Zeeman sublevels are not taken into account in our model and the matrix elements of the electric dipole moment are taken between the ground hyperfine level $F=4$ and the excited hyperfine levels $F'=3, 4, 5$.\
The matrix elements of the electric dipole moment are calculated as [@Steck]: $$\mu_{0F'}=\frac{1}{3}\left(2F'+1\right)\left(2J+1\right)\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}
J & J' & 1\\
F & F' & I
\end{array}\right\}^2\left|\left\langle J\right|\mu\left|J'\right\rangle\right|^2,$$ where $F(J)$ and $F'(J')$ represent the total atomic (electronic) angular momentum quantum numbers for ground and excited levels, respectively, and the term inside the brackets is the Wigner 6-j symbol.\
The fine-structure electric dipole moment is: $$\left|\left\langle J'\right|\mu\left| J'\right\rangle\right|^2=\frac{3\pi\epsilon_0\hbar c^3}{\omega_0^3\tau}\frac{2J'+1}{2J+1},$$ where $\tau$ is the excited state lifetime.\
In order to obtain the third-order atomic susceptibility we calculate the density matrix using perturbation theory. This is done by substituting $\rho$ into the density matrix equation of motion by $\sum_{k=0}\lambda^N\rho^N$ and $V$ by $\lambda V$. $\lambda$ is a parameter with values between zero and one and $V=\sum_j\left[\hbar\Omega_j e^{i\omega t}\left|0\right\rangle\left\langle j\right|-\hbar\Omega_j e^{-i\omega t}\left|j\right\rangle\left\langle 0\right|\right]$ is the interaction potential, treated as a perturbation. Equating the terms with the same power of $\lambda$ one obtains:\
$$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{mn}^{(0)}=-\frac{i}{\hbar}\left[H_0,\rho_{mn}^{(0)}\right]+\textrm{r.t.}\\
\rho_{mn}^{(k)}=-\frac{i}{\hbar}\left[H_0,\rho_{mn}^{(k)}\right]-\frac{i}{\hbar}\left[V,\rho_{nm}^{(k-1)}\right]+\textrm{r.t.},\end{aligned}$$
where $H_0=H-V$ and r.t. are relaxation terms.
In the zero-order density matrix (without light field), the only non-zero term is $\rho^{(0)}_{00}=1$. For the first-order density matrix one obtains the usual linear result: $$\rho^{(1)}_{0j}=\frac{i\Omega_j}{i\left(\omega_j-\omega\right)-\Gamma/2}$$ Thus, in the linear regime, the four-level system is equivalent to the sum of three independent two-level systems [@Siddons08].\
For the second-order density matrix the ground-excited coherence term is zero as it is expected for isotropic media, while the population terms and the excited-excited coherences are non-zero. The population and excited-excited coherences, that only appear in the non-linear regime, are responsible for the second and third terms in the right side of equation (\[rho3\]).
J. E. Bkorkholm and A. Ashkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **32**, 129 (1974). D. Suter and T. Blasberg, Phys. Rev. A **48**, 4583 (1993). N. B. Abraham and W. J. Firth, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B **7**, 951 (1990). K.-J. Boller, A Imamo$\breve{g}$lu, and S. Harris, Phys. Rev. Lett. **66**, 2593 (1991). G. Labeyrie, T. Ackemann, B. Klappauf, M. Pesch, G.L. Lippi, and R. Kaiser, Eur. Phys. J. D **22**, 473 (2003). Y. Wang and M. Saffman, Phys. Rev. A **70**, 013801 (2004). M. D. Lukin, P. R. Hemmer, and M. O. Scully, Adv. At. Mol. Opt. Phys. **42**, 347 (2000). T. Passerat de Silans, C.S.L. Gonçalves, D. Felinto, and J. W. R. Tabosa, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B **28** 2220 (2011). J.A. Andersen, M. E. J. Friese, A. G. Truscott, Z. Ficek, P. D. Drummond, N. R. Keckenberg, and H. Rubinztein-Dunlop, Phys. Rev. A **63**, 023820 (2001). T. Ackemann, T. Scholz, Ch. Vorgerd, J. Nalik, L. M. Hoffer, and G. L. Lippi, Opt. Comm. **147**, 411 (1998). For intense pulses, various processes can lead to second order susceptibilities contributions in atomic vapors as, for instance, generation of a dc electric field from multiphoton ionization of atoms resulting in a symmetry breaking. See D. S. Bethune, Phys. Rev. A **23** 3139 (1981). P. F. Liao, D. M. Bloom, and N. P. Economou, Appl. Phys. Lett. **12**, 813 (1978). J. F. Young, G. C. Bjorklund, A. H. Kung, R. B. Miles, and S. E. Harris, Phys. Rev. Lett **27**, 1551 (1971). R. Y. Chiao, E. Garmire and C. H. Townes, Phys. Rev. Lett. **13**, 479 (1964). D. Grischkowsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. **24**, 866 (1970). R.C. Pooser, A. M. Marino, V. Boyer, K. M. Jones, and P. D. Lett, Optics Express **17**, 16722 (2009). Y.-F. Xiao, S. K. Ö, V. Gaddam, C.-H. Dong, N. Imoto, and L. Yang, Optics Express **16**, 21462 (2008). F. Queiroga,W. Soares Martins, V. Mestre, I. Vidal, T. Passerat de Silans, M. Oriá, and M. Chevrollier, Appl. Phys. B: Lasers and Optics **107**, 313 (2012). W. Soares Martins, H. L. D. de S. Cavalcante, T. Passerat de Silans, M. Oriá, and M. Chevrollier, Appl. Opt. **51**, 5080 (2012). M. Sheik-Bahae, A. A. Said, T.-H. Wei, D. J. Hagan, and E. W. van Stryland, IEEE J. Quantum Electronics **26**, 760 (1990). S. Sinha, G.K. Bhowmick, S. Kundu, S. Sasikumar, S. K. S. Nair, T. B. Pal, A. K. Ray, and K. Dasgupta, **203**, 427–434 (2002). C.F. McCormick, D. R. Solli, R. Y. Chiao, and J. M. Hickmann, Phys. Rev. A, **69**, 023804 (2004). C. F. McCormick, D. R. Solli, R. Y. Chiao, and J. M. Hickmann, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B **20**, 2480 (2003). R. W. Boyd, *Nonlinear Optics*, 3rd ed. (Academic, 2008). Y. Wang and M. Saffman, Opt. Comm. **241**, 513 (2004). S. H. Asadpour, M. Sahrai, A. Soltani, and H. R. Hamedi, Phys. Lett. A **376**, 147 (2012). J. A. Arnaud, W. M. Hubbard, G. D. Mandeville, B. de la Clavière, E. A. Franke, and J. M. Franke, Appl. Opt. **10**, 2775 (1971). J. M. Khosrofian and B. A. Garetz, Appl. Opt. **22**, 3406 (1983). The vapor particle density is obtained from the fit of a linear absorption spectrum, detected for a low intensity beam and an open-aperture configuration. D. A. Steck, Cesium D line Data, http://steck.us/alkalidata/cesiumnumbers.pdf. P. Siddons, C. S. Adams, C. Ge and I. G. Hughes, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. **41**, 155004 (2008).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
=1
=15.5pt
SISSA 39/2016/FISI, TU-1026, IPMU16-0118
[**Cosmological Perturbations of**]{}\
[ Takeshi Kobayashi$^{\star, \dagger}$ and Fuminobu Takahashi$^{\ast, \ddagger}$ ]{}
*$^{\star}$ SISSA, Via Bonomea 265, 34136 Trieste, Italy*\
*$^{\dagger}$ INFN, Sezione di Trieste, Via Bonomea 265, 34136 Trieste, Italy*\
*$^{\ast}$ Department of Physics, Tohoku University, Sendai, Miyagi 980-8578, Japan*\
*$^{\ddagger}$ Kavli IPMU (WPI), UTIAS, The University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8583, Japan*\
E-mail: `[email protected]`, `[email protected]`
A QCD axion with a time-dependent decay constant has been known to be able to accommodate high-scale inflation without producing topological defects or too large isocurvature perturbations on CMB scales. We point out that a dynamical decay constant also has the effect of enhancing the small-scale axion isocurvature perturbations. The enhanced axion perturbations can even exceed the periodicity of the axion potential, and thus lead to the formation of axionic domain walls. Unlike the well-studied axionic walls, the walls produced from the enhanced perturbations are not bounded by cosmic strings, and thus would overclose the universe independently of the number of degenerate vacua along the axion potential.
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The QCD axion is a Nambu–Goldstone boson which arises in association with spontaneous breakdown of Peccei–Quinn (PQ) symmetry, and it dynamically solves the strong CP problem [@Peccei:1977hh; @Weinberg:1977ma; @Wilczek:1977pj]. The strength of interactions with the standard model particles as well as the periodicity of the axion potential are determined by the axion decay constant, which is currently constrained as $$10^9\, \mathrm{GeV} \lesssim f_a \lesssim 10^{12}\, \mathrm{GeV}.
\label{f-bound}$$ Here the lower bound is set by astrophysical arguments of star cooling [@Raffelt:1996wa], while the upper bound comes from the requirement that the abundance of the axion be less than or equal to that of cold dark matter (CDM) without fine-tuning the initial misalignment angle [@Preskill:1982cy; @Abbott:1982af; @Dine:1982ah].
Cosmological considerations further set bounds on a combination of the decay constant $f_a$ and the inflationary Hubble scale $H_{\mathrm{inf}}$. Firstly, $f_a$ should be larger than $H_{\mathrm{inf}}$, otherwise the PQ symmetry breaking would happen after inflation and thus would produce domain walls which overclose the universe. An exception to this statement is when the number of degenerate vacua along the bottom of the PQ scalar’s Mexican hat potential (the so-called domain wall number) is $N = 1$; then the walls are bounded by cosmic strings without being connected to other walls, and such walls of finite size can annihilate soon after the QCD phase transition [@Vilenkin:1982ks; @Sikivie:1982qv; @Linde:1990yj; @Lyth:1992tx].
Furthermore, if the axion constitutes the CDM, then even tighter bounds on $f_a$ and $H_{\mathrm{inf}}$ are obtained from constraints on CDM isocurvature perturbations [@Seckel:1985tj; @Lyth:1989pb]. For instance, with a decay constant of $f_a = 10^{12}\, \mathrm{GeV}$, current constraints on CDM isocurvature from measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) [@Ade:2015lrj] require $H_{\mathrm{inf}} \lesssim 10^7\, \mathrm{GeV}$. The bound on $H_{\mathrm{inf}}$ is particularly strong for $f_a \lesssim 10^{11}\, \mathrm{GeV}$, due to the nonquadratic form of the axion potential [@Lyth:1991ub], dubbed the anharmonic effect. The anharmonic enhancement of the axion isocurvature perturbations becomes so strong for small values of $f_a$ that a decay constant of $f_a \lesssim 10^9\, \mathrm{GeV}$ is excluded [@Kobayashi:2013nva]; thus the lower bound of (\[f-bound\]) can also be derived from cosmology when the dark matter consists of axions. These observations indicate that, any detection of primordial gravitational waves from inflation in the near future would exclude the QCD axion as a dark matter candidate.
Here it should be noted that the above arguments on $f_a$ and $H_{\mathrm{inf}}$ from domain walls and isocurvature perturbations are modified if the decay constant takes different values during the inflation epoch and today. The works [@Linde:1990yj; @Linde:1991km] pointed out that if $f_a$ was larger during inflation, then the axion isocurvature perturbations would actually be smaller than that inferred from the present value of $f_a$, allowing high-scale inflation without contradicting observations. (See also Refs. [@Higaki:2014ooa; @Chun:2014xva; @Fairbairn:2014zta; @Kearney:2016vqw] for recent works along this line. A similar effect can also be induced by a non-minimal coupling of the axion kinetic term to gravity [@Folkerts:2013tua].) While this is certainly an intriguing possibility, however, the introduction of a dynamical decay constant not only leads to smaller-than-expected isocurvature perturbations on the CMB scales, but also [*dynamically enhances*]{} the isocurvature perturbations on smaller length scales. This is understood by viewing the decay constant $f_a$ and the axion field $\theta$ respectively as the radial and angular directions of the PQ scalar; if the radial component $f_a$ is forced to quickly shrink while the angular velocity $\dot{\theta}$ is nonzero, then the motion along the angular direction would speed up, leading to the growth of the fluctuation $\delta \theta$ among different regions of space. Moreover, this effect not only works on sub-horizon scales, but further stretches out to scales much larger than the Hubble radius at the time when the decay constant varies.[^1]
In this paper we examine the evolution of the full axion perturbation spectrum under a time-dependent decay constant. We show that, while the dynamical decay constant can help to evade the isocurvature constraints on CMB scales, it can also strongly enhance the axion fluctuations on smaller scales, which may even exceed the periodicity of the axion potential and thus lead to the formation of axionic domain walls. These domain walls are produced due to the enhanced axion fluctuations, although the PQ symmetry is broken before inflation, and thus they are different from the well-studied axionic walls. In particular, the axionic walls from the enhanced fluctuations are not bounded by cosmic strings, and thus would overclose the universe even in the case of $N = 1$ [@Preskill:1991kd]. The strong enhancement of the axion fluctuations may also lead to the recovery of the PQ symmetry in the post-inflation epoch, which would upset the cosmological expansion history.[^2] On the other hand, if the axion perturbations are only mildly enhanced, then such small-scale isocurvature could cause a variety of observable consequences, as discussed in e.g. [@Chluba:2013dna; @Sekiguchi:2013lma].
Before moving on, we also comment on another possibility to suppress the axionic isocurvature perturbations. If the PQ symmetry is badly broken during inflation, the axion mass may become heavier than or comparable to the Hubble parameter. Then, it does not acquire sizable super-horizon fluctuations, suppressing the isocurvature perturbations [@Dine:2004cq; @Higaki:2014ooa; @Dine:2014gba; @Kawasaki:2015lea; @Takahashi:2015waa; @Kawasaki:2015lpf; @Nomura:2015xil]. In this case, one has to make sure that the explicit PQ symmetry breaking is sufficiently suppressed in the present universe to be consistent with the neutron electric dipole moment experiments.
The layout of this paper is as follows: We describe the setup and notation in Section \[sec:setup\]. In Section \[sec:dynamics\] we give general discussions on the evolution of the axion fluctuations under a dynamical decay constant, then in Section \[sec:DDC\] we compute the fluctuations in the post-inflationary universe. In Section \[sec:cosmo\], we discuss the cosmological implications of the enhanced fluctuations, and also carry out case studies. We conclude in Section \[sec:conc\].
QCD Axion with a Dynamical Decay Constant {#sec:setup}
=========================================
Throughout this paper we denote the PQ symmetry breaking scale by $f$, i.e., the field value of the PQ scalar at the minimum of its Mexican hat potential being ${\lvert\Phi\rvert}_{\mathrm{min}} = f / \sqrt{2}$. Writing the PQ scalar in terms of two real scalar fields $r$ and $\theta$ as $$\Phi = \frac{f + r }{\sqrt{2}}e^{i \theta },$$ then the angular direction $\theta$ along the potential minimum serves as the axion field. We refer to $f$ and $\theta$ as the axion decay constant and the (dimensionless) axion field, respectively.
We couple $\Phi$ to $N$ heavy PQ quark pairs $(Q_i, \bar{Q}_i)$ in the fundamental and anti-fundamental representation of SU(3)$_c$, where the flavor index $i$ runs from $1$ to $N$. Then, the axion couples to gluons through the color anomaly of the PQ symmetry. Integrating out the heavy PQ quarks and setting the radial component to the potential minimum, the action of the axion is given by $$S = \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g}
\left\{
-\frac{1}{2} f^2 g^{\mu \nu} \partial_\mu \theta \partial_\nu \theta
+ N \theta \frac{g_s^2}{32 \pi^2}G_{A \mu \nu} \tilde{G}_A^{\mu \nu}
\right\}.$$ This gives an effective potential for $\theta$ with periodicity $2 \pi / N$, $$S = \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g}
\left\{
-\frac{1}{2} f^2 g^{\mu \nu} \partial_\mu \theta \partial_\nu \theta
- m_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2(T) \frac{f^2}{N^2} \left(
1 - \cos \left(N \theta \right)
\right)
\right\}.
\label{theta-action}$$ Here, the temperature-dependent axion mass $m_{\mathrm{QCD}}(T)$ emerges when the cosmic temperature cools down to around $\Lambda_{\mathrm{QCD}} \approx 200\, \mathrm{MeV}$. On the other hand at $T \gg \Lambda_{\mathrm{QCD}}$, the axion is a free field with only the kinetic term. We also note that the discussions in Section \[sec:intro\] can be rewritten for $f$ by the replacement $f_a \to f/N$; in particular, (\[f-bound\]) is read as a bound on $f/N$.
Now, as we have discussed in the introduction, the coefficient of the kinetic term can be time-dependent when the decay constant $f$ is actually a dynamical field [@Linde:1990yj; @Linde:1991km]. (See also e.g. [@Kearney:2016vqw; @Kasuya:1996ns; @Kasuya:2009up] for explicit models of axions with dynamical decay constants.) Let us now study the axion dynamics with a dynamical $f$, at very early times when the axion potential is absent. We consider a flat FRW background $$ds^2 = a(\tau)^2 ( -d\tau^2 + d {\boldsymbol{x}}^2),$$ and assume the decay constant to be homogeneous, i.e. $f =
f(\tau)$. Then the equation of motion of the axion reads $$\frac{(a^2 f^2 \theta')'}{a^2 f^2} - \delta^{ij} \partial_i \partial_j
\theta = 0,$$ where a prime denotes a derivative in terms of the conformal time $\tau$. Going to the Fourier space, $$\theta (\tau, {\boldsymbol{x}}) = \frac{1}{(2 \pi)^3}\int d^3 k \,
e^{i {\boldsymbol{k}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{x}}} \theta_{{\boldsymbol{k}}}(\tau),$$ the equation of motion is rewritten as $$\frac{(a^2 f^2 \theta_{{\boldsymbol{k}}}')'}{a^2 f^2} + k^2 \theta_{{\boldsymbol{k}}} =
0.
\label{EOM2}$$ We stress that this is the exact equation of motion of the axion before the potential emerges, and in particular that there is no mode-mode coupling.
When quantizing the theory by promoting $\theta$ to an operator, one can check that the commutation relations of $\theta$ and its conjugate momentum are equivalent to those of the annihilation and creation operators when the mode functions are independent of the direction of ${\boldsymbol{k}}$, i.e., $$\theta_{{\boldsymbol{k}}} = \theta_k$$ with $k = {\lvert{\boldsymbol{k}}\rvert}$, and further obey the normalization condition $$\theta_k \theta_k'^* - \theta_k^* \theta_k' = \frac{i}{a^2 f^2}.
\label{norm}$$ By choosing the vacuum $| 0 \rangle$ to be annihilated by all the annihilation operators, the two-point correlation function of the axion field is computed as $$\langle \theta (\tau, {\boldsymbol{x}}) \, \theta (\tau, {\boldsymbol{y}}) \rangle
= \int \frac{d^3 k}{4 \pi k^3}
e^{i {\boldsymbol{k}} \cdot ({\boldsymbol{x}} - {\boldsymbol{y}})}
\mathcal{P}_\theta (\tau, k),$$ where the power spectrum is $$\mathcal{P}_\theta (\tau, k) = \frac{k^3 }{2 \pi^2 }
\left| \theta_k (\tau) \right|^2.
\label{Poftheta}$$
Dynamics of Axion Perturbations {#sec:dynamics}
===============================
Although the axion potential is absent in the very early universe, the axion velocity, i.e. the angular velocity of the PQ scalar, is not exactly zero due to quantum fluctuations, which are stretched to cosmic scales and become classical during inflation. The velocity fluctuations can get strongly enhanced even on super-horizon scales when the decay constant $f$, corresponding to the radial component of the PQ scalar, quickly shrinks. The enhanced velocity fluctuations would then lead to the growth of the axion field fluctuations.
The basic picture can be seen by looking at the homogeneous mode $k = 0$, for which the equation of motion (\[EOM2\]) gives the scaling of $$\theta_0' \propto \frac{1}{a^2 f^2 }.
\label{0scaling}$$ This clearly shows that the phase velocity, given an initially nonzero value, increases when $f$ decreases quickly enough. However we should also note that for a nonzero $k$ mode, even when it is well outside the horizon, the scaling behavior of the velocity fluctuation is not necessarily the same as for the homogeneous mode (\[0scaling\]).
Let us now look into the inhomogeneous modes, i.e. $k \neq 0 $, which represent the axion fluctuations. To make the discussions concrete, we focus on an FRW background with a constant equation of state parameter $w$ that is not $-1/3$, i.e., $$\frac{p_{\mathrm{bg}}}{\rho_{\mathrm{bg}}} = w =
\mathrm{const.} \neq - \frac{1}{3}.$$ Then for the Hubble rate $H = a' / a^2$, its time derivative obeys $$\frac{H'}{a H^2} = -\frac{3 (1+w)}{2}.$$ The condition of $w \neq -1/3$ guarantees that $ a H $ does not stay constant, which turns out to be convenient when we rewrite the equation of motion below. We further assume that the decay constant varies in time as a power-law of the scale factor, $$f \propto a^{-n},$$ with a constant $n$. Then, introducing $$u \equiv \frac{2 }{{\lvert1 + 3 w \rvert}}\frac{k}{a H},
\qquad
\nu \equiv \frac{1}{2} - \frac{2 (1-n)}{1 + 3 w },$$ the equation of motion (\[EOM2\]) can be rewritten in the form $$\frac{d^2 \theta_k}{d u^2} + \frac{1 - 2 \nu }{u}
\frac{d \theta_k}{du } + \theta_k = 0.
\label{EOMwith_u}$$ The general solution of this equation is $$\theta_k = u^\nu \left\{
\kappa Z_{\nu}^{(1)} (u) + \lambda Z_{\nu}^{(2)} (u)
\right\},
\label{generalsol}$$ where ($Z_{\nu}^{(1)}$, $Z_{\nu}^{(2)}$) is a pair of Hankel or Bessel functions of the first and second kinds, and $\kappa$, $\lambda$ are constants. The phase velocity can be expressed in terms of lower order functions as $$\frac{d \theta_k }{d\ln a}= \frac{1 + 3 w }{2} u^{\nu + 1}
\left\{
\kappa Z_{\nu - 1}^{(1)} (u) + \lambda Z_{\nu - 1}^{(2)} (u)
\right\} ,
\label{gendthetada}$$ where we have used a relation for the Hankel/Bessel functions, $$\frac{d Z_\nu(u)}{du} = Z_{\nu-1}(u)-\frac{\nu}{u} Z_\nu(u).$$ We also note that the variable $u$ varies in time as $u \propto a^{(1+3w)/2}$ in terms of the scale factor, and $u \to 0 $ $(u\to \infty)$ describes the modes being well outside (inside) the Hubble horizon.
Outside the Horizon
-------------------
Let us study the behavior of the solution (\[generalsol\]) when the modes are well outside the horizon. Here we discuss the general solution using Bessel functions, i.e., $$Z_\nu^{(1)} (u) = J_{\nu}(u),
\qquad
Z_\nu^{(2)} (u) = Y_{\nu}(u).$$ The limiting forms of the Bessel functions for $u
\to 0$ are [@Olver:2010:NHMF], $$\begin{split}
J_{\nu - 1}(u) \sim \frac{1}{\Gamma (\nu ) }
\left( \frac{u}{2} \right)^{\nu
- 1},
&
\qquad
Y_{\nu - 1}(u) \sim - \frac{\Gamma (\nu - 1 ) }{\pi}
\left( \frac{u}{2} \right)^{1
-\nu},
\\
& \mathrm{when}\; \nu > 1 \; \mathrm{or} \; \nu = 1/2, \, -1/2,
\, -3/2, \, \cdots.
\end{split}\label{Besseluto0}$$ Here, since the leading order expressions of $J_{\nu-1}$ and $Y_{\nu-1}$ scale differently in term of $u$, they do not continually cancel each other in the expression (\[gendthetada\]) for the phase velocity.[^3] Thus on super-horizon scales $ k \ll a H$, the $\kappa$ and $\lambda$ terms in (\[gendthetada\]), together with the prefactor $u^{\nu + 1}$, scale as $\propto a^{\nu (1 + 3 w)} $ and $ \propto a^{1 + 3 w}$, respectively; whichever grows faster eventually dominates the super-horizon phase velocity.
To summarize, unless one of the constants $\kappa$, $\lambda$ are set to zero, the phase velocity on modes well outside the horizon $k \ll aH$ scales eventually as
[ ]{} a\^[(1 + 3 w) ]{} & for ($w > -1/3, \; \nu > 1$) or ($w < -1/3, \; \nu = 1/2, \, -1/2, \, -3/2, \cdots$), \[case-ab\]\
a\^[1 + 3 w ]{} & for ($w < -1/3, \; \nu > 1$) or ($w > -1/3, \; \nu = 1/2, \, -1/2, \, -3/2, \cdots$). \[case-cd\]
The latter case (\[case-cd\]) is not captured by the analysis of the homogeneous mode (\[0scaling\]). One can already see in the equation of motion (\[EOMwith\_u\]) that the super-horizon limit of the inhomogeneous modes may behave differently from an exactly homogeneous mode; there $k = 0$ corresponds to $u = 0$, and thus the dynamics can be essentially different between homogeneous and inhomogeneous modes. We also note that, although the parameter ranges for $(w, \nu)$ shown in (\[case-ab\]) and (\[case-cd\]) do not cover all the possibilities, they will be sufficient for the cases we discuss in the following sections.
Expressing the scaling behaviors of the two cases (\[case-ab\]) and (\[case-cd\]) collectively as $$\frac{d \theta_k}{d \ln a }\propto a^{p},
\label{dthetada-p}$$ with $p$ being either $\nu (1+3 w)$ or $(1 + 3 w)$, then one sees that the phase velocity corresponds to a dynamical mode for the phase fluctuations which scales as $$\theta_k^{\mathrm{dyn}} \propto a^p.$$ The total super-horizon phase fluctuation contains this dynamical mode as well as the usual constant mode.
Inside the Horizon
------------------
The behavior of the modes when deep inside the horizon is seen from the asymptotic forms of the Bessel functions for $ u \to \infty$ (recall that $u$ is a positive variable), $$J_{\nu} (u) \sim \sqrt{ \frac{2 }{\pi u } }
\cos \left( u - \frac{\nu \pi }{2} - \frac{ \pi }{4} \right),
\qquad
Y_{\nu} (u) \sim \sqrt{ \frac{2 }{\pi u } }
\sin \left( u - \frac{\nu \pi }{2} - \frac{ \pi }{4} \right).$$ Therefore, $\theta_k$ inside the horizon is an oscillating solution with an oscillation amplitude $\tilde{\theta}_k$ that scales in time as $$\tilde{\theta}_k \propto u^{\nu - \frac{1}{2}} \propto a^{n-1} .
\label{inside-hori}$$ In particular when $f$ is a constant, i.e. $n = 0$, the fluctuation simply damps as $\propto a^{-1}$ due to the expansion of the universe.
Evolution of Axion Perturbations after Inflation {#sec:DDC}
================================================
Let us now apply the above discussions to study the evolution of axion perturbations under a dynamical $f$ in the post-inflation epoch. We suppose the PQ symmetry to be broken before inflation, and we particularly study the case where $f$ takes a constant value $f_{\mathrm{inf}}$ until some time after inflation,[^4] then varies with time as $\propto a^{-n}$ until it reaches the present-day value $f_0$, i.e., $$f =
\begin{dcases}
f_{\mathrm{inf}}
& \text{for $a \leq a_\mathrm{i}$,} \\
f_{\mathrm{inf}} \biggl( \frac{a_\mathrm{i}}{a} \biggr)^{n}
& \text{for $a_\mathrm{i} < a \leq a_\mathrm{f}$,} \\
f_{\mathrm{inf}} \biggl( \frac{a_\mathrm{i}}{a_\mathrm{f}} \biggr)^{n} = f_0
& \text{for $a > a_\mathrm{f}$.}
\end{dcases}
\label{f-evo}$$ Here $a_\mathrm{i}$ and $a_\mathrm{f}$ denote the scale factors in the post-inflation epoch when the time-evolution of $f$ starts and terminates, respectively. Quantities measured at $a = a_{\mathrm{i(f)}}$ will be represented by the subscripts “$\mathrm{i(f)}$”. We further assume that the universe becomes (effectively) matter-dominated, i.e. $w = 0$, right after inflation, and that $f$ evolves in time during this phase.
The dynamics of the axion fluctuations can be analyzed by connecting the solutions for $\theta_k$ in each epoch. However for clarity, instead of connecting the exact solutions (\[generalsol\]), (\[gendthetada\]), we will mostly use the asymptotic scaling solutions we have obtained for the super-horizon modes (\[case-ab\]), (\[case-cd\]), and the sub-horizon modes (\[inside-hori\]). This will provide useful approximations, as we will see later when we compare with the exact solutions.
Inflation Epoch
---------------
The axion fluctuations during inflation with constant Hubble rate $H = H_{\mathrm{inf}}$ and decay constant $f = f_{\mathrm{inf}}$ is given by (\[generalsol\]) with $w = -1$ and $\nu = 3/2$. The coefficients $\kappa$ and $\lambda$ are fixed from the normalization condition (\[norm\]) and the requirement that the mode function approaches a positive frequency solution in the asymptotic past, i.e., requiring a Bunch–Davies vacuum. For this purpose it is convenient to use the Hankel function of the first kind, with which the solution is expressed as, up to an unimportant phase factor, $$\begin{gathered}
\theta_k = \frac{\pi^{1/2}}{2 a^{3/2}
H_{\mathrm{inf}}^{1/2} f_{\mathrm{inf}} }
H^{(1)}_{3/2} \left(\frac{k}{a H_{\mathrm{inf}}}\right),
\label{4.2}
\\
\frac{d \theta_k}{d \ln a} = - \frac{\pi^{1/2} k }{2 a^{5/2}
H_{\mathrm{inf}}^{3/2} f_{\mathrm{inf}}}
H^{(1)}_{1/2} \left(\frac{k}{a H_{\mathrm{inf}}}\right).
\label{4.3}\end{gathered}$$ In the super-horizon limit $ k \ll a H_{\mathrm{inf}}$, these solutions are approximated by $$\begin{aligned}
\theta_k &\sim -\frac{i}{2^{1/2}}
\frac{H_{\mathrm{inf}}}{k^{3/2} f_{\mathrm{inf}} }
\equiv \theta_k^{\mathrm{const}},
\label{inf-theta-sh}
\\
\frac{d\theta_k}{d \ln a} & \sim \frac{i}{2^{1/2}}
\frac{k^{1/2}}{a^2 H_{\mathrm{inf}} f_{\mathrm{inf}} }
= - \theta_k^{\mathrm{const}}
\left( \frac{k}{a H_{\mathrm{inf}}} \right)^2 .
\label{inf-dthetada-sh}\end{aligned}$$ One clearly sees from (\[inf-theta-sh\]) that $\theta_k$ is constant at leading order (we denote this value by $\theta_k^{\mathrm{const}}$ hereafter), and that the dynamical mode described by the phase velocity (\[inf-dthetada-sh\]) is subdominant on super-horizon scales.
Post-Inflation Epoch with Constant $f$
--------------------------------------
The above solutions provide the initial conditions for the axion fluctuations in the subsequent matter-dominated era with a constant $f$. Focusing on super-horizon modes, i.e. $k \ll a H $, let us obtain the phase velocity by connecting (\[inf-dthetada-sh\]) at the end of inflation $a= a_{\mathrm{end}}$ to the solution (\[case-cd\]) with $w = 0$ (note that $\nu = -3/2$ during this epoch), giving $$\frac{d\theta_k}{d \ln a} \sim
-\theta_k^{\mathrm{const}} \left( \frac{k}{a_{\mathrm{end}}
H_{\mathrm{inf}}} \right)^2
\frac{a}{a_{\mathrm{end}}}
=
-\theta_k^{\mathrm{const}} \left( \frac{k}{a H} \right)^2.
\label{I-dthetada-sh}$$ It is clear that the dynamical mode obtained by integrating (\[I-dthetada-sh\]) is subdominant compared to the constant mode inherited from the inflation epoch (\[inf-theta-sh\]); hence the fluctuation at the leading order is still $$\theta_k \sim \theta_k^{\mathrm{const}}.
\label{I-theta-sh}$$
Post-Inflation Epoch with Dynamical $f$
---------------------------------------
When the decay constant starts to evolve at $a = a_\mathrm{i}$, the fluctuations can get enhanced even on super-horizon scales. Let us suppose that $f$ shrinks with a power index $$n > \frac{5}{4},$$ so that $\nu > 1$. We compute the phase velocity fluctuations for super-horizon modes under the dynamical $f$ by connecting (\[I-dthetada-sh\]) to (\[case-ab\]), yielding $$\frac{d\theta_k}{d \ln a} \sim
-\theta_k^{\mathrm{const}} \left( \frac{k}{a_\mathrm{i} H_\mathrm{i}}
\right)^2
\left( \frac{a}{a_\mathrm{i}} \right)^{2 n -\frac{3}{2}}
= -\theta_k^{\mathrm{const}}
\left( \frac{k}{a H} \right)^2
\left( \frac{f_{\mathrm{inf}}}{f} \right)^{2-\frac{5}{ 2 n}}.
\label{II-dthetada-sh}$$ The phase fluctuation is a sum of the constant mode and the growing mode obtained by integrating the phase velocity, $$\theta_k \sim \theta_k^{\mathrm{const}}
\left\{
1 - \left(2 n - \frac{3}{2} \right)^{-1}
\left( \frac{k}{a H} \right)^2
\left( \frac{f_{\mathrm{inf}}}{f} \right)^{2-\frac{5}{ 2 n}}
\right\},
\label{II-theta-sh}$$ which shows that the growing mode dominates over the constant mode on wave numbers $k$ larger than $$k_{\mathrm{grow}}(\tau) \equiv \left( 2 n - \frac{3}{2} \right)^{1/2}
a H \left( \frac{f}{f_{\mathrm{inf}}} \right)^{1-\frac{5}{4 n}}.$$ One sees that $k_{\mathrm{grow}}$ initially coincides with the horizon scale, i.e. $k_{\mathrm{grow}}(\tau_\mathrm{i}) \sim a_\mathrm{i}
H_\mathrm{i}$, then $k_{\mathrm{grow}}$ becomes smaller than $a H$ as $f$ shrinks. Thus the wave number $k_{\mathrm{grow}} (\tau_\mathrm{f})$ corresponds to the smallest $k$-mode (largest length scale) where the axion fluctuation is enhanced due to the shrinking of $f$.
After $f$ becomes constant, i.e. $ a > a_\mathrm{f}$, the fluctuations outside the horizon becomes constant once again.[^5]
Let us focus on the wave number that re-enters the horizon when $f$ approaches its present value $f_0$, i.e., $$k_\mathrm{f} \equiv a_\mathrm{f} H_\mathrm{f}.$$ The fluctuation on $k_\mathrm{f}$ when $a = a_\mathrm{f}$ is computed by extrapolating the super-horizon growing mode in (\[II-theta-sh\]) to the time of horizon entry; in terms of the power spectrum (\[Poftheta\]) we find $$\mathcal{P}_\theta^{1/2} (\tau_\mathrm{f}, k_\mathrm{f})
\sim
\frac{k_\mathrm{f}^{3/2} {\lvert\theta_{k_\mathrm{f}}^{\mathrm{const}}\rvert}}{
2^{1/2} \, \pi}
\left( \frac{f_{\mathrm{inf}}}{f_0} \right)^{2-\frac{5}{ 2 n}}
= \frac{H_{\mathrm{inf}}}{2 \pi f_0 }
\left( \frac{f_{\mathrm{inf}}}{f_0} \right)^{1 - \frac{5}{2 n}},
\label{thetakfaf}$$ where we have ignored the factor $(2n - \frac{3}{2})^{-1}$ in (\[II-theta-sh\]). Note that this expression does not depend directly on $H_{\mathrm{f}}$ itself; the enhanced fluctuation amplitude is independent of when $f$ varies.
After $f$ approaches $f_0$, i.e. $ a > a_\mathrm{f}$, the wave mode $k_\mathrm{f}$ is inside the horizon and thus the fluctuation is damped as $$\mathcal{P}_\theta^{1/2} (\tau , k_\mathrm{f})
\sim
\frac{H_{\mathrm{inf}}}{2 \pi f_0 }
\left( \frac{f_{\mathrm{inf}}}{f_0} \right)^{1 - \frac{5}{2 n}}
\frac{a_\mathrm{f}}{a}
\qquad
\mathrm{for}
\quad
\tau > \tau_\mathrm{f} .
\label{4.3final}$$ One can also check that in this epoch, until the mode $k_{\mathrm{grow}}(\tau_\mathrm{f})$ enters the horizon, the fluctuation spectrum has a plateau in the range $aH \lesssim k \lesssim k_{\mathrm{f}}$, as we will see in Figure \[fig:spectra\]. Hence, denoting the time when $k_{\mathrm{grow}}(\tau_\mathrm{f})$ enters the horizon as $\tau = \tau_{\mathrm{grow}} $, the fluctuation amplitudes of the modes coming into the horizon $k = a H$ are the same as (\[4.3final\]), $$\mathcal{P}_\theta^{1/2} (\tau, a H)
\sim
\frac{H_{\mathrm{inf}}}{2 \pi f_0 }
\left( \frac{f_{\mathrm{inf}}}{f_0} \right)^{1 - \frac{5}{2 n}}
\frac{a_\mathrm{f}}{a}
\qquad
\mathrm{for}
\quad
\tau_{\mathrm{f}} < \tau < \tau_{\mathrm{grow}}.
\label{kaH3}$$
Backreaction
------------
Before closing this section, let us comment on the backreaction from the phase fluctuations on the expanding universe. By computing the energy momentum tensor sourced by the axion kinetic term in the action (\[theta-action\]), the energy density of the phase fluctuations is obtained as $$\rho_\theta =
\langle -\tensor{T}{^\theta_0^0} (\tau,
\boldsymbol{x}) \rangle =
\int \frac{dk}{k}\,
\frac{k^3 H^2 f^2 }{4 \pi^2}
\left(
\left| \frac{d \theta_k}{d \ln a} \right|^2 +
\frac{k^2 {\lvert\theta_k\rvert}^2}{a^2 H^2}
\right).
\label{a-density}$$ In the above discussions we have treated the decay constant as a classical background that, while decreasing in time, injects energy into the phase fluctuations. Here, since the energy density of the field(s) that sets the time evolution of the decay constant cannot exceed the total energy density of the universe, $\rho_\theta \ll 3 M_p^2 H^2$ should always be satisfied. In other words, the phase fluctuations cannot be enhanced to become $\rho_\theta \sim 3 M_p^2 H^2$ without significantly backreacting on the field(s) driving the $f$-dynamics, and also on the background universe. The coupling between $f$ and $\theta$ in the axion kinetic term further sources direct backreaction from the enhanced axion fluctuations. We also note that if $\rho_\theta$ is enhanced to become comparable to $\sim f^4$, then it can backreact on the radial component of the PQ scalar. On the one hand, the backreaction may force the PQ scalar to climb up the Mexican hat potential, while on the other hand the enhanced angular velocity may prevent the PQ scalar from approaching the origin. It would be interesting to study whether the enhanced axion fluctuations assist or prevent the restoration of the PQ symmetry in the post-inflation universe.
Cosmological Implications of Axion Perturbations {#sec:cosmo}
================================================
Let us now discuss the cosmological implications of the enhanced axion fluctuations. We will show that while a shrinking $f$ may relax constraints from large-scale isocurvature perturbations, the strongly enhanced axion fluctuations on small scales can lead to disastrous formation of axionic domain walls.
Domain Walls
------------
In the previous section we have seen that, after the decay constant approaches its present-day value, the enhanced axion fluctuation $\mathcal{P}_\theta^{1/2}$ holds a plateau over the wave modes $ a H \lesssim k \lesssim k_{\mathrm{f}}$. These enhanced fluctuations that are scale-invariant up to the Hubble radius damps as $\propto a^{-1}$ as the universe expands. Eventually the universe undergoes reheating, and the axion’s effective potential (\[theta-action\]) emerges when the universe cools down to $T \sim \Lambda_{\mathrm{QCD}}$; if the fluctuation $\mathcal{P}_\theta^{1/2}$ then is still larger than the period of the potential $$\Delta \theta = \frac{2 \pi }{N},
\label{a-period}$$ then the axion settles down to different potential minima in different patches of the universe, leading to the formation of cosmic domain walls.
Here a few things are worth noting. Since the PQ symmetry breaking happens before inflation in our case of interest, unlike the standard axionic domain walls [@Vilenkin:1982ks; @Sikivie:1982qv; @Linde:1990yj; @Lyth:1992tx], the walls produced here are [*not*]{} connected to cosmic strings. (To be more precise, some walls are bounded by strings produced before inflation, but the number density of the strings is extremely tiny because of the dilution during inflation.) The axion potential (\[theta-action\]) can be viewed as a one-dimensional potential with an infinite number of degenerate vacua, and we stress that the formation of domain walls is due to the axion fluctuations being spread over multiple vacua,[^6] with the number of different vacua being $\sim \mathcal{P}_\theta^{1/2} / \Delta \theta $. This is why domain walls can form without having wall junctions, even with numerous vacua. It should also be noted that in the one-dimensional axion potential (\[theta-action\]), each vacuum only has two vacua on its sides. As a consequence, adjacent domains in the universe that are separated by a single wall can only hold vacua that are adjacent also in the axion potential.
The important question for cosmology is whether infinitely large domain walls form. If they do, they would overclose the universe and spoil the cosmological expansion history. When $ \mathcal{P}_\theta^{1/2} / \Delta \theta \gg 1$, with the vast number of vacua, naively, it would seem difficult for a single wall to extend throughout the universe. However, this is not necessarily the case due to the specific features mentioned above. In order to see this, let us refer to the unperturbed background field value of the axion before the potential emerges by $\bar{\theta}$, and the field value that becomes the nearby potential minimum by $\theta_{\mathrm{min}\, s}$. In other words, $\bar \theta$ and $\theta_{\mathrm{min}\, s}$ satisfy $\theta_{\mathrm{min}\, s}- \Delta\theta/2 < \bar \theta < \theta_{\mathrm{min}\, s} + \Delta\theta/2$. We also label the other vacua along the one-dimensional axion potential as $$\theta_{\mathrm{min}\, s\pm 1} = \theta_{\mathrm{min}\, s} \pm \Delta
\theta,
\quad
\theta_{\mathrm{min}\, s\pm 2} = \theta_{\mathrm{min}\, s} \pm 2 \Delta
\theta,
\quad \cdots,$$ and further divide the vacua into two groups, depending on which side of $\theta_{\mathrm{min}\, s}$ they are located on, $$\Theta_{\mathrm{min} -} = \{
\cdots, \,
\theta_{\mathrm{min}\, s-1}, \,
\theta_{\mathrm{min}\, s}
\},
\quad
\Theta_{\mathrm{min} +} = \{
\theta_{\mathrm{min}\, s + 1}, \,
\theta_{\mathrm{min}\, s + 2}, \, \cdots \,
\}.$$ (Here we included $\theta_{\mathrm{min}\, s}$ in $\Theta_{\mathrm{min}
-}$, but one may choose to include it in the other group as well.) Now, let us crudely model the universe as a collection of cells with size of the Hubble radius, each of which holding a vacuum belonging to either group with an independent probability. If $ \mathcal{P}_\theta^{1/2} / \Delta \theta
\gg 1$ when the potential emerges, then since the axion fluctuation spreads equally on both sides of $\bar{\theta}$, the probability for each cell to fall in $\Theta_{\mathrm{min} -}$ or $\Theta_{\mathrm{min} +}$ would be roughly the same, $p \sim 0.5$. Here, in order to tell whether the collection of cells with $\Theta_{\mathrm{min}-}$ or $\Theta_{\mathrm{min}+}$ forms an infinitely large connected region, useful insights can be obtained from studies of percolation theory: Since the percolation threshold $p_\mathrm{c}$ in three dimensions is typically smaller than 0.5 (e.g. $p_c \sim 0.3$ for a cubic lattice [@Stauffer:1978kr]), an infinitely large region with vacua belonging to $\Theta_{\mathrm{min}-}$ exists, and likewise for $\Theta_{\mathrm{min}+}$. This means that an infinitely large wall between $\Theta_{\mathrm{min}-}$ and $\Theta_{\mathrm{min}+}$ appears in the universe. Because of the specific vacuum distribution discussed above, this indicates that there exists an infinitely large domain wall between the $\theta_{\mathrm{min}\, s}$ and $\theta_{\mathrm{min}\, s+1}$ vacua. Such infinitely large domain walls can also form between other pairs of vacua as well. Over time the domain walls can annihilate each other, however, as each patch of the universe randomly holds $\Theta_{\mathrm{min}-}$ or $\Theta_{\mathrm{min}+}$ at $T \sim
\Lambda_{\mathrm{QCD}}$, we expect there to be always at least one domain wall that extends throughout the observable universe. The domain walls without junctions will likely obey the usual scaling law [@Press:1989yh; @Garagounis:2002kt; @Leite:2011sc] soon after formation.
Therefore we conclude that axionic domain walls would form and overclose the universe, if $$\left. \mathcal{P}_\theta^{1/2} \right|_{T \sim \Lambda_{\mathrm{QCD}}}
\gtrsim \Delta \theta
\label{eq5.4}$$ is satisfied on the mode $k_{\mathrm{f}}$, and thus also for the horizon size mode, when the axion potential emerges. A full treatment of domain walls from enhanced axion fluctuations is beyond the scope of this paper, but it would be interesting to carry out detailed analyses (which presumably requires numerical simulations) of the formation and evolution of the wall network.
Isocurvature Perturbations
--------------------------
When the axion constitutes a non-negligible fraction of CDM, the large-scale fluctuations of the axion serve as CDM isocurvature perturbations, which are severely constrained by CMB measurements. Here we briefly review how such isocurvature constraints on the axion are relaxed with a dynamical decay constant [@Linde:1990yj; @Linde:1991km].
Let us focus on the vicinity of one of the minima $\theta_{\mathrm{min}}$ of the axion potential (\[theta-action\]), $$N^2 (\theta - \theta_{\mathrm{min}})^2 \lesssim 1,$$ where the potential is approximately quadratic, $$V \propto (\theta - \theta_{\mathrm{min}})^2.
\label{quad-pot}$$ Then the energy density (isocurvature) fluctuation of the axion is estimated as $$\frac{\delta \rho_\theta }{\rho_\theta }
\sim \frac{2 \delta \theta }{
\bar{\theta} - \theta_{\mathrm{min}}
},
\label{eq5.7}$$ where $\bar{\theta}$ denotes the axion’s unperturbed background field value before the axion acquires its potential.[^7] Hence the power spectrum of the CDM isocurvature perturbations, which we denote by $\mathcal{P}_S$, is expressed in terms of the field fluctuation spectrum (\[Poftheta\]) as $$\mathcal{P}_S (k) \sim
\frac{4 \mathcal{P}_\theta (k)
}{(\bar{\theta} - \theta_{\mathrm{min}})^2}
\left( \frac{\Omega_\theta }{\Omega_{\mathrm{CDM}}} \right)^2
\sim
4 N^2 \mathcal{P}_\theta (k)
\left( \frac{f_0 / N}{10^{12}\, \mathrm{GeV}} \right)^{7/6}
\frac{\Omega_\theta }{\Omega_{\mathrm{CDM}}} .
\label{PofS}$$ Here $\Omega_{\theta (\mathrm{CDM})}$ is the axion (CDM) abundance today, and upon moving to the far right hand side we have used the relation between the axion abundance and the phase [@Turner:1985si] (note that, as we are considering the axion potential to emerge after the decay constant has approached its present-day value, the dynamics of the unperturbed axion is basically unmodified unless axionic walls are formed): $$\frac{\Omega_\theta }{\Omega_{\mathrm{CDM}}} \sim
N^2 (\bar{\theta} - \theta_{\mathrm{min}})^2
\left( \frac{f_0 / N}{10^{12}\, \mathrm{GeV}} \right)^{7/6}.
\label{a-abundance}$$ A scale-invariant and uncorrelated CDM isocurvature is constrained on CMB scales by [*Planck*]{} [@Ade:2015lrj] as $$\mathcal{P}_S (k_*)
\lesssim 0.040 \times
\mathcal{P}_{\zeta} (k_*)
\quad
(95\%\, \mathrm{C.L.}, \, \, \mathrm{TT,TE,EE+lowP} )
\label{isocon}$$ where the pivot scale is $k_*/ a_0 = 0.05 \,
\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$, and the adiabatic power is $ \mathcal{P}_{\zeta} (k_*) \approx 2.2 \times 10^{-9} $.
Supposing $k_* \ll k_{\mathrm{grow}} (\tau_\mathrm{f})$ so that the axion fluctuations on the CMB scales are not affected by the evolution of $f$, then from (\[inf-theta-sh\]), $$\mathcal{P}_\theta (k_*) \sim
\left( \frac{H_{\mathrm{inf}}}{2 \pi f_{\mathrm{inf}}} \right)^2.$$ This combined with (\[PofS\]) and (\[isocon\]) gives an upper bound on the inflation scale, $$H_{\mathrm{inf}}
\lesssim
10^7\, \mathrm{GeV} \;
\frac{f_{\mathrm{inf}}}{f_0}
\left(\frac{f_0/N}{10^{12}\, \mathrm{GeV}}\right)^{5/12}
\left( \frac{\Omega_{\mathrm{CDM}}}{\Omega_\theta } \right)^{1/2}.
\label{HinfUB}$$ For instance if $f_0 / N = 10^{12}\, \mathrm{GeV}$ and $\Omega_\theta =
\Omega_{\mathrm{CDM}}$ (which is realized with $N {\lvert\bar{\theta} - \theta_{\mathrm{min}}\rvert} \sim 1$, cf. (\[a-abundance\])), without the evolution of $f$ (i.e. $f_{\rm inf} = f_0$), the CMB bound on isocurvature perturbations requires the inflation scale to be as low as $H_{\mathrm{inf}} \lesssim 10^7\, \mathrm{GeV}$.
On the other hand when the decay constant is allowed to shrink, then the upper bound on $H_{\mathrm{inf}}$ is relaxed by a factor of $f_{\mathrm{inf}}
/ f_0$. However with a dynamical $f$, the axion perturbations can get enhanced on smaller scales, as we have seen in the previous sections. We will study this effect in more detail in the following subsection.
Before moving on, we should also remark that the above estimation of the isocurvature perturbations breaks down for $N {\lvert\bar{\theta} - \theta_{\mathrm{min}}\rvert} \gtrsim 1$, i.e., when the axion is initially sitting away from the potential minimum. In particular for cases with $\Omega_\theta = \Omega_{\mathrm{CDM}}$, such anharmonic effects become important for $f_0/ N \lesssim 10^{11}\,
\mathrm{GeV}$; there the expression (\[a-abundance\]) for the axion abundance is modified, and most importantly, the isocurvature perturbations become much larger than in (\[PofS\]). Consequently, the upper bound on the inflation scale is much stronger than in (\[HinfUB\]). See [@Lyth:1991ub; @Kobayashi:2013nva] for detailed discussions on the anharmonic enhancement of the axion isocurvature perturbations.
Enhancement of Small-Scale Perturbations
----------------------------------------
We now study two example cases and see how the small-scale axion fluctuations are actually enhanced, possibly leading to formation of domain walls. In both examples we assume the time evolution of the decay constant as was discussed in Section \[sec:DDC\], and further suppose the axion to account for all the dark matter, $$\Omega_\theta = \Omega_{\mathrm{CDM}}.$$
### Case 1
We first study the case with $$\frac{f_0}{N} = 10^{11}\, \mathrm{GeV},
\quad
H_{\mathrm{inf}} = 10^{14}\, \mathrm{GeV},$$ where the inflation scale is set to be roughly the current upper limit [@Ade:2015lrj]. Were it not for a dynamical $f$, with these parameters the PQ symmetry breaking would happen after inflation and then domain walls would overclose the universe unless $N = 1$. However this can be avoided with a time-dependent $f$; one sees from (\[HinfUB\]) that even the isocurvature constraint can be satisfied if $f$ shrinks by $$\frac{f_0}{f_{\mathrm{inf}}} \lesssim 10^{-7},
\label{5.15}$$ i.e. $f_{\mathrm{inf}} / N \gtrsim 10^{18}\, \mathrm{GeV}$.[^8]
Let us now look into the small-scale fluctuations. The axion fluctuation on the mode $k_{\mathrm{f}}$ when the evolution of $f$ ceases is estimated from (\[thetakfaf\]) as $$\frac{\mathcal{P}_\theta^{1/2} (\tau_\mathrm{f}, k_\mathrm{f})}{\Delta
\theta }
\sim \frac{10^3}{(2 \pi)^2} \times
\left(\frac{f_{\mathrm{inf}}}{f_0}\right)^{1 - \frac{5}{2 n}},
\label{5.16}$$ in terms of the potential period (\[a-period\]). In particular when $n > 5/2$, the constraint (\[5.15\]) gives a lower bound on the fluctuation. For instance, $$\mathrm{for} \quad n = 4,
\qquad
\frac{\mathcal{P}_\theta^{1/2} (\tau_\mathrm{f}, k_\mathrm{f})}{\Delta
\theta }
\gtrsim 10^4.
\label{case1-n4}$$ After $\tau = \tau_\mathrm{f}$, the universe eventually undergoes reheating (as we have been assuming that $f$ evolves during the matter-dominated era), and the axion potential emerges when $ T \sim
\Lambda_{\mathrm{QCD}}$. Since the fluctuations on the mode $k_\mathrm{f}$ as well as the horizon size mode are damped as $\propto a^{-1}$ from the value (\[case1-n4\]), one sees that domain walls would form if the axion potential emerges before the universe expands by $a / a_{\mathrm{f}} \sim 10^4$ since when $f$ has approached its present-day value.
We also note that when $n$ is as large as $n \gtrsim 12$, then the energy density of the fluctuations (\[a-density\]) becomes at least comparable to the total density of the universe at $\tau = \tau_{\mathrm{f}}$, which indicates the breakdown of our treatment of the decay constant and the cosmological expansion as homogeneous backgrounds. With such a large $n$, the backreaction from the axion fluctuations becomes non-negligible before the time $\tau = \tau_{\mathrm{f}}$. On the other hand, whether the fluctuation energy density exceeds $f^4$ depends also on when $f$ varies. For instance if $f$ shrinks quickly soon after inflation, then $f^4$ can become smaller than the total density of the universe. In such cases one will have to worry about the recovery of the PQ symmetry due to the gravitational background or the enhanced axion fluctuations.
The fluctuation $\mathcal{P}_\theta^{1/2} / \Delta \theta $ is shown in Figure \[fig:spectra\], for the case of $n = 4$ and $f_{\mathrm{inf}} / N = 10^{18}\,
\mathrm{GeV}$. Here we have plotted the exact solution for $\theta_k$, obtained by starting from the initial conditions (\[4.2\]) and (\[4.3\]) set during inflation, and then connecting to the general solutions (\[generalsol\]) and (\[gendthetada\]) in each epoch of the $f$ evolution (\[f-evo\]) after inflation. Here it should be noted that the fluctuation amplitude at $\tau = \tau_\mathrm{f}$ (\[thetakfaf\]) depends on the ratio $f_{\mathrm{inf}} / f_0$, but not directly on when $f$ evolves; hence for the wave modes shown in the figures, the shape of the fluctuation spectrum is basically independent of parameters such as $H_{\mathrm{f}}$, as long as $H_{\mathrm{inf}}$, $f_{\mathrm{inf}} / N$, $f_{\mathrm{0}} / N$, and $n$ are fixed. The left figure displays the fluctuation spectrum as a function of $k$ when $a = a_{\mathrm{i}}$ (purple), $a_{\mathrm{f}}$ (blue), $10^4 a_{\mathrm{f}}$ (red). One sees that the initially flat super-horizon spectrum is enhanced while $f$ evolves on wave numbers $k \gtrsim k_{\mathrm{grow}}(\tau_\mathrm{f})$. After $f$ ceases to evolve, the spectrum is flattened as the fluctuations enter the horizon and are damped. Hence, until the mode $k_{\mathrm{grow}}(\tau_\mathrm{f})$ enters the horizon, the fluctuations coming into the horizon have roughly the same amplitude as that on the mode $k_{\mathrm{f}}$ inside the horizon, cf. (\[kaH3\]).
The right figure shows the fluctuation as a function of $a$, focusing on the wave number $k_{\mathrm{f}}$. One sees that the fluctuation’s dynamical mode dominates over the constant mode some time after $f$ starts to evolve, cf. (\[II-theta-sh\]). For $a \geq a_{\mathrm{f}}$, the fluctuation amplitude is analytically estimated by multiplying (\[5.16\]) by the damping factor $a_{\mathrm{f}} / a$, which is shown as the dashed line in the figure. This estimate is seen to agree well with the oscillation amplitude of the exact solution. In order to avoid domain walls from forming in this case, the axion potential should not emerge at least until $a \sim 10^4 a_{\mathrm{f}}$, before which $\mathcal{P}_\theta^{1/2} (k = a H)$ is larger than $\Delta \theta$.
![Axion phase fluctuation $\mathcal{P}_\theta^{1/2}$ in terms of the potential period $\Delta \theta$, for the case of $H_{\mathrm{inf}} = 10^{14}\, \mathrm{GeV}$, $f_0 / N = 10^{11}\,
\mathrm{GeV}$, $f_{\mathrm{inf}} / N = 10^{18}\, \mathrm{GeV}$, and $n
= 4$. Left: Fluctuation spectrum as a function of wave number $k$, when $a = a_{\mathrm{i}}$ (purple), $a_{\mathrm{f}}$ (blue), $10^4 a_{\mathrm{f}}$ (red). Right: Time-dependence of fluctuation on wave number $k_{\mathrm{f}}$. The dashed line shows the estimate obtained from (\[5.16\]). In this case, axionic domain walls would form if the axion potential emerges before $ a \sim 10^4 a_{\mathrm{f}}$.[]{data-label="fig:spectra"}](k-spectrum.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
![Axion phase fluctuation $\mathcal{P}_\theta^{1/2}$ in terms of the potential period $\Delta \theta$, for the case of $H_{\mathrm{inf}} = 10^{14}\, \mathrm{GeV}$, $f_0 / N = 10^{11}\,
\mathrm{GeV}$, $f_{\mathrm{inf}} / N = 10^{18}\, \mathrm{GeV}$, and $n
= 4$. Left: Fluctuation spectrum as a function of wave number $k$, when $a = a_{\mathrm{i}}$ (purple), $a_{\mathrm{f}}$ (blue), $10^4 a_{\mathrm{f}}$ (red). Right: Time-dependence of fluctuation on wave number $k_{\mathrm{f}}$. The dashed line shows the estimate obtained from (\[5.16\]). In this case, axionic domain walls would form if the axion potential emerges before $ a \sim 10^4 a_{\mathrm{f}}$.[]{data-label="fig:spectra"}](a-spectrum.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
### Case 2
Now let us consider the parameter set $$\frac{f_0}{N} = 10^{10}\, \mathrm{GeV}, \quad
H_{\mathrm{inf}} = 10^{14}\, \mathrm{GeV}.
\label{5.19}$$ For this $f_0/N$, the unperturbed axion field value needs to be initially located close to the potential hilltop in order for the axion to account for all the dark matter, as then the onset of the axion oscillation is delayed and the axion abundance is enhanced compared to that shown in (\[a-abundance\]). However, the anharmonic effects also strongly enhance the axion isocurvature fluctuations, resulting in a much stronger upper bound on the inflation scale than shown in (\[HinfUB\]). For $f_0 / N = 10^{10}\, \mathrm{GeV}$ and $\Omega_\theta =
\Omega_{\mathrm{CDM}}$, were it not for a dynamical $f$, the upper bound on $H_{\mathrm{inf}}$ is actually $\sim 10^2\, \mathrm{GeV}$; see Figure 3 of [@Kobayashi:2013nva]. On the other hand when $f$ is allowed to vary, the isocurvature bound constrains the rescaled inflation scale $(f_0 / f_{\mathrm{inf}})
H_{\mathrm{inf}}$,[^9] and thus we have $(f_0 / f_{\mathrm{inf}}) H_{\mathrm{inf}} \lesssim 10^2\, \mathrm{GeV}$. Hence for the parameters (\[5.19\]), the isocurvature constraint is satisfied if $f$ shrinks as $$\frac{f_0}{f_{\mathrm{inf}}} \lesssim 10^{-12},$$ i.e. $f_{\mathrm{inf}} / N \gtrsim 10^{23}\, \mathrm{GeV}$. Although such a large decay constant may be difficult to obtain in a controlled setting [@Banks:2003sx; @Svrcek:2006yi], here let us proceed with this bound.
The large hierarchy between $f_{\mathrm{inf}}$ and $f_0$ significantly enhances the small-scale fluctuations. For the mode $k_{\mathrm{f}}$, cf. (\[thetakfaf\]), the fluctuation is $$\frac{\mathcal{P}_\theta^{1/2} (\tau_\mathrm{f}, k_\mathrm{f})}{\Delta
\theta }
\sim \frac{10^4}{(2 \pi)^2} \times
\left(\frac{f_{\mathrm{inf}}}{f_0}\right)^{1 - \frac{5}{2 n}}.$$ Hence, e.g., $$\mathrm{for} \quad n = 4,
\qquad
\frac{\mathcal{P}_\theta^{1/2} (\tau_\mathrm{f}, k_\mathrm{f})}{\Delta
\theta }
\gtrsim 10^7$$ and domain walls form if the axion potential emerges before the universe expands by $a / a_{\mathrm{f}} \sim 10^7$ after the evolution of $f$ ceases. For $n \gtrsim 5$, the $k_{\mathrm{f}}$ mode contribution to the fluctuation density (\[a-density\]) becomes at least comparable to the total density of the universe at $\tau = \tau_{\mathrm{f}}$, and thus the backreaction from the fluctuations needs to be taken into account.
Conclusions {#sec:conc}
===========
While a dynamical decay constant of the QCD axion can help accommodate high-scale inflation, we have shown that it also enhances the small-scale axion isocurvature perturbations. This effect stretches out to super-horizon modes, and thus the enhanced perturbation modes will continue to enter the horizon for some time after the decay constant stops its evolution. The axion fluctuation can become much larger than the potential period, thus unless the fluctuation redshifts away by the time the universe cools down to $T \sim \Lambda_{\mathrm{QCD}}$, it would lead to the formation of axionic domain walls. These walls produced by the enhanced axion fluctuations are not bounded by cosmic strings, and thus would dominate the universe even in the case of $N = 1$.
In our analyses we have assumed the decay constant $f$ to vary as a power-law of the scale factor. However in actual cases the dynamics of $f$ could be more complicated. If, for instance, $f$ instead oscillates around its final value $f_0$, then the axion perturbations may get a “kick” during the first oscillation, and be enhanced much stronger than in the cases analyzed in this paper. The oscillations of $f$ could further induce resonant amplifications of the sub-horizon axion perturbations [@Tkachev:1995md; @Kasuya:1996ns; @Kasuya:1997ha; @Kasuya:1998td; @Tkachev:1998dc; @Kearney:2016vqw]. We also note that, for the evolution of $f$ to take place not too far from the QCD phase transition, a relatively light degree of freedom is required. In a simple case, the mass of the field that sets the axion decay constant $f$ needs to be much lighter than $f$ itself. Such a hierarchy in scales is realized in a supersymmetric axion model, where the saxion (corresponding to the radial component $r$, and thus setting $f$) acquires a mass only from supersymmetry breaking effects. When the fluctuations of the axion are enhanced by the dynamical $f$, the saxion may also acquire large fluctuations, which results in large spatial fluctuations of $f$. It would be important to study the evolution of perturbations in explicit models of axions with dynamical decay constants.
While we have mainly focused on the QCD axion in this paper, similar discussions hold also for axion-like fields with dynamical decay constants, or more generally, for fields that have kinetic terms with time-dependent coefficients. If such a field possesses a periodic potential at energy scales higher than the QCD scale, then even if the evolution of the decay constant happens in the very early times, the enhanced perturbations could still be transformed into domain walls before redshifting away. (However in such cases one may have to take into account the effect of the potential, and in particular the induced mode-mode coupling, during the evolution of the decay constant.) We also note that, depending on when the decay constant evolves, the enhanced axion(-like) isocurvature modes may leave observable signals for upcoming CMB and large scale structure surveys.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
T.K. would like to thank the Particle Theory and Cosmology Group of Tohoku University for hospitality during the initiation of this work. T.K. acknowledges support from the INFN INDARK PD51 grant. This work is supported by MEXT KAKENHI Grant Numbers 15H05889 and 15K21733 (F.T.), JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers 26247042(F.T.), and 26287039 (F.T.), World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI Initiative), MEXT, Japan (F.T.).
[99]{}
R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**38**]{}, 1440 (1977). S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**40**]{}, 223 (1978). F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**40**]{}, 279 (1978). G. G. Raffelt, [*Stars as laboratories for fundamental physics : The astrophysics of neutrinos, axions, and other weakly interacting particles,*]{} The University of Chicago Press, 1996
J. Preskill, M. B. Wise and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. B [**120**]{}, 127 (1983). L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie, Phys. Lett. B [**120**]{}, 133 (1983). M. Dine and W. Fischler, Phys. Lett. B [**120**]{}, 137 (1983). A. Vilenkin and A. E. Everett, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**48**]{}, 1867 (1982).
P. Sikivie, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**48**]{}, 1156 (1982).
A. D. Linde and D. H. Lyth, Phys. Lett. B [**246**]{}, 353 (1990).
D. H. Lyth and E. D. Stewart, Phys. Lett. B [**283**]{}, 189 (1992).
D. Seckel and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D [**32**]{}, 3178 (1985).
D. H. Lyth, Phys. Lett. B [**236**]{}, 408 (1990).
P. A. R. Ade [*et al.*]{} \[Planck Collaboration\], arXiv:1502.02114 \[astro-ph.CO\]. D. H. Lyth, Phys. Rev. D [**45**]{}, 3394 (1992). T. Kobayashi, R. Kurematsu and F. Takahashi, JCAP [**1309**]{}, 032 (2013) \[arXiv:1304.0922 \[hep-ph\]\].
A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B [**259**]{}, 38 (1991).
T. Higaki, K. S. Jeong and F. Takahashi, Phys. Lett. B [**734**]{}, 21 (2014) \[arXiv:1403.4186 \[hep-ph\]\]; E. J. Chun, Phys. Lett. B [**735**]{}, 164 (2014) \[arXiv:1404.4284 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Fairbairn, R. Hogan and D. J. E. Marsh, Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{}, no. 2, 023509 (2015) \[arXiv:1410.1752 \[hep-ph\]\]. J. Kearney, N. Orlofsky and A. Pierce, Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, no. 9, 095026 (2016) \[arXiv:1601.03049 \[hep-ph\]\]. S. Folkerts, C. Germani and J. Redondo, Phys. Lett. B [**728**]{}, 532 (2014) \[arXiv:1304.7270 \[hep-ph\]\].
T. Kobayashi, JCAP [**1405**]{}, 040 (2014) \[arXiv:1403.5168 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
J. Preskill, S. P. Trivedi, F. Wilczek and M. B. Wise, Nucl. Phys. B [**363**]{}, 207 (1991). I. I. Tkachev, Phys. Lett. B [**376**]{}, 35 (1996) \[hep-th/9510146\]. S. Kasuya, M. Kawasaki and T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B [**409**]{}, 94 (1997) \[hep-ph/9608405\]. S. Kasuya and M. Kawasaki, Phys. Rev. D [**56**]{}, 7597 (1997) \[hep-ph/9703354\]. S. Kasuya and M. Kawasaki, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{}, 083516 (1998) \[hep-ph/9804429\]. I. Tkachev, S. Khlebnikov, L. Kofman and A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B [**440**]{}, 262 (1998) \[hep-ph/9805209\]. J. Chluba and D. Grin, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**434**]{}, 1619 (2013) \[arXiv:1304.4596 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
T. Sekiguchi, H. Tashiro, J. Silk and N. Sugiyama, JCAP [**1403**]{}, 001 (2014) \[arXiv:1311.3294 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
M. Dine and A. Anisimov, JCAP [**0507**]{}, 009 (2005) \[hep-ph/0405256\]. M. Dine and L. Stephenson-Haskins, JHEP [**1509**]{}, 208 (2015) \[arXiv:1408.0046 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Kawasaki, M. Yamada and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B [**750**]{}, 12 (2015) \[arXiv:1506.05214 \[hep-ph\]\]. F. Takahashi and M. Yamada, JCAP [**1510**]{}, no. 10, 010 (2015) \[arXiv:1507.06387 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Kawasaki, F. Takahashi and M. Yamada, Phys. Lett. B [**753**]{}, 677 (2016) \[arXiv:1511.05030 \[hep-ph\]\]. Y. Nomura, S. Rajendran and F. Sanches, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**116**]{}, no. 14, 141803 (2016) \[arXiv:1511.06347 \[hep-ph\]\]. S. Kasuya and M. Kawasaki, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 023516 (2009) \[arXiv:0904.3800 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
F. W. J. Olver, D. W. Lozier, R. F. Boisvert and C. W. Clark, [*NIST Handbook of Mathematical Functions,*]{} Cambridge University Press, 2010.
N. Kitajima and F. Takahashi, JCAP [**1501**]{}, no. 01, 032 (2015) \[arXiv:1411.2011 \[hep-ph\]\]. R. Daido, N. Kitajima and F. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{}, no. 6, 063512 (2015) \[arXiv:1505.07670 \[hep-ph\]\].
R. Daido, N. Kitajima and F. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, no. 7, 075027 (2016) \[arXiv:1510.06675 \[hep-ph\]\]. A. Hebecker, J. Jaeckel, F. Rompineve and L. T. Witkowski, arXiv:1606.07812 \[hep-ph\].
D. Stauffer, Phys. Rept. [**54**]{}, 1 (1979).
W. H. Press, B. S. Ryden and D. N. Spergel, Astrophys. J. [**347**]{}, 590 (1989).
T. Garagounis and M. Hindmarsh, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 103506 (2003) \[hep-ph/0212359\].
A. M. M. Leite and C. J. A. P. Martins, Phys. Rev. D [**84**]{}, 103523 (2011) \[arXiv:1110.3486 \[hep-ph\]\].
M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D [**33**]{}, 889 (1986).
T. Banks, M. Dine, P. J. Fox and E. Gorbatov, JCAP [**0306**]{}, 001 (2003) \[hep-th/0303252\].
P. Svrcek and E. Witten, JHEP [**0606**]{}, 051 (2006) \[hep-th/0605206\].
[^1]: A similar effect was invoked in [@Kobayashi:2014sga] for the generation of large-scale magnetic fields in the post-inflationary universe.
[^2]: In this paper we investigate the enhancement of the sub- and super-horizon scale axion fluctuations due to the shrinking of the decay constant. We also note that if the radial component of the PQ scalar oscillates about its minimum, both the axion and the radial component can be produced by parametric resonance. Such sub-horizon fluctuations can lead to a nonthermal symmetry restoration, which has been studied in [@Tkachev:1995md; @Kasuya:1996ns; @Kasuya:1997ha; @Kasuya:1998td; @Tkachev:1998dc; @Kearney:2016vqw].
[^3]: On the other hand for $\nu < 1 $, $ \nu \neq 1/2, \, -1/2, \,
-3/2, \, \cdots$, the two kinds of the Bessel function at $u \to 0$ can scale in the same way as $J_{\nu - 1} \propto Y_{\nu - 1} \propto u^{\nu - 1}$. In such cases the $\kappa$ and $\lambda$ terms can continually cancel each other at the leading order and so the analyses become a bit tricky.
[^4]: A case where $f$ varies during inflation was discussed in [@Kasuya:2009up], in order to generate a blue-tilted isocurvature spectrum.
[^5]: When naively connecting the super-horizon scalings (\[case-ab\]) and (\[case-cd\]) across $a = a_\mathrm{f}$, the super-horizon fluctuations might seem to grow even after $f$ has stopped its evolution. However it should be kept in mind that (\[case-ab\]) and (\[case-cd\]) only describe the asymptotic behaviors in each epoch, and so does not necessarily provide good approximations right after the transition. To obtain the correct behavior of $\theta_k \sim \mathrm{const.}$, one needs to take into account both terms in (\[Besseluto0\]) and/or the sub-leading terms that are dropped there.
[^6]: Works such as [@Kitajima:2014xla; @Daido:2015bva; @Daido:2015cba; @Hebecker:2016vbl] have also discussed domain wall formation due to multiple vacua lying within the field fluctuation.
[^7]: As mode-mode couplings are absent before the axion potential emerges, the unperturbed value $\bar{\theta}$ is unaffected by the enhanced small-scale fluctuations $\theta_k$. However the large- and small-scale modes can interact after the potential emerges; in the extreme case of (\[eq5.4\]), domain walls are formed and even the background value $\bar{\theta}$ is affected by the small-scale fluctuations. In such cases the enhanced fluctuations are preserved by the walls and thus one cannot expand around $\bar{\theta}$ as in (\[eq5.7\]). We also note that if $\bar{\theta}$ is initially close to the potential hilltop (as in cases where anharmonic effects are important), the criteria (\[eq5.4\]) for domain wall formation is relaxed.
[^8]: The axion decay constant during inflation is required to be comparable to or larger than the Planck scale, in order to be consistent with high-scale inflation that saturates the current upper bound on the tensor-to-scalar ratio [@Higaki:2014ooa].
[^9]: This is clearly seen in the bound (\[HinfUB\]); after multiplying both sides by $f_0 / f_{\mathrm{inf}}$, the expression can be read as an upper bound on $(f_0 /
f_{\mathrm{inf}})H_{\mathrm{inf}} $.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'A Lagragian numerical scheme for solving nonlinear degenerate Fokker-Planck equations in space dimensions $d\ge2$ is presented. It applies to a large class of nonlinear diffusion equations, whose dynamics are driven by internal energies and given external potentials, e.g. the porous medium equation and the fast diffusion equation. The key ingredient in our approach is the gradient flow structure of the dynamics. For discretization of the Lagrangian map, we use a finite subspace of linear maps in space and a variational form of the implicit Euler method in time. Thanks to that time discretisation, the fully discrete solution inherits energy estimates from the original gradient flow, and these lead to weak compactness of the trajectories in the continuous limit. Consistency is analyzed in the planar situation, $d=2$. A variety of numerical experiments for the porous medium equation indicates that the scheme is well-adapted to track the growth of the solution’s support.'
address:
- 'José A. Carrillo, Department of Mathematics, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, UK'
- 'Bertram Düring, Department of Mathematics, University of Sussex, Pevensey II, Brighton, BN1 9QH, UK'
- |
Daniel Matthes\
Technische Universität München\
Zentrum Mathematik\
Boltzmannstraße 3\
D-85747 Garching
- 'David S. McCormick, Department of Mathematics, University of Sussex, Pevensey II, Brighton, BN1 9QH, UK'
author:
- 'José A. Carrillo'
- Bertram Düring
- Daniel Matthes
- 'David S. McCormick'
bibliography:
- 'CDMM\_lagrangian.bib'
title: A Lagrangian scheme for the solution of nonlinear diffusion equations using moving simplex meshes
---
Introduction
============
We study a Lagrangian discretization of the following type of initial value problem for a nonlinear Fokker–Planck equation:
\[eq:NFPsystem\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:NFP}
{\partial}_{t} \rho &= {\Delta}P(\rho) + {\nabla \cdot}(\rho\,\nabla V) && \text{on ${\mathbb{R}_{>0}}\times{\mathbb{R}}^d$}, \\
\label{eq:NFPic}
\rho(\cdot,0) &= \rho^0 && \text{on ${\mathbb{R}}^d$}.\end{aligned}$$
This problem is posed for the time-dependent probability density function $\rho \colon {\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}\times{\mathbb{R}}^d\to {\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}$, with initial condition $\rho^0\in{\mathcal{P}_2^\text{ac}({\mathbb{R}}^d)}$. We assume that the pressure $P \colon {\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}\to{\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}$ can be written in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Ph}
P(r) = rh'(r)-h(r) \quad\text{for all $r \ge 0$},\end{aligned}$$ for some non-negative and convex $h \in C^1({\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}})\cap
C^\infty({\mathbb{R}_{>0}})$ and that $V\in
C^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ is a non-negative potential without loss of generality.
Problem encompasses a large class of diffusion equations, such as the heat equation ($P(r)=r, V=0$), the porous medium equation ($P(r)=r^m/(m-1), m>1, V=0$) and the fast diffusion equation ($P(r)=r^m/(m-1), m<1, V=0$), and extends to related problems with given external potentials $V$. To motivate our discretization, we first briefly recall the Lagrangian form of the dynamics: rewriting as a transport equation, we obtain
\[eq:LagrSystem\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:trapo}
{\partial}_t\rho + {\nabla \cdot}\big(\rho\,{\mathbf{v}}[\rho]\big) = 0,
\intertext{with a velocity field ${\mathbf{v}}$ that depends on the solution $\rho$ itself,}
\label{eq:velo}
{\mathbf{v}}[\rho] = -\nabla\big(h' (\rho)+V\big).\end{aligned}$$
More general systems can be written in this form. For instance, interaction potentials leading to aggregation equations, relativistic heat equations, $p$-Laplacian equations and Keller-Segel type models can also be included; see Carrillo and Moll [@art:CaMo09] and the references therein for a good account of models enjoying this structural form. Here, we reduce to models with nonlinear degenerate diffusion, i.e. $h(0)=h'(0)=0$, and confining potentials in order to explore our new discretization.
The system naturally induces a Lagrangian representation of the dynamics, which can be summarized as follows. Below, we use the notation $G_\#{\overline\rho}$ for the *push-forward* of ${\overline\rho}$ under a map $G \colon {\mathbb{R}}^d\to{\mathbb{R}}^d$; the definition is recalled in .
\[lem:Lagrange\] Assume that $\rho \colon [0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^d\to{\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}$ is a smooth positive solution of . Let ${\overline\rho}\colon {\mathbb{R}}^d\to{\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}$ be a given reference density, and let $G^0 \colon {\mathbb{R}}^d\to{\mathbb{R}}^d$ be a given map such that $G^0_\#{\overline\rho}=\rho^0$. Further, let $G \colon [0,T]\times {\mathbb{R}}^d\to{\mathbb{R}}^d$ be the flow map associated to , satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Lagrange}
{\partial}_tG_t = {\mathbf{v}}[\rho_t]\circ G_t, \quad G(0,\cdot)=G^0,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho_t:=\rho(t,\cdot)$ and $G_t:=G(t,\cdot) \colon {\mathbb{R}}^d \to{\mathbb{R}}^d$. Then $$\label{eq:push}
\rho_t = (G_t)_{\#} {\overline\rho}$$ at any $t\in[0,T]$.
In short, the solution $G$ to is a Lagrangian map for the solution $\rho$ to . This fact is an immediate consequence of ; for convenience of the reader, we recall the proof in Appendix \[sct:Lagrange\]. Notice that can be substituted for $\rho$ in the expression for the velocity, which makes an autonomous evolution equation for $G$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:GG}
{\partial}_tG_t = -\nabla\left[h'\left(\frac{{\overline\rho}}{\det{\mathrm{D}}G_t}\right)\right]\circ G_t-\nabla V\circ G_t.\end{aligned}$$ A more explicit form of is derived in .
There is a striking structural relation between and : it is well-known (see Otto [@art:Otto] or Ambrosio, Gigli and Savaré [@book:AGS]) that is a gradient flow for the relative Renyi entropy functional $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:aent}
{\mathcal{E}}(\rho ) = \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}\big[ h(\rho(x))+V(x)\rho(x)\big]{\,\mathrm{d}}x,\end{aligned}$$ with respect to the $L^2$-Wasserstein metric on the space ${\mathcal{P}_2^\text{ac}({\mathbb{R}}^d)}$ of probability densities on ${{\mathbb{R}}^d}$. It appears to be less well known (see Evans et al. [@art:EGS], Carrillo and Moll [@art:CaMo09], or Carrillo and Lisini [@art:CaLi10]) that also is a gradient flow, namely for the functional $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ent}
{\mathbf{E}}(G|{\overline\rho}) := {\mathcal{E}}(G_\#{\overline\rho})
= \int_K \left[\widetilde h\left(\frac{\det{\mathrm{D}}G}{{\overline\rho}}\right) + V\circ G\right]{\overline\rho}{\,\mathrm{d}}\omega,
\quad \widetilde h(s):=s\,h(s^{-1}),\end{aligned}$$ on the Hilbert space $L^2(K\to{{\mathbb{R}}^d};{\overline\rho})$ of maps from $K$ to ${{\mathbb{R}}^d}$, where ${\overline\rho}$ is a reference measure supported on $K\subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$. We shall discuss these gradient flow structures in more detail in Section \[sec:GF\] below.
The particular spatio-temporal discretization of the initial value problem that we study in this paper is based on these facts. Instead of numerically integrating to obtain the density $\rho$ directly, we approximate the Lagrangian map $G$ — using a finite subspace of linear maps in space — which then allows us to recover $\rho$ a posteriori via . Our approximation for $G$ is constructed by solving a succession of minimization problems that are naturally derived from the gradient flow structure behind . Via variational methods, this provides compactness estimates on the discrete solutions.
The use of a finite subspace of linear maps for the Lagrangian maps has a geometric interpretation: the induced densities are piecewise constant on triangles whose vertices move in time. In the sequel, we further assume that $\lim_{s\to\infty}sh''(s)=+\infty$ in order to prevent the collapse of the images of our Lagrangian maps $G_t$, as proven below. However, we do not yet know how to prevent (globally) the possible intersection of the images of the approximated Lagrangian maps.
This approach is alternative to the one developed by Carrillo et al. [@art:CRW; @art:CaMo09], where $G$ is obtained by directly solving the PDE numerically with finite differences or Galerkin approximation via finite element methods. In fact, the main difference between these two strategies can be summarized as follows: while Carrillo et al. [@art:CRW; @art:CaMo09] follows the strategy *minimize first then discretize*, our present approach is to *discretize first then minimize*. In other words, in Carrillo et al. [@art:CRW; @art:CaMo09] one minimizes first, obtaining as Euler-Lagrange equations the implicit Euler discretization of in [@art:CRW] approximated by the explicit Euler method in [@art:CaMo09], and then discretized in space. In the present approach, we discretize first approximating the space of Lagrangian maps by a suitable finite subspace of linear maps, and then we minimize obtaining a nonlinear system of equations to find the approximated Lagrangian map within that set of linear maps.
Let us mention that other numerical methods have been developed to conserve particular properties of solutions of the gradient flow . Finite volume methods preserving the decay of energy at the semi-discrete level, along with other important properties like non-negativity and mass conservation, were proposed in the papers [@Filbet; @CCH2]. Particle methods based on suitable regularisations of the flux of the continuity equation have been proposed in the papers [@DM; @LM; @MGallic; @Russo]. A particle method based on the steepest descent of a regularized internal part of the energy ${\mathcal{E}}$ in by substituting particles by non-overlapping blobs was proposed and analysed in Carrillo et al. [@CHPW; @CPSW]. Moreover, the numerical approximation of the JKO variational scheme has already been tackled by different methods using pseudo-inverse distributions in one dimension (see [@Blanchet; @CG; @GT; @westdickenberg2010variational]) or solving for the optimal map in a JKO step (see [@art:BCMO; @art:JMO]). Finally, note that gradient-flow-based Lagrangian methods in one dimension for higher-order, drift diffusion and Fokker-Planck equations have recently been proposed in the papers [@during2010gradient; @MO3; @MO1; @MO2].
There are two main arguments in favour of our taking this indirect approach of solving instead of solving . The first is our interest in *structure preserving discretizations*: the scheme that we present builds on the non-obvious “secondary” gradient flow representation of in terms of Lagrangian maps. The benefits are monotonicity of the transformed entropy functional ${\mathbf{E}}$ and an $L^2$-control on the metric velocity for our fully discrete solutions, that eventually lead to weak compactness of the trajectories in the continuous limit. We remark that our long-term goal is to design a numerical scheme that makes full use of the much richer “primary” variational structure of in the Wasserstein distance, that is reviewed in Section \[sec:GF\] below. However, despite significant effort in the recent past — see, e.g., the references [@art:BCMO; @art:BCC; @CPSW; @art:CRW; @during2010gradient; @art:GT; @art:JMO; @art:MO1; @art:Peyre; @westdickenberg2010variational] — it has not been possible so far to preserve features like metric contractivity of the flow under the discretization, except in the rather special situation of one space dimension (see Matthes and Osberger [@art:MO1]). This is mainly due to the non-existence of finite-dimensional submanifolds of ${\mathcal{P}_2^\text{ac}({\mathbb{R}}^d)}$ that are complete with respect to generalized geodesics. The second motivation is that Lagrangian schemes are a natural choice for *numerical front tracking*, see, e.g., Budd [@art:Budd] for first results on the numerical approximation of self-similar solutions to the porous medium equation. We recall that due to the assumed degeneracy $P'(0)=0$ of the diffusion in , solutions that are compactly supported initially remain compactly supported at all times. A numerically accurate calculation of the moving edge of support is challenging, since the solution can have a very complex behavior near that edge, like the waiting time phenomenon (see Vazquez [@book:Vazquez]). Our simulation results for $\partial_t\rho=\Delta(\rho^3)$ — that possess an analytically known, compactly supported, self-similar Barenblatt solution — indicated that our discretization is indeed able to track the edge of support quite accurately.
This work is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:GF\] we present an overview of previous results in gradient flows pertaining our work. Section \[sec:SchemeDefn\] is devoted to the introduction of the linear set of Lagragian maps and the derivation of the numerical scheme. Section \[sec:LimitTraj\] shows the compactness of the approximated sequences of discretizations and we give conditions leading to the eventual convergence of the scheme towards . Section \[sec:Consistency2D\] deals with the consistency of the scheme in two dimensions while Section \[sec:NumSim2D\] gives several numerical tests showing the performance of this scheme.
Gradient flow structures {#sec:GF}
========================
Notations from probability theory
---------------------------------
${\mathcal{P}}(X)$ is the space of probability measures on a given base set $X$. We say that a sequence $(\mu_n)$ of measures in ${\mathcal{P}}(X)$ *converges narrowly* to a limit $\mu$ in that space if $$\int_Xf(x){\,\mathrm{d}}\mu_n(x)\to\int_Xf(x){\,\mathrm{d}}\mu(x)$$ for all bounded and continuous functions $f\in C^0_b(X)$. The *push-forward* $T_\#\mu$ of a measure $\mu\in{\mathcal{P}}(X)$ under a measurable map $T \colon X\to Y$ is the uniquely determined measure $\nu\in{\mathcal{P}}(Y)$ such that, for all $g\in C^0_b(Y)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_Xg\circ T(x){\,\mathrm{d}}\mu(x) = \int_Yg(y){\,\mathrm{d}}\nu(y).\end{aligned}$$ With a slight abuse of notation — identifying absolutely continuous measures with their densities — we denote the space of probability densities on ${{\mathbb{R}}^d}$ of finite second moment by $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{P}_2^\text{ac}({\mathbb{R}}^d)}= {\left\{\rho\in L^1({{\mathbb{R}}^d})\,;\,\rho\ge0,\,\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}\rho(x){\,\mathrm{d}}x=1,\,\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}\|x\|^2\rho(x){\,\mathrm{d}}x<\infty\right\}}.\end{aligned}$$ Clearly, the reference density ${\overline\rho}$, which is supported on the compact set $K\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$, belongs to ${\mathcal{P}_2^\text{ac}({\mathbb{R}}^d)}$. If $G \colon K\to{\mathbb{R}}^d$ is a diffeomorphism onto its image (which is again compact), then the push-forward of ${\overline\rho}$’s measure produces again a density $G_\#{\overline\rho}\in{\mathcal{P}_2^\text{ac}({\mathbb{R}}^d)}$, given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:pushdens}
G_\#{\overline\rho}= \frac{{\overline\rho}}{\det {\mathrm{D}}G}\circ G^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$
Gradient flow in the Wasserstein metric
---------------------------------------
Below, some basic facts about the Wasserstein metric and the formulation of as gradient flow in that metric are briefly reviewed. For more detailed information, we refer the reader to the monographs of Ambrosio et al. [@book:AGS] and Villani [@book:Villani].
One of the many equivalent ways to define the *$L^2$-Wasserstein distance* between $\rho_0,\rho_1\in{\mathcal{P}_2^\text{ac}({\mathbb{R}}^d)}$ is as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:W2}
{\mathrm{W}_2}(\rho_0,\rho_1) :=
\inf{\left\{\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} \|T(x)-x\|^2\rho_0(x){\,\mathrm{d}}x\,;\,T:{{\mathbb{R}}^d}\to{{\mathbb{R}}^d}\ \text{measurable},\,T_\#\rho_0=\rho_1\right\}}^{\frac12}.\end{aligned}$$ The infimum above is in fact a minimum, and the — essentially unique — optimal map $T^*$ is characterized by Brenier’s criterion; see, e.g., Villani [@book:Villani Section 2.1]. A trivial but essential observation is that if ${\overline\rho}\in{\mathcal{P}_2^\text{ac}({\mathbb{R}}^d)}$ is a reference density with support $K\subset{{\mathbb{R}}^d}$, and $\rho_0=(G_0)_\#{\overline\rho}$ with a measurable $G_0 \colon K\to{{\mathbb{R}}^d}$, then can be re-written as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:W3}
{\mathrm{W}_2}(\rho_0,\rho_1) =
\inf{\left\{\int_K \|G(\omega)-G_0(\omega)\|^2{\overline\rho}(\omega){\,\mathrm{d}}\omega\,;\,G \colon K\to{{\mathbb{R}}^d}\ \text{measurable},\,G_\#{\overline\rho}=\rho_1\right\}}^{\frac12},\end{aligned}$$ and the essentially unique minimizer $G^*$ in is related to the optimal map $T^*$ in via $G^*=T^*\circ G_0$.
${\mathrm{W}_2}$ is a metric on ${\mathcal{P}_2^\text{ac}({\mathbb{R}}^d)}$; convergence in ${\mathrm{W}_2}$ is equivalent to weak-$\star$ convergence in $L^1({{\mathbb{R}}^d})$ and convergence of the second moment. Since $P$ and hence also $h$ are of super-linear growth at infinity, each sublevel set ${\mathcal{E}}$ is weak-$\star$ closed and thus complete with respect to ${\mathrm{W}_2}$.
As already mentioned above, solutions $\rho$ to constitute a gradient flow for the functional ${\mathcal{E}}$ from in the metric space $({\mathcal{P}_2^\text{ac}({\mathbb{R}}^d)};{\mathrm{W}_2})$. In fact, the flow is even $\lambda$-contractive as a semi-group, thanks to the $\lambda$-uniform displacement convexity of ${\mathcal{E}}$ (see McCann [@art:McCann], or Daneri and Savaré [@art:DS]), which is a strengthened form of $\lambda$-uniform convexity along geodesics. The $\lambda$-contractivity of the flow implies various properties (see Ambrosio et al. [@book:AGS Section 11.2]) like global existence, uniqueness and regularity of the flow, monotonicity of ${\mathcal{E}}$ and its sub-differential, uniform exponential estimates on the convergence (if $\lambda<0$) or divergence (if $\lambda\ge0$) of trajectories, quantified exponential rates for the approach to equilibrium (if $\lambda<0$) and the like.
An important further consequence is that the unique flow can be obtained as the limit for $\tau \searrow0$ of the time-discrete *minimizing movement scheme* (see Ambrosio et al. [@book:AGS] and Jordan, Kinderlehrer and Otto [@art:JKO]): $$\label{eq:mmrho}
\rho_\tau^{n} := \operatorname*{argmin}_{\rho \in {\mathcal{P}_2^\text{ac}({\mathbb{R}}^d)}}{\mathcal{E}}_\tau(\rho;\rho_\tau^{n-1}),
\quad {\mathcal{E}}_\tau(\rho,\hat\rho):=\frac{1}{2\tau}{\mathrm{W}_2}(\rho,\hat\rho)^{2} + {\mathcal{E}}(\rho).$$ This time discretization is well-adapted to approximate $\lambda$-contractive gradient flows. All of the properties of mentioned above are already reflected on the level of these time-discrete solutions.
Gradient flow in $L^2$
----------------------
Equation is the gradient flow of ${\mathbf{E}}$ on the space $L^2(K\to{{\mathbb{R}}^d};{\overline\rho})$ of square integrable (with respect to ${\overline\rho}$) maps $G \colon K\to{{\mathbb{R}}^d}$ (see Evans et al. [@art:EGS] or Jordan et al. [@art:JMO]). However, the variational structure behind this gradient flow is much weaker than above: most notably, ${\mathbf{E}}$ is only poly-convex, but *not $\lambda$-uniformly convex*. Therefore, the abstract machinery for $\lambda$-contractive gradient flows in Ambrosio et al. [@book:AGS] does not apply here. Clearly, by equivalence of and at least for sufficiently smooth solutions, certain properties of the primary gradient flow are necessarily inherited by this secondary flow, but for instance $\lambda$-contractivity of the flow in the $L^2$-norm seems to fail.
Nevertheless, it can be proven (see Ambrosio, Lisini and Savaré [@art:ALS]) that the gradient flow is globally well-defined, and it can again be approximated by the minimizing movement scheme: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:mmG}
G_\tau^n:=\operatorname*{argmin}_{G\in L^2(K\to{{\mathbb{R}}^d};{\overline\rho})}{\mathbf{E}}_\tau\big(G;G_\tau^{n-1}\big),
\quad
{\mathbf{E}}_\tau(G;\hat G)=
\frac1{2\tau}\int_K\|G-\hat G\|^2\,{\,\mathrm{d}}{\overline\rho}+ {\mathbf{E}}(G|{\overline\rho}).\end{aligned}$$ In fact, there is an equivalence between and : simply substitute $(G_\tau^{n-1})_\#{\overline\rho}$ for $\rho_\tau^{n-1}$ and $G_\#{\overline\rho}$ for $\rho$ in ; notice that any $\rho\in{\mathcal{P}_2^\text{ac}({\mathbb{R}}^d)}$ can be written as $G_\#{\overline\rho}$ with a suitable (highly non-unique) choice of $G\in
L^2(K\to{{\mathbb{R}}^d};{\overline\rho})$. This equivalence was already exploited in Carrillo et al. [@art:CRW; @art:CaMo09]. Thanks to the equality , the minimization with respect to $\rho=G_\#{\overline\rho}$ can be relaxed to a minimization with respect to $G$. Consequently, if $(G_\tau^0)_\#{\overline\rho}=\rho_\tau^0$, then $(G_\tau^n)_\#{\overline\rho}=\rho_\tau^n$ at all discrete times $n=1,2,\ldots$. However, while the functional ${\mathcal{E}}_\tau(\cdot;\rho_\tau^{n-1})$ in is $(\lambda+\tau^{-1})$-uniformly convex in $\rho$ along geodesics in ${\mathrm{W}_2}$, the functional ${\mathbf{E}}_\tau(\cdot;G_\tau^{n-1})$ in has apparently no useful convexity properties in $G$ on $L^2(K\to{{\mathbb{R}}^d};{\overline\rho})$.
Definition of the numerical scheme {#sec:SchemeDefn}
==================================
Recall the Lagrangian formulation of that has been given in Lemma \[lem:Lagrange\]. For definiteness, fix a reference density ${\overline\rho}\in{\mathcal{P}_2^\text{ac}({\mathbb{R}}^d)}$, whose support $K\subset{{\mathbb{R}}^d}$ is convex and compact.
Discretization in space
-----------------------
Our spatial discretization is performed using a finite subspace of linear maps for the Lagrangian maps $G$. More specifically: let ${\mathscr{T}}$ be some (finite) simplicial decomposition of $K$ with nodes $\omega_{1}$ to $\omega_{L}$ and $n$-simplices $\Delta_{1}$ to $\Delta_{M}$. In the case $d=2$, which is of primary interest here, ${\mathscr{T}}$ is a triangulation, with triangles $\Delta_m$. The reference density ${\overline\rho}$ is approximated by a density ${\overline\rho}_{\mathscr{T}}\in{\mathcal{P}_2^\text{ac}({\mathbb{R}}^d)}$ that is piecewise constant on the simplices of ${\mathscr{T}}$, with respective values $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:mu}
{\overline\rho}_{\mathscr{T}}^m := \frac{\mu_{\mathscr{T}}^m}{|\Delta_m|}
\quad \text{for the simplex masses}\quad
\mu_{\mathscr{T}}^m:=\int_{\Delta_m}{\overline\rho}(\omega){\,\mathrm{d}}\omega.\end{aligned}$$ The finite dimensional ansatz space ${\mathcal{A}_\mathscr{T}}$ is now defined as the set of maps $G\colon K\to{{\mathbb{R}}^d}$ that are globally continous, affine on each of the simplices $\Delta_m\in{\mathscr{T}}$, and orientation preserving. That is, on each $\Delta_m\subset{\mathscr{T}}$, the map $G\in{\mathcal{A}_\mathscr{T}}$ can be written as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Gform}
G(\omega) = A_{m} \omega + b_{m} \qquad \text{for all } \omega \in \Delta_{m},\end{aligned}$$ with a suitable matrix $A_{m} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{d\times d}$ of positive determinant and a vector $b_{m} \in {\mathbb{R}}^d$. For the calculations that follow, we shall use a more geometric way to describe the maps $G\in{\mathcal{A}_\mathscr{T}}$, namely by the positions $G_\ell=G(\omega_\ell)$ of the images of each node $\omega_\ell$. Denote by ${({\mathbb{R}}^d)_\mathscr{T}^L}\subset{\mathbb{R}}^{L\cdot d}$ the space of $L$-tuples ${\vec{G}}=(G_\ell)_{\ell=1}^L$ of points $G_\ell\in{{\mathbb{R}}^d}$ with the same simplicial combinatorics (including orientation) as the $\omega_\ell$ in ${\mathscr{T}}$. Clearly, any $G\in{\mathcal{A}_\mathscr{T}}$ is uniquely characterized by the $L$-tuple ${\vec{G}}$ of its values, and moreover, any ${\vec{G}}\in{({\mathbb{R}}^d)_\mathscr{T}^L}$ defines a $G\in{\mathcal{A}_\mathscr{T}}$.
More explicitly, fix a $\Delta_m\in{\mathscr{T}}$, with nodes labelled $\omega_{m,0}$ to $\omega_{m,d}$ in some orientation preserving order, and respective image points $G_{m,0}$ to $G_{m,d}$. With the standard $d$-simplex given by $${\mathord{\bigtriangleup}}^d:= {\left\{\xi=(\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_d)\in{\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}^d\,;\,\sum_{j=1}^d\xi_j\le1\right\}},$$ introduce the linear interpolation maps $r_m \colon {\mathord{\bigtriangleup}}^d\to K$ and $q_m \colon {\mathord{\bigtriangleup}}^d\to{{\mathbb{R}}^d}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
r_m(\xi) &= \omega_{m,{0}} + \sum_{j=1}^d(\omega_{m,j}-\omega_{m,{0}})\xi_j, \\
q_m(\xi) &= G_{m,{0}} + \sum_{j=1}^d(G_{m,j}-G_{m,{0}})\xi_j.\end{aligned}$$ Then the affine map equals to $q_m\circ r_m^{-1}$. In particular, we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:det}
\det A_m = \frac{\det{\mathrm{D}}q_m}{\det{\mathrm{D}}r_m} = \frac{\det Q_{\mathscr{T}}^m[G]}{2|\Delta_m|}
\quad\text{where}\quad
Q_{\mathscr{T}}^m[G]:=\big(G_{m,1}-G_{m,{0}}\big|\cdots\big|G_{m,d}-G_{m,{0}}\big).\end{aligned}$$ For later reference, we give a more explicit representation for the transformed entropy ${\mathbf{E}}$ for $G\in{\mathcal{A}_\mathscr{T}}$, and for the $L^2$-distance between two maps $G,\hat G\in{\mathcal{A}_\mathscr{T}}$. Substitution of the special form into produces $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dent}
{\mathbf{E}}(G|{\overline\rho}_{\mathscr{T}})
=\sum_{\Delta_m\in{\mathscr{T}}}\mu_{\mathscr{T}}^m \big[{\mathbb{H}}_{\mathscr{T}}^m(G)+{\mathbb{V}}_{\mathscr{T}}^m(G)\big]\end{aligned}$$ with the internal energy (recall the definition of $\widetilde h$ from ) $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{H}}_{\mathscr{T}}^m(G)
:=\widetilde{h} \left( \frac{\det A_m}{{\overline\rho}_{\mathscr{T}}^m} \right)
= \widetilde h\left(\frac{\det Q_{\mathscr{T}}^m[G]}{2\mu_{\mathscr{T}}^m}\right)\end{aligned}$$ and the potential energy $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{V}}_{\mathscr{T}}^m(G)
= {\fint}_{\Delta_m}V(A_m\omega+b_m){\,\mathrm{d}}\omega
= {\fint}_{{\mathord{\bigtriangleup}}}V\big(r_m(\omega)\big){\,\mathrm{d}}\omega.\end{aligned}$$ For the $L^2$-difference of $G$ and $G^*$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ddist}
\|G-G^*\|_{L^2(K;{\overline\rho}_{\mathscr{T}})}^2
=\int_K\|G-G^*\|^2{\overline\rho}_{\mathscr{T}}{\,\mathrm{d}}\omega
= \sum_{\Delta_m\in{\mathscr{T}}}\mu_{\mathscr{T}}^m {\mathbb{L}}_{\mathscr{T}}^m(G,G^*).\end{aligned}$$ Using Lemma \[lem:triint\], we obtain on each simplex $\Delta_m$: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
{\mathbb{L}}_{\mathscr{T}}^m(G,G^*)
&:={\fint}_{\Delta_m}\|G(\omega)-G^*(\omega)\|^2{\,\mathrm{d}}\omega \\
\nonumber
&= {\fint}_{{\mathord{\bigtriangleup}}}\|r_m(\omega)-r_m^*(\omega)\|^2{\,\mathrm{d}}\omega \\
\label{eq:distdens}
&= \frac2{(d+1)(d+2)}\sum_{0\le i\le j\le d}(G_{m,i}-G^*_{m,i})\cdot(G_{m,j}-G^*_{m,j}).\end{aligned}$$
Discretization in time
----------------------
Let a time step $\tau>0$ be given; in the following, we symbolize the spatio-temporal discretization by ${\boxplus}$, and we write ${\boxplus}\to0$ for the joint limit of $\tau\to0$ and vanishing mesh size in ${\mathscr{T}}$.
The discretization in time is performed in accordance with : we modify ${\mathbf{E}}_\tau$ from by restriction to the ansatz space ${\mathcal{A}_\mathscr{T}}$. This leads to the minimization problem $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:mini}
G_{\boxplus}^n:=\operatorname*{argmin}_{G\in{\mathcal{A}_\mathscr{T}}}{\mathbf{E}}_{\boxplus}\big(G;G_{\boxplus}^{n-1}\big)
\quad\text{where}\quad
{\mathbf{E}}_{\boxplus}(G;G^*) = \frac1{2\tau}\|G-G^*\|_{L^2(K;{\overline\rho}_{\mathscr{T}})}^2 + {\mathbf{E}}(G|{\overline\rho}_{\mathscr{T}}).\end{aligned}$$ For a fixed discretization ${\boxplus}$, the fully discrete scheme is well-posed in the sense that for a given initial map $G_{\boxplus}^0\in{\mathcal{A}_\mathscr{T}}$, an associated sequence $(G_{\boxplus}^n)_{n\ge0}$ can be determined by successive solution of the minimization problems . One only needs to verify:
\[lem:minexist\] For each given $G^*\in{\mathcal{A}_\mathscr{T}}$, there exists at least one global minimizer $G\in{\mathcal{A}_\mathscr{T}}$ of ${\mathbf{E}}_{\boxplus}(\cdot;G^*)$.
We *do not* claim uniqueness of the minimizers. Unfortunately, the minimization problem inherits the lack of convexity from , whereas the correspondence between and the convex problem is lost under spatial discretization. A detailed discussion of ${\mathbf{E}}_{\boxplus}$’s (non-)convexity is provided in Appendix \[sct:notconvex\].
We only sketch the main arguments. For definiteness, let us choose (just for this proof) one of the infinitely many equivalent norm-induced metrics on the $dL$-dimensional vector space $V_{\mathscr{T}}$ of all continuous maps $G \colon K\to{\mathbb{R}}^d$ that are piecewise affine with respect to the fixed simplicial decomposition ${\mathscr{T}}$: given $G,G'\in V_{\mathscr{T}}$ with their respective point locations ${\vec{G}},{\vec{G}}'\in{\mathbb{R}}^{dL}$, i.e., ${\vec{G}}=(G_\ell)_{\ell=1}^L$ for $G_\ell=G(\omega_\ell)$, define the distance between these maps as the maximal ${\mathbb{R}}^d$-distance $\|G_\ell-G'_\ell\|$ of corresponding points $G_\ell\in{\vec{G}}$, $G'_\ell\in{\vec{G}}'$. Clearly, this metric makes $V_{\mathscr{T}}$ a complete space.
It is easily seen that the subset ${\mathcal{A}_\mathscr{T}}$ — which is singled out by requiring orientation preservation of the $G$’s — is an open subset of $V_{\mathscr{T}}$. It is further obvious that the map $G\mapsto{\mathbf{E}}_{\boxplus}(G;G^*)$ is continuous with respect to the metric. The claim of the lemma thus follows if we can show that the sub-level $$S_c:={\left\{G\in{\mathcal{A}_\mathscr{T}}\,;\,{\mathbf{E}}_{\boxplus}(G;G^*)\le c\right\}} \quad \text{with}\quad
c:={\mathbf{E}}(G^*|{\overline\rho}_{\mathscr{T}})$$ is a non-empty compact subset of $V_{\mathscr{T}}$. Clearly, $G^*\in S_c$, so it suffices to verify compactness.
*$S_c$ is bounded.* We are going to show that there is a radius $R>0$ such that no $G\in S_c$ has a distance larger than $R$ to $G^*$. From non-negativity of ${\mathbf{E}}$, and from the representations and , it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
c\ge\frac1{2\tau}\|G-G^*\|_{L^2(K;{\overline\rho}_{\mathscr{T}})}^2
&\ge\frac{\underline\mu_{\mathscr{T}}}{2\tau}\sum_{\Delta_m\in{\mathscr{T}}}{\mathbb{L}}_{\mathscr{T}}^m(G,G^*) \\
&= \frac{\underline\mu_{\mathscr{T}}}{(d+1)(d+2) \tau}\sum_{0\le i\le j\le d}(G_{m,i}-G^*_{m,i})\cdot(G_{m,j}-G^*_{m,j})\\
&\ge \frac{\underline\mu_{\mathscr{T}}}{2(d+1)(d+2) \tau}\sum_{\ell=1}^L\|G_\ell-G_\ell^*\|^2,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\underline\mu_{\mathscr{T}}=\min_{\Delta_m}\mu_{\mathscr{T}}^m$. It is now easy to compute a suitable value for the radius $R$.
*$S_c$ is a closed subset of $V_{\mathscr{T}}$.* It suffices to show that the limit $\overline G\in V_{\mathscr{T}}$ of any sequence $(G^{(k)})_{k=1}^\infty$ of maps $G^{(k)}\in S_c$ belongs to ${\mathcal{A}_\mathscr{T}}$. By definition of our metric on $V_{\mathscr{T}}$, global continuity and piecewise linearity of the $G^{(k)}$ trivially pass to the limit $\overline G$. We still need to verify that $\overline G$ is orientation-preserving. Fix a simplex $\Delta_m$ and consider the corresponding matrices $A_m^{(k)}$ and $\overline A_m$ from . Since the $G^{(k)}$ converge to $\overline G$ in the metric, also $A_m^{(k)}\to\overline A_m$ entry-wise. Now, by non-negativity of $\widetilde h$, we have for all $k$ that $$\begin{aligned}
c\ge{\mathbf{E}}(G^{(k)}|{\overline\rho}_{\mathscr{T}}) \ge \mu_{\mathscr{T}}^m\widetilde h\left(\frac{\det A^{(k)}_m}{{\overline\rho}_{\mathscr{T}}^m}\right),
\end{aligned}$$ and since $\widetilde h(s)\to+\infty$ as $s\downarrow0$, it follows that $\det A^{(k)}_m>0$ is bounded away from zero, uniformly in $k$. But then also $\det\overline A_m>0$, i.e., the $m$th linear map piece of the limit $\overline G$ preserves orientation.
Fully discrete equations
------------------------
We shall now derive the Euler-Lagrange equations associated to the minimization problem , i.e., for each given $G^*:=G_{\boxplus}^{n-1}\in{\mathcal{A}_\mathscr{T}}$, we calculate the variations of ${\mathbf{E}}_{\boxplus}(G;G^*)$ with respect to the degrees of freedom of $G\in{\mathcal{A}_\mathscr{T}}$. Since that function is a weighted sum over the triangles $\Delta_m\in{\mathscr{T}}$, it suffices to perform the calculations for one fixed triangle $\Delta_m$, with respective nodes $\omega_{m,0}$ to $\omega_{m,d}$, in positive orientation. The associated image points are $G_{m,0}$ to $G_{m,d}$. Since we may choose any vertex to be labelled $\omega_{m,0}$, it will suffice to perform the calculations at one fixed image point $G_{m,0}$.
- *mass term:* $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}G_{m,0}}{\mathbb{L}}_{\mathscr{T}}^m(G,G^*)
&=\frac2{(d+1)(d+2)}\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}G_{m,0}}\sum_{0\le i\le j\le d}(G_{m,i}-G^*_{m,i})\cdot(G_{m,j}-G^*_{m,j}) \\
&=\frac2{(d+1)(d+2)}\left(2(G_{m,0}-G^*_{m,0})+\sum_{j=1}^d(G_{m,j}-G^*_{m,j})\right)
\end{aligned}$$
- *internal energy:* observing that — recall — $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:h2P}
\widetilde h'(s) = \frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\,\mathrm{d}}s}\big[sh(s^{-1})\big] = h(s^{-1})-s^{-1}h'(s^{-1}) = -P(s^{-1}),
\end{aligned}$$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}G_{m,0}}{\mathbb{H}}_{\mathscr{T}}^m(G)
= \frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}G_{m,0}} \widetilde h\left(\frac{\det Q_{\mathscr{T}}^m[G]}{2\mu_{\mathscr{T}}^m}\right)
= \frac1{2\mu_{\mathscr{T}}^m}P\left(\frac {2\mu_{\mathscr{T}}^m}{\det Q_{\mathscr{T}}^m[G]}\right){\nu}_{\mathscr{T}}^m[G],
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Pi}
{\nu}_{\mathscr{T}}^m[G]
:= - \frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}G_{m,0}} \det Q_{\mathscr{T}}^m[G]
= (\det Q_{\mathscr{T}}^m[G])\, (Q_{\mathscr{T}}^m[G])^{-T}\sum_{j=1}^d{\mathrm{e}}_j
\end{aligned}$$ is the uniquely determined vector in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ that is orthogonal to the $(d-1)$-simplex with corners $G_{m,1}$ to $G_{m,d}$ (pointing *away* from $G_{m,0}$) and whose length equals the $(d-1)$-volume of that simplex.
- *potential energy:* $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}G_{m,0}}{\mathbb{V}}_{\mathscr{T}}^m(G)
=\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}G_{m,0}}{\fint}_{{\mathord{\bigtriangleup}}} V\big(r_m(\xi)\big){\,\mathrm{d}}\xi
= {\fint}_{{\mathord{\bigtriangleup}}} \nabla V\big(r_m(\xi)\big)\,(1-\xi_1-\cdots-\xi_d){\,\mathrm{d}}\xi.
\end{aligned}$$
Now let $\omega_\ell$ be a fixed vertex of ${\mathscr{T}}$. Summing over all simplices $\Delta_m$ that have $\omega_\ell$ as a vertex, and choosing vertex labels in accordance with above, i.e., such that $\omega_{m,0}=\omega_\ell$ in $\Delta_m$, produces the following Euler-Lagrange equation: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:EL}
\begin{split}
0 &= \sum_{\omega_\ell\in\Delta_m}\mu_{\mathscr{T}}^m\bigg[
\frac1{(d+1)(d+2)\tau}\bigg(2(G_{m,0}-G^*_{m,0})+\sum_{j=1}^d(G_{m,j}-G^*_{m,j})\bigg) \\
& \qquad +\frac1{2\mu_{\mathscr{T}}^m}P\left(\frac {2\mu_{\mathscr{T}}^m}{\det Q_{\mathscr{T}}^m[G]}\right){\nu}_{\mathscr{T}}^m[G]
+ {\fint}_{{\mathord{\bigtriangleup}}} \nabla V\big(r_m(\xi)\big)\,(1-\xi_1-\cdots-\xi_d){\,\mathrm{d}}\xi
\bigg].
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
Approximation of the initial condition
--------------------------------------
For the approximation $\rho^0_{\boxplus}=(G^0_{\boxplus})_\#{\overline\rho}_{\mathscr{T}}$ of the initial datum $\rho^0=G^0_\#{\overline\rho}$, we require:
- $\rho^0_{\boxplus}$ converges to $\rho^0$ narrowly;
- ${\mathcal{E}}(\rho^0_{\boxplus})$ is ${\boxplus}$-uniformly bounded, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:maxaent}
\overline{\mathcal{E}}:=\sup{\mathcal{E}}(\rho_{\boxplus}^0) < \infty.
\end{aligned}$$
In our numerical experiments, we always choose ${\overline\rho}:=\rho^0$, in which case $G^0 \colon K\to{\mathbb{R}}^d$ can be taken as the identity on $K$, and we choose accordingly $G^0_{\boxplus}$ as the identity as well. Hence $\rho^0_{\boxplus}={\overline\rho}_{\mathscr{T}}$, which converges to $\rho^0={\overline\rho}$ even strongly in $L^1(K)$. Moreover, since $h$ is convex, it easily follows from Jensen’s inequality that $$\int_{\Delta_m} h\big({\overline\rho}(x)\big){\,\mathrm{d}}x \ge |\Delta_m|h({\overline\rho}_{\mathscr{T}}^m),$$ and therefore, $${\mathcal{E}}(\rho_{\boxplus}^0) \le {\mathcal{E}}(\rho^0).$$ In more general situations, in which $G^0$ is not the identity, a sequence of approximations $G^0_{\boxplus}$ of $G^0$ is needed. Pointwise convergence $G^0_{\boxplus}\to G^0$ is more than sufficient to guarantee narrow convergence of $\rho_{\boxplus}^0$ to $\rho^0$, but the uniform bound might require a well-adapted approximation, especially for non-smooth $G^0$’s.
Limit trajectory {#sec:LimitTraj}
================
In this section, we assume that a sequence of vanishing discretizations ${\boxplus}\to0$ is given, and we study the respective limit of the fully discrete solutions $(G_{\boxplus}^n)_{n\ge0}$ that are produced by the inductive minimization procedure . For the analysis of that limit trajectory, it is more natural to work with the induced densities and velocities, $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{\boxplus}^n:=(G_{\boxplus}^n)_\#{\overline\rho},
\quad
{\mathbf{v}}_{\boxplus}^n:=\frac{{\mathrm{id}}-G_{\boxplus}^{n-1}\circ(G_{\boxplus}^n)^{-1}}\tau,\end{aligned}$$ instead of the Lagrangian maps $G_{\boxplus}^n$ themselves. Note that ${\mathbf{v}}_{\boxplus}^n$ is only well-defined on the support of $\rho_{\boxplus}^n$ — that is, on the image of $G_{\boxplus}^n$ — and can be assigned arbitrary values outside. Let us introduce the piecewise constant in time interpolations ${\widetilde\rho}_{\boxplus}\colon [0,T]\times{{\mathbb{R}}^d}\to{\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}$, and ${\widetilde{{\mathbf{v}}}}_{\boxplus}\colon [0,T]\times{{\mathbb{R}}^d}\to{\mathbb{R}}^d$ as usual, $$\begin{aligned}
{\widetilde\rho}_{\boxplus}(t) = \rho_{\boxplus}^n, \quad {\widetilde{{\mathbf{v}}}}_{\boxplus}(t) = {\mathbf{v}}_{\boxplus}^n
\quad \text{with $n$ such that $t\in((n-1)\tau,n\tau]$}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that ${\widetilde\rho}(t,\cdot)\in{\mathcal{P}_2^\text{ac}({\mathbb{R}}^d)}$ and ${\widetilde{{\mathbf{v}}}}_{\boxplus}(t,\cdot)\in L^2({{\mathbb{R}}^d}\to{\mathbb{R}}^d;{\widetilde\rho}_{\boxplus}(t,\cdot))$ at each $t\ge0$.
Energy estimates
----------------
We start by proving the classical energy estimates on minimizing movements for our fully discrete scheme.
\[lem:ee\] For each discretization ${\boxplus}$ and for any indices $\overline n>\underline n\ge 0$, one has the a priori estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:esum}
{\mathcal{E}}(\rho_{\boxplus}^{\overline n})
+\frac\tau2\sum_{n=\underline n+1}^{\overline n}\left(\frac{{\mathrm{W}_2}(\rho_{\boxplus}^n,\rho_{\boxplus}^{n-1})}{\tau}\right)^2
\le {\mathcal{E}}(\rho^{\underline n}).
\end{aligned}$$ Consequently:
1. ${\mathbf{E}}$ is monotonically decreasing, i.e., ${\mathcal{E}}({\widetilde\rho}_{\boxplus}(t))\le{\mathcal{E}}({\widetilde\rho}_{\boxplus}(s))$ for all $t\ge s\ge0$;
2. ${\widetilde\rho}_{\boxplus}$ is Hölder-$\frac12$-continuous in ${\mathrm{W}_2}$, up to an error $\tau$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:wholder}
{\mathrm{W}_2}\big({\widetilde\rho}_{\boxplus}(t),{\widetilde\rho}_{\boxplus}(s)\big) \le \sqrt{2{\mathcal{E}}(\rho_{\boxplus}^0)}\big(|t-s|^{\frac12}+\tau^{\frac12}\big)
\quad \text{for all $t\ge s\ge0$}.
\end{aligned}$$
3. ${\widetilde{{\mathbf{v}}}}_{\boxplus}$ is square integrable with respect to ${\widetilde\rho}_{\boxplus}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:veloest}
\int_0^T\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}\|{\widetilde{{\mathbf{v}}}}_{\boxplus}\|^2{\widetilde\rho}_{\boxplus}{\,\mathrm{d}}x{\,\mathrm{d}}t \le 2{\mathcal{E}}(\rho_{\boxplus}^0).
\end{aligned}$$
By the definition of $G_{\boxplus}^n$ as a minimizer, we know that ${\mathbf{E}}_{\boxplus}(G_{\boxplus}^n;G_{\boxplus}^{n-1})\le{\mathbf{E}}_{\boxplus}(G;G_{\boxplus}^{n-1})$ for any $G\in{\mathcal{A}_\mathscr{T}}$, and in particular for the choice $G:=G_{\boxplus}^{n-1}$, which yields: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:basicee}
\frac1{2\tau}\int_K\|G_{\boxplus}^n-G_{\boxplus}^{n-1}\|^2{\overline\rho}_{\mathscr{T}}{\,\mathrm{d}}\omega +{\mathbf{E}}(G_{\boxplus}^n|{\overline\rho}_{\mathscr{T}})
\le {\mathbf{E}}(G_{\boxplus}^{n-1}|{\overline\rho}_{\mathscr{T}}).
\end{aligned}$$ Summing these inequalies for $n=\underline n+1,\ldots,\overline n$, recalling that ${\mathcal{E}}(\rho_{\boxplus}^n)={\mathbf{E}}(G_{\boxplus}^n|{\overline\rho}_{\mathscr{T}})$ by and that ${\mathrm{W}_2}(\rho_{\boxplus}^n,\rho_{\boxplus}^{n-1})^2\le\int_K|G_{\boxplus}^n-G_{\boxplus}^{n-1}|^2{\overline\rho}{\,\mathrm{d}}\omega$ by , produces .
Monotonicity of ${\mathcal{E}}$ in time is obvious.
To prove , choose $\underline n\le\overline n$ such that $s\in((\underline n-1)\tau,\underline n\tau]$ and $t\in((\overline n-1)\tau,\overline n\tau]$. Notice that $\tau(\overline n-\underline n)\le t-s+\tau$. If $\underline n=\overline n$, the claim is obviously true; let $\underline n<\overline n$ in the following. Combining the triangle inequality for the metric ${\mathrm{W}_2}$, estimate above and Hölder’s inequality for sums, we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{W}_2}\big({\widetilde\rho}_{\boxplus}(t),{\widetilde\rho}_{\boxplus}(s)\big)
= {\mathrm{W}_2}(\rho_{\boxplus}^{\overline n},\rho_{\boxplus}^{\underline n})
& \le \sum_{n=\underline n+1}^{\overline n}{\mathrm{W}_2}(\rho_{\boxplus}^n,\rho_{\boxplus}^{n-1}) \\
& \le \left[\sum_{n=\underline n+1}^{\overline n}\tau\right]^{\frac12}
\left[\sum_{n=\underline n+1}^{\overline n}\frac{{\mathrm{W}_2}(\rho_{\boxplus}^n,\rho_{\boxplus}^{n-1})^2}\tau\right]^{\frac12} \\
& = \big[\tau(\overline n-\underline n) \big]^{\frac12}
\left[\tau\sum_{n=\underline n+1}^{\overline n}\left(\frac{{\mathrm{W}_2}(\rho_{\boxplus}^n,\rho_{\boxplus}^{n-1})}{\tau}\right)^2\right]^{\frac12} \\
& \le [t-s+\tau]^{\frac12} \big[2\big({\mathcal{E}}(\rho_{\boxplus}^{\underline n}) - {\mathcal{E}}(\rho_{\boxplus}^{\overline n})\big)\big]^{\frac12}
\le \big[|t-s|^{\frac12}+\tau^{\frac12}\big]{\mathcal{E}}(\rho_{\boxplus}^0)^{\frac12}.
\end{aligned}$$
Finally, changing variables using $x=G_{\boxplus}^n(\omega)$ in yields $$\begin{aligned}
\frac\tau2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}\|{\mathbf{v}}_{\boxplus}^n\|^2\rho_{\boxplus}^n{\,\mathrm{d}}x + {\mathbf{E}}(G_{\boxplus}^n) \le {\mathbf{E}}(G_{\boxplus}^{n-1}),
\end{aligned}$$ and summing these inequalities from $n=1$ to $n=N_\tau$ yields .
Compactness of the trajectories and weak formulation
----------------------------------------------------
Our main result on the weak limit of ${\widetilde\rho}_{\boxplus}$ is the following.
\[thm:trajectory\] Along a suitable sequence ${\boxplus}\to0$, the curves ${\widetilde\rho}_{\boxplus}\colon {\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}\to{\mathcal{P}_2^\text{ac}({\mathbb{R}}^d)}$ convergence pointwise in time, i.e., ${\widetilde\rho}_{\boxplus}(t)\to\rho_*(t)$ narrowly for each $t>0$, towards a Hölder-$\frac12$-continuous limit trajectory $\rho_* \colon {\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}\to{\mathcal{P}_2^\text{ac}({\mathbb{R}}^d)}$.
Moreover, the discrete velocities ${\widetilde{{\mathbf{v}}}}_{\boxplus}$ possess a limit ${\mathbf{v}}_*\in L^2({\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}\times{{\mathbb{R}}^d};\rho_*)$ such that ${\widetilde{{\mathbf{v}}}}_{\boxplus}{\widetilde\rho}_{\boxplus}{\overset{*}{\rightharpoonup}}{\mathbf{v}}_*\rho_*$ in $L^1({\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}}\times{{\mathbb{R}}^d})$, and the continuity equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:continuity}
\partial_t\rho_* + {\nabla \cdot}(\rho_*{\mathbf{v}}_*) = 0
\end{aligned}$$ holds in the sense of distributions.
The Hölder continuity of $\rho_*$ implies that $\rho_*$ satisfies the initial condition in the sense that $\rho_*(t)\to\rho^0$ narrowly as $t\downarrow0$.
We closely follow an argument that is part of the general convergence proof for the minimizing movement scheme as given in Ambrosio et al. [@book:AGS Section 11.1.3]. Below, convergence is shown for some arbitrary but fixed time horizon $T>0$; a standard diagonal argument implies convergence at arbitrary times.
First observe that by estimate — applied with $0=s\le t\le T$ — it follows that ${\mathrm{W}_2}({\widetilde\rho}_{\boxplus}(t),\rho_{\boxplus}^0)$ is bounded, uniformly in $t\in[0,T]$ and in ${\boxplus}$. Since further $\rho^0_{\boxplus}$ converges narrowly to $\rho^0$ by our hypotheses on the initial approximation, we conclude that all densities ${\widetilde\rho}_{\boxplus}(t)$ belong to a sequentially compact subset for the narrow convergence. The second observation is that the term on the right hand side of simplifies to $(2\overline{\mathcal{E}})^\frac12|t-s|^\frac12$ in the limit ${\boxplus}\to0$. A straightforward application of the “refined version” of the Ascoli-Arzelà theorem (Proposition 3.3.1 in Ambrosio et al. [@book:AGS]) yields the first part of the claim, namely the pointwise narrow convergence of ${\widetilde\rho}_{\boxplus}$ towards a Hölder continuous limit curve $\rho_*$.
It remains to pass to the limit with the velocity ${\widetilde{{\mathbf{v}}}}_{\boxplus}$. Towards that end, we define a probability measure ${\widetilde{\gamma}}_{\boxplus}\in{\mathcal{P}}(Z_T)$ on the set $Z_T:=[0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^d\times{\mathbb{R}}^d$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{Z_T}\varphi(t,x,v){\,\mathrm{d}}{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{\boxplus}(t,x,v)
= \int_0^T\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} \varphi\big(t,x,{\widetilde{{\mathbf{v}}}}_{\boxplus}(t,x)\big)\,{\widetilde\rho}_{\boxplus}(t,x){\,\mathrm{d}}x\frac{{\mathrm{d}}t}{T},
\end{aligned}$$ for every bounded and continuous function $\varphi\in C^0_b(Z_T)$. For brevity, let ${\widetilde{M}}_{\boxplus}\in{\mathcal{P}}([0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^d)$ be the $(t,x)$-marginals of ${\widetilde{\gamma}}_{\boxplus}$, that have respective Lebesgue densities $\frac{\rho_{\boxplus}(t,x)}T$ on $[0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^d$. Thanks to the result from the first part of the proof, ${\widetilde{M}}_{\boxplus}$ converges narrowly to a limit $M_*$, which has density $\frac{\rho_*(t,x)}{T}$. On the other hand, the estimate implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{Z_T} |v|^2{\,\mathrm{d}}{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{\boxplus}(t,x,v)
= \int_{[0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^d}|{\widetilde{{\mathbf{v}}}}_{\boxplus}(t,x)|^2{\,\mathrm{d}}{\widetilde{M}}_{\boxplus}(t,x)
\le 2\overline{\mathcal{E}}.
\end{aligned}$$ We are thus in the position to apply Theorem 5.4.4 in Ambrosio et al. [@book:AGS], which yields the narrow convergence of ${\widetilde{\gamma}}_{\boxplus}$ towards a limit ${\gamma}_*$. Clearly, the $(t,x)$-marginal of ${\gamma}_*$ is $M_*$. Accordingly, we introduce the disintegration ${\gamma}_{(t,x)}$ of ${\gamma}_*$ with respect to $M_*$, which is well-defined $M_*$-a.e.. Below, it will turn out that ${\gamma}_*$’s $v$-barycenter, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:velolimit}
{\mathbf{v}}_*(t,x) := \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} v {\,\mathrm{d}}\gamma_{(t,x)}(v),
\end{aligned}$$ is the sought-for weak limit of ${\widetilde{{\mathbf{v}}}}_{\boxplus}$. The convergence ${\widetilde{{\mathbf{v}}}}_{\boxplus}{\widetilde\rho}_{\boxplus}{\overset{*}{\rightharpoonup}}{\mathbf{v}}_*\rho_*$ and the inheritance of the uniform $L^2$-bound to the limit ${\mathbf{v}}_*$ are further direct consequences of Theorem 5.4.4 in Ambrosio et al. [@book:AGS].
The key step to establish the continuity equation for the just-defined ${\mathbf{v}}_*$ is to evaluate the limit as ${\boxplus}\to0$ of $$\begin{aligned}
J_{\boxplus}[\phi] := \frac1\tau\left[
\int_0^T\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}\phi(t,x){\widetilde\rho}_{\boxplus}(t,x){\,\mathrm{d}}x{\,\mathrm{d}}t
- \int_0^T\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}\phi(t,x){\widetilde\rho}_{\boxplus}(t-\tau,x){\,\mathrm{d}}x{\,\mathrm{d}}t
\right]
\end{aligned}$$ for any given test function $\phi\in C^\infty_c((0,T)\times{\mathbb{R}}^d)$ in two different ways. First, we change variables $t\mapsto t+\tau$ in the second integral, which gives $$\begin{aligned}
J_{\boxplus}[\phi]
= \int_0^T\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} \frac{\phi(t,x)-\phi(t+\tau,x)}\tau{\widetilde\rho}_{\boxplus}(t,x){\,\mathrm{d}}x{\,\mathrm{d}}t
\stackrel{{\boxplus}\to0}{\longrightarrow}
-\int_0^T\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} \partial_t\phi(t,x)\,\rho_*(t,x){\,\mathrm{d}}x{\,\mathrm{d}}t.
\end{aligned}$$ For the second evaluation, we write $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{\boxplus}^{n-1}
= \big(G_{\boxplus}^{n-1}\circ(G_{\boxplus}^n)^{-1}\big)_\#\rho_{\boxplus}^n
= \big({\mathrm{id}}-\tau{\mathbf{v}}_{\boxplus}^n\big)_\#\rho_{\boxplus}^n,
\end{aligned}$$ and substitute accordingly $x\mapsto x-\tau{\widetilde{{\mathbf{v}}}}_{\boxplus}(t,x)$ in the second integral, leading to $$\begin{aligned}
J_{\boxplus}[\phi]
&= \int_0^T\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} \frac{\phi(t,x)-\phi\big(t,x-\tau{\widetilde{{\mathbf{v}}}}_{\boxplus}(t,x)\big)}\tau{\widetilde\rho}_{\boxplus}(t,x){\,\mathrm{d}}x{\,\mathrm{d}}t \\
&= \int_0^T\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} \nabla\phi(t,x)\cdot{\widetilde{{\mathbf{v}}}}_{\boxplus}(t,x){\widetilde\rho}_{\boxplus}(t,x){\,\mathrm{d}}x{\,\mathrm{d}}t + \mathfrak{e}_{\boxplus}[\phi]\\
&= \int_{Z_T} \nabla\phi(t,x)\cdot v{\,\mathrm{d}}{\widetilde{\gamma}}_{\boxplus}(t,x,v) + \mathfrak{e}_{\boxplus}[\phi] \\
&\stackrel{{\boxplus}\to0}{\longrightarrow}
\int_{Z_T} \nabla\phi(t,x)\cdot v{\,\mathrm{d}}{\gamma}_*(t,x,v) \\
&\qquad= \int_{[0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^d}\nabla\phi(t,x)\cdot\left[\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}v{\,\mathrm{d}}{\gamma}_{(t,x)}(v)\right]{\,\mathrm{d}}M_*(t,x) \\
&\qquad = \int_0^T\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}\nabla\phi(t,x)\cdot{\mathbf{v}}_*(t,x)\rho_*(t,x){\,\mathrm{d}}x{\,\mathrm{d}}t.
\end{aligned}$$ The error term $\mathfrak{e}_{\boxplus}[\phi]$ above is controlled via Taylor expansion of $\phi$ and by using , $$\begin{aligned}
\big|\mathfrak{e}_{\boxplus}[\phi]\big|
\le \int_0^T\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}\frac\tau2\|\phi\|_{C^2}\big\|{\widetilde{{\mathbf{v}}}}_{\boxplus}(t,x)\big\|^2{\widetilde\rho}_{\boxplus}(t,x){\,\mathrm{d}}x{\,\mathrm{d}}t
\le \overline{\mathcal{E}}\|\phi\|_{C^2}T\;\tau.
\end{aligned}$$ Equality of the limits for both evaluations of $J_{\boxplus}[\phi]$ for arbitrary test functions $\phi$ shows the continuity equation .
Unfortunately, the convergence provided by Theorem \[thm:trajectory\] is generally not sufficient to conclude that $\rho_*$ is a weak solution to , since we are not able to identify ${\mathbf{v}}_*$ as ${\mathbf{v}}[\rho_*]$ from . The problem is two-fold: first, weak-$\star$ convergence of ${\widetilde\rho}_{\boxplus}$ is insufficient to pass to the limit inside the nonlinear function $P$. Second, even if we would know that, for instance, $P({\widetilde\rho}_{\boxplus}){\overset{*}{\rightharpoonup}}P(\rho_*)$, we would still need a ${\boxplus}$-independent a priori control on the regularity (e.g., maximal diameter of triangles) of the meshes generated by the $G_{\boxplus}^n$ to justify the passage to limit in the weak formulation below. The main difficulty in the weak formulation that we derive now is that we can only use “test functions” that are piecewise affine with respect to the changing meshes generated by the $G_{\boxplus}^n$. For definiteness, we introduce the space $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{D}}({\mathscr{T}}):={\left\{\Gamma:K\to{\mathbb{R}}^d\,;\,\text{$\Gamma$ is globally continuous, and is piecewise affine w.r.t. $\Delta_m$}\right\}}.\end{aligned}$$
Assume $S \colon {{\mathbb{R}}^d}\to{\mathbb{R}}^d$ is such that $S\circ G_{\boxplus}^n\in{\mathcal{D}}({\mathscr{T}})$. Then: $$\label{eq:WeakFormS}
\int_{{{\mathbb{R}}^d}} P(\rho_{\boxplus}^{n}) \, {\nabla \cdot}S {\,\mathrm{d}}x - \int_{{{\mathbb{R}}^d}} {\nabla}V \cdot S\, \rho_{\boxplus}^{n} {\,\mathrm{d}}x
= \int_{{{\mathbb{R}}^d}} S\cdot{\mathbf{v}}_{\boxplus}^n \rho_{\boxplus}^{n} {\,\mathrm{d}}x.$$
For all sufficiently small ${\varepsilon}>0$, let $G_{\varepsilon}= ({\mathrm{id}}+S)\circ G_{\boxplus}^n$. By definition of $G_{\boxplus}^n$ as a minimizer, we have that ${\mathbf{E}}_{\boxplus}(G_{\varepsilon};G_{\boxplus}^{n-1})\ge{\mathbf{E}}_{\boxplus}(G_{\boxplus}^n;G_{\boxplus}^{n-1})$. This implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:weakintegral}
\begin{split}
0&\le \frac1{{\varepsilon}}\int_K\bigg(\frac1{2\tau}\big[\|G_{\varepsilon}-G_{\boxplus}^{n-1}\|^2-\|G_{\boxplus}^n-G_{\boxplus}^{n-1}\|^2\big] \\
& \qquad + \left[\widetilde h\left(\frac{\det{\mathrm{D}}G_{\varepsilon}}{{\overline\rho}_{\mathscr{T}}}\right)
-\widetilde h\left(\frac{\det{\mathrm{D}}G_{\boxplus}^n}{{\overline\rho}_{\mathscr{T}}}\right)\right]
+ \big[V\circ G_{\varepsilon}-V\big]\bigg) {\overline\rho}_{\mathscr{T}}{\,\mathrm{d}}\omega.
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ We discuss limits of the three terms under the integral for ${\varepsilon}\searrow0$. For the metric term: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac1{2\tau{\varepsilon}}\big[\|G_{\varepsilon}-G_{\boxplus}^{n-1}\|^2-\|G_{\boxplus}^n-G_{\boxplus}^{n-1}\|^2\big]
&= \frac{G_{\boxplus}^n-G_{\boxplus}^{n-1}}\tau\cdot\frac{G_{\varepsilon}-G_{\boxplus}^n}{\varepsilon}+ \frac1{2\tau{\varepsilon}}\|G_{\varepsilon}-G_{\boxplus}^n\|^2 \\
&= \left[\left(\frac{{\mathrm{id}}-T_{\boxplus}^n}\tau\right)\cdot S\right]\circ G_{\boxplus}^n + \frac{{\varepsilon}}{2\tau}\|S\|^2\circ G_{\boxplus}^n,
\end{aligned}$$ and since $S$ is bounded, the last term vanishes uniformly on $K$ for ${\varepsilon}\searrow0$. For the internal energy, since ${\mathrm{D}}G_{\varepsilon}={\mathrm{D}}({\mathrm{id}}+{\varepsilon}S)\circ G_{\boxplus}^n\cdot{\mathrm{D}}G_{\boxplus}^n$, and recalling , $$\begin{aligned}
\frac1{\varepsilon}\left[\widetilde h\left(\frac{\det{\mathrm{D}}G_{\varepsilon}}{{\overline\rho}_{\mathscr{T}}}\right)
-\widetilde h\left(\frac{\det{\mathrm{D}}G_{\boxplus}^n}{{\overline\rho}_{\mathscr{T}}}\right)\right]
& = \frac1{\varepsilon}\left[\widetilde h\left(\frac{\det{\mathrm{D}}G_{\boxplus}^n}{{\overline\rho}_{\mathscr{T}}}\det({\mathds{1}}+{\varepsilon}{\mathrm{D}}S)\circ G_{\boxplus}^n\right)
-\widetilde h\left(\frac{\det{\mathrm{D}}G_{\boxplus}^n}{{\overline\rho}_{\mathscr{T}}}\right)\right] \\
& \stackrel{{\varepsilon}\searrow0}{\longrightarrow} \frac{\det{\mathrm{D}}G_{\boxplus}^n}{{\overline\rho}_{\mathscr{T}}}\widetilde h'\left(\frac{\det{\mathrm{D}}G_{\boxplus}^n}{{\overline\rho}_{\mathscr{T}}}\right)
\left(\lim_{{\varepsilon}\searrow0}\frac{\det({\mathds{1}}+{\varepsilon}{\mathrm{D}}S)}{{\varepsilon}}\right)\circ G_{\boxplus}^n \\
& = -\frac{\det{\mathrm{D}}G_{\boxplus}^n}{{\overline\rho}_{\mathscr{T}}} P\left(\frac{{\overline\rho}_{\mathscr{T}}}{\det{\mathrm{D}}G_{\boxplus}^n}\right)\operatorname{tr}[{\mathrm{D}}S]\circ G_{\boxplus}^n \\
&= - \frac{\det{\mathrm{D}}G_{\boxplus}^n}{{\overline\rho}_{\mathscr{T}}}\big[P(\rho^n)\,{\nabla \cdot}S\big]\circ G_{\boxplus}^n.
\end{aligned}$$ Since the piecewise constant function $\det{\mathrm{D}}G_{\boxplus}^n$ has a positive lower bound, the convergence as ${\varepsilon}\searrow0$ is uniform on $K$. Finally, for the potential energy, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac1{\varepsilon}\big[V\circ({\mathrm{id}}+{\varepsilon}S)\circ G_{\boxplus}^n-V\circ G_{\boxplus}^n\big]
\stackrel{{\varepsilon}\searrow0}{\longrightarrow}
\big[{\nabla}V\cdot S\big]\circ G_{\boxplus}^n.
\end{aligned}$$ Again, the convergence is uniform on $K$. Passing to the limit in the integral yields $$\begin{aligned}
0 &\le \int_K \left[\left(\frac{{\mathrm{id}}-T_{\boxplus}^n}\tau\right)\cdot S\right]\circ G_{\boxplus}^n{\overline\rho}_{\mathscr{T}}{\,\mathrm{d}}\omega \\
& \qquad - \int_K \big[P(\rho^n)\,{\nabla \cdot}S\big]\circ G_{\boxplus}^n \det{\mathrm{D}}G_{\boxplus}^n{\,\mathrm{d}}\omega
+ \int_K \big[{\nabla}V\cdot S\big]\circ G_{\boxplus}^n{\overline\rho}_{\mathscr{T}}{\,\mathrm{d}}\omega.
\end{aligned}$$ The same inequality is true with $-S$ in place of $S$, hence this inequality is actually an equality. Since $\rho_{\boxplus}^n=(G_{\boxplus}^n)_\#{\overline\rho}_{\mathscr{T}}$, a change of variables $x=S_{\boxplus}^n(\omega)$ produces .
\[cor:limiteq\] In addition to the hypotheses of Theorem \[thm:trajectory\], assume that
1. $P({\widetilde\rho}_{\boxplus}){\overset{*}{\rightharpoonup}}p_*$ in $L^1([0,T]\times\Omega)$;
2. each $G_{\boxplus}^n$ is injective;
3. as ${\boxplus}\to0$, all simplices in the images of ${\mathscr{T}}$ under $G_{\boxplus}^n$ have non-degenerate interior angles and tend to zero in diameter, uniformly w.r.t. $n$.
Then $\rho_*$ satisfies the PDE $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:limiteq}
\partial_t\rho_* = \Delta p_* + {\nabla \cdot}(\rho_*{\nabla}V)
\end{aligned}$$ in the sense of distributions.
Let a smooth test function $\zeta\in C^\infty_c({\mathbb{R}}^d\to{\mathbb{R}}^d)$ be given. For each ${\boxplus}$ and each $n$, a $\zeta_{\boxplus}^n \colon {\mathbb{R}}^d\to{\mathbb{R}}^d$ with $\zeta_{\boxplus}^n\circ G_{\boxplus}^n\in{\mathcal{D}}({\mathscr{T}})$ can be constructed in such a way that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:togoodtobetrue}
\zeta_{\boxplus}^n\to\zeta, \quad {\nabla \cdot}\zeta_{\boxplus}^n\to{\nabla \cdot}\zeta
\end{aligned}$$ uniformly on ${\mathbb{R}}^d$, and uniformly in $n$ as ${\boxplus}\to0$. This follows from our hypotheses on the ${\boxplus}$-uniform regularity of the Lagrangian meshes: inside the image of $G_{\boxplus}^n$, one can simply choose $\zeta_{\boxplus}^n$ as the affine interpolation of the values of $\zeta$ at the points $G_{\boxplus}^n(\omega_\ell)$. Outside, one can take an arbitrary approximation of $\zeta$ that is compatible with the piecewise-affine approximation on the boundary of $G_{\boxplus}^n$’s image; one may even choose $\zeta_{\boxplus}^n\equiv\zeta$ at sufficient distance to that boundary. The uniform convergences then follow by standard finite element analysis.
Further, let $\eta\in C^\infty_c(0,T)$ be given. For each $t\in((n-1)\tau,n\tau]$, substitute $S(t,x):=\eta(t)\zeta_{\boxplus}^n(x)$ into . Integration of these equalities with respect to $t\in(0,T)$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^T\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} P({\widetilde\rho}_{\boxplus}){\nabla \cdot}S{\,\mathrm{d}}x{\,\mathrm{d}}t
- \int_0^T\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} {\nabla}V\cdot S{\,\mathrm{d}}x{\,\mathrm{d}}t
= \int_0^T\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} S\cdot{\widetilde{{\mathbf{v}}}}_{\boxplus}{\widetilde\rho}_{\boxplus}{\,\mathrm{d}}x{\,\mathrm{d}}t.
\end{aligned}$$ We pass to the limit ${\boxplus}\to0$ in these integrals. For the first, we use that $P({\widetilde\rho}){\overset{*}{\rightharpoonup}}p_*$ by hypothesis, for the last, we use Theorem \[thm:trajectory\] above. Since any test function $S\in C^\infty_c((0,T)\times\Omega)$ can be approximated in $C^1$ by linear combinations of products $\eta(t)\zeta(x)$ as above, we thus obtain the weak formulation of $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_*{\mathbf{v}}_* = {\nabla}p_* + \rho_*{\nabla}V.
\end{aligned}$$ In combination with the continuity equation , we arrive at .
In principle, our discretization can also be applied to the *linear* Fokker-Planck equation with $P(r)=r$ and $h(r)=r\log r$. In that case, one automatically has $P({\widetilde\rho}){\overset{*}{\rightharpoonup}}p_*\equiv P(\rho_*)$ thanks to Theorem \[thm:trajectory\]. Corollary \[cor:limiteq\] above then provides an *a posteriori* criterion for convergence: if the Lagrangian mesh does not deform too wildly under the dynamics as the discretization is refined, then the discrete solutions converge to the genuine solution.
Consistency in 2D {#sec:Consistency2D}
=================
In this section, we prove consistency of our discretization in the following sense. Under certain conditions on the spatial discretization ${\mathscr{T}}$, any smooth and positive solution $\rho$ to the initial value problem projects to a discrete solution that satisfies the Euler-Lagrange equations up to a controlled error. We restrict ourselves to $d=2$ dimensions.
Smooth Lagrangian evolution
---------------------------
First, we derive an alternative form of the velocity field ${\mathbf{v}}$ from in terms of $G$.
For $\rho=G_\#{\overline\rho}$ with a smooth diffemorphism $G \colon K\to{{\mathbb{R}}^d}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{v}}[\rho]\circ G={\mathbf{V}}[G]
:= P'\left(\frac{{\overline\rho}}{\det{\mathrm{D}}G}\right)\, ({\mathrm{D}}G)^{-T}\left(\operatorname{tr}_{12}\big[({\mathrm{D}}G)^{-1}{\mathrm{D}}^2G\big]^T-\frac{\nabla{\overline\rho}}{{\overline\rho}}\right) - {\nabla}V \circ G.
\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, the Lagrangian map $G$ — relative to the reference density ${\overline\rho}$ — for a smooth solution $\rho$ to satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Geq}
\partial_t G = {\mathbf{V}}[G].
\end{aligned}$$
On the one hand, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{D}}\big[h'(\rho)\circ G\big] = \big[{\mathrm{D}}h'(\rho)\big]\circ G\,{\mathrm{D}}G,
\end{aligned}$$ and on the other hand, by definition of the push forward, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{D}}\big[h'(\rho)\circ G\big]
&= {\mathrm{D}}h'\left(\frac{{\overline\rho}}{\det {\mathrm{D}}G}\right) \\
&= h''\left(\frac{{\overline\rho}}{\det {\mathrm{D}}G}\right)\,\left(\frac{{\overline\rho}}{\det {\mathrm{D}}G}\right)\,\left(\frac{{\mathrm{D}}{\overline\rho}}{{\overline\rho}}-\operatorname{tr}_{12}\big[({\mathrm{D}}G)^{-1}{\mathrm{D}}^2G \big]\right) \\
&= \big[\rho h''(\rho)\big]\circ G \,\left(\frac{{\mathrm{D}}{\overline\rho}}{{\overline\rho}}-\operatorname{tr}_{12}\big[({\mathrm{D}}G)^{-1}{\mathrm{D}}^2G \big]\right).
\end{aligned}$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned}
{\nabla}h'(\rho) \circ G
= \big[\rho h''(\rho)\big]\circ G \,({\mathrm{D}}G)^{-T}\left(\frac{{\nabla}{\overline\rho}}{{\overline\rho}}-\operatorname{tr}_{12}\big[({\mathrm{D}}G)^{-1}{\mathrm{D}}^2G \big]^T\right).
\end{aligned}$$ Observing that implies that $rh''(r)=P'(r)$, we conclude directly from .
Discrete Euler-Lagrange equations in dimension $d=2$
----------------------------------------------------
In the planar case $d=2$, the Euler-Lagrange equation above can be rewritten in a more convenient way.
In the following, fix some vertex $\omega_{\times}$ of the triangulation, which is indicent to precisely six triangles. For convenience, we assume that these are labelled $\Delta_0$ to $\Delta_5$ in counter-clockwise order. Similarly, the six neighboring vertices are labeled $\omega_0$ to $\omega_5$ in counter-clockwise order, so that $\Delta_k$ has vertices $\omega_{k}$ and $\omega_{k+1}$, where we set $\omega_6:=\omega_0$.
Using these conventions and recalling Lemma \[lem:JAJ\], the expression for the vector ${\nu}$ in simplifies to $$\begin{aligned}
{\nu}_{\mathscr{T}}^k = - {\mathbb{J}}(G_{k+1}-G_{k}),
\quad\text{where}\quad
{\mathbb{J}}= \begin{pmatrix} 0 & -1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ Summing the Euler-Lagrange equation over $\Delta_0$ to $\Delta_5$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dEL}
{\mathbf{p}}_{\times}= {\mathbf{J}}_{\times},\end{aligned}$$ where the momentum term ${\mathbf{p}}_{\times}$ and the impulse ${\mathbf{J}}_{\times}$, respectively, are given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{p}}_{\times}&= \frac1{12}\sum_{k=0}^5\mu_{\mathscr{T}}^k
\left[2\left(\frac{G_{\times}-G^*_{\times}}\tau\right)+\left(\frac{G_k-G^*_k}\tau\right)+\left(\frac{G_{k+1}-G^*_{k+1}}\tau\right)\right] \\
{\mathbf{J}}_{\times}&= \sum_{k=0}^5 \mu_{\mathscr{T}}^{k}\bigg[
\frac1{2 \mu_{\mathscr{T}}^{k}}P\left(\frac {2\mu_{\mathscr{T}}^k}{\det(G_k-G_{\times}|G_{k+1}-G_{\times})}\right){\mathbb{J}}(G_{k+1}-G_k) \\
&\qquad -{\fint}_{{\mathord{\bigtriangleup}}}{\nabla}V\big((1-\xi_1-\xi_2)G_{\times}+ \xi_1 G_{k}+ \xi_2 G_{k+1}\big)\,(1-\xi_1-\xi_2){\,\mathrm{d}}\xi
\bigg].\end{aligned}$$ We shall now prove our main result on consistency. The setup is the following: a sequence of triangulations ${\mathscr{T}}_{\varepsilon}$ on $K$, parametrized by ${\varepsilon}>0$, and a sequence of time steps $\tau_{\varepsilon}={\mathcal{O}}({\varepsilon})$ are given. We assume that there is an ${\varepsilon}$-independent region $K'\subset K$ on which the ${\mathscr{T}}_{\varepsilon}$ are *almost hexagonal* in the following sense: each node $\omega_{\times}\in K'$ of ${\mathscr{T}}_{\varepsilon}$ has precisely six neighbors — labelled $\omega_0$ to $\omega_5$ in counter-clockwise order — and there exists a rotation $R\in\mathrm{SO}(2)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:xik}
R(\omega_k-\omega_{\times}) = {\varepsilon}\sigma_k + {\mathcal{O}}({\varepsilon}^2)
\quad\text{with}\quad
\sigma_k = \begin{pmatrix} \cos\frac\pi3k \\ \sin \frac\pi3k \end{pmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ for $k=0,1,\ldots,5$.
Now, let $G \colon [0,T]\times K\to{{\mathbb{R}}^d}$ be a given smooth solution to the Lagrangian evolution equation , and fix a time $t\in(0,T)$. For all sufficiently small ${\varepsilon}>0$, we define maps $G_{\varepsilon},G_{\varepsilon}^*\in{\mathcal{A}_{\mathscr{T}_{\varepsilon}}}$ by linear interpolation of the values of $G(t;\cdot)$ and $G(t-\tau;\cdot)$, respectively, on ${\mathscr{T}}_{\varepsilon}$. That is, $G_{\varepsilon}(\omega_\ell)=G(t;\omega_\ell)$ and $G^*_{\varepsilon}(\omega_\ell)=G(t-\tau;\omega_\ell)$, at all nodes $\omega_\ell$ in ${\mathscr{T}}_{\varepsilon}$. Theorem \[thm:consist\] below states that the pair $G_{\varepsilon},G_{\varepsilon}^*$ is an approximate solution to the discrete Euler-Lagrange equations at all nodes $\omega_{\times}$ of the respective triangulation ${\mathscr{T}}_{\varepsilon}$ that lie in $K'$.
The hexagonality hypothesis on the ${\mathscr{T}}_{\varepsilon}$ is strong, but some very strong restriction of ${\mathcal{A}_{\mathscr{T}_{\varepsilon}}}$’s geometry is apparently necessary. See Remark \[rmk:weird\] following the proof for further discussion.
\[thm:consist\] Under the hypotheses and with the notations introduced above, the Euler-Lagrange equation admits the following asymptotic expansion:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:momentum}
{\mathbf{p}}_{\times}&= \frac{\sqrt3}2{\varepsilon}^2\,{\overline\rho}(\omega_{\times})\partial_tG(t;\omega_{\times})+{\mathcal{O}}({\varepsilon}^3), \\
\label{eq:impulse}
{\mathbf{J}}_{\times}&= \frac{\sqrt3}2{\varepsilon}^2\,{\overline\rho}(\omega_{\times}){\mathbf{V}}[G](t;\omega_{\times})+{\mathcal{O}}({\varepsilon}^3),
\end{aligned}$$
as ${\varepsilon}\to0$, uniformly at the nodes $\omega_{\times}\in K'$ of the respective ${\mathscr{T}}_{\varepsilon}$.
Up to an error ${\mathcal{O}}({\varepsilon}^3)$, the geometric pre-factor $\frac{\sqrt3}2{\varepsilon}^2$ equals to one third of the total area of the hexagon with vertices $\omega_0$ to $\omega_5$, and is thus equal to the integral of the piecewise affine hat function with peak at $\omega_{\times}$.
Throughout the proof, let ${\varepsilon}>0$ be fixed; we shall omit the ${\varepsilon}$-index for ${\mathscr{T}}_{\varepsilon}$ and $\tau_{\varepsilon}$. First, we fix a node $\omega_{\times}$ of ${\mathscr{T}}\cap K'$. Thanks to the equivariance of both and under rigid motions of the domain, we may assume that $R$ in is the identity, and that $\omega_{\times}=0$.
We collect some relations that are helpful for the calculations that follow. Trivially, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sigma0}
\sum_{k=0}^5\sigma_k=0, \quad \sum_{k=0}^5\omega_k={\mathcal{O}}({\varepsilon}^2).
\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sigma1}
|\Delta_k| = \det(\omega_k|\omega_{k+1})
= {\varepsilon}^2\det(\sigma_k|\sigma_{k+1}) + {\mathcal{O}}({\varepsilon}^3)
= \frac{\sqrt3}4{\varepsilon}^2+{\mathcal{O}}({\varepsilon}^3).
\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, by definition of $\mu_{\mathscr{T}}^k$ in , it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sigma2}
\begin{split}
\mu_{\mathscr{T}}^k = |\Delta_k|{\fint}_{\Delta_k}{\overline\rho}{\,\mathrm{d}}\omega
&= \frac12\det(\omega_{k}|\omega_{k+1})
\,\left[{\overline\rho}\left(\frac{\omega_k+\omega_{k+1}}3\right)+{\mathcal{O}}({\varepsilon})\right] \\
&= \frac12\det(\omega_{k}|\omega_{k+1})
\left[{\overline\rho}_{\times}+{\varepsilon}{\nabla}{\overline\rho}_{\times}\cdot \frac{\sigma_k+\sigma_{k+1}}3+{\mathcal{O}}({\varepsilon}^2)\right].
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ Combining and yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sigma3}
\mu_{\mathscr{T}}^k = {\varepsilon}^2\left(\frac{\sqrt{3}}4{\overline\rho}_{\times}+{\mathcal{O}}({\varepsilon})\right).
\end{aligned}$$ In accordance with the definition of $G_{\varepsilon}$ and $G_{\varepsilon}^*$ from $G$ detailed above, let $G_{\times}:=G(t,\omega_{\times})$ and $G^*_{\times}=G(t-\tau,\omega_{\times})$, and define $G_k$, $G_k^*$ for $k=0,\ldots,5$ in the analogous way. Further, we introduce ${\mathrm{D}}G_{\times}={\mathrm{D}}G(t,\omega_{\times})$, ${\mathrm{D}}^2G_{\times}={\mathrm{D}}^2G(t,\omega_{\times})$, $\partial_tG_{\times}=\partial_tG(t,\omega_{\times})$.
To perform an expansion in the *momentum term*, first observe that $$\begin{aligned}
G(t-\tau;\omega_k) = G(t;\omega_k) - \tau\partial_t G(t;\omega_k) + {\mathcal{O}}(\tau^2),
\end{aligned}$$ for each $k=0,1,\ldots,5$, and so, using that $\tau={\mathcal{O}}({\varepsilon})$ by hypothesis, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{G_k-G_k^*}\tau = \partial_tG(t;\omega_k) + {\mathcal{O}}(\tau)
= \partial_tG_{\times}+ {\mathcal{O}}({\varepsilon}) + {\mathcal{O}}(\tau) = \partial_tG_{\times}+ {\mathcal{O}}({\varepsilon}).
\end{aligned}$$ Using and then yields $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{p}}_{\times}&=\frac1{12\tau}\sum_{k=0}^5 {\varepsilon}^2\left(\frac{\sqrt{3}}4{\overline\rho}_{\times}+{\mathcal{O}}({\varepsilon})\right)\big[4\partial_tG_{\times}+{\mathcal{O}}({\varepsilon})\big] \\
&=\frac{\sqrt3}2{\varepsilon}^2\,{\overline\rho}_{\times}\partial_tG_{\times}+ {\mathcal{O}}({\varepsilon}^3).
\end{aligned}$$ This is .
For the *impulse term*, we start with a Taylor expansion to second order in space: $$\begin{aligned}
G_k = G_{\times}+ {\mathrm{D}}G_{\times}\omega_k + \frac12 {\mathrm{D}}^2G_{\times}:[\omega_k]^2 + {\mathcal{O}}({\varepsilon}^3).
\end{aligned}$$ We combine this with the observation that $(\omega_k|\omega_{k+1})^{-1}={\mathcal{O}}({\varepsilon}^{-1})$ to obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{\mu_{\mathscr{T}}^k}{\det(G_k-G_{\times}|G_{k+1}-G_{\times})} \\
&= \frac{\det(\omega_k|\omega_{k+1})}{\det {\mathrm{D}}G_{\times}}
\frac{{\overline\rho}_{\times}+{\varepsilon}{\nabla}{\overline\rho}_{\times}\cdot \frac{\sigma_k+\sigma_{k+1}}3+{\mathcal{O}}({\varepsilon}^2)}
{\det\big[(\omega_k|\omega_{k+1})+\frac12({\mathrm{D}}G_{\times})^{-1}\big({\mathrm{D}}^2G_{\times}:[\omega_k]^2\big|{\mathrm{D}}^2G_{\times}:[\omega_{k+1}]^2\big)+{\mathcal{O}}({\varepsilon}^3)\big]} \\
&= \frac{{\overline\rho}_{\times}}{\det{\mathrm{D}}G_{\times}}
\frac{1+\displaystyle{{\varepsilon}\frac{{\nabla}{\overline\rho}_{\times}}{{\overline\rho}_{\times}}\cdot \frac{\sigma_k+\sigma_{k+1}}3}+{\mathcal{O}}({\varepsilon}^2)}
{\det\big[{\mathds{1}}+\frac12({\mathrm{D}}G_{\times})^{-1}\big({\mathrm{D}}^2G_{\times}:[\omega_k]^2\big|{\mathrm{D}}^2G_{\times}:[\omega_{k-1}]^2\big)
\,(\omega_k|\omega_{k+1})^{-1}+{\mathcal{O}}({\varepsilon}^2) \big]} \\
&=\frac{{\overline\rho}_{\times}}{\det{\mathrm{D}}G_{\times}}\left(1+{\varepsilon}\left\{\chi_k-\frac12\vartheta_k\right\}+{\mathcal{O}}({\varepsilon}^2)\right),
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_k &= \frac{{\nabla}{\overline\rho}_{\times}}{{\overline\rho}_{\times}}\cdot \frac{\sigma_k+\sigma_{k+1}}3, \\
\vartheta_k &= \operatorname{tr}\left[\big(({\mathrm{D}}G_{\times})^{-1}{\mathrm{D}}^2G_{\times}:[\sigma_k]^2\big|({\mathrm{D}}G_{\times})^{-1}{\mathrm{D}}^2G_{\times}:[\sigma_{k+1}]^2\big)\,(\sigma_k|\sigma_{k+1})^{-1}\right].
\end{aligned}$$ Plugging this in leads to $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{k=0}^5\left\{\frac12 P\left(\frac{{\overline\rho}_{\times}}{\det {\mathrm{D}}G_{\times}}\right)
+ \frac{\varepsilon}2P'\left(\frac{{\overline\rho}_{\times}}{\det {\mathrm{D}}G_{\times}}\right)\left\{\chi_k-\frac12\vartheta_k\right\}
+ {\mathcal{O}}({\varepsilon}^2) \right\}
{\mathbb{J}}{\mathrm{D}}G_{\times}(\omega_{k+1}-\omega_{k}) \\
&=\frac12 P\left(\frac{{\overline\rho}_0}{\det {\mathrm{D}}G_{\times}}\right) {\mathbb{J}}{\mathrm{D}}G_{\times}\left(\sum_{k=0}^5 (\omega_{k+1}-\omega_{k})\right) \\
&\qquad + \frac{{\varepsilon}^2}4P'\left(\frac{{\overline\rho}_{\times}}{\det {\mathrm{D}}G_{\times}}\right)
{\mathbb{J}}{\mathrm{D}}G_{\times}{\mathbb{J}}^T\left(\sum_{k=0}^5 \left\{2\chi_k-\vartheta_k\right\} {\mathbb{J}}(\sigma_{k+1}-\sigma_{k})\right) + {\mathcal{O}}({\varepsilon}^3) \\
& = 0 + \frac{\sqrt3}2{\varepsilon}^2P'\left(\frac{{\overline\rho}_{\times}}{\det {\mathrm{D}}G_{\times}}\right)\,
({\mathrm{D}}G_{\times})^{-T}\left\{\operatorname{tr}_{12}\big[({\mathrm{D}}G_{\times})^{-1}{\mathrm{D}}^2G_{\times}\big]^T-\frac{{\nabla}\rho_{\times}}{\rho_{\times}}\right\}
+ {\mathcal{O}}({\varepsilon}^3),
\end{aligned}$$ where we have use the auxiliary algebraic results from Lemma \[lem:JAJ\], Lemma \[lem:circle\], and Lemma \[lem:traces\].
For the remaining part of the impulse term, a very rough approximation is sufficient: $$\begin{aligned}
{\nabla}V(g) = {\nabla}V(G_{\times}) + {\mathcal{O}}({\varepsilon})
\end{aligned}$$ holds for any $g$ that is a convex combination of $G_{\times},G_0,\ldots,G_5$, where the implicit constant is controlled in terms of the supremum of ${\mathrm{D}}^2V$ and ${\mathrm{D}}G$ on $K'$. With that, we simply have, using again : $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{k=0}^5\mu_{\mathscr{T}}^k{\fint}_{{\mathord{\bigtriangleup}}}{\nabla}V\big((1-\xi_1-\xi_2)G_{\times}+ \xi_1 G_{k}+ \xi_2 G_{k+1}\big)\,(1-\xi_1-\xi_2){\,\mathrm{d}}\xi \\
& = 6{\varepsilon}^2\left(\frac{\sqrt{3}}4{\overline\rho}_{\times}+{\mathcal{O}}({\varepsilon})\right)\,\big({\nabla}V(G_{\times}) + {\mathcal{O}}({\varepsilon})\big)
= \frac{\sqrt3}2{\varepsilon}^2\,{\overline\rho}_{\times}{\nabla}V(G_{\times})+{\mathcal{O}}({\varepsilon}^3).
\end{aligned}$$ Together, this yields .
\[rmk:weird\] The hypotheses of Theorem require that the ${\mathscr{T}}_{\varepsilon}$ are almost hexagonal on $K'$. This seems like a technical hypothesis that simplifies calculations, but apparently, *some* strong symmetry property of the ${\mathscr{T}}_{\varepsilon}$ is necessary for the validity of the result.
To illustrate the failure of consistency — at least in the specific form considered here — assume that $V\equiv0$ and ${\overline\rho}\equiv1$, and consider a sequence of triangulations ${\mathscr{T}}_{\varepsilon}$ for which there is a node $\omega_{\times}$ such that holds with the $\sigma_k$ being replaced by a different six-tuple of vectors $\sigma'_k$. Repeating the steps of the proof above, it is easily seen that ${\mathbf{p}}_{\times}=a{\varepsilon}^2\,{\partial}_tG(t;\omega_{\times})+{\mathcal{O}}({\varepsilon}^3)$, with an ${\varepsilon}$-independent constant $a>0$ in place of $\sqrt3/2$, and that $${\mathbf{J}}_{\times}=-\frac{{\varepsilon}^2}4 P'\left(\frac1{\det{\mathrm{D}}G_{\times}}\right)\,({\mathrm{D}}G_{\times})^{-T}
\sum_{k=0}^5\vartheta'_k{\mathbb{J}}(\sigma_{k+1}'-\sigma_k')+{\mathcal{O}}({\varepsilon}^3),$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\vartheta_k' = \operatorname{tr}\left[\big(({\mathrm{D}}G_{\times})^{-1}{\mathrm{D}}^2G_{\times}:[\sigma_k']^2\big|({\mathrm{D}}G_{\times})^{-1}{\mathrm{D}}^2G_{\times}:[\sigma_{k+1}']^2\big)\,(\sigma_k'|\sigma_{k+1}')^{-1}\right].
\end{aligned}$$ If a result of the form — with $\sqrt3/2$ replaced by $a$ — was true, then this implies in particular that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:howinhellcanthatfail}
\sum_{k=0}^5\vartheta'_k{\mathbb{J}}(\sigma_{k+1}'-\sigma_k') = a'\operatorname{tr}_{12}\big[({\mathrm{D}}G_{\times})^{-1}{\mathrm{D}}^2G_{\times}\big]
\end{aligned}$$ holds with some constant $a'>0$ for arbitrary matrices ${\mathrm{D}}G_{\times}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2\times2}$ of positive determinant and tensors ${\mathrm{D}}^2 G_{\times}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2\times2\times2}$ that are symmetric in the second and third component. A specific example for which is not true is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:newsigma}
\sigma_0' = {1\choose0} = -\sigma_3',\quad
\sigma_1' = {\frac12\choose\frac12} = -\sigma_4',\quad
\sigma_2' = {0\choose1} = -\sigma_5',
\end{aligned}$$ in combination with ${\mathrm{D}}G_{\times}={\mathds{1}}$, and a ${\mathrm{D}}^2G_{\times}$ that is zero except for two ones, at the positions $(1,2,2)$ and $(2,1,1)$. In Lemma \[lem:algebra2\], we show that the left-hand side in equals to $1\choose1$; on the other hand, the right-hand side is clearly zero.
Note that this counter-example is significant, insofar as the skew (in fact, degenerate) hexagon described by the $\sigma_k'$ in corresponds to a popular method for triangulation of the plane.
Numerical simulations in $d=2$ {#sec:NumSim2D}
==============================
Implementation
--------------
The Euler-Lagrange equations for the $d=2$-dimensional case have been derived in . We perfom a small modification in the potential term in order to simplify calculations with presumably minimal loss in accuracy: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{Z}_{\times}[G;G^*]
&=
\sum_{k=0}^5\frac{\mu_{\mathscr{T}}^k}{12}
\left[2\left(\frac{G_{\times}-G^*_{\times}}\tau\right)+\left(\frac{G_k-G^*_k}\tau\right)+\left(\frac{G_{k+1}-G^*_{k+1}}\tau\right)\right] \\
& +
\sum_{k=0}^5 \bigg[
\frac12\widetilde h'\left(\frac{\det(G_k-G_{\times}|G_{k+1}-G_{\times})}{2\mu_{\mathscr{T}}^k}\right){\mathbb{J}}(G_{k+1}-G_k)
+ \frac{\mu_{\mathscr{T}}^{k}}6{\nabla}V(G_{k+\frac12})\bigg],\end{aligned}$$ with the short-hand notation $$\begin{aligned}
G_{k+\frac12} = \frac13(G_{\times}+G_k+G_{k+1}).\end{aligned}$$ On the main diagonal, the Hessian amounts to $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{H}_{{\times}{\times}}[G]
&=
\left(\sum_{k=0}^5\frac{\mu_{\mathscr{T}}^k}{6\tau}\right)\mathds{1}_2 \\
&+
\sum_{k=0}^5\frac1{4\mu_{\mathscr{T}}^k}\widetilde h''\left(\frac{\det(G_k-G_{\times}|G_{k+1}-G_{\times})}{2\mu_{\mathscr{T}}^k}\right)
\big[{\mathbb{J}}(G_{k+1}-G_k)\big]\big[{\mathbb{J}}(G_{k+1}-G_k)\big]^{\top\!}\\
&+
\sum_{k=0}^5 \frac{\mu_{\mathscr{T}}^{k}}{18}{\nabla}^2 V(G_{k+\frac12})\end{aligned}$$ Off the main diagonal, the entries of the Hessian are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{H}_{{\times}k}[G]
&=
\frac{\mu_{\mathscr{T}}^k+\mu_{\mathscr{T}}^{k-1}}{12\tau}\mathds{1}_2 \\
&+
\frac1{4\mu_{\mathscr{T}}^k}\widetilde h''\left(\frac{\det(G_k-G_{\times}|G_{k+1}-G_{\times})}{2\mu_{\mathscr{T}}^k}\right)
\big[{\mathbb{J}}(G_{k+1}-G_k)\big]\big[{\mathbb{J}}(G_{k+1}-G_{\times})\big]^{\top\!}\\
&-
\frac1{4\mu_{\mathscr{T}}^{k-1}}\widetilde h''\left(\frac{\det(G_{k-1}-G_{\times}|G_{k}-G_{\times})}{2\mu_{\mathscr{T}}^{k-1}}\right)
\big[{\mathbb{J}}(G_{k}-G_{k-1})\big]\big[{\mathbb{J}}(G_{k-1}-G_{\times})\big]^{\top\!}\\
&+
\frac{\mu_{\mathscr{T}}^{k}}{18}{\nabla}^2 V(G_{k+\frac12})
+ \frac{\mu_{\mathscr{T}}^{k-1}}{18}{\nabla}^2 V(G_{k-\frac12}).\end{aligned}$$
The scheme consists of an inner (Newton) and an outer (time stepping) iteration. We start from a given initial density $\rho_0$ and define the solution at the next time step inductively by applying Newton’s method in the inner iteration. To this end we initialise $G^{(0)}:=G^n$ with $G^n$, the solution at the $n$th time step, and define inductively $$\begin{aligned}
G^{(s+1)} := G^{(s)} + \delta G^{(s+1)} ,\end{aligned}$$ where the update $\delta G^{(s+1)}$ is the solution to the linear system $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{H}[G^{(s)}] \delta G^{(s+1)}
= -\mathbf{Z}[G^{(s)};G^n] .\end{aligned}$$ The effort of each inner iteration step is essentially determined by the effort to invert the sparse matrix $\mathbf{H}[G^{(s)}]$. As soon as the norm of $\delta G^{(s+1)}$ drops below a given stopping threshold, define $G^{n+1}:=G^{(s+1)}$ as approximate solution in the $n+1$st time step.
In all experiments the stopping criterion in the Newton iteration is set to $10^{-9}$.
Numerical experiments
---------------------
In this section we present results of our numerical experiments for with a cubic porous-medium nonlinearity $P(r)=r^3$ and different choices for the external potential $V$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:PME3}
\partial_t\rho = \Delta(u^3) + {\nabla \cdot}(u{\nabla}V).\end{aligned}$$
### Numerical experiment 1: unconfined evolution of Barenblatt profile {#numerical-experiment-1-unconfined-evolution-of-barenblatt-profile .unnumbered}
As a first example, we consider the “free” cubic porous medium equation, that is with $V\equiv0$. It is well-known (see, e.g., Vazquez [@book:Vazquez]) that in the long-time limit $t\to\infty$, arbitrary solutions approach a self-similar one, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:selfsim}
\rho^*(t,x) = t^{-d\alpha}{\mathcal{B}}_3\big(t^{-\alpha}x\big)
\quad\text{with}\quad
\alpha=\frac16, $$ where ${\mathcal{B}}_3$ is the associated Barenblatt profile $$\label{eq:BBprofile}
{\mathcal{B}}_3(z) = \left(C_3-\frac13\|z\|^2\right)_+^{\frac12},
$$ where $C_3=(2\pi)^{-\frac23}\approx 0.29$ is chosen to normalize ${\mathcal{B}}_3$’s mass to unity.
In this experiment, we are only interested in the quality of the numerical approximation for the self-similar solution . To reduce numerical effort, we impose a four-fold symmetry of the approximation: we use the quarter circle as computational domain $K$, and interprete the discrete function thereon as one of four symmetric pieces of the full discrete solution. To preserve reflection symmetry over time, homogeneous Neumann conditions are imposed on the artificial boundaries. This is implemented by reducing the degrees of freedom of the nodes along the $x$- and $y$-axes to tangential motion.
![Numerical experiment 1: fully discrete evolution of our approximation for the self-similar solution to the free porous medium equation. Snapshots are taken at times $t=0.02$, $t=0.1$, $t=0.25$, and $t=2.0$. []{data-label="fig:PMEevol"}](PME_sol_m3_attime_002 "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![Numerical experiment 1: fully discrete evolution of our approximation for the self-similar solution to the free porous medium equation. Snapshots are taken at times $t=0.02$, $t=0.1$, $t=0.25$, and $t=2.0$. []{data-label="fig:PMEevol"}](PME_sol_m3_attime_01 "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}\
![Numerical experiment 1: fully discrete evolution of our approximation for the self-similar solution to the free porous medium equation. Snapshots are taken at times $t=0.02$, $t=0.1$, $t=0.25$, and $t=2.0$. []{data-label="fig:PMEevol"}](PME_sol_m3_attime_025 "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![Numerical experiment 1: fully discrete evolution of our approximation for the self-similar solution to the free porous medium equation. Snapshots are taken at times $t=0.02$, $t=0.1$, $t=0.25$, and $t=2.0$. []{data-label="fig:PMEevol"}](PME_sol_m3_attime_2 "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
We initialize our simulation with a piecewise constant approximation of the profile of $\rho^*$ from at time $t=0.01$. We choose a time step $\tau=0.001$ and the final time $T=2$. In Figure \[fig:PMEevol\], we have collected snapshots of the approximated density at different instances of time. The Barenblatt profile of the solution is very well pertained over time.
It takes less than 2 minutes to complete this simulation on standard laptop ([Matlab]{} code on a mid-2013 MacBook Air 11” with 1.7 GHz Intel Core i7 processor).
![Numerical experiment 1: comparison of the discrete solution (interpolated surface plots with triangulation) with the Barenblatt profile (solid and dashed black lines along the identity) at different times.[]{data-label="fig:PMEenergy"}](bb2){width="65.00000%"}
![Numerical experiment 1: decay of the energy of the discrete solution in comparison with the analytical decay $t^{-2/3}$ of the Barenblatt solution (left). Numerical convergence for fixed ratio $\tau/h_{\rm
max}^2=0.4$ (right).[]{data-label="fig:PMEerror"}](energy "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![Numerical experiment 1: decay of the energy of the discrete solution in comparison with the analytical decay $t^{-2/3}$ of the Barenblatt solution (left). Numerical convergence for fixed ratio $\tau/h_{\rm
max}^2=0.4$ (right).[]{data-label="fig:PMEerror"}](numconv "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
Figure \[fig:PMEenergy\] shows surface plots of the discrete solution at different times in comparison with the Barenblatt profile at the respective time. By construction of the scheme, the initial mass is exactly conserved in time as the discrete solution propagates. The left plot in Figure \[fig:PMEerror\] shows the decay in the energy and gives quantitative information about the difference of the discrete solution to the analytical Barenblatt solution. The numerical solution shows good agreement with the analytical energy decay rate $c=2/3$.
We also compute the $l_1$-error of the discrete solution to the exact Barenblatt profile and observe that it remains within the order of the fineness of the triangulation. The mass of the discrete solution is perfectly conserved, as guaranteed by the construction of our method.
To estimate the convergence order of our method, we run several experiments with the above initial data on different meshes. We fix the ratio $\tau/h_{\rm max}^2=0.4$ and compute the $l_1$-error at time $T=0.2$ on triangulations with $h_{\rm max}=0.2,\,0.1,\,0.05,\,0.025.$ We expect the error to decay as a power of $h_{\rm max}$. The double logarithmic plot should reveal a line with its slope indicating the numerical convergence order. The right plot in Figure \[fig:PMEerror\] shows the result, the estimated numerical convergence order which is obtained from a least-squares fitted line through the points is equal to $1.18$. This indicates first order convergence of the scheme with respect to the spatial discretisation parameter $h_{\rm
max}$.
### Numerical experiment 2: Asymptotic self-similarity {#numerical-experiment-2-asymptotic-self-similarity .unnumbered}
In our second example, we are still concerned with the free cubic porous medium equation, with $V\equiv0$. This time, we wish to give an indication that the discrete approximation of the self-similar solution from from the previous experiment might inherit the global attractivity of its continuous counterpart. More specifically, we track the discrete evolution for the initial datum $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:exp2ic}
\rho_0(x,y)= 3000(x^2+y^2)\exp[-5(|x|+|y|)]+0.1\end{aligned}$$ until time $T=0.1$ and observe that it appears to approach the self-similar solution from above. Snapshots of the simulation are collected in Figure \[fig:PME4evol\].
![Numerical experiment 2: fully discrete evolution for the initial density from under the free porous medium equation. Snapshots are taken at times $t=0.001$, $t=0.005$, $t=0.01$, $t=0.025$, and $t=0.1$.[]{data-label="fig:PME4evol"}](PME4u0 "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![Numerical experiment 2: fully discrete evolution for the initial density from under the free porous medium equation. Snapshots are taken at times $t=0.001$, $t=0.005$, $t=0.01$, $t=0.025$, and $t=0.1$.[]{data-label="fig:PME4evol"}](PME4_sol_m3_attime_0001 "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}\
![Numerical experiment 2: fully discrete evolution for the initial density from under the free porous medium equation. Snapshots are taken at times $t=0.001$, $t=0.005$, $t=0.01$, $t=0.025$, and $t=0.1$.[]{data-label="fig:PME4evol"}](PME4_sol_m3_attime_0005 "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![Numerical experiment 2: fully discrete evolution for the initial density from under the free porous medium equation. Snapshots are taken at times $t=0.001$, $t=0.005$, $t=0.01$, $t=0.025$, and $t=0.1$.[]{data-label="fig:PME4evol"}](PME4_sol_m3_attime_001 "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}\
![Numerical experiment 2: fully discrete evolution for the initial density from under the free porous medium equation. Snapshots are taken at times $t=0.001$, $t=0.005$, $t=0.01$, $t=0.025$, and $t=0.1$.[]{data-label="fig:PME4evol"}](PME4_sol_m3_attime_00250 "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![Numerical experiment 2: fully discrete evolution for the initial density from under the free porous medium equation. Snapshots are taken at times $t=0.001$, $t=0.005$, $t=0.01$, $t=0.025$, and $t=0.1$.[]{data-label="fig:PME4evol"}](PME4_sol_m3_attime_00999 "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
### Numerical experiment 3: two peaks merging into one under the influence of a confining potential {#numerical-experiment-3-two-peaks-merging-into-one-under-the-influence-of-a-confining-potential .unnumbered}
In this example we consider as initial condition two peaks, connected by a thin layer of mass, given by $$\label{eq:peaks}
\rho_0(x,y)=\exp[-20((x-0.35)^2+(y-0.35)^2)]+\exp[-20((x+0.35)^2+(y+0.35)^2 )]+0.001.$$ We choose a triangulation of the square $[-1.5,1.5]^2$ and initialise the discrete solution piecewise constant in each triangle, with a value corresponding to , evaluated in the centre of mass of each triangle. We solve the porous medium equation with a confining potential, i.e. with $P(r)=r^m$ and $V(x,y)=5(x^2+y^2)/2$. The time step is $\tau=0.001$ and the final time is $T=0.2.$
Figure \[fig:PME6evol\] shows the evolution from the initial density. As time increases the peaks smoothly merge into each other. As the thin layer around the peaks is also subject to the potential the triangulated domain shrinks in time. Even if we do not know how to prevent theoretically the intersection of the images of the discrete Lagrangian maps, this seems not to be a problem in practice.
![Numerical experiment 3: evolution of two peaks merging under the porous medium equation with a confining potential.[]{data-label="fig:PME6evol"}](PME6u0_t "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![Numerical experiment 3: evolution of two peaks merging under the porous medium equation with a confining potential.[]{data-label="fig:PME6evol"}](PME6_sol_m3_attime_001_t "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}\
![Numerical experiment 3: evolution of two peaks merging under the porous medium equation with a confining potential.[]{data-label="fig:PME6evol"}](PME6_sol_m3_attime_003_t "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![Numerical experiment 3: evolution of two peaks merging under the porous medium equation with a confining potential.[]{data-label="fig:PME6evol"}](PME6_sol_m3_attime_005_t "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}\
![Numerical experiment 3: evolution of two peaks merging under the porous medium equation with a confining potential.[]{data-label="fig:PME6evol"}](PME6_sol_m3_attime_01_t "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![Numerical experiment 3: evolution of two peaks merging under the porous medium equation with a confining potential.[]{data-label="fig:PME6evol"}](PME6_sol_m3_attime_02_t "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
As time evolves, the discrete solution approaches the steady state Barenblatt profile given by $$\label{eq:BBprofile2}
{\mathcal{B}}(z) = \left(C-\frac53 ||z||^2 \right)_+^{\frac12},$$ where $C$ is chosen as the mass of the density. The plot in Figure \[fig:PME6l1dist\] shows the exponential decay of the $l_1$-distance of the discrete solution to the steady state Barenblatt profile . We observe that the decay agrees very well with the analytically predicted decay $\exp(-5t)$ until $t=0.08$. For larger times, one would monitor triangle quality numerically, and re-mesh, locally coarsening the triangulation where necessary.
![Numerical experiment 3: two merging peaks: plot of the $l_1$-distance of the discrete solution to the steady state Barenblatt profile in comparison with the analytical decay $c\exp(-5t)$.[]{data-label="fig:PME6l1dist"}](l1distBB){width="45.00000%"}
### Numerical experiment 4: one peak splitting under the influence of a quartic potential {#numerical-experiment-4-one-peak-splitting-under-the-influence-of-a-quartic-potential .unnumbered}
We consider as the initial condition $$\label{eq:bump}
\rho_0(x,y)=1-(x^2+y^2).$$ We choose a triangulation of the unit circle and initialise the discrete solution piecewise constant in each triangle, with a value corresponding to , evaluated in the centre of mass of each triangle. We solve the porous medium equation with a quartic potential, i.e. with $P(r)=r^m$ and $V(x)=5(x^2+(1-y^2)^2)/2$. The time step is $\tau=0.005$ and the final time is $T=0.02.$
Figure \[fig:PME5evol\] shows the evolution of the initial density. As time increases the initial density is progressively split, until two new maxima emerge which are connected by a thin layer. For larger times, when certain triangles become excessively distorted, one would monitor triangle quality numerically, and re-mesh, locally refining the triangulation where necessary.
![Numerical experiment 4: evolution of the initial density under the porous medium equation with a quartic potential.[]{data-label="fig:PME5evol"}](PME5u0 "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![Numerical experiment 4: evolution of the initial density under the porous medium equation with a quartic potential.[]{data-label="fig:PME5evol"}](PME5_sol_m3_attime_005 "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}\
![Numerical experiment 4: evolution of the initial density under the porous medium equation with a quartic potential.[]{data-label="fig:PME5evol"}](PME5_sol_m3_attime_01 "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![Numerical experiment 4: evolution of the initial density under the porous medium equation with a quartic potential.[]{data-label="fig:PME5evol"}](PME5_sol_m3_attime_02 "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}\
Proof of the Lagrangian representation {#sct:Lagrange}
======================================
We verify that the density function given by $(G_t^{-1})_{\#}\rho_t$ on $K\subset{{\mathbb{R}}^d}$ is constant with respect to time $t$; the identity then follows since $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_t = (G_t\circ G_t^{-1})_\#\rho_t = (G_t)_\#\big[(G_t^{-1})_{\#}\rho_t\big] = (G_t)_\#\big[(G_0^{-1})_\#\rho^0\big] = (G_t)_\#{\overline\rho}.
\end{aligned}$$ Firstly, from the definition of the inverse, $$G_t^{-1}\circ G_t = {\mathrm{id}}$$ for all $t$, differentiating with respect to time yields $${\mathrm{D}}(G_t^{-1}) \circ G_t\, {\partial}_{t} G_t + {\partial}_{t} (G_t^{-1}) \circ G_t = 0,$$ and so, using and , $$\label{eqn:GTimeDiff}
{\partial}_{t} (G_t^{-1}) = - {\mathrm{D}}(G_t^{-1}) ({\partial}_{t} G_t \circ G_t^{-1}) = - {\mathrm{D}}(G_t^{-1}){\mathbf{v}}[\rho_t].$$ Now, let $\varphi$ be a smooth test function, and consider $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t} \int \varphi \,(G_t^{-1})_{\#} \rho_t \\
&\qquad = \frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t} \int (\varphi \circ G_t^{-1}) \rho_t \\
&\qquad = \int (\varphi \circ G_t^{-1}) {\partial}_{t} \rho_t + \int {\mathrm{D}}\varphi \circ G_t^{-1} {\partial}_{t} (G_t^{-1}) \rho_t \\
&\qquad = -\int (\varphi \circ G_t^{-1}) [{\nabla \cdot}(\rho_t v(\rho_t))] - \int ({\mathrm{D}}\varphi \circ G_t^{-1})\,{\mathrm{D}}(G_t^{-1})\,v(\rho_t) \rho_t
&& \text{by~\eqref{eq:NFPsystem} and~\eqref{eq:Lagrange} } \\
&\qquad = \int ({\mathrm{D}}\varphi \circ G_t^{-1}) {\mathrm{D}}(G_t^{-1}) \,[v(\rho_t) - v(\rho_t)] \rho_t && \text{integrating by parts} \\
&\qquad = 0.
\end{aligned}$$ As $\varphi$ was arbitrary, $(G_t^{-1})_{\#}\rho_t$ is constant with respect to time.
Technical lemmas
================
\[lem:triint\] Given $g_0,g_1,\ldots,g_d\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:triint}
{\fint}_{{\mathord{\bigtriangleup}}^d}\Big\|g_0+\sum_{j=1}^d\omega_j(g_j-g_0)\Big\|^2{\,\mathrm{d}}\omega
= \frac2{(d+1)(d+2)}\sum_{0\le i\le j\le d}g_i\cdot g_j.
\end{aligned}$$
Thanks to the symmetry of the integral with respect to the exchange of the components $\omega_j$, the left-hand side of equals to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:triint1}
\begin{split}
&\|g_0\|^2
+ 2\left({\fint}_{{\mathord{\bigtriangleup}}}\omega_d{\,\mathrm{d}}\omega\right)\sum_{1\le j\le d}g_0\cdot(g_j-g_0) \\
& + \left({\fint}_{{\mathord{\bigtriangleup}}}\omega_d^2{\,\mathrm{d}}\omega\right)\sum_{1\le j\le d}\|g_j-g_0\|^2
+ 2\left({\fint}_{{\mathord{\bigtriangleup}}}\omega_{d-1}\omega_d{\,\mathrm{d}}\omega\right)\sum_{1\le i<j\le d}(g_i-g_0)\cdot(g_j-g_0).
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ We calculate the integrals, using Fubini’s theorem. First integral: $$\begin{aligned}
{\fint}_{{\mathord{\bigtriangleup}}}\omega_d{\,\mathrm{d}}\omega
& = \frac1{|{\mathord{\bigtriangleup}}^d|}\int_0^1 \omega_d\,(1-\omega_d)^{d-1}|{\mathord{\bigtriangleup}}^{d-1}|{\,\mathrm{d}}\omega_d \\
& = \frac{|{\mathord{\bigtriangleup}}^{d-1}|}{|{\mathord{\bigtriangleup}}^d|}\int_0^1 (1-z)\,z^{d-1}{\,\mathrm{d}}z
= d\left(\frac1{d}-\frac1{d+1}\right) = \frac1{d+1}.
\end{aligned}$$ Second integral: $$\begin{aligned}
{\fint}_{{\mathord{\bigtriangleup}}}\omega_d^2{\,\mathrm{d}}\omega
& = \frac1{|{\mathord{\bigtriangleup}}^d|}\int_0^1 \omega_d^2\,(1-\omega_d)^{d-1}|{\mathord{\bigtriangleup}}^{d-1}|{\,\mathrm{d}}\omega_d \\
& = \frac{|{\mathord{\bigtriangleup}}^{d-1}|}{|{\mathord{\bigtriangleup}}^d|}\int_0^1 (1-z)^2\,z^{d-1}{\,\mathrm{d}}z
= d\left(\frac1d-\frac2{d+1}+\frac1{d+2}\right) = \frac2{(d+1)(d+2)}.
\end{aligned}$$ Third integral: $$\begin{aligned}
{\fint}_{{\mathord{\bigtriangleup}}}\omega_{d-1}\omega_d{\,\mathrm{d}}\omega
& = \frac1{|{\mathord{\bigtriangleup}}^d|}\int_0^1 \left[\int_0^{1-\omega_d}\omega_{d-1}\omega_d
\,(1-\omega_{d-1}-\omega_d)^{d-2}|{\mathord{\bigtriangleup}}^{d-2}|{\,\mathrm{d}}\omega_{d-1}\right]{\,\mathrm{d}}\omega_d \\
& = \frac{|{\mathord{\bigtriangleup}}^{d-2}|}{|{\mathord{\bigtriangleup}}^d|}\int_0^1\left[\int_0^z (1-z)(z-y)\,y^{d-2}{\,\mathrm{d}}y\right]{\,\mathrm{d}}z \\
& = d(d-1)\int_0^1\left[\frac1{d-1}-\frac1d\right](1-z)z^d{\,\mathrm{d}}z
= \frac1{d+1}-\frac1{d+2}=\frac1{(d+1)(d+2)}.
\end{aligned}$$ Substitute this into : $$\begin{aligned}
&\left(1-\frac2{d+1}+\frac{d^2+d}{(d+1)(d+2)}\right)\|g_0\|^2
+\left(\frac2{d+1}-\frac{2d+2}{(d+1)(d+2)}\right)\sum_{1\le j\le d}g_0\cdot g_j \\
& \qquad +\frac2{(d+1)(d+2)}\sum_{1\le j\le d}\|g_j\|^2
+\frac2{(d+1)(d+2)}\sum_{1\le i<j\le d}g_i\cdot g_j\\
&=\frac2{(d+1)(d+2)}\left(\|g_0\|^2 + \sum_{1\le j\le d}g_0\cdot g_j + \sum_{1\le j\le d}\|g_j\|^2 + \sum_{1\le i<j\le d}g_i\cdot g_j \right).
\end{aligned}$$ Collecting terms yields the right-hand side of .
\[lem:JAJ\] For each $A\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2\times 2}$, we have ${\mathbb{J}}A{\mathbb{J}}^T=(\det A)\,A^{-T}$.
This is verified by direct calculation: $${\mathbb{J}}A{\mathbb{J}}^T
= \begin{pmatrix} 0 & -1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} a_{11} & a_{12} \\ a_{21} & a_{22} \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}
= \begin{pmatrix} a_{22} & -a_{21} \\ -a_{12} & a_{11} \end{pmatrix}
= (\det A)\, A^{-T}. \qedhere$$
\[lem:circle\] With $\sigma_k\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$ defined as in , we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=0}^5{\mathbb{J}}(\sigma_{k}-\sigma_{k+1}) \left(\frac{\sigma_k+\sigma_{k+1}}3\right)^T
= \sqrt3\ {\mathds{1}}.
\end{aligned}$$
With the abbreviations $\phi_x=\frac\pi3x$ and $\psi=\frac\pi3$: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=0}^5{\mathbb{J}}(\sigma_{k}-\sigma_{k+1}) \left(\frac{\sigma_k+\sigma_{k+1}}3\right)^T
&= \frac13\sum_{k=0}^5
{\sin\phi_{k+1}-\sin\phi_k\choose \cos\phi_k-\cos\phi_{k+1}}{\cos\phi_k+\cos\phi_{k+1}\choose\sin\phi_k+\sin\phi_{k+1}}^T \\
&= \frac13\sum_{k=0}^5(2\sin\frac\psi2){\cos\phi_{k+\frac12}\choose \sin\phi_{k+\frac12}}
\,(2\cos\frac\psi2){\cos\phi_{k+\frac12}\choose\sin\phi_{k+\frac12}}^T \\
&= \frac{\sin\psi}3\sum_{k=0}^5
\begin{pmatrix}
2\cos^2\phi_{k+\frac12} & 2\cos\phi_{k+\frac12}\sin\phi_{k+\frac12} \\
2\cos\phi_{k+\frac12}\sin\phi_{k+\frac12} & 2\sin^2\phi_{k+\frac12}
\end{pmatrix}
\\
&= \frac{\sqrt3}6 \sum_{k=0}^5\left[{\mathds{1}}+
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos\phi_{2k+1} & \sin\phi_{2k+1} \\
\sin\phi_{2k+1} & -\cos\phi_{2k+1}
\end{pmatrix}
\right]
= \sqrt3\ {\mathds{1}}. \qedhere
\end{aligned}$$
\[lem:traces\] Let the scheme $B:=(b_{pqr})_{p,q,r\in\{1,2\}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2\times2\times2}$ of eight numbers $b_{pqr}\in{\mathbb{R}}$ be symmetric in the last two indices, $b_{pqr}=b_{prq}$. With $\sigma_k\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$ defined as in , we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:traces}
\sum_{k=0}^5 \operatorname{tr}\big[\big(\sigma_k\big|\sigma_{k+1}\big)^{-1}\big(B:[\sigma_k]^2\big|B:[\sigma_{k+1}]^2\big)\big]\,{\mathbb{J}}(\sigma_{k}-\sigma_{k+1})
=2\sqrt3\operatorname{tr}_{12}[B]^T.
\end{aligned}$$
In principle, this lemma can be verified by a direct calculation, by writing out the six terms in the sum explicitly and using trigonometric identities. Below, we give a slightly more conceptual proof, in which we use symmetry arguments to reduce the number of expressions significantly.
For the matrix involving $B$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\big(B:[\sigma_k]^2\big|B:[\sigma_{k+1}]^2\big) \\
&=
\begin{pmatrix}
b_{111}\sigma_{k,1}^2+b_{122}\sigma_{k,2}^2+2b_{112}\sigma_{k,1}\sigma_{k,2}
& b_{111}\sigma_{k+1,1}^2+b_{122}\sigma_{k+1,2}^2+2b_{112}\sigma_{k+1,1}\sigma_{k+1,2} \\
b_{211}\sigma_{k,1}^2+b_{222}\sigma_{k,2}^2+2b_{212}\sigma_{k,1}\sigma_{k,2}
& b_{211}\sigma_{k+1,1}^2+b_{222}\sigma_{k+1,2}^2+2b_{212}\sigma_{k+1,1}\sigma_{k+1,2}
\end{pmatrix},
\end{aligned}$$ while clearly $$\begin{aligned}
\big(\sigma_k\big|\sigma_{k+1}\big)^{-1}
= \frac{2}{\sqrt3}
\begin{pmatrix} \sigma_{k+1,2} & -\sigma_{k+1,1} \\ -\sigma_{k,2} & \sigma_{k,1} \end{pmatrix}.
\end{aligned}$$ The sum of the diagonal entries of the matrix product are easily calculated, $$\begin{aligned}
T_k:=\operatorname{tr}\big[\big(\sigma_k\big|\sigma_{k+1}\big)^{-1}\big(B:[\sigma_k]^2\big|B:[\sigma_{k+1}]^2\big)\big]
= \frac2{\sqrt3}\sum_{p,q,r=1}^2 b_{pqr}\gamma_{pqr,k},
\end{aligned}$$ with the trigonometric expressions $$\begin{aligned}
&\gamma_{111,k}=\sigma_{k,1}^2\sigma_{k+1,2}-\sigma_{k+1,1}^2\sigma_{k,2},\quad
\gamma_{122,k}=\sigma_{k,2}^2\sigma_{k+1,2}-\sigma_{k+1,2}^2\sigma_{k,2}, \\
&\gamma_{112,k}=\gamma_{121,k}=\sigma_{k,1}\sigma_{k,2}\sigma_{k+1,2}-\sigma_{k+1,1}\sigma_{k+1,2}\sigma_{k,2}, \\
&\gamma_{211,k}=\sigma_{k+1,1}^2\sigma_{k,1}-\sigma_{k,1}^2\sigma_{k+1,1},\quad
\gamma_{222,k}=\sigma_{k+1,2}^2\sigma_{k,1}-\sigma_{k,2}^2\sigma_{k+1,1},\\
&\gamma_{212,k}=\gamma_{221,k}=\sigma_{k+1,1}\sigma_{k+1,2}\sigma_{k,1}-\sigma_{k,1}\sigma_{k,2}\sigma_{k+1,1}.
\end{aligned}$$ To key step is to calculate the sum over $k=0,1,\ldots,5$ of the products of $T_k$ with the respective vector $$\eta_k ={\mathbb{J}}(\sigma_{k}-\sigma_{k+1})=
\begin{pmatrix}
\sigma_{k+1,2}-\sigma_{k,2}\\ \sigma_{k,1}-\sigma_{k+1,1}
\end{pmatrix}
.$$ Several simplifications of this sum can be performed, thanks to the particular form of the $\gamma_{pqr,k}$ and elementary trigonometric identities. First, observe that $\sigma_{k+3}=-\sigma_k$, and hence that $\gamma_{pqr,k+3}=-\gamma_{pqr,k}$. Since further $\eta_{k+3}=-\eta_k$, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:trig1}
\gamma_{pqr,k+3}\eta_{k+3}=\gamma_{pqr,k}\eta_k.
\end{aligned}$$ Second, $\eta$ can be evaluated explicitly for $k=1,2,3$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:trig2}
\eta_0 =\frac12 \begin{pmatrix} \sqrt3 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix},
\quad
\eta_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix},
\quad
\eta_2 =\frac12 \begin{pmatrix} -\sqrt3 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix}.
\end{aligned}$$ Third, since $\sigma_{0,1}=-\sigma_{3,1}$ and $\sigma_{1,1}=-\sigma_{2,1}$, as well as $\sigma_{0,2}=\sigma_{3,2}$ and $\sigma_{1,2}=\sigma_{2,2}$, we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:trig3}
\gamma_{pqr,1} = 0 \quad\text{if $p+q+r$ is odd},
\quad\text{and}\quad
\gamma_{pqr,2} = (-1)^{p+q+r}\gamma_{pqr,0}.
\end{aligned}$$ By putting this together, we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=0}^5\gamma_{pqr,k}\eta_k
&\stackrel{\eqref{eq:trig1}}{=}2\sum_{k=0}^2\gamma_{pqr,k}\eta_k \\
& \stackrel{\eqref{eq:trig2}}{=}
\begin{pmatrix}
\sqrt3\big(\gamma_{pqr,0}-\gamma_{pqr,2}\big) \\
\gamma_{pqr,0}+2\gamma_{pqr,1}+\gamma_{pqr,2}
\end{pmatrix} \\
&\stackrel{\eqref{eq:trig3}}{=}
\begin{pmatrix}
\sqrt3\big(1-(-1)^{p+q+r}\big)\gamma_{pqr,0}\\
\big(1+(-1)^{p+q+r}\big)\big(\gamma_{pqr,0}+\gamma_{pqr,1}\big)
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
2\sqrt3\,\gamma_{pqr,0}\,(1-\mathfrak{e}_{pqr})\\
2\big(\gamma_{pqr,0}+\gamma_{pqr,1}\big)\,\mathfrak{e}_{pqr}
\end{pmatrix}
,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathfrak{e}_{pqr}=1$ if $p+q+r$ is even, and $\mathfrak{e}_{pqr}=0$ if $p+q+r$ is odd. By elementary computations, $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{llll}
\text{$p+q+r$ odd, $k=0$}:
&\gamma_{111,0}=\frac{\sqrt3}2,
&\gamma_{122,0}=0,
&\gamma_{212,0}=\gamma_{221,0}=\frac{\sqrt{3}}4;\\
\text{$p+q+r$ even, $k=0$}:
&\gamma_{211,0}=-\frac14,
&\gamma_{222,0}=\frac34,
&\gamma_{112,0}=\gamma_{121,0}=0;\\
\text{$p+q+r$ even, $k=1$}:
&\gamma_{211,1}=\frac14,
&\gamma_{222,1}=\frac34,
&\gamma_{112,1}=\gamma_{121,1}=\frac34,
\end{array}
\end{aligned}$$ and so the final result is: $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{k=0}^5 \operatorname{tr}\big[\big(\sigma_k\big|\sigma_{k+1}\big)^{-1}\big(B:[\sigma_k]^2\big|B:[\sigma_{k+1}]^2\big)\big]\,{\mathbb{J}}(\sigma_{k}-\sigma_{k+1}) \\
&=\sum_{k=0}^5T_k\eta_k
=\frac2{\sqrt3}\sum_{p,q,r=1}^2\left(b_{pqr}\sum_{k=0}^5\gamma_{pqr,k}\eta_k\right)
=2\sqrt3
\begin{pmatrix}
b_{111}+b_{212} \\ b_{222}+b_{112}
\end{pmatrix},
\end{aligned}$$ which is .
\[lem:algebra2\] With $\sigma_k'\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$ defined as in , and with $B=(b_{pqr})_{p,q,r\in\{1,2\}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2\times2\times2}$ such that $b_{pqr}=0$ except for $b_{122}=b_{211}=1$, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:traces2}
\sum_{k=0}^5 \operatorname{tr}\big[\big(\sigma_k'\big|\sigma_{k+1}'\big)^{-1}\big(B:[\sigma_k']^2\big|B:[\sigma_{k+1}']^2\big)\big]\,{\mathbb{J}}(\sigma_{k}-\sigma_{k+1})
=-{1\choose1}.
\end{aligned}$$
This is a slightly tedious, but straightforward calculation. First, by the choice of $B$, $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_k:=\big(B:[\sigma_k']^2\big|B:[\sigma_{k+1}']^2\big)
= \begin{pmatrix}
(\sigma_{k,2}')^2 & (\sigma_{k+1,2}')^2 \\ (\sigma_{k,1}')^2 & (\sigma_{k+1,1}')^2
\end{pmatrix},
\end{aligned}$$ and so, by definition of the $\sigma_k'$ in , $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_0 =\beta_3
= \begin{pmatrix} 0 & \frac14 \\ 1 & \frac14 \end{pmatrix},
\quad
\beta_0=\beta_3
= \begin{pmatrix} \frac14 & 1 \\ \frac14 & 0 \end{pmatrix},
\quad
\beta_0=\beta_3
= \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}.
\end{aligned}$$ For the inverse matrices $S_k:=\big(\sigma_k'\big|\sigma_{k+1}'\big)^{-1}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
S_0 = \begin{pmatrix} 1&-1 \\ 0 & 2 \end{pmatrix} = -S_3,
\quad
S_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 2&0 \\ -1&1 \end{pmatrix} = -S_4,
S_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 0&1 \\ -1&0 \end{pmatrix} = -S_5.
\end{aligned}$$ For the traces $T_k:=\operatorname{tr}\big[S_k\beta_k\big]$, we thus obtain the values: $$\begin{aligned}
T_0=T_1=-\frac12,\quad T_3=T_4=\frac12, \quad T_2=T_5=0.
\end{aligned}$$ In conclusion, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=0}^5 T_k\,{\mathbb{J}}(\sigma_{k}-\sigma_{k+1})
= {\mathbb{J}}\left[-\frac12 (\sigma_0-\sigma_2) +\frac12 (\sigma_3-\sigma_5) \right]
= {\mathbb{J}}{-1\choose1}
= -{1\choose1},
\end{aligned}$$ which is .
Lack of convexity {#sct:notconvex}
=================
Below, we discuss why the minimization problem is not convex. More precisely, we show that $G\mapsto{\mathbf{E}}_{\boxplus}(G;\hat G)$ is not convex as a function of $G$ on the affine ansatz space ${\mathcal{A}_\mathscr{T}}$. Since ${\mathbf{E}}_{\boxplus}(G;\hat G)$ is a convex combination of the expressions ${\mathbb{H}}_m\big((A_m|b_m);(\hat A_m|\hat b_m)\big)$, it clearly suffices to discuss the convexity of the latter.
We consider a curve $s\mapsto (A_m+s\alpha_m|b_m+s\beta_m)$ and evaluate the second derivatives of the components of the functional at $s=0$. First, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{I}}:=\frac{{\mathrm{d}}^{2}}{{\mathrm{d}}s^{2}}\bigg|_{s=0} &
\left(\frac1{2\tau}{\fint}_{\Delta_m} \big|(A_{m}-\hat A_m + s \alpha_{m})\omega + (b_{m}-\hat b_m) + s \beta_{m}\big|^2{\,\mathrm{d}}\omega\right) \\
&= \frac1\tau{\fint}_{\Delta_m}|\alpha_m\omega+\beta_m|^2{\,\mathrm{d}}\omega.\end{aligned}$$ Second, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{II}}:=\frac{{\mathrm{d}}^{2}}{{\mathrm{d}}s^{2}}\bigg|_{s=0} & {\fint}_{\Delta_m} V\big((A_{m} + s \alpha_{m})\omega+ (b_{m} + s \beta_{m})\big){\,\mathrm{d}}\omega \\
&= {\fint}_{\Delta_{m}} (\alpha_{m} \omega + \beta_{m})^{T}\cdot{\nabla}^{2} V(A_{m} \omega + b_{m})\cdot(\alpha_{m} \omega + \beta_{m}) {\,\mathrm{d}}\omega .\end{aligned}$$ If we assume that ${\nabla}^{2} V \geq \lambda {\mathds{1}}$, then we obtain for the sum of these two contributions that $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{I}}+{\mathrm{II}}\ge \left(\frac1\tau+\lambda\right){\fint}_{\Delta_m}|\alpha_m\omega+\beta_m|^2{\,\mathrm{d}}\omega.\end{aligned}$$ For the remaining term, however, we obtain — using the abbreviations $\widetilde g(s)=s\widetilde h'(s)$ and $\widetilde f(s)=s\widetilde g'(s)$ — that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\mathrm{d}}^2}{{\mathrm{d}}^2 s}\bigg|_{s=0}& \widetilde h\left(\frac{\det(A_{m} + s \alpha_{m})}{{\overline\rho}_m}\right) \\
&=\frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}s}\bigg|_{s=0} \left\{
\widetilde g\left(\frac{\det(A_{m} + s \alpha_{m})}{{\overline\rho}_m}\right)
\,\operatorname{tr}\big[(A_{m} + s \alpha_{m})^{-1} \alpha_{m}\big]
\right\} \\
&=\widetilde f\left(\frac{\det A_{m}}{{\overline\rho}_m}\right)\,\big(\operatorname{tr}\big[A_m^{-1}\alpha_m\big]\big)^2
- \widetilde g\left(\frac{\det A_{m}}{{\overline\rho}_m}\right)\,\operatorname{tr}\big[\big( A_m^{-1}\alpha_m \big)^2\big] .
$$ Now observe that $\widetilde f(s)=P'(1/s)-sP(1/s)$ is a non-negative, and $\widetilde g(s) = -sP(1/s)$ is a non-positive function. Thus, from the two terms in the final sum, the first one is generally non-negative whereas the second one is of indefinite sign. Choosing $$\alpha_m:=A_m \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix},
\quad\text{such that}\quad
\big(\operatorname{tr}\big[A_m^{-1}\alpha_m\big]\big)^2=0, \,
\operatorname{tr}\big[\big( A_m^{-1}\alpha_m \big)^2\big]=2,$$ the sum is obviously negative.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We report low-temperature calorimetric, magnetic and resistivity measurements on the antiferromagnetic (AF) heavy-fermion metal YbRh$_2$Si$_2$ (${T_N =}$ 70 mK) as a function of magnetic field $B$. While for fields exceeding the critical value ${B_{c0}}$ at which ${T_N\rightarrow0}$ the low temperature resistivity shows an ${AT^2}$ dependence, a ${1/(B-B_{c0})}$ divergence of ${A(B)}$ upon reducing $B$ to ${B_{c0}}$ suggests singular scattering at the whole Fermi surface and a divergence of the heavy quasiparticle mass. The observations are interpreted in terms of a new type of quantum critical point separating a weakly AF ordered from a weakly polarized heavy Landau-Fermi liquid state.'
address: |
$^{(1)}$ Max-Planck Institute for Chemical Physics of Solids, D-01187 Dresden, Germany\
$^{(2)}$Walther Meissner Institute, D-85748 Garching, Germany\
$^{(3)}$Institute of Solid State Physics, University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8581, Japan
author:
- 'P. Gegenwart$^{(1)}$, J. Custers$^{(1)}$, C. Geibel$^{(1)}$, K. Neumaier$^{(2)}$, T. Tayama$^{(1,3)}$, K. Tenya$^{(1)}$, O. Trovarelli$^{(1)}$, and F. Steglich$^{(1)}$'
title: 'Magnetic-Field Induced Quantum Critical Point in YbRh$_2$Si$_2$'
---
The study of quantum phase transitions has attracted the interest of many researchers in the last decades, especially since the discovery of the cuprate superconductors. Quantum phase transitions, in contrast to their classical counterparts at ${T > 0}$ where thermal fluctuations are important, are driven by a control parameter other than temperature, e.g., composition or pressure. A quantum critical point (QCP) commonly separates an ordered from a disordered phase at zero temperature. To study quantum critical behavior the heavy-fermion (HF) systems are very suitable since they can be tuned continuously from an antiferromagnetic (AF) to a paramagnetic (PM) metallic state by the variation of a single parameter, i.e., the strength of the ${4f}$-conduction electron hybridization $g$, which can be modified by the application of either external pressure or chemical substitution. According to itinerant spinfluctuation theory [@Hertz; @Millis; @Moriya], close to the critical value ${g_c}$ at which ${T_N \rightarrow 0}$, the abundance of low-lying and long-range spin fluctuations, mediating the interactions between the heavy quasiparticles (QP), gives rise to pronounced deviations from Landau Fermi liquid (LFL) behavior. Instead of being constant as for a LFL, the QP mass and QP-QP scattering cross section, being proportional to the low-temperature coefficients of the electronic specific heat ${\gamma(T) = C_{el}(T)/T}$ and the electrical resistivity ${A(T)=(\rho(T)-\rho_0)/T^2=\Delta\rho/T^2}$, respectively, show a strong increase or even divergence upon cooling to lowest temperatures. The origin of non-Fermi liquid (NFL) behavior, though observed in an increasing number of HF systems [@Stewart], is still a subject of controversy [@Coleman].
Another type of QCP arises by the suppression of AF order upon applying magnetic fields $B$. By tuning ${T_N}$ towards zero temperature at a critical field ${B_{c0}=B_c(0)}$, the AF correlations between the ordered moments are suppressed resulting in a field-aligned (FA) state for ${B \geq
B_{c0}}$. This is very different to the destruction of the ordered moments which occurs at ${B=0}$ upon “$g$-tuning” an antiferromagnet through its QCP at ${g_c}$ as described above. Up to now, theoretical models for the QCP at ${B_{c0}}$ are lacking, and only the doped AF systems CeCu$_{6-x}$Ag$_x$ [@Heuser98a; @Heuser98b] and YbCu$_{5-x}$Al$_x$ [@Seuring] had been tuned by magnetic field through this kind of QCP. For the latter system a substantial amount of Al-doping is necessary to induce long-range AF order leading to a broad phase-transition anomaly in zero field. It is not clear in this case, how the observed NFL behavior is influenced by disorder. For single crystalline CeCu$_{5.2}$Ag$_{0.8}$, NFL effects were observed only for fields applied along the easy magnetic direction and do not indicate a divergence of either the QP mass or the QP-QP scattering cross-section [@Heuser98b]. The results were described within the framework of the self-consistent renormalization theory [@Moriya] originally developed for the “$g$-tuned” QCP.
In this letter we concentrate on the HF metal YbRh$_2$Si$_2$ for which pronounced NFL phenomena, i.e., a logarithmic increase of ${C_{el}(T)/T}$ and a quasi-linear $T$-dependence of the electrical resistivity below 10 K, have been observed above a low-lying AF phase transition [@Trovarelli; @Letter]. This system is highly suited to study the properties of a $B$-induced QCP, because i) the AF phase transition is of second order (see below) and the ordering temperature ${T_N = 70}$ mK is the lowest among all undoped HF systems at ambient pressure, ii) already very small magnetic fields are sufficient to suppress the AF state, and iii) clean single crystals can be studied, showing very sharp and well defined phase-transition anomalies which do not broaden significantly at finite fields [@NMR]. The application of pressure to YbRh$_2$Si$_2$ increases ${T_N}$ [@Trovarelli; @Letter] as expected, because the ionic volume of the magnetic ${4f^{13}}$ Yb$^{3+}$-configuration is smaller than that of the nonmagnetic ${4f^{14}}$ Yb$^{2+}$ one. Expanding the crystal lattice by randomly substituting Ge for the smaller isoelectric Si atoms allows one to “$g$-tune” YbRh$_2$(Si$_{1-x}$Ge$_x$)$_2$ through the QCP at ${x_c = (0.06
\pm 0.01)}$ without affecting its electronic properties and, due to the low value of ${x_c}$, without introducing significant disorder to the lattice [@Trovarelli; @Physica]. In YbRh$_2$(Si$_{0.95}$Ge$_{0.05}$)$_2$ the NFL behavior extends to the lowest accessible temperatures, in particular ${\Delta\rho(T) \sim T}$ is observed from above 10 K to below 10 mK [@Trovarelli; @Physica]. In the following, we report on low-temperature magnetic, thermodynamic and transport properties of undoped YbRh$_2$Si$_2$ which are used to characterize its field-induced QCP.
High-quality single crystalline platelets of YbRh$_2$Si$_2$ were grown from In flux as described earlier [@Trovarelli; @Letter]. The new generation of crystals show a residual resistivity ${\rho_0 \simeq 1 \mu\Omega}$cm, i.e., twice as low as ${\rho_0}$ of the previous ones. Whereas for the latter no phase transition anomaly at ${T_N}$ could be resolved in the resistivity [@Trovarelli; @Letter], the new crystals show a clear kink of ${\rho(T)}$ at ${T_N}$, see below. For all low-temperature measurements, $^3$He/$^4$He dilution refrigerators were used. The electrical resistivity and magnetic AC-susceptibility ${\chi_{AC}}$ were measured utilizing a Linear Research Co. (LR700) bridge at 16.67 Hz. Amplitudes of 0.1 mA and 1 Oe for the current and magnetic field, respectively, were chosen to determine $\rho$ and ${\chi_{AC}}$. The DC-magnetization, ${M_{DC}}$, measurements were performed utilizing a high-resolution capacitive Faraday magnetometer as described in [@Sakakibara]. The specific heat was determined with the aid of a quasi-adiabatic heat pulse technique.
YbRh$_2$Si$_2$ exhibits a highly anisotropic magnetic response, indicating that Yb$^{3+}$ moments are forming an “easy-plane” square lattice perpendicular to the crystallographic c-direction [@Trovarelli; @Letter]. We first discuss the magnetic properties measured with the field applied along the easy tetragonal plane, ${B \perp c}$. At ${B \simeq 0}$, ${\chi_{AC}(T)}$ reveals a sharp AF phase-transition at ${T_N =}$ 70 mK (Fig. 1a). In the paramagnetic state at ${T_N \leq T \leq 0.6}$ K, the susceptibility follows a Curie-Weiss type behavior implying fluctuating moments of the order of ${1.4 \mu_B / Yb^{3+}}$-ion and a Weiss-temperature of ${\Theta \simeq -0.32}$ K. The isothermal magnetization (Fig. 1b) shows a strongly nonlinear response for fields ${B \perp c}$. For ${T < T_N}$ a clear reduction in slope is observed above 0.06 T which indicates the suppression of AF order and the transition into the FA state. A smooth extrapolation of ${M_{DC}(B)}$ for ${B > 0.06}$ T towards zero field reveals a value of ${\mu_s < 0.1 \mu_B}$ for the staggered magnetization in the AF state, indicating that the size of the ordered moments is much smaller than that of the effective moments observed in the PM state above ${T_N}$. Thus a large fraction of the local moments appears to remain fluctuating within the easy plane in the AF ordered state. Their continuous polarization for fields exceeding ${B_{c0}}$ gives rise to a strong curvature in ${M(B)}$ for ${B
\perp c}$. For fields applied along the magnetic hard direction, ${B
\parallel c}$, the magnetization shows an almost linear behavior (Fig. 1b) which was found to extend at least up to 58 T [@Custers]. At ${T < T_N}$ a very tiny decrease in the ${M(B)}$ slope is observed at about 0.7 T which, according to the resistivity measurements discussed below, represents the critical field ${B_{c0}}$ for ${B
\parallel c}$.
The low-$T$ resistivity was measured in magnetic fields applied both perpendicular and parallel to the $c$-direction, with the current perpendicular to the field direction in each case (Fig. 2). For ${B = 0}$ the resistivity follows a quasi-linear $T$-dependence down to about 80 mK, where a sharp decrease, independent of the current direction, is observed. We note that this behavior is not consistent with that observed for SDW systems for which an increase of ${\rho(T)}$ along the direction of the SDW modulation, indicating the partial gapping of the Fermi surface, should be expected. The absence of this behavior favors the interpretation of local-moment type of magnetic order in YbRh$_2$Si$_2$, compatible with the observation of large fluctuating moments in ${\chi_{AC}(T)}$ above ${T_N}$. The resistivity in the AF ordered state is best described by ${\Delta\rho
=AT^2}$ with a huge coefficient, ${A=22}$ ${\mu \Omega cm}$/K$^2$, for 20 mK ${\leq T \leq 60}$ mK. With increasing $B$, the phase-transition anomaly in ${\rho(T)}$ shifts to lower temperatures and vanishes at critical fields ${B_{c0}}$ of about 0.06 T and 0.66 T for ${B\perp c}$ and ${B\parallel c}$, respectively. At ${B = B_{c0}}$, the resistivity follows a linear $T$-dependence down to the lowest accessible temperature of about 20 mK. This observation provides striking evidence for field-induced NFL behavior at magnetic fields applied along both crystallographic directions. At ${B >
B_{c0}}$, we find ${\Delta\rho = A(B)\cdot T^2}$ for ${T \leq T^\ast(B)}$, with ${T^\ast (B)}$ increasing and ${A(B)}$ decreasing upon raising the applied magnetic field.
Next we turn to our low-temperature specific-heat results, ${C(T)}$, which contain electronic and hyperfine contributions, while the phonon part can be safely ignored. We use ${\Delta C=C-C_Q}$, where the nuclear quadrupolar term calculated from recent Moessbauer results [@Abd] amounts to about 5% of ${C(T)}$ at 40 mK. As reported in [@Trovarelli; @Letter], the zero-field ratio ${\Delta C/T}$ is proportional to ${-\log T}$ in a wide temperature window, 0.3 K ${\leq T \leq 10}$ K, below which an additional (as yet unexplained) upturn occurs. The new measurements, which were performed in small magnetic fields and down to lower temperatures when compared to the previous ones, show a clear mean-field-type anomaly at ${T =
T_N}$ (Fig. 3). Specific heat, therefore, confirms a second-order phase transition, as already concluded from our magnetization measurements. Extrapolating ${\Delta C(T)/T}$ as ${T\rightarrow 0}$ to ${\gamma_0 = (1.7
\pm 0.2)}$ J/K$^2$mol reveals an entropy gain at the AF phase transition of only about ${0.01R\cdot\ln2}$. This is in accordance with the small value of the staggered moments and gives further evidence for the weakness of the AF order in YbRh$_2$Si$_2$. The ratio of ${A/\gamma_0^2}$ taken from the ${B=0}$ data in the ordered state is close to that for a LFL [@KW], i.e., one with very heavy quasiparticle masses. At small magnetic fields applied along the $c$-direction the phase-transition anomaly shifts to lower $T$ as observed in both AC-susceptibility and resistivity experiments. However, due to the strong magnetic anisotropy, the sample plate used for the specific-heat measurement could not be aligned perfectly along the hard magnetic direction. Therefore, a critical field ${B_{c0}}$ of only about 0.3 T was sufficient to suppress AF order completely in these experiments. As shown in Fig. 3, at ${B = B_{c0}}$ the specific-heat coefficient ${\Delta
C(T)/T}$ increases down to the lowest $T$, indicative of a field-induced NFL ground state. Within 40 mK ${\leq T \leq 120}$ mK it follows a steep increase with a much larger slope than observed in zero-field at elevated temperatures (see dotted line in Fig. 3 of Ref. [@Trovarelli; @Letter]). While this anomalous contribution is strongly reduced upon increasing $B$, at magnetic fields ${B \geq}$ 1 T, the nuclear contribution becomes visible at the lowest temperatures, above which a constant ${\gamma_0(B)}$ value is observed (Fig. 3). ${\gamma_0(B)}$ decreases in magnitude upon increasing the field.
The results of the low-$T$ experiments are summarized in the ${T-B}$ phase diagram displayed in Fig. 4. Here, the field dependence of the Néel temperature was determined from the maximum value of the corresponding d${\rho/}$d$T$ vs $T$ curves. For fields aligned in the easy plane, the results agree perfectly well with those obtained from the AC-susceptibility (Fig. 1a). For ${B > B_{c0}}$, the characteristic temperature ${T^\ast(B)}$ marks the upper limit of the observed ${T^2}$ behavior in the resistivity.
To study the nature of the field-induced QCP in YbRh$_2$Si$_2$, we analyze the magnetic field dependence of the coefficients $A$, ${\gamma_0}$ and ${\chi_0}$ observed for ${T \rightarrow 0}$ in the resistivity, ${\Delta\rho
= A(B)T^2}$, specific heat, ${C/T=\gamma_0(B)}$ [@Trovarelli; @Letter], and magnetic AC-susceptibility, ${\chi_{AC}=\chi_0(B)}$ [@Trovarelli; @Letter] when approaching the QCP from the field-polarized state. As shown in the inset of Fig. 5, we observe ${A\sim \gamma_0^2, A \sim \chi_0^2}$ and thus also ${\gamma_0 \sim \chi_0}$, independent of the field orientation and for all $B$ values exceeding ${B_{c0}}$. Thus, the FA state can be described by the LFL model, too. Like in the AF ordered state (at ${B=0}$) we find that the ${A/\gamma_0^2}$ ratio roughly equals that observed for many HF systems [@KW]. This is in striking variance to the SDW scenario for a 2D spin fluid and a 3D Fermi surface [@2dspinfluid]. Further on, a very large Sommerfeld-Wilson ratio ${R =
(\chi_0/\gamma_0)(\pi^2k_B^2/\mu_0\mu_{eff}^2)}$ of about 14 ${(\mu_{eff} =
1.4 \mu_B)}$ indicates a strongly enhanced susceptibility in the field-aligned state of YbRh$_2$Si$_2$ pointing to the importance of low-lying ferromagnetic (${\bf q=0}$) fluctuations in YbRh$_2$Si$_2$ [@FM]. Since YbRh$_2$Si$_2$ behaves as a true LFL for ${B
> B_{c0}}$ and ${T < T^\ast(B)}$, the observed temperature dependences should hold down to ${T = 0}$. The field dependence ${A(B)}$ shown in Fig. 5 measures the QP-QP scattering cross section when, by field tuning, crossing the QCP at zero temperature. Most importantly, a ${1/(B-B_{c0})}$ divergence is observed indicating that the whole Fermi surface undergoes singular scattering at the $B$-tuned QCP. Furthermore, the relation ${A \sim \gamma_0^2}$ observed at elevated fields, suggests that also the QP mass diverges, i.e., as ${1/(B-B_{c0})^{1/2}}$, when approaching $B_{c0}$ [@CeB6].
The extremely low value of the critical field applied along the easy plane highlights the near degeneracy of two different LFL states, one being weakly AF ordered (${B<B_{c0}}$) and the other one being weakly polarized (${B>B_{c0}}$). In fact, the AC-susceptibility measured for fields near ${B_{c0}}$ shows a sharp increase when approaching the phase transition upon cooling, see 0.04T data in Fig. 1a.
To conclude, a new type of QCP separating an antiferromagnetic from a field-aligned ground state was studied in the clean heavy-fermion metal YbRh$_2$Si$_2$. We observed pronounced NFL behavior at the critical field ${B_{c0}}$ necessary to suppress antiferromagnetic order. When this system is tuned, at zero temperature, from the field-aligned state towards the QCP by decreasing the applied magnetic field, both the quasiparticle scattering cross section and the quasiparticle mass appear to diverge.
We are grateful to Piers Coleman, Qimiao Si, Greg Stewart and Heribert Wilhelm for valuable discussions.
J.A. Hertz, Phs. Rev. [**B 14**]{}, 1165 (1976). A.J. Millis, Phys. Rev.[**B 48**]{}, 7183 (1993). T. Moriya and T. Takimoto, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**64**]{}, 960 (1995). G.R. Stewart, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**73**]{}, 797 (2001). P. Coleman et al., J. Phys. Cond. Matt. [**13**]{}, R723 (2001). K. Heuser et al., Phys. Rev. [**B 57**]{}, R4198 (1998). K. Heuser et al., Phys. Rev. [**B 58**]{}, R15959 (1998). S. Seuring et al., Physica [**B 281 & 282**]{}, 374 (2000). O. Trovarelli et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 626 (2000). O. Trovarelli et al., Physica [**B 312-313**]{}, 401 (2002). A $^{29}$Si-NMR study of the field-tuned QCP has already been performed by Ishida et al. [@Ishida]. This study is, however, restricted to ${B \geq}$ 0.15 T for fields applied in the magnetic easy plane (${B\perp c}$). K. Ishida et al., to be published. T. Sakakibara et al., Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. [**33**]{}, 5067 (1994). J. Custers et al., Act. Phys. Pol. [**B 32**]{}, 3221 (2001). M. Abd-Elmeguid (unpublished results). K. Kadowaki and S.B. Woods, Sol. St. Com. [**58**]{}, 507 (1986). In this model the parameter $\delta$ which is the square of the inverse magnetic correlation length in the 2D spin fluid measures the distance from the QCP, i.e., ${\delta\sim(B-B_{c0})}$. Assuming that the spin fluid renders the entire Fermi surface “hot”, the coefficient $A$ diverges as ${A\sim1/\delta}$, whereas for the specific heat coefficient ${\gamma_0}$ a much weaker divergence ${\gamma_0 \sim\ log(1/\delta)}$ is expected [@Kotliar]. Thus, this model would predict the ratio ${A/\gamma_0^2}$ to diverge instead of being constant for ${B \rightarrow
B_{c0}}$. I. Paul and G. Kotliar, Phys. Rev. [**B 64**]{}, 184414 (2001). As also inferred from recent $^{29}$Si-NMR measurements [@Ishida]. Reminiscent of the mass divergence observed in specific heat and dHvA experiments at the phase transition from AF to antiferroquadrupolar order in CeB$_6$ at 2 T [@Joss]. W. Joss et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**59**]{}, 1609 (1987).
![Low-temperature AC-susceptibility ${\chi_{AC}}$ of YbRh$_2$Si$_2$ at varying fields applied perpendicular to the $c$-axis (a) and isothermal DC magnetization ${M_{DC}}$ at varying temperatures in magnetic fields applied along and perpendicular to the $c$-axis. Arrows indicate critical fields ${B_{c0}}$.[]{data-label="fig1"}](Fig1_new.ps){width=".7\textwidth"}
![Low-temperature electrical resistivity of YbRh$_2$Si$_2$ at varying magnetic fields applied along the $a$- (a) and $c$-axis (b). For clarity the different curves in ${B > 0}$ were shifted subsequently by 0.1 ${\mu\Omega}$cm. Up- and downraising arrows indicate ${T_N}$ - and upper limit of ${T^2}$ behavior, respectively. Dotted and solid lines represent ${\Delta\rho\sim
T^\epsilon}$ with ${\epsilon=1}$ and ${\epsilon=2}$, respectively.[]{data-label="fig2"}](Fig2_new.ps){width=".7\textwidth"}
![Specific heat as ${\Delta C/T=(C-C_Q)/T}$ vs $T$ (on a logarithmic scale) for YbRh$_2$Si$_2$ at varying fields applied parallel to the $c$-axis. ${C_Q \sim T^{-2}}$ is the nuclear quadrupole contribution calculated from recent Moessbauer results[@Abd].[]{data-label="fig3"}](Fig3_new.ps){width=".7\textwidth"}
![${T-B}$ phase diagram for YbRh$_2$Si$_2$ with ${T_N}$ as derived from ${d\rho/dT}$ vs $T$ and ${T^\ast}$, the upper limit of the ${\Delta\rho = AT^2}$ behavior, as a function of magnetic field, applied both along and perpendicular to the $c$-axis. For the latter ones the $B$-values have been multiplied by a factor 11. Lines separating the antiferromagnetic (AF), non-Fermi liquid (NFL) and Landau Fermi liquid (LFL) phase are guides to the eye. Note that the AF phase transition as a function of field is a continuous one, cf. ${M_{DC}(B)}$ curves in Fig. 1b.[]{data-label="fig4"}](Fig4_new.ps){width=".7\textwidth"}
![Coefficient ${A = \Delta\rho/T^2}$ vs field $B$. Data for $B$ perpendicular to the $c$-direction have been multiplied by 11. Dashed line marks ${B_{c0}}$, solid line represents ${(B-B_{c0})^{-1}}$. Inset shows double-$\log$ plot of $A$ vs ${\gamma_0}$ and $A$ vs ${\chi_0}$ for different magnetic fields. Solid lines represent ${A/\gamma_0^2 = 5.8\cdot10^{-6}
\mu\Omega}$cm(Kmol/mJ)$^2$ and ${A/\chi_0^2 = 1.25\cdot10^{12}
\mu\Omega}$cmK$^{-2}$/(m$^3$/mol)$^2$.[]{data-label="fig5"}](Fig5_new.ps){width=".7\textwidth"}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- 'A. Monreal-Ibero'
- 'J. M. Vílchez'
- 'J. R. Walsh'
- 'C. Muñoz-Tuñón'
bibliography:
- '14154mybib.bib'
date: manuscript
title: 'A study of the interplay between ionized gas and star clusters in the central region of with 2D spectroscopy[^1]'
---
[Starbursts are one of the main contributors to the chemical enrichment of the interstellar medium. However, mechanisms governing the interaction between the recent star formation and the surrounding gas are not fully understood. Because of their *a priori* simplicity, the subgroup of galaxies constitute an ideal sample to study these mechanisms.]{} [A detailed 2D study of the central region of NGC 5253 has been performed to characterize the stellar and ionized gas structure as well as the extinction distribution, physical properties and kinematics of the ionized gas in the central $\sim$210 pc$\times$130 pc.]{} [We utilized optical integral field spectroscopy (IFS) data obtained with FLAMES.]{} [A detailed extinction map for the ionized gas in shows that the largest extinction is associated with the prominent Giant region. There is an offset of $\sim$05 between the peak of the optical continuum and the extinction peak in agreement with findings in the infrared. We found that stars suffer less extinction than gas by a factor of $\sim$0.33. The <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Sii\]</span>$\lambda$6717/<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Sii\]</span>$\lambda$6731 map shows an electron density ($N_e$) gradient declining from the peak of emission in [H$\alpha$]{} (790 cm$^{-3}$) outwards, while the argon line ratio traces areas with $N_e\sim 4200 - 6200$ cm$^{-3}$. The area polluted with extra nitrogen, as deduced from the excess [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>$\lambda$6584/H$\alpha$]{}, extends up to distances of 33 ($\sim$60 pc) from the maximum pollution, which is offset by $\sim$15 from the peak of continuum emission. Wolf-Rayet features are distributed in an irregular pattern over a larger area ($\sim100$ pc$\times100$ pc) and associated with young stellar clusters. We measured He$^+$ abundances over most of the field of view and values of He$^{++}$/H$^{+}{\hbox{\rlap{\lower.55ex\hbox{$\sim$}} \kern-.3em
\raise.4ex \hbox{$<$}}}0.0005$ in localized areas which do not coincide, in general, with the areas presenting W-R emission or extra nitrogen. The line profiles are complex. Up to three emission components were needed to reproduce them. One of them, associated with the giant region, presents supersonic widths and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>$\lambda$6584]{} and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Sii\]</span>$\lambda\lambda$6717,6731]{} emission lines shifted up to $40$ km s$^{-1}$ with respect to [H$\alpha$]{}. Similarly, one of the narrow components presents offsets in the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>$\lambda$6584]{} line of ${\hbox{\rlap{\lower.55ex\hbox{$\sim$}} \kern-.3em
\raise.4ex \hbox{$<$}}}20$ km s$^{-1}$. This is the first time that maps with such velocity offsets for a starburst galaxy have been presented. The observables in the giant region fit with a scenario where the two super stellar clusters (SSCs) produce an outflow that encounters the previously quiescent gas. The south-west part of the FLAMES IFU field is consistent with a more evolved stage where the star clusters have already cleared out their local environment. ]{}
Introduction
============
Starbursts are events characterized by star-formation rates much higher than those found in gas-rich normal galaxies. They are considered one of the main contributors to the chemical enrichment of the interstellar medium (ISM) and can be found in galaxies covering a wide range of masses, luminosities, metallicities and interaction stages such as blue compact dwarfs, nuclei of spiral galaxies, or (Ultra)luminous Infrared Galaxies [see @con08 and references therein].
A particularly interesting subset are the galaxies, identified for the first time by @har56: gas-rich, metal poor ($1/40\, Z_\odot\, {\hbox{\rlap{\lower.55ex\hbox{$\sim$}} \kern-.3em
\raise.4ex \hbox{$<$}}}\, Z\, {\hbox{\rlap{\lower.55ex\hbox{$\sim$}} \kern-.3em
\raise.4ex \hbox{$<$}}}\, 1/3\,
Z_\odot$) dwarf systems characterized by the presence of large ionized regions that dominate their optical spectra [see @kun00 for a review of these galaxies]. These systems are *a priori* simple, which makes them the ideal laboratories to test the interplay between massive star formation and the ISM.
NGC 5253, an irregular galaxy located in the Centarus A / M 83 galaxy complex [@kar07], is a local example of an galaxy. This galaxy is suffering a burst of star formation which is believed to have been triggered by an encounter with M 83 [@van80]. This is supported by the existence of the plume extending along the optical minor axis which is best explained as tidal debris [@kob08].
NGC 5253 constitutes an optimal target for the study of the starburst phenomenon. On the one hand, its proximity allows a linear spatial resolution to be achieved that is good enough to study the details of the interplay between the different components (i.e. gas, dust and star clusters) in the central region. On the other hand, this system has been observed in practically all spectral ranges from the X-ray to the radio, and therefore a large amount of ancillary information is available.
The basic characteristics of this galaxy are compiled in Table \[tabbasicdata\]. Its stellar content has been widely studied and more than 300 stellar clusters have been detected [@cre05]. Multi-band photometry with the WFPC2 has revealed that those in its central region present typical masses of $\sim
2-120\times10^{3}$ M$_\odot$ and are very young, with ages of $\sim1-12$ Myr [e.g. @har04]. In particular, HST-NICMOS images have revealed that the nucleus of the galaxy is made out of two very massive ($\sim1-2\times10^6$ M$_\odot$) super stellar clusters (SSCs), with ages of about $\sim3.5$ Myr, separated by $\sim0\farcs4$ [@alo04], and which are coincident with the double radio nebula detected at 1.3 cm [@tur00]. Also, detection of spectral features characteristic of Wolf-Rayet (W-R) stars in specific regions of the galaxy have been reported [e.g. @sch97]. Recently, seven supernova remnants have been detected in the central region of this galaxy by means of the \[\]$\lambda$1.644$\mu$m emission [@lab06].
NGC 5253 presents a filamentary structure in H$\alpha$ [e.g. @mar98] associated with extended diffuse emission in X-ray which can be explained as multiple superbubbles around its OBs associations and SSCs that are the results of the combined action of stellar winds and supernovae [@str99; @sum04].
[ccccccccc]{} Parameter & Value & Ref.\
Name & NGC 5253 & (a)\
Other designations & ESO 445$-$ G004, Haro 10 & (a)\
RA (J2000.0) & 13h39m55.9s & (a)\
Dec(J2000.0) & $-$31d38m24s & (a)\
$z$ & 0.001358 & (a)\
$D(Mpc)$ & 3.8 & (b)\
scale (pc/$^{\prime\prime}$) & 18.4 &\
$m_B$ & 10.78 & (c)\
$M_B$ & $-17.13$ & (c)\
$U-B$ & $-0.30$ & (c)\
$B-V$ & $0.50$ & (c)\
$V-R$ & $0.32$ & (c)\
$M_{HI} (M_\odot)$ & $1.4\times10^8$ M$_\odot$ & (d)\
$Z/Z_\odot$ & $\sim$0.3$^{(\ast)}$ & (e)\
$\log(L_{fir}/L_\odot)$ & 8.95 & (f)\
$\log(L_{ir}/L_\odot)$ & 9.21 & (f)\
We assumed $12+\log(\mathrm{O/H})_\odot = 8.66$ [@asp04].
NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED).
@sak04.
@tay05.
@kob08.
@kob99.
@san03\. Re-scaled to the distance adopted here.
\[tabbasicdata\]
The measured metallicity of this galaxy is relatively low (see Table \[tabbasicdata\]) and presents a generally uniform distribution. However, an increase in the abundance of nitrogen in the central region of $\sim2-3$ times the mean has been reported [@wal89; @kob97; @lop07]. No other elemental species appears to present spatial abundance fluctuations. The reason for this nitrogen enhancement has not been fully clarified yet although a connection with the W-R population has been suggested.
On account of their irregular structure, a proper characterization of the physical properties of galaxies, necessary to explore the interplay of mechanisms acting between gas and stars, requires high quality two-dimensional spectral information able to produce a continuous mapping of the relevant quantities. Such observations have traditionally been done in the optical and near-infrared by mapping the galaxy under study with a long-slit [e.g. @vil98; @wal89]. This is, however, expensive in terms of telescope time and might be affected by some technical problems such as misalignment of the slit or changes in the observing conditions with time. The advent and popularization of integral field spectroscopy (IFS) facilities, able to record simultaneously the spectra of an extended continuous field, overcomes these difficulties. Nevertheless, work based on this technique devoted to the study of galaxies is still relatively rare [e.g. @lag09; @bor09; @jam09; @keh08; @gar08; @izo06].
Here, we present IFS observations of the central area of NGC 5253 in order to study the mechanisms that govern the interaction between the young stars and the surrounding ionized gas. The paper is organized as follows: section \[obsred\] contains the observational and technical details regarding the data reduction and derivation of the required observables; section \[results\] describes the stellar and ionized gas structure as well as the extinction distribution and the physical and kinematic properties of the ionized gas; section \[discusion\] discusses the evolutionary stage of the gas surrounding the stellar clusters, focusing on the two most relevant areas of the field of view (f.o.v.). Section \[summary\] itemises our results and conclusions.
Observations, data reduction and line fitting \[obsred\]
========================================================
Observations
------------
Data were obtained with the *Fibre Large Array Multi Element Spectrograph*, FLAMES [@pas02] at Kueyen, Telescope Unit 2 of the 8 m VLT at ESO’s observatory on Paranal, on February 10, 2007. The central region of the galaxy was observed with the ARGUS Integral Field Unit (IFU) which has a field of view of $11\farcs5
\times 7\farcs3$ with a sampling of 0.52$^{\prime\prime}$/lens. In addition, ARGUS has 15 fibers that can simultaneously observe the sky and which were arranged forming a circle around the IFU. The precise covered area is shown in Figure \[apuntado\] which contains the FLAMES field of view over-plotted on an HST B, [H$\alpha$]{}, I colour image.
We utilized two different gratings in order to obtain information for the most important emission lines in the optical spectral range. Data were taken under photometric conditions and seeing ranged typically between $0\farcs8$ and $1\farcs0$. The covered spectral range, resolving power, exposure time and airmass for each configuration are shown in Table \[log\_observaciones\]. In addition to the science frames, continuum and ThAr arc lamps exposures as well as frames for the spectrophotometric standard star CD-329927 were obtained.
--------- ---------------- ------------ -------------------- ----------- -- -- -- --
Grating Spectral range Resolution t$_{\mathrm{exp}}$ Airmass
(Å) (s)
L682.2 6438–7184 13700 $5\times1\,500$ 1.75–1.13
L479.7 4501–5078 12000 $5\times1\,500$ 1.11–1.01
--------- ---------------- ------------ -------------------- ----------- -- -- -- --
: Observation log \[log\_observaciones\]
Data reduction
--------------
The basic reduction steps for the FLAMES data were performed with a combination of the pipeline provided by ESO (version 1.0)[^2] via `esorex`, version 2.0.2 and some IRAF[^3] routines. First of all we masked a bad column in the raw data using the task `fixpix` within IRAF. Then, each individual frame was processed using the ESO pipeline in order to perform bias subtraction, spectral tracing and extraction, wavelength calibration and correction of fibre transmission.
Uncertainties in the relative wavelength calibration were estimated by fitting a Gaussian to three isolated lines in every spectrum of the arc exposure. The standard deviation of the central wavelength for a certain line gives an idea of the associated error in that spectral range. We were able to determine the centroid of the lines with an uncertainty of $\sim$0.005Å, which translates into velocities of $\sim$0.3 km s$^{-1}$. The spectral resolution was very uniform over the whole field-of-view with values of $0.178\pm0.004$ Å and $0.241\pm0.009$ Å, FWHM for the blue and red configuration respectively, which translates into $\sigma_{instru} \sim$ 4.7 km s$^{-1}$.
For the sky subtraction, we created a good signal-to-noise (S/N) spectrum by averaging the spectra of the sky fibres in each individual frame. This sky spectrum was subsequently subtracted from every spectrum. In several of the sky fibres, the strongest emission lines, namely [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Oiii\]</span>$\lambda$5007]{} in the blue frames and [H$\alpha$]{} in the red frames, could clearly be detected. We attributed this effect to some cross-talk from the adjacent fibers. A direct comparison of the flux in the sky and adjacent fibers showed that this contribution was always 0.6% which is negligible in terms of sky subtraction. However, in order to reduce this contamination to a minimum, we decided not to use these fibres in the creation of the high S/N sky spectra.
Regarding the flux calibration, a spectrum for the calibration star was created by co-adding all the fibers of the standard star frames. Then, a sensitivity function was determined with the IRAF tasks `standard` and `sensfunc` and science frames were calibrated with `calibrate`. Afterwards, frames corresponding to each configuration were combined and cosmic rays rejected with the task `imcombine`. As a last step, the data were reformatted into two easier-to-use data cubes, with two spatial and one spectral dimension, using the known position of the lenses within the array.
Line fitting and map creation \[linefitting\]
---------------------------------------------
In order to obtain the relevant emission line information, line profiles were fitted using Gaussian functions. This procedure was done in a semi-automatic way using the IDL based routine MPFITEXPR [^4] [@mar09] which offers ample flexibility in case constraints on the parameters of the fit are included, such as lines in fixed ratio. The procedure was as follows.
As a first step, we fit all the lines by a single Gaussian. The H$\alpha$+\[N<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>\] complex was fitted simultaneously by one Gaussian per emission line plus a flat continuum first-degree polynomial using a common width for the three lines and fixing the separation in wavelength between the lines according to the redshift provided at NED[^5] and the nitrogen line ratio ($\lambda$6583/$\lambda$6548) to 3. The same procedure was repeated for the \[S<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>\]$\lambda\lambda$6717,6730 doublet, the \[Ar<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iv</span>\]$\lambda$4711 line (which was fitted jointly with the \[Fe<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>\]$\lambda$4701 and He<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span>$\lambda$4713) and the \[Ar<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iv</span>\]$\lambda$4740 line (which was fitted jointly with the \[Fe<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>\]$\lambda$4734 line), but this time without any restriction on the line ratios. Finally, [H$\beta$]{}, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Oiii\]</span>$\lambda$5007]{}, and $\lambda$6678 were individually fitted.
This single Gaussian fit gave a good measurement for the line fluxes and the results of these fits are the used in all the forthcoming analysis, with the exception of the kinematics. This latter analysis requires a more complex line fitting scheme, since several lines showed signs of asymmetries and/or multiple components in their profiles for a large number of spaxels. In those cases, multi-component fits were performed. Over the whole field of view we compared the measured flux from performing the fit with a single Gaussian to the fit by several components in the brightest emission lines (namely: [H$\beta$]{}, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Oiii\]</span>$\lambda$5007]{}, [H$\alpha$]{}, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>$\lambda$6584]{} and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Sii\]</span>$\lambda\lambda$6717,6731]{}). Differences between the two sets of line fluxes ranged typically from 0% to 15%, depending on the spaxel and the emission line, and translated into differences in the line ratios 0.06 dex. In all the cases, MPFITEXPR estimated an error for the fit using the standard deviation of the adjacent continuum. Those fits with a ratio between line flux and error less than three were automatically rejected. The remaining spectra were visually inspected and classified as good or bad fits.
Finally, for each of the observables, we used the derived quantity together with the position within the data-cube for each spaxel to create an image suitable to be manipulated with standard astronomical software. Hereafter, we will use both terms, *map* and *image*, when referring to these.
Results \[results\]
===================
Stellar and ionized gas structure \[morfologia\]
------------------------------------------------
------ --------------------------------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------- -- -- --
Name FLAMES
coord.($^{\prime\prime}$,$^{\prime\prime}$) C97$^{\mathrm{(a)}}$ H04$^{\mathrm{(b)}}$ K97$^{\mathrm{(c)}}$ AH04$^{\mathrm{(d)}}$
\#1 $(3.6,0.5)$ N5253-5 1 UV3 C1+C2
\#2 $(1.0,-1.0)$ N5253-4 4,8,24,25 UV1 $-$
\#3 $(-4.2,1.0)$ N5253-3 3,5 $-$ C4+C5
------ --------------------------------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------- -- -- --
: Main reference clusters.[]{data-label="cumulos"}
@cal97.
@har04.
@kob97.
@alo04.
Figure \[estructura\] displays the stellar structure, as traced by a continuum close to H$\alpha$, as well as the one for the ionized gas (traced by the H$\alpha$ emission line). The over-plotted contours, which represent the HST-ACS images in the F659N and F814W bands convolved with a Gaussian to match the seeing at Paranal, show good correspondence between the images created from the IFS data and the HST images (although obviously with poorer resolution for the ground-based FLAMES data). A direct comparison of these maps shows how the stellar and ionized gas structure differs.
The continuum image displays three main peaks of emission which will be used through the paper as reference. We have associated each of these peaks with one or more star clusters by direct comparison with ACS images. Table \[cumulos\] compiles their positions within the FLAMES field of view together with the names of the corresponding clusters according to several reference works. These clusters trace a sequence in age as we move towards the right (south-west) in the FLAMES field of view. The clusters associated with peak \#1 are very young [$\sim3-8$ Myr, @har04; @alo04], those associated with peak \#2 display a range of ages from very young to intermediate age [$\sim6-170$ Myr, @har04], while the stars in the pair of clusters associated with peak \#3 seem to have intermediate ages [70-113 Myr, @har04].
The H$\alpha$ emission line reproduces the structure described by @cal97 using an HST WFPC2 image. Briefly, the central region of NGC5253 is divided into two parts by a dust lane that crosses the galaxy along the east-west direction (from $\sim$\[20,-30\][^6] to the Complex \#3). Most of the H$\alpha$ emission is located towards the north of this lane where there is giant H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region associated with the Complex \#1. This region shows two tongue-shaped extensions towards the upper and lower part of the FLAMES field of view (P.A. on the sky of $\sim45^{\circ}$ and $\sim-135^{\circ}$, respectively) as well as a extension at P.A.$\sim155^{\circ}$ which contains the Complex \#2. Towards the south of the dust lane, the emission is dominated by a peak at $\sim$\[-35,-25\] which could be associated with cluster 17 in @har04.
Extinction structure \[secextincion\]
-------------------------------------
Extinction was derived assuming an intrinsic Balmer emission line ratio of H$\alpha$/H$\beta$ = 2.87 [@ost06 for an $T_e =
10\,000$ K] and using the extinction curve of @flu94. Since the H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ emission lines are separated by $\sim$1700 Å and both of them had high signal-to-noise ratio in only a single exposure, we decided to obtain the extinction maps from the LR3 and LR6 exposures observed at the smallest airmass (1.009 and 1.160, respectively), thus minimizing any effect due to differential atmospheric refraction.
We have not included any correction for an underlying stellar population. We inspected carefully each individual spectrum to look for the presence of the stellar absorption feature in H$\beta$. Only in those spaxels associated with the area around the Complex \#3 ($\sim$9-10 spaxels or $\sim$15$\times$15 in total) was such an absorption detected. We estimated the influence of this component by fitting both the absorption and the emission component in the most affected spaxel. Equivalent widths were $\sim$3 and $\sim$9 Å, respectively. In these spaxels, the absorption line was typically $\sim15-20$ times wider and with about half - one third of the flux of the emission line. This implies an underestimation of H$\beta$ emission line flux of about 10%. For the particular area around Complex \#3, this translates into a real extinction of $A_V \sim 0.9$ mag instead of the measured $A_V \sim1.2$ mag.
The corresponding reddening map was determined assuming $E(B-V) = A_V / 3.1$ [@rie85] and is presented in Figure \[mapa\_ebv\]. This map shows that the extinction is distributed in a non-uniform manner ranging from $E(B-V) = 0.16$ to $0.64$ (mean 0.33, standard deviation, 0.07). Given that Galactic reddening for NGC 5253 is 0.056 [@sch98], nearly all of the extinction can be considered intrinsic to the galaxy.
In general terms, the structure presented in this map coincides with the one presented by @cal97. The dust lane mentioned in the previous section is clearly visible here and it causes extinction of $A_V \sim
0.10-1.13$ mag. However, the larger measured extinction values are associated with the giant region, in agreement with the distribution [@kob08]. Dust in this area forms an S-shaped distribution with $A_V \sim 0.13-1.15$ mag in the arms.
In order to explore the relation between the extinction suffered by the gas and by the stellar populations, our $E(B-V)$ measurements were compared with colours defined *ad hoc*. For the covered spectral range, it is not possible to exactly simulate any of the existing standard filters. It is possible, however, to create filters relatively similar to the $g^{\prime}$ and $R_c$ ones. We have simulated two set of filters.
In the first case, the flux was integrated over two large wavelength ranges (465 – 495 nm and 643 – 673 nm) in order to simulate broad filters. The relation between the reddening derived for the ionized gas and the derived colour, hereafter $(g^{\prime} _{1} - R_{c1})$, is shown in the upper panel of Figure \[colorvsebv\], as would be observed with photometry. The first order polynomial fit to the data and the Pearson correlation coefficient are included on the plot. Also shown is the expected relation for an Im galaxy with foreground reddening. This latter was derived for the average of two Im templates (NGC 4449 and NGC 4485) from @ken92 applying a foreground screen of dust with a standard Galactic reddening law [@car89] with R=3.1. There is a strong difference between the expected relation for a foreground screen of dust and the measured values. On the one hand, colours are much redder. On the other hand, the slope of the 1-degree polynomial fit is much less steep than the expected one. Also, there is a very good correlation between the $E(B-V)$ and our synthetic $(g^{\prime} - R_{c1})$ colour. All this can be attributed to the contamination of the gas emission lines, mainly H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$, in our filters.
In the second set, we restricted the spectral ranges for the simulated filters to a narrower wavelength range which was free from the contamination of the main emission lines. The map for this line-free colour is displayed in Figure \[mapa\_color\]. The structure resembles the one presented in Figure \[mapa\_ebv\] (i.e. dust lane, redder colours associated with the giant region), although there are differences, that can be attributed to differences in the properties of the stellar populations in the different clusters. The relation between the reddening and the corresponding $(g^{\prime} _{2}- R_{c2})$ is shown in the lower panel of Figure \[colorvsebv\]. This time colours are more similar to what is expected for a given stellar population suffering a certain amount of extinction. However, for a given colour, stars do not reach the expected reddening if gas and stars were suffering the same extinction (i.e. data points are *below* the green line). The ratio between the slopes indicates that extinction in the stars is a factor 0.33 lower than the one for the ionized gas. This is similar to what @cal97 found using HST images who estimated that the extinction suffered by the stars is a factor 0.5 lower than for the ionized gas and can be explained if the dust has a larger covering factor for the ionized gas than for the stars [@cal94].
In general, our $E(B-V)$ measurements agree with previous ones using the same emission lines in specific areas [e.g. @gon87; @lop07] or with poorer spatial resolution [@wal89]. However there are discrepancies when comparing with the estimation of the extinction at other wavelengths. In particular, the peak of extinction ($A_V = 2.1$ mag, according to the Balmer line ratio) is offset by $\sim0\farcs5$ from the peak of continuum emission. @alo04 showed how in the central area of NGC 5253 there are two massive star clusters, C1 and C2. While C1 is the dominant source in the optical, coincident with our peak in the continuum map, the more massive and extinguished C2 is the dominant source in the infrared. The contours for the NICMOS $F160W$ image in Figure \[mapa\_ebv\] show the good correspondence between our maximum of extinction and C2. Measurements in the near and mid-infrared suggest extinctions of $A_V \sim 17$ mag for this cluster [@tur03; @alo04; @mar05]. The discrepancy between these two values indicates that a foreground screen model is not the appropriate one to explain the distribution of the dust in the giant region.
Electron density distribution \[secdensidad\]
---------------------------------------------
Electron density ($N_e$) can be determined from the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Sii\]</span>$\lambda$6717/<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Sii\]</span>$\lambda$6731 and \[Ar<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iv</span>\]$\lambda$4711/\[Ar<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iv</span>\]$\lambda$4740 line ratios; values of 1.25 and 1.00 respectively were measured in a spectrum made from the sum of all our spaxels. Hereafter, we will refer to this spectrum as the *integrated spectrum*. Electron densities were determined assuming an electron temperature of 11650 K, the average of the values given in @lop07, and using the task `temden`, based on the `fivel` program [@sha95] included in the IRAF package `nebular`. Derived values of $N_e$ for the two line ratios were 180 cm $^{-3}$ and 4520 cm $^{-3}$, respectively. Differences between the electron densities derived from the argon and sulphur lines are usually found in ionized gaseous nebulae [see @wan04] and are understood in terms of the ionization structure of the nebulae under study: \[\] lines normally come from inner regions of higher ionization degree than \[\] lines. Typically, for giant Galactic and extragalactic regions, derived $N_e$ from these two line ratios differ in a factor of $\sim$5 [e.g. @est02; @tsa03] which is much lower than what we find for the *integrated* spectrum of NGC 5253 ($\sim$25). However, when only the giant region is taken into account (i.e. the area of $\sim$90 spaxels where the argon lines are detected) the difference between the densities derived from the argon and the sulphur lines ($\sim$10, see typical values for the densities below) is more similar to those found for other regions. Maps for both ratios are shown in Figure \[mapas2as2r\]. According to the sulphur line ratio - detected over the whole field - densities range from very low values, of the order of the low density limit, in a region of about $5^{\prime\prime}\times
5^{\prime\prime}$ in the upper right corner of the field just above the Complex \#3, to 790 cm $^{-3}$ at the peak of the emission in the cluster associated with the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region, with a mean (median) over the field of view of $\sim130\,
(90)$ cm $^{-3}$. The rest of the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> regions still present high densities (of about 400 cm $^{-3}$ as a whole, 480 cm $^{-3}$ in the H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>-2, [i.e. the upper area of the giant region, @kob97]. This agrees well with the value estimated from long-slit measurements [@lop07]. The tail and the region associated with the cluster UV-1 present intermediate values (of about 200 cm $^{-3}$).
The argon line ratio is used to sample the densest regions. The map for this ratio was somewhat noisier and allowed an estimation of the electron density only in the giant H<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span> region. The densities derived from this line ratio are comparatively higher, with a mean (median) of 3400 (3150) cm $^{-3}$. As it happened in the case of the extinction, the peak of electron density according to this line ratio is offset by $\sim0\farcs7-1\farcs1$ towards the north-west with respect of the peak of continuum emission at Complex \#1.
We created higher S/N ratio spectra by co-addition of $3\times3$ spaxel apertures associated with certain characteristic regions (i.e. the clusters at the core of the systems, C1+C2, and the regions -2, -1 and UV-1 of @kob97). The largest values are measured around the core (i.e. C1+C2) where the \[Ar IV\] electron density can be as high as 6200 cm $^{-3}$. As we move further away from this region, the measured electron density becomes lower. Thus, -2 presents similar, although slightly lower, densities ($\sim6100$ cm $^{-3}$), followed by -1 with $\sim4200$ cm $^{-3}$ and UV1 with $\sim3300$ cm $^{-3}$. These values agree, within the errors, with those reported in @lop07 for similar apertures.
An interesting point arises when the different density values derived for the integrated spectrum and for each individual spaxel/aperture are compared (180 cm$^{-3}$, and up to 790 cm$^{-3}$, respectively when using the sulphur line ratio). The covered f.o.v. ($\sim$210 pc$\times$135 pc) is comparable to the linear scales that one can resolve from the ground at distances of $\sim$40 Mpc (or $z\sim0.01$). Such a comparison illustrates how aperture effects can cause important underestimation of the electron density in the regions in starbursts at such distances, or further away.
Ionization structure, excitation sources and nitrogen enhancement \[secionistruc\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ionization structure of the interstellar medium can be studied by means of diagnostic diagrams. Different areas of a given diagram are explained by different ionization mechanisms. In the optical spectral range, the most widely used are probably those proposed by @bal81 and later reviewed by @vei87, the so-called BPT diagrams. In Figure \[mapascocientes\] the maps for the three available line ratios involved in these diagrams - namely \[N<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>\]$\lambda$6584/H$\alpha$, \[S<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ii</span>\]$\lambda\lambda$6717,6731/H$\alpha$, \[O<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">iii</span>\]$\lambda$5007/H$\beta$ - are shown on a logarithmic scale. This figure shows that the ionization structure in the central region of this galaxy is complex. Not only do the line ratios not show a uniform distribution, but the structure changes depending on the particular line ratio.
Both the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Oiii\]</span>$\lambda$5007/H$\beta$]{} and the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Sii\]</span>$\lambda\lambda$6717,6731/H$\alpha$]{} line ratios display a gradient away from the peak of emission at Complex \#1 and with a structure that follows that of the ionized gas. Thus the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Sii\]</span>$\lambda\lambda$6717,6731/H$\alpha$]{} ([<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Oiii\]</span>$\lambda$5007/H$\beta$]{}) ratio is smallest (largest) at Complex \#1, presents somewhat intermediate values in the two tongue-shaped extensions and the Complex \#2 and is relatively high (low) in the rest of the field, with a secondary minimum (maximum) at $\sim[-3\farcs5,-2\farcs5]$, the position of a secondary peak in the H$\alpha$ emission. This is coincident with the structure presented in [@cal04].
The [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>$\lambda$6584/H$\alpha$]{} line ratio, however, display a different structure. While in the right half of the FLAMES field of view, the behavior is quite similar to the one observed for the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Sii\]</span>$\lambda\lambda$6717,6731/H$\alpha$]{} ratio (i.e. values relatively high, local minimum at $\sim[-3\farcs5,-2\farcs5]$), the left half, dominated by the giant region, displays a completely different pattern. The lowest values are associated with Complex \#2 and the southern extension, rather than Complex \#1, and the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>$\lambda$6584/H$\alpha$]{} line ratios are highest at $\sim[4\farcs0,2\farcs0]$.
In Figure \[diagdiag\] we show the position of each spaxel of the FLAMES field of view, as well as for the integrated spectrum, after co-adding all the spaxels in the BPT diagnostic diagrams together with the borders that separate region-like ionization from ionization by other mechanisms according to several authors [@vei87; @kew01a; @kau03; @sta06]. We also show the predictions for models of photo-ionization caused by stars [@dop06] that take into account the effect of the stellar winds on the dynamical evolution of the region. In these models, the ionization parameter is replaced by a new variable $R$ that depends on the mass of the ionizing cluster and the pressure of the interstellar medium ($R$ = (M$_{Cl}$/M$_\odot$)/(P$_o$/k), with P$_o$/k measured in cm$^{−3}$ K). Also, the predictions for shocks models for a LMC metallicity are included. Given the relatively low metallicity of NGC 5253, these are the most appropriate ones. They were calculated assuming a $N_e =1$ cm$^{-3}$ and cover an ample range of magnetic parameters, $B$, and shock velocities, $v_s$, [see @all08 for details].
As demonstrated for the electron density, these diagrams illustrate very clearly how resolution effects can influence the measured line ratios. Values derived for individual spaxels cover a range of $\sim$0.5, 1.0 and 0.5 dex for the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>$\lambda$6584/H$\alpha$]{}, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Sii\]</span>$\lambda\lambda$6717,6731/H$\alpha$]{}, and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Oiii\]</span>$\lambda$5007/H$\beta$]{} line ratios respectively, with mean values similar to the integrated values ($-1.15$, $\-0.92$, and 0.74). This is particularly relevant when interpreting the ionization mechanisms in galaxies at larger distances where the spectrum can sample a region with a range in ionization properties. This loss of spatial resolution thus ’smears’ the determination of the ionization mechanism by a set of line ratios. Even if this given set of line ratios is typical of photoionization caused by stars, it is not possible to exclude some contribution due to other mechanisms at scales unresolved by the particular observations.
Regarding the individual measurements, although all line ratios are within the typical values expected for an region-like ionization, two differences between these diagrams arise. The first one is that the diagram involving the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Sii\]</span>$\lambda\lambda$6717,6731/H$\alpha$]{} line ratio indicates a somewhat higher ionization degree than the one involving the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>$\lambda$6584/H$\alpha$]{} line ratio. That is: values for the diagram involving the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Sii\]</span>$\lambda\lambda$6717,6731/H$\alpha$]{} line ratio are at the limit of what can be explained by pure photo-ionization in an region according to the @kew01a theoretical borders. On the contrary, most of the data points in the diagram involving the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>$\lambda$6584/H$\alpha$]{} are clearly in the area associated to photoionization caused by stars. A comparison with the predictions of the models for metallicities similar to the one of shows how the measured line ratios present intermediate values between those predicted by ionization caused by shocks and those by pure stellar photoionization. That this is exactly what one would expect if shocks caused by the mechanical input from stellar winds or supernovae within the starburst were contributing to the observed spectra. Also, this comparison supports previous studies that show how models of photoionization caused by stars underpredict the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Oiii\]</span>$\lambda$5007/H$\beta$]{} line ratios, specially in the low-metallicity cases [@bri08; @dop06].
The second diference is the distribution of the data points in these diagrams. While the data points in the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Sii\]</span>$\lambda\lambda$6717,6731/H$\alpha$]{} vs. [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Oiii\]</span>$\lambda$5007/H$\beta$]{} diagram form a sequence, data points in the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>$\lambda$6584/H$\alpha$]{} vs. [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Oiii\]</span>$\lambda$5007/H$\beta$]{} diagram are distributed in two groups: a sequence similar to the one in the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Sii\]</span>$\lambda\lambda$6717,6731/H$\alpha$]{} vs. [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Oiii\]</span>$\lambda$5007/H$\beta$]{} diagram and a cloud of data points above that sequence with larger [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>$\lambda$6584/H$\alpha$]{}. This result can be interpreted either by local variations in the relative abundances or by changes in the ionization parameter. Here we will explore the first option, which is the most accepted explanation [e.g. @lop07 and references therein] and is supported by the relatively constant ionization parameter found in specific areas via long-slit [$\log(U)\sim$-3, @kob97]. Long-slit measurements in specific areas of this field have shown out how this galaxy present some regions with an over-abundance of nitrogen [e.g. @wal89; @kob97]. For our measured line ratios and using expression (22) in @per09, we measure a range in $\log (N/O)$ of $-0.70$ to $-1.46$. Here we will assume that this over-abundance is the cause of our excess in the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>$\lambda$6584/H$\alpha$]{} line ratio and will use this excess to precisely delimit the area presenting this over-abundance. To this aim, we placed the information of each of the spaxels in the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Sii\]</span>$\lambda\lambda$6717,6731/H$\alpha$]{} vs. [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>$\lambda$6584/H$\alpha$]{} diagram, which better separates the two different groups described above. This is presented in Figure \[s2havsn2gha\]. We have assumed that in the so-called *un-polluted* areas, the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>$\lambda$6584/H$\alpha$]{} and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Sii\]</span>$\lambda\lambda$6717,6731/H$\alpha$]{} follow a linear relation. This is a reasonable assumption since the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>$\lambda$6584]{}/[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Sii\]</span>$\lambda\lambda$6717,6731]{} line ratio has a low dependence with the abundance and the properties of the ionizing radiation field [@kew02b]. This *standard* relation was determined by fitting a first-degree polynomial to the data points with [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Sii\]</span>$\lambda\lambda$6717,6731/H$\alpha$]{}$>-0.8$ (indicated in Figure \[s2havsn2gha\] with a red box). Those spaxels whose [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>$\lambda$6584/H$\alpha$]{} line ratio was in excess of more than 3-$\sigma$ from the relation determined by this fit, have been identified as having an \[N II\]/[H$\alpha$]{}excess, and are identified by diamonds in Figure \[s2havsn2gha\]. As can be seen from this figure, there are a number of spaxels where this excess is much above the *standard* relation.
The data points thus identified with [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>$\lambda$6584/H$\alpha$]{} excess are shown as a map in Figure \[nitroalto\] where the location and magnitude of the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>$\lambda$6584/H$\alpha$]{}excess is indicated by white circles, whose size is proportional to the size of the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>$\lambda$6584/H$\alpha$]{} excess. This figure can be interpreted as a snapshot in the pollution process of the interstellar medium by the SSCs in the central area of . The pollution is affecting almost the whole giant region. The largest values are found at $\sim1\farcs5$ towards the north-west of the peak at Complex \#1. Then, the quantity of extra nitrogen decreases outwards following the two tongue-shaped extensions towards the north-west and south-east. This is consistent with the HST observations of @kob97 who found nitrogen enrichment in their -1 and -2, while the N/O ratio in UV-1 (see Table \[cumulos\]) was typical for metal-poor galaxies.
\
\
Wolf-Rayet features \[secwr\]
-----------------------------
Wolf-Rayet (W-R) stars are very bright objects with strong broad emission lines in their spectra. They are classified as WN (those with strong lines of helium and nitrogen) and WC (those with strong lines of helium, carbon and oxygen) and are understood as the result of the evolution of massive O stars. As they evolve, they loose a significant amount of their mass via stellar winds showing the products of the CNO-burning first - identified as WN stars - and the He-burning afterwards - as WC stars [@con76]. The presence of W-R stars can be recognized via the W-R bumps around $\lambda$4650 Å (i.e. the *blue bump*, characteristic of WN stars) and $\lambda$5808 Å (i.e. the *red bump*, characteristic of WC stars, but not covered by the present data).
--------- ---------- ------- ------------------- ------------------ ------------------ -------------------- -- --
Region Clusters Age $\log$(WR/(WR+O)) Age$_{\rm WR/O}$ EW([H$\beta$]{}) Age$_{\rm H\beta}$
Number (Myr) (Myr) (Å) (Myr)
Nucleus 1 3 -1.99 2.9 245 2.7
-2 20 3 -1.93 2.9 320 2.4
W-R 1 13 4 -1.34 3.2/4.8 131 3.4
W-R 2 23 5 -1.64 3.0/5.5 180 3.2
W-R 3 4,24,25 1-5 -1.55 3.0/5.3 128 3.4
W-R 4 6,21 4 -1.35 3.2/4.8 131 3.4
W-R 5 … … -1.17 3.4 86 4.7
--------- ---------- ------- ------------------- ------------------ ------------------ -------------------- -- --
@sch97 [@sch99] carried out a thorough search and characterization of the W-R population in NGC 5253. They detected W-R features (both WN and WC) at the peak of emission in the optical (our Complex \#1) and the ultraviolet (our Complex \#2). Due to the spatial coincidence of these detections and the N-enriched regions found by @wal89 and @kob97 - at least in the case of the nucleus - they suggested that these W-R stars could be the cause of this enhancement. This is supported observationally by similar findings in other W-R galaxies. For example, a recent survey using Sloan data of W-R galaxies in the low-redshift Universe has shown that galaxies belonging to this group present an elevated N/O ratio, in comparison with similar non-W-R galaxies [@bri08]. Other suggested possibilities to cause the enrichment in nitrogen include planetary nebulae, O star winds, He-deficient W-R star winds, and luminous blue variables [@kob97].
Here, we characterize the W-R population in NGC 5253 and explore the hypothesis of W-R stars as the cause of the nitrogen enhancement by using the 2D spectral information provided by the present data. In the previous section we have delimited very precisely the area that presents nitrogen enhancement. In a same manner, it is possible to look for and localize the areas that present W-R emission. Note that due to the continuous sampling of the present data this can be done in a completely unbiased way.
We visually inspected each spectrum looking for the more prominent W-R features in the *blue bump* (i.e. $\lambda$4640 and $\lambda$4686). The areas where these features have been found are marked in Figure \[nitroalto\] with dashed lines. The co-added and extracted spectra of each individual area appear in Figure \[especwr\] together with a reference spectrum, free of W-R features, made by co-adding 20 spaxels in the upper right corner of the FLAMES field of view.
We confirm the detection of W-R features associated with the nucleus and the brightest cluster in the ultraviolet, UV-1 (our W-R 3). In the same manner, we also detect a broad line associated with the north-west and south-east extensions (i.e. -2 and W-R 2, respectively). In addition, there are three more areas which present W-R features, called W-R 1, W-R 4 and W-R 5, relatively far ($\sim58-83$ pc) from the main area of activity. Interestingly, two of these regions (W-R 4 and W-R 5) present a narrow nebular on top of the broad W-R feature.
The short phase of W-R stars during star evolution makes their detection a very precise method for estimating the age of a given stellar population. According to @lei99, typically an instantaneous starburst shows these features at ages of $\sim3-6$ Myr for metallicites of $Z = 0.004 - 0.008$, similar to the one in . Thus, very young stellar clusters must be associated with the areas that display these W-R features. We compared the positions of our detections with the catalogue of clusters given by @har04 and compiled in Table \[compacumu\]. All our regions, except W-R 5, are associated with one (or several) young (i.e $<5$ Myr) star cluster(s). Regarding W-R 5, @har04 do not report any cluster associated with that area.
Cluster ages in @har04 were estimated using both broadband photometry and the [H$\alpha$]{} equivalent width. We estimated the ages by means of two indicators: the ratio between the number of W-R and O stars; and the [H$\beta$]{} equivalent width. The ratio between the number of W-R and O stars was estimated from F(bb)/F(H$\beta$), where F(bb) and F(H$\beta$) are the flux in the *blue bump* (measured with `splot`) and in H$\beta$ respectively and using the relation proposed by [@sch98]. Uncertainties are large, mainly due to the difficulty to define the continuum and to avoid the contamination of the nebular emission lines when measuring F(bb) but indicates a range in $\log$(WR/(WR+O)) of $\sim-2.0$ to $-1.2$ (see Table \[compacumu\], column 4). There is a higher proportion of W-R stars in W-R 5, W-R 1 and W-R 4 and somewhat lower in those areas associated with the giant region. The [H$\beta$]{} equivalent widths are extremely high, consistent again with the expected youth of the stellar population. Predicted ages from these two age tracers are reported in Table \[compacumu\], columns 5 and 7. They were estimated by using STARBURST99 [@lei99], assuming an instantaneous burst of $Z=0.008$, an upper mass limit of $M_{up}$=100 M$_\odot$ and a Salpeter-type Initial Mass Function. The two age tracers give consistent age predictions and in agreement with those reported in @har04. The distribution of the W-R features, in an area of about 100 pc$\times$100 pc, much larger than the one polluted with nitrogen, suggests that *all* the detected W-R stars are not, in general, the cause of this pollution. Since the N-enrichment appears to be associated with the pair of clusters in the core and, given the position of maximum, most probably with the obscured SSC C2, the best W-R star candidates to be the cause of this enrichment are those corresponding to our *Nuc* aperture, and perhaps also the -2 and W-R 2 regions.
Nebular and helium abundance \[seche\]
--------------------------------------
The hypothesis that the W-R population is the cause of the nitrogen enrichment in NGC 5253 requires an enhancement of the helium abundance too [e.g. @sch96]. This is nicely illustrated in @kob97 where different linear relations between the nitrogen and helium abundances (N/H and He/H) are presented according to different scenarios of nitrogen enrichment (W-Rs, PNe, etc.). The only scenario able to explain an extra quantity of nitrogen in the ISM without any extra helium counterpart would be the one where this nitrogen is caused during the late O-star wind phase.
As in previous sections, we can measure at each spaxel the total helium abundance and compare it with that for nitrogen. Since lines like \[\]$\lambda\lambda$3726,3728 did not fall in the covered spectral range, we did not determine the absolute nitrogen abundance. Instead, we used the mean of the abundances determined by @kob97 for their -1 and -2 (N/H$\sim2.0\times10^{-5}$) to estimate how much helium would be needed in the enriched areas, if the extra nitrogen were caused by W-Rs (i.e. He/H$\sim0.12$). For the non N-enriched areas, we can use the measurement at UV-1 (N/H$\sim0.7\times10^{-5}$) which requires He/H$\sim0.09$. Helium abundance can be determined as:
$$He/H = \mathrm{icf} \times (He^{+}/H^{+} + He^{++} / H^{+})$$
where icf is a correction factor due to the presence of neutral helium. We assumed $icf\sim1.0$, which is consistent with the predictions of photoionization models for our measured [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Oiii\]</span>$\lambda$5007/H$\beta$]{} line ratios [@hol02]. Since the $\lambda$6678 was detected in every spaxel of the FLAMES field of view and with good S/N, for the purpose of this work, we determined $y^{+} =
\rm{He}^{+}/\rm{H}^{+}$ from the [He<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span>$\lambda$6678/H$\alpha$]{} line ratio using the expression
$$y^{+} = 2.58 t^{0.25} (2.87\,\ion{He}{i}\lambda6678/\mathrm{H}\alpha)$$
where $t$ is the electron temperature in units of $10^4$ K [@pag92]. As in section \[secdensidad\], we assumed $T_e = 11\,650$ K. Figure \[mapa\_he1l6678ha\] shows the 2D structure of the [He<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">i</span>$\lambda$6678/H$\alpha$]{}line ratio. It is relatively uniform with the exception of some spaxels in the upper right corner, close to Complex \#3. This area, relatively far from the main photo-ionization source and with low [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Oiii\]</span>$\lambda$5007/H$\beta$]{} line ratio would be the only region where one can expect a substantial contribution of neutral helium.
Figure \[ymasvso3ghb\] presents the derived He$^+$ abundances vs. the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Oiii\]</span>$\lambda$5007/H$\beta$]{} line ratio. With the exception of the data corresponding to the right upper corner of the FLAMES f.o.v., He$^+$/H$^+$ range between 0.075 and 0.090, being higher in the higher excitation zones (i.e. the giant region). These values are in agreement with previous measurements of He$^+$/H$^+$ in specific areas [@pag92; @kob97; @wal89]. They are consistent with a scenario without extra N-enrichment and still far, by a factor $\sim1.3-1.7$, from the required $\sim$0.12 *total* helium abundance in the W-R scenario, in particular in the areas enriched with nitrogen.
What about the He$^{++}$/H$^+$, whose abundance can be determined via the nebular $\lambda$4686 emission line? This line turned out to be rather elusive. @cam86 mentioned a possible detection in their regions B and C. This result, however, has not been confirmed afterwards [see @lop07 and references therein]. As with the W-R features, we looked for the nebular line in each individual spectrum. Those that presented a spatial continuity were taken to define an area and were co-added before extracting. The selected areas are marked in Figure \[nitroalto\] with dotted lines. The co-added and extracted spectra of each individual region appear in Figure \[especheiineb\]. In addition to these regions, as mentioned in section \[secwr\], nebular in the W-R 4 and W-R 5 has also been detected.
These detections are, in general, neither associated with the area of nitrogen enhancement nor with those presenting W-Rs features. This lack of coincidence seems difficult to reconcile with a scenario where this enhancement, and the existence of He$^{++}$, share a common origin. Moreover, for the purpose of this work, we estimated the $\ion{He}{ii}$ abundances in this areas using:
$$y^{++} = 0.084 t^{0.14} (\ion{He}{ii}\lambda4686/\mathrm{H}\beta)$$
from @pag92. Derived values for the individual regions are shown Figure \[ymasmasvso3ghb\] as a function of the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Oiii\]</span>$\lambda$5007/H$\beta$]{} line ratio. They range between 0.0001 and 0.0005. Although uncertainties are large, up to 0.0006, due to the weakness of the $\lambda$4686 emission line, these values are clearly very far from the values of $\sim0.030 - 0.050$ required to bring the helium abundance up to $\sim$0.12 in the W-R enrichment scenario. Given the depth and continuous mapping of the present data, we can clearly exclude the possibility of further detections of larger quantities of He$^{++}$ based on optical observations. Thus the present data support the scenario suggested by @kob97 where the N-enrichment should arise during the late O-star wind phase. In view of the extra-nitrogen distribution and the extinction map, the only place where these larger quantities of He$^{++}$ could be found (if they existed) is in Complex \#1. However, they should be highly extinguished and would required a search for emission lines at longer wavelengths as for example (7-10) at 21891 Å [@hor99].
Since the nebular is not associated with the area showing N-enhancement, there is still the open question as to its origin. @gar91 explored the different mechanisms capable of producing this emission in extragalactic regions. The first suggestion is photoionization by fast shocks. However, we have seen in section \[secionistruc\], that shocks do not appear to play a dominant role in the central parts of . Moreover, the measured $\log$($\lambda$4686/[H$\beta$]{}) are $\sim-3.0$ to $-2.1$, much lower than those predicted by shocks models with $N_e=1$cm$^{-3}$ and LMC abundances [$\sim-1.4$ to $-0.4$, @all08].
Another possibility discussed by @gar91 is hot ($T{\hbox{\rlap{\lower.55ex\hbox{$\sim$}} \kern-.3em
\raise.4ex \hbox{$<$}}}70\,000$ K) stellar ionizing continua. This looks like a plausible explanation for those cases where we had detected nebular $\lambda$4686 on top of the *blue bump* (WR 4 and WR 5).
The last option would be photoionization caused by X-rays. The only point sources detected by @sum04 that fall in our f.o.v. are sources 17, 18, and 19. This last source appears to be associated with the Complex \#1 and thus, not related to this discussion (since no nebular was detected for this region). Sources 18 and 17 could, however, be associated with -1 and -4 detections, respectively. In particular, the latter region coincides with the secondary peak of emission in the [H$\alpha$]{} image and is associated with cluster 17 of the sample catalogued by @har04. No satisfactory explanation was found for the cause of the ionization at -2 and -3.
Kinematics of the ionized gas \[seccinematica\]
-----------------------------------------------
Slit observations in specific regions of this galaxy have demonstrated that the kinematics of the ionized gas is rather complex, with line profiles revealing asymmetric wings [e.g. @mar95; @lop07]. These observations usually include the bright core of the galaxy. However, they might be biased since typically the long slits only sample specific regions selected by the particular slit placement. The present data permit a 2D spatially resolved analysis of the kinematics of the ionized gas in the central area of the galaxy to be performed, thus overcoming this drawback. We based our analysis on the strongest emission lines (i.e. mainly [H$\alpha$]{}, but also [H$\beta$]{}, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Oiii\]</span>$\lambda$5007]{}, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>$\lambda$6584]{}, and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Sii\]</span>$\lambda\lambda$6717,6731]{}) where the high S/N permits the line profiles to be fitted with a high degree of accuracy.
In the following, we will present the results derived from [H$\alpha$]{}. Similar results were obtained from the [H$\beta$]{} and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Oiii\]</span>$\lambda$5007]{} emission lines with differences of $|\Delta
v|{\hbox{\rlap{\lower.55ex\hbox{$\sim$}} \kern-.3em
\raise.4ex \hbox{$<$}}}2$ km s$^{-1}$ in most cases and always between -5 and 5 km s$^{-1}$. Results for the only emission lines with remarkable differences in the velocity maps (i.e. [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>$\lambda$6584]{} and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Sii\]</span>$\lambda\lambda$6717,6731]{}) will be presented, as well.
Typical examples of the different profiles for the main emission lines are shown in Figure \[ex\_spa\]. Lines are ordered by wavelength from bluer (lower) to red (upper) within each panel. The zero point in the abscissa axis corresponds to the measured systemic velocity which is defined as the average of the velocities derived from the main emission lines for the peak of the continuum emission. We performed an independent fit for each of the brightest emission lines using MPFITEXPR (see section \[linefitting\] for details). In general, the line profiles of the individual spectra cannot be properly reproduced by a single component. A large percentage of them needed two (and even three) independent components to reproduce the observed profile reasonably well. We followed the approach of keeping the analysis as simple as possible. Thus in those cases where both fits - the one with one component and the one with several components - reproduced equally well the line profile, we gave preference to the fit with one component. Examples of these fits are shown in Figure \[ex\_fit\], which contains the [H$\alpha$]{} emission line together with the total fit and the individual components overplot for the spaxels shown in Figure \[ex\_spa\]. Note how the fits for the spaxels in the central area of our f.o.v. present relatively larger residuals. These can be attributed to a low surface brightness broad extra component which would be the subject of a future work. Central wavelengths were translated into heliocentric velocity taking into account the radial velocity induced by the Earth’s motion at the time of the observation which was evaluated using the IRAF task `rvcorrect`. Velocity dispersions were obtained from the measured FWHM after correcting for the instrumental width and thermal motions. The width of the thermal profile was derived assuming $T_{\rm e}$=11650 K which translates into a $\sigma_{\rm
ther} = \sqrt{k T_{\rm e}/m_{\rm H}}$ of $\sim $11 km s$^{-1}$ for the hydrogen lines. The measured systemic velocity was 392 km s$^{-1}$. This is slightly lower than the one measured from neutral hydrogen [407 km s$^{-1}$, @kor04] according to NED.
In Figure \[cinematica\], we present the velocity fields for the three fitted components derived from the [H$\alpha$]{}emission line. We also included the velocity dispersion map for our broadest component. Corrected velocity dispersions for the two narrow components were, in general, subsonic and will not be shown here. The only exception would be an area at $\sim[4\farcs0,-2\farcs0]$. The line profiles in this area show how the narrow component presents a continuity with the two narrow components at $\sim[4\farcs0,-1\farcs0]$ as if it were the result of a strong blending of these two components. However, we were not able to properly deblend these two components by means of our line fitting technique.
From Figure \[cinematica\], it is clear that the movements of the ionized gas are far from simple rotation. For the discussion we will separate the emitting area into the zone corresponding to the giant region and the rest. The zone of the giant region, occupying roughly the left part of the FLAMES field of view, shows in the upper part, line profiles that can be explained by two components while in some spaxels of the lower part a third component was required. The area of the giant region itself, which occupies an area of $\sim$120 pc$\times$60 pc, requires up to three components to properly reproduce the line profiles. They were named C1, C2 and C3, according to their relative fluxes. The first component (i.e. C1) accounts for the $\sim45-68$% of the flux in [H$\alpha$]{}, depending on the considered spaxel. It is relatively narrow and constant, with a $\Delta v\sim$10 km s$^{-1}$ over a distance of $\sim$6$^{\prime\prime}$ ($\sim$110 pc) with slightly bluer velocities in the spaxels associated with the edge of the upper and lower extensions. The second component (i.e. C2) accounts for the $\sim27-55$% of the flux in [H$\alpha$]{}. It is symmetric with respect of an axis that goes through the Complex \#1 in the north-south direction. In comparison with the first component, it presents large velocity variations (i. e. $\Delta v\sim70$ km s$^{-1}$ over $\sim4\farcs7$ or $\sim86$ pc) and is relatively broad ($\sigma\sim20-25$ km s$^{-1}$). Low surface brightness broad components have been reported in starburst galaxies using a slit since more than a decade and have been the subject of several theoretical [e.g. @ten97] and observational [e.g. @cas90; @gon94] studies. They usually represent a small fraction ($\sim$3-20%) of the total [H$\alpha$]{} flux and have widths of $\sigma\sim$700 km s$^{-1}$. Recently, 2D spectroscopic analysis of very nearby starbursts have shown how *locally*, the line width is somewhat smaller [$\sigma\sim$50-170 km$^{-1}$, see @wes09b and references therein]. This is understood in the context of the so-called *Turbulent Mixing Layers* [e.g. @sla93]. However, the high surface brightness of C2, together with the symmetry in the velocity field and its low widths made us to explore an alternative explanation for it (see section \[reghii\]).
The third component (i.e. C3) is present in a small area of the field of about 10 diameter (i.e. 18 pc) and centered at about \[40,-10\]. C3 has a width similar to the first component (C1) but displaced $\sim$50 km s$^{-1}$ towards the blue. This third component appears in a location about 15 south-east to the position of the SSC complexes in the tongue-shaped extension described in section \[morfologia\]. This area presents low values of extinction (see Figure \[mapa\_ebv\]) and surface brightness (see Figure \[estructura\]). This third component shows indications of more extended weaker emission which was not fitted. We pointed out before that velocity maps derived from the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>$\lambda$6584]{} and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Sii\]</span>$\lambda\lambda$6717,6731]{} emission lines showed areas with important differences with respect to the one obtained from [H$\alpha$]{}. This is the case for the giant region. Figure \[difvel\] contains the measured velocity differences for the two brighter components (C1 and C2) in the subset of the field corresponding to the giant region while Figure \[ex\_offset\] presents examples of the independent fits for [H$\alpha$]{}, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>$\lambda$6584]{}, and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Sii\]</span>$\lambda$6717. Differences exist for both, the narrow (i.e. C1) and broad (i.e. C2), components in [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>$\lambda$6584]{} and are relatively symmetric with respect to the peak of continuum emission Complex \#1, but with opposite sign and slightly different directions (P.A.$\sim50^\circ$ and $\sim30^\circ$ for C1 and C2 respectively). Also, the range of velocity differences, ($v_{\rm H\alpha} - v_{\rm [NII]}$) is larger for C2 than for C1 ($\sim70$ km s$^{-1}$ and $\sim30$ km s$^{-1}$, respectively). As illustrated in the right hand map of Figure \[difvel\], the broad component for the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Sii\]</span>$\lambda\lambda$6717,6731]{} emission lines also shows velocity differences with similar range ($v_{\rm H\alpha} - v_{\rm [SII]}\sim
60$ km s$^{-1}$), orientation and sign as in the case of the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>$\lambda$6584]{} emission line. For the C1 component, no significant differences were found. Measured differences in C3, with a mean and standard deviation of $-6\pm9$ km s$^{-1}$ and $5\pm4$ km s$^{-1}$ for $v_{\rm H\alpha} - v_{\rm [NII]}$ and $v_{\rm H\alpha} - v_{\rm
[SII]}$ respectively, do not appear to be significant. However, since C3 was only detected in seven spaxels (see Figure \[cinematica\], bottom left panel) this result has to be treated with caution.
Similar offsets has been detected in galactic regions like Orion [@gar08b], but to our knowledge, this is the first time that maps with such offsets in velocity for different emission lines in starbursts are presented. This can partially be caused by the fact that 2D-kinematic analysis of starbursts, from dwarfs [e.g. @gar08] to more extreme events like LIRGs [e.g. @alo09], are usually based on fitting techniques that impose restrictions between the [H$\alpha$]{} and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>$\lambda$6584]{} central wavelengths and thus, preventing from detecting such offsets. An example of work where the main emission lines are fitted independently is presented by @wes07. However, since they only analyzed the kinematic for [H$\alpha$]{}, it is not possible to assess if they found different kinematics for the other emission lines. There are however, some works that offer examples of offsets of this kind using a slit. In particular [@lop07] report also an offset between the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>$\lambda$6584]{} and the [H$\alpha$]{} emission line of $\sim$10 km s$^{-1}$, similar to what we have measured for C1 in the upper part of our f.o.v.
The second region of interest is located in the right (south-west) part of the FLAMES field of view. Emission there shows narrow lines with velocity dispersion dominated by the thermal width. In some areas (the north-east corner in Figure \[cinematica\]), two narrow lines were needed to better reproduce the line profile. The primary component (i.e. C1) shows a symmetric velocity pattern with respect to the twin clusters associated with the peak of emission \#3. A velocity gradient in the north-west to south-east direction is clear with a $\Delta v \sim
40$ km $^{-1}$ over about 40 (linear scale of $\sim$75 pc). The secondary component traces a shell blue-shifted $\sim$40 km s$^{-1}$ in the western corner (see Figure \[cinematica\], upper right panel). Note that C2, although relatively narrow, is a bit broader than the thermal width (Figure \[cinematica\], bottom right panel). This component accounts for $\sim30-50$% of the [H$\alpha$]{}flux in this area. No significant differences in the velocity fields and the velocity dispersion maps for the main emission lines have been found in this area.
Discussion \[discusion\]
========================
The giant region \[reghii\]
---------------------------
The most interesting area of NGC 5253 in the present data covers the left (north-east) part of the FLAMES field of view. In previous sections we have seen that this area is occupied by a giant region which: i) harbors two very massive and young SSCs at its centre (i.e. Complex \#1); ii) presents high levels of extinction, being larger in the upper part of the f.o.v.; iii) has high electron densities as traced by both the sulphur and the argon line ratios, and again are also larger in the upper part of the f.o.v.; iv) presents an excess in the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>$\lambda$6584/H$\alpha$]{} line ratio with respect to [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Sii\]</span>$\lambda\lambda$6717,6731/H$\alpha$]{} which, if interpreted as N-enrichment, indicates an outward gradient of extra nitrogen from a point at $\sim0\farcs5-1\farcs0$ towards the north-west of the peak of continuum emission at Complex \#1; v) presents W-R features, implying a young age for the harboured stellar population; vi) displays complex kinematics, not coincident in all the emission lines, that require a minimum of three components to reproduce the line profiles. How does all this evidence fit together into a coherent picture?
In Figure \[esquema\_reghii\], we sketch a plausible scenario compatible with all these results. Here, the broad component (C2) would trace an outflow created by the two SSCs at Complex \#1 while the two narrow components (C1 and C3) would be caused by a shell of previously existing quiescent gas that has been reached by the ionization front. Different grades of grey in Figure \[esquema\_reghii\] in the shell represent the different densities observed in the upper and lower part of the FLAMES f.o.v., while two wavy sheets in two grades of grey have been used to represent the differences in extinction between these two halves. Due to this extinction distribution, in the upper (i.e. north-western) half of the region, the observer cannot see the further part of the shell, while in the lower (i.e. south-eastern) half both parts are visible and are detected as a single broader component when approaching the vertex of the oval.
As in section \[secdensidad\], we formed <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Sii\]</span>$\lambda$6717/<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Sii\]</span>$\lambda$6731 maps for the individual kinematic components and measured the mean and standard deviation for the sulphur line ratio in two 4 $\times$ 4 spaxel squares sampling the upper and lower part of the giant region. Although the standard deviations are large ($\sim0.09$), results support this sketch. While the broad component presented similar line ratios in both areas ($\sim1.07$ implying densities of $\sim$470 cm$^{-3}$), the narrow component presented somewhat lower line ratios in the upper part than in the lower one ($\sim$1.11 vs. $\sim$1.25) implying densities for the shell of $\sim$390 cm$^{-3}$ and $\sim$180 cm$^{-3}$, respectively. Also, we created (noisier) [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>$\lambda$6584/H$\alpha$]{}, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Sii\]</span>$\lambda\lambda$6717,6731/H$\alpha$]{}, and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Oiii\]</span>$\lambda$5007/H$\beta$]{} line maps and compared the relation between [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Sii\]</span>$\lambda\lambda$6717,6731/H$\alpha$]{} and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>$\lambda$6584/H$\alpha$]{} for the individual components. The three fitted components present extra nitrogen in an area coinciding with the one derived from one-gaussian fitting. This differs from the findings for Mrk 996, a galaxy with several kinematically distinct components where only the broad one presented N-enrichment, with an abundance $\sim$20 times larger than the one for the narrow component [see @jam09]. Still, in , the N-enrichment in the broad component is larger than in the narrow one by a factor of $\sim$1.7 which is consistent with the scenario sketched above. Moreover, while the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Oiii\]</span>$\lambda$5007/H$\beta$]{} maps are relatively similar for both components[^7] (not shown), those associated to [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>$\lambda$6584/H$\alpha$]{} and specially to (the more shock sensitive) [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Sii\]</span>$\lambda\lambda$6717,6731/H$\alpha$]{} line ratio display a relatively different ionization degree with larger values for C1 than for C2. This is also consistent with the presented scenario since a larger contribution due to shocks is expected in the area where the outflowing material encounters the pre-existent gas.
An interesting result of the previous section was the offsets derived for the velocities of the different species, in particular nitrogen and sulphur. To our knowledge, this is the first time that maps showing this kind of offsets are reported in an starburst galaxy. Similar phenomena have already been reported in much closer regions of star formation. For example, observations in the Galactic Orion Nebula, a much less extreme event in terms of star formation, show how [H$\alpha$]{} and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Oiii\]</span>$\lambda$5007]{} display similar velocities while [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>$\lambda$6584]{} and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Sii\]</span>$\lambda\lambda$6717,6731]{} are shifted by $\sim$4-5 km s$^{-1}$ [@gar08b], an order of magnitude smaller than the shifts found for NGC 5253. Also, self-consistent dynamic models of steady ionization fronts point towards the detection of such differences [@hen05]. In the context of the scenario sketched in Figure \[esquema\_reghii\], the offsets in C2 would fit if [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>$\lambda$6584]{} (and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Sii\]</span>$\lambda\lambda$6717,6731]{}) traced the outer parts in an outflow which has a Hubble flow (i.e. velocity proportional to radius).
Finally, an estimate of the time scales associated with the pollution process can be determined by using the velocity for the outflow derived in section \[seccinematica\]. Assuming that this traces the velocity of nitrogen contamination of the ISM, the detected pollution extending up to distances of $\sim$60 pc took place over only $\sim$1.3-1.7 Myr. This supports the idea that the nitrogen dilution is a relatively fast process and is consistent with the shortage of observed systems presenting this kind of chemical inhomogeneity.
The area associated with the older stellar clusters
---------------------------------------------------
[ccccccccc]{} Component & $\log$(<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Oiii\]</span>/[H$\beta$]{}) & $\log$(<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>/[H$\alpha$]{}) & $\log$(<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Sii\]</span>/[H$\alpha$]{})\
Upper Blue & 0.69 & $-$1.20 & $-$0.85\
Upper Red & 0.52 & $-$1.09 & $-$0.67\
Lower & 0.54 & $-$1.09 & $-$0.75\
NGC 1952$^{\mathrm{(a)}}$ & 0.92 & 0.15 & 0.18\
From @ost06.
The rightmost (south-west) part of the FLAMES f.o.v. presents a different picture. We have seen that this region: i) is associated with two relatively old ($\sim$70 and $\sim$110 Myr) and massive (3 and 7$\times$10$^4$ M$_\odot$) clusters [@har04]; ii) presents moderate levels of extinction, being higher in the lower part of the FLAMES field of view; iii) has very low $N_e$ and lower than 100 cm$^{-3}$ in the upper corner; iv) the [H$\alpha$]{} surface brightness is very low (i.e. one and two orders of magnitude smaller than in the giant region for the upper and lower portions respectively); v) displays two distinct kinematic components in the upper part of the f.o.v.. Noteworthy is that two supernova remnant candidates have been detected in the area [@lab06]. One of them (S001) appears very close in projection to the massive clusters at $\sim$\[-50,10\]. The second one (S002) is located, just outside of the FLAMES f.o.v., at the right upper corner.
The first question to consider is if any of the kinematic components is related to the supernova remnant candidates. However, our measured velocity dispersions are much more lower than expansion velocities of typical supernova remnants [i.e. NGC 1952, 1450 km s$^{-1}$ @ost06]. Moreover, we created two integrated spectra for the upper and the lower part of the area. Line ratio for both components of the upper part and for the lower part were relatively similar (i.e. within $\sim$0.1 dex, see Table \[cocientes\]) and much lower than those expected for a supernova remnant [e.g. NGC 1952, @ost06]. Thus, supernova remnants are not obviously the cause of the observed kinematics and physical properties of the ionized gas in this region.
Instead, given that all the three components present similar line ratios - consistent with ionization caused by stars - and similar line widths, a more plausible scenario would be that where all the components are part of a common picture. Given the age of the clusters, and the velocity differences between the three components, this area can be viewed as a snapshot of a more evolved version of what is happening in the left part of the FLAMES f.o.v. The clusters have managed to clear out their environment. Only a broken shell made out of previously quiescent gas remains ionized by the remaining hot stars and moving away from the clusters with little evidence for high velocity outflow. Figure \[esquema\_partedcha\] presents a sketch of the different elements associated with this area.
Summary \[summary\]
===================
We present a thorough study of the ionized gas and its relation with the stellar population of NGC 5253 by mapping the central 212 pc$\times$134 pc in a continuous and unbiased manner using with the ARGUS IFU unit of FLAMES. The analysis of the data have yield the following results.
1. We obtained a 2D detailed map for the extinction suffered by the ionized gas, finding an offset of $\sim0\farcs5$ between the peak of the optical continuum and the extinction peak, in agreement with findings in the infrared.
2. We compared the extinction suffered by gas and stars by defining *ad hoc* broad-band colours. We have shown the importance of using line-free filters when performing this comparison and found that stars suffer less extinction than the ionized gas by a factor $\sim0.33$, similar to the findings in other starburst galaxies.
3. We derived $N_e$ sensitive line ratio maps. The one involving the sulphur lines shows a gradient from 790 cm$^{-3}$ at the peak of emission in the giant region described by @cal97 outwards. The argon line ratio is only detected in the area associated with the giant region and traces the highest density ($\sim4200 - 6200$ cm$^{-3}$) regions.
4. We studied the ionization structure by means of the maps of line ratios involved in the BPT diagrams. The spatial distribution of the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Sii\]</span>$\lambda\lambda$6717,6731/H$\alpha$]{} and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Oiii\]</span>$\lambda$5007/H$\beta$]{} line ratios follows that for the flux distribution of the ionized gas. On the contrary, the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>$\lambda$6584/H$\alpha$]{} map shows a completely different structure.
5. We evaluated the possible ionization mechanisms through the position of these line ratios in the diagnostic diagrams and comparing with the predictions of models. All our line ratios are compatible with photoionization caused by stars. The [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Sii\]</span>$\lambda\lambda$6717,6731/H$\alpha$]{} indicated a somewhat higher ionization degree that might be evidence of some contribution of shocks to the measured line ratios. Part of the data in the diagram involving the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>$\lambda$6584/H$\alpha$]{} line ratio are distributed in a distinct cloud. This can be explained within the local N-enrichment scenario proposed for this galaxy.
6. We delimited very precisely the area presenting local N-enrichment. It occupies the whole giant , including the two extensions towards the upper and lower part of the FLAMES field of view, peaking at $\sim$15 from the peak of emission in the continuum and almost coincident (i.e. at $\sim20$ pc) with the peak of extinction.
7. We located the areas that could contain Wolf-Rayet stars by looking for the *blue bump*. We confirmed the existence of W-R stars associated with the nucleus and the brightest cluster in the ultraviolet. W-R stars are distributed in a wider area than the one presenting N-enrichment and in a more irregular manner. We were able to identified one (or more) clusters with ages compatible with the existence of W-R stars in all but one (i.e. W-R 5) of our delineated regions with a W-R signature.
8. If the scenario of *N-enrichment caused by W-R stars* turns out to be applicable, only the W-R detected at the core (Complex \#1), and perhaps in the two extensions of the Giant region, can be considered the cause of the local N-enrichment, according to the correlation of the spatial distribution of W-R features and N-enrichment.
9. We measured the He$^+$ and He$^{++}$ abundances. He$^+$/H$^+$ is $\sim$0.08-0.09 in most of our field of view except for an area of $\sim$2$^{\prime\prime}\times3^{\prime\prime}$ in the upper right corner, far away from the main ionization source. We detected the nebular $\lambda$4686 emission line in areas not coincident, in general, with those presenting W-R features, nor with the one presenting N-enrichment. Abundances in were always ${\hbox{\rlap{\lower.55ex\hbox{$\sim$}} \kern-.3em
\raise.4ex \hbox{$<$}}}$0.0005. Given the depth and unbiased mapping of the present data, we can exclude the possibility of further detections of larger quantities of He$^{++}$ based on optical observations in the nuclear region of NGC 5253. This result is difficult to reconcile with the scenario of *N-enrichment caused by W-R stars* and favours a suggestion where the N-enrichment arises during the late O-star wind phase.
10. We studied the kinematics of the ionized gas by using velocity fields and velocity dispersion maps for the main emission lines. We needed up to three components to properly reproduce the line profiles. In particular, one of the components associated with the Giant region presents supersonic widths and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>$\lambda$6584]{} and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Sii\]</span>$\lambda\lambda$6717,6731]{} emission lines shifted up to $40$ km s$^{-1}$ with respect to [H$\alpha$]{}. Also, one of the narrow components shows velocity offsets in the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">\[Nii\]</span>$\lambda$6584]{} line of up to $20$ km s$^{-1}$. This is the first time that maps providing such offsets for a starburst galaxy have been presented.
11. We provide a scenario for the event occurring at the Giant region. The two SSCs are producing an outflow that encounters previously existing quiescent gas. The scenario is consistent with the measured extinction structure, electron densities and kinematics.
12. We explain the different elements in the right (south-west) part of the FLAMES field of view as a more evolved stage of a similar scenario where the clusters have now cleared their local environment. This is supported by the low electron densities and [H$\alpha$]{} surface brightness as well as the kinematics in this area.
We thank Peter Weilbacher for his help in the initial stages of this project. We also thank the anonymous referee for his/her careful and detailed review of the manuscript. Based on observations carried out at the European Southern Observatory, Paranal (Chile), programme 078.B-0043(A). This paper uses the plotting package `jmaplot`, developed by Jesús Maíz-Apellániz, `http://dae45.iaa.csic.es:8080/\simjmaiz/software`. This research made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED), which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. AMI is supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (MICINN) under the program “Specialization in International Organisations”, ref. ES2006-0003. This work has been partially funded by the Spanish PNAYA, projects AYA2007-67965-C01 and C02 from the Spanish PNAYA and CSD2006 - 00070 “1st Science with GTC” from the CONSOLIDER 2010 programme of the Spanish MICINN.
[^1]: Based on observations collected at the European Organisation for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere, Chile (ESO Programme 078.B-0043).
[^2]: http://www.eso.org/projects/dfs/dfs-shared/web/vlt/vlt-instrument-pipelines.html.
[^3]: The Image Reduction and Analysis Facility *IRAF* is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories which is operated by the association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.
[^4]: See http://purl.com/net/mpfit.
[^5]: See http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/.
[^6]: Hereafter, the different quoted positions will be refereed as \[$^{\prime\prime}$,$^{\prime\prime}$\] and using the FLAMES f.o.v. as reference.
[^7]: C3 is not considered here, since the so-called *map* would be associated to $\le7$ spaxels, depending on the line ratio.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
**Avoid First Order Quantum Phase Transition by Changing Problem Hamiltonians**
VICKY CHOI
*Department of Computer Science, Virginia Tech, 7054 Haycock Road*
*Falls Church, VA 22043, USA*
Introduction
============
Adiabatic quantum computation (AQC) was proposed by Farhi et al. [@FGGS00; @FGGLLP01] in 2000 as an alternative quantum paradigm to solve NP-hard optimization problems, which are believed to be classically intractable. The same idea to the adiabatic quantum optimization, under a different name of [*quantum annealing*]{}, was first put forward by Apolloni et al. in 1988, see [@ST2006; @ST2008] and references therein for a history of the field. It was shown that AQC is not just limited to optimization problems, and is polynomially equivalent to conventional quantum computation (quantum circuit model) [@ADKLLR04; @lidar-equiv]. A quantum computer promises extraordinary power over a classical computer, as demonstrated by Shor [@shor] in 1994 with the polynomial quantum algorithm for solving the factoring problem, for which the best known classical algorithms are exponential. Just how much more powerful are quantum computers? In particular, we are interested in whether an adiabatic quantum computer can solve NP-complete problems [*more*]{} efficiently than a classical computer.
Unlike classical computation or quantum circuit model in which an algorithm is specified by a finite sequence of [*discrete*]{} operations via classical/quantum gates, the adiabatic quantum algorithm is [*continuous*]{}. It has been assumed (see Section \[sec:AQA\] for more discussion) that, according to the adiabatic theorem, the dominant factor of the adiabatic running time ([[[$\mathsf{ART}$]{}]{}]{}) of the algorithm scales polynomially with the inverse of the [*minimum spectral gap*]{} ${g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}$ of the system Hamiltonian (that describes the algorithm). Therefore, in order to analyze the running time of an adiabatic algorithm, it is necessary to be able to bound ${g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}$ analytically. However, ${g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}$ is in general difficult to compute (it is as hard as solving the original problem if computed directly). Rigorous analytical analysis of adiabatic algorithms remains challenging. Most studies have to resort to numerical calculations. These include numerical integration of Schrödinger equation [@FGGLLP01; @childs-clique], eigenvalue computation (or exact diagonization)[@znidaric-2005-71; @symmetries], and quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) technique [@Young; @young-2009]. However, not only are these methods limited to small sizes (as the simulations of quantum systems grow exponentially with the system size), but also little insight can be gained from these numbers to design and analyze the time complexity of the algorithm. Perhaps, from the algorithmic design point of view, it is more important to unveil the quantum evolution black-box and thus enable us to obtain insight for designing efficient adiabatic quantum algorithms. For this purpose, we devise a visualization tool, called Decomposed State Evolution Visualization ([[DeSEV]{}]{}).
One of the original ideas of AQC in [@FGGS00; @FGGLLP01] was proposed as an energy minimization algorithm that aims to use coherent quantum evolution to avoid trapping in the local minima that trip classical algorithms of NP-hard optimization problems. However, several works [@DV01; @DMV01; @Reichardt-04] showed that their adiabatic quantum algorithm failed to avoid local minima and would take exponential time for some problem. As we pointed out in [@ChoiDiff], their lower bounds are only for their specific adiabatic quantum algorithms, and their arguments are not sufficient for showing the lower bound of all adiabatic quantum algorithms of the same problem. Nevertheless, one still might argue that their results provide “convincing evidence” that AQC would fail to solve problems with many local minima. For this purpose, we set out to study graphs that have exponential many local maxima for the NP-hard Maximum Independent Set (MIS) problem which AQC “naturally” solves, see Section \[sec:MIS\] and Choi [@minor-embedding]. While it is not difficult to come up with such graphs, the challenge lies in coming up such graphs with small sizes such that we can visualize the quantum evolution using [[DeSEV]{}]{}, which relies on the (numerical) eigenvalue computation. After many trial-and-errors, with the aid of [[DeSEV]{}]{}, we constructed a special family of graphs in which there are exponentially many local maxima for MIS, with the smallest size of such graph being $15$. For the reference sake, we call this family of graphs the CK graph. The numerical results of an adiabatic algorithm for MIS on these graphs suggested that ${g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}$ is exponentially small and thus the algorithm requires exponential time. These results were then explained by the first order quantum phase transition (FQPT) by Amin and Choi in [@AC09]. That is, our result agreed with the speculation — the system got trapped in the local minima and the particular AQO algorithm failed due to the FQPT. Since then, there have been some other papers (Altshuler et al., [@altshuler-2009] ; Farhi et al., [@farhi-2009]; Young et al., [@young-2009]; Jorg et al., [@Jorg1; @Jorg2]) investigating the same phenomenon, i.e., first order quantum phase transition. In particular, Farhi et al. in [@farhi-2009] suggested that the exponential small gap caused by the FQPT could be overcome (for the set of instances they consider) by randomizing the choice of initial Hamiltonian. In this paper, we show numerically that by changing the parameters in the problem Hamiltonian (without changing the problem to be solved) of the adiabatic algorithm for MIS on the CK graph, we prevent the FQPT from occurring and significantly increase ${g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}$. We further support our result by visualization from [[DeSEV]{}]{}. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that such a numerical result has been shown. We do so by scaling the vertex-weight of the graph, namely, multiplying the weights of vertices by a scaling factor. In order to determine the best scaling factor, we raise the basic question about what the appropriate formulation of adiabatic running time should be. We remark that the scaling factor in turn relates to the bit of precision required for the parameters in the Hamiltonian which is an important physical resource and plays a critical role in the computational complexity. Finally, our result serves to further clarify (see [@ChoiDiff; @Choi-PNAS] for explanation) that it is not sufficient to consider one specific problem Hamiltonian for proving the the failure of adiabatic quantum optimization for a problem. This paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:AQA\], we review the adiabatic quantum algorithm, and the adiabatic running time([[[$\mathsf{ART}$]{}]{}]{}). In Section \[sec:MIS\], we recall the adiabatic quantum algorithm for MIS based on the reduction to the Ising problem. In Section \[sec:desev\], we describe the visualization tool [[DeSEV]{}]{} and the CK graph. We show examples of [[DeSEV]{}]{} on the MIS adiabatic algorithm for the CK graph. In Section \[sec:change-parameter\], we describe how changing the parameters affects ${g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}$, and raise the question about ${{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{ART}}}}}$. We conclude with the discussion in Section \[sec:discussion\].
Adiabatic Quantum Algorithm {#sec:AQA}
===========================
An adiabatic quantum algorithm is described by a time-dependent system Hamiltonian $${{\mathcal{H}}}(t) = (1-s(t)){{\mathcal{H}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{init}}}} + s(t) {{\mathcal{H}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{problem}}}}$$ for $t \in [0,T]$, $s(0)=0$, $s(T)=1$. There are three components of ${{\mathcal{H}}}(.)$: (1) initial Hamiltonian: ${{\mathcal{H}}}(0)={{\mathcal{H}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{init}}}}$; (2) problem Hamiltonian: ${{\mathcal{H}}}(T)={{\mathcal{H}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{problem}}}}$; and (3) evolution path: $s : [0,T] \longrightarrow [0,1]$, e.g., $s(t)=\frac{t}{T}$. ${{\mathcal{H}}}(t)$ is an adiabatic algorithm for an optimization problem if we encode the problem into the problem Hamiltonian ${{\mathcal{H}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{problem}}}}$ such that the ground state of ${{\mathcal{H}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{problem}}}}$ corresponds to the answer to the problem.
In this paper, we fix the evolution path by the linear interpolation function $s(t)=\frac{t}{T}$. Hereafter, we describe an adiabatic algorithm by the re-parametrized Hamiltonian $${{\mathcal{H}}}(s) = (1-s){{\mathcal{H}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{init}}}} + s {{\mathcal{H}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{problem}}}}$$ where $s \in [0,1]$, with understanding that $s(t)=t/T$. For a more general interpolation path see [@lidar-path]. Furthermore, throughout this paper, we fix the initial Hamiltonian to be ${{\mathcal{H}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{init}}}} = - \sum_{i \in {{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{V}}}}}(G)} \sigma_i^x$. When it is clear from context, we also refer to the problem Hamiltonian as the adiabatic algorithm for the problem.
Adiabatic Running Time {#sec:ART}
----------------------
In their original work [@FGGS00], the running time of the adiabatic algorithm is defined to be the same as the adiabatic evolution time $T$, which is given by the adiabatic condition of the adiabatic theorem. However, this definition is under the assumption of some physical limit of the maximum energy of the system (see e.g., [@jordan1]), and is not well-defined from the computational point of view, as observed by Aharonov et al. [@ADKLLR04]. They re-define ${{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{ART}}}}}({{\mathcal{H}}})$ as $T \cdot
\max_s||{{\mathcal{H}}}(s)||$, taking into the account of the time-energy trade-off in the Schrödinger’s equation[^1].
On the other hand, given the extensive work on the rigorous proofs of the adiabatic theorem, it is interesting (if not confusing) that many different versions of the adiabatic conditions have been recently proposed. These include [@adt-1; @adt-2; @adt-3; @adt-4; @adt-5; @adt-6; @adt-7; @adt-8; @adt-9; @adt-10; @adt-11] in the quantum physics community, and [@Reichardt-04; @ADKLLR04; @adt-AR] in the computer science community. Most of these studies imply that [[[$\mathsf{ART}$]{}]{}]{} scales polynomially with the inverse of the spectral gap of the system Hamiltonian, which is sufficient when one is interested in the coarse computational complexity of algorithms, namely, the distinction between polynomial and exponential running time.
However, from both the practical and algorithmic point of view, it is important to have a more precise formulation of [[[$\mathsf{ART}$]{}]{}]{}. First, this is because the specification of the adiabatic evolution time $T$ is required in an adiabatic algorithm, and therefore a tight and simple upper bound is desired. That is, while there are complicated formulas such as the ones from [@adt-11], although accurate, they are not useful if the formulas can not be efficiently evaluated. Second, we are interested in the actual time complexity of the algorithm, and not just the polynomial vs. exponential distinction. It is necessary to have a more precise formulation of [[[$\mathsf{ART}$]{}]{}]{} such that basic algorithmic analysis can be carried out. Third, at this stage of research, it is particularly important to have such a formulation because the spectral gap, which plays the dominating role in the formulation of [[[$\mathsf{ART}$]{}]{}]{}, is difficult to analyze. All current efforts on the spectral gap analysis resort to numerical studies, and that means the studies are restricted to small problem sizes only. Therefore, to gain insight into the time complexity of algorithms from these small instances, it is important that the formulation of [[[$\mathsf{ART}$]{}]{}]{} applies to small sizes. So what is the appropriate formulation of [[[$\mathsf{ART}$]{}]{}]{}? What should the adiabatic condition(s) be? This is in contrast to the study in [@lidar-path] where the exact form of adiabatic condition is not essential. In Section \[sec:art\], we compare three closely related versions and raise the question about what the appropriate adiabatic running time should be.
An Adiabatic Algorithm for MIS {#sec:MIS}
==============================
In this section, we recall the adiabatic algorithm for MIS that is based on the reduction to the Ising problem, as described in [@minor-embedding]. First, we formally define the Maximum-Weight Independent Set (MIS) problem (optimization version):
An undirected graph $G =({{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{V}}}}}(G),{{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{E}}}}}(G))$, where each vertex $i \in {{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{V}}}}}(G) = \{1, \ldots, n \}$ is weighted by a positive rational number $c_i$
A subset $S \subseteq {{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{V}}}}}(G)$ such that $S$ is independent (i.e., for each $i,j \in {{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{V}}}}}(G)$, $i\neq j$, $ij
\not \in {{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{E}}}}}(G)$) and the total [*weight*]{} of $S$ $=\sum_{i \in S}
c_i$ is maximized. Denote the optimal set by ${{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{mis}}}}}(G)$.
There is a one-one correspondence between the MIS problem and the Ising problem, which is the problem directly solved by the quantum processor that implements 1/2-spin Ising Hamiltonian. We recall the quadratic binary optimization formulation of the problem. More details can be found in [@minor-embedding].
If $J_{ij} \ge \min\{c_i,c_j\}$ for all $ij \in {{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{E}}}}}(G)$, then the maximum value of $${{\mathcal{Y}}}(x_1,\ldots, x_n) = \sum_{i \in {{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{V}}}}}(G)}c_i x_i - \sum_{ij \in {{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{E}}}}}(G)}
J_{ij}x_ix_j
\label{eq:Y}$$ is the total weight of the MIS. In particular if $J_{ij} > \min\{c_i,c_j\}$ for all $ij \in {{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{E}}}}}(G)$, then ${{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{mis}}}}}(G) = \{i \in {{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{V}}}}}(G) : x^*_i = 1\}$, where $(x^*_1, \ldots, x^*_n) = {\ensuremath{argmax}}_{(x_1, \ldots, x_n) \in \{0,1\}^n}
{{\mathcal{Y}}}(x_1, \ldots, x_n)$. \[thm:mis\]
Here the function ${{\mathcal{Y}}}$ is called the pseudo-boolean function for MIS. Notice that in this formulation, we only require $J_{ij} > \min\{c_i,c_j\}$, and thus there is freedom in choosing this parameter. In this paper we will show how to take advantage of this.
By changing the variables ($x_i=\frac{1+s_i}{2}$), it is easy to show that MIS is equivalent to minimizing the following function, known as the [*Ising energy function*]{}: $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathcal{E}}}(s_1, \ldots, s_n) &=& \sum_{i \in {{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{V}}}}}(G)} h_i s_i + \sum_{ij \in {{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{E}}}}}(G)} J_{ij}s_is_j,\end{aligned}$$ which is the eigenfunction of the following [*Ising Hamiltonian*]{}: $${{\mathcal{H}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Ising}}}} = \sum_{i \in {{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{V}}}}}(G)} h_i \sigma^z_i + \sum_{ij \in {{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{E}}}}}(G)} J_{ij}
\sigma^z_i \sigma^z_j
\label{eq:Ising}$$ where $h_i = \sum_{j \in {{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{nbr}}}}}(i)}
J_{ij} - 2c_i$, ${{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{nbr}}}}}(i) =\{j: ij \in {{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{E}}}}}(G)\}$, for $i \in {{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{V}}}}}(G)$.
[[DeSEV]{}]{} and CK Graph {#sec:desev}
==========================
In this section, we describe a visualization tool, called Decomposed State Evolution Visualization ([[DeSEV]{}]{}), which aims to “open up” the quantum evolution black-box from a computational point of view. Consider the above adiabatic algorithm for MIS. Recall that according to the adiabatic theorem, if the evolution is slow enough, the system remains in the instantaneous ground state. Let ${\ensuremath{|\psi(s)\rangle}}$ be the ground state of ${{\mathcal{H}}}(s)$, for $s \in [0,1]$. For a system of $n$-qubits, ${\ensuremath{|\psi(s)\rangle}}$ is a superposition of $2^n$ possible computational states, namely, $${\ensuremath{|\psi(s)\rangle}} = \sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n} \alpha_x(s)
{\ensuremath{|x\rangle}}, \mbox{ where }\sum_{x \in
\{0,1\}^n}|\alpha_x(s)|^2 =1.$$ For example, we have the initial ground state ${\ensuremath{|\psi(0)\rangle}} =
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^n}} \sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n}{\ensuremath{|x\rangle}}$, which is the uniform superposition of all $2^n$ states, while the final ground state ${\ensuremath{|\psi(1)\rangle}}= {\ensuremath{|x_1^*x_2^*\ldots x_n^*\rangle}}$, corresponding to the solution state. A natural question is: what are the instantaneous ground states ${\ensuremath{|\psi(s)\rangle}}$, for $0<s<1$, like? In particular, we would like to “see” how the instantaneous ground state evolves? A naïve solution would be to trace the $2^n$ amplitudes $\alpha_x$. The task becomes unmanageable even for $n=10$, which has $1024$ amplitudes, even though many may be negligible (close to zero).
To make the “visualization” feasible, we introduce a new measure $\Gamma_k$. Suppose that ${{\mathcal{H}}}(1)$, has $(m+1) \le 2^n$ distinct energy levels: $E_0 < E_1 < \ldots < E_m$. For $0 \le k \le m$, let $D_k= \{x \in \{0,1\}^n: {{\mathcal{H}}}(1){\ensuremath{|x\rangle}} = E_k {\ensuremath{|x\rangle}}\}$ be the set of (degenerate) computational states that have the same energy level $E_k$ (with respect to the problem Hamiltonian ${{\mathcal{H}}}(1)$), and define $$\Gamma_k(s) = \sum_{x \in D_k} |\alpha_x(s)|^2.$$ In other words, $\Gamma_k(s)$ is the total percentage of (computational) states of the same energy level $E_k$ participating in ${\ensuremath{|\psi(s)\rangle}}$. The idea is now to trace $\Gamma_k$ instead of $\alpha_x$. Here we remark that $\Gamma_k$ are defined for any eigenstate ${\ensuremath{|\psi\rangle}}$ and not just for the ground state.
For our purpose, we constructed a special family of vertex-weighted graphs for the MIS problem. We designed the problem instances such that the global minimum is “hidden” in the sense that there are many local minima to mislead local search based algorithms. Note that the size of the smallest instances needs to be necessarily smaller than $20$ as we are relying on the eigenvalue computation (or exact diagonization) to compute $\Gamma_k$.
[**CK Graph Construction.**]{} Let $r, g$ be integers, and $w_A$, $w_B$ be positive rational numbers. Our graphs are specified by these four parameters. There are two types of vertices in the graph: vertices of a $2g$-independent set, denoted by $V_A$, and vertices of $g$ $r$-cliques (which form $r^g$ maximal independent sets), denoted by $V_B$. The weight of vertex in $V_A$ ($V_B$ resp.) is $w_A$ ($w_B$ resp.). The graph is connected as follows. Partition the vertices in $V_A$ into $g$ groups of 2 (independent) vertices. There are also $g$ groups of $r$-cliques in $V_B$. We label both groups accordingly such that each group in $V_A$ is adjacent to all but one (the same label) $r$-cliques in $V_B$. Note if $w_B<2w_A$, then we have $V_A$ forming the (global) maximum independent sets of weight $2gw_A$, while there are $r^g$ (local) maximal independent set of weight $gw_B$. See Figure \[fig:G1\] for an example of a graph for $r=3$ and $g=3$. In general, there are infinitely many such graphs specified by the parameters $r$ and $g$.
$$\begin{array}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{graphs.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{fig1b.pdf} \\
(a) & (b)
\end{array}$$ \[fig:G1\]
[[DeSEV]{}]{} for the MIS Adiabatic Algorithm on a 15-vertex CK Graph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In the section, we fix the CK graph with $r=3$, $g=3$ as illustrated in Figure \[fig:G1\]. We set $w_A=1$, and consider $1 \le w_B < 2$. The graph ${G}$ consists of 15 vertices: $V_A=\{1,\ldots, 6\}$ forms the maximum-weight independent set of weight $6$; while $V_B$, consisting of $3$ groups of $3$ triangles: $\{7,8,9\}$, $\{10,11,12\}$, and $\{13,14,15\}$, forms $3^3$ maximal independent sets of weight $3w_B < 6$.
According to Eq.(\[eq:Ising\]), the problem Hamiltonian (and thus the adiabatic algorithm) for MIS on ${G}$ is $${{\mathcal{H}}}_{1} = \sum_{i \in V_A} (6J -2) \sigma_i^z + \sum_{i \in V_B} (6J -2w_B) \sigma_i^z
+ J\sum_{ij \in {{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{E}}}}}(G)} \sigma^z_i \sigma^z_j
\label{eq:unscaled}$$ Here we fix $J_{ij}=J=2>w_B$ for all $ij \in {{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{E}}}}}({G})$.
#### Notation on representing the computational states.
For a computational state ${\ensuremath{|x_1x_2 \ldots x_n\rangle}}$ where $x_i \in \{0,1\}$, we adopt the zero position representation, namely, represent it by ${\ensuremath{|i_1i_2\ldots i_k\rangle}}$ where $x_{j}=0$ if and only if $j=i_t$ for some $t$. That is, we represent ${\ensuremath{|000000111111111\rangle}}$ (the solution state) by ${\ensuremath{|123456\rangle}}$. Further, we use a $\bullet$ to denote a vertex in $V_A$, a $\triangle$ for a vertex in $V_B$. That is, the solution state is now represented by ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet\rangle}}$, while ${\ensuremath{|\triangle \triangle \triangle\rangle}}$, corresponding to a local maximal independent set of weight $3w_B$ with one vertex from each triangle.
#### Maximum vs Minimum.
The maximum of MIS corresponds to the minimum of the Ising energy. For explanation purpose, instead of referring to the energy values of the Ising Hamiltonian, we will refer to the values of MIS given by the pseudo-boolean function ${{\mathcal{Y}}}$ in Eq.(\[eq:Y\]) by “(-)energy”, where “(-)” is to indicate the reverse ordering.
#### Example.
The (-)energy of ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet\rangle}}$ is 6; while ${\ensuremath{|\triangle \triangle \triangle\!\!\!-\!\!\triangle\rangle}}$ is $4w_B - J$, where $\triangle\!\!-\!\!\triangle$ represents two connected vertices from $V_B$, e.g. vertex 7 and 8 in Figure \[fig:G1\].
See Figure \[fig:gsd\] for the [[DeSEV]{}]{} of the the ground state of the adiabatic algorithm with ${{\mathcal{H}}}_{1}$ in Eq.(\[eq:unscaled\]) as the problem Hamiltonian for $w_B=1.5$ and $1.8$.
{width="80.00000%"} $s^*=0.3805, {g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}= 2.04\times10^{-2}$ $s^*=0.6276, {g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}= 1.04\times10^{-5}$
----------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(-)energy state (-)energy state
6 ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet\rangle}}$ 6 ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet\rangle}}$
5 ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet\rangle}}$ 5.4 ${\ensuremath{|\triangle \triangle \triangle\rangle}}$
4.5 ${\ensuremath{|\triangle \triangle \triangle\rangle}}$ 5.2 ${\ensuremath{|\triangle \triangle \triangle\!\!\!-\!\!\!\triangle\rangle}}$
4 ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet\rangle}}$ 5 ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet\rangle}}$ + ${\ensuremath{|\triangle \triangle\!\!\!-\!\!\!\triangle \triangle\!\!\!-\!\!\!\triangle\rangle}}$
3.5 ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \triangle\rangle}}$ 4.8 ${\ensuremath{|\triangle\!\!\!-\!\!\!\triangle \triangle\!\!\!-\!\!\!\triangle \triangle\!\!\!-\!\!\!\triangle\rangle}}$
3 ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \bullet\rangle}}$ 4 ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet\rangle}}$
2.5 ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \triangle\rangle}}$ 3.8 ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \triangle\rangle}}$
----------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[fig:gsd\]
FQPT and Perturbation Estimation
--------------------------------
To gain better understanding, in [@AC09], we vary the weights of vertices: fix $w_A = 1$, while varying $w_B$ from $1$ to $1.9$ with a step size of $0.1$. That is, we fix the global maximum independent set, while increasing the weight of the local maximum. As the weight of $w_B$ increases, the minimum spectral gaps get smaller and smaller (indeed, from $10^{-1}$ to $10^{-8}$ as $w_B$ changes from $1$ to $1.9$ as shown in Table \[table1\]).
$w_B$ $s^*$ ${g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}$
------- -------- -------------------------------------
1.0 0.2368 5.23e-01
1.1 0.2517 4.12e-01
1.2 0.2708 2.90e-01
1.3 0.2964 1.68e-01
1.4 0.3323 7.14e-02
1.5 0.3805 2.04e-02
1.6 0.4422 3.63e-03
1.7 0.5217 3.39e-04
1.8 0.6276 1.04e-05
1.9 0.7758 4.14e-08
\[table1\]
$$\begin{array}{ccl}
& (\mbox{Zoom:} s=0.627 \dots 0.628) &\\
\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{K1_annotate.pdf}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{K1_Zoom.pdf}
&\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{FG2.pdf} \\
s^*=0.6276, {g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}= 1.04\times10^{-5} & &\\
(a) & (b) & (c)
\end{array}$$
-- ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.8 4 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 6
${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \triangle\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|\triangle\!\!\!-\!\!\!\triangle \triangle\!\!\!-\!\!\!\triangle \triangle\!\!\!-\!\!\!\triangle\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet\rangle}}$ + ${\ensuremath{|\triangle \triangle\!\!\!-\!\!\!\triangle \triangle\!\!\!-\!\!\!\triangle\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|\triangle \triangle \triangle\!\!\!-\!\!\!\triangle\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|\triangle \triangle \triangle\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet\rangle}}$
-- ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[fig:desev1\]
This was consequently explained by the FQPT in [@AC09]. By FQPT, here we mean that there is a level anti-crossing between two states as illustrated in Figure \[fig:desev1\]. The minimum spectral gap (${g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}$) and the position ($s^*$) were then estimated based on the assumption of the level anti-crossing between the global minimum and the local minima using perturbation method. In particular, ${g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}$ was estimated by the tunneling amplitude between the global minimum and the local minima. The formula so derived involves combinatorial enumeration of the all possible paths between local minima and the global minimum, and suggested ${g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}$ is exponentially (in terms of the problem size) small. See also [@altshuler-2009; @AC09; @farhi-2009; @young-2009] for more explanation on the FQPT and the level anti-crossing.
Varying Parameters in the Problem Hamiltonian for MIS {#sec:change-parameter}
=====================================================
In this section, we show that by changing the parameters in the problem Hamiltonian for MIS on the CK graph, the FQPT no longer occurs and we can significantly increase ${g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}$.
Recall that in the pseudo-boolean formulation of MIS as in Theorem \[thm:mis\], the requirement for $J_{ij}$ is at least $\min\{c_i,c_j\}$, for each $ij \in {{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{E}}}}}(G)$. For simplicity, we consider the simplest case in which $J_{ij}=J$ for all $ij \in {{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{E}}}}}(G)$. In other words, we have the corresponding problem Hamiltonian: $${{\mathcal{H}}}_{1} = \sum_{i \in {{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{V}}}}}(G)} (d_iJ-2c_i) \sigma^z_i + \sum_{ij \in {{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{E}}}}}(G)} J
\sigma^z_i \sigma^z_j\\
$$ where $d_i$ is the degree of vertex $i \in {{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{V}}}}}(G)$.
The natural question is: how does the [[[$\mathsf{ART}$]{}]{}]{} change when we vary $J$? Note that it is not sufficient to consider only the minimum spectral gap change (as almost all the other works on adiabatic quantum computation did) because by increasing $J$, the maximum energy of the system Hamiltonian also increases. Instead, in order to keep the maximum energy of the system Hamiltonian comparable, we keep $J$ fixed and vary $c_i$ instead, namely multiplying all weights $c_i$ by a scaling factor, say $1/k$, for $k \ge 1$, which does not change the original problem to be solved. We remark that this is equivalent to multiplying $J$ by $k$, and then multiply the problem Hamiltonian by ($1/k$). That is, we consider the following (scaled) problem Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathcal{H}}}_k= \sum_{i \in {{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{V}}}}}(G)} (Jd_i-2c_i/k )\sigma^z_i + \sum_{ij \in {{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{E}}}}}(G)} J
\sigma^z_i \sigma^z_j
\label{eq:Hk}\end{aligned}$$ where $k \ge 1$ is the scaling factor.
Minimum Spectral Gap ${g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}$ Without FQPT
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The [[DeSEV]{}]{}s of ${{\mathcal{H}}}_{1}$ and ${{\mathcal{H}}}_{10}$ are shown in Figure \[fig:scaled\] and Figure \[fig:scaled-zoom\]. The anti-crossing between the global minimum and the local minima (for $k=1$) no longer occurs for $k=10$, and ${g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}$ increases from $1.04\times10^{-5}$ to $1.45\times 10^{-1}$. A worthwhile observation is the change in the lowest few excited energy levels: for $k=1$, the lowest few excited states (beyond the first excited state) of the problem Hamiltonian is mainly the superposition of states from $V_B$ ($\triangle$) (which constitutes the local minima); while these states of the scaled ($k=10$) problem Hamiltonian is mainly the superposition of states from $V_A$($\bullet$) (which constitutes the global minimum). That is, the minimum spectral gap can be increased drastically (by as much as four order of magnitude in this example) when the second or higher excited energy levels are changed (while the lowest and first excited energy level stay the same). The [[DeSEV]{}]{}s of ${{\mathcal{H}}}_k$ for $k=1,2,3,5,10,50$ are shown in Figure \[fig:different-K\].
In [@AC09], based on the FQPT assumption, we estimate ${g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}$ (for ${{\mathcal{H}}}_{1}$) by the tunneling amplitude between the local minima and the global minimum, which suggests that ${g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}$ is exponentially small. However, for $k=10$, from our numerical data and [[DeSEV]{}]{} in Figure \[fig:scaled\], we see that the FQPT (that causes ${g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}$ to be exponentially small) no longer occurs, and ${g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}$ increases significantly. This seems to suggest that ${g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}$ to be polynomially small instead for a general CK graph of size $n$. The problem for analytically estimating ${g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}$ of ${{\mathcal{H}}}_{k}$ for a general CK graph of size $n$ remains open. We remark here that the perturbation method is still valid (in fact, as we increase $k$, we also increase the minimum spectral gap position $s^* {\rightarrow}1$), however we can no longer assume that ${g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}$ can be approximated by the tunneling amplitude between the two (localized) states.
$$\begin{array}{cc}
k=1 & k=10 \\
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{K1_annotate.pdf}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{K10.pdf} \\
s^* = 0.627637, {g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}=1.04\times10^{-5} & s^*=0.667731, {g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}=0.145
\end{array}$$
[llllllll]{} $k=1$ & 3.8 & 4 & 4.8 & 5 & 5.2 & 5.4& 6\
& ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \triangle\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\triangle\!\!\!-\!\!\!\triangle \triangle\!\!\!-\!\!\!\triangle \triangle\!\!\!-\!\!\!\triangle\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet\rangle}}$ + ${\ensuremath{|\triangle \triangle\!\!\!-\!\!\!\triangle \triangle\!\!\!-\!\!\!\triangle\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\triangle \triangle \triangle\!\!\!-\!\!\!\triangle\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\triangle \triangle \triangle\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet\rangle}}$\
\
$k=10$ & $3/k$ & $3.6/k$ & $3.8/k$ & $4/k$ & $5/k$ & $5.4/k$ & $6/k$\
& ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \bullet\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\triangle \triangle\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \triangle\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\triangle \triangle \triangle\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet\rangle}}$
\[fig:scaled\]
Scaling Factor and [[[$\mathsf{ART}$]{}]{}]{} {#sec:art}
---------------------------------------------
In this section, we discuss what the good scaling factor should be, and how it affects the [[[$\mathsf{ART}$]{}]{}]{}. To address this question, we need an appropriate formulation for [[[$\mathsf{ART}$]{}]{}]{}. Notice that even for numerical studies, it is not sufficient to just consider ${g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}$ (as the other numerical works on adiabatic quantum computation did, see e.g. [@young-2009]), but the matrix element of the time derivative of the Hamiltonian also matters. In particular, we adopt the following three formulations, which are related to the widely used traditional condition: $$(*)
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
{{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{ART}}}}}_1({{\mathcal{H}}}) = \frac{\max_{0 \le s \le 1}{{\mathcal{M}}}(s)}{{g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}^2}\max_{0 \le s \le 1}||{{\mathcal{H}}}(s)|| \\
{{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{ART}}}}}_2({{\mathcal{H}}}) = \frac{{{\mathcal{M}}}(s^*)}{{g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}^2}\max_{0 \le s \le 1}||{{\mathcal{H}}}(s)||, \mbox{ where } {g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}=E_1(s^*) - E_0(s^*)\\
{{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{ART}}}}}_3({{\mathcal{H}}}) = \max_{0 \le s \le 1}\frac{{{\mathcal{M}}}(s)}{(E_1(s) - E_0(s))^2}\max_{0 \le s \le 1}||{{\mathcal{H}}}(s)||
\end{array}
\right.$$ where ${{\mathcal{M}}}(s)=|{\ensuremath{\langleE_1(s)|}}\frac{d{{\mathcal{H}}}}{ds}{\ensuremath{|E_0(s)\rangle}}|$ is the matrix element of the time derivative Hamiltonian at time $s$, and ${{\mathcal{H}}}(s) {\ensuremath{|E_i(s)\rangle}} = E_i(s){\ensuremath{|E_i(s)\rangle}}$. See Table \[table2\] for the numerical comparisons.
$k$ $s^*$ ${g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}$ ${{\mathcal{M}}}(s^*)$ $\max_{s}{{\mathcal{M}}}(s)$ $\max_{s}||{{\mathcal{H}}}||$ ${{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{ART}}}}}_2$ ${{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{ART}}}}}_1$
----- ------------ ------------------------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------- ------------------------------------- -------------------------------------
1 0.62763727 1.04e-05 4.02e+00 4.02e+00 2.26e+02 8.34e+12 8.34e+12
2 0.54578285 6.37e-03 2.04e+00 2.04e+00 2.48e+02 1.24e+07 1.24e+07
3 0.54467568 3.30e-02 1.41e+00 1.41e+00 2.55e+02 3.32e+05 3.32e+05
4 0.55610853 6.83e-02 1.18e+00 1.18e+00 2.59e+02 6.57e+04 6.58e+04
5 0.57419149 9.67e-02 1.06e+00 1.07e+00 2.61e+02 2.96e+04 2.99e+04
10 0.66773072 1.45e-01 7.48e-01 7.92e-01 2.66e+02 9.45e+03 1.00e+04
20 0.80170240 1.30e-01 4.72e-01 5.68e-01 2.68e+02 7.48e+03 9.01e+03
30 0.99318624 7.97e-02 8.95e-09 4.26e-01 2.69e+02 3.78e-04 1.80e+04
40 0.99642154 5.99e-02 4.90e-10 4.35e-01 2.69e+02 3.67e-05 3.26e+04
50 0.99779592 4.79e-02 5.30e-11 4.41e-01 2.69e+02 6.20e-06 5.16e+04
$k$ $s'$ $g(s') $ ${{\mathcal{M}}}(s')$ $\frac{{{\mathcal{M}}}(s')}{g(s')^2}$ $\max_{s}||{{\mathcal{H}}}||$ ${{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{ART}}}}}_3$
----- ------------ ---------- ----------------------- --------------------------------------- ------------------------------- -------------------------------------
1 0.62763727 1.04e-05 4.02e+00 3.70e+10 2.26e+02 8.34e+12
2 0.54578226 6.37e-03 2.04e+00 5.02e+04 2.48e+02 1.24e+07
3 0.54461081 3.30e-02 1.41e+00 1.30e+03 2.55e+02 3.32e+05
4 0.55545411 6.83e-02 1.18e+00 2.54e+02 2.59e+02 6.57e+04
5 0.57223394 9.68e-02 1.07e+00 1.14e+02 2.61e+02 2.97e+04
10 0.65682886 1.46e-01 7.75e-01 3.64e+01 2.66e+02 9.66e+03
20 0.77115481 1.33e-01 5.41e-01 3.08e+01 2.68e+02 8.24e+03
30 0.83962780 1.08e-01 4.43e-01 3.82e+01 2.69e+02 1.02e+04
40 0.88050519 8.82e-02 3.93e-01 5.05e+01 2.69e+02 1.36e+04
50 0.90581875 7.39e-02 3.63e-01 6.64e+01 2.69e+02 1.79e+04
where $g(s) = E_1(s) - E_0(s)$, and $s' = {\ensuremath{argmax}}_{0 \le s \le 1}\frac{{{\mathcal{M}}}(s)}{g(s)^2}$.
\[table2\]
From Table \[table2\], we see that ${g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}$ increases as $k$ increases from 1 to 10, however, decreases from $10$ to $50$ (even though it is still much larger than $k=1$). The latter, perhaps, can be explained by the following: as $k$ increases, the difference between the low energy levels decreases, and becomes dominate for $k>10$. We remark that the optimal value for $k$ seems to depend only on the vertex weights (for which $J$ depends on), and independ of the problem size. By increasing the scaling factor, we also increase the precision (or dynamic range) requirement for representing the parameters ($h_i$ & $J_{ij}$) in the problem Hamiltonian, which is one of the important physical resources.
Notice that ${{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{ART}}}}}_2 \le {{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{ART}}}}}_1 \le {{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{ART}}}}}_3$. The condition given in ${{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{ART}}}}}_3$ is the formula that one would derive from the adiabatic approximation. The condition in ${{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{ART}}}}}_1$ is the widely used traditional version. The condition in ${{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{ART}}}}}_2$ was mentioned in [@Young]. The natural question is: when are they asymptotically equivalent? Indeed, the three versions of [[[$\mathsf{ART}$]{}]{}]{} coincide for some Hamiltonians (e.g. for $k=1$). However, they can be very different for the large $k$. The main reason is that the matrix element ${{\mathcal{M}}}(s)$ can be extremely small at the minimum spectral gap position $s^*$. For example, for $k=50$, $s^* {\rightarrow}1$, ${{\mathcal{M}}}(s^*)$ is extremely small. Note one can show that ${{\mathcal{M}}}(s)=|{\ensuremath{\langleE_1(s)|}} {{\mathcal{H}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{init}}}}
{\ensuremath{|E_0(s\rangle}}|/s$ for $s\in (0,1]$ because $ {{\mathcal{M}}}(s)= |{\ensuremath{\langleE_1(s)|}}{{\mathcal{H}}}(1) - {{\mathcal{H}}}(0){\ensuremath{|E_0(s\rangle}}| = |{\ensuremath{\langleE_1(s)|}}\frac{{{\mathcal{H}}}(s) - {{\mathcal{H}}}(0)}{s}{\ensuremath{|E_0(s\rangle}}| =|{\ensuremath{\langleE_1(s)|}}{{\mathcal{H}}}(0){\ensuremath{|E_0(s\rangle}}|/s$. Thus, for our initial Hamiltonian, ${{\mathcal{M}}}(s)$ measures the overlap of the states with one single bit flip, and in this case it is extremely small. Observe that the position of the minimum spectral gap $s^*$ is not the same as the position $s'$ where $\frac{{{\mathcal{M}}}(s)}{g(s)^2}$ is maximized. What should be the appropriate formulation of ${{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{ART}}}}}$? Should it be ${{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{ART}}}}}_3$? If so, under what condition, can ${{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{ART}}}}}_1$ be a good approximation to ${{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{ART}}}}}_3$? and under what condition, can we assume that ${g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}$ is the dominating factor (as have been assumed by all other works)?
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
In this paper, we have shown that by changing the parameters in the problem Hamiltonian (without changing the problem to be solved) of the adiabatic algorithm for MIS on the CK graph, we prevent the FQPT, that causes the exponential small ${g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}$, from occurring and significantly increase ${g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}$. We do so by scaling the vertex-weight of the graph, namely, multiplying the weights of vertices by a scaling factor. In order to determine the best scaling factor, we raise the basic question about what the appropriate formulation of adiabatic running time should be.
In [@DMV01; @DV01], van Dam et al. argued that adiabatic quantum optimization might be thought of as a kind of “quantum local search”, and in [@DV01], they constructed a special family of 3SAT instances for which the clause-violation cost function based adiabatic algorithm required exponential time. In [@ChoiDiff], we point out that the exponential small gap argument does not apply to a different adiabatic algorithm for 3SAT. Our CK graph was designed to trap local search algorithms in the sense that there are many local minima to mislead the local search process. From [[DeSEV]{}]{} on a 15-vertex CK graph, we see that indeed this is the case for ${{\mathcal{H}}}_1$ and the adiabatic algorithm would require exponential time due to the exponential small ${g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}$ caused by the FQPT or the level anti-crossing between the global minimum and the local minima. However, for ${{\mathcal{H}}}_k$ (say $k=10$), the FQPT no longer occurs and ${g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}$ increases significantly, which might suggest the possibility of exponential speed-up over ${{\mathcal{H}}}_1$. It remains challenging on how to analytically bound ${g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}$ and/or ${{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{ART}}}}}$ of the adiabatic algorithm for ${{\mathcal{H}}}_{k}$ on general (CK) graphs. One worthwhile observation from this work is that the minimum spectral gap can be increased drastically when the second or higher excited energy states are overlapping with the ground state in spite of the large amount of first excited states (which constitutes the local minima). Recall that NP-complete problems can be polynomial reducible to each other. The reduction requires only the solution to be preserved, i.e. there is a polynomial time algorithm that maps the solution to the reduced problem to the solution to the original problem and vice versa. In other words, the reduction might only preserves the solution (i.e. the ground state) and alter the energy levels of the problem Hamiltonian. Therefore, according to the observation, different reduction is possible to give rise to different problem Hamiltonians, and thus different adiabatic quantum algorithms, for the same problem. Indeed, we have shown in [@ChoiDiff] that based on the NP-complete reductions, we describe different adiabatic quantum algorithms to which the arguments in [@DV01; @altshuler-2009] for the failure of their adiabatic quantum algorithms do not apply.
In summary, although our result is only numerical and supported by visualization, this small example, nevertheless, serves to show that it is possible to avoid FQPT, and also to concretely clarify that it is not sufficient to consider one specific problem Hamiltonian (and thus one specific adiabatic quantum optimization algorithm) for proving the failure of adiabatic quantum optimization for a problem.
I would like to thank my very enthusiastic students in my adiabatic quantum computing class: Ryan Blace, Russell Brasser, Mark Everline, Eric Franklin, Nabil Al Ramli, and Aiman Shabsigh, who also helped to name [[DeSEV]{}]{}. I would like to thank Siyuan Han, Peter Young, Mohammad Amin, Neil Dickson, Robert Raussendorf, Tzu-Chieh Wei and Pradeep Kiran for their comments. Thanks also go to David Sankoff and David Kirkpatrick for the encouragement.
$$\begin{array}{ccc}
k=1 (s:0.627 \ldots 0.628) & k=1 (s:0.62763 \ldots 0.62764) &k=10 (s: 0.667 \ldots 0.668)\\
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{K1_Zoom.pdf}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{K1_BZoom.pdf}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{K10_Zoom.pdf} \\
s^*= 0.6276, {g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}=1.04\times 10^{-5} & s^*= 0.6276, {g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}=1.04\times 10^{-5} & s^*=0.6677, {g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}=1.45 \times 10^{-1}\\
\end{array}$$
[llllllll]{} $k=1$ & 3.8 & 4 & 4.8 & 5 & 5.2 & 5.4& 6\
& ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \triangle\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\triangle\!\!\!-\!\!\!\triangle \triangle\!\!\!-\!\!\!\triangle \triangle\!\!\!-\!\!\!\triangle\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet\rangle}}$ + ${\ensuremath{|\triangle \triangle\!\!\!-\!\!\!\triangle \triangle\!\!\!-\!\!\!\triangle\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\triangle \triangle \triangle\!\!\!-\!\!\!\triangle\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\triangle \triangle \triangle\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet\rangle}}$\
\
$k=10 $ & $3/k$ & $3.6/k$ & $3.8/k$ & $4/k$ & $5/k$ & $5.4/k$ & $6/k$\
& ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \bullet\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\triangle \triangle\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \triangle\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\triangle \triangle \triangle\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet\rangle}}$
\[fig:scaled-zoom\]
$$\begin{array}{ccc}
k=1 & k=2 &k=3\\
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{K1_annotate.pdf} & \includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth]{K2.pdf} & \includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth]{K3.pdf}\\
s^*= 0.6276, {g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}=1.04\times 10^{-5} & s^*=0.5457, {g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}=6.37\times 10^{-3} & s^*=0.5446, {g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}=3.30\times10^{-2}\\
k=5 & k=10 & k=50\\
\includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth]{K5.pdf} & \includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth]{K10.pdf} & \includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth]{K50.pdf}\\
s^*=0.5741, {g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}=9.67\times 10^{-2} & s^*=0.6677, {g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}=1.45 \times 10^{-1} & s^*=0.9977,{g_{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{min}}}}}=4.79 \times 10^{-2}
\end{array}$$
[llllllll]{} $k=1$ & 3.8 & 4 & 4.8 & 5 & 5.2 & 5.4& 6\
& ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \triangle\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\triangle\!\!\!-\!\!\!\triangle \triangle\!\!\!-\!\!\!\triangle \triangle\!\!\!-\!\!\!\triangle\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet\rangle}}$ + ${\ensuremath{|\triangle \triangle\!\!\!-\!\!\!\triangle \triangle\!\!\!-\!\!\!\triangle\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\triangle \triangle \triangle\!\!\!-\!\!\!\triangle\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\triangle \triangle \triangle\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet\rangle}}$\
\
$k=2 $ & $1.6$ & $1.8$ & $1.9$ & $2$ & $2.5$ & $2.7$ & $3$\
& ${\ensuremath{|\triangle \triangle\!\!\!-\!\!\!\triangle\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\triangle \triangle\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \triangle\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\triangle \triangle \triangle\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet\rangle}}$\
\
$k\ge3 $ & $3/k$ & $3.6/k$ & $3.8/k$ & $4/k$ & $5/k$ & $5.4/k$ & $6/k$\
& ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \bullet\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\triangle \triangle\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \triangle\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\triangle \triangle \triangle\rangle}}$ & ${\ensuremath{|\bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet \bullet\rangle}}$
\[fig:different-K\]
[000]{}
M.H.S. Amin, V. Choi (2009), [*First order phase transition in adiabatic quantum computation*]{}, Phys. Rev. A., 80(6).
V. Choi (2011), [*Different Adiabatic Quantum Algorithms for the NP-Complete Exact Cover and 3SAT Problems*]{}, Quantum Information and Computatoin, 11, 0638–0648.
E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, and M. Sipser (2000), [*Quantum computation by adiabatic evolution*]{}, arXiv:quant-ph/0001106.
E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, S. Gutmann, J. Lapan, A. Lundgren, and D. Preda (2001), [*A quantum adiabatic evolution algorithm applied to random instances of an NP-complete problem*]{}, Science, 292(5516):472–476.
G.E. Santoro and E. Tosatti (2006), [*Optimization using quantum mechanics: quantum annealing through adiabatic evolution*]{}, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen., 39, 393–431.
G.E. Santoro and E. Tosatti (2008), [*Corrigendum: Optimization using quantum mechanics: quantum annealing through adiabatic evolution*]{}, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 41.
D. Aharonov, W. van Dam, J. Kempe, Z. Landau, S. Lloyd, and O. Regev (2004;2007), [*Adiabatic quantum computation is equivalent to standard quantum computation*]{}, Proc. 45th FOCS; SIAM Journal of Computing, Vol. 37, Issue 1, p. 166–194.
A. Mizel, D.A. Lidar, and M. Mitchell (2007), [*Simple Proof of Equivalence Between Adiabatic Quantum Computation and the Circuit Model*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett., 99, 070502.
P.W. Shor (1994;1997), [*Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logs and factoring*]{}, Proc. 35th FOCS; SIAM J. Comp., 26, 1484–1509.
A.M. Childs, E. Farhi, J. Goldstone and S. Gutmann (2002), [*Finding cliques by quantum adiabatic evolution*]{}, Quantum Information and Computation, 2, 181.
M. Znidaric (2005), [*Scaling of running time of quantum adiabatic algorithm for propositional satisfiability*]{}, Phys. Rev. A, 71, 062305.
G. Schaller and R. Schützhold (2007), [*The role of symmetries in adiabatic quantum algorithms*]{}, arXiv:quant-ph/0708.1882, 2007.
A.P. Young, S. Knysh, and V.N. Smelyanskiy (2008), [*Size dependence of the minimum excitation gap in the quantum adiabatic algorithm*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett., 101, 170503.
A. P. Young and S. Knysh and V. N. Smelyanskiy (2009), [*First order phase transition in the Quantum Adiabatic Algorithm*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett., 104, 020502.
W. van Dam and U. Vazirani (2001), [*Limits on quantum adiabatic optimization*]{}, Available at http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/$\sim$vazirani/pubs/qao.ps.
W. van Dam, M. Mosca, and U. Vazirani (2001), [*How powerful is adiabatic quantum computation?*]{}, Proc. 42nd FOCS, 279–287.
B.W. Reichardt (2004), [*The quantum adiabatic optimization algorithm and local minima*]{}, Proc. 35th STOC, 502–510.
V. Choi (2008), [*Minor-embedding in adiabatic quantum computation: I. The parameter setting problem*]{}, Quantum Inf. Processing, 7, 193–209.
V. Choi (2011), [*Different adiabatic quantum optimization algorithms for the NP-complete exact cover problem*]{}, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 108(7): E19-E20.
B. Altshuler, H. Krovi and J. Roland (2010), [*Anderson localization makes adiabatic quantum optimization fail*]{}, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 107(28): 12446–12450.
E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, D. Gosset, S. Gutmann, H. B. Meyer and P. Shor (2011), [*Quantum adiabatic algorithms, small gaps, and different paths*]{}, Quantum Information and Computation, 11(3), 0181–0214.
T. Jorg, F. Krzakala, G. Semerjian, and F. Zamponi (2009), [*First-order transitions for random optimization problems in a transverse field*]{}, arXiv.org:quant-ph/0911.3438.
T. Jorg, F. Krzakala, J. Kurchan, A.C. Maggs and J. Pujos (2009), [*Energy gaps in quantum first-order mean-field-like transitions:The problems that quantum annealing cannot solve*]{}, arXiv.org:quant-ph/0912.4865.
A.T. Rezakhani, W.-J. Kuo, A. Hamma, D.A. Lidar, and P. Zanardi (2009), [*Quantum Adiabatic Brachistochrone*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 080502.
S.P. Jordan, E. Farhi, P.W. Shor (2006), [*Error-correcting codes for adiabatic quantum computation*]{}, Phys. Rev. A., 74, 052322.
A. Ambainis and O. Regev (2004), [*An elementary proof of the quantum adiabatic theorem*]{}, arXiv:quant-ph/0411152.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Some Recent References on Adiabatic Theorem</span>
M.H.S. Amin (2009), [*On the inconsistency of the adiabatic theorem*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett., 102, 220401.
D. Comparat (2009), [*General conditions for quantum adiabatic evolution*]{}, Phys. Rev. A, 80, 012106.
V.I. Yukalov (2009), [*Adiabatic theorems for linear and nonlinear Hamiltonians*]{}, Phys. Rev. A, 79, 052117.
J. Du and L. Hu and Y. Wang and J. Wu and M. Zhao and D. Suter (2008), [*Is the quantum adiabatic theorem consistent?*]{} arXiv:quant-ph/0810.0361.
J. Goldstone (2008), [*Adiabatic Theorem*]{}, Appendix of F. S. Jordan’s PhD Thesis. arXiv:quant-ph/0809.2307.
D.A. Lidar and A.T. Rezakhani and A. Hamma (2009), [*Adiabatic approximation with exponential accuracy for many-body systems and quantum computation*]{}, J. Math. Phys., 50, 102106.
D.M. Tong, K. Singh, L.C. Kwek, and C.H. Oh (2007), [*Sufficiency Criterion for the Validity of the Adiabatic Approximation*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett., 98, 150402.
Z. Wei and M. Ying (2007), [*Quantum adiabatic computation and adiabatic conditions*]{}, Phys. Rev. A, 76, 024304.
Y. Zhao (2009), [*Reexamination of the quantum adiabatic theorem*]{}, Phys. Rev. A, 76, 032109.
R. MacKenzie, A. Morin-Duchesne, H. Paquette, and J. Pinel (2007), [*Validity of the adiabatic approximation in quantum mechanics*]{} Phys. Rev. A, 76, 044102.
S. Jansen, R. Seiler and M.B. Ruskai (2007), [*Bounds for the adiabatic approximation with applications to quantum computation*]{}, Journal of Mathematical Physics, 48, 102111.
[^1]: Namely, $
i\frac{d{\ensuremath{|\psi(s)\rangle}}}{ds} = T\cdot {{\mathcal{H}}}(s) {\ensuremath{|\psi(s)\rangle}}
= \frac{T}{K}\cdot K {{\mathcal{H}}}(s) {\ensuremath{|\psi(s)\rangle}}
$ where $K>0$ is a constant.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
In their study @bo07 suggest that a member of the Baptistina asteroid family was the probable source of the K/T impactor which ended the reign of the Dinosaurs 65 Myr ago. Knowledge of the physical and material properties pertaining to the Baptistina asteroid family are, however, not well constrained. In an effort to begin addressing the situation, data from an international collaboration of observatories were synthesized to determine the rotational period of the family’s largest member, asteroid 298 Baptistina ($P_R=16.23\pm0.02$ hrs). Discussed here are aspects of the terrestrial impact delivery system, implications arising from the new constraints, and prospects for future work.\
\
Dans leur recherche, @bo07 sugg[è]{}re qu’un ast[é]{}ro[ï]{}de membre de la famille des Baptistina, est la source probable de l’impacte du K/T qui a mis fin au r[è]{}gne des dinosaures environ 65 milliards d’ann[é]{}es. La connaissance des propri[é]{}t[é]{}s physiques et mat[é]{}rielles de la famille d’ast[é]{}ro[ï]{}de Baptistina n’est cependant pas bien [é]{}tudi[é]{}s. Dans un effort de comprendre la situation, des donn[é]{}es prises d’une collaboration internationale d’observatoires ont [é]{}t[é]{} synth[é]{}tis[é]{}es pour d[é]{}terminer la p[é]{}riode de rotation du plus grand membre de la famille, l’ast[é]{}ro[ï]{}de 298 Baptstina ($P_R=16.23\pm0.02$ hrs). Cette [é]{}tude discute les aspects du syst[è]{}me de l’impact terrestriel, les implications soulev[é]{}es de ces nouvelles contraintes, et les opportunit[é]{}s de futures recherches.
author:
- |
D. J. Majaess$^{1,4}$, D. Higgins$^{2}$, L. A. Molnar$^{3}$, M. J. Haegert$^{3}$, D. J. Lane$^{1,4}$, D. G. Turner$^{1}$ and I. Nielsen$^{5}$\
\
$^1$Department of Astronomy and Physics, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada ([email protected])\
$^2$The Hunters Hill Observatory, Canberra, Australia ([email protected])\
$^3$Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA ([email protected])\
$^4$The Abbey Ridge Observatory, Stillwater Lake, Nova Scotia, Canada ([email protected])\
$^5$Hamburger Sternwarte Observatory, Hamburg, Germany ([email protected])\
date: |
Accepted for Publication in the Journal of the **Royal Astronomical Society of Canada** (*JRASC*)\
Accepted 2008 November $1^{st}$; Received 2008 June $20^{th}$
title: 'New Constraints on the Asteroid 298 Baptistina, the Alleged Family Member of the K/T Impactor'
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Terrestrial impactors (asteroids and comets) have been suggested to play a major role in modulating the existence of life on Earth, as the dating of craters linked to kilometer-sized impactors at Popigai and Chesapeake Bay, Chicxulub [@hi93], and Morokweng and Mjolnir strongly correlate in age with three of the last major global extinctions (late-Eocene, Cretaceous-Tertiary, and Jurassic-Cretaceous respectively). Indeed, readers can view images of the corresponding impact craters at the *Earth Impact Database* ( http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/ ), which is maintained by the Planetary and Space Science Center at the University of New Brunswick.
One of the challenges, undoubtedly, is to explain how such impactors transition from otherwise benign orbits in the solar system to become near-Earth objects (NEOs). Historically, it has been suggested that the cause of such extinctions may be linked to an influx of comets by means of a perturbation of the Oort Cloud, a spherical zone of loosely-bound comets thought to encompass the periphery of the solar system. A litany of possible causes have been put forth as catalysts for such a perturbation, most notably density gradients (stars and the interstellar medium) encountered as the Sun oscillates vertically through the plane of the Milky Way during its revolution about the Galaxy, or interactions with a suspected substellar companion to the Sun (Nemesis). Certain ideas are advocated because they inherently assume a periodicity to mass extinction events, although unproven, rather than stochastic punctuations. A different impact delivery system revisited below is based primarily on orbital resonances, and favours a reservoir of projectiles from the asteroid belt located between Mars and Jupiter, in addition to comets from the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud, the former extending beyond Neptune from 35 A.U. to 50+ A.U.
![A cataclysmic encounter between Earth and a large asteroid as envisioned by artist / astronomer Inga Nielsen.[]{data-label="fig1"}](impact){width="8cm"}
Resonances {#resonances .unnumbered}
----------
Large bodies can be delivered from both Belts into Earth-crossing orbits by means of resonances (secular and mean motion). Formally, a resonance occurs where the orbital periods of two bodies are commensurate (ratios of integers). For example, an asteroid that is near a 2:1 resonance with Mars will orbit the Sun once for each two orbits Mars completes. Most importantly, asteroids near resonances may experience periodic perturbations from a planet that could lead to an increasing eccentricity and a subsequent close encounter, resulting in the asteroid being gravitationally scattered. Observations confirm that areas in the Main Belt associated with strong resonances with the orbit of Jupiter (or Mars) are indeed devoid of asteroids (Kirkwood Gaps), securing the resonance phenomenon as a feasible mechanism for transporting objects from the Belt. Inevitably, a fraction of the asteroids depleted by orbital resonances become NEOs.
A distribution analogous to the Kirkwood Gaps is also noted in computational models of the Kuiper Belt [@ma04], where Neptune plays a major role in scattering comets. Moreover, simulations confirm that comets from the region could then enter other planet-crossing orbits, although the relevant impact probabilities are difficult to constrain because firm statistics on the Kuiper Belt’s comet population lie beyond present limits of solid observational data. The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), scheduled for launch in $\simeq2014$, and the ongoing Canada France Ecliptic Plane Survey (CFEPS) should place firmer constraints on the Kuiper Belt demographic. Indeed, many Canadian astronomers and institutions are active partners in JWST (i.e. John Hutchings, NRC-HIA, René Doyon, Université de Montréal) and CFEPS (i.e. JJ Kavelaars and Lynne Jones, NRC-HIA, Brett Gladman, UBC).
The Yarkovsky Effect {#the-yarkovsky-effect .unnumbered}
--------------------
The Yarkovsky Effect (YE) is another component of the delivery system that can work to enhance the transport of asteroids (or comets) into resonances, essentially increasing the possibility that bodies not near resonances may eventually arrive at such locations. In its simplest form, the canonical YE arises from a temperature differential between the sunlit and dark sides of an object exposed to the Sun. Thermal energy from the object is therefore reradiated asymmetrically, causing the body to experience a thrust that may result in an outwards or inwards orbital migration, depending upon its sense of rotation and the direction of the resulting rocket force (see @ru98 for details).
The YE also allows constraints to be placed on the ages of asteroid families [@vo06]—which is used below to connect the Bapstina asteroid family to the K/T impactor—although such a framework is still in its scientific infancy. The force causes smaller asteroids to undergo a greater orbital migration in comparison with larger bodies, producing a characteristic distribution in semi-major axis space [see figure 1, @bo07]. Computer simulations can then determine at what time after the fragmentation of a parent body the present day distribution of an asteroid family is reproduced satisfactorily. Such analyses depend on knowledge of several different parameters, which in the case of the Baptistina asteroid family (BAF) are not well established as discussed below. Lastly, it is noted that the YE has been invoked to describe the motion of asteroid 6489 Golevka [@ch03], and additional efforts to test and confirm the effect observationally are forthcoming.
Summary {#summary .unnumbered}
-------
In sum, a three-component terrestrial impact delivery system could begin in the Belt with the fragmentation of a parent body near a resonance by means of a collision that spawns hundreds of smaller asteroids, thereby augmenting the statisticaly probability and likelihood of a terrestrial impactor. After fragmentation, a particular asteroid could then enter a nearby resonance or drift there by means of the YE, where it may be scattered by a planet into an Earth-crossing orbit.
{width="12cm"}
The Alleged Baptistina/KT Impactor Connection {#the-alleged-baptistinakt-impactor-connection .unnumbered}
=============================================
In harmony with the delivery model revisited above, @bo07 postulate that the Baptistina asteroid family formed from the catastrophic breakup of its progenitor approximately 160 Myr ago, following which some debris entered a nearby resonance and eventually led to the ejection of what would inevitably become the K/T impactor. Their proposal is argued, based in part (the reader is also referred to the comprehensive supplemental texts that accompany the @bo07 paper), on the following lines of evidence: (i) the asteroid family is located near a resonance capable of delivering passing asteroids into planet-crossing orbits. (ii) The purported destruction of the parent body 160 Myr ago, an age inferred from sorting the asteroids into orbital parameter space according to the YE, created a prodigious supply of BAF members that inevitably populated the NEO demographic, consistent with an alleged increase in the terrestrial impact rate during the same era. It should be noted, however, that the terrestrial record of impacts suffers from poor statistics owing to the subsequent erosion of craters with time, complicating any statistical interpretation. (iii) The K/T impactor and BAF share a similar composition. Yet the results of @re08 appear to imply otherwise (at least vis [à]{} vis the family’s largest member, 298 Baptistina), and moreover, the suggested C-type composition of BAF members would not be unique; such asteroids are found throughout the Belt.
The final conclusions are based on statistical grounds, namely what is the probability that the impactor was a fragment from the creation of the BAF rather than a random C-type asteroid (or background population). Bottke et al. (2007) suggest that there is a 90% chance that the K/T impactor was a BAF member, or $1\pm1$ BAF members of size d$\ge10$ km impacted Earth in the past 160 Myr. Readers should be aware that contributions from the background population are difficult to assess. In addition, accurate modeling of the YE requires knowledge of both physical and material properties that are conducive to BAF members, sensitive parameters that are poorly constrained and require further research by the community at large. Indeed, the rotational period derived here for BAF member 298 Baptistina ($P_R=16.23\pm0.02$ hrs, see below) is a factor of three greater than the value used in the simulations, although @bo07 adopted a value that may be consistent with smaller-sized BAF members [$P_R\simeq6\pm2$ hours, @ph00; @pr02]. The difference in rotational periods noted above is sufficient to warrant additional investigations to confirm the mean rotational period and material properties conducive to kilometer-sized BAF members. Such work needs to be pursued in conjunction with increasing the number of known family members and reaffirming the family’s taxonomy. Efforts to secure such parameters will invariably lead to stronger constraints on the properties of family members and might permit a more confident evaluation of whether the source of the K/T impactor was indeed a $\simeq10$ km sized BAF member. Lastly, and *most importantly*, irrespective of the conclusion regarding the putative source of the K/T impactor, the approach outlined by @bo07 provides the quantitative framework and a pertinent example needed to effectively characterize the terrestrial impact delivery system.
Observations {#observations .unnumbered}
============
Asteroid 298 Baptistina was discovered over a century ago, in September 1890, by the French astronomer Auguste Charlois. The origin of the asteroid’s designation (Baptistina) is unknown, an uncertainty that is also representative of the asteroid’s rotational period, morphology, size, etc. A need to establish such parameters inspired the present study, especially in light of the asteroid’s reputed status. Asteroid 298 Baptistina was therefore observed throughought March and April 2008 from the Abbey Ridge Observatory (Halifax, Canada), the Hunter Hill Observatory (Canberra, Australia), and the Calvin-Rehoboth Observatory (New Mexico, USA). Details regarding the observatories can be found elsewhere in @la07 & @ma08 (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ARO</span>), @hi06 (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">HHO</span>), and @mh07 (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">CRO</span>). Image pre-processing and differential photometry were performed using <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">MPO Canopus</span> [@wa06] and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">MaximDL</span> [@ge07]. The asteroid’s large proper motion required the selection of different reference stars on each night [@wa06; @he98], consequently the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">FALC</span> algorithm was employed to search both magnitude and temporal space for a period solution [@ha89]. The period analysis was carried out in the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">MPO Canopus</span> [@wa06] and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Peranso</span> [@va07] software environments.
A rotational period of $P_R=16.23\pm0.02$ hours was determined for 298 Baptistina from the analysis, and the resulting phased light curve is presented in Figure 2. The light curve exhibits a peak to peak amplitude of $\simeq0.15$ magnitude and displays complex characteristics that are likely indicative of irregular surface features. Continued photometric observations are envisioned to refine the rotational period, and in conjunction with archival observations by @wi97 and @dh07, to model the asteroid’s shape and spin axis by light curve inversion [@mh08; @kt01]. The data will also permit a detailed study of the asteroid’s absolute magnitude and oppositional surge, fundamental for any subsequent research. Thermal imaging and spectroscopic follow-up would also be of value, permitting a precise determination of the asteroid’s diameter and confirmation of its taxonomical class (e.g., @re08). This paper’s referee has estimated that 298 Baptistina may be *approximately* $\simeq 20$ km in size, which follows from the standard formula utilizing albedo [@re08] and the H-magnitude.
Lastly, the present study appears to reaffirm the importance of small telescopes in conducting pertinent scientific research [@pe80; @tu05]. Indeed, modest telescopes can even be mobilized to help address questions surrounding the extinction of the Dinosaurs.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
We are indebted to Petr Pravec, Alan Harris, and Brian Warner for their help in mobilizing the collaboration. DJM also extends his gratitude to the Halifax RASC, Daniel U. Thibault, Aaron Gillich, Joris Van Bever, Arne Henden and the staff at the AAVSO, and Robin Humble and Chris Loken for facilitating simulations of the Kuiper Belt on the McKenzie computer cluster, which is part of the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics (CITA) at the University of Toronto. Lastly, we also thank the referee for his/her comments.
Bottke, W. F., Vokrouhlick[ý]{}, D., & Nesvorn[ý]{}, D. 2007, Nature, 449, 48 Chesley, S. R., et al. 2003, Science, 302, 1739 Ditteon, R., & Hawkins, S. 2007, Minor Planet Bulletin, 34, 59 George D. B., 2007, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">maximdl</span> Advanced CCD Imaging Software, http://www.cyanogen.com Harris A. W., et al., 1989, Icarus, 77, 171 Henden A. A., Kaitchuck R. H., 1998, Astronomical Photometry: A Text and Handbook for the Advanced Amateur and Professional Astronomer, Willmann-Bell, Richmond Higgins, D., Pravec, P., Kusnirak, P., Reddy, V., & Dyvig, R. 2006, Minor Planet Bulletin, 33, 64 Hildebrand, A. R. 1993, JRASC, 87, 77 Kaasalainen, M., & Torppa, J. 2001, Icarus, 153, 24 Lane D. J., 2007, 96th Spring Meeting of the AAVSO, http://www.aavso.org/aavso/meetings/spring07present/Lane.ppt Majaess D. J., 2004, ‘Assessing the Yarkovsky Effect in the Kuiper Belt’, Undergraduate Thesis, Saint Mary’s University. Majaess, D. J., Turner, D. G., Lane, D. J., & Moncrieff, K. E. 2008, Journal of the American Association of Variable Star Observers (JAAVSO), 74 Molnar, L. A., & Haegert, M. J. 2007, Minor Planet Bulletin, 34, 126 Molnar, L. A., & Haegert, M. J. 2008, AAS/Division of Dynamical Astronomy Meeting, 39, \#02.03 Percy, J. R. 1980, JRASC, 74, 334 Pravec, P., Harris, A. W., & Michalowski, T. 2002, Asteroids III, 113 Pravec, P., & Harris, A. W. 2000, Icarus, 148, 12 Reddy, V., et al. 2008, ‘Composition of 298 Baptistina: Implications for K-T Impactor Link.’ Asteroids, Comets, and Meteors Conference, Baltimore Maryland. Rubincam, D. P. 1998, Journal of Geophysical Research, 103, 1725 Turner, D. G., Savoy, J., Derrah, J., Abdel-Sabour Abdel-Latif, M., & Berdnikov, L. N. 2005, PASP, 117, 207 Vanmunster T., 2007, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">peranso</span> Light Curve and Period Analysis Software, http://www.peranso.com Vokrouhlick[ý]{}, D., Bro[ž]{}, M., Bottke, W. F., Nesvorn[ý]{}, D., & Morbidelli, A. 2006, Icarus, 182, 118 Warner B. D., 2006, A Practical Guide to Lightcurve Photometry and Analysis, by B.D. Warner. 2006 XIII, 297 p. 0-387-29365-5. Berlin: Springer, 2006 Wisniewski, W. Z., Michalowski, T. M., Harris, A. W., & McMillan, R. S. 1997, Icarus, 126, 395
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we study a family of operators dependent on a small parameter $\varepsilon>0$, which arise in a problem in fluid mechanics. We show that the spectra of these operators converge to ${\mathbf{N}}$ as $\varepsilon \to 0$, even though, for fixed $\varepsilon > 0$, the eigenvalue asymptotics are quadratic.'
author:
- 'E. B. Davies [^1]'
- 'John Weir [^2]'
title: 'Convergence of eigenvalues for a highly non-self-adjoint differential operator'
---
Introduction
============
In a recent paper [@bobs] Benilov, O’Brien and Sazonov argued that the equation $$\frac{\partial f}{\partial t} = Hf$$ approximates the evolution of a liquid film inside a rotating horizontal cylinder, where $H$ is the closure of the operator $H_0$ on $L^2(-\pi,\pi)$ defined by $$\label{eq:h0}
(H_0f)(\theta) = \varepsilon{\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}}\left(\sin(\theta)\frac{\partial f}{\partial \theta}\right) + \frac{\partial f}{\partial \theta}$$ for any sufficiently small fixed $\varepsilon > 0$ and all $f \in {\mathrm{Dom}\left(H_0\right)} = \mathcal{C}^2_{\mathrm{per}}([-\pi,\pi])$. They also made several conjectures, based on non-rigorous asymptotic and numerical analysis, including that the spectrum of $H$ is purely imaginary and consists of eigenvalues which accumulate at $\pm i \infty$, and that the eigenvalues converge to $i{\mathbf{Z}}$ as $\varepsilon \to 0$. Weir proved these conjectures, except for the convergence of the eigenvalues, in [@weir-2007; @weir-2008]. We prove the remaining conjecture in this paper.
Davies showed in [@davies-2007] that, for $0<\varepsilon \geq 2$, every $\lambda \in {\mathbf{C}}$ is an eigenvalue of $H$. For $\varepsilon < 2$ he showed that $-iH$ has compact resolvent by considering the unitarily equivalent operator $A$ on $l^2({\mathbf{Z}})$ defined by $$(Av)_n = \frac{\varepsilon}{2}n(n-1)v_{n-1} - \frac{\varepsilon}{2}n(n+1)v_{n+1}+nv_n$$ for all $v \in {\mathrm{Dom}\left(A\right)} = \{v \in l^2({\mathbf{Z}}) : Av \in l^2({\mathbf{Z}}) \}$. Here $A = \mathcal{F}^{-1}(-iH)\mathcal{F}$, where $\mathcal{F}:L^2(-\pi,\pi) \to l^2({\mathbf{Z}})$ is the Fourier transform. If $\mathcal{F}f=v$ then $(v_n)_{n \in {\mathbf{Z}}}$ are the Fourier coefficients of $f$. This result was achieved by obtaining sharp bounds on the rate of decay of eigenvectors and resolvent kernels, and by determining the precise domains of the operators involved. He also showed that $$\label{eq:a}
A = A_- \oplus 0 \oplus A_+,$$ where $A_-$ and $A_+$ are the restrictions of $A$ to $l^2({\mathbf{Z}}_-)$ and $l^2({\mathbf{Z}}_+)$ respectively, and that $A_-$ is unitarily equivalent to $-A_+$. Since the resolvent is compact and the adjoint has the same eigenvalues, the spectrum of $-iH$ consists entirely of eigenvalues.
Weir proved in [@weir-2007] that these eigenvalues, if they exist, must all be real. Boulton, Levitin and Marletta subsequently proved in a recent paper [@boulton-2008] that a wider class of operators possess only real eigenvalues. However, they did not prove that any non-zero eigenvalues exist for these operators, nor that their spectra are real. In [@weir-2008], Weir proved rigorously that $-iH$ has infinitely many eigenvalues, all of multiplicity one, which accumulate at $\pm \infty$ by showing that the eigenvalues of $A_+$ correspond to those of a self-adjoint operator with compact resolvent. This operator $L_{\varepsilon}$ on $L^2((0,1),2w_{\varepsilon}(x) \mathrm{d}x)$ is defined as the closure of the operator given by $$\label{eq:leps}
(L_{\varepsilon}f)(x) = - \frac{\varepsilon}{2} w_{\varepsilon}(x)^{-1}(p_{\varepsilon}f')'(x)$$ for all $f \in \{f \in {\mathcal{C}^{\infty}([0,1])}: f(0) = 0\}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
w_{\varepsilon}(x) & = & x^{-1} (1-x)^{1/\varepsilon} (1+x)^{-1/\varepsilon},\\
p_{\varepsilon}(x) & = & (1-x)^{1+1/\varepsilon} (1+x)^{1-1/\varepsilon}.\end{aligned}$$ It was argued in [@chugunova-2007] that the distribution of the eigenvalues, if they exist, should be quadratic, but no rigorous bounds were given. By analysing the self-adjoint operator, Weir proved rigorously in [@weir-2008] that $\lambda_n \sim \varepsilon \pi^2 n^2 \beta^{-2}$ as $n \to \infty$ for a certain explicit constant $\beta$.
The conjecture in [@bobs] that $\lambda_{\varepsilon,n} \to n$ as $\varepsilon \to 0$ is supported by numerical evidence in the same paper, and also in [@chugunova-2007; @davies-2007; @weir-2008]. In this paper we prove the conjecture rigorously. In Section \[sec:unitary\] we apply unitary transformations to obtain a family of operators on the same space. These operators are invertible with Hilbert-Schmidt inverses (Theorem \[thm:unitary\]). We then identify a differential operator with spectrum ${\mathbf{N}}$ (Theorem \[thm:cons\], Corollary \[cor:sa\]), which is unitarily equivalent to an operator whose inverse has an integral kernel which is the pointwise limit of the integral kernels of the aforementioned family of inverses (Theorem \[thm:l0m0\]). Finally we show that we actually have norm convergence (Theorem \[thm:hsc\]) and use the variational method to show that this implies convergence of the eigenvalues, i.e. $\lambda_{\varepsilon,n} \to n$ as $\varepsilon \to 0$ for all $n \in {\mathbf{N}}$; see Theorem \[thm:evc\].
Unitary transformations {#sec:unitary}
=======================
Since we are interested in the limit as $\varepsilon \to 0$, we assume for the rest of the paper that $0 < \varepsilon < 1$. In order to obtain convergence of operators in some sense, we need a family of operators on the same space. To this end we apply unitary transformations to $L_\varepsilon$ to obtain a family of operators on $L^2((0,1/\varepsilon),\mathrm{d}s)$ and then extend each operator to an operator on $L^2((0,\infty),\mathrm{d}s)$.
\[lem:lepstrans\] The operator $L_{\varepsilon}$, defined by [(\[eq:leps\])]{}, is unitarily equivalent to an operator $\tilde{L_{\varepsilon}}$ on $L^2((0,1/\varepsilon), \tilde{w}_{\varepsilon}(s)\mathrm{d}s)$ such that $$\label{eq:lepst}
(\tilde{L_{\varepsilon}}g)(s) = -\tilde{w_{\varepsilon}}(s)^{-1}(\tilde{p}_{\varepsilon}g')'(s)$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{w_{\varepsilon}}(s) & = & 2s^{-1} (1-\varepsilon s)^{1/\varepsilon} (1+\varepsilon s)^{-1/\varepsilon}\\
\tilde{p}_{\varepsilon}(s) & = & (1-\varepsilon s)^{1+1/\varepsilon} (1+\varepsilon s)^{1-1/\varepsilon}\end{aligned}$$ for all $s \in (0,1/\varepsilon)$. Moreover, $\tilde{L}_{\varepsilon}$ is invertible with inverse $R_{\varepsilon}$ given by $$(R_{\varepsilon}f)(s) = \int_0^{1/\varepsilon} G_{\varepsilon}(s,t)f(t)\tilde{w_{\varepsilon}}(t) \mathrm{d}t$$ for all $f \in L^2((0,1/\varepsilon),\tilde{w_{\varepsilon}}(s)\mathrm{d}s)$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_{\varepsilon}(s) & = & \int_0^s \tilde{p}_{\varepsilon}(u)^{-1} \mathrm{d}u\\
& = & \frac{1}{2} \left\{\left(\frac{1+\varepsilon s}{1-\varepsilon s}\right)^{1/\varepsilon} - 1 \right\}\label{eq:gameps}\end{aligned}$$ and $$G_{\varepsilon}(s,t) = \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} \gamma_{\varepsilon}(s) & \textrm{if } 0 < s \leq t < 1/\varepsilon\\
\gamma_{\varepsilon}(t) & \textrm{if } 0 < t \leq s < 1/\varepsilon.
\end{array}\right.$$
We define an operator $U:L^2((0,1),2w_{\varepsilon}(x) \mathrm{d}x) \to L^2((0,1/\varepsilon),\tilde{w}_{\varepsilon}(s)\mathrm{d}s)$ by $$(Uf)(s) = f(\varepsilon s)$$ for all $f \in L^2((0,1),2w_{\varepsilon}(x) \mathrm{d}x)$, $s \in (0,1/\varepsilon)$. It is easy to show that $U$ is a unitary operator. We define $\tilde{L}_{\varepsilon} = UL_{\varepsilon}U^{-1}$. A simple calculation shows that [(\[eq:lepst\])]{} holds. The analogous result about the inverse of $L_{\varepsilon}$ was proven in [@weir-2008], so the result about $\tilde{L}_{\varepsilon}$ follows from the unitary equivalence of the two operators. It only remains for us to calculate $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_{\varepsilon}(s) & = & \int_0^s \tilde{p}_{\varepsilon}(u)^{-1} \mathrm{d}u\\
& = & \frac{1}{\varepsilon}\int_0^{\varepsilon s} p_{\varepsilon}(u)^{-1}\mathrm{d}u\\
& = & \frac{1}{\varepsilon}\int_0^{\varepsilon s} \frac{1}{1-u^2}\left(\frac{1+u}{1-u}\right)^{1/\varepsilon} \mathrm{d}u\\
& = & \frac{1}{\varepsilon}\int_0^{\varepsilon s} \frac{1}{(1-u)^2}\left(\frac{1+u}{1-u}\right)^{1/\varepsilon-1} \mathrm{d}u\\
& = & \frac{1}{2} \left[\left(\frac{1+u}{1-u}\right)^{1/\varepsilon}\right]_0^{\varepsilon s}\\
& = & \frac{1}{2} \left\{\left(\frac{1+\varepsilon s}{1-\varepsilon s}\right)^{1/\varepsilon} - 1 \right\}.\end{aligned}$$ [ <1.5em - 1.5em plus0em minus0.5em height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em]{}
\[thm:unitary\] The operator $L_\varepsilon$ is unitarily equivalent to an operator $M_\varepsilon$ on $L^2((0,1/\varepsilon),\mathrm{d}s)$ such that $$(M_{\varepsilon}^{-1}f)(s) = \int_0^{1/\varepsilon} K_{\varepsilon}(s,t)f(t)\mathrm{d}t$$ for all $f \in L^2((0,1/\varepsilon),\mathrm{d}s)$, where $$\label{eq:keps}
K_{\varepsilon}(s,t) = \left\{\begin{array}{cc} (st)^{-1/2}\left(\frac{1-\varepsilon s}{1+\varepsilon s}\right)^{1/2\varepsilon}\left\{\left(\frac{1+\varepsilon s}{1-\varepsilon s}\right)^{1/\varepsilon} - 1 \right\}\left(\frac{1-\varepsilon t}{1+\varepsilon t}\right)^{1/2\varepsilon} & \textrm{if } 0 \leq s \leq t\\
(st)^{-1/2}\left(\frac{1-\varepsilon s}{1+\varepsilon s}\right)^{1/2\varepsilon}\left\{\left(\frac{1+\varepsilon t}{1-\varepsilon t}\right)^{1/\varepsilon} - 1 \right\}\left(\frac{1-\varepsilon t}{1+\varepsilon t}\right)^{1/2\varepsilon} & \textrm{if } 0 \leq t \leq s.
\end{array}\right.$$ Moreover, if we define $N_{\varepsilon}$ on $L^2((0,\infty),\mathrm{d}s)$ by $$(N_{\varepsilon}f)(s) = \int_0^{\infty} \tilde{K_{\varepsilon}}(s,t)f(t)\mathrm{d}t$$ for all $f \in L^2((0,\infty),\mathrm{d}s)$, where $$\tilde{K_{\varepsilon}}(s,t) = \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} K_{\varepsilon}(s,t) & \textrm{if } 0 < s,t \leq 1/\varepsilon\\
0 & \textrm{otherwise},
\end{array}\right.$$ then $N_{\varepsilon}$ has the same non-zero eigenvalues as $L_\varepsilon^{-1}$, and each non-zero eigenvalue has the same multiplicity with respect to each operator.
We define a unitary operator $J_{\varepsilon}:L^2((0,1/\varepsilon),\mathrm{d}s) \to L^2((0,1/\varepsilon),\tilde{w}_{\varepsilon}(s)\mathrm{d}s)$ by $$(J_{\varepsilon}f)(s) = \tilde{w}_{\varepsilon}(s)^{-1/2}f(s)$$ and then put $M_{\varepsilon} = J_{\varepsilon}^{-1}\tilde{L}_{\varepsilon}J_{\varepsilon}$. We then have $M_{\varepsilon}^{-1} = J_{\varepsilon}^{-1}R_{\varepsilon}J_{\varepsilon}$, so $$(M_{\varepsilon}^{-1}f)(s) = \int_0^{1/\varepsilon} K_{\varepsilon}(s,t)f(t)\mathrm{d}t$$ for all $f \in L^2((0,1/\varepsilon),\mathrm{d}s)$, where $$\begin{aligned}
K_{\varepsilon}(s,t) & = & \tilde{w}_{\varepsilon}(s)^{1/2}G_{\varepsilon}(s,t)\tilde{w}_{\varepsilon}(t)^{1/2}\\
& = & \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} \tilde{w}_{\varepsilon}(s)^{1/2}\gamma_{\varepsilon}(s)\tilde{w}_{\varepsilon}(t)^{1/2} & \textrm{if } 0 < s \leq t < 1/\varepsilon, \\
\tilde{w}_{\varepsilon}(s)^{1/2}\gamma_{\varepsilon}(t)\tilde{w}_{\varepsilon}(t)^{1/2} & \textrm{if } 0 < t \leq s < 1/\varepsilon.
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ Substituting in expression [(\[eq:gameps\])]{} for $\gamma_\varepsilon$, we obtain [(\[eq:keps\])]{}.
There is no unitary equivalence between $M_{\varepsilon}^{-1}$ and $N_{\varepsilon}$, but it is easy to see that they have the same eigenvalues, and that the non-zero eigenvalues have the same multiplicities with respect to each operator. Indeed, $$N_{\varepsilon} = M_{\varepsilon}^{-1} \oplus 0,$$ where $0$ is the zero operator acting on $L^2((1/\varepsilon,\infty), \mathrm{d}s)$. The theorem now follows from the unitary equivalence established in Lemma \[lem:lepstrans\]. [ <1.5em - 1.5em plus0em minus0.5em height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em]{}
The limit operator
==================
In this section we consider the operator $L_0$ on $\mathcal{H} = L^2((0,\infty),w_0(s)\mathrm{d}s)$, where $$w_0(s) = \lim_{\varepsilon\to 0} \tilde{w}_{\varepsilon}(s) = 2s^{-1}{\mathrm{e}}^{-2s},$$ defined on some suitable domain, which we identify below, by $$\label{eq:l0def}
(L_0f)(s) = -w_0(s)^{-1}(p_0f')'(s),$$ where $p_0(s)= \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \tilde{p}_{\varepsilon}(s) = {\mathrm{e}}^{-2s}$. We shall show that $L_0$ has a self-adjoint extension, which is invertible and whose inverse is Hilbert-Schmidt. We then identify the spectrum of $\bar{L_0}$ and the integral kernel of its inverse.
Let $\mathcal{P}$ denote the set of all polynomials on $(0,\infty)$ and $s\mathcal{P}$ denote those elements of $\mathcal{P}$ which have constant term zero.
Let ${\mathrm{Dom}\left(L_0\right)}$ be the set of twice differentiable functions $g:(0,\infty)\to{\mathbf{C}}$ such that $\lim_{s\to 0+}g(s)=0$, $\limsup_{s \to 0+}{\left| g'(s) \right|}<\infty$, $\lim_{s \to \infty}{\mathrm{e}}^{-s}g(s)=0$, $\lim_{s \to \infty}{\mathrm{e}}^{-s}g'(s)=0$ and $L_0f \in \mathcal{H}$.
It is easy to show that ${\mathrm{Dom}\left(L_0\right)} \subset \mathcal{H}$. We may therefore define $L_0$ on this domain by equation [(\[eq:l0def\])]{}. Note also that $s\mathcal{P} \subset {\mathrm{Dom}\left(L_0\right)}$.
The set $\mathcal{P}$ is dense in $L^2((0,\infty), 2s{\mathrm{e}}^{-2s}\mathrm{d}s)$.
Let $g \in L^2((0,\infty), 2s{\mathrm{e}}^{-2s}\mathrm{d}s)$ be such that $g \perp \mathcal{P}$ and define $$f(s) = g(s) 2s {\mathrm{e}}^{-2s} \chi_{(0,\infty)}(s)$$ for all $s \in {\mathbf{R}}$. We need to prove that $g=0$, or equivalently that $f=0$. We first prove that $f \in L^2({\mathbf{R}})$ and the Fourier transform $\hat{f}$ of $f$ has an analytic continuation to the set $\{z : {\left| \Im{z} \right|}<1\}$. We then prove that $\hat{f}$ is zero on an interval containing zero, and hence is identically zero. The invertibility of the Fourier transform then implies that $f=0$.
Firstly $$\int_{{\mathbf{R}}} {\left| f(s) \right|}^2 \mathrm{d}s \leq \sup_{s \in (0,\infty)} 2s{\mathrm{e}}^{-2s} \int_0^{\infty} {\left| g(s) \right|}^2 2s{\mathrm{e}}^{-2s}\mathrm{d}s < \infty$$ so $f \in L^2({\mathbf{R}})$. If $b < 1$ then a similar estimate shows that ${\mathrm{e}}^{b{\left| s \right|}}f \in L^2({\mathbf{R}})$. Theorem IX.13 of [@reedsimonII] implies that $\hat{f}$ has an analytic continuation to $\{z : {\left| \Im{z} \right|}<1\}$.
In order to evaluate $\hat{f}$ in a neighbourhood of zero, we first approximate ${\mathrm{e}}^{-i\xi x}$ by polynomials: $$\begin{aligned}
{\left| {\mathrm{e}}^{-i\xi x} - \sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \frac{(-i\xi x)^n}{n!} \right|} & \leq & \sum_{n=N}^{\infty} \frac{{\left| x \right|}^n{\left| \xi \right|}^n}{n!}\\
& = & {\left| x \right|}^N{\left| \xi \right|}^N \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{{\left| x \right|}^n{\left| \xi \right|}^n}{(n+N)!}\\
& \leq & \frac{{\left| x \right|}^N{\left| \xi \right|}^N}{N!}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{{\left| x \right|}^n{\left| \xi \right|}^n}{n!}\\
& = & \frac{{\left| x \right|}^N{\left| \xi \right|}^N}{N!} {\mathrm{e}}^{{\left| x\xi \right|}}\end{aligned}$$ for all $x \in {\mathbf{R}}$, $\xi \in {\mathbf{R}}$, $N \in {\mathbf{N}}$. We now choose $\beta \in (0,1)$. If $\delta > 0$ is sufficiently small then ${\mathrm{e}}^{(\beta+\delta){\left| x \right|}}f \in L^2({\mathbf{R}})$. Also ${\mathrm{e}}^{-\delta{\left| x \right|}} \in L^2({\mathbf{R}})$, so ${\mathrm{e}}^{\beta{\left| x \right|}}f \in L^1({\mathbf{R}})$. If ${\left| \xi \right|} < \beta/2$ then $$\begin{aligned}
{\left| \hat{f}(\xi) \right|} & = & {\left| \int_{{\mathbf{R}}}{\mathrm{e}}^{-i\xi x}f(x)\mathrm{d}x \right|}\\
& \leq & {\left| \int_{{\mathbf{R}}}\left\{{\mathrm{e}}^{-i\xi x}-\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \frac{(-i\xi x)^n}{n!}\right\}f(x)\mathrm{d}x \right|} + {\left| \int_{{\mathbf{R}}}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \frac{(-i\xi x)^n}{n!}f(x)\mathrm{d}x \right|}\\
& \leq & \int_{{\mathbf{R}}} \frac{{\left| x \right|}^N{\left| \xi \right|}^N}{N!} {\mathrm{e}}^{{\left| x\xi \right|}} {\left| f(x) \right|}\mathrm{d}x + {\left| \int_0^{\infty}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \frac{(-i\xi x)^n}{n!}g(x)2x{\mathrm{e}}^{-2x}\mathrm{d}x \right|}\\
& \leq & \sup_{x \in (0,\infty)}\frac{{\left| x \right|}^N{\left| \xi \right|}^N}{N!}{\mathrm{e}}^{({\left| \xi \right|}-\beta){\left| x \right|}}\int_{{\mathbf{R}}}{\left| f(x) \right|} {\mathrm{e}}^{\beta {\left| x \right|}}\mathrm{d}x\end{aligned}$$ for all $N \in {\mathbf{N}}$. The final integral is finite since ${\mathrm{e}}^{\beta{\left| x \right|}}f \in L^1({\mathbf{R}})$. We put $h_{\xi,N}(x) = \frac{{\left| x \right|}^N{\left| \xi \right|}^N}{N!}{\mathrm{e}}^{({\left| \xi \right|}-\beta){\left| x \right|}}$ for all $x \in (0,1)$ and note that this is a smooth, positive function of $x$. As $x \to 0$ or $x \to \infty$, $h(x) \to 0$, so the supremum of $h$ must be obtained at a local maximum in the interval $(0,\infty)$. The only zero of $h'$ is at $N/(\beta-{\left| \xi \right|})$ so $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{x \in (0,\infty)}h(x) & = & h(N/(\beta-{\left| \xi \right|}))\\
& = & \frac{N^N {\mathrm{e}}^{-N}}{N!}\frac{{\left| \xi \right|}^N}{(\beta-{\left| \xi \right|})^N}\\
& \sim & (2\pi N)^{-1/2}\frac{{\left| \xi \right|}^N}{(\beta-{\left| \xi \right|})^N}\\
& \to & 0\end{aligned}$$ as $N \to \infty$ for all $\xi \in [-\beta/2, \beta/2]$. Hence $\hat{f}(\xi) = 0$ for all $\xi \in [-\beta/2, \beta/2]$. [ <1.5em - 1.5em plus0em minus0.5em height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em]{}
\[cor:dense\] The set $s\mathcal{P}$ is dense in $\mathcal{H}$.
It is easy to show that the operator $U:L^2((0,\infty),2s{\mathrm{e}}^{-s}\mathrm{d}s) \to \mathcal{H}$ defined by $$(Uf)(s) = sf(s)$$ for all $s \in (0,\infty)$ is unitary and that $U\mathcal{P}=s\mathcal{P}$. [ <1.5em - 1.5em plus0em minus0.5em height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em]{}
\[thm:cons\] The operator $L_0$ is symmetric and there is a complete orthonormal sequence $\{e_n\}_{n \in {\mathbf{N}}}$ in $\mathcal{H}$ such that, for each $n \in {\mathbf{N}}$, $e_n \in {\mathrm{Dom}\left(L_0\right)}$ and $L_0e_n = ne_n$.
For all $f$, $g \in {\mathrm{Dom}\left(L_0\right)}$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\left< L_0f, g \right>} &=& -\int_0^{\infty} (p_0f')'(s){\overline{g(s)}}\mathrm{d}s\\
&=& p_0(0)f'(0){\overline{g(0)}} - \lim_{n\to\infty} p_0(n)f'(n){\overline{g(n)}} +\int_0^{\infty} p_0(s)f'(s){\overline{g'(s)}}\mathrm{d}s\\
&=& \lim_{n \to \infty} p_0(n)f(n){\overline{g'(n)}} - p_0(0)f(0){\overline{g'(0)}} -\int_0^{\infty} f(s){\overline{(p_0g')'(s)}}\mathrm{d}s\\
&=& {\left< f, L_0g \right>}\end{aligned}$$ since $f(0)=g(0)=0$, $$\lim_{n \to \infty}p_0(n)f'(n){\overline{g(n)}} = \left(\lim_{n \to \infty}{\mathrm{e}}^{-n}f'(n)\right)\left(\lim_{n \to \infty}{\mathrm{e}}^{-n}{\overline{g(n)}}\right) = 0$$ and similarly $\lim_{n \to \infty}p_0(n)f(n){\overline{g'(n)}} = 0$. Therefore $L_0$ is symmetric.
For all $n \in {\mathbf{N}}$, define $a_{n,r}$ recursively for $r=1, \ldots, n$ by $$\begin{aligned}
a_{n,n} &=& 1\\
a_{n,r} &=& -\frac{r(r+1)}{2(n-r)}a_{n,r+1}\textrm{ for }r=1,\ldots,n-1\end{aligned}$$ and put $$f_n(s) = \sum_{r=1}^n a_{n,r}s^r$$ for all $s \in (0,\infty)$, $n \in {\mathbf{N}}$. Then, for each $n \in {\mathbf{N}}$, $f_n \in {\mathrm{Dom}\left(L_0\right)}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
(L_0f_n)(s) &=& -\frac{p_0(s)}{w_0(s)}f_n''(s) - \frac{p_0'(s)}{w_0(s)}f'(s)\\
&=&-\frac{s}{2}f''(s) + sf'(s)\\
&=&-\sum_{r=2}^n \frac{r(r-1)a_{n,r}}{2}s^{r-1} + \sum_{r=1}^n ra_{n,r}s^r\\
&=& \sum_{r=1}^{n-1}\left\{ra_{n,r}-\frac{r(r+1)a_{n,r+1}}{2}\right\}s^r +na_{n,n}s^n\\
&=& nf_n(s)\end{aligned}$$ for all $s\in (0,\infty)$. Since the $f_n$ are eigenvectors corresponding to distinct eigenvalues and $L_0$ is symmetric, they are orthogonal. Putting $e_n = f_n{\left\| f_n\right\|}^{-1}$, we obtain an orthonormal sequence such that $L_0e_n=ne_n$. Each $e_n$ is a polynomial of degree $n$, so ${\mathrm{lin}}\{e_n\}_{n\in{\mathbf{N}}} = s\mathcal{P}$. It now follows from Corollary \[cor:dense\] that $\{e_n\}_{n\in{\mathbf{N}}}$ is complete. [ <1.5em - 1.5em plus0em minus0.5em height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em]{}
The situation above can be seen as an exceptional case of that for the associated Laguerre polynomials $\{L_n^{(\alpha)}\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ (see [@gradshteyn]). If $\alpha>-1$ these polynomials are a complete orthogonal set of eigenvectors, corresponding to eigenvalues $0,1,2,\ldots$ respectively, of the differential equation $$xf'' + (\alpha + 1 - x)f' + \lambda f = 0$$ on $L^2((0,\infty),x^\alpha{\mathrm{e}}^{-x}\mathrm{d}x)$. After a change of variables, the eigenvalue equation for $L_0$ becomes the exceptional case $\alpha = -1$. The singularity at the origin requires special treatment, but otherwise the treatment of this case is the same as for $\alpha > -1$.
\[cor:sa\] The operator $L_0$ is essentially self-adjoint, and the spectrum of its closure is precisely ${\mathbf{N}}$.
The result follows immediately from the theorem and Lemma 1.2.2 of [@stdo]. [ <1.5em - 1.5em plus0em minus0.5em height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em]{}
The operator $\bar{L_0}$ is invertible and its inverse $R$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator. Moreover, $$\label{eq:r0def}
(R_0f)(s) = \int_0^{\infty} G_0(s,t)f(t)w_0(t)\mathrm{d}t$$ for all $f \in \mathcal{H}$, where $$G_0(s,t) = \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} \gamma_0(s) & \textrm{if } 0 < s \leq t\\
\gamma_0(t) & \textrm{if } 0 < t \leq s
\end{array}\right.$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_0(s) & = & \int_0^s p_0(u)^{-1} \mathrm{d}u\\
& = & \int_0^s {\mathrm{e}}^{2u} \mathrm{d}u\\
& = & \frac{1}{2}\left\{{\mathrm{e}}^{2s}-1\right\}.\end{aligned}$$
Let $R_0$ be defined by equation [(\[eq:r0def\])]{}. Then $R_0$ is Hilbert-Schmidt since $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\hspace*{-2em}\int_0^{\infty} \left(\int_0^{\infty} {\left| G_0(s,t) \right|}^2 w_0(t) \mathrm{d}t\right) w_0(s) \mathrm{d}s}\\
&=& 2\int_0^{\infty} \left(\int_s^{\infty} {\left| G_0(s,t) \right|}^2 w_0(t) \mathrm{d}t\right) w_0(s) \mathrm{d}s\\
&=& 2\int_0^{\infty} \left(\int_s^{\infty} {\left| {\mathrm{e}}^{2s}-1 \right|}^2t^{-1}{\mathrm{e}}^{-2t}\mathrm{d}t\right) s^{-1}{\mathrm{e}}^{-2s}\mathrm{d}s\\
&\leq& 2\int_0^{\infty} \left(\int_s^{\infty} {\mathrm{e}}^{-2t}\mathrm{d}t\right){\left| {\mathrm{e}}^{2s}-1 \right|}^2 s^{-2}{\mathrm{e}}^{-2s}\mathrm{d}s\\
&=&\int_0^{\infty} {\left| {\mathrm{e}}^{-2s}-1 \right|}^2 s^{-2}\mathrm{d}s\\
&\leq& \int_0^1 4 \mathrm{d}s + \int_1^{\infty} s^{-2} \mathrm{d}s\\
&=& 5.\end{aligned}$$
Let $f \in s\mathcal{P}$. Then $f \in L^1((0,\infty),w_0(s)\mathrm{d}s)$. Hence it is easy to show that $Rf$ is absolutely continuous and $$\begin{aligned}
(Rf)'(s) &=& \int_s^\infty \gamma'(s)f(t)w_0(t)\mathrm{d}t\\
&=& p_0(s)^{-1} \int_s^\infty f(t)w_0(t)\mathrm{d}t.\end{aligned}$$ We now show that $Rf \in {\mathrm{Dom}\left(L_0\right)}$. Since $f$, $w_0$ and $p_0^{-1}$ are smooth on $(0,\infty)$, $(Rf)$ is twice differentiable (indeed, it is also smooth). We calculate $$\limsup_{s\to 0+}{\left| (Rf)(s) \right|} \leq \limsup_{s\to 0+}\gamma_0(s)\int_0^\infty {\left| f(t) \right|}w_0(t)\mathrm{d}t = 0$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{s\to 0+}{\left| (Rf)'(s) \right|} &\leq& \limsup_{s\to 0+}p_0(s)^{-1}\int_s^\infty {\left| f(t) \right|}w_0(t)\mathrm{d}t\\
&=& \int_0^\infty {\left| f(t) \right|}w_0(t)\mathrm{d}t < \infty.\end{aligned}$$ Since $f$ is a polynomial, there exists a constant $c>0$ such that ${\left| f(s) \right|}\leq c{\mathrm{e}}^s$ for all $s \in (0,\infty)$. Let $\delta>0$ be given. Then, for all $s>c/\delta$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\left| {\mathrm{e}}^{-s}(Rf)(s) \right|} &\leq& {\mathrm{e}}^{-s}\int_0^s{\left| \gamma_0(t)f(t)w_0(t) \right|}\mathrm{d}t + {\mathrm{e}}^{-s}\int_s^\infty {\left| \gamma_0(s)f(t)w_0(t) \right|}\mathrm{d}t\\
&\leq& {\mathrm{e}}^{-s}\int_0^s{\mathrm{e}}^{2t}{\left| f(t) \right|}t^{-1}{\mathrm{e}}^{-2t}\mathrm{d}t + {\mathrm{e}}^{-s}\int_s^\infty {\mathrm{e}}^{2s}{\left| f(t) \right|}t^{-1}{\mathrm{e}}^{-2t}\mathrm{d}t\\
&\leq& {\mathrm{e}}^{-s}\int_0^{c/\delta} {\left| f(t) \right|}t^{-1}\mathrm{d}t +{\mathrm{e}}^{-s}\int_{c/\delta}^s \delta{\mathrm{e}}^t\mathrm{d}t + s^{-1}{\mathrm{e}}^s\int_s^\infty c{\mathrm{e}}^{-t}\mathrm{d}t\\
&\leq& {\mathrm{e}}^{-s}\int_0^{c/\delta} {\left| f(t) \right|}t^{-1}\mathrm{d}t + \delta +cs^{-1} \to \delta\end{aligned}$$ as $s \to \infty$. Since $\delta>0$ is arbitrary, ${\mathrm{e}}^{-s}(Rf)(s) \to 0$ as $s \to \infty$. Also $$\begin{aligned}
{\left| {\mathrm{e}}^{-s}(Rf)'(s) \right|} &\leq& {\mathrm{e}}^s\int_s^\infty{\left| f(t) \right|}\frac{2}{t}{\mathrm{e}}^{-2t}\mathrm{d}t\\
&\leq& 2s^{-1}{\mathrm{e}}^s\int_s^\infty c{\mathrm{e}}^{-t}\mathrm{d}t\\
&=& 2cs^{-1} \to 0\end{aligned}$$ as $s \to \infty$. Therefore $Rf \in {\mathrm{Dom}\left(L_0\right)}$, provided $L_0Rf \in \mathcal{H}$, and $$\begin{aligned}
(\bar{L_0}Rf)(s) &=& (L_0Rf)(s)\\
&=& -w_0(s)^{-1}{\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} s}}\int_s^\infty f(t)w_0(t)\mathrm{d}t\\
&=& f(s).\end{aligned}$$ Since $f \in \mathcal{H}$, we indeed have $L_0Rf \in \mathcal{H}$.
We have proven that $\bar{L_0}Rf = f$ for all $f \in s\mathcal{P}$. Let $f \in \mathcal{H}$. By Corollary \[cor:dense\], there is a sequence $(f_n)$ in $s\mathcal{P}$ such that $f_n \to f$ as $n \to \infty$. By the above, we have $Rf_n \to Rf$ and $\bar{L_0}Rf_n = f_n \to f$ as $n \to \infty$. Since $\bar{L_0}$ is closed, this implies that $Rf \in {\mathrm{Dom}\left(\bar{L_0}\right)}$ and $\bar{L_0}Rf = f$. Finally, $\bar{L_0}$ is injective since $0 \notin {\mathrm{Spec}\left(\bar{L_0}\right)}$. Hence $\bar{L_0}R\bar{L_0}f = \bar{L_0}f$ implies $R\bar{L_0}f = f$ for all $f \in \mathcal{H}$. [ <1.5em - 1.5em plus0em minus0.5em height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em]{}
\[thm:l0m0\] The operator $\bar{L_0}$ is unitarily equivalent to an operator $M_0$ on $L^2((0,\infty),\mathrm{d}s)$. Moreover, $$\label{eq:k0ker}
(M_0^{-1}f)(s) = \int_0^{\infty} K_0(s,t)f(t)\mathrm{d}t$$ for all $f \in L^2((0,\infty),\mathrm{d}s)$, where $$\begin{aligned}
K_0(s,t) & = & w_0(s)^{1/2}G_0(s,t)w_0(t)^{1/2}\\
& = & \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} (st)^{-1/2} {\mathrm{e}}^{-s}\left\{{\mathrm{e}}^{2s}-1\right\}{\mathrm{e}}^{-t} & \textrm{if } 0 < s \leq t\\
(st)^{-1/2} {\mathrm{e}}^{-s}\left\{{\mathrm{e}}^{2t}-1\right\}{\mathrm{e}}^{-t} & \textrm{if } 0 < t \leq s.
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$
We define a unitary operator $$J_0:L^2((0,\infty),\mathrm{d}s) \to L^2((0,\infty),w_0(s)\mathrm{d}s)$$ by $$(J_0f)(s) = w_0(s)^{-1/2}f(s)$$ and put $M_0 = J_0^{-1}\bar{L_0}J_0$. Then $M_0^{-1} = J_0^{-1}R_0J_0$ and [(\[eq:k0ker\])]{} is immediate. [ <1.5em - 1.5em plus0em minus0.5em height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em]{}
Convergence of the eigenvalues
==============================
Clearly $\tilde{K_{\varepsilon}}(s,t) \to K_0(s,t)$ as $\varepsilon \to 0$ for each $s$, $t \in (0,\infty)$. In this section we shall show that $K_{\varepsilon} \to K_0$ in $L^2$-norm as $\varepsilon \to 0$, and hence that $N_{\varepsilon} \to M_0^{-1}$ in Hilbert-Schmidt norm as $\varepsilon \to 0$. We use this fact to prove that the eigenvalues of $L_\varepsilon$ converge to those of $L_0$ as $\varepsilon \to 0$.
\[lem:bound\] If $0 \leq s \leq t < 1/\varepsilon$ then $$\mbox{$\left(\frac{1-\varepsilon s}{1+\varepsilon s}\right)^{1/2\varepsilon}\left\{\left(\frac{1+\varepsilon s}{1-\varepsilon s}\right)^{1/\varepsilon} - 1 \right\}\left(\frac{1-\varepsilon t}{1+\varepsilon t}\right)^{1/2\varepsilon} - {\mathrm{e}}^{-s}\left\{{\mathrm{e}}^{2s}-1\right\}{\mathrm{e}}^{-t}$} \leq {\mathrm{e}}^{-s-t}.$$
We first note that $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{$\log\left(\left(\frac{1+\varepsilon s}{1-\varepsilon s}\right)^{1/2\varepsilon}\left(\frac{1-\varepsilon t}{1+\varepsilon t}\right)^{1/2\varepsilon}\right)$} & = & \frac{1}{2\varepsilon}\left\{\log(1+\varepsilon s) -\log(1-\varepsilon s)\right\}\\
& & + \frac{1}{2\varepsilon} \left\{\log(1-\varepsilon t) - \log(1+ \varepsilon t)\right\}\\
& = & s - t + \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \frac{\varepsilon^{2k}}{2k+1}(s^{2k+1}-t^{2k+1})\\
& \leq & s-t\end{aligned}$$ and hence $$\left(\frac{1+\varepsilon s}{1-\varepsilon s}\right)^{1/2\varepsilon}\left(\frac{1-\varepsilon t}{1+\varepsilon t}\right)^{1/2\varepsilon} \leq {\mathrm{e}}^{s-t}$$ for $0 \leq s \leq t < 1/\varepsilon$. For such $s$, $t$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{$\left(\frac{1-\varepsilon s}{1+\varepsilon s}\right)^{1/2\varepsilon}\left\{\left(\frac{1+\varepsilon s}{1-\varepsilon s}\right)^{1/\varepsilon} - 1 \right\}\left(\frac{1-\varepsilon t}{1+\varepsilon t}\right)^{1/2\varepsilon}$}
& \leq & \mbox{$\left(\frac{1+\varepsilon s}{1-\varepsilon s}\right)^{1/2\varepsilon}\left(\frac{1-\varepsilon t}{1+\varepsilon t}\right)^{1/2\varepsilon}$}\\
& \leq & {\mathrm{e}}^{s-t}\\
& = & {\mathrm{e}}^{-s}\left\{{\mathrm{e}}^{2s}-1\right\}{\mathrm{e}}^{-t} + {\mathrm{e}}^{-s-t}.\end{aligned}$$ [ <1.5em - 1.5em plus0em minus0.5em height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em]{}
\[thm:hsc\] $\lim_{\varepsilon \to 0}{\left\| N_{\varepsilon} - M_0^{-1}\right\|}_{\mathrm{HS}}=0$.
Using the symmetry of $\tilde{K_{\varepsilon}}$ and $K_0$, it is sufficient to show that $$\int_0^{\infty}\int_s^{\infty} {\left| \tilde{K_{\varepsilon}}-K_0 \right|}^2 \mathrm{d}t\mathrm{d}s \to 0$$ as $\varepsilon \to 0$. If $\frac{1}{2}\log2 \leq s \leq t < 1/\varepsilon$ then, by Lemma \[lem:bound\], $$\begin{aligned}
st{\left| \tilde{K_{\varepsilon}}-K_0 \right|}^2
& = & \mbox{${\left| \left(\frac{1-\varepsilon s}{1+\varepsilon s}\right)^{1/2\varepsilon}\left\{\left(\frac{1+\varepsilon s}{1-\varepsilon s}\right)^{1/\varepsilon} - 1 \right\}\left(\frac{1-\varepsilon t}{1+\varepsilon t}\right)^{1/2\varepsilon} - {\mathrm{e}}^{-s}\left\{{\mathrm{e}}^{2s}-1\right\}{\mathrm{e}}^{-t} \right|}^2$}\\
& \leq & \max\left\{{\mathrm{e}}^{-2s-2t},{\mathrm{e}}^{-2s}\left\{{\mathrm{e}}^{2s}-1\right\}^2{\mathrm{e}}^{-2t}\right\}\\
& \leq & {\mathrm{e}}^{-2s}\left\{{\mathrm{e}}^{2s}-1\right\}^2{\mathrm{e}}^{-2t}.\end{aligned}$$ If $t \geq 1/\varepsilon$ then $\tilde{K_{\varepsilon}} = 0$, so the above bound still holds. Since $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\hspace*{-3em}\int_{\frac{1}{2}\log2}^{\infty}\int_s^{\infty} (st)^{-1}{\mathrm{e}}^{-2s}\left\{{\mathrm{e}}^{2s}-1\right\}^2{\mathrm{e}}^{-2t} \mathrm{d}t\mathrm{d}s}\\
& \leq & \int_{\frac{1}{2}\log2}^{\infty} s^{-2}{\mathrm{e}}^{-2s}\left\{{\mathrm{e}}^{2s}-1\right\}^2 \int_s^{\infty} {\mathrm{e}}^{-2t} \mathrm{d}t\mathrm{d}s\\
& = & \frac{1}{2} \int_{\frac{1}{2}\log2}^{\infty} s^{-2}{\mathrm{e}}^{-4s}\left\{{\mathrm{e}}^{2s}-1\right\}^2\mathrm{d}s\\
& \leq & \frac{1}{2}\int_{\frac{1}{2}\log2}^{\infty}s^{-2}\mathrm{d}s\\
& < & \infty,\end{aligned}$$ we may use the Lebesgue Dominated Convergence Theorem to prove that $$\int_{\frac{1}{2}\log2}^{\infty}\int_s^{\infty} {\left| \tilde{K_{\varepsilon}}-K_0 \right|}^2 \mathrm{d}t\mathrm{d}s \to 0$$ as $\varepsilon \to 0$.
If $0\leq s < 1$ and $0<\varepsilon<1$ then $$\begin{aligned}
\log\left\{\left(\frac{1+\varepsilon s}{1-\varepsilon s}\right)^{1/\varepsilon}\right\}
& = & 2\sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \frac{\varepsilon^{2k}s^{2k+1}}{2k+1}\\
& \leq & 2\sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \frac{s^{2k+1}}{2k+1}\\
& = & \log\left(\frac{1+s}{1-s}\right),\end{aligned}$$ so $$\left(\frac{1+\varepsilon s}{1-\varepsilon s}\right)^{1/\varepsilon} \leq \log\left(\frac{1+s}{1-s}\right).$$ Also $$\left(\frac{1-\varepsilon x}{1+\varepsilon x}\right)^{1/2\varepsilon} \leq {\mathrm{e}}^{-x}$$ if $0 \leq x < 1/\varepsilon$. Hence, for $0 \leq s \leq \frac{1}{2}\log2$, $s \leq t < 1/\varepsilon$, $$\begin{aligned}
0&\leq &st{\left| \tilde{K_{\varepsilon}}-K_0 \right|}^2 \\
&\leq& \mbox{$\max \left\{\left(\frac{1-\varepsilon s}{1+\varepsilon s}\right)^{1/2\varepsilon}\left\{\left(\frac{1+\varepsilon s}{1-\varepsilon s}\right)^{1/\varepsilon} - 1 \right\}\left(\frac{1-\varepsilon t}{1+\varepsilon t}\right)^{1/2\varepsilon}\!\!, {\mathrm{e}}^{-s}\left\{{\mathrm{e}}^{2s}-1\right\}{\mathrm{e}}^{-t} \right\}^2$}\\
& \leq & \mbox{$\max \left\{{\mathrm{e}}^{-2s}\left(\frac{1+s}{1-s} -1\right)^2{\mathrm{e}}^{-2t}, {\mathrm{e}}^{-2s}\left\{{\mathrm{e}}^{2s}-1\right\}^2{\mathrm{e}}^{-2t} \right\}$}.\end{aligned}$$ As before, this bound holds for all $t$ such that $t \geq s$, since $\tilde{K_{\varepsilon}} = 0$ if $t \geq 1/\varepsilon$. Since we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\hspace*{-3em}\int_0^{\frac{1}{2}\log2} \int_s^{\infty} (st)^{-1} {\mathrm{e}}^{-2s}\left\{{\mathrm{e}}^{2s}-1\right\}^2{\mathrm{e}}^{-2t} \mathrm{d}t\mathrm{d}s}\\
& \leq & \int_0^{\frac{1}{2}\log2} s^{-2}{\mathrm{e}}^{-2s}\left\{{\mathrm{e}}^{2s}-1\right\}^2 \int_s^{\infty} {\mathrm{e}}^{-2t} \mathrm{d}t\mathrm{d}s\\
& = & \frac{1}{2} \int_0^{\frac{1}{2}\log2} s^{-2}{\mathrm{e}}^{-4s}\left\{{\mathrm{e}}^{2s}-1\right\}^2\mathrm{d}s\\
& < & \infty\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\hspace*{-3em}\int_0^{\frac{1}{2}\log2} \int_s^{\infty} (st)^{-1} {\mathrm{e}}^{-2s}\left(\frac{1+s}{1-s} -1\right)^2{\mathrm{e}}^{-2t} \mathrm{d}t\mathrm{d}s}\\
& = & \int_0^{\frac{1}{2}\log2} \int_s^{\infty} (st)^{-1} {\mathrm{e}}^{-2s}\left(\frac{2s}{1-s}\right)^2{\mathrm{e}}^{-2t} \mathrm{d}t\mathrm{d}s\\
& \leq & c\int_0^{\frac{1}{2}\log2} \int_s^{\infty} {\mathrm{e}}^{-2s}{\mathrm{e}}^{-2t} \mathrm{d}t\mathrm{d}s\\
& = & \frac{c}{2} \int_0^{\frac{1}{2}\log2} {\mathrm{e}}^{-4s}\mathrm{d}s\\
& < & \infty\end{aligned}$$ for some constant $c$, we may use the Lebesgue Dominated Convergence Theorem to prove that $$\int_0^{\frac{1}{2}\log2}\int_s^{\infty} {\left| \tilde{K_{\varepsilon}}-K_0 \right|}^2 \mathrm{d}t\mathrm{d}s \to 0$$ as $\varepsilon \to 0$. [ <1.5em - 1.5em plus0em minus0.5em height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em]{}
We now use standard variational methods to deduce the convergence of the eigenvalues from the norm convergence of the resolvents.
\[thm:evc\] For each $\varepsilon \in (0,1)$, $n \in {\mathbf{N}}$, let $\lambda_{\varepsilon,n}$ be the $nth$ eigenvalue of $L_\varepsilon$. Then $\lambda_{\varepsilon,n} \to n$ as $\varepsilon \to 0$.
If $S$ is a finite-dimensional subspace of $L^2((0,\infty),\mathrm{d}s)$ then we define $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_\varepsilon(S) & = & \sup\left\{{\left< (I-N_{\varepsilon})f, f \right>}:f \in S \textrm{ and } {\left\| f\right\|}=1\right\},\\
\mu_0(S) & = & \sup\left\{{\left< (I-S_0^{-1})f, f \right>}:f \in S \textrm{ and } {\left\| f\right\|}=1\right\},\\
\mu_{\varepsilon,n} & = & \inf\{\mu_\varepsilon(S):S \subset L^2((0,\infty),\mathrm{d}s) \textrm{ and }\dim(S)=n\},\\
\mu_{0,n} & = & \inf\{\mu_0(S):S \subset L^2((0,\infty),\mathrm{d}s) \textrm{ and }\dim(S)=n\}.\end{aligned}$$ For each $\varepsilon \in (0,1)$, $N_{\varepsilon}$ is self-adjoint since it is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator with a symmetric integral kernel. Also ${\mathrm{Spec}\left(L_\varepsilon\right)} \subset [1,\infty)$ and hence it follows from Theorem \[thm:unitary\] that $I-N_{\varepsilon}$ is a non-negative self-adjoint operator with essential spectrum $\{1\}$ and eigenvalues $\{1-1/\lambda_{\varepsilon,n}:n \in {\mathbf{N}}\} \subset [0,1)$. It follows from Corollary \[cor:sa\] and Theorem \[thm:l0m0\] that $I-M_0^{-1}$ is a non-negative self-adjoint operator with essential spectrum $\{1\}$ and eigenvalues $\{1-1/n:n\in{\mathbf{N}}\} \subset [0,1)$.
By Theorem 4.5.2 of [@stdo], $\mu_{\varepsilon,n} = 1-1/\lambda_{\varepsilon,n}$ and $ \mu_{0,n} = 1-1/n$. Let $\delta > 0$ be given. Then Theorem \[thm:hsc\] implies that there exists $\eta>0$ such that, whenever $0<\varepsilon<\eta$, $${\left< (I-M_0^{-1})f, f \right>} - \delta \leq {\left< (I-N_{\varepsilon})f, f \right>} \leq {\left< (I-M_0^{-1})f, f \right>} +\delta$$ for all $f \in L^2((0,\infty),\mathrm{d}s)$ such that ${\left\| f\right\|} = 1$. For such $\varepsilon$, this implies that $$\mu_\varepsilon(S) - \delta \leq \mu_0(S) \leq \mu_\varepsilon(S) + \delta$$ for all finite-dimensional subspaces $S$ of $L^2((0,\infty),\mathrm{d}s)$ and hence that $$\mu_{\varepsilon,n} - \delta \leq \mu_{0,n} \leq \mu_{\varepsilon,n} + \delta$$ for all $n \in {\mathbf{N}}$. Therefore, for all $n \in {\mathbf{N}}$, $\mu_{\varepsilon,n} \to \mu_{0,n}$ as $\varepsilon \to 0$ and hence $\lambda_{\varepsilon,n} \to n$ as $\varepsilon \to 0$. [ <1.5em - 1.5em plus0em minus0.5em height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em]{}
[1]{}
E. S. [Benilov]{}, S. B. G. [O’Brien]{}, and I. A. [Sazonov]{}. . , 497 (2003) 201–224.
J. L. Weir. An indefinite convection-diffusion operator with real spectrum. , in press.
J. L. Weir. Correspondence of the eigenvalues of a non-self-adjoint operator to those of a self-adjoint operator. , 2008.
E. B. Davies. An indefinite convection-diffusion operator. , 10 (2007) 288–306.
Lyonell Boulton, Michael Levitin, and Marco Marletta. A PT-symmetric periodic problem with boundary and interior singularities. , 2008.
M. [Chugunova]{} and D. [Pelinovsky]{}. Spectrum of a non-self-adjoint operator associated with the periodic heat equation. , 2007.
M. Reed and B. Simon. . Academic Press, 1975.
I. S. Gradshteyn and M. Ryzhik. . Academic Press, 1980.
E. B. Davies. . Cambridge University Press, 1995.
[^1]: Department of Mathematics, King’s College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, [email protected]
[^2]: Department of Mathematics, King’s College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Conspiracy theories have flourished on social media, raising concerns that such content is fueling the spread of disinformation, supporting extremist ideologies, and in some cases, leading to violence. Under increased scrutiny and pressure from legislators and the public, YouTube announced efforts to change their recommendation algorithms so that the most egregious conspiracy videos are demoted and demonetized. To verify this claim, we have developed a classifier for automatically determining if a video is conspiratorial (e.g., the moon landing was faked, the pyramids of Giza were built by aliens, end of the world prophecies, etc.). We coupled this classifier with an emulation of YouTube’s watch-next algorithm on more than a thousand popular informational channels to obtain a year-long picture of the videos actively promoted by YouTube. We also obtained trends of the so-called filter-bubble effect for conspiracy theories.'
author:
- 'Marc Faddoul, Guillaume Chaslot, and Hany Farid'
bibliography:
- 'conspiracy.bib'
title: 'A longitudinal analysis of YouTube’s promotion of conspiracy videos'
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction .unnumbered}
============
By allowing for a wide range of opinions to coexist, social media has allowed for an open exchange of ideas. There have, however, been concerns that the recommendation engines which power these services amplify sensational content because of its tendency to generate more engagement. The algorithmic promotion of conspiracy theories by YouTube’s recommendation engine, in particular, has recently been of growing concern to academics [@lewis_2018; @bessi_2016; @song_2017; @greene_2014; @samory_2018; @nyt_tufecki; @climate], legislators [@guardian-senator], and the public [@mozilla; @guardian; @buzzfeed; @nyt_roose; @wired; @avaaz]. In August 2019, the FBI introduced fringe conspiracy theories as a domestic terrorist threat, due to the increasing number of violent incidents motivated by such beliefs [@fbi_report].
Some $70\%$ of watched content on YouTube is recommended content [@cnet], in which YouTube algorithms promote videos based on a number of factors including optimizing for user-engagement or view-time. Because conspiracy theories generally feature novel and provoking content, they tend to yield higher that average engagement [@hussain_2018]. The recommendation algorithms are thus vulnerable to sparking a reinforcing feedback loop [@Zhao2019] in which more conspiracy theories are recommended and consumed [@chaslot_2017].
YouTube has, however, contested this narrative with three main counter-arguments [@mohan]: (1) According to YouTube’s Chief Product Officer Neal Mohan, “it is not the case that “extreme” content drives a higher version of engagement”; (2) The company claims that view-time is not the only metric accounted for by the recommendation algorithm; and (3) Recommendations are made within a spectrum of opinions, leaving users the option to engage or not with specific content.
We are skeptical that these counter-arguments are consistent with what we and others qualitatively have been seeing play out on YouTube for the past several years. In particular: (1) according to Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg, extreme content does drive more engagement on social media [@zuckerberg_2018]; (2) Although view-time might not be the only metric driving the recommendation algorithms, YouTube has not fully explained what the other factors are, or their relative contributions. It is unarguable, nevertheless, that keeping users engaged remains the main driver for YouTube’s advertising revenues [@blog_0; @youtube_deepNN]; and (3) While recommendations may span a spectrum, users preferably engage with content that conforms to their existing world view [@confirmation_bias].
Nonetheless, in January of 2019 YouTube announced efforts to reduce “recommendations of borderline content and content that could misinform users in harmful ways – such as videos promoting a phony miracle cure for a serious illness, claiming the earth is flat, or making blatantly false claims about historic events like 9/11” [@blog_1]. This effort complemented a previous initiative to include direct links to Wikipedia with videos related to conspiratorial topics. [@wired_wiki] In June of 2019, YouTube announced that their efforts led to a reduction of view-time from these recommendations by over $50\%$ [@blog_2]. In December of 2019, YouTube updated this estimate to $70\%$ [@blog_3]. Our analysis aims to better understand the nature and extent of YouTube’s promotion of conspiratorial content.
Materials & Methods {#sec:methods .unnumbered}
===================
This methodology section describes the following:\
**Recommendations:** Collection scheme for determining the most recommended informational videos on YouTube.\
**Training set:** Building the training set of conspiracy videos.\
**Text Classification:** A supervised text classification module used for video classification.\
**Video Classification:** The machine learning model for predicting the likelihood that a video is conspiratorial.\
**Model Accuracy:** The conspiracy classifier performance.
Recommendations
---------------
YouTube makes algorithmic recommendations in several different places. We focus on the *watch-next* algorithm, which is the system that recommends a video to be shown next when auto-play is enabled. YouTube distinguishes between two types of recommendations: *recommended-for-you* videos are computed based on the user’s previous viewing history and *recommended* are not individualized. Our requests are made with a U.S.-based IP addresses, without any identifying cookie. There are, therefore, no *recommended-for-you* videos.
Our method to emulate the recommendation engine is a two step process: we start by gathering a list of seed channels, and then generate recommendations starting from the videos posted by these channels.
The list of seed channels is obtained with a snowball method. We start with an initial list of $250$ of the most subscribed English YouTube channels. The last video posted by each of these seed channels is retrieved and the next $20$ watch-next recommendations are extracted. The channels associated with these recommendations are ranked by number of occurrences. The channel that has the largest number of recommendations, and is not part of the initial seed set, is added to the set of seed channels. This process is repeated until $12,000$ channels are gathered.
To focus our computational resources on the parts of YouTube that are relevant to information and disinformation, we perform a cluster analysis [@blondel2008fast] on these $12,000$ channels. We retain a single cluster of $1103$ channels which corresponds to news and information channels (e.g., BBC, CNN, FOX...). Since the unsupervised clustering is not perfect, we manually added $43$ channels that we considered to be consistent with the other information channels. This yielded a final list of $1146$ seed channels, then reduced to $1080$ by the end of the analysis after some channels were deleted or stalled.
[^1]
We then gathered the $20$ first recommendations from the watch-next algorithm starting from the last video uploaded by each of the seed channels everyday from October 2018 to February 2020. The top $1000$ most recommended videos on a given day were retained and used in our analysis. As described below, these videos were analyzed to determine which were predicted to be conspiratorial in nature.
Training Set {#dataset}
------------
We collected a training set of conspiracy videos in an iterative process. An initial set of $200$ videos was collected from a book referencing top conspiracy theories on YouTube [@201conspiracy], and a set of videos harvested on 4chan and on the sub-reddits r/conspiracy, r/conspiracyhub, and r/HealthConspiracy. A comparable set of $200$ non-conspiratorial videos was collected by randomly scraping YouTube videos. These videos were manually curated to remove any potentially conspiratorial videos. As we began our analysis, we augmented these initial videos by adding any obviously mis-classified videos into the appropriate conspiratorial or non-conspiratorial training set, yielding a final set of $542$ conspiratorial videos and $568$ non-conspiratorial videos.
We are sensitive to the fact that classifying a video as conspiratorial is not always clear-cut. We endeavored to limit our training set to videos whose underlying thesis, by and large, satisfies the following criteria: (1) Explains events as secret plots by powerful forces rather than as overt activities or accidents; (2) Holds a view of the world that goes against scientific consensus; (3) Is not backed by evidence, but instead by information that was claimed to be obtained through privileged access; (4) Is self-filing or unfalsifiable.
Text Classification
-------------------
A key component of our video classifier is `fastText`, a text-based classifier [@fasttext]. This classifier takes a text sample as input, and predicts the probability that the sample belongs to a given class (e.g., a conspiratorial video).
The classifier begins by parsing the training data to define a vocabulary. Input text samples are then represented by a concatenation of a bag-of-words and bag of $n$-grams, as defined by the vocabulary. An embedding matrix projects this representation into a lower-dimensional space, after which a linear classifier is used to classify the text into one of two (or more) classes.
Video Classification
--------------------
Our video classifier analyzes various text-based components of a video using individual classifier modules for each. These modules, described next, are followed by a second layer that combines their outputs to yield a final conspiracy likelihood.
1. **The transcript of the video**, also called subtitles, can be uploaded by the creator or auto-generated by YouTube, and captures the content of the video. The transcript is scored by a `fastText` classifier.
2. **The video snippet** is the concatenation of the title, the description, and the tags of the video. The snippet renders the language used by the content creator to describe their video. The snippet is also scored by a `fastText` classifier.
3. **The content of the $200$ top comments** defined by YouTube’s relevance metric (without replies). Each comment is individually scored by a `fastText` classifier. The score of a video is the median score of all its comments.
4. **The perceived impact of the comments.** We use Google’s Perspective API [@perspective] to score each comment on the following properties: (1) toxicity; (2) spam; (3) unsubstantial; (4) threat; (5) incoherent; (6) profanity; and (7) inflammatory. This set of seven perspective scores for each comment is converted into a $35$-D feature vector for the whole video by taking the median value and standard deviation of each property ($14$ features) as well as the median value of the pair-wise products of each property ($21$ features). A logistic regression classifier is trained to predict the conspiracy likelihood of the video from this $35$-D feature vector.
The output of these four modules is then fed into a final logistic regression layer to yield a prediction for the entire video.
The two layers of the pipeline are trained on distinct videos with a $100$-fold cross validation. Specifically, our training set of $1095$ videos is randomly split into a $60/40$ split. The $60\%$ is used to train the four modules of the first layer. The remaining $40\%$ of videos are scored by these four classification modules. These scores are then standardized into four feature vectors each with a mean of zero and unit variance. The zero-mean ensures that missing attributes have a null contribution (e.g., transcripts can be unavailable), while the unit variance allows us to compare the relative importance of each attribute in the model. The final logistic regression is then trained on the $40\%$ split to predict if a video is conspiratorial. We repeat this process with $100$ different $60/40$ splits. By averaging the $100$ logistic regression models, we obtain the final regression coefficients. Their relative weights are $52\%$ for the comments, $22\%$ for the snippet, $14\%$ for the caption and $12\%$ for the perspective score.
Model Accuracy
--------------
To test the accuracy of our model, we manually classified $340$ videos not used in the training set. These videos were randomly sampled so that their score distribution is uniform between $0$ and $1$. Shown in Fig. \[fig:precision\] is the correlation between the conspiracy likelihood of the classifier (horizontal axis) and the percentage of videos rated as conspiratorial by a human annotator (vertical axis). With small fluctuations, our predicted conspiracy likelihood accurately predicts the actual likelihood of a video being conspiratorial, for example, $70\%$ of videos with a likelihood score of $0.7$ will be conspiratorial. With a threshold at $0.5$, the conspiracy classifier has a precision of $78\%$ and a recall of $86\%$.
From a more qualitative perspective, Table \[tab:words\] shows the words that are most statistically relevant to discriminating between conspiratorial and non-conspiratorial videos, as determined by *term frequency inverse document frequency* (TFIDF) [@tfidf]. Words that identify conspiracies seem reasonably diagnostic: they are either specific to a topic (e.g., *aliens*, *deep* - for Deep State, *autism* - for vaccines), generic to conspiratorial narratives (e.g., *deception*, *control*) as well as, ironically, words that characterize information (e.g., *truth*, *know*, *hoax*). It is worth noting that despite being an omnipresent pronoun, the word *they* is a highly discriminating word for conspiratorial comments. This denotes the ubiquity of the narrative *they* against *us*. Both *all* and *nothing* in the transcript are also strong indicators for conspiracy, hinting at a lack of nuance. Words that characterize non-conspiratorial content are more random, reflecting the fact that the negative training set is mostly not cohesive.
![Percentage of videos labeled as conspiratorial by a human annotator plotted as a function of the estimated conspiracy likelihood, on a total of $340$ out-of-sample videos. The error bars correspond to Clopper-Pearson $95\%$ confidence intervals based on Beta distribution.[]{data-label="fig:precision"}](precision.png){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
{width="\linewidth"}
**Topic** **Top Words** **% Rec** **% Vid**
-------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- -----------
**Alternative Science and History** *moon, aliens, flat, space, ufo, ancient, nasa, sun, alien, built, pyramids, planet, technology, mars, david, pyramid, water, history, humans, human, science, evidence, energy, sky, stone* **51.7%** **28.7%**
**Prophecies and Online Cults** *jesus, christ, lord, church, bible, shall, spirit, holy, amen, father, pray, satan, heaven, israel, word, brother, son, pastor, temple, unto, rapture, christians, praise, revelation, faith* **19.1%** **14.9%**
**Political Conspiracies and QAnon** *trump, president, wwg1wga, dave, america, country, patriots, bush, deep, mueller, obama, potus, justice, american, law, vote, clinton, hillary, military, fbi, plan, media, democrats, war, gold* **12.6%** **25.9%**
Results {#sec:results .unnumbered}
=======
We analysed more than $8$ million recommendations from YouTube’s watch-next algorithm over $15$ months. Recommendations were collected daily, starting from the most recent videos posted by a set of $1000$+ of the most popular news and informational channels in the U.S. The recommended videos were then fed to a binary classifier trained to detect conspiratorial content based on the video title, description, tags, transcript, and comments (see Methods). The classifier returns the likelihood that a given video is conspiratorial, a score between $0$ (minimal likelihood) and $1$ (maximal likelihood).
Longitudinal Trends
-------------------
Shown in Fig. \[fig:trend\] is our estimate of the percentage of conspiratorial videos recommended by YouTube on information channels, between October 2018 and February 2020 ([*Raw Frequency*]{}). Also shown is a weighted version of this estimate which accounts for the popularity of the source video ([*Weighted Frequency*]{}).
The [*Raw Frequency*]{} is computed as the product of the number of times a video was recommended and the probability that each video is conspiratorial , Fig. \[fig:precision\]. Only videos with a likelihood greater than $0.5$ are counted, providing a conservative estimate (see Methods). The [*Weighted Frequency*]{} is computed by weighting the [*Raw Frequency*]{} by the number of views of the source video. This weighting captures the fact that recommendations made from more popular videos have more impact on viewership.
Both of these trends indicate that YouTube experienced a conspiracy boom at the end of 2018. The raw and weighted frequency of conspiratorial recommendations reached a maximum of almost $10\%$ and $6$%. Fig. \[fig:trend\]. Shortly after this, YouTube announced on January 25, 2019 their forthcoming effort to recommend less conspiratorial content.
Starting in April 2019, we monitored a consistent decrease in conspiratorial recommendations until the beginning of June 2019 when the raw frequency briefly hit a low point of $3\%$. Between June and December of 2019, YouTube announced that view-time of conspiratorial recommendations had decreased by $50\%$ and then $70\%$ [@blog_2], a statement mostly consistent with our analysis. The weighted frequency trend that we observed, however, tempers these otherwise encouraging reductions. When the popularity of the source video is accounted for, the proportion of conspiratorial recommendation has steadily rebounded since it’s low point in May 2019, and are now only $40\%$ less common than when the YouTube’s measures where first announced.
Content
-------
To understand the nature of the conspiracy videos that we uncovered, we used a topic modelling technique called non-negative matrix factorization (NMF). This algorithm approximates a term-document matrix as the product of a document-topic matrix multiplied by a topic-terms matrix, thus discerning the main topics from the latent semantic structure of the data [@nmf].
This analysis led to three major topics: (1) alternative science and history; (2) prophecies and online cults; and (3) political conspiracies. Shown in Table \[tab:topics\] are the top $25$ words from the comments section that are the most discriminating to cluster conspiratorial videos in topics (but not to detect conspiracies). The first major topic is the redefinition of the mainstream historical narrative of human civilization and development. This content uses scientific language, without the corresponding methodology, often to reach a conclusion that supports a fringe ideology less well served by facts. For example, the refuting of evolution, the claim that Africa was not the birthplace of the human species or arguments that the pyramids of Giza are evidence of a past high-technology era. Conspiracies relating to climate are also common, ranging from claims of governmental climate engineering – including chemtrails – to the idea that climate change is a hoax, and that sustainable development is a scam propagated by the ruling elite. A number of videos address purported NASA secrets, for instance refuting the U.S. moon landing or claiming that the U.S. government is secretly in contact with aliens.
The second topic includes explanations of world events as prophetic, such as claims that the world is coming to an end or that natural catastrophes and political events are religious realisations. Many videos from this category intertwine religious discourse based on scripture interpretations with conspiratorial claims, such as describing world leaders as Satan worshipers, sentient-reptiles or incarnations of the anti-Christ. These videos rally a community around them, strengthened by an *‘Us vs. Them’* narrative that is typically hostile to dissenting opinions, in ways similar to cult recruitment tactics [@conspiracy_cults]. We emphasize that most of the religious content found on YouTube does not fall into this category.
The third main topic is comprised of political conspiracies, the most popular of which is QAnon, a conspiracy based on a series of ciphered revelations made on the 4chan anonymous message board by a user claiming to have access to classified U.S. government secrets. These videos are part of a larger set of conspiratorial narratives targeting governmental figures and institutions, such as the Pizzagate, allegations that a deep state cabal and the United Nations are trying to rule a new world order, or claims the Federal Reserve and the media are acting against the interests of the United States.
We found relatively few instances of promotion of conspiratorial videos about the three topics explicitly cited by YouTube in their public statement: flat-earth, miracle cures and 9/11 [@blog_1]. Other common conspiratorial themes such as alternative theories on the JFK assassination or denial of the Sandy Hook shooting are also rarely promoted. This seems to suggest that highly publicized topics fall under closer scrutiny, while other conspiracies are still regularly recommended.
The three examples listed by YouTube illustrated conspiracies which could *misinform users in harmful ways*. Tribute ought to be paid to YouTube for effectively filtering out some dangerous themes, such as claims that vaccines cause autism. Nonetheless, other themes which we showed to be actively promoted by YouTube were described by the FBI as *very likely to motivate some domestic extremists to commit criminal, sometime violent activity* [@fbi_report]. The report explicitly cites QAnon and Pizzagate conspiracies, depictions of the New World Order, and the United Nations as an organization for the elites to establish a global rule. Similarly, conspiracy-driven online cults have motivated a matricide [@online_cults]. And, seemingly more innocuous conspiracies can also cause unrest, such as when $1.5$ million people gathered on a Facebook group pledging to run onto the military facility Area 51 in a quest to *“see them aliens”*, forcing the U.S. Air Force to threaten them with the use of force [@area51].
![Proportion of conspiratorial recommendations conditioned on the conspiracy likelihood of the source video, for the three time periods between the YouTube announcements. Higher values on the right-side of the graph indicate a stronger ’filter bubble’.[]{data-label="fig:bubble"}](bubble_triple.png){width="\columnwidth"}
Filter Bubble
-------------
There is a clear positive correlation between the conspiracy likelihood of the source video and the conspiracy likelihood of the recommended video, Fig. \[fig:bubble\]. Although it is an expected feature for a recommendation engine to suggest videos that are similar to the previously watched video, overly selective algorithmic recommendations can lead to a state of informational isolation - a phenomenon called *filter bubble* (or *echo chamber*).
Shown in Fig. \[fig:bubble\] is a quantification of this filter-bubble effect in which we see a clear correlation between the proportion of conspiratorial content that is recommended after a conspiratorial video is watched. This correlation is most striking for the time window between October 2018 through January 2019, but has also decreased proportional to the overall reduction shown in Fig. \[fig:trend\].
Discussion {#sec:discussion .unnumbered}
==========
Limitations
-----------
Our data set of recommendations is aimed at emulating the default behavior of YouTube’s watch-next algorithm using a set of $1146$ channels as the roots of the recommendation tree. Although this set constitutes a small subset of YouTube and is not necessarily a complete representation of the entire informational landscape, it was obtained through recursive iterations on the watch-next algorithm, starting from the $250$ most followed channels (see Recommendations in Methods). It should, therefore, be by construction, representative of the most commonly recommended informational channels.
Our conspiracy classifier was trained on a set of what we believe to be “clear-cut” conspiracy-theory videos. We recognize that there is an inherent subjectivity in labeling whether a theory is conspiratorial. Many conspiracies, for example, intertwine objective facts with fabricated and far-fetched claims. We have, nevertheless, attempted to categorize a video as conspiratorial based on some objective guidelines (see Data Set in Methods).
Although some topics are more nuanced than others, our conspiracy classifier achieves a relatively high accuracy ($F1 = 0.82$), largely by leveraging the presence of discriminating language as well as references to other conspiratorial topics in the video comments. Nonetheless, the classifier does make mistakes: For instance, videos that debunk conspiracy theories are sometimes mis-classified. We have adjusted for these mistakes by weighting the detected conspiratorial videos by the expected detection accuracy, Fig. \[fig:precision\]. Since we have accounted for false positives (incorrectly classifying a video as conspiratorial) but not for false negatives (failing to detect a video as conspiratorial), it is likely that our estimates of conspiratorial content are conservative. Moreover, videos with comments disabled or ones taken down by the author or by the platform before we analyse them are also missing from our analysis, which is more common than average for conspiratorial videos. Another limitation is that personalised recommendations, which we don’t account for, can significantly impact the experience for individual users: those with a history of watching conspiratorial content will see higher proportions of recommended conspiracies. Our analysis does not capture weather personalised recommendations have changed at the same pace as non-personalized watch-next recommendations.
Policy Implementation
---------------------
Our analysis corroborates that YouTube acted upon it’s policy and significantly reduced the overall volume of recommended conspiratorial content. The rebound that we observed after the low-point concomitant with the second YouTube announcement [@blog_2] could be caused by (1) Content creators reverse-engineering the moderation process to work around it; (2) YouTube trying to automate a manual moderation process which was in place the previous months; or (3) YouTube relaxing its criteria because of lower engagement or user discontentment. Despite this downtrend over the past year, the overall volume of conspiratorial content recommended from informational channels remains relatively high. Additionally, the weighted frequency of conspiratorial recommendations - which accounts for the popularity of the source video - has rebounded in the months following the YouTube announcement.
Given the massively superior data, labelling and computational resources available to the company, we can affirm that YouTube is technically capable of detecting conspiratorial topics with high accuracy. In fact, for certain topics which seem to fall under particularly close scrutiny, recommended videos are effectively stripped from disinformation. For instance, We did not surface any conspiratorial recommendation about the Corona-virus outbreak, despite the presence of many such videos on the platform. It is encouraging to see that YouTube is willing to target specific issues effectively and in a timely fashion. Deciding what to demote, is therefore a question of policy more than technology.
The reduction of borderline policy is in fact implemented selectively. Our analysis indicates that the selection is mostly happening at the channel level, in line with YouTube’s strategy to focus on ’authoritative sources’ [@blog_3]. On the one hand, some conspiratorial channels have been completely banned from the default recommendation system. In fact, the ten channels which had most conspiratorial recommendations before April 2019 [^2] and together accounted for more than $20\%$ of all recommended conspiracies now make up for less than $0.5\%$ recommended conspiracies.
On the other hand, since the policy update a set of five channels [^3] account for $25\%$ of all conspiratorial recommendations, whereas they previously represented less than $0.5\%$. Most of these rising channels intertwine legitimate videos and conspiracies, and seem to be benefiting from a white-listed status to have increasingly borderline content be recommended. Many of these large channels can funnel traffic from mainstream channels, which explains why the gap between the raw and the weighted frequency has been narrowing, Fig. \[fig:trend\]. Lastly, some conspiratorial channels have been continuously recommended throughout our analysis and seem to have escaped notice, including some that promote particularly insidious disinformation.[^4]
Filter Bubble
-------------
It is true that YouTube, overall, no longer recommends conspiratorial videos with a higher likelihood than what was previously watched [@mohan]. This result is in line with recent research which did not find strong quantitative evidence of a systematic push towards right-wing political content [@pathways]. Our analysis, however, shows that after a conspiratorial video is clicked, there is a high - yet decreasing - likelihood that the algorithm will recommend another one. For those with a history of watching conspiratorial content, the filter-bubble effect is strongly reinforced by personalized recommendations, which we don’t capture in this study [@Zhao2019].
It is hard to say if this selective exposure is more pronounced for conspiratorial content than for other categories. Filter bubbles and its impact in shaping political opinions might have been overstated [@selective_exposure; @supply_demand], but the fact that the filter-bubble effect (Fig. \[fig:bubble\]) has decreased over the past year in proportions similar to the raw frequency indicates that it might have been an important driver of conspiratorial viewership. Moreover, we argue that the repercussions of selective exposure may be stronger with conspiracy theories than they are with more typical political content, because conspiratorial narratives are rarely challenged or even addressed on other media. Conspiracy theories also tend to be unfalsifiable in the sense that evidence against a conspiracy can often be interpreted as evidence of its truth. Presenting opposing views, therefore, may not affect the faith in the conspiracy.
Summary
-------
The overall reduction of conspiratorial recommendations is an encouraging trend. Nonetheless, this reduction does not make the problem of radicalization on YouTube obsolete nor fictional, as some have claimed [@ledwich]. Aggregate data hide very different realities for individuals, and although radicalization is a serious issue, it is only relevant for a fraction of the users. Those with a history of watching conspiratorial content can certainly still experience YouTube as filter-bubble, reinforced by personalized recommendations and channel subscriptions. In general, radicalization is a more complex problem than what an analysis of default recommendations can scope, for it involves the unique mindset and viewing patterns of a user interacting over time with an opaque multi-layer neural network tasked to pick personalized suggestions from a dynamic and virtually infinite pool of ideas.
With two billion monthly active users on YouTube, the design of the recommendation algorithm has more impact on the flow of information than the editorial boards of traditional media. The role of this engine is made even more crucial in the light of (1) The increasing use of YouTube as a primary source of information, particularly among the youth [@pew]; (2) The nearly monopolistic position of YouTube on its market; and (3) The ever-growing weaponization of YouTube to spread disinformation and partisan content around the world [@oii]. And yet, the decisions made by the recommendation engine are largely unsupervised and opaque to the public.
This research is an effort to make the behavior of the algorithm more transparent so that YouTube can be held accountable for their statements. [^5] We hope it will fuel a public discussion, not about whether YouTube should allow for conspiratorial content on the platform, but about whether such content is appropriate to be part of the baseline recommendations on the informational YouTube
[^1]: \[data\_url\] The list of seed channels and the training set are available at
[^2]: Anonymous Official, X22Report, Disclosed TruthTV, Edge of Wonder, Truthstream Media, ZEG TV HIDDEN FROM THE PUBLIC, Matrix Wisdom, THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE, David Icke, UAMN TV
[^3]: Fox News, Science Channel, London Real, The Nimitz Encounters, After Skool
[^4]: Perry Stone, A Rood Awakening!, Sid Roth’s It’s Supernatural!, Zohar StarGate Ancient Discoveries, DTBM OnlineVideoTraining
[^5]: The full list of recommended videos we detected with a conspiracy likelihood above 0.5 is available at
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
Introduction
============
Consider a linear chain of $N+1$ interacting fermions described by the Hamiltonian $$\begin{gathered}
\hat H= \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} J_k\big(a_k^\dagger a_{k+1}+a_{k+1}^\dagger a_k\big) .
\label{Ham2}\end{gathered}$$ The lattice fermions $\{a_{k}, a_{k}^{\dagger}\, |\, k = 0, 1, \ldots, N\}$ obey the common anticommutation relations, and $J_k$ expresses the coupling strength between sites $k$ and $k+1$. The Hamiltonian describes a system of $N+1$ fermions on a chain with nearest-neighbour interaction (hopping between adjacent sites of the chain) subject to a zero background magnetic field.
Hamiltonians of the type appear in various contexts. In particular, spin chains of this type are popular as channels for short distance quantum communication, and were introduced by Bose [@Bose2003; @Bose2005; @Bose2007]. The system then originates from a linear qubit chain with nearest neighbour interaction described by a Heisenberg $XY$ Hamiltonian, and is being mapped into by a Jordan–Wigner transformation [@Lieb1968; @Jordan1928]. In such models, the communication is achieved by state dynamical evolution in the spin chain, which does not require any on/off switches of the interactions between the spins, nor any modulation of external fields. Many articles dealing with such spin chains in the context of Bose’s scheme focus on perfect transmission (or perfect state transfer) in these chains [@Christandl2004; @Albanese2004; @Christandl2005; @Yung2005; @Karbach2005; @Kay2010].
By far the most elegant and simplest scheme to realize perfect state transfer (over an arbitrary long chain) was proposed by Christandl et al. [@Christandl2004; @Albanese2004; @Christandl2005]. Their choice of the modulation of the coupling strengths is given by: $$\begin{gathered}
J_k= J_{N-k-1}=\sqrt{(k+1)(N-k)}, \qquad k=0,1,\ldots,N-1.
\label{J}\end{gathered}$$ The simplicity of Christandl’s model follows from the following observation. Consider first the single-fermion states of the system: in a single-fermion basis, the Hamiltonian $\hat H$ takes the matrix form $$\begin{gathered}
M=\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
0 & J_0& 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
J_0 & 0 & J_1 & \cdots & 0\\
0 & J_1 & 0 & \ddots & \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \ddots& J_{N-1}\\
0 & 0 & & J_{N-1} & 0
\end{array}
\right).
\label{Ham-M}\end{gathered}$$ The dynamics (time evolution) of the system is completely determined by the eigenvalues $\epsilon_j$ and eigenvectors $\varphi_j$ of this interaction matrix. It is indeed a standard technique [@Lieb1968; @Albanese2004] to describe the $n$-fermion eigenstates of $\hat H$ ($n\leq N$) using the single-fermion eigenstates $\varphi_j$ and Slater determinants. In Christandl’s case, determined by , the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of $M$ are explicitly known. In particular, the eigenvalues are given by $\epsilon_j=-N+2j$ ($j=0,1,\ldots,N$) and the eigenvectors are given in terms of Krawtchouk polynomials.
In the model of Christandl there is, for arbitrary $N$, an analytic (closed form) expression for the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of $M$. Such spin chains are [*analytically solvable*]{} [@Chakrabarti2010; @Jafarov2010]. It implies, in particular, that the correlation function at time $t$, $$\begin{gathered}
f_{r,s}(t) = (r| \exp(-it\hat H) |s),
$$ where $r$ and $s$ are site labels belonging to $\{0,1,\ldots,N\}$ and $|r)$, $|s)$ denote the corresponding single spin states at the ‘receiver’ and ‘sender’ sites $r$ and $s$, can be computed explicitly [@Chakrabarti2010; @Jafarov2010].
Christandl’s spin chain model allows [*perfect state transfer*]{}, essential for using the spin chain as a transmission channel. Perfect state transfer at time $t=T$ from one end of the chain to the other end is expressed by $|f_{N,0}(T)|=1$. The topic of perfect state transfer in spin chains has received a lot of attention [@Kay2010]. Fairly easy sufficient conditions have been formulated in order to achieve perfect state transfer (such as mirror symmetry [@Albanese2004; @Kay2010]). Shi et al. showed that the “spectrum parity matching condition” is necessary and sufficient for perfect state transfer [@Shi2005]. According to this condition, they found a one-parameter extension of Christandl’s model in the case there is an even number of fermion sites in the chain; in our notation this means that $N$ is odd, i.e. $$\begin{gathered}
N=2m+1, \qquad m\in{\mathbb Z}_+.
$$ The couplings in Shi’s model [@Shi2005] are determined by ($k=0,1,\ldots,N-1$) $$\begin{gathered}
J_k= \begin{cases}
\sqrt{(k+1)(N-k)}, & \text{if $k$ is odd,}\\
\sqrt{(k+2\alpha+2)(N-k+2\alpha+1)}, & \text{if $k$ is even.}
\end{cases}
\label{Ja}\end{gathered}$$ Herein, $\alpha$ is a real parameter satisfying $\alpha>-1$ (the case of Shi actually corresponds to half-integer $\alpha$, but for our purposes $\alpha$ can be any real number greater than $-1$). Note that for $\alpha=-\frac12$, Shi’s model reduces to Christandl’s model (i.e. reduces to ), at least when $N=2m+1$ is odd. In Shi et al. [@Shi2005], the spectrum of the single fermion states (i.e. the eigenvalues of $M$ with data determined by ) was found; however no closed form expressions for the eigenvectors were obtained.
In the present paper, we will show that the eigenvectors can be expressed in terms of Hahn polynomials. In fact, we will first work with a two-parameter extension of Christandl’s model: $$\begin{gathered}
J_k= \begin{cases}
\sqrt{(k+1)(N-k)}, & \text{if $k$ is odd,}\\
\sqrt{(k+2\alpha+2)(N-k+2\beta-1)}, & \text{if $k$ is even.}
\end{cases}
\label{Jab}\end{gathered}$$ Now $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are real parameters satisfying $\alpha>-1$ and $\beta>0$. The case of Shi corresponds to $\beta=\alpha+1$, and the case of Christandl to $\alpha=-\frac12$, $\beta=\frac12$. For the general case , we obtain in this paper an explicit form of the eigenvalues, and an explicit form of the eigenvectors. The components of the eigenvectors are given by means of Hahn polynomials $Q_n(x;\alpha,\beta,m)$ [@Koekoek; @Suslov]: the even components are proportional to $Q_n(x;\alpha,\beta,m)$ and the odd components to $Q_n(x; \alpha+1,\beta-1,m)$. In order to prove our assertions about eigenvalues and eigenvectors, we need some (new) difference equations for Hahn polynomials. Section \[Hahn\] of this paper is devoted to introducing the common notation for Hahn polynomials and to proving the new difference equations. In Section \[eigen\] we obtain the main result of this paper: the explicit construction of the spectrum of $M$ for the values and the construction of its eigenvectors in terms of the Hahn polynomials. Section \[correlation\] returns to the model governed by the spin chain data . Since the spin chain is analytically solvable, we can compute the correlation function explicitly, and determine under which conditions perfect state transfer is possible. Finally, in Section \[qHahn\] we present the $q$-generalization of the results obtained (in terms of $q$-Hahn polynomials).
Although our paper is strongly inspired by the model introduced by Shi et al., it should be emphasized that our results are dealing mainly with mathematical aspects of this model. In [@Shi2005], the emphasis was on quantum state transfer. Our main result is to show that the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian in the case of Shi, , or in the extended case, , can be computed in closed form, with coefficients given as Hahn polynomial evaluations.
It should be mentioned that some completely different spin chain models related to Hahn polynomials have been considered before. The second solution of [@Albanese2004] is actually related to an interaction matrix corresponding to the Jacobi matrix of dual Hahn polynomials. In [@Chakrabarti2010], the interaction matrix corresponding to the Jacobi matrix of Hahn polynomials was studied, following some ideas of [@Regniers2009]. In that case, the matrix of eigenvectors $U$ is directly a matrix of Hahn polynomial evaluations. However, due to the complicated coefficients in the three term recurrence relations, the actual coefficients in the interaction matrix become quite involved, see e.g. [@Chakrabarti2010 Lemma 2]. In the present paper, the main innovation comes from “doubling” the matrix $U$ (hence the technique works for chains with an even length only), in a way that it contains Hahn polynomial evaluations of two different types (one with parameters $(\alpha,\beta)$ and one with $(\alpha+1,\beta-1)$), such that the interaction matrix coefficients are very simple.
Hahn polynomials and new difference equations {#Hahn}
=============================================
The Hahn polynomial $Q_n(x;\alpha, \beta, m)$ [@Koekoek; @Suslov] of degree $n$ ($n=0,1,\ldots,m$) in the variable $x$, with parameters $\alpha>-1$ and $\beta>-1$, or $\alpha<-m$ and $\beta<-m$ is defined by [@Koekoek; @Suslov]: $$\begin{gathered}
Q_n(x;\alpha,\beta,m) = {\;}_3F_2 \left( {\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{-n,n+\alpha+\beta+1,-x}{\alpha+1,-m}} ; 1 \right).
\label{defQ}\end{gathered}$$ Herein, the function $_3F_2$ is the generalized hypergeometric series [@Bailey; @Slater]: $$\begin{gathered}
{}_3F_2 \left( {\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a,b,c}{d,e}} ; z \right)=\sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{(a)_k(b)_k(c)_k}{(d)_k(e)_k}\frac{z^k}{k!}.
\label{defF}\end{gathered}$$ In (\[defQ\]), the series is terminating because of the appearance of the negative integer $-n$ as a numerator parameter. Note that in (\[defF\]) we use the common notation for Pochhammer symbols [@Bailey; @Slater] $(a)_k=a(a+1)\cdots(a+k-1)$ for $k=1,2,\ldots$ and $(a)_0=1$. Hahn polynomials satisfy a (discrete) orthogonality relation [@Koekoek]: $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{x=0}^m w(x;\alpha, \beta,m) Q_l(x;\alpha, \beta, m) Q_n(x;\alpha,\beta,m) = h_n(\alpha,\beta,m) \delta_{ln},
\label{orth-Q}\end{gathered}$$ where $$\begin{gathered}
w(x;\alpha, \beta,m) = \binom{\alpha+x}{x} \binom{m+\beta-x}{m-x}, \qquad x=0,1,\ldots,m, \\
h_n (\alpha,\beta,m)= \frac{(-1)^n(n+\alpha+\beta+1)_{m+1}(\beta+1)_n n!}{(2n+\alpha+\beta+1)(\alpha+1)_n(-m)_n m!}.\end{gathered}$$ Denote the orthonormal Hahn functions as follows: $$\begin{gathered}
\tilde Q_n(x;\alpha,\beta,m) \equiv \frac{\sqrt{w(x;\alpha,\beta,m)}\, Q_n(x;\alpha,\beta,m)}{\sqrt{h_n(\alpha,\beta,m)}}.
\label{Q-tilde}\end{gathered}$$
For our construction, the essential ingredient is a set of new difference equations for Hahn polynomials. These relations involve Hahn polynomials of the same degree in variables $x$ or $x+1$, and with parameters $(\alpha,\beta)$ and $(\alpha+1,\beta-1)$; in this sense it could also be appropriate to speak of “contiguous relations” rather than difference equations.
\[proposition1\] The Hahn polynomials satisfy the following difference equations: $$\begin{gathered}
(m+\beta-x) Q_n(x;\alpha ,\beta ,m)-(m-x) Q_{n}(x+1;\alpha , \beta,m)\nonumber \\
\qquad{} =\frac{(n+\alpha +1)(n+\beta)}{\alpha+1} Q_n(x;\alpha+1,\beta-1,m), \label{Q-rec1} \\
(x+1) Q_n(x;\alpha +1,\beta -1,m)-(\alpha +x+2) Q_{n}(x+1;\alpha +1 , \beta -1,m) \nonumber \\
\qquad {}=-(\alpha+1) Q_n(x+1;\alpha,\beta,m). \label{Q-rec2}\end{gathered}$$
Both equations follow from a simple computation using the hypergeometric series expression. In the case of , the left hand side is expanded as follows: $$\begin{gathered}
(m+\beta-x) Q_n(x;\alpha ,\beta ,m)-(m-x) Q_{n}(x+1;\alpha , \beta,m) \nonumber\\
\qquad{} = \sum_{k=0}^n \frac{(-n)_k(\alpha+\beta+n+1)_k(-x)_{k-1}}{k!(\alpha+1)_k(-m)_k}
[(\beta+m-x)(k-x-1)-(m-x)(-x-1)]. \nonumber\end{gathered}$$ Rewriting the expression in square brackets as $[k(m-k+1)+(\beta+k)(k-x-1)]$, the above sum splits in two parts: $$\begin{gathered}
-\sum_{k=1}^n \frac{(-n)_k(\alpha+\beta+n+1)_k(-x)_{k-1}}{(k-1)!(\alpha+1)_k(-m)_{k-1}} +
\sum_{k=0}^n \frac{(-n)_k(\alpha+\beta+n+1)_k(-x)_{k}}{k!(\alpha+1)_k(-m)_k} (\beta+k).
\label{2parts}\end{gathered}$$ The first part can be brought in the following form: $$\begin{gathered}
-\sum_{k=1}^n \frac{(-n)_k(\alpha+\beta+n+1)_k(-x)_{k-1}}{(k-1)!(\alpha+1)_k(-m)_{k-1}}
= -\sum_{j=0}^{n-1} \frac{(-n)_{j+1}(\alpha+\beta+n+1)_{j+1}(-x)_{j}}{j!(\alpha+1)_{j+1}(-m)_{j}} \\
\qquad{} = \sum_{k=0}^n \frac{(-n)_k(\alpha+\beta+n+1)_k(-x)_k}{k!(\alpha+1)_k (-m)_k} \frac{(n-k)(\alpha+\beta+n+k+1)}{(\alpha+k+1)}.\end{gathered}$$ So becomes $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{k=0}^n \frac{(-n)_k(\alpha+\beta+n+1)_k(-x)_k}{k!(\alpha+1)_k (-m)_k}
\Bigl[ \frac{(n-k)(\alpha+\beta+n+k+1)}{(\alpha+k+1)} + (\beta+k) \Bigr] \nonumber\\
\qquad{} =\sum_{k=0}^n \frac{(-n)_k(\alpha+\beta+n+1)_k(-x)_k}{k!(\alpha+1)_k (-m)_k}
\Bigl[ \frac{(n+\alpha+1)(n+\beta)}{(\alpha+k+1)} \Bigr] \nonumber\\
\qquad{} = \frac{(n+\alpha+1)(n+\beta)}{(\alpha+1)} \sum_{k=0}^n \frac{(-n)_k(\alpha+\beta+n+1)_k(-x)_k}{k!(\alpha+2)_k (-m)_k} \nonumber\end{gathered}$$ leading to the right hand side of .
The second equation is even simpler to prove. The left hand side of can be written as $$\begin{gathered}
(x+1)\sum_{k=0}^n A_k \frac{(-x+k-1)}{(\alpha+k+1)} - (\alpha+x+2) \sum_{k=0}^n A_k \frac{(-x-1)}{(\alpha+k+1)},
\label{prf2}\end{gathered}$$ where $$A_k= \frac{(-n)_k(\alpha+\beta+n+1)_k (-x)_{k-1}}{k!(\alpha+2)_{k-1} (-m)_k}.$$ A simple addition of the two terms in yields $$- \sum_{k=0}^n A_k (-x-1) = -(\alpha+1) \sum_{k=0}^{n} \frac{(-n)_k(\alpha+\beta+n+1)_k (-x-1)_{k}}{k!(\alpha+1)_{k} (-m)_k},$$ giving the right hand side of .
The set of difference equations will turn out to be the essential ingredient for the eigenvector construction in the next section.
Eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the interaction matrix {#eigen}
======================================================
Let $N=2m+1$ be an odd integer, and consider the $(N+1)\times(N+1)$ interaction matrix $M$ of the form with spin chain data $J_k$ determined by , i.e.$$\begin{gathered}
J_k= \begin{cases}
\sqrt{(k+1)(2m+1-k)}, & \text{if $k$ is odd,}\\
\sqrt{(k+2\alpha+2)(2m+2\beta-k)}, & \text{if $k$ is even.}
\end{cases}
\label{Jabm}\end{gathered}$$
We begin with the construction of a $(N+1)\times(N+1)$ matrix $U=(U_{ij})_{0\leq i,j \leq N}$ whose even rows are given in terms of normalized Hahn polynomials with parameters $(\alpha,\beta)$ and whose odd rows are given in terms of normalized Hahn polynomials with parameters $(\alpha+1,\beta-1)$. In order to have positive weight functions for both, we require that $\alpha>-1$ and $\beta>0$.
The $(N+1)\times(N+1)$ matrix $U$ with indices running from 0 to $N=2m+1$ is defined by $$\begin{gathered}
U_{2i,m-j} = U_{2i,m+j+1} = \frac{(-1)^i}{\sqrt{2}} \tilde Q_j(i;\alpha,\beta,m), \label{Ueven}\\
U_{2i+1,m-j} = -U_{2i+1,m+j+1} = -\frac{(-1)^i}{\sqrt{2}} \tilde Q_j(i;\alpha+1,\beta-1,m), \label{Uodd}\end{gathered}$$ where $i,j\in\{0,1,\ldots,m\}$. \[defU\]
It is easy to verify that $U$ is an orthogonal matrix. Indeed, let us compute $U^TU$: $$\begin{gathered}
(U^TU)_{jk} = \sum_{i=0}^{2m+1} U_{ij}U_{ik}
= \sum_{i=0}^{m} U_{2i,j}U_{2i,k} + \sum_{i=0}^{m} U_{2i+1,j}U_{2i+1,k}.
\label{UU}\end{gathered}$$ For $j,k\in\{0,\ldots,m\}$, gives $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{i=0}^{m} \frac{1}{2} \tilde Q_{m-j}(i;\alpha,\beta,m) \tilde Q_{m-k}(i;\alpha,\beta,m) \\
\qquad \quad{}+ \sum_{i=0}^{m} \frac{1}{2} \tilde Q_{m-j}(i;\alpha+1,\beta-1,m) \tilde Q_{m-k}(i;\alpha+1,\beta-1,m) \\
\qquad{} = \frac{1}{2} \delta_{m-j,m-k} + \frac{1}{2} \delta_{m-j,m-k} = \delta_{jk}\end{gathered}$$ using the orthogonality of Hahn polynomials. For $j,k\in\{m+1,\ldots,2m+1\}$, the computation is essentially the same and gives again $\delta_{jk}$. For $j\in\{0,\ldots,m\}$ and $k\in\{m+1,\ldots,2m+1\}$, gives $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{i=0}^{m} \frac{1}{2} \tilde Q_{m-j}(i;\alpha,\beta,m) \tilde Q_{k-m-1}(i;\alpha,\beta,m) \\
\qquad \quad{}- \sum_{i=0}^{m} \frac{1}{2} \tilde Q_{m-j}(i;\alpha+1,\beta-1,m) \tilde Q_{k-m-1}(i;\alpha+1,\beta-1,m) \\
\qquad{} = \frac{1}{2} \delta_{m-j,k-m-1} - \frac{1}{2} \delta_{m-j,k-m-1} = 0,\end{gathered}$$ and for $j\in\{m+1,\ldots,2m+1\}$ and $k\in\{0,\ldots,m\}$, the result is the same. So it follows that $(U^TU)_{jk}=\delta_{jk}$, or $U^TU=I$, the identity matrix. Hence $U^T$ is the inverse of $U$, so $UU^T=I$ holds as well.
Now we have the main proposition.
\[proposition2\] Let $M$ be the tridiagonal $(2m+2)\times(2m+2)$-matrix $$\begin{gathered}
M= \left( \begin{array}{ccccc}
0 & J_0 & 0 & & \\
J_0 & 0 & J_1 & \ddots & \\
0 & J_1 & 0 & \ddots & 0 \\
&\ddots & \ddots & \ddots & J_{2m} \\
& & 0 & J_{2m} & 0
\end{array} \right),\end{gathered}$$ where the $J_k$ are given in , and let $U$ be the matrix determined in Definition [\[defU\]]{}. Then $U$ is an orthogonal matrix: $$\begin{gathered}
U U^T = U^TU=I.\end{gathered}$$ Furthermore, the columns of $U$ are the eigenvectors of $M$, i.e. $$\begin{gathered}
M U = U D,
\label{MUUD}\end{gathered}$$ where $D$ is a diagonal matrix containing the eigenvalues $\epsilon_j$ of $M$: $$\begin{gathered}
D= \mathop{\rm diag}\nolimits (\epsilon_0,\epsilon_1,\ldots,\epsilon_{2m+1}), \qquad
\epsilon_{m-k}=-2\sqrt{(\alpha+k+1)(\beta+k)},\nonumber\\
\epsilon_{m+k+1}=2\sqrt{(\alpha+k+1)(\beta+k)},
\qquad k=0,1,\ldots,m.\label{epsilon}\end{gathered}$$
The orthogonality of $U$ has already been proved, so it remains to verify and . Now $$\begin{gathered}
\big(MU\big)_{ij}= \sum_{k=0}^{2m+1}M_{ik}U_{kj}=J_{i-1}U_{i-1,j}+J_{i}U_{i+1,j}.
\label{MU}\end{gathered}$$ We have to consider in four distinct cases, according to $i$ even or odd, and to $j$ belonging to $\{0,1,\ldots,m\}$ or to $\{m+1,m+2,\ldots,2m+1\}$. Let us consider the case that $i$ is odd and $j\in\{0,1,\ldots,m\}$. Then, relabelling the indices appropriately, and yield: $$\begin{gathered}
(MU)_{2i+1,m-j}=J_{2i}U_{2i,m-j}+J_{2i+1}U_{2i+2,m-j} \\
\phantom{(MU)_{2i+1,m-j}}{} =(-1)^i\sqrt{2}\sqrt{(\alpha+i+1)(m+\beta-i)}\tilde Q_j(i;\alpha,\beta,m) \\
\phantom{(MU)_{2i+1,m-j}=}{} + (-1)^{i+1}\sqrt{2}\sqrt{(i+1)(m-i)}\tilde Q_j(i+1;\alpha,\beta,m)\\
\phantom{(MU)_{2i+1,m-j}}{}= (-1)^i \sqrt{2}\sqrt{\frac{(\alpha+1)_{i+1}(\beta+1)_{m-i-1}}{i!(m-i)!h_j(\alpha,\beta,m)}}[ (\beta+m-i) Q_j(i;\alpha,\beta,m)\\
\phantom{(MU)_{2i+1,m-j}=}{}
-(m-i) Q_j(i+1;\alpha,\beta,m)].\end{gathered}$$ Applying (\[Q-rec1\]), this becomes $$\begin{gathered}
=(-1)^i \sqrt{2} \sqrt{\frac{(\alpha+1)_{i+1}(\beta+1)_{m-i-1}}{i!(m-i)!h_j(\alpha,\beta,m)}} \frac{(\alpha+j+1)(\beta+j)}{(\alpha+1)} Q_j(i;\alpha+1,\beta-1,m)\\
= -2\sqrt{(\alpha+j+1)(\beta+j)} U_{2i+1,m-j} = \epsilon_{m-j}U_{2i+1,m-j}=\big(UD\big)_{2i+1,m-j}.\end{gathered}$$ For $i$ odd and $j\in\{m+1,m+2,\ldots,2m+1\}$, the computation is essentially the same. For $i$ even (and the two cases for $j$), the computation is also similar, but now the second difference equation must be used.
Note that the spectrum of $M$ is symmetric, consisting of the values $\pm 2\sqrt{(\alpha+k+1)(\beta+k)}$ ($k=0,1,\ldots,m$). Furthermore, when $\beta=\alpha+1$, the spectrum consists of integers $\pm 2(\alpha+k+1)$. This latter case corresponds to the model of Shi et al. [@Shi2005].
Some aspects of the corresponding spin chain model {#correlation}
==================================================
Let us consider a spin chain with data determined by . The dynamics of this system is described by the unitary time evolution operator $\exp(-it\hat H)$. The transition amplitude of a single spin excitation from site $s$ to site $r$ of the spin chain is given by the time-dependent correlation function [@Bose2007; @Chakrabarti2010] $$f_{r,s}(t) = (r| \exp(-it\hat H) |s).$$ But the (orthonormal) eigenvectors of $\hat H$ in the single fermion mode are now known and given by $\varphi_j= \sum\limits_{k=0}^N U_{kj}\,|\,k)$, i.e. the columns of the matrix $U$ constructed in , , with $\hat H\varphi_j = M\varphi_j = \epsilon_j \varphi_j$. Using the orthogonality of the states $\varphi_j$, one finds [@Chakrabarti2010]: $$\begin{gathered}
f_{r,s}(t) = \sum_{j=0}^N U_{rj}U_{sj} {\rm e}^{-it\epsilon_j}.
$$
Due to the expressions , , implying $U_{r,m-j}=(-1)^r U_{r,m+j+1}$, it is appropriate to write the correlation function in the following form: $$\begin{gathered}
f_{rs}(t) =\sum_{j=0}^m\big(U_{r,m-j}U_{s,m-j} {\rm e}^{-it\epsilon_{m-j}}+
U_{r,m+j+1}U_{s,m+j+1} {\rm e}^{-it\epsilon_{m+j+1}}\big) \nonumber\\
\phantom{f_{rs}(t)}{} =\sum_{j=0}^m U_{r,m-j}U_{s,m-j} \big( \,{\rm e}^{-it\epsilon_{m-j}} +(-1)^{r+s} \,{\rm e}^{it\epsilon_{m-j}} \big). \label{CF}\end{gathered}$$ Now it is a matter of considering the different parities for $r$ and $s$. In the case they are both even, one finds $$\begin{gathered}
f_{2k,2l}(t) =(-1)^{k+l}\sqrt{w(k;\alpha,\beta,m)w(l;\alpha,\beta,m)}\nonumber\\
\phantom{f_{2k,2l}(t) =}{} \times \sum_{j=0}^{m}Q_j(k;\alpha,\beta,m) Q_j(l;\alpha,\beta,m)
\frac{\cos\big(2t\sqrt{(\alpha+j+1)(\beta+j)} \big)}{h_j(\alpha,\beta,m)}. $$ In the case the first index is odd and the second even, this becomes $$\begin{gathered}
f_{2k+1,2l}(t) =-i(-1)^{k+l}\sqrt{w(k;\alpha+1,\beta-1,m)w(l;\alpha,\beta,m)}\label{CF2}\\
\phantom{f_{2k+1,2l}(t) =}{} \times \sum_{j=0}^{m}Q_j(k;\alpha+1,\beta-1,m) Q_j(l;\alpha,\beta,m)
\frac{\sin\big(2t\sqrt{(\alpha+j+1)(\beta+j)} \big)}{\sqrt{h_j(\alpha+1,\beta-1,m)h_j(\alpha,\beta,m)}}. \nonumber\end{gathered}$$ The expressions for the case even/odd and odd/odd are similar, the main message being that due to the analytic expressions for the eigenvectors, we obtain explicit expressions for the correlation function.
Let us examine, in this context, the transition from one end of the chain ($s=0$) to the final end of the chain ($r=N=2m+1$). Expression reduces to: $$\begin{gathered}
f_{2m+1,0}(t) = -i(-1)^m\sqrt{(\beta)_{m+1}(\alpha+1)_{m+1}} \nonumber\\
\phantom{f_{2m+1,0}(t) =}{} \times \sum_{j=0}^m \frac{(2j+\alpha+\beta+1)(-m)_j}{(j+\alpha+\beta+1)_{m+1} j!}
\frac{\sin\big(2t\sqrt{(\alpha+j+1)(\beta+j)} \big)}{\sqrt{(\alpha+j+1)(\beta+j)}}.
\label{CF3}\end{gathered}$$ For general $\alpha$ and $\beta$, this expression cannot be simplified further. Let us now consider the special case that $$\beta=\alpha+1.$$ Then reduces to $$\begin{gathered}
f_{2m+1,0}(t) = -2i(-1)^m (\alpha+1)_{m+1} \sum_{j=0}^m \frac{(-m)_j}{(j+2\alpha+2)_{m+1} j!}
\sin\big(2t(\alpha+j+1)\big).
\label{CF3a}\end{gathered}$$ This can be rewritten as $$\begin{gathered}
f_{2m+1,0}(t) = -2i(-1)^m \frac{(\alpha+1)_{m+1}}{(2\alpha+2)_{m+1}} \sum_{j=0}^m \frac{(-m)_j(2\alpha+2)_j}{j!(2\alpha+m+3)_j}
\sin\big(2t(\alpha+j+1)\big).
\label{CF4}\end{gathered}$$ The last sum is of hypergeometric type ${}_2F_1$, and so it can be further simplified for special values of $t$ and/or $\alpha$. In particular, for $t=T=\pi/2$, one has $\sin\big(\pi(\alpha+j+1)\big)=-(-1)^j \sin(\pi\alpha)$. Using then Kummer’s summation formula [@Bailey; @Slater] $${}_2F_1 \left( {\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{-m,2\alpha+2}{2\alpha+m+3}} ; -1 \right)= \frac{(2\alpha+3)_m}{(\alpha+2)_m},$$ in the right hand side of , this expression reduces to $$\begin{gathered}
f_{N,0}\left(\frac{\pi}{2}\right)= f_{2m+1,0}\left(\frac{\pi}{2}\right) = i(-1)^m\sin(\pi\alpha).
\label{CF5}\end{gathered}$$ Note, by the way, that also for $t=2T=\pi$ one can simplify , since now $\sin\big(2\pi(\alpha+j+1)\big)=\sin(2\pi\alpha)$. Then, using Gauss’s summation formula [@Bailey; @Slater] $${}_2F_1 \left( {\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{-m,2\alpha+2}{2\alpha+m+3}} ; 1 \right)= \frac{(m+1)_m}{(2\alpha+m+3)_m},$$ the right hand side of reduces to $$\begin{gathered}
f_{N,0}(\pi)= f_{2m+1,0}(\pi) = -2i\sin(2\pi\alpha) (-1)^m \frac{(\alpha+1)_{m+1}(m+1)_m}{(2\alpha+2)_{2m+1}} .
$$
Note the importance of . Indeed, keeping in mind that $\alpha>-1$, we have $$\begin{gathered}
\left|f_{N,0}\left(\frac{\pi}{2}\right)\right|= \left|f_{2m+1,0}\left(\frac{\pi}{2}\right)\right| = 1 \qquad \hbox{for} \quad
\alpha=-\frac12, \frac12, \frac32, \frac52,\ldots.
\label{psf}\end{gathered}$$ So there is perfect state transfer in the chain for $\alpha$ assuming one of these values, at time $t=\pi/2$. In fact, this corresponds to the values given by Shi et al. [@Shi2005]. Note that for $\alpha=-\frac12$, the spin chain data further reduces to that of Christandl [@Christandl2004].
The case corresponds to $2\alpha+1 =2l$ with $l$ a nonnegative integer. As a matter of fact, this can still be extended slightly. Let $2\alpha+1 =\frac{2l}{2k+1}$ with both $l$ and $k$ nonnegative integers. Then for $t=T'=(2k+1)\pi/2$, the factor in becomes $\sin(2t(\alpha+j+1))=-(-1)^j \sin((2k+1)\alpha\pi)=(-1)^{j+k+l}$, and so we have the result $$\begin{gathered}
\left|f_{N,0}\left((2k+1)\frac{\pi}{2}\right)\right|= \left|f_{2m+1,0}\left((2k+1)\frac{\pi}{2}\right)\right| = 1 \qquad \hbox{for} \quad
2\alpha+1=\frac{2l}{2k+1}, \quad k,l\in{\mathbb Z}_+ .
$$ This case appears already in the paper of Qian et al. [@Qian], who use the “mirror mode concurrence” to find this extension of Shi’s result.
As far as perfect state transfer is concerned, our extension of Shi’s model by an extra parameter $\beta$ does not give rise to any new cases. In fact, just for investigating perfect state transfer, the mathematical machinery developed here is not necessary: the verification of the spectrum parity matching condition, using the entries in the interaction matrix and the spectrum itself, is sufficient. The main advantage of our analysis is the explicit computation of the correlation function. In particular, the simplicity of the expressions and , describing the transfer from one end of the chain to the other end, is striking. Apart from the model of Christandl [@Christandl2004], where the general correlation function is given in [@Chakrabarti2010 § 2], there are no other models with such an elegant and simple correlation function.
On the $\boldsymbol{q}$-generalization of the previous results {#qHahn}
==============================================================
As the classical orthogonal polynomials of hypergeometric type have a generalization in terms of basic hypergeometric series, i.e.a $q$-generalization, one may wonder whether the present construction of the tridiagonal interaction matrix $M$ can also be generalized. This is indeed the case: we can present a matrix $M_q$, whose eigenvectors are given in terms of $q$-Hahn polynomials, and whose eigenvalues are symmetric and take a simple form. In order to present these results, let us first briefly recall some notation related to $q$-series [@Gasper].
For a positive real number $q$ ($\ne 1$), the $q$-Hahn polynomial $Q_n(q^{-x};\alpha, \beta, m |q)$ of degree $n$ ($n=0,1,\ldots,m$) in $q^{-x}$ is defined by [@Koekoek; @Gasper]: $$\begin{gathered}
Q_n(q^{-x};\alpha,\beta,m|q) = {}_3\Phi_2 \left( {\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{q^{-n},\alpha\beta q^{n+1},q^{-x}}{\alpha q,q^{-m}}} ; q,q \right).
\label{defqQ}\end{gathered}$$ Herein, the function $_3\Phi_2$ is the basic hypergeometric series [@Bailey; @Slater; @Gasper]: $$\begin{gathered}
{\;}_3\Phi_2 \left( {\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a,b,c}{d,e}} ; q, z \right)=\sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{(a, b, c; q)_k}{(q,d, e;q)_k}
z^k.
\label{defPhi}\end{gathered}$$ Note that in (\[defPhi\]) we use the common notation for $q$-shifted factorials and their products [@Gasper]: $$\begin{gathered}
(a_1,a_2,\dots ,a_A;q)_k=(a_1;q)_k(a_2;q)_k\cdots(a_A;q)_k,\\ (a;q)_k=(1-a)(1-aq)\cdots\big(1-aq^{k-1}\big) \qquad {\rm and} \qquad (a)_0=1.
$$ In (\[defqQ\]), the series is terminating because of the appearance of $q^{-n}$ in the numerator. $q$-Hahn polynomials satisfy a (discrete) orthogonality relation [@Koekoek]: $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{x=0}^m w(x;\alpha, \beta,m|q) Q_l\big(q^{-x};\alpha, \beta, m|q\big) Q_n\big(q^{-x};\alpha,\beta,m|q\big) = h_n(\alpha,\beta,m|q) \delta_{ln},
$$ where $$\begin{gathered}
w(x;\alpha, \beta,m|q) = \frac{(\alpha q,q^{-m};q)_x}{(q,\beta^{-1}q^{-m};q)_x} (\alpha \beta q)^{-x}, \qquad x=0,1,\ldots,m, \\
h_n (\alpha,\beta,m|q)= \frac{(\alpha\beta q^2;q)_{m}(q,\alpha\beta q^{m+2},\beta q;q)_n
(1-\alpha\beta q)(-\alpha q)^n}{(\beta q;q)_m (\alpha q)^m (\alpha q, \alpha\beta q, q^{-m};q)_n(1-\alpha\beta q^{2n+1})}
q^{({\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2}}) -mn}.\end{gathered}$$ We shall assume that $0<q<1$; then the weight function is positive when $0<\alpha<q^{-1}$ and $0<\beta<q^{-1}$. Denote the orthonormal $q$-Hahn functions as follows: $$\begin{gathered}
\tilde Q_n(q^{-x};\alpha,\beta,m|q) \equiv \frac{\sqrt{w(x;\alpha, \beta,m|q)} Q_n(q^{-x};\alpha,\beta,m|q)}{\sqrt{h_n(q;\alpha, \beta,m)}}.
\label{qQtilde}\end{gathered}$$
Just as in Section \[Hahn\], the main result needed is a set of difference equations for $q$-Hahn polynomials.
\[proposition3\] $q$-Hahn polynomials satisfy the following $q$-difference equations: $$\begin{gathered}
\big(1-\beta q^{m-x}\big) Q_n\big(q^{-x};\alpha ,\beta ,m|q\big) -\big(1-q^{m-x}\big) Q_{n}\big(q^{-x-1};\alpha , \beta,m |q\big)\nonumber \\
\qquad {} =\frac{(1-\alpha q^{n+1})(1-\beta q^n) q^{m-n-x}}{1-\alpha q} Q_n\big(q^{-x};\alpha q,\beta q^{-1},m|q\big), \label{qQ-rec1} \\
\big(1-q^{x+1}\big) \alpha q Q_n\big(q^{-x};\alpha q,\beta q^{-1},m|q\big)-\big(1-\alpha q^{x+2}\big) Q_{n}\big(q^{-x-1};\alpha q , \beta q^{-1},m|q\big) \nonumber \\
\qquad {} =-(1-\alpha q) Q_n\big(q^{-x-1};\alpha,\beta,m|q\big). \label{qQ-rec2}\end{gathered}$$
The proof follows the same computation as in the proof of Proposition \[proposition1\], with the replacement of Pochhammer symbols by the corresponding $q$-shifted factorials (and keeping track of the appropriate powers of $q$).
We now come to the construction of the tridiagonal matrix $M_q$ and the matrix of eigenvectors $U$. The polynomials that appear here will be $q$-Hahn polynomials with parameters $(\alpha,\beta)$ and $(\alpha q,\beta q^{-1})$. So in order to have positive weight functions for both sets of polynomials, we shall assume: $$0<q<1, \qquad 0<\alpha<q^{-1}, \qquad 0<\beta<1.$$ As before, let $N=2m+1$, and consider the $(N+1)\times(N+1)$ interaction matrix $M_q$ of the form with non-zero matrix elements given by: $$\begin{gathered}
J_{2k+1} = 2\sqrt{(1-q^{k+1})(1-q^{m-k})q^{k+1}\alpha }, \qquad
J_{2k} = 2\sqrt{(1-\alpha q^{k+1})(1-\beta q^{m-k})q^{k}} ,
\label{qJi}\end{gathered}$$ where $k=0,1,\ldots,m$. The $(N+1)\times(N+1)$ matrix $U$ with indices running from 0 to $N=2m+1$ is defined similarly as in Definition \[defU\], but in terms of $q$-Hahn polynomials : $$\begin{gathered}
U_{2i,m-j} = U_{2i,m+j+1} = \frac{(-1)^i}{\sqrt{2}} \tilde Q_j\big(q^{-i};\alpha,\beta,m|q\big), \label{qUeven}\\
U_{2i+1,m-j} = -U_{2i+1,m+j+1} = -\frac{(-1)^i}{\sqrt{2}} \tilde Q_j\big(q^{-i};\alpha q,\beta q^{-1},m|q\big), \label{qUodd}\end{gathered}$$ where $i,j\in\{0,1,\ldots,m\}$. By the same argument as in Section \[eigen\], the orthogonality of the matrix $U$ follows from the orthogonality of the $q$-Hahn polynomials and the appropriate signs.
Then the main result in the $q$-case reads:
Let $M_q$ be the tridiagonal $(2m+2)\times(2m+2)$-matrix $$\begin{gathered}
M_q= \left( \begin{array}{ccccc}
0 & J_0 & 0 & & \\
J_0 & 0 & J_1 & \ddots & \\
0 & J_1 & 0 & \ddots & 0 \\
&\ddots & \ddots & \ddots & J_{2m} \\
& & 0 & J_{2m} & 0
\end{array} \right),\end{gathered}$$ where the $J_k$ are given in , and let $U$ be the matrix determined in , . Then $U$ is an orthogonal matrix, $U U^T = U^TU=I$. Furthermore, the columns of $U$ are the eigenvectors of $M_q$, i.e. $$\begin{gathered}
M_q U = U D,
$$ where $D$ is a diagonal matrix containing the eigenvalues $\epsilon_j$ of $M_q$: $$\begin{gathered}
D= \mathop{\rm diag}\nolimits (\epsilon_0,\epsilon_1,\ldots,\epsilon_{2m+1}), \qquad
\epsilon_{m-k}=-2\sqrt{(1-\alpha q^{k+1})(1-\beta q^k)q^{m-k}}, \nonumber\\
\epsilon_{m+k+1}=2\sqrt{(1-\alpha q^{k+1})(1-\beta q^k)q^{m-k}},
\qquad k=0,1,\ldots,m. $$
The proof of this proposition is essentially the same as that of Proposition \[proposition3\], and uses the $q$-difference equations , . Note that, as in the ordinary case, the spectrum of $M_q$ is symmetric.
Once the explicit eigenvectors of the Hamiltonian are known in the $q$-generalized case , one can compute the correlation function, using the same expression . The expressions become quite involved, so we give just one example here. This is in the case of transition from one end ($s=0$) to the other end ($r=2m+1$) of the chain, and for $\beta =q \alpha$: $$\begin{gathered}
f_{2m+1,0}(t) =i(-1)^{m}q^{m/2} \alpha^{m/2}(\alpha q;q)_{m+1}\nonumber\\
\phantom{f_{2m+1,0}(t) =}{} \times \sum_{j=0}^m (-1)^j\sin\big(2t\big(1-\alpha q^{j+1}\big)q^{(m-j)/2}\big)
q^{j^2/2}
\frac{(q^{m-j+1};q)_{j}(1+\alpha q^{j+1})}{(\alpha^2 q^{j+2};q)_{m+1}(q;q)_j}.\end{gathered}$$ The $q$-generalization does not give rise to any special cases with perfect state transfer, however.
Conclusions and outlook
=======================
We have dealt with some mathematical aspects of a spin chain model of Shi et al. [@Shi2005], which is a one-parameter extension of the popular spin chain introduced by Christandl et al. [@Christandl2004]. In Christandl’s model, the single fermion eigenvalues and eigenvectors could easily be computed, the eigenvectors being related to Krawtchouk polynomials. In Shi’s model, with an extra parameter $\alpha$, there was so far no known expression of the eigenvectors. In the current paper, we have shown that these eigenvectors can be expressed in terms of Hahn polynomials. As a matter of fact, we first extend Shi’s model by introducing an extra parameter $\beta$, and then construct the eigenvectors. In this process two types of Hahn polynomials are involved, those with parameters $(\alpha,\beta)$ and those with $(\alpha+1,\beta-1)$. These Hahn polynomials are appropriately combined in a matrix $U$, yielding the eigenvectors wanted. When $\beta=\alpha+1$, the two-parameter spin chain reduces to that of Shi. And when $\alpha=-\frac12$, $\beta=\frac12$, the spin chain reduces to that of Christandl. Note, by the way, that in this last case the eigenvectors (expressed in terms of Hahn polynomials) indeed reduce to the known ones (expressed in terms of Krawtchouk polynomials). This follows from the fact that when $\alpha=-\frac12$ and $\beta=\frac12$ the Hahn polynomials, which are ${}_3F_2$ series, reduce to ${}_2F_1$ series according to $$\begin{gathered}
{}_3F_2 \left( {\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{-s,s+1,-i}{1/2,-m}} ; 1 \right)= (-1)^i \frac{\binom{2m+1}{2i}}{\binom{m}{i}} {\;}_2F_1 \left( {\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{-2i,-m-s-1}{-2m-1}} ; 2 \right),\\
{}_3F_2 \left( {\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{-s,s+1,-i}{3/2,-m}} ; 1 \right)= -\frac{(-1)^i}{(2s+1)} \frac{\binom{2m+1}{2i+1}}{\binom{m}{i}} {\;}_2F_1 \left( {\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{-2i-1,-m-s-1}{-2m-1}} ; 2 \right).\end{gathered}$$ These reductions can be obtained, e.g., from [@Atakishiyev2005 (48)]. The ${}_2F_1$ series in the right hand side correspond to (symmetric) Krawtchouk polynomials (with $p=1/2$).
Due to the explicit forms of the eigenvectors, the time-dependent correlation function $f_{r,s}(t)$ has been computed for the spin chains under consideration. In special cases, the expression of the correlation function is particularly simple, see e.g. .
In the construction of the eigenvectors, the main relations needed are two new difference equations for Hahn polynomials. We have also examined the $q$-generalization of these results. The $q$-extension of these difference equations is more or less straightforward. Also the construction of the corresponding eigenvectors in terms of $q$-Hahn polynomials has been completed.
The extension of symmetric Krawtchouk polynomials (without a parameter $\alpha$) to Hahn polynomials (with parameters $(\alpha,\alpha+1)$) may also be used in other applications. In particular, we hope to extend the finite oscillator models of [@Atakishiyev2005], by introducing such an extra parameter. It remains to be seen, in that case, how the underlying Lie algebra is deformed, and how the parameter has an influence on the finite oscillator eigenstates. This topic will be treated elsewhere.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
N.I. Stoilova would like to thank Professor H.D. Doebner (Clausthal, Germany) for constructive discussions. N.I. Stoilova was supported by project P6/02 of the Interuniversity Attraction Poles Programme (Belgian State – Belgian Science Policy) and by the Humboldt Foundation.
[99]{}
Shi T., Li Y., Song A., Sun C.P., Quantum-state transfer via the ferromagnetic chain in a spatially modulated field, [[*Phys. Rev. A*]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.71.032309) [**71**]{} (2005), 032309, 5 pages, [quant-ph/0408152](http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0408152).
Bose S., Quantum communication through an unmodulated spin chain, [[*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.207901) [**91**]{} (2003), 207901, 4 pages, [quant-ph/0212041](http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0212041).
Bose S., Jin B.-Q., Korepin V.E., Quantum communication through a spin ring with twisted boundary conditions, [[*Phys. Rev. A*]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.72.022345) [**72**]{} (2005), 022345, 4 pages, [quant-ph/0409134](http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0409134).
Bose S., Quantum communication through spin chain dynamics: an introductory overview, [[*Contemp. Phys.*]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00107510701342313) [**48**]{} (2007), 13–30, [arXiv:0802.1224](http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.1224).
Lieb E., Wu F., Absence of Mott transition in an exact solution of short-range 1-band model in 1 dimension, [[*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.20.1445) [**20**]{} (1968), 1445–1448.
Jordan P., Wigner E., About the Pauli exclusion principle, [*Z. Phys.*]{} [**47**]{} (1928), 631–651.
Christandl M., Datta N., Ekert A., Landahl A.J., Perfect state transfer in quantum spin networks, [[*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.187902) [**92**]{} (2004), 187902, 4 pages, [quant-ph/0309131](http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0309131).
Albanese C., Christandl M., Datta N., Ekert A., Mirror inversion of quantum states in linear registers, [[*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.230502) [**93**]{} (2004), 230502, 4 pages, [quant-ph/0405029](http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0405029).
Christandl M., Datta N., Dorlas T.C., Ekert A., Kay A., Landahl A.J., Perfect transfer of arbitrary states in quantum spin networks, [[*Phys. Rev. A*]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.71.032312) [**71**]{} (2005), 032312, 11 pages, [quant-ph/0411020](http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0411020).
Yung M.H., Bose S., Perfect state transfer, effective gates, and entanglement generation in engineered bosonic and fermionic networks, [[*Phys. Rev. A*]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.71.032310) [**71**]{} (2005), 032310, 6 pages, [quant-ph/0407212](http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0407212).
Karbach P., Stolze J., Spin chains as perfect quantum state mirrors, [[*Phys. Rev. A*]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.72.030301) [**72**]{} (2005), 030301, 4 pages, [quant-ph/0501007](http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0501007).
Kay A., A review of perfect state transfer and its application as a constructive tool, [[*Int. J. Quantum Inf.*]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0219749910006514) [**8**]{} (2010), 641–676, [arXiv:0903.4274](http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.4274).
Chakrabarti R., Van der Jeugt J., Quantum communication through a spin chain with interaction determined by a Jacobi matrix, [[*J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.*]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/43/8/085302) [**43**]{} (2010), 085302, 20 pages, [arXiv:0912.0837](http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.0837).
Jafarov E.I., Van der Jeugt J., Quantum state transfer in spin chains with $q$-deformed interaction terms, [[*J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.*]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/43/40/405301) [**43**]{} (2010), 405301, 18 pages, [arXiv:1005.2912](http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.2912).
Koekoek R., Lesky P.A., Swarttouw R.F., Hypergeometric orthogonal polynomials and their $q$-analogues, [[*Springer Monographs in Mathematics*]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-05014-5), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2010.
Nikiforov A.F., Suslov S.K., Uvarov V.B., Classical orthogonal polynomials of a discrete variable, [*Springer Series in Computational Physics*]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991.
Regniers G., Van der Jeugt J., Analytically solvable Hamiltonians for quantum systems with a nearest-neighbour interaction, [[*J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.*]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/42/12/125301) [**42**]{} (2009), 125301, 16 pages, [arXiv:0902.2308](http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.2308).
Bailey W.N., Generalized hypergeometric series, [*Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics and Mathematical Physics*]{}, no. 32, Stechert-Hafner, Inc., New York, 1964.
Slater L.J., Generalized hypergeometric functions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1966.
Qian X.-F., Li Y., Li Y., Song Z., Sun C.P., Quantum-state transfer characterized by mode entanglement, [[*Phys. Rev. A*]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.72.062329) [**72**]{} (2005), 062329, 6 pages.
Gasper G., Rahman M., Basic hypergeometric series, 2nd ed., [*Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications*]{}, Vol. 96, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004.
Atakishiyev N.M., Pogosyan G.S., Wolf K.B., Finite models of the oscillator, [*Phys. Part. Nuclei*]{} [**36**]{} (2005), 247–265.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The standard NRQCD power counting breaks down and the OPE gives rise to color-octet shape functions at the upper endpoint of the photon energy spectrum in radiative $\Upsilon$ decay. Also in this kinematic regime, large Sudakov logarithms appear in the octet Wilson coefficients, ruining the perturbative expansion. Using SCET, the octet shape functions arise naturally and the Sudakov logarithms can be summed using the renormalization group equations. We derive an expression for the resummed octet energy spectrum.'
address: |
Theory Group, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,\
Batavia, IL 60510, USA
author:
- 'Adam K. Leibovich [^1]'
title: Radiative Upsilon Decay at the Endpoint
---
The decay of the $\Upsilon$ in the endpoint region is interesting for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is a way to test Non-Relativistic QCD (NRQCD) [@NRQCD] in decays, which could be important for extractions of $\alpha_s$ [@gk]. Secondly, in the endpoint region, it is necessary to introduce another effective field theory, Soft-Collinear Effective Theory (SCET) [@SCET], due to the jet of collinear particle that is produced in this kinematic region. Finally, CLEO will obtain much more precise data on the first three $\Upsilon$ resonances, so it is timely to see if we can predict the decay spectrum.
The $\Upsilon(1S)$ decays radiatively about 3% of the time. When the photon is emitted with maximum energy, $z\equiv 2 E_\gamma/M_\Upsilon
\to 1$, it is back-to-back with a jet of particles. It is this kinematic region that we are interested in predicting [@bcfll]. Before discussing this region in particular, it will be useful to review how the calculation is done in general.
To calculate the inclusive photon spectrum, it is advantageous to use NRQCD. The effective field theory (EFT) is based on the fact that the $b$ quark is heavy, $m_b \gg \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$. This implies that the relative velocity of the the heavy quarks inside the bound state is small, $v\ll1$. For $\Upsilon$, $v^2\approx0.1.$ It is therefore beneficial to do a double expansion in $v$ and $\alpha_s$. Furthermore, it is possible to use NRQCD to prove the short and long distance physics factorize in $\Upsilon$ decay [@NRQCD].
The decay rate in NRQCD is written as $$\frac{d\Gamma}{dz} = \sum_n C_n(z) \langle O(n)\rangle.
\label{untrunc}$$ The $C_n$ are Wilson coefficients, calculable in perturbation theory, while the $\langle O(n)\rangle$ are non-perturbative NRQCD matrix elements (MEs). The MEs schematically are $$\langle O(n)\rangle =
\langle \Upsilon|
\psi^\dag\Gamma^{\prime n} \chi \chi^\dag\Gamma^n \psi
|\Upsilon\rangle,$$ where the $\Gamma^n$ can contain derivatives, color and spin matrices, which can be classified in spectroscopic notation and as a color-singlet or color-octet. For instance $\langle
O_8(^1S_0)\rangle$ is a ME where $\Gamma^n$ contains only the color-matrix $T^a$.
The series in Eq. (\[untrunc\]) is infinite, so to have any predictive power, we need to truncate. This is possible using the velocity scalings of the MEs. Each ME scales as a certain power of $v$, depending on what terms from the NRQCD Lagrangian needs to be inserted to have a non-zero overlap. For the endpoint spectrum, the relevant MEs are $$\begin{aligned}
\langle O_1(^3S_1)\rangle &\sim& v^0,\\
\langle O_8(^1S_0)\rangle &\sim& v^4,\\
\langle O_8(^3P_0)\rangle &\sim& v^4.\end{aligned}$$ The color-singlet ME $\langle O_1(^3S_1)\rangle$ can be related to the wavefunction at the origin, and the decay rate through this channel is the result obtained in the Color Singlet Model [@CSM].
At first glance, it appears that the color-octet contributions to the rate are tiny, $v^4\approx 0.01$, compared to the color-singlet. However, that is not true. To see why, we need to compare the rate for each channel, including the Wilson coefficients. For the color-singlet rate, the $\Upsilon$ decays to a photon and two gluons, so $C_1^{(0)}(^3S_1)\propto\alpha_s^2$. For the color-octet channels, on the other hand, the final decay products are a photon and one gluon. So $C_8^{(0)}(^1S_0)\sim C_8(^3P_0)\propto\pi\alpha_s$, where the $\pi$ comes from there being one less particle in the final state. The color-octet is enhanced perturbatively by a factor of $\pi\alpha_s
= {\cal O}(10)$.
But that is not all. Since there are only two particles in the final state for the color-octet decay, the rate is peaked at the endpoint, $C_8^{(0)}(^1S_0)\sim C_8^{(0)}(^3P_0)\propto\delta(1-z)$. If we compare the integrated rate in the endpoint region, $(1-v^2 < z < 1)$, we have $\Gamma^{\rm end}_1(^3S_1) \propto \alpha_s^2 v^2$ for the color-singlet, and $\Gamma^{\rm end}_8(^1S_0)\sim\Gamma^{\rm
end}_8(^1S_0) \propto \pi\alpha_s v^4\approx \alpha_s^2 v^2$ for the octet, using the fact that numerically $v^2\approx\alpha_s/\pi$. So in the endpoint region the singlet and octet rates contribute equally.
If we went to higher order in the velocity expansion, we would find further contributions, formally suppressed by higher powers of $v$, that contribute equally in the endpoint region. This is due to a breakdown of the non-perturbative expansion. The solution has been known for some time [@RW]. The series needs to be reordered as a twist expansion, similar to what is done in $B$ decays [@shape]. The rate is then written as $$\frac{d\Gamma}{dz} = \int dk_+ C_n(z,k_+) f_n(k_+) \langle O(n)\rangle,$$ where $f_n(k_+)$ are shape functions, which measure the probability for the quark pair (in state $n$) to have light-cone momentum $k_+$. As these are non-perturbative functions, they must be modeled.
We also must worry about the perturbative series. The fact that the color-octet rate begins as a $\delta$ function is already worrisome. Higher order corrections could lead to further problems. This in fact is true. The next-to-leading order (NLO) perturbative corrections have been calculated for the color-singlet (numerically) [@kramer] and color-octet [@MP]. The NLO color-octet rate is singular at the endpoint. In particular, Sudakov logarithms appear in the Wilson coefficients at NLO of the form $$\alpha_s^2 \left(\frac{\log(1-z)}{1-z}\right)_+\quad
{\rm and}\quad \alpha_s^2 \left(\frac{1}{1-z}\right)_+,$$ which become large as $z\to1$. If we again integrate over the endpoint, $(1-v^2 < z < 1)$, these terms give contributions to the rate $\alpha_s^2 \log^2(v^2)$ and $\alpha_s^2 \log(v^2)$. Both are ${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$, since $\alpha_s\log^2(v^2)$ and $\alpha_s\log(v^2)$ are ${\cal O}(1)$. This is an indication that the perturbative series breaks down in the endpoint. If we looked at higher order perturbative corrections, we would get terms of the form $\alpha_s[\alpha_s^n\log^{2n}(v^2)]$, which are also ${\cal
O}(\alpha_s)$.
The break down of the perturbative and non-perturbative series are due to the same problem: NRQCD does not contain all of the correct degrees of freedom for the endpoint region. It is missing collinear modes. To correctly describe the physics at the endpoint we need to couple NRQCD to an EFT that contains these missing fields, SCET [@SCET].
The invariant mass of the hadronic jet in the endpoint region, $M_X^2
= (1-z) M_\Upsilon^2 \equiv\lambda^2M_\Upsilon^2$, is much larger than the energy in the jet, $(E_X = z M_\Upsilon/2)$. We therefore have a multiscale system, and EFT techniques are useful to separate the scales. In this case, the expansion parameter $\lambda =
\sqrt{1-z}$. There are three classes of particles that are included in the EFT, depending on the scaling of the momentum. They are massless quarks and gluons with: $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm Collinear:} && E + p^3 \sim M_\Upsilon,
\ E - p^3 \sim \lambda^2 M_\Upsilon,\nonumber\\
&& p^{1,2} \sim \lambda M_\Upsilon,\nonumber\\
{\rm Soft:} && p^\mu \sim \lambda M_\Upsilon,\nonumber\\
{\rm Ultrasoft:} && p^\mu \sim \lambda^2 M_\Upsilon.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The scales in the problem are the hard scale, $M_\Upsilon$, the collinear scale, $\lambda M_\Upsilon$, and the soft scale, $\lambda^2
M_\Upsilon$. The plan of attack is to integrate out the hard scale by matching to the EFT and then run to the collinear scale using the renormalization group equations (RGEs) of SCET. At this point all collinear particles are far off shell and should be integrated out. This is done by matching onto the soft theory, which is same as the large energy effective theory [@LEET]. We will then run from the collinear scale to the soft scale, at which point all the large logarithms will be in the coefficient functions. The logs in this case are $\log\lambda\to\log(1-z)$, so by using the EFT RGEs, we have resummed all the logs of $(1-z)$, i.e. the Sudakov logs [@bcfll].
To follow this program, we first need to match onto SCET. This is done by calculating the graphs in QCD and expanding in $\lambda$ (and in $v$ which will also match onto NRQCD). An example of this is shown in Fig. \[fig:match\]. The matching, at leading order in $\lambda$, gives two operators in the EFT, for the octet $^1S_0$ and $^3P_0$ channels. We do not get any other operators at leading order, which means there are no leading Sudakov logs in the color-singlet channel [@hautmann]. There are other operators suppressed by $\lambda$ [@BFL].
![Matching onto SCET. The diagram on the left is calculated in full QCD, and then expanded in $\lambda$ and $v$. This is matched onto an operator in the EFT.[]{data-label="fig:match"}](match.eps){width="7.5cm"}
We next need to run using the SCET RGEs. This requires the anomalous dimensions of the operators. We therefore need to calculate the one-loop diagrams in Fig. \[fig:loop\]. The anomalous dimensions of the $^1S_0$ and $^3P_0$ operators are the same, which is related to the fact that the Sudakov logs are the same for both channels [@MP]. Please see [@bcfll] for the details.
![The one-loop diagrams needed to calculate the anomalous dimensions of the SCET operators.[]{data-label="fig:loop"}](renorm.ps){width="8.1cm"}
We next match onto the soft theory, by removing all collinear particles. However, we have a collinear gluon in the final state, so to remove it, we perform an operator product expansion (OPE). The result is a non-local operator, separated along the light-cone. This is shown diagrammatically in Fig. \[fig:ope\].
![Matching onto the soft theory, by doing an OPE.[]{data-label="fig:ope"}](leading_ope.ps){width="7.8cm"}
The operator we match onto is of the form $$O_n(x) = \psi^\dag\Gamma^{\prime n} \chi
\delta(1-x+iD^+/M_\Upsilon)
\chi^\dag\Gamma^n \psi,$$ where the derivative is in the $+$ light-like direction. The rate is now $$\frac{d\Gamma}{dz} = \int dx \sum_n C_n(x-z) f_n(x) \langle O(n)\rangle,$$ where $f_n(x) = \langle O_n(x)\rangle/\langle O(n)\rangle$. This is just the rate including the shape function. By using SCET, the shape function appears naturally.
We now run down to the soft scale. For the details, see [@bcfll]. At this point, there are no large logs in the operators. We have summed all the Sudakov logs into the Wilson coefficients. To plot the result, we use the model of [@KN], introduced for $B$ decays. For $\Upsilon$, we need to give the shape function some unknown first moment of order $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ [@bcfll]. The results are shown in Fig. \[fig:res1\].
![The differential decay spectra near the endpoint region in arbitrary units. The curves are described in the text.[]{data-label="fig:res1"}](fig1.eps){width="7.4cm"}
The dashed curve is the resummation without the shape function. The dotted curve is the singular terms in the one-loop result, and the dot-dashed curve is these terms convoluted with the shape function. The solid curve is the resummation convoluted with the shape function. Note that the shape function without resummation and the resummation without the shape function give similar results. However, both are necessary.
At this point we compare to the color-singlet results. To do this we need the color-octet MEs. In Fig. \[fig:res2\], the solid curve is the color-singlet result. The dotted curve is the resummation without the shape function, the dashed is resummation with the shape function. The two sets of curves correspond to scaling the octet MEs from the singlet by factors of $v^4/10$ and $v^4/100$. As can be seen, to get comparable results, the naive scaling ($v^4$) seems to be off by a factor of 100 [@PCGMM].
![The different channels for the spectra near the endpoint region. The curves are described in the text.[]{data-label="fig:res2"}](fig2.eps){width="7.4cm"}
However, before a meaningful comparison to the data is possible, we should follow a similar program for the color-singlet rate [@BFL]. This will allow us to resum subleading Sudakov logs. The existence of these logs was first pointed out in [@hautmann], where it was observed that though the leading logs cancel in the color-singlet differential rate, they are present in the derivative of the rate.
[9]{}
G. T. Bodwin et al., Phys. Rev. D [**51**]{}, 1125 (1995) \[Erratum-ibid. D [**55**]{}, 5853 (1997)\]. M. Gremm and A. Kapustin, Phys. Lett. B [**407**]{}, 323 (1997). C. W. Bauer et al., Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 014006 (2001); see I. W. Stewart, these proceedings, and references therein.
C. W. Bauer et al., Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 114014 (2001). S. J. Brodsky et al., Phys. Lett. B [**73**]{}, 203 (1978); K. Koller and T. Walsh, Nucl. Phys. B [**140**]{}, 449 (1978). I. Z. Rothstein and M. B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B [**402**]{}, 346 (1997). M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D [**49**]{}, 4623 (1994); I. I. Bigi et al., Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**9**]{}, 2467 (1994); T. Mannel and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D [**50**]{}, 2037 (1994). M. Kramer, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 111503 (1999). F. Maltoni and A. Petrelli, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{}, 074006 (1999). M. J. Dugan and B. Grinstein, Phys. Lett. B [**255**]{}, 583 (1991). F. Hautmann, Nucl. Phys. B [**604**]{}, 391 (2001). C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming and A. K. Leibovich, work in progress.
A. L. Kagan and M. Neubert, Eur. Phys. J. C [**7**]{}, 5 (1999). See, however, A. Petrelli et al., Nucl. Phys. B [**514**]{}, 245 (1998).
[^1]: I would like to thank my collaborators with whom this work was completed: C. W. Bauer, C. W. Chiang, S. Fleming and I. Low. I was supported in part by the Department of Energy under Grant DE-AC02-76CH03000.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
=10000
CALT-TH-2020-006
[**Classical Gravitational Scattering\
at ${\cal O}(G^3)$ from Feynman Diagrams\
**]{}\
[*${}^a$Walter Burke Institute for Theoretical Physics\
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125* ]{} [^1]\
**Abstract**
> We perform a Feynman diagram calculation of the two-loop scattering amplitude for gravitationally interacting massive particles in the classical limit. Conveniently, we are able to sidestep the most taxing diagrams by exploiting the test-particle limit in which the system is fully characterized by a particle propagating in a Schwarzschild spacetime. We assume a general choice of graviton field basis and gauge fixing that contains as a subset the well-known deDonder gauge and its various cousins. As a highly nontrivial consistency check, all gauge parameters evaporate from the final answer. Moreover, our result exactly matches that of Bern [*et al.*]{} [@3PM], here verified up to sixth post-Newtonian order while also reproducing the same unique velocity resummation at third post-Minkowksian order.
Introduction
============
The breakthrough observation of gravitational waves at LIGO/Virgo [@LIGO] has triggered immense interest in bridging developments from the modern scattering amplitudes program to the physics of gravitational waves. Building on past work on the inspiral problem based on graviton effective field theory (EFT) [@oldQFT] and matching to a classical potential [@oldEFT; @Neill:2013wsa; @Vaidya:2014kza], many developments have now emerged which exploit classic methods [@Damour:2017zjx; @2PM; @Matching; @HBET] as well as recent amplitudes advances [@newAMP] to investigate systems with [@newSPIN] and without spin [@3PM; @3PMlong].
Already, these efforts have culminated in genuinely new results which have yet to be fully verified through the existing conventional methods, which include the effective one-body formalism [@EOB], numerical relativity [@NR], self-force formalism [@self_force], and analytic calculations in the post-Newtonian (PN) [@PN], post-Minkowskian (PM) [@PM; @Damour:2017zjx] and nonrelativistic general relativity [@NRGR; @EFT; @Foffa:2019yfl] approaches. In particular, the recent calculation of the conservative Hamiltonian for binary dynamics at 3PM order [@3PM; @3PMlong] overlaps and agrees with existing results in the PN expansion but also encodes an infinitude of new higher order velocity corrections. This new 3PM calculation entails an intricate “vertical pipeline” of tools which span string theory, effective field theory, and orbital mechanics.
The 3PM calculation [@3PM; @3PMlong] centers on the scattering amplitude for two massive, spinless bodies interacting via Einstein gravity. The multiloop integrand for this process is built from tree amplitudes constructed via the double copy construction [@DoubleCopy] and then fused together via generalized unitarity [@GeneralizedUnitarity]. The resulting object is then integrated through a battery of relativistic and nonrelativistic methods. The latter approach hinges on a crucial split between potential and radiation graviton modes which was first systematized for the binary inspiral problem in a quantum field theoretic context in the pioneering work of [@NRGR] (see [@Foffa:2019yfl] for a full treatment of the conservative 4PN Lagrangian in this framework). Finally, by matching the resulting scattering amplitude to an EFT for the binary system, one extracts the conservative potential governing the inspiral [@oldEFT; @Neill:2013wsa; @Vaidya:2014kza; @2PM].
To date, there are now a number of works studying the implications of this 3PM result as well as its consistency. These include the study of the effect of these new 3PM corrections on the binding energy of a binary inspiral in comparison with numerical relativity [@Antonelli:2019ytb]. Currently, the 5PN term of the 3PM result has been verified [@Bini:2019nra], while other methods for EFT matching have also been devised [@Matching]. The case of massless scattering has also received more recent attention with new computations in supergravity as well as in Einstein gravity [@GravitonScattering; @Abreu:2020lyk; @Bern:2020gjj]. In particular, [@Bern:2020gjj] utilizes the first complete evaluation of the two-loop four-graviton scattering amplitude in [@Abreu:2020lyk] and confirms from first principles the classic result for the massless deflection angle in pure Einstein gravity in [@ACV]. Notably, these explicit calculations are all inconsistent with the 3PM dynamics conjectured in [@DamourRecent].
In this paper we perform an independent and comprehensive check of the 3PM results in [@3PM; @3PMlong] using age-old tools from the perturbative, quantum field theoretic description of gravitons coupled to massive scalars. To begin, we compute the two-loop integrand associated with gravitational scattering using Feynman diagrams. For maximal generality, we perform this calculation assuming an [*arbitrary*]{} choice of local graviton field basis and gauge fixing. At two loops, the resulting Feynman diagrams individually depend on a total of ten gauge parameters, for which certain choices of values correspond to deDonder gauge, its nonlinear generalization to harmonic gauge, and a “simplified” gauge previously engineered to reduce the complexity of graviton perturbation theory [@hidden]. Note that the latter formalism admits a version of Berends-Giele recursion relations [@BG] for gravity which was employed in the recent calculation of two-loop graviton scattering in Einstein gravity [@Abreu:2020lyk].
As a crucial simplification, we are able to completely sidestep a large class of Feynman diagrams which contribute only in the test-particle limit. Instead, we fix these contributions from the known behavior of a test particle in a Schwarzschild background, as discussed in [@3PMlong].
Afterwards, we integrate our two-loop integrands using the nonrelativistic method discussed in [@3PMlong] up to 6PN order. As expected, all dependence on unphysical gauge parameters disappear entirely from our final result, which also exactly matches that of [@3PM]. As in [@3PMlong], the series of velocity corrections which appear are simple and take the same form as those collected in Appendix C of [@3PMlong][^2]. Resummation is then mechanical and reproduces the same 3PM scattering amplitude. This agreement implies that the entire 3PM calculation—in particular the integration procedure—is gauge invariant, and furthermore that integrand construction via the double copy and generalized unitarity works as expected. Note that, along with the recent result for massless scattering at two loops [@Bern:2020gjj], this offers additional evidence via explicit computation that the claimed 3PM result in [@DamourRecent] is incorrect. Nonetheless, confirmation of the 6PN result from other methods, as was done at 5PN [@Bini:2019nra], would be valuable.[^3]
The paper is organized as follows. In [Sec. \[sec:action\]]{}, we discuss the action describing our setup for different choices of gauge fixing and field basis. We then give a brief review of the classical limit of Feynman diagrams implemented at integrand level in [Sec. \[sec:classical\]]{}. Afterwards, in [Sec. \[sec:testparticle\]]{} we discuss the subclass of Feynman diagrams that contribute only to the test-particle limit and show how to sidestep their direct calculation. In [Sec. \[sec:diagrams\]]{}, we list the final set of Feynman diagrams that we compute, and we discuss our results and outlook in [Sec. \[sec:results\]]{}.
Setup
=====
The scattering amplitude for massive, gravitationally interacting particles is computed using the quantum field theory description of gravitons. For a review we refer the reader to [@oldQFT]. Here we specify various forms of the action that we use for our calculation.
Action {#sec:action}
------
To begin, we consider Einstein gravity coupled to a pair of massive scalars. The action is[^4] [[$$}\begin{aligned}
S &= S_{\rm graviton} + S_{\rm matter} + S_{\rm GF}
\label{}\end{aligned}{$$]{}]{} where the graviton and matter actions are [[$$}\begin{aligned}
S_{\rm graviton} &= \frac{1}{16\pi G} \int d^Dx \sqrt{-g} \, R \\
S_{\rm matter} &= \int d^Dx \sqrt{-g} \sum_{i=1,2} \left( -\frac{1}{2} \nabla_\mu \phi_i \nabla^\mu \phi_i - \frac{1}{2} m_i^2\phi_i^2 \right)
\label{eq:S}\end{aligned}{$$]{}]{} and $S_{\rm GF}$ denotes the gauge fixing term. Here all derivatives and metric contractions are covariant with respect to the full metric.
In order to define perturbation theory for the graviton, [Eq. ]{} must be supplemented with an explicit definition of the graviton fluctuation about flat space. As explored in [@twofold], there is immense freedom in this choice of field basis and gauge fixing which will affect intermediate steps in any calculation but will evaporate from any physical quantity. Let us describe the various choices of gauge fixing and field basis to be considered in this paper.
[**deDonder Gauge.**]{} To begin, let us consider [Eq. ]{} with a gauge fixing and field basis, [[$$}\begin{aligned}
S_{\rm GF} &= - \frac{1}{32\pi G} \int d^D x \left(\partial^\nu h_{\mu\nu} -\frac{1}{2} \partial_\mu h\right)^2 \qquad {\rm and} \qquad g_{\mu\nu} = \eta_{\mu\nu} + h_{\mu\nu},
\label{eq:LH}\end{aligned}{$$]{}]{} where $h_{\mu\nu}$ is the graviton, $h$ is its trace, and all contractions are taken with the flat space metric $\eta_{\mu\nu}$. Throughout, we work in a noncanonical normalization in which the graviton is dimensionless. Since we will not be concerned with processes with external gravitons, this choice will not affect the overall normalization of the scattering amplitude. That said, in order to go to canonical normalization, one simply rescales the graviton by a factor of $\sqrt{32\pi G}$.
We emphasize that [Eq. ]{} is purposely expressed in terms of partial derivatives and does not include a factor of $\sqrt{-g}$. This term is obviously not gauge invariant but this is expected since it is a gauge fixing term. Since the gauge fixing term is purely quadratic in the graviton, it serves only to modify the graviton propagator of the theory. Consequently, the Feynman rules for this formulation are obtained by inserting the definition of the graviton perturbation in [Eq. ]{} into the Einstein-Hilbert and matter coupling terms while using the well-known deDonder propagator for the graviton.
[**Harmonic Gauge.**]{} Alternatively, consider [Eq. ]{} with the gauge fixing [[$$}\begin{aligned}
S_{\rm GF} &= - \frac{1}{32\pi G} \int d^D x \sqrt{-g} \, \Gamma^{\mu\nu}_{\;\;\;\;\nu}\Gamma_{\mu\rho}^{\;\;\;\;\rho} \qquad {\rm and} \qquad g_{\mu\nu} = \eta_{\mu\nu} + h_{\mu\nu},
\label{eq:NLH}\end{aligned}{$$]{}]{} where the indices in the Christoffel symbols are contracted using the full metric. Harmonic gauge fixing is a nonlinear generalization of the deDonder gauge in [Eq. ]{} since they coincide at quadratic order in the graviton but deviate at higher order. In particular, graviton self-interactions arise from the gauge fixing term as well as the Einstein-Hilbert term. However, harmonic gauge and deDonder gauge exactly coincide at quadratic order in the graviton, so the propagator here is still of deDonder form.
[**Simplified Gauge.**]{} In [@twofold; @hidden], the Einstein-Hilbert action was analyzed in an arbitrary field basis and gauge fixing. While these choices have no effect on physical observables, they can elucidate various hidden structures in gravity and also simplify the Feynman diagram expansion. For example, [@twofold] showed how the dual Lorentz invariance implied by the double copy construction [@DoubleCopy] can be made manifest at the level of the action.
In [@hidden], these freedoms were further exploited to build highly simplified Feynman rules and Berends-Giele recursion relations [@BG] for gravity derived from a perturbative version of the Palatini formulation. In fact, this work was later utilized in the first calculation [@Abreu:2020lyk] of the two-loop scattering amplitude of massless gravitons. In the present work, we also use this simplified action for graviton perturbations about flat space, $S = S_{\rm graviton} + S_{\rm matter}$, where [[$$}\begin{aligned}
S_{\rm grav} = \frac{1}{16\pi G} & \int d^Dx \left[ -\frac{1}{4} \partial_\mu h_{\nu\rho}\partial^\mu h^{\nu\rho} +\frac{1}{D-2} \partial_\mu h\partial^\mu h \right. \\
& \left. + \frac{1}{4} h^{\mu\nu} \left( \partial_\mu h_{\rho \sigma} \partial_\nu h^{\rho\sigma}+
2\partial_{[\rho} h_{ \sigma]\nu} \partial^\sigma h_{\mu}^{\;\;\;\rho}
+\frac{1}{D-2} (2\partial_\rho h_{\mu\nu} \partial^\rho h-\partial_\mu h \partial_\nu h) \right) \right] +\cdots
\label{}\end{aligned}{$$]{}]{} where the ellipses denote terms which are quartic or higher in the graviton which are not needed for the present calculation. As before, the graviton kinetic term again coincides with that of deDonder and harmonic gauge, so the graviton propagator is the same. Meanwhile, the graviton couplings to matter are slightly modified, and should be obtained by inserting the graviton perturbation defined by the relation $\sqrt{-g}\, g^{\mu\nu} = \eta^{\mu\nu} - h^{\mu\nu}$ into [Eq. ]{}.
[**Generalized Gauge.**]{} Last but not least, we consider the Einstein-Hilbert action in a general field basis and gauge fixing, subject only to the assumption of locality. In particular, we consider the most general local gauge fixing term that coincides with harmonic gauge at linear order while maintaining the deDonder form of the graviton propagator, [[$$}\begin{aligned}
S_{\rm GF} &= - \frac{1}{32\pi G}\int d^D x \, F_{\mu}F^\mu
\label{}\end{aligned}{$$]{}]{} where the gauge fixing function is [[$$}\begin{aligned}
F_\mu &= \partial^\nu h_{\mu\nu} -\frac{1}{2} \partial_\mu h + \partial^\nu h^{\rho\sigma} ( \zeta_1 h_{\mu\nu}\eta_{\rho\sigma}+\zeta_2 h_{\mu\rho}\eta_{\nu\sigma}+ \zeta_3 h_{\rho\sigma}\eta_{\mu\nu}+\zeta_4 h_{\nu\sigma}\eta_{\mu\rho}+\zeta_5 \eta_{\mu\nu}\eta_{\rho\sigma}h +\zeta_6 \eta_{\mu\rho}\eta_{\nu\sigma}h ) ,
\label{eq:F_gen}\end{aligned}{$$]{}]{} and all contractions are taken with the flat space metric. At linear order, this gauge fixing coincides with deDonder gauge. Furthermore, in the Einstein-Hilbert term we plug in the general graviton field basis, [[$$}\begin{aligned}
g_{\mu\nu} &= \eta_{\mu\nu} + h_{\mu\nu}+ \xi_1 h_{\mu \rho} h_\nu^{\;\;\rho} + \xi_2 h_{\mu\nu}h + \xi_3 \eta_{\mu\nu} h_{\rho\sigma} h^{\rho\sigma}+ \xi_4 \eta_{\mu\nu} h^2,
\label{eq:basis_gen}\end{aligned}{$$]{}]{} restricting to local nonlinear functions of the graviton. In [Eq. ]{} and [Eq. ]{} we have neglected to write down terms even higher order in the graviton since these only affect quartic or higher self-interaction vertices which we will not need.
Last of all, note that since the deDonder, harmonic, and simplified gauge discussed earlier are all local functions of the graviton field, they are all subsumed by various choices of the gauge parameters above.
Classical Limit {#sec:classical}
---------------
As discussed at length in [@2PM; @3PMlong], the complexity of the scattering amplitude calculation is immensely reduced by the fact that we are interested only in the classical dynamics. Indeed, the vasty majority of terms computed via Feynman diagrams actually contribute to the quantum dynamics. By applying classical truncation as early as possible—in particular at the level of the integrand—we can substantially simplify our expressions.
Consider, for example, a scattering process with center of mass momentum $\vec p$ and momentum transfer $\vec q$. Because the impact parameter scales as $b \sim 1/|\vec q|$, then the angular momentum of the process goes as $J \sim |\vec p| / |\vec q|$. For a classical process, the angular momentum must be large in units of $\hbar$, so $J \gg 1$. Mechanically, we can enforce this hierarchy in Feynman diagrams by scaling relativistic momenta as follows [[$$}\begin{aligned}
p_{1} &\rightarrow p_{1} \\
p_{2} &\rightarrow p_{2} \\
q &\rightarrow \lambda q \\
\ell_i &\rightarrow \lambda \ell_i,
\label{eq:lambda_rescale}\end{aligned}{$$]{}]{} where $p_{1}$ and $p_2$ are the incoming momenta of particles 1 and 2, respectively, $q=(0,\vec{q})$ is the momentum transfer in the center of mass frame, $\ell_i$ denotes the (loop) four-momenta of exchanged gravitons, and $\lambda$ is the classical power counting parameter. We expand in small $\lambda$ in the numerator. On the other hand, as discussed at length in [@3PMlong], we do [not]{} expand propagators in Feynman diagrams at this stage in order to keep the pole structure manifest for loop integration. For a detailed discussion of the nonrelativistic integration method, we refer the reader to [@3PMlong].
With this power counting, the classical momentum-space scattering amplitude at $n$th order in the PM expansion scales as [[$$}\begin{aligned}
{\cal M}_{n} \rightarrow \lambda^{n-3} {\cal M}_n + \textrm{lower order in }\lambda.
\label{eq:M_rescale}\end{aligned}{$$]{}]{} Terms higher order than $\lambda^{n-3}$ are pure quantum and should be discarded. Note, on the other hand, that there do in general exist “super-classical” terms which are lower order in $\lambda$, infrared divergent, and enter through iterations of lower orders in the PM potential. While super-classical terms appear in the scattering amplitude, they evaporate from the conservative potential after matching, which is expected since the full theory the EFT share the same infrared structure.
As discussed in [@3PMlong], the classical limit also permits us to drop large classes of Feynman diagrams. These diagrams can be dropped because their corresponding integrands have no poles in the integration region corresponding to potential graviton modes. Consequently, they contribute only when the exchanged gravitons are high energy, thus generating pure quantum corrections.
Test-Particle Limit {#sec:testparticle}
-------------------
In the test-particle limit, $m_1 \gg m_2$, the scattering amplitude coincides with that of a point particle propagating in a Schwarzschild background. This well-known fact was one of many consistency checks of the 3PM result [@3PM; @3PMlong]. In the present work we use this limit to sidestep the calculation of a complicated subset of Feynman diagrams. That is, we identify the class of Feynman diagrams that contribute only to the test-particle limit, and instead of computing them explicitly, fix them so that the final answer agrees with the test-particle limit.
![Sample Feynman diagrams corresponding to the test-particle limit at 2PM, 3PM, and 4PM. Thick horizontal lines and thin lines respectively denote massive scalars and exchanged gravitons. Other variants include nonplanar topologies and those involving the seagull vertex.[]{data-label="fig:testparticle"}](testparticle)
Consider the “triangular” Feynman diagrams in [Fig. \[fig:testparticle\]]{}, which have the defining feature of containing the maximal allowed number of propagators for particle 1 but no propagators for particle 2. Crucially, this class of diagrams typically involves the highest order self-interactions of the graviton, and are very work-intensive to compute using Feynman diagrams.
First, let us apply to these diagrams the classical power counting outlined in [Eq. ]{} and [Eq. ]{}. A diagram at $n$th PM order will involve an $n-1$ loop integral of the form [[$$}\begin{aligned}
{\cal I} \sim \int d^{4(n-1)}\ell \times \frac{1}{\ell^{n-1}} \times \frac{1}{\ell^{2n}} \times {\cal N},
\label{eq:I_tri}\end{aligned}{$$]{}]{} where ${\cal N}$ is the numerator of the Feynman diagram, and $\ell$ schematically denotes any loop momentum or momentum transfer, including $q$, which scales linearly with $\lambda$ in [Eq. ]{}. The $1/\ell^{n-1}$ and $1/\ell^{2n}$ come from the loop momentum dependence of the matter lines and the all-graviton sub-diagram, respectively. Note that we have suppressed dependence on the scales in the problem, such as the masses. Applying [Eq. ]{} and comparing to [Eq. ]{}, it is then clear that we have to take ${\cal N}$ at zeroth order in the classical expansion parameter $\lambda$, thus setting everything in the numerator to zero except $p_1^\mu$, $p_2^\mu$, and the masses.
By this logic, the Feynman diagram numerator will carry $2(n+1)$ factors of $p_1^\mu$ and two factors of $p_2^\mu$ after classical truncation, here rewriting all masses as $m_1^2 = p_1^2$ or $m_2^2 = p_2^2$ via the on-shell condition. This implies that [[$$}\begin{aligned}
{\cal N} \sim G^n m_1^{2(n+1)} m_2^2 ( A + B \sigma^2),
\label{}\end{aligned}{$$]{}]{} where $\sigma = -{p_1 \cdot p_2 \over m_1m_2}$ in our mostly plus signature, and $A$ and $B$ are unknown dimensionless coefficients. Higher powers of $\sigma$ cannot arise, simply because there are not enough factors of $p_2^\mu$ to produce them. Furthermore, as described in [@3PMlong] the first step of integration is to localize all matter poles for particle 1, effectively introducing a total of $n-1$ factors of $1/m_1$. Applying this to [Eq. ]{}, we obtain [[$$}\begin{aligned}
{\cal I} \sim G^n m_1^{n+3} m_2^2 ( A + B \sigma^2)q^{n-3},
\label{eq:gen_form}\end{aligned}{$$]{}]{} where the power of $q=\sqrt{-t}$ is fixed by [Eq. ]{} and is only schematic—that is, depending on the PM order, logarithms of $q$ may also appear.
Rather than compute the triangular Feynman diagrams explicitly, we simply add them to our calculation as an ansatz term in the general form of [Eq. ]{}. Obviously, we can do the same for diagrams related to those in [Fig. \[fig:testparticle\]]{} by swapping particles 1 and 2, and they will have the same values for $A$ and $B$. In particular, for the 3PM answer we take [[$$}\begin{aligned}
{\cal M}_{3{\rm PM}} = {\cal M}_{\rm ansatz} + {\cal M}_{\rm Feynman}
\label{}\end{aligned}{$$]{}]{} where the ansatz function is [[$$}\begin{aligned}
{\cal M}_{\rm ansatz} &= \pi G^3 m_1^2 m_2^2 (m_1^2+ m_2^2) (A+ B \sigma^2) \ln q,
\label{eq:M_ansatz}\end{aligned}{$$]{}]{} where the $q$ dependence is fixed by the $1/r^3$ structure of the 3PM potential. The remaining term ${\cal M}_{\rm Feynman}$ is computed explicitly via Feynman diagrams. We then take the full answer ${\cal M}_{3{\rm PM}}$ and demand that it is consistent with the test-particle limit amplitudes presented in [@3PMlong]. This constraint uniquely fixes $A$ and $B$, thus completing the calculation.
Feynman Diagrams {#sec:diagrams}
----------------
Upon dropping quantum and test-particle contributions, we need only compute the subset of Feynman diagrams shown in [Fig. \[fig:diagrams\]]{}. Notably, these diagrams involve at most cubic self-interactions of the graviton but not higher, affording some degree of reduction in complexity.
For the interested reader, we include an attachment containing all two-loop integrands, classically truncated, for the deDonder, harmonic, and simplified gauges described above, as well as their integrated values. We include only the finite pieces, while the infrared divergent, super-classical terms that cancel in the matching with the EFT are as given in Eq. (9.2) of [@3PMlong].
![Two-loop Feynman diagrams for classical scattering. Not shown here are diagrams such as those in [Fig. \[fig:testparticle\]]{}, which are trivially fixed by the test-particle limit, as well as “twisted” graphs obtained by swapping the incoming and outgoing legs for particle 1, or equivalently, for particle 2. The peculiar labeling is meant to align with the topologies defined in Fig. 14 of [@3PM], and the primed labels denote graphs in which an exchanged graviton has been pinched.[]{data-label="fig:diagrams"}](diagrams)
Results and Outlook {#sec:results}
===================
In summary, we have computed all of the Feynman diagrams in [Fig. \[fig:diagrams\]]{} working in the deDonder, harmonic, simplified, and general gauges discussed previously. Integration was performed using the nonrelativistic method discussed at length in [@3PMlong]. Calculating up to 6PN order in the velocity expansion, we find perfect agreement among all four gauges and with the results of [@3PM; @3PMlong]. For all cases, the test-particle limit fixes $A=0$ and $B=-64$ in [Eq. ]{}. As discussed in [@3PMlong], due to the limited number of possible relativistic invariants, agreement at 6PN is sufficient to guarantee a simple and unique expression for the 3PM amplitude and potential.
The fact that these separate computations all yield the same answer is a highly nontrivial verification of our previous 3PM result. On the one hand, the present calculation is a test of the integrands previously computed via generalized unitarity. Furthermore, this computation confirms that the nonrelativistic integration method devised in [@2PM; @3PMlong] is fully gauge invariant. While the methods employed in [@2PM; @3PMlong] are well-established tools of effective field theory and scattering amplitudes, it is nevertheless necessary to perform such checks in light of the doubts recently raised in [@DamourRecent].
As we have seen, the 3PM calculation relevant to conservative binary dynamics is actually tractable via standard Feynman diagrammatic methods. This simple fact strongly suggests that amplitudes methods—which are invariably more efficient than Feynman diagrams—will have mileage to even higher orders than expected.
[**Acknowledgments**]{}
We thank Zvi Bern, Aneesh Manohar, Ira Rothstein, and Nabha Shah for helpful discussions. C.C. and M.P.S. are supported by the DOE under grant no. DE- SC0011632 and by the Walter Burke Institute for Theoretical Physics. The calculations here used the computer algebra system `Mathematica` [@Mathematica] in combination with `FeynCalc` [@FeynCalc] and `xAct` [@xAct].
[99]{}
B. P. Abbott [*et al.*]{} \[LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**116**]{}, no. 6, 061102 (2016) \[arXiv:1602.03837 \[gr-qc\]\]; B. P. Abbott [*et al.*]{} \[LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**119**]{}, no. 16, 161101 (2017) \[arXiv:1710.05832 \[gr-qc\]\]. J. F. Donoghue, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{}, 2996 (1994) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.72.2996 \[gr-qc/9310024\]; J. F. Donoghue, Phys. Rev. D [**50**]{}, 3874 (1994) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.50.3874 \[gr-qc/9405057\]; N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, J. F. Donoghue and B. R. Holstein, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 084033 (2003) Erratum: \[Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 069903 (2005)\] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.069903, 10.1103/PhysRevD.67.084033 \[hep-th/0211072\]; B. R. Holstein and A. Ross, arXiv:0802.0716 \[hep-ph\]; N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, J. F. Donoghue and P. Vanhove, JHEP [**1402**]{}, 111 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2014)111 \[arXiv:1309.0804 \[hep-th\]\]; Y. Iwasaki, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**46**]{}, 1587 (1971); Y. Iwasaki, Lett. Nuovo Cim. [**1S2**]{}, 783 (1971) \[Lett. Nuovo Cim. [**1**]{}, 783 (1971)\]; H. Okamura, T. Ohta, T. Kimura and K. Hiida, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**50**]{}, 2066 (1973); D. Neill and I. Z. Rothstein, Nucl. Phys. B [**877**]{}, 177 (2013) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2013.09.007 \[arXiv:1304.7263 \[hep-th\]\]. V. Vaidya, Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{}, no. 2, 024017 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.024017 \[arXiv:1410.5348 \[hep-th\]\]. T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D [**97**]{}, no. 4, 044038 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.044038 \[arXiv:1710.10599 \[gr-qc\]\]. C. Cheung, I. Z. Rothstein and M. P. Solon, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**121**]{}, no. 25, 251101 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.251101 \[arXiv:1808.02489 \[hep-th\]\]. A. Cristofoli, N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, P. H. Damgaard and P. Vanhove, Phys. Rev. D [**100**]{}, no. 8, 084040 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.084040 \[arXiv:1906.01579 \[hep-th\]\]; N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, A. Cristofoli and P. H. Damgaard, arXiv:1910.09366 \[hep-th\]; G. Kälin and R. A. Porto, JHEP [**2001**]{}, 072 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2020)072 \[arXiv:1910.03008 \[hep-th\]\]; G. Kälin and R. A. Porto, JHEP [**2002**]{}, 120 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2020)120 \[arXiv:1911.09130 \[hep-th\]\]. P. H. Damgaard, K. Haddad and A. Helset, JHEP [**1911**]{}, 070 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2019)070 \[arXiv:1908.10308 \[hep-ph\]\]; R. Aoude, K. Haddad and A. Helset, arXiv:2001.09164 \[hep-th\]. F. Cachazo and A. Guevara, JHEP [**2002**]{}, 181 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2020)181 \[arXiv:1705.10262 \[hep-th\]\]; N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, P. H. Damgaard, G. Festuccia, L. Planté and P. Vanhove, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**121**]{}, no. 17, 171601 (2018) \[arXiv:1806.04920 \[hep-th\]\]; D. A. Kosower, B. Maybee and D. O’Connell, JHEP [**1902**]{}, 137 (2019) \[arXiv:1811.10950 \[hep-th\]\]; A. Koemans Collado, P. Di Vecchia and R. Russo, Phys. Rev. D [**100**]{}, no. 6, 066028 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.066028 \[arXiv:1904.02667 \[hep-th\]\]. A. Guevara, JHEP [**1904**]{}, 033 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2019)033 \[arXiv:1706.02314 \[hep-th\]\]; N. Arkani-Hamed, T. C. Huang and Y. t. Huang, arXiv:1709.04891 \[hep-th\]; J. Vines, Class. Quant. Grav. [**35**]{}, no. 8, 084002 (2018) doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aaa3a8 \[arXiv:1709.06016 \[gr-qc\]\]; J. Vines, J. Steinhoff and A. Buonanno, Phys. Rev. D [**99**]{}, no. 6, 064054 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.064054 \[arXiv:1812.00956 \[gr-qc\]\]; A. Guevara, A. Ochirov and J. Vines, JHEP [**1909**]{}, 056 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2019)056 \[arXiv:1812.06895 \[hep-th\]\]; M. Z. Chung, Y. T. Huang, J. W. Kim and S. Lee, JHEP [**1904**]{}, 156 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2019)156 \[arXiv:1812.08752 \[hep-th\]\]; Y. F. Bautista and A. Guevara, arXiv:1903.12419 \[hep-th\]; B. Maybee, D. O’Connell and J. Vines, JHEP [**1912**]{}, 156 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2019)156 \[arXiv:1906.09260 \[hep-th\]\]; A. Guevara, A. Ochirov and J. Vines, Phys. Rev. D [**100**]{}, no. 10, 104024 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.104024 \[arXiv:1906.10071 \[hep-th\]\]; N. Arkani-Hamed, Y. t. Huang and D. O’Connell, JHEP [**2001**]{}, 046 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2020)046 \[arXiv:1906.10100 \[hep-th\]\]; M. Z. Chung, Y. T. Huang and J. W. Kim, arXiv:1908.08463 \[hep-th\]; M. Z. Chung, Y. T. Huang and J. W. Kim, arXiv:1911.12775 \[hep-th\]; M. Z. Chung, Y. t. Huang, J. W. Kim and S. Lee, arXiv:2003.06600 \[hep-th\]. Z. Bern, C. Cheung, R. Roiban, C. H. Shen, M. P. Solon and M. Zeng, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**122**]{}, no. 20, 201603 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.201603 \[arXiv:1901.04424 \[hep-th\]\]. Z. Bern, C. Cheung, R. Roiban, C. H. Shen, M. P. Solon and M. Zeng, JHEP [**1910**]{}, 206 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2019)206 \[arXiv:1908.01493 \[hep-th\]\]. A. Buonanno and T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{}, 084006 (1999) \[gr-qc/9811091\]; A. Buonanno and T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 064015 (2000) \[gr-qc/0001013\]. F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 121101 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.121101 \[gr-qc/0507014\]; M. Campanelli, C. O. Lousto, P. Marronetti and Y. Zlochower, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 111101 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.111101 \[gr-qc/0511048\]; J. G. Baker, J. Centrella, D. I. Choi, M. Koppitz and J. van Meter, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 111102 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.111102 \[gr-qc/0511103\]. Y. Mino, M. Sasaki and T. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D [**55**]{}, 3457 (1997) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.55.3457 \[gr-qc/9606018\]; T. C. Quinn and R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D [**56**]{}, 3381 (1997) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.56.3381 \[gr-qc/9610053\]. J. Droste. Proc. Acad. Sci. Amst. 19:447–455 (1916); A. Einstein, L. Infeld and B. Hoffmann, Annals Math. [**39**]{}, 65 (1938). doi:10.2307/1968714; T. Ohta, H. Okamura, T. Kimura and K. Hiida, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**50**]{}, 492 (1973). doi:10.1143/PTP.50.492; P. Jaranowski and G. Schäfer, Phys. Rev. D [**57**]{}, 7274 (1998) Erratum: \[Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 029902 (2001)\] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.57.7274, 10.1103/PhysRevD.63.029902 \[gr-qc/9712075\]; T. Damour, P. Jaranowski and G. Schäfer, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 044024 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.044024 \[gr-qc/9912092\]; L. Blanchet and G. Faye, Phys. Lett. A [**271**]{}, 58 (2000) doi:10.1016/S0375-9601(00)00360-1 \[gr-qc/0004009\]; T. Damour, P. Jaranowski and G. Schäfer, Phys. Lett. B [**513**]{}, 147 (2001) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00642-6 \[gr-qc/0105038\]; T. Damour, P. Jaranowski and G. Schäfer, Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{}, no. 6, 064058 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.064058 \[arXiv:1401.4548 \[gr-qc\]\]; P. Jaranowski and G. Schäfer, Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{}, no. 12, 124043 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.124043 \[arXiv:1508.01016 \[gr-qc\]\].
B. Bertotti, Nuovo Cimento [**4**]{}:898–906 (1956). doi:10.1007/BF02746175; R. P. Kerr, I. Nuovo Cimento [**13**]{}:469–491 (1959). doi:10.1007/BF02732767; B. Bertotti, J. F. Plebański, approximation”, Ann, Phys, [**11**]{}:169–200 (1960); doi:10.1016/0003-4916(60)90132-9 M. Portilla, J. Phys. A [**12**]{}, 1075 (1979). doi:10.1088/0305-4470/12/7/025; K. Westpfahl and M. Goller, Lett. Nuovo Cim. [**26**]{}, 573 (1979). doi:10.1007/BF02817047; M. Portilla, J. Phys. A [**13**]{}, 3677 (1980). doi:10.1088/0305-4470/13/12/017; L. Bel, T. Damour, N. Deruelle, J. Ibanez and J. Martin, Gen. Rel. Grav. [**13**]{}, 963 (1981). doi:10.1007/BF00756073; K. Westpfahl, Fortschr. Phys., [**33**]{}, 417 (1985); T. Ledvinka, G. Schaefer and J. Bicak, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 251101 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.251101 \[arXiv:0807.0214 \[gr-qc\]\]; T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D [**94**]{}, no. 10, 104015 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.104015 \[arXiv:1609.00354 \[gr-qc\]\].
W. D. Goldberger and I. Z. Rothstein, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 104029 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.104029 \[hep-th/0409156\];
J. B. Gilmore and A. Ross, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 124021 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.124021 \[arXiv:0810.1328 \[gr-qc\]\]; S. Foffa and R. Sturani, Phys. Rev. D [**84**]{}, 044031 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.044031 \[arXiv:1104.1122 \[gr-qc\]\]; R. A. Porto and I. Z. Rothstein, Phys. Rev. D [**96**]{}, no. 2, 024062 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.024062 \[arXiv:1703.06433 \[gr-qc\]\]; S. Foffa, P. Mastrolia, R. Sturani, C. Sturm and W. J. Torres Bobadilla, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**122**]{}, no. 24, 241605 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.241605 \[arXiv:1902.10571 \[gr-qc\]\]; J. Blümlein, A. Maier and P. Marquard, Phys. Lett. B [**800**]{}, 135100 (2020) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.135100 \[arXiv:1902.11180 \[gr-qc\]\]; J. Blümlein, A. Maier, P. Marquard and G. Schäfer, arXiv:2003.01692 \[gr-qc\].
S. Foffa, R. A. Porto, I. Rothstein and R. Sturani, Phys. Rev. D [**100**]{}, no. 2, 024048 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.024048 \[arXiv:1903.05118 \[gr-qc\]\]. H. Kawai, D. C. Lewellen and S. H. H. Tye, Nucl. Phys. B [**269**]{}, 1 (1986); Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, M. Perelstein and J. S. Rozowsky, Nucl. Phys. B [**546**]{}, 423 (1999) \[hep-th/9811140\]; Z. Bern, J. J. M. Carrasco and H. Johansson, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 085011 (2008) \[arXiv:0805.3993 \[hep-ph\]\]l; Z. Bern, J. J. M. Carrasco and H. Johansson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 061602 (2010) \[arXiv:1004.0476 \[hep-th\]\]; Z. Bern, J. J. Carrasco, M. Chiodaroli, H. Johansson and R. Roiban, arXiv:1909.01358 \[hep-th\]. Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, D. C. Dunbar and D. A. Kosower, Nucl. Phys. B [**425**]{}, 217 (1994) \[hep-ph/9403226\]; Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, D. C. Dunbar and D. A. Kosower, Nucl. Phys. B [**435**]{}, 59 (1995) \[hep-ph/9409265\]; Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon and D. A. Kosower, Nucl. Phys. B [**513**]{}, 3 (1998) \[hep-ph/9708239\]; R. Britto, F. Cachazo and B. Feng, Nucl. Phys. B [**725**]{}, 275 (2005) \[hep-th/0412103\]; Z. Bern, J. J. M. Carrasco, H. Johansson and D. A. Kosower, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 125020 (2007) \[arXiv:0705.1864 \[hep-th\]\]. A. Antonelli, A. Buonanno, J. Steinhoff, M. van de Meent and J. Vines, Phys. Rev. D [**99**]{}, no. 10, 104004 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.104004 \[arXiv:1901.07102 \[gr-qc\]\].
D. Bini, T. Damour and A. Geralico, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**123**]{}, no. 23, 231104 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.231104 \[arXiv:1909.02375 \[gr-qc\]\]. J. M. Henn and B. Mistlberger, JHEP [**1905**]{}, 023 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2019)023 \[arXiv:1902.07221 \[hep-th\]\]; P. Di Vecchia, S. G. Naculich, R. Russo, G. Veneziano and C. D. White, arXiv:1911.11716 \[hep-th\]. Z. Bern, H. Ita, J. Parra-Martinez and M. S. Ruf, arXiv:2002.02459 \[hep-th\]. S. Abreu, F. Febres Cordero, H. Ita, M. Jaquier, B. Page, M. S. Ruf and V. Sotnikov, arXiv:2002.12374 \[hep-th\]. D. Amati, M. Ciafaloni and G. Veneziano, Nucl. Phys. B [**347**]{}, 550 (1990). T. Damour, arXiv:1912.02139 \[gr-qc\]. C. Cheung and G. N. Remmen, JHEP [**1709**]{}, 002 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2017)002 \[arXiv:1705.00626 \[hep-th\]\]. F. A. Berends and W. T. Giele, Nucl. Phys. B [**306**]{}, 759 (1988). doi:10.1016/0550-3213(88)90442-7 C. Cheung and G. N. Remmen, JHEP [**1701**]{}, 104 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2017)104 \[arXiv:1612.03927 \[hep-th\]\]. Wolfram Research, Inc., Mathematica, Version 12.0, Champaign, IL (2019).
R. Mertig, M. Bohm and A. Denner, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**64**]{}, 345 (1991). doi:10.1016/0010-4655(91)90130-D; V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig and F. Orellana, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**207**]{}, 432 (2016) doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2016.06.008 \[arXiv:1601.01167 \[hep-ph\]\]; V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig and F. Orellana, arXiv:2001.04407 \[hep-ph\]. Jose M. Martin-Garcia, et al. xAct: Efficient tensor computer algebra for the Wolfram Language. http://www.xact.es/
J. Blumlein, A. Maier, P. Marquard and G. Schaefer, arXiv:2003.07145 \[gr-qc\].
[^1]: e-mail: [[email protected]]([email protected]), [[email protected]]([email protected])
[^2]: Eq. (C.4) of v2 of [@3PMlong] has a typo. The right-hand side should be ${3E_1E_2 \over 2\boldsymbol{p}^2} \left[ 1 - {m_1^2 {\rm arcsinh} {|\boldsymbol{p}| \over m_1} + m_2^2 {\rm arcsinh} {|\boldsymbol{p}| \over m_2} \over E |\boldsymbol{p}|} \right]$.
[^3]: Note added: as this manuscript was in the final stages of preparation we became aware of [@Blumlein:2020znm] which also confirms the 6PN result in [@3PM] using the formalism of nonrelativistic general relativity.
[^4]: We work in mostly plus metric signature throughout.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Kazhdan and Wenzl classified all rigid tensor categories with fusion ring isomorphic to the fusion ring of the group $SU(d)$. In this paper we consider the C$^*$-analogue of this problem. Given a rigid C$^*$-tensor category $\mathcal{C}$ with fusion ring isomorphic to the fusion ring of the group $SU(d)$, we can extract a constant $q$ from $\mathcal{C}$ such that there exists a $*$-representation of the Hecke algebra $H_n(q)$ into $\mathcal{C}$. The categorical trace on $\mathcal{C}$ induces a Markov trace on $H_n(q)$. Using this Markov trace and a representation of $H_n(q)$ in $\textrm{Rep}\,(SU_{\sqrt{q}}(d))$ we show that $\mathcal{C}$ is equivalent to a twist of the category $\textrm{Rep}\,(SU_{\sqrt{q}}(d))$. Furthermore a sufficient condition on a C$^*$-tensor category $\mathcal{C}$ is given for existence of an embedding of a twist of $\textrm{Rep}\,(SU_{\sqrt{q}}(d))$ in $\mathcal{C}$.'
author:
- Bas Jordans
bibliography:
- '/mn/anatu/gjester-u2/bpjordan/Documents/Papers/References/references.bib'
title: 'A classification of $SU(d)$-type C$^*$-tensor categories'
---
[A classification of $SU(d)$-type C$^*$-tensor categories]{}
Introduction
============
Tannaka-type reconstruction theorems allow one to reconstruct an algebraic object (for example a group) from its category of representations. There are numerous of these theorems, the classical Tannaka-Krein duality [@Tannaka39], the Doplicher-Roberts theorem [@DoplicherRoberts89], Deligne’s theorem [@Deligne90], Woronowicz’s duality for compact matrix pseudogroups [@Woronowicz88] and many more. Despite these theorems it is still very difficult (if not impossible) to give a complete list of all quantum groups which satisfy the fusion rules of a certain group. However, if one instead tries to classify all ([C$^*$-]{}) tensor categories which have a fusion ring isomorphic to the fusion ring of a certain group $G$, this problem becomes easier to solve. Kazhdan and Wenzl [@KazhdanWenzl] gave such a classification in the case of tensor categories with fusion ring isomorphic to the fusion ring $K[\operatorname{Rep}(SU(d))]$. They showed that if ${\mathcal{C}}$ is a tensor category with fusion ring isomorphic to $K[\operatorname{Rep}(SU(d))]$, then there exists a constant $\mu\in{\mathbb{C}}^*$ not a non-trivial root of unity such that ${\mathcal{C}}$ is (monoidally) equivalent to a “twist” of $\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))$, the representation category of the quantum group $SU_\mu(d)$. These twists are determined by a $d$-th root of unity.\
This paper contains two main results. The first one (cf. Theorem \[classification\]) is the [C$^*$-]{}analogue of the result by Kazhdan and Wenzl. We will show that all [C$^*$-]{}tensor categories which satisfy the same fusion rules as $\operatorname{Rep}(SU(d))$, the so-called $SU(d)$-type categories, can be classified by pairs $(\mu,\omega)$ where $\mu\in(0,1]$ and $\omega$ is a $d$-th root of unity. Namely given a $SU(d)$-type category ${\mathcal{C}}$ we can extract constants $\mu$ and $\omega$ from ${\mathcal{C}}$ such that ${\mathcal{C}}$ is equivalent to a “twist” by $\omega$ of the category $\operatorname{Rep}(SU_{\mu}(d))$. The other main theorem is inspired on the paper by Pinzari [@Pinzari07]. In this paper she gives a sufficient condition when it is possible to embed $\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))$ in a given braided [C$^*$-]{}tensor category. We generalize this result to conditions on [C$^*$-]{}tensor categories which are sufficient to construct an embedding of a “twist” of $\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))$ in a given category (see Theorem \[embedding\]). These two main results are independent of each other, but the proofs of both of theorems are related. They are both based on Theorem \[characterization\] which gives some technical conditions when a given category is equivalent to a “twist” of $\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))$. In this paper Hecke algebras play a key-role, because the representation category $\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))$ has a natural representation of the Hecke algebra. Following Kazhdan and Wenzl we construct a representation of the Hecke algebra in the the endomorphisms of a $SU(d)$-type category. These representations allow us eventually to recover the category from its fusion ring. In these categories we need to make some explicit calculations. However, in general categories this is often very difficult. Therefore we use the categorical trace [@LongoRoberts97] to show that the representation of the Hecke algebra is independent of the category ${\mathcal{C}}$. This result allows us to make computations in $\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))$ in which everything is more explicit.\
This paper is organized as follows. In Section \[tensor\_cat\] we start by recalling the main definitions and properties of [C$^*$-]{}categories and specialize to $SU(d)$-type categories. We continue with the necessary results on Hecke algebras. Section \[computations\] will be devoted to making the necessary computations in $\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))$ allowing us later to compute the twist invariant of a general $SU(d)$-type category. In section \[representation\] we construct the representation of the Hecke algebra into $\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}n})$ and we establish that this representation is independent of the category ${\mathcal{C}}$. In the next section we consider a specific class of [C$^*$-]{}tensor categories and we prove a technical theorem showing that all these categories of this specific type are equivalent to a “twist” of $\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))$. Section \[2characterizations\] contains the two main theorems of this paper.
Preliminaries on C$^*$-tensor categories {#tensor_cat}
========================================
In this section we will introduce the specific class of [C$^*$-]{}tensor categories we are interested in, namely the $SU(d)$-type categories. We will also discuss “twists” of such categories.
We will not give the full definitions of [C$^*$-]{}tensor categories and functors of these categories. Precise definitions of [C$^*$-]{}tensor categories and functors thereof can be found in e.g., [@NeshveyevTuset13 2.1]. The essential element one has to keep in mind is that in a [C$^*$-]{}tensor category one is able to take “tensor products” of objects and morphisms and that there exists a conjugation operation. We will define the associativity morphisms and conjugate objects in [C$^*$-]{}tensor categories, because they will play a key-role later on.
\[Cstar-tensor\_category\] A [C$^*$-]{}tensor category is a [C$^*$-]{}category equipped with a bilinear bifunctor ${\otimes}\colon {\mathcal{C}}\times{\mathcal{C}}{\rightarrow}{\mathcal{C}}$, $(U,V)\mapsto U{\otimes}V$, which will be called the [*tensor product*]{} and it is required that there exist natural unitary isomorphisms $$\alpha_{U,V,W}\colon(U{\otimes}V){\otimes}W {\rightarrow}U{\otimes}(V{\otimes}W),$$ the [*associativity morphisms*]{} such that the [*pentagonal diagram*]{} $$\xymatrix{& ((U{\otimes}V){\otimes}W){\otimes}X \ar[ld]_{\alpha{\otimes}\iota} \ar[rd]^{\alpha_{12,3,4}}& \\
(U{\otimes}(V{\otimes}W)){\otimes}X\ar[d]_{\alpha_{1,23,4}} & & (U{\otimes}V){\otimes}(W{\otimes}X)\ar[d]^{\alpha_{1,2,34}}\\
U{\otimes}((V{\otimes}W){\otimes}X)\ar[rr]^{\iota{\otimes}\alpha} & & U{\otimes}(V{\otimes}(W{\otimes}X))
}$$ commutes. Here the convention of leg-numbering is used (e.g., $\alpha_{12,3,4}:= \alpha_{U{\otimes}V,W,X}$). Furthermore, it is assumed that there exists an object ${\mathds{1}}$ (the [*unit*]{}) and natural unitary isomorphisms $$\lambda_U\colon{\mathds{1}}{\otimes}U{\rightarrow}U,\qquad \rho_U\colon U{\otimes}{\mathds{1}}{\rightarrow}U$$ such that $\lambda_{\mathds{1}}=\rho_{\mathds{1}}$ and the [*triangle diagram*]{} $$\xymatrix{(U{\otimes}{\mathds{1}}){\otimes}V \ar[rr]^{\alpha}\ar[rd]_{\rho{\otimes}\iota} & & U{\otimes}({\mathds{1}}{\otimes}V) \ar[ld]^{\iota{\otimes}\lambda}\\
&U{\otimes}V &
}$$ commutes. A category will be called [*strict*]{} if $$(U{\otimes}V){\otimes}W = U{\otimes}(V{\otimes}W), \qquad {\mathds{1}}{\otimes}U = U = U{\otimes}{\mathds{1}}$$ and the associativity morphisms $\alpha$ and the morphisms $\lambda$ and $\rho$ are the identity morphisms. We assume that [C$^*$-]{}tensor categories are closed under subobjects and direct sums and that the unit object ${\mathds{1}}$ is simple.
\[subobjects\] Sometimes we will use the terminology that an object $U$ is a subobject of an object $V$, or simply $U\subset V$. What is meant by this is that there exists a projection $p\in\operatorname{End}(V)$ and a morphism $v\in\operatorname{Hom}(U,V)$ such that $v^*v=id_U$ and $vv^*=p$. Via this $v$ we can restrict morphisms $T\in\operatorname{End}(V)$ to the object $U$, we write $T|_U:=v^*Tv\in\operatorname{End}(U)$.
Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ and ${\mathcal{D}}$ be [C$^*$-]{}tensor categories. A functor $F:{\mathcal{C}}{\rightarrow}{\mathcal{D}}$ together with an isomorphism $F_0\colon{\mathds{1}}_{\mathcal{D}}{\rightarrow}F({\mathds{1}}_{\mathcal{C}})$ and natural isomorphisms $F_2\colon F(U){\otimes}F(V){\rightarrow}F(U{\otimes}V)$ is called a [*[C$^*$-]{}tensor functor*]{} if for any $U,\,V,\,W\in\operatorname{Ob}({\mathcal{C}})$, the diagrams $$\xymatrix{(F(U){\otimes}F(V)){\otimes}F(W)\ar[r]^-{F_2{\otimes}\iota}\ar[d]_{\alpha_{\mathcal{D}}} & F(U{\otimes}V){\otimes}F(W)\ar[r]^{F_2} & F((U{\otimes}V){\otimes}W)\ar[d]^{F(\alpha_{\mathcal{C}})}\\
F(U){\otimes}(F(V){\otimes}F(W))\ar[r]^-{\iota{\otimes}F_2} & F(U){\otimes}F(V{\otimes}W)\ar[r]^{F_2} & F(U{\otimes}(V{\otimes}W))
}$$ $$\xymatrix{{\mathds{1}}_{\mathcal{D}}{\otimes}F(U)\ar[r]^{F_0{\otimes}\iota}\ar[d]_{\lambda_{\mathcal{D}}}& F({\mathds{1}}_{\mathcal{C}}){\otimes}F(U)\ar[d]^{F_2} & & F(U){\otimes}{\mathds{1}}_{\mathcal{D}}\ar[r]^{\iota{\otimes}F_0} \ar[d]_{\rho_{\mathcal{D}}} & F(U){\otimes}F({\mathds{1}}_{\mathcal{C}})\ar[d]^{F_2}\\
F(U) & F({\mathds{1}}_{\mathcal{C}}{\otimes}U)\ar[l]_{F(\lambda_{\mathcal{C}})} & & F(U) & F(U{\otimes}{\mathds{1}}_{\mathcal{C}})\ar[l]_{F(\rho_{\mathcal{C}})}
}$$ commute. The [C$^*$-]{}tensor functor $F$ is called [*unitary*]{} if $F(T^*)=F(T)^*$ on morphisms and $F_2\colon F(U){\otimes}F(V){\rightarrow}F(U{\otimes}V)$ and $F_0$ are unitary. $F$ is called [*fully faithful*]{} if $F\colon\operatorname{Hom}(U,V){\rightarrow}\operatorname{Hom}(F(U),F(V))$ is an isomorphism. $F$ is called [*essentially surjective*]{} if for every object $U\in\operatorname{Ob}({\mathcal{D}})$ there exists an object $V\in\operatorname{Ob}({\mathcal{C}})$ such that $U$ is isomorphic to $F(V)$. $F$ is called a [*monoidal equivalence*]{} if $F$ is fully faithful and essentially surjective. Two [C$^*$-]{}tensor categories ${\mathcal{C}}$ and ${\mathcal{D}}$ are [*monoidally equivalent*]{} if there exists a monoidal equivalence $F\colon{\mathcal{C}}{\rightarrow}{\mathcal{D}}$.
Any [C$^*$-]{}tensor category can be strictified [@MacLane98 XI.3]. This means that if ${\mathcal{C}}$ is a (non-strict) [C$^*$-]{}tensor category, then there exists a strict [C$^*$-]{}tensor category ${\mathcal{D}}$ such that ${\mathcal{C}}$ and ${\mathcal{D}}$ are unitarily monoidally equivalent. So unless stated otherwise we deal with strict categories.\
If ${\mathcal{C}}$ is a category which satisfies all the requirements of a [C$^*$-]{}tensor category except from the existence of direct sums and subobjects, then ${\mathcal{C}}$ can be completed to a new category which is a [C$^*$-]{}tensor category (see for example, [@NeshveyevTuset13 2.5]). For this define ${\mathcal{C}}'$ with $\operatorname{Ob}({\mathcal{C}}'):=\{(U_1,\ldots, U_n)\,:\, n\geq1,\, U_i\in\operatorname{Ob}({\mathcal{C}})\}$ and $\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{C}}'}((U_1,\ldots, U_m), (V_1,\ldots, V_n)):= \bigoplus_{i,j}\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathcal{C}}(U_i,V_j)$. Now $(U_i)_i\oplus (V_j)_j:= (U_1,\ldots, U_m,V_1,\ldots, V_n)$ and $(U_i)_i{\otimes}(V_j)_j$ is given by the tuple consisting of the lexicographical ordering of $U_i{\otimes}V_j$. Let ${\mathcal{C}}''$ be the category with $\operatorname{Ob}({\mathcal{C}}''):=\{(U,p)\,:\, U\in\operatorname{Ob}({\mathcal{C}}'),\,p\in\operatorname{End}_{{\mathcal{C}}'}(U) \textrm{ projection}\}$ and $\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{C}}''}((U,p),(V,q)):=q\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{C}}'}(U,V)p$. The tensor product of objects is given by $(U,p){\otimes}(V,q):=(U{\otimes}V, p{\otimes}q)$. The involution, direct sums and tensor products of morphisms on ${\mathcal{C}}'$ and ${\mathcal{C}}''$ are defined in the obvious way. Then ${\mathcal{C}}''$ is a [C$^*$-]{}tensor category. It is clear that there exists a unitary tensor functor $i:{\mathcal{C}}{\rightarrow}{\mathcal{C}}''$.\
The completion ${\mathcal{C}}''$ is universal in the following sense: if ${\mathcal{D}}$ is a [C$^*$-]{}tensor category and $F\colon{\mathcal{C}}{\rightarrow}{\mathcal{D}}$ is a unitary tensor functor, then $F$ extends uniquely (up to unitary monoidal equivalence) to a unitary tensor functor $F''\colon{\mathcal{C}}''{\rightarrow}{\mathcal{D}}$. To construct this functor define $F'((U_1,\ldots, U_n)):= F(U_1)\oplus\ldots\oplus F(U_n)$ and on morphisms $F'((T_{ij})_{ij}):=(F(T_{ij}))_{ij}$. If $(U,p)\in\operatorname{Ob}({\mathcal{C}}'')$, then $F'(p)$ is a projection in $\operatorname{End}_{\mathcal{D}}(F(U))$, so there exists $V\in\operatorname{Ob}({\mathcal{D}})$ and an isometry $v\in\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{D}}}(V,F(U))$ such that $vv^*=F(p)$ and $v^*v=\iota_V$. Define $F''((U,p)):=V$ and for $p'Tp\in\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{C}}''}((U,p),(U',p'))$ let $F''(p'Tp):= v'^*F'(p'Tp)v=v'^*F'(T)v$. The tensor and involutive structure are again defined in the obvious way.\
Note that in both steps of this extension of $F$ one has to make a choice of objects, a different choice leads to an equivalent functor. Furthermore if both ${\mathcal{C}}$ and ${\mathcal{D}}$ are not necessarily closed under direct sums and subobjects and $F\colon{\mathcal{C}}{\rightarrow}{\mathcal{D}}$ is a unitary tensor functor, then $F$ extends to a functor $\colon{\mathcal{C}}''{\rightarrow}{\mathcal{D}}''$. This extension is constructed by applying the universal property to $i\circ F$, where $i:{\mathcal{D}}{\rightarrow}{\mathcal{D}}''$ is the inclusion. The properties “fully faithful” and “essentially surjective” are preserved under this extension of tensor functors.
Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be a strict [C$^*$-]{}tensor category and $U\in\operatorname{Ob}({\mathcal{C}})$. Then $\overline{U}\in\operatorname{Ob}({\mathcal{C}})$ is called [*conjugate*]{} to $U$ if there exist $R\in\operatorname{Hom}({\mathds{1}},\overline{U}{\otimes}U)$ and $\overline{R}\in\operatorname{Hom}({\mathds{1}},U{\otimes}\overline{U})$ such that the compositions $$\xymatrix{ U\ar[r]^-{\iota{\otimes}R}& U{\otimes}\overline{U}{\otimes}U\ar[r]^-{\overline{R}^*{\otimes}\iota}& U};\qquad
\xymatrix{\overline{U}\ar[r]^-{\iota{\otimes}\overline{R}}& \overline{U}{\otimes}U{\otimes}\overline{U} \ar[r]^-{R^*{\otimes}\iota} &\overline{U}}$$ are the identity morphisms. If every object in ${\mathcal{C}}$ has a conjugate object then ${\mathcal{C}}$ is [*rigid*]{}. We say that the pair $(R,\overline{R})$ [*solves the conjugate equations for*]{} $U$. If $(R,\overline{R})$ is of the form $$R=\sum_k (\overline{w_k}{\otimes}w_k)R_k, \qquad \overline{R}=\sum_k (w_k{\otimes}\overline{w_k})\overline{R_k},$$ where for all $k$ the objects $U_k\in\operatorname{Ob}({\mathcal{C}})$ are simple, $\|R_k\|=\|\overline{R_k}\|$ and $w_k\in\operatorname{Hom}(U_k,U)$ are isometries such that $\sum_k w_kw_k^*=\iota_U$, then $(R,\overline{R})$ is called a [*standard solution*]{} of the conjugate equations.
If an object has a conjugate it also admits a standard solution of the conjugate equations [@NeshveyevTuset13 2]. Furthermore, if $(R,\overline{R})$ and $(R',\overline{R}')$ are both standard solutions for $(U,\overline{U})$ respectively $(U,\overline{U}')$, then there exists a unitary $T\in\operatorname{Hom}(\overline{U},\overline{U}')$ such that $R'=(T{\otimes}\iota)R$ and $\overline{R}'=(\iota{\otimes}T)\overline{R}$ [@NeshveyevTuset13 Prop. 2.2.13]. We will only deal with rigid categories.
Suppose that $U\in\operatorname{Ob}({\mathcal{C}})$ and $(R,\overline{R})$ is a standard solution of the conjugate equations for $U$. For $T\in \operatorname{End}(U)$ let $\operatorname{Tr}_U(T)$ be the composition $$\xymatrix{{\mathds{1}}\ar[r]^-{R}&\overline{U}{\otimes}U\ar[r]^{\iota{\otimes}T}&\overline{U}{\otimes}U\ar[r]^-{R^*}& {\mathds{1}}}.$$ This functional $\operatorname{Tr}_U\colon\operatorname{End}(U){\rightarrow}{\mathbb{C}}$ is called the [*categorical trace*]{} of $U$. Note that from the remark above it is immediate that the categorical trace is independent on the choice of the standard solution.
Let $U\in\operatorname{Ob}({\mathcal{C}})$, then $\operatorname{Tr}_U\colon\operatorname{End}(U){\rightarrow}{\mathbb{C}}$ is a tracial, positive and faithful functional. Furthermore $\operatorname{Tr}_U(T)=\overline{R}^*(T{\otimes}\iota)\overline{R}$ for any standard solution $(R,\overline{R})$ of the conjugate equations for $U$.
Two objects $U,V\in \operatorname{Ob}({\mathcal{C}})$ are [*isomorphic*]{} if there exists an isomorphism in $\operatorname{Hom}(U,V)$. We write $[U]$ for the equivalence class of objects isomorphic to $U$. Denote by $K^+[{\mathcal{C}}]$ the [*fusion semiring*]{} of ${\mathcal{C}}$, it is the universal semiring ring generated by the equivalence classes $[U]$ of objects $U\in \operatorname{Ob}({\mathcal{C}})$ with sum and product given by $$[U]+[V] := [V\oplus V], \qquad [U][V] := [U{\otimes}V].$$ Note that there is no need to define a subtraction as we define a semiring.
Before we define a $SU(d)$-type category let us first say something about the representations of the special unitary group. Details can be found in lots of books, e.g., [@FultonHarris]. To avoid trivialities we will always assume that $d\geq2$. We have the fundamental (or defining) representation of $SU(d)$ on $V:={\mathbb{C}}^d$ by letting the group elements act on vectors of $V$ in the straightforward way. By the highest weight classification of irreducible representations of $SU(d)$, we can classify the irreducible representations by the tuples $$\Lambda_d:=\{\lambda=(\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_{d-1})\in{\mathbb{N}}^{d-1}\,:\, \lambda_1\geq\lambda_2\geq\ldots\geq\lambda_{d-1}\}.$$ In this paper we use the convention ${\mathbb{N}}:=\{0,1,2,\ldots\}$. We denote $V_\lambda$ for the irreducible representation corresponding to $\lambda$. For $\lambda\in{\mathbb{N}}^{d-1}$ let $|\lambda|:=\lambda_1+\ldots+\lambda_{d-1}$. It can be shown that any irreducible representation $V_\lambda$ is contained in the tensor product $V^{{\otimes}|\lambda|}$. Another special fact for $SU(d)$ is that the $d$-th anti-symmetric tensor power $\bigwedge^d V$ is isomorphic to the trivial representation. Thus there exists a non-zero map ${\mathbb{C}}{\rightarrow}V^{{\otimes}d}$ intertwining the trivial representation and the $d$-th tensor power of the defining representation. Given two irreducible representation $V_\lambda$ and $V_\mu$, we can decompose their tensor product representation into irreducible representations. So we have $$V_\lambda{\otimes}V_\mu = \bigoplus_{\nu \in\Lambda_d} m_{\lambda,\mu,\nu} V_\nu,$$ for some multiplicities $m_{\lambda,\mu,\nu}:=\dim \operatorname{Hom}(V_\nu,V_\lambda{\otimes}V_\mu)$. Here $m_{\lambda,\mu,\nu} V_\nu:=V_\nu \oplus \ldots \oplus V_\nu$, with $m_{\lambda,\mu,\nu}$ copies.
\[Def\_SU(d)-type\] A [*[C$^*$-]{}tensor category of $SU(d)$-type*]{}, or simply a [*category of $SU(d)$-type*]{}, is a rigid [C$^*$-]{}tensor category ${\mathcal{C}}$ such that the semirings $K^+[{\mathcal{C}}]$ and $K^+[\operatorname{Rep}(SU(d))]$ are isomorphic. In particular since simple objects can not be further decomposed, this isomorphism maps simple objects onto simple objects. Therefore we can index the equivalence classes of simple objects of a $SU(d)$-type category by the set $\Lambda_d$. An object $X\in{\mathcal{C}}$ which corresponds to the fundamental representation $[{\mathbb{C}}^d]$ of $SU(d)$ will be called the [*fundamental object*]{} of ${\mathcal{C}}$. From now on we fix a $SU(d)$-type category with fundamental object $X$ and for every $\lambda\in\Lambda_d$ we fix a simple object $X_\lambda$ corresponding to $\lambda$.
The object $X_{\{k\}}:=X_{(k,0,\ldots, 0)}$ corresponds to $S^{k}(V)$, the $k$-th symmetric tensor power of the fundamental representation of $SU(d)$ on $V$. For $1\leq k\leq d-1$, the object $X_{\{1^k\}}:=X_{(1,\ldots,1,0,\ldots, 0)}$ corresponds to $\bigwedge^{k}(V)$, the $k$-th antisymmetric tensor power of the fundamental representation.
\[conjugate\_X\] The conjugate object $\overline{X}$ is isomorphic to $X_{\{1^{d-1}\}}$. Indeed, by the fusion rules of $SU(d)$ it follows that $X{\otimes}X_{\{1^{d-1}\}} \cong {\mathds{1}}\oplus X_{\{21^{d-2}\}}$. Therefore we obtain that $\operatorname{Hom}({\mathds{1}},X{\otimes}X_{\{1^{d-1}\}})\neq\{0\}$, from which the claim follows.
In a not necessarily strict $SU(d)$-type category denote the objects $X^{{\otimes}1}:=X$ and $X^{{\otimes}n}:=X{\otimes}X^{{\otimes}n-1}$ for $n\geq 2$. Unwrapping this recursive definition gives $X^{{\otimes}n} = X{\otimes}(X{\otimes}(\cdots (X{\otimes}X)\cdots))$ with $n$ factors of $X$.
\[Hom\_Xm\_Xn\] Let $X$ be a fundamental object of a $SU(d)$-type category ${\mathcal{C}}$. Then $$\label{eq_Hom_Xm_Xn1}
X^{{\otimes}n} =\bigoplus_{\lambda\in\Lambda_d} m_{\lambda,n} X_\lambda$$ and the multiplicities satisfy $m_{\lambda,n}=0$ if $|\lambda|\not\equiv n \pmod{d}$. In particular if $m\not\equiv n \pmod{d}$, then $\operatorname{Hom}(X^{{\otimes}m},X^{{\otimes}n}) = \{0\}$.
For $\operatorname{Rep}(SU(d))$ the identity follows for $X=V$ and $X_\lambda=V_\lambda$ from [@FultonHarris Prop. 15.25]. Since ${\mathcal{C}}$ is a $SU(d)$-type category it satisfies the same fusion rules as $SU(d)$.
It is possible to obtain a new [C$^*$-]{}tensor category from an existing one by changing the associativity morphisms. This can be done using twists. We will only define twists in the case of a special type of categories, but twists can be defined in other settings as well, for example for representation categories of compact quantum groups see e.g., [@NeshveyevTuset13; @NeshveyevYamashita13].
\[twisting\_category\] Suppose that ${\mathcal{C}}$ is a strict [C$^*$-]{}tensor category and $X$ is an object of ${\mathcal{C}}$. Let $\rho$ be a $d$-th root of unity and assume that $\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(X^{\otimes m}, X^{\otimes n})=\{0\}$ if $m\not\equiv n\pmod{d}$. Let $\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}$ be the category with objects $\{{\mathds{1}}, X, X^{{\otimes}2}, \ldots \}$ and morphisms $\operatorname{Hom}_{\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}}(X^{{\otimes}m}, X^{{\otimes}n}) := \operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(X^{\otimes m}, X^{\otimes n})$. For $a,b,c\in {\mathbb{N}}=\{0,1,2,...\}$ put $\omega(a,b):=\lfloor\frac{a+b}{d}\rfloor - \lfloor\frac{a}{d}\rfloor - \lfloor\frac{b}{d}\rfloor$. Define the morphisms $$\label{eq-twist1}
\alpha^\rho_{X^{{\otimes}a}, X^{{\otimes}b}, X^{{\otimes}c}}:= \rho^{\omega(a,b)c}\cdot\alpha_{X^{{\otimes}a}, X^{{\otimes}b}, X^{{\otimes}c}}\colon (X^{{\otimes}a}{\otimes}X^{{\otimes}b}){\otimes}X^{{\otimes}c} {\rightarrow}X^{{\otimes}a}{\otimes}(X^{{\otimes}b}{\otimes}X^{{\otimes}c}).$$ It can be checked (see Lemma \[lemma\_pentagon\] below) that the morphisms $\alpha^{\rho}$ satisfy the pentagon axiom. As $\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(X^{\otimes m}, X^{\otimes n})=\{0\}$ if $m\not\equiv n\pmod{d}$, we have naturality of $\alpha^{\rho}$. Therefore $\alpha^\rho$ define new associativity morphisms on $\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}$. Completing $\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}$ with respect to subobjects and direct sums and extending $\alpha^\rho$ to this completion gives new associativity morphisms for the [C$^*$-]{}tensor category generated by $\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}$. We denote this category by $\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}^\rho$. If ${\mathcal{C}}$ is generated by $X$ (that is ${\mathcal{C}}$ is the direct sum and subobject completion of the full subcategory with objects $\{{\mathds{1}}, X, X^{{\otimes}2},\ldots\}$), we denote the category we obtain in this way by ${\mathcal{C}}^{\rho}$.
These associativity morphisms might seem a bit artificial, but one can prove that the functionals $\rho^{\omega(a,b)c}$ as defined above represent all classes in $H^3({\mathbb{Z}}/{\mathbb{Z}}d,\mathbb{T})$, see e.g., [@NeshveyevYamashita13 Prop. A.3]. This cocycle property is exactly needed to make the pentagonal diagram commutative. Note further that in general twisting does not preserve the existence a braiding.
\[double\_twist\] Note that $\rho^{\omega(a,b)c}\rho'^{\omega(a,b)c} = (\rho\rho')^{\omega(a,b)c}$ for all $a,b$ and $c$. So if ${\mathcal{C}}$ is generated by $X$, we immediately obtain that $({\mathcal{C}}^\rho)^{\rho'} \cong {\mathcal{C}}^{(\rho\rho')}$.
\[lemma\_pentagon\] The morphisms $\alpha^{\rho}$ defined in satisfy the pentagon axiom.
Since $\alpha$ are associativity morphisms, commutativity of the diagram $$\xymatrix{((X^{{\otimes}a}{\otimes}X^{{\otimes}b}){\otimes}X^{{\otimes}c}){\otimes}X^{{\otimes}e}\ar[d]_{\alpha_{1,2,3}^\rho{\otimes}\iota}\ar[rrd]^{\alpha_{12,3,4}^\rho} & &\\
(X^{{\otimes}a}{\otimes}(X^{{\otimes}b}{\otimes}X^{{\otimes}c})){\otimes}X^{{\otimes}e}\ar[d]_{\alpha_{1,23,4}^\rho} & & (X^{{\otimes}a}{\otimes}X^{{\otimes}b}){\otimes}(X^{{\otimes}c}{\otimes}X^{{\otimes}e})\ar[d]^{\alpha_{1,2,34}^\rho} \\
X^{{\otimes}a}{\otimes}((X^{{\otimes}b}{\otimes}X^{{\otimes}c}){\otimes}X^{{\otimes}e})\ar[rr]_{\iota{\otimes}\alpha_{2,3,4}^\rho} & & X^{{\otimes}a}{\otimes}(X^{{\otimes}b}{\otimes}(X^{{\otimes}c}{\otimes}X^{{\otimes}e}))
}$$ is equivalent to $$\rho^{\omega(b,c)e}\rho^{\omega(a,b+c)e}\rho^{\omega(a,b)c} = \rho^{\omega(a,b)(c+e)}\rho^{\omega(a+b,c)e}.$$ For which in turn it is sufficient to prove that $$\omega(b,c)e + \omega(a,b+c)e+\omega(a,b)c - \omega(a,b)(c+e) - \omega(a+b,c)e \equiv 0 \pmod{d}.$$ One can verify directly that this is in fact an equality and not only a congruency.
\[twisted\_associativity\_morphisms\] Suppose that ${\mathcal{C}}$ is a strict [C$^*$-]{}tensor category generated by an object $X$ and $\rho$ is a $d$-th root of unity for some $d\geq2$. Let $\alpha$ and $\alpha^\rho$ be the associativity morphisms in ${\mathcal{C}}$ respectively in ${\mathcal{C}}^\rho$. Consider for $m,n\geq1$ the associativity morphism $\alpha_{m,n} \colon X^{{\otimes}m}{\otimes}X^{{\otimes}n} {\rightarrow}X^{{\otimes}m+n}$ in ${\mathcal{C}}$, defined by the following inductive relations $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{m,n} := \begin{cases}
\iota_{X{\otimes}X}, &\textrm{if } m=n=1;\\
(\iota{\otimes}\alpha_{m-1,1})\alpha_{X,X^{{\otimes}m-1},X}, & \textrm{if } m\geq 2,\, n=1;\\
\alpha_{m+1,n-1}\circ(\alpha_{m,1}{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}n-1})\circ\alpha^{-1}_{X^{{\otimes}m},X,X^{{\otimes}n-1}}, &\textrm{if } m\geq 1,\, n\geq 2.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Define similarly the morphisms $\alpha^\rho_{m,n}$ in ${\mathcal{C}}^\rho$. Then it holds that $$\alpha^\rho_{m,n} = \rho^{n\lfloor\frac{m}{d}\rfloor} \alpha_{m,n}.$$
Let us prove this lemma by induction on $m$ and $n$. If $m=n=1$, the lemma is trivial. Suppose that $n=1$. Note that because $d\geq 2$ it holds that $\lfloor\frac{1}{d}\rfloor =0$. So by definition of the twist we obtain $$\alpha^{\rho}_{X,X^{{\otimes}m-1},X} = \rho^{\lfloor\frac{m}{d}\rfloor - \lfloor\frac{m-1}{d}\rfloor} \alpha_{X,X^{{\otimes}m-1},X}$$ as a map $(X^{{\otimes}m}) {\otimes}X{\rightarrow}X{\otimes}((X^{{\otimes}m-1}){\otimes}X)$. Proceeding by induction on $m$ it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{m,1}^\rho &= (\iota{\otimes}\alpha_{m-1,1}^\rho) \alpha_{X,X^{{\otimes}m-1},X}^\rho\\
&= \rho^{\lfloor\frac{m-1}{d}\rfloor}\rho^{\lfloor\frac{m}{d}\rfloor - \lfloor\frac{m-1}{d}\rfloor}(\iota{\otimes}\alpha_{m-1,1})\alpha_{X,X^{{\otimes}m-1},X}\\
&= \rho^{\lfloor\frac{m}{d}\rfloor}\alpha_{m,1}\end{aligned}$$ and the lemma is proved for $n=1$. Now suppose that $n>1$. By the definition and induction hypothesis, it holds that s $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha^{\rho}_{m,n} &= (\rho^{(n-1)\lfloor\frac{m+1}{d}\rfloor}\alpha_{m+1,n-1}) (\rho^{\lfloor\frac{m}{d}\rfloor}\alpha_{m,1}{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}n-1}) (\rho^{-(\lfloor\frac{m+1}{d}\rfloor - \lfloor\frac{m}{d}\rfloor)(n-1)}\alpha^{-1}_{X^{{\otimes}m}, X, X^{{\otimes}n-1}})\\
&= \rho^{n\lfloor\frac{m}{d}\rfloor}\alpha_{m,n},\end{aligned}$$ as desired.
Hecke algebras {#Hecke_algebras}
==============
In this section we will briefly recall some results about Hecke algebras which will be used later when considering $SU(d)$-type categories. More about Hecke algebras can be found in e.g., [@Wenzl88].
\[Def\_Hecke\_algebra\] Given $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and $q\in{\mathbb{C}}$, define the Hecke algebra $H_n(q)$ to be the unital algebra generated by the $n-1$ elements $g_1,\ldots,g_{n-1}$ which satisfy the following three relations $$\begin{aligned}
&g_ig_j=g_jg_i & &\textrm{if } |i-j|\geq 2; \label{Eq_Def_Hecke1}\\
&g_ig_{i+1}g_i = g_{i+1}g_ig_{i+1}& &\textrm{for } i=1,\ldots,n-2; \label{Eq_Def_Hecke2}\\
&g_i^2 = (q-1)g_i + q& &\textrm{for } i=1,\ldots,n-1. \label{Eq_Def_Hecke3}\end{aligned}$$
Note that if $q\neq 0$ we have $$g_i\Big(\frac{1-q}{q} +\frac{1}{q}\,g_i\Big) = \frac{1-q}{q}\,g_i + \frac{1}{q}\, ((q-1)g_i + q) = 1.$$ So for $q\neq 0$ the elements $g_i$ have inverses. We will denote these by $g_i^{-1}:=\frac{1-q}{q} +\frac{1}{q}g_i$. Observe that if $q=1$ relation reads as $g_i^2=1$ hence $H_n(1)={\mathbb{C}}[S_n]$, the group algebra of the symmetric group on $n$ elements. So for $q=1$ we obtain a map $S_n {\rightarrow}H_{n}(q)$, but also for general $q\in{\mathbb{C}}$ we can define such a map.
\[map\_Sn\_in\_Hn\] An elementary transposition of $S_n$ is an element of the form $\sigma_i:=(i,i+1)$. Any element $\pi\in S_n$ can be written as a product of elementary transpositions $\pi = \sigma_{i_1}\cdots\sigma_{i_k}$. For a permutation $\pi$ choose such a product of shortest length. The corresponding $k$ will be referred to as the [*length*]{} of $\pi$, we put $l(\pi):= k$. A product of shortest length will be referred to as a [*reduced expression*]{} for $\pi$. If $e$ is the identity element of $S_n$ we put $g_e:=1\in H_n(q)$. If $\pi\in S_n$ and $\pi\neq e$, we define $g_\pi:= g_{i_1}\ldots g_{i_k}\in H_n(q)$. From the the lemma below it follows that the element $g_\pi$ is well-defined.
\[basis\_Sn\] Let $\pi\in S_n$, define $d_\pi(i):=\#\{1\leq j<i\,:\, \pi(j)>\pi(i)\}$. Then $l(\pi)=\sum_{i=1}^n d_\pi(i)$. Put $$C_{i,j}:=\begin{cases} 1, &\textrm{if } i\geq j;\\
\sigma_i\cdots\sigma_{j-1}, &\textrm{if } i<j,
\end{cases}$$ Then $C_{n-d_\pi(n),n}\cdots C_{3-d_\pi(3),3}C_{2-d_\pi(2),2}$ is a reduced expression for $\pi$. Any two reduced expressions for $\pi$ can be transformed in one another by only using the transformations $$\begin{aligned}
&\sigma_i\sigma_j = \sigma_j\sigma_i& &\textrm{if } |i-j|\geq1;\\
&\sigma_i\sigma_{i+1}\sigma_i = \sigma_{i+1}\sigma_i\sigma_{i+1}& &\textrm{for } i=1,\ldots,n-2.\end{aligned}$$
We can embed $H_n(q)$ into $H_{n+1}(q)$ via the homomorphism $H_n(q)\ni g_i\mapsto g_i\in H_{n+1}(q)$. Iterating this procedure we obtain embeddings $i_{m,n}\colon H_m(q){\rightarrow}H_n(q)$ for $m\leq n$. The inductive limit of $(H_{n}(q), i_{m,n})$ is denoted by $H_\infty(q)$. Similarly the [*shift map*]{} $\Sigma\colon H_n(q){\rightarrow}H_{n+1}(q)$, $g_i\mapsto g_{i+1}$ yields another embedding. Unless stated otherwise we will use the first embedding. Note that can be rewritten as $(g_i+1)(g_i-q)=0$. So $g_i$ has exactly two spectral values: $-1$ and $q$. In accordance with Kazhdan and Wenzl we define the idempotents[^1] $e_i:= \frac{q-g_i}{q+1}$.
\[Hecke\_braiding\] Let $\sigma_{m,n}\in S_{m+n}$ be the permutation defined by $$\sigma_{m,n}(i):=\begin{cases} i+n, &\textrm{if } 1\leq i\leq m;\\
i-m, &\textrm{if } m+1 \leq i\leq m+n.\end{cases}$$ Then $$\label{eq_Hecke_braiding1}
g_{\sigma_{m,n}}g_i = \begin{cases} g_{i+n}g_{\sigma_{m,n}}, &\textrm{if } 1\leq i\leq m-1;\\
g_{i-m}g_{\sigma_{m,n}}, &\textrm{if } m+1 \leq i\leq m+n.\end{cases}$$ Explicitly $$\begin{aligned}
g_{\sigma_{m,n}}&=(g_n g_{n-1}\cdots g_1)(g_{n+1}g_n\cdots g_2)\cdots(g_{n+m-1}g_{n+m-2}\cdots g_m)\\
&= (g_n g_{n+1} \cdots g_{n+m-1})(g_{n-1}g_n\cdots g_{n+m-2})\cdots(g_1 g_2\cdots g_m).\end{aligned}$$
The explicit formulas for $g_{\sigma_{m,n}}$ follow from the reduced expression of $\sigma_{m,n}$ as stated in Lemma \[basis\_Sn\]. To prove , suppose that $m=1$ and $i>1$, then $$(g_n\cdots g_1) g_i = g_n\cdots (g_i g_{i-1}g_i) g_{i-2}\cdots g_1 = g_n\cdots (g_{i-1} g_{i}g_{i-1}) g_{i-2}\cdots g_1 = g_{i-1} (g_n\cdots g_1).$$ Now for $m>1$ and $i>m$ the statement follows from the case $m=1$, induction on $m$ and the explicit formula of $g_{\sigma_{m,n}}$. For $i<m$ we use the other expression of $g_{\sigma_{m,n}}$. Assume $n=1$, we obtain $$(g_1\cdots g_m)g_i = g_1\cdots (g_ig_{i-1}g_i)g_{i-2} \cdots g_m= g_1\cdots (g_{i-1}g_{i}g_{i-1})g_{i-2}\cdots g_m = g_{i-1} (g_1\cdots g_m).$$ Again the general case follows from this case, induction on $n$ and the explicit formula of $g_{\sigma_{m,n}}$.
For $q\neq 1$ put $[n]_q:= \frac{1-q^n}{1-q} = (1+q+\ldots +q^{n-1})$ and $[n]_1:=n$, it is called the [*q-analog*]{}, [*q-bracket*]{} or [*q-number*]{}. Define the [*q-factorial*]{} $$[1]_q!:=1,\qquad [n]_q!:=[n]_q[n-1]_q!.$$
Suppose that $q>0$ or $|q|=1$. Define an involution on $H_n(q)$ by $e_i^*:=e_i$ and by antilinear extension. This involution will be called the [*standard involution*]{} of $H_n(q)$. From now on we will assume that for these values of $q$ the Hecke algebra $H_n(q)$ is equipped with this standard involution. Note that the idempotents $e_i$ become the spectral projections corresponding to the spectral value $-1$ of $g_i$. Furthermore if $q>0$ the elements $g_i$ become self-adjoint.
\[properties\_An\] Denote $A_n:= \sum_{\sigma\in S_n} g_\sigma$. If $q^m\neq 1$ for $m=1,\ldots, n$ let $E_n:= ([n]_q!)^{-1} A_n$. With this notation the following holds:
1. $A_n= (1+g_{n-1}+g_{n-2}g_{n-1}+\ldots+g_1\ldots g_{n-1})A_{n-1}\newline
=A_{n-1} (1+g_{n-1}+g_{n-1}g_{n-2}+\ldots+g_{n-1}\cdots g_{1})\newline
= (1 +g_{1} + g_{2}g_{1}+\ldots +g_{n-1}\cdots g_{1})\Sigma(A_{n-1})\newline
= \Sigma(A_{n-1})(1 +g_{1} + g_{1}g_{2}+\ldots +g_1\cdots g_{n-1})$;
2. $A_ng_i = g_i A_n = qA_n$, for $i=1,\ldots, n-1$;
3. $E_n$ is a minimal idempotent in $H_n(q)$. If $q\in{\mathbb{R}}$ or $|q|=1$ and $q^m\neq 1$ for $m=1,\ldots n$, it is a projection.
\(i) From Lemma \[basis\_Sn\] it follows that every element in $\pi\in S_n$ can uniquely be written as $\pi=\sigma_j\sigma_{j+1}\cdots\sigma_{n-1}\pi'$ for some $j\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$ and $\pi'\in S_{n-1}$. For a permutation $\sigma$ denote $\sigma S_n:=\{\sigma\sigma'\,:\, \sigma'\in S_n\}$. By Lemma \[basis\_Sn\], $$\label{eq_properties_An1}
S_{n+1} = S_n \cup \sigma_n S_n \cup\ldots\cup (\sigma_1\cdots\sigma_n) S_n.$$ Hence by induction the first equality follows. Also $\pi^{-1} = \pi'^{-1}\sigma_{n-1}\cdots\sigma_j$, therefore $$\sum_{\pi\in S_n} \pi = \sum_{\pi\in S_n} \pi^{-1}= \sum_{\pi'\in S_{n-1}} \pi'\Big(\sum_{j=1}^{n} \sigma_{n-1}\cdots\sigma_{j+1}\sigma_j\Big).$$ Now by induction the second equality in (i) follows. The third and fourth equalities can be proved similarly (one can use the map $\sigma_i\mapsto \sigma_{n-i}$).\
Assertions (ii) and (iii) can be found in [@Pinzari07 2]. But (ii) can also quickly be derived from (i) and induction and statement (iii) follows again from (ii).
\[Hecke\_morphisms\] Define the maps $\alpha$ and $\beta$ on the generators by $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha &\colon H_n(q){\rightarrow}H_n(q), & g_i&\mapsto q-1-g_i;\\
\beta &\colon H_n(q){\rightarrow}H_n(q^{-1}), & g_i&\mapsto -q^{-1}g_i.\end{aligned}$$ A simple computation shows that $\alpha$ and $\beta$ respect the defining relations of the Hecke algebras (cf. - ) and thus that $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are Hecke algebra morphisms. Furthermore $\alpha\circ\alpha = id$ and $\beta\circ\beta = id$. Note also that $\alpha(e_i)=e_i'=\frac{1+g_i}{q+1}$, where $e_i'$ is the other choice of idempotents, as discussed in \[Hecke\_algebras\].
\[properties\_Bn\] Suppose that $q\neq 0$. Denote $B_n:= \sum_{\sigma\in S_n} (-q)^{-l(\sigma)} g_\sigma$. If $q^m\neq 1$ for $m=1,\ldots, n$, let $F_n:= ([n]_{\frac{1}{q}}!)^{-1} B_n$. With this notation the following holds:
1. $B_n= (1-q^{-1}g_{n-1}+q^{-2}g_{n-2}g_{n-1}+\ldots+(-q)^{-(n-1)}g_{1}\cdots g_{n-1})B_{n-1}\newline
= B_{n-1} (1-q^{-1}g_{n-1}+q^{-2}g_{n-1}g_{n-2}+\ldots+(-q)^{-(n-1)}g_{n-1}\cdots g_{1})\newline
= (1-q^{-1}g_{1} + q^{-2}g_{2}g_{1}+\ldots+ (-q)^{-(n-1)}g_{n-1}\cdots g_{1})\Sigma(B_{n-1})\newline
= \Sigma(B_{n-1})(1-q^{-1}g_{1}+q^{-2}g_{1}g_{2}+\ldots+(-q)^{-(n-1)}g_{1}\ldots g_{n-1})\newline
= q^{-(n-1)} (1 -qg_{n-1}^{-1} + \ldots + (-q)^{n-1} g_1^{-1}\cdots g_{n-1}^{-1})B_{n-1};$
2. $B_ng_i = g_i B_n = -B_n$, for $i=1,\ldots, n-1$;
3. $F_n$ is a minimal idempotent in $H_n(q)$. If $q\in{\mathbb{R}}\setminus\{0\}$, or $|q|=1$ and $q^m\neq 1$ for $m=1,\ldots n$ it is a projection;
4. $\alpha(B_n)=\mu^{-n(n-1)}A_n$.
It is immediate that $\beta(A_n)=B_n$. Thus all assertions except from the last equality in item (i) and item (iv) follow from the previous lemma. To prove (i), first note that if $i=1,\ldots,n-2$, then $g_i^{-1}B_{n-1} = (\frac{1-q}{q}+\frac{1}{q}g_i)B_{n-1} = -B_{n-1}$. Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
g_{i}^{-1}\cdots &g_{n-1}^{-1}B_{n-1} = \frac{1}{q}\,g_{i}^{-1}\cdots g_{n-2}^{-1}g_{n-1}B_{n-1} + \frac{1-q}{q}\, g_{i}^{-1}\cdots g_{n-2}^{-1}B_{n-1} \\
&= \frac{1}{q}\,g_{i}^{-1}\cdots g_{n-2}^{-1} g_{n-1}B_{n-1} + \frac{1-q}{q}\, (-1)^{n-1-i} B_{n-1}\\
&= \Big(q^{-(n-i)}g_i\cdots g_{n-1} + \frac{1-q}{q}\, q^{-(n-i-1)} g_{i+1}\cdots g_{n-1} + \frac{1-q}{q}\, q^{-(n-i-2)} (-1) g_{i+2}\cdots g_{n-1}\\
&\qquad + \frac{1-q}{q}\, q^{-(n-i-3)} (-1)^2 g_{i+3}\cdots g_{n-1} +\ldots + \frac{1-q}{q}\,(-1)^{n-1-i} \Big)B_{n-1}\end{aligned}$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned}
&\big(g_1^{-1}\cdots g_{n-1}^{-1} + (-q)^{-1}g_2^{-1}\cdots g_{n-1}^{-1} +\ldots + (-q)^{-(n-2)}g_{n-1}^{-1} + (-q)^{-(n-1)}\big)B_{n-1} = \label{eq_properties_Bn1}\\
&\Big(q^{-(n-1)}g_1\cdots g_{n-1} + \frac{1-q}{q}\, \big( q^{-(n-2)} g_{2}\cdots g_{n-1} - q^{-(n-3)} g_{3}\cdots g_{n-1} +\ldots + (-1)^{n-2}\big)\notag \\
&+ (-q)^{-1} \big(q^{-(n-2)}g_2\cdots g_{n-1} + \frac{1-q}{q}\, \big( q^{-(n-3)} g_{3}\cdots g_{n-1} - q^{-(n-4)} g_{4}\cdots g_{n-1} +\ldots + (-1)^{n-3}\big)\big)\notag \\
& + \ldots + (-q)^{-(n-2)}\big(q^{-1}g_{n-1} + \frac{1-q}{q}\big) + (-q)^{-(n-1)}\Big)B_{n-1}. \notag\end{aligned}$$ Gathering all terms $g_i\cdots g_{n-1}$, the constant in front of $g_i\cdots g_{n-1}$ becomes $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1-q}{q}\,\Big( (-1)^i q^{-(n-i)} + (-q)^{-1}(-1)^{i-1}q^{-(n-i)} + \ldots + (-q)^{-(i-2)}q^{-(n-i)}\Big) + (-q)^{-(i-1)} q^{-(n-i)} \\
&= (1-q)(-1)^i \big(q^{-(n+1-i)} + q^{-(n+1-i)-1} +\ldots + q^{-(n-1)}\big) - (-1)^i q^{-(n-1)} \\
&= (-1)^i (-q)q^{-(n+1-i)} + (-1)^{i}q^{-(n-1)} - (-1)^i q^{-(n-1)} \\
&= (-1)^{i+1} q^{-(n-i)}.\end{aligned}$$ In the second last equality above we use the fact that we have an alternating sum. We thus obtain that equals $$\begin{aligned}
&\big((-1)^{1+1}q^{-(n-1)} g_1\cdots g_{n-1} + (-1)^{2+1}q^{-(n-2)}g_2\cdots g_{n-1} + \ldots + (-1)^{n+1}q^{-(n-n)}\big) B_{n-1}\\
&= (-1)^{n-1}\big((-q)^{-(n-1)} g_1\cdots g_{n-1} + (-q)^{-(n-2)}g_2\cdots g_{n-1} + \ldots + 1\big) B_{n-1},\end{aligned}$$ which by the first equality of item (i) in this lemma gives the desired result.\
We prove (iv) by induction. The case $n=2$ is easy, as $$\alpha(B_2)=\alpha(1-q^{-1}g_1) = 1-q^{-1}(q-1-g_1) = q^{-1}(1+g_1)=\mu^{-2(2-1)}A_2.$$ To prove the induction step, first note that $\alpha(-qg_i^{-1}) = \alpha(-1+q-g_i) = -1+q -q+1+g_i =g_i$. Therefore using part (i) of this lemma, the induction hypothesis and Lemma \[properties\_An\], we get $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha(B_{n+1})&= \alpha\big(q^{-n} (1 -qg_n^{-1} + \ldots + (-q)^n g_1^{-1}\cdots g_n^{-1})B_n\big)\\
&= q^{-n} \big(1 + \alpha(-qg_n^{-1}) +\ldots + \alpha((-q)^n g_1^{-1}\cdots g_n^{-1})\big) \mu^{-n(n-1)}A_n\\
&= \mu^{-(n+1)n}(1 + g_n +\ldots + g_1\cdots g_n) A_n\\
&= \mu^{-(n+1)n}A_{n+1},\end{aligned}$$ as desired.
A [*trace*]{} $\operatorname{tr}$ on the Hecke algebra $H_\infty(q)$ is a linear functional $\operatorname{tr}\colon H_\infty(q){\rightarrow}{\mathbb{C}}$ such that $\operatorname{tr}(ab)=\operatorname{tr}(ba)$ for all $a,b\in H_\infty(q)$ and $\operatorname{tr}(1)=1$. The trace is called a [*Markov trace*]{} if there exists an $\eta\in{\mathbb{C}}$ such that for all $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and $x,y\in H_n(q)\subset H_\infty(q)$ the equality $\operatorname{tr}(xe_ny)=\eta\operatorname{tr}(xy)$ holds. We will refer to this identity as the [*Markov property*]{}. It is known that for each $\eta\in{\mathbb{C}}$ there exists a Markov trace with $\operatorname{tr}(e_1)=\eta$, for a proof of this fact see [@Jones87 Thm. 5.1].
\[equivalent\_Markov\_traces\] Let $\operatorname{tr}$ be a Markov trace on $H_\infty(q)$ and $\varphi\colon H_\infty(q){\rightarrow}{\mathbb{C}}$ be a functional with the Markov property such that $\operatorname{tr}(e_1)=\varphi(e_1)$, then $\operatorname{tr}=\varphi$. In particular $\varphi$ is tracial.
Any element $x\in H_n(q)\subset H_\infty(q)$ can be written as $x=x_1+x_2e_{n-1}x_3$ for some $x_1,x_2,x_3\in H_{n-1}(q)$. Now for $\psi=\operatorname{tr}$ and $\psi=\varphi$ it holds $$\psi(x) = \psi(x_1)+\psi(x_2e_{n-1}x_3) = \psi(x_1)+\psi(e_1)\psi(x_2x_3)$$ and the lemma follows by induction to $n$ and the fact that $H_\infty(q)=\bigcup_n H_n(q)$.
Computations in $\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))$ {#computations}
===============================================
In this section we will make some computations in the category $\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))$ (for $\mu\in(0,1]$) which will be needed later on. The results are analogous to [@Pinzari07], but in that paper a different representation of the Hecke algebra in $\operatorname{End}_{\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))}({\mathcal{H}}^{{\otimes}n})$ is used. See Remark \[different\_representations\] for a short discussion on these two different representations.\
Since the representation category of a $q$-deformed Lie group is very similar to the representation category of the Lie group itself (cf. [@ChariPressley95 10.1]), it is immediate that $\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))$ is a $SU(d)$-type category.
\[Def\_rep\_SUmud\] Consider the [C$^*$-]{}tensor category $\textrm{Hilb}_{\textrm{f}}$, with objects all finite dimensional Hilbert spaces and the collection of morphisms between two objects is given by all linear maps between the corresponding Hilbert spaces. Let ${\mathcal{H}}:={\mathbb{C}}^d\in \operatorname{Ob}(\textrm{Hilb}_{\textrm{f}})$ and let $\{\psi_i\}_{i=1}^d$ be an orthonormal basis in ${\mathcal{H}}$. Jimbo and Woronowicz defined the following representation of the Hecke algebra $H_n(q)$. Let $q:=\mu^2$. Define the map $T\in\operatorname{End}({\mathcal{H}}{\otimes}{\mathcal{H}})$ by $$T(\psi_i{\otimes}\psi_j):=\begin{cases} (q-1)\psi_i{\otimes}\psi_j + \mu\psi_j{\otimes}\psi_i, &\textrm{if } i<j;\\
q\psi_i\otimes \psi_j, &\textrm{if } i=j;\\
\mu\psi_j\otimes \psi_i, &\textrm{if } i>j.
\end{cases}$$ Then a straightforward computation shows that $$\eta\colon H_n(q){\rightarrow}\operatorname{End}({\mathcal{H}}^{{\otimes}n}), \qquad g_i\mapsto \iota^{{\otimes}i-1}{\otimes}T{\otimes}\iota^{n-i-1}$$ defines a representation of $H_n(q)$. If it is necessary to keep track of $n$ we write $\eta_n$ for this representation. The action of the idempotents $e_i$ corresponds to the linear map $$\label{eq_action_idempotents1}
\frac{q-T}{q+1}\,(\psi_i{\otimes}\psi_j)=\begin{cases} \frac{1}{q+1}\,(\psi_i{\otimes}\psi_j - \mu \psi_j\otimes \psi_i), &\textrm{if } i<j;\\
0, &\textrm{if } i=j;\\
\frac{1}{q+1}\,(q\psi_i\otimes \psi_j - \mu\psi_j\otimes \psi_i), &\textrm{if } i>j.
\end{cases}$$ To define the category $\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))$ we also need an embedding ${\mathbb{C}}\hookrightarrow {\mathcal{H}}^{{\otimes}d}$, corresponding to the morphism intertwining the trivial representation of $SU(d)$ on ${\mathbb{C}}$ with the $d$-th tensor power of the standard representation on ${\mathcal{H}}^{{\otimes}d}$. Up to a normalization the following element in ${\mathcal{H}}^{{\otimes}d}$ plays the role of this embedding ${\mathbb{C}}{\rightarrow}{\mathcal{H}}^d$ $$\label{Eq_def_S}
S:= \sum_{\sigma\in S_d} (-\mu)^{-l(\sigma)}\psi_{\sigma(d)}{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_{\sigma(1)}.$$ Here $l(\sigma)$ denotes the length of $\sigma$, see Definition \[map\_Sn\_in\_Hn\]. We write $S$ both for the element defined in and for the map ${\mathbb{C}}{\rightarrow}{\mathcal{H}}^{{\otimes}d}$, $c\mapsto cS$. This element $S$ can be considered as the $q$-deformed determinant.\
The representation category $\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))$ can be described as being the smallest [C$^*$-]{}tensor category in $\textrm{Hilb}_{\textrm{f}}$ which contains the object ${\mathcal{H}}$ and the morphisms $S\in\operatorname{Hom}({\mathbb{C}},{\mathcal{H}}^{{\otimes}d})$ and $T\in\operatorname{End}({\mathcal{H}}^{{\otimes}2})$.
Let us compute $\|S\|$. As $\{\psi_i\}_{i=1,\ldots, d}$ is a basis for ${\mathcal{H}}$ for $\sigma,\sigma'\in S_d$ it follows that $\langle \psi_{\sigma(d)}{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_{\sigma(1)}, \psi_{\sigma'(d)}{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_{\sigma'(1)} \rangle = \delta_{\sigma,\sigma'}$. So $\|S\|^2 = \langle S,S\rangle = \sum_{\sigma\in S_d} (-\mu)^{-2l(\sigma)}$. By induction, and the fact $l(\sigma_i\cdots\sigma_n\sigma) = l(\sigma)+n-i+1$ for $\sigma\in S_n$, it follows that $$\sum_{\pi\in S_{n+1}} q^{l(\pi)} = (1+q+\ldots +q^n)\sum_{\pi\in S_n} q^{l(\pi)} = [n+1]_q [n]_q! = [n+1]_q!$$ and thus $\|S\|=[d]_\frac{1}{q}!$.\
Recall the labelling of the simple objects as introduced in Definition \[Def\_SU(d)-type\]. The representation $\eta$ acts as follows.
\[projection\_SUd\] For the representation $\eta\colon H_n(q){\rightarrow}\operatorname{End}({\mathcal{H}}^{{\otimes}n})$ the morphism $\eta(e_1)\in\operatorname{End}({\mathcal{H}}^{{\otimes}2})$ is the projection onto ${\mathcal{H}}_{\{1^2\}}$.
Using we obtain for $i<j$ and a constant $a\in{\mathbb{C}}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\eta(e_1)(\psi_i{\otimes}\psi_j + a\psi_j{\otimes}\psi_i) &= \frac{1-\mu a}{q+1}\,(\psi_i{\otimes}\psi_j - \mu\psi_j{\otimes}\psi_i);\\
\eta(e_1)(\psi_i{\otimes}\psi_i) &= 0.\end{aligned}$$ In particular putting $a=-\mu$ respectively $a= \frac{1}{\mu}$, shows that $$\begin{aligned}
\eta(e_1)(\psi_i{\otimes}\psi_j -\mu \psi_j{\otimes}\psi_i)&= \psi_i{\otimes}\psi_j -\mu \psi_j{\otimes}\psi_i;\\
\eta(e_1)(\psi_i{\otimes}\psi_j +\frac{1}{\mu} \,\psi_j{\otimes}\psi_i) &= 0,\end{aligned}$$ which means that $\eta(e_1)$ is the orthogonal projection onto $$U:=\operatorname{span}\big(\{\psi_i{\otimes}\psi_j -\mu\psi_j{\otimes}\psi_i\,:\, 1\leq i<j\leq d\}\big).$$ Since $g_1e_1=e_1g_1$, we have $\eta(g_1)U\subset U$. Thus $U$ is a subobject of ${\mathcal{H}}^{{\otimes}2}$ in $\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d)$. Now note that ${\mathcal{H}}^{{\otimes}2}={\mathcal{H}}_{\{1^2\}}\oplus{\mathcal{H}}_{\{2\}}$. Recall that $V_\lambda$ was defined to be the irreducible representation of $SU(d)$ corresponding to $\lambda$. By [@ChariPressley95 10.1] the dimensions of ${\mathcal{H}}_{\lambda}$ are the same as the dimensions of $V_\lambda$. Therefore $\dim({\mathcal{H}}_{\{1^2\}})=\frac{1}{2}d(d-1)$ and $\dim({\mathcal{H}}_{\{2\}})=\frac{1}{2}d(d+1)$. Note that $\dim(U)=\frac{1}{2}d(d-1)$, therefore $U= {\mathcal{H}}_{\{1^2\}}$.
\[different\_representations\] Recall the Hecke algebra morphism $\alpha$ of Notation \[Hecke\_morphisms\]. It is immediate that $\eta\circ\alpha$ is also a representation of $H_n(q)$ on ${\mathcal{H}}^{{\otimes}n}$. This is exactly the representation which Pinzari considers in [@Pinzari07 4]. Explicitly $\eta\circ\alpha (g_i) = \iota^{{\otimes}i-1}{\otimes}T'{\otimes}\iota^{n-i-1}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
T'(\psi_i{\otimes}\psi_j):= ((q-1)\iota - T)(\psi_i{\otimes}\psi_j) = \begin{cases} -\mu\psi_j{\otimes}\psi_i, &\textrm{if } i<j;\\
-\psi_i\otimes \psi_j, &\textrm{if } i=j;\\
(q-1)\psi_i{\otimes}\psi_j -\mu\psi_j\otimes \psi_i, &\textrm{if } i>j.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$
For later use we prove the following identities in $\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))$.
\[computations\_SUmud\] In $\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))$ the following relations hold: $$\begin{aligned}
&S=\eta(B_d)(\psi_d{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_1);\label{eq_computations_SUmud0}\\
&S^*S=[d]_{\frac{1}{q}}!\,\iota;\label{eq_computations_SUmud1}\\
&SS^*=\eta(B_d);\label{eq_computations_SUmud2}\\
&(S^*{\otimes}\iota)(\iota{\otimes}S) = (-\mu)^{-(d-1)}[d-1]_{\frac{1}{q}}!\;\iota;\label{eq_computations_SUmud3}\\
&(S^*{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}d-1})(\iota^{{\otimes}d-1}{\otimes}S) = (-\mu)^{-(d-1)}\eta(B_{d-1});\label{eq_computations_SUmud4}\\
&\eta(g_1\cdots g_d)(S{\otimes}\iota)=\mu^{d+1}(\iota{\otimes}S).\label{eq_computations_SUmud5}\end{aligned}$$ Here $B_n\in H_n(q)$ is as in Lemma \[properties\_Bn\].
As stated before, these identities are closely related to the identities proved by Pinzari in [@Pinzari07 5], in fact one can deduce the relations above to the identities of [@Pinzari07]. We will do this first and then we will also show how one can compute everything directly. We denote Pinzari’s $q$-deformed determinant by $\tilde S:=\sum_{\sigma\in S_d} (-\mu)^{l(\sigma)} \psi_{\sigma(1)}{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_{\sigma(d)}$. Let $r\colon S_d{\rightarrow}S_d$ be defined by $r(\sigma)(i):=\sigma(d+1-i)$. Then by Lemma \[basis\_Sn\] $$\begin{aligned}
l(r(\sigma)) &= \#\{(i,j)\,:\, i<j,\, r(\sigma)(i)>r(\sigma)(j)\}\\
&= \#\{(i,j)\,:\, i<j,\, \sigma(d+1-i)>\sigma(d+1-j)\}\\
&= \#\{(i,j)\,:\, i<j,\, \sigma(i)<\sigma(j)\}\end{aligned}$$ and thus $l(\sigma)+l(r(\sigma))= d(d-1)/2$. Therefore we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde S &= \sum_{\sigma\in S_d} (-\mu)^{l(\sigma)} \psi_{\sigma(1)}{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_{\sigma(d)}\\
&= \sum_{\sigma\in S_d} (-\mu)^{d(d-1)/2-l(r(\sigma))} \psi_{r(\sigma)(d)}{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_{r(\sigma)(1)}\\
&= (-\mu)^{d(d-1)/2} \sum_{\sigma\in S_d} (-\mu)^{-l(\sigma)} \psi_{\sigma(d)}{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_{\sigma(1)}\\
&= (-\mu)^{d(d-1)/2} S.\end{aligned}$$ With this identity and the properties of $\alpha$ (see Notation \[Hecke\_morphisms\]), we can derive equations - from the results in [@Pinzari07 5]. For example using [@Pinzari07 Lemma 5.1 b)] gives $$\begin{aligned}
\eta(B_d)\psi_d{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_1 &= \mu^{-d(d-1)}(\eta\circ\alpha(A_d)) \psi_d{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_1 \\
&= \mu^{-d(d-1)} (-\mu)^{d(d-1)/2} \tilde S\\
&= \mu^{-d(d-1)} (-\mu)^{d(d-1)/2} (-\mu)^{d(d-1)/2} S =S.\end{aligned}$$ Or by [@Pinzari07 Lemma 5.4] $$\begin{aligned}
(S^*{\otimes}\iota)(\iota{\otimes}S) &= (-\mu)^{-d(d-1)}(\tilde S^*{\otimes}\iota)(\iota{\otimes}\tilde S)\\
&= (-\mu)^{-d(d-1)}\mu^{d-1}[d-1]_q!\iota\\
&= (-\mu)^{d-1}[d-1]_{\frac{1}{q}}!.\end{aligned}$$ The other identities can be verified in a similar way, the details are left to the reader. To compute everything directly we start with a general identity. Suppose that $1\leq i_1<i_2<\ldots<i_n\leq d$ and $1\leq j\leq n-1$, then $$\label{eq_computations_SUmud15}
\eta(g_n \cdots g_j)(\psi_{i_n}{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_{i_1})= \mu^{n+1-j}(\psi_{i_n}{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_{i_{n+2-j}}{\otimes}\psi_{i_{n-j}}{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_{i_1}{\otimes}\psi_{i_{n+1-j}}).$$ Now suppose that $\theta\in S_n$. From Lemma \[basis\_Sn\] we have the reduced expression $\theta=(\theta^{-1})^{-1} = (C_{c_n,n}\cdots C_{c_3,3}C_{c_2,2})^{-1}$, where $c_i=i-d_{\theta^{-1}(i)}$. This gives in combination with and the fact $l(\theta)=l(\theta^{-1})$, that the following identity holds $$\label{eq_computations_SUmud14}
\eta(g_\theta)(\psi_{i_n}{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_{i_1}) = \mu^{l(\theta)}(\psi_{i_{\theta^{-1}(n)}}{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_{i_{\theta^{-1}(1)}}).$$ Suppose again $1\leq i_1<i_2<\ldots<i_n\leq d$, define $S_{i_n,\ldots,i_1}:= \sum_{\sigma\in S_n} (-\mu)^{-l(\sigma)}\psi_{i_{\sigma(n)}}{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_{i_{\sigma(1)}}$. By and Lemma \[properties\_Bn\] we get $$\begin{aligned}
\eta(B_n)(\psi_{i_{\theta^{-1}(n)}}{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_{i_{\theta^{-1}(1)}}) &= \mu^{-l(\theta)}\eta(B_n)\eta(g_\theta)(\psi_{i_n}{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_{i_1}) \notag \\
&= (-\mu)^{-l(\theta)}\sum_{\sigma\in S_n} (-q)^{-l(\sigma)}\eta(g_\sigma)(\psi_{i_n}{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_{i_1}) \notag \\
&= (-\mu)^{-l(\theta)}\sum_{\sigma\in S_n} (-\mu)^{-l(\sigma)} (\psi_{i_{\sigma^{-1}(n)}}{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_{i_{\sigma^{-1}(1)}})\notag \\
&= (-\mu)^{-l(\theta)}\sum_{\sigma\in S_n} (-\mu)^{-l(\sigma)} (\psi_{i_{\sigma(n)}}{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_{i_{\sigma(1)}})\notag \\
&= (-\mu)^{-l(\theta)}S_{i_n,\ldots,i_1}.\label{eq_computations_SUmud11} \end{aligned}$$ Setting $n=d$, $(i_1,\ldots,i_d)=(1,\ldots d)$ and $\theta=id$ gives $S_{i_d,\ldots,i_1}=S$ and proves .
Equation is immediate from the norm of $S$.
Instead of proving , we will prove a stronger statement which we will use later in the proof of this proposition. Using the notation introduced above, we will show that $$\label{eq_computations_SUmud13}
\sum_{d\geq i_n>\ldots>i_1\geq 1} S_{i_n,\ldots,i_1}S_{i_n,\ldots,i_1}^* = \eta(B_n).$$ Suppose that $j_1,\ldots,j_n\in\{i_1,\ldots,i_n\}$. Order the tuple $(j_n,\ldots,j_1)$ in decreasing order so we obtain $k_n\geq \ldots\geq k_2\geq k_1$. Then let $p$ be minimal such that $k_p=j_1$. Then $$\eta(g_{n-p+1}\cdots g_{n-1})(\psi_{k_n}{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_{k_1}) = \mu^{p-1}\psi_{k_n}{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_{k_{p+1}}{\otimes}\psi_{k_{p-1}}{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_{k_1}{\otimes}\psi_{j_1}.$$ Iterating this procedure, it follows that there exists a $\sigma\in S_n$ and $c\in{\mathbb{R}}\setminus\{0\}$ such that $\psi_{j_n}{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_{j_1}=c\eta(g_\sigma)(\psi_{k_n}{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_{k_1})$. Suppose that $j_{l'}=j_{l''}$ for some $l'\neq l''$, then $k_l=k_{l+1}$ for some $l$. We thus have $$\eta(B_n)(\psi_{k_n}{\otimes}\ldots {\otimes}\psi_{k_1}) = -\eta(B_n)\eta(g_{n-l})(\psi_{k_n}{\otimes}\ldots {\otimes}\psi_{k_1}) = -q\eta(B_n)(\psi_{k_n}{\otimes}\ldots {\otimes}\psi_{k_1}),$$ where the first equality follows by Lemma \[properties\_Bn\] and the second from the action of $\eta(g_{n-l})$ on $(\psi_{i_n}{\otimes}\ldots {\otimes}\psi_{i_1})$. Recall $q>0$, so in particular $q\neq -1$. Therefore $\eta(B_n)(\psi_{k_n}{\otimes}\ldots {\otimes}\psi_{k_1}) =0$. Now $$\eta(B_n)(\psi_{j_n}{\otimes}\ldots {\otimes}\psi_{j_1})= c\eta(B_n)\eta(g_\sigma)(\psi_{k_n}{\otimes}\ldots {\otimes}\psi_{k_1}) = c(-1)^{l(\sigma)}\eta(B_n)(\psi_{k_n}{\otimes}\ldots {\otimes}\psi_{k_1}) =0.$$ So $$\ker(\eta(B_n))^{\perp}\subset \operatorname{span}(\{\psi_{\sigma(i_n)}{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_{\sigma(i_1)}\,:\, \sigma\in S_n,\; d\geq i_n>\ldots>i_1\geq 1\}).$$ Note that $S_{i_n,\ldots,i_1}^*(\psi_{j_n}{\otimes}\ldots{\otimes}\psi_{j_1})=0$ if there does not exist a $\sigma\in S_n$ such that $i_k=j_{\sigma(k)}$ for all $k=1,\ldots,n$. Thus also $$\ker\Big(\sum_{i_n>\ldots>i_1} S_{i_n,\ldots,i_1}S_{i_n,\ldots,i_1}^*\Big)^{\perp}\subset \operatorname{span}(\{\psi_{\sigma(i_n)}{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_{\sigma(i_1)}\,:\, \sigma\in S_n,\; d\geq i_n>\ldots>i_1\geq 1\}).$$ Now by the fact that $l(\sigma)=l(\sigma^{-1})$ and we conclude $$\sum_{i_n>\ldots>i_1} S_{i_n,\ldots,i_1}S_{i_n,\ldots,i_1}^* (\psi_{j_{\sigma(n)}}{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_{j_{\sigma(1)}}) = (-\mu)^{-l(\sigma)}S_{j_n,\ldots,j_1}
= \eta(B_n) (\psi_{j_{\sigma(n)}}{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_{j_{\sigma(1)}}).$$ Since the vectors $S_{i_n,\ldots,i_1}$ and $S_{j_n,\ldots,j_1}$ are orthogonal if $(i_n,\ldots,i_1) \neq (j_n,\ldots,j_1)$, it follows that $\sum_{i_n>\ldots>i_1} S_{i_n,\ldots,i_1}S_{i_n,\ldots,i_1}^*$ and $\eta(B_n)$ act the same on the space $$\operatorname{span}(\{\psi_{\sigma(i_n)}{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_{\sigma(i_1)}\,:\, \sigma\in S_n,\; d\geq i_n>\ldots>i_1\geq 1\}).$$ Hence holds. The choice $n=d$ and $(i_d,\ldots,i_1)=(d,\ldots,1)$ gives .
For the proof of and we introduce the following tensors $$\begin{aligned}
S^{(1)}_j&:=\sum_{\sigma\in S_d,\; \sigma(d)=j}(-\mu)^{-l(\sigma)}\psi_{\sigma(d-1)}{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_{\sigma(1)};\\
S^{(2)}_j&:=\sum_{\sigma\in S_d,\; \sigma(1)=j}(-\mu)^{-l(\sigma)}\psi_{\sigma(d)}{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_{\sigma(2)}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that it is immediate that $$S=\sum_{j=1}^d \psi_j{\otimes}S^{(1)}_j = \sum_{j=1}^d S^{(2)}_j{\otimes}\psi_j.$$ For $\sigma\in S_{d-1}$ and $j\leq d$ define $p(\sigma)\in S_d$ by $$p(\sigma)(i):=\begin{cases} j &\textrm{if } i=1;\\
\sigma(i-1) &\textrm{if } \sigma(i-1)<j;\\
\sigma(i-1)+1 &\textrm{if } \sigma(i-1)>j.
\end{cases}$$ Then $l(p(\sigma))=l(\sigma)+j-1$ and $p\colon S_{d-1}{\rightarrow}\{\theta\in S_d\,:\, \theta(1)=j\}$ is a bijection. For the tuple $(i_{d-1},\ldots,i_1):= (d,\ldots,j+1,j-1,\ldots 1)$ we then obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
S_{i_{d-1},\ldots,i_1} &= \sum_{\sigma\in S_{d-1}} (-\mu)^{-l(\sigma)} \psi_{i_{\sigma(d-1)}}{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_{i_{\sigma(1)}} \notag \\
&= \sum_{\sigma\in S_d,\; \sigma(1)=j} (-\mu)^{-l(\sigma)+j-1} \psi_{\sigma(d)}{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_{\sigma(2)} \notag \\
&= (-\mu)^{j-1} S_j^{(2)}.\label{eq_computations_SUmud12}\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore we have that the map $$s\colon\{\sigma\in S_d\,:\, \sigma(d)=j\}{\rightarrow}\{\sigma\in S_d\,:\, \sigma(1)=j\};\qquad s(\sigma)(i):=\begin{cases} j &\textrm{if } i=1;\\
\sigma(i-1) &\textrm{if } i>1, \end{cases}$$ is a bijection and one easily checks that $l(s(\sigma)) = l(\sigma)-(d+1)+2j$. It follows that $$\label{eq_computations_SUmud10}
S^{(1)}_j=(-\mu)^{-(d+1)+2j}S^{(2)}_j.$$ Since ${\mathcal{H}}$ is an irreducible object in $\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))$, the morphism $(S^*{\otimes}\iota)(\iota{\otimes}S)$ acts as a scalar. Suppose that $\{\psi_i\}_{i=1}^d$ is an orthonormal basis with respect to the inner product $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ on ${\mathcal{H}}$. We obtain $$\langle \psi_i, (S^*{\otimes}\iota)(\iota{\otimes}S)\psi_j\rangle_{{\mathcal{H}}} = \Big\langle\sum_{k=1}^d \psi_k{\otimes}S^{(1)}_k{\otimes}\psi_i, \sum_{k=1}^d \psi_j{\otimes}S^{(2)}_k{\otimes}\psi_k \Big\rangle_{{\mathcal{H}}^{{\otimes}d+1}} = \langle S^{(1)}_j,S^{(2)}_i\rangle_{{\mathcal{H}}^{{\otimes}d-1}}.$$ To compute this scalar $(S^*{\otimes}\iota)(\iota{\otimes}S)$ it thus suffices to compute $\langle S^{(1)}_d,S^{(2)}_d\rangle$. For this we have $$\begin{aligned}
\langle S^{(1)}_d,S^{(2)}_d\rangle &= (-\mu)^{d+1-2d}\langle S^{(1)}_d,S^{(1)}_d\rangle\\
&= (-\mu)^{-(d-1)} \sum_{\sigma,\theta\in S_d,\;\sigma(d)=\theta(d)=d} (-\mu)^{-l(\sigma)-l(\theta)}\langle \psi_{\sigma(d-1)},\psi_{\theta(d-1)}\rangle\cdots \langle\psi_{\sigma(1)},\psi_{\theta(1)}\rangle \\
&= (-\mu)^{-(d-1)} \sum_{\sigma\in S_d,\;\sigma(d)=d} (-\mu)^{-2l(\sigma)}\\
&= (-\mu)^{-(d-1)} \sum_{\sigma\in S_{d-1}} q^{-2l(\sigma)} = (-\mu)^{-(d-1)} [d-1]_{\frac{1}{q}}!,\end{aligned}$$ which establishes .
Suppose that $\xi_i\in{\mathcal{H}}$, then $$\begin{aligned}
(S^*{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}d-1})(\iota^{{\otimes}d-1}{\otimes}S)(\xi_1{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\xi_{d-1}) &= \sum_{i,j=1}^d (S_j^{(2)*}{\otimes}\psi_j^*{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}d-1})(\xi_1{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\xi_{d-1}{\otimes}\psi_i{\otimes}S_i^{(1)})\\
&= \sum_{j=1}^d S_j^{(2)*}(\xi_1{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\xi_{d-1})\cdot S_j^{(1)}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus $(S^*{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}d-1})(\iota^{{\otimes}d-1}{\otimes}S) = \sum_{j=1}^d S_j^{(1)}S_j^{(2)*}$, which equals $\sum_{j=1}^d (-\mu)^{-(d+1)+2j}S_j^{(2)}S_j^{(2)*}$ by . Using this can be written as $\sum_{j=1}^d (-\mu)^{-(d-1)}S_{d,\ldots,j+1,j-1,\ldots, 1}S_{d,\ldots,j+1,j-1,\ldots, 1}^*$. Now we invoke to obtain $$(S^*{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}d-1})(\iota^{{\otimes}d-1}{\otimes}S) = (-\mu)^{-(d-1)}\eta(B_{d-1}).$$ Thus holds.
To prove we use and Lemma \[Hecke\_braiding\]. We obtain the following $$\begin{aligned}
\eta(g_1\cdots g_d)(S{\otimes}\psi_i) &= \eta(g_1\cdots g_d)\eta(B_d)(\psi_d{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_1{\otimes}\psi_i) \\
&= \eta(\Sigma(B_d))\eta(g_1\cdots g_d)(\psi_d{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_1{\otimes}\psi_i) \\
&= \mu^{d-i}q\mu^{i-1}\,\eta(\Sigma(B_d))(\psi_i{\otimes}\psi_d{\otimes}\cdots{\otimes}\psi_1) \\
&= \mu^{d+1}(\psi_i{\otimes}S),\end{aligned}$$ which concludes the proof of this proposition.
From relations and it follows directly that $R:=\mu^{(d-1)/2}([d-1]_{\frac{1}{q}}!)^{-1/2} S$ and $\overline{R}:=(-1)^{d-1}\mu^{(d-1)/2}([d-1]_{\frac{1}{q}}!)^{-1/2} S$ solve the conjugate equations for ${\mathcal{H}}$ in $\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))$.
Representations of Hecke algebras {#representation}
=================================
Suppose that ${\mathcal{C}}$ is a strict $SU(d)$-type category, with fundamental object $X$. The aim of this section is to show that one can extract a constant $q$ from ${\mathcal{C}}$ such that there exists a representation of the Hecke algebra $H_n(q)$ into $\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}n})$. This section is closely related to [@KazhdanWenzl 4]. Once we established this representation, we will show that this representation essentially only depends on the constant $q$ and not on the other information of the category ${\mathcal{C}}$. To obtain this result the Markov traces will be used.
Recall that $V={\mathbb{C}}^d$ is the fundamental representation of $SU(d)$, in $\operatorname{Rep}(SU(d))$ the object $V_{\{1^2\}}$ is a subrepresentation of $V^{{\otimes}2}$. Therefore if ${\mathcal{C}}$ is a $SU(d)$-type category, there exists exists a projection $a\in\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}2})$ and a morphism $v\in\operatorname{Hom}(X_{\{1^2\}}, X^{{\otimes}2})$ such that $v^*v=id_{X_{\{1^2\}}}$ and $vv^*=a$. We say that $a$ is the projection of $X^{{\otimes}2}$ onto $X_{\{1^2\}}$. Define the elements $a_{k}:= \iota^{{\otimes}k-1}{\otimes}a\in\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}k+1})$. If $k<n$ we also write $a_k$ for the element $\iota^{k-1}{\otimes}a{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}n-k-1}\in\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}n})$. Denote by $\Sigma$ the map $\Sigma(a_{i}):=a_{i+1}$.
\[computation\_gammaC\] Let $a\in\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}2})$ be the projection onto $X_{\{1^2\}}\subset X^{{\otimes}2}$. Put $a_1:=a{\otimes}\iota$ and $a_2:=\iota{\otimes}a$. Then there exists a constant $\gamma\in (0,1]$ such that $$\label{eq_def_gammaC1}
a_1a_2a_1 - \gamma a_1 = a_2a_1a_2 - \gamma a_2.$$
This is a slightly stronger statement than what it is proved in [@KazhdanWenzl Prop. 4.2] this is due to the fact that $a$ is a projection and not only an idempotent, we will follow the proof by Kazhdan and Wenzl. By the fusion rules of $SU(d)$ we have $$X^{{\otimes}3} \cong \begin{cases}
X_{\{2,1\}}\oplus X_{\{2,1\}} \oplus X_{\{3\}} &\textrm{if } d=2;\\
X_{\{1^3\}} \oplus X_{\{2,1\}} \oplus X_{\{2,1\}} \oplus X_{\{3\}} &\textrm{if } d\geq3.
\end{cases}$$ Therefore $$\label{eq_computation_gammaC2}
\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}3}) \cong \begin{cases}
M_2({\mathbb{C}}) \oplus {\mathbb{C}}&\textrm{if } d=2;\\
{\mathbb{C}}\oplus M_2({\mathbb{C}}) \oplus {\mathbb{C}}&\textrm{if } d\geq3.
\end{cases}$$ We now only consider the case $d\geq 3$, the case $d=2$ is similar. By the fusion rules of $SU(d)$ it follows that $X_{\{1^3\}}$ is a subobject of $X_{\{1^2\}}{\otimes}X$, so there exists a projection $p\in\operatorname{End}(X_{\{1^2\}}{\otimes}X)$ and a morphism $v\in\operatorname{Hom}(X_{\{1^3\}},X_{\{1^2\}}{\otimes}X)$ such that $v^*v=id_{X_{\{1^3\}}}$ and $vv^*=p$. Similarly there exists $w\in\operatorname{Hom}(X_{\{1^2\}}, X^{{\otimes}2})$ such that $w^*w=id_{X_{\{1^2\}}}$ and $ww^*=a$. Then $$a_1|_{X_{\{1^3\}}} = v^*(w^*{\otimes}\iota)a_1(w{\otimes}\iota)v= v^*(w^*{\otimes}\iota)(ww^*{\otimes}\iota)(w{\otimes}\iota)v = v^* id_{X_{\{1^2\}}{\otimes}X} v = id_{X_{\{1^3\}}}.$$ So $a_1$ acts on ${X_{\{1^3\}}}$ as the identity. Similarly $a_2|_{X_{\{1^3\}}} = id|_{X_{\{1^3\}}}$. Using this terminology of subobjects, $X_{\{3\}}$ is not a subobject of $X_{\{1^2\}}{\otimes}X$ and $X{\otimes}X_{\{1^2\}}$, which implies $a_1|_{X_{\{3\}}} = a_2|_{X_{\{3\}}} = 0$. We have $\dim(\operatorname{Hom}(X_{\{2,1\}},X_{\{1^2\}}{\otimes}X)) = \dim(\operatorname{Hom}(X_{\{2,1\}},X{\otimes}X_{\{1^2\}})) =1$, thus in $\operatorname{End}(X_{\{2,1\}}\oplus X_{\{2,1\}})$ the morphisms $a_i$ act as rank $1$ projections. So using the isomorphism there exist rank $1$ projections $f_i\in M_2({\mathbb{C}})$ such that the projection $a_i\in\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}3})$ corresponds to $(1,f_i,0)\in {\mathbb{C}}\oplus M_2({\mathbb{C}}) \oplus {\mathbb{C}}$. Since $\operatorname{ran}(f_1f_2f_1)\subset\operatorname{ran}(f_1)$ there exists a $\gamma_1\in{\mathbb{C}}$ such that $f_1f_2f_1=\gamma_1f_1$. Similarly there exists $\gamma_2\in{\mathbb{C}}$ such that $f_2f_1f_2 = \gamma_2f_2$. Now $$\label{eq_computation_gammaC3}
\gamma_1 f_1f_2 = f_1(f_2f_1f_2) = (f_1f_2f_1)f_2 = \gamma_2f_1f_2.$$ Hence either $\gamma_1=\gamma_2$ or $f_1f_2=0$ in the latter case we can set $\gamma_1=\gamma_2=0$. Put $\gamma_{\mathcal{C}}:=\gamma_1$. Because $f_i$ are projections and thus positive, it must hold that $\gamma_{\mathcal{C}}\in[0,1]$. Since $a_i$ corresponds to $(1,f_i,0)$, gives . It remains to show that $\gamma\neq 0$, this is non-trivial and makes use of certain projections on objects in $X^{{\otimes}d}$, the proof can be found in [@KazhdanWenzl Prop. 4.2].
Put $\gamma_{\mathcal{C}}$ to be the constant obtained from ${\mathcal{C}}$ as in the previous lemma. Pick $q_{\mathcal{C}}$ such that $\gamma_{{\mathcal{C}}}=\frac{q_{{\mathcal{C}}}}{(1+q_{{\mathcal{C}}})^2}$, i.e. such that $q_{{\mathcal{C}}}+q_{{\mathcal{C}}}^{-1}=\gamma_{\mathcal{C}}^{-1}-2$. From this it is clear that $q_{{\mathcal{C}}}$ is uniquely determined up to $q_{{\mathcal{C}}}\leftrightarrow q_{{\mathcal{C}}}^{-1}$. Therefore to fix a unique $q_{\mathcal{C}}$ we select $q_{\mathcal{C}}\in\{z\in{\mathbb{C}}\,:\, |z|\leq 1,\,\operatorname{Im}(z)\geq0\}\cup \{z\in{\mathbb{C}}\,:\, |z|< 1,\,\operatorname{Im}(z)<0\}$. If it is clear which category ${\mathcal{C}}$ is considered we will omit the subscript $_{\mathcal{C}}$ in $q_{\mathcal{C}}$ and $\gamma_{{\mathcal{C}}}$.
At this point it is not clear why $q_{\mathcal{C}}$ is indeed an invariant of the category. A priori it might be dependent on the choice of $X$. However this constant is indeed independent, we will say more about this issue later (cf. Remark \[uniqueness\_constants\]).
\[constant\_q\] For a $SU(d)$-type category ${\mathcal{C}}$ we have $q_{\mathcal{C}}\in(0,1]\cup\{e^{i\alpha}\,:\, 0<\alpha<\frac{2\pi}{3}\}$.
The function $(0,1]{\rightarrow}[2,\infty)$, $q\mapsto q+q^{-1}$ is a bijection, so for $\gamma\in (0,1/4]$ it holds $q\in(0,1]$. If $\gamma\in(\frac{1}{4},1]$, then write $\gamma=\frac{1}{4}\cos^{-2}(\alpha/2)$ for a unique $\alpha\in(0,\frac{2\pi}{3}]$. We have $$\gamma = (e^{i\alpha/2} + e^{-i\alpha/2})^{-2} = \frac{e^{i\alpha}}{(1+e^{i\alpha})^{2}},$$ which implies that $q=e^{i\alpha}$.
\[Representation\_Hecke\] The map $$\label{eq_Def_rep1}
H_{n}(q_{\mathcal{C}}){\rightarrow}\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}n}), \qquad e_i\mapsto a_i$$ extends to a $*$-representation of the Hecke algebra $H_n(q_{\mathcal{C}})$.
Since $g_i=q-(q+1)e_i$, in the Hecke algebra $H_n(q)$ the relations , and can equivalently be described in terms of the idempotents $e_i$ by $$\begin{aligned}
&e_ie_j=e_je_i, & &\textrm{if } |i-j|\geq 2; \label{Eq_Def_Hecke_proj1}\\
&e_ie_{i+1}e_i - \frac{q}{(1+q)^2}e_i = e_{i+1}e_ie_{i+1} - \frac{q}{(1+q)^2}e_{i+1}, & & \textrm{for } i=1,\ldots,n-2; \label{Eq_Def_Hecke_proj2}\\
&e_i^2 = e_i,& &\textrm{for } i=1,\ldots,n-1. \label{Eq_Def_Hecke_proj3}\end{aligned}$$ From this characterization, the fact that $a$ is a projection satisfying and the choice of $q$ it is immediate that the map extends to a representation of $H_n(q)$. Since $e_i$ is self-adjoint in $H_n(q)$ and $a_i$ is self-adjoint in $\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}n})$ the map is $*$-preserving.
\[q\_root\_unity\] If $q_{\mathcal{C}}=e^{i\alpha}$ for some $0<\alpha<\pi$, then $q_{\mathcal{C}}$ is a root of unity.
We can write $q=e^{2\pi i\beta}$ for some $0<\beta<\frac{1}{2}$. A representation of $H_n(q)$ into a [C$^*$-]{}algebra is a [C$^*$-]{}representation if the idempotents $e_i$ are mapped to projections. Such a representation is called trivial if it is a direct sum of representations $\pi_1$ and $\pi_0$ where $\pi_1\colon e_i\mapsto id$ for all $i$ and $\pi_0\colon e_i\mapsto 0$ for all $i$. If $q$ is not a root of unity, then there exists an $m\in{\mathbb{N}}\setminus\{0\}$ such that $m-1<\frac{1}{\beta}<m$. Now [@Wenzl88 Prop. 2.9] implies that there exist no non-trivial [C$^*$-]{}representations of $H_n(q)$ for $n>((m+1)/2)^2$. However by Corollary \[Representation\_Hecke\] for each $n$ we do have a non-trivial [C$^*$-]{}representation. Hence $q$ must be a root of unity.
\[Def\_representation\] Suppose that ${\mathcal{C}}$ is a strict $SU(d)$-type category with fundamental object $X$. Consider for $m \leq n$ the map $$i_{m,n}\colon \operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}m}){\rightarrow}\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}n}), \qquad T\mapsto T\otimes \iota^{{\otimes}(n-m)}.$$ Clearly if $k\leq m\leq n$, then $i_{m,n}i_{k,m}=i_{k,n}$. Thus the algebraic inductive limit of $(\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}n}),i_{m,n})$ exists, denote this limit by $M_{\mathcal{C}}$. The representations $\theta_n\colon H_n(q_{\mathcal{C}}){\rightarrow}\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}n})$ obtained from Corollary \[Representation\_Hecke\] satisfy $i_{m,n}\circ\theta_m(x)=\theta_n\circ i_{m,n}(x)$ for all $m,n$ and $x\in H_m(q_{\mathcal{C}})$. Thus the collection $\{\theta_n\}_n$ extends to a representation of the inductive limits $\theta_{\mathcal{C}}\colon H_\infty(q_{\mathcal{C}}){\rightarrow}M_{\mathcal{C}}$. We denote $\theta_{\mathcal{C}}(x)=\theta_n(x)=\iota_{m,n}(\theta_m(x))\in\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}n})$ for $x\in H_n(q)\subset H_\infty(q)$. Again we will write just $\theta$ if no confusion is possible.
\[Markov\_categorical\_trace\] Let $R\colon{\mathds{1}}{\rightarrow}\overline{X}{\otimes}X$, $\overline{R}\colon{\mathds{1}}{\rightarrow}X{\otimes}\overline{X}$ be a standard solution of the conjugate equations. The categorical trace $\operatorname{Tr}_{\mathcal{C}}$ on ${\mathcal{C}}$ induces a Markov trace $\operatorname{tr}_{{\mathcal{C}}}$ on $H_\infty(q)$ via $$\label{eq_Def_Markov_trace1}
\operatorname{tr}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(x):=\|R\|^{-2n}\operatorname{Tr}_{X^{{\otimes}n}}(\theta_{\mathcal{C}}(x)), \qquad (x\in H_{n}(q)\subset H_\infty(q)).$$
Recall that if $R,\overline{R}$ and $S,\overline{S}$ are standard solutions for $U$ respectively $V$ then $(\iota{\otimes}R{\otimes}\iota)S$ and $(\iota{\otimes}\overline{S}{\otimes}\iota)\overline{R}$ are a standard solution for $U{\otimes}V$ [@NeshveyevTuset13 Thm 2.2.16]. It follows immediately that $\operatorname{Tr}_{U{\otimes}V} = \operatorname{Tr}_U (\iota{\otimes}\operatorname{Tr}_{V}) = \operatorname{Tr}_V (\operatorname{Tr}_U{\otimes}\iota)$. Suppose that $x\in H_n(q)$ and $n<m$, then $$(\iota^{{\otimes}m-1}{\otimes}\operatorname{Tr}_{X})(\theta(x)) = (\iota^{{\otimes}m-1}{\otimes}\overline{R}^*) (\theta(x){\otimes}\iota) (\iota^{{\otimes}m-1}{\otimes}\overline{R}) = \|R\|^2 \theta (x)\in \operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}m-1}).$$ We conclude that $\operatorname{tr}_{\mathcal{C}}$ is independent of $n$.\
Since $\operatorname{Tr}_{X^{{\otimes}n}}$ is tracial, it only remains to check that $\operatorname{tr}_{\mathcal{C}}$ has the Markov property. Since $X$ is simple, there exists a scalar $\lambda\in{\mathbb{C}}$ such that $(\iota{\otimes}\operatorname{Tr})(a_1)=\lambda\iota$. Then $(\iota^{{\otimes}n}{\otimes}\operatorname{Tr})(a_n)=\lambda\iota^{{\otimes}n}$ and also $$\operatorname{tr}_{\mathcal{C}}(e_1) = \|R\|^{-4} \operatorname{Tr}_{X^{{\otimes}2}}(\theta(e_1)) = \|R\|^{-4} \operatorname{Tr}_X ((\iota{\otimes}\operatorname{Tr}_X)(a_1)) = \|R\|^{-4} \operatorname{Tr}_X (\lambda\iota) = \|R\|^{-2}\lambda.$$ Now suppose that $x,y\in H_n(q)$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{tr}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(xe_ny) &= \|R\|^{-2n-2}\operatorname{Tr}_{X^{{\otimes}n+1}}(\theta(xe_ny)) \\
&= \|R\|^{-2n-2}\operatorname{Tr}_{X^{{\otimes}n}}\circ (\iota^{{\otimes}n}{\otimes}\operatorname{Tr}_X)\big(\theta(x)\theta(e_n)\theta(y)\big) \\
&= \|R\|^{-2n-2}\operatorname{Tr}_{X^{{\otimes}n}}\big(\theta(x)\cdot (\iota^{{\otimes}n-1}{\otimes}((\iota{\otimes}\operatorname{Tr}_X)(a_1)))\cdot \theta(y)\big) \\
&= \|R\|^{-2n-2}\operatorname{Tr}_{X^{{\otimes}n}}(\lambda\theta(xy)) \\
&= \operatorname{tr}_{\mathcal{C}}(e_1)\operatorname{tr}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(xy).\end{aligned}$$ Hence $\operatorname{tr}_{\mathcal{C}}$ is a Markov trace.
With these Markov traces it is possible to show that the representation of the Hecke algebra is independent of the category ${\mathcal{C}}$ in the following sense.
\[equivalence\_of\_representations\] If ${\mathcal{C}}$ is a strict $SU(d)$-type category, then $q_{\mathcal{C}}\in(0,1]$ and the Markov trace satisfies $\operatorname{tr}_{\mathcal{C}}(g_1)=\frac{q_{\mathcal{C}}^d}{[d]_{q_{\mathcal{C}}}}$. Therefore the kernel of the representation $\theta_{{\mathcal{C}}}\colon H_n(q_{\mathcal{C}}){\rightarrow}\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}n})$ depends only on $q_{\mathcal{C}}$. Furthermore $\theta_{{\mathcal{C}}}(H_n(q_{{\mathcal{C}}}))=\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}n})$.
Since $\|\theta(x^*x)\|=\|\theta(x)\|^2$, it holds that $\theta(x)=0$ if and only if $\theta(x^*x)=0$. Because the categorical trace $\operatorname{Tr}_{X^{{\otimes}n}}$ is faithful, we obtain that $$\ker(\theta\colon H_n(q){\rightarrow}\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}n}))=\{x\in H_n(q)\,:\, \operatorname{tr}_{\mathcal{C}}(x^*x)=0\}.$$ To characterize the kernel of $\theta$ by Proposition \[Markov\_categorical\_trace\] and Lemma \[equivalent\_Markov\_traces\] it suffices to show that $\operatorname{tr}_{\mathcal{C}}(g_1)$ can be computed in terms of $q$. This is non-trivial and has been done by Kazhdan and Wenzl (see [@KazhdanWenzl Thm. 4.1]), here they also prove surjectivity of $\theta$. The idea of their proof is to decompose $H_n(q)/I_n^\mu\cong \bigoplus_i M_i({\mathbb{C}})$ as a direct sum of matrix algebras $M_i({\mathbb{C}})$. Here $I_n^\mu:=\{x\in H_n(q)\,:\, \operatorname{tr}_\mu(xy)=0 \textrm{ for all } y\in H_n(q)\}$ and $\operatorname{tr}_\mu$ is the unique Markov trace such that $\operatorname{tr}_\mu(g_1)=\mu$. The values $\mu=\frac{q^m}{[m]_q}$ for $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$ play a special role (see [@KazhdanWenzl Prop. 3.1]). These matrix blocks $M_i({\mathbb{C}})$ are related to Young diagrams and thus to representations of $SU(n)$. This allows to compare the dimensions of $H_n(q)/I_n^\mu$ and $\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}n})$. From these dimensions one can deduce that $\operatorname{tr}(g_1)=\frac{q^d}{[d]_{q}}$ and that $q$ cannot be a non-trivial root of unity. Therefore by Lemmas \[constant\_q\] and \[q\_root\_unity\] it follows that $q\in(0,1]$. Furthermore one can show that $I_n^{\operatorname{tr}_{\mathcal{C}}(g_1)}=\ker(\theta:H_n(q){\rightarrow}\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}n}))$ and by using another dimension argument one has $H_n(q)/\ker(\theta)\cong\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}n})$, thus $\theta$ must be surjective.
Combining the above theorem, Remark \[different\_representations\] and [@Pinzari07 Prop. 4.1] it follows that for $n>d$ the kernel $\ker(\theta_{\mathcal{C}}\colon H_n(q){\rightarrow}\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}n}))$ equals the ideal generated by the element $B_{d+1}\in H_n(q)$.
Categories generated by Hecke algebras {#Categories_Hecke_algebras}
======================================
In this section we will give a number of technical requirements on [C$^*$-]{}tensor categories which allow us to prove that a category which satisfies these assumptions is in fact unitarily monoidally equivalent to a twist of $\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))$. In the next section we will use this result to show that all $SU(d)$-type categories are equivalent to $\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))$. Furthermore we will show that in a special case these categories admit a braiding.
\[assum\_cat\] Assume ${\mathcal{C}}$ is a strict [C$^*$-]{}tensor category generated by an object $X$ which satisfies the following requirements:
1. there exists a constant $q_{\mathcal{C}}\in(0,1]$ and a projection $a\in\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}2})$ such that $$(a{\otimes}\iota)(\iota{\otimes}a)(a{\otimes}\iota) - \frac{q_{\mathcal{C}}}{(1+q_{\mathcal{C}})^2}(a{\otimes}\iota) = (\iota{\otimes}a)(a{\otimes}\iota)(\iota{\otimes}a) - \frac{q_{\mathcal{C}}}{(1+q_{\mathcal{C}})^2}(\iota{\otimes}a);$$
This requirement defines a representation $\theta_n\colon H_n(q_{\mathcal{C}}){\rightarrow}\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}n})$, $e_i\mapsto \iota^{{\otimes}i-1}{\otimes}a{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}n-i-1}$.
1. $\theta_n\colon H_n(q_{\mathcal{C}}) {\rightarrow}\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}n})$ is surjective;
2. $\ker(\theta_n\colon H_n(q_{\mathcal{C}}){\rightarrow}\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}n}))= \ker(\eta_n\colon H_n(q_{\mathcal{C}}){\rightarrow}\operatorname{End}({\mathcal{H}}^{{\otimes}n}))$, here $\eta_n$ is as in Notation \[Def\_rep\_SUmud\];
3. there exists an integer $d_{\mathcal{C}}\geq 2$ and a morphism $\nu\in\operatorname{Hom}({\mathds{1}}, X^{{\otimes}d_{\mathcal{C}}})$ such that $\nu^*\nu=\iota$ and $\nu\nu^*=\theta(F_{d_{\mathcal{C}}})$;
4. there exists a $d_{\mathcal{C}}$-th root of unity $\omega_{\mathcal{C}}$ such that $\theta(g_{d_{\mathcal{C}}}\cdots g_1)(\iota{\otimes}\nu)=\omega_{\mathcal{C}}q_{\mathcal{C}}^{(d_{\mathcal{C}}+1)/2} (\nu{\otimes}\iota)$;
5. $\operatorname{Hom}(X^{{\otimes}m}, X^{{\otimes}n})=\{0\}$, if $m\not\equiv n\pmod{d_{\mathcal{C}}}$.
We let $\mu_{\mathcal{C}}\in(0,1]$, $\mu_{\mathcal{C}}:=q_{\mathcal{C}}^{1/2}$. If it is clear which category is considered, the subscript $_{\mathcal{C}}$ will be dropped.
The results in Proposition \[computations\_SUmud\] show that $\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))$ satisfies the conditions (i) and (iii)-(vi) of the assumption above. The fact that the representation $\eta:H_n(q){\rightarrow}\operatorname{End}({\mathcal{H}}^{{\otimes}n})$ is surjective follows from Theorem \[equivalence\_of\_representations\]. So $\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))$ satisfies Assumption \[assum\_cat\].
If ${\mathcal{C}}$ is strict, then ${\mathcal{C}}^{\rho}$ (see Definition \[twisting\_category\]) is in general not strict. We define $\theta_n(g_i)\in\operatorname{End}_{{\mathcal{C}}^\rho}(X^{{\otimes}n})$ to be the composition $$\xymatrix{X^{{\otimes}n}\ar[r]^-{\alpha} & X^{{\otimes}i-1} {\otimes}(X^{{\otimes}2}{\otimes}X^{{\otimes}n-i-1}) \ar[r]^-{\beta} & X^{{\otimes}i-1}{\otimes}(X^{{\otimes}2}{\otimes}X^{{\otimes}n-i-1}) \ar[r]^-{\alpha^{-1}}& X^{{\otimes}n}.}$$ Here $\alpha$ is the appropriate associativity morphism in ${\mathcal{C}}^\rho$ and $\beta:=\iota^{{\otimes}i-1}{\otimes}(\theta_2(g_1){\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}n-i-1})$.
As shown in the next proposition the constant $\omega$ behaves nicely with respect to twisting the associativity morphisms of a category ${\mathcal{C}}$. This proposition will be of importance, because in some cases it implies that we can restrict ourselves to the case $\omega=1$.
\[twist\_of\_sld\_category\] Suppose that ${\mathcal{C}}$ satisfies the requirements of Assumption \[assum\_cat\] and $\rho$ is a root of unity of order $d_{\mathcal{C}}$, then in ${\mathcal{C}}^\rho$ the equality $(\nu^*{\otimes}\iota)\theta(g_{d_{\mathcal{C}}})\cdots\theta(g_1)(\iota{\otimes}\nu)= \rho^{-1}\omega_{\mathcal{C}}\mu_{\mathcal{C}}^{d_{\mathcal{C}}+1}\iota$ holds. In particular if $\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}$ is the strictification of ${\mathcal{C}}^{\omega_{\mathcal{C}}}$, then in $\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}$ it holds that $(\nu^*{\otimes}\iota)\theta(g_{d_{\mathcal{C}}}\cdots g_1)(\iota{\otimes}\nu)= \mu_{\mathcal{C}}^{d_{\mathcal{C}}+1}\iota$.
Since in general ${\mathcal{C}}^{\rho}$ is not strict, consider $(\nu^*{\otimes}\iota)\theta(g_d)\cdots\theta(g_1)(\iota{\otimes}\nu)$ which equals the composition $$\begin{aligned}
&\xymatrix{X=X{\otimes}\iota\ar[r]^-{\iota{\otimes}\nu} & X{\otimes}X^{{\otimes}d}\ar[r]^-{\alpha^\rho_1} & X^{{\otimes}2}{\otimes}X^{{\otimes}d-1}\ar[rr]^-{\theta(g_1){\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}d-1}} && X^{{\otimes}2}{\otimes}X^{{\otimes}d-1} \ar[r]^-{\alpha^\rho_2}&} \notag \\
&\xymatrix{X {\otimes}(X^{{\otimes}2}{\otimes}X^{{\otimes}d-2}) \ar[rr]^-{\iota{\otimes}(\theta(g_1){\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}d-2})} && \cdots \ar[r]^-{\alpha^\rho_{d}}& X^{{\otimes}d-1}{\otimes}X^{{\otimes}2} \ar[rr]^-{\iota^{{\otimes}d-1}{\otimes}\theta(g_1)}& &X^{{\otimes}d-1}{\otimes}X^{{\otimes}2} \ar[r]^-{\alpha^\rho_{d+1}} &}\notag\\
&\xymatrix{X^{{\otimes}d}{\otimes}X \ar[r]^-{\nu^*{\otimes}\iota}& {\mathds{1}}{\otimes}X =X.}\label{eq_twist_of_sld_category1}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\alpha_i^\rho$ are the associativity morphisms in ${\mathcal{C}}^\rho$. The composition of these morphisms $\alpha^\rho_{d+1}\circ\cdots\circ\alpha^\rho_2\circ\alpha^\rho_1$ equals the associativity morphism $\alpha^\rho\colon X{\otimes}X^{{\otimes}d}{\rightarrow}X^{{\otimes}d}{\otimes}X$, which by Lemma \[twisted\_associativity\_morphisms\] acts as multiplication by $\rho^{-1\lfloor\frac{d}{d}\rfloor} = \rho^{-1}$. In ${\mathcal{C}}$ the associativity morphisms are trivial. Thus if we replace $\alpha^\rho$ by the associativity morphisms $\alpha$ of ${\mathcal{C}}$, in ${\mathcal{C}}$ the composition equals $\mu_{\mathcal{C}}^{d+1}\omega_{\mathcal{C}}\iota$ by requirement (v) of Assumption \[assum\_cat\]. Hence in ${\mathcal{C}}^{\rho}$ the morphism acts as $\rho^{-1}\mu_{\mathcal{C}}^{d+1}\omega_{\mathcal{C}}\iota$, as desired.
Let $\delta_{\mathcal{C}}:=(\omega_{\mathcal{C}}\mu_{\mathcal{C}}^{d_{\mathcal{C}}+1})^{-\frac{1}{d_{\mathcal{C}}}}$. Denote $$T_{m,n}:=\delta_{\mathcal{C}}^{mn}\theta_{\mathcal{C}}(g_{\sigma_{m,n}})\in\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}m+n}).$$ Observe the crucial property $T_{1,d_{\mathcal{C}}}=(\omega_{\mathcal{C}}\mu_{\mathcal{C}}^{d_{\mathcal{C}}+1})^{-1}\theta(g_{d_{\mathcal{C}}}\cdots g_1)$, which implies that $T_{1,d_{\mathcal{C}}}(\iota{\otimes}\nu)=\nu{\otimes}\iota$.
The following proposition is similar to [@KazhdanWenzl Prop. 2.2 a)].
\[braiding\] Suppose that ${\mathcal{C}}$ satisfies Assumption \[assum\_cat\] and $\omega_{\mathcal{C}}=\pm1$, then the collection of morphisms $\{T_{m,n}\}_{m,n\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ defines a braiding on the category ${\mathcal{C}}$. Explicitly, $$\begin{aligned}
T_{k,m+n} &= (\iota^{{\otimes}m}{\otimes}T_{k,n})(T_{k,m}{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}n}); \label{eq_braiding1}\\
T_{k+m,n} &=(T_{k,n}{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}m})(\iota^{{\otimes}k}{\otimes}T_{m,n}); \label{eq_braiding2}\\
(\beta{\otimes}\alpha)T_{k,m} &= T_{l,n}(\alpha{\otimes}\beta), \qquad \qquad \textrm{for all }\alpha\in\operatorname{Hom}(X^{{\otimes}k}, X^{{\otimes}l}),\, \beta\in\operatorname{Hom}(X^{{\otimes}m}, X^{{\otimes}n}).\label{eq_braiding9}\end{aligned}$$
Note that the case $\omega=-1$ can only occur when $d$ is even, because $\omega$ is a $d$-th root of unity.
From the explicit formulas in Lemma \[Hecke\_braiding\] we obtain the identities $$\Sigma^m(g_{\sigma_{k,n}})g_{\sigma_{k,m}} = g_{\sigma_{k,m+n}}, \qquad g_{\sigma_{k,n}}\Sigma^k(g_{\sigma_{m,n}})=g_{\sigma_{k+m,n}},$$ from which and immediately follow. Denote the morphism $\nu_{m,n}:=\iota^{{\otimes}m}{\otimes}\nu{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}n}\in\operatorname{Hom}(X^{{\otimes}m+n}, X^{{\otimes}m+d+n})$. The collection $\{T_{m,n}\}_{m,n}$ satisfies the following relations $$\begin{aligned}
&(T_{m,d}{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}n})\nu_{m,n}=\nu_{0,m+n};\label{eq_braiding3}\\
&(T_{d,m}{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}n})\nu_{0,m+n}=\nu_{m,n}; \label{eq_braiding4}\\
&\nu_{m,n}^*(T_{d,m}{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}n}) = \nu^*_{0,m+n}; \label{eq_braiding5}\\
&\nu_{0,m+n}^*(T_{m,d}{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}n}) = \nu^*_{m,n}. \label{eq_braiding6}\end{aligned}$$ Indeed, the case $m=1$ of follows immediately from $$\label{eq_braiding7}
(\nu^*{\otimes}\iota)\eta(g_d\cdots g_1)(\iota{\otimes}\nu)=\omega\mu^{d+1}\iota$$ and the definition of $T_{1,d}$. The case $m>1$ can be proved using induction and . For observe that taking the adjoint of gives $$(\iota{\otimes}\nu^*)\eta(g_1\cdots g_d)(\nu{\otimes}\iota)\omega\mu^{d+1}\iota$$ Here it is crucial that $\omega= \pm1$, otherwise we would have the factor $\overline{\omega}$. From this equation follows for $m=1$ and the general case can again be proved by induction. The identities and follow from respectively and by taking conjugates. Again the requirement $\omega=\pm1$ is implicitly used.\
By assumption on ${\mathcal{C}}$ the map $\theta\colon H_n(q){\rightarrow}\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}n})$ is surjective. Combination with Lemma \[Hecke\_braiding\] gives immediately that for all $\alpha\in\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}m})$ and $\beta\in\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}n})$ $$\label{eq_braiding8}
T_{m,n}(\alpha{\otimes}\beta)=(\beta{\otimes}\alpha)T_{m,n}.$$ It remains to show that also holds for $\alpha\in\operatorname{Hom}(X^{{\otimes}k},X^{{\otimes}l})$ and $\beta\in\operatorname{Hom}(X^{{\otimes}m},X^{{\otimes}n})$. We may assume that $k=l+pd$ and $m=n+qd$ for some $p,q\in{\mathbb{Z}}$. We will proceed by induction on $p$ and $q$. The basis case $p=q=0$ is exactly . So first suppose that $p\geq1$, $q=0$, $\alpha\in\operatorname{Hom}(X^{{\otimes}k},X^{{\otimes}l})$ and $\beta\in\operatorname{Hom}(X^{{\otimes}m},X^{{\otimes}m})$. Then $(\nu{\otimes}\alpha)\in\operatorname{Hom}(X^{{\otimes}k}, X^{{\otimes}l+d})$. Using the induction hypothesis, and we have $$\begin{aligned}
\nu_{m,l}(\beta{\otimes}\alpha)T_{k,m} &= (\beta{\otimes}\nu{\otimes}\alpha)T_{k,m} = T_{l+d,m} (\nu{\otimes}\alpha{\otimes}\beta)\\
&= (T_{d,m}{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}l})(\iota^{{\otimes}d}{\otimes}T_{l,m})(\nu{\otimes}\alpha{\otimes}\beta) = (T_{d,m}{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}l})(\nu_{0,l+m})T_{l,m}(\alpha{\otimes}\beta)\\
&=\nu_{m,l}T_{l,m}(\alpha{\otimes}\beta).\end{aligned}$$ Since the map $\operatorname{Hom}(X^{{\otimes}r},X^{{\otimes}u+v}){\rightarrow}\operatorname{Hom}(X^{{\otimes}r},X^{{\otimes}u+d+v})$, $\gamma\mapsto \nu_{u,v}\circ\gamma$ is injective, it follows by induction that $(\beta{\otimes}\alpha)T_{k,m} =T_{l,m}(\alpha{\otimes}\beta)$. Now suppose that $p<0$, then $(\nu^*{\otimes}a)\in\operatorname{Hom}(X^{{\otimes}k+d},X^{{\otimes}l})$ with a similar argument as above involving the relations and one can show that $$(\beta{\otimes}\alpha)T_{k,m}\nu^*_{0,k+m} = T_{l,n}(\alpha{\otimes}\beta)\nu^*_{0,k+m}.$$ Injectivity of the map $\operatorname{Hom}(X^{{\otimes}u+v},X^{{\otimes}s}){\rightarrow}\operatorname{Hom}(X^{{\otimes}u+d+v},X^{{\otimes}s})$, $\gamma\mapsto\gamma\circ\nu^*_{u,v}$ closes the induction on $p$. Induction on $q$ is similar and thus holds.
\[characterization\] Suppose that ${\mathcal{C}}$ satisfies the requirements of Assumptions \[assum\_cat\]. Then ${\mathcal{C}}$ is unitarily monoidally equivalent to $\operatorname{Rep}(SU_{\mu_{\mathcal{C}}}(d_{\mathcal{C}}))^{\overline{\omega_{\mathcal{C}}}}$.
This theorem uses the ideas of monoidal algebras as described by Kazhdan and Wenzl in [@KazhdanWenzl 2]. The proof of this theorem is very similar to the proof of [@KazhdanWenzl Proposition 2.2 b)] and therefore the computational details will be omitted.
From Proposition \[twist\_of\_sld\_category\] and Remark \[double\_twist\] it follows that it suffices to consider the case $\omega_{\mathcal{C}}=1$. The idea of the proof of this theorem is to extend the isomorphisms $\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}n}){\rightarrow}\operatorname{End}({\mathcal{H}}^{{\otimes}n})$ to $\operatorname{Hom}(X^{{\otimes}k}, X^{{\otimes}l}){\rightarrow}\operatorname{Hom}({\mathcal{H}}^{{\otimes}k}, {\mathcal{H}}^{{\otimes}l})$ by embedding $\operatorname{Hom}(X^{{\otimes}k}, X^{{\otimes}l})$ into $\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}p})$ for some large $p\in{\mathbb{N}}$ using the maps $\alpha\mapsto \alpha{\otimes}\nu$ and $\alpha\mapsto\alpha{\otimes}\nu^*$. For this, suppose that $k,l,m,n,p\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that $p=m+kd=n+ld$. We will define some subspaces and maps for ${\mathcal{C}}$. Note that these constructions can of course also be performed in $\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))$. Define the map $$\begin{aligned}
H_p^{m,n}\colon \operatorname{Hom}(X^{{\otimes}m},X^{{\otimes}n})&{\rightarrow}\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}p}),\\
\alpha\mapsto (\nu^{{\otimes}l}{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}n})\alpha((\nu^*)^{{\otimes}k}{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}m}) &= \nu^{{\otimes}l}{\otimes}(\nu^*)^{{\otimes}k}{\otimes}\alpha.\end{aligned}$$ Then cleary $H_p^{m,n}$ is linear. Define the subspace $\Sigma_p^{m,n}\subset\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}p})$ to be $$\Sigma_p^{m,n}:=\{\beta\in\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}p})\,:\, ((\nu\nu^*)^{{\otimes}l}{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}n})\beta = \beta ((\nu\nu^*)^{{\otimes}k}{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}m}) = \beta\}.$$
The proof of the following lemmas is omitted, because it is very similar to [@KazhdanWenzl 2], the only additional requirement one has to check is compatibility of the $*$-structure, but this follows directly from the definitions.
$H_p^{m,n}$ is an isomorphism of $\operatorname{Hom}(X^{{\otimes}m},X^{{\otimes}n})$ onto $\Sigma_p^{m,n}$. Furthermore for $\alpha\in\operatorname{Hom}(X^{{\otimes}m},X^{{\otimes}n})$ and $\beta\in\operatorname{Hom}(X^{{\otimes}n},X^{{\otimes}r})$ the following identities hold $$H_p^{m,n}(\alpha)^* = H_p^{n,m}(\alpha^*), \qquad H_p^{n,r}(\beta)\circ H_p^{m,n}(\alpha)=H_p^{m,r}(\beta\circ\alpha).$$
For each $p$, let $\psi_p\colon\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}p}){\rightarrow}\operatorname{End}({\mathcal{H}}^{{\otimes}p})$ be a $*$-isomorphism making the diagram $$\xymatrix{H_p(q)\ar[r]^-{\theta_p}\ar[rd]_{\eta_p} & \operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}p})\ar[d]^{\psi_p} \\ & \operatorname{End}({\mathcal{H}}^{{\otimes}p})}$$ commute. Such an isomorphism exists, because by assumption and Theorem \[equivalence\_of\_representations\] $\theta_p\colon H_p(q){\rightarrow}\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}p})$ and $\eta_p\colon H_p(q){\rightarrow}\operatorname{End}({\mathcal{H}}^{{\otimes}p})$ are surjective and $\ker(\theta) = \ker(\eta)$. Let us write $\kappa:= \|S\|^{-1} S$, where $S\colon {\mathds{1}}{\rightarrow}{\mathcal{H}}^{{\otimes}d}$ is the intertwiner defined in . Because $\nu\nu^*=\theta(F_d)$ and $\kappa\kappa^* = \|S\|^{-2}SS^* = \eta(F_d)$, we have $\psi_{d}(\nu\nu^*)=\|S\|^{-2}SS^*=\kappa\kappa^*$. Define for $m\equiv n\pmod{d}$ the map $\psi_{m,n}$ which is the composition $$\xymatrix{\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{C}}}(X^{{\otimes}m},X^{{\otimes}n})\ar[r]^-{H_{p,{\mathcal{C}}}^{m,n}} &\Sigma_{p,{\mathcal{C}}}^{m,n} \ar[r]^-{\psi_p} & \Sigma_{p,\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))}^{m,n} \ar[rr]^-{(H_{p,\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))}^{m,n})^{-1}} && \operatorname{Hom}_{\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))}({\mathcal{H}}^{{\otimes}m},{\mathcal{H}}^{{\otimes}n}).}$$
\[fully\_faithful\] The morphisms $\psi_{m,n}$ are well-defined (independent of $p$) isomorphisms of linear spaces and satisfy $$\psi_{m,n}(\alpha^*) = \psi_{n,m}(\alpha)^*, \qquad \psi_{n,r}(\beta)\circ\psi_{m,n}(\alpha) = \psi_{m,r}(\beta\circ\alpha).$$
With these isomorphisms $(\psi_{m,n})_{m,n}$ we are able to define a unitary tensor functor from ${\mathcal{C}}$ to $\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))$. For this consider the full subcategory $\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}$ of ${\mathcal{C}}$ with objects $\operatorname{Ob}(\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}} ):=\{X^{{\otimes}n}\,:\, n\in{\mathbb{N}}\}$ and ${\mathcal{D}}$ the full subcategory of $\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))$ with objects $\operatorname{Ob}({\mathcal{D}}):=\{{\mathcal{H}}^{{\otimes}n}\,:\, n\in{\mathbb{N}}\}$. Then the completion of $\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}$ and ${\mathcal{D}}$ with respect to direct sums and subobjects equal respectively ${\mathcal{C}}$ and $\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))$. Define $\tilde{F}\colon\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}{\rightarrow}{\mathcal{D}}$ by $X^{{\otimes}n}\mapsto{\mathcal{H}}^{{\otimes}n}$ on objects, $\tilde{F}(\alpha):= \psi_{m,n}(\alpha)$ for morphisms $\alpha\in\operatorname{Hom}(X^{{\otimes}m}, X^{{\otimes}n})$ and $\tilde{F}_0=id$, $\tilde{F}_2=id$. $\tilde{F}(\alpha)$ is well-defined, because by assumption $m\equiv n\pmod{d}$ if $\alpha\neq 0$.
\[unitary\_tensor\_functor\] $\tilde{F}$ is a unitary tensor functor.
Clearly $\tilde{F}$ is essentially surjective. Note that Lemmas \[fully\_faithful\] and \[unitary\_tensor\_functor\] imply that $\tilde{F}$ is a fully faithful unitary tensor functor. Taking the completions of $\tilde{{\mathcal{C}}}$ and ${\mathcal{D}}$ with respect to direct sums and subobjects gives us the categories ${\mathcal{C}}$ and $\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))$. Under this completion $\tilde{F}$ extends uniquely (up to natural unitary isomorphism) to a unitary tensor functor $F\colon{\mathcal{C}}{\rightarrow}\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))$. Then $F$ is again fully faithful and essentially surjective. So $F$ is a unitary monoidal equivalence, in other words ${\mathcal{C}}$ is unitarily monoidally equivalent to $\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))$.
Two characterizations of $SU(d)$-type categories {#2characterizations}
================================================
The aim of this section is to prove the main results of this paper, namely to characterise all $SU(d)$-type categories and to give a condition when it is possible to embed $\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))$ in a given [C$^*$-]{}tensor category. It will be shown that all $SU(d)$-type categories can be classified by a pair $(q,\omega)$ where $q\in(0,1]$ and $\omega$ is a $d$-th root of unity. The requirement for existence an embedding is given by six identities which basically state that if a category satisfies those requirements, there exist a representation of the Hecke algebra, and the twist and solutions of the conjugate equations can be explicitly computed. The proofs of both theorems consist of showing that in both cases the Assumptions \[assum\_cat\] are satisfied allowing to apply Theorem \[characterization\].
\[def\_twist\] Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be a strict $SU(d)$-type category. Since in $\operatorname{Rep}(SU(d))$ the trivial representation ${\mathbb{C}}$ is a subrepresentation of $V^{{\otimes}d}$, there exist a morphism $\nu\colon{\mathds{1}}\hookrightarrow X^{{\otimes}d}$, such that $\nu^*\nu= id_{{\mathds{1}}}$ and $\nu\nu^*\in\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}d})$ is a projection. We define the [*twist*]{} $\tau_{\mathcal{C}}$ of ${\mathcal{C}}$ to be the number by which one multiplies in the following composition[^2] $$\xymatrix{X=X{\otimes}{\mathds{1}}\ar[r]^-{\iota{\otimes}\nu}& X{\otimes}X^{{\otimes}d} \ar[rr]^{\theta(g_d\cdots g_1)} &&X^{{\otimes}d}{\otimes}X \ar[r]^-{\nu^*{\otimes}\iota} & {\mathds{1}}{\otimes}X = X.}$$ Note that since $X$ is simple, we obtain a scalar. Also $\tau_{\mathcal{C}}$ is clearly independent of the choice of $\nu$. Again, a priori it is not clear why $\tau_{\mathcal{C}}$ is independent of the choice of $X$. Fortunately this is the case as we will show later (cf. Remark \[uniqueness\_constants\]).
\[shift\] The following holds: $\theta(g_d\cdots g_1)(\iota{\otimes}\nu) = \tau_{\mathcal{C}}(\nu{\otimes}\iota)$.
Note that $\nu\nu^*\in\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}d})$. From Theorem \[equivalence\_of\_representations\] we obtain that there exists a $x\in H_d(q)$ such that $\nu\nu^*=\theta(x)$. By Lemma \[Hecke\_braiding\] it therefore follows that $\theta(g_d\cdots g_1)(\iota{\otimes}\nu\nu^*) = (\nu\nu^*{\otimes}\iota)\theta(g_d\cdots g_1)$. Since $\nu^*\nu=\iota$ we have $$\theta(g_d\cdots g_1)(\iota{\otimes}\nu) = \theta(g_d\cdots g_1)(\iota{\otimes}\nu\nu^*)(\iota{\otimes}\nu) = (\nu\nu^*{\otimes}\iota)\theta(g_d\cdots g_1)(\iota{\otimes}\nu)$$ and the result follows.
Observe that identity of Proposition \[computations\_SUmud\] implies that the twist of $\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))$ equals $\mu^{d+1}$.
Since for a strict $SU(d)$-type category ${\mathcal{C}}$ the constant $q_{\mathcal{C}}\in(0,1]$, define $\mu_{\mathcal{C}}\in(0,1]$ to be the positive square root of $q_{\mathcal{C}}$.
\[Fn\_projection\] Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be a strict $SU(d)$-type category. For $n\leq d$, the morphism $\theta(F_n)\in\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}n})$ is the projection corresponding to the inclusion $X^{{\otimes}n} \subset X_{\{1^n\}}$. Here $X_{\{1^d\}}:={\mathds{1}}$, to express the fact that there exists a non-zero morphism $\nu\colon{\mathds{1}}{\rightarrow}X^{{\otimes}d}$.
We proceed by induction. The case $n=2$ is trivial. Suppose that $2\leq n\leq d-1$ and the result holds for $n$. Let $p_k\in\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}k})$ be the projection corresponding to $X_{\{1^k\}}\subset X^{{\otimes}k}$. To prove the induction step we must show that $p_{n+1}=\theta(F_{n+1})$. By the fusion rules of $SU(d)$ we have $X_{\{1^n\}}{\otimes}X \cong X_{\{1^{n+1}\}}\oplus X_{\{2 1^{n-1}\}}$ and $X{\otimes}X_{\{1^n\}} X \cong X_{\{1^{n+1}\}}\oplus X_{\{2 1^{n-1}\}}$. So either $(p_n{\otimes}\iota)(\iota{\otimes}p_n)=p_{n+1}$ or $(p_n{\otimes}\iota)=(\iota{\otimes}p_n)$. Let us argue by contradiction and assume that the second case holds. Let for $i=0,\ldots, n$, $r_i:=\iota^{{\otimes}i}{\otimes}p_n{\otimes}\iota^{n-i}\in\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}2n})$. From the assumption it follows that $r_i=r_{i+1}$ for all $i$ and therefore we have $r_0=r_n$. In particular $r_0(1-r_n) = r_0(1-r_0)=0$. On the other hand $r_0(1-r_n)$ cannot be zero, because e.g., the non-zero object $X_{\{1^n\}}{\otimes}X_{\{n\}}$ lies in the range of $r_0(1-r_n)$, which yields a contradiction. We conclude that $(p_n{\otimes}\iota)(\iota{\otimes}p_n)=p_{n+1}$.\
By Lemma \[properties\_Bn\] we have $F_{n+1}F_n=F_{n+1}\Sigma(F_n)=F_{n+1}$, and thus by the induction hypothesis $\theta(F_{n+1})p_{n+1}= \theta(F_{n+1})(p_n{\otimes}\iota)(\iota{\otimes}p_n) = \theta(F_{n+1} F_n\Sigma(F_n))=\theta(F_{n+1})$. Since $X_{\{n+1\}}$ is simple, $p_{n+1}$ is a minimal projection. By the previous calculation $\theta(F_{n+1})$ is a subprojection of $p_{n+1}$. To show that $\theta(F_{n+1})$ equals $p_{n+1}$ it thus suffices to show that $\theta(F_{n+1})\neq 0$. For this we compute $$\begin{aligned}
(\iota^{{\otimes}n}{\otimes}\operatorname{tr}_{\mathcal{C}})(F_{n+1}) &= [n+1]_{\frac{1}{q}}^{-1} \Big(1+\frac{-1}{q}\frac{q^d}{[d]_q} + \big(\frac{-1}{q}\big)^2\frac{q^d}{[d]_q}g_{n-1} + \ldots + \big(\frac{-1}{q}\big)^n g_1\cdots g_{n-1} \frac{q^d}{[d]_q}\Big) F_n\\
&= [n+1]_{\frac{1}{q}}^{-1} (1-\frac{q^d}{[d]_q} \frac{1}{q} [n]_{\frac{1}{q}}) F_n,\end{aligned}$$ here we used Lemma \[properties\_Bn\]. Since $\frac{q^n}{[n]_q} = \frac{q}{[n]_{\frac{1}{q}}}$ and $n<d$ it follows that $$1-\frac{q^d}{[q]_d} \frac{1}{q} [n]_{\frac{1}{q}} = 1-\frac{q^d}{[d]_q}\,\frac{[n]_q}{q^n} \neq 0.$$ By the induction hypothesis $\operatorname{tr}_{\mathcal{C}}(F_n)\neq 0$, thus $\operatorname{tr}_{\mathcal{C}}(F_{n+1})\neq 0$ and hence $\theta(F_{n+1})\neq 0$.
\[root\_twist\] Suppose that ${\mathcal{C}}$ is a strict $SU(d)$-type category, then there exists a $d$-th root of unity $\omega_{\mathcal{C}}$ such that $\tau_{\mathcal{C}}= \omega_{\mathcal{C}}\mu_{\mathcal{C}}^{d+1}$.
First note that Lemma \[Hecke\_braiding\] implies that $g_{\sigma_{k,d}}=g_{\sigma_{k-1,d}}\Sigma^{k-1}(g_{\sigma_{1,d}})$. Combination with the identity $\theta(g_d\cdots g_1)(\iota{\otimes}\nu)=\tau_{\mathcal{C}}(\nu{\otimes}\iota)$ gives $$\theta(g_{\sigma_{k,d}})(\iota^{{\otimes}k}{\otimes}\nu) = \tau_{\mathcal{C}}\theta(g_{\sigma_{k-1,d}})(\iota^{{\otimes}k-1}{\otimes}\nu{\otimes}\iota).$$ By induction we obtain for all $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ $$\theta(g_{\sigma_{k,d}})(\iota^{{\otimes}k}{\otimes}\nu) = \tau_{\mathcal{C}}^k(\nu{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}k}).$$ Thus in particular $$\theta(g_{\sigma_{d,d}})(\iota^{{\otimes}d}{\otimes}\nu) = \tau_{\mathcal{C}}^d(\nu{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}d}).$$ Multiplying both sides by $(\nu^*{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}d})$ gives $(\nu^*{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}d})\theta(g_{\sigma_{d,d}})(\iota^{{\otimes}d}{\otimes}\nu) = \tau_{\mathcal{C}}^d \iota^{{\otimes}d}$. Combination with the above lemma gives that as a morphism in $\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}2d})$ we have $$(\theta(F_d){\otimes}\theta(F_d))\theta(g_{\sigma_{d,d}})(\theta(F_d){\otimes}\theta(F_d)) = \tau_{\mathcal{C}}^d (\theta(F_d){\otimes}\theta(F_d)).$$ Theorem \[equivalence\_of\_representations\] shows that the representations $\theta$ and $\eta$ are equivalent. In particular this implies that $\tau_{\mathcal{C}}^d = \tau_{\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))}^d = (\mu^{d+1})^d$, which proves the corollary.
In [@KazhdanWenzl Prop. 5.2] it is asserted that $\tau_{\mathcal{C}}= (-1)^d\omega$ for some $d$-th root of unity $\omega$. This is not true as for example the explicit calculation for $SU_\mu(d)$ shows (cf. ). The mistake in the proof, is that it is claimed that $\theta(g_{\sigma_{d,d}})$ acts as $(-1)^{d^2}$ on the object $X_{\{1^d\}}{\otimes}X_{\{1^d\}}$.
Now all the technical work has been done to give a classification of $SU(d)$-type categories.
\[classification\] If ${\mathcal{C}}$ is a $SU(d)$-type category with fundamental object $X$. Then $(\operatorname{Rep}(SU_{\mu_{\mathcal{C}}}(d)))^{\overline{\omega_{\mathcal{C}}}}$ is unitarily monoidally equivalent to ${\mathcal{C}}$. Furthermore ${\mathcal{C}}$ admits a braiding if $\omega_{\mathcal{C}}= \pm1$.
By Corollary \[Representation\_Hecke\] we have a representation of the Hecke algebra $H_n(q_{\mathcal{C}}){\rightarrow}\operatorname{End}_{\mathcal{C}}(X^{{\otimes}n})$. By Theorem \[equivalence\_of\_representations\] this representation is surjective and depends only on $q_{\mathcal{C}}$. As the representation $\eta\colon H_2(q_{\mathcal{C}}){\rightarrow}\operatorname{End}_{\operatorname{Rep}(SU_{\mu_{\mathcal{C}}}(d))}({\mathcal{H}}^{{\otimes}2})$ satisfies that $\eta(e_1)$ is the projection onto ${\mathcal{H}}_{\{1^2\}}$ (cf. Lemma \[projection\_SUd\]), we obtain that $q_{\operatorname{Rep}(SU_{\mu_{\mathcal{C}}}(d))}=q_{\mathcal{C}}$. Then again by Theorem \[equivalence\_of\_representations\] $\ker(\eta)=\ker(\theta)$. Lemmas \[Hom\_Xm\_Xn\], \[shift\], \[Fn\_projection\] and Corollary \[root\_twist\] show that the other requirements of Assumption \[assum\_cat\] are satisfied. Now Proposition \[braiding\] and Theorem \[characterization\] give the result.
It can be shown [@NeshveyevYamashita13 Rem. 4.4] that in general a $SU(d)$-type category is not braided; such a category ${\mathcal{C}}$ admits a braiding if and only if $\omega_{\mathcal{C}}=\pm1$.
\[uniqueness\_constants\] Now we can also prove why the constants $q_{\mathcal{C}}$ and $\tau_{\mathcal{C}}$ are independent of the chosen generator $X$ of the category ${\mathcal{C}}$. By [@McMullen84] all automorphisms of $\operatorname{Rep}(SU(d))$ are in 1-1 correspondence with symmetries of the Dynkin diagram of $SU(d)$. This diagram, consisting of $d-1$ nodes $\{1,2,\ldots, d-1\}$ where the nodes $i$ and $i+1$ are connected by a single edge, has exactly two symmetries, namely the identity and the map given on the nodes by $i\mapsto d-i$. So we only have to show that $q_{\mathcal{C}}$ and $\tau_{\mathcal{C}}$ are invariant under this second, non-trivial, map. This map induces an automorphism of $U_{\mu}(SU(d))$, the quantum enveloping Hopf algebra of $SU(d)$, given on the generators by $E_i\mapsto E_{d-i}$, $F_i\mapsto F_{d-i}$, $K^{\pm}_i\mapsto K^{\pm}_{d-i}$. In $\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))$ it thus maps every object to a conjugate object. Therefore it is sufficient to show that if we would have chosen $\overline{X}$ instead of $X$ as generating object, the resulting constants $q_{\mathcal{C}}$ and $\tau_{\mathcal{C}}$ are the same. This is implicitly proved in [@NeshveyevYamashita13 4.2]. The idea is the following, suppose that in ${\mathcal{C}}$ the associativity morphisms are given by a cocycle $\varphi\in H^3({\mathbb{Z}}/d{\mathbb{Z}},{\mathbb{T}})$, thus $\alpha\colon(X^{{\otimes}a}{\otimes}X^{{\otimes}b}){\otimes}X^{{\otimes}c} {\rightarrow}X^{{\otimes}a}{\otimes}(X^{{\otimes}b}{\otimes}X^{{\otimes}c})$ acts as multiplication by $\varphi(a,b,c)$ (in our case $\varphi$ is of the form $\varphi(a,b,c) = \omega_{\mathcal{C}}^{(\lfloor\frac{a+b}{d}\rfloor - \lfloor\frac{a}{d}\rfloor - \lfloor\frac{a}{d}\rfloor)c}$). We write $\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))^\varphi$ for the category $\operatorname{Rep}(SU_{\mu}(d))$ with these new associativity morphisms. Then ${\mathcal{C}}\cong \operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))^\varphi$. The map $X\mapsto \overline{X}$ then corresponds to changing the cocycle $\varphi$ to the new one given by $\psi(a,b,c):=\varphi(-a,-b,-c)$. Then one obtains an isomorphism $\theta\colon \operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))^\varphi {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{C}}{\rightarrow}\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))^\psi$. The question is now whether this isomorphism acts trivially on $H^3({\mathbb{Z}}/d{\mathbb{Z}},{\mathbb{T}})$. This is indeed the case, since $\varphi=\partial f$, $\psi=\partial g$, where $f(a,b)=\omega^{-\lfloor\frac{a}{d}\rfloor b}$ and $g(a,b)=\omega^{\lfloor\frac{-a}{d}\rfloor b}$ are maps $f,g\colon{\mathbb{Z}}\times {\mathbb{Z}}/d{\mathbb{Z}}{\rightarrow}{\mathbb{T}}$. Now a direct computation shows that $fg^{-1}$ factors through ${\mathbb{Z}}/d{\mathbb{Z}}\times {\mathbb{Z}}/d{\mathbb{Z}}$ and thus $\varphi$ and $\psi$ are equivalent cocycles. Thus $\theta$ acts trivially and $\omega_{\mathcal{C}}$ and $q_{\mathcal{C}}$ are invariant under $X\mapsto \overline{X}$.
Another (more straightforward) method of proving that those constants are invariant is by explicitly computing everything. This can be done in the following way. We adopt the notation as in [@NeshveyevTuset13 2.2] and denote $F\colon{\mathcal{C}}{\rightarrow}{\mathcal{C}}$ for the contravariant tensor functor $$\operatorname{Ob}{{\mathcal{C}}}{\rightarrow}\operatorname{Ob}{{\mathcal{C}}},\qquad U\mapsto \overline{U}; \qquad \qquad \operatorname{Hom}(U,V){\rightarrow}\operatorname{Hom}(\overline{V},\overline{U}),\qquad T\mapsto T^\vee,$$ where $T^\vee:= (\iota{\otimes}\overline{R}_V^*)(\iota{\otimes}T{\otimes}\iota)(R_u{\otimes}\iota)$. Define $F_2(U,V)\colon \overline{V}{\otimes}\overline{U}{\rightarrow}\overline{U{\otimes}V}$ by the identity $$(F_2(U,V){\otimes}\iota{\otimes}\iota)(\iota{\otimes}R_U{\otimes}\iota)R_V=R_{U{\otimes}V}.$$ Put $a^c:=F_2^*(X,X)a^\vee F_2(X,X)$. Then it can be checked that the $a_i^c$ satisfy the relations of $e_i$ in the Hecke algebra $H_n(q_{\mathcal{C}})$ and thus we get a representation $\theta^c\colon H_n(q){\rightarrow}\operatorname{End}_{\mathcal{C}}(\overline{X}^{{\otimes}n})$. Hence $q_{\mathcal{C}}$ is invariant. Now for $\tau_{\mathcal{C}}$ we define $$\nu^c:=(F_2^*(X,X){\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}d-2})\cdots (F_2^*(X^{{\otimes}d-2},X){\otimes}\iota) F_2^*(X^{{\otimes}d-1},X) (\nu^*)^\vee\colon{\mathds{1}}{\rightarrow}\overline{X}^{{\otimes}d}.$$ Then one can verify that $\nu^c$ plays the role of $\nu$ and $$(\nu^{c*}{\otimes}\iota)\theta^c(g_d\cdots g_1)(\iota{\otimes}\nu^c)=\tau_{\mathcal{C}}\iota,$$ whence $\tau_{\mathcal{C}}$ is invariant under the transformation $X\mapsto \overline{X}$.
The above theorem says that all $SU(d)$-type categories can be described by a pair $(q,\omega)$, where $q\in(0,1]$ and $\omega$ is a $d$-th root of unity. Namely we have shown that a $SU(d)$-type category ${\mathcal{C}}$ is isomorphic to $(\operatorname{Rep}(SU_{\sqrt{q}}(d)))^{\overline\omega}$. Now one might wonder if each pair $(q,\omega)$ of this form can be realised by a compact quantum group. This is indeed the case, see [@NeshveyevYamashita13].
Inspired by [@Pinzari07] we have the following condition for the existence of an embedding of a twist of $\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))$ in a [C$^*$-]{}tensor category ${\mathcal{D}}$. We use the notation as introduced in Notation \[Def\_rep\_SUmud\].
\[embedding\] Suppose that ${\mathcal{D}}$ is a strict [C$^*$-]{}tensor category such that there exists an object $X\in\operatorname{Ob}({\mathcal{D}})$, morphisms $\nu\in\operatorname{Hom}({\mathds{1}},X^{{\otimes}d})$, $a\in\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}2})$, a constant $\mu\in(0,1]$ and a $d$-th root of unity $\omega$ satisfying the following properties: $$\begin{aligned}
&a=a^*=a^2;\label{eq_embedding1}\\
&(a{\otimes}\iota)(\iota{\otimes}a)(a{\otimes}\iota) - \frac{q}{(1+q)^2}(a{\otimes}\iota) = (\iota{\otimes}a)(a{\otimes}\iota)(\iota{\otimes}a) - \frac{q}{(1+q)^2}(\iota{\otimes}a); \label{eq_embedding2}\\
&\nu^*\nu=\iota;\label{eq_embedding3}\\
&\nu\nu^* = \theta(F_d);\label{eq_embedding4}\\
&(\nu^*{\otimes}\iota)(\iota{\otimes}\nu) = \omega(-\mu)^{-(d-1)}[d]_{\frac{1}{q}}^{-1}\,\iota ;\label{eq_embedding5}\\
&\theta(g_d\cdots g_1)(\iota{\otimes}\nu) = \omega \mu^{d+1}(\nu{\otimes}\iota).\label{eq_embedding7}\end{aligned}$$ Here $q:=\mu^2$ and $\theta\colon H_n(q){\rightarrow}\operatorname{End}_{{\mathcal{D}}}(X^{{\otimes}n})$ is the representation of the Hecke algebra as in Corollary \[Representation\_Hecke\]. Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be the sub [C$^*$-]{}tensor category of ${\mathcal{D}}$ generated by the object $X$ and morphisms $\nu$ and $a$. Then ${\mathcal{C}}$ is a $SU(d)$-type category and there exists a unique (up to natural unitary isomorphism) unitary tensor functor $F\colon(\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d)))^\omega{\rightarrow}{\mathcal{D}}$ such that $F({\mathcal{H}})=X$ and $F(S)= ([d]_{q}!)^{1/2} \,\nu$, $F(T)= q-(q+1)a$.
First note that equations and together with Corollary \[Representation\_Hecke\] imply that we have a $*$-representation $\theta\colon H_n(q){\rightarrow}\operatorname{End}_{\mathcal{D}}(X^{{\otimes}n})$. Therefore the identities and make sense. We would like to use Theorem \[characterization\], for this we only need to check three conditions: equality of the kernels of $\theta$ and $\eta$, surjectivity of the representation $\theta\colon H_n(q){\rightarrow}\operatorname{End}_{\mathcal{C}}(X^{{\otimes}n})$ and $\operatorname{Hom}(X^{{\otimes}m}, X^{{\otimes}n})=\{0\}$ if $m\not\equiv n \pmod{d}$. Let us start with the easiest one: the last one.\
For this note that $\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathcal{C}}(X^{{\otimes}m},X^{{\otimes}n})$ is generated by $a$ and $\nu$. So if $\alpha\in\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathcal{C}}(X^{{\otimes}m},X^{{\otimes}n})$, then $\alpha=0$, or $\alpha$ is a linear combination of words consisting of the letters $\iota^{{\otimes}k}{\otimes}\nu{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}l}$, $\iota^{{\otimes}k}{\otimes}\nu^*{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}l}$ and $\theta(x)$ for $k,l\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and $x\in H_\infty(q)$. It is sufficient to consider individual words. If $x\in H_p(q)\subset H_\infty(q)$, then $\theta(x)\in\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}p})$ and for $k,l\in{\mathbb{N}}$ we have $\iota^{{\otimes}k}{\otimes}\nu{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}l}\in\operatorname{Hom}(X^{k+l}, X^{k+d+l})$, $\iota^{{\otimes}k}{\otimes}\nu^*{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}l}\in\operatorname{Hom}(X^{k+d+l}, X^{k+l})$. Induction on the length of a word gives the result.\
To be able to prove the other two remaining requirements we first compute $(\nu^*{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}k})(\iota^{{\otimes}k}{\otimes}\nu)$. In the upcoming computations we need the identity $$\label{eq_embedding8}
\theta(g_i)\nu = \theta(g_i)\nu(\nu^*\nu) = \theta(g_iF_d)\nu = -\theta(F_d)\nu= -(\nu\nu^*)\nu= -\nu, \qquad \textrm{for } i=1,\ldots,d-1,$$ which follows from , and Lemma \[properties\_Bn\]. This also implies that $\nu^*\theta(g_i)=-\nu^*$.
\[relations\_nu\_k\] For $k=1,2,\ldots,d-1$ the following equality holds $$\label{eq_relations_nu_k4}
(\nu^*{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}k})(\iota^{{\otimes}k}{\otimes}\nu)= \omega^k \,\frac{[d-k]_{\frac{1}{q}}![k]_{\frac{1}{q}}!}{[d]_{\frac{1}{q}}!} \, (-\mu)^{-k(d-k)}\theta(F_k).$$
We prove this by induction. The case $k=1$ is exactly assumption of the theorem, so we will prove the induction step. Consider the morphism $T:=(\nu^*{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}k })(\iota^{{\otimes}k-1}{\otimes}\nu{\otimes}\iota)(\iota^{{\otimes}k-1}{\otimes}\nu^*{\otimes}\iota)(\iota^{{\otimes}k}{\otimes}\nu)$. By the induction hypothesis and the assumption of this theorem, this morphism equals $$\begin{aligned}
T&= \omega^{k-1} \,\frac{[d-k+1]_{\frac{1}{q}}![k-1]_{\frac{1}{q}}!}{[d]_{\frac{1}{q}}!}\, (-\mu)^{-(k-1)(d-k+1)} \omega (-\mu)^{-(d-1)}[d]_{\frac{1}{q}}^{-1}(\theta(F_{k-1}){\otimes}\iota)\notag\\
&= \omega^{k} \,\frac{[d-k+1]_{\frac{1}{q}}![k-1]_{\frac{1}{q}}!}{[d-1]_{\frac{1}{q}}!}\, (-\mu)^{k^2 -kd-2k+2} (\theta(F_{k-1}){\otimes}\iota).\label{eq_relations_nu_k2}\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand as $\nu\nu^*=\theta(F_d)$, $\theta(g_i)\nu=-\nu$ and $\nu^*\theta(g_i)=-\nu^*$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
T&= (\nu^*{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}k})(\iota^{{\otimes}k-1}{\otimes}\theta(F_d){\otimes}\iota)(\iota^{{\otimes}k}{\otimes}\nu)\notag\\
&=[d]_{\frac{1}{q}}^{-1} (\nu^*{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}k}) \theta(1+ (-q)^{-1}g_k + \ldots + (-q)^{-(d-1)}g_{k+d-2} \cdots g_k)(\iota^{{\otimes}k}{\otimes}\theta(F_{d-1}){\otimes}\iota) (\iota^{{\otimes}k}{\otimes}\nu)\notag\\
&=[d]_{\frac{1}{q}}^{-1} (\nu^*{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}k}) \theta(1+ q^{-1} + \ldots + q^{-(d-k)} + (-q)^{-(d+1-k)}g_d\cdots g_k \notag\\
&\qquad + \ldots + (-q)^{-(d-1)}g_{k+d-2} \cdots g_k)(\iota^{{\otimes}k}{\otimes}\nu)\notag \displaybreak[2]\\
&= [d]_{\frac{1}{q}}^{-1}[d+1-k]_{\frac{1}{q}} (\nu^*{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}k})(\iota^{{\otimes}k}{\otimes}\nu) + [d]_{\frac{1}{q}}^{-1} (-q)^{-(d+1-k)} \notag\\
&\qquad \cdot\theta(1+ (-q)^{-1}g_1+\ldots + (-q)^{-(k-2)}g_{k-2}\cdots g_1)(\nu^*{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}k})\theta(g_d\cdots g_k)(\iota^{{\otimes}k}{\otimes}\nu)\label{eq_relations_nu_k1}\end{aligned}$$ Now note that by the assumptions and induction hypothesis $$\begin{aligned}
(\nu^*{\otimes}&\iota^{{\otimes}k})\theta(g_d\cdots g_k)(\iota^{{\otimes}k}{\otimes}\nu) = (\nu^*{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}k})\theta(g_{d+1}^{-1}\cdots g_{k+d-1}^{-1})\theta(g_{k+d-1}\cdots g_k)(\iota^{{\otimes}k}{\otimes}\nu)\\
&= \theta(g_1^{-1}\cdots g_{k-1}^{-1}) (\nu^*{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}k})\omega\mu^{d+1}(\iota^{{\otimes}k-1}{\otimes}\nu{\otimes}\iota)\\
&= \omega\mu^{d+1} \omega^{k-1} \,\frac{[d-k+1]_{\frac{1}{q}}![k-1]_{\frac{1}{q}}!}{[d]_{\frac{1}{q}}!}\, (-\mu)^{-(k-1)(d-k+1)} \theta(g_1^{-1}\cdots g_{k-1}^{-1})(\theta(F_{k-1}){\otimes}\iota).\end{aligned}$$ Since $$(-q)^{-(d+1-k)}\mu^{d+1}(-\mu)^{-(k-1)(d-(k-1))}=(-1)^{k(d+1-k)}\mu^{-k(d-k)},$$ identity equals $$\begin{aligned}
T=&[d]_{\frac{1}{q}}^{-1}[d+1-k]_{\frac{1}{q}} (\nu^*{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}k})(\iota^{{\otimes}k}{\otimes}\nu) + \omega^k [d]_{\frac{1}{q}}^{-1}(-1)^{k(d+1-k)}\mu^{-k(d-k)} \,\frac{[d-k+1]_{\frac{1}{q}}![k-1]_{\frac{1}{q}}!}{[d]_{\frac{1}{q}}!}\notag\\
&\qquad \cdot \theta(g_1^{-1}\cdots g_{k-1}^{-1} + (-q)^{-1}g_2^{-1}\cdots g_{k-1}^{-1}+\ldots + (-q)^{-(k-2)}g_{k-1}^{-1})(\theta(F_{k-1}){\otimes}\iota).\label{eq_relations_nu_k3}\end{aligned}$$ If we now combine both expressions of $T$, and , we get $$\begin{aligned}
&[d]_{\frac{1}{q}}^{-1}[d+1-k]_{\frac{1}{q}} (\nu^*{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}k})(\iota^{{\otimes}k}{\otimes}\nu) = (-1)^{k(d+1-k)+1} \mu^{-k(d-k)}\omega^k \,\frac{[d-k+1]_{\frac{1}{q}}![k-1]_{\frac{1}{q}}!}{[d]_{\frac{1}{q}}\,[d]_{\frac{1}{q}}!}\\
&\qquad\cdot \theta(g_1^{-1}\cdots g_{k-1}^{-1} + (-q)^{-1}g_2^{-1}\cdots g_{k-1}^{-1} + \ldots + (-q)^{-(k-1)}) (\theta(F_{k-1}){\otimes}\iota)\end{aligned}$$ which by Lemma \[properties\_Bn\] equals $$(-1)^{k-1}(-1)^{k(d+1-k)+1} \mu^{-k(d-k)}\omega^k \,\frac{[d-k+1]_{\frac{1}{q}}![k-1]_{\frac{1}{q}}!}{[d]_{\frac{1}{q}}\,[d]_{\frac{1}{q}}!}\,[k]_{\frac{1}{q}}\theta(F_k).$$ From this follows immediately and the lemma is proved.
\[equality\_kernels\] The representation $\theta$ satisfies $\ker(\theta\colon H_n(q){\rightarrow}\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}n})) = \ker(\eta\colon H_n(q){\rightarrow}\operatorname{End}({\mathcal{H}}^{{\otimes}n}))$.
From the above lemma it follows in particular that $$(\nu^*{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}d-1})(\iota^{{\otimes}d-1}{\otimes}\nu) = \overline{\omega}(-\mu)^{-(d-1)}[d]_{\frac{1}{q}}^{-1}\,\theta(F_{d-1})$$ and thus that the morphisms $$R:= \overline{\omega}(-1)^{d-1}[d]_{\frac{1}{q}}^{1/2}\mu^{(d-1)/2}\nu, \qquad \overline{R}:=[d]_{\frac{1}{q}}^{1/2}\mu^{(d-1)/2}\nu$$ satisfy the conjugate equations for $X$. Define a map $$\varphi^{(n)}\colon \operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}n}){\rightarrow}\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}n-1}),\qquad \alpha\mapsto (\iota^{{\otimes}n-1}{\otimes}\nu^*)(\alpha{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}d-1})(\iota^{{\otimes}n-1}{\otimes}\nu)$$ and the functional $\varphi_n:=\varphi^{(1)}\circ\cdots\circ\varphi^{(n-1)}\circ\varphi^{(n)}$. Now let $(R',\overline{R}')$ be a standard solution of the conjugate equations of $X$. The map $$\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}n}){\rightarrow}\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}n-1}),\qquad \alpha\mapsto (\iota^{{\otimes}n-1}{\otimes}\overline{R}'^*)(\alpha{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}d-1})(\iota^{{\otimes}n-1}{\otimes}\overline{R}')$$ is a partial trace induced by a standard solution, so it is tracial and faithful. There exists an invertible morphism $T\in\operatorname{Hom}(\overline{X}',\overline{X})$ such that $R=(T^{-1}{\otimes}\iota)R'$ and $\overline{R}=(\iota{\otimes}T^*)\overline{R}'$ [@NeshveyevTuset13 Prop. 2.2.4]. From this it is immediate that $\varphi^{(n)}$ and thus $\varphi_n$ are also faithful. Using the involution, equation can be rewritten as $$(\iota{\otimes}\nu^*)(\nu{\otimes}\iota)=\overline{\omega}(-\mu)^{-(d-1)}[d]_{\frac{1}{q}}^{-1}\iota.$$ Combination with and gives that $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi^{(2)}\circ\theta(g_1) &= (\iota{\otimes}\nu^*)\theta(g_1)(\iota{\otimes}\nu)\label{eq_embedding9} \\
&= (-1)^{d-1}(\iota{\otimes}\nu^*)\theta(g_d\cdots g_1)(\iota{\otimes}\nu)\\
&= (-1)^{d-1}\omega\mu^{d+1}(\iota{\otimes}\nu^*)(\nu{\otimes}\iota)\\
&= (-1)^{d-1}\omega\mu^{d+1}\overline{\omega}(-\mu)^{-(d-1)}[d]_{\frac{1}{q}}^{-1}\iota\\
&= q\,[d]_{\frac{1}{q}}^{-1}\iota = \frac{q^d}{[d]_q}\,\iota.\end{aligned}$$ Thus in particular $\varphi^{(2)}\circ\theta(g_1)$ is a scalar in $\operatorname{End}(X)$ and thus $\varphi^{(2)}\circ\theta(e_1)$ is a scalar as well. Therefore if $x,y\in H_{n-1}(q)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi^{(n)}(\theta(xe_{n-1}y))&= (\iota^{{\otimes}n-1}{\otimes}\nu^*)\theta(x)(\iota^{{\otimes}n-2}{\otimes}\theta(e_1))\theta(y)(\iota^{{\otimes}n-1}{\otimes}\nu)\\
&= \theta(x)(\iota^{{\otimes}n-1}{\otimes}\nu^*)(\iota^{{\otimes}n-2}{\otimes}\theta(e_1))(\iota^{{\otimes}n-1}{\otimes}\nu)\theta(y)\\
&= \varphi_2(\theta(e_1))\cdot\theta(xy).\end{aligned}$$ So $\varphi_n\circ\theta$ defines a faithful functional with the Markov property on $H_n(q)$. According to Lemma \[equivalent\_Markov\_traces\] this functional must be tracial and hence we obtain a Markov trace $\operatorname{tr}_{\mathcal{C}}:= \varphi_n\circ\theta\colon H_n(q){\rightarrow}{\mathbb{C}}$. Markov traces are characterized by their value on the generator $g_1$. Recall from Theorem \[equivalence\_of\_representations\] that $\operatorname{tr}_{\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))}(g_1)= \frac{q^d}{[d]_q}$. It follows that $\operatorname{tr}_{\mathcal{C}}= \operatorname{tr}_{\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))}$ and thus $\ker(\theta)=\ker(\operatorname{tr}_{\mathcal{C}})=\ker(\operatorname{tr}_{\operatorname{Rep}(SU_\mu(d))})=\ker(\eta)$.
Now surjectivity of the map $\theta\colon H_n(q){\rightarrow}\operatorname{End}(X^{{\otimes}n})$. For this we need the following lemma. Recall the notation $\nu_{k,l}:=\iota^{{\otimes}k}{\otimes}\nu{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}l}$ and $\nu^*_{k,l}:=\iota^{{\otimes}k}{\otimes}\nu^*{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}l}$.
\[reduction\] Let $x\in H_p(q)$ and $k,l,m,n,k',l',m',n'\in{\mathbb{N}}$ be natural numbers satisfying the equality $k+l+d=m+n+d = k'+l'=m'+n'= p$, then there exist $x_1,x_2\in H_\infty(q)$ such that $$\nu_{k,l}^*\theta(x)\nu_{m,n} = \theta(x_1),\qquad \nu_{k',l'}\theta(x)\nu_{m',n'}^*=\theta(x_2).$$
First we prove the second assertion. We write $k,l,m,n$ instead of $k',l',m',n'$. Note that by there exist $y_1\in H_{k+d}(q)$ and $y_2\in H_{m+d}(q)$ such that $$\label{eq_reduction1}
\nu_{k,l}=\theta(y_1)\nu_{0,k+l},\qquad \nu_{m,n}^*=\nu_{0,m+n}^*\theta(y_2).$$ Then by $$\begin{aligned}
\nu_{k,l}\theta(x)\nu_{m,n}^* &= \theta(y_1)\nu_{0,k+l}\theta(x)\nu_{0,m+n}^*\theta(y_2) = \theta(y_1) (\iota^{{\otimes}d}{\otimes}\theta(x))(\nu\nu^*{\otimes}\iota_{k+l})\theta(y_2)\\
& = \theta(y_1\Sigma^d(x)F_dy_2),\end{aligned}$$ where we still use $\Sigma$ to denote the shift map.\
Now the first case. Similar to there exist $y_1$ and $y_2$ such that $$\nu_{k,l}^*\theta(x)\nu_{m,n} = \nu_{0,k+l}\theta(y_1)\theta(x)\theta(y_2)\nu^*_{0,m+n}.$$ So we can assume to deal with the case $\nu_{0,k}^*\theta(x)\nu_{0,k}$ and $x\in H_{d+k}(q)$. Now observe that $\nu_{0,k}^*\theta(x)\nu_{0,k} = \nu_{0,k}^*\theta(F_dxF_d)\nu_{0,k}$. By surjectivity of the representation $\eta\colon H_k(q){\rightarrow}\operatorname{End}({\mathcal{H}}^{{\otimes}k})$ there exists an $y\in H_k(q)$ such that $(S^*{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}k})\eta(F_dxF_d)(S{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}k})=\eta(y)$, here $S$ and $\eta$ are as in Notation \[Def\_rep\_SUmud\]. This implies that $$\eta(F_d\Sigma^d(y)) = SS^*{\otimes}\eta(y) = (S{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}k})\eta(y)(S^*{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}k}) = (SS^*{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}k})\eta(F_d x F_d) (SS^*{\otimes}\iota^{{\otimes}k}) = \eta(F_d x F_d).$$ Because by Lemma \[equality\_kernels\] the representations $\eta$ and $\theta$ have the same kernel, it follows that $\theta(F_dxF_d)=\theta(F_d\Sigma^d(y))$. Combining all this gives $$\nu_{0,k}^*\theta(x)\nu_{0,k}= \nu_{0,k}^*\theta(F_dxF_d)\nu_{0,k} = \nu_{0,k}^*\theta(F_d\Sigma^d(y))\nu_{0,k} = \theta(y)\nu_{0,k}^*\nu_{k,0}\nu_{0,k}^*\nu_{k,0} = \theta(y)$$ and concludes the lemma.
To prove that the representation $\theta\colon H_n(q){\rightarrow}\operatorname{End}_{\mathcal{C}}(X^{{\otimes}n})$ is surjective let $\alpha\in\operatorname{End}_{\mathcal{C}}(X^{{\otimes}n})$. Then $\alpha$ is a linear combination of words consisting of the letters $\theta(x)$ for $x\in H_\infty(q)$ and $\nu_{k,l}$, $\nu_{m,n}$. Let $\beta=\beta_1\cdots\beta_r$ be such a word and $\beta_i$ the letters. Then $\beta\in\operatorname{End}_{\mathcal{C}}(X^{{\otimes}n})$ and thus $$\#\{i\,:\, \beta_i=\nu_{k,l}\textrm{ some } k,l\} = \#\{i\,:\, \beta_i=\nu^*_{k,l}\textrm{ some } k,l\}.$$ We now apply induction on $r$. If $r=1$, then the above sets must be empty and thus $\beta=\theta(x)$ for some $x\in H_n(q)$. Suppose $r>1$ and not all $\beta_i$ are of the form $\theta(x)$ for $x\in H_\infty(q)$, then there must exist $1\leq i<j\leq r$ such that either $\beta_i=\nu_{k,l}$, $\beta_j=\nu_{m,n}^*$ for some $k,l,m,n$ and $\beta_s=\theta(x_s)$ for all $i<s<j$, $x_s\in H_\infty(q)$ or $\beta_i=\nu^*_{k,l}$, $\beta_j=\nu_{m,n}$ for some $k,l,m,n$ and $\beta_s=\theta(x_s)$ for all $i<s<j$, $x_s\in H_\infty(q)$. In both cases we can apply Lemma \[reduction\] to reduce $\beta_i\beta_{i+1}\cdots\beta_j$ to $\theta(x)$ for some $x\in H_\infty(q)$. In this way we obtain a word of length $<r$ and by induction $\beta\in \theta(H_n(q))$. Hence $\theta\colon H_n(q){\rightarrow}\operatorname{End}_{\mathcal{C}}(X^{{\otimes}n})$ is surjective and the conclusion follows from Theorem \[characterization\].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The author would like to thank Sergey Neshveyev for his help and for carefully reading the manuscript.
[^1]: Note that the other choice of idempotents $e'_i:= \frac{1+g_i}{q+1}$ is also used in the literature.
[^2]: Note that this twist differs a factor $(-1)^d$ from the twist defined in [@KazhdanWenzl].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
Let $ \alpha: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ be a symmetric monoidal functor from a stable presentable symmetric monoidal category $ {{\mathcal C}}$ compactly generated by the tensorunit to a stable presentable symmetric monoidal category $ {{\mathcal D}}$ with compact tensorunit. Let $\beta : {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ be a right adjoint of $ \alpha $ and ${{\mathrm X}}: {{\mathcal B}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ a symmetric monoidal functor starting at a small rigid symmetric monoidal category $ {{\mathcal B}}. $
We construct a symmetric monoidal equivalence between modules in the category of functors ${{\mathcal B}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ over the ${{\mathrm E}}_\infty$-algebra $\beta \circ {{\mathrm X}}$ and the full subcategory of ${{\mathcal D}}$ compactly generated by the essential image of ${{\mathrm X}}. $
Especially for every motivic ${{\mathrm E}}_\infty$-ring spectrum ${{\mathrm A}}$ we obtain a symmetric monoidal equivalence between the category of cellular motivic ${{\mathrm A}}$-module spectra and modules in the category of functors ${\mathrm{QS}}$ to spectra over some ${{\mathrm E}}_\infty$-algebra, where ${\mathrm{QS}}$ denotes the 0th space of the sphere spectrum.
author:
- Hadrian Heine
bibliography:
- 'ma.bib'
title: A characterization of cellular motivic spectra
---
Introduction
============
In motivic homotopy theory cellular motivic spectra, i.e. those motivic spectra that can be built from the smash powers of $\mathbb{P}^1 $ by iterately taking coproducts, shifts and cofibers, play a prominent role as virtually all motivic spectra representing cohomology theories are cellular and cellular motivic spectra are appreciated for their good behaviour.
Examples of cellular motivic spectra are $ {\mathsf{MGL}}, {\mathsf{KGL}}, {\mathsf{KQ}}$ representing algebraic cobordism, K-theory and hermitian K-theory and also the motivic cohomology spectrum $ {\mathsf{M}\mathbb{Z}}$ if one inverts the characteristic of each residue field of the base scheme, which is prime.
In stable homotopy theory it is a well-known fact that a map of spectra is an equivalence if it induces an isomorphism on all stable homotopy groups.
The analogous statement, where one replaces spectra by motivic spectra and stable homotopy groups by bigraded stable homotopy groups, fails unless one expects the motivic spectra to be cellular.
Consequently it is a goal of stable motivic homotopy theory to have a good understanding of the category of cellular motivic spectra.
More generally one considers ${{\mathrm X}}$-cellular motivic ${{\mathrm A}}$-module spectra for some ${{\mathrm E}}_\infty$-ring spectrum ${{\mathrm A}}$ and some tensorinvertible motivic ${{\mathrm A}}$-modul spectrum ${{\mathrm X}}, $ i.e. those ${{\mathrm A}}$-module spectra that can be built from the tensorpowers of ${{\mathrm X}}$ by iterately taking coproducts, shifts and cofibers, which we simply call cellular motivic ${{\mathrm A}}$-module spectra if ${{\mathrm X}}$ is the free ${{\mathrm A}}$-module on $ \mathbb{P}^1. $
In [@spitzweck.per] Spitzweck shows (in the setting of model categories) that the category of cellular motivic ${\mathsf{MGL}}$- respectively ${\mathsf{M}\mathbb{Z}}$-module spectra are canonically symmetric monoidal equivalent to the category of modules in ${{\mathbb Z}}$-graded spectra over some ${{\mathrm E}}_\infty $-algebra.
Denote ${\mathrm{QS}}$ the 0th space of the sphere spectrum with the structure of a grouplike ${{\mathrm E}}_\infty$-space coming from its infinite loop space structure.
${\mathrm{QS}}$ is the free grouplike ${{\mathrm E}}_\infty$-space generated by a point so that $\pi_0 ({\mathrm{QS}})={{\mathbb Z}}$ and evaluation at $1 \in {\mathrm{QS}}$ induces an equivalence $ {{\mathrm E}}_\infty({\mathsf{Cat}}_\infty )({\mathrm{QS}},{\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}}) ) \simeq {\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}})^\simeq $ between the maximal subspace in ${{\mathcal D}}$ consisting of the tensorinvertible objects and the space of symmetric monoidal functors $ {\mathrm{QS}}\to {\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}}). $
Consequently the free $ {\mathsf{MGL}}$ respectively $ {\mathsf{M}\mathbb{Z}}$-modul $\mathbb{P}^1 {\wedge}{\mathsf{MGL}}$ respectively $ \mathbb{P}^1 {\wedge}{\mathsf{M}\mathbb{Z}}$ on the tensorinvertible motivic spectrum $\mathbb{P}^1 $ corresponds to a symmetric monoidal functor $\Psi$ from ${\mathrm{QS}}$ to the category of motivic ${\mathsf{MGL}}$- respectively ${\mathsf{M}\mathbb{Z}}$-modules.
To construct the symmetric monoidal equivalence between the category of cellular motivic ${\mathsf{MGL}}$- respectively ${\mathsf{M}\mathbb{Z}}$-module spectra and the category of modules in ${{\mathbb Z}}$-graded spectra, Spitzweck needs to show that $\Psi$ extends to a symmetric monoidal functor from ${{\mathbb Z}}$ to the category of motivic ${\mathsf{MGL}}$- respectively ${\mathsf{M}\mathbb{Z}}$-modules along the canonical map $ {\mathrm{QS}}\to \pi_0( {\mathrm{QS}}) = {{\mathbb Z}}$ of grouplike ${{\mathrm E}}_\infty $-spaces.
Having this presentation of the category of cellular motivic ${\mathsf{MGL}}$-module spectra he is able to define the motivic fundamental group, a differential graded hopf algebra, whose category of perfect representations is the category of compact cellular motivic ${\mathsf{MGL}}$-module spectra if the base scheme is nice enough.
Inspired by his results we give a presentation of the category of ${{\mathrm X}}$-cellular motivic ${{\mathrm A}}$-module spectra for an arbitrary motivic ${{\mathrm E}}_\infty $-ring spectrum ${{\mathrm A}}$ and an arbitrary tensorinvertible ${{\mathrm A}}$-module ${{\mathrm X}}$ generalizing Spitzweck’s result.
Moreover to characterize the category of ${{\mathrm X}}$-cellular motivic $ {{\mathrm A}}$-module spectra we don’t need to require that the symmetric monoidal functor $\Phi$ from $ {\mathrm{QS}}$ to motivic ${{\mathrm A}}$-module spectra corresponding to the tensorinvertible ${{\mathrm A}}$-module ${{\mathrm X}}$ extends to ${{\mathbb Z}}$ but get a more complicated presentation of ${{\mathrm X}}$-cellular motivic $ {{\mathrm A}}$-module spectra as modules over some ${{\mathrm E}}_\infty $-algebra in $ {\mathrm{QS}}$-graded spectra (instead of ${{\mathbb Z}}$-graded spectra).
But if $ \Phi$ extends to ${{\mathbb Z}},$ as it does for ${{\mathrm A}}={\mathsf{MGL}}$ and ${{\mathrm X}}= \mathbb{P}^1 {\wedge}{\mathsf{MGL}}$ respectively ${{\mathrm A}}={\mathsf{M}\mathbb{Z}}$ and ${{\mathrm X}}= \mathbb{P}^1 {\wedge}{\mathsf{M}\mathbb{Z}}, $ we get a presentation of ${{\mathrm X}}$-cellular motivic ${{\mathrm A}}$-module spectra as modules over some ${{\mathrm E}}_\infty $-algebra in ${{\mathbb Z}}$-graded spectra.
More generally, if $\Phi$ extends to higher connected covers ${{\mathrm T}}$ of $ {\mathrm{QS}}, $ we get a presentation of ${{\mathrm X}}$-cellular motivic ${{\mathrm A}}$-module spectra as ${{\mathrm E}}_\infty $-modules in ${{\mathrm T}}$-graded spectra.
Given a stable presentable symmetric monoidal category $ {{\mathcal D}}$ with compact tensorunit and a dualizable object ${{\mathrm X}}$ of ${{\mathcal D}}$ we define the category $ {\mathrm{Cell}}_{{{\mathrm X}}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ of ${{\mathrm X}}$-cellular objects of ${{\mathcal D}}$ to be the full subcategory of $ {{\mathcal D}}$ compactly generated by the tensorpowers $ {{\mathrm X}}^{{\otimes}{{\mathrm n}}} {\otimes}({{\mathrm X}}^{\vee})^{{\otimes}{{\mathrm m}}}, {{\mathrm n}}, {{\mathrm m}}\in {{\mathbb N}}$ (Definition \[uzt\]).
If we choose ${{\mathcal D}}$ to be the category of motivic ${{\mathrm A}}$-module spectra for some ${{\mathrm E}}_\infty$-ring spectrum ${{\mathrm A}}$ and ${{\mathrm X}}$ to be ${{\mathrm A}}{\wedge}\mathbb{P}^1, $ the category $ {\mathrm{Cell}}_{{{\mathrm X}}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ coincides with the category of cellular motivic ${{\mathrm A}}$-module spectra.
Especially for ${{\mathrm A}}= {{\mathrm M}}{{\mathrm R}}$ for some commutative ring ${{\mathrm R}}$ the category $ {\mathrm{Cell}}_{{{\mathrm X}}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ coincides with the category of Tate-motives with ${{\mathrm R}}$-coefficients.
As $ {\mathrm{Cell}}_{{{\mathrm X}}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ is closed under the tensorproduct of ${{\mathcal D}}, $ the symmetric monoidal structure of ${{\mathcal D}}$ restricts to $ {\mathrm{Cell}}_{{{\mathrm X}}}({{\mathcal D}}). $
We construct a canonical symmetric monoidal equivalence between $ {\mathrm{Cell}}_{{{\mathrm X}}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ and modules over some ${{\mathrm E}}_\infty$-algebra in the Day-convolution symmetric monoidal structure on functors from ${\mathrm{QS}}$ to the category of spectra. (theorem $ \ref{tre} $)
Moreover we give relative versions of this result:
- We may replace the category of spectra by any stable presentable symmetric monoidal category ${{\mathcal C}}$ compactly generated by the tensorunit if we assume that ${{\mathcal D}}$ receives a symmetric monoidal functor $ \alpha: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ from ${{\mathcal C}}$ that admits a right adjoint $ \beta: {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal C}}. $
An example for $\alpha : {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ is the canonical functor from the category of ${{\mathrm H}}({{\mathrm R}})$-module spectra for some commutative ring ${{\mathrm R}}$ to the category of motivic ${{\mathrm H}}({{\mathrm R}})$-module spectra, where ${{\mathrm H}}({{\mathrm R}})$ denotes the Eilenberg-Mac Lane spectrum of ${{\mathrm R}}.$
- We may replace the tensorinvertible object ${{\mathrm X}}$ of ${{\mathcal D}}$ (corresponding to a symmetric monoidal functor ${\mathrm{QS}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ by the universal property of ${\mathrm{QS}}$) by an arbitrary symmetric monoidal functor ${{\mathrm X}}: {{\mathcal B}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ starting at a small grouplike symmetric monoidal category ${{\mathcal B}}. $
One could take ${{\mathcal B}}$ to be the direct sum of copies of ${\mathrm{QS}}$ indexed by some set ${{\mathrm I}}, $ in which case a symmetric monoidal functor ${{\mathcal B}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ corresponds to an ${{\mathrm I}}$-indexed family of tensorinvertible objects of ${{\mathcal D}}$ and $ {\mathrm{Cell}}_{{{\mathrm X}}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ denotes the full subcategory of ${{\mathcal D}}$ compactly generated by the tensorpowers of the elements of the ${{\mathrm I}}$-indexed family.
In this more general situation we define $ {\mathrm{Cell}}_{{{\mathrm X}}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ to be the full subcategory of ${{\mathcal D}}$ compactly generated by the essential image of ${{\mathrm X}}.$ (Definition $ \ref{uzt} ) $
- For $0 < {{\mathrm k}}\in {{\mathbb N}}\cup \{\infty \} $ denote ${{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}$ the ${{\mathrm k}}$-th. little cubes operad.
We may assume that ${{\mathcal C}}$ is only a ${{\mathrm k}}+1$-monoidal presentable category instead of symmetric monoidal one, ${{\mathcal D}}$ is only an ${{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}$-algebra in presentable left ${{\mathcal C}}$-modules, which we call a presentable ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal left ${{\mathcal C}}$-modul, instead of a presentable symmetric monoidal left ${{\mathcal C}}$-modul (corresponding to a left adjoint symmetric monoidal functor ${{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$) and that ${{\mathcal B}}$ and the functor ${{\mathrm X}}: {{\mathcal B}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ are only ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal to obtain a canonical ${{\mathrm k}}-1$-monoidal equivalence between the ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal category $ {\mathrm{Cell}}_{{{\mathrm X}}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ and the ${{\mathrm k}}-1$-monoidal category of modules over some ${{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}$-algebra in the ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal category of functors $ {{\mathcal B}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ endowed with the Day-convolution ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal structure.
We give an explicite description of the ${{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}$-algebra, over which the modules are taken:
${{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}$-algebras in the Day-convolution ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal structure on ${\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) $ correspond to lax ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal functors ${{\mathcal B}}\to {{\mathcal C}}.$
Being a composition of lax ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal functors the functor $\beta \circ {{\mathrm X}}:{{\mathcal B}}\to {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ has the structure of a lax ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal functor corresponding to an ${{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}$-algebra structure on $\beta \circ {{\mathrm X}}. $
This ${{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}$-algebra structure on $\beta \circ {{\mathrm X}}$ is exactly the ${{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}$-algebra structure, over which the modules are taken.
So all together we obtain the following statement (theorem $ \ref{tre} $):
Let $0 < {{\mathrm k}}\in {{\mathbb N}}\cup \{\infty \} $ and ${{\mathcal C}}$ a stable presentable ${{\mathrm k}}+ 1$-monoidal category compactly generated by the tensorunit.
Let ${{\mathcal D}}$ be a stable presentable ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal left ${{\mathcal C}}$-modul compactly generated by the tensorunit and ${{\mathrm X}}: {{\mathcal B}}\to {\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}}) \subset {{\mathcal D}}$ a ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal functor starting at a small rigid ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal category ${{\mathcal B}}.$
Denote $ \alpha: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ the unique ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal left ${{\mathcal C}}$-linear functor with right adjoint $\beta: {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal C}}. $
There is a canonical ${{\mathrm k}}-1$-monoidal equivalence between $ {\mathrm{Cell}}_{{{\mathrm X}}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ and the category of left modules $ {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{\beta \circ {{\mathrm X}}}({\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) ) $ in the category $ {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) $ of functors ${{\mathcal B}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ over the ${{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}$-algebra $\beta \circ {{\mathrm X}}:{{\mathcal B}}\to {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal C}}. $
For ${{\mathrm k}}= {{\mathrm n}}= \infty $ we obtain corollary \[wqa\]
Let $ \alpha: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ be a symmetric monoidal functor from a stable presentable symmetric monoidal category $ {{\mathcal C}}$ compactly generated by the tensorunit to a stable presentable symmetric monoidal category $ {{\mathcal D}}$ with compact tensorunit. Let $\beta : {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ be a right adjoint of $ \alpha $ and ${{\mathrm X}}: {{\mathcal B}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ a symmetric monoidal functor starting at a small rigid symmetric monoidal category $ {{\mathcal B}}. $
There is a canonical symmetric monoidal equivalence between $ {\mathrm{Cell}}_{{{\mathrm X}}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ and the category of modules $ {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{\beta \circ {{\mathrm X}}}({\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) ) $ in the category $ {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) $ of functors ${{\mathcal B}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ over the ${{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}$-algebra $\beta \circ {{\mathrm X}}:{{\mathcal B}}\to {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal C}}. $
Taking $ {{\mathcal B}}= {\mathrm{Bord}}$ theorem $ \ref{tre} $ provides for every object ${{\mathrm X}}$ of ${\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ a canonical symmetric monoidal equivalence $${\mathrm{Cell}}_{ {{\mathrm X}}}({{\mathcal D}}) \simeq {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{\beta \circ {{\mathrm X}}^{{\otimes}(-) }}({\mathrm{Fun}}( {\mathrm{Bord}}, {{\mathcal C}}) ).$$
Taking $ {{\mathcal B}}= {\mathrm{QS}}$ theorem $ \ref{tre} $ provides for every object ${{\mathrm X}}$ of ${\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ a canonical symmetric monoidal equivalence $${\mathrm{Cell}}_{ {{\mathrm X}}}({{\mathcal D}}) \simeq {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{\beta \circ {{\mathrm X}}^{{\otimes}(-) }}({\mathrm{Fun}}( {\mathrm{QS}}, {{\mathcal C}}) ).$$
Especially one can take $ {{\mathcal C}}$ to be the category of spectra $ {\mathrm{Sp}}. $
More generally one can take ${{\mathcal C}}$ to be the category $ {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{\mathrm A}}({\mathrm{Sp}}) $ of ${{\mathrm A}}$-module spectra over an ${{\mathrm E}}_\infty $-ring spectrum ${{\mathrm A}}$ and ${{\mathcal D}}$ to be an ${{\mathrm A}}$-linear presentable symmetric monoidal category with compact tensorunit.
For $ {{\mathcal B}}= {\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ and ${{\mathrm X}}: {{\mathcal B}}\to {\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ the identity we obtain a canonical symmetric monoidal equivalence $${\mathrm{Cell}}_{{\mathrm{id}}_{{\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}})} }({{\mathcal D}}) \simeq {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{ \beta_{\mid {\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}}) }}({\mathrm{Fun}}({\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}}), {{\mathcal C}}) ),$$ where $ {\mathrm{Cell}}_{{\mathrm{id}}_{{\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}})} }({{\mathcal D}}) $ is the full subcategory of ${{\mathcal D}}$ compactly generated by $ {\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}}) . $
Applied to stable motivic homotopy theory theorem $ \ref{tre} $ yields the following corollaries:
Denote ${{{\mathcal M}}\mathrm{sp}}$ the category of motivic spectra. For ${{\mathcal D}}= {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{\mathrm A}}({{{\mathcal M}}\mathrm{sp}}) $ the category of motivic ${{\mathrm A}}$-module spectra over some motivic ${{\mathrm E}}_\infty $-ring spectrum ${{\mathrm A}}$ and ${{\mathrm X}}= {{\mathrm A}}{\wedge}\mathbb{P}^1 $ we obtain a canonical symmetric monoidal equivalence $${\mathrm{Cell}}_{ {{\mathrm A}}{\wedge}\mathbb{P}^1 }( {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{\mathrm A}}({{{\mathcal M}}\mathrm{sp}}) ) \simeq {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{[ {{\mathrm A}}, {{{\mathrm A}}{\wedge}\mathbb{P}^1}^{{\wedge}(-)} ]_{\mathrm{Sp}}}({\mathrm{Fun}}( {\mathrm{QS}}, {\mathrm{Sp}}) ) ,$$ where $ {\mathrm{Cell}}_{ \mathbb{P}^1 }({{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{\mathrm A}}) $ is the category of cellular motivic ${{\mathrm A}}$-module spectra and $ [ -, -]_{\mathrm{Sp}}$ the spectral hom.
Especially for ${{\mathrm A}}= {\mathsf{M}\mathbb{Z}}$ we have a canonical symmetric monoidal equivalence $${\mathrm{Cell}}_{ {\mathsf{M}\mathbb{Z}}{\wedge}\mathbb{P}^1 }( {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{\mathsf{M}\mathbb{Z}}({{{\mathcal M}}\mathrm{sp}}) } ) \simeq {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{[ {\mathsf{M}\mathbb{Z}}, { {\mathsf{M}\mathbb{Z}}{\wedge}\mathbb{P}^1}^{{\wedge}(-)} ]_{\mathrm{Sp}}}({\mathrm{Fun}}( {\mathrm{QS}}, {\mathrm{Sp}}) ) ,$$ where $ {\mathrm{Cell}}_{ {\mathsf{M}\mathbb{Z}}{\wedge}\mathbb{P}^1 }( {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{\mathsf{M}\mathbb{Z}}} ) $ is the category of Tate motives.
Let ${{\mathrm X}}\in {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm H}}({{\mathbb Z}}) }({{{\mathcal M}}\mathrm{sp}}) $ be the motive associated to a smooth projective variety.
Then ${{\mathrm X}}$ is a dualizable and we obtain a canonical symmetric monoidal equivalence $${\mathrm{Cell}}_{ {{\mathrm X}}}( {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm H}}({{\mathbb Z}}) }({{{\mathcal M}}\mathrm{sp}}) ) \simeq {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{\beta \circ {{\mathrm X}}}({\mathrm{Fun}}( {\mathrm{Bord}}, {\mathrm{Sp}}) ).$$
Let ${{\mathcal D}}$ be the category of chain complexes of quasicoherent sheaves of ${{\mathcal O}}_{{\mathrm S}}$-modules over a scheme ${{\mathrm S}}$ and $\alpha: {\mathsf{Ch}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ the symmetric monoidal functor from chain complexes of abelian groups to ${{\mathcal D}}$ left adjoint to the forgetful functor $\beta: {{\mathcal D}}\to {\mathsf{Ch}}$ induced by the unique map of schemes ${{\mathrm S}}\to {\mathrm{Spec}}({{\mathbb Z}}). $
If we choose ${{\mathrm S}}$ nice enough, ${{\mathcal D}}$ is compactly generated by a dualizable object ${{\mathrm X}}$ so that we have $ {\mathrm{Cell}}_{ {{\mathrm X}}}({{\mathcal D}}) ={{\mathcal D}}. $
So we obtain a canonical symmetric monoidal equivalence $${{\mathcal D}}\simeq {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{\beta \circ {{\mathrm X}}}({\mathrm{Fun}}( {\mathrm{Bord}}, {\mathsf{Ch}}) ).$$
Let ${{\mathrm A}}$ be an ${{\mathrm E}}_\infty $-ring spectrum, e.g. the Eilenberg-Mac Lane spectrum of a commutative ring ${{\mathrm R}}.$
The canonical left adjoint symmetric monoidal functor $ {\mathrm{Sp}}\to {{{\mathcal M}}\mathrm{sp}}$ from spectra to motivic spectra induces a left adjoint symmetric monoidal functor ${{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{ {{\mathrm A}}}({\mathrm{Sp}}) \to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{ {{\mathrm A}}}({{{\mathcal M}}\mathrm{sp}}), $ which we can take for $\alpha: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal D}}. $
Choosing ${{\mathrm X}}= {{\mathrm A}}{\wedge}\mathbb{P}^1 $ we obtain a canonical symmetric monoidal equivalence $${\mathrm{Cell}}_{ {{\mathrm A}}{\wedge}\mathbb{P}^1 }( {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}}({{{\mathcal M}}\mathrm{sp}}) ) \simeq$$ $${{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{[ {{\mathrm A}}, { {{\mathrm A}}{\wedge}\mathbb{P}^1}^{{\wedge}(-)} ]_{{{\mathrm A}}}}({\mathrm{Fun}}( {\mathrm{QS}}, {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{ {{\mathrm A}}}({\mathrm{Sp}}) ) ),$$ where $ [ -, -]_{ {{\mathrm A}}} $ denotes the ${{\mathrm A}}$-linear hom.
Overview
--------
This article is organized in the following way:
After some remarks about conventions and notations we start with the chapter “Cellular objects”, where we define and study the category $ {\mathrm{Cell}}_{{{\mathrm X}}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ of cellular objects (Definition $ \ref{uzt} ) $ of a cocomplete stable ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal category with compact tensorunit $ {{\mathcal D}}$ and a ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal functor ${{\mathrm X}}: {{\mathcal B}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ starting at a small grouplike ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal category $ {{\mathcal B}}$ with $0 < {{\mathrm k}}\in {{\mathbb N}}\cup \{\infty \}. $
Main statement of this chapter (proposition \[tr\]) is that for every stable presentable ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal category $ {{\mathcal C}}$ which is compactly generated by the tensorunit the “generalized Yoneda-embedding” $ {{\mathcal K}}: {{\mathcal B}}^{\mathrm{op}}\subset {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal S}}) \xrightarrow{ } {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) $ is the “generic tensorinvertible object with respect to which cellular objects are taken” in the sense that the category $ {\mathrm{Cell}}_{{{\mathcal K}}}( {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}})) $ of ${{\mathcal K}}$-cellular objects is whole of $ {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}). $
In the following chapter “Presenting cellular objects as modules” we prove in proposition \[tt\] combined with remark \[ewa\] that given a left adjoint ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal functor $\phi: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ between cocomplete stable ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal categories, an ${{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}$-algebra ${{\mathrm A}}$ and a map ${\mathsf{f}}: \phi({{\mathrm A}}) \to {{\mathrm B}}$ of ${{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}$-algebras in ${{\mathcal D}}$ the ${{\mathrm k}}-1$-monoidal functor $ \theta: {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}}({{\mathcal C}}) \to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{\phi ({{\mathrm A}})} ( {{\mathcal D}}) \to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm B}}} ( {{\mathcal D}}) $ on left modules induced by $\phi$ and tensoring up along ${\mathsf{f}}$ is fully faithful if ${\mathsf{f}}: \phi({{\mathrm A}}) \to {{\mathrm B}}$ is adjoint to an equivalence and ${{\mathcal C}}$ is compactly generated by a set of dualizable objects that are sent to compact objects by $\phi. $
Moreover we show that $ \theta $ induces an equivalence to the full subcategory of $ {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm B}}} ( {{\mathcal D}}) $ compactly generated by the free ${{\mathrm B}}$-modules on the images under $\phi$ of the compact generators in ${{\mathcal E}}$.
Combining both propositions \[tr\] and \[tt\] we are able to show theorem \[tre\] using a universal property of the Day convolution ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal structure on $ {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) $ (remark \[univ\]).
In the appendix we prove lemma \[q\], a standart lemma about adjunctions between cocomplete stable categories, used in the proof of proposition \[tt\] and we show proposition \[cg\], which gives equivalent conditions under which a set of compact objects in a cocomplete stable category generates the category under forming iterately colimits, used for the definition of the category of cellular objects.
Moreover we show lemma \[gtr\], from which we deduce that for every ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal category ${{\mathcal C}}$ for $0 < {{\mathrm k}}\leq \infty $ there is a free rigid ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal category on ${{\mathcal C}}. $
Notation and Terminology
-------------------------
Category always means $\infty$-category.
Moreover by category we always mean locally small $\infty$-category unless stated differently.
By a cocomplete monoidal category or a presentable monoidal category we always mean a cocomplete respectively presentable category endowed with a monoidal structure such that the tensorproduct preserves small colimits in each component.
Given a category ${{\mathcal C}}$ and objects ${{\mathrm X}}, {{\mathrm Y}}$ of ${{\mathcal C}}$ denote ${{\mathcal C}}({{\mathrm X}},{{\mathrm Y}}) $ the space of maps from ${{\mathrm X}}$ to ${{\mathrm Y}}$ in ${{\mathcal C}}$ and ${{\mathcal C}}^\simeq $ the maximal subspace in ${{\mathcal C}}. $
For two categories ${{\mathcal A}},{{\mathcal B}}$ denote $ {\mathrm{Fun}}{({{\mathcal A}},{{\mathcal B}}}) $ the category of functors.
If ${{\mathcal D}}$ is a category with zero object, denote $ \Sigma: {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ the suspension and $ \Omega: {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ its right adjoint.
Denote $ {{\mathcal S}}$ the category of spaces, ${\mathrm{Sp}}$ the category of spectra and ${\mathrm{QS}}$ the 0th space of the sphere spectrum with its canonical structure of a grouplike ${{\mathrm E}}_\infty$-space coming from its infinite loop space structure.
Denote ${\mathrm{Bord}}$ the free rigid symmetric monoidal category on a point.
Recall that an object of a category ${{\mathcal C}}$ is called $\kappa$-compact for a regular cardinal $\kappa$ if its image under the Yoneda-embedding $ {{\mathcal C}}^{\mathrm{op}}\hookrightarrow {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal C}}, {{\mathcal S}}) $ preserves $\kappa$-filtered colimits. For $\kappa=\omega$ we say compact for $\kappa$-compact.
Denote $ {{\mathcal C}}^\kappa $ the full subcategory of ${{\mathcal C}}$ spanned by the $\kappa$-compact objects of ${{\mathcal C}}.$
Given a monoidal category ${{\mathcal D}}$ denote ${{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}$ the (essentially unique) tensorunit of ${{\mathcal D}}. $
If ${{\mathcal D}}$ is monoidal closed, denote $ [-,-]_{{\mathrm l}}: {{\mathcal D}}^{\mathrm{op}}\times {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ and $ [-,-]_{{\mathrm r}}: {{\mathcal D}}^{\mathrm{op}}\times {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ the internal homs that are determined by the existence of natural equivalences
$ {{\mathcal D}}({{\mathrm Y}},[{{\mathrm X}},{{\mathrm Z}}]_{{\mathrm l}}) \simeq {{\mathcal D}}({{\mathrm X}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm Y}}, {{\mathrm Z}}) \simeq {{\mathcal D}}({{\mathrm X}},[{{\mathrm Y}},{{\mathrm Z}}]_{{\mathrm r}}) $ for objects ${{\mathrm X}}, {{\mathrm Y}}, {{\mathrm Z}}$ of ${{\mathcal D}}. $
Every presentable monoidal category is monoidal closed by the adjoint functor theorem.
### Dualizable and tensorinvertible objects
Let ${{\mathcal C}}$ be a ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal category.
Given objects $ {{\mathrm X}}, {{\mathrm Y}}$ of ${{\mathcal C}}$ we call ${{\mathrm Y}}$ a left dual of ${{\mathrm X}}$ if there are morphisms $ {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathrm X}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm Y}}$ and $ {{\mathrm Y}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm X}}\to {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal C}}$ related by the triangular identities or equivalently if $ {{\mathrm Y}}{\otimes}- : {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ is left adjoint to $ {{\mathrm X}}{\otimes}- : {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ and $ - {\otimes}{{\mathrm Y}}: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ is right adjoint to $ - {\otimes}{{\mathrm X}}: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal C}}. $
$ {{\mathcal C}}( {{\mathrm Y}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm A}}, {{\mathrm B}}) \simeq {{\mathcal C}}({{\mathrm A}}, {{\mathrm X}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm B}}) $
$ {{\mathcal C}}({{\mathrm A}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm X}}, {{\mathrm B}}) \simeq {{\mathcal C}}({{\mathrm A}}, {{\mathrm B}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm Y}}) $
Dually, we call ${{\mathrm Y}}$ a right dual of ${{\mathrm X}}$ if there are morphisms $ {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathrm Y}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm X}}$ and $ {{\mathrm X}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm Y}}\to {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal C}}$ related by the triangular identities or equivalently if $ {{\mathrm Y}}{\otimes}- : {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ is right adjoint to $ {{\mathrm X}}{\otimes}- : {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ and $ - {\otimes}{{\mathrm Y}}: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ is left adjoint to $ - {\otimes}{{\mathrm X}}: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal C}}. $
Given objects $ {{\mathrm X}}, {{\mathrm Y}}$ of ${{\mathcal C}}$ we call ${{\mathrm Y}}$ a dual of ${{\mathrm X}}$ if ${{\mathrm Y}}$ is both a left and right dual of ${{\mathrm X}}. $
By symmetry of the definition ${{\mathrm Y}}$ is a dual of ${{\mathrm X}}$ if and only if ${{\mathrm X}}$ is a dual of ${{\mathrm Y}}.$
As right respectively left adjoints of a given functor are unique, left duals, right duals and duals of an object are unique if they exist.
We write ${{\mathrm X}}^{\vee}$ for the dual of an object ${{\mathrm X}}$ of ${{\mathcal C}}$ and have a canonical equivalence $({{\mathrm X}}^{\vee})^{\vee}\simeq {{\mathrm X}}.$
We call an object ${{\mathrm X}}$ of ${{\mathcal C}}$ left dualizable, right dualizable respectively dualizable if ${{\mathrm X}}$ admits a left dual, right dual respectively dual.
Given objects $ {{\mathrm X}}, {{\mathrm Y}}$ of ${{\mathcal C}}$ we call ${{\mathrm Y}}$ a left respectively a right inverse of ${{\mathrm X}}$ if there is an equivalence $ {{\mathrm Y}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm X}}\simeq {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal C}}$ respectively $ {{\mathrm X}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm Y}}\simeq {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal C}}. $
We call ${{\mathrm Y}}$ an inverse of ${{\mathrm X}}$ if ${{\mathrm Y}}$ is both a left inverse and right inverse of ${{\mathrm X}}$ or equivalently if $ {{\mathrm X}}{\otimes}- : {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ is inverse to $ {{\mathrm Y}}{\otimes}- : {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ and $ - {\otimes}{{\mathrm X}}: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ is inverse to $ - {\otimes}{{\mathrm Y}}: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal C}}. $
We call an object ${{\mathrm X}}$ of ${{\mathcal C}}$ left tensorinvertible, right tensorinvertible respectively tensorinvertible if ${{\mathrm X}}$ admits a left inverse, right inverse respectively inverse.
An object of ${{\mathcal C}}$ is tensorivertible if and only if it is both left tensorinvertible and right tensorinvertible.
Every inverse of an object ${{\mathrm X}}$ of ${{\mathcal C}}$ is a dual of ${{\mathrm X}}$ and so every tensorinvertible object of ${{\mathcal C}}$ is dualizable.
Denote $ {\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal C}}) $ the full subcategory of ${{\mathcal C}}$ spanned by the dualizable objects of ${{\mathcal C}}$ and $ {\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal C}}) \subset {\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal C}}) $ the full subcategory of ${{\mathcal C}}$ spanned by the tensorinvertible objects of ${{\mathcal C}}. $
Let ${{\mathrm k}}\in {{\mathbb N}}\cup \{\infty \}. $ We call a ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal category ${{\mathcal C}}$ rigid if every object of ${{\mathcal C}}$ is dualizable, i.e. if ${\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal C}}) = {{\mathcal C}}.$
As $ {\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal C}}) $ and $ {\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal C}}) $ contain the tensorunit of ${{\mathcal C}}$ and are closed under the tensorproduct of ${{\mathcal C}}, $ the ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal structure on ${{\mathcal C}}$ restricts to the full subcategories $ {\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal C}}) $ and $ {\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal C}}) $ so that $ {\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal C}}) $ and $ {\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal C}}) $ are rigid ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal categories and the full subcategory inclusions $ {\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal C}}) \subset {\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal C}}) \subset {{\mathcal C}}$ are ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal functors.
Left dualizable, right dualizable, dualizable, left tensorinvertible, right tensorinvertible and thus tensorinvertible objects are preserved by every monoidal functor between monoidal categories.
Acknowledgments
---------------
This work is based and inspired by my diploma thesis advised by Markus Spitzweck.
I want to thank Markus Spitzweck for all the time he spent answering my questions and lots of helpful discussions and inspirations about this topic.
Cellular objects
================
Before we define the category of cellular objects, we need some terminology.
Compactly generated stable categories
-------------------------------------
Let ${{\mathcal D}}$ be a cocomplete stable category, ${{\mathcal C}}$ a full stable subcategory of ${{\mathcal D}}$ closed under small colimits and containing a set ${{\mathcal E}}$ of $\kappa$-compact objects of ${{\mathcal C}}$ for a regular cardinal $\kappa$.
We say that ${{\mathcal C}}$ is $\kappa$-compactly generated by ${{\mathcal E}}$ or that ${{\mathcal E}}$ is a set of $\kappa$-compact generators for ${{\mathcal C}}$ if $ {{\mathcal C}}$ is the smallest full stable subcategory of ${{\mathcal D}}$ containing ${{\mathcal E}}$ and closed under small colimits.
If $\kappa=\omega$ we call ${{\mathcal E}}$ a set of compact generators for ${{\mathcal C}}$ or say that ${{\mathcal C}}$ is compactly generated by ${{\mathcal E}}$.
${{\mathcal C}}$ is $\kappa$-compactly generated by ${{\mathcal E}}$ if and only if $ {{\mathcal C}}$ is the only full stable subcategory of ${{\mathcal C}}$ containing ${{\mathcal E}}$ and closed under small colimits.
Therefore proposition \[cg\] implies that ${{\mathcal C}}$ is presentable (to be more specific $\kappa$-accessible) if ${{\mathcal C}}$ is $\kappa$-compactly generated by ${{\mathcal E}}. $
For every cocomplete stable category ${{\mathcal D}}$ and every set ${{\mathcal E}}$ of $\kappa$-compact objects of ${{\mathcal D}}$ for a regular cardinal $\kappa$ there exists a unique full stable subcategory ${{\mathcal C}}$ of ${{\mathcal D}}$ containing ${{\mathcal E}}$, closed under small colimits and $\kappa$-compactly generated by ${{\mathcal E}}$, which is given by the intersection of all full stable subcategories of ${{\mathcal D}}$ containing ${{\mathcal E}}$ and closed under small colimits.
We call ${{\mathcal C}}$ the full subcategory of ${{\mathcal C}}$ $\kappa$-compactly generated by ${{\mathcal E}}$ and drop $\kappa$ if $\kappa=\omega.$
Moreover we have the following functoriality:
Given stable cocomplete categories ${{\mathcal C}}, {{\mathcal D}}$ and a set ${{\mathcal E}}$ of $\kappa$-compact objects of ${{\mathcal C}}$ every functor $\phi: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ between stable cocomplete categories that preserves small colimits and sends objects of ${{\mathcal E}}$ to $\kappa$-compact objects of ${{\mathcal D}}$ restricts to a functor from the full subcategory of ${{\mathcal C}}$ $\kappa$-compactly generated by ${{\mathcal E}}$ to the full subcategory of ${{\mathcal D}}$ $\kappa$-compactly generated by $\phi({{\mathcal E}}). $
This follows from the fact that the full subcategory of ${{\mathcal C}}$ spanned by the objects that are sent to the full subcategory of ${{\mathcal D}}$ $\kappa$-compactly generated by $\phi({{\mathcal E}}) $ is a full stable subcategory of ${{\mathcal C}}$ containing ${{\mathcal E}}$ and closed under small colimits and consequently has to contain the full subcategory of ${{\mathcal C}}$ $\kappa$-compactly generated by ${{\mathcal E}}. $
\[ccm\]
Let ${{\mathrm F}}: {{\mathcal C}}\rightleftarrows {{\mathcal D}}: {{\mathrm G}}$ be an adjunction between cocomplete stable categories ${{\mathcal C}}, {{\mathcal D}}$ such that ${{\mathrm G}}$ preserves $\kappa$-filtered colimits and reflects equivalences.
If $ {{\mathcal C}}$ is $\kappa$-compactly generated by a set ${{\mathcal E}}$ of $\kappa$-compact objects of ${{\mathcal C}}$ for a regular cardinal $\kappa, $ then $ {{\mathcal D}}$ is $\kappa$-compactly generated by the set ${{\mathrm F}}({{\mathcal E}}). $
This follows from characterization 1. of proposition \[cg\].
\[cgm\]
Let ${{\mathrm k}}\in {{\mathbb N}}\cup \{\infty \} $ and $ {{\mathcal D}}$ be a ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal cocomplete stable category and ${{\mathcal E}}$ a set of $\kappa$-compact objects of ${{\mathcal D}}$ for a regular cardinal $\kappa$ such that ${{\mathcal E}}$ contains the tensorunit of ${{\mathcal D}}$ and is closed under the tensor product of ${{\mathcal D}}.$
Then the full subcategory ${{\mathcal C}}$ of ${{\mathcal D}}$ $\kappa$-compactly generated by ${{\mathcal E}}$ is a ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal full subcategory of ${{\mathcal D}}$.
For this it is enough to see that ${{\mathcal C}}$ is closed under the tensor product of ${{\mathcal D}}$.
This follows from the fact that the full subcategories of ${{\mathcal D}}$ spanned by $\{{{\mathrm X}}\in {{\mathcal D}}\mid {{\mathrm X}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm Y}}\in {{\mathcal C}}\hspace{2mm} \mbox{for all} \hspace{2mm} {{\mathrm Y}}\in {{\mathcal E}}\} $ and $\{{{\mathrm Y}}\in {{\mathcal D}}\mid {{\mathrm X}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm Y}}\in {{\mathcal C}}\hspace{2mm} \mbox{for all} \hspace{2mm} {{\mathrm X}}\in {{\mathcal C}}\} $ are full stable subcategories of ${{\mathcal D}}$ closed under small colimits.
Thus the condition that ${{\mathcal E}}$ is closed under the tensor product of ${{\mathcal D}}$ implies that ${{\mathcal C}}\subset
\{{{\mathrm X}}\in {{\mathcal D}}\mid {{\mathrm X}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm Y}}\in {{\mathcal C}}\hspace{2mm} \mbox{for all} \hspace{2mm} {{\mathrm Y}}\in {{\mathcal E}}\} $ and so $ {{\mathcal C}}\subset \{{{\mathrm Y}}\in {{\mathcal D}}\mid {{\mathrm X}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm Y}}\in {{\mathcal C}}\hspace{2mm} \mbox{for all} \hspace{2mm} {{\mathrm X}}\in {{\mathcal C}}\} .$
Definition and properties of cellular objects
---------------------------------------------
Let $ {{\mathcal D}}$ be a stable cocomplete ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal category with $\kappa$-compact tensorunit and ${{\mathrm X}}: {{\mathcal B}}\to {\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ a ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal functor starting at a small rigid ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal category $ {{\mathcal B}}$.
As the tensorunit of ${{\mathcal D}}$ is $\kappa$-compact, every dualizable object of ${{\mathcal D}}$ is $\kappa$-compact so that we have ${{\mathrm X}}({{\mathcal B}}) \subset {\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal D}}) \subset {{\mathcal D}}^\kappa. $
So the essential image ${{\mathrm X}}({{\mathcal B}}) $ of $ {{\mathrm X}}$ is $\kappa$-small.
Thus there is a $\kappa$-small set of representatives of equivalence classes of objects in the essential image of $ {{\mathrm X}}$ and we can make the following definition:
\[uzt\]
Denote $ {\mathrm{Cell}}_{{{\mathrm X}}}({{\mathcal D}}) \subset {{\mathcal D}}$ the full subcategory of $ {{\mathcal D}}$ compactly generated by ( a system of representatives of equivalence classes of objects in ) the essential image of $ {{\mathrm X}}.$
We call $ {\mathrm{Cell}}_{{{\mathrm X}}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ the category of ${{\mathrm X}}$-cellular objects of ${{\mathcal D}}$.
Denote ${\mathrm{Bord}}$ the free rigid symmetric monoidal category on a point so that we have a canonical equivalence $ {{\mathrm E}}_\infty({\mathsf{Cat}}_\infty )({\mathrm{Bord}}, {\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal D}}) ) \simeq {\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal D}})^\simeq $ between the space of symmetric monoidal functors $ {\mathrm{Bord}}\to {\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ and the full subspace of ${{\mathcal D}}^\simeq $ spanned by the dualizable objects.
We have a canonical isomorphism of commutative monoids $\pi_0({\mathrm{Bord}}) \cong {{\mathbb N}}\times {{\mathbb N}}, $ where ${{\mathbb N}}$ is endowed with the sum.
If $ {{\mathcal B}}= {\mathrm{Bord}}$ every object ${{\mathrm X}}$ of ${\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ corresponds to a symmetric monoidal functor $ \bar{{{\mathrm X}}} : {\mathrm{Bord}}\to {\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal D}}) \subset {{\mathcal D}}$ that sends $({{\mathrm n}}, {{\mathrm m}}) \in {\mathrm{Bord}}$ to $ {{\mathrm X}}^{{\otimes}{{\mathrm n}}} {\otimes}({{\mathrm X}}^{\vee})^{{\otimes}{{\mathrm m}}}. $
In this case we set $${\mathrm{Cell}}_{ {{\mathrm X}}}({{\mathcal D}}) := {\mathrm{Cell}}_{ \bar{{{\mathrm X}}} }({{\mathcal D}})$$ so that $ {\mathrm{Cell}}_{{{\mathrm X}}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ is the full subcategory of $ {{\mathcal D}}$ compactly generated by the set $\{ {{\mathrm X}}^{{\otimes}{{\mathrm n}}} {\otimes}({{\mathrm X}}^{\vee})^{{\otimes}{{\mathrm m}}} \mid {{\mathrm n}}, {{\mathrm m}}\in {{\mathbb N}}\} \subset {{\mathcal D}}. $
Denote ${\mathrm{QS}}$ the 0th space of the sphere spectrum with the structure of a grouplike ${{\mathrm E}}_\infty$-space coming from its infinite loop space structure.
${\mathrm{QS}}$ is the free grouplike ${{\mathrm E}}_\infty$-space generated by a point so that evaluation at $1 \in {\mathrm{QS}}$ induces an equivalence $ {{\mathrm E}}_\infty({\mathsf{Cat}}_\infty )({\mathrm{QS}},{\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}}) ) \simeq {\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}})^\simeq $ between the maximal subspace in ${{\mathcal D}}$ consisting of the tensorinvertible objects and the space of symmetric monoidal functors $ {\mathrm{QS}}\to {\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}}). $
The universal property of ${\mathrm{QS}}$ yields a canonical isomorphism of abelian groups $ \pi_0({\mathrm{QS}}) \cong {{\mathbb Z}}. $
If $ {{\mathcal B}}= {\mathrm{QS}}$ every object ${{\mathrm X}}$ of ${\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ corresponds to a symmetric monoidal functor $ {{\mathrm X}}^{{\otimes}(-)} : {\mathrm{QS}}\to {\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}}) \subset {{\mathcal D}}$ that sends ${{\mathrm n}}\in {\mathrm{QS}}$ to $ {{\mathrm X}}^{{\otimes}{{\mathrm n}}}. $
In this case we set $${\mathrm{Cell}}_{ {{\mathrm X}}}({{\mathcal D}}) := {\mathrm{Cell}}_{ {{\mathrm X}}^{{\otimes}(-)} }({{\mathcal D}})$$ so that $ {\mathrm{Cell}}_{{{\mathrm X}}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ is the full subcategory of $ {{\mathcal D}}$ compactly generated by the set $\{ {{\mathrm X}}^{{\otimes}{{\mathrm n}}} \mid {{\mathrm n}}\in {{\mathbb Z}}\} \subset {{\mathcal D}}$ consisting of all tensorpowers of ${{\mathrm X}}.$
By remark \[cgm\] with the essential image of $ {{\mathrm X}}$ also $ {\mathrm{Cell}}_{{{\mathrm X}}}({{\mathcal D}})$ is a ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal full subcategory of ${{\mathcal D}}. $
Thus $ {\mathrm{Cell}}_{{{\mathrm X}}}({{\mathcal D}})$ is a ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal full stable subcategory of ${{\mathcal D}}$ closed under small colimits. Moreover $ {\mathrm{Cell}}_{{{\mathrm X}}}({{\mathcal D}})$ is presentable by proposition \[cg\].
If ${{\mathcal D}}$ is a stable presentable ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal category with compact tensorunit, then ${{\mathcal D}}^\omega $ and thus $ {\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}}) \subset {{\mathcal D}}^\omega $ is a small category so that we can choose ${{\mathrm X}}: {{\mathcal B}}\to {\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ to be the identity.
Given a ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal functor ${{\mathrm X}}: {{\mathcal B}}\to {\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ starting at a small grouplike ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal category $ {{\mathcal B}}$ every ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal small colimits preserving functor $\phi: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ between stable cocomplete ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal categories with compact tensorunit restricts to a ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal functor $ {\mathrm{Cell}}_{{{\mathrm X}}}({{\mathcal C}}) \to {\mathrm{Cell}}_{\phi \circ {{\mathrm X}}}({{\mathcal D}}). $
generic cellular objects
-------------------------
In this section we show that for every rigid ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal category $ {{\mathcal B}}$ and stable presentable ${{\mathrm k}}+1$-monoidal category $ {{\mathcal C}}$ compactly generated by the tensorunit for $ 0 < {{\mathrm k}}\in {{\mathbb N}}\cup \{\infty \} $ the category of ${{\mathcal K}}$-cellular objects is whole of $ {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) $ (proposition \[tr\]).
To make this statement precise, we have to introduce the Day convolution ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal structure on $ {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}): $
Let ${{\mathrm k}}\in {{\mathbb N}}\cup \{\infty \}, {{\mathcal B}}$ a small ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal category and ${{\mathcal C}}$ a presentable $ {{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal category.
The Day-convolution makes ${\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) $ to a presentable ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal category.
We have a ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal functor $ {{\mathcal C}}\to
{\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) $ that is left adjoint to evaluation at the tensorunit of ${{\mathcal B}}$ and a ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal functor $ {{\mathcal K}}: {{\mathcal B}}^{\mathrm{op}}\subset {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal S}}) \xrightarrow{ } {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) $ induced by the Yoneda embedding of $ {{\mathcal B}}^{\mathrm{op}}$ and the colimits preserving functor $ {{\mathcal S}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ corresponding to the tensorunit of ${{\mathcal C}}. $
Let $ 0 < {{\mathrm k}}\in {{\mathbb N}}\cup \{\infty \}. $
Denote ${\mathrm{Pr}}^{{\mathrm L}}$ the large category of presentable categories with morphisms the left adjoint functors, ${{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}$ the ${{\mathrm k}}$-th little cubes operad and ${\mathrm{Pr}}_{{\mathrm k}}= {\mathrm{Alg}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathrm{Pr}}^{{\mathrm L}}) $ the large category of presentable ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal categories.
${\mathrm{Pr}}^{{\mathrm L}}$ carries a closed symmetric monoidal structure determined by the property that its internal hom of two presentable categories ${{\mathcal A}}, {{\mathcal B}}$ is the presentable category of small colimits preserving functors ${{\mathcal A}}\to {{\mathcal B}}. $
The symmetric monoidal structure on ${\mathrm{Pr}}^{{\mathrm L}}$ lifts to a symmetric monoidal structure on ${\mathrm{Pr}}_{{\mathrm k}}.$
We have a canonical equivalence ${\mathrm{Pr}}_{{{\mathrm k}}+1} \simeq {\mathrm{Alg}}({\mathrm{Pr}}_{{\mathrm k}}) $ between the category of presentable ${{\mathrm k}}+1$-monoidal categories and the category of associative algebras in the category of presentable ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal categories.
Let $ {{\mathcal C}}$ be a presentable ${{\mathrm k}}+1$-monoidal category corresponding to an associative algebra in the category of presentable ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal categories.
We call a left-modul respectively right-modul in ${\mathrm{Pr}}_{{\mathrm k}}$ over the associative algebra corresponding to $ {{\mathcal C}}$ a presentable ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal left respectively right ${{\mathcal C}}$-modul.
We have canonical equivalences $ {{\mathrm{LMod}}}_{{\mathcal C}}({\mathrm{Pr}}_{{\mathrm k}}) \simeq {\mathrm{Alg}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}( {{\mathrm{LMod}}}_{{\mathcal C}}({\mathrm{Pr}}^{{\mathrm L}})) $ and
$ {{\mathrm{RMod}}}_{{\mathcal C}}({\mathrm{Pr}}_{{\mathrm k}}) \simeq {\mathrm{Alg}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}( {{\mathrm{RMod}}}_{{\mathcal C}}({\mathrm{Pr}}^{{\mathrm L}}) ) . $
Let ${{\mathcal C}}$ be a presentable $ {{\mathrm k}}+1 $-monoidal category and ${{\mathcal D}}$ a presentable ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal left ${{\mathcal C}}$-modul.
Then the action map ${{\mathcal C}}{\otimes}{{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ of ${{\mathcal D}}$ in $ {\mathrm{Pr}}_{{\mathrm k}}$ corresponds to a ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal functor ${{\mathcal C}}\times {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ that preserves small colimits in each variable.
\[univ\]
Let ${{\mathrm k}}\in {{\mathbb N}}\cup \{\infty \} $ and ${{\mathcal C}}$ a presentable $ {{\mathrm k}}+1 $-monoidal category.
Then ${\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) $ endowed with the Day-convolution is a presentable ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal left ${{\mathcal C}}$-module, where the ${{\mathcal C}}$-module structure is the levelwise one.
The Day-convolution on ${\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) $ is characterized by the following universal property:
For every presentable ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal left ${{\mathcal C}}$-modul ${{\mathcal D}}$ composition with $ {{\mathcal K}}: {{\mathcal B}}^{\mathrm{op}}\xrightarrow{ } {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) $ induces an equivalence $${\mathrm{Fun}}^{{\otimes}, {{\mathrm k}}, {{\mathrm L}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}} {( {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}),{{\mathcal D}}}) \simeq {\mathrm{Fun}}^{{\otimes}, {{\mathrm k}}}{({{\mathcal B}}^{\mathrm{op}},{{\mathcal D}}})$$ between the category of ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal left ${{\mathcal C}}$-linear functors $ {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) \to {{\mathcal D}}$ that admit a right adjoint and the category of ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal functors $ {{\mathcal B}}^{\mathrm{op}}\to {{\mathcal D}}. $
So every ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal functor $ \psi: {{\mathcal B}}^{\mathrm{op}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ uniquely extends to a ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal left ${{\mathcal C}}$-linear functor $\phi: {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) \to {{\mathcal D}}$ that admits a right adjoint $ \gamma: {{\mathcal D}}\to {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) . $
The functor $ \gamma : {{\mathcal D}}\to {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) $ is adjoint to the functor $ {{\mathcal B}}\times {{\mathcal D}}\xrightarrow{ \psi^{\mathrm{op}}\times {{\mathcal D}}} {{\mathcal D}}^{\mathrm{op}}\times {{\mathcal D}}\xrightarrow{[-,-]_{{\mathrm r}}} {{\mathcal C}}, $ where the functor $ [-,-]_{{\mathrm r}}: {{\mathcal D}}^{\mathrm{op}}\times {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ denotes the ${{\mathcal C}}$-hom of ${{\mathcal D}}$ ( determined by the existence of a natural equivalence $ {{\mathcal D}}({{\mathrm X}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm Y}}, {{\mathrm Z}}) \simeq {{\mathcal C}}({{\mathrm X}},[{{\mathrm Y}},{{\mathrm Z}}]_{{\mathrm r}}) $ for objects ${{\mathrm X}}$ of ${{\mathcal C}}$ and $ {{\mathrm Y}}, {{\mathrm Z}}$ of ${{\mathcal D}}$ ).
\[ztrews\]
The functor $ \gamma : {{\mathcal D}}\to {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) $ obtains the structure of a lax ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal functor from its ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal left adjoint $\phi. $
By the universal property of the Day-convolution the structure of a lax ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal functor on $\gamma$ corresponds to the structure of a lax ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal functor on the composition $ {{\mathcal B}}\times {{\mathcal D}}\xrightarrow{ \psi^{\mathrm{op}}\times {{\mathcal D}}} {{\mathcal D}}^{\mathrm{op}}\times {{\mathcal D}}\xrightarrow{[-,-]_{{\mathrm r}}} {{\mathcal C}}. $
This structure is exactly the structure, the functor $ {{\mathcal B}}\times {{\mathcal D}}\xrightarrow{ \psi^{\mathrm{op}}\times {{\mathcal D}}} {{\mathcal D}}^{\mathrm{op}}\times {{\mathcal D}}\xrightarrow{[-,-]_{{\mathrm r}}} {{\mathcal C}}$ obtains as a composition of the lax ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal functors $ \psi : {{\mathcal B}}^{\mathrm{op}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ and $ [-,-]_{{\mathrm r}}:{{\mathcal D}}^{\mathrm{op}}\times {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal C}}. $
The structure of a lax ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal functor on $ [-,-]_{{\mathrm r}}:{{\mathcal D}}^{\mathrm{op}}\times {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ is induced from the ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal action map $ {{\mathcal C}}\times {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ of the ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal left ${{\mathcal C}}$-modul ${{\mathcal D}}$ as both functors are related by an adjunction of two variables.
If the tensorunit of ${{\mathcal C}}$ is compact, the tensorunit of $ {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) $ is compact, too, being the image of the tensorunit of ${{\mathcal C}}$ under the ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal functor $ {{\mathcal C}}\to {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) $ that is left adjoint to the colimits preserving functor $ {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) \to {{\mathcal C}}$ that evaluates at the tensorunit of ${{\mathcal B}}. $
Let ${{\mathrm k}}\in {{\mathbb N}}\cup \{\infty \}. $
Let ${{\mathcal B}}$ be a small rigid ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal category, ${{\mathcal C}}$ a stable presentable ${{\mathrm k}}+1$-monoidal category, ${{\mathcal D}}$ a stable presentable ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal left ${{\mathcal C}}$-modul and $ \psi: {{\mathcal B}}^{\mathrm{op}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ a ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal functor.
By remark \[univ\] there is a unique colimits preserving ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal left ${{\mathcal C}}$-linear functor $\phi: {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) \to {{\mathcal D}}$ with $ \phi \circ {{\mathcal K}}\simeq \psi. $
If we assume that the tensorunits of ${{\mathcal C}}$ and ${{\mathcal D}}$ are compact, $\phi: {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) \to {{\mathcal D}}$ restricts to a ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal functor $ {\mathrm{Cell}}_{{{\mathcal K}}}({\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}})) \to {\mathrm{Cell}}_{\phi \circ {{\mathcal K}}}({{\mathcal D}})= {\mathrm{Cell}}_{\psi }({{\mathcal D}}). $
The following proposition \[tr\] asserts that $ {\mathrm{Cell}}_{{{\mathcal K}}}({\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}})) = {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) $ if ${{\mathcal C}}$ is compactly generated by its tensorunit.
In this case we end up with a ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal functor $ {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) \to {\mathrm{Cell}}_{\psi }({{\mathcal D}}). $
\[tr\]
Let ${{\mathrm k}}\in {{\mathbb N}}\cup \{\infty \}. $
Let $ {{\mathcal C}}$ be a stable presentable ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal category which is compactly generated by the tensorunit and ${{\mathcal B}}$ a small rigid ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal category.
Then $ {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) $ is compactly generated by the essential image of $ {{\mathcal K}}$, in other words $${\mathrm{Cell}}_{{{\mathcal K}}}( {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}})) = {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}).$$
Denote $ (-) {\otimes}{{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal C}}: {{\mathcal S}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ the colimits preserving functor corresponding to the tensorunit of ${{\mathcal C}}. $
$ (-) {\otimes}{{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal C}}: {{\mathcal S}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ is left adjoint to the functor $ {{\mathcal C}}( {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal C}}, -): {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal S}}. $
Thus for every object ${{\mathrm Z}}\in {{\mathcal B}}$ we can write $ {{\mathcal K}}({{\mathrm Z}}) = {{\mathcal B}}({{\mathrm Z}},-) {\otimes}{{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal C}}$ and using the Yoneda-lemma we obtain a canonical equivalence $${\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}})({{\mathcal K}}({{\mathrm Z}}), {{\mathrm F}}) = {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}})( {{\mathcal B}}({{\mathrm Z}}, -) {\otimes}{{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal C}}, {{\mathrm F}}) \simeq
{\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal S}}) ({{\mathcal B}}({{\mathrm Z}}, -), {{\mathcal C}}( {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal C}}, {{\mathrm F}}(-))$$ $$\simeq {{\mathcal C}}({{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal C}}, {{\mathrm F}}({{\mathrm Z}}) )$$ for every ${{\mathrm Z}}\in {{\mathcal B}}$ and ${{\mathrm F}}\in {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}). $
We have to show that a morphism ${\mathsf{f}}: {{\mathrm U}}\to {{\mathrm V}}$ of $ {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) $ is an equivalence if $$\alpha: {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) (\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathcal K}}({{\mathrm Z}})),{\mathsf{f}}): {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}})(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathcal K}}({{\mathrm Z}})),{{\mathrm U}}) \to$$ $${\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}})(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathcal K}}({{\mathrm Z}})),{{\mathrm V}})$$ is an equivalence for all ${{\mathrm Z}}\in {{\mathcal B}}$ and ${{\mathrm n}}\in {{\mathbb Z}}$.
$ \alpha $ is equivalent to $${\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) ({{\mathcal K}}({{\mathrm Z}}), \Omega^{{\mathrm n}}({\mathsf{f}})): {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}})( {{\mathcal K}}({{\mathrm Z}}),\Omega^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm U}})) \to$$ $${\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}})({{\mathcal K}}({{\mathrm Z}}),\Omega^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm V}}))$$ and thus equivalent to $${{\mathcal C}}({{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal C}}, \Omega^{{\mathrm n}}({\mathsf{f}}({{\mathrm Z}})) ) : {{\mathcal C}}({{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal C}}, \Omega^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm U}}({{\mathrm Z}})) ) \to {{\mathcal C}}({{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal C}}, \Omega^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm V}}({{\mathrm Z}})) )$$ respectively $$\beta: {{\mathcal C}}(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathbb 1}}_ {{\mathcal C}}), {\mathsf{f}}({{\mathrm Z}})): {{\mathcal C}}(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathbb 1}}_ {{\mathcal C}}),{{\mathrm U}}({{\mathrm Z}})) \to {{\mathcal C}}(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathbb 1}}_ {{\mathcal C}}), {{\mathrm V}}({{\mathrm Z}})),$$ where we use the canonical equivalence from above and the fact that evaluation at ${{\mathrm Z}}$ is an exact functor.
Therefore we have to see that a morphism ${\mathsf{f}}: {{\mathrm U}}\to {{\mathrm V}}$ in $ {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) $ is an equivalence if $ \beta $ is an equivalence for all ${{\mathrm Z}}\in {{\mathcal B}}$ and ${{\mathrm n}}\in {{\mathbb Z}}$.
This follows from the assumption that $ {{\mathcal C}}$ is compactly generated by the tensorunit.
Presenting cellular objects as modules
======================================
Recall for the following lemma that for every monoidal category $ {{\mathcal D}}$ that admits geometric realizations of simplicial objects that are preserved by the tensor product in each component and for every map ${\mathsf{f}}: {{\mathrm A}}\to {{\mathrm B}}$ of associative algebras of ${{\mathcal D}}$ the forgetful functor $ {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm B}}}({{\mathcal D}}) \to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ admits a left adjoint $ {{\mathrm B}}\underset{ {{\mathrm A}}}{{\otimes}} - : {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}}({{\mathcal D}}) \to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm B}}}({{\mathcal D}}). $ [@lurie.higheralgebra]\[prop. 4.6.2.17.\]
The following lemma \[qq\] is a main ingredient in the proof of proposition \[tt\], from which we deduce theorem \[tre\]:
\[qq\]
Let $\phi: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ be a monoidal functor that admits a right adjoint $\gamma: {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal C}}.$
Assume that $ {{\mathcal D}}$ admits geometric realizations of simplicial objects and that the tensor product of ${{\mathcal D}}$ preserves geometric realizations of simplicial objects in each component.
Let ${{\mathrm A}}$ be an associative algebra of ${{\mathcal C}}$, ${{\mathrm B}}$ an associative algebra of ${{\mathcal D}}$, ${\mathsf{f}}: \phi({{\mathrm A}}) \to {{\mathrm B}}$ a map of associative algebras of ${{\mathcal D}}$ and ${{\mathrm g}}: {{\mathrm A}}\to \gamma({{\mathrm B}}) $ its adjoint map.
Denote $ \Phi : {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}}({{\mathcal C}}) \to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{\phi ({{\mathrm A}})} ( {{\mathcal D}}) $ the induced functor on left modules and $ \Gamma $ its right adjoint.
Let $\eta $ be the unit of the induced adjunction on left modules
$${{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}}({{\mathcal C}}) \xrightarrow{\Phi } {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{\phi ({{\mathrm A}})} ( {{\mathcal D}}) \xrightarrow{{{\mathrm B}}\underset{ \phi ({{\mathrm A}})}{{\otimes}} - } {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm B}}} ( {{\mathcal D}}).$$
Then ${{\mathrm g}}: {{\mathrm A}}\to \gamma({{\mathrm B}}) $ is an equivalence if and only if $\eta_{{\mathrm X}}$ is an equivalence for every free ${{\mathrm A}}$-module ${{\mathrm X}}$ on a right-dualizable object of ${{\mathcal C}}.$
Let ${{\mathrm Y}}\in {{\mathcal C}}$ be right-dualizable and ${{\mathrm Y}}^{\vee}\in {{\mathcal C}}$ a right dual of Y.
As right duals are preserved by monoidal functors, $\phi({{\mathrm Y}}^{\vee}) $ is a right dual of $\phi({{\mathrm Y}}) $. So the functors $ - {\otimes}{{\mathrm Y}}^{\vee}: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ is left adjoint to $ - {\otimes}{{\mathrm Y}}: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ and $ - {\otimes}\phi({{\mathrm Y}}^{\vee}) : {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ is left adjoint to $ - {\otimes}\phi({{\mathrm Y}}) : {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal D}}. $
The structure of a monoidal functor on $ \phi: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ provides an equivalence $$\alpha: \phi(-) {\otimes}\phi ({{\mathrm Y}}^{\vee}) \simeq \phi (-{\otimes}{{\mathrm Y}}^{\vee})$$ in ${\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal C}}, {{\mathcal D}}) $ which induces an equivalence $ \beta: \gamma(-) {\otimes}{{\mathrm Y}}\simeq \gamma (- {\otimes}\phi({{\mathrm Y}})) $ in ${\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal D}}, {{\mathcal C}}) $ between the right adjoints.
$\beta $ is uniquely characterized by the property that the square
$$\begin{xy}
\xymatrix{
{\mathrm{id}}_{{\mathcal C}}\ar[dd] \ar[rrr]
&&& (- {\otimes}{{\mathrm Y}}) \circ \gamma \circ \phi \circ (-{\otimes}{{\mathrm Y}}^{\vee})) \ar[dd]^\simeq
\\
\\
\gamma \circ (- {\otimes}\phi({{\mathrm Y}})) \circ (-{\otimes}\phi ({{\mathrm Y}}^{\vee})) \circ \phi \ar[rrr]^\simeq &&& \gamma \circ (- {\otimes}\phi({{\mathrm Y}})) \circ \phi \circ (-{\otimes}{{\mathrm Y}}^{\vee})
}
\end{xy}$$
in ${\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal C}}, {{\mathcal C}}) $ commutes.
The canonical morphism $ \gamma(-) {\otimes}{{\mathrm Y}}\to \gamma(-) {\otimes}\gamma \phi({{\mathrm Y}}) \simeq \gamma (- {\otimes}\phi({{\mathrm Y}})) $ in ${\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal D}}, {{\mathcal C}}) $ also makes the last diagram commute and is thus homotopic to $ \beta. $
Given a monoidal category ${{\mathcal E}}$ and a map $ \varphi: {{\mathrm Z}}\to {{\mathrm Z}}'$ of associative algebras in ${{\mathcal E}}$ denote $ {{\mathrm V}}_{{\mathrm Z}}: {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm Z}}}({{\mathcal E}}) \to {{\mathcal E}}$ and $ \varphi^\ast: {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm Z}}'}({{\mathcal E}}) \to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm Z}}}({{\mathcal E}}) $ the forgetful functors and ${{\mathrm F}}_{{\mathrm Z}}: {{\mathcal E}}\to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm Z}}}({{\mathcal E}}) , {{\mathrm Z}}' {\otimes}_{{\mathrm Z}}- : {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm Z}}}({{\mathcal E}}) \to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm Z}}'}({{\mathcal E}}) $ their left adjoints.
The unit $\eta_{ {{\mathrm A}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm Y}}} $ of the induced adjunction on left modules
$${{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}}({{\mathcal C}}) \xrightarrow{\Phi } {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{\phi ({{\mathrm A}})} ( {{\mathcal D}}) \xrightarrow{{{\mathrm B}}\underset{ \phi ({{\mathrm A}})}{{\otimes}} - } {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm B}}} ( {{\mathcal D}})$$ is given by $ {{\mathrm A}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm Y}}\to \Gamma \Phi ({{\mathrm A}}\otimes {{\mathrm Y}}) \to \Gamma {\mathsf{f}}^\ast( {{\mathrm B}}\otimes_{{\phi} ({{\mathrm A}})} \Phi ({{\mathrm A}}\otimes {{\mathrm Y}})). $
Thus the statement of the lemma follows from the commutativity of the following diagram in ${{\mathcal C}}, $ whose top horizontal morphism is the image of $\eta_{ {{\mathrm A}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm Y}}} $ in ${{\mathcal C}}$ under the forgetful functor and whose bottom horizontal morphism is ${{\mathrm g}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm Y}}: $
=0.0mu
$$\begin{xy}
\xymatrix@C-=0.5cm{
{{\mathrm V}}_{{\mathrm A}}{{\mathrm F}}_{{\mathrm A}}( {{\mathrm Y}})
\ar[rr]
\ar[rd]
\ar[ddddd]_/0em/\simeq
&&{{\mathrm V}}_{{\mathrm A}}\Gamma \Phi {{\mathrm F}}_{{\mathrm A}}( {{\mathrm Y}})
\ar[r]
\ar[d]^/-.3em/\simeq
&{{\mathrm V}}_{{\mathrm A}}\Gamma {\mathsf{f}}^\ast( {{\mathrm B}}\underset{ \phi ({{\mathrm A}})}{{\otimes}} \Phi {{\mathrm F}}_{{\mathrm A}}( {{\mathrm Y}}))
\ar[d]^/-.3em/\simeq
\\
&\gamma \phi {{\mathrm V}}_{{{\mathrm A}}} {{\mathrm F}}_{{\mathrm A}}( {{\mathrm Y}})
\ar[r]^/-.3em/\simeq
\ar[ddd]^/-.3em/\simeq
&\gamma {{\mathrm V}}_{\phi({{\mathrm A}})} \Phi {{\mathrm F}}_{{\mathrm A}}( {{\mathrm Y}})
\ar[r]
\ar[d]^/-.3em/\simeq
&\gamma {{\mathrm V}}_{\phi({{\mathrm A}})} {\mathsf{f}}^\ast( {{\mathrm B}}\underset{ \phi ({{\mathrm A}})}{{\otimes}} \Phi {{\mathrm F}}_{{\mathrm A}}( {{\mathrm Y}}))
\ar[d]^/-.3em/\simeq
\\
&&\gamma {{\mathrm V}}_{\phi({{\mathrm A}})} {{\mathrm F}}_{\phi ({{\mathrm A}})} \phi({{\mathrm Y}})
\ar[r]
\ar[dd] ^/-.3em/\simeq
&\gamma {{\mathrm V}}_{\phi({{\mathrm A}})} {\mathsf{f}}^\ast( {{\mathrm B}}\underset{ \phi ({{\mathrm A}})}{{\otimes}} {{\mathrm F}}_{\phi ({{\mathrm A}})} \phi({{\mathrm Y}}))
\ar[d]^/-.3em/\simeq
\\
&&&\gamma {{\mathrm V}}_{{{\mathrm B}}} {{\mathrm F}}_{{\mathrm B}}\phi({{\mathrm Y}})
\ar[d]^/-.3em/\simeq
\\
&\gamma \phi ({{\mathrm A}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm Y}})
\ar[r]^/-.3em/\simeq
&\gamma ( \phi ({{\mathrm A}}) \otimes \phi({{\mathrm Y}}))
\ar[r]
&\gamma ( {{\mathrm B}}\otimes \phi({{\mathrm Y}}))
\\
{{\mathrm A}}\otimes {{\mathrm Y}}\ar[rr]
\ar[ru]
&&\gamma ( \phi ({{\mathrm A}})) {\otimes}{{\mathrm Y}}\ar[r]
\ar[u]^{\beta_{\phi({{\mathrm A}})}}_/-.3em/\simeq
&\gamma ( {{\mathrm B}}) \otimes {{\mathrm Y}}\ar[u]^{\beta_{{{\mathrm B}}}}_/-.3em/\simeq }
\end{xy}$$
The commutativity of the top left square of the diagram says that the unit of the adjunction $ \Phi : {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}}({{\mathcal C}}) \rightleftarrows {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{\phi ({{\mathrm A}})} ( {{\mathcal D}}) : \Gamma $ lifts the unit of the adjunction $\phi: {{\mathcal C}}\rightleftarrows {{\mathcal D}}: \gamma $ along the forgetful functors.
This follows from the fact that the forgetful functors $ {{\mathrm V}}_{{\mathrm A}}: {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}}({{\mathcal C}}) \to {{\mathcal C}}$ and $ {{\mathrm V}}_{ \phi({{\mathrm A}})}: {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{\phi({{\mathrm A}})}({{\mathcal D}}) \to {{\mathcal D}}$ are part of a map of adjunctions from $ \Phi : {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}}({{\mathcal C}}) \rightleftarrows {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{\phi ({{\mathrm A}})} ( {{\mathcal D}}) : \Gamma $ to $\phi: {{\mathcal C}}\rightleftarrows {{\mathcal D}}: \gamma $ by construction of the induced adjunction on left modules.
The bottom left square of the diagram commutes as the unit $ {\mathrm{id}}_{{\mathcal C}}\to \gamma \circ \phi $ of the adjunction $\phi: {{\mathcal C}}\rightleftarrows {{\mathcal D}}: \gamma $ gets a monoidal natural transformation when we give $ \gamma $ the structure of a lax monoidal functor from its monoidal left adjoint $ \phi. $
It remains to check that the only two squares with five knots commute, which are the square in the middle of the diagram and the right middle square, as all other squares commute by naturality.
To do so, it is helpful to describe the free functor more explicitely.
The free functor ${{\mathrm F}}_{{\mathrm A}}: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}}({{\mathcal C}}) $ can be constructed in the following way:
Recall that the category of left ${{\mathrm A}}$-modules $ {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}}({{\mathcal C}}) $ is a right modul over ${{\mathcal C}}$ in the expected way so that we have an action map $ {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}}({{\mathcal C}}) \times {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}}({{\mathcal C}}) $ over the tensor product functor $ {{\mathcal C}}\times {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal C}}. $ [@lurie.higheralgebra]\[constr. 4.8.3.24.\]
Especially we get a functor ${{\mathrm F}}_{{\mathrm A}}: {{\mathcal C}}\simeq \{ {{\mathrm A}}\} \times {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}}({{\mathcal C}}) \times {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}}({{\mathcal C}}) $ with $ {{\mathrm V}}_{{\mathrm A}}\circ {{\mathrm F}}_{{\mathrm A}}\simeq {{\mathrm A}}{\otimes}- $ and a natural transformation $ \rho: {\mathrm{id}}_{{\mathcal C}}\simeq {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal C}}{\otimes}- \to {{\mathrm A}}{\otimes}- \simeq {{\mathrm V}}_{{\mathrm A}}{{\mathrm F}}_{{\mathrm A}}. $
For every object $ {{\mathrm X}}$ of ${{\mathcal C}}$ the left action map $ \mu_{{\mathrm X}}: {{\mathrm A}}{\otimes}({{\mathrm A}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm X}}) \simeq {{\mathrm A}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm V}}_{{\mathrm A}}{{\mathrm F}}_{{\mathrm A}}({{\mathrm X}}) \to {{\mathrm V}}_{{\mathrm A}}{{\mathrm F}}_{{\mathrm A}}({{\mathrm X}}) \simeq {{\mathrm A}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm X}}$ of $ {{\mathrm F}}_{{\mathrm A}}({{\mathrm X}}) $ is given by the canonical map ${{\mathrm A}}{\otimes}({{\mathrm A}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm X}}) \simeq ({{\mathrm A}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm A}}) {\otimes}{{\mathrm X}}\to {{\mathrm A}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm X}}$ induced by the multiplication map $ {{\mathrm A}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm A}}\to {{\mathrm A}}$ of the associative algebra ${{\mathrm A}}. $ Therefore the composition $ {{\mathrm A}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm X}}\xrightarrow{{{\mathrm A}}{\otimes}\rho({{\mathrm X}}) } {{\mathrm A}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm V}}_{{\mathrm A}}{{\mathrm F}}_{{\mathrm A}}({{\mathrm X}}) \xrightarrow{\mu_{{\mathrm X}}} {{\mathrm V}}_{{\mathrm A}}{{\mathrm F}}_{{\mathrm A}}({{\mathrm X}}) $ is an equivalence so that $ \rho: {\mathrm{id}}_{{\mathcal C}}\simeq {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal C}}{\otimes}- \to {{\mathrm A}}{\otimes}- \simeq {{\mathrm V}}_{{\mathrm A}}\circ {{\mathrm F}}_{{\mathrm A}}$ exhibits ${{\mathrm F}}_{{\mathrm A}}: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}}({{\mathcal C}}) $ as left adjoint to $ {{\mathrm V}}_{{\mathrm A}}: {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}}({{\mathcal C}}) \to {{\mathcal C}}. $ [@lurie.higheralgebra]\[prop. 4.2.4.2.\]
For a morphism $ \varphi: {{\mathrm A}}\to {{\mathrm A}}'$ of associative algebras in ${{\mathcal C}}$ the forgetful functor $\varphi^\ast : {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}'}({{\mathcal C}}) \to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}}({{\mathcal C}}) $ is a map of right $ {{\mathcal C}}$-modules [@lurie.higheralgebra]\[constr. 4.8.3.24.\] so that we obtain a canonical equivalence $ {{\mathrm F}}_{ \varphi^\ast({{\mathrm A}}' )} \simeq \varphi^\ast \circ {{\mathrm F}}_{{{\mathrm A}}'} $ of functors ${{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}}({{\mathcal C}}) $ lifting the identity natural transformation of ${{\mathcal C}}.$
$ \varphi: {{\mathrm A}}\to {{\mathrm A}}'$ corresponds to a map $ {{\mathrm A}}\to \phi^\ast({{\mathrm A}}') $ of left ${{\mathrm A}}$-modules in ${{\mathcal C}}$ that yields a functor $ \Delta^1 \times {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}}({{\mathcal C}}) \times {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}}({{\mathcal C}}) $ corresponding to a natural transformation $ \theta: {{\mathrm F}}_{{\mathrm A}}\to {{\mathrm F}}_{\varphi^\ast({{\mathrm A}}')} \simeq \varphi^\ast \circ {{\mathrm F}}_{{{\mathrm A}}'} $ of functors ${{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}}({{\mathcal C}}) $ lifting the natural transformation $ \varphi {\otimes}- : {{\mathrm A}}{\otimes}- \to {{\mathrm A}}' {\otimes}- $ of functors ${{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal C}}. $
For every object ${{\mathrm X}}$ of ${{\mathcal C}}$ and every left ${{\mathrm A}}'$-module ${{\mathrm M}}$ of ${{\mathcal C}}$ the canonical map $ {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}'}({{\mathcal C}}) ({{\mathrm F}}_{{{\mathrm A}}'}({{\mathrm X}}), {{\mathrm M}}) \to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}}({{\mathcal C}})( \varphi^\ast({{\mathrm F}}_{{{\mathrm A}}'}({{\mathrm X}})), \varphi^\ast({{\mathrm M}})) $
$ \to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}}({{\mathcal C}})( {{\mathrm F}}_{{{\mathrm A}}} ({{\mathrm X}}), \varphi^\ast({{\mathrm M}})) \simeq {{\mathcal C}}( {{\mathrm X}}, {{\mathrm V}}_{{{\mathrm A}}'}({{\mathrm M}})) $ is homotopic to the canonical equivalence $ {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}'}({{\mathcal C}}) ({{\mathrm F}}_{{{\mathrm A}}'}({{\mathrm X}}), {{\mathrm M}}) \to {{\mathcal C}}( {{\mathrm X}}, {{\mathrm V}}_{{{\mathrm A}}'}({{\mathrm M}})). $
Thus $ \theta: {{\mathrm F}}_{{\mathrm A}}\to \varphi^\ast \circ {{\mathrm F}}_{{{\mathrm A}}'} $ is adjoint to an equivalence $\sigma : {{\mathrm A}}' {\otimes}_{{\mathrm A}}{{\mathrm F}}_{{\mathrm A}}(-) \to {{\mathrm F}}_{{{\mathrm A}}'} $ and the natural transformation
${{\mathrm A}}{\otimes}- \simeq {{\mathrm V}}_{{{\mathrm A}}} {{\mathrm F}}_{{\mathrm A}}\to {{\mathrm V}}_{{{\mathrm A}}} \varphi^\ast {{\mathrm A}}' {\otimes}_{{\mathrm A}}{{\mathrm F}}_{{\mathrm A}}(-) \simeq {{\mathrm V}}_{{{\mathrm A}}' } {{\mathrm A}}' {\otimes}_{{\mathrm A}}{{\mathrm F}}_{{\mathrm A}}(-) \xrightarrow{ {{\mathrm V}}_{{{\mathrm A}}' } \sigma } {{\mathcal V}}_{{{\mathrm A}}' } {{\mathrm F}}_{{{\mathrm A}}'} \simeq {{\mathrm A}}' {\otimes}- $ is homotopic to the natural transformation $\varphi {\otimes}- : {{\mathrm A}}{\otimes}- \to {{\mathrm A}}' {\otimes}-. $
This implies the commutativity of the right middle square.
The functor $ {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}}({{\mathcal C}}) \to
{{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{\phi({{\mathrm A}})}({{\mathcal D}}) $ induced by $ \phi: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ is a map of right $ {{\mathcal C}}$-modules, where ${{\mathcal C}}$ acts on $ {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{\phi({{\mathrm A}})}({{\mathcal D}}) $ via $\phi. $ [@lurie.higheralgebra]\[constr. 4.8.3.24.\]
Thus we obtain a canonical equivalence $ {{\mathrm F}}_{\phi({{\mathrm A}}) } \circ \phi \to \Phi \circ {{\mathrm F}}_{{\mathrm A}}$ of functors $ {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{\phi({{\mathrm A}})}({{\mathcal D}}) $ lifting the canonical equivalence $ \phi ({{\mathrm A}}) {\otimes}\phi(-) \to \phi({{\mathrm A}}{\otimes}-) $ of functors $ {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal D}}. $
This shows the commutativity of the middle square.
Lemma \[qq\] has the following dual version, where one replaces left modules by right modules and right-dualizable objects by left-dualizable ones:
Let $\phi: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ be a monoidal functor that admits a right adjoint $\gamma: {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal C}}.$
Assume that $ {{\mathcal D}}$ admits geometric realizations of simplicial objects and that the tensor product of ${{\mathcal D}}$ preserves geometric realizations of simplicial objects in each component.
Let ${{\mathrm A}}$ be an associative algebra of ${{\mathcal C}}$, ${{\mathrm B}}$ an associative algebra of ${{\mathcal D}}$, ${\mathsf{f}}: \phi({{\mathrm A}}) \to {{\mathrm B}}$ a map of associative algebras of ${{\mathcal D}}$ and ${{\mathrm g}}: {{\mathrm A}}\to \gamma({{\mathrm B}}) $ its adjoint map.
Denote $ \Phi : {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}}({{\mathcal C}}) \to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{\phi ({{\mathrm A}})} ( {{\mathcal D}}) $ the induced functor on right modules and $ \Gamma $ its right adjoint.
Let $\eta $ be the unit of the induced adjunction on right modules
$${{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}}({{\mathcal C}}) \xrightarrow{\Phi } {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{\phi ({{\mathrm A}})} ( {{\mathcal D}}) \xrightarrow{- \underset{ \phi ({{\mathrm A}})}{{\otimes}} {{\mathrm B}}} {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm B}}} ( {{\mathcal D}}).$$
Then ${{\mathrm g}}: {{\mathrm A}}\to \gamma({{\mathrm B}}) $ is an equivalence if and only if $\eta_{{\mathrm X}}$ is an equivalence for every free ${{\mathrm A}}$-module ${{\mathrm X}}$ on a left-dualizable object of ${{\mathcal C}}.$
Proposition \[cg\], lemma \[q\] and lemma \[qq\] combine to imply the following corollary:
\[tt\]
Let $\phi: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ be a monoidal functor between cocomplete stable monoidal categories and $\gamma: {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ a right adjoint of $\phi$.
Let ${{\mathrm A}}$ be an associative algebra of ${{\mathcal C}}$ and ${{\mathrm B}}$ an associative algebra of ${{\mathcal D}}$ and ${\mathsf{f}}: \phi({{\mathrm A}}) \to {{\mathrm B}}$ a map of associative algebras of ${{\mathcal D}}$ whose adjoint map ${{\mathrm g}}: {{\mathrm A}}\to \gamma({{\mathrm B}}) $ is an equivalence.
Denote $ \Phi : {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}}({{\mathcal C}}) \to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{\phi ({{\mathrm A}})} ( {{\mathcal D}}) $ the induced functor on left modules and $ \Gamma $ its right adjoint.
Let ${{\mathcal C}}$ be compactly generated by a set ${{\mathcal E}}\subset {\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal C}}) $ of right-dualizable objects such that $\phi$ sends every object of ${{\mathcal E}}$ to a compact one.
Then
$$( {{\mathrm B}}\underset{ \phi ({{\mathrm A}})}{{\otimes}} - ) \circ \Phi: {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}}({{\mathcal C}}) \to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{\phi ({{\mathrm A}})} ( {{\mathcal D}}) \to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm B}}} ( {{\mathcal D}}).$$
is fully faithful and its essential image is compactly generated by the free ${{\mathrm B}}$-modules on the images under $\phi$ of the compact generators in ${{\mathcal E}}$.
As ${{\mathcal C}}$ is compactly generated by ${{\mathcal E}}, $ remark \[ccm\] implies that $ {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}}({{\mathcal C}}) $ is compactly generated by the set of free ${{\mathrm A}}$-modules on objects of ${{\mathcal E}}. $
Moreover as $\phi: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ sends every object of ${{\mathcal E}}$ to a compact object of ${{\mathcal D}}, $ the induced functor $ ( {{\mathrm B}}\underset{ \phi ({{\mathrm A}})}{{\otimes}} - ) \circ \Phi: {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}}({{\mathcal C}}) \to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{\phi ({{\mathrm A}})} ( {{\mathcal D}}) \to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm B}}} ( {{\mathcal D}}) $ sends every free ${{\mathrm A}}$-module on an object of ${{\mathcal E}}$ to a compact object of $ {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm B}}} ( {{\mathcal D}}). $
Denote $\eta $ the unit of the induced adjunction $ ( {{\mathrm B}}\underset{ \phi ({{\mathrm A}})}{{\otimes}} - ) \circ \Phi: {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}}({{\mathcal C}}) \to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{\phi ({{\mathrm A}})} ( {{\mathcal D}}) \to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm B}}} ( {{\mathcal D}}) $ on left modules.
By lemma \[qq\] the assumptions that ${{\mathrm g}}: {{\mathrm A}}\to \gamma({{\mathrm B}}) $ is an equivalence and that ${{\mathcal E}}\subset {\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal C}}) $ guarantee that $\eta_{\Sigma^{{{\mathrm n}}} {{\mathrm X}}} $ is an equivalence for every free ${{\mathrm A}}$-module ${{\mathrm X}}$ on an object of ${{\mathcal E}}$ and every natural ${{\mathrm n}}\in {{\mathbb Z}}.$
So the statement follows from lemma \[q\].
\[ewa\]
Given a ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal category ${{\mathcal C}}$ and an ${{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}$-algebra ${{\mathrm A}}$ of ${{\mathcal C}}$ for some $ 0 < {{\mathrm k}}\in {{\mathbb N}}\cup \{\infty \} $ the category $ {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}}({{\mathcal C}}) $ of left ${{\mathrm A}}$-modules in ${{\mathcal C}}$ is a ${{\mathrm k}}-1$ monoidal category.
Let $ \phi: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ be a ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal functor between ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal categories, ${{\mathrm A}}$ be an ${{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}$-algebra of ${{\mathcal C}}$ and ${\mathsf{f}}: \phi({{\mathrm A}}) \to {{\mathrm B}}$ a map of ${{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}$-algebras of ${{\mathcal D}}.$
Then the induced functors $ \Phi : {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}}({{\mathcal C}}) \to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{\phi ({{\mathrm A}})} ( {{\mathcal D}}) $ and $ ( {{\mathrm B}}\underset{ \phi ({{\mathrm A}})}{{\otimes}} - ): {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{\phi ({{\mathrm A}})} ( {{\mathcal D}}) \to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm B}}} ( {{\mathcal D}}) $ on left modules are ${{\mathrm k}}-1$ monoidal.
Thus if we assume the monoidal functor $ \phi: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ in corollary \[tt\] to be ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal, ${{\mathrm A}}$ to be an ${{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}$-algebra of ${{\mathcal C}}$ and ${\mathsf{f}}: \phi({{\mathrm A}}) \to {{\mathrm B}}$ to be a map of ${{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}$-algebras of ${{\mathcal D}}, $ then the functor $ ( {{\mathrm B}}\underset{ \phi ({{\mathrm A}})}{{\otimes}} - ) \circ \Phi: {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}}({{\mathcal C}}) \to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{\phi ({{\mathrm A}})} ( {{\mathcal D}}) \to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm B}}} ( {{\mathcal D}}) $ is ${{\mathrm k}}-1$ monoidal and induces a ${{\mathrm k}}-1$ monoidal equivalence from $ {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm A}}}({{\mathcal C}}) $ to the full ${{\mathrm k}}-1$ monoidal subcategory of $ {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathrm B}}} ( {{\mathcal D}}) $ compactly generated by the free ${{\mathrm B}}$-modules on the images under $\phi$ of the compact generators in ${{\mathcal E}}$.
Before we use corollary \[tt\] and proposition \[tr\] to prove theorem \[tre\], we need some preparations:
Let $ {{\mathrm k}}\in {{\mathbb N}}\cup \{\infty \} $ and $ {{\mathcal D}}$ be a closed ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal category so that we have functors $ [-,-]_{{\mathrm l}}: {{\mathcal D}}^{\mathrm{op}}\times {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ and $ [-,-]_{{\mathrm r}}: {{\mathcal D}}^{\mathrm{op}}\times {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ determined by the existence of natural equivalences $ {{\mathcal D}}({{\mathrm Y}},[{{\mathrm X}},{{\mathrm Z}}]_{{\mathrm l}}) \simeq {{\mathcal D}}({{\mathrm X}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm Y}}, {{\mathrm Z}}) \simeq {{\mathcal D}}({{\mathrm X}},[{{\mathrm Y}},{{\mathrm Z}}]_{{\mathrm r}}) $ for objects ${{\mathrm X}}, {{\mathrm Y}}, {{\mathrm Z}}$ of ${{\mathcal D}}. $
Choosing ${{\mathrm Z}}= {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}$ in the last equivalence we obtain a natural equivalence $ {{\mathcal D}}^{\mathrm{op}}([{{\mathrm X}}, {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}]_{{\mathrm l}}, {{\mathrm Y}}) = {{\mathcal D}}({{\mathrm Y}},[{{\mathrm X}}, {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}]_{{\mathrm l}}) \simeq {{\mathcal D}}({{\mathrm X}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm Y}}, {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}) \simeq {{\mathcal D}}({{\mathrm X}},[{{\mathrm Y}}, {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}]_{{\mathrm r}}) $ that exhibits the functor $[ -, {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}]_{{\mathrm r}}: {{\mathcal D}}^{\mathrm{op}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ as right adjoint to the functor $[ -, {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}]_{{\mathrm l}}^{{\mathrm{op}}}: {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal D}}^{\mathrm{op}}. $
We will show in the following that both functors $[ -, {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}]_{{\mathrm r}}: {{\mathcal D}}^{\mathrm{op}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ and $[ -, {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}]_{{\mathrm l}}: {{\mathcal D}}^{\mathrm{op}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ restrict to equivalences $ {\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal D}})^{\mathrm{op}}\to {\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal D}}): $
Given an object ${{\mathrm X}}$ of ${\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal D}})$ with dual ${{\mathrm X}}^{\vee}$ we have canonical morphisms $ \alpha_{{\mathrm X}}: {{\mathrm X}}^{\vee}\to [ {{\mathrm X}}, {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}]_{{\mathrm r}}$ and $ \beta_{{\mathrm X}}: {{\mathrm X}}^{\vee}\to [ {{\mathrm X}}, {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}]_{{\mathrm l}}$ in ${{\mathcal D}}$ adjoint to the counits $ {{\mathrm X}}^{\vee}{\otimes}{{\mathrm X}}\to {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}$ and $ {{\mathrm X}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm X}}^{\vee}\to {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}. $
By the Yoneda-lemma for every object ${{\mathrm Y}}$ of ${{\mathcal D}}$ the induced maps $ {{\mathcal D}}( {{\mathrm Y}}, {{\mathrm X}}^{\vee}) \to {{\mathcal D}}( {{\mathrm Y}}, [ {{\mathrm X}}, {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}]_{{\mathrm r}}) \simeq {{\mathcal D}}( {{\mathrm Y}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm X}}, {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}) $ respectively $ {{\mathcal D}}( {{\mathrm Y}}, {{\mathrm X}}^{\vee}) \to {{\mathcal D}}( {{\mathrm Y}}, [ {{\mathrm X}}, {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}]_{{\mathrm l}}) \simeq {{\mathcal D}}( {{\mathrm X}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm Y}}, {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}) $ are homotopic to the canonical equivalences $ {{\mathcal D}}( {{\mathrm Y}}, {{\mathrm X}}^{\vee}) \simeq {{\mathcal D}}( {{\mathrm Y}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm X}}, {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}) $ respectively $ {{\mathcal D}}( {{\mathrm Y}}, {{\mathrm X}}^{\vee}) \simeq {{\mathcal D}}( {{\mathrm X}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm Y}}, {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}). $
So by Yoneda both morphisms $\alpha_{{\mathrm X}}: {{\mathrm X}}^{\vee}\to [ {{\mathrm X}}, {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}]_{{\mathrm r}}$ and $ \beta_{{\mathrm X}}: {{\mathrm X}}^{\vee}\to [ {{\mathrm X}}, {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}]_{{\mathrm l}}$ are equivalences.
Moreover the equivalence $ \alpha_{{{\mathrm X}}^{\vee}} : {{\mathrm X}}\to [ {{\mathrm X}}^{\vee}, {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}]_{{\mathrm r}}$ is adjoint to the equivalence $ \beta_{{{\mathrm X}}}: {{\mathrm X}}^{\vee}\to [ {{\mathrm X}}, {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}]_{{\mathrm l}}$ as both correspond to the counit $ {{\mathrm X}}{\otimes}{{\mathrm X}}^{\vee}\to {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}. $
Consequently the adjunction $[ -, {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}]_{{\mathrm l}}^{\mathrm{op}}: {{\mathcal D}}\rightleftarrows {{\mathcal D}}^{\mathrm{op}}: [ -, {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}]_{{\mathrm r}}$ restricts to an adjunction $ {\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal D}}) \to {\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal D}})^{\mathrm{op}}, $ whose unit and counit are equivalences.
Moreover the functor $[ -, {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}]_{{\mathrm r}}: {{\mathcal D}}^{\mathrm{op}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ is lax ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal and thus restricts to a ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal equivalence $ {\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal D}})^{\mathrm{op}}\to {\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ that is inverse to the functor $[ -, {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}]_{{\mathrm l}}^{{\mathrm{op}}}: {\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal D}}) \to {\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal D}})^{\mathrm{op}}. $
Now we are ready to deduce theorem \[tre\] from proposition \[tt\] and proposition \[tr\].
\[tre\]
Let $0 < {{\mathrm k}}\in {{\mathbb N}}\cup \{\infty \} $ and ${{\mathcal C}}$ a stable presentable ${{\mathrm k}}+1$-monoidal category compactly generated by the tensorunit.
Let ${{\mathcal D}}$ be a stable presentable ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal left ${{\mathcal C}}$-modul compactly generated by the tensorunit and ${{\mathrm X}}: {{\mathcal B}}\to {\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}}) \subset {{\mathcal D}}$ a ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal functor starting at a small rigid ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal category ${{\mathcal B}}.$
Denote $ \alpha: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ the unique ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal left ${{\mathcal C}}$-linear functor with right adjoint $\beta: {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal C}}. $
The lax ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal functor $ \beta \circ {{\mathrm X}}: {{\mathcal B}}\to {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ corresponds to a ${{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}$-algebra in the Day-convolution ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal structure on $ {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}). $
There is a canonical ${{\mathrm k}}-1$ monoidal equivalence $${\mathrm{Cell}}_{{{\mathrm X}}}({{\mathcal D}}) \to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{\beta \circ {{\mathrm X}}}( {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) ).$$
The lax ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal functor $[ -, {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}]_{{\mathrm r}}: {{\mathcal D}}^{\mathrm{op}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ restricts to a ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal equivalence $ {\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal D}})^{\mathrm{op}}\to {\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ that is inverse to the functor $[ -, {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}]_{{\mathrm l}}^{{\mathrm{op}}}: {\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal D}}) \to {\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal D}})^{\mathrm{op}}. $
The ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal functor ${{\mathrm Y}}:= [ -, {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}]_{{\mathrm l}}\circ {{\mathrm X}}^{\mathrm{op}}: {{\mathcal B}}^{\mathrm{op}}\to {\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal D}}) \subset {{\mathcal D}}$ uniquely extends to a ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal left ${{\mathcal C}}$-linear functor $ \phi: {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) \to {{\mathcal D}}$ that admits a right adjoint $ \gamma. $
By remark \[ztrews\] the ${{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}$-algebra $ \gamma({{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}) \simeq \beta \circ [ -, {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}]_{{\mathrm r}}\circ {{\mathrm Y}}^{\mathrm{op}}\simeq \beta \circ {{\mathrm X}}$ in the Day-convolution on $ {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) $ corresponds to the lax ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal functor $ \beta \circ [ -, {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}]_{{\mathrm r}}\circ {{\mathrm Y}}^{\mathrm{op}}\simeq \beta \circ {{\mathrm X}}. $
Moreover the ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal functors $ {{\mathrm X}}: {{\mathcal B}}\to {\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal D}}) \subset {{\mathcal D}}$ and ${{\mathrm Y}}= [ -, {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}]_{{\mathrm l}}\circ {{\mathrm X}}^{\mathrm{op}}: {{\mathcal B}}^{\mathrm{op}}\to {\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal D}}) \subset {{\mathcal D}}$ have the same essential image as for every object ${{\mathrm Z}}\in {{\mathcal B}}$ we have an equivalence $ {{\mathrm Y}}({{\mathrm Z}}) = [ {{\mathrm X}}({{\mathrm Z}}) , {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}]_{{\mathrm l}}\simeq {{\mathrm X}}({{\mathrm Z}})^{\vee}\simeq {{\mathrm X}}({{\mathrm Z}}^{\vee}).$
Thus the full subcategories $ {\mathrm{Cell}}_{{{\mathrm X}}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ and $ {\mathrm{Cell}}_{{{\mathrm Y}}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ of ${{\mathcal D}}$ coincide.
By proposition \[tr\] $ {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) $ is compactly generated by the essential image of ${{\mathcal K}}: {{\mathcal B}}^{\mathrm{op}}\to {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}). $
Thus we can apply proposition \[tt\] to the ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal functor $ \phi: {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) \to {{\mathcal D}}, $ the identity $ {{\mathrm g}}:= {\mathrm{id}}_{\gamma({{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}) } $ of $ \gamma({{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}) \simeq \beta \circ {{\mathrm X}}$ and ${{\mathcal E}}:= $ the essential image of ${{\mathcal K}}: {{\mathcal B}}^{\mathrm{op}}\to {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) $ to deduce that the functor $( {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}\underset{ \phi (\gamma({{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}})}{{\otimes}} - ) \circ \Phi: {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{\gamma({{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}) }( {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) ) \to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}} ({{\mathcal D}}) \simeq {{\mathcal D}}$ induces a ${{\mathrm k}}-$1 monoidal equivalence $ {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{ \beta \circ {{\mathrm X}}}( {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) ) \to {\mathrm{Cell}}_{\phi \circ {{\mathcal K}}}({{\mathcal D}}) = {\mathrm{Cell}}_{{{\mathrm Y}}}({{\mathcal D}}) = {\mathrm{Cell}}_{{{\mathrm X}}}({{\mathcal D}})$ with inverse the ${{\mathrm k}}-$1-monoidal equivalence $ {\mathrm{Cell}}_{{{\mathrm X}}}({{\mathcal D}}) \subset {{\mathcal D}}\simeq {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}} ({{\mathcal D}}) \to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{\beta \circ {{\mathrm X}}}( {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) ) $ induced by $ \gamma. $
\[uzt\]
Assume that the conditions of theorem \[tre\] are satisfied.
Denote ${{\mathrm X}}^\simeq: {{\mathcal B}}^\simeq \subset {{\mathcal B}}\xrightarrow{{{\mathrm X}}} {\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}})\subset {{\mathcal D}}$ the restriction of ${{\mathrm X}}$ along the ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal subcategory inclusion of the maximal subspace of $ {{\mathcal B}}$ into $ {{\mathcal B}}. $
We can apply \[tre\] to $ {{\mathrm X}}^\simeq $ to obtain a canonical ${{\mathrm k}}-1$ monoidal equivalence $${\mathrm{Cell}}_{{{\mathrm X}}}({{\mathcal D}}) = {\mathrm{Cell}}_{{{\mathrm X}}^\simeq }({{\mathcal D}}) \to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{\beta \circ {{\mathrm X}}^\simeq }( {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}^\simeq, {{\mathcal C}}) )$$ and therefore may always reduce to the case that ${{\mathcal B}}$ is a grouplike ${{\mathrm E}}_\infty$-space.
Taking ${{\mathcal C}}$ to be the category ${\mathrm{Sp}}$ of spectra we obtain the following corollary:
Let $0 < {{\mathrm k}}\in {{\mathbb N}}\cup \{\infty \} $ and $ {{\mathcal D}}$ be a stable presentable ${{\mathrm k}}+1$-monoidal category with compact tensorunit and ${{\mathrm X}}: {{\mathcal B}}\to {\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ a ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal functor starting at a small rigid ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal category $ {{\mathcal B}}$.
Denote $ [-,-] : {{\mathcal D}}^{\mathrm{op}}\times {{\mathcal D}}\to {\mathrm{Sp}}$ the spectral hom of ${{\mathcal D}}. $
There is a canonical ${{\mathrm k}}-1$-monoidal equivalence $${\mathrm{Cell}}_{{{\mathrm X}}}({{\mathcal D}}) \to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{ [ {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}, - ]
\circ {{\mathrm X}}}( {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {\mathrm{Sp}}) ).$$
More generally we can take ${{\mathcal C}}$ to be the ${{\mathrm r}}$-monoidal category ${{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{\mathrm A}}({\mathrm{Sp}})$ of ${{\mathrm A}}$-module spectra for an ${{\mathrm E}}_{{{\mathrm r}}+1} $-ring spectrum ${{\mathrm A}}$ and some $0 < {{\mathrm r}}\in {{\mathbb N}}\cup \{\infty \} $ we get the following corollary:
Let $0 < {{\mathrm k}}\in {{\mathbb N}}\cup \{\infty \}, {{\mathrm A}}$ be an ${{\mathrm E}}_{{{\mathrm k}}+2} $-ring spectrum and $ {{\mathcal D}}$ be a ${{\mathrm A}}$-linear presentable ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal category, i.e. a presentable ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal left ${{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{\mathrm A}}({\mathrm{Sp}})$-modul. Assume that the tensorunit of ${{\mathcal D}}$ is compact.
Let $\beta: {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{\mathrm A}}({\mathrm{Sp}}) $ be a right adjoint of the unique ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal left ${{\mathrm A}}$-linear functor $ \alpha: {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{\mathrm A}}({\mathrm{Sp}}) \to {{\mathcal D}}. $
Let ${{\mathrm X}}: {{\mathcal B}}\to {\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ be a ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal functor starting at a small rigid ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal category $ {{\mathcal B}}$.
Denote $ [-,-]_{{\mathrm A}}: {{\mathcal D}}^{\mathrm{op}}\times {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{\mathrm A}}({\mathrm{Sp}})$ the ${{\mathrm A}}$-linear hom of ${{\mathcal D}}. $
There is a canonical ${{\mathrm k}}-1$-monoidal equivalence $${\mathrm{Cell}}_{{{\mathrm X}}}({{\mathcal D}}) \to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{[ {{\mathbb 1}}_{{\mathcal D}}, - ]_{{\mathrm A}}\circ {{\mathrm X}}}( {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{{\mathrm A}}({\mathrm{Sp}})) ).$$
For ${{\mathrm k}}= {{\mathrm n}}= \infty $ we get the corollary:
\[wqa\]
Let $ \alpha: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ be a symmetric monoidal functor from a stable presentable symmetric monoidal category $ {{\mathcal C}}$ compactly generated by the tensorunit to a stable presentable symmetric monoidal category $ {{\mathcal D}}$ with compact tensorunit. Let $\beta : {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ be a right adjoint of $ \alpha $ and ${{\mathrm X}}: {{\mathcal B}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ a symmetric monoidal functor starting at a small rigid symmetric monoidal category $ {{\mathcal B}}. $
There is a canonical symmetric monoidal equivalence $${\mathrm{Cell}}_{{{\mathrm X}}}({{\mathcal D}}) \to {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{\beta \circ {{\mathrm X}}}({\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal C}}) ).$$
For $ {{\mathcal B}}= {\mathrm{QS}}$ a symmetric monoidal functor $ {{\mathcal B}}\to {\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ corresponds to an object of $ {\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}}). $
So we obtain the following corollary:
Let $ \alpha: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ be a symmetric monoidal functor from a stable presentable symmetric monoidal category ${{\mathcal C}}$ compactly generated by the tensorunit to a stable presentable symmetric monoidal category ${{\mathcal D}}$ with compact tensorunit and $\beta: {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ be a right adjoint of $ \alpha: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal D}}. $
For every object ${{\mathrm X}}\in {\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ corresponding to a symmetric monoidal functor ${{\mathrm X}}^{{\otimes}(-)} : {\mathrm{QS}}\to {\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}}) \subset {{\mathcal D}}$ there is a canonical symmetric monoidal equivalence $${\mathrm{Cell}}_{{{\mathrm X}}}({{\mathcal D}}) \simeq {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{\beta \circ {{\mathrm X}}^{{\otimes}(-) } }({\mathrm{Fun}}({\mathrm{QS}}, {{\mathcal C}}) ) ,$$ where $ {\mathrm{Cell}}_{{{\mathrm X}}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ denotes the full subcategory of $ {{\mathcal D}}$ compactly generated by the set $\{ {{\mathrm X}}^{{\otimes}{{\mathrm n}}} \mid {{\mathrm n}}\in {{\mathbb Z}}\} \subset {{\mathcal D}}.$
As we have full subcategory inclusions $ {\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}}) \subset {\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal D}}) \subset {{\mathcal D}}^\omega $ if the tensorunit of ${{\mathcal D}}$ is compact, $ {\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}}), {\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ are essentially small.
Thus we can take $ {{\mathcal B}}= {\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ or $ {{\mathcal B}}= {\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ and ${{\mathrm X}}: {{\mathcal B}}\to {\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ to be the inclusion respectively identity.
This leads to the following corollary:
Let $0 < {{\mathrm k}}\in {{\mathbb N}}\cup \{\infty \} $ and ${{\mathcal C}}$ a stable presentable ${{\mathrm k}}+1$-monoidal category compactly generated by the tensorunit.
Let ${{\mathcal D}}$ be a stable presentable ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal left ${{\mathcal C}}$-modul compactly generated by the tensorunit and $ \alpha: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ the unique ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal left ${{\mathcal C}}$-linear functor with right adjoint $\beta: {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal C}}. $
There are ${{\mathrm k}}-1$-monoidal equivalences
$${\mathrm{Cell}}_{{\mathrm{id}}_{{\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}})} }({{\mathcal D}}) \simeq {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{ \beta_{\mid {\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}}) }}({\mathrm{Fun}}({\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}}), {{\mathcal C}}) ),$$ and $${\mathrm{Cell}}_{{\mathrm{id}}_{{\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal D}})} }({{\mathcal D}}) \simeq {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{ \beta_{\mid {\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal D}}) }}({\mathrm{Fun}}({\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal D}}), {{\mathcal C}}) )$$ respectively $${\mathrm{Cell}}_{{\mathrm{id}}_{{\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}})} }({{\mathcal D}}) \simeq {{\mathrm{Mod}}}_{ \beta_{\mid {\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}})^\simeq }}({\mathrm{Fun}}({\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}})^\simeq, {{\mathcal C}}) )$$ by remark \[uzt\], where $ {\mathrm{Cell}}_{{\mathrm{id}}_{{\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}})} }({{\mathcal D}}) $ and $ {\mathrm{Cell}}_{{\mathrm{id}}_{{\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal D}})} }({{\mathcal D}}) $ are the full subcategories of ${{\mathcal D}}$ compactly generated by $ {\mathrm{Pic}}({{\mathcal D}}) $ respectively $ {\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal D}}). $
Appendix
=========
In the appendix we show lemma \[q\], proposition \[cg\] and lemma \[gtr\].
Lemma \[q\] is an important ingredient in the proof of proposition \[tt\] from which we deduce theorem \[tre\].
Lemma \[q\] is a standart lemma about adjunctions between cocomplete stable categories which we show for completeness.
Proposition \[cg\] gives equivalent conditions under which a set of compact objects in a cocomplete stable category generates the category under forming iterately colimits and is used for the definition of the category of cellular objects.
From lemma \[gtr\] we deduce that for every ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal category ${{\mathcal C}}$ for $0 < {{\mathrm k}}\leq \infty $ there is a free rigid ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal category on ${{\mathcal C}}. $
\[q\]
Let ${{\mathrm F}}: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ be a functor between cocomplete stable categories, ${{\mathrm G}}: {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ a right adjoint of ${{\mathrm F}}$ and ${{\mathcal E}}$ a set of $\kappa$-compact generators for ${{\mathcal C}}$.
a\) Then the following conditions are equivalent:
1. ${{\mathrm G}}: {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ preserves $\kappa$-filtered colimits.
2. ${{\mathrm F}}$ sends $\kappa$-compact objects to $\kappa$-compact objects.
3. ${{\mathrm F}}$ sends every $\kappa$-compact generator of ${{\mathcal E}}$ to a $\kappa$-compact object.
b\) Let $\eta: {\mathrm{id}}\to {{\mathrm G}}\circ {{\mathrm F}}$ be the unit of the adjunction ${{\mathrm F}}:{{\mathcal C}}\rightleftarrows {{\mathcal D}}:{{\mathrm G}}. $
If the adjunction ${{\mathrm F}}:{{\mathcal C}}\rightleftarrows {{\mathcal D}}:{{\mathrm G}}$ satisfies the equivalent conditions of a) for $\kappa=\omega$ and $$\eta_{\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm X}})}: \Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm X}}) \to {{\mathrm G}}( {{\mathrm F}}(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm X}})))$$ is an equivalence for all ${{\mathrm X}}\in {{\mathcal E}}$ and ${{\mathrm n}}\in {{\mathbb Z}}$, then $\eta: {\mathrm{id}}\to {{\mathrm G}}\circ {{\mathrm F}}$ is an equivalence $($equivalently $ {{\mathrm F}}:{{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ is fully faithful$ )$ and the essential image of ${{\mathrm F}}$ is compactly generated by ${{\mathrm F}}({{\mathcal E}}).$
a)
If ${{\mathrm G}}: {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ preserves $\kappa$-filtered colimits, the equivalence ${{\mathcal D}}({{\mathrm F}}({{\mathrm Y}}),-) \simeq {{\mathcal C}}({{\mathrm Y}},-)\circ {{\mathrm G}}$ implies that ${{\mathrm F}}({{\mathrm Y}})$ is $\kappa$-compact if ${{\mathrm Y}}$ is.
Trivially, 2. implies 3.
Let 3. be satisfied and let ${{\mathrm H}}:{{\mathrm J}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ be a diagram in ${{\mathcal D}}$ indexed by a $\kappa$-filtered category ${{\mathrm J}}.$
We have to prove that the canonical morphism $ {\mathrm{colim}}({{\mathrm G}}\circ {{\mathrm H}}) \to {{\mathrm G}}({\mathrm{colim}}({{\mathrm H}})) $ is an equivalence.
As ${{\mathcal C}}$ is $\kappa$-compactly generated by ${{\mathcal E}}$, this is true if and only if $${{\mathcal C}}(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm X}}), {\mathrm{colim}}({{\mathrm G}}\circ {{\mathrm H}})) \to {{\mathcal C}}(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm X}}),{{\mathrm G}}({\mathrm{colim}}({{\mathrm H}})))$$ is an equivalence for all ${{\mathrm X}}\in {{\mathcal E}}$ and ${{\mathrm n}}\in {{\mathbb Z}}$.
With ${{\mathrm X}}$ also $\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm X}})$ is $\kappa$-compact and we have to see that the composition
$${\mathrm{colim}}({{\mathcal C}}(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm X}}), -)\circ {{\mathrm G}}\circ {{\mathrm H}}) \simeq {{\mathcal C}}(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm X}}), {\mathrm{colim}}({{\mathrm G}}\circ {{\mathrm H}})) \to {{\mathcal C}}(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm X}}),{{\mathrm G}}({\mathrm{colim}}({{\mathrm H}})))$$ is an equivalence.
By adjunction this map is equivalent to the canonical map
$${\mathrm{colim}}({{\mathcal D}}({{\mathrm F}}(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm X}})), -)\circ {{\mathrm H}}) \to {{\mathcal D}}({{\mathrm F}}(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm X}})),{\mathrm{colim}}({{\mathrm H}})).$$
Condition 3. guarantees that ${{\mathrm F}}({{\mathrm X}})$ is $\kappa$-compact. Therefore $ {{\mathrm F}}(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm X}}))\simeq \Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm F}}({{\mathrm X}}))$ is also $\kappa$-compact so that the last map is an equivalence.
b)
Being a right adjoint between stable categories ${{\mathrm G}}: {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ is an exact functor.
If ${{\mathrm G}}: {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ preserves filtered colimits, it preserves small colimits because a functor between cocomplete categories preserves small colimits if and only if it preserves finite colimits and filtered colimits.
Hence $\eta: {\mathrm{id}}\to {{\mathrm G}}\circ {{\mathrm F}}$ is a natural transformation between colimits preserving functors.
Consider the full subcategory $\tilde{{{\mathcal C}}} $ of ${{\mathcal C}}$ spanned by all $ {{\mathrm X}}\in {{\mathcal C}}$, for which $ \eta_{\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm X}})}: \Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm X}}) \to {{\mathrm G}}( {{\mathrm F}}(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm X}}))) $ is an equivalence for all $ {{\mathrm n}}\in {{\mathbb Z}}.$ We want to see that $\tilde{{{\mathcal C}}}={{\mathcal C}}. $
By assumption ${{\mathcal E}}\subset \tilde{{{\mathcal C}}}.$ As ${{\mathcal C}}$ is compactly generated by ${{\mathcal E}}$, one has $\tilde{{{\mathcal C}}}={{\mathcal C}}$ if $\tilde{{{\mathcal C}}}$ is a stable full subcategory of ${{\mathcal C}}$ closed under small colimits or equivalently if $\tilde{{{\mathcal C}}}$ is closed under all suspensions and small colimits.
The first property follows from the definition of $\tilde{{{\mathcal C}}}$, the second property from the fact that $\eta: {\mathrm{id}}\to {{\mathrm G}}\circ {{\mathrm F}}$ is a natural transformation between colimit preserving functors.
It remains to check that the essential image ${{\mathrm F}}({{\mathcal C}}) $ of ${{\mathrm F}}$ is compactly generated by ${{\mathrm F}}({{\mathcal E}}).$
By assumption every object of ${{\mathrm F}}({{\mathcal E}}) $ is compact in ${{\mathcal D}}$ and thus in particular compact in ${{\mathrm F}}({{\mathcal C}}) $ because the full subcategory inclusion ${{\mathrm F}}({{\mathcal C}}) \subset {{\mathcal D}}$ preserves small colimits.
Therefore it is enough to see that the set $\{ {{\mathrm Z}}\in {{\mathrm F}}({{\mathcal C}}) \mid {{\mathcal D}}(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm F}}({{\mathrm X}})), {{\mathrm Z}}) $ is contractible for all ${{\mathrm X}}\in {{\mathcal E}}$ and ${{\mathrm n}}\in {{\mathbb Z}}\} = {{\mathrm F}}({{\mathcal E}}) ^\perp$ consists of zero objects.
The equivalence $${{\mathcal C}}(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm X}}), {{\mathrm Y}}) \simeq {{\mathcal C}}(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm X}}), {{\mathrm G}}({{\mathrm F}}({{\mathrm Y}}))) \simeq {{\mathcal D}}({{\mathrm F}}(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm X}})), {{\mathrm F}}({{\mathrm Y}})) \simeq {{\mathcal D}}(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm F}}({{\mathrm X}})), {{\mathrm F}}({{\mathrm Y}}))$$ for ${{\mathrm X}}, {{\mathrm Y}}\in {{\mathcal C}}$ implies that $ {{\mathrm F}}({{\mathcal E}}) ^\perp= {{\mathrm F}}({{\mathcal E}}^\perp ), $ where $ {{\mathcal E}}^\perp := \{ {{\mathrm Y}}\in {{\mathcal C}}\mid {{\mathcal C}}(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm X}}), {{\mathrm Y}}) $ is contractible for all ${{\mathrm X}}\in {{\mathcal E}}$ and ${{\mathrm n}}\in {{\mathbb Z}}\}.$
Thus $ {{\mathrm F}}({{\mathcal E}}) ^\perp= {{\mathrm F}}({{\mathcal E}}^\perp ) $ consists of zero objects if $ {{\mathcal E}}^\perp $ does.
\[cg\]
Let ${{\mathcal C}}$ be a cocomplete stable category, $\kappa$ a regular cardinal and ${{\mathcal E}}$ a set of $\kappa$-compact objects of ${{\mathcal C}}$.
Then the following conditions are equivalent:
1. A morphism ${\mathsf{f}}: {{\mathrm U}}\to {{\mathrm V}}$ of ${{\mathcal C}}$ is an equivalence if $ {{\mathcal C}}(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm X}}),{\mathsf{f}}): {{\mathcal C}}(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm X}}),{{\mathrm U}}) \to {{\mathcal C}}(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm X}}),{{\mathrm V}}) $ is an equivalence for all ${{\mathrm X}}\in {{\mathcal E}}$ and ${{\mathrm n}}\in {{\mathbb Z}}$.
2. The set ${{\mathcal E}}^{\perp} =\{ {{\mathrm Y}}\in {{\mathcal C}}\mid {{\mathcal C}}(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm X}}),{{\mathrm Y}}) $ is contractible for all ${{\mathrm X}}\in {{\mathcal E}}$ and ${{\mathrm n}}\in {{\mathbb Z}}\} $ consists of zero objects.
3. Let $({{\mathcal C}}_\lambda)_{\lambda \leqq \kappa} $ be the inductively defined increasing sequence of full subcategories of ${{\mathcal C}}$ with
${{\mathcal C}}_0$ the full subcategory of ${{\mathcal C}}$ spanned by all retracts of suspensions of objects of ${{\mathcal E}}$,
$ {{\mathcal C}}_{\lambda +1} $ the full subcategory of ${{\mathcal C}}$ spanned by all retracts of colimits of $\kappa$-small diagrams in $ {{\mathcal C}}_\lambda $ for $\lambda < \kappa$ and $ {{\mathcal C}}_\lambda=\underset{ \alpha < \lambda }{ \bigcup } { {{\mathcal C}}_\alpha } $ for every limit ordinal $ \lambda \leqq \kappa.$
Then $ {{\mathcal C}}_\kappa $ is essentially small and the full subcategory inclusion $ {{\mathcal C}}_\kappa \subset {{\mathcal C}}$ extends to an equivalence $ {{\mathrm{Ind}}}_\kappa({{\mathcal C}}_\kappa) \simeq {{\mathcal C}}. $
4. $ {{\mathcal C}}$ is the only stable full subcategory of ${{\mathcal C}}$ containing ${{\mathcal E}}$ and closed under small colimits.
In particular $ {{\mathcal C}}$ is $\kappa$-accessible if and only if one of the equivalent conditions of the proposition holds.
We start by showing that $ 1. $ implies $ 2.: $
Let ${{\mathrm Y}}\in {{\mathcal E}}^{\perp} $ be an object.
Given an object ${{\mathrm X}}\in {{\mathcal E}}$ and a natural ${{\mathrm n}}\in {{\mathbb Z}}$ the unique morphism ${\mathsf{f}}: {{\mathrm Y}}\to 0 $ to the zero object 0 of ${{\mathcal C}}$ induces an equivalence $ {{\mathcal C}}(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm X}}),{\mathsf{f}}): {{\mathcal C}}(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm X}}),{{\mathrm Y}}) \to {{\mathcal C}}(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm X}}),0) $ being a morphism between contractible spaces by the choice of ${{\mathrm Y}}. $
If 1. is satisfied, one concludes that ${\mathsf{f}}: {{\mathrm Y}}\to 0 $ is an equivalence.
We continue by showing that $ 3. $ follows from $ 2.: $
Let $({{\mathcal C}}_\lambda)_{\lambda \leqq \kappa} $ be defined as in the statement of the proposition.
Using induction it follows that every $ {{\mathcal C}}_\lambda $ for $ \lambda \leqq \kappa$ is closed under arbitrary suspensions and retracts and consists of $\kappa$-compact objects of $ {{\mathcal C}}$ :
${{\mathcal C}}_0$ is closed under arbitrary suspensions and retracts by definition and consists of $\kappa$-compact objects because ${{\mathcal E}}$ consists of $\kappa$-compact objects, $\kappa$-compact objects are preserved by equivalences and the full subcategory of $ {{\mathcal C}}$ spanned by the $\kappa$-compact objects is closed under retracts.
For limit ordinals $ \lambda \leqq \kappa $ it trivially follows that $ {{\mathcal C}}_\lambda=\underset{ \alpha < \lambda }{ \bigcup } { {{\mathcal C}}_\alpha }$ is closed under arbitrary suspensions and retracts and consists of $\kappa$-compact objects of $ {{\mathcal C}}$ if $ {{\mathcal C}}_\alpha $ does for all $ \alpha < \lambda$.
By definition $ {{\mathcal C}}_{\lambda+1}$ is closed under retracts for every $\lambda < \kappa$.
If $\lambda < \kappa$ and $ {{\mathcal C}}_\lambda$ is closed under arbitrary suspensions, then arbitrary suspensions of retracts of colimits of $\kappa$-small diagrams in $ {{\mathcal C}}_\lambda $ are retracts of colimits of the suspended $\kappa$-small diagrams which lie in $ {{\mathcal C}}_\lambda $. So $ {{\mathcal C}}_{\lambda+1}$ is closed under arbitrary suspensions.
If $\lambda < \kappa$ and $ {{\mathcal C}}_\lambda$ consists of $\kappa$-compact objects of ${{\mathcal C}}$, then every retract of a colimit of a $\kappa$-small diagram in $ {{\mathcal C}}_\lambda $ is $\kappa$-compact because the full subcategory of ${{\mathcal C}}$ spanned by the $\kappa$-compact objects is closed under $\kappa$-small colimits and retracts. [@lurie.HTT]\[cor. 5.3.4.15.\] So $ {{\mathcal C}}_{\lambda+1}$ consists of $\kappa$-compact objects of $ {{\mathcal C}}.$
As $\kappa$ is a regular cardinal, $ {{\mathcal C}}_\kappa$ is closed under $\kappa$-small colimits and especially under finite colimits.
Consequently $ {{\mathcal C}}_\kappa$ is a full stable subcategory of $ {{\mathcal C}}.$
Because $ {{\mathcal C}}$ is locally small and ${{\mathcal E}}$ is a set, $ {{\mathcal C}}_\kappa \subset {{\mathcal C}}$ is locally small and has a set of equivalence classes of objects and is thus essentially small.
As $ {{\mathcal C}}$ is cocomplete, there exists a unique extension ${{\mathrm F}}: {{\mathrm{Ind}}}_\kappa({{\mathcal C}}_\kappa) \to {{\mathcal C}}$ of $ {{\mathcal C}}_\kappa \subset {{\mathcal C}}$ preserving $\kappa$-filtered colimits, which is fully faithful because $ {{\mathcal C}}_\kappa \subset {{\mathcal C}}$ is fully faithful and $ {{\mathcal C}}_\kappa$ consists of $\kappa$-compact objects of ${{\mathcal C}}. $ [@lurie.HTT]\[prop. 5.3.5.10., prop. 5.3.5.11.\]
Because $ {{\mathcal C}}_\kappa $ admits $\kappa$-small colimits, $ {{\mathrm{Ind}}}_\kappa({{\mathcal C}}_\kappa) \subset {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal C}}_\kappa^{\mathrm{op}}, {{\mathcal S}}) $ coincides with the full subcategory spanned by the functors $ {{\mathcal C}}_\kappa^{\mathrm{op}}\to {{\mathcal S}}$ that preserve $ \kappa$-small limits. [@lurie.HTT]\[cor. 5.3.5.4.\]
Therefore $ {{\mathrm{Ind}}}_\kappa({{\mathcal C}}_\kappa) $ is an accessible localisation of $ {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal C}}_\kappa^{\mathrm{op}}, {{\mathcal S}}) $ and thus is presentable. Moreover with $ {{\mathcal C}}_\kappa $ also ${{\mathrm{Ind}}}_\kappa({{\mathcal C}}_\kappa) $ is stable:
The Yoneda-embedding ${\mathsf{y}}: {{\mathcal C}}_\kappa \to {{\mathrm{Ind}}}_\kappa({{\mathcal C}}_\kappa) $ from $ {{\mathcal C}}_\kappa $ to the full subcategory of $ {\mathrm{Fun}}({{\mathcal C}}_\kappa^{\mathrm{op}}, {{\mathcal S}}) $ spanned by the functors $ {{\mathcal C}}_\kappa^{\mathrm{op}}\to {{\mathcal S}}$ that preserve $ \kappa$-small limits preserves small limits and $ \kappa$-small colimits.
Thus the image of the zero object of $ {{\mathcal C}}_\kappa $ under the Yoneda-embedding is a zero object of ${{\mathrm{Ind}}}_\kappa({{\mathcal C}}_\kappa) $ and the canonical natural transformation $ \Sigma_{ {{\mathrm{Ind}}}_\kappa({{\mathcal C}}_\kappa) } \circ {\mathsf{y}}\to {\mathsf{y}}\circ \Sigma_{ {{\mathcal C}}_\kappa } $ is an equivalence, where $ \Sigma_{ {{\mathrm{Ind}}}_\kappa({{\mathcal C}}_\kappa) } : {{\mathrm{Ind}}}_\kappa({{\mathcal C}}_\kappa) \to {{\mathrm{Ind}}}_\kappa({{\mathcal C}}_\kappa) $ and $ \Sigma_{ {{\mathcal C}}_\kappa }: {{\mathcal C}}_\kappa \to {{\mathcal C}}_\kappa$ denote the corresponding suspension functors.
Therefore $ \Sigma_{ {{\mathrm{Ind}}}_\kappa({{\mathcal C}}_\kappa) } $ is the unique $ \kappa$-filtered colimits preserving extension of ${\mathsf{y}}\circ \Sigma_{ {{\mathcal C}}_\kappa } $ to $ {{\mathrm{Ind}}}_\kappa({{\mathcal C}}_\kappa) $ and is thus an equivalence as $ \Sigma_{ {{\mathcal C}}_\kappa } $ is.
As next we will show that ${{\mathrm F}}: {{\mathrm{Ind}}}_\kappa( {{\mathcal C}}_\kappa) \to {{\mathcal C}}$ preserves small colimits, where we use that $ {{\mathcal C}}_\kappa $ is closed under retracts, $ {{\mathcal C}}$ is cocomplete and the full subcategory inclusion $ {{\mathcal C}}_\kappa \subset {{\mathcal C}}$ preserves $\kappa$-small colimits:
As $ {{\mathcal C}}_\kappa $ is closed under retracts and $ {{\mathcal C}}$ is idempotent complete being a cocomplete category, $ {{\mathcal C}}_\kappa $ is also idempotent complete.
Thus the canonical idempotent completion functor $ {{\mathcal C}}_\kappa \to {{\mathrm{Ind}}}_\kappa({{\mathcal C}}_\kappa)^\kappa $ induced by $ {{\mathcal C}}_\kappa \to {{\mathrm{Ind}}}_\kappa({{\mathcal C}}_\kappa) $ to the full subcategory $ {{\mathrm{Ind}}}_\kappa({{\mathcal C}}_\kappa)^\kappa $ of $ {{\mathrm{Ind}}}_\kappa({{\mathcal C}}_\kappa)$ spanned by the $\kappa$-compact objects is an equivalence.
Consequently the restriction of ${{\mathrm F}}: {{\mathrm{Ind}}}_\kappa( {{\mathcal C}}_\kappa) \to {{\mathcal C}}$ to $ {{\mathrm{Ind}}}_\kappa( {{\mathcal C}}_\kappa)^\kappa $ preserves $\kappa$-small colimits so that ${{\mathrm F}}: {{\mathrm{Ind}}}_\kappa( {{\mathcal C}}_\kappa) \to {{\mathcal C}}$ preserves small colimits by [@lurie.HTT prop. 5.5.1.9.].
As ${{\mathrm{Ind}}}_\kappa({{\mathcal C}}_\kappa) $ is presentable, the adjoint functor theorem [@lurie.HTT]\[cor. 5.5.2.9\] implies that ${{\mathrm F}}: {{\mathrm{Ind}}}_\kappa({{\mathcal C}}_\kappa) \to {{\mathcal C}}$ has a right adjoint ${{\mathrm G}}: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathrm{Ind}}}_\kappa({{\mathcal C}}_\kappa)$ which is an exact functor because $ {{\mathrm{Ind}}}_\kappa({{\mathcal C}}_\kappa) $ and $ {{\mathcal C}}$ are stable.
In the following we will see how condition 2. guarantees that $ {{\mathrm F}}: {{\mathrm{Ind}}}_\kappa({{\mathcal C}}_\kappa) \to {{\mathcal C}}$ is an equivalence:
Being fully faithful $ {{\mathrm F}}: {{\mathrm{Ind}}}_\kappa({{\mathcal C}}_\kappa) \to {{\mathcal C}}$ is an equivalence if and only if its right adjoint ${{\mathrm G}}: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathrm{Ind}}}_\kappa({{\mathcal C}}_\kappa)$ reflects equivalences.
Let $ \phi: {{\mathrm X}}\to {{\mathrm Y}}$ be a morphism of $ {{\mathcal C}}, $ whose image ${{\mathrm G}}(\phi): {{\mathrm G}}({{\mathrm X}}) \to {{\mathrm G}}({{\mathrm Y}}) $ is an equivalence.
To see that $ \phi: {{\mathrm X}}\to {{\mathrm Y}}$ is an equivalence it is enough to check that the cofiber $ {\mathrm{cof}}(\phi) $ of $ \phi: {{\mathrm X}}\to {{\mathrm Y}}$ in ${{\mathcal C}}$ is a zero object of ${{\mathcal C}}. $
But ${{\mathrm G}}({\mathrm{cof}}(\phi)) \simeq {\mathrm{cof}}({{\mathrm G}}(\phi)) $ is a zero object of ${{\mathcal C}}$ as ${{\mathrm G}}(\phi): {{\mathrm G}}({{\mathrm X}}) \to {{\mathrm G}}({{\mathrm Y}}) $ is an equivalence, so that $${{\mathcal C}}(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm X}}),{\mathrm{cof}}(\phi)) \simeq {{\mathcal C}}(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm F}}({{\mathrm X}})),{\mathrm{cof}}(\phi)) \simeq {{\mathcal C}}({{\mathrm F}}(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm X}})),{\mathrm{cof}}(\phi))$$ $$\simeq {{\mathrm{Ind}}}_\kappa({{\mathcal C}}_\kappa)(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm X}}),{{\mathrm G}}({\mathrm{cof}}(\phi)))$$ is contractible for all ${{\mathrm X}}\in {{\mathcal E}}$ and ${{\mathrm n}}\in {{\mathbb Z}}$.
So 2. implies that ${\mathrm{cof}}(\phi)$ is a zero object of ${{\mathcal C}}.$
As next we show that $ 3. $ implies $ 4. $:
Let 3. be satisfied and let ${{\mathcal D}}$ be a stable full subcategory of ${{\mathcal C}}$ containing ${{\mathcal E}}$ and closed under small colimits and retracts.
Being closed under arbitrary suspensions and retracts ${{\mathcal D}}$ contains ${{\mathcal C}}_0$.
Using that ${{\mathcal D}}$ is closed under small colimits and retracts it follows by induction that ${{\mathcal D}}$ contains all $ {{\mathcal C}}_{\lambda} $ for $\lambda \leqq \kappa $ and especially contains $ {{\mathcal C}}_{\kappa} $.
As ${{\mathcal D}}$ is cocomplete and locally small, there exists an extension ${{\mathrm F}}': {{\mathrm{Ind}}}_\kappa({{\mathcal C}}_\kappa) \to {{\mathcal D}}$ of $ {{\mathcal C}}_\kappa \subset {{\mathcal D}}$ preserving $\kappa$-filtered colimits.[@lurie.HTT]\[prop. 5.3.5.10.\]
The functors ${{\mathrm F}}': {{\mathrm{Ind}}}_\kappa({{\mathcal C}}_\kappa) \to {{\mathcal D}}\subset {{\mathcal C}}$ and ${{\mathrm F}}: {{\mathrm{Ind}}}_\kappa({{\mathcal C}}_\kappa) \simeq {{\mathcal C}}$ are equivalent because both functors preserve $\kappa$-filtered colimits and their restrictions to ${{\mathcal C}}_\kappa$ coincide.
Thus ${{\mathrm F}}' \circ {{\mathrm F}}^{-1}: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathrm{Ind}}}_\kappa({{\mathcal C}}_\kappa) \to {{\mathcal D}}\subset {{\mathcal C}}$ is the identity so that ${{\mathcal D}}= {{\mathcal C}}$.
We complete the proof by verifying that $1.$ follows from $4.$
Let ${\mathsf{f}}: {{\mathrm U}}\to {{\mathrm V}}$ be a morphism in $ {{\mathcal C}}$.
Consider the full subcategory $\tilde{{{\mathcal C}}} $ of $ {{\mathcal C}}$ spanned by all ${{\mathrm X}}\in {{\mathcal C}}$ having the property that for all ${{\mathrm n}}\in {{\mathbb Z}}$ the induced map $ {{\mathcal C}}(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm X}}),{\mathsf{f}}): {{\mathcal C}}(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm X}}),{{\mathrm U}}) \to {{\mathcal C}}(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm X}}),{{\mathrm V}}) $ is an equivalence.
By definition $\tilde{{{\mathcal C}}} $ is closed under arbitrary suspensions.
Moreover $\tilde{{{\mathcal C}}} $ is closed under colimits:
Let $\Phi: {{\mathrm K}}\to \tilde{{{\mathcal C}}} $ be a diagram in $\tilde{{{\mathcal C}}}. $ Then $ {{\mathcal C}}(-,{\mathsf{f}}) \circ \Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}\circ \Phi: {{\mathcal C}}(-,{{\mathrm U}}) \circ \Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}\circ \Phi \to {{\mathcal C}}(-,{{\mathrm V}}) \circ \Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}\circ \Phi $ is an equivalence for all ${{\mathrm n}}\in {{\mathbb Z}}$ and thus the induced map on limits $ \lim({{\mathcal C}}(-,{\mathsf{f}}) \circ \Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}\circ \Phi): \lim({{\mathcal C}}(-,{{\mathrm U}}) \circ \Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}\circ \Phi) \to \lim({{\mathcal C}}(-,{{\mathrm V}}) \circ \Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}\circ \Phi) $ is an equivalence for all ${{\mathrm n}}\in {{\mathbb Z}}$.
The equivalence $ \lim({{\mathcal C}}(-,{\mathsf{f}}) \circ \Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}\circ \Phi) \simeq {{\mathcal C}}({\mathrm{colim}}(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}\circ \Phi ),{\mathsf{f}}) \simeq {{\mathcal C}}(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({\mathrm{colim}}( \Phi) ),{\mathsf{f}})$ in ${\mathrm{Fun}}(\Delta^1,{{\mathcal C}}) $ implies that ${\mathrm{colim}}( \Phi) \in \tilde{{{\mathcal C}}}. $
If $ {{\mathcal C}}(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm X}}),{\mathsf{f}}): {{\mathcal C}}(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm X}}),{{\mathrm U}}) \to {{\mathcal C}}(\Sigma^{{\mathrm n}}({{\mathrm X}}),{{\mathrm V}}) $ is an equivalence for all ${{\mathrm X}}\in {{\mathcal E}}$ and ${{\mathrm n}}\in {{\mathbb Z}}$, then ${{\mathcal E}}\subset \tilde{{{\mathcal C}}} $ and one concludes that $ \tilde{{{\mathcal C}}} = {{\mathcal C}}$ assuming 4. So by Yoneda $ {\mathsf{f}}: {{\mathrm U}}\to {{\mathrm V}}$ is an equivalence.
For $0 < {{\mathrm k}}\leq \infty $ denote ${{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}$ the ${{\mathrm k}}$-th little cubes operad,
$ {\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa)) $ the category of ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal categories, $ {\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa))^{\mathrm{rig}}$ the full subcategory spanned by the ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal categories that consist of dualizable objects and $ {\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa))^{\mathrm{pic}}$ the full subcategory spanned by the ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal categories that consist of tensorinvertible objects.
In the following we show the existence of left adjoints of the full subcategory inclusions $ {\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa))^{\mathrm{rig}}\subset {\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa)) $ and $ {\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa))^{\mathrm{pic}}\subset {\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa)). $
We deduce the existence of these left adjoints from the following lemma \[gtr\]:
\[gtr\]
Let ${{\mathcal D}}$ be a presentable category and ${{\mathcal C}}\subset {{\mathcal D}}$ be a full subcategory such that the full subcategory inclusion $\iota: {{\mathcal C}}\subset {{\mathcal D}}$ admits a right adjoint ${{\mathrm G}}: {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal C}}. $
Then the following conditions are equivalent:
1. $\iota: {{\mathcal C}}\subset {{\mathcal D}}$ admits a left adjoint ${{\mathrm F}}: {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ such that the composition $\iota \circ {{\mathrm F}}: {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal C}}\subset {{\mathcal D}}$ is an accessible functor.
In this case ${{\mathcal C}}$ is presentable.
2. ${{\mathcal C}}$ is closed under small limits in $ {{\mathcal D}}$ and ${{\mathrm G}}: {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ is an accessible functor. (equivalently $ \iota \circ {{\mathrm G}}: {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal C}}\subset {{\mathcal D}}$ is an accessible functor that preserves small limits.)
${{\mathcal C}}$ is bicomplete being a colocalization of a bicomplete category.
If 1. holds, the full subcategory inclusion $\iota: {{\mathcal C}}\subset {{\mathcal D}}$ preserves small limits being a right adjoint so that ${{\mathcal C}}$ is closed under small limits in $ {{\mathcal D}}. $
If 1. holds, ${{\mathcal C}}\subset {{\mathcal D}}$ is an accessible localization so that ${{\mathcal C}}$ is accessible.
Hence ${{\mathrm G}}: {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ is an accessible functor being a right adjoint functor between accessible categories.
Assume that 2. holds.
The composition ${{\mathrm R}}:= \iota \circ {{\mathrm G}}: {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal C}}\subset {{\mathcal D}}$ is an accessible functor that preserves small limits.
As ${{\mathcal D}}$ is presentable, ${{\mathrm R}}: {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ admits a left adjoint $ {{\mathrm T}}: {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ by the adjoint functor theorem.
Denote $ \varepsilon : {{\mathrm R}}= \iota \circ {{\mathrm G}}\to {\mathrm{id}}_{{\mathcal D}}$ the counit.
As $\iota: {{\mathcal C}}\subset {{\mathcal D}}$ is fully faithful, the unit ${\mathrm{id}}_{{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathrm G}}\circ \iota $ is an equivalence so that the composition $ {{\mathrm G}}\circ \epsilon : {{\mathrm G}}\circ \iota \circ {{\mathrm G}}\to {{\mathrm G}}$ and thus $ {{\mathrm R}}\circ \varepsilon : {{\mathrm R}}\circ {{\mathrm R}}\to {{\mathrm R}}$ is an equivalence by the triangular identities.
Let $ {{\mathrm X}}, {{\mathrm Y}}$ be objects of ${{\mathcal D}}. $ The map
$ {{\mathcal D}}({{\mathrm T}}({{\mathrm X}}), {{\mathrm R}}({{\mathrm Y}})) \to {{\mathcal D}}({{\mathrm T}}({{\mathrm X}}), {{\mathrm Y}}) $ induced by the counit $ \varepsilon({{\mathrm Y}}) : {{\mathrm R}}({{\mathrm Y}}) \to {{\mathrm Y}}$ is equivalent to the map $ {{\mathcal D}}({{\mathrm T}}({{\mathrm X}}), {{\mathrm R}}({{\mathrm Y}})) \simeq {{\mathcal D}}({{\mathrm X}}, {{\mathrm R}}\circ {{\mathrm R}}({{\mathrm Y}})) \to {{\mathcal D}}({{\mathrm X}}, {{\mathrm R}}({{\mathrm Y}}) ) \simeq {{\mathcal D}}({{\mathrm T}}({{\mathrm X}}), {{\mathrm Y}}) $ induced by the counit $ {{\mathrm R}}(\varepsilon({{\mathrm Y}})) : {{\mathrm R}}\circ {{\mathrm R}}({{\mathrm Y}}) \to {{\mathrm R}}({{\mathrm Y}}) $ and thus is an equivalence.
Thus ${{\mathrm T}}({{\mathrm X}}) $ is a colocal object of ${{\mathcal D}}$ and so belongs to ${{\mathcal C}}. $
Consequently $ {{\mathrm T}}: {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ admits a factorization $ {{\mathrm F}}: {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal C}}\subset {{\mathcal D}}. $
As $ {{\mathrm T}}: {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ is left adjoint to $ {{\mathrm R}}: {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal D}}, $ the functor $ {{\mathrm F}}: {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ is left adjoint to $ \iota \simeq {{\mathrm R}}\circ \iota: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal D}}. $
We apply lemma \[gtr\] to the following situation:
Let $0 < {{\mathrm k}}\leq \infty. $
We take ${{\mathcal D}}= {\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa)) $ to be the category of ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal categories and $ {{\mathcal C}}= {\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa))^{\mathrm{rig}}$ to be the full subcategory of rigid ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal categories.
Denote ${\mathrm{Rig}}_{{\mathrm k}}: {\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa)) \to {\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa))^{\mathrm{rig}}$ the full subfunctor of the identity with $ {\mathrm{Rig}}({{\mathcal B}}) \subset {{\mathcal B}}$ the ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal subcategory spanned by the dualizable objects of ${{\mathcal B}}$ for every ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal category ${{\mathcal B}}.$
For every rigid ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal category ${{\mathcal A}}$ composition with the ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal subcategory inclusion $ {\mathrm{Rig}}_{{\mathrm k}}({{\mathcal B}}) \subset {{\mathcal B}}$ yields an equivalence
$ {\mathrm{Fun}}^{{\otimes}, {{\mathrm k}}}({{\mathcal A}}, {\mathrm{Rig}}_{{\mathrm k}}({{\mathcal B}}) ) \to {\mathrm{Fun}}^{{\otimes}, {{\mathrm k}}}({{\mathcal A}}, {{\mathcal B}}). $
Consequently ${\mathrm{Rig}}_{{\mathrm k}}: {\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa)) \to {\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa))^{\mathrm{rig}}$ is right adjoint to the full subcategory inclusion ${\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa))^{\mathrm{rig}}\subset {\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa)). $
Moreover ${\mathrm{Rig}}_{{\mathrm k}}: {\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa)) \to {\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa))^{\mathrm{rig}}\subset {\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa)) $ preserves small limits and small filtered colimits:
As the forgetful functor $ {\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa)) \to {\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa) $ reflects small limits and small filtered colimits, it is enough to check that the composition
${\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa)) \to {\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa))^{\mathrm{rig}}\subset {\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa)) \to {\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa) $ of ${\mathrm{Rig}}_{{\mathrm k}}$ and the forgetful functor $ {\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa)) \to {\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa) $ preserves small limits and small filtered colimits.
This composition is equivalent to the composition ${\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa)) \to $
$ {\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa)) \to {\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa))^{\mathrm{rig}}\subset {\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa)) \to {\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa) $ of the forgetful functor ${\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa)) \to $ $ {\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa)) , $ the functor $ {\mathrm{Rig}}_1 : $
$ {\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa)) \to {\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa))^{\mathrm{rig}}\subset {\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa)) $ and the forgetful functor $ {\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa)) \to {\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa). $
As the forgetful functor ${\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa)) \to {\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa))$ preserves small limits and small filtered colimits, we can reduce to the case ${{\mathrm k}}=1. $
Given a small limit diagram $\alpha: {{\mathrm K}}^{\vartriangleleft } \to {\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa)) $ and a small filtered colimit diagram $\beta : {{\mathrm K}}^{\vartriangleright } \to {\mathrm{Mon}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa)) $ the induced functors $ \lim( {\mathrm{Rig}}_1 \circ \alpha) \to \lim( \alpha) $ and $ {\mathrm{colim}}( {\mathrm{Rig}}_1 \circ \beta) \to {\mathrm{colim}}(\beta) $ are fully faithful and thus also the comparison functors $ {\mathrm{Rig}}_1 (\lim(\alpha)) \to \lim( {\mathrm{Rig}}_1 \circ \alpha) $ and $ {\mathrm{colim}}( {\mathrm{Rig}}_1 \circ \beta) \to {\mathrm{Rig}}_1 ({\mathrm{colim}}(\beta)) $ are.
So the comparison functors are equivalences if and only if they are essentially surjectiv.
Being a functor between complete categories ${\mathrm{Rig}}_1 $ preserves small limits if and only if it preserves arbitrary small products and pullbacks.
The case of arbitrary small products is clear and the case of pullbacks and small filtered colimits follows from the uniqueness of duals of a given object.
So we can take ${{\mathrm G}}: {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ to be ${\mathrm{Rig}}_{{\mathrm k}}$ to obtain a free rigid ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal category functor ${{\mathcal F}}^{{\mathrm{rig}}}_{{\mathrm k}}: {\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa)) \to {\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa))^{\mathrm{rig}}$ with ${{\mathcal F}}^{{\mathrm{rig}}}_\infty(\ast) \simeq {\mathrm{Bord}}. $
Similarly one can take ${{\mathcal D}}= {\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa)) $ to be the category of ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal categories and $ {{\mathcal C}}= {\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa))^{\mathrm{pic}}$ to be the full subcategory of ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal categories that consist of tensorinvertible objects.
Denote ${\mathrm{Pic}}_{{\mathrm k}}: {\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa)) \to {\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa))^{\mathrm{pic}}$ the full subfunctor of the identity with $ {\mathrm{Pic}}_{{\mathrm k}}({{\mathcal B}}) \subset {{\mathcal B}}$ the ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal subcategory spanned by the tensorinvertible objects of ${{\mathcal B}}$ for every ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal category ${{\mathcal B}}.$
For every ${{\mathcal A}}\in {\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa))^{\mathrm{pic}}$ composition with the ${{\mathrm k}}$-monoidal subcategory inclusion $ {\mathrm{Pic}}_{{\mathrm k}}({{\mathcal B}}) \subset {{\mathcal B}}$ yields an equivalence
$ {\mathrm{Fun}}^{{\otimes}, {{\mathrm k}}}({{\mathcal A}}, {\mathrm{Pic}}_{{\mathrm k}}({{\mathcal B}}) ) \to {\mathrm{Fun}}^{{\otimes}, {{\mathrm k}}}({{\mathcal A}}, {{\mathcal B}}). $
Consequently ${\mathrm{Pic}}_{{\mathrm k}}: {\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa)) \to {\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa))^{\mathrm{pic}}$ is right adjoint to the full subcategory inclusion ${\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa))^{\mathrm{pic}}\subset {\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa)). $
By a similar argument one shows that ${\mathrm{Pic}}_{{\mathrm k}}: {\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa)) \to $
$ {\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa))^{\mathrm{pic}}\subset {\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa)) $ preserves small limits and small filtered colimits.
Taking ${{\mathrm G}}: {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ to be ${\mathrm{Pic}}_{{\mathrm k}}$ we get a free functor ${{\mathcal F}}^{{\mathrm{pic}}}_{{{\mathrm k}}}: {\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa)) \to {\mathrm{Mon}}_{{{\mathrm E}}_{{\mathrm k}}}({\mathsf{Cat}}_{\infty }(\kappa))^{\mathrm{pic}}$ with ${{\mathcal F}}^{{\mathrm{pic}}}_\infty(\ast) \simeq {\mathrm{QS}}. $
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The ability of a protein to recognise multiple independent target conformations was demonstrated in [@FBCT00]. Here we consider the recognition of correlated configurations, which we apply to funnel design for a single conformation. The maximum basin of attraction, as parametrised in our model, depends on the number of amino acid species as $\ln A$, independent of protein length. We argue that the extent to which the protein energy landscape can be manipulated is fixed, effecting a trade-off between well breadth, well depth and well number. This clarifies the scope and limits of protein and heteropolymer function.'
address: |
Theory of Condensed Matter, Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge CB3 0HE, England\
[$^{\S}[email protected]]{}
author:
- 'Robin C. Ball$ ^{\S}$ and Thomas M. A. Fink$ ^{\dag}$'
title: Kinetic Capacity of a Protein
---
epsf
epsf
It is believed that a stable, fast folding protein requires an energy landscape in which the native conformation is both a deep global minimum and lies at the bottom of a basin of attraction sloping towards it [@Dill97]. These conditions are known as thermodynamic stability and kinetic accessibility, respectively. While stability may be readily achieved by suppressing the energy of the sequence arranged in the target conformation, constructing a broad funnel leading towards the target has remained elusive.
The first satisfactory method of protein design, introduced by Shakhnovich in 1994 [@Shak94], relies on the correlation between stability and accessibility: stable sequences are found to fold more quickly as well. Minimising the energy or relative energy over sequence space while the conformation remains quenched to the target [@Shak94; @Gutin95] yields protein sequences which fold much more rapidly than random heteropolymers of equal length. We have provided evidence, nonetheless, that the most stable sequences are not the fastest folding, and that a reduction in stability allows significant gain in efficiency [@FB97].
In this Letter we investigate the introduction of a folding funnel above the target conformation in the protein energy landscape [@FinkThesis]. Our method of design relies on the technique of training to multiple targets discussed in [@FBCT00]. Unlike the independent conformations previously considered, here our patterns are correlated to a single target conformation. We find that the extent of the optimal folding funnel, as parameterised by our model, is smaller than the conformational space and depends on the number of amino acid species available. The influence of alphabet size on the folding performance of [*untrained*]{} sequences is considered in [@Garel89].
Our approach to funnel design is to turn off all the monomer interactions (equivalent to an interacting system at infinite temperature) and to consider the dynamics by which a protein would then spontaneously [*unfold*]{} from the target state into a random ensemble. By the principle of detailed balance in equilibrium statistical mechanics, the ensemble of unfolding trajectories from the target state to random conformations is equivalent to the ensemble of folding trajectories from random configurations to the target — but of course the former ensemble is much more easily sampled. Therefore, observations of unfolding will tell us how the molecule would with least dynamical constraint fold.
We provide estimates of the unfolding contact map based on a blob model of unfolding. This is motivated by thermodynamic tractability and its basis in established polymer physics, despite its at times unrealistic representation of kinetics. It leads to a definite proposal as to how different stages in the unfolding contact map should be weighted in training so as to create an optimal funnel.
We find, however, that training to the ideal folding funnel cannot be achieved. Remarkably, the bound on funnel size (in terms of a relaxation length scale) is identical to the thermodynamic capacity derived in [@FBCT00]. Taken together, our results suggest that the extent to which the protein energy landscape can be manipulated — whether it be by the introduction of multiple independent minima, well depth or well breadth (or a combination thereof) — is limited and proportional to the $\log$ of the number of amino acid species.
[**Generalisation to Weighted Training**]{} In a separate Letter [@FBCT00] we investigated the design of multi-stable proteins by training to a uniform superposition of contact maps. The typical well depth of a protein of length $N$ embedded in one of the target conformations was found to be
$$E_{\mu}^{\rm min} \simeq -{\textstyle \sqrt{z'\over p}} N \sigma \sqrt{\ln A}.
\label{FUNNEL_A0}$$
where $A$ is the number of amino acid species, $\sigma$ is the standard deviation of the interaction energies and $z' = z-2$ is the effective coordination number, [*i.e.*]{}, the maximum number of local contacts excluding the backbone. After training to a weighted superposition of contact maps, we expect conformations associated with higher weights to have deeper wells. The derivation of the precise dependence follows.
The total contact map is defined by summing over the individual maps with suitable weights,
$$C_{{\rm tot}_{ij}} = \sum_{\mu = 1}^p w_\mu C_{\mu_{ij}},
\label{FUNNEL_A}$$
where $w_\mu$ is the weight associated with conformation $\Gamma_\mu$. The minimum Hamiltonian associated with the total weighted contact map is
$$H_{\rm tot}^{\rm min} = {1\over 2} \sum_{ij = 1}^N C_{{\rm tot}_{ij}}
\tilde{U}_{ij}^* = {1\over 2} \sum_{ij=1}^N \sum_{\mu=1}^p w_\mu
C_{\mu_{ij}} \tilde{U}^*_{ij}.
\label{FUNNEL_B}$$
where $\tilde{U}^*$ minimises $H_{\rm tot}$.
By analogy with calculations in [@FBCT00], we re-express (\[FUNNEL\_B\]) as a sum over $H_{{\rm tot}_i}$, each minimised by the choice of $S_i$,
$$H_{\rm tot}^{\rm min} = \sum_{i=1}^N \min_{S_i} [H_{{\rm tot}_i}],
\label{FUNNEL_C}$$
where $H_{{\rm tot}_i}$ is the sum over connections to monomer $i$,
$$H_{{\rm tot}_i} = {1\over 2} \sum_{j=1}^N \sum_{\mu=1}^p w_\mu C_{\mu_{ij}}
\tilde{U}_{ij}.
\label{FUNNEL_D}$$
The local Hamiltonian $H_{{\rm tot}_i}$ is simply a weighted sum of the independent local conformational energies,
$$H_{{\rm tot}_i} = \sum_{\mu = 1}^p w_\mu E_{\mu_i}.
\label{FUNNEL_E}$$
Proceeding as in [@FBCT00], we approximate the distribution of $H_{{\rm tot}_i}$ by its central limit form; it is a gaussian with variance $\sigma_{{\rm tot}_i}^2 = {z' \over 2} \sigma^2 \sum_{\mu=1}^p w_\mu^2.$ \[FUNNEL\_F\] This estimation is valid out to $|H_{{\rm tot}_i}|$ $\sim$ ${z'\over 2} \sigma \sum_{\mu=1}^p w_\mu$.
We now consider $H_{{\rm tot}_i}$ in (\[FUNNEL\_E\]) as a sum of two terms,
$$H_{{\rm tot}_i} = w_\mu E_{\mu_i} + \!\!\!
\sum_{\nu =1,\nu \neq \mu}^p \!\!\! w_\nu E_{\nu_i}
= H_{\mu_i} + H_{{\rm oth}_i}.
\label{FUNNEL_G}$$
Since $H_{\mu_i}$ and $H_{{\rm oth}_i}$ are independently gaussianly distributed with variances
$$\sigma_{\mu_i}^2 = {z' \sigma^2\over 2} w_\mu^2 \quad {\rm and} \quad
\sigma_{{\rm oth}_i}^2 = {z' \sigma^2\over 2}
\!\!\! \sum_{\nu =1,\nu \neq \mu}^p \!\!\! w_\nu^2,
\label{FUNNEL_H}$$
the distribution of $H_{\mu_i}$ for fixed $H_{\mu_i} + H_{{\rm oth}_i} = H^{\rm min}_{{\rm tot}_i}$ reduces to
$$f(H_{\mu_i}|H^{\rm min}_{{\rm tot}_i}) \simeq c
\exp\Big(-{\sigma_{{\rm tot}_i}^2 \over 2 \sigma_{\mu_i}^2 \sigma_{{\rm oth}_i}^2}
(H_{\mu_i} - {\sigma_{\mu_i}^2 \over \sigma_{{\rm tot}_i}^2}
H^{\rm min}_{{\rm tot}_i})^2\Big),
\label{FUNNEL_J}$$
where $c$ is a normalising constant and $\sigma_{{\rm tot}_i}^2 = \sigma_{\mu_i}^2 + \sigma_{{\rm oth}_i}^2$. The value of $H_{{\mu}_i}$ of maximum likelihood from (\[FUNNEL\_J\]) is given by
$$H_{\mu_i}^{\rm min}
= {\sigma_{\mu_i}^2 \over \sigma_{{\rm tot}_i}^2}
H^{\rm min}_{{\rm tot}_i},
\label{FUNNEL_AA}$$
which reduces to
$$H_{\mu_i}^{\rm min}
= w_{\mu} E_{\mu_i}^{\rm min}
= {w_\mu^2 \over \sum_{\mu=1}^p w_\mu^2} H^{\rm min}_{{\rm tot}_i}.
\label{FUNNEL_AA2}$$
The minimum local Hamiltonian corresponds to the smallest of $A$ samples from the distribution of $H^{\rm }_{{\rm tot}_i}$. We approximate the minimum of $A$ samples from a gaussian of zero mean and standard deviation $\sigma_{{\rm tot}_i}$ by [@FBCT00]
$$H_{{\rm tot}_i}^{\rm min} \simeq -\sqrt{2} \sigma_{{\rm tot}_i} \sqrt{\ln A}.
\label{FUNNEL_AA3}$$
Substituting (\[FUNNEL\_AA3\]) into (\[FUNNEL\_AA2\]) and summing over $i$ yields
$$E_\mu^{\rm min} \simeq - \sqrt{z'} N \sigma \sqrt{\ln A}
{w_\mu \over \Bigl(\sum_{\mu=1}^p w_\mu^2\Bigr)^{1\over 2}},
\label{FUNNEL_BB}$$
This establishes how the minimised Hamiltonian distributes over the individual weighted configurations; for the special case of equal weights it duly reduces to (\[FUNNEL\_A0\]).
[**Blob Model of Unfolding**]{} It is a well known trend in polymer physics that the larger scale features of molecular conformations have systematically longer relaxation times. For example, for non-interacting chains with simple kink-jump dynamics, a subsection of $g$ monomer units has relaxation time $\tau(g)$ proportional to $g^2$ [@POLYMERS]. On this basis we assume that after time $t$, a spontaneously unfolding polymer will have equilibrated locally up to scale $g$, such that $\tau(g)=t$, but still reflect the folded conformation on larger scales.
This blob view of proteins, that time scales relate uniformly to length scales, is of course a particular and simplified outlook, motivated by its tractability. Complications which we do not address here include spatially localised nucleation events and specific configurational bottlenecks. Nevertheless, it allows us to make [*some*]{} quantitative predictions about the limits of the basin of attraction, which has long proved to be evasive.
The folded protein, which we assume to be compact and associate with $g=1$, consists of $N$ single monomer blobs. The contact map $C(1)$ has $z'$ non-zero entries in each row and column, $z'N$ non-zero entries in total.
For the state unfolded up to length scale $g$, the protein may be thought of as a chain of ${N\over g}$ blobs, folded to its coarse grained original conformation. Accordingly, the contact map $C(g)$ has ${N\over g}$ intra-blob blocks along the diagonal and ${z'N\over g}$ inter-blob blocks corresponding to nearest neighbour blobs (not along the backbone). Scaling theories for polymer configurations with excluded volume would imply that the average total number of contacts between two neighbouring blobs be of order unity. Averaging over an ensemble of conformations at constant $g$, this requires that each of the $g^2$ entries for each blob be of order ${1\over g^2}$.
The total number of conformations (compact or otherwise) available to a protein grows as $\sim \tilde{\kappa}^N$ [@POLYMERS] (not to be confused with $\kappa\simeq 1.85$ [@Pande94] for compact structures only); this becomes $\tilde{\kappa}^{N\over g}$ for a chain of ${N\over g}$ blobs. Since the product of the internal and external conformational freedoms of a partially relaxed protein must equal $\tilde{\kappa}^N$, a protein relaxed to length scale $g$ can be estimated to take on $\tilde{\kappa}^{(N-{N\over g})}$ configurations. It follows that the entropy gained in folding from a denatured configuration down to a conformation relaxed to length scale $g$ is
$$S(g) = -k_B {N\over g} \ln\tilde{\kappa}.
\label{FUNNEL_CC}$$
[**Training to a Funnel**]{} While an energy minimum significantly below the minimum copolymer energy ensures thermodynamic stability of the target conformation, rapid convergence necessitates a funnel of kinetic pathways sloping towards the target. The widest possible funnel is that which least constrains the dynamics, which we propose is given by the conformations sampled in unfolding via the blob model. We thus consider combining the contact maps from different times (and values of $g$) of a noninteracting, spontaneously unfolding compact conformation with weights $w(g)$,
$$C_{{\rm tot}_{ij}} = \sum_{\ln g = 1}^{\ln N} w(g) C_{ij}(g).
\label{FUNNEL_DD}$$
The minimum Hamiltonian associated with the total contact map then appears as
$$H_{\rm tot}^{\rm min}
= {1\over 2} \sum_{ij=1}^N \sum_{\ln g=1}^{\ln N} w(g)
C_{ij}(g) \tilde{U}^*_{ij},
\label{FUNNEL_FF}$$
analogous to (\[FUNNEL\_B\]). The total Hamiltonian associated with monomer $i$ is the sum of the individual local Hamiltonians evaluated at different values of $g$,
$$H_{{\rm tot}_i}^{\rm min}
= \sum_{\ln g = 1}^{\ln N} H_i^{\rm min}(g),
\label{FUNNEL_FF2}$$
where $H(g) = w(g) E(g)$. In accordance with our previous calculation, we require $\sigma_{{\rm tot}_i}^2$. We first estimate the variance in the choice of $H(g)$ available to a single monomer as
$$\sigma_{g_i}^2 \simeq {z'g\over 2} \Big({w(g)\over g^2}\Big)^2 \sigma^2,
\label{FUNNEL_GG}$$
where ${z'g\over 2}$ is the number of contacts available to a given monomer equilibrated to scale $g$ and ${w(g)\over g^2}$ is the overall weighting for each one. The variance of the local energy per monomer integrated over all $g$ is then
$$\sigma_{{\rm tot}_i}^2 \simeq \sum_{\ln g = 1}^{\ln N} \sigma^2_{g_i}
\simeq {z' \sigma^2\over 2} \int_e^N {dg\over g} g {w^2(g)\over g^4}.
\label{FUNNEL_HH}$$
Again we wish to establish how the minimised Hamiltonian distributes over weighted configurations unfolded to length scale $g$. Applying the general result (\[FUNNEL\_AA\]) yields
$$H_i^{\rm min}(g)
\simeq w(g) E_i^{\rm min}(g)
\simeq {\sigma_{g_i}^2 \over \sigma_{{\rm tot}_i}^2}
H^{\rm min}_{{\rm tot}_i}.
\label{FUNNEL_II}$$
Substituting (\[FUNNEL\_AA3\]) and (\[FUNNEL\_GG\]) into (\[FUNNEL\_II\]) and summing over $i$, the minimum energy associated with matching the conformation at scale $g$ can then be estimated as
$$E^{\rm min}(g) \simeq - {z' \over \sqrt{2}} N \sigma^2 \sqrt{\ln A} {w(g) \over
\sigma_{{\rm tot}_i} g^3}.
\label{FUNNEL_KK}$$
In order that the training reverse the unfolding dynamics, the required funnel must have sufficient slope, that is, $F(g) = E(g) -T S(g)< 0$. Equating the two expressions $T \times$ (\[FUNNEL\_CC\]) and (\[FUNNEL\_KK\]) gives
$$w(g) \simeq - {\sqrt{2} k_B T \ln \tilde{\kappa} \,\, \sigma_{{\rm tot}_i} \over z' \sigma^2 \sqrt{\ln A}} g^2,
\label{FUNNEL_LL}$$
and thus $w(g) \propto g^2$. Unfortunately this form for $w$ is inconsistent with a convergent ($N$-independent) evaluation of $\sigma_{{\rm tot}_i}$ in (\[FUNNEL\_HH\]). Our assumption that the training energy could reverse the unfolding dynamics does not hold for all values of $g$.
We consequently introduce the cutoff scale $g_{\rm max}$, up to which our funnel extends. Substituting (\[FUNNEL\_LL\]) into (\[FUNNEL\_HH\]) and reducing the domain of integration yields
$$\sigma_{{\rm tot}_i}^2 \simeq {(k_B T)^2 \ln^2 \tilde{\kappa} \over
z' \sigma^2 \ln A}
\sigma_{{\rm tot}_i}^2 \int_e^{g_{\rm max}} dg,
\label{FUNNEL_MM}$$
from which it follows that
$$g_{\rm max} \simeq {z' \sigma^2 \ln A \over (k_B T)^2 \ln^2 \tilde{\kappa} }.
\label{FUNNEL_NN}$$
The width of our funnel, as parametrised by $g_{\rm max}$ above, increases strongly as folding temperature $T$ decreases. At too low a temperature, however, the coil will collapse as a random copolymer into what we presume to be a glassy state. The loss in entropy resulting from collapse will be equivalent to $-$(\[FUNNEL\_CC\]) evaluated at $g=1$ (the collapsed copolymer will be fully folded). The modest decrease in energy afforded by the minimum copolymer energy can overcome this entropic loss only at low temperature $T_{\rm cp}$. Equating the minimum copolymer energy $E_{\rm cp}^{\rm min}$ from $(7)$ in [@FBCT00] and $T_{\rm cp}$ times the loss in entropy $-$(\[FUNNEL\_CC\])$|_{g=1}$ leads to
$$k_B T_{\rm cp} \simeq \sigma {\sqrt{z' \ln \kappa} \over \ln \tilde{\kappa}},
\label{FUNNEL_OO}$$
and hence at $T \simeq T_{\rm cp}$,
$$g_{\rm max} \simeq {\ln A \over \ln\kappa},
\label{FUNNEL_PP}$$
which is identical to the form of $p_{\rm max}$ derived in [@FBCT00].
[**Discussion of Capacity**]{} That the bound on the folding funnel $g_{\rm max}$ is less than $N$ implies the extent of the achievable folding funnel is less than the conformational space of the protein. Folding at finite temperature cannot be made as direct as unfolding at infinite temperature. The cutoff $g_{\rm max}$ is the length scale of the structure below which the energy landscape corresponding to the trained sequence is characterised by a funnel. Above $g_{\rm max}$, the protein must organise itself into the desired (coarse grained) conformation without the help of kinetic guidance, that is, it must traverse an effective copolymer landscape (Figure \[blob\_funnel\]). What happens to the protein energy landscape upon increasing the width of the funnel? As $g \rightarrow g_{\rm max}$, the slope of the funnel becomes sufficiently shallow such that, at $g = g_{\rm max}$, the decrease in energy no longer overcomes the loss of entropy (Figure \[funnelcapacity\_Eland\]); the well ceases to be a free energy minimum.
Consider the protein as a sequence of $N/g_{\rm max}$ blobs, each of size $g_{\rm max}$. The benefit of the funnel is realised once the chain of blobs folds to its coarse grained target state. Assuming this statistical bottleneck to be the rate determining step, the time necessary for the protein to fold is reduced by the factor $\kappa^{-(1 - 1/g_{\rm max})N}$, which is significant even for small values of $g_{\rm max}$.
[**Manipulation of the Energy Landscape**]{} In both the thermodynamic [@FBCT00] and kinetic contexts, the extent to which the protein energy landscape can be manipulated is limited by ${\ln A \over \ln \kappa}$, where $A$ is the number of amino acid species and $\kappa$ is the compact conformational freedom per monomer. Like squeezing one end of a balloon at the expense of inflating the other, further deformation of the energy landscape is counter-balanced by its relaxation elsewhere.
The agreement between the bounds on protein memory, on the one hand, and the basin of attraction, on the other, was unexpected. Taken together, these results suggest that the engineering of proteins and heteropolymers is constrained by a fixed budget. The finite freedom in the sequence can be invested in various attributes: in well number, well breadth and well depth. A reduction in expenditure in one allows increased investment in another.
In particular, our results suggest that thermodynamic stability and kinetic accessibility, while correlated over a significant region, are in conflict near the extremes of either; maximally stable sequences are not the fastest folding and the fastest folders are not the most stable. (We presented preliminary evidence to this end in [@FB97]). Accordingly, thermodynamically oriented sequence design need not select for the fastest folding proteins and a reduction in stability admits increased accessibility. If Nature has designed proteins to fold as quickly as possible, we would expect only marginal stability in the native conformation. The preceding premise might be established by observation of normal and mutated naturally occurring proteins.
Notably, the bound on manipulating the energy landscape is independent of protein length; the diversity of protein function grows with alphabet size only. The large (relative to $\kappa$) amino acid alphabet found in Nature is crucial to the variety of protein function within the cell or in multicellular organisms. To the extent that heteropolymer models are intended to provide insight into proteins, their alphabet sizes should reflect this. Elementary representations, such as frequently studied H-P models, are not able to effect the thermodynamic and kinetic diversity possible with larger alphabets.
Perhaps most interesting is the increased scope for protein and heteropolymer function. The discovery that prions fold to multiple conformations [@SP98] has extended our notion of heteropolymer behaviour beyond familiar protein collapse. We have presented arguments that the energy landscape may, within limits, be tailored to effect function heretofore unobserved. Further discovery of novel protein mechanisms should prove fascinating.
=6.85cm
=6.7cm
[99]{}
Thomas M. A. Fink and Robin C. Ball, submitted to [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} (2000).
Ken A. Dill and Sun Chan, Nature Struct. Biol., 10 (1997).
E. I. Shakhnovich, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**72**]{}, 3907 (1994).
A. M. Gutin, V. I. Abkevich and E. I. Shakhnovich, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA [**92**]{}, 1282 (1995).
Thomas M. Fink and Robin C. Ball, Physica D [**107**]{}, 199 (1997).
Thomas M. A. Fink, [*Inverse Protein Folding, Hierarchical Optimisation and Tie Knots*]{}, Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge (1998).
J.-R. Garel, T. Garel and H. Orland, J. Phys. France, [**50**]{}, 3067 (1989).
Pierre-Gilles de Gennes, [*Scaling Concepts in Polymer Physics*]{} (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, UK, 1979).
Vijay S. Pande [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**27**]{}, 6231 (1994).
Stanley B. Prusiner, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, [**95**]{}, 13363 (1998).
Paul M. Harrison [*et al.*]{}, [J. Mol. Biol.]{} [**286**]{}, 593 (1999).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The Bousfield-Kan (or unstable Adams) spectral sequence can be constructed for various homology theories such as Brown-Peterson homology theory BP, Johnson-Wilson theory $E(n)$, or Morava $E$-theory $E_n$. For nice spaces the $E_2$-term is given by Ext in a category of unstable comodules. We establish an unstable Morava change of rings isomorphism between $\operatorname{Ext}_{\mathcal{U}_{BP_*BP}}(BP_*,M)$ and $\operatorname{Ext}_{\mathcal{U}_{E_{n*}E_n}}(E_{n*},E_{n*}\otimes_{BP_*} M)$ for unstable $BP_*BP$-comodules that are $v_n$-local and satisfy $I_nM = 0$. We show that the latter Ext groups can be interpreted as the continuous cohomology of the profinite monoid of endomorphisms of the Honda formal group law. By comparing this with the cohomology of the Morava stabilizer group we obtain an unstable Morava vanishing theorem when $p-1 \nmid n$. This in turn has implications for the convergence of the Bousfield-Kan spectral sequence. When $p-1 > n$ and $k$ is odd and sufficiently large we show that the $E(n)$-based spectral sequence for $S^k$ has a horizontal vanishing line in $E_2$ and converges to the $E(n)$-completion of $S^k$.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Hunter College and the Graduate Center, CUNY, New York, NY 10065'
author:
- Robert Thompson
bibliography:
- 'rob.bib'
title: 'An unstable change of rings for Morava E-theory'
---
Introduction
============
In [@BCM] it is shown that the unstable Adams spectral sequence, as formulated by Bousfield and Kan [@BK], can be used with a generalized homology theory represented by a $p$-local ring spectrum $E$ satisfying certain hypotheses, and for certain spaces $X$. In these cases the effectiveness of the spectral sequence is demonstrated by: 1) setting up the spectral sequence and proving convergence, 2) formulating a general framework for computing the $E_2$-term, and 3) computing the one and two line in the case where $E=BP$ and $X=S^{2n+1}$.
In [@BT] the present author and M. Bendersky showed that this framework can be extended to periodic homology theories such as the Johnson-Wilson spectra $E(n)$. However the approach to convergence in [@BT] is different from that in [@BCM]. In the latter the Curtis convergence theorem is used to obtain a general convergence theorem based on the existence of a Thom map $$H\mathbf{Z}_{(p)} \to E$$ and a tower over $X$. This necessitates that $E$ be connective. Obviously this doesn’t apply to periodic theories such as $E(n)$. In [@BT] we study a tower under $X$ and define the $E$-completion of $X$ to be the homotopy inverse limit of this tower. Convergence of the spectral sequence to the completion is guaranteed by, for example, a vanishing line in $r$th term of the spectral sequence. For the example of $E(1)$ and $X = S^{2n+1}$ we compute the $E_2$-term, for $p$ odd, and obtain such a vanishing line.
It should be noted that the spectral sequence has been used to good effect in the work of Davis and Bendersky, in computing $v_1$-periodic homotopy groups of Lie Groups. It should also be noted that the construction of an $E$-completion given in [@BT] has been strongly generalized by Bousfield in [@BO9]. Also, the framework for the construction of the spectral sequence and the computation of the $E_2$-term in [@BCM] and [@BT] has been generalized by Bendersky and Hunton in [@BH] to the case of an arbitrary Landweber Exact ring spectrum $E$. This includes complete theories such as Morava $E$-theory.
In [@BH] the authors define an $E$-completion of $X$, and a corresponding Bousfield-Kan spectral sequence, for any space $X$ and any ring spectrum $E$, generalizing the construction of [@BT]. If one further supposes that $E$ is a Landweber exact spectrum then the authors show that one can define a category of unstable comodules over the Hopf algebroid $(E_*, E_*(E))$. This is accomplished by studying the primitives and indecomposables in the Hopf ring of $E$, extending the work of [@BCM], [@BE5]. Letting $\mathcal{U}$ denote this category of unstable comodules they show, for example, that if $X$ is a space such that $E_*(X) \cong \Lambda(M)$, an exterior algebra on the $E_*$-module $M$ of primitives, where $M$ is a free $E_*$-module concentrated in odd degrees, then the $E_2$-term of the spectral sequence can be identified as $$E_2^{s,t}(X) \cong \operatorname{Ext}^s_{\mathcal{U}}(E_*(S^t),M).$$ This is Theorem 4.1 of [@BH].
There remains the issue of convergence and the problem of actually computing the $E_2$-term. In this paper we establish bounds for the cohomological dimension of the unstable Ext groups of certain torsion unstable comodules. The means for doing this consist of first establishing an unstable version of the Morava change of rings theorem going from $BP$ to Morava $E$-theory, and then identifying the unstable cohomology as the continuous cohomology of $\operatorname{End}_n$, the profinite monoid of endomorphisms of $\Gamma_n$, the Honda formal group law, over $\mathbf{F}_{p^n}$. The multiplication in $\operatorname{End}_n$ is given by composition. The group of invertible endomorphisms is the well known Morava stabilizer group, and Morava theory tells us that the continuous cohomology of this group yields stable input into the chromatic machinery of stable homotopy theory. Unstable information is obtained by considering non-invertible endormorphisms of $\Gamma_n$ as well.
In the next section we will recall the definition of the category of unstable comodules. In the following theorem, the cohomology on the right hand side is continuous monoid cohomology and $\operatorname{Gal}$ denotes the Galois group $\operatorname{Gal}(\mathbf{F}_{p^n}/\mathbf{F}_{p})$ and $E_{n*}$ is the coefficient ring of Morava $E$-theory. A $BP_*$-module is called $v_n$-local if $v_n$ acts bijectively.
\[first-main-theorem\] Let $M$ be an unstable $BP_*BP$-comodule, concentrated in odd degrees, which is $v_n$-local and satisfies $I_nM=0$. Then there is an isomorphism $$\operatorname{Ext}^{s}_{\mathcal{U}_{BP_*BP}}(BP_*,M) \cong H_c^{s}(\operatorname{End}_n, (E_{n*}\otimes_{BP_*} M)_1)^{\operatorname{Gal}}.$$
In Section \[cohomological-dimension\] we establish a relationship between the cohomology of $\operatorname{End}_n$ and the cohomology of $S_n$, the Morava stabilizer group. Using the cohomological dimension of $S_n$ (see [@RA2]) we obtain an unstable Morava vanishing theorem.
\[second-main-theorem\] Let $M$ be as in Theorem \[first-main-theorem\]. Suppose $p-1 \nmid n$. Then $$\operatorname{Ext}^{s}_{\mathcal{U}_{BP_*BP}}(BP_*,M) = 0\quad \text{for}\quad s > n^2+1$$
Theorem \[second-main-theorem\] has implications for the convergence of the unstable $E(n)$-based Bousfield-Kan spectral sequence for an odd dimensional sphere. Martin Bendersky has observed that the dimension of a sphere $S^k$ has to be sufficiently large relative to $j$ and $p$ in order for $$BP_*(S^k)/I_{j} \xrightarrow{v_j} BP_*(S^k)/I_{j}$$ to be an unstable comodule map [@BE6].
\[third-main-theorem\] Let $p-1 > n$ and let be $k$ be odd and large enough that $$E(n)_*(S^k)/I_{j} \xrightarrow{v_j} E(n)_*(S^k)/I_{j}$$ is an unstable comodule map for $0 \le j \le n-1$. Then $$\operatorname{Ext}^{s}_{\mathcal{U}_{E(n)_*E(n)}}(E(n)_*, E(n)_*(S^k) ) = 0 \quad \text{for}\quad s > n^2+ n + 1.$$ Hence the unstable $E(n)$-based Bousfield-Kan spectral sequence for $S^k$ converges to the $E(n)$-completion of $S^k$.
This theorem will be proved in Section \[vanishing-line\], using a Bockstein argument and an unstable version of the Hovey-Sadofsky change of rings theorem [@HOVSA].
This work came out of an extended discussion with Martin Bendersky about unstable chromatic homotopy theory and the author is very grateful for all the insight he has provided. The author also wishes to thank Mark Hovey for help in understanding the nature of faithfully flat extensions of Hopf algebroids and equivalences of categories of comodules. Also, thanks are due to Hal Sadofsky and Ethan Devinatz for several useful conversations.
Unstable Comodules
==================
We begin by recalling some notions from [@BCM] and [@BH]. Suppose that $E$ is a spectrum representing a Landweber exact cohomology theory with coefficient ring concentrated in even degrees. Let $\underline{E}_*$ denote the corresponding $\Omega$-spectrum. There are generators $\beta_i \in E_{2i}(CP^{\infty})$ and under the complex orientation for complex cobordism $CP^{\infty} \to \underline{MU}_2$ these map to classes $E_{2i}(\underline{MU}_2)$. Localized at a prime $p$, denote the image of $\beta_{p^i}$ by $b_{(i)} \in E_{2p^i}(\underline{E}_2)$. Let $b_i \in E_{2p^i-2}(E)$ denote the image under stabilization. Following [@BCM] and [@BH], when $E= BP$, we replace the elements $b_i$ with $h_i = c(t_i)$. For a finite sequence of integers $J=(j_1,j_2,\dots,j_n)$ define the [*length*]{} of $J$ to be $l(J) = j_1 +j_2 + \cdots j_n$ and define $$b^J = b_1^{j_1}b_{2}^{j_2}\cdots b_n^{j_n}.$$
Let $(A,\Gamma)$ denote the Hopf algebroid $(E_*,E_*E)$ for a Landweber exact spectrum $E$. Let $M$ be a free, graded $A-module$. Define $U_{\Gamma}(M)$ to be sub-$A$-module of $\Gamma\otimes_{A}M$ spanned by all elements of the form $b^J\otimes m$ where $2l(J) < |m|$. Secondly, define $V_{\Gamma}(M)$ to be sub-$A$-module of $\Gamma\otimes_{A}M$ spanned by all elements of the form $b^J\otimes m$ where $2l(J) \le |m|$.
We will sometimes drop the subscript $\Gamma$ from the notation if it will not cause confusion.
The following theorem was proved in [@BCM] for $E=BP$ and in [@BH] for an arbitrary Landweber exact theory. Here $M_s$ denotes a free $A$-module generated by one class $i_s$ in dimension $s$.
In the Hopf ring for $E$ the suspension homomorphism restricted to the primitives $$\sigma_*: PE_*(\underline{E}_s) \to U(M_s)$$ and the suspension homomorphism restricted to the indecomposables $$\sigma_*: QE_*(\underline{E}_s) \to V(M_s)$$ are isomorphisms.
The functors $U_{\Gamma}(-)$ and $V_{\Gamma}(-)$ are extended to arbitrary $A$-modules as follows. Let $$F_1 \to F_0 \to M \to 0$$ be exact with $F_1$ and $F_0$ free over $A$. Define $U_{\Gamma}(M)$ by $$U_{\Gamma}(M) = \operatorname{coker}(U_{\Gamma}(F_1) \to U_{\Gamma}(F_0))$$ and $V_{\Gamma}(M)$ by $$V_{\Gamma}(M) = \operatorname{coker}(v_{\Gamma}(F_1) \to V_{\Gamma}(F_0)).$$
It is shown in [@BCM], [@BH] that $U$ and $V$ are each the functor of a comonad $(U,\delta,\epsilon)$ and $(V,\delta,\epsilon)$ on the category of $A$-modules.
Using some work from Dustin Mulcahey’s thesis [@MUL] we can extend the above to a much more general situation. Suppose $(A, \Gamma)$ is a Landweber exact Hopf algebroid and $A\xrightarrow{f} B$ is a map of algebras. If we define ${\Sigma = B \otimes_{A} \Gamma \otimes_{A} B}$ then $(B,\Sigma)$ becomes a Hopf algebroid and we have a map of Hopf Algebroids $(A,\Gamma) \to (B, \Sigma)$. The example that was treated in [@MUL] was $A=BP_*$ and $B = K(n)_*$ but the following makes sense in general.
Let $\mathcal{M}$ be the category of $B$-modules and define an endofunctor $U_{\Sigma}$ on $\mathcal{M}$ by $$U_{\Sigma}(N) = B \otimes_A U_{\Gamma}(N).$$
Define a comultiplication by $$\begin{diagram}
\node{ U_{\Sigma}(N) = B\otimes_A U_{\Gamma}(N) } \arrow{e,t}{ B\otimes \Delta^{\Gamma} } \arrow{se,t}{\Delta^{\Sigma}} \node{ B\otimes_A U^{2}_{\Gamma}(N) }
\arrow{s,r}{B\otimes U_{\Gamma}(f\otimes U_{\Gamma}(N))} \\
\node{} \node{ B\otimes_A U_{\Gamma}(B\otimes_A U_{\Gamma}(N)) }\\
\end{diagram}$$ and a counit $$U_{\Sigma}(N) = B\otimes_A U_{\Gamma}(N) \xrightarrow{B\otimes \epsilon^{\Gamma}} B\otimes_A N \xrightarrow{} N$$ Make an analogous definition for $V_{\Sigma}$.
The functors $U_{\Sigma}$ and $V_{\Sigma}$ are both comonads on the category of $B$-modules.
The proof is a straightforward diagram chase.
By Corollary 2.12 of [@BH] this generalizes the definition of $U$ and $V$ in the Landweber exact case.
\[unstable-comodule-categories\] Suppose $(A,\Gamma)$ is the target of a map of Hopf algebroids from a Landweber exact Hopf algebroid as above. Let $\mathcal{U}_{\Gamma}$ denote the category of coalgebras over the comonad $U$ and similarly let $\mathcal{V}_{\Gamma}$ denote the category of coalgebras over the comonad $V$. We call an object in $\mathcal{U}_{\Gamma}$ (or in $\mathcal{V}_{\Gamma}$, depending on the context) an unstable $\Gamma$-comodule.
For now we will focus on the functor $U$ but in everything that follows in this section there are analogous results for $V$. Keep in mind that if $M$ is concentrated in odd dimensions, then $U(M)$ and $V(M)$ are the same.
Thus a $\Gamma$-comodule is unstable if the comodule structure map has a lifting:
$$\begin{diagram}
\node{M} \arrow{e,t}{} \arrow{se,b}{\psi_{M}} \node{\Gamma\otimes_{A}M} \\
\node{} \node{U_{\Gamma}(M)} \arrow{n}\\
\end{diagram}$$
The category $\mathcal{U}$ is an abelian category and the functor $U$ restricted to $\mathcal{U}$ is the functor of a monad $(U,\mu,\eta)$, using the definitons $\mu = U\epsilon$ and $\eta=\psi$. The Ext groups in $\mathcal{U}$ can be computed as follows.
Suppose $M$ is an unstable comodule. Analogous to the stable case, the monad $(U,\mu,\eta)$ gives maps $$\begin{aligned}
& U^{i}\eta^{U}U^{n-i}: U^{n}(M)\to U^{n+1}(M),\,\, 0\le i \le n,\\
& U^{i}\mu^{U}U^{n-i}: U^{n+2}(M)\to U^{n+1}(M),\,\, 0\le i \le n,\end{aligned}$$ which define a cosimplicial object in $\mathcal{U}$ called the cobar resolution. Apply the functor $\hom_{\mathcal{U}}(A,\,\,)$ to get a cosimplicial abelian group and hence a chain complex called the cobar complex $$M \xrightarrow{\partial} U(M) \xrightarrow{\partial} U^2(M)\xrightarrow{\partial} \cdots\\$$ with $$\partial = \sum_{i=0}^{n} (-1)^i d^{i}: U^{n-1}(M) \to U^{n}(M).$$ Here $d^{i} = \hom_{\mathcal{U}}(A,U^{i}\eta^{U}U^{n-i})$ and $\hom_{\mathcal{U}}(A,U(N)) = N$. Then the homology of this chain complex $\operatorname{Ext}_{\mathcal{U}}(E_*,M)$.
Now consider a map of arbitrary Hopf algebroids $(A,\Gamma) \to (B, \Sigma)$. In [@MR1] Miller and Ravenel define a pair of adjoint functors on the comodule categories
\(a) at (0,0) [$ \Gamma\text{-comod} $]{}; (b) at (3,0) [$ \Sigma\text{-comod} $]{}; (\[yshift= 3pt\]a.east) edge node\[above\] [$\pi_*$]{} (\[yshift= 3pt\]b.west); (\[yshift= -3pt\]a.east) edge node\[below\] [$\pi^*$]{} (\[yshift= -3pt\]b.west);
defined by $\pi_*(M) = B \otimes_A M$ and $\pi^*(N) = (\Gamma \otimes_A B)\operatorname{\Box}_{\Sigma} N$ for a $\Gamma$-comodule $M$ and a $\Sigma$-comodule $N$. This adjunction is discussed in detail in several places, for example [@HOV2] and [@MUL]. The functors $\pi_*$ and $\pi^*$ often define inverse equivalences of comodule categories. For example if $\Sigma = B\otimes_{A} \Gamma \otimes_{A} B$ and $A\to B$ is a faithfully flat extension of rings, then it is not difficult to see that this is the case.
Now suppose that $(A,\Gamma)\to (B,\Sigma)$ have suitably defined unstable comodule categories, as in Definition \[unstable-comodule-categories\]. Mulcahey defines unstable analogs of $\pi_*$ and $\pi_*$ in [@MUL].
\[unstable-adjoint-functors\] Define functors
\(a) at (0,0) [$ \mathcal{U}_{ \Gamma} $]{}; (b) at (3,0) [$ \mathcal{U}_{ \Sigma} $]{}; (\[yshift= 3pt\]a.east) edge node\[above\] [$\alpha_*$]{} (\[yshift= 3pt\]b.west); (\[yshift= -3pt\]a.east) edge node\[below\] [$\alpha^*$]{} (\[yshift= -3pt\]b.west);
by $\alpha_*(M) = B \otimes_A M$ for an unstable $\Gamma$-comodule $M$, and for an unstable $\Sigma$-comodule $N$, define $\alpha^*(N)$ to be the equalizer
\(a) at (0,0) [$\alpha^*(N)$]{}; (b) at (2,0) [$ U_{\Gamma}(N) $]{}; (c) at (5,0) [$ U_{\Gamma}U_{\Sigma }(N)$]{}; (a) edge (b) (\[yshift= 3pt\]b.east) edge node\[above\] [$ U_{\Gamma}(\psi_{N}) $]{} (\[yshift= 3pt\]c.west) (\[yshift= -3pt\]b.east) edge node\[below\] [$U_{\Gamma}(\beta)\circ \Delta_{\Gamma} $]{} (\[yshift= -3pt\]c.west);
where $\beta:U_{\Gamma}(N)\to U_{\Sigma}(N).$
The functors $\alpha_*$ and $\alpha^{*}$ form an adjoint pair.
This follows by considering the map $$B\otimes_A U_{\Gamma}(M) \xrightarrow{} B\otimes_A U_{\Gamma}(B\otimes_A M)$$ which is natural in the $A$-module $M$ and gives a morphism of comonads $U_{\Gamma}\to U_{\Sigma}$ which leads to the adjoint pair on comodule categories. See [@MUL] for the details.
Faithfully Flat Extensions
==========================
The following theorem is an unstable version of a theorem due to Mike Hopkins, Mark Hovey, and Hal Sadofsky. See [@HOP], [@HOV], and [@HOVSA]. Hovey’s paper [@HOV] has a detailed proof of the theorem in the form that we need, which is stated below as Theorem \[hovey’s-theorem\]. The proof in [@HOV] is based on a study of the category of quasi-coherent sheaves on a groupoid scheme. That theory has not yet been developed in an unstable setting but we don’t need that for the present work. The author is very grateful to Mark Hovey for a detailed discussion of various aspects of Theorem \[hovey’s-theorem\] below.
\[unstable-faithflat-equiv\] Suppose $(A,\Gamma)\to (B,\Sigma)$ is a map of Hopf algebroids, both satisfying the conditions of Definition of \[unstable-comodule-categories\] and thus possessing unstable comodule categories. Assume that $\Sigma = B \otimes_{A} \Gamma \otimes_{A} B$, and that there exists an algebra $C$ along with an algebra map $B \otimes_A \Gamma \xrightarrow{g} C$ such that the composite $$A \xrightarrow{1 \otimes \eta_R} B \otimes_A \Gamma \xrightarrow{g} C$$ is a faithfully flat extension of $A$-modules. To be explicit the first map is the one that takes $a$ to $1\otimes \eta_R(a)$. Then $\alpha_*$ and $\alpha^*$ of \[unstable-adjoint-functors\] are adjoint inverse equivalences of categories.
The existence of the map $g$ satisfying the stated condition generalizes the condition of $A\to B$ being faithfully flat.
\[hovey’s-theorem\] Let $(A,\Gamma)\to (B,\Sigma)$ be a map of Hopf algebroids such that $\Sigma = B \otimes_{A} \Gamma \otimes_{A} B$, and assume there exists an algebra $C$ along with an algebra map $B \otimes_A \Gamma \xrightarrow{g} C$ such that the composite $$A \xrightarrow{1 \otimes \eta_R} B \otimes_A \Gamma \xrightarrow{g} C$$ is a faithfully flat extension of $A$-modules. Then $$\Gamma\text{-comod} \xrightarrow{\pi_*} \Sigma\text{-comod}$$ is an equivalence of categories.
This enables the following lemma.
\[hovey’s-lemma\] Recall that $\alpha_*:\mathcal{U}_{\Gamma} \to \mathcal{U}_{\Sigma}$ is given by $\alpha_*(M) = B\otimes_{A}M$. Let $f:M\to N$ be a morphism in $\mathcal{U}_{\Gamma}$. Then $\alpha_*(f)$ is an isomorphism if and only if $f$ is an isomorphism. Furthermore $\alpha_*$ is exact.
By Theorem \[hovey’s-theorem\] the functor $\pi_*$ is exact since an equivalence of abelian categories is an exact functor. An unstable $\Gamma$-comodule map is a stable $\Gamma$-comodule and a sequence in $\mathcal{U}_{\Gamma}$ is exact if and only if it’s exact in $\Gamma\text{-comod}$, so $\alpha_*$ is exact on $\mathcal{U}_{\Gamma}$. A similar argument gives the first statement.
For $N \in \mathcal{U}_{\Sigma}$ consider the counit of the adjunction $$\alpha_*\alpha^* N \xrightarrow{} N.$$ By Lemma \[hovey’s-lemma\] $\alpha_*\alpha^* N = B\otimes_{A} \alpha^*(N)$ sits in an equalizer diagram
\(a) at (0,0) [$B\otimes_{A} \alpha^*(N)$]{}; (b) at (3,0) [$B\otimes_{A} U_{\Gamma}(N) $]{}; (c) at (7.5,0) [$B\otimes_{A} U_{\Gamma}U_{\Sigma }(N)$]{}; (a) edge (b) (\[yshift= 3pt\]b.east) edge node\[above\] [$B\otimes_{A} U_{\Gamma}(\psi_{N}) $]{} (\[yshift= 3pt\]c.west) (\[yshift= -3pt\]b.east) edge node\[below\] [$B\otimes_{A} U_{\Gamma}(\beta)\circ \Delta_{\Gamma} $]{} (\[yshift= -3pt\]c.west);
which is the same thing as
\(a) at (0,0) [$B\otimes_{A} \alpha^*(N)$]{}; (b) at (2.5,0) [$ U_{\Sigma}(N) $]{}; (c) at (6,0) [$U_{\Sigma}U_{\Sigma }(N)$]{}; (a) edge (b) (\[yshift= 3pt\]b.east) edge node\[above\] [$ U_{\Sigma}(\psi_{N}) $]{} (\[yshift= 3pt\]c.west) (\[yshift= -3pt\]b.east) edge node\[below\] [$ \Delta_{\Sigma} $]{} (\[yshift= -3pt\]c.west);
because $\Sigma = B\otimes_{A} \Gamma \otimes_{A} B$. It follows that $B\otimes_{A}\alpha^*N \cong N$.
For $M \in \mathcal{U}_{\Gamma}$ look at the unit of the adjunction $$M \xrightarrow{} \alpha^*\alpha_* M.$$ The target sits in an equalizer diagram
\(a) at (0,0) [$ \alpha^*\alpha_* M$]{}; (b) at (2.5,0) [$ U_{\Gamma}(B\otimes_{A} M) $]{}; (c) at (6,0) [$U_{\Gamma}U_{\Sigma }(B\otimes_{A} M)$]{}; (a) edge (b) (\[yshift= 3pt\]b.east) edge node\[above\] [$ $]{} (\[yshift= 3pt\]c.west) (\[yshift= -3pt\]b.east) edge node\[below\] [$ $]{} (\[yshift= -3pt\]c.west);
Tensor this with $B$
\(a) at (0,0) [$B\otimes_{A} \alpha^*\alpha_* M$]{}; (b) at (3.5,0) [$B\otimes_{A} U_{\Gamma}(B\otimes_{A} M) $]{}; (c) at (8,0) [$B\otimes_{A}U_{\Gamma}U_{\Sigma }(B\otimes_{A} M)$]{}; (a) edge (b) (\[yshift= 3pt\]b.east) edge node\[above\] [$ $]{} (\[yshift= 3pt\]c.west) (\[yshift= -3pt\]b.east) edge node\[below\] [$ $]{} (\[yshift= -3pt\]c.west);
which gives
\(a) at (0,0) [$B\otimes_{A} \alpha^*\alpha_* M$]{}; (b) at (3,0) [$ U_{\Sigma}(B\otimes_{A} M) $]{}; (c) at (7,0) [$U_{\Sigma}U_{\Sigma }(B\otimes_{A} M)$]{}; (a) edge (b) (\[yshift= 3pt\]b.east) edge node\[above\] [$ $]{} (\[yshift= 3pt\]c.west) (\[yshift= -3pt\]b.east) edge node\[below\] [$ $]{} (\[yshift= -3pt\]c.west);
So $B\otimes_{A} \alpha^*\alpha_*M \cong B\otimes_{A} M$. The unit of the adjunction is un unstable $\Gamma$-comodule map so Lemma \[hovey’s-lemma\] applies and we have ${M \xrightarrow{\cong} \alpha^*\alpha_*M}$.
This equivalence of abelian categories induces a change of rings isomorphism of Ext groups. To be explicit we have
\[unstable-faithflat-cor\] Assume the hypotheses of \[unstable-faithflat-equiv\]. Then for any unstable $\Gamma$-comodule $M$, there is an isomorphism $$\operatorname{Ext}_{\mathcal{U}_{\Gamma}}(A,M) \to \operatorname{Ext}_{\mathcal{U}_{\Sigma}}(B,B\otimes_{A} M).$$
First we make an observation.
\[unstable-cotensor-lemma\] For an unstable $\Sigma$-comodule $N$ we have $\alpha^*U_{\Sigma}(N) = U_{\Gamma}(N)$.
We have $$\label{first-map}
U_{\Gamma}(N) \to \alpha^*U_{\Sigma}(N).$$ Tensor with $B$ to get $$B\otimes_{A} U_{\Gamma}(N) \to B\otimes_{A} \alpha^*U_{\Sigma}(N)$$ which is $$U_{\Sigma}(N) \xrightarrow{\cong} U_{\Sigma}(N).$$ By Lemma \[hovey’s-lemma\] the map \[first-map\] is an isomorphism.
Let $$N \to U_{\Sigma}(N) \to U_{\Sigma}^{2}(N) \to U_{\Sigma}^{3}(N) \to \dots$$ be the unstable cobar complex for $N$. Apply $\alpha^*$ to get $$\label{alpha-unstable-cobar}
\alpha^{*}N \to \alpha^{*}U_{\Sigma}(N) \to \alpha^{*}U_{\Sigma}^{2}(N) \to \alpha^{*}U_{\Sigma}^{3}(N) \to \dots$$ Now tensor with $B$ to get the unstable cobar resolution back again $$N \to U_{\Sigma}(N) \to U_{\Sigma}^{2}(N) \to U_{\Sigma}^{3}(N) \to \dots$$ which is acyclic. By Lemma \[hovey’s-lemma\] the complex \[alpha-unstable-cobar\] is acyclic too.
By Lemma \[unstable-cotensor-lemma\] $\alpha^{*}U_{\Sigma}(N) = U_{\Gamma}(N)$ so \[alpha-unstable-cobar\] is a resolution of $\alpha^*N$ by injective unstable $\Gamma$-comodules $$\alpha^{*}N \to U_{\Gamma}(N) \to U_{\Gamma}U_{\Sigma}^{}(N) \to U_{\Gamma}U_{\Sigma}^{2}(N) \to \dots .$$ Apply $\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathcal{U}_{\Gamma}}(A,\_)$ to get $$N \to U_{\Sigma}(N) \to U_{\Sigma}^{2}(N) \dots$$ which is the $\Sigma$-cobar complex for $N$. This shows that $$\operatorname{Ext}_{\mathcal{U}_{\Gamma}}(A,\alpha^{*}N) \to \operatorname{Ext}_{\mathcal{U}_{\Sigma}}(B,N).$$ Apply this to the case $N=\alpha_*M$ to get the result.
Morava $E$-theory
=================
This section is based on the work of Morava [@MOR]. We will closely follow the exposition of Devinatz [@DEV]. Let $W\mathbf{F}_{p^n}$ denote the Witt ring over $\mathbf{F}_{p^n}$, the complete local $p$-ring having $\mathbf{F}_{p^n}$ as its residue field. Let $\sigma$ denote the generator of the Galois group $\text{Gal} = \text{Gal}(\mathbf{F}_{p^n}/ \mathbf{F}_{p})$ which is cyclic of order $n$. Note that $\text{Gal}$ acts on $W\mathbf{F}_{p^n}$ by $$(\sum_{i} w_i p^i)^{\sigma} = \sum_{i} w_i^p p^i$$ where the coefficients $w_i$ are multiplicative representatives.
Let $\Gamma_n$ be the height $n$ Honda formal group law over a field $k$ of characteristic $p$. The endomorphism ring of $\Gamma_n$ over $k=\mathbf{F}_{p^n}$, denoted $\operatorname{End}_n$, is known and is given by (see [@RA2]) $$\operatorname{End}_n = W\mathbf{F}_{p^n}\langle S \rangle /(S^n=p, Sw = w^{\sigma}S) .$$ Here one can think of $S$ as a non-commuting indeterminant.
We will think of $\operatorname{End}_n$ as a monoid under multiplication. The submonoid consisting of invertible elements is the Morava Stabilizer Group $S_n = (\operatorname{End}_n)^{\times}$. Also, $\text{Gal}$ acts on $\operatorname{End}_n$ and hence on $S_n$.
Morava $E$-theory, also referred to as Lubin-Tate theory, is a Landweber exact homology theory represented by a spectrum denoted $E_n$ and corresponding to the completed Hopf algebroid $$(E_{n*},\text{Map}_c(S_n , W\mathbf{F}_{p^n})^{\operatorname{Gal}}\hat{\otimes} E_{n*}).$$ Here $\text{Map}_{c}$ refers to the set of continuous maps, and the coefficient ring has the following description: $$E_{n*} = W\mathbf{F}_{p^n}[[u_1,\dots,u_{n-1}]][u,u^{-1}].$$ The ring $E_{n*}$ is graded by $|u_i| = 0$ and $|u| = -2$. There is a graded map of coefficients $BP\xrightarrow{r} E_{n*}$ given by $$\label{coefficient-map}r(v_i) =
\begin{cases} u_iu^{1-p^i} & i<n \\ u^{1-p^n} & i = n \\ 0 & i> n.
\end{cases}$$
\[lubin-tate-cor\] Let $M$ be an unstable $BP_{*}BP$-comodule such that $I_nM=0$ and $v_n$ acts bijectively. Then $$\operatorname{Ext}^{s}_{\mathcal{U}_{BP_*BP}}(BP_*, M) \cong \operatorname{Ext}^{s}_{\mathcal{U}_{ E_{n*}E_n }}(E_{n*}, E_{n*}\otimes_{BP_*} M).$$
We begin by considering the Johnson-Wilson spectrum $E(n)$, which is described in detail in [@RA2]. The coefficients are given by $$E(n) = {Z}_{(p)}[v_1,\dots,v_{n-1},v_{n},v_{n}^{-1}].$$ There is an evident map of spectra inducing a ring map on coefficients given by Equation \[coefficient-map\]. The Johnson-Wilson spectrum is studied unstably by Roland Kargl in his thesis [@Kar]. According to the main result of [@Kar], for $M$ satisfying the hypothesis above, the map $BP\to E(n)$, induces an isomorphism $$\label{kargl-iso}
\operatorname{Ext}^{s}_{\mathcal{U}_{BP_*BP}}(BP_*, M) \cong \operatorname{Ext}^{s}_{\mathcal{U}_{ E(n)_{*}E(n)} }(E(n)_{*}, E(n)_{*}\otimes_{BP_*} M).$$ Note that Kargl’s theorem is a special case of the unstable Hovey-Sadofsky change of rings theorem which is proved in section \[vanishing-line\].
For the second step we complete Johnson-Wilson theory with respect to the ideal $I_n = (p,v_1,\dots, v_{n-1})$. The result has coefficients $$\widehat{E(n)}_* = {Z}_{p}[[v_1,\dots,v_{n-1}]][v_{n},v_{n}^{-1}]$$ and is sometimes referred to as Baker-Wurgler theory because this cohomology theory was studied in [@BW2].
The completion map $E(n) \to \widehat{E(n)}$ induces a map of cobar complexes for $M$ and because $M$ is $I_n$ torsion, it is $I_n$ complete, so this map of cobar of complexes is an isomorphism and we get an isomorphism $$\label{completion-iso}
\operatorname{Ext}^{s}_{\mathcal{U}_{E(n)_*E(n)}}(E(n)_*, E(n)_*\otimes_{BP_*} M) \cong \operatorname{Ext}^{s}_{\mathcal{U}_{ \widehat{ E(n)}_{*}\widehat{ E(n)}} }(\widehat{E(n)}_{*},
\widehat{E(n)}_{*}\otimes_{BP_*} M).$$
For the final step consider the map of spectra from Baker-Wurgler to Lubin-Tate: $\widehat{E(n)}\to E_n$. This map of spectra is induced by the faithfully flat extension of coefficient rings $$\mathbf{Z}_{p}[[v_1,\dots,v_{n-1}]][v_n,v_n^{-1}] \to W\mathbf{F}_{p^n}[[u_1,\dots,u_{n-1}]][u,u^{-1}].$$ induced by formula \[coefficient-map\]. Thus Theorem \[unstable-faithflat-cor\] applies and we get an isomorphism $$\label{faithful-flat-iso}
\operatorname{Ext}^{s}_{\mathcal{U}_{ \widehat{E(n)}_*\widehat{E(n)}} }(\widehat{E(n)}_*, \widehat{E(n)}_*\otimes_{BP_*} M) \cong \operatorname{Ext}^{s}_{ \mathcal{U}_{ E_{n*}E_n} }(E_{n*}, E_{n*}\otimes_{BP_*} M).$$ Putting \[kargl-iso\], \[completion-iso\], and \[faithful-flat-iso\] together finishes the proof of Theorem \[lubin-tate-cor\].
More on Unstable Comodules
==========================
Now we give the description of unstable comodules in Morava $E$-theory that we are after. Start by recalling from [@DEV] that there is a Hopf algebroid $(U,US)$ which is equivalent to $(BP_*,BP_*BP)$ and lies between $(BP_*,BP_*BP)$ and $(E_{n*}, E_{n*}E_n)$. The affine groupoid scheme $(\operatorname{Spec}U , \operatorname{Spec}US )$ is the scheme whose value on a ring $A$ is the groupoid whose objects consist of the set of pairs $(F,a)$ where $F$ is a formal group law over $A$, $a$ is a unit in $A$, and a morphism $(F,a) \to (G,b)$ is an isomorphism $f:F \to G$ with $a = f'(0)b$. As graded algebras, $$U=\mathbf{Z}_{(p)}[u_1,u_2,\dots][u,u^{-1}]$$ and $$US = U[s_0^{\pm 1},s_1,s_2,\dots]$$ with $|u_i| = 0$, for $i\ge 1$, $|s_i| = 0$ for $i \ge 0$, and $|u|= -2$. The map $$(\operatorname{Spec}U , \operatorname{Spec}US ) \xrightarrow{\lambda} (\operatorname{Spec}BP_* , \operatorname{Spec}BP_*BP ),$$ which sends $(F,a)$ to the formal group law $F^{a}$ given by $F^{a}(x,y) = a^{-1}F(ax,ay)$ is represented by the graded algebra map
$$\begin{aligned}
\lambda(v_i) &= u_i u^{-(p^i-1)} \\
\lambda(t_i) &= s_i u^{-(p^i-1)} s_0^{-p^i}\\end{aligned}$$
The map $(BP_*, BP_*BP) \xrightarrow{\lambda} (U,US)$ is obtained by a faithfully flat extension of coefficient rings, hence by Hopkins’ theorem induces an equivalence of comodule categories. We want to identify the unstable comodule category. Unstably it is preferable to use the generators for $BP_*BP$ given by $h_i = c(t_i)$ where $c$ is the canonical antiautomorphism. In $US$ define $c_i= c(s_i)$ and note that $$c_0 = c(s_0) = s_0^{-1}$$ and $$\eta_{R}(u) = c(\eta_{L}(u)) = s_0u = c_0^{-1} u.$$
Morava $E$-theory is obtained from $(U,US)$ by killing off $u_i$ for $i>n$, setting $u_n=1$, completing with respect to the ideal $I=(u_1,u_2,\dots, u_{n-1})$, and tensoring with the Witt ring $W\mathbf{F}_{p^n}$. We have $$(E_{n*},E_{n*}E_n) = (E_{n*},E_{n*}[c_0^{\pm 1},c_1,\dots]\hat{\otimes}_{U} E_{n*}).$$
Applying the canonical anti-automorphism $\chi$ to the map $\lambda$ we get
$$\begin{aligned}
\lambda(h_i) &= c_i (s_0u)^{-(p^i-1)}c(s_0)^{-p^i} \\
&= c_i s_0^{-(p^i-1)}u^{-(p^i-1)}s_0^{p^i} \\
&= c_i u^{-(p^i-1)} s_0 \\
&= c_i u^{-(p^i-1)} c_0^{-1} \end{aligned}$$
Let $K=(k_1,k_2,\dots)$ be a finite sequence of non-negative integers and denote $h_{1}^{k_1}h_{2}^{k_2}\dots$ by $h^K$ and similiarly $c_{1}^{k_1}c_{2}^{k_2}\dots$ by $c^K$. Also denote $$|K|=k_{1}(p-1)+k_{2}(p^2-) + \dots$$ and $$l(K) = k_1 + k_2 + \dots.$$ Then we have $$\lambda(h^K) = c^K u^{-|K|}c_0^{-l(K)}.$$
If $M$ is a $(BP_*,BP_*BP)$-comodule with coaction $$M \xrightarrow{\psi} BP_*BP \otimes_{BP_*} M$$ then for each $x\in M$ we have $$\psi(x) = \sum_K v_{K}h^{K} \otimes m_{K}$$ where the sum is indexed over sequences $K$. The coefficient $v_{K}$ is just some element in $BP_*$. For each term in the sum we make the following calculation. Assume $m_{K}$ is even.
$$\begin{aligned}
\lambda(v_{K}h^{K}) \otimes m_{K} &= u_{K}u^{-|v_K|/2} c^{K}u^{-|K|}c_0^{-l(K)} \otimes m_{K}u^{|m_{K}|/2} u^{-|m_{K}|/2} \\
&= u_{K}u^{-|v_K|/2} c^{K}u^{-|K|}c_0^{-l(K)}\eta_{R}(u^{-|m_{K}|/2}) \otimes m_{K}u^{|m_{K}|/2} \\
&= u_{K}u^{-|v_K|/2} c^{K}u^{-|K|}c_0^{-l(K)}(s_0u)^{-|m_{K}|/2} \otimes m_{K}u^{|m_{K}|/2} \\
&= u_{K}u^{(-|v_K|/2-|m_{K}|/2-|K|)} c^{K}c_0^{-l(K) +|m_{K}|/2} \otimes m_{K}u^{|m_{K}|/2}\\
&= u_{K}u^{(-|v_K|/2-|m_{K}|/2-|K|)} c^{K}c_0^{-l(K) +|m_{K}|/2}\otimes y\end{aligned}$$
where $|y|=0$. In the case where $|m_k|$ is odd, multiply and divide on the right by $u^{(|m_{K}|-1)/2}$ resulting in $y$ on the right with $|y|=1$. In either case, by stipulating that the right hand tensor factor be dimension zero or one, the exponent of $c_0$ becomes well defined, and we make the following definition.
\[non-negative-comodule\] A comodule $M$ over $(U,US)$, or over $(E_{n*}, E_{n*}E_n)$, is called non-negative if for each $x\in M$ and each term in the coaction of $x$, written so that the right hand tensor factor has dimension either zero or one, the exponent of $c_0$ is non-negative.
Recall the category of unstable comodules $\mathcal{V}_{\Gamma}$ defined in \[unstable-comodule-categories\].
\[non-negative-comodules\] The categories $\mathcal{V}_{BP_*BP}$ and $\mathcal{V}_{US}$ are both equivalent to the category of non-negative $US$-comodules. The category $\mathcal{V}_{E_{n*}E_n}$ is equivalent to the category of non-negative $E_{n*}E_n$-comodules.
For $BP$, by definition a $BP_*BP$-comodule is unstable if the coaction of each element is in the $BP_*$-span of elements of the form $h^K\otimes m_K$ where $2l(K) \le |m_K|$. For $(U,US)$ and $E_{n*}(E_n)$ the same argument applies, using the generators $b_i = c_i u^{-(p^i-1)} c_0^{-1}$ which are the images under $\lambda$ of $h_i$. (Refer to [@BCM] or [@BH].)
Note: This is an analog for height $n$ of a height $\infty$ result which is described in [@POW] (Theorem 4.1.4) and [@BJ] (Section 4 and Appendix B). It is classical that the dual Steenrod algebra is a group scheme which represents the automorphism group of the additive formal group law. If one considers endomorphisms of the additive formal group law, not necessarily invertible, the representing object of this monoid scheme is a bialgebra, i.e. a ’Hopf algebra without an antiautomorphism’. At the prime $2$ this is described explicitly in [@BJ] (see Section 4 and Appendix B) where this bialgebra is called the extended Milnor coalgebra. Whereas the classical dual Steenrod is expressed as $\mathcal{S}_* = \mathbf{Z}/2[\xi_1,\xi_2,\dots]$, the extended Milnor coalgebra is $\mathcal{A} = \mathbf{Z}/2[a_{0}^{\pm 1},a_1,a_2,\dots]$. It is easy to see that there is an equivalence between the category of graded comodules over $\mathcal{S}_*$ and the category of comodules over $\mathcal{A}$. It is also easy to see that under this equivalence, the category of graded unstable comodules over $\mathcal{S}_*$ is equivalent to the category of ’positive’ $\mathcal{A}$-comodules, i.e. comodules over the bialgebra $\mathcal{A}^{+} = \mathbf{Z}/2[a_{0},a_1,a_2,\dots]$. In [@POW] this result is extended to odd primes and generalized. Our Proposition \[non-negative-comodules\] is a version for the Landweber-Novikov algebra. This goes back to [@MOR].
We want to translate this to the $\mathbf{Z}/2$-graded case. Consider the Hopf Algebroid $((E_{n})_0,(E_{n})_0(E_n))$ of elements in degree $0$. Let $M$ be an $E_{n*}E_{n}$-comodule and let $\overline{M}$ consist of elements in $M$ of degree zero or one. The functor $M \mapsto \overline{M}$ is an equivalence between the category of $E_{n*}E_{n}$-comodules and $(E_{n})_0(E_{n})$-comodules. There is an isomorphism $$\operatorname{Ext}^{s}_{E_{n*}E_{n}}(A,M) \to \operatorname{Ext}^{s}_{(E_{n})_0(E_{n})}(A_0,\overline{M})$$ It is immediate that the non-negative comodules defined in \[non-negative-comodule\] correspond to the comodules over the Hopf algebroid $$((E_{n})_0, (E_{n})_0[c_0,c_1,\dots]\hat{\otimes} (E_{n})_0)$$ and we have
For an unstable $E_{n*}(E_{n})$-comodule $M$ there is an isomorphism $$\operatorname{Ext}^{s}_{ \mathcal{V}_{E_{n*}} }(E_{n*},M) \to \operatorname{Ext}^{s}_{ (E_{n})_0[c_0,c_1,\dots]\otimes (E_{n})_0 }( (E_{n})_0 ,\overline{M})$$
The next step is to interpret an unstable $(E_{n})_0(E_n)$-comodule in terms of a continuous action of the monoid $\operatorname{End}_n$. According to Morava theory there is an isomorphism of Hopf algebroids
$$\label{mapping-space}
(E_{n*}, E_{n*}(E_{n*}))\cong (E_{n*},\text{Map}_c(S_n , W\mathbf{F}_{p^n})^{\operatorname{Gal}}\hat{\otimes} E_{n*}).$$
The category of graded, complete comodules over this Hopf algebroid is equivalent to the category of continuous, filtered, Galois equivariant twisted $S_n-E_{n*}$ modules. See [@DEV], Section 4, for precise details.
We will be interested in $\mathbf{Z}/2$-graded comodules $M$ which satisfy ${I_nM=0}$. Mod $I_n$, in degree zero, the Hopf algebroid of equation \[mapping-space\] becomes $$\label{stable-mod-p-mapping-space}(\mathbf{F}_{p^n},\text{Map}_c(S_n , \mathbf{F}_{p^n})^{\operatorname{Gal}}\hat{\otimes} \mathbf{F}_{p^n})
=(\mathbf{F}_{p^n},\mathbf{F}_{p^n}[c_0^{\pm 1},c_1,\dots]/(c_i^{p^n}-c_i)).$$
The explicit description of the group scheme of automorphisms of $\Gamma_n$ over an $\mathbf{F}_{p}$-algebra $k$ is as follows. Let $D=\mathbf{F}_{p}[c_0^{\pm 1},c_1,\dots]/(c_i^{p^n}-c_i)$. In [@RA2] it is shown that every automorphism of $\Gamma_n$ has the form $$f(x) = \sum_{i\ge 0}{}^{\Gamma_n} a_i x^{p^{i}}, \quad a_i\in k,\, a_0 \in k^{\times}$$ and $$f(\Gamma_n(x,y)) = \Gamma_n(f(x),f(y)).$$ For a ring map $h:D\to k$ let $h$ give the automorphism $$f(x) = \sum_{i\ge 0}{}^{\Gamma_n} h(c_i) x^{p^{i}}.$$ If we do not require the cooefficient of $x$ to be a unit, then it is apparent that $\operatorname{Spec}(\mathbf{F}_{p}[c_0,c_1,\dots]/(c_i^{p^n}-c_i))$ is the monoid scheme whose value on $k$ is the monoid of endomorphisms of $\Gamma_n$ over $k$.
\[unstable-mod-p-mapping-space\] There is an isomorphism of bialgebras $$(\mathbf{F}_{p^n},\operatorname{Map}_c(\operatorname{End}_n , \mathbf{F}_{p^n})^{\operatorname{Gal}}\hat{\otimes} \mathbf{F}_{p^n})
=(\mathbf{F}_{p^n},\mathbf{F}_{p^n}[c_0,c_1,\dots]/(c_i^{p^n}-c_i)).$$
The proof given in Section four of [@DEV] applies to $\operatorname{End}_n$ as well. In particular equation (4.14) establishes the result one generator at a time.
So we are studying left comodules over the bialgebra $\operatorname{Map}_c(\operatorname{End}_n , \mathbf{F}_{p^n})^{\operatorname{Gal}}$. Still following [@DEV], given a left comodule $M$ with coaction $$M \xrightarrow{\psi_M} \operatorname{Map}_c(\operatorname{End}_n , \mathbf{F}_{p^n})^{\operatorname{Gal}} \hat{\otimes} M \cong \operatorname{Map}_c(\operatorname{End}_n , \mathbf{F}_{p^n} \otimes M )^{\operatorname{Gal}}$$ define a right action of $\operatorname{End}_n$ on $\mathbf{F}_{p^n} \otimes M$ by $$(a\otimes m)g = a\psi_M(m)(g).$$ Note that this is a right action.
The functor $M \to \mathbf{F}_{p^n} \otimes M$ is an equivalence from the category of $\mathbf{Z}/2$-graded complete $\operatorname{Map}_c(\operatorname{End}_n , \mathbf{F}_{p^n})^{\operatorname{Gal}}$-comodules to the category of continuous filtered Galois equivariant right $\operatorname{End}_n$-modules.
This is the $\operatorname{End}_n$-analog of Proposition 5.3, $\mod I_n$, in [@DEV], and the same proof applies.
Finally, the change of rings theorem takes the form
Let $M$ be an unstable $BP_{*}BP$-comodule such that $I_nM=0$ and $v_n$ acts bijectively. Then $$\operatorname{Ext}^{s}_{\mathcal{V}_{BP_*BP}}(BP_*, M) \cong H^{s}_{c}(\operatorname{End}_n ; \overline{E_{n*}\otimes_{BP_*}M})^{\operatorname{Gal}}.$$
Again the proof is a straightforward adaptation of the proof given in [@DEV]. The cohomology of $\operatorname{End}_n$ with coefficients in a right module $N$ can be defined by the cochain complex $$C^k(\operatorname{End}_n;N) = \operatorname{Map}_c(\operatorname{End}_n \times \dots \times \operatorname{End}_n,N)$$ with differential $$\begin{split}
df(g_1,\dots, g_{k+1}) &= f(g_2, \dots, g_{k+1}) \\
& \quad + \sum_{j=1}^{k}(-1)^{j}(g_1,\dots,g_jg_{j+1},\dots, g_{k+1}) \\
& \quad + (-1)^{k+1}f(g_1,\dots,g_k)g_{k+1}.
\end{split}$$ The cobar complex for $\operatorname{Map}_c(\operatorname{End}_n , \mathbf{F}_{p^n})^{\operatorname{Gal}}$ is isomorphic to $C^*(\operatorname{End}_n;N)^{\operatorname{Gal}}$, the only difference from [@DEV] being that we are interpreting the action as a right action.
Finally note that if $M$ is concentrated in odd degrees, then $$\operatorname{Ext}^{s}_{\mathcal{V}_{BP_*BP}}(BP_*, M) \cong \operatorname{Ext}^{s}_{\mathcal{U}_{BP_*BP}}(BP_*, M)$$ and we obtain Theorem \[first-main-theorem\] of the introduction.
Cohomological Dimension
=======================
This section is based on a construction used by Bousfield - see for example [@BO7], Subsection 3.1. Here we carry out a version for the stabilizer group. Let $\mathcal{A}$ denote the category consisting of $p$-complete abelian groups with a continuous right action of $S_n$. Let $\mathcal{E}$ denote the category consisting of $p$-complete abelian groups with a continuous right action of $\operatorname{End}_n$. There is an obvious forgetful functor $J:\mathcal{E} \to \mathcal{A}$.
We define a functor $\tilde{F}:\mathcal{A} \to \mathcal{E}$ as follows: For an $\mathcal{A}$-module $M$, let $\tilde{F}(M)$ be $M\times M \times M \dots$ as an abelian group. For $g\in S_n$, $x=(x_1,x_2,\dots) \in M$, define $$xg = (x_1g, x_2g^{\sigma},x_3g^{\sigma^2},\dots,x_n g^{\sigma^{(n-1)}},x_{n+1}g,\dots).$$ For $S\in \operatorname{End}_n$, define $xS = (0,x_1,x_2,\dots)$. This defines an $\operatorname{End}_n$ action on $\tilde{F}(M)$ as one can check the relation $xSg = xg^{\sigma}S$.
\[Sn-End-adjunction\] The functor $\tilde{F}$ is left adjoint to $J$.
The unit of the adjunction $M\to J\tilde{F}(M)$ is given by $x\mapsto (x,0,0,\dots)$. The counit of the adjunction $\tilde{F}J(M) \to M$ is given by $$(x_1,x_2,x_3,\dots) \mapsto x_1 + x_2S + x_3S^2 + \dots.$$ which converges by $p$-completeness and the fact that $S^n=p$.
Proposition \[Sn-End-adjunction\] says $\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathcal{E}}(\tilde{F}(M),N) \cong \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathcal{A}}(M,JN)$. We would like a similar statement for $\operatorname{Ext}$.
The functors $\tilde{F}$ and $J$ are exact. It follows that for all $s$, $\operatorname{Ext}^s_{\mathcal{E}}(\tilde{F}(M),N) \cong \operatorname{Ext}^s_{\mathcal{A}}(M,JN)$.
Straightforward.
Now we need a fundamental sequence. For an object $M$ in $\mathcal{A}$ define an object $M'$ in $\mathcal{A}$ as follows. Let $M' = M$ as abelian groups and for each $g\in S_n$, $x'\in M'$, let $x'g = xg^{\sigma}$, where $x=x'$ and the expression on the right is the action on $M$. If $N$ is an object in $\mathcal{E}$ there is a map $S:N \to N$. If we think of $S$ as a map $S:(JN)' \to JN$ then it is easy to check that $S$ is a morphism in $\mathcal{A}$. Thus we can define $\tilde{F}(S)$ which is a morphism in $\mathcal{E}$. Also it is readily checked that $S:\tilde{F}((JN)') \to \tilde{F}(JN)$ is a morphism in $\mathcal{E}$. This gives a morphism $$\partial = \tilde{F}(S)-S:\tilde{F}((JN)') \to \tilde{F}(JN)$$ in $\mathcal{E}$ and the following proposition.
There is a SES in $\mathcal{E}$ $$0 \xrightarrow{} \tilde{F}((JN)') \xrightarrow{\partial} \tilde{F}(JN) \xrightarrow{} N \xrightarrow{} 0.$$
\[stable-unstable-LES\] There is a LES for any $\operatorname{End}_n$-module $L$. $$\dots \to \operatorname{Ext}^s_{\mathcal{E}}(N,L) \to \operatorname{Ext}^s_{\mathcal{A}}(JN,JL)\to \operatorname{Ext}^s_{\mathcal{A}}((JN)',JL)\to \operatorname{Ext}^{s+1}_{\mathcal{E}}(N,L) \dots \to$$
Suppose $L$ is a continuos Galois equivariant $End_n-E_{n*}$-module satisfying $I_nL=0$. Let $p-1 \nmid n$. Then $H^s_{c}(\operatorname{End}_n,L)^{\operatorname{Gal}} = 0$ for $s> n^2 +1$.
It is well known that for the stated values of $n$ and $p$, the Morava stabilizer group has finite cohomological dimension equal to $n^2$. See for example [@RA2]. We have that $H_{c}^{s}(\operatorname{End}_n,L)^{\operatorname{Gal}}$ is a subgroup of $H_{c}^{s}(\operatorname{End}_n,L)$. By Corollary \[stable-unstable-LES\] the result follows.
This implies Theorem \[second-main-theorem\] of the introduction.
A vanishing line for the $E(n)$-Bousfield-Kan spectral sequence {#vanishing-line}
===============================================================
In this section we prove Theorem \[third-main-theorem\]. First we need an unstable version of the Hovey-Sadofsky change of rings Theorem 3.1 of [@HOVSA].
\[unstable-hovey-sadofsky-cor\] Let $n \ge j$ and suppose $M$ is an unstable $BP_*BP$-comodule on which $v_j$ acts isomorphically and $I_jM=0$. Then the map $$\operatorname{Ext}^{s}_{\mathcal{U}_{BP_*BP}}(BP_*,M) \to \operatorname{Ext}^{s}_{\mathcal{U}_{E(n)_*E(n)}}(E(n)_*,E(n)_*\otimes_{BP_*} M).$$ is an isomorphism.
Just as in the stable setting, the theorem reduces to the map of Hopf algebroids $$(v_j^{-1} BP_*/I_j, v_j^{-1} BP_*BP/I_j) \xrightarrow{} (v_j^{-1} E(n)_*/I_j, v_j^{-1} E(n)_*E(n)/I_j).$$ It is proved in [@HOVSA] that the faithfully flat condition of Theorem \[unstable-faithflat-equiv\] is satisfied for this map. The unstable comodule structure comes from the map $$BP_* \xrightarrow{} v_j^{-1} BP_*/I_j \xrightarrow{} v_j^{-1} E(n)_*/I_j.$$ Thus Theorem \[unstable-faithflat-equiv\] applies and the conclusion follows.
Recall from the introduction that we are assuming that $k$ is odd and sufficiently large relative to $n$ and $p$ so that $$BP_*(S^k)/I_{j} \xrightarrow{v_j} BP_*(S^k)/I_{j}$$ defines a map in the category $\mathcal{U}_{BP_*BP}$ of unstable comodules over $BP_*BP$ for $0\le j \le n-1$. For precise bounds on how large $k$ needs to be see [@BE6]. We will suppress $S^k$ from the notation.
Working in the category $\mathcal{U}_{E(n)_*E(n)}$, start with the Bockstein sequence in $\operatorname{Ext}_{\mathcal{U}}$ coming from the short exact sequences of comodules
$$0 \to E(n)_*/I_{n-1} \xrightarrow{v_{n-1}} E(n)_*/I_{n-1} \xrightarrow{} E(n)_*/I_{n} \xrightarrow{} 0 .$$
If $x\in \operatorname{Ext}^s(E(n)_*, E(n)_*/I_{n-1})$ and $v_{n-1}^i x = 0$ for some $i$, then $x$ pulls back to $\operatorname{Ext}^{s-1}(E(n)_*, E(n)_*/I_{n})$ and so $s \le n^2 + 2$ in order for $x$ to be non-zero. If $x$ is $v_{n-1}$-non-nilpotent, then $$\begin{aligned}
x \in\quad & v_{n-1}^{-1}\operatorname{Ext}_{\mathcal{U}_{E(n)_*E(n)}}^s(E(n)_*, E(n)_*/I_{n-1}) \\
&\cong \operatorname{Ext}_{\mathcal{U}_{E(n)_*E(n)}}^s(E(n)_*, v_{n-1}^{-1}E(n)_*/I_{n-1}) \\
&\cong \operatorname{Ext}_{\mathcal{U}_{E(n-1)_*E(n-1)}}^s(E(n-1)_*, E(n-1)_*/I_{n-1})\quad\text{by \ref{unstable-hovey-sadofsky-cor}}.\\\end{aligned}$$ This last group is zero if $s > (n-1)^2 +1$. So $$\operatorname{Ext}^s(E(n)_*, E(n)_*/I_{n-1}) = 0\quad \text{if $s > n^2 + 2$}.$$ Continuing downward through the Bockstein sequences $$0 \to E(n)_*/I_{j-1} \xrightarrow{v_{j-1}} E(n)_*/I_{j-1} \xrightarrow{} E(n)_*/I_{j} \xrightarrow{} 0$$ for successively smaller $j$ leads to $$\operatorname{Ext}^s(E(n)_*, E(n)_*)= 0 \quad \text{for $s > n^2 + n +1$}.$$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- Giovanni Carraro
- Michele Maris
- Daniel Bertin
- 'M. Gabriela Parisi'
title: 'Time series photometry of the dwarf planet ERIS (2003 UB313) '
---
[ The dwarf planet Eris (2003 UB313, formerly known also as “Xena”) is the largest KBO up to now discovered. Despite being larger than Pluto and bearing many similarities with it, it has not been possible insofar to detect any significant variability in its light curve, preventing the determination of its period and axial ratio. ]{} [ We attempt to assess the level of variability of the Eris light curve by determining its BVRI photometry with a target accuracy of 0.03 mag/frame in R and a comparable or better stability in the calibration. ]{} [Eris has been observed between November $30^\mathrm{th}$ and December $5^\mathrm{th}$ 2005 with the Y4KCam on-board the 1.0m Yale telescope at Cerro Tololo Interamerican Observatory, Chile in photometric nights. ]{} [ We obtain 7 measures in B, 23 in V, 62 in R and 20 in I. Averaged B, V, and I magnitudes as colors are in agreement within $\approx 0.03$ mag with measures from Rabinowitz et al. (2006) taken in the same nights. Night-averaged magnitudes in R shows a statistically significant variability over a range of about $0.05\pm0.01$ mag. This can not be explained by known systematics, background objects or some periodical variation with periods less than two days in the light-curve. The same applies to B, V and to less extent to I due to larger errors. ]{} [ In analogy with Pluto and if confirmed by future observations, this “long term” variability might be ascribed to a slow rotation of Eris, with periods longer than 5 days, or to the effect of its unresolved satellite “Dysnomea” which may contribute for $\approx0.02$ mag to the total brightness. ]{}
Introduction
============
Since its discovery the dwarf planet 2003 UB313 has attracted a lot of attention being the first Trans Neptunian Object (TNO) larger than Pluto ever discovered [@brown:2005]. This object, recently baptized “Eris” [@IAU], revealed a number of features in common with Pluto, despite being a member of the family of the scattered TNO [@sheppard:2006].
As an example, like Pluto Eris has a satellite named “Dysnomea” with orbital period of about two weeks, a brightness of about $2\%$ of that of Eris, a semi-major axis of $\approx 5\times10^4$ Km [@brown:2006a]. Eris IR spectrum is clearly dominated by CH$_4$ absorption bands [@brown:2006b] and perhaps shows $N_2$ bands [@Licandro:etal:2006]. When compared with other TNOs its colors are quite neutral and not significantly reddened [@rabinowitz:2006]. Its phase function at small phase angles is quite flat [@rabinowitz:2006]. Up to now its light curve did not reveal any trace of significant variability or periodicity [@brown:2005; @rabinowitz:2006]. These features suggests Eris to be an icy body which is subject to frequent resurfacing likely due to evaporation and redeposition of a tiny atmosphere as its heliocentric distance changes [@brown:2005; @rabinowitz:2006].\
In this Letter we present BVRI photometry of Eris obtained during 5 nights in late 2005 with the aim of building up a light curve and searching for possible periodicity. The same data-set is used to better constrain the optical colors of the object.
------- --------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- --------------------
B V R I
Night Date \[mag\] \[mag\] \[mag\] \[mag\]
1 Nov. 30, 2005 $19.619 \pm 0.041$ $18.766 \pm 0.025$ $18.384 \pm 0.010$ $18.019 \pm 0.030$
2 Dec. 1, 2005 $19.540 \pm 0.038$ $18.768 \pm 0.015$ $18.368 \pm 0.007$ $18.029 \pm 0.032$
3 Dec. 2, 2005 $19.651 \pm 0.066$ $18.772 \pm 0.015$ $18.388 \pm 0.007$ $17.948 \pm 0.022$
4 Dec. 3, 2005 $19.678 \pm 0.052$ $18.788 \pm 0.016$ $18.397 \pm 0.007$ $17.975 \pm 0.022$
5 Dec. 4, 2005 $19.616 \pm 0.077$ $18.802 \pm 0.015$ $18.422 \pm 0.007$ $18.039 \pm 0.027$
------- --------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- --------------------
Observations and Data Reduction
===============================
We observed Eris over 5 consecutive nights (November 30 to December 4, 2005). Photometric data were obtained with the Y4KCam CCD on-board the Yale 1.0m telescope at Cerro Tololo Interamerican Observatory, which is operated by the SMARTS consortium[^1]. The Y4KCam instrument is a 4096 $\times$ 4096 CCD with a pixel scale of 0.289$^{\prime\prime}$, which allows one to observe a field 20 arcmin on a side on the sky. An image of the field around Eris is shown in Fig. \[fig:map\]. A series of images in BVRI was acquired in order to constraint both the light curve and the colors. A total of 7 images in B, 23 in V, 62 in R and 20 in I has been obtained over the observing run, and the exposure times were 300-600 secs. The nights were all photometric but for the last one (December 4, 2005), with typical seeing ranging from 0.8 to 1.2 arcsec. The images were cleaned and pre-reduced using the pipeline developed by Phil Massey[^2]. To extract Eris magnitudes we used the [*QPHOT*]{} task within IRAF[^3], which allows one to measure aperture photometry. For Eris we used a small aperture (7 pixels). Together with Eris we measured 5 field stars with roughly the same magnitude ($17.53 \leq \langle R \rangle \leq 19.25$). Due to the slow motion of Eris and the wide field covered by the CCD, we could measure the same 5 stars every night and thus tie the photometry to the same zero point for the entire data-set. For the field stars we used a larger aperture (18 pixels). Absolute magnitudes were derived by shifting Eris magnitudes to the first night using the reference field stars. A set of bright stars in the first night were used to aperture-correct the magnitudes. Aperture corrections were found to be small, of the order of 0.05-0.12 mag. The zero points of the photometry was then obtained through the observation of 50 standard stars in the Landolt (1982) fields PG0231, SA92 and Rubin149, using as well a large aperture of 18 pixels. The magnitudes were also color-corrected using Eris mean colors. The final photometry, consisting of 115 data points, is reported in Tab. 2 together with the photometric error, UT time, and filter. In the same period we observed, Rabinowitz et al. (2006) have obtained 2 B, 4 V and 2 I images of Eris. We compared our photometry with their one, and found a good agreement, being $\Delta B = 0.05$, $\Delta V = -0.032$ and $\Delta I = 0-0.022$, in the sense our photometry minus their one. We have not direct comparison with R, since these authors did not publish data in R for these nights.
Light curve and period hunting
==============================
Fig. \[fig:lc\] shows night-by-night time dependencies in the R band. It is evident that, even removing the four measures with anomalously large errors ($\DeltaR > 0.04$ mag), the dispersion of data can not be attributed just to random errors. The weighted average for all of the five nights gives $\bar R = 18.3916 \pm 0.0033$ mag with $\chi^2 = 136$ and 57 d.o.f. (degree of freedom), a $\chi^2$-test rejects the hypothesis of random fluctuations at a confidence level ($\mathrm{c.l.}$) $\sim 2\times10^{-8}$ insensitive to the exclusion of the bad measures. Inspection of the R frames shows that Eris is moving very slowly in an uncrowded field (see Fig. \[fig:map\]), with no evident objects in background. Moreover, due to the short exposures and the low proper motion, both Eris and field stars are round without trailing. All together this seems to exclude at least the most common systematic effects. The observing conditions (heliocentric distance $r_{\mathrm{h}}$, geocentric distance $\Delta$, as phase angles $\alpha$) could be responsible for the effect. However, during the five nights they were fairly stable. In fact the object moves of about 95 arcsec in 5 nights. The change in $r_{\mathrm{h}}\Delta$ explains no more than $1.7\times10^{-3}$ mag. On the other hand, the phase angle changes of $\Delta \alpha = 0.0246^\circ$ during the observations. No phase coefficients in R have been published so far for Eris, but assuming as an upper limit the same phase coefficient of V in [@rabinowitz:2006], the phase effect would account at most for $3.5\times10^{-3}$ mag. In conclusion, obvious changes in the observing conditions excludes geometrical effects.\
Tab. \[tab:avermag\] reports weighted averages for magnitudes taken in the same night, while the lower frame of Fig. \[fig:avermag\] displays the same data for the R filter. A clear trend appears in R for nights 2 to 5.\
A $\chi^2$ test rejects the hypothesis of random fluctuations at c.l. $\approx 2\times10^{-6}$, inclusion of night 1 does not change this result. This is robust against selection of data according to the U.T. of observation (as evident from Fig. \[fig:lc\] in night 1 Eris has been observed just between $U.T. = 2$ and $U.T. = 4$ considering only data in that U.T. interval does not change the result) and replacing weighted averages with median estimation of nightly centroids. The difference between nights 5 and 2 is $0.054\pm0.010$ mag, equivalent to $5.4\sigma$. A linear fit for nights 2 to 5 gives a slope $R' \approx 0.0170 \pm 0.0002$ mag/day with $\chi^2_{\mathrm{linear}}=0.99$ equivalent to c.l. $\approx0.6$ that residual fluctuations are just due to errors. A parabolic fit including all the nights gives $\chi^2_{\mathrm{parabolic}} = 2.35$ equivalent to a c.l. $\approx0.3$.\
[**The lower panel of Fig. \[fig:avermag\] compares variations for 5 field stars having R in the approximated range $17.5$ mag - $19.3$ mag encompassing the range of Eris R magnitudes. Magnitudes are measured frame by frame and averaged over each night in the same manner of Eris data. To highlight the variations, the first night of each serie has been shifted to the averaged R for Eris, R=18.39 mag. It is evident that field stars are stable with peak-to-peak variations in R of about 0.01 mag. The only star departing from this value is the weakest in the serie having $R=19.3$ mag. In addition the expected random errors for field stars are similar to the random errors for Eris. Larger errors appearing for R larger then $19$ mag. A convincing test of the calibration stability comes from the fact that variability indicators for field stars (either peak-to-peak variation, the [*r.m.s.*]{} between the 4 nights, the $\chi^2$ for fitting against a constant value or better the related significativity) plotted as a function of their mean magnitude are constant for R up to $\approx19$ mag. Moreover, for Eris the indicators of variability allways differ significantly from the values obtained for field stars below $R = 19$ mag. Peak-to-peak variations for field stars is $\approx 0.011$ mag - $0.012$ mag v.z. Eris 0.029 mag. Night-by-night rms for the field stars is $\approx0.005$ - $0.006$ mag, v.z. Eris 0.012 mag. The significativity of fluctuations for field stars is always below the 60% level v.z. Eris showing fluctuations with a significativity larger than 98%. In addition, field starts fluctuations are not very much correlated with Eris fluctuations, in some cases field stars are anticorrelated with Eris and correlations are not much significant. All this supports the idea that Eris brightness variations are not due to calibration errors.**]{} Looking at the other filters the same trend in nights 2 to 5 appears for V, B and marginally I but with a lower significance owing to larger errors. We excluded that the trend is connected to fluctuations in the zero point calibration as derived from standard stars. The night-by-night zero point for R, $R_0$, is spread of $\Delta R_0 \approx 0.004$ mag consistent with its [*r.m.s.*]{} $\sigma_{R_0}\approx0.008$ mag and has just a marginal trend with slope $4\times10^{-4}$ mag/day, to be compared with the spread of Eris over the first four nights of $\Delta R_{\mathrm{Eris}} = 0.029$ mag. For V, $\Delta V_0 \pm \sigma_{V_0} \approx 0.005 \pm 0.01$ mag to be compared with $\Delta V_{\mathrm{Eris}} = 0.022$ mag. Besides, V and R are correlated the correlation coefficient $\rho_{\mathrm{VR}} = 0.92$. At the same time V-R computed night-by-night is fairly stable. A fit against the case of constant V-R has $\chi^2 = 0.85$ corresponding to a c.l. $\approx0.93$ that fluctuations about the averaged value ($V-R = 0.388 \pm 0.008$ from Tab. \[tab:avermag\]) are just due to chance. As a comparison the $V_0 - R_0$ on a night-by-night basis has an r.m.s. $=0.006$ mag with a c.l. $\approx0.99$ for random fluctuations. Correlation between colors in light curves is expected if Eris is an icy body frequently resurfaced by atmospheric freezing. In this case a uniform layer of frozen gasses should hide color variations.\
B and I have less precise calibration and random errors and sparser coverages, but for completeness it is worth to extend the discussion to these data too. B and I are less correlated with R having respectively $\rho_{\mathrm{BR}} = 0.465$, $\rho_{\mathrm{IR}} = 0.137$. The correlation between B and R is very sensitive to the exclusion of the last night. Then for the first four nights $\rho_{\mathrm{BR}} = 0.995$, In addition the c.l. against random fluctuations are just 0.23 and 0.04 respectively for B and I. Again, the variability in B and I can not be reconciled with variations in $B_0$ and $I_0$ since $\Delta B_{\mathrm{Eris}} = 0.138$ mag and $\Delta I_{\mathrm{Eris}} = 0.081$ mag while $\Delta B_0 \pm \sigma_{B_0} \approx 0.03 \pm 0.01$ mag and $\Delta I_0 \pm \sigma_{I_0} \approx 0.039 \pm 0.018$ mag. Note the different behavior of I in the second night. While B, V, R in night two have lower or equal magnitudes respect to night one and three, I shows the opposite trend. Indeed after removing the second night $\rho_{\mathrm{IR}} = 0.57$, while removing even the first $\rho_{\mathrm{IR}}=0.998$.\
If this tiny time dependence is not due to some unaccounted problem in the data, would be this a sign of an aliasing with short term variability? We attempt to assess whether the dispersion in the data can be ascribed to some periodical variations in the light curve over periods shorter than 5 nights. The phase dispersion minimization method applied to data binned in chunks of 1 hour, favors periodicity of about 30 hrs. Other possible periods are much sensitive to the details of the method, as the number of phase bin or the step in periods. An inspection of data plotted as a function of phase for a 30 hrs periods suggests a scattered, non sinusoidal light curve, with maximum peak-to-peak variation of $\approx 0.06$ mag and a single maximum, but the fitting is marginal ($\chi^2 = 116.74$ with c.l. $=2\times10^{-5}$ that deviations from the fit are not just due to random errors). The periodogram of data does not allow us to identify any noticeable periodicity between 1 and 100 hours. This is true even after exclusion of periods heavily affected by aliasing (6 hrs, 8 hrs, 12 hrs, 24 hrs and 48 hrs). In particular the 30 hrs period is just outside the 24 hrs side-lobe and the improvement in the $\chi^2$ for fitting data with an $\approx 30$ hrs period is again marginal. To have a more robust test we play numerical experiments with simulated sinusoidal signals plus noise. Here we consider periods in the range $1 - 100$ hrs, amplitudes $\le 0.05$ mag, constant $R$ magnitude in the $\pm5\sigma$ of our data and phases in the range $0 - 2\pi$. Simulated data has been re-binned on a night-by-night basis and compared to night averaged data computing the corresponding $\chi^2_{\mathrm{sin}}$. As a comparison we take $\chi^2_{\mathrm{sin}}$ with $\chi^2_{\mathrm{const}}$, $\chi^2_{\mathrm{linear}} = 2.36$ (computed over 5 nights) and $\chi^2_{\mathrm{parabolic}}$ as defined before. Our results show no significant improvement in the fit by assuming a sinusoidal signal in the data. In at most $3\%$ of our $3\times10^5$ simulated realizations we obtained $\chi^2_{\mathrm{sin}} < \chi^2_{\mathrm{const}}$. The fraction drops to $0.05\%$ and $0.003\%$ respectively for $\chi^2_{\mathrm{sin}} < \chi^2_{\mathrm{linear}}$ and $\chi^2_{\mathrm{sin}} < \chi^2_{\mathrm{parabolic}}$. To have an extreme case of non-sinusoidal signal we consider also the case of a square wave with variable amplitude, period, phase and duty-cycle obtaining a largely worst fit. In conclusion the long term variability in our data can not be explained by aliasing of an under-sampled short term variability.
Colors
======
We computed weighted mean colors of Eris. These are derived from the weighted mean of all the measures in each filter. We obtain $B-V=0.823\pm0.023$, $V-R=0.391\pm0.023$, $R-I=0.386\pm0.012$ and $V-I=0.777\pm0.013$, quite in agreement with Rabinowitz et al. (2006, Tab. 4). Following the same vein of the discussion in this paper, we confirm that the colors of ERIS are solar, with only B-V being marginally redder than the Sun [@Hainaut:Delsanti:2002]. These colors corroborate the idea that Eris is an icy body.
Discussion and Conclusions
==========================
We have presented time series photometry in BVRI pass-bands of the dwarf planet Eris (2003 UB313).\
Looking at the data we have presented and analysed (in particular V and R), it is possible to say that some genuine time variability is present with a reasonable level of confidence. If this will be confirmed by further observations it would indicate a light curve with a long term variability. Likely, one with periods greater than 5 days and amplitudes $\approx 0.05$ mag. Such a small amplitude would indicate a low axial ratio for Eris or that this body is seen nearly pole-on from the Earth.\
In the first case Eris would be more symmetric in shape than other known KBOs or Pluto itself.\
In the second case, due to the large distance to the Sun, Eris is pole on with respect to the Sun too. Presently Eris is near its aphelion and if it has an axial ratio comparable to that of Pluto, we should expect that the maximum amplitude of its light curve would be observed toward the epoch in which it will have an anomaly of $\approx 90^\circ$. However, even a change of $10^\circ$ in its orientation would produce a significant increment in the amplitude of its light curve.\
Interestingly enough for the evolution of resurfacing is the fact that in case Eris were seen pole-on at aphelion, it would have to be pole-on even at perihelion. Having a so large orbital ellipticity, the solar irradiation at aphelion would be 6.6 times smaller than the irradiation at perihelion. Depending on the details of resurfacing mechanism and atmospheric circulation, it would not be a surprise to discover significant differences between the two hemispheres of Eris. As an example, one can speculate that the region of the aphelion pole would be more rich in volatiles than the opposite region. If so, even the spectroscopic signature of the Eris surface will have to show secular variations correlated with the light-curve amplitude.\
Finally, in trying to understand Eris light curve, one cannot neglect that the presence of the un-resolved satellite could distort it. Dysnomea indeed may contribute for up to $\approx 0.02$ mag to the time variability of brightness with an expected orbital period of 2 weeks. However, even assuming that the line of nodes of the orbit of the satellite is oriented toward the Sun, an eclipse or a transit would last for about one tenth of day, compatible with the time scale of our observations over each night. But an eclipse or a transit would cause a drop in brightness while our data suggest rather the opposite behavior. In addition, an eclipse or a transit would affect only one night and not the subsequent ones due to the small phase angle with which we are observing the system.
The work of GC was supported by [*Fundacion Andes*]{}. The work of MM was partially supported by INAF FFO for free research 2006 ([*Fondo Ricerca Libera*]{}). The authors acknowledge the referee, David Rabinowitz, for useful suggestions.
Brown, M.E., Trujillo, C.A., Rabinowitz, D.L., 2005, ApJ, 635, L97
Brown, M.E., van Dam, M.A., Bouchez, A.H., Campbell, R.D., Chin, J.,Y, Conrad, A., Hartman, S.K., Johansson, E.M., Lafin, R.E., Rabinowitz, D.L., Stomski, Jr., Summers, D.M., Trujillo, C.A., Wizinowich, P.L., 2006a, ApJ, 639, L43
Brown, M.E., Schaller, E.L., Roe, H.G., Rabinowitz, D.L., Trujillo, C.A., 2006, preprint
Hainault, O.R., Delsanti, A.C., 2002, A&A 389, 641
IAU resolution n$^o$ 5A, 26$^{th}$ IAU General Assembly, Prague 2006
Licandro, J.; Grundy, W. M.; Pinilla-Alonso, N.; Leisy, P., 2006, A&A, 458, L5
Sheppard, S. S., 2006, Nature, 439, 541
Rabinowitz, D.L., Schaefer, B.E., Tourtellotte S.W., 2006, preprint, astro-ph/0605745
[^1]: http://www.astro.yale.edu/smarts/
[^2]: http://www.lowell.edu/users/massey/obins/y4kcamred.html
[^3]: IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Selective and large polarization of current injected into semiconductor (SC) is predicted in Ferromagnet (FM)/Quantum Dot (QD)/SC system by varying the gate voltage above the Kondo temperature. In addition, spin-dependent Kondo effect is also revealed below Kondo temperature. It is found that Kondo resonances for up spin state is suppressed with increasing of the polarization $P$ of the FM lead. While the down one is enhanced. The Kondo peak for up spin is disappear at $P=1$.'
author:
- 'Zhen-Gang Zhu'
title: 'Selective Spin Injection Controlled by Electrical way in Ferromagnet/Quantum Dot/Semiconductor system'
---
Effective spin injection into semiconductor is the central issue of spin-related semiconductor devices, such as the so-called spin-field-effect transistor (SFFT) proposed by Datta and Das [@datta] which may be the original starting point of spintronics [@wolf]. Spin-valve effect was predicted in it via controlling the gate voltage which controls the Rashba spin-orbit coupling parameter [@datta]. Some experimental attempts were then performed to realize it but only small signal of spin injection had been observed. Schmidt *et al.* pointed out that the mismatch of conductance of FM and SC is the reason of the low efficiency of spin injection [@schmidt1]. However, Rashba proposed that a tunnel barrier can be inserted between the FM and SC to overcome this problem [@rashba]. Soon, many experiments were then reported to confirm Rashba’s idea [@mtt; @tb]. For example, hot electron current with a high spin polarization of about $98\%$ can be obtained [@mtt]. On the other hand, other methods for spin filter or spin injection into semiconductor are also proposed, such as a FM tip of scanning tunnelling microscope is used to inject spin-polarized electrons into SC [@stm] and a triple tunnel barrier diode is utilized as spin source to enhance the spin-filtering efficiency even to $99.9\%$ [@koga].
More recently, new attempts to realize the devices where the spin character of the injected and detected electrons could be voltage selected [@gruber][@slobodskyy], have been made. In these devices, the source-drain voltage-controlled spin filter effect is investigated in a magnetic resonant tunnelling diode structure in which the central spacer is made of dilute magnetic SC ZnMnSe. Zhu and Su [@zhu] proposed a magnetic filed dependence spin filter effect based on ZnSe/ZnMnSe/ZnSe/ZnMnSe/ZnSe structure in which resonances of different spin components occur at different magnitude of magnetic field. These researches open new ways to controllable spin filter effect. However, these proposed structures are involved in dilute magnetic SC whose Curie temperature is known blow room temperature, preventing its further application in devices. In addition, for the difficulty of operating individual spin by external magnetic field, new attempt called all electrical devices is proposed in which the controlling are all via electrical ways.
In this letter, such a selective spin injection into semiconductor is predicted in Ferromagnet (FM)/Quantum Dot (QD)/SC system by varying the gate voltage which controls the states of the QD. A FM layer holding high Curie temperature (above room temperature) is used as a spin source and polarized electrons flowing out of it tunnel through a vertical QD (VQD) [@vqd] into SC. Between the two tunnel barrier a quantum well is defined as a QD with strong Coulomb interaction. The energy levels of QD can be tunned by a gate voltage $V_{g}$. It is found the polarization of current is large and can be controlled by tunning $V_{g}$ from negative to positive (from down-spin filtering to up-spin filtering) because of the mixed roles of Coulomb interaction and the splitting of spin subbands of FM. It is worth pointing out that the splitting of energy levels of QD for different spins are large and corresponds to the Curie temperature order. This large splitting guarantees the well-defined separation of polarized current with different spins and the spin filter effect.
The Hamiltonian is $H=H_{leads}+H_{dot}+H_{T}$, $H_{leads}=\sum_{k\sigma }\varepsilon_{k\sigma }^{L}a_{k\sigma
}^{\dagger }a_{k\sigma }+\sum_{q\sigma }\varepsilon _{qR}b_{q\sigma
}^{\dagger }b_{q\sigma }$, $H_{dot}=\sum_{\sigma }\epsilon
_{0}d_{\sigma }^{\dagger }d_{\sigma }+Un_{d\uparrow }n_{d\downarrow
}$, $H_{T}=\sum_{k\sigma }[t_{kL}^{\sigma }a_{k\sigma }^{\dagger
}d_{\sigma }+h.c.]+\sum_{q\sigma }[t_{qR}^{\sigma }b_{q\sigma
}^{\dagger }d_{\sigma }+h.c.]$, where $\varepsilon_{k\sigma
}^{L}=\varepsilon_{kL}-\mu_{L}-\sigma M$, $M=g\mu_{B}h/2$, $g$ is Landé factor, $\mu _{B}$ is Bohr magneton, $h$ is the molecular field, $\varepsilon_{kL}$ is the single-particle dispersion of the left FM, $\mu_{L(R)}$ is the Fermi level of the left (right) lead, $n_{d\sigma }=d_{\sigma }^{\dagger }d_{\sigma }$, $\varepsilon_{qR}=\hbar^{2}q^{2}/2m^{\ast }$, $m^{\ast }$ is effective mass of electrons in the right lead, $t_{kL(qR)}^{\sigma}$ denotes the tunnelling amplitude through the left (right) barrier.
Then following the standard equation of motion method, and assuming that higher-order spin-correlations in the leads can be neglected [@assum], the Green function $\langle\langle
d_{\sigma}|d_{\sigma'}^{\dagger }\rangle\rangle^{r}$ can be obtained $$\langle\langle d_{\sigma}|d_{\sigma^{\prime }}^{\dagger }\rangle
\rangle^{r}=\frac{(\varepsilon-\widetilde{\epsilon }_{\sigma
}+U\left\langle n_{\overline{\sigma }}\right\rangle )\delta_{\sigma
\sigma^{\prime }}-U\left\langle d_{\overline{\sigma }}^{\dagger
}d_{\sigma }\right\rangle\delta_{\overline{\sigma }\sigma^{\prime
}}}{(\varepsilon-\widetilde{\epsilon }_{\sigma })(\varepsilon
-\epsilon_{0}-\Sigma_{\sigma }^{0})+U\Sigma_{\overline{\sigma
}}^{1}}, \label{rgf}$$ where $\widetilde{\epsilon }_{\sigma }=\epsilon_{0}+U+\Sigma
_{\sigma }^{0}+\Sigma_{\overline{\sigma }}^{3}$, $\Sigma_{\sigma
}^{L(R)0}=\int \frac{d\varepsilon'}{2\pi }\frac{\Gamma _{\sigma
}^{L(R)}(\varepsilon')}{\varepsilon-\varepsilon'+i\eta }$, $\Sigma_{\overline{\sigma }}^{2}=\Sigma _{\overline{\sigma
}}^{3}-\Sigma_{\overline{\sigma }}^{1}$, $\Sigma _{\overline{\sigma
}}^{L(R)\lambda }=\int\frac{d\varepsilon'}{2\pi
}\Gamma_{\overline{\sigma }}^{L(R)}(\varepsilon')B\digamma
(\varepsilon')$, ($B=1$, $\lambda=3$; $B=f_{L(R)}$, $\lambda=1$), where $\digamma (\varepsilon')=\frac{1}{\varepsilon -(2\epsilon
_{0}+U)+\varepsilon'+i\eta }+\frac{1}{\varepsilon
-\varepsilon'+i\eta }$, $\Gamma _{\sigma }^{L}(\varepsilon')=2\pi
\mathbf{\rho }_{L}(\varepsilon'+\sigma M)\left\vert t_{L}^{\sigma
}(\varepsilon')\right\vert ^{2}$, $\Gamma _{\uparrow }^{R}=\Gamma
_{\downarrow }^{R}=\Gamma^{R}(\varepsilon')=2\pi\rho
_{R}(\varepsilon')\left\vert t_{R}(\varepsilon')\right\vert^{2}$, $\mathbf{\rho }_{L(R)}$ is density of state (DOS) of the left (right) lead and $\Sigma_{\sigma }^{\gamma }=\Sigma_{\sigma
}^{L\gamma }+\Sigma_{\sigma }^{R\gamma }$ ($\gamma =1,2,3$). The retard selfenergy can be derived from Dyson equation $\mathbf{\Sigma
}^{r}=(\mathbf{g}^{r})^{-1}-(\mathbf{G}^{r})^{-1}$, where $\mathbf{g}^{r}$ is the retard GF of QD without coupling to the leads but with Coulomb interaction. To get $\left\langle
n_{\overline{\sigma }}\right\rangle $, the selfconsistent calculation must be preformed [@selfconsist]. And this procedure needs lesser Green function which is subject to the Keldysh formula $G^{<}=G^{r}\Sigma^{<}G^{a}$. The lesser self-energy is taken the form as $\Sigma^{<}=\frac{1}{2}[\Sigma _{0}^{<}(\Sigma
_{0}^{r}-\Sigma_{0}^{a})^{-1}(\Sigma^{r}-\Sigma^{a})+(\Sigma
^{r}-\Sigma^{a})(\Sigma_{0}^{r}-\Sigma_{0}^{a})^{-1}\Sigma
_{0}^{<}]$ [@self], where $\Sigma_{0}^{r(a,<)}$ are the selfenergies of the noninteracting system while $\Sigma^{r(a,<)}$ are selfenergies with full interaction. In fact, one method without solving $G^{<}$ and only with calculating the integral $\int
d\varepsilon G^{<}(\varepsilon)$ exactly has been developed to round the calculation of the lesser Green function [@sun1]. However, the approximation used here to derive the lesser Green function can give a qualitatively correct results. We shall mention that $\left\langle
d_{\overline{\sigma}}^{\dagger}d_{\sigma}\right\rangle$ in principle tends to zero without spin flip scattering. We keep it here to avoid any uncertainty which might be caused by self-consistent calculation procedure and its value can be given by the self-consistent calculation.
No losing generality, we shall do numerical calculations in the limit $U\rightarrow\infty $. We use $\Gamma_{0}^{L}$ as the unit of energy, which is defined in terms of the unpolarized parabolic energy bands parameters, and $J_{0}=e\Gamma _{0}^{L}/\hbar $ as current unit. We set $P=\frac{\rho_{\uparrow }^{L}-\rho_{\downarrow
}^{L}}{\rho_{\uparrow }^{L}+\rho_{\downarrow }^{L}}$, $t_{qR(kL)}^{\uparrow }=t_{qR(kL)}^{\downarrow }=t_{R(L)}$, then $\chi_{\uparrow }=\Gamma_{\uparrow
}^{L}/\Gamma_{0}^{L}=(\frac{2}{1+\chi^{2}})^{\frac{1}{2}}$, $\chi
_{\downarrow }=\Gamma_{\downarrow }^{L}/\Gamma_{0}^{L}=\chi\chi
_{\uparrow }$, where $\chi=\frac{1-P}{1+P}$. Let $\chi_{R}=\Gamma^{R}/\Gamma_{0}^{L}=\alpha $. The left lead is FM and the right lead is SC, and the $\Gamma^{L(R)}$ is in proportion to the DOS of the left (right) lead. So we may estimate the $\alpha$ will be between $10^{-4}\rightarrow 10^{-3}$ (for the right SC lead, we use 3D DOS rather than using 2D DOS to avoid the complexity). But if the tunnelling matrix $t_{(L)R}$ can be tuned to be different, the parameter $\alpha$ may be tuned till $1$ (this case is considered in Fig. 4). To get the retard Green function, selfenergy $\Sigma_{\sigma}^{1}$ will be calculated analytically as [@s1] $$\Sigma _{\sigma }^{L1}(\Sigma^{R1})=\frac{\Gamma_{\sigma
}^{L}(\Gamma ^{R})}{2\pi }\{\frac{1}{2}\ln \frac{\varepsilon
_{1}\varepsilon _{2}}{(2\pi iT)^{2}}-\psi (z)-\frac{i}{2}\pi \},
\label{sel1}$$ where $\varepsilon _{1}=\varepsilon-\mu _{L(R)}-D$, $\varepsilon
_{2}=\varepsilon-\mu_{L(R)}+D$, $z=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\varepsilon-\mu
_{L(R)}}{2\pi iT}$, $D$ is the half bandwidth, and we set it as 1500 in this letter, $T$ is temperature.
Local density of state (LDOS) [@ldos] $\rho_{\sigma}(\varepsilon
)$ and $\Re\Sigma _{\sigma }^{1}$ in QD vs. energy for different polarization $P$ are shown in Fig. 2. It can be found that $\rho_{\uparrow }(\varepsilon )$ and $\rho _{\downarrow
}(\varepsilon )$ are split because of FM lead. The main peaks of LDOS exist at the resonant energy $\varepsilon =\varepsilon
_{0\sigma }$, where $\varepsilon _{0\sigma }=\varepsilon
_{0}+\Re\Sigma _{\overline{\sigma }}^{1}$ indicates that the original spin-independent energy level is modified as spin-dependent energy levels because of Coulomb interaction on QD and the polarization $P$. $\Re\Sigma _{\overline{\sigma }}^{1}$ is proportional to the tunnelling rate $\Gamma _{\overline{\sigma
}}^{L}$ which depends on $P$. $\Re\Sigma _{\uparrow }^{1}$ ($\Re\Sigma _{\downarrow }^{1}$) increases (decreases) with $P$ and show two resonances at $-V/2$ and $V/2$ except for $\Re\Sigma
_{\downarrow }^{1}$ at $P=1$ as shown in the inset of Fig. (2a). This increasing (decreasing) gives rise to the shift of the main peak of $\rho_{\uparrow }(\varepsilon )$ ($\rho _{\downarrow
}(\varepsilon )$) towards to the lower (higher) energy.
Kondo resonances (KRs) of $\rho_{\uparrow }(\varepsilon )$ and $\rho
_{\downarrow }(\varepsilon )$ existing about at $\mu_{L}=V/2$ and $\mu _{R}=-V/2$ shown in Fig. (2a) are consequences of nonequilibrium effect [@meir]. i) With increasing $P$, the magnitude of KRs for down (up) spin component is higher (lower). While the peak of $\Re\Sigma _{\downarrow }^{1}$ disappears at $V/2$ and $P=1$ in the inset of Fig. (2a), the corresponding KR of $\rho
_{\uparrow }(\varepsilon )$ disappears also. But the other KRs of $\rho _{\uparrow }(\varepsilon )$ bounded at $-V/2$ remain. The reason is there are no itinerant spin-down electrons in the FM layer for formation of spin singlet with the electrons on QD now. ii) The positions of spin-up KRs move to lower energy and the spin-down ones move to the opposite direction. Spin-dependent Kondo effect was firstly investigated in FM-QD-FM system in Ref. [@sergueev]. Then further theoretical [@martinek] and experimental [@pas] investigations are evaluated to show the splitting of the Kondo resonances. However it has no influences on the spin filter effect which is mainly investigated in a temperature scale much above the Kondo temperature.
Higher order cotunneling processes [@sasakl] depicted in Fig. (1b) account for the formation of these KRs. Initially, an up-spin electron occupies the QD, it can jump to the left (right) lead at a time scale $\hbar /(\mu _{L(R)}-\varepsilon _{0})$. Almost at the same time, a down-spin electron of the right (left) lead can jump into the QD. Then the final state is a spin-flip state. A large number of coherent superpositions of these events will give rise to KRs at Fermi levels. The conduction electrons tend to screen the nonzero spin on QD such that a many-body spin singlet state forms. This process can transfer charges from one lead to the other and then the KR may enhance the conductance or current [@ng]. Another contributing process is that a spin occupying the QD jumps into one lead and almost at the same time an opposite spin in the same lead tunnels into QD, which can be clearly seen from the Eq. (239) in Ref. [@platero] in which the Hamiltonian consisting the QD and leads is transformed into a Hamiltonian similar to the conventional Kondo Hamiltonian via Schrieffer-Wolff transformation [@sw]. There $J_{LL}$ and $J_{RR}$ describe the coupling of the local spin on QD and the spins of itinerant electrons in the left or right leads respectively. This process doesn’t transfer charge from one lead to the other.
When $\alpha $ is very small (for example $\alpha=0.001$ in Fig. (2b) and its inset), $\Sigma^{R1}$ contributes little to $\Re\Sigma_{\sigma }^{1}$. The channel of formation KRs between QD and the right lead is suppressed. So in Fig. (2b) and its inset, the peaks about at $-V/2$ all disappear, but the KRs about at $V/2$ are still present. The spin-splitting of $\rho _{\uparrow
}(\varepsilon)$ and $\rho_{\downarrow }(\varepsilon )$ remains, giving rise to the spin filter effect described in the following.
To investigate the spin-filter effect, we shall calculate the current through this structure. By using the nonequilibrium Green function technique [@negf], the steady current with up (down) spin in unit $J_{0}$ is $$J_{\uparrow (\downarrow )}/J_{0}=\Delta _{1(2)}\int d\varepsilon \lbrack
f_{L}(\varepsilon )-f_{R}(\varepsilon )]\rho _{d\uparrow (d\downarrow
)}(\varepsilon ), \label{jud}$$where $\Delta _{1}=\frac{\chi _{\uparrow }\alpha }{\chi _{\uparrow
}+\alpha } $ and $\Delta _{2}=\frac{\chi _{\downarrow }\alpha }{\chi
_{\downarrow }+\alpha }$. When a gate voltage is applied, we set new energy level on QD is $\varepsilon _{0}'=\varepsilon _{0}+V_{g}$. The spin polarization of current is defined as $P_{out}=\frac{J_{\uparrow }-J_{\downarrow }}{J_{\uparrow
}+J_{\downarrow }}$, which is not the polarization of the DOS of the left lead. When $P=0$, i.e. the injector is spin independent, $\Delta _{1}=\Delta _{2}$ and $P_{out}=0$. When $P=1$, i.e. the injector is fully polarized (for example half-metal material), $\Delta _{2}=0$ and $P_{out}=1$. When $0<P<1,$ at the limit $\alpha
\rightarrow 0$, $\Delta _{1}\approx \Delta _{2}\approx \alpha $, then $P_{out}$ just depends on the difference of the LDOS of QD for different spins.
Quite usually, devices are operated in room temperature which is much higher than Kondo temperature, and KRs disappear. The $V_{g}$ dependence of $J_{\uparrow }$ and $J_{\downarrow }$ are presented in Fig. (3a). It is noted that currents have resonant peaks which are split under nonzero $P$ because of $\varepsilon _{0\uparrow }\neq
\varepsilon _{0\downarrow }$. And the splitting becomes larger with increasing $P$. It can be understood that when $\varepsilon
_{0\uparrow (\downarrow )}$ is in the energy range $[-V/2,V/2]$ as shown in Fig. (1c) and (1d), resonant tunnelling occurs and a resonant peak of $J_{\uparrow (\downarrow )}$ present. When $\varepsilon _{0\uparrow (\downarrow )}$ is out of this range, current is suppressed. We call this range as resonant window (RW). As $\varepsilon _{0\downarrow }>\varepsilon _{0\uparrow }$, $\varepsilon _{0\downarrow }$ first enters into the RW with increasing $V_{g}$ as shown in Fig. (1c), now $J_{\downarrow }$ is on-resonant and $J_{\uparrow }$ is off-resonant. Increasing $V_{g}$ further, $\varepsilon_{0\uparrow }$ enters into the RW as shown in Fig. (1d), and the case is opposite to the former. When $V_{g}>V_{g0}$ (we set $J_{\uparrow }=J_{\downarrow }$ at $V_{g0}$), $P_{out}>0$; $P_{out}$ first increases and then decreases with $V_{g}$. When $V_{g}<V_{g0}$, $P_{out}<0$; $P_{out}$ also first increases and then decreases with $V_{g}$ as shown in Fig. (3b). Even $\alpha $ is very small, there is still a large $P_{out}$. For example, when $P=0.7$, the peak magnitude of $P_{out}$ is 0.58 ($V_{g}=5.83$), and the peak magnitude is enhanced by increasing $P$. $P_{out}$ varies from negative to positive with increasing gate voltage, which means the spin filter effect can be controlled by tuning the gate voltage.
LDOS vs. energy in Fig. (4a) and $V_{g}$ dependence of $P_{out}$ in Fig. (4b) for different $\alpha $. $\rho _{\uparrow }$ and $\rho
_{\downarrow }$ become lower and fatter with increasing $\alpha $. It means the local electrons on QD tend to be nonlocal and tunnel to the right lead. And the main peaks are shifted towards the right direction shown in Fig. (4a). It is found that negative $P_{out}$ is reduced and even becomes positive with increasing $\alpha $ in Fig. (4b). On the other hand, the positive $P_{out}$ will be enhanced with $\alpha $. For example, when $\alpha =1$, there is no negative $P_{out}$. But the maximum of $P_{out}$ is enhanced to give 0.464 for $\alpha =1$ and $P=0.4$.
The effect predicted here is the consequence of well-defined spin-dependent energy levels of QD. So spin relaxation in QD may reduce the effect and we may estimate its order. For comparison, in Ref. [@gruber], spin relaxation time (SRT) is shorter in ZnMnSe layer because of the spin-dependent scatterings in it. However, SRT is much longer in our case. Firstly, it is because the QD is formed in the nonmagnetic semiconductor quantum well, spin-dependent scatterings are sparse. Secondly, the zero dimensionality of electron states in QDs leads to a significant suppression of the most effective 2D spin-flip mechanisms [@kha], and the electron spin states in QDs are expected to be very stable. Recent electrical transport measurements of relaxation between spin triplet and singlet states confined in a VQD give relaxation time $>200 \mu s$ at $T\leq 0.5$ K [@fuj]. Finally, we estimate the transit time. For a typical value $\Gamma =150$ $\mu V$ [@sasakl] ($\Gamma $ can be changed by changing the barrier thickness [@gueret]), the estimated transit time is about $5$ $ps$. So it seems reasonable to assume that the spin relaxation on QD has little effect in this model.
In Ref. [@gruber], the spin dependent energy levels are induced by Zeeman splitting under an external magnetic field in magnetic semiconductor ZnMnSe quantum well. While in this letter the tunnelling rates for up and down spins are split because of the splitting of DOS of FM. This splitting likes an effective magnetic field (EMF) but much stronger than conventional magnetic field, even reach $50\sim 70$ T [@ralph], leading to the well defined spin-dependent energy levels on QD. Further an upper limit on the local magnetic field (LMF) which is generated by FM lead in QD is estimated to be 0.6 T for Ni [@hanson]. It seems reasonable to neglect this LMF.
In summary, selective and large polarization of current injected into semiconductor is predicted in Ferromagnet /Quantum Dot /semiconductor system by varying the gate voltage above the Kondo temperature. A FM layer is used as a spin source and electrons tunnel through a QD into SC. Spin-dependent Kondo effect is revealed below Kondo temperature. KRs for up spin state is suppressed with $P$. While the down one is enhanced. The KR for up spin is disappear at $P=1$. With increasing the gate voltage, the polarization of current varies from negative to positive, which means spin filter effect can be controlled by gate voltage. A large efficient spin injection can be obtained.
This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 10574076, 10447118), and by the Program of Basic Research Development of China (Grant No. 2006CB921500).
S. Datta and B. Das, Appl. Phys. Lett. **56**, 665 (1990).
S. A. Wolf *et al*., Science **294**, 1488 (2001).
G. Schmidt *et al*., Phys. Rev. B **62**, R16267 (2000).
E. I. Rashba, Phys. Rev. B **62**, R4790 (2000).
X. Jiang *et al*., Phys. Rev. Lett. **90**, 256603 (2003); S. van Dijken *et al*., ibid. **90**, 197203 (2003); Phys. Rev. B **66**, 094417 (2002); Appl. Phys. Lett. **80**, 3364 (2002).
T. Manago and H. Akinaga, Appl. Phys. Lett. **81**, 694 (2002); V. F. Motsnyi *et al*., ibid. **81**, 265 (2002); A. T. Hanbicki *et al*., ibid. **80**, 1240 (2002); **82**, 4092 (2003); S. Kreuzer *et al*., ibid. **80**, 4582 (2002); Y. Q. Jia *et al*., IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, **32**, 4707 (1996); H. J. Zhu *et al*., Phys. Rev. Lett. **87**, 016601 (2001); A. F. Isakovic *et al*., J. Appl. Phys. **91**, 7261 (2002).
S. F. Alvarado and P. Renaud, Phys. Rev. Lett. **68**, 1387 (1992).
T. Koga *et al*., Phys. Rev. Lett. **88**, 126601 (2002).
Th. Gruber, *et al.*, Appl. Phys. Lett. **78**, 1101 (2001).
A. Slobodskyy *et al*., Phys. Rev. Lett. **90**, 246601 (2003).
Zhen-Gang Zhu and Gang Su, Phys. Rev. B **70**, 193310 (2004).
S. Tarucha *et al*., Phys. Rev. Lett. **77**, 3613 (1996); ibid. **84**, 2485 (2000); I. I. Yakimenko *et al*., Phys. Rev. B **63**, 165309 (2001); M. Rontani *et al*., ibid **69**, 085327 (2004); K. Ono *et al*., Science **297**, 1313 (2002).
It means that correlation function which invovle unlike spin-indices, invovle different operators of the left and the right leads or both creat operators (annihlation operators) equal to zero, and factorize the correlation functions with like spin $\langle\langle a_{k'\overline{\sigma }}^{\dagger
}a_{k''\overline{\sigma }}d_{\sigma }|d_{\sigma'}^{\dagger }\rangle
\rangle ^{r}\approx f(\varepsilon _{k'\overline{\sigma }}^{L})\delta
_{k'k''}\langle \langle d_{\sigma }|d_{\sigma'}^{\dagger }\rangle
\rangle^{r}$.
$\left\langle n_{\sigma }\right\rangle =\Im\int
\frac{d\varepsilon }{2\pi }\langle \langle d_{\sigma }|d_{\sigma
}^{\dagger }\rangle \rangle^{<}$, $\left\langle d_{\sigma }^{\dagger
}d_{\overline{\sigma }}\right\rangle =\Im\int \frac{d\varepsilon
}{2\pi }\langle \langle d_{\overline{\sigma }}|d_{\sigma }^{\dagger
}\rangle\rangle^{<}$, where $\langle \langle a|b\rangle \rangle^{<}$ means lesser GF derived from the returded GF by using Keldysh formula. Given these two initial values, then substitute them into the retard Green function and Keldysh formula to get them for the second time. This procedure continues to give a constant $\left\langle n_{\sigma }\right\rangle $ and $\left\langle d_{\sigma
}^{\dagger }d_{\overline{\sigma }}\right\rangle $. The retard Green function and lesser Green function can be obtained.
T. -K. Ng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 487 (1996); Qing-feng Sun *et al*., ibid. 87, 176601 (2001).
Qing Feng Sun, and Hong Guo, Phys. Rev. B **66**, 155308 (2002).
P. E. Bloomfield and D. R. Hamann, Phys. Rev. **164**, 856 (1967).
The local density of states (LDOS) is defined as $\rho
_{\sigma }(\varepsilon )=-\frac{1}{\pi }\Im G_{d}^{\sigma \sigma
,r}(\varepsilon )$.
Y. Meir *et al*., Phys. Rev. Lett. **70**, 2601 (1993); N. S. Wingreen and Y. Meir, Phys. Rev. B. **49**, 11040 (1994).
N. Sergueev, Qing-feng Sun, Hong Guo, B. G. Wang, and Jian Wang, Phys. Rev. B **65**, 165303 (2002).
J. Martinek, *et al*., Phys. Rev. Lett. **91**, 127203 (2003).
A. N. Pasupathy, *et al*., Science **306**, 86 (2004).
S. Sasakl *et al*., Nature **405**, 764 (2000).
T. K. Ng and P. A. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. **61**, 1768 (1988).
G. Platero and R. Aguado, Phys. Rep. **395**, 1 (2004).
J. R. Schrieffer and P. A. Wolff, Phys. Rev. **149**, 491 (1966).
A. P. Jauho *et al*., Phys. Rev. B **50**, 5528 (1994); H. Haug and A. -P. Jauho, *Quantum Kinetics in Transport and Optics of Semiconductors* (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998).
A. V. Khaetskii and Y. N. Nazarov, Phys. Rev. B **61**, 12639 (2000).
T. Fujisawa, *et al*., Nature (London) **419**, 278 (2002).
P. Guéret, *et al.*, J. Appl. Phys. **66**, 278 (1989).
A. N. Pasupathy, *et al.*, Science **306**, 86 (2004).
R. Hanson, *et al*., Phys. Rev. Lett. **91**, 196802 (2003).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We show that there exist solutions to the semi-classical gravity equations in de Sitter spacetime sourced by the renormalised stress-energy tensor of a free Klein-Gordon field. For the massless scalar, solutions exist for every possible value of the cosmological constant, provided that the curvature coupling parameter is chosen appropriately. In the massive case, imposing Wald’s axioms for the renormalised stress-energy tensor, the mass of the field and the curvature coupling constraint the allowed values of $\Lambda$. For a massive, minimally coupled field, a “small $\Lambda$" solution is found, fixed by the relation $m^2 \simeq 4.89707 \times 10^{12} \Lambda$. We emphasise that in this framework, the [*old*]{} cosmological constant problem in its standard formulation plays no rôle, in the sense that there are no bare-vs-physical values of $\Lambda$, for only the physical $\Lambda$ appears in the semi-classical equations, and the value that it is allowed to take is fixed or restricted by the equations themselves. We explain that there is an important relation between the cosmological constant problem and the violation of Wald’s stress-energy renormalisation axioms.'
author:
- 'Benito A. Juárez-Aubry[^1]'
title: 'Semi-classical gravity in de Sitter spacetime and the cosmological constant'
---
Published in Phys. Lett. B, [**797**]{} (2019) 134912 [doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.134912](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2019.134912)
Introduction {#sec:Intro}
============
The standard model of cosmology, $\Lambda$CDM, is currently the most successful theoretical model for explaining the evolution of the universe as a whole from the CMB epoch to the current era. While there is no doubt about its phenomenological success, it has left room for several puzzles in theoretical physics, including the so-called cosmological constant problem.
The old cosmological constant problem is in its standard formulation a naturalness one, which posits that some bare cosmological constant, $\Lambda_{\rm bare}$, of the order of the very large energy density of the quantum fields of matter, should be renormalised with exquisite precision to the small, positive value that we observe, $\Lambda_{\rm ren}$. See e.g. the excellent references [@Weinberg:1988cp; @Padilla:2015aaa; @Martin:2012bt].
In this letter, we study the semi-classical gravity equations in de Sitter spacetime for a free Klein-Gordon field. On the one hand, this is an interesting problem in its own right in the sense that few exact semi-classical gravity solutions are known. The author is aware of [@Dappiaggi:2008mm], in which cosmology with a massive Klein-Gordon field with $\xi = 1/6$ exhibits a de Sitter phase. Due to the isometries of de Sitter spacetime, we are able to show the existence of a large number of solutions parametrised by the mass parameter of the Klein-Gordon field, $m^2$, and the curvature coupling parameter, $\xi$. On the other hand, the cosmological constant puzzle can be most naturally framed in the setting of semi-classical gravity, without necessarily making reference to Minkowskian mode expansions or energy cut-offs as in the classical statement on the problem [@Weinberg:1988cp; @Padilla:2015aaa; @Martin:2012bt], while also offering interesting insights on the puzzle, including its connection with the violation of Wald’s stress-energy renormalisation axioms.
In the semi-classical setting, as we shall see below, bare and renormalised quantities for $\Lambda$ simply do not appear in the same way that the bare stress-energy tensor plays no rôle in the equations. Instead, $\Lambda$ should take values that are consistent with solutions to the semi-classical Einstein field equations. The point that we shall make below, in the context of a simple Klein-Gordon model, is that in some cases the values of $\Lambda$ is highly restricted, and sometimes uniquely determined (up to renormalisation ambiguities), in terms of the parameters of the Klein-Gordon field, $m^2$ and $\xi$. Moreover, as we shall see, while the value of $\Lambda$ will be necessarily proportional to $m^2$ (in the massive case), the proportionality factor can account for several orders of magnitude in difference between the two parameters. In particular, in the case of a massive, minimally coupled field, one finds an interesting solution that fixes the ratio $m^2/\Lambda \sim 10^{12}$. This framework offers an interesting perspective to address the cosmological constant puzzle, by studying the semi-classical Einstein equations in a realistic model of our universe – FLRW spacetime with the Standard Model of Particle Physics as matter content.
On this tone, we should clarify that an aim of this paper is not to obtain the value for the cosmological constant observed in our universe, but we do argue that in the framework of the semi-classical Einstein field equations, and imposing Wald’s stress-energy renormalisation axioms, its peculiar, small, observational value is not at odds with any estimated would-be, large, unrenormalised value.
This letter is organised as follows: After this introduction, in Sec. \[sec:semiGR\] we briefly review the elements of semi-classical gravity. In Sec. \[sec:deSitter\] we specify to the problem of a Klein-Gordon field in de Sitter spacetime. An analysis of the ambiguities is made, where we show that some of them can be fixed in de Sitter, both algebraically and by imposing Wald’s axioms. In Sec. \[sec:Solutions\], exploiting the symmetries of de Sitter, we show that there exists solutions to the problem stated in Sec. \[sec:deSitter\], and that for such solutions the cosmological constant will (almost always and modulo ambiguities) be restricted to specific values in terms of the $m^2$ and $\xi$ parameters of the Klein-Gordon field. Our final remarks are made in Sec. \[sec:Remarks\], including comments on the old cosmological constant problem, and its relation to Wald’s renormalisation axioms of the stress-energy tensor [@Wald:1995yp].
Semi-classical gravity preliminaries {#sec:semiGR}
====================================
We wish to obtain solutions to the semi-classical Einstein field equations for a quantum Klein-Gordon field in de Sitter spacetime. The semi-classical gravity equations are
\[SemiGR\] $$\begin{aligned}
& G_{ab} + \Lambda g_{ab} = 8\pi G_{\rm N} \langle \Psi | \hat T_{ab} \Psi \rangle, \label{SemiEinstein} \\
& (\Box - m^2 - \xi R) \hat \Phi = 0, \label{SemiFields} \end{aligned}$$
where the classical geometry is sourced by the renormalised quantum stress-energy tensor of the matter field. Here, $\Lambda > 0$ is the cosmological constant. The quantum Klein-Gordon field is an operator-valued distribution, $f \mapsto \hat{\Phi}(f)$, for $f \in C_0^\infty(M)$, which is densely defined on the relevant Fock space of the theory, $\hat \Phi(f): \mathscr{D} \subset \mathscr{H} \to \mathscr{H}$. The set of field observables generates a unital operator $^*$-algebra, $\mathscr{A}_{\rm KG}$, generated by smeared fields and subject to the following relations: for $f, g \in C_0^\infty(M)$, (i) $f \mapsto \hat \Phi(f)$ is linear, (ii) $\hat \Phi(f)^* = \hat \Phi(f)$ the field is self-adjoint, (iii) $\hat \Phi ((\Box - m^2 - \xi R)f) = 0$, the field equation holds by integration by parts twice and (iv) $[\hat \Phi(f), \hat{\Phi}(g)] = -{{\rm i}}E(f,g) 1\!\!1$ the field satisfies commutation relations, where $E = E^- - E^+$ is the advanced-minus-retarded fundamental Green operator of the Klein-Gordon operator $\Box - m^2 - \xi R$.
The discussion on how to compute the renormalised stress-energy tensor that appears on the right-hand side of is a well-trodden path for the Klein-Gordon field. Our purpose is therefore to give a short, non-exhaustive review and we refer the reader to the classical literature [@Wald:1995yp] for the details.[^2] The classification of renormalisation ambiguities (subject to some regularity criteria), which plays a key rôle for semi-classical gravity, was laid out in [@Hollands:2001nf; @Hollands:2001fb; @Khavkine:2014zsa; @Hollands:2004yh].
The starting point is computing the two-point function in a Hadamard state, $\Psi$, which in a geodesically convex subset, $O \subset M$, in which $\sigma({{\rm x}},{{\rm x}}')$, the half-squared geodesic distance is well defined, takes the Hadamard form $$G^+({{\rm x}},{{\rm x}}') = \frac{1}{8\pi^2}\left[\frac{\Delta^{1/2}({{\rm x}},{{\rm x}}')}{\sigma_\epsilon({{\rm x}},{{\rm x}}')} + v({{\rm x}},{{\rm x}}') \ln \left(\sigma_\epsilon({{\rm x}},{{\rm x}}')/\ell^2 \right) + w({{\rm x}}, {{\rm x}}')\right].
\label{G+Had}$$
Here, $\sigma_\epsilon({{\rm x}},{{\rm x}}') = \sigma({{\rm x}}, {{\rm x}}') + 2 {{\rm i}}T({{\rm x}}, {{\rm x}}') \epsilon + \epsilon^2$ is the regularised half-squared geodesic distance, $\Delta$ is the van Vleck-Morette determinant and $v$ and $w$ are smooth bi-functions computed as a covariant Taylor series in powers of $\sigma$ through the Hadamard recursion relations, obtained by demanding that $G^+({{\rm x}},{{\rm x}}')$ be a solution of the Klein-Gordon equation in the ${{\rm x}}$-variable, provided that an intial value $w_0$ for the $O(1)$ term in the $w$-series is prescribed. The initial values of $u$ and $v$ are determined geometrically, and independent of the quantum state. The datum $w_0$ is state dependent.
The renormalised stress-energy tensor is obtained by acting with a differential two-point operator on the singularity-subtracted two-point function, the smooth bi-function defined by $G^+_{\rm reg}({{\rm x}}, {{\rm x}}') = G^+({{\rm x}},{{\rm x}}') - H_\ell({{\rm x}},{{\rm x}}')$, where $$H_\ell({{\rm x}},{{\rm x}}') = \frac{1}{8\pi^2}\left[\frac{\Delta^{1/2}({{\rm x}},{{\rm x}}')}{\sigma_\epsilon({{\rm x}},{{\rm x}}')} + v({{\rm x}},{{\rm x}}') \ln \left(\sigma_\epsilon({{\rm x}},{{\rm x}}')/\ell^2 \right) + w^{\rm Had}({{\rm x}}, {{\rm x}}')\right]. \label{HadamardF}$$ is the Hadamard parametrix, with $\ell$ a fixed length scale and $w^{\rm Had}$ as the $w$ smooth bi-function obtained from the initial value $w_0 = 0$. We define the renormalised stress-energy tensor by
\[TRenWald\] $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \Psi | \hat T_{ab} ({{\rm x}}) |\Psi \rangle & = \lim\limits_{{{\rm x}}' \rightarrow {{\rm x}}} \mathcal{T}_{ab} \left[G^+_{\rm reg} - \frac{1}{8 \pi} g_{ab} v_1({{\rm x}}, {{\rm x}}') \right] + \Theta_{ab} ({{\rm x}}), \\
\mathcal{T}_{ab} &= (1-2\xi ) g_{a}\,^{b'}(\nabla_a) (\nabla_{b'} )+\left(2\xi - \frac{1}{2}\right) g_{ab}g^{cd'} (\nabla_c) (\nabla_{d'}) - \frac{1}{2} g_{ab} m^2 \nonumber\\
&\quad + 2\xi \Big[ - g_{a}\,^{a'} g_{b}\,^{b'} \nabla_{a'} \nabla_{b'} + g_{ab} g^{c d}\nabla_c \nabla_d + \frac{1}{2}G_{ab} \Big], \end{aligned}$$
where derivatives with primed and unprimed indeces are evaluated at the points ${{\rm x}}'$ and ${{\rm x}}$ respectively. In eq. , $g_{ab'}$ denotes the bi-vector of parallel transport from ${{\rm x}}$ to ${{\rm x}}'$, with the condition $\lim_{{{\rm x}}' \rightarrow {{\rm x}}}g_{ab'}=g_{ab}$ [@DeWitt:1960fc], the term $[v_1]_c({{\rm x}}) = \lim_{{{\rm x}}' \to {{\rm x}}} v_1({{\rm x}}, {{\rm x}}')$, i.e. the diagonal of the $v_1$ coefficient in the Hadamard series of $v$, is given by [@Wald:1978pj; @Decanini:2005eg] $[v_1]_c = \lim\limits_{{{\rm x}}' \rightarrow {{\rm x}}} v_1({{\rm x}}, {{\rm x}}') = \frac{1}{8} m^4 + \frac{1}{4} \left(\xi - \frac{1}{6}\right) m^2 R - \frac{1}{24}\left(\xi - \frac{1}{5} \right) \Box R \quad + \frac{1}{8} \left(\xi - \frac{1}{6} \right)^2 R^2 - \frac{1}{720} R_{ab} R^{ab} + \frac{1}{720} R_{abcd} R^{abcd}$, and $\Theta$ is an ambiguous, geometric, covariantly conserved, symmetric tensor of dimension of lenght to the minus fourth power, built out of the metric and its derivatives, which has been classified in [@Hollands:2001nf; @Hollands:2001fb; @Khavkine:2014zsa]. For conformally-coupled fields, $[v_1]_c$ is responsable for the trace anomaly [@Wald:1978pj].
As a final word for the section, notice that $[v_1]_c$ spoils the second order, hyperbolic form of the semi-classical system . This is a well-known problem in semi-classical gravity. However, as we shall see below, in the symmetry-reduced case of de Sitter spacetime, this problem does not occur.
Semi-classical gravity in de Sitter spacetime {#sec:deSitter}
=============================================
The metric tensor for the $(3+1)$-dimensional de Sitter spacetime has the form $g = (\alpha/\eta)^2 (- d\eta^2 + dx^2+dy^2+dz^2)$, with $\alpha^2 = 3/\Lambda$. Eq. has been studied in de Sitter spacetime in [@Bunch:1978yq] by exploiting the spatial symmetries of the problem, whereby the wave equation reduces to an ODE for the temporal part that can be brought to a Bessel equation form. The quantum fields can be concretely represented as operators in the Hilbert space, $\mathscr{H}_{\rm BD}$ as,
$$\begin{aligned}
\hat \Phi(\eta, x) & = (2 \pi)^{-3/2} \int d^3k \left( \psi_k {{\rm e}}^{{{\rm i}}k \cdot x} \hat a_k + \overline{\psi_k} {{\rm e}}^{-{{\rm i}}k \cdot x} \hat a^*_k \right), \\
\psi_k(\eta) & = \alpha^{-1} (18 \pi)^{1/2} \eta^{3/2} H_\nu^{(2)}(k \eta), \hspace{0.5cm} \nu^2 = 9/4 - 12(m^2/R + \xi).\end{aligned}$$
Annihilation operators annihilate $\Omega_{\rm BD} \in \mathscr{H}$, the Bunch-Davies vacuum, which is cyclic in the sense that the set of vectors obtained from acting with all operator algebra elements contained in $\mathscr{A}_{\rm KG}$ on the vacuum $\Omega_{\rm BD}$ forms a dense subspace of the Fock space $\mathscr{H}$. Creation and annihilation operators act in the usual way on Fock space elements, see e.g. [@Wald:1995yp App. A.3].
The two-point function, which characterises the Bunch-Davies vacuum (as it is quasi-free), can then be obtained directly as a sum over modes, $G^+({{\rm x}}, {{\rm x}}') = (2 \pi)^{-3} \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \! d^3 k \, \psi_k(\eta) \overline{\psi_k(\eta')} {{\rm e}}^{{{\rm i}}k \cdot (x - x')}$, and it admits a closed form expression in terms of hypergeometric functions $$G^+({{\rm x}}, {{\rm x}}')= \frac{\sec \left[\pi \nu (1/4 - \nu^2) \right]}{16 \pi \alpha^2} F\left[\frac{3}{2}+\nu; 2; 1 + \frac{(\eta-\eta')^2 - |r-r'|^2}{4 \eta \eta'} \right].
\label{BDGreen}$$
We should mention that, in the algebraic approach to quantum field theory, the (algebraic) state is defined by all its $n$-point functions, as well as a normalisation and a positivity requirements. The concrete operators on a Hilbert space representations are obtained via the GNS construction. For vacuum states, all $n$-point functions are reconstructed from the two-point function – they are quasi-free. Hence, eq. can be taken as the definition of the Bunch-Davies vacuum and the starting point of quantum field theory in de Sitter spacetime, together with the [*abstract*]{} Klein-Gordon algebra.
In [@Bunch:1978yq] the point-splitting and renormalisation of the stress-energy tensor in the Bunch-Davies vacuum has been performed with the aid of DeWitt-Schwinger, rather than Hadamard expansions (cf. Sec. \[sec:semiGR\]). The two renormalisation methods are well known to be equivalent. See in particular [@Decanini:2005gt] for a detailed discussion. The results reported in [@Bunch:1978yq] are tantamount to performing the Hadamard renormalisation at the fixed scale $\ell^2 = m^{-2}$, yielding $$\begin{aligned}
& \langle \Omega_{\rm BD} | \hat T_{ab} \Omega_{\rm BD} \rangle = \frac{g_{ab}}{(8 \pi)^2} \left\{m^2\left[m^2 + \left( \xi - 1/6\right) R \right]\left[\psi\left(3/2 + \nu \right) + \psi\left(3/2 - \nu \right) \right. \right. \nonumber \\
& \left. \left. - \! \ln\left(12 m^2/R \right) \right] \! - \frac{1}{2}(\xi - 1/6)^2 R^2 \! + \frac{R^2}{2160} \! - m^2(\xi -1/6)R \! - \frac{m^2 R}{18}\right\} \! + \Theta_{ab}, \label{TabBD}\end{aligned}$$ where $\psi$ is the digamma function, defined by $z \mapsto \psi(z) = \Gamma'(z)/\Gamma(z)$, where $\Gamma$ is the Gamma function. In ref. [@Bunch:1978yq] the ambiguity term, $\Theta_{ab}$, is ignored, but we have restored it, as it will play an important rôle in the ensuing discussion.
Stress-energy tensor ambiguities
--------------------------------
The tensor $\Theta_{ab}$ has ambiguity terms coming from two sources. First, changing the natural renormalisation scale $\ell^2 = m^{-2}$ to some arbitrary scale $\ell^2 = \mu^{-2}$, one has a scale ambiguity contribution, $\Theta_{ab}^{m^2/\mu^2}$. Second, from the classification of allowed ambiguous terms discussed in [@Hollands:2001nf; @Hollands:2001fb; @Khavkine:2014zsa], one has an additional $\Theta_{ab}^{\rm clas}$. The total contribution to the ambiguity tensor is therefore $\Theta_{ab} = \Theta_{ab}^{m^2/\mu^2} + \Theta_{ab}^{\rm clas}$.
Let us first discuss the ambiguity term $\Theta_{ab}^{m^2/\mu^2}$. As we have said, for the massive scalar field, in obtaining eq. , the natural choice of Hadamard parametrix has been made with $\ell^2 = m^{-2}$. Notice, that in the massless case the Hadamard parametrix contains no ambiguities, and hence the stress-energy tensor vanishes in Minkowski spacetime identically.
We henceforth treat the renormalisation scale as an arbitrary one for the massive field, $\ell^2 = \mu^{-2}$, and subtract the Hadmard parametrix $H_{\mu^{-1}}$, cf. eq. , yielding an additional term on the right-hand side of eq. , cf. [@Decanini:2005eg eq. (110)], given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta_{ab}^{m^2/\mu^2} & = \frac{\ln(m^2/\mu^2)}{2(2\pi)^2}g_{ab} \left(\frac{1}{8}m^4 +\frac{1}{2}\left(\xi - \frac{1}{6} \right) m^2 \Lambda \right).
\label{AmbiguityLambda}\end{aligned}$$
We now dicuss the contribution $\Theta_{ab}^{\rm clas}$. In agreement with local covariance, stress-energy conservation, correct scaling properties, as well as other regularity criteria, the ambiguity term $\Theta_{ab}^{\rm clas}$ has the form $\Theta_{ab}^{\rm clas} \! = \! \alpha_1 \left(- \frac{1}{2} g_{ab} R^2 + 2 R R_{ab}\right) + \alpha_2 \left(2 R_{a}{}^c R_{cb} - \frac{1}{2} g_{ab} R^{cd} R_{cd} \right) + \alpha_3 m^2 G_{ab} + \alpha_4 m^4 g_{ab}$, where the $\alpha_i: \xi \mapsto \alpha_i(\xi)$, $i =\{1,2,3,4\}$, are renormalisation ambiguities that will depend on $\xi$. Trivial dependence means that the $\alpha_i$ are constants. That $\Theta_{ab}^{\rm clas}$ must be of this form is implied by the results in [@Hollands:2004yh], see in particular Remark (3) towards the end of Sec. 5.1 of that reference, and the general form[^3] of this ambiguity had been suspected to be as shown in [@Hollands:2004yh] at least since the late seventies [@Wald:1978pj].
In constant curvature spacetimes, the terms that accompany the coefficients $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ can be seen to vanish algebraically because $R_{abcd} = (\Lambda/3)^2 (g_{ac}g_{bd}-g_{ad}g_{cb})$. One is therefore left with $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta_{ab} & = g_{ab} \left[ \left( \frac{\ln(m^2/\mu^2)}{(8\pi)^2} + \alpha_4 \right) m^4 + \left( \frac{\ln(m^2/\mu^2)}{(4\pi)^2}\left(\xi - \frac{1}{6} \right) - \alpha_3\right) m^2 \Lambda \right], \label{RenAmb}\end{aligned}$$
Wald’s stress-energy renormalisation axioms
-------------------------------------------
We take the viewpoint that the stress-energy tensor for the Klein-Gordon field in de Sitter should satisfy Wald’s axioms [@Wald:1995yp]. This will help fix certain ambiguities coefficients in $\Theta_{ab}$. The axioms are: (i) If $\Psi_1$ and $\Psi_2$ are Hadamard state vectors, then $\langle \Psi_1 | \hat T_{ab} \Psi_1 \rangle - \langle \Psi_2 | \hat T_{ab} \Psi_2 \rangle \in C^\infty(M)$. (ii) Local covariance. (iii) If $\Psi$ is a Hadamard state vector, $\nabla^a \langle \Psi | \hat T_{ab} \Psi \rangle = 0$. (iv) In Minkowski spacetime $\langle \Omega_{\rm M} | \hat T_{ab} \Omega_{\rm M} \rangle = 0$.
Axioms (i) - (iii) are satisfied by construction. Axiom (iv) can be imposed in the following way. In the $\Lambda \to 0^+$ limit, the renormalised stress-energy tensor reduces to $$0 = \langle \Omega_{\rm M} | \hat T_{ab} \Omega_{\rm M} \rangle = \lim_{\Lambda \to 0^+} \langle \Omega_{\rm BD} | \hat T_{ab} \Omega_{\rm BD} \rangle = \left( \frac{\ln(m^2/\mu^2)}{(8\pi)^2} + \alpha_4 \right) m^4 g_{ab}.
\label{MinkoAmbLimit}$$
Hence, $\Theta_{ab}$ has the explicit form $\Theta_{ab} = - \alpha_\mu(\xi) m^2 \Lambda g_{ab}/(8\pi)^2$, where we have set $\alpha_\mu(\xi) = (8 \pi)^2 \left( \alpha_3(\xi) - \ln(m^2/\mu^2)\left(\xi - \frac{1}{6} \right)/(4\pi)^2 \right) $.
Existence of solutions in de Sitter spacetime {#sec:Solutions}
=============================================
We now seek solutions to eq. . Due to the large symmetry of the problem, the task is reduced to solving an algebraic relation. In turn, this relation will provide the admissible values for $\Lambda$ in terms of the parameters of the Klein-Gordon field theory, $m^2$ and $\xi$.
The massless case
-----------------
In the massless case, $m^2 = 0$, there are solutions for any $\Lambda > 0$ provided that $\xi$ takes the values $\xi_+ = 1/6 + (1080)^{-1/2}$ or $\xi_- = 1/6 - (1080)^{-1/2}$.
The massive case
----------------
For the massive case, set $x = m^2/(4 \Lambda)$. The solutions lie at the roots of the function $f_\xi: \mathbb{R}^+ \to \mathbb{R}$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
f_\xi(x) & = \psi\left(3/2 + \nu(x) \right) + \psi\left(3/2 - \nu(x) \right) - \ln\left(12 x \right) \nonumber \\
& + \left[x + \left( \xi - 1/6\right) \right]^{-1}\left[ \frac{1-1080(\xi - 1/6)^2}{2160x} - \xi + \frac{1}{9}- \frac{\alpha_\mu(\xi)}{4}\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $\nu$ is the complex-valued function $\nu(x) = \left(9/4 - 12(x + \xi) \right)^{1/2}$. There are three relevant cases of interest: (i) For $3/16 - \xi < x$, $\nu(x)$ is purely imaginary, (ii) for $3/16 -\xi = x$, $\nu(x) = 0$ and (iii) for $3/16 -\xi > x$, $\nu(x)$ is real.
### Case (i) $x \in \mathbb{R}^+ \cap (3/16-\xi, \infty) $
In this case, we choose the square root branch such that $\nu(x) = {{\rm i}}\left(12(x + \xi) - 9/4\right)^{1/2}$. Set $y = 12(x + \xi) - 9/4$, then we need to find the roots of $g_\xi(y) = g_1(y,\xi)+g_2(y,\xi)$ for $y > 0$ and $\xi < y/12 + 3/16$, where
$$\begin{aligned}
g_1(y,\xi) &= \psi\left({{\rm i}}y^{1/2}+\frac{3}{2}\right)+\psi\left(\frac{3}{2}-{{\rm i}}y^{1/2}\right) -\ln \left(-12 \xi +y+\frac{9}{4}\right) \label{g1}\\
g_2(y,\xi) &= \frac{48}{4 y+1} \left(+\frac{360 (1-3 \xi ) \xi -29}{45 (-48 \xi +4 y+9)}+\frac{1}{9} -\xi - \frac{\alpha_\mu(\xi)}{4} \right). \label{g2}\end{aligned}$$
The course of action is to analyse the parameter space that allows for roots of $g_\xi$ to exist by examining the behaviour of the functions $g_1$ and $g_2$.
Let us begin by analysing $g_1$. At fixed $y$, $g_1$ is an increasing function of $\xi$ in the relevant domain. It follows from lemma \[Lem\] in appendix \[App:A\] that the function $g_1$ is bounded as follows $$\begin{aligned}
|g_1(y, \xi)| \leq \frac{3}{y + 9/4} + \left|\ln \left(y+\frac{9}{4}\right) -\ln \left(-12 \xi +y+\frac{9}{4}\right)\right|.
\label{Ineq}\end{aligned}$$
It follows from bound [^4] and by studying the definition of $g_1$, eq. , that for $\xi \neq 0$ at large values of $y$, the sign of $g_1$ is ${\rm sgn}(g_1) = {\rm sgn}(\ln(y +9/4) - \ln(-12 \xi + y + 9/4))$. This implies that as $y\to \infty$, $g_1(y, \xi) = O(1/y)$ and the limit is approached logarithmically fast for $\xi \neq 0$ and polynomially fast for $\xi = 0$.
For $g_2$, defined by eq. , the sign of the function depends on the ambiguous function $\alpha_\mu$. First, notice that $g_2$ has a pole at $$y_{\rm r}= \frac{2160 \alpha_\mu \xi -405 \alpha_\mu +4320 \xi ^2-1140 \xi +64}{20 (9 \alpha_\mu +36 \xi -4)},$$ and hence we exclude this point from the ensuing analysis. Also, at fixed $\xi$, $|g_2|$ is a strictly decreasing function of $y$ bounded as $|g_2(y,\xi)| \leq A/y^2 + B/y$, with $A,B \in \mathbb{R}^+$, and hence as $y \to \infty$, $g_2 = O(1/y)$, and the limit is approached polynomially fast. Further, at large $y$, $y \gg 1$, it holds that sgn$(g_2) = $sgn$(1/9 - \xi - \alpha_\mu(\xi)/4)$, and for $|\alpha_\mu| < |-4 \xi + 4/9|$, sgn$(g_2) = $sgn$(1/9 - \xi)$. In particular, in this case, $g_2 > 0$ if $ \xi < 1/9$ and $g_2 < 0$ if $\xi > 1/9$ for $y \gg 1$.
It follows from the bounds and the behaviour of the function $g_2$, eq. , that at fixed $\xi$ the curves defined by $y \mapsto g_1(y,\xi)$ and $y \mapsto -g_2(y,\xi)$ may intersect in the relevant domain, and hence $g_\xi$ has roots, which are in turn identified with semi-classical solutions in de Sitter spacetime.
From this point, a numerical analysis can be carried out to find solutions. In particular, for $|\alpha_\mu(\xi))| < 4/9$, the minimally coupled field, $\xi = 0$ falls in the case $g_1(y,\xi)<0$ and $g_2(y,\xi) > 0$. We illustrate this particular case with $\alpha_\mu = 0$ for concreteness. In this case, one finds that $y_{\rm root} \approx 1.46912\times 10^{13}$ with an error term $\sim 10^{14}$, with $g(y_{\rm root}) \approx -9.23706 \times 10^{-14}$. This yields in turn that $$m^2 \simeq 4.89707 \times 10^{12} \Lambda, \text{ for } \xi = 0, \alpha_\mu(\xi) = 0.$$
We wish to emphasise that different values for $\alpha_\mu$ and $\xi$ will generally yield roots that fix the cosmological constant at different values.
### Case (ii) $x = 3/16-\xi > 0$
In case (ii), the curvature coupling is restricted to $\xi_c = 3/16 - x$ and we have to find the roots of $$\begin{aligned}
f_{\xi_c}(x) & = +24 x+\frac{17}{1440 x}-\log (12 x)-\frac{8}{3} +2 \psi \left(\frac{3}{2}\right) -12 \alpha_\mu(3/16-x)\end{aligned}$$ for $x >0$. The existence of roots for $f_{\xi_c}$ strongly depends on the ambiguous function, $\alpha_\mu$. For concreteness, we wish to explore constant-$\alpha_\mu$ solutions. Hence, we set $\alpha_\mu \in \mathbb{R}$.
First, notice that $\lim_{x \to 0^+} f_{\xi_c}(x) \to + \infty$ and $\lim_{x \to \infty} f_{\xi_c}(x) \to + \infty$. Second, analysing the first and second derivatives of $f_{\xi_c}$, one can verify that a minimum is located at $x = x_{\rm min} = 1/720 (15 + 4 \sqrt(30))$, and we have that $f(x_{\rm min}) = -12 \alpha_\mu +4 \sqrt{\frac{2}{15}}+\frac{4}{3}-2 \gamma +\log \left(\frac{1}{68} \left(4 \sqrt{30}-15\right)\right)$, where $\gamma$ is Euler’s gamma.
Hence, there exist solutions to the semi-classical equations if $12 \alpha_\mu \geq 4 \sqrt{\frac{2}{15}}+\frac{4}{3}-2 \gamma +\log \left(\frac{1}{68} \left(4 \sqrt{30}-15\right)\right)$. In the case of equality, there is exactly one solution at with $m^2 = 4 x_{\rm min} \Lambda$. Otherwise, for each value of $\alpha_\mu$ such that $12 \alpha_\mu > 4 \sqrt{\frac{2}{15}}+\frac{4}{3}-2 \gamma +\log \left(\frac{1}{68} \left(4 \sqrt{30}-15\right)\right)$, there are exactly two solutions, one with $m^2 < 4 x_{\rm min} \Lambda$ and one with $m^2 > 4 x_{\rm min} \Lambda$.
### Case (iii) $0< x < 3/16 - \xi$
Set $z = -12 (x + \xi) + 9/4$ and define for $z \in \mathbb{R}^+ \cup (-12 \xi, -12 \xi + 9/4)$ $$\begin{aligned}
h(z,\xi)& = \psi\left(\frac{3}{2}-\sqrt{z}\right)+\psi\left(\frac{3}{2} + \sqrt{z}\right) -\log \left( \frac{9}{4}-z-12 \xi \right) \nonumber \\
& + \left(\frac{1}{12} \left(\frac{9}{4}-z\right)-\frac{1}{6}\right)^{-1} \left(\frac{1-1080 \left(\xi -\frac{1}{6}\right)^2}{2160 \left(\frac{1}{12} \left(\frac{9}{4}-z\right)-\xi \right)} +\frac{1}{9} -\xi -\frac{\alpha_\mu }{4}\right)\end{aligned}$$
It follows from the roots and poles of the digamma function, which is holomorphic on $\mathbb{C} \backslash -\mathbb{N}_0$, and for which countably many roots exits on the negative axis between the poles, that for sufficiently large, negative $\xi$ there are several roots for $h$ that define solutions to the semi-classical problem, which can be explored numerically, and in turn fix the admissible values of $\Lambda$ in terms of $m^2$ and $\xi$.
Final remarks {#sec:Remarks}
=============
We have proposed that, when taking the semi-classical Einstein field equations coupled to quantum matter seriously, the value of the cosmological constant will be determined by the field equations in terms of the parameters of the theory – the mass and curvature coupling in the case of the Klein-Gordon field – up to well-known ambiguities. In this sense, the “very-small" observed cosmological constant of the universe should be constrained by the semi-classical field equations sourced by the stress-energy tensor of the standard model of particle physics, pressumably on a FLRW background to a good approximation, similarly to what occurs in the models that we have studied.
In our Klein-Gordon model, the common folklore that the “bare" value of the cosmological constant must have a very large contribution from quantum fields that is then cancelled by a fine-tuned counterterm to yield a small “renormalised" cosmological constant plays no rôle in the calculations. Indeed, if one wishes to interpret our results in terms of bare and renormalised quantities, one could interpret semi-classical gravity as providing the renormalised $\Lambda = \Lambda_{\rm ren}$ directly. Much like the bare (formally diverging) stress-energy tensor, the bare cosmological constant plays no rôle in the semi-classical gravity equations. Hence, from this viewpoint, the [*old*]{} cosmological constant problem in its standard formulation [@Weinberg:1988cp] is not present, cf. the second paragraph in the Introduction. Further, this letter provides counter-evidence that one could estimate the value of $\Lambda$ to be large. As we exemplified in Sec. \[sec:Solutions\], for massless fields, the cosmological constant can take any positive value, while for a massive, minimally-coupled field we have the ratio $m^2/\Lambda \sim 10^{12}$.
In reaching these conclusions, Wald’s renormalisation axioms for the stress-energy tensor play a crucial rôle. Indeed, if the fourth axiom is not imposed, the right-hand side of eq. need not vanish, and one is left with an expression that is quite familiar in the literature of the cosmological constant problem, cf. [@Martin:2012bt Eq. (89) and (96)] up to the ambiguous term proportional to $\alpha_4$. This leads to an important change in the analysis of solutions. Consider the massive case (i). In this case, $g_2$ will not asymptote to zero as $y \to \infty$, but to a constant, changing importantly our results. In any case, in view of [@Martin:2012bt Eq. (89) and (96)] and of our results, it is clear that the cosmological constant is [*pure ambiguity*]{} in the framework of [@Martin:2012bt] and that the semi-classical equations can partially fix this ambiguity.
The above observations connect the cosmological constant problem, in the sense of the vacuum energy yielding a large contribution, with the violation of Wald’s stress-energy renormalisation axioms.
We have not mentioned anything so far about the [*new*]{} cosmological constant problem (see e.g. [@Padilla:2015aaa Sec. 2.3]), as this is an interacting theory problem. For addressing such a matter, perhaps modern techniques of perturbation theory in curved spacetimes should be useful [@Rejzner].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The author thanks Claudio Dappiaggi for a useful email exchange, in which ref. [@Dappiaggi:2008mm] was pointed to the author, and Daniel Sudarsky and Jorma Louko for stimulating conversations. The author is thankful towards Igor Khavkine for a fruitful email exchange concerning renormalisation ambiguities. This work is supported by a DGAPA-UNAM Postdoctoral Fellowship.
A lemma for the digamma function {#App:A}
================================
\[Lem\] Let $z \in \mathbb{C}$, such that $a = \Re z > 0$ and let $b = \Im z$. The following bound holds for the digamma function, $\psi:\mathbb{C} \to \mathbb{C}$, $$\begin{aligned}
|\psi(z) + \psi(\overline{z}) - \ln (z \overline{z})| \leq \frac{2 a}{a^2 + b^2} \end{aligned}$$
Using the representation $\psi(z) = \ln z + \int_0^\infty \! dt \, \left(\frac{1}{t} - \frac{1}{1-{{\rm e}}^{-t}} \right) {{\rm e}}^{-t z} dt$, we have that $\psi(z) + \psi(\overline{z}) = \ln(z \overline{z}) + \int_0^\infty \! dt \, \left(\frac{1}{t} - \frac{1}{1-{{\rm e}}^{-t}} \right) \left( {{\rm e}}^{-t z} + {{\rm e}}^{-t \overline{z}} \right) dt$. Rearranging ${{\rm e}}^{-t z} + {{\rm e}}^{-t \overline{z}} = 2 {{\rm e}}^{-a t} \cos(b t)$ and using the inequalities $-1 \leq 1/t - 1/\left(1-{{\rm e}}^t\right) \leq -1/2$ for $t \in \mathbb{R}^+$, one can write $\left| \int_0^\infty \! dt \, \left(\frac{1}{t} - \frac{1}{1-{{\rm e}}^{-t}} \right) \left( {{\rm e}}^{t z} + {{\rm e}}^{t \overline{z}} \right) dt \right| \leq 2 \left| \int_0^\infty \! dt \, {{\rm e}}^{-a t} \cos(b t) dt \right|$. The integral on the right-hand side can be evaluated directly, yielding $$\begin{aligned}
\left| \int_0^\infty \! dt \, \left(\frac{1}{t} - \frac{1}{1-{{\rm e}}^{-t}} \right) \left( {{\rm e}}^{t z} + {{\rm e}}^{t \overline{z}} \right) dt \right| \leq \frac{2 a}{a^2 + b^2},\end{aligned}$$ which yields the desired result.
[99]{}
S. Weinberg, “The Cosmological Constant Problem”, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**61**]{} (1989) 1. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.61.1 A. Padilla, “Lectures on the Cosmological Constant Problem”, arXiv:1502.05296 \[hep-th\]. J. Martin, “Everything You Always Wanted To Know About The Cosmological Constant Problem (But Were Afraid To Ask)”, Comptes Rendus Physique [**13**]{} (2012) 566 doi:10.1016/j.crhy.2012.04.008 \[arXiv:1205.3365 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. C. Dappiaggi, K. Fredenhagen and N. Pinamonti, “Stable cosmological models driven by a free quantum scalar field”, Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{} (2008) 104015 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.104015 \[arXiv:0801.2850 \[gr-qc\]\]. R. M. Wald, [*Quantum Field Theory in Curved Space-Time and Black Hole Thermodynamics*]{} (University of Chicago Press, 1994). V. Moretti, “Comments on the stress energy tensor operator in curved space-time”, Commun. Math. Phys. [**232**]{} (2003) 189 doi:10.1007/s00220-002-0702-7 \[gr-qc/0109048\]. S. M. Christensen, “Vacuum Expectation Value of the Stress Tensor in an Arbitrary Curved Background: The Covariant Point Separation Method”, Phys. Rev. D [**14**]{} (1976) 2490. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.14.2490 R. M. Wald, “Trace Anomaly of a Conformally Invariant Quantum Field in Curved Space-Time”, Phys. Rev. D [**17**]{} (1978) 1477. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.17.1477 Y. Decanini and A. Folacci, “Hadamard renormalization of the stress-energy tensor for a quantized scalar field in a general spacetime of arbitrary dimension”, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{} (2008) 044025 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.044025 \[gr-qc/0512118\]. [@Hollands:2001nf] S. Hollands and R. M. Wald, “Local Wick polynomials and time ordered products of quantum fields in curved space-time”, Commun. Math. Phys. [**223**]{} (2001) 289 doi:10.1007/s002200100540 \[gr-qc/0103074\]. S. Hollands and R. M. Wald, “Existence of local covariant time ordered products of quantum fields in curved space-time”, Commun. Math. Phys. [**231**]{} (2002) 309 doi:10.1007/s00220-002-0719-y \[gr-qc/0111108\]. I. Khavkine and V. Moretti, “Analytic Dependence is an Unnecessary Requirement in Renormalization of Locally Covariant QFT”, Commun. Math. Phys. [**344**]{} (2016) no.2, 581 doi:10.1007/s00220-016-2618-7 \[arXiv:1411.1302 \[gr-qc\]\]. S. Hollands and R. M. Wald, “Conservation of the stress tensor in interacting quantum field theory in curved spacetimes”, Rev. Math. Phys. [**17**]{} (2005) 227 doi:10.1142/S0129055X05002340 \[gr-qc/0404074\]. B. S. DeWitt and R. W. Brehme, “Radiation damping in a gravitational field”, Annals Phys. [**9**]{} (1960) 220. doi:10.1016/0003-4916(60)90030-0 T. S. Bunch and P. C. W. Davies, “Quantum Field Theory in de Sitter Space: Renormalization by Point Splitting”, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A [**360**]{} (1978) 117. doi:10.1098/rspa.1978.0060 Y. Decanini and A. Folacci, “Off-diagonal coefficients of the Dewitt-Schwinger and Hadamard representations of the Feynman propagator”, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{} (2006) 044027 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.044027 \[gr-qc/0511115\]. K. Rejzner, [*Perturbative Algebraic Quantum Field Theory*]{} (Springer, 2016).
[^1]: [[email protected]]{}
[^2]: The interested reader might also look at [@Moretti:2001qh; @Christensen:1976vb; @Wald:1978pj; @Decanini:2005eg].
[^3]: Since we are interested in de Sitter spacetime, we have ommitted the terms that appear as derivatives of the curvature.
[^4]: In fact, it seems to us from numerical analysis that it can be shown that $\psi(z) + \psi(\overline{z}) < \ln (z \overline{z})$, but we haven’t been able to provide an analytic argument.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- Pradosh Kumar Mohapatra
title: Fully Sequential and Distributed Dynamic Algorithms for Minimum Spanning Trees
---
=1.5em
Introduction
============
The [*minimum spanning tree*]{} or $MST$ problem is one of the simplest and best-studied optimization problems in computer science. Given an undirected, connected graph $G$ with $n$ vertices and $m$ weighted edges, the $MST$ problem is to find a spanning tree, i.e., a tree that connects all the vertices of $G$ using only edges of $G$ of minimum total weight. The history of $MST$-construction algorithms goes way back to early nineteenth century (Boruvka in 1926 and Varník in 1930). But the most famous and classical algorithms studied today are the 1950’s $MST$ algorithms by Kruskal [@CLR] and Prim [@CLR].
Spanning trees are also essential in distributed computation. Processes are connected through an arbitrary communication network, which is essentially a graph. Spanning trees can enforce synchronization on this network and thus enable centralized applications to run on asynchronous networks. They are needed in synchronization protocols and distributed algorithms, such as breadth-first search. We can also think of problems in distributed databases as deadlock resolution, or the replacement of a malfunctioning central lock-coordinator. In all these cases, instead of using an arbitrary spanning tree for the broadcast of messages, we would prefer an $MST$ that minimizes some cost function. Several distributed algorithms have been presented, the pioneering one being [@Gallager].
While this “easy” optimization problem is an interesting area to look into, there is another more interesting field associated with it that has gained wide attention and interest in the last decade, namely dynamic $MST$ problem.In many applications of the $MST$, including communication networks, assembly planning, and VLSI design, the underlying graphs are subject to discrete changes, such as additions or deletions of edges and/or vertices. The goal of the dynamic $MST$ algorithm is to update efficiently the minimum spanning tree after dynamic changes, rather than having to recompute it from scratch each time. Given its powerful versatility, it is not surprising that dynamic $MST$ algorithms and the associated data structures are more difficult to design and analyze than the static counterpart.
For the sequential dynamic $MST$ problem, there have been considerable progress over the last decade. The most prominent among them are (1) dynamic trees data structure of Sleator and Tarjan [@Sleator], (2) topology trees data structure of Frederickson [@Frederickson], and (3) Sparsification technique suggested by Eppstein [@Eppstein]. While the dynamic tree solution is very efficient in maintaining the $MST$ in case of edge deletions(a non-tree edge decreasing weight as will be seen later), topology trees are more general and solve both edge insertions and deletions. The sparsification technique is a [*black box*]{} approach to reduce the time complexity of any such algorithm.
While the sequential dynamic $MST$ problem is a rich subject, to our knowledge, there have not been many distributed algorithms for the dynamic $MST$ problem till date. Pawagi and Ramakrishnan [@Pawagi] were the first ones to give a parallel algorithm to the problem which runs in $O(\log n)$ time using $n^2$ $CREW$ $PRAM$s. The main aim of this term paper is to shed some light towards the dynamic computation of $MST$s in distributed networks. Initially, we give an efficient algorithm for the sequential dynamic MST problem based on some important properties of graphs and MSTs that we have found. Then, starting with an attempt to convert the sequential dynamic algorithms to distributed algorithms, we present new techniques for the problem.
The rest of the document is organized as follows. In chapter 2, we provide the background and a set of preliminary definitions for the general $MST$. Chapter 3 discusses the early sequential algorithms to computer $MST$s, namely the well-known Prim’s and Kruskal’s algorithms. In chapter 4, we study the distributed algorithms for computing $MST$s: the first efficient algorithm by Gallager, Humblet, and Spira [@Gallager], node counting improvement by Chin and Ting [@Chin] and the optimal algorithm by Awerbuch [@Awerbuch]. In chapter 5, we explain sequential dynamic MST algorithms. Starting with Frederickson’s topology tree [@Frederickson] description and Eppstein’s sparsification technique [@Eppstein], we give our version of the sequential MST algorithm. Chapter 6 explores the distributed dynamic MST problem. We first give a brief idea of the parallel algorithm developed by Pawagi and Ramakrishnan [@Pawagi] for solving the problem, and then outline the algorithm steps for efficiently computing $MST$ dynamically in a distributed system. We conclude the paper with chapter 7.
Background and Preliminary Definitions
======================================
Notations and Conventions
-------------------------
$G\ =\ (V,E)$ denotes the undirected input graph, and $M\ =\ (V,E')$ denotes the correct minimum spanning tree. $G$ has $n$ vertices, and $m$ edges. We standardly assume that $G$ is connected, so $m\ \geq\ n-1$. An edge $e\ \in\ E$ has weight $w(e)$. If $e$’s endpoints in the graph are $u$ and $v$, we may sometimes denote it by $(u,v)$. For simplification, we assume the edge weights are distinct real numbers.
Graph Theory Definitions
------------------------
A [**[*cut*]{}**]{}$(S,V-S)$ of an undirected graph $G(V,E)$ is a partition of $V$ into two sets $S$ and $V-S$. We say that an edge $(u,v)\ \in\ E$ [**[*crosses*]{}**]{} the cut $(S,V-S)$ if one of its endpoints is in $S$ and the other is in $V-S$. An edge $e$ is a [**[*light edge*]{}**]{} across a cut if its weight is the minimum of any edge crossing the cut.
Properties of Spanning Trees
----------------------------
A spanning tree, $T$, is defined as a connected acyclic spanning subgraph of $G$. [*Connected*]{} means that $T$ includes at least on edge crossing each cut of $G$. [*Acyclic*]{} means that $T$ excludes at least one edge from each cycle of $G$. A minimum spanning tree, $M$, is a spanning tree of $G$ whose edges have minimal total weight. We will use the notation $w(M)$ to denote this total weight.
Properties of the MST
---------------------
Under our assumption that all edges have distinct weights, the minimum spanning tree $M$ has the following well-known complementary properties:
- [**Strong Cut Property**]{}: $e$ $\in\ M\ \Leftrightarrow$ $e$ is the lightest edge across some cut of $G$.
- [**Strong Cycle Property**]{}: $e$ $\notin\ M\ \Leftrightarrow$ $e$ is the heaviest edge on some cycle of $G$.
Either property implies at once that $M$ is unique.
Sequential MST Algorithms
=========================
All sequential MST algorithms are rapid methods for ruling edges in or out of $M$. We will consider two such classical algorithms, Kruskal’s algorithm and Prim’s algorithm. As we will see, these two algorithms are instances of a “generalized greedy algorithm” for constructing $MST$s. It initializes a forest $F$ to $(V, \emptyset)$, and adds edges one at a time till $F$ is connected. Every edge that it adds is the lightest edge leaving some component $T$ of $F$.
Kruskal’s Algorithm
-------------------
This classical algorithm derives directly from the properties of the $MST$ discussed above. We consider each edge $e$, and use the cut property and cycle property to decide correctly whether $e\ \in\ M$. If so, we add it to a growing forest $F\ \subseteq\ M$; if not, we discard it. More formally, the following is the algorithm:
begin $F\ \leftarrow\ \emptyset$ /\* the growing forest which will eventually be M \*/ $A\ \leftarrow\ \emptyset$ /\* for cycle detection, usually implemented by the union-find algorithm \*/ sort the edges of $E$ by nondecreasing weight $w$. for each edge $(u,v)\ \in\ E$, in order of nondecreasing weight. if $u$ and $v$ both do not belong to $A$ $F\ \leftarrow\ F\ \cup\ \{(u,v)\}$ $A\ \leftarrow\ A\ \cup\ \{u\}\ \cup\ \{v\}$ end if. end for. end.
### Analysis
The sorting procedure in line $4$ takes $O(m \log m)$. The other main part is the loop at lines $5-9$. There are $m$ iterations of the loop, and at each iteration, the main procedure is to determine for arbitrary edge $(u,v)$ whether there is already a $u\ \ldots\ v$ path in $F$. Using the union-find algorithm, this takes $\alpha(m,n)$ time where $\alpha$ is the functional inverse of Ackermann’s function. Total time in the loop at lines $5-9$ is $O(m \alpha(m,n)$.
Since $\alpha(m,n)\ =\ O(\log m)$, the total running time of Kruskal’s algorithm is $O(m \log m)$.
Prim’s Algorithm
----------------
Like Kruskal’s, Prim’s algorithm is also a special case of the generic greedy algorithm. However, rather than growing many trees simultaneously, it devotes all its energy to growing a single tree $T$ of the forest $F$.
begin $F\ \leftarrow\ \emptyset$ /\* the growing forest which will eventually be M \*/ $u\ \leftarrow\ $an arbitrary start vertex in $V$. repeat $(n-1)$ times $e\ \leftarrow\ $ the lightest edge of $G$ leaving $F$. (i.e. having just one endpoint in $F$). $F\ =\ F\ \cup\ \{e\}$ end repeat end
### Implementation and Analysis
The key to implementing Prim’s algorithm efficiently is to make it easy to find the lightest edge leaving $F$. In a typical implementation, all vertices [*not*]{} in the tree reside in a priority queue $Q$ based on a [*key*]{} field. On every iteration, we $EXTRACT-MIN$ the vertex $u$ that is closest to $F$ and add the lightest edge from $u$ to $F$. When the algorithm terminates, the priority queue $Q$ is empty; and $F$ is the $MST$ for the graph.
So the performance of Prim’s algorithm depends on how we implement the priority queue $Q$. The asymptotic running time comes to be the best when it is implemented by Fibonacci heaps. In a Fibonacci heap, we can perform the $EXTRACT-MIN$ operation in $O(\log n)$ amortized time. It can be verfied easily that using Fibonacci heaps, the total running time of Prim’s algorithm comes to $O(m + n \log n)$.
Distributed MST Algorithms
==========================
The study of algorithms for a sequential computer has been a highly successful endeavor, providing a common framework for devising algorithms and comparing their performance. The goal of distributed algorithms, or distributed computing in a general sense, is to accomplish the same for distributed systems. Unfortunately, because of the wide differences between systems, there is not a universally accepted model of computation. Nonetheless, since the late 70s, there has been intensive research in applying various theoretical paradigms to distributed systems. As our main aim is to devise and analyze distributed dynamic algorithms, we will discuss more on the distributed static $MST$ algorithms than we did for their sequential counterparts.
Model of Computation
--------------------
We consider message passing systems with no failures. In a message passing system, processors communicate by sending messages over communication channels, where each channel provides a bidirectional connection between two specific processors. The pattern of connections provided by the channels describes the [*topology*]{} of the system. The topology is represented by an undirected graph in which each node represents a processor, and an edge is present between two nodes if and only if there is a channel between the corresponding processors. Furthermore, we assume our timing model to be asynchronous, i.e. there is no fixed bound on how long it takes for a message to be delivered or how much time elapses between consecutive steps of a processor. An algorithm for such a message passing system consists of a local program for each processor in the system. It provides the ability for the processor to perform local computation and to send messages to and receive messages from each of its neighbors in the given topology.
Complexity Measures
-------------------
We will consider two complexity measures: [*message complexity*]{}, and [*time complexity*]{}. The message complexity of an algorithm is the meximum, over all [admissible executions]{} [@Attiya] of the algorithm, of the total number of messages sent. As there is no bound on the message delay in an asynchronous model, we will assume that the maximum message delay in any execution is one unit of time and define the time complexity as the maximum time until termination among all [*timed admissible executions*]{} [@Attiya] assuming the above.
Distributed MST Problem Model
-----------------------------
The distributed system, as described above, is modeled by an arbitrary undirected, connected topology graph $G(V,E)$ with $n$ nodes and $m$ edges. With each edge $e\ \in\ E$, we associate a weight $w(e)$, a unique real number. The system is asynchronous and we further assume that the edges follow a FIFO policy, i.e. messages arrive in the order they were sent. At the beginning of the algorithm, a processor knows only the weights of the edges adjacent to it. Processors start the algorithm either spontaneously or upon receiving a message from a neighbor. It is necessary to assume that either edges have distinct weights or nodes have unique id’s. Otherwise, there is no distributed algorithm for finding an $MST$, because in that case, it is similar to a non-uniform anonymous algorithm for leader election in an asynchronous rings; which has an impossiblity result [@Attiya].
Preliminaries
-------------
Let a [*fragment*]{} of an $MST$ be a connected subgraph of it. An [*outgoing edge*]{} of a fragment is an edge with one adjacent node in the fragment and the other adjacent node not in the fragment. Define the [*minimum outgoing edge(MOE)*]{} of a fragment to be the outgoing edge of the fragment with minimum weight.
\[fragmentlemma\] Let $G(V,E)$ be a connected graph with distinct weights. Let $M$ be its unique $MST$. For any fragment $F$ of $M$, the $MOE$ of $F$ is in $M$.
[**[*Proof:*]{}**]{} By contradiction. Let $e$ be the $MOE$ of $F$. Then $w(e)\ <\ w(e')$ for any other $e'\ \in\ F$. Assume that $e\ \notin\ M$. Then $M\ \cup\ \{e\}$ contains a cycle (addition of an additional edge to a tree). This cycle contains $e$ and at least one additional edge of the fragment $F$, say $e'$. Then $M\ \cup\ \{e\}\ \setminus\ \{e'\}$ forms a spanning tree and $w(M\ \cup\ \{e\}\ \setminus\ \{e'\})\ <\ w(M)$. That defies the fact that $M$ is the unique $MST$. A contradiction.
All the distributed algorithms proposed so far for the $MST$ problem have the same general structure as the sequential algorithms. Not surprising, we can, in the same way, define a “generic distributed MST algorithm”:At the beginning, each node is a separate fragment. In each stage of the algorithm, each fragment finds its $MOE$, and attempts to combine with the fragment at the other end of the edge. By \[fragmentlemma\], such a combination yields a new bigger fragment of the $MST$. The algorithm ends when there is only one fragment, which is the $MST$. It differs from its sequential counterpart in the parallelism of the fragments’ combinations.
The Pioneering Work of Gallager, Humblet, and Spira [@Gallager]
----------------------------------------------------------------
The basic steps of the algorithm are as follows:
1. Each process starts the algorithm as an individual fragment.
2. After a new fragment is created, it chooses its $MOE$.
3. The fragment tries to join with the fragment at the other end of the chosen $MOE$ to form a bigger fragment.
4. This process continues till there can no more be $MOE$s chosen, which means that there is only one fragment and that is the minimum spanning tree.
Two main problems with these simple-looking steps are (1) [*coordination*]{}: the requirement that all nodes of a fragment coordinate their actions, i.e. they have to cooperate in order to find out the fragment’s minimum outgoing edge, (2) [*synchronization*]{}: two nodes can be in the same fragment, but not be aware of this fact yet. This will lead to forming cycles.\
One of the major innovations of the paper [@Gallager] was the concept of a level. Levels characterize fragments and are defined as follows: $$\begin{array}{l}
0\ if\ the\ fragment\ contains\ a\ single\ node \\ (L+1)\ if\ two\ fragments\ of\ level\ L\ join \\ L_1\ if\ two\ fragments\ of\ level\ L_1\ and\ L_2\ join\ and\ L_1\ >\ L_2
\end{array}$$ The edges on which the last join of fragments takes place becomes the [*core*]{} of the new fragment and the two nodes adjacent to that edge coordinate the action of finding the next [*MOE*]{} and joining with another fragment.
### Detailed description of the algorithm
During the algorithm, a node is in one of the following states:
- [*Sleeping*]{}: the initial state
- [*Find*]{}: while participating in a fragment’s search for $MOE$.
- [*Found*]{}: otherwise.
Each node classifies its adjacent edges to be in one of the following states:
- [*Branch*]{}: if the edge belongs to the $MST$ of the current fragment.
- [*Rejected*]{}: if the edge is not a branch, and connects to another node in the same fragment.
- [*Basic*]{}: otherwise, i.e. unexplored.
The algorithm uses the following messages:
- [*Initiate(w, L, s)*]{}: Sent by core nodes (nodes adjacent to the core edge) to nodes in the fragment, right after the creation of the fragment asking them to participate in the search for $MOE$. $w$ is the weight of the core, $L$ is the level, $s$ is the state of the core.
- [*Test(w, L)*]{}: Sent by a node in state Find over its minimum Basic edge to the node at the other end of the edge to find out if it is an outgoing edge. $w$ is the weight of the core, $L$ is the level.
- [*Reject()*]{}: Sent by a node as a response to a Test message, if it arrives from a node in the same fragment.
- [*Accept()*]{}: Sent by a node as a response to a Test message, if it arrives from a node not in the same fragment.
- [*Report(w)*]{}: Sent by a node $v$ to its parent $u$ in the spanning tree of the fragment during the search for $MOE$. $w$ is the weight of the local $MOE$ found by $v$.
- [*Change-core()*]{}: Sent by the core nodes to the node adjacent to the new $MOE$ of the fragment found.
- [*Connect(w, L)*]{}: Sent by the node adjacent to the $MOE$ of the fragment to the node on the other end of this edge, requesting a connection (a join).
In the initial state, each node is in [*Sleeping*]{} state. A node that spontaneously wakes up, or is awakened by receiving a message is a fragment of level $0$, and is in [*Find*]{} state. After the initial state, the later executions of the algorithm follow an iteration of the following two basic procedures:
- Finding Procedure
- Joining Procedure
[**Finding Procedure**]{}\
$\star$ The core nodes broadcast an [*Initiate(w, L, Find)*]{} message on the outward Branches where $(w,L)$ is the identity of the fragment. $\star$ A node v on receiving an Initiate message does the following: $\diamond$ Changes to Find state. $\diamond$ Updates local information about its fragment: the core and the level. $\diamond$ Records the direction towards the core (i.e. the edge on which it received the message) so as to create a “parent-child” hierarchy. $\diamond$ Forwards the Initiate message on the outward Branches, if any. $\diamond$ Starts the MOE search procedure.
$\star$ A node u in fragment $F_1$ with id $(w_1,L_1)$ picks its minimum Basic edge, e, and sends on it a $Test(w_1,L_1)$ message. $\star$ A node v in fragment $F_2$ with id ($w_2$ ,$L_2$) on receiving a $Test$ message does the following: $\diamond$ If ($w_1$,$L_1$) == ($w_2$ ,$L_2$), e is not an outgoing edge. v sends a Reject() message to u; both u and v mark e as $Rejected$. $u$ goes to step 1. $\diamond$ If $(w_1,L_1)\ \neq\ (w_2, L_2)$ and $L_2\ \geq \ L_1$, $v$ sends Accept() message to u. u marks e as its local MOE. $\diamond$ If $(w_1,L_1)\ \neq\ (w_2 ,L_2)$ and $L_2\ <\ L_1$, $v$ does not reply to $u$’s message, until one of the above conditions is satisfied. This blocks $u$, since $u$ does not send a Report message until it gets a reply for its Test message. This also blocks the whole process of finding the $MOE$ of $F_1$.
$\star$ A leaf node sends Report(w) to its parent node, where $w$ is weight of local MOE. If the node has no outward Branches, then it sends $Report(\infty)$ $\star$ An internal node u waits till it receives $Report$ messages on all its outward Branches, finds the minimum weight, $w$, among them including weight of its own local $MOE$, and sends a $Report(w)$ to its parent. If $w$ was received in a $Report$ message on edge $e$, it marks $e$ as the best edge. $\star$ The core nodes decide which edge is the $MOE$. The core node sends a $Change-core()$ message along the path of best edges, till it reaches the chosen node, which does not have a best edge. Along the path, the “parent-child” pointers get reversed. $\star$ The chosen node sends a $Connect(w,L)$ message over its $MOE$, and denotes the edge as a $Branch$.
\
Suppose $u$ on fragment $F_1 (V_1,E_1)$ with id $(w_1,L_1)$ sends a $Connect$ message to node $v$ on fragment $F_2 (V_2 ,E_2)$ with id $(w_2 ,L_2)$ over edge $e$.
$\star$ If $L_2$ == $L_1$ and $v$ is going to send, or has already sent, a $Connect$ message to $u$ on $e$, then combination takes place. A new fragment $F$ with nodes $V_1 \cup V_2$ and edges $E_1 \cup E_2 \cup \{e\}$ is created. Level of $F$ is $L_1\ +\ 1$, core is $e$. Now the core nodes of the new fragment initiate another phase by sending an $Initiate(w(e), L_1 + 1, Find)$ message. In case $L_2$ == $L_1$, but the $MOE$s of $F_1$ and $F_2$ are different, $u$ waits till one of the conditions is satisfied. $\star$ If $L_2\ >\ L_1$, then absorption of $F_1$ into $F_2$ takes place. Level of the expanded fragment is still $L_2$, and its core is the core of $F_2$ . $\star$ The situation in which $L_2\ <\ L_1$ is impossible, since a $Connect$ message is never sent in such a case.
[**Correctness Proof**]{}
The algorithm is deadlock free i.e. they do not create any cycle.
[**Proof:**]{} Decisions within a fragment are taken in a centralized way:it decides to join to one fragment at a time.
Assume a cycle of fragments exists as shown in figure ref[nocycle]{}. It is obvious that a cycle would have to include an absorption, because combination is done only along common MOEs for both fragments. Assuming an absorption, say $F_C$ to $F_A$, assume $L_A > L_C$. Assume $F_B$ wants to join with $F_C$, then $L_B\ \geq \ L_C$. Obviously, $L_A\ >\ L_B$, and thus $F_A$ can neither do a combination or an absorption with $F_B$.\
\[levelfrag\] A fragment of level L contains at least $2^L$ nodes.
[**proof**]{}: The proof is by induction on L. Base case: Straightforward! A fragment of level 0 contains a single node. (by definition) Induction step: Assume the lemma holds for fragments of levels $ \leq \ (L-1)$. Consider a fragment $F$ of level $L$. $F$ was created by combining two fragments of level (L-1) and perhaps absorbing some smaller fragments. By the induction hypothesis, each one of the L-1 level fragments contains at least $2^{(L-1)}$ nodes. Thus F contains at least $(2^{(L-1)} + 2^{(L-1)})$ = $2^L$ nodes.
\[upperlevel\] $\log N$ is an upper bound on fragment levels.
[**Proof:**]{} Follows from the above lemma ref[levelfrag]{}.
Message Complexity of the algorithm is $O(E + N \log N)$
[**Proof:**]{}
1. Each edge is rejected only once, and each rejection requires two messages (two test messages or a test and a reject message). So there are at most $2E$ messages leading to edge rejection.
2. At each level, the number of messages that a node receives or transmits is bounded by a constant:
1. At each level, a node can receive at most one Initiate message and one Accept message.
2. It can transmit at most one successful Test message, one Report message, and one Change-core or Connect message.
3. Thus, each level introduces 5N messages.
3. According to the above theorem, maximum level is $\log N$ $\Rightarrow$ total number of other messages is $5N \log N$.
4. So communication complexity = $O(E + N \log N)$
\
Assume: All processors start simultaneously. Messages are delayed exactly one time unit. The algorithm is executed in rounds, as if the system is synchronous.
\[timeunit\] It takes at most $(5lN - 3N)$ time units until all nodes are at level $l$.
[**Proof:**]{} By induction on level number.\
- Base case: l = 1. To wake up all nodes originally, it takes at most (N-1) time units. By time N, each node sends a Connect message. By time 2N, each node must be at level 1 through the propagation of Initiate messages. (Imagine processors arranged in a straight line with decreasing weights as we go down the line!!).
- Induction Step: Assume the lemma holds good for level l.\
At level l, each node can send at most N Test messages. At the worst case, these will be answered before time $(5lN - N)$. (Imagine each node except the last sends a Reject message (time N), last node delays responding till its level increases to l (time $5lN - 3N$ by induction step.) and it receives an Initiate message updating its local information about level (time N). Total time = $N + 5lN - 3N + N = 5lN - N).)$\
Propagation of Report to Core, Change-core and Connect, and Initiate messages can take at most 3N time units. Total time = $5lN - N + 3N$ = $5lN + 5N - 3N$ = $5(l+1)N - 3N$. Hence proved.
Time Complexity is $O(N \log N)$.
[**Proof:**]{} Follows from lemma \[timeunit\] and theorem \[upperlevel\].\
\
We can prove the upper bound by the following example \[worstcase\]. Edge weights in the handle increase as one gets away from the head: all nodes in the handle will be in the same fragment at level 1. If processing the head requires $(\log N)/2$ levels, and at each level, one fragment joins the handle, time = $\Theta (N \log N)$
The node counting improvement [@Chin]
--------------------------------------
The major innovation of the algorithm is that it tries to keep the fragment level a better estimate of the fragment size. It is obvious that nay fragment of level $L$ must have at least $2^L$ nodes. However, this is just a lower bound of its size: the fragment may have many more nodes than $2^L$ if it has accepted a lot of submissions. The modified algorithm of Chin and Ting [@Chin] demands that $$\label{sizeequality}
2^L\ \leq\ size(F)\ <\ 2^{L+1}$$ Tracking the fragment size can be achieved by having the root count the $report$ messages it receives. More accurately, each $report$ message has a counter that is increased at each hop of the message. Each node adds the counters of all the messages that it receives. At the root, the level of the fragment is compared with the size. If $size(F)\ \geq\ 2^{L+1}$, then the level is increased till it satisfies \[sizeequality\]. Then an $initiate$ message is broadcasted and the procedure of finding the $MOE$ is repeated. This procedure is called [*Root Level Increase*]{}.
This procedure increases the efficiency of the algorithm to $\Theta(n.g(n))$ where $g(n)$ is the number of time the $\log$ function must be applied to $n$ to get a value less than or equal to $1$.
The optimal algorithm of Awerbuch [@Awerbuch]
----------------------------------------------
This is the first algorithm that achieved optimal bounds for both communication and time. The algorithm is divided into phases and parts as follows:
1. [*Counting Nodes Phase:*]{} In this auxiliary phase, the nodes of the network are counted and a spanning tree is found that helps in counting. Weights are neglected and the joining policy is changed so that each fragment joins along the edge that leads to a greater fragment. The communication and time complexity of this phase are $O(m+n \log (n))$ and $O(n)$ respectively. Having a spanning tree, the number of nodes in the network can be counted.
2. [*MST Phase:*]{} This phase is where the $MST$ is determined. It is divided into two parts:
- [*Fragment’s size:*]{} $0$ to $\frac{n}{\log (n)}$. In this part, the algorithm behaves exactly the same as GHS algorithm [@Gallager]. The complexity remains optimal because the algorithm ends when the sizes of fragments become $\frac{n}{\log (n)}$.
- [*Fragment’s size:*]{} $\frac{n}{\log (n)}$ to $n$. Here two new procedures are brought into action. (1) [*Root Update*]{} procedure. This resmbles the Root Level Increase procedure described in the previous section. The difference is that instead of counting the number of $report$ messages, the existence of “long” paths is detected. The $initiate$ message has a counter which is initialized to $2^{L+1}$ and is decreased at each hop. When the counter becomes negative, a message is sent back to the root. The level is increased by $1$ and a new $initiate$ message is issued. (2) [*Test Distance*]{} procedure. This procedure applies to fragments that have just submitted. The fragment tests to see if its distance from the new root is big enough to justify a level increase. Thus instead of staying idle, it manages to have its level increased in time related to the level.
It is worth mentioning that there are some cases where Awerbuch’s optimal algorithm [@Awerbuch] can create cycles or fails to achieve optimal time complexity. This fact has been shown in a paper by Faloutsos [@Faloutsos]. They have shown how to modify the algorithm to avoid these problems and demonstrate both the correctness and optimality of the revised algorithm.
Sequential Dynamic MST Algorithms
=================================
There are two fully dynamic data structures for the general problem of dynamic graph algorithms as defined in section \[introduction\]. They are (1) the dynamic trees of Sleator and Tarjan [@Sleator], and (2) the topology trees of Frederickson [@Frederickson]. Both data structures follow the common principles of partioning the tree into a set of vertex-disjoint fragments, and making the least amount of modifications to maintain those partions in case of graph changes. However, they are different in how this partition is chosen. We would like to mention here that the dynamic trees of Sleator and Tarjan [@Sleator] are more suited towards simpler dynamic graph problems like the dynamic expression trees, compression and expansion of edges etc. In fact, they can be used to solve the problem of maintaining $MST$ of a graph when cost of a nontree edge $(v,w)$ decreases in $O(\log n)$ time. On the other hand, the topology trees of Frederickson [@Frederickson] are used as the basic building blocks of dynamic graph problems, and in fact, we will use the same idea while giving one of our distributed dynamic MST algorithm. So we will study the topology trees in more detail. The dynamic trees of Sleator and Tarjan [@Sleator] are able to maintain a collection of rooted trees, each of whose edges has a real-valued cost, under an arbitrary sequence of the following operations:
[*maketree(v):*]{} = initialize a new tree consisting of a single vertex\
$v$ with cost $0$.\
[*findroot(v):*]{} return the root of the tree containing vertex $v$.\
[*findcost(v):*]{} return a vertex of minimum cost in the path from $v$ to\
$findroot(v)$.\
[*addcost(v, $\delta$):*]{} = add the real number $\delta$ to the cost of\
every edge in the path from $v$ to $findroot(v)$.\
[*link(v,w):*]{} = Merge the trees containing vertices $v$ and $w$ by\
inserting edge $(v,w)$.\
[*cut(v):*]{} = delete the edge leaving $v$, thus splitting into two the tree\
containing vertex $v$.\
[*evert(v):*]{} make $v$ the root of its tree.
Each of the above operations can be supported in $O(\log n)$ worst-case time.
[**Proof:**]{} See [@Sleator].\
Given these operations, we can solve the case of a nontree edge decreasing weight through the series of operations: $findcost(v)$, $cut(v)$, $link(v,w)$.
Clustering and Topology Trees
-----------------------------
Let $G(V,E)$ be a graph, with a designated spanning tree $M$. $Clustering$ is a method of partioning the vertex set $V$, into connected subtrees in $M$, so that each subtree is only adjacent to a few other subtrees. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to mention here that Frederickson’s techniques use graphs in which no vertex has degree greater than $3$. The paper also provides a transformation from any graph to such a structure [@Frederickson]. A [*vertex cluster*]{} with respect to the tree $M$ is a set of vertices that induces a connected subgraph on $M$. An edge is $incident$ to a cluster if exactly one of its end points is inside that cluster. Two clusters are $adjacent$ if there is a tree edge that is incident to both. A [*restricted partition of order z*]{} of G is a partition of its vertex set $V$ into $O(m/z)$ vertex clusters such that:
1. Each set in the partition yields a vertex cluster of external degree at most $3$.
2. Each cluster of external degree $3$ is of cardinality $1$.
3. Each cluster of external degree less that $3$ is of cardinality less than or equal to $z$.
4. No two adjacent clusters can be combined and still satisfy the above.
A restricted partition of order z can be found in linear time [@Frederickson]. We now discuss how to update the clusters of a restricted partition of order $z$ when the underlying graph is subject to updates. The basic update is a $swap(e,f)$: that is replace a tree edge $e$ by a non-tree edge $f$, yielding a new spanning tree. This is a basic update operation, because each edge insertion, deletion, and edge cost change causes at most one swap in a spanning tree. We do the following to maintain the clusters:
- remove $e$. It splits $M$ into two trees $M_1$, and $M_2$. $M_1$ and $M_2$ inherit all the clusters of $M$ and the following cases arise:
- if $e$ is entired contained in a cluster, that cluster is no long connected and therefore must be split. After the split, we must check whether each of the two resulting clusters can be merged with neighboring clusters in order to maintain codition (4) above.
- if $e$ is between two clusters, then no split is needed. However, since the tree degrees of the clusters containing the endpoints of $e$ have been decreased, we must check if each cluster should be combined with an adjacent cluster, again because of condition (3).
- add $f$. $M$ inherits all clusters from $M_1$ and $M_2$, and the following cases arise:
- $f$ increases the tree degree of a cluster from $1$ to $2$. In order to preserve condition (3) above, we must check if this cluster must be combined with the cluster newly adjacent to it.
- $f$ increases the tree degree of a cluster containing more than one vertex from $2$ to $3$. In order to satisfy condition (1), we have to split the cluster. After splitting, we have to again check if each cluster must be combined with an adjacent cluster.
A [*restricted multi-level partition*]{} consists of a collection of restricted partitions of $V$ satisfying the following:
1. The clusters at level $0$ (known as [*basic clusters*]{}) contain one vertex each.
2. The clusters at level $l\ \geq\ 1$ form a restricted partition with respect to the tree obtained after shrinking all the clusters at level $l-1$.
3. There is exactly one vertex cluster at the topmost level.
From the above definition, it follows that any cluster at level $l\ \geq\ 1$ is either (a) the union of two adjacent clusters of level $(l-1)$ such that the external degree of one cluster is $1$ or the external degree of both clusters is $2$, or (b) one cluster at level $(l-1)$. The [*topology tree*]{} is a hierarchical representation of $M$. Each level of the topology tree partitions the vertices of $M$ into connected subsets called [*clusters*]{}. More precisely, given a restricted multi-level partition for $M$, a [*topology tree*]{} for $M$ is a tree satisfying the following:
1. A topology tree node at level $l$ represents a vertex cluster at level $l$ in the restricted multi-level partition.
2. A node at level $l\ \geq\ 1$ has at most two children, representing the vertex clusters at level $l-1$ whose union gives the vertex cluster the node represents.
The update of a topology tree because of an edge swap can be supported in time $O(z+\log n)$.
[**Proof:**]{} For a proper proof of the theorem, see [@Frederickson]. We will give a brief idea of the proof. The update of a topology tree because of an edge swap in $T$ consists of two subtasks. First, a constant number of basic clusters (corresponding to leaves in the topology tree) have to be examined, and possibly updated. ($O(z)$). Second, the changes in these basic clusters percolate up in the topology tree, possibly causing vertex clusters in the multi-level partition to be regrouped in different ways. This involves a constant amount of work on at most $O(\log n)$ topology tree nodes.\
A [*2-dimensional topology tree*]{} for a topology tree is defined as follows: For every pair of nodes $V_{\alpha}$ and $V_{\beta}$ at the same level in the topology tree, there is a node labeled $V_{\alpha} \times V_{\beta}$ in the [*2-dimensional topology tree*]{}. Let $E_M$ be the tree edges of $G$. A node $V_{\alpha} \times V_{\beta}$ represents all the nontree edges of $G$(i.e. the edges of $E \setminus E_M$) having one end point in $V_{\alpha}$ and the other in $V_{\beta}$. The root of the [*2-dimensional topology tree*]{} is labeled $V \times V$ and represents all the non-tree edges of $G$. If a node is labeled $V_{\alpha} \times V_{\beta}$, and $V_{\alpha}$ has children $V_{\alpha_i},\ 1\ \leq\ i\ \leq\ p$, and $V_{\beta}$ has children $V_{\beta_j},\ 1\ \leq\ j\ \leq\ q$, in the topology tree, then $V_{\alpha} \times V_{\beta}$ has children $V_{\alpha_i} \times V_{\beta_j},\ 1\ \leq\ i\ \leq\ p,\ 1\ \leq\ j\ \leq\ q$, in the [*2-dimensional topology tree*]{}.
Note that a [*2-dimensional topology tree*]{} corresponds roughly to having $O(m/z)$ topology trees, one for each basic cluster in the restricted multi-level partition. As previously described, updating the basic clusters because of an edge swap would require a total of $O(z)$ time, and then updating these $O(m/z)$ topology trees would require a total of $O((m/z)\log n)$ time. This yields a total of $O(z+(m/z)\log n)$ time. The computational saving of a [*2-dimensional topology tree*]{} is that it can be updated during a swap in its corresponding topology tree in $O(m/z)$ time only [@Frederickson]. This leads to the following theorem:
The update of a 2-dimensional topology tree because of an edge swap in the corresponding topology tree can be supported in time $O(m/z)$.
[**Proof:**]{} See [@Frederickson].\
Typical algorithms will balance this bound by choosing $z\ =\ \Theta(m^{1/2})$ to get an $O(m^{1/2})$ total time bound.
The minimum spanning tree of an undirected graph can be maintained in time $O(m^{1/2})$ per update, where $m$ is the current number of edges in the graph.
[**Proof:**]{} We maintain a restricted multi-level partition of order $z$, and the corresponding topology tree and 2-dimensional topology tree as described before. We augment the 2-dimensional topology tree as follows: Each leaf $V_i \times V_j$ stores the set $E_{i,j}$ of edges having one endpoint in $V_i$ and the other in $V_j$, as well as the minimum cost edge in this set. This information is stored in a heap-like fashion: internal nodes of the 2-dimensional topology tree have the minimum of the values of their children. This additional information required constant time per node to be maintained. Consequently, the update of this augmented 2-dimensional topology tree because of a swap can be done in $O(m/z)$ time.
Whenever a new edge is inserted or nontree edge has its cost decreased, we can find a replacement edge is tie $O(\log n)$ with the dynamic trees of Sleator and Tarjan [@Sleator]. Whenever an edge is deleted, or a tree edge has its cost increased, we can find a replacement edge as follows: let $e$ be the edge that has been deleted or increased. We first split the 2-dimensional topology tree at $e$ in $O(z+m/z)$ time. Suppose this splits the corresponding topology tree into two trees, whose roots are the clusters $V_{\alpha}$ and $V_{\beta}$, with $V_{\beta}$ having no fewer levels than $V_{\alpha}$. To find a possible replacement edge for $e$, we examine the values at the nodes $V_{\alpha} \times V_{\gamma}$ for all possible $V_{\gamma}$ in the 2-dimensional topology tree, and take the minimum. It takes $O(m/z)$ time to find and examine those nodes.
This yields a total of $O(z+(m/z))$ time for each update. Choosing $z\ =\ m^{1/2}$ gives an $O(m^{1/2})$ bound. However $m$ changes because of insertions and deletions. When the value of $z$ changes because of insertions and deletions. When the value of $z$ changes because of $m$, there will be at least $m^{1/2}$ update before $z$ advances to the next value up or down in the same directions. Since there are at most $O(m/z)$ basic clusters that need to be adjusted, we can adjust a constant number of clusters during each update.
Sparsification
--------------
Sparsification is a generic technique for designing dynamic graph algorithms, due to Eppstein [@Eppstein]. It can be used to speed up many fully dynamic graph problems. Roughly speaking, when the technique is applied, it speeds up a $T(n,m)$ time bound for a graph with $n$ vertices and $m$ edges to $T(m,O(n))$, i.e. to the time needed if the graph were sparse. E.g. if $T(n,m)\ =\ O(m^{1/2})$, we get a better bound of $O(n^{1/2})$ by applying this “black box” technique.
The technique itself is quite simple. Let $G$ be a graph with $m$ edges and $n$ vertices. We partition the edges in $G$ into a collection of $O(m/n)$ sparse subgraphs, i.e. subgraphs with $n$ vertices and $O(n)$ edges. The information relevant for each subgraph can be summarized in an even sparser subgraph, which is called as a [*sparse certificate*]{}. We merge certificates in pair, producing large subgraphs which are made sparse by again computing their certificate. The result is a balanced binary tree in which each node is represented by a sparse certificate. Each update involves $\log (m/n)$ graphs with $O(n)$ edges each, instead of one graph with $m$ edges. With some extra care, the $O(\log (m/n))$ overhead term can also be eliminated [@Eppstein].
Our Sequential Dynamic MST Algorithm
------------------------------------
We consider the problem of maintaining a minimum spanning tree during an arbitrary sequence of edge insertions and deletions. Given an $n$-vertex graph $G$ with edge weights, the fully dynamic minimum spanning tree problem is to maintain a minimum spanning tree $T$ under an arbitrary sequence of the following update operations:\
(e, $\delta$): Add the real number $\delta$ to the weight of the graph edge *e = (u,v)* of $G$.\
(e, $\delta$): Subtract the real number $\delta$ from the weight of the graph edge *e = (u,v)* of $G$.\
It’s worth noticing that structural changes to $G$ like insertion of an additional edge or deletion of an existing edge can be modelled by the above two operations by doing the following:\
Whenever an edge is deleted, perform the operation: increase(e, $ \infty $). As any other edge in the graph would have less weight, this edge would disappear from the MST if it was there before.\
Whenever an edge is inserted, consider it as though the edge existed in the graph with a weight of $ \infty $ and now it has decreased its weight to $w$.
### Preliminaries
There are several cases to be handled in edge-cost updating:
1. Cost of a tree edge increases.
2. Cost of a non-tree edge increases.
3. Cost of a tree edge decreases.
4. Cost of a non-tree edge decreases.
Clearly, for the cases 2 & 3, there will be no change in the minimum spanning tree. In the remaining two cases, the minimum spanning tree may change : one non-tree edge may replace one tree edge. These cases may be detected as follows:\
If the cost of a nontree edge *e=(u,v)* is decreased, determine if the maximum cost of an edge in the cycle that *e* induces in the tree has greater cost than cost of *e*. If it has, then that edge will be replaced by [*e*]{}. An obvious implementation of this test would use $\Theta(n)$, becase there can at most be (n-1) edges in the cycle that is connected in the tree.\
If the cost of a tree edge [*e=(x,y)*]{} is increased, determine if the minimum cost nontree edge [*(u,v)*]{} that connects the two subtrees created by removing [*e*]{} has cost less than the cost of [*e*]{}. If it has, then that nontree edge [*(u,v)*]{} will enter the tree, and [*e*]{} will be forced out of the tree. An obvious implementation of this case would test $\Omega(m)$ edges for a replacement.\
### Previous Work
--------- --------- ------------------- ------------------- -------- -------------- ----------------
Algo Best Worst Best Worst Msg
Case Case Case Case Complexity
Kruskal $\Theta(m\log m)$ $\Theta(m\log m)$ ? ? ?
Prim $O(m)$ $\Theta(m\log n)$ ? ? ?
Static GHS ? ? ? $O(n\log n)$ $O(e+n\log n)$
CT ? ? ? $O(n g(n))$ $O(e+n\log n)$
Awe ? ? $O(n)$ $O(n)$ $O(e+n\log n)$
Frdksn $O(\sqrt{m})$ $O(\sqrt{m})$ ? ? ?
Dynamic Epp $O(\sqrt{n})$ $O(\sqrt{n})$ ? ? ?
HK $O(\log^{3} n)$ $O(\log^{3} n)$ ? ? ?
HT $O(\log^{2} n)$ $O(\log^{2} n)$ ? ? ?
--------- --------- ------------------- ------------------- -------- -------------- ----------------
Note: $g(n)$ is the iterative logarithmic function i.e. $g(n)$ is the number of times $\log$ function must be applied to $n$ to get a result less than or equal to $1$.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GHS - Gallager, Humblet, and Spira.
CT - Chin and Ting.
Awe - Awerbuch.
Frdksn - Frederickson.
Epp - Eppstein (applied a technique called “Sparsification” to Frdksn’s algorithm).
HK - Henzinger and King (This algorithm is randomized and the time complexity is amortized time per update).
HT - Henzinger and Thourp (Also randomized, in fact an improvement over HK. Amortized time per update)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
### The Algorithm
As has been discussed earlier, in any change, at most one tree edge gets replaced by a non-tree edge. We leverage this fact and define a correspondence between the tree edges and non-tree edges. We also specify how to modify the correspondence when the edge replacement occurs i.e. at any point of time, we have a total function [*f*]{} so that if any tree edge $e1$ increases weight, we find out $e2 = f(e1)$, where $e2$ is a non-tree edge and replace $e1$ with $e2$ if $cost_{e2}^{old}$ $<$ $cost_{e1}^{new}$; similarly if any non-tree edge $e2$ decreases weight, we find out $e1 = f(e2)$, where $e1$ is a tree edge and replace $e1$ with $e2$ if $cost_{e2}^{new}$ $<$ $cost_{e1}^{old}$.
### Initialization
Let = $G$ = $(V,E)$\
$T$ = set of all tree edges\
$t$ = number of tree edges\
$NT$ = set of all non-tree edges.\
$nt$ = number of non-tree edges.\
so that $V = T \cup NT$ and $m = t + nt$.\
$C_{e_j}$ = = set of all tree edges with which the non-tree edge $e_j$\
forms a cycle when $e_j$ is added to the MST.\
Arrange all $e_j$s in $NT$ in increasing order. Execute the following procedure:
[**begin**]{} $S = NT$. /\*$S$ is the set of non-tree edges in increasing order of their weights\*/ $W = \emptyset$.\
[*/\*$W$ denotes the set of tree edges for which the responsibility set (which non-tree edge is responsible for each tree edge) has been found.\*/*]{} [**while**]{} there are edges in set S $e_j$ = next edge from set S. /\*Next edge in sorted order\*/ $S$ = $S$ $\setminus$ $\{e_j\}$. calculate $U_{e_j}$ = $C_{e_j}$ $\setminus$ $W$.\
[*/\*$U_{e_j}$ is the set of edges for which $e_j$ is responsible. These are the tree edges that are there in the cycle that it makes, but are not there among the set of tree edges for which responsibility has been found out. This is because we are going in a sorted order\*/*]{} [**for**]{} each edge $e_i$ in $U$ do set $f(e_i) = e_j$ [**end for**]{} set $f(e_j)$ = $e_i$ where $e_i$ has the maximum cost among the edges present in U. $W = W \cup U$ [*/\*Update the set of tree edges for which responsibility set has been found out.*]{} [**end while**]{} [**end**]{}
### Updation during structural change
Whenever a change in edge weight occurs s.t. a tree edge is to be replaced, the new $C_{e_j}$s can be calculated as follows:
Let $e_c$ be the non-tree edge to replace a tree edge. Calculate $U = C_{e_c} \cup \{e_c\}$. [**for**]{} each $e_j$ in $NT$ do $C_{e_j} = C_{e_j} \Delta U$. [**end for**]{}
Here $\Delta$ stands for symmetric difference. After the cycle entries are calculated, the function can be recalculated in the same lines.
### Data Structures
We will use a balanced tree (preferrably AVL tree) for our computation. Each node will represent a non-tree edge. Each nod ewill also contain the following additional information: $C_{e_j}$ = the tree edges with which it makes a cycle.\
$N_{e_j}$ = the tree edges for which it is responsible.\
$L_{e_j}$ = the tree edges for which its left subtree is responsible.\
$R_{e_j}$ = the tree edges for which its right subtree is responsible.\
Initial building of the tree is very obvious. Now we will consider each of the two cases one by one:
### Non-tree edge decrease
[**begin**]{} Search in the AVL tree for the node. \[$\log(n)$ operation\] Get the maximum cost in N = $e_i$. if $cost_{e_j}^{new} > cost_{e_i}^{old}$ then exit. else /\*the tree edge has to be replaced.\*/ $C_{e_i}$ = $C_{e_j}$ - $e_i$ + $e_j$. $N_{e_i}^{initial} = N_{e_j}$. $L_{e_i}$ = $\emptyset$. $R_{e_i}$ = $\emptyset$. Traverse in the tree to insert the node starting from the root. At the root $e_r$, initialize the following: $L_{e_i}$ = $L_{e_r}$ if it has to go left, else initialize the $R_{e_i}$ = $R_{e_r}$. At each of the nodes, if it has to go left of node $e_k$, $L_{e_i}$ = $L_{e_i}$ - $L_{e_k}$. else modify the R accordingly. Each time, modify the N value also accordingly. Do the insertion.
[**end**]{}
### tree edge increase
This case also is the same as before except that during the search, we start from the root, search its L set, if it is there, we go left, else we go right. If the edge has to be replaced, the procedure is the same as the one given above.
### Time Complexity
Insert, delete, and search take O($\log(n)$) time. Each time we are in a node, we are doing a constant number of set operations. If we can prove that these set operations also take O($\log(n)$) time, then the overall time complexity:\
$T(n) = O(\log n)$ For the timebeing, I have found the set operations to be $O(n)$. So the time complexity is $O(n\log n)$.
### Example
The corresponding AVL tree of the non-tree edges and the sets for the nodes are given in figure \[avltree\].
Now suppose edge with weight $4$ (in non-tree edge $6$’s cycle) increases weight to $9$. Search for $4$ in the tree. Start with root $10$’s $L$ vector. $4$ is there. Go left, you will eventually reach node $6$. New weight $8 > 6$. So that tree edge has to be replaced. Delete the node. Now you will have to insert $8$. Initially assume that $8$ is responsible for $\{2,6,2\}$ (i.e. the edges that $6$ was responsible for). Start at the root $10$. You go left. So you are still low enough to be responsible for all your edges. At node $7$, you have to go right. So surrender whatever nodes that node $7$ and its left subtree can be responsible for, because they have lower weight than you. This is clearly done by taking a symmetric difference at node $7$. Node $7$’s vectors become the following: $C$ = $\{1,2,2,4\} \Delta \{2,2,4,6\} = \{1,6\}$.\
$N$ = $\{1,6\}$\
Similarly, at node $8$, you surrender $2$. When node $9$ is inserted, it is left responsible for the other tree edge $2$.
Distributed Dynamic MST Algorithms
==================================
The only known parallel algorithm for updation of minimum spanning trees is due to Pawagi and Ramakrishnan [@Pawagi]. They base the model of computation to be a parallel random access machine with multiple reads, but single writes. The algorithm described in the paper requires $O(\log n)$ time and $O(n^2)$ processors.
Pawagi-Ramakrishnan’s algorithm
-------------------------------
[**Definitions**]{}\
Given a graph $G(V,E)$ and minimum spanning tree $M$, the [*lowest common ancestor*]{} of vertices $x$ and $y$ in $M$ is the vertex $z$ such that $z$ is a common ancestor of $x$ and $y$, and any other common ancestor of $x$ and $y$ in $M$ is also an ancestor of $z$ in $M$.\
An [*inverted tree*]{} is a tree where the edges of the tree $T$ are oriented from a vertex to its father. Note that the edges will be directed, and for each edge $(a,b)$ in the inverted tree, $b$ is the father of $a$.\
Let $T\ =\ (V',E')$ be an inverted tree with $V'\ =\ \{1,2,..,n\}$ and $r$ be the root of $T$. $T$ with a self-loop at its root $r$ represents a function $F:V' \mapsto V'$ such that $F(i)$ is the father of vertex $i$ in $T$ for $i \neq r$ and $F(r)\ =\ r$. From the function $F$, define $F^k,\ k\ \geq\ 0$, as follows:\
$F^k:V' \mapsto V'\ (k\ \geq\ 0)$ such that $$\begin{array}{l}
\forall\ i\ \in\ V',\ F^k(i)\ =\ i\ if\ k\ =\ 0.\\ \ F^k(i)\ =\ F(F^{k-1}(i))\ if\ k\ >\ 0.
\end{array}$$
Given the function $F$ of an inverted tree, the mapping $F^k$, $0\ \leq\ k\ <\ n$, can be computed in $O(\log n)$ time using $O(n^2)$ processors.
[**Proof:**]{} see [@Pawagi].
We can compute the lowest common ancestors of $n \choose 2$ vertex pairs (number of unordered pairs of $n$ elements) in an inverted tree in $O(\log n)$ time using $O(n^2)$ processors.
[**Proof:**]{} see [@Pawagi].\
Let the function $MAX(e_1, e_2)$ return the maximum cost edge among the edges $e_1$ and $e_2$. Let $E_m^k(i),\ 1\ \leq\ i\ \leq\ n$ be the minimum cost edge on the path from $i$ to it $k^{th}$ ancestor in $T$. Then\
$$\begin{array}{l}
E_m^1(i)\ is\ the\ edge\ (i, F^1(i)).\\E_m^k(i)\ is\ the\ edge\ MAX(E_m^{k-1}(i),(F^{k-1}(i),F^k(i))),\ k\ >\ 1.
\end{array}$$
The mapping $E_m^k(i)$, $1\ \leq\ i\ \leq\ n$, $0\ \leq\ k\ <\ n$, can be computed in $O(\log n)$ time using $O(n^2)$ processors.
[**Proof:**]{} see [@Pawagi].\
Given these definitions and lemmas, the steps following to algorithms for maintaining minimum spanning trees become easy.
- Cost of a tree edge $(x,y)$ increases. We proceed as follows:
1. Delete the tree edge $(x,y)$. This step is to set $F^1(x)\ =\ x$.
2. Identify the vertices in each of these subtrees. This involves computing the function $F^k$.
3. Find the minimum cost edge $(u,v)$ connecting them. Essentially this is to compute the function $E_k^m$.
4. Add the edge $(u,v)$ to the forest.
5. Maintain the new $MST$ as an inverted tree.
- Cost of a non-tree edge $(u,v)$ decreases. We proceed as follows:
1. Add $(u,v)$ to the old MST. It induces a cycle in the old MST. Calculate the new $F^k$ and $E_m^k$.
2. Remove the maximum cost edge from this cycle. Find out from the $E_m^k$ function computation.
3. Maintain the new $MST$ as an inverted tree.
Updation of a minimum spanning tree in this parallel computation requires $O(\log n)$ time and use $O(n^2)$ processors.
[**Proof:**]{} Follows from the fact that each of the above steps takes $O(\log n)$ time using $O(n^2)$ processors (prove directly from the lemmas described).
Our Distributed Dynamic MST Algorithm
-------------------------------------
Our algorithm is based on the application of Frederickson’s topology trees. We maintain partitions in a distributed computation and create topology trees from the clusters.
1. [*Finding Clusters:*]{} Given the initial $MST$, we can find the clusters by using the same idea as in the GHS algorithm [@Gallager] of forming fragments. However, here we will be bothered about exploring only the tree edges, we ignore the weights and each fragment joins along an edge that leads to the greater fragment (to solve the synchronization problem). Each $report$ message contain a counter in addition to other parameters, that is initialized to $0$, and each parent will sum up counters received from all its children before sending the $report$ message up. Each $test$ and $accept$ message will contain the size of the current fragment and the decision of sending an $accept$ message will depend on whether $$size(F\ sending\ test\ message)\ +\ size(current\ fragment)\ \leq\ z$$ Otherwise, a $reject$ message is sent.
2. [*Making the restricted partition of order z:*]{} We assume that the graph $G$ has been transformed to form a graph of maximum vertex degree $3$. In order to satisfy the conditions in \[restrictedpartition\], we let every leaf of the fragment send the number of tree edges incident to it through a $report$ message. Each parent sums up the number of incident tree edges for all its children and sends the $report$ message up. At the root (the core nodes), the number of incident tree edges is compared with the cardinality of the fragment to either split the fragment or let it join with other fragments.
3. [*Forming the restricted multi-level partition:*]{} This goes on the same way as the Frederickson’s algorithm [@Frederickson].
After the 2-dimensional topology tree is formed, in response to an edge increase or decrease, we can efficiently find out the replacement edge by having each leaf $V_i \times V_j$ send the minimum of its $E_{ij}$ set to the parent. At the root, the minimum over all is taken. Depending on the cost of the replacement edge, we can decide on whether to form a $swap(e,f)$. After the $swap$, further splitting might be necessary which can be done in ways similar to ones described above.
Conclusion
==========
In this termpaper, we studied minimum spanning tree algorithms in both sequential and distributed case, with an aim to studying the dynamic algorithms for maintaining minimum spanning trees. Specifically, we studied Frederickson’s topology trees [@Frederickson] in detail, which gives a time complexity of $O(m^{1/2})$, one the first best techniques for dynamic MSTs. We then discussed the sparsification technique due to Eppstein [@Eppstein] which is a generic technique to speed up dynamic graph algorithms. We then presented a new approach of solving dynamic MSTs in sequential case by exploiting some new properties of the spanning trees. This algorithm has a best case complexity of $O(\log ^2)$. We also studied the dynamic MST problem in distributed system. To this regard, we gave a brief idea of the parallel algorithm by Pawagi and Ramakrishnan [@Pawagi]. Based on the topology trees of Frederickson, we gave outline of how to create a distributed algorithm for solving the dynamic MST problem.
In future, we indent to build upon the distributed algorithm given here and make a full-fledged algorithm. We also intend to study the sparsification technique in more detail and make it distributed, so that we can speed up the distributed algorithms further.
S. Pawagi and I.V. Ramakrishnan. An $O(\log n)$ algorithm for parallel update of minimum spanning trees. [*Information Processing Letters*]{}. Vol. 22. pp. 223–229. 1986. R. G. Gallager, P. A. Humblet, and Philip M. Spira. A distributed algorithm for minimum-weight spanning trees. [*ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems*]{}, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 66–77. January 1983. Baruch Awerbuch. Optimal distributed algorithms for minimum weight spanning tree, counting, leader election and related problems. [*In Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing*]{}, pp. 230–240, New York City, 25-27 May 1987. Greg N. Frederickson. Data structures for on-line updating of minimum spanning trees, with applications. [*SIAM Journal on Computing*]{}, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 781–798. November 1985. David Eppstein and Zvi Galil and Amnon Nissenzweig. Sparsification – a technique for speeding up dynamic graph algorithms. [*Journal of the ACM*]{}, Vol. 44, No. 5, pp. 669–696. September 1997. Thomas H. Cormen, Charles E. Leiserson, and Ronald L. Rivest. [*Introduction to Algorithms*]{}. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 1990. D.D. Sleator and R.E. Tarjan. A data structure for dynamic trees. [*Journal of Computer System Sciences*]{}. Vol. 24, pp. 362–381. 1983. H. Attiya and J. Welch. [*Distributed Computing:Fundamentals, Simulations and Advanced Topics*]{}. McGraw Hill, London. 1998. F. Chin and H.F. Ting. An almost linear time and $(V \log V+E)$ messages distributed algorithm for minimum weight spanning trees. [*Proceedings of the 1985 FOCS Conference*]{}, Portland, Oregon. Oct 1985. Michalis Faloutsos and Mart Molle. Optimal distributed algorithm for minimum spanning trees revisited. [*Proceedings of Principles Of Distributed Computing (PODC)*]{}. 1995.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'This is a survey of recent work on values of Rankin-Selberg $L$-functions of pairs of cohomological automorphic representations that are [*critical*]{} in Deligne’s sense. The base field is assumed to be a CM field. Deligne’s conjecture is stated in the language of motives over ${{\mathbb Q}}$, and express the critical values, up to rational factors, as determinants of certain periods of algebraic differentials on a projective algebraic variety over homology classes. The results that can be proved by automorphic methods express certain critical values as (twisted) period integrals of automorphic forms. Using Langlands functoriality between cohomological automorphic representations of unitary groups, which can be identified with the de Rham cohomology of Shimura varieties, and cohomological automorphic representations of $GL(n)$, the automorphic periods can be interpreted as motivic periods. We report on recent results of the two authors, of the first-named author with Grobner, and of Guerberoff.'
address:
- |
Michael Harris\
Department of Mathematics, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA
- |
Jie Lin\
Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques, 91440 Bures-sur-Yvette
author:
- Michael Harris
- Jie LIN
title: 'Period relations and special values of Rankin-Selberg $L$-functions'
---
[^1]
[^2]
Introduction
============
Let $M$ be a motive of rank $n$ over ${{\mathbb Q}}$, which can be identified with a compatible family of $\ell$-adic Galois representations $\rho_{\ell,M}$ of rank $n$. Then we define the $L$-function $L(s,M) = \prod_p L_p(s,M)$ where for all $p$ for which $\rho_{\ell,M}$ is unramified $$L_p(s,M) = [\det(1 - \rho_{\ell,M}(Frob_p)T)^{-1}]_{T = q^{-s}},$$ with $Frob_p$ any (geometric) Frobenius element in a decomposition group at $p$ inside $Gal({{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}/{{\mathbb Q}})$.
Let $s_0 \in {{\mathbb Z}}$ be a [*critical value*]{} of $L(s,M)$, in Deligne’s sense; we recall the definition below. We state (a crude version of) Deligne’s conjecture regarding the value at $s_0$ of the $L$-function: $$L(s_0,M) \sim c^+(s_0,M)$$ where $c^+(s_0,M)$ is a certain explicitly defined determinant of periods of differential forms on (a smooth projective variety containing a realization of) $M(s_0)$, the twist of $M$ by the Tate motive ${{\mathbb Q}}(s_0)$ and $\sim $ means “up to ${{\mathbb Q}}$-multiples". More precise versions of the conjecture are stated below for motives with coefficients in a number field $E$, and for motives over ${{\mathbb Q}}$ obtained by restriction of scalars from a CM field $F$.
The theory of automorphic forms on reductive groups provides a large supply of $L$-functions, conjecturally including all the motivic $L$-functions $L(s,M)$. Moreover, while the above definition of $L(s,M)$ suggests no obvious relation to differential forms on algebraic varieties, the special values of automorphic $L$-functions are often expressed as integrals of differential forms over locally symmetric varieties. Thus, practically all results on special values of motivic $L$-functions are in fact theorems about special values of automorphic $L$-functions, which can be identified with the $L$-functions of Galois representations obtained more or less directly from the theory of Shimura varieties.
Examples {#examples .unnumbered}
--------
In what follows, $F$ is a number field, and $GL(n)$, $GL(n-1)$ denote the algebraic groups $R_{F/{{\mathbb Q}}}GL(n)_{F}$, $R_{F/{{\mathbb Q}}}GL(n-1)_{F}$ over ${{\mathbb Q}}$.
- It has been known for a long time that critical values of Rankin-Selberg $L$-functions of cohomological automorphic representations of $GL(n) \times GL(n-1)$ can often be written as cup products of differential forms on the associated adelic locally symmetric spaces. Recent results on these lines are contained in [@Mah; @rag; @GH]. The important paper of Binyong Sun [@sun], which proves the non-vanishing of the relevant archimedean zeta integrals, shows that the cup product expressions can be used effectively to relate the critical values to natural period invariants obtained by comparing the rational structures defined by Whittaker models to those defined cohomologically. There is no obvious relation, however, between these [*Whittaker periods*]{} and the [*motivic periods*]{} that enter into the computation of Deligne’s period invariant $c^+$.
- \[cohh\] Suppose $F$ is a CM field, with maximal totally real field $F^+$, and let $\sigma \in Gal(F/F^+)$ be the non-trivial element. A cuspidal cohomological automorphic representation $\Pi$ of $GL(n)$ that satisfies the hypothesis $\Pi^{\vee} {{~\overset\sim\longrightarrow}}\Pi^c$ gives rise by stable descent to an $L$-packet of cohomological automorphic representations $\{\pi\}_V$ of the group $U = R_{F^+/{{\mathbb Q}}}U(V)$, where $V$ is an $n$-dimensional hermitian space over $F$, provided $\Pi$ is sufficiently ramified at the finite places at which $U$ is not quasi-split. The members of $\{\pi\}_V$ define coherent cohomology classes on the Shimura variety $Sh(V)$ attached to $G$, and thus contribute to the Hodge-de Rham realizations of motives whose $L$-functions are related to the automorphic $L$-function $L(s,\Pi)$.
- By applying the descent described in (2), the Rankin-Selberg $L$-function of $GL(n) \times GL(1)$ can be identified with the [*standard $L$-function*]{} of the unitary group $U$, whose integral representation by means of the doubling method identifies its critical values with periods of the coherent cohomology classes of $Sh(V)$. This was carried out when $F^+ = {{\mathbb Q}}$ in [@H97] and has recently been generalized by Guerberoff in [@gue] (see \[guer\] below).
- In many cases, by combining the methods of (1) with the results described in (3), one can express the Whittaker periods in terms of the periods of coherent cohomology classes, and thus with specific periods of motives realized in the cohomology of Shimura varieties – we can call these [*automorphic periods*]{}. As a result, the results of (1), specifically those of [@GH], can be given motivic interpretations. This has been generalized by Lin [@linthesis], who has used these methods to obtain surprising [*factorizations*]{} of automorphic periods that are consistent with what is predicted by the Tate conjecture.
Some of these results are reviewed in the body of the paper. We recall that Deligne’s conjecture is stated for motives over ${{\mathbb Q}}$ with coefficients in a field $E$; however, as Panchishkin observed [@panchishkin94], motives over a totally real field $F$ with coefficients in $E$ can also be interpreted as motives over ${{\mathbb Q}}$ with coefficients in $E\otimes F$, and Deligne’s conjecture admits a refinement taking this into account. The same is true when $F$ is a CM field. Since this does not seem to have been treated in the literature, we include an appendix explaining the properties of $E\otimes F\otimes {{\mathbb C}}$-modules that are relevant to Deligne’s conjecture in our setting.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
We thank Harald Grobner and Lucio Guerberoff for helpful discussions regarding the topics of this survey, as well as for their many contributions to the contents of the paper. We thank Li Ma for useful suggestions on the appendix of the paper. We also thank the editors for encouraging us to write the survey, and the referee for a very careful reading. Finally, it is a pleasure and privilege to dedicate this paper to Roger Howe.
Review of Deligne’s Conjecture on critical values
=================================================
Motives over general fields
---------------------------
Let $M$ be a motive over a number field $F$ with coefficients in $E$. We denote by $\Sigma_{E}$ (resp. $\Sigma_{F}$) the set of embeddings of $E$ (resp. $F$) in ${\mathbb{C}}$. Tensor products without subscript are by default over ${\mathbb{Q}}$. The motive $M$ has several realizations as follows:
- Its de Rham realization $M_{DR}$ is a finitely generated free $E\otimes F$-module endowed with a Hodge filtration $M_{DR}\supset \cdots \supset F^{i}(M)\supset F^{i+1}(M)\supset \cdots$ where each $F^{i}(M)$ is a sub-$E\otimes F$-module of $M_{DR}$. We remark that $F^{i}(M)$ is in general not a free $E\otimes F$-module.
- For each $\sigma\in \Sigma_{F}$, its Betti realization over $\sigma$ is a finite dimensional $E$-vector space $M_{\sigma}$. Moreover, we have a Hodge decomposition as $E\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$-modules: $$M_{\sigma}\otimes {\mathbb{C}}=\bigoplus\limits_{p,q\in {\mathbb{Z}}}M^{p,q}_{\sigma}.$$
- For each $\lambda$, a finite place of $E$, the $\lambda$-adic realization of $M$ is an $E_{\lambda}$-vector space endowed with an action of $Gal(\overline{F}/F)$ where $\overline{F}$ is an algebraic closure of $F$. The family $(M_{\lambda})_{\lambda}$ forms a compatible system of $\lambda$-adic representations. In particular, the $L$-function of $M$ can be defined as usual.
We refer to [@panchishkin94] for more discussions on motivic $L$-functions and $p$-adic motivic $L$-functions. Our goal here is to describe the Deligne conjecture and reformulate the Deligne period. For this purpose, we mainly focus on the de Rham realization and the Betti realizations.
The comparison isomorphism relates these realizations. More precisely, for each $\sigma\in\Sigma_{F}$, we have an isomorphism of free $E\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$-modules: $$I_{\infty}: M_{\sigma}\otimes {\mathbb{C}}\xrightarrow{\sim} M_{DR}\otimes_{\sigma} {\mathbb{C}}.$$
This isomorphism is compatible with the Hodge structures in the sense that: $$\label{equation Hodge 1}
I_{\infty,\sigma}(\bigoplus\limits_{p\geq i} M^{p,q}_{\sigma})=F^{i}(M)\otimes_{\sigma} {\mathbb{C}}.$$
From the isomorphisms above, we see that $dim_{E}M_{\sigma}=rank_{E\otimes F}M_{DR}$. We call this number the **rank** of $M$ and denote it by $\text{rank}(M)$.
For $w$ an integer, we say $M$ is **pure of weight** $w$ if $M^{p,q}_{\sigma}=0$ for any $\sigma$ and any $p,q$ such that $p+q\neq w$.
Since $M_{\sigma}^{p,q}$ is an $E\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$-module, we can decompose it as $\bigoplus_{\tau\in \Sigma_{E}}M_{\sigma}^{p,q}(\tau)$ where the action of $E$ on $M_{\sigma}^{p,q}(\tau)$ is given by scalar multiplication via $\tau$.
We say $M$ is **regular** if $dim_{{\mathbb{C}}}M_{\sigma}^{p,q}(\tau) \leq 1$ for all $\sigma\in \Sigma_{F}$, $\tau\in \Sigma_{E}$ and $p,q\in {\mathbb{Z}}$.
We define the **Hodge type** of $M$ at $(\tau,\sigma)$ as the set $T(M_{\sigma})(\tau)$ consisting of pairs $(p,q)$ such that $M_{\sigma}^{p,q}(\tau)\neq 0$.
The **infinite Frobenius** at $\sigma$ is an $E$-linear isomorphism $F_{\infty,\sigma}: M_{\sigma} \rightarrow M_{\overline{\sigma}}$, which satisfies $F_{\infty,\overline{\sigma}}\circ F_{\infty,\sigma}=Id$. We may extend it to an $E\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$-linear isomorphism $M_{\sigma} \otimes {\mathbb{C}}\rightarrow M_{\overline{\sigma}}\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$. It sends $M_{\sigma}^{p,q}$ to $M_{\overline{\sigma}}^{q,p}$. Therefore if $(p,q)$ is contained in $T(M_{\sigma})(\tau)$, then $(q,p)$ is contained in $T(M_{\overline{\sigma}})(\tau)$.
We write $n$ for the rank of $M$. If $M$ is regular, then each $T(M_{\sigma})(\tau)$ contains exactly $n$ elements. If moreover $M$ is pure of weight $w$, then we can write the Hodge type of $M$ at $(\tau,\sigma)$ as $(p_{i}(\tau,\sigma),q_{i}(\tau,\sigma))_{1\leq i\leq n}$ with $p_{1}(\tau,\sigma) > p_{2}(\tau,\sigma)>\cdots >p_{n}(\tau,\sigma)$ and $q_{i}(\tau,\sigma)=w-p_{i}(\tau,\sigma)$.
The Deligne conjecture
----------------------
The Deligne conjecture relates critical values of $L$-functions with the Deligne periods for motives over ${\mathbb{Q}}$. We will give a brief introduction here. We refer the reader to [@deligne79] for the details.
Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a motive over ${\mathbb{Q}}$ with coefficients in a number field $E$, pure of weight $w$. There is only one embedding of ${\mathbb{Q}}$ in ${\mathbb{C}}$. We write $\mathcal{M}_{B}$ for the Betti realization with respect to this unique embedding. It is an $E$-vector space and has a Hodge decomposition $\mathcal{M}_{B}\otimes {\mathbb{C}}= \bigoplus\limits_{p+q=\omega}\mathcal{M}^{p,q}$. Moreover, the infinite Frobenius $F_{\infty}$ exchanges $\mathcal{M}^{p,q}$ and $\mathcal{M}^{q,p}$.
The de Rham realization $\mathcal{M}_{DR}$ is endowed with a Hodge filtration of $E$-vector spaces.
The comparison isomorphism $I_{\infty}$ gives an isomorphism between $\mathcal{M}_{B}\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{DR}\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$ as $E\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$-modules.
We fix any $E$-bases of $\mathcal{M}_{B}$ (resp. $\mathcal{M}_{DR}$) and extend it to an $E\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$-basis of $\mathcal{M}_{B}\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$ (resp. $\mathcal{M}_{DR}\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$).
We define the **determinant period** with respect to the fixed bases $\delta(\mathcal{M})$ to be the determinant of the comparison isomorphism with respect to the fixed bases. It is an element in $(E\otimes {\mathbb{C}})^{\times}$. Its image in $(E\otimes {\mathbb{C}})^{\times}/E^{\times}$ does not depend on the choice of bases.
The comparison isomorphism induces an isomorphism between $\bigoplus\limits_{p\geq i}\mathcal{M}^{p,w-p}$ and $F^{i}\mathcal{M}\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$. This implies that $\mathcal{M}^{p,w-p}\cong (F^{i}\mathcal{M}/F^{i+1}\mathcal{M})\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$ is a free $E\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$-module.
For simplicity, we assume that the middle stage of the filtration $\mathcal{M}^{w/2,w/2}=0$ if $w$ is even.
We write $\mathcal{M}^{+}$ (resp. $\mathcal{M}^{-}$) for $(\mathcal{M}_{B})^{F_{\infty}}$ (resp. $(\mathcal{M}_{B})^{-F_{\infty}}$), the subset of the fixed points of $F_{\infty}$ (resp. $-F_{\infty}$). Since $F_{\infty}$ is $E$-linear, it is an $E$-vector space.
For $x\in {\mathbb{R}}$, we write $[x]$ for the largest integer which is no bigger than $x$. We write $F^{+}\mathcal{M}=F^{-}\mathcal{M}$ for $F^{[(w+1)/2]}\mathcal{M}$. The comparison isomorphism induces an $E\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$-linear map: $$I_{\infty}^{\pm}:\mathcal{M}^{\pm}\otimes {\mathbb{C}}\hookrightarrow \mathcal{M}_{B}\otimes {\mathbb{C}}\cong \mathcal{M}_{DR}\otimes {\mathbb{C}}\rightarrow (\mathcal{M}_{DR}/F^{\pm}\mathcal{M})\otimes {\mathbb{C}}.$$
One can show easily that $I_{\infty}^{\pm}\mathcal{M}$ is an isomorphism.
We fix any $E$-bases of $\mathcal{M}^{+}$ (resp. $\mathcal{M}_{DR}/F^{+}\mathcal{M}$) and extends it to an $E\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$-basis of $\mathcal{M}^{+}\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$ (resp. $(\mathcal{M}_{DR}/F^{+}\mathcal{M})\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$).
We define **the Deligne period** $c^{+}(\mathcal{M})$ with respect to the fixed bases to be the determinant of $I_{\infty}^{+}(\mathcal{M})$ with respect to the fixed bases. It is an element in $(E\otimes {\mathbb{C}})^{\times}$. As before, its image in $(E\otimes {\mathbb{C}})^{\times}/E^{\times}$ does not depend on the choice of bases.
We may define **the Deligne period** $c^{-}(\mathcal{M})$ similarly.
Let $A$ be an algebra (for example, $A$ is a field or the tensor product of two fields). Let $L$ be a subfield of ${\mathbb{C}}$.
Let $x$, $y$ be two elements in $A\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$. We write $x\sim_{A;L} y$ if there exists $e\in A\otimes L \subset A\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$ such that $x=ey$.
We write $\sim_{A}$ for $\sim_{A;{\mathbb{Q}}}$.
(**the Deligne conjecture**) Let $m$ be a critical point for $\mathcal{M}$. We write $\epsilon$ for the sign of $(-1)^{m}$. We then have: $$L(m,\mathcal{M}) \sim_{E} (2\pi i)^{mn^{\epsilon}}c^{\epsilon}(\mathcal{M})$$ where $n^{\epsilon}:=dim_{E}\mathcal{M}^{\epsilon}$.
We refer to [@deligne79] for the definition of critical points. We also remark that in the case where $\mathcal{M}$ has no $(w/2,w/2)$-classes, we have $n^{+}=n^{-}=dim_{E}\mathcal{M}_{DR}/2$.
Factorization of Deligne periods
--------------------------------
Let $F$ be a CM field of degree $d(F)$ over ${\mathbb{Q}}$. We write $F^+$ for the maximal totally real subfield of $F$.
Let $M$ be a rank $n$ motive over $F$ with coefficients in $E$, pure of weight $w$. We assume that $M^{w/2,w/2}=0$. Then for each $\sigma\in\Sigma_{F}$, we may define a $\sigma$-determinant period $\delta(M,\sigma)$ and a local Deligne period $c^{+}(M,\sigma)$ as follows.
Recall the comparison isomorphism: $$I_{\infty,\sigma}: M_{\sigma}\otimes {\mathbb{C}}\xrightarrow{\sim} M_{DR}\otimes_{\sigma} {\mathbb{C}}.$$
We fix an $E$-basis of $M_{\sigma}$ and extend it to an $E\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$-basis of $M_{\sigma}\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$. We fix an $E\otimes F$-basis of $M_{DR}$ and consider it as an $E\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$-basis of $M_{DR}\otimes_{\sigma} {\mathbb{C}}$. We define the **$\sigma$-determinant period** $\delta(M,\sigma)$ to be the determinant of $I_{\infty,\sigma}$ with respect to the fixed bases. It is an element in $(E\otimes {\mathbb{C}})^{\times}$. As before, it depends on the choice of the bases, but its image in $(E\otimes{\mathbb{C}})^{\times}/(E\otimes \sigma(F))^{\times}$ is independent of the choice.
We can use the same $E\otimes F$-basis for each $\sigma\in\Sigma_{F}$. Such a basis is called **covariant** as in Proposition $2.2$ of [@yoshidafactorization]. One can show that the image of the product $\prod\limits_{\sigma\in\Sigma_{F}}\delta(M,\sigma)$ in $(E\otimes {\mathbb{C}})^{\times}/E^{\times}$ is independent of the choice of bases. Moreover, Proposition \[factorization theorem for motives\] below holds only for a covariant basis.
We now define the local Deligne periods $c^{+}(M,\sigma)$, extending the discussion in [@panchishkin94] to CM fields.
The infinite Frobenius exchanges $M_{\sigma}$ and $M_{\overline{\sigma}}$. We fix $\Sigma$ a CM type of $F$, i.e. $\Sigma_{F}=\Sigma \bigsqcup \Sigma^{c}$. In particular, we know that $\Sigma$ has $d(F)/2$ elements.
For each $\sigma\in \Sigma$, we define $M_{\sigma}^{+}:=(M_{\sigma}\oplus M_{\overline{\sigma}})^{F_{\infty,\sigma}}$. It is an $E$-vector space of dimension $rank(M)$.
We write $F^{+}M$ for the $E\otimes F$-module $F^{[(w+1)/2]}M_{DR}$, and $M_{DR}^{+}$ for the $E\otimes F$-module $M_{DR}/F^{w/2}M_{DR}$. The comparison isomorphism induces an $E\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$-linear isomorphism: $$I_{\infty,\sigma}^{+}: M_{\sigma}^{+}\otimes {\mathbb{C}}\xrightarrow{\sim} M_{DR}^{+}\otimes_{\sigma} {\mathbb{C}}\oplus M_{DR}^{+}\otimes_{\overline{\sigma}} {\mathbb{C}}= (M_{DR}^{+}\oplus M_{DR}^{+,c})\otimes_{\sigma}{\mathbb{C}}$$ where $M_{DR}^{+,c}$ is the same set as $M_{DR}^{+}$ endowed with the same action of $E$ and the complex conjugation of the action of $F$.
We know that $M_{DR}^{+}\oplus M_{DR}^{+,c}$ is a free $E\otimes F$-module by Lemma $2.1(3)$ of [@yoshidafactorization]. It can also be deduced easily from the fourth point of Proposition \[prop for decomposition\] and the fact that $dim_{{\mathbb{C}}}(M_{DR}^{+}\oplus M_{DR}^{+,c})\otimes_{\tau \otimes\sigma} {\mathbb{C}}=dim M_{\sigma}^{+}\otimes_{\tau} {\mathbb{C}}=rank(M)=n$ does not depend on the choice of $\tau\in \Sigma_{E}$.
We define the **$\sigma$-Deligne period** $c^{+}(M,\sigma)$ to be determinant of $I_{\infty,\sigma}^{+}$ with respect to any fixed $E$-basis of $M_{\sigma}^{+}$ and a fixed $E\otimes F$-basis of $M_{DR}^{+}\oplus M_{DR}^{+,c}$. It is an element in $(E\otimes {\mathbb{C}})^{\times}$. Its image in $(E\otimes {\mathbb{C}})^{\times}/(E\otimes \sigma(F))^{\times}$ does not depend on the choice of the bases.
We may define $M_{\sigma}^{-}$, $M_{DR}^{-}$ and $c^{-}(M,\sigma)$ similarly. Recall that $M_{DR}^{-}=M_{DR}^{+}$ since $M$ has no $(w/2,w/2)$-classes. For such a motive, we have at complex places $\sigma$ that: $$\label{relation between pm}
c^{+}(M,\sigma)\sim_{E\otimes \sigma(F)} c^{-}(M,\sigma).$$
More precisely, let $\{e_{1},e_{2},\cdots,e_{n}\}$ be any $E$-basis of $M_{\sigma}$. Then $\{e_{i}+F_{\infty}e_{i}\}_{1\leq i\leq n}$ is an $E$-basis of $M_{\sigma}^{+}$ and $\{e_{i}-F_{\infty}e_{i}\}_{1\leq i\leq n}$ is an $E$-basis of $M_{\sigma}^{-}$. If we use these bases to calculate the $\sigma$-Deligne period, we will get: $$\label{relation between pm}
c^{+}(M,\sigma)= e_{\sigma} c^{-}(M,\sigma).$$ Here $e_{\sigma}$ is an element in $E\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$ such that for each $\tau\in\Sigma_{E}$, $e_{\sigma}(\tau)=(-1)^{n_{\sigma}(\tau)}$ where $n_{\sigma}(\tau)=dim_{{\mathbb{C}}}M_{DR}^{+,c}\otimes_{\sigma,\tau}{\mathbb{C}}$.
For the proof, it suffices to consider the following commutative diagram: $$
M\_\^[+]{}@>I\_[,]{}\^[+]{}>> &M\_[DR]{}\^[+]{}\_ M\_[DR]{}\^[+,c]{}\_\
@VVV & @VVV\
M\_\^[-]{}@>I\_[,]{}\^[-]{}>> &M\_[DR]{}\^[+]{}\_M\_[DR]{}\^[+,c]{}\_
$$ where the left vertical arrow is the $E\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$-linear isomorphism sending $e_{i}+F_{\infty}e_{i}$ to $e_{i}-F_{\infty}e_{i}$ and the right vertical arrow is the map $(Id,-Id)$.
It remains to show that $e_{\sigma}\in E\otimes \sigma(F)$. This is equivalent to show that for $g\in Gal(\bar{{\mathbb{Q}}}/\sigma(F))$ and $\tau\in\Sigma_{E}$, we have $e_{\sigma}(g\tau)=e_{\sigma}(\tau)$.
In fact, by Remark \[index is Galois invariant\], we know $n_{\sigma}(g\tau)=n_{g^{-1}\sigma}(\tau)=n_{\sigma}(\tau)$ where the last equality is due to the fact that $g^{-1}\sigma=\sigma$. Hence we have $e_{\sigma}(g\tau)=e_{\sigma}(\tau)$ as expected.
We now consider the determinant period and the Deligne period for $\mathcal{M}=Res_{F/{\mathbb{Q}}}M$. We have: $\mathcal{M}_{DR}=M_{DR}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{B}=\bigoplus\limits_{\sigma\in\Sigma_{F}}M_{\sigma}$ as vector spaces over $E$.
\[factorization theorem for motives\] Let $\{w_{1},\cdots,w_{n}\}$ be an $E\otimes F$-basis of $M_{DR}$ such that the image of $\{(w_{i},w_{n+1-i})\}_{1\leq i\leq n}$ in $M_{DR}^{+}\oplus M_{DR}^{+,c}$ forms an $E\otimes F$-basis of $M_{DR}^{+}\oplus M_{DR}^{+,c}$. We use the family $\{w_{1},\cdots,w_{n}\}$ and the image of the family $\{(w_{i},w_{n+1-i})\}_{1\leq i\leq n}$ to define $\sigma$-determinant periods and $\sigma$-Deligne periods respectively for any $\sigma$.
Let $\alpha\in F$ be a purely imaginary element, i.e., $\overline{\alpha}=-\alpha$ where $\overline{\alpha}$ refers to the complex conjugation of $\alpha$ in the CM field $F$. The following factorizations of periods hold at the same time: $$\begin{aligned}
\delta(\mathcal{M})\sim_{E} (D_{F}^{1/2})^{n}\prod\limits_{\sigma\in\Sigma_{F}} \delta(M,\sigma);\\
c^{+}(\mathcal{M})\sim_{E} (\prod\limits_{\sigma\in\Sigma}\sigma(\alpha))^{[n/2]}(D_{F^{+}}^{1/2})^{n}\prod\limits_{\sigma\in\Sigma} c^{+}(M,\sigma);\\
c^{-}(\mathcal{M})\sim_{E} (\prod\limits_{\sigma\in\Sigma}\sigma(\alpha))^{[n/2]}(D_{F^{+}}^{1/2})^{n}\prod\limits_{\sigma\in\Sigma} c^{-}(M,\sigma).\end{aligned}$$ Here $D_{F}^{1/2}$ (resp. $D_{F^{+}}^{1/2}$) is the square root of the absolute discriminant of $F$ (resp. $F^{+}$). We identify it with $1\otimes D_{F}^{1/2}\in E\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$ (resp. $1\otimes D_{F^{+}}^{1/2}\in E\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$). Recall that $[n/2]$ is the largest integer no bigger than $n/2$.
The first equation is proved in Proposition $2.2$ of [@yoshidafactorization]. The second one can be proved by similar argument. We now give the details.
The Deligne period $c^{+}(\mathcal{M})$ is the determinant of the composition of $\prod\limits_{\sigma\in\Sigma}I_{\infty,\sigma}^{+}$ and the following isomorphism of $E\otimes{\mathbb{C}}$-modules: $$\label{discriminant equation 1}
f: \bigoplus\limits_{\sigma\in\Sigma}(M_{DR}^{+}\oplus M_{DR}^{+,c})\otimes_{\sigma}{\mathbb{C}}\xrightarrow{\sim} M_{DR}^{+}\otimes {\mathbb{C}}.$$
It remains to show that the determinant of the above isomorphism is equivalent to $ (\prod\limits_{\sigma\in\Sigma}\sigma(\alpha))^{[n/2]}D_{F^{+}}^{n/2}$ with respect to the fixed bases.
We know that $M_{DR}^{+}$ is free over $E\otimes F^{+}$. In fact, let $\widetilde{\sigma}$ be any element in $\Sigma_{F^{+}}$ and $\sigma$, $\overline{\sigma}$ be the places of $F$ over $\widetilde{\sigma}$. We know $dim_{{\mathbb{C}}} M_{DR}^{+}\otimes_{\tau\otimes \widetilde{\sigma}} {\mathbb{C}}= dim_{{\mathbb{C}}}(M_{DR}^{+}\otimes_{\tau \otimes\sigma} {\mathbb{C}})+dim_{{\mathbb{C}}}(M_{DR}^{+}\otimes_{\tau \otimes\overline{\sigma}} {\mathbb{C}}) = n$ for any $\widetilde{\sigma}\in \Sigma_{F^{+}}$ and $\tau\in\Sigma_{E}$. Proposition \[prop for decomposition\] then implies that $M_{DR}^{+}$ is a free $E\otimes F^{+}$-module of rank $n$.
We write $v_{i}$ for the image of $w_{i}$ in $M_{DR}^{+}$. We claim that the family $$\nonumber
\{v_{i}+v_{n+1-i}\}_{1\leq i\leq [(n+1)/2]} \cup\{ \alpha(v_{j}-v_{n+1-j})\}_{1\leq j\leq [n/2]}$$ is an $E\otimes F^{+}$-basis of $M_{DR}^{+}$. By Lemma \[basislemma\], it is enough to prove that this family is linearly independent over $E\otimes F^{+}$.
We now prove this when $n=2m$ is even. In this case, if $\lambda_{i}$, $\mu_{i}$, $1\leq i\leq m$ are elements in $E\otimes F^{+}$ such that in $M_{DR}^{+}$ we have $$\nonumber
\sum\limits_{i=1}^{m}[\lambda_{i}(v_{i}+v_{2m+1-i})+\alpha\mu_{i}(v_{i}-v_{2m+1-i})]=0,$$ hence $$\nonumber
\sum\limits_{i=1}^{m}[(\lambda_{i}+\alpha\mu_{i})v_{i}+(\lambda_{i}-\alpha\mu_{i})v_{2m+1-i}]=0.$$ Recall that $\overline{\alpha}=-\alpha$. We know that in $M_{DR}^{+,c}$ $$\nonumber \sum\limits_{i=1}^{m}[(\lambda_{i}-\alpha\mu_{i})v_{i}+(\lambda_{i}+\alpha\mu_{i})v_{2m+1-i}]=0.$$ We then deduce that $$\nonumber
\sum\limits_{1\leq i\leq m} (\lambda_{i}+\alpha\mu_{i})(v_{i},v_{2m+1-i})+\sum\limits_{1\leq i\leq m}(\lambda_{i}-\alpha\mu_{i})(v_{2m+1-i},v_{i})=0$$ in $M_{DR}^{+}\oplus M_{DR}^{+,c}$. Since $\{(v_{i},v_{2m+1-i})_{1\leq i\leq 2m}\}$ is an $E\otimes F$-basis of $M_{DR}^{+}\oplus M_{DR}^{+,c}$, we know $\lambda_{i}+\alpha\mu_{i}=\lambda_{i}-\alpha\mu_{i}$=0 for all $i$ and hence $\lambda_{i}=\mu_{i}=0$ as expected. The proof for odd $n$ is similar.
We can now take an $E$-basis of $M_{DR}^{+}$. Let $t_{1},\cdots, t_{d(F^{+})}$ be an integral basis of $F^{+}$ over ${\mathbb{Q}}$. Then $\{t_{k}(v_{i}+v_{n+1-i})\}_{1\leq i\leq [(n+1)/2],1\leq k\leq d(F^{+})} \cup\{ t_{k}\alpha(v_{j}-v_{n+1-j})\}_{1\leq j\leq [n/2],1\leq k\leq d(F^{+})}$ is an $E$-basis of $M_{DR}^{+}$.
The $E\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$-basis of $(M_{DR}^{+}\oplus M_{DR}^{+,c})\otimes_{\sigma}{\mathbb{C}}$ has been chosen as $\{(v_{i},v_{n+1-i})\otimes_{\sigma}1\}_{1\leq i\leq n}$. This basis is equivalent to $$\nonumber
\{(v_{i}+v_{n+1-i},v_{i}+v_{n+1-i})\otimes_{\sigma} 1\}_{1\leq i\leq [(n+1)/2]} \cup\{ (v_{j}-v_{n+1-j},-v_{j}+v_{n+1-j})\otimes_{\sigma} 1\}_{1\leq j\leq [n/2]}$$ by a rational transformation.
We observe that the $\sigma$-component of $f^{-1}(t_{k}(v_{i}+v_{n+1-i}))$ is $\sigma(t_{k})((v_{i}+v_{n+1-i},v_{i}+v_{n+1-i})\otimes_{\sigma} 1)$ for $1\leq i\leq [(n+1)/2]$ and $1\leq k\leq d(F^{+})$. The $\sigma$-component of $f^{-1}(t_{k}\alpha(v_{j}-v_{n+1-j}))$ is $\sigma(t_{k})(\sigma(\alpha)(v_{j}-v_{n+1-j}), \overline{\sigma}(\alpha)(v_{j}-v_{n+1-j}))\otimes_{\sigma}1 =\sigma({t_{k}})\sigma(\alpha)((v_{j}-v_{n+1-j},-v_{j}+v_{n+1-j})\otimes_{\sigma}1)$ for $1\leq j\leq [n/2]$ and $1\leq k\leq d(F^{+})$.
We then deduce that $det(f)^{-1}\sim_{E} (\prod\limits_{\sigma\in\Sigma}\sigma(\alpha))^{[n/2]}D_{F^{+}}^{n/2}.$
Since $\prod\limits_{\sigma\in\Sigma}\sigma(\alpha)\times \prod\limits_{\sigma\in\Sigma}\overline{\sigma}(\alpha)\in {\mathbb{Q}}$ and hence $\prod\limits_{\sigma\in\Sigma}\sigma(\alpha)^{-1}\sim_{E}\prod\limits_{\sigma\in\Sigma}\overline{\sigma}(\alpha) \sim_{E} \prod\limits_{\sigma\in\Sigma}\sigma(\alpha)$ by the fact that $\overline{\alpha}=-\alpha$. We also have $D_{F^{+}}\in {\mathbb{Q}}$ and hence $D_{F^{+}}^{-1/2}\sim_{E} D_{F^{+}}^{1/2}$. We finally deduce that $det(f)\sim_{E} (\prod\limits_{\sigma\in\Sigma}\sigma(\alpha))^{[n/2]}D_{F^{+}}^{n/2}$ as expected.
1. We shall see in the next section that such a basis always exists. Moreover, it can be good enough with respect to the Hodge decomposition.
2. If we change the condition to that the image of $\{(w_{i},w_{i})\}_{1\leq i\leq n}$ forms a basis in $M_{DR}^{+}\oplus M_{DR}^{+,c}$ and use this basis to calculate $\sigma$-Deligne periods, then we will have $c^{+}(\mathcal{M})\sim_{E} (D_{F^{+}}^{1/2})^{n}\prod\limits_{\sigma\in\Sigma} c^{+}(M,\sigma)$. Guerberoff has suggested a simple way to prove this. More precisely, we observe that $Res_{F^{+}/{\mathbb{Q}}}(Res_{F/F^{+}}(M))=Res_{F/F^{+}}M$. It is easy to see that $c^{+}(Res_{F/F^{+}}(M),\widetilde{\sigma})=c^{+}(M,\sigma)$. We may apply the factorization theorem for motives over totally real fields given in [@panchishkin94] and [@yoshidafactorization]. It remains to show that our basis is covariant for $Res_{F/F^{+}}(M)$. This is equivalent to saying that the image of the family $\{w_{i}\}_{1\leq i\leq n}$ is an $E\otimes F^{+}$-basis of $M_{DR}^{+}$, and this is not difficult to prove under the condition that the image of the family $\{(w_{i},w_{i})\}_{1\leq i\leq n}$ forms a basis in $M_{DR}^{+}\oplus M_{DR}^{+,c}$.
3. In general, for any basis, the relations $\delta(\mathcal{M})\sim_{E\otimes F^{gal}} \prod\limits_{\sigma\in\Sigma_{F}} \delta(M,\sigma)$ and $c^{+}(\mathcal{M})\sim_{E\otimes F^{gal}} \prod\limits_{\sigma\in\Sigma} c^{+}(M,\sigma)$ are always true where $F^{gal}$ is the Galois closure of $F$ over ${{\mathbb Q}}$ (for example, see [@yoshidafactorization]). Changing the basis only affects the ratio of the two sides, which is an element of $F^{gal}$.
Motivic and automorphic periods
===============================
Notation is as in the previous section. In this section we assume $M$ is regular. Following [@linorsay], we define period invariants generalizing those introduced in [@H97]. Note that, in contrast to [@H97] and [@GH], it is [*not*]{} assumed here that $M$ is polarized.
Definitions
-----------
For $\sigma\in\Sigma_{F}$, we apply Proposition \[prop for decomposition\] (2) to $F^{i}(M)$ and get: $$F^{i}(M)(\alpha)\otimes_{\sigma} {\mathbb{C}}=\bigoplus\limits_{\tau \mid \alpha(\tau,\sigma)=\alpha} F^{i}(M)\otimes _{\tau\otimes \sigma} {\mathbb{C}}.$$
On the other hand, equation (\[equation Hodge 1\]) tells us that: $$I_{\infty,\sigma}(\bigoplus\limits_{p\geq i} M^{p,q}_{\sigma}(\tau))=F^{i}(M)\otimes_{\tau\otimes\sigma} {\mathbb{C}}.$$
We apply Proposition \[prop for decomposition\] to $F^{i}(M)$ and get: $$\label{equation temp1}
I_{\infty,\sigma}(\bigoplus\limits_{p\geq i} M^{p,q}_{\sigma}(\tau))=F^{i}(M)(\alpha(\tau,\sigma))\otimes_{\tau\otimes\sigma} {\mathbb{C}}.$$
Therefore, $$dim_{{\mathbb{C}}}\bigoplus\limits_{p\geq i} M^{p,q}_{\sigma}(\tau)=dim_{L_{\alpha(\tau,\sigma)}}F^{i}M(\alpha(\tau,\sigma)).$$ Hence $dim_{{\mathbb{C}}}M^{p,q}_{\sigma}(\tau)=dim_{L_{\alpha(\tau,\sigma)}}F^{p}M(\alpha(\tau,\sigma))-dim_{L_{\alpha(\tau,\sigma)}}F^{p+1}M(\alpha(\tau,\sigma))$. In particular, the Hodge type at $(\tau,\sigma)$ only depends on $\alpha(\tau,\sigma)$.
For each $\alpha\in \mathcal{A}$ and $1\leq i\leq n$, we may define $p_{i}(\alpha)=p_{i}(\tau,\sigma)$ for any $(\tau,\sigma)$ such that $\alpha(\tau,\sigma)=\alpha$. We define $q_{i}(\alpha)=w-p_{i}(\alpha)$.
We may rewrite equation (\[equation temp1\]) as: $$\label{temp equation 2}
I_{\infty,\sigma}(\bigoplus\limits_{j\leq i} M^{p_{j}(\alpha),q_{j}(\alpha)}_{\sigma}(\tau))=F^{p_{i}}(M)(\alpha)\otimes_{\tau\otimes\sigma} {\mathbb{C}}.$$
In the rest of this chapter, we fix for every $\alpha\in\mathcal{A}$ and for every $i\in [1,n]$ an element $\widetilde{\omega_{i}}(\alpha)$ in $ F^{p_{i}(\alpha)}M(\alpha)\backslash F^{p_{i-1}(\alpha)}M(\alpha)$. Here we set $p_{0}=+\infty$ and $F^{p_{0}}(M)=\{0\}$.
Replacing $i$ by $i-1$ in equation (\[temp equation 2\]), we get:$$I_{\infty,\sigma}(\bigoplus\limits_{j\leq i-1} M^{p_{j}(\alpha),q_{j}(\alpha)}_{\sigma}(\tau))=F^{p_{i-1}}(M)(\alpha)\otimes_{\tau\otimes\sigma} {\mathbb{C}}.$$
We deduce that there exists $\epsilon_{i-1,\sigma}(\tau) \in F^{p_{i-1}}(M)(\alpha)\otimes_{\tau\otimes\sigma} {\mathbb{C}}$ such that $\omega_{i,\sigma}(\tau):=I_{\infty,\sigma}^{-1}(\widetilde{\omega_{i}}(\alpha)\otimes_{\tau\otimes \sigma}1-\epsilon_{i-1,\sigma}(\tau))$ is a non zero element in $M^{p_{i}(\alpha),q_{i}(\alpha)}_{\sigma}(\tau)$ where $\alpha=\alpha(\tau,\sigma)$. In particular, $\omega_{i,\sigma}(\tau)$ generates the one dimensional ${\mathbb{C}}$-vector space $M^{p_{i}(\alpha),q_{i}(\alpha)}_{\sigma}(\tau)=M^{p_{i}(\tau,\sigma),q_{i}(\tau,\sigma)}_{\sigma}(\tau)$.
For an integer $i\in[1,n]$, we write $i^{*}$ for $n+1-i$. The infinite Frobenius $F_{\infty,\sigma}$ maps $\omega_{i,\sigma}(\tau)$ to an element in $M^{p_{i^{*}}(\overline{\sigma},\tau),q_{i^{*}}(\overline{\sigma},\tau)}_{\sigma}(\tau)$. Therefore, there exists $Q_{i,\sigma}(\tau)\in {\mathbb{C}}^{\times}$ such that $$F_{\infty,\sigma}(\omega_{i,\sigma}(\tau)) = Q_{i,\sigma}(\tau) \omega_{i^{*},\overline{\sigma}}(\tau).$$
We define the **motivic period** $Q_{i}(M,\sigma)$ as the element $(Q_{i,\sigma}(\tau))_{\tau\in\Sigma_{E}}$ in $(E\otimes {\mathbb{C}})^{\times}$.
For $1\leq j\leq n$, we also define $$\label{def Qleq}
Q^{(j)}(M,\sigma):=Q_{1}(M,\sigma)Q_{2}(M,\sigma)\cdots Q_{j}(M,\sigma)\delta(M,\sigma)(2\pi i)^{n(n-1)/2}$$ and $Q^{(0)}(M,\sigma)=\delta(M,\sigma)(2\pi i)^{n(n-1)/2}$.
This definition depends on the choice of the fixed bases $\{\widetilde{\omega_{i}}(\alpha)\}_{1\leq i\leq n}$, $\alpha\in\mathcal{A}$. A different choice will change $Q_{i,\sigma}$ by a factor in $(E\otimes \sigma(F))^{\times}$.
\[conjugacy on motivic period\]We have the following equations on the motivic periods:
1. $\delta(M^{c},\sigma)=[\prod\limits_{i=1}^{n}Q_{i}(M,\sigma)]\delta(M,\sigma).$
2. For any $\sigma\in\Sigma_{F}$ and $0\leq j\leq n$, we have $$Q^{(n-j)}(M^{c},\sigma) \sim_{E\otimes \sigma(F)} Q^{(j)}(M,\sigma).$$
We first show that (1) implies (2). In fact, we have by definition that $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
Q^{(n-j)}(M^{c},\sigma) \sim_{E\otimes \sigma(F)} Q_{1}(M^{c},\sigma)Q_{2}(M^{c},\sigma)\cdots Q_{n-j}(M^{c},\sigma)\delta(M^{c},\sigma)(2\pi i)^{n(n-1)/2}\\
\text{ and }Q^{(j)}(M,\sigma)\sim_{E\otimes \sigma(F)}Q_{1}(M,\sigma)Q_{2}(M,\sigma)\cdots Q_{j}(M,\sigma)\delta(M,\sigma)(2\pi i)^{n(n-1)/2}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to see that $Q_{i}(M^{c},\sigma) \sim_{E\otimes \sigma(F)} Q_{n+1-i}(M,\sigma)^{-1}$. Hence it remains to show (1).
In fact, we have a commutative diagram: $$\xymatrix{
M_{\sigma}\otimes{\mathbb{C}}\ar[d]^{F_{\infty}} \ar[r]^{I_{\infty,\sigma}} &M_{DR}\otimes_{\sigma}{\mathbb{C}}\ar[d]^{I_{\infty,\overline{\sigma}}F_{\infty,\sigma}I_{\infty,\sigma}^{-1}}\\
M_{\overline{\sigma}}\otimes{\mathbb{C}}\ar[r]^{I_{\infty,\overline{\sigma}}} &M_{DR}\otimes_{\overline{\sigma}}{\mathbb{C}}}.$$ Let $\omega_{i,\sigma}$ denote $\sum\limits_{\tau\in\Sigma_{E}}\omega_{i,\sigma}(\tau)$. By Proposition \[basis component\], the family $\{\omega_{i,\sigma}\}_{1\leq i\leq n}$ forms an $E\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$ basis of $M_{\sigma}\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$. Therefore, the family $\{I_{\infty}(\omega_{i,\sigma})\}_{1\leq i\leq n}$ forms a basis of $M_{DR}\otimes_{\sigma}{\mathbb{C}}$. This basis is not rational, but can be transformed to a rational basis by a unipotent matrix. Hence it can be used to calculate the determinant period.
Similarly, we may use $\{I_{\infty}(\omega_{i,\overline{\sigma}})\}_{1\leq i\leq n}$ as the basis of $M_{DR}\otimes_{\overline{\sigma}}{\mathbb{C}}$. Since $F_{\infty,\sigma}(\omega_{i,\sigma}) = Q_{i}(M,\sigma) \omega_{i^{*},\overline{\sigma}}$, the determinant of the right vertical arrow equals $\prod\limits_{i=1}^{n}Q_{i}(M,\sigma)$. The lemma then follows from the $E$-rationality of $F_{\infty}$.
Deligne period for tensor product of motives
--------------------------------------------
Let $M$ and $M'$ be two regular motives over a CM field $F$ with coefficients in a number field $E$ pure of weight $w$ and $w'$ respectively. We write $n$ for the rank of $M$ and $n'$ for the rank of $M'$.
We have defined motivic periods for $M$ and $M'$ in the previous sections. For each $\sigma\in\Sigma_{F}$, we shall calculate the local Deligne period for $M\otimes M'$ in terms of motivic periods in this section. We keep the notation of the last section.
We first construct an $E\otimes F$-basis of $M_{DR}$ which is good enough with respect to the Hodge filtration.
For each $\alpha\in\mathcal{A}$ and each $i\in [1,n]$, we define $\widehat{\omega_{i}}(\alpha):=\widetilde{\omega_{i}}(\alpha) -\sum\limits_{\alpha(\tau,\sigma)=\tau}\epsilon_{i-1,\sigma}(\tau)$. We consider $\{\widehat{\omega_{i}}(\alpha)\}_{1\leq i\leq n}$ as a family of vectors in $M(\alpha)\otimes{\mathbb{C}}$. Recall that $\{\widetilde{\omega_{i}}(\alpha)\}_{1\leq i\leq n}$ is an $L_{\alpha}\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$-basis of $M(\alpha)\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$. We claim that $\{\widehat{\omega_{i}}(\alpha)\}_{1\leq i\leq n}$ is also an $L_{\alpha}\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$-basis of $M(\alpha)\otimes{\mathbb{C}}$.
In fact, since $\epsilon_{i-1,\sigma}(\tau) \in F^{p_{i-1}}(M)(\alpha)\otimes_{\tau\otimes\sigma} {\mathbb{C}}$, we know that the sum $\sum\limits_{\alpha(\tau,\sigma)=\tau}\epsilon_{i-1,\sigma}(\tau)$ is in $F^{p_{i-1}}(M)(\alpha)\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$. The $L_{\alpha}\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$-module $F^{p_{i-1}}(M)(\alpha)\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$ is generated by $\{\widetilde{\omega_{j}}(\alpha)\}_{1\leq j\leq i-1}$. Therefore, the family $\{\widehat{\omega_{i}}(\alpha)\}_{1\leq i\leq n}$ can be transformed to the $L_{\alpha}\otimes{\mathbb{C}}$-basis $\{\widetilde{\omega_{i}}(\alpha)\}_{1\leq i\leq n}$ by a unipotent matrix.\
For each $1\leq i\leq n$, we define $\widetilde{\omega_{i}}$ (resp. $\widehat{\omega_{i}}$) to be the sum $\sum\limits_{\alpha\in\mathcal{A}}\widetilde{\omega_{i}}(\alpha)$ (resp. $\sum\limits_{\alpha\in\mathcal{A}}\widehat{\omega_{i}}(\alpha)$). The family $\{\widetilde{\omega_{i}}\}_{1\leq i\leq n}$ is a rational basis of $M_{DR}$ and hence can be considered as an $E\otimes F\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$-basis of $M_{DR}\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$. The family $\{\widehat{\omega_{i}}\}_{1\leq i\leq n}$ is also an $E\otimes F \otimes {\mathbb{C}}$-basis of $M_{DR} \otimes {\mathbb{C}}$. It can be transformed to the previous rational basis by a unipotent transformation.
We remark that by the regularity property of $M$, the vector $\widehat{\omega_{i}}$ is unique up to multiplication by elements in $(E\otimes F)^{\times}$.\
In order to apply Proposition \[factorization theorem for motives\], we first show that the basis $\{\widetilde{\omega_{i}}\}_{1\leq i\leq n}$ of $M_{DR}$ satisfies the condition there.
The image of the family $(\widetilde{\omega_{i}},\widetilde{\omega}_{n+1-i})_{1\leq i\leq n}$ in $M^{+}_{DR}\oplus M^{+,c}_{DR}$ forms an $E\otimes F$-basis.
We write $v_{i}$ for the image of $\widetilde{\omega_{i}}$ in $M^{+}_{DR}=M_{DR}/F^{w/2}(M)$.
By Lemma \[basislemma\], it is enough to show that this family is $E\otimes F$-linearly independent. This is equivalent to saying that the family $\{(v_{i}\otimes_{\tau\otimes\sigma} 1, v_{i}\otimes_{\tau\otimes\overline{\sigma}}1)\}_{1\leq i\leq n}$ is ${\mathbb{C}}$-linearly independent in $M^{+}_{DR}\otimes_{\tau\otimes\sigma}{\mathbb{C}}\oplus M^{+}_{DR}\otimes_{\tau\otimes\overline{\sigma}}{\mathbb{C}}$.
Recall that by construction we have $v_{i}\otimes_{\tau\otimes\sigma} 1\in F^{p_{i}(\tau,\sigma)}M\otimes_{\tau\otimes\sigma}{\mathbb{C}}$. Moreover, $v_{n+1-i}\otimes_{\tau\otimes\overline{\sigma}} 1\in F^{p_{n+1-i}(\tau,\overline{\sigma})}M\otimes_{\tau\otimes\overline{\sigma}}{\mathbb{C}}=F^{w-p_{i}(\tau,\sigma)}M\otimes_{\tau\otimes\sigma}{\mathbb{C}}$.
Since $p_{i}(\tau,\sigma)\neq w/2$, we have either $p_{i}(\tau,\sigma)> w/2$, either $p_{i}(\tau,\sigma)< w/2$. In the first case, we have $F^{p_{i}(\tau,\sigma)}M\subset F^{w/2}(M)$ and hence $v_{i}\otimes_{\tau\otimes\sigma}1=0$. In the second case we have $v_{n+1-i}\otimes_{\tau\otimes\overline{\sigma}}1=0$.
We deduce that the family $\{(v_{i}\otimes_{\tau\otimes\sigma} 1, v_{i}\otimes_{\tau\otimes\overline{\sigma}}1)\}_{1\leq i\leq n}$ equals $\{(v_{i}\otimes_{\tau\otimes\sigma}1,0)\}_{p_{i}(\tau,\sigma)<w/2}\cup \{(0, v_{n+1-i}\otimes_{\tau\otimes\overline{\sigma}}1)_{p_{i}(\tau,\sigma)\}>w/2}$. The linear independence of this family is clear by the construction of $\widetilde{\omega}_{i}$.
Therefore, we may apply Proposition \[factorization theorem for motives\] to the basis $\{\widetilde{\omega_{i}}\}_{1\leq i\leq n}$ and calculate the Deligne period using this basis. Since the determinant of a unipotent matrix is always one, we can instead use the basis $\{\widehat{\omega_{i}}\}_{1\leq i\leq n}$. The idea was implicitly contained in [@H97] and discussed in detail in [@linorsay] and [@gue].
We fix a basis for $M'_{DR}$ similarly. For any $\sigma\in\Sigma_{F}$, we fix any $E$-bases of $M_{\sigma}$ and $M'_{\sigma}$ and extend them to $E\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$-bases of $M_{\sigma}\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$ and $M'_{\sigma}\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$ respectively.
It remains to define the split index to state our main proposition.
We write the Hodge type of $M$ at $(\tau,\sigma)$ as $(p_{i}(\tau,\sigma),w-p_{i}(\tau,\sigma))_{1\leq i\leq n}$ with $p_{1}(\tau,\sigma)>p_{2}(\tau,\sigma)>\cdots >p_{n}(\tau,\sigma)$. We write the Hodge type of $M'$ at $(\tau,\sigma)$ as $(r_{j}(\tau,\sigma),w'-r_{j}(\tau,\sigma))_{1\leq j\leq n'}$ with $r_{1}(\tau,\sigma)>r_{2}(\tau,\sigma)>\cdots >r_{n'}(\tau,\sigma)$.
We assume that $M\otimes M'$ has no $(\frac{w+w'}{2},\frac{w+w'}{2})$-classes. Then $p_{i}(\tau,\sigma)+r_{j}(\tau,\sigma)\neq \frac{w+w'}{2}$ for any $i$, $j$. Hence the sequence $-r_{n'}(\tau,\sigma)>-r_{n'-1}(\tau,\sigma)>\cdots>-r_{1}(\tau,\sigma)$ is split into $n+1$ parts by the numbers $p_{1}(\tau,\sigma)-\frac{w+w'}{2}>p_{2}(\tau,\sigma)-\frac{w+w'}{2}>\cdots>p_{n}(\tau,\sigma)-\frac{w+w'}{2}$. We denote the length of each part by $sp(i,M;M',\sigma)(\tau)$, $0\leq i\leq n$, and call them the **split indices** for the motivic pair.
For $0\leq i\leq n$, we write $sp(i,M;M',\sigma)$ for $(sp(i,M;M',\sigma)(\tau))_{\tau\in\Sigma_{E}}$ as an element in ${\mathbb{N}}^{\Sigma_{E}}$. We may define $sp(j,M';M,\sigma)$ for $1\leq j\leq n'$ similarly.
\[tensor product factorization\] We assume that the motive $M\otimes M'$ has no $(\frac{w+w'}{2},\frac{w+w'}{2})$-classes. We have the following equation for the Deligne period with respect to the above bases: $$\begin{aligned}
&c^{+}(M\otimes M',\sigma) =
&\\
&(2\pi i)^{-\frac{nn'(n+n'-2)}{2}}\prod\limits_{j=0}^{n}(Q^{(j)}(M,\sigma))^{sp(j,M;M',\sigma)}\prod\limits_{k=0}^{n'}(Q^{(k)}(M',\sigma))^{sp(k,M';M,\sigma)}\nonumber&\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, the factorization of $c^{+}(Res_{F/{\mathbb{Q}}}(M\otimes M'))$ in Proposition \[factorization theorem for motives\] holds at the same time.
Since the previous proposition concerns only one place, we may assume that the base field $F^+ = {{\mathbb Q}}$. In this case, the previous proposition was proved in [@harrisadjoint; @GH] when the motive is polarized, and was generalized to non-polarized motives in [@linthesis; @linorsay].
If $M\otimes M'$ has non-trivial $(w/2,w/2)$-classes then there is no critical point (cf. $1.7$ of [@H97]).
Recall by definition that the image of $\widehat{\omega_{i}}$ in $M_{DR}\otimes_{\sigma} {\mathbb{C}}$ is equal to $I_{\infty,\sigma}(\omega_{i,\sigma})$. The proof is the same as for motives over quadratic imaginary fields (cf. Proposition $1.1$ and Proposition $1.2$ of [@linorsay]). We only need to replace $\omega_{i}$ (resp. $\omega_{i}^{c}$) there by our $\omega_{i,\sigma}$ (resp. $\omega_{i,\overline{\sigma}}$).
The key point of the proof is the relation $F_{\infty,\sigma}(\omega_{i,\sigma})= Q_{i,\sigma}\omega_{i^{*},\overline{\sigma}}$. The original ideas can be found in [@harrisadjoint] where the author provided a proof for self dual motives.
The Deligne period for automorphic pairs
----------------------------------------
Let $\Pi$ and $\Pi'$ be cuspidal cohomological automorphic representations of $GL_{n}({\mathbb{A}_{F}})$ and $GL_{n'}({\mathbb{A}_{F}})$ respectively. We write $(z^{A_{\sigma,i}}\overline{z}^{A_{\overline{\sigma},i}})_{1\leq i\leq n}$ for the infinity type of $\Pi$ and $(z^{B_{\sigma,j}}\overline{z}^{B_{\overline{\sigma},j}})_{1\leq j\leq n'}$ for the infinity type of $\Pi'$ at $\sigma\in\Sigma$ respectively. The numbers $A_{\sigma,i}$ are in $ {\mathbb{Z}}+\frac{n-1}{2}$ and the numbers $B_{\sigma,j}$ are in $ {\mathbb{Z}}+\frac{n'-1}{2}$ for any $\sigma\in\Sigma_{F}$, $1\leq i\leq n$ and $1\leq j\leq n'$; they are written in strictly decreasing order: $$A_{\sigma,i} > A_{\sigma,i+1}; ~~ B_{\sigma,j} > B_{\sigma,j+1}$$ for all $\sigma$ and $1 \leq i < n$, $1 \leq j < n'$. In particular, $\Pi$ and $\Pi'$ are [*regular*]{}.
We know that the sum $A_{\sigma,i}+A_{\overline{\sigma},i}=w(\Pi)$ does not depend on the choice of $i$ or $\sigma$. Moreover, the finite part of $\Pi$ is defined over a number field $E(\Pi)$. We define $w(\Pi')$ and $E(\Pi')$ similarly.
\[thehypotheses\]
1. We say $\Pi$ is **polarized** if $\Pi^{\vee}\cong \Pi^{c}$.
2. We say $\Pi$ is **sufficiently regular** if $\mid A_{\sigma,i}-A_{\sigma,i'}\mid$ is big enough[^3] for any $\sigma\in\Sigma_{F}$ and $i\neq i'$.
3. We say the pair $(\Pi,\Pi')$ is in **good position** if $n>n'$ and the numbers $-B_{j}$, $1\leq j\leq n'$ lie in different gaps between the numbers $-\frac{w(\Pi)+w(\Pi')}{2}+A_{i}$, $1\leq i\leq n$.
We write $M(\Pi)$ and $M(\Pi')$ for the pure motives over $F$ (for absolute Hodge cycles) conjecturally attached to $\Pi$ and $\Pi'$ respectively. We know $M(\Pi)$ (resp. $M(\Pi')$) is pure of weight $w:=-w(\Pi)+n-1$ (resp. $w':=-w(\Pi')+n'-1$) with coefficients in $E(\Pi)$ (resp. $E(\Pi')$). We will consider the Deligne conjecture when $Res_{F/{\mathbb{Q}}}(M(\Pi)\otimes M(\Pi'))$ has no $(\frac{w+w'}{2},\frac{w+w'}{2})$-classes.
For $1\leq i\leq n$, $1\leq j\leq n'$ and $\sigma\in\Sigma$, we define $sp(i,\Pi;\Pi',\sigma):=sp(i,M(\Pi);M(\Pi'),\sigma)$ and $sp(j,\Pi';\Pi,\sigma):=sp(j,M(\Pi');M(\Pi),\sigma)$.
1. When we write down the infinity type of $\Pi$, we have implicitly fixed an embedding of the coefficient field $E$. Changing the embedding induces a permutation on the infinity type. For example, let $\chi$ be an algebraic Hecke character with coefficients in a number field $E$. We fix $\tau: E\hookrightarrow {\mathbb{C}}$ an embedding of $E$. We can then write its infinity type as $(\sigma(z)^{a_{\sigma}})_{\sigma\in\Sigma_{F}}$. Let $\tau'$ be another embedding of $E$. We take $g\in Aut({\mathbb{C}})$ such that $\tau'=g\circ \tau$. Then the infinity type of $\chi$ with respect to the embedding $\tau'$ is $(\sigma(z)^{a_{g^{-1}\circ \sigma}})_{\sigma\in\Sigma_{F}}$ .
2. The Hodge type of $M(\Pi)$ at $\sigma$ with respect to a fixed embedding of $E$ is $\{(-A_{\sigma,i}+\frac{n-1}{2},-A_{\overline{\sigma},i}+\frac{n-1}{2})\}$. Hence the integers $sp(i,\Pi;\Pi',\sigma)$ can be defined without assuming the existence of $M(\Pi)$.
By Proposition \[tensor product factorization\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{local motivic period calculation}&c^{+}(M(\Pi)\otimes M'(\Pi'),\sigma)
&\\
&=(2\pi i)^{\frac{-nn'(n+n'-2)}{2}}\prod\limits_{j=0}^{n}(Q^{(j)}(M(\Pi),\sigma))^{sp(j,\Pi;\Pi',\sigma)}\prod\limits_{k=0}^{n'}(Q^{(k)}(M(\Pi'),\sigma))^{sp(k,\Pi';\Pi,\sigma)}\nonumber&\end{aligned}$$
If $n'=1$, it is easy to calculate the split index.
\[n1motive\] Let $\Pi'=\chi$ be a regular algebraic Hecke character over $F$ of infinity type $(\sigma(z)^{a_{\sigma}})_{\sigma\in\Sigma_{F}}$.
For $\sigma$ in the CM type $\Sigma$, we write $I_{\sigma}=I_{\sigma}(\Pi,\chi)$ for the cardinal of the set $\{i\mid A_{\sigma,i}-A_{\overline{\sigma},i}+a_{\sigma}-a_{\overline{\sigma}}<0\}$.
If $M(\Pi)\otimes M(\chi)$ is critical, then $$\begin{aligned}
&c^{+}(M(\Pi)\otimes M(\chi),\sigma)\sim_{E(\Pi)\otimes E(\chi);\sigma(F)} \nonumber&\\
&(2\pi i)^{-\frac{n(n-1)}{2}} Q^{(I_{\sigma})}(M(\Pi),\sigma) Q^{(0)}(M(\chi),\sigma)^{n-I_{\sigma}}Q^{(1)}(M(\chi),\sigma)^{I_{\sigma}}\nonumber&\end{aligned}$$
For each $\sigma\in\Sigma_{F}$, the CM period $p(\chi,\sigma)$ is a complex number defined in the appendix of [@harrisappendix].
We define $\widecheck{\chi}=\chi^{c,-1}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}=\cfrac{\chi}{\chi^{c}}$. It is easy to see that $\widecheck{\widetilde{\chi}}=\widetilde{\chi}$.
The following lemma follows from Blasius’s results on the Deligne conjecture [@blas].
(Comparison of CM periods and motivic periods for Hecke characters)\[comparison n=1\] Let $\chi$ be a regular algebraic Hecke character over $F$. We have:
1. $\delta(M(\chi),\sigma) \sim_{E(\chi)} p(\widecheck{\chi^{c}},\sigma)$;
2. $Q_{1}(M(\chi),\sigma) \sim_{E(\chi)} \cfrac{p(\widecheck{\chi},\sigma)}{p(\widecheck{\chi^{c}},\sigma)} \sim_{E(\chi)}p( \cfrac{\widecheck{\chi}}{\widecheck{\chi^{c}}},\sigma)$.
Consequently, we have: $$\label{motivic period for Hecke characters}
Q^{(0)}(M(\chi),\sigma)\sim_{E(\chi)} p(\widecheck{\chi^{c}},\sigma) \text{ and } Q^{(1)}(M(\chi),\sigma)\sim_{E(\chi)} p(\widecheck{\chi},\sigma).$$
We refer to section $6.4$ of [@linthesis] for the proof of the lemma when $F^{+}={{\mathbb Q}}$. The same ideas should work for general CM fields.
Proposition \[n1motive\] generalizes the similar expression proved in [@H97] when $F^+ = {{\mathbb Q}}$, and can be compared to Guerberoff’s expression in [@gue] for the Deligne period of $M_{0} \otimes R_{F/F^{+}}M(\widetilde{\psi})$; here $M_{0}$ is a polarized motive over $F^{+}$ and $\psi$ is an algebraic Hecke character of $F$ of infinity type $(z^{-m_{\sigma}})_{\sigma\in\Sigma_{F}}$. For simplicity, we assume that $\psi$ is of weight $0$, i.e. $m_{\sigma}+m_{\overline{\sigma}}=0$ for all $\sigma_{0}\in\Sigma_{F}$.
\[guermotive\]\[Guerberoff\] If $M_{0}\otimes Res_{F/F^{+}}M(\widetilde{\psi})$ is critical, then for any $\sigma_{0}\in\Sigma_{F^{+}}$, we have $$c^{+}\left(M_{0} \otimes RM(\widetilde{\psi}),\sigma_{0}\right)\sim_{E\otimes {\mathbb{Q}}(\widetilde{\psi})\otimes\sigma(F) }
\delta(M_{0},\sigma_{0})Q(\widetilde{\psi},\sigma_{0})\prod_{j\leq s_{\sigma}}Q_{j,\sigma_{0}}(M_{0}).$$
We refer to [@gue] for an explanation of the parameters for the general case.
If in addition to being polarized, $\Pi$ is isomorphic to $\Pi^{c}$, we expect that $\Pi$ is associated to a polarized motive $M_{0}$ over $F^{+}$.
In this case we have $$\nonumber
c^{+}(M(\Pi)\otimes M(\widetilde{\psi}),\sigma)\sim_{E\otimes {\mathbb{Q}}(\widetilde{\psi})\otimes \sigma(F)} c^{+}(M_{0}\otimes Res_{F/F^{+}}M(\widetilde{\psi})).$$
We claim that Guerberoff’s result is compatible with Proposition \[n1motive\].
In fact, we write $I_{\sigma}$ as the index in Proposition \[n1motive\] for the pair $(\Pi,\widetilde{\psi})$. One can show that the index $s_{\sigma}$ in Theorem \[guermotive\] is equal to $n-I_{\sigma}$. Hence the index $r_{\sigma}$ in [@gue] is equal to $I_{\sigma}$. As in section $5$ of [@gue], we have $$\nonumber
Q(\widetilde{\psi},\sigma_{0})\sim_{ {\mathbb{Q}}(\widetilde{\psi})\otimes \sigma(F)} p(\widetilde{\psi},\sigma)^{r_{\sigma}-s_{\sigma}}=p(\widetilde{\psi},\sigma)^{2I_{\sigma}-n}.$$
On the other hand, by equation (\[motivic period for Hecke characters\]) we may simplify the last two terms in Proposition \[n1motive\] for $\chi=\widetilde{\psi}$ as follows: $$\nonumber
Q^{(0)}(M(\widetilde{\psi}),\sigma)^{n-I_{\sigma}}Q^{(1)}(M(\widetilde{\psi}),\sigma)^{I_{\sigma}}\sim_{{\mathbb{Q}}(\widetilde{\psi})\otimes \sigma(F)} p(\widetilde{\psi},\sigma)^{2I_{\sigma}-n}.$$
It remains to compare $(2\pi i)^{-\frac{n(n-1)}{2}} Q^{(I_{\sigma})}(M(\Pi),\sigma)$ with $\delta(M_{0},\sigma_{0})\prod_{j\leq s_{\sigma}}Q_{j,\sigma_{0}}(M_{0})$. It follows from the definitions that $$\delta(M_{0},\sigma_{0})\sim_{E\otimes\sigma(F)}\delta(M(\Pi),\sigma)$$ and $$Q_{j}(M_{0},\sigma_{0})\sim_{E\otimes \sigma(F)} Q_{j}(M_{0},\sigma)$$ where $\sigma$ is the lifting of $\sigma_{0}$ in the CM type $\Sigma$ of $F$. Hence the term $\delta(M_{0},\sigma_{0})\prod_{j\leq s_{\sigma}}Q_{j,\sigma_{0}}(M_{0})$ is equivalent to $(2\pi i)^{-\frac{n(n-1)}{2}} Q^{(s_{\sigma})}(M(\Pi),\sigma)$. Since $\Pi\cong \Pi^{c}$, we have $M(\Pi) \cong M(\Pi)^{c}$. By the second part of Lemma \[conjugacy on motivic period\] we have $Q^{(s_{\sigma})}(M(\Pi),\sigma)\sim_{E\otimes \sigma(F)} Q^{(n-s_{\sigma})}(M(\Pi)^{c},\sigma) \sim_{E\otimes \sigma(F)} Q^{(I_{\sigma})}(M(\Pi),\sigma)$ which completes the comparison.
Results on critical values
==========================
We can now restate the Deligne conjecture for $Res_{K/{\mathbb{Q}}}(M(\Pi)\otimes M(\Pi'))$.
\[deligneMMprime\] If $m\in {\mathbb{N}}+\frac{n+n'-2}{2} $ is critical for $\Pi\times \Pi'$ then the critical value at $s=m$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
&L(m,\Pi\times \Pi') \sim_{E(\Pi)\otimes E(\Pi'); F^{gal}}&\\
&(2\pi i)^{mnn'd(F^{+})}\prod\limits_{\sigma\in\Sigma} [\prod\limits_{j=0}^{n}(Q^{(j)}(M(\Pi),\sigma))^{sp(j,\Pi;\Pi',\sigma)}\prod\limits_{k=0}^{n'}(Q^{(k)}(M(\Pi'),\sigma))^{sp(k,\Pi';\Pi,\sigma)}].&\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Here we consider the relation up to $E(\Pi)\otimes E(\Pi')\otimes F^{gal}$. Hence we can ignore the terms $\prod\limits_{\sigma\in\Sigma}\sigma(\alpha)$ and $D_{F^{+}}^{1/2}$ in Proposition \[factorization theorem for motives\]. Moreover, by equation (\[relation between pm\]), we don’t need to consider the sign in the original Deligne conjecture.
When we write down the relation $\sim_{E(\Pi)\otimes E(\Pi');F^{gal}}$, we have implicitly considered $L(m,\Pi\otimes\Pi')$ as an element of $E(\Pi)\otimes E(\Pi') \otimes {\mathbb{C}}$. In fact, we have a priori fixed embeddings of $E(\Pi)$ and $E(\Pi')$ in ${\mathbb{C}}$. For each $g_{1}\in Aut({\mathbb{C}})$ and $g_{2}\in Aut({\mathbb{C}})$, the value $L(m,\Pi^{g_{1}}\otimes\Pi'^{g_{2}})$ depends only on $g_{1}\mid_{E(\Pi)}$ and $g_{2}\mid_{E(\Pi')}$. Therefore, for any embeddings $\tau_{1}: E(\Pi) \hookrightarrow {\mathbb{C}}$ and $\tau_{2}: E(\Pi) \hookrightarrow {\mathbb{C}}$, we may define $L(m,\Pi^{\tau_{1}}\otimes\Pi'^{\tau_{2}})$ as $L(m,\Pi^{g_{1}}\otimes\Pi'^{g_{2}})$ where $g_{i}$ is any lift of $\tau_{i}$ in $Aut({\mathbb{C}})$ for $i=1,2$. It is clear that $(L(m,\Pi^{\tau_{1}}\otimes\Pi'^{\tau_{2}}))_{\tau_{1}: E(\Pi) \hookrightarrow {\mathbb{C}}, \tau_{2}: E(\Pi') \hookrightarrow {\mathbb{C}}}$ is an element of $E(\Pi)\otimes E(\Pi')\otimes{\mathbb{C}}$. We simply denote it by $L(m,\Pi\otimes\Pi')$.
Some concrete results have been shown when the motivic periods $Q^{(j)}(M(\Pi),\sigma)$ are replaced by corresponding automorphic arithmetic periods. Here is a list of results obtained recently when $F$ is a CM field. Notation ($P^{(a)}(\Pi)$, etc.) will be explained more precisely in subsequent sections. In what follows, we let $K$ be a quadratic imaginary field, and assume $F=F^{+}K$ where $F^{+}$ is the maximal totally real subfield of $F$.
Results when $F^+ = {{\mathbb Q}}$
----------------------------------
We first assume $F^+ = {{\mathbb Q}}$, where the results are easier to state.
\[RSoverQ\]\[Grobner-H., Lin\] We assume that both $\Pi$ and $\Pi'$ are cuspidal, cohomological, polarized and sufficiently regular.
If $n \nequiv n' \mod 2$ and the pair $(\Pi,\Pi')$ is in good position (cf. Definition \[thehypotheses\]) then for critical points $m>0$ we have that: $$L(m,\Pi \times \Pi') \sim_{E(\Pi)\otimes E(\Pi'); F^{gal}} (2\pi i)^{mnn'} \prod_{j = 0}^{n} P^{(j)}(\Pi)^{sp(j,\Pi;\Pi')}\prod_{k = 0}^{n'} P^{(k)}(\Pi')^{sp(k,\Pi';\Pi)},$$ where $P^{(k)}(\Pi) = P^{(I)}(\Pi)$, in the notation of Definition \[autoperiods\], with $I$ the singleton $k \in \{0,\dots, n\}$.
Guerberoff’s results on critical values of $L$-functions
--------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, Guerberoff has generalized the results of [@H97] on special values of $L$-functions of unitary groups to arbitrary CM fields. The statement of Guerberoff’s result is as in [@gue]; some of the notation has been changed.
\[guer\]\[Guerberoff\] Let $V$ be a Hermitian space of dimension $n$ over $F$ respect to $F/F^{+}$. Assume that $V$ has signature $(r_{\sigma},s_{\sigma})$ at $\sigma \in \Sigma$ where $\Sigma$ is a CM type of $F$ as before.
Let $\pi$ be a cohomological holomorphic discrete series automorphic representation of the rational similitude group associated to $V$. Let $\psi$ be an algebraic Hecke character of $F$ of infinity type $(z^{-m_{\sigma}}))_{\sigma\in\Sigma_{F}}$. We can parametrize the weight of $\pi$ by a tuple of integers $((a_{\sigma,1},\dots,a_{\sigma,n})_{\sigma\in\Sigma};a_{0})$ in a natural way.
We assume that $\pi$ is polarized, i.e. $\pi^{\vee}\cong \pi\otimes ||\mu||^{2a_{0}}$. If $ m\in {\mathbb{Z}}+\frac{n-1}{2}$ is such that $$\label{critical condition gue}
n<m+\frac{n-1}{2} \leq\min\{a_{\sigma,r_{\sigma}}+s_{\sigma}+m_{\sigma}-m_{\overline\sigma},a_{\sigma,s_{\sigma}}+r_{\sigma}+m_{\overline\sigma}-m_{\sigma}\}_{\sigma\in\Sigma},$$ then $$L^{S}\left(m,\pi\otimes\psi, St\right)\sim_{E(\pi)\otimes E(\psi);F^{gal}}(2\pi i)^{d(F^{+})mn-2a_{0}}P(\psi)Q_V(\pi).$$
The term $P(\psi)$ is a certain expression involving periods of CM abelian varieties attached to the Hecke character $\psi$. The term $Q_V(\pi)$ is the normalized Petersson norm of an arithmetic holomorphic vector in $\pi$.
\(1) The current version of Guerberoff’s theorem only applies to polarized representations, but the methods apply more generally.
\(2) The assumption $n<m+\frac{n-1}{2}$ is unnecessarily strong; extension down to the center of symmetry of the functional equation should be possible by the methods of [@H08].
\(3) It is likely that this result can be improved to allow for the action of $Gal({{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}/F')$ on the ratio of the two sides, for some subfield $F' \subset F^{gal}$; one would like to replace $F^{gal}$ by ${{\mathbb Q}}$.
Results on Rankin-Selberg $L$-functions
---------------------------------------
Let $\Pi$ be a cohomological regular polarized cuspidal representation of $GL_{n}({\mathbb{A}_{F}})$. We assume that $\Pi^{\vee}$ descends to $\{\pi\}_V$, a packet of representations of the rational similitude group associated to $V$, which contains a holomorphic discrete series representation and we denote it $\pi$. The automorphic period $Q_{V}(\pi)$ can be defined as before.
\[autoperiods\] Let $I=(r_{\sigma})_{\sigma\in\Sigma}$ be an element in $\{0,1,\cdots,n\}^{\Sigma}$. We define the **automorphic arithmetic period** $P^{(I)}(\Pi):=(2\pi)^{-2a_{0}}Q_{V}(\pi)$.
If $F^+ = {{\mathbb Q}}$ then we write $P^{(a)}(\Pi)$ for $P^{(I)}(\Pi)$ when $I$ is the singleton $a$.
We observe that $$\nonumber
L\left(m,\pi\otimes\psi, St\right) = L\left(m,\Pi^{\vee}\otimes \widetilde{\psi}\right) = L\left(m,\Pi^{c}\otimes \widetilde{\psi}\right) = L\left(m,\Pi\otimes \widetilde{\psi^{c}}\right).$$
If we have moreover that $\Pi^{c}\cong \Pi$ then $\pi$ is polarized and we may apply Guerberoff’s result to the left hand side. In this case, we have
Let $\Pi$ be as the beginning of this subsection. If $\Pi$ moreover satisfies $\Pi^{c}\cong \Pi$, then for $ m\in {\mathbb{Z}}+\frac{n-1}{2}$ satisfying (\[critical condition gue\]), we have: $$\begin{aligned}
& L^{S}\left(m,\Pi\otimes \widetilde{\psi^{c}}\right)\sim_{E(\Pi)\otimes E(\psi);F^{gal}}\nonumber&\\
&(2\pi i)^{d(F^{+})mn/2}P^{(I)}(\Pi)\prod\limits_{\sigma\in\Sigma}Q^{(0)}(M(\widetilde{\psi^{c}}),\sigma)^{n-I_{\sigma}}Q^{(1)}(M(\widetilde{\psi^{c}}),\sigma)^{I_{\sigma}}&\end{aligned}$$ where $I_{\sigma}=r_{\sigma}$ in (\[critical condition gue\]).
We remark that $E(\pi) \supset E(\Pi)$ but the inclusion is in general strict. But since all terms on both sides other than $P^{(I)}(\Pi)$ depend only on the embedding of $E(\Pi)\otimes E(\psi)$ into ${\mathbb{C}}$, we know that the arithmetic automorphic period $P^{(I)}(\Pi)$ also depends only on the embedding of $E(\Pi)\otimes E(\psi)$. Moreover, we may replace $E(\pi)\otimes E(\psi)$ by $E(\Pi)\otimes E(\psi)$ in the relation.
If we arrange $(a_{i,\sigma})_{1\leq i\leq n}$ in decreasing order for any fixed $\sigma\in\Sigma$, then the infinity type of $\Pi$ at $\sigma\in\Sigma$ is $z^{-a_{i,\sigma}-\frac{n+1}{2}+i}\overline{z}^{a_{i,\sigma}+\frac{n+1}{2}-i}$, and the infinity type of $\widetilde{\psi^{c}}$ is $z^{m_{\sigma}-m_{\overline{\sigma}}}\overline{z}^{- m_{\sigma}+m_{\overline{\sigma}}}$. It is easy to see that equation (\[critical condition gue\]) implies that $r_{\sigma}=I_{\sigma}(\Pi, \widetilde{\psi^{c}})$ defined in Proposition \[n1motive\].
The methods of the above theorem should work in more general cases. As mentioned above, we expect that the field $F^{gal}$ can be replaced by ${\mathbb{Q}}$. We assume it as a hypothesis here. L. Guerberoff and the second author plan to include a proof in a future paper.
\[hypCrelle\] The above theorem is true for general $\Pi$ as in the beginning of this subsection and all critical $m>0$ with $I_{\sigma}=I_{\sigma}(\Pi, \widetilde{\psi^{c}})$ and the relation up to $E(\Pi)\otimes E(\psi)$.
This hypothesis is the Conjecture $5.1.1$ of [@linthesis]. Under this hypothesis, one can prove the following factorization result as in Theorem $7.6.1$ of *loc.cit.*
\[factorizationtheorem\] If $\Pi$ is sufficiently regular then there exist some complex numbers $P^{(r)}(\Pi,\sigma)$, $0\leq r\leq n$, well-defined up to multiplication by elements in $(E(\Pi)\sigma(F))^{\times}$, such that the following two conditions are satisfied:
1. $P^{(I)}(\Pi) \sim_{E(\Pi); F^{gal}} \prod\limits_{\sigma\in\Sigma}P^{(I(\sigma))}(\Pi,\sigma)$ for all $I=(I(\sigma))_{\sigma\in\Sigma}\in \{0,1,\cdots,n\}^{\Sigma}$,
2. and $P^{(0)}(\Pi,\sigma)\sim_{E(\Pi); F^{gal}} p(\widecheck{\xi_{\Pi}},\overline{\sigma})$
where $\xi_{\Pi}$ is the central character of $\Pi$.
Moreover, we know $P^{(n)}(\Pi,\sigma)\sim_{E(\Pi); F^{gal}} p(\widecheck{\xi_{\Pi}},\sigma)$ or equivalently $P^{(0)}(\Pi,\sigma)\times P^{(n)}(\Pi,\sigma)\sim_{E(\Pi); F^{gal}} 1$.
The following two theorems are known if $F$ is a quadratic imaginary field. The generalization to CM fields is immediate once we know Hypothesis \[hypCrelle\] and the above factorization theorem. We refer to section $9.5$ of [@linthesis] for a discussion of the generalization. We recall that the proof of Theorem \[factorizationtheorem\] is also based on Hypothesis \[hypCrelle\].
\[RSGood\] Let $\Pi$ and $\Pi'$ be cuspidal cohomological automorphic representation of $GL_{n}({\mathbb{A}_{F}})$ and $GL_{n'}({\mathbb{A}_{F}})$ respectively which satisfies the descending condition as in the beginning of Section $4.3$. We assume that both $\Pi$ and $\Pi'$ are sufficiently regular and that $(\Pi,\Pi')$ is in good position. If $n \nequiv n' \mod 2$, then for positive $m\in {\mathbb{Z}}+\frac{n+n'}{2}$ which is critical for $\Pi\times \Pi'$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&L(m,\Pi\times \Pi') \sim_{E(\Pi)\otimes E(\Pi'); F^{gal}}&\\
&(2\pi i)^{mnn'd(F^{+})}\prod\limits_{\sigma\in\Sigma} [\prod\limits_{j=0}^{n}(P^{(j)}(\Pi,\sigma))^{sp(j,\Pi;\Pi',\sigma)}\prod\limits_{k=0}^{n'}(P^{(k)}(\Pi',\sigma))^{sp(k,\Pi';\Pi,\sigma)}].&\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
For more general configurations, we can show the following result.
\[RSgeneral\] Theorem \[RSGood\] is still true without the good position condition for $m=1$ when $n\equiv n' \mod 2$.
We have similar results for general relative parity of n and n’. We refer to Theorem $10.8.1$ (resp. Theorem $11.4.1$) of [@linthesis] for the precise statement of Theorem \[RSGood\] (resp. Theorem \[RSgeneral\]).
Geometric meaning of local periods
----------------------------------
Let $r$ be an integer between $0$ and $n$. Let $I\in \{0,1,\cdots,n\}^{\Sigma}$ such that $I(\sigma)=r$ and $I(\sigma')=n$ for all $\sigma'\neq \sigma$. By Theorem \[factorizationtheorem\] we have $$\label{decomposition of automorphic period}
P^{(I)}(\Pi) \sim_{E(\Pi); F^{gal}} P^{(r)}(\Pi,\sigma)\prod\limits_{\sigma'\neq \sigma} P^{(n)}(\Pi,\sigma') \sim_{E(\Pi); F^{gal}} P^{(r)}(\Pi,\sigma)\prod\limits_{\sigma'\neq \sigma} p(\widecheck{\xi_{\Pi}},\sigma').$$
We recall that $P^{(I)}(\Pi)$ relates to the representation of the similitude unitary group with base change $\Pi^{\vee}\otimes \xi$ where $\xi$ is a Hecke character over $F$ such that $\xi_{\Pi}=\cfrac{\xi}{\xi^{c}}$. Therefore, $P^{(I)}(\Pi)$ should be equivalent to the inner product of a rational class in the bottom stage of $\Lambda^{n-r}M_{\sigma}(\Pi^{\vee}) \otimes M(\xi)$. More precisely, we should have $$\begin{aligned}
&&P^{(I)}(\Pi) \nonumber\\
&\sim_{E(\Pi)\otimes E(\xi); F^{gal}} &Q_{1}(M(\Pi^{\vee}),\sigma)Q_{2}(M(\Pi^{\vee}),\sigma)\cdots Q_{n-r}(M(\Pi^{\vee}),\sigma) Q_{1}(M(\xi))\nonumber
\\
&\sim_{E(\Pi)\otimes E(\xi); F^{gal}} &Q_{1}(M(\Pi^{\vee}),\sigma)Q_{2}(M(\Pi^{\vee}),\sigma)\cdots Q_{n-r}(M(\Pi^{\vee}),\sigma) Q_{1}(M(\xi),\sigma) \prod\limits_{\sigma'\neq \sigma} Q_{1}(M(\xi),\sigma')\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
By Lemma \[comparison n=1\], we know $$\label{a calculation for sigma'}
Q_{1}(M(\xi),\sigma') \sim _{E(\xi)} p( \cfrac{\widecheck{\xi}}{\widecheck{\xi^{c}}},\sigma') \sim _{E(\xi)} p(\widecheck{\xi_{\Pi}},\sigma').$$
We compare this with equation (\[decomposition of automorphic period\]) and then deduce that the Tate conjecture would imply (as in the section $4.5$ of [@GH]): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{main comparison 1}
&&P^{(r)}(\Pi,\sigma) \\\nonumber
&\sim_{E(\Pi); F^{gal}}& Q_{1}(M(\Pi^{\vee}),\sigma)Q_{2}(M(\Pi^{\vee}),\sigma)\cdots Q_{n-r}(M(\Pi^{\vee}),\sigma) Q_{1}(M(\xi),\sigma)\\
\nonumber
&\sim_{E(\Pi); F^{gal}}& Q_{1}(M(\Pi^{c}),\sigma)Q_{2}(M(\Pi^{c}),\sigma)\cdots Q_{n-r}(M(\Pi^{c}),\sigma) Q_{1}(M(\xi),\sigma)\end{aligned}$$
We repeat the calculation in (\[a calculation for sigma’\]) for $\sigma$ and get $Q_{1}(M(\xi),\sigma) \sim_{E(\xi)} p(\widecheck{\xi_{\Pi}},\sigma) \sim_{E(\xi)} \delta(M(\xi_{\Pi}^{c}),\sigma)$ by Lemma \[comparison n=1\].
The fact that $det(M(\Pi^{c})) \cong det(M(\xi_{\Pi^{c}}))(\frac{n(1-n)}{2})$ implies $\delta(M(\Pi),\sigma) \sim_{E(\Pi); F^{gal}} \delta(M(\xi_{\Pi}^{c}),\sigma) (2\pi i)^{n(1-n)/2}$ and hence $Q_{1}(M(\xi),\sigma)\sim_{E(\Pi); F^{gal}} \delta(M(\Pi),\sigma)(2\pi i)^{n(n-1)/2}$.
This implies that $P^{(r)}(\Pi,\sigma)\sim_{E(\Pi); F^{gal}} Q^{(n-r)}(M(\Pi^{c}),\sigma)$ where the right hand side is equivalent to $Q^{(r)}(M(\Pi),\sigma)$ by Lemma \[conjugacy on motivic period\] as expected.
Integral representations
========================
Let $G = GL(n)$, $G' = GL(n-1)$ over the number field $F$, with notation as in the introduction. As above, $F$ is assumed to be a CM field. Let $\Pi \times \Pi'$ be an automorphic representation of $G \times G'$ over $F$, with $\Pi$ cuspidal, and let $$\iota: G' \hookrightarrow G, ~\iota(g') = diag(g',1).$$ Write $\Pi = \Pi_{\infty}\otimes \Pi_f$, and likewise for $\Pi'$, the factorization of the adelic representations into their archimedean and non-archimedean components.
Let $\phi \in \Pi$, $\phi' \in \Pi'$. We normalize the Jacquet-Piatetski-Shapiro-Shalika zeta integral for $\Pi \times \Pi'$ over $F$: $$Z(s,\phi,\phi') = \int_{G'(F)\backslash G'({{{\mathbf A}}})} \phi(\iota(g'))\phi'(g') ||det(g')||^{s - \frac{2n-3}{2}} dg'.$$ With this normalization, the central point of the functional equation is at $s = \frac{2n-3}{2}$.
The integral admits an Euler product factorization, in the usual way. Suppose $\phi = \otimes_v \phi_v$ and $\phi' = \otimes_v \phi'_v$ with respect to given factorizations $\Pi {{~\overset\sim\longrightarrow}}\otimes'_v \Pi_v$; $\Pi' {{~\overset\sim\longrightarrow}}\otimes'_v \Pi'_v$. Then $$\label{euler} Z(s,\phi,\phi') = \prod_v Z_v(s,\phi_v,\phi'_v).$$
When $\Pi$ and $\Pi'$ are cohomological representations, and $\phi$, $\phi'$ cohomological vectors, $Z(s,\phi,\phi')$ can be interpreted as a cup product on the locally symmetric space for $G \times G'$. Suppose
- $\Pi$ is cuspidal;
- $\Pi'_{\infty}$ is tempered (up to a twist by a power of the determinant) and generic;
- $H^i(\mathfrak{gl}(n),U(n); \Pi_{\infty}\otimes W) \neq 0$, $H^{i'}(\mathfrak{gl}(n-1),U(n-1); \Pi'_{\infty}\otimes W')\neq 0$ for some irreducible finite dimensional representations $W$ and $W'$ of $R_{F/{{\mathbb Q}}}G$ and $R_{F/{{\mathbb Q}}}G'$, respectively and for some $i$ and $i'\in{\mathbb{Z}}$.
There is an interval $I(n,F) = [b_n(F),t_n(F)] \subset {{\mathbb Z}}$ such that $$H^i(\mathfrak{gl}(n),U(n); \Pi_{\infty}\otimes W) \neq 0 \text{ if and only if } i \in I(n,F).$$ If $F$ is a CM field of degree $2d$ over ${{\mathbb Q}}$, then $b_n(F) = \frac{n(n-1)}{2}\cdot d$ and $\dim H^{b_n} = 1$. By hypothesis (b) above, the same holds for $G'$ and $W'$.
Note that the intervals $I(n,F)$ and $I(n-1,F)$ do not depend on the coefficients $W, W'$. We let $E(W)$ and $E(W')$ denote the fields of definition of $W$ and $W'$ as representations of $R_{F/{{\mathbb Q}}}G$ and $R_{F/{{\mathbb Q}}}G'$, respectively; these are always finite extensions of ${{\mathbb Q}}$. Let $E(W,W') = E(W)\cdot E(W')$.
In general, $b_n(F) + b_{n-1}(F) = \dim (R_{F/{{\mathbb Q}}}G')({{\mathbb R}})/U(n-1)^d = \dim {}_K \tilde{S}_{n-1}$, for any level subgroup $K \subset G'({{{\mathbf A}}}^f)$, where $${}_K \tilde{S}_{n-1} = G'(F)\backslash R_{F/{{\mathbb Q}}}G'({{{\mathbf A}}})/U(n-1)^d\times K, ~ K \subset G'({{{\mathbf A}}}^f).$$ Note that this is [*not*]{} the locally symmetric space attached to $R_{F/{{\mathbb Q}}}G'$, because we have not taken the quotient by the center of $R_{F/{{\mathbb Q}}}G'({{\mathbb R}})$. Nevertheless, the expression $\phi(\iota(g'))\phi'(g')$ can be identified with a top degree differential, that we may denote $\omega_{\phi} \cup \omega_{\phi'}$ on ${}_K \tilde{S}_{n-1}$ for appropriate choices of $\phi, \phi'$. The JPSS integral is obtained by taking the image of this differential in compactly-supported cohomology in the top degree and pairing with the Borel-Moore homology class defined by ${}_K \tilde{S}_{n-1}$ itself. The pairing is well-defined over the field of definition $E(W,W')$. The action of Hecke operators preserve the $E(W)$ and $E(W')$-rational structures of the cohomology, and by multiplicity one for $GL(n)$, the subspaces of cohomology defined by $\Pi_f$ and $\Pi'_f$ are defined over finite extensions $E(\Pi) \supset E(W)$, $E(\Pi') \supset E(W')$.
In particular, suppose $\phi$ and $\phi'$ are chosen so that $\omega_{\phi}$ and $\omega_{\phi'}$ define $E(\Pi)$ and $E(\Pi')$-rational cohomology classes, respectively. Suppose moreover that there is a non-zero $R_{F/{{\mathbb Q}}}G'$-equivariant homomorphism $$\label{contraction} \xi: W \otimes W' {{~\rightarrow~}}Triv,$$ where $Triv$ is the trivial one-dimensional representation of $R_{F/{{\mathbb Q}}}G'$; we may assume that $\xi$ is rational over $E(W,W')$. The cup product $\omega_{\phi} \cup \omega_{\phi'}$ naturally belongs to $$H^{b_n(F) + b_{n-1}(F)}({}_K \tilde{S}_{n-1},\iota^*(\tilde{W})\otimes \tilde{W'})$$ where $\tilde{W}$ and $\tilde{W'}$ are the local systems on the locally symmetric space attached to $G$ and on ${}_K \tilde{S}_{n-1}$, respectively, attached to the representations $W$ and $W'$, and $\iota^*(\tilde{W})$ is the pullback of $\tilde{W}$ to ${}_K \tilde{S}_{n-1}$ by the map defined by $\iota: G' \hookrightarrow G$. Applying $\xi$, we find that $\xi(\omega_{\phi} \cup \omega_{\phi'}) \in H^{\dim {}_K \tilde{S}_{n-1}}({}_K \tilde{S}_{n-1},Triv)$, in the obvious notation. Then the integral at the central point $s = \frac{2n-3}{2}$ is exactly the pairing of the cup product $\omega_{\phi} \cup \omega_{\phi'}$ with the top class in Borel-Moore homology of ${}_K \tilde{S}_{n-1}$, and thus is an element of $E(\Pi,\Pi') = E(\Pi)\cdot E(\Pi')$.
More generally, let $W(m) = W\otimes \det^{-m}$. If $m$ is an integer such that there are equivariant contractions $$\label{contractionm} \xi(m): W(m) \otimes W' {{~\rightarrow~}}Triv, \xi^{\vee}(m): W^{\vee}(m) \otimes W^{\prime,\vee} {{~\rightarrow~}}Triv,$$ where the superscript $^{\vee}$ denotes contragredient, then the JPSS integral at $s$ can also be interpreted as a cohomological cup product, and thus is again in $E(\Pi,\Pi')$.
Condition corresponds to the Good Position Hypothesis. When $F$ is imaginary quadratic, the set of $m$ satisfying the property is identified in Lemma 3.5 of [@GH] with the set of critical points of the $L$-function $L(s,\Pi \otimes \Pi')$ to the right of the center of symmetry of the functional equation (including the center if it is an integer). The same calculation holds for general CM fields.
The rationality property of the cup product does not respect the Euler product factorization. The right-hand side of is a product of local integrals defined in terms of the Whittaker models of the local components $\Pi_v$, $\Pi'_v$. In order to compare the local integrals – especially the local factors at unramified places – to standard Euler factors, that depend only on the local representations, one needs to introduce [*Whittaker periods*]{} $$p(\Pi) \in (E(\Pi)\otimes {{\mathbb C}})^{\times}, ~~ p(\Pi') \in (E(\Pi')\otimes {{\mathbb C}})^{\times}$$ that measure the difference between the rational structure defined by cohomology and that defined by standard Whittaker models. There is a single natural definition of the latter at non-archimedean places; at archimedean places one makes an arbitrary choice. In the end, one obtains a formula of the form $$\label{comp1} Z_S(m,\phi,\phi')L(m,\Pi,\Pi') = Z(m,\phi,\phi') \in p(\Pi)p(\Pi')p(m,\Pi_{\infty},\Pi'_{\infty})\cdot E(\Pi,\Pi')$$ when $m$ satisfies . Manipulating this expression, one obtains a preliminary version of Theorem \[RSoverQ\]: $$\label{comp2} L(m,\Pi,\Pi') \sim_{E(\Pi)E(\Pi')} p(\Pi)p(\Pi')Z(m,\Pi_{\infty},\Pi'_{\infty}).$$ (The last two formulas correspond roughly to Theorem 3.9 of [@GH].)
The next step is to express the Whittaker periods in terms of the automorphic motivic periods $P^{(I)}(\Pi)$. This is done in [@GH] and [@linthesis] in several steps, based on choosing $\Pi'$ in appropriate spaces of Eisenstein cohomology. Fix a cuspidal cohomological $\Pi$ and suppose for simplicity that $n$ is even. One can find a cohomological $\Pi'$ consisting of Eisenstein classes attached to a Hecke character $\chi = (\chi_1,\dots,\chi_{n-1})$ of the Levi subgroup $GL(1)^{n-1}$ of a Borel subgroup of $G'$. Then we have $$\label{piprime} L(s,\Pi,\Pi') = \prod_{i = 1}^{n-1} L(s,\Pi,\chi_i).$$ If the $\chi_i$ are chosen appropriately, $\Pi'$ is cohomological with respect to a $W'$ that satisfies ; thus $L(m,\Pi,\Pi')$ for critical $m$ can be related to $p(\Pi)\cdot p(\Pi')$. On the other hand, Theorem \[guer\] expresses the critical values of the right-hand side of in terms of the motivic automorphic periods $Q_{V_i}(\Pi)$ of $\Pi$, for $V_i$ of varying signature, and of the Hecke characters $\chi_i$. Finally, Shahidi’s formulas for the Whittaker coefficients of Eisenstein series express $p(\Pi')$ in terms of the same automorphic periods of the $\chi_i$. In the end, one finds that $$\label{whittakerperiods} p(\Pi) \sim_{E(\Pi); F^{gal}} (*) \prod_{i = 1}^{n-1}Q_{V_i}(\Pi)$$ where $(*)$ is an elementary factor.
Now assume $\Pi'$ is cuspidal. Combining with , one obtains an expression for the critical values under the Good Position Hypothesis in terms of motivic automorphic periods of the form $Q_{V_i}(\Pi)$ and $Q_{V'_j}(\Pi')$. Using period relations for automorphic induction, Lin was able in [@LinCR] to replace the unspecified elementary and archimedean factors by explicit powers of $2 \pi i$. This proves the automorphic version \[RSoverQ\] of Conjecture \[deligneMMprime\] in the Good Position situation, and its extension \[RSGood\] to general CM fields.
The proof of the automorphic theorem \[RSgeneral\] in [@linthesis] is based on the same principle, except this time the interpretation involves a comparison of an unknown factor in Shahidi’s formula for the Whittaker coefficient with a motivic expression.
Finally, the proof in [@linthesis] of Theorem \[factorizationtheorem\] is based on comparing several expressions of the form for critical values, that are obtained by interpreting Rankin-Selberg integrals as cohomological cup products. The regularity hypothesis in Theorem \[factorizationtheorem\] is required to guarantee that none of the $L$-functions used in the comparison vanishes at the relevant points.
[Tensor product and Compositions]{} Throughout the text, fix $E$ a number field. Let $F$ be a field containing ${\mathbb{Q}}$. In the applications, $F$ will be either a number field or the complex field ${\mathbb{C}}$.
We denote by $\Sigma_{E}$ (resp. $\Sigma_{F}$) the set of embeddings of $E$ (resp. $F$) in ${\mathbb{C}}$.
For $\sigma\in\Sigma_{F}$, we write $\overline{\sigma}$ for the complex conjugation of $\sigma$.
Tensor products without subscript are by default over ${\mathbb{Q}}$. We also write $\otimes_{\sigma}$ for $\otimes_{F,\sigma}$ etc. For example, if $V$ is an $F$-vector space, we write $V\otimes_{\sigma}{\mathbb{C}}$ for $V\otimes_{F,\sigma}{\mathbb{C}}$.
Let $(L,\iota,\nu)$ be a triple where $L$ is a field, $\iota$ is an embedding of $E$ in $L$ and $\nu$ is an embedding of $F$ in $L$. We say this triple is a **compositum** of $E$ and $F$ if $\iota(E)$ and $\nu(F)$ generate $L$.
Two compositums $(L,\iota,\nu)$ and $(L',\iota',\nu')$ are called isomorphic if there exists an isomorphism of fields $L\cong L'$ which commutes with the embeddings.
\[decomposition algebra\]
1. The ${\mathbb{Q}}$-algebra $E\otimes F$ decomposes uniquely as a direct sum of fields: $$E\otimes F =\bigoplus\limits_{\alpha \in \mathcal{A}} L_{\alpha}$$
2. For each $\alpha\in \mathcal{A}$, let $\iota_{\alpha}$ (resp. $\nu_{\alpha}$) be the composition of the canonical map $E\rightarrow E\otimes F$ (resp. $F\rightarrow E\otimes F$) and the projection of $E\otimes F$ to $L_{\alpha}$. The triple $(L_{\alpha},\iota_{\alpha},\mu_{\alpha})$ is a compositum of $E$ and $F$.
3. If $\alpha$ and $\alpha'$ are two different elements in $\mathcal{A}$, then the two compositums $(L_{\alpha},\iota_{\alpha},\mu_{\alpha})$ and $(L_{\alpha'},\iota_{\alpha'},\mu_{\alpha'})$ are not isomorphic.
4. Any compositum of $E$ and $F$ can be obtained in this way up to isomorphisms.
<!-- -->
1. The uniqueness is clear. Let us prove the existence.
Write $E\cong {\mathbb{Q}}[X]/(f)$ where $f$ is an irreducible polynomial in ${\mathbb{Q}}[X]$. Then the ${\mathbb{Q}}$-algebra $E\otimes F \cong F[X]/(f)$.
We decompose $f=\prod\limits_{\alpha \in \mathcal{A}}f_{\alpha}$ in the ring $F[X]$. Since $f$ is separable we know that the polynomials $f_{\alpha}$, $\alpha\in\mathcal{A}$, are different.
Therefore, $F[X]/(f)\cong \bigoplus\limits_{\alpha\in \mathcal{A}} L_{\alpha}$ where $L_{\alpha}=F[X]/(f_{\alpha})$ is a field as predicted.
2. The map $\iota_{\alpha}$ is a map from ${\mathbb{Q}}[X]/(f)$ to $F[X]/(f_{\alpha})$ sending $X$ to $X$. The map $\nu_{\alpha}:F\rightarrow F[X]/(f_{\alpha})$ is induced by the natural embedding $F\rightarrow F[X]$. It is easy to see that the image of $\iota_{\alpha}$ and $\nu_{\alpha}$ generate $F[X]/(f_{\alpha})=L_{\alpha}$.
3. This is due to the fact that the polynomials $f_{\alpha}$, $\alpha\in\mathcal{A}$, are different.
4. Let $(L,\iota,\nu)$ be a compositum of $E$ and $F$. Then the map $\iota\otimes\nu:E\otimes F\rightarrow L$ induces a surjective ring homomorphism from $\bigoplus\limits_{\alpha \in \mathcal{A}} L_{\alpha}$ to $L$. Since $L$ is a field, this ring homomorphism must factor through one of the $L_{\alpha}$ and then (4) follows.
It is easy to see that there is a bijection between $\Sigma_{E}\times \Sigma_{F}$ and $\bigsqcup\limits_{\alpha\in\mathcal{A}} \Sigma_{L_{\alpha}}$. More precisely, let $\tau\in\Sigma_{E}$ and $\sigma\in\Sigma_{F}$, then $\tau(E)$ and $\sigma(F)$ generate a number field $L$. The triple $(L,\tau,\sigma)$ is a compositum of $E$ and $F$ and hence is isomorphic to $(L_{\alpha},\iota_{\alpha},\nu_{\alpha})$ for a unique $\alpha\in\mathcal{A}$. We define $\alpha(\tau,\sigma)=\alpha$.
\[index is Galois invariant\] For any $g\in Gal(\bar{{\mathbb{Q}}}/{\mathbb{Q}})$, we have $\alpha(g\tau,g\sigma)=\alpha(\tau,\sigma)$. In fact, let $L$ be the field generated by $\tau(E)$ and $\sigma(F)$. Then the compositum $(L,\tau,\sigma)$ is isomorphic to $(gL,g\tau,g\sigma)$. By the third point of Proposition \[decomposition algebra\], we know $\alpha(g\tau,g\sigma)=\alpha(\tau,\sigma)$.
On the other hand, it is easy to see that for any $\sigma,\sigma'\in \Sigma_{F}$ and $\tau,\tau'\in\Sigma_{E}$, $\alpha(\tau,\sigma)=\alpha(\tau',\sigma')$ implies that there exists $g\in Gal(\bar{{\mathbb{Q}}}/{\mathbb{Q}})$ such that $(g\tau,g\sigma)=(\tau',\sigma')$.
In other words, the isomorphism classes of compositums are in bijection with the $Gal(\bar{{\mathbb{Q}}}/{\mathbb{Q}})$-orbits of $\Sigma_{E}\times \Sigma_{F}$.
It is easy to prove the following lemma:
\[composition lemma\]
1. The ${\mathbb{C}}$-vector space $L_{\alpha}\otimes_{\tau\otimes \sigma} {\mathbb{C}}\neq 0$ if and only if $\alpha=\alpha(\tau,\sigma)$.
2. The following equation holds: $$L_{\alpha(\tau,\sigma)}\otimes_{\tau\otimes \sigma} {\mathbb{C}}=(E\otimes F)\otimes_{\tau\otimes \sigma} {\mathbb{C}}$$
[Decomposition of $E\otimes F$-modules]{} The decomposition of $E\otimes F$ as ${\mathbb{Q}}$-algebra in Proposition \[decomposition algebra\] gives a decomposition on $E\otimes F$-modules as follows:
Let $M$ be an $E\otimes F$-module. It decomposes as a direct sum $$\label{decomposition via alpha}
M=\bigoplus\limits_{\alpha \in \mathcal{A}} M(\alpha)$$ where $M(\alpha)$ is an $L_{\alpha}$-vector space and the action of $E\otimes F$ on $M(\alpha)$ factors through the action of $L_{\alpha}$.
Lemma \[composition lemma\] then implies that:
\[prop for decomposition\] Let $M$ be a finitely generated $E\otimes F$-module, $\sigma\in\Sigma_{F}$ and $\tau\in \Sigma_{E}$.
1. If $\alpha\neq \alpha(\tau,\sigma)$ is an element in $\mathcal{A}$ then $M(\alpha)\otimes_{\tau\otimes \sigma} {\mathbb{C}}= 0$.
2. If $\alpha= \alpha(\tau,\sigma)$ then $M\otimes_{\tau\otimes \sigma} {\mathbb{C}}= M(\alpha)\otimes_{\tau\otimes \sigma} {\mathbb{C}}$.
3. The dimension of $M\otimes _{\tau\otimes \sigma} {\mathbb{C}}$ over ${\mathbb{C}}$ is equal to $dim_{L_{\alpha(\tau,\sigma)}}M(\alpha(\tau,\sigma))$. In particular, it only depends on $\alpha(\tau,\sigma)$.
4. The module $M$ is free if and only if $dim_{{\mathbb{C}}} M\otimes _{\tau\otimes \sigma} {\mathbb{C}}$ is the same for all $(\tau,\sigma)$.
This lemma can be easily deduced from the fact that $M(\alpha)\otimes_{\tau\otimes \sigma} {\mathbb{C}}=M(\alpha)\otimes_{F_{\alpha}} F_{\alpha}\otimes_{\tau\otimes \sigma} {\mathbb{C}}$ for any $\alpha\in \mathcal{A}$.
\[basislemma\] Let $M$ be a free $E\otimes F$-module of rank $n$. A family of $n$ element in $M$ forms an $E\otimes F$ basis is equivalent to that it is linearly independent over $E\otimes F$, and is also equivalent to that it generates $M$ over $E\otimes F$.
This can be deduced from similar results for vector spaces over the fields $L_{\alpha}$.
The previous results, when applied to the case $F={\mathbb{C}}$, give a decomposition for any $E\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$-module. More precisely, we identify the ${\mathbb{Q}}$-algebra $E\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$ with ${\mathbb{C}}^{\Sigma_{E}}$ by sending $e\otimes z$ to $(\tau(e)z)_{\tau\in\Sigma_{E}}$ for all $\tau \in E$ and $z\in {\mathbb{C}}$. We then have:
Let $V$ be a finitely generated $E\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$-module. The action of $E$ gives a decomposition of $V$ as direct sum of sub-$E\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$-modules: $$V=\bigoplus\limits_{\tau:E\hookrightarrow {\mathbb{C}}}V(\tau)$$ where the action of E on $V(\tau)$ is given by scalar multiplication via $\tau$.
For example, if $M$ is an $E$ vector space, then the $E\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$-module $M \otimes {\mathbb{C}}=\bigoplus\limits_{\tau:E\hookrightarrow {\mathbb{C}}} M\otimes _{\tau} {\mathbb{C}}$.
\[basis component\]
1. A finitely generated $E\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$-module $V$ is free if and only if $dim_{{\mathbb{C}}}V(\tau)$ is the same for all $\tau$.
2. Let $V$ be a free finitely generated $E\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$-module of rank $d$. By $(1)$, each $V(\tau)$ has dimension $d$. For each $\tau\in \Sigma_{E}$, let $\{w_{1}(\tau),w_{2}(\tau),\cdots, w_{d}(\tau)\}$ be a ${\mathbb{C}}$-basis of $V(\tau)$. For each $1\leq i\leq d$, we put $w_{i}=\sum\limits_{\tau\in \Sigma_{E}}w_{i}(\tau)\in V$. Then the family $\{w_{1},w_{2},\cdots,w_{d}\}$ forms an $E\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$-basis of $V$.
3. Let $V_{1}$ and $V_{2}$ be two free finitely generated $E\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$-modules. Let $f:V_{1} \rightarrow V_{2}$ be an isomorphism of $E\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$-modules. For each $\tau$, it induces an isomorphism $f(\tau):V_{1}(\tau) \rightarrow V_{2}(\tau)$.
If for each $\tau$, we have fixed ${\mathbb{C}}$-bases of $W_{1}(\tau)$ and $W_{2}(\tau)$, we can construct $E\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$-bases for $W_{1}$ and $W_{2}$ as in $(2)$. With respect to these fixed bases, we have: $det(f)=(det(f(\tau)))_{\tau\in \Sigma_{E}}\in E\otimes {\mathbb{C}}$.
[99]{}
D. Blasius, On the critical values of Hecke L-series. [*Ann. of Math.*]{}, [**124**]{} (1986), 23–63.
P. Deligne. Valeurs de fonctions [L]{} et périodes d’intégrales. In A. Borel and W. Casselman, editors, [*Automorphic forms, representations and [L]{}-functions*]{}, volume 33 of [*Proceedings of the symposium in pure mathematics of the [A]{}merican mathematical society*]{}. American Mathematical Society, 1979.
H. Grobner and M. Harris, Whittaker periods, motivic periods, and special values of tensor product of $L$-functions, [*Journal of the Institute of Mathematics of Jussieu*]{} (2015).
H. Grobner, M. Harris, E. Lapid, [*Whittaker rational structures and special values of the Asai $L$-function*]{}, preprint (2014)
L. Guerberoff, Period relations for automorphic forms on unitary groups and critical values of L-functions, manuscript (2016)
G. Harder, A. Raghuram, Eisenstein cohomology for $GL_N$ and ratios of critical values of Rankin-Selberg $L$-functions - I, manuscript (2014).
M. Harris, the central critical value of the triple product $L$-functions, [*Annals of Mathematics*]{} (1991).
M. Harris, $L$-functions and periods of polarized regular motives, [*J. Reine Angew. Math.* ]{} [**483**]{} (1997) 75–161.
M. Harris, A simple proof of rationality of Siegel-Weil Eisenstein series. [*Eisenstein series and applications*]{}, [*Progr. Math.*]{}, [**258**]{}, Birkhäuser Boston, Boston, MA, (2008) 149Ð185.
M. Harris. -functions and periods of adjoint motives. , (7):117–155, 2013.
J. Lin, Period relations for automorphic induction and applications, I. [*C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris*]{}, [**353**]{} (2015).
J. Lin. An automorphic version of the deligne conjecture. to appear in [*Contemporary Mathematics Proceedings of the Conference Around Langlands Correspondences*]{}.
J. Lin. Special values of automorphic [L]{}-functions for $GL_{n}\times
GL_{n'}$ over [CM]{} fields, factorization and functoriality of arithmetic automorphic periods. PhD thesis, Universit[é]{} Paris 7, 2015.
J. Mahnkopf, Cohomology of arithmetic groups, parabolic subgroups and the special values of automorphic $L$-Functions on $GL(n)$, [*Journal de l’Institut de Mathématiques de Jussieu*]{} [**4**]{} (2005) pp. 553–637
A. A. Panchishkin. Motives over totally real fields and $p$-adic [L]{}-functions. , 44(4), 1994.
A. Raghuram, [*Critical values of Rankin-Selberg $L$-functions for $GL_{n}\times GL_{n-1}$ and the symmetric cube $L$-functions for $GL_2$. With an appendix by Chandrasheel Bhagwat*]{}, preprint (2014).
B. Sun, The nonvanishing hypothesis at infinity for Rankin-Selberg convolutions, [*J. Am. Math. Soc.*]{} (2016).
H. Yoshida. On the [Z]{}eta functions of [S]{}himura varieties and periods of [H]{}ilbert modular forms. , 75(1), 1994.
[^1]: M.H.’s research received funding from the European Research Council under the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) / ERC Grant agreement no. 290766 (AAMOT). M.H. was partially supported by NSF Grant DMS-1404769.
[^2]: J.L. was supported by the allocation de l’ENS and also by the European Research Council under the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) / ERC Grant agreement no. 290766 (AAMOT)
[^3]: Different results require gaps of different sizes. For example, in Theorem \[RSoverQ\], the gap has to be just slightly larger than the minimum; larger gaps are needed for some of the results of [@linthesis]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'In this work we extend simple top-hat model of structure formation to the two-component system made of baryonic and dark matter. We use Harrison-Zeldovich spectrum as the initial condition for the structures and calculate their evolution up to the present time. While we do not take into account some complications during the structure formation, such as the merging of galaxies, however this formalism can give us a qualitative picture from the formation of structures. We show that in this model small scale structures evolve faster than the larger ones and it predicts a down-top scenario for the structure formation. The trend of power spectrum in this model is compatible with the observations and results in $\sigma_8 \sim 0.8$. This formalism provides an analytic treatment of structure growth and can easily show the effect of the cosmological parameters on the formation of the structures. As an example, the effect of a parameterized dark energy model on the growth of the structures is investigated.'
address:
- |
Department of Theoretical Physics and Astrophysics, University of Tabriz, P.O.Box 51664, Tabriz, Iran\
[email protected]
- |
Department of Physics, Sharif University of Technology, P.O.Box 11365–9161, Tehran, Iran\
[email protected]
- |
Department of Theoretical Physics and Astrophysics, University of Tabriz, P.O.Box 51664, Tabriz, Iran\
[email protected]
author:
- 'M. Malekjani'
- 'S. Rahvar'
- 'D. M. Z. Jassur'
title: 'Two Component Baryonic-Dark Matter Structure Formation in Top-Hat Model'
---
cosmology, large scale structure formation, galaxy formation
Introduction
============
Observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) by the COBE satellite and the subsequent experiments such as WMAP indicate the existence of temperature fluctuations of order $\sim10^{-5}$ at the last scattering surface [@smo92; @hin06; @spe03]. This temperature contrast on CMB may result from the primordial quantum fluctuations at the early universe. The quantum fluctuations in the inflationary scenario, provide a specific spectrum for the matter so-called Harrison-Zeldovich. However, Recent observations by WMAP show a small deviation from this spectrum ($n_s=0.958\pm0.016$) [@spe06]. An outstanding characteristic of this spectrum is its scale-independent property, means that all the perturbations have some density contrast of about $ 10^{-5}$ at the entering time to the horizon [@spri05]. One of the questions in cosmology is that of how these small perturbations at $z_{dec}=1100$ can grow to the present non-linear structures while we expect from the standard structure formation theory that they should evolve to a density contrast of $\delta \sim
\delta_{dec}\times z_{dec} = 10^{-2}$ at the present time [@pee80].
Including dark matter as one of the components of the universe is a solution to this question. Since the entering time of the structures to the horizon depends on the size of structure, we expect small scale structures enter earlier than the larger ones. Meanwhile, before the decoupling epoch, pressure of the radiation prevents formation of baryonic structures smaller than the Silk mass [@sil68], the dark matter structures continue their growth. After decoupling, the mutual interaction of dark matter-baryonic matter speeds up the growing rate of the structure formation and results in non-linear structures at the present time.
Here in this work we use two components of baryonic and dark matter in the top-hat model for studying their growth. We take the initial condition of sub-horizon over-dense regions at the last scattering surface. The size of perturbations in our concern guarantees using of Newtonian mechanics [@man02; @rah03]. After decoupling, the top-hat sphere starts to expand up to a maximum radius and then turns-around to collapse. During the collapse, once the structure satisfies the virial condition, the global velocity turns into the dispersion velocity and thermalizes the gas of structure and finally prevents a catastrophic collapse of the structure. The result of thermalization is the ionization of the baryonic gas and consequently gas starts to cool through the radiation. Cooling makes baryonic structure to contract further and finally the baryonic component reaches to a stable stage. We should point out that in this scenario we ignore merging effects during the formation of the structures and this model can be applicable only for the isolated systems. Finally we compare $\sigma_{8}$ from this simple theoretical model with that from weak-lensing.
The organization of paper is as follows: In Section \[tophat\] we introduce Standard Collapse Model (SCM), extend it for the two component fluid and obtain dynamics and power spectrum of the structures. Section \[variable\] discusses about the effect of variable dark energy on the formation of structure in top-hat model. In Section \[cooling\] we study the cooling effect on the evolution of baryonic matter after the thermalization and estimate corresponding redshift for the star formation. We conclude in section \[conc\].
Spherical Top-Hat Model: Structure Formation {#tophat}
============================================
In this section we review the standard spherical collapse model. Here we take a spatial uniform distribution of the matter inside the structure, so-called top-hat distribution which is slightly denser than the uniform background density. One of the advantages of this model is that it has an analytical solution for the dynamics of the structure. In this section first we introduce the standard top-hat model and then extend it, introducing the two component fluid in the structure: (i) a non-dissipative dark matter and (ii) a dissipative baryonic matter.
standard top-hat model
----------------------
A simple approach for studying the structure formation in the universe is the spherical collapse model. We take a spherical region embedded in the uniform background which has a tiny density deviation from that of the background. The scale of this region is much smaller than horizon and the velocities are non-relativistic. These two conditions guarantee the application of the Newtonian gravity for studying the growth of the structures [@man02; @rah03].
For a spherical region with the radius R(t) and uniformly distributed mass of $M$, containing non-relativistic matter, the density contrast is given by: $$1+\delta(t)=\frac{\rho(t)}{\rho_{b}(t)}=\frac{3M}{4\pi
R^3(t)}\frac{1}{\rho_{b}(t)}, \label{dcontrast}$$ where $\rho_b(t)$ is the homogenous background density of the universe. The energy and momentum equations for a non-dissipative spherical matter is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{energy} \label{energy}
E &=& \frac12 \dot{R}(t)^2 - \frac{GM}{R(t)},\\
\ddot{R}(t)&=&-\frac{GM}{R(t)^2} \label{momentum}\end{aligned}$$ where $E$ is energy per mass and can be calculated from the initial condition of the structure, (i.e. $E=E_i$). The initial radial velocity of the structure is taken by $v_i = H_iR_i +
v_{i}^{(pec)}$, where $H_i$ is the Hubble parameter of the background and $R_i$ is the size of the structure at the initial time, $v_{i}^{(pec)}$ is the peculiar velocity of the structure and can be given by $v_i^{(pec)}=-H_iR_i\delta_i$ [@pee80]. Using the dependence of the peculiar velocity to the density contrast, the radial velocity of the structure at the initial time is: $$v_i = H_iR_i(1-\delta_i), \label{pecv}$$ where $\delta_i$ depends on the size of the structure. Using equation (\[pecv\]), the Kinetic energy per unit mass of the structure is $K_i = K_i^{(b)}(1-2\delta_i)$ where $ K_i^{(b)}$ is the Kinetic energy of background at a distance $R_i$ from the center of coordinate[^1]. For the initial potential energy of structure we have $U_i = \Omega_iK_i^{(b)}(1+\delta_i)$. The total energy is given by the sum of the kinetic and the potential energy of the structure at the initial time as: $$E = -k_i^{(b)}\Omega_i(1+\delta_i+2\delta_i\Omega_i^{-1} -
\Omega_i^{-1}). \label{e5}$$ For the case of spatially flat universe, $E=-3k_i^{(b)}\delta_i$. Integrating from equation (\[energy\]) results in the equation of motion in the parametric form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tt}
R(\theta)&=&A(1-\cos\theta),\\
t(\theta)&=&T + B(\theta-\sin\theta), \label{rt}\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta$ varies in the range of $\in[0,2\pi]$ and $T$ is a constant. For $\theta = \pi$, the structure reaches to the maximum radius of $r_{max} = 2A$. Substituting in equation (\[energy\]) at the maximum radius provides $A=GM/2E$ which results in $$A = \frac16 \frac{R_i}{\delta_i}$$ On the other hand using equation (\[momentum\]) yields: $$A^3 = GMB^2$$ Substituting equations (\[tt\]) and (\[rt\]) in (\[dcontrast\]) results the evolution of the density contrast in terms of $\theta$ as: $$\delta=\frac{9(\theta-\sin\theta)^2}{2(1-\cos\theta)^3}-1.
\label{delta}$$ For the initial condition, considering $\delta_i\ll1$, the initial phase is $\theta_i = 2\sqrt{\delta_i}$. Taking $T=0$, $t(\theta)$ will coincide with the cosmic time. From the initial condition, $B$ obtain as: $$B = \frac{3t_i}{4\delta_i^{3/2}}.$$ From equation (\[delta\]) at $\theta = 2\pi/3$ the structure enters to the non-linear regime (i.e. $\delta\simeq 1$).
On the other hand for $\theta = 2\pi$ we have singularity, however before this stage, global radial velocity of the structure is converted to the dispersion velocity and prevent it from the catastrophic collapsing. The virial theorem provides us a radius that the stable condition of the structure is fulfilled. In the next part we will extend the top-hat model to the two component fluid of the baryonic and dark matter in which they are gravitationally coupled during the evolution of the structure.
two component top-hat model
---------------------------
Evolution of the large scale structures indicates that dark matter is an essential element for the formation of the structures in the universe. In the standard scenario of the structure formation, structures composed by baryonic matter and dark matter are in mutual gravitational interaction during their evolution. In this section we obtain the evolution of each component in the structure, using the top-hat model.
Let us start with baryonic component. Baryons before the decoupling were tightly coupled to the photons and diffusion of the radiation prevents them to collapse under their own gravity. The corresponding diffusive mass of the baryonic structure with $\lambda<l_{diff}$ is called the Silk mass with the mass of $M_S =
6.2\times 10^{12} (\Omega/\Omega_B)^{3/2} (\Omega h^2)^{-3/4}
M_{\odot}$ [@pad00]. However, after decoupling of the baryons from the cosmic microwave background radiation, Jeans length decreased rapidly and baryonic structure could grow freely (see Fig. \[jeanslength\]). The corresponding Jeans mass after the decoupling is $$M_{J} = \rho_b(\frac{kT}{G\rho_b m_p})^{3/2}\simeq 10^{5}M_{\odot},$$ where all the parameters are calculated at the last scattering surface with $T\sim 3000 K$ and $m_p$ is the mass of the proton. The rest of the scenario is the gravitational interaction of the baryonic matter larger than the corresponding Jeans mass with the gravitational potentials that have already been made by the dark matter structures.
Comparing the mass of galaxies and cluster of galaxies with the Silk mass at the last scattering surface shows that we can set $\delta_b<10^{-5}$ which can be ignored compare to the density contrast of dark matter ($\delta_b \ll \delta_{d} \simeq
10^{-3}$).
We consider two spherical regions with radii of $R_{b}(t)$ and $R_{d}(t)$, and total masses of $M_{b}$ and $M_{d}$ for the baryonic and dark matter components of the structure. These two spheres are coincided on each other at the initial time, but due to the different initial conditions they will evolve with different rates. Similar to the first part of this section, the momentum and energy conservation equations for the dark matter is written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dark}
{\ddot R}_{d}&=&-G\frac{M_{d}+M_{b}(t)}{R_{d}^{2}}, \\
E_{d}&=&\frac{1}{2}\dot{R_{d}^{2}}-G\frac{M_{d}+M_b(t)}{R_{d}}.
\label{energy_dark}\end{aligned}$$ We let the initial density-contrast for the baryonic matter ($\delta_b \simeq0$) which provides a zero initial peculiar velocity for the baryonic component. Comparing to the dark matter sphere, the baryonic sphere will expand faster. According to this picture from the dynamics, the dark matter will interact gravitationally only with a fraction of the baryonic matter inside the dark matter sphere.
Similarly, the dynamics of baryonic sphere is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{baryon}
{\ddot R}_{b}&=&-G\frac{M_{d}+M_{b}}{R_{b}^{2}}, \\
E_{b}&=&\frac{1}{2}\dot{R_{b}^{2}}-G\frac{M_{d}+M_b}{R_{b}}.
\label{energy_baryon}\end{aligned}$$ As the baryonic sphere is always larger than the dark matter sphere, this component interacts with all the dark sphere. The energy of the two spheres can be obtained from Eq.(\[e5\]). Setting zero peculiar velocity for the baryonic sphere, results in $E_b = -k_i^{(b)}\delta_i^{(d)}$ and for the dark matter component $E_d = -3k_i^{(b)}\delta_i^{(d)}$.
To calculate the initial condition for the density contrast of dark matter $\delta_i^{(d)}$, we use the Harrison-Zeldovich power-law spectrum [@har70; @zeld70] as $$P(k)=Ak^{n},
\label{spectrum}$$ where we adapt $n = 1$. The corresponding mass variance of this spectrum is $\sigma^2 = \frac{A}{4\pi^2} k^4$. An important specification of this spectrum is that at the entering time of the structure to the horizon the density contrast has an invariant value of $\sigma_{enter} = {2\pi A^{1/2}}/{(9t_0^2)}$. Using $A\simeq
(28.6 h^{-1} ~Mpc)^4$, the density contrast for the entering time is $\delta_{enter} \simeq 6 \times 10^{-5}$. Our aim at this stage is applying the Harrison-Zeldovich spectrum to have the density contrast of the dark matter at the decoupling time. The density contrast at the last scattering depends on the epoch that structure enters to the horizon. We divide the evolution of density contrast into two area of radiation and matter dominant epochs. In these two phases, the dynamics of dark matter changes with different rates in terms of scale factor.
Let us first consider the structures that enter the horizon at the radiation dominant epoch. The structures having smaller than the horizon mass at the equality time $(M<M_H(eq))$ will enter horizon at the following redshift: $$z_{enter}(M)\simeq z_{eq}(\frac{M}{M_{H}(z_{eq})})^{-\frac{1}{3}}.$$ Letting horizon mass at the equality epoch $M_{H}(z_{eq})\simeq5\times10^{15}(\Omega h^{2})^{-2}M_{\odot}$, the corresponding entering redshift of a structure to the horizon can be calculated. For instance the dark matter component of a structure with a galaxy mass enters the horizon at $z_{eneter}(galaxy) \sim 5.90 \times 10^4$. The structures grow during $z_{enter}$ (enter time) to $z_{eq}$ (equality time) by a logarithmic factor of $$\delta(a_{eq})\simeq 5\ln(\frac{a_{eq}}{a_{enter}})\delta(enter),$$ where we use $z_{eq}= 3454^{+385}_{-392}$ [@spe03]. Structure with a galaxy size at the present time will grow by the factor of $20$ during $z_{enter}$ to $z_{eq}$ period which results a density contrast of about $\delta_{eq}(galaxy) \sim 8.50 \times 10^{-4}$ at equality time. Once the universe enters to the matter dominate era, structure start to grow proportional to the scale factor and at the decoupling time the density contrast of dark matter will reach to $\delta(z_{dec}) = a_{dec}/a_{enter}\times
\delta_{enter}$. For a structure with the galaxy mass, the dark matter density contrast grows up to $\delta_{dec} \simeq 2.7\times
10^{-3}$ at the decoupling time ( we use $z_{dec}= 1088^{+1}_{-2}$ [@spe03]). Fig.(\[galaxy\]) shows the dynamics of the radii of dark matter and baryonic components of a galaxy in terms of redshift. We use $\Lambda$CDM model for the background with the parameters of $\Omega_{m}^{(0)} = 0.3$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}^{(0)} =
0.7$ and $H_0\sim 70 ~ Km/s Mpc^{-1}$. The time dependence of density contrast also is shown in Fig. (\[dcont\]). The evolution of each component is calculated up to the virilization time. We note that the dark matter component virialize earlier than the baryonic part.
We calculate the evolution of the gravitationally coupled two component in the top-hat model, for the structures in the range of $10^6$ to $10^{15}$ solar masses. These structures, depending on their masses, will enter the horizon at different epochs, smaller sooner and the larger later. Means that the smaller structures grow faster than larger ones (see Table \[tab1\] and Fig. \[mvv\]). This result is in agreement with the down-top scenario of the structure formation.
An important observational data for examining this model is comparing the power spectrum of the large scale structures at the present time with that of model. We do this comparison by calculating the mass variance for a sphere with the radius of $R$, in terms of power spectrum. The total mass $M_R(r)$ in a sphere with the radius $R$, centered on the point $r$ is: $$\begin{aligned}
M_R(r) &=& \int^{|r-r'|<R}\rho(r')d^3r'\nonumber\\
&=&\int\rho(r')\Theta(R-|r-r'|)d^3r',\end{aligned}$$ where $\Theta$ is the step function. Using the Fourier transformation of density contrast and step function, the mass variance is related to the power-spectrum through $$\left(\frac{\Delta M_R}{M}\right)^2 = \int|W(kR)|^2 |\Delta_k|^2
\frac{dk}{k}, \label{massv}$$ where $\Delta_k = {k^{3/2} |\delta_k|}/{\sqrt{2}\pi}$ and $W(kR)$ is the Fourier transformation of step function. The function $W(kR)$ cuts off the integral (\[massv\]) for $k>1/R$ and since $\Delta_k$ is an increasing function of $k$, so the integral is generally dominated at $k\sim1/R$ and we have [@peacock]: $$\left(\frac{\Delta M_R}{M}\right)\sim\Delta_k ~~~~ k\sim 1.38/R.
\label{dm}$$ Figure (\[powerspectrum\]) shows the calculated power spectrum in two component top-hat model in terms of $k$. This power spectrum derived from this model has almost the same trend as the observations [@peacock]. We should mention that since the power-spectrum of galaxies has scale dependent biasing, these data cannot be used for comparing with the dark matter spectrum. To have a comparison of this model with the observed data, we use $\sigma_8$ derived from the gravitational weak-lensing observations [@ham03].We point out that $\sigma_8$ derived from the weak-lensing deosn’t suffer from the biasing problem and it probes directly the distribution of the dark matter. Weak lensing observations provide $0.62<\sigma_8<1.32$ which is compatible with that of top-hat model, $\sigma_8\simeq 0.8$.
In the next section we will discuss about the effect of background dynamics on the evolution of the structures namely the effect of a variable dark energy model.
Top-Hat Model in Variable Dark Energy Background {#variable}
================================================
In this section we discuss the effect of background dynamics on the growth rate of the structures. Recent observations of SNIa and CMB show that universe is mainly made by an exotic fluid so-called dark energy which speeds up its expansion [@ris]. The standard solution for interpretation of the positive acceleration of the universe is including the cosmological constant to the Einstein equation. The best fit with the observations provides $\Omega_m^{(0)} = 0.3$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}^{(0)}=0.7$, where $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ is the density parameter corresponds to the cosmological constant. While $\Lambda$CDM model provides a good fit to the SNIa and CMB data, however it suffers the coincidence problem and finite tuning of the cosmological constant at the early universe. One of the solutions is considering a variable dark energy model. In this model an evolving scalar field generates the energy and the pressure of the dark energy and for the later times in the history of universe, it provides a positive accelerating universe.
In this section we study the effect of variable dark energy on the dynamics of the spherical collapse model as a function of the redshift. The dark energy can influence on the growth of large-scale cosmological structures through (i) the background effect, in which the dark energy changes the expansion rate of the background and (ii) dark energy may deviate from the homogenous distribution due to the gravitational interaction with the dark matter. The feedback of the dark energy is changing the growth rate of the dark matter. These effects have been studied in the following works [@lahav91; @wang98; @iliv01; @weinberg03; @batt03; @zeng04; @mota04].
In the case of $\Lambda$CDM universe the spherical collapse is similar to that in CDM model, except the cosmological constant that changes the growth of the structure though altering the background dynamics. For the CDM model the virialization radius $(R_{vir})$ is the half of the maximum radius of the structure $(R_{max})$. In the $\Lambda$CDM universe the virialization radius is smaller than that of in CDM model [@lahav91]. Mota and Van de Bruck (MB) considered the spherical collapse for different potentials of the quintessence models [@mota04]. They showed that the predictions of the spherical collapse depend on the dark energy model. In this scenario, during the collapse of over-dense regions, the dark matter enters the highly non-linear regime while the perturbation in dark energy deviates slightly from the background. They also showed that if the dark energy equation of state is assumed to be constant, the differences between the homogenous and inhomogeneous cases are small. The advantage of considering the dark energy in the spherical collapse model is that it predicts that the cosmic structures such as the clusters of galaxy have been collapsed prior to the epoch of $z \sim 1.4$, compatible with the observations of the most distant cluster [@basila06].
In this part we examine the effect of a parameterized dark energy on the evolution of the structures through the dynamics of the background. We take the equation of state from Wetterich (2004): $${\omega}(z;b,\omega_{0})=\frac{\omega_{0}}{[1+b \ln(1+z)]^{2}},
\label{e_state}$$ where $\omega_0$ is the equation of state at the present time and $b$ is the bending parameter [@wet04]. The best fit from the comparison of the cosmological data with the model results in $b =
1.35^{+1.65}_{-0.90}$ and $w_0 = -1.45^{+0.35}_{-0.60}$ [@mov06]. The density parameter of this dark energy from the continuity equation changes as: $$\Omega_{\lambda}(z;b,\omega_0)= \Omega_{\lambda}^{(0)}
(1+z)^{3[1+\bar w(z;b,\omega_0)]},$$ where $\Omega_{\lambda}^{(0)}$ is the energy density of dark energy at the present time and ${\bar\omega}(z;b,\omega_{0})=\omega_{0}/[1+b \ln(1+z)]$ is the average of the equation of state in the logarithmic scale. Using the Hubble parameter for the flat universe, $$\label{hub7}
H^2(z;b,\omega_0)=H_0^2[\Omega_m^{(0)}(1+z)^3+\Omega_{r}^{(0)}(1+z)^4+\Omega_{\lambda}^{(0)}(1+z)^{3(1+\bar
w)}],$$ we obtain the dynamics of the scale factor for the various bending parameters as shown in Figure (\[adyn\]). To calculate the evolution of the baryonic and dark matter components of the structure, we use equations (\[dark\]) and (\[baryon\]) to obtain the radius of the structure as a function of time. The evolution of the Hubble parameter as a function of redshift is given by equation (\[hub7\]). Eliminating time in favor of the redshift for the dynamics of the structures we obtain $R = R(z)$ as shown in Fig. (\[rqb\]). Here we fix the value of $w_0$ and calculate the dynamics of the structures for various bending parameters. Increasing the bending parameter causes the structure forms at earlier epochs but with smaller radius. Also the effect of $w_0$ on the formation of structures, while $b$ is a fixed value, is shown in Fig. (\[rqw\]). Decreasing $\omega_{0}$ causes the structures form faster with smaller radius.
In the dark energy models, the evolution of the structures deviate from that in $\Lambda$CDM model. This effect results from the change in the background dynamics due to the dark energy. In addition to this effect, the total energy of the structure will be changed due to the dark energy effect. The effect of a variable dark energy in contrast to $\Lambda$CDM model is that we can have a none-zero contribution of the dark energy at the early epoches of the universe. So for a given $H_0$ at the present time, we expect to have larger $H_i$ at the early times. Looking to the total energy of a structure $E = -3/2H_i^2R_i^2\delta_i$ shows that having larger $H_i$ causes more bounded structure. This effect provides a negative energy for the structure which will produce smaller $R_{max}$ and $R_{vir}$ as well as earlier virialization time to the structure.
In the next section we will study the effect of cooling of baryonic matter at the finial stage of virialization on structure formation.
Cooling Mechanism {#cooling}
=================
Once the baryonic structure reaches to the virial condition, radial velocity of the structure converts to the dispersion velocity or in anther word the baryonic gas thermalizes. The temperature of structure, using the kinetic energy of baryonic particles can rise up to $10^7$K and from the Saha equation we will have an ionized medium. The ionized plasma then cools down and the result is more contraction of the baryonic structure. On the other hand through the cooling, the baryonic structure can fragment into the small parts to generate stellar systems. During the cooling of baryonic matter, it will lose its kinetic energy and hence falls into the gravitational potential well and subsequently gains the kinetic energy [@nul95]. This cooling and heating continues until the system reaches to a quasi-steady state.
A simple parameter that represents the cooling of a gas is the ratio of cooling to the free fall time scale, $\tau={t_{cool}}/{t_{grav}}$. The cooling time is defined by $t_{cool} = E/{\dot E}\approx{3\rho k_{B}T}/{2\mu\Lambda(T)}$ and the dynamical time also results from the time scale for the free fall of a structure and is given by $t_{dyn} =
\frac{\pi}{2}(2GMR^{-3})^{-1/2}$. If $\tau>1 $ then the gas can cool; but as it cools the gas can retain the pressure support by adjusting its pressure distribution. If $\tau<1$ the gas will cool rapidly to a minimum temperature. This will lead to the loss of pressure support and the gas will undergo an almost free-fall collapse. In this case fragmentation into stellar units can occur. There are various physical processes contribute in cooling, depending on the temperature of the plasma. We assume cooling is dominated by plasma Bremsstrahlung radiation and recombination. At temperature larger than $10^7 K$, Bremsstrahlung dominates the cooling whereas in the range of $10^4\sim10^6$, recombination of gas is the main source of cooling. The net cooling rate is $$C=\frac{dE}{dtdV}=n_{e}n_{p}\Lambda(T),$$ where $\Lambda(T)$ is the radiative cooling function and is expressed as $$\Lambda(T)=(A_{B}T^\frac{1}{2}+A_{R}T^\frac{-1}{2})\rho^2 ~~~
\frac{erg}{cm^3s}.$$ $A_{B}\propto e^6/m_e^{3/2}$ represents cooling due to the bremsstrahlung and $A_{R}\simeq e^4m_pA_B$ arises from the recombination. This expression is valid for temperatures above $10^4~ K$. For lower temperatures, the cooling rate drops drastically because H can no longer be significantly ionized by collisions. The radiative cooling function for temperatures above $10^{7}$ is well approximated by $$\Lambda(T)=2.5\times10^{-27}T^\frac{1}{2}\frac{erg}{cm^3s}.$$
Here we study the cooling condition of baryonic part of structure after the thermalization which $\tau=t_{cool}/t_{dyn}\ll1$ is hold and we have almost free fall condition for the structure. Fig. (\[cool1\]) shows the variation of $\tau$ in terms of redshift for a galaxy mass structure, starting from the thermalization time to the quasi steady state. The duration of cooling for this structure in the $\Lambda$CDM model is about $\Delta z \simeq
0.07$. Fig. (\[cool2\]) shows the evolution of the size of structure in terms of redhsift for this period. After thermalization structure freely falls until it reaches to a quasi steady state. Fig. (\[cool3\]) also indicates the evolution of the density contrast including the cooling effect after thermalization time.
To see the effect of variable dark energy on cooling time, we take a small structure with the mass of $10^6 M_{\odot}$. This mass is suitable for studying the evolution of the globular clusters and corresponds to the baryonic Jeans mass after the decoupling [@peeb68]. According to the structure formation scenario we expect that this structure has a dark matter component. However the observations of dispersion velocity show that these structures almost have no dark matter. The pre-galactic model for the globular cluster and tidal striping of dark halo by Galaxy can explain the lack of dark matter in these structures [@ros88]. It should be noted that in the formation of these structures we don’t consider merging effect as naturally is taken account in the N-body simulations.
Variable dark energy causes the structure thermalizes and cools at the higher redshifts (see table \[tab2\]). For instance, taking the parameters $w_0=-1.45$ and $b=1.35$, structures with globular cluster mass thermalize at $z\sim 2.17$ and stop cooling at $z\sim
1.94$. For a larger structure with a galaxy mass of $10^{11}
M_{\odot}$, the corresponding thermalization redshift occurs at $z\sim 0.7$ (see Fig. \[rqb\]). Comparing with the globular cluster we can conclude that the first star bursts would happened in the globular clusters. The high metalicity with the low rotation of globular cluster in the galactic halo supports this hypothesis.
Conclusion {#conc}
==========
In this work we extend simple top-hat model into two component dark matter-baryonic structure. The initial condition for the sub-horizon size structures is taken at the last scattering surface. The scale of $\lambda<d_H$ for the structures guarantees applying approximately the Newtonian mechanics. Using the Harrison-Zeldovich spectrum for the perturbations of dark matter, we obtained the evolution of each component of the structure.
For the dark matter part, we showed that density contrast in the small mass structures grows faster than the larger ones and subsequently reaches to the maximum radius and virializes at the higher redshifts. This behavior of structures implies that the star burst should take place at the smaller structures as dwarf galaxy and globular clusters. An observable parameter of structures to compare with the model is the power spectrum. We calculated the mass variance of structures in various scales at the present time and compared $\sigma_ 8\sim 0.8$ from the model with that of observation from the weak lensing. For studying the dynamical effect of background on the evolution of the structures, we applied a logarithmic variable dark energy model and showed that the structures in this model evolve faster than that of $\Lambda$CDM.
[0]{}
G. F. Smoot [*et al.*]{}, ApJ [**396**]{}, 1 (1992)
G. Hinshaw [*et al.*]{}, ApJS [**170**]{}, 263 (2007).
D. N. Spergel [*et al.*]{}, ApJS [**148**]{}, 175 (2003).
D. N. Spergel [*et al.*]{}, ApJS [**170**]{}, 377 (2007).
V. Springel [*et al.*]{}, 2005, Nature, 435, 629.
P. J. E. Peebles 1980, The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe (Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey).
J. Silk, ApJ [**151**]{}, 459 (1968)
R. Mansouri and S. Rahvar, IJMPD [**11**]{}, 321 (2002).
S. Rahvar, IJMPD [**12**]{}, 79 (2003).
T. Padmanabhan, 1993, Structure Formation in the Universe,Cambridge Univ. Press.
T. Padmanabhan, 2002, Theoretical Astrophysics, Vol III. Cambridge Univ. Press.
E. R. Harrison, Phys. Rev. D [**1**]{}, 2726 (1970)
Y. Zeldovich, Astr. Astron. [**5**]{}, 8 (1970)
J. A. Peacock, 1999, Cosmological Physics. Cambridge Univ. Press
T. Hamana, ApJ[**597**]{}, 98 (2003)
A. G. Riess [*et al.*]{}, ApJ [**607**]{}, 665 (2004)
O. Lahav, P. B. Lilje, J. R. Primack, M. J. Rees, MNRAS. [**251**]{}, 128 (1991).
L. M. Wang, P. J. Steinhardt, ApJ. [**508**]{}, 483 (1998).
I. T. Iliev, P. R. Shapiro, MNRAS. [**325**]{}, 468 (2001).
N. N. Weinberg, M. Kamionkowski, MNRAS. [**341**]{}, 251 (2003).
R. A. Battye, J. Weller, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 083506 (2003). D. F. Zeng, Y. H. Gao, arXiv:astro-ph/0412628.
D. F. Mota, C. van de Bruck, Astron. Astrophys. [**421**]{}, 71 (2004).
C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B [**594**]{},17 (2004)
M. S. Movahed, S. Rahvar, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 083518 (2006)
P. E. J. Nulsen, A. C. Fabian, MNRAS [**271**]{}, 561 (1995)
P. J. E. Peebles and Dicke, R. H., ApJ [**154**]{}, 891 (1968)
E. I. Rosenblatt., S. M. Faber, and G. R. Blumenthal, ApJ [**330**]{}, 191 (1998).
S. Basilakos, N. Voglis, MNRAS, [**374**]{}, 269 (2007).
![Size of horizon of universe (short dashed line), size of structure (long dashed line) and Jeans length (solid line) of baryonic structures in terms of scale factor in logarithmic scale. At the last scattering surface the Jeans mass of baryonic matter decreases and baryonic structure with sub-horizon scale can grow after this epoch.[]{data-label="jeanslength"}](f1.eps){width="80.00000%"}
![Dependence of radii of halo (dotted-line) and baryonic (dashed-line) components for astructue with a galaxy mass in top-hat model in terms of redshift, compared with that of background (solid-line). Background is taken $\Lambda$CDM model with the corresponding parameters of $\Omega_{m}^{(0)} = 0.3$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}^{(0)} = 0.7$ and $H_0\sim 70 ~ Km/s Mpc^{-1}$.[]{data-label="galaxy"}](f2.eps){width="80.00000%"}
![Density contrast evolution of baryonic (dashed-line) and dark matter (solid-line) in terms of redshift. The horizon line represents $\delta=1$, separate the liner and non-linear regimes.[]{data-label="dcont"}](f3.eps){width="80.00000%"}
![Dependence of Mass (normalized to $M_H$)to the characteristic redshifts of the structures. Solid line represents redshift corresponds to the maximum radius of a structure in terms of mass. Dashed line represents the dependence of virialization redshift to the mass of dark matter structure. Dotted and dashed-dotted lines represent the maximum radius and virialized redshifts for the baryonic component of the structure,respectively.[]{data-label="mvv"}](f4.eps){width="80.00000%"}
![The power spectrum calculated by the two component top-hat model is derived in terms of $k$.[]{data-label="powerspectrum"}](f5.eps){width="80.00000%"}
![Dynamics of scale factor in terms of cosmic time (normalized to $t_0$) with a variable dark energy model given by Eq. (\[e\_state\]). Solid line stands for $b=0$ ($\Lambda$CDM), dashed line $b=0.5$, dotted line $b=1.0$ and dashed-dotted line $b=1.5$.[]{data-label="adyn"}](f6.eps){width="80.00000%"}
![The effect of bending parameter in logarithmic variable dark energy model on the dynamics of structure in terms of redshift. Red lines represent the baryonic component and blue lines stand for the dark matter component. The bending parameters are chosen as $b=0$ (solid line), $b=0.5$ (dashed line), $b=1$ (dotted line) and $b=1.5$ (dashed-dotted line). The equation of state is fixed with $\omega_{0}=-1.45$. []{data-label="rqb"}](f7.eps){width="80.00000%"}
![The effect of equation of state in logarithmic variable dark energy model on the dynamics of structure in terms of redshift. Red lines represent the baryonic component and blue lines stand for the dark matter component. The equation of states are chosen as $w_0=0$ (solid line), $w_0=-0.5$ (dashed line), $w_0=-1$ (dotted line) and $w_0=-1.5$ (dashed-dotted line). The bending parameter is fixed with $b=1.35$. []{data-label="rqw"}](f8.eps){width="80.00000%"}
![Variation of $\tau$ in term of redshift for a galaxy mass structure. $\tau$ is plotted from thermalization till the quasi-steady state phase of baryonic structure. Dashed era represents the stable zone for the structure where the cooling is negligible.[]{data-label="cool1"}](f9.eps){width="80.00000%"}
![Dynamics of radius of galaxy mass structure in terms of redshift (dashed line). After thermalization we will have free fall collapse of structure until quasi steady state time. Solid line represents the dynamics of background for comparison.[]{data-label="cool2"}](f10.eps){width="80.00000%"}
![Evolution of density contrast in terms of redshift for baryonic (dashed line) and dark matter (solid line) components of a galaxy mass structure. After thermalization we will have almost four order of magnitude increase of the baryonic density contrast.[]{data-label="cool3"}](f11.eps){width="80.00000%"}
M $z_{enter}$ $\delta_{dec}^{d}$ $z_{m}^{d}$ $z_{vir}^{d}$ $z_{m}^{b}$ $z_{vir}^{b}$
----------- -------------------- -------------------- ------------- --------------- ------------- ---------------
$M_{15} $ $5.90\times10^{3}$ $1.9\times10^{-4}$ 0.70 0.30 0.15 0.10
$M_{14}$ $1.27\times10^{4}$ $1.2\times10^{-3}$ 1.70 0.70 0.26 0.15
$M_{13}$ $2.74\times10^{4}$ $2.0\times10^{-3}$ 2.60 1.50 0.40 0.20
$M_{12}$ $5.90\times10^{4}$ $2.7\times10^{-3}$ 4.00 2.30 0.75 0.30
$M_{11}$ $1.27\times10^{5}$ $3.4\times10^{-3}$ 5.20 3.20 1.13 0.50
$M_{10}$ $2.74\times10^{5}$ $4.2\times10^{-3}$ 6.70 4.20 1.60 0.78
$M_{9}$ $5.90\times10^{5}$ $4.9\times10^{-3}$ 8.00 5.00 2.00 1.00
$M_{8}$ $1.27\times10^{6}$ $5.6\times10^{-3}$ 9.30 5.90 2.40 1.20
$M_{7}$ $2.74\times10^{6}$ $6.3\times10^{-3}$ 10.50 6.70 2.80 1.40
$M_{6}$ $5.90\times10^{6}$ $7.1\times10^{-3}$ 12.00 7.75 3.30 1.80
: Numerical results from the evolution of structures with various masses. First column shows the range of mass of structures and subscript in $M$ represents mass in $10^{n} M_{\odot}$ . Second column is the corresponding redshift to entering to the Horizon. The density contrast of dark matter at the decoupling epoch is in third column. Forth and Fifth columns are the corresponding redshift of maximum radius for the dark matter and virialization of the dark structure. Sixth and seventh columns are the same as the forth and fifth columns for the baryonic structure.
\[tab1\]
$\omega_{0}=-1.45$ $z_{star burst}$ $b=1.35$ $z_{star burst}$
-------------------- ------------------ -------------------- ------------------
$b=0.00 $ $[1.82,1.65]$ $\omega_{0}=0.00$ $[1.80,1.62]$
$b=0.50$ $[2.15,1.84]$ $\omega_{0}=-0.50$ $[2.04,1.80]$
$b=1.00$ $[2.22,1.98]$ $\omega_{0}=-1.00$ $[2.12,1.90]$
$b=1.50$ $[2.25,2.00]$ $\omega_{0}=-1.50$ $[2.19,1.95]$
\[tab2\]
[^1]: Note that the effect of density contrast in the velocity of the structure and subsequently on the Kinetic Energy of over-dense region is missed in the text book [@pad93].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Conventional classical confidence intervals in specific cases are unphysical. A solution to this problem has recently been published by Feldman and Cousins[@feld98]. We show that there are cases where the new approach is not applicable and that it does not remove the basic deficiencies of classical confidence limits.'
author:
- |
Günter Zech[^1]\
Universität Siegen, D-57068 Siegen, Germany
title: Objections to the Unified Approach to the Computation of Classical Confidence Limits
---
Introduction
=============
Feldman and Cousins propose a new approach to the computation of *classical confidence bounds* which avoids the occurrence of unphysical confidence regions, one of the most problematic features of the conventional classical confidence limits. In addition it unifies the two procedures “*computation of confidence intervals*” and “*computation of confidence limits*”. The unified treatment represents a considerable improvement compared to the conventional classical method and has already been adopted by several experiments and is recommended by the Particle Data Group [@pdg98]. However, it has serious deficiencies.
Basic idea of the unified approach
==================================
We consider the example of section B of Ref. [@feld98]. For a Gaussian resolution function $P(x;\mu)$ we define for each mean $\mu$ an interval $x_{1}<x<x_{2}$ with the property $$\int_{x1}^{x2}P(x;\mu)dx=\alpha$$ where $\alpha$ is the confidence level. For a measurement $\hat{x}$ all values $\mu$ with the property $x_{1}(\mu)<\hat{x}<x_{2}(\mu)$ form the confidence interval. The intervals have the property that the true values are covered in the fraction $\alpha$ of a large number of experiments. The freedom in the choice of the interval inherent in the relation (1) is used to avoid unphysical limits. (Usually the limits $x_{1},x_{2}$ are fixed by choosing central intervals.) In case that only one limit can be placed inside the allowed parameter space, upper (or lower) limits are computed. The data and the selected level $\alpha$ unambiguously fix the bounds and whether bounds or limits are given. The probability bounds are defined by an ordering scheme based on the likelihood ratio. In the case of discrete parameters an analogous procedure is applied with some additional plausible conventions. The complete recipe is too complicated to be discussed in a few words. The reader has to consult the original publication.
Objections to the unified approach
==================================
The new approach has very attractive properties, however, there are also severe limitations most of which are intrinsic in the philosophy of classical statistics.
Inversion of significance
-------------------------
In some cases less significant data can provide more stringent limits than more informative data.
As an example we present in the following table the $90\%$ confidence upper limits for a Poisson distributed signal from data with no event found ($n=0$) for different background expectations of mean $b$.
The experimental information on the signal $s$ is the same in all four cases independent of the background expectation since no background is present. For the case $n=0,b=3$ the unified approach avoids the unphysical negative limit of the conventional classical method but finds a limit which is more significant than that of an experiment with no background expected and twice the flux.
If in the $n=0,b=3$ experiment by an improved analysis the background expectation is reduced, the limit becomes worse.
The reason for this unsatisfactory behavior is related to the violation of the likelihood principle[^2] by the classical methods. All four cases presented in the table have common likelihood functions $L\sim e^{-s}$ of the unknown signal up to an irrelevant multiplicative constant depending on $b$.
\[c\][|l|l|l|l|l|]{}& n=0, b=0 & n=0, b=1 & n=0, b=2 & n=0, b=3\
standard classical & & & &\
unified classical & & & &\
uniform Bayesian & & & &\
Difficulties with two-sided bounds
----------------------------------
Let us assume a measurement $\hat{x}=0$ of a parameter $x$ with a physical bound $-1<x<1$ and a Gaussian resolution of $\sigma=1.1$. (This could be for example a track measurement by a combination of a proportional wire chamber and a position detector with Gaussian resolution.) The unified approach fails to give 68.3% confidence bounds or limits.
Difficulties with certain probability distributions
---------------------------------------------------
The prescription for the definition of the probability intervals may lead to disconnected interval pieces. A simple example for such a distribution is the superposition of a narrow and a wide Gaussian $$P(x;\mu)=\frac1{\sqrt{2\pi}}\left\{ 0.9\exp\left( -(x-\mu)^{2}/2\right)
+\exp\left( -(x-\mu)^{2}/0.02\right) \right\}$$ with the additional requirement of positive parameter values $\mu$. It will produce quite odd confidence intervals.
Another simple example is the linear distribution $$P(x;\theta)=\frac12(1+\theta x)$$ where the parameter $\theta$ and the variate $x$ are bound by $|\theta|\leq1$ and $|x|\leq1$. (The variable $x$ could be the cosine of a polar angle.) Values of $\theta$ outside its allowed range produce negative probabilities. Thus the likelihood ratio which is used as a ordering scheme for the choice of the probability interval is undefined for $|\theta|>1$. Remark that also the conventional classical confidence scheme fails in this case.
Similarly all digital measurements like track measurements with proportional wire chambers or TDC time registration cannot be treated. Since the probability distributions are delta-functions the bounds are undefined.
Restriction due to unification
------------------------------
Let us assume that in a search for a Susy particle a positive result is found which however is compatible with background within two standard deviations. Certainly one would prefer to publish an upper limit to a measurement contrary to the prescription of the unified method.
Difficulty to use the error bounds
----------------------------------
Errors associated to a measurement usually are used to combine results from different experiments or to compute other parameters depending on them. There is no prescription how this can be done in the unified approach. Averaging of data will certainly be difficult due to the bias introduced by asymmetric probability contours used to avoid unphysical bounds. Feldman and Cousins propose to use the conventional classical limits for averaging. Thus two sets of errors have to be documented.
Restriction to continuous variables
-----------------------------------
It is not possible to associate a classical confidence to discrete hypothesis.
Subjectivity
------------
The nice property of a well defined coverage depends on pre-experimental analysis criteria: The choice of the selection criteria and of the confidence level as well as the decision to publish have to be done independently of the result of the experiment. This requirement is rather naive.
Conclusions
===========
There are additional difficulties to those discussed above: The elimination of nuisance parameters and the treatment of upper Poisson limits with uncertainty in the background predictions pose problems. These may be tractable but certainly introduce further complications. The computation of the limits will be very computer time consuming in most cases. The essential objections, however, are those mentioned in sections 3.1, 3.3 and 3.5. It is absolutely intolerable that significant limits can be obtained with poor data and it is also essential to have useful error intervals. Feldman and Cousins are aware of the difficulties related to the inversion of significance and to biased errors and propose to publish additional information. This certainly is a sensible advice but does not justify classical limits. Most of the deficiencies of the conventional classical method remain unresolved in the unified approach.
The experimental information relative to a parameter can be documented by its likelihood function. The log-likelihood functions of different experiments can easily be combined without introducing biases simply by adding them. In most cases the likelihood function can be parametrized in a sensible way, as is common practice, by the parameters which maximize the likelihood and the values at $1/\sqrt{e}$ of the maximum. The latter define an error interval. In the case of Poisson limits the Bayesian limits with constant prior (see Table 1) provide a useful parametrization which avoids the difficulties of section 3.1. These pragmatic procedures, however, do not allow to associate a certain coverage to the intervals or limits. Coverage is the magic objective of classical confidence bounds. It is an attractive property from a purely esthetic point of view but it is not obvious how to make use of this concept.
.
[9]{} G. J. Feldman, R. D. Cousins, Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998) 1873.
C. Caso et al., Europ. Phys. J. C 3 (1998) 1.
J. O. Berger and R. P. Wolpert, The likelihood principle, Lecture notes of Institute of Mathematical Statistics, Hayward, Ca, edited by S. S. Gupta (1984)
D. Basu, Statistical Information and Likelihood, Lecture notes in Statistics, Springer (1988)
[^1]: E-mail:[email protected]
[^2]: A detailed discussion of the likelihood principle and references can be found in [@berg84] and [@basu88].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
Recall that a Hausdorff space $X$ is said to be *Namioka* if for every compact (Hausdorff) space $Y$ and every metric space $Z$, every separately continuous function $f:X\times{Y}\rightarrow{Z}$ is continuous on $D\times{Y}$ for some dense $G_\delta$ subset $D$ of $X$. It is well known that in the class of all metrizable spaces, Namioka and Baire spaces coincide [@Saint-Raymond83]. Further it is known that every completely regular Namioka space is Baire and that every separable Baire space is Namioka [@Saint-Raymond83].
In our paper we study spaces $X$, we call them *weakly Namioka*, for which the conclusion of the theorem for Namioka spaces holds provided that the assumption of compactness of $Y$ is replaced by *second countability* of $Y$. We will prove that in the class of all completely regular separable spaces and in the class of all perfectly normal spaces, $X$ is Baire if and only if it is weakly Namioka.
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, Youngstown State University, Youngstown, OH 44555, USA'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA'
author:
- Zbigniew Piotrowski
- Russell Waller
title: Baire and weakly Namioka spaces
---
Baire space ,Namioka space ,weakly Namioka space ,separate continuity 54C05 ,54C35 ,54B10
Introduction
============
All the spaces considered in this paper are assumed to be Hausdorff. For spaces $X$, $Y$, and $Z$, we say a function $f:X\times{Y}\rightarrow{Z}$ is *continuous with respect to $x$* if $f|_{X\times{\{y\}}}$ is continuous for every $y\in{Y}$. Similarly, $f$ is *continuous with respect to $y$* if $f|_{\{x\}\times{Y}}$ is continuous for every $x\in{X}$. We say $f$ is *separately continuous* if $f$ is continuous with respect to $x$ and continuous with respect to $y$. In [@Saint-Raymond83], J. Saint-Raymond shows that every completely regular Namioka space is Baire and that every metrizable or separable Baire space is Namioka, thus providing a characterization of Baire spaces in terms of Namioka spaces. In this paper, we will be concerned with finding a similar characterization of Baire spaces using weakly Namioka spaces.
Main Results
============
Let us start with the following:
A space $X$ is *weakly Namioka* if for every second countable space $Y$ and every metric space $Z$, every separately continuous function $f:X\times{Y}\rightarrow{Z}$ is continuous on $D\times{Y}$ for some dense $G_\delta$ subset $D$ of $X$.
In [@Calbrix], J. Calbrix and J.P. Troallic show that given a sequence of open subsets $(U_n)_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ of $Y$ and a metric space $M$, there is a residual set $R$ in $X$ such that the separately continuous function $f:X\times{Y}\rightarrow{M}$ is continuous at each point of $R\times{Q}$, where $Q$ is the set of points $y\in{Y}$ admitting a subsequence of $(U_n)_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ as a neighborhood basis. In [@BT], [@M], [@MR] [@Mas], [@MasNest], [@MN], [@Nest], it is shown that for a topological space $X$, a second countable space $Y$, a metric space $M$, and $f:X\times{Y}\rightarrow{M}$ such that $f$ is continuous with respect to $y$ and $f|_{X\times{\{y\}}}$ is continuous for every $y\in{D}$ for some $D$ dense in $Y$, there is a residual set $A$ in $X$ such that $f$ is continuous at each point of $A\times{Y}$. Here we offer a new proof of this result:
\[BrownLemma\] Let $Y$ be second countable, $(M,d)$ be metric and $f:X\times{Y}\rightarrow{M}$ be such that $f$ is continuous with respect to $y$ and $f|_{X\times{\{y\}}}$ is continuous for every $y\in{D}$ for some $D$ dense in $Y$. There is then a residual set $A$ in $X$ such that $f$ is continuous on $A\times{Y}$.
Without loss of generality, assume $X$ is of second category, for otherwise there is nothing to prove. In fact, if $X$ is of first category then the set $A$ can possibly be a priori empty. Assume $M_1=\{x\in{X}: \exists{y\in{Y}}$, $f$ is discontinuous at $(x,y)\}$ is of second category in $X$.
For each $x\in{M_1}$, let $y_x$ be an element of $Y$ such that $f$ is discontinuous at $(x,y_x)$. Let $\epsilon>0$ be such that the set $M_2=\{x\in{M_1} :$ for any open neighborhood $O$ of $(x,y_x)$ in $X\times{Y}$, there exists $(u,v)\in{O}$ such that $d(f(x,y_x), f(u,v))\geq{\epsilon}\}$ is of second category in $X$.
Let $B_1,B_2,B_3, ...$ be a countable base for $Y$. Now, let $n$ be an index of $B_n$ such that the set
$(*)$ $M_3=\{x\in{M_2}: y_x\in{B_n}$ and $\forall{y\in{B_n}},d(f(x,y_x),f(x,y))<\frac{\epsilon}{6}\}$
is of second category in $X$. Let $y_1\in{D\cap{B_n}}$ and let $U$ be an open set of $X$ such that $U\cap{M_3}$ is dense in $U$. Let $x_0\in{U\cap{M_3}}$ and let $V$ be an open subset of $U$ containing $x_0$ such that for every $x\in{V}$,
$(**)$ $d(f(x_0,y_1),f(x,y_1))<\frac{\epsilon}{6}$.
There is a point $(a,b)\in{V\times{B_n}}$, such that
$(***)$ $d(f(a,b), f(x_0,y_{x_0}))\geq{\epsilon}$.
Let $G$ be an open subset of $B_n$, containing $b$ such that for every $y\in{G}$,
$(*v)$ $d(f(a,b), f(a,y))<\frac{\epsilon}{6}$.
Let $c\in{G\cap{D}}$. Finally, let $W$ be an open subset of $V$ containing $a$ such that for every $x\in{W}$,
$(v)$ $d(f(a,c)), f(x,c))<\frac{\epsilon}{6}$.
Let $x_1\in{W\cap{M_3}}$. Now:
$d(f(a,b),f(a,c))<\frac{\epsilon}{6}$, by $(*v)$
$d(f(a,c), f(x_1,c))<\frac{\epsilon}{6}$, by $(v)$
$d(f(x_1,c), f(x_1,y_{x_1}))<\frac{\epsilon}{6}$ by $(*)$
$d(f(x_1,y_{x_1}), f(x_1,y_1))<\frac{\epsilon}{6}$ by $(*)$
$d(f(x_1,y_1), f(x_0,y_1))<\frac{\epsilon}{6}$, by $(**)$
$d(f(x_0,y_1), f(x_0,y_{x_0}))<\frac{\epsilon}{6}$, by $(*)$.
Hence: $d(f(a,b),f(x_0,y_{x_0}))<\epsilon$, contradicting $(***)$.
From either of the above mentioned results comes the following theorem as an easy corollary:
\[Brown\] Baire spaces are weakly Namioka.
All that remains, then, in finding a characterization of Baire spaces using weakly Namioka spaces is to determine under what conditions the converse is true. We turn to this task now. The proof of the forthcoming theorem is an adaptation of the proof of Theorem 3 of [@Saint-Raymond83].
\[big\] Completely regular, separable, weakly Namioka spaces are Baire.
Let $X$ be a completely regular, separable space and assume that $X$ is not Baire. Then there exists a nonempty open set $K$ in $X$ such that $K\subset{\bigcup_{n\in{\gamma}}K_n}$, where $\gamma$ is a countable indexing set and $K_n$ is closed and nowhere dense for each $n\in{\gamma}$. Let $S$ be a countable dense subset of $X$. Then for any $n\in{\gamma}$, $S\setminus{K_n}$ is dense in $X$. For each $n\in{\gamma}$ choose an indexing set $\gamma_n$ such that $S\setminus{K_n}=\{s_{n,i}:i\in{\gamma_n}\}$ and write $S_n=S\setminus{K_n}=\{s_{n,i}:i\in{\gamma_n}\}$.
Choose $n\in{\gamma}$ and let $\Phi$ be a set of continuous functions $\varphi:X\rightarrow{[0,1]}$ such that $\varphi(K_n)\subset{\{0\}}$, $\varphi(s_{n,i})=1$ for some $s_{n,i}\in{S_n}$, and such that $\varphi(x)\neq{0}\Rightarrow{\varphi'(x)=0}$ for all $x\in{X}$ and any $\varphi,\varphi'\in{\Phi}$, $\varphi\neq{\varphi'}$ (note that while for every $\varphi\in{\Phi}$ there is a corresponding $s_{n,i}\in{S_n}$ such that $\varphi(s_{n,i})=1$, the reverse is not true). Then for each $\varphi\in{\Phi}$ the set $A_\varphi=\{x:\varphi(x)\neq{0}\}$ is nonempty and $A_\varphi\cap{A_{\varphi'}}=\emptyset$ if $\varphi\neq{\varphi'}$ (note that supp($\varphi$) is the closure of $A_\varphi$). Let $P_\Phi=\{A_\varphi:\varphi\in{\Phi}\}$ be the set of all $A_\varphi$’s for $\Phi$. Let $F_n$ be the set of all $\Phi$’s so defined (for fixed $n\in{\gamma}$), and take the partial order $\prec$ on $F_n$ to be $\Phi\prec{\Phi'}$ if $P_\Phi\subset{P_{\Phi'}}$. Take a simply ordered subset $H$ of $F_n$, and let $H^*=\bigcup_{\Phi\in{H}}\Phi$. Then for any $\varphi\in{H^*}$ there exists $s_{n,i}\in{S_n}$ such that $\varphi(K_n)\subset{\{0\}}$ and $\varphi(s_{n,i})=1$.
Seeking contradiction, assume $A_{\varphi}\cap{A_{\varphi'}}\neq{\emptyset}$ for some $\varphi,\varphi'\in{H^*}$, $\varphi\neq{\varphi'}$. There exists $\Phi,\Phi'\in{H}$ such that $\varphi\in{\Phi}$ and $\varphi'\in{\Phi'}$. Since $H$ is simply ordered, it follows that $\Phi\prec{\Phi'}$ or $\Phi'\prec{\Phi}$. Without loss of generality, assume $\Phi\prec{\Phi'}$. Then $P_\Phi\subset{P_{\Phi'}}$, so $A_\varphi=A_{\varphi''}$ for some $\varphi''\in{\Phi'}$. But then $A_{\varphi''}\cap{A_{\varphi'}}\neq{\emptyset}$, a contradiction. So for all $x\in{X}$, $\varphi(x)\neq{0}\Rightarrow{\varphi'(x)=0}$ if $\varphi\neq{\varphi'}$. Thus $H^*\in{F_n}$, so $H^*$ is an upper bound of $H$ in $F_n$. Zorn’s Lemma therefore guarantees the existence of a maximal element of $F_n$. For each $n$, then, take $\Phi_n$ to be the maximal element of $F_n$. Note that each $\Phi_n$ is countable since it must be no larger than $S_n$.
Seeking contradiction, assume now that for some $n\in{\gamma}$, $\{x\in{X}:\exists{\varphi\in{\Phi_n}},\varphi(x)\neq{0}\}$ is not dense in $X$. Then there exists an open set $U$ in $X$ such that for all $\varphi\in{\Phi_n}$, $\varphi(U)\subset{\{0\}}$. Since $S_n$ is dense in $X$, there exists $s_{n,u}\in{S_n}$ such that $s_{n,u}\in{U}$. Then since $X$ is completely regular, there exists continuous $g:X\rightarrow{[0,1]}$ such that $g(s_{n,u})=1$ and $g((X\setminus{U})\cup{K_n})\subset{\{0\}}$. But $\Phi_n\prec{\Phi_n\cup{\{g\}}}$, contradicting the maximality of $\Phi_n$. So for all $n\in{\gamma}$, $\{x\in{X}:\exists{\varphi\in{\Phi_n}}, \varphi(x)\neq{0}\}$ is dense in $X$.
Let $\Phi_n$ be given the discrete topology. Since $\Phi_n$ and $[0,1]$ are both locally compact and Hausdorff, their product $\Phi_n\times{[0,1]}$ is locally compact and Hausdorff, and so admits a one-point compactification. For each $n\in{\gamma}$, let $Y_n$ be the one-point compactification of $\Phi_n\times{[0,1]}$ where $\lambda_n$ is the point at infinity. Let $Y=\coprod_{n\in{\gamma}}{Y_n}$ be the disjoint union equipped with the coherent topology. Define $f:X\times{Y}\rightarrow{[0,1]}$ by
$f(x,y) =
\left\{
\begin{array}{lr}
f(x,\varphi,t)=\frac{(2t)(\varphi(x))}{t^2+(\varphi(x))^2}& t\neq{0}$ and $\forall{n\in{\gamma}}, y\neq{\lambda_n} \\
0&$otherwise.$
\end{array}
\right.$
To show the separate continuity of $f$, first fix $y_0\in{Y}$. If $y_0=(\varphi,0)$ or $y_0=\lambda_n$ for some $n\in{\gamma}$, then $f(x,y_0)=0$ for all $x\in{X}$. So $f|_{X\times{\{y_0\}}}\subset{\{0\}}$ and is thus continuous. If $y_0\neq{(\varphi,0)}$ and $y_0\neq{\lambda_n}$ for all $n\in{\gamma}$, then $f(x,y_0)=f(x,\varphi,t)=\frac{(2t)\varphi(x))}{t^2+(\varphi(x))^2}$ for some fixed $\varphi$ and $t$, so $f|_{X\times{\{y_0\}}}$ is continuous by the continuity of $\varphi$. Therefore $f|_{X\times{\{y\}}}$ is continuous for any fixed $y\in{Y}$.
Now fix $x_0\in{X}$. Take an open set $(a,b)$ in $[0,1]$ (or take $(a,1]$ without loss of generality). For each $n\in{\gamma}$, $f^{-1}(a,b)\cap{\{x_0\}\times{Y_n}}=\{(x_0,\varphi,t):\frac{(2t)(\varphi(x_0))}{t^2+(\varphi(x_0))^2}\in{(a,b)}\}$ for a particular $\varphi\in{\Phi_n}$ (since $\varphi(x)\neq{0}\Rightarrow{\varphi'(x)\neq{0}}$ if $\varphi\neq{\varphi'}$). Thus $f^{-1}(a,b)\cap{\{x_0\}\times{Y_n}}$ is open in $\{x_0\}\times{Y_n}$ since $\frac{(2t)(\varphi(x_0))}{t^2+(\varphi(x_0))^2}$ is continuous as a function of $t$ ($t\neq{0}$ since $0\not\in{(a,b)}$). So $f^{-1}(a,b)\cap{\{x_0\}\times{Y}}$ is open in $\{x_0\}\times{Y}$. Now take an open set $[0,a)$ in $[0,1]$. For each $n\in{\gamma}$, $f^{-1}[0,a)$ contains $(x_0,\lambda_n)$ and there is at most one $\varphi$ in $\Phi_n$ such that for some $t$, $(x_0,\varphi,t)\not\in{f^{-1}[0,a)}$. If there is no such $\varphi$ in $\Phi_n$, then $f^{-1}[0,a)\cap{\{x_0\}\times{Y_n}}=\emptyset$. If such a $\varphi$ does exist in $\Phi_n$, then by the continuity of $\frac{(2t)(\varphi(x_0))}{t^2+(\varphi(x_0))^2}$ in terms of $t$ (for fixed $x_0$ and $\varphi$), it follows that for our particular $\varphi\in{\Phi_n}$ the set $\{t\in{[0,1]}:(x_0,\varphi,t)\not\in\ f^{-1}[0,a)\}$ is closed in $[0,1]$, and so is compact. Thus $(\{x_0\}\times{Y_n})\setminus{f^{-1}[0,a)}$ is closed and compact when restricted to $\{x_0\}\times{(\Phi_n\times{[0,1]})}$, and $(x_0,\lambda_n)\in{f^{-1}[0,a)}$ for each $n\in{\gamma}$. So $f^{-1}[0,a)\cap{\{x_0\}\times{Y_n}}$ is open in $\{x_0\}\times{Y_n}$ for each $n\in{\gamma}$, and therefore $f^{-1}[0,a)\cap{\{x_0\}\times{Y}}$ is open in $\{x_0\}\times{Y}$. It follows that $f|_{\{x\}\times{Y}}$ is continuous for any fixed $x\in{X}$, and the separate continuity of $f$ is established.
We now demonstrate that for any dense $G_\delta$ subset $D$ of $X$, $f$ is not continuous on $D\times{Y}$. To do so it suffices to show that for each $x\in{K}$, there exists $y\in{Y}$ such that $f$ is discontinuous at $(x,y)$. Choose $x_K\in{K}$. Then for some $n\in{\gamma}$, $x_K\in{K_n}$. Since $\{x\in{X}: \exists{\varphi\in{\Phi_n}}, \varphi(x)\neq{0}\}$ is dense in $X$, there is a directed set $A$ and a net $(x_\alpha)_{\alpha\in{A}}$ in $\{x\in{X}: \exists{\varphi\in{\Phi_n}}, \varphi(x)\neq{0}\}$ such that $x_\alpha\rightarrow{x_K}$. Since each $x_\alpha$ is in $\{x\in{X}: \exists{\varphi\in{\Phi_n}}, \varphi(x)\neq{0}\}$ there exists $\varphi'\in{F_n}$ and $r\in{(0,1]}$ such that $\varphi'(x_\alpha)=r$. Let $y_\alpha=(\varphi',r)$ for each $\alpha\in{A}$ and let $p_\alpha=(x_\alpha,y_\alpha)$. Then $(y_\alpha)_{\alpha\in{A}}$ is a net in $Y_n$ such that for each $\alpha\in{A}$, $f(p_\alpha)=f(x_\alpha,y_\alpha)=f(x_\alpha,\varphi',r) = \frac{(2r)(\varphi'(x_\alpha))}{r^2+(\varphi'(x_\alpha))^2} = \frac{(2r)(r)}{r^2+r^2} = 1$. Since $(y_\alpha)$ is a net contained in the compact subspace $Y_n$ of $Y$, there is a subnet $(\tilde{y}_{\beta})_{\beta\in{B}}$ of $(y_\alpha)$ that converges to some point $y\in{Y_n}$. So then $(\tilde{x}_{\beta})_{\beta\in{B}}$ is a subnet of $(x_\alpha)_{\alpha\in{A}}$ and thus $\tilde{x}_{\beta}\rightarrow{x_K}$. Let $\tilde{p}_\beta=(\tilde{x}_\beta,\tilde{y}_\beta)$. Since $(\tilde{x}_{\beta})\rightarrow{x_K}$ in $X$ and $(\tilde{y}_{\beta})\rightarrow{y}$ in $Y$, $\tilde{p}_\beta\rightarrow{(x_K,y)}$ in $X\times{Y}$. But since $x_K\in{K_n}$ (and $y\in{Y_n}$) and $(\tilde{p}_\beta)_{\beta\in{B}}$ is a subnet of $(p_\alpha)_{\alpha\in{A}}$, we have
$f(x_K,y) =
\left\{
\begin{array}{lr}
f(x_K,\varphi,t)=\frac{(2t)(\varphi(x_K))}{t^2+(\varphi(x_K))^2}=\frac{0}{t^2}=0&t\neq{0}$ and $\forall{n\in{\gamma}}, y\neq{\lambda_n}\\
0&$otherwise,$
\end{array}
\right.$
and $f(\tilde{p}_\beta)=1$ for every $\beta\in{B}$. So $\tilde{p}_\beta\rightarrow{(x_K,y)}$ in $X\times{Y}$ but $f(\tilde{p}_\beta)\not\rightarrow{f(x_K,y)}$ in $[0,1]$. Thus $f$ is discontinuous at $(x_K,y)$, and it follows that $X$ is not weakly Namioka.
\[small\] Perfectly normal weakly Namioka spaces are Baire.
Let $X$ be a perfectly normal space and assume that $X$ is not a Baire space. There then exists an open set $U$ in $X$ that is of first category and of type $F_\sigma$. Let $Y$ be a second countable completely regular space with a non-isolated point $y_0$. By Theorem 5, p. 1111 of [@Maslyuchenko], there exists a separately continuous $f:X\times{Y}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$ whose set of points of discontinuity is $U\times{\{y_0\}}$. It follows that $X$ is not weakly Namioka.
Let $X$ be either a completely regular separable space or a perfectly normal space. Then $X$ is Baire if and only if $X$ is weakly Namioka.
Follows immediately from Theorems \[Brown\], \[big\], and \[small\]
Since metrizable spaces are perfectly normal, weakly Namioka and Baire spaces coincide in the class of metrizable spaces.
Observe that each proof from this section remains valid if the arbitrary metric space in our definition of a weakly Namioka space is taken to be $\mathbb{R}$. Thus, among completely regular separable spaces and among perfectly normal spaces, these definitions give the same class of spaces. An analogous result for Namioka spaces – that among Baire spaces, substituting $\mathbb{R}$ for the arbitrary metric space in the definition of Namioka spaces gives the same class of spaces – is known from [@Bouziad].
Recall that for topological spaces $X$ and $Y$, a function $f:X\rightarrow{Y}$ is said to be *quasi-continuous at the point $x$* if for every open set $U$ in $X$ containing $x$ and for every open set $V$ in $Y$ containing $f(x)$ there exists an open, non-empty subset $U'$ of $U$ such that $f(U')\subset{V}$. The function is *quasi-continuous* if it is quasi-continuous at all $x\in{X}$. We say that $f:X\times{Y}\rightarrow{Z}$ is *quasi-continuous with respect to $x$* if $f|_{X\times{\{y\}}}$ is quasi-continuous for all $y\in{Y}$ and that $f$ is *quasi-continuous with respect to $y$* if $f|_{\{x\}\times{Y}}$ is quasi-continuous for all $x\in{X}$. For a topological space $X$, second countable space $Y$, and compact metrizable space $Z$, T. Nagamizu shows in [@Nagamizu] that if $f:X\times{Y}\rightarrow{Z}$ is continuous with respect to $y$ and $f|_{X\times\{y\}}$ quasi-continuous for each $y$ from a dense set $E$ in $Y$, then there exists a residual subset $A$ of $X$ such that $f$ is (jointly) continuous on $A\times{Y}$. Note that Nagamizu’s result resembles Namioka’s famous theorem in [@Namioka], but with $Y$ being second countable. Given the relationship established between Namioka and weakly Namioka spaces, it is thus natural to wonder for what class of spaces the assumption of separate continuity in Namioka’s theorem can be weakened.
Let Y be locally compact and $\sigma$-compact, and let Z be an arbitrary pseudo-metric space. Determine the class $\mathcal{X}$ such that for any $X$ in $\mathcal{X}$ and any function $f:X\times{Y}\rightarrow{Z}$ which is quasi-continuous with respect to $x$ and continuous with respect to $y$, there is a dense $G_{\delta}$ subset $A$ of $X$ such that $f$ is continuous on $A\times{Y}$.
Examples
========
Recall that a *network* in a space $X$ is a collection of subsets $\rho$ such that given any open subset $U$ of $X$ and $x\in{U}$, there is a member $P$ of $\rho$ such that $x\in{P}\subset{U}$.
In [@Talagrand], Remarque $b$, p. 241, M. Talagrand shows that the function $f:[0,1]\times{C_p([0,1],[0,1])\rightarrow{[0,1]}}$ given by $f(x,y)=y(x)$ is separately continuous and discontinuous at *every* point of $X\times{Y}$. It can be shown that $Y=C_p([0,1],[0,1])$, the function space with the topology of pointwise convergence, is completely regular with a countable network, and as such is hereditarily Lindelof and hereditarily separable (see R. Engelking [@Engelking], Exercise 3.4.H, p. 165 and Theorem 2.6.4, p. 107).
Answering questions due to A. Alexiewicz, W. Orlicz [@Alexiewicz] and J.P. Christensen [@Christensen] pertaining to the necessity of the compactness assumption on the second factor $Y$ in the theorem for Namioka spaces, J.B. Brown ([@Piotrowski], p. 313) constructs a separately continuous real-valued function defined on the Cartesian product of the closed interval $[0,1]$ and the topological sum of $\mathfrak{c}$ many intervals – a complete metric space – such that the conclusion of the theorem for Namioka spaces fails.
Answering Problem C, p. 203 of [@Henriksen], the first-named author [@Piotrowski2] refines Brown’s techniques (“two-dimensional" example) by constructing a separately continuous real-valued function $f$ defined on the Cartesian product of two complete metric spaces $X,Y$ such that the (in fact, dense $G_\delta$) set $C(f)$ of points of (joint) continuity *fails* to contain either $A\times{Y}$ or $X\times{B}$ for *any* dense $G_\delta$-set $A$ in $X$ or *any* dense $G_\delta$ set $B$ in $Y$. In other words, the condition of the theorem for Namioka spaces fails “in both directions".
Recall ([@Gillman], Chapter 4) that a point $x\in{X}$ is called a *P-point* if any $G_\delta$ set containing $x$ is a neighborhood of $x$, and a space $X$ is called a *P-space* if each $x\in{X}$ is a P-point.
The classical example of a discontinuous separately continuous function $sp : {\mathbb{R}\times{\mathbb{R}}}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$ is defined by:
$sp(x,y) =
\left\{
\begin{array}{lr}
\frac{2xy}{x^2+y^2}&(x,y)\neq{(0,0)}\\
0&(x,y)=(0,0)
\end{array}
\right.$
One may think that any non-discrete completely regular (Hausdorff) spaces $X$, $Y$ admit a discontinuous, separately continuous function $f: X\times{Y}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$, but this is not true. In fact:
\[HWprop\] ([@Henriksen], Theorem 6.14, p.196 ) Let $X,Y$ be completely regular spaces, $x_0\in{X}$ be a P-point and $y_0\in{Y}$ have a separable neighborhood. If $f:X\times{Y}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$ is separately continuous, then $f$ is continuous at $(x_0,y_0)$.
Hence one must impose certain restrictions on the nature of non-isolated points in $X$ and $Y$ to guarantee the existence of a separately continuous function. Following [@Banakh] one may ask the following natural questions: Suppose $X$ and $Y$ are completely regular spaces with non-isolated $G_\delta$ points $x\in{X}$ and $y\in{Y}$. Is there a separately continuous function $f : X\times{Y}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$ that is discontinuous at $(x,y)$? Can such a function $f$ be chosen of the form $f = sp\circ{( g\times{h})}$ for suitable continuous functions $g : X\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$ and $h : Y\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$?
It is shown in [@Banakh] that this cannot be done in ZFC. Under Martin’s Axiom these questions have negative answers. On the other hand there are models of ZFC (e.g., Near Coherence of P-Filters) in which the answers to these questions are affirmative. See [@Banakh] for more details.
We now generalize Proposition \[HWprop\]:
\[counter\] Let $x_0\in{X}$ be a P-point, $y_0\in{Y}$ have a separable neighborhood, and $Z$ be regular. If $f:X\times{Y}\rightarrow{Z}$ is separately continuous, then $f$ is continuous at $(x_0,y_0)$.
Assume $x_0\in{X}$, $y_0\in{Y}$, $Z$, and $f:X\times{Y}\rightarrow{Z}$ are as above. Let $S$ be a separable neighborhood of $y_0$, $D$ a countable dense subset of $S$, and $V$ an open neighborhood of $f(x_0,y_0)$ in $Z$. By the regularity of $Z$, we can choose an open $V^*$ in $Z$ such that $f(x_0,y_0)\in{V^*}\subset{cl(V^*)}\subset{V}$, where $cl(V^*)$ denotes the closure of $V^*$ in $Z$. Using continuity with respect to $y$, we may assume without loss of generality that $f(\{x_0\}\times{S})\subset{V^*}$. By continuity with respect to $x$ we have for any $y\in{D}$ some $U_y$ open in $X$ such that $x_0\in{U_y}$ and $f(U_y\times{\{y\}})\subset{V^*}$. Since $x_0$ is a P-point, there exists an open set $U\subset{\bigcap_{y\in{D}}U_y}$ containing $x_0$. As $f(U_y\times{\{y\}})\subset{V^*}$ and $U\subset{U_y}$ for each $y\in{D}$, we have $f(U\times{D})\subset{V^*}$. Since $f$ is continuous with respect to $y$, it follows that $f(U\times{S})\subset{f(U\times{cl(D))}}\subset{cl(V^*)}\subset{V}$. Therefore $f$ is continuous at $(x_0,y_0)$.
Example 6.16 of [@Henriksen] shows that the local separability condition on $Y$ is necessary to Proposition \[HWprop\] and Theorem \[counter\].
In Example 3.2 of [@Gruenhage], G. Gruenhage and D. Lutzer construct a Lindelof, hereditarily paracompact, linearly ordered (thus Hausdorff and completely normal) P-space that is not a Baire space. By Theorem \[counter\], this space is weakly Namioka.
Following [@vanDouwen], we call a space $X$ *ultradisconnected* if it is crowded (has no isolated points) and if every two disjoint crowded subsets of $X$ have disjoint closures.
In Example 3.3 of [@vanDouwen], E.K. van Douwen constructs a countable (thus separable), regular (and Hausdorff), ultradisconnected space $X$. As an ultradisconnected space, $X$ has no isolated points, and so is the countable union of closed nowhere dense sets (its single points) and is therefore not a Baire space. For any second countable space $Y$, the product $X\times{Y}$ is first countable. Ultradisconnected spaces are extremally disconnected [@vanDouwen], so any sequence $(x,y)_n$ in $X\times{Y}$ converging to $(x,y)$ must be eventually constant in $X$. Thus for any metric space Z and any function $f:X\times{Y}\rightarrow{Z}$ continuous with respect to $y$, the image of $(x,y)_n$ under $f$ must converge to $f(x,y)$. It follows that any separately continuous function $X\times{Y}\rightarrow{Z}$ is continuous and so $X$ is weakly Namioka.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors would like to thank J.B. Brown for contributing the proof of Lemma \[BrownLemma\].
[10]{}
A. Alexiewicz, W. Orlicz, Sur la continuité et la classification de Baire des fonctions abstraites, Fund. Math. 35 (1948) 105–126.
T. O. Banakh, O.V. Maslyuchenko and V. V. Mykhaylyuk, Discontinuous separately continuous functions and Near Coherence of P-Filters, Real Analysis Exchange 32 (2006-07) 335–348.
A. Bouziad, Notes sur la propriété de Namioka, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 344 (2) (1994) 873–-883.
A. Bouziad, J.-P. Troallic, Lower quasi-continuity, joint continuity and related concepts, Topology and its Applications 157 (18) (2010) 2889–2894
J. Calbrix, J.-P. Troallic, Applications séparément continues, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sr. A-B 288 (13) (1979) A647–A648.
J.P.R. Christensen, Joint continuity of separately continuous functions, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 82 (3) (1981) 455–461.
E. K. van Douwen, Applications of Maximal Topologies, Topology and its Applications 51 (1993) 125–139.
R. Engelking, General Topology, Helderman Verlag Berlin, 1989.
L. Gillman, M. Jerison, Rings of Continuous Functions (Van Nostrand, Princeton, NJ, 1960).
G. Gruenhage, D. Lutzer, Baire and Volterra spaces, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 128 (10) (2000) 3115–3124.
M. Henriksen, R.G. Woods, Separate versus joint continuity: A tale of four topologies, Topology and its Applications 97 (1999) 175–205.
V.K. Maslyuchenko, More on separately continuous mappings, Proc. Int. Conf. dedicated to the memory of M.P. Kravchuk, September 22-28 1992. – Kyiv-Lutsk (1992) 125 (in Ukrainian).
V.K. Maslyuchenko, V. V. Mykhaylyuk, O.V. Sobchuk, Inverse problems of the theory of separately continuous mappings, Ukrainian Math. J., 44 (9) (1992) 1209–1220.
V.K. Maslyuchenko, B.H. Repalo, Almost separately continuous mappings, Chernitsvi University, Chernivsty (1993) 15 pp. – Preprint Dep. in DNTB of the Ukraine, No 956-Uk 93 (in Ukrainian).
V.K. Maslyuchenko, Hahn spaces and the Dini problem, (Ukrainian, English, Russian, Ukrainian summary), Mat. Metodi Fiz.-Mekh. Polya 41 (4) (1998), 39–45; translation in J. Math. Sci. (New York) 107 (1) (2001).
V.K. Maslyuchenko, V.V. Nesterenko, Joint continuity and quasicontinuity of horizontally quasicontinuous mappings, (Ukrainian) Ukraïn. Mat. Zh. 52 (12) (2000), 1711–1714; translation in Ukrainian Math. J. 52 (12) (2000).
V.K. Maslyuchenko, V.V. Nesterenko, Points of joint continuity and large oscillations, Ukrainian Math. J., 62 (6) (2010), 791–800 (in Ukrainian).
T. Nagamizu, Joint continuity of mappings, Kobe J. Math. 8 (1) (1991) 89–92
I. Namioka, Separate continuity and joint continuity, Pacific J. Math. 51 (1974) 515–531.
V.V. Nesterenko, On two classes of functions with the Hahn property, (Ukrainian) Mat. Stud. 31 (2) (2009) 183–188.
Z. Piotrowski, Separate and joint continuity, Real Analysis Exchange 11 (1985-86) 293–322.
Z. Piotrowski, A solution of a problem by M. Henriksen and R.G. Woods, Topology and its Applications 134 (2003) 203–205.
J. Saint-Raymond, Jeux topologiques et espaces de Namioka, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 87 (1983) 499–504.
M. Talagrand, Deux généralisations d’un théorème de I. Namioka, Pacific J. Math. 81 (1) (1979) 239–251.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Scalar field theories that possess a Vainshtein mechanism are able to dynamically suppress the associated fifth forces in the presence of massive sources through derivative non-linearities. The resulting equations of motion for the scalar are highly non-linear and therefore very few analytic solutions are known. Here we present a brief investigation of the structure of Vainshtein screening in symmetrical configurations, focusing in particular on the spherical, cylindrical and planar solutions that are relevant for observations of the cosmic web. We consider Vainshtein screening in both the Galileon model, where the non-linear terms involve second derivatives of the scalar, and a k-essence theory, where the non-linear terms involve only first derivatives of the scalar. We find that screening, and consequently the suppression of the scalar force, is most efficient around spherical sources, weaker around cylindrical sources and can be absent altogether around planar sources.'
author:
- 'Jolyon K. Bloomfield'
- Clare Burrage
- 'Anne-Christine Davis'
bibliography:
- 'bibrefs.bib'
title: The Shape Dependence of Vainshtein Screening
---
Introduction
============
Are there new, light degrees of freedom associated with the physics explaining the current acceleration of the expansion of the universe? The simplest explanation of the observed current behaviour of the universe is the introduction of a cosmological constant, however the required value of this constant continues to defy explanation in a quantum theory. Alternative theories almost universally introduce new light scalars [@Copeland:2006wr; @Clifton:2011jh] that would mediate long range fifth forces, and yet no such force has been seen to date. In the absence of an explanation for why such scalars would be forbidden from interacting with matter fields, scalar fields are required to possess a screening mechanism in order to dynamically hide the resulting force from observations. Screening mechanisms rely on the presence of non-trivial self interactions of the scalar field in order to change the behaviour of the field dynamically on differing scales and in differing environments. We can classify screening mechanisms depending on the type of self-interactions that lead to the screening: $\phi$ screening, which includes chameleon [@Khoury:2003aq], symmetron [@Hinterbichler:2010es; @Olive:2007aj; @Pietroni:2005pv] and varying dilaton mechanisms [@Brax:2010gi; @Brax:2011ja]; $\partial \phi$ screening, which includes k-essence [@Brax:2012jr], k-mouflage [@Babichev:2009ee] and D-BIonic screening mechanisms [@Burrage:2014uwa]; and $\partial \partial \phi$ screening, which is a property of the Galileon and generalised Galileon models [@Nicolis2008; @Kimura:2011dc; @Narikawa:2013pjr; @Kase:2013uja].
In the two latter cases, the screening of the scalar field around a source occurs when the field gradients become large and the derivative non-linearities begin to dominate the evolution of the scalar field. This is known as Vainshtein screening [@Vainshtein:1972sx], and the distance scale within which the screening occurs is known as the Vainshtein radius. In this work, we discuss both types of Vainshtein screening, considering theories that rely on non-linearities in both first and second derivatives of the scalar field. In each case, we work with a specific model to illustrate the screening behaviour: we use the D-BIonic scalar, an example of $\partial \phi$ screening, and the Galileon model, an example of $\partial\partial \phi$ screening. These are particularly interesting examples of screening, as in the limit where the coupling to matter vanishes, both theories possess symmetries which protect the self-interactions of the scalar field from quantum corrections [@Luty:2003vm; @Nicolis:2004qq; @Burrage:2014uwa]; introducing the coupling to matter only mildly breaks this symmetry. While this property makes these theories particularly interesting to study, the phenomenology of each screening mechanism is common to the broader class of theories.
Screening mechanisms require non-linear interactions, and therefore the scalar field profile can be sensitive to the shape of a source in a way that Newtonian gravitational forces are not. For all of the screening mechanisms mentioned above, the phenomenon of screening has been demonstrated for static, spherically symmetric sources. To a good approximation, this configuration describes many objects in our universe, including galaxy halos, stars and planets. The efficiency of screening in such conditions is invoked to evade fifth-force constraints in the vicinity of such objects.
However, given the apparent necessity of introducing light degrees of freedom for cosmological purposes, we would like to consider environments in which screening is not so efficient, in order to place tighter constraints on scalar field theories with screening. For this reason it is important to study screening beyond the static, spherically symmetric approximation. Previous work in this field has investigated screening behaviors about spherical bodies in two-body systems and in slowly-rotating regimes in a fully relativistic description [@Hiramatsu:2012xj; @Chagoya:2014fza]. In this work we study the presence (or absence) of Vainshtein screening for a number of static, one-dimensional systems with completely different geometries. Vainshtein screening is a particularly interesting target for this investigation as it is already known that no screening of the Galileon field occurs around a planar source [@Brax:2011sv][^1]. We leave the possibility of relaxing the static assumption for future work.
We treat Galileon and D-BIonic theories in Sections \[sec:galileon\] and \[sec:dbionic\] respectively. In the Galileon case, we review known results in spherical and planar symmetry, and present new solutions in cylindrical symmetry. In the D-BIonic case, we present new solutions in planar and cylindrical symmetry, and review known results in spherical symmetry. In Section \[sec:discussion\] we discuss the implications of these results and their connections with cosmological observations.
The Galileon {#sec:galileon}
============
The flat space Galileon action introduced by Nicolis *et al.* [@Nicolis2008] is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fullaction}
S = \int d^4x \sqrt{-g} & \bigg[ - \frac{1}{2} {\cal L}_2 - \frac{1}{2 \Lambda^3} {\cal L}_3 - \frac{\lambda_4}{2\Lambda^6} {\cal L}_4
\nonumber\\
& \qquad - \frac{\lambda_5}{2\Lambda^9} {\cal L}_5 + \frac{\beta \phi}{M_P} \tensor{T}{^\mu_\mu}\bigg]\end{aligned}$$ where
$$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_2 &= (\nabla \phi)^2
\\
{\cal L}_3 &= \square \phi (\nabla \phi)^2
\\
{\cal L}_4 &= (\nabla \phi)^2 \left[ (\square \phi)^2 - \nabla_\mu \nabla_\nu \phi \nabla^\mu \nabla^\nu \phi \right]
\\
{\cal L}_5 &= (\nabla \phi)^2 \big[ (\square \phi)^3 - 3 (\square \phi) \nabla_\mu \nabla_\nu \phi \nabla^\mu \nabla^\nu \phi
\nonumber\\
& \qquad \qquad \quad + 2 \nabla^\mu \nabla_\nu \phi \nabla^\nu \nabla_\rho \phi \nabla^\rho \nabla_\mu \phi \big]\end{aligned}$$
with $(\nabla \phi)^2 = \nabla_\mu \phi \nabla^\mu \phi$ and $\square \phi = \nabla^\mu \nabla_\mu \phi$, and where $M_P = 1/\sqrt{8 \pi G}$ is the reduced Planck mass. The first four terms in this action are invariant under the Galileon symmetry $$\begin{aligned}
\phi\rightarrow \phi +b_{\mu}x^{\mu}+c\end{aligned}$$ for arbitrary constants $b_{\mu}$ and $c$, up to total derivative terms. Although a tadpole term is also compatible with the symmetry, we do not include it here. The covariant form was first given by Deffayet *et al.* [@Deffayet2009a], however in this work we restrict our attention to situations where the curvature is weak. For the static, non-relativistic sources that we investigate, corrections due to spacetime curvature will be governed by the size of the Newtonian potential and its derivatives. We thus expect the theory described by the action to be sufficient for our purposes. Furthermore, we will use flat metrics to investigate solutions to the scalar field equations. We expect that corrections to these solutions due to spacetime curvature effects will go as $O(\Phi)$, which for our purposes are negligible.
The final term in the action represents a conformal coupling to the trace of the stress-energy tensor of the matter sector, which breaks the Galileon symmetry. The presence of this coupling means that test particles of mass $m$ experience a Galileon force of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\vec{F}_{\phi}= - m \frac{\beta}{M_P}\vec{\nabla} \phi\,.\end{aligned}$$
Neglecting the coupling to matter, the Galileon action can be alternatively expressed as an action in $D$ dimensions in the following manner, as described by Deffayet *et al.* [@Deffayet2009b]. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fancyaction}
S = \int d^D x \sqrt{-g} \phi \; \sum_{n=1}^D \lambda_n \tensor*[^n]{A}{^{\mu_1 \ldots \mu_n}_{\nu_1 \ldots \nu_n}} \Pi_{i=1}^n \nabla_{\mu_i} \nabla^{\nu_i} \phi\end{aligned}$$ Here, we absorb various coefficients into the coupling constants $\lambda_n$. The tensor $\tensor*[^n]{A}{^{\mu_1 \ldots \mu_n}_{\nu_1 \ldots \nu_n}}$ is defined as the contraction of $D-n$ indices between two epsilon tensors as $$\begin{aligned}
\tensor*[^n]{A}{^{\mu_1 \ldots \mu_n}_{\nu_1 \ldots \nu_n}} = \epsilon^{\mu_1 \ldots \mu_n \alpha_{n+1} \ldots \alpha_D} \epsilon_{\nu_1 \ldots \nu_n \alpha_{n+1} \ldots \alpha_D}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon^{\mu_1 \ldots \mu_n} = - \frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}} \delta_1^{[\mu_1} \delta_2^{\mu_2} \ldots \delta_n^{\mu_n]} \,.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\tensor*[^n]{A}{}$ is completely antisymmetric on the top indices and the bottom indices.
Different $n$ correspond to different order Galileon terms. The $n=1$ term is the quadratic Galileon, the $n=2$ term the cubic Galileon, and so on. In this form, it is obvious that there are a finite number of Galileon terms, as the $\tensor*[^n]{A}{}$ tensor can only antisymmetrize over a number of indices equal to the spacetime dimension, and no more. In particular, in four-dimensional spacetime, the highest order Galileon possible is the quintic Galileon.
Static Solutions
----------------
We begin by looking at the Galileon equation of motion in Cartesian coordinates. Starting from the Galileon part of the action , the equation of motion can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=1}^D \lambda_n \tensor*[^n]{A}{^{\mu_1 \ldots \mu_n}_{\nu_1 \ldots \nu_n}} \Pi_{i=1}^n \partial_{\mu_i} \partial^{\nu_i} \phi = 0 \,.\end{aligned}$$ In this form, it is straightforward to see that for a given order $n$, the terms in the equation of motion will be zero if the number of Cartesian coordinates that $\phi$ depends on is less than $n$ (modulo terms of the form $b_\mu x^\mu$, which vanish when twice differentiated). For example, if $\phi = \phi(x)$, then only the $n=1$ term will survive, as for $n>1$, all terms contain products of partial derivatives of $\phi$ that differentiate with respect to $y$, $z$ or $t$ and therefore vanish.
This suggests that for static configurations in planar symmetry, we expect only the quadratic Galileons to contribute. In cylindrical symmetry, the quadratic and cubic terms contribute, as $\phi(r) = \phi(\sqrt{x^2 + y^2})$ depends on both $x$ and $y$. Spherical symmetry will receive contributions from the quadratic, cubic and quartic Galileon terms. The quintic term can never contribute to static solutions; only configurations that depend non-trivially on $x$, $y$, $z$ and $t$ are influenced by the quintic term. Alternatively, notice that when flat dimensions are present in the metric and the Galileon configuration is independent of this dimension, the configuration is also a solution of a theory with fewer dimensions, where correspondingly fewer nontrivial Galileon terms exist in the action. In all static solutions, the flat time dimension could well have been integrated out of the action (effectively removing the quintic term), and similarly for further symmetric solutions. This greatly simplifies the structure of the equations of motion when appropriate symmetries are present. It also allows for the possibility of breaking the degeneracy between the Galileon parameters $\lambda_i$ by studying configurations with different spatial symmetries. This argument is more generally true for the class of theories which possess $(\partial\partial\phi)$ screening, known as generalised Galileons, because terms which include second derivatives of $\phi$ always have to enter with the same index structure as the Galileon terms in order to avoid the presence of ghost degrees of freedom.
Let us now look towards solving the full equations of motion under the assumption of static configurations. Screening is most important in non-relativistic scenarios where all of our searches for deviations from Newtonian gravity are carried out, including laboratory searches for fifth forces, and solar systems constraints on deviations from the $r^{-2}$ force law. These are the tests that screening mechanisms are designed to avoid. In this regime, the mass energy completely dominates the stress-energy tensor, and pressure and anisotropic stresses are negligible. We thus assume a matter configuration consisting only of an energy density with stress-energy tensor $\tensor{T}{^\mu_\mu} = \tensor{T}{^0_0} = -\rho$. The equation of motion from the action is written in covariant notation as the following, where we neglect the quintic terms which vanish under the static assumption. $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\beta}{M_P} \rho &= \square \phi + \frac{1}{\Lambda^3} \left[(\square \phi)^2 - (\nabla_\mu \nabla_\nu \phi) (\nabla^\mu \nabla^\nu \phi)\right]
\nonumber \\
& \qquad + \frac{\lambda_4}{\Lambda^6} \big[ (\square \phi)^3
- 3 \square \phi (\nabla_\mu \nabla_\nu \phi) (\nabla^\mu \nabla^\nu \phi)
\nonumber \\
& \qquad \qquad \quad
+ 2 (\nabla^\mu \nabla_\nu \phi) (\nabla^\nu \nabla_\gamma \phi) (\nabla^\gamma \nabla_\mu \phi)\big]\end{aligned}$$ We use step-functions for our energy density profiles, as we are primarily concerned with the exterior field solutions for the scalar field (such as outside a planet/star). We show below that the exterior solutions only ever depend on the total enclosed mass (or appropriate mass density in cylindrical or planar symmetries), which further justifies restricting our investigation to sources of constant density.
Far away from a source we expect the field to be close to the vacuum solution $\phi \approx \mathrm{const}$. Therefore gradients of the field will be small and the non-linear terms in the equation of motion can be neglected when compared with $\square \phi$. If Vainshtein screening occurs then as we approach a source, gradients of the field will increase and the non-linear terms will begin to dominate, changing the form of the scalar field profile. The distance scale within which the non-linear terms dominate is known as the Vainshtein radius.
### Planar Symmetry
We begin by investigating planar symmetry using the metric $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2 = - dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 \,.\end{aligned}$$ We choose $\phi = \phi(z)$, and assume that $\rho = \rho(z)$ also. Such a scenario was first considered for the Galileon in [@Brax:2011sv]. Only the quadratic and coupling terms survive in the equation of motion. $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\beta}{M_P} \rho(z) = \partial_z^2 \phi\end{aligned}$$ For concreteness, let $\rho(z) = \rho_0$ between $\pm z_0$ and zero outside, and choose the zero of the potential to be $\phi(0)=0$. We can then integrate to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_z \phi &= \left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
\displaystyle \frac{\beta \rho_0}{M_P} z \qquad & |z| < z_0
\\
\displaystyle \frac{\beta \rho_0}{M_P} z_0 \qquad & |z| \ge z_0
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\phi &= \left\{
\begin{array}{lc}
\displaystyle \frac{\beta \rho_0}{2 M_P} z^2 \qquad & |z| < z_0
\\
\displaystyle \frac{\beta \rho_0 z_0}{M_P} \left(z - \frac{z_0}{2}\right) \qquad & |z| \ge z_0
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ where $\partial_z \phi = 0$ at the origin by symmetry. The absence of the scale $\Lambda$ from these expressions clearly indicates that no non-linear or screening effects are present. As the gravitational force outside the plane has magnitude $F_G = 2 \rho_0 z_0 m/M_P^2$, the ratio of the scalar force to the corresponding gravitational force $F_\phi / F_G$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{F_\phi}{F_G} = 2 \beta^2 \,.\end{aligned}$$
### Cylindrical Symmetry
We next investigate cylindrical symmetry, using the metric $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2 = -dt^2 + dr^2 + r^2 d\theta^2 + dz^2 \,.\end{aligned}$$ We take $\phi = \phi(r)$ as well as $\rho = \rho(r)$. The quadratic, cubic and coupling terms contribute to the equation of motion $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\beta}{M_P} \rho(r) = \phi'' + \frac{\phi'}{r} + \frac{2 \phi' \phi''}{r \Lambda^3}\end{aligned}$$ where we use primes to denote derivatives with respect to $r$.
Let us consider a cylinder with constant mass density $\rho = \rho_0$ for $r < r_0$, and zero outside. The equation of motion can be rearranged into $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\beta}{M_P} r \rho(r) = (r \phi')' + \frac{(\phi'^2)'}{\Lambda^3}
\label{eq:cylallgal}\end{aligned}$$ which can be straightforwardly integrated over $r$. We choose our boundary conditions to be $\phi(0)=0$, and cylindrical symmetry demands $\phi^{\prime}(0)=0$. If the cubic term is absent ($\Lambda\rightarrow \infty$), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\phi' =
\left\{
\begin{array}{lc}
\displaystyle \frac{\beta \rho_0 r}{2 M_P} \qquad & r < r_0
\\
\displaystyle \frac{\beta \rho_0 r_0^2}{2 M_P r} \qquad & r \ge r_0
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ giving the expected $\sim1/r$ force law in the exterior of the source. The gravitational force sourced by the same cylindrical object is $F_G = m \rho_0 r_0^2 / 4 M_P^2 r$, again yielding the ratio $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{F_\phi}{F_G} = 2 \beta^2 \,.\end{aligned}$$ The corresponding scalar potential is $$\begin{aligned}
\phi =
\left\{
\begin{array}{lc}
\displaystyle \frac{\beta \rho_0 r^2}{4 M_P} \qquad & r < r_0
\\
\displaystyle \frac{\beta \rho_0 r_0^2}{4 M_P} \left[1 + 2 \ln\left(\frac{r}{r_0}\right) \right] \qquad & r \ge r_0
\end{array}
\right. \,.\end{aligned}$$
We now turn to the full equation of motion. Solving Eq. for $\phi'$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\phi' =
\left\{
\begin{array}{lc}
\displaystyle \frac{\Lambda^3 r}{2} \left(\sqrt{1 + \frac{r_v^2}{r_0^2}} - 1\right) \qquad & r < r_0
\\
\displaystyle \frac{\Lambda^3 r}{2} \left(\sqrt{1 + \frac{r_v^2}{r^2}} - 1\right) & r \ge r_0
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ where the Vainshtein radius, within which the non-linear terms dominate the behaviour of the scalar, is $$\begin{aligned}
r_v = \sqrt{\frac{2 \beta \rho_0 r_0^2}{M_P \Lambda^3}} = \sqrt{\frac{2 \beta \lambda}{\pi M_P \Lambda^3}}\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda = \pi r_0^2 \rho_0$ is the linear mass density. We have chosen a positive sign outside the square root to ensure that we recover the $1/r$ unscreened force law at large distances from the source. We also impose continuity of $\phi^{\prime}$ at $r=r_0$.
Integrating one last time, we obtain the scalar potentials $$\begin{aligned}
\phi &= \frac{\Lambda^3}{4} \left(\sqrt{1 + \frac{r_v^2}{r_0^2}} - 1\right) r^2\end{aligned}$$ for $r < r_0$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\phi &= \frac{\Lambda^3}{4} \bigg[r^2 \left(\sqrt{1 + \frac{r_v^2}{r^2}} - 1\right)
\nonumber\\
& \qquad + r_v^2 \ln \left(\frac{r + \sqrt{r^2 + r_v^2}}{r_0 + \sqrt{r_0^2 + r_v^2}}\right)
\bigg]\end{aligned}$$ for $r \ge r_0$[^2].
Deep inside the Vainshtein radius $r_0 < r \ll r_v$, the scalar force saturates at a constant magnitude $F_{\phi} = m \beta \Lambda^3 r_v /2 M_P$, meaning that in this region the scalar force is suppressed compared to the gravitational force sourced by the same cylindrical object by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{F_\phi}{F_G} = 4 \beta^2 \frac{r}{r_v} \,.\end{aligned}$$
The behaviour of the screening around a cylindrical source is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:plot\].
### Spherical Symmetry
Finally we turn to spherical symmetry, where we use the metric $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2 = -dt^2 + dr^2 + r^2 d\theta^2 + r^2 \sin^2\theta d\phi^2\end{aligned}$$ and take $\phi = \phi(r)$ and $\rho = \rho(r)$. Spherically symmetric solutions for the Galileon were first studied in [@Nicolis2008; @Burrage:2010rs]. Galileon terms up to quartic order contribute to the equation of motion $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\beta}{M_P} \rho(r) = \phi'' + \frac{2 \phi'}{r} + \frac{2 \phi'^2}{r^2 \Lambda^3} + \frac{4 \phi' \phi''}{r \Lambda^3} + \frac{6 \lambda_4 \phi'^2 \phi''}{r^2 \Lambda^6}\end{aligned}$$ where a prime now indicates differentiation with respect to the radial coordinate of the spherically symmetric metric.
We begin by rearranging the equation of motion into the following form. $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\beta}{M_P} r^2 \rho(r) = (r^2 \phi')' + \frac{2 (r \phi'^2)'}{\Lambda^3} + \frac{2 \lambda_4 (\phi'^3)'}{\Lambda^6}\end{aligned}$$ Let us take $\rho = \rho_0$ for $r < r_0$, and again choose $\phi(0) = 0$ as the zero of our potential. Spherical symmetry yields $\phi'(0) = 0$. Generally speaking, this equation is intractable, and full analytic solutions are only known for particular values of $\lambda_4$. However in all cases it is possible to determine the asymptotic form of the solutions.
When the cubic and quartic terms are turned off ($\Lambda \rightarrow \infty$), the field derivatives are simply given by $$\begin{aligned}
\phi' =
\left\{
\begin{array}{lc}
\displaystyle \frac{\beta \rho_0}{3 M_P} r \qquad & r < r_0
\\
\displaystyle \frac{\beta \rho_0 r_0}{3 M_P} \frac{r_0^2}{r^2} & r \ge r_0
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ which can be integrated to give $$\begin{aligned}
\phi =
\left\{
\begin{array}{lc}
\displaystyle \frac{\beta M}{8 \pi M_P r_0} \frac{r^2}{r_0^2} \qquad & r < r_0
\\
\displaystyle \frac{\beta M}{4 \pi M_P r_0} \left(\frac{3}{2} - \frac{r_0}{r}\right) & r \ge r_0
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ where we let $M = 4 \pi r_0^3 \rho_0 / 3$. As expected, this exhibits a $1/r^2$ force that is disallowed by solar system constraints unless $\beta \ll 1$. The magnitude of the gravitational force for $r>r_0$ is $F_G = Mm / 8 \pi M_P^2 r^2$, again giving the ratio $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{F_\phi}{F_G} = 2 \beta^2 \,.\end{aligned}$$
When the cubic term is present but the quartic term vanishes ($\lambda_4 \rightarrow 0$), $\phi'$ becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\phi' =
\left\{
\begin{array}{lc}
\displaystyle \frac{\Lambda^3}{4} r \left(\sqrt{1 + \frac{r_v^3}{r_0^3}} - 1\right) \qquad & r < r_0
\\
\displaystyle \frac{\Lambda^3}{4} r \left(\sqrt{1 + \frac{r_v^3}{r^3}} - 1\right) & r \ge r_0
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ where we have identified the Vainshtein radius as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:cubicrv}
r_v = \left(\frac{8 \beta \rho_0 r_0^3}{3 M_P \Lambda^3}\right)^{1/3} = \left(\frac{2 \beta M}{\pi M_P \Lambda^3}\right)^{1/3} \,.\end{aligned}$$ Deep inside the Vainshtein radius, the scalar force goes as $\sim 1/\sqrt{r}$, with the ratio of the Galileon force to the corresponding gravitational force being $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{F_\phi}{F_G} = 4 \beta^2 \left( \frac{r}{r_v}\right)^{3/2} \,.\end{aligned}$$ The expression for $\phi'$ can be integrated to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\phi = \frac{\Lambda^3}{8} r^2 \left(\sqrt{1 + \frac{r_v^3}{r_0^3}} - 1\right)\end{aligned}$$ for $r < r_0$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\phi &= \frac{\Lambda^3}{8} \bigg(
r^2 \left[\sqrt{1 + \frac{r_v^3}{r^3}} - 1\right]
\nonumber\\
& \qquad \qquad + 3 \sqrt{r_v^3 r_0} \bigg[\sqrt{\frac{r}{r_0}} \;\; \tensor[_2]{F}{_1}\left(\frac{1}{6}, \frac{1}{2}; \frac{7}{6}; - \frac{r^3}{r_v^3}\right)
\nonumber\\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad - \tensor[_2]{F}{_1}\left(\frac{1}{6}, \frac{1}{2}; \frac{7}{6}; - \frac{r_0^3}{r_v^3}\right) \bigg]
\bigg)\end{aligned}$$ for $r \ge r_0$, where $\tensor[_2]{F}{_1}(a,b;c;d)$ is the hypergeometric function.
The presence of the quartic term requires solving the following cubic polynomial equation. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:generalspherical}
r^2 \phi' + \frac{2 r \phi'^2}{\Lambda^3} + \frac{2 \lambda_4 \phi'^3}{\Lambda^6} =
\left\{
\begin{array}{lc}
\displaystyle \frac{\beta M}{4 \pi M_P} \frac{r^3}{r_0^3} \qquad & r < r_0
\\
\displaystyle \frac{\beta M}{4 \pi M_P} & r \ge r_0
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ In general, these solutions are unpleasant. However, the distance scale controlling when the quartic Galileon term becomes important in the equation of motion can still be identified.
Due to stability constraints [@Nicolis2008], the coefficients appearing in the action are limited to $\Lambda>0$ and $0 \le \lambda_4 \le \frac{2}{3}$. For $\lambda_4>0$ but within these limitations, there will be a region about the origin in which the quartic term dominates, followed by a region in which the cubic term dominates, and subsequently a region in which the quadratic term dominates [@Burrage:2010rs]. The crossover at which the cubic and quadratic terms are equally important is just the cubic Vainshtein radius .
At the crossover radius $r_{v4}$ when the cubic and quartic terms are equally important, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\phi' = \frac{r_{v4} \Lambda^3}{\lambda_4} \,.\end{aligned}$$ Substituting this back in the equation of motion to solve for $r_{v4}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
r_{v4} = \left(\frac{\lambda_4^2}{32}\right)^{1/3} \left(\frac{2 \beta M}{\pi M_P \Lambda^3}\right)^{1/3}\end{aligned}$$ where we neglect the subdominant quadratic term. The quantity to the right here is just the cubic Vainshtein radius . Deep inside this Vainshtein radius $r_0 < r \ll r_{v4}$, $\phi'$ saturates at the constant value $$\begin{aligned}
\phi' = \frac{2^{1/3} \Lambda^3}{\lambda_4} r_{v4}\end{aligned}$$ and the scalar force is suppressed compared to the corresponding gravitational force by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{F_\phi}{F_G} = \beta^2 \lambda_4 2^{-2/3} \frac{r^2}{r_{v4}^2} \,.\end{aligned}$$
A particularly nice analytic solution in the quartic case can be found for $\lambda_4 = 2/3$. $$\begin{aligned}
\phi' =
\left\{
\begin{array}{lc}
\displaystyle
\frac{\Lambda^3}{2} r \left[\left(1 + \frac{r_v^3}{r_0^3} \right)^{1/3} - 1 \right]
\qquad & r < r_0
\\
\displaystyle
\frac{\Lambda^3}{2} r \left[\left(1 + \frac{r_v^3}{r^3} \right)^{1/3} - 1 \right]
& r \ge r_0
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ The Vainshtein radius here is $$\begin{aligned}
r_v = \left(\frac{3}{4}\right)^{1/3} \left(\frac{2 \beta M}{\pi M_P \Lambda^3}\right)^{1/3}\end{aligned}$$ which is approximately 91% the size of the case for the cubic term alone. Note that in this limiting case, there is only one screened regime rather than the two described above; this arises because the quadratic, cubic and quartic terms are all equally important at this radius. In this case, deep inside the Vainshtein radius, the force saturates at $$\begin{aligned}
F_\phi = \frac{m \beta \Lambda^3 r_v}{2 M_P}\end{aligned}$$ which yields a scalar to gravitational force ratio of $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{F_\phi}{F_G} = 6 \beta^2 \frac{r^2}{r_v^2} \,.\end{aligned}$$ This solution is included as the quartic case in Fig. \[fig:plot\].
The D-BIon {#sec:dbionic}
==========
We now look at the behavior of a model that exhibits $\partial \phi$ screening. The D-BIonic model [@Burrage:2014uwa] has the following action. $$\begin{aligned}
S = \int d^4x \sqrt{-g} \left[ \Lambda^4 \sqrt{1 - \frac{(\nabla \phi)^2}{\Lambda^4}} + \frac{\beta \phi}{M_P} \tensor{T}{^\mu_\mu} \right]
\label{eq:DBIaction}\end{aligned}$$ Compared to the standard DBI form, both the overall sign of the first term in this action and the sign of $(\nabla \phi)^2$ have been flipped. This is necessary to achieve screening, and it is straightforward to check that when the square root is expanded the scalar kinetic term has the correct sign for the theory to be free of ghosts. The DBI form means that the first term in the action is invariant under the following transformation of the field and the coordinates. $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\phi}(\tilde{x}) &= \gamma(\phi(x)+\Lambda^2 v_{\mu}x^{\mu})\;,
\\
\tilde{x}^{\mu} &= x^{\mu} +\frac{\gamma-1}{v^2}v^{\mu}v_{\nu}x^{\nu}+\gamma v^{\mu}\frac{\phi(x)}{\Lambda^2}\end{aligned}$$
The leading order term in Eq. expanded around $(\nabla \phi)^2 = 0$ is equivalent to the quadratic Galileon term by itself, so around any matter distribution we expect the same asymptotic behavior for the field profile as in the Galileon situation; in particular, we expect an attractive scalar force. The coupling term is identical to the Galileon coupling, and so the relationship between the scalar force and the gradient of the scalar is also identical.
The equation of motion resulting from the action is simply $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_\mu \left(\frac{\nabla^\mu \phi}{\sqrt{1 - (\nabla \phi)^2 / \Lambda^4}} \right) = - \frac{\beta}{M_P} \tensor{T}{^\mu_\mu} \,.\end{aligned}$$ We now investigate the static symmetric solutions as we did for the Galileons.
Static Solutions
----------------
As previously, we investigate situations with stress-energy tensor $\tensor{T}{^\mu_\mu} = -\rho$.
### Planar Symmetry
Assuming that $\rho = \rho(z)$ and $\phi = \phi(z)$, the equation of motion becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_z \left( \frac{\partial_z \phi}{\sqrt{1 - (\partial_z \phi)^2 / \Lambda^4}} \right) = \frac{\beta \rho}{M_P} \,.\end{aligned}$$ Again, we take $\rho(z) = \rho_0$ between $\pm z_0$ and zero outside, and choose the zero of the potential to be $\phi(0)=0$. We can then integrate to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_z \phi &= \left\{
\begin{array}{lc}
\displaystyle
\pm \frac{\Lambda^2}{\sqrt{1 + z_\ast^2/z^2}}
\qquad & |z| < z_0
\\
\displaystyle
\pm \frac{\Lambda^2}{\sqrt{1 + z_\ast^2/z_0^2}}
\qquad & |z| \ge z_0
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ where $z_\ast = M_P \Lambda^2 / \beta \rho_0$ is a characteristic length scale. Here, we take the positive (negative) root for $z > 0$ ($z < 0$) to obtain the appropriate asymptotics, and to ensure the continuity of $\partial_z \phi$. These expressions can be integrated to obtain the following. $$\begin{aligned}
\phi &= \left\{
\begin{array}{lc}
\displaystyle
\Lambda^2 z_\ast \left(\sqrt{1 + \frac{z^2}{z_\ast^2}} - 1\right)
\qquad & |z| < z_0
\\
\displaystyle
\Lambda^2 \left(
\frac{z z_0 + z_\ast^2}{\sqrt{z_0^2 + z_\ast^2}}
- z_\ast
\right)
\qquad & |z| \ge z_0
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ As is the case for the Galileon (and also purely canonical scalar fields), the scalar force is independent of $z$. However, unlike the Galileon, the strength of the force is not purely fixed by the coupling strength $\beta$. If $z_{\ast} \gg z_0$ then the D-BIon non-linearities are always subdominant, but if the density and size of the planar source are such that $z_{\ast} \ll z_0$, then the force is smaller than it would be in a theory with no non-linearities. The scale $z_{\ast}$ can still be thought of as the Vainshtein distance scale for this system. However, because the force around a planar source is constant with distance, we find that sources are either always screened if the width of the source is smaller than the Vainshtein scale $z_{\ast}$, or always unscreened if the width is larger than the Vainshtein scale.
### Cylindrical Symmetry
We take $\phi = \phi(r)$ as well as $\rho = \rho(r)$. The equation of motion becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_r \left( \frac{r \phi'}{\sqrt{1 - \phi'^2 / \Lambda^4}} \right) = \frac{\beta r \rho}{M_P}\end{aligned}$$ where we use primes to denote derivatives with respect to the cylindrical radial coordinate $r$.
Let us again consider a cylinder with constant mass density $\rho = \rho_0$ for $r < r_0$. The equation of motion can be integrated over $r$ and solved for $\phi'$ to obtain the following. $$\begin{aligned}
\phi' &= \left\{
\begin{array}{lc}
\displaystyle
\pm \frac{\Lambda^2}{\sqrt{1 + r_0^4 / r^2 r_v^2}}
\qquad & r < r_0
\\
\displaystyle
\pm \frac{\Lambda^2}{\sqrt{1 + r^2 / r_v^2}}
\qquad & r \ge r_0
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ Here, the Vainshtein radius is $$\begin{aligned}
r_v = \frac{\lambda_0 \beta}{2 \pi M_P \Lambda^2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda_0 = \pi r_0^2 \rho_0$ is the linear mass density. Again, we choose the positive roots by matching to the appropriate asymptotic form, and requiring continuity at $r_0$. We can integrate to obtain $\phi(r)$. $$\begin{aligned}
\phi &= \left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle
\frac{\Lambda^2 r_0^2}{r_v}\left(\sqrt{1 + \frac{r^2 r_v^2}{r_0^4}} - 1\right)
\qquad \qquad r < r_0
\\
\displaystyle
\frac{\Lambda^2 r_0^2}{r_v} \left(\sqrt{1 + \frac{r_v^2}{r_0^2}} - 1
+ \frac{r_v^2}{r_0^2} \ln \left[\frac{r + \sqrt{r^2 + r_v^2}}{r_0 + \sqrt{r_0^2 + r_v^2}}\right]
\right)
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ Here, the second expression is for $r > r_0$. This expression, particularly outside the object, bears a striking resemblance to the corresponding Galileon expression.
Deep inside the Vainshtein radius ($r_0 < r \ll r_v$), the scalar force saturates at $F_\phi = - m \beta \Lambda^2 / M_P$, giving a scalar to gravitational force ratio of $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{F_\phi}{F_G} = 2 \beta^2 \frac{r}{r_v}\end{aligned}$$ which is the same as the Galileon case up to a factor of two.
### Spherical Symmetry
We take $\phi = \phi(r)$ as well as $\rho = \rho(r)$, where $r$ is now the spherical radius. The equation of motion becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_r \left( \frac{r^2 \phi'}{\sqrt{1 - \phi'^2 / \Lambda^4}} \right) = \frac{\beta r^2 \rho}{M_P}\end{aligned}$$ where we use primes to denote derivatives with respect to $r$.
We again consider a sphere with constant mass density $\rho = \rho_0$ for $r < r_0$. The equation of motion can be integrated over $r$ and solved for $\phi'$ to obtain the following. $$\begin{aligned}
\phi' &= \left\{
\begin{array}{lc}
\displaystyle
\pm \frac{\Lambda^2}{\sqrt{1 + r_0^6 / r^2 r_v^4}}
\qquad & r < r_0
\\
\displaystyle
\pm \frac{\Lambda^2}{\sqrt{1 + r^4 / r_v^4}}
\qquad & r \ge r_0
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ Here, the Vainshtein radius is $$\begin{aligned}
r_v = \sqrt{\frac{\beta M}{4 \pi M_P \Lambda^2}}\end{aligned}$$ where $M = 4 \pi r_0^3 \rho_0 / 3$. Again, we choose the positive roots by matching to the appropriate asymptotic form, and applying continuity at $r_0$. We can integrate to obtain $\phi(r)$. For $r < r_0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\phi &= \frac{\Lambda^2 r_0^3}{r_v^2}\left(\sqrt{1 + \frac{r^2 r_v^4}{r_0^6}} - 1\right)\end{aligned}$$ while for $r > r_0$, the integral again yields hypergeometric functions. $$\begin{aligned}
\phi = {}&\frac{\Lambda^2 r_0^3}{r_v^2}\left(\sqrt{1 + \frac{r_v^4}{r_0^4}} - 1\right)
\nonumber\\
& - \frac{\Lambda^2 r_v^2}{r_0} \bigg[ \frac{r_0}{r} \; \tensor[_2]{F}{_1}\left(\frac{1}{4}, \frac{1}{2}; \frac{5}{4}; - \frac{r_v^4}{r^4}\right)
\nonumber\\
& \qquad \qquad
- \tensor[_2]{F}{_1}\left(\frac{1}{4}, \frac{1}{2}; \frac{5}{4}; - \frac{r_v^4}{r_0^4}\right)
\bigg]\end{aligned}$$ Again, this bears a striking resemblance to the solution for the cubic Galileon in spherical symmetry.
Deep in the Vainshtein radius, the force again saturates at the constant value $F_\phi = - m \beta \Lambda^2 / M_P$. This yields the scalar to gravitational force ratio of $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{F_\phi}{F_G} = 2 \beta^2 \frac{r^2}{r_v^2} \,.\end{aligned}$$ This is very similar to the form of the Galileon force.
The screening curves for this model are plotted alongside the Galileon results in Fig. \[fig:plot\].
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
In this work we have derived the flat space solutions for theories with Vainshtein screening mechanisms around planar, cylindrical and spherical sources. We have considered Galileon theories as a typical example of $(\partial\partial \phi)$ screening and D-BIons as an example of $(\partial \phi)$ screening. Whilst the sources considered in this work represent a tiny subset of all the possible shapes that one could imagine for matter sources, they are sufficient to describe what is happening on large cosmological scales, where almost all matter lives either in walls, filaments or halos.
For the Galileon, there is no screening at all around a planar source, making such structures the best place to look for Galileon fields. Both cylindrical and spherical sources possess a Vainshtein radius within which the scalar force is screened. In the cylindrical case, the ratio of the Galileon force to the gravitational force scales as $r/r_v$ well within the Vainshtein radius, whereas the screening for spherical sources is more efficient, with ratios of either $(r/r_v)^{3/2}$ or $(r/r_v)^2$ depending on whether the cubic or quartic Galileon terms are dominant. Thus, Vainshtein screening is less efficient at hiding the scalar force for cylindrical sources than it is for spherical sources.
For a static system the quintic Galileon term never contributes to the equations of motion, and so observations of static systems can never constrain the Galileon parameter $\lambda_5$. We have shown that the quartic Galileon never contributes to the cylindrically symmetric Galileon equation of motion, and it has been previously shown that none of the Galileon operators contribute to the equation of motion for the field around a planar source. Therefore, if it were possible to measure the Galileon field profile around cosmological walls, filaments and halos, it would be possible to break the degeneracies between the Galileon parameters and determine $\beta$, $\Lambda$ and $\lambda_4$. Information about $\lambda_5$ can only be ascertained from four-dimensional dynamics.
In contrast, for a D-BIonic scalar there is always a Vainshtein radius (or more precisely, a Vainshtein distance scale) governing screening in all the geometries considered. As this does not rely on the symmetries of the D-BIonic Lagrangian, we expect this to be general to all theories with $(\partial \phi)$ screening. The scalar force is always constant and independent of distance, around an infinite planar source. We find that planar objects are always screened or unscreened, depending on whether or not the width of the source is larger or smaller than the corresponding Vainshtein distance scale. This is in contrast to cylindrical or spherical sources, where only observers within the Vainshtein radius of the source see a screened force. Deep inside the Vainshtein radius, we found that the ratio of the scalar to gravitational forces had the same dependence on $r/r_v$ as the cubic Galileon in cylindrical symmetry and the quartic Galileon in spherical symmetry.
It is interesting to note that the scaling of the Vainshtein radius is quite different in the cylindrical and spherical cases, and also differs between the Galileon and D-Bionic theories. These expressions are displayed together in Table \[table:vainshtein\]. Compared side-by-side like this, we see that the Galileon scales always contain $M_P \Lambda^3 / \beta$, while the D-BIon scales always contain $M_P \Lambda^2 / \beta$. Up to numerical factors, the Vainshtein radius is simply the combination of the appropriate mass or mass density with these combinations.
Source Galileon D-BIon
---------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------
Plane $\displaystyle \frac{M_P \Lambda^2}{\beta \rho_0}$
Cylinder $\displaystyle \sqrt{\frac{\beta \lambda_0}{M_P \Lambda^3}}$ $\displaystyle \frac{\beta \lambda_0}{M_P \Lambda^2}$
Sphere $\displaystyle \left( \frac{\beta M }{M_P \Lambda^3}\right)^{1/3}$ $\displaystyle \sqrt{\frac{\beta M}{ M_P \Lambda^2}}$
: The Vainshtein distance scales in the different theories and symmetries considered in this article. Numerical coefficients have been suppressed in order to demonstrate how the radii scale with various quantities.[]{data-label="table:vainshtein"}
Source Sphere ($M_\odot$) (pc) Cylinder ($\lambda_0$) (Mpc)
---------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Galileon $\displaystyle 500 \, \beta^{1/3} \left(\frac{10^{-13} \mbox{ eV}}{\Lambda}\right)$ $\displaystyle \sqrt{\beta} \left(\frac{10^{-13}\mbox{ eV}}{\Lambda}\right)^{3/2}$
D-BIon $\displaystyle \sqrt{\beta} \left( \frac{10^{-5} \mbox{ eV}}{\Lambda} \right)$ $\displaystyle \beta \left(\frac{10^{-5}\mbox{ eV}}{\Lambda}\right)^2$
: Approximate Vainshtein radii for a solar mass sphere and a filament with $\lambda_0 \sim 10^8 M_\odot / \mathrm{Mpc}$ in the Galileon and D-BIon models. For both models we expect $\beta \sim 1$ if the scalar arises from a modification of the gravitational sector.[]{data-label="table:vainshtein2"}
From Fig. \[fig:plot\], we see that the D-BIon is somewhat better at screening than the Galileon. However, this statement should be treated cautiously; the plot is shown in units of $r/r_v$, and comparing the Vainshtein radii of different models is a dubious proposition at best. The other thing to note from this figure is that spherical screening is stronger than cylindrical screening within the Vainshtein radius in all cases, which suggests that cylindrical systems may be useful environments in which to search for extra forces.
Cosmological implications
-------------------------
The large scale structure of the universe, sometimes referred to as the cosmic web, is built out of walls, filaments and halos. These are predominantly composed of dark matter, traced by visible galaxies. While the Vainshtein radius of spherical structures like the sun and the galaxy are typically expected to be extremely large, the cylindrical Vainshtein radius may, depending on the parameters, be somewhat reduced compared to spherical expectations. Simulations suggest the existence of filaments of radii $\sim 10 \, \mbox{kpc}$ with nearly constant linear mass densities $\lambda \sim 10^8 \, M_\odot / \mbox{kpc}$ [@Harford:2008bw]. Such filaments can be particularly long, with observations suggesting lengths of up to $\sim 100 \, \mbox{Mpc}$ [@Bharadwaj:2003xm; @Pandey:2010yj].
We estimate the Vainshtein radii for Galileons and D-BIons around solar mass objects and filaments with the above linear mass density mass in Table \[table:vainshtein2\]. The reference scale for Galileons $\Lambda = (H_0^2M_P)^{1/3} \sim 10^{-13} \mbox{ eV}$ is chosen because this scale allows the Galileon to be cosmologically relevant at the current epoch [@Nicolis2008], while for D-BIons the scale is taken to be the value which allows the D-BIon to evade lunar laser ranging searches for fifth forces [@Burrage:2014uwa].
We see that for appropriate values of $\beta$ and $\Lambda$, the screening radius for a filament may well be within its radius, although we would typically expect filaments to be screened. The filament screening radii are approximately the same in both models (for the given parameters), at around 100 times the filament radius. This is a significantly smaller ratio than the radius of the sun to its screening radius, which for the D-BIon is around $5 \times 10^7$.
The dependence of Vainshtein screening on the morphology of structures in N-body simulations of the cosmic web has been studied by Falck *et al.* in [@Falck:2014jwa]. It was found that dark matter particles in filaments and voids experienced a Galileon force that was unscreened whilst dark matter particles in halos felt a Galileon forces that was screened, compared to the gravitational force they experienced. This supports the analytic results derived here and demonstrates that it is possible to separate cosmological observables by the morphology of the associated cosmological structure.
We have seen that Vainshtein screening is less efficient around objects that are not spherically symmetric. Therefore, the vicinity of walls and filaments may be ideal environments in which to look for the existence of Vainshtein screened fifth forces. If it is possible to observe the motion of particles towards cosmological structures with differing shapes, we may be able to determine whether a fifth force must be screened, and to what degree, around walls, filaments and halos separately. This will allow us to differentiate between $(\partial \phi)$ and $(\partial\partial \phi)$ screening, as the latter is unable to screen walls. It will also allow us to break the degeneracies between the parameters within one class of screening mechanism, as in Galileon models, only the cubic coupling is important around cylindrical sources, while a combination of both the cubic and quartic couplings are important around spherical sources.
We thank the Lorentz Center at Leiden University for their gracious hospitality while this work was performed. C.B. is supported by a Royal Society University Research Fellowship. ACD is supported in part by STFC.
[^1]: Asymptotic solutions for the chameleon field profile around an ellipsoidal source are also known [@2012PhRvL.108v1101J].
[^2]: The logarithm can also be written as a pair of arcsinh functions as $$\begin{aligned}
\ln \left(\frac{r + \sqrt{r^2 + r_v^2}}{r_0 + \sqrt{r_0^2 + r_v^2}}\right) = \mathrm{arcsinh} \left(\frac{r}{r_v}\right) - \mathrm{arcsinh} \left(\frac{r_0}{r_v}\right) \,.\end{aligned}$$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The charmonium (bottomonim) binding at finite temperature is studied with static potentials extracted from the lattice QCD data of Kaczmarek [*et al*]{}. The bottomonium spectrum is also studied. This is relevant for Hard Probes in Heavy Ion Collisions.'
author:
- 'P. Bicudo'
- 'M. Cardoso'
- 'P. Santos'
- 'J. Seixas'
title: 'The Charmonium (Bottomonium) binding ate finite T'
---
Introduction
============
This talk is motivated by the seminal hard $c \bar c$ probe paper of Matsui and Satz [@Matsui:1986dk] by the lattice QCD data on finite temperature static potentials [@Doring:2007uh; @Hubner:2007qh; @Kaczmarek:2005ui; @Kaczmarek:2005gi; @Kaczmarek:2005zp; @Karsch:2004ik; @Petreczky:2004pz; @Nakamura:2004wra] and binding of charmonia [@Asakawa:2003re; @Datta:2003ww], and by the theoretical studies [@Wong:2004zr; @Shuryak:2004tx; @Mocsy:2004bv; @Digal:2001iu] on finite temperature lattice potentials.
With a finite $T$ quark potential, and modern quark model techniques one might, approximately,\
- study chiral symmetry breaking, quark mass generation, a finite $T$ notice that if one maintains a confining potential, chiral symmetry is always broken, whatever the $T$,\
- compute the spectrum of any hadron at finite $T$ not only the $J/\psi$ but also light mesons, baryons, etc\
- compute the interaction of any hadron-hadron at finite $T$ using cluster methods like the Resonating Group Method.
Here just study the charmonium and bottomonium as prototypes to study finite T quark potentials.
The charmonium is a good starting point because $$\begin{aligned}
m_c &>>& \Lambda_{QCD} \ ,
\nonumber \\
m_c &>>& T_c \ .\end{aligned}$$ Thus it is reasonable to neglect in the bound state equation, spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking, relativistic effects, coupled channels, and temperature effects (other than the potential dependence on the temperature) . We can simply solve the Schrödinger equation with static lattice QCD finite $T$ potentials
\
{width="0.9\columnwidth"} {width="0.8\columnwidth"}\
{width="0.9\columnwidth"} {width="0.8\columnwidth"}
$c$ $\alpha$ $\alpha'$ $\Lambda$ $\sigma$
----------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ----------
-0.0270 0.2857 0.1333 10.00 1.1621
$T / T_c$ $d$ $A$ $\lambda$ $w$
1.05 0.98 0.357 2.1 0.10
1.20 0.70 0.340 2.7 0.05
1.50 0.50 0.537 2.7 0.10
3.00 -0.045 0.301 6.0 0.05
6.00 -0.68 0.239 11.0 0.10
12.0 -1.55 0.116 25.0 0.10
: Fitting parameters of the free energy ${F_1}_T(r)$ . \[free energy parameters\]
$c$ $\alpha$ $\alpha'$ $\Lambda$ $\sigma$
----------- --------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------- -- --
-0.2117 0.3490 0.1733 7.793 4.475
$T / T_c$ $d$ $A$ $\lambda$ $A'$ $\lambda'$ $w$
1.13 3.94 6.99 2.64 0 0 0.336
1.18 2.35 4.58 2.27 0 0 0.847
1.27 2.64 5.38 2.87 0 0 0.461
1.40 2.23 5.57 2.91 0 0 0
1.64 1.79 5.60 3.65 0 0 0
1.95 1.51 5.57 4.15 0 0 0.117
2.61 1.21 6.12 5.44 0 0 0
4.50 -40.7 12.6 5.44 1.00 0.018 0
7.00 -74.0 15.9 5.44 0.49 0.021 0
: Fitting parameters of the internal energy ${U_1}_T(r)$ . \[internal energy parameters\]
{width="0.9\columnwidth"} {width="0.8\columnwidth"}\
{width="0.9\columnwidth"} {width="0.8\columnwidth"}
$T/Tc$ $E_{00} ( MeV )$ $B(MeV)$ $\sqrt{\langle r^2 \rangle} (fm)$
-------- ------------------ ----------- -----------------------------------
0 660 $-\infty$ 0.390
1.05 465 $-24.7$ 0.921
1.17 465 $-0.593$ 4.875
: \[charm\_table\] Goundstate solutions of the charmonium at different temperatures, for the free energy ${F_1}_T(r)$ .
$T/Tc$ $E_{00} ( MeV )$ $B(MeV)$ $\sqrt{\langle r^2 \rangle} (fm)$
-------- ------------------ ----------- -----------------------------------
0 289 $-\infty$ 0.242
1.05 245 $-245$ 0.278
1.20 217 $-132$ 0.314
1.50 189 $-61$ 0.397
: \[bottom\_table\] Groundstate solutions of the bottomonium at different temperatures for the free energy ${F_1}_T(r)$ .
$M$ \[MeV\] $T/T_c$ $l$ $n$ $B$ \[MeV\] $rms$ \[Fm\]
------------- --------- ----- ----- ------------- --------------
1300 1.13 0 0 -355 0.458
1.18 0 0 -273 0.509
1.27 0 0 -121 0.618
1.4 0 0 -78 0.720
1.64 0 0 -17 1.199
1.95 0 0 -1.4 3.3606
1752 1.13 0 0 -462 0.389
0 1 - 316 7.99
1 0 -42 0.820
1.18 0 0 -365 0.422
0 1 -4 2.981
1 0 -23 1.090
1.27 0 0 -195 0.477
1.4 0 0 -136 0.539
1.64 0 0 -55 0.687
1.95 0 0 -22 0.936
: \[tab:intern\_charm\] Charmonium boundstates computed with the internal energy ${U_1}_T(r)$
$M$ \[MeV\] $T/T_c$ $l$ $n$ $B$ \[MeV\] $rms$ \[Fm\]
------------- --------- ----- ----- ------------- --------------
4750 1.13 0 0 -810 0.244
1 -224 0.521
2 -5 1.752
1 0 -400 0.381
1 -31 0.924
2 0 -118 0.541
1.18 0 0 -683 0.252
1 -168 0.596
2 -10 1.723
1 0 -302 0.413
1 -30 1.068
2 0 -68 0.659
1.27 0 0 -487 0.257
1 -50 0.774
1 0 -130 0.470
1.4 0 0 -385 0.274
1 -28 0.903
1 0 -79 0.543
1.64 0 0 -271 0.285
1 0 -5 0.959
1.95 0 0 -212 0.295
2.61 0 0 -119 0.327
: \[tab:intern\_bottom\] Bottomonium boundstates computed with the internal energy ${U_1}_T(r)$
$M$ \[MeV\] $T/T_c$ $l$ $n$ $B$ \[MeV\] $rms$ \[Fm\]
------------- --------- ----- ----- ------------- --------------
5100 1.13 0 0 -834 0.236
0 1 -251 0.497
2 -11 1.409
1 0 -426 0.369
1 -47 0.822
2 0 -145 0.514
1.18 0 0 -706 0.243
1 -188 0.564
2 -16 1.474
1 0 -324 0.369
1 -40 0.963
2 0 -87 0.613
1.27 0 0 -508 0.248
1 -62 0.711
1 0 -149 0.445
1.4 0 0 -440 0.264
1 -37 0.818
1 0 -94 0.509
1.64 0 0 -290 0.272
1 0 -13 0.735
1.95 0 0 -230 0.280
2.61 0 0 -135 0.306
: \[tab:intern\_bottomII\] Bottomonium boundstates computed with the internal energy ${U_1}_T(r)$ (continued)
Notice that a Coulomb potential is sufficient to bind an infinite number of charmonia, and therefore the loss of the linear confinement is not sufficient to melt the charmonia states. A detailed fit of the finite temperature potentials is needed to determine the melting of charmonia.
The finite temperature static quark potentials
==============================================
We assume that the static quark-antiquark potential $V$ is due to the length $r$ of the flux tube, related the volume $V_{vol}$ of excited QCD vacuum confined into the flux tube. Our first step consists in assessing $V$, the static quark-antiquark potential, $$d V = - \sigma \, d r \ ,$$ where here $\sigma $ is a force, generalizing the string tension. In lattice QCD, with the Polyakov Loop, one computes $F_1$, the Free Energy $$d F_1 = - \sigma \, d r - S \, d T \ ,$$ which equals the potential for isothermal transformations. To compute $U_1$, the internal energy, one needs to compute the entropy $S$ with the total action as well $$\begin{aligned}
d U_1 &=& - \sigma \, d r + T \, d S \ ,
\nonumber \\
&=& d F_1- d (TS)\ ,\end{aligned}$$ which equals the potential for adiabatic transformations. Naturally close to the phase transition temperature $T_c$, the transformations are nearly isothermal and, and the potential $V$ is close to the internal energy $U_1$, while far from $T_c$ the transformations are nearly adiabatic potential is close to the free energy $F_1$. The interpolating relation for $V$ between $F_1$ and $U_1$ has been derived by Wong.
Lattice QCD provides potentials and energies, both with quenched (pure gauge) and dynamical (with fermions) for quarks in confined system such as mesons, diquarks, baryons, tetraquarks, pentaquarks and hybrids. Lattice also computes spectral distribution functions, to access directly, say, the bottomonium masses. However the limitations of the lattice QCD potentials are,\
- static potentials only have been computed,\
- a constant shift of the potential is undetermined\
- few spin dependent potentials are so far computed,\
- lattices have a relatively small volume.\
Nevertheless we can extract the potentials from lattice data and use them to compute the spectra with the Schrödinger equation.
Fitting between the T=0 envelope and the finite T saturation
============================================================
In the plots for the free energy ${F_1}_T$ and the internal energy ${U_1}_T$ for the different temperatures $T$ as in Figs. \[U1Kacz\] and \[F1Kacz\], it is clear that each set of energies is bound from above by a common enveloping function.
The enveloping functions are respectively the $T=0$ energies, ${U_1}_0$ and ${F_1}_0$. Notice that the $T=0$ free (internal) energy also coincides with the small distance part of the free (internal) energy functions.
In what concerns the large distance par of the free (internal) energy, for $T<T_c$ the string tension decreases, while for $T>T_c$ the string tension vanishes and the free (internal) energy saturates.
Thus we fit the free (internal) energies in three steps:\
- fist we fit the enveloping function\
- then we fit the long distance saturation\
- finally we match the long distance part to the short distance par of the energy.
We fit the enveloping function $V(r)$ of the free energies ${F_1}_T(r)$ with a constant shift $c$, two Coulomb potentials, one screened for the short distance and another for the long distance part of the potential, and a linear potential, $$V(r) = c + { - \alpha + \alpha' e^{-\Lambda r} \over r} + \sigma r \ .$$ The parameters are shown in Table \[free energy parameters\].
We fit the long distance part of the free energies ${F_1}_T(r)$ with a saturation function $M_T(r)$, including a constant shift $d$ and an exponential decay, $$M_T(r) = d_T - A e^{-\lambda_T \, r } \ .$$ The parameters are shown in Table \[free energy parameters\].
The interpolation between the short distance $F_0(r)$ and the long distance $M_T(r)$ is performed with the coupled channel method, where we choose the lowest eigenvalue of the matrix $$\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
V(r) & w_T \\
{w_T}^* & M_T(r) \\
\end{array}
\right) \ ,$$ where the interpolating parameter $w_T$ is shown in Table \[free energy parameters\].
Finally the free energy is, $$F_T(r)={ V(r) +M_T(r) - \sqrt{\left[V(r) - M_T(r)\right]^2 + |w|^2 } \over 2} \ .$$ The fit is achieved with 5 constant parameters for $V(r)$, and 4 parameters per temperature for the long distance part $M_T(r)$ and for the matching parameter $w$.
In what concerns the internal energy ${U_1}_T(r)$, a fit with similar functions but with different parameter is performed, except for the higher temperatures that need an extra pair of parameters in the saturation function, $$M_T(r) = d_T - A e^{-\lambda_T \, r }- A' \, {e^{-\lambda'_T \, r }\over r }\ .$$ The parameters of the internal energy are listed in Table \[internal energy parameters\].
Solving the Schrödinger equation
================================
To solve the Schrödinger equation $$- \frac{ \hbar^2 }{ 2 m } \nabla^2 \psi(\mathbf{r}) + V(r) \psi = E \psi(\mathbf{r})$$ with a potential depending only in $r$, we can separate the eigenfunctions as $$\psi(\mathbf{r}) = \frac{u(r)}{r} Y_{lm}( \theta, \varphi ) \ ,$$ and we get the following equation for the radial component $u(r)$ ( $\hbar = 1$ ) $$- \frac{1}{2 m} \frac{d^2 u_{nl}}{d r^2} + \frac{l(l+1)}{2 m r^2}
u_{nl} + V(r) u_{nl} = E_{nl} u_{nl} \ .$$ To solve the radial equation we discretize it, with the finite difference substitution $$\frac{d^2 u}{d r^2} \rightarrow \frac{1}{a^2}( u_{i+1} - 2 u_i + u_{i-1} ) \ .$$ We also impose the Dirichlet boundary conditions $u_0 = u_N = 0$, consistent with the radial equation. So we get the linear system $$H_{ij} u_j = E u_i$$ where $H_{ij}$ is tridiagonal. We solve the linear system for the lowest eigenvalues, by using the inverse iteration method.
The results depend on the mass of the heavy quarks, affecting the kinetic energy and on the temperature, affecting the potential. The charm mass and the bottom mas, in different potential models, ranges respectively from 1300 MeV to 1752 MeV and from 4750 to 5100 MeV.
Since the lattice potentials have a constant energy shift undefined, we don’t show the total energy of the systems, only the binding energy, defined with the difference between the potential at infinity and the boundstate energy. For instance for $T=0$, where confinement occurs, the binding energy is $-\infty$.
Results
=======
We now show the results of the boundstate equations.
A fisrt study of the melting of the boundstates can be achieved with the enveloping potentials, for the internal energy and for the free energy. Comparing the energy levels of the enveloping potentials with the saturation energies at the different temperatures, we estimate the melting temperatures. Essentially, we can estimate melting to occur when the energy level is close to the saturation energy.
Thus we first solve the Schrödinger equation with the $V(r)$ enveloping potential for the charmonium and for the bottomonium and compare the energy levels with the potentials obtained in finite temperature. This is depicted in Figs. \[freeenvelope\] and \[internalenvelope\]. It occurs that only few of the tempetarures $T>T_c$ will provide binding for the charmonia, while the bottomonia survives up to higher temperatures. It also appears that the internal energy may provide binding up to higher temperatures than the free energy.
We then study binding for the different potentials extacted fom lattice QCD simulations of Kaczmarek [@Doring:2007uh; @Hubner:2007qh; @Kaczmarek:2005ui; @Kaczmarek:2005gi; @Kaczmarek:2005zp]. with the free energy (quenched or dynamical) the $J/\psi$ and $\eta_c$ melt at $T/T_c\simeq 1.17$ and the groundstate bottomonium melts at $T/T_c\simeq 1.8$. With the internal energy (quenched) the groundstate charmonium melts at $T/T_c \simeq 1.6$, while the p-wave excitations, say the $\chi_c$, melt at $T/T_c\simeq 1.1$, while the bottomonium groundstate melts at $T/T_c\simeq 3.2$, the p-wave $\chi_b$ melts at $T/T_c\simeq 1.7$, the d-wave melts at $T/T_c\simeq 1.2$. Examples of wavefunctions are also show in Figs. \[freeenvelope\] and \[internalenvelope\]. The details of the binding are shown in Tables \[charm\_table\] and \[bottom\_table\] for the free energy and in Tables \[tab:intern\_charm\], \[tab:intern\_bottomII\] and \[tab:intern\_bottomII\] for the internal energy.
Conclusion
==========
Wong [@Wong:2004zr] studied how the static potential interpolates between the free energy and the internal energy at different temperatures. Wong showed that at $T\simeq T_c$ the free energy approximates the static potential, while at $T >> T_c$ the static potential is closer to the internal energy.
We study the binding of charmonium and bottomonium, both for the free energy and for the internal energy, with a finite difference lattice of 200001 points. Our study reproduces the charmonium melting temperatures in the literature.
In particular the $J/\psi$ melts above Tc (at 1.6 Tc according to lattice results) but the excited charmonium $\chi_c$ or $\psi^*$ are probes that melt just above Tc. New in our results are the detailed studies of the bottomonium, relevant for the LHC, with a melting as high as $T/T_c \simeq 3.2$.
Quantitative Puzzles remain in understanding the the mass shifts $>$ 300 MeV , unseen in the experimental data, and in the importance of the the spin dependent potentials, missing in the lattice QCD data.
Possible future efforts may be to,\
- calibrate the best we can the T-dependent quark-antiquark potentials,\
- apply the potentials to chiral symmery breaking/restoration,\
- apply chiral restoration to the light quark mesons $\rho, \omega, \phi$ and $\pi, K$.
We are very grateful to Olaf Kaczmarek for providing his results for the static free energy and internal energy in lattice QCD.
This work is supported by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia under the grants PDCT/FP/63437/2005 and PDCT/FP/63923/2005.
[00]{}
T. Matsui and H. Satz, Phys. Lett. B [**178**]{}, 416 (1986).
M. Doring, K. Hubner, O. Kaczmarek and F. Karsch, Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{}, 054504 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-lat/0702009\]. K. Hubner, F. Karsch, O. Kaczmarek and O. Vogt, arXiv:0710.5147 \[hep-lat\]. O. Kaczmarek and F. Zantow, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 114510 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-lat/0503017\]. O. Kaczmarek and F. Zantow, arXiv:hep-lat/0506019. O. Kaczmarek and F. Zantow, PoS [**LAT2005**]{}, 192 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-lat/0510094\].
F. Karsch, J. Phys. G [**30**]{}, S887 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-lat/0403016\].
P. Petreczky and K. Petrov, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 054503 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-lat/0405009\].
A. Nakamura and T. Saito, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**111**]{}, 733 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-lat/0404002\].
M. Asakawa and T. Hatsuda, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 012001 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-lat/0308034\]. S. Datta, F. Karsch, P. Petreczky and I. Wetzorke, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 094507 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-lat/0312037\].
C. Y. Wong, Phys. Rev. C [**72**]{}, 034906 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0408020\]. E. V. Shuryak and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 054507 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0403127\].
A. Mocsy and P. Petreczky, Eur. Phys. J. C [**43**]{}, 77 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0411262\].
S. Digal, P. Petreczky and H. Satz, Phys. Lett. B [**514**]{}, 57 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0105234\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We consider a two-type oriented competition model on the first quadrant of the two-dimensional integer lattice. Each vertex of the space may contain only one particle of either Red type or Blue type. A vertex flips to the color of a randomly chosen southwest nearest neighbor at exponential rate $2$. At time zero there is one Red particle located at $(1,0)$ and one Blue particle located at $(0,1)$. The main result is a partial shape theorem: Denote by $R (t)$ and $B (t)$ the red and blue regions at time $t$. Then (i) eventually the upper half of the unit square contains no points of $B (t)/t$, and the lower half no points of $R (t)/t$; and (ii) with positive probability there are angular sectors rooted at $(1,1)$ that are eventually either red or blue. The second result is contingent on the uniform curvature of the boundary of the corresponding Richardson shape.'
address:
- |
University of California\
Department of Statistics\
Berkeley CA
- |
University of Chicago\
Department of Statistics\
5734 University Avenue\
Chicago IL 60637
author:
- '[George Kordzakhia]{}'
- 'Steven P. Lalley'
title: ' An oriented competition model on $Z_{+}^2$. '
---
Key words: competition, shape theorem, first passage percolation.
Introduction. {#sec:intro}
=============
In this paper we study a model where two species Red and Blue compete for space on the first quadrant of $\mathbb{Z}^2$. At time $t>0$ every vertex of ${\mathbb Z}^{2}$ is in one of the three possible states: vacant, occupied by a Red particle, or occupied by a Blue particle. An unoccupied vertex $z= (x,y)$ may be colonized from either $(x,y-1)$ or $(x-1,y)$ at rate equal to the number of occupied south-west neighbors; at the instant of first colonization, the vertex flips to the color of a randomly chosen occupied south-west neighbor. Once occupied, a vertex remains occupied forever, but its color may flip: the flip rate is equal to the number of south-west neighbors occupied by particles of the opposite color. The state of the system at any time $t$ is given by the pair $R(t),B(t)$ where $R(t)$ and $B(t)$ denote the set of sites occupied by Red and Blue particles respectively. The set $R (t)\cup B
(t)$ evolves precisely as the occupied set in the oriented Richardson model, and thus, for any initial configuration with only finitely many occupied sites, the growth of this set is governed by the *Shape Theorem*, which states that the set of occupied vertices scaled by time converges to a deterministic set $\mathcal{S}$ (see for example [@cox]). A rigorous construction and more detailed description of the oriented competition model is given in Section \[sec:Richardson\].
The simplest interesting initial configuration has a single Red particle at the vertex $(1,0)$, a single Blue particle at $(0,1)$, and all other sites unoccupied. We shall refer to this as the *default* initial configuration. When the oriented competition process is started in the default initial configuration, the red and blue particles at $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$ are protected: their colors can never be flipped. Thus, both colors survive forever w.p.1. Computer simulations for the oriented competition model started in the default and other finite initial configurations suggest that the shapes of the regions occupied by the Red and Blue types stabilize as times goes to infinity – see Figure \[OrientedPicture\] for snapshots of two different realizations of the model, each started from the default initial configuration. A peculiar feature of the stablization is that the limit shapes of the red and blue regions are partly deterministic and partly random: The southeast corner of the occupied region is always equally divided between the red and blue populations, with boundary lying along the line $y=x$. However, the outer section seems to stablize in a random union of angular wedges rooted at a point near the center of the Richardson shape. Although the location of the root appears to be deterministic, both the number and angles of the outer red and blue regions vary quite dramatically from one simulation to the next.
\[OrientedPicture\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
{width="2.5in" height="2.5in"} {width="2.5in" height="2.5in"}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
The purpose of this paper is to prove that stabilization of Red and Blue zones occurs with positive probability. (We conjecture that in fact it occurs with probability $1$, but we have been unable to prove this.) To state our result precisely, we shall need several facts about the limit shape $\mathcal{S}$ of the oriented Richardson model $Z (t):= R (t)\cup B (t)$. The proof of the Shape Theorem [@cox] shows that $\mathcal{S}$ is a compact, convex subset of the first quadrant of ${\mathbb R}^{2}$. It is generally believed – but has not been proved – that the outer boundary $\partial^{o}\mathcal{S}$ of $\mathcal{S}$ (the portion of $\partial \mathcal{S}$ that lies in the interior of the first quadrant) is *uniformly curved*, that is, for every point $x$ in this part of the boundary there is a circle of finite radius passing through $x$ that contains $\mathcal{S}$ in its interior. In section \[sec:environment\] we shall prove the following.
\[ProperSubset\] The Richardson shape $\mathcal{S}$ has the points $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$ on its boundary, and the point $(1,1)$ in its interior.
It will follow by convexity that the unit square $\mathcal{Q}=[0,1]^{2}$ lies entirely in $\mathcal{S}$. Define $\mathcal{Q}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{Q}_{2}$ to be the subsets of $\mathcal{Q}$ that lie (strictly) above and below the main diagonal $x=y$.\
For any subset $Z \subset \mathbb{R}^2$, define $$\hat{Z}=\{x \in \mathbb{R}^2: \mbox{ dist}(x,Z) \le 1/2 \},$$ where dist denotes distance in the $L^{\infty}$-norm on $\mathbb{R}^2$. For any set $Z \subset \mathbb{R}^2$ and any scalar $s>0$, let $Z/s= \{ y/s: y \in Z \}$.
\[MainTheorem\] With probability one, for all large $t$ $$\label{eq:q1q2}
\mathcal{Q}_1 \subset \hat{R}(t) /t \quad \text{and} \quad
\mathcal{Q}_2 \subset \hat{B}(t) /t.$$ Furthermore, if the outer boundary $\partial^{o}\mathcal{S}$ of the Richardson limit shape $\mathcal{S}$ is uniformly curved, then for every $\epsilon>0$ the following holds with positive probability: There exist random angular sectors $A_1,..,A_n$ rooted at $(1,1)$ that do not intersect the open unit square $\mathcal{Q}^{o}$ such that
1. eventually $A_i$ is either Red or Blue, and
2. the complement of $\bigcup A_i$ in $\mathcal{S}
\setminus \mathcal{Q}$ has angular measure less than $\epsilon$.
Another competition model on $\mathbb{Z}^d$ (non-oriented version) was studied in [@kordzakh]. It was shown that if the process starts with finitely many particles of both types (Red and Blue), then the two types coexist with positive probability under the condition that the shape set of the corresponding non-oriented Richardson model is uniformly curved. The behavior of the oriented model differs from that of the model considered in [@kordzakh] in that the limit shape contains the determinsitic component (\[eq:q1q2\]).
Preliminaries {#sec:preliminaries}
=============
Graphical Constructions {#sec:graphicalConstructions}
-----------------------
The competition model, the Richardson model, and the competition model in a hostile environment may be built using the same *percolation structure* $\Pi$. For details on percolation structures see [@DurrettBook]. Here we briefly describe the construction of $\Pi$. To each directed edge $xy$ such that $x \in {\mathbb Z}_{+}^{2} \setminus \{(0,0)\} $, and $y=x+(0,1)$ or $y=x+(1,0)$ is assigned rate-$1$ Poisson process. The Poisson processes are mutually independent. Above each vertex $x$ is drawn a timeline, on which are placed marks at the occurrence times $T^{xy}_{i}$ of the Poisson processes attached to directed edges emanating from $x$; at each such mark, an arrow is drawn from $x$ to $y$. A *directed path* through the percolation structure $\Pi$ may travel upward, at speed $1$, along any timeline, and may (but does not have to) jump across any outward-pointing arrow that it encounters. A *reverse path* is a directed path run backward in time: thus, it moves downward along timelines and jumps across inward-pointing arrows. A *voter-admissible* path is a directed path that does not pass any inward-pointing arrows. Observe that for each vertex $z$ and each time $t>0$ there is a unique voter-admissible path beginning at time $0$ and terminating at $(z,t)$: its reverse path is gotten by traveling downward along timelines, starting at $(z,t)$, jumping across all inward-pointing arrows encountered along the way. For each $(z,t)$ denote by $\Gamma (z,t)$ the collection of reverse paths on percolation structure $\Pi$ originating at $(z,t)$ and terminating in $(\mathbb{Z}_{+}^2,0)$. We also use $\Gamma (z,t)$ to denote the set of ends of all paths in the collection. There exists a unique reverse voter-admissible path $\tilde{\gamma}_{(z,t)}=\tilde{\gamma}$ in $\Gamma (z,t)$. We say that a path $\gamma$ has [*attached end*]{}, or $\gamma$ is [*attached*]{}, if it terminates in $(R(0) \cup B(0),0)$. For $s \in [0,t]$ denote by $\gamma(s)$ the location of the path in $\mathbb{Z}_{+}^2$ at time $t-s$, i.e. $\gamma(s)=z'$ if $(z', t-s) \in \gamma$. We can now put an order relation on $\Gamma (z,t)$ as follows. For two reverse paths $\gamma_1, \gamma_2 \in \Gamma (z,t)$, let $\tau_{i}=\inf \{ s>0: \gamma_{i}(s)=\tilde{\gamma}(s) \},\ i=1,2$, and set $\gamma_1 \prec \gamma_2$ if $\tau_1 \le \tau_2$. The order relation sets a priority on assigning an [ *ancestor*]{}. A vertex $z$ is occupied by a particle at time $t$ if and only if there is at least one attached reverse path originating at $(z,t)$. The set of terminating points of all attached paths in $\Gamma (z,t)$ is referred as the [*set of potential ancestors*]{} of the particle at $(z,t)$. The maximal element $\hat{ \gamma}$ in the set of attached paths uniquely determines the ancestor. Let $(z',0)$ be the terminating point of $\hat{ \gamma}$. Then the particle at $(z',0)$ is said to be the [*ancestor*]{} of the particle at $(z,t)$. Note that $(z,t)$ is vacant if and only if the set of attached paths is empty.
The simplest oriented growth model. {#sec:Richardson}
-----------------------------------
Denote by $Z(t)$ the set of vertices occupied by time $t$, and fix an initial configuration $Z(0)=\{ (0,1),(1,0) \}$ . The Richardson model can be built using percolation structure as follows. Set $Z(t)$ to be the set of vertices $z$ in $\mathbb{Z}^2_{+}$ such that there is a directed path in $\Pi$ that starts at $(Z(0),0)$ and terminates at $(z,t)$. For $z \in \mathbb{R}^2_{+}$ let $T(z)=\inf \{t: z \in \hat{Z}(t) \}$. and let $ \mu(z)= \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} n^{-1}T(nz)$. The limit exists almost surely by subadditivity. The growth of $\hat{Z}(t)$ is governed by a Shape Theorem. A weakened version of the standard Shape theorem may be obtained by using subadditivity arguments. The problem with a standard version of the Shape theorem was that $\mu(z)$ was not known to be continuous on the boundaries of $\mathbb{R}^{2}_{+}$. In [@martin] J. Martin showed that $\mu(z)$ is continuous on all of $\mathbb{R}^{2}_{+}$, and established the Shape theorem. Furthermore, large deviations results for the Richardson model follow from papers by Kesten [@kesten] and Alexander[@alexander].
\[OrientedShapeTheorem\] There exists a non-random compact convex subset $\mathcal{S}$ of $\mathbb{R}_{+}^2$ such that for $\alpha \in (1/2,1)$, constants $c_1,c_2>0$ (depending on $\alpha$) and all $t>0$ $$P[ \mathcal{S}(t-t^{\alpha}) \subset \hat{Z}(t) \subset \mathcal{S}(t+t^{\alpha})]>
1-c_1 t^2 \exp\{ -c_2 t^{(\alpha-1/2)} \}.$$
Let $\tilde{ \mathcal{S} }$ be the limit set of the South-West oriented Richardson model. This process starts with two particles at the vertices $(-1,0)$ and $(0,-1)$, and lives in the third quadrant of $\mathbb{Z}^2$. It is easy to see that $\tilde{\mathcal{S}}= - \mathcal{S}$. For $\epsilon>0$ define the cone $K_{\epsilon}$ rooted at $(1,1)$ by $$K_{\epsilon}=\{ z \in \mathbb{R}^2: \mbox{ arg}\{z-(1,1) \} \in
(-\pi/2+\epsilon, \pi-\epsilon)\}.$$ The following lemma follows from an elementary geometric argument. The proof is identical to the proof of Lemma 4 in [@Newman].
\[OrientedShapeIntersection\] Suppose that $\partial^{o}\mathcal{S}$ is uniformly curved. For every $\epsilon>0$ and $\alpha \in (1/2,1)$ there exists $c>0$ so that if $z \in \partial{ \mathcal{S}} \cap K_{\epsilon}$, then for all $t_1,t_2>0$ we have $$\mathcal{S}(t_1+t_1^{\alpha}) \cap
(z(t_1+t_2)+ \tilde{\mathcal{S}} (t_2+t_2^{\alpha}) )
\subset D(zt_1,c(t_1+t_2)^{(\alpha+1)/2}).$$
Growth and competition in hostile environment. {#sec:environment}
==============================================
Suppose that at time zero every vertex of $\mathbb{Z}_{+}^2$ except the origin contains a particle. There are two distinguished particles located at $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$, say Black particles. All other vertices are occupied by White particles. Every vertex flips to the color of a randomly chosen south-west nearest neighbor with exponential rate $2$. Thus, at time $t$ the color of a vertex $z$ is uniquely determined by its voter-admissible path. The set of Black particles $Q(t)$ is defined to be the set of all vertices $z$ such that the unique reverse voter-admissible path beginning at $(z,t)$ terminates at $ \{ (1,0), (0,1) \} $. Note that every vertex $(z_1,0)$ on the horizontal coordinate axes and every vertex $(0,z_2)$ on the vertical coordinate axes eventually flips to Black color and stays Black forever. Thus, almost surely for all large $t$ vertex $(z_1,z_2)$ is Black. By subadditivity, a shape theorem should hold for the growth model. Computer simulations of the growth model suggest that the shape set is a square (see the first picture on Figure \[Hostile\]). Below it is shown that the limit shape is exactly $\mathcal{Q}$.
\[growth:environment\] For every $\alpha \in (1/2,1)$ there exist $c_1,c_2$ such that for all $t>0$ $$P[ \mathcal{Q}(t-t^{\alpha}) \subset
\hat{Q}(t)
\subset \mathcal{Q}(t+t^{\alpha})]>
1-c_1 t^2 \exp\{ -c_2 t^{(\alpha-1/2)} \}.$$
Recall that for every $t>0$ and $z \in \mathbb{Z}_{+}^2$, there exists a unique reverse voter-admissible path $\tilde{ \gamma }_{(z,t)}$ starting at $(z,t)$. The path travel downward, at rate $1$, and jumps across all inward-pointing arrows. Until the path hits the horizontal (vertical) axis the number of horizontal (vertical) jumps is distributed as Poisson process with parameter $1$. Thus, there exist constants $c_1$ and $c_2$ such that for every $z \in Q(t-t^{\alpha})$ $$P( \tilde{\gamma}_{(z,t)} \mbox{ terminates in } \{(1,0),(0,1) \} )
\ge 1- c_1 \exp \{ -c_2 t^{ (\alpha-1/2)} \}.$$ For the same reason, there exist constants $c_1$ and $c_2$ such that for every $z \in Q^c(t+t^{\alpha})$, $$P( \tilde{\gamma}_{(z,t)} \mbox{ terminates in } \{ (1,0),(0,1) \} )
\le c_1 \exp \{ -c_2 t^{(\alpha-1/2)} \}.$$ The proposition follows from the fact that the number of vertices in $Q(t-t^{\alpha})$ is of order at most $O(t^2)$ and the number of vertices on the boundary of $Q(t+t^{\alpha})$ is of order at most $O(t)$.
If the growth models $Q(t)$ and $S(t)$ are coupled on the same percolation structure $\Pi$, then clearly $Q(t) \subseteq S(t)$, and thus $\mathcal{Q} \subseteq \mathcal{S}$. Lemma \[ProperSubset\] asserts that $\mathcal{S}$ is strictly larger than $\mathcal{Q}$.
\[Proof of Lemma \[ProperSubset\]\] The following argument was communicated to the authors by Yuval Peres. We consider a representation of the Richardson model as a first passage percolation model. To each edge of the lattice associate a mean one exponential random variable, also called a passage time of the edge. The variables are mutually independent. For every pair of vertices $z_1=(x_1,y_1)$, $z_2=(x_2,y_2)$ such that $x_1 \le x_2$ and $y_1 \le
y_2$ define the passage time $T(z_1,z_2)$ from $z_1$ to $z_2$ as the infimum over traversal times of all North-East oriented paths from $z_1$ to $z_2$. The traversal time of an oriented path is the sum of the passage times of its edges. In the first passage percolation description of the Richardson model, let $$Z(t)= \{ z \in \mathbb{Z}_{+}^2:
T((1,0), z) \le t \mbox{ or }
T((0,1), z) \le t \}.$$ It is enough to show that for some $\epsilon>0$, the vertex $(1,1)$ is in $(1- \epsilon)\mathcal{S}$. Consider a sequence of vertices $z_n=(n,n)$ on the main diagonal of the first quadrant of $\mathbb{Z}^2$. By the shape theorem, it suffices to prove that almost surely for infinitely many $n$’s the occupation times of $z_n$ satisfy $T(z_n) \le n(1- \epsilon)$. Consider vertices $(0,2),(2,0)$, and $(1,1)$. There are exactly four oriented distinct paths from the origin to these vertices. Each such path has two edges and expected passage time equal to $2$. Let $\gamma_{(1)}$ be the path with the smallest passage time among these four paths. Denote by $X_1$ the terminal point of $\gamma_{(1)}$, and denote its passage time by $T_1$. By symmetry $P(X_1=(0,2))= P(X_1=(2,0))= 1/4$ and $P(X_1=(1,2))=1/2$. It easy to see that $ET_1<1$. Indeed, let $\gamma_0$ be the path obtained by the following procedure. Start at the origin and make two oriented steps each time moving in the direction of the edge with minimal passage time (either north or east). Clearly $$ET_1<E \tau(\gamma_0)=1$$ where $\tau(\gamma_0)$ is the total passage time of $\gamma_0$. Restart at $X_1$ and repeat the procedure. Denote by $X_2$ the displacement on the second step and by $T_2$ the passage time of the time minimizing path from $X_1$ to $X_1+X_2$. Note that $W_k= \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} X_k$ is a random walk on $\mathbb{Z}_{+}^2$. The random walk visits the main diagonal infinitely often in such a way that $W_k=(k,k)$. Furthermore, if $S_k= \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} T_k $, then by SLLN for some $\epsilon>0$ almost surely for all large $k$ we have $S_k \le (1-\epsilon)k$. This finishes the proof.
\[Hostile\]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
{width="2.5in" height="2.5in"} {width="2.5in" height="2.5in"}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
Suppose now that at time zero there is one Red particle at $(1,0)$ and one Blue particle at $(0,1)$. As in the growth model, all other vertices are occupied by White particles. The flip rules are the same as in the growth model: every vertex flips to the color of a randomly chosen south-west nearest neighbor with exponential rate $2$. At time $t>0$ the color of a vertex $z$ is uniquely determined by its voter-admissible path. The Red cluster $R^{(1)}(t)$ and the Blue cluster $B^{(1)}(t)$ are defined to be the sets of all vertices $z$ such that the unique reverse voter-admissible path beginning at $(z,t)$ terminates respectively at $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$. For $t>0$ define $$K_1(t^{\alpha})= \{ z=(z_1,z_2)\in \mathbb{Z}_{+}^2 : z_1-z_2> t^{\alpha} \},$$ $$K_2(t^{\alpha})= \{ z=(z_1,z_2)\in \mathbb{Z}_{+}^2 : z_2-z_1 > t^{\alpha} \}.$$
\[half-coloring:envir\] For every $\alpha \in (1/2,1)$ there exist $c_1,\ c_2>0$ such that for all $t>0$ $$\label{Triangle1}
P[ \mathcal{Q}(t-t^{\alpha}) \cap K_1(t^{\alpha})
\subset \hat{R}^{(1)}(t) ] >
1-c_1 t^2 \exp\{ -c_2 t^{(\alpha-1/2)} \},$$ $$\label{Triangle2}
P[ \mathcal{Q}(t-t^{\alpha}) \cap K_2(t^{\alpha})
\subset \hat{B}^{(1)}(t) ] >
1-c_1 t^2 \exp\{ -c_2 t^{(\alpha-1/2)} \}.$$
We only show (\[Triangle1\]), since the proof of (\[Triangle2\]) is identical. First, observe that by Proposition \[growth:environment\] there exist $c_1, c_2>0$ $$P[ \mathcal{Q}(t-t^{\alpha}) \subset \hat{R}^{(1)}(t) \cup \hat{B}^{(1)}(t) ]
> 1-c_1 t^2 \exp\{ -c_2 t^{(\alpha-1/2)} \}.$$ Second, note that with probability exponentially close to one voter admissible paths of all vertices $z \in \mathcal{Q}(t-t^{\alpha}) \cap K_1(t^{\alpha}) \cap {\mathbb Z}^2_{+} $ terminate below main diagonal. That is, there exist $c_1,c_2>0$ such that $$P \left( \tilde{\gamma}_{z,t)}(t) \in K_1(0) \right)
\ge 1-c_1 \exp \{-c_2 t^{(\alpha-1/2)} \}.$$ The result (\[Triangle1\]) immediately follows from the above observations.
Oriented Competition model. Proof of Theorem \[MainTheorem\]. {#sec:OrientedCompetition}
=============================================================
If the competition model and the competition model in hostile environment are constructed on the same percolation structure $\Pi$, then almost surely for all $t>0$ $$R^{(1)}(t) \subseteq R(t), \ B^{(1)}(t) \subseteq B(t).$$ Hence it follows from Proposition \[half-coloring:envir\] that almost surely for all large $t$ $$\mathcal{Q}(t-t^{\alpha}) \cap K_1(t^{\alpha}) \subset \hat{R}(t),$$ $$\mathcal{Q}(t-t^{\alpha}) \cap K_2(t^{\alpha}) \subset \hat{B}(t).$$ Thus, asymptotically (as $t$ goes to infinity) the square $\mathcal{Q} \subset \mathcal{S}$ is colored deterministically. In particular, the region below the main diagonal is red, and the region above the diagonal is blue. This proves the first part of Theorem \[MainTheorem\]. The next question is what happens in the region $\mathcal{S} \setminus \mathcal{Q}$. For each $z\in (\partial \mathcal{S})\setminus \mathcal{Q}$ and any $\varrho >0$, define the *angular sector* $\mathcal{A} (z;\varrho) \subset \mathcal{S} \setminus \mathcal{Q}$ of angular measure $\varrho$ rooted at $(1,1)$ and centered at $z$ by $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal{A} (z;\varrho):= \{y \in \mathcal{S}
\, : \,
|\mbox{arg} \{y-(1,1) \} - \mbox{arg} \{z-(1,1) \} | < \varrho/2 \}.\end{gathered}$$ Fix $\epsilon>0$, $\alpha \in(1/2,1)$ and $\beta \in (1/2,1)$ such that $(\alpha +1)/2<\beta $. For $\varrho >0$ and $t \ge 1$, let $A_{1}\subset A_{2}$ be angular sectors with common center $z$ and angular measures $r<r+t^{\beta-1}$, respectively, and such that $ A_{2} \subset K_{\epsilon} $. Define by $A_1^{c}$ and $A_2^{c}$ the complements of the sectors in $\mathcal{S} \setminus \mathcal{Q}$. Fix $\delta \in (0,1)$, and set $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{R}_{0}&= \mathcal{R}_{0}^{t}=
A_2(t-t^{\alpha}),\\
\mathcal{B}_{0}&= \mathcal{B}_{0}^{t}=
A_2^c (t+t^{\alpha}), \\
\mathcal{B}_{1}&= \mathcal{B}_{1}^{t}=
A_1^c (t(1+\delta)+(t(1+\delta))^{\alpha}), \\
\mathcal{R}_{1}&= \mathcal{R}_{1}^{t}=
A_{1}(t(1+\delta)-(t(1+\delta))^{\alpha}).\end{aligned}$$
\[lemma:stabilization\] There exist constants $c_{1},c_{2}>0$ such that the following is true, for any $t\geq 1$. If the initial configuration $\xi ,\zeta$ is such that $\hat{\xi} \supset \mathcal{R}_{0}^{t}$ and $\hat{\zeta} \subset \mathcal{B}_{0}^{t}$, then $$\label{eq:stabilization}
1-P_{\xi ,\zeta} [
\hat{B} (\delta t)\subset \mathcal{B}_{1}^{t} ]
\leq c_{1}t^{2} \exp \{-c_{2} (\delta t)^{\alpha -1/2} \}.$$
Lemma \[lemma:stabilization\] implies that once an angular segment is occupied by one of the two types, it must remain so (except near its boundary) for a substantial amount of time. Thus, Theorem \[MainTheorem\] immediately follows from Lemma \[lemma:stabilization\] and Theorem \[OrientedShapeTheorem\]. For more details, see analogous construction in [@kordzakh] (Section 4.3, pg. 14-15).\
Let $a=(1,1) \in \mathcal{S}$, be the right upper corner vertex of $\mathcal{Q}$, and let $b$ be a point on the boundary of $\mathcal{S}$ such that $b \in K_{\epsilon}$. For $r,q \in \mathbb{R}$ denote by $I(r,q)$ an interval with ends at $r$ and $q$ and by $L(r,q)$ a line segment starting at $r$ and passing through $q$. Let $b'(\delta)$ be a point in the interval $I(a,b)$ such that $|b'-a| = |b-a| / (1+\delta) $ where $| \cdot |$ is an Euclidean norm. For a point $r \in \mathbb{R}_{+}$ let $\overline{r}$ be the nearest vertex with integer coordinates. That is, $dist(r, \overline{r}) \le 1/2$ (if there is more than one such vertex, choose the vertex with the smallest coordinates). Suppose that at time zero the initial configuration $R(0),B(0)$ is such that $\hat{R}(0) \cup \hat{B}(0) \approx \mathcal{S}t$ for large $t>0$. Then, by the shape theorem, $\hat{R}(\delta t) \cup \hat{B}(\delta t)
\approx \mathcal{S}t(1+\delta)$. Consider the line segment $L(at(1+\delta),bt(1+\delta))$ starting at $at(1+\delta)$ and passing through $bt(1+\delta)$. Fix a point $r \in L(a,b)$ such that $\overline{rt(1+\delta)} \in R(\delta t) \cup B(\delta t)$. Note that $rt(1+ \delta) \in L(at(1+\delta),bt(1+\delta))$. In Claims \[KeyClaim1\], \[KeyClaim2\], and \[KeyClaim3\] below, it is shown that if $\partial^{o}\mathcal{S}$ is uniformly curved, then with probability exponentially close to one the ancestor of $\overline{rt(1+\delta)}$ (if exists) is in the $(\delta t)^{\beta}$ neighborhood of $I(at,bt)$ for some $\beta \in (3/4,1)$. In particular if $r \in I(b',b)$, then the ancestor of $\overline{rt(1+\delta)}$ (if exists) is in the $(\delta t)^{\beta}$ neighborhood of $bt$. Observe that this implies the statement of the Lemma \[lemma:stabilization\]. Consider three cases:
1. $r \in I(a,b')$;
2. $r \in I(b', b)$ and $rt(1+\delta) \in \mathcal{S}(t(1+\delta)-(t(1+\delta))^{\alpha})$;
3. $rt(1+\delta) \in \mathcal{S}(t(1+\delta)+(t(1+\delta))^{\alpha})
\setminus \mathcal{S}(t(1+\delta)-(t(1+\delta))^{\alpha})$.
The Claims \[KeyClaim1\], \[KeyClaim2\], and \[KeyClaim3\] deal with the three cases respectively.
\[KeyClaim1\] There exist constants $c_1,c_2>0$ such that for every $b \in \partial{ \mathcal{S}} \cap K_{\epsilon}$ and for every $r \in I(a,b')$, if the initial configuration $R(0), B(0)$ is such that $\mathcal{S}(t-t^{\alpha}) \subset \hat{R}(0) \cup \hat{B}(0) \subset \mathcal{S}(t+t^{\alpha})$ then with probability at least $1- c_1 \exp \{-c_2(\delta t)^{(\alpha- \frac{1}{2})} \}$ the ancestor of $\overline{r(1+\delta)t}$ exists and is located in the $(\delta t)^{\alpha}$ neighborhood of $r(1+\delta)t- a\delta t \in I(at,bt)$.
Recall that the voter admissible path is a continuous time random walk with exponential waiting times between jumps and drift $-a$. By standard large deviations results, with probability exponentially close to one the voter admissible reverse path $\tilde{\gamma} \in \Gamma(\overline{r(1+\delta)t},\delta t)$ is attached to a vertex in the disk of radius $(\delta t)^{\alpha}$ centered at $(rt(1+\delta)- a \delta t) \in I(at,bt)$. That is, for some constants $c_1,\ c_2>0$, $$P[ | \tilde{\gamma}(t) - ( rt(1+\delta) - a \delta t)| > (\delta t)^{\alpha} ]
\le c_1 \exp \{-c_2(\delta t)^{(\alpha- \frac{1}{2})} \}.$$
\[KeyClaim2\] There exist constants $c_1,c_2>0$ such that for every $b \in \partial{ \mathcal{S} } \cap K_{\epsilon}$ and for every $r \in I(b',b)$ with $rt(1+\delta) \in \mathcal{S}(t(1+\delta)-(t(1+\delta))^{\alpha})$ if the initial configuration $R(0), B(0)$ is such that $\mathcal{S}(t-t^{\alpha}) \subset \hat{R}(0) \cup \hat{B}(0) \subset \mathcal{S}(t+t^{\alpha})$, then with probability at least $1- c_1 \exp \{-c_2(\delta t)^{(\alpha- \frac{1}{2})} \}$ the ancestor of $r(1+\delta)t$ exists and is located in the $(\delta t)^{\beta}$ neighborhood of $bt$.
The heuristics of the proof are as follows. For $t_1 \in (0, \delta t)$ consider a subset $\Gamma_1 (\overline{rt(1+ \delta t)}, \delta t )$ of the set of reverse paths $\Gamma (\overline{rt(1+ \delta)}, \delta t )$ that contains only those paths that coincide with the reverse voter admissible path $\tilde{\gamma}$ on $ \mathbb{Z}^2 \times (\delta t- t_1, \delta t)$. That is, for every $\gamma \in \Gamma_1 (\overline{rt(1+ \delta)}, \delta t )$, for all $0<s<t_1$, $\gamma(s) = \tilde{\gamma}(s)$ The set of ends of $\Gamma_1 (\overline{rt(1+ \delta)}, \delta t )$ is obtained by constructing reverse oriented Richardson process on the subset $\mathbb{Z}_{+}^2 \times (0,t_2)$ of the percolation structure. The process starts with one occupied vertex at $\tilde{\gamma}(t_1)$, and runs backward in time for $t_2=\delta t-t_1$ units of time. By making an appropriate choice of $t_1$ and $t_2$, we show that with probability exponentially close to one the ancestor vertex of $(\overline{rt(1+\delta)}, \delta t)$ exists and is located in the $(\delta t)^{\beta}$ neighborhood of $bt$. Denote by $$\kappa = \frac{ |r-b| } { |b'-b| }.$$ Consider $ L( {\bf 0} , b(1+\delta)t )$, a line in $\mathbb{R}^2$ connecting the origin ${\bf 0}$ and the point $b(1+ \delta )t$. There exists a unique point $r' \in L({\bf 0}, b(1+\delta )t )$ between $bt$ and $b(1+ \delta )t$ such that $$rt(1+ \delta) -r'= \left( \kappa \delta t \right) a$$ $$\mu(r'-bt)= (1- \kappa) \delta t.$$ Set $t_1= \kappa \delta t - (\delta t)^{\alpha}$. Note that on the percolation structure, if we start at $(\overline{rt(1+ \delta)}, \delta t)$, and follow the reverse voter admissible path for $t_1$ units of time, then with probability exponentially close to one the end of the path is located in an Euclidean disk with center at $r'+ (\delta t)^{\alpha} a$ and radius $(\delta t)^{\alpha} \epsilon_1/4$ where $\epsilon_1$ is chosen so that $a(1+\epsilon_1) \in \mathcal{S}$. That is, for some constants $c_1,\ c_2>0$, $$P [ | \tilde{\gamma}(t_1) - (r'+ (\delta t)^{\alpha} a)| >
(\delta t)^{\alpha} \epsilon_1/4 ]
\le c_1 \exp \{-c_2(\delta t)^{(\alpha- \frac{1}{2})} \}.$$ Observe also that if we start a reverse oriented Richardson process (i.e. South-West oriented Richardson process) from any vertex $z$ in the $(\delta t)^{\alpha} \epsilon_1 / 4 $ neighborhood of $r'+ (\delta t)^{\alpha} a$, and run it backward in time for $t_2=(1-\kappa) \delta t+(\delta t)^{\alpha}$ units of time, then $$\label{claim2:non-empty}
P [ \Gamma ( z, t_2) \cap (R(0) \cup B(0)) = \emptyset ]
< c_1 \exp \{-c_2(\delta t)^{(\alpha- \frac{1}{2})} \}.$$ Indeed, since $$\mathcal{S}(t- t^{\alpha}) \cap
(z + \tilde{\mathcal{S}} (t_2- (\delta t)^{\alpha} \epsilon_1/4 )) \not= \emptyset,$$ (\[claim2:non-empty\]) follows by by Theorem \[OrientedShapeTheorem\].\
Also, by Theorem \[OrientedShapeTheorem\] and by Lemma \[OrientedShapeIntersection\], $$P [ \Gamma ( z, t_2) \cap (R(0) \cup B(0))
\not \subset D(bt, (\delta t)^{\beta}) ]
< c_1 \exp \{-c_2(\delta t)^{(\alpha- \frac{1}{2})} \}.$$ Thus, with probability exponentially close to one the intersection of the set $\Gamma_1 (\overline{rt(1+ \delta t)}, \delta t )$ with $R(0) \cup B(0)$ is non-empty and belongs to a disk of radius $(\delta t)^{\beta}$ and center at $bt$.
\[KeyClaim3\] There exist constants $c_1,c_2>0$ such that for every $b \in \partial{ \mathcal{S}} \cap K_{\epsilon}$ and for every $r \in L(b',b)$ with $rt(1+\delta) \in \mathcal{S}(t(1+\delta)+(t(1+\delta))^{\alpha})
\setminus \mathcal{S}(t(1+\delta)-(t(1+\delta))^{\alpha})$, if the initial configuration $R(0),B(0)$ is such that $\mathcal{S}(t-t^{\alpha}) \subset
\hat{R}(0) \cup \hat{B}(0)
\subset \mathcal{S}(t+t^{\alpha})$, then with probability at least $1- c_1 \exp \{-c_2(\delta t)^{(\alpha- \frac{1}{2})} \}$ the set of potential ancestors of $\overline{r(1+\delta)t}$ is either empty or it is contained in the $(\delta t)^{\beta}$ neighborhood of $bt$.
If the ancestor of $\overline{rt(1+ \delta)}$ exists, it is located in the set of ends of $\Gamma(\overline{rt(1+ \delta)}, \delta t )$. The set of ends of $\Gamma(\overline{rt(1+ \delta)}, \delta t )$ is obtained by constructing reverse oriented Richardson process starting with one occupied vertex at $\overline{rt(1+ \delta)}$, and running the process on the subset $\mathbb{Z}_{+}^2 \times (0,\delta t)$ of the percolation structure backward in time for $\delta t$ units of time. Then by Theorem \[OrientedShapeTheorem\] and Lemma \[OrientedShapeIntersection\], $$P [ \Gamma( \overline{rt(1+ \delta)}, \delta t) \cap (R(0) \cup B(0))
\not \subset D(bt, (\delta t)^{\beta}) ]
\le c_1 \exp \{-c_2(\delta t)^{(\alpha- \frac{1}{2})} \}.$$
The Claims \[KeyClaim1\], \[KeyClaim2\] and \[KeyClaim3\], imply the statement of Lemma \[lemma:stabilization\]. This finishes the proof of Theorem \[MainTheorem\].
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
We thank Yuval Peres for helpful conversations and for suggesting the proof of Lemma \[ProperSubset\].
[99]{}
Alexander, K. S. (1993). *A Note on Some Rates of Convergence in First-passage Percolation.* Annals of Applied Probability Vol. 3, 81–90
Cox, J. T. and Durrett, R (1981). *Some limit theorems for percolation processes with necessary and sufficient conditions.* The Annals of Probability Vol. 9, 583-603
Durrett, R. (1988) *Lecture Notes on Particle Systems and Percolation.* Wadsworth, 1-325
Kesten, H. (1993). *On the Speed of Convergence in First-passage Percolation.* Annals of Applied Probability Vol. 3, 296–338
Kordzakhia, G., and Lalley, S. (2005). *A two-species competition model on $\mathbb{Z}^d$.* Stochastic Processes and their Applications Vol. 115, 781-796.
Martin, J. (2004) *Limiting Shape for Directed Percolation Model.* The Annals of Probability Vol. 32, 2908–2937
Newman, C.M. and Piza, M. S. (1995) *Divergence of Shape Fluctuations in Two Dimensions.* The Annals of Probability Vol. 23, 977–1005
Richardson, D. (1973). *Random growth in tessellation.* Proceedings of Cambridge Philosophical Society 74, 515-528
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
In this paper, we present the design and the expected performance of the classical Lyot coronagraph for the high contrast imaging modes of the wide-field imager MICADO. MICADO is a near-IR camera for the Extremely Large Telescope (ELT, previously E-ELT), with wide-field, spectroscopic and coronagraphic capabilities. MICADO is one of the first-light instruments selected by the ESO. Optimized to work with a multi-conjugate adaptive optics corrections provided by the MOARY module, it will also come with a SCAO correction with a high-level, on-axis correction, making use of the M4 adaptive mirror of the telescope.
After presenting the context of the high contrast imaging modes in MICADO, we describe the selection process for the focal plane masks and Lyot stop. We will also show results obtained in realistic conditions, taking into account AO residuals, atmospheric refraction, noise sources and simulating observations in angular differential imaging (ADI) mode. Based on SPHERE on-sky results, we will discuss the achievable gain in contrast and angular separation provided by MICADO over the current instruments on 10-m class telescopes, in particular for imaging young giant planets at very short separations around nearby stars as well as planets on wider orbits around more distant stars in young stellar associations.
author:
- Clément Perrot
- Pierre Baudoz
- Anthony Boccaletti
- Gérard Rousset
- Elsa Huby
- Yann Clénet
- Sébastien Durand
- Richard Davies
bibliography:
- 'report.bib'
title: 'Design study and first performance simulation of the ELT/MICADO focal plane coronagraphs'
---
INTRODUCTION {#sec:intro}
============
MICADO [@2016SPIE.9908E..1ZD] is the first-light near-infrared camera on the ELT, which will work between 0.8$\mu$m and 2.5$\mu$m. MICADO is planned to work at the diffraction limit over the whole field-of-view of the instrument, thanks to the multi-conjugate adaptive optics (MCAO) correction provided by the MAORY AO module [@2016SPIE.9909E..2DD]. To complement this MCAO correction, a single conjugate adaptive optics (SCAO) mode is developed under MICADO’s management, jointly with MAORY, and will be the first commissioned AO mode at the ELT [@2016SPIE.9909E..0AC].
Exoplanet detection and characterization is one of the main science cases of the ELT. Pending the installation of a dedicated facility on the ELT to search and characterize mature exoplanets (like ELT/PCS[@2013aoel.confE...8K]), the SCAO mode of MICADO-MAORY will be able to address this prominent goal at the ELT first light, in particular thanks to the increase of angular resolution by a factor of 5 with respect to the VLT. MICADO come online when planet finders on 8-m class telescopes (SPHERE/VLT, GPI/Gemini) will have provided their main results (large discovery surveys) and after the start of JWST operations. The exoplanets science case described below fits in this general context.
Dues to the constraints of direct imaging (the angular separation and the contrast between the star and the planet), past and current surveys focus on young stars close to the Sun ($<$150pc). Observing the very first steps of the planetary formation with direct imaging brings important information about the formation process. Direct imaging provides not only the means to witness newly formed planets, but it also provides a clear view of the environment of the star, in particular during the protoplanetary phase when planets are in formation. Imaging the circumstellar disk gives a lot of information about the evolution of the systems and its composition. In some particular cases the planet is embedded in the circumstellar disk, like in the beta Pictoris system, where a 10 Jupiter mass ($M_J$) companion was discovered within the debris disk [@1984Sci...226.1421S] which presents a warp caused by the planet.
Direct imaging so far has only revealed a handful of planetary mass objects due to the high star to planet contrast. During the past few years, instruments dedicated to high contrast imaging, like Gemini/GPI [@2008SPIE.7015E..18M] and VLT/SPHERE [@2008SPIE.7014E..18B], have come online on 10-m class telescope and provide deep observations close to the star thanks to their extrem AO system. These instruments have led to new detections of objects like the two exoplanets 51 Eridani b [@2015Sci...350...64M] and HIP 65426 but have also improved the charaterization of known exoplanets atmosphere like HR 8799 . Circumstellar disk detection was also a prolific area with for instance the debris disk HD 106906 or the transition disk SAO 206462 .
In this context, MICADO will provide deep observation close to the star with respect to GPI and SPHERE without the need for an extreme adaptive optics system. The very-high angular resolution offered by MICADO (8.7 mas in H-band) combined with the AO correction will be particularly suited to explore the range of orbite between 40 and 150mas, that is inaccessible for 10-m telescope.
The coronagraphic mode of MICADO
================================
The current design of MICADO allows the implementation of coronagraphic modes necessary to achieve the science cases described above. However, as MICADO is not dedicated to high contrast imaging like VLT/SPHERE, some trade-off are inevitable. The science program that can be accomplished strongly depends on the achieved Strehl ratio. Since this program will observe bright on-axis stars, a SCAO correction is mandatory to reach the highest possible Strehl ratio.
Coronagraphic constraint
------------------------
Because of its large central obscuration and its segmented pupil, the ELT pupil is not optimized for coronagraphy. One solution to overcame this problem is to use an apodisation mask at the entrance pupil of the instrument to compensate the effect of the diffraction by the central obscuration. However, the final design of MICADO does not permit it. In this context, a simple Classical Lyot Coronagraph (CLC), without apodisation was selected in the final design. The CLC is composed by an occulting focal plane mask and a Lyot stop placed in a pupil plane downstream of the focal plane mask. All these components are located in the cryostat. Moreover, the Atmospheric Dispersion Compensator (ADC) will be placed between the entrance focal plane and the intermediate pupil plane. In this condition, focal plane masks will be subjected to atmospheric dispersion.
In the current design of MICADO, the coronagraphic mode has 3 slots available for focal plane masks in a wheel at the entrance focal plane of the cryostat and 5 slots for pupil masks in the wheel at the intermediate pupil plane. In the focal plane, 2 of these slots are reserved for the CLC and the last one will be a vortex phase mask. In the pupil plane, 1 slot is reserved for the Lyot stop, 2 slots for aperture masking [@2014SPIE.9147E..9FL] and 2 slots for vAPP coronagraph [@2012SPIE.8450E..0MS]. This study focuses on the CLC definition. For that purpose, our simulations are based on the SCAO simulations performed with COMPASS [@2014SPIE.9148E..6OG], which give a Strehl ratio of 72% at 2.2$\mu m$.
Others requirements
-------------------
The high contrast imaging mode also requires some specifics component, in particular in the double wheel filters. For the good operation of the coronagraphic mode, it is important to observe with some special filter and neutral density at the same time. Consequently, all scientific filters for the exoplanetary sciences are necessarily placed in the first wheel, whereas, neutral density sit in the second wheel. Table \[tabfiltre\] shows the requirements of the filters for exoplanets sciences in the current design. High contrast imaging also requires the ability to observe in pupil tracking (PT) mode, which corresponds to an observation mode which keeps the pupil stabilized with respect to the instrument while the field rotates on the detector. For that purpose, the derotator is operated at a different speed than in the field tracking mode. The PT mode is mandatory to apply post-processing algorithms based on Angular Differential Imaging (ADI) that are necessary to achieve deep detection limits.
----------- --------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
Filter $\lambda_{c}$ $\Delta\lambda$ $\lambda_{min}$ $\lambda_{max}$
- \[$\mu m$\] \[nm\] \[$\mu m$\] \[$\mu m$\]
J 1,245 180 1,155 1,335
H 1,635 290 1,490 1,780
Ks 2,145 350 1,970 2,320
J1-short 1,190 50 1,165 1,215
J2-short 1,270 50 1,245 1,295
CH4-short 1,582 85 1,540 1,625
CH4-long 1,693 112 1,637 1,749
H20\_K 2,060 60 2,030 2,090
COabs 2,308 44 2,286 2,330
K1-mid 2,100 100 2,050 2,150
K1-cont 2,202 29 2,188 2,216
----------- --------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
: List of MICADO’s filters for exoplanetary sciences.[]{data-label="tabfiltre"}
Simulation tool
===============
To select the design of the CLC and estimate the performance of the coronagraphic mode of MICADO, we used an aberration phase map after correction by the SCAO. The GPU-based tool COMPASS, developed at Paris Observatory, delivers these AO corrected phase maps. These AO corrected phase maps feed a dedicated code which simulates a coronagraphic observation including the atmospheric dispersion, polychromatisme, field rotation, etc [@2014SPIE.9147E..9EB].
COMPASS {#sec:compass}
-------
COMPASS is a tool which can simulate various AO systems and observations. For this study we used the following hypotheses in the AO simulation:
- 39.146m circular pupil with central obscuration of 24%, no spiders, no segments,
- Shack-Hartmann with 78x78 sub-apertures, working at 500Hz,
- $r_0$ = 0.129m at 500nm, wind = 10m.s$^{-1}$, $L_0$ = $10^5$
- One frame is extracted every 500 simulated residual phase screens to create a cube of 3600 AO corrected phase maps (1 map per second, for a total of 1 hour observation).
Note that the baseline design for the MICADO-MAORY SCAO relies one a Pyramid wave front sensor (WFS). However, this kind of sensor was not yet fully debugged at the time of the present work. Hence a Shack-Hartmann WFS has been used providing similar results as the Pyramid WFS for the considered level of correction (Strehl ratio at 2.2$\mu$m = 70%).
![From left to right: the ELT pupil, a typical residual phase map from COMPASS, a typical instantaneous PSF and a typical instantaneous coronagraphic image.[]{data-label="structMICADO"}](pupil_e-elt-1.pdf "fig:"){width="24.00000%"} ![From left to right: the ELT pupil, a typical residual phase map from COMPASS, a typical instantaneous PSF and a typical instantaneous coronagraphic image.[]{data-label="structMICADO"}](phase.png "fig:"){width="24.00000%"} ![From left to right: the ELT pupil, a typical residual phase map from COMPASS, a typical instantaneous PSF and a typical instantaneous coronagraphic image.[]{data-label="structMICADO"}](PSF_instantanee_MICADO.png "fig:"){width="24.00000%"} ![From left to right: the ELT pupil, a typical residual phase map from COMPASS, a typical instantaneous PSF and a typical instantaneous coronagraphic image.[]{data-label="structMICADO"}](Corono_instantanee_MICADO.png "fig:"){width="24.00000%"}
Coronagraph simulation {#sec:corono}
----------------------
The 3600 AO-corrected phase maps calculated with COMPASS are sent to an IDL-based simulation tool dedicated to the estimation of high contrast performance of MICADO [@2014SPIE.9147E..9EB]. This simulation tool can simulate different types of coronagraph to the ELT pupil, add a set of static and/or quasi-static additional aberrations, do polychromatic simulation, include the atmospheric dispersion on each wavelength and perform the field rotation as a function of the declination of the target. The typical correlation time of quasi-static speckles and the amplitude of static and quasi-static speckles are difficult to estimate at this early stage of the telescope and instrument development. However, on a Nasmyth focus where MICADO will be installed, PT mode requires the rotation of optical elements. Thus we decided to introduce a fixed aberration phase map with respect to the instrument and an aberration phase map which rotates with the field of view. For the amplitude of the static and quasi-static aberrations, we based our estimation on the SPHERE estimation and we increased the amplitude. The specific hypotheses for the coronagraph simulation are given below:
- The CLC is defined by 3 parameters: $R_M$ the radius of the focal plane mask, $D_e$ the outer diameter of the Lyot stop and $D_i$ the inner diameter of the Lyot stop. $D_e$ and $D_i$ are defined in fraction of the pupil diameter.
- In case of polychromatic simulation: for each wavelength, the angular shift due to the atmospheric dispersion is computed and applied in the coronagraphic mask plane, following the model of [@1985spas.book.....G]. We used the reference values of atmospheric parameters given by ESO for the ELT : $P_{atmo}$ = 712mbar, $T_{atmo}$ = 9,1$^{\circ}$C and $H_{atmo}$ = 15%.
- Static aberrations have amplitude of 60nmRMS, with a variation of $\pm$6nmRMS which corresponds to the quasi-static aberrations. These values are derived from the experience with the SPHERE instrument [@2008SPIE.7015E..6EB]. The Power Spectral Density (PSD) of the aberrations is chosen to vary as $f^{-2}$ with $f$ the spatial frequency of the defects.
- The static aberration map is fixed, while the quasi-static aberration map rotates with the field of view. The rotation is given by the parallactic angle of the star, and it is set such that the star crosses the south meridian at the middle of the observation. The parallactic angle of each coronagraphic image is determined by the declination of the star, the total time of integration and the time of integration for a single coronagraphic image.
- For each wavelength and for each AO corrected phase map, a instantaneous coronagraphic and a non coronagraphic image are created. These images are stacked depending on the individual integration time (ex.: for an image of 10 seconds we stack 10 instantaneous image) and of the spectral bandwidth.
Coronagraph selection {#sec:selec}
---------------------
To take full advantage of the high angular resolution of the ELT, we decided to select a CLC with a focal plane mask with a small Inner Working Angle (IWA). For the second CLC we choose a focal plane mask with a medium IWA to take care of the PSF dispersion and to ensure a good sensibility of the coronagraphic mode. The radius of the small focal plane mask is called $R_{M1}$ and the $R_{M2}$ for the medium focal plane mask. The selection of the size of the 2 focal plane masks is linked to the selection of the dimension of the Lyot stop. The size of the 3 elements is optimized at the same time. Simulations were performed in monochromatic light at 2.2$\mu$m with 10 AO corrected phase maps (corresponding to a 10 seconds image). To do so, we defined a criterion that optimizes the contrast close to the center of the focale plane mask ($<$6$\lambda$/D) and the attenuation of the central peak in the coronagraphic image. This attenuation is mandatory to have enough dynamic range and avoid the saturation of the detector.\
We thus simulate coronagraphic images for several sizes of focal plane mask and Lyot stop. For each image we measure the mean contrast between $R_{M1}$+1$\lambda$/D and 6$\lambda$/D and the attenuation, defined as the maximum of the coronagraphic image divided by the maximum of the non-coronagraphic image. The multiplication of these two quantities gives the selection criterion, which is optimal when it is low. Figure \[selectionmask\] (a) shows the best values of the criterion as function of the radius of the focal plane mask. We identify 2 sizes of mask which match with the requirement at 2$\lambda$/D and 4$\lambda$/D, for $\lambda$=2.230$\mu$m (25.34 mas and 50.68 mas). The figure \[selectionmask\] (b) shows the optimal size of the Lyot stop for each size of the focal plane mask. The size is given in fraction of the pupil size, the red line corresponds to the size of the central obscuration and the blue line to the size of the outer part of the Lyot stop. As only one Lyot stop is available for both masks, we decide to select the Lyot stop that optimizes the small focal plane mask. The selected Lyot mask has thus an obscuration of 40% of the pupil diameter and an outer diameter of 88% of the pupil diameter. The total transmission of the Lyot stop, with respect to the ELT pupil is 66,1%.
![Left: the selection criterion for the CLC, which combines best contrast at small angular separation and best attenuation of the star as a function of the radius of the focal plane mask in $\lambda$/D (at 2.2$\mu$m). Two stages, hightlighted in the red circles, show the selected masks. Right: the size of the Lyot stop in fraction of the pupil size, as a function of the radius of the focal plane mask. Red lines are for the size of the obscuration of the Lyot stop, blue lines are for the size of the outer part of the Lyot stop and green lines are the selected size of the outer part and the obscuration of the Lyot stop.[]{data-label="selectionmask"}](fig2a_ao4elt.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Left: the selection criterion for the CLC, which combines best contrast at small angular separation and best attenuation of the star as a function of the radius of the focal plane mask in $\lambda$/D (at 2.2$\mu$m). Two stages, hightlighted in the red circles, show the selected masks. Right: the size of the Lyot stop in fraction of the pupil size, as a function of the radius of the focal plane mask. Red lines are for the size of the obscuration of the Lyot stop, blue lines are for the size of the outer part of the Lyot stop and green lines are the selected size of the outer part and the obscuration of the Lyot stop.[]{data-label="selectionmask"}](fig2b_ao4elt.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
Effect of atmospheric refraction {#sec:atmo}
================================
As explained previously, the ADC is placed after the focal plane where coronagraphic masks are located. This design has an impact on the high contrast imaging mode because the CLC will be less efficient due to the PSF elongation. Using reference values of the atmospheric parameters, we estimate the effect of the dispersion on the coronagraphic image. To simulate the dispersion effect of the atmosphere we used the approximation of [@1985spas.book.....G] : $$n_0(\lambda) \sin{z_0(\lambda)} = \sin{z}.$$ Where $n_0(\lambda)$ is the refraction index of the atmosphere at the telescope, $z_0(\lambda)$ the zenithal angle of the star seen by the telescope and $z(\lambda)$ the real zenithal angle of the star. Figure \[dispi\] (a) shows the size of the PSF (in the direction of the elongation) as a function of the zenithal angle (z) and figure \[dispi\] (b) shows some examples of PSF in J, H and K bands with a zenithal angle of 0 (no dispersion), 15, 30 and 45 degrees. Narrowband filters should not be significantly affected by the dispersion, especially in K band. However, broadband filters are more sensitive to the dispersion. The broadband filter Ks is not very affected by the dispersion when le zenithal angle is low, but in case of targets close to the horizon, the dispersion is very strong. Finally the two broadband filters H and J are strongly affected by the dispersion. In these bands, the medium focal plane mask is mandatory, while the small mask is usable for the other filters.
![Left: size of the PSF, following the atmospheric dispersion, in $\lambda_c$/D as a function of the zenithal angle $z$ and for all MICADO’s filters. Right: typical PSF shape deformed by the atmospheric dispersion with broadband filters J, H and K, for several values of the zenithal angle (0, 15, 30 and 45 degrees) in the case of standard atmospheric conditions.[]{data-label="dispi"}](fig3a_ao4elt.pdf "fig:"){width="54.00000%"} ![Left: size of the PSF, following the atmospheric dispersion, in $\lambda_c$/D as a function of the zenithal angle $z$ and for all MICADO’s filters. Right: typical PSF shape deformed by the atmospheric dispersion with broadband filters J, H and K, for several values of the zenithal angle (0, 15, 30 and 45 degrees) in the case of standard atmospheric conditions.[]{data-label="dispi"}](dispersion_atmo_JHK.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
One hour ADI observation simulation {#sec:adi}
===================================
To estimate the on-sky performance of the coronagraphic mode of MICADO we performed ADI simulations, that are then post-processed and compared to on-sky observation obtained with SPHERE. For these simulations we assume 360 coronagraphic images, corresponding to 10 seconds of exposure time for each image and a total of 1 hour of observation. We also assume 60nmRMS of static aberrations and 6nmRMS of quasi-static aberrations. The zenithal angle of the star at the meridian is 20 degrees for a total field rotation of 50 degrees, with atmospheric dispersion and considering several filters. The simulations are performed with the small focal mask (radius: 25.34mas), which is the most critical and the Lyot stop defined previously. Coronagraphic images are post-processed with a classical Angular Differential Imaging (cADI) method, to remove the stellar residuals. Speckles are calibrated with the median of the cube of coronagraphic images and subtracted to each image. Afterwards, the calibrated coronagraphic images are aligned in the same direction and stacked.
After that, the ADI image is converted into photon flux, including photon noise, electronic noise, background, quantum efficiency of the MICADO’s camera, atmospheric and telescope transmission. For each filters we determine the detection limits at $5\sigma$, normalized by the maximum of the PSF, as a function of the angular separation. These detection limits are computed by the standard deviation in an annulus for each angular separation.
A set of fake planets is simulate and compared to the detection limits [@2012RSPTA.370.2765A]. In this paper we present the results obtained for a 10Mys-old M0V-type star at 10pc, which corresponds to the debris disk host star, AU Mic. Fake planets have temperatures of 700, 900 and 1200K, which corresponds to 2, 3 and 5 Jupiter mass, respectively with a radius of one Jupiter. The projected separations are 50, 100, 150, 200 and 500mas, which corresponds to 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2 and 5au in this case.
An issue of the cADI post-processing is the self-subtraction of companions, which affects the accuracy of the photometry and the astrometry. To take care of this bias we calibrate the self-subtraction effect for each separation. As detection limits are directly compared to the flux of the fake planets, the self-subtraction effect is added to the flux of the fake planet. The same process is applied to the focal plane transmission, which is not equal to 100% for separation closer than 2$\lambda$/D after the mask radius.
Finally, the detection limits and the flux of fake planets are compared to the detection limits of observations of AU Mic with SPHERE, with similar filters. Figure \[detlim\] shows the results for filters H2 (SPHERE) and CH4-short (MICADO) at 1.582$\mu$m (left) and for filters K1 (SPHERE) and K1-mid (MICADO) at 2.1$\mu$m (right). MICADO detection limits are in blue and the detection limits of SPHERE are in magenta for cADI (line) and PCA (Principal Component Analysis, dash). The Cross symbols correspond to the flux of the simulated fake planets. Two clear important points are revealed from these detection limits: 1) with MICADO we can access to separations which are not available for SPHERE, with a similar contrast. This range of new separation ranges from $\sim$50mas to 150mas (the current SPHERE limit). 2) The detection limits in H band is very similar, but in K band, the MICADO detection limit is better than the SPHERE detection limit. This gap is mainly due to the strong SPHERE instrumental background in K band, but it should also be noted that the instrumental background of MICADO is currently deduced from theoretical studies.
![Left: detection limits at 5$\sigma$ for 1 hour ADI simulation in narrowband H (CH4-short) for a 10 My M0V star at 10pc and on-sky observations in narrowband H2 with SPHERE of AU Mic (10 My M0V star at 10pc) as a function of the angular separation in arcsec (top graduation). Bottom graduation is the angular separation in $\lambda$/D for the MICADO simulation only. Blue is the detection limit of MICADO ADI simulation, magenta is detection limit of SPHERE observation with cADI (full line) and PCA (dash line) reduction, black is the radial profile of the PSF, red is the radial profile of a raw image of MICADO simulation and the cross are the signal of simulated exoplanet with temperature of 1200K (orange), 900K (green) and 700K (brown). Right: same as left plot but for K1-mid filter for MICADO and K1 filter for SPHERE observation of AU Mic.[]{data-label="detlim"}]({LSi=0.400_LSe=0.880_turb=10_l=1.582_d=0.085_nb=3_z=-15_disp=2.00000_M0_10pc}.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Left: detection limits at 5$\sigma$ for 1 hour ADI simulation in narrowband H (CH4-short) for a 10 My M0V star at 10pc and on-sky observations in narrowband H2 with SPHERE of AU Mic (10 My M0V star at 10pc) as a function of the angular separation in arcsec (top graduation). Bottom graduation is the angular separation in $\lambda$/D for the MICADO simulation only. Blue is the detection limit of MICADO ADI simulation, magenta is detection limit of SPHERE observation with cADI (full line) and PCA (dash line) reduction, black is the radial profile of the PSF, red is the radial profile of a raw image of MICADO simulation and the cross are the signal of simulated exoplanet with temperature of 1200K (orange), 900K (green) and 700K (brown). Right: same as left plot but for K1-mid filter for MICADO and K1 filter for SPHERE observation of AU Mic.[]{data-label="detlim"}]({LSi=0.400_LSe=0.880_turb=10_l=2.100_d=0.100_nb=5_z=-15_disp=2.00000_M0_10pc}.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
Conclusion {#sec:conclu}
==========
The preliminary design of the CLC of the high contrast imaging mode for MICADO will provide comparable contrast than SPHERE at the same angular separation, with a gain between 50 and 150mas, which are inaccessible for SPHERE. The CLC is composed by two focal plane masks, one small to take advantage of the angular resolution of the ELT and a medium one to minimize the effect of the atmospheric dispersion. These two masks have a radius of 25 and 50mas respectively and the Lyot stop, which is unique for the two focal plane masks, has a diameter of 88% of the pupil diameter and a central obscuration of 40%, for a total of 66,1% of transmission. Simulations of observations show that using broadband filters degrade the image quality, due to the atmospheric dispersion. In these conditions narrowband filters are recommended to avoid this effect. These simulations shows that for MICADO, the contrast is dominated by the AO residual aberrations and consequently the effect of the static and quasi-static aberrations are not significant with respect to SPHERE. ADI simulations show that a gain in angular separation is possible with respect to GPI and SPHERE, with possible detection of hot and massive ($>$700K & $>$2$M_J$) exoplanets between 50 and 150mas. Moreover, a gain of contrast is expected in K band, because SPHERE is not optimized for this band. However, these simulations are preliminary and some perturbations have not been taken into account yet, like jitter effect of the PSF or the real instrumental background of the entire instrument (MICADO, MAORY and the ELT). But, despite these hypotheses, simulations are still instructive and give the potential of the high contrast imaging mode of MICADO. The next step of the study is to merge the code of high contrast imaging and the COMPASS program. This merging will provide fast simulations and the possibility to add different features like jitter, Vortex coronagraph, etc.
The authors thank the MICADO team for its contribution to the design of the instrument. The authors thank ESO, CNRS/INSU and Observatoire de Paris for their financial support.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, $B=3$ soliton solutions with tetrahedral symmetry are obtained numerically in the chiral quark soliton model using the rational map ansatz. The solution exhibits a triply degenerate bound spectrum of the quark orbits in the background of tetrahedrally symmetric pion field configuration. The corresponding baryon density is tetrahedral in shape. Our numerical technique is independent on the baryon number and its application to $B \geq 4$ is straightforward.'
author:
- 'Nobuyuki Sawado, Noriko Shiiki'
title: $B=3$ Tetrahedrally Symmetric Solitons in the Chiral Quark Soliton Model
---
The Chiral Quark Soliton Model (CQSM) was developed in 1980’s as an effective theory of QCD interpolating between the Constituent Quark Model and Skyrme Model [@diakonov; @cqsm]. In the large $N_{c}$ limit, these models are identical [@manohar].
The CQSM is derived from the instanton liquid model of the QCD vacuum and incorporates the non-perturbative feature of the low-energy QCD, spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking. The vacuum functional is defined by;
$$\begin{aligned}
{\cal Z} = \int {\cal D}\pi{\cal D}\psi{\cal D}\psi^{\dagger}\exp \left[
i \int d^{4}x \, \bar{\psi} \left(i\!\!\not\!\partial
- mU^{\gamma_{5}}\right) \psi \right] \label{vacuum_functional}\end{aligned}$$
where the SU(2) matrix $$\begin{aligned}
U^{\gamma_{5}}= \frac{1+\gamma_{5}}{2} U + \frac{1-\gamma_{5}}{2} U^{\dagger}
\,\,\,{\rm with} \,\,\,\,
U=\exp \left( i \vec{\tau} \!\cdot\! \vec{\pi}/f_{\pi} \right) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ describes chiral fields, $\psi$ is quark fields and $m$ is the dynamical quark mass. $f_{\pi} $ is the pion decay constant and experimentally $f_{\pi} \sim 93 {\rm MeV}$. Since our concern is the tree-level pions and one-loop quarks according to the Hartree mean field approach, the kinetic term of the pion fields which gives a contribution to higher loops can be neglected. Due to the interaction between the valence quarks and the Dirac sea, soliton solutions appear as bound states of quarks in the background of self-consistent mean chiral field. $N_{c}$ valence quarks fill the each bound state to form a baryon. The baryon number is thus identified with the number of bound states filled by the valence quarks [@kahana].
For $B=1$ and $2$, the spherically symmetric soliton [@meissner; @reinhardt; @wakamatsu] and the axially symmetric soliton [@sawado] were found respectively. Upon quantization, the intermediate states of nucleon and deuteron between the Constituent Quark Model and Skyrme Model were obtained.
The vacuum functional in Eq.(\[vacuum\_functional\]) can be integrated over the quark fields to obtain the effective action
$$\begin{aligned}
S_{{\rm eff}}[U]&=&-iN_{c}{\rm lndet}\left(i
\!\!\not\!\partial - mU^{\gamma_{5}}\right)\label{effective_action1}\\
&=&-\frac{i}{2}N_{c}{\rm Spln}D^{\dagger}D
\label{effective_action2}\end{aligned}$$
where $D=i\!\!\not\!\partial - mU^{\gamma_{5}}$. This determinant is ultraviolet divergent and must be regularized. Using the proper-time regularization scheme, we can write
$$\begin{aligned}
S^{{\rm reg}}_{{\rm eff}}[U]=\frac{i}{2}N_{c}
\int^{\infty}_{1/\Lambda^2}\frac{d\tau}{\tau}{\rm Sp}\left(
{\rm e}^{-D^{\dagger}D\tau}-{\rm e}^{-D_{0}^{\dagger}D_{0}\tau}\right)
=\frac{i}{2}N_{c}T\int^{\infty}_{-\infty}\frac{d\omega}{2\pi}
\int^{\infty}_{1/\Lambda^2}\frac{d\tau}{\tau}{\rm Sp}\left[{\rm e}
^{-\tau (H^2+\omega^2)}-{\rm e}^{-\tau (H_{0}^2+\omega^2)}\right]
\label{regularised_action}\end{aligned}$$
where $T$ is the Euclidean time separation, $\Lambda$ is a cut-off parameter evaluated by the condition that the derivative expansion of Eq.(\[effective\_action1\]) reproduces the pion kinetic term with the correct coefficient ${\it i.e.}$ $$\begin{aligned}
f_{\pi}^2=\frac{N_{c}m^2}{4\pi^2}\int^{\infty}_{1/\Lambda^2}
\frac{d\tau}{\tau}{\rm e}^{-\tau m^2}
\,\, , \label{cutoff_parameter}\end{aligned}$$ and $H$ is the Dirac one-quark Hamiltonian defined by $$\begin{aligned}
H=\frac{\vec{\alpha}\!\cdot\!\vec{\nabla}}{\it{i}}+\beta m
U^{\gamma_{5}}\,\,. \label{}\end{aligned}$$ $D_{0}\equiv D(U=1)$ and $H_{0}\equiv H(U=1)$ correspond to the vacuum sectors.
At $T \rightarrow \infty$, we have ${\rm e}^{iS_{{\rm eff}}}
\sim {\rm e}^{-iE_{sea}T}$. Integrating over $\omega$ in (\[regularised\_action\]) and constructing a complete set of eigenstates of $H$ with $$\begin{aligned}
H|\nu\rangle = \epsilon_{\nu}|\nu\rangle\,\, ,\,\,\,
H_{0}|\nu\rangle^{(0)} = \epsilon^{(0)}_{\nu}|\nu\rangle^{(0)}
\,\, , \label{eigen_equation}\end{aligned}$$ one obtains the sea quark energy [@meissner2]
$$\begin{aligned}
E_{sea}[U]=\frac{1}{4\sqrt{\pi}}N_{c}\int^{\infty}_{1/\Lambda^2}
\frac{d\tau}{\tau^{3/2}}\left(\sum_{\nu}{\rm e}^{-\tau\epsilon_{\nu}^2}
-\sum_{\nu}{\rm e}^{-\tau\epsilon^{(0)2}_{\nu}}\right)\,\, .
\label{energy_sea} \label{enegy_sea}\end{aligned}$$
In the Hartree picture, the baryon states are the quarks occupying all negative Dirac sea and valence levels. Hence, if we define the total soliton energy $E_{total}$, the valence quark energy should be added; $$\begin{aligned}
E_{total}[U]=N_{c}\sum_{i}E_{val}^{(i)}[U]+E_{sea}[U]\,\,.
\label{energy_total}\end{aligned}$$ where $E_{val}^{i}$ is the valence quark contribution to the $i$ th baryon.
The baryon density $\langle b_{0}\rangle$ for the baryon number $B$ soliton is defined by the zeroth component of the baryon current [@reinhardt]; $$\begin{aligned}
\langle b_{0}\rangle &=& \frac{1}{N_{c} B}\langle\bar{\psi}\gamma_{0}
\psi\rangle
= \frac{1}{N_{c} B}\left[\sum_{\nu}\bigl(n_\nu\theta(\epsilon_{\nu}) +{\rm sign}(\epsilon_{\nu})
{\cal N} (\epsilon_{\nu})\bigr)\langle \nu|\vec{r}\rangle\langle \vec{r}|\nu\rangle
-\sum_{\nu}{\rm sign}(\epsilon_{\nu}^{(0)}){\cal N}(\epsilon_{\nu}^{(0)})
\langle \nu|\vec{r}\rangle^{(0)} \langle\vec{r}|\nu\rangle^{(0)}
\right] \label{baryon_density}\end{aligned}$$
where $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal N}(\epsilon_{\nu})=-\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi}}\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2},
\left(\frac{\epsilon_\nu}{\Lambda}\right)^2\right)\end{aligned}$$ and $n_\nu$ is the valence quark occupation number.
{height="9cm" width="14cm"}
For $B=3$, it is expected the solution to have a tetrahedral symmetry from the study of the Skyrme model [@braaten]. Therefore, we shall impose the same symmetry on the chiral fields using the rational map ansatz. According to the ansatz, the chiral field can be expressed as [@manton]
$$\begin{aligned}
U(r,z)=\exp \left( i f(r) \vec{n}_{R}\!\cdot\!\vec{\tau}\right)
\label{chiral_field} \end{aligned}$$
where $$\begin{aligned}
\vec{n}_{R}=\frac{1}{1+|R(z)|^2}\left(\rm{2Re}[\it{R(z)}],
\rm{2Im}[\it{R(z)}],\rm{1}-|\it{R(z)}|^2\right)\end{aligned}$$ and $R(z)$ is a rational map.
Rational maps are maps from $CP(1)$ to $CP(1)$ (equivalently, from $S^2$ to $S^2$) classified by winding number. It was shown in [@manton] that $B=N$ skyrmions can be well-approximated by rational maps with winding number $N$. The rational map with winding number $N$ possesses $(2N+1)$ complex parameters whose values can be determined by imposing the symmetry of the skyrmion. Thus, $B=3$ rational map with tetrahedral symmetry takes the form;
$$\begin{aligned}
R(z)=\frac{\sqrt{3}iz^{2}-1}{z(z^{2}-\sqrt{3}i)}
\label{rational_map}\end{aligned}$$
where the complex coordinate $z$ on $CP(1)$ is identified with the polar coordinates on $S^2$ by $z=\tan (\theta /2){\rm e}^{i\varphi}$ via stereographic projection. Substituting (\[rational\_map\]) into (\[chiral\_field\]), one obtains the complete form of the chiral fields with tetrahedral symmetry and winding number 3.
Apparently, the chiral fields in (\[chiral\_field\]) takes a spherically symmetric form. Therefore one can apply the numerical technique developed for $B=1$ to find $B=3$ with tetrahedral symmetry [@wakamatsu].
Demanding that the total energy in (\[energy\_total\]) be stationary with respect to variation of the profile function $f(r)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\delta}{\delta f(r)}E_{total}=0 \,\, ,\end{aligned}$$ yeilds the field equation $$\begin{aligned}
S(r)\sin f(r)=P(r)\cos f(r) \label{field_equation}\end{aligned}$$ where
$$\begin{aligned}
&&S(r)=N_{c}\sum_{\nu}\bigl(n_\nu\theta(\epsilon_{\nu})+{\rm sign}(\epsilon_{\nu})
{\cal N}(\epsilon_{\nu})\bigr)\langle \nu|\gamma^{0}\delta(|x|-r)|\nu\rangle \\
&&P(r)=N_{c}\sum_{\nu}\bigl(n_\nu\theta(\epsilon_{\nu})+{\rm sign}(\epsilon_{\nu})
{\cal N}(\epsilon_{\nu})\bigr)\langle \nu|i \gamma^{0}\gamma^{5}\vec{n}_{R}
\cdot\vec{\tau}\delta(|x|-r)|\nu\rangle\,\, .\end{aligned}$$
(0 0) (1 1) (1 0) (1 -1) (2 2) (2 1) (2 0) (2 -1) (2 -2)
-------- ------- ------- ------- ---------- ------- ---------- ------- -------- --------
(0 0) $S$ $S$
(1 1) $P_1$ $P_1$
(1 0) $P_0$ $P_0$ $P_0$
(1 -1) $P_{-1}$ $P_{-1}$
(2 2) $P_0$ $P_0$ $P_0$
(2 1) $P_{-1}$ $P_{-1}$
(2 0) $S$ $S$
(2 -1) $P_1$ $P_1$
(2 -2) $P_0$ $P_0$ $P_0$
: \[tab:helement\] A schematic picture of the matrix elements ${\bf A}(K^{\prime}
M^{\prime}, KM)$ up to $K,K^{\prime}=2$. $S$, $P_1$, $P_0$ and $P_{-1}$ refer to the elements coupled with $(K,M)=(0,0)$, $(1,1)$, $(1,0)$ and $(1,-1)$ respectively. Other elements are all 0.
The procedure to obtain the self-consistent solution of Eq.(\[field\_equation\]) is that $1)$ solve the eigenequation in (\[eigen\_equation\]) under an assumed initial profile function $f_{0}(r)$, $2)$ use the resultant eigenfunctions and eigenvalues to calculate $S(r)$ and $P(r)$, $3)$ solve Eq.(\[field\_equation\]) to obtain a new profile function, $4)$ repeat $1)-3)$ until the self-consistency is attained.
For convenience, we shall take $f_{0}(r)=-\pi {\rm e}^{-r/X}$. To solve Eq.(\[eigen\_equation\]), we construct the trial function using the Kahana-Ripka basis [@kahana]; $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi^{\pm}=\lim_{K_{max}\rightarrow \infty}\sum_{i=1}^{4}
\sum_{K=0}^{K_{max}}\sum_{M=-K}^{K}\alpha_{KM}^{(i)\pm}
\varphi_{KM}^{(i)\pm}(r,\theta,\phi)\label{}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Psi^{+}$ and $\Psi^{-}$ stand for parity $(-1)^{K}$ and $(-1)^{K+1}$ respectively, $\varphi$ is the Kahana-Ripka basis and $K$ is the grand spin operator which is a good quantum number in the case of $B=1$ hedgehog. The basis is discretized by imposing an appropriate boundary condition for the radial wavefunctions at the radius $r_{max}$ chosen to be sufficiently larger than the soliton size. And also, the basis is made finite by including only those states with the momentum $k$ as $k<k_{max}$. The results should be, however, independent on $r_{max}$ and $k_{max}$.
According to the Rayleigh-Ritz variational method [@bransden], the upper bound of the spectrum can be obtained from the secular equation for each parity; $$\begin{aligned}
\rm{det}\left(\bf{A}^{\pm}-\epsilon \bf{B}^{\pm}\right) = 0
\label{secular_equation}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf A}^{\pm}(K^{\prime}M^{\prime}, KM)&=&\sum_{ij=1}^{4}
\int d^{3}x \varphi_{K^{\prime}M^{\prime}}^{(i)\pm}H
\varphi_{KM}^{(j)\pm} \\
{\bf B}^{\pm}(K^{\prime}M^{\prime}, KM)&=&\sum_{ij=1}^{4}
\int d^{3}x \varphi_{K^{\prime}M^{\prime}}^{(i)\pm}
\varphi_{KM}^{(j)\pm}\,\, .\end{aligned}$$ For $K \rightarrow \infty$, the spectrum $\epsilon$ becomes exact. Eq.(\[secular\_equation\]) can be solved numerically.
Since the chiral field in Eq.(\[chiral\_field\]) is less symmetric than the $B=1$ hedgehog, the hamiltonian has no grand spin symmetry. As a result, the states with different grand spin couple strongly and level splittings within the $K$ blocks occur. In Table \[tab:helement\] we present the schematic picture of the matrix elements ${\bf A}(K^{\prime}M^{\prime}, KM)$. Although the size of the matrix ${\bf A}(K^{\prime}M^{\prime}, KM)$ becomes quite large, due to the symmetry of the chiral fields, the functional space can be rearranged to reduce the size. Consequently, the space is divided with four blocks for each parity.
![\[fig:density\] Surface of the baryon-number density with $b_0=0.4\,\,{\rm fm^{-3}}$ .](Fig2-2.eps)
![\[fig:profile\] Profile function $f(r)$ of the rational map ansatz for $B=3$, and of the hedgehog ansatz for $B=1$. ](Fig3.eps){height="6cm" width="9cm"}
Fig. \[fig:spectrum\] shows the spectrum of the quark orbits as a function of the soliton-size parameter $X$. The $P^{+}$ orbit diving into the negative energy region is triply degenerate. As discussed in [@kahana], baryon number of the soliton equals to the number of diving levels occupied by $N_{c}$ valence quarks. Thus putting $N_c=3$ valence quarks on each of the degenerate levels, one obtains the $B=3$ soliton solution.
Fig. \[fig:density\] shows the corresponding baryon density. As can be seen, it is tetrahedral in shape. Therefore, we confirm that the lowest lying $B=3$ configuration is tetrahedrally symmetric. This result is consistent with the $B=3$ skyrmion obtained by Braaten [*et.al*]{} [@braaten].
Fig. \[fig:profile\] shows the self-consistent profile function. For the total energy of the solution we obtain $E_{total}=3596$ MeV which is almost comparable to three times of the $B=1$ mass, and root mean square radius is $\sqrt{\langle r^2 \rangle} \sim 0.6$ fm. Our soliton seems to be tight object. This is mainly due to the missing of higher components of $K$ in our calculation. Their contribution becomes significant near the surface of the soliton and hence inclusion of the higher components will improve the size of the soliton.
Finally, we would like to mention that our result verifies the validity of the rational map ansatz for the Chiral Quark Soliton Model. The numerical technique used here is quite general and its application to $B\ge 4$ will be straightforward.
[**Acknowledgements**]{}
We are grateful to N.S.Manton for encouraging us to work on this subject and useful comments. We also thank V.B.Kopeliovich for suggesting this topic.
[99]{}
D. I. Diakonov and V. Yu. Petrov, Nucl. Phys. [**B306**]{}, 457 (1986); hep-ph/9802298.
R. Alkofer, H. Reinhardt and H. Weigel, Phys. Rept. [**265**]{}, 139 (1996); Chr. V. Christov, A. Blotz, H.-C.Kim, P. Pobylitsa, T. Watabe, Th. Meissner, E. Ruiz Arriola, K. Goeke, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**37**]{}, 91 (1996).
A. Manohar, Nucl. Phys. [**B248**]{}, 19 (1984).
S. Kahana and G. Ripka, Nucl. Phys. [**A429**]{}, 462 (1984).
Th. Meissner, E. Ruiz Arriola, F. Grümmer and K. Goeke Phys. Lett. [**B227**]{}, 296 (1989).
H. Reinhardt and R. Wünsch, Phys. Lett. [**B215**]{}, 577 (1988).
M. Wakamatsu and H. Yoshiki, Nucl. Phys. [**A524**]{}, 561 (1991).
N. Sawado and S. Oryu, Phys. Rev. [**C58**]{}, R3046 (1998); N. Sawado, Phys. Rev. [**C61**]{}, 65206 (2000).
Th. Meissner, E. Ruiz Arriola, F. Grümmer, H. Mavromatis and K. Goeke, Phys. Lett. [**B214**]{}, 312 (1988).
E. Braaten, S. Townsend and L. Carson, Phys. Lett. [**B235**]{}, 147 (1990).
C. J. Houghton, N. S. Manton and P. M. Sutcliffe, Nucl. Phys. [**B510**]{}, 507 (1998).
B. H. Bransden and C. J. Joachain, *[Introduction to Quantum Mechanics]{} (Longman Scientific Technical, 1989)*
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We present a nonlinear partial difference equation defined on a square which is obtained by combining the Miura transformations between the Volterra and the modified Volterra differential-difference equations. This equation is not symmetric with respect to the exchange of the two discrete variables. Its integrability is proved by constructing its Lax pair.'
author:
- |
[**D. Levi**]{}\
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Elettronica,\
Università degli Studi Roma Tre and Sezione INFN, Roma Tre,\
Via della Vasca Navale 84, 00146 Roma, Italy\
[*E-mail: [email protected]*]{}
- |
[**R.I. Yamilov**]{}\
Ufa Institute of Mathematics, Russian Academy of Sciences,\
112 Chernyshevsky Street, Ufa 450077, Russian Federation\
[*E-mail: [email protected]*]{}
title: '**On a nonlinear integrable difference equation on the square**'
---
The uncovery of new nonlinear integrable completely discrete equations is always a very challenging problem as, by proper continuous limits, many other results on differential-difference and partial differential equations can be obtained. In the case of differential equations by now a lot is known starting from the pioneering works by Gardner, Green, Kruskal and Miura. A summary of these results is already of public domain and presented for example in the Encyclopedia of Mathematical Physics [@emp] or in the Encyclopedia of Nonlinear Science [@ens]. Among those results let us mention the classification scheme of nonlinear integrable partial differential equations introduced by Shabat using the formal symmetry approach, see [@msy] for a review. The classification of differential-difference equations has also been carried out using the formal symmetry approach by Yamilov [@y83] and it is a well defined procedure which can be easily computerized for many families of equations [@ly; @y06].
In the completely discrete case the situation is different. Many researchers have tried to carry out the approach of formal symmetries introduced by Shabat, without any success up to now. One of the first exhaustive results in this context, based on completely different ideas, is given by the Adler-Bobenko-Suris (ABS) classification of $\mathbb{Z}^2$-lattice equations defined on the square lattice [@abs]. By now many results are known on the ABS equations, see for instance [@ra; @gr; @lp; @lps]. However the analysis of the transformation properties of these lattice equations cannot be considered yet complete and new results which help the understanding of the interrelations between them and some differential-difference equations can still be found [@lpsy].
A two-dimensional partial difference equation is a functional relation among the values of a function $u: \mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb Z \rightarrow \mathbb C$ at different points of the lattice of indices $i,j$. It involves the independent variables $i,j$ and the lattice parameters $\alpha, \beta \in \mathbb C$: $$\mathcal E (i,j, u_{i,j}, u_{i+1,j},u_{i,j+1},...; \alpha, \beta)=0.$$
The so-called ABS list of integrable lattice equations is given by those affine linear (i.e. polynomial of degree one in each argument) partial difference equations of the form \[jj\] E (i,j, u\_[i,j]{}, u\_[i+1,j]{}, u\_[i,j+1]{}, u\_[i+1,j+1]{}; , )=0, whose integrability is based on the [*consistency around a cube*]{} (or 3D-consistency) [@abs].
(200,140)(-50,-20) ( 0, 0)[(1,0)[100]{}]{} ( 0,100)[(1,0)[100]{}]{} ( 0, 0)[(0,1)[100]{}]{} (100, 0)[(0,1)[100]{}]{} (-32,-13)[$u_{i,j}$]{} (-19,47)[$\beta$]{} (47,-15)[$\alpha$]{} (103,-13)[$u_{i+1,j}$]{} (103,110)[$u_{i+1,j+1}$]{} (-32,110)[$u_{i,j+1}$]{}
(200,170)(-50,-20) (100, 0) (0 ,100) ( 50, 30) (150,130) ( 0, 0) (100,100) ( 50,130) (150, 30) ( 0, 0)[(1,0)[100]{}]{} ( 0,100)[(1,0)[100]{}]{} (50,130)[(1,0)[100]{}]{} (50,30)(20,0)[5]{}[(1,0)[15]{}]{} ( 0, 0)[(0,1)[100]{}]{} (100, 0)[(0,1)[100]{}]{} (150,30)[(0,1)[100]{}]{} (50,30)(0,20)[5]{}[(0,1)[15]{}]{} ( 0,100)[(5,3)[50]{}]{} (100,100)[(5,3)[50]{}]{} (100, 0)[(5,3)[50]{}]{} (50,30)(-16.67,-10)[3]{}[(-5,-3)[12]{}]{} (-10,-13)[$u_{i,j,k}$]{} (90,-13)[$u_{i+1,j,k}$]{} (50,17)[$u_{i,j,k+1}$]{} (-13,110)[$u_{i,j+1,k}$]{} (160,25)[$u_{i+1,j,k+1}$]{} (45,140)[$u_{i,j+1,k+1}$]{} (109,95)[$u_{i+1,j+1,k}$]{} (157,135)[$u_{i+1,j+1,k+1}$]{} (40,-13)[$\alpha$]{} (-16,50)[$\beta$]{} (20,25)[$\gamma$]{}
The main idea of the consistency method is the following. One starts from a square lattice, defines the variables on the vertices $u_{i,j}, u_{i+1,j}, u_{i,j+1}, u_{i+1,j+1}$ (see Figure 1) and considers the multilinear equation relating these variables, namely eq. (\[jj\]). By solving it for $u_{i+1,j+1}$ one obtains a rational expression and the same holds for any field variable. One then adjoins a third direction and imagines the map giving $u_{i+1,j+1,k+1}$ as being the composition of maps on the various planes (see Figure 2). There exist three different ways to obtain $u_{i+1,j+1,k+1}$ and the consistency constraint is that they all lead to the same result. This gives strict conditions on the nonlinear equation, but they are not sufficient to determine it completely. Two further constraints have been introduced by Adler, Bobenko and Suris. They are:
- [*$D_4$-symmetry*]{}. $\mathcal E$ is invariant under the group of the square symmetries: $$\mathcal E (u_{i,j}, u_{i+1,j}, u_{i,j+1}, u_{i+1,j+1}; \alpha, \beta) =
\pm \mathcal E (u_{i,j}, u_{i,j+1}, u_{i+1,j}, u_{i+1,j+1}; \beta, \alpha) =$$$$\pm \mathcal E (u_{i+1,j}, u_{i,j}, u_{i+1,j+1}, u_{i,j+1}; \alpha, \beta).$$
- [*Tetrahedron property*]{}. The function $u_{i+1,j+1,k+1}$ is independent of $u_{i,j,k}$.
The following transformations, which do not violate the two constraints listed above, are assumed to identify equivalence classes:
- Action on all field variables by one and the same (independent of lattice parameter) Möbius transformation.
- Simultaneous point change of all parameters.
Under the above constraints Adler, Bobenko and Suris obtained a complete classification of $\mathbb{Z}^2$-lattice systems, whose integrability is ensured as the [*consistency around a cube*]{} also furnishes their Lax pairs [@abs; @bob; @ni].
As it is known [@lss], the modified Volterra equation \[b1\] u\_[i,t]{} = (u\_i\^2 -1) (u\_[i+1]{} - u\_[i-1]{}) is transformed into the Volterra equation $v_{i,t} = v_i (v_{i+1} - v_{i-1})$ by two discrete Miura transformations: \[b2\] v\_i\^= (u\_[i+1]{} 1) (u\_i 1) . For any solution $u_i$ of eq. (\[b1\]), one obtains by the transformations (\[b2\]) two solutions $v_i^+,v_i^-$ of the Volterra equation. From a solution of the Volterra equation $v_i$ we obtain two solutions of the modified Volterra equation $u_{i,0}$ and $u_{i,1}$. The composition of the Miura transformations (\[b2\]) \[b3\] v\_i = (u\_[i+1,0]{} +1) (u\_[i,0]{} -1) = (u\_[i+1,1]{} -1) (u\_[i,1]{} +1) provides a Bäcklund transformation for eq. (\[b1\]). Eq. (\[b3\]) provides a way to construct from a solution $u_{i,0}$ of eq. (\[b1\]) a new solution $u_{i,1}$. Iterating eq. (\[b3\]), one can construct infinitely many solutions: $$\dots \leftarrow u_{i,-2} \leftarrow u_{i,-1} \leftarrow u_{i,0} \rightarrow u_{i,1} \rightarrow u_{i,2} \rightarrow \dots$$ Rewriting eq. (\[b3\]) as a chain of equations relating the solutions $u_{i,j}$, we obtain the following completely discrete equation on the square: \[b4\] (u\_[i+1,j]{} +1) (u\_[i,j]{} -1) = (u\_[i+1,j+1]{} -1) (u\_[i,j+1]{} +1) .
This equation does not belong to the ABS classification, as it is not invariant under the exchange of $i$ and $j$. However eq. (\[b4\]) is invariant under a rotational symmetry of $\pi$. By a straightforward calculation, using a symbolic computation program like Maple, one can easily show its 3D-inconsistency. Recently Adler, Bobenko and Suris [@abs1] extended the previous definition to systems of equations 3D-consistent on a cube to the case when the two equations of the Lax pair are different. Then eq. (\[b4\]) can be embedded into such a 3D-consistent system [@tx]. Moreover eq. (\[b4\]) can be easily transformed in the discrete version of the Volterra–Kac–van Moerbeke equation [@NC].
The construction of the Lax pair can be done in a way that is parallel to the derivation of the nonlinear difference equation done above. Let us consider the spectral problem for the modified Volterra equation (\[b1\]) \[l1\] L\_i = (
[cc]{} -\^[-1]{} & u\_i\
-u\_i &
) , found in [@al], and the standard scalar spectral problem of the Volterra equation, written in matrix form, \[l2\] M\_i = (
[cc]{} -\^[-1]{} & -v\_i\
1 & 0
). The existence of the two Miura transformations (\[b2\]) between the two equations imply the existence of two nonsingular Darboux matrices $E^{(+)}_{i}, E^{(-)}_{i}$ between the spectral problems: \[l3\] E\^[(+)]{}\_[i]{} = (
[cc]{} 1 & v\_i(u\_[i,0]{} + 1)\
& - v\_i(1 + u\_[i,0]{})
), E\^[(-)]{}\_[i]{} = (
[cc]{} -1 & v\_i(u\_[i,1]{} -1)\
& - v\_i(1 -u\_[i,1]{})
) . The matrix $E^{(+)}_{i}$ will provide a solution $u_{i,0}$ of the modified Volterra equation, while the matrix $E^{(-)}_{i}$ will provide a different solution, $u_{i,1}$. So, the two solutions $u_{i,0}$ and $u_{i,1}$ are given by the two Lax equations \[l4\] E\^[(+)]{}\_[i+1]{} M\_i = L\_[i,0]{} E\^[(+)]{}\_[i]{} , E\^[(-)]{}\_[i+1]{} M\_i = L\_[i,1]{} E\^[(-)]{}\_[i]{} , where \[ll\] L\_[i,j]{} = (
[cc]{} -\^[-1]{} & u\_[i,j]{}\
-u\_[i,j]{} &
) .
The equation (\[b3\]), relating the two solutions $u_{i,0}$ and $u_{i,1}$, is obtained by eliminating from eqs. (\[l4\]) the matrix $M_i$ and the dependence of $v_i$. So its Lax equation is given by \[l5\] N\_[i+1,0]{} L\_[i,0]{} = L\_[i,1]{} N\_[i,0]{} , where $N_{i,0} = E^{(-)}_{i} ( E^{(+)}_{i})^{-1}$. Taking into account the definition (\[l3\]), formulae (\[b3\]) for $v_i$, the discrete equation (\[b4\]), and introducing as before the chain of equations for any $j$, we get that the Lax equation associated to eq. (\[b4\]) is given by $$N_{i+1,j} L_{i,j} = L_{i,j+1} N_{i,j},$$ with $L_{i,j}$ given by eq. (\[ll\]) and $$N_{i,j} =
\left( \begin{array}{cc}
\lambda w_{i,j} - \lambda^{-1} & -(w_{i,j} + 1) \\
w_{i,j} + 1 & \lambda - \lambda^{-1} w_{i,j}
\end{array} \right) , \qquad
w_{i,j} = \frac{u_{i,j} +1}{u_{i,j+1} -1} .$$
This is not the only case when we can encounter 3D–inconsistent integrable equations. For example, the modified–modified Volterra equation will provide in the same way a discrete equation on the square \[a16\] (1 + u\_[i,j]{} u\_[i+1,j]{})(u\_[i+1,j+1]{} + \^[-1]{} u\_[i,j+1]{})=(1 + u\_[i,j+1]{} u\_[i+1,j+1]{})(u\_[i,j]{} + \^[-1]{} u\_[i+1,j]{}), where $\mu$ is an arbitrary non–zero constant. This equation has the same symmetry properties as eq. (\[b4\]) and is also 3D–inconsistent when $\mu^4 \ne 1$. For $\mu^4=1$ eq. (\[a16\]) is 3D–consistent, but in this case the equation is degenerate and can be written as $(T_j \pm 1 ) \frac{\mu u_{i,j}+ \mu^{-1} u_{i+1,j}}{1 + u_{i,j} u_{i+1,j}} =0$, where $T_j$ is the shift operator for the $j$ index. Also eq. (\[a16\]) can be embedded into a system 3D-consistent on a cube [@tx].
#### Acknowledgments.
R.I.Y. has been partially supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Grant numbers 07-01-00081-a and 08-01-00440-a). D.L. has been partially supported by PRIN Project [*Metodi matematici nella teoria delle onde nonlineari ed applicazioni – 2006*]{} of the Italian Ministry of Education and Scientific Research. R.I.Y. and D.L. thank the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences for their hospitality during the [*Discrete Integrable Systems*]{} program and thank A. Tongas and P. Xenitidis for useful discussions.
[99]{}
Ablowitz M.J. and Ladik J.F., *Nonlinear differential-difference equations and Fourier analysis*, J. Math. Phys. [**17**]{}/6 1011–1018 (1976).
Adler V.E., Bobenko A.I. and Suris Yu.B., *Classification of integrable equations on quad-graphs. The consistency approach*, Comm. Math. Phys. [**233**]{}/3 513–543 (2003).
Adler V. E., Bobenko A.I. and Suris Yu.B., *Discrete nonlinear hyperbolic equations. Classification of integrable cases*, [arXiv:0705.1663v1]{}.
Bobenko A.I. and Suris Yu.B., *Integrable systems on quad-graphs*, Int. Math. Res. Not. [**11**]{} 573–611 (2002).
*Encyclopedia of Mathematical Physics*, Edited by J.P. Francoise, G. Naber, S.T. Tsou (Elsevier, 2007).
*Encyclopedia of Nonlinear Science*, Edited by A. Scott. (Routledge, New York, 2005). ISBN: 1-57958-385-7
Levi D. and Petrera M., *Continuous symmetries of the lattice potential KdV equation*, J. Phys. A [**40**]{} 4141–4159 (2007).
Levi D., Petrera M. and Scimiterna C., *The lattice Schwarzian KdV equation and its symmetries*, J. Phys. A [**40**]{} 12753–12761 (2007).
D. Levi, M. Petrera, C. Scimiterna and R. Yamilov, *On Miura transformations and Volterra-type equations associated with the Adler-Bobenko-Suris equations*, SIGMA [**4**]{} (2008) 077. [arXiv:0802.1850]{}
Levi D. and Yamilov R., *Conditions for the existence of higher symmetries of evolutionary equations on the lattice*, J. Math. Phys. [**38**]{}/12 6648–6674 (1997).
Mikhailov A.V., Shabat A.B. and Yamilov R.I., *The symmetry approach to the classification of nonlinear equations. Complete lists of integrable systems*, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk [**42**]{}/4 3–53 (1887) (in Russian); English transl. in Russian Math. Surveys [**42**]{}/4 1–63 (1987).
Nijhoff F.W., *Lax Pair for the Adler (lattice Krichever-Novikov) system*, Phys. Lett. A [**297**]{} 49–58 (2002).
Nijhoff F.W. and Capel H., *The discrete Korteweg-de Vries equation*, Proc. Int. Workshop KdV ’95 (Amsterdam, 1995), Acta Appl. Math. [**39**]{} 133–158 (1995).
, *Symmetries of integrable difference equations on the quad-graph*, Stud. Appl. Math. [**119**]{}/3 253–269 (2007).
, *Affine linear and $D_4$ symmetric lattice equations: symmetry analysis and reductions*, J. Phys. A [**40**]{} 13353–13384 (2007).
, private communication.
Wadati M., *Transformation theories for nonlinear discrete systems*, Suppl. Progr. Theor. Phys. [**59**]{} 36–63 (1976).
, *Classification of discrete evolution equations*, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk [**38**]{}/6 155–156 (1983) (in Russian).
, *Symmetries as integrability criteria for differential difference equations*, J. Phys. A [**39**]{} R541–R623 (2006).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'A Gaussian operator representation for the many body density matrix of fermionic systems, developed by Corney and Drummond \[[*Phys. Rev. Lett*]{}, [**93**]{}, 260401 (2004)\], is used to derive approximate decoupling schemes for their dynamics. In this approach the reduced single electron density matrix elements serve as stochastic variables which satisfy an exact Fokker-Planck equation. The number of variables scales as $\sim N^2$ rather than $\sim \exp (N)$ with the basis set size, and the time dependent Hartree Fock approximation (TDHF) is recovered in the “classical” limit. An approximate closed set of equations of motion for the one and two-particle reduced density matrices, provides a direct generalization of the TDHF.'
address: 'Department of Chemistry, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697'
author:
- Saar Rahav
- Shaul Mukamel
title: 'Gaussian phase-space representation of Fermion dynamics; Beyond the time-dependent-Hartree-Fock approximation'
---
Introduction
============
The study of interacting many-body systems remains one of the most active research fields in physics [@Ringbook; @Blaizotbook; @Negelebook; @Rammerbook]. The main computational challenge in electronic structure calculations is that a basis of many-body states, spanning the Hilbert space, becomes exponentially large with system size [@Bartlett]. In many cases, however, one is not interested in all the information contained in the full many-body wave-function (or density matrix). Experimental observations are typically related to expectation values of certain one and two-body operators. This allows for various approximation schemes, which focus on correlation functions to retain reduced information on the state of the system. This is the basis for the density-functional-theory (DFT) and its time-dependent extension (TDDFT) [@Casida; @Bertsch2000; @Takimoto2007; @Gross; @Onida2002].
The many body hierarchy of reduced density matrices can be truncated systematically by making a cumulant expansion of the wavefunction. Extensive work had been devoted to reduced description in terms of the coupled one and two-body density matrices [@Mazziotti-book; @Coleman]. The main difficulty in the direct computation of reduced density matrices has been the N-representability problem, namely the lack of exact conditions that guarantee that a given reduced density matrix can be obtained from an $N$ electron wavefunction.
In the TDHF method [@Ringbook; @Chernyak1996; @Bertsch2000; @Takimoto2007; @Thouless; @Blaizotbook; @Tretiak2002; @Mukamel1997] the state of the system is assumed to be given by a single Slater determinant, resulting in a closed system of equations for the occupied single-particle orbitals. This is equivalent to truncation at the level of the reduced single-particle density matrix [@Thouless]. TDHF is commonly used as a simple, affordable, approximation for the electronic excitations and the optical responce of a system [@Tretiak2002]. TDDFT response functions have the same formal structure and simplicity as TDHF ones, except that the burden of the many body problem is shifted into the construction of the functional [@Berman2003; @Tretiak2003].
The TDHF method can be recasted as a system of equations for a set of coordinates, $\rho_{\alpha \beta}=\left<\hat{c}_\alpha^\dagger \hat{c}_\beta \right>$ [@Chernyak1996; @Tretiak1998], which describe the reduced, single particle density matrix. These can be used to calculate expectation values of any single body operator, such as the optical polarization. Note that if the orbital space contain $n$ occupied and $m$ unoccupied orbitals, only $n m$ out of the $(n+m)^2$ elements of this reduced density matrix, namely the electron-hole excitations, are needed to represent the full density matrix, and calculate the response [@Thouless]. The TDHF equations of motion are approximate, and systematic extentions are not obvious due to the absence of a simple small parameter.
Recently, an exact phase space representation for the many-body fermionic density matrix was developed by Corney and Drummond [@Corney2004; @Corney2006a; @Corney2006b]. This method is similar in spirit to the coherent states in Hilbert space approach of Cahill and Glauber [@Cahill1999], since both employ an overcomplete basis set. In Corney and Drummond’s approach the many body density matrix is expanded as an ensemble of Gaussian operators $\hat{\Lambda} ({\mathbf n})$ \[Eq. (\[deflambda\])\] in the many-electron phase space, $$\label{expand}
\hat{\rho} = \int d {\mathbf n} P ({\mathbf n},t ) \hat{\Lambda} (\mathbf{n}),$$ where $P ({\mathbf n},t )$ is a classical probability distribution for the matrix elements $n_{\alpha \beta}$. This density matrix is assumed to be block diagonal in Fock space, so that coherences are only allowed between states with the same number of particles, which is adequate for most applications. Coherences between states differing by an even number of particles, resulting in anomalous correlations, can be included as well. [@Corney2004; @Corney2006a; @Corney2006b] Grassmann variables, which are essential for the coherent state representation in Hilbert space, are avoided, thus providing a more intuitive physical interpretation of various quantities. The exact time evolution of the probability distribution $P({\mathbf n},t)$ for fermions with two body interactions is described by a Fokker-Planck equation. The dynamics of the many-body system is thus mapped onto an ensemble of stochastic trajectories $n_{\alpha \beta} (t)$ in real (or imaginary) time. Gaussian phase space operator representation have been also used to derive the Hartree Fock Bogoliubov equations for Bose Einstein condensates [@Chernyak2003].
So far the Gaussian phase-space representation (GPSR) for fermions has mostly been used to study the ground states of Hubbard-like models [@Assaad2005; @Aimi2007; @Corboz2008]. Exceptions are the study of a mixed boson-fermion model of molecular dissociation [@Corney2004] and a non interacting system [@Corney2006b]. The GPSR can be used to study the time evolution of a system simply by using the Fokker-Planck equation to propagate $P({\mathbf n},t)$ in time. Therefore, this method maps the many body dynamics onto an evolution in a classical parameter space. The goal of the current paper is to show that the GPSR can be used to derive a new approximation scheme, which naturally connect to, and go beyond the TDHF. The possibility of using GSPR to solve the sign problem in imaginary time calculations is under debate. [@Rombouts2006] However, in the real time dynamics considered here complex phases are unavoidable.
The Gaussian parameters $n_{\alpha \beta}$ play a role similar to the reduced single electron density matrix elements $\rho_{\alpha \beta}$ in TDHF. $P({\mathbf n})$ can be viewed as a distribution of the matrix elements of the reduced single electron density matrix. We show that there exist a form of the stochastic equations for $n_{\alpha \beta} (t)$ whose deterministic part, the non random drift terms, coincides with the TDHF equations. It should be noted that the Gaussian operator basis is overcomplete, and thus allows for many equivalent forms of the stochastic equations. This freedom may be used to simplify the implementation of the method.
A practical, exact, numerical scheme for computing the stochastic trajectories in real time is yet to be developed. We use the GPSR to construct new types of approximations for the dynamics of excitations. By assuming that the probability distribution of the parameters $n_{\alpha \beta}$ is Gaussian, we obtain a closed system of equations for the single-particle and two-particle reduced density matrices, which is a direct extension of TDHF. All approaches for performing many body computations by using single and two particles density matrices suffer from the $N$ representability problem, i.e., it is not guaranteed that the approximate reduced density matrices can be derived from an $N$ electron wavefunction [@Mazziotti-book]. The GPSR of the density matrix in Fock space implies that $N$ has a distribution. Developing constraints that restrict Eq. (\[expand\]) to a pure state described by a wavefunction with $N$ electrons will be of interest for molecular applications. This limitation is less severe for large systems where a distribution of $N$ makes a minimal effect. or for open systems like molecules in junctions.
In Sec. \[tdhfsec\] we present the TDHF equations of motion of the reduced density matrix. This sets the stage for the other methods. In Sec. \[stochastic\] we present the GPSR of Corney and Drummond [@Corney2004; @Corney2006a; @Corney2006b] and derive the Fokker-Planck equation. In Sec \[number\] we derive an expression for the probability distribution of the number of electrons, and examine the conditions which ensure that a representation correspond to a state with a given particle number. In Sec. \[hierarchy\] we develop an approximate truncated hierarchy, which goes beyond TDHF, by assuming that the probability distribution $P({\bf n},t)$ in Eq. (\[expand\]) has a Gaussian form. In Sec. [\[unraveling\]]{} we present stochastic equations of motion, which are equivalent to the Fokker-Planck equation, and compare them to the TDHF equation derived in Sec. \[tdhfsec\]. Our results are summarized in Sec. \[disc\].
The time dependent Hartree-Fock approximation {#tdhfsec}
=============================================
We consider a many-fermion system with two-body interactions, whose Hamiltonian is given by $$\hat{\cal H} = \sum_{\alpha \beta} t_{\alpha \beta} \hat{c}^\dagger_\alpha \hat{c}_\beta + \sum_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta} V_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta} \hat{c}_\alpha^\dagger \hat{c}_\beta^\dagger \hat{c}_\gamma \hat{c}_\delta.
\label{universalh}$$ The indices $\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta$ denote an orthogonal one particle basis of spin orbitals. The creation and annihilation operators satisfy the Fermi anti-commutation rule $$\hat{c}_\alpha^\dagger \hat{c}_\beta + \hat{c}_\beta \hat{c}_\alpha^\dagger = \delta_{\alpha \beta}.$$ Without restricting the generality, the two-body interaction $V_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta}$ is taken to be anti-symmetric with respect to permutation of the indices $\alpha$ and $\beta$ or $\gamma$ and $\delta$.
Our goal is to derive an equation of motion for a reduced single particle density matrix $$\rho_{\alpha \beta} \equiv \left< \hat{c}^\dagger_\alpha \hat{c}_\beta \right>= \left< \Phi (t) \right| \hat{c}^\dagger_\alpha \hat{c}_\beta \left| \Phi (t) \right>,$$ where $\left| \Phi (t) \right>$ is the many body wavefunction. We start from the Heisenberg equation $$\label{tdhf1}
\dot{\rho}_{\epsilon \zeta} = i \left< \Phi (t) \right| \left[ \hat{\cal H}, \hat{c}^\dagger_\epsilon \hat{c}_\zeta \right] \left| \Phi (t) \right>,$$ where we work in units such that $\hbar=1$.
The commutator in Eq. (\[tdhf1\]) is easily evaluated, leading to $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\rho}_{\epsilon \zeta} & = & -i \sum_\gamma \left( t_{\zeta \gamma}\rho_{\epsilon \gamma}-t_{\gamma \epsilon} \rho_{\gamma \zeta} \right) \nonumber
- i \sum_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta} V_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta} \left\{ \left<\Phi(t)\right| \hat{c}^\dagger_\alpha \hat{c}_{\beta}^\dagger \hat{c}_\delta \hat{c}_\zeta \left| \Phi (t) \right> \delta_{\epsilon \gamma} \right. \\ & - & \left. \left<\Phi(t)\right| \hat{c}^\dagger_\alpha \hat{c}_{\beta}^\dagger \hat{c}_\gamma \hat{c}_\zeta \left| \Phi (t) \right> \delta_{\epsilon \delta}+\left<\Phi(t)\right| \hat{c}^\dagger_\epsilon \hat{c}_{\beta}^\dagger \hat{c}_\gamma \hat{c}_\delta \left| \Phi (t) \right> \delta_{\zeta \alpha}-\left<\Phi(t)\right| \hat{c}^\dagger_\epsilon \hat{c}_{\alpha}^\dagger \hat{c}_\gamma \hat{c}_\delta \left| \Phi (t) \right> \delta_{\zeta \beta}\right\}.
\label{tdhf2}\end{aligned}$$ The TDHF approximation assumes that the state of the system is given by a single slater determinant $\left| \Phi (t)\right>$, at all times. Using Wick’s theorem, we replace the two-body matrix elements with products of single particle matrix elements, $$\left<\Phi(t)\right| \hat{c}^\dagger_\alpha \hat{c}_{\beta}^\dagger \hat{c}_\gamma \hat{c}_\delta \left| \Phi (t) \right> = \rho_{\alpha \delta} \rho_{\beta \gamma} - \rho_{\alpha \gamma} \rho_{\beta \delta}. \label{hfapprox}$$ Substituting Eq. (\[hfapprox\]) into Eq. ([\[tdhf2\]]{}) results in the TDHF equations for the reduced density matrix, $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\rho}_{\epsilon \zeta} & = & -i \sum_\gamma \left( t_{\zeta \gamma}\rho_{\epsilon \gamma}-t_{\gamma \epsilon} \rho_{\gamma \zeta} \right) -i \sum_{\alpha \beta \gamma} \rho_{\alpha \beta} \rho_{\gamma \zeta} \left( V_{\alpha \gamma \beta \epsilon} - V_{\gamma \alpha \beta \epsilon} + V_{\gamma \alpha \epsilon \beta} - V_{\alpha \gamma \epsilon \beta} \right) \nonumber \\
& - & i \sum_{\alpha \beta \delta} \rho_{\alpha \beta} \rho_{\epsilon \delta} \left( V_{\alpha \zeta \delta \beta }-V_{\alpha \zeta \beta \delta}+V_{\zeta \alpha \beta \delta} - V_{\zeta \alpha \delta \beta}\right). \label{tdhf3}\end{aligned}$$ Eq. (\[tdhf3\]) can be further simplified using the antisymmetry of $V_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta}$ to permutations of $\alpha$ and $\beta$, or $\gamma$ and $\delta$. This gives $$\dot{\rho}_{\epsilon \zeta} = -i \sum_\gamma \left( t_{\zeta \gamma}\rho_{\epsilon \gamma}-t_{\gamma \epsilon} \rho_{\gamma \zeta} \right) -4i \sum_{\alpha \beta \gamma} \rho_{\alpha \beta} \rho_{\gamma \zeta} V_{\alpha \gamma \beta \epsilon} -4 i \sum_{\alpha \beta \delta} \rho_{\alpha \beta} \rho_{\epsilon \delta} V_{\alpha \zeta \delta \beta }. \label{tdhffinal}$$
Eq. (\[tdhffinal\]) implies that $\rho_{\alpha \beta}$ can be viewed as classical oscillator coordinates, which follow a deterministic trajectory [@Chernyak1996; @Tretiak1998]. The TDHF equations will be generalized in Sec. \[hierarchy\] using the phase-space representation of a fermionic system, which retains the same number of variables, $~N^2$, as the TDHF but treats them as stochastic coordinates. We must then work with their distribution rather than with deterministic trajectories in that space.
Gaussian phase-space representation for fermions {#stochastic}
================================================
In this section we briefly present the main results of the GPSR, without proofs, following Refs. . We start by introducing the Gaussian operators $$\label{deflambda}
\hat{\Lambda} (\mathbf n) \equiv \det \tilde{\mathbf n} : \exp \left( - \hat{\mathbf c}^\dagger \left[ 2 {\mathbf I} - \tilde{\mathbf n}^{-T} \right] \hat{\mathbf c} \right) :,$$ where $\tilde{\mathbf n}= {\mathbf I}-{\mathbf n}$ is a square matrix of parameters whose size is given by the spin orbitals basis set, and $: \cdots :$ denotes normal ordering. A normal-ordered product of creation and annihilation operators is one where the creation operators are to the left of the annihilation operators. The sign must be changed when two operators are interchanged during reordering. (For instance, $: \hat{c}_\alpha \hat{c}_\beta^\dagger: = -\hat{c}_\beta^\dagger \hat{c}_\alpha. $ ) The operators $\hat{\Lambda}$ have the following useful properties $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{Tr}\hat{\Lambda} & = & 1, \\
\operatorname{Tr}\left( \hat{\Lambda} \hat{c}^\dagger_\alpha \hat{c}_\beta \right) & = & n_{\alpha \beta}, \label{getn} \\
\operatorname{Tr}\left( \hat{\Lambda} \hat{c}^\dagger_\alpha \hat{c}_\beta^\dagger \hat{c}_\gamma \hat{c}_\delta \right) & = & n_{\alpha \delta} n_{\beta \gamma}-n_{\alpha \gamma} n_{\beta \delta}, \label{wick2}\\
\hat{c}^\dagger_\alpha \hat{c}_\beta \hat{\Lambda} & = & n_{\alpha \beta} \hat{\Lambda} + \sum_{\gamma \delta} \tilde{n}_{\alpha \gamma} n_{\delta \beta} \frac{\partial \hat{\Lambda}}{\partial n_{\delta \gamma}}, \label{ident1} \\
\hat{\Lambda} \hat{c}^\dagger_\alpha \hat{c}_\beta & = & n_{\alpha \beta} \hat{\Lambda} + \sum_{\gamma \delta} n_{\alpha \gamma} \tilde{n}_{\delta \beta} \frac{\partial \hat{\Lambda}}{\partial n_{\delta \gamma}}, \label{ident2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\operatorname{Tr}$ denotes the trace is in the many-body Hilbert space. Generally, the Gaussian operators also obey Wick’s theorem, $$\label{wicks}
\operatorname{Tr}\left[ : \hat{a}_{\mu_1} \cdots \hat{a}_{\mu_{2r}} \hat{\Lambda}: \right] = \sum_{P} (-1)^P \operatorname{Tr}\left[ : \hat{a}_{\nu_1} \hat{a}_{\nu_{2}} \hat{\Lambda}: \right] \times \cdots \times \operatorname{Tr}\left[ : \hat{a}_{\nu_{2r-1}} \hat{a}_{\nu_{2r}} \hat{\Lambda}: \right],$$ where $\hat{\bf a}$ is a vector composed of all creation and annihilation operators, and $\nu_j=\mu_{P(j)}$. The sum runs over all the distinct pair permutations. It should be noted that the normal ordering convention used in Eq. (\[wicks\]) is that only the operators which do not belong to $\hat{\Lambda}$ are ordered so that all the creation operators are to its left, and the annihilation operators to its right. Eq. (\[wick2\]) is a special case of Eq. (\[wicks\]). Proofs, as well as several other similar relations, can be found in Ref. . Equations (\[ident1\]) and (\[ident2\]) allow to replace the action of creation and annihilation operators on $\hat{\Lambda}$ by derivatives with respect to the parameters $n_{\alpha \beta}$.
With the help of Eqs. (\[expand\]) and (\[getn\]) we see that the reduced single particle density matrix is given by the first moment of the distribution $P({\mathbf n})$, $$\rho_{\alpha \beta} = \int n_{\alpha \beta} \; P({\mathbf n},t) d {\mathbf n} = \left< n_{\alpha \beta} \right>_P.
\label{rhovian}$$ We introduce the following notation, for a fermion operator $\hat{A}$ $$\left< \hat{A} \right> \equiv \int d {\mathbf n} P({\mathbf n},t) \operatorname{Tr}\left[ \hat{A} \hat{\Lambda} ({\mathbf n}) \right] \equiv \left< \operatorname{Tr}\hat{A} \hat{\Lambda} ({\mathbf n}) \right>_P.$$ Note that there is a double averaging here. The $\operatorname{Tr}$ takes care of the quantum average for a given set of parameters ${\mathbf n}$. We then apply a classical average $\left< \dots \right>_P$ over the phase space distribution $P({\mathbf n})$.
The reduced $p$-particle density matrix depends on the lowest $p$ moments of $P({\mathbf n},t)$. We will use the expressions for expectation values of two and three body operators $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal M}_{\alpha \beta, \gamma \delta} & \equiv & \left< \hat{c}^\dagger_\alpha \hat{c}^\dagger_\beta \hat{c}_\gamma \hat{c}_\delta \right>= \left< n_{\beta \gamma} n_{\alpha \delta} - n_{\alpha \gamma } n_{\beta \delta}\right>_P, \label{avgp2} \\
{\cal Y}_{\alpha \beta \gamma, \delta \epsilon \zeta} & \equiv & \left< \hat{c}^\dagger_\alpha \hat{c}^\dagger_\beta \hat{c}^\dagger_\gamma \hat{c}_\delta \hat{c}_\epsilon \hat{c}_\zeta \right> \nonumber \\ & = & \left< n_{\alpha \zeta} n_{\beta \epsilon} n_{\gamma \delta} - n_{\alpha \delta} n_{\beta \epsilon} n_{\gamma \zeta} + n_{\alpha \delta} n_{\beta \zeta} n_{\gamma \epsilon} -n_{\alpha \epsilon} n_{\beta \zeta} n_{\gamma \delta}+n_{\alpha \epsilon} n_{\gamma \zeta} n_{\beta \delta}- n_{\alpha \zeta} n_{\beta \delta} n_{\gamma \epsilon}\right>_P. \label{avgp3}\end{aligned}$$
Before turning to derive the equation of motion for $P({\mathbf n},t)$, it is important to note that the representation Eq. (\[expand\]) is not unique. More than one probability distribution $P({\mathbf n},t)$ may represent the same many-particle density matrix, due to the overcompleteness of the phase space representation. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that the many body density matrix of a system with $M$ orbitals only depends on the lowest $M$’th moments of $P({\mathbf n})$. The higher moments can thus be arbitrarily chosen. In the following we present the simplest derivation of the Fokker-Planck equation, which is naturally related to the TDHF. Alternative Fokker-Planck equations, whose solutions constitute different representations of the same many body density matrix, are discussed in App. \[gauge\].
Substitution of Eq. (\[expand\]) into the Liouville equation $$\frac{\partial \hat{\rho}}{\partial t} = -i \left[ \hat{\cal H}, \hat{\rho}\right],$$ gives $$\int \frac{\partial P({\mathbf n},t)}{\partial t} \hat{\Lambda}({\mathbf n}) d {\mathbf n} = -i \int P({\mathbf n},t) \left[\hat{\cal H},\hat{\Lambda}({\mathbf n})\right] d {\mathbf n}.
\label{tempeq}$$ The identities (\[ident1\]) and (\[ident2\]) can now be used to replace the commutator in Eq. (\[tempeq\]) with a differential operator. To that end, we decompose the matrix $V_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta}$ in the form $$\label{defQ}
V_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta} = \frac{i}{2} \sum_c Q_{\alpha \gamma,c} Q_{\beta \delta,c}.$$ It should be always possible to find such a decomposition. This decomposition and the number of components $c$ are not unique, and the latter can be chosen to be arbitrarily large. This decomposition eventually leads to a Fokker-Planck equation whose diffusion matrix is manifestly positive definite. For Hamiltonians with two-body interactions Eqs (\[ident1\]) and (\[ident2\]) this leads to a differential operator with second order derivatives $$-i \left[\hat{\cal H}, \hat{\Lambda} \right] = \sum_{\alpha \beta} {\cal A}_{\alpha \beta} \frac{\partial \hat{\Lambda}}{\partial n_{\alpha \beta}}+\frac{1}{2} \sum_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta} \sum_{c} {\cal B}^{(1)}_{\alpha \beta,c} {\cal B}^{(1)}_{\gamma \delta,c} \frac{\partial^2 \hat{\Lambda}}{\partial n_{\alpha \beta} \partial n_{\gamma \delta}}+\frac{1}{2} \sum_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta} \sum_{c} {\cal B}^{(2)}_{\alpha \beta,c} {\cal B}^{(2)}_{\gamma \delta,c} \frac{\partial^2 \hat{\Lambda}}{\partial n_{\alpha \beta} \partial n_{\gamma \delta}}.
\label{commute}$$
Closed expressions for ${\cal A}_{\alpha \beta}$ and ${\cal B}_{\alpha \beta}^{(1,2)}$, starting with the Hamiltonian Eq. (\[universalh\]), are obtained by a straightforward but tedious calculation. The decomposition (\[defQ\]) allows to write the terms with second order derivatives in the form of Eq. (\[commute\]), with $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal B}^{(1)}_{\epsilon \zeta,c} & = & \sum_{\alpha \beta} Q_{\alpha \beta,c} n_{\alpha \zeta} \tilde{n}_{\epsilon \beta} \\
{\cal B}^{(2)}_{\epsilon \zeta,c} & = &i \sum_{\alpha \beta} Q_{\alpha \beta,c} \tilde{n}_{\alpha \zeta} n_{\epsilon \beta},\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{n}$ was defined after Eq. (\[deflambda\]). Furthermore, a lengthy calculation results in $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal A}_{\epsilon \zeta} & = & -i \sum_\gamma \left( t_{\zeta \gamma} n_{\epsilon \gamma}-t_{\gamma \epsilon} n_{\gamma \zeta} \right) -i \sum_{\alpha \beta \gamma} n_{\alpha \beta} n_{\gamma \zeta} \left( V_{\alpha \gamma \beta \epsilon} - V_{\gamma \alpha \beta \epsilon} + V_{\gamma \alpha \epsilon \beta} - V_{\alpha \gamma \epsilon \beta} \right) \nonumber \\
& - & i \sum_{\alpha \beta \delta} n_{\alpha \beta} n_{\epsilon \delta} \left( V_{\alpha \zeta \delta \beta }-V_{\alpha \zeta \beta \delta}+V_{\zeta \alpha \beta \delta} - V_{\zeta \alpha \delta \beta}\right).
\label{Aito}\end{aligned}$$
By substituting (\[commute\]) in Eq. (\[tempeq\]), and integrating by parts, one obtains a Fokker-Planck-type equation for $P({\mathbf n},t)$. However, one should note that the coefficients ${\cal A}_{\alpha \beta}$ and ${\cal B}^{(1,2)}_{\alpha \beta}$ are complex valued rather than real, and it is not clear at this point that the term with the second order derivatives is positive definite. A representation with real parameters can be obtained by using the analyticity of $\hat{\Lambda} (\mathbf n)$, and treating the real and the imaginary parts of $n_{\alpha \beta}=n_{\alpha,\beta}^{(x)}+i n_{\alpha \beta}^{(y)}$ as independent variables. The identity $\partial \hat{\Lambda}/\partial n_{\alpha \beta}=\partial \hat{\Lambda}/\partial n_{\alpha \beta}^{(x)}=-i\partial \hat{\Lambda}/\partial n_{\alpha \beta}^{(y)}$ can then be used to write $${\cal A}_{\alpha \beta} \frac{\partial \hat{\Lambda}}{\partial n_{\alpha \beta}} = {\cal A}_{\alpha \beta}^{(x)} \frac{\partial \hat{\Lambda}}{\partial n_{\alpha \beta}^{(x)}}+{\cal A}_{\alpha \beta}^{(y)} \frac{\partial \hat{\Lambda}}{\partial n_{\alpha \beta}^{(y)}}.$$ Here ${\cal A}^{(x)}$ (${\cal A}^{(y)}$) denotes the real (imaginary) parts of ${\cal A}$ respectively. A similar relation holds for the terms involving second derivatives and for ${\cal B}^{(1,2)}$.
After separating the real and imaginary parts of ${\cal A}$ and ${\cal B}$, and performing an integration by parts, one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\label{FPeq}
\frac{\partial P}{\partial t} & = & -\sum_{\alpha \beta}\left( \frac{\partial}{\partial n_{\alpha \beta}^{(x)}} {\cal A}_{\alpha \beta}^{(x)} P+\frac{\partial}{\partial n_{\alpha \beta}^{(y)}} {\cal A}_{\alpha \beta}^{(y)} P \right) \\
& + & \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta} \sum_c \left( \frac{\partial^2}{\partial n_{\alpha \beta}^{(x)}\partial n_{\gamma \delta}^{(x)}} {\cal B}_{\alpha \beta ,c}^{(1,x)} {\cal B}_{\gamma \delta ,c}^{(1,x)} P + \frac{\partial^2}{\partial n_{\alpha \beta}^{(y)}\partial n_{\gamma \delta}^{(y)}} {\cal B}_{\alpha \beta ,c}^{(1,y)} {\cal B}_{\gamma \delta ,c}^{(1,y)} P+2 \frac{\partial^2}{\partial n_{\alpha \beta}^{(x)}\partial n_{\gamma \delta}^{(y)}} {\cal B}_{\alpha \beta ,c}^{(1,x)} {\cal B}_{\gamma \delta ,c}^{(1,y)} P\right) \nonumber \\
& + & \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta} \sum_c \left( \frac{\partial^2}{\partial n_{\alpha \beta}^{(x)}\partial n_{\gamma \delta}^{(x)}} {\cal B}_{\alpha \beta ,c}^{(2,x)} {\cal B}_{\gamma \delta ,c}^{(2,x)} P + \frac{\partial^2}{\partial n_{\alpha \beta}^{(y)}\partial n_{\gamma \delta}^{(y)}} {\cal B}_{\alpha \beta ,c}^{(2,y)} {\cal B}_{\gamma \delta ,c}^{(2,y)} P+2 \frac{\partial^2}{\partial n_{\alpha \beta}^{(x)}\partial n_{\gamma \delta}^{(y)}} {\cal B}_{\alpha \beta ,c}^{(2,x)} {\cal B}_{\gamma \delta ,c}^{(2,y)} P\right) \nonumber.\end{aligned}$$ Eq. (\[FPeq\]) is a positive definite Fokker-Planck equation, and the probability distribution $P({\mathbf n},t)$ is guaranteed to remain non-negative at all times. In the derivation of Eq. (\[FPeq\]) boundary terms in the integration by parts were neglected. When boundary terms are finite, the methods discussed in App. \[gauge\] can be used to derive equivalent Fokker-Planck equations with vanishing boundary terms.
Statistical properties of the number of particles in the Gaussian phase-space representation {#number}
============================================================================================
The Hamiltonian (\[universalh\]) conserves the number of electrons. However the distribution function $P({\mathbf n})$ may represent a statistical mixture of states with different numbers of electrons. It is of interest to find conditions which ensure that $P({\mathbf n})$ represent a fixed number a system with $N$ electrons. So far the GPSR was used to study systems where knowledge about the distribution of the number of electrons was not crucial. In this section we derive conditions which guarantee that $P({\mathbf n})$ represents a state with a given number of electrons. This will be needed for application to isolated molecules. Furthermore, for general states represented by $P({\mathbf n})$, we derive expressions for the probability to find $k$ electrons in the system, $\tilde{P} (k)$.
We start by calculating the distribution of values of $\hat{N}=\sum_\alpha \hat{c}^\dagger_\alpha \hat{c}_\alpha$, the number operator, $$\label{deffn}
f(N) \equiv \left< \delta \left( N - \hat{N} \right) \right>.$$ It will be convenient to compute the generating function $$\label{defgs}
G(s) = \int d N e^{- i s N} f(N) = \left< e^{- i s \hat{N}} \right> .$$ With the help of Eq. (\[ident1\]), it is easy to show that $$\hat{N} \hat{\Lambda} = \left( \sum_{\alpha} n_{\alpha \alpha} + \sum_{\alpha \mu \nu} \tilde{n}_{\alpha \mu} n_{\nu \alpha} \frac{\partial}{\partial n_{\nu \mu}} \right) \hat{\Lambda}.$$ As a result $$G(s) = \operatorname{Tr}\int d {\mathbf n} P ({\mathbf n}) \exp \left[-is \left( \sum_{\alpha} n_{\alpha \alpha} + \sum_{\alpha \mu \nu} \tilde{n}_{\alpha \mu} n_{\nu \alpha} \frac{\partial}{\partial n_{\nu \mu}} \right) \right] \hat{\Lambda}.$$ By using the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula we then obtain $$G(s)=\left< \exp \left[ - i s A({\mathbf n}) - \frac{1}{2} s^2 B({\mathbf n}) \right] \right>_P$$ where $A({\mathbf n}) = \operatorname{tr}({\mathbf n})$ and $B({\mathbf n}) = \operatorname{tr}({\mathbf n})-\operatorname{tr}({\mathbf n}^2)$, where $\operatorname{tr}$ denotes the trace in the single particle Hilbert space. (Recall that a trace in the many body space is denoted by $\operatorname{Tr}$.)
Assuming that the integrations over ${\mathbf n}$ converge, we obtain the probability distribution (\[deffn\]) by the inverse Fourier transform of Eq. (\[defgs\]) $$f(N) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} \left< \frac{1}{\sqrt{B({\mathbf n})}} \exp \left[- \frac{(N-A({\mathbf n}))^2}{2 B({\mathbf n})} \right]\right>_P.$$ The distribution $P({\mathbf n})$ will represent a state with a given number of electrons, $N_0$, when $f(N)=\delta (N-N_0)$. This requires that $P({\mathbf n})>0$ only for points ${\mathbf n}$ which satisfy $$\operatorname{tr}({\mathbf n}) = \operatorname{tr}({\mathbf n}^2) = N_0.$$
Distributions $P({\mathbf n})$ which do not satisfy this conditions represent statistical mixtures of different number of electrons. To calculate the probability to find $k$ electrons, $\tilde{P} (k)$, we note that the Gaussian operators have a block structure in Fock space, with coherences only between states with the same number of particles. For instance, the Gaussian operator of a system with two orbitals is [@Corney2006a] $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\Lambda}({\mathbf n}) & = & \det \tilde{\mathbf n} \left| 00 \right> \left< 00 \right| + \left(n_{11} \tilde{n}_{22}+n_{12} n_{21} \right) \left| 10 \right> \left< 10 \right| + \left( \tilde{n}_{11} n_{22}+n_{12} n_{21}\right) \left| 01 \right> \left< 01 \right| + \det {\mathbf n} \left| 11 \right> \left< 11 \right| \\ &+ &n_{21} \left| 10 \right> \left< 01 \right| + n_{12} \left| 01 \right> \left< 10 \right|. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The probability to find the system with any number of particles can be found by taking the coefficients of the corresponding populations and averaging over $P({\mathbf n})$. This can be done by defining $${\cal C}_l \equiv \operatorname{Tr}\hat{\rho} \sum_{\alpha_1, \cdots, \alpha_l} \hat{c}^\dagger_{\alpha_1} \cdots \hat{c}^\dagger_{\alpha_l} \hat{c}_{\alpha_l} \cdots \hat{c}_{\alpha_1},$$ for $l=1,2,\cdots,M$, where $M$ denotes the basis size (i.e. the number of orbitals). Only populations of states with at least $l$ electrons contribute to ${\cal C}_l$. A direct calculation gives $${\cal C}_l = \sum_{k=l}^M \frac{k!}{(k-l)!} \tilde{P} (k).$$ This relation can be inverted, leading to $$\label{pp1}
\tilde{P} (k) = \frac{1}{k!} \sum_{l=k}^M (-1)^{l-k} \frac{1}{(l-k)!} {\cal C}_l,$$ which is valid for $k=1,2,\cdots,M$.
Wick’s theorem (\[wicks\]) can be used to write $$\label{pp2}
{\cal C}_l = l! \sum_{(\alpha_1,\cdots,\alpha_l)}\left< \det n \left[ \alpha_1,\cdots,\alpha_l \right] \right>_P,$$ where sum is over all [*ordered*]{} sets of indices $(\alpha_1,\cdots,\alpha_l)$, while ${\mathbf n} \left[ \alpha_1, \cdots, \alpha_l \right]$ is the minor of ${\mathbf n}$ obtained by deleting all rows and columns except the ones whose indices are $\alpha_1, \cdots, \alpha_l$.
Equations (\[pp1\]) and (\[pp2\]) combine to give the probability to find $k$ electrons in the system $$\label{getpn}
\tilde{P} (k) = \sum_{l=k}^M (-1)^{l-k} \left( \begin{array}{c}
×l \\ k
\end{array}
\right)
\sum_{(\alpha_1,\cdots,\alpha_l)} \left< \det {\mathbf n} \left[ \alpha_1, \cdots, \alpha_l \right]\right>_P,$$ which is valid for $k=1,2, \cdots , M$. Equation (\[getpn\]) is especially simple for the probability that all the orbitals are filled $$\tilde{P} (M) = \left< \det {\mathbf n} \right>_P.$$ We obtain the probability that there are no electrons (all orbitals are unoccupied) by using the normalization condition $$\tilde{P} (0)=1-\sum_{k=1}^M \tilde{P} (k) = 1 + \sum_{l=1}^M (-1)^l \sum_{(\alpha_1,\cdots,\alpha_l)} \left< \det {\mathbf n} \left[ \alpha_1, \cdots, \alpha_l \right]\right>_P = \left< \det \tilde{\mathbf n}\right>_P.$$
In this section we have investigated the correspondence between the phase space distribution $P({\bf n})$ and the number of particles in the system. This is one aspect of a broader problem, namely, how to constrain $P({\bf n})$ and its phase space evolution, so that it will correspond to a density matrix which exhibits a certain physical property. For instance, what are the conditions on $P({\bf n})$ so that it corresponds to a pure state, or to a single slater determinant? The identification of such constraints is an open question.
Truncating the hierarchy for one and two-body density matrices {#hierarchy}
==============================================================
In this section we use the exact GPSR of the many-body dynamics to develop new approximation schemes which provide a natural extension of the TDHF approximation.
The time evolution of expectation values of any operator follows the Heisenberg equation $$\label{traceo}
\frac{d}{dt} \operatorname{Tr}\hat{\rho} \hat{\cal O} = i \operatorname{Tr}\hat{\rho} \left[\hat{\cal H},\hat{\cal O} \right].$$ For Hamiltonians of the form (\[universalh\]), substitution of normally ordered products of equal numbers of creation and annihilation operators in Eq. (\[traceo\]) results in the usual many body hierarchy of equations of motion. The $N$’th equation in the hierarchy gives the time derivative of an $N$-particle reduced density matrix in terms the reduced density matrices of up to $N+1$ particles. The first two members in this hierarchy are given by $$\label{hirarchy1}
\frac{d}{dt} \rho_{\epsilon \zeta} = i \left\{ \sum_{\alpha \beta} t_{\alpha \beta} \left( \rho_{\alpha \zeta} \delta_{\beta \epsilon} - \rho_{\epsilon \beta} \delta_{\zeta \alpha} \right)
+ \sum_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta} V_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta} \left( {\cal M}_{\alpha \beta , \gamma \zeta} \delta_{\delta \epsilon} -{\cal M}_{\alpha \beta , \delta \zeta} \delta_{\gamma \epsilon} + {\cal M}_{\epsilon \alpha , \gamma \delta} \delta_{\zeta \beta}-{\cal M}_{\epsilon \beta , \gamma \delta}\delta_{\zeta \alpha}\right) \right\}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hirarchy2}
\frac{d}{dt} {\cal M}_{\epsilon \zeta , \mu \nu} & = & i \sum_{\alpha \beta} t_{\alpha \beta} \left[{\cal M}_{\alpha \zeta , \mu \nu} \delta_{\beta \epsilon} - {\cal M}_{\alpha \epsilon, \mu \nu} \delta_{\beta \zeta} +{\cal M}_{\epsilon \zeta , \nu \beta} \delta_{\mu \alpha} - {\cal M}_{\epsilon \zeta , \mu \beta} \delta_{\nu \alpha}\right] \\
& + & i \sum_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta} V_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta} \left[ {\cal Y}_{\alpha \beta \epsilon, \gamma \mu \nu} \delta_{\delta \zeta}-{\cal Y}_{\alpha \beta \epsilon, \delta \mu \nu}\delta_{\gamma \zeta} + {\cal Y}_{\alpha \beta \zeta , \delta \mu \nu} \delta_{\gamma \epsilon} -{\cal Y}_{\alpha \beta \zeta , \gamma \mu \nu} \delta_{\delta \epsilon}
+ {\cal Y}_{\epsilon \zeta \alpha , \nu \gamma \delta} \delta_{\mu \beta} \right. \nonumber \\ & - & \left. {\cal Y}_{\epsilon \zeta \alpha , \mu \gamma \delta} \delta_{\nu \beta} +{\cal Y}_{\epsilon \zeta \beta , \mu \gamma \delta} \delta_{\nu \alpha}- {\cal Y}_{\epsilon \zeta \beta , \nu \gamma \delta} \delta_{\mu \alpha}
+ {\cal M}_{\alpha \beta , \mu \nu} \left( \delta_{\delta \epsilon} \delta_{\gamma \zeta} - \delta_{\gamma \epsilon} \delta_{\delta \zeta} \right) +{\cal M}_{\epsilon \zeta , \gamma \delta} \left( \delta_{\mu \alpha} \delta_{\nu \beta} - \delta_{\nu \alpha} \delta_{\mu \beta} \right) \right], \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho$, ${\cal M}$ and $\cal Y$ were defined in Eqs. (\[rhovian\]), (\[avgp2\]) and (\[avgp3\]).
The hierarchy for the reduced single-particle and two-particle density matrices will be closed by assuming that the probability distribution $P({\mathbf n})$ is Gaussian. Such an approximation is similar in spirit to the Hartree-Fock approximation, since it makes an ansatz on the time dependent state of the system and it includes a single Slater determinant as a special case. However, it is more general, since it takes some two body correlations into account. Due to the lack of a variational principle, it is not guaranteed that the Gaussian approximation in phase space improves upon the Hartree-Fock approximation. However, it is likely to do so.
When $P({\mathbf n})$ has a Gaussian form, averages which are cubic in $n_{\alpha \beta}$, such as the ones appearing in Eq. (\[avgp3\]), can be expressed in terms of the first and second moments of the distribution. For instance $$\label{avgn3}
\left< n_{\alpha \zeta} n_{\beta \epsilon} n_{\gamma \delta} \right>_P = \left< n_{\alpha \zeta} \right>_P \left< n_{\beta \epsilon} n_{\gamma \delta} \right>_P + \left<n_{\beta \epsilon} \right>_P \left< n_{\alpha \zeta} n_{\gamma \delta} \right>_P + \left<n_{\gamma \delta} \right>_P \left< n_{\alpha \zeta} n_{\beta \epsilon}\right>_P - 2 \left< n_{\alpha \zeta} \right>_P \left<n_{\beta \epsilon} \right>_P \left<n_{\gamma \delta} \right>_P.$$ Substitution of (\[avgn3\]) in Eq. (\[avgp3\]), with the help of Eqs. (\[avgp2\]) and (\[rhovian\]), leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{c3element}
{\cal Y}_{\alpha \beta \gamma , \delta \epsilon \zeta} & = & \rho_{\beta \epsilon} {\cal M}_{\alpha \gamma, \delta \zeta} + \rho_{\alpha \delta} {\cal M}_{\beta \gamma, \epsilon \zeta}+\rho_{\beta \zeta} {\cal M}_{\alpha \gamma,\epsilon \delta} + \rho_{\gamma \delta} {\cal M}_{\alpha \beta, \epsilon \zeta} + \rho_{\alpha \epsilon} {\cal M}_{\beta \gamma, \zeta \delta}+\rho_{\gamma \zeta} {\cal M}_{\alpha \beta , \delta \epsilon} \\ & + & \rho_{\beta \delta} {\cal M}_{\alpha \gamma , \zeta \epsilon}+ \rho_{\alpha \zeta} {\cal M}_{\beta \gamma , \delta \epsilon} + \rho_{\gamma \epsilon} {\cal M}_{\alpha \beta, \zeta \delta} -2 \left\{ \rho_{\alpha \zeta} \rho_{\beta \epsilon} \rho_{\gamma \delta} - \rho_{\alpha \delta} \rho_{\beta \epsilon} \rho_{\gamma \zeta} + \rho_{\alpha \delta} \rho_{\beta \zeta} \rho_{\gamma \epsilon} \right. \nonumber \\ & - & \left. \rho_{\alpha \epsilon} \rho_{\beta \zeta} \rho_{\gamma \delta} + \rho_{\alpha \epsilon} \rho_{\gamma \zeta} \rho_{\beta \delta} - \rho_{\alpha \zeta} \rho_{\beta \delta} \rho_{\gamma \epsilon} \right\}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Equation (\[c3element\]) represent one out of many possible decoupling schemes which can be used to truncate the hierarchy of $N$-body reduced density matrices. It was derived by making an assumption on the form of $P({\bf n})$. Since it is based on an approximate ansatz on the many body density matrix it has an important advantage over other decoupling schemes: it ensures that the approximate density matrix is a physically allowed one, and therefore guarantees that the decoupling (\[c3element\]) will not result in unphysical expectation values of operators.
We can thus truncate the hierarchy at the $\rho$ and ${\cal M}$ level. Before doing that, we define the deviation of the two body correlation functions from its TDHF values $$\Delta {\cal M}_{\alpha \beta , \gamma \delta} \equiv {\cal M}_{\alpha \beta , \gamma \delta} -\rho_{\alpha \delta} \rho_{\beta \gamma} + \rho_{\alpha \gamma} \rho_{\beta \delta}.$$ By substitution of Eqs. (\[rhovian\]), (\[avgp2\]) and (\[c3element\]) in Eqs. (\[hirarchy1\]) and (\[hirarchy2\]) we obtain
$$\label{eqrho}
\dot{\rho}_{\epsilon \zeta} = -i \sum_\gamma \left( t_{\zeta \gamma} \rho_{\epsilon \gamma}-t_{\gamma \epsilon} \rho_{\gamma \zeta}\right)-4 i \sum_{\alpha \beta \gamma} V_{\alpha \gamma \beta \epsilon} \rho_{\alpha \beta} \rho_{\gamma \zeta} -4 i \sum_{\alpha \beta \delta} V_{\alpha \zeta \delta \beta} \rho_{\alpha \beta} \rho_{\epsilon \delta}-2i \sum_{\alpha \beta \delta} V_{\alpha \beta \epsilon \delta} \Delta {\cal M}_{\alpha \beta , \delta \zeta} -2 i \sum_{\beta \gamma \delta} V_{\zeta \beta \gamma \delta} \Delta {\cal M}_{\epsilon \beta, \gamma \delta},$$
and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqcalm}
\Delta {\cal M}_{\epsilon \zeta , \mu \nu} & = & i \sum_{\gamma} \left[ t_{\gamma \epsilon} \Delta {\cal M}_{\gamma \zeta, \mu \nu}+t_{\gamma \zeta } \Delta M_{\epsilon \gamma, \mu \nu} - t_{\mu \gamma} \Delta {\cal M}_{\epsilon \zeta, \gamma \nu} - t_{\nu \gamma} \Delta {\cal M}_{\epsilon \zeta , \mu \gamma}\right] \\
& - & 2 i \sum_{\alpha \beta} V_{\alpha \beta \epsilon \zeta} \left[ \rho_{\alpha \nu} \rho_{\beta \mu} - \rho_{\alpha \mu} \rho_{\beta \nu} + \Delta {\cal M}_{\alpha \beta , \mu \nu}\right] + 2 i \sum_{\gamma \delta} V_{\mu \nu \gamma \delta}\left[ \rho_{\epsilon \delta} \rho_{\zeta \gamma} - \rho_{\epsilon \gamma} \rho_{\zeta \delta} + \Delta {\cal M}_{\epsilon \zeta , \gamma \delta}\right] \nonumber \\
& + & 2 i \sum_{\alpha \beta \gamma} V_{\alpha \beta \gamma \zeta} \left [ 2 \rho_{\alpha \mu} \Delta {\cal M}_{\epsilon \beta, \gamma \nu}+ 2 \rho_{\beta \gamma} \Delta {\cal M}_{\epsilon \alpha, \mu \nu}+ 2 \rho_{\alpha \nu} \Delta {\cal M}_{\epsilon \beta, \mu \gamma} + \rho_{\epsilon \gamma} \left(\Delta {\cal M}_{\alpha \beta , \mu \nu} + \rho_{\alpha \nu} \rho_{\beta \mu} - \rho_{\alpha \mu} \rho_{\beta \nu} \right)\right] \nonumber \\
& + & 2 i \sum_{\alpha \beta \delta} V_{\alpha \beta \epsilon \delta } \left[2 \rho_{\beta \mu} \Delta {\cal M}_{\alpha \zeta , \delta \nu}+2 \rho_{\alpha \delta} \Delta {\cal M}_{\beta \zeta , \mu \nu}+2 \rho_{\beta \nu} \Delta {\cal M}_{\alpha \zeta , \mu \delta} + \rho_{\zeta \delta} \left(\Delta {\cal M}_{\alpha \beta, \mu \nu} +\rho_{\alpha \nu} \rho_{\beta \mu} - \rho_{\alpha \mu} \rho_{\beta \nu}\right)\right] \nonumber \\
& - & 2 i \sum_{\beta \gamma \delta} V_{\mu \beta \gamma \delta} \left[2 \rho_{\zeta \delta} \Delta {\cal M}_{\epsilon \beta , \gamma \nu} + 2 \rho_{\epsilon \delta} \Delta {\cal M}_{\beta \zeta , \gamma \nu} + 2 \rho_{\beta \gamma} \Delta {\cal M}_{\epsilon \zeta \delta \nu} + \rho_{\beta \nu} \left( \Delta {\cal M}_{\epsilon \zeta, \gamma \delta}+\rho_{\epsilon \delta} \rho_{\zeta \gamma}-\rho_{\epsilon \gamma} \rho_{\zeta \delta}\right) \right] \nonumber \\
& - & 2 i \sum_{\alpha \gamma \delta} V_{\alpha \nu \gamma \delta} \left[ 2 \rho_{\zeta \gamma} \Delta {\cal M}_{\epsilon \alpha , \mu \delta} + 2 \rho_{\epsilon \gamma} \Delta {\cal M}_{\alpha \zeta , \mu \delta} + 2 \rho_{\alpha \delta} \Delta {\cal M}_{\epsilon \zeta , \mu \gamma} + \rho_{\alpha \mu} \left( \Delta {\cal M}_{\epsilon \zeta, \gamma \delta} + \rho_{\epsilon \delta} \rho_{\zeta \gamma}-\rho_{\epsilon \gamma} \rho_{\zeta \delta}\right) \right] \nonumber.\end{aligned}$$ Equations (\[eqrho\]) and (\[eqcalm\]) constitute an approximate closed set of equations for the one particle and two particle reduced density matrices which extend TDHF equations to include two-body correlations. The TDHF equation (\[tdhffinal\]) can be recovered from Eq. (\[eqrho\]) by setting $\Delta {\cal M}_{\alpha \beta , \gamma \delta} =0$.
The exact solution of the Fokker-Planck equation (\[FPeq\]) does not necessarily satisfy our Gaussian ansatz for $P({\mathbf n})$, which is why Eqs. (\[eqrho\]) and (\[eqcalm\]) are approximate. One consequence is that they do not conserve the number of particles. This can be seen by calculating the time derivatives of the moments of the number operator $\hat{N}$, as evaluated using Eqs. (\[eqrho\]) and (\[eqcalm\]). We find that the first two moments are indeed conserved $$\frac{d}{d t} \left< \hat{N}\right> = \frac{d}{d t} \left< \hat{N}^2\right>=0.$$ However, this is not the case for the third moment $$\frac{d}{d t} \left< \hat{N}^3 \right> \neq 0.$$ We conclude that the probability distribution $f(N)$, derived from Eqs. (\[eqrho\]) and (\[eqcalm\]), is not conserved.
It should be emphasized that the approximations leading to the TDHF equations and to the hierarchy derived in this section are of a different nature. The TDHF equations are obtained under the assumption that the state of the system is a single Slater determinant at all times. In contrast, here we assumed that the system can be represented by a Gaussian operator expansion whose probability distribution is Gaussian at all times. This provides a generalization of the TDHF method, suggesting that Eqs. (\[eqrho\]) and (\[eqcalm\]) should lead to more accurate results than the TDHF equations. This approximation scheme should be useful for large systems with many particles, which are likely to be less sensitive to changes in the distribution of number of particles.
Unravelling the Fokker-Planck equation in terms of Ito stochastic trajectories {#unraveling}
==============================================================================
A probability density evolving according to a Fokker-Planck equation can be computed numerically by simulating an ensemble of trajectories following a stochastic equation of motion [@Breuerbook]. This is commonly used to trade off computer memory by time. This approach was used to study the ground states of Hubbard-type models [@Corney2004; @Corney2006b; @Assaad2005; @Aimi2007; @Corboz2008]. Here we present the form of the stochastic equations of motion that naturally connect with the TDHF equations.
Stochastic equations of motion which are equivalent to the Fokker-Planck equation (\[FPeq\]) are given by $$\label{ito}
d n_{\alpha \beta}= {\cal A}_{\alpha \beta} dt + \sum_c \left( {\cal B}^{(1)}_{\alpha \beta, c} d W_c^{(1)} + {\cal B}^{(2)}_{\alpha \beta, c} d W_c^{(2)} \right),$$ where we have combined the equations for the real and imaginary parts of $n_{\alpha \beta}$ into a single complex equation. The noise Wiener increments are real, with Gaussian probability distribution, satisfying $\left< d W_{c}^{(i)} (t) d W _{c^\prime}^{(j)} (t^\prime) \right> = \delta_{cc^\prime} \delta_{ij} \delta \left(t-t^\prime \right)dt$. Equation (\[ito\]) should be integrated using Ito stochastic calculus [@Gardiner]. The many-body dynamics can be simulated by repeatedly integrating Eq. (\[ito\]) to create an ensemble of stochastic trajectories. This ensemble, together with Eq. (\[rhovian\]), or similar identities, can be used to calculate expectation values.
The non-random, or drift, component of the stochastic equation of motion (\[ito\]), given by (\[Aito\]), coincides with the right hand side of Eq. (\[tdhf3\]), as long as we identify $n_{\alpha \beta}$ with $\rho_{\alpha \beta}$. Such identification can naturally be made when the distribution $P({\mathbf n})$ is narrow, or when the noise part is absent (for instance when there are no two-body interactions).
It is possible to derive an equivalent form of the stochastic differential equations by using a different stochastic calculus [@Gardiner]. For instance, the Stratonovich calculus results in a similar stochastic equation with ${\cal A}_{\alpha \beta}^{(strat)} \ne {\cal A}_{\alpha \beta}$. This breaks the simple correspondence with TDHF. For completeness, we give an explicit form of the drift terms in the Stratonovich scheme in App. \[stratapp\].
The coefficients ${\cal A}_{\alpha \beta}$, and ${\cal B}_{\alpha \beta,c}^{(1,2)}$, appearing in Eq.([\[ito\]]{}), depend quadratically on ${\mathbf n}$. As a result, the nonlinear stochastic trajectories generated from Eq.([\[ito\]]{}) may escape to infinity. This is expected to happen in the vicinity of certain phase space regions. This problem may be solved in various ways. When calculating the ground state using an imaginary time equation, one can force the stochastic equations of motion to be real [@Corney2004; @Assaad2005; @Corney2006b]. This limits the dynamics to a small subset of phase space, which is not likely include the most unstable regions. Alternatively, some combination of the gauge freedoms, described in App. \[gauge\], can be used to obtain an equivalent, more stable, form of the stochastic equations. A simple systematic way of obtaining stable stochastic equations for the time evolution of general fermionic models is yet to be developed.
Discussion {#disc}
==========
In this paper we have used a Gaussian phase-space representation to generalize a common Hilbert space approximation for many-body dynamics, the TDHF, which assumes that the wavefunction of the system is given by a single Slater determinant at all times. Here the many body density matrix is represented by an ensemble of Gaussian operators whose distribution of parameters satisfies a Fokker-Planck equation. We have shown that the drift terms of this Fokker-Planck equation have similar form to the TDHF equations \[compare Eqs. (\[Aito\]) and (\[tdhf3\])\]. This suggests that the phase-space representation can serve as a good basis for new approximation schemes, which systematically go beyond TDHF.
The Fokker Planck equation (\[FPeq\]) maps the original fermion system rigorously into a equivalent set of classical oscillators $n_{\alpha \beta}$ with stochastic dynamics. The number of oscillators is the same as the number of elements of the reduced single electron density matrix and it thus scales as $\sim N^2$ with the basis set size. The TDHF is a mean field approximation to this stochastic dynamics whereby the same classical coordinates satisfy a deterministic equation. Generalizations of the type given here were conjectured in ref. but the GPSR puts it on a firm theoretical basis.
Linear and nonlinear response functions e.g. optical spectra have a very different formal structure for quantum and classical systems. To calculate the response function to a classical field $E(t)$ one needs to add a coupling term $E(t) A$ to the Hamiltonian where $A$ is a dynamical variable. $n$’th order quantum response functions are then given by $n$ nested commutations such as $\left< \left[ \left[ A(\tau_1), A(\tau_2)\right],A(\tau_3)\right] \right>$ which gives $2^n$ terms (Liouville space pathways). Classical response functions have a very different form and require to run groups of several nearby trajectories and carefully monitor how they diverge. The responce functions can be expressed in terms of the stability matrices of the stochastic trajectories of the free system (without external driving) [@Mukamel1996; @Dellago2003], or by solving the distribution of the driven system and combining terms with different orders of interactions (finite field techniques) [@Mukamel2004]. An intriguing aspect of the present approach is that the quantum response functions are recast rigorously in a classical form. This could result in new insights and could suggest new numerical simulation techniques for fermions.
Studying the merits of this new representation will be an interesting future direction. Moreover, the quantum response function is one specific combination of the Liouville space pathways. Other combinations represent spontaneous fluctuations and how they are affected by external driving [@Harbola2004; @Cohen2003]. Many attempts have been made to connect nonlinear response and fluctuations through generalized fluctuation-dissipation relations [@Wang2002]. The GPSR may shed a new light into this issue and provide a classical picture for the connection between quantum response and fluctuations.
We have constructed an approximate, simple, numerical scheme by further assuming that the probability distribution $P({\mathbf n})$ has a Gaussian form at all times. The hierarchy of equations for reduced many-body density matrices can be truncated at the single and two particle level. This yields a coupled set of equations, (\[eqrho\]) and (\[eqcalm\]), which can be solved to calculate the time dependence of expectation values of all the one and two-body operators.
The exact time evolution of the phase-space distribution function, which represents the many body density matrix, conserves the distribution of the number of electrons. This is not true for the approximate dynamics of Eqs. (\[eqrho\]) and (\[eqcalm\]). While the mean number of electrons, and its variance, do not vary with time, higher moments are not conserved. This approximation scheme thus suffers from the old $N$ representability problem [@Coleman] common to other reduced density matrix approaches. Nevertheless, this scheme may be a useful description, most likely for systems with many electrons, where expectation values are less sensitive to small variations in the distribution of the number of particles.
The phase-space representation allows the development of new approximation schemes, by making other assumptions on the form of $P({\mathbf n})$. It may be possible to include constraints that ensure that approximations on $P({\mathbf n})$ conserve the distribution of number of particles, while still allowing to truncate the hierarchy. More work is needed in order to gain understanding on the way in which various assumptions on $P({\mathbf n})$ manifest themeselves on the many body dynamics.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We gratefully acknowledge the support of the National Science Foundation through grant No. CHE-0745892.
Gauge freedom in the Fokker-Planck equation {#gauge}
===========================================
As is the case for Bosonic coherent states [@Glauberbook], the Gaussian operator basis for fermions is overcomplete. This means that there exist an infinite number of equivalent forms of the time evolution equations for $P({\mathbf n})$ which give the same expectation values of all physical observables. Below we give a brief description of the various ways of obtaining such equivalent representations, following Ref. , and examine whether they retain the correspondence between the drift terms and the TDHF equations.
A way of changing the Fokker-Planck equation, without affecting the physical observables, is to add formally vanishing operators, such as $\hat{c}_{\alpha}^{\dagger} \hat{c}_{\alpha}^\dagger \hat{c}_\beta \hat{c}_\gamma$, to the Hamiltonian, and then use Eqs (\[ident1\]) and (\[ident2\]) to replace these terms by a differential operator. This method, which is only applicable for systems of identical fermions, was termed Fermi gauge in Refs. . A direct calculation shows that such Fermi gauges do not change the form of the drift terms ${\cal A}_{\alpha \beta}$ in Eq.(\[FPeq\]), but do affect the noise terms. Fermi gauges were used to obtain imaginary-time equations for $P$ where all the parameters are real rather than complex valued.
A different method of obtaining equivalent forms of the equations of motion is termed drift gauge [@Deuar2002; @Corney2006b]. Here one adds a new parameter, which corresponds to a weight given to each stochastic trajectory, thus replacing the (uniform) average over trajectories by a weighted average. As a result, a new distribution function is defined in a larger parameter space, which includes the weight as a variable, and a Fokker-Planck equation is derived for this new distribution functions. At the same time, the evaluation of averages using the distribution $P$ is replaced by weighted averages involving the new weight parameter. It is then possible to modify the drift terms ${\cal A}_{\alpha \beta}$, while at the same time adding suitable noise terms to part of the Fokker-Planck equation related to the new weight parameter, in such a way that will not change the values of weighted averages [@Corney2006b; @Assaad2005]. Drift gauges have been used to change the drift terms in order to avoid trajectories which run to infinity.
An equivalent, but different form of the stochastic equations of motion can be obtained by using different forms for the decomposition of ${\cal Q}$ in Eq. (\[defQ\]). This will not affect Eq.(\[FPeq\]), but will change its stochastic trajectory simulation, for instance using Eq. (\[ito\]). However, when combined with drift gauges the choice of solution of Eq. (\[defQ\]) may result in a different Fokker-Planck equation in the generalized phase space. The freedom to choose different solutions of Eq. (\[defQ\]) was termed diffusion gauge in Refs. .
The gauge freedoms may be useful for practical implementation of the GSPR. If a solution of Eq. (\[FPeq\]) leads to a probability distribution with long tails, and therefore for the appearance of boundary terms, due to the integration by parts, the gauge freedom can be used to generate an equivalent representation whose probability distribution is more localized. One can hope to use the many ways to generate equivalent representations, by combining the various gauges, to find a representation which does not suffer from boundary terms.
The Stratonovich stochastic equations {#stratapp}
=====================================
The Stratonovich calculus is an alternative to the Ito calculus used in eq. (\[ito\]). In this scheme the terms in the stochastic differential equation are evaluated at the midpoint of the interval, as opposed to the initial point used in the Ito scheme.
In practice, one solves the finite differences equation $${n}_{\alpha \beta}^{(i+1)}-n_{\alpha \beta}^{(i)}= {\cal A}_{\alpha \beta}^{(strat)} \left( {\mathbf n}^{mid} \right) dt+\sum_{c} \left( {\cal B}^{(1)}_{\alpha \beta, c} ({\mathbf n}^{mid}) d W_c^{(1)} + {\cal B}^{(2)}_{\alpha \beta, c}({\mathbf n}^{mid}) d W_c^{(2)} \right),$$ with ${\mathbf n}^{mid} \equiv ({\mathbf n}^{(i+1)}+{\mathbf n}^{(i)})/2$, in order to get ${\mathbf n}^{(i+1)}$. This implicit equation can be solved by iteration. It is of interest to note that implicit methods tend to show better numerical stability then explicit ones, see Ref. for a review.
This stochastic integration should lead to the Fokker-Planck equation (\[FPeq\]). However, this means that the coefficients ${\cal A}^{(strat)}$ can not be equal to the ones appearing in Eq. (\[Aito\]). This is due to correlations in the noise terms, which lead to the second order derivatives with the form $\frac{1}{2} \frac{\partial}{\partial n} {\cal B} \frac{\partial}{\partial n} {\cal B} P$, rather than $\frac{1}{2} \frac{\partial}{\partial n}\frac{\partial}{\partial n} {\cal B} {\cal B}P$ which would appeared when using the Ito scheme. (We suppressed subscripts for brevity.)
To compensate for these correlations, the drift terms of the Ito and Stratonovich schemes are related by $${\cal A}_{\alpha \beta}^{(strat)} = {\cal A}_{\alpha \beta} - \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\gamma \delta} \sum_{c} {\cal B}_{\gamma \delta,c}^{(1)} \frac{\partial}{\partial n_{\gamma \delta}} {\cal B}_{\alpha \beta ,c}^{(1)} - \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\gamma \delta} \sum_{c} {\cal B}_{\gamma \delta,c}^{(2)} \frac{\partial}{\partial n_{\gamma \delta}} {\cal B}_{\alpha \beta ,c}^{(2)}.$$ For the Hamiltonian (\[universalh\]) we find $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal A}_{\alpha \beta}^{(strat)} & = &-i \sum_{\gamma} \left( t_{\beta \gamma} n_{\alpha \gamma}-t_{\gamma \alpha} n_{\gamma \beta}\right) -i \sum_{\gamma \delta} \left( V_{\beta \delta \delta \gamma} n_{\alpha \gamma}-V_{\gamma \delta \delta \alpha} n_{\gamma \beta}\right) \nonumber \\
& + & i\sum_{\gamma \delta \epsilon} n_{\gamma \delta} n_{\alpha \epsilon} \left(V_{\beta \gamma \epsilon \delta}+ V_{\gamma \beta \delta \epsilon} \right)-i \sum_{\gamma \delta \epsilon} n_{\gamma \delta} n_{\epsilon \beta} \left( V_{\epsilon \gamma \alpha \delta}+V_{\gamma \epsilon \delta \alpha}\right). \end{aligned}$$ We have just shown that the Stratonovich form of the drift term differ from the one obtained using the Ito scheme, and therefore, differs from the terms appearing in the TDHF equations of motion. Nevertheless, by construction, both stochastic schemes give the same ensemble of trajectories.
[99]{}
P. Ring and P. Schuck, [*The Nuclear Many-Body Problem*]{} (Springer, New York, 1980).
J. W. Negele and H. Orland, [*Quantum Many-Particle Systems*]{}, (Westview press, Boulder, 1998).
J. Rammer, [*Quantum Field Theory of Non-equilibrium States*]{}, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007)
Blaizot, J.-P. and Ripka, G., [*Quantum Theory of Finite Systems*]{} (MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, 1986).
R. J. Bartlett and M. Musial, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{}, [**79**]{}, 291 (2007).
M. E. Casida, in [*Recent Advances in Density-Functional Methods*]{}, Vol. 3 of Part I, edited by D. A. Chong, World Scientific, Singapore, 1995.
G. F. Bertsch, J. I. Iwata, A. Rubio, and K. Yabana, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{}, [**62**]{}, 7998 (2000).
Y. Takimoto, F. D. Vila, and J. J. Rehr, [*J Chem. Phys.*]{}, [**127**]{}, 154114 (2007).
M. A. L. Marques, C. A. Ullrich, F. Nogueira, A. Rubio, K. Burke, and E. K. U. Gross, Eds., [*Time-Dependent Density Functional Theory*]{}, (Springer, Berlin, 2006).
G. Onida, L. Reining, and A. Rubio, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{}, [**74**]{}, 601 (2002)
D. A. Mazziotti, Ed., [*Reduced-Density-Matrix Mechanics*]{} (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken 2007).
A.J. Coleman, V.I. Yukalov, [*Reduced Density Matrices: Coulson’s Challenge*]{}, (Springer-Verlag, Berlin 2000).
V. Chernyak and S. Mukamel, [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{}, [**104**]{}, 444 (1996).
Thouless, D. J. [*The Quantum Mechanics of Many-Body Systems*]{}, (Academic Press, New York, 1972).
S. Tretiak and S. Mukamel, [*Chem. Rev.*]{}, [**102**]{}, 3171-3212 (2002).
S. Mukamel, S. Tretiak, T. Wagersreiter, and V. Chernyak, [*Science*]{}, [**277**]{}, 781-787 (1997).
O. Berman and S. Mukamel, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{}, [**67**]{}, 042503 (2003).
S. Tretiak and V. Chernyak, [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{}, [**119**]{}, 8809 (2003).
S. Tretiak, V. Chernyak, and S. Mukamel, [*Int. J. Quant. Chem.*]{}, [**70**]{}, 711 (1998).
J. F. Corney and P. D. Drummond, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**93**]{}, 260401 (2004).
J. F. Corney and P. D. Drummond, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{}, [**39**]{}, 269 (2006).
J. F. Corney and P. D. Drummond, [*Phys. rev. B*]{}, [**73**]{}, 125112 (2006).
K. E. Cahill and R. J. Glauber, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{}, [**59**]{}, 1538 (1999).
V. Chernyak, S. Choi, and S. Mukamel, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{}, [**67**]{}, 053604 (2003).
F. F. Assaad, P. werner, P. Corboz, E. Gull, and M. Troyer, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{}, [**72**]{}, 224518 (2005).
T. Aimi and M. Imada, [*J. Phys. Soc. Japan*]{}, [**76**]{}, 084709 (2007).
P. Corboz, M. Troyer, A. Kleine, I. P. McCulloch, U. Schollw\`‘ock, and F. F. Assaad, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{}, 085108 (2008).
S. M. A. Rombouts, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**96**]{}, 188901 (2006); J. F. Corney and P. D. Drummond, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**96**]{}, 188902 (2006).
H-P. Breuer and F. Pettruccione, [*The theory of open quantum systems*]{} (Oxford University Press, London, 2002).
C. W. Gardiner, [*Handbook of Stochastic Methods*]{}, (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985).
S. Mukamel, V. Khidekel, and V. Chernyak, [*Phys. Rev. E*]{}, [**53**]{}, R1 (1996).
C. Dellago and S. Mukamel, [*Phys. Rev. E*]{}, [**67**]{}, 035205 (2003).
S. Mukamel and J. B. Maddox, [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{}, [**121**]{}, 36 (2004).
U. Harbola, and S. Mukamel, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{}, [**70**]{}, 052506 (2004).
A. E. Cohen and S. Mukamel, [*Phys. Rev. Lett*]{}, [**91**]{}, 233202 (2003).
E. Wang and U. Heinz, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D, [**66**]{}, 025008 (2002).
R. J. Glauber, [*Quamtum Theory of Optical Coherence*]{}, (Wiley-VCH, Weinheim 2007).
P. Deuar and P. D. Drummond, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{}, [**66**]{}, 033812 (2002).
P. D. Drummond and I. K. Mortimer, J. Comp. Phys., [**93**]{}, 144 (1991).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
\#1\#2\#3 \#1\#2\#3 \#1\#2\#3
Introduction
============
The word “quantum” used in the title needs some qualifying. Historically, this term was introduced in relation to the discreteness of the spectrum of operators like the Hamiltonian and the angular momentum. However, with the blossoming of quantum mechanics, its use was generalised to the description of non-classical objects, typically non-commuting operators. It is in this sense that we are going to use the term quantum in this paper: namely, for the description of equations where the various components of the dependent variable do not commute among themselves.
In this paper we shall focus on [*integrable*]{} equations involving non-commuting variables. Their interest, in particular, as far as quantum field theories are concerned, is obvious. A large literature exists concerning supersymmetric or just fermionic extensions of integrable evolution equations. It is now clear that the special properties which characterise integrability can be extended to the case where the dependent variable involves fermionic as well as bosonic components.
The quantisation of low dimensional integrable Hamiltonian systems has been the object of extensive investigations by Hietarinta and collaborators [@Hietarinta; @Hietarinta; @and; @Collabolators]. It was shown, in particular, that the preservation of integrability in a quantum setting often necessitates the introduction of purely quantum ([*i.e.*]{}, explicitly $\hbar$ dependent) terms in both the Hamiltonian and the invariants. In some cases, these terms can be absorbed by the proper ordering and the introduction of a non-flat space metric. However, it is not clear whether this suffices in all cases.
The “quantum” extension of (continuous) Painlevé equations has been introduced by one of us (HN) in [@Nagoya2004; @Nagoya2007]. For these paradigmatic integrable systems, integrability is not related to the existence of invariants, but rather to the fact that these nonautonomous equations can be obtained as the compatibility condition of a (an overdetermined) linear system, the Lax pair. (Incidentally, Novikov [@Novikov] refers to this compatibility condition as a quantisation condition for the spectral curve and thus the deautonomisation process can be considered, in some formal sense, as a first kind of quantisation.)
Starting from “quantum” continuous Painlevé equations we shall derive their contiguity relations which, as already shown in the commuting case, can be interpreted as discrete Painlevé equations [@FGR; @JM]. Quantum and discrete systems possess a common character as far as the phase-space of their dynamics is concerned. While in the former case the surface of an elementary cell is fixed by the relation $\Delta x\Delta
p=\hbar$ in the latter case the elementary cell is rigidly fixed by $\Delta x=\Delta p=1$ (in the appropriate units). The main difficulty in quantising discrete systems, integrability notwithstanding, lies in the fact that one must introduce a commutation rule consistent with the evolution [@QN]. This is a highly nontrivial problem. We have addressed this question in [@GRPN] and [@TGRT] where we have shown that for the mappings of the QRT [@QRT] family the following commutation rule $$\begin{gathered}
xy=qyx+\lambda x + \mu y +\nu \label{eq:1-1}\end{gathered}$$ is consistent with the evolution (with the adequate choice of the parameters). Since discrete Painlevé equations are nonautonomous extensions of the QRT mappings we expect rule to be sufficient for the quantisation of the cases we shall consider here.
In what follows, we shall analyse the “quantum” forms of continuous Painlevé equations derived by one of us (HN) in [@Nagoya2004] and use their auto-Bäcklund transformations so as to deduce their contiguity relations. Thus working with quantum forms of P$_{\rm II}$, P$_{\rm IV}$ and P$_{\rm V}$ we will derive quantum forms for the discrete P$_{\rm I}$, P$_{\rm
II}$, P$_{\rm III}$ and P$_{\rm IV}$.
Non-commuting variables: some basic relations
=============================================
Before proceeding to the derivation of quantum discrete Painlevé equations we should present a summary of our findings in [@Nagoya2004]. Our derivation of quantum continuous Painlevé equations consists in extending the symmetrical form of Painlevé equations proposed by Noumi and Yamada [@NYHigher] (see also Willox et al. [@Willox; @et; @al]) to non-commuting objects. In the case of the quantum P$\rm _{II}$ equation we introduce three unknown operators $f_0$, $f_1$, $f_2$ of $t$ and two parameters $\alpha_0$, $\alpha_1$ in the complex number field $\mathbb{C}$. The commutation rules are $$\begin{gathered}
[f_1,f_0]=2\hbar f_2,\qquad[f_0,f_2]=[f_2,f_1]=\hbar.
\label{eq:2-1}\end{gathered}$$ (In a more physical parlance we can say that the $\hbar$ appearing in the commutation relations is the Planck constant).
Generalising these relations to more objects so as to describe higher quantum Painlevé equations is straightforward. For a positive number $l$ greater than $1$, we introduce $l+1$ c-number parameters $\alpha_i$ $(0\le i\le l)$ and unknown operators $f_i$ $(0\le i\le l)$ with commutation relations $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:2-2}
[f_i,f_{i+1}]=\hbar ,\qquad[f_i,f_j]=0 \quad\rm{otherwise},\end{gathered}$$ where the indices $0,1,\ldots,l$ are understood as elements of $\mathbb{Z}/(l+1)\mathbb{Z}$.
In the case of the quantum P$\rm _{II}$ equation, the evolution equations with respect to $t$ for the unknown operators $f_i$ are $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:2-3}
\partial_t f_0=f_0f_2+f_2f_0+\alpha_0,\qquad \partial_t f_1=-f_1f_2-f_2f_1+\alpha_1,\qquad \partial_t f_2=f_1-f_0,\end{gathered}$$ and in the case of the quantum P$\rm _{IV}$ equation, the quantum P$\rm _{V}$ equation and higher Painlevé equations, the evolution equations with respect to $t$ for the unknown operators $f_i$ are: for $l=2n$ ($n\ge 1$), $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:2-4}
\partial_t f_i=f_i\left(\sum_{1\le r\le n}f_{i+2r-1} \right)
-\left( \sum_{1\le r\le n}f_{i+2r}\right)f_i+\alpha_i,\end{gathered}$$ and for $l=2n+1$ ($n\ge 1$), $$\begin{gathered}
\partial_t f_i= f_i\left(\sum_{1\le r\le s\le n}f_{i+2r-1}f_{i+2s}\right)
-\left(\sum_{1\le r\le s\le n}f_{i+2r}f_{i+2s+1}\right)f_i
\nonumber
\\
\phantom{\partial_t f_i=}{} +\left({k\over 2}-\sum_{1\le r\le
n}\alpha_{i+2r}\right)f_i+\alpha_i\sum_{1\le r\le n}f_{i+2r},
\label{eq:2-5}
\end{gathered}$$ where $k=\alpha_0+\cdots+\alpha_l$. These (non-commutative) differential systems are quantization of nonlinear ordinary differential systems proposed by Noumi and Yamada in [@NYHigher], and equal to quantization of P$\rm _{IV}$ and P$\rm _{V}$ for $l=2$ and $l=3$, respectively.
In the introduction we have stressed the necessity for the commutation rule to be consistent with the evolution. All systems here are consistent with the corresponding evolution $\partial_t$, namely the evolution $\partial_t$ preserves the commutation relations for the case of the quantum P$\rm_{II}$ equation and for the other quantum Painlevé equations.
The non-commutative differential systems , and admit the affine Weyl group actions of type $A_l^{(1)}$, respectively, as well as the classical case. The actions are as follows. In the case of the quantum P$\rm _{II}$ equation, we have $$\begin{gathered}
s_0(f_ 0)=f_0, \qquad s_0(f_ 1)=f_1-f_2{\alpha_0\over
f_0}-{\alpha_0\over f_0}f_2-{\alpha_0^2\over f_0^2},\qquad
s_0(f_ 2)=f_2+{\alpha_0\over f_0},\nonumber
\\
s_1(f_ 0)=f_0+f_2{\alpha_1\over f_1}+{\alpha_1\over f_1}f_2-{\alpha_1^2\over f_1^2}, \qquad s_1(f_ 1)=f_1,\qquad s_1(f_ 2)=f_2-{\alpha_1\over f_1},\nonumber
\\
s_0(\alpha_ 0)=-\alpha_0, \qquad s_0(\alpha_ 1)=\alpha_1+2\alpha_0,\qquad s_1 (\alpha_ 0)=\alpha_0+2\alpha_1,\quad s_1(\alpha_ 1)=-\alpha_1,\nonumber
\\
\pi(f_ 0)=f_1, \qquad \pi(f_ 1)=f_0, \qquad \pi(f_ 2)=-f_2, \qquad \pi(\alpha_ 0)=\alpha_1,\qquad \pi(\alpha_ 1)=\alpha_0.
\label{eq:2-6}
\end{gathered}$$ The actions $s_0$, $s_1$ and $\pi$ preserve the commutation relations and give a representation of the extended affine Weyl group of type $A_1^{(1)}$, namely, they satisfy the relations $$s_i^2=1, \qquad \pi^2=1,\qquad \pi s_i=s_{i+1} \pi.$$ Moreover the actions of $s_0$, $s_1$ and $\pi$ commute with the differentiation $\partial_t$, that is, they are Bäcklund transformations of the quantum P$\rm _{II}$ equation.
In the case of the quantum P$\rm _{IV}$ equation ($l=2$), the quantum P$\rm _{V}$ equation ($l=3$) and higher quantum Painlevé equations ($l\ge 4$), for $i,j=0,1,\ldots,l$ ($l\ge 2$) we have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:2-7}
s_i(f_ j)=f_j+{\alpha_i\over f_i} u_{ij},\qquad s_i(\alpha_
j)=\alpha_j-\alpha_i a_{ij},\qquad \pi(f_ j)=f_{j+1},\quad
\pi(\alpha_ j)=\alpha_{j+1},\\end{gathered}$$ where $$\begin{gathered}
u_{i,i\pm1}=\pm1,\qquad u_{l0}=1, \qquad u_{0l}=-1, \qquad
u_{ij}=0\quad {\rm otherwise},\nonumber
\\
a_{ii}=2, \qquad a_{i,i\pm1}=-1,\qquad a_{l0}= a_{0l}=-1, \qquad a_{ij}=0\quad {\rm otherwise}.\nonumber\end{gathered}$$ The actions of $s_i$ ($i=0,1,\ldots,l$) and $\pi$ preserve the commutation relations and give representations of the extended affine Weyl groups of type $A_l^{(1)}$, namely, they satisfy the relations $$s_i^2=1,\qquad (s_is_{i+1})^3=1,\qquad s_is_j=s_js_i\quad (j\neq
i\pm 1),\qquad \pi^{l+1}=1,\quad \pi s_i=s_{i+1}\pi.$$ Moreover the actions of $s_i$ ($i=0,1,\ldots,l$) and $\pi$ commute with the differentiation $\partial_t$, that is, they are Bäcklund transformations of the corresponding non-commutative differential systems.
We stress that the auto-Bäcklund transformations preserve the commutation relations in each case so that a discrete evolution which is constructed from these auto-Bäcklund transformations also preserves the commutation relations.
We remark that each differential system , or has relations $$\partial_t(f_0+f_1+f_2^2)=k$$ for the quantum P$\rm _{II}$ case, $$\partial_t\left(\sum_{r=0}^lf_r\right)=k$$ for the $l=2n$ ($n\ge 1$) case and $$\partial_t\left(\sum_{r=0}^lf_{2r}\right)={k\over 2}\sum_{r=0}^lf_{2r},\qquad
\partial_t\left(\sum_{r=0}^lf_{2r+1}\right)={k\over 2}\sum_{r=0}^lf_{2r+1}$$ for the $l=2n+1$ ($n\ge 1$) case, where $k=\alpha_0+\alpha_1+\cdots+\alpha_l$. For simplicity, we normalize $k=1$ in the following.
The continuous quantum Painlevé II\
and the related discrete equation
===================================
As explained in Section 2 the Painlevé II case can be obtained with three non-commuting objects $f_0$, $f_1$, $f_2$ as described in and parameters $\alpha_0$, $\alpha_1$. From the dynamical equations $$\begin{gathered}
f_0'=f_0f_2+f_2f_0+\alpha_0,\nonumber
\\
f_1'=-f_1f_2-f_2f_1+\alpha_1,\nonumber
\\
f_2'=f_1-f_0,\nonumber\end{gathered}$$ (where the prime $'$ denotes differentiation with respect to $t$), eliminating $f_0$, $f_1$ we obtain the equation for the quantum P$_{\rm II}$ $$\begin{gathered}
f_2''=2f_2^3-tf_2+\alpha_1-\alpha_0,\end{gathered}$$ which has the same expression as the commutative P$_{\rm II}$. On the other hand, if we eliminate $f_0$, $f_2$ we find the quantum version of P$_{34}$. We obtain $$\begin{gathered}
f_1''={1\over2}f_1'f_1^{-1}f_1'-4f_1^2+2tf_1-{1\over2}(\alpha_1^2-\hbar^2)f_1^{-1}.\end{gathered}$$ The difference of this “quantum” version with the commutative P$_{34}$ is clearly seen in the term quadratic in the first derivative (which would have been $f_1'^2/f_1$ in the commutative case) but also in the last term. As a matter of fact, the coefficient of the term proportional to $1/f_1$ is a perfect square in the commutative case. The appearance of the $-\hbar^2$ in the $\alpha_1^2-\hbar^2$ coefficient is a consequence of the non-commutative character of the $f_i$’s.
In order to derive the discrete equation obtained as a contiguity relation of the solutions of the quantum P$_{\rm II}$ we shall use the relations presented in the previous section. We define an evolution in the parameter space of P$_{\rm II}$ by $\fup\equiv s_1\pi f$ and as a consequence the reverse evolution is $\fdo\equiv\pi s_1f$. Using the relations we find $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:3-1}
\fup_2+f_2=\alpha_1f_1^{-1}\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:3-2}
\fdoone+f_1=t-f_2^2.\end{gathered}$$ In the same way we compute the effect of the transformations on the parameters $\alpha$. We find $\aup_1=\alpha_1+1$ (and similarly $\adoone=\alpha_1-1$). Thus applying $n$ times the transformation $s_1\pi$ on $\alpha_1$, we find that $\alpha_1$ becomes $\alpha_1+n$. We eliminate $f_1$ between the two equations and and obtain an equation governing the evolution in the parameter space. We find $$\begin{gathered}
\alpha_1(\fup_2+f_2)^{-1}+\adoone(\fdotwo+f_2)^{-1}=t-f_2^2.\end{gathered}$$ This is the quantum version of the equation known, in the commutative case, as the alternate discrete Painlevé I.
The continuous quantum Painlevé IV\
and the related discrete equation
===================================
We turn now to the case of the quantum P$_{\rm IV}$ which is obtained from the equations presented in Section 2 for $l=2$. Again we have three dependent variables $f_0$, $f_1$, $f_2$. The quantum continuous P$_{\rm IV}$ equation is $$\begin{gathered}
f_0'=f_0f_1-f_2f_0+\alpha_0,\nonumber
\\
f_1'=f_1f_2-f_0f_1+\alpha_1,\nonumber
\\
f_2'=f_2f_0-f_1f_2+\alpha_2, \nonumber\end{gathered}$$ which is very similar to the one obtained in the commutative case. It is interesting to eliminate $f_0$ and $f_2$ and give the equation for $f_1$. After a somewhat lengthy calculation we find $$\begin{gathered}
f_1''={1\over2}f_1'f_1^{-1}f_1'+{3\over2}f_1^3-2tf_1^2+\left({t^2\over2}+\alpha_2-\alpha_0\right)f_1-{1\over2}(\alpha_1^2-\hbar^2)f_1^{-1},\end{gathered}$$ where we have used the identity $\sum_{i}f_i=t$. Again we remark that this equation, with respect to the commutative P$_{\rm IV}$, contains an explicit quantum correction.
Before proceeding to the construction of the discrete system related to this equation we derive some auxiliary results. Starting from the action of $s_i$ on $f_j$, which from is just $s_i(f_ j)=f_j+\alpha_i f_i^{-1} u_{ij}$ we find $s_i(\sum_{j}f_ j)=\sum_{j}f_ j$ because $\sum_{j}
u_{ij}=0$. Similarly $\pi(\sum_{j}f_ j)=\sum_{j}f_ j$. Thus $\sum_{j}f_ j$ is conserved under any combination of the transformations $\pi$ and $s_i$ of .
We can now define the evolution in the parameter space just as we did in the case of the quantum P$_{\rm II}$. We put $\fup\equiv
s_1s_0\pi f$ and for the reverse evolution is $\fdo\equiv\pi^{-1}
s_0s_1f$. Using the relations we find $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:4-1}
\fup_2+f_1+f_2=t-{\alpha_1\over f_1}\end{gathered}$$ and similarly $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:4-2}
f_1+f_2+\fdoone=t+{\alpha_2\over f_2}.\end{gathered}$$ We now study the effect of the up-shift operator on $\alpha_1$ and $-\alpha_2$ which play the role of the independent variable. (The minus sign in front of $\alpha_2$ guarantees that the two equations have the same form). Using the relations in and the fact that the sum of the $\alpha$’s is constant we find $\aup_1=\alpha_1+1$ and $(-\aup_2)=(-\alpha_2)+1$. Thus incrementing the independent variable under repeated applications of the up-shift operator leads to a linear dependence on the number of iterations. Still, since the starting point is different we have two free parameters. Thus the system , is exactly the quantum analogue of the equation known (in the commutative case) as the “asymmetric discrete Painlevé I”, which is, in fact, a discrete form of P$_{\rm II}$ [@ADPI].
The continuous quantum Painlevé V\
and the related discrete systems
==================================
Finally we examine the case of the quantum P$_{\rm V}$, corresponding to the case $l=3$ in Section 2. The quantum continuous P$_{\rm V}$ equation is $$\begin{gathered}
f_0'=f_0f_1f_2-f_2f_3f_0+\left({1\over
2}-\alpha_2\right)f_0+\alpha_0f_2,\nonumber
\\
f_1'=f_1f_2f_3-f_3f_0f_1+\left({1\over
2}-\alpha_3\right)f_1+\alpha_1f_3,\nonumber
\\
f_2'=f_2f_3f_0-f_0f_1f_2+\left({1\over
2}-\alpha_0\right)f_2+\alpha_2f_0,\nonumber
\\
f_3'=f_3f_0f_1-f_1f_2f_3+\left({1\over
2}-\alpha_1\right)f_3+\alpha_3f_1.\nonumber\end{gathered}$$ We remark that $f_0'+f_2'=(f_0+f_2)/2$ and similarly $f_1'+f_3'=(f_1+f_3)/2$. Thus two of the variables can be easily eliminated by introducing explicitly the time variable through the exponential $e^{t/2}$. Just as in the case of P$_{\rm III}$ and P$_{\rm IV}$ we can eliminate one further variable and obtain the quantum form of P$_{\rm V}$ expressed in terms of a single variable. In the present case it is more convenient to introduce an auxiliary variable $w=1-e^{t/2}/f_0$. We obtain thus for $w$ the equation $$\begin{gathered}
w''=w'\left({1\over
w-1}+{1\over2w}\right)w'+(w-1)^2\left({\alpha_0^2-\hbar^2\over2}w+{\hbar^2-\alpha_2^2\over2w}\right)\nonumber
\\
\phantom{w''=}{}
+(\alpha_3-\alpha_1)e^tw+e^{2t}{w(w+1)\over2(1-w)}.\label{eq:5-1}\end{gathered}$$ As in the previous cases, the equation contains an explicit quantum correction, with respect to the commutative P$_{\rm V}$, as well as a symmetrisation of the term quadratic in the first derivative.
Just as in the case of commutative P$_{\rm V}$ we can define several different evolutions in the parameter space giving rise to different discrete equations. For the first equation we introduce the first up-shift operator $R=\pi s_3s_2s_1$ from for $l=3$. If we define $x=f_0+f_2$ and $y=f_1+f_3$ a careful application of the rules shows that $Rx=y$ and $Ry=x$. Next we introduce an auxiliary variable $g$ defined by $g=f_3-\alpha_0f_0^{-1}=y-f_1-\alpha_0f_0^{-1}$ and we seek an equation in terms of the variables $f_1$, $f_0$, $g$. Calling $\fup\equiv Rf$, we find $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:5-2}
\fup_1+f_0=x-{\alpha_0+\alpha_3\over g}\end{gathered}$$ complemented by the equation coming from the definition of $g$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:5-3}
f_1+g=y-{\alpha_0\over f_0}\end{gathered}$$ and finally $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:5-4}
\gdo+f_0=x+{\alpha_1\over f_1}.\end{gathered}$$ In order to introduce the proper independent variable we consider the action of $R$ on the $\alpha$’s: $\aup_0=\alpha_0+1$, $\aup_1=\alpha_1-1$, $\aup_2=\alpha_2$ and $\aup_3=\alpha_3$. Thus we can choose $z=\alpha_0$ (which grows linearly with the successive applications of $R$). The system , and is the quantum analogue of the asymmetric, ternary, discrete Painlevé I, which, as we have shown in [@dressing] is a discrete form of the Painlevé IV equation. (At this point we should point out that the alternating constants $x$, $y$ do not introduce an extra degree of freedom. As a matter of fact by choosing an appropriate gauge of the dependent variables and rescaling of the independent ones we can bring these constants to any non-zero value).
For the second equation we introduce a new up-shift operator $T=s_1\pi s_3s_2$, the action of which is again obtained with the help of . The variables $x$ and $y$ are defined in the same way as in the previous paragraph and again we have $Tx=y$ and $Ty=x$. An auxiliary variable is necessary in this case also and thus we introduce $h=f_3+\alpha_2f_2^{-1}$. We denote the action of $T$ by a tilde: $\fti\equiv Tf$. We seek an equation for $f_1$, $f_2$, $h$. We find $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:5-5}
\fdt_1+f_2=x+{\alpha_2+\alpha_3\over h}.\end{gathered}$$ The definition of $h$ implies $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:5-6}
h+f_1=y+{\alpha_2\over f_2}\end{gathered}$$ and finally we have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:5-7}
f_2+\hti=x-{\alpha_1\over f_1}.\end{gathered}$$ The action of $T$ on the $\alpha$’s is $\ati_0=\alpha_0$, $\ati_1=\alpha_1+1$, $\ati_2=\alpha_2-1$ and $\ati_3=\alpha_3$.
Combining the two systems above we can obtain a nicer, and more familiar, form. First, comparing and , we find that $\gdo=f_2+\alpha_1f_1^{-1}=x-\hti=T(y-h)$, or equivalently $g=RT(y-h)$. We are thus led to introduce the operator $S=RT$, and we denote its action by a “hat” accent $\fht=Sf$. Subtracting from and eliminating $g$ through the relation $g=y-\hht$, we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:5-8}
h+\hht=y+{\alpha_0\over f_0}-{\alpha_2\over f_0-x}.\end{gathered}$$ For the second equation we start from and apply the operator $RT$ to it. We find $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:5-9}
\fup_1+\fht_2=x-{\alpha_0+\alpha_1\over \hht}\end{gathered}$$ where we have used the fact that $RT(\alpha_2+\alpha_3)=-(\alpha_0+\alpha_1)$. Next we subtract from , use the definition of $x$ in order to eliminate $f_2$ and find finally $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:5-10}
f_0+\fht_0=x+{\alpha_0+\alpha_3\over
\hht-y}+{\alpha_0+\alpha_1\over \hht}.\end{gathered}$$ A careful application of the rules shows that the action of the operator $RT$ on each of the numerators of the fractions in the right hand side of and results in an increase by exactly 1 and thus an independent variable linear in the number of iterations of $RT$ can be introduced. As in the case of the first system , and presented in this section the alternating constants $x$, $y$ do not introduce an extra degree of freedom. A better choice of the dependent variables would be $h\to h-y/2$ and $f_0\to f_0-x/2$. Moreover, by choosing an appropriate gauge of the dependent variables and rescaling of the independent ones we can bring these constants to any non-zero value, for instance $x=y=2$. The system now becomes $$\begin{gathered}
h+\hht={\alpha_0\over f_0+1}-{\alpha_2\over f_0-1},
\label{eq:5-11}
\\
f_0+\fht_0={\alpha_0+\alpha_3\over \hht-1}+{\alpha_0+\alpha_1\over
\hht+1}.\label{eq:5-12}\end{gathered}$$ Under this form one recognizes immediately the structure of the “asymmetric discrete Painlevé II” equation, introduced in [@PIII] and which is a discrete analogue of P$_{\rm III}$. Thus and constitute the quantum extension of the latter.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we have analysed the “quantum” forms of Painlevé equations derived by one of us (HN) in [@Nagoya2004]. The derivation consists in extending the symmetrical form of Painlevé equations proposed by Noumi and Yamada to non-commuting variables. We have focused here on P$_{\rm II}$, P$_{\rm IV}$ and P$_{\rm V}$ and derived their more “familiar” forms expressed in terms of a single variable. The non-commutative character manifests itself in the fact that the dependent function does not commute with its first derivative. As a consequence (and despite the fact that a symmetrised form of the term quadratic in the first derivative is used) explicit quantum corrective terms appear in the equation, proportional to the square of the Planck constant. Using the auto-Bäcklund transformations of the continuous Painlevé equations we derive their contiguity relations which are just the quantum forms for the discrete P$_{\rm I}$, P$_{\rm II}$, P$_{\rm III}$ and P$_{\rm IV}$.
[99]{}
Fokas A., Grammaticos B., Ramani A., From continuous to discrete Painlevé equations, [*J. Math. Anal. Appl.*]{} [**180**]{} (1993), 342–360.
Grammaticos B., Nijhoff F.W., Papageorgiou V., Ramani A., Satsuma J., Linearization and solutions of the discrete Painlevé III equation, [*Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**185**]{} (1994), 446–452, [solv-int/9310003](http://arxiv.org/abs/solv-int/9310003).
Grammaticos B., Ramani A., Papageorgiou V., Discrete dressing transformations and Painlevé equations, [*Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**235**]{} (1997), 475–479.
Grammaticos B., Ramani A., Papageorgiou V., Nijhoff F., Quantization and integrability of discrete systems, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**25**]{} (1992), 6419–6427.
Grammaticos B., Ramani A., From continuous Painlevé IV to the asymmetric discrete Painlevé I, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**31**]{} (1998), 5787–5798.
Hietarinta J., Classical versus quantum integrability, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**25**]{} (1984), 1833–1840.
Hietarinta J., Grammaticos B., On the $\hbar^2$-correction terms in quantum integrability, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**22**]{} (1989), 1315–1322.
Jimbo M., Miwa T., Monodromy preserving deformation of linear ordinary differential equations with rational coefficients. II, [*Phys. D*]{} [**2**]{} (1981), 407–448.
Nagoya H., Quantum Painlevé systems of type $A_l^{(1)}$, [*Internat. J. Math.*]{} [**15**]{} (2004), 1007–1031, [math.QA/0402281](http://arxiv.org/abs/math.QA/0402281).
Nagoya H., Quantum Painlevé systems of type $A_{n-1}^{(1)}$ with higher degree Lax operators, [*Internat. J. Math.*]{} [**18**]{} (2007), 839–868.
Noumi M., Yamada Y., Higher order Painlevé equations of type $A_l^{(1)}$, [*Funkcial. Ekvac.*]{} [**41**]{} (1998), 483–503, [math.QA/9808003](http://arxiv.org/abs/math.QA/9808003).
Novikov S.P., Quantization of finite-gap potentials and a nonlinear quasiclassical approximation that arises in nonperturbative string theory, [*Funct. Anal. Appl.*]{} [**24**]{} (1990), 296–306.
Quispel G.R.W., Nijhoff F.W., Integrable two-dimensional quantum mappings, [*Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**161**]{} (1992), 419–422.
Quispel G.R.W., Roberts J.A.G., Thompson C.J., Integrable mappings and soliton equations. II, [*Phys. D*]{} [**34**]{} (1989), 183–192.
Ramani A., Willox R., Grammaticos B., Carstea A.S., Satsuma J., Limits and degeneracies of discrete Painlevé equations: a sequel, [*Phys. A*]{} [**347**]{} (2005), 1–16.
Ramani A., Tamizhmani T., Grammaticos B., Tamizhmani K.M., The extension of integrable mappings to non-commuting variables, [*J. Nonlinear Math. Phys.*]{} [**10**]{} (2003), suppl. 2, 149–165.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'For every prime $p$, Mohan Kumar constructed examples of stably free modules of rank $p$ on suitable $p+1$-dimensional smooth affine varieties. This note discusses how to detect the corresponding unimodular rows by an explicit motivic cohomology group. Using the recent developments in the $\mathbb{A}^1$-obstruction classification of vector bundles, this provides an alternative proof of non-triviality of Mohan Kumar’s stably free modules. The reinterpretation of Mohan Kumar’s examples also allows to produce interesting examples of stably trivial torsors for other algebraic groups.'
address: 'Matthias Wendt, Institut für Mathematik, Universität Osnabrück, Albrechtstraße 28a, 49076 Osnabrück, Germany'
author:
- Matthias Wendt
date: September 2018
title: Variations in A1 on a theme of Mohan Kumar
---
Introduction
============
The starting point of this note is the following theorem of Mohan Kumar [@mohan:kumar] which provides important examples of stably free modules of high rank:
\[thm:mk1\] Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field. For every prime $p$, there exists a $(p+1)$-dimensional smooth affine variety $X={\operatorname}{Spec}A$ over $k(T)$ and a nontrivial stably free $A$-module of rank $p$, given by a unimodular row of length $p+1$.
The main goal of the present note is to reinterpret the geometric constructions underlying the results in [@mohan:kumar]; here is a short outline of the basic ideas: The unimodular row defining the stably free module can be viewed as a morphism $X\to\mathbb{A}^{p+1}\setminus\{0\}$. In the setting of $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy theory, we have a composition of maps $$[X,\mathbb{A}^{p+1}\setminus\{0\}]_{\mathbb{A}^1}\to {\operatorname}{H}^p_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{MW}}_{p+1})\to {\operatorname}{H}^p_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{p+1}/p!).$$ Some information on the relevant homotopy sheaves is provided in Section \[sec:prelims\]. For now, we note that the first non-trivial $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy sheaf of $\mathbb{A}^{p+1}\setminus\{0\}$ is $\bm{\pi}_p^{\mathbb{A}^1}(\mathbb{A}^{p+1}\setminus\{0\})\cong\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{MW}}_{p+1}$, and the first map in the above composition is induced from the corresponding morphism $\mathbb{A}^{p+1}\setminus\{0\}\to {\operatorname}{K}(\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{MW}}_{p+1},p)$ which is the first nontrivial stage of the Postnikov tower for $\mathbb{A}^{p+1}\setminus\{0\}$. The second map is induced from the composition $\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{MW}}_{p+1}\to \mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{p+1}\to\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{p+1}/p!$ of the quotient by $\eta$ and the quotient by $p!$. Now the variety $X$ constructed by Mohan Kumar arises from a Zariski covering of another variety $X'$, and the image of the unimodular row in ${\operatorname}{H}^p_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{p+1}/p!)$ can be checked to be non-trivial because it has non-trivial image under the connecting map ${\operatorname}{H}^p_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{p+1}/p!)\to{\operatorname}{CH}^{p+1}(X')/p!$ of the Mayer–Vietoris sequence. By the recent computations due to Asok and Fasel in [@AsokFaselSpheres], we know that there is a natural map $${\operatorname}{H}^p_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{p+1}/p!)\to {\operatorname}{H}^p_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X,\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_p({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_p)),$$ and some exact sequence chasing plus the above information can be used to show that the lifting class of the composition $X\to\mathbb{A}^{p+1}\setminus\{0\}\to{{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_p$ yields a non-trivial class in ${\operatorname}{H}^p_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X,\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_p({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_p))$. This analysis provides an alternative $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopical proof of the non-triviality of the stably free modules constructed by Mohan Kumar, cf. Theorem \[thm:mkalt\] and the discussion in Section \[sec:comparison\].
The relevance of this reformulation comes from the recent approach to torsor classification via $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy theory: the representability results [@gbundles; @gbundles2] together with obstruction-theoretic methods [@MField; @AsokFasel] relate the classification of $G$-torsors over smooth affine varieties to Nisnevich cohomology with coefficients in $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy sheaves of the classifying space of $G$. The above reinterpretation explains exactly how Mohan Kumar’s stably free modules fit into the $\mathbb{A}^1$-topological approach to vector bundle classification. Moreover, there are several other classifying spaces of algebraic groups where quotients of Milnor K-theory appear in $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy sheaves. The above $\mathbb{A}^1$-topological construction of stably free modules can then be adapted to provide stably trivial torsors for other algebraic groups. For example, a second class of examples of stably trivial torsors, for the symplectic groups, follows from the vector bundle case by some further exact sequence chasing, cf. Theorem \[thm:sp\]:
Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field of characteristic $\neq 2$. For every odd prime $p$, there exists a $p+1$-dimensional smooth affine variety over $k(T)$ and a stably trivial non-trivial ${\operatorname}{Sp}_{p-1}$-torsor over it. Clearing denominators, there exists a $p+2$-dimensional smooth affine variety over $k$ with a stably trivial non-trivial ${\operatorname}{Sp}_{p-1}$-torsor over it.
Taking the underlying projective module and adding a trivial line recovers the stably free modules of Theorem \[thm:mk1\], i.e., Mohan Kumar’s stably free modules have (stably trivial) symplectic lifts.
Finally, the original motivation for looking at Mohan Kumar’s example through the eyes of $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy theory comes from the case $p=3$. There is also a Milnor K-cohomology group relevant for the classification of octonion algebras with hyperbolic norm form. Applying the Zorn construction to the examples of Mohan Kumar provides examples of such algebras over schemes of minimum possible dimension, cf. the discussion in Section \[sec:rest\] and [@octonion].
Acknowledgements
----------------
This note was written during a pleasant stay at Institut Mittag-Leffler, in the program “Algebro-geometric and homotopical methods”, and I thank the institute for its hospitality. I would like to thank Chuck Weibel for comments on an earlier version, Jean Fasel for pointing out some mistakes in the arguments for triviality of connecting morphisms and Aravind Asok for very helpful suggestions related to obstruction theory issues. Comments of two anonymous referees helped to improve the presentation; I am particularly grateful for comments requesting to include full details for the computation of the cohomology operations in Section \[sec:a1homotopy\] which I hope led to clarification of the proof and exhibited a minor 2-torsion mistake in the previous version.
Recollection on A1-homotopy and representability {#sec:prelims}
================================================
In this section, we give a short recollection on the relevant input we use from $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy theory.
We assume the reader is familiar with the basic definitions of $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy theory, cf. [@MField]. Short introductions to those aspects relevant for the obstruction-theoretic torsor classification can be found in papers of Asok and Fasel, cf. e.g. [@AsokFasel; @AsokFaselSplitting]. The notation in the paper generally follows the one from [@AsokFasel]. We generally assume that we are working over base fields of characteristic $\neq 2$.
When considering $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy sheaves, only the simplicial grading will appear, i.e., for a pointed $\mathbb{A}^1$-connected space $(\mathscr{X},x)$, we will denote by $\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n\mathscr{X}$ the Nisnevich sheafification of the presheaf $U\mapsto [{\operatorname}{S}^n_{{\operatorname}{s}}\wedge U_+,(\mathscr{X},x)]$.
Representability theorem and obstruction theory {#sec:representable}
-----------------------------------------------
Now we recall the representability theorem for torsors and introduce some notation for Postnikov towers which are used for the obstruction-theoretic approach to torsor classification in $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy.
The following representability theorem, significantly generalizing an earlier result of Morel in [@MField], cf. also [@schlichting Theorem 6.22], has been proved in [@gbundles; @gbundles2].
\[thm:representability\] Let $k$ be an infinite field, and let $X={\operatorname}{Spec} A$ be a smooth affine $k$-scheme. Let $G$ be a reductive group such that each absolutely almost simple component of $G$ is isotropic. Then there is a bijection $${\operatorname}{H}^1_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X;G)\cong [X, {{\operatorname}{B}}_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}G]_{\mathbb{A}^1}$$ between the pointed set of isomorphism classes of rationally trivial $G$-torsors over $X$ and the pointed set of $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy classes of maps $X\to {{\operatorname}{B}}_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}G$.
Here, ${{\operatorname}{B}}_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}G$ refers to the classifying space of rationally trivial $G$-torsors for an algebraic group $G$ which can be constructed by the usual simplicial bar construction. Classical results on the Grothendieck–Serre conjecture state that for isotropic reductive groups $G$ rationally trivial torsors are automatically Zariski-locally trivial. In the case when the group $G$ is special, i.e., when all torsors are Zariski-locally trivial, the index ${\operatorname}{Nis}$ will be omitted and the classifying space will simply be denoted by ${{\operatorname}{B}}G$. The groups that will be discussed will be $G={\operatorname}{SL}_n$ (for most part of the paper) as well as the symplectic groups $G={\operatorname}{Sp}_{2n}$, the spin groups ${\operatorname}{Spin}(n)$ and exceptional group ${\operatorname}{G}_2$ (in Section \[sec:rest\]).
The representability theorem translates questions about $G$-torsor classification into questions about $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy classes of maps into the classifying space. In particular, we can prove that a torsor is non-trivial by exhibiting some $\mathbb{A}^1$-topological invariant showing that its classifying map is not null-homotopic. On the other hand, we can deduce the existence of torsors over smooth affine schemes with suitable properties by producing maps $X\to{{\operatorname}{B}}_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}G$, e.g. by obstruction-theoretic methods.
While the study of $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy classes maps into classifying spaces may not seem an easier subject than the torsor classification, the other relevant tool actually allowing to prove some meaningful statements (by analyzing maps into the classifying space) is obstruction theory. The basic statements concerning obstruction theory as applied to torsor classification can be found in various sources, such as [@MField] or [@AsokFasel; @AsokFaselSplitting]. We only give a short list of the relevant statements which are enough for our purposes.
The point of obstruction theory is to use the Postnikov tower to analyze pointed maps $[X,Y]_{\mathbb{A}^1,\bullet}$. Note that the representability theorem above related the isomorphism classes of $G$-torsors to *unpointed* (or free) maps $[X,{{\operatorname}{B}}_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}G]_{\mathbb{A}^1}$. For the groups we consider in this paper, the classifying spaces ${{\operatorname}{B}}_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}G$ are $\mathbb{A}^1$-simply connected, hence the natural map from pointed to unpointed homotopy classes of maps is a bijection and the obstruction theory can be directly used to analyze $[X,{{\operatorname}{B}}_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}G]_{\mathbb{A}^1}$.
Let $(\mathscr{Y},y)$ be a pointed, $\mathbb{A}^1$-simply connected space. Then there is a sequence of pointed $\mathbb{A}^1$-simply connected spaces, the Postnikov sections $(\tau_{\leq i}\mathscr{Y},y)$, with morphisms $p_i\colon\mathscr{Y}\to\tau_{\leq i}\mathscr{Y}$ and morphisms $f_i\colon\tau_{\leq i+1}\mathscr{Y}\to\tau_{\leq i}\mathscr{Y}$ such that
1. $\bm{\pi}_j^{\mathbb{A}^1}(\tau_{\leq i}\mathscr{Y})=0$ for $j>i$,
2. the morphism $p_i$ induces an isomorphism on $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy sheaves in degrees $\leq i$,
3. the morphism $f_i$ is an $\mathbb{A}^1$-fibration, and the $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy fiber of $f_i$ is an Eilenberg–Mac Lane space of the form ${\operatorname}{K}(\bm{\pi}_{i+1}^{\mathbb{A}^1}(\mathscr{Y}),i+1)$,
4. the induced morphism $\mathscr{Y}\to\tau_{\leq i}{\operatorname}{holim}_i\mathscr{Y}$ is an $\mathbb{A}^1$-weak equivalence.
Moreover, $f_i$ is a principal $\mathbb{A}^1$-fibration, i.e., there is a morphism, unique up to $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy, $$k_{i+1}\colon\tau_{\leq i}\mathscr{Y} \to{\operatorname}{K}(\bm{\pi}_{i+1}^{\mathbb{A}^1}(\mathscr{Y}),i+2)$$ called the $i+1$-th *$k$-invariant* and an $\mathbb{A}^1$-fiber sequence $$\tau_{\leq i+1}\mathscr{Y} \to \tau_{\leq i}\mathscr{Y} \xrightarrow{k_{i+1}}{\operatorname}{K}(\bm{\pi}_{i+1}^{\mathbb{A}^1}(\mathscr{Y}),i+2).$$
From these statements, one gets the following consequence: for a smooth $k$-scheme $X$ and a pointed, $\mathbb{A}^1$-simply connected space $\mathscr{Y}$, a given pointed map $g^{(i)}\colon X_+\to\tau_{\leq i}\mathscr{Y}$ lifts to a map $g^{(i+1)}\colon X_+\to\tau_{\leq i+1}\mathscr{Y}$ if and only if the following composite is null-homotopic: $$X_+\xrightarrow{g^{(i)}}\tau_{\leq i}\mathscr{Y}\to{\operatorname}{K}(\bm{\pi}_{i+1}^{\mathbb{A}^1}(\mathscr{Y}),i+2),$$ or equivalently, if the corresponding obstruction class vanishes in the cohomology group ${\operatorname}{H}^{i+2}_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X;\bm{\pi}_{i+1}^{\mathbb{A}^1}(\mathscr{Y}))$. If this happens, then the possible lifts are parametrized by the quotient of the following set of homotopy classes of maps $$[X_+,{\operatorname}{K}(\bm{\pi}_{i+1}^{\mathbb{A}^1}(\mathscr{Y}),i+1)]_{\mathbb{A}^1}\cong {\operatorname}{H}^{i+1}_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X;\bm{\pi}_{i+1}^{\mathbb{A}^1}(\mathscr{Y}))$$ modulo the standard action of $[X_+,\Omega\tau_{\leq i}\mathscr{Y}]_{\mathbb{A}^1}$. This quotient (or sometimes the cohomology group ${\operatorname}{H}^{i+1}_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X;\bm{\pi}_{i+1}^{\mathbb{A}^1}(\mathscr{Y}))$) will usually be called the *lifting set*. Again, as noted above, since $\mathscr{Y}$ is $\mathbb{A}^1$-simply connected, there is no difference between considering pointed maps $X_+\to\tau_{\leq i}\mathscr{Y}$ or unpointed maps $X\to\tau_{\leq i}\mathscr{Y}$.
We want to state clearly what this means for the torsor classification over smooth schemes. If we have a torsor, then the map into the classifying space ${{\operatorname}{B}}_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}G$ associated by the representability theorem \[thm:representability\] is completely described by a sequence of classes in the lifting sets ${\operatorname}{H}^{i+1}_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X;\bm{\pi}_{i+1}^{\mathbb{A}^1}({{\operatorname}{B}}_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}G))$, well-defined up to the respective action of $[X_+,\Omega\tau_{\leq i}{{\operatorname}{B}}_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}G]_{\mathbb{A}^1}$. Only indices $0\leq i+1\leq n$ can appear for schemes of dimension $n$ since the Nisnevich cohomological dimension equals the Krull dimension. Conversely, to construct a torsor, one needs a sequence of lifting classes as above, such that the associated obstruction classes in the groups ${\operatorname}{H}^{i+2}_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X;\bm{\pi}_{i+1}^{\mathbb{A}^1}({{\operatorname}{B}}_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}G))$ vanish. Put bluntly, $\mathbb{A}^1$-obstruction theory translates questions about $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy classes of maps (from smooth schemes) into cohomological terms.
Cohomology of strictly $\mathbb{A}^1$-invariant sheaves {#sec:rscomplex}
-------------------------------------------------------
We now provide a short recollection on strictly $\mathbb{A}^1$-invariant sheaves and their Nisnevich cohomology. All of the material here can be found in [@MField]. Recall that a sheaf $\mathbf{A}$ of abelian groups on ${\operatorname}{Sm}/k$ is called *strictly $\mathbb{A}^1$-invariant* if for each smooth $k$-scheme $X$ the map ${\operatorname}{pr}_1^\ast\colon{\operatorname}{H}^i_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X,\mathbf{A})\to{\operatorname}{H}^i_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X\times\mathbb{A}^1,\mathbf{A})$ is an isomorphism.
As a matter of notation, strictly $\mathbb{A}^1$-invariant sheaves will usually be denoted by bold letters, following notational conventions from [@AsokFasel]. Most of the sheaves we will consider in this paper will be K-theory sheaves of various sorts where the superscript will usually indicate which type of K-theory is referred to: $\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{Q}}_i$ is (the Nisnevich sheafification of) Quillen’s algebraic K-theory, $\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_i$ denotes Milnor K-theory. Morel’s Milnor–Witt K-theory sheaves will be denoted by $\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{MW}}_i$, the definition can be found in [@MField Section 2]. As a special case, $\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{MW}}_0$ is the sheaf of Grothendieck–Witt rings, which is also denoted by $\mathbf{GW}$. For the discussion in Section \[sec:mk2\], we’ll also need the sheaves $\mathbf{I}^n$ which are the Nisnevich sheafifications of the presheaves of $n$-th powers of the fundamental ideal in the Witt ring.
If $k$ is a perfect field, $K/k$ is any extension and $\mathscr{X}$ is an $\mathbb{A}^1$-simply-connected simplicial presheaf over ${\operatorname}{Sm}/K$, then its $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy sheaves $\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n(\mathscr{X})$ are strictly $\mathbb{A}^1$-invariant sheaves of groups. In the special case where $K=k$ is an infinite perfect field, this is one of the main results of Morel’s theory in [@MField]. A version of Gabber’s presentation lemma over finite fields was established in [@hogadi:kulkarni], and this allows to drop the requirement of infinity for the base field $k$. The general case which allows base change along an extension $K/k$ to a possibly non-perfect field follows from [@hoyois Lemma A.2, A.4]. This implies, in particular, that the $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy sheaves of ${{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n$ over rational function fields $k(T)$ of positive characteristic are strictly $\mathbb{A}^1$-invariant because ${{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n$ is defined over the (perfect) prime field.
If $\mathbf{A}$ is a strictly $\mathbb{A}^1$-invariant sheaf of abelian groups on ${\operatorname}{Sm}/k$, then for any smooth $k$-scheme $U$ the unit $1\in\mathbb{G}_{{\operatorname}{m}}$ defines a morphism $1\times{\operatorname}{id}\colon U\to\mathbb{G}_{{\operatorname}{m}}\times U$, and the *contraction* of $\mathbf{A}$ is defined to be the sheaf $$\mathbf{A}_{-1}(U)=\ker\left(\mathbf{A}(\mathbb{G}_{{\operatorname}{m}}\times U)\xrightarrow{(1\times{\operatorname}{id})^\ast}\mathbf{A}(U)\right).$$ This construction can be iterated to yield $\mathbf{A}_{-n}$ for $n\in\mathbb{N}$; it is an exact functor on the category of strictly $\mathbb{A}^1$-invariant sheaves on ${\operatorname}{Sm}/k$, cf. [@MField Lemmas 2.32 and 7.33].
If $\mathbf{A}$ is a strictly $\mathbb{A}^1$-invariant sheaf of abelian groups, there is a natural $\mathbb{G}_{{\operatorname}{m}}$-action on the contractions of $\mathbf{A}$, defined as follows. For a unit $u\in\mathcal{O}_X(X)^\times$, pullback along the morphism $\mathbb{G}_{{\operatorname}{m}}\times X\to \mathbb{G}_{{\operatorname}{m}}\times X$ given by multiplication with $u$ induces an action of $\mathcal{O}_X(X)^\times$ on $\mathbf{A}(\mathbb{G}_{{\operatorname}{m}}\times X)$. By means of the short exact sequence $$0\to \mathbf{A}(X)\xrightarrow{{\operatorname}{pr}_1^\ast} \mathbf{A}(\mathbb{G}_{{\operatorname}{m}}\times X)\to \mathbf{A}_{-1}(X)\to 0,$$ this induces a $\mathbb{G}_{{\operatorname}{m}}$-action on $\mathbf{A}_{-1}(X)$, noting that the map ${\operatorname}{pr}_1^\ast$ is $\mathbb{G}_{{\operatorname}{m}}$-equivariant if we equip $\mathbf{A}(X)$ with the trivial action. This action of the unit group extends to an action of the Grothendieck–Witt ring along the morphism $$\mathbb{G}_{{\operatorname}{m}}\to\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{MW}}_0\colon u\mapsto\langle u\rangle=\eta[u]+1$$ by [@MField Lemma 3.49]; it can be defined on higher contractions $\mathbf{A}_{-n}$, $n\geq 2$, and is then independent of the choice of which factor of $\mathbb{G}_{{\operatorname}{m}}^n$ is acting, cf. the discussion after Lemma 3.49 in [@MField].
The unit action above can be used to twist the contractions $\mathbf{A}_{-n}$, $n\geq 1$, of a strictly $\mathbb{A}^1$-invariant sheaf of abelian groups, cf. [@MField p. 118]. For a field $E$ and an $E$-vector space $V$ of dimension $1$, we denote by $V^\times$ the set $V\setminus\{0\}$ equipped with the induced scalar multiplication of $E^\times$, and define for $n\geq 1$ $$\mathbf{A}_{-n}(E;V):=\mathbf{A}_{-n}(E)\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}[E^\times]} \mathbb{Z}[V^\times].$$ This is mostly used in the case where $X$ is an essentially smooth $k$-scheme, $E=\kappa(x)$ is the residue field of a point $x\in X^{(n)}$ of codimension $n$ and $\Lambda^X_x:=\wedge^n_{\kappa(x)}(\mathfrak{m}_x/\mathfrak{m}_x^2)^\vee$ the stalk of the conormal sheaf of $x$ in $X$.
Next, residue morphisms for a strictly $\mathbb{A}^1$-invariant sheaf $\mathbf{A}$ are defined as follows, cf. [@MField Corollary 2.35, Lemma 5.10]. For a field $F$ with discrete valuation $v$ and residue field $E$, we have $\Lambda^{\mathcal{O}_v}_E=\mathfrak{m}_v/\mathfrak{m}_v^2$. Then we choose a uniformizer $\pi$ for $v$. This choice determines a Nisnevich distinguished square $$\xymatrix{
{\operatorname}{Spec} F\ar[r] \ar[d] & {\operatorname}{Spec} \mathcal{O}_v \ar[d] \\
\mathbb{G}_{{\operatorname}{m},E} \ar[r] & \mathbb{A}^1_E
}$$ by means of which we can identify $\mathbf{A}_{-1}(E)\cong \mathbf{A}(F)/\mathbf{A}(\mathcal{O}_v)$. For a choice of uniformizer $\pi$, the residue map $$\partial^F_E\colon\mathbf{A}(F)\to \mathbf{A}_{-1}(E;\Lambda^{\mathcal{O}_v}_E)=\mathbf{A}_{-1}(E) \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}[E^\times]} \mathbb{Z}[(\Lambda^{\mathcal{O}_v}_E)^\times]$$ now maps an element $s\in\mathbf{A}(F)$ to ${\operatorname}{res}(s)\otimes \pi$ where ${\operatorname}{res}(s)$ is the image of $s$ under the composition $\mathbf{A}(F)\to \mathbf{A}(F)/\mathbf{A}(\mathcal{O}_v)\to \mathbf{A}_{-1}(E)$ of the natural projection with the above isomorphism (which depended on the choice of uniformizer). It turns out, cf. [@MField Lemma 5.10], that this definition of residue morphism is independent of the choice of uniformizer.
If $\mathbf{A}$ is a strictly $\mathbb{A}^1$-invariant sheaf on ${\operatorname}{Sm}/k$ and $X$ is an essentially smooth $k$-scheme, then there are Gersten-type complexes ${\operatorname}{C}^\bullet(X;\mathbf{A})$ (called Rost–Schmid complexes in [@MField] and [@AsokFasel]) which provide flasque resolutions of $\mathbf{A}$ for the Zariski and Nisnevich topology, cf. [@MField Corollary 5.43]. These complexes have the form $$\cdots \to \bigoplus_{y\in X^{(i)}}\mathbf{A}_{-i}(\kappa(y);\Lambda^X_y)\xrightarrow{\bigoplus\partial^y_z} \bigoplus_{z\in X^{(i+1)}}\mathbf{A}_{-i-1}(\kappa(z);\Lambda^X_z)\to \cdots$$ The boundary map $\partial^y_z$ is only nontrivial if $z\in\overline{y}$; in this case, it is described as follows, cf. [@MField Section 5.1]: replace $X$ by the localization at $z$, and let $\tilde{Y}\to Y$ be the normalization of the curve $Y=\overline{y}\hookrightarrow X$. For every point $\tilde{z}_i$ on $\tilde{Y}$ lying over $z\in Y$, we have a residue morphism $\mathbf{A}_{-i}(\kappa(y))\to \bigoplus_{\tilde{z}_i}\mathbf{A}_{-i-1}(\kappa(\tilde{z}_i);\Lambda^{\tilde{Y}}_{\tilde{z}_i})$ as discussed above. We can twist these by the relative canonical bundle $\omega_{\tilde{Y}/X}$ to obtain the twisted residue morphisms $$\mathbf{A}_{-i}(\kappa(y);\Lambda^X_y)\to \mathbf{A}_{-i-1}(\kappa(\tilde{z}_i);\omega_{\tilde{z}_i/X})$$ noting that $\Lambda^{\tilde{Y}}_{\tilde{z}_i}\otimes \omega_{\tilde{Y}/X}=\omega_{\tilde{z}_i/X}$. The boundary map $\partial^y_z\colon \mathbf{A}_{-i}(\kappa(y);\Lambda^X_y)\to \mathbf{A}_{-i-1}(\kappa(z);\Lambda^X_z)$ is then obtained as the composition of the above twisted residue morphisms with the absolute transfer $\mathbf{A}_{-i-1}(\kappa(\tilde{z}_i);\omega_{\tilde{z}_i/X})\to \mathbf{A}_{-i-1}(\kappa(z);\Lambda^X_z)$. The absolute transfer maps (and the relevant geometric and cohomological transfers) are discussed in Sections 4 and 5.1 of [@MField]; we don’t recall all the details here since for our computations, the absolute transfers will play no role.[^1] If $\mathbf{A}$ is already a contraction of some other strictly $\mathbb{A}^1$-invariant sheaf and $X$ is a smooth scheme with a line bundle $\mathscr{L}$, then the above complexes can be further twisted by the line bundle, but we won’t need this for our computations.
One of the noteworthy consequences of the existence of the above complexes computing Nisnevich cohomology is that Zariski and Nisnevich cohomology agree for all the sheaves we will consider in this paper. This fact might be used tacitly in some argument. There may also be occasionally missing indices, but all cohomology groups considered in this paper are Nisnevich cohomology groups.
Mayer–Vietoris sequences {#sec:mv}
------------------------
Finally, we need to discuss Mayer–Vietoris sequences for the Nisnevich cohomology of strictly $\mathbb{A}^1$-invariant sheaves which will be needed for some computations in the paper. Let $X=U\cup V$ be a Zariski covering of smooth schemes over a perfect field $k$, and let $\mathbf{A}$ be a strictly $\mathbb{A}^1$-invariant Nisnevich sheaf of abelian groups on ${\operatorname}{Sm}/k$. In this situation, it follows formally that there is an associated long exact Mayer–Vietoris sequence in Nisnevich cohomology $$\to{\operatorname}{H}^i_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X,\mathbf{A})\to {\operatorname}{H}^i_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(U,\mathbf{A})\oplus {\operatorname}{H}^i_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(V,\mathbf{A})\to {\operatorname}{H}^i_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(U\cap V,\mathbf{A})\stackrel{\partial}{\longrightarrow} {\operatorname}{H}^{i+1}_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X,\mathbf{A})\to$$ This sequence is functorial in $\mathbf{A}$.
One can also use the Gersten complexes to provide a specific model of the boundary map in the Mayer–Vietoris sequence as follows. There is an exact sequence $$0\to {\operatorname}{C}^\bullet(X,\mathbf{A})\to{\operatorname}{C}^\bullet(U,\mathbf{A}) \oplus {\operatorname}{C}^\bullet(V,\mathbf{A})\to {\operatorname}{C}^\bullet(U\cap V,\mathbf{A})\to 0$$ of Gersten complexes associated to a Zariski covering $X=U\cup V$ which gives rise to the long exact Mayer–Vietoris sequence. The boundary morphism can now be described as follows. A cycle representative of a class in ${\operatorname}{H}^i_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(U\cap V,\mathbf{A})$ is given by a finite sum, indexed over codimension $i$ points $x$ of $U\cap V$, of elements of $\mathbf{A}_{-i}(k(x))$. This formal sum can be viewed as a formal sum in ${\operatorname}{C}^\bullet(U;\mathbf{A})$ (which is the summand of the middle complex where the restriction map is ${\operatorname}{id}$, not $-{\operatorname}{id}$). This may no longer be a cycle, but we can apply the boundary map of the Gersten complex (which is given in terms of residue maps) to this lifted chain. The result will have trivial image in ${\operatorname}{C}^\bullet(U\cap V;\mathbf{A})$ and therefore the resulting formal sum can be viewed as an element of ${\operatorname}{C}^\bullet(X;\mathbf{A})$. This will be a cycle representing the image of the boundary map ${\operatorname}{H}^i_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(U\cap V,\mathbf{A})\to{\operatorname}{H}^{i+1}_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X,\mathbf{A})$.
Quadrics, unimodular rows and cohomology {#sec:quadrics}
----------------------------------------
We denote by ${\operatorname}{Q}_d$ the $d$-dimensional smooth affine split quadric, cf. [@AsokDoranFasel] for the defining equations over $\mathbb{Z}$.
For the odd-dimensional quadrics ${\operatorname}{Q}_{2n-1}$, defined by the equation $\sum_{i=1}^n X_iY_i=1$, it is classical that the projection onto the $X_i$-coordinates provides an $\mathbb{A}^1$-equivalence ${\operatorname}{Q}_{2n-1}\to\mathbb{A}^n\setminus\{0\}$. Moreover, the odd-dimensional quadric ${\operatorname}{Q}_{2n-1}$ is $\mathbb{A}^1$-local in the sense that the set $[X,{\operatorname}{Q}_{2n-1}]_{\mathbb{A}^1}$ of $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy classes of maps into ${\operatorname}{Q}_{2n-1}$ can be identified as the quotient of the set of scheme morphisms $X\to{\operatorname}{Q}_{2n-1}$ modulo naive $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopies $X\times \mathbb{A}^1\to {\operatorname}{Q}_{2n-1}$, for every smooth affine scheme $X$; this is explained e.g. in [@AsokFaselSpheres §4].
For a commutative unital $k$-algebra $R$, a tuple $(a_1,\dots,a_n)$ of elements of $R$ is called *unimodular row* if there exists a tuple $(b_1,\dots,b_n)$ of elements of $R$ such that $\sum a_ib_i=1$. The scheme $\mathbb{A}^n\setminus\{0\}$ classifies unimodular rows in the sense that for $X={\operatorname}{Spec} R$ a smooth affine $k$-scheme the set $[{\operatorname}{Spec} R,\mathbb{A}^n\setminus\{0\}]_{\mathbb{A}^1}$ is in natural bijection with the orbit set of the natural action of the elementary group ${\operatorname}{E}_n(R)$ on the set ${\operatorname}{Um}_n(R)$ of unimodular rows over $R$. For the odd-dimensional quadric ${\operatorname}{Q}_{2n-1}$, the scheme morphisms $X\to{\operatorname}{Q}_{2n-1}$ are in bijection with pairs of a unimodular row $(a_1,\dots,a_n)$ and a choice of tuple $(b_1,\dots,b_n)$ with $\sum a_ib_i=1$. Any unimodular row $X\to\mathbb{A}^n\setminus\{0\}$ can be lifted to a morphism $X\to{\operatorname}{Q}_{2n-1}$ and any two such lifts are equivalent up to $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy. For a further discussion of these issues, cf. again [@AsokFaselSpheres §4].
The relation between unimodular rows and $\mathbb{A}^n\setminus\{0\}$ resp. ${\operatorname}{Q}_{2n-1}$ is relevant because of the following. A unimodular row $(a_1,\dots,a_n)$ of length $n$ over the ring $R$ gives rise to a stably free projective module of rank $n-1$, given as kernel of the map $R^n\to R\colon(b_1,\dots,b_n)\mapsto \sum a_ib_i$ defined by the unimodular row. On the level of $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy theory, this is reflected by the $\mathbb{A}^1$-fiber sequence $$\mathbb{A}^n\setminus\{0\}\to {{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_{n-1}\to {{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n.$$ Composing the morphism $X\to\mathbb{A}^n\setminus\{0\}$ corresponding to the unimodular row with the map $\mathbb{A}^n\setminus\{0\}\to{{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_{n-1}$ yields a rank $n-1$ vector bundle which becomes trivial after adding a trivial line bundle. This is what is relevant for the cohomological analysis of Mohan Kumar’s stable free vector bundles: we will establish the non-triviality of the vector bundles by showing that the associated morphism $X\to \mathbb{A}^n\setminus\{0\}\to{{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_{n-1}$ is not null-homotopic. The obstruction-theoretic analysis reduces this to show that some cohomology classes of $X$ with coefficients in $\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_i({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_{n-1})$ are non-trivial.
Since we will also need to compute the Nisnevich cohomology of the quadrics ${\operatorname}{Q}_d$ with coefficients in strictly $\mathbb{A}^1$-invariant sheaves, we shortly recall the relevant formulas, cf. [@AsokDoranFasel]: $$\tilde{{\operatorname}{H}}^i({\operatorname}{Q}_{2d},\mathbf{A})\cong\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\mathbf{A}_{-d}(k) & i=d\\
0 & \textrm{else}
\end{array}\right.,\qquad
\tilde{{\operatorname}{H}}^i({\operatorname}{Q}_{2d-1},\mathbf{A})\cong\left\{\begin{array}{ll} \mathbf{A}_{-d}(k) & i=d-1\\
0 & \textrm{else}
\end{array}\right.$$ Here $k$ is the base field and $\mathbf{A}_{-d}$ denotes the $d$-fold contraction.
Cohomological analysis of Mohan Kumar’s construction {#sec:mkgeometry}
====================================================
In this section, we recall the geometric constructions of [@mohan:kumar] and explain how they give rise to varieties with interesting cohomology classes. In fact, we will explain how Mohan Kumar’s construction provides varieties $Y\cap Z$ where the following composition is a surjection $$[Y\cap Z,\mathbb{A}^{p+1}\setminus\{0\}]_{\mathbb{A}^1}\to {\operatorname}{H}^p(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{MW}}_{p+1})\to {\operatorname}{H}^p (Y\cap Z,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{p+1}/p)\to \mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}.$$
Geometric setup
---------------
Fix a prime $p$ and a field $k$. The first geometric construction produces a smooth affine variety with non-trivial torsion in the top Chow group. For this, let $f(T)$ be a polynomial of degree $p$ over $k$ such that $f(0)=a\in k^\times$. Then there are recursively defined polynomials $$\begin{aligned}
F_1(X_0,X_1)&=&X_1^pf\left(\frac{X_0}{X_1}\right), \textrm{ and}\\
F_{i+1}(X_0,\dots,X_{i+1})&=& F_1\left(F_i(X_0,\dots,X_i),a^{\frac{p^i-1}{p-1}}X_{i+1}^{p^i}\right).\end{aligned}$$ If $f(T^{p^{m-1}})$ is irreducible then, according to [@mohan:kumar Claim 1], $F_n$ is irreducible for $n\leq m$. In this case, [@mohan:kumar Claim 2] states that $X=\mathbb{P}^n\setminus {\operatorname}{V}(F_n)$ is a smooth affine variety over $k$ with ${\operatorname}{CH}^n(X)\cong\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}$, generated by the class of a $k$-rational point of $X$.
The second part of the geometric construction produces a Zariski covering of $X$ by two affine subvarieties with trivial top Chow groups. The first subvariety is $$Y=\left(\mathbb{P}^n\setminus{\operatorname}{V}(F_{n-1})\right)\cap X,$$ where we view $F_{n-1}$ in the obvious way as a polynomial in the variables $X_0,\dots,X_n$. Since $X\setminus Y$ contains the $k$-rational point $x=[0:0:\cdots:0:1]$, we have ${\operatorname}{CH}^n(Y)=0$ by the localization sequence for Chow groups. The second subvariety is $$Z=\left(\mathbb{P}^n\setminus{\operatorname}{V}(G)\right)\cap X$$ with the polynomial $$G(X_0,\dots,X_n)=F_{n-1}(X_0,\dots,X_{n-1})-a^{\frac{p^{n-1}-1}{p-1}}X_n^{p^{n-1}}.$$ Here the variety ${\operatorname}{V}(G)$ contains the $k$-rational point $y=[0:0:\cdots:0:1:1]$, and again the localization sequence for Chow groups implies ${\operatorname}{CH}^n(Z)=0$. We have a Zariski covering $X=Y\cup Z$ because $F_n\in\langle F_{n-1},G\rangle$.
Finally, the relevant variety is now the intersection $Y\cap Z$.
Non-trivial cohomology classes
------------------------------
We first note that the variety $Y\cap Z$ constructed by Mohan Kumar supports a non-trivial cohomology class with coefficients in Milnor–Witt K-theory. This non-trivial class exists because the class in ${\operatorname}{CH}^n(X)$ locally trivializes in the covering $X=Y\cup Z$.
\[prop:mkclass\] Let $k$ be a field of $2$-cohomological dimension $\leq 1$. Let $p$ be a prime and assume that there exists a degree $p$ polynomial $f(T)$ over $k$ such that $f(T^{p^{p}})$ is irreducible. Consider the situation $X=Y\cup Z$ outlined above. Then there is a surjection $${\operatorname}{H}^p_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{MW}}_{p+1})\twoheadrightarrow{\operatorname}{CH}^{p+1}(X)\cong\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}.$$
Use the Mayer–Vietoris sequence for the cohomology of $\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{p+1}$ associated to the Zariski covering $X=Y\cup Z$, whose relevant portion is the following $${\operatorname}{H}^p_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{p+1})\to{\operatorname}{CH}^{p+1}(X)\to {\operatorname}{CH}^{p+1}(Y)\oplus{\operatorname}{CH}^{p+1}(Z).$$ By construction the last group of the sequence is trivial, showing that the boundary map in the Mayer–Vietoris sequence is a surjection. Now we consider the exact sequence of strictly $\mathbb{A}^1$-invariant sheaves $0\to\mathbf{I}^{p+2}\to\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{MW}}_{p+1}\to\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{p+1}\to 0$. The induced morphism ${\operatorname}{H}^p_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{MW}}_{p+1})\to {\operatorname}{H}^p_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{p+1})$ is surjective if we can show ${\operatorname}{H}^{p+1}_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{I}^{p+2})=0$. But that follows from [@AsokFasel Proposition 5.2] because by assumption the $2$-cohomological dimension of the base field $k$ is $\leq 1$.
Let $k$ be a field of $2$-cohomological dimension $\leq 1$. Let $p$ be a prime and assume that there exists a degree $p$ polynomial $f(T)$ over $k$ such that $f(T^{p^{p}})$ is irreducible. Consider the situation $X=Y\cup Z$ outlined above. Then there is a surjection $$[Y\cap Z,{\operatorname}{Q}_{2p+1}]_{\mathbb{A}^1}\to {\operatorname}{H}^p_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{MW}}_{p+1})\to{\operatorname}{CH}^{p+1}(X)\cong\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}.$$
By Proposition \[prop:mkclass\] it suffices to show that the first map is a surjection. This follows from [@AsokFaselCohomotopy Proposition 1.1.10 (1)] since ${\operatorname}{Q}_{2p+1}$ is $(p-1)$-$\mathbb{A}^1$-connected and $Y\cap Z$ has Krull dimension $p+1$.
It would be very interesting to have more generally a construction of smooth affine varieties with non-trivial classes in ${\operatorname}{H}^n_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{n+r}/m)$ for $r\geq 2$. Possibly this could be done by setting up a Mayer–Vietoris spectral sequence for coverings $X=U_1\cup\cdots\cup U_{r+1}$ in Milnor K-cohomology and then use that to produce such varieties as intersections $U_1\cap\cdots\cap U_{r+1}$. The next interesting case would be $r=2$. For this, one would want a variety $X$ with a covering $X=U_1\cup U_2\cup U_3$, a non-trivial class in ${\operatorname}{CH}^{n+2}(X)/m$ whose restriction to $U_i$ vanishes *and* such that the induced classes in ${\operatorname}{H}^{n+1}_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(U_i\cap U_j,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{n+2}/m)$ are also trivial at $E_\infty$ (either by not being a cycle in $E_1$ or by lifting to $U_i$ and thus be killed by the ${\operatorname}{d}^1$-differential). The Mayer–Vietoris spectral sequence would then produce a non-trivial class in ${\operatorname}{H}^n_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(U_1\cap U_2\cap U_3,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{n+2}/m)$. However, at this point I don’t know how to guarantee the latter condition on the vanishing of ${\operatorname}{H}^{n+1}_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{n+2}/m)$. As pointed out by one of the referees, the base field would have to be of higher cohomological dimension, such as a function field in $r$ variables, to have a chance for the resulting cohomology classes to be nontrivial.
Explicit description of a class {#sec:explicit}
-------------------------------
We now want to write out an explicit description of a Milnor K-cohomology class whose boundary can be detected on the Chow group. Note that the smooth affine variety $X$ is defined as the complement of a hypersurface such that each point on the hypersurface has degree divisible by $p$ (which is exactly the reason for the $p$-torsion in ${\operatorname}{CH}^{p+1}(X)$). Now the complements of $Y$ and $Z$ in $X$ are given by hypersurfaces which contain rational points (which is the reason why the top Chow groups of $Y$ and $Z$ are trivial). Note however that the hypersurface complements of $Y$ and $Z$ only intersect in the complement of $X$, so they don’t have rational points in common. On $Y\cap Z$ there are hence two reasons for triviality of ${\operatorname}{CH}^{p+1}(Y\cap Z)$, namely a rational point in the complement of $Y$ or a rational point in the complement of $Z$. The lift in the Mayer–Vietoris sequence is then given by a “homotopy between these two trivializations”: take a line in $\mathbb{P}^{p+1}$ connecting a rational point in $X\setminus Y$ and a rational point in $X\setminus Z$. On this line there is a rational function having divisor exactly the difference of these rational points. The class of this rational function in the $p$-residues of the function field of the line is a cycle on $Y\cap Z$, hence represents a class in ${\operatorname}{H}^p_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{p+1}/p)$. Note that this is exactly the geometric situation in [@mohan:kumar Claim 3], and we will see in \[sec:comparison\] that this is the lifting class of Mohan Kumar’s stably free module.
Now we want to show that the class we described in ${\operatorname}{H}^p_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{p+1}/p)$ is actually non-trivial. This non-triviality is detected using the Mayer–Vietoris sequence associated to the covering $X=Y\cup Z$, cf. \[sec:mv\]. More specifically, we want to show that the above cycle has non-trivial image under the boundary map $${\operatorname}{H}^p_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{p+1}/p)\to {\operatorname}{CH}^{p+1}(X)/p.$$ To compute the image of the class, recall the description of the boundary map from \[sec:mv\]. The cycle description of the class above was that we take the rational function with divisor $[y]-[x]$ as an element in the mod $p$ residues of the function field of the line connecting the points $x$ and $y$. To compute the boundary in the Mayer–Vietoris sequence, we first take the Gersten chain on $Y$ given by the very same rational function on the very same line. Now we apply the boundary map in the Gersten complex, which in our situation is given by mapping the rational function on the line $l\cap Y$ to its divisor. The rational function on the line $l$ has a zero at $y\in Y$ and a pole at $x\in X$, hence its divisor on the line $l$ is $[y]-[x]$. However, since $x\not\in Y$, the divisor of the function in the Gersten complex for $Y$ is $[y]$. The final step in the computation of the boundary for the Mayer–Vietoris sequence is to view $[y]$ as a $0$-cycle on the whole variety $X$. Since $y$ is a $k$-rational point, the class $[y]$ is a generator of ${\operatorname}{CH}^{p+1}(X)$.
We have shown the following:
\[prop:explicit\] Denote by $\sigma\in{\operatorname}{H}^p_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{p+1}/p)$ the class of a rational function with divisor $[y]-[x]$ supported on the line connecting $x$ and $y$. Then the image of $\sigma$ under the boundary map $${\operatorname}{H}^p_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{p+1}/p)\to {\operatorname}{CH}^{p+1}(X)/p$$ is a generator of ${\operatorname}{CH}^{p+1}(X)/p\cong\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}$.
Another approach to the construction of a non-trivial class in the group ${\operatorname}{H}^{p-1}_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(W,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{p+1}/p)$ could now be to use the construction above. If we can provide a covering $Y\cap Z=W_1\cup W_2$ on which the Milnor K-cohomology class in ${\operatorname}{H}^p_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{p+1}/p)$ is trivialized, then the Mayer–Vietoris sequence would produce such a class. The Milnor K-cohomology class can be represented by a line in $\mathbb{P}^n$ connecting the points $x$ and $y$. Actually, using Milnor ${\operatorname}{K}_2$-classes associated to the coordinate axes in $\mathbb{P}^2$, any line in $\mathbb{P}^{p+1}$ connecting rational points on $X\setminus Y$ and $X\setminus Z$ will represent the same cohomology class. If we now can find two such lines $L_1,L_2$ contained in hypersurfaces $S_1,S_2$ which only meet outside $Y\cap Z$, then the Mayer–Vietoris sequence associated to the covering $Y\cap Z=(Y\cap Z\setminus S_1)\cup (Y\cap Z\setminus S_2)$ would produce the required class. Unfortunately, I don’t know how to construct the appropriate hypersurfaces.
Comparison with Mohan Kumar’s construction {#sec:comparison}
------------------------------------------
Now we want to compare this to the original construction of stably free modules in [@mohan:kumar]. In fact, we will show that the unimodular row defining Mohan Kumar’s stably free module maps exactly to a cohomology class as described above.
Recall from [@mohan:kumar] that the stably free module $\mathscr{P}$ is given by a unimodular row as follows. The point $y$ is a complete intersection in $Y$, i.e., its maximal ideal is of the form $\mathfrak{m}_y=\langle b_1,\dots,b_n\rangle$ for a regular sequence of functions $b_1,\dots,b_n\in\mathcal{O}_Y(Y)$. Because $y\not\in Z$, we can now consider $(b_1,\dots,b_n)$ as a unimodular row on $Y\cap Z$. The stably free module $\mathscr{P}$ over $Y\cap Z$ is now the one defined as the kernel of this unimodular row, cf. p.1441 of [@mohan:kumar]. Note that, compared to the situation in \[sec:explicit\], the regular sequence $(b_2,\dots,b_n)$ defines the intersection of the line connecting $x$ and $y$ with $Y$ in $Y$, cf. [@mohan:kumar proof of Claim 3], and $b_1$ can be taken to be a function having a simple zero at $y$ and a simple pole at $x$.
It remains to recall the description of the map $[Y\cap Z,\mathbb{A}^{p+1}\setminus\{0\}]_{\mathbb{A}^1}\to{\operatorname}{H}^p(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{MW}}_{p+1})$ sending a map $Y\cap Z\to\mathbb{A}^{p+1}\setminus\{0\}$ corresponding to a unimodular row of length $p+1$ to its associated lifting class. Recall that for each unimodular row of length $p+1$ over the ring $R$ there is a morphism $u\colon{\operatorname}{Spec} R\to {\operatorname}{Q}_{2p+1}\simeq_{\mathbb{A}^1}\mathbb{A}^{p+1}\setminus \{0\}$, well-defined up to $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy. The first lifting class associated to the morphism $Y\cap Z\to{\operatorname}{Q}_{2p+1}$ is given by the composition $$Y\cap Z\to{\operatorname}{Q}_{2p+1}\to \tau_{\leq p}{\operatorname}{Q}_{2p+1}\cong {\operatorname}{K}(\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{MW}}_{p+1},p).$$ This composition corresponds to a cohomology class in ${\operatorname}{H}^p_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{MW}}_{p+1})$ which can be evaluated using the techniques discussed in the proof of [@fasel:unimodular Theorem 4.1]: without loss of generality, we can assume that the unimodular row $(b_1,\dots,b_{p+1})$ is such that the sequence $(b_2,\dots,b_{p+1})$ is regular; the first lifting class of the unimodular row in ${\operatorname}{H}^p_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{MW}}_{p+1})$ is then given by the cycle $(b_1,\langle -1,b_1\rangle)$ on the subscheme defined by $(b_2,\dots,b_{p+1})$. Reduction of coefficients to $\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{p+1}/p!$ means that the class is given by the unit $b_1$ on the closed integral subscheme defined by $(b_2,\dots,b_{p+1})$.
We formulate the combination of the above statements which is implicitly contained in [@fasel:unimodular Theorem 4.1]:
\[prop:lifting\] Let $k$ be an infinite field, and let $X={\operatorname}{Spec}R$ be a smooth affine scheme over $k$. Let $(b_1,\dots,b_{p+1})$ be a unimodular row over $R$ such that the sequence $(b_2,\dots,b_{p+1})$ is regular and denote by $P$ the associated stably free module of rank $p$. The first lifting class associated to $P$ in ${\operatorname}{H}^p_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{p+1}/p!)$ is given by the cycle whose underlying codimension $p$ scheme is $R/(b_2,\dots,b_{p+1})$ and the associated rational function on it is $b_1$.
Applying this statement to the specific case of Mohan Kumar’s stably free modules, the lifting class is given by a rational function with divisor $[y]-[x]$ viewed as $p$-residue in the function field of the line connecting $x$ and $y$, cf. [@mohan:kumar Claim 3]. Note that this is exactly the class discussed in \[sec:explicit\]. In particular, Proposition \[prop:explicit\] now implies that the lifting class of Mohan Kumar’s stably free module is a non-trivial class in ${\operatorname}{H}^p_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{p+1}/p!)$, mapping to a generator of ${\operatorname}{CH}^{p+1}(X)/p!\cong\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}$ under the boundary map of the Mayer–Vietoris sequence.
It should be mentioned that actually writing down an explicit unimodular row for Mohan Kumar’s construction is a difficult task. The existence of the unimodular row only requires knowing that $y$ is a complete intersection point, while writing down an explicit unimodular row requires finding an explicit regular sequence generating the ideal defining the point $y$.
Stably free modules: Mohan Kumar’s examples at odd primes
=========================================================
In the previous section, we discussed a cohomological reinterpretation of Mohan Kumar’s constructions from [@mohan:kumar]. This provided, in particular, a smooth affine variety $Y\cap Z$ with a morphism $Y\cap Z\to\mathbb{A}^{p+1}\setminus\{0\}$ which is detected in Milnor K-cohomology. This morphism can be composed with the natural map $\mathbb{A}^{p+1}\setminus\{0\}\to{{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_p$ which is the inclusion of the $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy fiber of the stabilization map ${{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_p\to {{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_{p+1}$. This produces a rank $p$ vector bundle which becomes trivial after adding a free rank one summand; it is an $\mathbb{A}^1$-topological reformulation of the fact that the kernel of a unimodular row of length $p+1$ is a projective module of rank $p$ which becomes trivial after adding a free rank one module. The morphism $\mathbb{A}^{p+1}\setminus\{0\}\to{{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_p$ induces a morphism ${\operatorname}{H}^p(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{MW}}_{p+1})\to {\operatorname}{H}^p(Y\cap Z,\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_p{{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_p)$. The main point of the present section will now be to show that the composition $$[Y\cap Z,\mathbb{A}^{p+1}\setminus\{0\}]_{\mathbb{A}^1}\to {\operatorname}{H}^p(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{MW}}_{p+1}) \to {\operatorname}{H}^p(Y\cap Z,\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_p{{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_p)$$ sends the unimodular row given by Mohan Kumar to a non-zero element, thus providing an $\mathbb{A}^1$-topological proof that the stably free module is non-trivial. For this, we will need to recall some information on the $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy sheaf $\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_p({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_p)$.
For the present section, $p$ will be an odd prime, the case $p=2$ will be discussed in the next section. This case distinction is due to a structural difference of the relevant $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy sheaves; Mohan Kumar’s constructions in [@mohan:kumar] work for even and odd primes.
$\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy groups and a cohomology operation {#sec:a1homotopy}
---------------------------------------------------------
The first thing to note is that ${{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n$ is simply connected for all $n$. The stabilization results imply that $$\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_i({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n)\cong \mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{Q}}_i$$ for $i<n$. The corresponding lifting classes are related to the Chern classes, but the non-uniqueness of lifting classes implies that making this relationship precise is a rather subtle business.
The first unstable $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy group of ${{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n$ has been computed in [@AsokFaselSpheres Theorem 3.14]; for odd $n$, it is given by an exact sequence $$0\to\mathbf{S}_{n+1}\to\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n)\to \mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{Q}}_n\to 0.$$ This exact sequence arises from the long exact homotopy sequence for the stabilization fiber sequence $\mathbb{A}^{n+1}\setminus\{0\}\to{{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n\to{{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_{n+1}$; consequently, the sheaf $\mathbf{S}_{n+1}$ is the cokernel of the boundary map $\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_{n+1}({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_{n+1})\to \bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_{n}(\mathbb{A}^{n+1}\setminus\{0\})\cong\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{MW}}_{n+1}$. By [@AsokFaselSpheres Corollary 3.11], the canonical epimorphism $\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{MW}}_{n+1}\to\mathbf{S}_{n+1}$ factors through a canonical epimorphism $\mathbf{K}_{n+1}^{{\operatorname}{M}}/n!\to \mathbf{S}_{n+1}$ which becomes an isomorphism after $n-1$-fold contraction.
The main point of the present section is the analysis of a cohomology operation associated to the $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy sheaf $\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n)$. The short exact sequence of strictly $\mathbb{A}^1$-invariant sheaves above induces a long exact sequence in Nisnevich cohomology whose boundary map has the form $${\operatorname}{CH}^n(X)\cong{\operatorname}{H}^n(X,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{Q}}_n)\to {\operatorname}{H}^{n+1}(X,\mathbf{S}_{n+1})\cong {\operatorname}{CH}^{n+1}(X)/n!$$ For later arguments, we want to show that this boundary map is almost trivial.
\[prop:cohop\] Let $k$ be a field, let $X$ be a smooth $k$-variety and let $n$ be an odd integer. Then the composition of the boundary map ${\operatorname}{CH}^n(X)\to {\operatorname}{CH}^{n+1}(X)/n!$ induced from the exact sequence $$0\to \mathbf{S}_{n+1}\to \bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n)\to \mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{Q}}_n\to 0$$ with the natural reduction map ${\operatorname}{CH}^{n+1}(X)/n!\to{\operatorname}{CH}^{n+1}(X)/n$ is trivial.
The proof requires tracing through the definition of the boundary map together with some knowledge of the extension class of the exact sequence describing $\bm{\pi}_n^{\mathbb{A}^1}({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n)$ and the unit action on contractions of this sheaf. That is, we need to prove a few lemmas before we can get to the proof of Proposition \[prop:cohop\]. We first discuss the explicit realization of $\left(\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n{{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n\right)_{-n}$ in terms of vector bundles.
\[lem:one\] Let $F$ be a field. There is a natural identification $${\operatorname}{H}^n({\operatorname}{Q}_{2n,F},\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n))\cong \left(\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n)\right)_{-n}(F)\cong [{\operatorname}{Q}_{2n,F},{{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n]_{\mathbb{A}^1},$$ and the right-hand side can be further identified with the set of isomorphism classes of vector bundles of rank $n$ over ${\operatorname}{Q}_{2n,F}$. Moreover, the $n$-fold contraction $$\left(\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n)\right)_{-n}\to\mathbb{Z}$$ of the projection map in the above exact sequence maps a rank $n$ vector bundle on ${\operatorname}{Q}_{2n,F}$ to its class in $\tilde{{\operatorname}{K}}_0({\operatorname}{Q}_{2n})\cong\mathbb{Z}$.
Concerning the natural identifications in the first statement, the first isomorphism follows from the computation of cohomology of quadrics in Section \[sec:quadrics\] and the second isomorphism follows from obstruction theory, cf. Section \[sec:representable\]. The identification with vector bundles is the representability theorem \[thm:representability\]. The final statement concerning the projection follows since the projection $\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n{{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n\to \mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{Q}}_n$ is induced from the stabilization morphism ${{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n\to {{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_\infty$. See also the discussion of stable vector bundles on ${\operatorname}{Q}_{2n}$ in [@AsokDoranFasel].
\[rem:vblift\] Note that this identification is natural in the underlying field: for a field extension $E/F$ the restriction map on the sections of $\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n)_{-n}$ corresponds to pullback of vector bundles along the base-change morphism ${\operatorname}{Q}_{2n,E}\to {\operatorname}{Q}_{2n,F}$. In particular, if we choose a preimage of $1\in\mathbb{Z}$ in $\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n)_{-n}(k)$ over the base field $k$, then the pullback of the corresponding vector bundle to an extension field $F/k$ will map to $1$ under $\left(\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n)\right)_{-n}(F)\to\mathbb{Z}$. Explicitly, a vector bundle $\mathcal{V}\to{\operatorname}{Q}_{2n,F}$ mapping to a generator can be described in terms of Suslin matrices, cf. [@AsokDoranFasel]; this is one particular choice of lift of $1$ which can be defined over the base field $k$.
\[lem:two\] Let $F$ be a field with discrete valuation $v$ and residue field $E$. For an element $\mathcal{V}\in \left(\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n)\right)_{-n}(F)$ and a unit $u\in F^\times$, the element $$\partial^F_E(\langle u\rangle\mathcal{V})-\partial^F_E(\mathcal{V})\in \mathbb{Z}/n!\mathbb{Z}$$ is 2-torsion.
For the action of the unit group $F^\times$ on $\left(\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n)\right)_{-n}(F)$, we have $\langle u\rangle \mathcal{V}=\mathcal{V}+\eta[u]\mathcal{V}$. Since the residue map $\partial^F_E$ is additive, we have $\partial^F_E(\langle u\rangle \mathcal{V})=\partial^F_E(\mathcal{V})+\partial^F_E(\eta[u]\mathcal{V})$ and it suffices to show that $\partial^F_E(\eta[u]\mathcal{V})=\eta\partial^F_E([u]\mathcal{V})$ is 2-torsion. To show that the map $$\eta\colon \left(\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n)\right)_{-n}(F)\to \left(\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n)\right)_{-n-1}(F)\cong \mathbb{Z}/n!\mathbb{Z}$$ lands in the 2-torsion, we note that $\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{n+1}$ is orientable, and so $\eta$ acts as $0$ on $\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_1/n!$. In particular, the map $\eta$ above factors through the stabilization projection $\left(\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n)\right)_{-n}(F)\to\mathbb{Z}$ and it suffices to show that $\eta\colon{\operatorname}{K}^{{\operatorname}{Q}}_0(F)\cong\mathbb{Z}\to\mathbb{Z}/n!\mathbb{Z}\cong {\operatorname}{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_0(F)/n!$ is 2-torsion. To check this, we consider the following explicit model of $\eta$. We view $\left(\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n{{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n\right)_{-i}(F)$ for $i=n$ and $n+1$ as $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy classes of maps ${\operatorname}{Q}_{2n}\to{{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n$ and ${\operatorname}{Q}_{2n+1}\to{{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n$, respectively, and then multiplication by $\eta$ is explicitly given by composing a morphism ${\operatorname}{Q}_{2n,F}\to{{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n$ with the Hopf map $\eta\colon{\operatorname}{Q}_{2n+1,F}\to{\operatorname}{Q}_{2n,F}$. The claim that $\eta\colon\left(\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n)\right)_{-n}(F)\to \mathbb{Z}/n!\mathbb{Z}$ is 2-torsion can then be checked in topological or étale realization over algebraically closed fields – it’s the classical statement that the Hopf map $\eta\in \pi_{n+1}({\operatorname}{S}^n)$ is 2-torsion.
\[lem:three\] Let $F$ be a field with discrete valuation $v$. Under the residue map $$\left(\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n{{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n\right)_{-n}(F)\to \mathbb{Z}/n!\mathbb{Z}$$ the vector bundle $\mathscr{V}\to {\operatorname}{Q}_{2n,F}$ from Remark \[rem:vblift\] maps to $0$.
If $v$ is the discrete valuation on $F$ with residue field $E$, the residue is a map $$\left(\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n)\right)_{-n}(F)\to \left(\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n)\right)_{-n-1}(E;\Lambda^{\mathcal{O}_v}_E).$$ Note that since $\left(\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n)\right)_{-n-1}(E)\cong\mathbb{Z}/n!\mathbb{Z}$, we can omit the orientation data in the target, making the above residue map independent of a choice of uniformizer of $v$. To actually describe the residue map, recall that the source has been interpreted in Lemma \[lem:one\] above as rank $n$ vector bundles on ${\operatorname}{Q}_{2n,F}$. The target can similarly be interpreted as rank $n$ vector bundles on ${\operatorname}{Q}_{2n+1,E}$, cf. [@AsokFaselSpheres]. We need to explain how to “compute” this residue. Recall that by the definition of contraction we have for any field $E$ $$\left(\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n)\right)_{-n-1}(E)= {\operatorname}{ker}\left(\left(\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n)\right)_{-n}(\mathbb{G}_{{\operatorname}{m},E})\to \left(\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n)\right)_{-n}(E)\right)$$ where the map is induced by the unit section. Suppose we have a rank $n$ vector bundle over ${\operatorname}{Q}_{2n,E}\times\mathbb{G}_{{\operatorname}{m},E}$ which is trivial over the fiber ${\operatorname}{Q}_{2n,E}\times\{1\}$. The vector bundle is necessarily trivial over $\{x\}\times\mathbb{G}_{{\operatorname}{m},E}$ for any choice of base point $x\in {\operatorname}{Q}_{2n,E}$, hence it is trivial over ${\operatorname}{Q}_{2n,E}\vee\mathbb{G}_{{\operatorname}{m},E}$ and therefore descends to a rank $n$ vector bundle over ${\operatorname}{Q}_{2n,E}\wedge\mathbb{G}_{{\operatorname}{m}}\simeq {\operatorname}{Q}_{2n+1,E}$. Therefore, the residue of a vector bundle over ${\operatorname}{Q}_{2n,E}\times\mathbb{G}_{{\operatorname}{m},E}$ is computed by first using the group structure to add a vector bundle of the form $p^\ast\mathcal{E}$ for $p\colon{\operatorname}{Q}_{2n,E}\times\mathbb{G}_{{\operatorname}{m},E}\to{\operatorname}{Q}_{2n,E}$ to make the vector bundle trivial over ${\operatorname}{Q}_{2n,E}\times\{1\}$, and then the residue is the induced vector bundle over ${\operatorname}{Q}_{2n+1,E}$ as above. The same works if we have a field $F$ with discrete valuation $v$ and residue field $E$: Nisnevich-locally, we can replace $\mathcal{O}_{F,v}\setminus{\operatorname}{Spec}E$ by $\mathbb{G}_{{\operatorname}{m},E}$ and do the same construction.[^2]
From the above description of the residue, we now deduce the claim. Let $F$ be a field with discrete valuation $v$, valuation ring $\mathcal{O}_v$ and residue field $E$, and $\sigma\in \left(\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n)\right)_{-n}(F)$ be a class, represented by a rank $n$ vector bundle over ${\operatorname}{Q}_{2n}\times_kF$. If the bundle extends (as a rank $n$ vector bundle) to ${\operatorname}{Q}_{2n}\times_k\mathcal{O}_v$ then its residue is trivial since in this case it is (locally in the Nisnevich topology on ${\operatorname}{Spec}\mathcal{O}_v$) extended from a constant vector bundle on ${\operatorname}{Q}_{2n,E}\times\mathbb{G}_{{\operatorname}{m},E}$. This is exactly the case for the vector bundle from Remark \[rem:vblift\].
[Proposition \[prop:cohop\]]{} We make use of the fact that the natural map $\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{n+1}/n!\to\mathbf{S}_n$ is an isomorphism after $(n-2)$-fold delooping, tacitly behaving like the first term in the exact sequence of sheaves is $\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{n+1}/n!$.
We first recall the definition of the boundary map in the long exact cohomology sequence: the short exact sequence of sheaves induces a short exact sequence of Gersten complexes whose relevant part (the two final degrees $n$ and $n+1$) is the following $$\xymatrix{
\bigoplus_{y\in X^{(n)}} \mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{1}(\kappa(y))/n! \ar@{^{(}->}[r] \ar[d] & \bigoplus_{y\in X^{(n)}}\left(\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n)\right)_{-n}(\kappa(y);\Lambda^X_y) \ar@{>>}[r] \ar[d]^\partial & \bigoplus_{y\in X^{(n)}}\mathbb{Z} \ar[d] \\
\bigoplus_{z\in X^{(n+1)}} \mathbb{Z}/n!\mathbb{Z} \ar[r]_\cong & \bigoplus_{z\in X^{(n+1)}} \mathbb{Z}/n!\mathbb{Z} \ar[r] & 0
}$$ The class in ${\operatorname}{CH}^n(X)\cong {\operatorname}{H}^n(X,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{Q}}_n)$ is represented by an element in the right-most term $\bigoplus_{y\in X^{(n)}}\mathbb{Z}$; in our specific case where $X$ has dimension $n+1$, it is a $\mathbb{Z}$-linear combination of curves in $X$. We lift this cycle to the upper middle term, apply the boundary map $\partial$, and the result is a representative for the cohomology class in ${\operatorname}{CH}^{n+1}(X)/n!\cong{\operatorname}{H}^{n+1}(X,\mathbf{S}_{n+1})$. Note that the sheaves $\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{n+1}$ and $\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{Q}}_n$ are orientable[^3], hence we can drop the orientation information $\Lambda^X_y$ in the outer terms of the first line; but we need to include orientation information $\Lambda^X_y$ in the middle term since the sheaf $\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n)$ is not orientable.
To discuss the lift of a class in ${\operatorname}{CH}^n(X)$ to an element of the middle term $$\bigoplus_{y\in X^{(n)}}\left(\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n)\right)_{-n}(\kappa(y))\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}[\kappa(y)^\times]}\mathbb{Z}[(\Lambda^X_y)^\times],$$ we employ Lemma \[lem:one\]. The lemma provides us with a vector bundle $\mathcal{V}\to{\operatorname}{Q}_{2n,k}$ (over the base field $k$) whose pullback to any extension field $F/k$ stabilizes to a generator of $\tilde{{\operatorname}{K}}_0({\operatorname}{Q}_{2n,F})$. For a $\mathbb{Z}$-linear combination $\sum_im_i[{\operatorname}{C}_i]$ of curves $C_i\hookrightarrow X$, we can then provide an explicit lift by $$\sum_i m_i[\mathcal{V}_i/C_i]\otimes \sigma_i,$$ where $[\mathcal{V}_i/C_i]$ is the class in $\left(\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n{{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n\right)_{-n}(\kappa(C_i))$ of the pullback of the above vector bundle $\mathcal{V}\to{\operatorname}{Q}_{2n,k}$ to ${\operatorname}{Q}_{2n}\times C_i$, and $\sigma_i\in \Lambda^X_{\kappa(C_i)}$ is a non-zero element. Note that $\sigma_i\in \Lambda^X_{\kappa(C_i)}$ can be considered as a rational section of the relative normal bundle $\omega_{\tilde{C_i}/X}$ of the composition $\tilde{C_i}\to C_i\hookrightarrow X$ of the normalization of the curve $C_i$ followed by the embedding of $C_i$ into $X$ (using that the normalization is an isomorphism away from the ramification points, hence we have a natural identification of the relative normal bundles there).
In the next step of the construction of the connecting homomorphism ${\operatorname}{CH}^n(X)\to {\operatorname}{CH}^{n+1}(X)/n!$ for the exact sequence of sheaves, we have to compute the image of the above lift under the differential $\partial$ in the Gersten complex for $\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n{{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n$. For this, recall from Section \[sec:rscomplex\] the definition of the differential $$\partial^{\kappa(C)}\colon \left(\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n{{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n\right)_{-n}(\kappa(C))\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}[\kappa(C)^\times]}\mathbb{Z}[(\Lambda^X_C)^\times]\to \bigoplus_{z\in X^{(n+1)}, z\in C} \mathbb{Z}/n!\mathbb{Z},$$ where we have already specialized to the relevant situation where $X$ is $n+1$-dimensional and $C\hookrightarrow X$ is a curve in $X$, and the orientation data is omitted in the target groups. For computing the differential $\partial^{\kappa(C)}_z$ we have to consider the normalization $\tilde{C}\to C$ of the curve, compute the residue map $$\partial_{\tilde{z}_i}^{\kappa(C)}\colon \left(\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n {{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n\right)_{-n}(\kappa(C)) \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}[\kappa(C)^\times]} \mathbb{Z}[(\Lambda^X_C)^\times]\to\mathbb{Z}/n!\mathbb{Z}$$ for all the points $\tilde{z}_i$ on $\tilde{C}$ lying over $z$ and then compose that with the absolute transfer map $\bigoplus_{\tilde{z}_i/z}\mathbb{Z}/n!\mathbb{Z}\to \mathbb{Z}/n!\mathbb{Z}$. Since $\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{n+1}$ is orientable (or differently, since the unit action on $\mathbb{Z}/n!\mathbb{Z}$ is trivial), the absolute transfer map reduces to the transfer map induced from Milnor K-theory, hence it takes an element $\bigoplus_i m_i\in\bigoplus_{\tilde{z}_i}\mathbb{Z}/n!\mathbb{Z}$ to $\sum_i[\kappa(\tilde{z}_i):\kappa(z)]m_i\in\mathbb{Z}/n!\mathbb{Z}$.
Now for the computation of the residue of the above lift. As a first step, Lemma \[lem:three\] describes the computation of the residue of the lifted vector bundle before twisting. Then the actual residue map $$\partial_{\tilde{z}_i}^{\kappa(C)}\colon \left(\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n {{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n\right)_{-n}(\kappa(C)) \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}[\kappa(C)^\times]} \mathbb{Z}[(\Lambda^X_{\kappa(C)})^\times]\to\mathbb{Z}/n!\mathbb{Z}$$ is obtained by twisting the residue map described in Lemma \[lem:three\] by the relative normal bundle $\omega_{\tilde{C}/X}$. More concretely, let $\mathcal{V}\otimes \sigma\in \left(\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n {{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n\right)_{-n}(\kappa(C);\Lambda^X_{\kappa(C)})$ be given by a vector bundle $\mathcal{V}\to{\operatorname}{Q}_{2n,\kappa(C)}$ and a rational section of $\omega_{\tilde{C}/X}$. We choose a uniformizer $\pi$ for the local ring of $\tilde{z}_i$ on $\tilde{C}$. There exists an integer $n\in \mathbb{Z}$ such that the section $\pi^{-n}\sigma$ is invertible at $\tilde{z}_i$, and $$\langle\pi^n\rangle\mathcal{V}\otimes \pi^{-n}\sigma=\mathcal{V}\otimes \sigma\in \left(\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n {{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n\right)_{-n}(\kappa(C)) \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}[\kappa(C)^\times]} \mathbb{Z}[(\Lambda^X_{\kappa(C)})^\times].$$ Here $\langle\pi^n\rangle\mathcal{V}$ is the result of the action of the unit group $\kappa(C)^\times$ on the element $\mathcal{V}\in (\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n{{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n)_{-n}(\kappa(C))$. Then $\partial_{\tilde{z}_i}^{\kappa(C)}(\mathcal{V}\otimes \sigma)$ is given by the residue of $\langle \pi^n\rangle \mathcal{V}$ for this choice of uniformizer. By Lemma \[lem:three\] the untwisted residue of $\mathcal{V}$ is $0$, and by Lemma \[lem:two\], the residue of $\partial^{\kappa(C)}_{\tilde{z}_i}(\mathcal{V}\otimes \sigma)$ is 2-torsion. Finally, the absolute transfer is the sum of multiples of such 2-torsion elements, hence 2-torsion. This implies the claim.
Construction of stably free modules {#sec:existence}
-----------------------------------
We now describe how to construct the stably free modules. The standard stabilization morphism $${\operatorname}{SL}_n\to{\operatorname}{SL}_{n+1}\colon M\mapsto \left(\begin{array}{cc}
M & 0 \\ 0 & 1\end{array}\right)$$ induces a morphism ${{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n\to{{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_{n+1}$ which maps an oriented projective $R$-module $\mathscr{P}$ of rank $n$ to $\mathscr{P}\oplus R$ with the induced orientation coming from $\bigwedge^{n+1}(\mathscr{P}\oplus R)\cong \bigwedge^n(\mathscr{P})\otimes R$. There is an $\mathbb{A}^1$-fiber sequence ${\operatorname}{Q}_{2n+1}\to{{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n\to{{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_{n+1}$, and the above exact sequence arises from the associated long exact sequence of $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy sheaves. In particular, the induced morphism $\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({\operatorname}{Q}_{2n+1})\to \bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n)$ factors as $$\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{MW}}_{n+1}\cong \bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({\operatorname}{Q}_{2n+1})\twoheadrightarrow \mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{n+1}\twoheadrightarrow \mathbf{S}_{n+1}\hookrightarrow \bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n).$$
To construct a projective module of rank $n$ which becomes trivial upon addition of a free rank one summand, we can proceed as follows. Suppose we have a morphism $\alpha\colon X\to{\operatorname}{Q}_{2n+1}$ corresponding to a unimodular row of length $n$, we can consider the composition $X\xrightarrow{\alpha}{\operatorname}{Q}_{2n+1}\to{{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n$. If we can show that the image of $\alpha$ under the composition $$[X,{\operatorname}{Q}_{2n+1}]_{\mathbb{A}^1}\to {\operatorname}{H}^n(X,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{MW}}_{n+1}) \to {\operatorname}{H}^n(X,\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n))$$ is non-trivial, we will obtain a non-trivial stably free module, as required. This procedure was suggested by Aravind Asok to replace an earlier argument which didn’t properly address the non-uniqueness of lifting classes.
The non-triviality of the image of $\alpha$ in ${\operatorname}{H}^n_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X,\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n))$ can now be discussed by means of the above exact sequence describing $\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n)$. It induces a long exact sequence of Nisnevich cohomology groups whose relevant portion is $${\operatorname}{H}^{n-1}_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{Q}}_n)\to {\operatorname}{H}^n_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{n+1}/n!) \to {\operatorname}{H}^n_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X,\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n))\to {\operatorname}{H}^n_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{Q}}_n)$$ By construction, the image of $\alpha$ lands in the image of ${\operatorname}{H}^n(X,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{n+1}/n!)$. To get non-triviality of the image of $\alpha$ in ${\operatorname}{H}^n_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X,\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n))$, the key point is the injectivity up to 2-torsion of the morphism ${\operatorname}{H}^n(X,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{n+1}/n!)\to {\operatorname}{H}^n(X,\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n))$ induced from the above exact sequence defining $\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n)$. The injectivity up to 2-torsion of the morphism ${\operatorname}{H}^n(X,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{n+1}/n!)\to {\operatorname}{H}^n(X,\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n))$ is a nontrivial statement which will follow from the discussion of the cohomology operation in Proposition \[prop:cohop\]. This is the content of the following theorem:
\[thm:mkalt\] Let $F$ be an algebraically closed field and set $k=F(T)$. Let $X$ be an $n+1$-dimensional smooth variety over $k$ with a covering $X=Y\cup Z$ such that $Y\cap Z$ is affine. Assume there is a class $c\in{\operatorname}{CH}^{n+1}(X)/n!$ which restricts trivially to both $Y$ and $Z$ and whose reduction in ${\operatorname}{CH}^{n+1}(X)/n$ is non-trivial. Then there exists a non-trivial stably free module over $Y\cap Z$ whose lifting class maps to $c$ under the boundary map in the Mayer–Vietoris sequence.
By Proposition \[prop:mkclass\] resp. its corollary, the geometric assumptions imply that there is a surjection $$[Y\cap Z,{\operatorname}{Q}_{2n+1}]_{\mathbb{A}^1}\to {\operatorname}{H}^n_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{MW}}_{n+1})\twoheadrightarrow {\operatorname}{CH}^{n+1}(X)/n!$$ We call $\alpha$ any map $Y\cap Z\to{\operatorname}{Q}_{2n+1}$ lifting the class $c$. This map will necessarily induce a non-trivial element in ${\operatorname}{H}^n_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{n+1}/n!)$. The canonical epimorphism $\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{n+1}/n!\to\mathbf{S}_{n+1}$ induces isomorphisms after $n-1$-fold contraction. This implies that it induces an isomorphism $${\operatorname}{H}^n_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{n+1}/n!)\cong{\operatorname}{H}^n_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{S}_{n+1}).$$ We need to prove that the class has non–trivial image under the morphism $${\operatorname}{H}^n_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{n+1}/n!) \to {\operatorname}{H}^n_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(Y\cap Z,\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n))$$ To do this, consider the ladder of Mayer–Vietoris sequences (associated to the covering $X=Y\cup Z$) for cohomology with coefficients in $\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{Q}}_p$ and $\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{p+1}/p!$, connected by the boundary map arising from the exact sequence $$0\to\mathbf{S}_{n+1}\to\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n)\to \mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{Q}}_n\to 0.$$ This ladder contains the following square which is commutative up to sign $$\xymatrix{
{\operatorname}{H}^{n-1}_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{Q}}_n) \ar[r] \ar[d]_\partial & {\operatorname}{CH}^n(X) \ar[d]^\partial \\
{\operatorname}{H}^n_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{n+1}/n!) \ar[r] & {\operatorname}{CH}^{n+1}(X)/n!
}$$ where the horizontal maps are the boundary maps in the respective Mayer–Vietoris sequences, and the vertical maps are the boundary maps for the above exact sequence of sheaves. Assuming that the image of $\alpha$ in ${\operatorname}{H}^n_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{n+1}/n!)$ is in the image of $\partial$, then its associated class in ${\operatorname}{CH}^{n+1}(X)/n!$ is also in the image of $\partial$. But by Proposition \[prop:cohop\], we know that the composition of the boundary map ${\operatorname}{CH}^n(X)\to{\operatorname}{CH}^{n+1}(X)/n!$ with the reduction ${\operatorname}{CH}^{n+1}(X)/n!\to{\operatorname}{CH}^{n+1}(X)/n$ is trivial. On the other hand, the class $c$ in ${\operatorname}{CH}^{n+1}(X)/n!$ has nontrivial image in ${\operatorname}{CH}^{n+1}(X)/n$ and hence cannot lie in the image of $\partial$. We have thus proved that the image of $\alpha$ in ${\operatorname}{H}^n_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{S}_{n+1})$ obtained from lifting a non-trivial class $c\in{\operatorname}{CH}^{n+1}(X)/n!$ has non-trivial image under the map $${\operatorname}{H}^n_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{S}_{n+1})\to {\operatorname}{H}^n_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(Y\cap Z,\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n))$$
As mentioned in Section \[sec:comparison\], the element in $[Y\cap Z,{\operatorname}{Q}_{2n+1}]_{\mathbb{A}^1}$ corresponds (by results discussed in [@AsokFaselSpheres §4]) to an algebraic map $Y\cap Z\to{\operatorname}{Q}_{2n+1}$ such that the composition $Y\cap Z\to{\operatorname}{Q}_{2n+1}\to\mathbb{A}^{n+1}\setminus\{0\}$ is a unimodular row of length $n+1$ over the coordinate ring of $Y\cap Z$. Since the image of the class $\alpha$ in ${\operatorname}{H}^n_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(Y\cap Z,\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_n({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_n))$ is non-trivial, this unimodular row gives rise to a non-trivial stably free module as claimed.
The above theorem now explains Mohan Kumar’s examples of stably free modules. Over a base field $K$, take $X\subset\mathbb{P}^{n+1}$ to be the complement of a hypersurface such that ${\operatorname}{CH}^{n+1}(X)/n!$ is nontrivial. Now take any two hypersurfaces $F_1,F_2\in\mathbb{P}^n$ which intersect only outside $X$ and which each have a $K$-rational point. Then $Y=X\setminus F_1$ and $Z=X\setminus F_2$ provides a covering $X=Y\cup Z$ where ${\operatorname}{CH}^{n+1}(Y)={\operatorname}{CH}^{n+1}(Z)=0$, as required in Theorem \[thm:mkalt\]. The fact that such a situation can be arranged over $K=k(T)$ with $k$ algebraically closed and with $n=p$ a prime is proved in [@mohan:kumar], cf. the discussion in Section \[sec:mkgeometry\]. Clearing denominators this shows the existence of rank $p$ stably free modules over varieties of dimension $p+2$ over algebraically closed fields.
The same argument actually provides several non-isomorphic examples of stably free modules. In the situation of Mohan Kumar’s examples, $X\subseteq\mathbb{P}^{p+1}$ has ${\operatorname}{CH}^{p+1}(X)\cong\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}$. There are thus $p-1$ different non-zero elements in ${\operatorname}{CH}^{p+1}(X)$. We can choose preimages for each of those elements under the surjective composition $$[Y\cap Z, {\operatorname}{Q}_{2p+1}]_{\mathbb{A}^1}\to{\operatorname}{H}^n(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{p+1}/p!)\twoheadrightarrow{\operatorname}{CH}^{p+1}(X)/p.$$ The arguments in Theorem \[thm:mkalt\] then provide $p-1$ stably free modules. By construction these stably free modules will have distinct images under the morphism $[Y\cap Z, {\operatorname}{Q}_{2p+1}]_{\mathbb{A}^1}\to{\operatorname}{H}^n(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{p+1}/p!)$. Applying the arguments of Theorem \[thm:mkalt\] to the (nonzero) differences of these classes shows that their images under the homomorphism $${\operatorname}{H}^p(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_{p+1}/p!)\to {\operatorname}{H}^n(Y\cap Z,\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_p({{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_p))$$ are still distinct. This implies that the $p-1$ stably free modules as above are pairwise non-isomorphic.
Stably free modules: Mohan Kumar’s examples at the prime 2 {#sec:mk2}
==========================================================
Now we discuss Mohan Kumar’s stably free modules of rank $2$. While the constructions in [@mohan:kumar] work for odd and even primes, the $\mathbb{A}^1$-topological reinterpretation here is slightly different for the prime $2$, due to a difference in the structure of the relevant $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy sheaf. The goal is to get examples of a smooth variety of dimension $3$ supporting a rank $2$ stably free module detected by ${\operatorname}{H}^2_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X,\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_2{{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_2)$. Note that the stabilization morphism $$\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{MW}}_2\cong \bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_2{{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_2 \to \bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_2{{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_3\cong\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_2$$ induced from the stabilization morphism ${{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_2\to{{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_3$ is the natural projection, cf. [@MField Remark 7.21]. Note also that the lifting class for a projective module $\mathscr{P}$ naturally lives in ${\operatorname}{H}^2_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X,\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_2{{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_2(\det\mathscr{P}))\cong \widetilde{{\operatorname}{CH}}^2(X,\det\mathscr{P})$. Since we are looking for stably free modules, we are really interested in Chow–Witt groups with the trivial duality. Summing up, the stably free modules of rank $2$ should be detected by a non-trivial class in $$\ker\left(\widetilde{{\operatorname}{CH}}^2(X)\cong{\operatorname}{H}^2_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{MW}}_2)\to {\operatorname}{H}^2_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_2)\cong {\operatorname}{CH}^2(X)\right).$$
From the discussion in Section \[sec:mkgeometry\], we obtain a smooth affine variety $Y\cap Z$ together with a morphism $\alpha\colon Y\cap Z\to{\operatorname}{Q}_5$ which is detected on ${\operatorname}{H}^2(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{MW}}_3)$. We want to show that the composition $Y\cap Z\to{\operatorname}{Q}_5\to{{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_2$ of $\alpha$ with the inclusion of the homotopy fiber of the stabilization morphism is not null-$\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopic.
\[lem:xi3\] Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field of characteristic $\neq 2$ and let $X$ be the open subvariety of $\mathbb{P}^3$ over $k(T)$ given by Mohan Kumar’s construction, cf. Section \[sec:mkgeometry\]. There is a non-trivial class in ${\operatorname}{H}^3_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X,\mathbf{I}^3)$, detected by ${\operatorname}{CH}^3(X)/2$.
By the results of Mohan Kumar, ${\operatorname}{CH}^3(X)/2\cong{\operatorname}{H}^3_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_3/2)\cong\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$ is non-trivial. The exact sequence $$0\to\mathbf{I}^4\to\mathbf{I}^3\to\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_3/2 \to 0$$ arising from Voevodsky’s solution of the Milnor conjecture induces a sequence $${\operatorname}{H}^3_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X,\mathbf{I}^3)\to {\operatorname}{H}^3_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_3/2)\to {\operatorname}{H}^4_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X,\mathbf{I}^4).$$ The last group vanishes since the Nisnevich cohomological dimension of $X$ is $3$. Therefore, we get a surjection ${\operatorname}{H}^3_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X,\mathbf{I}^3)\to\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$.
Now we can consider the Mayer–Vietoris sequence again to lift this non-trivial element to another $\mathbf{I}^3$-cohomology group. Since $X$ is an open subvariety of $\mathbb{P}^3$ with closed hypersurface complement $S=\mathbb{P}^3\setminus X$ (with reduced induced subscheme structure), we have a localization sequence $${\operatorname}{H}^3(\mathbb{P}^3,\mathbf{I}^3)\to {\operatorname}{H}^3(X,\mathbf{I}^3)\to {\operatorname}{H}^3(S,\mathbf{I}^2)=0.$$ The triviality of the last group follows from dimension reasons. By the computations in [@fasel:ij], we have ${\operatorname}{H}^3(\mathbb{P}^3,\mathbf{I}^3)\cong{\operatorname}{W}(k(T))$. In particular, we can choose a nontrivial class in ${\operatorname}{H}^3_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X,\mathbf{I}^3)$ to be represented by an element of ${\operatorname}{W}(k)$ of odd rank, supported on a rational point. Because the hypersurface complements of $Y$ and $Z$ contain rational points, this choice of class in $\mathbf{I}^3$-cohomology of $X$ will trivialize in the covering. This implies the following statement:
\[prop:h2i3\] Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field of characteristic $\neq 2$. In the situation $p=2$ of Mohan Kumar’s example, the boundary map of the Mayer–Vietoris sequence associated to the covering $X=Y\cup Z$ provides a surjection $${\operatorname}{H}^2_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{I}^3)\twoheadrightarrow {\operatorname}{H}^3_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X,\mathbf{I}^3)\twoheadrightarrow {\operatorname}{CH}^3(X)/2\cong\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}.$$
This produces a class in ${\operatorname}{H}^2_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{I}^3)$ which is detected by the non-trivial $\mathbf{I}^3$-cohomology of $X$. Now consider the exact sequence $$0\to \mathbf{I}^3\to\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{MW}}_2\to\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_2\to 0.$$ We want to show that the class produced above has non-trivial image under $${\operatorname}{H}^2_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{I}^3)\to{\operatorname}{H}^2_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{MW}}_2)\cong\widetilde{{\operatorname}{CH}}^2(Y\cap Z).$$ This would produce a non-trivial element in the kernel of the natural projection map $\widetilde{{\operatorname}{CH}}^2(Y\cap Z)\to{\operatorname}{CH}^2(Y\cap Z)$. As before, we use the Mayer–Vietoris sequences for the covering $X=Y\cup Z$. We use the two sequences for coefficients with $\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_2$ and $\mathbf{I}^3$, connected by the boundary map associated to the above exact sequence. This ladder of Mayer–Vietoris sequences contains the square which is commutative up to sign: $$\xymatrix{
{\operatorname}{H}^1_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_2) \ar[r] \ar[d] & {\operatorname}{H}^2_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_2) \ar[d] \\
{\operatorname}{H}^2_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{I}^3)\ar[r] & {\operatorname}{H}^3_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X,\mathbf{I}^3).
}$$ The horizontal arrows are the boundary maps for the Mayer–Vietoris sequences, the vertical maps are the boundary maps for the exact sequence of sheaves. To check that the left-hand vertical map doesn’t hit the element from Proposition \[prop:h2i3\] it suffices to show that the right-hand vertical map doesn’t hit the non-trivial $2$-torsion from Lemma \[lem:xi3\]. So we need to compute the right-hand boundary map, which can be viewed as an integral Bockstein operation. By [@fasel:ij Proposition 11.6], we know that the Bockstein map $\beta\colon{\operatorname}{CH}^2(\mathbb{P}^3)\to{\operatorname}{H}^3_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(\mathbb{P}^3,\mathbf{I}^3)$ is trivial. Since the Bockstein map is compatible with the maps in localization sequences, we get a commutative square $$\xymatrix{
{\operatorname}{CH}^2(\mathbb{P}^3) \ar[r] \ar[d]_\beta & {\operatorname}{CH}^2(X) \ar[d]^\beta \\
{\operatorname}{H}^3(\mathbb{P}^3,\mathbf{I}^3) \ar[r] & {\operatorname}{H}^3(X,\mathbf{I}^3)
}$$ where the horizontal arrows are the restriction to open subschemes in the localization sequence. Note that Zariski and Nisnevich cohomology coincide. By the localization sequence, the restriction ${\operatorname}{CH}^2(\mathbb{P}^3)\to{\operatorname}{CH}^2(X)$ is in fact surjective. This implies, in particular, that the right-hand vertical map $\beta$ is the zero map, because the left-hand vertical map is trivial, as claimed. The previous square from the ladder of Mayer-Vietoris sequences now implies that the element produced in Proposition \[prop:h2i3\] induces a non-trivial class in $$\ker\left(\widetilde{{\operatorname}{CH}}^2(Y\cap Z)\to{\operatorname}{CH}^2(Y\cap Z)\right).$$
We can take any such non-trivial element as a class in ${\operatorname}{H}^2_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{MW}}_2)$ and lift it along the surjection $[Y\cap Z,{\operatorname}{Q}_5]_{\mathbb{A}^1}\twoheadrightarrow {\operatorname}{H}^2_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{MW}}_2)$. This corresponds to a unimodular row of length $3$ which gives rise to a stably free module of rank $2$. By construction, its image in ${\operatorname}{H}^2_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(Y\cap Z,\bm{\pi}_2^{\mathbb{A}^1}{{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_2)$ is non-trivial. Applying the representability theorem \[thm:representability\], we have then proved the following:
Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field of characteristic $\neq 2$. There exists a $3$-dimensional smooth affine scheme $Y\cap Z$ over $k(T)$ and a non-trivial stably trivial rank $2$ vector bundle on $Y\cap Z$. Clearing denominators, there exists a $4$-dimensional smooth affine scheme over $k$ with a non-trivial stably free rank $2$ bundle over it.
Over other fields $k$ it could be possible to get other types of examples. Since the hypersurface complement of $X$ has no rational points, the map ${\operatorname}{H}^3_{{\operatorname}{Nis},\mathbb{P}^3\setminus X}(\mathbb{P}^3,\mathbf{I}^3)\to {\operatorname}{H}^3_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(\mathbb{P}^3,\mathbf{I}^3)$ should map a class (given by elements of ${\operatorname}{W}(k(x))$ supported on points $x$ on $W$) to the sum of transfers of the classes from ${\operatorname}{W}(k(x))$ supported on a rational point. In particular, the ideal generated by transfers of classes from points on $W$ should be strictly smaller than the fundamental ideal whenever there are non-trivial quaternion algebras over $k$. Classes not in the image of transfer should then yield non-trivial classes in ${\operatorname}{H}^3_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X,\mathbf{I}^3)$ not detected on ${\operatorname}{CH}^3(X)/2$. Applying the previous argument would produce stably free modules of a more arithmetic nature on $X$. This could be quite similar to the examples discussed in [@bhatwadekar:fasel:sane Section 3].
Stably trivial torsors for other groups {#sec:rest}
=======================================
In this section, we discuss analogous results for torsors under other groups. In slight variation of the notion of stably trivial torsors we can consider, for an embedding $H\to G$ of algebraic groups, $H$-torsors which become trivial after extending the structure group to $G$. We discuss such phenomena in the other classical series $B_n$, $C_n$ and $D_n$, and for the homomorphism ${\operatorname}{G}_2\to{\operatorname}{Spin}(7)$.
Symplectic groups
-----------------
We first discuss how the construction of Mohan Kumar also gives rise to stably free torsors for the symplectic groups. By [@AsokFaselSplitting Section 4.2], there is a cartesian square of algebraic groups $$\xymatrix{
{\operatorname}{Sp}_{2n}\ar[r] \ar[d] & {\operatorname}{Sp}_{2n+2} \ar[d] \\
{\operatorname}{SL}_{2n+1}\ar[r] & {\operatorname}{SL}_{2n+2}.
}$$ This implies the existence of a commutative diagram of $\mathbb{A}^1$-fiber sequences $$\xymatrix{
\mathbb{A}^{2n+2}\setminus\{0\} \ar[r] \ar[d]_\cong &
{{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{Sp}_{2n}\ar[r] \ar[d] & {{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{Sp}_{2n+2} \ar[d] \\
\mathbb{A}^{2n+2}\setminus\{0\} \ar[r] & {{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_{2n+1}\ar[r] & {{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_{2n+2}.
}$$
Recall that Section \[sec:mkgeometry\] provided a smooth affine variety $Y\cap Z$ with a morphism $Y\cap Z\to{\operatorname}{Q}_{2p+1}$ which is detected in Milnor K-cohomology. For $p$ odd, setting $2n=p-1$, we can now compose the morphism $Y\cap Z\to {\operatorname}{Q}_{2p+1}\to\mathbb{A}^{p+1}\setminus\{0\}$ with the natural map $\mathbb{A}^{p+1}\setminus\{0\}\to{{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{Sp}_{p-1}$ which is the inclusion of the $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy fiber of the stabilization map ${{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{Sp}_{p-1}\to {{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{Sp}_{p+1}$ in the above diagram.
By construction, this produces a symplectic vector bundle which is trivial after adding a symplectic line, by the top horizontal fiber sequence. The middle vertical map takes an ${\operatorname}{Sp}_{p-1}$-torsor to the direct sum of its underlying vector bundle with a trivial line bundle. The commutativity of the left square in the above diagram of fiber sequences thus implies that Mohan Kumar’s stably trivial module splits off a trivial line bundle and the remaining vector bundle of rank $p-1$ has a symplectic structure. Nontriviality of Mohan Kumar’s stably trivial modules then implies that the corresponding stably trivial torsors for the symplectic groups are nontrivial. In fact, from the commutative diagram of fiber sequences, we get a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
[Y\cap Z,{\operatorname}{Q}_{2p+1}]_{\mathbb{A}^1} \ar[r] & {\operatorname}{H}^p(Y\cap Z,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{MW}}_{p+1}) \ar[r] \ar[rd] & {\operatorname}{H}^p(Y\cap Z,\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_p{{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{Sp}_{p-1}) \ar[d] \\
&&{\operatorname}{H}^p(Y\cap Z,\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_p{{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{SL}_{p})
}$$ from which we see that the stably trivial symplectic modules are in fact detected by nontrivial classes in ${\operatorname}{H}^p(Y\cap Z,\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_p{{\operatorname}{B}}{\operatorname}{Sp}_{p-1})$.
\[thm:sp\] Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field of characteristic $\neq 2$. For every odd prime $p$, there exists a $p+1$-dimensional smooth affine variety over $k(T)$ and a non-trivial stably trivial ${\operatorname}{Sp}_{p-1}$-torsor over it. Clearing denominators, there exists a $p+2$-dimensional smooth affine variety over $k$ and a stably trivial non-trivial ${\operatorname}{Sp}_{p-1}$-torsor over it.
Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field of characteristic $\neq 2$ and let $p$ be an odd prime. The stably free modules of rank $p$ of Mohan Kumar split off a trivial line, and the resulting stably free module of rank $p-1$ has a symplectic structure.
As pointed out by one of the referees, for a unimodular row $\underline{a}:=(a_1,\dots,a_{p+1})$ we have another unimodular row $(-a_2,a_1,-a_4,a_3,\dots,-a_{p+1},a_p)$ which is in the kernel of the surjection defined by $\underline{a}$. This implies that the vector bundle defined by the unimodular row $\underline{a}$ splits off a trivial line bundle such that the remaining vector bundle has a symplectic structure, cf. [@fasel:sphere §3].
Orthogonal groups
-----------------
Via the sporadic isomorphisms, the stably trivial symplectic bundles provide stably trivial torsors for low-rank spin groups.
The first type of examples arises from the rank 3 stably free modules of Mohan Kumar. As discussed above, these modules split as direct sum of a trivial line bundle and a nontrivial oriented rank 2 bundle. Via the low-dimensional sporadic isomorphism ${\operatorname}{SL}_2\cong{\operatorname}{Spin}(3)$, the rank 2 vector bundles correspond to ${\operatorname}{Spin}(3)$-torsors. These torsors are stably trivial in the sense that they become trivial after stabilization to ${\operatorname}{Spin}(5)$. In fact, the spin torsors induce non-split quadratic forms which become split after adding a hyperbolic plane. A detailed discussion of these examples and the relevant $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy computations can be found in [@hyperbolic-dim3], cf. in particular Example 5.18.
In a similar way, the low-dimensional sporadic isomorphism ${\operatorname}{SL}_2\times{\operatorname}{SL}_2\cong{\operatorname}{Spin}(4)$, the above rank 2 stably trivial vector bundles also give rise to ${\operatorname}{Spin}(4)$-torsors which become trivial after stabilization to ${\operatorname}{Spin}(5)$.
Finally, there is a third type of stably trivial spin torsors. On the one hand, $\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{MW}}_2$ appears in the $\mathbb{A}^1$-fundamental groups of ${\operatorname}{Spin}(n)$ for $3\leq n\leq 5$, and on the other hand, the $\mathbb{A}^1$-fundamental group of ${\operatorname}{Spin}(n)$ is $\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_2$ for $n\geq 6$. Consequently, the rank 2 vector bundles detected by elements in $\ker\left(\widetilde{{\operatorname}{CH}}^2(X)\to{\operatorname}{CH}^2(X)\right)$ (as discussed in Section \[sec:mk2\]) can be used to construct stably trivial spin torsors. A detailed discussion of these examples can be found in [@hyperbolic-dim3], cf. in particular Example 5.11.
Exceptional group ${\operatorname}{G}_2$
----------------------------------------
The stably free vector bundles of Mohan Kumar can also be used to provide examples of ${\operatorname}{G}_2$-torsors which become trivial after extending the structure group along the homomorphism ${\operatorname}{G}_2\to{\operatorname}{Spin}(7)$.
The norm form of the split octonion algebra gives rise to a homomorphism ${\operatorname}{G}_2\to{\operatorname}{Spin}(7)$, and the quotient can be identified as ${\operatorname}{Spin}(7)/{\operatorname}{G}_2\cong{\operatorname}{Q}_7$. Consequently, there is an $\mathbb{A}^1$-fiber sequence $${\operatorname}{Q}_7\to{{\operatorname}{B}}_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}{\operatorname}{G}_2\to{{\operatorname}{B}}_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}{\operatorname}{Spin}(7).$$ Mohan Kumar’s construction provides a morphism $Y\cap Z\to {\operatorname}{Q}_7$, and the composition with the map ${\operatorname}{Q}_7\to{{\operatorname}{B}}_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}{\operatorname}{G}_2$ classifies a ${\operatorname}{G}_2$-torsor whose associated ${\operatorname}{Spin}(7)$-torsor is trivial.
A more explicit description of the torsor can be given as follows. The Zorn vector matrices provide a construction of ${\operatorname}{G}_2$-torsors from oriented rank 3 vector bundles. If $k$ is an algebraically closed field, Mohan Kumar’s construction provides oriented rank 3 vector bundles over a 4-dimensional smooth affine variety over $k(T)$, or by clearing denominators over a 5-dimensional smooth affine variety over $k$. Applying the Zorn vector matrix construction to these vector bundles provides ${\operatorname}{G}_2$-torsors over the varieties constructed by Mohan Kumar.
As discussed in [@octonion], ${\operatorname}{H}^3_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X,\bm{\pi}^{\mathbb{A}^1}_3{{\operatorname}{B}}_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}{\operatorname}{G}_2)\cong {\operatorname}{H}^3_{{\operatorname}{Nis}}(X,\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{M}}_4/3)$. Since Mohan Kumar’s vector bundles are detected by non-trivial classes in the latter cohomology group, the ${\operatorname}{G}_2$-torsor described above is in fact non-trivial. This provides examples of octonion algebras with trivial norm form over smooth affine varieties of smallest possible dimension. Full details for the proofs of the above assertions can be found in [@octonion Section 4.3].
[AHW17]{}
A. Asok, B. Doran and J. Fasel. Smooth models of motivic spheres and the clutching construction. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN, 2016.
A. Asok and J. Fasel. A cohomological classification of vector bundles on smooth affine threefolds. Duke Math. J. 163 (2014), 2561–2601.
A. Asok and J. Fasel. Algebraic vector bundles on spheres. J. Topology 7 (2014), 894–926.
A. Asok and J. Fasel. Splitting vector bundles outside the stable range and r$\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy sheaves of punctured affine space. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 28 (2015), 1031–1062.
A. Asok and J. Fasel. Euler class groups and stable motivic cohomotopy. Preprint, arXiv:1601.05723.
A. Asok, M. Hoyois and M. Wendt. Affine representability results in $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy theory I: vector bundles. Duke Math. J. 166 (2017), 1923–1953.
A. Asok, M. Hoyois and M. Wendt. Affine representability results in $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy theory II: principal bundles and homogeneous spaces. Geom. & Topol. 22 (2018), 1181–1225.
A. Asok, M. Hoyois and M. Wendt. Generically split octonion algebras and $\mathbb{A}^1$-homotopy theory. Preprint, arXiv:1704.03657v1.
S.M. Bhatwadekar, J. Fasel and S. Sane. Euler class groups and 2-torsion elements. J. Pure Appl. Algebra 218 (2014), no. 1, 112–120.
J. Fasel. Some remarks on orbit sets of unimodular rows. Comment. Math. Helv. 86 (2011), 13–39.
J. Fasel. Projective modules over the real algebraic sphere of dimension $3$. J. Alg. 325 (2011), 18–33.
J. Fasel. The projective bundle theorem for $\mathbf{I}^j$-cohomology. J. K-theory 11 (2013), 413–464.
J. Fasel, R.A. Rao and R.G. Swan. On stably free modules over affine algebras. Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes [É]{}tudes Sci. 116 (2012), 223–243.
J. Fasel and V. Srinivas. A vanishing theorem for oriented intersection multiplicities. Math. Res. Lett. 15 (2008), no. 3, 447–458.
A. Hogadi and G. Kulkarni. Gabber’s presentation lemma for finite fields. To appear in J. reine angew. Math., arXiv:1612.09393.
M. Hoyois. From algebraic cobordism to motivic cohomology. J. reine angew. Math. 702 (2015), 173–226.
N. Mohan Kumar. Stably free modules. Amer. J. Math. 107 (1985), 1439–1443.
F. Morel. *$\mathbb{A}^1$-algebraic topology over a field*, volume 2052 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer, Heidelberg, 2012.
M. Schlichting. Euler class groups and the homology of elementary and special linear groups. Adv. Math. 320 (2017), 1–81.
M. Wendt. On stably trivial spin torsors over low-dimensional schemes. Preprint, arXiv:1704.07768, to appear in Q.J. Math.
[^1]: For most of the computations, the boundary maps in the above complex will not matter; several vanishing results will only be proved by making statements about the structure of the reduction of certain strictly $\mathbb{A}^1$-invariant sheaves. However, there is one cohomology operation which we have to discuss in detail, and this requires a detailed tracing through the construction of the boundary map for the Gersten-type complexes.
[^2]: This is the place where the residue would depend on the choice of uniformizer which influences the choice of identification with $\mathbb{G}_{{\operatorname}{m}}$; but in our special situation the target has trivial unit action and so the residue is in fact independent of such choice.
[^3]: Orientable here means that the action of the units on the contractions is trivial. This implies in particular that the $\mathbf{K}^{{\operatorname}{MW}}_0$-module structure extending the unit action factors through the dimension homomorphism ${\operatorname}{GW}(F)\to \mathbb{Z}$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we describe the different spectrums of the $\alpha$-times integrated semigroups by the spectrums of their generators. Specially, essential ascent and descent, upper and lower semi-Fredholm and semi-Browder spectrums.'
address:
- 'A. Tajmouati, M.B. Mohamed Ahmed and H. Boua Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah Univeristy, Faculty of Sciences Dhar Al Mahraz, Fez, Morocco.'
- 'A. El Bakkali Department of Mathematics University Chouaib Doukkali, Faculty of Sciences. 24000, Eljadida, Morocco.'
author:
- 'A. Tajmouati, A. El Bakkali, M.B. Mohamed Ahmed and H. Boua'
title: 'Semi-Fredholm and semi-Browder spectrums for the $\alpha$-times integrated semigroups'
---
Introduction
============
Let $X$ be a complex Banach space and $\mathcal{B}(X)$ the algebra of all bounded linear operators on $X$. We denote by $D(T)$, $R(T)$, $R^\infty(T):=\cap_{n\geq 1}R(T^n)$, $N(T)$, $\rho(T)$, $\sigma(T),$ and $\sigma_p(T)$ respectively the domain, the range, the hyper range, the kernel, the resolvent and the spectrum of $T$, where $\sigma(T)=\{\lambda\in\mathds{C}\ : \lambda-T \,\mbox{is not bijective}\}$ and $\sigma_p(T)=\{\lambda\in\mathds{C}\ : \lambda-T \,\mbox{is not one to one}\}.$ The function resolvent of $T\in\mathcal{B}(X)$ is defined for all $\lambda\in\rho(T)$ by $R(\lambda,T)=(\lambda -T)^{-1}.$ The ascent and descent of an operator $T$ are defined respectively by $$a(T)=\inf\{k\in\mathds{N} : N(T^k)=N(T^{k+1})\}\,\mbox{ and }\,$$ $$d(T)=\inf\{k\in\mathds{N} : R(T^k)=R(T^{k+1})\},$$ with the convention $inf(\varnothing)=\infty$. The essential ascent and descent of an operator $T$ are defined respectively by $$a_e(T)=\min\{k\in\mathds{N} : \dim N(T^{k+1})/N(T^k)<\infty\}\,\mbox{ and }\,$$ $$d_e(T)=\min\{k\in\mathds{N} : \dim R(T^k)/R(T^{k+1})<\infty\}.$$ The ascent, descent , essential ascent and essential descent spectrums are defined by $$\sigma_a(T)=\{\lambda\in\mathds{C}\ : a(\lambda-T)=\infty\};$$ $$\sigma_d(T)=\{\lambda\in\mathds{C} : d(\lambda-T)=\infty\};$$ $$\sigma_{a_e}(T)=\{\lambda\in\mathds{C} : a_e(\lambda-T)=\infty\};$$ $$\sigma_{d_e}(T)=\{\lambda\in\mathds{C} : d_e(\lambda-T)=\infty\};$$ The sets of upper and lower semi-Fredholm and their spectrums are defined respectively by $$\Phi_+(X)=\{T\in\mathcal{B}(X) : \delta(T)=\dim N(T)<\infty \,\mbox{and}\,R(T) \,\mbox{is closed}\},$$ $$\sigma_{e_+}(T)=\{\lambda\in\mathds{C} : \lambda-T\notin \Phi_+(X)\}$$ and $$\Phi_-(X)=\{T\in\mathcal{B}(X) : \beta(T)=codim R(T)=\infty\},$$ $$\sigma_{e_-}(T)=\{\lambda\in\mathds{C}\backslash \lambda-T\notin \Phi_-(X)\}.$$ An operator $T\in \mathcal{B}(X)$ is called semi-Fredholm, in symbol $T\in \Phi_\pm(X)$, if $$T\in \Phi_+(X)\cup\Phi_-(X).$$ An operator $T\in \mathcal{B}(X)$ is called Fredholm, in symbol $T\in \Phi(X)$, if $$T\in \Phi_+(X)\cap\Phi_-(X).$$ The essential and semi-Fredholm spectrums are defined by $$\sigma_e(T)=\{\lambda\in\mathds{C} : \lambda-T\notin \Phi(X)\};$$ $$\sigma_{e_\pm}(T)=\{\lambda\in\mathds{C} : \lambda-T\notin \Phi_\pm(X)\};$$ The sets of upper and lower semi-Browder and their spectrums are defined respectively by $${Br}_+(X)=\{T\in\Phi_+(X) : a(T)<\infty\},$$ $$\sigma_{{Br}_+}(T)=\{\lambda\in\mathds{C} : \lambda-T\notin Br_+(X)\}$$ and $${Br}_-(X)=\{T\in\Phi_-(X) : d(T)<\infty\},$$ $$\sigma_{Br_-}(T)=\{\lambda\in\mathds{C} : \lambda-T\notin Br_-(X)\}.$$ An operator $T\in \mathcal{B}(X)$ is called semi-Browder, in symbol $T\in Br_\pm(X)$, if $$T\in {Br}_+(X)\cup {Br}_-(X).$$ An operator $T\in \mathcal{B}(X)$ is called Browder, in symbol $T\in Br(X)$, if $$T\in Br_+(X)\cap Br_-(X).$$ The semi-Browder and Browder spectrums are defined by $$\sigma_{{Br}_{\pm}}(T)=\{\lambda\in\mathds{C} : \lambda-T\notin {Br}_\pm(X)\}$$ and $$\sigma_{Br}(T)=\{\lambda\in\mathds{C} : \lambda-T\notin Br(X)\}.$$ Let $\alpha\geq 0$ and let $A$ be a linear operator on a Banach space $X$. We recall that $A$ is the generator of an $\alpha$-times integrated semigroup $(S(t))_{t\geq 0}$ on $X$ [@r.5] if $]\omega, +\infty[ \subseteq \rho(A)$ for some $\omega\in \mathds{R}$ and there exists a strongly continuous mapping $S: [0, +\infty[ \rightarrow \mathcal{B}(X)$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\|S(t)\|&\leq& Me^{\omega t} \,\,\mbox{for all}\,\, t\geq 0 \,\,\mbox{ and some }\,\, M > 0;\\
R(\lambda, A)&=& \lambda^\alpha\int_0^{+\infty} e^{-\lambda t}S(t)ds \,\,\mbox{for all}\,\, \lambda> \max\{\omega, 0\},\end{aligned}$$ in this case, $(S(t))_{t\geq 0}$ is called an $\alpha$-times integrated semigroup and the domain of its generator $A$ is defined by $$D(A)=\left\{x\in X : \int_0^tS(s)Axds=S(t)x-\frac{t^\alpha x}{\Gamma(\alpha+1)}\right\},$$ where $\Gamma$ is the Euler integral giving by $$\Gamma(\alpha+1)=\int_0^{+\infty} x^\alpha e^{-x}dx.$$ We know that $(S(t))_{t\geq 0}\subseteq\mathcal{B}(X)$ is an $\alpha$-times integrated semigroup if and only if $$S(t+s)=\frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha)}\left(\int_t^{t+s}(t+s-r)^{\alpha-1}S(r)xdr-
\int_0^{s}(t+s-r)^{\alpha-1}S(r)xdr\right)$$ for all $x\in X$ and all $t,s\geq 0$.\
In [@r.3], the authors have studied the different spectrums of the 1-times integrated semigroups. In our paper [@r.12], we have studied descent, ascent, Drazin, Fredholm and Browder spectrums of the $\alpha$-times integrated semigroups. In this paper, we continue to study $\alpha$-times integrated semigroups for all $\alpha\geq 0$. We investigate the relationships between the different spectrums of an $\alpha$-times integrated semigroup and their generators, precisely the essential ascent and descent, upper and lower semi-Fredholm and semi-Browder spectrums.
Main results
============
\[l0\][@r.1 Proposition 2.4] Let $A$ be the generator of an $\alpha$-times integrated semigroup $(S(t))_{t\geq 0}\subseteq \mathcal{B}(X)$ where $\alpha \geq 0.$ Then for all $x\in D(A)$ and all $t\geq 0$ we have
1. $S(t)x\in D(A)$ and $AS(t)x=S(t)Ax.$
2. $S(t)x=\frac{t^\alpha}{\Gamma(\alpha+1)}x+\int_0^t S(s)Axds.$
Moreover, for all $x\in X$ we get $\int_0^t S(s)xds\in D(A)$ and $$A\int_0^t S(s)xds=S(t)x -\frac{t^\alpha}{\Gamma(\alpha+1)}x.$$
We begin by the lemmas.
\[l1\] Let $A$ be the generator of an $\alpha$-times integrated semigroup $(S(t))_{t\geq 0}$ with $\alpha>0$. Then for all $\lambda\in\mathds{C}$ and all $t\geq 0$
1. $(\lambda-A)D_\lambda(t)x=\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1} x}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)x,\,\,\forall x\in X$ where $$D_\lambda(t)x=\int_0^t e^{\lambda (t-r)}S(r)dr;$$
2. $D_\lambda(t)(\lambda-A)x=\int_0^t e^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1} x}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)x,\,\,\forall x\in D(A)$.
<!-- -->
1. By Lemma \[l0\], we know that for all $x\in D(A)$ $$S(s)x=\frac{s^\alpha}{\Gamma(\alpha+1)}x+\int_0^sS(r)Axdr.$$ Then, since $\Gamma(\alpha+1)=\alpha\Gamma(\alpha)$, we obtain $$S'(s)x= \frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}x+S(s)Ax.$$ Therefore, we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
D_\lambda(t)Ax &=&\int_0^te^{\lambda(t-s)}S(s)Axds\\
&=& \int_0^te^{\lambda(t-s)}[S'(s)x-\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}x]ds\\
&=& \int_0^te^{\lambda(t-s)}S'(s)xds-
\int_0^te^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}xds\\
&=& S(t)x+\lambda D_\lambda(t)x-
\int_0^te^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}xds
\end{aligned}$$ Finally, we obtain for all $x\in D(A)$ $$D_\lambda(t)(\lambda-A)x= \left(\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds - S(t)\right)x.$$
2. Let $\mu\in \rho(A)$. From proof of Lemma \[l0\], we have for all $x\in X$ $$R(\mu,A)S(s)x=S(s)R(\mu,A)x.$$ Hence, for all $x\in X$ we conclude $$\begin{aligned}
R(\mu,A)D_\lambda(t)x &=& R(\mu,A)\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}S(s)xds\\
&=& \int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}R(\mu,A)S(s)xds\\
&=& \int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}S(s)R(\mu,A)xds\\
&=& D_\lambda(t)R(\mu,A)x.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we obtain for all $x\in X$ $$\begin{aligned}
D_\lambda(t)x &=& \int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}S(s)xds\\
&=& \int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}S(s)(\mu-A)R(\mu,A)xds \\
&=& \mu \int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)} S(s)R(\mu,A)xds -\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}S(s)AR(\mu,A)xds \\
&=& \mu \int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)} R(\mu,A)S(s)xds -\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}S(s)AR(\mu,A)xds \\
&=& \mu R(\mu,A)\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)} S(s)xds -\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}S(s)AR(\mu,A)xds \\
&=& \mu R(\mu,A)D_\lambda(t)x-D_\lambda(t)AR(\mu,A)x\\
&=& \mu R(\mu,A)D_\lambda(t)x-\left(S(t)R(\mu,A)x+\lambda D_\lambda(t)R(\mu,A)x-\int_0^te^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}R(\mu,A)xds\right)\\
&=& \mu R(\mu,A)D_\lambda(t)x-\left(R(\mu,A)S(t)x+\lambda R(\mu,A)D_\lambda(t)x-R(\mu,A)\int_0^te^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}xds\right)\\ &=& R(\mu,A)\big[(\mu-\lambda)D_\lambda(t)x-S(t)x+
\int_0^te^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}xds\big]\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, for all $x\in X$ we have $D_\lambda(t)x\in D(A)$ and $$(\mu-A)D_\lambda(t)x=(\mu-\lambda) D_\lambda(t)x+\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}xds -
S(t)x.$$ Finally, for all $x\in X$ and all $\lambda\in \mathds{C}$ we obtain $$(\lambda-A)D_\lambda(t)x=\left(\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds -
S(t)\right)x.$$
\[l2\] Let $A$ be the generator of an $\alpha$-times integrated semigroup $(S(t))_{t\geq 0}$ with $\alpha>0$. Then for all $\lambda\in\mathds{C}$, all $t\geq 0$ and all $x\in X$
1. We have the identity $$\,\,(\lambda-A)L_\lambda(t)+\varphi_\lambda(t)D_\lambda(t)=\phi_\lambda(t)I,$$ where $L_\lambda(t)=\int_0^t e^{-\lambda s }D_\lambda(s)ds,\, \varphi_\lambda(t)=e^{\lambda t}\,\mbox{and}\, \phi_\lambda(t)=\int_0^t\int_0^\tau e^{-\lambda r}\frac{r^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}drd\tau.$\
Moreover, the operator $L_\lambda(t)$ is commute with each one of $D_\lambda(t)$and $(\lambda-A)$.
2. For all $n\in\mathds{N}^*,$ there exists an $L_{\lambda,n}(t)\in \mathcal{B}(X)$ such that $$(\lambda-A)L_{\lambda,n}(t)+[\varphi_\lambda(t)]^n[D_\lambda(t)]^n=
[\phi_\lambda(t)]^nI.$$ Moreover, the operator $L_{\lambda,n}(t)$ is commute with each one of $D_\lambda(t)$ and $\lambda-A$.
3. For all $n\in\mathds{N}^*,$ there exists an operator $D_{\lambda,n}(t)\in \mathcal{B}(X)$ such that $$(\lambda-A)^n[L_\lambda(t)]^n+D_{\lambda,n}(t)D_\lambda(t)=[\phi_\lambda(t)]^nI.$$ Moreover, the operator $D_{\lambda,n}(t)$ is commute with each one of $D_\lambda(t)$, $L_\lambda(t)$ and $\lambda-A$.
4. For all $n\in\mathds{N}^*,$ there exists an operator $K_{\lambda,n}(t)\in \mathcal{B}(X)$ such that $$(\lambda-A)^nK_{\lambda,n}(t)+[D_{\lambda,n}(t)]^n [D_\lambda(t)]^n=[\phi_\lambda(t)]^{n^2}I,$$ Moreover, the operator $K_{\lambda,n}(t)$ is commute with each one of $D_\lambda(t)$, $D_{\lambda,n}(t)$ and $\lambda-A$.
<!-- -->
1. Let $\mu\in \rho(A)$. By Lemma \[l1\], for all $x\in X$ we have $D_\lambda(s)x\in D(A)$ and hence $$\begin{aligned}
L_\lambda(t)x &=& \int_0^te^{-\lambda s}D_\lambda(s)xds\\
&=& \int_0^te^{-\lambda s}R(\mu,A)(\mu-A)D_\lambda(s)xds\\
&=& R(\mu,A)[\mu\int_0^te^{-\lambda s}D_\lambda(s)xds-\int_0^te^{-\lambda s}AD_\lambda(s)xds]\\
&=& R(\mu,A)[\mu L_\lambda(t)x-\int_0^te^{-\lambda s}AD_\lambda(s)xds]\end{aligned}$$ Therefore for all $x\in X$, we have $L_\lambda(t)x\in D(A)$ and $$(\mu-A)L_\lambda(t)x=\mu L_\lambda(t)x-\int_0^te^{-\lambda s}AD_\lambda(s)xds.$$ Thus $$AL_\lambda(t)x=\int_0^te^{-\lambda s}AD_\lambda(s)xds.$$ Hence, we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
(\lambda-A)L_\lambda(t)x&=&\lambda L_\lambda(t)x -\int_0^te^{-\lambda s}AD_\lambda(s)xds\\
&=&\lambda L_\lambda(t)x -\int_0^te^{-\lambda s}\big[\lambda D_\lambda(s)x-\int_0^s e^{\lambda(s-r)}\frac{r^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}xdr +
S(s)x\big]ds\\
&=&\lambda L_\lambda(t)x -\lambda\int_0^te^{-\lambda s}D_\lambda(s)x ds +\int_0^te^{-\lambda s}\int_0^s e^{\lambda(s-r)}\frac{r^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}xdrds -\int_0^te^{-\lambda s}
S(s)xds\\
&=&\lambda L_\lambda(t)x -\lambda L_\lambda(t)x +\int_0^t\int_0^s e^{-\lambda r}\frac{r^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}xdrds -e^{-\lambda t}\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}S(s)xds \\
&=&\int_0^t\int_0^s e^{-\lambda r}\frac{r^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}xdrds -e^{-\lambda t}D_\lambda (t)x \\
&=& \big[\phi_\lambda(t)I-\varphi_\lambda(t)D_\lambda(t)\big]x,\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi_\lambda(t)=\int_0^t\int_0^s e^{-\lambda r}\frac{r^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}drds$ and $\varphi_\lambda(t)=e^{-\lambda t}.$\
Therefore, we obtain $$(\lambda-A)L_\lambda(t)+\varphi_\lambda(t)D_\lambda(t)=\phi_\lambda(t)I.$$ Since $S(s)S(t)=S(t)S(s)$ for all $s,t\geq 0$, then $D_\lambda(s)S(t)=S(t)D_\lambda(s).$\
Hence $$\begin{aligned}
D_\lambda(t)D_\lambda(s) &=& \int_0^te^{\lambda(t-r)}S(r)D_\lambda(s)dr\\
&=& \int_0^te^{\lambda(t-r)}S(r)D_\lambda(s)dr\\
&=& \int_0^te^{\lambda(t-r)}D_\lambda(s)S(r)dr\\
&=& D_\lambda(s)\int_0^te^{\lambda(t-r)}S(r)dr\\
&=& D_\lambda(s)D_\lambda(t).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
D_\lambda(t)L_\lambda(t) &=& D_\lambda(t)\int_0^te^{-\lambda s}D_\lambda(s)ds\\
&=& \int_0^te^{-\lambda s}D_\lambda(t)D_\lambda(s)ds\\
&=& \int_0^te^{-\lambda s}D_\lambda(s)D_\lambda(t)ds\\
&=& \int_0^te^{-\lambda s}D_\lambda(s)dsD_\lambda(t)\\
&=& L_\lambda(t)D_\lambda(t).\end{aligned}$$ Since for all $x\in X$ $AL_\lambda(t)x=\int_0^te^{-\lambda s}AD_\lambda(s)xds$ and for all $x\in D(A)$ $AD_\lambda(s)x=D_\lambda(s)Ax,$ then we obtain for all $x\in D(A)$ $$\begin{aligned}
(\lambda-A)L_\lambda(t)x &=& \lambda L_\lambda(t)x-AL_\lambda(t)x\\
&=& \lambda L_\lambda(t)x -\int_0^te^{-\lambda s}AD_\lambda(s)xds\\
&=& \lambda L_\lambda(t)x -\int_0^te^{-\lambda s}AD_\lambda(s)xds\\
&=&\lambda L_\lambda(t)x -\int_0^te^{-\lambda s}D_\lambda(s)Axds\\
&=& \lambda L_\lambda(t)x- L_\lambda(t)Ax\\
&=& L_\lambda(t)(\lambda-A)x.\end{aligned}$$
2. Since $(\lambda-A)L_\lambda(t)+\varphi_\lambda(t)D_\lambda(t)=\phi_\lambda(t)I$, then for all $n\in \mathds{N}^*$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
[\varphi_\lambda(t)D_\lambda(t)]^n &=&[\phi_\lambda(t)I-(\lambda-A)L_\lambda(t)]^n\\
&=&\sum_{i=0}^n C_n^i[\phi_\lambda(t)]^{n-i}[-(\lambda-A)L_\lambda(t)]^i\\
&=& [\phi_\lambda(t)]^nI -(\lambda-A)\sum_{i=1}^n C_n^i[\phi_\lambda(t)]^{n-i}[-(\lambda-A)]^{i-1}[L_\lambda(t)]^i\\
&=& [\phi_\lambda(t)]^nI -(\lambda-A)L_{\lambda,n}(t),\end{aligned}$$ where $$L_{\lambda,n}(t)=\sum_{i=1}^nC_n^i [\phi_\lambda(t)]^{n-i}[-(\lambda-A)]^{i-1}[L_\lambda(t)]^i.$$ Therefore, we have $$(\lambda-A)L_{\lambda,n}(t)+[\varphi_\lambda(t)]^n[D_\lambda(t)]^n =[\phi_\lambda(t)]^nI.$$ Finally, for commutativity, it is clear that $L_{\lambda,n}(t)$ commute with each one of $D_\lambda(t)$ and $\lambda-A$.
3. For all $n\in \mathds{N}^*$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
[(\lambda-A)L_\lambda(t)]^n &=&[\phi_\lambda(t)I-\varphi_\lambda(t)D_\lambda(t)]^n\\
&=&\sum_{i=0}^n C_n^i[\phi_\lambda(t)]^{n-i}[-\varphi_\lambda(t)D_\lambda(t)]^i\\
&=& [\phi_\lambda(t)]^nI -D_\lambda(t)\sum_{i=1}^nC_n^i [\phi_\lambda(t)]^{n-i}[\varphi_\lambda(t)]^{i}[-D_\lambda(t)]^{i-1}\\
&=& [\phi_\lambda(t)]^nI -D_\lambda(t)D_{\lambda,n}(t),\end{aligned}$$ where $$D_{\lambda,n}(t)=\sum_{i=1}^n C_n^i [\phi_\lambda(t)]^{n-i}[\varphi_\lambda(t)]^{i}[-D_\lambda(t)]^{i-1}.$$ Therefore, we have $$(\lambda-A)^n[L_\lambda(t)]^n+D_\lambda(t)D_{\lambda,n}(t)=[\phi_\lambda(t)]^nI.$$ Finally, for commutativity, it is clear that $D_{\lambda,n}(t)$ commute with each one of $D_\lambda(t)$, $L_\lambda(t)$ and $\lambda-A$.
4. Since we have $D_\lambda(t)D_{\lambda,n}(t)=[\phi_\lambda(t)]^nI-(\lambda-A)^n[L_\lambda(t)]^n,$ then for all $n\in \mathds{N}$ $$\begin{aligned}
[D_\lambda(t)D_{\lambda,n}(t)]^n &=& \big[[\phi_\lambda(t)]^nI-(\lambda-A)^n[L_\lambda(t)]^n\big]^n\\
&=& [\phi_\lambda(t)]^{n^2}I-\sum_{i=1}^n C_n^i \big[[\phi_\lambda(t)]^{n}\big]^{n-i}\big[(\lambda-A)^n[L_\lambda(t)]^n\big]^i\\
&=& [\phi_\lambda(t)]^{n^2}I-(\lambda-A)^n\sum_{i=1}^nC_n^i [\phi_\lambda(t)]^{n(n-i)}(\lambda-A)^{n(i-1)}[L_\lambda(t)]^{ni}\\
&=& [\phi_\lambda(t)]^{n^2}I-(\lambda-A)^nK_{\lambda,n}(t),\end{aligned}$$ where $K_{\lambda,n}(t)=\sum_{i=1}^nC_n^i
[\phi_\lambda(t)]^{n(n-i)}(\lambda-A)^{n(i-1)}[L_\lambda(t)]^{ni}.$ Hence we obtain $$[D_\lambda(t)]^n[D_{\lambda,n}(t)]^n +(\lambda-A)^nK_{\lambda,n}(t) =[\phi_\lambda(t)]^{n^2}I.$$ Finally, the commutativity is clear.
We start by this result.
\[p1\] Let $A$ be the generator of an $\alpha$-times integrated semigroup $(S(t))_{t\geq 0}$ with $\alpha>0$. For all $\lambda\in\mathds{C}$ and all $t\geq 0$, if $R\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)$ is closed, then $\lambda-A$ is also closed.
Let $(y_n)_{n\in\mathds{N}}\subseteq X$ such that $y_n\rightarrow y\in X$ and there exists $(x_n)_{n\in\mathds{N}}\subseteq D(A)$ satisfying $$(\lambda-A)x_n=y_n.$$ By Lemma \[l2\], we obtain $$(\lambda-A)L_\lambda(t)y_n+G_\lambda(t)D_\lambda(t)y_n=\phi_\lambda(t)y_n.$$ Hence, we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)G_\lambda(t)x_n
&=& D_\lambda(t)(\lambda -A)G_\lambda(t)x_n\\
&=& G_\lambda(t)D_\lambda(t)(\lambda -A)x_n\\
&=& G_\lambda(t)D_\lambda(t)y_n\\
&=& \phi_\lambda(t)y_n-(\lambda-A)L_\lambda(t)y_n.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $$\phi_\lambda(t)y_n-(\lambda-A)L_\lambda(t)y_n \in R\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right).$$ Therefore, since $R\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)$ is closed, $L_\lambda(t)$ is bounded linear and $\phi_\lambda(t)y_n-(\lambda-A)L_\lambda(t)y_n$ converges to $\phi_\lambda(t)y-(\lambda-A)L_\lambda(t)y,$ we conclude that $$\phi_\lambda(t)y-(\lambda-A)L_\lambda(t)y\in R\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right).$$ Then there exists $z\in X$ such that $$\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)z=\phi_\lambda(t)y-(\lambda-A)L_\lambda(t)y.$$ Hence for all $t\neq 0$, we have $\phi_\lambda(t)\neq 0$ and $$\begin{aligned}
y &=& \frac{1}{\phi_\lambda(t)}\left([\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)]z+(\lambda-A)L_\lambda(t)y\right);\\
&=& \frac{1}{\phi_\lambda(t)}\left((\lambda-A)D_\lambda(t)z+(\lambda-A)L_\lambda(t)y\right);\\
&=& \frac{1}{\phi_\lambda(t)}(\lambda-A)[D_\lambda(t)z+L_\lambda(t)y].\\\end{aligned}$$ Finally, we obtain $$y\in R(\lambda-A).$$
The following result discusses the semi-Fredholm spectrum.
\[t1\] Let $A$ be the generator of an $\alpha$-times integrated semigroup $(S(t))_{t\geq 0}$ with $\alpha>0$. Then for all $t\geq 0$
1. $\int_0^t e^{(t-s)\sigma_{e_+}(A)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds\subseteq \sigma_{e_+}(S(t));$
2. $\int_0^t e^{(t-s)\sigma_{e_-}(A)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds\subseteq \sigma_{e_-}(S(t));$
3. $\int_0^t e^{(t-s)\sigma_{e_\pm}(A)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds\subseteq
\sigma_{e_\pm}(S(t)).$
<!-- -->
1. Suppose that $\int_0^te^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds\notin\sigma_{e_+}(S(t))$, then there exists $n\in\mathds{N}$ such that $\delta\left(\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)=n$ and $R\left(\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)$ is closed.\
By Lemma \[l1\], we obtain $$N(\lambda-A)\subset N\left(\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right),$$ then $$\delta(\lambda-A)\leq n.$$ On the other hand, from Proposition \[p1\], we deduce that $R(\lambda-A)$ is closed. Therefore $$\lambda\notin \sigma_{e_+}(A).$$
2. Suppose that $\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds\notin\sigma_{e_-}(S(t))$, then there exist $n\in\mathds{N}$ such that $\beta\left(\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)=n$.\
By Lemma \[l1\], we obtain $$R\left(\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)\subseteq R(\lambda-A),$$ then $\beta(\lambda-A)\leq n$ and hence $$\lambda\notin\sigma_{e_-}(A).$$
3. It is automatic by the previous assertions of this theorem.
\[p2\] Let $A$ be the generator of an $\alpha$-times integrated semigroup $(S(t))_{t\geq 0}$ and $\alpha>0$. Then for all $\lambda\in\mathds{C}$ and all $t\geq 0$, we have
1. $d\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(\alpha+)}ds-S(t)\right)=n,$ then $d(\lambda-A)\leq n.$
2. $a\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)=n,$ then $a(\lambda-A)\leq n.$
$\,$\
1. Let $y\in R(\lambda-A)^n$, then there exists $x\in D(A^n)$ satisfying $$(\lambda-A)^nx=y.$$ Since $d\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)=n,$ therefore $$R\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)^n=R\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)^{n+1}.$$ Hence there exists $z\in X$ such that $$\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)^{nx}=\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha+1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)^{n+1}z.$$ On the other hand, by Lemma \[l2\], we have $$(\lambda-A)L_{\lambda,n}(t)+[\varphi_\lambda(t)]^n[D_\lambda(t)]^n=[\phi_\lambda(t)]^nI,$$ with $L_{\lambda,n}(t)$, $D_\lambda(t)$ and $(\lambda-A)$ are pairwise commute.\
Thus, we have $$\begin{aligned}
[\phi_\lambda(t)]^ny&=&(\lambda-A)^n[\phi_\lambda(t)]^nx\\
&=& (\lambda-A)^n\left(\lambda-A)L_{\lambda,n}(t)+[\varphi_\lambda(t)\right)^n[D_\lambda(t)]^n]x\\
&=&(\lambda-A)^n(\lambda-A)L_{\lambda,n}(t)x+[\varphi_\lambda(t)]^n
(\lambda-A)^n[D_\lambda(t)^n]x\\
&=&(\lambda-A)^{n+1}L_{\lambda,n}(t)x+[\varphi_\lambda(t)]^n\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)^nx\\
&=&(\lambda-A)^{n+1}L_{\lambda,n}(t)x+[\varphi_\lambda(t)]^n\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)^{n+1}z\\
&=&(\lambda-A)^{n+1}L_{\lambda,n}(t)x+[\varphi_\lambda(t)]^n\left((\lambda-A)^{n+1}
[D_\lambda(t)]^{n+1}z\right)\\
&=&(\lambda-A)^{n+1}\left(L_{\lambda,n}(t)x+[\varphi_\lambda(t)]^n[D_\lambda(t)]^{n+1}z\right).
\end{aligned}$$ Since $\phi_\lambda(t)\neq 0$ for $t>0$, we conclude that $y\in R(\lambda-A)^{n+1}$ and hence $$R(\lambda-A)^n=R(\lambda-A)^{n+1}.$$ Finally, we conclude that $$d(\lambda-A)\leq n.$$
2. Let $x\in N(\lambda-A)^{n+1}$ and we suppose that $a\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)=n$, then we obtain $$N\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)^n=
N\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)^{n+1}.$$ From Lemma \[l1\], we deduce that $$N(\lambda-A)^{n+1}\subseteq N\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)^{n+1},$$ hence $$x\in N\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)^n.$$ Thus, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{[\phi_\lambda(t)]^n}(\lambda-A)^nx &=& (\lambda-A)^n[(\lambda-A)L_{\lambda,n}(t)+[\varphi_\lambda(t)]^n[D_\lambda(t)]^n]x;\\
&=&(\lambda-A)^n(\lambda-A)L_{\lambda,n}(t)x+
[\varphi_\lambda(t)]^n(\lambda-A)^n[D_\lambda(t)]^nx\\
&=&(\lambda-A)^{n+1}L_{\lambda,n}(t)x+[\varphi_\lambda(t)]^n\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)^nx\\
&=&(\lambda-A)^{n+1}L_{\lambda,n}(t)x\\
&=&L_{\lambda,n}(t)(\lambda-A)^{n+1}x\\
&=& 0.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, since $\phi_\lambda(t)\neq 0$ for $t>0$, we obtain $x\in N(\lambda-A)^n$ and hence $$a(\lambda-A)\leq n.$$
The following theorem examines the semi-Browder spectrum.
Let $A$ be the generator of an $\alpha$-times integrated semigroup $(S(t))_{t\geq 0}$ with $\alpha>0$. Then for all $t\geq 0$
1. $\int_0^t e^{(t-s)\sigma_{{Br}_+}(A)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds\subseteq \sigma_{{Br}_+}(S(t));$
2. $\int_0^t e^{(t-s)\sigma_{{Br}_-}(A)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds\subseteq \sigma_{{Br}_-}(S(t));$
3. $\int_0^t e^{(t-s)\sigma_{{Br}_\pm}(A)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds\subseteq \sigma_{{Br}_\pm}(S(t)).$
<!-- -->
1. Suppose that $\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds\notin\sigma_{Br_+}(S(t))$, then there exist $n,m\in\mathds{N}$ such that $\delta\left(\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)=m$, $R\left(\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)$ is closed and $a\left(\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)=n.$ From Lemma \[l1\] and Propositions \[p1\] and \[p2\], we obtain\
$\delta(\lambda-A)\leq m$, $R(\lambda-A)$ is closed and $a(\lambda-A)\leq n.$\
Therefore $\lambda-A \in \Phi_+(D(A))$ and $a(\lambda-A)< \infty$ and hence $$\lambda\notin \sigma_{Br_+}(A).$$
2. Suppose that $\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds\notin\sigma_{Br_-}(S(t))$, then there exist $n,m\in\mathds{N}$ such that $\beta\left(\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)=m$ and $d\left(\int_0^t e^{\lambda(t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)=n.$ By Lemma \[l1\] and Proposition \[p2\], we obtain $\beta(\lambda-A)\leq m$ and $d(\lambda-A)\leq n.$\
Therefore $\lambda-A \in \Phi_-(D(A))$ and $d(\lambda-A)< \infty$ and hence $$\lambda\notin\sigma_{Br_-}(A).$$
3. It is automatic by the previous assertions of this theorem.
\[p6\] Let $A$ be the generator of an $\alpha$-times integrated semigroup $(S(t))_{t\geq 0}$ with $\alpha>0$. Then for all $\lambda\in\mathds{C}$ and all $t\geq 0$, we have
1. $d_e\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)=n,$ then $d_e(A-\lambda)\leq n;$
2. $a_e\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)=n,$ then $a_e(A-\lambda)\leq n.$
<!-- -->
1. Suppose that $$d_e\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)=n.$$ Since $$R\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)^n\subseteq R(\lambda-A)^n,$$ we define the linear surjective application $\phi$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\phi: R(\lambda-A)^n &\rightarrow& R\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)^n/ R\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)^{n+1},\\
y=(\lambda-A)^nx &\rightarrow & \left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)^nx +R\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)^{n+1}.
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, by isomorphism Theorem, we obtain $$R(\lambda-A)^n/ N(\phi)\simeq R\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)^n/ R\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)^{n+1}.$$ Therefore $$dim(R(\lambda-A)^n/ N(\phi))= d_e\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)=n.$$ Since $$N(\phi) \subseteq R\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)^{n+1}\subseteq R(\lambda-A)^{n+1},$$ hence $$R(\lambda-A)^n/ R(\lambda-A)^{n+1}\subseteq R(\lambda-A)^n/ N(\phi).$$ Finally, we obtain $$d_e(\lambda-A)=\dim(R(\lambda-A)^n/ R(\lambda-A)^{n+1} )\leq \dim(R(\lambda-A)^n/ N(\phi))= n.$$
2. Suppose that $$a_e\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)=n.$$ Since $$N(\lambda-A)^{n+1}\subseteq N\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)^{n+1},$$ we define the linear application $\psi$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\psi: N(\lambda-A)^{n+1} &\rightarrow& N\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)^{n+1}/ N\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^\alpha}{\Gamma(\alpha+1)}ds-S(t)\right)^n,\\
x &\rightarrow & x +N\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)^n.
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, by isomorphism Theorem, we obtain $$N(\lambda-A)^{n+1}/ N(\psi)\simeq R(\psi)\subseteq N\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)^{n+1}/ N\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)^n.$$ Therefore $$\dim N(\lambda-A)^{n+1}/ N(\psi)\leq a_e\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)=n.$$ Since $$N(\psi) \subseteq N\left(\int_0^te^{\lambda (t-s)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)^n\subseteq R(\lambda-A)^n,$$ hence $$N(\lambda-A)^{n+1}/ N(\lambda-A)^n\subseteq N(\lambda-A)^{n+1}/ N(\psi).$$ Finally, we obtain $$a_e(\lambda-A)=\dim N(\lambda-A)^{n+1}/ N(\lambda-A)^n\leq \dim N(\lambda-A)^{n+1}/ N(\psi)\leq n .$$
We will discuss in the following result the essential ascent and descent spectrum.
Let $A$ be the generator of an $\alpha$-times integrated semigroup $(S(t))_{t\geq 0}$ with $\alpha>0$. Then for all $t\geq 0$
1. $\int_0^t e^{(t-s)\sigma_{a_e}(A)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds\subseteq \sigma_{a_e}(S(t));$
2. $\int_0^t e^{(t-s)\sigma_{d_e}(A)}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds\subseteq \sigma_{d_e}(S(t)).$
<!-- -->
1. Suppose that $$\int_0^t e^{(t-s)\lambda}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds\notin \sigma_{a_e}(S(t)).$$ Then there exists $n\in\mathds{N}$ satisfying $$a_e\left(\int_0^t e^{(t-s)\lambda}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)=n.$$ Therefore, by Proposition \[p6\], we obtain $a_e(\lambda-A)\leq n$ and hence $$\lambda\notin\sigma_{a_e}(A).$$
2. Suppose that $$\int_0^t e^{(t-s)\lambda}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds\notin \sigma_{d_e}(S(t)).$$ Then there exists $n\in\mathds{N}$ satisfying $$d_e\left(\int_0^t e^{(t-s)\lambda}\frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds-S(t)\right)=n.$$ Therefore, by Proposition \[p6\], we obtain $d_e(\lambda-A)\leq n$ and hence $$\lambda\notin\sigma_{d_e}(A).$$
[99]{} <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">P. Aiena,</span> *Fredholm and Local Spectral Theory with Applications to Multipliers,* Kluwer. Acad. Press, 2004. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">W. Arendt,</span> *Vector-valued Laplace Transforms and Cauchy Problems,* Israel J. Math, 59 (3) (1987), 327-352. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A. Elkoutri and M. A. Taoudi,</span> *Spectral Inclusions and stability results for strongly continuous semigroups,* Int. J. of Math. and Mathematical Sciences, 37 (2003), 2379-2387. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">M. Heiber,</span> *Laplace transforms and $\alpha-$times integrated semigroups,* Forum Math. 3 (1991), 595-612. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">C. Kaiser,</span> *Integrated semigroups and linear partial differential equations with delay,* J. Math Anal and Appl. 292 (2) (2004), 328-339. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">J.J. Koliha and T.D. Tran,</span> *The Drazin inverse for closed linear operators and asymptotic convergence of $C_0$-semigroups,* J.Oper.Theory. 46 (2001), 323–336. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">C. Miao Li and W. Quan Zheng,</span> *$\alpha$-times integrated semigroups: local and global,* Studia Mathematica 154 (3) (2003), 243-252. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">V. Müller,</span> *Spectral theory of linear operators and spectral systems in Banach algebras 2nd edition,* Oper.Theo.Adva.Appl, 139 (2007). <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A. Pazy,</span> *Semigroups of Linear Operators and Applications to Partial Differential Equations,* Applied Mathematical Sciences, Springer-Verlag, New York 1983. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A. Tajmouati, A. El Bakkali and M.B. Mohamed Ahmed,</span> *Spectral inclusions between $\alpha$-times integrated semigroups and their generators,* Submitted. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A. Tajmouati and H. Boua,</span> *Spectral theory for integrated semigroups,* Inter Journal of Pure and Appl Math, 104 (4) (2016), 847-860. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A.E. Taylar and D.C. Lay,</span> *Introduction to Functional Analysis,* 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1980.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Given a point set $P\subset \mathbb{R}^d$, kernel density estimation for Gaussian kernel is defined as $\overline{\mathcal{G}}_P(x) = \frac{1}{\left|P\right|}\sum_{p\in P}e^{-\left\lVert x-p \right\rVert^2}$ for any $x\in\mathbb{R}^d$. We study how to construct a small subset $Q$ of $P$ such that the kernel density estimation of $P$ can be approximated by the kernel density estimation of $Q$. This subset $Q$ is called *coreset*. The primary technique in this work is to construct $\pm 1$ coloring on the point set $P$ by the discrepancy theory and apply this coloring algorithm recursively. Our result leverages Banaszczyk’s Theorem. When $d>1$ is constant, our construction gives a coreset of size $O\left(\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\sqrt{\log\log\frac{1}{\varepsilon}}\right)$ as opposed to the best-known result of $O\left(\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\sqrt{\log\frac{1}{\varepsilon}}\right)$. It is the first to give a breakthrough on the barrier of $\sqrt{\log}$ factor even when $d=2$.'
author:
- |
Wai Ming Tai\
University of Utah
bibliography:
- 'improve\_near\_optimal.bib'
date:
title: 'New Nearly-Optimal Coreset for Kernel Density Estimation'
---
Introduction
============
Kernel density estimation (KDE) is a common object in data analysis, and it is a non-parametric way to estimate a probability distribution. Suppose a point set $P\in\mathbb{R}^d$ is given, KDE smooths out a discrete point set to a continuous function [@scott2015multivariate; @silverman1986density]. More precisely, given a point set $P\in\mathbb{R}^d$ and a kernel $K:\mathbb{R}^d\times\mathbb{R}^d\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, KDE is generally defined as the function ${\overline{\mathcal{G}}}_P(x) = \frac{1}{{\left| P \right|}}\sum_{p\in P} K(x,p)$ for any $x\in\mathbb{R}^d$. One common example of kernel $K$ is Gaussian kernel, which is $K(x,y) = e^{-{\left\lVert x-y \right\rVert}^2}$ for any $x,y\in\mathbb{R}^d$, and it is the main focus of this paper. A wide range of application includes outlier detection [@zou2014unsupervised], clustering [@rinaldo2010generalized], topological data analysis [@phillips2015geometric; @chazal2017robust], spatial anomaly detection [@agarwal2014union; @han2019kernel] and statistical hypothesis test [@gretton2012kernel].
Generally speaking, the technique using kernel is called *kernel method*, in which kernel density estimation is the central role in these techniques. Kernel method is prevalent in machine learning and statistics and often involves optimization problems. Optimization problems are generally hard in the sense that solving them usually has super-linear or oven exponential dependence on the input’s size in its running time. Therefore, reducing the size of the input will be desirable. The most straightforward way to do so is to extract a small subset $Q$ of the input $P$. This paper will study the construction of the subset $Q$ such that ${\overline{\mathcal{G}}}_Q$ approximates ${\overline{\mathcal{G}}}_P$.
Classically, statistician concerns about different sort of average error such as $L_1$-error [@DG84] or $L_2$-error [@scott2015multivariate; @silverman1986density]. However, there are multiple modern applications that require $L_\infty$-error such as preserving classification margin [@scholkopf2002learning], density estimation [@zheng2015error], topology [@phillips2015geometric] and hypothesis test on distribution [@gretton2012kernel]. Formally, we would like to solve the following problem.
*Given a point set $P\subset \mathbb{R}^d$ and ${\varepsilon}>0$, we construct a subset $Q$ of $P$ such that $$\sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}^d} {\left| {\overline{\mathcal{G}}}_P(x) - {\overline{\mathcal{G}}}_Q(x) \right|} = \sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}^d} {\left| \frac{1}{{\left| P \right|}}\sum_{p\in P}e^{-{\left\lVert x-p \right\rVert}^2} - \frac{1}{{\left| Q \right|}}\sum_{q\in Q}e^{-{\left\lVert x-q \right\rVert}^2} \right|} \leq {\varepsilon}.$$ Then, how small can the size of $Q$, ${\left| Q \right|}$, be?*
We call this subset $Q$ *${\varepsilon}$-coreset*.
Known Results of ${\varepsilon}$-coreset
----------------------------------------
We now discuss some previous results for the size of ${\varepsilon}$-coreset. The summary is presented in Table \[tbl:compare\].
Paper Coreset Size $d$
----------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------
Joshi [*et al.*]{} [@joshi2011comparing] $O\left(\frac{d}{{\varepsilon}^2}\right)$ any
Lopaz-Paz [*et al.*]{}[@lopez2015towards] $O\left(\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^2}\right)$ any
Lacoste-Julien [*et al.*]{}[@lacoste2015sequential] $O\left(\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^2}\right)$ any
Joshi [*et al.*]{} [@joshi2011comparing] $O\left(\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\right)$ 1
Joshi [*et al.*]{}[@joshi2011comparing] sub-$O\left(\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^2}\right)$ constant
Phillips [@phillips2013varepsilon] $O\left(\left(\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^2}\log\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\right)^{\frac{2d}{d+2}}\right)$ constant
Phillips and Tai [@phillips2018improved] $O\left(\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\log^d \frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\right)$ constant
Phillips and Tai [@phillips2019near] $O\left(\frac{\sqrt{d}}{{\varepsilon}}\sqrt{\log \frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}}\right)$ any
Phillips [@phillips2013varepsilon] $\Omega\left(\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\right)$ any
Phillips and Tai [@phillips2018improved] $\Omega\left(\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^2}\right)$ $\geq\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^2}$
Phillips and Tai [@phillips2019near] $\Omega\left(\frac{\sqrt{d}}{{\varepsilon}}\right)$ $\leq\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^2}$
**Our result** $O\left(\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\sqrt{\log \log \frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}}\right)$ constant
: Asymptotic ${\varepsilon}$-coreset sizes in terms of ${\varepsilon}$ and $d$. \[tbl:compare\]
Josh [*et al.*]{}[@joshi2011comparing] showed that random sampling can achieve the size of $O(\frac{d}{{\varepsilon}^2})$. They investigated the VC-dimension of the super-level set of a kernel and analyzed that the sample size can be bounded by it. In particular, the super-level set of the Gaussian kernel is a family of balls in $\mathbb{R}^d$, which reduces the problem to bounding the sample size of the range space of balls.
Lopaz-Paz [*et al.*]{}[@lopez2015towards] later proved that the size of the coreset could be reduced to $O(\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^2})$ by random sampling. They studied the reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS) associate with a positive-definite kernel [@aronszajn1950theory; @wahba1999support; @sriperumbudur2010hilbert]. Note that the Gaussian kernel is a positive-definite kernel. In RKHS, one can bound the $L_\infty$-error between two KDEs of point sets $P$ and $Q$ by the kernel distance of $P$ and $Q$. They showed that the sample size of $O(\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^2})$ is sufficient to bound the kernel distance.
Other than random sampling, Lacoste-Julien [*et al.*]{}[@lacoste2015sequential] showed a greedy approach can also achieve the size of $O(\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^2})$. They applied Frank-Wolfe algorithm [@clarkson2010coresets; @gartner2009coresets] in RKHS to bound the error of the kernel distance.
Note that all of the above results have a factor of $\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^2}$. Josh [*et al.*]{}[@joshi2011comparing] first showed that sub-$O(\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^2})$ result can be obtained by reducing the problem to constructing a ${\varepsilon}$-approximation for the range space of balls [@matouvsek1999geometric]. An important case is $d=1$ that gives the size of $O(\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}})$. They assume that $d$ is constant.
Later, Phillips [@phillips2013varepsilon] improved the result to $O\left(\left(\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^2}\log\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\right)^{\frac{2d}{d+2}}\right)$ for constant $d$ via geometric matching. Notably, for $d=2$, their bound is $O(\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\sqrt{\log \frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}})$ which is nearly-optimal and is the first nearly-linear result for the case of $d>1$.
Recently, Phillips and Tai [@phillips2018improved] further improved the size of coreset to $O(\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\log^d \frac{1}{{\varepsilon}})$ for constant $d$. It is based on a discrepancy approach. They exploited the fact that the Gaussian kernel is multiplicatively separable. It implies that the Gaussian kernel can be rewritten as the weighted average of a family of axis-parallel boxes in $\mathbb{R}^d$. Finally, they reduced the problem to Tusn[á]{}dy’s problem [@bansal2017algorithmic; @aistleitner2016tusnady].
Also, Phillips and Tai [@phillips2019near] proved the nearly-optimal result of $O(\frac{\sqrt{d}}{{\varepsilon}}\sqrt{\log \frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}})$ shortly after that. They observed that the underlying structure of the positive-definite kernel allows us to bound the norm of the vectors and apply the lemma in [@matouvsek2020factorization]. Recall that the Gaussian kernel is a positive-definite kernel.
Except for the upper bound, there are some results on the lower bound for the size of ${\varepsilon}$-coreset. Phillips [@phillips2013varepsilon] provided the first lower bound for the size of the coreset. They proved a lower bound of $\Omega(\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}})$ by giving an example that all points are far from each other. When assuming $d>\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^2}$, Phillips and Tai [@phillips2018improved] gave another example that forms a simplex and showed a lower bound of $\Omega(\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^2})$. Later, Phillips and Tai [@phillips2019near] combined the technique of the above two results and showed the lower bound of $\Omega(\frac{\sqrt{d}}{{\varepsilon}})$.
There are other conditional bounds for this problem. We suggest the reader refer to [@phillips2019near] for a more extensive review. Recently, Karnin and Liberty [@karnin2019discrepancy] claimed that there exist a coreset of size $O(\frac{\sqrt{d}}{{\varepsilon}})$ for Gaussian kernel. Their result is also conditional. They assume that the point set lies inside a $\ell_2$-ball of radius $R>0$ and the dependence of $R$ in their result is exponential of $R$. Also, the result is non-constructive. However, we are not convinced by their argument[^1]: in Lemma 16 of [@karnin2019discrepancy], they claimed that a trivial modification on the proof of Theorem 1 in [@tomioka2014spectral] is sufficient to conclude their lemma while it is not.
Our Result
----------
[r]{}[3.5in]{}
$d$ Upper Lower
---------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------------------------
$1$ $1/{\varepsilon}$ $1/{\varepsilon}$ [@joshi2011comparing; @phillips2013varepsilon]
constant $1/{\varepsilon}\cdot\sqrt{\log \log \frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}}$ **new**
any $\sqrt{d}/{\varepsilon}\cdot \sqrt{\log \frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}}$ $\sqrt{d}/{\varepsilon}$ [@phillips2019near]
$\geq \frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^2}$ $1/{\varepsilon}^2$ $1/{\varepsilon}^2$ [@bach2012equivalence; @phillips2018improved]
We bound the size of ${\varepsilon}$-coreset via discrepancy theory. Roughly speaking, we construct $\pm 1$ coloring on our point set such that its discrepancy is small. Then, we drop the points colored $-1$ and recursively construct the $\pm 1$ coloring on the points colored $+1$. Eventually, the remaining point set is the coreset we desire. A famous theorem in discrepancy theory is Banaszczyk’s Theorem [@banaszczyk1998balancing], which is the central piece of our proof. In constant dimensional space, we carefully study the structure of Gaussian kernel and it allows us to construct a ${\varepsilon}$-coreset of size $O(\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\sqrt{\log \log \frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}})$. The summary of the best-known result is shown in Table \[tbl:results\].
Related Works
-------------
In computational geometry, ${\varepsilon}$-approximation is the approximation of a general set by a smaller subset. Given a set $S$ and a collection $\mathcal{C}$ of subset of $S$, a subset $A\subset S$ is called ${\varepsilon}$-approximation if ${\left| \frac{{\left| T \right|}}{{\left| S \right|}} - \frac{{\left| T\cap A \right|}}{{\left| A \right|}} \right|}\leq {\varepsilon}$ for all $T\in \mathcal{C}$. The pair $(S,\mathcal{C})$ is called set system (also known as range space or hypergraph). One can rewrite the above guarantee as ${\left| \frac{1}{{\left| S \right|}}\sum_{x\in S}\mathbbm{1}_T(x) - \frac{1}{{\left| A \right|}}\sum_{x\in A}\mathbbm{1}_{T}(x) \right|}\leq {\varepsilon}$ where $\mathbbm{1}_S$ is the characteristic function of the set $S$. If we replace this characteristic function by a kernel such as the Gaussian kernel, it is the same as our ${\varepsilon}$-coreset. There is a rich history on the construction of ${\varepsilon}$-approximation [@chazelle2001discrepancy; @matouvsek1999geometric]. One notable method is discrepancy theory, which is also our main technique. There is a wide range of techniques employed in this field. In the early 1980s, Beck devised the technique of partial coloring [@beck1981roth], and later refinement of this technique called entropy method was introduced by Spencer [@spencer1985six]. The entropy method is first used to solve the famous “six standard deviations” theorem: given a set system of $n$ points and $n$ subsets, there is a coloring of discrepancy at most $6\sqrt{n}$. In contrast, random coloring gives the discrepancy of $O(\sqrt{n\log n})$. However, this entropy method is a non-constructive approach. Namely, they did not provide an efficient algorithm to find the coloring achieving such bound. A more geometric example in discrepancy theory is Tusn[á]{}dy’s problem. It states that, given point set $P$ of size $n$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^d$, assign $\pm 1$ coloring $\sigma$ on each point such that for any axis parallel box $R$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^d$ the discrepancy ${\left| \sum_{P\cap R}\sigma(p) \right|}$ is minimized. One previous result of the ${\varepsilon}$-coreset problem is reduced to Tusn[á]{}dy’s problem.
On the topic of approximating KDE, Fast Gauss Transform [@greengard1991fast] is a method to preprocess the input point set such that the computation of KDE at a query point is faster than the brute-force approach. The idea in this method is to expand the Gaussian kernel by Hermite polynomials and truncate the expansion. Assuming that the data set lies inside a bounded region, the query time in this method is poly-logarithmic of $n$ in constant dimension $d$. Also, Charikar and Siminelakis [@charikar2017hashing] studied the problem of designing a data structure that preprocesses the input to answer a KDE query in a faster time. They used locality-sensitive hashing to perform their data structure. However, the guarantee they obtained is a relative error, while ours is an additive error. More precisely, given a point set $P\subset \mathbb{R}^d$, Charikar and Siminelakis designed a data structure such that, for any query $x'\in\mathbb{R}^d$, the algorithm answers the value ${\overline{\mathcal{G}}}_P(x') = \sum_{p\in P} e^{-{\left\lVert x'-p \right\rVert}^2}$ within $(1+{\varepsilon})$-relative error. Also, the query time of their data structure is sublinear of $n$.
Preliminary
===========
Our approach for constructing coreset relies on discrepancy theory, which is a similar technique in range counting coreset [@chazelle1993linear; @phillips2008algorithms; @bentley1980decomposable]. We first introduce an equivalent problem (up to a constant factor) as follows.
*Given a point set $P\subset \mathbb{R}^d$, what is the smallest quantity of $\sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}^d}{\left| \sum_{p\in P}\sigma(p)e^{-{\left\lVert x-p \right\rVert}^2} \right|}$ over all $\sigma\in \chi_{P}$, the set of all possible coloring from $P$ to $\{-1,+1\}$?*
Now, one can intuitively view the equivalence in the following way. If we rewrite the objective into: $$\frac{1}{{\left| P \right|}}{\left| \sum_{p\in P}\sigma(p)e^{-{\left\lVert x-p \right\rVert}^2} \right|} = {\left| \frac{1}{{\left| P \right|}}\sum_{p\in P}e^{-{\left\lVert x-p \right\rVert}^2} - \frac{1}{{\left| P \right|}/2}\sum_{p\in P_+}e^{-{\left\lVert x-p \right\rVert}^2} \right|}$$ where $P_+\subset P$ is the set of points that is assigned $+1$, then we can apply the halving technique [@chazelle1993linear; @phillips2008algorithms] which is to recursively invoke the coloring algorithm and retain the set of point assigned $+1$ until the subset of desire size remains. Note that there is no guarantee that half of the points are assigned $+1$, while the other half is assigned $-1$. However, we can handle this issue by some standard technique [@matouvsek1999geometric] or see our proof for details.
Also, we denote the following notations. Given a point set $P\subset\mathbb{R}^d$ and a subset $S\in\mathbb{R}^d$, we call $(P,\mathcal{K}_{S})$ [*kernel range space*]{} where $\mathcal{K}_{S} = {\left\{ f:y\rightarrow e^{-{\left\lVert x-y \right\rVert}^2} \mid x\in S \right\}}$. Next, given a kernel range space $(P,\mathcal{K}_{S})$ and a coloring $\sigma:P\rightarrow \{-1,+1\}$, we define the discrepancy w.r.t. $(P,\mathcal{K}_{S})$ as $${\textsf{disc}}(P,\mathcal{K}_{S},\sigma) = \sup_{x\in S}{\left| \sum_{p\in P}\sigma(p)e^{-{\left\lVert x-p \right\rVert}^2} \right|}$$ We finally define the discrepancy of a kernel range space $(P,\mathcal{K}_{S})$ as $${\textsf{disc}}(P,\mathcal{K}_{S}) = \min_{\sigma\in\chi_P}{\textsf{disc}}(P,\mathcal{K}_{S},\sigma) = \min_{f\in\chi_P}\sup_{x\in S}{\left| \sum_{p\in P}\sigma(p)e^{-{\left\lVert x-p \right\rVert}^2} \right|}$$ where $\sigma\in \chi_{P}$ is the set of all possible coloring from $P$ to $\{-1,+1\}$. Karnin and Liberty [@karnin2019discrepancy] also introduce the similar notation.
An important result in discrepancy theory is Banaszczyk’s Theorem, which is stated as follows.
Given a convex body $K\subset \mathbb{R}^d$ of Gaussian measure at least $\frac{1}{2}$ and $n$ vectors $v^{(1)},v^{(2)},\dots,v^{(n)}\in \mathbb{R}^d$ of Euclidean norm at most $1$, there is a coloring $\sigma:[n] \rightarrow \{-1,+1\}$ such that the vector $\sum_{i=1}^n \sigma(i)v^{(i)} \in cK= {\left\{ c\cdot y \mid y\in K \right\}}$. Here, $c$ is an absolute constant and Gaussian measure of a convex body $K$ is defined as $\int_{x\in K}\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{d/2}}e^{-{\left\lVert x \right\rVert}^2/2}dx$.
The proof of this theorem relies on the property of convex geometry and recursively enumerate all possible coloring on vectors. Hence, the approach is non-constructive.
There is no breakthrough on how to construct the coloring efficiently since then except some partial result on special case [@bansal2019algorithm; @bansal2017algorithmic; @levy2017deterministic]. Until recently, Dadush [*et al.*]{}[@dadush2019towards] showed that Banaszczyk’s Theorem is equivalent to the following statement up to a constant factor on the constant $c$.
\[thm:b\_thm\] Given $n$ vectors $v^{(1)},v^{(2)},\dots,v^{(n)}\in\mathbb{R}^d$ of Euclidean norm at most $1$, there is a probability distribution on $\chi_{[n]}$ with the following guarantee: there are two absolute constant $C_1,C_2$ such that, for any unit vector $\theta\in\mathbb{R}^d$ and $\alpha>0$, $${\ensuremath{\textbf{{\sffamily Pr}}\hspace{-.8mm}\left[{\left| {\left\langle X,\theta \right\rangle} \right|}>\alpha\right]}} < C_1e^{-C_2\alpha^2}$$ Here, $\chi_{[n]}$ is the set of all possible coloring from $[n]$ to $\{-1,+1\}$ and $X$ is the random variable of $\sum_{i=1}^nf(i)v^{(i)}$ where $f\in\chi_{[n]}$.
The guarantee in the above statement is also known as sub-Gaussian distribution. One key difference in Dadush [*et al.*]{}’s statement is that there is no convex body in the statement. The intuition behind the equivalence is one can “approximate” any convex body by the intersection of a family of half-space. The question is converted to how many half-space one needs to have a good approximation of a convex body, or equivalently, how many events in union bound one need such that the failure probability is at most constant in Dadush [*et al.*]{}’s statement. Dadush [*et al.*]{}devised an efficient algorithm to find such coloring but is sub-optimal with an extra $O(\sqrt{\log n})$ factor. Namely, by scaling, the condition on Euclidean norm of input vector is $O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\log n}}\right)$ instead of $1$. Later, Bansal [*et al.*]{}[@bansal2018gram] constructed a coloring efficiently, which satisfied the guarantee of Banaszczyk’s Theorem. Therefore, Banaszczyk’s Theorem is now constructive. Moreover, assuming $d<n$, the running time is $O(n^{\omega+1})$ where $\omega$ is the exponent of matrix multiplication.
The connection between Banaszczyk’s Theorem and discrepancy theory can be seen in the paper of Matou[š]{}ek [*et al.*]{}[@matouvsek2020factorization]. An important result in this paper is: given a $m$-by-$\ell$ matrix $B$ and a $\ell$-by-$n$ matrix $C$, the discrepancy of the matrix $BC$, $\min_{x\in\{\pm1\}^n}{\left\lVert BCx \right\rVert}_\infty$, is bounded by $O(\sqrt{\log m})r(B)\cdot c(C)$ where $r(B)$ is the largest Euclidean norm of rows in $B$ and $c(C)$ is the largest Euclidean norm of columns in $C$. The sketch of proof for this result is to apply Banszczyk’s Theorem: take the columns of $C$ as the input and use the union bound on the rows of $B$.
Finally, we introduce a useful lemma which is Markov Brother’s Inequality.
\[lem:mb\_ineq\] Let $\mathcal{P}(x)$ be a polynomial of degree $s$. Then, $$\max_{x\in[0,1]}{\left| \mathcal{P}'(x) \right|} \leq 2s^2\max_{x\in[0,1]}{\left| \mathcal{P}(x) \right|}$$ Here, $\mathcal{P}'$ is the derivative of $\mathcal{P}$.
Construction of ${\varepsilon}$-coreset
=======================================
We first assume our point set lies inside a $\ell_\infty$-ball of radius $L>0$. The following lemma shows that bounding the discrepancy on a finite set implies the discrepancy in the entire space is also bounded. This finite set is a bounded grid that its width depends on poly-logarithmic of $n$. The advantage of doing this is to bound the number of event in the union bound when we apply Banaszczyk’s Theorem.
\[lem:main\_g\] Given $L>0$. Suppose $P\subset \mathbb{R}^d$ be a point set of size $n$ such that ${\left\lVert p \right\rVert}_\infty < L$ for all $p\in P$ and $\sigma$ is a coloring on $P$. Then, we have $$\sup_{x\in \mathbb{R}^d}{\left| \sum_{p\in P} \sigma(p)e^{-{\left\lVert p-x \right\rVert}^2} \right|} \leq 4\cdot\sup_{g\in \mathsf{G}_w}{\left| \sum_{p\in P} \sigma(p)e^{-{\left\lVert p-g \right\rVert}^2} \right|} + 7$$ where $\mathsf{G}_w = {\textsf{Grid}}_d(w) \cap [-\sqrt{\log n}-L,\sqrt{\log n}+L]^d$ with $w = \Omega\left(\frac{1}{d^5(L^4+\log^2 n)}\right)$. Here, ${\textsf{Grid}}_d(\gamma) = {\left\{ (\gamma i_1,\dots,\gamma i_d) \mid i_1,\dots,i_d \text{ are integers} \right\}} \subset\mathbb{R}^d$ is an infinite lattice grid.
In other words, this lemma says that, given a coloring $\sigma$, ${\textsf{disc}}(P,\mathcal{K}_{\mathbb{R}^d},\sigma) = O\left({\textsf{disc}}(P, \mathcal{K}_{\mathsf{G}_w},\sigma)\right)$.
By translation, we can assume that all $p\in P$ lies in $[1+\sqrt{\log n}, 1+\sqrt{\log n} + 2L]^d$ and $\mathsf{G}_w = {\textsf{Grid}}_d(w) \cap [1,1+2\sqrt{\log n}+2L]^d$. We first use Taylor expansion to have the following expression. $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{p\in P} \sigma(p)e^{-{\left\lVert p-x \right\rVert}^2}
& =
\sum_{p\in P} \sigma(p)e^{-{\left\lVert p \right\rVert}^2}e^{-{\left\lVert x \right\rVert}^2}\sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{(2{\left\langle x,p \right\rangle})^k}{k!} \\
& =
\sum_{k=0}^\infty{\left\langle \sum_{p\in P} \sigma(p)e^{-{\left\lVert p \right\rVert}^2}\sqrt{\frac{2^k}{k!}}p^{\otimes k} ,e^{-{\left\lVert x \right\rVert}^2}\sqrt{\frac{2^k}{k!}}x^{\otimes k} \right\rangle} {\addtocounter{equation}{1}\tag{\theequation}}\label{eqn:disc_taylor}
\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\otimes$ is Kronecker product. Namely, for any two vectors $a^{(1)}\in \mathbb{R}^{d_1}$ and $a^{(2)}\in\mathbb{R}^{d_2}$, $a^{(1)}\otimes a^{(2)}$ is a $d_1\cdot d_2$ dimensional vector indexed by two integers $i,j$ for $i=1,\dots,d_1$ and $j=1,\dots,d_2$ such that $(a^{(1)}\otimes a^{(2)})_{i,j} = a^{(1)}_i \cdot a^{(2)}_j$. Also, for any $a\in \mathbb{R}^d$ and any integer $k$, $a^{\otimes k} = a\otimes a^{\otimes k-1}$ and $a^{\otimes 0} = 1$.
Now, consider polynomial $\mathcal{P}_{P,s}(x) = \sum_{k=0}^s{\left\langle \sum_{p\in P} \sigma(p)e^{-{\left\lVert p \right\rVert}^2}\sqrt{\frac{2^k}{k!}}p^{\otimes k} ,\sqrt{\frac{2^k}{k!}}x^{\otimes k} \right\rangle}$. We first observe that $e^{-{\left\lVert x \right\rVert}^2}\mathcal{P}_{P,s}(x)$ is the same as expression (\[eqn:disc\_taylor\]) but is truncated at the $s$-th term. We analyze the term ${\left| \sum_{p\in P} \sigma(p)e^{-{\left\lVert p-x \right\rVert}^2} - e^{-{\left\lVert x \right\rVert}^2}\mathcal{P}_{P,s}(x) \right|}$ for any $x\in [0,1+2\sqrt{\log n}+2L]^d$. $$\begin{aligned}
{\left| \sum_{p\in P} \sigma(p)e^{-{\left\lVert p-x \right\rVert}^2} - e^{-{\left\lVert x \right\rVert}^2}\mathcal{P}_{P,s}(x) \right|}
& =
{\left| \sum_{k=s+1}^\infty{\left\langle \sum_{p\in P} \sigma(p)e^{-{\left\lVert p \right\rVert}^2}\sqrt{\frac{2^k}{k!}}p^{\otimes k} ,e^{-{\left\lVert x \right\rVert}^2}\sqrt{\frac{2^k}{k!}}x^{\otimes k} \right\rangle} \right|} \\
& \leq
\sum_{k=s+1}^\infty\frac{2^k}{k!}\sum_{p\in P} e^{-{\left\lVert p \right\rVert}^2}e^{-{\left\lVert x \right\rVert}^2}{\left| {\left\langle p^{\otimes k} ,x^{\otimes k} \right\rangle} \right|} \\
& \leq
\sum_{k=s+1}^\infty\frac{2^k}{k!}\sum_{p\in P} e^{-{\left\lVert p \right\rVert}^2}e^{-{\left\lVert x \right\rVert}^2}{\left\lVert p \right\rVert}^{k} {\left\lVert x \right\rVert}^{ k} \\
& =
\sum_{p\in P}e^{-{\left\lVert p \right\rVert}^2}e^{-{\left\lVert x \right\rVert}^2}\sum_{k=s+1}^\infty\frac{(2{\left\lVert x \right\rVert}{\left\lVert p \right\rVert})^k}{k!}
\end{aligned}$$ By the error approximation of Taylor expansion of exponential function, we have $\sum_{k=s+1}^\infty\frac{y^k}{k!} \leq \left(\sup_{\xi\in [-y, y]}e^\xi\right)\frac{y^{s+1}}{(s+1)!} = e^{y}\frac{y^{s+1}}{(s+1)!}$ where $y = 2{\left\lVert x \right\rVert}{\left\lVert p \right\rVert}$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
{\left| \sum_{p\in P} \sigma(p)e^{-{\left\lVert p-x \right\rVert}^2} - e^{-{\left\lVert x \right\rVert}^2}\mathcal{P}_{P,s}(x) \right|}
& \leq
\sum_{p\in P}e^{-{\left\lVert p \right\rVert}^2}e^{-{\left\lVert x \right\rVert}^2}e^{2{\left\lVert x \right\rVert}{\left\lVert p \right\rVert}}\frac{(2{\left\lVert x \right\rVert}{\left\lVert p \right\rVert})^{s+1}}{(s+1)!}\\
& =
\sum_{p\in P}e^{-({\left\lVert p \right\rVert}-{\left\lVert x \right\rVert})^2}\frac{(2{\left\lVert x \right\rVert}{\left\lVert p \right\rVert})^{s+1}}{(s+1)!} \\
& \leq
\sum_{p\in P}\frac{(2\cdot d(2L+2\sqrt{\log n}+1)\cdot d(2L+\sqrt{\log n}+1))^{s+1}}{(s+1)!} \\
& \leq
\sum_{p\in P}\left(\frac{2ed^2(2L+\sqrt{\log n}+1)(2L+2\sqrt{\log n}+1)}{s+1}\right)^{s+1}
\end{aligned}$$ The last step is due to the fact of $z! \geq (\frac{z}{e})^{z}$. Now, if taking $s+1 = 20ed^2(2L+\sqrt{\log n}+1)(2L+2\sqrt{\log n}+1)$ which means $s = O(d^2(L^2+\log n))$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\left| \sum_{p\in P} \sigma(p)e^{-{\left\lVert p-x \right\rVert}^2} - e^{-{\left\lVert x \right\rVert}^2}\mathcal{P}_{P,s}(x) \right|}
\leq
\sum_{p\in P}(\frac{1}{10})^{s+1}
\leq
\sum_{p\in P}(\frac{1}{10})^{20\log n}
\leq
n(\frac{1}{10})^{20\log n}
\leq
1 {\addtocounter{equation}{1}\tag{\theequation}}\label{eqn:truncate_error}
\end{aligned}$$
Let $x^*$ be $\arg\sup_{x\in \mathbb{R}^d} {\left| \sum_{p\in P} \sigma(p)e^{-{\left\lVert p-x \right\rVert}^2} \right|}$. If $x^*\notin [1,1 + 2\sqrt{\log n}+2L]^d$, then\
${\left\lVert x^*-p \right\rVert}^2 > \log n$ since $p \in [1+\sqrt{\log n}, 1+\sqrt{\log n} +2L]^d$ and therefore each term $e^{-{\left\lVert x^*-p \right\rVert}^2} < \frac{1}{n}$. That means ${\left| \sum_{p\in P} \sigma(p)e^{-{\left\lVert p-x^* \right\rVert}^2} \right|} < 1$ by triangle inequality.
Now we can assume $x^*\in [1,1 + 2\sqrt{\log n}+2L]^d$. We construct an uniform grid $\mathsf{G}_w$ of width $w=\frac{1}{8ds^2+2\log 2\cdot d(1+2\sqrt{\log n}+2L)}$ on $[1,1 + 2\sqrt{\log n}+2L]^d$. Namely, $\mathsf{G}_w = {\textsf{Grid}}_d(w) \cap [1,1+2\sqrt{\log n}+2L]^d$. Note that $w = \Omega\left(\frac{1}{d^5(L^4+\log^2 n)}\right)$.
Let $g$ be the closest grid point in $\mathsf{G}_w$ to $x^*$ that all coordinate of $g$ are larger than $x^*$. We have $${\left| \mathcal{P}_{P,s}(x^*) - \mathcal{P}_{P,s}(g) \right|}
=
{\left| {\left\langle \nabla\mathcal{P}_{P,s}(\xi),x^* - g \right\rangle} \right|}$$ for some $\xi$ on the segment between $x^*$ and $g$. Here, $\nabla$ is the gradient. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
{\left| \mathcal{P}_{P,s}(x^*) - \mathcal{P}_{P,s}(g) \right|}
& =
{\left| {\left\langle \nabla\mathcal{P}_{P,s}(\xi),x^* - g \right\rangle} \right|} \\
& \leq
\sum_{i=1}^d {\left| \frac{\partial\mathcal{P}_{P,s}}{\partial x_i}(\xi) \right|}{\left| x^*_i - g_i \right|} \\
& \leq
\sum_{i=1}^d 2s^2{\left| \mathcal{P}_{P,s}(x') \right|}{\left| x^*_i - g_i \right|}
\end{aligned}$$ where $x' = \arg\max_{x\in\prod_{i=1}^d[g_i-1,g_i]}\mathcal{P}_{P,s}(x)$. The last step is due to Markov brother’s inequality (Lemma \[lem:mb\_ineq\]). By rearranging the terms and multiplying $e^{-{\left\lVert g \right\rVert}^2}$, we have $$e^{-{\left\lVert g \right\rVert}^2}{\left| \mathcal{P}_{P,s}(x^*) \right|} \leq e^{-{\left\lVert g \right\rVert}^2}{\left| \mathcal{P}_{P,s}(g) \right|} + \left(\sum_{i=1}^d 2s^2{\left| x^*_i - g_i \right|}\right)e^{-{\left\lVert g \right\rVert}^2}{\left| \mathcal{P}_{P,s}(x') \right|}$$ Also, ${\left\lVert g \right\rVert}^2 \geq {\left\lVert x' \right\rVert}^2$ since, for each coordinate, $g_i \geq x'_i \geq g_i-1 \geq 0$. $$\begin{aligned}
e^{-{\left\lVert g \right\rVert}^2}{\left| \mathcal{P}_{P,s}(x^*) \right|}
&\leq
e^{-{\left\lVert g \right\rVert}^2}{\left| \mathcal{P}_{P,s}(g) \right|} + \left(\sum_{i=1}^d 2s^2{\left| x^*_i - g_i \right|}\right)e^{-{\left\lVert g \right\rVert}^2}{\left| \mathcal{P}_{P,s}(x') \right|} \\
& \leq
e^{-{\left\lVert g \right\rVert}^2}{\left| \mathcal{P}_{P,s}(g) \right|} + \left(\sum_{i=1}^d 2s^2{\left| x^*_i - g_i \right|}\right)e^{-{\left\lVert x' \right\rVert}^2}{\left| \mathcal{P}_{P,s}(x') \right|} \\
& \leq
e^{-{\left\lVert g \right\rVert}^2}{\left| \mathcal{P}_{P,s}(g) \right|} + 2s^2dwe^{-{\left\lVert x' \right\rVert}^2}{\left| \mathcal{P}_{P,s}(x') \right|} \\
& \leq
e^{-{\left\lVert g \right\rVert}^2}{\left| \mathcal{P}_{P,s}(g) \right|} + \frac{1}{4}e^{-{\left\lVert x' \right\rVert}^2}{\left| \mathcal{P}_{P,s}(x') \right|}
\end{aligned}$$ In last step, recall that $w=\frac{1}{8ds^2+2\log 2\cdot d(1+2\sqrt{\log n}+2L)} \leq \frac{1}{8ds^2}$. The left hand side is basically $e^{-{\left\lVert g \right\rVert}^2}{\left| \mathcal{P}_{P,s}(x^*) \right|} = e^{-({\left\lVert g \right\rVert}^2-{\left\lVert x^* \right\rVert}^2)}e^{-{\left\lVert x^* \right\rVert}^2}{\left| \mathcal{P}_{P,s}(x^*) \right|}$. We first analyze the term ${\left\lVert g \right\rVert}^2 - {\left\lVert x^* \right\rVert}^2$. Recall that $w=\frac{1}{8ds^2+2\log 2\cdot d(1+2\sqrt{\log n}+2L)} \leq \frac{1}{2\log 2\cdot d(1+2\sqrt{\log n}+2L)}$. $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\lVert g \right\rVert}^2 - {\left\lVert x^* \right\rVert}^2
& =
{\left\langle g-x^*,g+x^* \right\rangle} \leq \sum_{i=1}^d{\left| g_i-x^*_i \right|}{\left| g_i+x^*_i \right|} \\
& \leq
2(1+2\sqrt{\log n}+2L)\sum_{i=1}^d{\left| g_i-x^*_i \right|} \\
& \leq
2(1+2\sqrt{\log n}+2L)dw \\
& \leq
\log 2
\end{aligned}$$ which means $e^{-{\left\lVert g \right\rVert}^2}{\left| \mathcal{P}_{P,s}(x^*) \right|} \geq \frac{1}{2}e^{-{\left\lVert x^* \right\rVert}^2}{\left| \mathcal{P}_{P,s}(x^*) \right|}$. Therefore, we have $$\frac{1}{2}e^{-{\left\lVert x^* \right\rVert}^2}{\left| \mathcal{P}_{P,s}(x^*) \right|} \leq e^{-{\left\lVert g \right\rVert}^2}{\left| \mathcal{P}_{P,s}(g) \right|} + \frac{1}{4}e^{-{\left\lVert x' \right\rVert}^2}{\left| \mathcal{P}_{P,s}(x') \right|}$$ and then, from (\[eqn:truncate\_error\]), $$\begin{aligned}
&
\frac{1}{2}\left({\left| \sum_{p\in P} \sigma(p)e^{-{\left\lVert p-x^* \right\rVert}^2} \right|} - 1\right) \\
& \leq
\left({\left| \sum_{p\in P} \sigma(p)e^{-{\left\lVert p-g \right\rVert}^2} \right|} + 1\right) + \frac{1}{4}\left({\left| \sum_{p\in P} \sigma(p)e^{-{\left\lVert p-x' \right\rVert}^2} \right|} + 1\right) \\
& \leq
\left({\left| \sum_{p\in P} \sigma(p)e^{-{\left\lVert p-g \right\rVert}^2} \right|} + 1\right) + \frac{1}{4}\left({\left| \sum_{p\in P} \sigma(p)e^{-{\left\lVert p-x^* \right\rVert}^2} \right|} + 1\right)
\end{aligned}$$ or $${\left| \sum_{p\in P} \sigma(p)e^{-{\left\lVert p-x^* \right\rVert}^2} \right|} \leq 4{\left| \sum_{p\in P} \sigma(p)e^{-{\left\lVert p-g \right\rVert}^2} \right|} + 7$$
We are still assuming that our point set lies inside a $\ell_\infty$-ball of radius $L>0$. Now, we can apply Banaszczyk’s Theorem to construct our coloring that achieves low kernel discrepancy, ${\textsf{disc}}(P,\mathcal{K}_{\mathbb{R}^d})$. More importantly, the discrepancy we achieve has the dependence on logarithmic of $L$ and double-logarithmic of $n$.
\[lem:main\_disc\_g\] Given $L>0$. Suppose $P\subset \mathbb{R}^d$ be a point set of size $n$ such that ${\left\lVert p \right\rVert}_\infty < L$ for all $p\in P$ and $\sigma$ is a coloring on $P$. Suppose $V_P$ be ${\left\{ \left(
\begin{matrix}
1 \\
v^{(p)}
\end{matrix}
\right) \mid p\in P \right\}}$ such that ${\left\langle v^{(p)},v^{(q)} \right\rangle} = e^{-{\left\lVert p-q \right\rVert}^2}$ for any $p,q\in P$. Then, by taking $V_P$ as input, Banaszczyk’s Theorem (Theorem \[thm:b\_thm\]) constructs a coloring $\sigma$ on $P$ such that $\sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}^d}{\left| \sum_{p\in P} \sigma(p)e^{-{\left\lVert x-p \right\rVert}^2} \right|} = O\left(\sqrt{d\log \frac{dL\log n}{\delta}}\right)$ and ${\left| \sum_{p\in P}\sigma(p) \right|} = O\left(\sqrt{d\log \frac{dL\log n}{\delta}}\right)$ with probability $1-\delta$.
Let $\mathsf{G}_w$ be ${\textsf{Grid}}_d(w) \cap [-\sqrt{\log n}-L,\sqrt{\log n}+L]^d$ as suggested in Lemma \[lem:main\_g\] where $w=\frac{1}{8ds^2+2\log 2\cdot d(1+2\sqrt{\log n}+2L)}$ and $s = 20ed^2(2L+\sqrt{\log n}+1)(2L+2\sqrt{\log n}+1) - 1$. Also, we denote the $({\left| \mathsf{G}_w \right|}+n)$-by-$({\left| \mathsf{G}_w \right|}+n)$ matrix $G$ such that $G_{x,y} = e^{-{\left\lVert x-y \right\rVert}^2}$ for any $x,y\in\mathsf{G}_w\cup P$. Since Gaussian kernel is positive-definite, $G$ is positive-definite. Therefore, we can decompose $G$ into $H^TH$ for some matrix $H$. Denote $h^{(x)}$ be the columns of $H$ for any $x\in\mathsf{G}_w\cup P$. Without loss of generality, we can assume that $h^{(x)} = v^{(x)}$ when $x\in P$. Note that ${\left\lVert h^{(x)} \right\rVert}^2 = {\left\langle h^{(x)},h^{(x)} \right\rangle} = 1$.
By Banaszczyk’s Theorem (Theorem \[thm:b\_thm\]), it constructs a coloring $\sigma$ such that, for any unit vector $u$, we have $${\left| \sum_{p\in P} \sigma(p){\left\langle u,\left(\begin{matrix}1 \\v^{(p)}\end{matrix}\right) \right\rangle} \right|} \leq \alpha$$ with probability $1-C_1e^{-C_2\alpha^2}$. Note that the norm of $\left(\begin{matrix}1 \\v^{(p)}\end{matrix}\right)$ is $\sqrt{2}$, which means the above statement is still true up to a constant factor. Denote $e^{(1)}$ is a zero vector except that the first coordinate is $1$. Specifically, we have, by taking $u = \left(\begin{matrix}0 \\h^{(x)}\end{matrix}\right)$, $${\left| \sum_{p\in P} \sigma(p){\left\langle \left(\begin{matrix}0 \\h^{(x)}\end{matrix}\right),\left(\begin{matrix}1 \\v^{(p)}\end{matrix}\right) \right\rangle} \right|} = {\left| \sum_{p \in P} \sigma(p){\left\langle h^{(x)},v^{(p)} \right\rangle} \right|} = {\left| \sum_{p\in P}\sigma(p)e^{-{\left\lVert x-p \right\rVert}^2} \right|} \leq \alpha$$ for any $x \in \mathsf{G}_w$ and, by taking $u = e^{(1)}$, $${\left| \sum_{p\in P} \sigma(p){\left\langle e^{(1)},\left(\begin{matrix}1 \\v^{(p)}\end{matrix}\right) \right\rangle} \right|} = {\left| \sum_{p \in P} \sigma(p) \right|} \leq \alpha$$ with probability $1-C_1e^{-C_2\alpha^2}$. We apply the union bound on $u$ being $e^{(1)}$ and $\left(\begin{matrix}0 \\h^{(x)}\end{matrix}\right)$ for $x \in \mathsf{G}_w$. Recall that $w = \Omega\left(\frac{1}{d^5(L^4+\log^2 n)}\right)$. From Lemma \[lem:main\_g\], the size of $\mathsf{G}_w$ is $O\left(\left(\frac{L+\sqrt{\log n}}{w}\right)^d\right) = O\left(d^{5d}(L^{5d}+\log^{5d/2} n)\right)$. We can conclude that $\sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}^d}{\left| \sum_{p\in P} \sigma(p)e^{-{\left\lVert x-p \right\rVert}^2} \right|} = O\left(\sqrt{d\log \frac{dL\log n}{\delta}}\right)$ and ${\left| \sum_{p\in P}\sigma(p) \right|} = O\left(\sqrt{d\log \frac{dL\log n}{\delta}}\right)$ with probability $1-\delta$ by taking $\alpha = O\left(\sqrt{d\log\frac{dL\log n}{\delta}}\right)$.
Note that one can always assume that $L = \operatorname{\textsf{poly}}(n)$. Otherwise, we can partition $P$ into groups that each group is at least $\sqrt{\log n}$ from each other and construct the coloring for each group. It means that the above result is no worse than the previous result of $O(\sqrt{d\log n})$ [@phillips2019near].
The following algorithm (Algorithm \[alg:main\_g\]) is a Las Vegas algorithm that constructs a coloring on the input point set $P$. We can now show how to construct a coloring such that the discrepancy is low and independent of $L$. Recall that ${\textsf{Grid}}_d(\gamma) = {\left\{ (\gamma i_1,\dots,\gamma i_d) \mid i_1,\dots,i_d \text{ are integers} \right\}} \subset\mathbb{R}^d$ is an infinite lattice grid. The idea of Algorithm \[alg:main\_g\] is that we first decompose the entire $\mathbb{R}^d$ into an infinite amount of $\ell_\infty$-balls of radius $O(\sqrt{\log n})$. Then, we partition our input $P$ such that each point $p\in P$ lies in some $\ell_\infty$-ball. For each non-empty $\ell_\infty$-ball, run Banaszczyk’s Theorem to construct a coloring with the desired discrepancy. Finally, we argue that any point $x\in \mathbb{R}^d$ can only be influenced by $2^d$ $\ell_\infty$-balls, and therefore there is an extra factor of $2^d$ in the final discrepancy.
[**input**]{}: a point set $P\subset \mathbb{R}^d$
initialize $Q_g$ to be $\emptyset$ for all $g\in {\textsf{Grid}}_d(2\sqrt{\log n})$ insert $p$ into $Q_g$ where $g\in{\textsf{Grid}}_d(2\sqrt{\log n})$ is the closest point to $p$. construct a collection $V_g$ of vector ${\left\{ \left(
\begin{matrix}
1 \\
v^{(p)}
\end{matrix}
\right) \mid p\in Q_g \right\}}$ such that ${\left\langle v^{(p)},v^{(q)} \right\rangle} = e^{-{\left\lVert p-q \right\rVert}^2}$ for any $p,q\in Q_g$ using $V_g$ as input, run Banaszczyk’s Theorem (Theorem \[thm:b\_thm\]) to obtain a coloring $\sigma_g$ on $Q_g$ \[alg:main\_step\] check if $\sigma_g$ produces the discrepancy as guaranteed in Lemma \[lem:main\_disc\_g\], repeat line \[alg:main\_step\] if not \[line:check\] flip the color of certain point such that half of point in $Q_g$ are colored $+1$ and rest of them are colored $-1$.\[line:flip\] **return** a coloring $\sigma: P \rightarrow \{-1,+1\}$ such that $\sigma(p) = \sigma_g(p)$ when $p\in Q_g$
\[alg:main\_g\]
Suppose $P\subset \mathbb{R}^d$ be a point set of size $n$ where $d$ is constant. Then, Algorithm \[alg:main\_g\] constructs a coloring $\sigma$ on $P$ efficiently such that $\sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}^d}{\left| \sum_{p\in P} \sigma(p)e^{-{\left\lVert x-p \right\rVert}^2} \right|} = O\left(\sqrt{\log\log n}\right)$ and half of the points in $P$ are colored $+1$.
For any $p\in \mathbb{R}^d$ and $\gamma>0$, denote $C_p(\gamma)$ be ${\left\{ x\in\mathbb{R}^d \mid {\left\lVert x-p \right\rVert}_\infty<\gamma \right\}}$. That is a $\ell_\infty$-ball of radius $\gamma$ centered at $p$.
Suppose $x^*$ be $\arg\sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}^d}{\left| \sum_{p\in P}\sigma(p) e^{-{\left\lVert x-p \right\rVert}^2} \right|}$. We can argue that $x^*$ lies in $C_p(\sqrt{\log n})$ for some $p\in P$. If $x^* \notin \cup_{p\in P}C_p(\sqrt{\log n})$, then ${\left| \sum_{p\in P}\sigma(p) e^{-{\left\lVert x^*-p \right\rVert}^2} \right|} = O(1)$ since each term $e^{-{\left\lVert x^* - p \right\rVert}^2} < \frac{1}{n}$. Assume that $x^* \in C_p(\sqrt{\log n})$ for some $p\in P$ and denote $p'$ be such $p$. Let $x'\in{\textsf{Grid}}_d(2\sqrt{\log n})$ be the closest point to $p'$. By triangle inequality, we have ${\left\lVert x^* - x' \right\rVert}_\infty \leq {\left\lVert x^* - p' \right\rVert}_\infty+{\left\lVert p' - x' \right\rVert}_\infty \leq 2\sqrt{\log n}$.
Now, there are at most $2^d$ points in ${\textsf{Grid}}_d(2\sqrt{\log n})$ that lie inside $C_{x^*}(2\sqrt{\log n})$. Let $S_{x^*}$ be the set of ${\textsf{Grid}}_d(2\sqrt{\log n})\cap C_{x^*}(2\sqrt{\log n})$. Then, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\left| \sum_{p\in P}\sigma(p) e^{-{\left\lVert x^*-p \right\rVert}^2} \right|}
& =
{\left| \sum_{x\in {\textsf{Grid}}_d(2\sqrt{\log n})} \sum_{p\in C_x(\sqrt{\log n})} \sigma(p)e^{-{\left\lVert x^* - p \right\rVert}^2} \right|} \\
& =
{\left| \sum_{x\in S_{x^*}} \sum_{p\in C_x(\sqrt{\log n})}\sigma(p)e^{-{\left\lVert x^* - p \right\rVert}^2} + \sum_{x\notin S_{x^*}} \sum_{p\in C_x(\sqrt{\log n})}\sigma(p)e^{-{\left\lVert x^* - p \right\rVert}^2} \right|} \\
& \leq
\sum_{x\in S_{x^*}} {\left| \sum_{p\in C_x(\sqrt{\log n})}\sigma(p)e^{-{\left\lVert x^* - p \right\rVert}^2} \right|} + \sum_{x\notin S_{x^*}} \sum_{p\in C_x(\sqrt{\log n})}e^{-{\left\lVert x^* - p \right\rVert}^2} \\
& =
\sum_{x\in S_{x^*}}O(\sqrt{d\log (d\log n)}) + O(1)
=
O(2^d\sqrt{d\log(d\log n)})
\end{aligned}$$ The second last line is due to Lemma \[lem:main\_disc\_g\].
In line \[line:flip\], suppose there are more $+1$ than $-1$. Choose $O(\sqrt{d\log(d\log n)})$ points assigned $+1$ arbitrarily and flip them to $-1$ such that it makes the difference zero. Denote $Q_{g,+} = {\left\{ p\in Q_g \mid \chi(p) = +1 \right\}}$ and $Q_{g,-} = {\left\{ p\in Q_g \mid \chi(p) =-1 \right\}}$. Also, $Q_{g,+}'$ and $Q_{g,-}'$ are defined in the same way after flipping the value. For any $x \in \mathbb{R}^d$, $$\begin{aligned}
&
{\left| \sum_{p\in Q_{g,+}'}e^{-{\left\lVert x-p \right\rVert}^2}-\sum_{p\in Q_{g,-}'}e^{-{\left\lVert x-p \right\rVert}^2} \right|} \\
& \leq
{\left| \sum_{p\in Q_{g,+}}e^{-{\left\lVert x-p \right\rVert}^2}-\sum_{p\in Q_{g,-}}e^{-{\left\lVert x-p \right\rVert}^2} \right|}+{\left| \sum_{p\in Q_{g,+}'\backslash Q_{g,+}}e^{-{\left\lVert x-p \right\rVert}^2} \right|} + {\left| \sum_{p\in Q_{g,-}\backslash Q_{g,-}'}e^{-{\left\lVert x-p \right\rVert}^2} \right|} \\
& =
O(\sqrt{d\log(d \log n)}).
\end{aligned}$$
We now analyze the running time. By Lemma \[lem:main\_disc\_g\], for each $Q_g$, Banaszczyk’s Theorem constructs a coloring that has discrepancy $O(2^d\sqrt{d\log(d\log n)})$ with probability $1/2$. Therefore, the expected number of execution of line \[line:check\] is $2$. It takes $O\left({\left| Q_g \right|}d^{5d}\log^{5d/2} {\left| Q_g \right|}\right)$ to verify the discrepancy in line \[line:check\] by Lemma \[lem:main\_g\]. Recall that the running time of Banaszczyk’s Theorem is ${\left| Q_g \right|}^{\omega+1}$ where $\omega$ is the exponent of matrix multiplication. Finally, by assuming $d$ is constant, the total expected running time is $O(n^{\omega+1})$.
One can first perform random sampling [@lopez2015towards] before running Algorithm \[alg:main\_g\] such that the input size $n = O(\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^2})$. Finally, by the standard halving technique, we have the following theorem.
\[thm:main\_g\] Suppose $P\subset \mathbb{R}^d$ where $d$ is constant. Let ${\overline{\mathcal{G}}}$ be Gaussian kernel density estimation, i.e. ${\overline{\mathcal{G}}}_P(x) = \frac{1}{{\left| P \right|}}\sum_{p\in P} e^{-{\left\lVert x-p \right\rVert}^2}$ for $x\in\mathbb{R}^d$. Then, we can efficiently construct a subset $Q\subset P$ of size $O(\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\sqrt{\log \log \frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}})$ such that $\sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}^d}{\left| {\overline{\mathcal{G}}}_P(x) - {\overline{\mathcal{G}}}_Q(x) \right|} < {\varepsilon}$.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we studied the question of the coreset for kernel density estimation. We proved that Gaussian kernel has ${\varepsilon}$-coreset of size $O\left(\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\sqrt{\log \log \frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}}\right)$ when $d$ is constant. This coreset can be constructed efficiently. We leveraged Banaszczyk’s Theorem to construct a coloring such that the discrepancy of the kernel range space is low. Then, we constructed the ${\varepsilon}$-coreset of the desired size via the halving technique. By inspecting the algorithm for Banaszczyk’s Theorem, the extra $\sqrt{\log \log}$ factor comes from applying the union bound. However, a previous result showed that the size of ${\varepsilon}$-coreset is $O(\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}})$ when $d=1$. The algorithm achieving this bound is deterministic, and the result is tight. Therefore, we conjecture that the upper bound can further be improved to $O\left(\frac{\sqrt{d}}{{\varepsilon}}\right)$, at least in the setting like Gaussian kernel or constant dimension $d$. However, it is unknown that the coreset can be constructed efficiently if the bound can be further improved. Some open problems in discrepancy theory, such as Tusn[á]{}dy’s Problem, have a similar issue that an extra factor is required when we generalize the result from the case of $d=1$ to the case of larger $d$.
[^1]: Through private communication, the authors acknowledged our comment.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'This work presents a classical Lie point symmetry analysis of a two-component, non-isospectral Lax pair of a hierarchy of partial differential equations in $2+1$ dimensions, which can be considered as a modified version of the Camassa-Holm hierarchy in $2+1$ dimensions. A classification of reductions for this spectral problem is performed. Non-isospectral reductions in $1+1$ dimensions are considered of remarkable interest.'
---
**Integrable $1+1$ dimensional hierarchies arising**
0.25cm
**from reduction of a non-isospectral problem in $2+1$ dimensions**
0.5cm
P.G. Estévez, J.D. Lejarreta, C. Sardón
0.5cm
Department of Fundamental Physics, University of Salamanca,
Plza. de la Merced s/n, 37.008, Salamanca, Spain.
Departamento de Física Aplicada, Universidad de Salamanca,
Plza. de la Merced s/n, 37.008, Salamanca, Spain.
Introduction
============
Solving non-linear partial differential equations (PDEs) can be a difficult task. Several procedures have been developed in order to solve them [@Ames], [@Hill], [@Olver], [@Ovs], [@Steph]. The integrability of non-linear PDEs can be guaranteed by means of the Painlevè test [@Conte], [@EP], [@WTC], the existence of a Lax Pair [@EP2], or the inverse scattering transform [@AC]. Also, the use of geometric techniques has also proved to be very successful for the integration of differential equations [@CL].
Lie symmetries were first introduced by Lie [@Steph] in order to solve ordinary differential equations (ODEs) or reduce a system of equations to a simpler form [@BC], [@Olver]. Lie point symmetries represent a powerful tool, although they involve lengthy calculations for the most part. Nevertheless, the interest in them has grown in the past years due to the development of symbolic computation packages. There exist different types of symmetry transformations. Here, we shall focus on **Lie point symmetries**, where the coefficients of the infinitesimal generator just depend on the coordinates and fields. Each Lie point symmetry leads us to a reduced version of the equation with the number of independent variables diminished by one. This fact implies that any solution of a PDE can be derived by reduction of the same to an ODE. Lie point symmetries can be classified as classical [@Steph] and non-classical [@BC], [@Olver]. Both approaches constitute the usual way to identify the reductions. The case that concerns us will be based on the classical approach.
Much less frequent is the identification of Lie symmetries of the spectral problem of a PDE system [@Leg] although the introduction of an spectral (or non-isospectral) parameter in a linear problem without spectral parameter through one-parametric groups of Lie points symmetries was proposed by Levi et al [@levi1], [@levi2]. This group interpretation of the spectral parameter has been extensively studied by Cieśliński in several papers [@cies1], [@cies2], [@cies3], [@cies4], One of us and collaborators have proposed such procedure before in [@EGP] and have continued along this line of research [@BEGP], [@EGL], [@ELS]. So have other authors contributed to it [@Zhi]. It is important to remark that the study of symmetries of a Lax pair provides a lot of more information than the simple identification of the symmetries of a set of PDEs, as it allows us not just to determine the reduction of the fields, but also that of the eigenfunctions and the spectral parameter. The non-isospectral case is quite relevant. Under this premise, the spectral parameter has to be considered as an additional field and sometimes, the reduced spectral problem is non-isospectral as well.
In the present paper, we are concerned with a non-isospectral problem. This non-isospectral problem was first introduced in [@PGE4] as an integrable generalization of the Qiao hierarchy [@Qiao] to $2+1$ dimensions. This hierarchy has been proved to be connected (through reciprocal transformations) [@PGE4], [@ES] with the Camassa-Holm hiertarchy in 2+1 dimensions [@EP3] and it shall be denoted under the name mCH(2+1) (modified Camassa-Holm hierarchy in 2+1 dimensions) henceforth in this article.
The plan of the paper is the following: Section 2 is devoted to the descripcion of mCH(2+1) and its non-isospectral Lax pair. In section $3$ we apply the classical Lie method for finding Lie point symmetries of the Lax pair of mCH(2+1). Section $4$ contains all the possible reductions under the symmetries identified in section $3$. Eight non-trivial spectral problems in 1+1 dimensions and their correspondent reduced hierarchies arise from such reductions. Six of them are non-isospectral, the other two are isospectral. We shall close this paper with a summary of the most relevant results.
The mCH(2+1) Hierarchy
======================
Lax pair
--------
In [@PGE4], a generalization to $2+1$ dimensions of the Qiao hierarchy [@Qiao], [@Qiao10] was presented. Upon the assistance of reciprocal transformations, mCH(2+1) was proved to be equivalent to $n$ copies of the modified Calogero-Bogoyavlenskii-Schiff equation (CBS) in three dimensions [@Bogo], [@Calo], [@EP2], [@KP]. Each copy depends on three different variables and has the Painlevé property [@EP2], [@KP]. Their correspondent Lax pair was proposed in [@EP2]. The spectral problem for mCH(2+1) is obtained by means of the inverse reciprocal transformation [@PGE4]. This spectral problem corresponds with the following two component non-isospectral Lax pair which contains $2n+1$ fields. The spectral parameter will also be considered as a field:
$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\phi\\
\psi
\end{array}\right)_x=\frac{1}{2}\left[\begin{array}{cc}
-1& i\sqrt{\lambda}\,u\\
i\sqrt{\lambda}\,u& 1
\end{array}\right]\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\phi\\
\psi
\end{array}\right),\label{2.1}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\phi\\
\psi
\end{array}\right)_t=\lambda^{n}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\phi\\
\psi
\end{array}\right)_y+\lambda \,p \left(\begin{array}{c}
\phi\\
\psi
\end{array}\right)_x+\frac{i\sqrt{\lambda}}{2}\left[\begin{array}{cc}
0&q_{x}-q\\
q_{x}+q& 0
\end{array}\right]_x\left(\begin{array}{c}
\phi\\
\psi
\end{array}\right).\label{2.2}\end{aligned}$$
where: $$u=u(x,y,t),\quad\quad \lambda=\lambda(y,t)$$ $$p=p(x,y,t)=\sum_{j=1}^n{\lambda^{(n-j)}(y,t)\,\omega^{[j]}}(x,y,t),$$ $$q=q(x,y,t)=\sum_{j=1}^n{\lambda^{(n-j)}(y,t)\,v^{[j]}}(x,y,t).$$ and $i=\sqrt{-1}$.
Non-isospectrality and equations for the hierarchy
--------------------------------------------------
The compatibility condition between (\[2.1\]) and (\[2.2\]) yields the non-isospectral condition: $$\lambda_t-\lambda^n\lambda_y=0\label{2.3}$$ as well as the equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber &\left(v_{xx}^{[n]}-v^{[n]}\right)_x-u_t=0,&\\
\nonumber &v_{xx}^{[j]}-v^{[j]}+u\omega^{[j+1]}=0,\qquad &j=1\dots n-1,\\
\nonumber &\left(u\omega^{[1]}\right)_x+u_y=0,&\\
&\omega_x^{[j]}=uv_x^{[j]}, \qquad &j=1\dots n.\label{2.4}\end{aligned}$$
Recursion operator and hierarchy
--------------------------------
The system of equations (\[2.4\]) can be expressed in a more compact form in terms of the operators $K$ and $J$, defined as: $$K=\delta^3-\delta,\qquad J=-\delta u\delta^{-1} u\delta,\qquad \delta=\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\label{2.5}.$$ $R$ shall be the recursion operator characterized as: $$R=JK^{-1}\Rightarrow R^{-1}=KJ^{-1}.$$ Thus, the $n$ dimensional hierarchy can be written in terms of the following expression: $$u_t=R^{-n}u_y.$$ The $1^{st}$ and $n^{th}$ fields appear through: $$u_y=Jv^{[1]},\qquad u_t=Kv^{[n]}$$ and the recurrence relation for the $j^{th}$ fields is: $$Jv^{(j+1)}=Kv^{[j]} \Rightarrow v^{(j+1)}=J^{-1}Kv^{[j]}, \qquad j=1\dots n-1.$$
Classical symmetries for the spectral problem of mCH(2+1)
==========================================================
Lie Point Symmetries
--------------------
We are looking for Lie point symmetries of the spectral problem presented in section $2$. Symmetries of system (\[2.4\]) are interesting in themselves, but we find important to suggest how **the eigenfunction and the spectral parameter transform under the action of a Lie symmetry**. More precisely, we wish to know how these fields look when reduced by the symmetry to $1+1$ dimensions. For this reason, we shall apply the Lie method to the spectral problem (\[2.1\])-(\[2.3\]), instead of applying it to the system of equations in (\[2.4\]).
We shall proceed by writing the infinitesimal Lie point transformation for the variables and fields. It is important to note that the spectral parameter $\lambda(y,t)$ is not a constant (see (\[2.3\])). Therefore, it has to be considered as an additional field, which implies that we not only have to look for symmetries of the Lax pair, but also for the non-isospectral condition (\[2.3\]). We have proven the benefits of such a procedure [@Leg] in a previous paper [@EP2].
The uniparametrical Lie point transformation proposed is: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat x&=x+\epsilon\, \xi_1(x,y,t,u,\omega^{[i]},v^{[i]},\phi,\psi)+O(\epsilon^2),\nonumber \\
\hat y&=y+\epsilon\, \xi_2(x,y,t,u,\omega^{[i]},v^{[i]},\phi,\psi)+O(\epsilon^2),\nonumber \\
\hat t&=t+\epsilon\, \xi_3(x,y,t,u,\omega^{[i]},v^{[i]},\phi,\psi)+O(\epsilon^2),\nonumber \\
\hat u&=u+\epsilon\, \eta_u(x,y,t,u,\omega^{[i]},v^{[i]},\phi,\psi)+O(\epsilon^2),\nonumber \\
\hat \omega^{[j]}&=\omega^{[j]}+\epsilon\, \eta_{\omega}^{[j]}(x,y,t,u,\omega^{[i]},v^{[i]},\phi,\psi)+O(\epsilon^2),\nonumber \\
\hat v^{[j]}&=v^{[j]}+\epsilon\, \eta_v^{[j]}(x,y,t,u,\omega^{[i]},v^{[i]},\phi,\psi)+O(\epsilon^2),\nonumber \\
\hat \lambda&=\lambda+\epsilon\, \eta_{\lambda} (x,y,t,\lambda, u,\omega^{[i]},v^{[i]},\phi,\psi)+O(\epsilon^2),\nonumber \\
\hat \phi&=\phi+\epsilon\, \eta_{\phi}(x,y,t,\lambda,u,\omega^{[i]},v^{[i]},\phi,\psi)+O(\epsilon^2),\nonumber \\
\hat \psi&=\psi+\epsilon\, \eta_{\psi}(x,y,t,\lambda,u,\omega^{[i]},v^{[i]},\phi,\psi)+O(\epsilon^2)\label{3.1}\end{aligned}$$ where $i,j=1\dots n.$
The Lie algebra corresponds to the set of vector fields of the form: $$\begin{aligned}
X=\xi_1\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+\xi_2\frac{\partial}{\partial y}+\xi_3\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+ \eta_{\lambda}\frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda}+\eta_u\frac{\partial}{\partial u}+\sum_{j=1}^{n}{\eta_{\omega}^{[j]}\frac{\partial}{\partial \omega^{[j]}}}+\nonumber\\
\quad+\sum_{j=1}^{n}{\eta_v^{[j]}\frac{\partial}{\partial v^{[j]}}}+\eta_{\phi} \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi}+\eta_{\psi} \frac{\partial}{\partial \psi}
.\label{3.2}\end{aligned}$$
At this point, it is essential to use the concept of **prolongation of an action of a Lie group**, as our spectral problem contains derivatives of the fields up to second order. Nevertheless, technical details will be omitted for the benefict of the reader. Elaborated calcula can be found in [@Steph].
The Lax pair and the non-isospectral condition must be invariant under ($\ref{3.1}$), in order for ($\ref{3.2}$) to be a symmetry vector field. This imposition leads us to an overdetermined system of equations for the coefficients of the infinitesimal generator $X$.
The classical method for finding Lie symmetries encloses the following steps:
1. [Calculation of the prolongations of the coefficients of the infinitesimal generator up to first and second order derivatives, for the case that concerns us.]{}
2. [Substitution of the transformed fields in the Lax pair and non-isospectral condition.]{}
3. [Set all the coefficients in $\epsilon$ equal to zero.]{}
4. [Substitution of the prolongations.]{}
5. [$\psi_x,\phi_x,\psi_t,\phi_t,\lambda_t$ can be replaced by using the equations (\[2.1\]), (\[2.2\]) and (\[2.3\]).]{}
6. [A system of equations for the coefficients of the infinitesimal generator arises by setting equal to zero the coefficients accompanying the remaining derivatives.]{}
Classical Lie symmetries for mCH(2+1) spectral problem
------------------------------------------------------
From the above mentioned procedure [@Steph], the symmetries read: $$\begin{aligned}
&\xi_1=A_1(y),\nonumber \\
&\xi_2=a_2y+b_2,\nonumber \\
& \xi_3=a_3t+b_3,\nonumber \\
&\eta_{\lambda}(y,t,\lambda)=\frac{\left(a_2-a_3\right)}{n}\,\lambda,\nonumber \\
&\eta_u(x,y,t,u)=\frac{\left(a_3-a_2\right)}{2n}\,u,\nonumber \\
&\eta_\omega^{[j]}(x,y,t,\omega^{[j]})=\delta^{(j,1)}\,\frac{dA_1(y)}{dy}-\frac{(n-j+1)a_2+(j-1)a_3}{n}\,\omega^{[j]},\nonumber \\
&\eta_v^{[j]}(x,y,t,v^{[j]})=\delta^{(j,n)}\,A_n(y,t)-\frac{(2(n-j)+1)a_2+(2j-1)a_3}{2n}\,v^{[j]},\nonumber \\
&\eta_{\phi}(x,y,t,\lambda,\psi,\phi)=\gamma(y,t,\lambda)\,\phi,\nonumber \\
&\eta_{\psi}(x,y,t,\lambda,\psi,\phi)=\gamma(y,t,\lambda)\,\psi, \label{3.3}\end{aligned}$$ with $j=1\dots n.$
The functions $A_1(y)$, $A_n(y,t)$ and constants $a_2, a_3,b_2, b_3$ are arbitrary, whereas the function $\gamma(y,t,\lambda)$ satisfies the condition: $$\frac{\partial\, \gamma(y,t,\lambda)}{\partial t}=\lambda^n\,\frac{\partial \,\gamma(y,t,\lambda)}{\partial y}\label{3.4}$$ and functions $\delta^{(j,1)}$, $\delta^{(j,n)}$ are Krönecker deltas. The calculation of symmetries is a long and tedious task which relies in the use of a symbolic calculus package, most of the times. In our case, we have made use of MAPLE14 to handle the resulting and intermediate cumbersome expressions.
Classification of reductions
============================
The reductions can be achieved by solving the following characteristic system [@Steph]:
$$\frac{dx}{\xi_1}=\frac{dy}{\xi_2}=\frac{dt}{\xi_3}=\frac{d\lambda}{\eta_{\lambda}}=\frac{du}{\eta_{u}}=\frac{d\omega^{[j]}}{\eta_{\omega}^{[j]}}
=\frac{dv^{[j]}}{\eta_{v}^{[j]}}=\frac{d\psi}{\eta_{\psi}}=\frac{d\phi}{\eta_{\phi}}\label{4.1}
,$$
with $j=1\dots n$.
Several reductions emerge for different values of $a_2,a_3,b_2,b_3$. There are eight non-trivial independent reductions, which are listed below:
- [Type I: $a_2\neq 0,\quad b_2=0$]{}
- [I.1. $a_3\neq 0,\quad b_3=0$]{}
- [I.2. $a_3=0,\quad b_3\neq 0$]{}
- [I.3. $a_3=0,\quad b_3=0$]{}
- [Type II: $a_2=0,\quad b_2 \neq 0$]{}
- [II.1. $a_3\neq 0,\quad b_3=0$]{}
- [II.2. $a_3=0,\quad b_3\neq 0$]{}
- [II.3. $a_3=0,\quad b_3=0$]{}
- [Type III: $a_2=0,\quad b_2=0$]{}
- [III.1. $a_3\neq 0,\quad b_3=0$]{}
- [III.2. $a_3=0,\quad b_3\neq 0$]{}
**Reduction I.1. $a_2\neq 0, b_2=0, a_3\neq 0, b_3=0$.** {#reduction-i.1.-a_2neq-0-b_20-a_3neq-0-b_30. .unnumbered}
--------------------------------------------------------
Solving the characteristic system (\[4.1\]), we obtain the following results:
- Reduced variables: $$z_1=x-\frac{1}{a_2}\,\int{\frac{A_1(y)}{y}\,dy}, \qquad z_2=\frac{t}{y^r},$$ where $r=\frac{a_3}{a_2}.$
- [Reduced parameter]{}: $$\lambda(y,t)=y^{\frac{1-r}{n}}\,\Lambda(z_2),$$ where $\Lambda(z_2)$ satisfies the **non-isospectral condition** $$\frac{d\Lambda(z_2)}{dz_2}=\left(\frac{1-r}{n}\right)\,\frac{\Lambda(z_2)^{n+1}}{1+rz_2\,\Lambda(z_2)^n}.$$
- [Reduced fields]{}:
$$\begin{aligned}
& u(x,y,t)=y^{\frac{r-1}{2n}}\, U(z_1,z_2),\nonumber\\
& \omega^{[1]}(x,y,t)=\frac{A_1(y)}{a_2\,y}+\frac{\Omega^{[1]}(z_1,z_2)}{y},\nonumber\\
& \omega^{[j]}(x,y,t)=y^{\frac{(r-1)(1-j)}{n}}\,\left(\frac{\Omega^{[j]}(z_1,z_2)}{y}\right),\quad \quad j=2\dots n,\nonumber\\
& v^{[j]}(x,y,t)=y^{\frac{(r-1)(1-2j)}{2n}}\,\left(\frac{V^{[j]}(z_1,z_2)}{y}\right),\quad j=1\dots n-1,\nonumber\\
& v^{[n]}(x,y,t)=y^{\frac{(r-1)(1-2n)}{2n}}\,\left(\frac{1}{a_2\,y}\int{\frac{A_n(y,t)\,y^{\frac{2rn-r+1}{2n}}}{y}}+\frac{V^{[n]}(z_1,z_2)}{y}\right),\nonumber\\
& \phi(x,y,t)=e^{\int{\frac{\Gamma(y,z_2)}{a_2y}\,dy}}\,\Phi(z_1,z_2),\nonumber\\
& \psi(x,y,t)=e^{\int{\frac{\Gamma(y,z_2)}{a_2y}\,dy}}\,\Psi(z_1,z_2),\nonumber\\
& p(x,y,t)=\frac{y^{\frac{r-1}{n}}}{y^r}\,\left(\frac{A_1(y)\,\Lambda(z_2)^{n-1}}{a_2}+P(z_1,z_2)\right),\label{4.5}\\
& q(x,y,t)=\frac{y^{\frac{r-1}{2n}}}{y^r}\,\left({\frac{1}{a_2}\int\frac{A_n(y,t)\,y^{\frac{2rn-r+1}{2n}}}{y}\,dy}+Q(z_1,z_2)\right).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where: $$P(z_1,z_2)=\sum_{j=1}^n{\Lambda(z_2)^{n-j}\,\Omega^{[j]}(z_1,z_2)},$$ and $$Q(z_1,z_2)=\sum_{j=1}^{n}{\Lambda(z_2)^{n-j}\,V^{[j]}(z_1,z_2)}.$$ The function $\Gamma(y,z_2)$ is obtained through the following identification: $$\Gamma(y,z_2)=\gamma\left(y,t=z_2y^r\right)$$ that yields: $$\gamma_t=\frac{\Gamma_{z_2}}{y^r},\quad\quad
\gamma_y=\Gamma_y-r\,\frac{z_2}{y}\,\Gamma_{z_2}.$$ Therefore, according to (\[3.4\]) $\Gamma(y,z_2)$ satisfies the equation: $$(1+rz_2\Lambda^n)\,\Gamma_{z_2}=y\Lambda^n\,\Gamma_y.$$
- [Reduced spectral problem]{}: The reduction of (\[2.1\])-(\[2.2\]) yields the non-isospectral Lax pair: $$\begin{aligned}
(1+r\,z_2\,\Lambda^n)\left(\begin{array}{c}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right)_{z_2}&=\Lambda P \left(\begin{array}{c}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right)_{z_1}\nonumber\\ &+\frac{i\sqrt{\Lambda}}{2}\left[\begin{array}{cc}
0&Q_{z_1}-Q\\
Q_{z_1}+Q& 0
\end{array}\right]_{z_1}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right),\nonumber\\
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right)_{z_1}&=\frac{1}{2}\left[\begin{array}{cc}
-1& i\sqrt{\Lambda}\,U\\
i\sqrt{\Lambda}\,U& 1
\end{array}\right]\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right).\label{4.8}\end{aligned}$$
- [Reduced hierarchy]{}: The compatibility condition of (\[4.8\]) yields the $1+1$ dimensional non-autonomous hierarchy: $$\begin{aligned}
&\left(V^{[n]}_{ z_1z_1}-V^{[n]}\right)_{z_1}- U_{z_2}=0,&\nonumber\\
& V^{[j]}_{ z_1z_1}-V^{[j]}+U\,\Omega^{(j+1)}=0,\quad\quad &j=1\dots n-1,\nonumber\\
&\left(\Omega^{[1]}\,U\right)_{ z_1}+\frac{r-1}{2n}\,U-r\,z_2\,U_{z_2}=0,&\nonumber\\
&\Omega^{[j]}_{z_1}=U\,V^{[j]}_{z_1}.\quad\quad &j=1\dots n.
\label{4.9}\end{aligned}$$
**Reduction I.2. $a_2\neq 0, b_2=0, a_3=0, b_3\neq 0$.** {#reduction-i.2.-a_2neq-0-b_20-a_30-b_3neq-0. .unnumbered}
--------------------------------------------------------
- Reduced variables: $$z_1=x-\frac{1}{a_2}\int{\frac{A_1(y)}{y}\,dy}, \qquad z_2=\frac{a_2\,t}{b_3}-\ln(y).$$
- [Reduced parameter]{}: $$\lambda(y,t)=\left(\frac{a_2\,y}{b_3}\right)^{\frac{1}{n}}\Lambda(z_2),$$ with $\Lambda(z_2)$ satisfying the **non-isospectral condition** $$\frac{d\Lambda(z_2)}{dz_2}=\frac{\Lambda(z_2)^{n+1}}{n\left(1+\Lambda(z_2)^n\right)}.$$
- [Reduced fields]{}: $$\begin{aligned}
& u(x,y,t)=\left(\frac{a_2\,y}{b_3}\right)^{\frac{-1}{2n}}\,U(z_1,z_2),\nonumber \\
& \omega^{[1]}(x,y,t)=\frac{A_1(y)}{a_2\,y}+\frac{\Omega^{[1]}(z_1,z_2)}{y},\nonumber \\
& \omega^{[j]}(x,y,t)=\left(\frac{a_2\,y}{b_3}\right)^{\frac{j-1}{n}}\,\frac{\Omega^{[j]}(z_1,z_2)}{y},\quad \quad j=2\dots n,\nonumber \\
& v^{[j]}(x,y,t)=\left(\frac{a_2\,y}{b_3}\right)^{\frac{2j-1}{2n}}\,\frac{V^{[j]}(z_1,z_2)}{y},\quad \quad j=1\dots n-1,\nonumber \\
& v^{[n]}(x,y,t)=y^{\frac{-1}{2n}}\int{\frac{A_n(y,t)\,y^{\frac{1}{2n}}}{a_2\,y}\,dy}+\left(\frac{a_2 \, y}{b_3}\right)^{\frac{2n-1}{2n}}\frac{V^{[n]}(z_1,z_2)}{y},\nonumber \\
& \phi(x,y,t)=e^{\int{\frac{\Gamma(y,z_2)}{a_2y}\,dy}}\,\Phi(z_1,z_2),\nonumber \\
& \psi(x,y,t)=e^{\int{\frac{\Gamma(y,z_2)}{a_2y}\,dy}}\,\Psi(z_1,z_2),\nonumber \\
& p(x,y,t)=\left(\frac{a_2\, y}{b_3}\right)^{\frac{n-1}{n}}\left(\frac{A_1(y)\,\Lambda(z_2)^{n-1}}{a_2 y}+\frac{P(z_1,z_2)}{y}\right),\nonumber \\
& q(x,y,t)=y^{\frac{-1}{2n}}\,\int{\frac{A_n(y,t)\,y^{\frac{1-2n}{2n}}}{a_2}\,dy}+\left(\frac{a_2\,y}{b_3}\right)^{\frac{2n-1}{2n}}\,\frac{Q(z_1,z_2)}{y},\nonumber\\
& P(z_1,z_2)=\sum_{j=1}^n{\Lambda(z_2)^{n-j}\,\Omega^{[j]}(z_1,z_2)},\\
& Q(z_1,z_2)=\sum_{j=1}^{n}{\Lambda(z_2)^{n-j}\,V^{[j]}(z_1,z_2)},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the function $\Gamma(y,z_2)$ is obtained through the following identification: $$\Gamma(y,z_2)=\gamma\left(y,t=\frac{b_3}{a_2}(z_2+\ln(y))\right)\label{4.13}$$ that yields: $$\gamma_t=\frac{a_2}{b_3}\,\Gamma_{z_2},\quad\quad
\gamma_y=\Gamma_y-\frac{1}{y}\,\Gamma_{z_2}.$$ Therefore, according to (\[3.4\]), $\Gamma(y,z_2)$ satisfies the equation: $$(1+\Lambda^n)\,\Gamma_{z_2}=y\Lambda^n\,\Gamma_y.$$
- [Reduced spectral problem]{}:
$$\begin{aligned}
(1+\Lambda^n)\left(\begin{array}{c}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right)_{z_2}&=\Lambda P \left(\begin{array}{c}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right)_{z_1}\nonumber \\ &+\frac{i\sqrt{\Lambda}}{2}\left[\begin{array}{cc}
0&Q_{z_1}-Q\\
Q_{z_1}+Q& 0
\end{array}\right]_{z_1}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right),\nonumber\\
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right)_{z_1}&=\frac{1}{2}\left[\begin{array}{cc}
-1& i\sqrt{\Lambda}\,U\\
i\sqrt{\Lambda}\,U& 1
\end{array}\right]\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$
- [Reduced hierarchy]{}: This non-isospectral yields the autonomous hierarchy: $$\begin{aligned}
&\left(V^{[n]}_{ z_1z_1}- V^{[n]}\right)_{ z_1}- U_{ z_2} =0,&\nonumber \\
&V^{[j]}_{ z_1z_1}-V^{[j]}+U\,\Omega^{(j+1)}=0,\quad \quad &j=1\dots n-1,\nonumber \\
&\left(\Omega^{[1]}\,U\right)_{z_1}-\frac{U}{2n}- U_{ z_2}=0,&\nonumber \\
&\Omega^{[j]}_{ z_1}=U\,V^{[j]}_{ z_1},\quad \quad &j=1\dots n.\end{aligned}$$
**Reduction I.3. $a_2\neq 0, b_2=0, a_3=0, b_3=0$.** {#reduction-i.3.-a_2neq-0-b_20-a_30-b_30. .unnumbered}
----------------------------------------------------
- Reduced variables: $$z_1=x-\frac{1}{a_2}\int{\frac{A_1(y)}{y}\,dy}, \qquad z_2=t.$$
- [Reduced parameter]{}: $$\lambda(y,t)=y^{\frac{1}{n}}\,\Lambda(z_2),$$ where $\Lambda(z_2)$ satisfies the **non-isospectral condition** $$\frac{d\Lambda(z_2)}{dz_2}=\frac{\Lambda(z_2)^{n+1}}{n}.$$
- [Reduced fields]{}: $$\begin{aligned}
& u(x,y,t)=y^{-\frac{1}{2n}}\,U(z_1,z_2),\nonumber \\
& \omega^{[1]}(x,y,t)=\frac{A_1(y)}{a_2y}+\frac{\Omega^{[1]}(z_1,z_2)}{y},\nonumber \\
& \omega^{[j]}(x,y,t)=y^{\frac{j-1}{n}}\,\frac{\Omega^{[j]}(z_1,z_2)}{y},\quad \quad j=2\dots n,\nonumber \\
& v^{[j]}(x,y,t)=y^{\frac{2j-1}{2n}}\,\frac{V^{[j]}(z_1,z_2)}{y},\quad \quad j=1\dots n-1,\nonumber \\
& v^{[n]}(x,y,t)=y^{-\frac{1}{2n}}\,\left(\int{\frac{A_n(y,t)\,y^{\frac{1}{2n}}}{a_2\,y}\,dy}+V^{[n]}(z_1,z_2)\right),\nonumber \\
& \phi(x,y,t)=e^{\int{\frac{\Gamma(y,z_2)}{a_2y}\,dy}}\,\Phi(z_1,z_2),\nonumber\\
& \psi(x,y,t)=e^{\int{\frac{\Gamma(y,z_2)}{a_2y}\,dy}}\,\Psi(z_1,z_2), \nonumber\\
& p(x,y,t)=y^{-\frac{1}{n}}\,\left(\frac{A_1(y)\,\Lambda(z_2)^{n-1}}{a_2}+P(z_1,z_2)\right),\nonumber \\
& q(x,y,t)=y^{-\frac{1}{2n}}\,\left(\frac{1}{a_2}\int{\frac{A_n(y,t)\,y^{\frac{1}{2n}}}{y}\,dy}+Q(z_1,z_2)\right),\nonumber\\
& P(z_1,z_2)=\sum_{j=1}^n{\Lambda(z_2)^{n-j}\,\Omega^{[j]}(z_1,z_2)},\\
& Q(z_1,z_2)=\sum_{j=1}^{n}{\Lambda(z_2)^{n-j}\,V^{[j]}(z_1,z_2)},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the function $\Gamma(y,z_2)$ is obtained through the following identification: $$\Gamma(y,z_2)=\gamma\left(y,t=z_2\right)$$ that yields: $$\gamma_t=\Gamma_{z_2},\quad\quad
\gamma_y=\Gamma_y.$$ Therefore, according to (\[3.4\]), $\Gamma(y,z_2)$ satisfies the equation: $$\Gamma_{z_2}=y\Lambda^n\,\Gamma_y.$$
- [Reduced spectral problem]{}: $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right)_{z_2}&=\Lambda P \left(\begin{array}{c}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right)_{z_1}\nonumber \\&+\frac{i\sqrt{\Lambda}}{2}\left[\begin{array}{cc}
0&Q_{z_1}-Q\\
Q_{z_1}+Q& 0
\end{array}\right]_{z_1}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right),\nonumber\\
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right)_{z_1}&=\frac{1}{2}\left[\begin{array}{cc}
-1& i\sqrt{\Lambda}\,U\\
i\sqrt{\Lambda}\,U& 1
\end{array}\right]\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$
- [Reduced hierarchy]{}: $$\begin{aligned}
&V^{[n]}_{z_1z_1z_1}- V^{[n]}_{ z_1}-U_{z_2}=0,\nonumber &\\
& V^{[j]}_{z_1z_1}-V^{[j]}+U\,\Omega^{(j+1)}=0,\quad \quad & j=1\dots n-1,\nonumber\\
&\left(\Omega^{[1]}\,U\right)_{z_1}-\frac{U}{2n}=0, &\nonumber\\
&\Omega^{[j]}_{z_1}=UV^{[j]}_{z_1},\quad \quad & j=1\dots n.\end{aligned}$$
**Reduction II.1. $a_2=0, b_2 \neq 0, a_3\neq 0, b_3=0.$** {#reduction-ii.1.-a_20-b_2-neq-0-a_3neq-0-b_30. .unnumbered}
----------------------------------------------------------
- Reduced variables: $$z_1=x-\frac{1}{b_2}\int A_1(y)\,dy, \qquad z_2=\frac{a_3\, t}{b_2}\,e^{\frac{-a_3y}{b_2}}.$$
- [Reduced parameter]{}: $$\lambda(y,t)=e^{\frac{-a_3y}{n\,b_2}}\,\Lambda(z_2),$$ where $\Lambda(z_2)$ satisfies the **non-isospectral condition** : $$\frac{d\Lambda(z_2)}{dz_2}=-\frac{\Lambda(z_2)^{n+1}}{n\left(1+z_2\Lambda(z_2)^n\right)}.$$
- [Reduced fields]{}: $$\begin{aligned}
& u(x,y,t)=e^{\frac{a_3y}{2n\,b_2}}\,U(z_1,z_2),\nonumber \\
& \omega^{[1]}(x,y,t)=\frac{A_1(y)}{b_2}+\frac{a_3}{b_2}\,\Omega^{[1]}(z_1,z_2),\nonumber \\
& \omega^{[j]}(x,y,t)=\frac{a_3}{b_2}\,e^{\frac{-a_3(j-1)y}{n\,b_2}}\,\Omega^{[j]}(z_1,z_2),\quad \quad j=2\dots n,\nonumber \\
& v^{[j]}(x,y,t)=\frac{a_3}{b_2}\,e^{\frac{-a_3(2j-1)y}{2n\,b_2}}\,V^{[j]}(z_1,z_2),\quad \quad j=1\dots n-1,\nonumber \\
& v^{[n]}(x,y,t)=e^{\frac{-a_3(2n-1)y}{2n\,b_2}}\left(\int \frac{A_n(y,t)\,e^{\frac{a_3(2n-1)y}{2n\,b_2}}}{b_2}\,dy+\frac{a_3}{b_2}\,V^{[n]}(z_1,z_2)\right),\nonumber \\
& \phi(x,y,t)=e^{\int\frac{\Gamma(y,z_2)}{b_2}\,dy}\,\Phi(z_1,z_2),\nonumber \\
& \psi(x,y,t)=e^{\int\frac{\Gamma(y,z_2)}{b_2}\,dy}\,\Psi(z_1,z_2),\nonumber \\
& p(x,y,t)=e^{\frac{-a_3(n-1)y}{n\,b_2}}\,\left(\frac{A_1(y)\,\Lambda(z_2)^{n-1}}{b_2}+\frac{a_3}{b_2}\,P(z_1,z_2)\right),\nonumber \\
& q(x,y,t)=e^{\frac{-a_3(2n-1)y}{2n\,b_2}}\left(\int \frac{A_n(y,t)\,e^{\frac{a_3(2n-1)y}{2n\,b_2}}}{b_2}\,dy+\frac{a_3}{b_2}\,Q(z_1,z_2)\right),\nonumber\\
& P(z_1,z_2)=\sum_{j=1}^n{\Lambda(z_2)^{n-j}\,\Omega^{[j]}(z_1,z_2)},\\
& Q(z_1,z_2)=\sum_{j=1}^{n}{\Lambda(z_2)^{n-j}\,V^{[j]}(z_1,z_2)},\nonumber\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the function $\Gamma(y,z_2)$ is obtained through the following identification: $$\Gamma(y,z_2)=\gamma\left(y,t=\frac{b_2}{a_3}\,e^{\frac{a_3}{b_2}}\right)$$ that yields: $$\gamma_t=\frac{a_3}{b_2}\,e^{\frac{-a_3y}{b_2}}\,\Gamma_{z_2},\quad\quad
\gamma_y=\Gamma_y-\frac{a_3}{b_2}z_2\,\Gamma_{z_2}.$$ Therefore, according to (\[3.4\]), $\Gamma(y,z_2)$ satisfies the equation: $$a_3(1+z_2\Lambda^n)\Gamma_{z_2}=b_2\Lambda^n\,\Gamma_y.$$
- [Reduced spectral problem]{}: $$\begin{aligned}
(1+z_2\Lambda^n)\left(\begin{array}{c}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right)_{z_2}&=\Lambda P \left(\begin{array}{c}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right)_{z_1}\nonumber \\ &+\frac{i\sqrt{\Lambda}}{2}\left[\begin{array}{cc}
0&Q_{z_1}-Q\\
Q_{z_1}+Q& 0
\end{array}\right]_{z_1}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right),\nonumber\\
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right)_{z_1}&=\frac{1}{2}\left[\begin{array}{cc}
-1& i\sqrt{\Lambda}\,U\\
i\sqrt{\Lambda}\,U& 1
\end{array}\right]\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$
- [Reduced hierarchy]{}:
$$\begin{aligned}
& V^{[n]}_{z_1z_1z_1}- V^{[n]}_{ z_1}-U_{z_2}=0, &\nonumber\\
& V^{[j]}_{z_1z_1}-V^{[j]}+U\,\Omega^{(j+1)}=0,\quad \quad & j=1\dots n-1,\nonumber\\
& \left(\Omega^{[1]}\,U\right)_{z_1}+\frac{U}{2n}-z_2U_{z_2}=0, & \nonumber\\
& \Omega^{[j]}_{z_1}=UV^{[j]}_{z_1},\quad \quad & j=1\dots n.\end{aligned}$$
**Reduction II.2.** $a_2=0, b_2 \neq 0, a_3=0, b_3\neq 0$. {#reduction-ii.2.-a_20-b_2-neq-0-a_30-b_3neq-0. .unnumbered}
----------------------------------------------------------
- Reduced variables: $$z_1=x-\int{\frac{A_1(y)}{b_2}\,dy}, \qquad z_2=y-\frac{b_2}{b_3}t.$$
- [Reduced parameter]{}: $$\lambda(y,t)=\left(\frac{b_2}{b_3}\right)^{\frac{1}{n}}\Lambda(z_2),$$ where $\Lambda(z_2)$ satisfies the **isospectral condition**: $$\frac{d\Lambda(z_2)}{dz_2}=0.$$
- [Reduced fields]{}: $$\begin{aligned}
& u(x,y,t)=\left(\frac{b_3}{b_2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2n}}\,U(z_1,z_2),\nonumber \\
& \omega^{[1]}(x,y,t)=\frac{A_1(y)}{b_2}+\Omega^{[1]}(z_1,z_2),\nonumber \\
& \omega^{[j]}(x,y,t)=\left(\frac{b_2}{b_3}\right)^{\frac{j-1}{n}}\,\Omega^{[j]}(z_1,z_2),\quad \quad j=2\dots n,\nonumber \\
& v^{[j]}(x,y,t)=\left(\frac{b_2}{b_3}\right)^{\frac{2j-1}{2n}}\,V^{[j]}(z_1,z_2),\quad \quad j=1\dots n-1,\nonumber \\
& v^{[n]}(x,y,t)=\frac{1}{b_2}\int A_n(y,t)\,dy+\left(\frac{b_2}{b_3}\right)^{\frac{2n-1}{2n}}\,V^{[n]}(z_1,z_2),\nonumber \\
& \phi(x,y,t)=e^{\int\frac{\Gamma(y,z_2)}{b_2}\,dy}\,\Phi(z_1,z_2),\nonumber \\
& \psi(x,y,t)=e^{\int\frac{\Gamma(y,z_2)}{b_2}\,dy}\,\Psi(z_1,z_2), \nonumber\\
& p(x,y,t)=\left(\frac{b_2}{b_3}\right)^{\frac{n-1}{n}}\,\left(\frac{A_1(y)\Lambda(z_2)^{n-1}}{b_2}+P(z_1,z_2)\right),\nonumber \\
& q(x,y,t)=\frac{1}{b_2}\int A_n(y,t)\,dy+\left(\frac{b_2}{b_3}\right)^{\frac{2n-1}{2n}}Q(z_1,z_2) .\nonumber\\
& P(z_1,z_2)=\sum_{j=1}^n{\Lambda(z_2)^{n-j}\,\Omega^{[j]}(z_1,z_2)},\\
& Q(z_1,z_2)=\sum_{j=1}^{n}{\Lambda(z_2)^{n-j}\,V^{[j]}(z_1,z_2)},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the function $\Gamma(y,z_2)$ is obtained through the following identification: $$\Gamma(y,z_2)=\gamma\left(y,t=\frac{b_3}{b_2}(y-z_2)\right)$$ that yields: $$\gamma_t=-\frac{b_2}{b_3}\,\Gamma_{z_2},\quad\quad\gamma_y=\Gamma_y+\Gamma_{z_2}.$$ Therefore, according to (\[3.4\]), $\Gamma(y,z_2)$ satisfies the equation: $$(1+\Lambda^n)\Gamma_{z_2}=-\Lambda^n\,\Gamma_y.$$
- [Reduced spectral problem]{}: $$\begin{aligned}
(1+\Lambda^n)\left(\begin{array}{c}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right)_{z_2}&=\Lambda P \left(\begin{array}{c}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right)_{z_1}\nonumber \\ &+\frac{i\sqrt{\Lambda}}{2}\left[\begin{array}{cc}
0&Q_{z_1}-Q\\
Q_{z_1}+Q& 0
\end{array}\right]_{z_1}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right),\nonumber\\
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right)_{z_1}&=\frac{1}{2}\left[\begin{array}{cc}
-1& i\sqrt{\Lambda}\,U\\
i\sqrt{\Lambda}\,U& 1
\end{array}\right]\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$
- [Reduced hierarchy]{}: $$\begin{aligned}
& V^{[n]}_{z_1z_1z_1}- V^{[n]}_{ z_1}+U_{z_2}=0, &\nonumber\\
& V^{[j]}_{z_1z_1}-V^{[j]}+U\,\Omega^{(j+1)}=0,\quad \quad & j=1\dots n-1,\nonumber\\
& \left(\Omega^{[1]}\,U\right)_{z_1}+U_{z_2}=0,& \nonumber\\
& \Omega^{[j]}_{z_1}=UV^{[j]}_{z_1},\quad \quad & j=1\dots n.\end{aligned}$$
**Reduction II.3. $a_2=0, b_2 \neq 0, a_3=0, b_3=0$.** {#reduction-ii.3.-a_20-b_2-neq-0-a_30-b_30. .unnumbered}
------------------------------------------------------
- Reduced variables: $$z_1=x-\int{\frac{A_1(y)}{b_2}\,dy}, \qquad z_2=t.$$
- [Reduced parameter]{}: $$\lambda(y,t)=\Lambda(z_2),$$ where $\Lambda(z_2)$ satisfies the **isospectral condition**: $$\frac{d\Lambda(z_2)}{dz_2}=0.$$
- [Reduced fields]{}: $$\begin{aligned}
& u(x,y,t)=U(z_1,z_2),\nonumber \\
& \omega^{[1]}(x,y,t)=\frac{A_1(y)}{b_2}+\Omega^{[1]}(z_1,z_2),\nonumber \\
& \omega^{[j]}(x,y,t)=\Omega^{[j]}(z_1,z_2),\quad \quad j=2\dots n,\nonumber \\
& v^{[j]}(x,y,t)=V^{[j]}(z_1,z_2),\quad \quad j=1\dots n-1,\nonumber \\
& v^{[n]}(x,y,t)=\frac{1}{b_2}\int A_n(y,t)\,dy+V^{[n]}(z_1,z_2),\nonumber \\
& \phi(x,y,t)=e^{\int\frac{\Gamma(y,z_2)}{b_2}\,dy}\,\Phi(z_1,z_2),\nonumber \\
& \psi(x,y,t)=e^{\int\frac{\Gamma(y,z_2)}{b_2}\,dy}\,\Psi(z_1,z_2),\nonumber \\
& p(x,y,t)=\frac{A_1(y)\Lambda(z_2)^{n-1}}{b_2}+P(z_1,z_2),\nonumber \\
& q(x,y,t)=\frac{1}{b_2}\int A_n(y,t)\,dy+Q(z_1,z_2),\nonumber\\
& P(z_1,z_2)=\sum_{j=1}^n{\Lambda(z_2)^{n-j}\,\Omega^{[j]}(z_1,z_2)},\\
& Q(z_1,z_2)=\sum_{j=1}^{n}{\Lambda(z_2)^{n-j}\,V^{[j]}(z_1,z_2)},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the function $\Gamma(y,z_2)$ is obtained through the following identification: $$\Gamma(y,z_2)=\gamma\left(y,t=z_2\right)$$ that yields: $$\gamma_t=\Gamma_{z_2},\quad\quad
\gamma_y=\Gamma_y.$$ Therefore, according to (\[3.4\]), $\Gamma(y,z_2)$ satisfies the equation: $$\Gamma_{z_2}=\Lambda^n\,\Gamma_y.$$
- [Reduced spectral problem]{}: $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right)_{z_2}&=\Lambda P \left(\begin{array}{c}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right)_{z_1}\nonumber \\ &+\frac{i\sqrt{\Lambda}}{2}\left[\begin{array}{cc}
0&Q_{z_1}-Q\\
Q_{z_1}+Q& 0
\end{array}\right]_{z_1}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right),\nonumber\\
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right)_{z_1}&=\frac{1}{2}\left[\begin{array}{cc}
-1& i\sqrt{\Lambda}\,U\\
i\sqrt{\Lambda}\,U& 1
\end{array}\right]\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$
- [Reduced hierarchy]{}: $$\begin{aligned}
& V^{[n]}_{z_1z_1z_1}- V^{[n]}_{ z_1}-U_{z_2}=0, &\nonumber\\
& V^{[j]}_{z_1z_1}-V^{[j]}+U\,\Omega^{(j+1)}=0,\quad \quad & j=1\dots n-1,\nonumber\\
& \left(\Omega^{[1]}\,U\right)_{z_1}=0, & \nonumber\\
& \Omega^{[j]}_{z_1}=UV^{[j]}_{z_1},\quad \quad & j=1\dots n.\end{aligned}$$
**Reduction III.1.** $a_2=0, b_2=0, a_3\neq 0, b_3=0$. {#reduction-iii.1.-a_20-b_20-a_3neq-0-b_30. .unnumbered}
------------------------------------------------------
- Reduced variables: $$z_1=x-\frac{A_1(y)}{a_3}\,\ln t, \qquad z_2=y.$$
- [Reduced parameter]{}: $$\lambda(y,t)=t^{\frac{-1}{n}}\,\Lambda(z_2),$$ where $\Lambda(z_2)$ satisfies the **nonisospectral condition**: $$n\frac{d\Lambda(z_2)}{dz_2}+\Lambda(z_2)^{1-n}=0.$$
- [Reduced fields]{}: $$\begin{aligned}
& u(x,y,t)=t^{\frac{1}{2n}}\,U(z_1,z_2),\nonumber \\
& \omega^{[1]}(x,y,t)=\frac{\ln(t)}{a_3}\,\frac{d\,A_1(y)}{dy}+\Omega^{[1]}(z_1,z_2),\nonumber \\
& \omega^{[j]}(x,y,t)=t^{\frac{1-j}{n}}\,\Omega^{[j]}(z_1,z_2),\quad \quad j=2\dots n,\nonumber \\
& v^{[j]}(x,y,t)=t^{\frac{1-2j}{2n}}\,V^{[j]}(z_1,z_2),\quad \quad j=1\dots n-1,\nonumber \\
& v^{[n]}(x,y,t)=t^{\frac{1-2n}{2n}}\,\left(\frac{1}{a_3}\int t^{\frac{-1}{2n}}\,A_n(y,t)\,dt+V^{[n]}(z_1,z_2)\right),\nonumber \\
& \phi(x,y,t)=e^{\int\frac{\Gamma(t,z_2)}{a_3t}\,dt}\,\Phi(z_1,z_2),\nonumber \\
& \psi(x,y,t)=e^{\int\frac{\Gamma(t,z_2)}{a_3t}\,dt}\,\Psi(z_1,z_2), \nonumber\\
& p(x,y,t)=t^{\frac{1-n}{n}}\,\left(\frac{\ln(t)\,\Lambda(z_2)^{n-1}}{a_3}\,\frac{d\,A_1(y)}{dy}+P(z_1,z_2)\right),\nonumber \\
& q(x,y,t)=t^{\frac{1-2n}{2n}}\,\left(\frac{1}{a_3}\int t^{\frac{-1}{2n}}\,A_n(y,t)\,dt+Q(z_1,z_2)\right),\nonumber\\
& P(z_1,z_2)=\sum_{j=1}^n{\Lambda(z_2)^{n-j}\,\Omega^{[j]}(z_1,z_2)},\\
& Q(z_1,z_2)=\sum_{j=1}^{n}{\Lambda(z_2)^{n-j}\,V^{[j]}(z_1,z_2)},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and the function $\Gamma(y,z_2)$ is obtained through the following identification: $$\Gamma(t,z_2)=\gamma\left(y=z_2,t\right)$$ that yields: $$\gamma_t=\Gamma_{t},\quad\quad
\gamma_y=\Gamma_{z_2}.$$ Therefore, according to (\[3.4\]), $\Gamma(y,z_2)$ satisfies the equation $$\Lambda^n\,\Gamma_{z_2}=t\,\Gamma_t.$$
- [Reduced spectral problem]{}:
$$\begin{aligned}
-\Lambda^n\left(\begin{array}{c}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right)_{z_2}&=\left(\Lambda P +\frac{\hat A_1}{a_3}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right)_{z_1}\nonumber \\ &+\frac{i\sqrt{\Lambda}}{2}\left[\begin{array}{cc}
0&Q_{z_1}-Q\\
Q_{z_1}+Q& 0
\end{array}\right]_{z_1}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right),\nonumber\\
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right)_{z_1}&=\frac{1}{2}\left[\begin{array}{cc}
-1& i\sqrt{\Lambda}\,U\\
i\sqrt{\Lambda}\,U& 1
\end{array}\right]\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$
and $\hat A_1=\hat A_1(z_2)=A_1(y=y(z_2)).$
- [Reduced hierarchy]{}: $$\begin{aligned}
& V^{[n]}_{z_1z_1z_1}- V^{[n]}_{ z_1}-\frac{U}{2n}+\frac{\hat A_1(z_2)}{a_3}U_{z_1}=0, &\nonumber\\
& V^{[j]}_{z_1z_1}-V^{[j]}+U\,\Omega^{(j+1)}=0,\quad \quad & j=1\dots n-1,\nonumber\\
& \left(\Omega^{[1]}\,U\right)_{z_1}+U_{z_2}=0, &\nonumber\\
& \Omega^{[j]}_{z_1}=UV^{[j]}_{z_1},\quad \quad & j=1\dots n.\end{aligned}$$
**Reduction III.2.** $a_2=0, b_2=0, a_3=0, b_3\neq 0$. {#reduction-iii.2.-a_20-b_20-a_30-b_3neq-0. .unnumbered}
------------------------------------------------------
- Reduced variables: $$z_1=x-\frac{A_1(y)\,t}{b_3}, \qquad z_2=\frac{1}{b_3}\,\int A_1(y)\,dy.$$
- [Reduced parameter]{}: $$\lambda(y,t)=\Lambda(z_2),$$ where $\Lambda(z_2)$ satisfies the **isospectral condition**: $$\frac{d\Lambda(z_2)}{dz_2}=0.$$
- [Reduced fields]{}: $$\begin{aligned}
& u(x,y,t)=U(z_1,z_2),\nonumber \\
& \omega^{[1]}(x,y,t)=\frac{t}{b_3}\frac{dA_1(y)}{dy}+\frac{A_1(y)}{b_3}\,\Omega^{[1]}(z_1,z_2),\nonumber \\
& \omega^{[j]}(x,y,t)=\frac{A_1(y)}{b_3}\,\Omega^{[j]}(z_1,z_2),\quad \quad j=2\dots n,\nonumber \\
& v^{[j]}(x,y,t)=\frac{A_1(y)}{b_3}\,V^{[j]}(z_1,z_2),\quad \quad j=1\dots n-1,\nonumber \\
& v^{[n]}(x,y,t)=\frac{1}{b_3}\int A_n(y,t)\,dt+\frac{A_1(y)}{b_3}\,V^{[n]}(z_1,z_2),\nonumber \\
& \phi(x,y,t)=e^{\int\frac{\Gamma(t,z_2)}{b_3}\,dt}\,\Phi(z_1,z_2),\nonumber \\
& \psi(x,y,t)=e^{\int\frac{\Gamma(t,z_2)}{b_3}\,dt}\,\Psi(z_1,z_2), \nonumber\\
& p(x,y,t)=\frac{t}{b_3}\,\frac{dA_1(y)}{dy}\,\Lambda^{n-1}+\frac{A_1(y)}{b_3}\,P(z_1,z_2),\nonumber \\
& q(x,y,t)=\frac{1}{b_3}\int A_n(y,t)\,dt+\frac{A_1(y)}{b_3}\,Q(z_1,z_2).\nonumber\\
& P(z_1,z_2)=\sum_{j=1}^n{\Lambda(z_2)^{n-j}\,\Omega^{[j]}(z_1,z_2)},\\
& Q(z_1,z_2)=\sum_{j=1}^{n}{\Lambda(z_2)^{n-j}\,V^{[j]}(z_1,z_2)},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the function $\Gamma(y,z_2)$ is obtained through the following identification: $$\Gamma(t,z_2)=\gamma\left(y=y(z_2),t\right)$$ that yields: $$\gamma_t=\Gamma_{t},\quad\quad\gamma_y=\frac{A_1}{a_3}\Gamma_{z_2}.$$ Therefore, according to (\[3.4\]), $\Gamma(y,z_2)$ satisfies the equation: $$\Lambda^n\,\Gamma_{z_2}=\frac{b_3}{\hat A_1(z_2)}\Gamma_t,\quad \hat A_1(z_2)=A_1(y=y(z_2)).$$
- [Reduced spectral problem]{}: $$\begin{aligned}
-\Lambda^n\left(\begin{array}{c}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right)_{z_2}&=\left(\Lambda P +1\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right)_{z_1}\nonumber\\&+\frac{i\sqrt{\Lambda}}{2}\left[\begin{array}{cc}
0&Q_{z_1}-Q\\
Q_{z_1}+Q& 0
\end{array}\right]_{z_1}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right),\nonumber\\
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right)_{z_1}&=\frac{1}{2}\left[\begin{array}{cc}
-1& i\sqrt{\Lambda}\,U\\
i\sqrt{\Lambda}\,U& 1
\end{array}\right]\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\Phi\\
\Psi
\end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$
- [Reduced hierarchy]{}: $$\begin{aligned}
& V^{[n]}_{z_1z_1z_1}- V^{[n]}_{ z_1}+U_{z_1}=0,& \nonumber\\
& V^{[j]}_{z_1z_1}-V^{[j]}+U\,\Omega^{(j+1)}=0,\quad \quad & j=1\dots n-1,\nonumber\\
& \left(\Omega^{[1]}\,U\right)_{z_1}+U_{z_2}=0, &\nonumber\\
& \Omega^{[j]}_{z_1}=UV^{[j]}_{z_1},\quad \quad & j=1\dots n.\end{aligned}$$
Conclusions
===========
We have searched for classical Lie point symmetries of the spectral problem associated with mCH(2+1). These symmetries depend on four arbitrary constants $a_2, b_2, a_3, b_3$ and two arbitrary functions $A_1(y)$ and $A_n(y,t)$, whereas an additional function $\gamma(y,t,\lambda)$ obeys condition (\[2.3\]). Each similarity reduction leads to a $1+1$ dimensional spectral problem, whose compatibility condition yields a reduced hierarchy in $1+1$ dimensions.
All the possible non-trivial reductions of such spectral problem have been summarized in eight different cases. We have explicitly derived these reductions and we have identified eight new integrable hierarchies in 1+1 dimensions. We consider of particular interest observing **how the spectral parameter and the eigenfunction reduce under the symmetry**. For six of the cases, the reduced spectral problem is non-isospectral. It is important to remark that non-isospectral problems in $1+1$ dimensions are not frequent. These results confirm the group interpretation of the spectral parameter proposed by other authors. [@levi1], [@levi2], [@cies1], [@cies2], [@cies3], [@cies4].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This research has been supported in part by the DGICYT under project FIS2009-07880. We also thank the referee for suggesting important references.
[99]{} M.J. Ablowitz, P.A. Clarkson, *Solitons, Non-linear evolution equations and Inverse Scattering*, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (1991). W.F. Ames, [*Non-linear Partial Differential Equations in Engineering*]{} [**2**]{}, Academic Press, New York (1972). G.W. Bluman, J.D. Cole, [*Similarity methods for differential equations*]{}, Springer-Verlag, New York (1974). O.I. Bogoyavlenskii, [*Russ. Math. Surv.*]{} [**45**]{} (1990) 1-86. M. Bruzón, P.G. Estévez, M.L. Gandarias and J. Prada [*J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.*]{} [**43**]{} (2010) 495204 (12p). F. Calogero, [*Lett. Nuov. Cim.*]{} [**14**]{} (1975) 443-447.
J. Cieśliński. [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**34**]{} (1993) 2372-2384.
J. Cieśliński, P. Goldstein and A. Sym [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**27**]{} (1994) 1645-1664.
J. Cieśliński, P. Goldstein and A. Sym [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**26**]{} (1993) L267-L271.
J. Cieśliński, P. Goldstein and A. Sym [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**205A**]{} (1995) 37-43.
P.A. Clarkson, P.R. Gordoa, A. Pickering, [*Inverse Problems*]{} [**13**]{} (1997) 1463-1476. R. Conte, *The Painleve Property. One Century Later*, Springer-Verlag, New York (1999). P.G. Estévez, J. Prada, *J. Nonlin. Math. Phys.* [**11**]{} (2004) 164-179. P.G. Estévez, M.L. Gandarias, J. Prada, [*Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**343**]{} (2005) 40-47. P.G. Estévez, J. Prada, *J. Nonlin. Math. Phys.* [**12**]{} (2005) 266-279. P.G. Estévez, J. Prada, *J. Phys. A: Math and Gen* [**38**]{} (2005) 1-11. P.G. Estévez, M.L. Gandarias, J. de Lucas, [*J. Nonlin. Math. Phys.*]{} [**50**]{} (2011) 2114-2124. P.G. Estévez, [*Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**375**]{} (2011) 537-540. P.G. Estévez, J.D. Lejarreta, C. Sardón, [*J. Nonlin. Math. Phys.*]{} [**1**]{} (2011) 1-20. P.G. Estévez and C. Sardón, arxiv.org/abs/1301.3636 (2013). J.M. Hill, [*Differential Equations and Group Methods for Scientists and Engineers*]{}, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL (1992). N. Kudryashov, A. Pickering, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**31**]{} (1998) 9505-9518. M. Legare, [*J. Nonlin. Math. Phys.*]{} [**3**]{} (1996) 266-285.
D. Levi and A. Sym and C.Z. Tu [*A working algorithm to isolate integrable surfaces in $E^3$*]{} [preprint 761. Dipartimento di Fisica. Universitá di Roma]{} (october 1990).
D. Levi and A. Sym [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**149A**]{} (1990) 381-387.
P.J. Olver, [*Applications of Lie Groups to Differential Equations*]{}, Springer-Verlag (1993). L.V. Ovsiannikov, [*Group Analysis of Differential Equations*]{}, Academic Press New York (1982). Z. Qiao, L. Liu, [*Chaos Solitons Fract.*]{} [**41**]{} (2009) 587-593. Z. Qiao, *J. Math. Phys.* [**48**]{} (2010) 042703 (23 pages). H. Stephani, [*Differential Equations. Their solutions using symmetries*]{}, edited by M.Mac Callum, Cambridge Univ. Press (1989).
J. Weiss, M. Tabor and G. Carnevale, *J. Math. Phys.* **24** (1983) 522-526.
H. Zhi, *Appl. Math. Comput.* **210** (2009) 530-535.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'This is the second of a series of papers aimed to look for an explanation on the generation of high frequency quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) in accretion disks around neutron star, black hole, and white dwarf binaries. The model is inspired by the general idea of a resonance mechanism in the accretion disk oscillations as was already pointed out by Abramowicz & Klu[ź]{}niak ([@Abramowicz2001]). In a first paper (Pétri [@Petri2005a], paper I), we showed that a rotating misaligned magnetic field of a neutron star gives rise to some resonances close to the inner edge of the accretion disk. In this second paper, we suggest that this process does also exist for an asymmetry in the gravitational potential of the compact object. We prove that the same physics applies, at least in the linear stage of the response to the disturbance in the system. This kind of asymmetry is well suited for neutron stars or white dwarfs possessing an inhomogeneous interior allowing for a deviation from a perfectly spherically symmetric gravitational field. After a discussion on the magnitude of this deformation applied to neutron stars, we show by a linear analysis that the disk initially in a cylindrically symmetric stationary state is subject to three kinds of resonances: a corotation resonance, a Lindblad resonance due to a driven force and a parametric resonance. In a second part, we focus on the linear response of a thin accretion disk in the 2D limit. Waves are launched at the aforementioned resonance positions and propagate in some permitted regions inside the disk, according to the dispersion relation obtained by a WKB analysis. In a last part, these results are confirmed and extended via non linear hydrodynamical numerical simulations performed with a pseudo-spectral code solving Euler’s equations in a 2D cylindrical coordinate frame. We found that for a weak potential perturbation, the Lindblad resonance is the only effective mechanism producing a significant density fluctuation. In a last step, we replaced the Newtonian potential by the so called logarithmically modified pseudo-Newtonian potential in order to take into account some general-relativistic effects like the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO). The latter potential is better suited to describe the close vicinity of a neutron star or a black hole. However, from a qualitative point of view, the resonance conditions remain the same. The highest kHz QPOs are then interpreted as the orbital frequency of the disk at locations where the response to the resonances are maximal. It is also found that strong gravity is not required to excite the resonances.'
author:
- Jérôme Pétri
date: 'Received / Accepted'
title: 'Forced oscillations in a hydrodynamical accretion disk and QPOs.'
---
INTRODUCTION
============
Accretion disks a very commonly encountered in the astrophysical context. In the case where the accreting star is a compact object, they offer a very efficient way to release the gravitational energy into X-ray emission. However the process of release of angular momentum leading to the accretion is still poorly understood. The discovery of the high frequency quasi-periodic oscillations (kHz-QPOs) in the Low Mass X-ray Binaries (LMXBs) in 1996 offers a new tool for the diagnostic of the physics in the innermost part of an accretion disk and therefore in a strong gravitational field.
To date, quasi-periodic oscillations have been observed in about twenty LMXBs sources containing an accreting neutron star. Among these systems, the high-frequency QPOs (kHz-QPOs) which mainly show up by pairs, possess strong similarities in their frequencies, ranging from 300 Hz to about 1300 Hz, and in their shape (see van der Klis [@vanderKlis2000] for a review).
Since this first discovery several models have been proposed to explain the kHz-QPOs phenomenon observed in LMXBs. A beat-frequency model was introduced to explain the commensurability between the twin kHz-QPOs frequency difference and the neutron star rotation. This interaction between the orbital motion and the star rotation happens at some preferred radius. Alpar & Shaham ([@Alpar1985]) and Shaham ([@Shaham1987]) proposed the magnetospheric radius to be the preferred radius leading to the magnetospheric beat-frequency model. The sonic-point beat-frequency model was suggested by Miller et al. ([@Miller1998]). In this model, the preferred radius is the point where the radial inflow becomes supersonic. But soon after, some new observations on Scorpius X-1 showed that the frequency difference is not constant (van der Klis et al. [@vanderKlis1997]). This was then confirmed in other LMXBs like 4U 1636-53 (Jonker et al. [@Jonker2002]). The sonic-point beat frequency model was then modified to take into account this new fact (Lamb & Miller [@Lamb2001]).
The relativistic precession model introduced by Stella & Vietri ([@Stella1998], [@Stella1999]) makes use of the motion of a single particle in the Kerr-spacetime. In this model, the kHz-QPOs frequency difference is related to the relativistic periastron precession of weakly elliptic orbits while the low-frequencies QPOs are interpreted as a consequence of the Lense-Thirring precession. Markovic & Lamb ([@Markovic1998]) have also suggested this precession in addition to some radiation warping torque which could explain the low frequency QPOs. More promisingly, Abramowicz & Klu[ź]{}niak ([@Abramowicz2001]) introduced a resonance between orbital and epicyclic motion that can account for the 3:2 ratio around Kerr black holes leading to an estimate of their mass and spin. Indeed, for black hole candidates the 3:2 ratio was first noticed by Abramowicz & Klu[ź]{}niak ([@Abramowicz2001]) who also recognized and stressed its importance. Abramowicz et al. ([@Abramowicz2003]) showed that the non-linear resonance for the geodesic motion of a test particle can lead to the 3:2 ratio for the two main resonances. Now the 3:2 ratio of black hole QPOs frequencies is well established (McClintock & Remillard, [@MacClintock2003]). Klu[ź]{}niak et al. ([@Kluzniak2004a]) showed that the twin kHz-QPOs can be explained by a non linear resonance in the epicyclic motion of the accretion disk. The idea that a resonance in modes of accretion disk oscillations may be excited by a coupling to the neutron star spin is discussed by Klu[ź]{}niak et al. ([@Kluzniak2004b]). Numerical simulations in which the disk was disturbed by an external periodic field confirmed this point of view (Lee et al. [@Lee2004]). Rebusco ([@Rebusco2004]) developed the analytical treatment of these oscillations. More recently, Török et al. ([@Torok2005]) applied this resonance to determine the spin of some microquasars. In other models, the QPOs are identified with gravity or pressure oscillation modes in the accretion disk (Titarchuk et al. [@Titarchuk1998], Wagoner et al. [@Wagoner2001]). Rezzolla et al. ([@Rezzolla2003]) suggested that the high frequency QPOs in black hole binaries are related to p-mode oscillations in a non Keplerian torus.
Nevertheless, the propagation of the emitted photons in curved spacetime can also produce some intrinsic peaks in the Fourier spectrum of the light curves (Schnittman & Bertschinger [@Schnittman2004]). Bursa et al. ([@Bursa2004]) suggested a gravitational lens effect exerting a modulation of the flux intensity induced by the vertical oscillations of the disk while simultaneously oscillating radially. The propagation in the curved spacetime reproduces also the 3:2 ratio observed in black hole binaries as shown by Schnittman & Rezzolla ([@Schnittman2005]).
Recent observations in accretion disks orbiting around white dwarfs, neutron stars or black holes have shown a strong correlation between their low and high frequencies QPOs (Mauche [@Mauche2002], Psaltis et al. [@Psaltis1999]). The relation is found to be the same for any kind of compact object. This correlation has been explained in terms of the centrifugal barrier model of Titarchuk et al. ([@Titarchuk2002]).
The very good agreement in the correlation of these low and high frequencies QPOs spanned over more than 6 order of magnitude leads us to the conclusion that the physical mechanism responsible for the oscillations should be the same for the neutron star systems, the black hole candidates and the cataclysmic variables (Warner et al. [@Warner2003]). Indeed, the presence or the absence of a solid surface, a magnetic field or an event horizon play no relevant role in the production of the X-ray variability (Wijnands [@Wijnands2001]). In this paper we propose a new resonance mechanism related to the evolution of the accretion disk in a non axisymmetric rotating gravitational field.
This kind of forced response induced in the disk has been mostly studied in the protoplanetary system or to explain rings around some planets like Saturn. In the former case, a planet evolving within the disk is responsible for the gravitational perturbation and should be treated in the framework of hydrodynamical equations (Tanaka [@Tanaka2002]). In binary systems, the companion exerts some torque on the accretion disk due to tidal forces. The spiral pattern excited at the Lindblad resonance propagates down to the inner boundary of the disk (Papaloizou & Pringle [@Papaloizou1977], Blondin [@Blondin2000]). Whereas in the later case, this role is devoted to the satellite and is well described (at least in first approximation) by non collisional equations of motion as for instance for the famous Saturn rings (Lissauer & Cuzzi [@Lissauer1982]). This simplified study helps to understand the physics of the resonance without any complication introduced by the gaseous pressure (or the radiation pressure) acting as a restoring force.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec:EquInit\], we describe the initial stationary state of the accretion disk and the nature of the gravitational potential perturbation, starting with a quadrupolar field to easily bring out the physics of the resonances and, then, generalizing to a gravitational field possessing several azimuthal modes in his Fourier transform. In Sec. \[sec:AnalLin\], the governing equation for the linear regime of the Lagrangian displacement is derived. Next, in Sec. \[sec:DisqueMince\], we show that the disk resonates due to the non axisymmetric component of the gravitational potential. We study in detail the linear response of a thin accretion disk which suffers no warping. Then a simplified three dimensional analysis is carried out in Sec. \[sec:AnaLinSimp\]. Finally, in Sec. \[sec:Simulation\], in order to study the evolution of the resonances on a longer timescale and in order to take into account all the non-linearities, we perform 2D numerical simulations by using a pseudo-spectral method which is compared to the linear results. First we apply this code to an accretion disk evolving in a Newtonian potential. The results are then extended to the calculation of a disk orbiting around a Kerr black hole by introducing a specific pseudo-Newtonian potential. We briefly discuss the results in Sec. \[sec:Discussion\]. The conclusions of this work and the possible generalization are presented in Sec. \[sec:Conclusion\].
THE INITIAL CONDITIONS {#sec:EquInit}
======================
In this section, we describe the initial hydrodynamical stationary configuration of the accretion disk evolving in a perfectly spherically symmetric gravitational potential created by the compact object. We then give some justifications for the origin of the gravitational perturbation.
The stationary state
--------------------
In the equilibrium state, the disk possesses a stationary axisymmetric configuration evolving in a spherically symmetric gravitational field generated by the central star. By axisymmetric we mean that every field is invariant under rotation along the symmetry axis $\partial/\partial\varphi=0$. The disk inner and outer edges are labeled by $R_1$ and $R_2$ respectively. All quantities possess only a $(r,z)$ dependence such that density $\rho$, pressure $p$ and velocity $\vec{v}$ are given by : $$\label{eq:GrandeurEq}
\rho = \rho(r,z), \;\; p = p(r,z), \;\; \vec{v} = r\,\Omega(r,z)\,\vec{e}_\varphi$$ We can for instance assume that the disk is locally in isothermal equilibrium and therefore uncouple the vertical $z$-structure from the radial $r$-structure (Pringle [@Pringle1981]). The gravitational attraction from the compact object is balanced by the centrifugal force and the pressure gradient in the radial direction while in the vertical direction we simply have the hydrostatic equilibrium. This gives : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Equilibre3D}
\rho \, g_\mathrm{r} - \frac{\partial p}{\partial r} & = & -\rho \, \frac{v_\varphi^2}{r} \\
\frac{\partial p}{\partial z} & = & \rho \, g_\mathrm{z}\end{aligned}$$ We need only to prescribe the initial density in the disk. Assuming a thin accretion disk, the gradient pressure will be negligible so that the motion remains close to the Keplerian rotation. When a rotating asymmetric component is added to the gravitational field, the equilibrium state will be disturbed and evolves to a new configuration where some resonances arise on some preferred radii which will be determined in Sec. \[sec:AnalLin\].
Gravitational potential of a rotating star
------------------------------------------
In the case of a rotating neutron star or white dwarf, the centrifugal force induces a deformation of its shape and breaks the spherical symmetry. The magnitude of this deformation depends on the equation of state adopted for the star.
Another reason for assuming a non spherical star is given by the deformation due to the strong magnetic stress existing in the neutron star’s interior (Bonazzola & Gourgoulhon [@Bonazzola1996]). The effect is very small with an ellipticity of the order of $10^{-3}$ to $10^{-6}$. If the magnetic axis is not aligned with the rotation axis of the star, the accretion disk will feel an asymmetric gravitational field rotating at the same speed as the compact object.
We assume that the star is a perfect source of energy which means that its spin rate remains constant in time. To this approximation, energy and angular momentum exchanges between star and disk has no influence on the compact object. This assumption will be used throughout the paper.
We insist on the fact that the goal of this paper is not to give an accurate description of the origin and the shape of the deformation but only to study the consequences of such a perturbation on the evolution of the accretion disk.
Let’s have a look on the shape of the potential induced by this deformation of the stellar crust. To the lowest order, in an appropriate coordinate frame attached to the star, the first contribution is quadrupolar, there is no dipolar component.
The tensor of the quadrupolar moment $D_{ij}$ can be reduced to a traceless diagonal tensor in an appropriate coordinate system $(x,y,z)$ corresponding to the principal axis of the ellipsoid formed by the star. In this particular coordinate frame we have $D_{ij}=0$ for $i\ne j$ and $D_\mathrm{xx} + D_\mathrm{yy} +
D_\mathrm{zz} = 0$. The perturbed Newtonian potential expressed in cylindrical coordinates $(r,\varphi,z)$ is then given by : $$\Phi(r,\psi,z) = - \frac{G\,M}{\sqrt{r^2+z^2}} \, \left( 1 +
\frac{r^2\, \cos^2\psi \, D_\mathrm{xx} + r^2\, \sin^2\psi \, D_\mathrm{yy} +
z^2 \, D_\mathrm{zz}}{2\,M\,(r^2+z^2)^2} \right)$$ This expression is only valid in the frame corotating with the star. Returning back to an inertial frame, i.e. the observer frame, energy and angular momentum are no longer conserved. Indeed, part of the rotational energy of the star will be injected in the motion of the accretion disk. This is the source of energy for the resonance to be maintained.
The physical relevant quantity is the perturbation in the gravitational field caused by the quadrupolar moment and in the frame corotating with the star, these components are given by : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:GraviteQuad}
\delta g_\mathrm{r} & = & - \, \frac{G\,M\,r}{(r^2+z^2)^{3/2}} \,
\frac{5 \, ( r^2 \, D_\mathrm{xx} \, \cos^2\psi + r^2 \, D_\mathrm{yy} \, \sin^2\psi
+ z^2 \, D_\mathrm{zz} ) - 2\, (r^2+z^2) \, ( D_\mathrm{xx} \,\cos^2\psi +
D_\mathrm{yy} \, \sin^2\psi) }{2\,M\,(r^2+z^2)^2} \nonumber \\
& & \\
\delta g_\varphi & = & \frac{G\,M\,r}{(r^2+z^2)^{3/2}} \,
\frac{(D_\mathrm{yy} - D_\mathrm{xx}) \, \cos\psi\,\sin\psi}{M\,(r^2+z^2)} \\
\delta g_\mathrm{z} & = & - \, \frac{G\,M\,z}{(r^2+z^2)^{3/2}} \,
\frac{5 \, ( r^2 \, D_\mathrm{xx} \, \cos^2\psi + r^2 \, D_\mathrm{yy} \, \sin^2\psi
+ z^2 \, D_\mathrm{zz} ) - 2\, (r^2+z^2) \, D_\mathrm{zz}}{2\,M\,(r^2+z^2)^2}\end{aligned}$$ To get the expression valid for a distant observer, at rest, we need to replace $\psi$ by $(\varphi-\Omega_*\,t)$ where we have introduced the rotation rate of the star by $\Omega_*$. This potential seems far from any realistic perturbation around a neutron star or a white dwarf. Nevertheless, it offers a well understandable insight into the resonances mechanisms by selecting solely a particular azimuthal mode $m$, namely the $m=2$ quadrupolar case here. This kind of gravitational perturbation is easily extended to more general shapes including any other mode $m$. The way to introduce naturally such a structure is explained in the next subsection.
Distorted stellar Newtonian gravitational field {#sec:PotentielBoiteux}
-----------------------------------------------
The potential described above is a simple estimate of a quadrupolar distortion induced by the rotation of the star. It introduce only one azimuthal mode, allowing for a tractable analytical linear analysis. Nevertheless, a more realistic view of the stellar field would include several modes. These components can be introduced naturally in the following way. We assume that the stellar interior is inhomogeneous and anisotropic. In some regions inside the star, there exist clumps of matter which locally generate a stronger or weaker gravitational potential than the average. In order to compute analytically such kind of gravitational field, we idealize this situation by assuming that the star is made of homogeneous and isotropic matter everywhere (with total mass $M_*$). To this perfect spherical geometry, we add a small mass point $M_\mathrm{p} \ll M_*$ located within the surface at a position $(R_\mathrm{p} \le R_*, \theta_\mathrm{p},\varphi_\mathrm{p}
= \Omega_*\,t)$. A finite size inhomogeneity can then be thought as a linear superposition of such point masses.
Using spherical coordinates, the total gravitational potential induced by this rotating star is : $$\label{eq:PotBoiteux}
\Phi(R,\theta,\varphi,t) = - \frac{G\,M_*}{|| \vec{R} ||} -
\frac{G\,M_\mathrm{p}}{|| \vec{R} - \vec{R_\mathrm{p}} ||}
$$ where the first term in the right hand side corresponds to the unperturbed spherically symmetric gravitational potential whereas the second term is induced by the small point like inhomogeneity. For simplicity, in the remainder of this paper, we suppose that the perturber $M_\mathrm{p}$ is located in the equatorial plane of the star $\theta_\mathrm{p} = \pi/2$. The potential therefore becomes : $$\label{eq:PotBoiteuxSimpl}
\Phi(R,\theta, \psi) = - \frac{G\,M_*}{R} -
\frac{G\,M_\mathrm{p}}{\sqrt{R^2 + R_\mathrm{p}^2 - 2 \, R \, R_\mathrm{p} \, \cos\psi }}$$ where the azimuth in the corotating frame is $\psi=\varphi-\Omega_*\,t$. These potential can be Fourier decomposed by using the Laplace coefficients $b_{1/2}^m(x)$ as follows : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:PotFourier}
\Phi(R,\theta,\psi) & = & - \frac{G\,M_*}{R} -
\frac{G\,M_\mathrm{p}}{R} \, \sum_{m=0}^{+\infty} b_{1/2}^m\left( \frac{R_\mathrm{p}}{R} \right)
\cos(m\,\psi) \\
\label{eq:CoeffLaplace}
b_{1/2}^m(x) & = & \frac{2-\delta_0^m}{2\,\pi} \, \int_0^{2\,\pi}
\frac{ \cos(m\,\psi)}{1 + x^2 - 2\,x\,\cos\psi} \, d\psi\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta_0^m$ represents the Kronecker symbol. The total linear response of the disk is then the sum of each perturbation corresponding to one particular mode $m$. It is a generalization of the quadrupolar field introduced in the previous section.
Having in mind to applied this results to a thin accretion disk, it is preferable to use cylindrical coordinates such as : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:PotBoiteuxCyl}
\Phi(r,\varphi,z,t) & = & - \frac{G\,M_*}{\sqrt{r^2+z^2}} -
\frac{G\,M_\mathrm{p}}{\sqrt{r^2 + r_\mathrm{p}^2 - 2 \, r \, r_\mathrm{p} \, \cos\psi + (z-z_\mathrm{p})^2 }} \\
& = & - \frac{G\,M_*}{\sqrt{r^2+z^2}} -
\frac{G\,M_\mathrm{p}}{\sqrt{r^2+z^2}} \,
\sum_{m=0}^{+\infty} b_{1/2}^m\left( \frac{r_\mathrm{p}}{\sqrt{r^2+z^2}} \right)
\cos(m\,\psi) \end{aligned}$$ The second expression as been obtained by assuming that the inhomogeneity is located in the equatorial plane $z_\mathrm{p}=0$. The perturber is located inside the star and the disk never reaches the stellar surface, therefore the Laplace coefficients $b_{1/2}^m(x)$ never diverge because $x\le1$. Moreover, because of the term $\cos(m\,\psi)$ in the integrand Eq. (\[eq:CoeffLaplace\]), the value of the Laplace coefficients decreases rapidly with the azimuthal number $m$. As a result, only the low azimuthal modes will influence significantly the evolution of the disk. Keeping only the few first terms in the expansion is sufficient to achieve reasonable accuracy. An example of the numerical values of the Laplace coefficients $b_{1/2}^m(x)$ for $x=0.5$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:CoeffLaplace\].
![Laplace coefficients for the perturbed potential Eq. (\[eq:PotBoiteuxCyl\]) for $x=0.5$. Values are plotted on a logarithmic scale ($\log_{10}[b_{1/2}^m(x)]$) for $m\in[0..10]$.[]{data-label="fig:CoeffLaplace"}](ASTR353f1new.eps)
LINEAR ANALYSIS {#sec:AnalLin}
===============
How will the disk react to the presence of this quadrupolar or multipolar component in the gravitational field? To answer this question, we can first study its linear response. To do this, we treat each multipolar component as a small perturbation to the equilibrium state prescribed in Sec. \[sec:EquInit\]. The hydrodynamical equations of the accretion disk with adiabatic motion are given by : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:DiscHydroDens}
\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial t} + {\mathrm{div}\,}(\rho\,\vec{v}) & = & 0 \\
\label{eq:DiscHydroVit}
\frac{\partial\vec{v}}{\partial t} + (\vec{v}\cdot{\vec{\nabla}\,})
\, \vec{v} & = & \vec{g} - \frac{{\vec{\nabla}\,}p}{\rho} \\
\label{eq:DiscHydroPres}
\frac{D}{Dt} \left( \frac{p}{\rho^\gamma} \right) & = & 0\end{aligned}$$ All quantities have their usual meanings, $\rho$ being the density of mass in the disk, $\vec{v}$ the velocity of the disk, $p$ the gaseous pressure, $\gamma$ the adiabatic index and $\vec{g}$ the gravitational field imposed by the star. Since we are not interested in the accretion process itself, we neglect the viscosity whatever its origin (molecular, turbulent, etc...).
Lagrangian displacement
-----------------------
Perturbing the equilibrium state with respect to the Lagrangian displacement $\vec{\xi}$, to first order we get for the Eulerian perturbations of the density, velocity and pressure : $$\begin{aligned}
\delta\rho & = & - \, {\mathrm{div}\,}(\rho\,\vec{\xi}) \\
\delta\vec{v} & = & \frac{\partial\vec{\xi}}{\partial t} +
(\vec{v} \cdot {\vec{\nabla}\,}) \, \vec{\xi} - (\vec{\xi} \cdot {\vec{\nabla}\,}) \, \vec{v} \\
\delta p & = & - \, \vec{\xi}\cdot{\vec{\nabla}\,}p - \gamma\,p\,{\mathrm{div}\,}\vec{\xi}\end{aligned}$$ Making allowance for a perturbation in the gravitational field and following the Frieman-Rotenberg analysis (Frieman & Rotenberg [@Frieman1960]), the Lagrangian displacement satisfies a second order linear partial differential equation : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:PDEXi}
\rho\,\frac{\partial^2\vec{\xi}}{\partial t^2} + 2\,\rho\,\vec{v}\cdot\vec{\nabla}\,
\frac{\partial\vec{\xi}}{\partial t} - \vec{\nabla}(\gamma\,p\,{\mathrm{div}\,}\vec{\xi}
+ \vec{\xi}\cdot\vec{\nabla}\,p) -
{\mathrm{div}\,}(\rho\,\vec{\xi}\,\vec{v}\cdot\vec{\nabla}\,\vec{v} -
\rho\,\vec{v}\,\vec{v}\cdot\vec{\nabla}\,\vec{\xi}) \nonumber & & \\
+ \vec{g} \, {\mathrm{div}\,}(\rho\,\vec{\xi}) + {\mathrm{div}\,}( \rho \, \vec{\xi} ) \, \delta \vec{g}
& = & \rho \, \delta \vec{g}\end{aligned}$$ We emphasize the fact that the last expression in the above equation contains a term ${\mathrm{div}\,}( \rho \, \vec{\xi} ) \, \delta \vec{g}$ which is of second order with respect to the perturbation and therefore should be neglected. But in doing so, we suppress the parametric resonance which will be studied in more detail below. Depending on the magnitude of the perturbation, this instability will develop on a timescale closely related to the amplitude of the perturbation and should then not be ignored.
Introducing the convictive derivative by $D/Dt = \partial_t +
\Omega\,\partial_\varphi$, we get for Eq. (\[eq:PDEXi\]) a more concise form : $$\label{eq:PDEXi2}
\rho\,\frac{D^2\vec{\xi}}{Dt^2} - \vec{\nabla}(\gamma\,p\,{\mathrm{div}\,}\vec{\xi}
+ \vec{\xi}\cdot\vec{\nabla}\,p) -
{\mathrm{div}\,}(\rho\,\vec{\xi}\,\vec{v}\cdot\vec{\nabla}\,\vec{v} )
+ \vec{g} \, {\mathrm{div}\,}(\rho\,\vec{\xi}) +
{\mathrm{div}\,}( \rho \, \vec{\xi} ) \, \delta \vec{g} = \rho \, \delta \vec{g}$$ Usually, when evolving in an axisymmetric gravitational field, the above equation reduces to its traditional form where $\delta\vec{g}=\vec{0}$. However, in our treatment, due to the gravitational perturbation, a driving force given by $\rho \, \delta
\vec{g}$ appears. Moreover a parametric resonance is also involved due to the term ${\mathrm{div}\,}( \rho \, \vec{\xi} ) \, \delta \vec{g}$. This will be explained in the next section.
Finding an analytical stability criteria for this system is complicated or even an impossible task. Furthermore, we cannot apply the classical development in plane wave solutions leading to an eigenvalue problem. Indeed, the presence of some coefficients varying periodically in time including $\delta \vec{g}$ prevent from such a treatment. However, the problem can be cast into a more convenient form if we treat each component of the Lagrangian displacement as independent variables and set the other two components equal to zero. This simplified 3D analysis is done in section \[sec:AnaLinSimp\]. But before, we make a complete 2D linear analysis of Eq. (\[eq:PDEXi2\]) in the following section.
THIN DISK APPROXIMATION {#sec:DisqueMince}
=======================
If we neglect the warping of the accretion disk, we can carry out a more complete 2D linear analysis. Indeed, for a thin accretion disk, its height $H$ is negligible compared to its radius $R$, $(H/R)
\approx (c_\mathrm{s}/R\,\Omega) \ll 1$. We can give a detailed analysis of the response of the disk to a linear perturbation by setting $\xi_\mathrm{z} = 0$ in the Eq. (\[eq:PDEXi\]) or Eq. (\[eq:PDEXi2\]).
We seek solutions by writing each [*perturbation*]{}, such as the components of the Lagrangian displacement $\vec{\xi}$, those of the [*perturbed*]{} velocity $\delta\vec{v}$, the [*perturbed*]{} density $\delta \rho$, and the [*perturbed*]{} pressure $\delta p$ as $$\label{eq:DvlptX}
X(r,\varphi,t) = {\rm Re} [\tilde{X}(r) \, e^{i(m\,\varphi-\sigma\,t)}],$$ where $m$ is the azimuthal wavenumber and $\sigma$ the eigenfrequency of the perturbation related to the speed pattern $\Omega_\mathrm{p}$ by $\sigma = m\,\Omega_\mathrm{p}$.
Introducing the new unknown $\psi=\sqrt{r\,p}\,\xi_\mathrm{r}$, it can be shown that the problem reduces to the solution of a Schrödinger type equation, (see Appendix \[sec:AppDerSystProp\]) : $$\label{eq:PsiSimp}
\psi''(r) + V(r) \, \psi(r) = F(r)$$ Eq. (\[eq:PsiSimp\]) is the fundamental equation we have to solve to find the solutions to our problem far from the corotation resonance. We refer the reader to Appendix B of (Pétri [@Petri2005a], paper I) where we give an analytical method to find approximate solutions to this equation.
The solutions of Eq. (\[eq:PsiSimp\]) divide into two classes of different nature. The first one corresponds to free wave solutions propagating in the accretion disk an associated with the homogeneous part, $F(r)=0$. This gives rise to an eigenvalue problem in which the pattern speed of the perturbation is determined by the specific boundary conditions. The second one consists of a non-wavelike disturbance associated with the inhomogeneous part, $F(r)\ne0$ due to the gravitational perturbation. Here, the pattern speed of the density perturbation is known and equal to the compact object rotation rate. Therefore, there is no eigenvalue problem at this stage, we need only to solve an usual ordinary differential equation with prescribed initial conditions.
For the purpose of numerical applications, the density profile in the disk has the form $\rho_0(r)=\frac{10^{-6}}{r}$. The adiabatic constant is equal to $\gamma=5/3$. The validity of the thin disk approximation in the Newtonian and in the Schwarzschild case is verified by plotting the ratio $H/R$ as shown in Fig. \[fig:Epaisseur\]. We now discuss them in more details in the next subsections.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Thin disk approximation in the Newtonian case, on the left and in the Schwarzschild case, on the right. The ratio $H/R=c_\mathrm{s}/R\,\Omega$ is plotted and remains less than $1/10$ in the whole disk.[]{data-label="fig:Epaisseur"}](ASTR353f2new.eps "fig:") ![Thin disk approximation in the Newtonian case, on the left and in the Schwarzschild case, on the right. The ratio $H/R=c_\mathrm{s}/R\,\Omega$ is plotted and remains less than $1/10$ in the whole disk.[]{data-label="fig:Epaisseur"}](ASTR353f3new.eps "fig:")
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free wave solutions
-------------------
We compute the free wave solutions in order to show the influence of the location of the inner boundary of the disk. When the disk approaches the ISCO, the eigenfrequency of the waves increases. Let’s start with a rough estimate. Looking for free wave solutions, a crude estimate for the radial dependence is given by the WKB expansion as follows : $$\label{eq:OndeLibre}
\Psi(r) = \Phi(r) \, e^{i\int^r k(s) \, ds}$$ Putting this approximation into Eq. (\[eq:PsiSimp\]), the dispersion relation is given by : $$\label{eq:Dispersion}
\omega^2 = \kappa^2 + c_\mathrm{s}^2 \, k^2$$ Free waves can only propagate in regions where $\omega^2 -
\kappa^2=V(r)\,c_\mathrm{s}^2\ge0$. The frontier between propagating and damping zone is defined by the inner and outer Lindblad radius $r_\mathrm{L}^{in/out}$ defined by $V(r_\mathrm{L}^{in/out}) =
0$. Using the results of Appendix B of paper I, we can guess a better approximation to the solution of the homogeneous Eq. (\[eq:PsiSimp\]) which is valid even for $r\approx
r_\mathrm{L}^{in/out}$. For the inner Lindblad resonance which is of interest here, we introduce the following function $\omega_1$, writing $r_\mathrm{L}=r_\mathrm{L}^{in}$ : $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_1(r) & = & - \left[ - \frac{3}{2} \, \int_{r_\mathrm{L}}^r \sqrt{V(s)} \, ds \right]^{2/3}
\mathrm{for\;} r \le r_\mathrm{L} \\
\omega_1(r) & = & \left[ \frac{3}{2} \, \int_{r_\mathrm{L}}^r \sqrt{-V(s)} \, ds \right]^{2/3}
\mathrm{for\;} r \ge r_\mathrm{L}\end{aligned}$$ The function $\psi$ is then a linear combination of the 2 linearly independent solutions : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:SolXi2}
\psi_1(r) & = & \frac{Ai(\omega_1(r))}{\sqrt{|\omega_1'(r)|}} \\
\psi_2(r) & = & \frac{Bi(\omega_1(r))}{\sqrt{|\omega_1'(r)|}}\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, we impose the solution to remain bounded as one boundary condition, which leads to $C_2=0$. Thus the solution for the Lagrangian displacement is : $\xi_\mathrm{r} =
C_1\,\psi_1(r)/\sqrt{r\,p}$. At the inner boundary of the accretion disk, the Lagrangian pressure perturbation should vanish. This is expressed as $\Delta p=0$ or equivalently ${\mathrm{div}\,}\vec{\xi}=0$. To the lowest order consistent with our approximation, the Lagrangian radial displacement $\xi_\mathrm{r}$ must satisfy : $$\label{eq:Boundary}
\xi'(R_1) + \left( 1 + 2\,m\,\frac{\Omega}{\omega} \right) \, \frac{\xi_\mathrm{r}(R_1)}{R_1} = 0$$ This last condition determines the eigenfrequencies $\sigma$ as a function of the azimuthal mode $m$. For any $m$, there is an infinite set of eigenvalues. However, the corresponding eigenfunctions become more and more oscillatory, implying larger and larger wavenumber. In the numerical applications, we shall restrict our attention to the ten first one corresponding also to the highest values $\sigma$.
The eigenvalues for the density waves are shown with decreasing value in Table \[tab:Eigenvalue\]. This holds for a neutron star with angular velocity $\nu_*=\Omega_*/2\pi=100$ Hz. We compared the Newtonian case with the Schwarzschild metric. The highest speed pattern given by $\sigma/m$ never exceeds the orbital frequency at the ISCO.
[c c c | c c c]{}\
&\
$m=2$ & $m=5$ & $m=10$ & $m=2$ & $m=5$ & $m=10$\
0.838519 & 3.55997 & 8.22185 & 1.34337 & 4.01528 & 8.62713\
0.60303 & 2.9742 & 7.26843 & 0.916075 & 3.2938 & 7.56642\
0.468333 & 2.6023 & 6.6388 & 0.688728 & 2.84633 & 6.87224\
0.373567 & 2.32075 & 6.15182 & 0.53807 & 2.51832 & 6.34571\
0.302154 & 2.09279 & 5.74874 & 0.42896 & 2.25799 & 5.91539\
0.246424 & 1.90117 & 5.40309 & 0.346084 & 2.04223 & 5.5494\
0.20198 & 1.73634 & 5.09951 & 0.281241 & 1.85881 & 5.22998\
0.166046 & 1.592 & 4.82837 & 0.229963 & 1.69932 & 4.94587\
0.136682 & 1.46451 & 4.58301 & 0.188738 & 1.55983 & 4.68884\
0.112755 & 1.35037 & 4.36067 & 0.153789 & 1.43488 & 4.45707\
Some examples of the corresponding eigenfunctions for the density waves are shown in Fig. \[fig:FnPropre\] with arbitrary normalization. Each of them possesses its own inner Lindblad radius depending on the eigenvalue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Density wave perturbation in the disk caused by the free wave propagation for the azimuthal mode $m=2$. Some examples are shown for different eigenvalues and for the Newtonian geometry, on the left, as well as for Schwarzschild one, on the right. The vertical bar indicates the location of the inner Lindblad resonance. The normalization of the eigenfunctions is arbitrary.[]{data-label="fig:FnPropre"}](ASTR353f4new.eps "fig:") ![Density wave perturbation in the disk caused by the free wave propagation for the azimuthal mode $m=2$. Some examples are shown for different eigenvalues and for the Newtonian geometry, on the left, as well as for Schwarzschild one, on the right. The vertical bar indicates the location of the inner Lindblad resonance. The normalization of the eigenfunctions is arbitrary.[]{data-label="fig:FnPropre"}](ASTR353f5new.eps "fig:")
![Density wave perturbation in the disk caused by the free wave propagation for the azimuthal mode $m=2$. Some examples are shown for different eigenvalues and for the Newtonian geometry, on the left, as well as for Schwarzschild one, on the right. The vertical bar indicates the location of the inner Lindblad resonance. The normalization of the eigenfunctions is arbitrary.[]{data-label="fig:FnPropre"}](ASTR353f6new.eps "fig:") ![Density wave perturbation in the disk caused by the free wave propagation for the azimuthal mode $m=2$. Some examples are shown for different eigenvalues and for the Newtonian geometry, on the left, as well as for Schwarzschild one, on the right. The vertical bar indicates the location of the inner Lindblad resonance. The normalization of the eigenfunctions is arbitrary.[]{data-label="fig:FnPropre"}](ASTR353f7new.eps "fig:")
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a real accretion disk, the precise location of its inner edge does not necessarily reach the ISCO, but can fluctuate due to the varying accretion rate. For instance when the accretion process is enhanced, the inner edge moves closer to the ISCO. As a results the highest eigenvalue of the free waves also increases, see Fig. \[fig:FnPropreRad\]. When the ISCO is reached, the eigenvalues does not change anymore because the boundary conditions remains at the ISCO and the eigenfrequencies saturate. This kind of saturation of the QPO frequency has been observed in some LMXB as reported for instance in a paper by Zhang et al. ([@Zhang1998]). The accretion disk has probably reached its ISCO in this particular system. Relating the free wave solutions to this QPO cut off mechanism is not obvious at this stage of our study. Indeed, exciting the waves with a frequency (the star rotation rate $\Omega_*$) different from its eigenfrequency ($\sigma$) would require a non-linear process not taken into account in our model so far. However, we will show that already in the linear stage, for sufficiently strong amplitude in the perturbation field, the parametric resonance explains some interesting features of the kHz QPOs (see Sec. \[sec:Parametric\]).
![Variation of the highest eigenvalue, corresponding to the eigenfunction having no node, as a function of the location of the inner edge of the disk $R_\mathrm{in}$. There is a monotonic increase as the disk approaches the ISCO at $R_\mathrm{in} = 6 \,
R_\mathrm{g}$. Results are shown for the $m=2,5$ modes in the Newtonian (N) and Schwarzschild (S) spacetime, respectively red and blue curves. The gravitational radius is defined by $R_\mathrm{g} = G\,M_*/c^2$.[]{data-label="fig:FnPropreRad"}](ASTR353f8new.eps)
Driven wave perturbations {#sec:Nonwave}
-------------------------
These driven waves are useful to check our numerical scheme described in Sec. \[sec:Simulation\]. Indeed, in the non-linear simulation, the free wave solutions decay and only the forced solution will survive on a very long timescale. We now solve the full inhomogeneous Eq. (\[eq:PsiSimp\]) to seek for the solution corresponding to the non-wavelike perturbation in the case of a quadrupolar field perturbation. The quadrupolar momentum of the gravitational field due to the non-spherical rotating star is given by : $$\begin{aligned}
\delta g_\mathrm{r}(r,\varphi,t) & = & \frac{3}{4} \, \frac{G}{r^4} \, \left(
D_\mathrm{xx} + D_\mathrm{yy} + (D_\mathrm{xx} - D_\mathrm{yy} ) \, e^{2\,i\,(\varphi - \Omega_*\,t)} \right) \\
\delta g_\varphi(r,\varphi,t) & = & \frac{i}{2} \, \frac{G}{r^4} \, (D_\mathrm{xx} - D_\mathrm{yy} )
\, e^{2\,i\,(\varphi - \Omega_*\,t)}\end{aligned}$$ In the numerical applications, we choose $D_\mathrm{xx}$ and $D_\mathrm{yy}$ such that $D_\mathrm{xx}+D_\mathrm{yy}$ remains negligible with respect to $D_\mathrm{xx}-D_\mathrm{yy}$. In the complex amplitudes of $\delta g_\mathrm{r/\varphi}$ we therefore only keep the radial dependence for the mode $m=2$. Thus : $$\begin{aligned}
\delta g_\mathrm{r}(r) & = & \frac{3}{4} \, \frac{G}{r^4} \, (D_\mathrm{xx} - D_\mathrm{yy} ) \\
\delta g_\varphi(r) & = & \frac{i}{2} \, \frac{G}{r^4} \, (D_\mathrm{xx} - D_\mathrm{yy} )\end{aligned}$$ We have to solve the second order ordinary differential equation for $\psi$ with the appropriate boundary conditions Eq. (\[eq:Boundary\]). The solution is : $$\label{eq:PsiPart}
\psi_\mathrm{r}(r) = C_1 \, \psi_1(r) + C_2 \, \psi_2(r) +
\pi \, \mathrm{sign}(\omega_1'(r)) \, \int_{r_\mathrm{L}}^r \left( \psi_1(r) \, \psi_2(s)
- \psi_1(s) \, \psi_2(r) \right) F(s) \, ds$$ The constant $C_2$ is chosen such that the solution remains bounded for $r\gg r_\mathrm{L}$ : $$\label{eq:C2}
C_2 = \lim_{r\to\infty} \pi \, \mathrm{sign}(\omega_1') \, \int_{r_\mathrm{L}}^r
\psi_1(s) \, F(s) \, ds$$ This integral is convergent because the function $\psi_1$ is exponentially decreasing with the radius.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Non-wavelike density perturbation in a Newtonian potential, on the left, and in a Schwarzschild potential, on the right, for the mode $m=2$ and the speed pattern $\sigma=2\,\Omega_*$. The amplitude of the disturbances is related to the strength of the gravitational perturbation and is therefore not arbitrary.[]{data-label="fig:SolForcee"}](ASTR353f9new.eps "fig:") ![Non-wavelike density perturbation in a Newtonian potential, on the left, and in a Schwarzschild potential, on the right, for the mode $m=2$ and the speed pattern $\sigma=2\,\Omega_*$. The amplitude of the disturbances is related to the strength of the gravitational perturbation and is therefore not arbitrary.[]{data-label="fig:SolForcee"}](ASTR353f10new.eps "fig:")
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The analytical solutions Eq. (\[eq:PsiPart\]) agree well with the direct numerical integration of Eq. (\[eq:PsiSimp\]). On the Fig. \[fig:SolForcee\], there is no graphical distinction between them nor for the Newtonian potential neither for the Schwarzschild field.
Corotation resonance
--------------------
The corotation resonance is defined by the radius $r_\mathrm{c}$ where $\omega_*(r_\mathrm{c}) = 0$. Actually, this equation possesses two solutions corresponding to $\omega(r_\mathrm{c}) = \pm
\frac{m\,c_\mathrm{s}(r_\mathrm{c})}{r_\mathrm{c}}$. The width of this region is of the order of the disk height $O(H)$. For very thin disks, this discrepancy can be neglected and the two solutions merge together in an unique corotation radius given by $\omega(r_\mathrm{c})
= 0$. In other words, we assume in this case that $\omega=\omega_*$. However, in our numerical application, the separation between the two corotation radii is large enough to be resolved. For the detailed study of both corotation, we have to use the more accurate Eq. (\[eq:AppXiRCorot\]). Keeping only the leading divergent terms in the coefficients of the ordinary differential equation, we obtain : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:XiRCorot2}
\frac{m^2\,c_\mathrm{s}^4}{r^2\,\omega_*^2} \, \xi_\mathrm{r}''(r) + \frac{m^2\,c_\mathrm{s}^4}{r^2} \,
\frac{d}{dr}\left(\frac{1}{\omega_*^2}\right) \, \xi_\mathrm{r}'(r) +
2\, \frac{m\,c_\mathrm{s}^2\,\Omega\,\omega}{r} \,
\frac{d}{dr}\left(\frac{1}{\omega_*^2}\right) \, \xi_\mathrm{r}(r)
= i \frac{m\,c_\mathrm{s}^2}{r} \, \frac{d}{dr}
\left( \frac{1}{\omega_*^2} \right) \, \delta g_\varphi(r) \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ We introduce the new independent variable : $$\label{eq:rc2x}
x = \frac{r-r_\mathrm{c}}{r_\mathrm{c}}$$ Developing $\omega_*$ to the first order around the corotation radius $r_\mathrm{c}$ we have : $$\omega_*(r) = \omega_*(r_\mathrm{c}) + (r-r_\mathrm{c})\,\omega_*'(r_\mathrm{c}) + o(r-r_\mathrm{c})
= x\,r_\mathrm{c}\,\omega_*'(r_\mathrm{c}) + o(x) \approx \alpha \, x$$ To this approximation, we have to solve : $$\label{eq:diff}
\xi_\mathrm{r}''(x) - \frac{2}{x} \, \xi_\mathrm{r}'(x) -
4 \, \frac{\Omega\,\omega\,r_\mathrm{c}^2}{m\,c_\mathrm{s}^2\,x} \, \xi_\mathrm{r}(x) =
-2\,i\,\frac{r_\mathrm{c}^2\,\delta g_\varphi(r_\mathrm{c})}{m\,c_\mathrm{s}^2\,x}$$ This is of the form : $$\label{eq:yODE}
y''(x) - \frac{2}{x} \, y'(x) - \frac{b}{x} \, y(x) = \frac{c}{x}$$ with $b=4 \, \frac{\Omega\,\omega\,r_\mathrm{c}^2}{m\,c_\mathrm{s}^2\,x}\ge0$ and $c=-2\,i\,\frac{r_\mathrm{c}^2\,\delta g_\varphi(r_\mathrm{c})}{m\,c_\mathrm{s}^2}$. Making the change of variable $t=2\,\sqrt{b\,x}$ and introducing the new unknown $v(t)$ by $y(t)=t^3\,v(t)$, it can be shown that $v(t)$ satisfies the modified Bessel equation of order 3 : $$\label{eq:BesselModif}
v''(t) + \frac{1}{t} \, v'(t) - ( 1 + \frac{9}{t^2} ) \, v(t) = 0$$ This is solved by : $$\label{eq:BesselModifSol}
v(t) = C_1 \, I_{3}(t) + C_2 \, K_{3}(t)$$ Thus, the complete most general solution to Eq. (\[eq:diff\]) for which a particular solution is easily found to be a constant equal to $\xi_\mathrm{r}^p(r) = i \, \frac{\delta g_\varphi(r_\mathrm{c})}
{2\,\Omega\,\omega}$, is $$\label{eq:n}
\xi_\mathrm{r}(x) = C_1 \, x^{3/2} \, I_3(2\,\sqrt{b\,x}) +
C_2 \, x^{3/2} \, K_3(2\,\sqrt{b\,x}) +
i \, \frac{\delta g_\varphi(r_\mathrm{c})}{2\,\Omega\,\omega}$$ Finally, near the corotation radius, the Lagrangian displacement which remains bounded needs $C_1=0$ : $$\label{eq:XiRForce}
\xi_\mathrm{r}(x) = C_2 \, x^{3/2} \, K_3(2\,\sqrt{b\,x}) +
i \, \frac{\delta g_\varphi(r_\mathrm{c})}{2\,\Omega\,\omega}$$
The density disturbance induced in the disk by the rotating gravitational perturbation is then to the lowest order : $$\label{eq:drhorho}
\frac{\delta\rho}{\rho} = - \frac{{\mathrm{div}\,}(\rho\vec{\xi})}{\rho} =
- \frac{1}{\rho\,r}\,\frac{d}{dr}(r\,\rho\,\xi_\mathrm{r})
+ i\,\frac{m}{r\,\omega_*^2} \, \left( \delta g_\varphi +
2\,i\,\Omega\,\omega\,\xi_\mathrm{r} \right)$$ The displacement Eq. (\[eq:XiRForce\]) is continuous and differentiable everywhere. Thus, the first term on the right hand side has a finite value. The second term on the RHS needs a special treatment. Indeed, when $r$ approaches $r_\mathrm{c}$ the numerator and the denominator vanish as well, leaving us with an undetermined expression of the form $0/0$. To find the behavior near $r_\mathrm{c}$ we note that near the corotation, $(\delta g_\varphi + 2\,i\, \Omega\, \omega\,
\xi_\mathrm{r})$ behaves as $(\delta g_\varphi(r)-\delta
g_\varphi(r_\mathrm{c})) = \delta g_\varphi'(r_\mathrm{c}) \,
(r-r_\mathrm{c})$ with $\delta g_\varphi'(r_\mathrm{c})\ne0$. Thus we conclude that it approaches zero as $x$ and $$\label{eq:drhorhoapprox}
\frac{\delta\rho}{\rho} \approx i \, \frac{m\,\delta g_\varphi'(r_\mathrm{c})}
{\omega_*'(r_\mathrm{c})^2 \, r_\mathrm{c}^2 \, x}$$ The divergent term in the density perturbation Eq. (\[eq:drhorhoapprox\]) tends to infinity as $\frac{1}{x}$. This result is consistent with the conclusions drawn by Goldreich & Tremaine ([@Goldreich1979]) for a disk without self-gravity.
From the comparison between Newtonian and Schwarzschild geometry, we conclude that the introduction of general relativistic effects as the ISCO does not changes the qualitative behavior of the disk response. The ISCO only shifts the location of the Lindblad resonances and the eigenvalues of the free wave solutions.
Counterrotating disk
--------------------
We can also use the previous analysis for a counterrotating accretion disk. Because the spin of the star does not intervene in the homogeneous Schrödinger equation, the free wave solutions remain identical to the above mentioned results. The only change comes from the non-wavelike disturbance for which we have to replace $\Omega_*\rightarrow-\Omega_*$. Following the same outline as in \[sec:Nonwave\], we solve numerically the inhomogeneous Schrödinger equation and we also looked for an analytical approximate solution. The results showing the density perturbation is plotted in Fig. \[fig:SolForceeContre\]. The two solutions are graphically indistinguishable, the discrepancy is less than 1 %. In this special case, the Lindblad resonances do not appear anymore in the computational domain.
![Density perturbation $\delta\rho/\rho$ in the counterrotating disk evolving in a Newtonian potential. Results are given for the mode $m=2$ and the eigenvalue $\sigma=-2\,\Omega_*$.[]{data-label="fig:SolForceeContre"}](ASTR353f11new.eps)
SIMPLIFIED ANALYSIS {#sec:AnaLinSimp}
===================
The eigenvalue problem
----------------------
To get more insight in the nature of the resonances, we focus now only on the displacement of the disk in each direction independently, setting $\xi_i=0$ in the other directions. This means that we neglect the coupling between the oscillations occurring in perpendicular directions. Despite this simplification, this will help us to bring out the meaning of the oscillations and to derive some resonance conditions without removing any physically meaningful mechanism.
Let’s begin the study with the motion in the vertical direction, setting $(\xi_\mathrm{r}, \xi_\varphi) = 0$, we find : $$\rho\,\frac{D^2\xi_\mathrm{z}}{Dt^2} - \frac{\partial}{\partial z}\left( \gamma\,p\,
\frac{\partial\xi_\mathrm{z}}{\partial z} \right) - \rho \,
\xi_\mathrm{z}\,\frac{\partial g_\mathrm{z}}{\partial z} + \frac{\partial}{\partial z}
\left( \rho \, \xi_\mathrm{z} \right) \, \delta g_\mathrm{z} = \rho \, \delta g_\mathrm{z}$$ Developing the vertical component of the gravity near the equatorial plane to the first order in $z$, it can be cast into the form $g_\mathrm{z}(r,z)=-\kappa_\mathrm{z}^2(r)\,z$. The vertical epicyclic frequency $\kappa_\mathrm{z}$ depends only on the radius. So we get : $$\label{eq:PDEXiz}
\frac{D^2\xi_\mathrm{z}}{Dt^2} - \frac{1}{\rho} \,
\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\left( \rho\,c_\mathrm{s}^2 \,
\frac{\partial\xi_\mathrm{z}}{\partial z} \right) + \kappa_\mathrm{z}^2\,\xi_\mathrm{z}
+ \frac{1}{\rho} \, \frac{\partial}{\partial z}\left( \rho \, \xi_\mathrm{z} \right) \, \delta g_\mathrm{z}
= \delta g_\mathrm{z}$$ We have introduced the sound speed by $c_\mathrm{s}^2 = \frac{\gamma\,p}{\rho}$.
The same can be done for the radial motion by setting $(\xi_\mathrm{z},
\xi_\varphi) = 0$, we obtain a similar expression : $$\label{eq:PDEXir}
\frac{D^2\xi_\mathrm{r}}{Dt^2} - \frac{1}{\rho\,r} \,
\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left( \rho \, c_\mathrm{s}^2 \, r \,
\frac{\partial\xi_\mathrm{r}}{\partial r} \right) + \kappa_\mathrm{r}^2\, \xi_\mathrm{r} + \frac{1}{\rho\,r} \,
\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left( r\,\rho\,\xi_\mathrm{r}\right) \, \delta g_\mathrm{r}
= \delta g_\mathrm{r}$$ The exact value of the radial epicyclic frequency depends on the pressure distribution in the disk.
Eq. (\[eq:PDEXiz\]) and (\[eq:PDEXir\]) look very similar, the discrepancy coming only from the difference between the planar and the cylindrical geometry (terms containing $r$). We recognize in the two first terms of Eq. (\[eq:PDEXiz\]) and (\[eq:PDEXir\]) a sound wave propagation equation in a tube of spatial varying but time independent cross section (Morse & Feshbach [@Morse1953]). The first and third term put together is an harmonic oscillator at the epicyclic frequency $\kappa_\mathrm{r/z}$. So the three first terms are a generalization of the Klein-Gordon equation and do not give rise to any kind of instability. The interesting part are those containing the perturbation in the gravitational field $\delta g_\mathrm{r/z}$. Neglecting the sound wave propagation, we recognize a kind of Hill equation corresponding to an oscillator with periodically time-varying eigenfrequency. It is well known that this type of equation shows what is called a parametric resonance. Moreover due to the rotation of the star, this perturbation will vary sinusoidally in time and the Hill equation specializes to the Mathieu equation for which we know the resonance conditions. Indeed, Mathieu equation written in the form $$\label{eq:Mathieu}
y''(t) + \omega_0^2 \, ( 1 + h \, \cos\gamma\,t) \, y(t) = 0$$ becomes unstable if the excitation frequency $\gamma =
2\frac{\omega_0}{n}$ where $n$ is an integer (Landau & Lifshitz [@Landau1982]). Note that the resonant frequency does not depend on the amplitude $h$. The corresponding growth rates are proportional to $h^n$. For small amplitudes of the excitation term, only the first few integer $n$, let’s say $n\le5$, are relevant for this parametric instability.
The equation contains also an harmonic oscillator excited by a driven force given by $\delta g_\mathrm{r/z}$. This gives rise to the well known driven resonance.
A careful analysis of Eq. (\[eq:PDEXiz\]) and Eq. (\[eq:PDEXir\]) shows that in the frame locally corotating with the disk, the Lagrangian displacement feels a modulation due to the gravity perturbation term $\delta g_\mathrm{r/z}$. In this corotating frame, its time dependence contains expressions like $\cos m(\varphi -
(\Omega_* - \Omega)\,t)$ and $\sin m(\varphi - (\Omega_* -
\Omega)\,t)$, (Eq. \[eq:GraviteQuad\]). Therefore the modulation occurs at a frequency $m\,|\Omega_* - \Omega|$. Each Fourier mode of the perturbed gravitational field contributes to give its proper modulation frequency.
From this analysis we expect three kind of resonances corresponding to :
- a [*corotation resonance*]{} at the radius where the angular velocity of the disk equals the rotation speed of the star. This is only possible for prograde disks. The resonance condition to determine the corotating radius is simply : $$\label{eq:ResCorot}
\Omega = \Omega_*$$
- a [*inner and outer Lindblad resonances*]{} at the radius where the radial or vertical epicyclic frequency equals the frequency of each mode of the gravitational potential as seen in the locally corotating frame. We find the resonance condition to be : $$\label{eq:ResForcage}
m \, | \Omega_* - \Omega | = \kappa_\mathrm{r/z}$$ The name for this resonance arises from the analogy with the theory of density waves met in the context of the spiral structure in galactic dynamics. If the pressure acts as a restoring force in the vertical direction, the derivation of the vertically driven resonances is given by $m \, | \Omega_* - \Omega | = \sqrt{1+\Gamma}
\, \kappa_\mathrm{z}$, where $\Gamma=\partial\ln P/\partial\ln \rho$ is the effective adiabatic index, (see Lubow [@Lubow1981]). We will not go into such refinement for a first approach to the resonance problem.
- a [*parametric resonance*]{} related to the time-varying epicyclic frequency, (Hill equation). The rotation of the star induces a sinusoidally variation of the epicyclic frequency leading to the well known Mathieu’s equation. The resonance condition can be derived as followed : $$\label{eq:ResPara}
m \, |\Omega_* - \Omega| = 2 \, \frac{\kappa_\mathrm{r/z}}{n}$$
Note that the driven resonance is a special case of the parametric resonance for $n=2$. However, their growth rate differ by the timescale of the amplitude magnification. Driving causes a linear growth in time while parametric resonance causes an exponential growth.
The parametric resonance condition Eq. (\[eq:ResPara\]) has been derived on the basis of a single particle orbit perturbation without taking into account the fluid description of the gas. Hirose and Osaki ([@Hirose1990]) applied this method in the context of tidally distorted accretion disk in cataclysmic variable. However, Lubow ([@Lubow1991]) showed that a more careful treatment of the resonances in the hydrodynamical case leads to some eccentric instability as well to unstable tilt of the accretion disk due to mode coupling (Lubow [@Lubow1992]). Due to the effect introduce by the fact that the disk is a fluid, the growth rate of this instability is only quadratic in the strength of the tidal force. Nevertheless, another parametric instability arising in a tidally distorted accretion disk has been introduced by Goodman ([@Goodman1993]). He showed that the growth rate is linear in the tidal force amplitude and propagates only in a three-dimensional disk.
Results {#sec:Parametric}
-------
### Newtonian disk
From the resonance conditions derived above, Eq. (\[eq:ResForcage\]) and Eq. (\[eq:ResPara\]), we can find the radii where each of this resonance will occur. Beginning with the Newtonian potential, it is well known that the angular velocity, the radial and epicyclic frequencies for a single particle are all equal so that $\Omega =
\kappa_\mathrm{r} = \kappa_\mathrm{z}$. This conclusion remains true for a thin accretion disk having $c_\mathrm{s}/R\,\Omega\ll1$. Distinguishing between the two signs of the absolute value, we get for the parametric resonance condition Eq. (\[eq:ResPara\]), which includes the Lindblad resonance for the special case $n=2$, the following orbital rotation rate : $$\frac{\Omega}{\Omega_*} = \frac{m}{m \pm 2/n}$$ As a consequence, the resonances are all located in the frequency range $\Omega\in[\Omega_*/3, 3\,\Omega_*]$.
In table \[tab:ResPara\], we indicate the results for a $300$ Hz and a $600$ Hz spinning neutron star and for the first three mode $m$ and for the integer $n=1,2$. Because of the degeneracy $\kappa_\mathrm{r} =
\kappa_\mathrm{z}$, the resonances in the radial and vertical directions occur at exactly the same locations.
Azimuthal mode $m$
-------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ -----------
$n=1$ $n=2$ $n=1$ $n=2$
1 -600 / 200 —- / 300 -300 / 100 — / 150
2 —- / 300 1200 / 400 — / 150 600 / 200
3 1800 / 360 900 / 450 900 / 180 450 / 225
: Value of the orbital frequencies at the parametric resonance radii for the first three order $n$ in the case of a Newtonian gravitational potential. The results are given for a $1.4\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$ neutron star rotating respectively at $300$ Hz and $600$ Hz. The value on the left of the symbol / corresponds to the absolute value sign taken to be - and on the right to be +.[]{data-label="tab:ResPara"}
The pair of highest orbital frequencies for the $\nu_*=300$ Hz spinning neutron star are $\nu_1=900$ Hz and $\nu_2=600$ Hz. The peak separation frequency is then $\Delta\nu=300$ Hz $=\nu_*$. The vertical motion induced by the parametric resonance at that location will appear as a modulation in the luminosity of the accretion disk. For the 600 Hz spinning neutron star, the highest orbital frequencies are 1800 Hz and 1200 Hz. However, due to the ISCO, the former one is not observed because it is located inside the ISCO and therefore does not correspond to a stable orbit. Therefore, the first two highest observable frequencies are $\nu_1=1200$ Hz and $\nu_2=900$ Hz. The peak separation frequency becomes then $\Delta\nu=300$ Hz $ =
\nu_*/2$. Thus the peak separation for slow spinning neutron stars is $\Delta\nu=\nu_*$ whereas for fast spinning neutron star the peak separation is $\Delta\nu=\nu_*/2$. This segregation between slow and fast rotating neutron stars is well observed in several accreting systems (van der Klis [@vanderKlis2004]). These conclusions confirm the results already obtained in the single particle approximation (Pétri [@Petri2005b], [@Petri2005c]).
We believe that only oscillations in the vertical direction can give rise to significant periodic changes in the accretion disk luminosity. However, resonances associated with the radial epicyclic frequency are shown because we start with a 2D study in the equatorial plane (linear analysis and numerical simulations). Radial oscillations in the disk are hardly observable because they will not lead to a significant change in the luminosity as would be the case for a warped disk for instance. The warping is induced at some preferred radii where the resonance conditions for vertical oscillations are fulfilled. This study would necessitate a full 3D treatment of the accretion disk which is left for future work. Nevertheless, the properties of the propagation of waves in a three-dimensional accretion disk have been investigated by many authors. Lubow and Pringle ([@Lubow1993]) studied the linear behavior of free waves in an isothermal disk. Korycansky and Pringle ([@Korycansky1995]) extended this work to the case of polytropic disks and showed that the local 2D dispersion relation is not valid anymore. Due to the stratified vertical structure, waves are refracted and reach the surfaces of the disk (Lin et al. [@Lin1990a]). This happens within a distance of the order of $r_\mathrm{L}/m$ and is called wave-channeling by Lubow & Ogilvie ([@Lubow1998]) who undertook a detailed study of the wave propagation in the neighborhood of the Lindblad resonances. Finally, the 3D response to a tidal force was explored by Lin et al. ([@Lin1990b]). The behaviour of the waves launched at the resonance radii (corotation, Lindblad and parametric) propagating in the 3D disk is a complicated task. In this paper, we just start with a simple picture, focusing on the resonances itself without taking into account the propagation of the disturbances.
### General relativistic disk
When the inner edge of the accretion disk reaches values of a few gravitational radii, the general relativistic effects become important. The degeneracy between the three frequencies $\Omega$, $\kappa_\mathrm{r}$ and $\kappa_\mathrm{z}$ will be removed and they will depend on the angular momentum of the star $a$. Indeed we distinguish 3 characteristic frequencies in the accretion disk around a Kerr black hole (or a rotating neutron star) :
- the orbital angular velocity : $$\label{eq:FreqOrbit}
\Omega(r,a)=\frac{1}{r^{3/2}+a}$$
- the radial epicyclic frequency : $$\label{eq:FreqRadial}
\kappa_\mathrm{r}(r,a)=\Omega(r,a)\,\sqrt{1-\frac{6}{r} + 8\,\frac{a}{r^{3/2}}
- 3\,\frac{a^2}{r^2} }$$
- the vertical epicyclic frequency : $$\label{eq:FreqVertical}
\kappa_\mathrm{z}(r,a)=\Omega(r,a)\,\sqrt{1 -4\,\frac{a}{r^{3/2}} +
3\,\frac{a^2}{r^2}}$$
The parameter $a$ corresponds to the angular momentum of the star, in geometrized units. We also assume that $G\,M_*=1$. For a neutron star of mass $M_*$ and rotating at the angular velocity $\Omega_*$, it is given by $a=\frac{c\,I_*}{G\,M_*^2}\,\Omega_*$.
We have the following ordering : $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega>\kappa_\mathrm{z}>\kappa_\mathrm{r} & for & \;\; a>0 \\
\kappa_\mathrm{z}>\Omega>\kappa_\mathrm{r} & for & \;\; a<0\end{aligned}$$
The parametric resonance conditions Eq. (\[eq:ResPara\]) splitted into the two cases become : $$\label{eq:ResParaGR}
\Omega(r,a) \pm \frac{2\,\kappa_\mathrm{r/z}(r,a)}{m\,n} = \Omega_*
$$
For a given angular momentum $a$, we have to solve these equations for the radius $r$. For a neutron star, we adopt the typical parameters :
- mass $M_*=1.4\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$ ;
- angular velocity $\nu_*=\Omega_*/2\pi=300-600$ Hz ;
- moment of inertia $I_*=10^{38}\;kg\,m^2$ ;
- angular momentum $a_*=\frac{c\,I_*}{G\,M_*^2}\,\Omega_*$.
The angular momentum is then given by $a_*=5.79*10^{-5}\,\Omega_*$. Solving Eq. (\[eq:ResParaGR\]) for the radius and then deducing the orbital frequency at this radius we get the results shown in tables \[tab:ResParaGRrad\] and \[tab:ResParaGRver\]. For the spin rate of the star we find $a_*=0.1-0.2$ and so the vertical epicyclic frequency remains close to the orbital one $\kappa_\mathrm{z}\approx\Omega$. Thus for the vertical resonance, we are still approximately in the Newtonian case mentioned in the previous section and the same conclusions apply here to. Consequently, the relativistic results are the same as those discussed in the previous section dealing with a Newtonian disk. The only difference comes from the presence of the ISCO added in a self-consistent way by changing the behaviour of the radial epicyclic frequency which vanishes at the inner edge.
Azimuthal mode $m$
-------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ -----------
$n=1$ $n=2$ $n=1$ $n=2$
1 2542 / 212 1566 / 319 1257 / 106 779 / 159
2 1566 / 318 955 / 419 779 / 159 477 / 210
3 1135 / 380 809 / 468 566 / 190 404 / 234
: Value of the orbital frequencies at the radial parametric resonance radii for the first three order $n$ in the general relativistic Kerr spacetime. The results are given for a $1.4\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$ neutron star rotating respectively at $300$ Hz and $600$ Hz. The value on the left of the symbol / corresponds to the absolute value sign taken to be - and on the right to be +.[]{data-label="tab:ResParaGRrad"}
Azimuthal mode $m$
-------------------- ------------ ------------ ----------- -----------
$n=1$ $n=2$ $n=1$ $n=2$
1 —- / 200 —- / 300 — / 100 — / 150
2 —- / 300 1198 / 400 — / 150 599 / 200
3 1790 / 360 899 / 450 898 / 180 450 / 225
: Value of the orbital frequencies at the vertical parametric resonance radii for the first three order $n$ in the general relativistic Kerr spacetime. The results are given for a $1.4\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$ neutron star rotating respectively at $300$ and $600$ Hz. The value on the left of the symbol / corresponds to the absolute value sign taken to be - and on the right to be +.[]{data-label="tab:ResParaGRver"}
We emphasize the fact that these results apply to a rotating asymmetric magnetic field with exactly the same resonance conditions Eq. (\[eq:ResCorot\])-(\[eq:ResForcage\])-(\[eq:ResPara\]) provided that the flow is not to far from its Keplerian motion, i. e. a weakly magnetized accretion disk with high $\beta$-plasma parameter where this parameter is defined by (Delcroix & Bers [@Delcroix1994], see also paper I) : $$\label{eq:betaPlasma}
\beta = \frac{p}{B^2/2\mu_0}$$ $p$ being the pressure and $B$ the local magnetic field strength.
NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS {#sec:Simulation}
=====================
Now we have identified the resonance location (Lindblad, parametric and corotation) in the disk due to the perturbation in the gravitational field, we go further to include the full non linearities of the hydrodynamical equations by performing 2D simulations in the ($r,\varphi$) plane. This is the goal of the next section.
Linear analysis {#linear-analysis}
---------------
In order to check the numerical pseudo-spectral code, we solve the full non-linear HD equations with a weak $m=2$ azimuthal perturbation. We retrieve the results mentioned in section \[sec:Nonwave\]. This is discussed in the following subsections.
We use the geometrized units for which $G=c=1$. The distances are measured with respect to the gravitational radius given by $R_\mathrm{g}=G\,M_*/c^2$. Moreover, the simulations are performed for a star with $M_*=1$ so that in the new units we have $R_\mathrm{g}=1$. In all the simulations presented below, the star is assumed to be an ellipsoid with the main axis given by $R_\mathrm{x} = R_\mathrm{z} \ne R_\mathrm{y}$. The standard resolution is $N_\mathrm{R} \times N_\varphi=256\times32$ where $N_\mathrm{R}$ and $N_\varphi$ are the number of grid points in the radial and azimuthal direction respectively.
Before the time $t=0$, the disk stays in its axisymmetric equilibrium state and possesses only an azimuthal motion. At $t=0$, we switch on the perturbation by adding the quadrupolar component to the gravitational field. We then let the system evolve during more than one thousand orbital revolutions of the inner edge of the disk. We performed four sets of simulations. In the first one, the gravitational potential was Newtonian. In the second one, we used a pseudo-Newtonian potential in order to take into account the ISCO. This is well suited to describe the Schwarzschild spacetime. In the third one, we took into account the angular momentum of the star by introducing a pseudo-Kerr geometry. And finally in the fourth and last set, we performed simulations with a counter rotating accretion disk evolving in a Newtonian potential described in the first set.
We perform the simulation in the thin disk limit. For this thin gaseous disk, there is a slightly difference of the order $(H/R)^2$ between the single particle characteristic frequencies and the true disk frequencies where $H$ is the typical height of the disk and $R$ its radius. Indeed, inspecting Eq. (\[eq:PDEXir\]) and neglecting the gravitational perturbation $\delta g_\mathrm{r}$, a rough estimation in order of magnitude gives $\partial/\partial r \approx
R^{-1}$ and due to the thin disk approximation we also have $c_\mathrm{s} \approx \Omega_\mathrm{k} \, H$ where $\Omega_\mathrm{k}$ is the Keplerian orbital frequency for a single particle. Therefore the coefficient in front of $\xi_\mathrm{r}$ is approximately $\Omega_\mathrm{k}^2 \, ( 1 - H^2/R^2$), baring in mind that $\kappa_\mathrm{r} \approx \Omega_\mathrm{k}$ and proving the aforementioned statement. In all our simulations, we choose the physical parameters such that this ratio remains less than $1/10$, spanning roughly from $0.05$ to $0.09$. In such a way the single particle approximation remains valid within 10 %. Typical behaviors of the ratio $H/R$ are depicted for the Newtonian and Schwarzschild case in Fig. \[fig:Epaisseur\]. If the disk were assumed to be thick so that $H\approx R$, the difference between single particle and fluid frequency can be appreciable. Moreover, the orbital motion remains no longer Keplerian in such a geometry. We now deal with the results.
Newtonian potential {#sec:ResNewt}
-------------------
First, we study the behavior of the thin disk in the Newtonian potential. In this case, the Keplerian rotation rate, the vertical and the radial epicyclic frequencies for a single particle are all identical as discussed before. To a good approximation we have : $$\Omega_\mathrm{k} \approx \kappa_\mathrm{r} \approx \kappa_\mathrm{z}$$
The star normalized rotation rate around the z-axis is equal to $\Omega_*=0.0043311$. Assuming a $1.4\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$ neutron star, this corresponds to a spin of $\nu_*=100.0$ Hz. The disk inner boundary is located at $R_1=6.0$ while the outer boundary is located at $R_2=60.0$. The orbital angular motion at the inner edge of the disk is $\Omega_\mathrm{in}=R_1^{-3/2} = 0.0680$. We normalize the time by dividing it by the spin period of the star $T_* =
\frac{2\,\pi}{\Omega_*} = 1450.7$.
The time evolution of the density perturbation in the disk calculated as $\Delta\rho/\rho_0=\rho/\rho_0-1$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:DensDiscNewt\]. The corotation resonance located at $r=40.0$ expected from the condition Eq. (\[eq:ResCorot\]) is not visible at this stage. Indeed the weak linear growth rate makes the corotation resonance relevant only after a few $10^5$ orbital revolutions which is hundreds of time more than the time of the simulation. However, after a few hundred of orbital revolutions, the disk settles down to a new quasi-stationary state in which the inner and outer Lindblad resonances persist. This happens after a transition regime where density waves leave the disk by crossing its edges. Almost all of the energy put into the disk by the star’s rotation leaves the computational domain at its inner and outer edges. The non reflecting boundary conditions act as a kind of viscosity strongly damping the oscillations. We refer the reader to paper I for the method of implementation of these non reflecting boundary conditions. This is confirmed by inspection of the Fig. \[fig:DensDiscNewtSect\] in which we have plotted a cross section of the final density perturbation $\delta\rho/\rho_0$ for a given azimuthal angle, namely $\varphi=0$. As expected the density perturbation vanishes at the disk edges. The shape of this perturbation agrees well with the linear analysis. Indeed comparing Fig. \[fig:DensDiscNewtSect\] and the left part of Fig. \[fig:SolForcee\], the only small difference comes from the different boundary conditions imposed. Nevertheless, the location of the inner and outer Lindblad resonances as well as the number of roots of each function and the maximum amplitude are equal.
The nonlinearities are therefore weak for the whole simulation duration. Indeed, looking at the Fourier spectrum of the density in Fig. \[fig:DensTFDiscNewt\], where the amplitude of each component is plotted vs the mode $m$ on a logarithmic scale. The odd modes are not present. However, the weak nonlinearities create a cascade to high even modes starting with $m=2$. The largest asymmetric expansion coefficient $C_m$ is $m=2$, the next even coefficients follow roughly a geometric series with a factor $q=10^{-3}$, so we can write for all $m$ even, $C_m \approx q^{m/2-1} \, C_2$ until they reach values less than $10^{-20}$ which can be interpreted as zero from a numerical point of view. The deviation from the stationary state being weak, the amplitudes of these even modes decay compared to the previous one, the highest being of course $m=2$. Thus, even in the full non linear simulation, the regime remains quasi linear. As a conclusion, the parametric resonance phenomenon discussed in the previous section is irrelevant at this stage of our work. The effect of strong nonlinearity putting the system out of its linear regime will be studied in a forthcoming paper. Note that due to the desaliasing process, the modes $m\ge9$ are all set to zero. Note also that the free wave solutions leave the computational domain and are no longer present. Only the non-wavelike disturbance produces significant changes in the density profile.
The resolution of $256\times32$ which seems rather low is nevertheless justified by the fact that the components of the Fourier-Tchebyshev transform decay rapidly and become negligible after the first few terms in the Fourier expansion and after the first 30 or 40 terms in the Tchebyshev expansion. In order to check that this resolution is however sufficient, we performed a new set simulation by increasing the number of grid points by a factor two in both coordinates, namely we used a resolution of $512\times64$. The density perturbation is then given by the Fig. \[fig:DensDiscNewt2\] and the Fourier expansion coefficients in Fig. \[fig:DensTFDiscNewt2\] which have to be compared respectively with Fig. \[fig:DensDiscNewt\] and Fig. \[fig:DensTFDiscNewt\]. The desaliasing process does not affect the Fourier coefficient because they vanish already well before $m=19$. This proves that the structure is spatially fully resolved with both resolutions. Indeed, there is actually no significant difference between the 2 pictures. The lowest resolution reaches already a very good numerical precision. We therefore keep this $256\times32$ resolution in the next sections.
![Final snapshot of the density perturbation $\delta\rho/\rho_0$ in the accretion disk evolving in a quadrupolar perturbed Newtonian potential. The disk extends from $R_1=6.0$ to $R_2=60.0$. The rotation rate of the star is $\Omega_*=0.0043311$. The time is normalized to the spin period $T_*=1450.7$. The $m=2$ structure emerges in relation with the $m=2$ quadrupolar potential perturbation.[]{data-label="fig:DensDiscNewt"}](ASTR353f12new.eps)
![Cross section of the density perturbation $\delta\rho/\rho_0$ in the Newtonian disk at the final time of the simulation. The inner and outer Lindblad resonances appear clearly at $r_\mathrm{L}^{in/out}=23.7/49.3$. When crossing the corotation resonance the density curve shows a break in its slope.[]{data-label="fig:DensDiscNewtSect"}](ASTR353f13new.eps)
![Amplitude of the Fourier components of the density perturbation. $t_f$ stands for the final time of the numerical simulation. The axisymmetric mode is not represented. The odd modes are numerically zero. Due to the small nonlinearities, the even modes are apparent but with a weak amplitude. The components $m\ge9$ are set to zero because of the desaliasing process.[]{data-label="fig:DensTFDiscNewt"}](ASTR353f14new.eps)
![Same as Fig. \[fig:DensDiscNewt\] but for the higher $512\times64$ resolution. There is no difference between the two runs proving that all the structure in the disk is resolved.[]{data-label="fig:DensDiscNewt2"}](ASTR353f15new.eps)
![Same as Fig. \[fig:DensTFDiscNewt\] but for the $512\times64$ resolution. The components $m\ge19$ are set to zero because of the desaliasing process. However, the coefficients are already close to zero for $m\ge9$ without desaliasing.[]{data-label="fig:DensTFDiscNewt2"}](ASTR353f16new.eps)
Pseudo-Schwarzschild potential
------------------------------
In order to take into account the modification of the radial epicyclic frequency due to the curved spacetime around a Schwarzschild black hole, we replaced the Newtonian potential by the Logarithmically Modified Potential (LMP) proposed by Mukhopadhyay ([@Mukhopadhyay2003]). This potential is well suited to approximate the angular and epicyclic frequencies in accretion disks around a rotating black hole. The expression of the radial gravitational field derived from this potential is then given by : $$\label{eq:GravitePseudoGR}
g_\mathrm{r} = - \frac{G\,M_*}{r^2} \left[ 1 + R_{ms} \left( \frac{9}{20} \,
\frac{R_{ms}-1}{r} - \frac{3}{2r} \, \ln \frac{r}{(3r-R_{ms})^{2/9}} \right) \right]$$ where $R_{ms}$ is the last stable circular orbit : $$\begin{aligned}
R_{ms} & = & 3+Z_2 \pm \sqrt{(3-Z_1)(3+Z_1+2Z_2)} \\
Z_1 & = & 1 + (1-a^2)^{1/3} \, [ (1+a)^{1/3} + (1-a)^{1/3} ] \\
Z_2 & = & \sqrt{3\,a^2 + Z_1^2}\end{aligned}$$
The important feature of this potential is the vanishing of the radial epicyclic frequency for a single particle having a circular orbit at the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO).
We use the same physical parameters as in the Newtonian case. The time evolution of the density perturbation in the disk is shown in Fig. \[fig:DensDiscSchw\]. The Lindblad resonances are now located at $r_\mathrm{L}^{in/out}=21.6/45.5$ which differs slightly from the previous simulation because the orbital velocity is no more the Keplerian one but the pseudo-Newtonian one derived from Eq. (\[eq:GravitePseudoGR\]). Here too, these locations are in agreement with the linear analysis. After a few hundreds of orbital revolutions, the disk settles down to a new quasi-stationary state, very close to the one described by the linear analysis. The profile of the density perturbation found by the numerical simulation is shown in Fig. \[fig:DensDiscSchwSect\] to compare with the right plot of Fig. \[fig:SolForcee\]. Note however that for the numerical simulations, the radial epicyclic frequency derived from the LMP Eq. (\[eq:GravitePseudoGR\]) differs slightly from the true one given by Schwarzschild’s solution Eq. (\[eq:FreqRadial\]). As can be seen from Fig. \[fig:DensTFDiscSchw\], the linear regime is still a good approximation in this case, the dominant Fourier coefficient is always $m=2$.
![Final snapshot of the density perturbation in the accretion disk evolving in a perturbed pseudo-Schwarzschild potential (LMP). The disk extends from $R_1=6.0$ to $R_2=60.0$. No wave can propagate between the inner and outer Lindblad resonance.[]{data-label="fig:DensDiscSchw"}](ASTR353f17new.eps)
![Same as Fig. \[fig:DensDiscNewtSect\] but for the pseudo-Schwarzschild geometry. The Lindblad resonances are located at $r_\mathrm{L}^{in/out}=21.6/45.5$.[]{data-label="fig:DensDiscSchwSect"}](ASTR353f18new.eps)
![Same as Fig. \[fig:DensTFDiscNewt\] but for the pseudo-Schwarzschild geometry. The Fourier coefficients follow a decaying geometric series.[]{data-label="fig:DensTFDiscSchw"}](ASTR353f19new.eps)
To conclude this subsection, we have shown that the introduction of the concept of ISCO in this last run does not change the qualitative conclusions drawn by the Newtonian simulations. Its only effect is to shift the location of the Lindblad resonance. This behavior was expected from the linear analysis.
Pseudo-Kerr potential
---------------------
The frame dragging effect induced by the star’s rotation can also be investigated by the pseudo-Newtonian potential described in the previous section. Therefore we run a simulation in which the rotation of the star is taken into account by the gravitational field described by Eq. (\[eq:GravitePseudoGR\]).
To create a significant change in the orbital frequency, we choose a spin parameter $a_*=0.5$. Thus the disk inner boundary corresponding to the marginally stable circular orbit is located at $R_1=4.24$. The outer computational domain is taken to be 10 times as large, at $R_2=42.4$.
The inner Lindblad resonance is clearly identified at $r_\mathrm{L}^{in}=19.2$ as can be seen from Fig. \[fig:DensDiscKerr\]. The outer Lindblad resonance at $r_\mathrm{L}^{out}=45.8$ lies outside the computational domain and therefore does not show up in the plot, Fig. \[fig:DensDiscKerrSect\]. The $m=2$ is the strongest mode whereas the other odd modes decrease following a geometrical series as confirmed by inspection of Fig. \[fig:DensTFDiscKerr\].
Here again apart from the fact that the disk approaches closer to the neutron star, the resonances behave in the same way as in the previous sections. Thus we strongly believe that the QPO phenomenon has nothing to do with any specific general relativistic effect. It just help to tune the QPO frequencies to some given values which could not be explained by a simple Newtonian gravitational potential.
![Final snapshot of the density perturbation in the accretion disk evolving in a perturbed pseudo-Kerr potential with $a=0.5$. The disk extends from $R_1=4.24$ to $R_2=42.4$. The outer Lindblad resonance is not in the grid.[]{data-label="fig:DensDiscKerr"}](ASTR353f20new.eps)
![Same as Fig. \[fig:DensDiscNewtSect\] but for the pseudo-Kerr disk. The inner Lindblad resonance appears clearly at $r_\mathrm{L}^{in}=19.2$ while the outer one at $r_\mathrm{L}^{out}=45.8$ lies outside the computational grid.[]{data-label="fig:DensDiscKerrSect"}](ASTR353f21new.eps)
![Same as Fig. \[fig:DensTFDiscNewt\] but for the pseudo-Kerr disk. Again the Fourier coefficients decay like a geometric series.[]{data-label="fig:DensTFDiscKerr"}](ASTR353f22new.eps)
Retrograde disk
---------------
In this run, we checked that the Lindblad resonances disappear for a retrograde Newtonian disk. We rerun the simulation of subsection \[sec:ResNewt\] by changing the sign of the spin of the neutron star by $\Omega_*=-0.0043311$. Thus the disk is rotating in the opposite way compared to the star.
As expected, no Lindblad resonance is observed in this run, Fig. \[fig:DensRetroDiscNewt\]. The density profile perturbation is depicted in Fig. \[fig:DensRetroDiscNewtSect\] agrees well with the linear analysis, Fig. \[fig:SolForceeContre\]. A long trailing wave of mode $m=2$ expands in the whole disk area. A quasi-stationary state is reached very quickly. The Fourier spectrum behaves here again in the same manner as in the other runs Fig. \[fig:DensTFRetroDiscNewt\].
![Final snapshot of the density perturbation in the counterrotating accretion disk evolving in a perturbed Newtonian potential. Same values as in caption of Fig. \[fig:DensDiscNewt\] applies expected for the sign of $\Omega_*$. A trailing spiral density wave of $m=2$ is propagating in the whole disk.[]{data-label="fig:DensRetroDiscNewt"}](ASTR353f23new.eps)
![Same as Fig. \[fig:DensDiscNewtSect\] but for the counterrotating disk. No Lindblad resonances are observed.[]{data-label="fig:DensRetroDiscNewtSect"}](ASTR353f24new.eps)
![Same as Fig. \[fig:DensTFDiscNewt\] but for the counterrotating disk.[]{data-label="fig:DensTFRetroDiscNewt"}](ASTR353f25new.eps)
### Wake solution in a protoplanetary disk
We also performed a set of simulations in which a Keplerian disk orbiting around a massive star $M_*$ is perturbed by a planet of small mass $M_p\ll M_*$. In this situation, many azimuthal modes are excited and propagate in the disk. The numerical algorithm is therefore checked when many modes are excited at the same time. The solution is represented by a one-armed spiral wake generated by the planet. In the case of weak perturbation, Ogilvie & Lubow ([@Ogilvie2002]) have shown that the linear response of the disk is obtained by constructive interference between wave modes in the disk. The approximate analytical shape of the wake is given by : $$\label{eq:Wake}
\varphi = t \pm \frac{3}{2\,\varepsilon} ( \frac{r}{r_\mathrm{c}}^{3/2} -
\frac{3}{2} \, \ln \frac{r}{r_\mathrm{c}} -1)$$ where $r_\mathrm{c}$ is the corotation radius and $t$ the time. The $+$ sign applies for the inner part of the disk ($r\le r_\mathrm{c}$) while the $-$ sign applies for the outer part of the disk ($r\ge
r_\mathrm{c}$). This result from the linear analysis is compared with the full non-linear set of Euler equations. An example is shown in Fig. \[fig:Wake\]. The non-linear simulation agrees perfectly with the linear solution given by Eq.(\[eq:Wake\]) (the resolution used is $256\times64$). A one armed spiral wave is launched from the rotating planet and propagates in the entire disk with a pattern speed equal to the rotation rate of the perturber. Several low azimuthal modes are excited to a significant level as seen in Fig. \[fig:WakeSect\]. However, to avoid aliasing effect because of the fast Fourier transform, we filtered out the high frequency component for $m\ge19$. Moreover, the boundary condition imposed as non reflective waves works well by damping the perturbations close to the disk inner and outer edges.
![One-armed spiral wake generated by the orbital motion of a planet (or a small mass solid body) in the 2D accretion disk. The density perturbation $\delta\rho/\rho$ is shown. The perturbing body (like a planet) is depicted as a black circle. The linear response Eq.(\[eq:Wake\]) is plotted as a solid line and overlaps well with the non-linear simulation.[]{data-label="fig:Wake"}](ASTR353f26new.eps)
![Same as Fig. \[fig:DensTFDiscNewt\] but for the wake solution.[]{data-label="fig:WakeSect"}](ASTR353f27new.eps)
Realistic potential
-------------------
In a last run, we went back to a multipolar gravitational perturbation in the stellar disk as described in Sec. \[sec:PotentielBoiteux\]. Because the gravitational field perturbation contains several Fourier components given by the Laplace coefficients Eq. (\[eq:CoeffLaplace\]), many azimuthal modes are excited as in the previous case of a protoplanetary disk. For this run, the numerical values are $r_\mathrm{p}=5\,R_*, z_\mathrm{p}=0,
M_\mathrm{p} = 10^{-3}\,M_*$. In order to keep a good numerical accuracy even with a system containing many modes, we increased the resolution by taking $256\times64$. The final snapshot of the density perturbation in the disk is shown in Fig. \[fig:DensDiscBoiteux\]. The corotation radius is clearly identified at $r=37.4$. The fluctuation in density are relevant only in the innermost region of the accretion disk where the tidal force is maximal. An inspection of the Fig. \[fig:DensDiscBoiteuxSect\] confirms this remark. As seen from Fig. \[fig:DensTFDiscBoiteux\], the strongest mode is associated with $m=1$ that is the strongest exciting mode. Because the system remains in a linear regime, its total response to the perturbation is simply given by the sum of the response to each mode. This explains the decrease in the perturbed fluctuation with the mode number (see Fig. \[fig:CoeffLaplace\]). Here again, the desaliasing process keeps the azimuthal modes $m\ge19$ close to zero (within the numerical accuracy).
![Final snapshot of the density perturbation in the accretion disk evolving in a perturbed Newtonian potential having many azimuthal modes $m$. The disk extends from $R_1=6$ to $R_2=60$.[]{data-label="fig:DensDiscBoiteux"}](ASTR353f28new.eps)
![Same as Fig. \[fig:DensDiscNewtSect\] but for a perturbation containing many modes. The corotation resonance is shown by a vertical bar.[]{data-label="fig:DensDiscBoiteuxSect"}](ASTR353f29new.eps)
![Same as Fig. \[fig:DensTFDiscNewt\] but for a perturbation containing many modes. Only the lowest Fourier modes are excited to a significant level in accordance with the perturbed potential profile.[]{data-label="fig:DensTFDiscBoiteux"}](ASTR353f30new.eps)
DISCUSSION {#sec:Discussion}
==========
The simulations presented in this paper are preliminary results mainly in order to check the numerical algorithm and to show that pseudo-spectral method are well suited to study accretion flow as was already done by Godon ([@Godon1997]). For smooth flows, this method shows evanescent error (exponential decrease with respect to the number of points) and good accuracy is achieved with relatively small number of discretization points.
The warping of the disk is an important processes to account for QPOs because the vertical parametric resonance locations are interesting sites to generate large amplitude in the fluctuation of the luminosity of the accretion disk. A full three dimensional linear analysis is therefore necessary to track the propagation properties of the waves in a polytropic disk. Moreover, non-linear effect are also important because in the case of magnetized accretion disk, the rotating asymmetric perturbed magnetic field is of the same order of magnitude as the background field itself. Full non-linear three dimensional numerical simulations are therefore required. The numerical code designed here can performed this task with a reasonable computational time by using only little discretization points without losing precision.
The study presented in this paper can be extended to the case of a viscous flow in the disk leading therefore to a “real accretion disk”. The viscosity will set a lower limit on the smallest scale that the density perturbation can reach. Moreover, when adding a damping term in the Mathieu equation (\[eq:Mathieu\]) the threshold for the parametric resonance to grow will be proportional to this viscosity. We therefore expect strong oscillations only in cases where the amplitude of the perturbation is sufficiently high. In addition, the lost of energy by radiation damps these oscillations for which the kinetic energy is converted into photon emission. Finally, because the radial flux implied by the accretion process will reduce the time available for a fluid element to enter into resonance at a given radius, deviation from equilibrium will become smaller compared to a non accreting situation.
Another point not discussed in this work is the pressure induced by the radiation in the vicinity of the inner part of the accretion disk. As for the gaseous pressure, it will shift the resonance conditions derived for a single particle. A significant increase in the accretion flux induces an increase in the pressure radiation to the same order of magnitude. How the disk will react remains an open question. However it provides a correlation between the accretion rate and the orbital frequency at resonance because the resonance conditions Eq. (\[eq:ResCorot\])-(\[eq:ResForcage\])-(\[eq:ResPara\]) will then depend on the total pressure in the disk (gaseous + radiation).
The origin of the rotating asymmetric gravitational field for neutron stars or white dwarfs could be explained in severals ways. First, an inhomogeneous interior structure would naturally lead to the kind of potential introduced in Sec. \[sec:PotentielBoiteux\]. A second possibility is the fast rotation of the star. It leads to strong centrifugal forces deforming the star’s spherical shape into a Maclaurin spheroid. Thirdly, an aspherical star possessing a precession motion should also generate a significant distorted gravitational potential. Anisotropic magnetic stress in the stellar interior exerts also a deformation on the stellar surface which can be inferred by observation of the atmosphere. An application to white dwarfs is given by Fendt & Dravins ([@Fendt2000]) and for neutron star by Bonazzola & Gourgoulhon ([@Bonazzola1996]).
For the black hole candidates, the reason for an asymmetry in the spacetime manifold is less evident. When accreting matter, the black hole must get ride of its non-stationary state (deviation from the Kerr-Newman geometry) because of the no-hair theorem. In order to get back to its stationary state, it must emit gravitational waves described in the general relativity framework. This replaces the rotating asymmetric Newtonian potential. Like helioseismology, perturbation of the spacetime around black holes gives some insight into their properties. However, unlike asteroseismology, normal mode oscillations are unavoidably associated to gravitational wave emission. They are therefore called quasi-normal modes of the black hole because of their damping (Kokkotas & Schmidt [@Kokkotas1999]). If the QPOs observed in the black hole candidates could be associated with the gravitational wave emission and thus with their quasi-normal modes, we would have a new tool to explore their properties as was the case for helioseismology, a kind of “holoseismology”. This idea is discussed in Pétri ([@Petri2005d]).
The discovery of high coherence in the kHz-QPOs of some systems puts strong constraints on the models. Clumps of matter cannot account for the high quality factor $Q>100$ (Barret et al. [@Barret2005a]). The coherence time involved by this picture is to long. We believe that this almost sinusoidal motion can only be imprinted by an external sinusoidal force as for instance a rotating asymmetric field would do. Moreover, sometimes, a sudden drop in this coherence is observed as was happened in 4U1636-536. Like the discrimination between slow and fast rotators (Pétri [@Petri2005b], [@Petri2005c]), it is interpreted as another manifestation of the ISCO (Barret et al. [@Barret2005b]).
CONCLUSION {#sec:Conclusion}
==========
In this paper, we have explored the consequences of a weak rotating asymmetric gravitational potential perturbation on the evolution of a thin accretion disk initially in a stationary axisymmetric state. We have shown that, when one mode is excited, the disk resonates at some radii where the resonance conditions are satisfied and reach a new quasi-stationary state in which some small scale perturbations in the density emanate starting from the inner and outer Lindblad resonance. The non wavelike disturbance rotates at the star’s spin while the free wave solutions are irrelevant because of damping process. Only the driven resonance can be maintained and account for QPOs having very high quality factors. For more general gravitational perturbation potentials, the response of the disk is the some of individual modes as long as the system remains in the linear regime. We gave a example of such a set of resonances in the last part. The physical processes at hand does not require any general relativistic effect. Indeed, the resonances behave identical in the Newtonian as well as in the pseudo-Kerr field. However, in order to get a detailed precise quantitative idea of the properties of free wave solutions and non wavelike disturbances around neutron star, we need a consistent full general relativistic description of the star-disk system. This is left for future work.
The possible warping of the disk, not discussed here, needs a full 3D analysis and simulations. We then expect some low frequency QPOs related to the kHz QPOs in a manner which has still to be determined.
We emphasize that the work presented here is a first step to a new model for the QPOs in LMXBs. A strongly non linear regime is also expected when the gravity perturbation is strong enough. The parametric resonance not developed in the simulations presented in this paper will then be excited. This is left for future work.
To conclude, to date we know about 20 LMXBs containing a neutron star and all of them show kHz-QPOs. We believe that these QPOs could be explained by a mechanism similar to those exposed here. We need only to replace the gravitational perturbation by a magnetic one as described in paper I. However, in an accreting system in which the neutron star is an oblique rotator, we expect a perturbation in the magnetic field to the same order of magnitude than the unperturbed one. Therefore, the linear analysis developed in this series of two papers has to be extended to oscillations having non negligible amplitude compared to the stationary state. We also expect the parametric resonance to become the strongest resonance in the disk. Indeed, as shown in previous work in the single particle approximation and in the MHD case (Pétri [@Petri2005b], [@Petri2005c]), the twin peak ratio of about 3/2 for the kHz-QPOs is naturally explained as well as their difference being either $\Delta\nu=\nu_*$ for slow rotator ($\nu_*\le300$ Hz) or $\Delta\nu=\nu_*/2$ for fast rotator ($\nu_*\ge300$ Hz).
Finally, what would happen if we add a gravitational perturbation to a magnetic one? In the thin and weakly magnetised accretion disk, the linear analysis performed separately in the hydrodynamical as well as in the MHD case remains true when combined together. We expect again the same resonances to occur at the same locations. This is the strength of this model because it encompasses in an unique picture the white dwarf (though to be mainly in the hydrodynamical regime) and neutron star (though to be magnetised) accreting systems, explaining the 3:2 ratio whatever the nature of the compact object. In has also successfully been extended to accreting black holes by replacing these asymmetries by gravitational wave emission (Pétri [@Petri2005d]). The predicted 3:2 ratio and some lower frequency QPOs perfectly match the observations from the microquasar GRS1915+105.
This research was carried out in a FOM projectruimte on ‘Magnetoseismology of accretion disks’, a collaborative project between R. Keppens (FOM Institute Rijnhuizen, Nieuwegein) and N. Langer (Astronomical Institute Utrecht). This work is part of the research programme of the ‘Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie (FOM)’, which is financially supported by the ‘Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO)’.
This work was also supported by a grant from the G.I.F., the German-Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research and Development.
[2]{}
Abramowicz, M. A. & Klu[' z]{}niak, W., 2001, , 374, L19
Abramowicz, M. A., Karas, V., Klu[ź]{}niak, W. ,Lee, W. H. & Rebusco, P., 2003, , 55, 467
Alpar, M. A., & Shaham, J., 1985, , 316, 239
Barret, D., Klu[' z]{}niak, W., Olive, J. F., Paltani, S. & Skinner, G. K., 2005a, , 357, 1288
Barret, D., Olive, J. & Miller, M. C., 2005b, , 559
Bate, M. R., Ogilvie, G. I., Lubow, S. H. & Pringle, J. E., 2002, , 332, 575
Blondin, J. M., 2000, New Astronomy, 5, 53
Bonazzola, S., & Gourgoulhon, E., 1996, , 312, 675
Bursa, M. & Abramowicz, M. A. & Karas, V. & Klu[' z]{}niak, W., 2004, , 617, L45
Delcroix J.L. & Bers A., 1994, Physique des plasmas, Savoirs Actuels, EDP Sciences
Fendt, C. & Dravins, D., 2000, Astronomische Nachrichten, 321, 193
Frieman, E., & Rotenberg, M., 1960, Reviews of Modern Physics, 32, 898
Godon, P., 1997, , 480, 329
Goldreich, P., Tremaine, S., 1979, , 233, 857
Goodman, J., 1993, , 406, 596
Hirose, M., & Osaki, Y., 1990, , 42, 135
Jonker, P. G., M[' e]{}ndez, M., & van der Klis, M., 2002 , 336,L1
Kato, S., 2001, , 53, L37
Klu[' z]{}niak, W., Abramowicz, M. A., Kato, S., Lee, W. H. & Stergioulas, N., 2004a, , 603, L89
Klu[' z]{}niak, W., Abramowicz, M. A. & Lee, W. H., AIP Conf. Proc. 714: X-ray Timing 2003: Rossi and Beyond, 2004b, 379
Klu[ź]{}niak, W., Lasota, J., Abramowicz, M. A. & Warner, B., 2005, astro-ph/0503151
Kokkotas, K. & Schmidt, B., 1999, Living Reviews in Relativity, 2
Korycansky, D. G., & Pringle, J. E., 1995, , 272, 618
Lamb, F. K., & Miller, M. C., 2001, , 554, 1210
Landau, L., & Lifshitz, E., 1982, Cours de physique théorique, Tome I mécanique, Editions Mir Moscou.
Lee, W. H., Abramowicz, M. A., & Klu[' z]{}niak, W., 2004, , 603, L93
Li, L., Goodman, J., & Narayan, R., 2003, , 593, 980
Lin, D. N. C., Papaloizou, J. C. B., & Savonije, G. J., 1990a, , 364, 326
Lin, D. N. C., Papaloizou, J. C. B., & Savonije, G. J., 1990b, , 365, 748
Lissauer, J. J. & Cuzzi, J. N., 1982, , 87, 1051
Lubow, S. H., 1981, , 245, 274
Lubow, S. H., 1991, , 381, 259
Lubow, S. H., 1992, , 398, 525
Lubow, S. H., & Pringle, J. E., 1993, , 409, 360
Lubow, S. H., & Ogilvie, G. I., 1998, , 504, 983
McClintock, J. E., & Remillard, R. A., 2003, astroph/0306213
Markovi[' c]{}, D., & Lamb, F. K., 1998, , 507, 316
Mauche, C. W., 2002, , 580, 423
Miller, M. C., Lamb, F. K., & Psaltis, D., 1998, , 508, 791
Morse, & Feshbach, 1953, Methods of Theoretical Physics, New-York: McGraw Hill
Mukhopadhyay, B., & Misra, R., 2003, , 582, 347
Nowak, M., & Wagoner, R., 1991, , 378, 656
Ogilvie, G. I., & Lubow, S. H., 2002, , 330, 950
Papaloizou, J., & Pringle, J. E., 1977, , 181, 441
Perez, C. A., Silbergleit, A. S., Wagoner, R. V., & Lehr, D. E., 1997, , 476, 589
Pétri J., 2005a, , 439, 443, paper I
Pétri J., 2005b, , 439, L27
Pétri J., 2005c, , accepted (astro-ph/0509047)
Pétri J., 2005d, submitted to Letters
Pringle, J. E., 1981, , 19, 137
Psaltis, D., Belloni, T., & van der Klis, M., 1999, , 520, 262
Rebusco P., 2004, , 56, 553
Rezzolla, L., Yoshida, S., Maccarone, T. J. & Zanotti, O., 2003, , 344, L37
Schnittman, J. D. & Bertschinger, E., 2004, , 606, 1098
Schnittman, J. D. & Rezzolla, L., 2005, arXiv:astro-ph/0506702
Shaham, J., 1987, IAU Symp. 125, 347
Stella, L., & Vietri, M., 1998, ApJL, 492, L59
Stella, L., & Vietri, M., 1999, Physical Review Letters, 82, 17
Tanaka, H., Takeuchi, T., & Ward, W. R., 2002, , 565, 1257
Titarchuk, L., Lapidus, I., & Muslimov, A., 1998, , 499, 315
Titarchuk, L., & Wood, K., 2002, ApJL, 577, L23
T[" o]{}r[" o]{}k, G. & Abramowicz, M. A. & Klu[' z]{}niak, W. & Stuchl[í]{}k, Z., 2005, , 436, 1
van der Klis, et al., 1997, ApJL, 481, L97
van der Klis, M., 2000, , 38, 717
van der Klis, M., 2004, astro-ph/0410551
Wagoner, R. V., et al., 2001, ApJL, 559, L25
Warner, B., et al., 2003, , 344, 119
Wijnands, R., 2001, Advances in Space Research, 28, 469
Zhang, W., et al, 1998, , 500, L171
Derivation of the thin disk eigenvalue problem {#sec:AppDerSystProp}
==============================================
In this appendix, we derive the eigenvalue problem satisfied by the radial Lagrangian displacement $\vec{\xi}$ for a thin accretion disk for which $(H/R) \approx (c_\mathrm{s}/R\,\Omega) \ll 1$. We focus only on the fluid motion in the plane of the disk, no warp is taken into account, and so $\xi_\mathrm{z}=0$. Projecting Eq. (\[eq:PDEXi\]) on the radial and azimuthal axis, we get the evolution equations for the 2D Lagrangian displacement $(\xi_\mathrm{r},\xi_\varphi)$ as : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:AppPDEXiR2D}
& & \rho \, \frac{\partial^2\xi_\mathrm{r}}{\partial t^2} + 2 \, \rho \, \Omega \, \left(
\frac{\partial^2\xi_\mathrm{r}}{\partial\varphi\partial t} -
\frac{\partial\xi_\varphi}{\partial t} \right)
- \frac{\partial}{\partial r} \, \left( \gamma \, p \, {\mathrm{div}\,}\vec{\xi} + \vec{\xi} \cdot
\vec{\nabla} p \right) + (g_\mathrm{r} + r\,\Omega^2 )\,{\mathrm{div}\,}(\rho\,\vec{\xi}) + \nonumber \\
& & \rho \, \xi_\mathrm{r} \, \frac{d}{dr} ( r \, \Omega^2) +
\rho \, \Omega^2 \left( \frac{\partial^2\xi_\mathrm{r}}{\partial\varphi^2}
- 2\,\frac{\partial\xi_\varphi}{\partial\varphi} - \xi_\mathrm{r} \right) = \rho \, \delta g_\mathrm{r} \\
\label{eq:AppPDEXiP2D}
& & \rho \, \frac{\partial^2\xi_\varphi}{\partial t^2} + 2 \, \rho \, \Omega \, \left(
\frac{\partial^2\xi_\varphi}{\partial\varphi\partial t} +
\frac{\partial\xi_\mathrm{r}}{\partial t} \right)
- \frac{\partial}{r\,\partial\varphi} \, \left( \gamma \, p \, {\mathrm{div}\,}\vec{\xi} +
\vec{\xi} \cdot \vec{\nabla} p \right) + \nonumber \\
& & \rho \, \Omega^2 \left( \frac{\partial^2\xi_\varphi}{\partial\varphi^2}
+ 2\,\frac{\partial\xi_\mathrm{r}}{\partial\varphi} \right) + g_\varphi \, ( \rho\,{\mathrm{div}\,}\vec{\xi} +
\vec{\xi} \cdot \vec{\nabla}\rho ) = \rho \, \delta g_\varphi\end{aligned}$$
These are the two non-homogeneous equation for the Lagrangian displacement in the disk. The perturbation in the gravitational field gives rise to a driving force responsible for the non-homogeneous part. The solutions of these equations consist of free wave solutions and non-wavelike perturbations. In both cases, we are looking for solutions expressed as a plane wave in the $(\varphi,t)$ coordinates : $$\label{eq:AppOndePlane}
X(r,\varphi,t) = X(r) \, e^{i(m\varphi-\sigma\,t)}$$ For the non-wavelike solution, the eigenfrequency is imposed by the rotating star and is given by $\sigma = m\,\Omega_*$. Putting the development Eq. (\[eq:AppOndePlane\]) into the system (\[eq:AppPDEXiR2D\])-(\[eq:AppPDEXiP2D\]), we obtain : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:AppPDEXiR2D2}
(\omega^2 - r\,\frac{d}{dr}(\Omega_\mathrm{k}^2) + \Omega^2 - \Omega_\mathrm{k}^2) \, \xi_\mathrm{r}
- 2\,i\,\Omega_\mathrm{k} \, \omega \, \xi_\varphi & + & \nonumber \\
c_\mathrm{s}^2 \, \frac{\partial}{\partial r} ({\mathrm{div}\,}\vec{\xi})
+ \frac{1}{\rho} \, \frac{\partial p}{\partial r} \, \left[ (\gamma-1) \, {\mathrm{div}\,}\vec{\xi}
+ \frac{\partial\xi_\mathrm{r}}{\partial r} \right] & = & - \delta g_\mathrm{r} \\
\label{eq:AppPDEXiP2D2}
\omega^2 \, \xi_\varphi + 2\,i\,\Omega_\mathrm{k} \, \omega \, \xi_\mathrm{r} + \frac{i\,m}{r} \,
\left( c_\mathrm{s}^2 \, {\mathrm{div}\,}\vec{\xi} + \frac{1}{\rho} \,
\frac{\partial p}{\partial r} \, \xi_\mathrm{r} \right) & = & - \delta g_\varphi\end{aligned}$$ We have introduce the following notation :
- the Keplerian angular velocity : $$\label{eq:AppFreqKepl}
\Omega_\mathrm{k} = \sqrt{\frac{G\,M_*}{r^3}}$$
- the Doppler shifted eigenfrequency : $$\label{eq:AppValPropDoppler}
\omega = \sigma - m\,\Omega$$
- the divergence of the complex vector $\vec{\xi}(\vec{r})$ : $$\label{eq:AppDivXi}
{\mathrm{div}\,}\vec{\xi} = \frac{1}{r} \, \frac{\partial}{\partial r} (r\,\xi_\mathrm{r}) +
\frac{i\,m}{r} \, \xi_\varphi$$
These are the generalization of the equations obtained by Nowak & Wagoner ([@Nowak1991]) in case of an external force acting on the disk. We can then solve Eq. (\[eq:AppPDEXiP2D2\]) for the variable $\xi_\varphi$ by : $$\label{eq:AppXiPhi}
\xi_\varphi = - \frac{1}{\omega_*^2} \, \left[ \delta g_\varphi + i \,
\left( 2\,\Omega\,\omega + \frac{m}{r} \, \frac{1}{\rho} \,
\frac{\partial p}{\partial r} \right) \, \xi_\mathrm{r} + i \, \frac{m\,c_\mathrm{s}^2}{r^2} \,
\frac{\partial}{\partial r} (r\,\xi_\mathrm{r}) \right]$$ with $\omega_*^2 = \omega^2 - \frac{m^2}{r^2} \, c_\mathrm{s}^2$.
Substituting in the Eq. (\[eq:AppPDEXiR2D2\]), the radial displacement satisfies a second order linear differential equation : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:AppXiR}
c_\mathrm{s}^2 \, \left[ 1 + \frac{m^2\,c_\mathrm{s}^2}{r^2\,\omega_*^2} \right] \,
\frac{\partial^2\xi_\mathrm{r}}{\partial r^2} +
\frac{c_\mathrm{s}^2}{r} \, \left[ \frac{\partial \ln\,(rp)}{\partial\ln\,r} +
\frac{m^2\,c_\mathrm{s}^2}{r} \, \frac{\partial}{\partial r}(\omega_*^{-2}) -
\frac{m^2\,c_\mathrm{s}^2}{\omega_*^2\,r^2}
+ \frac{m^2\,c_\mathrm{s}^2}{\omega_*^2\,r} \, \frac{\partial\ln p}{\partial r} +
2 \, \frac{m^2\,c_\mathrm{s}}{\omega_*^2\,r} \, \frac{\partial c_\mathrm{s}}{\partial r} \right] \,
\frac{\partial\xi_\mathrm{r}}{\partial r} + \nonumber \\
\left[ \omega^2 - \kappa^2 + 4 \, \Omega^2\, \left( 1 - \frac{\omega^2}{\omega_*^2} \right) +
+ r \, \frac{\partial}{\partial r}(\Omega^2-\Omega_0^2) + \frac{c_\mathrm{s}^2}{r} \,
( \frac{\partial\ln p}{\partial r} - \frac{1}{r} ) +
\right. \nonumber \\ \left.
\frac{m\,c_\mathrm{s}^2}{r} \, \left( 2\,\Omega\,\omega + \frac{m}{r} \, \left(
\frac{c_\mathrm{s}^2}{\gamma} \, \frac{\partial\ln p}{\partial r} +
\frac{c_\mathrm{s}^2}{r} \right) \right) \, \frac{\partial}{\partial r}(\omega_*^{-2}) +
\frac{\gamma-1}{\gamma\,r} \, c_\mathrm{s}^2 \, \frac{\partial\ln p}{\partial r} \,
\frac{m}{\omega_*^2} \, \left( 2\,\Omega\,\omega + \frac{m}{r} \, \left(
\frac{c_\mathrm{s}^2}{\gamma} \, \frac{\partial\ln p}{\partial r} +
\frac{c_\mathrm{s}^2}{r} \right) \right) + \right. \nonumber \\ \left.
\frac{m}{\omega_*^2} \left( m\,c_\mathrm{s}^2 \frac{\partial}{\partial r} \frac{c_\mathrm{s}^2}{r^2} +
c_\mathrm{s}^2 \, \frac{\partial}{\partial r}
\left( \frac{2\,\Omega\,\omega}{r} + \frac{m\,c_\mathrm{s}^2}{\gamma\,r^2} \,
\frac{\partial\ln p}{\partial r} \right) - \frac{2\,\Omega\,\omega}{r} \, \left(
\frac{c_\mathrm{s}^2}{\gamma} \, \frac{\partial\ln p}{\partial r} +
\frac{c_\mathrm{s}^2}{r} \right) \right) \right] \, \xi_\mathrm{r} \nonumber \\
= -\delta g_\mathrm{r} - i \left[ \left( 2 \, \frac{\Omega\,\omega}{\omega_*^2} -
\frac{\gamma-1}{r\,\gamma} \, \frac{m\,c_\mathrm{s}^2}{\omega_*^2} \,
\frac{\partial\ln p}{\partial r} + \frac{m\,c_\mathrm{s}^2}{r^2\,\omega_*^2} -
\frac{m\,c_\mathrm{s}^2}{r} \, \frac{\partial}{\partial r}
\left( \omega_*^{-2} \right) \right) \, \delta g_\varphi -
\frac{m\,c_\mathrm{s}^2}{r\,\omega_*^2} \, \frac{\partial\delta g_\varphi}{\partial r} \right]
\nonumber \\
& & \end{aligned}$$
This equation can be drastically simplified in the case of a thin disk where the sound speed can be considered as a small quantity. However, in order to include properly the corotation resonance, we keep the leading terms close to the corotation radius and we have : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:AppXiRCorot}
c_\mathrm{s}^2 \, \left[ 1 + \frac{m^2\,c_\mathrm{s}^2}{r^2\,\omega_*^2} \right] \,
\frac{\partial^2\xi_\mathrm{r}}{\partial r^2} + \frac{c_\mathrm{s}^2}{r} \, \left[
\frac{\partial \ln\,(rp)}{\partial\ln\,r} + \frac{m^2\,c_\mathrm{s}^2}{r} \,
\frac{\partial}{\partial r}(\omega_*^{-2}) \right] \,
\frac{\partial\xi_\mathrm{r}}{\partial r} + \nonumber \\
\left[ \omega^2 - \kappa^2 + 4 \, \Omega^2\,
\left( 1 - \frac{\omega^2}{\omega_*^2} \right) +
\frac{m\,c_\mathrm{s}^2}{r} \, 2\,\Omega\,\omega \,
\frac{\partial}{\partial r}(\omega_*^{-2}) \right] \, \xi_\mathrm{r} \nonumber \\
= - \delta g_\mathrm{r} - i \left[ 2 \, \frac{\Omega\,\omega}{\omega_*^2} -
\frac{m\,c_\mathrm{s}^2}{r} \, \frac{\partial}{\partial r}
\left( \omega_*^{-2} \right) \right] \, \delta g_\varphi \end{aligned}$$
Furthermore, when far from the corotation, terms including the sound speed $c_\mathrm{s}^2$ can be neglected compared to other ones, and Eq. (\[eq:AppXiRCorot\]) reduces to : $$\label{eq:AppXiRSimp}
c_\mathrm{s}^2 \, \left[ \frac{\partial^2\xi_\mathrm{r}}{\partial r^2} +
\frac{\partial \ln\,(rp)}{\partial\,r} \,
\frac{\partial\xi_\mathrm{r}}{\partial r} \right] + ( \omega^2 - \kappa^2 ) \, \xi_\mathrm{r} =
- \delta g_\mathrm{r} - 2 \, i \, \frac{\Omega}{\omega} \, \delta g_\varphi$$
Finally we introduce the new unknown $\psi=\sqrt{r\,p}\,\xi_\mathrm{r}$ to get to the same order of approximation the following Schrödinger type equation : $$\label{eq:AppPsiSimp}
\psi''(r) + V(r) \, \psi(r) = F(r)$$ The potential is given by : $$\label{eq:AppPotentiel}
V(r) = \frac{\omega^2 - \kappa^2}{c_\mathrm{s}^2}$$ and the source term by : $$\label{eq:AppSrc}
F(r) = - \left( \delta g_\mathrm{r} + 2 \, i \, \frac{\Omega}{\omega} \,
\delta g_\varphi \right) \, \frac{\sqrt{r\,p}}{c_\mathrm{s}^2}$$ Eq. (\[eq:AppPsiSimp\]) is the fundamental equation we have to solve to find the solution to our problem far from the corotation resonance. We refer the reader to Appendix B of paper I where we develop an analytical method for approximate solutions to this Schrödinger equation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Let $f$ be a normalized Hecke eigenform with rational integer Fourier coefficients. It is an interesting question to know how often an integer $n$ has a factor common with the $n$-th Fourier coefficient of $f$. The second author [@kumar3] showed that this happens very often. In this paper, we give an asymptotic formula for the number of integers $n$ for which $(n, a(n))=1$, where $a(n)$ is the $n$-th Fourier coefficient of a normalized Hecke eigenform $f$ of weight $2$ with rational integer Fourier coefficients and has complex multiplication.'
address:
- 'The Institute of Mathematical Sciences, CIT Campus, Taramani, Chennai 600 113 India'
- 'Department of Mathematics, University of Toronto, 40 St. George Street, Toronto, ON, Canada, M5S 2E4.'
author:
- 'Sanoli Gun and V. Kumar Murty'
title: 'A variant of Lehmer’s conjecture, II: The CM-case'
---
Introduction
============
The arithmetic of the Fourier coefficients of modular forms is intriguing and mysterious. For instance, consider the cusp form of Ramanujan $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta(z) ~=~ \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \tau(n) e^{2\pi i n z}.\end{aligned}$$ The coefficients $\tau(n)$ have received extensive arithmetic scrutiny following the ground-breaking investigations of Ramanujan [@rama] himself. Here, we have one of the oft-quoted conjectures in number theory attributed to Lehmer [@lehmer1],[@lehmer2] which asserts that $$\tau(p) \ne 0,$$ where $p$ is a prime. Equivalently, for any $n \ge 1$, $$\tau(n) \ne 0.$$ In general, proving such non-vanishing of all Fourier coefficients of a modular form is delicate and difficult. A more accessible problem is to study the arithmetic density of the non-zero coefficients. We refer to [@kumar1], [@serre3] for results of this type.\
In a recent work [@kumar3], a variant of Lehmer’s conjecture has been considered. More precisely, let $$f(z) ~=~ \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} a(n) e^{2\pi i n z}$$ be the Fourier expansion of a normalized eigenform and suppose that the $a(n)$’s are rational integers for all $n$. Then it is natural to ask whether $$\# \left\{p \le x \mid a(p) \equiv 0 \!\!\pmod{p} \right\} ~=~ o(\pi(x)) ~.$$ Heuristically, if the weight is $>2$, the number of such primes up to $x$ may grow like $\log\log x$ though we do not even know if these are of density zero. In general, denoting $(a,b)$ to be the greatest common divisor of $a$ and $b$, one can ask whether $$\# \left\{n \le x \mid (n, a(n)) \ne 1 \right\} ~=~ o(x),$$ an assertion which turns out to be false. As mentioned in [@kumar3], the correct question in this context is the opposite assertion, namely whether it is true that $$\# \left\{n \le x \mid (n, a(n)) ~=~1 \right\} ~=~ o(x).$$ This variant of Lehmer’s conjecture appears to be amenable to study. In contrast to the prime case, $a(n)$ almost always has a factor in common with $n$. In particular, the following result has been proved in [@kumar3].\
Let us set $$L_2(x) = \log\log x$$ and for each $i\ge 3$, define $$L_i(x) = \log L_{i-1}(x).$$ In any occurence of an $L_i(x)$, we always assume that $x$ is sufficiently large so that $L_i(x)$ is defined and positive.
[@kumar3] For a normalized eigenform $f$ as above with rational integer Fourier coefficients $a(n)$, one has $$\# \left\{n \le x \mid (n, a(n)) ~=~1 \right\} ~\ll ~\frac{x}{L_3(x)}.$$
In the same paper, it was anticipated that if $f$ has complex multiplication (CM), a stronger result should hold. The ethos of our present work is to vindicate this anticipation, at least in the case that $f$ has weight $2$. A modular form $f$ is said to have CM if there is an imaginary quadratic field $K$ and a Hecke character $\Psi$ of $K$ with conductor $\mbox{\germ m}$ so that $$f(z) ~=~ \sum_{\mbox{\germ a} \atop ~~~~\left(\mbox{\germ a}, \mbox{\germ m}\right)= 1}
\Psi(\mbox{\germ a}) e^{2\pi i N(\mbox{\germ a})z}.$$ Here, the sum is over integral ideals $\mbox{\germ a}$ of the ring of integers of $K$ which are coprime to $\mbox{\germ m}$ and $N(\mbox {\germ a})$ denotes the norm of $\mbox{\germ a}$. Thus $$a(n) ~=~ \sum_{N(\mbox {\germ a})=n, \atop \left(\mbox{\germ a},
\mbox{\germ m}\right)=1} \Psi(\mbox {\germ a}).$$ In particular for a prime $p$, $a(p) = 0$ if $p$ does not split in $K$ and $a(n)=0$ if $p||n$ (i.e. $p\mid n$ but $p^2\nmid n$) for some prime $p$ for which $a(p) = 0$. It is well-known that if we are given a set $S$ of primes of positive density, the set of integers $n$ with the property that $p||n$ for some $p \in S$ has density one. Thus $a(n)=0$ for a set of $n$ of density one. More precisely, let us set $$M_{f,1}(x) = \# \left\{ n \le x \mid a(n) \ne 0 \right\}.$$ Then we show that there is a constant $u_f$ so that $$M_{f,1}(x) ~=~ (1 ~+~ o(1)) \frac{u_f x}{\sqrt{\pi} (\log x)^{{\frac{1}{2}}}}.$$ We also show that there is a constant $\omega_f > 0$ so that $$\prod_{p < x \atop a(p) \neq 0}
\left( 1 - \frac{1}{p} \right)\ \sim\ \frac{\omega_f}{(\log x)^{{\frac{1}{2}}}},$$ where $\omega_f = \mu_f \mu_2\mu_3$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_2 &=& \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\frac{1}{2} & \mbox{if $a(2)\ne 0$} \\
1 & \mbox{otherwise}
\end{array} \right. \\ \\
\mu_3 &=& \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\frac{2}{3} & \mbox{if $a(3)\ne 0$} \\
1 & \mbox{otherwise}
\end{array} \right. \end{aligned}$$ and $\mu_f$ is given in [Proposition \[mertens\]]{}. Finally, the main result of our paper is the following theorem.
\[thm1\] Let $f$ be a normalized eigenform of weight $2$ with rational integer Fourier coefficients $\{a(n)\}$. If $f$ is of CM-type, then there is a constant $U_f > 0$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
\# \{n\le x \mid (n, a(n)) = 1\} = (1 + o(1))
\frac{U_f x}{\sqrt{\pi}
\left(L_3(x)\log x \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}.\end{aligned}$$
The constant is given explicitly in terms of $f$ during the course of the proof.
Our methods are based on the techniques of Erd[ö]{}s [@erdos], Serre [@serre1], [@serre2] and those of Ram Murty and the second author [@kumar4], [@kumar2], [@kumar3], [@ram1],[@ram2]. Throughout this article, $p$ and $q$ will denote primes.
Divisibility of fourier coefficients {#div}
====================================
Let $f$ be a normalized Hecke eigenform of weight $2$ for $\Gamma_0(N)$ with CM and let $K$ be the imaginary quadratic field associated to $f$. The Fourier expansion of $f$ at infinity is given by $$f(z) ~=~ \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} a(n)e^{2\pi i n z},$$ where we are assuming that the $a(n)$’s are rational integers.
For any prime $p$, let ${{{\mathbb Z}}}_p$ denote the ring of $p$-adic integers. By Eichler-Shimura-Deligne and since the Fourier coefficients of $f$ are in ${{\mathbb Z}}$, there is a continuous representation $$\rho_{p,f} ~:~ {\rm{Gal}}\left(\Bar{{{\mathbb Q}}}/{{{\mathbb Q}}}\right) \to GL_2({{{\mathbb Z}}}_p) .$$ This representation is unramified outside the primes dividing $Np$. This means that for any prime $q$ which does not divide $Np$ and for any prime $\mbox{\germ q}$ of $\Bar{{{\mathbb Q}}}$ over $q$, $\rho_{p,f}($Frob$_{\mbox{\germ q}})$ makes sense. We note that while $\rho_{p,f}($Frob$_{\mbox{\germ q}})$ does depend on the choice of $\mbox{\germ q}$ over $q$, its characteristic polynomial depends only on the conjugacy class of $\rho_{p,f}($Frob$_{\mbox{\germ q}})$(hence only on $q$) and is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{T}
T^2 - a(q)T + q.\end{aligned}$$ We consider the reduction of the above representation modulo $p$ $$\Bar{\rho}_{p,f} ~:~ {\rm{Gal}}\left(\Bar{{{\mathbb Q}}}/{{{\mathbb Q}}}\right) \to GL_2({{{\mathbb F}}}_p).$$ The fixed field of the kernel of this representation determines a number field $L$ which is a Galois extension of ${{\mathbb Q}}$ with group the image of $\Bar{\rho}_{p,f} $.
We need to enumerate primes $q$ as above for which $a(q)\equiv 0\!\!\pmod{p}$. For this purpose, the following version of a theorem of Schaal [@schaal] is useful.
\[thmschaal\] Let $\mbox{\germ f}$ be an integral ideal of a number field $K$ of degree $n=r_1 + 2r_2$, where $r_1, r_2$ denote the number of real and complex embeddings respectively. Also let $\beta \in K$ denote an integer with $(\beta, {\mbox{\germ f}})=1$. Let $M_1, \cdots, M_{r_1}$ be nonnegative and $P_1, \cdots, P_n$ be positive real numbers with $P_l = P_{l+ r_2}$, $l= r_1+1, \cdots, r_1 + r_2$ and $P= P_1\cdots P_n$. Consider the number $B$ of integers $\omega \in K$ subject to the conditions: $$\omega \equiv \beta \!\!\pmod{\mbox{\germ f}}, ~~~~~(\omega)~
{\text a~ prime~ ideal~}$$ $$M_l \le \omega^{(l)} \le M_l + P_l, ~~~~~l ~=~ 1, \cdots, r_1$$ for real conjugates of $\omega$ and for complex conjugates $$|{\omega}^{(l)}| \le P_l, ~~~~~l= r_1+1, \cdots,n.$$ If $P \ge 2$ and and the norm ${{\mathbb N}}{\mbox{\germ f}}$ satisfies $${{\mathbb N}}{\mbox{\germ f}} \le \frac{P}{(\log P )^{(2r_1+ 2r_2 - 2 + 2/n)}}~,$$ then one has\
$$B \ll \frac{P}{\phi({\mbox{\germ f}}) \log{\frac{P}{{{\mathbb N}}{\mbox{\germ f}}}}}
\left\{1 + O\left(\log{\frac{P}{{{\mathbb N}}{\mbox{\germ f}}}}\right)^{-1/n}\right\},$$ where the implied constants depend only on $K$ and not on $\mbox{\germ f}$.
Define $$\pi^{*}(x,p) := \# \left\{q\le x \mid a(q) \equiv 0 \!\!\!\!\!\pmod{p},
~a(q) \ne {0}\right\}.$$
Now suppose that $q$ is a prime which splits in $K$, say $q {\mathcal O}_K=\mbox{\germ q}_1 \mbox{\germ q}_2$ and that $\pi_q, {\Bar\pi}_q$ are roots of the characteristic polynomial . Then $$\begin{aligned}
a(q) ~=~ \pi_q + {\Bar\pi}_q ~~~~~~~~{\rm{and}}~~~~q~=~{\pi}_q {\Bar\pi}_q.\end{aligned}$$ Also if $a(q) \ne 0$, then ${\pi}_q \in {\mathcal O}_K$ and $|{\pi}_q| = q^{1/2}$. If $a(q)\equiv 0\!\!\pmod{p}$, then ${\pi} _q^2 \equiv - q\!\!\pmod{p}$. Thus, if in addition $q \equiv a \!\!\pmod{p}$, then ${\pi}_q \!\!\pmod{p}$ has a bounded number of possibilities (at most $4$ in fact). Also, the ideal $(\pi_q)$ is prime as $(\pi_q)({\Bar\pi}_q ) = (q)$. Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{q \le x \atop {\pi_q \equiv \alpha \!\!\!\!\!\pmod{p}
\atop q \equiv a \!\!\!\!\pmod{p},
~q {\mathcal O}_K =\mbox{\germ q}_1\mbox{\germ q}_2}} 1
~~\le \sum_{\omega \in {\mathcal O}_K \atop {(\omega)~{\text is~prime},
~|\omega| \le \sqrt{x}
\atop \omega \equiv \alpha \!\!\! \pmod{p}}} 1.\end{aligned}$$ Applying [Theorem \[thmschaal\]]{} with $\mbox{\germ f} = (p)$, the right hand side is seen to be $$\ll \frac{x}{p^2 \log {\frac{x}{p^2}}}$$ for $p^2 \le x/\log x$.\
Now summing over all $a\!\!\pmod{p}$ yields the following proposition.
\[prop99\] Let $f$ be a modular form as above. Then for $p^2 \le x/\log{x}$, we have $$\pi^{*}(x,p) ~\ll~ \frac{x}{p \log {\frac{x}{p^2}}}.$$
Now using [Proposition \[prop99\]]{} and partial summation, we see that for primes $p \le \sqrt{x/\log x}$,
$$\begin{aligned}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{p^2 \log p \le q \le x \atop a(q)
\equiv 0 \!\!\! \pmod{p}}} \frac{1}{q} ~\ll~ \frac{1}{p}
\int_{p^2 \log p}^{x} \frac{dt}{t \log{\frac{t}{p^2}}}
~\ll~ \frac{1}{p} \log\log {\frac{x}{p^2}}~,\end{aligned}$$
where $\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{y \le q\le x}}$ means that the summation is over all primes $y \le q \le x$ for which $a(q) \ne {0}$. Thus, we have the following result.
\[prop100\] Let $f$ be a modular form as above and also let $p^2 \le {x}/{\log x}$ be a fixed prime. Then one has $$\begin{aligned}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{p^2 \log p \le q \le x
\atop a(q) \equiv 0 \!\!\pmod{p}}} \frac{1}{q} ~\ll~ \frac{1}{p}
{L_2\left(\frac{x}{p}\right)},\end{aligned}$$ where $\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{y \le q\le x}}$ means that the summation is over all primes $y \le q \le x$ for which $a(q) \ne {0}$.
\[remark 1\] We note that the contribution from the remaining primes $q \le p^2 \log p$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{q \le p^2 \log p \atop a(q) \equiv 0 \!\!\pmod{p}}}
\frac{1}{q} ~\ll~ \frac{L_2(p)}{\log p}.\end{aligned}$$ However, we shall not make use of this estimate.
Vanishing of $a(p)$
===================
Let $E$ be the elliptic curve defined over ${{\mathbb Q}}$ corresponding to the modular form $f$ of level $N = N_E$. As $f$ is of $CM$-type corresponding to the imaginary quadratic field $K$, we know that $E$ has $CM$ by an order in $K$. A prime $p$ is supersingular for $E$ if $E$ has good reduction at $p$ and its reduction $E_p$ has multiplication by an order in a quaternion division algebra. It is well known that a prime $p$ of good reduction is supersingular if and only if $$\label{supersingular2}
|E({{\mathbb F}}_p)| \equiv 1 \pmod{p}.$$ In particular, the set of primes supersingular for $E$ only depends on the isogeny class of $E$. For $p \geq 5$, is equivalent to the condition $a(p) \ =\ 0$.
Let ${\pi}_E(x)$ denote the number of primes $p \le x$ such that $p$ is a supersingular prime for $E$. We know that $$\pi_E(x) \ge \pi_K^{-}(x),$$ where $\pi_K^{-}(x)$ denotes the number of primes $p\le x$ that remain prime in $K$. In fact, the following more precise result is due to Deuring (see [@Lang], Chapter 13, Theorem 12).
\[Deuring\] Let $E$ be an elliptic curve defined over ${{\mathbb Q}}$ with multiplication by an order in an imaginary quadratic field $K$. Let $p$ be a prime of good reduction for $E$. Then $p$ is supersingular for $E$ if and only if $p$ ramifies or remains prime in $K$.
In particular, this implies the following result.
\[supersingular\] Suppose that $p \geq 5$. With $E$ as in the previous proposition, we have $a(p)=0$ if and only if $p$ is a prime of bad reduction or $p$ doesn’t split in $K$.
As $E$ has complex multiplication, it has additive reduction at primes of bad reduction and thus $a(p)=0$. The rest follows from Deuring’s result.
Finally, we record the following result which will be useful in establishing the main result.
\[mertens\] There is a constant $\mu_f > 0$ so that $$\prod_{5 \leq p<z \atop a(p) \neq 0} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{p} \right)
\ =\ \frac{\mu_f}{(\log z)^{{\frac{1}{2}}}}\ +\ O_f\left(\frac{1}{(\log z)^{3/2}}\right).$$
Using Rosen [@Rosen], Theorem 2, we have $$\prod_{{{\mathbb N}}{{\frak p}}\leq z} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{{{\mathbb N}}{{\frak p}}} \right)^{-1}
\ =\ e^\gamma\alpha_K\log z\ +\ O_K(1).$$ Here, the product is over primes ${{\frak p}}$ of $K$ and $ \alpha_K $ is the residue at $s=1$ of the Dedekind zeta function $\zeta_K(s)$. Note that $\alpha_K = L(1,\chi_K)$ where $\chi_K$ is the quadratic character defining $K$ and $L(s,\chi_K)$ is the associated $L$-function. It follows that $$\prod_{{{\mathbb N}}{{\frak p}}\leq z} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{{{\mathbb N}}{{\frak p}}} \right)
\ =\ \frac{e^{-\gamma}L(1,\chi_K)^{-1}}{\log z}
\ +\ O_K\left(\frac{1}{(\log z)^2}\right).$$ Thus, $$\prod_{p \leq z \atop p {\rm\ splits\ in\ } K}
\left( 1 - \frac{1}{p} \right)\ =
\ \frac{\beta_K}{(\log z)^{{\frac{1}{2}}}}\ +
\ O_K\left(\frac{1}{(\log z)^{3/2}}\right)$$ where $$\beta_K\ =\ e^{-\gamma/2}L(1,\chi_K)^{-1/2}\prod_{p {\rm\ inert}}
\left( 1-\frac{1}{p^2}\right)^{-{{\frac{1}{2}}}}\prod_{p|d_K}
\left( 1 - \frac{1}{p} \right)^{-{{\frac{1}{2}}}}.$$ By Proposition \[supersingular\], for $p \geq 5$, we have $a(p) \neq 0$ if and only if $p$ is a prime of good reduction and splits in $K$. This proves the result with $$\mu_f\ =\ \beta_K\prod_{p {\rm\ splits} \atop p|6N}
\left( 1 - \frac{1}{p} \right)^{-1}.$$
The number of non-zero fourier coefficients
===========================================
We begin by considering a slightly more general setting as in Serre [@serre2 §6] which parts of this section follow closely. Let $n \mapsto a(n)$ be a multiplicative function and define the multiplicative function $$\begin{aligned}
& a^{0}(n) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
1 & ~~~~\mbox{if $a(n) \ne 0$},\\
0 & ~~~~\mbox{if $a(n) = 0$}.
\end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$ We want the asymptotic behaviour of $$\begin{aligned}
M_{a,d}(x) := \# \left\{ n\le x \mid a(n) \ne 0, ~~d|n \right\}
= \sum_{dn \le x} a^{o}(dn),\end{aligned}$$ for any positive integer $d$.
The case $d=1$ {#disone}
--------------
Consider the Dirichlet series $$\phi(s)\ =\ \sum_n \frac{a^0(n)}{n^s}\ =\ \prod_{p}\phi_p(s)$$ where $$\phi_p(s)\ =\ \sum_{m=0}^\infty a^0(p^m)p^{-ms}.$$ Let $$P_a(x)\ =\ \#\{p \leq x ~|~ a(p)=0\}.$$ Suppose we know that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{500}
P_{a}(x) = \lambda \frac{x}{\log x} ~+~ O\left(\frac{x}{(\log x)^{1+
\delta}} \right)\end{aligned}$$ for some $\delta > 0$ and $\lambda < 1$. Then $$\sum_{p\le x} a^{0}(p) = (1-\lambda)\frac{x}{\log x}
~+~ O\left(\frac{x}{(\log x)^{1+\delta}}\right)$$ and $$\sum_{p}\frac{a^{0}(p)}{p^s} = (1 - \lambda)
\log\left(\frac{1}{s-1}\right) ~+~ \epsilon_1(s),$$ where $\epsilon_1(s)$ is analytic in a neighbourhood of $s=1$. Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
\log(\phi(s)) =
\sum_{p} \log(\phi_p (s)) = \sum_p \frac{a^{0}(p)}{p^s}
~+~ \epsilon_2(s),\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon_2(s)$ is also analytic in a neighbourhood of $s=1$. Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\log(\phi(s)) = (1-\lambda) \log\left(\frac{1}{s-1}\right)
~+~ \epsilon_3(s)\end{aligned}$$ and $$\phi(s) = \frac{e^{\epsilon_3(s)}}{(s-1)^{1-\lambda}}.$$ A set of primes $P$ is called “frobenien” (in the sense of Serre ([@serre1], Théorème 3.4)) if there is a finite Galois extension $K/{{{\mathbb Q}}}$ and a conjugacy-stable subset $H \subseteq G = {\rm Gal}(K/{{\mathbb Q}})$ such that for $p$ sufficiently large, $p \in P$ if and only if $\sigma_p(K/{{{\mathbb Q}}}) \subseteq H$. Here $\sigma_p(K/{{{\mathbb Q}}})$ denotes the conjugacy class of Frobenius automorphism associated to $p$. If the set of primes enumerated by $P_a$ is “frobenien”, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{100}
M_{a,1}(x)\ =\ \frac{u_{a}~ x}{\Gamma(1-\lambda) (\log x)^{\lambda}}
\ +\ O\left(\frac{x}{(\log x)^{\lambda+1}}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $u_{a} = e^{\epsilon_3(1)}$. Moreover, in the case that $\lambda = 0$, if one has the additional hypothesis that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{101}
\sum_{a(p) = 0} \frac{1}{p} < \infty\end{aligned}$$ then [@serre2 p. 167] states that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{102}
u_{a} = \prod_{a(p)=0} \left(1 - \frac{1}{p}\right).\end{aligned}$$
If we do not assume that $P_a$ enumerates a “frobenien” set of primes, we can still invoke a Tauberian theorem to get an asymptotic formula $$M_{a,1}(x)\ \sim\ \frac{u_a x}{\Gamma(1-\lambda)(\log x)^{\lambda}}.$$
In the next two subsections, we consider those arithmetic functions for which $P_a$ is frobenien.
Convolution with a secondary function {#convolution}
-------------------------------------
$~~~$\
Now consider another function $n \mapsto b(n)$ with the following properties:
1. There is an integer $d$ so that $b(n) \neq 0$ implies that all prime divisors of $n$ are prime divisors of $d$.
2. We have $|b(n)| \leq\ 4^{\nu(n)}$ where $\nu(n)$ is the number of distinct prime divisors of $n$.
Let us set $$\label{xi}
\xi_d(s)\ =\ \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{b(n)}{n^s}.$$ We see that $$\sum_{m \leq x} |b(m)| \ \leq\ \sum_{p|m \Rightarrow p|d}
4^{\nu(m)}(x/m)^{1/4}\ =
\ x^{1/4}\prod_{p|d}\left( 1 + \frac{4}{p^{1/4}-1}\right).$$ We observe that $$\prod_{p|d} \left( 1 + \frac{4}{p^{1/4}-1}\right)
\ \ll\ 2^{\nu(d)}$$ and so $$\label{sumofb}
\sum_{m \leq x} |b(m)|\ \ll\ x^{1/4}2^{\nu(d)}.$$ Moreover, using , we have $$\label{tailofx2}
\sum_{z < m < 2z} \frac{|b(m)|}{m}\ \ll\ z^{-3/4}2^{\nu(d)}.$$ Let $c = a^0*b$ be the Dirichlet convolution and consider the function $$\psi(s)\ =\ \sum_n \frac{c(n)}{n^s}\ =\ \phi(s)\xi_d(s).$$ Then, we have $$\sum_{n \leq x} c(n)\ =\ \sum_{m \leq x} b(m) \sum_{r \leq x/m} a^0(r).$$ The contribution from terms with $\sqrt{x}\leq m \leq x$ is $$\leq x \sum_{\sqrt{x}\leq m \leq x} \frac{|b(m)|}{m}.$$ Decomposing the sum into dyadic intervals $U < m \leq 2U$ and using shows that the summation is $O(x^{-3/8}2^{\nu(d)})$ and hence the whole expression is $O(x^{5/8}2^{\nu(d)})$. Assuming that holds (that is, that $P_a$ enumerates a “Frobenien” set of primes), we have $$\label{sumcn}
\sum_{n \leq x} c(n)\ =\
\sum_{m \leq \sqrt{x}} b(m)\left\{
\left(\frac{u_a}{\Gamma(1-\lambda)} + O\left(\frac{1}{\log x}\right)\right)
\frac{x}{m(\log x/m)^\lambda}\right\}\ +\ O(x^{5/8}2^{\nu(d)}).$$ Note that $$\left( \log \frac{x}{m} \right)^{-\lambda}
\ =\ \left( \log x \right)^{-\lambda}\ +\ O((\log m)(\log x)^{-\lambda-1}).$$ Using this and , the right hand side of is equal to $$\left(\frac{u_a}{\Gamma(1-\lambda)} +
O\left(\frac{1}{\log x}\right)\right)\frac{x}{(\log x)^\lambda}
\left( \xi_d(1)\ +\ O(x^{-3/8}(\log x)^{-1}2^{\nu(d)})\right)\ +
\ O(x^{5/8}2^{\nu(d)}).$$ Summarizing this discussion, we have proved the following.
\[averageofc\] We have $$\sum_{n\leq x} c(n)\ =\ \frac{u_a\xi_d(1)}{\Gamma(1-\lambda)}
\frac{x}{(\log x)^\lambda}\ +
\ O\left(\frac{x2^{\nu(d)}}{(\log x)^{\lambda+1}}\right)$$ uniformly in $d$.
The case of general $d$
-----------------------
$~~~~$\
Consider the Dirichlet series $$\psi_d(s) = \sum_{n}\frac{a^{0}(dn)}{n^s}.$$ We may write it as $$\left(\sum_{n_1=1 \atop p|n_1 \Rightarrow p|d}^\infty
\frac{a^{0}(dn_1)}{n_1^s}
\right)
\left(\sum_{n_2=1 \atop (n_2,d)=1}^\infty
\frac{a^{0}(n_2)}{n_2^s}
\right).$$ Thus, we see that $$\psi_d(s)\ =\ \phi(s)\xi_d(s)$$ where as in Section \[disone\] $$\phi(s)\ =\ \sum_{n_3=1}^\infty \frac{a^{0}(n_3)}{n_3^s}$$ and $$\xi_d(s)\ =\ \left(\sum_{n_1=1 \atop p|n_1 \Rightarrow p|d}^\infty
\frac{a^{0}(dn_1)}{n_1^s}
\right)
\left(\sum_{n_2=1 \atop p|n_2 \Rightarrow p|d}^\infty
\frac{a^{0}(n_2)}{n_2^s}
\right)^{-1}.$$ We have a factorization $$\begin{aligned}
\xi_d(s)
= \prod_{p|d} \xi_{p,d}(s),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\xi_{p,d}(s)\ = \left(\sum_{m=0}^\infty a^0(p^{m+{\rm ord}_p d})p^{-ms}\right)
\left(\sum_{m=0}^{\infty} a^{0}(p^m) p^{-ms}\right)^{-1}.$$ We record the following estimate for later use.
\[obvious\] $$\xi_{p,d}(1)\ =\ a^0(p^{{\rm ord}_p d})\ +\ O\left(\frac{1}{p}\right).$$
We write $$\xi_d(s)\ =\ \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{b(n)}{n^s}$$ and suppose that $\xi_d(s)$ (that is, the coefficients $\{ b(n) \}$) satisfies the conditions of Section \[convolution\]. Recall that $$M_{a,d}(x):= \# \left\{ n\le x \mid a(n)\ne 0, \ d|n \ \right\}.$$ We have $$M_{a,d}(x)\ =\ \sum_{dn \leq x} a^0(dn)$$ and by Proposition \[averageofc\], we deduce the following.
\[mad\] If $\xi_d$ satisfies the hypotheses of Section \[convolution\], then we have $$M_{a,d}(x)\ =\ \frac{u_a\xi_d(1)}{\Gamma(1-\lambda)}
\frac{x/d}{(\log x/d)^\lambda}\ +
\ O\left(
\frac{x2^{\nu(d)}}{d(\log x/d)^{\lambda+1}}
\right)$$ uniformly in $d$.
Application to modular forms
----------------------------
$~~~~$\
Now let $f$ be a normalized Hecke eigenform of weight $k \ge 2$ and let $a(n)= a_f(n)$ denote the $n$-th Fourier coefficient of $f$. In this case, let us denote the constant $u_{a}$ of the previous paragraph by $u_{f}$, and the function $M_{a,d}$ by $M_{f,d}$.
In some cases, $u_{f}$ can be made explicit. If $f$ does not have CM and $d=1$, then condition holds (see [@kumar4]) and so $u_{f}$ is given by . We shall discuss the case that $f$ has CM.
In this case the assumption made on $P_{a}(x)$ is true with $\lambda = \frac{1}{2}$ and so $$M_{f,1}(x)\ \sim\ \frac{u_f x}{\sqrt{\pi}(\log x)^{{\frac{1}{2}}}}.$$ (Here, we have used the fact that $\Gamma({{\frac{1}{2}}})=\sqrt{\pi}$.) If we assume that $f$ is of weight $2$ and has integer Fourier coefficients, then by Proposition 3.2, the “frobenien” condition is satisfied apart from a finite set of primes. If we can show that the conditions of Section \[convolution\] are satisfied, then specializing Proposition \[mad\] to this case, we can deduce the following.
\[nonzero\] We have $$\begin{aligned}
M_{f,d}(x) = \# \left\{n\le x \mid a_f(n) \ne 0, ~~d|n \right\}
~=~
\frac{u_f x \displaystyle \xi_d(1)}
{\sqrt{\pi}d ~(\log x/d)^{{\frac{1}{2}}}}~
+ O\left( \frac{x2^{\nu(d)}}{d(\log x/d)^{3/2}}\right)\end{aligned}$$ where $u_f$ is a constant depending on $f$.
We begin with some preliminary results. Let us set $i_f(p)$ to be the least integer $i \geq 1$ for which $a_f(p^i) = 0$. If for a given $p$, there is no such $i$, then let us set $i_f(p) = 0$. In particular, if $p$ divides the level $N$ of $f$, then $i_f(p)=1$.
\[cnta\] For $p \nmid N$, we have
1. $i_f(p) \in \{ 0,1,2,3,5 \}$.
2. If $i_f(p) > 0$, then $a_f(p^i) = 0$ for every $i> 0$ with $$i+1 \equiv 0\!\!\! \pmod {i_f(p)+1}.$$
3. If $a_f(p^i)=0$ for some $i>0$, then $i+1 \equiv 0 \pmod {i_f(p)+1}$.
4. For $p$ sufficiently large (depending on $f$), we have $i_f(p) \in
\{ 0,1 \}$.
Let us suppose that $i_f(p) > 0$. Thus, $a_f(p^i) = 0$ for some $i \geq 1$. Let us write $\alpha_p$ and $\beta_p$ for the roots of $X^2 - a_f(p)X + p$. Then, we have $$\label{recursion}
a_f(p^i)\ =\ \frac{\alpha_p^{i+1}-\beta_p^{i+1}}{\alpha_p-\beta_p}.$$ Thus, $\alpha_p = \zeta\beta_p$ where $\zeta^{i+1}=1$. Since $\zeta \in {{{\mathbb Q}}}(\alpha_p,\beta_p)\ =\ {{{\mathbb Q}}}(\alpha_p)$ and $[{{\mathbb Q}}(\alpha_p):{{\mathbb Q}}]=2$, we must have $\zeta^2 = 1$ or $\zeta^4 = 1$ or $\zeta^6 = 1$. This means that one of $\{ \zeta+1, \zeta^2+1, \zeta^2+\zeta+1, \zeta^2-\zeta+1\}$ is zero. This in turn means that one of $\{ a_f(p), a_f(p^3), a_f(p^2), a_f(p^5)\}$ is zero. This proves the first assertion. The second follows from . For the third assertion, we note that $\alpha_p =
\zeta\beta_p$ where $\zeta^{i+1}=1$. We also have $\zeta^{i_f(p)+1}=1$. Hence, $\zeta^j=1$ where $i+1 \equiv j \pmod {i_f(p)+1}$. If $j>0$, then $a_f(p^{j-1})=0$. But $ 0 \leq j-1 < i_f(p)$, a contradiction unless $j=1$. But then $a_f(1)=0$ which is also a contradiction. Hence, we must have $j=0$, proving the third assertion. The fourth assertion follows from [@ram2], Lemma 2.5.
As before, let us set $$\phi_p(s)\ =\ \sum_{m=0}^\infty a^0(p^m)p^{-ms}.$$ From the above lemma, we deduce the following.
\[phip\] We have for $p \nmid N$, $$\phi_p(s)\ =\left\{ \begin{array}{llll}
\left(1-\frac{1}{p^s}\right)^{-1} & \mbox{if $i_f(p)=0$,}\\
p^s\left( \frac{1}{p^s-1} - \frac{1}{p^{(i_f(p)+1)s}-1} \right)
& \mbox{if $i_f(p) > 0$}.\\
\end{array} \right.$$ Note $\phi_p(s)=1$ for $p\mid N$.
Next, we evaluate $\xi_d(1)$. We have the following.
\[xi\] Writing $$\xi_d(s)\ =\ \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{b(n)}{n^s}$$ we have that
$b(n) = 0$ if $n$ is divisible by a prime that does not divide $d$ and,
if $p|d$, we have $|b(p^m)|\ \leq 4$ for all $m$.
In particular, the function $n \mapsto b(n)$ satisfies the conditions of Section \[convolution\]. Moreover, we have for $p \nmid N$, $$\xi_{p,d}(1)\ = \left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
1 & \mbox{if $i_f(p)=0$,}\\
1+ p^{-1} - p^{v- 2k_0 + 1} & \mbox{if $i_f(p)=1$,}\\
\frac{1+p +\cdots + p^{i_f(p)}- p^{v - (k_0-1)(i_f(p)+1)}}{p+\cdots + p^{i_f(p)}}
& \mbox{if $i_f(p) > 1$.}\\
\end{array} \right.$$ Here $v = {\rm ord}_p d$ and $k_0$ is the smallest integer $\ge \frac{v+1}{i_f(p) +1}$.
By a calculation similar to that of Lemma \[phip\], we see that $$\sum_{m=0}^\infty a^0(p^{m+ v})p^{-ms}
\ =\left\{ \begin{array}{llll}
\left(1-\frac{1}{p^s}\right)^{-1} & \mbox{if $i_f(p)=0$,}\\
p^s\left( \frac{1}{p^s-1} - \frac{p^{\{v - (k_0-1)(i_f(p)+1)\}s}}
{p^{(i_f(p)+1)s}-1} \right)
& \mbox{if $i_f(p) > 0$.}\\
\end{array} \right.$$ Hence, writing $i = i_f(p)$, we have $$\xi_{p,d}(s)\ =\ \frac{p^{(i+1)s} - 1 - p^{\{v+1-(k_0-1)(i+1)\}s} + p^{\{v- (k_0-1)(i+1)\}s}}
{p^{(i+1)s} - p^s}$$ which is equal to $$\left( 1 - \frac{1}{p^{\{k_0(i+1)-v-1\}s}}
+ \frac{1}{p^{\{k_0(i+1)-v\}s}} - \frac{1}{p^{(i+1)s}} \right)
\left( 1 - \frac{1}{p^{is}} \right)^{-1}$$ from which it follows that $|b(p^m)| \leq 4$. Moreover, as $$\xi_d(s) = \prod_{p|d} \xi_{p,d}(s)$$ it follows also that $b(n)=0$ unless every prime divisor of $n$ also divides $d$. The last assertion of the lemma follows from the above formulas.
Note that the dependence on $d$ of $\xi_{p,d}$ is only through ${\rm ord}_p d$. Thus, where the meaning is clear, for $p|d$ and $d$ squarefree, we shall write $\xi_p$.
In the remainder of this section, we will elaborate on the constant $u_f$ and in particular, relate it to $L$-function values. From Lemma \[phip\], we have $$\log \phi(s) = - \sum_{i_f(p)=0}\log\left(1- \frac{1}{p^s}\right)
- \sum_{i_f(p)=1} \log\left(1 - \frac{1}{p^{2s}}\right)
+ \sum_{i_f(p)>1} \log \phi_p(s).$$ Note that by Lemma \[cnta\], (4), the third sum on the right hand side ranges over a finite set of primes $p$.
Denote by $\chi_K$ the quadratic Dirichlet character that defines $K$ and $L(s, \chi_K)$ the associated Dirichlet series. Let us denote by $S, I, R$ the set of primes that split, stay inert or ramify in $K$ (respectively). Then, we have $$\begin{aligned}
- \sum_{p\in S} \log\left(1- \frac{1}{p^s}\right)
&=& \frac{1}{2}\log\zeta(s) + \frac{1}{2}\log L(s, \chi_K) +
\frac{1}{2}\sum_{p\in I}
\log\left(1 - \frac{1}{p^{2s}}\right) \\
&& + ~\frac{1}{2}\sum_{p\in R} \log\left(1- \frac{1}{p^s}\right) \\\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, if $i_f(p)=0$ then $a(p) \neq 0$ and for $p\nmid 6N$, this means that $p$ is a prime of good reduction and splits in $K$. Therefore, $$- \sum_{i_f(p)=0 \atop p \nmid 6N} \log\left(1 - \frac{1}{p^s}\right)
= - \sum_{p\in S \atop p \nmid 6N}
\log\left(1 - \frac{1}{p^s} \right)
+ \sum_{i_f(p)>1 \atop p \nmid 6N}
\log\left(1 - \frac{1}{p^s}\right).$$ Since $i_f(p)=1 \Leftrightarrow a(p) = 0$, we can write $$-\sum_{i_f(p)=1 \atop p\nmid 6N} \log\left(1 - \frac{1}{p^{2s}}\right)
= -\sum_{a(p)=0 \atop p\nmid 6N} \log\left(1 - \frac{1}{p^{2s}}\right).$$ After a straightforward (but tedious) computation, one sees that $$\begin{aligned}
\log \phi(s)&=& \frac{1}{2} \log\frac{1}{s-1} + \frac{1}{2}
\log\left(\zeta(s)(s-1)\right)
+ \frac{1}{2} \log L(s, \chi_K) \\
&+&
{{\frac{1}{2}}}\sum_{p \in I} \log \left( 1 - \frac{1}{p^{2s}} \right)
\ + \ \log C(s), \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
C(s) &=&
\prod_{a(p)=0 \atop p\nmid 6N} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{p^{2s}} \right)^{-1}
\prod_{p\in R} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{p^s} \right)^{{{\frac{1}{2}}}}
\prod_{p \in S \atop p|6N} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{p^s} \right)\\
&&
\prod_{i_f(p)> 1 \atop p \nmid 6N}
\left\{\left( 1 - \frac{1}{p^{s}} \right)\phi_p(s)\right\}
\prod_{p|6N} \phi_p(s).\\\end{aligned}$$ Putting the above discussion together, we see that $$\phi(s) = \frac{\epsilon(s)}{(s-1)^{1/2}}~,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
u_{f} &=& \epsilon(1) \\
&=& L(1, \chi_K)^{1/2}\prod_{p \in I}
\left(1 - \frac{1}{p^2} \right)^{1/2}C(1). \\\end{aligned}$$
A sieve lemma
=============
We record a simple consequence of [Proposition \[nonzero\]]{} that will be used in section \[proofofmainresult\].
\[sieve1\] Let $f$ be as in the previous section, that is, a normalized Hecke eigenform of weight $ \geq 2$ with complex multiplication. Let $y_1 = L_2(x)^{1+\epsilon}$ and set $$\label{Ny1}
N_{y_1}(x)\ =\ \{ n \leq x: q|n
\Rightarrow q \geq y_1, a_f(n) \neq 0\}.$$ Then $$\label{Ny1estimate}
N_{y_1}(x)\ =\ \frac{U_fx}{\sqrt{\pi}(L_3(x)\log x)^{{{\frac{1}{2}}}}}
\ +\ O\left(\frac{xL_3(x)^2}{(\log x)^{3/2}}\right),$$ where $$U_f\ =\ \frac{u_f\mu_fc_f}{\sqrt{\pi}}
\prod_{p < y_1 \atop i_f(p) > 1} \left( 1 - \frac{\xi_{p,d}(1)}{p} \right)
\prod_{p \in \{ 2,3\} \atop i_f(p) = 0} \left(
1 - \frac{1}{p} \right).$$ Note that the last two products are over a finite number of primes and $$c_f = \prod_{5 \le p < y_1 \atop i_f(p) \ge 2} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{p} \right)^{-1}
\prod_{p < y_1 \atop i_f(p)= 1} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{p^2} \right).$$
Set $P_{y_1} \ =\ \prod_{p < y_1} p$. By the principle of inclusion-exclusion, we have $$N_{y_1}(x) = \displaystyle\sum_{d \mid P_{y_1}} \mu(d) M_{f,d}(x).$$ Since $P_{y_1} \ll e^{y_1}$, we see that for any $d|P_{y_1}$, we have $\log x\ \ll\ \log x/d\ \ll\ \log x$. Now using [Proposition \[nonzero\]]{}, the right hand side is $$= \frac{u_f x}{\sqrt{\pi}(\log x)^{\frac{1}{2}}}
\displaystyle\sum_{d \mid P_{y_1}}
\frac{\mu(d)}{d}
\left(\xi_d(1) + O\left(\frac{2^{\nu(d)}}{(\log x)}\right)\right).$$ The main term is $$\begin{aligned}
&=& \frac{u_f x}{\sqrt{\pi}(\log x)^{\frac{1}{2}}}
\displaystyle\prod_{p < y_1} \left(1-\frac{\xi_{p,d}(1)}{p}\right) \\
&=& \frac{u_fx}{\sqrt{\pi}
\left( \log x \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}
\prod_{5 \leq p < y_1 \atop i_f(p)= 0} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{p} \right)
\prod_{p < y_1 \atop i_f(p) \ge 1}\left( 1 - \frac{\xi_{p,d}(1)}{p} \right)
\prod_{p \in \{ 2,3\} \atop i_f(p)=0} \left(
1 - \frac{1}{p} \right).\\
&=& \frac{u_fx}{\sqrt{\pi}
\left( \log x \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}
\prod_{5 \leq p < y_1 \atop i_f(p)= 0} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{p} \right)
\prod_{p \le y_1 \atop i_f(p)= 1} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{p^2} \right)\\
&& \phantom{mmmmmmmm}
\prod_{p < y_1 \atop i_f(p)> 1}\left( 1 - \frac{\xi_{p,d}(1)}{p} \right)
\prod_{p \in \{ 2,3\} \atop i_f(p)=0} \left(
1 - \frac{1}{p} \right).\end{aligned}$$ Note that if $i_f(p)=1$ and $d$ is squarefree, we have by [Proposition \[xi\]]{}, $\xi_{p,d}(1)= \frac{1}{p}$. Also note that by [Lemma \[cnta\]]{}, there are only finitely many primes $p$ for which $i_f(p)>1$, ensuring the convergence of $$\prod_{i_f(p)> 1}\left( 1 - \frac{\xi_{p,d}(1)}{p} \right).$$ Now using [Proposition \[mertens\]]{}, we see that the above sum is $$\frac{U_fx}{\sqrt{\pi}(L_3(x)\log x)^{{\frac{1}{2}}}}.$$ The error term is $$\ll \frac{x}{(\log x)^{3/2}}\sum_{d|P_{y_1}}
\frac{|\mu(d)|}{d}2^{\nu(d)}.$$ The sum over $d$ is $$\begin{aligned}
&\ll\ & \prod_{\ell < y_1} \left( 1 + \frac{2}{\ell}\right) \\
& \ll\ &\prod_{\ell < y_1} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{\ell}\right)^{-2} \\
& \ll\ & L_3(x)^2.\end{aligned}$$ This proves the result.
We record here a variant of the above result.
\[sieve2\] Suppose that $p \le y_1$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\#\{n\le x \mid p|n, a_f(n) \neq 0, q|n \Rightarrow q \geq p \} \\
&& \phantom{mmm} \ll \frac{x}{p(\log x)^{{\frac{1}{2}}}}
\prod_{\ell \le p \atop \ell \text{ prime}}
\left( 1 - \frac{1}{\ell} \right)
+ \frac{x}{(\log x)^{3/2}}e^{4\sqrt{p}}\frac{\log p}{p}.\end{aligned}$$
Siegel zeros
============
Let $L/{{\mathbb Q}}$ be a Galois extension of number fields with group $G$ and $n_L$, $d_L$ be the degree and the absolute value of the discriminant of $L/{{{\mathbb Q}}}$ respectively. Suppose that Artin’s conjecture on the holomorphy of Artin $L$-functions is known for $L/{{\mathbb Q}}$. Set $$\log {{\mathcal M}}\ =\ 2\left(\sum_{p|d_L} \log p\ +\ \log n_L \right) .$$ Also, denote by $d$ the maximum degree and by ${{\mathcal A}}$ the maximum Artin conductor of an irreducible character of $G$.
Let $C$ be the set of elements in $G$ that map to the Cartan subgroup and also have trace zero. Then $C$ is stable under conjugation and thus $C$ is a union of conjugacy classes. Denote by $\pi(x,C)$ the number of primes $p\le x$ with ${\rm Frob}_p \in C$. Then, [@kumar4], Theorem 4.1 asserts that for $$\log x \gg d^4 (\log {{\mathcal M}}),$$ there is an absolute and effective constant $c > 0$ so that $$\pi(x,C) = \frac{|C|}{|G|}{\rm Li}\ x - \frac{|C|}{|G|}{\rm Li}\ x^{\beta}
+ O\left(|C|^{{\frac{1}{2}}}x~(\log x{{\mathcal M}})^2
\exp{\left\{\frac{-c\log x}{d^{3/2}\sqrt{d^3(\log {{\mathcal A}})^2+\log x}}
\right\}}\right).$$ The term involving $\beta$ is present only if the Dedekind zeta function $\zeta_L(s)$ of $L$ has a real zero $\beta$ (the Siegel zero), in the interval $$1- \frac{1}{4 \log d_L} \le \Re(s) < 1.$$ Let $L$ be the fixed field of the kernel of $\bar{\rho}_{p,f}$. (Recall that $\bar{\rho}_{p,f}$ was introduced in Section \[div\].) Now, let $G = {{\rm Gal}}(L/{{\mathbb Q}})$ (viewed as a subgroup of ${{\rm GL}}_2({{\mathbb Z}}/p)$) and let $C$ be the subset of elements of $G$ of trace zero. It is known that the subgroup $H = {{\rm Gal}}(L/K)$ is Abelian and maps to a Cartan subgroup of ${{\rm GL}}_2({{\mathbb Z}}/p)$. The image of $G$ maps to the normalizer of this subgroup. As $G$ has an Abelian normal subgroup of index $2$, it is well-known that all irreducible characters of $G$ are monomial, and so Artin’s holomorphy conjecture holds for it.
Thus, we can appeal to the above version of the Chebotarev density theorem. The extension $L/K$ is unramified outside of primes dividing $pN$ where $N$ is the level of $f$. We have $d=2$, and $$\log {{\mathcal M}}\ll\ \log pN$$ as well as $$\log {{\mathcal A}}\ \ll\ \log pN.$$ For $p$ sufficiently large, it is known that $G$ maps [*onto*]{} the normalizer of a Cartan subgroup, and hence $$p^2 \ \ll\ |G|\ \ll\ p^2.$$ Moreover, the size of $|C|$ satisfies $$p \ \ll\ |C|\ \ll\ p.$$ Thus, if we set $\delta(p) \ =\ |C|/|G|$, we have $$\frac{1}{p}\ \ll\ \delta(p)\ \ll\ \frac{1}{p}$$ for $p$ sufficiently large. Thus, we have the following result.
\[thm 5.1\] Let $f$ be a CM form of level $N$ as before. Then for $\log x \gg (\log pN)^2$, we have $$\pi^{*}(x,p) = \delta(p){\rm Li}\ {x}
- \delta(p){\rm Li}\ {x^\beta} + O(x e^{-c\sqrt{\log x}}),$$ where $\frac{1}{p} \ll \delta(p) \ll \frac{1}{p}$ and the implied constant is absolute and effective.
From the discussion above, we know that the stated bounds on $\delta(p)$ hold for $p$ sufficiently large. To deduce that they hold for all $p$, it suffices to show that $\delta(p)>0$ holds for all $p$. This inequality follows from the fact that the image of complex conjugation is an element of trace zero in the Galois group.
If the Dedekind zeta function $\zeta_L(s)= 0$ has a Siegel zero $\beta$ with $1- \frac{1}{4 \log d_L} \le \Re(s) < 1$, then by a result of Stark [@S p. 145] we know that there is a quadratic field $M$ contained in $L$ such that $\zeta_M(\beta)=0$. Further [@S p. 147], for such $M$ $$\beta < 1 - \frac{1}{\sqrt{d_M}}.$$ Let $[L:M] = n$. Since $d_L \ge d_M^{n}$, we have $$\beta < 1 - \frac{1}{d_L^{1/2n}}.$$ Now by an inequality of Hensel [@serre2 p. 129], $$\log d_L \le 2n \log pn_L$$ and so $$\frac{1}{2n} \log {d_L} \le \log pn_L.$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned}
\label{stark}
\beta < 1 - \frac{1}{pn_L}.\end{aligned}$$
Intermediate results
====================
As before $$\pi^{*}(x,p) = \# \left\{q\le x \mid a(q) \equiv 0 \!\!\!\!\!\pmod{p},
~a(q) \ne {0}\right\}.$$ Proving [Theorem \[thm1\]]{} requires the following lemmas. Let $0< \epsilon < 1/2$ and set $y ~=~ L_2^{1 - \epsilon}(x)$.
\[1\] Let $p < y$ be a fixed prime. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sideset{}{^*}
{\sum}_{\substack{q \le x \atop a(q) \equiv 0 \!\!\pmod{p}}}
\frac{1}{q} =
\delta(p)L_2(x) + O(L_3(x)),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\sum}_{q\le x}^{*}$ means that the summation is over all primes $q \le x$ for which $a(q) \ne {0}$.
By partial summation, the sum is $$\begin{aligned}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{q \le x
\atop a(q) \equiv 0 \!\!\pmod{p}}}\frac{1}{q} ~=~
\frac{\pi^{*}(x,p)}{x} ~+~ \int_{2}^{x} \frac{\pi^{*}(t,p)}{t^2}~dt.\end{aligned}$$ But $\int_{2}^{x} \frac{\pi^{*}(t,p)}{t^2} dt$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{2}^{(\log x)^{\gamma}} \frac{\pi^{*}(t,p)}{t^2} ~dt
~+~ \int_{(\log x)^{\gamma}}^{x} \frac{\pi^{*}(t,p)}{t^2} ~dt,\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma$ is chosen in such a way that for $(\log x)^{\gamma} \le t \le x$, we have $\log t \gg (\log p N)^2$. The first integral is $$\begin{aligned}
\le \int_{2}^{(\log x)^{\gamma}} \frac{\pi (t)}{t^2} ~dt ~~ \ll L_3(x),
\phantom{m} {\rm where}~~\pi(t) = \# \{p\le t ~\mid p~{\rm prime} \}\end{aligned}$$ and the second integral is $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{(\log x)^{\gamma}}^{x} \frac{1}{t^2}
\left(\delta(p){\rm Li}(t) - \delta(p) {\rm Li}{(t^{\beta})}
+ O(t e^{-c \sqrt{\log t}})\right) ~dt, \phantom{m} {\rm by~ {Theorem~\ref{thm 5.1}}}. \end{aligned}$$ The first term is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
\delta(p) \int_{(\log x)^{\gamma}}^{x} \frac{dt}{t \log t} + O (L_3(x))\\
= \delta(p) L_2(x) + O(L_3(x)). \end{aligned}$$ Next, consider the term with the Siegel zero. Since by , $\beta <1 - \frac{1}{pn_L}$, therefore the second term is $$\begin{aligned}
\delta(p) \int_{(\log x)^{\gamma}}^{x} \frac{1}{t^2} {\rm Li}(t^{\beta})~dt
&=& \delta(p) \int_{(\log x)^{\gamma}}^{x}\frac{dt}{t^2}\int_{2}^{t^{\beta}}
\frac{du}{\log u}\\
&=& \delta(p) \int_{2}^{x^{\beta}} \frac{du}{\log u}
\int_{{\rm max}\left((\log x)^{\gamma}, u^{\frac{1}{\beta}}\right)}^{x}
\frac{dt}{t^2}. \end{aligned}$$ We split the range of integration of $u$ into two integrals: $$\begin{aligned}
&(I)& 2\le u \le (\log x)^{\gamma\beta},\\
&(II)& (\log x)^{\gamma\beta} \le u \le x^{\beta}.\end{aligned}$$ The first range gives rise to the integral $$\delta(p) \int_{2}^{(\log x)^{\gamma\beta}} \frac{du}{\log u}
\left\{\frac{1}{(\log x)^{\gamma}} - \frac{1}{x} \right\}
~\ll~ \delta(p) (\log x)^{\gamma(\beta -1)} ~\ll~ 1.$$ The second range gives rise to the integral $$\delta(p) \int_{(\log x)^{\gamma\beta}}^{x^{\beta}}
\frac{du}{\log u} \left\{\frac{1}{u^{\frac{1}{\beta}}} - \frac{1}{x}\right\}.$$ Set $v = u^{\frac{1}{\beta}}$. Then $v^{\beta} = u$ and $\beta \log v = \log u$. Moreover, $du = \beta v^{\beta -1}dv$. Hence the integral is $$\begin{aligned}
\delta(p) \int_{(\log x)^{\gamma}}^{x} \frac{\beta v^{\beta-1}dv}{\beta \log v}
\left(\frac{1}{v} - \frac{1}{x}\right)
&\ll & \frac{\delta(p)}{(\log x)^{\gamma(1-\beta)}}
\int_{(\log x)^{\gamma}}^{x} \frac{dv}{v \log v}\\
&\ll & \frac{\delta(p)L_2(x)}{(\log x)^{\frac{\gamma}{pn_L}}}\\
&\ll & \frac{\delta(p)L_2(x)}{e^{{\frac{\gamma}{n_L}}{L_2(x)^{\epsilon}}}} ~\ll~1.\end{aligned}$$
Finally, using the elementary estimate $e^{c \sqrt{u}}\gg u^2$, we deduce that the O-term is $$\begin{aligned}
\ll \int_{L_2(x)}^{\log x} \frac{du}{u^2} \ll 1 .\end{aligned}$$ The term $\pi^{*}(x,p)/x$ is of smaller order. This proves the lemma.
Define $\nu(p,n) = \# \{ q^m||n \mid a(q^m) \equiv 0 \!\! \pmod{p}\}$.
\[2\] Assume that $p < y$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{n\le x}} \nu(p,n) = (1 + o(1))
{\frac{u_f \delta(p)x L_2(x)}{\sqrt{\pi\log x}}}
~+~ O\left(\frac {x L_3(x)}{\sqrt{\log x}}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\sum}_{n\le x}^{*}$ means that the summation is over all natural numbers $n \le x$ such that $a(n) \ne 0$.
Interchanging summation, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{n\le x}} \nu(p,n)
&=& \sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{q^m \le x \atop a(q^m)
\equiv 0 \!\!\!\pmod{p}}} ~\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{n \le x \atop q^m ||n}} 1 \\
&=& \sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{q\le x
\atop a(q) \equiv 0 \!\!\!\pmod{p}}} \sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{n\le x \atop q||n}} 1
\phantom{m} + \phantom{m}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{q^m \le x, m\ge 2 \atop a(q^m)
\equiv 0 \!\!\! \pmod{p}}} \sideset{}{^*}
{\sum}_{\substack{n\le x \atop q^m ||n}} 1 .\end{aligned}$$ The contribution of terms $q^m$ with $m \ge 2$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{q^m \le x, \atop {m\ge 2
\atop a(q^m) \equiv 0\! \!\!\!\pmod{p}}}}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{n\le x \atop q^m ||n}} 1
&=&
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{q^m \le x^{\epsilon}
\atop {m\ge 2 \atop a(q^m) \equiv 0\! \!\!\!\pmod{p}}}}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{n\le x \atop q^m ||n}} 1
\phantom{m} + \phantom{m}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{x^{\epsilon} \le q^m \le x
\atop {m\ge 2 \atop a(q^m) \equiv 0\! \!\!\!\pmod{p}}}}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{n\le x \atop q^m ||n}} 1 \\ \\
&\ll &
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{q^m \le x^{\epsilon}
\atop {m\ge 2 \atop a(q^m) \equiv 0\! \!\!\!\pmod{p}}}}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{n\le x/q^m }} 1
\phantom{m} + \phantom{m}
x \sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{x^{\epsilon} \le q^m \le x
\atop m \ge 2}} \frac{1}{q^m} \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&\ll &
\frac{x}{(\log x)^{\frac{1}{2}}}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{q^m \le x^{\epsilon}
\atop m \ge 2}} \frac{1}{q^m}
\phantom{m} + \phantom{m}
x \int_{x^{\epsilon}}^{x} \frac{dt}{t^2},
~~~{\rm by~ {Proposition~\ref{nonzero}}} \\ \\
&\ll &
\frac{x}{\sqrt{\log x}} \phantom{m} + \phantom{m}
\frac{x}{x^{\epsilon}}
~~\ll ~~
\frac{x}{\sqrt{\log x}}.\end{aligned}$$ Also, we have $$\label{20}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{q\le x
\atop a(q) \equiv 0 \!\!\!\pmod{p}}} \sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{n\le x \atop q||n}} 1
=
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{ q \le x^{1/\log\log x}
\atop a(q) \equiv 0\!\!\! \pmod{p}}}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{n\le x \atop q||n}} 1
\phantom{m} + \phantom{m}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{x^{1/\log\log x} \le q\le x}
\atop a(q) \equiv 0\!\!\! \pmod{p}}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{n\le x \atop q||n}} 1.$$ We show that the second double sum on the right of contributes a negligible amount. Indeed, consider first the quantity $$\label{october1}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{x^\epsilon \le q\le x} \atop
a(q) \equiv 0\!\!\! \pmod{p}}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{n\le x \atop q||n}} 1.$$ This is majorized by $$\label{october2}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{n\le x}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{x^\epsilon \le q\le x} \atop q||n} 1.$$ The inner sum is bounded and so by [Proposition \[nonzero\]]{}, we see that is $$\label{october3}
\ll x/\sqrt{\log x}.$$ Now, consider the quantity $$\label{october4}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{x^{1/\log\log x} \le q\le
x^\epsilon} \atop
a(q) \equiv 0\!\!\! \pmod{p}}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{n\le x \atop q||n}} 1.$$ By [Proposition \[nonzero\]]{}, the inner sum is $$\label{october5}
\ll\ x/q\sqrt{\log x}.$$\[october6\] Since $$\sum_{x^{1/\log\log x} \leq q \leq x^\epsilon} \frac{1}{q}
\ =\ \log\log\log x \ +\ O(1),$$ it follows that is $$\label{october7}
\ll\ xL_3(x)/\sqrt{\log x}.$$ Putting and together, we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{q\le x \atop a(q) \equiv 0 \!\!\!\pmod{p}}}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{n\le x \atop q||n}} 1
&=&
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{ q \le x^{1/\log\log x}
\atop a(q) \equiv 0\!\!\! \pmod{p}}}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{n\le x \atop q||n}} 1
\phantom{m} + O(xL_3(x)/\sqrt{\log x}). \end{aligned}$$ Now by [Proposition \[nonzero\]]{}, [Lemma \[obvious\]]{} (and the fact that in the sum $a^0(q)=1$), the sum on the right is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
&& (1 + o(1))\frac{u_f x}{\sqrt{\pi}}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{q\le x^{1/\log\log x} \atop a(q) \equiv 0\!\!\! \pmod{p}}}
\frac{1}{q\sqrt{\log x/q}}\left(1 + O\left(\frac{1}{q}\right)
+ O\left(\frac{1}{\log x/q}\right) \right) \\
&=&
(1 + o(1))\frac{u_f x}{\sqrt{\pi}}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{q \le x^{1/\log\log x} \atop a(q)
\equiv 0 \!\!\! \pmod{p}}} \frac{1}{q\sqrt{\log x/q}} ~+~
O\left(\frac{x}{(\log x)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\right). \\ \end{aligned}$$ Now applying [Lemma \[1\]]{}, we see that this is $$\begin{aligned}
&=& (1 + o(1)){\frac{u_f \delta(p)x L_2(x)}{\sqrt{\pi}(\log x)^{\frac{1}{2}}}}
~+~ O\left(\frac {x L_3(x)}{(\log x)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\right).
\\\end{aligned}$$ This proves the lemma.
\[3\] Assume $p < y$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{n\le x}} \nu(p,n)^2 = (1 + o(1))
\frac{u_f \delta^2(p) x L^2_2(x)}{\sqrt{\pi}(\log x)^{\frac{1}{2}}} +
O\left( \frac{\delta(p) x L_2(x)L_3(x)}{(\log x)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\right).\end{aligned}$$
The sum in question is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{q_1^{m_1} \le x \atop a(q_1^{m_1})
\equiv 0\!\!\! \pmod{p}}}
~~\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{q_2^{m_2}\le x \atop a(q_2^{m_2})
\equiv 0 \!\!\! \pmod{p}}}
~~\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{n\le x
\atop q_1^{m_1}||n,~ q_2^{m_2}||n}} 1.\end{aligned}$$ By a small modification to the argument given in the proof of [Lemma \[2\]]{}, we find that the contribution of terms with $q_1=q_2$ is $$\ll\ \frac{xL_2(x)}{(\log x)^{1/2}}.$$ Next, we consider the contribution $S$ (say) of terms with $q_1^{m_1}q_2^{m_2} > x^\epsilon$. For estimating this, we may suppose that $q_1^{m_1} > q_2^{m_2}$. Since $q_2 \geq 2$, we may suppose that $x/2 \geq\ q_1^{m_1}
\geq \ x^{\epsilon/2}\ =\ z$ (say).
Denote by $S_1$ the contribution of terms for which $z \leq q_1^{m_1} \leq \sqrt{x/2}$ and by $S_2$ the contribution of all remaining terms in $S$. Then by [Proposition \[nonzero\]]{}, we have $$\begin{aligned}
S_1\
&\ll & x \sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{z \le \substack{q_1^{m_1} \le \sqrt{x/2}}}
\frac{1}{q_1^{m_1}}
\sum_{q_2^{m_2} \leq q_1^{m_1}}
\frac{1}{q_2^{m_2}\sqrt{\log \frac{x}{q_1^{m_1}q_2^{m_2}}}}
\\ \\
&\ll & x\sum_{z \leq q_1^{m_1} \leq \sqrt{x/2}}
\frac{1}{q_1^{m_1}\sqrt{\log \frac{x}{q_1^{2m_1}}}}
\log\log (q_1^{m_1}) \\ \\
&\ll & xL_2(x) \int_z^{\sqrt{x/2}} \frac{dt}{t(\log t)\sqrt{\log x/t^2}}
\ \ll\ \frac{xL_2(x)}{\sqrt{\log x}}.\end{aligned}$$ Next, we observe that $$S_2\ \ll\ \sum_{\sqrt{x/2}\ < q_1^{m_1} \leq x/2}~~~
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{n \leq x/q_1^{m_1}} \nu(p,n)$$ and by [Lemma \[2\]]{}, this is $$\ll \ xL_2(x)\sum_{\sqrt{x/2} < q_1^{m_1}\ \leq x/2}
\frac{1}{q_1^{m_1}}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{\log x/q_1^{m_1}}}
\ \ll\ \frac{xL_2(x)}{\sqrt{\log x}}.$$ It remains to estimate $$\begin{aligned}
&& \sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{q_1^{m_1}q_2^{m_2} \le x^{\epsilon}
\atop {a(q_1^{m_1}) \equiv 0\!\!\! \pmod{p}
\atop a(q_2^{m_2}) \equiv 0 \!\!\! \pmod{p}}}}
~~\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{n\le x \atop q_1^{m_1}||n,~ q_2^{m_2}||n }} 1 \\
&& \phantom{mm} =~~
I + J, \phantom{m} {\rm say}\end{aligned}$$ where in $I$ we have the terms with $m_1 > 1$ or $m_2 > 1$ and in $J$ we have the terms with $m_1 = m_2 = 1$. In order to estimate $I$, suppose without loss of generality that $m_1 \ge 2$. Then by [Proposition \[nonzero\]]{}, we have $$\begin{aligned}
I & \ll &
x \sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{q_1^{m_1} \atop m_1\ge 2 }} \frac{1}{q_1^{m_1}}
~~\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{q_2^{m_2} \atop q_1^{m_1}q_2^{m_2} \le
x^{\epsilon}}} \frac{1}{q_2^{m_2}\sqrt{\log \frac{x}{q_1^{m_1}q_2^{m_2}}}} \\ \\
& \ll &
\frac{x}{\sqrt{\log x}} \sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{q_1^{m_1}
\atop m_1\ge 2 }} \frac{1}{q_1^{m_1}}
\left(\sum _{q_2 \le x^{\epsilon}} \frac{1}{q_2} ~+~ \sum_{q_2 \atop m_2 \ge 2}
\frac{1}{q_2^{m_2}}\right) \\ \\
& \ll & \frac{x L_2(x)}{\sqrt{\log x}}. \end{aligned}$$ Next, we consider $$\begin{aligned}
J & = & \sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{q_1q_2 \le x^{\epsilon}
\atop {a(q_1) \equiv 0\!\!\! \pmod{p}
\atop a(q_2) \equiv 0 \!\!\! \pmod{p}}}}
~~\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{n\le x \atop q_1||n,~ q_2||n }} 1 \\ \end{aligned}$$ By [Proposition \[nonzero\]]{} and [Proposition \[xi\]]{}, we have $$\begin{aligned}
J &=& (1 + o(1))
\frac{u_f x}{\sqrt{\pi\log x}}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{q_1q_2 \le x^{\epsilon}
\atop {a(q_1) \equiv 0\!\!\! \pmod{p} \atop {a(q_2)\equiv 0\!\!\! \pmod{p} \atop q_1 \ne q_2}}}}
\frac{1}{q_1q_2} ~+~ O\left(\frac{xL_2(x)}{\sqrt{\log x}}\right) \\ \\
&=& (1 + o(1))
\frac{u_f x}{\sqrt{\pi\log x}}
\left(\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack
{q \le x \atop a(q) \equiv 0 \!\!\! \pmod{p}}} \frac{1}{q}
\right)^2 ~+~ O\left(\frac{xL_2(x)}{\sqrt{\log x}}\right) \\ \\
&=& (1 + o(1))
\frac{u_f x}{\sqrt{\pi\log x}} \left(\delta(p)L_2(x)
+ O(L_3(x)) \right)^{2} ~+~ O\left(\frac{x L_2(x)}{\sqrt{\log x}} \right) \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&=& (1 + o(1))
\frac{u_f \delta^2(p)x L_2^2(x)}{\sqrt{\pi}(\log x)^{\frac{1}{2}}} ~+~
O\left(\delta(p)\frac{xL_2(x)L_3(x)}{\sqrt{\log x}}\right).\end{aligned}$$ This proves the lemma.
\[4\] Suppose $p< y$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{n\le x}}\left(\nu(p,n)
- \delta(p) L_2(x)\right)^2
\ll \frac{\delta(p) x}{(\log x)^{\frac{1}{2}}} L_2(x)L_3(x).\end{aligned}$$
This follows from [Lemma \[2\]]{} and [Lemma \[3\]]{}.
\[5\] Assume $p < y$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\# \left\{ n\le x \mid \nu(p,n) = 0 \right \}
\ll \frac{xL_3(x)}{\delta(p) (\log x)^{\frac{1}{2}} L_2(x)}.\end{aligned}$$
By [Lemma \[4\]]{}, this is $$\begin{aligned}
\ll \frac{1}{\delta^2(p)L_2^2(x)} \left\{\delta(p)\frac{x}
{(\log x)^{\frac{1}{2}}}L_2(x)L_3(x)\right\}
= \frac{xL_3(x)}{\delta(p)(\log x)^{\frac{1}{2}}L_2(x)}.\end{aligned}$$
**Proof of [Theorem \[thm1\]]{}** {#proofofmainresult}
=================================
For a prime $p$, let $$G_p(x)= \# \left\{ n \le x \mid p|n, (n, a(n))=1, q|n \Rightarrow q\ge p \right\}$$ and $G(x) = \displaystyle\sum_{\substack{p\le x}} G_p(x) = A_1 + A_2+ A_3$, where $$\begin{aligned}
A_1 &=& \displaystyle \sum_{p \le L_2^{\frac{1}{2} -\epsilon}(x)} G_p (x),\\
A_2 &=& \displaystyle \sum_{L_2^{\frac{1}{2} - \epsilon}(x) < p
< L_2^{1 +\epsilon}(x)} G_p(x), \\
A_3 &=& \displaystyle \sum_{p \ge L_2^{1 + \epsilon}(x)} G_p(x).\end{aligned}$$ Now, using [Lemma \[5\]]{}, we have $$\begin{aligned}
A_1 & \le & \displaystyle \sum_{p \le L_2^{\frac{1}{2} -\epsilon}(x)}
\#\left\{n \le x \mid p|n, (n, a(n))=1\right\} \end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
& \ll & \frac{x L_3(x)}{(\log x)^{\frac{1}{2}} L_2(x)}
\displaystyle \sum_{p \le L_2^{\frac{1}{2} -\epsilon}(x)}
\frac{1}{\delta(p)} \nonumber~ \\
& \ll & \frac{x L_3(x)}{(\log x)^{\frac{1}{2}} L_2(x)}
\displaystyle \sum_{1 \ll p \le L_2^{\frac{1}{2} -\epsilon}(x)}
p \nonumber~, \phantom{m} {\rm as}~~\delta(p) \gg \frac{1}{p} \\
& \ll & \frac{x}{(\log x)^{\frac{1}{2}} L_2^{\epsilon}(x)}
~=~ o\left( \frac{x}{\left(L_3(x)\log x \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}} \right).\end{aligned}$$
Moreover, by [Lemma \[sieve2\]]{}, we have $$\begin{aligned}
A_2 & \le & \displaystyle
\sum_{L_2^{\frac{1}{2} - \epsilon}(x) < p < L_2^{1 +\epsilon}(x)}
\#\left\{n \le x \mid p|n, a(n)\ne 0, q|n \Rightarrow q\ge p\right\} \\
& \ll & \frac{x}{(\log x)^{\frac{1}{2}}}
\displaystyle \sum_{L_2^{\frac{1}{2} - \epsilon}(x) < p < L_2^{1 +\epsilon}(x)}
\frac{1}{p}\prod_{l\le p \atop l~{\rm prime}}\left(1 - \frac{1}{l}\right) \\
& \ll & \frac{x}{(\log x)^{\frac{1}{2}}}
\displaystyle \sum_{L_2^{\frac{1}{2} - \epsilon}(x) < p < L_2^{1 +\epsilon}(x)}
\frac{1}{p \log p}\\
& \ll & \frac{x}{L_3(x) (\log x)^{\frac{1}{2}}}
~~~~~~~~=~~~~o\left( \frac{x}{\left(L_3(x) \log x \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}} \right) .\end{aligned}$$ Let $y_1 = L_2(x)^{1 + \epsilon}$ and as in , $N_{y_1}(x) = \# \left\{n\le x \mid q|n \Rightarrow q \ge y_1,
~ a(n) \ne 0 \right\}$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
N_{y_1}(x) ~- \sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{y_1 \le q_1^{m}, ~q_2 \le x \atop a(q_1^{m})
\equiv 0 \!\!\! \pmod{q_2}}}~~
\sideset{}{^{**}}{\sum}_{\substack{n\le x \atop {q_1^{m}||n, ~q_2|n}}} 1
~~\le A_3 ~~\le N_{y_1}(x),\end{aligned}$$ where $\sideset{}{^{**}}{\sum}_{\substack{n\le x}}$ means that the summation is over all natural numbers $n\le x$ such that $a(n) \ne 0$ and $q|n$ implies that $q>y_1$.\
By [Lemma \[sieve1\]]{}, to prove the theorem, it suffices to show that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{11}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{y_1 \le q_1^{m}, ~q_2 \le x
\atop a(q_1^{m}) \equiv 0 \!\!\! \pmod{q_2}}}
~~\sideset{}{^{**}}{\sum}_{\substack{n\le x \atop q_1^{m}||n, ~q_2|n}} 1
~=~ o\left(\frac{x}{\left(L_3(x)\log x \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}} \right).\end{aligned}$$ In order to prove , let us write $$\begin{aligned}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{y_1 \le q_1^{m}, ~q_2 \le x \atop a(q_1^m)
\equiv 0 \!\!\! \pmod{q_2}}}
~~~~~\sideset{}{^{**}}{\sum}_{\substack{n\le x \atop q_1^{m}||n, ~q_2|n}} 1
& = & \sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{y_1 \le q_1^m , ~q_2 \le x, ~m\ge 2
\atop a(q_1^{m}) \equiv 0 \!\!\! \pmod{q_2}}}
~~~\sideset{}{^{**}}{\sum}_{\substack{n\le x,
\atop {q_1^m||n,~ q_2|n}}} 1 \\ \\
& + & \sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{y_1 \le q_1,~q_2 \le x
\atop a(q_1) \equiv 0 \!\!\! \pmod{q_2}}}
~~~~~\sideset{}{^{**}}{\sum}_{\substack{n\le x \atop q_1||n, ~q_2|n}} 1 \\ \\
&= & B_1 + B_2~.\end{aligned}$$ Let us consider $B_1$ first. The terms for which $q_1^mq_2 \ge (\log x) x^{1/2} y_1^2$ contribute an amount which is $$\begin{aligned}
&\ll & \frac{\sqrt{x}}{\log x}
\sum_{q_2 \le x} \frac{1}{q_2}
\sum_{q_1^m \ge y_1 \atop m\ge2} \frac{1}{q_1^m}\\
&\ll & \frac{\sqrt{x}}{y_1 \log x}L_2(x) ~\ll~ \frac{x}{L_2^{\epsilon}(x) \log x}.\end{aligned}$$ For the remaining terms $q_1^mq_2 \le (\log x)x^{1/2}y_1^2$. We use [Proposition \[nonzero\]]{} to see that the remaining terms in $B_1$ are $$\begin{aligned}
&\ll & \frac{x}{(\log x)^{\frac{1}{2}}}
\displaystyle \sum_{y_1 \le q_2 \le x} \frac{1}{q_2}
~\displaystyle \sum_{y_1 \le q_1^m \atop m \ge 2} \frac{1}{q_1^m} \\
& \ll & \frac{x}{y_1(\log x)^{\frac{1}{2}}} ~\displaystyle \sum_{y_1 \le q_2 \le x}
\frac{1}{q_2} \\
& \ll & \frac{xL_2(x)}{y_1 (\log x)^{\frac{1}{2}}}
~=~ \frac{x}{(\log x)^{\frac{1}{2}}L_2^{\epsilon}(x)} .\end{aligned}$$ For $B_2$, we observe that if $a(q_1) \ne 0$ and $a(q_1) \equiv 0 \pmod{q_2}$, then $q_2 \le |a(q_1)| \le 2 \sqrt{q_1}$. Hence $q_1 \ge q_2^2/4$ and so $q_1q_2 \ge q_2^3/4$. Hence for the inner sum in $B_2$ to be nonempty, we need $q_2 \le (4x)^{1/3}$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
B_2 &=& \sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{y_1 \le q_1 \le x
\atop {y_1 \le q_2 \le (4x)^{1/3}
\atop a(q_1) \equiv 0 \!\!\! \pmod{q_2}}}}
~~~~~\sideset{}{^{**}}{\sum}_{\substack{n\le x \atop q_1||n, ~q_2|n}} 1 \\
&=&\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{y_1 \le q_1 \le \sqrt{x}
\atop {y_1 \le q_2 \le 2\sqrt{q_1}
\atop a(q_1) \equiv 0 \!\!\! \pmod{q_2}}}}
~~~~~\sideset{}{^{**}}{\sum}_{\substack{n\le x \atop q_1||n, ~q_2|n}} 1
~+~ \sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{\sqrt{x} \le q_1 \le x
\atop {y_1 \le q_2 \le 2\sqrt{q_1}
\atop a(q_1) \equiv 0 \!\!\! \pmod{q_2}}}}
~~~~~\sideset{}{^{**}}{\sum}_{\substack{n\le x \atop q_1||n, ~q_2|n}} 1\\\\
&=& D_1 + D_2 ~.\end{aligned}$$ Then by [Proposition \[nonzero\]]{} and the fact that $q_1q_2 \ll x^{3/4}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
D_1 &\ll & \frac{x}{(\log x)^{\frac{1}{2}}}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{y_1 \le q_1 \le \sqrt{x} \atop
{y_1 \le q_2 \le 2\sqrt{q_1} \atop a(q_1) \equiv 0 \!\!\! \pmod{q_2}}}} \frac{1}{q_1q_2} \\ \\
& = & \frac{x}{(\log x)^{\frac{1}{2}}} \left\{
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{y_1 \le q_2 \le 2 x^{1/4}
\atop{~\frac{1}{4}q_2^2 \le q_1 \le q_2^2 \log q_2 \atop a(q_1)
\equiv 0 \!\!\! \pmod{q_2}}}}
\frac{1}{q_1q_2} ~+~ \sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack
{y_1 \le q_2 \le 2 x^{1/4} \atop{q_2^2 \log q_2 \le q_1 \le \sqrt{x}
\atop a(q_1) \equiv 0 \!\!\! \pmod{q_2}}}} \frac{1}{q_1q_2}
\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ By [Proposition \[prop100\]]{}, the second sum is $$\begin{aligned}
\ll \frac{x L_2(x)}{(\log x)^{\frac{1}{2}}}
\displaystyle \sum_{y_1 \le q_2 \le 2 x^{1/4}}\frac{1}{q_2^2}
\ll \frac{x L_2(x)}{y_1(\log x)^{\frac{1}{2}}}
~=~ \frac{x}{(\log x)^{\frac{1}{2}}L_2^{\epsilon}(x)}.\end{aligned}$$ The first sum is $$\begin{aligned}
&\ll & \frac{x}{(\log x)^{\frac{1}{2}}}
\displaystyle \sum_{\frac{1}{4}y_1^2 \le q_1 \le x} ~\frac{1}{q_1}
~~~\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{\sqrt{\frac{q_1}{\log q_1}} \le q_2 \le 2\sqrt{q_1}
\atop a(q_1) \equiv 0 \!\!\! \pmod{q_2}}} \frac{1}{q_2} .\end{aligned}$$ We note that the inner sum over $q_2$ is bounded. In fact with $0<|a(q_1)|\le 2\sqrt{q_1}$, there exists at most one $q_2 \ge \sqrt{\frac{q_1}{\log q_1}}$ which divides $a(q_1)$. Thus, the right hand side is $$\begin{aligned}
\ll \frac{x}{(\log x)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\displaystyle \sum_{y_1 \le q_1 \le x}
~\frac{\sqrt{\log q_1}}{q_1^{3/2}} \ll \frac{x}{(L_2(x) \log x)^{\frac{1}{2}}}.\end{aligned}$$ In order to estimate $D_2$, we write $$\begin{aligned}
D_2 &=&
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{y_1 \le q_2 \le e^{\sqrt{\log x}}\\
\atop {\sqrt{x} \le q_1 \le \frac{x}{2q_2}
\atop a(q_1) \equiv 0 \!\!\! \pmod{q_2}}}}
~~~~~\sideset{}{^{**}}{\sum}_{\substack{n\le x \atop q_1||n, ~q_2|n}} 1
\qquad~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+~~~~~~~~~~
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{y_1 \le q_2 \le e^{\sqrt{\log x}}
\atop {\frac{x}{2q_2} \le q_1 \le \frac{x}{q_2}
\atop a(q_1) \equiv 0 \!\!\! \pmod{q_2}}}}
~~~~~\sideset{}{^{**}}{\sum}_{\substack{n\le x \atop q_1||n,
~q_2|n}} 1 \\ \\
&& ~~~~
+ \sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{e^{\sqrt{\log x}}\le q_2 \le
\left(\frac{x}{\log x}\right)^{1/3}\\
\atop {\sqrt{x} \le q_1 \le \frac{x}{q_2}
\atop a(q_1) \equiv 0 \!\!\! \pmod{q_2}}}}
~~~~~\sideset{}{^{**}}{\sum}_{\substack{n\le x \atop q_1||n, ~q_2|n}} 1
~~~~~~~~~~~~+~~~~~~~~~~~~
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{\left(\frac{x}{\log x}\right)^{1/3}
\le q_2 \le x \atop {\sqrt{x} \le q_1 \le \frac{x}{q_2}
\atop a(q_1) \equiv 0 \!\!\! \pmod{q_2}}}}
~~~~~\sideset{}{^{**}}{\sum}_{\substack{n\le x \atop q_1||n, ~q_2|n}} 1\\ \\
&=& J_1 + J_2 + J_3 + J_4 ~.\end{aligned}$$ Here $$\begin{aligned}
J_4 & \ll &
x \sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{\sqrt{x} \le q_1 \le x}} \frac{1}{q_1}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{\left(\frac{x}{\log x}\right)^{1/3}
\le q_2 \le 2^{2/3}x^{1/3}}} \frac{1}{q_2} \\ \\
& \ll & x^{2/3}(\log x)^{1/3} \pi((4x)^{1/3})
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{\sqrt{x} \le q_1 \le x}} \frac{1}{q_1}\\\end{aligned}$$ where $\pi(t)$ denotes the number of primes $\le t$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
J_4 & \ll & \frac{x}{(\log x)^{2/3}}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{\sqrt{x} \le q_1 \le x}} \frac{1}{q_1}
~\ll~ \frac{xL_2(x)}{(\log x)^{2/3}}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
J_3 &\ll &
x \sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack {\sqrt{x} \le q_1 \le x}} \frac{1}{q_1}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{q_2|a(q_1) \atop q_2 \ge e^{\sqrt{\log x}}}}\frac{1}{q_2} \\ \\
&\ll &
\frac{x}{e^{\sqrt{\log x}}}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack {\sqrt{x} \le q_1 \le x}} \frac{1}{q_1}
\# \left\{q_2 \mid q_2 \ge e^{\sqrt{\log x}}, q_2|a(q_1), 0 \ne
a(q_1) \le 2\sqrt{x} \right\} \\
&\ll &
\frac{x \sqrt{\log x}}{e^{\sqrt{\log x}}}
\sum_{\substack {q_1 \le x}} \frac{1}{q_1}
\ll \frac{x \sqrt{\log x}~L_2(x)}{e^{\sqrt{\log x}}}.\end{aligned}$$ In order to estimate $J_1$ and $J_2$, we write $$\begin{aligned}
J_1 &=& \sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{y_1 \le q_2 \le e^{\sqrt{\log x}}\\
\atop {\sqrt{x} \le q_1 \le \frac{x}{2q_2}
\atop a(q_1) \equiv 0 \!\!\! \pmod{q_2}}}}
~~~~~\sideset{}{^{**}}{\sum}_{\substack{n\le x \atop q_1||n, ~q_2||n}} 1
\phantom{m}+ \phantom{m}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{y_1 \le q_2 \le e^{\sqrt{\log x}}\\
\atop {\sqrt{x} \le q_1 \le \frac{x}{2q_2}
\atop a(q_1) \equiv 0 \!\!\! \pmod{q_2}}}}
~~~~~\sideset{}{^{**}}{\sum}_{\substack{n\le x \atop {q_1||n
\atop q_2^m||n, m\ge 2}}} 1 \\ \\
&=& J_{11} + J_{12}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
J_2 &=&
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{y_1 \le q_2 \le e^{\sqrt{\log x}}
\atop {\frac{x}{2q_2} \le q_1 \le \frac{x}{q_2}
\atop a(q_1) \equiv 0 \!\!\! \pmod{q_2}}}}
~~~~~\sideset{}{^{**}}{\sum}_{\substack{n\le x \atop q_1||n,
~q_2||n}} 1
\phantom{m} + \phantom{m}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{y_1 \le q_2 \le e^{\sqrt{\log x}}
\atop {\frac{x}{2q_2} \le q_1 \le \frac{x}{q_2}
\atop a(q_1) \equiv 0 \!\!\! \pmod{q_2}}}}
~~~~~\sideset{}{^{**}}{\sum}_{\substack{n\le x \atop {q_1||n
\atop q_2^m||n, m \ge 2}}} 1 \\ \\
&=& J_{21} + J_{22} ~~~~.\end{aligned}$$ We show that $J_{11}$ and $J_{21}$ are $o\left(x/L_3(x)(\log x)^{1/2}\right)$. Similarly, one can show that $J_{12}$ and $J_{22}$ are $o\left(x/L_3(x)(\log x)^{1/2}\right)$. We can write $$\begin{aligned}
J_{11} & \ll &
x \sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{y_1 \le q_2
\le e^{\sqrt{\log x}}}} \frac{1}{q_2}
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{\sqrt{x} \le q_1 \le \frac{x}{2q_2}
\atop a(q_1) \equiv 0 \pmod{q_2}}}
\frac{1}{q_1 \left(\log \frac{x}{q_1q_2}\right)^{1/2}} \\ \\
& \ll &
x \sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{y_1 \le q_2
\le e^{\sqrt{\log x}}}} \frac{1}{q_2}
~\int_{\sqrt{x}}^{x/2q_2} \frac{d\pi^{*}(t, q_2)}
{t \left(\log \frac{x}{q_2t}\right)^{1/2}}\\ \\
& \ll &
x \sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{y_1 \le q_2
\le e^{\sqrt{\log x}}}} \frac{1}{q_2} \left[\left\{\frac{\pi^{*}(t, q_2)}
{t \left(\log \frac{x}{q_2t}\right)^{1/2}}\right\}_{t = \sqrt{x}}^{t =x/2q_2}
+ \int_{\sqrt{x}}^{x/2q_2} \frac{\pi^{*}(t,q_2)~dt}{t^2\left(\log
\frac{x}{q_2t}\right)^{1/2} }\right]. \end{aligned}$$ Then by using [Theorem \[thm 5.1\]]{}, we have $$\begin{aligned}
J_{11} &\ll &
x \sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{y_1 \le q_2
\le e^{\sqrt{\log x}}}} \frac{1}{q_2^2} \left[\left\{\frac{1}{\log t
\left(\log \frac{x}{q_2t}\right)^{1/2}}\right\}_{t = \sqrt{x}}^{t =x/2q_2}
+ \int_{\sqrt{x}}^{x/2q_2} \frac{dt}{t \log t
\left(\log \frac{x}{q_2t}\right)^{1/2} }\right] \\ \\
&\ll &
\frac{x}{\log x} \sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{y_1 \le q_2
\le e^{\sqrt{\log x}}}} \frac{1}{q_2^2} \left[1
+ \int_{\sqrt{x}}^{x/2q_2} \frac{dt}{t\left(\log \frac{x}{q_2t}\right)^{1/2} }\right] \\ \\
&\ll &
\frac{x}{(\log x)^{1/2}} \sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{y_1 \le q_2
\le e^{\sqrt{\log x}}}} \frac{1}{q_2^2} ~\ll~
\frac{x}{y_1(\log x)^{1/2}}.\end{aligned}$$ Since for each pair of primes $q_1, q_2$ with $y_1 \le q_2 \le e^{\sqrt{\log x}},
x/2q_2 \le q_1 \le x/q_2$, there are at most two $n\le x$ with $q_1q_2\mid n$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
J_{21} &\ll &
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{y_1 \le q_2
\le e^{\sqrt{\log x}}}}\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{\frac{x}{2q_2} \le q_1 \le
\frac{x}{q_2} \atop a(q_1) \equiv 0 \!\!\! \pmod{q_2}}}1 \\ \\
&\ll &
\sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{y_1 \le q_2
\le e^{\sqrt{\log x}}}} \pi^{*}(x/q_2,~ q_2) ~\ll~
\frac{x}{\log x} \sideset{}{^*}{\sum}_{\substack{y_1 \le q_2
\le e^{\sqrt{\log x}}}} \frac{1}{q_2^2},
~~~{\rm~ by~{Theorem~\ref{thm 5.1}}} \\ \\
&\ll &
\frac{x}{y_1\log x}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned}
B_1 + B_2 ~=~ o\left(\frac{x}{(\log x)^{\frac{1}{2}} L_3(x)} \right).\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof.
[**Acknowledgments:**]{} This work started while the first author was a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Toronto–Mississauga(UTM). It is her pleasure to thank UTM for financial support and excellent working conditions. Both authors would like to thank Ram Murty and the referee for very helpful comments which enabled them to eliminate some errors from an earlier version.
[100]{} P. Erd[ö]{}s, Some asymptotic formulas in number theory, [*J. Indian Math. Soc.*]{}, [**12**]{} (1949), 75-78. S. Lang, [*Elliptic Functions*]{}, Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1973. D.H. Lehmer, Ramanujan’s function $\tau(n)$, [*Duke Math. J.*]{}, [**10**]{} (1943), 483-492. D.H. Lehmer, The vanishing of Ramanujan’s $\tau(n)$, [*Duke Math. J.*]{} [**14**]{} (1947), 429-433. M. Ram Murty and V. Kumar Murty, Some results in number theory I, [*Acta Arith.*]{}, [**35**]{} (1979), 367-371. M. Ram Murty and V. Kumar Murty, Odd values of fourier coefficients of certain modular forms, [*Int. J. Number Theory*]{} [**3**]{} (2007), 455-470. V. Kumar Murty, Lacunarity of modular forms, [*J. Indian Math. Soc.*]{}, [**52**]{} (1987), 127-146. V. Kumar Murty, Modular forms and the Chebotarev density theorem, II, in [*Analytic number theory*]{}, pp. 287-308, ed. Y. Motohashi, [*London Math. Soc. Lecture Notes*]{} 247, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997. V. Kumar Murty, Some results in number theory II, [*Ramanujan Math. Soc. Lect. Notes Ser.*]{}, [**1**]{} (2005), 51-55. V. Kumar Murty, A variant of Lehmer’s conjecture, [*J. Number Theory*]{} [**123**]{} (2007), no. 1, 80-91. S. Ramanujan, On certain arithmetical functions, [*Trans. Camb. Phil. Soc.*]{}, [**22**]{} (1916), 159-184. (See also, Collected Papers, Number 18, pp. 136-192, AMS-Chelsea, Providence, 1962.) M. Rosen, A generalization of Mertens’ theorem, [*J. Ramanujan Math. Soc.*]{} [**14**]{}(1999), 1-19. W. Schaal, On the large sieve method in algebraic number fields, [*J. Number Theory*]{}, [**2**]{} (1970), 249-270. J. P. Serre, Divisibilit[é]{} de certaines fonctions arithm[é]{}tiques, [*L’Ens. Math.*]{}, [**22**]{} (1976), 227-260. J. P. Serre, Quelques applications du th[é]{}or[è]{}me de densit[é]{} de Chebotarev, [*Publ. Math. IHES*]{}, [**54**]{} (1981), 323-401. J. P. Serre, Sur la lacunarit[é]{} des puissances de $\eta$, [*Glasgow Math. J.*]{}, [**27**]{} (1985), 203-221. H.M. Stark, Some effective cases of the Brauer-Siegel theorem, [*Invent. Math.*]{} [**23**]{} (1974) 135-152.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- '[Lixiang Zhang]{}[^1], Lin Lin$^\dagger$ & Jia Li$^\ddagger$'
bibliography:
- 'dvc.bib'
title: 'Deep Variable-Block Chain with Adaptive Variable Selection'
---
### Abstract {#abstract .unnumbered}
The architectures of deep neural networks (DNN) rely heavily on the underlying grid structure of variables, for instance, the lattice of pixels in an image. For general high dimensional data with variables not associated with a grid, the multi-layer perceptron and deep brief network are often used. However, it is frequently observed that those networks do not perform competitively and they are not helpful for identifying important variables. In this paper, we propose a framework that imposes on blocks of variables a chain structure obtained by step-wise greedy search so that the DNN architecture can leverage the constructed grid. We call this new neural network Deep Variable-Block Chain (DVC). Because the variable blocks are used for classification in a sequential manner, we further develop the capacity of selecting variables adaptively according to a number of regions trained by a decision tree. Our experiments show that DVC outperforms other generic DNNs and other strong classifiers. Moreover, DVC can achieve high accuracy at much reduced dimensionality and sometimes reveals drastically different sets of relevant variables for different regions.
[*KEY WORDS:*]{} variable blocks, deep neural network, high-dimensional data classification, adaptive variable selection, long short-term memory
Introduction
============
Deep learning has achieved phenomenal success in a broad spectrum of predictive data analysis problems [@lecun2015deep]. For a glimpse of the enormous impact, we refer to [@krizhevsky2012imagenet; @graves2013speech; @collobert2008unified] as examples in computer vision, speech recognition, and natural language processing. Many neural network architectures have been designed for sequential and imagery data. Besides the purposes of problems in consideration, the architectures of DNN depend heavily on the underlying grid structure of the variables, e.g., pixels located on a lattice in a plane. When variables are not attributes acquired at nodes on a grid, the diversity of DNN architectures is much limited. Bioinformatics is an example research area in which such high-dimensional data are often handled [@min2017deep]. Several generic deep learning architectures are used in this area, including Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) [@svozil1997introduction] and Deep Brief Networks (DBN) [@hinton2006fast].
In this paper, we explore the idea of establishing a graph structure for the variables and in the mean time constructing a DNN on the structure. The graph structure enables us to design an architecture of less complexity than the more general neural networks such as MLP and DBN. Furthermore, the particular architecture lends itself naturally to variable selection with adaptability. Specifically, we develop a DNN called [*Deep Variable-Block Chain (DVC)*]{} for classification and variable selection. In addition, by exploiting the intermediate outputs of DVC, we develop an adaptive variable selection method that permits heterogeneous selection based on a decision tree. The variables are partitioned into blocks which are ordered into a chain by step-wise greedy optimization. Motivated by the chain topology of the graph, the particular architecture of DVC follows that of Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) [@gers1999learning]. However, we do not have “time-wise” repetitive weights as in LSTM because the chain is not a time axis and the variables along the chain are of different nature.
Another advantage for constructing a chain and using the LSTM-like architecture is the readiness for selecting variables in an adaptive manner. To the best of our knowledge, this is an aspect unexplored and arguably not so relevant for LSTM on sequential data. As DVC outputs estimation of the class posterior probabilities through a cascade of cells, these probability values are analyzed to decide how many cells and consequently how many variables are needed for any data point. This analysis result is used to train a decision tree that determines variable selection in different regions of the data space. We would like to emphasize the difference from usual variable selection which is fixed for the whole data. The decision tree can serve solely as an adaptive assessment for the importance of variables, or it can be combined with DVC to reduce the complexity of the overall classifier.
The targeted usage of DVC is for high-dimensional data with variables not associated with a grid. If an underlying grid structure exists, we expect DNNs designed specifically for that structure to be more competitive. We thus have compared DVC with existing DNNs that are of rather generic architectures such as MLP and DBN. Experiments on several benchmark datasets show that DVC outperforms MLP and DBN in classification accuracy even though smaller sets of variables are used. The adaptive variable selection method also reveals that different numbers of variables matter in different regions of the data. This kind of insight about the variables is often valuable in the study of biological data.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. We define notations and overview related neural networks in Section \[sec:pre\]. In Section \[sec:chain\], we describe how the variable blocks are formed and ordered, the architecture of DVC, and its training method. The algorithm for adaptively selecting variables by a decision tree is presented in Section \[sec:tree\]. Experimental results on both simulated and real data are reported in Section \[evaluation\]. Finally, we conclude and discuss future work in Section \[sec:conclude\].
Preliminaries {#sec:pre}
=============
Denote a random vector $X$ by $(X_1,X_2,...,X_p)^{\mathrm{T}} \in \mathbb{R}^p$ and the $i$th sample or realization of it by $(x_{i1},x_{i2},...,x_{ip})^{\mathrm{T}} \in \mathbb{R}^p$. Moreover, the data matrix $\mathbb{X}=(x_1,x_2,...,x_p) \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times p}$, where $x_j$ is the $j$th column of $\mathbb{X}$, containing values of the $j$th variable across all sample points. We use the terms feature and variable exchangeably. A [*variable block*]{} is a subset of the $p$ features, e.g., $(X_1, X_3)$. Suppose we partition the $p$-dimensional random vector $X$ into $V$ variable blocks, indexed by $v= 1,2,...,V$. Let the number of variables in the $v$th block be $p_v$, a.k.a., the dimension of the $v$th variable block. We have $\sum^V_{v=1}p_v=p$. Denote the sub-vector containing variables in the $v$th variable block by $X^{(v)}$. If we reorder variables in $X$ according to the order of the variable blocks, we get the random vector $\widetilde{X}=({X^{(1)}}^{\mathrm{T}} ,{X^{(2)}}^{\mathrm{T}} ...{X^{(V)}}^{\mathrm{T}} )^{\mathrm{T}} \in \mathbb{R}^p$. For brevity of notation, we assume without loss of generality $X^{(1)} = (X_1, X_2, ..., X_{p_1} )^{\mathrm{T}} \in \mathbb{R}^{p_1}$ and $X^{(v)} = (X_{m_v+1}, X_{m_v+2}, ..., X_{m_v+p_v} )^{\mathrm{T}} \in \mathbb{R}^{p_v}$, where $m_v = \sum^{v-1}_{i=1}p_i$, for $v = 2,...,V$. Then we simply have $X=({X^{(1)}}^{\mathrm{T}} ,{X^{(2)}}^{\mathrm{T}} ...{X^{(V)}}^{\mathrm{T}} )^{\mathrm{T}} \in \mathbb{R}^p$.
Our idea has been inspired by Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) [@williams1989learning], a type of neural networks with connections between modules forming a directed chain. Different from feedforward neural networks, the hidden states in RNN function are served as “memory” of the past sequence, which make RNN effective for natural language modeling [@mikolov2010recurrent] and speech recognition [@mikolov2011strategies]. The architecture of RNN is illustrated in Figure \[lstm\](a). RNN contains a repetitive neural network module at any time position. Cascaded as a chain, these modules are “recurrent” since the weight matrices $W$, $U$, $H$ in each module are fixed. Let $\phi(\cdot)$ and $\psi(\cdot)$ be activation functions. In an RNN, at time $t$, the hidden unit $h_t=\phi(U X_t+W h_{t-1})$, where $X_t$ is the input data at $t$, and $h_{t-1}$, the immediate previous hidden unit, captures the effect of the past. The output unit $o_t=\psi(H h_t)$.
RNN has the issue of vanishing gradient when the chain is long. LSTM, a special RNN architecture, can overcome this issue by allowing gradients to flow unchanged [@gers1999learning]. LSTM also contains cascaded network modules which are called in particular “cells”. In a standard RNN, the repeating module has a relatively simple structure containing a single hyperbolic tangent hidden layer, as shown by Figure \[lstm\](a). For LSTM, a typical cell is composed of a memory cell $c_t$, a hidden state $h_t$, and $3$ gates. The $3$ gates are input gate $i_t$, output gate $o_t$ and forget gate $f_t$, illustrated in Figure \[lstm\](b) using a green, blue and red square respectively.
{width="4.5in"}
The definitions of the outputs in LSTM at every time $t$, also called updates from $t-1$ to $t$, are as follows. The notation $\odot$ means element-wise multiplication, and $\sigma$ is the sigmoid activation function with range $(0,1)$, applied to each element. Suppose $x_t\in \mathbb{R}^p$ and $h_{t-1}\in \mathbb{R}^q$, then $U_i, U_f, U_o, U_a \in \mathbb{R}^{q \times p}$, $W_i, W_f, W_o, W_a \in \mathbb{R}^{q \times q}$ and $b_i, b_f, b_o, b_a, i_t, f_t, o_t, a_t, c_t \in \mathbb{R}^q$. $$\begin{aligned}
i_t & = \sigma (W_{i}h_{t-1}+U_{i}x_t+b_i),\\
f_t & = \sigma (W_{f}h_{t-1}+U_{f}x_t+b_f),\\
o_t & = \sigma (W_{o}h_{t-1}+U_{o}x_t+b_o),\\
a_t & = \tanh (W_{a}h_{t-1}+U_{a}x_t+b_a),\\
c_t & = c_{t-1}\odot f_t+i_t\odot a_t, \\
h_t & = o_t\odot \tanh(c_t).\end{aligned}$$
As shown in Figure \[lstm\](b), the memory cell $c_t$ and hidden state $h_t$ are marked at the two horizontal lines across the entire chain. They summarize the information up to $t$ and are regulated by the gates to receive new information or erase irrelevant information. The forget gate (the red unit) output is $f_t$, and $W_{f}$, $U_{f}$, $b_f$ are parameter matrices used at this gate. It receives $h_{t-1}$, the information from the last module, and the new input data $x_t$. We can view $f_t$ as a proportion to control the usage of memory $c_{t-1}$ for updating $c_{t}$ in the next cell. A higher value of $f_t$ results in stronger influence of $c_{t-1}$ on $c_{t}$. If the effect of the past sequence is negligible given the new input, $f_t$ approaches $0$, or figuratively, the forget gate closes. Besides past memory, the other part of $c_t$ is based on the current $i_t$ and $a_t$, which are the input gate and input proposal respectively (the two green units in Figure \[lstm\](b)). The input proposal $a_t$ encodes the new information at $t$, while $i_t\in (0,1)$ controls the proportion of $a_t$ that will be added in $c_t$. The output gate $o_t \in (0,1)$ (the blue unit in Figure \[lstm\](b)) controls the proportion of memory $c_t$ used to update hidden state $h_t$. At the next time $t+1$, $h_t$ will be used to deliver the encoded information up to $t$. The sequence of hidden states $h_t$ can be considered as the flow of filtered information, based on which different operations for different tasks can be defined.
The architecture of LSTM has many variations. The structure illustrated in Figure \[lstm\](b) is most typical, which is flexible and relatively easy to train. To the best of our knowledge, LSTM has only been used to model sequential data. Since homogeneity is usually assumed over time, the weight and bias parameters $\theta=(W_i,U_i,b_i,W_f,U_f,b_f,W_o,U_o,b_o,W_a,U_a,b_a)$ are invariant across the entire chain. In our work, as we construct a chain as the underlying graph for sub-vectors of variables, the LSTM architecture becomes a natural choice. Here, however, the index $t$ is not for time but for the sub-vectors $x_t$’s, which are of different meanings and possibly different dimensions. As a result, the parameters in each cell of the DNN are different. In the next section, we present the details.
Deep Variable-Block Chain with Adaptive Variable Selection {#sec:dvc}
==========================================================
Deep Variable-Block Chain {#sec:chain}
-------------------------
For sequential or spatial data, the variables can usually be considered as attributes of nodes on a graph. For example, pixel-wise features in an image are attributes of nodes on a regular two-dimensional grid. In another word, the indices for different variables are not symbolic, but associated with an underlying graph. To avoid confusion with the structure of a DNN, we call such underlying graph the “field graph”, where the term “field” reflects the fact that the variable indices come from a physical domain. However, non-sequential or non-spatial data often contain variables not defined on a field graph. The indices for these variables can be permuted without affecting the problem, that is, the indices are actually symbolic. In such cases, some generic DNNs such as MLP are used. In MLP, variables of the input data are fully connected with the hidden layers by a weight matrix $W$ and a bias vector $b$. Let $X$ be the input data and $\phi$ be an activation function. The first hidden layer $h=\phi(W X+b)$. When the dimension of $X$ increases, the number of hidden units usually grows as well, resulting in quickly increasing number of parameters. Techniques such as dropout [@srivastava2014dropout] have been developed to address overfitting when the number of parameters is very large. Another practical approach is to divide the high-dimensional input matrix into several low-dimensional matrices, each used to train an MLP, and to combine the MLPs at the end. However, these techniques are limited in terms of reducing the complexity of the neural network.
Our main idea is to simultaneously construct a field graph for variable blocks and train a DNN that exploits the graph structure. In the current work, the graph topology is a chain. We thus use a LSTM-like architecture for the DNN and call the model [*Deep Variable-Block Chain (DVC)*]{}. Although the variables are pre-partitioned into blocks, the chain is formed by forward step-wise greedy search and is coupled with the iterative fitting of DVC. As we will demonstrate, based on the chain structure, the variable blocks are used in a nested fashion, a fact which we exploit to develop an adaptive variable selection method (Section \[sec:tree\]).
The training of DVC contains the following major steps. We will explain each step in details later.
1. Partition the variables $(X_1, ..., X_p)$ into $V$ variable blocks denoted by $X^{(v)}$, $v=1, ..., V$, $X^{(v)}\in \mathbb{R}^{p_v}$.
2. Let set $\mathcal{V}=\{1, ..., V\}$. At each $v=1, ..., V$, suppose the chain of variable blocks up to $v-1$ has been formed: $X^{(B_1)}$, $X^{(B_2)}$, ..., $X^{(B_{v-1})}$. Let $\mathcal{V}_{v-1}=\{B_1, ..., B_{v-1}\}$ for $v>1$ and $\mathcal{V}_0=\emptyset$. For any $i\in \mathcal{V}-\mathcal{V}_{v-1}$, assume $X^{(i)}$ is the $v$th variable block in the chain. Train a DVC using $X^{(i')}$, $i'=B_1, ..., B_{v-1}$, and $X^{(i)}$, and evaluate the classification error rate using the training data. Suppose the DVC trained by augmenting the chain with $X^{(i^{*})}$ achieves the minimum error rate. We set $B_v=i^{*}$ and repeat the process for the next $v$.
3. Evaluate the cross-validation (CV) error rate for the chain at length $v$, $v=1, ..., V$, using the DVC containing variable blocks up to $v$: $X^{(B_1)}$, $X^{(B_2)}$, ..., $X^{(B_{v})}$. Suppose the minimum CV error rate is achieved when the chain contains $v^{*}$ variable blocks. We will only select variable blocks $X^{(B_v)}$, $v=1, ..., v^{*}$ for classification.
Remark: The third step in the algorithm essentially performs variable selection. Variables not selected in this step will not be used at all in classification. However, the adaptive variable selection method in Section \[sec:tree\] goes beyond this initial selection.
The motivation for using variable blocks instead of individual variables is to allow interaction among variables to be better modeled. Forming variable blocks is a way to balance model accuracy and complexity. Specifically for variable selection, grouped based selection has been much explored in statistics [@yuan2006model]. We use a simple scheme to generate the variable blocks. We randomly select one seed variable and compute its correlation (or mutual information) with every other variable. Variables with the highest correlation with the seed variable are grouped with it to form a variable block. The size of the block can be decided by thresholding the correlation coefficients or by an upper bound on the number of variables permitted in one block. After one block is formed, the same process is applied to the remaining variables to form another block, so on and so forth. By our experiments, the difference between using correlation and mutual information is negligible. We use correlation because it is faster to compute.
{width="4.5in"}
The architecture of DVC is essentially that of LSTM, as shown in Figure \[DVC\](a). The main difference from LSTM is that the parameters in each cell are not duplicates of one set of parameters. Instead, each cell has input data of a unique variable block, and hence each cell has a unique set of parameters. Without loss of generality, suppose the input variable block to the $t$th cell is $X^{(t)}$ with realization $x^{(t)}$. Then the $t$th cell is defined as follow. $$\begin{aligned}
i^{(t)} & = \sigma (W_{i}^{(t)}h^{(t-1)}+U_{i}^{(t)}x^{(t)}+b_i^{(t)}),\\
f^{(t)} & = \sigma (W_{f}^{(t)}h^{(t-1)}+U_{f}^{(t)}x^{(t)}+b_f^{(t)}),\\
o^{(t)} & = \sigma (W_{o}^{(t)}h^{(t-1)}+U_{o}^{(t)}x^{(t)}+b_o^{(t)}),\\
a^{(t)} & = \tanh (W_{a}^{(t)}h^{(t-1)}+U_{a}^{(t)}x^{(t)}+b_a^{(t)}),\\
c^{(t)} & = c^{(t-1)}\odot f^{(t)}+i^{(t)}\odot a^{(t)}, \\
h^{(t)} & = o^{(t)}\odot \tanh(c^{(t)}).\end{aligned}$$
Suppose $x^{(t)}\in \mathbb{R}^{p_t}$ and $h^{(t-1)}\in \mathbb{R}^q, \forall t$, then $U_i^{(t)}, U_f^{(t)}, U_o^{(t)}, U_a^{(t)} \in \mathbb{R}^{q \times p_t}$, $W_i^{(t)}, W_f^{(t)}, W_o^{(t)}$, $W_a^{(t)} \in \mathbb{R}^{q \times q}$ and $b_i^{(t)}, b_f^{(t)}, b_o^{(t)}, b_a^{(t)}, i_t^{(t)}, f_t^{(t)}, o_t^{(t)}, a_t^{(t)}, c_t^{(t)} \in \mathbb{R}^q$. In practice, we set the state size $q=\min(20, \min \{p_t, t=1,2,...,V\})$. Same as in the LSTM cell, the information is delivered across the entire chain by two horizontal lines in Figure \[DVC\](a), corresponding to memory $c^{(t)}$ and hidden state $h^{(t)}$. We refer to Section \[sec:pre\] for detailed explanation of $f^{(t)}$, $i^{(t)}$, $a^{(t)}$, and $o^{(t)}$. At the end of the deep chain, we add a softmax layer to output the probability of a data point belonging to each class. The softmax layer could either use the final hidden state or the entire sequence of hidden states to calculate the probabilities. Our experiments did not show considerable difference for the two options, we thus only use the final hidden state. Moreover, multiple layers can be used to define the input to each gate, but we did not observe significant improvement.
Because the chain is formed by forward step-wise greedy search, by construction, variable blocks that contribute less to improve classification accuracy are placed at later positions in the chain. We thus perform initial selection of variable blocks by cutting off the chain at a chosen length. Suppose the initial chain contains all the $V$ variable blocks in the following order: $X^{(B_1)}$, $X^{(B_2)}$, ..., $X^{(B_V)}$. A [*sub-chain*]{} of length $l$ contains the first $l$ blocks: $X^{(B_1)}$, ..., $X^{(B_l)}$. We use cross-validation to compute the classification error rate for any sub-chain of length $l$, $l=1, ..., V$. Suppose the sub-chain of length $S$ yields the minimum CV error rate. The DVC on the sub-chain $X^{(B_1)}$, ..., $X^{(B_S)}$ is taken as the final model. We thus have performed initial variable selection, keeping only variables in the first $S$ blocks. To distinguish from the adaptive variable selection method to be introduced in Section \[sec:tree\], we call the initial selection [*global variable selection*]{}.
Note that because of the progressive construction of the full chain, we have fitted DVC models on all the sub-chains as a by-product when the training of the DVC using all the variable blocks is completed. The DVC models on all the sub-chains will also be used for adaptive variable selection. For clarity, we will denote the DVC trained on the sub-chain of length $l$ by $\mathcal{D}_{l}$, $l=1, ..., V$. Also note that although the sub-chains of the variable blocks are nested and $\mathcal{D}_{l}$, $l=1, ..., V$, have nested architectures, their parameters are trained separately. Thus for $l<l'$, the parameters of $\mathcal{D}_{l}$ are not lifted from the corresponding parameters in $\mathcal{D}_{l'}$. Finally, since the initial global variable selection decides that only the sub-chain of length $S$ ($S\leq V$) is needed, from now on, when we refer to the “DVC on the full chain”, we mean $\mathcal{D}_S$ instead of $\mathcal{D}_V$.
We use mini-batch [@li2014efficient] and Adam optimizer [@kingma2014adam] to train DVC. Due to the special structure of DVC, the number of parameters in DVC is similar to that of MLP with one hidden layer. However, MLP with only one hidden layer often performs poorly, while a multi-layer MLP is prone to overfitting. We have observed that overfitting is less of an issue for DVC. Nevertheless, we employ L$2$ penalty for each weight matrix and the dropout technique for the input and output gates in DVC. It is found that for the experiments we conducted, these regularization techniques have no effect or at most marginal effect on performance.
Adaptive Variable Selection by Decision Tree {#sec:tree}
--------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we present the adaptive variable selection method based on decision tree. The selection is adaptive in the sense that the feature space is partitioned by the decision tree and variables selected in different regions can be different. We are motivated to perform heterogeneous selection by applications in biological data analysis. For instance, bio-markers may be expected to vary by subgroups. The problem is perplexing because the subgroups are not pre-labeled or determined by some extra information but need to be discovered from the data. The decision tree is particularly appealing for finding the subgroups because its result is easy to interpret. If the subgroups were defined by complicated functions of many variables, the very purpose of selecting variables and gaining insight about their biological roles would be defied. In light of this, a shallow decision tree of a small number of leaf nodes is preferable.
Assume the chain of variable blocks and the DVC have been trained. Recall that the variable blocks along the chain are $X^{(B_1)}$, $X^{(B_2)}$, ..., $X^{(B_S)}$, where $S\leq V$ is the number of initially selected variable blocks. For each data point $x_i$, $i=1, ..., n$, we define a so-called $\nu$-number that in a rough sense indicates the number of variable blocks needed in order to predict the class label $y_i$ correctly and with an acceptable level of “certainty”. Let the number of classes be $K$. We now define the $\nu$-number precisely.
For brevity of notation, in the following description, we suppress the subscript index $i$ for the data point. Let the true class label for point $x$ be $y$. We apply DVC model $\mathcal{D}_l$, $l=1, ..., S$, on each sub-chain to compute the class posterior probabilities for $x$. At length $l$, let the posterior probabilities of the $K$ classes be $(b_1^{(l)}, b_2^{(l)}, ..., b_K^{(l)})$. Sort the probabilities in ascending order $(b_{(1)}^{(l)}, b_{(2)}^{(l)}, ..., b_{(K)}^{(l)})$. Define $$\begin{aligned}
q_l=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
1\; , & \mbox{if}\, \, b_{y}^{(l)}=b_{(K)}^{(l)} \;\, \mbox{and}\;\, b_{y}^{(l)}-b_{(K-1)}^{(l)}\geq \epsilon \\
0 \; , & \mbox{otherwise}
\end{array}
\right . \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where hyper-parameter $\epsilon$ is set to $0.2/K$.
The $\nu$-number for the data point is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\nu=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\min\{j \in (1,2,...S), s.t. \, (q_j=1, q_{j+1}=1,..., q_{S}=1)\} & , \; \mbox{if}\, \, q_S=1\\
S+1 & , \; \mbox{if}\,\, q_S=0
\end{array}
\right . \, .\end{aligned}$$
Let the $\nu$-number for data points $\{x_i, i=1, ..., n\}$ be $\{\nu_i, i=1, ..., n\}$. We take $\nu_i$’s as the response variable and train a regression tree with cost-complexity pruning [@breiman1984classification]. We call this decision tree the [*variable selection tree*]{} and denote it by $\mathcal{T}_{VS}$.
A modification we make in $\mathcal{T}_{VS}$ from the usual regression tree is the way to decide the $\nu$-number for each leaf node of the tree. Since the variables selected at a smaller $\nu$-number are a subset of those at a larger value, we are inclined to set the $\nu$-number of a leaf node as the maximum of $\nu_i$’s belonging to this node so that all the variables needed for all the points in the leaf are included. However, this is a rather conservative criterion. Instead, we adopt a percentile strategy. Suppose the number of points with $\nu$-number equal to $l$ in a leaf node is $m_l$, $l=1, ..., S+1$. Let $m=\sum_{l=1}^{S+1}m_l$. Denote the $\nu$-number for the leaf node by $\tilde{\nu}$. Then $\tilde{\nu}=\min\{l \in (1,2,...S+1), s.t. \sum^l_{j=1}n_j \geq n\cdot\alpha\}$, where $\alpha=90\%$.
For a region defined by a leaf node of $\mathcal{T}_{VS}$ with $\tilde{\nu}$, we select variable blocks $X^{(B_l)}$, $l=1, ..., \tilde{\nu}$, if $\tilde{\nu}\leq S$. If $\tilde{\nu}=S+1$, it indicates that a substantial portion of points in the leaf are difficult cases for classification. Since the chain has a maximum of $S$ variable blocks, when $\tilde{\nu}=S+1$, we just select all the $S$ blocks.
We refer to the region corresponding to each leaf node of $\mathcal{T}_{VS}$ as a subgroup. $\mathcal{T}_{VS}$ provides insight into the usefulness of the variables depending on the subgroups. As aforementioned, it is desirable to have subgroups which are simply defined. In our experiments, although we did not explicitly enforce low complexity of $\mathcal{T}_{VS}$, the trees obtained are usually quite small (fewer than $4$ leaf nodes). Furthermore, as the variables are selected in groups and in a nested way, the final tree can be pruned at the choice of the user without missing useful variables. The drawback of this practice is to include variables that may have been skipped if the subgroups are more refined.
For the sole purpose of classification, we can combine $\mathcal{T}_{VS}$ with the DVC models $\mathcal{D}_l$, $l=1, ..., S$, to form an overall classifier. We call this classification method [*DVC with Adaptive Variable Selection (DVC-AVS)*]{}. To apply DVC-AVS, we first use $\mathcal{T}_{VS}$ to find the leaf node which a data point belongs to. Suppose the $\nu$-number of that leaf node is $\tilde{\nu}$. If $\tilde{\nu}\leq S$, $\mathcal{D}_{\tilde{\nu}}$ is used to classify the data point. If $\tilde{\nu}= S+1$, $\mathcal{D}_{S}$ is used. In contrast, the classifier DVC refers to applying $\mathcal{D}_{S}$ to any data point (no adaptive variable selection applied).
Experiments {#evaluation}
===========
In this section, we use both proof-of-principle synthetic data (Section \[simu\]) and biomedical data (Section \[real\]) to demonstrate our proposed framework for classification and variable selection. For each data set, we randomly select $30\%$ of the data for testing, and the remaining $70\%$ data for training. The classification accuracy in test data, which is the proportion of correct predictions, is used to evaluate the methods. In binary classification examples, AUC (area under the ROC curve) is also used for evaluation. In addition, in the simulation study when we know which variables are relevant for classification, we use $F1$ score [@sasaki2007truth] to evaluate the performance of variable selection. $F1$ score is the harmonic mean of precision and recall. Specifically, let $\mathcal{S}$ denote the set of selected variables/features and $\mathcal{S}_r$ denote the true set of relevant variables. Then $F1={2\cdot \zeta\cdot \beta}/{(\zeta+\beta)}$, where $\zeta={|\mathcal{S}\cap \mathcal{S}_r|}/{|\mathcal{S}|}$ is the precision and $\beta={|\mathcal{S}\cap \mathcal{S}_r|}/{|\mathcal{S}_r|}$ is the recall.
Simulation Studies
------------------
\[simu\]
We first conduct simulation studies to evaluate DVC (with global variable selection) and DVC-AVS. We generate a sample of $1000$ points with $20$ variables from a $4$-component Gaussian mixture model. In particular, we assign equal prior probability to the $4$ components. The mean vectors for the $4$ components are $(5\cdot \mathbf{1}^T_{10}, 0\cdot \mathbf{1}^T_{10}), (10\cdot \mathbf{1}^T_{10}, 0\cdot \mathbf{1}^T_{10}), (0\cdot \mathbf{1}^T_{10}, 5\cdot \mathbf{1}^T_{10}), (0\cdot \mathbf{1}^T_{10}, 10\cdot \mathbf{1}^T_{10})$, respectively. The covariance matrices are all set to be diagonal with diagonal elements equal to $0.25$. As the mean vectors of the $4$ components are well separated, each component is treated as one class and these $20$-dimensional variables are considered relevant variables for classification. In order to evaluate the variable selection method, we further augment each sample point by redundant variables generated independently from the standard normal distribution. These extra variables are considered irrelevant for classification. We vary the number of total variables $p = 100,200,400$. The proportion of relevant variables is correspondingly $0.2$, $0.1$, $0.05$.
To determine the variable block structure, we restrict that each variable block can contain only $10$ variables. We then partition the variables according to their pairwise correlation following the procedure described in Section \[sec:chain\]. We observe that the $20$ relevant variables consistently form $2$ variable blocks for different $p$. Specifically, the first $10$ variables always form a block, and the next $10$ variables form another block. The two blocks of relevant variables are consistently selected as the first and second block in the chain by the algorithm; and the optimal number of variable blocks decided by global variable selection is $2$ at any $p$.
We compare the performance of DVC with $2$-hidden-layer MLP with and without the dropout technique. Neither of the two competing methods can directly select variables. The comparison of prediction accuracy is provided in Table \[sim\]. At any value of $p$, DVC outperforms the other two methods. In addition, the $F1$ score for the variables selected by DVC is consistently 1, indicating that DVC precisely identifies the relevant variables.
Accuracy $p=100$ $p=200$ $p=400$
----------------- --------- --------- --------- -- -- --
DVC **1** **1** **1**
MLP w/o dropout 0.974 0.896 0.843
MLP w/ dropout 0.976 0.966 0.946
: Prediction accuracy for three methods under three dimensions.[]{data-label="sim"}
{width="3.in"}
The adaptive variable selection result is shown in Figure \[simtree\]. The variable selection tree divides the space into two regions based on a single variable, in particular, the second variable in the first block (that is, the second dimension in the full data). The first subgroup, defined by the region specified by the node in dark green, contains all the points with $\nu$-number equal $1$, and the second subgroup, defined by the region specified by the node in light blue, contains points with $\nu$-number equal $2$. By DVC-AVS, the first subgroup can be classified using only the first variable block, and the second subgroup using the first two variable blocks.
The above adaptive variable selection result is expected according to the design of the simulation. The first variable block can distinguish component 1 and 2, both falling in the left node with $\nu$-number equal 1; the second variable block distinguishes component 3 and 4. Due to the sequential nested selection of variables, when the $\nu$-number is $2$, the first two blocks will be selected. The classification accuracy of DVC-AVS is also $100\%$.
We further investigate the performance of DVC for variable selection in the presence of highly correlated variables. In the new set-up, the mean vectors for the $4$ components are $(5\cdot \mathbf{1}^T_{10}, 0\cdot \mathbf{1}^T_{10}), (10\cdot \mathbf{1}^T_{10}, 0\cdot \mathbf{1}^T_{10}), (-5\cdot \mathbf{1}^T_{10}, 0\cdot \mathbf{1}^T_{10}), (-10\cdot \mathbf{1}^T_{10}, 0\cdot \mathbf{1}^T_{10})$, respectively. Notice that the mean vectors for the last $10$ dimensions are identical. Conditioning on any given component, the covariance matrices for the first and second $10$ dimensions respectively are still diagonal. But we make these two variable blocks highly correlated by setting $Cov(X_i,X_{i+10})=1$, for $i=1,2,...,10$. In summary, the first 10 variables are relevant for classification, while the second 10 variables are irrelevant (but highly correlated with important variables). Similarly, we experiment with augmenting the 20 dimensions by extra irrelevant variables, the number of them ranging from $80$ to $380$. In every case, DVC only selects the first 10 variables, demonstrating that DVC is able to handle highly correlated variables in this example.
Real Data Analysis
------------------
\[real\]
### Binary Classification
In this section, we use the Wisconsin breast cancer dataset downloaded from UCI Machine Learning Repository [@wisc1995breast] to compare the performance of DVC with MLP and DBN, and two other popular machine learning methods: Support Vector Machine (SVM) [@suykens1999least] with radial basis function kernel and Random Forest (RF) [@breiman2001random]. The dataset contains $569$ samples with binary labels: malignant (62.7%) and benign (37.3%). Features are computed from digitized images of a fine needle aspirate, capturing different characteristics of the cell nuclei in the images. There are $10$ real-valued features computed for each cell nucleus per image. The mean, standard error, and “worst" or largest of these features were computed for each image, resulting in total $30$ features. Therefore, the features naturally form different groups according to two factors: the type of summary statistics (mean, error, worst), the morphological phenotypes (shape and size). Accordingly, we divide the features into $6$ variable blocks, and each variable block contains $5$ features. The description of the 6 variable blocks are shown in Figure \[wisc\].
{width="4.in"}
DVC determines that the optimal variable block chain is $(3,1,6,4,2)$. Since the third variable block is first chosen, this suggests that the standard errors of features related to the sizes of the cell nuclei are most effective at distinguishing the two classes if a single variable block is to be used. The test accuracy measures of DVC and several base-line methods are provided in Table \[toy\]. DVC achieves the highest prediction accuracy and AUC.
MLP w/o dropout MLP w/ dropout DBN SVM RF DVC
---------- ----------------- ---------------- ------- ------- ------- -----------
Accuracy 0.923 0.936 0.626 0.661 0.960 **0.971**
AUC 0.973 0.985 0.500 0.500 0.993 **0.995**
: Comparison of performance on breast cancer data among MLP without dropout, MLP with dropout, DBN, SVM, RF and DVC.[]{data-label="toy"}
The variable selection tree obtained by DVC-AVS has three leaf nodes, shown in Figure \[tree\]. All the data points belonging to node 2 need only the first variable block ($\nu$-number = 1). The other two leaf nodes contain a mixture of data points with different $\nu$-numbers. By the $90$th percentile strategy (Section \[sec:tree\]), nodes $2,6,7$ are assigned with $\nu$-number $1,3,5$ respectively. The result indicates that for different subgroups (each defined by one leaf node of the tree), different biomarkers are needed for classifying breast cancer. We compare the accuracy of DVC and DVC-AVS for individual subgroups as well as the overall data in Table \[cancer\_tree\]. There is no difference between the two.
{width="2.5in"}
Acc w/ DVC-AVS Acc w/ DVC Overall acc w/ DVC-AVS
---------------------- ---------------- ------------ ------------------------
1 $\nu$-number Group 0.967 0.967
3 $\nu$-number Group 0.986 0.986
5 $\nu$-number Group 0.955 0.955
: The comparison of group-wise and overall accuracy between DVC-AVS and DVC for Breast Cancer Data.[]{data-label="cancer_tree"}
### Cell Type Classification {#cell}
In this section, we demonstrate the use of DVC for biomarker identification for cell-type classification in single-cell data analysis. The dataset is obtained from the study of developing cerebral cortex [@pollen2014low]. It consists of $301$ single cells obtained from $11$ populations: CRL-2338 epithelial (7.3% of the total cells), CRL-2339 lymphoblastoid (5.6%), K562 myeloid (chronic leukemia) (14%), BJ fibroblast (from human foreskin) (12.3%), HL60 myeloid (acute leukemia) (17.9%), iPS pluripotent (8%), Kera foreskin keratinocyte (13.3%), NPC neural progenitor cells (5%) and GW(16, 21, 21+3) fetal cortex at gestational week (16,21, 21+3 weeks) (8.6%, 2.7%, 5.3%). After standard pre-processing steps, the training data contains $1767$ features and $210$ cells (sample size). Based on correlation, we divide the features into $V=10$, $15$, or $20$ variable blocks containing an equal number of variables. We use $V=10$ for detailed illustration of results but report accuracy for all the three cases. We have obtained similar results when mutual information is used to generate the variable blocks. The global variable selection in DVC further identifies $5$ useful variable blocks out of the total of $10$. The classification accuracy is shown in Table \[pollen\_acc\]. DVC achieves the highest accuracy, and the results are close for different values of $V$.
----- ------------- ------------ ------- ------- ------- ----------- -------- -----------
MLP MLP DVC DVC DVC
w/o dropout w/ dropout $(10)$ $(15)$ $(20)$
Acc 0.154 0.670 0.231 0.231 0.945 **0.956** 0.945 **0.956**
----- ------------- ------------ ------- ------- ------- ----------- -------- -----------
: Comparison of performance on Pollen’s Single Cell Data among MLP without dropout, MLP with dropout, DBN, SVM, RF and DVC with 10, 15 and 20 variable blocks.[]{data-label="pollen_acc"}
The variable selection tree trained for this dataset has only one leaf node with $\nu$-number set to $1$. This means that DVC-AVS decides to select only one variable block across the whole space. The classification accuracy achieved by DVC-AVS on the test data is $0.945$, only slightly lower than that obtained by DVC using $5$ variable blocks.
### Breast Cancer Classification {#breast}
The ability to identify specific biomarkers for different cancer types is crucial in translational research for precision medicine. We use the dataset in breast cancer study [@krishnan2016piwi], in which the objective is to investigate whether Piwi-interacting RNAs (piRNAs) are potential biomarkers for breast cancer. This dataset is of size $113$ ($102$ breast tumor tissues and $11$ normal tissues) and $676$ piRNAs.
In order to examine the variable selection ability of DVC, we normalize all $676$ piRNAs features and divide them into $V=10$, $15$, or $20$ variable blocks based on correlation. Each block has roughly equal number of variables. Again, we report detailed result for $V=10$ and the accuracy for all $V$’s. At every $V$, only the first variable block is selected by DVC, and the accuracy on testing data is given in Table \[breast\_bio\]. For this dataset, except for SVM, every method achieves perfect classification on the test data. However, DVC only requires about $10\%$ of the variables.
MLP DBN SVM RF DVC $(10)$ DVC $(15)$ DVC $(20)$
----- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------------ ------------ ------------
Acc **1** **1** 0.971 **1** **1** **1** **1**
: Comparison of performance on Breast Cancer piRNA Data among MLP without dropout, MLP with dropout, DBN, SVM, RF and DVC with 10, 15 and 20 variable blocks.[]{data-label="breast_bio"}
Conclusion and Future Work {#sec:conclude}
==========================
We have developed a novel deep learning architecture, namely, DVC, by simultaneously finding an underlying chain structure for variable blocks. We target generic high-dimensional classification problems. Instead of building architecturally homogeneous layers for all the variables like MLP, we build an individual cell for each variable block. The cells are then connected into a chain in an optimized order. This architecture enables us to use variable block cells to deliver important information and to reveal conditional interactions among variables. Moreover, it allows us to select variables effectively. Importantly, we have developed a decision-tree-based method to discover subgroups of data and select variables adaptively. Specifically, the selected variables can be different for different subgroups.
As a limitation of our work, we note that DVC-AVS aims at generic high-dimensional data. When the data have a natural grid structure such as images, more targeted architectures are expected to have advantages. In addition, DVC-AVS selects nested sets of variables for different subgroups. We gain robustness from this restriction. However, in some applications, more flexible adaptive variable selection may be needed.
We have so far used a typical LSTM cell to model an individual variable block. A thorough investigation of all variants of LSTM can be beneficial for understanding the information flow of the variable chain. Another future direction is to consider underlying graph structures more complex than a chain.
[^1]: $^\dagger$ $^\ddagger$Department of Statistics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA [*(e-mail: {lzz46, llin, jiali}@psu.edu).*]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Given a content image and a style image, the goal of style transfer is to synthesize an output image by transferring the target style to the content image. Currently, most of the methods address the problem with global style transfer, assuming styles can be represented by global statistics, such as Gram matrices or covariance matrices. In this paper, we make a different assumption that local semantically aligned (or similar) regions between the content and style images should share similar style patterns. Based on this assumption, content features and style features are seen as two sets of manifolds and a manifold alignment based style transfer (MAST) method is proposed. MAST is a subspace learning method which learns a common subspace of the content and style features. In the common subspace, content and style features with larger feature similarity or the same semantic meaning are forced to be close. The learned projection matrices are added with orthogonality constraints so that the mapping can be bidirectional, which allows us to project the content features into the common subspace, and then into the original style space. By using a pre-trained decoder, promising stylized images are obtained. The method is further extended to allow users to specify corresponding semantic regions between content and style images or using semantic segmentation maps as guidance. Extensive experiments show the proposed MAST achieves appealing results in style transfer.'
author:
- |
Jing Huo[$^1$]{}, Shiyin Jin[$^1$]{}, Wenbin Li[$^1$]{}, Jing Wu[$^2$]{}, Yu-Kun Lai[$^2$]{}, Yinghuan Shi[$^1$]{}, Yang Gao[$^1$]{}\
[$^1$]{}State Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University\
[$^2$]{}The School of Computer Science & Informatics, Cardiff University, UK\
[{huojing,liwenbin,syh,gaoy}@nju.edu.cn, [email protected], {WuJ11,LaiY4}@cardiff.ac.uk.]{}
bibliography:
- 'egbib.bib'
title: Manifold Alignment for Semantically Aligned Style Transfer
---
Introduction
============
The goal of style transfer is to synthesize an output image by transferring the target style to a given content image. Currently, most methods [@gatys2016image; @huang2017arbitrary; @li2017universal; @li2019learning] take the assumption that image styles can be represented by global statistics of deep features, such as Gram matrices or covariance matrices. Such global statistics capture the style from the whole image, and are applied to the content image without differentiation of the contents inside. However, for images containing different semantic parts, such global statistics are insufficient to represent the multiple styles required for proper style transfer. As shown in the first two rows of Figure \[Fig\_FirstFigure\], although the overall appearances of the results from Gatys [@gatys2016image], AdaIN [@huang2017arbitrary], WCT [@li2017universal] and LST [@li2019learning] look like the style image, they sometimes fail to preserve the local semantic structure of the content image. Therefore, it is clear the assumption that image styles can be represented by global statistics may not hold in many situations, as the images may contain multiple objects and a single global statistics may not be able to fully capture the feature distribution. Several works [@Zhang_2019_ICCV; @kolkin2019style] have proposed style transfer based on locally aligned semantics. These methods find semantically similar or corresponding regions between the content and style images. Compared to style transfer methods based on global statistics, these methods achieve better results in terms of content structure preserving and style transfer within similar semantic regions. However, existing works either contain multiple stages [@Zhang_2019_ICCV] or have many terms to balance [@kolkin2019style], making the overall algorithm hard to tune and sometimes lead to degraded style transfer results. To address these limitations, we make a new different style transfer assumption and propose a simple and integrated method. We demonstrate in the experiments that better results are achieved. An overview is given in Figure \[Fig\_FirstFigure\].
Specifically, in this paper, we make an assumption that image features from the same semantic region form a single manifold. Therefore, for an image with multiple objects, all the features in this image follow a multi-manifold distribution. The style transfer problem under this assumption thus reduces to a problem of aligning two multi-manifold distributions of the style and content features. Based on this, we further propose a *manifold alignment based style transfer (MAST)* method, which is a subspace learning method that learns two projection matrices to project the content and style features into a common subspace. In the common subspace, content features and style features sharing large feature similarities or the same semantic meaning are forced to be close, *i.e.*, the locally aligned semantic information between content and style features is preserved. We further add orthogonality constraints on the two projection matrices and propose an iterative algorithm to solve the optimization problem. By forcing the orthogonality constraints, the projections can be bi-directional. In this way, we can map the content features first to the common subspace, and then to the style feature space, via the reverse mapping of the style projection. Then with a pre-trained decoder, the stylized result is produced. Example results are given in the 1st and 2nd rows of Figure \[Fig\_FirstFigure\]. The proposed method can be easily extended to allow users to specify corresponding regions between content and style images or use semantic segmentation maps as guidance. User editing examples are given in the 3rd row of Figure \[Fig\_FirstFigure\]. The main contributions of this paper are as follows:
- A novel view that style transfer can be treated as a manifold alignment problem is introduced, and a new manifold alignment algorithm is proposed for aligning multi-manifold distributions to address the local semantically aligned style transfer problem. The algorithm learns a common subspace to force the content and style features sharing similar semantic meanings to be close.
- The algorithm is formulated as an orthogonality constrained optimization problem which allows bidirectional projection from the original content or style spaces to the common subspace or reversely, and an efficient optimization method is proposed.
- The algorithm is extended to allow user editing in style transfer or using semantic segmentation maps as guidance. Extensive experiments show the proposed algorithm achieves promising results in style transfer.
Related Work
============
Style Transfer
--------------
Since Gatys [@gatys2016image] proposed the first neural optimization based algorithm for artistic image style transfer, there have been many follow-up works studying the neural style transfer problem. These methods can mainly be categorized into optimization based [@gatys2016image; @kolkin2019style] and feed-forward network based [@johnson2016perceptual; @wang2017multimodal; @luan2017deep; @li2017universal; @huang2017arbitrary; @li2019learning; @Lu_2019_ICCV] methods. Another way for categorization is based on how the style is defined. Then there are global statistics based [@li2017universal; @huang2017arbitrary; @li2019learning; @Chiu_2019_ICCV], local patch based [@chen2016fast; @li2016combining; @sheng2018avatar; @gu2018arbitrary] and semantic region based methods [@li2019learning; @kolkin2019style].
{width="95.00000%"}
**Global statistics based style transfer.** In early work, style transfer is mainly achieved by forcing the global statistics of the output image to be the same as the style image. For example, Gatys [@gatys2016image] use the Gram matrix to represent the style of an image and use an optimization-based method to achieve the consistency of the Gram matrices of the output image and the style image. Li [@li2017universal] address this problem by introducing whitening and coloring transforms (WCTs), where whitening transform normalizes the covariance of the content features to an identity matrix. The normalized convariance is then transformed to be the same as the covariance of the style features by the coloring transform. The method proposed by Huang [@huang2017arbitrary] achieves this goal by adopting adaptive instance normalization (AdaIN) to make the mean and variance of the content features the same as those of the style features. Recently, Li [@li2019learning] propose to use a feed-forward network to predict the style transformation matrix which is much more efficient. However, theses methods represent styles as global statistics which, as discussed in the previous section, may not be appropriate in many scenarios. **Local patch based style transfer.** Chen [@chen2016fast] propose a method to replace the content feature patches by similar style feature patches to achieve the goal of style transfer. Li and Wand [@li2016combining] propose to combine generative Markov random field (MRF) models and deep convolutional neural networks for style transfer. Sheng [@sheng2018avatar] propose an Avatar-Net which combines a whitening operation and a reassembling operation similar to the method of Chen [@chen2016fast]. These patch based methods do not enforce the matching of global statistics. However, as illustrated in the previous work [@Zhang_2019_ICCV], unwanted artifacts may appear. **Semantic region aligned style transfer.** Zhang [@Zhang_2019_ICCV] propose a multimodal style transfer (MST) framework. The style image features are firstly clustered into different components, which are matched with local content features under a graph cut formulation. Then WCT is used to achieve style transfer in each matched pair. However, MST is not flexible to be extended to allow user editing. Moreover, MST contains multiple stages and has many parameters to tune. Another method proposed by Kolkin [@kolkin2019style] adopts an optimization based method which balances the optimization between a global style loss and a local distribution aware style loss. Although it can allow users to control style transfer regions, the optimization based framework makes it less computationally efficient. Compared with these two methods, we make a different style transfer assumption and propose a simple and integrated method for style transfer. Experiments show better results are achieved and the proposed method is more efficient compared with Kolkin ’s method.
Manifold Alignment
------------------
The objective of manifold alignment is to align two sets of data from two manifold distributions in a common subspace by leveraging the correspondences between these two, where the correspondence information is usually in the form of pairwise similarity. Depending on whether the correspondence information is provided or not, there are semi-supervised [@DBLP:conf/ijcai/WangM11; @DBLP:conf/aistats/HamLS05; @lin2006inter] and unsupervised manifold alignment methods [@DBLP:conf/ijcai/WangM09; @cui2014generalized; @pei2011unsupervised]. Generally, manifold alignment algorithms are designed to learn a common subspace which preserves both the cross manifold correspondence and the original manifold structures. In this paper, different from previous methods, we introduce orthogonality constraints on the projection matrices. With these constraints, we show the loss term to preserve the original manifold structure is of fixed value and therefore the proposed manifold alignment method is designed to maintain only the cross manifold correspondence information.
Our Approach
============
The overall framework of the proposed *manifold alignment based style transfer (MAST)* method is given in Figure \[Fig\_Framework\]. The main framework of MAST is similar to the framework of WCT [@li2017universal], where style transfer is formulated with an encoder, a decoder and feature transformation. In our work, the feature transformation which transforms content features into the style feature space is implemented by a manifold alignment algorithm. With the transformed content feature, the decoder reconstructs a stylized output.
Manifold Alignment Method {#Sec_MA}
-------------------------
Given a content image $I_c$ and a style image $I_s$, define their features extracted by an encoder as $F_c\in \mathbb{R}^{C\times (W_c\times H_c)}$ and $F_s\in \mathbb{R}^{C\times (W_s \times H_s)}$, where $C$ is the number of channels of the feature maps, $W_c$ and $W_s$ are the widths of the feature maps and $H_c$, $H_s$ are the heights of the feature maps. Subscripts $c$ and $s$ refer to the content and style images, respectively. Therefore, $F_c$ ($F_s$) can be seen as a set of $W_c\times H_c$ ($W_s\times H_s$) number of feature vectors, with each feature vector of dimension $C$. Without any processing, the two sets of features are usually of different distributions. The objective of our manifold alignment algorithm is to transform the content features into the space of style features with preserved similarities of original features.
Specifically, we try to learn two projections $P_c\in \mathbb{R}^{C\times C}$ and $P_s\in \mathbb{R}^{C\times C}$ to project the content and style features into a common subspace. Denote the transformed features as: $$\label{Eq_trans_c}
z_i^{(c)} = P_c^T \phi_i(F_c), \quad z_j^{(s)} = P_s^T \phi_j(F_s),$$ where $\phi_i(F_c)$ denotes the operation to get the $i$-th feature from $F_c$ and $z_i^{(c)}$ is the transformed feature in the common subspace. $z_j^{(s)}$ is defined similarly. To force the projection to be bidirectional, orthogonal constraints are added to the projection matrices, *i.e.*, $P_c^T P_c = I$ and $P_s^T P_s = I$, where $I$ is the identity matrix. With these constraints, we can project the features in the common subspace back to the original content or style feature space. For example, the transformed content feature in the style space $F_{cs}$ can be represented as: $$\label{Eq_trans_c}
F_{cs} = P_s P_c^T F_c,$$ where $P_s^T \!=\! P_s^{-1}$ due to the orthogonality constraint and $F_{cs} \!\in\! \mathbb{R}^{C\times (W_c\times H_c)}$. Similarly, style feature can also be projected into the content feature space.
To learn the two projection matrices, the first objective of the manifold alignment algorithm is to find a common subspace so that features with the same (similar) semantic meanings are located closely. However, in most cases, the semantic meaning of features is not given. In this case, we adopt the normalized similarity of features as feature similarities to build an affinity matrix for the proposed algorithm. Specifically, we denote the affinity matrix of the content and the style features as $A^{cs} \in \mathbb{R}^{(W_c\times H_c)\times (W_s\times H_s)}$. Each element of $A^{cs}$ is defined as: $$\label{Eq_A_Cross}\small
A_{ij}^{cs} = \left\{
\begin{aligned}
1 \quad & \phi_i(F_c) \in \mathcal{N}_k(\phi_j(F_s)) \; \mbox{or} \; \phi_j(F_s) \in \mathcal{N}_k(\phi_i(F_c))\,, \\
0 \quad & \mbox{otherwise}
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ where $\mathcal{N}_k(\phi_j(F_s))$ is the $k$ nearest neighbors of $\phi_j(F_s)$ in the content feature space. $\mathcal{N}_k(\phi_i(F_c))$ is the $k$ nearest neighbors of $\phi_i(F_c)$ in the style feature space. Notice normalized similarities of features are used to find $k$ nearest neighbors. Therefore, $A_{ij}^{cs}$ equals $1$ if $\phi_i(F_c)$ is one of $\phi_j(F_s)$’s $k$-nearest neighbors or vice versa.
Approximating semantic similarity with the above affinity matrix, the objective of the proposed manifold alignment method is to optimize the objective function that the content feature and style feature with similar semantic meanings should be close. The objective function is as follows: $$\small
\label{Eq_Obj}
\begin{aligned}
&\min_{P_c, P_s} J(P_s, P_c) = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{W_c\!\times\! H_c} \sum_{j=1}^{W_s\!\times\! H_s} A_{ij}^{cs} \| z_i^{(c)} - z_j^{(s)}\|_2^2 \\
&\mbox{s.t.}\ P_c^T P_c = I, P_s^T P_s = I \,,
\end{aligned}$$ where $N$ is the number of pairs of nearest neighbors. In the above formulation, when $A_{ij}^{cs}$ equals $1$, $z_i^{(c)}$ and $z_j^{(s)}$ are forced to be close in the common space, as they are nearest neighbors in the original space.
In some previous manifold alignment work [@DBLP:conf/ijcai/WangM09], there are also terms to preserve the original manifold structure, *i.e.*, $z_i^{(c)}$ and $z_j^{(c)}$ (or $z_i^{(s)}$ and $z_j^{(s)}$) are forced to be close in the subspace if they are close in the original space. However, it is easy to prove that with the introduced orthogonality constraints, such terms are of fixed values and do not influence the optimization of the objective function. Therefore, such terms are not included in Eq. (\[Eq\_Obj\]). In the appendix, we give a proof that even without these constraints, the original manifold structure (content structure) will always be preserved with the introduced orthogonality constraints.
**Extension to Allow User Editing.** The proposed algorithm can be easily extended to allow user editing. Users’ input, such as strokes indicating corresponding semantic parts, provides partial semantic meaning. In this case, the only change is to modify the affinity matrix $A^{cs}$. Suppose the user draws some corresponding areas across the content and style images. Denote these corresponding regions as $(\Omega_1^c, \Omega_1^s),..., (\Omega_i^c, \Omega_i^s),..., (\Omega_m^c, \Omega_m^s)$, where $m$ is the total number of corresponding regions defined by the user. Then the affinity matrix is obtained with an ‘OR’ operation performed between $A_{ij}^{cs}$ in Eq. (\[Eq\_A\_Cross\]) and $A_{ij}^{cs'}$, where $A_{ij}^{cs'}$ is defined as: $$\label{Eq_A_Cross_UserEdit}\small
A_{ij}^{cs'} = \left\{
\begin{aligned}
1 \quad & (i \in \Omega_1^{c}~~\text{and}~~j \in \Omega_1^{s})\; \mbox{or} \; ...( i \in \Omega_m^{c}~~\mbox{and}~~j \in \Omega_m^{s}) \\
0 \quad & \mbox{otherwise}\,. \\
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ **Semantic Segmentation Map as Guidance.** If the content image and style image have large overlap in semantic segmentation regions, for example, both images contain faces, then we can also make use of segmentation maps as guidance. Denote the corresponding semantic segmentation regions of content and style images as $(\Theta_1^c, \Theta_1^s),..., (\Theta_i^c, \Theta_i^s),..., (\Theta_n^c, \Theta_n^s)$. For $\Theta$ with the same subscript, it denotes these regions having the same semantic meaning. Different from the small areas drawn by users, semantic segmentation regions may cover large areas, *i.e.*, the whole object in the image. If the same scheme as in Eq. (\[Eq\_A\_Cross\_UserEdit\]) is used, one pixel may have many corresponding pixels in the affinity matrix, leading to blurry results, as shown in the last column of Figure \[Fig\_Semantic\]. Therefore, when using semantic segmentation maps as guidance to build $A_{ij}^{cs}$, for each feature vector, we calculate $k$ nearest neighbors within the same semantic region, i.e.: $$\label{Eq_A_Cross_Semantic}\small
A_{ij}^{cs} = \left\{
\begin{aligned}
1 \quad & \big( \phi_i(F_c) \in \mathcal{N}_k(\phi_j(F_s))~~\mbox{and}~~i \in \Theta_p^c, j \in \Theta_p^s \big)~~\mbox{or}\\
& \big( \phi_j(F_s) \in \mathcal{N}_k(\phi_i(F_c))~~\mbox{and}~~i \in \Theta_p^c, j \in \Theta_p^s \big) \\
0 \quad & \mbox{otherwise}
\end{aligned}
\right.$$
Optimization Method
-------------------
To optimize the objective function defined in Eq. (\[Eq\_Obj\]), the major difficulty lies in the orthogonality constraints, which prevents the direct application of using eigenvalue decomposition based optimization algorithm as in [@lin2006inter; @DBLP:conf/ijcai/WangM09]. To solve the optimization with orthogonality constraints, we modify an iterative optimization method [@wen2013feasible] which is relatively fast and easy to implement. The difference between the optimization problem of the method in [@wen2013feasible] and ours is that there are two parameters to optimize in our objective function, *i.e.,* $P_c$ and $P_s$. Therefore we extend the optimization method in [@wen2013feasible] with an alternating scheme to optimize $P_c$ and $P_s$ alternately and iteratively. Specifically, the overall objective function in Eq. (\[Eq\_Obj\]) can be expanded as: $$\label{Eq_AllObj_Exapand}\small
J(P_c, P_s) = \mbox{tr}(Z_c D_c Z_c ^T + Z_s D_s Z_s^T - 2Z_c U_{cs}Z_s^T),$$ where $Z_c \!=\! P_c^T F_c$ and $Z_s \!=\! P_s^T F_s$ are the transformed feature matrices of content and style features in the common subspace. $U_{cs}$ is a matrix with its element as $U_{cs}(i,j) = \frac{1}{N} A_{ij}^{cs}$. $D_c\!\in\! \mathbb{R}^{(W_c\!\times\! H_c)\times (W_c\!\times\! H_c)}$ is a diagonal matrix with $D_c(i,i) \!=\! \sum_{j=1}^{(W_s\!\times\! H_s)} U_{cs}(i,j)$ and $D_s$ is defined in the same way. However, with the orthogonality constraints on $P_c$ and $P_s$, the first two terms are in fact fixed. Therefore, we only need to minimize $J(P_c, P_s) = \mbox{tr}( - 2Z_c U_{cs}Z_s^T)$.
To apply the algorithm, the minimization problem in Eq. (\[Eq\_Obj\]) is decomposed into two alternating steps, where in each step, one parameter is optimized while the other is fixed. With the parameters $P_s^{(t)}$ at the $t$-th iteration fixed, the objective function to optimize $P_c$ becomes: $$\label{Eq_Obj_Pc}\small
\begin{aligned}
&\min_{P_c} J^{(t)}(P_c) = \mbox{tr}( - 2 P_c^T F_c U_{cs} F_s^T P_s^{(t)} ) \\
&\mbox{s.t.} \quad P_c^T P_c = I\,.
\end{aligned}$$ To solve the above optimization problem at the $t$-th iteration, the updating procedure is as follows. Proof of the following procedure can be found in [@wen2013feasible]. First, we calculate the gradient of ${P_c}$ with respect to $J^{(t)}(P_c)$: $$\label{Eq_Obj_Pc_Gradient}\small
\begin{aligned}
G_c = \frac{ \partial J^{(t)}(P_c) }{\partial P_c} = - 2 F_c U_{cs} F_s^T P_s^{(t)}.
\end{aligned}$$ Then we calculate a symmetric matrix as follows: $$\label{Eq_Obj_Pc_S}
S_c = G_c P_c^{(t)T} - P_c^{(t)} G_c^T.$$ And then $P_c^{(t+1)}$ is updated as: $$\label{Eq_Obj_Pc_Update}\small
P_c^{(t+1)} = (I +\frac{\tau_{c}^{(t)}}{2} S_c )^{-1}(I +\frac{\tau_{c}^{(t)}}{2} S_c) P_c^{(t)},$$ where $\tau_{c}^{(t)}$ is found by curvilinear search [@wen2013feasible]. We then fix $P_c^{(t+1)}$ and update $P_s$ in the same way. The detailed optimization algorithm is given in Algorithm \[Algo\_MA\].
$P_c^{(0)}$, $P_s^{(0)}$, s.t. $P_c^{(0)T}P_c^{(0)}=I$ and $P_s^{(0)T}P_s^{(0)}=I$ $P_c^{(t)}$, $P_s^{(t)}$ Initialize $t=0$, $\epsilon \geq 0$ Calculate gradient $G_c$ as in Eq. (\[Eq\_Obj\_Pc\_Gradient\]) Calculate $S_c$ in Eq. (\[Eq\_Obj\_Pc\_S\]). Call curvilinear search to find $\tau_{c}^{(t)}$. Update to get $P_c^{(t+1)}$ according to Eq. (\[Eq\_Obj\_Pc\_S\]). Calculate gradient $G_s = - 2 F_s U_{sc} F_c^T P_c^{(t+1)}$ Calculate $S_s = G_s P_s^{(t)T} - P_s^{(t)} G_s^T$ . Call curvilinear search to find $\tau_{s}^{(t)}$. Update to get $P_s^{(t+1)}$ in the same way as in Eq. (\[Eq\_Obj\_Pc\_S\]). Converged and stop. $t = t+1.$
{width="79.00000%"}
![[]{data-label="Fig_InfluenceIter"}](InfluenceOfIterNumber_v3.pdf){width="40.00000%"}
Experimental Results
====================
In this section, we first describe the experimental settings. Ablation studies are then carried out to analyze the influence of different parameters. Comparisons with representative state-of-the-art methods are then presented. We also present user editing and semantic region guided style transfer results to demonstrate the capabilities of our method.
Experimental Setting
--------------------
For the encoder and decoder structures, similar to previous methods, the first 4 layers of the VGG-19 model [@DBLP:journals/corr/SimonyanZ14a] pre-trained on ImageNet [@deng2009imagenet] is used as the encoder. The decoder has the symmetric structure as the encoder. In this paper, we directly use the pre-trained decoder provided by the LST model [@li2019learning] which is trained by reconstructing input images.
For evaluation, except for the results in Sec. \[Sec\_SemanticRegion\], images in the MS-COCO dataset [@lin2014microsoft] are used as our content images and the WikiArt dataset [@duck2016painter] provides style images. For results in Sec. \[Sec\_SemanticRegion\], caricatures in the WebCaricature dataset [@DBLP:conf/bmvc/HuoLSGY18] are used as style images and photos in the CelebA dataset [@liu2015faceattributes] are used as content images. Semantic segmentation maps of caricatures and photos are provided by the work of Chu [@chu2019weakly] and Lee [@lee2019maskgan], respectively.
{width="97.00000%"}
Ablation Study
--------------
**Influence of $k$ nearest neighbors.** We first study the influence of $k$ nearest neighbors. The results are given in Figure \[Fig\_InfluenceK\]. As can be seen, with the increase of $k$, the results tend to be smooth or blurry. This is because, in the objective function (Eq. (\[Eq\_Obj\])), larger $k$ will force more features, and in turn more pixels, at different spatial locations to become similar, leading to blurry results. However, no significant influence is observed when setting $k$ to a small number around 5. Therefore, in the following, we set $k$ as 5 for all the experiments.
**Influence of iteration numbers.** As we have adopted an iterative optimization algorithm, we therefore present the convergence results and investigate the results with different iteration numbers. An example image’s style transfer results with the increase of iteration numbers are shown in Figure \[Fig\_InfluenceIter\]. Other style transfer examples share similar convergence patterns. An observation is that the algorithm quickly converges after a few iterations and the output of the stylized image also quickly becomes stable. The outputs at iterations $50$ and $100$ are almost the same. Therefore, only a small iteration number is needed to obtain satisfactory results. For the following experiments, the iteration number is set to $100$.
Comparison with State-of-the-Art Methods
----------------------------------------
**Qualitative comparison.** Qualitative comparisons with five state-of-the-art methods are given in Figure \[Fig\_Comp\_SOTA\]. Compared methods include, the method of Gatys [@gatys2016image], STROTSS [@kolkin2019style], WCT [@li2017universal], AdaIN [@huang2017arbitrary] and LST [@li2019learning].
The first two are optimization-based methods. For Gatys ’s method, their style loss is defined as minimizing the difference between the Gram matrices of the style image and the output image. Therefore, if there is a large feature distribution difference between the style image and the content image, their method may fail to preserve the content structure, *e.g.*, the last example. Compared with Gatys ’s method, the style loss of the STROTSS method balances between two minimizations. One is the minimization of the relaxed earth mover distance between the output image and the style image, and the other is the minimization of the mean and covariance difference between the two images. The first term takes into consideration of the local feature distributions among the output and style images. Therefore, their results are better than Gatys ’s method. However, compared with our method, STROTSS sometimes may mismatch style patterns to unwanted regions. For example, in the 3rd and the 7th examples, their results are obviously worse than ours.
WCT uses whitening and coloring transformations to align the covariance matrices of the style image and output image. However, due to its usage of high-level features, the content may sometimes be distorted. Besides, although the overall appearance of the output images looks similar to the style image, some unwanted transfer often appears (*e.g.*, texture also transferred to the background in the 7th example). The results of AdaIN and LST look much better. However, as they also take the assumption that the global statistics of the output and style images should be similar, the background of the 7th example is also changed to blue and the foreground of the 8th example is changed to black. The major difference of the proposed method compared with these methods is that we do not assume the global statistics to be the same. Therefore, if the local features are similar, style patterns are transferred. Even if the overall statistics (mean, covariance, *etc.*) of the content image and style image may differ a lot, as long as the content image has similar local regions as the style image, better transfer results can be obtained. As can be seen, in the 3rd example, the trees are transferred with better patterns from the style image. Besides, the background is better preserved in the 7th example.
**Efficiency.** Comparison of the running time is reported in Table \[Table\_Time\]. The results in Table \[Table\_Time\] are the average running time of testing $10$ image pairs with the size of $512 \times 512$. All the methods are run on a server with an Intel Xeon CPU E5-2620 [email protected] and a GeForce RTX 2080 Ti GPU. As can be seen, due to the iterative optimization used in our method, our algorithm is not as efficient as WCT, AdaIN or LST. However, it is faster compared with neural optimization based methods. In the future, we will further explore new optimization methods to improve the computational efficiency.
User Editing Results
--------------------
Another advantage of the proposed method is that it can be easily extended to allow user editing. Once unwanted transfer appears, users can draw on the content and style images to define matched regions, e.g., the lines drawn on the images in the 2nd and 3rd columns of Figure \[Fig\_UserEditing\]. Lines of the same color represent corresponding regions. The original style transfer results and the user edited results are given in the 4th and 5th columns of Figure \[Fig\_UserEditing\]. As can be seen, compared with the original results, more meaningful transfer is achieved among user defined corresponding regions. The trees in the 2nd row are successfully changed to red and the sky in the 1st, 3rd and 4th rows is transferred to similar style patterns defined by the user on the style images.
Method Time (s) Method Time (s)
----------------------------- ---------- ----------------------- ----------
Gatys [@gatys2016image] 40.464 LST [@li2019learning] 0.142
STROTSS [@kolkin2019style] 148.183 Ours (50 iters) 10.318
WCT [@li2017universal] 0.862 Ours (100 iters) 17.785
AdaIN [@huang2017arbitrary] 0.057
\[Table\_Time\]
![[]{data-label="Fig_UserEditing"}](EditingResults_Compressed.pdf){width="47.00000%"}
Semantic Segmentation Map Guided Results {#Sec_SemanticRegion}
----------------------------------------
In Figure \[Fig\_Semantic\], we show some examples of semantic segmentation map guided style transfer results. As can be seen, results using segmentation maps as guidance are generally similar to the results of unsupervised style transfer (results in the 4th and 3rd columns). This is because the similarity calculated in Eq. (\[Eq\_A\_Cross\]) is generally correct. However, there are some local differences. For example, the lips area and the hair area of the results in the 4th column look more like the input style image. Therefore, in scenarios where the similarity is inaccurate, semantic maps will be helpful. Another observation is that when the total map is used to build the affinity matrix, results become blurry (the 5th column). This phenomenon is similar to the results when the number of $k$ nearest neighbors is set large.
![[]{data-label="Fig_Semantic"}](Semantic_Compressed.pdf){width="47.00000%"}
![[]{data-label="Fig_Bidirectional"}](Bidirectional_compressed.pdf){width="47.00000%"}
Bidirectional Transfer
----------------------
As a common subspace is learned between the content and style features, and the projection matrices are also made bidirectional, the proposed method is capable of performing bidirectional transfer. We show some bidirectional transfer results in Figure \[Fig\_Bidirectional\]. The 3rd column shows results of using the images in the 1st column as content and images in the 2nd column as style. The 4th column shows results of reverse transfer. As can be seen, realistic transfer results are obtained. The stylized output well preserves the original content structure. This is mainly due to the orthogonality constraints introduced which will always preserve the original content structure, as dicussed in the last part of Section \[Sec\_MA\].
Conclusion
==========
A new assumption that style transfer can be defined as two manifold distributions alignment problem is made. Furthermore, a manifold alignment based style transfer (MAST) algorithm is proposed. Compared with global statistics based methods and previous semantic region aligned style transfer methods, more promising results are achieved. Currently, with the orthogonality constraints introduced, we can prove the similarities of content features will always be preserved in the style space (proof can be found in the appendix). In this case, style transfer results tend to be smooth and consistent with the content, making large style patterns hard to transfer. Therefore, in the future, we will try to modify the manifold alignment method to allow transfer of large style patterns. Moreover, more efficient optimization algorithms will be explored.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
We report detailed systematic measurements of the spatial variation in electronic states in the high $T_{c}$ superconductor La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$ ($0.04\leq x \leq 0.16$) using $^{63}$Cu NQR for $^{63}$Cu isotope enriched poly-crystalline samples. We demonstrate that the spatial variation in local hole concentration $^{63}x_{local}(\neq x$) given by $^{63}x_{local} = x \pm ^{63}\Delta x_{local}$, where $x$ is the nominal hole concentration and $^{63}\Delta x_{local}$ is defined as the amplitude (or extent) of the spatial variation, is reflected in the frequency dependence of the spin-lattice relaxation rate $^{63}1/T_{1}$ across the inhomogeneous linebroadening of the $^{63}$Cu NQR spectrum \[P.M. Singer [*et al.,*]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 47602 (2002)\]. We show that compared to nominal $x$, the electronic state in certain regions of the CuO$_{2}$ plane are locally more metallic ($^{63}x_{local} =x + ^{63}\Delta x_{local}$) while others are more insulating ($^{63}x_{local} =x - ^{63}\Delta x_{local}$). By using high precision measurements of the temperature dependence of $^{63}1/T_{1}$ at various positions across the $^{63}$Cu NQR lineshape, we demonstrate that $^{63}\Delta x_{local} (\neq 0)$ increases below 500 - 600 K and reaches values as large as $^{63}\Delta x_{local}/x \simeq 0.5$ in the temperature region $\gtrsim
150$ K. We find a substantial overlap between the $^{63}$Cu NQR spectrum of samples with different $x$, and find that the extent of the overlap increases with decreasing temperature. By incorporating the random positioning of $^{+2}$Sr donor ions in the lattice in a novel approach, a lower bound to the length scale of the spatial variation $^{63}R_{patch}$ is deduced by fitting the entire $^{63}$Cu NQR spectrum (including the “B” -line originating from $^{63}$Cu sites with $^{+2}$Sr ions directly above or below) using a patch-by-patch distribution of the spatial variation $^{63}x_{local}$ with the patch radius $^{63}R_{patch}\gtrsim 3.0$ nm (= 8-10 $a$, where $a$ is the lattice spacing) as the only free parameter. A corresponding upper bound to the amplitude of the spatial variation $^{63}\Delta x_{patch} (\propto 1/^{63}R_{patch})$ is deduced within the patch-by-patch model, and consistent results are found with $^{63}\Delta x_{local}$ determined from the frequency dependence in $^{63}1/T_{1}$. Using our pool of $^{63}$Cu NQR data, we also deduce the onset temperature $T_{Q} (\gtrsim 400$ K) of local orthorhombic lattice distortions which, in the region $x \gtrsim 0.04$, is found to be larger than the onset temperature of long range structural order.
author:
- 'P.M. Singer and A.W. Hunt'
- 'T. Imai'
title: '$^{63}$Cu NQR Study of the Inhomogeneous Electronic State in La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$'
---
(\*) Present and permanent address.
Introduction
============
NQR (nuclear quadrupole resonance) and NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) have proven to give unique information regarding the inhomogeneous electronic state in the CuO$_{2}$ plane of various high $T_{c}$ cuprates [@yoshimura; @tou; @hammel; @stat; @fujiyama; @hunt; @singer; @curro; @haase; @julien; @hunt2; @singerprl; @tobe] including La$_{2-x}$\[Sr,Ba\]$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$, \[La,Nd,Eu\]$_{2-x}$\[Sr,Ba\]$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$ and La$_{2}$CuO$_{4+\delta}$. In these materials, the high $T_{c}$ superconductivity is achieved by doping holes into the CuO$_{2}$ plane. In the case of La$_{2-x}$\[Sr,Ba\]$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$ and its Nd or Eu co-doped compound \[La,Nd,Eu\]$_{2-x}$\[Sr,Ba\]$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$, hole doping is achieved by substituting ions of different ionicity, thereby creating an alloy with intrinsic inhomogeneities caused by chemical substitution [@burgy]. Over the past several years, studies using $^{63}$Cu NQR and NMR wipeout [@hunt; @singer; @curro; @julien; @hunt2] have characterised the glassy nature of the slowing down of the stripe inhomogeneity [@tranquada] in these materials, where the Coulomb potential from the distorted lattice slows down spin and charge density waves. In the case of La$_{2}$CuO$_{4+\delta}$, hole doping is achieved by super-oxygenation, and it has been shown that the high mobility of the excess oxygen atoms results in electronic phase separation [@sokol; @kivelson; @castro] between the superconducting and antiferromagnetic phase, as evidenced by $^{139}$La NMR [@hammel; @stat].
No clear picture has emerged which discerns and relates the effects of genuine electronic phase separation, stripe modulation, and the random substitution of donor ions. On the other hand, recent STM (scanning tunnelling microscopy) studies on the surface state of Bi$_{2}$Sr$_{2}$CaCu$_{2}$O$_{8+\delta}$ cleaved at low temperature [@pan] reveal spatial variations of the electronic state on a short length scale $\sim$nm in the surface plane. Whether such nm modulations are universally observable in the bulk and other high $T_{c}$ cuprates remains to be seen, but the STM results have enhanced the interest and potential impact of the spatial inhomogeniety of the electronic properties in cuprates. One emerging counter example is YBa$_{2}$Cu$_{3}$O$_{y}$ where $^{89}$Y NMR [@alloulpre] measurements indicate that the spatial inhomogeneity in YBa$_{2}$Cu$_{3}$O$_{y}$ is [*less*]{} than in Bi$_{2}$Sr$_{2}$CaCu$_{2}$O$_{8+\delta}$ or La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$.
Unlike scattering techniques which probe coherent phenomena over length scales larger than tens of nm’s, NMR and NQR are strictly $local$ probes which make them an ideal tool for revealing the short length scale physics of the CuO$_{2}$ plane. Among earlier reports of the inhomogeneous state at short length scales in La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$ are: the splitting of the $^{63}$Cu NQR and NMR lines due to inequivalent Cu sites known as the ‘A’’ and “B”-sites resulting from different EFG (electric field gradient) tensors [@yoshimura; @stat] due to the presence of nearby $^{+2}$Sr ions, the drastic broadening of the zero field $^{63}$Cu line at temperatures below $\sim$ 4 K [@tou; @hunt], the $^{63}$Cu NMR line broadening from short length scale modulations in orbital shifts [@haase], and also the $^{63}$Cu NQR and NMR wipeout [@hunt; @curro; @julien] as a result of the glassy slowing down of the stripe inhomogeneity in the temperature region $\lesssim$ 100 K.
These evidences clearly support the existence of some sort of short length scale inhomogeneity in the CuO$_{2}$ planes of La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$ which raises questions regarding recent theoretical debates of a “universal electronic phase diagram”, including La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$ [@hwang], which are based on the assumption that hole doping is homogeneous. More recently, we reported evidence of an inhomogeneous electronic state in La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$ using $^{63}$Cu NQR in $^{63}$Cu isotope enriched samples in the range $0.04\leq x \leq 0.16$ [@singerprl]. As discussed in Ref. [@singerprl], the two essential ingredients for the spatial variation in local hole concentration $^{63}x_{local} (\neq 0)$ are (a) the fact that hole doping is achieved by random substitution of donor ions in the lattice with different ionicity, and (b) the presence of a short electronic length scale $^{63}R_{patch}
\gtrsim 3.0-4.0$ nm for the spatial variation. To the best of our knowledge, our results reported in this paper and in Ref. [@singerprl] are the first of its kind to detect the temperature dependence of the inhomogeneous electronic state in La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$, or any other high $T_{c}$ materials with quenched disorder.
Most recently, $^{17}$O NMR in high-quality La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$ single crystals in the range $0.035\leq x \leq 0.15$ also reveal a substantial inhomogeneity in the local electronic state [@tobe]. The spatial variation in local hole concentration $^{17}x_{local}$ determined using $^{17}$O NMR [@tobe] is found to reveal a consistent value with $^{63}x_{local}$ reported here and in Ref. [@singerprl]. The spatial variation $^{17}x_{local}$ [@tobe] is determined through the observed spatial variation in the $spin$ susceptibility across the CuO$_{2}$ plane, whereas $^{63}x_{local}$ is determined through the spatial variation in the EFG which is purely a charge effect. The fact that $^{63}x_{local} \simeq ^{\;17\!}x_{local}$ therefore implies that the inhomogeneity in the spin and charge channels are highly correlated.
As presented in Ref. [@tobe], we also compare the extent of the inhomogeneity in high-quality single crystals [@tobe] and our poly-crystalline samples (reported here and in Ref. [@singerprl]) by comparing the extent of the frequency dependence of $^{63}1/T_{1}$ across the $^{63}$Cu NQR spectrum. We find consistent results between single crystal and poly-crystalline samples [@tobe], which immediately establishes that the inhomogeneity in the electronic state is an $intrinsic$ phenomenon in La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$. It also rules out certain claims that our poly-crystalline samples are somehow more inhomogeneous than those reported elsewhere. Such claims on the quality of our poly-crystalline samples originated as an excuse to negate the fact that hole doping is inhomogeneous in La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$ [@singerprl]. In this paper we report the details of the $^{63}$Cu NQR results and analysis originally outlined in Ref. [@singerprl], and while the $^{17}$O NMR results are left to Ref. [@tobe], we mention the conclusions of the $^{17}$O NMR results wherever appropriate.
The dynamics of the electronic state are probed using the spin-lattice relaxation rate $^{63}1/T_{1}$. $^{63}1/T_{1}$ is a measure of the local spin fluctuations in the CuO$_{2}$ plane at the $^{63}$Cu NQR frequency $^{63}\nu_{Q} $ (ranging between $32 - 40$ MHz). Due to the experimental ease of the measurement, the temperature dependence of $^{63}1/T_{1}$ is generally only measured at the peak of the spectrum. The most striking feature of our $^{63}$Cu NQR data, however, is that $^{63}1/T_{1}$ shows qualitatively different [*temperature dependence*]{} depending on where along the NQR line it is measured [@singerprl]. This implies, without using any kind of model, that certain regions of the CuO$_{2}$ plane are more metallic while others are more insulating [@singerprl].
In order to measure the frequency dependence in $^{63}1/T_{1}$ and obtain any quantitative information over a wide temperature range, it is $essential$ to separate the signal from $^{63}$Cu and $^{65}$Cu isotopes. Previous work by S. Fujiyama [*et al.*]{} [@fujiyama] measured $^{(63,65)}1/T_{1}$ for naturally abundant Cu in which they successfully deduced that a substantial frequency dependence exists across the $^{(63,65)}$Cu NQR spectrum, however, no statement beyond that could be inferred. Through $^{63}$Cu isotope enrichment, together with a systematic study as a function of $x$, we can use the extent of the frequency dependence in $^{63}1/T_{1}$ across the $^{63}$Cu NQR line to determine the local hole concentration $^{63}x_{local}$ given by $$^{63}x_{local} = x \pm ^{63}\Delta x_{local},
\label{eqone}$$ where $^{63}\Delta x_{local}$ is the characteristic amplitude or extent of the spatial variation $^{63}x_{local}$.
In Fig. \[300T1f\] we show an example of the frequency dependence in $^{63}1/T_{1}$ across the $^{63}$Cu NQR line at 300 K. We first remark on the overlap between samples with different nominal hole concentration $x$, shown in Fig. \[300T1f\](b). Taking $x=0.115$ as an example, we see that the upper (lower) half intensity point of the $x=0.115$ A-line (or B-line) roughly coincides with the peaks of the $x=0.16(0.07)$, which implies that the characteristic local hole concentration $^{63}x_{local}$ is given by $^{63}x_{local} \leq
0.16$ in the more metallic regions, and by $^{63}x_{local} \geq
0.07$ in the more insulating regions. Using these limits and Eq. (\[eqone\]), we estimate the upper bound to the amplitude $^{63}\Delta x_{local} \leq 0.045$ for $x=0.115$ at 300 K. The reason that only an upper boundary to $^{63}x_{local}$ (and an upper bound to $^{63}\Delta x_{local}$) can be deduced is that we have assumed that the linewidths in Fig. \[300T1f\](b) are dominated by $^{63} x_{local} (\neq x)$ alone. In fact, as we calculate in section IV, there is a substantial intrinsic lattice linebroadening (defined as $\Delta
\nu_{latt}$) which is independent of the broadening arising from $^{63} x_{local}$. $\Delta \nu_{latt}$ originates from the distribution in local EFG values due to the random positioning of $^{+2}$Sr ions in the lattice, and we calculate its size by using a point charge lattice summation. In Fig. \[300T1f2\] we illustrate the extent of $\Delta
\nu_{latt}$ as the dashed curve, which is comparable to the experimentally observed linebroadening. In order to determine a better estimate of $^{63}
x_{local}$ in a model independent way, we must therefore measure $^{63}1/T_{1}$ at various positions across the line as shown in Fig. \[300T1f\](a) and Fig. \[300T1f2\].
In order to determine $^{63}x_{local}$ from $^{63}1/T_{1}$, we first define the values $^{63}1/T_{1,A}$ and $^{63}1/T_{1,B}$ taken at various positions across the NQR lineshape (shown in Fig. \[300T1f2\]). $^{63}1/T_{1,A}^{(0)}$ defines $^{63}1/T_{1}$ measured at the CG (center of gravity) of the A-line, $^{63}1/T_{1,A}^{(+)}$ defines $^{63}1/T_{1}$ measured at the half intensity of the upper (+) frequency side of the A-line, $^{63}1/T_{1,A}^{(-)}$ at the lower half intensity side, and $^{63}1/T_{1,A}^{(-1/10)}$ at the lower one-tenth intensity of the A-line. We also define the corresponding quantities for the B-line. We shall use these definitions throughout this paper to deduce $^{63}
x_{local}$ as a function of temperature and $x$. Next, we assume that $^{63}1/T_{1,A}^{(0)}$ and $^{63}1/T_{1,B}^{(0)}$ taken at the CG of each spectrum represents the $^{63}1/T_{1}$ value for the nominal hole concentration $x$, regardless of the underlying linebroadening. We can then compare $^{63}1/T_{1}$ at the upper and lower half intensity points of the A-line (or B-line) to nominal values $^{63}1/T_{1,A}^{(0)}$ from different $x$. As we shall show in detail in section III, $^{63}1/T_{1,A}^{(-)}$ for $x=0.115$ at 300 K is the same as $^{63}1/T_{1,A}^{(0)}$ for $x=0.08$, while $^{63}1/T_{1,A}^{(+)}$ for $x=0.115$ is the same as $^{63}1/T_{1,A}^{(0)}$ for $x=0.15$. Using Eq. (\[eqone\]) we therefore deduce that $^{63}\Delta x_{local} = 0.035$ for $x=0.115$ at 300 K. Since we do not have the $continuous$ function $^{63}1/T_{1,A}^{(0)}$ as a function of nominal $x$ (i.e. we have a limited number of samples), we interpolate $^{63}1/T_{1,A}^{(0)}$ between the discrete set of $x$ we do have. The same argument applies to the B-line, and we shall demonstrate that $^{63}\Delta x_{local}$ deduced using the B-line is consistent with that from the A-line. In order to be consistent with Ref. [@singerprl], we define the characteristic amplitude $^{63}\Delta x_{local}$ with respect to the half intensity points, however, following the same proceedure using $1/T_{1}^{(-1/10)}$ instead results in an overall 20 - 40 % increase in $^{63}\Delta x_{local}$ and does not effect our conclusions. Using the frequency dependence of $^{63}1/T_{1}$, we therefore deduce that within each sample with nominal $x$ there exist certain regions in the CuO$_{2}$ plane with higher and lower local hole concentrations ($^{63}x_{local} \neq x$). Systematic studies as a function of temperature then allow us to follow the temperature dependence of $^{63}x_{local}$.
The next task in this paper is the model analysis of the NQR spectrum. For this task, we develop a static real space picture consisting of a patch-by-patch spatial variation for $^{63}x_{local}$ [@singerprl]. Using a point charge lattice summation of the EFG together with a patch-by-patch spatial variation, we successfully fit the NQR spectrum (including the spectral overlap for different $x$ and the B-line) with one free parameter ($^{63}R_{patch}$). As detailed in section IV, the simulation of the EFG consists of two essential ingredients: (a) the random positioning of $^{+2}$Sr donor ions in the lattice, and (b) the presence of a short length scale $^{63}R_{patch} \gtrsim
3$ nm which describes the inhomogeneous electronic state. In our model, the CuO$_{2}$ plane is sectioned into patches (i.e. circles) of equal radius $^{63}R_{patch} (\simeq 3$ nm), and each patch $i$ has a different local hole concentration $x_{local}^{i} (\neq x)$. The value of $x_{local}^{i}$ is determined by the random number of $^{+2}$Sr donor ions in the vicinity of patch $i$. The holes are placed uniformily within patch $i$, and the resonance frequency of the $^{63}$Cu nuclei within patch $i$ is calculated in a self-consistent way using our pool of NQR data. By sampling a large number of patches ($\sim 10^{4}$) and calculating the resonance frequency for each patch, we build up a histogram spectrum of resonance frequencies which constitutes the simulated NQR lineshape. $^{63}R_{patch}$ is the only free parameter in the simulation, and we optimize $^{63}R_{patch}$ to fit the NQR spectrum, as shown in Fig. \[300T1f2\].
Using $^{63}R_{patch} = \infty$ is equivalent to uniform homogeneous doping where $^{63}x_{local} = x$ throughout the plane (i.e. $^{63}\Delta
x_{local} = 0$). This is also equivalent to excluding ingredient (b) listed above and calculating the broadening solely from the random positioning of $^{+2}$Sr donor ions in the lattice (i.e. $\Delta \nu _{latt}$). Clearly, however, in the case $^{63}R_{patch} = \infty$ the observed linewidth is underestimated by $\Delta \nu _{latt}$ alone, likewise for the B-line. Using a very short length scale $^{63}R_{patch} = 1.6$ nm overestimates the NQR linebroadening, whereas the optimum value $^{63}R_{patch} = 2.6$ nm results in the best fit to the data, including the B-line. In Ref. [@tobe] we also show that $^{63}R_{patch}$ thus deduced is consistent with $^{17}R_{patch}$ determined in a similar way using the inhomogeneous linebroadening of the $^{17}$O NMR spectra.
Once $^{63}R_{patch}$ is optimized to fit the NQR spectra, we deduce the spatial variation $^{63}x_{patch}$ given by $$^{63}x_{patch} = x \pm ^{63}\Delta x_{patch},
\label{equan2}$$ where $^{63}\Delta x_{patch}$ is the calculated amplitude for $^{63}x_{patch}$. $^{63}\Delta x_{patch}$ is found to follow the simple relation $^{63}\Delta x_{patch}
\propto 1/^{63}R_{patch}$. The results of the EFG simulation ($^{63}x_{patch}$) are found to be consistent with $^{63}x_{local}$ deduced from the frequency dependence in $^{63}1/T_{1}$. Since $^{63}x_{local}$ is determined in a model independent way, the fact that $^{63}x_{patch} \simeq ^{63\!\!}x_{local}$ justifies the use of our patch-by-patch model. We note, however, that apart from the linebroadening mechanisms (a) and (b) discussed above, we ignore all other possible NQR linebroadening mechanisms in our model. Other possible mechanisms include distributions in local lattice distortions (section V). Our calculation in section IV ignores such possibilities which implies that $^{63}R_{patch}$ is a lower bound, that $^{63}\Delta
x_{patch} (\propto 1/^{63}R_{patch})$ is correspondingly an upper bound, and therefore that $^{63}x_{patch}$ is an upper boundary. The fact that $^{63}x_{patch} \sim ^{\;\;63\!\!}x_{local}$, however, indicates that our simulation of the NQR spectra and the patch-by-patch model is appropriate.
In section V we introduce the effects of the local orthorhombic distortions into the simulation. We find that the NQR data separates into two temperature regions, above and below $T_{Q} (\gtrsim 400)$ K. For $T > T_{Q}$, our data indicates that the lattice is locally in the tetragonal phase and we use this region to estimate $^{63}R_{patch}$ and $^{63}x_{patch}$ as discussed above. For $T \leq T_{Q}$, however, we find evidence for local orthorhombic distortions which, in the case of $x\gtrsim 0.04$, start somewhat above the structural phase transition temperature $T_{st} (\leq $ 515 K) according to neutron diffraction studies [@yamada]. In the doping region $x\gtrsim 0.04$, we show the systematic differences between the local and long range orthorhombic order.
The rest of this paper is sectioned as follows: in section II we describe the experimental characteristics including the sample characteristics and NQR background. In section III we present the experimental results which include the frequency dependence of $^{63}1/T_{1}$ and the determination of $^{63}
x_{local}$. We also present the temperature dependence of the NQR spectra. In section IV we describe the analysis of the NQR spectra using a patch-by-patch model for the spatial variation in $^{63}x_{local}$. We present the details of the EFG simulation incorporating randomness effects, and we optimize the length scale $^{63}R_{patch}$ (and $^{63}x_{patch}$) to fit the experimental data. In section V we incorporate the local orthorhombic distortions into the EFG simulation. In section VI we then present our conclusions.
EXPERIMENTAL Characteristics
============================
Samples
-------
All of the single phase, poly-crystalline samples of La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_4$ used in this study were prepared using conventional solid state reactions [@takagisusc; @radaelli]. We mix pre-dried La$_{2}$O$_{3}$ (99.995$\%$), SrCO$_{3}$ (99.995$\%$), and $^{63}$CuO (99.995$\%$) with correct nominal compositions using an agate mortar and pestle until an intimate mixture is obtained. A pre-reaction is carried out for 20h in a box furnace at $850^{\circ}$C followed by repeated grindings and sinterings (also 20h) at temperatures between $950^{\circ}$C and $1000^{\circ}$C. During these initial firings the materials are made into low density pellets with a hand press. The samples are then pelletized with the pneumatic press and high temperature annealed in flowing O$_2$ gas at $1100^{\circ}$C to $1150^{\circ}$C for 24h to 48h before a slow and controlled cooling cycle that includes low temperature annealing at $800^{\circ}$C (24h) and $500^{\circ}$C (24h). The long annealing in O$_2$ insures that the oxygen content is uniform and stoichiometric and high annealing temperatures insure fast reaction kinetics. By using a large number of grindings (typically 5-8), we achieve high quality poly-crystalline samples.
The most important test for the quality of our samples was discussed earlier (and presented in Ref. [@tobe]) where we confirmed that the frequency dependence of $^{63}1/T_{1}$ across the $^{63}$Cu NQR spectrum in our poly-crystalline samples is the $same$ as in high-quality single crystals grown in Tokyo [@tobe]. This confirms that the inhomogeneity we report in this paper and in Ref.’s [@singerprl; @tobe] are intrinsic to La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$. Apart from $^{63}$Cu NQR itself, we characterise our poly-crystalline samples by measuring the superconducting transition $T_{c}$ and the room temperature lattice parameters. We deduce $T_{c}$ by measuring the Meissner signal using a SQUID magnetometer in the field cooled mode with a constant applied magnetic field of 15 Oe , the results of which are shown in Fig. \[squid\]. We find that the onset temperature of the diamagnetic susceptibility, $T_{c}$, and the volume fraction agree with previous measurments in poly-crystalline samples prepared in a similar fashion [@takagisusc; @radaelli; @takagidelta]. We note that the onset of the diamagnetic susceptibility is somewhat tailed in the case of $x=0.20$, consistent with [@takagisusc; @radaelli; @takagidelta]. In Ref. [@takagidelta] it is even argued that bulk superconductivity disappears in the overdoped region, which coincides with the disappearance of LRO (long range order) into the orthorhombic structural phase. As we present in section III, we also find a qualitative change in $^{63}1/T_{1}$ in the overdoped region. For these reasons we limit our determination of $^{63}x_{local}$ in section III to $x \leq 0.16$.
We deduce the lattice parameters with an X-ray diffractometer using the Cu $K\alpha^{1}$ line. The lattice parameters presented in Fig. \[latt\] (the values of which we use in the analysis in section IV) show close agreement with previous results [@radaelli]. In this paper, we define $a_{o}$ and $b_{o}$ to be the in-plane lattice parameters of the orthorhombic cell and $[a_{o},b_{o},c]$ as the vector along the orthorhombic directions. Likewise, we define $a$ and $b(\equiv a$) as the lattice parameters in the tetragonal cell and $[a,b,c]$ as the vector along the tetragonal direction. Our typical X-ray linewidths were comparable to the instrumental resolution with a [*HWHM*]{} of $\delta_{Instr} \sim
0.025^{o}$ determined using a high quality Si standard. Previous higher resolution X-ray diffraction experiments [@takagidelta] (where $\delta_{Instr} \sim 0.01^{o}$) were able to use the observed X-ray linewidths and overlaps between different samples $x$ to deduce a lower bound to the compositional distribution with a [*HWHM*]{} of $\delta x_{Sr} \sim 0.01$. Only a lower bound to $\delta x_{Sr}$ could be inferred because X-ray diffraction takes a spatial average over length scales larger than tens of nm’s [@takagidelta]. They attributed $\delta x_{Sr} \sim 0.01$ to imperfect mixing inherent to the solid state reaction. Similar conclusions were reached in Ref. [@radaelli] using the overlap of X-ray diffraction and neutron Bragg peaks between different $x$, where $\delta x_{Sr} \sim 0.015$ was deduced.
We confirmed the same order lower bound $\delta x_{Sr} \simeq 0.013$ in single crystal $x=0.15$ [@singerprl] using EMPA (electron micro-probe analysis) whose length scale is determined by the focus area of the beam $\sim 1
$ $\mu$m. This means that even high-quality single crystals whose spatial variation of $^{+2}$Sr content is as small as $\delta x_{Sr} \simeq
0.013$ ($\ll ^{63\!\!}\Delta x_{local}$) over $\sim 1$ $\mu$m, exhibit a large variation in the local electronic states. Furthermore, we will demonstrate in section III that $^{63}\Delta x_{local}$ is temperature dependent and increases with decreasing temperature. This means that the variation in $^{+2}$Sr content from the solid state reaction alone cannot account for our findings. Instead, a thermodynamic process must be involved.
NQR Background
--------------
The essential condition for NQR is that the ground state spin $^{n}I$ of the nuclear isotope $n$ satisfy $^{n}I\geq 1$ [@abragam; @slichter]. In the case of Cu, there exist two stable isotopes $n = 63(65)$ with natural abundances of 69 (31) % respsectively, both with spin $^{(63,65)}I = 3/2$. This is both an advantage and a disadvantage. It is generally a disadvantage in the sense that their quadrupole moments $^{n}Q$ happen to be similar $^{63}Q/^{65}Q = 1.081$, and therefore their resonance spectrum tend to coincide. This is the case in La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$ for $x>0.05$ where the NQR spectrum from each isotope is broad enough that they merge in the temperature range of interest, and therefore $^{63}$Cu isotope enrichment is essential to separate multiple lines.
The observed NQR frequency $^{63}\nu_{Q}$ is given by the total EFG (electric field gradient) tensor $V_{tot}^{(\beta,\gamma)}$ (where $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are any two orthogonal spatial directions) surrounding the resonating $^{63}$Cu nucleus, and its quadrupole coupling constant $^{63}Q$. In terms of magnetic eigenstates $m_{I}$, NQR for $I = 3/2$ corresponds to transitions between $m_{I} = |\pm 1/2|$ and $m_{I}' = |\pm
3/2|$ eigenstates [@abragam; @slichter]. The EFG cannot split the $\pm$ degeneracy of the magnetic eigenstates since it is of charge origin. The most general expression for the NQR tensor $^{63}\nu_{Q}^{(\beta,\gamma)}$ is given by [@abragam; @slichter]: $$^{63}\nu_{Q}^{(\beta,\gamma)} = \frac{e^{63\!}Q}{2h} \cdot V_{tot}^{(\beta,\gamma)},
\label{gen}$$ where $V_{tot}^{(\beta,\gamma)}$ is the traceless symmetric EFG tensor. $V_{tot}^{(\beta,\gamma)}$ can be rotated and diagonalised to point towards the principle axes $\alpha$ of the EFG. This leads to the following relation $$^{63}\nu_{Q}^{\alpha} = \frac{e^{63\!}Q}{2h} \cdot V_{tot}^{\alpha}.
\label{mainvq}$$ In the tetragonal phase, the principle axes $\alpha$ are along the crystal axes $[a,b,c]$, and satisfy the general traceless condition $V^{c}+V^{b}+V^{a}=0$. The direction of the largest component $|V^{c}|$ (where $|V^{c}|>|V^{b}|>|V^{a}|$) defines the [*main principle axis*]{} in the tetragonal phase. The asymmetry parameter $\eta$ ($0\leq \eta \leq 1$), defined as $$\eta = \frac{V^{a}-V^{b}}{V^{c}},
\label{eta}$$ is typically small $\eta \leq 0.06$ for the planar Cu site in the cuprates [@penn] and for both A and B-sites [@song]. The observed NQR frequency $^{63}\nu_{Q}$ is then given by $$^{63}\nu_{Q} = \frac{e^{63\!}Q}{2h} \cdot V_{tot}^{c} \cdot \left(1+\eta^{2}/3
\right)^{1/2}.
\label{mainvq21}$$ In the present case, $\eta$ is small $(\eta \leq 0.06)$ and to a very good approximation $$^{63}\nu_{Q} \simeq \frac{e^{63\!}Q}{2h} \cdot V_{tot}^{c}.
\label{mainvq2}$$
The value of $^{63}Q$ used varies between groups, but is generally taken to be either $^{63}Q = -0.211$ barns [@stern] which is based on theoretical calculation, or $^{63}Q = -0.16$ barns [@bleaney] which is based on ESR measurements in cuprate salts. Since we are dealing with experimental results, we choose to use $^{63}Q = -0.16$ barns [@bleaney]. As discussed in appendix A, however, our final results of the length scale $^{63}R_{patch}$ is insensitive to the absolute value of $^{63}Q$.
In NQR, the direction along which the spin-lattice relaxation rate $^{63}1/T_{1}$ is measured is given by the main principle axis of the EFG (i.e. the $c$-axis), and cannot be changed externally. The most general expression for $^{63}1/T_{1}$ in NQR with relaxation by a single magnetic process is given by [@moriya] $${}^{63} \frac{1}{T_{1}} = \frac{^{63\!}\gamma^{2} k_{B} T}{\mu_{B}^{2}}
\cdot \sum_{{\bf q}} 2 \left|^{63}A({\bf q})^{\perp} \right|^{2}
\frac{\chi''_{\perp}({\bf q},\omega_{n})}{\omega_{n}},
\label{T1}$$ where $\omega_{n}/2\pi = ^{63\!}\nu_{Q} (= 32 - 40$ MHz) is the NQR frequency, $^{63\!}\gamma/2\pi = 11.285$ MHz/Tesla is the nuclear gyro-magnetic ratio, and ${\bf q}$ is the reciprocal lattice vector (in tetragonal notation).
$^{63}A({\bf q})^{\perp}$ is the hyperfine form factor [*perpendicular*]{} to the main principle axis. The two perpendicular directions ($\perp$) in the present case both lie in the CuO$_{2}$ plane (i.e. in the $a-b$ plane). The ${\bf q}$ dependence of the in-plane value $^{63}A({\bf q})^{\perp}$ is given by $$^{63}A({\bf q})^{\perp} = A_{\perp} + 2B \cdot \left( \cos(q_{x}a) +
\cos(q_{y}a) \right),
\label{hyperfine}$$ where $A_{\perp} \simeq 38 $ kOe/$\mu_{B}$ and $B \simeq 42 $ kOe/$\mu_{B}$ are found to be the same in La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$ [@mmplsco; @imai] and YBa$_{2}$Cu$_{3}$O$_{y}$ [@takigawa1991] compounds. $\chi''_{\perp}({\bf q},\omega_{n})$ (in emu/\[mol f.u.\]) is the in-plane imaginary part of the dynamic spin susceptibilty of the electrons. According to Eq. (\[hyperfine\]), there is a large contribution to $^{63}1/T_{1}$ from the anit-ferromagnetic wavevector ${\bf Q_{AF}} = (\pi/a,\pi/a)$ where $^{63}A({\bf Q_{AF}})^{\perp} = -139 $ kOe$/\mu_{B}$ [@imai]. Since $\chi''_{\perp}({\bf q},\omega_{n})$ is peaked in the vicinity of ${\bf q=Q_{AF}}$, this implies that $^{63}1/T_{1}$ is a local probe of the low-frequency (i.e. $\hbar \omega_{n} \ll k_{B} T$) in-plane anti-ferromagnetic spin fluctuations. $^{63\!}\gamma^{2}$ enters into Eq. (\[T1\]) because the spin-lattice relaxation process is [*magnetic*]{} in origin, whereas the splitting of the energy levels $\omega_{n}$ is determined by the EFG which is of [*charge*]{} origin.
We measure $^{63}1/T_{1}$ by applying the following pulse sequence $$\pi----t----[\pi/2-\tau-\pi ] -\tau - echo,
\label{pulse}$$ where an r.f. pulse $\pi$ inverts the nuclear magnetization $M(t)$ at time $t$ prior to the spin-echo sequence in brackets. The time dependence of $M(t)$ is determined by taking the integral of the $echo$ in the time domain as a function of delay time $t$. $^{63}1/T_{1}$ is then determined by fitting $M(t)$ to the standard recovery form [@narath] $$M(t) = M(\infty) + \left( M(0) - M(\infty) \right) \cdot
\left[ \exp \left(-\frac{3}{T_{1}}t \right) \right],
\label{mt}$$ appropriate for NQR with $^{n}I=3/2$.
The results of $^{63}1/T_{1}$ were independent of the r.f. pulse width $\pi$ in Eq. (\[pulse\]). In the case of $x \lesssim 0.16$, $M(t)$ fit well to Eq. (\[mt\]), implying that the spin-lattice relaxation rate is dominated by a single relaxation mechanism. In the case of $x \gtrsim 0.16$ below $\lesssim 100$ K, however, detailed measurements of $M(t)$ revealed a multi-exponential recovery, implying that $^{63}1/T_{1}$ is distributed at a fixed frequency. In appendix B we use the multi-exponential recovery of $M(t)$ to deduce the intrinsic lattice broadening $\Delta \nu
_{latt}^{T1} $ of the NQR line. In the case of $x = 0.16$, we find that $\Delta \nu _{latt}^{T1}= 0.62 (\pm 0.07)$ MHz, which is consistent with our independent results of the EFG simulation $\Delta \nu
_{latt} = 0.49 $ MHz presented in section IV. All $^{63}1/T_{1}$ data presented in this paper (except for appendix B) correspond to results of force-fits (in the case $x\gtrsim 0.16$) deduced using Eq. (\[mt\]). The force-fit values from Eq. (\[mt\]) correspond to the [*average*]{} value of the underlying distribution in spin-lattice relaxation rate.
As a result of the distribution in the spin-lattice relaxation rate, the value of $^{63}1/T_{1}$ determined using Eq. (\[mt\]) showed a slight dependence on the pulse separation time $\tau$ in Eq. (\[pulse\]). The most likely explanation is that using a long $\tau$ results in suppressed signal intensity from $^{63}$Cu nuclei with fast spin-spin relaxation rates ($^{63}1/T_{2}$). Since $^{63}$Cu nuclei with fast $^{63}1/T_{1}$ also have fast component in $^{63}1/T_{2}$ [@red], one would expect a decrease in the average value of $^{63}1/T_{1}$ with increasing $\tau$. In the case of $x=0.16$, increasing $\tau$ from 12 to 24 $\mu$s resulted in a uniform $\sim 10$ % [*decrease*]{} for $^{63}1/T_{1}$ across the NQR line. In order to retain the maximum possible signal intensity and measure the most representative value of $^{63}1/T_{1}$ at each frequency, we used the shortest possible value $\tau = 12 $ $\mu$s the experiment allows for [*all*]{} measurements in this paper. Using the same experimental conditions throughout also allowed for a consistent determination of $^{63}x_{local}$.
Finally, we note that there are two relevant time-scales in the NQR experiment. The first is the “dynamic” time-scale associated with $^{63}1/T_{1}$. Since $^{63}1/T_{1}$ measures the spin fluctuations specifically at the NQR frequency $^{63}\nu_{Q}$ (Eq. (\[T1\])), the appropriate “dynamic” time-scale is given by $1/^{63}\nu_{Q} \simeq 0.027$ $ \mu$s. The other relevant time-scale is the “static” one associated with the NQR spectrum. The “static” time-scale is given by the spin-echo refocusing time $2 \tau = 24 $ $\mu$s (Eq. (\[pulse\])). $2 \tau$ defines the effective exposure time (or equivalently, an effective shutter speed of $1/(2\tau)$) for the NQR experiment. All dynamic effects with time-scales [*shorter*]{} than $2 \tau $ are unobservable through the NQR spectrum.
Experimental Results
====================
$^{63}1/T_{1}$ Results
----------------------
Before presenting the frequency dependence of $^{63}1/T_{1}$, we first present the temperature dependence of $^{63}1/T_{1,A}^{(0)}$ and $^{63}1/T_{1,B}^{(0)}$ taken at the CG of each spectrum. In Fig. \[T1A\] and Fig. \[T1B\] we present the temperature dependence of $^{63}1/T_{1,A}^{(0)}$ and $^{63}1/T_{1,B}^{(0)}$, respectively. While the solid curves through the $^{63}1/T_{1,A}^{(0)}$ data in Fig. \[T1A\] are guides for the eye, the solid curves in Fig. \[T1B\] represent $\left( \epsilon \cdot ^{63\!}1/T_{1,A}^{(0)} \right)$ data taken from Fig. \[T1A\]. We plot Fig. \[T1B\] as such to directly compare the temperature dependence of $\left( \epsilon \cdot^{63\!}1/T_{1,A}^{(0)} \right)$ with $^{63}1/T_{1,B}^{(0)}$, where $\epsilon$ is a uniform scaling factor taken to be $\epsilon =[0.87,0.87,0.90,0.84]$ for $x =
[0.20,0.16,0.115,0.07]$, respectively. As shown in Fig. \[T1B\], we find semi-quantitatively the same temperature dependence between the CG of the A and B-lines, with an overall 10 - 16 % smaller value of $^{63}1/T_{1,B}$ compared to $^{63}1/T_{1,A}$, i.e. $^{63}T_{1,A}/^{63}T_{1,B} = 0.9-0.84$. Previous reports in $non$-isotope enriched samples [@itoh; @itoh2] also found that $^{63}T_{1,A}/^{63}T_{1,B} < 1$.
At first glance of Fig. \[T1B\], our data for $x=0.16$ and $x=0.20$ below $\sim 150$ K may suggest that the ratio $^{63}T_{1,A}/ ^{63}T_{1,B}$ tends to decrease $\sim 10-15$ % with decreasing temperature, similar to previous trends reported in [@itoh] for $x=0.20$. We point out, however, that caution must be used when deducing any significance from temperature variations in $^{63}T_{1,A}/^{63}T_{1,B}$. The reason for this stems from the fact that spin-lattice relaxation rate is distributed at a fixed frequency, and that finite $\tau = 12$ $\mu$s conditions are used. As discussed in section II, the force-fit value $^{63}1/T_{1}$ will tend to underestimate the CG of the underlying distribution, the extent of which will depend on $\tau $ and the one-to-one correspondence between the spin-spin relaxation rate and spin-lattice relaxation rate for all $^{63}$Cu nuclear sites. However, it is known that the spin-spin relaxation rate shows a complicated temperature dependence for both A and B-sites. In particular, the Gaussian-like component of the spin-spin relaxation rate ($^{63}1/T_{2G}$ [@T2G]) tends to get smaller with decreasing temperature while the Lorenztian- like component ($^{63}1/T_{2L}$) becomes dominant. Below the onset of $^{63}$Cu wipeout $T_{NQR}$, the spin-spin relaxation rate becomes totally Lorentzian-like [@hunt; @curro; @singer; @hunt2] at both A and B-sites. Slight differences in the temperature dependence of $^{63}1/T_{2G}$ and $^{63}1/T_{2L}$ between the A and B-sites complicate the one-to-one correspondence with spin-lattice relaxation rate, and result in different underestimations of $^{63}1/T_{1}$ between the A and B-sites with decreasing temperature. Such factors must be considered when interpreting the temperature dependence in $^{63}T_{1,A}/ ^{63}T_{1,B}$ for $\lesssim 150 $ K and $x \gtrsim 0.16$.
In Fig. \[T1pm\] we present the temperature dependence of $^{63}1/T_{1,A}$ at various frequencies across the line, labeled according to Fig. \[300T1f2\]. In the background of Fig. \[T1pm\] we also show $^{63}1/T_{1,A}^{(0)}$ taken from Fig. \[T1A\] which represent curves of constant $x$. The most surprising discovery of the present work is that $^{63}1/T_{1}^{(+)}$, $^{63}1/T_{1}^{(-)}$ and $^{63}1/T_{1}^{(-1/10)}$ all show [*qualitatively different*]{} temperature dependence. For example, $^{63}1/T_{1}^{(+)}$ for $x=0.07$ exhibits semi-quantitatively the same behaviour as $^{63}1/T_{1,A}^{(0)}$ for $x=0.115$, while $^{63}1/T_{1}^{(-)}$ for $x=0.07$ exhibits semi-quantitatively the same behaviour as $^{63}1/T_{1,A}^{(0)}$ for $x=0.04$. This is consistent with the fact that the upper (lower) frequency side of the NQR spectrum for $x=0.07$ roughly coincides with the peak NQR frequency of $x=0.115$ ($x=0.04$) respectively, as shown in Fig. \[300T1f\]. We also note that with decreasing temperature, $^{63}1/T_{1}^{(+)}$, $^{63}1/T_{1}^{(-)}$ and $^{63}1/T_{1}^{(-1/10)}$ do not exactly follow $^{63}1/T_{1,A}^{(0)}$ for a given $x$, which indicates that $^{63}\Delta
x_{local}$ is gradually growing with decreasing temperature.
In Fig. \[300Kx\] we illustrate the details of the process used to extract $^{63}
x_{local}$ from the data in Fig. \[T1pm\]. We first take the data from Fig. \[T1pm\] and plot $^{63}1/T_{1,A}^{(+)}$, $^{63}1/T_{1,A}^{(-)}$ and $^{63}1/T_{1,A}^{(0)}$ for each $x$ at a fixed temperature of 300 K. For clarity we connect the $^{63}1/T_{1,A}$ data for fixed $x$ by the dashed black lines. We then create a smooth interpolation of $^{63}1/T_{1,A}^{(0)}$ for all $x$ shown by the solid grey curve. We show the procedure used to determine $^{63} x_{local}$ in the case of $x=0.07$ shown as the solid black vertical and horizontal lines. In the case of $^{63}1/T_{1}^{(+)}$, the horizontal black line determines what value of $^{63}1/T_{1,A}^{(0)}$ (solid grey curve) corresponds to $^{63}1/T_{1}^{(+)}$ , then the vertical line yields $^{63}x_{local}^{(+)}=0.10$ $(\pm 0.01)$ for the more metallic regions. A similar proceedure for $^{63}1/T_{1}^{(-)}$ yields $^{63}x_{local}^{(-)}=0.043$ $(\pm 0.008)$ for the more insulating regions. The upper and lower frequency side therefore yield a consistent deviation $^{63}\Delta x_{local}=0.028 (\pm
0.009)$ for $x=0.07$ at 300 K. We then determine $^{63} x_{local}^{(+)}$ and $^{63}
x_{local}^{(-)}$ for all $x$ depending on available $^{63}1/T_{1,A}^{(0)}$ data and desired accuracy. We cannot determine $^{63}x_{local}^{(-)}$ for $x=0.04$ since we do not have $^{63}1/T_{1,A}^{(0)}$ data below $x=0.04$ at 300 K. The reason for this is that $^{63}1/T_{1}$ cannot be measured accurately for values $\gtrsim 7$ (ms)$^{-1}$. Furthermore, 300 K corresponds to the wipeout temperature $T_{NQR}$ for $x \leq 0.035$ [@hunt], and we only determine $^{63}x_{local}^{(-)}$ from our data for $T \gtrsim T_{NQR}$ where full Cu signal intensity is observable. As for the limitations of $^{63}x_{local}^{(+)}$, we note that at 300 K, $^{63}1/T_{1,A}^{(0)}$ tends to merge to the same value of $\sim 3$ (ms)$^{-1}$ for $x \geq 0.09$ [@imai]. This implies that one needs to measure $^{63}1/T_{1}^{(+)}$ beyond the experimental uncertainties in order to get a reliable estimate of $^{63}x_{local}^{(+)}$.
The whole proceedure is repeated at different temperatures, the final results of which are summarized in Fig. \[deltax\]. At different temperatures we find similar experimental limitations in determining $^{63}
x_{local}^{(+)}$ and $^{63} x_{local}^{(-)}$, however, in cases such as $x=0.07$ where both can be determined, we consistently find that $^{63\!\!} \Delta
x_{local}^{(+)} \simeq ^{\;63\!\!}\Delta x_{local}^{(-)}$. In the overdoped region $x \geq 0.20$ we find a comparable frequency dependence of $^{63}1/T_{1}$ across the NQR line to that of $x=0.16$. However, as shown in Fig. \[300Kx\], we also find that $^{63}1/T_{1,A}^{(0)}$ starts to $increase$ with increasing $x$ for $x \geq 0.20$ at 300 K, and the same is true at all temperatures. As discussed in section II, we limit our determination of $^{63}x_{local}$ to the region $x \leq 0.16$ and for clarity we separate the data in Fig. \[300Kx\] for $x > 0.16$ by using a dashed grey line.
In Fig. \[TcT1\] we show the temperature dependence of $^{63}1/T_{1}$ for $x=0.16$ across the superconducting boundary $T_{c}$ = 38 K (Fig. \[squid\]) at various positions across the NQR spectrum. Despite the fact that the spatial variation $^{63}x_{local}$ varies as much as $0.10 \leq ^{63}
x_{local} \leq 0.22$ at $\sim 100$ K, all values of $^{63}1/T_{1}$ show a comparable fractional decrease below $T_{c}$ where the superconducting gap opens. In the case of $^{63}1/T_{1}^{(-)}$ where $^{63}x_{local}^{(-)}=0.10$, $T_{c}$ should be around 25 K, however, there is already a large drop in $^{63}1/T_{1}^{(-)}$ by 30 K. In the case of $^{63}1/T_{1}^{(-1/10)}$ where $^{63}x_{local}^{(-1/10)}=0.08$, $T_{c}$ should be as low as 20 K, however $^{63}1/T_{1}^{(-1/10)}$ shows a drop below 30 K. This shows that the superconducting transition is a genuine bulk phenomenon which effects all patches, regardless of the local hole concentration $^{63}x_{local}$.
$^{63}\nu_{Q}$ Results
----------------------
In Fig. \[nuqall\](a) and (b) we show the temperature dependence of the resonance frequency at the CG of the NQR spectrum defined as $\left<^{63}\nu_{Q}^{k} \right>$ where $k = (A,B)$ for the A and B-lines, respectively. We define the first and second moments of the NQR spectrum as such $$\begin{aligned}
\left< ^{63\!}\nu_{Q}^{k} \right> &=& \frac{\sum_{j} ^{63\!}\nu_{j,Q}^{k} }{\sum_{j}} \nonumber \\
^{63\!}\Delta \nu_{Q}^{k} &= &\sqrt{\alpha_{0}} \cdot \sqrt{\frac{\sum_{j}
\left(^{63\!}\nu_{j,Q}^{k}-\left<^{63\!}\nu_{Q}^{k} \right> \right)^{2}}{\sum_{j}}},
\label{meanwidth}\end{aligned}$$ where $^{63}\nu_{j,Q}^{k}$ corresponds to the $j$th data point of the observed NQR spectrum and $\sqrt{\alpha_{0}} = \sqrt{2Ln2} = 1.177$. For a Gaussian spectrum (found to be the case for $x > 0.07$) the use of the prefactor $\sqrt{\alpha_{0}}$ reduces $^{63}\Delta \nu_{Q}^{k}$ to the [*HWHM*]{} (half width at half maximum) exactly.
The $\left<^{63}\nu_{Q}^{k} \right>$ data indicates two temperature regimes. Above $T_{Q}$ (black fit), we find a linear decrease of $\left<^{63}\nu_{Q}^{A} \right>$ with decreasing temperature and a roughly constant value of $\left<^{63}\nu_{Q}^{B} \right>$. In section IV we attribute the temperature dependence above $T_{Q}$ to thermal contraction of the lattice constants within the tetragonal phase, and in appendix A we also use this temperature region to determine the anti-shielding factors needed for the EFG simulation. Below $T_{Q}$ (grey fit), $\left<^{63}\nu_{Q}^{k} \right>$ increases with decreasing temperature for both A and B-lines. The increase in this region is attributed to the increasing local orthorhombic distortions [@imai] which in the case of $x \geq 0.04$ set in above the LRO structural phase transition temperature $T_{st} (\leq 515$ K) according to neutron diffraction [@yamada]. In the case of $x=0.20$, we find evidence for local orthorhombic distortion starting as high as $T_{Q} \simeq$ 350 K where diffraction results show no sign of LRO. In the section V we fit the data below $T_{Q}$ and deduce the degree of tilting of the CuO$_{6}$ octahedra away from the $c$-axis (defined as $\theta_{local}$), and we find that there is a sharp onset temperature for $\theta_{local}$ only the case of $x=0.0$. For $x>
0.0$ we see a somewhat rounded transition into the local orthorhombic phase. We note that these local precursive effects to the LRO are consistent with pair distribution function analysis of neutron powder diffraction data [@bozin] and XAFS (X-ray Absorption Fine Structure) analysis [@haskel] which find evidence for local lattice distortions in the temperature region above $T_{st}$, and also into the overdoped regime $x \gtrsim 0.20$.
The temperature dependence of the observed [*HWHM*]{} $^{63}\Delta \nu_{Q}^{k}$ of the NQR spectra, defined using Eq. (\[meanwidth\]), is presented in Fig. \[widthall\]. We also reproduce the temperature regions above and below $T_{Q}$, taken from Fig. \[nuqall\], as the black and grey curves respectively. In section IV we use the $^{63}\Delta \nu_{Q}^{k}$ data for $T > T_{Q}$ to deduce a lower bound for the patch radius $^{63}R_{patch}$, and the corresponding an upper bound $^{63}\Delta x_{patch} (\propto 1/^{63}R_{patch})$.
analysis
========
EFG Background
--------------
The goal of this section is to determine a static real-space model of the spatial variation in local hole concentration $^{63}x_{local}$. We shall use a point charge lattice summation incorporating randomness effects to calculate the inhomogeneous $distribution$ in the EFG which constitutes the observed $^{63}$Cu NQR spectrum. To the best of our knowledge, such calculations incorporating randomness effects into the EFG calculation have not been reported. We shall deduce all parameters necessary for this task in a self-consistent way by using our pool of NQR data, and we shall successfully account for the entire $^{63}$Cu NQR spectrum, including the B-line, with one adjustable parameter ($^{63}R_{patch}$) which defines the length scale of the spatial variation $^{63}x_{local}$. Once $^{63}R_{patch}$ is optimized to fit the $^{63}$Cu NQR spectrum, we deduce an upper bound to the amplitude of the spatial variation across the plane $^{63}\Delta x_{patch} (\propto 1/ ^{63}R_{patch}$), which we show is consistent with $^{63}\Delta x_{local}$ determined in a model independent way from section III.
The distribution in the EFG is dominated by three mechanisms (a) the random substitution of donor ions, (b) the variation in local hole concentration $^{63}x_{local}$ over short length scales $^{63}R_{patch} \gtrsim 3.0$ nm, and (c) the distribution in local lattice distortions. Without [ *a priori*]{} knowing the lattice distortions in (c), we attribute the whole NQR linebroadening to mechanisms (a) and (b). This implies that the deduced $^{63}R_{patch}$ we present is a lower bound and correspondingly $^{63} \Delta x_{patch} (\propto 1/^{63}R_{patch}) $ is an upper bound. However we shall demonstrate that $^{63} \Delta x_{patch}
\sim ^{63}\Delta x_{local}$, which implies that using mechanisms (a) and (b) alone is justified in the temperature range $T > T_{Q}$. Below $T_{Q}$ where local orthorhombic distortions set in (Fig. \[nuqall\]), we terminate our analysis of $^{63}
\Delta x_{patch}$. The reason for this is that we also see an increase in the NQR linewidth (Fig. \[widthall\]) below $T_{Q}$ in the case of $x \leq 0.07$, which suggests that ignoring mechanism (c) above is no longer justified for $T < T_{Q}$. In section V we make predictions about the magnitude of mechanism (c) by attributing the extra linebraodening for $T < T_{Q}$ to distributions in the lattice distortions. We note, however, that with the exception of section V, we ignore mechanism (c) in our analysis.
There are two approaches for computing the EFG. The first is an $ab$ $initio$ approach [@martin; @plib; @husser] which involves quantum chemistry calculations, and the second approach makes use of the experimental data [@penn; @takigawa1989; @shimizu; @walstedtprb; @singerprl] to deduce all the necessary parameters in an empirical way. The $ab$ $initio$ approach has been extensively used to calculate the EFG at the $^{63}$Cu site in La$_{2}$CuO$_{4}$ [@martin; @plib; @husser], and gives a consistent value for the observed resonance frequency $\left<^{63}\nu_{Q}\right> \simeq 33 $ MHz [@imai] to within uncertainties in the quadrupole moment $^{63}Q$. The basic idea behind the [*ab initio*]{} approach is that since the EFG decreases rapidly $\sim 1/r^{3}$ away from the origin of the calculation, the most significant contributions should be from local EFG components. One can then justifiably separate a cluster of ions in the immediate vicinity of the Cu nucleus whose contributions are calculated using a full spin-polarized DF (density functional) or HF (Hatree-Fock) calculation, while the rest of the ions in the crystal are treated as point charges. The smallest realistic cluster is typically CuO$_{6}$/Cu$_{4}$La$_{10}$, where the central (CuO$_{6})^{-10}$ ionic cluster consists of 23 molecular orbitals for each spin projection made up of linear combinations of 5 $3d$ and 18 $2p$ atomic orbitals. Such calculations are found to depend on the cluster size used, where the larger clusters are more reliable yet involve increasingly complex calculations. They also depend on whether one uses DF or HF, however both successfully predict that the molecular orbital with the highest energy is the anti-bonding hybridization between the Cu $3d_{x^{2}-y^{2}}$ orbital and the O $2p_{x}$ and $2p_{y}$ orbitals. The DF method, however, predicts [@husser] more covalent-like bonding where the localized atomic spin density on the Cu is $\rho_{Cu} = 0.67$, while HF predicts more ionic-like bonding with $\rho_{Cu} = 0.90$.
Before discussing our new approach for calculating the inhomogeneous distribution of the EFG, let us clarify exactly what inhomogeneous broadening implies in the context of $^{63}$Cu NQR. The linebroadening of the $^{63}$Cu NQR spectrum for $x >$ 0.02 is dominated by the $inhomogeneous$ distribution in the EFG. The inhomogeneous broadening may be pictured as such: say there is a Cu nucleus $j$ lying in a particular EFG with value $V_{j}$ which resonates at frequency $\nu_{j}$, while a distant nucleus $k$ sits in a distinct EFG environment $V_{k}$ and resonates at $\nu_{k}$. As is predominantly the case across the sample, the separation between the two nuclei ${\bf r}_{(j,k)}$ is $larger$ than the range $\xi_{AF}
\sim $3 $a$ of the indirect nuclear spin-spin coupling [@pennslicht] where $\xi_{AF}$ is the correlation length of the anti-ferromagnetic fluctuations. In such cases, one may flip the $j$ nucleus using an r.f. pulse and observe its echo $without$ being effected by what the r.f. pulse does on the $k$ nucleus. One then measures the $^{63}$Cu NQR spectrum by resonating at $\nu_{j}$ and effectively counting the number of nuclei $N_{j}$ in the sample with EFG values $V_{j}$, then changing the resonance frequency to $\nu_{k}$ and counting the number of nuclei $N_{k}$, thereby building up the $inhomogeneous$ NQR spectrum.
As one approaches the undoped limit $x < 0.02$, the random effects become less and less significant, and the linebroadening becomes predominantly $homogeneous$ in nature and dominated by the indirect nuclear spin-spin coupling [@slichter]. As we show in appendix B, in the case of pure homogeneous broadening for $x=0.0$, there is no frequency dependence in $^{63}1/T_{1}$ across the NQR spectrum, even in the orthorhombic phase $T<T_{st}$. We note that the two $distinct$ length scales $\xi_{AF}$ and $^{63}R_{patch}$ which determine the linebroadening of the homogeneous and inhomogeneous NQR spectra, respectively, have qualitatively different temperature dependences. As we shall show, $^{63}R_{patch}$ mildly decreases with decreasing temperature, while $\xi_{AF}$ increases with decreasing temperature [@yamada]. Furthermore $^{63}R_{patch} \gg \xi_{AF}$ within the $x$ and temperature range of interest.
EFG Simulation
--------------
In the experimental approach, the total EFG tensor $V_{tot}^{(\beta,\gamma),k}$ (see Eq. (\[mainvq2\])) along the orthogonal spatial directions $(\beta,\gamma$) for the Cu site $k = (A,B)$ is segregated into an onsite $3d$ contribution $V_{3d}^{(\beta,\gamma)}$ and an offsite lattice contribution $V_{latt}^{(\beta,\gamma),k}$ as such $$V_{tot}^{(\beta,\gamma),k} = \zeta_{3d}^{k} \cdot V_{3d}^{(\beta,\gamma)}+
\zeta_{latt}^{k} \cdot V_{latt}^{(\beta,\gamma),k},
\label{sepvq}$$ where we introduce the isotropic anti-shielding factor [@slichter] $\zeta_{3d}^{k}$ originating from the local $3d$ electrons and the isotropic anti-shielding factor $\zeta_{3d}^{k}$ orginating from the lattice. We also leave the possibilty open that they depend on which Cu site $k = (A,B)$ is being calculated. In appendix A, we use a self-consistent approach to deduce that $\zeta_{latt}^{A} = 27.7$ and $\zeta_{3d}^{A} = 0.93$, while $\zeta_{latt}^{B} = 18.6$ and $\zeta_{3d}^{B} = 0.82$. We also show that the main principle value of the onsite EFG contribution $V_{3d}^{c}$ is negative while the lattice contribution $ V_{latt}^{c,k}$ is positive, resulting in an overall negative value of $V_{tot}^{c,k}$.
The anti-shielding factors must be determined experimentally, while in the $ab$ $initio$ approach they are, in a sense, already accounted for. The anti-shielding factors are found $not$ to vary significantly between different classes of high $T_{c}$ cuprates [@shimizu]. Likewise, the anti-shielding factors deduced in a similar way for the planar oxygen site [@takigawa1989; @walstedtprb; @tobe] is also found to be consistent between different classes of cuprates, which supports the use of the experimental approach.
In accord with B. Bleaney and co-workers [@bleaney], the main principle value of the onsite contribution $V_{3d}^{c}$ arising from the $3d_{x^{2}-y^{2}}$ hole is taken to be $$V_{3d}^{c} = -\frac{4}{7} e \left(1-4f_{\sigma}^{o}\right)
\left<r^{-3}_{3d}\right>,
\label{loccontr}$$ where we have allowed for covalency in the form of $f_{\sigma}^{o}$ which represents the fractional spin denisty on the four neighbouring planar oxygen $2p_{\sigma}$ orbitals. In order to be consistent with our results of $^{17}$O hyperfine coupling analysis we use $f_{\sigma}^{o} = 0.076$ [@tobe] which favours more covalent-like bonding. Using ionic bonding with $f_{\sigma}^{o}=0$ results in an overall $\sim$ 14 % increase in $^{63}R_{patch}$ and corresponding $\sim$ 12 % decrease in our theoretical estimate $^{63}\Delta x_{patch}$ over covalent-like bonding. We note that $f_{\sigma}^{o} =0.076$ deduced from the oxygen hyperfine couplings [@walstedtprb; @tobe] is consistent with Cu hyperfine coupling analysis using NMR [@takigawa1991] where $f_{Cu} = (1-4f_{\sigma}^{o}) = 0.7 $ was found. It is also generally accepted that the $ab$ $initio$ DF calculation which favors stronger covalency is a more realistic approach than the HF approach.
The lattice contribution $V_{latt}^{(\beta,\gamma)}$ to the total EFG is calculated using a point charge lattice summation with fractional point charges. We use the standard expression for the summation $$V_{latt}^{(\beta,\gamma)} =
\sum_{j} q_{j}\left(3x_{\beta,j} x_{\gamma,j} -r_{j}^{2}
\delta_{\beta,\gamma}\right)/r_{j}^{5}, \\
\label{lattcontr}$$ where the sum over $j$ refers to the sum over the surrounding point charges $q_{j}$ in the lattice a distance $r_{j}$ away. The charges $q_{j}$ are assigned as follows $$\begin{aligned}
q_{Cu}& =& +\left(2-4f_{\sigma}^{o}\right)e \nonumber \\
q_{O_{pl}} &= &-\left(2-2f_{\sigma}^{o} - x/2\right)e \nonumber \\
q_{O_{ap}}& =& -2e \nonumber \\
q_{La} &=& +3e \nonumber \\
q_{Sr} &=& +2e,
\label{charges}\end{aligned}$$ where $x$ is the nominal hole concentration, O$_{pl}$ stands for the planar oxygen site, O$_{ap}$ stands for the apical oxygen site and $e(>0)$ is the electronic charge (in emu). Note that we make use of the full difference in valency between the $^{+3}$La and $^{+2}$Sr ions. This implies that depending on the the geometrical distribution of the $^{+2}$Sr ions in the lattice, $V_{latt}^{(\beta,\gamma)}$ takes on different values. In Fig. \[patchsimul\] we illustrate an example of the random positioning of the $^{+2}$Sr ions surrounding the central Cu site from which the EFG is calculated.
The standard approach in all earlier works, except for [@singerprl], has been to set $q_{La} = q_{Sr} = -(3-x/2)$ which effectively bypasses any randomness effects and results in delta function spectra of the EFG. We start the EFG simulation by first taking $^{63}R_{patch} = \infty$ which uniformly places the donated holes $x$ from the $^{+2}$Sr ions with full mobility onto the planar O sites. The added holes reduce $|q_{O_{pl}}|$ in Eq. (\[charges\]), bearing in mind that there are two planar oxygens per unit cell. Placing the donated holes onto the planar oxygen sites as such is consistent with high energy spectroscopy studies [@fujimori].
The positions of the ions are allocated using an orthorhombic cell (shown in Fig. \[illust\]) which consists of $4 \times$(La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$) formula units, each with the K$_{2}$NiF$_{4}$ structure [@ginsberg]. Using an orthorhombic cell will later permit us to incorporate the orthorhombic distortions in section V. The absolute values of the lattice constants $[a_{o},b_{o},c]$ were calibrated at 295 K using our data from Fig. \[latt\]. The positions ${\bf r}_{j}(x,T)$ of the ions as a function of $x$ and $T$ were taken from a systematic X-ray powder diffraction study by P.G. Radaelli [*et al.*]{} [@radaelli]. The EFG calculation is naturally sensitive to inputs ${\bf r}_{j}(x,T)$, therefore we use smooth interpolation of the values ${\bf r}_{j}(x,T)$ for different $x$ in order to avoid unnessecary scattering in the output $V_{latt}^{(\beta,\gamma)}$. We also use the same thermal expansion coefficients [@radaelli; @braden2] $\alpha_{a} = +1.45\cdot 10^{-5}$ K$^{-1}$ and $\alpha_{c} = +1.42\cdot
10^{-5}$ K$^{-1}$ for all $x$, consistent with corresponding thermal coefficients found in La$_{2-x}$Ba$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$ [@suzuki].
The orthorhombic cell is then repeated in all space out to a radius of 50 Å$^{ }$ from the origin $[0,0,0]$ of the EFG calculation. The procedure for the random placement of the $^{+2}$Sr ions is carried out as follows: a different random number $\lambda$ with a flat probability distribution $0<\lambda<1$ is generated at each La site. If $\lambda >x/2$ at a particular La site, a La ion with charge $+3e$ is assigned to that site, while if $\lambda< x/2$, a Sr ion with charge $+2e$ is assigned. In equation form this gives the following prescription $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda >x/2 &(\rightarrow)& +3e \nonumber \\
\lambda <x/2 &(\rightarrow)& +2e
\label{which}\end{aligned}$$ at each La/Sr site. The factor 1/2 in the probability condition arises because there are 2 La/Sr sites per formula unit. Once this is carried out at each La site, we have achieved the particular random configuration $\kappa$ of $^{+2}$Sr ions in the lattice, an illustration of which is given in Fig. \[patchsimul\]. In our formulation, we exclude the possibility of any $^{+2}$Sr - $^{+2}$Sr clustering beyond probablilty theory, which is supported by the absence of any significant diffuse scattering in neutron diffraction experiments [@braden].
Once the random configuration $\kappa$ is determined, the summation in Eq. (\[lattcontr\]) is carried out and $^{\kappa}V_{latt}^{(\beta,\gamma)}$ is diagonalised and the principle value $^{\kappa}V_{latt}^{c}$ is stored into a vector $P_{latt}$. The calculation is computed in the tetragonal phase where the main principle axis of $^{\kappa}V_{latt}^{(\beta,\gamma)}$ is found to lie primarily along the $c$-axis (i.e. $^{\kappa}V_{latt}^{c}$ is the main principle value). We note, however, that each configuration $\kappa$ causes a slight rotation of the the main principle axis away from the $c$-axis. Strictly speaking, for each configuration $\kappa$ one should then go one step further and take the projection of the main principle value [@abragam] along the $c$-axis (i.e. along the average main principle axis). In the case of $^{63}$Cu NQR, however, the projection only makes $\sim 2$ % difference in $^{\kappa}V_{tot}^{c}$, and can be neglected.
Next, the whole lattice is re-randomized and a new random configuartion $\kappa'$ of $^{+2}$Sr ions is determined, the lattice summation in Eq. (\[loccontr\]) is computed and the new value of $^{\kappa'}V_{latt}^{c}$ is stored into $P_{latt}$. This proceedure is re-iterated $\sim 10^{4}$ times until the dimension of $P_{latt}$ is sufficiently large to create a histogram spectrum of $P_{latt}$ with $\sim 50$ bins across the lineshape, the results of which we show at 600 K in Fig. \[simul1\] as the dashed grey lines. Note that we always calculate the EFG for the Cu site at the origin using a different random configuration of $^{+2}$Sr ions for each run. An equivalent approach is to stick to one random configuration $\kappa$ for the whole sample and calculate the EFG at each Cu site in the lattice thereby building up $P_{latt}$, however, this latter approach is computationally more intense. Since we are dealing with a purely random system, both methods are equivalent, therefore we use the former method.
We notice three immediate features about the results in Fig. \[simul1\]. The first is the overall decrease in CG $\left<V_{latt}^{c}\right>$ with increasing $x$. This is a consequence of the change in lattice paramters and the decrease in $|q_{O_{pl}}|$ with increasing $x$. The second feature is the change in [*HWHM*]{} which is found to increase with increasing $x$ as a result of the increased amount of quenched disorder in the lattice. The third feature in our lattice summation is the presence of the secondary peak known as the B-line.
B-line
------
The $^{63}$Cu NQR spectrum is known to show a secondary peak known as the B-line [@yoshimura]. Generally, the origin of the B-line has been attributed to structural effects from the dopant ions [@yoshimura; @song], but the limited range of $x$ investigated in earlier studies did not allow unambiguous identification of the origin of the B-line. In fact, there has been a persistent claim that the origin of the B-line is more exotic in nature [@hammel; @martin; @stat] and originates from an intrinsic response of the material to the presence of doped holes. Such a conjecture that the B-line is an electronic rather than a structural effect was based on the observed similarity between the A-B line splitting $\sim 3$ MHz for both La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$ and La$_{2}$CuO$_{4+\delta}$ systems [@hammel; @martin; @stat]. It was thought that the same A-B line splitting between such distinct systems was clear evidence that the second site was a result of the presence of the doped holes themselves, independent of the means of doping. If this is the case, however, then it should equally well be observed in other 214 compounds such as La$_{2-x}$Ba$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$. However, a much larger A-B line splitting of $\sim 6$ MHz [@yoshimura; @hunt2] is observed in La$_{2-x}$Ba$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$ where the $^{+2}$Ba ion is known to cause much larger ionic size effect disorder [@bozin] than the $^{+2}$Sr ion, and which also stablizes an additional structural phase transition at low temperatures [@suzuki]. We also recall that the $^{63}$Cu NQR spectrum in La$_{2-x-y}$Eu$_{y}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$ for $^{63}$Cu isotope enriched samples [@hunt2] shows a third structural peak (the C-line) whose fractional intensity is observed equal $y$. The C-line corresponds to a Cu nucleus directly above or below a Eu$^{3+}$ ion.
In Fig. \[fab\] we present the experimental value of the relative intensity ($f_{B}^{exp}$) of the B-line ($I_{B}$) to the total (${I_{A}+I_{B}}$) defined as such $$f_{B}^{exp} = \frac{I_{B}}{I_{A}+I_{B}},
\label{bline}$$ where both $I_{A}$ and $I_{B}$ have been corrected for differences in spin-spin relaxation rates. Typically, $^{63}T_{2,A}/^{63}T_{2,B} \sim 0.85$ for both components of the spin-spin relaxation rate [@T2G], similar to the ratio of $^{63}1/T_{1}$. Our data in Fig. \[fab\] shows that $f_{B}^{exp} \simeq x$ over a large range of $0.04 \leq x \leq 0.20$, which is consistent with the EFG simulation where $f_{B} = x$. According to the EFG simulation, the Cu B-sites (illustrated in Fig. \[illust\]) correspond to Cu nuclei located at ${\bf r} = [n_{a}a,n_{b}a,n_{c}c]$ (where $[n_{a},n_{b},n_{c}]$ are $\pm$ integers ranging from zero to $\infty$), which have distinct EFG values due to the presence of $^{+2}$Sr ions located at positions ${\bf r} = [n_{a}a,n_{b}a,(n_{c} \pm 0.361)c]$. In this interpretation, the relative intensity of such Cu sites ($f_{B}$) is then given by the concentration of $^{+2}$Sr ions $x$, i.e. $f_{B} = x$. This site assignment for the B-site Cu nuclei can naturally account for the observed relative intensity $f_{B}^{exp} \simeq x$ (Fig. \[fab\]).
Other evidence that the B-line is primarily structural in origin is the similarity in the frequency dependence of $^{63}1/T_{1,B}$ to $^{63}1/T_{1,A}$ (Fig. \[300T1f\]). The similarity between in the frequency dependence of $^{63}1/T_{1,k}$ indicates that the length scale of the spatial variation in $^{63}x_{local}$ is $larger$ than the average $^{+2}$Sr - $^{+2}$Sr distance $l_{Sr} =
a/\sqrt{x}$, or equivalently the average B-site to B-site distance. Later we show that the deduced length scale $^{63}R_{patch} \gtrsim 3$ nm is larger than $l_{Sr}$ in the region of interest $x>0.02$. Furthermore, as shown in Fig. \[deltax\], $^{63}x_{local}$ across the B-line is consistent with $^{63}x_{local}$ across the A-line.
We also note that in Fig. \[T1B\], $^{63}T_{1,A}/ ^{63}T_{1,B}$ = 0.9-0.84, i.e. that $^{63}1/T_{1,B}$ is uniformly suppressed compared with $^{63}1/T_{1,A}$. Our systmetic study up to $x=0.20$ showed that in the overdoped region $x \geq 0.20$, $^{63}1/T_{1}$ increases with increasing $x$. This implies that if there is hole localisation in the vicinity of a Cu B-site as claimed in Ref. [@hammel; @martin; @stat], then $^{63}1/T_{1,B}$ at the B-site should be $larger$ than $^{63}1/T_{1,A}$ in the case of $x=0.16$. Fig. \[T1B\] clearly shows that this is not the case, and further supports our interpretation that the B-line is primarily structural in origin. The most likely explanation for $^{63}T_{1,A}/^{63}T_{1,B} = 0.9-0.84$ (and $^{63}T_{2,A}/^{63}T_{2,B}$) is that the hyperfine coupling constant $|^{63}A({\bf Q_{AF}})^{\perp}|$ is 5-10 % lower at the B-site due to the increased lattice distortions in the vicinity of a $^{+2}$Sr ion. It is known from XAFS [@haskelrapid] that the $^{+2}$Sr ion causes large structural distortions in its vicinity, which could well account for such changes in the hyperfine couplings.
EFG $\rightarrow ^{63}\nu_{Q}$
------------------------------
We now proceed with our simulation taking the B-site assignment shown in Fig. \[illust\]. We can separate the A and B-sites within the calculation by separating any randomly generated $^{\kappa}V_{latt}^{c}$ value with a $^{+2}$Sr ion in a position illustrated in Fig. \[illust\], and placing it into a new vector $P_{latt}^{B}$ , while placing all other generated $^{\kappa}V_{latt}^{c}$ values into another vector $P_{latt}^{A}$. This allows us to separate the A and B-lines as shown by the solid black lines in Fig. \[simul1\], and we attach the superscript $k = (A,B)$ to $^{\kappa}V_{latt}^{c,k}$. The first and second moments of the lattice contribution to the EFG are then computed as such $$\begin{aligned}
\left<V_{latt}^{c,k} \right> &=&\frac{\sum_{j} P_{j,latt}^{k} }{\sum_{j}} \nonumber \\
\Delta V_{latt}^{c} &= &\sqrt{\alpha_{0}} \cdot \sqrt{\frac{\sum_{j}
\left(P_{j,latt}^{k}-\left<V_{latt}^{c,k}\right> \right)^{2}}{\sum_{j}}}.
\label{meanwidth2}\end{aligned}$$ In order to determine the total EFG defined in Eq. (\[sepvq\]) , we now determine the anti-shielding factors for both the A and B-lines from the CG data as such $$\left<^{63}\nu_{Q}^{k} \right> = \frac{e^{63}Q}{2h} \cdot \left(
\zeta_{3d}^{k} \cdot V_{3d}^{c}+
\zeta_{latt}^{k} \cdot \left<V_{latt}^{c,k}\right>\right),
\label{EFGconv}$$ where we have used Eq. (\[sepvq\]) and Eq. (\[meanwidth2\]), along with the experimental data $\left<^{63}\nu_{Q}^{k} \right>$ (see appendix A for more details). Eq. (\[EFGconv\]) and the anti-shielding factors convert the CG of the EFG simulation to the CG of the experimentally observed data.
We are now in a position to convert each EFG value ($^{\kappa}V_{latt}^{c,k}$) stored in $P_{latt}^{k}$ into a frequency as such $$^{\kappa}\nu^{k} = \frac{e^{63}Q}{2h} \cdot \left(
\zeta_{3d}^{k} \cdot V_{3d}^{c}+
\zeta_{latt}^{k} \cdot {}^{\;\kappa}V_{latt}^{c,k}\right).
\label{EFGconv2}$$ Using Eq. (\[EFGconv\]) and Eq. (\[EFGconv2\]), we can finally predict the intrinsic lattice linebroadening ($\Delta \nu_{latt}^{k}$) as such $$\Delta \nu_{latt}^{k} = \frac{e|^{63}Q|}{2h} \cdot \zeta_{latt}^{k} \cdot \Delta V_{latt}^{c}.
\label{broad}$$ First, note that in Eq. (\[broad\]) and Eq. (\[meanwidth2\]) we have $not$ attach a superscript $k=(A,B)$ to $\Delta V_{latt}^{c}$. This is because the EFG simulation predicts the $same$ width $\Delta V_{latt}^{c}$ for both the A and B-lines. Second, note that we have assumed that the total width from the calculation $\Delta
\nu_{latt} ^{k}$ is proportional to the intrinsic lattice width $\Delta V_{latt}^{c}$ with NO corresponding width from the onsite contribution, i.e. $\Delta
V_{3d}^{c} =0$. We justify this by the fact that the ratio of widths between the A and B-lines is experimentally found to be $^{63}\Delta\nu_{Q}^{B}/ ^{63\!\!}\Delta \nu_{Q}^{A} \simeq 0.63$ in the temperature region $T>T_{Q}$. According to appendix A, this ratio is closer to the ratio of the anti-shielding factors for the lattice contribution $\zeta_{latt}^{B}/\zeta_{latt}^{A} = 0.67$ than for the onsite contribution $\zeta_{3d}^{B}/ \zeta_{3d}^{A} = 0.89$. Note that the anti-shielding factors are deduced without any information about the widths, therefore taking $\Delta
V_{3d}^{c} =0$ is justified.
Up to this point in the EFG simulation, we have taken care of the linebroadening due to the random placement of $^{+2}$Sr ions in the lattice (mechanism (a)), however, we are still assuming that the holes are uniformily distributed across the plane, i.e. $^{63}R_{patch} = \infty$. Clearly this is not the whole picture since our calculation of $\Delta
\nu_{latt}^{k} $ underestimates the observed linewidth $^{63}\Delta \nu_{Q}^{k}$ by a factor $\sim 2$, as can be seen in Fig. \[300T1f2\].
$^{63}R_{patch}$ Simulation
---------------------------
The introduction of the spatial variation in local hole concentration $^{63}x_{local}$ into the EFG calculation is an extension of what we have described in arriving at the intrinsic width $\Delta
\nu_{latt}^{k} $. We start by randomly positioning the $^{+2}$Sr donor ions into the $^{+3}$La sites as described earlier. Next, we define a patch (i.e. a circle) of radius $^{63}R_{patch}$ around the Cu site at the origin, as shown in Fig. \[patchsimul\]. We then determine the total number of Cu sites $N^{R_{patch}}$ within $^{63}R_{patch}$ by multipying the area ($\pi ^{63\!}R_{patch}^{2}$) the patch covers by the areal Cu density ($1/a^{2}$) as such $$N^{R_{patch}} = \frac{\pi ^{63\!}R_{patch}^{2}}{a^{2}},
\label{NCu}$$ where we round $N^{R_{patch}}$ to the nearest integer. These $N^{R_{patch}}$ Cu sites within the radius $^{63}R_{patch}$ will uniformly share the donated holes from neighbouring $^{+2}$Sr ions. Next, we determine how many donated holes $N_{Sr}^{\kappa}$ are to be shared within $^{63}R_{patch}$, where $N_{Sr}^{\kappa}$ itself is the random number to be calculated. As shown in Fig. \[illust\], there are two distinct Sr/La sites (labeled $d_{1}$ and $d_{2}$), from which we can donate holes. This comes about because there are two distinct Sr/La sites within the unit cell. For donation of holes from $d_{1}$, we accept a donor hole into $^{63}R_{patch}$ provided there is a $^{+2}$Sr ion which satisfies the position (in tetragonal notation) $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf r}^{d_{1}} &=& [n_{a} a, n_{b} a, \pm 0.361 c] \nonumber \\
\sqrt{n_{a}^{2}+n_{b}^{2}} &<& ^{63}R_{patch}/a
\label{d1}\end{aligned}$$ relative to the origin. For donation of holes from $d_{2}$, we accept a donor hole into $^{63}R_{patch}$ provided there is a $^{+2}$Sr ion which satisfies the position $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf r}^{d_{2}} &= &[(n_{a}+1/2) a, (n_{b}+1/2) a, \pm 0.139 c] \nonumber \\
\sqrt{n_{a}^{2}+n_{b}^{2}} &<& ^{63}R_{patch}/a,
\label{d2}\end{aligned}$$ and in both cases, $n_{a}$ and $n_{b}$ are $\pm$ integers ranging from zero to $\infty$. We do not a priori know which site $d_{1}$ or $d_{2}$ are the donor sites, or if the donors come from a combination of $d_{1}$ and $d_{2}$. We therefore treat both or combinations of both as equal possibilities. Technically, the n.n. (nearest neighbour) $d_{2}$ is the closest hole donor to the central Cu nucleus when occupied by a $^{+2}$Sr ion. The n.n. $d_{1}$ site on the other hand has more bonding with the central Cu via the apical oxygens. The n.n $d_{1}$ site has the largest effect on $^{63} \nu_{Q}$ when occupied by a $^{+2}$Sr ion and in particular gives rise to the B-site.
Once we have counted all the $N_{Sr}^{\kappa}$ satisfying either Eq. (\[d1\]) or Eq. (\[d2\]) for a particular random configuration of $^{+2}$Sr ions $\kappa$, we deduce the local hole concentration $^{63}x_{local}^{\kappa}$ as such $$^{63}x_{local}^{\kappa} = N_{Sr}^{\kappa} / N^{R_{patch}}.
\label{xlocal}$$ We now carryout the EFG summation in Eq. (\[loccontr\]) for the particular configuration of $^{+2}$Sr ions $\kappa$, where the planar oxygen charge $q_{O_{pl}}$ in Eq. (\[charges\]) is replaced by $$q_{O_{pl}}^{\kappa} = -\left(2-2f_{\sigma}^{o} -
^{63\!}x_{local}^{\kappa}/2 \right)e
\label{qnew}$$ for all planar oxygens within the patch radius $^{63}R_{patch}$. All other planar oxygen sites outside the radius $^{63}R_{patch}$, including those on other CuO$_{2}$ planes, are assigned the uniform hole concentration $x$. Using this scheme effectively ignores 3-d correlations of $^{63}x_{local}^{\kappa}$ from neighbouring CuO$_{2}$ planes, however, such effects are small and of higher order.
As before, we then convert $^{\kappa}V_{latt}^{c,k}$ into a frequency using Eq. (\[EFGconv2\]) and we store $^{\kappa}\nu^{k}$ into a vector $P_{R}^{k}$. The position of the $^{+2}$Sr ions are then re-randomized to obtain a new random configuration $\kappa'$, then a new value of $^{\kappa'} \nu^{k}$ is deduced and stored into $P_{R}^{k}$. This procedure is repeated $\sim 10^{4}$ times until a sufficient number of data points exist in $P_{R}^{k}$ so as to create a histogram spectrum of the lineshape over $\sim$50 bins. The CG of the spectra $\left<P_{R}^{k}\right>$ coincide with the experimental data $\left<^{63}\nu_{Q}^{k}\right> $ (Eq. (\[EFGconv\])), while a new [*HWHM*]{} ($\Delta \nu_{R_{patch}}^{k}$) is determined as such $$\Delta \nu_{R_{patch}}^{k} = \sqrt{\alpha_{0}} \cdot \sqrt{\frac{\sum_{j}
\left(P_{j,R}^{k}-\left<^{63}\nu_{Q}^{k}\right> \right)^{2}}{\sum_{j}}}.
\label{meanwidth3}$$
We then repeat this whole procedure and calculate $\Delta \nu_{R_{patch}}^{k}$ for various values of $^{63}R_{patch}$, the results of which are shown in Fig. \[corr\] for the A-line. The results for the B-line are the same but with a uniform decrease $\Delta \nu_{R_{patch}}^{B}/\Delta \nu_{R_{patch}} ^{A} = \zeta_{latt}^{B} /
\zeta_{latt}^{A} (= 0.67$) for all $^{63}R_{patch}$. Also shown in Fig. \[corr\] is how to deduce the best fit value of $^{63}R_{patch}$ to the lineshape at 600 K. We match experimental values of $\Delta \nu_{Q}^{k}$ (shown by the grey horizontal line) to the calculation shown by the solid black curves, and extrapolate $^{63}R_{patch}$ shown by the grey vertical arrows.
Note that according to the arrows, $^{63}R_{patch}^{d_{2}}$ deduced using dopants from $^{+2}$Sr ions at $d_{2}$ is 15 % smaller than $^{63}R_{patch}^{d_{1}}$ deduced using dopants from $^{+2}$Sr ions at $d_{1}$. Put in another way, when we do the calculation for fixed $^{63}R_{patch}$, we deduce a $\sim$ 15 % smaller value of $\Delta \nu_{R_{patch}^{d_{2}}}^{k}$ compared to $\Delta \nu_{R_{patch}^{d_{1}}}^{k}$. The reason for $\Delta \nu_{R_{patch}^{d_{2}}}^{k} < \Delta \nu_{R_{patch}^{d_{1}}}^{k}$ can be explained by a correlation between the local hole concentration $^{63}x_{local}^{\kappa}$ on the planar oxygens and the $^{+2}$Sr donor ions in n.n. positions to the origin. The result of adding one hole from a n.n. $^{+2}$Sr ion amounts to two separate shifts to the resonance frequency. The first shift is from the added hole itself which decreases of magnitude of the surrounding planar oxygen charge $|q_{O_{pl}}|$ and results in a large $increase$ in the resonance frequency, regardless of the hole’s origin. We shall define this shift as $\delta \nu^{pl} (>0)$. The second effect of adding one hole from a n.n. $^{+2}$Sr donor ion is from the n.n. $^{+2}$Sr ion itself which results in a shift $\delta \nu^{Sr}$, however, the sign of shift $\delta \nu^{Sr}$ depends on whether it is at $d_{2}$ or $d_{1}$.
Let us imagine scenario (1) where the added hole specifically comes from a $^{+2}$Sr ion in the n.n.n. (next nearest neighbour) $d_{1}$ site. We do not use the n.n. $d_{1}$ site in this case since this is the B-line which, according to the simulation, shows the $same$ difference $\Delta \nu_{R_{patch}^{d_{2}}}^{B} / \Delta \nu_{R_{patch}^{d_{1}}}^{B} (\simeq 0.85$) as the A-line. It can be shown that a $^{+2}$Sr ion in the n.n.n. $d_{1}$ site causes a small positive shift $\delta \nu^{d_{1}} >0$, therefore the total shift $\delta \nu ^{(1)}$ in scenario (1) is given by $\left(\delta \nu^{pl} + \delta \nu^{d_{1}}\right) = \delta \nu ^{(1)} (>0)$ where both components are positive and enhance the total effect. Next let us imagine scenario (2) where the $^{+2}$Sr ion from which the added hole came from is specifically located at a n.n. $d_{2}$ position to the origin. It can be shown that placing a $^{+2}$Sr ion at the n.n. $d_{2}$ position causes a small $negative$ shift $\delta \nu^{d_{2}} <0$ to the resonance frequency. The total shift $\delta \nu^{(2)}$ in scenario (2) is therefore given by $\left(\delta \nu ^{pl} + \delta \nu ^{d_{2}}\right) = \delta \nu ^{(2)} (>0)$ where the individual components counteract each other. Therefore, in scenario (1) the overall positive shift to the resonance frequency is enhanced while in scenario (2) it is reduced. After many random runs which include the independent random effects from distant $^{+2}$Sr ions, scenario (1) will lead to a larger overall spread, therefore $\Delta \nu_{R_{patch}^{d_{2}}}^{k} < \Delta \nu_{R_{patch}^{d_{1}}}^{k}$.
$^{63}R_{patch}$ Results
------------------------
In Fig. \[600Kf\] we show the results for the best fit to the lineshape data at 600 K. Note that the observed asymmetry of the A and B-lines for $x \geq 0.04$ are well reproduced within the model without any additional parameters. The fits shown in Fig. \[600Kf\] are deduced using $d_{1}$ dopants with $^{63}R_{patch}^{d_{1}}$, however the [*same*]{} fits can be deduced using $d_{2}$ dopants with $^{63}R_{patch}^{d_{2}}$. The best fit values of $^{63}R_{patch}^{d_{1}}$ and $^{63}R_{patch}^{d_{2}}$ are shown in Fig. \[600Kx\](a). In Fig. \[600Kf\] we also show the data and fit for $x=0.02$. As can be seen, however, the asymmetry in the experimentally observed line-profile for $x=0.02$ is somewhat larger that our patch model can predict, hence we show the fit as a dashed line. It is interesting to note that in the range $x \leq 0.02$, $^{63}R_{patch}^{d_{1}}$ and $^{63}R_{patch}^{d_{2}}$ tend towards the average donor separation distance $l_{Sr}
=a/\sqrt{x}$, as shown in Fig. \[600Kx\]. If $^{63}R_{patch} \simeq
l_{Sr} $, our model implies that each patch only covers one $^{+2}$Sr ion on average. In such a senario we no longer expect our model to account for the data. In fact, the critical region $x = 0.02$ which separates the spin-glass phase and the anti-ferromagnetic phase for $x \leq 0.02$ [@cho] is known to show complex behaviour [@rigamonti].
We also note in Fig. \[600Kf\] that the intensity of the B-line is slightly underestimated by the calculation compared with the experimental data. This is simply due to the fact that the spin-spin relaxation rate is experimentally $\sim$ 15 % smaller at the B-site together with the fact that we are measuring the data points using $\tau =
12$ $\mu$s. After correcting for differences in the spin-spin relaxation rate, the observed relative intensity of the B-line decreases slightly and is found to go as $f_{B}^{exp} \simeq
x$ (Fig. \[fab\]), which is then consistent with the simulation. In order to fit the NQR spectrum in Fig. \[600Kf\], we have attributed all of the extra line broadening to $^{63}R_{patch}$. In Fig. \[600Kx\](b) we compare the experimentally observed width $^{63}\Delta \nu_{Q}^{A}$ with the calculated intrinsic width $\Delta \nu_{latt}^{A}$.
In Fig. \[300KX\] we show the same plot as Fig. \[600Kx\] except at 300 K, where the $^{63}R_{patch}$ are deduced in a similar way to 600 K shown in Fig. \[corr\]. At 300 K, we see an effect not present at 600 K, namely that the observed linewidth $^{63}\Delta \nu_{Q}^{A}$ for $x \leq 0.115$ in Fig. \[300KX\](b) no longer decreases with decreasing $x$ as it does at 600 K. Also shown in Fig. \[300KX\] is the onset of the LRO orthorhombic phase [@yamada] shown as the dashed lines through the data points. The result of the observed enhancement of the linewidths $^{63}\Delta \nu_{Q}^{A}$ for $x \leq 0.115$ in Fig. \[300KX\](b) results in a large drop in the calculated $^{63}R_{patch}$ shown in Fig. \[300KX\](a). Comparing the $x$ dependence in $^{63}R_{patch}$ within the tetragonal phase at 600 K and at 300 K for $x \geq 0.115$ seems to suggest that $^{63}R_{patch}$ is more or less $x$ independent $provided$ that the local lattice distortions do not dramatically enhance the observed NQR linebroadening.
The effects of the orthorhombic distortions can also be seen in Fig. \[corrT\] where we plot the temperature dependence of the average $^{63}R_{patch}$ defined as such $$^{63}R_{patch} = \left( ^{63}R_{patch}^{d_{1}}+
^{63}R_{patch}^{d_{2}}\right)/2 .
\label{ave}$$ We chose to plot the average value $^{63}R_{patch}$ alone for clarity. This corresponds to a simulation where half of the donors come from $d_{1}$ sites and half come from $d_{2}$ sites. In Fig. \[corrT\] the black and grey lines correspond to regions above and below $T_{Q}$ taken from Fig. \[nuqall\], while the dashed black line shows the onset of LRO $T_{st}$ [@yamada]. In the case of $x=0.04$ we clearly see a dip in $^{63}R_{patch}$ below $T_{Q}\simeq T_{st}$ which is most likely due to the fact that we have neglected distributions in the local orthorhombic distortions. In section V we make the reasonable assumption that $^{63}R_{patch}$ for $x=0.04$ continues to decrease lineaarly (defined as $^{63}R_{patch}'$) with decreasing temperature below $T_{Q}$, similar to $x \geq 0.115$ samples. Assuming that $^{63}R_{patch}'$ is the underlying length scale will allow us to estimate the distribution in local orthorhombic distortions.
We also remark that similar patch-by-patch models of disordered doping in the CuO$_{2}$ plane have been independently used to account for the smeared density of states found in photoemission peaks as a result of a distribution in the superconducting gap [@bala]. In such models the only free parameter used to account for the smoothness of the density of states is the length scale of the model which is determined by the in plane superconducting coherence length $\xi_{ab} \sim 2.0-3.0$ nm. It is interesting to note that in the case of $x=0.16$, the lower bound $^{63}R_{patch} \gtrsim 2.5 \pm 0.5$ nm in the region of $T_{c}$ is comparable to $\xi_{ab} \simeq 3.3$ nm in thin films [@suzukicoh].
$^{63}\Delta x_{patch}$ Results
-------------------------------
In the temperature region above $T_{Q}$, we can also deduce an upper boundary $^{63} x_{patch}$ for the spatial variation $^{63}x_{local}$ without any further computation. We proceed as described above, but for each random lattice configuration $\kappa$, we also store each value $^{63}x_{local}^{\kappa}$ (used to compute $^{\kappa}
\nu_{Q}^{k}$) into a new vector $X_{local}^{k}$. We then build up a vector $X_{local}^{k}$ of randomly distributed local hole concentrations for each lattice configuration $\kappa$. The mean of the set $X_{local}^{k}$ is just the nominal value $\left<X_{local}^{k}\right> = x$, while the effective [*HWHM*]{} $^{63}\Delta x_{patch}$ (defined in an analogous manner to Eq. (\[meanwidth2\])) is found to be independent of which site $k=(A,B)$ is computed. By deducing $^{63}\Delta x_{patch}$ over a large range of the free parameters $\left[x,^{63}R_{patch}\right]$, we find our calculated values of $^{63}\Delta
x_{patch}$ fit well to the Binomial theorem $$\begin{aligned}
^{63}\Delta x_{patch} &=& \sqrt{\alpha_{0}} \cdot
\sqrt{\frac{x(1-x)}{N^{R_{patch}}} } \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{a}{^{63}R_{patch}} \cdot \sqrt{x(1-x)} \cdot \sqrt{\frac{\alpha_{0}}{\pi}},
\label{halfbin}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the relation in Eq. (\[NCu\]) for the second line. In Fig. \[deltax\] we show the temperature dependence of $^{63}
x_{patch}$ using Eq. (\[equan2\]) and Eq. (\[halfbin\]) for $^{63}R_{patch}$ defined in Eq. (\[ave\]). Using $^{63}R_{patch}^{d_{1}}$($^{63}R_{patch}^{d_{2}}$) instead of Eq. (\[ave\]) results in a small $-(+)7$ % variation in $^{63}\Delta
x_{patch}$, respectively. The fact that $^{63}x_{patch} \sim
^{63}x_{local} $ suggests that (a) our patch-by-patch model is appropriate in describing the spatial variation in $^{63}x_{local}$, (b) our estimate of the intrinsic lattice broadening $^{63}\Delta \nu _{latt}$ is correct in the temperature region above $T_{Q}$, and (c) the static value $^{63}x_{patch} $ deduced from the lineshape analysis is consistent with the low frequency dynamic value $^{63}
x_{local}$ deduced using $^{63}1/T_{1}$.
Orthorhombic Lattice Distortions
================================
Local Order Parameter
---------------------
In the orthorhombic phase, the CuO$_{6}$ octahedra are tilted by an angle $\theta_{c} \leq
5^{o}$ [@radaelli] away from the $c$-axis towards the $b_{o}$-axis, and the primitive lattice constants in the plane are split ($b_{o} > a_{o}$). We can calculate the effect of these distortions to the EFG by placing the ions in an orthorhombic cell (see Fig. \[illust\]) with appropriate orthorhombic modulations [@ginsberg; @radaelli] and compute the changes to the $^{63}\nu_{Q}$. However, we already know from Fig. \[nuqall\] that $^{63}\nu_{Q}$ starts to increase above the structural phase transition temperature $T_{st}$ deduced from neutron and X-ray diffraction results [@radaelli]. These bulk probes detect LRO, whereas NQR is a local probe, therefore it is more appropriate to deduce the local orthorhombic distortions from our $^{63}\nu_{Q}$ data, and then compare them with LRO results.
The orthorhombic distortions cannot [*a priori*]{} be deduced from the NQR data alone. We must first take certain know relations from LRO results and apply them to NQR. In particular, we shall use the neutron diffraction results reported by P.G. Radaelli [*et al*]{} [@radaelli] which demonstrate that certain measured orthorhombic parameters such as the orthorhombic splitting $(b_{o} -
a_{o})$, the octahedron tilting angle $\theta_{c} (\leq 5^{o}$) which measures the departure angle of the O$_{ap}$-Cu-O$_{ap}$ bond from the $c$-axis, and the “scissors” angle $\theta_{scis} (\leq
90^{o}$) which measures the O$_{pl}$-Cu-O$_{pl}$ angle, are all related to powers of the underlying orthorhombic [*order parameter*]{} we define as $\theta_{LRO}(x,T)$.
At low temperatures ($\lesssim 70$ K) where lattice fluctuations are small, mean-field theory gives a good account of the observed lattice distortions [@radaelli]. In light of this, we fit the data in Ref. [@radaelli] to a mean-field like form and deduced $$\begin{aligned}
\theta_{c} & \simeq & \theta_{LRO}(x,T) \nonumber \\
\theta_{scis} &\simeq & 90 - 4 \cdot 10^{-2} \cdot
\left[\theta_{LRO}(x,T)\right]^{2} \nonumber \\
(b_{o} - a_{o}) & \simeq & 6 \cdot 10^{-4} \cdot \frac{(b_{o} + a_{o})}{2} \cdot
\left[\theta_{LRO}(x,T)\right]^{2}
\label{constraint}\end{aligned}$$ where all angles are in degrees. These set of equations provide a constraint for the orthorhombic distortions which determine the positions ${\bf r}_{j}(x,T)$ of the $j$th ion in the lattice. We now [*assume*]{} that the LRO constraints in Eq. (\[constraint\]) also apply to the $local$ constraints which determine the local position ${\bf r}_{j}(x,T)$ of the $j$th ion in the lattice (i.e. $\theta_{LRO}(x,T) \rightarrow \theta_{local}(x,T)$ in Eq. (\[constraint\])).
The EFG lattice summation in Eq. (\[lattcontr\]) is now carried out in a similar way as described in section IV but with the orthorhombic distortions incorporated into the positions of the ions. The positions ${\bf r}_{j}(x,T)$ of the ions are deduced using the absolute values of the lattice constants $a_{o}$ and $c$ at 295 K from Fig. \[latt\] along with their corresponding thermal coefficients $\alpha_{a}$ and $\alpha_{c}$ as before, however, we allow $b_{o}$ to vary according to the constraints in Eq. (\[constraint\]) and the unknown local structural parameter $\theta_{local}(x,T)$. We position the La/Sr ions and the apical oxygen ions according to the tilting angle $\theta_{c} =
\theta_{local}(x,T)$ towards the $b_{o}$ direction, while the planar oxygens are positioned according to $\theta_{sc}$ in Eq. (\[constraint\]) and $\theta_{local}(x,T)$. We now have all the ionic positions ${\bf
r}_{j}(x,T)$ as a function of $\theta_{local}(x,T)$. Just as in section IV, we then compute the EFG lattice summation and resonance frequency $^{\kappa}\nu^{k}$ (Eq. (\[EFGconv2\])) for the random configuration $\kappa$ and patch radius $^{63}R_{patch}$, however, the EFG lattice summation is taken using the tilted ionic positions specified by $\theta_{local}(x,T)$. We store $^{\kappa}\nu^{k}$ into a vector $P_{\theta}^{k}$ and re-randomize the lattice until $P_{\theta}^{k}$ is sufficiently large to build a histogram spectrum. We define the new CG $\left<P_{\theta}^{k}\right>$ incorporating finite $\theta_{local}$ as $ \left<\nu_{\theta}^{k}\right>$.
The results of the simulation suggest that the increase in the CG due to $\theta_{local}$ $alone$ goes as $$\left<\nu_{\theta}^{k}\right> - \left<\nu_{\theta=0}^{k}\right> \simeq c^{k} \cdot \left< \theta_{local}^{2} \right>,
\label{deltatheta}$$ where $c^{A} \simeq $ + 0.14 MHz/\[deg.$^{2}$\] and $c^{B} (\sim \frac{\zeta_{latt}^{B}}{\zeta_{latt}^{A}} \cdot c^{A}) \simeq $ + 0.08 MHz/\[deg.$^{2}$\] are $x$ and $T$ independent within $\sim \pm 15$ %. Note that NQR does not distinguish between $\pm \theta_{local}$, but only the average square magnitude $\left< \theta_{local}^{2} \right>$ across the whole sample. Another conclusion we deduce from the calculation is that after diagonalizing the EFG tensor, the main principle axis is found to be tilted an angle $|\theta_{NQR}|$ away from the $c$-axis (where $\theta_{NQR} \simeq 0.9 \cdot \theta_{local}$), while the EFG asymmetry parameter $\eta$ remains small $\eta < 0.06$.
We are now in a position to deduce the average $\left<
\theta_{local}^{2} \right>$ from our experimental data $\left<^{63}\nu_{Q}^{k}\right>$ (Fig. \[nuqall\]). In the spirit of the LRO results, we deduced the temperature dependence of $\left< \theta_{local}^{2} \right> $ (presented in Fig. \[theta\]) from the $\left<^{63}\nu_{Q}^{k}\right>$ data assuming the paramteric form $$\left< \theta_{local}^{2} \right> = \left< \theta_{local}^{2}
\right>^{0} \cdot
\left(\frac{T_{Q}-T}{T_{Q}}\right)^{2 \beta_{local}},
\label{order}$$ where $ \left< \theta_{local}^{2}\right>^{0} $ is the square averaged tilting angle at $T=0$ K, $\beta_{local}$ is the reduced temperature coefficient, and $T_{Q}$ is local onset temperature for the orhorhombic distortions. All three free parameters in Eq. (\[order\]) depend on $x$ and are optimized to fit $\left<^{63}\nu_{Q}^{k}\right>$ (in Fig. \[nuqall\]). The best fit to the $\left<^{63}\nu_{Q}^{k}\right>$ are shown as the black and grey curves in Fig. \[nuqall\], and the corresponding temperature dependence of $\left<
\theta_{local}^{2} \right>$ is shown in Fig. \[theta\]. In Fig. \[thetasumm\] we summarize the $x$ dependence of best fit values $ \left< \theta_{local}^{2} \right>^{0}$, $\beta_{local}$ and $T_{Q}$. We compare these parameters with equivalent mean field parameters $\left<\theta_{LRO}^{0}\right>^{2}$, $\beta$ and $T_{st}$ according to LRO [@radaelli; @yamada], shown as the solid grey lines in Fig. \[thetasumm\].
In the case of $x=0.0$, all three parameters deduced by NQR are consistent with equivalent LRO parameters deduced by neutron and X-ray diffraction. We find that $\beta_{local} \simeq 0.34$ according to NQR for $x=0.0$, which is consistent with the LRO critical exponent $\beta \simeq 0.30$ according to neutron and X-ray scattering for all $x$ [@beta; @ginsberg]. A similar critical exponent is also found in La$_{2-x}$Ba$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$ where $\beta = 0.33$ [@suzuki], which are all consistent with the theoretical predictions from a 3d $X-Y$ model.
For $x\geq 0.04$ we find consistent values between $ \left< \theta_{local}^{2} \right>^{0}$ and $\left<\theta_{LRO}^{0}\right>^{2}$. In the case of $\beta_{local}$ and $T_{Q}$ for $x > 0.04$, however, we find qualitative differences with the LRO parameters $\beta$ and $T_{st}$, respectively. The fact that $\beta_{local} \sim 1$ for $x > 0.04$ indicates that locally, the transition into the orthorhombic phase is smeared out in temperature. The fact that $T_{Q} \gtrsim 400$ K indicates that the local onset temperature remains large and roughly $x$ independent.
In order to account for the differences between local and LRO structural results one must first recall that our NQR results measure the local square deviation $\left< \theta_{local}^{2} \right>$, while the diffraction results measure the coherent average $\left< \theta_{LRO} \right>$ across the sample. One must also leave open the possibility that the orthorhombic structural transition for $x>0.04$ is partly order-disorder and partly displacive in nature. In an order-disorder dominated structural transition (as proposed by other local probes [@bozin; @haskel] in the region $x>0.15$), $\theta_{local}$ is argued to be finite and temperature [*independent*]{} in the LRO tetragonal phase ($T>T_{st}$), while $\left< \theta_{LRO}
\right> = 0$ when averaged over large ($\gtrsim 10$ nm) length scales. In such a scenario, one can picture certain short length scale regions ($\ll 10$ nm) which align along the positive $b_{o}$ direction where $\left< \theta_{local}
\right> > 0$, while an equal number of other regions align along the negative $b_{o}$ direction with $\left< \theta_{local}
\right> < 0$, therefore $\left< \theta_{LRO}
\right> = 0$. The temperature dependence in an order-disorder type transition does not involve a $T$ dependence in the magnitude of $| \theta_{local}| $ itself. Instead, the $T$ dependence lies in the coherent orientation of the local regions towards a particular direction, for arguments sake say along positive $b_{o}$ direction. The coherent average of the first moment $\left< \theta_{LRO} \right> $ will then be finite and positive ($\left< \theta_{LRO}
\right> > 0$), and will [*appear*]{} to increase with decreasing temperature as more and more local regions in the sample choose to align along the positive $b_{o}$ direction.
In a displacive dominated structural transition (as argued for $x \leq 0.04$), the magnitude of $| \theta_{local}| $ itself increases with decreasing temperature below $T_{st}$ and $all$ the local regions in the sample align along the same $b_{o}$ direction. Our new NQR results combined with LRO results support a displacive structural transition for $x\lesssim 0.04$, while a mixture of displacive and order-disorder type transition occurs in the region $x> 0.04$. For $x>0.04$ below $T<T_{Q}$, NQR indicates that locally the octahedra start to tilt in a displacive manner (i.e. the tilting angle of each octahedra increases with decreasing temperature below $T<T_{Q}$ and $ \left<
\theta_{local}^{2} \right> >0$). In the region $T_{st} < T <T_{Q}$, $\theta_{local}$ continues to increase yet there continue to be an equal number of regions with positive and negative tilting with respect to the $b_{o}$ direction, and therefore $\left< \theta_{LRO} \right> = 0 $. In the region $T< T_{st}$, $\theta_{local}$ continues to increase with decreasing temperature, however, the local regions start to coherently align along one direction (say along the positive $b_{o}$ direction), and $\left< \theta_{LRO} \right> > 0 $. This interpretation is entirely consistent with other local probes [@bozin; @haskel], but in addition we have deduced the onset temperature $T_{Q}$ for the local orthorhombic distortions. In the case of $x=0.20$ we find that $T_{Q} \sim 350$ K even though the LRO structural transition disappears [@yamada].
Distribution in Local Parameter
-------------------------------
In all of our analysis of the $^{63}$Cu NQR linebroadening thus far, we have ignored potential linebroadening from local lattice distortions. In the previous part of this section, we deduced the temperature dependence of the square $average$ distortions $ \left<
\theta_{local}^{2} \right> $ across the sample using the CG data $\left<^{63}\nu_{Q}^{A} \right>$. We shall now estimate the corresponding $distribution$ of $\theta_{local}$ using the [*HWHM*]{} of the NQR spectrum, $^{63}\Delta \nu_{Q}^{A}$. As discussed earlier, the three linebroadening mechanisms for the $^{63}$Cu NQR lineshape are (a) the random placement of $^{+2}$Sr ions in the lattice (b) the patch-by-patch variation in hole concentration $^{63}x_{local}$, and (c) the local lattice distortions. In section IV we used mechanisms (a) and (b) to account for the experimental data, and deduced the lower bound $^{63}R_{patch} $ for the spatial variation $^{63}x_{local}$. We shall now use all three mechanisms (a),(b) and (c) to account for the observed [*HWHM*]{} data $^{63}\Delta \nu_{Q}^{A}$ in the case of $x=0.04$. Note that we cannot [*a priori*]{} separate (a),(b) and (c), therefore in order to obtain the contribution from (c), we must first make reasonable assumptions for (a) and (b).
In Fig. \[4distra\] we plot the temperature dependence of the observed data $^{63}\Delta \nu_{Q}^{A}$ for $x=0.04$ above and below $T_{Q} \simeq T_{st} \simeq 450 $ K taken from Fig. \[widthall\]. For $T>T_{Q}$, we attribute all of the observed linebroadening to mechanism (a) and (b) given by $\Delta \nu_{R_{patch}}^{A}$. For $T<T_{Q}$, however, we make the ansatz that the $\Delta \nu_{R'_{patch}}^{A}$ continues to increase only linearly, as shown in Fig. \[4distra\]. $\Delta \nu_{R'_{patch}}^{A}$ in Fig. \[4distra\] results from using a different estimate $^{63}R_{patch}'$ for the patch radius, shown as the grey dashed line in Fig. \[corrT\] for $x=0.04$. The motivation for using $^{63}R_{patch}'$ for $x=0.04$ is that the temperature dependence follows that of $x \gtrsim 0.115$ where the overall amplitude of the orthorhombic distortions ($\left<\theta^{2}_{local} \right>^{0}$ in Eq. (\[order\])) are smaller.
In order to simulated the NQR spectrum, we now proceed through the simulation as in section IV, however, we calculate the local hole concentration $^{63}x_{local}^{\kappa}$ for a random configuration $\kappa$ using the patch radius $^{63}R_{patch}'$ (Fig. \[corrT\]), [*instead*]{} of $^{63}R_{patch}$. Along with each simulation run $\kappa$, we also [*independently*]{} choose a random value of $|\theta_{local}^{\kappa}|$ taken from a trial PDF (probability distribution function), examples of which are shown in Fig. \[4distrb\]. The positions of all the ions in the random lattice configuration $\kappa$ are calculated given the value $|\theta_{local}^{\kappa}|$ and Eq. (\[constraint\]) (with $\theta_{LRO} \rightarrow \theta_{local}^{\kappa}$). We then take the lattice summation in Eq. (\[lattcontr\]) using the the random positions of the ions with $|\theta_{local}^{\kappa}|$, together with the random local hole concentration $^{63}x_{local}^{\kappa}$. The main principle value of the diagonalized resonance frequency $^{\kappa} \nu^{k}$ is then computed and stored into a vector $P_{\theta}$, then a new random lattice $\kappa'$ is re-generated along with a new value of $|\theta_{local}^{\kappa'}|$ according to the trial PDF. The corresponding resonance frequency $^{\kappa'}\nu^{k}$ is calculated and stored into $P_{\theta}$. As in section IV, taking account of the random fluctuations of the main principle axis around the average NQR axis $\theta_{NQR}$ ($\sim 0.9 \cdot \theta_{local}$) makes only minor $\sim 2$ % corrections to $^{\kappa} \nu^{k}$. As before, we repeat this proceedure $\sim 10^{4}$ times until $P_{\theta}$ is sufficiently large to produce a histogram NQR spectrum with $\sim $ 50 bins. Since $^{63}R_{patch}'$ (see Fig. \[corrT\]) is already determined, the remaining free parameter in the simulation is now the PDF for $|\theta_{local}|$.
The simulation is repeated using various trial PDF’s of $|\theta_{local}|$ until the the $same$ simulation of the NQR spectrum using $^{63}R_{patch}$ from section IV is obtained. A good starting point for the PDF turns out to be a Gaussian distribution in the squared variable $\theta_{local}^{2}$ centered at the values $ \left<
\theta_{local}^{2} \right> $ taken from Fig. \[theta\] for $x=0.04$. The width of the Gaussian distribution can then be optimized to best reproduce the observed NQR spectrum. After various trials, the final results of the optimized PDF’s for $\left|\theta_{local}\right| (\equiv \sqrt{\theta_{local}^{2}})$ are shown in Fig. \[4distrb\] at various temperatures $T \lesssim T_{Q}$.
Conclusions
===========
We have presented a detailed systematic study of the spatial variation in electronic states using $^{63}$Cu NQR in $^{63}$Cu isotope enriched poly-crystalline samples of La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$ for $0.04\leq x \leq 0.16$. By analysing the extent of the frequency dependence of $^{63}1/T_{1}$ across the inhomogeneous linebroadening of the $^{63}$Cu NQR spectrum, we determined the spatial variation in hole concentration $^{63}x_{local}$ given by $^{63}x_{local} = x \pm ^{63}\Delta x_{local}$, where $^{63}\Delta x_{local}$ was defined as the characteristic amplitude or extent of the spatial variaiton away from nominal hole concentration $x$. We showed that $^{63}
x_{local}(\neq x)$ is a thermodynamic effect whose extent increases with decreasing temperature below 500-600 K and reaches values as large as $^{63}\Delta x_{local}/x \simeq 0.5$ in the temperature region $\gtrsim
150$ K. Furthermore, we showed that the spatial variation $^{63}x_{local}$ is an $intrinsic$ effect in La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$ by confirming the $same$ extent of the inhomogeneity in our poly-crystalline samples to that in high-quality single crystals [@tobe]. To the best of our knowledge these reports, together with those in Ref.’s [@singerprl; @tobe], are the first of its kind to show the temperature dependence of the intrinsic inhomogeneity in La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$, or any other system with quenched disorder. In Ref. [@tobe] the results of the inhomogeneous electronic state $^{17}x_{local}$ determined using $^{17}$O NMR in high-quality La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$ crystals are shown to be consistent with the $^{63}$Cu NQR result $^{63}x_{local}$. We believe that this is a powerful demonstration of the validity of our analysis in this work, as well as in [@singerprl; @tobe]. Moreover, consistency between $^{17}$O NMR and $^{63}$Cu NQR results indicate that the spatial variation in the spin and charge channels are correlated across most of the Brillouin zone.
We have argued that there are two essential ingredients for the spatial variation $^{63}x_{local}(\neq x)$. They are as follows: (a) that the $^{+2}$Sr donor ions are positioned with random probability throughout the lattice and (b) that there is a short length scale for the spatial variation $^{63}x_{local}$ of the order $^{63}R_{patch} \gtrsim 3.0-4.0$ nm. Using (a) and (b) above we succesfully fit the inhomogeneous $^{63}$Cu NQR spectrum (including the B-line) using a patch-by-patch model for the spatial variation $^{63}x_{local}$ with the patch radius $^{63}R_{patch}$ as the only adjustable parameter. We assumed that no extra $^{63}$Cu NQR linebroadening from the lattice distortions existed, therefore the calculation for $^{63}R_{patch}$ resulted in a lower bound. As shown in Ref. [@tobe], however, our lower bound estimate $^{63}R_{patch}$ is shown to be consistent with $^{17}R_{patch}$ deduced from the inhomogeneous $^{17}$O NMR spectrum, which justifies our assumptions used to determine $^{63}R_{patch}$ in the temperature region $T>T_{Q}$. Within the EFG simulation, we also deduced an upper boundary to the spatial variation in electronic states $^{63}x_{patch}$ given by $^{63}x_{patch} = x \pm ^{63}\Delta
x_{patch}$, where the extent of the spatial variation $^{63}\Delta x_{patch}$ was shown to depend on $^{63}R_{patch}$ as such $^{63}\Delta x_{patch}\propto 1/^{63}R_{patch}$ (i.e. $^{63}R_{patch}= \infty$ implied the homogenous doping limit $^{63}x_{patch} = x$). Within the temperature region $T>T_{Q}$ we found the consistent result $^{63}x_{patch} \gtrsim ^{63}x_{local}$, which justified our EFG simulation and short length scale model of the inhomogeneous electronic state.
$^{63}R_{patch}$ was deduced assuming no clustering of the $^{+2}$Sr ions in the lattice beyond probability theory, however, we note that even in the case of clustering over length scales 3-4 nm, the presence of a short length scale is still needed to account for the observed spatial variation in electronic states. We also argued that the short length scale implied that any experimental probe which averages over spatial extents larger than $^{63}R_{patch} \gtrsim 3.0-4.0$ nm results in an $underestimate$ of the extent of the inhomogeneous electronic state. NQR, however, is a local probe, which makes it $ideal$ for detecting short $\sim$nm variations in the electronic state. Our findings have a strong impact on the general, but now incorrect, view that doped holes are homogeneously distributed in the CuO$_{2}$ planes of La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$.
We have also compared our local orthorhombic structural distortions results to LRO structural results taken from neutron and X-ray diffraction [@radaelli; @yamada] techniques which probe coherence phenomena over length scales larger than ten’s of nm [@takagidelta]. In the case of $x=0.0$ we found good agreement between NQR and LRO results, however, for $x \gtrsim 0.04$ we presented evidence that the local orthorhombic distortions started at elevated temperatures $T_{Q}(\gtrsim 400$ K) $above$ the onset of LRO $T_{st}$. We also found that the local distortions were somewhat smeared below $T_{Q}$ compared with $x=0.0$. Our local structural results were found to be consistent with a mixture of order-disorder and displacive transitions in the region $x \gtrsim 0.04$, consistent with other local probes [@bozin; @haskel]. Our NQR studies at elevated temperatures have now quantified the onset of the local orthorhombic distortions at $T_{Q} (\gtrsim
400$ K) in the region $0.04 \leq x \leq 0.20$.
It is known that in the $x<1/8$ region of the phase diagram, the temperature dependence of the wipeout fraction $^{63}F(T)$ (defined as the fracton of unobservable Cu nuclei that are wiped-out) is somewhat tailed [@hunt; @hunt2; @singerprl] below $T_{NQR}$ in both La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$ and its Eu and Nd co-doped materials. In the case of La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$ for $x=0.04$, the onset temperature for Cu wipeout is rather high at $T_{NQR} \simeq 300$ K, yet half the Cu nuclei are still observable (i.e. $^{63}F(T) \sim
1/2$) at $\sim T_{NQR}/2$, implying that $T_{NQR}$ does not signify the onset of a $collective$ phenomenon for $x < 1/8$. This may indicate the formation of a small number of local moments in the CuO$_{2}$ plane which cause the wipeout of the NQR signal for neighbouring Cu sites, as in a classic spin-glass.
Rather than invoking a spin-glass type model, however, we can now naturally account for the tailed wipeout for $x<1/8$ using the temperature dependence of the growing spatial variation in electronic states $^{63}x_{local}$. In the temperature region $T_{NQR} \sim 300$ K for $x= 0.04$, the characteristic local hole concentration $^{63}x_{local}$ for insulating patches is inferred to be as low as $^{63}x_{local} \sim 0.015$ (Fig. \[deltax\]). Recall that $^{63}1/T_{1}$ for $x=0.02$ at $\sim 300$ K is already too large for the Cu signal to be observable, therefore the more insulating patches for $x= 0.04$ at 300 K begin to wipe-out. As one cools the $x=0.04$ sample below 300 K, there are a growing number of patches with lower and lower hole concentration which are also wiped-out, leading to an gradual increase in the wipeout fraction $^{63}F(T)$ with decreasing temperature. The fact that $^{63}x_{local}$ only gradually fans out with decreasing temperature naturally explains the tailed nature of the wipeout fraction $^{63}F(T)$ below $T_{NQR}$ in the underdoped region $x < 1/8$.
In Eu and Nd co-doped La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$ for $x<1/8$, the same tailed feature in $^{63}F(T)$ is found together with an inflection point $T_{NQR}^{inflec} (< T_{NQR})$ below which $^{63}F(T)$ increases rapidly with decreasing temperature. In the case of Eu and Nd co-doping with $x<1/8$, $T_{NQR}^{inflec}$ coincides with the onset temperature $T_{LTT}$ of an additional structural phase transition with tetragonal symmetry known as the LTT (low temperature tetragonal) phase $and$ the onset of charge ordering $T_{charge}$. In the case of La$_{1.6-x}$Nd$_{0.4}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$, $T_{charge} \simeq T_{LTT} \simeq 70$ K [@ichi]. This coincidence suggests that the glassy slowing of the stripe modulation below $T_{NQR}^{inflec} (\simeq T_{charge}) $ is accelerated by the tetragonal symmetry compatible with the charge stripe symmetry [@tranquada]. $^{63}$Cu isotope enriched samples of Eu and Nd co-doped La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$ are found to have comparable frequency dependence of $^{63}1/T_{1}$ across its inhomogeneous $^{63}$Cu NQR spectrum. In the Eu and Nd co-doped cases, therefore, we can naturally account for the tailed wipeout in the temperature region $T_{NQR}^{inflec}<T<T_{NQR}$ by the growing inhomogeneity in electronic states with decreasing temperature, while for $T < T_{NQR}^{inflec} (\simeq T_{charge}$), the wipeout is dramatically accelerated due to the pinning of charge stripes by the lattice symmetry. Although there is no LRO into a LTT phase in La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$ which can stablize the charge stripes, there is evidence for an incipient structural transition into the LTT phase [@kimura], which may suggest a similar phenomenon is occuring in La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$.
Anti-shielding factors
======================
In this appendix we deduce the anti-shielding factors [@slichter] $\zeta_{latt}^{k}$ and $\zeta_{3d}^{k}$, where $k = (A,B)$. We first assume that both anti-shielding factors are isotropic and independent of $x$ and $T$, but are allowed to vary between the A and B-lines. We produce a cross-plot (shown in Fig. \[gammas\](a)) of the resonance frequency at the CG of the A-line $\left<^{63}\nu_{Q}^{A}\right>(x,T)$ (Fig. \[nuqall\](a)) against the CG of the lattice contribution to the EFG $\left<V_{latt}^{c,A}\right>(x,T)$ (Fig. \[simul1\]). Likewise, we produce the same cross-plot for the B-line shown Fig. \[gammas\](b). Note that we only use data in temperature region above $T_{Q}$ (Fig. \[nuqall\]) where local orthorhombic distortions are absent.
Then we deduce the linear fit using the standard empirical form [@penn; @shimizu]: $$\left<^{63}\nu_{Q}^{k}\right> =\Lambda_{3d}^{k} - \Lambda_{latt}^{k} \cdot
\left<V_{latt}^{c,k}\right>
\label{dedgammas}$$ where $k = (A,B)$ and all quantities are overall positive. The best fit to the data shown by the solid black lines in Fig. \[gammas\] indicates that $\Lambda_{3d}^{A}$ = 75.3 MHz and $\Lambda_{latt}^{A} = 16.0$ MHz/\[emu$\times 10^{-14}$\] for the A-line, and that $\Lambda_{3d}^{B}$ = 64.6 MHz and $\Lambda_{latt}^{B} = 10.7$ MHz/\[emu$\times 10^{-14}$\] for the B-line.
Using Eq. (\[EFGconv\]) we express the $\Lambda$’s in terms of the unknown anti-shielding factors as such $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda_{3d}^{k} & =& \frac{4e^{2}|^{63}Q|}{14 h}
\left(1-4f_{\sigma}^{o}\right)
\left<r^{-3}_{3d}\right> \cdot \zeta_{3d}^{k} \nonumber \\
\Lambda_{latt}^{k} & = & \frac{e|^{63}Q|}{2h} \cdot \zeta_{latt}^{k}
\label{Lambdazeta}\end{aligned}$$ Using $f_{\sigma}^{o} = 0.076$ [@tobe] , $^{63}Q = -0.16 $ barns [@bleaney], and the bare value $\left<r^{-3}_{3d}\right> =7.5$ a.u. [@bleaney] for free cupric ions, we find that for the A-line $\zeta_{latt}^{A} = 27.7$ and $\zeta_{3d}^{A} = 0.93$, while for the B-line $\zeta_{latt}^{B} = 18.6$ and $\zeta_{3d}^{B} = 0.82$. These set of results are consistent with previous estimates [@penn; @shimizu].
Converting the above analysis using $^{63}Q = -0.211$ barns [@stern] instead of $^{63}Q = -0.16 $ barns [@bleaney] results in a uniform 24.2 % decrease in our estimates of the $\zeta$’s. However, note that what really matters in converting from calculation to experiment are the $\Lambda$’s in Eq. (\[dedgammas\]). Likewise, when accounting for the linebroadening in section IV to deduce $^{63} \Delta x_{patch}$, it is also the $\Lambda$’s which ultimately matter, not the $\zeta$’s, therefore our end result for $^{63} \Delta
x_{patch}$ and $^{63}R_{patch}$ are independent of what value of $^{63}Q$ we use.
Magnetization Recovery
======================
In this appendix we quantify the observed multi-exponential recovery of the magnetization $M(t)$ in the case of $x=0.16$. The fact that the recovery is multi-exponential implies that $^{63}1/T_{1}$ is [*distributed*]{} at a [*fixed*]{} frequency on the NQR line. We can naturally account for the distribution in $^{63}1/T_{1}$ at fixed frequency by recalling that the $^{63}$Cu NQR line has an underlying intrinsic lattice broadening ($\Delta \nu _{latt}^{k}$) which will tend to smear out the frequency dependence of $^{63}1/T_{1}$ across the NQR line. Smearing out the frequency dependence of $^{63}1/T_{1}$ results in a distribution of $^{63}1/T_{1}$ values at a fixed frequency. Using the the multi-exponential recovery data, we estimate the extent of the underlying lattice broadening $\Delta \nu _{latt}^{T1} = 0.62 (\pm 0.07) $ MHz in the case of $x=0.16$ at the A-line. We find that $\Delta \nu _{latt}^{T1}$ is consistent with the lattice broadening $\Delta \nu_{latt}^{A}=
0.49 $ MHz found independently using our point charge calculation (section IV), which also adds weight to our EFG simulation of the random lattice.
The experimentally observed nuclear recovery $M(t)$ can be fit to Eq. (\[mt\]), where $M(0)$, $M(\infty)$ and $^{63}1/T_{1}$ are free parameters of the fit. The bare recovery is then defined as $I(t)$ where $$I(t) = \frac{M(t) - M(\infty)} { M(0) - M(\infty) }.
\label{norm}$$ In the case of single exponential recovery, $I(t)$ is then found to be a straight line on a semi-log plot, an example of which is shown in Fig. \[recova\] where we present $I(t)$ in the case $x=0.0$ at 475 K for various positions across its NQR spectrum. As discussed earlier, the $x=0.0$ spectrum is homogeneously broadened, and therefore shows no frequency dependence of $^{63}1/T_{1}$ across its line (i.e. $I(t)$ has the same slope at different frequencies), nor does it show any sign of having a distribution at a fixed frequency. We also note that the data in Fig. \[recova\] is taken at 475 K which is the orthorhombic phase, therefore we can also rule out the possibility that the orthorhombic distortions are the $direct$ cause of observed frequency dependence in $^{63}1/T_{1}$.
In Fig. \[recovb\] we show the bare recovery $I(t)$ at similar positions across the A-line for $x=0.16$ at 100 K. First note that the slopes in the recovery get steeper towards lower frequency. This corresponds to the frequency dependence in $^{63}1/T_{1}$ where $^{63}1/T_{1,A}^{(-)} >
^{63}1/T_{1,A}^{(0)} > ^{63}1/T_{1,A}^{(+)}$. Second, note that $I(t)$ shows finite curvature on a semi-log plot. This implies that there is a distribution in recoveries $I(t)$ which can be fit to the general form $$I(t) = \frac{1}{\sum_{j} a_{j}} \cdot \sum_{j} a_{j} \exp \left(-\frac{3}{T_{1,j}}t
\right).
\label{bare}$$ Fitting the recoveries to a single exponential form (i.e. taking $a_{j}$ =1 and $1/T_{1,j} = 1/T_{1}$ in Eq. (\[bare\])) results in the force fit values $^{63}1/T_{1,A}^{(-)}$, $
^{63}1/T_{1,A}^{(0)}$ and $^{63}1/T_{1,A}^{(+)}$. These force fit values represent the average of the underlying distribution in $^{63}1/T_{1,A}$.
The dashed lines in Fig. \[recovb\] show the best fit result from a sum of exponentials $1/T_{1,j}$ whose distribution coefficients $a_{j}$ are presented as the dashed lines in Fig. \[100K\]. The distribution coefficients $a_{j}$ in Fig. \[100K\] are determined as such $$\begin{aligned}
a_{j}^{(-)}& =& \exp \left( -\frac{(P_{T1}-
1/T_{1,j})^{2}}{(\Delta_{P}^{(-)})^{2}} \right) \label{aso} \\
a_{j}^{(+)}& =& \exp \left(-\frac{(P_{T1}-
1/T_{1,j})^{2}}{(\Delta_{P}^{(+)})^{2}} \right),
\label{as}
\end{aligned}$$ where Eq. (\[aso\]) is used for $1/T_{1,j} < P_{T1}$ and Eq. (\[as\]) is used for $1/T_{1,j} > P_{T1}$. The three free parameters used to fit $I(t)$ are therefore the peak of the distribution $P_{T1}$ and the two widths $\Delta_{P}^{(-)}$ and $\Delta_{P}^{(+)}$. When optimizing the three parameters in Eq. (\[as\]), we also use the constraint that the CG of the distribution (shown as the solid vertical lines in Fig. \[100K\]) coincide with the force-fit value $^{63}1/T_{1,A}$ (presented in Fig. \[1563\]) deduced with a single exponential fit.
We then deduce the second moment of the distributions in Fig. \[100K\] in an analogous manner to Eq. (\[meanwidth\]) and Eq. (\[meanwidth2\]), and we find that the [*HWHM*]{} of the distributions are $\Delta 1/T_{1,A}^{(-)} = 0.33$ (ms)$^{-1}$, $\Delta
1/T_{1,A}^{(0)} = 0.27$ (ms)$^{-1}$ and $\Delta 1/T_{1,A}^{(+}) = 0.20$ (ms)$^{-1}$. Note that the [*HWHM*]{} of the distributions are $\sim $ 15 % of average value $^{63}1/T_{1,A}$, which implies that accurate recovery data $I(t)$ is needed down to $I(t) \sim 0.001$.
We can now get an estimate of the underlying intrinsic lattice broadening $\Delta \nu_{latt}^{T1}$ by converting the [*HWHM*]{} $\Delta 1/T_{1,A}$ deduced above into equivalent frequency widths. In order to do so we take a local derivative $\beta_{\nu}$ of the underlying frequency dependence of $^{63}1/T_{1,A}$ at a frequency $\nu$ defined as such $$\beta^{\nu} = \left |\frac{ \delta 1/T_{1,A}}{\delta \nu} \right|_{\nu},
\label{fudge}$$ where $1/T_{1,A}$ is the interpolated value of $^{63}1/T_{1,A}$ shown in Fig. \[1563\] as the solid line. Using $^{63}1/T_{1,A}$ in units of (ms)$^{-1}$ and $\nu$ in units of MHz, we find that $\beta^{(-)} = 0.62$, $\beta^{(0)} =
0.39$, and $\beta^{(+)} = 0.29$, from which we deduce the [*HWHM*]{} (in MHz) $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \nu _{latt}^{(-)} & = & \Delta 1/T_{1,A}^{(-)}/\beta^{(-)} = 0.53 \nonumber \\
\Delta \nu _{latt}^{(0)} & = & \Delta 1/T_{1,A}^{(0)}/\beta^{(0)} = 0.69 \nonumber \\
\Delta \nu _{latt}^{(+)} & = & \Delta 1/T_{1,A}^{(+)}/\beta^{(+)} = 0.68
\label{whatnow}\end{aligned}$$ for the lower half intensity, center and upper half intensity of the spectrum, respectively. Finally, we deduce the average value $\Delta \nu _{latt}^{T1}$ of the three estimates in Eq. (\[whatnow\]) to be $\Delta \nu _{latt}^{T1} = 0.62 (\pm 0.07)$ MHz. This is consistent with $\Delta \nu _{latt}^{A} = 0.49$ MHz deduced independently using the point charge calculation, as shown in Fig. \[1563\].
We note that our whole analysis in this appendix is derived using fixed $\tau =12$ $\mu$s conditions. As discussed in section II and III, however, there exists a small $\tau$ dependence on the underlying distribution in the spin-lattice relaxation rate. Such effects could account for the 25 % difference between the lattice width $\Delta \nu _{latt}^{T1}$ derived from Eq. (\[whatnow\]) and the point charge calculation $\Delta \nu _{latt}^{k}$ in section IV.
The work at M.I.T. was supported by NSF DMR 98-08941 and 99-71264.
[999]{} K. Yoshimura, T. Imai, T. Shimizu, Y. Ueda, K. Kosuge, and H. Yasuoka, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**58**]{}, 3057 (1989). H. Tou. M. Matsumura, and H. Yamagta, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**61**]{}, 1477 (1992). P.C. Hammel, A.P. Reyes, S.W. Choeng, Z. Fisk, and J.E. Schirber, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 440 (1993). B.W. Statt, P.C. Hammel, Z. Fisk, S.W. Cheong, F.C. Chou, D.C. Johnston, and J.E. Schirber, Phys. Rev. B [**52**]{}, 15575 (1995). S. Fujiyama, Y. Itoh, H. Yasuoka, and Y. Ueda, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**66**]{}, 2864 (1997). A.W. Hunt, P.M. Singer, K.R. Thurber, and T. Imai, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 4300 (1999). P.M. Singer, A.W. Hunt, A.F. Cederstöm, and T. Imai, Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{}, 15345 (1999). N.J. Curro, P.C. Hammel, B.J. Suh, M. Hücker, B. Búchner, U. Ammerahl, and A. Revcolevschi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 642 (2000). J. Haase, C.P. Slichter, R. Stern, C.T. Milling, and D.G. Hinks, Physica (Amsterdam) [**341C**]{}, 1727 (2000). M.-H. Julien, A. Campana, A. Rigamonti, P. Carretta, F. Borsa, P. Kuhns, A.P. Reyes, W.G. Moulton, M. Horvatić, C. Berthier, A. Vietkin, and A. Revcolevschi, Phys. Rev. B [**63**]{}, 144508 (2001). A.W. Hunt, P.M. Singer, A.F. Cederstöm, and T. Imai, Phys. Rev. B [**64**]{}, 134525 (2001). P.M. Singer, A.W. Hunt, and T. Imai, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 47602 (2002). P.M. Singer, A.W. Hunt, T. Imai, F.C. Chou, K. Hirota, M. Takaba, T. Kakeshita, H. Eisaki, and S. Uchida, [*to be published*]{}. J. Burgy, M. Mayr, V. Martin-Mayor, A. Moreo, and E. Dagotto, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 277202 (2001). J.M. Tranquada, B.J. Sternlieb, J.D. Axe, Y. Nakamura, and S. Uchida, Nature [**375**]{}, 561 (1995). L.P. Gorkov and A.V. Sokol, JETP Letters [**46**]{}, 420 (1987). V.J. Emery and S.A. Kivelson, Physica C [**209**]{}, 597 (1993). A.H Castro Neto, Phys. Rev. B [**51**]{}, 3254 (1995). S.H. Pan, J.P. O’Neal, R.L. Badzey, C. Chamon, H. Ding, J.R Engelbrecht, Z. Wang, H. Eisaki, S. Uchida, A.K. Guptak, K.W Ng, E.W. Hudson, K.M. Lang, and J.C. Davis, Nature [**413**]{}, 292 (2001). J. Bobroff, H. Alloul, S. Ouazi, P. Mendels, A. Mahajan, N. Blanchard, G. Collin, V. Guillen, and J.-F. Marucco, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 157002 (2002). H.Y. Hwang, B. Batlogg, H. Takagi, H.L. Kao, J. Kwo, R.J. Cava, J.J. Krajewski, and W.F. Peck, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{}, 2636 (1994). K. Yamada, C.H. Lee, K. Kurahashi, J. Wada, S. Wakimoto, S. Ueki, H. Kimura, T. Endoh, S. Hosoya, G. Shirane, R.J. Birgeneau, M. Greven, M.A. Kastner, and Y.J. Kim, Phys. Rev. B [**57**]{}, 6165 (1998), and references therein. H. Takagi, T. Ido, S. Ishibashi, M. Uota, S. Uchida, and Y. Tokura, Phys. Rev. B [**40**]{}, 2254 (1989). P.G. Radaelli, D.G. Hinks, A.W. Mitchell, B.A. Hunter, J.L. Wagner, B. Dabrowski, K.G. Vandervoort, H.K. Viswanathan, and J.D. Jorgensen, Phys. Rev. B [**49**]{}, 4163 (1994). H. Takagi, R.J. Cava, M. Marezio, B. Batlogg, J.J. Krajewski, W.F. Peck, P. Bordet, and D.E. Cox, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 3777 (1992). A. Abragam, [*Principles of Nuclear Magnetism*]{} (Oxford University Press, 1978). C.P. Slichter, Principles of Magnetic Resonance, (Springer-Verlag, New York 1989), 3rd ed. C.H. Pennington, D.J. Durand, C.P. Slichter, J.P. Rice, E.D. Bukowski, and D.M. Ginsberg , Phys. Rev. B [**39**]{}, 2902 (1989). Y.-Q. Song, M.A. Kennard, M. Lee, K.R. Poppelmeier, and W.P. Halperin, Phys. Rev. B. [**44**]{}, 7159 (1991). R.M. Sternheimer, Phys. Rev. [**164**]{}, 10 (1967). B. Bleaney, K.D. Bowers, and M.H.L. Pryce, Proc. R. Soc. London, A [**228**]{}, 166 (1955); A. Abragam and B. Bleaney, [*Electron Paramagnetic Resonance of Transition Ions*]{} (Oxfor Univ. Press, New York, 1980). T. Moriya, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**18**]{}, 516 (1963). H. Monien, P. Monthoux, and D. Pines, Phys. Rev. B [**43**]{}, 275 (1991). T. Imai, C.P. Slichter, K. Yoshimura, and K. Kosuge, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 1002 (1993). M. Takigawa, A.P. Reyes, P.C. Hammel, J.D. Thompson, R.H Heffner, Z. Fisk, and K.C. Ott, Phys. Rev. B [**43**]{}, 247 (1991). A. Narath, Phys. Rev. [**162**]{}, 320 (1967). The Redfield contribution ($^{63}1/T_{2R}$) to the spin-spin relaxation rate ($^{63}1/T_{2}$) [@slichter] is given by $^{63}1/T_{2R} = \left(\beta+R \right) \cdot ^{63}1/T_{1}$, where $R \sim 4.5$ is the $T_{1}$ anisotropy and $\beta =2$ in the case of $^{63}$Cu NQR. Y. Itoh, M. Matsumura, H. Yamagata, and H. Miyamoto, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**65**]{}, 695 (1996). Y. Itoh, M. Matsumura, and H. Yamagata, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**65**]{}, 3747 (1996). The spin-spin relaxation rate is determined by applying the spin-echo sequence (shown in brackets in Eq. (\[pulse\])) and measuring the magnetisation ($M(\tau)$) as a function of $\tau$. $M(\tau)$ is then fit to the standard form $M(\tau) = M(0) \cdot \exp\left(-\frac{2\tau}{T_{2L}} - \frac{(2\tau)^{2}}{2(T_{2G})^{2}}\right)$, where $^{63}1/T_{2L}$ is the Lorentzian-like component (which includes the Redfield contribution [@red]) and $^{63}1/T_{2G}$ is the Gaussian-like [@slichter] component due to the indirect nuclear spin-spin coupling. E.S. Božin, S.J.L. Billinge, G.H. Kwei, and H. Tagaki, Phys. Rev. B [**59**]{}, 4445 (1999). D. Haskel, E.A. Stern, D.G. Hinks, A.W. Mitchell, F.D. Jorgensen, and J.I. Budnick, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 439 (1996). R.L. Martin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 744 (1995). S. Pliberšek and P.F. Meier, Europhys. Lett. [**50**]{}, 789 (2000). P. Hüsser, H. U. Suter, E. P. Stoll, and P. F. Meier, Phys. Rev. B [**61**]{}, 1567 (2000). M. Takigawa, P.C. Hammel, R.H. Heffner, Z. Fisk, K.C. Ott, and J.D. Thompson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**63**]{}, 1865 (1989). T. Shimizu, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**62**]{}, 772 (1993), and J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**62**]{}, 779 (1993). R.E. Walstedt and S.W. Cheong, Phys. Rev. B [**64**]{}, 14404 (2001). C.H. Pennington and C.P. Slichter, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**66**]{}, 381 (1991). A. Fujimori, E. Takayama-Muromachi, Y. Uchida, and B. Okai, Phys. Rev. B [**35**]{}, 8814 (1987). D.M. Ginsberg, [*Physical Properties of High Temperature Superconductors II*]{}, World Scientific Publishing Co. 1990. M. Braden, P. Schweiss, G. Heger, W. Reichardt, Z. Fisk, K. Gamayunov, I. Tanaka, and H. Kojima, Physica (Amsterdam) [**223C**]{}, 396 (1994). T. Suzuki and T. Fujita, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**6**]{}, 1883 (1989). M. Braden, M. Meven, W. Reichardt, L. Pintschovius, M.T. Fernandez-Diaz, G. Heger, F. Nakamura, and T. Fujita, Phys. Rev. B [**63**]{}, 140510 (2001). D. Haskel, E.A. Stern, D.G. Hinks, A.W. Mitchell, and J.D. Jorgensen, Phys. Rev. B [**56**]{}, 521 (1997). J.H. Cho, F.C. Chou, and D.C. Johnston, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 222 (1993). A. Campana, R. Cantelli, F. Cordero, M. Corti, and A. Rigamonti, Euro. Phys. J. B [**18**]{}, 49 (2000). I. Martin and A.V. Balatsky, Physica (Amsterdam) [**357C**]{}, 46 (2001). M. Suzuki and M. Hikita, Phys. Rev. B [**44**]{}, 249 (1991). R.J. Birgeneau, C.Y. Chen, D.R. Gabbe, H.P. Jenssen, M.A. Kastner, C.J. Peters, P.J. Picone, Tineke Thio, T.R. Thurston, H.L. Tuller, J.D. Axe, P.Böni, and G. Shirane, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**59**]{}, 1329 (1987). The remaining linebroadening due to the orthorhombic distortions alone (defined as $\Delta
\nu_{\theta}^{k}$), can be estimated as such $\left(^{63}\Delta \nu_{Q}^{k}\right)^{2} \simeq \left(\Delta \nu_{R_{patch}'}^{k}\right)^{2}+\left(\Delta
\nu_{\theta}^{k}\right)^{2}$, given that $\Delta \nu_{R_{patch}'}^{k}$ and $\Delta
\nu_{\theta}^{k}$ are derived from [*independent*]{} broadening mechanisms. N. Ichikawa, S. Uchida, J.M. Tranquada, T. Niemoeller, P.M. Gehring, S.-H. Lee, and J.R. Schneider, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 1738 (2000). H. Kimura, K. Hirota, C.-H. Lee, K. Yamada, and G. Shirane, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**69**]{}, 851 (2000).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We show from first principles the emergence of classical Boltzmann equations from relativistic nonequilibrium quantum field theory as described by the Kadanoff-Baym equations. Our method applies to a generic quantum field, coupled to a collection of background fields and sources, in a homogeneous and isotropic spacetime. The analysis is based on analytical solutions to the full Kadanoff-Baym equations, using the WKB approximation. This is in contrast to previous derivations of kinetic equations that rely on similar physical assumptions, but obtain approximate equations of motion from a gradient expansion in momentum space. We show that the system follows a generalized Boltzmann equation whenever the WKB approximation holds. The generalized Boltzmann equation, which includes off-shell transport, is valid far from equilibrium and in a time dependent background, such as the expanding universe.'
author:
- |
Marco Drewes$^{a,b}$, Sebastián Mendizabal$^{c}$ and Christoph Weniger$^{d}$\
[*$^a$ Institut für Theoretische Teilchenphysik und Kosmologie,*]{}\
[*RWTH Aachen, 52056 Aachen, Germany*]{}\
[*$^b$ Physik Department T70, Technische Universität München,*]{}\
[*James Franck Straße 1, D-85748 Garching, Germany*]{}\
[*$^c$ Institut für Theoretische Physik, Goethe-Universität,*]{}\
[*60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany*]{}\
[*$^d$ Max-Planck-Institut für Physik, Föhringer Ring 6, 80805 München, Germany*]{}
title: '[MPP-2012-3, TTK-12-03,TUM-HEP-857/12]{}'
---
Introduction
============
Nonequilibrium phenomena play a crucial role in many areas of physics, including the early history of the universe, heavy ion collisions, condensed matter physics and quantum information. In the era of precision cosmology and with the arrival of the LHC and RHIC experiments, in particular the first two applications, which require a relativistic description, have gained considerable interest. Transport in nonequilibrium situations can often in very good approximation be described by Boltzmann equations (BEs). These assume that the system can be characterized by a number of distribution functions for classical particles, which propagate freely between isolated interactions and carry no memory of their history. However, the definition of asymptotic states, on which the single particle description is based, is ambiguous in a dense plasma. What is more, the standard BEs by construction cannot describe memory and off-shell effects or quantum coherence. Usually these effects are treated by effective kinetic equations of the Boltzmann type [@CalzettaHu; @kb62; @Bogo; @Danielewicz:1982kk; @Chou:1984es; @Sigl:1992fn; @Canetti:2012vf; @Jeon:1995zm; @Greiner:1998vd; @Calzetta:1999xh; @Boyanovsky:1999cy; @Buchmuller:2000nd; @Cline:2000nw; @Arnold:2000dr; @De; @Simone:2007rw; @Hohenegger:2008zk; @Anisimov:2008dz; @Drewes:2010pf; @Garny:2009ni; @Garny:2009rv; @FillionGourdeau:2006hi; @Cirigliano:2009yt; @Beneke:2010dz; @Anisimov:2010dk; @Herranen:2010mh; @Prokopec:2003pj; @hep-ph/0512155; @Calzetta:1986cq; @Garbrecht:2011xw; @Gautier:2012vh; @Boyanovsky:2004dj; @Ivanov:1999tj; @Blaizot:2001nr], [*i.e.* ]{}by a set of first order differential equations for generalized distribution functions that are local in time. As the above issues are conceptual, their range of validity and possible corrections cannot be determined within a framework of BEs and require a derivation from first principles.
The full equations of motion of nonequilibrium quantum field theory, on which first-principle derivations of the BEs are usually based, are known as Kadanoff-Baym equations (KBEs) [@kb62] [^1]. These equations, being coupled second order integro-differential equations, are considerably more complicated than BEs. Most approaches to establish a connection between out-of-equilibrium quantum fields and kinetic equations make a number of approximations on the KBEs *before* they are solved ([*e.g.* ]{}Refs. [@Buchmuller:2000nd; @kb62; @Calzetta:1999xh; @Chou:1984es; @Calzetta:1986cq; @Prokopec:2003pj; @hep-ph/0512155; @De; @Simone:2007rw; @Cirigliano:2009yt; @Cline:2000nw; @Beneke:2010dz; @Hohenegger:2008zk; @Garny:2009rv; @Herranen:2010mh; @Ivanov:1999tj; @Blaizot:2001nr]). Starting point is usually a gradient expansion, performed in Wigner-space, which provides a consistent approximation scheme when a separation of scales is realized in the system. Common additional simplifications include a close-to-equilibrium assumption for all fields, the quasiparticle approximation and the Kadanoff-Baym ansatz for correlation functions. However, the Wigner space method as such does not rely on these additional assumptions if the gradient expansion is performed consistently, which may require resummations [@Garbrecht:2011xw].
In this letter, we show how the *full* KBEs can be solved by using the Wentzel-Kramers-Brillouin (WKB) [@WKB] method (for earlier uses of the WKB method in a similar context see [*e.g.* ]{}Refs. [@Cline:2000nw; @Prokopec:2003pj]). This approach avoids the Fourier transformation to Wigner space in relative time and uses what is sometimes called the [*two times formalism*]{}. It is valid far from equilibrium and does not rely on an on-shell approximation or any other a priori assumption about the form of the correlation functions, such as the Kadanoff-Baym ansatz. We illustrate our method for a real scalar field, coupled to other fields, in a spatially homogeneous and isotropic background. This choice is for transparency only; the derivation does not rely on assumptions about the spin and interactions of the field or background. Though technically more difficult, the generalization to fermions with gauge interactions is straightforward.
Nonequilibrium quantum field theory
===================================
We consider the dynamics of a real scalar field $\phi$ that is described by relativistic quantum field theory. The field $\phi$ weakly couples to a background, possibly containing many degrees of freedom whose dynamics is in principle known and that we refer to as $\chi_i$. The Lagrangian reads $$\label{L}
\mathcal{L}=\frac{1}{2}\partial^\mu\phi\partial_\mu\phi -
\frac{1}{2}m(t)^2\phi^2-\phi\ \mathcal{O}[\chi_i,t]
+\mathcal{L}_{\chi_i}\;,$$ where $\mathcal{ O}[\chi_i,t]$ denotes a sum of generic combinations of fields $\chi_i$ with coefficients that may depend on time explicitly[^2]. $\mathcal{L}_{\chi_i}$ determines the dynamics of $\chi_i$ (we use $\hbar=c=1$). We allow a time-dependent mass $m(t)$ to account for Hubble expansion when interpreting $t$ as conformal time, the time-dependence of other operators is contained in $\mathcal{O}[\chi_i,t]$ and $\mathcal{L}_{\chi_i}$.
In quantum physics, any thermodynamic system can be characterized by a density operator $\varrho$. Knowledge of the density operator allows to compute expectation values for all observables at all times. The same information is contained in the set of all $n$-point functions $\langle \phi(x_1) \cdots \phi(x_n)\rangle$ etc. of the fields, (with $\langle \cdots \rangle\equiv\text{tr}[\varrho \cdots]$). However, most quantities of practical interest for which one formulates a Boltzmann equation can be expressed in terms of one- and two-point functions; this includes the energy-momentum tensor and charge densities. It is, therefore, usually sufficient to track the time evolution of these.
An out-of-equilibrium quantum field has two independent connected two-point functions. In case of $\phi$ they are conveniently chosen as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{CorrDef}
\Delta^{-}(x_1,x_2)\equiv i\langle[\phi(x_1),\phi(x_2)]\rangle\;,\\
\nonumber
\Delta^{+}(x_1,x_2)\equiv
\frac{1}{2}\langle\{\phi(x_1),\phi(x_2)\}\rangle\;,\end{aligned}$$ with the obvious symmetry relations $\Delta^\pm(x_2,x_1)=\pm\Delta^\pm(x_1,x_2)$. Here $[,\!]$ and $\{,\!\}$ are commutator and anti-commutator, respectively. $\Delta^{-}(x_1,x_2)$ is known as *spectral function* and basically encodes information about the spectrum of resonances in the thermodynamic description, which may differ from the spectrum in vacuum. The *statistical propagator* $\Delta^{+}(x_1,x_2)$ carries information about the occupation numbers of different modes. We will in the following derive the quantum field theory analogue to the classical particle distribution function from the statistical propagator. We have in mind applications in cosmology and restrict the analysis to spatially homogeneous and isotropic systems. Then, the correlation functions only depend on relative spatial coordinates $\textbf{x}_1-\textbf{x}_2$ etc., and it is convenient to perform a spatial Fourier transform in these coordinates, yielding functions like $\Delta^\pm_{\textbf{q}}(t_1,t_2)\equiv\int d^3(\textbf{x}_1-\textbf{x}_2)
e^{-i\textbf{q}(\textbf{x}_1-\textbf{x}_2)}\Delta^\pm(x_1,x_2)$.
In a general out-of-equilibrium system the two-point functions $\Delta^\pm_{\textbf{q}}(t_1,t_2)$ have to be found as solutions to the KBEs $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\partial_{t_1}^2\!\! +\! {\omega_{\textbf{q}}(t_1)}^2 \right) {\Delta^-}_{\textbf{q}}(t_1,t_2) &=
-\!\int_{t_2}^{t_1}\!\!\! dt' \ {\Pi^-}_{\textbf{q}}(t_1, t')
{\Delta^-}_{\textbf{q}}(t', t_2)\label{kb1}\\
\left(\partial_{t_1}^2\!\! +\! {\omega_{\textbf{q}}(t_1)}^2 \right) {\Delta^+}_{\textbf{q}}(t_1,t_2)
&= -\!\int_{t_i}^{t_1}\!\!\! dt'\ {\Pi^-}_{\textbf{q}}(t_1, t')
{\Delta^+}_{\textbf{q}}(t', t_2)
\nonumber\\ &\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
+\! \int_{t_i}^{t_2}\!\!\! dt'\ {\Pi^+}_{\textbf{q}}(t_1, t')
{\Delta^-}_{\textbf{q}}(t', t_2)\label{kb2}\;,\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega_{\textbf{q}}(t)^2 \equiv m(t)^2 + {\textbf{q}}^2$ (note that in equilibrium $\Delta^\pm_{\textbf{q}}$ would only depend on $t_1-t_2$), and $t_i$ denotes the initial time of the system. The KBEs can be derived within the Schwinger-Keldysh formalism, see [*e.g.* ]{}[@Schwinger:1960qe; @Keldysh:1964ud; @Luttinger:1960ua; @Berges:2004yj; @Calzetta:1986cq]. The first term on the RHS of (\[kb2\]) is associated with non-Markovian (memory) effects while the second is often referred to as noise term. The boundary conditions for $\Delta^-_{\textbf{q}}$ are fixed by microcausality and canonical quantization for a real scalar field, $\Delta^-_{\textbf{q}}|_{t_1=t_2}=0$, $\partial_{t_1}\Delta^-_{\textbf{q}}|_{t_1=t_2} =
-\partial_{t_2}\Delta^-_{\textbf{q}}|_{t_1=t_2} =1$ and $\partial_{t_1}\partial_{t_2}\Delta^-_{\textbf{q}}|_{t_1=t_2}=0$. The boundary conditions for $\Delta^+_{\textbf{q}}|_{t_1=t_2=t_i}$ are determined by the physical initial conditions of the system at time $t_i$. For simplicity we assumed Gaussian initial correlations for $\phi$, more general initial conditions are e.g. discussed in [@Garny:2009ni]. Below, we will drop momentum indices ${\textbf{q}}$ when possible.
The quantities $\Pi^\pm$ appearing in and are the self-energies of $\phi$; in analogy to they are at leading order in $\mathcal{O}[\chi_i]$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SelfEnergiesDef}
\Pi^{-}(x_1,x_2)&=&
\langle\big[\mathcal{O}[\chi_i(x_1),t_t],\mathcal{O}[\chi_i(x_2),t_2]
\big]\rangle\;, \\\nonumber
\Pi^{+}(x_1,x_2)&=&-\frac{i}{2}\langle\big\{
\mathcal{O}[\chi_i(x_1),t_1], \mathcal{O}[\chi_i(x_2),t_2]
\big\}\rangle\;,\end{aligned}$$ and contain information about the interaction between $\phi$ and the background fields $\chi_i$. They can be calculated in terms of the two-point functions of $\chi_i$ within the 2PI formalism (see [*e.g.* ]{}Ref. [@Luttinger:1960ua; @Berges:2004yj] for details).
Deriving the Boltzmann Equation {#sec:towBE}
===============================
We will discuss the emergence of a description of $\phi$ in terms of effective kinetic equations by using analytical solutions of the full KBEs that are found with the WKB method. To this end, we make the following assumptions (we also send $t_i\to-\infty$, effects of finite $t_i$ are discussed below):
1\) The self-energies $\Pi^\pm(t_1,t_2)$ are damped with respect to the relative time $|t_1-t_2|$, approaching zero for $|t_1-t_2|\gtrsim {\tau_\text{int}}$, where we introduced the *interaction time* ${\tau_\text{int}}$. Here, ${\tau_\text{int}}$ can be considered as definition for the duration of [*e.g.* ]{}scattering events. Then evaluating one-sided Fourier transforms of the self-energies with respect to relative time, $$\label{eqn:Dms}
\widetilde\Pi^\pm(t, \omega)\equiv\int_0^\infty dz\ e^{i\omega z}\
\Pi^{\pm}(t,t-z)\;,$$ practically does not require knowledge of the system in the distant past $z\gg {\tau_\text{int}}$. In equilibrium the minus-component would correspond to the common retarded self-energy, $\widetilde\Pi^-(t,\omega) = \Pi^R(\omega)$.
2\) We assume that for fixed time $t$ the pole structure of $(\omega^2 -
\omega_{\textbf{q}}^2(t)- \widetilde\Pi^-(t, \omega ))^{-1}$ is dominated by the root $\omega=\widehat {\Omega}_t\equiv{\Omega}_t - \frac i2 \Gamma_t$, with $${\Omega}_t\equiv \sqrt{\omega_{\textbf{q}}^2(t) + {\text{Re}}\widetilde\Pi^-(t, \widehat {\Omega}_t)}
\;,\;\;
{\Gamma}_{t} \equiv - \frac{{\text{Im}}\widetilde\Pi^-(t,
\widehat{\Omega}_t)}{{\Omega}_t }\label{Gammadef2}\;.$$ Here ${\Omega}_t$ and ${\Gamma}_t$ are the energy and damping rate of the $\phi$-resonance, and we assume *weak damping* with ${\Gamma}_t\ll {\Omega}_t$, a generic consequence of weak coupling. The generalization to the case with more roots (interpreted as collective $\phi$ excitations) is straightforward.
3\) Three time scales are relevant for our discussion: The above interaction time ${\tau_\text{int}}$, the damping rate $\Gamma_t$ of the field $\phi$ [^3], and the characteristic rate $H\sim \dot{\Gamma}_t/{\Gamma}_t\sim\dot{\Omega}_t/{\Omega}_t$ with which the field $\phi$ changes its properties ([*e.g.* ]{}due to a temperature change of the fields $\chi_i$ in an expanding universe; then $H$ denotes the Hubble rate). The main assumption, underlying all derivations of kinetic equations, is the separation of time scales, which defines the small parameters that control the WKB approximation: $$\label{smallnesses}
{\Gamma}_t\ \ll {\tau_\text{int}}^{-1} \quad \text{and}\quad \dot{\Gamma}_t/{\Gamma}_t,\ \dot{\Omega}_t/{\Omega}_t\ \ll\
{\tau_\text{int}}^{-1}\;.$$ The first condition implies that the duration of one individual collision is shorter than the average time between different collisions; the second condition implies that the field does not significantly change its properties during a single collision. The often-used gradient expansion of the KBE relies on the smallness of the same parameters (\[smallnesses\]).
The damping of the self-energies $\Pi^\pm(t_1,t_2)$ required in assumption 1) is often governed by a power law. In contrast to an exponential, there is no uniquely defined scale associated with a power law. Hence, the definition of the time ${\tau_\text{int}}$ beyond which the suppression is “sufficient” is not unique and depends on the accuracy one demands. Throughout, we will not specify the interaction time ${\tau_\text{int}}$, which has to be found on a case by case basis, and leave it as a free parameter [^4]. Exceptionally small temporal damping is in general associated with sharp features in the Fourier transform $\widetilde\Pi^\pm(t, \omega)$ and corresponds to threshold effects or resonant phenomena.
The localization in time occurs for different physical reasons: If all fields that appear inside $\Pi^\pm$ reside in a thermal bath and are weakly coupled, their propagators are exponentially damped with the thermal damping rate; as a consequence $\Pi^\pm$ are also localized. More generally, when considering the scattering of particles, the duration of a scattering event typically is related to the de Broglie wavelength $\sim 1/M$ of the interacting particles with energies $\sim M$; formally the localization arises from the momentum integrals inside of loops. Finally, virtual particles can only exist for times $\Delta t \lesssim M^{-1}$ as allowed by the uncertainty principle.
Under the above assumptions, the first KBE can be approximately solved by using the WKB method [@WKB], which is formally an expansion of the solution to in terms of the Planck constant $\hbar$ [@Prokopec:2003pj]. At second order in $\hbar$, we find $$\begin{aligned}
{\Delta^-}(t_1,t_2) = \frac{
\sin\left(\int_{t_2}^{t_1}dt'\ {\Omega}_{t'}\right)
e^{-\frac12\left|\int_{t_2}^{t_1}dt'\ {\Gamma}_{t'}\right|}
}{\sqrt{{\Omega}_{t_1}{\Omega}_{t_2}}}
\label{eqn:Ansatz}.\end{aligned}$$ For small time separations, $|t_1-t_2|\lesssim {\tau_\text{int}}$, the time-dependence of $\widetilde \Pi^-(t,\omega)$ is negligible, and can be obtained by a Laplace transformation as in [@Anisimov:2008dz; @Anisimov:2010dk]. For $|t_1-t_2|\gtrsim{\tau_\text{int}}$, we illustrate the derivation of the WKB result by splitting ${\Delta^-}$ into positive and negative frequency modes, ${\Delta^-}\equiv\frac{i}{2} ({\Delta^-}_{(+)} - {\Delta^-}_{(-)})$. Inserting the functions ${\Delta^-}_{(\alpha)}(t_1,t_2)$ with $\alpha=\pm$ into yields (for $t_1>t_2$) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:step1}
\omega_{\textbf{q}}^2(t_1) &-{\Omega}^2_{t_1} -i\alpha{\Omega}_{t_1}{\Gamma}_{t_1}
\\ & \nonumber
\simeq-\int^{\infty}_0 dz\ \Pi^-(t_1, t_1-z)
e^{\int_{t_1}^{t_1-z}dt' (i\alpha {\Omega}_{t'}-\frac12{\Gamma}_{t'})}\;,\end{aligned}$$ where we neglected terms suppressed by or ${\Gamma}_t/{\Omega}_t$; terms containing $\dot\Omega_{t_1}$ cancel out. Since $\Pi^-(t_1,t')$ effectively vanishes for $|t_1-t'|\gtrsim{\tau_\text{int}}$ we extended the $z$-integration limit formally to $\infty$. ${\Omega}_t$ and ${\Gamma}_t$ are practically constant over the support of $\Pi^-$, hence the $z$-integral equals ${\text{Re}}\widetilde\Pi⁻(t_1,
\widehat \Omega_{t_1})-i \alpha{\text{Im}}\widetilde\Pi⁻(t_1, \widehat\Omega_{t_1})$. Then, the real and imaginary parts of reproduce the definitions of ${\Omega}_t$ and ${\Gamma}_t$. The case $t_1<t_2$ is treated analogously.
Knowledge of the spectral function ${\Delta^-}$ and the self-energies $\Pi^\pm$ are enough to find a solution to the second KBE ; it is given by the *memory integral* $$\begin{aligned}
{\Delta^+}(t_1,t_2) \!= \!\!
\int^{t_1}_{t_i}\!\!\! dt_1'\!\! \int^{t_2}_{t_i}\!\!\! dt'_2\ {\Delta^-}(t_1,t'_1)
{\Pi^+}(t'_1,t'_2) {\Delta^-}(t'_2,t_2)\;,
\label{MemInt}\end{aligned}$$ where we allowed for a finite initial time $t_i$. This can be obtained by using the initial conditions of ${\Delta^-}$ and the fact that ${\Delta^-}$ solves the first KBE .
For convenience, we now split into three terms, $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta^+(t_1,t_2) = \mathcal{B}(t_1,t_2) +
\mathcal{C}(t_1,t_2)+\mathcal{D}(t_1,t_2)\;.
\label{eqn:split}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\mathcal{B}$ will correspond to the classical Boltzmann behavior, whereas $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{D}$ will give corrections that can be neglected within our approximations. The terms $\mathcal{B}$ and $\mathcal{C}$ are defined to contain all contributions to $\Delta^+$ that come from the time integration over $t_1',t_2'<t_B\equiv \min(t_1,t_2)$ in , where we defined the *Boltzmann time* $t_B$. The term $\mathcal{D}$ contains the remaining contributions that come from outside this region. For a self-energy that is exactly local in time, $\Pi^+(t_1, t_2) \sim \delta(t_1, t_2)$, only $\mathcal{B}$ and $\mathcal{C}$ would contribute, $\mathcal{D}$ would be identically zero. In more general cases, $\mathcal{D}$ is is suppressed by ${\Gamma}_t {\tau_\text{int}}$ and remains negligible.
Now, $\mathcal{B}+\mathcal{C}$ is split such that $\mathcal{B}$ contains all terms with equal-sign frequencies, $\mathcal{B}\sim\Delta^-_{(\alpha)}\Delta^-_{(\alpha)}$; $\mathcal{C}$ contains the remaining opposite-sign terms, $\mathcal{C}\sim\Delta^-_{(\alpha)}\Delta^-_{(-\alpha)}$. Then, $\mathcal{C}$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\mathcal{C}(t_1,t_2)\!
&=\!
\frac{e^{i\int_{t_2}^{t_1}\!dt' {\Omega}_{t'}}
e^{-\frac12\left|\int_{t_2}^{t_1}\!dt'{\Gamma}_{t'}\right|}}
{2\sqrt{{\Omega}_{t_1} {\Omega}_{t_2}}}\!\!\!
\int^{t_B}_{-\infty}\!\!\!\!\!\! d\tau\ \! e^{-\!\int_{\tau}^{t_B}\!dt'({\Gamma}_{t'}+ 2i
{\Omega}_{t'})}
\\ &\phantom{}\!\!\!\!\! \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\times
\int^{\infty}_{0}\!\! dz
\frac{{\Pi^+}(\tau, \tau-z)}{\sqrt{{\Omega}_{\tau}{\Omega}_{\tau-z}}} e^{\int_{\tau-z}^{\tau}dt'\!
(i{\Omega}_{t'}-\frac12 {\Gamma}_{t'})} +\text{h.c.}\end{aligned}$$ The first term in the second line corresponds to $\widetilde\Pi^+(\tau,
\widehat {\Omega}_{\tau}^\ast)/{\Omega}_{\tau}$. Unless this expression is oscillating with frequencies $\pm2\Omega_{\tau}$, the integral over $\tau$ is of the order ${\text{Im}}\widetilde\Pi^+(\tau,\widehat{\Omega}_{\tau}^\ast)/\Omega_{\tau}^2$ and hence negligible. Finally, $\mathcal{B}$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\mathcal{B}(t_1,t_2)\!
&=\!
\frac{\cos\left(\int_{t_2}^{t_1}\!dt' {\Omega}_{t'}\right)
e^{-\frac12\left|\int_{t_2}^{t_1}dt'{\Gamma}_{t'}\right|}}
{-2\sqrt{{\Omega}_{t_1} {\Omega}_{t_2}}}\!\!
\int^{t_B}_{-\infty}\!\!\! d\tau e^{-\int_{\tau}^{t_B}dt' {\Gamma}_{t'}}
\\ &\phantom{}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\times
\int^{\infty}_{0} \!\!dz\ \!
\frac{{\Pi^+}(\tau, \tau-z)}{\sqrt{{\Omega}_{\tau}{\Omega}_{\tau-z}}} e^{\int_{\tau-z}^{\tau}dt'
(i{\Omega}_{t'}-\frac12 {\Gamma}_{t'})} + \text{h.c.}\;,
\label{eqn:Bexp}\end{aligned}$$ where again we obtain $\widetilde\Pi^+(\tau, \widehat
{\Omega}_{\tau}^\ast)/{\Omega}_{\tau}$ in the second line.
From , and adopting the common definitions $$\begin{aligned}
2{\rm Re}\widetilde{\Pi}^+(\widehat {\Omega}_t^\ast )\equiv-{\Omega}_t \big({\Gamma}^>_{t}+{\Gamma}^<_{t}\big)
\; , \;\;
{\Gamma}_{t}\equiv{\Gamma}^>_{t}-{\Gamma}^<_{t}\;,\end{aligned}$$ we obtain for the statistical propagator ${\Delta^+}$, up to terms that are suppressed by $\Gamma_t/\Omega_t$ and ${\Gamma}_t{\tau_\text{int}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:DpStep}
{\Delta^+}(t_1,t_2)
&\simeq
\frac{\cos\left(\int_{t_2}^{t_1}\!dt' {\Omega}_{t'}\right)
e^{-\frac12\left|\int_{t_2}^{t_1}dt'{\Gamma}_{t'}\right|}}
{2\sqrt{{\Omega}_{t_1} {\Omega}_{t_2}}}
\\ &\phantom{} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\times \nonumber
\underbrace{\int^{t_B}_{-\infty}\!\! d\tau
\left({\Gamma}^>_{\tau}+{\Gamma}^<_{\tau}\right)
e^{-\int_{\tau}^{t_B}dt'\ ({\Gamma}^>_{t'}-{\Gamma}^<_{t'})}}_{\equiv1+2f(t_B)} \;.\end{aligned}$$ We can now *define* the suggestive quantity $f(t_B)$ as function of $t_B$ as indicated in . Most importantly, from its very definition it follows that $f(t_B)$ solves the kinetic equation $$\label{EffBE}
\partial_{t_B} f(t_B) = \left( 1+f(t_B) \right){\Gamma}^<_{t_B} - f(t_B){\Gamma}^>_{t_B}\;,$$ which is of first order and local in time, [*i.e.* ]{}has the properties of a generalized BE. Then, our result for the statistical propagator becomes, up to terms suppressed by or ${\Gamma}_t/{\Omega}_t$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\Delta^+}(t_1,t_2) \!=\! \frac{
\cos\left(\int_{t_2}^{t_1}\!dt' {\Omega}_{t'}\right)\!
e^{-\frac12\left|\int_{t_2}^{t_1}dt' {\Gamma}_{t'}\right|}
}{2\sqrt{{\Omega}_{t_1}{\Omega}_{t_2}}} \left(1\!+\!2f(t_B) \right)\;,
\label{eqn:Dp2}\end{aligned}$$ which makes explicit that under the above assumptions the memory integral is governed by Boltzmann behavior. Note that this solution remains valid for $H\gg {\Gamma}_t$, [*i.e.* ]{}when the background changes much faster than the time scale ${\Gamma}_t^{-1}$ associated with the dynamics of $\phi$, as long as the much weaker constraint holds. Simplifying the notation, Eq. can be written as[^5] $$\partial_t f(t) = -{\Gamma}_t\left(f(t)-\bar f(t)\right),\label{effBEsimple}$$ with $$\bar f(t)\equiv({\Gamma}_t^>/{\Gamma}_t^<-1)^{-1}.$$ If the $\chi_i$ are in local thermal equilibrium, the gain and loss rates ${\Gamma}^<_t$ and ${\Gamma}^>_t$ are related by the detailed balance condition $$\label{DetailedBalance}
{\Gamma}_t^</{\Gamma}_t^>=e^{-{\Omega}_t/T(t)},$$ where $T(t)$ denotes an effective temperature; then $\bar f(t)$ becomes the usual Bose-Einstein distribution. Note that and are valid for each field mode $\textbf{q}$ separately.
Discussion
==========
The effective kinetic description in terms of the BE (\[EffBE\]) is well-controlled by the small parameters (\[smallnesses\]), [*i.e.* ]{}if all involved time scales are longer than ${\tau_\text{int}}$. It describes the behavior on the thermodynamic time scales $\Gamma_t^{-1}$, $H^{-1}$, but may receive corrections at times $\lesssim {\tau_\text{int}}$. These can be calculated by means of linear response theory. For very large time arguments, the exponential decay behavior of our solution for $\Delta^-$ usually requires corrections [@Gautier:2012vh]. As both, the spectral properties and our solution for $\Delta^+$, are dominated by contributions from the more recent past, this has little effect on the validity of the effective BE.
The small parameters that fix the accuracy of our WKB solutions for $\Delta^\pm$ are the same as those that control the convergence of the gradient expansion in the Wigner space approach. We therefore expect that the range of applicability of both techniques is similar. The advantages of both approaches are, however, complementary. On one hand, the Wigner space method more closely resembles the diagrammatic expansion of the S-matrix in vacuum, which is also performed in momentum space. This considerably eases the comparison with results obtained from S-matrix calculations. This also makes it more suitable to derive an effective Hamiltonian, as e.g. used in neutrino physics [@Sigl:1992fn; @Canetti:2012vf]. It does, on the other hand, require a resummation of infinitely many orders when finite width effects are important in the collision terms [@Garbrecht:2011xw]. Our method includes these effects in an intuitive way without resummation. It furthermore avoids the Fourier transformation of $\Delta^\pm$, which has to be taken with care in an initial value problem because it requires knowledge of the infinite past and future.
It is instructive to consider the solutions and locally in time, as they appear [*e.g.* ]{}in loop diagrams when calculating self-energies or when deriving properties like the energy density of fields. Defining mean and relative times as $t\equiv (t_1+t_2)/2$ and $y\equiv t_1-t_2$, respectively, we obtain in the limit $y\ll H^{-1}$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:damping}
{\Delta^-}(t_1,t_2) &\simeq \frac{\sin(y
{\Omega}_t)}{{\Omega}_t}e^{-\frac12|y|{\Gamma}_t}\quad\text{and}\\
{\Delta^+}(t_1,t_2) &\simeq \left[(1+2\bar f(t))e^{-\frac12|y|{\Gamma}_t} +2\delta f(t)
\right]
\frac{\cos(y {\Omega}_t)}{2{\Omega}_t}\;,
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta f(t)\equiv f(t) - \bar f(t)$. The damping rate of the spectral function as function of $y$ is just given by ${\Gamma}_t$. The damping of the statistical propagator can be understood by splitting it up in two parts as indicated. If the background is in thermal equilibrium, (\[DetailedBalance\]) is fulfilled and they correspond to the equilibrium and nonequilibrium parts of the propagator, respectively. In general, the term proportional to $\delta f(t)$ remains undamped (*cf.* discussion in [@Garbrecht:2011xw]). The overall damping of ${\Delta^+}$ approaches ${\Gamma}_t$ if $|\delta f(t)|\ll1$. In this case, and locally in time, our results reproduce the common Kadanoff-Baym ansatz (see [*e.g.* ]{}Refs. [@Lipavsky:1986zz; @Garny:2009ni; @Garbrecht:2011xw; @Chou:1984es; @Calzetta:1999xh; @Greiner:1998vd]). This implies that $f(t)$ as defined in indeed plays the role of a generalized phase space distribution function of effective plasma excitations. Note that $\Gamma_t^\gtrless$ may include off-shell transport [@Arnold:2000dr; @Anisimov:2008dz; @Anisimov:2010dk; @Anisimov:2010gy].
Using , we can discuss the effect of boundary conditions at finite time ($t_i=0$ for definiteness). If ${\Pi^+}$ is nonsingular at $t_1=t_2=0$, implies the initial conditions $\Delta^+_{\rm i}= \dot
\Delta^+_{\rm i}= \ddot\Delta^+_i=0$; here, we defined $\Delta^+_{\rm i}\equiv\Delta^+|_{t_1=t_2=0}$, $\dot\Delta^+_i \equiv
\partial_{t_1}\Delta^+|_{t_1=t_2=0} = \partial_{t_2}\Delta^+|_{t_1=t_2=0}$ and $\ddot\Delta^+_i\equiv\partial_{t_1}\partial_{t_2}\Delta^+|_{t_1=t_2=0}$. Arbitrary initial conditions for ${\Delta^+}$ can be implemented by formally adding $\delta \Pi^+(t_1, t_2) = -\partial_{t_1}\partial_{t_2}\Delta^+(t_1, t_2)
\delta(t_1)\delta(t_2)$ to $\Pi^+(t_1,t_2)$ in . Boltzmann behavior according to only arises when $\dot\Delta^+_{\rm i}=0$ and ${\Omega}_t\Delta^+_{\rm i}= {\Omega}_t^{-1}\ddot \Delta^+_{\rm i} = \frac12 +f|_{t=0}$; otherwise, generates oscillating terms that are exponentially damped away with the rate ${\Gamma}_t$.
The connection to the classical Boltzmann equation can be made more explicit by considering the contribution of the $\phi$-mode $\textbf{q}$ (index suppressed as before) to the energy density, calculated from the energy-momentum tensor[^6] $T_{\mu\nu}^{\phi}(x)=\partial_{\mu}\phi(x)\partial_{\nu}\phi(x)-\upeta_{\mu\nu}\mathcal{L}(x)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Energie}
\epsilon^{\phi}(t) &= \frac{1}{2}\left(\partial_{t_1}\partial_{t_2} +
\omega_{t_1}^2
\right)\left(\Delta^+(t_1,t_2)+\langle\phi(t_{1})\rangle\langle\phi(t_{2})\rangle\right)\big|_{t_1=t_2=t}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\langle\phi(t)\rangle$ is the one-point function or “mean field”, which in the following we set to zero, and $\omega_t=\sqrt{{\textbf{q}}^2 + m(t)^2}$. For illustration we consider the simplest case, when the background is in thermal equilibrium at constant temperature $T$ and $m(t)$ is a constant. Then ${\Gamma}^\gtrless_t$, $\Omega_t$ and $\omega_t$ are constant and (\[DetailedBalance\]) applies, [*i.e.* ]{}$\bar{f}=(e^{\Omega/T}-1)^{-1}$. Then (\[eqn:Ansatz\]) only depends on the relative time, $\Delta^-(t_1,t_2)=\Delta^-(t_1-t_2)$ [@Anisimov:2008dz]. To obtain nonequilibrium behavior, initial conditions $\Delta^{+}_{\text{i}}$, $\dot{\Delta}^{+}_{\text{i}}$, $\ddot{\Delta}^{+}_{\text{i}}$ for $\Delta^+$ and its derivatives have to be set up at finite time $t_1=t_2=t_i$ as described above. Then the statistical propagator reads [@Anisimov:2008dz] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{solution}
\Delta^{+}(t_{1},t_{2}) &=&
\Delta^{+}_{\text{i}}
\dot{\Delta}^{-}(t_{1})\dot{\Delta}^{-}(t_{2})
+\ddot{\Delta}^{+}_{\text{i}}
\Delta^{-}(t_{1})\Delta^{-}(t_{2})\nonumber\\
&+&\dot{\Delta}^{+}_{\text{i}}
\left(\dot{\Delta}^{-}(t_{1})\Delta^{-}(t_{2})
+\Delta^{-}(t_{1})\dot{\Delta}^{-}(t_{2})\right)\nonumber\\
&+& \int_{t_i}^{t_{1}}dt'\int_{t_i}^{t_{2}}dt''
\Delta^{-}(t_{1}-t')\Pi^{+}(t'-t'')\Delta^{-}(t''-t_{2}),\end{aligned}$$ where the $\dot{ }$ denotes a time derivative. The last line arises from (\[MemInt\]) in an obvious way; the other lines are due to the initial conditions at finite time, formally fixed by adding singular pieces to $\Pi^+$. Inserting (\[solution\]) into (\[Energie\]) with the previous assumptions yields [@Drewes:2010pf], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{energiedichtephi}
\lefteqn{\epsilon^{\phi}(t)=\frac{\Delta^{+}_{\text{i}}}{2}
\left(\frac{\omega^{2}-\Omega^{2}}{2}\cos(2\Omega{t})+\frac{\omega^{2}+\Omega^{2}}{2}\right)e^{-\Gamma{t}}}\nonumber\\
&-&\frac{\ddot{\Delta}^{+}_{\text{i}}}{2\Omega^{2}}
\left(\frac{\omega^{2}-\Omega^{2}}{2}\cos(2\Omega{t})-\frac{\omega^{2}+\Omega^{2}}{2}\right)e^{-\Gamma{t}}\nonumber\\
&+&\frac{\dot{\Delta}^{+}_{\text{i}}}{\Omega}
\frac{\omega^{2}-\Omega^{2}}{2}\sin(2\Omega{t})e^{-\Gamma{t}} + \left(\frac{1}{2}+\bar{f}\right)\frac{\omega^{2}+\Omega^{2}}{2\Omega}\left(1-e^{-\Gamma{t}}\right).\end{aligned}$$ The BE describing the classical analogue of this system - a collection of $\phi$ particles coupled to a large thermal bath - would read $\partial_{t}f(t) = -\Gamma(f(t)-\bar{f})$, with the solution $f(t)=\bar{f}+(f_{\text{i}}-\bar{f})e^{-\Gamma t}$ and $\epsilon^{\phi}(t)=\omega f(t)$. In these expressions $f(t)$ is the classical particle number and $f_{\text{i}}$ its initial value. The general shape of (\[energiedichtephi\]), including oscillations in time, is very different. This is expected because the quantum system can be prepared in a state that does not correspond to a definite particle number. If the initial conditions are chosen as $\Delta^{+}_{\text{i}}
= \frac{1}{\Omega}
\left(\frac{1}{2}+f_{{\rm i}}\right)$, $\dot{\Delta}^{+}_{\text{i}}
= 0 $, $\ddot{\Delta}^{+}_{\rm i} = \Omega
\left(\frac{1}{2}+f_{{\rm i}}\right)$, one obtains an expression that (up to a vacuum energy) reproduces the classical expression in the limit $\Omega\rightarrow \omega$, $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon^{\phi}(t)=\frac{\Omega^{2}+\omega^{2}}{2\Omega}\left(
\left(\frac12+\bar{f}\right)+\big(f_{{\rm
i}}
-\bar{f}\big)e^{-\Gamma t}\right).\label{tsunami}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the vacuum piece depends on the background properties (e.g. temperature) for $\Omega\neq\omega$. Similar terms containing combinations $\Omega^2\pm\omega^2$ also appear in the expression for the pressure and can lead to a negative equation of state for $\Omega^2<\omega^2$ [@Anisimov:2008dz].
In the early universe, quantum fields propagate in an expanding background described by a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric with scale factor $a(t)$ and Hubble rate $H\equiv \dot a/a$. Since in conformal coordinates this is equivalent to a time-dependent mass term and self-energies, expansion is already accounted for in our calculation. The BE remains unchanged, but the distribution function becomes a function of comoving momentum ${\textbf{q}}_\text{com}=a(t){\textbf{q}}$. Going back to units of physical space and momentum yields the well-known result $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EffBE2}
\partial_t f_{\textbf{q}}(t) = \left( 1+f_{\textbf{q}}(t) \right){\Gamma}^<_{t}\! -\! f_{\textbf{q}}(t){\Gamma}^>_{t}
+H{\textbf{q}}\nabla_{\textbf{q}}f_{\textbf{q}}(t) \;.\end{aligned}$$
Conclusions
===========
We have presented a simple method to derive effective Boltzmann equations (BEs) from the fundamental Kadanoff-Baym equations (KBEs), and illustrated it in case of a single real scalar field $\phi$. In contrast to previous derivations, which are based on a gradient expansion of the KBEs in Wigner space, we derived approximate WKB solutions to the full KBEs. These are valid under the very general physical assumptions of weak coupling and separation of macroscopic and microscopic time scales. This includes situations where the background evolves much faster than $\phi$. The statistical propagator can be expressed in terms of a generalized distribution function that follows a generalized BE, [*i.e.* ]{}a first order differential equation that is local in time. The accuracy of the BE is controlled by the accuracy of the WKB solution to the full KBE. Locally in time, our solutions for the correlation functions reproduce the common Kadanoff-Baym ansatz when the deviation from equilibrium is small. The presented approach can be extended to fermions with gauge interactions and multi-flavor problems, including flavor oscillations, as well as beyond the weak damping regime. Boltzmann behavior arises whenever the WKB approximation is justified.\
\
**Acknowledgments** - We are very grateful to Jürgen Berges, Mathias Garny, Georg Raffelt and Julien Serreau for useful discussions and comments on the manuscript. This work is supported by the Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz programme of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. C.W. acknowledges partial support from the European 1231 Union FP7 ITN INVISIBLES (Marie Curie Actions, PITN-GA-2011-289442).
[10]{} E. Calzetta, B.L. Hu, *Nonequilibrium Quantum Field Theory*, Cambridge University Press 2008, and references therein.
N. Bogoljubov, J. Phys. (USSR) [**10**]{}, 257 (1946) L. P. Kadanoff and G. Baym, [*Quantum Statistical Mechanics*]{}, Benjamin, New York, 1962.
P. Danielewicz, Annals Phys. [**152**]{} 239 (1984). K. Chou, Z. Su, B. Hao and L. Yu, Phys. Rept. [**118**]{} 1 (1985). E. Calzetta and B. L. Hu, Phys. Rev. D [**37**]{} 2878 (1988).
S. Jeon and L. G. Yaffe, Phys. Rev. D [**53**]{} (1996) 5799.
C. Greiner and S. Leupold, Annals Phys. [**270**]{} 328 (1998). E. Calzetta and B. L. Hu, Phys. Rev. D [**61**]{} 025012 (1999). D. Boyanovsky, H. J. de Vega and S.-Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. D [**61**]{} 065006 (2000);
W. Buchmuller and S. Fredenhagen, Phys. Lett. B [**483**]{} 217 (2000). Y. .B. Ivanov, J. Knoll and D. N. Voskresensky, Nucl. Phys. A [**672**]{}, 313 (2000) \[nucl-th/9905028\]. J. M. Cline, M. Joyce and K. Kainulainen, JHEP [**0007**]{} 018 (2000). J. -P. Blaizot and E. Iancu, Phys. Rept. [**359**]{}, 355 (2002). T. Prokopec, M. G. Schmidt and S. Weinstock, Annals Phys. [**314**]{} 208 (2004); T. Prokopec, M. G. Schmidt and S. Weinstock, Annals Phys. [**314**]{} 267 (2004).
D. Boyanovsky, K. Davey and C. M. Ho, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{} 023523 (2005). J. Berges and S. Borsanyi, Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{}, 045022 (2006).
A. De Simone and A. Riotto, JCAP [**0708**]{} 002 (2007). A. Hohenegger, A. Kartavtsev and M. Lindner, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{} 085027 (2008). A. Anisimov, W. Buchmuller, M. Drewes and S. Mendizabal, Annals Phys. [**324**]{} 1234 (2009); M. Drewes, \[arXiv:1012.5380 \[hep-th\]\].
M. Garny and M. M. Muller, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{} 085011 (2009). M. Garny, A. Hohenegger, A. Kartavtsev and M. Lindner, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 125027 (2009); M. Garny, A. Hohenegger, A. Kartavtsev and M. Lindner, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 085027 (2010); M. Garny, A. Hohenegger and A. Kartavtsev, arXiv:1005.5385 \[hep-ph\]. V. Cirigliano, C. Lee, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf and S. Tulin, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{} 103503 (2010). M. Beneke, B. Garbrecht, M. Herranen and P. Schwaller, Nucl. Phys. B [**838**]{}, 1 (2010); M. Beneke, B. Garbrecht, C. Fidler, M. Herranen and P. Schwaller, Nucl. Phys. B [**843**]{}, 177 (2011); B. Garbrecht and M. Herranen, arXiv:1112.5954 \[hep-ph\]; B. Garbrecht, Nucl. Phys. B [**847**]{} 350 (2011). A. Anisimov, W. Buchmuller, M. Drewes and S. Mendizabal, Annals Phys. [**326**]{} 1998 (2011); A. Anisimov, W. Buchmuller, M. Drewes and S. Mendizabal, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{} 121102 (2010). M. Herranen, K. Kainulainen and P. M. Rahkila, JHEP [**1012**]{} 072 (2010); M. Herranen, K. Kainulainen and P. M. Rahkila, JHEP [**1202**]{}, 080 (2012); C. Fidler, M. Herranen, K. Kainulainen and P. M. Rahkila, JHEP [**1202**]{}, 065 (2012) \[arXiv:1108.2309 \[hep-ph\]\]. B. Garbrecht and M. Garny, Annals Phys. [**327**]{}, 914 (2012). G. Sigl and G. Raffelt, Nucl. Phys. B [**406**]{} 423 (1993).
P. B. Arnold, G. D. Moore and L. G. Yaffe, JHEP [**0011**]{} 001 (2000). P. B. Arnold, G. D. Moore and L. G. Yaffe, JHEP [**0305**]{}, 051 (2003); P. B. Arnold, G. D. Moore and L. G. Yaffe, JHEP [**0301**]{}, 030 (2003). L. Canetti, M. Drewes and M. Shaposhnikov, arXiv:1204.3902 \[hep-ph\]; L. Canetti, M. Drewes, T. Frossard and M. Shaposhnikov, arXiv:1208.4607 \[hep-ph\]. F. Fillion-Gourdeau, J. S. Gagnon and S. Jeon, Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{} 025010 (2006). F. Gautier and J. Serreau, arXiv:1209.1827 \[hep-th\].
G. Wentzel, Z. Phys. [**38**]{} 518 (1926); H. A. Kramers, Z. Phys. [**39**]{} 828 (1926); L. Brillouin, C. .R. Acad. Sci. [**183**]{} 24 (1926).
J. M. Luttinger and J. C. Ward, Phys. Rev. [**118**]{} 1417 (1960); R. P. Feynman and F. L. Vernon, Jr., Annals Phys. [**24**]{}, 118 (1963) \[Annals Phys. [**281**]{}, 547 (2000)\]; J. M. Cornwall, R. Jackiw and E. Tomboulis, Phys. Rev. D [**10**]{} 2428 (1974); J. Berges, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{} 105010 (2004). For a review see J. Berges, AIP Conf. Proc. [**739**]{} 3-62 (2005) . J. S. Schwinger, J. Math. Phys. [**2**]{} 407 (1961); L. V. Keldysh, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**47**]{} 1515 (1964) \[Sov. Phys. JETP [**20**]{} 1018 (1965)\]. P. Lipavsky, V. Spicka and B. Velicky, Phys. Rev. B [**34**]{} 6933 (1986); T. Altherr, Phys. Lett. B [**341**]{} 325 (1995).
A. Anisimov, D. Besak and D. Bodeker, JCAP [**1103**]{} 042 (2011); D. Besak and D. Bodeker, JCAP [**1203**]{}, 029 (2012) \[arXiv:1202.1288 \[hep-ph\]\].
[^1]: The KBE are equations of motion for correlation functions. Alternatively one can use equations of motion for the fields themselves as starting point, c.f. [@Gautier:2012vh] and references therein for a detailed comparison.
[^2]: Our approach does not rely on the way $\phi$ couples to the bath as long as conditions 1)-3) specified in section \[sec:towBE\] are fulfilled. In (\[L\]) we chose a coupling that is linear in $\phi$ to obtain the simple explicit expressions (\[SelfEnergiesDef\]) for the self-energies and to justify the time translation invariance of $\Pi^\pm$ in equations (\[solution\])-(\[tsunami\]) All other formulae and considerations remain valid for an arbitrary coupling between $\phi$ and other fields.
[^3]: The physical damping rate is obtained after renormalization. This usually amounts to multiplication of $\Gamma_t$ by a wave function renormalization constant [@Boyanovsky:2004dj; @Anisimov:2008dz].
[^4]: A more strict notion of locality can be imposed on the integrals on the RHS of (\[kb1\]) and (\[kb2\]) [@Gautier:2012vh]. Though weaker than the locality condition on $\Pi^\pm$, it is usually sufficient for what follows.
[^5]: Terms of higher order in $f$, such as $f^2-\bar{f}^2$, are contained in (\[effBEsimple\]) via the $f$-dependence of ${\Gamma}_t$. They always appear, but are of higher order in the coupling between $\phi$ and other fields because we chose the interaction in (\[L\]) to be linear in $\phi$ for illustrative purposes.
[^6]: Here $\upeta={\rm diag}(1,-1,-1,-1)$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We employ a certain labeled finite graph, called a chart, in a closed oriented surface for describing the monodromy of a(n achiral) Lefschetz fibration over the surface. Applying charts and their moves with respect to Wajnryb’s presentation of mapping class groups, we first generalize a signature formula for Lefschetz fibrations over the $2$–sphere obtained by Endo and Nagami to that for Lefschetz fibrations over arbitrary closed oriented surface. We then show two theorems on stabilization of Lefschetz fibrations under fiber summing with copies of a typical Lefschetz fibration as generalizations of a theorem of Auroux.'
address:
- |
Department of Mathematics\
Tokyo Institute of Technology\
2-12-1 Oh-okayama\
Meguro-ku\
Tokyo 152-8551\
Japan
- |
Ministry of Health\
Labour and Welfare\
1-2-2 Kasumigaseki\
Chiyoda-ku\
Tokyo 100-8916\
Japan
- |
Department of Mathematics\
Osaka City University\
3-3-138 Sugimoto\
Sumiyoshi-ku\
Osaka 558-8585\
Japan
- |
Department of Mathematics\
Tokyo Gakugei University\
4-1-1 Nukuikita-machi\
Koganei-shi\
Tokyo 184-8501\
Japan
author:
- Hisaaki Endo
- Isao Hasegawa
- Seiichi Kamada
- Kokoro Tanaka
title: 'Charts, signatures, and stabilizations of Lefschetz fibrations'
---
Introduction
============
Matsumoto [@Matsumoto1986] proved that every Lefschetz fibration of genus one over a closed oriented surface is isomorphic to a fiber sum of copies of a holomorphic elliptic fibration on $\mathbb{CP}^2\# 9\overline{\mathbb{CP}}^2$ and a trivial torus bundle over the surface if it has at least one critical point. This result played a crucial role in completing the classification of diffeomorphism types of elliptic surfaces (see Gompf and Stipsicz [@GS1999 Section 8.3]). Although such a classification has not been established for Lefschetz fibrations of higher genus, Auroux [@Auroux2003] proved a stabilization theorem for Lefschetz fibrations of genus two, which states that every Lefschetz fibration of genus two over the $2$–sphere becomes isomorphic to a fiber sum of copies of three typical fibrations after fiber summing with a holomorphic fibration on $\mathbb{CP}^2\# 13\overline{\mathbb{CP}}^2$. Auroux [@Auroux2005] gave a generalization of this theorem for Lefschetz fibrations of higher genus, which states that two Lefschetz fibrations of the same genus over the $2$–sphere which have the same signature, the same numbers of singular fibers of each type, and admit sections of the same self-intersection number become isomorphic after fiber summing the same number of copies of a ‘universal’ Lefschetz fibration.
Kamada [@Kamada1992; @Kamada1996] introduced charts, which are labeled finite graphs in a disk, to describe monodromies of surface braids (see also a textbook [@Kamada2002] of Kamada). Kamada, Matsumoto, Matumoto, and Waki [@KMMW2005] considered a variant of chart for Lefschetz fibrations of genus one to give a remarkably simple proof of the above result of Matsumoto. Furthermore Kamada [@Kamada2012], and Endo and Kamada [@EK2013; @EK2014] made use of generalized charts to give a simple proof of the above theorem of Auroux for Lefschetz fibrations of genus two, and to investigate a stabilization theorem and an invariant for hyperelliptic Lefschetz fibrations of arbitrary genus. See also Baykur and Kamada [@BK2010], and Hayano [@Hayano2011] for applications of charts to broken Lefschetz fibrations.
In this paper we introduce a chart description for Lefschetz fibrations of genus greater than two over closed oriented surfaces of arbitrary genus to show a signature formula and two theorems on stabilization for such fibrations. In Section 2 we introduce charts and chart moves with respect to Wajnryb’s presentation of mapping class groups to examine monodromies of Lefschetz fibrations. After a short survey of Meyer’s signature cocycle, we generalize a signature formula [@EN2004] of Endo and Nagami for Lefschetz fibrations over the $2$–sphere to that for Lefschetz fibrations over a closed oriented surface of arbitrary genus in Section 3. Section 4 is devoted to proofs of two theorems on stabilization of Lefschetz fibrations under fiber summing with copies of a ‘universal’ Lefschetz fibration. In particular the first of our stabilization theorems is a generalization of the theorem of Auroux [@Auroux2005]. We make several comments on variations of chart description and propose some possible directions for future research in Section 5.
Chart description for Lefschetz fibrations
==========================================
In this section we review a definition and properties of Lefschetz fibrations and introduce a chart description for Lefschetz fibrations of genus greater than two.
Lefschetz fibrations and their monodromies
------------------------------------------
In this subsection we review a precise definition and basic properties of Lefschetz fibrations. More details can be found in Matsumoto [@Matsumoto1996] and Gompf and Stipsicz [@GS1999].
Let $\Sigma_g$ be a connected closed oriented surface of genus $g$.
\[LF\] Let $M$ and $B$ be connected closed oriented smooth $4$–manifold and $2$–manifold, respectively. A smooth map $f\co M\rightarrow B$ is called a [*Lefschetz fibration*]{} of genus $g$ if it satisfies the following conditions:
\(i) the set $\Delta\subset B$ of critical values of $f$ is finite and $f$ is a smooth fiber bundle over $B-\Delta$ with fiber $\Sigma_g$;
\(ii) for each $b\in\Delta$, there exists a unique critical point $p$ in the [*singular fiber*]{} $F_b:=f^{-1}(b)$ such that $f$ is locally written as $f(z_1,z_2)=z_1z_2$ or $\bar{z}_1z_2$ with respect to some local complex coordinates around $p$ and $b$ which are compatible with orientations of $M$ and $B$;
\(iii) no fiber contains a $(\pm 1)$–sphere.
We call $M$ the [*total space*]{}, $B$ the [*base space*]{}, and $f$ the [*projection*]{}. We call $p$ a critical point of [*positive type*]{} (resp. of [*negative type*]{}) and $F_b$ a singular fiber of [*positive type*]{} (resp. of [*negative type*]{}) if $f$ is locally written as $f(z_1,z_2)=z_1z_2$ (resp. $f(z_1,z_2)=\bar{z}_1z_2$) in (ii). For a regular value $b\in B$ of $f$, $f^{-1}(b)$ is often called a [*general fiber*]{}.
A Lefschetz fibration in this paper is called an [*achiral*]{} Lefschetz fibration in many other papers.
Let $f\co M\rightarrow B$ and $f'\co M'\rightarrow B$ be Lefschetz fibrations of genus $g$ over the same base space $B$. We say that $f$ is [*isomorphic*]{} to $f'$ if there exist orientation preserving diffeomorphisms $H\co M\rightarrow M'$ and $h\co B\rightarrow B$ which satisfy $f'\circ H=h\circ f$. If we can choose such an $h$ isotopic to the identity relative to a given base point $b_0\in B$, we say that $f$ is [*strictly isomorphic*]{} to $f'$.
Let $\mathcal{M}_g$ be the mapping class group of $\Sigma_g$, namely the group of all isotopy classes of orientation preserving diffeomorphisms of $\Sigma_g$. We assume that $\mathcal{M}_g$ acts on the [*right*]{}: the symbol $\varphi\psi$ means that we apply $\varphi$ first and then $\psi$ for $\varphi, \psi \in \mathcal{M}_g$. We denote the mapping class group of $\Sigma_g$ acting on the left by $\mathcal{M}_g^*$. Hence the identity map $\mathcal{M}_g\rightarrow \mathcal{M}_g^*$ is an anti-isomorphism. Let $f\co M\rightarrow B$ be a Lefschetz fibration of genus $g$ as in Definition \[LF\]. Take a base point $b_0\in B$ and an orientation preserving diffeomorphism $\Phi\co\Sigma_g\rightarrow F_0:=f^{-1}(b_0)$. Since $f$ restricted over $B-\Delta$ is a smooth fiber bundle with fiber $\Sigma_g$, we can define a homomorphism $$\rho\co\pi_1(B-\Delta,b_0)\rightarrow \mathcal{M}_g$$ called the [*monodromy representation*]{} of $f$ with respect to $\Phi$. Let $\gamma$ be the loop based at $b_0$ consisting of the boundary circle of a small disk neighborhood of $b\in\Delta$ oriented counterclockwise and a simple path connecting a point on the circle to $b_0$ in $B-\Delta$. It is known that $\rho([\gamma])$ is a Dehn twist along some essential simple closed curve $c$ on $\Sigma_g$, which is called the [*vanishing cycle*]{} of the critical point $p$ on $f^{-1}(b)$. If $p$ is of positive type (resp. of negative type), then the Dehn twist is right-handed (resp. left-handed).
A singular fiber is said to be of [*type [I]{}*]{} if the vanishing cycle is non-separating and of [*type ${\rm II}_h$*]{} for $h=1,\ldots , [g/2]$ if the vanishing cycle is separating and it bounds a genus–$h$ subsurface of $\Sigma_g$. A singular fiber is said to be of [*type ${\rm I}^+$*]{} (resp. [*type ${\rm I}^-$*]{} and [*type ${\rm II}_h^+$*]{}, [*type ${\rm II}_h^-$*]{}) if it is of type I and of positive type (resp. of type I and of negative type, of type ${\rm II}_h$ and of positive type, of type ${\rm II}_h$ and of negative type). We denote by $n_0^{+}(f)$, $n_0^{-}(f)$, $n_h^{+}(f)$, and $n_h^{-}(f)$, the numbers of singular fibers of $f$ of type ${\rm I}^+$, ${\rm I}^-$, ${\rm II}_h^+$, and ${\rm II}_h^-$, respectively. A Lefschetz fibration is called [*irreducible*]{} if every singular fiber is of type I. A Lefschetz fibration is called [*chiral*]{} if every singular fiber is of positive type.
Suppose that the cardinality of $\Delta$ is equal to $n$. A system ${\cal A}= (A_1, \dots, A_n)$ of arcs on $B$ is called a [*Hurwitz arc system*]{} for $\Delta$ with base point $b_0$ if each $A_i$ is an embedded arc connecting $b_0$ with a point of $\Delta$ in $B$ such that $A_i \cap A_j= \{b_0\}$ for $i \ne j$, and they appear in this order around $b_0$ (see Kamada [@Kamada2002]). When $B$ is a $2$-sphere, the system ${\cal A}$ determines a system of generators of $\pi_1(B- \Delta, b_0)$, say $(a_1, \dots, a_n)$. We call $( \rho(a_1), \dots, \rho(a_n) )$ a [*Hurwitz system*]{} of $f$.
Chart description and Wajnryb’s presentation
--------------------------------------------
In this subsection we introduce a chart description for Lefschetz fibrations of genus greater than two by employing Wajnryb’s finite presentation [@Wajnryb1983] of mapping class groups. General theories of charts for presentations of groups were developed independently by Kamada [@Kamada2007] and Hasegawa [@Hasegawa2006]. We use the terminology of chart description in Kamada [@Kamada2007].
We first review a finite presentation of the mapping class group of a closed oriented surface due to Wajnryb. For $i=0,1,\ldots ,2g$, let $\zeta_i$ be a right-handed Dehn twist along the simple closed curve $c_i$ on $\Sigma_g$ depicted in Figure \[curves\].
$c_1$ \[r\] at 0 155 $c_2$ \[t\] at 45 139 $c_3$ \[t\] at 70 146 $c_4$ \[t\] at 98 139 $c_0$ \[r\] at 88 182 $c_{2g}$ \[t\] at 242 139 $c_2$ \[t\] at 44 26 $c_{2h}$ \[t\] at 105 26 $c_{2h+2}$ \[t\] at 182 26 $c_{2g}$ \[t\] at 243 26 $s_{h}$ \[r\] at 135 72 ![Simple closed curves on $\Sigma_g$[]{data-label="curves"}](curves "fig:")
\[pres\] Suppose that $g$ is greater than two. The mapping class group $\mathcal{M}_g$ is generated by elements $\zeta_0,\zeta_1,\zeta_2,\ldots ,\zeta_{2g}$ and has defining relations: [$$\tag*{$\bullet$ (Far--commutation)}
\zeta_i\zeta_j =\zeta_j\zeta_i \;\; (1\leq i<j-1\leq 2g-1), \quad
\zeta_0\zeta_j =\zeta_j\zeta_0 \;\; (j=1,2,3,5,\ldots ,2g),$$ $$\tag*{$\bullet$ (Braid relation)}
\zeta_i\zeta_{i+1}\zeta_i =\zeta_{i+1}\zeta_i\zeta_{i+1} \;\; (i=1,\ldots ,2g-1), \quad
\zeta_0\zeta_4\zeta_0 =\zeta_4\zeta_0\zeta_4;$$ $$\tag*{$\bullet$ ($3$-chain relation)}
(\zeta_3\zeta_2\zeta_1)^4
=\zeta_0
\zeta_4^{-1}\zeta_3^{-1}\zeta_2^{-1}\zeta_1^{-2}\zeta_2^{-1}\zeta_3^{-1}\zeta_4^{-1}
\zeta_0\zeta_4\zeta_3\zeta_2\zeta_1^2\zeta_2\zeta_3\zeta_4;$$ $$\tag*{$\bullet$ (Lantern relation)}
\delta_3\zeta_1\zeta_3\zeta_5 = \zeta_0\tau_2\zeta_0\tau_2^{-1}
\tau_1\tau_2\zeta_0\tau_2^{-1}\tau_1^{-1}, \quad {\sl where}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
& \tau_1:=\zeta_2\zeta_3\zeta_1\zeta_2, \quad
\tau_2:=\zeta_4\zeta_5\zeta_3\zeta_4, \quad
\mu:=\zeta_5\zeta_6\tau_2\zeta_0\tau_2^{-1}\zeta_6^{-1}\zeta_5^{-1}, \\
& \nu:=\zeta_1\zeta_2\zeta_3\zeta_4\zeta_0\zeta_4^{-1}\zeta_3^{-1}\zeta_2^{-1}\zeta_1^{-1},
\quad \delta_3:=\zeta_6^{-1}\zeta_5^{-1}\zeta_4^{-1}\zeta_3^{-1}\zeta_2^{-1}
\mu^{-1}\nu\mu\zeta_2\zeta_3\zeta_4\zeta_5\zeta_6;\end{aligned}$$ $$\tag*{$\bullet$ (Hyperelliptic relation)}
\zeta_{2g}\cdots\zeta_3\zeta_2\zeta_1^2\zeta_2\zeta_3\cdots\zeta_{2g}
\delta_g=\delta_g
\zeta_{2g}\cdots\zeta_3\zeta_2\zeta_1^2\zeta_2\zeta_3\cdots\zeta_{2g},
\quad {\sl where}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
& \tau_1:=\zeta_2\zeta_3\zeta_1\zeta_2, \quad
\tau_i:=\zeta_{2i}\zeta_{2i-1}\zeta_{2i+1}\zeta_{2i}, \\
& \nu_1:=\zeta_4^{-1}\zeta_3^{-1}\zeta_2^{-1}\zeta_1^{-2}\zeta_2^{-1}\zeta_3^{-1}\zeta_4^{-1}
\zeta_0\zeta_4\zeta_3\zeta_2\zeta_1^2\zeta_2\zeta_3\zeta_4, \quad
\nu_i:=\tau_{i-1}\tau_i\nu_{i-1}\tau_i^{-1}\tau_{i-1}^{-1}, \\
& \mu_1:=\zeta_2\zeta_3\zeta_4\nu_1\zeta_1^{-1}\zeta_2^{-1}\zeta_3^{-1}\zeta_4^{-1}, \quad
\mu_i:=\zeta_{2i}\zeta_{2i+1}\zeta_{2i+2}\nu_i\zeta_{2i-1}^{-1}\zeta_{2i}^{-1}
\zeta_{2i+1}^{-1}\zeta_{2i+2}^{-1}, \\
& \delta_g :=\mu_{g-1}^{-1}\cdots \mu_2^{-1}\mu_1^{-1}\zeta_1\mu_1\mu_2\cdots\mu_{g-1}\end{aligned}$$]{} for $i=2,\ldots ,g-1$.
We make use of the presentation above to introduce a notion of chart which gives a graphic description of monodromy representations of Lefschetz fibrations. We set [$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{X} & :=\{\zeta_0,\zeta_1,\ldots ,\zeta_{2g}\}, \\
\mathcal{R} & :=\{r_F(i,j)\, |\, 1\leq i<j-1\leq 2g-1\}\cup \{r_F(0,j)\, |\, j=1,2,3,5,\ldots ,2g\} \\
& \quad \cup \{r_B(i)\, |\, i=0,1,\ldots ,2g-1\}\cup \{r_C,r_L,r_H \}, \\
\mathcal{S} & :=\{\ell_0(i)^{\pm 1}\, |\, i=0,1,\ldots ,2g\}
\cup \{\ell_h^{\pm 1}\, |\, h=1,\ldots ,[g/2]\}, \end{aligned}$$]{} for $g\geq 3$, where [$$\begin{aligned}
& r_F(i,j) :=\zeta_i\zeta_j\zeta_i^{-1}\zeta_j^{-1}, \quad
r_B(0):=\zeta_0\zeta_4\zeta_0\zeta_4^{-1}\zeta_0^{-1}\zeta_4^{-1}, \\
& r_B(i) :=\zeta_i\zeta_{i+1}\zeta_i\zeta_{i+1}^{-1}\zeta_i^{-1}\zeta_{i+1}^{-1} \;\; (i=1,\ldots ,2g-1), \\
& r_C:=(\zeta_3\zeta_2\zeta_1)^4
\zeta_4^{-1}\zeta_3^{-1}\zeta_2^{-1}\zeta_1^{-2}\zeta_2^{-1}\zeta_3^{-1}\zeta_4^{-1}
\zeta_0^{-1}\zeta_4\zeta_3\zeta_2\zeta_1^2\zeta_2\zeta_3\zeta_4\zeta_0^{-1}, \\
& r_L:=\delta_3\zeta_1\zeta_3\zeta_5\tau_1\tau_2\zeta_0^{-1}\tau_2^{-1}\tau_1^{-1}
\tau_2\zeta_0^{-1}\tau_2^{-1}\zeta_0^{-1}, \\
& r_H:=\zeta_{2g}\cdots\zeta_3\zeta_2\zeta_1^2\zeta_2\zeta_3\cdots\zeta_{2g}
\delta_g\zeta_{2g}^{-1}\cdots\zeta_3^{-1}\zeta_2^{-1}\zeta_1^{-2}
\zeta_2^{-1}\zeta_3^{-1}\cdots\zeta_{2g}^{-1}\delta_g^{-1}, \\
& \ell_0(i):=\zeta_i \;\; (i=0,1,\ldots ,2g), \quad
\ell_h:=(\zeta_1\zeta_2\cdots\zeta_{2h})^{4h+2} \;\; (h=1,\ldots ,[g/2]), \end{aligned}$$]{} and $\delta_3, \tau_1, \tau_2, \delta_g$ are defined as in Theorem \[pres\].
Let $B$ be a connected closed oriented surface and $\Gamma$ a finite graph in $B$ such that each edge of $\Gamma$ is oriented and labeled with an element of $\mathcal{X}$. We denote the label $\zeta_i$ by $i$ for short. Choose a simple path $\gamma$ which intersects with edges of $\Gamma$ transversely and does not intersect with vertices of $\Gamma$. For such a path $\gamma$, we obtain a word $w_{\Gamma}(\gamma)$ in $\mathcal{X}\cup\mathcal{X}^{-1}$ by reading off the labels of intersecting edges along $\gamma$ with exponents as in Figure \[intersection\] (a). We call the word $w_{\Gamma}(\gamma)$ the [*intersection word*]{} of $\gamma$ with respect to $\Gamma$. Conversely, we can specify the number, orientations, and labels of consecutive edges in $\Gamma$ by indicating a (dashed) arrow intersecting the edges transversely together with the intersection word of the arrow with respect to $\Gamma$ (see Figure \[intersection\] (b) and (c)).
$\gamma$ \[r\] at 0 18 $1$ \[t\] at 30 0 $2$ \[t\] at 59 0 $1$ \[t\] at 87 0 $3$ \[t\] at 116 0 $2$ \[t\] at 143 0 \[t\] at 85 -15 $w$ \[l\] at 255 18 \[t\] at 235 -15 $w$ \[b\] at 313 33 \[t\] at 313 -15 ![Intersection word $w_{\Gamma}(\gamma)=w=\zeta_1\zeta_2^{-1}\zeta_1^{-1}\zeta_3\zeta_2$[]{data-label="intersection"}](intersection "fig:")
For a vertex $v$ of $\Gamma$, a small simple closed curve surrounding $v$ in the counterclockwise direction is called a [*meridian loop*]{} of $v$ and denoted by $m_v$. The vertex $v$ is said to be [*marked*]{} if one of the regions around $v$ is specified by an asterisk. If $v$ is marked, the intersection word $w_{\Gamma}(m_v)$ of $m_v$ with respect to $\Gamma$ is well-defined. If not, it is determined up to cyclic permutation. See Kamada [@Kamada2007] for details.
\[def:chart\] A [*chart*]{} in $B$ is a finite graph $\Gamma$ in $B$ (possibly being empty or having [*hoops*]{} that are closed edges without vertices) whose edges are labeled with an element of $\mathcal{X}$, and oriented so that the following conditions are satisfied (see Figure \[verticesA\], Figure \[verticesB\], and Figure \[verticesC\]):
- the vertices of $\Gamma$ are classified into two families: [*white vertices*]{} and [*black vertices*]{};
- if $v$ is a white vertex (resp. a black vertex), the word $w_{\Gamma}(m_v)$ is a cyclic permutation of an element of $\mathcal{R}\cup\mathcal{R}^{-1}$ (resp. of $\mathcal{S}$).
A white vertex $v$ is said to be of [*type*]{} $r$ (resp. of [*type*]{} $r^{-1}$) if $w_{\Gamma}(m_v)^{-1}$ is a cyclic permutation of $r\in\mathcal{R}$ (resp. of $r^{-1}\in\mathcal{R}^{-1}$). A black vertex $v$ is said to be of [*type*]{} $s$ if $w_{\Gamma}(m_v)$ is a cyclic permutation of $s\in\mathcal{S}$. A chart $\Gamma$ is said to be [*marked*]{} if each white vertex (resp. black vertex) $v$ is marked and $w_{\Gamma}(m_v)$ is exactly an element of $\mathcal{R}\cup\mathcal{R}^{-1}$ (resp. of $\mathcal{S}$). If a base point $b_0$ of $B$ is specified, we always assume that a chart $\Gamma$ is disjoint from $b_0$. A chart consisting of two black vertices and one edge connecting them is called a [*free edge*]{}.
$i$ \[tr\] at 1 21 $j$ \[br\] at 1 52 $i$ \[bl\] at 31 52 $j$ \[tl\] at 31 21 $i$ \[tr\] at 95 18 $i\negthinspace +\negthinspace 1$ \[r\] at 88 35 $i$ \[br\] at 96 54 $i\negthinspace +\negthinspace 1$ \[bl\] at 133 54 $i$ \[l\] at 139 35 $i\negthinspace +\negthinspace 1$ \[tl\] at 132 18 $3$ \[b\] at 222 73 $2$ \[b\] at 231 73 $1$ \[b\] at 239 73 $3$ \[b\] at 248 73 $2$ \[b\] at 256 73 $1$ \[b\] at 265 73 $3$ \[b\] at 273 73 $2$ \[b\] at 282 73 $1$ \[b\] at 291 73 $3$ \[b\] at 300 73 $2$ \[b\] at 309 73 $1$ \[b\] at 317 73 $4$ \[t\] at 346 0 $3$ \[t\] at 337 0 $2$ \[t\] at 330 0 $1$ \[t\] at 321 0 $1$ \[t\] at 312 0 $2$ \[t\] at 303 0 $3$ \[t\] at 295 0 $4$ \[t\] at 287 0 $0$ \[t\] at 278 0 $4$ \[t\] at 270 0 $3$ \[t\] at 261 0 $2$ \[t\] at 252 0 $1$ \[t\] at 243 0 $1$ \[t\] at 235 0 $2$ \[t\] at 227 0 $3$ \[t\] at 219 0 $4$ \[t\] at 210 0 $0$ \[t\] at 201 0 ![Vertices of type $r_F(i,j)$, $r_B(i)\; (i\ne 0)$, $r_C$[]{data-label="verticesA"}](verticesA "fig:")
$\delta_3$ \[b\] at 29 90 $1$ \[b\] at 47 84 $3$ \[b\] at 56 84 $5$ \[b\] at 64 84 $\tau_1$ \[b\] at 81 90 $\tau_2$ \[b\] at 107 90 $0$ \[t\] at 128 9 $\tau_2^{-\negthinspace 1}$ \[t\] at 111 4 $\tau_1^{-\negthinspace 1}$ \[t\] at 85 4 $\tau_2$ \[t\] at 62 4 $0$ \[t\] at 42 9 $\tau_2^{-\negthinspace 1}$ \[t\] at 26 4 $0$ \[t\] at 8 9 $2g$ \[b\] at 218 94 $1$ \[b\] at 244 94 $1$ \[b\] at 253 94 $2g$ \[b\] at 278 94 $\delta_g$ \[l\] at 321 47 $2g$ \[t\] at 278 0 $1$ \[t\] at 253 0 $1$ \[t\] at 244 0 $2g$ \[t\] at 218 0 $\delta_g^{-1}$ \[r\] at 178 47 ![Vertices of type $r_L$ and $r_H$[]{data-label="verticesB"}](verticesB "fig:")
$i$ \[l\] at 46 34 $i$ \[l\] at 46 8 $1$ \[b\] at 223 45 $2h$ \[b\] at 202 45 $1$ \[b\] at 193 45 $2h$ \[b\] at 174 45 $1$ \[b\] at 139 45 $2h$ \[b\] at 118 45 ![Vertices of type $\ell_0(i)^{\pm 1}$ and $\ell_h$[]{data-label="verticesC"}](verticesC "fig:")
It would be worth noting that the intersection word of a ‘clockwise’ meridian of a white vertex of type $r$ is equal to $r$, while that of a ‘counterclockwise’ meridian of a black vertex of type $s$ is equal to $s$ in this paper. This notation is different from those of Kamada [@Kamada2007] and Hasegawa [@Hasegawa2006], who always consider ‘counterclockwise’ meridians for both white and black vertices.
We next introduce several moves for charts. Let $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma'$ be two charts on $B$ and $b_0$ a base point of $B$.
Let $D$ be a disk embedded in $B-\{b_0\}$. Suppose that the boundary $\partial D$ of $D$ intersects $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma'$ transversely.
We say that $\Gamma'$ is obtained from $\Gamma$ by a [*chart move of type W*]{} if $\Gamma\cap (B-{\rm Int}\, D)=\Gamma'\cap (B-{\rm Int}\, D)$ and that both $\Gamma\cap D$ and $\Gamma'\cap D$ have no black vertices. We call chart moves of type W shown in Figure \[movesA\] (a), (b), and (c), a [*channel change*]{}, a [*birth/death of a hoop*]{}, and a [*birth/death of a pair of white vertices*]{}, respectively.
$i$ \[tr\] at 0 66 $i$ \[bl\] at 41 106 $i$ \[tr\] at 80 66 $i$ \[bl\] at 121 106 (a) \[t\] at 61 84 $i$ \[tl\] at 184 76 empty at 258 86 (b) \[t\] at 209 84 $r$ at 57 20 $r^{\negthinspace -\negthinspace 1}$ at 87 23 (c) \[t\] at 132 19 ![Chart moves of type W[]{data-label="movesA"}](movesA "fig:")
Let $s$ and $s'$ be elements of $\mathcal{S}$. Suppose that there exists a word $w$ in $\mathcal{X}\cup\mathcal{X}^{-1}$ such that two words $s'$ and $wsw^{-1}$ determine the same element of $\mathcal{M}_g$.
If a chart $\Gamma$ contains a black vertex of type $s$, then we can change a part of $\Gamma$ near the vertex by using a local replacement depicted in Figure \[movesB\] to obtain another chart $\Gamma'$. We say that $\Gamma'$ is obtained from $\Gamma$ by a [*chart move of transition*]{}. Note that the blank labeled with ${\rm T}$ can be filled only with edges and white vertices.
$s$ \[b\] at 35 81 $s'$ \[b\] at 205 81 $w$ \[bl\] at 245 86 $w$ \[tl\] at 245 40 $s$ \[bl\] at 257 81 T at 232 64 ![Chart move of transition[]{data-label="movesB"}](movesB "fig:")
We say that $\Gamma'$ is obtained from $\Gamma$ by a [*chart move of conjugacy type*]{} if $\Gamma'$ is obtained from $\Gamma$ by a local replacement depicted in Figure \[movesC\].
$b_0$ \[l\] at 7 22 $b_0$ \[l\] at 117 22 $i$ \[l\] at 135 22 $b_0$ \[l\] at 197 22 $b_0$ \[l\] at 304 22 $i$ \[l\] at 323 22 ![Chart moves of conjugacy type[]{data-label="movesC"}](movesC "fig:")
Let $\Gamma$ be a chart in $B$ with base point $b_0$ and $\Delta_{\Gamma}$ the set of black vertices of $\Gamma$. For a loop $\gamma$ in $B-\Delta_{\Gamma}$ based at $b_0$, the element of $\mathcal{M}_g$ determined by the intersection word $w_{\Gamma}(\gamma)$ of $\gamma$ with respect to $\Gamma$ does not depend on a choice of representative of the homotopy class of $\gamma$. Thus we obtain a homomorphism $\rho_{\Gamma}\co\pi_1(B-\Delta_{\Gamma},b_0)\rightarrow \mathcal{M}_g$, which is called the [*homomorphism determined by $\Gamma$*]{}.
We now state a classification of Lefschetz fibrations in terms of charts and chart moves. Let $B$ be a connected closed oriented surface.
\[correspondence\] Suppose that $g$ is greater than two. [(1)]{} Let $f$ be a Lefschetz fibration of genus $g$ over $B$ and $\rho$ a monodromy representation of $f$. Then there exists a chart $\Gamma$ in $B$ such that the homomorphism $\rho_{\Gamma}$ determined by $\Gamma$ is equal to $\rho$. [(2)]{} For every chart $\Gamma$ in $B$, there exists a Lefschetz fibration $f$ of genus $g$ over $B$ such that a monodromy representation of $f$ is equal to the homomorphism $\rho_{\Gamma}$ determined by $\Gamma$.
We call such $\Gamma$ as in Proposition \[correspondence\] (1) a chart [*corresponding to $f$*]{}, and such $f$ as in Proposition \[correspondence\] (2) a Lefschetz fibration [*described by $\Gamma$*]{}.
Instead of giving a proof of Proposition \[correspondence\], we show an example of a chart and describe the correspondence of the chart to a Hurwitz system of a Lefschetz fibration.
Let $B$ be a $2$–sphere. We consider a chart $\Gamma$ in $B$ with base point $b_0$ and a system $(\gamma_1,\gamma_2,\gamma_3,\gamma_4)$ of loops based at $b_0$, which is determined by a Hurwitz arc system $\mathcal{A}$ for the set $\Delta_{\Gamma}$ of black vertices of $\Gamma$, as in Figure \[exampleA\]. The intersection words of the loops with respect to $\Gamma$ are $$\begin{aligned}
w_{\Gamma}(\gamma_1) & =\zeta_1^{-1}\zeta_2^{-1}\zeta_1\zeta_2\zeta_1, \quad
w_{\Gamma}(\gamma_2) =\zeta_1^{-1}\zeta_3\zeta_1, \\
w_{\Gamma}(\gamma_3) & =\zeta_2^{-1}\zeta_3^{-1}\zeta_2^{-1}\zeta_3\zeta_2, \quad
w_{\Gamma}(\gamma_4) =\zeta_2^{-1}, \end{aligned}$$ each of which represents the image $\rho_{\Gamma}(a_i)$ of the homotopy class $a_i$ of $\gamma_i$ under the homomorphism $\rho_{\Gamma}:\pi_1(B-\Delta_{\Gamma},b_0)\rightarrow \mathcal{M}_g$. Since the group $\pi_1(B-\Delta_{\Gamma},b_0)$ has a presentation $\langle a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4\, |\, a_1a_2a_3a_4=1 \rangle$, $\rho_{\Gamma}$ is determined by the system $(\rho_{\Gamma}(a_1),\rho_{\Gamma}(a_2),\rho_{\Gamma}(a_3), \rho_{\Gamma}(a_4))$, which is a Hurwitz system of a certain Lefschetz fibration of genus $g$ over $B$ because each $\rho_{\Gamma}(a_i)$ is a Dehn twist. Note that the product $w_{\Gamma}(\gamma_1)w_{\Gamma}(\gamma_2)
w_{\Gamma}(\gamma_3)w_{\Gamma}(\gamma_4)$ of the intersection words represents the identity of $\mathcal{M}_g$.
$b_0$ \[t\] at 175 184 $1$ \[b\] at 30 156 $2$ \[b\] at 46 95 $1$ \[b\] at 112 77 $2$ \[b\] at 186 77 $1$ \[r\] at 154 103 $3$ \[t\] at 137 129 $3$ \[b\] at 191 115 $3$ \[r\] at 208 25 $2$ \[r\] at 243 50 $2$ \[t\] at 283 114 \[r\] at 70 135 \[t\] at 152 166 \[t\] at 233 142 \[b\] at 278 162 ![Monodromy of a chart $\Gamma$[]{data-label="exampleA"}](exampleA "fig:")
\[classification\] Suppose that $g$ is greater than two. Let $f$ and $f'$ be Lefschetz fibrations of genus $g$ over $B$, and $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma'$ charts corresponding to $f$ and $f'$, respectively. Then $f$ is strictly isomorphic to $f'$ if and only if $\Gamma$ is transformed to $\Gamma'$ by a finite sequence of chart moves of type W, chart moves of transitions, chart moves of conjugacy type, and ambient isotopies of $B$ relative to $b_0$.
Proposition \[correspondence\] and Theorem \[classification\] follow from a classification theorem of Lefschetz fibrations due to Kas [@Kas1980] and Matsumoto [@Matsumoto1996] together with fundamental theorems on charts and chart moves by Kamada [@Kamada2007 Sections 4–8].
We end this subsection with a definition and chart description of fiber sums of Lefschetz fibrations. Let $f\co M\rightarrow B$ and $f'\co M'\rightarrow B'$ be Lefschetz fibrations of genus $g$. Take regular values $b_0\in B$ and $b_0'\in B'$ of $f$ and $f'$, and small disks $D_0\subset B-\Delta$ and $D'_0\subset B-\Delta'$ near $b_0$ and $b'_0$, respectively. Consider general fibers $F_0:=f^{-1}(b_0)$ and $F'_0:=f'^{-1}(b_0')$ and orientation preserving diffeomorphisms $\Phi\co \Sigma_g\rightarrow F_0$ and $\Phi'\co\Sigma_g\rightarrow F'_0$, respectively.
Let $\Psi\co \Sigma_g\rightarrow \Sigma_g$ be an orientation preserving diffeomorphism and $r\co \partial D_0\rightarrow \partial D'_0$ an orientation reversing diffeomorphism. The new manifold $M\#_F M'$ obtained by glueing $M-f^{-1}({\rm Int}\, D_0)$ and $M'-f'^{-1}({\rm Int}\, D'_0)$ by $(\Phi'\circ\Psi\circ\Phi^{-1})\times r$ admits a Lefschetz fibration $f\#_{\Psi}\, f'\co M\#_F M'\rightarrow B\# B'$ of genus $g$. We call $f\#_{\Psi}\, f'$ the [*fiber sum*]{} of $f$ and $f'$ with respect to $\Psi$. Although the diffeomorphim type of $M\#_F M'$ and the isomorphism type of $f\#_{\Psi}\, f'$ depend on a choice of the diffeomorphism $\Psi$ in general, we often abbreviate $f\#_{\Psi}\, f'$ as $f\#\, f'$.
Let $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma'$ be charts corresponding to $f$ and $f'$, and $D_0$ and $D'_0$ small disks near $b_0$ and $b_0'$ disjoint from $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma'$, respectively. Connecting $B-{\rm Int}\, D_0$ with $B'-{\rm Int}\, D'_0$ by a tube, we have a connected sum $B\# B'$ of $B$ and $B'$. Let $w$ be a word in $\mathcal{X}\cup\mathcal{X}^{-1}$ which represents the mapping class of $\Psi$ in $\mathcal{M}_g$. Let $\Gamma\#_w\Gamma'$ be the union of $\Gamma$, $\Gamma'$, and hoops on the tube representing $w$ (see Figure \[fibersum\]). Then the fiber sum $f\#_{\Psi}\, f'$ is described by this new chart $\Gamma\#_w\Gamma'$ in $B\# B'$ with base point $b_0$. If the word $w$ is trivial, then the chart $\Gamma\#_w\Gamma'$ is denoted also by $\Gamma\oplus\Gamma'$, which is called a [*product*]{} of $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma'$.
$b_0$ \[r\] at 128 38 $b'_0$ \[l\] at 210 38 $B$ \[br\] at 3 57 $B'$ \[bl\] at 330 59 $w$ \[t\] at 170 13 $\Gamma$ at 71 40 $\Gamma'$ at 270 40 ![Chart $\Gamma\#_w\Gamma'$ in $B\# B'$[]{data-label="fibersum"}](fibersum "fig:")
Signature of Lefschetz fibrations
=================================
In this section we review the signature cocycle discovered by Meyer and prove a signature theorem for Lefschetz fibrations.
Meyer’s signature cocycle
-------------------------
In this subsection we give a brief survey on Meyer’s signature cocycle. We begin with the definition of the signature cocycle. Let $g$ be a positive integer.
\[cocycle\] For $A,B\in {\rm Sp}(2g,\Bbb{Z})$, we consider the vector space $$V_{A,B}:=\{ (x,y)\in \Bbb{R}^{2g}\times\Bbb{R}^{2g}\, |\, (A^{-1}-I_{2g})x+(B-I_{2g})y=0\}$$ and the bilinear form $\langle \; ,\; \rangle_{A,B}\co V_{A,B}\times V_{A,B}\rightarrow\Bbb{R}$ defined by $$\langle (x_1,y_1),(x_2,y_2)\rangle_{A,B}:=(x_1+y_1)\cdot J(I_{2g}-B)y_2,$$ where $\cdot$ is the standard inner product of $\Bbb{R}^{2g}$ and $J=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
0 & I_g \\
-I_g & 0
\end{smallmatrix}\right)$. Since $\langle \; ,\; \rangle_{A,B}$ is symmetric, we can define an integer $\tau_g(A,B)$ to be the signature of $(V_{A,B}, \langle \; ,\; \rangle_{A,B})$. The map $\tau_g\co {\rm Sp}(2g,\Bbb{Z})\times {\rm Sp}(2g,\Bbb{Z})\rightarrow \Bbb{Z}$ is called the [*signature cocycle*]{}.
Let $P$ be a compact connected oriented surface of genus $0$ with three boundary components and $\pi\co E\rightarrow P$ a fiber bundle over $P$ with fiber $\Sigma_g$ and structure group ${\rm Diff}_+\Sigma_g$. The fundamental group $\pi_1(P,*)$ of $P$ with base point $*$ is a free group generated by two loops $a$ and $b$ depicted in Figure \[pants\]. If we take an orientation preserving diffeomorphism $\Sigma_g\rightarrow \pi^{-1}(*)$, we obtain the monodromy representation $\pi_1(P,*)\rightarrow \mathcal{M}_g$ which sends $a$ to $\alpha$ and $b$ to $\beta$. Since $\mathcal{M}_g^*$ acts on $H:=H_1(\Sigma_g;\Bbb{Z})$ preserving the intersection form, we have a representation $\mathcal{M}_g^*\rightarrow {\rm Sp}(2g,\Bbb{Z})$ by fixing a symplectic basis on $H$. Let $A$ and $B$ denote matrices corresponding to $\alpha$ and $\beta$, respectively.
$P_1$ \[br\] at 1 56 $P_2$ \[bl\] at 117 53 $*$ \[b\] at 58 59 $a$ \[tl\] at 41 16 $b$ \[tr\] at 75 16 ![Pair of pants $P$[]{data-label="pants"}](pants "fig:")
Meyer closely studied the signature of the total space $E$ to obtain the following theorem.
\[meyer\] The signature $\sigma(E)$ of $E$ is equal to $-\tau_g(A,B)$.
Theorem \[meyer\] and Novikov’s additivity implies that $\tau_g$ is a $2$–cocycle of ${\rm Sp}(2g,\Bbb{Z})$.
We recall a Maslov index for a triple of Lagrangian subspaces and Wall’s non-additivity theorem, which are used in the proof of Theorem \[meyer\].
Let $V$ be a real vector space of dimension $2n$, $\omega\in \Lambda^2V^*$ a symplectic form on $V$, and $\Lambda(V,\omega)$ the Lagrangian Grassmannian of $(V,\omega)$, which is the set of Lagrangian subspaces of $(V,\omega)$. For $L_1,L_2,L_3\in \Lambda(V,\omega)$, the bilinear form $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi & \co (L_3+L_1)\cap L_2\times (L_3+L_1)\cap L_2\rightarrow \Bbb{R}\co
(v,w)\mapsto \omega(v,w_3) \\
& (v,w\in (L_3+L_1)\cap L_2, \, w=w_1+w_3 \; (w_1\in L_1,w_3\in L_3)) \end{aligned}$$ is symmetric. We define an integer $i(L_1,L_2,L_3)$ to be the signature of $((L_3+L_1)\cap L_2, \Psi)$, which is called the [*ternary Maslov index*]{} of the triple $(L_1,L_2,L_3)$.
Let $M_1, M_2$ be compact oriented smooth $4$–manifolds, $X_1,X_2,X_3$ compact oriented smooth $3$–manifolds, and $\Sigma$ a closed oriented smooth $2$–manifold. We assume that $M=M_1\cup M_2, \, \partial M_1=X_1\cup X_2,\, \partial M_2=X_2\cup X_3,\,
\partial X_1=\partial X_2=\partial X_3=\Sigma$, and the orientations of these manifolds satisfy $$\begin{gathered}
[M]=[M_1]+[M_2], \;
\partial_*[M_1]=[X_2]-[X_1], \; \partial_*[M_2]=[X_3]-[X_2], \\
\partial_*[X_1] =\partial_*[X_2]=\partial_*[X_3]=[\Sigma].\end{gathered}$$ Let $\omega\co V\times V\rightarrow \Bbb{R}$ be the intersection form on $V:=H_1(\Sigma;\Bbb{R})$ and $L_i$ the kernel of the homomorphism $V\rightarrow H_1(X_i;\Bbb{R})$ induced by the inclusion $\Sigma\rightarrow X_i$ for $i=1,2,3$. Since $L_i\in\Lambda(V,\omega)$ for $i=1,2,3$, we can define the ternary Maslov index $i(L_1,L_2,L_3)$ of the triple $(L_1,L_2,L_3)$.
\[wall\] $\sigma(M)=\sigma(M_1)+\sigma(M_2)-i(L_1,L_2,L_3)$.
Gambaudo and Ghys [@GG2005] (and independently the first author) made use of Theorem \[wall\] to give the following proof of Theorem \[meyer\]. See also Gilmer and Masbaum [@GM2011].
Consider $P$ to be a boundary sum of two annuli $P_1$ and $P_2$ (see Figure \[pants\]). We set $M:=E$, $M_i:=\pi^{-1}(P_i)\, (i=1,2)$, $X_2:=M_1\cap M_2$, $X_1:=\partial M_1-{\rm Int}\, X_2$, $X_3:=\partial M_3-{\rm Int}\, X_2$, and $\Sigma:=\partial X_2$. Applying Theorem \[wall\] to these manifolds, we have $$\sigma(E)=\sigma(M_1)+\sigma(M_2)-i(L_1,L_2,L_3)
=-i(L_1,L_2,L_3)$$ because each of $M_1$ and $M_2$ is a product of a mapping torus with an interval, which has signature zero. Since the bordered component of $X_i$ is diffeomorphic to $I\times\Sigma_g$ for $i=1,2,3$, we put $V:=H\oplus H$, $\omega:=\mu\oplus (-\mu)$, and obtain $$\begin{aligned}
L_1 & =\{ (-\xi, \alpha_*^{-1}(\xi))\in V\, |\, \xi\in H\}, \quad
L_2=\{ (-\xi,\xi)\in V\, |\, \xi\in H\}, \\
L_3 & =\{ (-\xi, \beta_*(\xi))\in V\, |\, \xi\in H\}, \end{aligned}$$ where $H$ is the first homology $H_1(\Sigma_g;\Bbb{R})$ of $\Sigma_g$ and $\mu\co H\times H\rightarrow\Bbb{R}$ is the intersection form of $\Sigma_g$. It is easily seen that the subspace $(L_1+L_3)\cap L_2$ is written as $$(L_1+L_3)\cap L_2 =\{ (-\xi-\eta, \alpha_*^{-1}(\xi)+\beta_*(\eta))\in V \, |\,
\xi+\eta=\alpha_*^{-1}(\xi)+\beta_*(\eta)\, (\xi,\eta\in H) \}$$ and the symmetric bilinear form $\Psi$ on $(L_1+L_3)\cap L_2$ is written as $$\Psi((-\xi-\eta,\alpha_*^{-1}(\xi)+\beta_*(\eta)),(-\xi'-\eta',\alpha_*^{-1}(\xi')+\beta_*(\eta')))
=
\mu(\xi+\eta,({\rm id}-\beta_*)(\eta')).$$ We consider the vector space $$U_{\alpha,\beta}:=\{ (\xi,\eta)\in V\, |\,
(\alpha_*^{-1}-{\rm id})(\xi)+(\beta_*-{\rm id})(\eta)=0 \}$$ and the symmetric bilinear form $\langle \; ,\;\rangle_{\alpha,\beta}$ on $U_{\alpha,\beta}$ defined by $$\langle (\xi,\eta),(\xi',\eta')\rangle_{\alpha,\beta}
:=\mu(\xi+\eta,({\rm id}-\beta_*)(\eta'))
\quad
((\xi,\eta),(\xi',\eta')\in U_{\alpha,\beta}).$$ Since the linear map $U_{\alpha,\beta}\rightarrow (L_1+L_3)\cap L_2
\co (\xi,\eta)\mapsto (-\xi-\eta,\xi+\eta)$ is compatible with the bilinear forms, the signature of $((L_1+L_3)\cap L_2,\Psi)$ is equal to that of $(U_{\alpha,\beta},\langle \; ,\; \rangle_{\alpha,\beta})$, which is isomorphic to $(V_{A,B},\langle \; ,\; \rangle_{A,B})$ under a choice of a symplectic basis of $H$. Therefore we conclude that $i(L_1,L_2,L_3)=\tau_g(A,B)$.
It is known that $\tau_g$ is a normalized, symmetric $2$–cocycle of ${\rm Sp}(2g,\Bbb{Z})$ and invariant under conjugation. The cohomology class $[\tau_g]\in H^2({\rm Sp}(2g,\Bbb{Z});\Bbb{Z})$ corresponds to $-4c_1$ under homomorphisms: $$H^2({\rm Sp}(2g,\Bbb{Z});\Bbb{Z})\leftarrow
H^2(B{\rm Sp}(2g,\Bbb{R});\Bbb{Z})\cong
H^2(BU(g);\Bbb{Z})\cong \Bbb{Z}.$$ For more details see Meyer [@Meyer1973], Turaev [@Turaev1987], Barge and Ghys [@BG1992], and Kuno [@Kuno2012].
A signature formula
-------------------
In this subsection we describe the signature of a Lefschetz fibration of genus greater than two in terms of charts. Let $g$ be an integer greater than two.
Let $B$ be a connected closed oriented surface and $\Gamma$ a chart in $B$. We denote the number of white vertices of type $r_F(i,j)$ (resp. $r_B(i),\, r_C,\, r_L,\, r_H$) minus the number of white vertices of type $r_F(i,j)^{-1}$ (resp. $r_B(i)^{-1},\, r_C^{-1},\, r_L^{-1},\, r_H^{-1}$) included in $\Gamma$ by $n_F(i,j)(\Gamma)$ (resp. $n_B(i)(\Gamma),\, n_C(\Gamma),\, n_L(\Gamma),\, n_H(\Gamma)$). Similarly, we denote the number of black vertices of type $\ell_0(i)^{\pm 1}$ (resp. $\ell_h^{\pm 1}$) included in $\Gamma$ by $n_0^{\pm}(i)(\Gamma)$ (resp. $n_h^{\pm}(\Gamma)$), and set $n_0(i)(\Gamma):=n_0^+(i)(\Gamma)-n_0^-(i)(\Gamma)$ (resp. $n_h(\Gamma):=n_h^+(\Gamma)-n_h^-(\Gamma)$) and $n_0^{\pm}(\Gamma):=\sum_{i=0}^{2g}n_0^{\pm}(i)(\Gamma)$.
\[sigma\] The number $$\sigma(\Gamma):=
-6\, n_C(\Gamma)-n_L(\Gamma)+\sum_{h=1}^{[g/2]}(4h(h+1)-1)\, n_h(\Gamma)$$ is called the [*signature*]{} of $\Gamma$.
Let $f\co M\rightarrow B$ be a Lefschetz fibration of genus $g$ and $\Gamma$ a chart in $B$ corresponding to $f$. The purpose of this subsection is to show the following theorem.
\[signature\] The signature $\sigma(M)$ of $M$ is equal to $\sigma(\Gamma)$.
It immediately follows from Theorem \[signature\] that $\sigma(\Gamma)$ is invariant under chart moves of type W and chart moves of transition. Although any combinatorial proof of this fact does not seem to be known, Hasegawa [@Hasegawa2006] proved that $\sigma(\Gamma)$ is invariant under chart moves of transitions by a purely combinatorial method on the assumption that it is invariant under chart moves of type W.
Let $\tilde{\mathcal{X}}$ be the set of right-handed Dehn twists along simple closed curves in $\Sigma_g$ and $\tilde{\mathcal{R}}$ the set of words in $\tilde{\mathcal{X}}\cup\tilde{\mathcal{X}}^{-1}$ representing an element of the kernel of the natural epimorphism from the free group generated by $\tilde{\mathcal{X}}$ to $\mathcal{M}_g$.
For a word $w=\alpha_1\cdots \alpha_n\in\tilde{\mathcal{R}}$, we define an integer $$I_g(w):=-\sum_{j=1}^{n-1} \tau_g
(\overline{\alpha_{n-j}},\overline{\alpha_{n-j+1}}\cdots\overline{\alpha_n})
-s(w),$$ where $\tau_g$ is the signature cocycle (Definition \[cocycle\]), $\overline{\alpha}$ is the image of $\alpha\in\tilde{\mathcal{X}}\cup\tilde{\mathcal{X}}^{-1}$ under the composition of the natural map $\tilde{\mathcal{X}}\cup\tilde{\mathcal{X}}^{-1}\rightarrow\mathcal{M}_g$ and a natural epimorphism $\mathcal{M}_g^*\rightarrow {\rm Sp}(2g,\Bbb{Z})$, and $s(w)$ is the number of Dehn twists along separating simple closed curves included in $w$.
Suppose that $B$ is a $2$–sphere. If we choose a monodromy representation $\rho$ and a Hurwitz arc system $\mathcal{A}$ for $\Delta$ with base point $b_0$, we have a Hurwitz system $(\alpha_1,\ldots ,\alpha_n)\in (\mathcal{M}_g)^n$ of $f$. Since $\alpha_1,\ldots ,\alpha_n$ are Dehn twists and $\alpha_1\cdots \alpha_n=1$ in $\mathcal{M}_g$, we think $(\alpha_1,\ldots ,\alpha_n)$ as a word $w:=\alpha_1\cdots \alpha_n$ in $\tilde{\mathcal{R}}$. Theorem \[meyer\] and Novikov’s additivity for signature imply the next theorem.
\[nagami\] The signature $\sigma(M)$ of $M$ is equal to $I_g(w)$.
We are now ready to prove Theorem \[signature\].
Choose a base point $b_0\in B-\Gamma$ and a disk $D$ in $B-\Gamma$ centered at $b_0$. We denote the set of edges of $\Gamma$ by $E(\Gamma)$. For each $e\in E(\Gamma)$, we choose a point $b_e$ in a region of $B-\Gamma$ adjacent to $e$, and a simple path $\gamma_e$ from $b_e$ to $b_0$ which intersects with edges of $\Gamma$ transversely and does not intersect with vertices of $\Gamma$. Let $w_e$ be the intersection word of $\gamma_e$ with respect to $\Gamma$ and $i_e\in\{0,1,\ldots ,2g\}$ the label of $e$. We choose a family $\{D_e\}_{e\in E(\Gamma)}$ of mutually disjoint disks included in $D$ and put the chart $\Gamma_e$ depicted in Figure \[chartE\] in $D_e$ for each $e$.
$w_e^{-1}$ \[r\] at 0 34 $i_e$ \[t\] at 62 31 ![Chart $\Gamma_e$[]{data-label="chartE"}](chartE "fig:")
Taking the union of $\Gamma$ with $\Gamma_e$ for all $e\in E(\Gamma)$, we obtain a new chart $\Gamma_1$ in $B$, which describes a fiber sum $f_1\co M_1\rightarrow B$ of $f$ with Lefschetz fibrations over $S^2$ described by a free edge. For each $e\in E(\Gamma)$, we apply channel changes as in Figure \[channelC\] to let a free edge pass through the edges intersecting with $\gamma_e$. We then apply a channel change as in Figure \[channelD\] to ‘cut’ $e$ into two edges. Thus we obtain a new chart $\Gamma_2$ in $B$.
$e$ \[b\] at 1 199 $b_e$ \[b\] at 16 158 $i_e$ \[l\] at 7 128 $\gamma_e$ \[b\] at 40 160 $w_e$ \[tl\] at 85 131 $w_e^{-\negthinspace 1}$ \[b\] at 111 157 $b_0$ \[b\] at 90 158 $i_e$ \[t\] at 172 152 $\Gamma_e$ \[l\] at 230 156 $e$ \[b\] at 1 84 $i_e$ \[l\] at 7 13 $w_e$ \[tl\] at 84 16 $i_e$ \[t\] at 172 38 $w_e^{-\negthinspace 1}$ \[b\] at 172 85 ![Channel change[]{data-label="channelC"}](channelC "fig:")
$e$ \[b\] at 3 86 $i_e$ \[l\] at 7 13 $i_e$ \[l\] at 70 41 $i_e$ \[l\] at 176 13 $i_e$ \[l\] at 176 72 ![Channel change[]{data-label="channelD"}](channelD "fig:")
Since each component of $\Gamma_2$ is a tree, a Lefschetz fibration $f_2\co M_2\rightarrow B$ corresponding to $\Gamma_2$ is a fiber sum of a Lefschetz fibration $f_3\co M_3\rightarrow S^2$ with a trivial $\Sigma_g$–bundle over $B$. Drawing a copy of $\Gamma_2$ in $S^2$, we have a chart $\Gamma_3$ corresponding to $f_3$. The signature of a Lefschetz fibration over $S^2$ described by a free edge is equal to zero because $\tau_g(A,A^{-1})=0$ for any $A\in {\rm Sp}(2g,\Bbb{Z})$ (see Meyer [@Meyer1973 Section 2]). Hence we have $$\sigma(M)=\sigma(M_1)=\sigma(M_2)=\sigma(M_3)+\sigma(\Sigma_g\times B)
=\sigma(M_3)$$ by Theorem \[classification\] and Novikov’s additivity. Since we did not change the numbers of white vertices and black vertices of type $\ell_h^{\pm}$ to make $\Gamma_3$ from $\Gamma$, we see $\sigma(\Gamma_3)=\sigma(\Gamma)$. Hence we only have to show $\sigma(M_3)=\sigma(\Gamma_3)$ in order to conclude $\sigma(M)=\sigma(\Gamma)$.
Applying chart moves of transition to each component of $\Gamma_3$ as in Figure \[transition\], we remove white vertices of type $r_F(i,j)^{\pm 1}, r_B(i)^{\pm 1},r_H^{\pm 1}$ to obtain a union of copies of $L_0(i), L_h, L_h^*, R_C, R_C^*, R_L, R_L^*$, where $L_0(i), L_h, R_C, R_L$ are charts depicted in Figure \[chartB\] and Figure \[chartF\], and $L_h^*$ (resp. $R_C^*$, $R_L^*$) is the mirror image of $L_h$ (resp. $R_C$, $R_L$) with edges orientation reversed. For the proof of $\sigma(M_3)=\sigma(\Gamma_3)$, it is enough to show that the signature of a Lefschetz fibration described by each of these charts coincides with the signature of the chart.
$j$ \[br\] at 34 192 $i$ \[bl\] at 64 192 $i$ \[tr\] at 34 161 $j$ \[tl\] at 64 161 $j$ \[br\] at 103 192 $i$ \[bl\] at 134 192 $j$ \[tl\] at 134 161 $i$ \[br\] at 172 195 $i\negthinspace +\negthinspace 1$ \[bl\] at 209 195 $i\negthinspace +\negthinspace 1$ \[r\] at 165 177 $i$ \[l\] at 216 177 $i$ \[tr\] at 171 157 $i\negthinspace +\negthinspace 1$ \[tl\] at 209 157 $i$ \[br\] at 273 195 $i\negthinspace +\negthinspace 1$ \[bl\] at 309 195 $i\negthinspace +\negthinspace 1$ \[t\] at 267 175 $i$ \[l\] at 317 177 $i\negthinspace +\negthinspace 1$ \[tl\] at 310 157 $2g$ \[b\] at 43 125 $1$ \[b\] at 69 125 $1$ \[b\] at 78 125 $2g$ \[b\] at 103 125 $u^{-\negthinspace 1}$ \[l\] at 144 81 $1$ \[l\] at 142 62 $u$ \[l\] at 144 44 $2g$ \[t\] at 103 0 $1$ \[t\] at 78 0 $1$ \[t\] at 69 0 $2g$ \[t\] at 43 0 $u^{-\negthinspace 1}$ \[r\] at 2 44 $1$ \[r\] at 6 63 $u$ \[r\] at 2 80 $1$ \[b\] at 210 64 $u$ \[b\] at 238 119 $2g$ \[b\] at 255 114 $1$ \[b\] at 281 114 $1$ \[b\] at 290 114 $2g$ \[b\] at 316 114 $u^{-\negthinspace 1}$ \[b\] at 332 119 ![Chart moves of transition[]{data-label="transition"}](transition "fig:")
$i$ \[b\] at 25 28 $1$ \[b\] at 218 50 $2h$ \[b\] at 199 50 $1$ \[b\] at 188 50 $2h$ \[b\] at 169 50 $1$ \[b\] at 135 50 $2h$ \[b\] at 113 50 ![Charts $L_0(i)$ and $L_h$[]{data-label="chartB"}](chartG "fig:")
$1$ \[b\] at 124 83 $2$ \[b\] at 115 83 $3$ \[b\] at 107 83 $1$ \[b\] at 98 83 $2$ \[b\] at 91 83 $3$ \[b\] at 82 83 $1$ \[b\] at 73 83 $2$ \[b\] at 64 83 $3$ \[b\] at 56 83 $1$ \[b\] at 48 83 $2$ \[b\] at 39 83 $3$ \[b\] at 31 83 $0$ \[t\] at 9 5 $4$ \[t\] at 18 5 $3$ \[t\] at 27 5 $2$ \[t\] at 35 5 $1$ \[t\] at 43 5 $1$ \[t\] at 52 5 $2$ \[t\] at 61 5 $3$ \[t\] at 69 5 $4$ \[t\] at 78 5 $0$ \[t\] at 86 5 $4$ \[t\] at 94 5 $3$ \[t\] at 103 5 $2$ \[t\] at 112 5 $1$ \[t\] at 120 5 $1$ \[t\] at 129 5 $2$ \[t\] at 138 5 $3$ \[t\] at 146 5 $4$ \[t\] at 154 5 $\delta_3$ \[b\] at 216 88 $1$ \[b\] at 234 83 $3$ \[b\] at 243 83 $5$ \[b\] at 251 83 $\tau_1$ \[b\] at 267 88 $\tau_2$ \[b\] at 293 88 $0$ \[t\] at 315 4 $\tau_2^{-\negthinspace 1}$ \[t\] at 297 1 $\tau_1^{-\negthinspace 1}$ \[t\] at 273 1 $\tau_2$ \[t\] at 248 1 $0$ \[t\] at 230 4 $\tau_2^{-\negthinspace 1}$ \[t\] at 214 1 $0$ \[t\] at 196 4 ![Charts $R_C$ and $R_L$[]{data-label="chartF"}](chartF "fig:")
Let $\Gamma_4$ be one of $L_0(i), L_h, L_h^*,
R_C, R_C^*, R_L, R_L^*$ drawn in $S^2$ and $f_4\co M_4\rightarrow S^2$ a Lefschetz fibration described by $\Gamma_4$. If $\Gamma_4$ is equal to $L_0(i)$, it is easily seen that $\sigma(M_4)=\sigma(\Gamma_4)$. If $\Gamma_4$ is equal to $L_h$, the word $\ell_h^{-1}\sigma_h$ corresponds to a Hurwitz system of $f_4$ (see Figure \[chartB\]), where $\sigma_h$ is a right-handed Dehn twist along the curve $s_h$ depicted in Figure \[curves\]. Thus we have $$\sigma(M_4)=I_g(\ell_h^{-1}\sigma_h)=4h(h+1)-1=\sigma(\Gamma_4)$$ from Definition \[sigma\], Theorem \[nagami\], and explicit computations for $I_g$ due to Endo and Nagami [@EN2004 Lemma 3.5, Proposition 3.9]. If $\Gamma_4$ is equal to $R_C$ (resp. $R_L$), the word $r_C$ (resp. $r_L$) corresponds to a Hurwitz system of $f_4$ (see Figure \[chartF\]). Thus we have $$\sigma(M_4)=I_g(r_C)=-6=\sigma(\Gamma_4)
\quad
({\rm resp.} \;\sigma(M_4)=I_g(r_L)=-1=\sigma(\Gamma_4))$$ from Definition \[sigma\], Theorem \[nagami\], and formulae of Endo and Nagami [@EN2004 Lemma 3.5, Remark 3.7, Propositions 3.9 and 3.10]. Suppose that $\Gamma_4$ is equal to one of $L_h^*, R_C^*, R_L^*$. The mirror image $\Gamma_4^*$ of $\Gamma_4$ with edges orientation reversed corresponds to the Lefschetz fibration $f_4\co -M_4\rightarrow S^2$ with total space orientation reversed. Hence we have $$\sigma(M_4)=-\sigma(-M_4)=-\sigma(\Gamma_4^*)=\sigma(\Gamma_4)$$ because we have already shown that $\sigma(M_4)=\sigma(\Gamma_4)$ is valid for $\Gamma_4=L_h, R_C, R_L$. This completes the proof of Theorem \[signature\].
Stabilization theorems
======================
In this section we prove two theorems on stabilization of Lefschetz fibrations under taking fiber sums with copies of a fixed Lefschetz fibration.
Following Auroux [@Auroux2005], we first introduce a notion of universality for Lefschetz fibrations. Suppose that $g$ is greater than two.
A Lefschetz fibration of genus $g$ over $S^2$ is called [*universal*]{} if it is irreducible, chiral, and it contains $2g+1$ singular fibers of type ${\rm I}^+$ whose vanishing cycles $a_0,a_1,\ldots ,a_{2g}\subset \Sigma_g$ satisfies the following conditions: (i) $a_i$ and $a_{i+1}$ intersect transversely at one point for every $i\in\{1,\ldots ,2g-1\}$; (ii) $a_0$ and $a_4$ intersect transversely at one point; (iii) $a_i$ and $a_j$ does not intersect for other pairs $(i,j)$. A Lefschetz fibration over $S^2$ is universal if and only if it is described by a chart $\Gamma_0$ depicted in Figure \[universal\] by virtue of Proposition \[correspondence\], where the blank labeled with ${\rm T}_0$ is filled only with edges, white vertices, and black vertices of type $\ell_0(i)$.
$0$ \[b\] at 16 57 $1$ \[b\] at 25 57 $2g$ \[b\] at 53 57 $T_0$ at 36 13 \[l\] at 75 45 ![Universal chart $\Gamma_0$[]{data-label="universal"}](universal "fig:")
A universal Lefschetz fibration does exist for every $g$ greater than two. For example, Lefschetz fibrations $f_g^0, \, f_g^A, \, f_g^B, \, f_g^C, \, f_g^D$ constructed by Auroux [@Auroux2005] are universal except $f_g^D$ for $g=3$. There would be many universal Lefschetz fibrations of genus $g$ for a fixed $g$.
We now state the first of our main theorems. Let $B$ be a connected closed oriented surface and $f_0\co M_0\rightarrow S^2$ a universal Lefschetz fibration of genus $g$.
\[main1\] Let $f\co M\rightarrow B$ and $f'\co M'\rightarrow B$ be Lefschetz fibrations of genus $g$. There exists a non-negative integer $N$ such that $f\# Nf_0$ is isomorphic to $f'\# Nf_0$ if and only if the following conditions hold: (i) $n_0^{\pm}(f)=n_0^{\pm}(f')$; (ii) $n_h^{\pm}(f)=n_h^{\pm}(f')$ for every $h=1,\ldots ,[g/2]$; (iii) $\sigma(M)=\sigma(M')$.
Auroux [@Auroux2005] proved the ‘if’ part of Theorem \[main1\] for chiral Lefschetz fibrations over $S^2$ under the assumption that $f$ and $f'$ have sections with the same self-intersection number. Hasegawa [@Hasegawa2006] gave another proof of Auroux’s theorem by using chart description. Moreover he removed the assumption about existence and self-intersection number of sections in Auroux’s theorem.
The isomorphism class of a fiber sum $f\#_{\Psi}\, f_0$ of a Lefschetz fibration $f$ with a universal Lefschetz fibration $f_0$ does not depend on a choice of an orientation preserving diffeomorphism $\Psi$ (see Proof of Theorem \[main1\]).
We first prove the ‘if’ part. Assume that $f$ and $f'$ satisfy the conditions (i), (ii), and (iii). Let $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma'$ be charts in $B$ corresponding to $f$ and $f'$, respectively. We suppose that $f_0$ is described by a chart $\Gamma_0$ depicted in Figure \[universal\]. Since every edge has two adjacent vertices, the sum of the signed numbers of adjacent edges for all vertices of $\Gamma$ is equal to zero: $$10n_C(\Gamma)+n_L(\Gamma)-\sum_{i=0}^{2g}n_0(i)(\Gamma)
-4\sum_{h=1}^{[g/2]}h(2h+1)\cdot n_h(\Gamma)=0.$$ A similar equality for $\Gamma'$ also holds. Interpreting the conditions (i) and (ii) as conditions on $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma'$, we have $\sum_{i=0}^{2g}n_0(i)(\Gamma)=\sum_{i=0}^{2g}n_0(i)(\Gamma')$ and $n_h(\Gamma)=n_h(\Gamma')$ for $h=1,\ldots ,[g/2]$. Thus we obtain $$10n_C(\Gamma)+n_L(\Gamma)=10n_C(\Gamma')+n_L(\Gamma').$$ On the other hand, we have $$-6\, n_C(\Gamma)-n_L(\Gamma)=-6\, n_C(\Gamma')-n_L(\Gamma')$$ by the condition (iii), Theorem \[signature\], and $n_h(\Gamma)=n_h(\Gamma')$ for $h=1,\ldots ,[g/2]$. Hence $n_C(\Gamma)=n_C(\Gamma')$ and $n_L(\Gamma)=n_L(\Gamma')$.
Let $N$ be an integer larger than both of the number of edges of $\Gamma$ and that of $\Gamma'$. Choose a base point $b_0\in B-(\Gamma\cup\Gamma')$. The fiber sum $f\# Nf_0$ is described by a chart $(\cdots ((\Gamma\#_{w_1}\Gamma_0)\#_{w_2}\Gamma_0)\cdots )\#_{w_N}\Gamma_0$ for some words $w_1,\ldots ,w_N$ in $\mathcal{X}\cup\mathcal{X}^{-1}$. Since hoops surrounding $\Gamma_0$ can be removed by use of the edges of $\Gamma_0$ as in Figure \[removeA\], the chart is transformed into a product $\Gamma\oplus N\Gamma_0$ by channel changes. Similarly, the fiber sum $f'\# Nf_0$ is described by a product $\Gamma'\oplus N\Gamma_0$.
$i$ \[b\] at 41 71 $0$ \[b\] at 23 51 $i$ \[b\] at 43 52 $2g$ \[b\] at 61 51 $T_0$ at 43 11 $i$ \[b\] at 188 72 $0$ \[b\] at 142 51 $2g$ \[b\] at 179 51 $T_0$ at 161 11 $0$ \[b\] at 257 51 $i$ \[b\] at 275 52 $2g$ \[b\] at 293 51 $T_0$ at 276 11 ![Removing a hoop[]{data-label="removeA"}](removeA "fig:")
We choose and fix $2g+1$ edges of $\Gamma_0$ which are labeled with $0,1,\ldots ,2g$ and adjacent to black vertices. We apply chart moves only to these edges in the following. Since $\Gamma_0$ can pass through any edge of $\Gamma$ as shown in Figure \[pass\], we can move $\Gamma_0$ to any region of $B-\Gamma$ by channel changes.
$i$ \[b\] at 35 69 $0$ \[b\] at 18 51 $i$ \[b\] at 36 52 $2g$ \[b\] at 55 51 $T_0$ at 35 11 \[t\] at 37 0 $i$ \[b\] at 106 72 $i$ \[b\] at 160 72 $0$ \[b\] at 115 52 $2g$ \[b\] at 151 52 $T_0$ at 134 11 \[t\] at 134 0 $i$ \[t\] at 200 66 $i$ \[t\] at 255 66 $2g$ \[t\] at 210 86 $0$ \[t\] at 246 86 $T_0$ at 228 126 \[t\] at 228 0 $i$ \[t\] at 322 66 $2g$ \[t\] at 303 86 $i$ \[t\] at 321 85 $0$ \[t\] at 341 86 $T_0$ at 322 126 \[t\] at 321 0 ![Passing through an edge[]{data-label="pass"}](pass "fig:")
For each edge of $\Gamma$, we move a copy of $\Gamma_0$ to a region adjacent to the edge and apply a channel change to the edge and $\Gamma_0$ as in Figure \[pass\] (a) and (b). Applying chart moves of transition to each component of the chart as in Figure \[transition\], we remove white vertices of type $r_F(i,j)^{\pm 1}, r_B(i)^{\pm 1},r_H^{\pm 1}$ to obtain a union of copies of $L_0(i), \tilde{L}_h, L_h^*, \tilde{R}_C, \hat{R}_C,
\tilde{R}_L, \hat{R}_L, \Gamma_0$ shown in Figures \[chartH\], \[chartC\], \[chartD\], where we use a simplification of diagrams as in Figure \[symbol\].
$1$ \[b\] at 113 50 $2h$ \[b\] at 92 50 $1$ \[b\] at 82 50 $2h$ \[b\] at 64 50 $1$ \[b\] at 30 50 $2h$ \[b\] at 8 50 ![Chart $\tilde{L}_h$[]{data-label="chartH"}](chartH "fig:")
$1$ \[b\] at 124 78 $2$ \[b\] at 115 78 $3$ \[b\] at 107 78 $1$ \[b\] at 98 78 $2$ \[b\] at 91 78 $3$ \[b\] at 82 78 $1$ \[b\] at 73 78 $2$ \[b\] at 64 78 $3$ \[b\] at 56 78 $1$ \[b\] at 48 78 $2$ \[b\] at 39 78 $3$ \[b\] at 31 78 $0$ \[t\] at 9 0 $4$ \[t\] at 18 0 $3$ \[t\] at 27 0 $2$ \[t\] at 35 0 $1$ \[t\] at 43 0 $1$ \[t\] at 52 0 $2$ \[t\] at 61 0 $3$ \[t\] at 69 0 $4$ \[t\] at 78 0 $0$ \[t\] at 86 0 $4$ \[t\] at 94 0 $3$ \[t\] at 103 0 $2$ \[t\] at 112 0 $1$ \[t\] at 120 0 $1$ \[t\] at 129 0 $2$ \[t\] at 138 0 $3$ \[t\] at 146 0 $4$ \[t\] at 154 0 $1$ \[b\] at 226 79 $2$ \[b\] at 235 79 $3$ \[b\] at 244 79 $1$ \[b\] at 252 79 $2$ \[b\] at 260 79 $3$ \[b\] at 269 79 $1$ \[b\] at 278 79 $2$ \[b\] at 286 79 $3$ \[b\] at 295 79 $1$ \[b\] at 302 79 $2$ \[b\] at 311 79 $3$ \[b\] at 320 79 $0$ \[t\] at 341 0 $4$ \[t\] at 333 0 $3$ \[t\] at 324 0 $2$ \[t\] at 316 0 $1$ \[t\] at 308 0 $1$ \[t\] at 299 0 $2$ \[t\] at 291 0 $3$ \[t\] at 281 0 $4$ \[t\] at 274 0 $0$ \[t\] at 265 0 $4$ \[t\] at 256 0 $3$ \[t\] at 247 0 $2$ \[t\] at 239 0 $1$ \[t\] at 231 0 $1$ \[t\] at 222 0 $2$ \[t\] at 214 0 $3$ \[t\] at 206 0 $4$ \[t\] at 197 0 ![Charts $\tilde{R}_C$ and $\hat{R}_C$[]{data-label="chartC"}](chartC "fig:")
$\delta_3$ \[b\] at 29 88 $1$ \[b\] at 46 83 $3$ \[b\] at 55 83 $5$ \[b\] at 64 83 $\tau_1$ \[b\] at 80 88 $\tau_2$ \[b\] at 105 88 $0$ \[t\] at 128 3 $\tau_2^{-\negthinspace 1}$ \[t\] at 110 0 $\tau_1^{-\negthinspace 1}$ \[t\] at 85 0 $\tau_2$ \[t\] at 60 0 $0$ \[t\] at 43 3 $\tau_2^{-\negthinspace 1}$ \[t\] at 26 0 $0$ \[t\] at 9 3 $0$ \[t\] at 296 3 $\tau_2$ \[t\] at 279 0 $0$ \[t\] at 262 3 $\tau_2^{-\negthinspace 1}$ \[t\] at 245 0 $\tau_1$ \[t\] at 220 0 $\tau_2$ \[t\] at 195 0 $0$ \[t\] at 177 3 $\tau_2^{-\negthinspace 1}$ \[b\] at 197 88 $\tau_1^{-\negthinspace 1}$ \[b\] at 223 88 $5$ \[b\] at 240 85 $3$ \[b\] at 249 85 $1$ \[b\] at 258 85 $\delta_3^{-\negthinspace 1}$ \[b\] at 273 88 ![Charts $\tilde{R}_L$ and $\hat{R}_L$[]{data-label="chartD"}](chartD "fig:")
$i$ \[b\] at 3 45 $0$ \[b\] at 89 57 $i$ \[b\] at 107 71 $2g$ \[b\] at 126 57 $T_0$ at 108 14 $=$ at 40 28 ![Simplification of diagram[]{data-label="symbol"}](symbol "fig:")
If there is a pair of $\tilde{R}_C$ and $\hat{R}_C$, we remove them by a death of a pair of white vertices to obtain many copies of $\Gamma_0$. Similarly, we remove a pair of $\tilde{R}_L$ and $\hat{R}_L$. Since there is at least one $\Gamma_0$, any copy of $L_0(i)$ can be transformed into $L_0(1)$ as in Figure \[label\].
$j$ \[l\] at 28 152 $0$ \[b\] at 83 186 $i$ \[b\] at 84 201 $2g$ \[b\] at 120 186 $T_0$ at 101 143 $j$ \[l\] at 199 152 $i$ \[l\] at 212 164 $0$ \[b\] at 255 186 $j$ \[b\] at 255 201 $2g$ \[b\] at 292 186 $T_0$ at 274 143 $j$ \[l\] at 370 152 $i$ \[l\] at 382 150 $j$ \[l\] at 390 142 $0$ \[b\] at 426 186 $j$ \[b\] at 444 186 $2g$ \[b\] at 463 186 $T_0$ at 444 143 $i$ \[b\] at 26 91 $j$ \[t\] at 26 46 $i$ \[b\] at 26 23 $j$ \[t\] at 26 13 $0$ \[b\] at 82 73 $j$ \[b\] at 100 73 $2g$ \[b\] at 119 73 $T_0$ at 100 29 $i$ \[l\] at 202 82 $j$ \[tl\] at 216 8 $i$ \[b\] at 201 10 $0$ \[b\] at 254 73 $j$ \[b\] at 273 73 $2g$ \[b\] at 291 73 $T_0$ at 273 29 $i$ \[l\] at 372 44 $0$ \[b\] at 425 73 $j$ \[b\] at 444 73 $2g$ \[b\] at 463 73 $T_0$ at 443 29 ![Changing a label ($j=i+1$ or $(i,j)=(4,0)$)[]{data-label="label"}](label "fig:")
Thus we have a union $\Gamma_1$ of $n_0^-(\Gamma)$ copies of $L_0(1)$, $n_h^+(\Gamma)$ copies of $\tilde{L}_h$, $n_h^-(\Gamma)$ copies of $L_h^*$, $|n_C(\Gamma)|$ copies of $\tilde{R}_C$ (or $\hat{R}_C$), $|n_L(\Gamma)|$ copies of $\tilde{R}_L$ (or $\hat{R}_L$), and $k$ copies of $\Gamma_0$ for some $k$. A similar argument implies that $\Gamma'\oplus N\Gamma_0$ is transformed into a union $\Gamma'_1$ of $n_0^-(\Gamma')$ copies of $L_0(1)$, $n_h^+(\Gamma')$ copies of $\tilde{L}_h$, $n_h^-(\Gamma')$ copies of $L_h^*$, $|n_C(\Gamma')|$ copies of $\tilde{R}_C$ (or $\hat{R}_C$), $|n_L(\Gamma')|$ copies of $\tilde{R}_L$ (or $\hat{R}_L$), and $k'$ copies of $\Gamma_0$ for some $k'$ by chart moves of type W and chart moves of transition. By virtue of the conditions (i) and (ii) together with $n_C(\Gamma)=n_C(\Gamma')$, $n_L(\Gamma)=n_L(\Gamma')$, $n_0^+(\Gamma\oplus N\Gamma_0)=n_0^+(\Gamma_1)$, and $n_0^+(\Gamma'\oplus N\Gamma_0)=n_0^+(\Gamma'_1)$, we conclude that $k=k'$ because of $n_0^+(\Gamma_0)\ne 0$. Hence $\Gamma_1$ is transformed into $\Gamma'_1$ by an ambient isotopy of $B$ relative to $b_0$, which means that $\Gamma\oplus N\Gamma_0$ is transformed into $\Gamma'\oplus N\Gamma_0$ by chart moves of type W, chart moves of transition, and ambient isotopies of $B$ relative to $b_0$. Therefore $f\# Nf_0$ is (strictly) isomorphic to $f'\# Nf_0$ by Theorem \[classification\].
We next prove the ‘only if’ part. Take a non-negative integer $N$ so that $f\# Nf_0$ is isomorphic to $f'\# Nf_0$. Since an isomorphism preserves numbers and types of vanishing cycles and signatures, we have $n_0^{\pm}(f\# Nf_0)=n_0^{\pm}(f'\# Nf_0)$, $n_h^{\pm}(f\# Nf_0)=n_h^{\pm}(f'\# Nf_0)$ for every $h=1,\ldots ,[g/2]$, and $\sigma(M\#_F NM_0)=\sigma(M'\#_F NM_0)$. The conditions (i), (ii), (iii) follows from additivity of $n_0^{\pm}, n_h^{\pm}, \sigma$ under fiber sum.
A Lefschetz fibration of genus $g$ over $S^2$ is called [*elementary*]{} if it contains exactly two singular fibers of type ${\rm I}^+$ and of type ${\rm I}^-$ which have the same vanishing cycles. A chart $L_0(i)$ in $S^2$ corresponds to an elementary Lefschetz fibration.
Two elementary Lefschetz fibrations of genus $g$ are isomorphic to each other. The total space of an elementary Lefschetz fibration of genus $g$ is diffeomorphic to $\Sigma_{g-1}\times S^2\# S^1\times S^3$.
We state the second of our main theorems. Let $B$ be a connected closed oriented surface and $f_{\star}\co M_{\star}\rightarrow S^2$ an elementary Lefschetz fibration of genus $g$.
\[main2\] Let $f\co M\rightarrow B$ and $f'\co M'\rightarrow B$ be Lefschetz fibrations of genus $g$. There exists a non-negative integer $N$ such that a fiber sum $f\# Nf_{\star}$ is isomorphic to a fiber sum $f'\# Nf_{\star}$ if and only if the following conditions hold: (i) $n_0^{\pm}(f)=n_0^{\pm}(f')$; (ii) $n_h^{\pm}(f)=n_h^{\pm}(f')$ for every $h=1,\ldots ,[g/2]$; (iii) $\sigma(M)=\sigma(M')$.
In contrast to Theorem \[main1\], the isomorphism class of a fiber sum $f\#_{\Psi}\, f_{\star}$ of a Lefschetz fibration $f$ with an elementary Lefschetz fibration $f_{\star}$ depends on a choice of an orientation preserving diffeomorphism $\Psi$ in general.
We only show the ‘if’ part. The ‘only if’ part is the same as that of the proof of Theorem \[main1\].
Assume that $f$ and $f'$ satisfy the conditions (i), (ii), and (iii). Let $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma'$ be charts in $B$ corresponding to $f$ and $f'$, respectively. It follows from the same argument as in the proof of Theorem \[main1\] that $n_C(\Gamma)=n_C(\Gamma')$ and $n_L(\Gamma)=n_L(\Gamma')$. Let $N$ be an integer larger than both of the number of edges of $\Gamma$ and that of $\Gamma'$. We construct the chart $\Gamma_e$ in $B$ for each $e\in E(\Gamma)$ as in the proof of Theorem \[signature\]. Taking the union of $\Gamma$ with $\Gamma_e$ for all $e\in E(\Gamma)$ and with $N-\#E(\Gamma)$ copies of $L_1(1)$, we obtain a new chart $\Gamma_1$ in $B$, which describes a fiber sum $f\# Nf_{\star}$. Applying channel changes as in the proof of Theorem \[signature\] and deaths of pairs of white vertices appropriately, we obtain a union $\Gamma_2$ of $n_h^+(\Gamma)$ copies of $L_h$, $n_h^-(\Gamma)$ copies of $L_h^*$, $|n_C(\Gamma)|$ copies of $R_C$ (or $R_C^*$), $|n_L(\Gamma)|$ copies of $R_L$ (or $R_L^*$), and $k_i$ copies of $L_0(i)$ for some $k_i$, Similarly, $\Gamma'$ is transformed into $\Gamma'_1$, which describes a fiber sum $f'\# Nf_{\star}$, and then a union $\Gamma'_2$ of $n_h^+(\Gamma')$ copies of $L_h$, $n_h^-(\Gamma')$ copies of $L_h^*$, $|n_C(\Gamma')|$ copies of $R_C$ (or $R_C^*$), $|n_L(\Gamma')|$ copies of $R_L$ (or $R_L^*$), and $k'_i$ copies of $L_0(i)$ for some $k'_i$.
A similar argument on the number $n_0^+$ as in the proof of Theorem \[main1\] implies that $k_0+k_1+\cdots +k_{2g}=k'_0+k'_1+\cdots +k'_{2g}$. Adding $|k_i-k'_i|$ copies of $L_0(i)$ to either $\Gamma_2$ or $\Gamma'_2$ if necessary, we may assume that $k_i=k'_i$ for every $i\in\{0,1,\ldots ,2g\}$. Hence $\Gamma_2$ is transformed into $\Gamma'_2$ by an ambient isotopy of $B$ relative to $b_0$, which means that $f\# Nf_{\star}$ is (strictly) isomorphic to $f'\# Nf_{\star}$ by Theorem \[classification\].
Let $g$ be an integer greater than two and $B_1,\ldots ,B_r$ connected closed oriented surfaces. We consider a Lefschetz fibration $f_i\co M_i\rightarrow B_i$ of genus $g$ for each $i\in\{1,\ldots ,r\}$, and a universal Lefschetz fibration $f_0\co M_0\rightarrow S^2$ of genus $g$.
\[sums\] For (possibly different) fiber sums $f$ and $f'$ of $f_1,\ldots ,f_r$, fiber sums $f\# f_0$ and $f'\# f_0$ are isomorphic to each other.
Let $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma'$ be charts corresponding to $f$ and $f'$. Since hoops surrounding a component of $\Gamma$ (and $\Gamma'$) can be removed by use of the edges of $\Gamma_0$ as in Figure \[removeA\], $\Gamma\#\Gamma_0$ and $\Gamma'\#\Gamma_0$ are transformed into the same chart.
Proposition \[sums\] implies that there are many examples of non-isomorphic Lefschetz fibrations with the same base, the same fiber, and the same numbers of singular fibers of each type which become isomorphic after one stabilization. For example, the Lefschetz fibration on $E(n)_K$ constructed by Fintushel and Stern [@FS2004 Theorem 14] (see also Park and Yun [@PY2009]) for a fibered knot $K$ becomes isomorphic to that on $E(n)_{K'}$ for another fibered knot $K'$ of the same genus after one stabilization. Similar results hold for Lefschetz fibrations on $Y(n;K_1,K_2)$ constructed by Fintushel and Stern [@FS2004 §7] (see also Park and Yun [@PY2011]) as well as fiber sums of (generalizations of) Matsumoto’s fibration studied by Ozbagci and Stipsicz [@OS2000], Korkmaz [@Korkmaz2001; @Korkmaz2009], and Okamori [@Okamori2011].
Variations and problems
=======================
In this section we discuss possible variations of chart description for Lefschetz fibrations.
If we replace the triple $(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{R},\mathcal{S})$ defined in Section 2 with other triples, we obtain various chart descriptions for Lefschetz fibrations (see Kamada [@Kamada2007] and Hasegawa [@Hasegawa2006]).
We first choose large $\mathcal{X},\mathcal{R}$, and $\mathcal{S}$. Let $\mathcal{X}$ be the set of right-handed Dehn twists along simple closed curves in $\Sigma_g$ and $\mathcal{S}$ the set of Dehn twists along non-trivial simple closed curves in $\Sigma_g$. By virtue of a theorem of Luo [@Luo1997], $\langle \mathcal{X}\, |\,\mathcal{R}\rangle$ gives an infinite presentation of $\mathcal{M}_g$ for the set $\mathcal{R}$ of the following four kinds of words: (0) trivial relator $r_T:=a$, where $a$ is the Dehn twist along a trivial simple closed curve on $\Sigma_g$; (1) primitive braid relator $r_P:=b^{-1}abc^{-1}$, where $a,b,c\in\mathcal{X}$ and the curve for $c$ is the image of the curve for $a$ by $b$; (2) $2$–chain relator $r_C:=(c_2c_1)^6d^{-1}$, where $c_1,c_2,d\in \mathcal{X}$ and the curves for $c_1$ and $c_2$ intersect transversely at one point and the curve for $d$ is the boundary curve of a regular neighborhood of the union of the curves for $c_1$ and $c_2$; (3) lantern relator $r_L:=cbad_4^{-1}d_3^{-1}d_2^{-1}d_1^{-1}$, where $a,b,c,d_1,d_2,d_3,d_4\in\mathcal{X}$ and the curves for $a$ and $b$ intersect transversely at two points with algebraic intersection number zero, the curve for $c$ is obtained by resolving the intersections of these two curves, and the curves for $d_1,d_2,d_3,d_4$ are the boundary curves of a regular neighborhood of those for $a,b,c$.
Let $B$ be a connected closed oriented surface. Charts in $B$ for the triple $(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{R},\mathcal{S})$ defined above have white vertices of type $r_T^{\pm 1}, r_P^{\pm 1}, r_C^{\pm 1}, r_L^{\pm 1}$ (see Figure \[verticesD\]). For a chart $\Gamma$ in $B$, we denote the number of white vertices of type $r_X$ minus the number of white vertices of type $r_X^{-1}$ included in $\Gamma$ by $n_X(\Gamma)$, where $X=T,P,C,L$.
$a$ \[b\] at 4 54 $a$ \[br\] at 40 50 $b$ \[bl\] at 70 50 $b$ \[tr\] at 40 24 $c$ \[tl\] at 70 24 $c_2$ \[b\] at 114 73 $c_1$ \[b\] at 123 73 $c_2$ \[b\] at 132 73 $c_1$ \[b\] at 141 73 $c_2$ \[b\] at 150 73 $c_1$ \[b\] at 159 73 $c_2$ \[b\] at 167 73 $c_1$ \[b\] at 176 73 $c_2$ \[b\] at 185 73 $c_1$ \[b\] at 194 73 $c_2$ \[b\] at 203 73 $c_1$ \[b\] at 212 73 $d$ \[t\] at 162 0 $c$ \[b\] at 263 73 $b$ \[b\] at 271 73 $a$ \[b\] at 281 73 $d_1$ \[t\] at 257 0 $d_2$ \[t\] at 267 0 $d_3$ \[t\] at 277 0 $d_4$ \[t\] at 287 0 ![Vertices of type $r_T$, $r_P$, $r_C$, $r_L$[]{data-label="verticesD"}](verticesD "fig:")
\[signature2\] The signature $\sigma(M)$ of the total space $M$ of a Lefschetz fibration $f\co M\rightarrow B$ described by $\Gamma$ is equal to $-n_T(\Gamma)-7n_C(\Gamma)+n_L(\Gamma)$.
It is seen by a similar argument to the proof of Theorem \[signature\].
Let $B$ be a connected closed oriented surface of genus $2$ and $(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{R},\mathcal{S})$ the triple defined above for $g=3$. Let $a,b,c,d_1,d_2,d_3,d_4,c_1,c_2,c_3$ be right-handed Dehn twists along simple closed curves of the same names on $\Sigma_3$ depicted in Figure \[twists\]. We present $B$ as an octagon with opposite sides identified and consider a chart $\Gamma$ and loops $\gamma_1,\gamma_2,\gamma_3,\gamma_4,\gamma_5$ based at $b_0$ in $B$ as in Figure \[exampleB\]. We use a simplification of diagrams as in Figure \[verticesE\] (a) if the curves for $x,y\in\mathcal{X}$ intersect transversely at one point, and that as in Figure \[verticesE\] (b) if the curves for $x$ and $y$ are disjoint.
Since the intersection words of $\gamma_1,\gamma_2,\gamma_3,\gamma_4,\gamma_5$ with respect to $\Gamma$ are $$\begin{aligned}
w_{\Gamma}(\gamma_1) & =d_2^{-1}, \quad
w_{\Gamma}(\gamma_2) =c_3^{-1}c^{-1}d_2^{-1}c_3^{-1}, \\
w_{\Gamma}(\gamma_3) & =c_1^{-1}b^{-1}c_2^{-1}d_3^{-1}
a^{-1}c_2^{-1}d_4^{-1}c_1^{-1}, \quad
w_{\Gamma}(\gamma_4) =d_4a^{-1}, \quad
w_{\Gamma}(\gamma_5) =d_1, \end{aligned}$$ a Lefschetz fibration $f:M\rightarrow B$ of genus $3$ described by $\Gamma$ is isomorphic to the Lefschetz fibration constructed by Korkmaz and Ozbagci [@KO2001 Theorem 1.2]. $f$ has only one singular fiber and it is of type ${\rm I}^+$. We can compute the signature $\sigma(M)$ of the total space $M$ by Proposition \[signature2\]: $$\sigma(M)=n_L(\Gamma)=-1,$$ which coincides with the value computed in [@EKKOS2002 Proposition 14].
$d_1$ \[b\] at 16 53 $d_4$ \[b\] at 70 53 $d_3$ \[b\] at 124 53 $d_2$ \[b\] at 177 53 $a$ \[r\] at 88 25 $b$ \[t\] at 132 17 $c_1$ \[b\] at 247 60 $c_2$ \[b\] at 302 60 $c_3$ \[b\] at 356 60 $c$ \[t\] at 284 16 ![Simple closed curves on $\Sigma_3$[]{data-label="twists"}](twists "fig:")
$b_0$ \[t\] at 234 450 \[b\] at 145 427 \[b\] at 23 305 \[t\] at 24 144 \[t\] at 146 26 \[t\] at 323 33 \[t\] at 430 142 \[b\] at 432 306 \[b\] at 310 427 \[r\] at 116 361 $d_2$ \[b\] at 188 400 $d_1$ \[t\] at 158 358 $c$ \[r\] at 153 304 $b$ \[r\] at 193 289 $a$ \[t\] at 228 328 $d_4$ \[b\] at 259 404 $d_3$ \[b\] at 230 384 $c_3$ \[b\] at 97 324 $c$ \[b\] at 73 287 $d_2$ \[b\] at 58 253 $c_3$ \[b\] at 41 224 $c_3$ \[r\] at 104 219 $d_2$ \[b\] at 59 158 $c_3$ \[l\] at 161 212 $c$ \[r\] at 135 193 $d_2$ \[l\] at 113 143 $c_3$ \[r\] at 88 113 $c_1$ \[b\] at 240 300 $b$ \[b\] at 275 295 $c_2$ \[r\] at 278 245 $d_3$ \[l\] at 298 239 $a$ \[r\] at 319 198 $c_2$ \[l\] at 342 187 $d_4$ \[t\] at 412 260 $c_1$ \[l\] at 424 223 $a$ \[t\] at 420 184 $c_2$ \[b\] at 334 315 $d_3$ \[t\] at 353 310 $a$ \[r\] at 370 289 $c_2$ \[t\] at 383 270 $c_2$ \[t\] at 343 277 $c_1$ \[t\] at 292 171 $c_1$ \[r\] at 205 183 $b$ \[l\] at 224 164 $d_4$ \[r\] at 341 102 $c_1$ \[l\] at 364 82 $d_4$ \[t\] at 388 120 \[b\] at 203 343 ![Chart for Lefschetz fibration of Korkmaz and Ozbagci[]{data-label="exampleB"}](exampleB "fig:")
$x$ \[b\] at 4 56 $y$ \[b\] at 26 56 $x$ \[b\] at 49 56 $y$ \[t\] at 4 0 $x$ \[t\] at 26 0 $y$ \[t\] at 49 0 $:=$ \[b\] at 70 22 $x$ \[b\] at 91 56 $y$ \[b\] at 113 56 $x$ \[b\] at 135 56 $y$ \[t\] at 91 0 $x$ \[t\] at 113 0 $y$ \[t\] at 135 0 $z$ \[b\] at 117 29 \[t\] at 70 -15 $x$ \[br\] at 180 44 $y$ \[bl\] at 210 44 $y$ \[tr\] at 180 12 $x$ \[tl\] at 210 12 $:=$ \[b\] at 228 22 $x$ \[br\] at 243 44 $y$ \[bl\] at 273 44 $y$ \[tr\] at 243 12 $x$ \[tl\] at 273 12 \[t\] at 228 -15 ![Simplification of vertices[]{data-label="verticesE"}](verticesE "fig:")
Study various properties of Lefschetz fibrations by using chart description for the triple $(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{R},\mathcal{S})$ defined above.
We next mention chart description for Lefschetz fibrations with bordered base and fiber. Kamada [@Kamada2007] gave a general theory for charts in a compact oriented surface with boundary. Various presentations of mapping class groups of surfaces with boundary have been investigated by researchers including Gervais [@Gervais2001], Labruère and Paris [@LP2001], Margalit and McCammond [@MM2009]. Combining these two kinds of studies, one can immediately obtain a chart description for Lefschetz fibrations with bordered base and fiber.
Make use of chart description to study PALFs and Stein surfaces.
It would be worth considering compositions of monodromy representations with appropriate homomorphisms and charts corresponding to the compositions. For example, Hasegawa [@Hasegawa2006a; @Hasegawa2006] adopted a homomorphism from the $m$–string braid group $B_m$ to the semi-direct product $(\mathbb{Z}_2)^m\times S_m$, while Endo and Kamada [@EK2014] used a standard epimorphism from the hyperelliptic mapping class group of a closed oriented surface of genus $g$ to the mapping class group of a sphere with $2g+2$ marked points.
Consider chart descriptions for ‘nice’ representations of mapping class groups to study invariants and classifications of Lefschetz fibrations.
Theorem \[main1\] and Theorem \[main2\] tell us that the numbers of singular fibers of all types and the signature of the total space completely determine the stable isomorphism class of a Lefschetz fibration with given base and fiber. Thus any numerical invariant of Lefschetz fibrations which is additive under fiber sum is determined by these invariants in principle.
Construct numerical invariants of Lefschetz fibrations which are [*not*]{} additive under fiber sum.
Nosaka [@Nosaka2014] has recently defined an invariant which is not additive under fiber sum. Non-numerical invariants such as monodromy group would be also useful (see Matsumoto [@Matsumoto1996] and Park and Yun [@PY2009; @PY2011]).
[**Acknowledgements**]{} The authors would like to thank the referees for their helpful suggestions and corrections. The first author was partially supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers 21540079, 25400082. The third author was partially supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers 21340015, 26287013. The fourth author was partially supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers 21740042, 26400082.
[99]{}
D. Auroux, [*Fiber sums of genus $2$ Lefschetz fibrations*]{}, Turkish J. Math. [**27**]{} (2003) 1–10.
D. Auroux, [*A stable classification of Lefschetz fibrations*]{}, Geom. Topol. [**9**]{} (2005), 203–217.
J. Barge and É. Ghys, [*Cocycles d’Euler et de Maslov*]{}, Math. Ann. [**294**]{} (1992), 235–265.
R. I. Baykur and S. Kamada, [*Classification of broken Lefschetz fibrations with small fiber genera*]{}, arXiv:1010.5814, to appear in J. Math. Soc. Japan.
H. Endo and S. Kamada, [*Chart description for hyperelliptic Lefschetz fibrations and their stabilization*]{}, arXiv:1306.2707, to appear in Topology Appl.
H. Endo and S. Kamada, [*Counting Dirac braids and hyperelliptic Lefschetz fibrations*]{}, in preparation.
H. Endo, M. Korkmaz, D. Kotschick, B. Ozbagci, and A. Stipsicz, [*Commutators, Lefschetz fibrations and the signatures of surface bundles*]{}, Topology [**41**]{} (2002), 961–977.
H. Endo and S. Nagami, [*Signature of relations in mapping class groups and non-holomorphic Lefschetz fibrations*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**357**]{} (2004), 3179–3199.
R. Fintushel and R. J. Stern, [*Families of simply connected $4$–manifolds with the same Seiberg-Witten invariants*]{}, Topology [**43**]{} (2004), 1449–1467.
J.-M. Gambaudo and É. Ghys, [*Braids and signatures*]{}, Bull. Soc. Math. France [**133**]{} (2005), 541–579.
S. Gervais, [*A presentation of the mapping class group of a punctured surface*]{}, Topology [**40**]{} (2001), 703–725.
P. M. Gilmer and G. Masbaum, [*Maslov index, lagrangians, mapping class groups and TQFT*]{}, Forum Math. [**25**]{} (2011), 1067–1106.
R. E. Gompf and A. I. Stipsicz, [*$4$–manifolds and Kirby calculus*]{}, Grad. Stud. Math. [**20**]{}, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1999.
I. Hasegawa, [*A certain linear representation of the classical braid group and its application to surface braids*]{}, Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. [**141**]{} (2006), 287–301.
I. Hasegawa, [*Chart descriptions of monodromy representations on oriented closed surfaces*]{}, thesis, Univ. of Tokyo, March 23, 2006.
K. Hayano, [*On genus–$1$ simplified broken Lefschetz fibrations*]{}, Algebr. Geom. Topol. [**11**]{} (2011), 1267–1322.
S. Kamada, [*Surfaces in $R^4$ of braid index three are ribbon*]{}, J. Knot Theory Ramifications [**1**]{} (1992), 137–160.
S. Kamada, [*An observation of surface braids via chart description*]{}, J. Knot Theory Ramifications [**4**]{} (1996), 517–529.
S. Kamada, [*Braid and knot theory in dimension four*]{}, Math. Surveys Monogr. [**95**]{}, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2002.
S. Kamada, [*Graphic descriptions of monodromy representations*]{}, Topology Appl. [**154**]{} (2007), 1430–1446.
S. Kamada, [*Chart description for genus-two Lefschetz fibrations and a theorem on their stabilization*]{}, Topology Appl. [**159**]{} (2012), 1041–1051.
S. Kamada, Y. Matsumoto, T. Matumoto and K. Waki, [*Chart description and a new proof of the classification theorem of genus one Lefschetz fibrations*]{}, J. Math. Soc. Japan [**57**]{} (2005), 537–555.
A. Kas, [*On the handlebody decomposition associated to a Lefschetz fibration*]{}, Pacific J. Math. [**89**]{} (1980), 89–104.
M. Korkmaz, [*Noncomplex smooth $4$–manifolds with Lefschetz fibrations*]{}, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN, Vol. 2001, pp. 115–128. .
M. Korkmaz, [*Lefschetz fibrations and an invariant of finitely presentable groups*]{}, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN, Vol. 2009, pp. 1547–1572.
M. Korkmaz and B. Ozbagci, [*Minimal number of singular fibers in a Lefschetz fibration*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**129**]{} (2001), 1545–1549.
Y. Kuno, [*Meyer functions and the signature of fibered $4$–manifolds*]{}, arXiv:1204.1701.
C. Labruère and L. Paris, [*Presentations for the punctured mapping class groups in terms of Artin groups*]{}, Algebr. Geom. Topol. [**1**]{} (2001), 73–114.
F. Luo, [*A presentation of the mapping class groups*]{}, Math. Res. Lett. [**4**]{} (1997), 725–739.
D. Margalit and J. McCammond, [*Geometric presentations for the pure braid group*]{}, J. Knot Theory Ramifications [**18**]{} (2009), 1–20.
Y. Matsumoto, [*Diffeomorphism types of elliptic surfaces*]{}, Topology [**25**]{} (1986), 549–563.
Y. Matsumoto, [*Lefschetz fibrations of genus two — A topological approach*]{}, in “Topology and Teichmüller spaces” S. Kojima et al, eds., Proc. the 37-th Taniguchi Sympo., pp. 123–148, World Scientific Publishing, River Edge, NJ, 1996.
W. Meyer, [*Die Signatur von Flächenbündeln*]{}, Math. Ann. [**201**]{} (1973), 239–264.
T. Nosaka, [*Bilinear-form invariants of Lefschetz fibrations over the $2$–sphere*]{}, preprint.
K. Okamori, [*A genus $2$ Lefschetz fibration on an exotic $\Bbb{CP}^2\# 9\overline{\Bbb{CP}}^2$*]{}, master’s thesis (in Japanese), Osaka University, February 2011.
B. Ozbagci and A. I. Stipsicz, [*Noncomplex smooth $4$–manifolds with genus-$2$ Lefschetz fibrations*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**128**]{} (2000), 3125–3128.
J. Park and K.-H. Yun, [*Nonisomorphic Lefschetz fibrations on knot surgery $4$–manifolds*]{}, Math. Ann. [**345**]{} (2009), 581–597.
J. Park and K.-H. Yun, [*Lefschetz fibration structure on knot surgery $4$–manifolds*]{}, Michigan Math. J. [**60**]{} (2011), 525–544.
V. G. Turaev, [*First symplectic Chern class and Maslov indices*]{}, J. Soviet Math. [**37**]{} (1987), 1115–1127.
B. Wajnryb, [*A simple presentation for the mapping class group of an orientable surface*]{}, Israel J. Math. [**45**]{} (1983), 157–174.
B. Wajnryb, [*An elementary approach to the mapping class group of a surface*]{}, Geom. Topol. [**3**]{} (1999), 405–466.
C. T. C. Wall, [*Non-additivity of the signature*]{}, Invent. Math. [**7**]{} (1969), 269–274.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Several lifetimes in $^{23}$Mg have been determined for the first time using the Doppler-shift attenuation method. A Monte Carlo simulation code has been written to model the $\gamma$-ray line shape. An upper limit of $\tau < 12$ fs at the 95% C.L. has been obtained for the astrophysically important 7787 keV state.'
author:
- 'O. S. Kirsebom'
- 'P. Bender'
- 'A. Cheeseman'
- 'G. Christian'
- 'R. Churchman'
- 'D. S. Cross'
- 'B. Davids'
- 'L. J. Evitts'
- 'J. Fallis'
- 'N. Galinski'
- 'A. B. Garnsworthy'
- 'G. Hackman'
- 'J. Lighthall'
- 'S. Ketelhut'
- 'P. Machule'
- 'D. Miller'
- 'C. R. Nobs'
- 'C. J. Pearson'
- 'M. M. Rajabali'
- 'A. J. Radich'
- 'A. Rojas'
- 'C. Ruiz'
- 'A. Sanetullaev'
- 'C. D. Unsworth'
- 'C. Wrede'
bibliography:
- 'okirsebom.bib'
title: Measurement of Lifetimes in 23Mg
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- '[^1]'
title: |
Efficient Simulation of Field/Circuit Coupled Systems\
with Parallelised Waveform Relaxation
---
Introduction
============
Simulation of devices and their surrounding circuitry is often performed with circuit simulators. [Within such simulations,]{} the behaviour of the devices is described by lumped element models, which yield algebraic or differential relations between the voltages and [the]{} currents. A disadvantage of the lumped models is that they do not provide enough details, whenever a spatial description of the electromagnetic field inside a device is needed. Such cases include for example the simulation of electric machines [@Salon_1995aa] or of the quench protection system of superconducting magnets in particle accelerators [@Bortot_2018ab]. In these cases field/circuit coupling [@Bedrosian_1993aa; @Schops_2011ac; @Cortes-Garcia_2017ab] is needed, see Fig. \[fig:Transformer\]. In order to exploit the different time rates [and also to be]{} able to use separate dedicated solvers for the different systems of equations involved, waveform relaxation (WR) is often used [@Lelarasmee_1982ab]. Here, the different systems of equations are solved separately and, iteratively, information is exchanged between them until they converge to the coupled solution.
For the numerical solution of the field system, space is discretised first e.g. with the finite element method (FEM). Together with the circuit equations this results in systems of differential algebraic equations (DAEs), which have to be solved in the time domain. The finer the mesh, the larger are the systems to be solved at every time step. This leads to long computational time. To this end, calculations can be accelerated by means of a parallel-in-time method called parareal, which is a specific shooting method [@Lions_2001aa; @Gander_2015aa].
This work combines parareal and WR together in one algorithm. In contrast to previous works, e.g. [@Liu_2012aa; @Cadeau_2011aa], engineering knowledge is used to design a new and optimised algorithm which significantly reduces the computational cost borrowing ideas from micro-macro parareal [@Maday_2007aa; @Legoll_2013aa].
The structure of the paper is the following: Section 2 introduces the spatially discretised systems of equations. Section 3 explains the waveform relaxation algorithm with an optimised transmission condition for the field/circuit coupled case. In section 4 the classical as well as a special case of the micro/macro parareal algorithm are introduced. Section 5 deals with the coupling of waveform relaxation and parareal and finally section 6 presents numerical simulations. The last section closes the paper with conclusions and an outlook to the future work.
![Transformer model ‘MyTransformer’ coupled to a rectifier circuit[@Meeker_2018aa].[]{data-label="fig:Transformer"}](figure0)
Systems of equations
====================
To describe the electromagnetic field part, we consider a magnetoquasistatic approximation of Maxwell’s equations in terms of the reduced A formulation [@Emson_1988aa]. This leads to the curl-curl eddy current partial differential equation (PDE) that describes the field in terms of a magnetic vector potential. The circuit side is formulated with the modified nodal analysis (MNA) [@Ho_1975aa]. For the numerical simulation of the coupled system, the method of lines is used. This leads to a time-dependent coupled system of DAEs that are formulated as an initial value problem (IVP).
For $t\in\mathcal{I} = (T_0,T_N]$ we solve the IVP described by the coupled system. The field DAEs are $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{M}}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathbf{a}} + \mathbf{K}\big(\mathbf{a}\big)\mathbf{a} &= \mathbf{X}\mathbf{i}_{\mathrm{m}},\label{eq:sys1}\\
\mathbf{X}^{\top}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\mathbf{a}& = \mathbf{v}_{\mathrm{m}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{a}$ is the discretised magnetic vector potential, $\mathbf{v}_{\mathrm{m}}$ the voltage across and $\mathbf{i}_{\mathrm{m}}$ the current through the coil of the electromagnetic device. $\mathbf{M}$ denotes the (singular) mass matrix, $\mathbf{K}$ the stiffness matrix, and $\mathbf{X}$ distributes the circuit’s input currents in space. In two dimension, we consider either $$\mathbf{M}_{i,j}=\int_{\Omega}\alpha_i\cdot\sigma\alpha_j\text{~~or~~} \mathbf{M}_{i,j}=\int_{\Omega}\frac{1}{12}d^2\nabla\alpha_i\sigma\nabla\alpha_j$$if lamination is considered, [@Gyselinck_1999aa], where $\alpha_{\star}$ are test and weighting functions from an appropriate space defined on the computational domain $\Omega$, $\sigma$ the conductivity and $d$ the lamination thickness. We assume that the spaces contain boundary and gauging condition (e.g. tree/cotree) if necessary. The circuit is described in terms of the MNA by the system $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{A}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathbf{x}} + \mathbf{B}\big(\mathbf{x}\big)\mathbf{x} + \mathbf{P}\mathbf{i}_{\mathrm{c}} = \mathbf{f}(t),\\
\mathbf{P}^{\top}\mathbf{x} = \mathbf{v}_{\mathrm{c}},\label{eq:sys4}\end{aligned}$$ with $\mathbf{x}$ containing the node potentials and currents through branches with voltage sources and inductors, $\mathbf{v}_{\mathrm{c}}$ the voltage across and $\mathbf{i}_{\mathrm{c}}$ the current through branches containing the electromagnetic element, $\mathbf{A}$ and $\mathbf{B}$ being the MNA system matrices and $\mathbf{P}$ the incidence matrix of the field element describing its position inside the circuit’s graph. For the coupling, $\mathbf{v}_{\mathrm{c}} = \mathbf{v}_{\mathrm{m}}$ and $\mathbf{i}_{\mathrm{c}} = \mathbf{i}_{\mathrm{m}}$ and given initial values $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:IC}
\mathbf{a}(t_0) = \mathbf{a}_0,\; \mathbf{x}(t_0)=\mathbf{x}_0,\; \mathbf{i}_{\mathrm{c}}(t_0)=\mathbf{i}_0\; \text{and} \;\mathbf{v}_{\mathrm{c}}(t_0) = \mathbf{v}_0,\end{aligned}$$ the coupled system - can be solved in time.
Waveform Relaxation
===================
We start the WR algorithm by dividing the simulation time span $\mathcal{I}$ into $N$ time windows $\mathcal{I}_{n}=(T_{n-1}, T_{n}]$ of size $\Delta T$. At iteration $k+1$, a Gauss-Seidel scheme is applied to -, which allows to solve the field and circuit systems of equations separately and iteratively exchange information between them until the solution converges up to a certain tolerance.
For each time window $\mathcal{I}_{n}$ and WR iteration $k+1$, the algorithm starts by solving the field system $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{M}}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathbf{a}}^{(k+1)} + \mathbf{K}\big(\mathbf{a}^{(k+1)}\big)\mathbf{a}^{(k+1)} &= \mathbf{X}\mathbf{i}^{(k+1)}_{\mathrm{m}},\label{eq:1}\\
\mathbf{X}^{\top}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\mathbf{a}^{(k+1)}& = \mathbf{v}^{(k+1)}_{\mathrm{m}},\\
\mathbf{v}^{(k+1)}_{\mathrm{m}} &= \mathbf{v}^{(k)}_{\mathrm{c}}.\label{eq:TCfield}\end{aligned}$$ In the first WR iteration, $\mathbf{v}^{(0)}_{\mathrm{c}}$ is computed by (constant) extrapolation of the initial condition $\mathbf{v}^{(0)}_{\mathrm{c}}(T_{n-1})$. Afterwards, the circuit can be solved independently with $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{A}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathbf{x}}^{(k+1)} + \mathbf{B}\big(\mathbf{x}^{(k+1)}\big)\mathbf{x}^{(k+1)} + \mathbf{P}\mathbf{i}^{(k+1)}_{\mathrm{c}} = \mathbf{f}(t) \label{eq:circ1},\\
\mathbf{P}^{\top}\mathbf{x}^{(k+1)} = \mathbf{v}^{(k+1)}_{\mathrm{c}} \label{eq:circ2},\\
\mathbf{v}_{\mathrm{c}}^{(k+1)} = \mathbf{L}^{(k+1)}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\mathbf{i}_{\mathrm{c}}^{(k+1)} -\mathbf{L}^{(k+1)}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\mathbf{i}_{\mathrm{m}}^{(k+1)} + \mathbf{v}_{\mathrm{m}}^{(k+1)}\label{eq:TCopt},\end{aligned}$$ where the inductance $$\mathbf{L}^{(k+1)} = \mathbf{X}^{\top}\mathbf{K}^+(\mathbf{a}^{(k+1)})\mathbf{X}$$ is used to optimise convergence [@Schops_2011ac; @Cortes-Garcia_2017ab]. These steps are repeated until the difference of the solutions between two subsequent iterations is small enough. Once convergence up to a certain tolerance is reached, the solution obtained at time $T_n$ is used as initial condition for the next time window $\mathcal{I}_{n+1}$ and the iteration scheme can be repeated again. Thus, the WR algorithm is performed sequentially through all time windows.
Considering the field system’s transmission condition , the analogous version for the circuit part would be to set $$\mathbf{i}_{\mathrm{c}}^{(k+1)} = \mathbf{i}_{\mathrm{m}}^{(k+1)}.$$
Parareal
========
The parareal algorithm starts with partitioning the interval $\mathcal{I}$ into (the same) windows $\mathcal{I}_n=(T_{n-1}, T_{n}]$ of size $\Delta T$. We start by summarizing - as the initial-value problem $$\mathbf{C}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\mathbf{u}=\mathbf{g}(t,\mathbf{u}),\quad\mathbf{u}(T_0)=\mathbf{u}_0,\label{eq:fine}$$ with $\mathbf{u}:\mathcal{I}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n_{\mathrm{dof}}}$ and $n_{\mathrm{dof}}$ the degrees of freedom (DoF) of the coupled system. Within the parareal framework, one solves $$\mathbf{C}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\mathbf{u}_n = \mathbf{g}(t, \mathbf{u}_n),
\quad{\mathbf{u}_n(T_{n-1})= \mathbf{U}_{n-1}},
\quad{t} {\in \mathcal{I}_n},\label{eq:pbm_subint}$$ on each subinterval $\mathcal{I}_n$ in parallel, starting from an initial value $\mathbf{U}_{n-1},$ $n=1,\dots,N$ with a given $\mathbf{U}_0:=\mathbf{u}_0.$ The goal is then to eliminate the mismatch between the values at synchronisation points $T_n,$ $n=1,\dots,N-1.$ The parareal iteration reads [@Lions_2001aa]: for $k=0,1,\dots,K$ and $n=1,\dots,N$ $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathbf{U}_0^{(k+1)}}}&
=\mathbf{u}_0,\nonumber\\
{{\mathbf{U}_n^{(k+1)}}}&
=
{\mathcal{F}}\big(T_n, T_{n-1},{\mathbf{U}^{(k)}_{n-1}}\big)\label{eq:Parareal}\\
&\quad+{{\mathcal{G}}}\big(T_n, T_{n-1},{\mathbf{U}^{(k+1)}_{n-1}}\big) - {{\mathcal{G}}}\big(T_n, T_{n-1},{\mathbf{U}^{(k)}_{n-1}}\big).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Operators ${\mathcal{F}}$ and ${\mathcal{G}}$ in are a fine and a coarse propagator, respectively. ${\mathcal{F}}\big(T_n, T_{n-1},\mathbf{U}^{(k)}_{n-1}\big)$ gives an accurate solution (e.g. using small time steps) of , starting from initial values $\mathbf{U}^{(k)}_{n-1}$ and can be calculated in parallel on all $\mathcal{I}_{n}$. On the other hand, the coarse solution ${{\mathcal{G}}}\big(T_n, T_{n-1},\mathbf{U}^{(k+1)}_{n-1}\big)$ is obtained in a cheaper way (e.g. using large time steps) but sequentially.
Micro-Macro Parareal
--------------------
The idea of micro-macro parareal is to consider different models on the levels. On the fine level, the original problem is solved. However, for the coarse one, a reduced IVP $$\mathbf{C}_{\mathrm{r}}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\mathbf{u}_{\mathrm{r}}=\mathbf{g}_{\mathrm{r}}(t,\mathbf{u}_{\mathrm{r}}),\quad\mathbf{u}_{\mathrm{r}}(T_0)=\mathbf{u}_{\mathrm{r},0}\label{eq:coarse}$$ is considered, with $\mathbf{u}_{\mathrm{r}}:\mathcal{I}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n_{\mathrm{r}}}$ and $n_{\mathrm{r}}$ the number of DoFs of the reduced system. This allows to further speed up the computation of the coarse solution by not only saving the cost of the time stepper, but also reducing the size of the system solved. Here, for example, model order reduction techniques can be used [@Maday_2007aa] to set up the simplified coarse system in .
Now, two additional operators have to be defined, in order to exchange the solutions between the models. The restriction operator $\mathcal{R}:\mathbb{R}^{n_{\mathrm{dof}}}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n_{\mathrm{r}}}$ allows to, given an initial value of , obtain a valid initial value for . The inverse can be done with the lifting operator $\mathcal{L}:\mathbb{R}^{n_{\mathrm{r}}}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n_{\mathrm{dof}}}$, which, given an initial value of the coarse system, computes a valid initial value for the fine one. They are defined consistently, such that $$\mathcal{R}(\mathcal{L}(X)) = X.\label{eq:RL}$$ With these operators, the update in is changed to [@Maday_2007aa] $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathbf{U}_n^{(k+1)}}}&
=
{\mathcal{F}}\big(T_n, T_{n-1},{\mathbf{U}^{(k)}_{n-1}}\big)\label{eq:MMParareal}\\
&\quad+\mathcal{L}\left(\bar{\mathbf{U}}_n^{(k+1)}\right) - \mathcal{L}\left(\bar{\mathbf{U}}_n^{(k)}\right),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $$\bar{\mathbf{U}}_n^{(k+1)} \coloneqq {{\mathcal{G}}}\big(T_n, T_{n-1},{\mathcal{R}(\mathbf{U}^{(k+1)}_{n-1})}\big).$$
Parallelised Waveform Relaxation
================================
For the coupling of WR with parareal (PRWR), we consider the WR and the parareal window sizes to be the same $\Delta T$. This choice is not necessary, however a natural one. We present two variants of the algorithm.
The initial version of the algorithm is similar to [@Cadeau_2011aa]. Here, we [choose]{} both the coarse [and]{} the fine propagator[s to be a]{} WR scheme. For the the coarse propagator, the WR scheme will not iterate until convergence, but will stop after a finite (fixed) number of iterations $k_{\mathrm{c}}$. In contrast to [@Cadeau_2011aa], the fine propagator iterates the WR scheme until convergence up to a certain tolerance.
The second algorithm is an optimised version of the first one, where the coarse propagator is chosen to only perform half of a WR iteration ($k_{\mathrm{c}}=0.5$) by starting with the circuit system. This means only solving - for $t\in\mathcal{I}$ and replacing the transformer by a mutual inductor as depicted in Fig. \[fig:Coarsetrans\]. It can also be interpreted as neglecting the eddy current effects of the magnetoquasistatic curl-curl equation on the coarse level. This allows to significantly reduce the computational cost as the coarse propagator only operates on the circuit level, i.e. with rather few DoFs. This algorithm fits into the context of micro-macro parareal algorithms [@Maday_2007aa; @Legoll_2013aa].
![Micro-macro parareal coarse system model.[]{data-label="fig:Coarsetrans"}](figure1)
Numerical simulations
=====================
We apply the introduced approaches to a 2D model of a single-phase isolation transformer (‘MyTransformer’) coupled to a rectifier circuit [@Schops_2011ac Fig. 6.6 (b)], which we depict in Fig. \[fig:Transformer\]. For the numerical simulations we consider field-independent materials, such that the eddy-current curl-curl equation is a linear DAE. The simulation interval is chosen as $\mathcal{I}=[0, 0.1]$ s, which is partitioned into $N$ windows. For the time integration inside the WR scheme of both coarse and fine propagators, implicit Euler method is used. The fine time step size is $h=5\cdot10^{-5}$ s and the excitation voltage source is $v(t)=220\sin(400\pi t)$ V. Parareal is performed until the relative $l^2$ error of the jumps is below $10^{-5}$.
Firstly the initial algorithm is applied such that the coarse propagator performs $k_{\mathrm{c}}=1.5$ WR iterations with time step size $\Delta T$ for both subsystems. The fine propagator executes WR until convergence (relative $l^2$ error of the coupling variables between two subsequent iterations $<10^{-8}$).
In the optimised case, In this case, a micro-macro parareal algorithm arises. Therefore, restriction and lifting operators must be constructed. The DoFs of the fine system $\mathbf{u}_{\mathrm{f}}$ are $$\mathbf{u}_{\mathrm{f}}^{\top} = (\mathbf{a}^{\top}, \mathbf{i}_{\mathrm{m}}^{\top}, \mathbf{v}_{\mathrm{m}}^{\top}, \mathbf{x}^{\top}, \mathbf{i}_{\mathrm{c}}^{\top}, \mathbf{v}_{\mathrm{c}}^{\top}),$$ whereas the coarse operator reduces them to $\mathbf{u}_{\mathrm{r}}=\mathbf{u}_{\mathrm{c}}$, with $$\mathbf{u}_{\mathrm{c}}^{\top} = (\mathbf{x}^{\top}, \mathbf{i}_{\mathrm{c}}^{\top}, \mathbf{v}_{\mathrm{c}}^{\top}).$$ We set the restriction operator $\mathcal{R}$ to $$\mathcal{R}(\mathbf{u}_{\mathrm{f}}) =(\mathbf{x}^{\top}, \mathbf{i}_{\mathrm{c}}^{\top}, \mathbf{v}_{\mathrm{c}}^{\top})^{\top}.$$ The lifting $\mathcal{L}$ computes the corresponding magnetic vector potential $\mathbf{a}$ obtained from solving a magnetostatic problem with a given current, that is, $$\mathcal{L}(\mathbf{u}_{\mathrm{c}}) = ((\mathbf{K}^{+}\mathbf{X}\mathbf{i}_{\mathrm{c}})^{\top}, \mathbf{i}_{\mathrm{c}}^{\top}, \mathbf{v}_{\mathrm{c}}^{\top}, \mathbf{x}^{\top}, \mathbf{i}_{\mathrm{c}}^{\top}, \mathbf{v}_{\mathrm{c}}^{\top})^{\top}.$$ Please note that, as stated in , $\mathcal{R}\big(\mathcal{L}(\mathbf{u}_{\mathrm{c}})\big) = \mathbf{u}_{\mathrm{c}}.$
In practice, for nonlinear materials, in each parareal iteration and window, the inductance is extracted at a working point and kept constant.
Simulation results
------------------
The simplified algorithm is applied to the eddy current problem without lamination of the core. The algorithm does only converge after the $N$th parareal iteration, which does not yield a speed up with respect to the sequential simulation. This is due to the fact that the eddy current effects are dominant and the static simplification made for the electromagnetic device in the coarse system is not accurate enough. There are two main sources of error arising from the approximation. First, neglecting the eddy current losses leads to a different current to voltage relation on the circuit side. A second source of error is the lifting operator, as it distributes the magnetic vector potential neglecting the skin effect which, for the considered example, is highly relevant.
For the second simulation, both algorithms are applied to the same transformer now with the eddy current lamination model [@Gyselinck_1999aa]. The effective number of linear system solves for sequential WR, PRWR with the first algorithm and PRWR with the second algorithm is shown in Fig. \[fig:improvement\]. It can be seen that, even though both PRWR algorithms significantly decrease the effective number of solutions of linear systems compared to the sequential simulation, the first algorithm is sooner affected by the sequential computation of the coarse system, which increases the effective cost for larger number of processors $N$. The optimised algorithm profits here from the fact that no FEM simulations are necessary on the coarse level.
![Effective number of linear system solves (ELSS), i.e. neglecting the ones that can be carried out in parallel.[]{data-label="fig:improvement"}](figure2)
![Effective number of linear system solves (ELSS), i.e. neglecting the ones that can be carried out in parallel.[]{data-label="fig:improvement"}](figure3)
Conclusion
==========
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
This work is supported by the ‘Excellence Initiative’ of the German Federal and State Governments and the Graduate School of Computational Engineering at TU Darmstadt and DFG Grant SCHO1562/1-2 and BMBF Grant 05M2018RDA (PASIROM).
[10]{} \[1\][\#1]{} url@samestyle \[2\][\#2]{} \[2\][[ l@\#1 =l@\#1 \#2]{}]{}
S. J. Salon, *Finite Element Analysis of Electrical Machines*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emKluwer, 1995.
L. Bortot, B. Auchmann, I. Cortes Garcia, A. M. Fernando Navarro, M. Maciejewski, M. Mentink, M. Prioli, E. Ravaioli, S. Schöps, and A. Verweij, “[STEAM]{}: A hierarchical co-simulation framework for superconducting accelerator magnet circuits,” *IEEE Trans. Appl. Super.*, vol. 28, no. 3, Apr. 2018.
G. Bedrosian, “A new method for coupling finite element field solutions with external circuits and kinematics,” *IEEE Trans. Magn.*, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 1664–1668, 1993.
S. Schöps, “Multiscale modeling and multirate time-integration of field/circuit coupled problems,” Dissertation, Bergische Universität Wuppertal & Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Düsseldorf, Germany, May 2011, [VDI]{} Verlag. Fortschritt-Berichte [VDI]{}, Reihe 21. \[Online\]. Available: <http://elpub.bib.uni-wuppertal.de/servlets/DocumentServlet?id=2132>
I. Cortes Garcia, S. Schoöps, L. Bortot, M. Maciejewski, M. Prioli, A. M. Fernandez Navarro, B. Auchmann, and A. P. Verweij, “Optimized field/circuit coupling for the simulation of quenches in superconducting magnets,” *IEEE J. Multiscale Multiphys. Comput. Tech.*, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 97–104, May 2017.
E. Lelarasmee, A. E. Ruehli, and A. L. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, “The waveform relaxation method for time-domain analysis of large scale integrated circuits,” *IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided. Des. Integrated Circ. Syst.*, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 131–145, 1982.
J.-L. Lions, Y. Maday, and G. Turinici, “A parareal in time discretization of [PDE]{}s,” *Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences – Series I – Mathematics*, vol. 332, no. 7, pp. 661–668, 2001.
M. J. Gander, “50 years of time parallel time integration,” in *Multiple Shooting and Time Domain Decomposition Methods*, ser. Contributions in Mathematical and Computational Sciences, T. Carraro, M. Geiger, S. Körkel, and R. Rannacher, Eds., vol. 9.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2015, pp. 69–113.
J. Liu and Y.-L. Jiang, “[A parareal waveform relaxation algorithm for semi-linear parabolic partial differential equations]{},” *J. Comput. Appl. Math.*, vol. 236, no. 17, pp. 4245–4263, 2012.
T. Cadeau and F. Magoules, “Coupling the parareal algorithm with the waveform relaxation method for the solution of differential algebraic equations,” in *10th International Symposium on Distributed Computing and Applications to Business, Engineering and Science*, Oct. 2011, pp. 15–19.
Y. Maday, J. Salomon, and G. Turinici, “Monotonic parareal control for quantum systems,” *SIAM J. Math. Anal.*, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 2468–2482, 2007.
F. Legoll, T. Lelièvre, and G. Samaey, “A micro-macro parareal algorithm: Application to singularly perturbed ordinary differential equations,” *SIAM J. Sci. Comput.*, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. A1951–A1986, Aug. 2013.
D. Meeker, *Finite Element Method Magnetics*, version 4.2 (25feb2018 build) ed., 2018, user’s Manual. \[Online\]. Available: <http://www.femm.info/>
C. R. I. Emson and C. W. Trowbridge, “Transient 3d eddy currents using modified magnetic vector potentials and magnetic scalar potentials,” *IEEE Trans. Magn.*, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 86–89, Jan. 1988.
C.-W. Ho, A. E. Ruehli, and P. A. Brennan, “The modified nodal approach to network analysis,” *IEEE Trans. Circ. Syst.*, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 504–509, Jun. 1975.
J. Gyselinck, L. Vandevelde, J. Melkebeek, P. Dular, F. Henrotte, and W. Legros, “Calculation of eddy currents and associated losses in electrical steel laminations,” *IEEE Trans. Magn.*, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 1191–1194, May 1999.
M. Al-Khaleel, M. J. Gander, and A. E. Ruehli, “Optimization of transmission conditions in waveform relaxation techniques for [RC]{} circuits,” *SIAM J. Numer. Anal.*, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 1076–1101, 2014.
[^1]: Manuscript received xxx y, 20zz; revised xxx yy, 20zz and xxx 1, 20zz; accepted xxx 1, 20zz. Date of publication xxx yy, 20zz; date of current version xxx yy, 20zz. (Dates will be inserted by IEEE; published is the date the accepted preprint is posted on IEEE Xplore; current version is the date the typeset version is posted on Xplore). Corresponding author: F. A. Author (e-mail: [email protected]). Digital Object Identifier (inserted by IEEE).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The spectrum of an isotropic extragalactic $\gamma$-ray background (EGB) has been measured by the Fermi-LAT telescope at high latitudes. Two new models for the EGB are derived from the subtraction of unresolved point sources and extragalactic diffuse processes, which could explain from 30% to 70% of the Fermi-LAT EGB. Within the hypothesis that the two residual EGBs are entirely due to the annihilation of dark matter (DM) particles in the Galactic halo, we obtain stringent upper limits on their annihilation cross section. Severe bounds on a possible Sommerfeld enhancement of the annihilation cross section are set as well. Finally, we consider models for DM annihilation depending on the inverse of the velocity and associate the EGBs to photons arising from the annihilation of DM in primordial halos. Given our choices for the EGB and the minimal DM modelling, the derived upper bounds are claimed to be $conservative$.'
author:
- Francesca Calore
- Valentina De Romeri
- Fiorenza Donato
bibliography:
- 'draftEGB.bib'
title: 'Conservative upper limits on WIMP annihilation cross section from Fermi-LAT $\gamma$-rays'
---
Introduction
============
The indirect search for dark matter (DM) through its annihilation products in rare charged cosmic rays (CRs) and in multi-wavelength channels requires very accurate measurements and an unambiguous estimation of all the possible backgrounds to the DM signal. In the last years, dedicated experiments have provided unprecedented results by extending the energy ranges of the measured cosmic species as well as the precision of the data . Further data are expected by the Fermi-LAT and Pamela on-going missions, and by the AMS-02 experiment on board the International Space Station. From the theoretical side, many efforts have been addressed to a better and increasingly detailed modellization of the astrophysical processes which shape, at different levels, the observed fluxes. Data from cosmic antiprotons [@2009PhRvL.102e1101A; @Adriani:2010rc] have been shown to be compatible with the standard production from CRs impinging on the interstellar gas [@2009PhRvL.102g1301D]. The anomalous increasing positron fraction measured by Pamela [@2009Natur.458..607A; @2010APh....34....1A] and confirmed by Fermi-LAT [@positron_fermi] may be explained by emission from near pulsars over-imposed to a standard CR population . Alternatively, a DM component with very high cross section or sources concentration has been invoked [@2008NuPhB.800..204C; @2008PhRvD..78j3520B; @2009PhRvD..79a5014A; @Cholis]. Unprecedented $\gamma$-ray measurements by Fermi-LAT have boosted interpretation of diffused and point sources emission in terms of exotic components from DM annihilation in the halo of the Milky Way, in extragalactic near objects or in cosmological structures [@LATIsotropicSpectrum; @2010ApJ...712..147A; @2010JCAP...05..025A; @2010JCAP...04..014A]. The very signature would be the monochromatic line, which nevertheless provides tiny signal on a remarkable background [@2010PhRvL.104i1302A].\
The high latitude $\gamma$-ray emission measured by Fermi-LAT [@LATIsotropicSpectrum], given its reduced contamination by galactic sources, can be a powerful tool to set limits on the contribution of DM to the measured flux. The data are indeed the result of a non trivial subtraction procedure and show a high isotropic feature.\
The aim of the present research is to set $conservative$ upper limits on the galactic weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP) DM annihilation cross section into $\gamma$-rays. Several upper limits have been obtained through different and complementary indirect research means [@Cirelli:2009dv; @2011PhRvD..84b7302G; @2009PhRvL.102g1301D; @2010JCAP...04..014A; @Baxter:2011rc; @Siffert:2010cc; @Abdo:2010ex; @hess_dwarfs; @Abramowski:2011hc; @fermi_dwarfs_2011; @koushiappas]. However, it is usually not straightforward to compare these results, given the model dependence, the different assumptions on the astrophysical backgrounds, and the theoretical uncertainties. We will confront the $\gamma$-rays coming both from the DM halo and high-redshift protohalos with the background observed by Fermi-LAT at high latitudes. The conservative approach is achieved - in addition to prudent assumptions on the particle physics model and DM distribution in the Galaxy - through the comparison of the putative DM signal with a high latitude diffuse emission spectrum (i.e. EGB) obtained with minimal subtractions of known unresolved sources.\
Our paper proceeds as follows. In Sect. 2 we discuss the possible contributions to the high latitude $\gamma$-ray emission from unresolved point sources and truly diffuse processes. We subtract the non-negligible fluxes to the Fermi-LAT data and draw two possible scenarios for the high latitude emission. In Sect. 3 we derive conservative upper limits to the DM annihilation cross section by identifying the residual $\gamma$-ray flux with $\gamma$-rays from DM annihilation in the galactic halo and in primordial DM small halos at high redshift. In the latter case, we study models in which the DM annihilation cross section has an explicit dependence on the inverse of the velocity. We discuss also a possible Sommerfeld enhancement of the annihilation cross section and derive limits on its amplitude. In Sect. 4 we draw our conclusions.
The extragalactic $\gamma$-ray background {#EGB}
=========================================
A diffuse $\gamma$-ray emission has been measured by the Fermi-LAT detector at high latitudes ($|b|>10^{\rm o}$) [@LATIsotropicSpectrum]. The spectrum has been obtained after the subtraction from the data of the sources resolved by the telescope, the (indeed model dependent) diffuse galactic emission, the CR background in the detector and the solar $\gamma$-ray emission. The resulting flux decreases with a power law of the photon energy with spectral index $2.41\pm0.05$. It shows a highly isotropic sky distribution and is generically classified as an extragalactic $\gamma$-ray background (EGB).\
The 1451 sources listed in the First Fermi-LAT catalog (1FGL) [@1FGL] represent the best-resolved survey of the sky in the 100 MeV to 100 GeV energy range. For each low–flux source there may be a large number of *unresolved* point sources which have not been detected because of selection effects, or too low emission. Most of the unassociated high latitude sources are blazars, a class of Active Galactic Nuclei (AGNs), and their pile to the EGB with the largest flux [@2010ApJ...720..435A]. Galactic resolved pulsars and Milli-Second Pulsars (MSPs) represent the second largest population in the Fermi-LAT catalog [@1FGL; @2010ApJS..187..460A] and they are expected to contribute significantly to the putative EGB. A non-negligible $\gamma$-ray flux seems to be guaranteed by unresolved normal star-forming galaxies [@EGBStarformgal2010]. Ultra-high energy CRs (UHECRs) may induce secondary electromagnetic cascades, originating neutrinos and $\gamma$-rays at Fermi-LAT energies [@EGBCMB1]. Contributions from unresolved blazars and MSPs are believed to contribute at least few percent to the Fermi-LAT EGB, while predictions for star-forming galaxies and UHECRs are highly model dependent.\
Other astrophysical sources may emit in the high latitude $\gamma$-ray sky: i) radio-quiet AGN [@RadioQuietPhys; @EGBInoue], and Fanaroff and Riley radio galaxies of type I and II [@2010ApJ...720..912A; @EGBradio; @2011arXiv1103.3946I] whose contribution is strongly model dependent and likely bound to few percent of the EGB; ii) $\gamma$-ray bursts (GRBs), estimated less than 1% of the diffuse extragalactic $\gamma$-ray background [@GRBs]; iii) star-burst and luminous infrared galaxies. The relevant flux may cover a significant fraction of the EGB ($\leq 20\% $) [@EGBStarburst], but the model dependence is such to prevent firm statements on the relevance of this extragalactic source; iv) nearby clusters of galaxies, which could yield about $1\% - 10\%$ of the EGRET EGB [@EGBcluster; @Dermer2003; @Pfrommer2008]; v) gravitational induced shock waves, produced during cluster mergers and large-scale structure formation, whose fluxes are quite model dependent and may reach few percent [@EGBLSS2002; @EGBLSS2003]. All these $\gamma$-ray sources have been shown to contribute to less than 1% of the Fermi-LAT EGB or to be too highly model dependent. In the latter case, a very high uncertainty band would be associated with the $\gamma$-ray source, whose lower limit likely gives a negligible contribution to the Fermi-LAT EGB. They will therefore be neglected in rest of our paper.\
In the following, we describe few classes of $\gamma$-ray emitters whose unresolved flux is firmly estimated in a non-negligible Fermi-LAT EGB percentage. In a conservative scenario (Model I), we will subtract AGN and MSPs to the Fermi-LAT EGB as derived in Ref. [@LATIsotropicSpectrum]. A more relaxed model (Model II) will be drawn by the further subtraction of a minimal flux from star-forming galaxies and CRs at the highest energies.
### BL Lacs and FSRQs {#sec:blazars}
Blazars constitute the class of $\gamma$-ray emitters with the largest number of identified members. Therefore, unresolved blazars are expected to have a sizable contribution to the EGB, [@EGRET]. The largest uncertainties in determining the blazars contribution are their unknown spectral energy distribution and luminosity function [@EGBInoue; @Stecker:2010di]. In addition to phenomenological predictions, an analysis of the observed source count distribution through Monte Carlo simulations has been performed in Ref. [@2010ApJ...720..435A]. The reliability of the algorithm relies onto a good agreement with the real data, from the comparison of reconstructed $\gamma$-ray fluxes and spectral properties of the sources. The energy spectrum is well described by a power-law for both FSRQs (softer) and BL Lacs one (harder), being the intersection between the two fluxes at about 400 MeV. Following our conservative approach - which is meant to consider the minimum unavoidable contribution to the EGB from unresolved astrophysical sources - we will adopt blazar contributions from the curves delimiting the lower uncertainty bands displayed in Fig. 20 of Ref. [@2010ApJ...720..435A]. The ensuing flux is displayed in our Fig. \[fig:EGB\_Model\_I\] as dotted (dot-dashed) line for BL Lacs (FSRQs) contribution.
### Pulsars and MSPs {#sec:PulsarsAndMSPs}
As a result of their short periods, typical MSPs may be brighter in the $\gamma$-rays and much older than ordinary pulsars [@EGBPulsar2009]. The ages of MSPs generally exceed the oscillation time across the galactic disk by a large factor so that MSPs are expected to be more prevalent at high latitudes. On the contrary young, energetic ordinary pulsars are more concentrated close to the Galactic plane, where they were born. In the first year of Fermi-LAT observations [@1FGL], 63 pulsars have been identified. Among them: (i) 16 pulsars at $|b| > 10^{\rm o}$, of which 11 are MSPs; (ii) 5 MSPs at $|b| > 40^{\rm o}$ and (iii) 1 MSP at $|b| > 60^{\rm o}$. We estimate a minimal but not negligible contribution of the unresolved MSPs population to the $\gamma$-ray flux at high latitudes. We adopt an empirical prescription outlined in Ref. [@2010arXiv1011.5501S], which is based on the spectra of the eight MSPs detected by Fermi in the first 9 months [@PulsarScience] of operation. The differential energy spectra of the Fermi-detected MSPs are well described by a truncated power law: $$\frac{dN}{dE}
= K E^{-\Gamma}e^{-E/E_{cut}}.
\label{MSPs_spectrum}$$ $\Gamma$ and $E_{cut}$ are assumed to be $\left\langle \Gamma \right\rangle= 1.5$ and $\left\langle E_{cut}\right\rangle = 1.9$ GeV, while $K$ has been obtained for $|b| \geq 40^{\rm o}$.\
In order to evaluate Eq. (\[MSPs\_spectrum\]) for different observational regions - namely changing the normalization $K$ - we follow the prescriptions given in Ref. [@EGBPulsar2009]. Assuming a disk-like latitude profile, the ratio of the average intensities at different latitudes is given by: $$\frac{I_{MSP}(|b| \geq b_{1})}{I_{MSP}(|b| \geq b_{2})} =
\frac{\rm{ln[(sin|b_{1}|)^{-1}]}}{\rm{ln[(sin|b_{2}|)^{-1}]}},
\label{lat_profile}$$ where $I_{MSP}(|b| \geq b_{i})$, $i = 1, 2$, is the average MSP intensity over a solid angle $\Omega = 4 \pi (1 - {\rm sin}|b_{i}|)$ defined by the integration from the minimal latitude $b_{i}$ up to $90^{\rm o}$, written as: $$I_{MSP} \equiv
\frac{S_{tot}}{\Omega} =
\frac{S_{min}}{\Omega} \cdot \left(\frac{\delta - 1}{\delta - 2}\right) \cdot \left(\frac{S_{min}}{S_{th}}\right)^{1 - \delta}
\cdot N(S>S_{th}).
\label{I_MSP}$$ $S_{min}$ refers to the assumed Euclidean logN-logS flux distribution of the galactic MSP population, which is parametrized by a power-law with spectral index $\delta = 2.5$ for $ S \geq S_{min}$. According to [@EGBPulsar2009], we set $S_{min} = 10^{-10}$ ph s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$. $N(> S_{th})$ is the number of resolved sources above a given flux threshold $S_{th}$. We update the estimation for $I_{MSP}$ in Ref. [@EGBPulsar2009] with the more recent observations for $|b| \geq
10^{\rm o}$ reported in Ref. [@PulsarScience], where 8 MSPs have been found above $S_{th}= 2 \cdot 10^{-8}$ ph s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ (lowest detected MSP flux). We find: $$I_{MSP}(|b| \geq 10^{\rm o}, E > 100 ~ {\rm MeV}) = 6.54 \cdot 10^{-7} {\rm cm^{-2} s^{-1}sr^{-1}}.$$ $K$ is then derived from: $$I_{MSP} = \int ^{E_{max}}_{E_{min}} \frac{dN}{dE} dE \ ,
\label{normalization}$$ where $\frac{dN}{dE}$ refers to Eq. (\[MSPs\_spectrum\]). Cross-checking the average MSP intensities obtained with the prescription outlined above, and the results in Ref. [@2010arXiv1011.5501S] for $|b| \geq 40^{\rm o}$, we find a relative difference of about $30\%$, due to the theoretical uncertainties on the assumed logN-logS and the latitude profile. We consider such a discrepancy as an empirical theoretical uncertainty on the determination of $K$, and fix the unresolved MSPs contribution subtracting a $30\%$ uncertainty from the estimated average intensity. The MSP contribution is shown in Fig. \[fig:EGB\_Model\_I\] as a double dot-dashed line.
### Star-forming Galaxies {#sec:StarformingGalaxies}
Unresolved normal star-forming galaxies are expected to give a guaranteed contribution to the high latitude isotropic diffuse $\gamma$-ray background. Fermi-LAT has identified the source of the diffuse emission from our Galaxy due to the collisions of CRs with interstellar gas, leading to $\gamma$-rays from $\pi^{0}$ decay in flight. This observation provides a ground to estimate the $\gamma$-ray luminosity of star-forming galaxies, by scaling the CR flux with the massive star formation rate and fixing the amount of the gas in the external galaxy. Theoretical predictions are greatly affected by uncertainties in the determination of the star formation rate of the galaxies and their gas content [@EGBStarformgal2010; @Stecker:2010di; @EGBStarformgalTotani]. Given the uncertainty surrounding key elements of the determination of this contribution, in our strictly conservative approach we do not take into account this component. In a more relaxed perspective, we consider the lowest predicted contribution from star-forming galaxies [@EGBStarformgal2010]. It is derived assuming an increase in the number of star forming galaxies with the redshift. The adopted emission corresponds to the long dashed curve in Fig. \[fig:EGB\_Model\_II\].
### UHECRs {#sec:UHECRs}
UHECRs accelerated in astrophysical objects produce secondary electromagnetic cascades during their propagation in the cosmic microwave and infrared backgrounds. Ref. [@EGBCMB1] shows that if the primary CRs are dominated by protons, such cascades can contribute between 1$\%$ and 50$\%$ of the GeV-TeV diffuse photon flux measured by the EGRET experiment. In Ref. [@EGBCMB], the EGB spectrum from UHECRs (normalized to the HiRes data) has been obtained through a Monte Carlo simulation of the cascade development and compared with the measurement of the EGB by Fermi-LAT. In our more relaxed, whether conservative scenario, we will subtract the ankle model contribution to the Fermi-LAT EGB [@EGBCMB], which we show in Fig. \[fig:EGB\_Model\_II\]. This $\gamma$-ray component has the peculiar behaviour to slightly increase with increasing energy, and at 100 GeV may account 8% of the Fermi-LAT measured EGB.
![$\gamma$-ray spectrum for $|b|>10^{\rm o}$ latitudes. Fermi-LAT data points are displayed along with their power–law fit (solid black curve) [@LATIsotropicSpectrum]. The dotted (blue), dot-dashed (green) and double dot-dashed (purple) curves correspond to BL Lacs, FSRQs and MSPs contribution, respectively. The dashed (red) curve is the sum of the previous three fluxes. The solid (lower, green) curve is derived by subtracting the three contributions to the Fermi-LAT result (Model I).[]{data-label="fig:EGB_Model_I"}](fig1.eps)
![$\gamma$-ray spectrum for $|b|>10^{\rm o}$ latitudes. Fermi-LAT data points are displayed along with their power–law fit (solid black curve) [@LATIsotropicSpectrum]. Dots and long dashed-curve (light blue) correspond to the UHECRs and star-forming galaxies $\gamma$-ray fluxes, respectively. The short-dashed (red) curve corresponds to the sum of BL Lacs, FSRQs and MSPs contribution (see Fig. \[fig:EGB\_Model\_I\]), the short-dashed (blue) to the sum of the previous components with the star-forming galaxies and UHECRs ones. The solid (lower, green) curve is derived by subtracting all the contributions to the Fermi-LAT result (Model II). []{data-label="fig:EGB_Model_II"}](fig2.eps)
Models for the EGB {#sec_residui}
------------------
As a result of the previous analysis, we now proceed by subtracting from the Fermi-LAT EGB [@LATIsotropicSpectrum] additional contributions from unresolved sources at latitudes $|b|>10^{\rm o}$. The contributions to the EGB that we will remove from the Fermi-LAT spectrum are minimal. In fact, as extensively explained in the previous sections, the predictions that we will take into account for the relevant unresolved sources are the lowest ones according to the literature. In addition, for MSPs we have lowered existing calculations by updating them to the Fermi-LAT observations.\
In what we label Model I, we subtract from the Fermi-LAT EGB [@LATIsotropicSpectrum] the unresolved contributions for both BL Lacs and FSRQs as outlined in Sect. \[sec:blazars\], and the unresolved MSPs flux obtained according to the prescription Sect. \[sec:PulsarsAndMSPs\]. The results are shown in Fig. \[fig:EGB\_Model\_I\], where the Fermi-LAT EGB data [@LATIsotropicSpectrum] are shown along with our power–law fit. The contributions from BL Lacs, FSRQs and MSPs are identified by dotted, dot-dashed and double dotted-dashed curves, respectively. The fluxes from the blazar populations follow power–laws, with softer (harder) spectrum for the FSRQs (BL Lacs). The crossing point for the two curves is around 300 MeV: above this energy BL Lacs flux dominates over the FSRQs one. The $\gamma$-rays from unresolved MSPs show a peculiar spectrum peaked at about 1 GeV and dominate over the blazar spectra from 300 MeV up to 3-4 GeV. The sum of the three contributions reflects the MSPs flux shape with a mild bump. At about 100 MeV the three sources explain 10% of the Fermi-LAT EGB and 30% above 1 GeV. The residual flux Model I, obtained by subtracting the sum of the three contributions (dashed curve) to the Fermi-LAT best fit flux is identified by the lower solid curve. It is not a net power law due to the dip in the GeV region introduced by the MSPs flux.\
Fig. \[fig:EGB\_Model\_II\] refers to the scenario where the additional contributions from star-forming galaxies (long dashed line) and UHECRs (solid points) as outlined in Sect. \[sec:StarformingGalaxies\] and Sect. \[sec:UHECRs\] add to explaining the Fermi-LAT EGB. These two further contributions add with the previous ones (blazars and MSPs of Model I) and the total sum is displayed by the dashed red line. The solid (green) curve derives from the subtraction of all these contributions from the Fermi-LAT EGB (solid black line fitting the data points) and is labelled Model II hereafter. Notably, the contribution from star-forming galaxies turns out to be relevant for $E \leq 1$ GeV, whereas the $\gamma$-rays from UHECRs give non-negligible fluxes only at the high-end of the energy spectrum. We notice that at 100 MeV Model II explains about $70\%$ of the Fermi-LAT EGB, while above 1-2 GeV they count about $50\%$ of the total. To consider additional astrophysical components to the EGB further decreases the residual flux (lower solid line) with respect to the Fermi-LAT EGB (upper solid line) and shrinks the room left to potential exotic sources, like DM annihilations.
Upper bounds on DM annihilation cross section {#results}
=============================================
In this Section we derive conservative upper limits on the WIMP annihilation cross section. We make the hypothesis that the residual fluxes we have derived in Sect. \[sec\_residui\] are entirely provided by the $\gamma$-rays produced by thermalized WIMP DM in the halo of the Milky Way.
$\gamma$-rays from DM annihilation {#Sect:gammaflux}
----------------------------------
The flux of $\gamma$-rays $\Phi_\gamma(E_\gamma, \psi)$ originated from WIMP pair annihilation in the galactic halo [@1990NuPhB.346..129B; @1998APh.....9..137B; @Bottino:2004qi] and coming from the angular direction $\psi$ is given by: $$\Phi_\gamma(E_\gamma, \psi) = \frac{1}{4\pi} \frac{\langle\sigma v\rangle}{m_\chi^2} \frac{dN_\gamma}{d E_{\gamma}}
\frac{1}{2}I(\psi) \, ,
\label{eq:flux_gamma}$$ where [[$\langle\sigma v\rangle$]{}]{} is the annihilation cross section times the relative velocity mediated over the galactic velocity distribution function, and $dN_\gamma/d E_{\gamma}$ is the energy spectrum of $\gamma$-rays originated from a single DM pair annihilation. In particular, we may identify WIMP candidates with neutralinos in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (see Ref. [@Bottino:2004qi] and refs. therein).\
The photon spectrum in the continuum originates from the production of fermions, gauge bosons, Higgs bosons, and gluons from the annihilation of WIMP pairs. The spectra $dN_\gamma/d E_{\gamma}$ from DM final states into $b\bar{b}$, $\mu^+\mu^-$ and $\tau^+\tau^-$ have been taken from Refs. [@2004PhRvD..70j3529F; @2011PhRvD..83h3507C]. The extrapolation down to m$_\chi$=10 GeV seems guaranteed within 10% of uncertainty for all the annihilation channels [@lineros_priv] (a more careful derivation being beyond the scope of the paper).\
The quantity $I(\psi)$ is the integral performed along the l.o.s. of the squared DM density distribution: $$\label{Ipsi}
I(\psi) = \int_{l.o.s.}\rho^{2}(r(\lambda, \psi))d\lambda\,.$$ with $\psi$ being the angle between the l.o.s. and the direction pointing toward the galactic center (GC) and defined in function of the galactic coordinates so that $\cos\psi = \cos b\cos l$. When comparing with experimental data, Eq. (\[Ipsi\]) must be averaged over the telescope observing solid angle, $\Delta\Omega$: $$I_{\Delta\Omega} = \frac{1}{\Delta\Omega}\int_{\Delta\Omega}I(\psi(b, l))d\Omega\,.$$ The integral of the squared DM density over the line-of-sight depends from the choice on $\rho(r)$. When including the galactic center in the integration (Eq. (\[Ipsi\])), different DM distributions may lead to very different results for $I(\psi)$. However, since our analysis is applied to high latitude regions, the various descriptions for $\rho(r)$ point to very similar values for $I(\psi)$. We neglect any clumpiness effects and assume a smooth distribution of DM in the galactic halo.
----------------------------- ------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------------- --
Halo profile Isothermal NFW [@1996ApJ...462..563N] Einasto [@2004MNRAS.349.1039N]
a = 3.5 kpc a = 25 kpc $\alpha = 0.142$
$r_{c} = 0.01$ pc $r_{-2} = 26.4$ pc
$\rho_{-2} = 0.05$ GeV cm$^{-3}$
$|b|>10^{\rm o}$ 2.389 2.400 2.833
$10^{\rm o}<|b|<20^{\rm o}$ 4.020 4.166 5.752
$|b|>60^{\rm o}$ 1.226 1.283 1.232
----------------------------- ------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------------- --
: Values for $I_{\Delta\Omega}$ in units of GeV$^{2}$cm$^{-6}$kpc. For all these profiles $\rho_{l} = 0.4$ GeV cm$^{-3}$ , $R_{Sun} = 8.2$ kpc.[]{data-label="tab:valuesIntegrationCode"}
The results for $I_{\Delta\Omega}$ for different DM density distributions and observational regions are reported in Table \[tab:valuesIntegrationCode\]. All the DM profiles provide very similar results for latitudes well above the galactic plane. Hereafter, the results will be provided for the cored isothermal density profile.
Results on annihilation cross section {#sec:upperbounds}
-------------------------------------
![Upper bounds on [[$\langle\sigma v\rangle$]{}]{} from $\gamma$-ray in the high latitude galactic halo, as a function of the DM mass. From top to bottom, solid lines refer to 90% C.L. limits from the comparison with Fermi-LAT EGB (black lines), Model I (red lines), Model II (blue lines) (see text for details). Dotted, solid and dashed lines correspond DM annihilation into $\mu^+\mu^-$, $b\bar{b}$, $\tau^+\tau^-$, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:upper_bounds"}](fig3.eps)
In this Section we derive upper bounds at 90% C.L. on the WIMP annihilation cross section from the $\gamma$-ray Fermi-LAT EGB and the EGB residual fluxes identified as Model I and II in Sect. \[sec\_residui\].
For the Fermi-LAT EGB [@LATIsotropicSpectrum], the upper bounds at 90% C.L. on [[$\langle\sigma v\rangle$]{}]{} are obtained by requiring that the DM signal calculated according to Eq. \[eq:flux\_gamma\] does not exceed the measured flux plus 1.28$\sigma$ (one-sided upper limit on the [[$\langle\sigma v\rangle$]{}]{} parameter). The corresponding constraints are plotted as black lines in Fig. \[fig:upper\_bounds\]. From the same data we have then subtracted the unresolved blazars and MSPs minimal contribution, as described at length in Sect. \[sec\_residui\], and derived the upper bounds on [[$\langle\sigma v\rangle$]{}]{} corresponding to Model I (red lines). Similarly, upper bounds for the Model II EGB are obtained from the further subtraction of the minimal flux from star forming galaxies and UHECRs (blue lines). In Fig. \[fig:upper\_bounds\] we display the conservative upper bounds on the thermal annihilation DM cross section at 90% C.L., derived within the previous assumptions. From top to bottom, each bunch of lines refer to the limits on [[$\langle\sigma v\rangle$]{}]{}, arising from the comparison with the Fermi-LAT 90% C.L. EGB, Model I and Model II. Dotted, solid and dashed lines correspond DM annihilation into $\mu^+\mu^-$, $b\bar{b}$, $\tau^+\tau^-$, respectively. Given the scaling of the DM flux $\propto m_\chi^{-2}$, constraints on [[$\langle\sigma v\rangle$]{}]{} increase with the mass and span about two orders of magnitude in the considered mass interval. It is evident from Fig. \[fig:upper\_bounds\] that the subtraction of the minimal amount of $\gamma$-rays from unresolved sources lowers the limits on [[$\langle\sigma v\rangle$]{}]{} by at least 50%. The Fermi-LAT data for the EGB are available also for latitudes $10^{\rm o}<|b|<20^{\rm o}$ and $|b|>60^{\rm o}$ [@LATIsotropicSpectrum]. The flux in Eq. (\[eq:flux\_gamma\]) changes for the mere normalization factors given in Table \[tab:valuesIntegrationCode\]. However, given the intensity of the measured fluxes our upper limits do not change if derived for the other high latitude regions.
Given the theoretical uncertainties affecting the DM content and the astrophysical backgrounds, the results in Fig. \[fig:upper\_bounds\] are of the same order of magnitude or lower than the bounds on [[$\langle\sigma v\rangle$]{}]{} from cosmological DM [@2010JCAP...04..014A], from the galactic center [@Abramowski:2011hc], or from inverse Compton processes evaluated from $\gamma$-rays in different portions of the sky [@Cirelli:2009dv]. Very recently (during the review process of the present paper) the Fermi-LAT collaboration performed a combined analysis on ten Milky Way satellite galaxies [@fermi_dwarfs_2011], corroborated by the analysis in Ref. [@koushiappas]. The absence of DM signals from these objects leads to upper limits on [[$\langle\sigma v\rangle$]{}]{} which are close to $10^{-26}$ for masses about 10 GeV and $10^{-24}$ for $m_\chi$=1 TeV. These bounds are close to the ones established in the present work for the high mass side, and stronger for the low mass range. The two results, given unavoidable modelling in the extraction of the upper bounds, strengthen each other in disfavouring a DM candidate with an annihilation cross section much higher than the electroweak reference value $3 \cdot 10^{-26}$ cm$^3$/s for very low WIMP masses. We make notice that the EGB spectra we have obtained in Model I and II could be further reduced, whether by the subtraction of additional components or by increasing the predictions for each contribution, set at the minimum in the present work. A smaller $\gamma$-ray flux at high latitudes could therefore be as powerful as the measurements from the dwarf spheroidal galaxies.\
We emphasize that our limits are almost model independent: little dependence on the DM distribution, being at high latitudes, and mild differences due to final states.\
Our limits are [*conservative*]{}: it is very unlikely that a higher [[$\langle\sigma v\rangle$]{}]{} be compatible with Fermi-LAT EGB. Similarly, our upper limits could be lowered only with assumptions on non-homogeneous DM distributions or, of course, comparing to a smaller EGB residual.
Bounds on the Sommerfeld enhancement for [[$\langle\sigma v\rangle$]{}]{} {#sect:Sommerfeld}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent claims on the excess of CR positrons [@2009Natur.458..607A] have stimulated the interpretation of data in terms of annihilating DM with fairly large annihilation cross sections of the order of $10^{-23}-10^{-22}$ cm$^3$/s. These numbers are at least three orders of magnitude larger than the value indicated by observations of the DM abundance due to thermal production. One way to boost the annihilation cross section is through the Sommerfeld effect [@somm; @2009PhRvD..79a5014A; @Lattanzi; @hisano; @iengo; @Zavala], generically due to an attractive force acting between two particles, $i.e.$ a Yukawa or a gauge interaction. In the case of DM particles, the main effect of such an attractive force would be to enhance [[$\langle\sigma v\rangle$]{}]{} by a factor proportional to $1/\beta = c/v$, where $v$ is the velocity of the DM particle ($1/v$ enhancement). The net result on the annihilation cross section writes as [[$\langle\sigma v\rangle$]{}]{} = S [[$\langle\sigma v\rangle$]{}]{}$_{0}$, where S sizes the Sommerfeld enhancement of the annihilation amplitude. We have evaluated the Sommerfeld enhancement S using the approximation of the Yukawa potential by the Hulthen potential, for which an analytic solution is possible [@2010JPhG...37j5009C; @Feng2] (and checked that the solution coincides with the numerical one). The factor behaves as $1/v$ and for very small velocities it saturates to constant values. Given $\alpha$ the coupling constant and $m_\phi$ the mass of the new force carrier, if the quantity $m_\phi/m_\chi \cdot \alpha$ is close to the values that make the Yukawa potential have zero-energy bound states, the enhancement is much larger; indeed, the enhanced cross section shows resonances at $ m_\chi = \frac{4 m_\phi n^2}{\alpha} ~ (\rm{n} = 1,2,3...)$, which grow as $1/v^2$, up to the point where they get cut off by finite width effects.
In Fig. \[fig:somm\_sigmav\] we show the Sommerfeld enhanced cross sections for $\alpha = \frac{1}{4\pi}$, $\beta =10 ^{-8}$ and a force carrier of mass $m_{\phi} = 1$ GeV (upper curve) and $m_{\phi} = 90$ GeV (lower curve). We over-impose the upper bounds obtained in the previous Section from the residual EGB Model I and Model II and already displayed in Fig. \[fig:upper\_bounds\]. Our results show that a Sommerfeld enhancement due to a force carrier of $m_{\phi} < 1$ GeV ($\alpha = \frac{1}{4\pi}$) is strongly excluded by Model I and II for the Fermi-LAT EGB data. For a massive force carrier (90 GeV) only the resonant peaks above the TeV mass are excluded. The result holds for $\beta =10 ^{-8}$ up to $\beta =10 ^{-3}$. Comparable constraints have been obtained in [@2009PhRvD..80b3505G; @2011PhRvD..84b7302G] through the analysis of perturbations to the CMB angular power spectrum
Therefore, high latitude $\gamma$-ray observations interpreted as due to DM annihilation in the Milky Way halo bound the Sommerfeld enhancement of the annihilation cross section to a factor of 3-10-50-200 for $m_\chi$=10-100-1000-5000 GeV, respectively. In case a Yukawa-like potential describes this non-relativistic quantum effect, a force carrier heavier than 1 GeV is definitely required.
![Sommerfeld enhancement of the annihilation cross section as a function of the DM mass, for $\alpha = \frac{1}{4\pi}$. Solid curves are for $\beta =10 ^{-8}$, dotted ones for $\beta =10 ^{-3}$. The upper (lower) resonant curve is obtained for a force carrier of mass $m_{\phi} = 1$ GeV (90 GeV). The upper (lower) dotted, solid and dashed curves correspond to the upper bounds for EGB Model I (Model II) derived from WIMPs annihilating in the high latitude galactic halo in $\mu^+\mu^-$, $b\bar{b}$, $\tau^+\tau^-$, respectively (see Fig. \[fig:upper\_bounds\].)[]{data-label="fig:somm_sigmav"}](fig4.eps)
Bounds from the high-redshift protohalos
----------------------------------------
A possible way to boost the annihilation rate is to modify the particle theory and make the ansatz that the annihilation cross section depends on the inverse of the velocity [@Robertson:2009bh]. A boosted production of $\gamma$-rays in models with [[$\langle\sigma v\rangle$]{}]{}$ \propto 1/v$ has been proposed for the first bound objects formed in the early phases of the universe [@proto; @PK]. After the matter-radiation equality is reached, DM perturbations start growing via gravitational instability and form the first bound protohalos at a redshift of about 140. The birth of these protohalos depends on the properties of the DM particles, since they are responsible of the primordial inhomogeneities. The complete decoupling of DM particles from the thermal bath happens later with respect to the freeze-out temperature $T_{f}$, at a temperature of kinetic decoupling $T_{kd}$, because scattering events with SM particles keep the WIMPs close to thermal equilibrium. For $T \leq T_{kd}$, free-streaming and acoustic oscillations compete to damp the power spectrum of matter density fluctuations, which sets in turn the mass $M_{c}$ of primordial DM structures [@Green:2003un; @2005PhRvD..71j3520L; @Hofmann:2001bi; @Chen:2001jz]. For very small values of $M_{c}$, the details of the QCD phase transition could further slightly damp the actual cutoff mass [@1999PhRvD..59d3517S]. In general, however, both the thermal and kinematic decouplings from cosmic plasma are heavily linked to the WIMP nature and interactions with SM particles. The velocity dispersion of the first protohalos that collapse at redshift $z_C$ is estimated to be very small ($\beta\sim 10^{-8}$) [@PK]. Therefore, models for [[$\langle\sigma v\rangle$]{}]{} depending on the inverse of $v$ predict a boosted flux of DM annihilation products. The photons arising from WIMP annihilations in very early halos can freely propagate with their energy red-shifting and reach the Earth in the range $\sim $ keV - TeV, while photons emitted out of this transparency window are absorbed by the intergalactic medium.
The $1/v$ enhancement of the annihilation cross section may be simply parameterized by writing [@PK]: $$\langle\sigma v\rangle= \langle\sigma v\rangle_{0} \frac{ c}{v} \;\; {\rm cm^3/s}.
\label{eq:sigmav_1su_v}$$\
The energy density in photons today from WIMP annihilation in the primordial halos can be theoretically predicted by: $$\rho_{\gamma} = 5.28 \cdot 10^{6}\left(\frac{M_c}{M_\oplus}\right)^{-1/3} \langle\sigma v\rangle_{0}
B_{2.6}\left(\frac{m_\chi}{\rm{TeV}}\right)^{-1} \rm{GeV} \rm{cm}^{-3},
\label{eq:fotondensity1}$$ where the cosmological boost factor B, normalized to 2.6 ($B_{2.6}=B/2.6$) takes into account that the DM is distributed according to a Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) density profile with the lowest concentration parameter [@PK]. Eq. (\[eq:fotondensity1\]) can be compared with the experimental photon density inferred for the Fermi-LAT EGB [@LATIsotropicSpectrum] and for our two EGB models derived in Sect. \[sec\_residui\], which is obtained by integrating the photon flux on the Fermi-LAT energy range (100 MeV - 100 GeV). We obtain: $$\rho_{\gamma} \simeq 6.62 \cdot 10^{-16}\left(\frac{E_{\gamma}}{\rm{GeV}}\right)^{-0.41} \rm{GeV} \;\; \rm{cm}^{-3} \;\; {\rm (Fermi-LAT)}
\label{eq:rho_gamma_fermilat}$$
$$\rho_{\gamma} \simeq 5.65 \cdot 10^{-16} \left(\frac{E_{\gamma}}{\rm{GeV}}\right)^{-0.41}
\rm{GeV} \;\; \rm{cm}^{-3} \;\;{\rm (Model \ I)}
\label{eq:rho_gamma_modelI}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{\gamma} \simeq 4.5\cdot10^{-16}\left(\frac{E_{\gamma}}{\rm{GeV}}\right)^{-0.46}
\rm{GeV} \;\; \rm{cm}^{-3} \\
{\rm (Model \ II, E_{\gamma}>8 {\rm \ GeV})} \nonumber
\label{eq:rho_gamma_modelII}\end{aligned}$$
We constrain [[$\langle\sigma v\rangle$]{}]{}$_{0}$ by comparison of the theoretical expression \[eq:fotondensity1\] with the experimental $\gamma$-ray density. The results are displayed in Fig. \[fig:bounds\_sigmav\_0\] as a function of the WIMP mass. The three central lines bound the [[$\langle\sigma v\rangle$]{}]{}$_{0}$ (Eq. (\[eq:sigmav\_1su\_v\])) parameter from Fermi-LAT photon density given in Eq. (\[eq:rho\_gamma\_fermilat\]), Eq. (\[eq:rho\_gamma\_modelI\]) and Eq. (\[eq:rho\_gamma\_modelII\]) respectively, from top to bottom, when $M_c = M_\oplus$. The upper (dotted) and the lower (dashed) bounds are derived for Model II when $M_c = 10^{2} M_\oplus$ (upper) and $10^{-2} M_\oplus$ (lower). The bounds on [[$\langle\sigma v\rangle$]{}]{}$_{0}$ are strong: for WIMP masses below 100 GeV it is forced to be $<10^{-33}$ cm$^3$/s. Upper bounds grow to $<10^{-32}$ cm$^3$/s for $m_\chi\simeq$ 1 TeV and sets to $<10^{-31}$ cm$^3$/s at 10 TeV. We make notice that they are more stringent than limits obtained from primordial light elements abundance and CMB anisotropies [@Hisano:2011dc] and significantly improve the bounds of Ref. [@PK].
![Bounds on [[$\langle\sigma v\rangle$]{}]{}$_{0}$ from Eq. (\[eq:sigmav\_1su\_v\]), as a function of the DM mass. The central three bounds are obtained for $M_c = M_\oplus$, and from Eqs. (\[eq:rho\_gamma\_fermilat\]) (black line), (\[eq:rho\_gamma\_modelI\]) (red line) and (\[eq:rho\_gamma\_modelII\]) (blue line) respectively, from top to bottom. The upper (lower) purple lines are derived from Eq. (\[eq:rho\_gamma\_modelII\]) for Model II EGB and $M_c = 10^{2} M_\oplus (10^{-2} M_\oplus$). []{data-label="fig:bounds_sigmav_0"}](fig5.eps)
\
The 1/v behaviour of the [[$\langle\sigma v\rangle$]{}]{} may be identified with the Sommerfeld effect for velocities $\beta\gg(m_\phi/m_\chi)^{1/2}$ [@Lattanzi]. For lower velocities, as are the ones typical for protohalos, the series of resonances appears (see Sect. \[sect:Sommerfeld\]) and the Sommerfeld enhancement S behaves as $1/v^2$ close to the peaks. In this case, the upper bounds on the annihilation cross section may be obtained by rescaling [[$\langle\sigma v\rangle$]{}]{}=[[$\langle\sigma v\rangle$]{}]{}$_0$S with a factor $1/\beta \cdot m_\phi/m_\chi$. From Eqs. \[eq:fotondensity1\] - \[eq:rho\_gamma\_modelII\] it is straightforward to notice that the bounds on a Sommerfeld enhanced [[$\langle\sigma v\rangle$]{}]{} derived from a overproduction of $\gamma$-rays in protohalos, are much weaker than the ones imposed by annihilation in the high-latitude galactic halo.
Conclusions
===========
The $\gamma$-ray EGB measured by Fermi-LAT [@LATIsotropicSpectrum] likely includes contributions from galactic and extragalactic $unresolved$ sources. We have explored possible non-negligible diffuse contributions from unresolved blazars, MSPs, star-forming galaxies and UHECRs. Lead by a conservative attitude, we have considered the minimal contribution for all sources, and neglected those objects whose high latitude flux is not excluded to be less than 1% of Fermi-LAT EGB. Two residual EGB fluxes have been derived by subtraction of the additional fluxes from the Fermi-LAT EGB: Model I is obtained after the subtraction of unresolved BL Lacs, FSRQs and galactic MSPs, while Model II is the residual flux after the further subtraction of star-forming galaxies and UHECRs.\
From our new residual EGB fluxes, we have set upper limits on the DM annihilation cross section into $\gamma$-rays. A conservative upper bound on [[$\langle\sigma v\rangle$]{}]{} is derived by assuming that the Model I and II EGB are entirely due to WIMPs pair-annihilating in the halo of our Galaxy. Values for [[$\langle\sigma v\rangle$]{}]{} $ {\mathrel{\mathop{\kern 0pt \rlap
{\raise.2ex\hbox{$>$}}}
\lower.9ex\hbox{\kern-.190em $\sim$}}}10^{-25}$ cm$^3$/s are strongly excluded for $m_\chi \simeq$ 10 GeV, while for $m_\chi \simeq$ 100 GeV (1 TeV) the annihilation rate is bounded to $3 \cdot 10^{-25}$ cm$^3$/s ($10^{-24}$ cm$^3$/s). This results holds for DM annihilating into $b\bar{b}$. Stronger limits below $m_\chi$= 1 TeV are derived for annihilation into the leptonic $\tau$ annihilating channel, while for the $\mu$ channel the limits are close to the $b\bar{b}$ below $m_\chi$= 100 GeV, and weaker above this mass. Annihilation into leptons is therefore excluded at a level which strongly disfavours the interpretation of cosmic positron fraction data in terms of leptophilic DM with small cosmological boost factors. The latter boost factors are in turns strongly limited by antiproton data [@2009PhRvL.102g1301D].\
The bounds on [[$\langle\sigma v\rangle$]{}]{} have been interpreted in terms of Sommerfeld enhancement of the annihilation cross section. A Sommerfeld enhancement due to a force carrier of $m_{\phi} < 1$ GeV ($\alpha = \frac{1}{4\pi}$) is strongly excluded by Model I and II for the Fermi-LAT EGB data. For a massive force carrier (90 GeV) only the resonant peaks above the TeV mass are excluded. High latitude $\gamma$-ray observations interpreted as due to DM annihilation in the Milky Way halo bound the Sommerfeld enhancement of the annihilation cross section to a factor of 3-10-50-200 for $m_\chi$=10-100-1000-5000 GeV, respectively, and in case an annihilation into light quarks occurs. For $m_\chi {\mathrel{\mathop{\kern 0pt \rlap
{\raise.2ex\hbox{$<$}}}
\lower.9ex\hbox{\kern-.190em $\sim$}}}$ 6-700 GeV these limits are reduced by a factor of few for the pure $\tau^+\tau^-$ annihilation channel. In case a Yukawa-like potential describes this non-relativistic quantum effect, a force carrier heavier than 1 GeV is definitely required.\
Finally, we have explored the possibility that the residual $\gamma$-ray EGB is entirely due to cosmological annihilation of DM in protohalos at high redshift. Within the hypothesis that [[$\langle\sigma v\rangle$]{}]{} is inversely proportional to the WIMP velocity, very severe limits are derived for the velocity-independent part of the annihilation cross section, depending on the protohalo mass.
We warmly thank M. Ajello and L. Latronico for helpful comments on sources in the Fermi catalog. We are grateful to T. Bringmann, N. Fornengo and R. Lineros for fruitful discussions and suggestions. F.C. thanks Vlasios Vasileiou and the Astrophysics Science Division of the NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, where part of this work was done within the ISSNAF - INAF Internship Program 2010. This work was supported by the EU grant UNILHC PITN-GA-2009-237920, by the Spanish MICINN under grants FPA2008-00319/FPA, by the MULTIDARK Consolider CSD2009-00064, by Prometeo/2009/091. F.C. acknowledges support from the German Research Foundation (DFG) through grant BR 3954/1-1.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
We consider inference post-model-selection in linear regression. In this setting, [@berk13valid] recently introduced a class of confidence sets, the so-called PoSI intervals, that cover a certain non-standard quantity of interest with a user-specified minimal coverage probability, irrespective of the model selection procedure that is being used. In this paper, we generalize the PoSI intervals to confidence intervals for post-model-selection predictors.
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">AMS Mathematics Subject Classification 2010:</span> 62F25, 62J05.]{}
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Keywords:</span> Inference post-model-selection, confidence intervals, optimal post-model-selection predictors, non-standard targets, linear regression.]{}
[ ]{}
author:
- |
François Bachoc\*, Hannes Leeb\*\*, and Benedikt M. Pötscher\*\*\
\*Department of Mathematics, University Paul Sabatier\
\*\*Department of Statistics, University of Vienna
bibliography:
- 'Biblio.bib'
date: |
First version: December 2014\
This version: December 2015
title: 'Valid confidence intervals for post-model-selection predictors'
---
Introduction and overview\[section:intro\]
==========================================
In statistical practice, the model used for analysis is very often chosen after the data have been observed, either by ad-hoc methods or by more sophisticated model selection procedures. Inference following such a model selection step (inference post-model-selection) has proven to be a challenging problem. ‘Naive’ procedures, which ignore the presence of model selection, are typically invalid (e.g., in the sense that the actual coverage probability of ‘naive’ confidence sets for the true parameter can be dramatically smaller than the nominal one), and the construction of valid procedures is often non-trivial; see [@leeb05model; @leeb06estimate; @LP2012], [@kabaila06large], [@Poe09a] and references therein for an introduction to the issues involved here. In these references, inference is focused on the true parameter of the data-generating model (or on components thereof). Shifting the focus away from the true parameter as the target of inference, [@berk13valid] recently introduced a class of confidence sets, the so-called PoSI intervals, that guarantee a user-specified minimal coverage probability after model selection in linear regression, irrespective of the model selector that is being used; see also [berk13validold]{} and [@leeb13various]. In this paper, we generalize the PoSI intervals to intervals for post-model-selection predictors.
Prediction following model selection is obviously also of great importance. In the case where the selected model is misspecified, parameter estimates are typically biased or at least difficult to interpret; cf. Remark [rem:interpretation]{}. But even a misspecified model may perform well for prediction. In particular, [@Gree04a] derive, under appropriate sparsity assumptions, feasible predictors that asymptotically perform as well as the (infeasible) best candidate predictor even if the available number of explanatory variables by far exceeds the sample size. These feasible predictors are also covered by the results in the present paper, among others. Like [@Gree04a], our analysis does not rely on the assumption that the true data generating model is among the candidates for model selection. We develop confidence intervals for such predictors, that are easy to interpret and that are optimal in an appropriate sense; cf. Remarks \[rem:interpretation\](ii), \[rem:predictor\], and \[rem:predictor\_2\], as well as [@Gree04a]. A further rationale for extending the PoSI-approach of [@berk13valid] to problems related to prediction is that this framework seems to provide a more natural habitat for considering non-standard targets; see the discussion in Remark 2.1 of [leeb13various]{} as well as in Remarks \[rem:interpretation\] and [rem:justification]{} given further below.
The crucial feature of the approach of [@berk13valid] is that the coverage target, i.e., the quantity for which a confidence set is desired, is *not* the parameter in an overall model (or components thereof), but a *non-standard* quantity of interest that depends on the selected model and also on the training data. This non-standard quantity of interest is denoted by $\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}$ throughout the paper (cf. Section [section:design:dependent]{} for details). Here $\hat{M}$ stands for the (data-dependent) model chosen by the model selector and $n$ stands for sample size. The non-standard target $\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}$ provides a certain vector of regression coefficients for those explanatory variables that are ‘active’ in the model $\hat{M}$ (more precisely, $\beta _{\hat{M}%
}^{(n)}$ represents the coefficients of the projection of the expected value vector of the dependent variable on the space spanned by the regressors included in $\hat{M}$); for a precise definition see eqs. ([eq:def:betaMn]{}) and (\[eq:def:Beta:hatM:n\]) in Section [section:design:dependent]{}.
For a new set of explanatory variables $x_{0}$, we first extend the PoSI-approach to obtain confidence intervals for the predictor $%
x_{0}^{\prime }[\hat{M}]\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}$. Here, $x_{0}[\hat{M}]$ denotes the set of explanatory variables from $x_{0}$ that correspond to the ‘active’ regressors in the model $\hat{M}$. We call $x_{0}^{\prime }[\hat{M}%
]\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}$ the design-dependent (non-standard) coverage target, because different design matrices in the training data typically result in different values of $x_{0}^{\prime }[\hat{M}]\beta _{\hat{M}%
}^{(n)} $ even if both training data sets lead to selection of the same model $\hat{M}$. We construct PoSI confidence intervals for $x_{0}^{\prime }[%
\hat{M}]\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}$ that guarantee a user-specified minimal coverage probability, irrespective of the model selector that is being used. The design-dependent coverage target minimizes a certain *‘in-sample’* prediction error; cf. Remark \[rem:predictor\]. However, when the goal is to predict a new response corresponding to a new vector $x_{0}$ of explanatory variables, this ‘in-sample’ optimality property may have little relevance and thus the focus on covering the design-dependent target $%
x_{0}^{\prime }[\hat{M}]\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}$ may be debatable.
In view of this, we next consider an alternative coverage target that depends on the selected model but not on the training data otherwise, and that we denote by $x_{0}^{\prime }[\hat{M}]\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(\star )}$. We call $x_{0}^{\prime }[\hat{M}]\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(\star )}$ the design-independent (non-standard) coverage target. The design-independent coverage target minimizes a certain ‘*out-of-sample*’ prediction error, namely the mean-squared prediction error, over all (infeasible) predictors of a future response $y_{0}$ that are of the form $x_{0}^{\prime }[\hat{M}%
]\gamma (\hat{M})$, when $x_{0}$ and the row-vectors of $X$ are sampled from the same distribution; cf. Remark \[rem:predictor\_2\]. In particular, this target does not suffer from the issues that plague the design-dependent coverage target, as discussed at the end of the preceding paragraph. Certain optimality properties of a feasible counterpart of $x_{0}^{\prime }[\hat{M}%
]\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(\star )}$ are derived in [@Gree04a], for a particular model selector $\hat{M}$ and under appropriate sparsity assumptions; a target closely related to $x_{0}^{\prime }[\hat{M}]\beta _{%
\hat{M}}^{(\star )}$ is also studied in [@Lee09a]. For a large class of model selectors, we show that the PoSI confidence intervals constructed earlier also cover the design-independent coverage target with minimal coverage probability not below the user-specified nominal level asymptotically. In that sense, the PoSI confidence intervals are approximately valid for the target $x_{0}^{\prime }[\hat{M}]\beta _{\hat{M}%
}^{(\star )}$, irrespective of the model selector $\hat{M}$ in that class. In simulations we find that our asymptotic result is representative of the finite-sample situation even for moderate sample sizes.
When extending the PoSI-approach to confidence intervals for both the design-dependent and the design-independent coverage target, i.e., for both $%
x_{0}^{\prime }[\hat{M}]\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}$ and $x_{0}^{\prime }[\hat{M}%
]\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(\star )}$, we find that the resulting intervals necessarily depend not only on $x_{0}[\hat{M}]$ but also on those components of $x_{0}$ that are ‘in-active’ in the model $\hat{M}$. This may appear surprising at first sight but turns out to be inherent to the PoSI-approach (because of the need to take the maximum over all models $M$ in ([eq:def:posi:xzero]{})). In any case, this is problematic in situations when, after having selected a given model, only the ‘active’ components of $x_{0}$ are observed, e.g., in situations where observations are costly and model selection is carried out also with the goal of reducing cost by not having to observe irrelevant components of $x_{0}$. To resolve this, we also develop PoSI confidence intervals that depend on the ‘active’ variables $%
x_{0}[\hat{M}]$ only. These intervals are obtained by maximizing over all inactive variables and are hence larger than the intervals for the case where $x_{0}$ is known entirely. In simulations, we find that the excess width of these intervals is moderate. We also provide analytic results regarding the excess width of these intervals in an asymptotic setting where the number of regressors goes to infinity, see Section \[sub2.3\].
Inference post-model-selection is currently a very active area of research and we can only give a selection of work relevant for, or related to, this paper. Contemporary analyses of confidence sets for (components of) the true parameter of the underlying model include [@And09a], [kabaila06large]{}, [@leeb05model], [@Poe09a], [@Poe10a], and [Sch14a]{}. These references also point to numerous earlier results. Also, the work of [@Loc14a], [@Was09a], and [@Was14a] should be mentioned here. For the LASSO, in particular, a de-sparsifying method has recently been developed by [@Bel11a; @Bel14a], [@van14a], and [@Zha14a]. An alternative to the PoSI approach, that also focuses on $\beta _{\hat{M}%
}^{(n)}$ as the quantity of interest, is developed in [@Fit15a], [lee15exact]{}, [@LeeTay14], [@Tia15a], and [@Tib15a]. In these papers, confidence sets for $\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}$ are considered that have a guaranteed coverage probability conditionally on the event that a particular model has been selected by the model selection procedures. In contrast to PoSI procedures, the confidence intervals obtained in these papers are specific to the model selection procedure used (the LASSO, in particular, being considered in these references) and generally rely on certain geometric properties of the specific model selection procedure under consideration. In simulation experiments, we compare the confidence intervals proposed in these references with the intervals developed here and observe some interesting phenomena, see Section \[taylor\].
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section [section:design:dependent]{}, we introduce the models, the model-selection procedures, the design-dependent target, and the PoSI confidence intervals for both the case where all explanatory variables in $x_{0}$ are observed and the case where only the components of $x_{0}$ corresponding to the ‘active’ explanatory variables are available; moreover, we analyze properties of these intervals in an asymptotic framework where the model dimension increases; cf. Section \[sub2.3\]. In Section [section:distribution:dependent]{}, we present the design-independent target and show that the PoSI confidence intervals introduced earlier also cover the design-independent target, with minimal coverage probability not below the nominal one asymptotically when sample size increases. Finally, the results of a numerical study are reported in Section [section:simulation:study]{}. Conclusions are drawn in Section \[conclusio\]. The proofs are given in Appendices \[app A\] and \[app:B\]. In Appendix \[section:practical:algorithms\] we describe algorithms for computing the PoSI confidence intervals, that are comparable with those proposed by [@berk13valid] in terms of computational complexity.
Confidence intervals for the design-dependent non-standard target \[section:design:dependent\]
==============================================================================================
Consider the model
$$Y=\mu +U \label{eq:full:linear:model}$$
where $\mu \in \mathbb{R}^{n}$ is unknown and $U$ follows an $N\left(
0,\sigma ^{2}I_{n}\right) $-distribution; here $\sigma ^{2}$, $0<\sigma
<\infty $, is the unknown error variance and $I_{n}$ is the identity matrix of size $n\geq 1$. An important instance of this model arises when $\mu $ is known to reside in a lower dimensional linear subspace of $\mathbb{R}^{n}$, but we do not make such an assumption at this point. Apart from the data $Y$, we are given a (real) $n\times p$ matrix $X$, not necessarily of full column rank, the columns of which represent potential regressors. This setup allows for $p>n$ as well as for $1\leq p\leq n$. The rank of $X$ will be denoted by $d$. In this section the design matrix $X$ is treated as fixed.
We consider fitting (potentially misspecified) linear models with design matrices that are obtained by deleting columns from $X$. Such a model will be represented by $M$, a subset of $\left\{ 1,...,p\right\} $, where the elements of $M$ index the columns of $X$ that are retained. We use the following notation: For $M\subseteq \left\{ 1,...,p\right\} $, we write $%
M^{c}$ for the complement of $M$ in $\{1,...,p\}$. It proves useful to allow $M$ to be the empty set. We write $|M|$ for the cardinality of $M$. With $%
m=|M|$, let us write $M=\left\{ j_{1},...,j_{m}\right\} $ in case $m\geq 1$. For $M\neq \varnothing $ and for an $l\times p$ matrix $T$, $l\geq 1$, let $T%
{[M]}$ be the matrix of size $l\times m$ obtained from $T$ by retaining only the columns of $T$ with indices $j\in M$ and deleting all others; if $%
M=\varnothing $ we set $T{[M]}=0\in \mathbb{R}^{l}$. In abuse of notation we shall, for a $p\times 1$ vector $v$, write $v{[M]}$ for $\left( v^{\prime }{%
[M]}\right) ^{\prime }$, i.e., $v{[M]}=(v_{j_{1}},...,v_{j_{m}})^{\prime }$ for $m\geq 1$ and $v{[M]}=0\in \mathbb{R}$ in case $M=\varnothing $. For a given model $M$, we denote the corresponding least squares estimator by $%
\hat{\beta}_{M}$, i.e., $$\hat{\beta}_{M}=\left( X{[M]}^{\prime }{X[M]}\right) ^{-1}X{[M]}^{\prime }{Y}%
, \label{eq:restr_OLS}$$where the inverse is to be interpreted as the Moore-Penrose inverse in case $%
{X[M]}$ does not have full column rank. For any given model $M$ the corresponding least squares estimator $\hat{\beta}_{M}$ is obviously an unbiased estimator of $$\beta _{M}^{(n)}=\left( X{[M]}^{\prime }{X[M]}\right) ^{-1}X{[M]}^{\prime }{%
\mu .} \label{eq:def:betaMn}$$Note that $\hat{\beta}_{M}$ as well as $\beta _{M}^{(n)}$ reduce to $0$ in case $M=\varnothing $.
As in [@berk13valid] we further assume that, as an estimator for $\sigma
^{2}$, we have available an (observable) random variable $\hat{\sigma}^{2}$ that is independent of $P_{X}Y$ and that is distributed as $\sigma ^{2}/r$ times a chi-square distributed random variable with $r$ degrees of freedom ($%
1\leq r<\infty $), with $P_{X}$ denoting orthogonal projection on the column space of $X$ . This assumption is always satisfied in the important special case where one assumes that $d<n$ and $\mu \in \limfunc{span}(X)$ hold, upon choosing for $\hat{\sigma}^{2}$ the standard residual variance estimator obtained from regressing $Y$ on $X$ and upon setting $r=n-d$. However, otherwise it is not an innocuous assumption at all and this is further discussed in Section \[Section\_on\_sigma\]. Observe that our assumption allows for estimators $\hat{\sigma}^{2}$ that not only depend on $Y$ and $X$, but possibly also on other observable random variables (e.g., additional data). The joint distribution of $Y$ and $\hat{\sigma}^{2}$ depends on $\mu $ and $\sigma $ as well as on sample size $n$ and will be denoted by $P_{n,\mu
,\sigma }$.
We are furthermore given a (non-empty) collection $\mathcal{M}$ of admissible models $M\subseteq \left\{ 1,...,p\right\} $, the ‘universe’ of models considered by the researcher. Without loss of generality we will assume that any column of $X$ appears as a regressor in at least one of the models $M$ in $\mathcal{M}$, i.e., that $\bigcup \left\{ M:M\in \mathcal{M}%
\right\} =\left\{ 1,...,p\right\} $ holds (otherwise we can just redefine $X$ by discarding all columns that do not appear in any of the models in $%
\mathcal{M}$); of course, we have excluded here the trivial and uninteresting case $\mathcal{M}=\left\{ \varnothing \right\} $. For such a collection $\mathcal{M}$ it is easy to see that the assumed independence of $%
\hat{\sigma}^{2}$ and $P_{X}Y$ is in fact equivalent to independence of $%
\hat{\sigma}^{2}$ from the collection $\{\hat{\beta}_{M}:M\in \mathcal{M}\}$ of least squares estimators. While not really affecting the results, it proves useful to assume, throughout the following, that the empty model belongs to $\mathcal{M}$. We shall furthermore always assume that any non-empty $M\in \mathcal{M}$ is of full-rank in the sense that $\limfunc{rank%
}{X[M]}=|M|$. We point out here that our assumptions on $\mathcal{M}$ imply that $X$ can not have a zero column, and hence $d\geq 1$ must hold. An important instance of a collection $\mathcal{M}$ satisfying our assumptions is the collection of all full-rank submodels of $\left\{ 1,...,p\right\} $ (enlarged by the empty model) provided that no column of $X$ is zero; of course, there are many other examples, see, e.g., the list in Section 4.5 of [@berk13valid].
A model selection procedure $\hat{M}$ is now a (measurable) rule that associates with every $(X,Y,\hat{\sigma}^{2})$ a model $\hat{M}(X,Y,\hat{%
\sigma}^{2})\in \mathcal{M}$. \[Since $\mathcal{M}$ contains the empty model, the possibility that $\hat{M}(X,Y,\hat{\sigma}^{2})$ is empty is allowed for.\] In the following we shall, in abuse of notation, often write $\hat{M}$ for $\hat{M}(X,Y,\hat{\sigma}^{2})$. Allowing explicitly dependence of $\hat{%
M}$ on $\hat{\sigma}^{2}$ is only relevant in case $\hat{\sigma}^{2}$ depends on extraneous data beyond $(X,Y)$ and the model selection procedure actually makes use of $\hat{\sigma}^{2}$. \[We note here that in principle we could have allowed $\hat{M}$ to depend on further extraneous data, in which case $P_{n,\mu ,\sigma }$ would have to be redefined as the joint distribution of $Y$, $\hat{\sigma}^{2}$, and this further extraneous data.\] The post-model-selection estimator $\hat{\beta}_{\hat{M}}$ corresponding to the model selection procedure is now given by (\[eq:restr\_OLS\]) with $M$ replaced by $\hat{M}$.
The non-standard quantity of interest studied in [@berk13valid] is the random vector (with random dimension) $\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}$ obtained by replacing $M$ by $\hat{M}$ in (\[eq:def:betaMn\]). \[We note that [berk13valid]{} do not allow for empty models $\hat{M}$.\] The situation we shall consider in the present paper is related to [@berk13valid], but is different in several aspects: Consider a fixed (real) $p\times 1$ vector $%
x_{0}$ and suppose we want to predict $y_{0}$ which is distributed as $%
N\left( \nu ,\sigma ^{2}\right) $, independently of $Y$. If one is forced to use a fixed model $M$ for prediction, i.e., to use predictors of the form $%
x_{0}^{\prime }{[M]\gamma }$, the predictor that would then typically be used is $x_{0}^{\prime }{[M]}\hat{\beta}_{M}$, which can be viewed as an estimator of the infeasible predictor $x_{0}^{\prime }{[M]}\beta _{M}^{(n)}$. Of course, for this predictor to be reasonable there must be some relation between the training data $(X,Y)$ and $(x_{0},y_{0})$. This is further discussed in Remark \[rem:predictor\]. In the presence of model selection the predictor $x_{0}^{\prime }{[M]}\hat{\beta}_{M}$ will then typically be replaced by the post-model-selection predictor $x_{0}^{\prime }{[\hat{M}]}%
\hat{\beta}_{\hat{M}}$ which can in turn be seen as a feasible counterpart to the infeasible predictor$$x_{0}^{\prime }{[\hat{M}]}\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}. \label{eq:def:Beta:hatM:n}$$The quantity in (\[eq:def:Beta:hatM:n\]) will be our target for inference in this section and will be called the *design-dependent (non-standard) target* (to emphasize that it depends on the design matrix $X$ apart from its dependence on ${\hat{M}}$, cf. (\[eq:def:betaMn\])). A discussion of the merits of this target and its interpretation is postponed to Remarks [rem:interpretation]{} and \[rem:predictor\] given below.
Let now $1-\alpha \in (0,1)$ be a nominal confidence level. In this section we are interested in confidence intervals for the design-dependent target $%
x_{0}^{\prime }{[\hat{M}]}\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}$ that are of the form$$CI(x_{0})=x_{0}^{\prime }{[\hat{M}]}\hat{\beta}_{\hat{M}}\pm K(x_{0},\hat{M}%
)||s_{{\hat{M}}}||\hat{\sigma}, \label{eq:general:form:CI}$$where $\left\Vert \cdot \right\Vert $ denotes the Euclidean norm ($\hat{%
\sigma}$ of course representing the nonnegative square root of $\hat{\sigma}%
^{2}$), where$$s_{M}^{\prime }=x_{0}^{\prime }{[M]}\left( X{[M]}^{\prime }{X[M]}\right)
^{-1}X{[M]}^{\prime }{,} \label{eq:def:tM}$$where $s_{M}=0\in \mathbb{R}^{n}$ for $M=\varnothing $ by our conventions, and where $K(x_{0},M)=K(x_{0},M,r)=K(x_{0},M,r,X,\alpha ,\mathcal{M})$ denotes a non-negative constant which may depend on $x_{0}$, $M$, $r$, $X$, $%
\alpha $, and $\mathcal{M}$, but does not depend on the observations on $Y$ and $\hat{\sigma}^{2}$. Here we have used the notation $a\pm b$ for the interval $\left[ a-b,a+b\right] $ ($a\in \mathbb{R}$, $b\geq 0$). The motivation for the form of the confidence interval stems from the observation that for *fixed* $M$ the interval $x_{0}^{\prime }{[M]}\hat{%
\beta}_{M}\pm q_{r,1-\alpha /2}||s_{{M}}||\hat{\sigma}$ is a valid $1-\alpha
$ confidence interval for $x_{0}^{\prime }{[M]}\beta _{M}^{(n)}$, where $%
q_{r,1-\alpha /2}$ is the $(1-\alpha /2)$-quantile of Student’s t-distribution with $r$ degrees of freedom. Furthermore note that on the event ${\hat{M}=}\varnothing $ the target is equal to zero and the confidence interval reduces to $\{0\}$, thus always containing the target on this event.
We aim at finding quantities $K(x_{0},M)$ such that the confidence intervals $CI(x_{0})$ satisfy$$\inf_{\mu \in \mathbb{R}^{n},\sigma >0}P_{n,\mu ,\sigma }\left(
x_{0}^{\prime }{[\hat{M}]}\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}\in CI(x_{0})\right) \geq
1-\alpha . \label{eq:PRED:PoSI:coverage:aim}$$Note that if one replaces $K(x_{0},\hat{M})$ in (\[eq:general:form:CI\]) by $K_{naive}=q_{r,1-\alpha /2}$, then the confidence interval ([eq:general:form:CI]{}) reduces to the so-called ‘naive’ confidence interval which is constructed as if $\hat{M}$ were fixed a priori (thus ignoring the presence of model selection). It does not fulfill ([eq:PRED:PoSI:coverage:aim]{}) as can be seen from the numerical results in Section \[section:simulation:study\], which is in line with the related results in [@leeb13various].
For the construction of the quantities $K(x_{0},M)$ we distinguish two cases regarding the observation on $x_{0}$: (i) The vector $x_{0}$ is observed in its entirety (regardless of which model $\hat{M}$ is selected), or (ii) only the subvector $x_{0}{[\hat{M}]}$ of $x_{0}$ is observed (note that only this subvector is needed for the computation of the post-model-selection predictor $x_{0}^{\prime }{[\hat{M}]}\hat{\beta}_{\hat{M}}$). The latter case can be relevant in practical situations where the selected model is determined first and then only observations for $x_{0}{[\hat{M}]}$ (and not for the other components of $x_{0}$) are collected, e.g., out of cost considerations.
For the case (i), where $x_{0}$ is entirely observed, the following straightforward adaptation of the approach in [@berk13valid] yields a constant $K_{1}(x_{0})=K_{1}(x_{0},r)=K_{1}(x_{0},r,X,\alpha ,\mathcal{M})$ (not depending on ${M}$) such that the resulting confidence interval ([eq:general:form:CI]{}) satisfies (\[eq:PRED:PoSI:coverage:aim\]): Observe that$$x_{0}^{\prime }{[\hat{M}]}\hat{\beta}_{\hat{M}}-x_{0}^{\prime }{[\hat{M}]}%
\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}=s_{\hat{M}}^{\prime }\left( Y-\mu \right) ,
\label{eq:betaM:moins:betaMn}$$define $\bar{s}_{M}=s_{M}/\left\Vert s_{M}\right\Vert $ if $s_{M}\neq 0$, and set $\bar{s}_{M}=0$ if $s_{M}=0$. Then obviously we have the upper bound$$\left\vert \bar{s}_{\hat{M}}^{\prime }\left( Y-\mu \right) \right\vert /\hat{%
\sigma}\leq \max_{M\in \mathcal{M}}\left\vert \bar{s}_{M}^{\prime }\left(
Y-\mu \right) \right\vert /\hat{\sigma}.
\label{eq:principle:upper:bound:PoSI}$$Define $K_{1}(x_{0})$ to be the smallest constant satisfying$$P_{n,\mu ,\sigma }\left( \max_{M\in \mathcal{M}}\left\vert \bar{s}%
_{M}^{\prime }\left( Y-\mu \right) \right\vert /\hat{\sigma}\leq
K_{1}(x_{0})\right) \geq 1-\alpha . \label{eq:def:posi:xzero}$$It is important to note that the probability on the left-hand side of the preceding display neither depends on $\mu $ nor on $\sigma $; it also depends on the estimator $\hat{\sigma}$ only through the ‘degrees of freedom’ parameter $r$: To see this note that $\bar{s}_{M}^{\prime }\left(
Y-\mu \right) =\bar{s}_{M}^{\prime }P_{X}\left( Y-\mu \right) $, since $\bar{%
s}_{M}$ belongs to the column space of $X$. Consequently, the collection of all the quantities $\bar{s}_{M}^{\prime }\left( Y-\mu \right) $ is jointly distributed as $N(0,\sigma ^{2}C)$, independently of $\hat{\sigma}^{2}\sim
\left( \sigma ^{2}/r\right) \chi ^{2}\left( r\right) $, where the covariance matrix $C$ depends only on $x_{0}$ and $X$. Hence the joint distribution of the collection of ratios $\left\vert \bar{s}_{M}^{\prime }\left( Y-\mu
\right) \right\vert /\hat{\sigma}$ does neither depend on $\mu $ nor $\sigma
$, and depends on the estimator $\hat{\sigma}$ only through $r$. It is now plain that $K_{1}(x_{0})$ only depends on $x_{0}$, $r$, $X$, $\alpha $, and $%
\mathcal{M}$. Furthermore note that $K_{1}(x_{0})=0$ in case $x_{0}=0$; otherwise, $K_{1}(x_{0})$ is positive, equality holds in ([eq:def:posi:xzero]{}), and $K_{1}(x_{0})$ is the unique $\left( 1-\alpha
\right) $-quantile of the distribution of the upper bound in ([eq:principle:upper:bound:PoSI]{}). \[This follows from Lemma \[lem:a1\] in Appendix \[app A\] and from the observation that, in view of our assumptions on $\mathcal{M}$, $\bar{s}_{M}^{\prime }=0$ for all $M\in
\mathcal{M}$ holds if and only if $x_{0}=0$.\] Furthermore, observe that $%
K_{1}(x_{0})$ coincides with a PoSI1 constant of [@berk13valid] in case $%
x_{0}$ is one of the standard basis vectors $e_{i}$. \[This can be seen by comparison with (4.14) in [@berk13valid] and noting that the maximum inside the probability in (\[eq:def:posi:xzero\]) effectively extends only over models satisfying $i\in M$, since $\bar{s}_{M}=0$ holds for models $M$ with $i\notin M$ if $x_{0}=e_{i}$.\] Finally, $K_{naive}\leq K_{1}\left(
x_{0}\right) $ clearly holds provided $x_{0}\neq 0$ (since $\bar{s}%
_{M}^{\prime }\left( Y-\mu \right) /\hat{\sigma}$ follows Student’s t-distribution with $r$ degrees of freedom if $s_{M}\neq 0$).
As a consequence of (\[eq:principle:upper:bound:PoSI\]) and the discussion in the preceding paragraph we thus immediately obtain the following proposition.
\[prop:PoSI:coverage\] Let $\hat{M}$ be an arbitrary model selection procedure with values in $\mathcal{M}$, let $x_{0}\in \mathbb{R}^{p}$ be arbitrary, and let $K_{1}(x_{0})$ be defined by (\[eq:def:posi:xzero\]). Then the confidence interval (\[eq:general:form:CI\]) with $K(x_{0},\hat{M}%
)$ replaced by $K_{1}(x_{0})$ satisfies the coverage property ([eq:PRED:PoSI:coverage:aim]{}).
The coverage in Proposition \[prop:PoSI:coverage\] is guaranteed for *all* model selection procedures with values in $\mathcal{M}$, and thus leads to ‘universally valid post-selection inference’ in case $\mathcal{%
M}$ is chosen to be the set of all full-rank submodels obtainable from $X$ (enlarged by the empty set and provided $X$ does not have a zero column); cf. [@berk13valid], where similar guarantees are obtained for the components of $\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}$.
Consider next case (ii) where only the components of $x_{0}{[\hat{M}]}$ are observed. In this case, the confidence interval of Proposition [prop:PoSI:coverage]{} is not feasible in that it cannot be computed in general, because $K_{1}(x_{0})$ will depend on *all* components of $%
x_{0}$ (and not only on those appearing in $x_{0}{[\hat{M}]}$) due the maximum figuring in (\[eq:def:posi:xzero\]) and our assumptions on $%
\mathcal{M}$. A first solution is to define $$K_{2}(x_{0}{[M]},{M)}=\sup \left\{ K_{1}(x):x{[M]=}x_{0}{[M]}\right\} ,
\label{eq:max:of:PoSI}$$and then to use the confidence interval (\[eq:general:form:CI\]) with $%
K(x_{0},\hat{M})$ replaced by $K_{2}(x_{0}{[\hat{M}],\hat{M})}$. Note that $%
K_{2}(x_{0}{[M]},{M)}$, and hence the corresponding confidence interval, depends on $x_{0}$ only via $x_{0}{[M]}$, and thus can be computed in case (ii). Of course, $K_{2}(x_{0}{[M]},{M)}$ also depends on $r$, $X$, $\alpha $, and $\mathcal{M}$, and we shall write $K_{2}(x_{0}{[M],M,r)}$ if we want to stress dependence on $r$. It is easy to see that $K_{2}(x_{0}{[M],M)}$ is finite (as it is not larger than the Scheffé constant as we shall see below). Because $K_{2}(x_{0}{[M],M)}$ is never smaller than $K_{1}(x_{0})$, we have the following corollary to Proposition \[prop:PoSI:coverage\].
\[cor:max:of:PoSI:coverage\] Let $\hat{M}$ be an arbitrary model selection procedure with values in $\mathcal{M}$, let $x_{0}\in \mathbb{R}%
^{p}$ be arbitrary, and let $K_{2}(x_{0}{[M],M)}$ be defined by ([eq:max:of:PoSI]{}). Then the confidence interval (\[eq:general:form:CI\]) with $K(x_{0},\hat{M})$ replaced by $K_{2}(x_{0}{[\hat{M}],\hat{M})}$ satisfies the coverage property (\[eq:PRED:PoSI:coverage:aim\]).
The computation of $K_{2}(x_{0}{[\hat{M}],\hat{M})}$ is more costly than that of $K_{1}(x_{0})$. Indeed, it requires to embed the algorithm for computing $K_{1}(x_{0})$ in an optimization procedure. Thus, for the cases where the resulting computational cost is prohibitive, we present in the subsequent proposition larger constants $K_{3}(x_{0}{[\hat{M}],\hat{M})}$, $%
K_{4}$, and $K_{5}$ that are simpler to compute. The constant $K_{4}$ is obtained by applying a union bound to (\[eq:def:posi:xzero\]), whereas the constant $K_{3}$ is obtained by applying a more refined ‘partial’ union bound, see the proof of Proposition \[prop:PoSI:upper:bound\] for more detail. The constant $K_{5}$ is the Scheffé constant. Algorithms for computing these constants are discussed in Appendix [section:practical:algorithms]{}.
For $x_{0}\in \mathbb{R}^{p}$ and $M\in \mathcal{M}$ define the distribution function $F_{M,x_{0}}^{\ast }$ for $t\geq 0$ via$$F_{M,x_{0}}^{\ast }\left( t\right) =1-\min \left[
\begin{array}{c}
1,\Pr \left( \max_{M_{\ast }\in \mathcal{M},M_{\ast }\subseteq M}\left\vert
\bar{s}_{M_{\ast }}^{\prime }V\right\vert >t\right) \\
+c\left( M,\mathcal{M}\right) \left( 1-F_{Beta,1/2,(d-1)/2}\left(
t^{2}\right) \right)%
\end{array}%
\right] \label{eq:F}$$and via $F_{M,x_{0}}^{\ast }\left( t\right) =0$ for $t<0$. Here $c\left( M,%
\mathcal{M}\right) $ denotes the number of models $M_{\ast }\in \mathcal{M}$ that satisfy $M_{\ast }\nsubseteq M$, $V$ is a random vector that is uniformly distributed on the unit sphere in the column space of $X$, and $%
F_{Beta,1/2,(d-1)/2}$ denotes the $Beta\left( 1/2,(d-1)/2\right) $-distribution function, with the convention that in case $d=1$ we use $%
F_{Beta,1/2,0}$ to denote the distribution function of pointmass at $1$. In view of our assumptions on $\mathcal{M}$ it follows that $c\left( M,\mathcal{%
M}\right) \geq 1$ always holds, except in the case where $M=\{1,...,p\}$ (and where this set belongs to $\mathcal{M}$). Next define the distribution function $F_{M,x_{0}}$ via$$F_{M,x_{0}}\left( t\right) =\mathbb{E}_{G}F_{M,x_{0}}^{\ast }\left(
t/G\right) , \label{eq:int_G}$$where $G$ denotes a nonnegative random variable such that $G^{2}/d$ follows an $F$-distribution with $(d,r)$-degrees of freedom and $\mathbb{E}_{G}$ represents expectation w.r.t. the distribution of $G$. We stress that $%
F_{M,x_{0}}$ depends on $x_{0}$ only through $x_{0}[M]$, and hence the same is true for the constant $K_{3}(x_{0}[M],M)$ defined in the subsequent proposition. The motivation for the definition of $F_{M,x_{0}}^{\ast }$ and $%
F_{M,x_{0}}$ originates from a partial union bound for $1$ minus the probability appearing in (\[eq:def:posi:xzero\]), cf. the proof of the subsequent proposition.
\[prop:PoSI:upper:bound\] Let $x_{0}\in \mathbb{R}^{p}$ be arbitrary. For any $M\in \mathcal{M}$ define $K_{3}(x_{0}[M],M)$ to be the smallest constant $K$ such that$$F_{M,x_{0}}\left( K\right) \geq 1-\alpha \label{eq:def:K3}$$holds. Then $K_{3}(x_{0}[M],M)={0}$ (and $F_{M,x_{0}}$ is the c.d.f. of pointmass at zero) if $M=\{1,...,p\}\in \mathcal{M}$ and $x_{0}=0$; otherwise, $0{<K_{3}(x_{0}[M],M)<\infty }$, and equality holds in ([eq:def:K3]{}) if and only if $K=K_{3}(x_{0}[M],M)$. Furthermore, let $%
K_{4}=K_{3}(x_{0}{[\varnothing ],\varnothing )}$ and define $K_{5}$ as the $%
\left( 1-\alpha \right) $-quantile of $G$. Then we have$$K_{2}(x_{0}[M],M)\leq K_{3}(x_{0}[M],M)\leq K_{4}\leq K_{5}
\label{eq:comparison:length}$$for every $M\in \mathcal{M}$. Furthermore, $${K_{2}(x_{0}[M}_{2}{],M}_{2}{)\leq K_{2}(x_{0}[M}_{1}{],M}_{1}{)}
\label{eq:monoton:1}$$and$${K_{3}(x_{0}[M}_{2}{],M}_{2}{)\leq K_{3}(x_{0}[M}_{1}{],M}_{1}{)}
\label{eq:monoton:2}$$hold whenever $M_{1}\subseteq M_{2}$, $M_{i}\in \mathcal{M}$.
It is obvious that $K_{3}(x_{0}[M],M)$ depends, besides $x_{0}[M]$ and $M$, only on $r$, $X$, $\alpha $, and $\mathcal{M}$, whereas $K_{4}$ only depends on $r$, $d$, $\alpha $, and $\mathcal{M}$, and $K_{5}$ depends only on $r$, $%
d$, and $\alpha $. \[Like with $K_{1}\left( x_{0}\right) $, also the other constants introduced depend on the estimator $\hat{\sigma}$ only through $r$.\] We shall write $K_{3}(x_{0}[M],M,r)$, $K_{4}\left( r\right) $, and $%
K_{5}\left( r\right) $ if we want to stress dependence on $r$. Note that $%
K_{1}\left( x_{0}\right)
=K_{3}(x_{0}[M_{full}],M_{full})=K_{3}(x_{0},M_{full})$, provided $%
M_{full}:=\{1,...,p\}$ belongs to $\mathcal{M}$, and that $%
K_{3}(x_{0}[M],M)=K_{4}$ holds for any $M\in \mathcal{M}$ satisfying $%
\left\vert M\right\vert =1$ and $\bar{s}_{M}\neq 0$. \[Indeed, in this case, the probability appearing in (\[eq:F\]) equals $1-F_{Beta,1/2,(d-1)/2}%
\left( t^{2}\right) $ as can be seen from the proof of Proposition [prop:PoSI:upper:bound]{}.\] Similarly, $K_{3}(x_{0}[M],M)=K_{4}$ holds for any $M\in \mathcal{M}$ in case $d=1$ as is not difficult to see. Furthermore, $%
K_{5}$ is just the Scheffé constant ([@scheffe59analysis]); see the corresponding discussion in Section 4.8 of [@berk13valid]. The proof of the inequalities involving the constants $K_{3}$ and $K_{4}$ in the above proposition is an extension of an argument in [@berk13validold] (not contained in the published version [@berk13valid]) to find – in the case $p=d$ – an upper-bound for their PoSI constant that does not depend on $X$, but only on $d$. \[Note that $K_{4}$ is a counterpart to $K_{univ}$ in [@berk13validold].\] Inequalities (\[eq:monoton:1\]) and ([eq:monoton:2]{}) simply reflect the fact that observing only $x_{0}[M]$ implies that fewer information about $x_{0}$ is provided for smaller models $%
M$. As a consequence of these inequalities it is possible that, on the event where a small model $M_{1}$ is selected, the resulting confidence interval is larger than it is on the event where a larger model $M_{2}$ is selected. Again, this simply reflects the fact that less information on $x_{0}$ is available under the smaller model. Note, however, that the just discussed phenomenon is counteracted by the fact that the length of the confidence interval also depends on $||s_{M}||$ and that we have $||s_{M_{1}}||\leq
||s_{M_{2}}||$ for $M_{1}\subseteq M_{2}$; cf. Figure 1 in Section [section:simulation:study]{}.
Proposition \[prop:PoSI:upper:bound\] implies $K_{2}(x_{0}[\hat{M}],\hat{M}%
)\leq K_{3}(x_{0}[\hat{M}],\hat{M})\leq K_{4}\leq K_{5}$ and hence together with Corollary \[cor:max:of:PoSI:coverage\] immediately implies the following result. We stress that the confidence intervals figuring in the subsequent corollary depend on $x_{0}$ only through $x_{0}{[\hat{M}]}$ and thus are feasible in case (ii).
\[cor:PoSI:upper:bound\]Let $\hat{M}$ be an arbitrary model selection procedure with values in $\mathcal{M}$, and let $x_{0}\in \mathbb{R}^{p}$ be arbitrary. Then the confidence interval (\[eq:general:form:CI\]) with $%
K(x_{0},\hat{M})$ replaced by $K_{3}(x_{0}{[\hat{M}],\hat{M})}$ ($K_{4}$, or $K_{5}$, respectively) satisfies the coverage property ([eq:PRED:PoSI:coverage:aim]{}).
We conclude this section with a few remarks regarding extensions.
\[rem:kmown:variance:case\]*(Infeasible variance estimators)* (i) For later use we note that all results in this section continue to hold if $\hat{\sigma}^{2}$ is allowed to also depend on $\sigma $ but otherwise satisfies the assumptions made earlier (e.g., if $\hat{\sigma}%
^{2}=\sigma ^{2}Z/r$ where $Z$ is an observable chi-square distributed random variable with $r$ degrees of freedom that is independent of $P_{X}Y$).
\(ii) If we set $\hat{\sigma}^{2}=\sigma ^{2}$ and $r=\infty $, all of the results in this section continue to hold with obvious modifications. In particular, in Proposition \[prop:PoSI:upper:bound\] the random variable $%
G^{2}$ then follows a chi-squared distribution with $d$ degrees of freedom. We shall denote the constants corresponding to $K_{1}(x_{0})$, $%
K_{2}(x_{0}[M],M)$, $K_{3}(x_{0}[M],M)$, $K_{4}$, and $K_{5}$ obtained by setting $\hat{\sigma}^{2}=\sigma ^{2}$ and $r=\infty $ by $%
K_{1}(x_{0},\infty )$, etc. We stress that these constants do *not* depend on $\sigma $.
\(i) All results carry over immediately to the case where $\mu $ can vary only in a subset $\mathfrak{M}$ of $\mathbb{R}^{n}$.
\(ii) We have assumed that any non-empty $M\in \mathcal{M}$ is of full-rank. This assumption could easily be dropped, but this would lead to more unwieldy results.
On the merits of the non-standard targets
-----------------------------------------
\[rem:interpretation\]*(On the merits of* $\beta _{\hat{M%
}}^{(n)}$ *and* $x_{0}^{\prime }{[\hat{M}]}\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}$* as targets for inference)* (i) As already noted, the (non-standard) coverage target in [@berk13valid] is $\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}$ (where these authors choose to represent it in what they call ‘full model indexing’). While $\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}$ has a clear technical meaning as the coefficient vector that provides the best approximation of $\mu $ by elements of the form $X[\hat{M}]\gamma $ w.r.t. the Euclidean distance, the merits of this quantity as a target for statistical inference are less clear. Note that if one adopts this quantity as the target for inference, one is confronted with the fact that the target then depends on the data $Y$ via $\hat{M}$ (implying that the target as well as its dimension are random); furthermore, different model selection procedures give rise to different targets $\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}$. Also note that, e.g., the meaning of the first component of the target $\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}$ depends on the selected model ${\hat{M}}$. The target $x_{0}^{\prime }{[\hat{%
M}]}\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}$ considered in this paper, while again being random and sharing many of the properties of $\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}$ just mentioned, seems to be somewhat more amenable to interpretation as a target for inference since it is simply the random convex combination $%
\sum_{M}x_{0}^{\prime }{[M]}\beta _{M}^{(n)}\boldsymbol{1}({\hat{M}=M})$ of the (infeasible) predictors $x_{0}^{\prime }{[M]}\beta _{M}^{(n)}$ (which one would typically use if model $M$ is forced upon one for prediction).
\(ii) In the classical case, i.e., when $\mu =X\beta $ and $d=p\leq n$, one can justly argue that the target for inference should be $x_{0}^{\prime
}\beta $ rather than $x_{0}^{\prime }{[\hat{M}]}\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}$ because $x_{0}^{\prime }\beta $ is a better (infeasible) predictor in the mean-squared error sense than is $x_{0}^{\prime }{[\hat{M}]}\beta _{\hat{M}%
}^{(n)}$ provided $y_{0}$ is independent of ${\hat{M}}$ (which will certainly be the case if $y_{0}$ is independent of $Y$ and $\hat{\sigma}^{2}$, or if $y_{0}$ is independent of $Y$ and ${\hat{M}}$ does not depend on $%
\hat{\sigma}^{2}$). \[This is so since the mean-squared error of prediction of $x_{0}^{\prime }\beta $ is not larger than the one of $x_{0}^{\prime }{[M]%
}\beta _{M}^{(n)}$ for every $M$ and since ${\hat{M}}$ is independent of $%
y_{0}$.\] However, this argument does not apply if $x_{0}$ is not observed in its entirety, but only $x_{0}{[\hat{M}]}$ is observed, because then $%
x_{0}^{\prime }\beta $ is not available. In this case we thus indeed have some justification for the target $x_{0}^{\prime }{[\hat{M}]}\beta _{\hat{M}%
}^{(n)}$ even in the classical case. This is in contrast with the situation when, as in [@berk13valid], one’s interest focusses on parameters rather than predictors: Similar as before one can argue that in the classical case the true parameter $\beta $ should be the target rather than $\beta _{\hat{M}%
}^{(n)}$ but there seems now to be little to justify the non-standard target $\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}$ (as the preceding argument justifying the target $%
x_{0}^{\prime }{[\hat{M}]}\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}$ even in the classical case is obviously not applicable to the target $\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}$).
\(iii) In view of the preceding discussion it seems that the non-standard target $\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}$ of [@berk13valid] can only be justified in a non-classical setting where $\mu $ is not assumed to belong to the column space of $X$ (implying $d<n$), or where $d<p$ holds (subsuming in particular the important case $p>n=d$), because in these cases $\beta $ is no longer available as a target (being not defined or not uniquely defined). However, in a setting, where $\mu $ is not assumed to belong to the column space of $X$ or where $p>n=d$ holds, the assumption on the variance estimator $\hat{\sigma}^{2}$ made in [@berk13valid] (as well as in the present paper) becomes problematic and quite restrictive; see Remark 2.1(ii) in [@leeb13various] as well as Section \[Section\_on\_sigma\] below. Hence, there is some advantage in considering the targets $x_{0}^{\prime }{[%
\hat{M}]}\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}$ rather than $\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}$ as the former has a justification in the classical as well as in the non-classical framework.
\(iv) We note the obvious fact that if the target of inference is the standard target $x_{0}^{\prime }\beta $ (assuming the classical case) then the reasoning underlying Proposition \[prop:PoSI:coverage\] does not apply since the difference between the post-model-selection predictor and the standard target is not independent of $\beta $. For the same reason the approach in [@berk13valid] cannot provide a solution to the problem of constructing confidence sets for the standard target $\beta $.
\[rem:predictor\]*(Optimality of the design-dependent target)* (i) The infeasible predictor $x_{0}^{\prime }{[M]}\beta _{M}^{(n)}$ (for fixed $M$) is the best predictor for $y_{0}$ in the mean-squared error sense among all predictors of the form $x_{0}^{\prime }{[M]}\gamma $ in case $\left. y_{0}\right\vert \nu ,x_{0}\sim N(\nu ,\sigma ^{2})$ and $\left( \nu
,x_{0}^{\prime }\right) $ is drawn from the empirical distribution of $%
\left( \mu _{i},x_{i}^{\prime }\right) $ where $x_{i}^{\prime }$ denotes the $i$-th row of $X$ (‘in-sample prediction’). \[More generally, this is so if $%
\left( \nu ,x_{0}^{\prime }\right) $ is drawn from the empirical distribution of $\left( \mu _{i}+a_{i},x_{i}^{\prime }\right) $ where $a$ is a fixed vector orthogonal to the column space of $X$.\] Otherwise, it does in general not have this optimality property (but nevertheless its feasible counterpart $x_{0}^{\prime }{[M]}\hat{\beta}_{M}$ would typically be used if one is forced to base prediction on model $M$).
\(ii) The optimality property in (i) carries over to the design-dependent target $x_{0}^{\prime }{[\hat{M}]}\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}$ provided $%
(y_{0},x_{0}^{\prime })^{\prime }$ is independent of ${\hat{M}}$.
On the assumptions on $\hat{\protect\sigma}^{2}$[Section\_on\_sigma]{}
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In line with [@berk13valid] we have postulated the existence of an estimator $\hat{\sigma}^{2}$ that is independent of $P_{X}Y$ and is distributed as $\sigma ^{2}/r$ times a chi-square distributed random variable with $r$ degrees of freedom ($1\leq r<\infty $). As already noted earlier, if we assume that $d<n$ *and* $\mu =X\beta $ hold, such an estimator always exists and is given by the usual residual variance estimator obtained from the residuals $Y-P_{X}Y$. However, if $d=n$ holds (which typically is the case if $p>n$) or if $\mu $ is not known to belong to the column space of $X$, such an estimator is much harder to come by.
Consider first the case where $d=n$ holds. Then it is plain that such an estimator does not exist if it is to be only a function of $Y$ (and $X$): Since here $P_{X}Y=Y$ holds, such an estimator would have to be independent of $Y$ and thus constant with probability one, contradicting the requirement to be distributed as a positive multiple of a chi-square. In order to nevertheless be able to come up with an estimator $\hat{\sigma}^{2}$ with the desired properties, one is hence forced to assume that one has access to *additional* data beyond $Y$ that are related to $Y$ in an appropriate way. A prototypical situation where such a construction is possible is as follows: Assume that one has available additional data $Y^{\ast }$ distributed as $N(\mu ^{\ast },\sigma ^{2}I_{n^{\ast }})$, independently of $%
Y$ (for example, $Y^{\ast }$ might have been obtained from splitting the original larger sample into $Y$ and $Y^{\ast }$). Assume further that for $%
Y^{\ast }$ one has available a (non-trivial) correct regression model (i.e., $\mu ^{\ast }=X^{\ast }\delta $ with $X^{\ast }$ of full column rank less than $n^{\ast }$). Obviously, then an estimator $\hat{\sigma}^{2}$ satisfying all the required properties can be constructed from this correct regression model for $Y^{\ast }$. However, this raises the question why one would be willing to assume a correct regression model for one part of the data, but would refuse to do so for the other part. \[This might be defended by reference to a structural break in the mean, which then however would beg the question why the structural break would not also affect the variance $%
\sigma ^{2}$.\] Alternatively to the assumption $\mu ^{\ast }=X^{\ast }\delta
$, one could assume some ‘smoothness’ in $\mu ^{\ast }$ and then use nonparametric estimators to produce $\hat{\sigma}^{2}$. Again the question arises why one would then not make a similar assumption for $\mu $ and use the nonparametric method also for the first (or the entire) sample. In the quite special situation where one has replicated observations in $Y^{\ast }$ available, one can abandon the dependence on a correct model (or on smoothness assumptions) and nevertheless produce an estimator $\hat{\sigma}%
^{2}$ with the desired properties. All this granted, it seems that the desired assumptions on $\hat{\sigma}^{2}$ and the desire to treat the case $%
d=n$ are not completely at ease.
Second, in case $d<n$ , but it is not assumed that $\mu =X\beta $ holds, it is not obvious how an estimator $\hat{\sigma}^{2}$ with the desired properties can be constructed without further assumptions (note that the residual variance estimator obtained from $Y-P_{X}Y$ while being independent from $P_{X}Y$ will in general *not* be guaranteed to follow the required distribution). One such assumption could be that we have available a correct model $\mu =Z\gamma $, where the column space of $Z$ contains the column space of $X$ with the rank of $Z$ still less than $n$; we could then compute $\hat{\sigma}^{2}$ from this larger model (i.e., from $Y-P_{Z}Y$), the resulting estimator having the desired properties. While this assumption solves the existence problem for $\hat{\sigma}^{2}$, it raises the question why one would then still want to keep the model selection exercise restricted to submodels defined by the columns of $X$, when it is known that the correct, larger, model $\mu =Z\gamma $ holds (and $Z$ is available). Hence, we are led back essentially to the classical case with $Z$ playing the role of $X$. Alternatively, the same constructions as in the preceding paragraph relying on an independent sample $Y^{\ast }$ are available, but they again suffer from the limitations pointed out before.
The discussion in this section shows that outside of the framework $d<n$ and $\mu =X\beta $ (in which case $p=d$ can be assumed with little loss of generality) the assumptions on $\hat{\sigma}^{2}$ made in [@berk13valid] as well as in the present paper are less than innocuous and will be satisfied only in quite special situations; cf. also the discussion in Remark 2.1(ii) in [@leeb13various]. \[For this very reason, the first version of this paper was set in the classical framework.\]
Behavior of the constants $K_{i}$ as a function of $p$ [sub2.3]{}
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In this section we provide some results on the size of the constants $K_{i}$ that govern the length of the confidence intervals. In particular, these results help in answering the question how tight a bound for $K_{1}$ and $%
K_{2}$ is provided by $K_{3}$ or $K_{4}$.
### Orthogonal designs
[@berk13valid] show that in the case $p=d\leq n$ their PoSI constant becomes smallest for the case of orthogonal design (provided the model universe $\mathcal{M}$ is sufficiently rich, e.g., $\mathcal{M}$ contains all submodels) and has rate $\sqrt{\log p}$ as $p\rightarrow \infty $, at least in the known-variance case; cf. Proposition 5.5 in [@berk13valid] (where the error term $o(d)$ given in this result should read $o(1)$). In the next proposition we study the order of magnitude of $K_{1}(x_{0})$, the analogue of the PoSI constant and of the closely related constant $%
K_{2}(x_{0}[M],M)$ in the case of orthogonal design. Recall that $%
K_{1}(x_{0})$ is only feasible if $x_{0}$ is observed in its entirety, while $K_{2}(x_{0}[M],M)$ is the ideal bound for $K_{1}(x_{0})$ given only knowledge of $x_{0}[M]$. Note that in the following result some of the objects depend on $p$, but we do not always show this in the notation.
\[constants\_1\]Consider the known-variance case (i.e., $r=\infty $ and $%
\hat{\sigma}^{2}=\sigma ^{2}$) and assume that for every $p\geq 1$ the model universe $\mathcal{M}$ used is the power set of $\{1,...,p\}$. Let $\alpha $, $0<\alpha <1$, be given, not depending on $p$.
\(a) For any $p\geq 1$ let $X=X(p)$ be an $n(p)\times p$ matrix with (non-zero) orthogonal columns. For any such sequence $X$ one can find a corresponding sequence of (non-zero) $p\times 1$ vectors $x_{0}$ such that $%
K_{1}(x_{0},\infty )=K_{1}(x_{0},\infty ,X,\alpha ,\mathcal{M})$ satisfies$$\liminf_{p\rightarrow \infty }K_{1}(x_{0},\infty )/\sqrt{p}\geq \xi$$where $\xi =\sup_{b>0}\phi (b)/\sqrt{1-\Phi (b)}\approx 0.6363$. \[$\phi $ and $\Phi $ denote the pdf and cdf of a standard normal variable, respectively.\] Furthermore, for any sequence $X$ as above one can find another sequence of (non-zero) $p\times 1$ vectors $x_{0}$ such that $%
K_{1}(x_{0},\infty )=O(1)$.
\(b) Let $\gamma \in \lbrack 0,1)$ be given. Then $K_{2}(x_{0}[M],M,\infty
)=K_{2}(x_{0}[M],M,\infty ,X,\alpha ,\mathcal{M})$ satisfies$$\liminf_{p\rightarrow \infty }\inf_{x_{0}\in \mathbb{R}^{p}}\inf_{X\in
\mathsf{X}(p)}\inf_{M\in \mathcal{M},|M|\leq \gamma
p}K_{2}(x_{0}[M],M,\infty )/\sqrt{p}\geq \xi \sqrt{1-\gamma },$$where $\mathsf{X}(p)=\bigcup_{n\geq p}\left\{ X:X\text{ is }n\times p\text{
with non-zero orthogonal columns}\right\} $.
The lower bounds given in the preceding proposition clearly also apply to $%
K_{3}(x_{0}[M],M,\infty )$ and $K_{4}(\infty )$ a fortiori. Part (a) of the above proposition shows that, even in the orthogonal case, the growth of $%
K_{1}(x_{0},\infty )$ is – in the worst-case w.r.t. $x_{0}$ – of the order $\sqrt{p}$. This is in contrast to the above mentioned result of [berk13valid]{} for the PoSI constant. Part (a) also shows that there are other choices for $x_{0}$ such that $K_{1}(x_{0},\infty )$ stays bounded. In this context also recall that $K_{1}(x_{0},\infty )$ with $x_{0}$ equal to a $p\times 1$ standard basis vector coincides with a PoSI1 constant and thus equals the $(1-\alpha )$-quantile of the distribution of the absolute value of a standard normal variable in the orthogonal case. Part (b) goes on to show that regardless of $x_{0}$ and $X$ the growth of the constants $%
K_{2}(x_{0}[M],M,\infty )$ is of the order $\sqrt{p}$ (except perhaps for very large submodels $M$).
### Order of magnitude of $K_{3}$ and $K_{4}$
The next proposition, which exploits results in [@zhang13rank], shows that $K_{4}(\infty )$ is a tight upper bound for $K_{3}(x_{0}[M],M,\infty )$ at least if $p$ is large. It also provides the growth rates for $%
K_{4}(\infty )$ and $K_{3}(x_{0}[M],M,\infty )$. As before, the dependence of several objects on $p$ (or $n$) will not always be shown in the notation. For the following recall the constants $c\left( M,\mathcal{M}\right) $ defined after (\[eq:F\]).
\[constants\_2\]Consider the known-variance case (i.e., $r=\infty $ and $%
\hat{\sigma}^{2}=\sigma ^{2}$) and assume that for every $p\geq 1$ a (non-empty) model universe $\mathcal{M}=\mathcal{M}_{p}$ is given that satisfies (i) $\bigcup \left\{ M:M\in \mathcal{M}\right\} =\left\{
1,...,p\right\} $, (ii) $\varnothing \in \mathcal{M}$, (iii) $c\left( M,%
\mathcal{M}\right) \geq \tau \left\vert \mathcal{M}\right\vert $ for every $%
M\in \mathcal{M}$ with $M\neq \left\{ 1,\ldots ,p\right\} $, where $\tau >0$ is a given number (neither depending on $M$, $\mathcal{M}$, nor $p$), and (iv) $\left\vert \mathcal{M}\right\vert \rightarrow \infty $ as $%
p\rightarrow \infty $. For $n\in \mathbb{N}$, the set of positive integers, let $\mathsf{X}_{n,p}(\mathcal{M})$ denote the set of all $n\times p$ matrices of rank $\min (n,p)$ with the property that $X[M]$ has full column-rank for every $\varnothing \neq M\in \mathcal{M}$. Furthermore, let $%
\alpha $, $0<\alpha <1$, be given (neither depending on $p$ nor $n$). Let $%
n(p)\in \mathbb{N}$ be a sequence such that $n(p)\rightarrow \infty $ for $%
p\rightarrow \infty $ and such that $\mathsf{X}_{n(p),p}(\mathcal{M})\neq
\varnothing $ for every $p\geq 1$. Then we have$$\lim_{p\rightarrow \infty }\sup_{M\in \mathcal{M},M\neq
\{1,...,p\}}\sup_{x_{0}\in \mathbb{R}^{p}}\sup_{X\in \mathsf{X}_{n(p),p}(%
\mathcal{M})}|1-(K_{3}(x_{0}[M],M,\infty )/K_{4}(\infty ))|=0,
\label{Closeness of K3 and K4}$$where $K_{3}(x_{0}[M],M,\infty )=K_{3}(x_{0}[M],M,\infty ,X,\alpha ,\mathcal{%
M})$ and $K_{4}(\infty )=K_{4}(\infty ,\min (n(p),p),\alpha ,\mathcal{M})$. Furthermore, $$K_{4}(\infty )/\sqrt{\min (n(p),p)\left( 1-\left\vert \mathcal{M}\right\vert
^{-2/\left( \min (n(p),p)-1\right) }\right) }\rightarrow 1$$as $p\rightarrow \infty $.
\(i) $\mathsf{X}_{n(p),p}(\mathcal{M})\neq \varnothing $ implies $%
\mathsf{X}_{n,p}(\mathcal{M})\neq \varnothing $ for $n\geq n(p)$.
\(ii) $\mathsf{X}_{n(p),p}(\mathcal{M})$ is certainly non-empty for $n(p)\geq
p$, but – depending on $\mathcal{M}$ – this can already be true for $n(p)$ much smaller than $p$.
The assumptions (i)-(iv) on $\mathcal{M}$ in the preceding proposition are shown in the next corollary to be always satisfied in the important case where $\mathcal{M}$ is of the form $\left\{ M\subseteq \left\{ 1,\ldots
,p\right\} :\left\vert M\right\vert \leq m_{p}\right\} $. Furthermore, in the special case where $\mathcal{M}$ is the universe of all submodels, a simple formula for the growth rate of $K_{4}(\infty )$ is found.
\[constants\_3\]Consider the known-variance case (i.e., $r=\infty $ and $%
\hat{\sigma}^{2}=\sigma ^{2}$) and let $\alpha $, $0<\alpha <1$, be given (neither depending on $p$ nor $n$). Let $m_{p}\in \mathbb{N}$ satisfy $1\leq
m_{p}\leq p$ for every $p\geq 1$ and define the set $\mathcal{M}%
(m_{p})=\left\{ M\subseteq \left\{ 1,\ldots ,p\right\} :\left\vert
M\right\vert \leq m_{p}\right\} $. Then $\mathcal{M}(m_{p})$ satisfies (i)-(iv) in Proposition \[constants\_2\] with $\tau =1/3$. Consequently, for $n(p)$ as in Proposition \[constants\_2\], (\[Closeness of K3 and K4\]) holds with $\mathcal{M}$ replaced by $\mathcal{M}(m_{p})$ and $$K_{4}(\infty )/\sqrt{\min (n(p),p)\left( 1-\left( \sum_{k=0}^{m_{p}}\binom{p%
}{k}\right) ^{-2/\left( \min (n(p),p)-1\right) }\right) }\rightarrow 1$$as $p\rightarrow \infty $. In particular, if $m_{p}=p$ for all $p\geq 1$, we necessarily have $n(p)\geq p$ and$$K_{4}(\infty )/\sqrt{p}\rightarrow \sqrt{3}/2$$as $p\rightarrow \infty $.
In the important case, where $p=d\leq n$ and $\mathcal{M}$ is the entire power set of $\{1,...,p\}$, the preceding corollary shows that $K_{4}(\infty
)$ (and hence a fortiori all the constants $K_{1}(x_{0},\infty )$,..., $%
K_{3}(x_{0}[M],M,\infty )$) are ‘bounded away’ from the Scheffé constant $K_{5}$ which clearly satisfies $K_{5}/\sqrt{p}\rightarrow 1$ for $%
p\rightarrow \infty $. This is in line with a similar finding in [berk13valid]{}, Section 6.3, for their PoSI constant.
\[rem:sharp:union:bound\]In the proof of Proposition [prop:PoSI:upper:bound]{} union bounds were used to obtain the results for $%
K_{3}(x_{0}[M],M)$ and $K_{4}$. Hence, one might ask whether or not these constants as bounds for $K_{2}(x_{0}[M],M)$ are overly conservative. We now collect evidence showing that improving $K_{3}(x_{0}[M],M)$ and $K_{4}$ will not be easy and is sometimes impossible: First, Lemma \[lem:case:p:egal:2\] in Appendix \[app A\] shows that there exist $n\times p$ design matrices $%
X $ with $p=d=2$ and vectors $x_{0}$ such that $K_{4}=K_{1}\left(
x_{0}\right) $ in case $\mathcal{M}$ is the universe of all submodels. Hence, in this case the union bounds used in the proof of Proposition [prop:PoSI:upper:bound]{} are all exact. Furthermore, in the known-variance case with $p=d\leq n$ and where $\mathcal{M}$ again is the universe of all submodels, the propositions given above entail that $K_{4}(\infty )\sim
\sqrt{p}\sqrt{3}/2\approx 0.866\sqrt{p}$ while $K_{1}(x_{0},\infty )\succeq
\xi \sqrt{p}$ with $\xi \approx 0.6363$ is possible; e.g., as the worst-case behavior in the orthogonal case, or with $x_{0}=e_{i}$ and the design matrices constructed in the proof of Theorem 6.2 in [@berk13valid] (recall that $K_{1}(e_{i},\infty )$ coincides with a PoSI1 constant). This again shows that there is little room for improving $K_{3}$ and $K_{4}$. \[Further evidence in that direction is provided by the observation that the proof of Theorem 6.3 in [@berk13valid] implies that $K_{1}^{\ast }/\sqrt{%
p}$ tends to $\sqrt{3}/2$ in probability as $p\rightarrow \infty $, where $%
K_{1}^{\ast }$ is an analogue of $K_{1}\left( x_{0},\infty \right) $ that is obtained from (\[eq:def:posi:xzero\]) (with $r=\infty $) after replacing the vectors $\bar{s}_{M}$ by $2^{p}$ independent random vectors, each of which is uniformly distributed on the unit sphere of the column space of $X$ (and these vectors being independent of $Y$). In other words, if one ignores the particular structure of the vectors $\bar{s}_{M}$, then the bound $%
K_{4}\left( \infty \right) $ is close to being sharp for large values of $p$.\]
\[nonuniformity\]The results for $p\rightarrow \infty $ in this subsection as well as the related results in [@berk13valid] should be taken with a grain of salt as they obviously are highly non-uniform w.r.t. $\alpha $: Note that – for fixed $n$ and $p$ – any one of the constants $K_{i}$ will vary in the entire interval $(0,\infty )$ as $\alpha $ varies in $(0,1)$ (except for degenerate cases), while the limits in the results in question do not depend on $\alpha $ at all.
Confidence intervals for the design-independent non-standard target \[section:distribution:dependent\]
======================================================================================================
In this section we again consider the model (\[eq:full:linear:model\]), but now assume that $\mu =X\beta $ for some unknown $\beta \in \mathbb{R}%
^{p} $ holds and that the $n\times p$ matrix $X$ is random, with $X$ independent of $U$, where $U$ again follows an $N\left( 0,\sigma
^{2}I_{n}\right) $-distribution with $0<\sigma <\infty $. We also assume that $X$ has full column rank almost surely (implying $p\leq n$) and that each row of $X$ is distributed according to a common $p$-dimensional distribution $\mathcal{L}$ with a finite and positive definite matrix of (uncentered) second moments, which we denote by $\Sigma $. \[We shall refer to the preceding assumptions as the maintained model assumptions of this section.\] Furthermore, we assume again that we have available an estimator $%
\hat{\sigma}^{2}$ such that, conditionally on $X$, $\hat{\sigma}^{2}$ is independent of $P_{X}Y$ (or, equivalently, of $\hat{\beta}=(X^{\prime
}X)^{-1}X^{\prime }Y$) and is distributed as $\sigma ^{2}/r$ times a chi-squared distributed random variable with $r$ degrees of freedom ($1\leq
r<\infty $). The collection $\mathcal{M}$ of admissible models will be assumed to be the power set of $\{1,\ldots ,p\}$ in this section for convenience, but see Remark \[restr\_univ\] for possible extensions. Observe that all the results of Section \[section:design:dependent\] remain valid in the setup of the present section if formulated conditionally on $X$ (and if $x_{0}$ is treated as fixed). \[Alternatively, if $x_{0}$ is random but independent of $X $, $U$, and $\hat{\sigma}^{2}$, the same is true if the results in Section \[section:design:dependent\] are then interpreted conditionally on $X$ and $x_{0}$.\] The joint distribution of $Y$, $X$, and $\hat{\sigma}^{2}$ (and of $\tilde{\sigma}$ appearing below) will be denoted by $P_{n,\beta ,\sigma }$.
In this section we shall consider asymptotic results for $n\rightarrow
\infty $ but where $p$ is held constant. It is thus important to recall that all estimators, estimated models, etc. depend on sample size $n$. Also note that $r$ may depend on sample size $n$. We shall typically suppress these dependencies on $n$ in the notation. Furthermore, we note that, while not explicitly shown in the notation, the rows of $X$ and $U$ (and thus of $Y$) may depend on $n$. \[As the results in Section \[section:design:dependent\] are results for fixed $n$, this trivially also applies to the results in that section.\]
If $M_{1}$ and $M_{2}$ are subsets of $\{1,...,p\}$ and if $Q$ is a $p\times
p$ matrix we shall denote by $Q[M_{1},M_{2}]$ the matrix that is obtained from $Q$ by deleting all rows $i$ with $i\notin M_{1}$ as well as all columns $j$ with $j\notin M_{2}$; if $M_{1}$ is empty but $M_{2}$ is not, we define $Q[M_{1},M_{2}]$ to be the $1\times \left\vert M_{2}\right\vert $ zero vector; if $M_{2}$ is empty but $M_{1}$ is not, we define $%
Q[M_{1},M_{2}]$ to be the $\left\vert M_{1}\right\vert \times 1$ zero vector; and if $M_{1}=M_{2}=\varnothing $ we set $Q[M_{1},M_{2}]=0\in
\mathbb{R}$.
To motivate the target studied in this section, consider now the problem of predicting a new variable $y_{0}=x_{0}^{\prime }\beta +u_{0}$ where $x_{0}$, $u_{0}$, $X$, and $U$ are independent and $u_{0}\sim N\left( 0,\sigma
^{2}\right) $. For a given model $M\subseteq \{1,...,p\}$ we consider the (infeasible) predictor $x_{0}^{\prime }[M]\beta _{M}^{(\star )}$ where$$\beta _{M}^{(\star )}=\beta \lbrack M]+\left( \Sigma \lbrack M,M]\right)
^{-1}\Sigma \lbrack M,M^{c}]\beta \lbrack M^{c}],$$with the convention that the inverse is to be interpreted as the Moore-Penrose inverse in case $M=\varnothing $. Note that $x_{0}^{\prime
}[M]\beta _{M}^{(\star )}=0$ if $M=\varnothing $ and that $x_{0}^{\prime
}[M]\beta _{M}^{(\star )}=x_{0}^{\prime }\beta $ if $M=\{1,\ldots ,p\}$. A justification for considering this infeasible predictor is given in Remark \[rem:predictor\_2\] below. For purpose of comparison we point out that, under the assumption $\mu =X\beta $ maintained in the present section, $%
\beta _{M}^{(n)}$ defined in (\[eq:def:betaMn\]) can be rewritten as $%
\beta _{M}^{(n)}=\beta \lbrack M]+\left( X{[M]}^{\prime }{X[M]}\right) ^{-1}X%
{[M]}^{\prime }{X[M}^{c}{]}\beta \lbrack M^{c}]$. Given a model selection procedure $\hat{M}$ we define now the (infeasible) predictor$$x_{0}^{\prime }[\hat{M}]\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(\star )}$$as our new target for inference. We call this target the *design-independent (non-standard) target* as it does not depend on the design matrix $X$ beyond its dependence on $\hat{M}$. We discuss its merits in the subsequent remarks.
\[rem:justification\]Similar to the situation in Section [section:design:dependent]{}, the target $x_{0}^{\prime }{[\hat{M}]}\beta _{%
\hat{M}}^{(\star )}$ considered in the present section is nothing else than the post-model-selection analogue to the (infeasible) predictor $%
x_{0}^{\prime }[M]\beta _{M}^{(\star )}$, i.e., is the random convex combination $\sum_{M}x_{0}^{\prime }{[M]}\beta _{M}^{(\star )}\boldsymbol{1}(%
{\hat{M}=M})$ of the (infeasible) predictors $x_{0}^{\prime }{[M]}\beta
_{M}^{(\star )}$. As in Remark \[rem:interpretation\](ii) one can argue that the target for inference should be $x_{0}^{\prime }\beta $ rather than $%
x_{0}^{\prime }{[\hat{M}]}\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(\star )}$ because again $%
x_{0}^{\prime }\beta $ is a better (infeasible) predictor than $%
x_{0}^{\prime }{[\hat{M}]}\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(\star )}$ provided that $\left(
x_{0}^{\prime },u_{0}\right) $ is independent of ${\hat{M}}$ (which, in particular, will be the case if $\left( x_{0}^{\prime },u_{0}\right) $ is independent of $X$, $U$, and $\hat{\sigma}$, or if $\left( x_{0}^{\prime
},u_{0}\right) $ is independent of $X$, $U$ and ${\hat{M}}$ does not depend on $\hat{\sigma}$). But again, this argument does not apply if $x_{0}$ is not observed in its entirety, but only $x_{0}{[\hat{M}]}$ is observed.
\[rem:predictor\_2\]*(Optimality of the design-independent target) *(i) Assume that additionally $x_{0}^{\prime
}\sim \mathcal{L}$. If we are forced to use the (theoretical) predictors of the form $x_{0}^{\prime }[M]\gamma $, then straightforward computation shows that $x_{0}^{\prime }[M]\beta _{M}^{(\star )}$ provides the smallest mean-squared error of prediction among all the linear predictors $%
x_{0}^{\prime }[M]\gamma $. \[Note that this result corresponds to the observation made in Remark \[rem:predictor\] with $\mathcal{L}$ corresponding to the empirical distribution of the rows of $X$.\] If, furthermore, $x_{0}$ is normally distributed, then $x_{0}$ and $u_{0}$ are jointly normal and thus $x_{0}^{\prime }[M]\beta _{M}^{(\star )}$ is the conditional expectation of $y_{0}$ given $x_{0}[M]$ and hence is also the best predictor in the class of all predictors depending only on $x_{0}[M]$.
\(ii) Again assume that $x_{0}^{\prime }\sim \mathcal{L}$. The discussion in (i) implies that $x_{0}^{\prime }{[\hat{M}]}\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(\star )}$ has a mean-squared error of prediction not larger than the one of $x_{0}^{\prime
}{[\hat{M}]}\gamma (\hat{M})$ for any choice of $\gamma (\hat{M})$, provided $\left( x_{0}^{\prime },u_{0}\right) $ is independent of ${\hat{M}}$. If, additionally, $x_{0}$ is normally distributed, then $x_{0}^{\prime }{[\hat{M}%
]}\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(\star )}$ is also the best predictor in the class of all predictors depending only on $x_{0}^{\prime }{[\hat{M}]}$ and ${\hat{M}}$.
After having motivated the design-independent target, we shall, in the remainder of this section, treat $x_{0}$ as fixed (but see Remark [rem:xzero:random]{} for the case where $x_{0}$ is random). We now proceed to show that the confidence intervals constructed in Section [section:design:dependent]{} are also valid as confidence intervals for the design-independent target $x_{0}^{\prime }[\hat{M}]\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(\star
)}$ in an asymptotic sense under some mild conditions. While the results in Section \[section:design:dependent\] apply to *any* model selection procedure whatsoever (in case that $\mathcal{M}$ is the power set of $%
\left\{ 1,\ldots ,p\right\} $ as is the case in the present section), we need here to make the following mild assumption on the model selection procedure.
\[cond:model:selection:procedure\] The model selection procedure satisfies: For any $M\subseteq \left\{ 1,\ldots ,p\right\} $ with $|M|<p$ and for any $\delta >0$, $$\sup \left\{ P_{n,\beta ,\sigma }(\hat{M}=M|X):\beta \in \mathbb{R}%
^{p},\sigma >0,\left\Vert \beta \lbrack M^{c}]\right\Vert /\sigma \geq
\delta \right\} \rightarrow 0$$in probability as $n\rightarrow \infty $.
Condition \[cond:model:selection:procedure\] is very mild and typically holds for model selection procedures such as AIC- and BIC-based procedures as well as Lasso-type procedures. In addition, we assume the following condition on the behavior of the design matrix.
\[cond:L\] The sequence of random matrices $\sqrt{n}\left[ \left(
X^{\prime }X/n\right) -\Sigma \right] $ is bounded in probability.
Condition \[cond:L\] holds, for example, when the rows of $X$ are independent, or weakly dependent, and when the distribution $\mathcal{L}$ has finite fourth moments for all its components. We also introduce the following condition.
\[cond:sigma\] The degrees of freedom parameters $r$ of the sequence of estimators $\hat{\sigma}^{2}$ satisfy $r\rightarrow \infty $ as $%
n\rightarrow \infty $.
Of course, if we choose for $\hat{\sigma}^{2}$ the usual variance estimator $%
\hat{\sigma}_{OLS}^{2}$ then this condition is certainly satisfied with $%
r=n-p$. We are now in the position to present the asymptotic coverage result. Recall that the confidence intervals corresponding to $K_{i}$ with $%
2\leq i\leq 5$ depend on $x_{0}$ only through $x_{0}{[\hat{M}]}$ (or not on $%
x_{0}$ at all).
\[theo:asympt:val:CI\] Suppose Conditions [cond:model:selection:procedure]{} and \[cond:L\] hold.
\(a) Suppose also that Condition \[cond:sigma\] is satisfied. Let $%
CI(x_{0}) $ be the confidence interval (\[eq:general:form:CI\]) where the constant $K(x_{0},\hat{M})$ is given by the constant $K_{1}(x_{0},r)$ defined in Section \[section:design:dependent\]. Then the confidence interval $CI(x_{0})$ satisfies $$\inf_{x_{0}\in \mathbb{R}^{p},\beta \in \mathbb{R}^{p},\sigma >0}P_{n,\beta
,\sigma }\left( \left. x_{0}^{\prime }[\hat{M}]\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(\star
)}\in CI(x_{0})\right\vert X\right) \geq (1-\alpha )+o_{p}(1),
\label{eq:asymptotically:valid:CI}$$where the $o_{p}(1)$ term above depends only on $X$ and converges to zero in probability as $n\rightarrow \infty $. Relation ([eq:asymptotically:valid:CI]{}) a fortiori holds if the confidence interval $%
CI(x_{0})$ is based on the constants $K_{2}(x_{0}[\hat{M}],\hat{M},r)$, $%
K_{3}(x_{0}[\hat{M}],\hat{M},r)$, $K_{4}\left( r\right) $, or $K_{5}\left(
r\right) $, respectively.
\(b) Let $\tilde{\sigma}$ be an arbitrary estimator satisfying $$\sup_{\beta \in \mathbb{R}^{p},\sigma >0}P_{n,\beta ,\sigma }(\left\vert
\tilde{\sigma}/\sigma -1\right\vert \geq \delta \left\vert X\right. )\overset%
{p}{\rightarrow }0 \label{eq:unif_cons_var}$$for any $\delta >0$ as $n\rightarrow \infty $. Let further $r^{\ast
}=r_{n}^{\ast }$ be an arbitrary sequence in $\mathbb{N\cup }\left\{ \infty
\right\} $ satisfying $r^{\ast }\rightarrow \infty $ for $n\rightarrow
\infty $. Let $CI^{\ast }(x_{0})$ denote the modified confidence interval which is obtained from (\[eq:general:form:CI\]) by replacing $\hat{\sigma}$ by $\tilde{\sigma}$ and $K(x_{0},\hat{M})$ by $K_{1}(x_{0},r^{\ast })$ ($%
K_{2}(x_{0}[\hat{M}],\hat{M},r^{\ast })$, $K_{3}(x_{0}[\hat{M}],\hat{M}%
,r^{\ast })$, $K_{4}\left( r^{\ast }\right) $, or $K_{5}\left( r^{\ast
}\right) $, respectively). Then relation (\[eq:asymptotically:valid:CI\]) holds with $CI(x_{0})$ replaced by $CI^{\ast }(x_{0})$.
Theorem \[theo:asympt:val:CI\](a) shows that for any $x_{0}\in \mathbb{R}%
^{p}$ the interval $CI(x_{0})$ is an asymptotically valid confidence interval for the design-independent target and additionally that the lower bound $(1-\alpha )+o_{p}(1)$ for the minimal (over $\beta $ and $\sigma $) coverage probability can be chosen independently of $x_{0}$. Theorem [theo:asympt:val:CI]{}(b) extends this result to a larger class of intervals. \[Note that Part (a) is in fact a special case of Part (b) obtained by setting $\tilde{\sigma}=\hat{\sigma}$ and $r^{\ast }=r$ and observing that $%
\hat{\sigma}$ clearly satisfies the condition on $\tilde{\sigma}$ in Part (b) under Condition \[cond:sigma\].\] We note that applying Theorem [theo:asympt:val:CI]{}(b) with $\tilde{\sigma}=\hat{\sigma}$ and $r^{\ast
}=\infty $ shows that Theorem \[theo:asympt:val:CI\](a) also continues to hold for the confidence interval that is obtained by replacing the constants $K_{1}(x_{0},r)$ ($K_{2}(x_{0}[\hat{M}],\hat{M},r)$, $K_{3}(x_{0}[\hat{M}],%
\hat{M},r)$, $K_{4}\left( r\right) $, or $K_{5}\left( r\right) $, respectively) by the constants $K_{1}(x_{0},\infty )$ ($K_{2}(x_{0}[\hat{M}],%
\hat{M},\infty )$, $K_{3}(x_{0}[\hat{M}],\hat{M},\infty )$, $K_{4}\left(
\infty \right) $, or $K_{5}\left( \infty \right) $, respectively).
Condition (\[eq:unif\_cons\_var\]) is a uniform consistency property. It is clearly satisfied by $\hat{\sigma}_{OLS}^{2}$ (and more generally by the estimator $\hat{\sigma}^{2}$ under Condition \[cond:sigma\] as already noted above), but it is also satisfied by the post-model-selection estimator $\hat{\sigma}_{\hat{M}}^{2}=||Y-X[\hat{M}]\hat{\beta}_{\hat{M}}||^{2}/(n-|%
\hat{M}|)$ provided the model selection procedure satisfies Condition [cond:model:selection:procedure]{}, see Lemma \[lem: PMS-var\] in Appendix \[app:B\] for a precise result. As a consequence, Theorem [theo:asympt:val:CI]{}(b) shows that the post-model-selection estimator $\hat{%
\sigma}_{\hat{M}}^{2}$ can be used instead of $\hat{\sigma}^{2}$ in the construction of the confidence interval.
\[rem:kmown:variance:case\_2\]*(Infeasible variance estimators)* Theorem \[theo:asympt:val:CI\](a) remains valid if $\hat{%
\sigma}^{2}$ is allowed to depend also on $\sigma $ but otherwise satisfies the assumptions made earlier or if $\hat{\sigma}^{2}=\sigma ^{2}$ and $%
r=\infty $. Similarly, Theorem \[theo:asympt:val:CI\](b) remains valid if $%
\tilde{\sigma}^{2}$ is allowed to be infeasible.
Under the assumptions of Theorem \[theo:asympt:val:CI\](b) we further have that $$\inf_{x_{0}\in \mathbb{R}^{p},\beta \in \mathbb{R}^{p},\sigma >0}P_{n,\beta
,\sigma }\left( \left. x_{0}^{\prime }[\hat{M}]\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}\in
CI^{\ast }(x_{0})\right\vert X\right) \geq (1-\alpha )+o_{p}(1),$$holds, where the $o_{p}(1)$ term above depends only on $X$ and converges to zero in probability as $n\rightarrow \infty $. This follows easily from a repeated application of Lemma \[lem:equivalence:beta:betan\] in Appendix \[app:B\]. \[Regarding Theorem \[theo:asympt:val:CI\](a) recall that the finite-sample coverage result for the target $x_{0}^{\prime }[\hat{M}]\beta
_{\hat{M}}^{(n)}$ in Section \[section:design:dependent\] continues to hold in the context of the present section if interpreted conditionally on $%
X $.\]
\[rem:xzero:random\]*(Random* $x_{0}$*)* If $x_{0}$ is random and independent of $X$, $U$, and $\hat{\sigma}^{2}$, Theorem [theo:asympt:val:CI]{} continues to hold if the result is then being interpreted as conditional on $X$ and $x_{0}$. A particular consequence of this result conditional on $X$ and $x_{0}$ is then that the confidence interval $CI(x_{0})$ also satisfies$$\inf_{\beta \in \mathbb{R}^{p},\sigma >0}P_{n,\beta ,\sigma }\left( \left.
x_{0}^{\prime }[\hat{M}]\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(\star )}\in CI(x_{0})\right\vert
X\right) \geq (1-\alpha )+o_{p}(1)$$where again $o_{p}(1)$ is a function of $X$ only (and $P_{n,\beta ,\sigma }$ here represents the distribution of $Y$, $X$, $\hat{\sigma}^{2}$, and $x_{0}$). As noted at the beginning of this section, the results in Section [section:design:dependent]{} continue to hold if interpreted conditionally on $%
X$ and $x_{0}$. As a consequence, we thus also have that$$\inf_{\beta \in \mathbb{R}^{p},\sigma >0}P_{n,\beta ,\sigma }\left( \left.
x_{0}^{\prime }[\hat{M}]\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}\in CI(x_{0})\right\vert
X\right) \geq 1-\alpha$$holds. See also [@Lee09a], where prediction intervals for $y_{0}$ are studied in a similar setting.
*(Relaxing the assumptions on* $X$*)* The assumption that the rows of $X$ follow a common distribution $\mathcal{L}$ has been used only to define the matrix $\Sigma $, which in turn is used in the definition of $\beta _{M}^{(\star )}$. If this assumption is dropped, but instead it is assumed that Condition \[cond:L\] holds for *some* positive matrix $\Sigma $, which is then used to define $\beta _{M}^{(\star
)}$, Theorem \[theo:asympt:val:CI\] continues to hold. Note that this version of Theorem \[theo:asympt:val:CI\] also covers the case of nonrandom design matrices for which $n^{-1}X^{\prime }X$ converges to a positive definite limit at rate $n^{-1/2}$ (or faster).
\[restr\_univ\]*(Restricted universe of selected models)* Theorem \[theo:asympt:val:CI\] can easily be generalized to the case where a universe $\mathcal{M}$ different from the power set of $\left\{ 1,\ldots
,p\right\} $ is employed, provided the full model $\left\{ 1,\ldots
,p\right\} $ belongs to $\mathcal{M}$ (and $\mathcal{M}$ satisfies the basic assumptions made in Section \[section:design:dependent\]).
\[rem\_measurability\]*(Measurability issues)* Various statements concerning uncountable suprema (infima) of conditional probabilities occur in the present section and Appendix \[app:B\], such as, e.g., statements that these quantities converge in probability. It is not difficult to see that – in absence of measurability – all these statements remain valid if they are properly interpreted as statements referring to outer probability. This thus relieves one from the need to establish measurability. For this reason we do not explicitly mention the measurability issues in the presentation of the results in this section as well as in Appendix \[app:B\].
Numerical study\[section:simulation:study\]
===========================================
In this section, we present a numerical study of the lengths and the minimal coverage probabilities of various confidence intervals. We begin, in Section \[length\_numerical\], with an investigation of the length of the confidence intervals introduced in Section \[section:design:dependent\], including the ‘naive’ confidence interval that ignores the model selection step, as a function of the selected model. In Section [minimal\_cov\_prob\_numerical]{} we then evaluate numerically the minimal coverage probabilities of these confidence intervals. As model selectors we consider here AIC, BIC, LASSO, SCAD ([@fan01variable]), and MCP ([zhang10nearly]{}). Finally, in Section \[taylor\] we compare the confidence intervals introduced in Section \[section:design:dependent\] with the confidence interval proposed recently in [@lee15exact], which is specific to the LASSO model selector. Code for the computations in this section is available from the first author.
Lengths of confidence intervals\[length\_numerical\]
----------------------------------------------------
We consider the lengths of the confidence intervals obtained by ([eq:general:form:CI]{}) standardized by $\hat{\sigma}$, i.e., we consider $%
2K(x_{0},\hat{M})\Vert s_{\hat{M}}\Vert $ for the six cases where $K(x_{0},%
\hat{M})$ is replaced by either one of the five constants $K_{1}(x_{0})$, $%
K_{2}(x_{0}[\hat{M}],\hat{M})$, $K_{3}(x_{0}[\hat{M}],\hat{M})$, $K_{4}$, $%
K_{5}$ of Section \[section:design:dependent\] or by the constant $%
K_{naive}=q_{r,1-\alpha /2}$, the $(1-\alpha /2)$-quantile of Student’s t-distribution with $r$ degrees of freedom. We recall that the constant $%
K_{naive}$ yields the ‘naive’ confidence interval that ignores the model selection step and that we have $K_{naive}\leq K_{1}(x_{0})\leq ...\leq
K_{5} $ (the first inequality holding provided $x_{0}\neq 0$).
For computing the standardized length, we set $\alpha =0.05$, $n=29$, $%
d=p=10 $, $r=n-p$, $\sigma =1$, and obtain $X$ and $x_{0}$ from a data set of [@rawlings98applied]. This data set contains a $30\times 10$ design matrix $X_{Raw}$ corresponding to ten explanatory variables. These explanatory variables are a constant term (to include an intercept in the model), rainfall (inches), area of watershed (square miles), area impervious to water (square miles), average slope of watershed (percent), longest stream flow in watershed (thousands of feet), surface absorbency index (0= complete absorbency; 100 = no absorbency), estimated soil storage capacity (inches of water), infiltration rate of water into soil (inches/hour) and time period during which rainfall exceeded 1/4 inch/hour. Logarithms are taken of the explanatory variables except for the intercept. \[In [rawlings98applied]{}, the response corresponding to these explanatory variables is peak flow rate from watersheds.\] This data set is also studied in [@kabaila06large] and [@leeb13various]. We refer to it as the watershed data set, and $x_{0}$ and $X$ are chosen such that $%
(x_{0},X^{\prime })^{\prime }$ is equal to the watershed design matrix $%
X_{Raw}$. It is easily checked that the so-obtained matrix $X$ is indeed of full column rank (and $x_{0}\neq 0$). Furthermore, the model universe $%
\mathcal{M}$ is chosen to be the power set of $\{1,...,p\}$.
For the so chosen values of $\alpha $, $n$, $p$, $r$, $\sigma $, $X$, $x_{0}$, and $\mathcal{M}$, we compute the standardized lengths $2K(x_{0},M)\Vert
s_{M}\Vert $ of the confidence intervals obtained by replacing $K(x_{0},M)$ by $K_{naive}$, $K_{1}(x_{0})$, $K_{2}(x_{0}[M],M)$, $K_{3}(x_{0}[M],M)$, $%
K_{4}$, and $K_{5}$, respectively. To ease the computational burden and to enable a simple presentation as in Figure 1 below, we compute the standardized lengths of the confidence intervals only for $M$ belonging to the family $\{\{1\},...,\{1,...,10\}\}$ consisting of ten nested submodels. \[This does *not* mean that we compute the constants $K_{i}$ under the assumption of a restricted universe of models; recall that we use $\mathcal{M%
}$ equal to the power set of $\{1,...,p\}$.\] The computation of $K_{naive}$, $K_{1}(x_{0})$, $K_{3}(x_{0}[M],M)$, $K_{4}$, and $K_{5}$ is either straightforward or is obtained from the algorithms described in Appendix [section:practical:algorithms]{}. However, computing $K_{2}(x_{0}[M],M)$, for $%
M\neq \{1,...,10\}$, necessitates to compute $\sup
\{K_{1}(x):x[M]=x_{0}[M]\} $. We approximate this supremum by using a three-step Monte Carlo procedure: First, we randomly sample $100,000$ independent vectors $x\in \mathbb{R}^{10} $, so that $x[M]=x_{0}[M]$ and $%
x[M^{c}]$ follows a Gaussian distribution with mean vector $0\in \mathbb{R}%
^{10-|M|}$ and covariance matrix $(1/n)(X[M^{c}]^{\prime }X[M^{c}])$. For each of these vectors, we evaluate $K_{1}(x)$ with Algorithm \[alg:Kun\] in Appendix \[section:practical:algorithms\], with $I_{1}=1,000$ Monte Carlo samples. In the second step, we keep the $1,000$ vectors $x$ corresponding to the largest evaluations of $K_{1}(x)$ and we reevaluate $%
K_{1}(x)$ for them, with a number of Monte Carlo samples equal to $%
I_{2}=100,000$ in Algorithm \[alg:Kun\]. In the third step, we keep the vector $x$ from the second step corresponding to the largest value of $K_{1}$ and we reevaluate $K_{1}(x)$ for this $x$, but this time with a number of Monte Carlo samples equal to $I_{3}=1,000,000$ in Algorithm \[alg:Kun\].
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
> \[figure1\] Figure 1: Standardized lengths of various confidence intervals as function of model size. Dashed lines are added to improve readability.
The standardized lengths of the confidence intervals corresponding to the constants $K_{naive}$, $K_{1}$,…, $K_{5}$ are reported in Figure 1 for the ten nested submodels mentioned before. We first see that, for each of the constants $K_{naive}$, $K_{1}$, $K_{4}$, and $K_{5}$, the standardized length of the confidence interval increases with submodel size, which must hold since these constants do not depend on the submodel $M$ and since the term $||s_{M}||$ increases with submodel size (for nested submodels as considered in Figure 1). However, as discussed after Proposition [prop:PoSI:upper:bound]{}, the values of $K_{2}$ and $K_{3}$ decrease with increasing submodel size for nested submodels. Figure 1 shows that the combined effect of the increase of $||s_{M}||$ and the decrease of $K_{2}$ and $K_{3}$ with submodel size can be an increase or a decrease of the standardized lengths of the confidence intervals. Indeed, the standardized lengths increase globally (i.e., from submodel size $1$ to $10$), but can decrease locally (for example, the standardized length of the confidence interval obtained from $K_{2}$ decreases from submodel size $6$ to submodel size $8$; for the interval obtained from $K_{3}$ the standardized length decreases from submodel size $9$ to submodel size $10$). In Figure 1 the decreases of the standardized lengths occur only between submodel sizes for which $||s_{M}||$ is almost constant with $M$ (which can be seen from the standardized lengths obtained from, say, $K_{5}$, since they are proportional to $||s_{M}||$). We also see from Figure 1 that the ‘naive’ interval is much shorter than the other intervals (at the price of typically not having the correct minimal coverage probability). The difference in standardized length between the intervals based on $K_{1}$ and $K_{2}$, respectively, is noticeable but not dramatic. A larger increase in standardized length is noted when comparing the interval based on the costly-to-compute constant $K_{2}$ with the one obtained from $K_{3}$, especially for submodel sizes $6$ to $9$. Furthermore, the standardized lengths of the confidence intervals obtained from $K_{3}$ are very close to those obtained from $K_{4}$ for model size $1$ to $9$; cf. (\[Closeness of K3 and K4\]). Finally, in Figure 1 we also see that the confidence intervals obtained from $K_{1}$, $K_{2}$, and $K_{3}$ have the same standardized length when the model size is $10$, and that the same is true for the confidence intervals obtained from $K_{3}$ and $K_{4}$ when the model size is $1$. This, of course, is not a coincidence, but holds necessarily as has been noted in the discussion of Proposition [prop:PoSI:upper:bound]{}.
Additional computations of confidence interval lengths, with $X$ and $x_{0}$ now randomly generated, yield results very similar to those in Figure 1. For the sake of brevity, these results are not shown here. We find, in particular, that the standardized length of the confidence interval obtained from $K_{3}$ always increases with submodel size when they are averaged with respect to $X$ and $x_{0}$, but, as in Figure 1, can decrease locally when not averaged. \[In these additional numerical studies we did not consider the constant $K_{2}$ due to the high computational cost involved in its evaluation.\]
Minimal coverage probabilities\[minimal\_cov\_prob\_numerical\]
---------------------------------------------------------------
In this section we consider the case where $\mu =X\beta $ and $d=p<n$, i.e., the case where the given matrix $X$ has full rank less than $n$ and provides a correct linear model for the data $Y$. We then investigate the minimal coverage probabilities (the minimum being w.r.t. $\beta \in \mathbb{R}^{p}$ and $\sigma \in (0,\infty )$) of the intervals obtained from the constants $%
K_{naive}$, $K_{1}$, $K_{3}$, and $K_{4}$ when used as confidence intervals for the target $x_{0}^{\prime }[\hat{M}]\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}$ on the one hand as well as for the target $x_{0}^{\prime }[\hat{M}]\beta _{\hat{M}%
}^{(\star )}$ on the other hand. The constants $K_{1}$, $K_{3}$, and $K_{4}$ are computed based on $\mathcal{M}$ equal to the power set of $\{1,...,p\}$. We do not report results for confidence intervals obtained from $K_{2}$, since the computation of $K_{2}$ is too costly for the study we present below. The results for confidence intervals obtained from $K_{5}$ would be qualitatively similar to those for confidence intervals obtained from $K_{4}$, so we do not report them for the sake of brevity.
We consider minimal coverage probabilities in the setting where $\alpha
=0.05 $, $p=10$, $n=20$ or $n=100$, and the variance parameter is estimated by the standard unbiased estimator using the full model, so that $r=n-p$. For model selection we consider AIC-, BIC-procedures, the LASSO, SCAD ([fan01variable]{}), and MCP ([@zhang10nearly]). For these five procedures, we always protect the first explanatory variable (which corresponds to an intercept term) from selection. However, note that the information that the first variable is protected is *not* used in computing the constants $%
K_{i}$, i.e., we do not use a restricted universe of models but use $%
\mathcal{M}$ equal to the power set of $\{1,...,p\}$. \[Additional simulations with no intercept term and no protected explanatory variable lead to results very similar to the ones given in Table \[table:coverage\] below.\]
For the AIC- and BIC-procedures we use the `step()` function in `R`, with penalty parameter `k` equal to $2$ for AIC and $\log (n)$ for BIC. The AIC and BIC objective functions are minimized through a greedy general-to-specific search over the resulting $2^{p-1}$ candidate models (recall that the intercept is protected).
For the LASSO, the selected model corresponds to the explanatory variables for which the LASSO estimator has non-zero coefficients. More precisely, we use the `lars` package in `R` and follow suggestions outlined in [@efron04least]: To protect the first regressor, we first compute the residual of the orthogonal projection of $Y$ on the first regressor; write $%
\tilde{Y}$ for this residual vector, and write $\tilde{X}$ for the design matrix $X$ with the first column removed. We then compute the LASSO-estimator for a regression of $\tilde{Y}$ on $\tilde{X}$ using the `lars()` function; the LASSO-penalty is chosen by $10$-fold cross-validation using the `cv.lars()` function. In both functions we set the `intercept` parameter to `FALSE`, but otherwise use the default settings. The selected model is comprised of those regressors in $%
\tilde{X}$ for which the corresponding LASSO coefficients are non-zero, plus the first column of X.
For SCAD and MCP, we use the `ncvreg` package in `R`. With the function `cv.ncvreg()` (with parameters `SCAD` or `MCP`) the penalty is selected by $10$-fold cross-validation and the corresponding estimated regression coefficients are computed. Like for the LASSO, the function `cv.ncvreg()` is applied for a regression of $\tilde{Y}$ on $%
\tilde{X}$, and the selected model is comprised of those regressors in $%
\tilde{X}$ for which the SCAD (or MCP) coefficients are non-zero, plus the first column of X.
The design matrix $X$ and the vector $x_{0}$ are generated in the following manner: The $10\times 10$ matrix $\Sigma $ of (uncentered) second moments is chosen to be of the form$$\Sigma =\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0\cdots 0 \\
0 & \raisebox{-15pt}{{\huge\mbox{{$\tilde{\Sigma}$}}}} \\[-4ex]
\vdots & \\[-0.5ex]
0 &
\end{array}%
\right) ,$$where we consider three choices for the $9\times 9$ matrix $\tilde{\Sigma}$. For the first case, $\tilde{\Sigma}$ is obtained by removing the first row and column of the $10\times 10$ empirical covariance matrix (standardized by $30-1=29$) of the variables in the $30\times 10$ watershed design matrix $%
X_{Raw}$ . For the second case, we define $\mathbf{X}^{(\tilde{p})}(a)$ as in Section 6.1 of [@berk13valid], with $\tilde{p}=9$ and $a=10$ and we set $\tilde{\Sigma}=(\mathbf{X}^{(\tilde{p})}(a))^{\prime }(\mathbf{X}^{(%
\tilde{p})}(a))$. Hence, in this case, $\tilde{\Sigma}=I_{\tilde{p}}+(2a+%
\tilde{p}a^{2})E_{\tilde{p}}$, with $E_{\tilde{p}}$ the $\tilde{p}\times
\tilde{p}$ matrix with all components equal to $1$. For the third case, we define $\mathbf{X}^{(\tilde{p})}(c)$ as in Section 6.2 of [@berk13valid], with $\tilde{p}=9$ and $c=\sqrt{0.8/(\tilde{p}-1)}$ and we set $\tilde{%
\Sigma}=(\mathbf{X}^{(\tilde{p})}(c))^{\prime }(\mathbf{X}^{(\tilde{p})}(c))$. Hence, in this case, $\tilde{\Sigma}=(\bar{e}_{1}(c),...,\bar{e}_{\tilde{p}%
-1}(c),V(c))$, with $\bar{e}_{i}(c)=((e_{i}^{(\tilde{p}-1)})^{\prime
},c)^{\prime }$ with $e_{i}^{(\tilde{p}-1)}$ the $i$-th standard basis vector of $\mathbb{R}^{\tilde{p}-1}$ and with $V(c)=(c,...,c,1)^{\prime }$. Similar as in [@berk13valid] and [@leeb13various], we refer to the data set obtained in the second case as the exchangeable data set (as the covariance matrix $\tilde{\Sigma}$ is permutation-invariant), and to the one obtained in the third case as the equicorrelated data set (as $\tilde{\Sigma}
$ is the correlation matrix of a random vector, the last component of which has the same correlation with all the other components). For a given configuration of $n$ and $\Sigma $, we then sample independently $n+1$ vectors of dimension $10\times 1$ such that for each of these vectors the first component is $1$ and the remaining nine components are jointly normally distributed with mean zero and covariance matrix $\tilde{\Sigma}$. The transposes of the first $n$ of theses vectors now form the rows of the $%
n\times p$ design matrix $X$, while the $(n+1)$-th of these vectors is used for the $p$-dimensional vector $x_{0}$. \[It is easy to see that the mechanism just described generates matrices of full column rank almost surely. The matrices $X$ actually generated were additionally checked to be of full column rank.\]
Consider now a given configuration of $n$, $\Sigma $, the model selection procedure, the target (either the design-dependent or the design-independent target), as well as of a matrix $X$ and a vector $x_{0}$ that have been obtained in the manner just described. Then we estimate the minimal (over $%
\beta $ and $\sigma $) coverage probabilities (conditional on $X$ and $x_{0}$) of the confidence intervals obtained from the constants $K_{naive}$, $%
K_{1} $, $K_{3}$, and $K_{4}$ for the given target under investigation. The minimal coverage probabilities are estimated by a three-step Monte Carlo procedure similar to that of [@leeb13various], where for each of the constants $K_{naive}$, $K_{1}$, $K_{3}$, and $K_{4}$ we do the following: We first sample independently $m_{1}=1,000$ parameters $\beta $ from a $p$-dimensional random vector $b$ where $Xb$ follows a standard Gaussian distribution within the column-space of $X$. Then, for each of these vectors $\beta $, we draw $I_{1}=1000$ Monte Carlo samples from the full model (i.e., from a $N(X\beta ,\sigma ^{2}I_{n})$-distribution) using $\beta $ and $\sigma =1$ as the true parameters. \[For invariance reasons it suffices to consider only the case where $\sigma =1$.\] For each Monte Carlo sample, we use the standard unbiased estimator $\hat{\sigma}^{2}$ of the error variance (under the full linear model), we carry out the model-selection procedure $%
\hat{M}$, and we record whether or not the target currently under investigation is covered by the confidence interval obtained from ([eq:general:form:CI]{}) with $K(x_{0},\hat{M})$ replaced by the constant $K$ under investigation. For each $\beta $, the $I_{1}$ recorded results are then averaged, resulting in $m_{1}$ Monte Carlo estimates of the coverage probabilities depending on the $m_{1}$ sampled vectors $\beta $. Then for the $m_{2}=100$ vectors $\beta $ corresponding to the smallest estimated coverage probabilities from the first step, we repeat the Monte Carlo procedures, but this time with $I_{2}=10,000$ Monte Carlo samples, and we record the vector $\beta $ that yields the smallest estimate for the coverage probability in this second step. Performing these two steps for each of the four constants $K_{naive}$, $K_{1}$, $K_{3}$, and $K_{4}$ results in four vectors $\beta (1)$, $\beta (2)$, $\beta (3)$, and $\beta
(4) $. In a third step, we now reevaluate the coverage probability of any of the four confidence intervals at each of the vectors $\beta (j)$, $%
j=1,\ldots ,4$, this time now with $I_{3}=100,000$ Monte Carlo samples, and record, for each of the confidence intervals, the minimum of these four estimates of the coverage probabilities. This is then used as the final estimate of the minimal coverage probability of the confidence interval under consideration. We stress here that the minimal coverage probabilities found by this Monte Carlo procedure are simulation-based results obtained by a stochastic search over a $10$-dimensional parameter space, and thus only provide approximate upper bounds for the true minimal coverage probabilities.
---------- ------- ---------- ------------- --------- --------- --------- ------------- --------- -------- ---------
Data set $n$ Model
selector
$K_{naive}$ $K_{1}$ $K_{3}$ $K_{4}$ $K_{naive}$ $K_{1}$ $% $K_{4}$
K_{3}$
$20$ AIC 0.84 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.79 0.97 0.99 0.99
$20$ BIC 0.84 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.74 0.96 0.98 0.98
$20$ LASSO 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.18 0.48 0.61 0.61
$20$ SCAD 0.90 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.45 0.77 0.84 0.84
$20$ MCP 0.89 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.47 0.78 0.85 0.85
$100$ AIC 0.87 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.99 1.00 1.00
$100$ BIC 0.88 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.99 1.00 1.00
$100$ LASSO 0.88 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.99 1.00 1.00
$100$ SCAD 0.88 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.99 1.00 1.00
$100$ MCP 0.88 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.99 1.00 1.00
$20$ AIC 0.83 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.98 0.99 0.99
$20$ BIC 0.84 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.76 0.97 0.99 0.99
$20$ LASSO 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.46 0.86 0.93 0.92
$20$ SCAD 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.55 0.90 0.94 0.94
$20$ MCP 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.54 0.89 0.94 0.94
$100$ AIC 0.89 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.99 1.00 1.00
$100$ BIC 0.90 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.99 1.00 1.00
$100$ LASSO 0.90 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.99 1.00 1.00
$100$ SCAD 0.90 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.99 1.00 1.00
$100$ MCP 0.90 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.99 1.00 1.00
$20$ AIC 0.83 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.79 0.98 0.99 0.99
$20$ BIC 0.81 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.74 0.98 0.99 0.99
$20$ LASSO 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.39 0.71 0.79 0.79
$20$ SCAD 0.88 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.92 0.95 0.96
$20$ MCP 0.86 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.66 0.93 0.96 0.96
$100$ AIC 0.84 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.99 1.00 1.00
$100$ BIC 0.86 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.99 1.00 1.00
$100$ LASSO 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00
$100$ SCAD 0.88 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00
$100$ MCP 0.88 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.99 1.00 1.00
---------- ------- ---------- ------------- --------- --------- --------- ------------- --------- -------- ---------
: Monte Carlo estimates of the minimal coverage probabilities (w.r.t. $\protect\beta $ and $\protect\sigma $) of various confidence intervals. The nominal coverage probability is $1-\protect\alpha =0.95$ and $p=10$.[]{data-label="table:coverage"}
Table \[table:coverage\] summarizes the estimated minimal coverage probabilities for the various confidence sets and targets, and for the model-selection procedures and data sets considered in the study. The conclusions are pretty much the same for the three data sets. First, we observe that, for $n=20$, the differences of minimal coverage probabilities between the design-dependent and independent targets can be significant, especially for the ‘naive’ intervals and for the other intervals in case the LASSO, SCAD, or MCP model selectors are used. However, for $n=100$, these differences are very small for all the configurations. This is in line with Lemma \[lem:equivalence:beta:betan\] in Appendix \[app:B\], stating that for a large family of model selection procedures, the difference of coverage probabilities between the two targets vanishes, uniformly in $\beta $ and $%
\sigma $, when $n$ increases. For $n=100$, the results are thus almost identical for the two targets: For the five model selection procedures, the confidence intervals obtained from the constants $K_{1}$, $K_{3}$, and $%
K_{4} $ are valid, while the ‘naive’ confidence intervals are moderately too short, so that their minimal coverage probabilities are below the nominal level, with a minimum of $0.84$.
For $n=20$ and when AIC or BIC is used, the ‘naive’ confidence intervals fail to have the right coverage probabilities to a somewhat larger extent than in case $n=100$. Their minimal coverage probabilities can be as small as $0.81$ for the design-dependent target and $0.74$ for the design-independent target. \[Note that, for the design-dependent target, for $%
n=20$ and $n=100$, the coverage probabilities of the ‘naive’ confidence interval are generally smaller for the equicorrelated data set than for the exchangeable data set. This can possibly be explained by the fact that Theorems 6.1 and 6.2 in [@berk13valid] suggest that $K_{1}$ should be larger for the equicorrelated data set than for the exchangeable data set. Hence, for the equicorrelated data set, larger confidence intervals seem to be needed to have the required minimal coverage probability for all model selection procedures.\] Furthermore, again for $n=20$ and when AIC or BIC is used, the confidence intervals obtained from the constants $K_{1}$, $K_{3}$, and $K_{4}$ remain valid here for both targets.
However, when $n=20$ and the LASSO model selector is used, the results for the design-independent target are drastically different from those obtained with the AIC- or BIC-procedures: All confidence intervals have minimal coverage probabilities for the design-independent target that are below, and in most cases significantly below, the nominal level. The failure of all the confidence intervals is here often more pronounced than the failure of the ‘naive’ confidence intervals when other model selectors are used. Especially for the watershed data set, the estimated minimal coverage probability is $%
0.18$ for the ‘naive’ interval and $0.48$ for the confidence interval based on $K_{1}$. The reason for this phenomenon can be traced to the observation that the LASSO model selector, as implemented here and for the parameters used in the stochastic search for the smallest coverage probability, selects models that are significantly smaller than those AIC and BIC select. In particular, the LASSO procedure often excludes regressors for which the corresponding regression coefficients are not small. In our simulation study, selecting a small model, that excludes regressors with significant coefficients, makes the difference between the design-dependent and design-independent targets larger. Since the confidence intervals are designed to cover the former target, they hence have a hard time to cover the latter when the two targets are significantly different. In other words, for $n=20$ the supremum in the display in Condition [cond:model:selection:procedure]{} is not small for the LASSO procedure, so that the asymptotics in Theorem \[theo:asympt:val:CI\] does not provide a good approximation for the finite-sample situation. Finally, for $n=20$ and for the design-independent target, the results for the SCAD and MCP model selectors lie somewhere in between those of the AIC and BIC and those of the LASSO model selectors. Indeed, for SCAD and MCP, the confidence intervals often fail to have the required minimal coverage probabilities, but less severely than for the LASSO. We stress that the preceding conclusions hold for the LASSO, SCAD, and MCP procedures as implemented here that select the penalty by cross-validation. Other implementations of these procedures may of course give different results.
The results in Table \[table:coverage\] concern the coverage probabilities conditional on the design matrix $X$ and on $x_{0}$, and thus depend on the values of $X$ and $x_{0}$ used. In additional (non-exhaustive) simulations we have repeated the above analysis for other values of $X$ and $x_{0}$ and have found similar results.
Comparison with the confidence interval of [lee15exact]{} \[taylor\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section we now compare the confidence intervals of Section [section:design:dependent]{} with a confidence interval recently introduced in [@lee15exact]. Again, we consider the case where $\mu =X\beta $ and $%
d=p<n$, and we focus on the design-dependent target $x_{0}^{\prime }[\hat{M}%
]\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}$. As in [@lee15exact] we consider the known-variance case and set $\sigma =1$ in this section. The confidence interval of [@lee15exact] is dedicated to the LASSO model selector and is given in the `R` package accompanying that paper for the case where $%
x_{0}$ is a standard basis vector. We hence assume in the following that $%
x_{0}$ is equal to the first standard basis vector $e_{1}$. The proposed interval is then conditionally valid for the design-dependent target in the following sense: Consider the model selector $\hat{M}$ obtained by selecting those explanatory variables for which the LASSO estimator has non-zero coefficients, with the penalty parameter $\lambda $ in (4.1) of [lee15exact]{} being fixed, independently of $Y$. Then the interval proposed by [@lee15exact], which we denote by $\bar{CI}$, satisfies, for any fixed $X$, for $x_{0}=e_{1}$, and for any fixed $M\subseteq \{1,...,p\}$ with $1\in M$, $$\inf_{\beta \in \mathbb{R}^{p}}P_{n,\beta ,1}\left( \left. x_{0}^{\prime }[%
\hat{M}]\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}\in \bar{CI}\right\vert \hat{M}=M\right)
=1-\alpha , \label{eq:conditionally:valid}$$with the convention that the probability in the above display is $1$ if $%
P_{n,\beta ,1}(\hat{M}=M)=0$. The computation of $\bar{CI}$ for a given value of $\hat{M}$ can be carried out without observing $x_{0}[\hat{M}^{c}]$, which is also the case for the confidence intervals obtained from $%
K_{2},...,K_{5}$, but not for that obtained from $K_{1}$. Furthermore, the computation of $\bar{CI}$ (when the conditioning additionally is also on the signs, see [@lee15exact] for details) entails a cost that grows linearly with $p$. Thus, $\bar{CI}$ can be implemented for significantly larger values of $p$ than the confidence intervals based on $K_{1},...,K_{4}$ currently can be. We note here for later use that $\bar{CI}$ as given in [@lee15exact] is not defined on the event that a model $\hat{M}$ is selected that does not contain $1$. Hence, we can not speak about unconditional coverage without amending the definition in [@lee15exact]. \[A possible amendment, consistent with our conventions and maximizing unconditional coverage among all possible amendments, is to set $%
x_{0}^{\prime }[\hat{M}]\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}=0$ if $1\notin \hat{M}$ and to set $\bar{CI}=\{0\}$ on this event. With such an amendment, $\bar{CI}$ then a fortiori has minimal unconditional coverage probability not less than $1-\alpha $.\]
Despite being specific to the LASSO model selector with fixed $\lambda $, we nevertheless find below that the confidence interval of [@lee15exact] is *not* shorter than those based on $K_{1}$, $K_{3}$, and $K_{4}$ (presumably due to the fact that (\[eq:conditionally:valid\]) imposes a stricter requirement than requiring only correct unconditional coverage). In addition, we point out that this confidence interval can be very sensitive to deviations from the specific model selector it is designed for: In particular, we show that its coverage can break down, when the LASSO model selector is used but with a *data-dependent* penalty parameter $\lambda
$ selected by cross-validation. This is certainly in stark contrast to the confidence intervals obtained from $K_{1}$, $K_{3}$, and $K_{4}$, that are valid for *any* model selection procedure whatsoever.
We first present the results on confidence interval lengths. We conduct a Monte-Carlo study in the case $p=10$, $n=100$, and $\alpha =0.05$. We use the function `fixedLassoInf` of the `R` package `selectiveInference` to construct the confidence interval of [lee15exact]{}. In line with the presentation in that paper, this function is designed for the cases where $x_{0}$ is one of the standard basis vectors of $\mathbb{R}^{p}$ and thus we set $x_{0}^{\prime }=(1,0,...,0)$ as already mentioned above. We consider two different settings for $X$ and $\beta $. In the ‘independent’ setting, we sample independently $1000$ values of $X$, $%
\beta $, and $Y$ in the following way: We first sample the (transposes of the) rows of $X$ and the vector $\beta $ as $n+1$ independent draws from the standard Gaussian distribution on $\mathbb{R}^{p}$. Given $X$ and $\beta $, we then sample $Y$ from the $N(X\beta ,I_{n})$-distribution. For each of the $1000$ values of $X$, $\beta $, and $Y$ so obtained, we run the LASSO model selector, with $\lambda $ fixed as a function of $X$ as described at the beginning of Section 7 of [@lee15exact]. We use the function `glmnet` of the `R` package `glmnet` to compute the LASSO model selector. Then, if the first variable is included in the selected model, we record the lengths of the confidence interval $\bar{CI}$ and of the confidence intervals obtained from $K_{1}$, $K_{3}$, and $K_{4}$ (where these three constants are computed with $r=\infty $ and $\mathcal{M}$ equal to the power set of $\left\{ 1,\ldots ,p\right\} $). If not, we discard the realization of $X$, $\beta $, and $Y$ (this is in line with the fact that the $\bar{CI}$ is only defined on the event where $1\in \hat{M}$ as discussed above). In the ‘correlated’ setting we proceed as just described, with the only difference that the rows of $X$ are sampled according to the Gaussian distribution with mean vector $0\in \mathbb{R}^{p}$ and covariance matrix $[\exp (-|i-j|/10)]_{i,j=1}^{10}$ and that then $\beta $ is sampled from a random vector $b$, so that $Xb$ follows the standard Gaussian distribution within the column space of $X$. \[We note that this mechanism almost surely generates matrices $X$ that have full column rank.\]
The medians and empirical $90\%$-quantiles of the confidence interval lengths distributions obtained that way are reported in Table [table:comparison:lengths]{}. The conclusion is that there is no unilateral hierarchy of the two methods for confidence interval construction (that of [@lee15exact] and that using the intervals based on $K_{1}$, $K_{3}$, and $K_{4}$) in terms of median length. Depending on the situation, any of the two methods can provide the smallest median length. The $90\%$-quantiles, on the other hand, are always larger for the confidence interval $\bar{CI}$ of [@lee15exact] than for those obtained from $K_{1}$, $K_{3}$, and $K_{4}$. The feature that $\bar{CI}$ can be very long (with small but non-negligible probability) has also been noted in [@lee15exact], and is not shared by the confidence intervals obtained from $K_{1}$, $K_{3}$, and $%
K_{4}$. Note finally that we have obtained the same conclusions in other length simulations, which we do not report for the sake of brevity.
--------- ----------------- --------- --------- --------- ------------
Setting Lengths
$K_{1}$ $K_{3}$ $K_{4}$ $\bar{CI}$
Median 0.46 0.78 0.78 0.43
$90\%$-quantile 0.51 0.85 0.85 1.06
Median 0.56 0.81 0.81 1.42
$90\%$-quantile 0.90 1.30 1.30 14.3
--------- ----------------- --------- --------- --------- ------------
: Medians and empirical quantiles of the lengths of the confidence intervals $\bar{CI}$ of [@lee15exact] and of those obtained from $K_{1}$, $K_{3}$, and $K_{4}$. The nominal coverage probability is $1-%
\protect\alpha =0.95$, $n=100$, and $p=10$.[]{data-label="table:comparison:lengths"}
We now demonstrate that the confidence interval $\bar{CI}$ of [lee15exact]{} can have conditional coverage probability considerably smaller than the nominal one when $\lambda $ is selected by cross-validation. Rather than evaluating the minimal conditional coverage probabilities conditional on $\hat{M}=M$ separately for every $M$ satisfying $1\in M$, which would be quite costly, we evaluate the minimal conditional coverage probability where conditioning is on the event that $1\in \hat{M}$. We denote this quantity by $P_{cond,\min }$. A simple calculation shows that if we find that this latter minimal conditional coverage probability is smaller than $1-\alpha $, then it follows that we must have $$\inf_{\beta \in \mathbb{R}^{p}}P_{n,\beta ,1}\left( \left. x_{0}^{\prime }[%
\hat{M}]\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}\in \bar{CI}\right\vert \hat{M}=M\right)
<1-\alpha$$for at least some $M$ satisfying $1\in M$, showing that property ([eq:conditionally:valid]{}) is violated. \[To see this, note that $P_{n,\beta
,1}(\left. \cdot \right\vert 1\in \hat{M})$ is a convex combination (over all $M$ with $1\in M$) of the probabilities $P_{n,\beta ,1}(\left. \cdot
\right\vert \hat{M}=M)$, with the (nonnegative) weights summing to $1$.\]
In order to numerically evaluate the minimal conditional coverage probability $P_{cond,\min }$ we proceed as follows: We consider eight configurations given by all the possible combinations of $n=20,100$, $p=2,10$ and $\alpha =0.05,0.2$. Recall that $x_{0}^{\prime }=(1,0,...,0)$. For each of these eight configurations, the (transpose of the) rows of $X$ are sampled once from the $N(0,\Sigma )$-distribution and then remain fixed throughout the minimal coverage probability evaluation. For $p=2$, we take $%
\Sigma $ to have $1$ as the diagonal and $0.8$ as the off-diagonal elements. For $p=10$, we define $\mathbf{X}^{(p)}(c)$ as in Section 6.2 of [berk13valid]{}, with $c=\sqrt{0.8/(p-1)}$ and we set $\Sigma =(\mathbf{X}%
^{(p)}(c))^{\prime }(\mathbf{X}^{(p)}(c))$. For each of these eight configurations, we carry out the three-step minimal coverage probability evaluation of Section \[minimal\_cov\_prob\_numerical\], with the same values of $m_{1}$, $m_{2}$ and $I_{1}$, $I_{2}$, $I_{3}$ (with the only difference that in the third step the coverage probability is reevaluated only for one value $\beta (1)$, say, where $\beta (1)$ corresponds to that value of $%
\beta $ that gives the smallest estimate for the coverage probability in the second step). When we evaluate a conditional coverage probability for a given $\beta $ in this process, we proceed as follows: We sample $I_{1}$ (or $I_{2}$ or $I_{3}$) values of $Y$ from the $N(X\beta ,I_{n})$ distribution. For each value of $Y$ we run the model selection procedure $\hat{M}$, where $%
\lambda =\hat{\lambda}$ is first selected by cross-validation with the `cv.glmnet` function of the `R` package `glmnet`, and where the `glmnet` function is then used to compute the selected model with the LASSO with penalty parameter $\hat{\lambda}$. Then, if the selected model does not contain the first explanatory variable, we discard the value of $Y$, and else, we record whether the design-dependent target belongs to $%
\bar{CI}$ or not. The conditional coverage probability is then obtained by taking the average number of times this is the case, over all the recorded events.
The evaluated minimal conditional coverage probabilities $\hat{P}_{cond,\min
}$, say, are presented in Table \[table:minimal:cond:coverage\]. For comparison, we also provide similar evaluations of minimal conditional coverage probabilities, with the same above-described procedure, but with $%
\lambda $ now fixed as a function of $X$ as in the beginning of Section 7 of [@lee15exact]. When $\lambda $ is fixed, these minimal conditional coverage probabilities are approximately equal to the nominal level $%
1-\alpha $, in agreement with the results of [@lee15exact]. However, when $\lambda $ is selected by cross-validation, the evaluated minimal conditional coverage probabilities can be way below the nominal level. In particular, these probabilities can be equal to $0.31$ for a nominal level of $0.80$ and to $0.86$ for a nominal level of $0.95$.
In addition, for $\lambda $ selected by cross-validation and in all the configurations of $n$, $p$, and $\alpha $, for the vector $\beta $ leading to the minimal conditional coverage probability $\hat{P}_{cond,\min }$, we can also estimate the unconditional coverage probability $P_{n,\beta
,1}(x_{0}^{\prime }[\hat{M}]\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}\in \bar{CI})$ by $\hat{P}%
(1\in \hat{M})\hat{P}_{cond,\min }+\hat{P}(1\not\in \hat{M})$. \[Here we make use of the aforementioned amendment to $\bar{CI}$ in order to allow for a well-defined unconditional coverage probability.\] In this estimate, $\hat{P}%
(1\in \hat{M})$ is the proportion of times the first regressor belongs to $%
\hat{M}$, over the $I_{3}$ Monte-Carlo samples. The so evaluated unconditional coverage probabilities are $0.60$ for $p=2$, $n=100$, $%
1-\alpha =0.80$ and $0.91$ for $p=2$, $n=100$, $1-\alpha =0.95$, which implies that the confidence intervals of [@lee15exact] also have minimal *unconditional* coverage probabilities below the nominal level when $%
\lambda $ is estimated by cross-validation.
----- ----- ------------- ------------------ ------------------------
$p$ $n$ $1-\alpha $
Fixed $\lambda $ CV-selected $\lambda $
$0.80$ $0.80$ $0.43$
$0.95$ $0.95$ $0.93$
$0.80$ $0.80$ $0.31$
$0.95$ $0.95$ $0.86$
$0.80$ $0.79$ $0.79$
$0.95$ $0.94$ 0.$93$
$0.80$ $0.79$ $0.70$
$0.95$ $0.95$ $0.92$
----- ----- ------------- ------------------ ------------------------
: Monte-Carlo estimates of the minimal conditional coverage probabilities (w.r.t. $\protect\beta $ and $\protect\sigma $) of the confidence intervals of [@lee15exact], with the LASSO model selector where $\protect\lambda $ is either fixed or selected by cross validation.[]{data-label="table:minimal:cond:coverage"}
The conclusion of this comparison, and particularly of the evaluations of minimal coverage probabilities, is that, although the confidence intervals of [@lee15exact] are conditionally valid and convenient to compute, their current applicability appears to be restricted to the case where the tuning parameter $\lambda $ is fixed. \[An extension of the strategy of [lee15exact]{} to cross-validated versions of LASSO has recently been studied in [@LoftTay15] and [@Loftus15]. This extension, however, comes with significantly higher computational cost.\] This also highlights the benefit of the confidence intervals introduced in Section [section:design:dependent]{}, which are intrinsically designed to be valid for any model selection procedure whatsoever.
Conclusion\[conclusio\]
=======================
We have extended the PoSI confidence intervals of [@berk13valid] to PoSI intervals for predictors. The coverage targets of our intervals, i.e., $%
x_{0}^{\prime }[\hat{M}]\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}$ and $x_{0}^{\prime }[\hat{M}%
]\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(\star )}$, respectively, minimize a certain in-sample prediction error and, under additional assumptions relating the training period to the prediction period, also a certain out-of-sample prediction error. For in-sample prediction, i.e., for the target $x_{0}^{\prime }[\hat{M%
}]\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}$, our intervals are valid, in finite samples, irrespective of the model selection procedure that is being used. For out-of-sample prediction, i.e., for the target $x_{0}^{\prime }[\hat{M}%
]\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(\star )}$, the same is true asymptotically under very mild assumptions on the underlying model selector. See also [@Gree04a] for optimality results related to the latter target and for its feasible counterpart, under appropriate sparsity conditions.
Two types of confidence intervals were studied here: The first one (corresponding to the constant $K_{1}(x_{0},\hat{M})$) depends on all components of the vector $x_{0}$ (even if only a subset of these components is ‘active’ in the selected model $\hat{M}$) and thus is feasible only if $%
x_{0}$ is observed completely. The intervals of the second type (corresponding to the constants $K_{2}(x_{0}[\hat{M}],\hat{M})$, $%
K_{3}(x_{0}[\hat{M}],\hat{M})$, and $K_{4}$) depend only on the active components in the selected model, i.e., on $x_{0}[\hat{M}]$. The constants $%
K_{2}$, $K_{3}$, and $K_{4}$ correspond to successively larger confidence intervals.
Computing the constant $K_{2}$ was found to be quite expensive in practice. For computing the remaining constants, simple algorithms were presented. The computational complexity of our algorithms for computing $K_{1}$ and $K_{3}$ is governed by the number of candidate models under consideration, limiting computations to a few million candidate models in practice. Computation of $%
K_{4}$ is easy and not limited by complexity constraints (see, however, the warning about numerical stability in Remark \[stability\] in Appendix [section:practical:algorithms]{}). Our algorithms are of similar computational complexity as those proposed in [@berk13valid].
We furthermore have studied the behavior of these constants and of the corresponding confidence intervals through analytic results in a setting where model dimension is allowed to grow with sample size, and also through simulations. These results provide evidence that $K_{4}$, which is relatively cheap to compute, is a reasonably tight bound for the computationally more expensive constants $K_{1}$ to $K_{3}$. Furthermore, these results show that all the constants $K_{1}$ to $K_{4}$ are ‘bounded away’ from the Scheffé constant.
We have also provided simulation results regarding the coverage probabilities of the various intervals introduced in the paper. We find that the asymptotic results in Section \[section:distribution:dependent\] regarding the design-independent target already ‘kick-in’ at moderate sample sizes, and these results demonstrate that the PoSI confidence intervals for the predictors maintain the desired minimal coverage probability. The simulation study also shows that ‘naive’ confidence intervals, which ignore the data-driven model selection step and which use standard confidence procedures as if the selected model were correct and given a priori, are invalid also in the setting considered here (which is in line with earlier findings in [@leeb13various], where inter alia ‘naive’ confidence intervals for components of $\beta _{\hat{M}}^{(n)}$ were studied). Furthermore, studying the confidence intervals developed for model selection with the LASSO by [@lee15exact], and others, we find that these intervals are invalid if the LASSO penalty is chosen by cross-validation. This contrasts the established fact that these intervals are valid (conditionally on the event that a given model is selected), if the penalty is fixed in advance.
**Acknowledgement.** We thank the referees and an Associate Editor for thoughtful feedback and constructive comments. The first author acknowledges constructive discussions with Lukas Steinberger and Nina Senitschnig on the topic of the paper. The second author acknowledges partial support from the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) projects P 28233-N32 and P 26354-N26.
Appendix: Proofs for Section \[section:design:dependent\] \[app A\]
===================================================================
\[lem:a1\] Suppose $W$ is a random $m\times 1$ vector that has a density that is positive almost everywhere. Let $a_{1},\ldots ,a_{L}$, for some $%
L\in \mathbb{N}$, be elements of $\mathbb{R}^{m}$, not all of which are zero. Define $h(w)=\max_{l=1,\ldots ,L}\left\vert a_{l}^{\prime
}w\right\vert $, and set $H\left( t\right) =\Pr \left( h\left( W\right) \leq
t\right) $ for $t\in \mathbb{R}$. Then $H$ is continuous on $\mathbb{R}$, satisfies $H\left( t\right) =0$ for $t\leq 0$, and is strictly increasing on $\left[ 0,\infty \right) $.
**Proof:** For $t<0$ the event $\left\{ h\left( W\right) \leq t\right\}
$ is empty; for $t=0$ this event is an intersection of the sets $\left\{
a_{l}^{\prime }W=0\right\} $ where at least one of these sets has probability zero because $W$ possesses a density and not all $a_{l}$ are zero. Consequently, $H\left( t\right) =0$ for $t\leq 0$ follows. Because $H$ is a distribution function, continuity of $H$ on $\mathbb{R}$ will follow if we can establish continuity on $\left( 0,\infty \right) $. Now, for every $%
t>0$ the event $\left\{ h\left( W\right) =t\right\} $ is contained in the union of the events $\left\{ \left\vert a_{l}^{\prime }W\right\vert
=t\right\} $ for which $a_{l}\neq 0$ holds. Since any of these events has probability zero, it follows that $\Pr \left( \left\{ h\left( W\right)
=t\right\} \right) =0$ and consequently $H$ is continuous on $\left(
0,\infty \right) $. It remains to establish the claim regarding strict monotonicity: For $t>0$ the set $A(t)=\left\{ w:h\left( w\right) \leq
t\right\} $ contains a sufficiently small ball centered at the origin because $h\left( 0\right) =0$ and $h$ is continuous, and consequently $%
H\left( t\right) >0$ follows by the assumption on the density of $W$. It hence suffices to show that $0<t_{1}<t_{2}$ implies $H\left( t_{1}\right)
<H\left( t_{2}\right) $. Because not all $a_{l}$ are zero and $h$ is positively homogeneous of degree one, we can find an element $w_{1}\in
A(t_{1})$ such that $h\left( w_{1}\right) =t_{1}$ holds. But then there exists an $l_{1}$ such that $\left\vert a_{l_{1}}^{\prime }w_{1}\right\vert
=t_{1}$ and $\left\vert a_{l}^{\prime }w_{1}\right\vert \leq t_{1}$ for all $%
l$ hold. In fact, we may assume that $a_{l_{1}}^{\prime }w_{1}=t_{1}$ holds (otherwise we change the sign of $w_{1}$). Consider the set $B$ consisting of all $w\in \mathbb{R}^{m}$ such that $a_{l_{1}}^{\prime }\left(
w-w_{1}\right) >0$ and such that $\left\vert a_{l}^{\prime }\left(
w-w_{1}\right) \right\vert <\left( t_{2}-t_{1}\right) /2$ for every $l$. Then $B\subseteq A(t_{2})\backslash A(t_{1})$ holds, since for $w\in B$$$h\left( w\right) \leq \max_{l=1,\ldots ,L}\left\vert a_{l}^{\prime }\left(
w-w_{1}\right) \right\vert +h\left( w_{1}\right) <\left( t_{2}-t_{1}\right)
/2+t_{1}=\left( t_{1}+t_{2}\right) /2<t_{2},$$$$a_{l_{1}}^{\prime }w>a_{l_{1}}^{\prime }w_{1}=t_{1}>0,$$and hence also $h\left( w\right) \geq \left\vert a_{l_{1}}^{\prime
}w\right\vert >t_{1}$ hold. But $B$ obviously has positive Lebesgue measure, implying that $H\left( t_{2}\right) -H\left( t_{1}\right) =\Pr \left(
A(t_{2})\backslash A(t_{1})\right) >0$. $\blacksquare $
In the special case where $W=W_{1}W_{2}$ with $W_{1}$ a random $%
m\times 1$ vector having a density that is positive almost everywhere, with $%
W_{2}$ a random variable that is independent of $W_{1}$, is positive almost surely, and has a density that is almost everywhere positive on $\left(
0,\infty \right) $, an alternative, and perhaps simpler, proof is as follows: Set $H^{\ast }\left( t\right) =\Pr \left( h\left( W_{1}\right) \leq
t\right) $. We conclude that $H^{\ast }$ is continuous on $\mathbb{R}$ and satisfies $H^{\ast }\left( t\right) =0$ for $t\leq 0$ by repeating the corresponding arguments in the preceding proof. The same properties for $%
H\left( t\right) =\mathbb{E}_{W_{2}}H^{\ast }\left( t/W_{2}\right) $ then follow immediately. To establish strict monotonicity of $H$ on $\left[
0,\infty \right) $ consider $0\leq t_{1}<t_{2}$. It is not difficult to see that we can then find $w_{2}>0$ such that $H^{\ast }\left(
t_{1}/w_{2}\right) <H^{\ast }\left( t_{2}/w_{2}\right) $ holds since otherwise $H^{\ast }$ would have to be constant on $\left[ 0,\infty \right) $ which is impossible since $H^{\ast }\left( 0\right) =0$ and $H^{\ast }$ is a distribution function. By continuity of $H^{\ast }$ then also $H^{\ast
}\left( t_{1}/w_{2}^{\prime }\right) <H^{\ast }\left( t_{2}/w_{2}^{\prime
}\right) $ must hold for every $w_{2}^{\prime }$ in a sufficiently small neighborhood of $w_{2}$. Since $H^{\ast }$ is nondecreasing and since the distribution of $W_{2}$ puts positive mass on the aforementioned neighborhood, we can conclude that $\mathbb{E}_{W_{2}}H^{\ast }\left(
t_{1}/W_{2}\right) <\mathbb{E}_{W_{2}}H^{\ast }\left( t_{2}/W_{2}\right) $, i.e., that $H\left( t_{1}\right) <H\left( t_{2}\right) $ holds.
The following lemma will be used in the proof of Proposition [prop:PoSI:upper:bound]{} below.
\[lem:a2\] Suppose $F^{\ast }$ is a distribution function on $\mathbb{R}$ that is continuous at zero. Let $S$ be a random variable that is positive with probability one and has a continuous distribution function. Then $%
F\left( t\right) =\mathbb{E}_{S}F^{\ast }\left( t/S\right) $ is continuous on $\mathbb{R}$.
**Proof:** Let $S^{\ast }$ be a random variable which is independent of $S$ and which has distribution function $F^{\ast }$. Then $F(t)=\mathbb{E}%
_{S}\mathbb{E}_{S^{\ast }}\boldsymbol{1}\left( S^{\ast }\leq t/S\right) =\Pr
\left( SS^{\ast }\leq t\right) $. Because $S^{\ast }\neq 0$ holds almost surely by the assumption on $F^{\ast }$, we have $\Pr \left( SS^{\ast
}=t\right) =\mathbb{E}_{S^{\ast }}\mathbb{E}_{S}\boldsymbol{1}\left(
S=t/S^{\ast }\right) $. Since $S$ has a continuous distribution function, we have $\mathbb{E}_{S}\boldsymbol{1}\left( S=t/S^{\ast }\right) =0$ almost surely, implying that $\Pr \left( SS^{\ast }=t\right) =0$. $\blacksquare $
**Proof of Proposition \[prop:PoSI:upper:bound\]:** To prove the first claim observe that in case $M=\left\{ 1,\ldots ,p\right\} $ we have $%
c(M,\mathcal{M})=0$ and that $x_{0}=0$ implies $\bar{s}_{M_{\ast }}=0$ for every $M_{\ast }$; thus it is obvious that $F_{M,x_{0}}^{\ast }$, and hence also $F_{M,x_{0}}$, is the indicator function of $\left[ 0,\infty \right) $, which then implies $K_{3}(x_{0}{[M],M)=0}$. If $M=\left\{ 1,\ldots
,p\right\} $ but $x_{0}\neq 0$, then $F_{M,x_{0}}$ is continuous on $\mathbb{%
R}$, satisfies $F_{M,x_{0}}\left( t\right) =0$ for $t\leq 0$, and is strictly increasing on $\left[ 0,\infty \right) $ in view of Lemma [lem:a1]{}, since in this case $F_{M,x_{0}}\left( t\right) $ reduces to $%
P_{n,\mu ,\sigma }\left( \max_{M_{\ast }\in \mathcal{M}}\left\vert \bar{s}%
_{M_{\ast }}^{\prime }\left( Y-\mu \right) \right\vert /\hat{\sigma}\leq
t\right) $ (see (\[bound\_1\]) and (\[expression\]) below) and since not all $\bar{s}_{M_{\ast }}$ can be zero (in view of our assumptions on $%
\mathcal{M}$).
In case $M\in \mathcal{M}$ is a proper subset of $\left\{ 1,\ldots
,p\right\} $ and $p>1$ holds we argue as follows: Note that then $%
F_{M,x_{0}}^{\ast }\left( 0\right) =0$ holds since now $c(M,\mathcal{M})\geq
1$ holds and since $F_{Beta,1/2,(d-1)/2}\left( 0\right) =0$. Hence $%
F_{M,x_{0}}^{\ast }$ is continuous at $t=0$. We may apply Lemma \[lem:a2\] to conclude that $F_{M,x_{0}}$ is continuous on $\mathbb{R}$ and thus satisfies $F_{M,x_{0}}\left( 0\right) =0$ (since $F_{M,x_{0}}\left( t\right)
=0$ for $t<0$ by its definition). Next let $0\leq t_{1}<t_{2}$. Because $%
F_{M,x_{0}}^{\ast }\left( 0\right) =0$ as noted before and because $%
F_{M,x_{0}}^{\ast }\left( 1\right) =1$ (since $\Pr \left( \max_{M_{\ast
}\subseteq M}\left\vert \bar{s}_{M_{\ast }}^{\prime }V\right\vert >1\right)
=0$ and $F_{Beta,1/2,(d-1)/2}\left( 1\right) =1$) we thus can find a positive $g_{0}$ such that $F_{M,x_{0}}^{\ast }\left( t_{1}/g_{0}\right)
<F_{M,x_{0}}^{\ast }\left( t_{2}/g_{0}\right) $ holds (if not, constancy of $%
F_{M,x_{0}}^{\ast }$ on $\left[ 0,\infty \right) $ would have to follow). Because of continuity from the right at $t_{1}/g_{0}$ it follows that $%
F_{M,x_{0}}^{\ast }\left( t_{1}/g\right) <F_{M,x_{0}}^{\ast }\left(
t_{2}/g\right) $ also holds for all $g<g_{0}$ in a sufficiently small neighborhood of $g_{0}$ that is contained in $\left( 0,\infty \right) $. Because $F_{M,x_{0}}^{\ast }\left( t_{1}/g\right) \leq F_{M,x_{0}}^{\ast
}\left( t_{2}/g\right) $ holds for every $g>0$ and because $G$ has a density that is positive everywhere on $\left( 0,\infty \right) $, the strict inequality $\mathbb{E}_{G}F_{M,x_{0}}^{\ast }\left( t_{1}/G\right) <\mathbb{E%
}_{G}F_{M,x_{0}}^{\ast }\left( t_{2}/G\right) $ follows. This establishes strict monotonicity of $F_{M,x_{0}}$ on $\left[ 0,\infty \right) $ also in this case.
Finally, if $M\in \mathcal{M}$ is a proper subset of $\left\{ 1,\ldots
,p\right\} $ and $p=1$ holds, then $M$ is empty and $d=1$ must hold, and hence $F_{M,x_{0}}^{\ast }$ reduces to the indicator function of $\left[
1,\infty \right) $. But then $F_{M,x_{0}}\left( t\right) =\Pr \left( G\leq
t\right) $ which obviously is continuous on $\mathbb{R}$, takes the value zero at $t=0$, and is strictly increasing on $\left[ 0,\infty \right) $. This completes the proof of the first claim.
To prove the remaining claims observe that $\bar{s}_{M_{\ast }}$ belongs to the column space of $X$ for every $M_{\ast }\in \mathcal{M}$ and hence we have$$\begin{aligned}
&&P_{n,\mu ,\sigma }\left( \max_{M_{\ast }\in \mathcal{M}}\left\vert \bar{s}%
_{M_{\ast }}^{\prime }\left( Y-\mu \right) \right\vert /\hat{\sigma}>t\right)
\notag \\
&=&P_{n,\mu ,\sigma }\left( \max_{M_{\ast }\in \mathcal{M}}\left\vert \bar{s}%
_{M_{\ast }}^{\prime }P_{X}\left( Y-\mu \right) /\left\Vert P_{X}\left(
Y-\mu \right) \right\Vert \right\vert >\left( \hat{\sigma}/\left\Vert
P_{X}\left( Y-\mu \right) \right\Vert \right) t\right) ,\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ }
\label{bound_1}\end{aligned}$$where $P_{X}\left( Y-\mu \right) /\left\Vert P_{X}\left( Y-\mu \right)
\right\Vert $ and $\left\Vert P_{X}\left( Y-\mu \right) \right\Vert /\hat{%
\sigma}$ are independent since the random variables $P_{X}\left( Y-\mu
\right) /\left\Vert P_{X}\left( Y-\mu \right) \right\Vert $, $\left\Vert
P_{X}\left( Y-\mu \right) \right\Vert $, and $\hat{\sigma}$ are mutually independent. \[Observe that $P_{X}\left( Y-\mu \right) $ is nonzero with probability $1$ since $d\geq 1$ holds.\] Consequently, the probability given above can be represented as $$\Pr \left( \max_{M_{\ast }\in \mathcal{M}}\left\vert \bar{s}_{M_{\ast
}}^{\prime }V\right\vert >t/G\right) \label{expression}$$where $V$ and $G$ are independent and otherwise are as in the definition of $%
F_{M,x_{0}}^{\ast }$ and $F_{M,x_{0}}$. Now, using first independence of $V$ and $G$ and then a union bound twice we have for $M\in \mathcal{M}$ and $%
t\geq 0$$$\begin{aligned}
&&\Pr \left( \max_{M_{\ast }\in \mathcal{M}}\left\vert \bar{s}_{M_{\ast
}}^{\prime }V\right\vert >t/G\right) =\int \Pr \left( \max_{M_{\ast }\in
\mathcal{M}}\left\vert \bar{s}_{M_{\ast }}^{\prime }V\right\vert >t/g\right)
dF_{G}(g) \notag \\
&\leq &\int \min \left[ 1,\Pr \left( \max_{M_{\ast }\in \mathcal{M},M_{\ast
}\subseteq M}\left\vert \bar{s}_{M_{\ast }}^{\prime }V\right\vert
>t/g\right) +\Pr \left( \max_{M_{\ast }\in \mathcal{M},M_{\ast }\nsubseteqq
M}\left\vert \bar{s}_{M_{\ast }}^{\prime }V\right\vert >t/g\right) \right]
dF_{G}(g) \notag \\
&\leq &\int \min \left[ 1,\Pr \left( \max_{M_{\ast }\in \mathcal{M},M_{\ast
}\subseteq M}\left\vert \bar{s}_{M_{\ast }}^{\prime }V\right\vert
>t/g\right) +\sum_{M_{\ast }\in \mathcal{M},M_{\ast }\nsubseteqq M}\Pr
\left( \left\vert \bar{s}_{M_{\ast }}^{\prime }V\right\vert >t/g\right) %
\right] dF_{G}(g) \notag \\
&=&\int \min \left[ 1,\Pr \left( \max_{M_{\ast }\in \mathcal{M},M_{\ast
}\subseteq M}\left\vert \bar{s}_{M_{\ast }}^{\prime }V\right\vert
>t/g\right) +\sum_{M_{\ast }\in \mathcal{M},M_{\ast }\nsubseteqq M}\Pr
\left( \left( \bar{s}_{M_{\ast }}^{\prime }V\right) ^{2}>t^{2}/g^{2}\right) %
\right] dF_{G}(g) \notag \\
&\leq &\int \left( 1-F_{M,x_{0}}^{\ast }\left( t/g\right) \right) dF_{G}(g)=%
\mathbb{E}_{G}\left( 1-F_{M,x_{0}}^{\ast }\left( t/G\right) \right)
=1-F_{M,x_{0}}\left( t\right) , \label{bound_2}\end{aligned}$$where $F_{G}$ here denotes the c.d.f. of $G$. The last inequality follows from the fact that $\Pr \left( \left( \bar{s}_{M_{\ast }}^{\prime }V\right)
^{2}>t^{2}/g^{2}\right) $ is either equal to zero (if $\bar{s}_{M_{\ast }}=0$) or is equal to $1-F_{Beta,1/2,(d-1)/2}\left( t^{2}/g^{2}\right) $ (if $%
\bar{s}_{M_{\ast }}\neq 0$) as is easy to see; for the case where $M$ is the empty set also observe that $\Pr \left( \max_{M_{\ast }\in \mathcal{M}%
,M_{\ast }\subseteq M}\left\vert \bar{s}_{M_{\ast }}^{\prime }V\right\vert
>t/g\right) =0$ for $t\geq 0$ because $\bar{s}_{\varnothing }=0$. In view of (\[eq:def:posi:xzero\]) the chain of inequalities in (\[bound\_1\])-([bound\_2]{}) establishes $K_{1}(x_{0})\leq K_{3}(x_{0}[M],M)$. It follows that $K_{1}(x)\leq K_{3}(x[M],M)=K_{3}(x_{0}[M],M)$ for every $x$ satisfying $%
x[M]=x_{0}[M]$, implying $K_{2}(x_{0}[M],M)\leq K_{3}(x_{0}[M],M)$. The inequality (\[eq:monoton:1\]) is obvious and inequality (\[eq:monoton:2\]) follows since for $t\geq 0$ we have (again noting that expressions like $%
\Pr \left( \max_{M_{\ast }\in \mathcal{M},M_{\ast }\subseteq
M_{1}}\left\vert \bar{s}_{M_{\ast }}^{\prime }V\right\vert >t\right) $ for $%
t\geq 0$ are equal to zero if $M_{1}$ is empty)$$\begin{aligned}
&&\Pr \left( \max_{M_{\ast }\in \mathcal{M},M_{\ast }\subseteq
M_{2}}\left\vert \bar{s}_{M_{\ast }}^{\prime }V\right\vert >t\right)
+c(M_{2},\mathcal{M})\left( 1-F_{Beta,1/2,(d-1)/2}\left( t^{2}\right) \right)
\\
&\leq &\Pr \left( \max_{M_{\ast }\in \mathcal{M},M_{\ast }\subseteq
M_{1}}\left\vert \bar{s}_{M_{\ast }}^{\prime }V\right\vert >t\right) +\Pr
\left( \max_{M_{\ast }\in \mathcal{M},M_{\ast }\subseteq M_{2},M_{\ast
}\nsubseteqq M_{1}}\left\vert \bar{s}_{M_{\ast }}^{\prime }V\right\vert
>t\right) \\
&&+c(M_{2},\mathcal{M})\left( 1-F_{Beta,1/2,(d-1)/2}\left( t^{2}\right)
\right) \\
&\leq &\Pr \left( \max_{M_{\ast }\in \mathcal{M},M_{\ast }\subseteq
M_{1}}\left\vert \bar{s}_{M_{\ast }}^{\prime }V\right\vert >t\right)
+\sum_{M_{\ast }\in \mathcal{M},M_{\ast }\subseteq M_{2},M_{\ast
}\nsubseteqq M_{1}}\Pr \left( \left\vert \bar{s}_{M_{\ast }}^{\prime
}V\right\vert >t\right) \\
&&+c(M_{2},\mathcal{M})\left( 1-F_{Beta,1/2,(d-1)/2}\left( t^{2}\right)
\right) \\
&\leq &\Pr \left( \max_{M_{\ast }\in \mathcal{M},M_{\ast }\subseteq
M_{1}}\left\vert \bar{s}_{M_{\ast }}^{\prime }V\right\vert >t\right)
+c(M_{1},\mathcal{M})\left( 1-F_{Beta,1/2,(d-1)/2}\left( t^{2}\right)
\right) .\end{aligned}$$The relation $K_{3}(x_{0}[M],M)\leq K_{4}$ is now immediate. Finally, $%
1-F_{\varnothing ,x_{0}}^{\ast }\left( t\right) \leq 1$ for all $t\in
\mathbb{R}$ and $1-F_{\varnothing ,x_{0}}^{\ast }\left( t\right) =0$ for $%
t>1 $ lead to$$\begin{aligned}
1-F_{\varnothing ,x_{0}}\left( t\right) &=&\mathbb{E}_{G}\left(
1-F_{\varnothing ,x_{0}}^{\ast }\left( t/G\right) \right) =\mathbb{E}%
_{G}\left( \left( 1-F_{\varnothing ,x_{0}}^{\ast }\left( t/G\right) \right)
\boldsymbol{1}\left( t\leq G\right) \right) \\
&\leq &\mathbb{E}_{G}\boldsymbol{1}\left( t\leq G\right) =1-\Pr \left( G\leq
t\right) ,\end{aligned}$$which proves $K_{4}\leq K_{5}$. $\blacksquare $
\[lem:case:p:egal:2\] Assume $p=2$ and $n\geq 2$. Then there exists a design matrix $X$ with full column rank and a vector $x_{0}$ such that $%
K_{4}=K_{1}(x_{0})$ for $\mathcal{M}$ the power set of $\left\{ 1,2\right\} $.
**Proof:** Assume first that $n=2$. In view of the definition of $%
K_{4}=K_{3}\left( x_{0}[\varnothing ],\varnothing \right) $ it suffices to exhibit a $2\times 2$ matrix $X$ and a $2\times 1$ vector $x_{0}$ such that equality holds between the far l.h.s. and the far r.h.s. of (\[bound\_2\]) for $M=\varnothing $ and all $t\geq 0$. Inspection of (\[bound\_2\]) shows that for this it suffices to find $X$ and $x_{0}$ such that$$\Pr \left( \max_{\varnothing \neq M_{\ast }\subseteq \left\{ 1,2\right\}
}\left\vert \bar{s}_{M_{\ast }}^{\prime }V\right\vert >c\right) =\min \left(
1,\sum_{\varnothing \neq M_{\ast }\subseteq \left\{ 1,2\right\} }\Pr \left(
\left\vert \bar{s}_{M_{\ast }}^{\prime }V\right\vert >c\right) \right)$$holds for every $c\geq 0$ and that $\bar{s}_{M_{\ast }}^{\prime }\neq 0$ for every $\varnothing \neq M_{\ast }\subseteq \left\{ 1,2\right\} $. This is achieved for $$X=X^{(2)}=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & \cos \left( 2\pi /3\right) \\
0 & \sin \left( 2\pi /3\right)%
\end{array}%
\right]$$and $x_{0}^{\prime }=x_{0}^{(2)\prime }=\left( \cos \left( 4\pi /3\right)
,\sin \left( 4\pi /3\right) \right) X^{(2)}$: Then $\bar{s}_{\left\{
1\right\} }^{\prime }=-\left( 1,0\right) $, $\bar{s}_{\left\{ 2\right\}
}^{\prime }=-\left( \cos \left( 2\pi /3\right) ,\sin \left( 2\pi /3\right)
\right) $, and $\bar{s}_{\left\{ 1,2\right\} }^{\prime }=\left( \cos \left(
4\pi /3\right) ,\sin \left( 4\pi /3\right) \right) $. Consequently, the event $\left\{ \max_{\varnothing \neq M_{\ast }\subseteq \left\{ 1,2\right\}
}\left\vert \bar{s}_{M_{\ast }}^{\prime }V\right\vert >c\right\} $ is either the entire space or is the disjoint union of the events $\{\left\vert \bar{s}%
_{\left\{ 1\right\} }^{\prime }V\right\vert >c\}$, $\{\left\vert \bar{s}%
_{\left\{ 2\right\} }^{\prime }V\right\vert >c\}$ and $\{\left\vert \bar{s}%
_{\left\{ 1,2\right\} }^{\prime }V\right\vert >c\}$. In the case $n>2$ simply set $$X=\left( X^{(2)\prime },0,\ldots ,0\right) ^{\prime }$$and $x_{0}^{\prime }=\left( \cos \left( 4\pi /3\right) ,\sin \left( 4\pi
/3\right) ,0,\ldots ,0\right) X$. $\blacksquare $
Further examples of pairs $X$, $x_{0}$ satisfying the above lemma can be generated from the matrix $X$ constructed in the proof by premultiplying $X$ by an orthogonal matrix and leaving $x_{0}$ unchanged.
**Proof of Proposition \[constants\_1\]:** (a) The distribution of $%
\omega =\max_{M\in \mathcal{M}}\left\vert \bar{s}_{M}^{\prime }\left( Y-\mu
\right) \right\vert /\sigma $ does clearly not change if $X$ is replaced by $%
AX$, where $A$ is an orthogonal $n\times n$ matrix. Furthermore, scaling the columns of $X$ and the corresponding columns of $x_{0}^{\prime }$ by the same (column-specific) positive constants does not alter $\max_{M\in
\mathcal{M}}\left\vert \bar{s}_{M}^{\prime }\left( Y-\mu \right) \right\vert
/\sigma $. Hence, we may assume w.l.o.g. that $X$ consist of the first $p$ standard basis vectors of $\mathbb{R}^{n}$. Then choose $x_{0}^{\prime }$ as the $1\times p$ vector $(1,\ldots ,1)$. It follows that $\omega $ can be written as$$\max_{M\in \mathcal{M}}\left\vert \sum_{i\in M}Z_{i}\right\vert /\sqrt{%
\left\vert M\right\vert }$$where $Z_{i}$ are i.i.d. standard normal and where we use the convention that the expression in the display is zero if $\left\vert M\right\vert =0$. For a positive real $b$ define the random set $\tilde{M}=\left\{ i\in
\{1,...,p\}:Z_{i}\geq b\right\} $. Since for any realization of the random variables $Z_{i}$ we have that $\tilde{M}\in \mathcal{M}$, we must have$$\omega /\sqrt{p}\geq p^{-1/2}\left\vert \sum_{i\in \tilde{M}%
}Z_{i}\right\vert /\sqrt{\left\vert \tilde{M}\right\vert }=\left\vert
p^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{p}Z_{i}\boldsymbol{1}(Z_{i}\geq b)\right\vert /\sqrt{%
p^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{p}\boldsymbol{1}(Z_{i}\geq b)}.$$By the law of large numbers we obtain that the r.h.s. converges to $\phi (b)/%
\sqrt{1-\Phi (b)}$ almost surely. Because $K_{1}(x_{0},\infty )/\sqrt{p}$ is the $(1-\alpha )$-quantile of $\omega /\sqrt{p}$ with $\alpha $ independent of $p$ and since $b>0$ was arbitrary, the first claim follows. The second claim follows immediately by choosing $x_{0}$ equal to a $p\times 1$ standard basis vector and by noting that then $\omega $ is distributed as the absolute value of a standard normal variable.
\(b) For the same reasons as given at the beginning of the proof of part (a) we have for every $p$ that $$\begin{aligned}
&&\inf_{x_{0}\in \mathbb{R}^{p}}\inf_{X\in \mathsf{X}(p)}\inf_{M\in \mathcal{%
M},|M|\leq \gamma p}K_{2}(x_{0}[M],M,\infty ,X,\alpha ,\mathcal{M})/\sqrt{p}
\notag \\
&=&\inf_{x_{0}\in \mathbb{R}^{p}}\inf_{n\geq p}\inf_{M\in \mathcal{M}%
,|M|\leq \gamma p}K_{2}(x_{0}[M],M,\infty ,(I_{p},0_{p\times (n-p)})^{\prime
},\alpha ,\mathcal{M})/\sqrt{p} \label{first_display} \\
&=&\inf_{x_{0}\in \mathbb{R}^{p}}\inf_{M\in \mathcal{M},|M|\leq \gamma
p}K_{2}(x_{0}[M],M,\infty ,I_{p},\alpha ,\mathcal{M})/\sqrt{p} \notag\end{aligned}$$where $I_{p}$ is the identity matrix of dimension $p$. By the monotonicity property (\[eq:monoton:1\]) the r.h.s. of (\[first\_display\]) equals$$\inf_{x_{0}\in \mathbb{R}^{p}}\inf_{M\in \mathcal{M},|M|=\left\lfloor \gamma
p\right\rfloor }K_{2}(x_{0}[M],M,\infty ,I_{p},\alpha ,\mathcal{M})/\sqrt{p}.
\label{a_display}$$Now fix an arbitrary $x_{0}\in \mathbb{R}^{p}$ and $M\in \mathcal{M}$ with $%
|M|=\left\lfloor \gamma p\right\rfloor $. Define $x_{0}^{\ast }$ via $%
x_{0i}^{\ast }=x_{0i}$ for $i\in M$ and set $x_{0i}^{\ast }=1$ else. Then $$K_{2}(x_{0}[M],M,\infty ,I_{p},\alpha ,\mathcal{M})\geq K_{1}(x_{0}^{\ast
},\infty ,I_{p},\alpha ,\mathcal{M}) \label{second_display}$$holds and the latter quantity is the $(1-\alpha )$-quantile of $$\omega ^{\ast }=\max_{M^{\ast }\in \mathcal{M}}\left\vert \sum_{i\in M^{\ast
}}x_{0i}^{\ast }Z_{i}\right\vert /\sqrt{\sum_{i\in M^{\ast }}\left(
x_{0i}^{\ast }\right) ^{2}}.$$For a positive real $b$ define now the random set $\breve{M}=\left\{ i\notin
M:Z_{i}\geq b\right\} $. Similar as above we then conclude that $$\omega ^{\ast }/\sqrt{p}\geq \left\vert p^{-1}\sum_{i\notin M}Z_{i}%
\boldsymbol{1}(Z_{i}\geq b)\right\vert /\sqrt{p^{-1}\sum_{i\notin M}%
\boldsymbol{1}(Z_{i}\geq b)}.$$While the r.h.s. of the above display depends on $M$, its distribution does not as it coincides with the distribution of $$A_{p}=\left\vert p^{-1}\sum_{i=\left\lfloor \gamma p\right\rfloor
+1}^{p}Z_{i}\boldsymbol{1}(Z_{i}\geq b)\right\vert /\sqrt{%
p^{-1}\sum_{i=\left\lfloor \gamma p\right\rfloor +1}^{p}\boldsymbol{1}%
(Z_{i}\geq b)}.$$Consequently, $K_{1}(x_{0}^{\ast },\infty ,I_{p},\alpha ,\mathcal{M})/\sqrt{p%
}$ as the $(1-\alpha )$-quantile of $\omega ^{\ast }/\sqrt{p}$ is not smaller than the corresponding quantile of $A_{p}$, and this is true independently of the choice of $x_{0}$ and of $M$ with $|M|=\left\lfloor
\gamma p\right\rfloor $. Since $A_{p}$ converges to $\sqrt{1-\gamma }\phi
(b)/\sqrt{1-\Phi (b)}$ almost surely and $\alpha $ does not depend on $p$, we can conclude that$$\liminf_{p\rightarrow \infty }\inf_{x_{0}\in \mathbb{R}^{p}}\inf_{M\in
\mathcal{M},|M|=\left\lfloor \gamma p\right\rfloor }K_{1}(x_{0}^{\ast
},\infty ,I_{p},\alpha ,\mathcal{M})/\sqrt{p}\geq \sqrt{1-\gamma }\phi (b)/%
\sqrt{1-\Phi (b)}.$$Since $b>0$ was arbitrary, the proof is then complete in view of ([first\_display]{}), (\[a\_display\]), and (\[second\_display\]). $%
\blacksquare $
\[quantiles\]Let $\alpha $, $0<\alpha <1$, be a fixed number, let $N\in
\mathbb{N}$, and $d\in \mathbb{N}$. Let $K(N,d,\alpha )$ denote the ($%
1-\alpha $)-quantile of the distribution function given by$$1-\mathbb{E}_{G}\left( \min \left[ 1,N\left( 1-F_{Beta,1/2,\left( d-1\right)
/2}\left( t^{2}/G^{2}\right) \right) \right] \right)$$for $t\geq 0$ and by $0$ for $t<0$. Here $G$ is a nonnegative random variable such that $G^{2}$ follows a chi-square distribution with $d$ degrees of freedom. Then as $\min (N,d)\rightarrow \infty $$$K(N,d,\alpha )/\sqrt{d\left( 1-N^{-2/\left( d-1\right) }\right) }\rightarrow
1\text{.}$$
**Proof:** The cdf in the lemma is the cdf of $GW$, where $W$ is independent of $G$, is nonnegative, and has distribution function given by $$1-\min \left[ 1,N\left( 1-F_{Beta,1/2,\left( d-1\right) /2}\left(
t^{2}\right) \right) \right]$$for $t\geq 0$. Observe that $G/\sqrt{d}$ converges to $1$ in probability as $%
d\rightarrow \infty $. To complete the proof it thus suffices to show that $%
W/\sqrt{\left( 1-N^{-2/\left( d-1\right) }\right) }$ converges to $1$ in probability as $\min (N,d)\rightarrow \infty $: For $t>1$ we have that$$\Pr \left( W/\sqrt{\left( 1-N^{-2/\left( d-1\right) }\right) }>t\right) \leq
N\left( 1-F_{Beta,1/2,\left( d-1\right) /2}\left( t^{2}\left( 1-N^{-2/\left(
d-1\right) }\right) \right) \right) .$$But the r.h.s. of the preceding display has been shown in [@zhang13rank] to converge to zero as $\min (N,d)\rightarrow \infty $, cf. (A.5) and (A.6) in that paper. For $t<1$ we have$$\Pr \left( W/\sqrt{\left( 1-N^{-2/\left( d-1\right) }\right) }\leq t\right)
=1-\min \left[ 1,N\left( 1-F_{Beta,1/2,\left( d-1\right) /2,}\left(
t^{2}\left( 1-N^{-2/\left( d-1\right) }\right) \right) \right) \right] ,$$and hence it suffices to show that $$N\left( 1-F_{Beta,1/2,\left( d-1\right) /2,}\left( t^{2}\left(
1-N^{-2/\left( d-1\right) }\right) \right) \right) \rightarrow \infty$$as $\min (N,d)\rightarrow \infty $. But this has again been established in [@zhang13rank], see (C.4) and (C.5) in that paper. $\blacksquare $
**Proof of Proposition \[constants\_2\]:** Observe that $K_{4}(\infty
) $ is always positive and hence the ratio in (\[Closeness of K3 and K4\]) is well-defined. In view of (12) and (13) and the assumptions on $\mathcal{M}
$ we have for $M\in \mathcal{M}$ with $M\neq \left\{ 1,\ldots ,p\right\} $, for $X\in \mathsf{X}_{n(p),p}(\mathcal{M})$, and for $x_{0}\in \mathbb{R}%
^{p} $ that $K_{3}(x_{0}[M],M,\infty )$ is not less than $K(\left\lfloor
\tau \left\vert \mathcal{M}\right\vert \right\rfloor ,\min (n(p),p),\alpha )$ in the notation of Lemma \[quantiles\], where we note that $\left\lfloor
\tau \left\vert \mathcal{M}\right\vert \right\rfloor \geq 1$ holds at least from a certain $p$ onwards. Since $K_{3}(x_{0}[M],M,\infty )\leq
K_{4}(\infty )$ always holds, and since $K_{4}(\infty )=K(\left\vert
\mathcal{M}\right\vert -1,\min (n(p),p),\alpha )$ in the notation of Lemma \[quantiles\], it suffices to show that $$K(\left\lfloor \tau \left\vert \mathcal{M}\right\vert \right\rfloor ,\min
(n(p),p),\alpha )/K(\left\vert \mathcal{M}\right\vert -1,\min
(n(p),p),\alpha )\rightarrow 1$$as $p\rightarrow \infty $. Note that $d=\min (n(p),p)\rightarrow \infty $ as $p\rightarrow \infty $ by the assumption on $n(p)$, and that $\left\vert
\mathcal{M}\right\vert \rightarrow \infty $ as $p\rightarrow \infty $. By Lemma \[quantiles\] we thus need to show that$$A_{d}\left( \left\vert \mathcal{M}\right\vert \right) :=\left( 1-(\left\vert
\mathcal{M}\right\vert -1)^{-2/\left( d-1\right) }\right) /\left(
1-\left\lfloor \tau \left\vert \mathcal{M}\right\vert \right\rfloor
^{-2/\left( d-1\right) }\right) \rightarrow 1$$as $p\rightarrow \infty $. Observe that $\tau <1$ must hold, and thus $%
\left\vert \mathcal{M}\right\vert -1\geq \left\lfloor \tau \left\vert
\mathcal{M}\right\vert \right\rfloor >1$ holds for large $p$. This, in particular, implies $A_{d}\left( \left\vert \mathcal{M}\right\vert \right)
\geq 1$ for large $p$. But then for large $p$$$1\leq A_{d}\left( \left\vert \mathcal{M}\right\vert \right) \leq \left(
1-\left\vert \mathcal{M}\right\vert ^{-2/\left( d-1\right) }\right) /\left(
1-\left( (\tau /2)\left\vert \mathcal{M}\right\vert \right) ^{-2/\left(
d-1\right) }\right) =:B_{d}\left( \left\vert \mathcal{M}\right\vert \right)$$holds since also $\left\lfloor \tau \left\vert \mathcal{M}\right\vert
\right\rfloor \geq (\tau /2)\left\vert \mathcal{M}\right\vert >1$ is satisfied for large $p$. It thus suffices to show that $B_{d}\left(
\left\vert \mathcal{M}\right\vert \right) \rightarrow 1$ for $p\rightarrow
\infty $. Let $f>2/\tau $ be a real number. Then $\left\vert \mathcal{M}%
\right\vert \geq f$ holds for large $p$. Because $B_{d}(x)$ is monotone decreasing in $x$ for $x>2/\tau >1$ and for every $d$ as is easily checked by inspection of the derivative, we have that $B_{d}\left( f\right) \geq
B_{d}\left( \left\vert \mathcal{M}\right\vert \right) $ holds for large $p$. But now it is easily checked (Hôpital’s rule) that $B_{d}\left( f\right)
$ converges to $\log f/\left( \log f+\log (\tau /2)\right) $ as $%
p\rightarrow \infty $ (and thus $d\rightarrow \infty $). Making $f$ arbitrarily large, $\log f/\left( \log f+\log (\tau /2)\right) $ approaches $%
1$. This completes the proof of (\[Closeness of K3 and K4\]). The second claim follows immediately from $K_{4}=K(\left\vert \mathcal{M}\right\vert
-1,\min (n(p),p),\alpha )$, the preceding lemma, the observation that $%
B_{d}\left( \left\vert \mathcal{M}\right\vert \right) \rightarrow 1$, and that$$1/B_{d}\left( \left\vert \mathcal{M}\right\vert \right) \leq \left(
1-(\left\vert \mathcal{M}\right\vert -1)^{-2/\left( d-1\right) }\right)
/\left( 1-\left\vert \mathcal{M}\right\vert ^{-2/\left( d-1\right) }\right)
\leq 1$$holds. $\blacksquare $
**Proof of Corollary \[constants\_3\]:** Properties (i), (ii), and (iv) are obvious. In case $m_{p}=p$, we have that $\mathcal{M}(m_{p})$ is the power set and hence $\left\vert \mathcal{M}(m_{p})\right\vert
=2^{m_{p}}=2^{p}$. But then we have $\left\vert M\right\vert <m_{p}=p$ for $%
M\neq \left\{ 1,\ldots ,p\right\} $. Consequently, $$c\left( M,\mathcal{M}(m_{p})\right) =\left\vert \mathcal{M}%
(m_{p})\right\vert -2^{\left\vert M\right\vert }\geq
2^{m_{p}}-2^{m_{p}-1}=(1/2)\left\vert \mathcal{M}(m_{p})\right\vert \geq
(1/3)\left\vert \mathcal{M}(m_{p})\right\vert .$$Next consider the case where $m_{p}<p$. Then certainly $\left\vert \mathcal{M%
}(m_{p})\right\vert \geq 2^{m_{p}+1}-1$ holds. Now, for $M\in \mathcal{M}%
(m_{p})$ we have $\left\vert M\right\vert \leq m_{p}$ (and $M\neq \left\{
1,\ldots ,p\right\} $) and thus$$\begin{aligned}
c\left( M,\mathcal{M}(m_{p})\right) &=&\left\vert \mathcal{M}%
(m_{p})\right\vert -2^{\left\vert M\right\vert }\geq \left\vert \mathcal{M}%
(m_{p})\right\vert -2^{m_{p}}=\left\vert \mathcal{M}(m_{p})\right\vert
\left( 1-2^{m_{p}}/\left\vert \mathcal{M}(m_{p})\right\vert \right) \\
&\geq &\left\vert \mathcal{M}(m_{p})\right\vert \left(
1-2^{m_{p}}/(2^{m_{p}+1}-1)\right) \geq (1/3)\left\vert \mathcal{M}%
(m_{p})\right\vert .\end{aligned}$$Thus (iii) with $\tau =1/3$ holds. The next claim now follows from Proposition \[constants\_2\] since $\left\vert \mathcal{M}%
(m_{p})\right\vert =\sum_{k=0}^{m_{p}}\binom{p}{k}$. The final claim is then a trivial consequence, since $\left\vert \mathcal{M}(p)\right\vert =2^{p}$ in this case. Note that $\mathsf{X}_{n(p),p}(\mathcal{M}(p))\neq \varnothing
$ by the assumptions on $n(p)$, implying $n(p)\geq p$. $\blacksquare $
Appendix: Proofs for Section [section:distribution:dependent]{} \[app:B\]
=========================================================================
In the subsequent lemma we assume that $\tilde{\sigma}_{1}$ and $\tilde{%
\sigma}_{2}$ are defined on the same probability space as are $Y$, $X$, and $%
\hat{\sigma}^{2}$. In slight abuse of notation, we shall then denote by $%
P_{n,\beta ,\sigma }$ the joint distribution of $Y$, $X$, $\hat{\sigma}^{2}$, $\tilde{\sigma}_{1}$, and $\tilde{\sigma}_{2}$. We note that an argument corresponding to a special case of this lemma has been used in [ewald12influence]{}.
\[lem:equivalence:beta:betan\] Suppose that the maintained model assumptions of Section \[section:distribution:dependent\] are satisfied. Assume further that Conditions \[cond:model:selection:procedure\] and [cond:L]{} hold. Let $\mathcal{W}$ be the set of all measurable non-negative functions of the form $W(x_{0},X,M)$. Then, for any two sequences of random variables $\tilde{\sigma}_{1}=\tilde{\sigma}_{1,n}$ and $\tilde{\sigma}_{2}=%
\tilde{\sigma}_{2,n}$ (which may be functions of $\sigma $) satisfying $$\sup_{\beta \in \mathbb{R}^{p},\sigma >0}P_{n,\beta ,\sigma }\left( \left.
\left\vert \left( \tilde{\sigma}_{i}/\sigma \right) -1\right\vert >\delta
\right\vert X\right) \rightarrow 0 \label{eq:var-condition}$$in probability as $n\rightarrow \infty $ for every $\delta >0$ and for $%
i=1,2 $, we have that$$\begin{aligned}
&&\sup_{x_{0}\in \mathbb{R}^{p},\beta \in \mathbb{R}^{p},\sigma >0,W\in
\mathcal{W}}\left\vert P_{n,\beta ,\sigma }\left( \left. \left\vert
x_{0}^{\prime }[\hat{M}]\hat{\beta}_{\hat{M}}-x_{0}^{\prime }[\hat{M}]\beta
_{\hat{M}}^{(\star )}\right\vert \leq W(x_{0},X,\hat{M})\tilde{\sigma}%
_{1}\right\vert X\right) \right. \\
&&-\left. P_{n,\beta ,\sigma }\left( \left. \left\vert x_{0}^{\prime }[\hat{M%
}]\hat{\beta}_{\hat{M}}-x_{0}^{\prime }[\hat{M}]\beta _{\hat{M}%
}^{(n)}\right\vert \leq W(x_{0},X,\hat{M})\tilde{\sigma}_{2}\right\vert
X\right) \right\vert\end{aligned}$$converges to $0$ in probability as $n\rightarrow \infty $.
**Proof:** Because the number of variables $p$ is fixed, it suffices to show for arbitrary but fixed $M\subseteq \{1,\ldots ,p\}$ that$$\begin{aligned}
Q_{n} &=&\sup_{x_{0}\in \mathbb{R}^{p},\beta \in \mathbb{R}^{p},\sigma
>0,W\in \mathcal{W}}\left\vert P_{n,\beta ,\sigma }\left( \left. \left\vert
x_{0}^{\prime }[M]\hat{\beta}_{M}-x_{0}^{\prime }[M]\beta _{M}^{(\star
)}\right\vert \leq W_{M}\tilde{\sigma}_{1};\hat{M}=M\right\vert X\right)
\right. \\
&&-\left. P_{n,\beta ,\sigma }\left( \left. \left\vert x_{0}^{\prime }[M]%
\hat{\beta}_{M}-x_{0}^{\prime }[M]\beta _{M}^{(n)}\right\vert \leq W_{M}%
\tilde{\sigma}_{2};\hat{M}=M\right\vert X\right) \right\vert\end{aligned}$$goes to $0$ in probability, where we have used the abbreviation $%
W_{M}=W(x_{0},X,M)$. We may assume in what follows that $M\neq \varnothing $ since otherwise $Q_{n}$ is zero. Furthermore, $Q_{n}$ does not change its value if the supremum is restricted to those $x_{0}$ which have $\left\Vert
x_{0}[M]\right\Vert =1$ (since the expression inside the supremum is identically zero if $x_{0}$ satisfies $x_{0}[M]=0$ and since otherwise the norm of $x_{0}[M]$ can be absorbed into $W_{M}$). Hence we have$$\begin{aligned}
Q_{n} &=&\sup_{x_{0}\in S(M),\beta \in \mathbb{R}^{p},\sigma >0,W\in
\mathcal{W}}\left\vert P_{n,\beta ,\sigma }\left( \left. \left\vert \sigma
e_{1}+\sigma e_{2}\right\vert \leq W_{M}\tilde{\sigma}_{1};\hat{M}%
=M\right\vert X\right) \right. \notag \\
&&-\left. P_{n,\beta ,\sigma }\left( \left. \left\vert \sigma
e_{2}\right\vert \leq W_{M}\tilde{\sigma}_{2};\hat{M}=M\right\vert X\right)
\right\vert \label{eq:diff_prob}\end{aligned}$$where we have used the abbreviations $S(M)=\left\{ x_{0}\in \mathbb{R}%
^{p}:\left\Vert x_{0}[M]\right\Vert =1\right\} $,$$e_{1}=\sigma ^{-1}n^{1/2}x_{0}^{\prime }[M]\left( \left( X[M]^{\prime
}X[M]\right) ^{-1}X[M]^{\prime }X[M^{c}]-\left( \Sigma \lbrack M,M]\right)
^{-1}\Sigma \lbrack M,M^{c}]\right) \beta \lbrack M^{c}]$$and $$e_{2}=\sigma ^{-1}n^{1/2}x_{0}^{\prime }[M]\left( X[M]^{\prime }X[M]\right)
^{-1}X[M]^{\prime }\left( Y-X\beta \right) .$$Note that we have also absorbed a factor $n^{1/2}$ into $W_{M}$, which is possible because of the supremum operation w.r.t. $W_{M}$. Using the inequality $\left\vert \Pr \left( A\cap C\right) -\Pr \left( B\cap C\right)
\right\vert \leq \Pr \left( A^{c}\cap B\cap C\right) +\Pr \left( A\cap
B^{c}\cap C\right) $ we can bound the absolute value inside the supremum in (\[eq:diff\_prob\]) by$$\begin{aligned}
&&P_{n,\beta ,\sigma }\left( \left. \left\vert \sigma e_{1}+\sigma
e_{2}\right\vert >W_{M}\tilde{\sigma}_{1};\left\vert \sigma e_{2}\right\vert
\leq W_{M}\tilde{\sigma}_{2};\hat{M}=M\right\vert X\right) \notag \\
&&+P_{n,\beta ,\sigma }\left( \left. \left\vert \sigma e_{1}+\sigma
e_{2}\right\vert \leq W_{M}\tilde{\sigma}_{1};\left\vert \sigma
e_{2}\right\vert >W_{M}\tilde{\sigma}_{2};\hat{M}=M\right\vert X\right) .
\label{eq:bound_1}\end{aligned}$$Let now $\delta _{n,1}$ be an arbitrary sequence of positive numbers converging to zero. Then we can further bound the above expression by$$\begin{aligned}
&&P_{n,\beta ,\sigma }\left( \left. \tilde{\sigma}_{1}\left( W_{M}-\delta
_{n,1}\right) _{+}\leq \left\vert \sigma e_{2}\right\vert \leq \tilde{\sigma}%
_{2}W_{M}\right\vert X\right) \notag \\
&&+P_{n,\beta ,\sigma }\left( \left. \tilde{\sigma}_{2}W_{M}\leq \left\vert
\sigma e_{2}\right\vert \leq \tilde{\sigma}_{1}\left( W_{M}+\delta
_{n,1}\right) \right\vert X\right) \notag \\
&&+2P_{n,\beta ,\sigma }\left( \left. \left\vert \sigma e_{1}\right\vert
\geq \tilde{\sigma}_{1}\delta _{n,1};\hat{M}=M\right\vert X\right) .
\label{eq:bound_2}\end{aligned}$$By the assumption on the estimators $\tilde{\sigma}_{1}$ and $\tilde{\sigma}%
_{2}$ we can find a sequence $\delta _{n,2}<1$ of positive numbers converging to zero such that$$\sup_{\beta ,\sigma }P_{n,\beta ,\sigma }\left( \left.
\max_{i=1,2}\left\vert \left( \tilde{\sigma}_{i}/\sigma \right)
-1\right\vert >\delta _{n,2}\right\vert X\right) \rightarrow 0
\label{eq:sigma}$$in probability as $n\rightarrow \infty $. This can easily be seen from a diagonal sequence argument. Now, using (\[eq:diff\_prob\]), ([eq:bound\_1]{}), (\[eq:bound\_2\]), and (\[eq:sigma\]), we have$$\begin{aligned}
Q_{n} &\leq &\sup_{x_{0}\in S(M),\beta \in \mathbb{R}^{p},\sigma >0,W\in
\mathcal{W}}P_{n,\beta ,\sigma }\left( \left. \left( 1-\delta _{n,2}\right)
\left( W_{M}-\delta _{n,1}\right) _{+}\leq \left\vert e_{2}\right\vert \leq
\left( 1+\delta _{n,2}\right) W_{M}\right\vert X\right) \\
&&+\sup_{x_{0}\in S(M),\beta \in \mathbb{R}^{p},\sigma >0,W\in \mathcal{W}%
}P_{n,\beta ,\sigma }\left( \left. \left( 1-\delta _{n,2}\right) W_{M}\leq
\left\vert e_{2}\right\vert \leq \left( 1+\delta _{n,2}\right) \left(
W_{M}+\delta _{n,1}\right) \right\vert X\right) \\
&&+2\sup_{x_{0}\in S(M),\beta \in \mathbb{R}^{p},\sigma >0,W\in \mathcal{W}%
}P_{n,\beta ,\sigma }\left( \left. \left\vert e_{1}\right\vert \geq \left(
1-\delta _{n,2}\right) \delta _{n,1};\hat{M}=M\right\vert X\right) +o_{p}(1)
\\
&\leq &2\sup_{x_{0}\in S(M),\beta \in \mathbb{R}^{p},\sigma >0,W\in \mathcal{%
W}}P_{n,\beta ,\sigma }\left( \left. \left( 1-\delta _{n,2}\right) \left(
W_{M}-\delta _{n,1}\right) _{+}\leq \left\vert e_{2}\right\vert \leq \left(
1+\delta _{n,2}\right) \left( W_{M}+\delta _{n,1}\right) \right\vert X\right)
\\
&&+2\sup_{x_{0}\in S(M),\beta \in \mathbb{R}^{p},\sigma >0}P_{n,\beta
,\sigma }\left( \left. \left\vert e_{1}\right\vert \geq \left( 1-\delta
_{n,2}\right) \delta _{n,1};\hat{M}=M\right\vert X\right) +o_{p}(1) \\
&=&2Q_{n,1}+2Q_{n,2}+o_{p}(1).\end{aligned}$$We first bound $Q_{n,1}$ as follows: Observe that, conditionally on $X$, the quantity $e_{2}$ is normally distributed with mean zero and variance given by $c_{n}\left( x_{0},X\right) =x_{0}^{\prime }[M]\left( n^{-1}X[M]^{\prime
}X[M]\right) ^{-1}x_{0}[M]$. By Condition \[cond:L\] the variance $%
c_{n}\left( x_{0},X\right) $ converges to $c(x_{0})=x_{0}^{\prime }[M]\left(
\Sigma \lbrack M,M]\right) ^{-1}x_{0}[M]>0$ in probability, and in fact even uniformly in $x_{0}\in S(M)$. Since $\Sigma \lbrack M,M]$ is obviously positive definite, $0<c_{\ast }\leq c(x_{0})\leq c^{\ast }<\infty $ must hold for all $x_{0}\in S(M)$. Consequently, $$\sup_{x_{0}\in S(M)}\left\vert \left( c_{n}^{1/2}\left( x_{0},X\right)
/c^{1/2}\left( x_{0}\right) \right) -1\right\vert \label{eq:variance}$$converges to zero in probability. Therefore we can find a sequence $\delta
_{n,3}\in \left( 0,1\right) $ converging to zero for $n\rightarrow \infty $ such that the event $D_{n}$ where (\[eq:variance\]) is less than $\delta
_{n,3}$ has probability converging to $1$. On this event $\inf_{x_{0}\in
S(M)}c_{n}\left( x_{0},X\right) $ is then positive for sufficiently large $n$ and we have on $D_{n}$ and for sufficiently large $n$$$\begin{aligned}
Q_{n,1} &=&2\sup_{x_{0}\in S(M),W\in \mathcal{W}}\left\{ \Phi \left( \left(
1+\delta _{n,2}\right) \left( W_{M}+\delta _{n,1}\right) /c_{n}^{1/2}\left(
x_{0},X\right) \right) \right. \\
&&\left. -\Phi \left( \left( 1-\delta _{n,2}\right) \left( W_{M}-\delta
_{n,1}\right) _{+}/c_{n}^{1/2}\left( x_{0},X\right) \right) \right\} \\
&\leq &2\sup_{x_{0}\in S(M),W\in \mathcal{W}}\left\{ \Phi \left( \frac{%
1+\delta _{n,2}}{1-\delta _{n,3}}\left( W_{M}+\delta _{n,1}\right)
/c^{1/2}\left( x_{0}\right) \right) \right. \\
&&\left. -\Phi \left( \frac{1-\delta _{n,2}}{1+\delta _{n,3}}\left(
W_{M}-\delta _{n,1}\right) _{+}/c^{1/2}\left( x_{0}\right) \right) \right\}
\\
&\leq &2\sup_{x_{0}\in S(M),W\in \mathcal{W}}\left\{ \Phi \left( \frac{%
1+\delta _{n,2}}{1-\delta _{n,3}}\left( W_{M}+\delta _{n,1}\right)
/c^{1/2}\left( x_{0}\right) \right) \right. \\
&&\left. -\Phi \left( \frac{1-\delta _{n,2}}{1+\delta _{n,3}}\left(
W_{M}-\delta _{n,1}\right) /c^{1/2}\left( x_{0}\right) \right) \right\} \\
&\leq &2\sup_{x_{0}\in S(M),z\geq 0}\left\{ \Phi \left( \frac{1+\delta _{n,2}%
}{1-\delta _{n,3}}\left( z+\delta _{n,1}/c^{1/2}\left( x_{0}\right) \right)
\right) \right. \\
&&\left. -\Phi \left( \frac{1-\delta _{n,2}}{1+\delta _{n,3}}\left( z-\delta
_{n,1}/c^{1/2}\left( x_{0}\right) \right) \right) \right\} \\
&\leq &2\sup_{z\geq 0}\left\{ \Phi \left( \frac{1+\delta _{n,2}}{1-\delta
_{n,3}}\left( z+\delta _{n,1}/c_{\ast }^{1/2}\right) \right) -\Phi \left(
\frac{1-\delta _{n,2}}{1+\delta _{n,3}}\left( z-\delta _{n,1}/c_{\ast
}^{1/2}\right) \right) \right\} ,\end{aligned}$$where $\Phi $ denotes the standard normal cdf. But the far right-hand side in the above display obviously converges to zero for $n\rightarrow \infty $ since $\delta _{n,1}$, $\delta _{n,2}$, as well as $\delta _{n,3}$ converge to zero. We have thus established that $Q_{n,1}$ converges to zero in probability as $n\rightarrow \infty $.
We next turn to $Q_{n,2}$. In case $M=\left\{ 1,\ldots ,p\right\} $, we have that $e_{1}=0$, and hence $Q_{n,2}=0$. Otherwise, from Condition [cond:model:selection:procedure]{} we can conclude (from a diagonal sequence argument) the existence of a sequence of positive numbers $\delta _{n,4}$ that converge to zero for $n\rightarrow \infty $ such that $$\sup \left\{ P_{n,\beta ,\sigma }(\hat{M}=M|X):\beta \in \mathbb{R}%
^{p},\sigma >0,\left\Vert \beta \lbrack M^{c}]\right\Vert /\sigma \geq
\delta _{n,4}\right\} \rightarrow 0$$in probability as $n\rightarrow \infty $. Then$$\begin{aligned}
Q_{n,2} &\leq &\sup_{x_{0}\in S(M),\left\Vert \beta \lbrack
M^{c}]\right\Vert /\sigma \geq \delta _{n,4}}P_{n,\beta ,\sigma }\left(
\left. \left\vert e_{1}\right\vert \geq \left( 1-\delta _{n,2}\right) \delta
_{n,1};\hat{M}=M\right\vert X\right) \notag \\
&&+\sup_{x_{0}\in S(M),\left\Vert \beta \lbrack M^{c}]\right\Vert /\sigma
<\delta _{n,4}}P_{n,\beta ,\sigma }\left( \left. \left\vert e_{1}\right\vert
\geq \left( 1-\delta _{n,2}\right) \delta _{n,1};\hat{M}=M\right\vert
X\right) \notag \\
&\leq &\sup_{\left\Vert \beta \lbrack M^{c}]\right\Vert /\sigma \geq \delta
_{n,4}}P_{n,\beta ,\sigma }\left( \left. \hat{M}=M\right\vert X\right)
\notag \\
&&+\sup_{x_{0}\in S(M),\left\Vert \beta \lbrack M^{c}]\right\Vert /\sigma
<\delta _{n,4}}P_{n,\beta ,\sigma }\left( \left. \left\vert e_{1}\right\vert
\geq \left( 1-\delta _{n,2}\right) \delta _{n,1}\right\vert X\right) \notag
\\
&\leq &o_{p}(1)+\sup_{x_{0}\in S(M),\left\Vert \beta \lbrack
M^{c}]\right\Vert /\sigma <\delta _{n,4}}P_{n,\beta ,\sigma }\left( \left.
\left\vert e_{1}\right\vert \geq \left( 1-\delta _{n,2}\right) \delta
_{n,1}\right\vert X\right) . \label{eq:bound_Qn2}\end{aligned}$$Using the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality we obtain for $x_{0}\in S(M)$$$\begin{aligned}
\left\vert e_{1}\right\vert &\leq &\left\Vert x_{0}^{\prime }[M]\right\Vert
\left\Vert \beta \lbrack M^{c}]/\sigma \right\Vert \left\Vert n^{1/2}\left(
\left( X[M]^{\prime }X[M]\right) ^{-1}X[M]^{\prime }X[M^{c}]-\left( \Sigma
\lbrack M,M]\right) ^{-1}\Sigma \lbrack M,M^{c}]\right) \right\Vert \\
&\leq &\left\Vert \beta \lbrack M^{c}]/\sigma \right\Vert B_{n}\left(
X\right)\end{aligned}$$where $B_{n}\left( X\right) \geq 0$ is $O_{p}\left( 1\right) $, this following from Condition \[cond:L\] and positive definiteness of $\Sigma
\lbrack M,M]$. This shows that the second term on the far right-hand side of (\[eq:bound\_Qn2\]) is bounded by$$\boldsymbol{1}\left( \delta _{n,4}B_{n}\left( X\right) \geq \left( 1-\delta
_{n,2}\right) \delta _{n,1}\right) .$$If we set now, for example, $\delta _{n,1}=\delta _{n,4}^{1/2}$, we see that the above quantity converges to zero in probability as $n\rightarrow \infty $, implying that $Q_{n,2}$ converges to zero in probability as $n\rightarrow
\infty $. This completes the proof. $\blacksquare $
**Proof of Theorem \[theo:asympt:val:CI\]:** (a) Use Lemma [lem:equivalence:beta:betan]{} with $W(x_{0},X,M)$ equal to $K_{1}\left(
x_{0},r\right) \left\Vert s_{M}\right\Vert $ ($K_{2}(x_{0}[\hat{M}],\hat{M}%
,r)\left\Vert s_{M}\right\Vert $, $K_{3}(x_{0}[\hat{M}],\hat{M},r)\left\Vert
s_{M}\right\Vert $, $K_{4}\left( r\right) \left\Vert s_{M}\right\Vert $, or $%
K_{5}\left( r\right) \left\Vert s_{M}\right\Vert $, respectively) and $%
\tilde{\sigma}_{1}=\tilde{\sigma}_{2}=\hat{\sigma}$ and combine this with Proposition \[prop:PoSI:coverage\] (Corollaries [cor:max:of:PoSI:coverage]{}, \[cor:PoSI:upper:bound\], respectively). Note that $r=r_{n}\rightarrow \infty $ because of Condition \[cond:sigma\], and hence $\hat{\sigma}$ satisfies (\[eq:var-condition\]).
\(b) Let $\tilde{\sigma}_{2}$ be a sequence of random variables such that, conditionally on $X$, $\tilde{\sigma}_{2}^{2}$ is independent of $\hat{\beta}
$ and is distributed as $\sigma ^{2}/r^{\ast }$ times a chi-squared distributed random variable with $r^{\ast }$ degrees of freedom with the convention that $\tilde{\sigma}_{2}=\sigma $ in case $r^{\ast }=\infty $. \[Such a sequence exists: Possibly after redefining the relevant random variables on a sufficiently rich probability space we may find a sequence $%
\left( Z_{i}\right) _{i\in \mathbb{N}}$ of i.i.d. standard Gaussian random variables that is independent of $Y$ and $X$. Then define $\tilde{\sigma}%
_{2}^{2}=\sigma ^{2}\sum_{i=1}^{r^{\ast }}Z_{i}^{2}/r^{\ast }$ if $r^{\ast
}<\infty $ and set $\tilde{\sigma}_{2}^{2}=\sigma ^{2}$ otherwise.\] In view of Remark \[rem:kmown:variance:case\] we have that Proposition [prop:PoSI:coverage]{} (Corollaries \[cor:max:of:PoSI:coverage\], [cor:PoSI:upper:bound]{}, respectively) also hold if the confidence interval (\[eq:general:form:CI\]) for the target $x_{0}^{\prime }{[\hat{M}]}\beta _{%
\hat{M}}^{(n)}$ uses $\tilde{\sigma}_{2}$ instead of $\hat{\sigma}$ and uses the constants $K_{1}\left( x_{0},r^{\ast }\right) $ ($K_{2}(x_{0}[\hat{M}],%
\hat{M},r^{\ast })$, $K_{3}(x_{0}[\hat{M}],\hat{M},r^{\ast })$, $K_{4}\left(
r^{\ast }\right) $, or $K_{5}\left( r^{\ast }\right) $, respectively). Now apply Lemma \[lem:equivalence:beta:betan\] with $W(x_{0},X,M)$ equal to $%
K_{1}\left( x_{0},r^{\ast }\right) \left\Vert s_{M}\right\Vert $ ($%
K_{2}(x_{0}[\hat{M}],\hat{M},r^{\ast })\left\Vert s_{M}\right\Vert $, $%
K_{3}(x_{0}[\hat{M}],\hat{M},r^{\ast })\left\Vert s_{M}\right\Vert $, $%
K_{4}\left( r^{\ast }\right) \left\Vert s_{M}\right\Vert $, or $K_{5}\left(
r^{\ast }\right) \left\Vert s_{M}\right\Vert $, respectively) and with $%
\tilde{\sigma}_{1}=\tilde{\sigma}$. Note that $\tilde{\sigma}_{1}$ satisfies (\[eq:var-condition\]) by assumption, while $\tilde{\sigma}_{2}$ satisfies it because $r^{\ast }\rightarrow \infty $ has been assumed. $\blacksquare $
\[lem: PMS-var\] Suppose that the maintained model assumptions of Section \[section:distribution:dependent\] are satisfied and that $%
X^{\prime }X/n\rightarrow \Sigma $ in probability for $n\rightarrow \infty $. Assume further that Condition \[cond:model:selection:procedure\] holds and define $\hat{\sigma}_{\hat{M}}^{2}=||Y-X[\hat{M}]\hat{\beta}_{\hat{M}%
}||^{2}/(n-|\hat{M}|)$ for $n>p$. Then $\hat{\sigma}_{\hat{M}}^{2}$ satisfies condition (\[eq:unif\_cons\_var\]).
**Proof:** Clearly $$Y-X[\hat{M}]\hat{\beta}_{\hat{M}}=Y-P_{X[\hat{M}]}Y=P_{X[\hat{M}]^{\bot
}}U+P_{X[\hat{M}]^{\bot }}X[\hat{M}^{c}]\beta \lbrack \hat{M}^{c}]=A+B,$$where $P_{X[\hat{M}]^{\bot }}$ denotes orthogonal projection on the orthogonal complement of the column space of $X[\hat{M}]$. By the triangle inequality we hence have$$\begin{aligned}
\left\vert \left( \hat{\sigma}_{\hat{M}}/\sigma \right) -1\right\vert &\leq
&\left\vert \left( n-|\hat{M}|\right) ^{-1/2}\left\Vert A/\sigma \right\Vert
-1\right\vert +\left( n-|\hat{M}|\right) ^{-1/2}\left\Vert B/\sigma
\right\Vert \\
&\leq &\left\vert \left( n-|\hat{M}|\right) ^{-1/2}\left\Vert A/\sigma
\right\Vert -1\right\vert +\left( n-|\hat{M}|\right) ^{-1/2}\left\Vert X[%
\hat{M}^{c}]\beta \lbrack \hat{M}^{c}]/\sigma \right\Vert .\end{aligned}$$We now bound the probability in (\[eq:unif\_cons\_var\]) by the sum of the probabilities that the first and second term on the r.h.s. of the preceding display, respectively, exceed $\delta /2$. Because $p$ is fixed there is a fixed finite number of possible models $\hat{M}$ and thus for $\delta >0$ we have the bound for the first term $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sup_{\beta \in \mathbb{R}^{p},\sigma >0}P_{n,\beta ,\sigma }\left( \left.
\left\vert \left( n-|\hat{M}|\right) ^{-1/2}\left\Vert A/\sigma \right\Vert
-1\right\vert \geq \delta /2\right\vert X\right) \\
&=&\sup_{\beta \in \mathbb{R}^{p},\sigma >0}\sum_{M}P_{n,\beta ,\sigma
}\left( \left. \left\vert \left( n-|M|\right) ^{-1/2}\left\Vert
P_{X[M]^{\bot }}U/\sigma \right\Vert -1\right\vert \geq \delta /2,\hat{M}%
=M\right\vert X\right) \\
&\leq &\sum_{M}\sup_{\beta \in \mathbb{R}^{p},\sigma >0}P_{n,\beta ,\sigma
}\left( \left. \left\vert \left( n-|M|\right) ^{-1/2}\left\Vert
P_{X[M]^{\bot }}U/\sigma \right\Vert -1\right\vert \geq \delta /2\right\vert
X\right) .\end{aligned}$$Note that the probabilities in the upper bound on the far r.h.s. of the preceding display do actually neither depend on $\beta $ nor $\sigma $ and are each of the form $\Pr \left( \left\vert W/w-1\right\vert \geq \delta
\right) $ where $W$ is distributed as the square root of a chi-squared random variable with $w^{2}$ degrees of freedom. Since $w^{2}=n-\left\vert
M\right\vert $ goes to infinity for $n\rightarrow \infty $ and any fixed $M$, and since the sum has a fixed finite number of terms, we can conclude that the upper bound converges to zero in probability as $n\rightarrow \infty $.
Turning to the second term we have, letting $\lambda _{\max }$ denote the largest eigenvalue of a symmetric matrix, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sup_{\beta \in \mathbb{R}^{p},\sigma >0}P_{n,\beta ,\sigma }\left( \left.
\left( n-|\hat{M}|\right) ^{-1/2}\left\Vert X[\hat{M}^{c}]\beta \lbrack \hat{%
M}^{c}]/\sigma \right\Vert \geq \delta /2\right\vert X\right) \\
&\leq &\sup_{\beta \in \mathbb{R}^{p},\sigma >0}P_{n,\beta ,\sigma }\left(
\left. \left( n-|\hat{M}|\right) ^{-1/2}\lambda _{\max }^{1/2}\left( X[\hat{M%
}^{c}]^{\prime }X[\hat{M}^{c}]\right) \left\Vert \beta \lbrack \hat{M}%
^{c}]/\sigma \right\Vert \geq \delta /2\right\vert X\right) \\
&\leq &\sup_{\beta \in \mathbb{R}^{p},\sigma >0}P_{n,\beta ,\sigma }\left(
\left. \lambda _{\max }^{1/2}\left( X^{\prime }X/\left( n-p\right) \right)
\left\Vert \beta \lbrack \hat{M}^{c}]/\sigma \right\Vert \geq \delta
/2\right\vert X\right) \\
&\leq &\sum_{M\neq \left\{ 1,\ldots ,p\right\} }\sup_{\beta \in \mathbb{R}%
^{p},\sigma >0}P_{n,\beta ,\sigma }\left( \hat{M}=M,\left. \lambda _{\max
}^{1/2}\left( X^{\prime }X/\left( n-p\right) \right) \left\Vert \beta
\lbrack M^{c}]/\sigma \right\Vert \geq \delta /2\right\vert X\right) .\end{aligned}$$Now, since $X^{\prime }X/\left( n-p\right) $ converges to the positive definite matrix $\Sigma $ in probability, we can find an event $D_{n}$, which has probability converging to $1$ for $n\rightarrow \infty $, such that on this event $\lambda _{\max }\left( X^{\prime }X/\left( n-p\right)
\right) $ is not larger than $4\lambda _{\max }\left( \Sigma \right) $. Hence, on $D_{n}$ we can bound each supremum on the far r.h.s. of the preceding display by $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sup_{\beta \in \mathbb{R}^{p},\sigma >0}P_{n,\beta ,\sigma }\left( \hat{M}%
=M,\left. \left\Vert \beta \left[ M^{c}\right] /\sigma \right\Vert \geq
\lambda _{\max }^{-1/2}\left( \Sigma \right) \delta /4\right\vert X\right) \\
&=&\sup \left\{ P_{n,\beta ,\sigma }(\hat{M}=M|X):\beta \in \mathbb{R}%
^{p},\sigma >0,\left\Vert \beta \lbrack M^{c}]\right\Vert /\sigma \geq
\lambda _{\max }^{-1/2}\left( \Sigma \right) \delta /4\right\} ,\end{aligned}$$which goes to zero in probability as $n\rightarrow \infty $ by Condition [cond:model:selection:procedure]{}. $\blacksquare $
Appendix: Algorithms for computing the confidence intervals [section:practical:algorithms]{}
============================================================================================
In this appendix we consider the setting of Section [section:design:dependent]{}. In particular, recall that $X$ is a fixed $%
n\times p$ matrix of rank $d\geq 1$. Let $Q$ be a $n\times d$ matrix so that the columns of $Q$ form an orthonormal basis of the column space of $X$. Following [@berk13valid] we define $\tilde{Y}=Q^{\prime }Y$ and $\tilde{X%
}=Q^{\prime }X$, the so-called canonical coordinates of $Y$ and $X$, cf. Section 5.1 in [@berk13valid]. We then have $\tilde{Y}=\tilde{\mu}+%
\tilde{U}$ with $\tilde{\mu}=Q^{\prime }\mu $ and $\tilde{U}=Q^{\prime
}U\sim N\left( 0,\sigma ^{2}I_{d}\right) $. It is now easy to see that $P_{%
\tilde{X}}\tilde{Y}=Q^{\prime }P_{X}Y$ and $QP_{\tilde{X}}\tilde{Y}=P_{X}Y$ hold. In particular, the independence of the *given* $\hat{\sigma}^{2}$ from the projection of the data vector on the space spanned by the regressor holds whether we work with the original data or with the data in canonical coordinates. Furthermore, setting $\tilde{s}_{M}^{\prime }=x_{0}^{\prime }{%
[M]}(\tilde{X}{[M]}^{\prime }{\tilde{X}[M])}^{-1}\tilde{X}{[M]}^{\prime }$ for $\varnothing \neq M\in \mathcal{M}$ with $\mathcal{M}$ as in Section [section:design:dependent]{} and $\tilde{s}_{M}^{\prime }=0\in \mathbb{R}^{d}$ for $M=\varnothing $, it follows that $\left\Vert s_{M}^{\prime }\right\Vert
=\left\Vert \tilde{s}_{M}^{\prime }\right\Vert $ and $s_{M}^{\prime }(Y-\mu
)=\tilde{s}_{M}^{\prime }(\tilde{Y}-\tilde{\mu})$. For later use define $%
\overset{\_}{\tilde{s}}_{M}=\tilde{s}_{M}/\left\Vert \tilde{s}%
_{M}\right\Vert $ if $\left\Vert \tilde{s}_{M}\right\Vert \neq 0$ and define $\overset{\_}{\tilde{s}}_{M}=0$ if $\tilde{s}_{M}=0$. Inspection of ([eq:def:posi:xzero]{}) and of the definition of $F_{M,x_{0}}$ now shows that all the constants $K_{i}$ remain the same whether they are computed from the original problem using the design matrix $X$ or from the transformed problem using the canonical coordinates $\tilde{X}$ (but using the originally given $%
\hat{\sigma}^{2}$ in both cases). Hence, in the algorithms below we shall work with the canonical coordinates as this facilitates computation. Note that $x_{0}$ is unaffected by this transformation. In the important case $%
d=p $($\leq n$) the matrices $Q$ and $\tilde{X}$ can be obtained, for example, from a SVD or a QR decomposition of $X$, cf. Section 5.1 in [berk13valid]{}. \[In case $p\geq n=d$, one can always set $Q=I_{n}$.\]
The following algorithm for computing $K_{1}(x_{0})$ is similar to that of [@berk13validold] for computing the PoSI constant. We present it here for completeness. From Proposition \[prop:PoSI:upper:bound\] and from the arguments used to prove (\[expression\]) in Appendix \[app A\] we see that, in case $x_{0}\neq 0$, $K_{1}(x_{0})$ is the solution to$$\mathbb{E}_{G}\Pr \left( \left. \max_{M\in \mathcal{M}}\left\vert \overset{\_%
}{\tilde{s}}_{M}^{\prime }V\right\vert \leq t/G\right\vert G\right)
=1-\alpha ,$$where $V$ here is uniformly distributed on the unit sphere of $\mathbb{R}%
^{d} $, independently of $G$ (and $G$ is as in Section [section:design:dependent]{}). The algorithm now replaces the (conditional) probability in the preceding display by a Monte-Carlo estimator, analytically performs the integration w.r.t. $G$, and then numerically solves the resulting equation. We note that in this and the other algorithms to follow there is no need for Monte-Carlo integration w.r.t. $G$. We shall denote by $F_{d,r}^{\sharp }$ the c.d.f. of $G$; note that then $%
F_{d,r}^{\sharp }\left( t\right) =F_{d,r}\left( t^{2}/d\right) $, where $%
F_{d,r}$ denotes the c.d.f. of an $F$-distribution with $(d,r)$-degrees of freedom.
\[alg:Kun\] In case $x_{0}\neq 0$, choose $I\in \mathbb{N}$ and generate independent identically distributed random vectors $V_{1},\ldots ,V_{I}$, where each $V_{i}$ is uniformly distributed on the unit sphere in $\mathbb{R}%
^{d}$. Calculate the quantities $c_{i}=\max_{M\in \mathcal{M}}\left\vert
\overset{\_}{\tilde{s}}_{M}^{\prime }V_{i}\right\vert $ with $\overset{\_}{%
\tilde{s}}_{M}$ as defined above. A numerical approximation to $K_{1}(x_{0})$ is then obtained by searching for that value of $K$ that solves$$\frac{1}{I}\sum_{i=1}^{I}F_{d,r}^{\sharp }\left( \frac{K}{c_{i}}\right)
=1-\alpha . \label{eq:K}$$In case $x_{0}=0$, set $K_{1}(x_{0})=0$.
Note that for $x_{0}\neq 0$ at least one of the vectors $\overset{\_}{\tilde{%
s}}_{M}$, $M\in \mathcal{M}$, is non-zero, implying that the quantities $%
c_{i}$ are all non-zero with probability $1$; hence the terms $%
F_{d,r}^{\sharp }\left( \frac{K}{c_{i}}\right) $ are well-defined with probability one. It is now obvious that – on the event where all $c_{i}$ are non-zero – the solution $K$ of (\[eq:K\]) exists, is unique and positive. The costly factor in Algorithm \[alg:Kun\] is the maximization involved in the computation of the quantities $c_{i}$, while searching for the value of $K$ that solves (\[eq:K\]), for example by bisection searches, incurs only negligible cost. In our simulations, computing $%
K_{1}(x_{0})$ for $p=d=10$ (with $\mathcal{M}$ the power set of $\{1,...,p\}$) and $I=10,000$ takes around one second on a personal computer; and around 10 minutes for $p=d=20$ and $I=1,000$. In case $\mathcal{M}$ is the power set of $\{1,...,p\}$, the complexity of Algorithm \[alg:Kun\] will be exponential in $p$ and thus will be feasible only for moderately large values of $p$. In relation to this we mention that [@berk13validold] found their algorithm (which is similar to Algorithm \[alg:Kun\] as noted above) to be tractable for up to about $p=20$ and $I=1,000$, in which case the elapsed time was around one hour on 2012 desktop computer equipment. \[The longer running time is due to the fact that [@berk13validold] have to search over $p2^{p-1}$ unit vectors, while we have to search only over $%
2^{p}$ unit vectors.\]
The algorithm for computing $K_{3}(x_{0}[M],M)$ is given next. We provide this algorithm only for non-empty $M\neq \{1,...,p\}$ since in case $%
M=\{1,...,p\}$ we have $K_{3}(x_{0}[M],M)=K_{1}(x_{0})$, which can be computed by Algorithm \[alg:Kun\], and in case $M$ is empty we have $%
K_{3}(x_{0}[M],M)=K_{4}$, which can be computed by Algorithm [alg:Kquatre]{} given below. We now search for the solution of the equation$$1-\alpha =\mathbb{E}_{G}\breve{F}_{M,x_{0}}^{\ast }\left( t/G\right)$$where $\breve{F}_{M,x_{0}}^{\ast }$ is a Monte-Carlo estimator of $%
F_{M,x_{0}}^{\ast }$ obtained by replacing the probability involving $V$ by an empirical Monte-Carlo estimator (and where $\overset{\_}{\tilde{s}}_{M}$instead of $\bar{s}_{M}$ is being used). Observing that we need only to integrate over the range where $\breve{F}_{M,x_{0}}^{\ast }$ is positive (i.e., where $t/G>m_{\ast }$ defined below), the integrand can be additively decomposed into a ‘jump’ part and a continuous part. The integral over the jump part can be expressed analytically in terms of the c.d.f. $%
F_{d,r}^{\sharp }$, whereas the integral over the continuous part is approximated by an integral over a step function, which again can be expressed in terms of the c.d.f. $F_{d,r}^{\sharp }$. Recall that $c\left( M,%
\mathcal{M}\right) $ has been defined subsequent to (\[eq:F\]).
\[alg:Ktrois\]Suppose that $M\in \mathcal{M}$ satisfies $\varnothing
\neq M\neq \{1,...,p\}$. Choose $I\in \mathbb{N}$, generate independent identically distributed random vectors $V_{1},\ldots ,V_{I}$, where each $%
V_{i}$ is uniformly distributed on the unit sphere in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$, and calculate the quantities $c_{i}=\max_{M_{\ast }\in \mathcal{M},M_{\ast
}\subseteq M}\left\vert \overset{\_}{\tilde{s}}_{M_{\ast }}^{\prime
}V_{i}\right\vert $ with $\overset{\_}{\tilde{s}}_{M_{\ast }}$ as defined above. In case $d>1$, find $m_{\ast }$ as the smallest value such that$$\frac{1}{I}\sum_{i=1}^{I}\boldsymbol{1}\left( c_{i}>t\right) +c\left( M,%
\mathcal{M}\right) \left( 1-F_{Beta,1/2,(d-1)/2}\left( t^{2}\right) \right)
<1$$holds for all $t>m_{\ast }$. Next, choose $J\in \mathbb{N}$, $J>1$, and find the values $m_{1},...,m_{J-1}$ so that, for $j=1,...,J-1$$$\left( 1-F_{Beta,1/2,(d-1)/2}\left( m_{\ast }^{2}\right) \right) \frac{j}{J}%
=\left( 1-F_{Beta,1/2,(d-1)/2}\left( m_{j}^{2}\right) \right)
\label{eq:grid}$$holds. Set $m_{J}=m_{\ast }$. A numerical approximation to $%
K_{3}(x_{0}[M],M) $ is then obtained by searching for that value of $K$ that solves$$\begin{aligned}
1-\alpha & =F_{d,r}^{\sharp }\left( \frac{K}{m_{J}}\right) -\frac{1}{I}%
\sum_{i:c_{i}>m_{J}}\left( F_{d,r}^{\sharp }\left( \frac{K}{m_{J}}\right)
-F_{d,r}^{\sharp }\left( \frac{K}{c_{i}}\right) \right) \notag \\
& +c\left( M,\mathcal{M}\right) \left( 1-F_{Beta,1/2,(d-1)/2}\left(
m_{J}^{2}\right) \right) \frac{1}{J}\sum_{j=1}^{J-1}\left( F_{d,r}^{\sharp
}\left( \frac{K}{m_{j}}\right) -F_{d,r}^{\sharp }\left( \frac{K}{m_{J}}%
\right) \right) . \label{eq:KK}\end{aligned}$$In case $d=1$, $K_{3}(x_{0}[M],M)$ is the (uniquely determined and positive) constant $K$ that solves $$1-\alpha =F_{1,r}^{\sharp }\left( K\right) \text{.}$$
Note that $m_{\ast }$ exists, is uniquely determined, is always positive, and satisfies $m_{\ast }\leq 1$. \[In fact, $m_{\ast }<1$ holds, except in case $c_{i}=1$ for all $i$, which is a probability zero event.\] Provided $%
m_{\ast }<1$ holds, the values $m_{j}$ for $j\geq 1$ are uniquely defined and satisfy $m_{\ast }<m_{J-1}<\ldots <m_{1}<1$. \[In case $m_{\ast }=1$, then any $m_{j}\geq 1$ would solve (\[eq:grid\]). But in this case the r.h.s. of (\[eq:KK\]) reduces to $F_{d,r}^{\sharp }\left( K\right) $ anyway and hence there is no need for solving equation (\[eq:grid\]).\] Furthermore, note that the r.h.s. of (\[eq:KK\]) can be written as$$\begin{aligned}
&&F_{d,r}^{\sharp }\left( \frac{K}{m_{J}}\right) \left[ 1-\frac{1}{I}%
\sum_{i=1}^{I}\boldsymbol{1}\left( c_{i}>m_{J}\right) -c\left( M,\mathcal{M}%
\right) \left( 1-F_{Beta,1/2,(d-1)/2}\left( m_{J}^{2}\right) \right) \frac{%
J-1}{J}\right] \\
&&+\frac{1}{I}\sum_{i:c_{i}>m_{J}}F_{d,r}^{\sharp }\left( \frac{K}{c_{i}}%
\right) +c\left( M,\mathcal{M}\right) \left( 1-F_{Beta,1/2,(d-1)/2}\left(
m_{J}^{2}\right) \right) \frac{1}{J}\sum_{j=1}^{J-1}F_{d,r}^{\sharp }\left(
\frac{K}{m_{j}}\right) .\end{aligned}$$Observing that the expression in brackets is nonnegative (in fact, positive) because of the definition of $m_{J}$, we see that the r.h.s. of (\[eq:KK\]) is strictly increasing in $K$. Furthermore, inspection of the r.h.s. of (\[eq:KK\]) shows that it is zero for $K=0$ and converges to one for $%
K\rightarrow \infty $. Consequently, equation (\[eq:KK\]) has a unique solution for $K$, which necessarily is positive. We note that in Algorithm \[alg:Ktrois\] the cost of searching for $m_{\ast }$, for the $m_{j}$’s, and for $K$, for example by bisection searches, is negligible compared to that of computing the quantities $c_{i}$, which is again the limiting factor.
The above algorithm is based on approximating $1-F_{Beta,1/2,(d-1)/2}\left(
t^{2}\right) $ for $t>m_{\ast }$ by a step function from below. If we approximate by a step function from above, this results in the same algorithm except that now the second sum on the r.h.s. of equation ([eq:KK]{}) runs from $j=0$ to $j=J-1$ with the convention that $m_{0}=1$. A similar argument as above shows that the solution to this modification of (\[eq:KK\]) exists, is unique and is positive. Note that the solutions obtained from running both versions of the algorithm in parallel provide a lower as well as an upper bound for the solution one would obtain if the integration of the continuous part could be performed without error. These lower and upper bounds allow one to gauge whether or not $J$ has been chosen large enough such that the effect of the numerical integration error on $K$ is negligible. Note that running the two versions of the algorithm in parallel is not much more costly than running just one version, as only (bisection) searches are involved once the $c_{i}$’s have been computed.
The following algorithm for computing $K_{4}$ is similar to the algorithm in [@berk13validold], Section 7.2, for computing the universal upper-bound for the PoSI constants. The computational cost of this algorithm is negligible compared to those of Algorithms \[alg:Kun\] and \[alg:Ktrois\].
\[alg:Kquatre\] In case $d>1$, choose $J\in \mathbb{N}$, $J>1$, and find the values $m_{1},...,m_{J}$ so that, for $j=1,...,J$, $$c\left( \varnothing ,\mathcal{M}\right) \left( 1-F_{Beta,1/2,(d-1)/2}\left(
m_{j}^{2}\right) \right) =\frac{j}{J}. \label{eq:quantile:beta}$$Then, $K_{4}$ is numerically approximated by the (uniquely determined and positive) constant $K$ that solves$$\frac{1}{J}\sum_{m_{j}>0}F_{d,r}^{\sharp }\left( \frac{K}{m_{j}}\right)
=1-\alpha . \label{eq:KKK}$$In case $d=1$, $K_{4}$ is the (uniquely determined and positive) constant $K$ that solves$$F_{1,r}^{\sharp }\left( K\right) =1-\alpha . \label{eq:KKKK}$$
Note that in case $d>1$ the constants $m_{j}$ always exist and are unique; they are all positive in case $\mathcal{M}\neq \left\{ \varnothing ,\left\{
1,\ldots ,p\right\} \right\} $ (as then $c\left( \varnothing ,\mathcal{M}%
\right) >1$ must hold in view of our assumptions on $\mathcal{M}$), and they are positive for $j=1,\ldots ,J-1$ in case $\mathcal{M}=\left\{ \varnothing
,\left\{ 1,\ldots ,p\right\} \right\} $. Consequently, the solution $K$ of (\[eq:KKK\]) exists, is unique and positive. In case $d=1$ the solution of (\[eq:KKKK\]) also exists, is unique and positive. As before, this algorithm relies on approximation by a step function from below. A version of the algorithm that uses a step function that approximates from above is obtained if equation (\[eq:KKK\]) is replaced by $$\frac{1}{J}\sum_{j=0}^{J-1}F_{d,r}^{\sharp }\left( \frac{K}{m_{j}}\right)
=1-\alpha$$with the convention that $m_{0}=1$.
\[rem:known:variance:case:algos\]For the computation of the constants $K_{1}(x_{0},\infty )$, $K_{3}(x_{0}[M],M,\infty )$, and $%
K_{4}\left( \infty \right) $ (cf. Remark \[rem:kmown:variance:case\]) one can use the above algorithms with the only modification that the distribution function $F_{d,r}^{\sharp }$ is replaced by the distribution function of the square root of a chi-squared-distributed random variable with $d$ degrees of freedom.
\[stability\]When the collection $\mathcal{M}$ becomes large (e.g., if $\mathcal{M}$ is the power set of $\{1,...,p\}$ in case $p=d\leq n$ and $d$ is larger than $20$), Algorithms \[alg:Kun\] or \[alg:Ktrois\] may not be tractable, but Algorithm \[alg:Kquatre\] can still be as it does not require the costly step of searching over the model universe $%
\mathcal{M}$. However, it is reported in [@berk13validold] that, for about $d\geq 40$, it can be problematic to compute the extreme quantiles in (\[eq:quantile:beta\]) with standard routines. In this case, one can of course always use the Scheffé constant $K_{5}$. In practice, one may also consider in such cases (since $p$ is large) to use rule-of-thumb constants smaller than $K_{5}$ that are based on asymptotic considerations such as Corollary \[constants\_3\]: For example, if $p=d\leq n$, $\mathcal{M%
}$ is the power set of $\{1,...,p\}$, but $p$ is very large, this corollary could be read as suggesting to use the constant $K_{6}=0.866K_{5}$ in ([eq:general:form:CI]{}). A similar advice is given in the framework of [berk13validold]{}. \[In case $p>n$ and $\mathcal{M}$ is as in Corollary [constants\_3]{}, this corollary can be used to provide appropriate substitutes for $K_{6}$.\] However, we would like to issue a warning here: The asymptotic results for $p\rightarrow \infty $ like Corollary \[constants\_3\] and the related results in [@berk13validold] and [@berk13valid] are highly non-uniform w.r.t. $\alpha $ (cf. Remark \[nonuniformity\]), showing that rule-of-thumb approximations such as $K_{6}$ have to be taken with a grain of salt; see also the warning expressed at the end of Section 5.2 of [berk13validold]{}.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The subject of this paper is to investigate the weak regime covariant scalar-tensor-vector gravity (STVG) theory, known as the MOdified gravity (MOG) theory of gravity. First, we show that the MOG in the absence of scalar fields is converted into $\Lambda(t),G(t)$ models. Time evolution of the cosmological parameters for a family of viable models have been investigated. Numerical results with the cosmological data have been adjusted. We’ve introduced a model for dark energy (DE) density and cosmological constant which involves first order derivatives of Hubble parameter. To extend this model, correction terms including the gravitational constant are added. In our scenario, the cosmological constant is a function of time. To complete the model, interaction terms between dark energy and dark matter (DM) manually entered in phenomenological form. Instead of using the dust model for DM, we have proposed DM equivalent to a barotropic fluid. Time evolution of DM is a function of other cosmological parameters. Using sophisticated algorithms, the behavior of various quantities including the densities, Hubble parameter, etc. have been investigated graphically. The statefinder parameters have been used for the classification of DE models. Consistency of the numerical results with experimental data of $SneIa+BAO+CMB$ are studied by numerical analysis with high accuracy.'
author:
- 'M. Khurshudyan'
- 'N. S. Mazhari'
- 'D. Momeni'
- 'R. Myrzakulov'
- 'M. Raza'
title: '[**Observational constraints on models of the Universe with time variable Gravitational and Cosmological constants along MOG** ]{}'
---
=0.8 cm
A new synthesis of time variable $G,\Lambda$ models as MOG models
==================================================================
All Cosmological data from different sources testify to the fact that our world is made of a substance of negative pressure $73\%$ ( dark energy (DE) ), missing mass $23\%$ ( dark matter (DM)) and only $4\%$ conductive material (baryon matter) [@Riess; @et; @al]. DM and DE can have interaction and the interaction of these is not known in the physics. It is not an electromagnetic field and metallic material interaction. Mathematical function is determined phenomenologically because types of interactions is unknown with an overall classification interaction function can be written as $Q=Q(H,\dot{H},\rho_m,\rho_{DE},\rho_{DM},...)$.
Several models have been proposed to explain the universe’s accelerated expansion [@jamil1]-[@jamil7]. The models can be divided into two general groups: the first group of models that are needed to correct the Einstein theory of gravity with a new geometric terms is known as geometric models. The first of these models is $f(R)$ which is obtained by replacing the $R$ Ricci curvature with arbitrary $f(R)$ function[@H.; @A.; @Buchdahl]. The second group of models that are expansion is attributed to exotic fluids with negative pressure. It is believed that exotic fluid is a mimic dark energy equation of state in the present era (for a modern review see [@Bamba:2013iga],[@Sami:2013ssa] ). Both of these models have different applications and important results of these models are derived as alternative cosmological models [@Motohashi:2010zz; @Motohashi:2010tb; @Motohashi:2010qj; @Appleby:2009uf; @Starobinsky:2007hu].
Several properties of DE have been studied in numerous papers[@Kiefer:2010pb; @Shafieloo:2009ti; @Sahni:2008xx]. DE can be decay [@Alam:2004jy] or reconstruct from different theoretical models [@Sahni:2006pa]. There is no simple and unique model that can have to describe this exotic energy. Models in which the Scalar-tensor fields used are able to solve such complex issues by simple mathematics to the extend possible [@Gannouji:2006jm; @Gannouji:2007im]. So there are very attractive models to study. A scalar-Tensor model is proposed among all the different cosmological models. The model is able to explain the DM and dynamic clusters of galaxies with an additional vector field and relying only baryonic matter [@Moffat]. This model is known as STVG or MOG. MOG can be seen as a covariant theory with vector-tensor-scalar fields for gravity with the following action: $$\begin{aligned}
&&S=-\frac{1}{16\pi}\int \frac{1}{G}(R+2\Lambda)\sqrt{-g}d^4x+S_{\phi}+S_{M}\\&& \nonumber-\int \frac{1}{G}\Big[\frac{1}{2}g^{\alpha\beta}\Big(\nabla_{\alpha}\log G\nabla_{\beta}\log G+\nabla_{\alpha}\log \mu\nabla_{\beta}\log \mu\Big)+U_{G}(G)+W_{\mu}(\mu)\Big]\sqrt{-g}d^4x.\end{aligned}$$
The first term of the action is Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian. The second term is the conventional scalar field and the last term contains a $G$ kinetic energy field that plays the role of the gravitational constant (However, the fields can be considered similar to a time dependent gravitational constant by slowly time varying fields) [@Moffat:2011rp]. This action classes are written in covariant forms and are used to investigate the astrophysical phenomena such as rotation curves of galaxies, mass distribution of cosmic clusters or gravitational lenses. The model might be a suitable alternative to $\Lambda$CDM model considered [@Toth:2010ah]. In order to understand the role of scalar and vector fields we write the equations of motion for FLRW metric : $$ds^2=dt^2-a(t)^2[(1-kr^2)^{-1}dr^2+r^2d\Omega^2],\ \ d\Omega^2=d\theta^2+\sin^2{\theta}d\phi^2$$ Form of the equations can be rewritten as a generalized Friedmann equations as follow [@Moffat:2007ju]: $$\begin{aligned}
&&H^2+\frac{k}{a^2}=\frac{8\pi G\rho}{3}
-\frac{4\pi}{3}\left(\frac{\dot{G}^2}{G^2}+\frac{\dot{\mu}^2}{\mu^2}-\dot{\omega}^2-G\omega\mu^2\phi_0^2\right)\nonumber\\
&&\qquad{}+\frac{8\pi}{3}\left(
\omega GV_\phi+\frac{V_G}{G^2}+\frac{V_\mu}{\mu^2}+V_\omega
\right)
+\frac{\Lambda}{3}+H\frac{\dot{G}}{G},
\label{eq:FR1}\\
&&\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=-\frac{4\pi G}{3}(\rho+3p)
+\frac{8\pi}{3}\left(\frac{\dot{G}^2}{G^2}+\frac{\dot{\mu}^2}{\mu^2}-\dot{\omega}^2-G\omega\mu^2\phi_0^2\right)\nonumber\\
&&\qquad{}+\frac{8\pi}{3}\left(
\omega GV_\phi+\frac{V_G}{G^2}+\frac{V_\mu}{\mu^2}+V_\omega
\right)
+\frac{\Lambda}{3}+H\frac{\dot{G}}{2G}+\frac{\ddot{G}}{2G}-\frac{\dot{G}^2}{G^2},\nonumber\\
&&\ddot{G}+3H\dot{G}-\frac{3}{2}\frac{\dot{G}^2}{G}+\frac{G}{2}\left(\frac{\dot{\mu}^2}{\mu^2}-\dot{\omega}^2\right)+\frac{3}{G}V_G-V_G'\nonumber\\
&&\qquad{}+G\left[\frac{V_\mu}{\mu^2}+V_\omega\right]
+\frac{G}{8\pi}\Lambda-\frac{3G}{8\pi}\left(\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+H^2\right)=0,\\
&&\ddot{\mu}+3H\dot{\mu}-\frac{\dot{\mu}^2}{\mu}-\frac{\dot{G}}{G}\dot{\mu}+G\omega\mu^3\phi_0^2+\frac{2}{\mu}V_\mu-V'_\mu=0,\\
&&\ddot{\omega}+3H\dot{\omega}-\frac{\dot{G}}{G}\dot{\omega}-\frac{1}{2}G\mu^2\phi_0^2+GV_\phi+V'_\omega=0.\label{eq:omega}\end{aligned}$$
Scalar and vector fields interaction terms of the aforementioned classes are self interaction and they are shown by an arbitrary mathematical functions: $V_\phi(\phi)$, $V_G(G)$, $V_\omega(\omega)$, and $V_\mu(\mu)$. The resulting equations of motion are highly nonlinear and there is no possibility to find analytical solutions. The only possible way to evaluate answer is numerical method. At the same time, we must also determine the shape of the interaction $V_{i}$. Mathematical differences may be a good solution for finding certain family of potentials. If we consider the $G$ scalar field with a time variable gravitational field (G(t)) and ignore the contributions of the other fields in favor of the G(t), and also due to the cosmological data $\frac{\dot{G}}{G}\ll
1$, time evolution of G(t) will be the major contribution.
In fact, data from the large cosmological confirm our conjecture about just keeping the $G(t)$, and kinetic part of $G(t)$ can be neglected because: $$\begin{aligned}
&&g^{\alpha\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}\log G\nabla_{\beta}\log G \simeq (\frac{\dot{G}}{G})^2 \ll 1.\end{aligned}$$ Regardless, second-order derivatives of additional fields which introduced additional degrees of freedom and in the absence of additional fields on MOG, with the approximation that the time evolution of the fields is very slowly varying, MOG and Einstein-Hilbert action can be considered as the same. The difference is that now $G(t)$ is a scalar time variable field. Equations of motion are written in the following general form, if we consider small variation of $G(t)$ and $G(t),\Lambda$ are functions of time [@Bonanno:2006xa]: $$\begin{aligned}
S\simeq-\frac{1}{16\pi}\int \frac{1}{G}(R+2\Lambda)\sqrt{-g}d^4x+S_{M}.\end{aligned}$$ (see for instance [@Abdussattar]) $$R_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2}Rg_{\mu\nu}\approx -8 \pi G(t) \left[ T_{\mu\nu} -
\frac{\Lambda(t)}{8 \pi G(t)}g_{\mu\nu} \right]\label{FEQ},$$ Energy-momentum function of matter fields (ordinary or exotic) is proposed as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
T_{\mu\nu}=\mathcal{L}_{M}g_{\mu\nu}-2\frac{\delta \mathcal{L}_{M}}{\delta g^{\mu\nu}}.\end{aligned}$$ Cosmological models, which were introduced by the mentioned equations of motion have been investigated several times by different authors [@Abdussattar; @Jamil:2009sq; @Lu:2009iv; @Sadeghi:2013xca]. But we approach this problem with a more general view. As we have shown, MOG is the limit of weak fields able to induce and introduces a gravitational field $G(t)$. So, our paper can be considered as a cosmological analysis of MOG in the weak field regime. We are particularly interested to see how cosmological data $SneIa+BAO+CIB$ will constrain our model parameters.
Our plan in this paper is: In section II: introducing the cosmological constant and dark model consist of $\{H,\dot{H},..\}$. In section III: dynamic extraction of the model and additional equation governing $G(t)$ and inference different densities. In section IV, numerical analysis of the equations. In section V, statefinder parameters $(r,s)$ analysis. In section VI, observational constraints. The final section is devoted to the results of references.
Toy models
==========
A DE model of our interest is described via energy density $\rho_{D}$ [@Chen]: $$\label{eq:rhoD}
\rho_{D}=\alpha\frac{\ddot{H}}{H}+\beta \dot{H}+\gamma H^{2},$$ where $\beta$, $\gamma$ are positive constants, while for $\alpha$ in light of the time variable scenario, we suppose that $$\label{eq:alpha}
\alpha(t)=\alpha_{0}+\alpha_{1} G(t)+\alpha_{2} t \frac{\dot{G}(t)}{G(t)},$$ where $\alpha_{0}$, $\alpha_{1}$ and $\alpha_{2}$ are positive constants and $G(t)$ is a varying gravitational constant. Its a generalization of Ricci dark energy scenario [@riccide] to higher derivatives terms of Hubble parameter. An interaction term $Q$ between DE and a barotropic fluid $P_{b}=\omega_{b}\rho_{b}$is taken to be $$\label{eq:Q}
Q=3Hb(\rho_{b}+\rho_{D})$$ We propose three phenomenological models for DE as the following:
1. The first model is the simplest one, in which we assume that time variable cosmological constant has the same order of energy as the density of DE. $$\Lambda(t)=\rho_{D},$$ In this model, $\rho_{D}$ is determined using continuity equation with a dissipative interaction term Q.
2. Secondly, generalization of cosmological constant is proposed as a modified Ricci DE model to time variable scenario has an oscillatory form in terms of H. $$\Lambda(t)=\rho_{b}\sin^{3}{(tH)}+\rho_{D}\cos{(tH)},$$ Note that if we think on trigonometric term as oscillatory term, the amplitudes of the oscillations are assumed to be proportional to the barotropic and DE components. Meanwhile these coefficients satisfy continuity equations.
3. The last toy model is inspired from the small variation of G(t) and a logarithmic term of H. Here, coefficients are written in the forms of barotropic and DE densities . $$\Lambda(t)=\rho_{b}\ln{(tH)}+\rho_{D}\sin{\left (t\frac{\dot{G}(t)}{G(t)} \right )}.$$ In this model, a time dependent and G variable assumption is imposed.
Following the suggested models we will study time evolution and cosmological predictions of our cosmological model. Furthermore, we will compare the numerical results with a package of observational data.
Dynamic of models
=================
By using the following FRW metric for a flat Universe, $$\label{s2}
ds^2=-dt^2+a(t)^2\left(dr^{2}+r^{2}d\Omega^{2}\right),$$ field equations (\[FEQ\]) can be reduced to the following Friedmann equations, $$\label{eq: Fridmman vlambda}
H^{2}=\frac{\dot{a}^{2}}{a^{2}}=\frac{8\pi G(t)\rho}{3}+\frac{\Lambda(t)}{3},$$ and, $$\label{eq:fridman2}
\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=-\frac{4\pi
G(t)}{3}(\rho+3P)+\frac{\Lambda(t)}{3},$$ where $d\Omega^{2}=d\theta^{2}+\sin^{2}\theta d\phi^{2}$, and $a(t)$ represents the scale factor.\
Energy conservation law $T^{;j}_{ij}=0$ reads as, $$\label{eq:conservation}
\dot{\rho}+3H(\rho+P)=0.$$ Combination of (\[eq: Fridmman vlambda\]), (\[eq:fridman2\]) and (\[eq:conservation\]) gives the relationship between $\dot{G}(t)$ and $\dot{\Lambda}(t)$ $$\label{eq:glambda}
\dot{G}=-\frac{\dot{\Lambda}}{8\pi\rho}.$$ To introduce an interaction between DE and DM (\[eq:conservation\]) we should mathematically split it into two following equations $$\label{eq:inteqm}
\dot{\rho}_{DM}+3H(\rho_{DM}+P_{DM})=Q,$$ and $$\label{eq:inteqG}
\dot{\rho}_{DE}+3H(\rho_{DE}+P_{DE})=-Q.$$ For the barotropic fluid with $P_{b}=\omega_{b}\rho_{b}$ (\[eq:inteqm\]) will take following form $$\dot{\rho}_{b}+3H(1+\omega_{b}-b)\rho_{b}=3Hb\rho_{D}.$$ Pressure of the DE can be recovered from (\[eq:inteqG\]) $$P_{D}=-\rho_{D}-\frac{\dot{\rho}_{D}}{3H}-b\frac{3H^{2}-\Lambda(t)}{8 \pi G(t)}.$$ Therefore with a fixed form of $\Lambda(t)$ we will be able to observe behavior of $P_{D}$. Cosmological parameters of our interest are EoS parameters of DE $\omega_{D}=P_{D}/\rho_{D}$, EoS parameter of composed fluid $$\omega_{tot}=\frac{P_{b}+P_{D} }{\rho_{b}+\rho_{D}},$$ deceleration parameter $q$, which can be written as $$\label{eq:accchange}
q=\frac{1}{2}(1+3\frac{P}{\rho} ),$$ where $P=P_{b}+P_{D}$ and $\rho=\rho_{b}+\rho_{D}$. We have a full system of equations of motion and interaction terms. Now we are ready to investigate cosmological predictions of our model.
Numerical analysis of the Cosmological parameters
=================================================
In next sections we fully analyze time evolution of three models of DE. Using numerical integration, we will show that how cosmological parameters $H,G(t),q,w_{\text{tot}}$, and time decay rate $\frac{d\log G}{dt}$ and densities $\rho_D,..$ change. We fit parameters like $H_0,$ etc from observational data.
Model 1: $\Lambda(t)=\rho_{D}$
------------------------------
In this section we will consider $\Lambda(t)$ to be of the form $$\label{eq:lambda1}
\Lambda(t)=\rho_{D}.$$ Therefore for the pressure of DE we will have $$\label{eq:P1}
P_{D}=\left( \frac{b}{8 \pi G(t)} -1 \right )\rho_{D}-\frac{\dot{\rho}_{D}}{3H}-\frac{3b}{8 \pi G(t)}H^{2}.$$ The dynamics of $G(t)$ we will have $$\label{eq:G1}
\frac{\dot{G}(t)}{G(t)}+\frac{\dot{\rho}_{D}}{3H^{2}-\rho_{D}}=0.$$ Performing a numerical analysis for the general case we recover the graphical behavior of different cosmological parameters. Graphical behavior of Gravitational constant $G(t)$ against time $t$ presented in Fig.(\[fig:1\]). We see that $G(t)$ is an increasing function. Different plots represent behavior of $G(t)$ as a function of the parameters of the model. For this model with the specific behavior of $G(t)$ for Hubble parameter $H$ gives decreasing behavior over time. It is confirmed by LCDM scenario. From the analysis of the graphical behavior of $\omega_{tot}$ we made the following conclusion that with $\alpha_{0}=1$, $\gamma=0.5$, $\beta=3.5$, $\omega_{b}=0.3$, $b=0.01$ (interaction parameter) and with increasing $\alpha_{1}$ and $\alpha_{2}$ we increase the value of $\omega_{tot}$ for later stages of evolution, while for the early stages, in history, it is a decreasing function. For instance, with $\alpha_{1}=0.5$ and $\alpha_{2}=0.5$ (blue line) $\omega_{tot}$ is a constant and $\omega_{tot} \approx -0.9$ (Top left plot in Fig.(\[fig:2\])). Top right plot of Fig.(\[fig:2\]) presents graphical behavior of $\omega_{tot}$ against time as a function of the parameter $b$ characterizing interaction between DE and DM. We see that for the later stages of the evolution the interaction $Q=3hb(\rho_{b}+\rho_{D})$ does not play any role. An existence of the interaction can be observed only for relatively early stages of evolution and when $b$ is too much higher than the real values of it estimated from observations. The left-bottom plot shows the decreasing behavior of $\omega_{tot}$ at early stages of evolution which, while for later stages, becomes a constant. This behavior is observed for $\alpha_{0}=\alpha_{1}=\alpha_{2}=1$, $\omega_{b}=0.1$, $b=0.01$ and for increasing $\gamma$ and $\beta$. With the increase in $\gamma$ and $\beta$, we increase the value of $\omega_{tot}$. The right-bottom plot represents behavior as a function of $\omega_{b}$. In Fig.[\[fig:3\]]{}, the graphical behavior of the deceleration parameter $q$ is observed which is a negative quantity throughout the evolution of the Universe i.e. we have an ever accelerated Universe. Right panel (top and bottom) shows that the behavior of $q$ does not strongly depend upon the interaction parameter $b$ and EoS parameter $\omega_{b}$. We also see that $q$ starts its evolution from $-1$ and for a very short period of the history it becomes smaller than $-1$, but after this $q>-1$ for ever, giving a hope that observational facts can be modeled (for later stages!). Right panel (top and bottom) represents the behavior of $q$ for $\alpha_{1}=\alpha_{2}$ and {$\gamma$, $\beta$} (top and bottom) respectively. With the increase in the values of the parameters, the value of $q$ increases. Some information about $\omega_{D}$, $\Lambda(t)$ and $\dot{G}(t)/G(t)$ can be found in Appendix.
$
\begin{array}{cccc}
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/first/int_G_alpha.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/first/int_G_b.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/first/int_G_gamma.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/first/int_G_omegab.eps}
\end{array}$
$
\begin{array}{cccc}
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/first/int_omega_alpha.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/first/int_omega_b.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/first/int_omega_gamma.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/first/int_omega_omegab.eps}
\end{array}$
$
\begin{array}{cccc}
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/first/int_q_alpha.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/first/int_q_b.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/first/int_q_gamma.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/first/int_q_omegab.eps}
\end{array}$
$
\begin{array}{cccc}
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/first/int_Hubble_alpha.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/first/int_Hubble_b.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/first/int_Hubble_gamma.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/first/int_Hubble_omegab.eps}
\end{array}$
$
\begin{array}{cccc}
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/first/int_alpha_alpha.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/first/int_alpha_b.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/first/int_alpha_gamma.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/first/int_alpha_omegab.eps}
\end{array}$
$
\begin{array}{cccc}
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/first/int_omegaD_alpha.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/first/int_omegaD_b.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/first/int_omegaD_gamma.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/first/int_omegaD_omegab.eps}
\end{array}$
$
\begin{array}{cccc}
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/first/int_DG_alpha.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/first/int_DG_b.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/first/int_DG_gamma.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/first/int_DG_omegab.eps}
\end{array}$
Model 2: $\Lambda(t)=\rho_{b}\sin{(tH)}^{3}+\rho_{D}\cos{(tH)}$
---------------------------------------------------------------
For the second model we will consider the following phenomenological form of the $\Lambda(t)$ $$\label{eq:Lambda2}
\Lambda(t)=\rho_{b}\sin{(tH)}^{3}+\rho_{D}\cos{(tH)}.$$ Taking into account (\[eq: Fridmman vlambda\]) we can write $\Lambda(t)$ in a different form $$\label{eq:Lambda2new}
\Lambda(t)=\left [ 1+\frac{\sin(tH)^{3}}{8 \pi G(t)} \right ]^{-1} \left( \frac{3H^{2}}{8 \pi G(t)}\sin{(tH)}^{3}-\rho_{D}(\sin{(tH)}^{3}-\cos{(tH)})\right ).$$ $$\label{eq:G2}
\frac{\dot{G}(t)}{G(t)}+\frac{\dot{\Lambda}(t)}{3H^{2}-\Lambda(t)}=0,$$ with (\[eq:Lambda2new\]) will give us the behavior of $G(t)$ Fig(\[fig:4\]). We see that $G(t)$ is an increasing-decreasing-increasing function (Top panel and right-bottom plot). The left-bottom plot gives us an information about the behavior of $G(t)$ as a function of $\gamma$ and $\beta$ with $\alpha_{0}=1$, $\alpha_{1}=\alpha_{2}=1.5$ and $\omega_{b}=0.3$, $b=0.01$. We see that with increasing $\gamma$ and $\beta$ we are able to change the behavior of $G(t)$. For instance, with $\gamma=0.5$ and $\beta=3.5$ which is a blue line, still preserves the increasing-decreasing-increasing behavior. While for higher values of the parameters, we change the behavior of $G(t)$ compared to the other cases within this model and we have increasing-decreasing behavior. Graphical behavior of $\omega_{tot}$ can be found in Fig.[\[fig:5\]]{}. The behavior of the deceleration parameter $q$ for this model gives us almost the same as for Model 1, where $\Lambda(t)=\rho_{D}$. We also see that with increasing $\gamma$ and $\beta$ we increase the value of $q$ (left-bottom plot). The presence of the interaction $Q$ and the barotropic fluid for which EoS parameter $\omega_{b}<1$ does not leave a serious impact on the behavior of $q$. This model with this behavior of $q>-1$ can be comparable with the observational facts.
$
\begin{array}{cccc}
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/sec/int_G_alpha.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/sec/int_G_b.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/sec/int_G_gamma.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/sec/int_G_omegab.eps}
\end{array}$
$
\begin{array}{cccc}
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/sec/int_omega_alpha.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/sec/int_omega_b.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/sec/int_omega_gamma.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/sec/int_omega_omegab.eps}
\end{array}$
$
\begin{array}{cccc}
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/sec/int_q_alpha.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/sec/int_q_b.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/sec/int_q_gamma.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/sec/int_q_omegab.eps}
\end{array}$
$
\begin{array}{cccc}
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/sec/int_Hubble_alpha.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/sec/int_Hubble_b.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/sec/int_Hubble_gamma.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/sec/int_Hubble_omegab.eps}
\end{array}$
$
\begin{array}{cccc}
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/sec/int_alpha_alpha.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/sec/int_alpha_b.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/sec/int_alpha_gamma.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/sec/int_alpha_omegab.eps}
\end{array}$
$
\begin{array}{cccc}
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/sec/int_omegaD_alpha.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/sec/int_omegaD_b.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/sec/int_omegaD_gamma.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/sec/int_omegaD_omegab.eps}
\end{array}$
$
\begin{array}{cccc}
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/sec/int_DG_alpha.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/sec/int_DG_b.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/sec/int_DG_gamma.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/sec/int_DG_omegab.eps}
\end{array}$
Model 3: $\Lambda(t)=\rho_{b}\ln{(tH)}+\rho_{D}\sin{\left (t\frac{\dot{G}(t)}{G(t)}\right) }$
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this model we will consider the following phenomenological form of the $\Lambda(t)$ $$\label{eq:Lambda2}
\Lambda(t)=\rho_{b}\ln{(tH)}+\rho_{D}\sin{\left (t\frac{\dot{G}(t)}{G(t)}\right) }.$$ Taking into account (\[eq: Fridmman vlambda\]) we can write $\Lambda(t)$ in a different form $$\label{eq:Lambda2new}
\Lambda(t)=\left [ 1+\frac{\ln(tH)}{8 \pi G(t)} \right ]^{-1} \left( \frac{3H^{2}}{8 \pi G(t)}\ln{(tH)}-\rho_{D}(\ln{(tH)}-\sin{\left (t\frac{\dot{G}(t)}{G(t)}\right) })\right ).$$ $$\label{eq:G2}
\frac{\dot{G}(t)}{G(t)}+\frac{\dot{\Lambda}(t)}{3H^{2}-\Lambda(t)}=0.$$ Equation (\[eq:G2\]) with (\[eq:Lambda2new\]) will give us the behavior of $G(t)$. This model also includes several interesting facts about the behavior of the cosmological parameters. After recovering the $G(t)$ we observe that $G(t)$ is an increasing function, and its graphical behavior for the different cases are given in Fig.(\[fig:7\]). For instance with increasing $\beta$ and $\gamma$ with $\alpha_{0}=\alpha_{2}=1$, $\alpha_{1}=1.5$, $\omega_{b}=0.3$ and $b=0.01$ we have the following picture: $\gamma=0.1$ and $\beta=2.5$ (a blue line at left-bottom plot) we have a decreasing behavior for $G(t)$, while for the higher values for $\gamma$ and $\beta$ we have increasing behavior for later stages of evolution. With increasing $\omega_{b}$ we decrease the value of $G(t)$ (right-bottom). We also observe that there is a period in history of the evolution where $G(t)$ can be a constant. With $\alpha_{0}=\alpha_{2}=1$, $\alpha_{1}=1.5$, $\gamma=0.5$, $\beta=3.5$ and $\omega_{b}=0.3$ we see that for non interacting case, when $b=0$ (a blue line at right-top plot) at later stages of evolution $G(t)=const \approx 1.36$, while when we include the interaction and increase the value of $b$, increase in the value of $G(t)$ is observed. Behavior of $G(t)$ from $\alpha_{0}$, $\alpha_{1}$ and $\alpha_{2}$ can be found at the left-top plot of Fig.(\[fig:7\]). Other cosmological parameter that we have investigated for this model is a $\omega_{tot}$ describing interacting DE and DM two component fluid model. From Fig.(\[fig:8\]) we can make conclusion about the behavior of the parameter. We observe that as a function of $\alpha_{0}$, $\alpha_{1}$ and $\alpha_{2}$, while the other parameters are being fixed, we have a decreasing function for the initial stages of evolution, while for the later stages we have a constant value for $\omega_{tot}$. With increasing $\alpha_{1}$ and $\alpha_{2}$ we will increase $\omega_{tot}$ and we have a possibility to obtain decreasing-increasing-constant behavior (left-top plot). On the right-top plot we see the role of the interaction $Q$. Starting with the non interacting case $b=0$ and increasing $b$ we observe the increasing value of $\omega_{tot}$. Bottom panel of Fig.[\[fig:8\]]{} represents graphical behavior of $\omega_{tot}$ from $ \{ \gamma, \beta \} $ and $\omega_{b}$. The last parameter discussed in this section will be the deceleration parameter $q$ recovered for this specific $\Lambda(t)$. Investigating the behavior we conclude that for this model, $\gamma > 0.1$ and $\beta>2.5$ should be taken in order to get $q>-1$ ( Fig.(\[fig:9\]) left-bottom plot). It starts its evolution from $-1$ and then it is strictly $q>-1$ for later stages of evolution. Interaction as well as $\omega_{b}$ has a small impact on the behavior of $q$. Left-top plot of Fig.[\[fig:9\]]{} represents the behavior of $q$ as a function of $\alpha_{0}$, $\alpha_{1}$ and $\alpha_{2}$. As for the other models, additional information about other cosmological parameters of this model can be found in Appendix.
$
\begin{array}{cccc}
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/third/int_G_alpha.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/third/int_G_b.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/third/int_G_gamma.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/third/int_G_omegab.eps}
\end{array}$
$
\begin{array}{cccc}
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/third/int_omega_alpha.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/third/int_omega_b.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/third/int_omega_gamma.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/third/int_omega_omegab.eps}
\end{array}$
$
\begin{array}{cccc}
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/third/int_q_alpha.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/third/int_q_b.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/third/int_q_gamma.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/third/int_q_omegab.eps}
\end{array}$
$
\begin{array}{cccc}
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/third/int_Hubble_alpha.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/third/int_Hubble_b.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/third/int_Hubble_gamma.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/third/int_Hubble_omegab.eps}
\end{array}$
$
\begin{array}{cccc}
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/third/int_alpha_alpha.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/third/int_alpha_b.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/third/int_alpha_gamma.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/third/int_alpha_omegab.eps}
\end{array}$
$
\begin{array}{cccc}
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/third/int_omegaD_alpha.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/third/int_omegaD_b.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/third/int_omegaD_gamma.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/third/int_omegaD_omegab.eps}
\end{array}$
$
\begin{array}{cccc}
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/third/int_DG_alpha.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/third/int_DG_b.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/third/int_DG_gamma.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/third/int_DG_omegab.eps}
\end{array}$
State finder diagnostic
=======================
In the framework of GR, Dark energy can explain the present cosmic acceleration. Except cosmological constant many other candidates of dark energy(quintom, quintessence, brane, modified gravity etc.) are proposed. Dark energy is model dependent and to differentiate different models of dark energy, a sensitive diagnostic tool is needed. Since $\dot{a}>0$, hence $H>0$ means the expansion of the universe. Also, $\ddot{a}>0$ implies $q<0$. Since, the various dark energy models give $H>0$ and $q<0$, they cannot provide enough evidence to differentiate the more accurate cosmological observational data and the more general models of dark energy. For this aim we need higher order of time derivative of scale factor and geometrical tool. Sahni *et.al.* [@Sahni] proposed geometrical statefinder diagnostic tool, based on dimensionless parameters $(r, s)$ which are function of scale factor and its time derivative. These parameters are defined as
$$\label{eq:statefinder}
r=\frac{1}{H^{3}}\frac{\dddot{a}}{a} ~~~~~~~~~~~~
s=\frac{r-1}{3(q-\frac{1}{2})}.$$
For $8\pi G =1$ and $\Lambda=0$ we can obtain another form of parameters $r$ and $s$: $$\label{eq:rsrhop}
r=1+\frac{9(\rho+P)}{2\rho}\frac{\dot{P}}{\dot{\rho}}, ~~~ s=\frac{(\rho+P)}{P}\frac{\dot{P}}{\dot{\rho}}.$$ For the model 3 of our consideration, we presented the $\{r,s\}$ in Fig.(\[fig:rs\]) as a function of $\beta$ and $\gamma$.
$
\begin{array}{cccc}
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/third/rs_3_1.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/third/rs_3_2.eps}\\
\end{array}$
As we know the pair $\{r,s\}=\{1,0\}$ corresponds to the $\Lambda$ CDM model. It is indicated on our graphs for both models. Further, $\{1,0\}$ which shows the CDM model, is present in our models. But we obsaerve the absence of Einstein static universe due to this fact that our models never mimic the pair $\{-\infty,+\infty\}$. So, our models fit the $\Lambda CDM$ and CDM perfectly.
Observational constraints
==========================
To use the $SNIa$ data, we define distance modulus $\mu$ as a function of the luminosity distance $D_L$ as the following: $$\mu=m-M=5\log_{10}{D_L},$$ Here $D_{L}$ is in the following form: $$D_{L}=(1+z)\frac{c}{H_{0}}\int_{0}^{z}{\frac{dz'}{\sqrt{H(z')}}}.$$ Here $m$ and $M$ denote the apparent magnitude and absolute magnitude, respectively. Due to the photon-baryon plasma, Baryonic acoustic oscillations exist in the decoupling redshift $z = 1.090$. A major for scaling is the following quantity $$A=\frac{\sqrt{\Omega_{m0} } }{H(z_{b})^{1/3}} \left[ \frac{1}{z_{b}} \int_{0}^{z_{b}}{\frac{dz}{H(z)}} \right ]^{2/3}.$$ From WiggleZ-data [@Blake] we know that $A = 0.474 \pm 0.034$, $0.442 \pm 0.020$ and $0.424 \pm 0.021$ at the redshifts $z_{b} =
0.44$, $0.60$ and $0.73$. The major statistical analysis parameter is: $$\chi^{2}{(x^{j})}=\sum_{i}^{n}\frac{(f(x^{j})_{i}^{t}-f(x^{j})_{i}^{0})^{2}}{\sigma_{i}},$$ Here $f(x^{j})_{i}^{t}$ is the theoretical function of the model’s parameters. To conclude the work and model analysis we perform comparison of our results with observational data. SNeIa data allowed us to obtain the following observational constraints for our models. For the Model 1, we found that the best fit can occurred with $\Omega_{m0}=0.24$ and $H_{0}=0.3$. For $\alpha_{0}=0.3$, $\alpha_{1}=0.5$, $\alpha_{2}=0.4$ and $\beta=4.0$, $\gamma=1.4$, $\omega_{b}=0.5$, while for interaction parameter $b=0.02$. For the Model 2, we found that the best fit we can obtain with $H_{0}=0.5$ and $\Omega_{m}=0.4$. Meanwhile for $\alpha_{0}=1.0$, $\alpha_{1}=1.5$, $\alpha_{2}=1.3$ and $\beta=3.5$, $\gamma=0.5$, $\omega_{b}=0.3$, while for interaction parameter $b=0.01$. Finally we present the results obtained for Model 3, which say that the best fit is possible when $H_{0}=0.35$ and $\Omega_{m0}=0.28$. For the parameters $\alpha_{0}$, $\alpha_{1}$, $\alpha_{2}$, $\beta$, $\gamma$, $\omega_{b}$ and $b$ we have the numbers $0.7$,$1.0$, $1.2$, $3$, $0.8$, $0.75$ and $0.01$ respectively. Finally, we would like to discuss the constraints resulted from $SNeIa+BAO+CMB$ [@obs] .
M $\alpha_{0}$ $\alpha_{1}$ $\alpha_{2}$ $\beta$ $\gamma$ $\omega_{b}$ $b$ $H_{0}$ $\Omega_{m0}$
--- ----------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------- --------------------- ----------------------- --------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------ --------------------------
1 $0.3^{+0.35}_{-0.15}$ $0.5^{+0.35}_{-0.4}$ $0.4^{+0.35}_{-0.1}$ $4.0^{+1.3}_{-2.7}$ $1.4^{+0.25}_{-0.25}$ $0.5^{+0.4}_{-0.5}$ $0.01^{+0.07}_{-0.01}$ $0.25^{+0.35}_{-0.05}$ $0.26^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$
2 $1.2^{+0.2}_{-0.5}$ $1.1^{+0.4}_{-0.3}$ $0.7^{+0.55}_{-0.15}$ $3.0^{+1.5}_{-0.8}$ $0.7^{+0.12}_{-0.3}$ $0.4^{+0.6}_{0.2}$ $0.02^{+0.03}_{0.005}$ $0.4^{+0.35}_{-0.2}$ $0.3^{+0.2}_{-0.05}$
3 $0.7^{+0.5}_{-0.3}$ $1.0^{+0.2}_{0.4}$ $1^{+0.1}_{-0.3}$ $3.0^{+1.0}_{0.3}$ $0.8^{+0.1}_{-0.4}$ $0.7^{+0.6}_{-0.1}$ $0.01^{+0.09}_{-0.01}$ $0.3^{+0.3}_{-0.1}$ $ 0.21^{+0.15}_{-0.01} $
$
\begin{array}{cccc}
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/first/mu_1.eps} &
\includegraphics[width=50 mm]{Plots/sec/mu_2.eps}\\
\end{array}$
From the graph of luminosity distance versus zm we learn that how $\mu$ depends on the values of the parameters for different redshifts $z$. For different values of $\Omega_M,\Omega_D=0$ and i the regime of low redshifts $0.001<z<0.01$ , this graph has linearity. For $z>0.4$ the graph has typical form of models with $\Omega_M$. Hubble parameter $H$ has a centeral role in the behavior of $\mu(z)$ for different ranges of $z$. We can use it to investigate the cosmological parameters.
Summary
=======
Time varying cosmological models with gravitational and cosmological constant have been studied frequently. Nevertheless, in view of cosmological data, rate of change of G is small. So the first order correction terms are more important. Our approach to $\Lambda(t),
G(t)$ models is slightly different and more general than any other previous work. As a proper generalization of general relativity, scalar-tensor-vector gravity model has been proposed to explain the structure of galaxies and dark matter problem. If we assume small changes in the variation of the scalar fields, MOG model at the level of action becomes equivalent to Einstein-Hilbert model, of course it is necessary that we consider $G(t)$ as a slowly varying scalar field. We proposed three models of generalized Ricci dark energy including $\Lambda(t), G(t)$ to complete the time evolution of dark energy. Due to the complexity of the model equations, the numerical algorithms with cosmological parameters have been used. Gravitational acceleration region and time evolution of state finder parameters $\{r,s\}$ compared with $\Lambda$CDM model are numerically studied with high accuracy. We obtained the fit range of data models by comparing the free parameters of dark energy models and cosmological data $SNeIa+BAO+CMB$. Our model is a model that is consistent with cosmological data while the other theoretical models are not.
The authors thank J.W.Moffat for useful comments about MOG.
[99]{}
A.G. Riess, et al., Astron. J. 116 (1998) 1009 \[astroph/ 9805201\]; S. Perlmutter, et al., Astrophys. J. 517 (1999) 565 \[astro-ph/9812133\]; C.L. Bennett, et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148 (2003) 1 \[astro-ph/0302207\]; D.N. Spergel, et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148 (2003) 175 \[astro-ph/0302209\]; M. Tegmark, et al., Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 103501 \[astro-ph/0310723\]; K. Abazajian, et al., \[astro-ph/0410239\]; K. Abazajian, et al., Astron. J. 128 (2004) 502 \[astro-ph/0403325\]; K. Abazajian, et al., Astron. J. 126 (2003) 2081 \[astro-ph/0305492\]; E. Hawkins, et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 346 (2003) 78 \[astro-ph/0212375\]; L. Verde, et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 335 (2002) 432 \[astro-ph/0112161\] K. Bamba, S. ’i. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, arXiv:1302.4831 \[gr-qc\]. M. Sami and R. Myrzakulov, arXiv:1309.4188 \[hep-th\]. M. Jamil, F. Rahaman and M. Kalam, Eur. Phys. J. C [**60**]{}, 149 (2009) \[arXiv:0809.4314 \[gr-qc\]\]. M. R. Setare and M. Jamil, Gen. Rel. Grav. [**43**]{}, 293 (2011) \[arXiv:1008.4763 \[gr-qc\]\]. M. Jamil and U. Debnath, Int. J. Theor. Phys. [**50**]{}, 1602 (2011) \[arXiv:0909.3689 \[gr-qc\]\]. M. Jamil , Int. J. Theor. Phys.49:2829-2840, 2010, arXiv:1010.0158 \[astro-ph.CO\]. M. Jamil et al., ; Astrophys. Space Sci. (2012) 337:799-803, arXiv:1110.4053 \[physics.gen-ph\]. M. R. Setare and M. Jamil, JCAP [**1002**]{}, 010 (2010) \[Erratum-ibid. [**1008**]{}, E01 (2010)\] \[arXiv:1001.1251 \[hep-th\]\]. Shuvendu Chakraborty, Ujjal Debnath, Mubasher Jamil, Ratbay Myrzakulov, Int. J. Theor. Phys. (2012) 51:2246-2255, arXiv:1111.3853 \[physics.gen-ph\]. H. A. Buchdahl, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 150, 1 (1970).
H. Motohashi, A. A. Starobinsky and J. ’i. Yokoyama, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D [**20**]{}, 1347 (2011) \[arXiv:1101.0716 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. H. Motohashi, A. A. Starobinsky and J. ’i. Yokoyama, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**123**]{}, 887 (2010) \[arXiv:1002.1141 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. H. Motohashi, A. A. Starobinsky and J. ’i. Yokoyama, arXiv:1002.0462 \[astro-ph.CO\]. S. A. Appleby, R. A. Battye and A. A. Starobinsky, JCAP [**1006**]{}, 005 (2010) \[arXiv:0909.1737 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. A. A. Starobinsky, JETP Lett. [**86**]{}, 157 (2007) \[arXiv:0706.2041 \[astro-ph\]\].
C. Kiefer, F. Queisser and A. A. Starobinsky, Class. Quant. Grav. [**28**]{}, 125022 (2011) \[arXiv:1010.5331 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. A. Shafieloo, V. Sahni and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 101301 (2009) \[arXiv:0903.5141 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. V. Sahni, A. Shafieloo and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 103502 (2008) \[arXiv:0807.3548 \[astro-ph\]\].
U. Alam, V. Sahni and A. A. Starobinsky, JCAP [**0406**]{}, 008 (2004) \[astro-ph/0403687\].
V. Sahni and A. Starobinsky, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D [**15**]{}, 2105 (2006) \[astro-ph/0610026\].
R. Gannouji, D. Polarski, A. Ranquet and A. A. Starobinsky, JCAP [**0609**]{}, 016 (2006) \[astro-ph/0606287\]. R. Gannouji, D. Polarski, A. Ranquet and A. A. Starobinsky, astro-ph/0701650. J. W. Moffat, JCAP, 0603 ,004(2006).
J. W. Moffat and V. T. Toth, Galaxies [**1**]{}, 65 (2013) \[arXiv:1104.2957 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
V. T. Toth, arXiv:1011.5174 \[gr-qc\].
J. W. Moffat and V. T. Toth, arXiv:0710.0364 \[astro-ph\].
A. Bonanno, G. Esposito, C. Rubano and P. Scudellaro, Class. Quant. Grav. [**24**]{}, 1443 (2007) \[gr-qc/0610012\].
Abdussattar and R. G. Vishwakarma, Class. Quant. Grav. [**14**]{}, 945 (1997).
M. Jamil, E. N. Saridakis and M. R. Setare, Phys. Lett. B [**679**]{}, 172 (2009) \[arXiv:0906.2847 \[hep-th\]\]. J. Lu, E. N. Saridakis, M. R. Setare and L. Xu, JCAP [**1003**]{}, 031 (2010) \[arXiv:0912.0923 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
J. Sadeghi, M. Khurshudyan, A. Movsisyan and H. Farahani, JCAP [**1312**]{}, 031 (2013) \[arXiv:1308.3450 \[gr-qc\]\].
S. Chen, J. Jing, Phys. Lett. B, 679, 144 (2009) S. del Campo, Júl. . C. Fabris, R. ónHerrera and W. Zimdahl, arXiv:1303.3436 \[astro-ph.CO\]. D. J. Eisenstein, et al., Astrophys. J. 633, 560 (2005); Y. Wang and P. Mukherjee, Astrophys. J. 650, 1 (2006); J. R. Bond, G. Efstathiou and M. Tegmark, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 291, L33 (1997).
V. Sahni, T. D. Saini, A. A. Starobinsky, and U. Alam, Statefinder – a new geometrical diagnostic of dark energy, JETP Lett. **77**, 201 (2003).
C. Blake et all, The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: mapping the distance-redshift relation with baryon acoustic oscillations, arXiv:1108.2635.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We describe an efficient rigorous model suitable for calculating the properties of finite metamaterial samples, which takes into account the discrete structure of metamaterials based on capacitively loaded ring resonators. We illustrate how this model applies specifically to a metamaterial lens employed in magnetic-resonant imaging. We show that the discrete model reveals the effects which can be missed by a continuous model based on effective parameters, and that the results are in close agreement with the experimental data.'
author:
- 'M. Lapine'
- 'L. Jelinek'
- 'R. Marqu[é]{}s'
- 'M.J. Freire'
title: Exact modeling method for discrete finite metamaterial lens
---
Introduction
============
For the last decade, metamaterials [@SolSha; @MarMarSor] are in the focus of research attention in theoretical and applied electrodynamics. Even though no commonly accepted definition is available [@ML7; @Sih07], this research direction experiences a boom encompassing a wide span of areas ranging from microwave engineering to nonlinear optics. One of the well-known suggestions for applications was formulated as a “perfect lens” [@Pen00], making use of negative effective material parameters and providing imaging with subwavelength resolution. The idea of super-resolution was subsequently analysed and developed in a number of ways [@SKR1; @MTA4; @MFM5], and even realized in practice (speaking about three-dimensional systems) using split-ring resonators (SRRs) [@Fre5; @FreMarJel08], or transmission-line networks [@Grb5; @AliTre07].
Arguably the closest approach to practice offered by metamaterials, is related to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). For example, rotational resonance of magnetoinductive waves [@SolZhuSyd06] was suggested for parametric amplification of MRI signals [@SymSolYou07] or enhanced detection with flexible ring resonators [@SymYouSol10]. Alternatively, applications based on ‘swiss-rolls’ [@WHP3] or wire media [@IkoBelSim06] channelling were put forward [@WHP3; @RadGarCra09]. Naturally, superlens concept is also promising in this area: specifically for MRI, an isotropic lens based on capacitively loaded single ring resonators was designed and experimentally tested [@FreMarJel08].
Such a metamaterial lens is intended to operate at the value of effective permeability $\mu=-1$. In theory, for modelling such metamaterials (based on SRRs), one can exploit an effective medium approach, taking care of numerous limitations related to general restrictions of homogenization [@Agr09] as well as to specific peculiarities caused by resonant nature of the structural elements [@Sim08]. Universally, all the structure details (size of the elements and lattice constants) must be much smaller than the wavelength; while the total number of elements in metamaterial should be sufficiently large to make homogenization meaningful. In addition, spatial dispersion effects can be rather remarkable in metamaterials, and impose further restrictions on effective medium treatment, prohibiting that in certain frequency bands [@Sim08].
Unless one opts for a completely numerical homogenization method [@Sil07], generally applicable to almost arbitrary structures, a model have to be developed to describe adequately the effective medium properties. Quite general approach [@Sim08] for homogenization of resonant metamaterials can be applied to a variety of metamaterials including those which combine different element types. However, this relies on the dipole approximation for the interaction of elements in the lattice, which may not be always valid. For example, mutual interaction of the circular currents close to each other significantly differs from dipole interaction, which becomes relevant for dense metamaterials. The first rigorous analysis of such metamaterials was given early in Ref. [@GLS2], where the effective permeability has been derived given the properties of individual elements and lattice parameters, through the classical procedure of averaging the microscopic fields. In that approach, mutual inductances between a large number of neighbours are taken into account, revealing the importance of lattice effects. This approach, however, is limited to quasi-static conditions, and requires wavelength to be much larger than any structural details. Later on, a rigorous method was elaborated for isotropic lattices of resonant rings [@BaeJelMar08], which accounts for spatial dispersion. On the other hand, the latter approach employs a nearest neighbour approximation as otherwise full analytical treatment becomes impractical.
The above theoretical methods provide the effective parameters for “infinite” structures (which in practice implies the structures sufficiently large in all three dimensions). The lens of Ref. [@FreMarJel08], however, contains just a few elements across the slab. Specifically for this case, a method was developed to calculate the transmission properties for a thin infinite slab [@JelMarFre09]; furthermore, it was shown that similar results can be obtain by considering an equivalent slab with the effective medium parameters as obtained in Ref. [@BaeJelMar08].
Nevertheless, it is clear that a number of peculiar effects caused by the discrete structure of the lens as well as its finite size, cannot be reliably assessed with the above models, as the lens is too small for an effective medium treatment. On the other hand, it is large enough to make an analysis with full-wave commercial software practically impossible. For this reason, here we develop a finite model to calculate lens properties, which explicitly takes all the structural details into account. The goal of this paper is to describe this modelling approach in detail, and to illustrate that indeed it does reveal some features which are missed by the continuous modelling. We should note, though, that while the model is described in connection to one particular structure, the approach applied here is generally applicable to any realistic SRR-based metamaterial, and therefore is useful for a wide range of applications.
![\[lensfoto\]Photograph of the quasi-magnetostatic metamaterial lens analysed in this paper.](FIG1.eps)
Geometry of the problem
=======================
The metamaterial lens described in Ref. [@FreMarJel08] is composed of capacitively loaded rings (CLRs) periodically arranged in an isotropic three-dimensional lattice with the lattice constant $a = 1.5$cm. The lens features three planes of 18 by 18 CLRs interlayered with orthogonal segments providing two mutually orthogonal sets of two layers 17 by 18 CLRs each (see Fig. \[lensfoto\] for clarity), which makes it up to roughly 2200 CLRs. This lens can be optionally extended by an extra 3D-layer, resulting in having four $18 \times 18$ layers interlaced with the two orthogonal subsystems of 3 by 17 by 18 CLRs, amounting to about 3130 elements. Overall dimensions of the (non-extended) lens are thus $27 \times 27 \times 3$ cm.
The CLRs themselves (Fig. \[lensgeom\]a) are made of copper through etching metallic strips on a dielectric board. The mean radius $r_0$ of the CLRs is 0.49cm ($r_0 / a = 0.33$) and the strip width $w$ is 0.22cm ($w / a = 0.15$). The CLRs are loaded with lumped non-magnetic 470pF capacitors. The self-inductance of the CLRs, $L = \omega^2_0 / C = 13.5$nH, has been obtained from the measured value of the frequency of resonance in free space, equal to 63.28MHz ($k_0 a = 0.02$). By measurement of the quality factor of the resonator the resistance has been estimated as $R = 0.0465$Ohm, which includes the effects of both the ring and the capacitor.
![\[lensgeom\] (a) Sketch of the CLR resonator; (b) Scheme of the lens with the corresponding coordinate system.](FIG2.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
We reserve the standard coordinate system ($x$, $y$, $z$) for discussions on the level of geometry of one ring and their mutual interactions, as relevant for the next section. When referring the overall lens geometry, we define supplementary coordinate system ($X$, $Y$, $Z$) so that the lens geometrical centre is placed at the coordinate origin, and the $Y$ axis is perpendicular to the lens as slab (“lens axis”), while the long edges of the lens are parallel to $X$ and $Z$ axes (Fig. \[lensgeom\]b). Note that the coordinate origin is between the rings, and thus the lens is completely symmetric with respect to the coordinate origin, all the axes and all the coordinate planes (in the analysis, we neglect minor asymmetry occurring in the real lens caused by specific assembly details, e.g. resulting from substrate thickness, as these deviations are of the same order as unavoidable production inaccuracy). For the three mutually orthogonal sets of CLRs, we will refer to as X-rings, Y-rings or Z-rings, depending on whether the rings’ normals are along $X$, $Y$ or $Z$ axes. The lens, therefore, contains 612 of either X-rings and Z-rings, and 972 Y-rings. We will also introduce a consecutive numbering of all the CLRs with a single index. The so called input and output surfaces of the lens correspond to $Y = \mp 1.5$cm, while the theoretical source and image planes are at $Y = \mp 3.0$cm.
Theoretical model
=================
For the analysis of the lens response to the external field, we consider an ideal cubic lattice of L–C circuits supporting current. With the time convention as $I \propto\exp({\mathrm j} \omega t)$, each of the currents is governed by equation $$\label{eq1}
Z_0 I_n = -{\mathrm j} \omega\Phi_n,$$ where the self-impedance $Z_0 = \left( R + {\mathrm j} \omega L + 1 / \left( {\mathrm j} \omega C \right) \right)$ is determined by the resistance $R$, self-inductance $L$ and self-capacitance $C$ of the single CLR, while $\Phi_n$ represents the total magnetic flux through the considered ring which can be written as $$\label{eq2}
\Phi_n = \Phi_n^{\text{ext}} + \sum\limits_{ m \ne n } {\Phi_{nm}}
= \Phi_n^{\mathrm {ext}} + \sum\limits_{ m \ne n } {M _{nm} I_m }$$ where $\Phi_n^{\rm {ext}}$ is the magnetic flux from external sources and $M _{nm}$ are the mutual inductances between the rings $n$ and $m$. Combining Eq. and Eq. we obtain $$\label{impsyst}
\mathbf{\overline Z} \cdot \mathbf{I} = - {\mathrm j} \omega {\mathbf{\Phi}}^{\mathrm{ext}}$$ with $Z_{nn} = Z_0$, $Z_{nm} = \mathrm j \omega M_{nm}$, which is a system of linear equations for unknown currents, provided that the external sources are known.
Mutual inductance between the flat rings (which is the case under consideration) carrying the currents $I_n$ and $I_m$ uniform along the ring contour is, most generally [@Landau], $$\label{surfmutl}
M_{nm} = \frac{\mu}{4 \pi I_n I_m}
\int\limits_{S}\!\int\limits_{S'}
\frac{\mathbf{K}_n (\mathbf{r}) \cdot \mathbf{K}_m (\mathbf{r'})}{\left| \mathbf{r} - \mathbf{r'} \right|} \: \mathrm{d}S \, \mathrm{d}S'$$ where $\mathbf{K}$ represent surface current densities; we assume that these follow Maxwellian distribution across the strip, $$\label{maxw}
K_\varphi (\rho) = \frac{2I}{w\pi
\sqrt{ 1 - \left( \dfrac{\rho - r_0}{w/2} \right)^2 } },
\quad
\int\limits_{r_0 - w/2}^{r_0 + w/2} {K_\varphi \: \mathrm{d}\rho } = I.$$ Clearly, such integration is not ideally suited for numerical calculation. In the first approximation, mutual inductance between CLRs can be estimated with the one between linear currents (double linear integration along the equivalent ring contour), but for close CLRs this does not give a good precision.
However, a trick is that the result of surface integration according to Eq. can be approximated with a good precision through an average mutual inductance between two pairs of circular currents [@RosaGrover]. This way, each flat ring can be represented by a pair of coaxial circular currents of radii $r_0 \pm \gamma w / 2$, and the sought mutual inductance is calculated as an average between the four corresponding linear ones: $$M_{nm} = \left( L^{++}_{nm} + L^{--}_{nm} + L^{+-}_{nm} + L^{-+}_{nm} \right) / 4, \label{avgmutl}$$ which essentially decreases calculation time. The value of particular parameter $\gamma$ depends on the ring geometry, but does not depend remarkably on the relative orientation and distance between the CLRs (within the limits of lens structure). For the particular parameters considered here, $\gamma \approx 0.7$ was numerically found to give a good match to the precise integration (while $\gamma = 1$ would correspond to the edges of the strip).
![\[mutuals\] Geometry of the linear currents for parallel or orthogonal ring orientations, as relevant for mutual inductance calculations.](FIG3.eps){width="1\columnwidth"}
To achieve a faster calculation for the “linear” mutual inductance itself, we further note that it can be easily evaluated [@Landau] by integrating the vector potential $\mathbf{A}$ along the current contour $l$: $$L_{nm} = \frac{1}{I_n} \int\limits_{l_m} \mathbf{A_{\mathit{n}}} \cdot \mathbf{d l_{\mathit{m}}}, \label{linmutl}$$ with vector potential itself having only $A_{\varphi}$ component (assuming that the source ring is placed at the coordinate origin with the normal along $z$ axis, see Fig. \[mutuals\]), which can be obtained with the help of elliptic integrals as [@Landau] $$A_{\varphi} = I \frac{\mu_0}{4 \pi} \sqrt{\frac{r_0}{\rho}}
\left( \frac{ \left( 2 - \kappa^2 \right) \mathcal K(\varkappa) - 2 \mathcal E(\varkappa) }{\varkappa} \right),$$ with $$\varkappa = \sqrt{\frac{4 r_0 \rho}{(\rho + r_0)^2 + z^2}} \notag$$ being the argument of complete elliptic integrals $$\mathcal E = \int\limits_0^{\pi/2} \sqrt{1 - \varkappa^2 \sin^2 \theta} \; \mathrm{d}\theta, \qquad
\mathcal K = \int\limits_0^{\pi/2} \frac{\mathrm{d}\theta}{\sqrt{1 - \varkappa^2 \sin^2 \theta}}.$$ Given the fact that the fast pre-defined routines for elliptic integrals are available in a number of computational platforms (e.g. Matlab$^{\circledR}$), this effectively reduces double integration to a single one. Thus, finally, only four linear integrals like are required to approximate the exact value of a double integration like .
Numerical implementation
========================
To analyse the response of the lens to an external field source, the key step lies in solving system . To do so, we need to know the matrix of mutual inductances $\mathbf{\overline M}$. This matrix is only determined by the geometry of the rings arrangement inside the lens and can be calculated once for a given lens geometry, while the impedance matrix $\mathbf{\overline Z}$ can be then obtained for all frequencies as shown after .
For such a lens as described above, having 2196 rings, the matrix contains almost 5 million values, and filling those with a direct calculation would be rather time-consuming even with a simplified integration described in the previous section. However, obvious reciprocity ($M_{nm} = M_{mn}$) and symmetry properties of the lens allow for a great simplification of matrix filling. Indeed, the lens is symmetric with respect to $X$, $Y$ and $Z$ axes as well as to $XY$, $YZ$ and $ZX$ planes. This implies, in particular, that the mutual inductances between X-rings and Y-rings are all the same as between Z-rings and Y-rings. Furthermore, as all the rings are identical, inductance between them is only determined by their mutual orientation and spatial offsets $\Delta x$, $\Delta y$, $\Delta z$ (see Fig. \[mutuals\]), and for parallel rings even $\Delta x$ is equivalent to $\Delta y$. Explicitly, integration for the mutual inductances between the parallel rings is performed according to $$\begin{gathered}
L^{\text{P}} (\Delta b, \Delta z) = \int\limits_{0}^{2\pi}
A_{\varphi} \frac{r_2 (r_2 + \Delta b \cos \alpha)}{\Delta \rho} \; \mathrm d \alpha,
\\
\Delta \rho = \sqrt{r_2^2 + (\Delta b)^2 + 2 r_2 \Delta b \cos \alpha}, \notag
\\
\varkappa^2 = {\frac{4 r_1 \Delta\rho}{(\Delta\rho + r_1)^2 + (\Delta z)^2}} \notag
\label{pmutl}\end{gathered}$$ where $\Delta b = \sqrt{(\Delta x)^2 + (\Delta y)^2}$; and for the rings with orthogonal mutual orientation $$\begin{gathered}
L^{\text{O}} (\Delta x, \Delta y, \Delta z) = \int\limits_{0}^{2\pi}
A_{\varphi} \frac{r_2 \Delta y \cos \alpha}{\Delta \rho} \; \mathrm d \alpha,
\\
\Delta \rho = \sqrt{(\Delta x - r_2 \sin \alpha)^2 + (\Delta y)^2}, \notag
\\
\varkappa^2 = {\frac{4 r_1 \Delta\rho}{(\Delta\rho + r_1)^2 + (\Delta z - r_2 \cos \alpha)^2}}. \notag\end{gathered}$$ In the above equations, we imply a general case that the radii of the two rings ($r_1$ and $r_2$) can be different.
Thus, a number of ring pairs within the lens share the same value of mutual inductance, so it is only necessary to calculate a full set of non-equivalent mutuals and then assign those values depending on the mutual offsets. With the particular lens considered here, there are only 1924 independent inductances for the parallel ring orientation, and 1668 for the orthogonal one, so the total number of calculations is 3592 — orders of magnitude smaller than the number of matrix elements. This way, the entire matrix can be filled in a matter of seconds on an ordinary PC.
Another preliminary step is to determine the external flux $\mathbf \Phi^{\text{ext}}$ imposed to each ring by a given source. For a homogeneous field or a plane wave excitation, calculation is straightforward with the known coordinates of each ring: $$\Phi_n^{\text{ext}} = \pi r_0^2 \, \mathbf B_n \cdot \mathbf n,$$ where $\mathbf n$ is a ring normal while magnetic field $\mathbf B_n$ can be evaluated at the ring centre as the field variation across the ring is negligible.
![\[imput\] Frequency dependence of the real (a) and imaginary (b) parts of the impedance measured by a 3-inch coil placed at the image plane ($Y = -3$cm).](FIG4.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
In practice, the lens is typically used along with excitation / measuring coils employed in MRI practice. In that case, instead of calculating the field produced by a coil over each ring (which is further complicated as this field is not uniform across the ring), it is much easier to obtain the flux directly $$\Phi_n^{\text{ext}} = M^{\text{c}}_{n} I^{\text{c}}$$ in terms of mutual inductance $M^{\text{c}}_n$ between the coil and each ring, which can be calculated with the same method as the one between the rings. Above, $I^{\text{c}} \equiv I_\text{N+1}$ is the total current induced in the coil by the external voltage source as well as by the lens. Imposing a given voltage $V_{\text{c}}$ to the coil with the self-impedance $Z_\text{c}$, we can include the coil mutual impedances into system , modified as $$\begin{gathered}
\label{coilsyst}
\mathbf{\overline Z} \cdot \mathbf{I} = \mathbf{V}
\\
Z_{nn} =
\begin{cases}
Z_0 \\
Z_\text{c}
\end{cases}
Z_{nm} =
\begin{cases}
\mathrm j \omega M_{nm} & \text{for} \quad 1 \leqslant n \leqslant N\\
\mathrm j \omega M^{\text{c}}_n & \text{for} \quad n = N+1
\end{cases} \notag\end{gathered}$$ with $V_n = V_{\text{c}} \, \delta_{n,N}$ and $N$ being the total number of rings in the lens. Clearly, additional coils, if necessary, can be included by extending the matrix system in an analogous way.
After the above procedures, it is finally possible to solve the systems or obtaining currents $I_n$ in each ring for any given excitation. With these known, it is further possible to calculate any desired response of the lens, such as magnetic field produced by the lens (using standard Biot-Savart expressions) or impedance as measured by the MRI coil, $$Z^\text{coil} = \sum\limits_{n=1}^{N} \mathrm j \omega M^{\text{c}}_{n} \: \frac{I_n}{I^{\text{c}}}.
\label{impbycoil}$$
Results and discussion
======================
Armed with the above precise method, we can have a detailed look into lens features and response to various external field sources. In previous work [@JelMarFre09] it was concluded that the accurate model, developed for an 2D-infinite slab with the same structure and thickness as the real lens, is capable of predicting the observations made in connection to lens use in MRI practice. In a typical setup, a coil of 3 inch in diameter is placed parallel to the lens interface at the source plane, $Y=-3$cm (that is, at a distance 1.5cm, equal to one half of the lens thickness from the lens surface). The super-lens behaviour implies that the magnetic field produced by the coil, is then reproduced in the space behind the image plane ($Y=3$cm), as if the coil itself were present in place of the image.
![\[hfcomp\] Axial component $H_Y$ of the total magnetic field observed behind the lens surface along the lens axis (1) or along the parallel line (2) slightly displaced in $X$ and $Z$ direction so that it passes through the centre of one ring (see the inset for the labels of the axes). Comparison between the two models when the lens is excited by 3-inch coil, centred with respect to the lens axis and placed at $Y = -1.5$cm.](FIG5.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
A straightforward example to test the developed model and to compare it with practice as well as with earlier models, is to evaluate the impedance as measured by a coil in front of the lens, depending on frequency. In the discrete model, it is given by Eq. , while with the continuous model (for an infinite homogeneous slab with an appropriate effective permeability [@BaeJelMar08]) it can be numerically calculated as $$Z^\text{coil} = - \dfrac{1}{I^{\text c}} \: \mathsf{Re} \int\limits_\text{coil}
\mathbf{E}^{\text r} \cdot \mathbf{d l}^{\text c},$$ where $\mathbf{E}^{\text r}$ is electric field reflected by the lens. The two modelling results are compared in Fig. \[imput\] along with the experimental data. Although there is no exact quantitative matching to the measured data, it is clear that the frequency dependence provided by the discrete model is closer to experiment than that of the continuous calculation. On the other hand, we can conclude that the latter already provides qualitatively suitable picture, predicting an overall pattern of the impedance frequency dependence.
With both the continuous model [@JelMarFre09] and the model developed above, it is easy to obtain the axial magnetic field $H_Y$ behind the lens for a given excitation. Comparison between the predictions of the two models is shown in Fig. \[hfcomp\]. One can see that at distances smaller than about one lattice constant ($a=1.5$cm), $H_Y$ is essentially inhomogeneous as the near-field of the individual rings dominates, so that the total field is quite different whether traced along the lens axis (which passes between the rings) or along a line that passes through a ring centre, while both are remarkably different from the continuous model. This is an obvious consequence of the discrete lens structure, which cannot be revealed by a homogenized model but is apparent in practice. At distances larger than approximately one lattice constant ($1.5$cm), the field observed along the two axes converge, and are qualitatively similar to the continuous model with a fair numerical agreement (see Fig. \[hfcomp\]).
![\[varcoil\] Axial component $H_Y$ of the magnetic field observed behind the lens surface. Horizontal axis corresponds to the lens surface (parallel to $X$–$Z$ plane), while the vertical one is normal to the lens ($Y$). Only one half of the symmetrical field spatial distribution is presented; normalized magnitudes are shown in logarithmic scale between 10 (white) and 0.1 (black) A/m. Excitation with coils of different radii (0.5cm, 1.5cm, 3cm and 4.5cm), centred with respect to the lens axis and positioned at $Y = -1.5$cm.](FIG6.eps){width="1\columnwidth"}
Another peculiarity arising from the discrete structure is related to the spatial resolution of the lens in the $X$–$Z$ plane. Evidently, a lens cannot resolve any details which are separated by distances of the order of lattice constant. To identify the actual limitation, we test the magnetic field distributions originating from using the coils of various small radii (Fig. \[varcoil\]). For excitations with a coil of the ring size, the entire lens is dominated by standing magnetoinductive waves [@SKR2b], and the field pattern does not suggest any hints for resolving the source (Fig. \[varcoil\]a). Indeed, practically the same field pattern is observed with a three times larger coil, two lattice constants in diameter (Fig. \[varcoil\]b). With a still larger coil, encompassing four lattice constants, one may argue that the pattern starts to clarify (Fig. \[varcoil\]c), though still it cannot be reliably used to assess the source location and size. A reasonable picture is obtained for a 4.5cm coil radius, where the field farther than the image plane looks as expected with super-lens performance (Fig. \[varcoil\]d). We can therefore conclude that spatial resolution of the discrete lens can be assumed to be of the order of 5 lattice constants. This observation is in good agreement with the general concerns regarding the lattice effects in metamaterials [@GLS2].
With the above examples, we clearly demonstrate that the exact model described in this paper, is suitable for a reliable description of the metamaterial lens, and makes it possible to predict specific observations which might be missed by a continuous model.
Certainly, the above methodology is not restricted to the particular lens geometry and can be perfectly used for any metamaterials designed with CLRs or SRRs, whether isotropic or anisotropic, and also arbitrarily small in size. The only limitation is that for very large number of elements, numerical evaluation on conventional computers may fail, specifically as far as allocating space for huge impedance matrices, and inverting these, is concerned. However, in metamaterial research it rarely comes to samples that large, and, on the other hand, when it comes, then there are good reasons to expect that continuous models will work sufficiently fine.
In contrary, for small metamaterials typically considered for practical use, modelling this way provides an invaluable insight into their properties and leads to reliable predictions.
This work has been supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia and European Union FEDER funds (projects TEC2007-65376, TEC2007-68013-C02-01, and CSD2008-00066), by Junta de Andaluc[í]{}a (project TIC-253), and by Czech Grant Agency (project no. 102/09/0314).
[100]{}
Solymar, L., and Shamonina, E., “Waves in Metamaterials” (Oxford University Press, 2009).
Marqu[é]{}s, R., Mart[í]{}n, F., and Sorolla, M., “Metamaterials with negative parameters” (Wiley, 2008).
Lapine M., and Tretyakov, S., “Contemporary notes on metamaterials”, *IET Microwaves Antennas & Propagation*, 2007, **1**, pp.3–11.
Sihvola, A., “Metamaterials in electromagnetics”, *Metamaterials*, 2007, **1**, pp.2–11.
Pendry, J.B.: “Negative refraction makes a perfect lens”, *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, 2000, **85**, pp. 3966–3969.
Shamonina, E., Kalinin, V.A., Ringhofer, K.H., and Solymar, L.: “Imaging, compression and [P]{}oynting vector streamlines for negative permittivity materials”, *Electron. Lett.*, 2001, **37** (20), pp. 1243–1244.
Maslovski, S., Tretyakov, S., and Alitalo, P.: “Near-field enhancement and imaging in double planar polariton-resonant structures”, *J. Appl. Phys.*, 2004, **96** (3), pp. 1293–1300.
Mesa, F., Freire, M.J., Marqu[é]{}s, R., and Baena, J.D.: “Three-dimensional superresolution in metamaterial slab lenses: [E]{}xperiment and theory”, *Phys. Rev. B*, 2005, **72**, 235117.
Freire, M.J., and Marqu[é]{}s, R.: “Planar magnetoinductive lens for three-dimensional subwavelength imaging”, *Appl. Phys. Lett.*, 2005, **86**, 182505.
Freire, M.J., R. Marqu[é]{}s, and L. Jelinek, “Experimental demonstration of a $\mu=-1$ metamaterial lens for magnetic resonance imaging”, *Appl. Phys. Lett.*, 2008, **93**, 231108.
Grbic, A., and Eleftheriades, G.V.: “An isotropic three-dimensional negative-refractive-index transmission-line metamaterial”, *J. Appl. Phys.*, 2005, **98**, 043106.
Alitalo, P., and Tretyakov, S., “Subwavelength resolution with three-dimensional isotropic transmission-line lenses”, *Metamaterials*, 2007, **1**, pp.81–88.
Solymar, L., Zhuromskyy, O., Sydoruk, O., Shamonina, E., Young I.R. and Syms R.R.A.: “Rotational resonance of magnetoinductive waves: basic concept and application to nuclear magnetic resonance”, *J. Appl. Phys.*, 2006, **99**, 123908.
Syms, R.R.A., Solymar, L., and Young, I.R., “Three-frequency parametric amplification in magneto-inductive ring resonators” *Metamaterials*, 2007, **2**, pp. 122–134.
Syms, R.R.A., Young, I.R., and Solymar, L., “Flexible magnetoinductive ring resonators: Design for invariant nearest neighbour coupling” *Metamaterials*, 2010, **4** (in press).
Wiltshire, M.C.K., Hajnal, J.V., Pendry, J.B., Edwards, D.J., and Stevens, C.J.: “Metamaterial endoscope for magnetic field transfer: Near field imaging with magnetic wires”, *Opt. Express*, 2003, **11**, pp. 709–715.
Ikonen, P., Belov, P.A., Simovski, C.R., and Maslovski, S.I.: “Experimental demonstration of subwavelength field channeling at microwave frequencies using a capacitively loaded wire medium”, *Phys. Rev. B*, 2006, **73**, 073102.
Radu, X., Garray, D., Craeye, C., “Toward a wire medium endoscope for MRI imaging”, *Metamaterials*, 2009, 3, pp.90–99.
Agranovich, V.M., and Gartstein, Yu.N., “Electrodynamics of metamaterials and the Landau-Lifshitz approach to the magnetic permeability”, *Metamaterials*, 2009, **3**, pp.1–9.
Simovski, C., “Analytical modelling of double-negative composites” *Metamaterials*, 2008, **2**, pp.169–185.
Silveirinha, M.G., “Metamaterial homogenization approach with application to the characterization of microstructured composites with negative parameters”, *Phys. Rev. B*, 2007, **75**, 115104.
Gorkunov, M., Lapine, M., Shamonina, E., and Ringhofer, K.H.: “Effective magnetic properties of a composite material with circular conductive elements”, *Eur. Phys. J. B*, 2002, **28**, pp.263–269.
Baena, J.D., L. Jelinek, R. Marqu[é]{}s, and M. Silveirinha, “Unified homogenization theory for magnetoinductive and electromagnetic waves in split-ring metamaterials”, *Phys. Rev. A*, 2008, **78**, 013842.
Jelinek L., R. Marqu[é]{}s, and M.J. Freire, “Accurate modelling of split ring metamaterial lenses for magnetic resonance imaging applications”, *J. Appl. Phys.*, 2009, **105**, 024907.
Landau, L.D., and Lifschitz, E.M.: “Electrodynamics of [C]{}ontinuous [M]{}edia” (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1984).
Rosa, E.B., and Grover, F.W., “Formulas and tables for the calculation of mutual and self induction”, *Bulletin of the Bureau of Standards*, 1916, **8** I (Washington, 1948).
Shamonina, E., Kalinin, V.A., Ringhofer, K.H., and Solymar, L.: “Magnetoinductive waves in one, two, and three dimensions”, *J. Appl. Phys.*, 2002, **92**, pp.6252–6261.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- 'Ahmed K. Ibrahim'
- Thomas Vojta
bibliography:
- '../00Bibtex/rareregions.bib'
date: 'Received: / Revised version: '
title: 'Monte Carlo simulations of a disordered superconductor-metal quantum phase transition'
---
Introduction {#sec:Intro}
============
Investigating the electrical transport in low-dimensional fluctuating superconductors has attracted great interest during the last decades. Early experiments [@WebbWarburton68] demonstrated nonzero resistivity below the bulk critical temperature. This was explained using the notion of thermally activated phase slips [@Little67; @LangerAmbegaokar67; @McCumberHalperin70]. Later, quantum phase slips were considered as well [@Giordano88; @ZGOZ97]. Recent experiments [@LMBBT01; @BVBK04; @RogachevBollingerBezryadin05; @ACMHT06; @RWPBGB06] studied the electrical transport characteristics of one-dimensional ultrathin metallic nanowires. Measurements of the resistance demonstrated that thicker wires undergo a phase transition from a metallic state to a superconducting state upon decreasing the temperature. However, thinner wires do not show superconductivity even at the lowest temperatures $T$.
The behavior of these experiments can be understood using the concept of a superconductor-metal quantum phase transition (as a function of wire thickness) in the pair-breaking universality class, as proposed in recent theoretical work [@SachdevWernerTroyer04; @DRSS08; @DelMaestroRosenowSachdev09]. The pair breaking is likely caused by magnetic moments on the wire surface. The nanowires in question are narrower than the (bulk) superconducting coherence length but still contain a large number of transverse channels for unpaired electrons. The resulting theory is therefore built on a model of one-dimensional superconducting fluctuations whose dynamics is overdamped because of the coupling to three-dimensional unpaired electrons [@Herbut2000; @LopatinShahVinokur05; @SpivakTyuzinHruska01; @FeigelmanLarkinSkvortsov01; @Galitski08].
Quenched disorder plays a significant role in these nanowires due to the random positions of the pair-breaking magnetic moments. The thermodynamics of the resulting disordered superconductor-metal quantum phase transition has been studied analytically via a strong-disorder renormalization group analysis [@HoyosKotabageVojta07; @VojtaKotabageHoyos09] and numerically [@DRMS08] via a solution of the saddle-point equations of the corresponding Landau-Ginzburg-Wilson (LGW) order parameter field theory. Both methods invoke the large-$N$ limit in which the number of order parameter components is generalized from 2 (representing the real and imaginary parts of the Cooper pair density) to $N\gg 1$. These methods predict that the quantum phase transition is governed by an unconventional nonperturbative infinite-randomness critical point in the same universality class as the random transverse-field Ising model [@Fisher92; @Fisher95]. Its dynamical scaling is of activated rather than power-law type, i.e., the correlation time $\xi_\tau$ is related to the correlation length $\xi$ as $\text{ln} \xi_\tau \sim \xi^\psi$, where $\psi=0.5$ is the tunneling exponent. Observables also show nonconventional scaling behavior. For example, the order parameter susceptibility diverges not just at criticality but in an entire parameter region, the quantum Griffiths phase, around the transition. The superfluid density on the superfluid side of the transition also behaves anomalously. It remains zero in part of the long-range ordered quantum Griffiths phase. As these results have been obtained within the large-$N$ approximation, it is important to verify that they remain valid for the physical case of a two-component order parameter.
In this paper, we therefore investigate the effects of disorder on the quantum phase transition between superconductor and metal in thin nanowires by employing a Monte Carlo method. This allows us to test the predictions directly for $N=2$ order parameter components. Our paper is organized as follows: In Sec. \[sec:Model\], we define the overdamped Cooper pair model and describe the mapping onto a classical XY Hamiltonian. In Sec. \[sec:Theory\], we briefly summarize the renormalization group predictions. Section \[sec:MC\] introduces the Monte Carlo simulations. In Sec. \[view\], we discuss our results and compare them to the predictions of the strong-disorder renormalization group. We conclude in Sec. \[sec:Conclusions\].
The model {#sec:Model}
=========
The starting point of our work is a quantum LGW order parameter field theory (i.e., free energy functional) for an $N$-component vector order-parameter $\varphi =(\varphi_1,...,\varphi_N)$ in $d$ space dimensions. (We will later set $d=1$ and $N=2$ as appropriate for the superconductor-metal transition in nanowires where $\varphi$ represents the Cooper pair density.) The LGW action can be derived from a Hamiltonian of disordered electrons by employing standard techniques [@Hertz76; @Millis93; @KirkpatrickBelitz96; @BelitzKirkpatrickVojta05]. In the absence of quenched disorder, the action reads [@HoyosKotabageVojta07; @DRHV10] $$S=\int dydx \, \varphi(x) \Gamma(x,y) \varphi(y)+ \dfrac{u}{2N} \int dx \, \varphi^4(x),\label{qaction}$$ where $x\equiv (\textbf{x},\tau)$ is a vector that includes position $\textbf{x}$ and imaginary time $\tau$, $\int dx \equiv \int d^d\textbf{x} \int d\tau$, and $u$ is the standard quartic coefficient. The Fourier transform of the bare inverse propagator (two-point vertex) $\Gamma (x,y)$ reads $$\Gamma (\textbf{q},\omega_n)=r+\xi_0^2 \textbf{q}^2+\gamma_0 |\omega_n|^{2/z_0} .$$ Here, $r$ denotes the distance from criticality, $\xi_0$ is a microscopic length, $\omega_n$ represents the Matsubara frequency, and $\gamma_0$ is the damping coefficient. For the Ohmic order parameter dynamics caused by the coupling to the conduction electrons, the value of the bare dynamic exponent is $z_0=2$. Quenched disorder can be introduced into the action (\[qaction\]) by making the distance from criticality (and/or the other coefficients) a random function of real-space position, $r \to r+\delta r(\mathbf{x})$.
In preparation for the Monte Carlo simulations, we now set $d=1$, $N=2$ and map the quantum action onto a ($1+1$)-dimensional classical XY model. This can be accomplished by discretizing space and imaginary time in the action (\[qaction\]) and interpreting imaginary time as another space dimension. As a result, the classical XY Hamiltonian reads: $$\begin{aligned}
H&=&-\sum_{i,\tau} (J_i^{(s)} S_{i,\tau} S_{i+1,\tau}+J_i^{(\tau)}S_{i,\tau} S_{i,\tau +1})\nonumber\\
&&-\sum_{i,\tau ,\tau\sp{\prime}} K_{\tau ,\tau\sp{\prime}} S_{i,\tau} S_{i,\tau\sp{\prime}}.
\label{H_classical}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $S_{i,\tau}$ is a classical XY spin (i.e., a two-component unit vector) at position $i$ in space and $\tau$ in imaginary time. $J_i^{(s)}$ and $J_i^{(\tau)}$ are (random) ferromagnetic interactions between nearest neighbor spins in space and imaginary time directions, respectively. As the quenched disorder is time-independent, their values depend on the space coordinate $i$ but not on the imaginary time coordinate $\tau$ (i.e., the disorder is columnar or perfectly correlated in the time direction). The long-range interaction $K_{\tau,\tau\sp{\prime}}$ in the time direction arises from the dissipative dynamics of the quantum action. It is given by $$K_{\tau,\tau\sp{\prime}}=\gamma |\tau - \tau\sp{\prime}|^{-\alpha},\label{Long_interaction}$$ where $\gamma$ is the interaction amplitude while the exponent $\alpha$ takes the value 2 for Ohmic dissipation ($z_0=2$). The values of $J_i^{(s)}, J_i^{(\tau)}$, and $K_{\tau,\tau\sp{\prime}}$ are determined by the parameters of the quantum action (\[qaction\]). However, as we are interested in the universal aspects of the phase transition only, their precise values do not matter. We therefore tune the transition by varying the temperature $T$ of the classical XY model (\[H\_classical\]), while keeping $J_i^{(s)}, J_i^{(\tau)}$, and $K_{\tau,\tau\sp{\prime}}$ constant. This classical temperature $T$ differs from the actual (physical) temperature $T_Q$ of the quantum system which maps onto the inverse system size in imaginary time direction, $L_\tau^{-1}$, of the XY model (\[H\_classical\]). Under the quantum-to-classical mapping from the action (\[qaction\]) to the Hamiltonian (\[H\_classical\]), the superfluid density of the quantum system maps onto the spin-wave stiffness in space direction, and the compressibility maps onto the stiffness in imaginary time direction.
Theory {#sec:Theory}
======
Renormalization group predictions {#subsec:Theory_RR}
---------------------------------
Hoyos et al. [@HoyosKotabageVojta07; @VojtaKotabageHoyos09] performed a strong-disorder renormalization group analysis of the LGW theory (\[qaction\]) with quenched disorder in the large-$N$ limit. This analysis yielded a quantum critical point of exotic infinite-randomness type that belongs to the random transverse-field Ising chain universality class [@Fisher92; @Fisher95]. Whereas the dynamical scaling in the absence of disorder is of power-law type, the disordered system features unconventional activated dynamical scaling characterized by an exponential relation between correlation time and length, $\text{ln} \xi_\tau \sim \xi^\psi$ with $\psi=0.5$.
Specifically, the strong-disorder renormalization group makes the following predictions for the finite-size scaling behavior of observables (see also Refs. [@MohanNarayananVojta10; @HrahshehBarghathiVojta11]). Right at criticality, the order parameter susceptibility $\chi $ is expected to depend on the system size $L_\tau$ in imaginary time direction via $$\chi \sim L_\tau[\text{ln}(L_\tau/b)]^{2\phi-1/\psi},\label{Griff_0}$$ where $\phi=(1+\sqrt{5})/2$ and $\psi=1/2$ are the cluster size and tunneling critical exponents of the infinite-randomness critical point, respectively ($b$ is an arbitrary microscopic scale). The logarithmic $L_\tau$ dependence in (\[Griff\_0\]) reflects the activated dynamical scaling. In the ordered Griffiths phase ($T<T_c$), the susceptibility diverges as $$\chi \sim L_\tau^{1+1/z},\label{Griff_1}$$ and in the disordered Griffiths phase ($T>T_c$), it behaves as $$\chi \sim L_\tau^{1-1/z}.\label{Griff_2}$$ The nonuniversal Griffiths dynamical exponent $z$ varies with temperature. Upon approaching the critical point, it diverges as $$z \sim |T-T_c|^{-\nu\psi}.\label{Griff_3}$$ where $\nu=2$ is the correlation length exponent of the infinite-randomness critical point.
The spin-wave stiffness $\rho_s$ of the XY Hamiltonian describes the change in the free-energy density $f$ during a twist of the spins at two opposite boundaries by an angle $\theta$. For small $\theta$ and large system size $l$, the free-energy change reads $$f(\theta)-f(0)=\frac{\rho_s}{2}\frac{\theta^2}{l^2}. \label{free_energy_stiff}$$ We need to distinguish two kinds of stiffnesses, the space-stiffness $\rho_s^{(s)}$, and the time-stiffness $\rho_s^{(\tau)}$. To discuss the space-stiffness $\rho_s^{(s)}$ (which corresponds to the superfluid density of the original quantum system), we implement the twist between $0$ and $L$ in space direction with $l=L$ in Eq. (\[free\_energy\_stiff\]). For the time-stiffness $\rho_s^{(\tau)}$ (which corresponds to the compressibility of the quantum system), the twisted boundary conditions are between 0 and $L_\tau$ in imaginary-time direction, and $l=L_\tau$.
Both stiffnesses vanish in the disordered phase above $T_c$. In a conventional phase transition scenario, they would be expected to be nonzero everywhere in the long-range ordered phase below $T_c$. However, the theory developed in Refs. [@MohanNarayananVojta10; @MGNTV10] implies anomalous behavior of $\rho_s^{(s)}$: Because the distribution of the effective interactions $J_{eff}^{(s)}$ becomes very broad under the renormalization group, the stiffness vanishes for $L\to \infty$ in part of the ordered Griffiths phase between $T_c$ and $T^*$ where $T^*$ is the temperature where the Griffiths dynamical exponent $z=1$ (see schematic Fig.\[fig:stiff\_schematic\]).
![Schematic behavior of the compressibility $\kappa$ and the superfluid density $\rho$ near the quantum phase transition. $r$ denotes the distance from criticality. In the classical XY model (\[H\_classical\]), $\kappa$ and $\rho$ are represented by the spin-wave stiffnesses $\rho_s^{(\tau)}$ and $\rho_s^{(s)}$, respectively, and $r\sim T-T_c$. The strongly ordered and disordered conventional phases are marked by SO and SD whereas OG and DG are the ordered and disordered Griffiths phases. The superfluid density vanishes in the anomalous part (AG) of the ordered Griffiths phase.[]{data-label="fig:stiff_schematic"}](fig_0){width="7.5cm"}
In this temperature range, it behaves as $$\rho_s^{(s)} \sim L^{1-z}.
\label{stiffness_space}$$ Normal behavior with nonzero $\rho_s^{(s)}$ in the thermodynamic limit is restored for $T<T^*$. In contrast, the time-stiffness $\rho_s^{(\tau)}$ is nonzero everywhere in the ordered phase, and behaves as $$\rho_s^{(\tau)} \sim |T-T_c|^\beta,
\label{stiffness_time}$$ where $\beta=2-\phi$ is the exponent of the order parameter.
Monte Carlo simulations {#sec:MC}
=======================
To confirm the predictions of the strong-disorder renormalization group summarized in Sec. \[sec:Theory\], we perform extensive Monte Carlo simulations of the (1+1)-dimensional XY Hamiltonian (\[H\_classical\]) with long-range interactions in time direction.
We employ the Luijten algorithm [@LuijtenBlote95], a version of the Wolff cluster algorithm [@Wolff89] that is optimized for long-range interactions. Its numerical effort (per sweep) scales linearly with the total number of sites $N_s=L\, L_\tau$ (rather than $L \, L_\tau^2$ as expected in a naive implementation of the Wolff algorithm for long-range interactions). Using this method, we simulate systems with linear size $L=20$ to 160 in the space direction and $L_\tau =2$ to 40000 in the (imaginary) time direction. To introduce quenched disorder that is perfectly correlated in the imaginary time direction, we treat the interactions $J_i^{(s)}$ and $J_i^{(\tau)}$ as independent random variables. Details of their probability distributions are unimportant for the universal properties we are interested in. We thus employ a simple binary probability distribution $$\rho(J)=(1-c)\delta(J-J_l)+c\delta(J-J_h) \label{Binary}$$ having a higher value $J_h$ with concentration $c$ and a lower value $J_l$ with concentration $(1-c)$. This binary distribution is numerically efficient and allows us to independently control the strength and concentration of the defects. In most of the simulations, we choose parameters $c=0.5$, $J_h$=2 and $J_l$=0.5, and an interaction amplitude $\gamma =0.1$ of the long-range temporal interaction.
For each simulation run we perform 100 Monte Carlo sweeps for equilibration (one sweep is defined as a number of cluster flips such that the total number of flipped spins equals the total number $N_s=L\,L_t$ of sites). We have confirmed that this is sufficient by comparing the results of runs with hot starts (spins initially pointing in random directions) and cold starts (spins inially aligned). We then perform 200 sweeps during which we measure the energy, specific heat, order parameter, susceptibility, Binder cumulant, correlation function, correlation length as well as the space and time stiffnesses (with a measurement taken after every sweep). All observables are averaged over 1000 to 10 000 disorder configurations. Using short measurement runs for a large number of disorder configurations improves the overall performance, as is discussed in Refs. [@BFMM98; @BFMM98b; @VojtaSknepnek06; @ZWNHV15].
Results {#view}
=======
Clean system
------------
To test our simulation method and to make contact with the literature, we first analyze the clean case with uniform $J_i^{(s)}=J_i^{(\tau)}=1$. We compute the order parameter $$m=\frac{1}{N_s}\sum_{i,\tau} S_{i,\tau}.$$ and its Binder cumulant [@Binder81b; @BinderLandau84] $$g=1-\frac{\langle m^4\rangle}{3\langle m^2\rangle^2}~.$$ We use the finite-size scaling method [@Barber_review83; @Cardy_book88] to estimate the location of the critical point. The Binder cumulant is expected to have a finite-size scaling form of $$g(r,L,L_\tau)=\Upsilon_g(rL^{1/\nu_{cl}},L_\tau/L^{z_{cl}}).\label{scaling_Binder}$$ Here, $r=T-T_c$ is the distance from the critical point, $\Upsilon_g$ is the scaling function, $\nu_{cl}$ is the clean correlation length exponent, and $z_{cl}$ is the clean dynamical exponent.
The long-range interactions break the symmetry between the space and imaginary time directions, implying that the spatial and temporal system sizes $L$ and $L_\tau$ scale differently. The value of $z_{cl}$ is therefore not known at the outset, and we need to perform anisotropic finite-size scaling. We employ the iterative method outlined in Refs. [@GuoBhattHuse94; @RiegerYoung94; @SknepnekVojtaVojta04; @Vojtaetal16]: The Binder cumulant has a maximum as function of $L_\tau$ for fixed $L$. According to (\[scaling\_Binder\]), the peak position $L_\tau^{max}$ must behave as $L^{z_{cl}}$ at criticality, and the value $g^{max}$ of the maximum must be $L$-independent. The sizes $L$ and $L_\tau^{max}$ in the space and imaginary-time directions define the “optimal shape” for finite-size scaling.
Fig. \[fig\_Binder\_curves\] shows the behavior of the Binder cumulant $g$ as a function of $L_\tau$ for several system sizes $L$ at the estimated critical temperature $T_c=0.56969(6)$. These curves indeed have identical maximum values that are independent of the system size $L$ (because of corrections to scaling, some deviations occur at small $L$).
![Binder cumulant $g$ of the clean system vs. $L_\tau$ for different $L$ at the critical temperature $T_c=0.56969$. The interactions are uniform, $J_i^{(s)}=J_i^{(\tau)}=1$ and $\gamma=0.1$. The statistical error of $g$ is much smaller than the symbol size.[]{data-label="fig_Binder_curves"}](fig_1){width="8.2cm"}
To test the scaling form of the Binder cumulant (\[scaling\_Binder\]) and to measure the clean dynamical exponent $z_{cl}$, we plot the data of the Binder cumulant as a function of $L_\tau/L^{z_{cl}}$ and vary $z_{cl}$ until a good collapse is achieved. As shown in Fig. \[fig\_Binder\_scale\], the data collapse onto each other for a dynamical exponent value $z_{cl}=2.01(6)$. This also implies that the dynamical scaling is of conventional power-law form, as expected [@PFGKS04; @WernerTroyerSachdev05].
To compute further critical exponents of the system, we analyze the properties of the order parameter, its susceptibility, and the slope $dg/dT$ of the Binder cumulant at the critical temperature. The correlation length exponent $\nu$ can be estimated from the slopes of Binder cumulant. Taking the derivative with respect to temperature in (\[scaling\_Binder\]), it follows that $dg/dT$ at criticality $(r=0)$ behaves as $L^{1/\nu_{cl}}$ (if evaluated for the optimal sample shapes $L_\tau=L_\tau^{max} \sim L^{z_{cl}}$). In Fig. \[fig\_Binder\_slope\], we plot the slopes as a function of system size $L$. The critical exponent $\nu_{cl}=0.687(9)$ follows from a power-law fit of these data to $dg/dT\sim L^{1/\nu_{cl}}$.
![Scaling plot of the Binder cumulant data from Fig. \[fig\_Binder\_curves\]. It shows $g$ as a function of $L_\tau/L^{z_{cl}}$ for different $L$ at $T_c=0.56969$. All curves collapse and follow the power-law scaling form (\[scaling\_Binder\]) for $z_{cl}=2.01$.[]{data-label="fig_Binder_scale"}](fig_2){width="8.2cm"}
![Left: Double logarithmic plot of susceptibility $\chi$ and slope of Binder cumulant $dg/dT$ vs. system size $L$ for optimally shaped clean samples at criticality. The solid lines are fits to the predicted power laws $\chi \sim L^{\gamma/\nu}$ and $dg/dT\sim L^{1/\nu_{cl}}$ with $\gamma_{cl}/\nu_{cl}=2.03$ and $1/\nu_{cl}=1.454$. Right: Magnetization $m$ as a function of $L$ at criticality. The slope of the fitted line with $m\sim L^{-\beta_{cl}/\nu}$ gives $\beta_{cl}/\nu_{cl}=0.507$.[]{data-label="fig_Binder_slope"}](fig_3){width="8.2cm"}
We also study the system-size dependence of the order parameter and its susceptibility at the critical temperature, as shown in Fig. \[fig\_Binder\_slope\]. We find that these observables feature the expected power-law behavior (if evaluated for the optimal sample shapes $L_\tau=L_\tau^{max} \sim L^{z_{cl}}$), $m\sim L^{-\beta_{cl}/\nu_{cl}}$ and $\chi \sim L^{\gamma_{cl}/\nu_{cl}}$ [@Barber_review83]. Using power-law fits, we estimate the critical exponents to be $\beta_{cl}/\nu_{cl}=0.507(5)$ and $\gamma_{cl}/\nu_{cl}=2.03(4)$.
The exponents $\beta_{cl}/\nu_{cl}$, $\gamma_{cl}/\nu_{cl}$, and $z_{cl}$ are not independent of each other. They are connected by the hyper-scaling relation [@ContinentinoJapiassuTroper89] $$\frac{2\beta_{cl}}{\nu_{cl}}+\frac{\gamma_{cl}}{\nu_{cl}}=d+z_{cl}$$ where $d=1$ is the number of space dimensions. We find that our numerical estimates fulfill the hyper-scaling relation within their error bars. Moreover, all clean exponents agree with those found in Ref. [@WernerTroyerSachdev05].
Note that the correlation length exponent $\nu_{cl}=0.687$ violates the Harris criterion $d \nu_{cl} > 2$ [@Harris74], implying that the clean critical behavior will be unstable against disorder.
Disordered system
-----------------
After studying and analyzing the behavior of the clean critical point, we now apply quenched disorder to the Hamiltonian (\[H\_classical\]) by making the ferromagnetic interactions $J_i^{(s)}$ and $J_i^{(\tau)}$ random functions of the space coordinate $i$, drawn from the probability distribution (\[Binary\]). We have attempted to use the same Binder-cumulant-based finite-size scaling method as in the clean case to find the critical point. Unfortunately, this analysis is hampered by strong corrections to scaling. We instead use finite-size scaling in just $L_\tau$ to study the order parameter susceptibility $\chi$ and the correlation time $\xi_\tau$, in analogy to Ref. [@HrahshehBarghathiVojta11] where similar difficulties were encountered. This requires samples having effectively infinite size $L$ in the space direction ($L \gg L_\tau$). To analyze $\chi$ and $\xi_\tau$, we have therefore simulated systems of fixed spatial size $L=1000$ and varied $L_\tau$ from 10 up to 448. In contrast, the spatial correlation function, the superfluid density, and the compressibility are measured in systems of fixed size closed to the optimal shapes (where the correlations extend equally in the space and time directions).
Fig. \[fig\_SUS\_scale\] presents the order parameter susceptibility $\chi$, confirming that $\chi$ follows power laws in $L_\tau$ for an entire range of temperatures (the Griffiths region), as predicted theoretically in eqs. (\[Griff\_1\]) and (\[Griff\_2\]).
![Susceptibility $\chi$ of the disordered system as a function of $L_\tau$ for various temperatures in the Griffiths phase. The size in space direction is $L=1000$. The solid lines are fits to the power laws (\[Griff\_1\]) and (\[Griff\_2\]).[]{data-label="fig_SUS_scale"}](fig_4){width="8.2cm"}
The Griffiths dynamical exponent $z$ can be determined by fitting the susceptibility to eqs. (\[Griff\_1\]) and (\[Griff\_2\]). Its value is predicted to vary with temperature and to diverge at the critical point as $$z \sim \frac{1}{|T-T_c|}. \label{z_exponent}$$ Fig. \[fig\_z\_scale\] shows the values of $z$ in the ordered and disordered Griffiths phase as a function of temperature $T$. These values are fitted to the power law relation (\[z\_exponent\]) giving an estimated critical temperature of $T_c\approx 0.540(9)$.
![Dynamical exponent $z$ as a function of classical temperature $T$ in Griffiths regions. The data are extracted from the susceptibility data in Fig. \[fig\_SUS\_scale\]. The solid lines are fits of $z$ to Eq. (\[z\_exponent\]).[]{data-label="fig_z_scale"}](fig_5){width="8.2cm"}
In addition to the order parameter susceptibility, we also investigate the superfluid density and the compressibility of the quantum system. In the classical problem (\[H\_classical\]), they are represented by the spin-wave stiffnesses in the space and time directions, respectively. The spatial stiffness can be computed using the relation [@TeitelJayaprakash83] $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_s^{(s)}&=&\frac{1}{N_s}\sum_{i,j,\tau,\tau\sp{\prime}} J_{i,j,\tau,\tau\sp{\prime}} \langle \vec{S}_{i,\tau} \cdot \vec{S}_{j,\tau\sp{\prime}} \rangle (i-j)^2\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{1}{N_s T}\Big \langle \Big( \sum_{i,j,\tau,\tau\sp{\prime}} J_{i,j,\tau,\tau\sp{\prime}} \mathbf{\hat{K}} \cdot( \vec{S}_{i,\tau} \times \vec{S}_{j,\tau\sp{\prime}} ) (i-j)\Big)^2 \Big\rangle,\nonumber\\\label{stiff_space}\end{aligned}$$ where $$J_{i,j,\tau,\tau\sp{\prime}}=
\left\{ {\begin{array}{cll}
J_i^{(s)}&\text{if}~~j=i\pm 1~,&\tau=\tau\sp{\prime} \\
J_i^{(\tau)} & \text{if}~~ i=j~~~~~~, & \tau=\tau\sp{\prime}\pm 1~~~, \\
\gamma{|\tau-\tau\sp{\prime}|^{-\alpha}} & \text{if}~~ i=j~~~~~~, & \tau\neq\tau\sp{\prime}~.\\
0 & \text{otherwise} \\
\end{array} } \right.$$ Here, $N_s=LL_\tau$ is the total number of sites, and $\mathbf{\hat{K}}$ is the unit vector perpendicular to the $xy$-plane in spin space. For the calculation of $\rho_s^{(\tau)}$, the term $(i-j)$ has to replaced by $(\tau-\tau\sp{\prime})$.
The behavior of the spin-wave stiffnesses is illustrated in Fig. \[fig\_stiffness\]. It shows the results for the space and time stiffness of a system of size $L=160$ and $L_\tau=10000$. Clearly, the two stiffnesses behave differently. According to Eq. (\[stiffness\_time\]), the imaginary-time stiffness (i.e., the compressibility of the original quantum system) is expected to behave as $|T-T_c|^\beta$, i.e., it vanishes at $T_c$. Despite significant finite-size rounding, our data are qualitative compatible with this prediction, giving $T_c\approx 0.53$, in agreement with our earlier estimate of $T_c = 0.540(9)$. In contrast, the space stiffness $\rho_s^{(s)}$ is more than two orders of magnitude smaller even though the microscopic interaction strengths do not have a significant anisotropy. Moreover, $\rho_s^{(s)}$ vanishes at a lower temperature $T^* \approx 0.50$, giving rise to anomalous elasticity [@MGNTV10] for temperatures between $T_c$ and $T^*$.
![Spin-wave stiffness in space $\rho_s^{(s)}$ and time $\rho_s^{(\tau)}$ as function of the classical temperature $T$ with system size $L=160$ and $L_\tau=10000$. The data for $\rho_s^{(s)}$ are rescaled by 500 for clarity.[]{data-label="fig_stiffness"}](fig_6){width="8.2cm"}
In addition, we compute the correlation function $G$ in the space and time directions to determine the corresponding correlation lengths $\xi$ and $\xi_\tau$, respectively. This allows us to estimate the correlation length exponent $\nu$. The correlation functions in space and time directions are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
G(x) &=& \frac{1}{N_s}\sum_{i,j,\tau} \langle \vec{S}_{i,\tau} \cdot \vec{S}_{j,\tau} \rangle \delta (x-|i-j|),\label{Cspace_function}\\
G(\tau)&=&\frac{1}{N_s}\sum_{i,\tau_1,\tau_2} \langle \vec{S}_{i,\tau_1} \cdot \vec{S}_{i,\tau_2} \rangle \delta (\tau-|\tau_1-\tau_2|).\end{aligned}$$
Fig. \[fig\_correlation\_function\] shows the spatial correlation function (\[Cspace\_function\]) for different temperatures in the Griffiths region above $T_c$ for a system of sizes $L=80$ and $L_\tau=1200$.
![Space-correlation function $G(x)$ for several temperature in Griffiths phase. The solid lines are fits to Eq. (\[corr\_function\_space\]). Inset: The space-correlation length $\xi$ obtained by analyzing space-correlation function as a function of distance $\delta$ from critical temperature. The solid line is a fit of Eq. (\[c\_length\_pwl\]).[]{data-label="fig_correlation_function"}](fig_7){width="8.2cm"}
Because of the small spatial system size, there are significant finite-size effects for temperatures close to $T_c=0.54$ for which the correlations decay slowly (notice the unexpected upturns for large $|\mathbf{x}|$ of the correlation functions for the lower temperatures). The strong-disorder renormalization group [@Fisher95] predicts that the spatial correlation function behaves as $$G(x)\sim \frac{\text{exp}[-(x/\xi)-(27\pi^2/4)^{1/3}(x/\xi)^{1/3}]}{(x/\xi)^{5/6}} ~\label{corr_function_space}~.$$ The figure shows that $G(x)$ is well described by this functional form for temperatures away from $T_c$. Closer to $T_c$, the agreement becomes questionable, because the finite-size effects restrict the fits to a very narrow $|\mathbf{x}|$-range. Ignoring these complications, we can extract values of $\xi$ by fitting the $G(x)$ data to Eq. (\[corr\_function\_space\]) for distances between $x=3$ and some cutoff at which the curves start to become noisy or deviate from the expected behavior. The inset of Fig. \[fig\_correlation\_function\] shows the relation between the correlation length $\xi$ and the distance from criticality $r=T-T_c$ which reads [@Fisher95] $$\xi \sim |r|^{-\nu}.\label{c_length_pwl}$$ As expected, the data can be fitted to the power law (\[c\_length\_pwl\]), giving a correlation length exponent of $\nu=1.8(3)$, in reasonable agreement with the renormalization group result $\nu=2$ [@Fisher95].
We also analyze the average correlation time $\xi_\tau$. As we can reach much larger temporal system sizes $L_\tau$ than spatial system sizes $L$, we can compute $\xi_\tau$ via the standard second-moment method [@CooperFreedmanPreston82; @Kim93; @CGGP01] from the Fourier transform $\tilde{G}(\omega)$ of the temporal correlation function $G(\tau)$: $$\xi_\tau=\left[\frac{\tilde{G}(0)-\tilde{G}(\omega_{min})}{\omega_{min}^2\tilde{G}(\omega_{min})}\right]^{1/2}.$$ Here, $\omega_{min}$ is the minimum wave number, $2\pi/L_\tau$ in the imaginary-time direction.
The behavior of the correlation time $\xi_\tau$ in the Griffiths phase is illustrated by plotting $\xi_\tau/L_\tau$ as a function of temperature $T$ for several system of size $L_\tau$, as shown in Fig. \[fig\_correlation\_time\_scale\].
![Scaled correlation time $\xi_\tau/L_\tau$ versus temperature $T$ for different values of $L_\tau$ in the Griffiths region. The system size in space is $L=1000$; the data are averaged over 2000 disorder configurations. The inset shows a magnification for the crossing point of the curves.[]{data-label="fig_correlation_time_scale"}](fig_8){width="8.2cm"}
Remarkably, the different curves cross at temperature $T\approx 0.578$, clearly much higher than our critical temperature $T_c\approx 0.54$. This indicates that the correlation time $\xi_\tau$ diverges in part of the disordered phase before reaching the phase transition. This behavior is indicative of infinite-randomness physics and can be understood by estimating the rare region contribution to the correlation time $\xi_\tau$ [@HrahshehBarghathiVojta11]. It reads $$\xi_\tau \sim \int\limits_{0}^{\epsilon_0} d\epsilon~ \epsilon^{1/z-1}~ \frac{1}{\epsilon},\label{corr_time_rare}$$ where $\epsilon$ is the renormalized distance from criticality of rare region and the factor $\epsilon^{1/z-1}$ stems from the rare-region density of states. According to Eq. (\[corr\_time\_rare\]), the integral diverges for $z>1$ and converges for $z<1$. Therefore, the correlation time is expected to diverge in the disordered Griffiths phase (before reaching the phase transition) at the temperature at which the Griffiths dynamical exponent is $z=1$. [^1]
Conclusions {#sec:Conclusions}
===========
In summary, we have studied the superconductor to metal quantum phase transition in ultra thin nanowires by performing large-scale Monte Carlo simulations. To this end, we have mapped the quantum action onto a (1+1)-dimensional classical XY Hamiltonian with long-rang interactions and columnar disorder.
For the clean system, we have employed finite-size scaling of the Binder cumulant to estimate the critical point and determine the universality class of the phase transition. Our results agree well with earlier Monte-Carlo simulations [@WernerTroyerSachdev05] as well as perturbative renormalization group results [@PFGKS04; @SachdevWernerTroyer04]. In particular, the dynamical scaling is of conventional power-law type $\xi_\tau \sim \xi^{z_{cl}}$.
In the presence of quenched disorder, our results provide strong evidence in support of the exotic infinite-randomness behavior that was predicted by the strong-disorder renormalization group approach [@HoyosKotabageVojta07] and the large-$N$ saddle point analysis [@DRMS08]. It features activated dynamical scaling, $\ln \xi_\tau \sim \xi^{\psi}$. In particular, the critical behavior is compatible with the universality class of the random transverse-field Ising chain. This may appear surprising at first glance because the random transverse-field Ising model has discrete symmetry and no dissipation while our current problem has continuous XY symmetry and Ohmic dissipation. However, the behavior agrees with the general classification of disordered quantum phase transitions developed in Refs. [@VojtaSchmalian05; @Vojta06; @Vojta13; @VojtaHoyos14]. In both systems, the rare regions are right at the lower critical dimension of the problem, putting the transitions into class $B$ [@VojtaHoyos14]. Moreover, both clean transitions violate the Harris criterion, implying that the disordered transitions are in subclass $B2$ which features infinite-randomness criticality [@VojtaHoyos14].
Rare regions also lead to unusual properties in the Griffiths phases on both sides of the phase transition. Specifically, the superfluid density vanishes in part of the long-range ordered (superfluid) Griffiths phase, giving rise to an anomalous (sliding) Griffiths phase with unusual elastic properties [@MGNTV10; @PekkerRefaelDemler10]. On the disordered side of the transition, rare regions lead to a divergence of the average correlation time before the transition is reached.
Our Monte Carlo simulations can in principle be generalized to compute further observables including the dynamical conductivity in the regime $\omega \gg T$. This would allow us to test the predictions of Ref. [@DRHV10]. Due to the large numerical effort, this remains a task for the future.
Recently, a pair-breaking superconductor-metal quantum phase transition has been observed in amorphous Mo-Ge nanowires [@Kimetal2018]. In these wires, the disorder turns out to be rather weak and plays no role in the measured temperature range. Thus, the experimental results are well described by the clean theory of Refs. [@DRSS08; @DelMaestroRosenowSachdev09]. However, several superconducting quantum phase transitions in two-dimensional systems have been interpreted in terms of infinite-randomness critical behavior analogous to that studied in the present paper. These include transitions of ultrathin Ga films [@Xingetal15], La~2~AlO~3~/SrTiO~3~ interfaces [@Shenetal18], flakes of ZrNCl and MoS~2~ [@SaitoNojimaIwasa2018], monolayer NbSe~2~ [@Xingetal17], and InO films [@Lewellynetal18].
This work was supported by the NSF under Grants No. DMR-1506152, PHY-1125915 and PHY-1607611. Thomas Vojta is thankful for the hospitality of the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, Santa Barbara, and the Aspen Center for Physics where parts of the work were performed.
Author contribution statement {#author-contribution-statement .unnumbered}
=============================
T.V. conceived and coordinated the study. A.K.I. performed the Monte Carlo simulations, analyzed the data, and created the figures. A.K.I and T.V. wrote the manuscript.
[^1]: The agreement between the crossing temperature in Fig. \[fig\_correlation\_time\_scale\], and the temperature at which the susceptibility-based $z$-value (see Fig. \[fig\_z\_scale\]) equals 1 is not particularly good. This can be attributed to strong corrections to scaling, manifest, e.g., in the drift with $L_\tau$ of the crossing in Fig. \[fig\_correlation\_time\_scale\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- |
Paul S. Wesson\
Department of Physics, University of Waterloo,\
Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada
title: 'WAVE MECHANICS AND GENERAL RELATIVITY: A RAPPROCHEMENT'
---
Using exact solutions, we show that it is in principle possible to regard waves and particles as representations of the same underlying geometry, thereby resolving the problem of wave-particle duality.
Correspondence: Mail to address above, fax=(519)746-8115
Wave-particle duality is commonly presented as a conceptual conflict between quantum and classical mechanics. The archetypal example is the double-slit experiment, where electrons as discrete particles pass through a pair of apertures and show wave-like interference patterns. However, particles and waves can both be given geometrical descriptions, which raises the possibility that these behaviours are merely different representations of the same underlying geometry. We will give a brief discussion involving exact solutions of extended geometry, to show that particles and waves may be the same thing viewed in different ways.
Certain technical results will be needed below. (Those readers more interested in results than method may like to proceed to section 2.) The basic idea is that waves and particles are different coordinate representations of the same geometry, or isometries \[1-5\]. Even in special relativity, which frequently uses as a basis four-dimensional Minkowski space $\left( M_{4}\right) ,$ we can if we so wish change the form of the metric by a change of coordinates (or gauge). Thus, $M_{4}$ is actually isometric to the Milne universe, which is often presented as a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) model with negative 3D or spatial curvature in general relativity \[4\]. While the metrics may look different, their equivalence is shown by the fact that in both cases the density and pressure of matter are zero as determined by the field equations. The latter in 4D read $R_{\alpha \beta }-Rg_{\alpha \beta }/ 2+\Lambda g_{\alpha \beta
}=8\pi T_{\alpha \beta }(\alpha ,\beta =0,123$ for time and space, where the speed of light and the constant of gravity have been set to unity). Here $R_{\alpha \beta }$ is the Ricci tensor, $R$ is the Ricci scalar, $g_{\alpha
\beta }$ is the metric tensor, $\Lambda $ is the cosmological constant and $T_{\alpha \beta }$ is the energy-momentum tensor. While certain wave-like solutions of the latter equations are known \[3\], none has the properties of the deBroglie waves which are commonly used to describe the energy $\left(
E\right) $ and spatial momenta $p_{123}$ of particles in wave mechanics. Symbolically, these have wavelengths $\lambda ^{0}=h/ E,\;\lambda
^{1}=h/ p_{1}$ etc., where $h$ is Planck’s constant (which may also be set to unity). However, solutions of the field equations known with deBroglie-like waves in dimensionally-extended gravity \[5-7\]. The latter is fundamentally Einstein’s theory of general relativity, extended to $N\left( >4\right) D$, in order to unify gravity with the interactions of particle physics. The basic extension is to $N=5$, where Campbell’s theorem ensures that any solution of the 5D field equations in vacuum is also a solution of the 4D field equations with matter \[1, 8\]. That is, we can always recover a solution of the 4D equations noted above from the 5D equations, which in terms of the extended Ricci tensor are just $R_{AB}=0\left( A,B=0,123,4\right) $. There are many exact solutions known of these equations, whereby the extended version is known to agree with observations, both in regard to the solar system \[5, 9\] and cosmology \[5, 10\]. Several are relevant to the present project \[11-14\]. For example, the Billyard solution \[14\] has a metric coefficient for the 3D or spatial part which naturally represents the 3D or momentum component of a deBroglie wave \[15\]. It is a remarkable solution, in that it is not only Ricci-flat $\left( R_{AB}=0\right) $ but also Riemann-flat $\left( R_{ABCD}=0\right) $. That is, it represents a flat 5D space, which by virtue of Campbell’s theorem satisfies Einstein’s 4D equations, and has a 3D deBroglie wave. However, it is deficient in some respects as regards the present project, notably in that it has a signature $\left( +---+\right) $ which is at variance with the one $\left( +----\right) $ indicated by particle physics. The latter subject is constrained by Lorentz invariance and experiments related to this. There is a relation between the energy $E$, 3-momentum $p$ and rest mass $m$ of a particle, which is regarded as standard because it is closely obeyed in experiments (see ref. 16 for a review). Namely,$$E^{2}=p^{2}+m^{2}\;\;\;\;\;.$$This is a strong constraint on any attempt to construct a geometric relation between the particle and wave descriptions of matter. From the viewpoint of a theory like general relativity, (1) is perhaps not surprising, in that it can be understood as a consequence of multiplying a constant $m$ onto the conventional condition for normalizing the 4-velocities, viz $u^{\alpha
}u_{\alpha }=1$. (Here, $u^{\alpha }\equiv dx^{\alpha }/ds$ where the 4D coordinates $x^{\alpha }$ are related to the proper time $s$ and the metric tensor $g_{\alpha \beta }$ via $ds^{2}=g_{\alpha \beta }dx^{\alpha
}dx^{\beta }$.) From the viewpoint of a dimensionally-extended theory, (1) is also not so surprising, in that it follows for a wide range of metrics. The latter involve two aspects. First, the coordinates should be “canonical” in 5D, which means that the interval can be written as $dS^{2}=\left( l/ L\right) ^{2}ds^{2}-dl^{2}$ where $x^{4}\equiv l$, so that the extra coordinate plays the role of particle mass and the Weak Equivalence Principle is obeyed \[17, 18\]. Second, the paths of particles (or waves) should be null, so that a photon-like object in 5D appears as a massive object in 4D \[19-21\]. This latter condition enables us to cast our project into a new form: we are asking if there is a photon-like solution in 5D, which in 4D can be interpreted as being a massive particle or equivalently a deBroglie wave.
The technical results noted in the preceding paragraph may appear to be very restrictive as regards a possible resolution of the apparent dichotomy between wave mechanics and classical mechanics. However, wave-particle duality is a generic feature of matter, as shown by experiments more sophisticated than the old double-slit one for electrons, such as studies of the interference in a gravitational field of neutrons \[22, 23\]. It is therefore to be expected that if there is a geometric explanation in terms of isometries, that it also will be generic in some sense. This will turn out to be the case. Thus while there are numerous coordinate frames which are useful for our studies, it transpires that they share the property of describing a 5D manifold that is flat \[24\]. We will present two exact solutions which represent deBroglie waves but share this property in section 2. The inference is that particles and waves in 4D are isometries of flat 5D space.
In this section, we will consider flat manifolds of various dimensionalities, with a view to showing that a 4D deBroglie wave which describes energy and momentum is isometric to a flat 5D space. The notation is the same as that introduced above, and standard.
2D manifolds, like that which describes the surface of the Earth, are locally flat. A brief but instructive account of their isometries is given by Rindler (1977, p.114; a manifold of any N is approximately flat in a small enough region, and changes of coordinates that qualify as isometries should strictly speaking preserve the signature.) Consider, as an example, the line element $ds^{2}=dt^{2}-t^{2}dx^{2}$. Then the coordinate transformation $t\rightarrow e^{i\omega t}/ i\omega $, $x\rightarrow e^{i\kappa x}$ causes the metric to read $ds^{2}=e^{2i\omega t}dt^{2}-e^{2i\left( \omega
t+\kappa x\right) }dx^{2}$, where $\omega $ is a frequency, $\kappa $ is a wave-number and the phase velocity $\omega /\kappa $ has been set to unity. It is clear from this toy example that a metric which describes a freely-moving particle (the proper distance is proportional to the time) is equivalent to one which describes a freely-propogating wave. For the particle, we can define its energy and momentum via $E\equiv m\left( dt/ ds\right) $ and $p\equiv m\left(
dx/ ds\right) $. For the wave, $\widetilde{E}\equiv m\,e^{i\omega
t}\left( dt/ ds\right) $ and $\widetilde{p}\equiv m$ $e^{i\left(
\omega t+\kappa x\right) }\left( dx/ ds\right) $. In both cases, the mass $m$ of a test particle has to be introduced , a shortcoming which will be addressed below. The standard energy condition (1), in the form $m^{2}=E^{2}-p^{2}$, is recovered if the signature is $\left( +-\right) $. If on the other hand we have a Euclidean signature of the kind used in certain approaches to quantum gravity, it is instructive in the 2D case to consider the isometry $ds^{2}=x^{2}dt^{2}+t^{2}dx^{2}$. The transformation $t\rightarrow e^{i\omega t}/ i\omega $, $x\rightarrow
e^{i\kappa x}/ i\kappa $ causes this to read $ds^{2}=-\left( 1/
\kappa \right) ^{2}\,\,e^{2i\left( \omega t+\kappa x\right) }$ $\left(
dt^{2}+dx^{2}\right) $, after the absorption of a phase velocity as above. Thus a particle metric becomes one with a conformal factor which resembles a wave function.
3D manifolds add little to what has been discussed above. It is well known that in this case the Ricci and Riemann-Christoffel tensors can be written as functions of each other, so the field equations bring us automatically to a flat manifold as before.
4D manifolds which are isotropic and homogeneous, but non-static, lead us to consider the FRW metrics. These have line elements given by$$ds^{2}=dt^{2}-\frac{R^{2}\left( t\right) }{\left( 1+k\;r^{2}/ 4\right)
^{2}}\left( dx^{2}+dy^{2}+dz^{2}\right) \;\;\;\;\;,$$where $R\left( t\right) $ is the scale factor and $k=\pm $1, 0 defines the 3D curvature. (This should not be confused with the wave number.) In the ideal case where the density and pressure of matter are zero, a test particle moves away from a local origin with a proper distance proportional to the time. (I.e., $R=t$ above where the spatial coordinates $xyz$ and $r\equiv \sqrt{x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}}$ are comoving and dimensionless.) This specifies the Milne model, which by the field equations requires $k=-1$. (One way think of this as a situation where the kinetic energy is balanced by the gravitational energy of a negatively-curved 3D space.) As noted in section 1, (2) with $R=t$ and $k=-1$ is isometric to $M_{4}$ \[ref.4, p.205\]. Indeed, the Milne model is merely a convenient non-static representation of flat 4D space. In the local limit where $\left| r^{2}/ 4\right|
\ll 1$, the t-behaviour of the 3D sections of (2) allows us to specify a wave via the same kind of coordinate transformation used in the 2D case. We eschew the details of this, since the same physics is contained in more satisfactory form if the dimensionality is extended.
5D manifolds which are canonical \[5, 24\] have remarkably simple dynamics. And since Campbell’s theorem \[1, 8\] ensures that any Ricci-flat 5D solution has an Einstein 4D analog, it is natural to focus on the 5D version of the Milne model discussed in the preceding paragraph. Consider therefore the 5D line element $$dS^{2}=\left( \frac{l}{L}\right) ^{2}dt^{2}-\left[ l\,\text{sinh}\left(
\frac{t}{L}\right) \right] ^{2}d\sigma ^{2}-dl^{2}\;\;\;\;\;.$$Here $l$ is the extra coordinate, and $L$ is a constant length which we will see below is related inversely to the cosmological constant $\Lambda $. The 3-space is the same as that above, namely $d\sigma ^{2}=\left(
dx^{2}+dy^{2}+dz^{2}\right) $ $\left( 1+kr^{2}/ 4\right) ^{-2}$ with $k=-1$. That the time-dependence of the 3-space in (3) is different from that in (2) is attributable to the fact that we are using the 4D parameters ($t$, $xyz$ or equivalently the 4D proper time $s$) to describe the motion in a 5D metric (whose proper time is $S\neq s$: see note 24). However, the local situation for the 5D case (3) is close to that for the 4D case (2). To see this, we note that for laboratory situations $t/ L\ll 1$ in (3), so it reads $$dS^{2}\simeq \left( \frac{l}{L}\right) ^{2}dt^{2}-\left( \frac{lt}{L}\right)
^{2}d\sigma ^{2}-dl^{2}\;\;\;\;\;.$$This is of canonical form, namely $dS^{2}=\left( l/ L\right)
^{2}ds^{2}-dl^{2}$ \[5, 8, 14, 15, 18, 20\]. For such metrics, the reduction of the 5D field equations to the 4D Einstein equations identifies the length $L$ via $\Lambda =3/ L^{2}$ (see e.g. ref. 5, p. 159). Such metrics effectively describe momentum manifolds rather than coordinate manifolds, since the identification of $l$ with $m$ defines the conventional action of particle physics $\left( \int mds\right) $, and ensures agreement with the Weak Equivalence Principle \[18\]. More importantly for present purposes, the metric (3) from which (4) is derived satisfies not only $R_{AB}=0$ but also $R_{ABCD}=0$. This may be confirmed either by algebra or a fast computer package such as GRTensor. Since the 5D manifold is flat, the appropriate condition for the path of a particle in it is $dS=0$ \[19, 20\]. With this condition, any canonical metric results in the constraint $L\left(
dl/ ds\right) =\pm l$. Let us use this constraint with (4), where we multiply it by $L^{2}$ and divide it by $ds^{2}$. The result is $$0\simeq l^{2}\left( \frac{dt}{ds}\right) ^{2}-\left( l\,\,t\right) ^{2}\left[
\left( \frac{dx}{ds}\right) ^{2}+\left( \frac{dy}{ds}\right) ^{2}+\left(
\frac{dz}{ds}\right) ^{2}\right] -l^{2}\ \ \;\ \ .$$This with the identification $l=m$ (see above) and the recollection that proper distances are defined by $\int tdx$ etc., simply reproduces the standard condition (1), in the form $0=E^{2}-p^{2}-m^{2}$.
To convert the 5D metric (4) to a wave, we follow the lower-dimensional examples noted before. Specifically, we change $t\rightarrow e^{i\omega
t}/ i\omega $, $x\rightarrow \exp \left( i\kappa _{x}x\right) $ etc., where $\omega $ is a frequency and $\kappa _{x}$ etc. are wave numbers for the $x,y,z$ directions. After setting the phase velocity to unity, (4) then reads $$dS^{2}\simeq \left( \frac{l}{L}\right) ^{2}e^{2i\omega t}dt^{2}-\left( \frac{l}{L}\right) ^{2}\left\{ \exp \left[ 2i\left( \omega t+\kappa _{x}x\right) \right] dx^{2}+\text{etc}\right\} -dl^{2}\;\;\;.$$This with the null condition causes the analog of (5) to read$$0\simeq \left\{ l\;e^{i\omega t}\frac{dt}{ds}\right\} ^{2}-\left\{ l\exp \left[ i\left( \omega t+\kappa _{x}x\right) \right] \frac{dx}{ds}\right\}
^{2}-\text{etc}-l^{2}\;\;\;\;\;.$$We can again make the identification $l=m$ and define $$\widetilde{E}\equiv l\,e^{i\omega t}\frac{dt}{ds},\;\;\widetilde{p}\equiv
l\exp \left[ i\left( \omega t+\kappa _{x}x\right) \right] \frac{dx}{ds}\;\;\text{etc}.$$Then (7) is equivalent to$$0\simeq \widetilde{E}^{2}-\widetilde{p}^{2}-m^{2\;\;\;\;\;.}$$This is of course the wave analog of the standard relation (1) for a particle.
Another example of a 5D wave-like metric is the Billyard solution, which like (3) above satisfies $R_{AB}=0$ and $R_{ABCD}=0$ \[14, 15, 24\]. It may be expressed in a form somewhat different from the original as $$dS^{2}=\left( \frac{l}{L}\right) ^{2}dt^{2}-\left( \frac{l}{L}\right)
^{2}\left\{ \exp \left[ 2i\left( \frac{t}{L}+\kappa _{x}x\right) \right]
dx^{2}+\text{etc}\right\} +dl^{2}\ \ \;\;\ \ \ .$$This metric resembles (6), but now the frequency is constrained by the scale of the geometry and the extra dimension is timelike. (It may be verified that there is no solution for the opposite case.) The latter property means that for null 5D geodesics we have $l=l_{0}e^{\pm is/ L}$ where $l_{0}$ is a constant, so the mass parameter is itself a wave which oscillates around the hypersurface we call spacetime \[21\]. Such behaviour can also occur in string theory \[6, 7\], and may or may note be realistic. For present purposes, we note that while (10) can describe a deBroglie wave for the 3-momentum, it is not clear how to treat the energy, and the signature is at variance with that implied by the standard particle relation (1). This may seem strange, given the similarities between (6) and (10). However, it should be recalled that in trying to identify a 4D deBroglie wave from a 5D metric, we are dealing with a quantity $Q=Q\left( x^{\alpha
},l\right) $ which is necessarily preserved under the group of 5D coordinate transformations $x^{A}\rightarrow \overline{x}^{A}\left(
x^{B}\right) $ if the extra one $x^{4}=l$ is involved. This implies that the exact 5D solutions (3) and (10) are equivalent in terms of their 4D physics. Indeed, the reduction of the field equations from 5D to 4D implies that the approximate form (4) of (3) has $\Lambda >0$, whereas (10) has $\Lambda <0$, due to their different signatures \[5\]. This and other aspects of these solutions should be investigated in future work. At present, it appears that duality can best be described by (3), (4) for the particle and (6) for the wave.
Wave-particle duality may be approached through a consideration of flat manifolds of various dimensionalities. In the context of classical 4D general relativity, the standard energy condition (1) of particle physics in vacuum is consistent with the Milne model (2). This is an isometry of Minkowski space $M_{4}$, and a coordinate transformation can be used to make it wave-like. However, the concept of momentum is better handled by $M_{5}$, and we have examined an exact solution (3) in 5D which is not only Ricci-flat $\left( R_{AB}=0\right) $ but also Riemann-flat $\left(
R_{ABCD}=0\right) $. The local limit of this solution is (4), which is basically the Milne model embedded in a 5D momentum (as opposed to coordinate) manifold. This describes a particle which obeys the standard energy condition, but a coordinate transformation puts a wave on it as in (6). Since the underlying manifold is flat, the natural condition on the interval (action) is that it be zero, as in (7). Then obvious definitions for the energy and spatial momentum (8) result in both quantities being wave-like, and obeying a wave analog (9) of the particle energy condition. The solution (3), while it lends itself easily to both particle and wave interpretations, deserves further study to see what other physics it may imply. By contrast, the solution (10) which has been discussed in the literature is already in wave form, but does not lend itself so readily to an interpretation in terms of deBroglie waves. Our main conclusion, based on the solution (3), is that particles and waves are isometries of flat 5D space.
This technical result invites a philosophical discussion which would be inappropriate here. However, some comments are in order about coordinates. Physics should always be constructed in an $N$-dimensional space in a manner which is covariant; but if that space is embedded in $\left(
N+1\right) $, and the extra coordinate enters in a significant way, the physics in $ND$ will necessarily depend on the coordinates in $\left(
N+1\right) D$. Traditional Kaluza-Klein theory is a good example of this, where the electromagnetic potentials (which are the cross-terms in the extended metric tensor) can be included or decluded depending on how the 5 degrees of coordinate freedom for the line element are used. Even in manifolds of fixed $N$, the physical interpretation of a solution can depend on the choice of coordinates or gauge. The Minkowski and Milne cases in 4D provide a good example of this, where the former describes a static spacetime and the latter describes an expanding cosmology. (Certain quantities are of course preserved, and in this case the density and pressure of matter are zero in both interpretations.) Likewise, the particle and wave descriptions for energy and momentum which we have discussed above depend on a choice of coordinates. The waves are not electromagnetic, and nor are they gravitational of the conventional type. For want of a better term, they can be called metric waves. They should not be regarded as merely technical accidents. Physics has over a long period given us large bodies of information which, because of the experimental approaches involved, we describe as pertaining to particles and waves. But it is really not surprising that these two physical phenomena have a common mathematical base. We have simply argued that this common base is geometrical, and that particles and waves are isometries.
Wave-particle duality has long been considered a paradox, but it may simply be that particles and waves are the same thing viewed in geometrically different ways.
The outline given here has benefited from discussions over time with various people, including A. Billyard, T. Liko, W. Rindler and S. Werner. The work was supported in part by NSERC.
1. Campbell, J. 1926. A Course on Differential Geometry (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
2. Eisenhart, L.D. 1949. Riemannian Geometry (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
3. Kramer, D., Stephani, H., Herlt, E., MacCallum, M., Schmutzer, E. 1980. Exact Solutions of Einstein’s Field Equations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
4. Rindler, W. 1977. Essential Relativity (New York: Springer).
5. Wesson, P.S. 1999. Space, Time, Matter (Singapore: World Scientific).
6. Gubser, S.S., Lykken, J.D. (editors), 2004. Strings, Branes and Extra Dimensions (Singapore: World Scientific).
7. Szabo, R.J., 2004. An Introduction to String Theory and D-Brane Dynamics (Singapore: World Scientific).
8. Seahra, S.S., Wesson, P.S. 2003. Class. Quant. Grav. , 1321.
9. Kalligas, D., Wesson, P.S., Everitt, C.W.F. 1995. Astrophys. J. , 548.
10. Ponce de Leon, J. 1988, Gen. Rel. Grav. , 539.
11. Davidson, A., Sonnenschein, J., Vozmediano, A.H. 1985. Phys. Rev. D , 1330.
12. McManus, D.J. 1994. J. Math. Phys. , 4889.
13. Abolghasem, G., Coley, A.A., McManus, D.J. 1996. J. Math. Phys. , 361.
14. Billyard, A., Wesson, P.S. 1996. Gen. Rel. Grav. , 129.
15. Wesson, P.S. 2003. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D , 1721.
16. Pospelov, M., Romalis, M. 2004. Phys. Today (7), 40.
17. Will, C.M. 1993. Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
18. Wesson, P.S. 2003. Gen. Rel. Grav. , 307.
19. Youm, D. 2001. Mod. Phys. Lett. A , 2371.
20. Seahra, S.S., Wesson, P.S. 2001. Gen Rel. Grav. , 1731.
21. Wesson, P.S., 2002. Phys. Lett. B , 159.
22. Colella, R., Overhauser, A.W., Werner, S.A., 1975. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 1472.
23. Rauch, H., Werner, S.A., 2000. Neutron Interferometry (Oxford: Clarendon).
24. There are several useful coordinate transformations which relate flat 5D manifolds and curved 4D ones. For example, the metrics $dS^{2}=dT^{2}-d\sigma ^{2}-dL^{2}$ and $ds^{2}=l^{2}dt^{2}-d\sigma
^{2}-t^{2}dl^{2}$ are related by the transformation $T=t^{2}l^{2}/
4+\ln \left( t^{1/ 2}l^{-1/ 2}\right) $, $L=t^{2}l^{2}/
4-\ln \left( t^{1/ 2}l^{-1/ 2}\right) $. The “standard” 5D cosmologies of Ponce de Leon \[10\] have metrics of the second-noted form, and may by coordinate transformations be shown to be 5D flat. The full transformations, including those for the spatial part, are given elsewhere (ref. 5, p. 49). The Billyard wave \[14\] may similarly be shown to be a coordinate-transformed version of de Sitter space, and flat in 5D. A generic discussion of cosmological models which are flat in 5D is due to McManus \[12\]. One of his solutions is a metric for a particle in a manifold whose 3D part is curved, which effectively generalizes the Billyard wave whose 3D part is flat. \[See ref. 12, p. 4895, equation (30).\] This can be seen by changing the 4D coordinates as discussed in the main text, which results in $dS^{2}=\left( l/ L\right) ^{2}dt^{2}-\left( l/
L\right) ^{2}\left( e^{it/ L}+ke^{-it/ L}\right) ^{2}\left[ \exp
\left( 2i\kappa _{x}x\right) dx^{2}+\text{etc}\right] +dl^{2}$. When the curvature constant k is zero, this gives back the Billyard wave. Another of the McManus solutions reproduces work by Davidson et al. \[See ref. 11; and also ref. 12, p. 4893, equation (19).\] This is effectively a 5D embedding of the 4D Milne model, and can be written as $dS^{2}=dt^{2}-t^{2}d\sigma ^{2}-dl^{2}$, where $d\sigma ^{2}\equiv \left( 1+kr^{2}/
4\right) ^{-2}$ with $k=-1$. The transformation $t\rightarrow l\,$sinh$\left( t/ L\right) $, $l\rightarrow l\ $cosh$\left( t/ L\right) $ causes the metric to read $dS^{2}=\left( l/ L\right) ^{2}dt^{2}-\left[
l\text{ sinh}\left( t/ L\right) \right] ^{2}d\sigma ^{2}-dl^{2}$. This is quoted as (3) of the main text, and its local approximation is (4). The former has proper distances which vary as sinh$t$, whereas the latter has proper distances which vary as $t$. The former is typical of motion in flat 5D space, when the 4D proper time $s$ (as opposed to the 5D proper time $S$) is used as parameter \[5, p. 169\]. The latter is typical of motion in flat 4D space, when the ordinary time $t$ is used as parameter \[4, p. 205\]. Both of the models used in the main text to illustrate the passage from particle to wave use metrics which are canonical in form, and there is a large literature on these. However, a more general class of metrics is given by $dS^{2}=g_{\alpha \beta }\left( x^{\gamma },l\right) dx^{\alpha
}dx^{\beta }+\epsilon \Phi ^{2}\left( x^{\gamma },l\right) dl^{2}$, where $\epsilon =\pm 1$ and $\Phi $ is a scalar field. Einstein’s 4D equations are satisfied for this 5D metric if the effective or induced energy-momentum tensor is given by$$\begin{aligned}
8\pi T_{\alpha \beta } &=&\frac{\Phi _{,\alpha ;\beta }}{\Phi }-\frac{\epsilon }{2\Phi ^{2}}\left\{ \frac{\Phi ,_{4}g_{\alpha \beta ,4}}{\Phi }-g_{\alpha \beta ,44}+g^{\lambda \mu }g_{\alpha \lambda ,4}g_{\beta \mu
,4}\right. \\
&&\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\left. -\frac{g^{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu ,4}g_{\alpha \beta
,4}}{2}+\frac{g_{\alpha \beta }}{4}\left[ g_{\;,4}^{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu
,4}+\left( g^{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu 4}\right) ^{2}\right] \right\}
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;.\end{aligned}$$Here a comma denotes the partial derivative and a semicolon denotes the 4D covariant derivative. We have not discussed the matter which relates to the exact solutions (3), (10) of the main text because it is merely vacuum \[5, 14\]. But the matter properties of these and more complicated solutions may be evaluated for any choice of coordinates by using the noted expression.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Monolithic integration of control technologies for atomic systems presents a promising route to the development of quantum computers and portable quantum sensors. Trapped atomic ions form the basis of high-fidelity quantum information processors and high-accuracy optical clocks, but currently rely on free-space optics for ion control, limiting portability and scalability. Here we demonstrate a surface-electrode ion trap which delivers all wavelengths required for ionization, cooling, coherent operations, and quantum-state preparation and detection of Sr$^{+}$ qubits using integrated waveguides and grating couplers. Laser light from the violet to the infrared is coupled onto the chip via an optical-fiber array, creating an inherently stable optical path that we use to demonstrate qubit coherence resilient to platform vibrations. This demonstration of CMOS-compatible integrated-photonic surface-trap fabrication, robust packaging, and enhanced qubit coherence represents a key advance in the development of portable trapped-ion quantum sensors and clocks, and it lights the way toward the complete, individual control of larger numbers of ions in quantum information processing systems.'
author:
- 'R. J. Niffenegger'
- 'J. Stuart'
- 'C. Sorace-Agaskar'
- 'D. Kharas'
- 'S. Bramhavar'
- 'C. D. Bruzewicz'
- 'W. Loh'
- 'R. McConnell'
- 'D. Reens'
- 'G. N. West'
- 'J. M. Sage'
- 'J. Chiaverini'
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: 'Integrated optical control and enhanced coherence of ion qubits via multi-wavelength photonics'
---
Introduction
============
Trapped ions are natural qubits. They form the basis of a promising physical implementation for quantum information processing (QIP) due to their long coherence times, ease of control and readout, and strong ion-ion interactions, enabling high-fidelity two-qubit gates [@leibfried2003quantum; @monroe2013scaling; @gaebler2016highfidelity; @bruzewicz2019trapped]. Recently, quantum processors based on trapped ions have been used to demonstrate relatively complex quantum algorithms in architectures with high connectivity [@nam2019ground; @wright2019benchmarking]; trapped ions can also be used as precise quantum sensors and as the basis for high-accuracy optical clocks [@PhysRevX.7.031050; @delahaye_transportable_ion_clocks_2018; @brewer2019clock]. There are nevertheless many challenges to increasing the number of trapped-ion qubits in a quantum processor while maintaining high-fidelity operations, and to developing portable trapped-ion-based quantum sensors. Chief among these are the numerous free-space optical elements used to tightly focus and direct multiple laser beams of varied wavelengths to each ion’s location. Optical beam paths defined by these elements are susceptible to vibrations and drift, causing beam pointing instability that can limit the fidelity of quantum logic operations in quantum computers and the sensitivity of quantum sensors deployed outside of the laboratory [@gaebler2016highfidelity; @PhysRevLett.117.060504; @Thom2018].
Photonic waveguides and grating couplers [@Dalgoutte:75] integrated into microfabricated surface-electrode ion traps [@NIST:SET:QIC:05] offer a way to overcome the limitations of free-space optics for light delivery to trapped ions, greatly reducing the complexity and experimental overhead of trapped-ion systems. To date, a chip-integrated single-mode waveguide has allowed coherent operations on a trapped ion [@mehta2016integrated], and a multi-material photonics platform has been developed to allow low-loss light delivery over the wavelength range relevant to commonly-used ion species such as Ca$^{+}$, Sr$^{+}$, Ba$^{+}$, and Yb$^{+}$ [@sorace2019versatile]. However, the monolithic integration of optical components for delivery of all light required for basic ion-qubit operations (photoionization, cooling, repumping, state preparation and detection, and coherent operations) has remained an outstanding challenge.
{width="\textwidth"}
Here, we demonstrate operation of a surface-electrode ion-trap chip where integrated photonic components deliver all required wavelengths, from the violet to the infrared, necessary to control [$^{88}$Sr$^+$]{} qubits. Using these integrated components, we demonstrate operations including photoionization of neutral Sr, Doppler cooling of the [$^{88}$Sr$^+$]{} ion, electronic-state repumping, coherent qubit operations, and qubit-state preparation and detection. In contrast to previous demonstrations, where the input beams were coupled to the chip from free space [@mehta2016integrated], all laser wavelengths are coupled onto the chip via optical fibers mounted in a glass fiber-array block which is precisely aligned and bonded to the chip, thus enabling a dramatic reduction in the number of free-space optics for delivery of control light to the ion. We also observe significantly reduced sensitivity of ion qubits to external vibrations when the coherent control light is delivered via fiber-coupled, on-chip waveguides rather than via free-space optics. This is because the monolithic integration of the trap and optics eliminates relative vibrations between the beam path and the ion that typically reduce the effective coherence time. The operation of this multi-wavelength photonics ion trap represents a critical step towards robust and portable trapped-ion-based clocks and quantum sensors, while demonstrating the promise of this technology for ion-array-based QIP with many more qubits.
{width="90.00000%"}
Surface-trap chip and integrated photonics
==========================================
A schematic design of our ion-trap chip with integrated photonics is shown in a and b. Laser light, delivered into the ultra-high-vacuum system by means of a custom fiber feed-through (c), is coupled into four fibers, which terminate in a fiber array that is aligned and bonded to the chip’s facet. Light is coupled from these fibers onto the chip via inverse-taper waveguide couplers, sections of waveguide that are narrowed such that the spatial mode more closely matches the optical fiber mode [@Almeida:03]. Each integrated-photonic waveguide then routes light under the metal trap electrodes to a grating coupler that directs the light vertically, through apertures placed in the metal electrodes, to an ion trapped above the surface of the chip.
The optical waveguides consist of a laterally defined silicon nitride (SiN) guiding layer surrounded by silicon dioxide (SiO$_2$) cladding; this confines the light in similar fashion to an optical fiber. Each waveguide is patterned to have a width that ensures single-mode operation at its design wavelength (ranging from a $250$ nm width for a design wavelength of 405 nm, to $1.1~\mu$m for 1092 nm). These polarization-maintaining, single-mode waveguides allow flexible routing of light to arbitrary locations below the chip surface. The SiN waveguides have propagation losses below 0.5 dB/cm for wavelengths above 633 nm, with losses increasing to ${\sim}10$ dB/cm at 405 nm (for more details see ref. [@sorace2019versatile]). Near the end of each waveguide, the width is adiabatically tapered up to $18~\mu$m in order to expand the spatial mode of the light before it reaches the grating coupler.
The diffractive grating couplers are created by etching a periodic pattern into the widened waveguide along the direction of propagation (a). This creates a periodic variation of the effective refractive index, causing the light to diffract out of the plane of the chip at an angle dependent on the wavelength, grating period, and effective index. For the designs in this work, the grating efficiencies are approximately $10\%$ (see Methods). To increase the light intensity at the ion location, the grating teeth are curved, focusing the beam to a few-micron waist in the direction parallel to the trap surface and perpendicular to the grating emission (see inset of e for a scanning electron micrograph (SEM) image of a grating coupler).
The linear-ion-trap electrode geometry is similar to that used previously [@sage2012loading]. A radiofrequency (RF) drive applied to two of the trap electrodes confines the ion radially, at a height of $55~\,\mu$m above the chip surface, while DC voltages applied to the other electrodes provide axial confinement and allow one-dimensional shuttling of the ion parallel to the trap surface. Four $20 \times 20~\mu$m$^{2}$ apertures, displaced in the cardinal directions of the trap $55~\mu$m from the trap’s center, are opened in the trap metal above the grating couplers. (See e for a SEM image of the trap electrodes.) A thin film of the transparent, conductive material indium tin oxide (ITO) is deposited over these apertures to reduce the exposed area of dielectric that could potentially become charged, particularly in the case of blue light [@wang2011laser], adversely affecting the electric field at the ion location.
Fabrication is detailed in Methods. After fabrication, $1$ cm $\times\ 1$ cm trap chips are singulated via wafer dicing. The edge of the chip, to which the inputs of the waveguides are run, is subsequently polished in order to minimize light scattering at the interface between the waveguides and the optical fibers that deliver the light. The fiber array is then aligned and attached to the chip using epoxy (see Methods).
Six wavelengths are needed for optical loading and control of [$^{88}$Sr$^+$]{}(d). Ion loading is achieved by photoionization of neutral Sr from a remote, precooled source [@sage2012loading] and requires 461 nm and 405 nm light. Doppler cooling and detection on the [$^{88}$Sr$^+$]{} $5S_{1/2} \rightarrow 5P_{1/2}$ cycling transition requires 422 nm light, as well as 1092 nm light for repumping from the $4D_{3/2}$ state. Coherent qubit operations, quantum state preparation into a single Zeeman sublevel of the $5S_{1/2}$ ground state, and resolved sideband cooling are performed by driving $5S_{1/2} \rightarrow 4D_{5/2}$ electric quadrupole transitions via 674 nm light. In addition, light at 1033 nm is used in the cooling and state preparation processes. The chip contains four separate photonics pathways (waveguides plus grating couplers) for ion control: one for 405 nm/422 nm light, one for 461 nm light, one for 674 nm light, and one for 1033 nm/1092 nm light.
For the cases where two different wavelengths propagate in the same waveguide (405/422 nm and 1033/1092 nm), the different wavelengths result in slightly different angles of emission from the grating couplers. As the beams are only focused in the lateral direction, we find the beams are sufficiently large so that both address the ion despite the slight angular difference.
Photonic ion trap characterization and operation
================================================
We initially characterized each grating coupler by directly profiling its emitted beam with a high numerical aperture (NA) microscope objective and projecting the integrated beam onto a CMOS detector [@mehta2016integrated; @mehta2017precise] (see Methods for details). We used these images to generate 3D profiles of all of the beams and to determine the precise beam positions relative to the trap electrodes (a). These profiles show that the different integrated beams intersect each other at a height of 65 $\mu$m above the chip surface, 10 $\mu$m above the chip’s RF null, the line along which the ion is nominally trapped (b). This offset is consistent with a discrepancy between the index of refraction value used during grating design and that measured for the low-loss SiN used in fabrication. Because we cannot move the ion vertically to the point where all integrated beams intersect, we instead demonstrate ion-control operations using up to three integrated beams at a time, shuttling the ion horizontally via the on-chip electrodes to the location of the relevant beam(s).
For ion loading via photoionization, loading was achieved within a few seconds via the integrated 461 nm beam and a free-space 405 nm beam, and in approximately 1 minute via the integrated 405 nm beam and free-space 461 nm beam. (The longer loading time of the latter results from the broad 405 nm transition being unsaturated and from a lower integrated 405 nm beam intensity relative to that available when using the free space beam.) For the infrared beams, we demonstrated quenching of the $4D_{5/2}$ state with the integrated 1033 nm beam in less than 10 $\mu$s, and repumping from the $4D_{3/2}$ state via the integrated 1092 nm beam for Doppler cooling and detection. We used the integrated 674 nm beam path to perform spectroscopy on the narrow qubit transition, qubit state preparation, including optical pumping and sideband cooling to $\bar{n}<1$ motional quanta in the axial mode, optical-frequency-qubit Rabi oscillations, and Ramsey interferometry. With 10 mW of optical power coupled into the fiber attached to the chip, we were able to perform $\pi$ pulses on the optical qubit in 6.5 $\mu$s. This agrees with a first-principles calculation of the Rabi frequency [@roos2000controlling] given the measured beam dimensions, the beam power measured ex-situ, and the determined coupling losses (see Methods).
For ion detection, 422 nm photons emitted from the ion are collected using a high-NA lens and counted via a photomultiplier tube. Using the integrated 422 nm beam, and with spatial filtering of background photons scattered from the 422 nm diffraction grating itself, we achieve count rates of $8600$ s$^{-1}$ from the ion (reduced from typical collection rates due to additional spatial filtering) compared to $1600$ s$^{-1}$ due to background (which is dominated by unfiltered scattering from the grating), leading to $S_{1/2}$ state detection with $99.7\%$ fidelity in 3 ms. Here, the error is calculated from the overlap of Poissonian fits to the ion-fluorescence and background count histograms. While we did not shelve to the $4D_{5/2}$ state as part of this experiment, if we assume the only additional optical-qubit detection error arises from spontaneous decay from the $4D_{5/2}$ state (with lifetime of ${\sim}390$ ms [@safronova2017forbidden], and considering also decay during measurement), this would result in an average qubit detection fidelity of $99.6\%$ for a 3 ms detection time.
![Ion detection and spectroscopy with integrated light delivery. (a) Histogram of bright state photon counts with ion simultaneously illuminated by integrated 422 nm and integrated 1092 nm beams (red), and dark state/background photon counts without 1092 nm repumping light (blue) after a detection time of 5 ms (99.5% $5S_{1/2}$ state detection fidelity and 99.0% expected qubit detection fidelity). Lines are fits to Poisson distributions. Inset: CCD image of the ion illuminated by integrated beams. (b) Ion spectroscopy and optical pumping with simultaneous integration of 674 nm, 1033 nm, and 1092 nm light showing the main qubit “carrier” transition and the motional “sidebands” offset in frequency by the axial trap frequency, here 1.3 MHz. []{data-label="fig:detection"}](detection.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
In addition to using the high-NA objective to measure the beam profiles emitted from the gratings, we characterized the profiles, as well as the positions of the beams relative to the trap electrodes, *in situ* using the ion by measuring the strength of the laser-ion interaction as a function of ion position. The location of the ion was varied by changing the voltages applied to the DC electrodes (cf. Fig. \[fig:setup\]e), shuttling the ion along the direction of axial symmetry of the trap ($\hat{y}$), in steps, through each beam (c–f). For the 674 nm beam (c), the frequency of Rabi oscillations on the qubit transition was used to determine the beam intensity as a function of ion position. For the 422 nm and 1092 nm beams, ion fluorescence as a function of ion position was used (d and e, respectively). In these measurements, the beam intensities were kept below saturation so that the ion fluorescence rate was approximately proportional to both the 422 nm and 1092 nm intensity. The integrated 1033 nm beam, emitted from the same coupler as the 1092 nm beam, was profiled by applying a short 1033 nm pulse to partially quench the dark state population to the bright state (see Methods). The probability for the ion to have been quenched to the bright state is approximately linear in 1033 nm beam intensity at the position of the ion due to the short pulse duration (f).
These ion interaction profiles agree very well with the beam profiles measured using the microscope objective (see Methods), which gives us confidence that the integrated photonic components can be accurately characterized, independent of the ion, using conventional optical techniques and equipment. In addition, this implies that there are not significant effects on the integrated optics from cryogenic or ultrahigh vacuum operation.
We also used combinations of integrated beams simultaneously by positioning the ion near the intersection of two or more beams, although this effectively reduced the available laser intensity for various operations. Doppler cooling and state detection with the integrated 422 nm and 1092 nm beams were performed, enabling ion trapping for times exceeding multiple hours and measurement of the ion state without the use of any free-space beams. a shows a histogram of bright state ($S_{1/2}$) counts obtained with the ion simultaneously illuminated by integrated 422 nm and integrated 1092 nm beams, and dark counts from when the 1092 nm beam is blocked (causing the ion to be shelved into the dark $D_{3/2}$ state). We detect the $S_{1/2}$ state with $99.5\%$ fidelity in 5 ms; the expected qubit detection fidelity is $99.0\%$. We also used the integrated 674 nm, 1033 nm, and 1092 nm beams simultaneously to perform qubit state preparation (i.e., optical pumping) and spectroscopy of the $5S_{1/2} \rightarrow 4D_{5/2}$ carrier transition and its first order motional sidebands (b). We note that we did not observe any noticeable effects of charging due to photo-liberated electrons from any of the integrated beams; variation in compensation voltages used to cancel stray fields (resulting in part-per-thousand trap-frequency variations over the course of a day) was comparable to traps without integrated photonics.
Vibration Resilience
====================
![ Vibration insensitivity when delivering qubit-control light via monolithically integrated optics and direct fiber-to-chip coupling. (a) Vibrations introduced from the cryocooler attached to the vacuum chamber cause the ion to vibrate relative to the free space optical path. (b) Integrated photonic beams emitted from the chip will vibrate in common with the ion. (c-d) Long-exposure images of increasing vibrational coupling, collected using a high-NA lens and an electron-multiplying CCD camera. Increasing the mechanical coupling increases the amplitude of ion oscillation, and hence ion acceleration for fixed cryogenic-cooler cycle time. (e) The Ramsey-contrast decay time ($1/e$) measured via the free-space external beam path (red circles) decreases rapidly as the acceleration experienced by the vibrating ion increases. However, the coherence time measured when using delivery via the integrated beam path (blue diamonds) is unchanged. []{data-label="fig:vibration"}](Vibration_col_zoom.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
The inherent stability of optical paths integrated into the trap chip can provide some degree of vibration tolerance of trapped ion qubits, clocks, and sensors. Effective qubit decoherence due to optical phase variation and amplitude modulation arising from vibration of the ion (a) should be significantly reduced, as the vibrations of the ion and the light delivery optics are common-mode due to monolithic integration with the trap (b). To test this hypothesis, vibrations of varying amplitude were intentionally introduced, and we measured the effect on trapped-ion qubit coherence.
We use a cryogenic vacuum system similar to those described previously [@sage2012loading; @bruzewicz2016scalable], in which the cryocooler head is normally mechanically isolated from the trap mount. By clamping the vibrating cryocooler head to the trap mount via the upper portion of the vacuum chamber, we can incrementally and dramatically increase the vibrational coupling, causing the chip and ion to oscillate in space with a significant amplitude, as shown in c-d. Here images of the ion fluorescence, acquired using a high-NA lens and an electron-multiplying CCD, are observed as a function of time to determine the approximate induced vibration amplitude. Partially fixing the head to the chamber induces ${\sim}6$ $\mu$m oscillations of the ion, as in c, and directly attaching it excites ${\sim}17$ $\mu$m oscillations, as in d.
As a measure of qubit coherence, the decay of contrast of Ramsey interference fringes was used: first, a $\pi/2$ pulse is applied using 674 nm light to create an equal superposition in the qubit; this is followed by a variable delay time; next, another $\pi/2$ pulse of a varying phase relative to the initial pulse is applied; finally, the probability that the ion is in the lower qubit (bright) state is measured via resonance fluorescence. With the cryocooler head mechanically isolated from the trap, a $1/e$ contrast decay time of approximately 600 $\mu$s is measured using either the free-space 674 nm beam path or the grating-coupler-delivered 674 nm beam (see e, points at zero acceleration). The contrast decay in these cases is limited by a combination of magnetic-field noise and uncompensated acoustic/thermal noise in fiber optics (${\sim}30$ m) used to transmit the light from the laser to the optical table housing the vacuum chamber.
Increasing the vibration coupling between the cryocooler and the trap mount as described above has a strong effect on the measured Ramsey-contrast decay when using the externally delivered (free-space) qubit-control beam. As shown in e (red, lower symbols), the Ramsey decay time as a function of the ion acceleration (as extracted from the ion motion) drops rapidly with increasing ion motion. In contrast, the Ramsey decay measured using the grating-coupler-delivered beam remains unchanged as a function of ion acceleration (blue, upper symbols). At this coherence level, the integrated beam path renders the ion immune to even very strong vibrations, suggesting that coherence limited by such perturbation, for instance in a fieldable sensor or clock platform, may be improved by using integrated photonics for quantum control of trapped-atomic systems.
Conclusion
==========
Recent demonstrations of integration of ion-control technologies in potentially extensible platforms show the promise of ion arrays for scalable QIP [@mehta2016integrated; @slichter2017uv; @PhysRevApplied.11.024010]. In this work, we have implemented full photonic integration of all of the visible and infrared wavelengths required to ionize, cool, state-prepare, coherently control, and detect Sr$^{+}$ ions. This represents an important milestone toward the development of practical quantum information processors with trapped ions. Furthermore, the delivery of light directly from fibers to an ion-trap chip was shown to provide the additional benefit of vibration-resilient coherent quantum control, which may be leveraged to enable a new class of robust and portable ion-trap based clocks and quantum sensors deployable in environments beyond the laboratory.
Acknowledgments
===============
We thank Peter Murphy, Chris Thoummaraj, and Karen Magoon for assistance with chip packaging, and Patrick Hassett and Karen Yu for chip-facet polishing. We also thank Ryan Maxson for test equipment setup. This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Defense under Air Force Contract No. FA8702-15-D-0001. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Defense.
Author Contributions
====================
J.M.S. and J.C. conceived of the work. C.S.-A. and S.B. designed the integrated optical components; D.K. oversaw the fabrication of the devices. R.J.N. performed the experiments, with assistance from J.S., C.D.B., D.R., R.M., G.N.W., and W.L.; R.J.N. analyzed the data. All authors discussed the results and contributed to writing the paper.
Methods
=======
{width="90.00000%"}
Trap-chip fabrication
---------------------
Fabrication of the trap chips begins with an $8$-inch silicon wafer on which 1 $\mu$m of thermally grown SiO$_{2}$ is deposited. A $0.5$-$\mu$m-thick sputtered niobium (Nb) metal layer is then deposited and patterned via optical lithography to form a ground plane for the ion trap [@mehta2014CMOStrap]. Next, a $5$-$\mu$m thick layer of SiO$_2$ is deposited via plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) to form the lower cladding of the waveguides. A $100$ nm-thick layer of SiN is then deposited via PECVD, patterned via optical lithography, and fully etched to form the waveguide cores. The gratings are patterned in a subsequent optical lithography step and are then formed via a partial ($40$ nm deep) etch of the SiN. Another $5$-$\mu$m thick layer of SiO$_2$ is then deposited via PECVD above the SiN to form the top cladding of the waveguides. The SiN and SiO$_2$ have indices of refraction of $n_\text{SiN}=1.89$ and $n_{\text{SiO}_2}=1.5$ measured at $\lambda=633$ nm. Subsequently, a $1$-$\mu$m thick Nb layer is deposited, patterned via optical lithography, and etched to define the trap electrodes and open the square apertures above the grating couplers. Finally, a $20$ nm layer of indium tin oxide (ITO) is deposited and patterned over the apertures in the trap metal to mitigate the potential charging of exposed dielectrics directly below that might otherwise compromise trap stability [@wang2011laser].
Integrated photonic beam characterization
-----------------------------------------
To profile the integrated beams outside of the ion trap vacuum system, we use a custom-built, high-NA beam profiler. This profiler consists of an infinity-corrected 0.9 NA, 60X microscope objective and a 1X tube lens, followed by a CMOS sensor based camera located at the image plane of the lens system. The lenses serve to translate the profile of the beam from the objective plane to the detection sensor (magnified by the lens system’s magnification). The high-NA system allows us to profile beams that are both rapidly diverging, due to tight foci, and travelling at large angles relative to the system’s optical axis. To profile the beams as a function of height above the trap chip, we step the height of the profiler above the surface using a stepper-driven translation stage with ${\sim}1$ $\mu$m precision and measure the beam profile as a function of the vertical position (). Combining these beam cross sections allows the reconstruction of the full 3D beam profile, providing the beam diameter, focus height, and angle of emission.
The gratings are designed with a uniform period so that they do not focus along their direction of propagation and maintain ${\sim}11$ $\mu$m $1/e^{2}$ beam diameters at the ion location. However, the gratings are designed with a slight curvature to focus the beams transversely (perpendicular to the beam and parallel to the chip surface) to ${\sim}4$–$7$ $\mu$m beam diameters.
Beam profiling via *in situ* ion measurements
---------------------------------------------
We profiled the 674 nm integrated beam by measuring the frequency of Rabi oscillations on the qubit transition as a function of the ion’s position along the trap axis (see b). The ion-interaction profile resolves some of the non-Gaussian beam structure evident in the line cut of the laser intensity from images taken with the microscope *ex situ* and shows a $1/e^2$ beam diameter of 13 $\pm$ 0.7 $\mu$m along the axial direction, which is offset to the right of the trap center ($y=0$) at $y=13~\mu$m (see c).
The 422 nm integrated beam was profiled by measuring the fluorescence of an ion illuminated by 422 nm light emitted from the grating and a free-space 1092 nm beam. We measure a beam diameter of 8.5 $\pm$ 1 $\mu$m along the axial direction, offset to the left of the trap center at $y=-11~\mu$m (d). While both of these beams are focused transversely along $\hat{x}$, profiling with the ion along $\hat{y}$ measures the unfocused cross-section.
The 1092 nm integrated beam was profiled by measuring ion fluorescence while illuminated by a free-space 422 nm beam and shows the beam focuses along the axial direction ($\hat{y}$) to a beam diameter of 5.5 $\pm$ 0.25 $\mu$m (e). We profiled this same infrared integrated beam path using 1033 nm light. First we prepared the ion in the upper (dark) state by applying a $\pi$ pulse with an external 674 nm beam. Then we applied a short quench pulse of 1033 nm light via the integrated beam path to partially quench the dark state population. This increased the probability for the ion to be in the lower qubit (bright) state but maintained finite dark state probability (to avoid saturation). Finally, we measured the probability that the ion was in the bright state at various positions along $\hat{y}$ and obtained a beam diameter of 6.7 $\pm$ 0.3 $\mu$m (see f). Both infrared-wavelength profiles measured via the ion closely match the *ex situ* beam profiles.
![Ion interaction profile of 408 nm light, which was used as a proxy for 405 nm.[]{data-label="fig:ion408"}](ionprofile_408.pdf){width="40.00000%"}
While Sr photoionization was verified using 405 nm light emitted from a grating coupler designed for blue light coupling (nominally 422 nm), ion loading using this method did not provide sufficient statistics to allow precise beam mode characterization. Instead, light near 408 nm, which drives the $S_{1/2} \rightarrow P_{3/2}$ transition, was used as a proxy for 405 nm. An ion excited to $P_{3/2}$ has a small probability of decaying to the metastable dark $D_{5/2}$ state. Therefore the probability the ion is in the upper qubit (dark) state is proportional to the intensity of the 408 nm at the ion location. To avoid saturation, we chose an input laser power and detuning so that when the ion is in the center of the 408 nm beam, it is in the dark state ${\sim}40\%$ of the time. The ion-measured profile of the 408 nm integrated beam agrees well with the *ex situ* image profile (). The integrated violet beam angle is such that the beam center is displaced to $y=15$ $\mu$m and has a beam diameter of 15.4 $\pm$ 1.8 $\mu$m along the axial direction.
On-Chip Coupling and Total Optical Loss
---------------------------------------
To maximize optical input coupling efficiency, the edge of the chip where coupling occurs is optically polished after dicing. In addition to the waveguides that are designed to deliver light to the ion, we use a “loop-back" waveguide to monitor coupling efficiency into the chip as we align the fiber array to the waveguide inputs. The fiber array containing six polarization-maintaining single mode optical fibers is aligned by optimizing the optical power through the loopback path, which we found to be a straightforward method to closely optimize the optical power through all four input waveguides that deliver light to the ion. The block is then attached to the chip in a two-step process, first with UV-curable epoxy and then with cryogenic-compatible epoxy to provide additional structural support.
All beams are coupled into the waveguides from fiber with polarization oriented parallel to the surface of the chip. For the 674 nm integrated optical path, we obtain a total loss of $-21.4$ dB from the input of the fiber-block to the output of the grating coupler; this includes the loss due to input coupling from the fiber to the tapered waveguide ($-10$ dB), propagation loss in the routing waveguide ($ -0.38$ dB for approximately 0.75 cm), and inefficiency of the diffractive grating coupler ($-11$ dB). For the 422 nm path, we measure $-10$ dB from input coupling loss, $-3$ dB propagation loss, and $-12$ dB grating coupler loss. For 461 nm we measure $-11$ dB from input coupling loss, $-1.5$ dB propagation loss, and $-9$ dB grating coupler loss. For 1092 nm we measured $-6$ dB from input coupling loss, $-0.38$ dB propagation loss, and $-10$ dB grating coupler loss.
During cool-down from room temperature to 7 K, the optical alignment of the fiber block deteriorates, resulting in an additional loss of approximately $-10$ dB to all beam paths. This increases the total loss of the 674 nm path to $-31$ dB, the 422 nm path to $-35$ dB, the 461 nm path to $-32$ dB, and the 1092 nm path to $-34$ dB (the total loss for 1092 nm is an upper bound as light at this wavelength could not be efficiently measured through the chamber windows, and not all light could be collected on a detector).
Despite these coupling losses, we achieved light-ion interaction strengths that were comparable to those obtained when using free space beam paths with similar optical power because the cross-sectional area of the beams in the free-space case is typically over 100 times larger than that of the integrated beams. We believe that all of these loss channels can be significantly improved with new waveguide materials [@west2019lowloss], alternative packaging techniques, and improved grating designs [@mehta2017precise].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The initial mass function (IMF) is an important, yet enigmatic aspect of the star formation process. The two major open questions regarding the IMF are: is the IMF constant regardless of environment? Is the IMF a universal property of star formation? The next generation of extremely large telescopes will allow us to observe further, fainter and more compact stellar clusters than is possible with current facilities. In these proceeding we present our study looking at just how much will these future observatories improve our knowledge of the IMF.'
---
Introduction
============
The stellar initial mass function (IMF) plays a significant role in astrophysical processes through out the universe. The consequences of the IMF are seen on almost all distance scales, from the stellar composition of young star clusters to the chemical enrichment of the intergalactic medium. Cosmological simulations also include various versions of the IMF. For all its importance though, it is still a poorly understood aspect of the star formation process and is described by an empirically derived function. Past and present studies of the IMF rely in being able to reliably determine the masses of stars in a young population. Such studies are therefore naturally restricted by the detection limits and resolution of modern telescopes. The current generation of telescopes have allowed us to determine the shape of the sub-solar IMF within the solar neighbourhood, and place limits on its slope in the solar- and super-solar mass range outside the Milky Way (see e.g. [@bastian10 Bastian et al. 2010], [@dario09 Da Rio et al.2009], [@geha13 Geha et al. 2013]).
The future generation of extremely large 30-40m class telescopes will allow the astronomical community to observe star forming regions which are fainter and more distant than anything yet observed. The extremely large telescope (ELT) [@elt (Gilmozzi & Spyromilio 2007)], combined with the MICADO wide-field near infrared adaptive optics (AO) assisted camera [@micado (Davies et al. 2010)], will enable observations at the diffraction limit of the 39m telescope (7 mas in J, 12 mas in K) and will be able to detect stars down to $\sim$29 mag in J-band (vega). In these proceedings we report on our efforts to determine just how useful MICADO and the ELT will be for future studies of the IMF.
Simulations
===========
![Five of the 42 clusters used in this study. The 1000 M$_\odot$ clusters are placed at distances ranging from 20kpc out to 2 Mpc. The top row shows the field of view of the central MICADO detector ($\sim$16”, while the bottom row shows a 1” cut-out from the centre of the detector.[]{data-label="fig:clusters"}](clusters3){width="\textwidth"}
The goal of our current study is to answer the question: What is the lowest reliably observable mass star in young clusters for a given distance and density that will be observable with the ELT and MICADO? To answer this we created models of 42 young stellar clusters, located at distances ranging from 8 kpc out to 5 Mpc and with surface densities of between 100 and 100000 stars arcsec $^{-2}$. To put this in context, the Orion nebula cloud (ONC) contains about 5000M$_\odot$ within a $\sim$1pc$^2$ region. If this were located in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) the surface density would be $\sim$3000starsarcsec$^{-2}$.
We used SimCADO the instrument data simulation software for MICADO at the ELT, in order to generate mock observation of these clusters. We then used an iterative PSF subtraction photometry technique to detect and extract the stars from the images. For a full description of this process see [@leschinski2018 Leschinski et al (in prep)]. The extracted stars where cross-matched against the input catalogue and the instrumental flux compared with the star’s intrinsic flux. The stars were finally sorted into mass bins to find the (sigma-clipped) standard deviation of the original vs. detected flux ratios. Our metric for defining lowest “reliably observable” mass was to take the upper mass limit of the bin where the standard deviation of this original vs. detected flux ratio was greater than 10%. In other words, the mass bin where more than 32% of stars had detected fluxes differing by more than 10% from their original input flux.
Results and Discussion
======================
Table \[tab:results\] lists the lowest “reliably observable” masses for the cluster configurations which we studied. Two main effects come into play when determining this mass limit: sensitivity and resolution. For the more distant clusters the limit is defined by sensitivity, regardless of surface density. For example at a distance of 2Mpc only stars heavier than 2M$_\odot$ are detectable for all surface densities below 30000 stars arcsec$^{-2}$ (equivalently $\sim$300 stars pc$^{-2}$). Only above this density are there enough stars with M$>$2M$_\odot$ that crowding becomes significant. Conversely closer to Earth crowding becomes a problem at much lower surface densities, because many more stars are above the detection limit. In the LMC stars around the hydrogen burning limit ($\sim$0.1M$_\odot$) will be detectable in regions with surface densities of less than $\sim$100 stars arcsec$^{-2}$ (equivalently $\sim$1500 stars pc$^{-2}$). However as stellar density and crowding increases, so too does the effective detection limit. At surface densities of 10000 stars arcsec$^{-2}$ (equivalently $\sim$150000 stars pc$^{-2}$) the detection limit is $\sim$0.5M$_\odot$ - on par with many contemporary studies of much less dense regions in the LMC (e.g. [@dario09 Da Rio et al. 2009]). For the sake of comparison, one of the most massive young clusters known in the Milky Way, Westerlund 1, contains $\sim$150000 stars pc$^{-2}$.
The most important results from table \[tab:results\] can be summarised as follows:
- **Brown dwarf mass function:** ($<$0.1M$_\odot$) will be accessible anywhere in the Milky Way for regions with densities lower than 1000 stars arcsec$^{-2}$. This will allow the structure of the brown dwarf “knee” ([@kroupa01 Kroupa 2001]) to be thoroughly investigated and will help determine whether the shape of the IMF remains constant irrespective of environment.
- **Shape of Low mass IMF:** ($<$0.4M$_\odot$) and the position of the turn over will be possible in the cores of dense regions ($<$10000 stars arcsec$^{-2}$) in the nearest galaxies (LMC, SMC, etc). This will shed light on the question of whether the IMF is universal.
- **The IMF of cluster cores:** is currently inaccessible to current facilities. These are limited to observing the outskirts of young clusters for all but the nearest clusters due to crowding in the centre. We have shown that ELT observations will easily be able to cope with surface densities in excess of 1000 stars arcsec$^{-2}$, and will still provide good quality data for surface densities in excess of 5000 stars arcsec$^{-2}$.
- **Super-solar IMF:** will be observable in galaxies at distances out to 5Mpc. This will afford us a much better understanding of the extra-galactic IMF and provide many more data points to help answer the question of the universality of the IMF.
It should also be stated that while many studies have estimated the properties of the IMF in galaxies outside the local neighbourhood, these studies rely on integrated light and assumptions of the underlying stellar population. The only way to verify the accuracy of these assumptions and therefore the reliability of the results is to count the individual stars which make up the regions used in extra-galactic IMF studies. It should be stressed that this will be one of the greatest advantage of using ELTs to study the IMF: the ability to resolve individual stars in galaxies not just within the galactic neighbourhood, but in galaxies in and beyond our local group. This will allow an important bridge to be be built between the techniques of determining the IMF from individual sources and from using population models and integrated light.
\[tab:results\]
---------- --------------- --------------- ---------------- --------------- --------------- -------------- -------------
Distance
100 300 1000 3000 10000 30000 100000
8 kpc 0.02M$_\odot$ 0.03M$_\odot$ 0.07 M$_\odot$ 0.15M$_\odot$ 0.5 M$_\odot$ 1.1M$_\odot$ 5 M$_\odot$
20 kpc 0.04M$_\odot$ 0.05M$_\odot$ 0.09M$_\odot$ 0.17M$_\odot$ 0.5M$_\odot$ 1.1M$_\odot$ 5M$_\odot$
50 kpc 0.09M$_\odot$ 0.11M$_\odot$ 0.15M$_\odot$ 0.2M$_\odot$ 0.5M$_\odot$ 1.1M$_\odot$ 5M$_\odot$
200 kpc 0.5M$_\odot$ 0.5 M$_\odot$ 0.5 M$_\odot$ 0.5M$_\odot$ 0.5 M$_\odot$ 1.1M$_\odot$ 6M$_\odot$
800 kpc 1.1M$_\odot$ 1.1M$_\odot$ 1.1M$_\odot$ 1.1M$_\odot$ 1.1 M$_\odot$ 2M$_\odot$ 6M$_\odot$
2 Mpc 2M$_\odot$ 2M$_\odot$ 2M$_\odot$ 2M$_\odot$ 2M$_\odot$ 3M$_\odot$ 7M$_\odot$
5 Mpc 7 M$_\odot$ 7M$_\odot$ 7M$_\odot$ 7M$_\odot$ 7 M$_\odot$ 7M$_\odot$ 9M$_\odot$
---------- --------------- --------------- ---------------- --------------- --------------- -------------- -------------
: Lowest reliably observable mass in the centre of a young stellar cluster for given star surface densities and distances with MICADO at the ELT.
![The regions of the IMF at different distances which are accessible to the current generation of telescopes and which will be accessible to the future ELTs. While contemporary studies of the IMF are limited to the heavy side of the turnover around 0.4M$_\odot$ outside the milky way (e.g. in the LMC), the ELTs will have the resolution and sensitivity to study the shape of the low mass IMF in the LMC. They will also allow direct measurements of the high-mass slope in most galaxies within 5Mpc. The underlying image was taken from Bastian et al.(2010)[]{data-label="fig:imf_comparison"}](IMF_change2){width="70.00000%"}
Conclusions
===========
The ELTs should enable us to answer two of the biggest open questions regarding the IMF: constancy and universality. Does the shape of IMF remain constant irrespective of environmental conditions? Is the shape of the IMF the same in all parts of the universe. Additionally the ELTs will enable observations that can bridge the two techniques currently used to determine the structure of the IMF inside and outside the Milky Way by being able to detect and resolve a sufficient number of individual stars in extra-galactic star forming regions out to 5Mpc.
Figure \[fig:imf\_comparison\] illustrates the improvement in observational capabilities regarding the IMF that will be brought about by the ELTs. Through this study we have shown that MICADO at the ELT will be capable of: 1. studying the brown dwarf mass function in almost any young cluster in the milky way, 2. observing in great detail the low mass IMF and the structure of the turn over around 0.4M$_\odot$ in our galactic neighbourhood, 3. opening up the densest regions in the cores of massive young clusters in the LMC and beyond, and 4. constraining the slope of the solar- and super-solar IMF in galaxies in and beyond the local group.
Bastian, N., Covey, K. R., & Meyer, M. R. 2010, *ARAA*, 48, 339 Da Rio, N., Gouliermis, D. A., & Henning, T. 2009, *ApJ*, 696, 528 Davies, R., Ageorges, N., Barl, L., et al. 2010, *Proc. SPIE*, 7735, 77352A Geha, M., Brown, T. M., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2013, *ApJ*, 771, 29 Gilmozzi, R., & Spyromilio, J. 2007, *The Messenger*, 127 Kroupa, P. 2001, *MNRAS*, 322, 231 Leschinski, K., Czoske, O., K[ö]{}hler, R., et al. 2016, *Proc. SPIE*, 9911, 991124
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- 'M. B. Korsós'
- 'S. Yang'
- 'R. Erdélyi'
bibliography:
- 'swsc.bib'
subtitle: From small to major flare classes
title: 'Investigation of pre-flare dynamics using the weighted horizontal magnetic gradient method:'
---
Introduction {#Introduction}
============
A clear understanding of the dynamics and energetics of magnetic reconnection remains an important goal of solar flare research. A key aspect of this research area is to determine the dynamics of an active region (AR) before flare occurrence. Reliably identifying flare precursors also has practical significance for flare predictions [see, e.g., @Georgoulis2012; @Georgoulis2013; @Barnes2016 and references therein]. The aim of finding such precursors was achieved by, e.g., [@Korsos2014] and [@Korsos2015] (K14 and K15 thereafter, respectively), developing a new type of proxy measure of magnetic non-potentiality in an AR.
K14 and K15 analysed the horizontal gradient of the line of sight (LOS) component of the magnetic field in the vicinity of polarity inversion lines (PILs), and found indicative features of the imminent flaring behaviour up to two-three days prior to the actual flare occurrance. The pre-flare dynamics and the related physical processes at the solar surface were investigated using data with an hourly temporal resolution from joint SDD ground- (Debrecen Heliophysical Observatory, DHO) and space-based (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, SOHO) sunspot data catalogues [see, e.g. @Baranyi2016] from 1996 to 2010. Furthermore, K14 and K15 focused solely on the largest intensity flare-class during the investigated AR’s disk passage. Based on the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) flare classification system, the 61 investigated flare cases were all stronger than M5 flare-class in those two papers.
K14 introduced the horizontal gradient of the magnetic field ($G_{M}$), a proxy which measures the magnetic non-potentiality at the photosphere. The $G_{M}$ is applied between umbrae with opposite polarities at the PIL of ARs and provides key information about the most important properties of an imminent flare: its intensity and occurrence time. K14 identified pre-flare patterns of this proxy quantity: increasing phase, high maximum and gradual decrease prior to flaring. A linear relationship was found between the pre-flare $G_M$ maximum and the largest flare intensity class of the AR. Next, the occurrence time estimation was found to be somewhat less precise, for the most probable time of flare occurrence being between 2-10 hrs after the $G_{M}$ maximum.
In K15, the authors generalised the $G_{M}$ method and presented the concept of the weighted horizontal gradient of the magnetic field, $WG_{M}$. The introduction of the $WG_{M}$ has enhanced the application capability by indicating a second flare precursor. Namely, the barycenters (the area-weighted centers of the positive and negative polarities) display a pattern of approach and recession prior to the flare. We found that the flare occurs when the distance between the barycenters is approximately equal to the corresponding distance at the beginning of the convergence phase. This precursor has the capability for a more accurate flare occurrence time prediction, which is based on the relationship between the durations of the divergence ($T_{D+F}$) and convergence phase ($T_{C}$) of the barycenters of the opposite polarity regions. Next, K15 also found a linear relationship between the values of the maxima of the $WG_{M}$ ($WG^{max}_{M}$) and the highest flare intensity of an AR(s). They reported that if one can identify concurrently the two pre-flare behaviours discussed above, then flare(s) do occur in their sample. They have also shown that if one of the required pre-flare patterns is absent then a flare may not be expected [@Korsos2014; @Korsos2016].
Also, K15 investigated separately the single-flare case when only one energetic flare took place after $WG^{max}_{M}$ and cases when multiple flares erupted after reaching $WG^{max}_{M}$. In the 61 flare cases, the longest study period was 48 hrs from the moment of reaching $WG^{max}_{M}$ to the moment of first flare. The percentage difference ($WG^{\%}_{M}$) was calculated between the value of $WG^{max}_{M}$ and the first value of the $WG_{M}$ after the flare peak time ($WG^{flare}_{M}$). In brief, they found the following: if $WG^{\%}_{M}$ is over 54%, no further flare of the same class or above would be expected; but, if $WG^{\%}_{M}$ is less than $\sim$42%, further flare(s) of the same class is probable within about an 18-hour window. The longest time interval of a subsequent flare to occur was 18 hrs in the study samples. K15 suggested that these latter features may serve as practical additional flare alert tools.
In this study, we have generalised the application of the $WG_{M}$ method in two main ways. First, we have expanded the number of investigated ARs by taking into account not only ARs observed by the SOHO satellite but also those detected by the higher spatial and temporal resolution SDO (Solar Dynamics Observatory) mission. Second, we have extended the analysis to encompass GOES flare classes from as low as B-class to as high as X-class flares. In Section \[Casestudy\], we briefly introduce and apply the $WG_{M}$ method to lower energetic flares, i.e. between B and M5 flares. In Section \[Analyses\], we present an extended statistical analysis of these higher number of AR cases and summarise our findings. In Section \[vizu\], we introduce a simple visualisation of our observational experience of the pre-flare behaviour of distance. Finally, we provide discussions of our results and draw conclusions in Section \[Conclusion\].
Applying the $WG_M$ method {#Casestudy}
==========================
Implementation of the $WG_M$ Method
-----------------------------------
In 61 flare cases, K15 demonstrated that $WG_{M}$ could be successfully applied to help identify features preceding flares with classes above M5. Later, in [@Zheng2015] and [@Korsos2016], the $WG_{M}$ method was applied to case studies of lower than M5 flare cases employing the SDO/HMI-Debrecen Data (also known as HMIDD, the continuation of the SDD) catalogue. In the present paper, we go further by enlarging the observational sample to include 6 ARs with B-class flares, 21 with C-class flares, 13 with M1-M5, and 30 additional ARs with flare events above M5 (see Appendix A).
The main reasons of the small number of the weaker than M5 flaring AR in the sample are as follows: (i) When the investigated strongest energetic flare class becomes lower and lower (e.g. it is below M5 or less) then there is an associated decreased chance of having this low-energy flare class to be the largest flare class of an AR. (ii) In principle, the HMIDD (2011-2014) database would be slightly more suitable to investigate the lower than M5-class flares because the temporal and spatial resolutions of this catalogue are better than that of the SDD. However, in case of these weaker flares, often, we simply cannot identify the two nearby opposite polarities of the AR in the HMIDD catalogue, so, the $WG_{M}$ method is not applicable.
By considering lower-energy flares, this expansion of the investigation of flare classes explores whether there could be a “common” physical mechanism underlying the flare process across all energy scales. However, it must be noted that our method does not give insight into which of the wide range of proposed flare models available in the literature is applicable. Our method points merely towards the idea that, regardless of model, there could be a “common” pre-flare features identified at photospheric level.
The method is based on tracking changes of the solar surface magnetic configuration in ARs with the following five steps:
1. During the entire investigated period it is required that the AR is located between $-70^{\circ}$ and $+70^{\circ}$ (occasionally, when the data permit $+75^{\circ}$, but not further) from the central meridian of the Sun.
2. During the AR’s disk passage, the largest intensity flare-class event of the AR is selected from the GOES flare catalog.
3. In order to acquire enough preceding data to identify the precursors, the occurrence of the associated strongest flare class could be no further than $\sim40^{\circ}$ east of the central meridian.
4. The $WG_{M}$ method is applied in a selected area of the AR. As an initial approach, the selected area is an entire $\delta$-spot of the AR where all umbrae are now taken into account for analysis. This assumption is based on the idea that the $\delta$-type sunspots themselves are observed and identified as the most probable places for the flare onset. A $\delta$-type spot contains opposite polarity umbrae surrounded by a common penumbra, therefore it has polarity inversion line(s) (PIL). It is also well known that solar flares often are related to PILs [@Schrijver2007; @Louis2015]. Furthermore, the umbrae are loci of high flux densities, so they are presumably the dominant components of the flare processes. However, it should be noted that the Debrecen sunspot catalogue does not always indicate the two close opposite magnetic polarities as a $\delta$-type spot. In this case, the selected area is a circle with a radius of 1.5$^{\circ}$$\pm 0.5$$^{\circ}$ around the barycentrum of the two closest opposite polarity umbrae. We introduced the circle in the studied samples of K15. The diameter of the circle is derived from the common amorphous shape penumbra of the opposite polarity umbrae approximated by a circle with a radius of 1.5$^{\circ}$$\pm 0.5$$^{\circ}$ in Carrington heliographic coordinates. Finally, the selected area is tracked and the evolution (e.g., emergence of new flux or flux cancellation) of umbrae are monitored.
5. At the end, the $WG_M$ method is applied to the selected area. The evolution of the unsigned magnetic flux, the distance between the area-weighted barycenters of opposite polarities and the $WG_{M}$ are followed as outlined below:
1. To establish that a behaviour is related to the upcoming flare rather than merely an insignificant fluctuation, (i) the relative gradient of the rising phase of $WG_{M}$ is 30% and (ii) the relative gradient of the distance parameter of the converging motion is greater than 10% for a period of at least 4 hrs. Furthermore, a maximum of 10% deviation is allowed as the distance increases back to its original value that it had at the moment when the convergence phase started.
2. When the relevant pre-flare behaviour of the $WG_M$ proxy is identified as given in point a) above, then the $WG^{max}_{M}$ and $WG^{\%}_{M}$ can also be determined.
3. Next, the relevant pre-flare behaviour of the distance parameter is marked with a parabolic curve. The parabolic curve is fitted from the starting time of convergence to the end of the divergence phase, where its minimum is the moment of reaching the closest position of the two barycenters.
Let us comment on the errors and uncertainties of the $WG_{M}$ methods: The uncertainty in obtaining the distance parameter originates from the error of position measurements that is 0.1 heliographic degree, while measuring the area has 10% error [@Gyori2011]. The mean error of the unsigned magnetic flux is 15%. The magnetic field used here to calculate $WG_{M}$ is estimated from the values of umbral area and mean field strength recorded in the Debrecen (SDD and HMIDD) catalogues through the application of Eq. (1) in [@Korsos2014]. Therefore, the total calculated uncertainty of $WG_{M}$ is 20%.
Applying the $WG_M$ method to M-, C- and microflare cases
----------------------------------------------------------
First, let us now demonstrate the technique of applying the $WG_M$ method to three representative examples where the flare classes are all [*lower*]{} than M5. The examples for analysis discussed here are: AR 11504 produced two low M-class flares; AR 11281 generated 3 C-class flares as the largest-class flare. Finally, AR 11967 is interesting because it hosted a known and identified microflare [@Yang2015]. In [@Yang2015], observational evidence of X-shape magnetic reconnection before a microflare was introduced. The magnetic reconnection occurred at the topside edge of AR 11967 on February 3, 2014 07:15 UT. There, [@Yang2015] found that the X-shape reconnection process builds up of two types of reconnection: (i) First, two anti-parallel loops slowly reconnect, and, after the new loops were formed, they became stacked. This [*slow reconnection*]{} continued for several tens of minutes. (ii) The second type of reconnection, the [*rapid reconnection*]{}, took only about three minutes. During the [*rapid reconnection*]{}, the anti-parallel loops very quickly approached each other and reconnected. After the [*rapid reconnection*]{}, the former anti-parallel loops disappeared and new loops formed separately.
The resulting diagrams of the $WG_{M}$ analysis of ARs 11504, 11281, and 11967 are shown in Figs. \[AR11504\]a, \[AR11281\]a and \[AR11967\], respectively. In Figs. \[AR11504\]a–\[AR11967\], we depict the pre- and post-flare evolution of $WG_{M}$ (top panel) and we also plot the distance between the barycentres of opposite polarities as a function of time (middle panel). In the middle panels of Figs. \[AR11504\]a–\[AR11967\], the relevant pre-flare behaviour of the distance parameter is marked with red parabolic curves. In the bottom panels of Figs. \[AR11504\]a–\[AR11967\], we show the temporal variation of the unsigned magnetic flux in selected area. Figures \[AR11504\]b– \[AR11281\]b visualise the investigated area by red ellipses in their white-light appearance (upper panel), the corresponding magnetogram (middle panel) and the corresponding synthetic polarity drawing from the Debrecen sunspot data catalogue (bottom panel) from which umbral area and mean field strength are taken to calculate $WG_{M}$.
\[h!\] ![ (a) Example for applying the $WG_{M}$ method to two smaller (M1.2 and M1.9) GOES M-class flares in AR 11504. The top panel shows the $WG_{M}$, the middle panel plots the distance between the barycentres, and the bottom panel is a plot of the associated unsigned magnetic flux as a function of time. The M1.2 and M1.9 flares are indicated by (blue) vertical lines where the value of the $WG^{flare}_{M}$ is taken. Note the U-shapes (red parabolae) in the middle panel that are key flare precursors of the $WG_{M}$ method. The error is marked with shaded grey. (b) Top/middle and bottom panels are the related intensity/magnetogram maps and the associated Debrecen data catalogue representation of synthetic polarity drawing of AR at 01:59 on 13 June 2012. The red circle shows which umbral area and mean field strength are taken to calculate $WG_{M}$.[]{data-label="AR11504"}](11504AR.eps "fig:") (-200,270)[(a)]{} ![ (a) Example for applying the $WG_{M}$ method to two smaller (M1.2 and M1.9) GOES M-class flares in AR 11504. The top panel shows the $WG_{M}$, the middle panel plots the distance between the barycentres, and the bottom panel is a plot of the associated unsigned magnetic flux as a function of time. The M1.2 and M1.9 flares are indicated by (blue) vertical lines where the value of the $WG^{flare}_{M}$ is taken. Note the U-shapes (red parabolae) in the middle panel that are key flare precursors of the $WG_{M}$ method. The error is marked with shaded grey. (b) Top/middle and bottom panels are the related intensity/magnetogram maps and the associated Debrecen data catalogue representation of synthetic polarity drawing of AR at 01:59 on 13 June 2012. The red circle shows which umbral area and mean field strength are taken to calculate $WG_{M}$.[]{data-label="AR11504"}](11504.jpg "fig:") (-200,270)[(b)]{}
Let us first investigate the case where the largest intensity flare class was a weak M-class. AR 11504 produced an M1.2 flare on June 13, 2012 13:17 UT and a further M1.9 flare on June 14, 2012 14:35 UT. In Figure \[AR11504\]a, we see that the $WG_M$ increases to a maximum value ($WG^{max}_{M}$=$0.55$$\cdot$$10^6$ Wb/m), followed by a less steep decrease which ends with an M1.2 ($WG^{flare}_{M}$=$0.35$$\cdot$$10^6$ Wb/m) flare and is succeeded by another M1.9 ($WG^{flare}_{M}$=$0.23$$\cdot$$10^6$ Wb/m ) energetic flare (top panel). The conditions specified by step 5a are satisfied by the pre-flare behaviour of the $WG_{M}$, therefore we can dismiss the idea that this behaviour is unconnected to the flare. Moreover, the percentage difference ($WG^{\%}_{M}$) is only 34% in the first flare case, which is less than 42% (as defined by the criterion given by K15), therefore we expected more flares to follow, which did indeed happen. After the second flare, the $WG^{\%}_{M}$ is 61%, so further flares were not expected. Regarding the distance parameter, the two convergence-divergence phases are evident. The first one is before the M1.2 flare where the $T_{C}$ is 9 hrs and $T_{D+F}$ is 34 hrs. The second one occurred before the M1.9 flare where $T_{C}$ is 14 hrs and $T_{D+F}$ is 19 hrs. It is worth mentioning that the two convergence phases of the barycenters had a duration longer than 4 hrs; the relative gradient of the first decreasing phase is 56% and for the second one it is 54%.
\[h!\] ![(a) Representative example for applying the $WG_{M}$ method to GOES C-class flares in AR 11281. (b) Top/middle and bottom panels are the associated intensity/magnetogram maps and the Debrecen catalogue representation of the associated synthetic polarity drawing at 00:59 on 03 September 2011. []{data-label="AR11281"}](11281AR.eps "fig:") (-200,270)[(a)]{} ![(a) Representative example for applying the $WG_{M}$ method to GOES C-class flares in AR 11281. (b) Top/middle and bottom panels are the associated intensity/magnetogram maps and the Debrecen catalogue representation of the associated synthetic polarity drawing at 00:59 on 03 September 2011. []{data-label="AR11281"}](11281.jpg "fig:") (-180,270)[(b)]{}
Let us now introduce a representative example of the analysis of a C-class flare of this by investigating, AR 11281. This AR was the cradle to the following 3 C-class flares: C1.8 on September 2, 2011 15:16 UT, C2.4 and C1.2 on September 3, 2011 07:56 and 20:10 UT, respectively. In Fig. \[AR11281\]a, we recognise the following pre-flare properties of the $WG_M$ and the distance: (i) The rising phase and a maximum value of the $WG_M$ ($WG^{max}_{M}$=$0.78$$\cdot$$10^6$ Wb/m) is followed by a less steep decrease which ends with C1.8 ($WG^{flare}_{M}$=$0.45$$\cdot$$10^6$ Wb/m), C2.4 ($WG^{flare}_{M}$=$0.51$$\cdot$$10^6$ Wb/m) and after that with the C1.2 ($WG^{flare}_{M}$=$0.36$$\cdot$$10^6$ Wb/m) energetic flares. The conditions of point 5a are satisfied, therefore the pre-flare behaviour can be confidently attributed to the flare. (ii) The convergence-divergence feature of the barycentric distance prior to the first C-class flare are also evident. The duration of the convergence phase of the distance is 13 hrs and the gradient is 26%. The first flare occurred 30 hrs later, measured from the moment of the closest position of the two opposite polarity barycenters. The second C-class flare occurred approximately 17 hrs after the first C-class flare. The final C1.2 flare occurred 12 hrs after the second C2.4 flare. Let us now briefly investigate the percentage differences of the three flares. The $WG^{\%}_{M}$ is 42% after the first C-class flare (C1.8). The $WG^{\%}_{M}$ is 35% after the C2.4 and 54% after the last C-class occurrence from the previous $WG^{max}_{M}$. We conclude that one should indeed expect flare(s) after the first C1.8 flare, and that one should not expect further same class flare(s) after the last C-class, which is what happened. Because there was only one clear U-shape flare precursor, we could not say anything about how many same-class flares will follow the first C flare.
\[h!\] ![ Evolution of the pre-flare indicators of the $WG_M$ method, similar to those of Fig. 2 but for a B-class flaring event in AR 11967. The estimated error is marked by the shaded grey envelope. []{data-label="AR11967"}](11967smallreconnection.eps "fig:")
In Figure \[AR11967\], for AR 11967 we analysed the same area in the HMIDD catalogue as was analysed from HMI line-of-sight magnetograms in Fig. 1 of [@Yang2015].
One can indeed recognise the increasing and decreasing phase of the $WG_{M}$ before the microflare. The maximum value of the $WG_M$ is $0.65$$\cdot$$10^6$ Wb/m and the value of the $WG^{flare}_{M}$ is $0.38$$\cdot$$10^6$ Wb/m. The $WG^{\%}_{M}$ is 42% after the maximum of the $WG_M$. Unfortunately, we cannot say whether a further flare occurred because we do not have any later observations from this area. Next, the convergence and divergence phases of the distance are also identifiable: we emphasise this with a red parabola in the middle panel of Fig. \[AR11967\]. Here, the duration of the observed $T_{C}$ is 7 hrs, with 40% decreasing of the distance and $T_{D+F}$ is 6 hrs. Based on the required conditions and steps outlined in 1-5 above, these two pre-flare behaviours can be classified as true precursors of the microflare. Note that there may be another typical pre-flare behaviour of the $WG_{M}$ and distance between 02/02 08:00 and 02/02 18:00. Although, based on 5(a), the pre-flare behaviour of the $WG_{M}$ could be a precursor, but, the pre-flare behaviour of distance does not qualify as a precursor because the decreasing time is only one hour. In summary, as Fig. \[AR11967\] demonstrates, it is clear that even microflares seem to show the precursors of flaring identified by the horizontal magnetic gradient method.
From these three sample studies presented (Figs. \[AR11504\]–\[AR11967\]) and, supported by analyses of the entire ensemble data, we propose that the pre-flare behaviour of $WG_{M}$ and the distance of the area-weighted barycentre of opposite polarities may be present widely and may be indispensable before the associated reconnection and/or flaring process. If the conjecture of pre-flare behaviour is proven to even more solar data than the current ensemble of 127 AR cases, this will certainly give us a greater statistical significance for understanding the underlying physics.
Statistical analyses of $WG_M$ method on the extended data {#Analyses}
==========================================================
Our aim is to analyse the photospheric precursors of flares of a 127 strong set of AR from SDD and HMIDD. First, let us focus on the relationship between the log value of largest intensity flare of an AR ($log(I) $) and the preceding maximum of the $WG_{M}$ (see Fig. \[Maximum\]). We have found a logarithmic dependence between the $log(I)$ and the $WG^{max}_{M}$. The correlation coefficient of the fitted logarithmic function is $R^{2}=0.54$ and is an indicator for a reasonable functional fit to the data. The root mean square error (RMSE) of $log(I [W/m^{2}]$) is 0.51.
\[h!\] ![The log value of GOES flare intensity ($log(I)$) as function of the maximum $WG_{M}$ ($WG^{max}_{M}$). The estimated errors are also given in the lower right corner.[]{data-label="Maximum"}](invmaximumsoho-sdo.eps "fig:")
Next, the $WG_{M}$ method reveals further important connections between the proposed precursors and the associated flare properties. K15 showed that, for large flares, there is a relationship between the duration of the converging motion ($T_{C}$) and the sum of the duration of the diverging motion of the barycenters of opposite polarities together with the remaining time until flare peak ($T_{D+F}$). The question is then whether this relationship is also valid in the extended data studied here. In other words, it is of interest to establish whether this relationship found for flares above M5 remains for less energetic flares, i.e. below M5 down to C-class or microflares.
Figure \[pushpull\] (left panel) gives a further insight into the relation between these physical quantities by plotting the elapsed time between the start of the divergence phase and the flare peak as a function of the duration of converging motion. The linear relationship found may possess the capability to estimate an approximate occurrence time of the associated flare. $R^{2}$ of the fitted linear function is 0.60 indicating a moderate correlation. By identifying the start of the divergence phase of the barycenters of opposite polarity, one may predict the time of first flare occurrance with an estimated error of 7.2 hrs. We also investigated whether there is a correlation between the duration of converging-diverging motion and the flare intensity, but we were unable to conclude any statistically significant relationship.
![ [*Left*]{}: Relationship between the durations of converging motion and the duration from the moment of time of closest position up to the first flare occurrences. [*Right*]{}: Relationship between difference of the distances between the barycenters at the start of the convergence phases and at the closest approach ($D_C$) and the distance between the point of closest approach to the position of first flare occurrence ($D_{FM}$) at photospheric level. The estimated errors are given in the lower right corner.[]{data-label="pushpull"}](soho-sdo-flare.eps "fig:") ![ [*Left*]{}: Relationship between the durations of converging motion and the duration from the moment of time of closest position up to the first flare occurrences. [*Right*]{}: Relationship between difference of the distances between the barycenters at the start of the convergence phases and at the closest approach ($D_C$) and the distance between the point of closest approach to the position of first flare occurrence ($D_{FM}$) at photospheric level. The estimated errors are given in the lower right corner.[]{data-label="pushpull"}](Mapd-flared-flare.eps "fig:")
Figure \[pushpull\] (right panel) shows the linear correlation between the distance from the starting point of the converging phase to the point of the closest approach ($D_C$) and the distance between the point of closest approach to the position of the first flare occurrences ($D_{FM}$). The linear fit between $D_C$ and $D_{FM}$ may provide another practical tool for estimating the spatial location of the flare. Here, the $R^{2}$ of the linear regression is only 0.42 which means that the correlation is moderate. The RMSE is 3.6 Mm. Again, we cannot report any statistically significant relationship between the distance values and flare intensity. However, it is worth mentioning that the expected occurrence time and estimated location could both reinforce the search for a more reliable flare prediction.
Last, but not least, we carried out an analysis similar to that of K15 to estimate the corresponding probability thresholds and have found reassuring results confirming the earlier findings. Namely, if the $WG^{\%}_{M}$ is over 55%, no further energetic flares are expected; but, if the $WG^{\%}_{M}$ is less than $\sim$40%, a further flare is probable within approximately 18 hrs. If the $WG^{\%}_{M}$ is between 40% and 55%, one cannot make a reliable prediction of whether additional flares will/will not take place. In summary, therefore, these properties of the $WG_{M}$ method may serve as practical flare watch alert tools across a wide range of the flare energies, subject of course to the conditions outlined in Section \[Casestudy\].
Visualisation of pre-flare behaviour of the distance parameter {#vizu}
==============================================================
In this section, inspired by laboratory experiments, we introduce a simple visual interpretation of the observed pre-flare behaviour of the area-weighted barycenters of opposite polarities prior to the reconnection process. The process of magnetic reconnection in the solar atmosphere is mostly studied either using space-based observations or theoretical (e.g. numerical or analytical) modelling. However, laboratory experiments may also yield some interesting insight and impetus. A good example is the series of experimental studies by e.g. [@Yamada1999] and [@Yamada2010]. [@Yamada1999] investigating the physics of magnetic reconnection in a controlled laboratory environment. In these experiments, reconnection is driven by torus-shaped flux cores which contain toroidal and poloidal coil windings. Two types of reconnection modes were found, according to whether the poloidal field coil current increased or decreased. When the poloidal coil current increased then the poloidal fluxes increased as well and plasma was pushed toward the X-point. This reconnection process is called the [*push mode*]{}. On the other hand, when the poloidal current decreased, the associated decreasing poloidal flux in the common plasma was pulled back toward the X-point, a reconnection process known as the [*pull mode*]{}. They found that the [*push mode*]{} occurs more rapidly than the [*pull mode*]{}.
Besides the extensive modelling in the literature, the experiments by [@Yamada2010] have been a direct drive to solar observational studies of the process of magnetic reconnection. For example, in K15, it was found that the area-weighted barycentres of two opposite magnetic polarities of an AR in the investigated area first approach each other, reach their minimum distance followed by a divergence phase. Most surprisingly, the flare occurrence(s) take place when the growth of the distance becomes large enough and it approaches the value it had at the beginning of the convergence phase (for the actual details see their middle panel of Figs. \[AR11504\]a–\[AR11967\]). K15 have shown, using 61 samples from the SOHO (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) era, that there is never a large flare occurrence when the barycenters are closest. Occasionally, though, smaller so-called precursor flares may take place. The divergence phase was found to continue until the distance increased back to about its original value, i.e. to the level of separation when the convergence phase started. The most energetic flares were found to happen after the divergence phase, and for the flare occurrence time a statistical relationship was established in terms of the duration of the convergence/divergence phases (see left-hand side of Fig. \[pushpull\]).
In Figure \[reconnection\], we introduce a simple visualisation of the pre-flare behaviour. First, the two opposite magnetic polarities start convergence (panel 1), with an initial barycentric distance of $D_0$. When the barycentres reach their closest position (i.e. the separation is $D_{min}$), a thin current sheet begins to form between the opposite polarity field lines (or sheets) but there is no reconnection yet (see panel 2). After the minimum distance stage, the two opposite polarities begin to recede from each other and the separation at photospheric level increases back to the about the same level of separation when the converging process started (see panel 3), with barycentric separation distance of $\sim$$D_0$. The current sheet is still forming during the divergence phase above the photosphere. Finally, reconnection takes place, however, well [*after*]{} the moment when the photospheric distance between the area-weighted centres of polarity is at its about the same value of what it had at the beginning of the convergence phase (see panel 4), with a barycentric distance $D_1$. During the process of magnetic reconnection, the magnetic field lines rearrange according to the yet unknown key principles of reconnection in the highly stratified lower solar atmosphere. This rearrangement is accompanied with a sudden energy release, e.g. flare eruption, where the energy of eruption was stored in the stressed magnetic fields.
A further possible explanation of our empirical finding may be that the actual convergence phase is caused by bipolar flux emergence between the two barycenters at the area of the PIL that eventually brings the barycenters closer. Next, the divergence may be caused by the strong shearing motion between the opposite polarities [@Ye2018].
Conclusions {#Conclusion}
===========
Most flare forecasting models attempt to predict flare probability [see, e.g., @Georgoulis2012; @Georgoulis2013; @Barnes2016 and references therein]. Many of these flare forecast studies focus on a predictive time window of 6, 12, 24 and 48 hrs [see, e.g., @Al-Ghraibah2015; @Benz2017 and references therein]. In K15, the concept of [*the weighted horizontal gradient of the magnetic field*]{}, $WG_{M}$, was introduced where all umbrae were taken into account in the selected $\delta$-spot for analysis. Initially, the $WG_{M}$ method was tested on data available from the SOHO era only.
Here, we carry out an extended statistical analysis of these photospheric precursors of pre-flare dynamics on a larger sample of $\delta$-spots observed, including not only those contained by SDD but also by those found in HMIDD. The main motivation is to further develop, improve and confirm the applicability of two parameters (the $WG_{M}$ and barycentric distance parameters) introduced. Inspired by the results of [@Zheng2015] and [@Korsos2016], we expanded the statistical sample of flares to be investigated below the M5-class down to B-class microflares, therefore offering an over-arching view of the applicability of the $WG_{M}$ method for a wider energy spectrum of flares. An answer is searched for to the question, do smaller flares display the same predictive pre-flare features as their stronger cousins. In the present work, we have outlined the case for the affirmative answer.
In Section \[Casestudy\], we introduced three representative $\delta$-type ARs, AR 11504, AR 11281 and AR 11967 for presenting characteristic sample studies from our extended dataset. These are typical ARs for less significant GOES energetic flare classes. Based on Debrecen Heliophysical Observatory catalogues, in all of the observed $\delta$-spot of the 127 ARs, we have identified the two pre-flare patterns established earlier in K15: (i) [*the pre-flare behaviour pattern of $WG_{M}$*]{}: a rising phase, a maximum and a gradual decrease prior to flaring and (ii) the pre-flare evolutionary pattern of the distance of the area-weighted barycentres during the converging and diverging motion from the minimum distance value of the area-weighted barycenters of opposite polarities until the flare occurrence. Furthermore, we have set out empirical conditions that the $WG_{M}$ and the barycenter distance parameters have to satisfy to qualify as being precursive of a flare rather than an unrelated fluctuation.
After identifying the pre-conditions, we have also investigated the relationship between the intensity of flares from $\delta$-spots in terms of the $WG^{max}_{M}$ (see Fig \[Maximum\]). We have always focussed on the largest intensity flare ([*I*]{}) which has occurred in the given AR after reaching $WG^{max}_{M}$. By extending the flare samples down to B-class, we found a logarithmic relationship between the $log(I)$ of the investigated ARs and $WG^{max}_{M}$. This relationship may provide a tool to estimate the $log(I)$ of the expected flare with $\pm$ 0.51 uncertainty from the measured $WG^{max}_{M}$.
In K15, we found a linear relationship between the duration of the converging motion and the time elapsed from the moment of minimum distance until the flare peak. Our extended statistical sample from SDD and HMIDD data from B-class to X-class flares, again, confirms this linear relationship. Therefore, we propose that if one can reliably identify the moment when the barycenter distance in a $\delta$-spot begins to grow again then one is able to estimate the occurrance time of the flare with $\pm$ 7.2 hrs of uncertainty. Furthermore, we also investigated the connection between the length of distance from the starting point of the converging phase to the point of closest approach ($D_C$) and the distance between the point of closest approach to the position of the first flare ($D_{FM}$) between the area-weighted barycentres. The linear relationship, with an estimated error of 3.6 Mm, found between $D_C$ and $D_{FM}$ may help to identify the region where the flare occurrence may be expected. So, the expected time of flare occurrence and its predicted location could serve as combined tools for flare warning.
We have also searched for phenomenological clues for differences for predicting the number of flares expected from $\delta$-spots after the horizontal magnetic gradient reaches $WG^{max}_{M}$, during its decreasing phase. In K15, for flares stronger than M5, the conclusion was: if the percentage difference ($WG^{\%}_{M}$) between the value of the $WG^{max}_{M}$ and the first value of the $WG_{M}$ after the flare peak ($WG^{flare}_{M}$) is over 54%, no further energetic flare(s) may be expected; but, if the percentage difference is less than about $\sim$42%, further flaring is likely within the following 18 hrs. In the present study, we have revisited the estimated probability of further flares during the descending phase of the $WG_{M}$ after its maximum. We found encouraging results extending the initial findings of K15 to a wider flare energy range, namely: if the percentage difference ($WG^{\%}_{M}$) is over 55%, no further energetic flare(s) may be expected; but, if $WG^{\%}_{M}$ is less than $\sim$40%, further flaring is probable within about 18 hrs. The importance of this empirical result is that it could be a further auxiliary tool for indicating the properties of imminent flares from $\delta$-spots.
Acknowledgements
=================
MBK is grateful to the University of Sheffield and the Hungarian Academy of Sciences for the supports received. MBK also acknowledges the open research program of CAS Key Laboratory of Solar Activity, National Astronomical Observatories, No. KLSA201610. MBK and RE acknowledge the CAS Key Laboratory of Solar Activity, National Astronomical Observatories Commission for Collaborating Research Program for support received to carry out part of this work. RE acknowledges the CAS Presidents International Fellowship Initiative, Grant No. 2016VMA045. RE is also grateful to Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC, grant number ST/M000826/1) UK and the Royal Society for enabling this research. SY is supported by the National Natural Science Foundations of China (11673035, 11790304). All authors thank Christopher Nelson and Matthew Allcock for fruitful discussions. Last but not least, the authors also would like to thank the two anonymous referees and the Guest Editor for their helpful comments received during the peer-review evaluation process.
List of investigated ARs
========================
The first column is the NOAA AR number. The second column is the largest flare-class during the AR’s disk passage (M5$<$ denotes classes between M5-M9.9 and M1$<$ stands for M1-M4.9). The third and fourth columns include the starting and finishing moments and the corresponding locations of the AR analysis.
\[ht!\]
------ ------- ------------- -------- ------------- --------
8088 M5$<$ 22/09 00:00 S28E53 24/09 23:59 S28E10
8100 X 03/11 00:00 S19W12 04/11 23:59 S21W39
------ ------- ------------- -------- ------------- --------
\[ht!\]
------ --- ------------- -------- ------------- --------
8210 X 01/05 00:00 S17W03 03/05 23:00 S17W36
------ --- ------------- -------- ------------- --------
\[ht!\]
------ ------- ------------- -------- ------------- --------
8485 M5$<$ 14/03 00:00 N23E00 16/03 23:59 S14W43
8647 X 01/08 17:00 S18W18 04/08 14:00 S18W63
8771 X 23/11 16:00 S15W20 27/11 13:00 S14W71
8806 M5$<$ 20/12 00:00 N24E48 25/12 00:00 N24W18
------ ------- ------------- -------- ------------- --------
\[ht!\]
------ ------- ------------- -------- ------------- --------
8882 X 01/03 00:00 S18W31 02/03 23:59 S16W60
8910 X 19/03 00:00 N11W10 22/06 23:59 N13W61
9026 X 04/06 00:00 N20E48 08/06 23:59 N22W17
9077 X 10/07 00:00 N18E55 14/07 23:59 N18W09
9090 M5$<$ 20/07 00:00 N11E32 21/07 10:00 N12E05
9087 M5$<$ 18/07 00:00 S12E28 19/07 23:59 S12E13
9097 M5$<$ 23/07 00:00 N06E25 25/07 23:59 N08W15
9165 M5$<$ 15/09 00:00 N13E14 19/09 10:00 N14W40
------ ------- ------------- -------- ------------- --------
\[ht!\]
------ ------- ------------- -------- ------------- --------
9368 M5$<$ 07/03 12:00 N25W15 08/03 23:59 N26W33
9393 X 26/03 00:00 N20E39 02/04 23:59 N16W70
9415 X 05/04 00:00 S21E60 14/04 23:59 S22W72
9433 M5$<$ 23/04 00:00 N17E26 29/04 23:59 N17W50
9503 M5$<$ 21/06 00:00 N16W20 22/06 23:59 N17W46
9511 X 22/06 14:00 N10E30 23/06 23:59 N10E00
9601 M5$<$ 04/09 00:00 N14W06 05/09 23:59 N14W38
9608 M5$<$ 14/09 00:00 S25W33 17/09 23:59 S28W75
9628 M5$<$ 23/09 00:00 S17E25 27/09 23:59 S18W01
9632 X 22/09 00:00 S17E56 24/09 23:59 S19E06
9661 X 13/10 00:00 N14E55 19/10 23:59 N16W35
9672 X 23/10 00:00 S18E13 25/10 23:59 S18W27
9684 X 01/11 00:00 N06E29 04/11 23:59 N05W28
9704 X 17/11 00:00 S18E41 22/10 23:59 S18W38
9727 M5$<$ 09/12 00:00 S22E03 12/12 23:59 S21W52
9733 X 10/12 00:00 N14E58 18/12 23:59 N13W65
9742 M5$<$ 22/12 00:00 N10W03 26/12 23:59 N12W68
------ ------- ------------- -------- ------------- --------
\[ht!\]
------- ------- ------------- -------- ------------- --------
9773 M5$<$ 08/01 14:00 N12E17 09/01 23:59 N14W05
9866 M5$<$ 12/03 00:00 S10E43 14/03 23:59 S10E07
10017 X 02/07 00:00 S19W37 03/07 23:59 S18W63
10044 M5$<$ 25/07 17:00 S20E34 26/07 23:59 S21E17
10069 X 14/08 00:00 S07E50 21/08 06:00 S08W50
10226 M5$<$ 16/12 00:00 S28E25 20/12 23:59 S28W41
------- ------- ------------- -------- ------------- --------
\[ht!\]
------- ------- ------------- -------- ------------- --------
10314 X 15/03 11:00 S14W05 18/03 23:59 S16W52
10338 M5$<$ 22/04 11:00 N18W10 26/04 22:00 N18W70
10365 X 25/05 00:00 S08E11 30/05 23:59 S07W59
10375 X 06/06 00:00 N12E24 11/06 23:59 N12W62
10484 X 20/10 00:00 N06E53 28/10 23:59 N03W68
10486 X 25/10 00:00 N06E53 02/11 23:59 N03W68
10488 X 28/10 00:00 N09E09 03/11 12:00 N08W74
10501 M5$<$ 15/11 00:00 N04E61 21/11 23:59 N02W18
------- ------- ------------- -------- ------------- --------
\[ht!\]
------- ------- ------------- -------- ------------- --------
10564 X 23/02 00:00 N13E26 26/02 23:59 N14W27
10649 X 14/07 00:00 S10E64 19/07 23:59 S10E00
10652 M5$<$ 21/07 00:00 N10E32 22/07 23:59 N08E06
10691 X 29/10 14:00 N15W02 30/10 23:59 N14W25
10696 X 04/11 00:00 N09E32 10/11 23:59 N08W62
10715 X 30/12 00:00 N04E61 31/12 23:59 N04E34
------- ------- ------------- -------- ------------- --------
\[ht!\]
------- ------- ------------- -------- ------------- --------
10720 X 12/01 00:00 N13E52 20/01 23:59 N14W70
10759 M5$<$ 11/05 00:00 N12E50 13/05 23:59 N12E06
------- ------- ------------- -------- ------------- --------
\[ht!\]
------- ------- ------------- -------- ------------- -------- -- --
10875 M5$<$ 25/04 00:00 S10E62 27/04 23:59 S11E20
10930 X 11/12 00:00 S05E06 15/12 23:59 S06W59
------- ------- ------------- -------- ------------- -------- -- --
\[ht!\]
------- ------- ------------- -------- ------------- --------
11045 M5$<$ 06/02 04:00 N24E20 08/02 23:59 N23W17
11046 M5$<$ 10/02 00:00 N24E42 12/02 23:59 N24E00
11066 B 03/05 00:00 S27E16 03/05 23:59 S27E04
11069 M1$<$ 05/05 00:00 N40W20 07/05 23:59 N40W63
11078 B 08/06 08:00 S21W40 09/06 23:59 S21W61
11081 C 12/07 00:00 N23W45 13/07 10:00 N23W66
11092 C 31/07 18:00 N13E50 01/08 23:59 N13E20
11099 C 13/08 11:00 N19W42 14/08 23:59 N19W60
11109 C 13/08 11:00 N19W42 14/08 23:59 N19W60
11117 C 24/10 00:00 S22E24 11/10 12:00 S22W70
11123 C 11/10 12:00 N20E23 11/10 12:00 N20W16
11130 C 30/11 00:00 N13W54 02/12 23:59 N13W54
------- ------- ------------- -------- ------------- --------
\[ht!\]
------- ------- ------------- -------- ------------- --------
11142 C 03/01 18:00 S14E11 03/01 23:35 S14E08
11158 X 12/02 00:00 S19E25 15/02 23:59 S21W27
11164 M1$<$ 05/03 00:00 N2319 07/03 23:59 N23W58
11166 X 07/03 00:00 N11E27 11/03 17:00 N09W36
11169 M1$<$ 12/03 00:00 N17W11 15/03 23:59 N17W65
11176 M1$<$ 24/03 00:00 S15E56 25/03 23:59 S15E30
11190 M1$<$ 14/04 08:00 N13W05 17/03 23:59 N13W55
11204 B 09/05 00:00 N17W43 11/05 03:00 N17W60
11210 C 09/05 00:00 N20E20 10/05 23:59 N20W08
11224 C 28/05 00:00 N21W15 30/05 00:00 N21W55
11226 M1$<$ 05/06 06:00 S22W27 07/06 07:00 S22W55
11227 C 31/05 18:00 S20E66 02/06 08:00 S20E27
11236 C 20/06 18:00 N17E23 21/06 23:59 N17W60
11241 B 25/06 04:00 N20W05 27/06 12:00 N20W40
11244 C 03/07 00:00 N16W25 03/07 23:59 N16W40
11249 C 09/07 19:00 S19E01 11/07 12:00 S19W22
11260 M1$<$ 26/07 16:00 N19E50 28/07 19:00 N19E20
11261 M5$<$ 29/07 00:00 N16E48 05/08 23:59 N16W64
11281 C 31/08 19:00 S20E30 04/09 23:59 S20W12
11283 X 04/09 00:00 N13E22 10/09 22:00 N13W70
11363 C 02/12 17:00 S21E35 06/12 20:00 S21W20
11387 M1$<$ 25/12 04:00 S21E36 27/12 23:59 S21W57
------- ------- ------------- -------- ------------- --------
\[ht!\]
------- ------- ------------- -------- ------------- --------
11402 M5$<$ 20/01 00:00 N24E16 23/01 23:59 N30W24
11429 X 04/03 00:00 N17E67 11/03 12:00 N17W31
11430 X 05/03 00:00 N20E38 07/03 23:59 N17E12
11455 B 13/04 00:00 N06E06 14/04 08:00 N14W24
11465 C 21/04 00:00 S18E40 27/04 23:59 S18W55
11476 M5$<$ 07/05 00:00 N10E60 13/05 23:59 N10W37
11490 B 28/05 00:00 S12E17 28/05 15:00 S12E08
11494 M1$<$ 05/06 18:00 S17E20 08/06 23:59 S17W32
11504 M1$<$ 12/06 00:00 S17E40 14/06 19:00 S17E03
11512 C 26/06 00:00 S16E40 29/06 18:00 S16W14
11515 X 01/07 00:00 S17E30 07/07 23:59 S17W65
11520 X 09/07 00:00 S16E46 13/07 00:00 S17W60
11542 C 08/08 09:00 S14E63 12/08 08:00 S14W05
11553 C 30/08 09:00 S20W16 02/09 23:59 S20W68
11613 M5$<$ 12/11 00:00 S22E57 13/11 23:59 S22E31
11618 M1$<$ 19/11 00:00 S12E40 26/11 23:59 N06W66
------- ------- ------------- -------- ------------- --------
\[ht!\]
------- ------- ------------- -------- ------------- --------
11719 M5$<$ 08/04 17:00 N10E53 11/04 23:59 N11W14
11776 C 18/06 08:00 N11E11 19/06 18:00 N11W07
11818 M1$<$ 16/08 04:00 S07W04 17/08 23:59 S07W35
11865 M1$<$ 09/10 16:00 S22E60 15/10 15:00 S22W22
11875 X 19/10 00:00 N06E16 28/10 03:00 N06W68
11877 M5$<$ 23/10 00:00 S12W08 24/10 10:00 S12W15
11884 M5$<$ 29/10 04:00 S12E52 03/11 17:00 S12W21
11890 X 04/11 00:00 S11E63 12/11 23:59 S11W58
11936 M5$<$ 30/12 00:00 S16W09 02/01 23:59 S16W67
------- ------- ------------- -------- ------------- --------
\[ht!\]
------- ------- ------------- -------- -------------- --------
11944 X 05/01 00:00 S09E40 10/01 09:00 S09W33
11966 M5$<$ 10/03 10:00 N14W41 12/03 22:00 N14W72
11967 M5$<$ 31/01 00:00 S12E44 08/02 23:59 S12W63
12017 X 28/03 00:00 N10W08 30/03 23:59 N10W50
12036 M5$<$ 15/04 00:00 S17E13 18/04 23:59 S17W40
12146 M1$<$ 22/08 19:00 N09W01 25/08 23:59 N09W43
12158 X 07/09 15:00 N15E54 11/09 23:59 N15W12
12192 X 18/10 09:00 S13E70 27/10 15:00 S13W52
12205 X 05/11 12:00 N15E66 12 /11 23:59 N15W35
12241 M5$<$ 18/12 00:00 S09E20 21/12 23:59 S09W34
12246 M5$<$ 18/12 00:00 S09E20 21/12 23:59 S09W34
12242 X 15/12 15:00 S17W33 20/12 23:59 S17W33
------- ------- ------------- -------- -------------- --------
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The design of modulation schemes for the physical layer network-coded two way relaying scenario has been extensively studied recently with the protocol which employs two phases: Multiple access (MA) Phase and Broadcast (BC) Phase. It was observed by Koike-Akino et al. that adaptively changing the network coding map used at the relay according to the channel conditions greatly reduces the impact of multiple access interference which occurs at the relay during the MA Phase and all these network coding maps should satisfy a requirement called the [*exclusive law*]{}. In [@NVR] it is shown that every network coding map that satisfies the exclusive law is representable by a Latin Square and conversely, and this relationship can be used to get the network coding maps satisfying the exclusive law. But, only the scenario in which the end nodes use $M$-PSK signal sets (where $M$ is of the form $2^\lambda$, $\lambda$ being any positive integer) is extensively studied in [@NVR]. In this paper, we address the case in which the end nodes use $M$-QAM signal sets (where $M$ is of the form $2^{2\lambda}$, $\lambda$ being any positive integer). In a fading scenario, for certain channel conditions $\gamma e^{j \theta}$, termed singular fade states, the MA phase performance is greatly reduced. We show that the square QAM signal sets give lesser number of singular fade states compared to PSK signal sets. Because of this, the complexity at the relay is enormously reduced. Moreover, lesser number of overhead bits are required in the BC phase. The fade state $\gamma e^{j \theta}=1$ is singular for all constellations of arbitrary size including PSK and QAM. For arbitrary PSK constellation it is well known that the Latin Square obtained by bit-wise XOR mapping removes this singularity. We show that XOR mapping fails to remove this singularity for QAM of size more greater than 4 and show that a doubly block circulant Latin Square removes this singularity. Simulation results are presented to show the superiority of QAM over PSK.'
author:
-
-
title: 'Physical Layer Network Coding for Two-Way Relaying with QAM and Latin Squares'
---
Preliminaries and Background
============================
We consider the two-way wireless relaying scenario shown in Fig.\[relay\_channel\], where bi-directional data transfer takes place between the nodes A and B with the help of the relay R. It is assumed that all the three nodes operate in half-duplex mode, i.e., they cannot transmit and receive simultaneously in the same frequency band. The relaying protocol consists of the following two phases: the *multiple access* (MA) phase, during which A and B simultaneously transmit to R using identical square $M$-QAM signal sets and the *broadcast* (BC) phase during which R transmits to A and B using possibly with another square $M$-QAM or constellations of size more than $M$. Network coding is employed at R in such a way that A (B) can decode the message of B (A), given that A (B) knows its own message.
Background
----------
The concept of physical layer network coding has attracted a lot of attention in recent times. The idea of physical layer network coding for the two way relay channel was first introduced in [@ZLL], where the multiple access interference occurring at the relay was exploited so that the communication between the end nodes can be done using a two stage protocol. Information theoretic studies for the physical layer network coding scenario were reported in [@KMT],[@PoY]. The design principles governing the choice of modulation schemes to be used at the nodes for uncoded transmission were studied in [@APT1]. An extension for the case when the nodes use convolutional codes was done in [@APT2]. A multi-level coding scheme for the two-way relaying scenario was proposed in [@HeN].
It was observed in [@APT1] that for uncoded transmission, the network coding map used at the relay needs to be changed adaptively according to the channel fade coefficients, in order to minimize the impact of the multiple access interference. The proposed Latin Square scheme was studied in [@NVR], [@VNR] by considering a two way relaying using $M$-PSK signal sets at the end nodes. In [@APT1] analysis of 16-QAM is done under the assumption that precoding is done at the end nodes. We address the situation where no precoding assumption is made and to the best of our knowledge no work has been reported for such a scenario with general $M$-QAM modulation.
Signal Model
------------
### Multiple Access (MA) Phase {#multiple-access-ma-phase .unnumbered}
Let $\mathcal{S}$ denote the square $M$-QAM constellation used at A and B, where $M=2^{2\lambda}$, $\lambda$ being a positive integer. Assume that A (B) wants to transmit an $2\lambda$-bit binary tuple to B (A). Let $\mu:\mathcal{S} \rightarrow \mathbb{F}_{2^{2\lambda}}$ denote the mapping from complex symbols to bits used at A and B. Let $\mu(x_A)= s_A$, $\mu(x_B)=s_B \in \mathcal{S}$ denote the complex symbols transmitted by A and B respectively, where $s_A,s_B \in \mathbb{F}_{2^{2\lambda}}$. The received signal at $R$ is given by, $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
Y_R=H_{A} x_A + H_{B} x_B +Z_R,\end{aligned}$$ where $H_A$ and $H_B$ are the fading coefficients associated with the A-R and B-R links respectively. The additive noise $Z_R$ is assumed to be $\mathcal{CN}(0,\sigma^2)$, where $\mathcal{CN}(0,\sigma^2)$ denotes the circularly symmetric complex Gaussian random variable with variance $\sigma ^2$. We assume a block fading scenario, with the ratio $ H_{B}/H_{A}$ denoted as $z=\gamma e^{j \theta}$, where $\gamma \in \mathbb{R}^+$ and $-\pi \leq \theta < \pi,$ is referred as the [*fade state*]{} and for simplicity, also denoted by $(\gamma, \theta).$
Let $\mathcal{S}_{R}(\gamma,\theta)$ denote the effective constellation at the relay during the MA Phase, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\mathcal{S}_{R}(\gamma,\theta)=\left\lbrace x_i+\gamma e^{j \theta} x_j \vert x_i,x_j \in \mathcal{S}\right \rbrace,
\end{aligned}$$ and $d_{min}(\gamma e^{j\theta})$ denote the minimum distance between the points in $\mathcal{S}_{R}(\gamma,\theta)$, i.e.,
[$$\begin{aligned}
%\nonumber
\label{eqn_dmin}
d_{min}(\gamma e^{j\theta})=\hspace{-0.5 cm}\min_{\substack {{(x_A,x_B),(x'_A,x'_B)}{ \in \mathcal{S}^2 } \\ {(x_A,x_B) \neq (x'_A,x'_B)}}}\hspace{-0.5 cm}\vert \left(x_A-x'_A\right)+\gamma e^{j \theta} \left(x_B-x'_B\right)\vert.\end{aligned}$$ ]{}
From , it is clear that there exists values of $\gamma e^{j \theta}$ for which $d_{min}(\gamma e^{j\theta})=0$. Let $\mathcal{H}=\lbrace \gamma e^{j\theta} \in \mathbb{C} \vert d_{min}(\gamma,\theta)=0 \rbrace$. The elements of $\mathcal{H}$ are said to be [*the singular fade states*]{}. Singular fade states can also be defined as
A fade state $\gamma e^{j \theta}$ is said to be a singular fade state, if the cardinality of the signal set $\mathcal{S}_{R}(\gamma, \theta)$ is less than $M^2$.
For example, consider the case when symmetric 4-QAM signal set used at the nodes A and B, i.e., $\mathcal{S}=\lbrace (\pm 1 \pm j)/\sqrt{2} \rbrace$. For $\gamma e^{j \theta}=(1+j)/2$, $d_{min}(\gamma e^{j \theta})=0$, since, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\vert \left( \dfrac{1+j}{\sqrt{2}}-\dfrac{1-j}{\sqrt{2}} \right) + \dfrac{(1+j)}{2} \left( \dfrac{-1-j}{\sqrt{2}} - \dfrac{1+j}{\sqrt{2}} \right)\right\vert=0.
\end{aligned}$$ Alternatively, when $\gamma e^{j \theta}=(1+j)/2$, the constellation $\mathcal{S}_{R}(\gamma,\theta)$ has only 12 ($<$16) points. Hence $\gamma e^{j \theta}=(1+j)/2$ is a singular fade state for the case when 4-QAM signal set is used at A and B. Let $(\hat{x}_A,\hat{x}_B) \in \mathcal{S}^2$ denote the Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimate of $({x}_A,{x}_B)$ at R based on the received complex number $Y_{R}$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
(\hat{x}_A,\hat{x}_B)=\arg\min_{({x}'_A,{x}'_B) \in \mathcal{S}^2} \vert Y_R-H_{A}{x}'_A-H_{B}{x}'_B\vert.
\end{aligned}$$
### Broadcast (BC) Phase {#broadcast-bc-phase .unnumbered}
Depending on the value of $\gamma e^{j \theta}$, R chooses a map $\mathcal{M}^{\gamma,\theta}:\mathcal{S}^2 \rightarrow \mathcal{S}'$, where $\mathcal{S}'$ is the signal set (of size between $M$ and $M^2$) used by R during $BC$ phase. The elements in $\mathcal{S}^2 $ which are mapped on to the same complex number in $\mathcal{S}'$ by the map $\mathcal{M}^{\gamma,\theta}$ are said to form a cluster. Let $\lbrace \mathcal{L}_1, \mathcal{L}_2,...,\mathcal{L}_l\rbrace$ denote the set of all such clusters. The formation of clusters is called clustering, and denoted by $\mathcal{C}^{\gamma e^{j\theta}}$ to indicate that it is a function of $\gamma e^{j \theta}.$ The received signals at A and B during the BC phase are respectively given by, $$\begin{aligned}
Y_A=H'_{A} X_R + Z_A,\;Y_B=H'_{B} X_R + Z_B,\end{aligned}$$ where $X_R=\mathcal{M}^{\gamma,\theta}(\hat{x}_A,\hat{x}_B) \in \mathcal{S'}$ is the complex number transmitted by R. The fading coefficients corresponding to the R-A and R-B links are denoted by $H'_{A}$ and $H'_{B}$ respectively and the additive noises $Z_A$ and $Z_B$ are $\mathcal{CN}(0,\sigma ^2$).
In order to ensure that A (B) is able to decode B’s (A’s) message, the clustering $\mathcal{C}$ should satisfy the exclusive law [@APT1], i.e.,
[$$\begin{aligned}
\left.
\begin{array}{ll}
\nonumber
\mathcal{M}^{\gamma,\theta}(x_A,x_B) \neq \mathcal{M}^{\gamma,\theta}(x'_A,x_B), \; \mathrm{for} \;x_A \neq x'_A \; \mathrm{,} \; \forall x_B \in \mathcal{S},\\
\nonumber
\mathcal{M}^{\gamma,\theta}(x_A,x_B) \neq \mathcal{M}^{\gamma,\theta}(x_A,x'_B), \; \mathrm{for} \;x_B \neq x'_B \; \mathrm{,} \;\forall x_A \in \mathcal{S}.
\end {array}
\right\} \\
\label{ex_law}\end{aligned}$$ ]{}
The cluster distance between a pair of clusters $\mathcal{L}_i$ and $\mathcal{L}_j$ is the minimum among all the distances calculated between the points $x_A+\gamma e^{j\theta} x_B ,x'_A+\gamma e^{j\theta} x'_B \in \mathcal{S}_R(\gamma,\theta)$ where $(x_A,x_B) \in \mathcal{L}_i$ and $(x'_A,x'_B) \in \mathcal{L}_j.$ The *minimum cluster distance* of the clustering $\mathcal{C}$ is the minimum among all the cluster distances, i.e.,
[$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
d_{min}^{\mathcal{C}}(\gamma e^{j \theta})=\hspace{-0.8 cm}\min_{\substack {{(x_A,x_B),(x'_A,x'_B)}\\{ \in \mathcal{S}^2,} \\ {\mathcal{M}^{\gamma,\theta}(x_A,x_B) \neq \mathcal{M}^{\gamma,\theta}(x'_A,x'_B)}}}\hspace{-0.8 cm}\vert \left( x_A-x'_A\right)+\gamma e^{j \theta} \left(x_B-x'_B\right)\vert.\end{aligned}$$ ]{}
The minimum cluster distance determines the performance during the MA phase of relaying. The performance during the BC phase is determined by the minimum distance of the signal set $\mathcal{S}'$. For values of $\gamma e^{j \theta}$ in the neighborhood of the singular fade states, the value of $d_{min}(\gamma e^{j\theta})$ is greatly reduced, a phenomenon referred as [*distance shortening*]{}. To avoid distance shortening, for each singular fade state, a clustering needs to be chosen such that the minimum cluster distance at the singular fade state is non-zero and is also maximized.
A clustering $\mathcal{C}$ is said to remove a singular fade state $ h \in \mathcal{H}$, if $d_{min}^{\mathcal{C}}(h)>0$. For a singular fade state $h \in \mathcal{H}$, let $\mathcal{C}_{\lbrace h\rbrace}$ denote a clustering which removes the singular fade state $h$ (if there are multiple clusterings which remove the same singular fade state $h$, consider a clustering which maximizes the minimum cluster distance). Let $\mathcal{C}_{\mathcal{H}}=\left\lbrace \mathcal{C}_{\lbrace h\rbrace} : h \in \mathcal{H} \right\rbrace$ denote the set of all such clusterings. Let $d_{min}({\mathcal{C}^{\lbrace h\rbrace}},\gamma',\theta')$ be defined as,
[$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
d_{min}({\mathcal{C}^{\lbrace h\rbrace}},\gamma',\theta')=\hspace{-0.8 cm}\min_{\substack {{(x_A,x_B),(x'_A,x'_B) \in \mathcal{S}^2,} \\ {\mathcal{M}^{\lbrace h\rbrace}(x_A,x_B) \neq \mathcal{M}^{\lbrace h \rbrace}(x'_A,x'_B)}}}\hspace{-0.8 cm}\vert \left( x_A-x'_A\right)+\gamma' e^{j \theta'} \left(x_B-x'_B\right)\vert.\end{aligned}$$ ]{}
The quantity $d_{min}({\mathcal{C}^{\lbrace h\rbrace}},\gamma,'\theta')$ is referred to as the minimum cluster distance of the clustering $\mathcal{C}^{\lbrace h\rbrace}$ evaluated at $\gamma' e^{j\theta'}.$
In practice, the channel fade state need not be a singular fade state. In such a scenario, among all the clusterings which remove the singular fade states, the one which maximizes the minimum cluster distance is chosen. In other words, for $\gamma' e^{j \theta'} \notin \mathcal{H}$, the clustering $\mathcal{C}^{\gamma',\theta'}$ is chosen to be $\mathcal{C}^{\lbrace h\rbrace}$, which satisfies $d_{min}({\mathcal{C}^{\lbrace h\rbrace}},\gamma',\theta') \geq d_{min}({\mathcal{C}^{\lbrace h' \rbrace}},\gamma',\theta'), \forall h \neq h' \in \mathcal{H}$. Since the clusterings which remove the singular fade states are known to all the three nodes and are finite in number, the clustering used for a particular realization of the fade state can be indicated by R to A and B using overhead bits.
In the case of BPSK, if channel condition is $\gamma=1$ and $\theta=0$ the distance between the pairs $(0,1)(1,0)$ is zero as in Fig.\[fig:BPSK\](a).The following clustering remove this singular fade state. $$\{\{(0,1)(1,0)\},\{(1,1)(0,0)\}\}$$ The minimum cluster distance is non zero in this clustering.
![Effective Constellation at the relay for singular fade states, when the end nodes use BPSK constellation.[]{data-label="fig:BPSK"}](bpsk1.eps){width="2.5in"}
To remove the distance shortening effect a procedure is given in [@APT1] when the nodes A and B use QPSK signal set. The procedure suggested in [@APT1] to obtain the channel quantization and the clusterings, was using a computer algorithm, which involved varying the fade state values over the entire complex plane, i.e., $0 \leq \gamma < \infty$, $0 \leq \theta < 2\pi$ in small discrete steps and finding the clustering for each value of channel realization. But such an approach have many issues. In [@APT1], it is claimed that the clustering used by the relay is indicated to A and B by using overhead bits. However, the procedure suggested in [@APT1] to obtain the set of all clusterings, was using a computer search algorithm (called Closest Neighbour Clustering (CNC) algorithm), which involved varying the fade state values over the entire complex plane, i.e., $0 \leq \gamma < \infty$, $0 \leq \theta < 2\pi$ and finding the clustering for each value of channel realization as discussed in previous sections. The total number of network codes which would result is known only after the algorithm is run for all possible realizations $\gamma e^{j \theta}$ which is uncountably infinite and hence the number of overhead bits required is not known beforehand. Moreover, performing such an exhaustive search is extremely difficult in practice, especially when the cardinality of the signal set $M$ is large.
The implementation complexity of CNC suggested in [@APT1] is extremely high: It appears that, for each realization of the singular fade state, the CNC algorithm of [@APT1] needs to be run at R to find the clustering.
In the CNC algorithm suggested in [@APT1], the network coding map is obtained by considering the entire distance profile. The disadvantages of such an approach are two-fold.
- Considering the entire distance profile, instead of the minimum cluster distance alone which contributes dominantly to the error probability, results in an extremely large number of network coding maps. For example, for 16-QAM signal set, the CNC algorithm results in more than 18,000 maps [@APT1].
- The CNC algorithm tries to optimize the entire distance profile, even after clustering signal points which contribute the minimum distance. As a result, for several channel conditions, the number of clusters in the clustering obtained is greater than the number of clusters in the clustering obtained by taking the minimum distance alone into consideration. This results in a degradation in performance during the BC phase, since the relay uses a signal set with cardinality equal to the number of clusters. For example, for 16-QAM signal set, the relay has to use signal sets of cardinality 16 to 29 [@APT1].
In [@APT1], to overcome the two problems mentioned above, another algorithm is proposed, in which for a given $\gamma e^{j \theta}$, an exhaustive search is performed among all the network coding maps obtained using the closest-neighbour clustering algorithm and a map with minimum number of clusters is chosen. The difficulties associated with the implementation of the CNC algorithm carry over to the implementation of this algorithm as well. The contributions and organization of the paper are as follows:
- A procedure to obtain the number of singular fade states for PAM and QAM signal sets is presented.
- It is shown that for the same number of signal points $M$, the number of singular fade states for square $M$-QAM is lesser in comparison with the number of singular fade states for $M$-PSK. The advantages of this result are two fold - QAM offers better distance performance in MA Phase and QAM requires lesser number of Latin squares (i.e., a reduction in number of overhead bits).
- To remove the singular fade state $(\gamma=1, \theta=0)$ for $\sqrt M$-PAM, a Latin Square is constructed. It is shown that the bit-wise XOR mapping cannot remove the singular fade state $(\gamma=1, \theta=0)$ for any $M$-QAM and a different mapping is obtained to remove the singular fade state $(\gamma=1, \theta=0)$, from the Latin Square to remove the singular fade state $(\gamma=1, \theta=0)$ for $\sqrt M$-PAM.
- By simulation it is shown that the choice of 16-QAM leads to better performance for both the Rayleigh and the Rician fading scenario, compared to 16-PSK.
The remaining content is organized as follows:
In Section \[sec2\] we discuss the relationship between singular fade states and difference constellation of the signal sets used by the end nodes. We present expressions to get the number of singular fade states for PAM and square QAM signal sets in Subsections \[subsec\_1\_2\] and \[subsec\_2\_2\] respectively. In Subsection \[subsec\_3\_2\] it is proved that the number of singular fade states for $M$-QAM is always lesser in comparison with that of $M$-PSK signal sets. In Section \[sec3\] the clustering for a singular fade state is obtained through completing a Latin Square and a Latin Square for removing the singular fade state $z=1$ is analytically obtained for PAM and QAM signal sets. In Section \[sec4\] simulation results are provided to show the advantage of Latin Square scheme for QAM over XOR network coding scheme as well as Latin Square scheme for PSK signal sets under Rayleigh and Rician fading channel assumptions.
Singular Fade states and Difference Constellations {#sec2}
==================================================
In this section we show the relationships between singular fade states and difference constellation of the signal set used by the end nodes. The following lemma discusses the location of singular fade states in complex plane for any constellation used at end nodes.
\[sfs\] Let node A use a constellation $\mathcal{S}_1$ of size $M_1$ and let node B use a constellation $\mathcal{S}_{2}$ of size $M_2$. Let $x_A,x_A^{\prime} \in \mathcal{S}_1$ and $x_B,x_B^{\prime} \in \mathcal{S}_2$, then the singular fade states $z=\gamma e^{j \theta}$ are given by $$\label{sing_expression}
z=\gamma e^{j\theta}=\dfrac{x_A-x_A^{\prime}}{x_B^{\prime}-x_B}$$ where $x_A,x_A^{\prime} \in \mathcal{S}_1$ and $x_B,x_B^{\prime} \in \mathcal{S}_2$.
The pair $(x_A,x_A^{\prime})$ and $(x_B,x_B^{\prime})$ result in the same point in the effective constellation at the relay if the complex numbers $x_A+\gamma e^{j \theta} x_B$ and $x_A^{\prime}+\gamma e^{j\theta}x_B^{\prime} $ are the same. The expression is obtained by equating these complex numbers.
From Lemma \[sfs\] it can be seen that all the singular fade states in the complex plane is of the form of ratio of difference constellation points of the signal sets used by end nodes, i.e., the singular fade states are decided by the difference constellation points. Henceforth, throughout the paper, we assume both the end nodes use same constellation, $\mathcal{S}$. Let $\Delta\mathcal{S}$ denote the difference constellation of the signal set used at the end nodes $\mathcal{S}$, i.e., $\Delta\mathcal{S}=\lbrace x_i-x'_i \vert x_i, x'_i \in \mathcal{S}\rbrace$. For a fade state $z=\gamma e^{j\theta}$ to become a singular fade state, it has to satisfy , or in other words $z(x_B^{\prime}-x_B)=(x_A-x_A^{\prime})$, where $(x_B^{\prime}-x_B)$ and $(x_A-x_A^{\prime})$ are any point in $ \Delta\mathcal{S}$. Hence, a singular fade state can be alternatively defined as follows.
\[sfs\_alter\_def\] A singular fade state $z$ is a mapping $\mathcal{Z}$ from $\Delta\mathcal{S}$ to the complex plane $\mathbb{C}$ so that at least one $d_k \in \Delta\mathcal{S}$ is mapped to some $d_l \in \Delta\mathcal{S}$. The set of all singular fade states is given by $\{\mathcal{Z}: \Delta\mathcal{S} \rightarrow \mathbb{C} \vert \hspace{.05cm} \exists \hspace{.05cm} \mathcal{Z}(d_k)= d_l\}$.
The singular fade state $z=1$ is the mapping from $\Delta\mathcal{S}$ to itself that maps every point to itself.
In the rest of this section, we focus on the singular fade states for symmetric PAM and square QAM signal sets.
Singular Fade States of PAM signal sets {#subsec_1_2}
---------------------------------------
The symmetric $\sqrt M$-PAM signal set is given by $$\mathcal{S}= -(\sqrt M -1)+ 2n, ~~~ n \in (0, \cdots ,\sqrt M -1)$$ and its difference constellation is given by $$\Delta\mathcal{S}= -2(\sqrt M -1)+ 2n, ~~~ n \in (0, \cdots ,2(\sqrt M -1)).$$ For example the 4-PAM signal set and it’s difference constellation is given in Fig.\[fig:pam\] and Fig.\[fig:pamdiff\] respectively. For each of the difference constellation point, the pair in the signal set which correspond to this point is also shown.
We will often consider only the first quadrant of $\Delta{S}$ only, denoted as $\Delta{S}^{+},$ which for a general complex signal set is given by $$\Delta{S}^{+} = \{\alpha : \mbox{real}(\alpha)>0, \mbox{imaginary}(\alpha) \geq 0\}.$$ The following lemma gives the number of singular fade states for PAM signal sets.
\[no\_sing\_pam\] The number of singular fade states, for a regular $\sqrt M$-PAM signal set, denoted by $N_{(\sqrt M-PAM)}$ is given by $$\label{sum_euler}
N_{(\sqrt M-PAM)}= 2 + 4\sum_{n=1}^{\sqrt M -1}n \prod_{p\vert n} \left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right)$$ where $p|n$ stands for prime number $p$ dividing $n.$
There are $2(\sqrt M-1)$ non-zero signal points in the difference constellation $\Delta\mathcal{S}$ and since $ \Delta\mathcal{S}$ is symmetric about zero there are $\sqrt M-1$ signal points in $\Delta{S}^+$. All these are scaled version of nonzero elements of $\mathbb{Z}_{\sqrt M}$. The number of positive integers less than or equal to $n$ that are relatively prime to $n$ is given by Euler’s totient function, $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(n)= n \prod_{p|n} \left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right)\end{aligned}$$ where the product is taken over distinct prime numbers $p$ dividing $n$. To get the total number of relatively prime pairs in $\mathbb{Z}_{\sqrt M}$, we take the sum over all nonzero $n \in \mathbb{Z}_{\sqrt M}$ which gives $ \sum_{n=1}^{\sqrt M -1}n \prod_{p\vert n} \left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right).$ One relatively prime pair $(a,b)$ gives two singular fade states, $a/b$ and $b/a$. The multiplication factor $4$ in accounts for the negative side of the in-phase axis as well as the inverses. Finally, 2 is added to count the singular fade state $z=1$ and $z=-1$.
Consider the case of 4-PAM ($M=16$) signal set as given in Fig.\[fig:4pam\]. There are $2(\sqrt M-1)=6$ non-zero signal points in the difference constellation. Scaled $\Delta{S}^+$ is having $(\sqrt M-1)=3$ signal points-$\{1,2,3\}$. And there are 14 singular fade states- $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{1,\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{3},\frac{2}{3},2,3,\frac{3}{2},-1,\frac{-1}{2}, \frac{-1}{3},\frac{-2}{3},-2,-3,\frac{-3}{2}\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ These singular fade states are shown in Fig.\[fig:pam\_sing\]. Calculating Euler totient function $\psi(n)$ for $n=$ 1,2,3 we get 0,1,2 respectively and substituting in , leads to $N_{(4-PAM)}= 2+ 4(0+1+2) =14.$
For 8-PAM signal set the singular fade states with $z>1$ are shown in Table.\[prifactor\_pam\]. For each such $z$ given in the table there exists singular fade states $-z,\frac{1}{z}$ and $-\frac{1}{z}.$ Hence, totally, there are 70 ($ 2+4(0+1+2+2+4+2+6) $) singular fade states.
-------------------- ----------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- -----------
$n$, Elements Relative primes Singular fade $\psi(n)$
in $\Delta{S}^{+}$ less than $n$ states, $z >1$
1 0
2 1 2 1
3 1,2 3,$\frac{3}{2}$ 2
4 1,3 4,$\frac{4}{3}$ 2
5 1,2,3,4 5,$\frac{5}{2},\frac{5}{3},\frac{5}{4}$ 4
6 1,5 6,$\frac{6}{5}$ 2
7 1,2,3,4,5,6 7,$\frac{7}{2},\frac{7}{3},\frac{7}{4},\frac{7}{5},\frac{7}{6}$ 6
-------------------- ----------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- -----------
: Singular fade states for 8-PAM[]{data-label="prifactor_pam"}
Singular Fade States for QAM signal sets {#subsec_2_2}
----------------------------------------
We consider square $M$-QAM signal set $\mathcal{S}=\{A_{mI}+jA_{mQ}\}$ where $A_{mI}$ and $A_{mQ}$ take values from the $\sqrt M$-PAM signal set $ -(\sqrt M -1)+ 2n, ~~~ n \in (0, \cdots ,\sqrt M -1).$ We use the mapping $\mu: \mathcal{S} \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}_m$ given by [$$\label{mumap}
A_{mI}+jA_{mQ} \rightarrow \frac{1}{2}[(\sqrt M -1 +A_{mI})\sqrt M + (\sqrt M -1 +A_{mQ})]$$ ]{} for concreteness and our analysis and results hold for any map. The difference constellation $\Delta\mathcal{S}$ of square QAM signal sets form a part of scaled integer lattice with $(2\sqrt M -1)^2$ points. The 16-QAM signal set with the above mapping and its difference constellation is shown in Fig.\[fig:16qam\] and in Fig.\[fig:16qam\_diff\_cons\].
[@LB] The Gaussian integers are the elements of the set $\mathbb{Z}[j]=\{a+bj : a,b \in \mathbb{Z}\}$ where $\mathbb{Z}$ denotes the set of integers.
The signal points in the difference constellation are Gaussian integers. To get the number of singular fade states for square QAM signal sets, the notion of primes and relatively primes in the set of Gaussian integers is useful.
[@LB] A Gaussian integer $\alpha$ is called a Gaussian prime if and only if the only Gaussian integers that divide $\alpha$ are: $1,-1,j,-j,\alpha,-\alpha, \alpha j$ and $-\alpha j.$ The Gaussian integers which are invertible in $\mathbb{Z}[j]$ are called units in $\mathbb{Z}[j]$ and they are $\pm 1$ and $\pm j.$ Let $\alpha, \beta \in \mathbb{Z}[j]$. If the only common divisors of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are units, we say $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are relatively prime.
\[no\_sfs\_qam\] The number of singular fade states for the square $M$-QAM signal set, denoted by $N_{M-QAM}$ is given by $$N_{M-QAM} = 4+ 8 \phi(\Delta{S}^{+})$$ where $\phi(\Delta{S}^{+})$ is the number of relative prime pairs in $\Delta{S}^{+}.$
All the possible ratios of elements from $\Delta{S}$ give singular fade states. We consider only ratios in $\Delta{S}^+$ and multiply the number of possible such ratios with a factor of 4 to account the ratios with points in all the other quadrants. To avoid multiplicity while counting we take only relative prime pairs in $\Delta{S}^+$ and one such pair $(a,b)$ gives two singular fade states $a/b$ and $b/a$. Because of this the multiplication factor becomes 8. Finally, the factor 4 is added to count the units.
For a 4-QAM signal set shown in Fig.\[fig:4qam\] the number of singular fade states, $N(z_{4-QAM})$ is given by $4+ 8.1=12$. Scaled $\Delta{S}^{+}$ have only two elements $\{1,1+j\}$ in this case as shown in Fig.\[fig:4qamdiffcons\]. They form one relatively prime pair. The singular fade states $\pm1,\pm j,\pm1\pm j,\frac{1}{\pm1\pm j}$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:4qam\_sfs\].
Elements in $\Delta{S}^{+}$ Prime factors No. of relatively prime pairs
----------------------------- --------------- -------------------------------
1 1 11
1+j 1+j 6
2 1+j 6
1+2j 1+2j 10
2+j 2+j 10
2+2j 1+j 6
3 3 10
3+j (1+j),(1+2j) 5
1+3j (1+j),(2+j) 5
3+2j 3+2j 11
2+3j 2+3j 11
3+3j (1+j),3 5
: Prime factors of Gaussian integers in $\Delta{S}^+$[]{data-label="prifactor"}
Consider the case of 16-QAM signal set. Table \[prifactor\] discusses the prime factorization of the elements in $\Delta{S}^{+}$. From the table there are 96 relatively prime pairs, but it counts the pair $(a,b)$ and $(b,a)$ separately. So there are 48 distinct pairs of relative primes, and from Lemma \[no\_sfs\_qam\], $N_{16-QAM}$ turns to be 388. The singular fade states of 16-QAM is shown in Fig.\[fig:16QAM\_sing\].
----- ---------------------- ----------------------
$M$ No. of singular fade No. of singular fade
states for $M$-PSK states for $M$-QAM
4 12 12
16 912 388
64 63,552 8388
----- ---------------------- ----------------------
: Comparison between $M$-PSK and $M$-QAM on number of singular fade states[]{data-label="comp_psk_qam"}
Singular fade states of $M$-PSK and $M$-QAM signal sets {#subsec_3_2}
-------------------------------------------------------
In this section we show that the number of singular fade states for $M$-QAM signal sets is lesser in comparison with that of $M$-PSK signal sets. The advantages of this are two fold- QAM offers better distance performance and it requires lesser number of overhead bits since the required number of relay clusterings are lesser in the case of QAM compared with PSK.
\[upper\_qam\] The number of singular fade states for $M$-QAM signal set is upper bounded by $4(n^2-n+1)$, where $n=\dfrac{[(2 \sqrt M -1)^2-1]}{4},$ which is same as $4(M^2)-(2M-1)\sqrt{M} +1).$
There are $[(2 \sqrt M -1)^2-1]$ non zero signal points in $\Delta{S}$ which are distributed equally in each quadrant, i.e., the number of signal points in $\Delta{S}^+$, $\dfrac{[(2 \sqrt M -1)^2-1]}{4}$ which we denote by $n.$ The maximum number of relatively prime pairs in a set of $n$ Gaussian integers is $\frac{n(n-1)}{2}$. Since an upper bound is of interest we substitute this in Lemma \[no\_sfs\_qam\] instead of $\phi(\Delta{S}^+).$ This completes the proof.
The number of singular fade states for $M$-QAM signal set is lesser in comparison with that of $M$-PSK signal sets. In [@VNR] it is shown that the number of singular fade states for $M$-PSK signal set is $M(\frac{M^2}{4}-\frac{M}{2}+1)$, in $\mathcal{O}(M^3)$. From Lemma \[upper\_qam\], an upper bound on the number of singular fade states for $M$-QAM is in $\mathcal{O}(M^2).$
The singular fade states of 16-PSK signal set is given in Fig.\[fig:16psk\_sing\]. There are 912 singular fade states in total.
The advantage of square QAM constellation is highly effective in higher order constellations, for example 64-QAM is having 8,388 singular fade states where as a 64-PSK has 63,552 singular fade states and relay has to adaptively use 63,552 clusterings. With the use of square QAM constellations the complexity is enormously reduced.
Exclusive Law and Latin Squares {#sec3}
===============================
[@Rod] A Latin Square L of order $M$ with the symbols from the set $\mathbb{Z}_t=\{0,1, \cdots ,t-1\}$ is an *M* $\times$ *M* array, in which each cell contains one symbol and each symbol occurs at most once in each row and column.
In [@NVR] it is shown that when the end nodes use signal sets of same size all the relay clusterings which satisfy exclusive-law can be equivalently representable by Latin Squares, with the rows (columns) indexed by the constellation point used by node A (B) and the clusterings are obtained by taking all the slots in Latin Squares which are mapped to the same symbol in one cluster.
Removing Singular fade states and Constrained Latin Squares
-----------------------------------------------------------
The minimum size of the constellations needed in the BC phase is $M,$ but it is observed that in some cases relay may not be able to remove the singular fade states with $t=M$ and $t > M$ results in severe performance degradation in the MA phase [@APT1]. Let $(k,l)(k^{\prime},l^{\prime})$ be the pairs which give same point in the effective constellation $\mathcal{S}_R$ at the relay for a singular fade state, where $k,k^{\prime},l,l^{\prime} \in \{0,1,....,M-1\}$ and $k,k^{\prime}$ are the constellation points used by node A and $l,l^{\prime}$ are the corresponding constellation points used by node B. If they are not clustered together, the minimum cluster distance will be zero. To avoid this, those pairs should be in same cluster. This requirement is termed as a [*singularity-removal constraint*]{}. So, we need to obtain Latin Squares which can remove singular fade states and with minimum value for $t.$ Towards this end, initially we fill the slots in the $\textit{M}\times\textit{M}$ array such that for the slots corresponding to a singularity-removal constraint the same element is used to fill slots. This removes that particular singular fade state. Such a partially filled Latin Square is called a [*Constrained Partially Latin Square*]{} (CPLS). After this, to make this a Latin Square, we try to fill the other slots of the CPLS with minimum number of symbols.
A Latin Square $L^T$ is said to be the Transpose of a Latin Square $L$, if $L^T(i,j)=L(j,i)$ for all $i,j \in \{0,1,2,..,M-1\}.$
For any constellation, if the Latin Square $L$ removes the singular fade state $z$ then the Latin Square $L^T$ will remove the singular fade state $z^{-1}.$
Let the singular fade state $z$ as given in with constraint $\{(x_A,x_B),(x_A^{\prime},x_B^{\prime})\}.$ Then, by taking the inverse $$\begin{aligned}
z^{-1}=\dfrac{x_B^{\prime}-x_B}{x_A-x_A^{\prime}}.\end{aligned}$$ Now the constraints are modified to $\{(x_B,x_A),(x_B^{\prime},x_A^{\prime})\},$ i.e., the role of node A and node B are interchanged, which clearly results in the transpose of the Latin Square.
From the above lemma, it is clear that we have to get Latin Squares only for singular fade states $|z| \leq 1$ or $|z| \geq 1$.
The square QAM signal set has a symmetry which is $\pi/2$ degrees of rotation. This results in a reduction of the number of required Latin Squares by a factor 4 as shown in the following lemma.
If $L$ is a Latin Square that removes a singular fade state $z$, then there exist a column permutation of $L$ such that the permuted Latin Square $L^\prime$ removes the singular fade state $z e^{j \pi/2}.$
For the singular fade state $z$ is given in with constraint $\{(x_A,x_B),(x_A^{\prime},x_B^{\prime})\}$, the singular fade state $z e^{j \pi/2}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
z e^{j \pi/2}= \dfrac{[x_A-x_A^{\prime}]}{[x_B^{\prime}-x_B]}e^{j \pi/2}\\
\Longrightarrow z e^{j \pi/2}= \dfrac{[x_A -x_A^{\prime} ]}{[x_B^{\prime}e^{-j \pi/2}-x_B e^{-j \pi/2}]}.\\\end{aligned}$$ Since in the square QAM constellation there exist signal points with $x_B^\prime e^{-j \pi/2}$ and $x_B e^{-j \pi/2}$, all the constraints are changed but the new constraints are obtainable from the permutation of signal points in the constellation used by node B. The columns of the Latin Squares are indexed by the signal points used by B and the effective permutation in the constellation is representable by column permutation in the Latin Square.
Note that the fade state $z=1$ or $(\gamma=1, \theta=0)$ is a singular fade state for any signal set.
A Latin Square which removes the singular fade state $z=1$ for a signal set is said to be a standard Latin Square for that signal set.
When the signal sets is a $2^\lambda$-PSK signal set then, in [@VNR] it has been shown that the Latin Square obtained by Exclusive-OR (XOR) is a standard Latin Square for any integer $\lambda.$ It turns out that for $M-$QAM signal sets the Latin Square given by bitwise Exclusive-Or (XOR) is not a standard Latin Square for any $M>4.$ This can be easily seen as follows: Any square $M$-QAM signal set ($M>4$) has points of the form $a, a+jb, a-jb$, for some integers $a$ and $b$. For $z=1$, the effective constellation at R during the MA phase contains the point $2a$ can result in at least two different ways, since $2a=a+za= (a+jb)+z(a-jb)$ for $z=1$. Let $ l_1, l_2$ and $l_3$ denote the labels for $a, a+jb,$ and $a-jb$ respectively. For the singular fade state $z=1,$ we have $\lbrace(l_1,l_1),(l_2,l_3) \rbrace$ as a singularity removal constraint. But the Latin Square obtained by bitwise XOR mapping does not satisfy this constraint since $l_1\oplus l_1=0 \neq l_2\oplus l_3$.
Standard Latin Square for $\sqrt M-$PAM
---------------------------------------
In this subsection, we obtain standard Latin Squares for $\sqrt M-$PAM signal sets.
An $M \times M$ Latin square in which each row is obtained by a left cyclic shift of the previous row is called a left-cyclic Latin Square.
For a $\sqrt M$-PAM signal set a left-cyclic Latin Square removes the singular fade state $z=1$.
Consider the $\sqrt M$-PAM signal set with the signal points labelled from left to right as discussed in Section \[sec2\]. Let $\{(k_1,l_1)(k_2,l_2)\}$ be a singularity removal constraint. To get the same point in the received constellation at the relay R, when $z=1,$ we have $k_1+l_1=k_2+l_2.$ Consider the following two cases satisfying this equality. Case (i): $k_2=l_1, l_2=k_1$ In this case the constraint becomes $\{(k_1,l_1)(l_1,k_1)\},$ i.e., the Latin Square which removes $z=1$ should be symmetric about main diagonal.\
Case (ii): $k_2=k_1+m, l_2=l_1-m$ for any $m \leq \sqrt M.$, The constraint now becomes $\{(k_1,l_1)(k_1+m,l_1-m)\}$ which means the symbol in $k_1$-th row and $l_1$-th column should be repeated in the $k_1+1$-th row and the $l_1-1$-th column.\
It is easily seen that a left-cyclic Latin Square satisfies both this requirements.
Consider the received constellation at the relay when the end nodes use 4-PAM constellation and let the channel condition be $z=1$ as given in Fig.\[fig:pam\_received\]. The singularity removal constraints are $$\begin{aligned}
\{(0,1)(1,0)\},~\{(0,2)(1,1)(2,0)\},~\{(0,3)(1,2)(2,1)(3,0)\}, \\ \{(1,3)(2,2)(3,1)\},~ \mbox{and} \{(2,3)(3,2)\}.\end{aligned}$$ The Latin Square which removes this singular fade state is given in Fig.\[cyclic\_LS\].
![Received Constellation at the relay for $z=1$.[]{data-label="fig:pam_received"}](pam_received.eps){width="2.5in"}
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
1 2 3 0 5 6 7 4 9 10 11 8 13 14 15 12
2 3 0 1 6 7 4 5 10 11 8 9 14 15 12 13
3 0 1 2 7 4 5 6 11 8 9 10 15 12 13 14
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0 1 2 3
5 6 7 4 9 10 11 8 13 14 15 12 1 2 3 0
6 7 4 5 10 11 8 9 14 15 12 13 2 3 0 1
7 4 5 6 11 8 9 10 15 12 13 14 3 0 1 2
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9 10 11 8 13 14 15 12 1 2 3 0 5 6 7 4
10 11 8 9 14 15 12 13 2 3 0 1 6 7 4 5
11 8 9 10 15 12 13 14 3 0 1 2 7 4 5 6
12 13 14 15 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
13 14 15 12 1 2 3 0 5 6 7 4 9 10 11 8
14 15 12 13 2 3 0 1 6 7 4 5 10 11 8 9
15 12 13 14 3 0 1 2 7 4 5 6 11 8 9 10
\[qam\_lat\]
0 1 2 3
--- --- --- ---
1 2 3 0
2 3 0 1
3 0 1 2
\[cyclic\_LS\]
Standard Latin Square for $M-$QAM
---------------------------------
In this subsection standard Latin Square for a square $M$-QAM constellation is obtained from that of $\sqrt M$-PAM constellation.
Let $PAM-i,$ for $i=1,2,\cdots, {\sqrt M},$ denote the symbol set consisting of $\sqrt M$ symbols $\{(i-1)\sqrt M, ((i-1)\sqrt M)+1, ((i-1)\sqrt M)+2,\cdots,((i-1)\sqrt M)+(\sqrt M-1)\}.$ Let $L_{PAM-i}$ denote the standard Latin Square with symbol set $PAM-i$ for $\sqrt M$-PAM and also let $L_{QAM}$ denote the standard Latin Square for $M$-QAM. Then, $L_{QAM}$ is given in terms of $L_{PAM-i},$ $i=1,2,\cdots, \sqrt M,$ as the block left-cyclic Latin Square shown in Fig. \[fig:qam\_const\]. This is formally shown in the following Lemma.
\[qam\_ls\] Let $PAM-i$ for $i=1,2,\cdots, {\sqrt M},$ denote the symbol set consisting of $\sqrt M$ symbols $\{(i-1)\sqrt M, ((i-1)\sqrt M)+1, ((i-1)\sqrt M)+2,\cdots,((i-1)\sqrt M)+(\sqrt M-1)\}$ and let $L_{PAM-i}$ stand for the Latin Square that removes the singular fade state $z=1$ with a symbol set $PAM-i$ for $\sqrt M$-PAM. Then arranging the cyclic Latin Squares $L_{PAM-i}$ as shown Fig.\[fig:qam\_const\] where each row is a blockwise left-cyclically shifted version of the previous row results in a Latin Square which removes the singular fade state $z=1$ for $M$-QAM.
Note that the matrix in Fig. \[fig:qam\_const\] is a $M \times M$ matrix, which is also a $\sqrt M \times \sqrt M$ block left-cyclic matrix where each block is a $\sqrt M \times \sqrt M$ left-cyclic matrix $L_{PAM-i}$ for some $i.$
Let $a_{1}+jb_{1}, a_{2}+jb_{2},a_{1}^{\prime}+jb_{1}^{\prime}$ and $a_{2}^{\prime}+jb_{2}^{\prime}$, where $a_{i},a_{i}^{\prime},b_{i}$ and $b_{i}^{\prime} \in \{-(\sqrt M-1),-(\sqrt M-3),\cdots,(\sqrt M-3),(\sqrt M-1)\}$ for $i \in \{1,2\}$ be four $M$-QAM constellation points such that $a_{1}+jb_{1}$ and $a_{1}^{\prime}+jb_{1}^{\prime}$ are used by node A and $a_{2}+jb_{2}$ and $a_{2}^{\prime}+jb_{2}^{\prime}$ are used by end node B, and result in a same point in the effective received constellation at the relay node for singular fade state $z=1$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
a_{1}+jb_{1}+a_{2}+jb_{2}=a_{1}^{\prime}+jb_{1}^{\prime}+a_{2}^{\prime}+jb_{2}^{\prime}.\end{aligned}$$
Let $a_{1}^{\prime}=a_1+m_1$ and $b_{1}^{\prime}=b_1+m_2$ where $m_1,m_2 \in \{-2(\sqrt M -1), -2(\sqrt M -2),\cdots,2(\sqrt M -2),2(\sqrt M -1)\}$. Then, $a_{2}^{\prime}=a_2-m_1$ and $b_{2}^{\prime}=b_2-m_2.$ Then, using the map defined in \[mumap\], let $$\begin{aligned}
k_1=\mu(a_{1}+jb_{1})\\
l_1=\mu(a_{2}+jb_{2})\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
k_2=\mu(a_{1}^{\prime}+jb_{1}^{\prime})=\mu(a_1+m_1+j(b_1+m_2))\\
l_2=\mu(a_{2}^{\prime}+jb_{2}^{\prime})=\mu(a_2-m_1+j(b_2-m_2))\end{aligned}$$ Since, for $z=1,$ the four complex numbers result in the same point in the effective constellation at the relay, $\{(k_1,l_1)(k_2,l_2)\}$ is a singularity removal constraint for $z=1.$ From the above equations it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
k_2=k_1+\frac{1}{2} (m_1 \sqrt M+m_2)\\
l_2=l_1-\frac{1}{2}(m_1 \sqrt M+m_2)\end{aligned}$$ The above equations precisely mean the construction shown in Fig.\[fig:qam\_const\]. This completes the proof.
![Construction of $L_{QAM}$ for $z=1$.[]{data-label="fig:qam_const"}](qam_const.eps){width="2.8in"}
The standard Latin Square for 16-QAM is shown in Fig.\[qam\_lat\].
We define a minimal Latin Square as,
An $M \times M$ Latin Square with $M$ symbols is termed as a minimal Latin Square.
SIMULATION RESULTS {#sec4}
==================
![SNR vs BER for different schemes when the end nodes use 16-QAM and 16-PSK for a Rayleigh fading scenario.[]{data-label="fig:rayleigh"}](Rayleigh.eps){width="3in"}
The proposed Latin Square (LS) Scheme ([@NVR]) is based on removing the singular fade states. For 16-PSK all the 912 singular fade states can be removed with minimal Latin Squares, but for 16-QAM some singular fade states cannot be removed with minimal Latin Squares. Since 16-QAM have only 388 singular fade states, in comparison with 912 singular fade states of 16-PSK, 16-QAM offers better distance distribution in the MA stage. For a given average energy, the end to end BER is a function of distance distribution of the constellations used at the end nodes as well as at the relay. The simulation results for the end to end BER as a function of SNR is presented in this section for different fading scenarios.
Consider the case when $H_A , H_B , H_{A}^{\prime}$ and $H_{B}^{\prime}$ are distributed according to Rayleigh distribution, with the variances of all the fading links are assumed to be 0 dB. The end to end BER as a function of SNR in dB when the end nodes use 16-QAM signal sets as well as 16-PSK signal sets with same average energy is given in Fig.\[fig:rayleigh\]. The end to end BER for XOR network code for 16-QAM is also given. It can be observed that the LS Scheme for 16-QAM outperforms LS Scheme for 16-PSK as well as XOR network code.
Consider the case when $H_A , H_B , H_{A}^{\prime}$ and $H_B^{\prime}$ are distributed according to Rician distribution, with the Rician factor of 5 dB and the variances of all the fading links are assumed to be 0 dB. In Fig.\[fig:rician\] the end to end BER as a function of SNR in dB for LS scheme for 16-PSK, 16-QAM and XOR network coding for 16-QAM is given. It is observed that the LS scheme gives large gain over the XOR network coding scheme. The LS scheme for QAM is better in end to end BER performance in comparison with the LS scheme for PSK.
DISCUSSION
==========
In this paper, for the design of modulation schemes for the physical layer network-coded two way relaying scenario with the protocol which employs two phases: Multiple access (MA) Phase and Broadcast (BC) phase, with both end nodes use square QAM constellation is studied. We showed that there are many advantages of using square QAM constellation. With the help of the relation between exclusive law satisfying clusterings and Latin Squares we propose a method to remove the singular fade states. This relation is used to get all the maps to be used at the relay efficiently. We proposed a construction scheme to get the Latin Square for square QAM constellation from PAM constellation. Here we concentrated only on singular fade states and the clusterings to remove that with only the minimum cluster distance under consideration. We are not considering the entire distance profile as done in [@APT1]. Unlike in the case of [@APT1], we could remove most of the singular fade states with standard Latin Square and its isotopes. We presented the simulation results showing the end to end BER performance when the end nodes use PSK constellation as well as QAM constellations.
![SNR vs BER for different schemes when the end nodes use 16-QAM and 16-PSK for a Rician fading scenario with Rician factor 5 dB. []{data-label="fig:rician"}](Ricean.eps){width="3in"}
S. Zhang, S. C. Liew and P. P. Lam, “Hot topic: Physical-layer Network Coding”,ACM MobiCom ’06, pp. 358–365, Sept. 2006.
S. J. Kim, P. Mitran and V. Tarokh, “Performance Bounds for Bidirectional Coded Cooperation Protocols”, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, Vol. 54, pp.5235–5241, Nov. 2008.
P. Popovski and H.Yomo, “Physical Network Coding in Two-Way Wireless Relay Channels”, IEEE ICC, Glasgow, Scotland, June 2007.
T.Koike-Akino, P.Popovski and V.Tarokh, “Optimized constellation for two-way wireless relaying with physical network coding”, IEEE Journal on selected Areas in Comm., Vol.27, pp. 773- - 787, June 2009.
T.Koike-Akino, P.Popovski and V.Tarokh, “Denoising strategy for convolutionally-coded bidirectional relaying”, IEEE ICC 2009, Dresden, Germany, June 2009.
B.Hern and K.Narayanan , “Multilevel Coding Schemes for Compute-and-Forward”, IEEE ISIT, St. Petersburg, Russia, July 2011.
Chris A. Rodger “Recent Results on The Embedding of Latin Squares and Related Structures, Cycle Systems and Graph Designs.”, Le Matematiche, Vol. XLVII (1992)- Fasc. II, pp. 295-311.
Douglas S. Stones, “On the Number of Latin Rectangles”, Ph.D. Thesis, Monash University, November 2009.
B. Burton, “Completion of partial latin squares”, Honours Thesis, University of Queensland, 1997.
Vishnu Namboodiri, Vijayvaradharaj Muralidharan and B. Sundar Rajan, “Wireless Bidirectional Relaying and Latin Squares,” Proceedings of IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC 2012), Paris, France, 1-4 April, 2012 (a detailed version of this paper is available in arXiv: 1110.0084v2 \[cs.IT\], 16 Nov. 2011).
Vijayvaradharaj Muralidharan, Vishnu Namboodiri, and B. Sundar Rajan, “Channel Quantization for Physical Layer Network-Coded Two-Way Relaying,” Proceedings of IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC 2012), Paris, France, 1-4 April, 2012 (a detailed version of this paper is available in arXiv: 1109.6101v2 \[cs.IT\], 16 Nov.2011).
Lee A. Butler, “ A Classification of Gaussian Primes”. Available online at the URL, “www.maths.bris.ac.uk/ malab/PDFs/2ndYearEssay.pdf”.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- 'Hiroaki Matsueda[^1]'
title: 'Comment on “Low-Temperature Magnetic Properties of the Kondo Lattice Model in One Dimension”'
---
In Ref. , incommensurate magnetic structures of the one-dimensional (1D) Kondo-lattice model were re-examined. This model has been already examined in a context of perovskite manganise oxides [@Yunoki1; @Yunoki2], but the main issue here is about the difference between the Kondo-lattice and RKKY models in a small Kondo-coupling region. The authors found collinear spin configurations as well as spiral and noncoplanar phases. In particular, the four-period collinear phase appears for a very small coupling. However this is not seen in the RKKY model, although the RKKY model can be derived from the perturbation for the coupling. The authors attributed this special situation to the energy decrease by the gap opening in the electron band dispersion. In this comment, we perform a microscopic calculation of the band structure to understand the gap opening in a case of four-period collinear spin configuration.
We start with the 1D Kondo-lattice model. The Hamiltonian is given by $$\begin{aligned}
H = -\sum_{i,j}t_{ij}c_{i}^{\dagger}c_{j} - \frac{J}{2}\sum_{i}c_{i}^{\dagger}\vec{\sigma}c_{i}\cdot\vec{S}_{i},\end{aligned}$$ where $c_{i}$ is spinor representation of an electron annihilation operator at site $i$, $\vec{S}$ is a classical vector spin with a normalization condition $\vec{S}_{i}\cdot\vec{S}_{i}=1$, $t_{ij}=t\alpha_{ij}$, and $\alpha_{ij}=\delta_{i,j+1}+\delta_{i,j-1}$. Here, the ferromagnetic Kondo coupling $J$ is introduced, and for large $J$ values this term induces ferromagnetism by the double-exchange mechanism. Here, there is no quantum dynamics for the classical spin, i.e. $[\vec{S}_{i},H]=0$.
We examine the single-particle propagator for electron. The propagator can be formally represented as $$\begin{aligned}
G(\omega,k)=\frac{1}{\omega-E(k)-\Sigma(\omega,k)},\end{aligned}$$ where $E(k)$ is the dispersion relation for non-interacting electrons and $\Sigma(\omega,k)$ is the self-energy correction. The equation of motion for the electron operator in the Heisenberg representation is given by $$\begin{aligned}
i\frac{\partial}{\partial\tau}c_{i}(\tau)=-tc_{i}^{\alpha}(\tau)-\frac{J}{2}\vec{S}_{i}\cdot\vec{\sigma}c_{i}(\tau),\end{aligned}$$ where $c^{\alpha}_{i}=\sum_{j}\alpha_{ij}c_{j}$. This equation of motion gives explicit forms of $E(k)$ and $\Sigma(\omega,k)$. The non-interacting dispersion $E(k)$ is given by $E_{\pm}(k)=-t\alpha(k)\mp(J/2)m$, where the sign $\pm$ denote the up or down spin component and $m$ is the expectation value of the local magnetic moment for the up spin. Since we will focus on the collinear spin phase, we can take $m=0$ and $E(k)=-2t\cos k$. The self-energy correction is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma(x-y)=\left(\frac{J}{2}\right)^{2}\left<R\vec{S}_{i}\cdot\vec{\sigma}c_{i}(\tau)c_{j}^{\dagger}(\tau^{\prime})\vec{\sigma}\cdot\vec{S}_{j}\right>_{I},\end{aligned}$$ where $x=(i,\tau)$ and $y=(j,\tau^{\prime})$, $R$ and $I$ denote the retarded and irreducible parts, respectively. The Fourier transform of $\Sigma$ can be represented as $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma(\omega,k)=\left(\frac{J}{2}\right)^{2}\sum_{q}\chi(q)G(\omega,k-q),\end{aligned}$$ where $\chi(q)$ is static spin susceptibility. We can thus obtain the propagator by iteration numerically, if the susceptibility is given in advance. When a particular spin correlation characterized by $q=q_{0}$ is enhanced, the correction is simply given by $\Sigma(\omega,k)=(J/2)^{2}\left(G(\omega,k-q_{0})+G(\omega,q+q_{0})\right)/2$ with $\chi(q_{0})=\chi(-q_{0})=1/2$.
The self-energy correction for double-exchange ferromagnetic case ($q=0$) is given by $\Sigma(\omega,k)=(J/2)^{2}G(\omega,k)$. In this case, the damping of the non-interacting spectrum at $\omega=E(k)$ is characterized by $\Sigma\left(\omega=E(k),k\right)=(J/2)i$, and this just gives a uniform broadening to the non-interacting dispersion. Then, the mixing gap does not open, and the simple metallic band with a finite life time remains. On the other hand, the correction for four-period states ($q=\pi/2$) is given by $\Sigma(\omega,k)=(J/2)^{2}\left(G(\omega,k-\pi/2)+G(\omega,k+\pi/2)\right)/2$, and then the momentum transfer mixes the different states, leading to the gap opening.
![Angle-resolved spectrum $A(\omega,k)=(-1/\pi)\Im G(\omega+i\epsilon,k)$ for $J=0.25t$ and $\epsilon=0.05t$.[]{data-label="fig1"}](snct62fig1.eps){width="6.5cm"}
We perform a self-consistent calculation to obtain the imaginary part of this propagator. Figure \[fig1\] shows the angle-resolved spectrum for $J=0.25t$. We actually observe the gap at around $k=\pm\pi/4$, and the system is insulating for $1/4$-filling. The gap size is roughly $J$, and thus the perturbation approach breaks out even for infinitesimal $J$ values. We have also observed the gap at $k=\pm 3\pi/4$, which is also consistent with Ref. .
It is important to see how electrons are dressed with spin fluctuation to form the gapped band structure. For this purpose, let us consider the equations of motion for higher-order composite excitations. The second-order equation of motion is given by $$\begin{aligned}
i\frac{\partial}{\partial\tau}\vec{S}_{i}\cdot\vec{\sigma}c_{i}(\tau) = -t\vec{S}_{i}\cdot\vec{\sigma}c_{i}^{\alpha}(\tau) - \frac{J}{2}c_{i}(\tau),\end{aligned}$$ and the third-order equation is also given by $$\begin{aligned}
i\frac{\partial}{\partial\tau}\vec{S}_{i}\cdot\vec{\sigma}c_{i}^{\alpha}(\tau) &=& -2t\vec{S}_{i}\cdot\vec{\sigma}c_{i}(\tau) - t\vec{S}_{i}\cdot\vec{\sigma}c_{i}^{\alpha^{\prime}}(\tau) \nonumber \\
&& -\frac{J}{2}\vec{S}_{i}\cdot\vec{\sigma}\bigl(\vec{S}_{i}\cdot\vec{\sigma}c_{i}(\tau)\bigr)^{\alpha},\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_{ij}^{\prime}=\delta_{i,j-2}+\delta_{i,j+2}$. The equation of motion for $\vec{S}\cdot\vec{\sigma}c^{\alpha^{\prime}}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
i\frac{\partial}{\partial\tau}\vec{S}_{i}\cdot\vec{\sigma}c_{i}^{\alpha^{\prime}}(\tau) &=& -t\vec{S}_{i}\cdot\vec{\sigma}c_{i}^{\alpha}(\tau) - t\vec{S}_{i}\cdot\vec{\sigma}c_{i}^{\alpha^{\prime\prime}}(\tau) \nonumber \\
&& - \frac{J}{2}\vec{S}_{i}\cdot\vec{\sigma}\bigl(\vec{S}_{i}\cdot\vec{\sigma}c_{i}(\tau)\bigr)^{\alpha^{\prime}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_{ij}^{\prime\prime}=\delta_{i,j-3}+\delta_{i,j+3}$.
According to the equations of motion, the relevant basis states are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\psi=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\psi^{1} \\
\psi^{2} \\
\psi^{3} \\
\psi^{4} \\
\psi^{5} \\
\psi^{6} \\
\psi^{7} \\
\vdots
\end{array}
\right)
=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
c \\
\vec{S}\cdot\vec{\sigma}c \\
\vec{S}\cdot\vec{\sigma}c^{\alpha} \\
\vec{S}\cdot\vec{\sigma}c^{\alpha^{\prime}} \\
\vec{S}\cdot\vec{\sigma}\bigl(\vec{S}\cdot\vec{\sigma}c\bigr)^{\alpha} \\
\vec{S}\cdot\vec{\sigma}c^{\alpha^{\prime\prime}} \\
\vec{S}\cdot\vec{\sigma}\bigl(\vec{S}\cdot\vec{\sigma}c\bigr)^{\alpha^{\prime}} \\
\vdots
\end{array}
\right).\end{aligned}$$ The single-particle propagator $G(\omega,k)$ is defined as the Fourier transform of the $(1,1)$-component of the retarded propagator matrix $\mathcal{G}(x-y)=\bigl<R\psi(x)\psi^{\dagger}(y)\bigr>$. The Fourier transform of $\mathcal{G}(x-y)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{G}(\omega,k)=I(k)\frac{1}{\omega I-M(k)-\delta M(\omega,k)}I(k).\end{aligned}$$ The normalization matrix $I$, energy matrix $M$, and dynamical correction $\delta M$ are respectively given by $$\begin{aligned}
&& I(x-y)=\delta(\tau-\tau^{\prime})\left<\left\{\psi(x),\psi^{\dagger}(y)\right\}\right>, \\
&& M(x-y)=\delta(\tau-\tau^{\prime})\left<\left\{i\frac{\partial}{\partial\tau}\psi(x),\psi^{\dagger}(y)\right\}\right>, \\
&& \delta M(x-y)=\left<R i\frac{\partial}{\partial\tau}\psi(x) \left(i\frac{\partial}{\partial\tau}\psi(y)\right)^{\dagger}\right>_{I}.\end{aligned}$$ They are Hermitian matrices, $I=I^{\dagger}$, $M=M^{\dagger}$, and $\delta M=\delta M^{\dagger}$, respectively.
We evaluate the first $4\times 4$-compoments of $I$ and $M$. For the four-period collinear spin case ($\uparrow\uparrow\downarrow\downarrow\uparrow\uparrow\downarrow\downarrow\cdots, q=\pi/2$), we can take $\bigl<\vec{S}_{i}\cdot\vec{S}_{i+n}\bigr>=\Re e^{i\pi n/2}$ ($n=0,1,2,3$). We find $$\begin{aligned}
&& I^{11}(k) = I^{22}(k) = 1 \; , \; I^{33}(k) = 2\left(1-\cos(2k)\right) , \\
&& I^{24}(k) = I^{42}(k) = -2\cos(2k) , \\
&& I^{44}(k)= 2\left(1+\cos(4k)\right) ,\end{aligned}$$ (the other components are all zero) and $$\begin{aligned}
&& M^{1a}(k) = -t\alpha(k)I^{1a}(k) - \frac{J}{2}I^{2a}(k) , \\
&& M^{2a}(k) = -tI^{3a}(k) - \frac{J}{2}I^{1a}(k) , \\
&& M^{3a}(k) = -2tI^{2a}(k) -tI^{4a}(k) - \frac{J}{2}I^{5a}(k) , \\
&& M^{44}(k) = -tI^{34}(k) - tI^{64}(k) - \frac{J}{2}I^{74}(k) ,\end{aligned}$$ where $a=1,2,3,4$ and $I^{53}=I^{54}=I^{64}=I^{74}=0$. Note that higher-order anti-commutation relations induce several chirality operators such as $\gamma_{i}=\vec{S}_{i-1}\cdot\vec{S}_{i}\times\vec{S}_{i+1}=\epsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda}S_{i-1}^{\mu}S_{i}^{\nu}S_{i+1}^{\lambda}$, and they should have locally finite amplitudes in the incommensurate phase. However, their averages are zero, and basically they do not change the dispersion.
The unrenormalized bands before their mixing due to the off-diagonal matrix elements can be defined by $\epsilon_{\mu}(k)=M^{\mu\mu}(k)/I^{\mu\mu}(k)$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_{1}(k)=-t\alpha(k) \; , \; \epsilon_{2}(k)=\epsilon_{3}(k)=\epsilon_{4}(k)=0 .\end{aligned}$$ We find that the unrenormalized bands are all flat except for $\epsilon_{1}(k)$. Since the off-diagonal coupling is momentum-dependent, the mixing rule is somehow special. At $k=\pi/4$, we find that the primary band couples with only two composite bands, since $I^{44}$ becomes zero as $$\begin{aligned}
I(\pi/4)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0\\0&0&2&0\\0&0&0&0\end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$ This feature protects the broadening of the gap by much higher-order contributions. In this case, the propagator matrix is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{G}(\omega,\pi/4)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\omega+\sqrt{2}t&J/2&0\\J/2&\omega&t\\0&t&\omega/2\end{array}\right)^{-1}, \label{mathcalG}\end{aligned}$$ and the two main poles across the gap for $J=0.25t$ are located at $\omega=-1.51t$ and $\omega=-1.33t$. Their energy difference is $0.18t$ roughly comparable with the $J$ value. If we only use two poles, the gap size is highly overestimated. This is because that the off-diagonal coupling between $\psi^{2}$ and $\psi^{3}$ in Eq. (\[mathcalG\]) is of order $t$.
Summarizing, we have examined the detailed band structure of the 1D Kondo lattice model. For the four-period collinear spin configuration, the band gap opens owing to the mixing among primary and higher-order composite bands. This feature brings some trouble to a simple perturbation approach.
[99]{}
Sorato Minami and Hikaru Kawamura, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**84**]{}, 044702 (2015). S. Yunoki, J. Hu, A. L. Malvezzi, A. Moreo, N. Furukawa, and E. Dagotto, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 845 (1998). Seiji Yunoki and Adriana Moreo, Phys. Rev. B [**58**]{}, 6403 (1998).
[^1]: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We model the effects of shocks on the diffuse, X-ray emitting baryons in clusters of galaxies. Shocks separate the infalling from the inner gas nearly at equilibrium, and dominate the compression and the density gradients of the latter in the dark-matter potential of the cluster. We find that, independently of the detailed shape of the potential, the density gradient is steeper and the compression factor larger for the richer clusters. We show, considering the different merging histories, that in the hierarchical cosmogony the above effects lead, in X-rays, to a luminosity-temperature relation $L\propto T^5$ at the scale of groups which flattens down to $L\propto T^{3}$ for rich clusters in accord with the observations, and then saturates toward $L\propto T^2$ for higher temperatures. From the merging histories we also compute statistical fluctuations of the $L-T$ correlation.'
author:
- 'A. Cavaliere'
- 'N. Menci'
- 'P. Tozzi'
title: |
The Luminosity-Temperature Relation\
for Groups and Clusters of Galaxies
---
Introduction
============
The X-ray emission from clusters of galaxies enables direct probing of gravitationally bound and virialized regions with virial radii $R_v$ of a few Mpcs, comprising total masses $M\sim 10^{15} M_{\odot}$ mostly in dark matter (DM hereafter).
On the one hand, the X-ray temperature $T\propto GM/R_v$ measures the depth of the potential wells. On the other hand, the bolometric luminosity $L\propto
n^2\,R_X^3\,T^{1/2}$ emitted as thermal bremsstrahlung by the intracluster plasma measures the baryon number density $n$ within the volume $R_X^3$. The $L-T$ relation constitutes a crucial [*link*]{} between the physics of the baryon component and the dynamical properties of the DM condensations.
The simplest model describing the former holds $n$ to be proportional to the average DM density $\rho$, and $R_X$ to $R_v$, so that $ n \propto \rho\propto M/R_v^3$ obtains (self-similar model, hereafter SS, Kaiser 1986). If so, the luminosity would scale as $L\propto \rho^{1/2}\,T^2$, which is inconsistent with the observed correlation close to $L\propto T^3$ (Edge & Stewart 1991; Mushotzky 1994; Tsuru et al. 1996). Further steepening at the temperatures of galaxy groups is indicated for the emission not associated with single galaxies (Ponman et al. 1996). In addition, the SS model when combined with the standard hierarchical cosmogony (see Peebles 1993) yields for the clusters a local X-ray luminosity function too steep or too high compared with the data (Evrard & Henry 1991; Oukbir, Bartlett & Blanchard 1996).
So the indication is that the ratio $n/\rho$ is to depend on $M$ or $T$. It will be convenient to write the volume–averaged $n^2$ in terms of two factors: the compression factor $g(T)\geq 1$, describing the gas overdensity relative to the outer value at the “boundary”, taken here to be at $R_v$ as discussed in §3; and the inner shape factor $I(R_v,T)\equiv R_v^{-3}\int_0^{R_v}\,
d^3 {\bf{r}}\; n^2 (r,T)/ n^2(R_v,T)$, with the main contribution coming from inside $R_X$. The result is: $$L~ \propto ~g^2(T)\,I(R_v,T)\,R_v^3\,T^{1/2}\,\rho^{2}~\propto~
g^2(T)\;I(R_v,T)\;T^2\,\rho^{1/2}~,$$ where the last term follows from expressing $R_v$ from $T\propto M/R_v\propto \rho\,R_v^2$. To obtain the [*average*]{} $L-T$ relation to be compared with data, the factor $g^2(T)$ in eq. (1) has to be averaged over the cluster histories, as we carry out in §2.3.
So, the difference of eq. (1) from the SS model has been factored out into the terms $g^2(T)$ and $I(R_v,T)$, which are determined by the hydro- and thermodynamics of the gas in the forming cluster wells. At $z\gtrsim 1$ the gas is expected to be [*preheated*]{} by feedback effects of star formation: injections of energy of stellar origin like Supernova winds eject the gas from the shallower potential wells, and heat the residual and the ejected gas to temperatures $T_1\lesssim 10^7~K$ (Dekel & Silk 1986; Kaiser 1991; Ciotti et al. 1991; David et al. 1993, 1995; Cavaliere, Colafrancesco & Menci 1993). In addition, preheating is necessary to prevent too short cooling times (as pointed out by Cole 1991, and addressed by Blanchard, Valls Gabaud & Mamon 1992; see also White & Rees 1978) in early potential wells, shallower on average but containing denser gas. Subsequent evolution will lead to an increasing recovery of the universal baryonic fraction (White et al. 1993).
Previous attempts (Kaiser 1991; Evrard & Henry 1991) to tackle the $L-T$ relation are based on the [*extreme*]{} assumption that the gas inside the X-ray core $R_X$ is preheated but never subsequently shocked or mixed. Here we discuss the [*other*]{} extreme, i.e., the effects of shocks and mixing on the gas density inside clusters.
The Shock Model
===============
As in the collapses the gas velocity becomes supersonic, shock fronts form at about $R_v$, and separate the infalling from the inner gas already at virial temperatures. In fact, numerical simulations (see Evrard 1990; Takizawa & Mineshige 1997) of isotropic collapses show that, when the outer gas temperature is appreciably lower than the virial value $T$, a spherical shock front forms and, in the vicinity of $R_v$, slowly expands outwards leaving the gas nearly at rest and with a nearly flat temperature profile. When realistic, [*anisotropic*]{} collapses are considered (Navarro et al. 1996, Tormen 1996) shock fronts still form and convert into heat most of the hydrodynamical energy (Schindler & Müller 1993; Schindler & Böhringer 1993; Röttiger, Burnes, & Loken 1993).
Across the shock the gas entropy rises, and correspondingly a jump in the gas density and in the temperature is established from the exterior values $ n_1$, $T_1$ to the interior ones $ n_2$, $T_2$. The density jump provides a [*boundary*]{} condition for the inner gas distribution in the form of the compression factor $g(T_2/T_1)\equiv n_2/ n_1$. In addition, the interior temperature $T_2$ governs, at equilibrium in a given gravitational potential, the inner density [*profile*]{} and hence the shape factor $I(R_v,T)$. These two effects enter eq. (1) for $L$, and will be discussed in turn.
The Compression Factor
-----------------------
The values of $ n_2$, $T_2$ and of the interior gas velocity $v_2$ are related to their outer counterparts $ n_1$, $T_1$ and $v_1$ by the requirements of mass, momentum and energy conservation across the shock. The plasma behaves as a perfect gas with three degrees of freedom, and the Hugoniot adiabat (see Landau & Lifshitz 1959) yields the compression factor $$g\Big({T_2\over T_1}\Big) =
2\,\Big(1-{T_1\over T_2}\Big)+\Big[4\,
\Big(1-{T_1\over T_2}\Big)^2 + {T_1\over T_2}\Big]^{1/2}~.$$ For strong shocks with $T_2\gg T_1$, this saturates to the value $g =4$, while for $T_2\rightarrow
T_1$ it attains its lowest value $g=1$.
The pre-shock temperature $T_1$ is provided by the stellar (thermonuclear) energy feedbacks recalled in §1, or by the virial (gravitational) temperature inside the clumps which are to merge with the cluster during its merging history considered below. In fact, the stellar feedbacks set for $T_1$ the lower bound $T_{1*}$ which we identify with the lowest temperatures (around $0.5$ keV, Ponman et al. 1996) measured in groups.
Pre-shock temperatures of this order do not affect the rich clusters; instead, they affect the compression factor in the shallower potential wells with $T\sim 1$ keV, as prevail at redshifts $z\gtrsim 1$ but are also present at $z\simeq 0$. The full behavior of $g(T_2/T_1)$ in shown by the dashed line in fig. 1 when $T_1=T_{1*}$ and the latter is in the range $0.5-0.8$ keV. The actual values of $T_1$ will be discussed in §2.3, taking into account the merging histories.
The Gas Disposition
--------------------
The post-shock temperature $T_2$ can be calculated from the pre-shock velocity $v_1$. The latter is driven by the gravitational potential $V(r)$, and reads $v_1 = [-\alpha\,V(R_v)/m_p]^{1/2}$ with $\alpha = 2[1-V(R_{m})/V(R_v)]$. Here $R_{m}$ is the radius where infall becomes nearly free; its upper bound is obtained by equating the Hubble flow to the free-fall velocity, which yields $\alpha\approx 1.4$. The post-shock condition is closely hydrostatic, i.e., $v_2 \ll v_1$, as shown by the simulations. Then, using the equations in Landau & Lifshitz (1959) with the above value of $v_1$, we find $$kT_2\simeq -{\alpha \over 3}\,V(R_v)+ {7\over 8}\,kT_1~.$$
The inner gas profile relative to that of DM, $\rho (r)$ say, is governed at equilibrium by the scale-height ratio $\beta\equiv \mu\,m_p\sigma_r^2/kT_2$, where $\mu\approx 0.6$ is the gas mean molecular weight, $m_p$ the proton mass, and $\sigma_r$ the one–dimensional velocity dispersion of the DM. The profile $$n(r) \propto [\rho(r)]^{\beta(T)}$$ (Cavaliere & Fusco-Femiano 1976), applies for a nearly flat $T(r)\approx $ const $\approx T_2$.
The function $\beta (T)$ entering the profile (4) is easily computed from eq. (3), for a given DM potential V(r) corresponding to $\rho(r)$. For the King potential (see Sarazin 1988) $V(r)=-9\, \mu m_p\, \sigma_r^2r_c\,ln[(r/r_c)+(1+r^2/r_c^2)^{1/2}]/r$ with the core radius $r_c = R_v/12$, we obtain $\beta(T)$ increasing somewhat from the value $\beta\approx 0.5$ for $T\approx T_1$ to $\beta \approx 0.9$ for $T\gg T_1$. A similar result obtains using the potential proposed by Navarro et al. (1996). These two instances are illustrated in fig. 2, and demonstrate that in all cases the static gas density profile is [*shallower*]{} for lower $T$ clusters.
$L-T$ from Merging Histories
----------------------------
For a given $T_1$ the compression factor $g$ is computed after eq. (2), and the shape factor $I(R,T)$ is obtained by integration of $ n^2(r)$ computed after eq. (4); then the $L-T$ relation may be obtained from eq. (1). But $T_1$ depends on the thermal conditions of the infalling gas, which is preheated by Supernovae and [*further*]{} heated through virialization inside merging clumps.
In the former case, we take $T_1=T_{1*}=0.5 - 0.8$ keV with a flat distribution, and obtain for $g^2$ the dashed line in fig. 1. In the latter case, repeated merging events introduce fluctuations of $T_1$ above $T_{1*}$, and hence of the interior density $n_2$, which modify $g^2$. The average effect is shown by the solid line in fig. 1, and the corresponding variance is illustrated by the shaded area.
To include both conditions, we take $T_1$ to be the [*higher*]{} between the preheating value $T_{1*}$ and the virial temperatures prevailing in the clumps accreted by the cluster. We perform a statistical convolution of the $L-T$ relation over such merging histories, using Monte Carlo realizations of hierarchical merging trees of dark halos as introduced by Cole (1991). The code, written by one of us (P.T.), is based directly on the excursion set approach of Bond et al. (1991) to the mass distribution.
For each merging event concerning a cluster with a current virial temperature $T'$, we compute $g(T'/T_1)$ for the clumps being accreted, weighted with the associated mass fraction. We show in fig. 1 the quantity $\langle g^2\rangle$ averaged over the histories ending into a cluster of temperature $T$, along with its dispersion. These two quantities are used in eq. (1) to predict the average $L-T$ correlation and its scatter. The results are shown in fig. 3, for the DM potential of Navarro et al. 1996; a different $V(r)$, like King’s, only steepens somewhat the low-$T$ behavior.
Results and Discussion
======================
Here we have proposed a model for the intracluster gas, to capture in a simple way one essential component of the complex gravitational systems constituted by groups and clusters. The model is focused on the formation of [*shocks*]{} between the the gas nearly in equilibrium with the cluster potential, and the infalling one. The latter is preheated by the release of thermonuclear energy, or by the gravitational energy in subclusters. Shock heating and compression determine the $L-T$ relation.
The latter comprises both clusters and small groups in a single dependence, which smoothly [*flattens*]{} from $L\propto T^5$ (for groups with $T\lesssim 2$ keV), to $L\propto T^{3.5}$ (for clusters with 2 keV$\lesssim T\lesssim$7 keV), toward $L\propto T^2$ (for higher $T$). Such behavior fits both the cluster data (Edge & Stewart 1991) and those for groups (Ponman et al. 1996) which – if considered separately – would require a much steeper $L-T$ relation. Correspondingly, the volume-averaged baryonic fraction grows by a factor around 3 from small groups to rich clusters, but remains within 1.3 times the universal value.
In addition, we predict the gas density profiles to have a flat central region (the gas “core”, see fig. 2), independently of the detailed shape of the DM potential; the profiles are actually [*steeper*]{} for larger virial temperatures. Correspondingly, the size $R_X$ of the X-ray core (defined, e.g., at one half the integrated emission) grows with mass slower than $M^{1/3}$. The average cooling time within $R_X$ exceedes the Hubble time out to $z\approx 2$, differently from the SS model.
We have checked that these results [*persist*]{} when we relax the approximation of a flat temperature profile in the cluster, and adopt instead a polytropic distribution with index $\gamma$ ranging from $1$ to $5/3$; for For $\gamma >1$ the temperature declines from the center toward the shock position.
In time, the shocked region expands and outgrows $R_v$, the infall velocity decreases, and the shock weakens with $T_2$ approaching $T_1$. However, this occurs only over several dynamical times as shown by the N-body simulations (see Takizawa & Mineshige 1997); meanwhile, the shock positions remain close to $R_v$, as taken here.
We do not stress, instead, the $z$-dependence $(1+z)^{1.5}$ of the normalization provided by the factor $\rho ^{1/2}(z)$ appearing in eq. (1). In fact, such dependence is easily swamped by the place-to-place variations of $n_1$ and by the systematic increase in contrast of the large scale structures hosting groups and clusters (see Ramella, Geller, & Huchra 1992).
The robust predictions of the shock model do not require spherical symmetry, but only a small bulk velocity of the inner gas compared to $(GM/m_p\, R_v)^{1/2}$. Thus the model includes [*anisotropic*]{}, recurrent merging with other clumps of dark and baryonic matter.
The effects of extreme merging events are as follows. The few events involving [*comparable*]{} subclusters reshuffle the baryonic content and mix its entropy, but only moderatly affect temperature and density. At the other extreme, the more isotropic accretion to a cluster of many [*small*]{} condensations [*gravitationally*]{} heated at temperatures $T_1\approx 1$ keV yields the highest compression and the largest contribution to the X-ray luminosity. Our [*Monte Carlo*]{} simulations span the range between these extremes.
The stellar preheating at $T_{1*}$ of the external gas is essential to provide a lower limit for $T_1$. This ensures that the accreting gas, even when in a very shallow well or in a diffuse state, starts on a relatively high adiabat, corresponding to $T_{1*}=0.5 - 0.8$ keV. Such a heating of [*thermonuclear*]{} origin breaks down the otherwise self-similar form $n/\rho=$cost of the ratio of gas to DM density to yield, at the boundary, the form $n/\rho\propto g(T/T_1)$ shown in fig. 1. Values of $T_{1*}$ smaller than 0.5 keV would lead, in a strictly self-similar evolution of DM halos, to $L\propto T^2$ at variance with the data; larger values to a severe depletion of the gas and of the luminosities in groups and clusters.
The merging histories also produce the considerable scatter in the $L-T$ relation shown in fig.3, since the different virial temperatures of the stochastically merging clumps induce intrinsic variance in the internal density $n_2$. Further scatter may be contributed by the vagaries in the ambient density $n_1$, and by the possible lack of dynamical equilibrium in some groups, see discussion by Governato, Tozzi & Cavaliere 1996.
The shock model in the simple form presented here applies to the gas settled to equilibrium after each dynamical perturbation. This takes sound propagation times, somewhat shorter than the dynamical timescale taken anyway by the DM to adjust to equilibrium (Tormen 1996). The residual converging motions, even in spherical N-body simulations (Takizawa & Mineshige 1997), tend to balance the expansion of the shocked region to yield only small net velocities $v_2\approx 100$ km/s. These may be associated with some adiabatic compression of the central regions, but the resulting heating is only mild, as long as shocks form at radii of order $R_v$.
The other extreme is tackled by the model proposed by Kaiser (1991) and refined by Evrard & Henry (1991). This assumes that, after preheating, the central cluster region visible in X-rays contains the same gas (about 10 % of the present total) engaged in a smooth adiabatic compression. However, we find only $5\%$ of the largest single progenitors to have masses (DM and hence gas) exceeding $10\%$ of the present values at $z\geq 1.5$, when most stellar preheating takes place. On the other hand, N-body simulations (see refs. in §2) and observations (see Zabludoff & Zaritsky 1995) show that each cluster history includes a few merging events between comparable structures, which will reset the core gas to a higher adiabat.
The adiabatic model (with preheating) predicts a single, scale-free relation $L\propto T^{3.5}$, or $L\propto T^3$ if the gas equilibrium holds out to $R_v$ as in Evrard & Henry (1991). However, on the largest scales that ought to sample fairly the universal baryonic fraction (White et al. 1993) one expects saturation toward the scaling $L\propto T^2$ of the SS model; in addition , at the group scales a much steeper dependence is indicated by observations. Such opposite departures of the $L-T$ correlation from a single power-law are beyond the reach of the adiabatic model, but within the predictions of the shock model.
The model we propose leads (Cavaliere, Menci, Tozzi 1997) to a local luminosity function $N(L, z=0)$ in agreement with the data, and to $N(L,z)$ with the mild or no evolution shown by recent data, and confirmed by the deep X-ray counts.
We acknowledge informative discussions with M. Ramella, the helpful comments of the referee, and grants from MURST and ASI.
Blanchard, A., Valls-Gabaud, D., & Mamon, G. 1992, , 264, 365 Bond, J.R., Cole, S., Efstathiou, G., & Kaiser, N. 1991, , 379, 440 Cavaliere, A., Colafrancesco, S., & Menci, N. 1993, , 415, 50 Cavaliere, A, & Fusco Femiano, R. 1976, , 49,137 Cavaliere, A., Menci, N., & Tozzi, P. 1997, in preparation Ciotti, L., D’Ercole, A., Pellegrini, S., & Renzini, A. 1991, , 376, 380 Cole, S. 1991, , 367, 45 David, L.P., Slyz, A., Jones, C., Forman, W., Vrtilek, S.D., & Arnaud, K.A. 1993, , 412, 479 David, L.P., Jones, C., & Forman, W. 1995, , 445, 578 Dekel, A., & Silk, J. 1986, , 303, 39 Edge, A.C., & Stewart, G.C. 1991, , 252, 414 Evrard, A.E. 1990, , 363, 349 Evrard, A.E., Henry, J.P. 1991, , 383, 95 Governato, F., Tozzi, P., & Cavaliere, A. 1996, , 458, 18 Kaiser, N. 1991, , 383, 104 Landau, L.D., Lifshitz, E.M. 1959, [*Fluid Mechanics*]{} (London: Pergamon Press), p. 329-331 Mushotzky, R.F. 1994, in [*Clusters of Galaxies*]{}, eds. F. Durret, A. Mazure, Tran Tahn Van J. (Gif-sur-Yvette: Ed. Frontières), 177 Navarro, J.F., Frenk, C.S., & White, S.D.M. 1996, preprint \[astro-ph/9611107\] Oukbir, J., Bartlett, J.G., Blanchard, A . 1996, preprint \[astro-ph/9611089\] Peebles, P.J.E. 1993, [*Principles of Physical Cosmology*]{} (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press) Ponman, T.J., Bourner, P.D.J., Ebeling, H., Böhringer, H. 1996, preprint Ramella, M., Geller, M.J., & Huchra, J.P. 1992, , 384, 396 Röttiger, K., Burnes, J., Loken, C. 1993, , 457, L53 Sarazin, C.L. 1988, [*X-ray Emission from Clusters of Galaxies*]{} (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) Schindler, S., Böhringer, H. 1993, , 269, 83 Schindler, S., & Müller, E. 1993, , 272 137 Takizawa, M., & Mineshige, S. 1997, preprint \[astro/ph 9702047\] Tormen, G. 1996, , in press \[astro-ph/9611078\] Tsuru, T. et al. 1996, in [*The 11th Int. Coll. on UV and X-ray Spectroscopy of Astrophysical and Laboratory Plasmas*]{}, eds. Watanabe, T., Yamashita, K., in press White, M., Viana, T.P., Liddle, A.R., & Scott, D. 1996, , 283, 107 White, S.D.M., & Rees, M. 1978, , 183, 341 White, S.D.M., Navarro, J.F., Evrard, A.E., & Frenk, C.S. 1993, , 366, 429 Zabludoff, H.I. & Zaritsky, D. 1995, , 447, L21
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The middle-aged supernova remnant (SNR) N49B in the Large Magellanic Cloud has been observed with the [*Chandra X-Ray Observatory*]{}. The superb angular resolution of [*Chandra*]{} resolves the complex structure of X-ray emitting filaments across the SNR. All observed features are soft ($E <$ 3 keV) and we find no evidence for either point-like or extended hard emission within the SNR. Spectral lines from O, Ne, Mg, Si, S, and Fe are present. Equivalent width images for the detected elemental species and spatially-resolved spectral analysis reveal the presence of Mg-rich ejecta within the SNR. We find no such enrichment in O or Ne, which may reflect details of the nucleosynthesis process or the heating and cooling of the ejecta as it evolved. The bright circumferential filaments are emission from the shocked dense interstellar medium (ISM). We detect faint diffuse X-ray emission that extends beyond the X-ray bright filaments toward the west and southeast. These features appear to be the blast wave shock front expanding into lower density portions of the ISM seen in projection. We set an upper limit of $\sim$$2\times 10^{33}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ on the 0.5 $-$ 5 keV band X-ray luminosity of any embedded compact object.'
author:
- 'Sangwook Park, John P. Hughes, Patrick O. Slane, David N. Burrows, Jessica S. Warren, Gordon P. Garmire, and John A. Nousek'
title: 'Detection of Magnesium-Rich Ejecta in the Middle-Aged Supernova Remnant N49B'
---
\[sec:intro\] INTRODUCTION
==========================
N49B (0525$-$66.0) is a supernova remnant (SNR) in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), which is located $\sim$6$\farcm$5 northwest of N49, another bright LMC SNR [@milne72]. In the optical band, N49B consists of two irregular-shaped knots, separated by $\sim$1$\farcm$4 [@mathewson83]; spatially variable extinction is present around this SNR. The [*Einstein*]{}/HRI and [*ROSAT*]{}/HRI data revealed a nearly circular X-ray morphology encompassing the optical knots [@mathewson83; @williams99]. Radio data also showed a circular morphology and a steep radio spectral index ($\alpha$ $\sim$ $-$0.7 where $S_\nu\propto \nu^\alpha$), typical for shell-type SNRs [@dickel98]. Chu & Kennicutt (1988) suggested a Population I progenitor for N49B based on its proximity to the H[II]{} region DEM 181 and a possible association with a molecular cloud [@cohen88].
The [*ASCA*]{} spectrum of N49B was described with a nonequilibrium ionization (NEI) Sedov model with [*kT*]{} $\sim$ 0.4 keV [@hughes98]. The fitted metal abundances were consistent with the LMC interstellar medium (ISM), although there was evidence for a slightly enhanced Mg abundance. The measured X-ray absorbing column ($\sim$2.5 $\times$ 10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$) was in agreement with the H[I]{} column toward N49B ($\sim$$2 \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$) [@heiles79; @mcgee66]. This relatively high column, as compared with other LMC SNRs, supports N49B’s physical association with a moderately dense ISM ($n_0$ $\sim$ 0.8 cm$^{-3}$ and swept-up mass of $\sim$560 $M_{\odot}$; Hughes et al. \[1998\]). A discrepancy between the ionization and dynamical ages ($\sim$3 kyr vs. $\sim$10 kyr) was attributed to the SN explosion having occurred in a pre-existing interstellar cavity [@hughes98]. [*Einstein*]{} and [*ROSAT*]{} images revealed the broadband X-ray structure of N49B down to $\sim$5$^{\prime\prime}$ angular scales. [*ASCA*]{} data provided an integrated spectrum, but to date spatially-resolved spectroscopy has been impossible because of the poor angular resolution of [*ASCA*]{} and the small angular size of N49B. The superb angular resolution of the [ *Chandra X-Ray Observatory*]{} allows us to resolve the complex structure of N49B with good photon statistics and spectral resolution. Here we report results from high resolution image and spatially-resolved spectral analyses of the [*Chandra*]{} observation of N49B.
\[sec:obs\] OBSERVATION & DATA REDUCTION
========================================
N49B was observed with the Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer (ACIS) on board [*Chandra*]{} on 2001 September 15 as part of the Guaranteed Time Observation program. The ACIS-S3 chip was chosen to utilize the best sensitivity and energy resolution of the detector in the soft X-ray band. The pointing was toward the X-ray centroid of N49B ($\alpha$$_{2000}$ = 05$^{h}$ 25$^{m}$ 26$^{s}$.04, $\delta$$_{2000}$ = $-$65$^{\circ}$ 59$'$ 06$\farcs$9) with the aim point shifted by 245 detector pixels ($\sim$2$'$) from the nominal aim point on S3 in order to simultaneously observe the nearby LMC SNR N49 on the same CCD chip as well. Results from the analysis of the N49 data are presented elsewhere [@park03].
We utilized the data reduction techniques developed by Townsley et al. (2002a) for correcting the spatial and spectral degradation of the ACIS data caused by radiation damage, the charge transfer inefficiency (CTI; Townsley et al. 2000). We screened the data with the flight timeline filter and then applied the CTI correction before further standard screening by status and grade. There is no significant photon flux from N49B at $E$ $\ga$ 3 keV (above background), thus we only use X-rays with $E$ $<$ 3 keV in the subsequent analysis. The overall lightcurve was examined for possible contamination from time-variable background. The background flux is relatively high (by a factor of 2) for the last 10% of the exposure. We have excluded the 4 ks time interval affected by this flare. This data reduction results in effective exposure of 30.2 ks which yields 143,000 photons in the 0.3$-$3 keV band from the SNR within a 1$\farcm$4 radius region.
\[sec:image\] X-RAY IMAGES
==========================
Figure \[fig:fig1\] is the broadband ACIS image of N49B. The ACIS image reveals X-ray filamentary structures down to subarcsec angular scales. The outermost and faintest X-ray emission traces a roughly circular boundary ($\sim$1$\farcm$4 radius). The brightest parts of the circumferential filaments (notably along the southwest, west, north, and northeast) appear to be flattened. The surface brightness of the complex filamentary structures in the middle of the eastern side is nearly as high as at the bright rims. Elsewhere in the interior the emission is more than an order of magnitude fainter than at the rim. The faint radio shell that extends toward the west [@dickel98], which has not been seen in previous X-ray observations, is detected beyond the bright X-ray filament in the west (Figure \[fig:fig1\]). This X-ray “double-shell” structure in the west, as well as the faint outermost “plateau” of emission toward the southeast, may be projection effects of the shock propagating into low density regions of the ISM, with the bright filaments corresponding to regions where dense ISM has been encountered (more discussion in §\[sec:disc\]).
The surface brightness distribution of N49B is dominated by X-ray emission below 3 keV and we find no evidence for an embedded hard point source or diffuse synchrotron nebula. We do detect spectral variations across the SNR: emission from the northeast is softer with a larger relative flux at $E$ $<$ 0.8 keV, while emission in the central-to-west regions is harder (enhanced at 1.1 $<~E~<$ 3.0 keV). These variations in the broadband X-ray fluxes appear to imply variations in the absorbing column and/or local enhancements of line emission, especially from Mg and Si. To quantify the column density variations, we compare the spectra of numerous small angular regions to the SNR’s total spectrum, following the method described in Warren et al. (2003). The average column density measured by [*ASCA*]{} over the entire SNR is $N_H$ = 2.5 $\times$ 10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ [@hughes98]. Spectra from the bright northern limb indicate column densities lower than the average by $\sim$$1.4\times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$. Spectra from the southwest suggest columns higher than the average by up to $\sim$$2\times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$. This means a factor of $\sim$4 variation of the absorbing column across N49B.
We explore the angular distributions of the line emission by constructing [*equivalent width*]{} (EW) images for the detected elemental species, following the method by Park et al. (2002). EW images for O, Ne, and Mg were generated by selecting photons around the broad line features. The O and Ne EW images are featureless, which indicates the [*absence*]{} of any local enhancements of O/Ne line emission. The Mg EW image, on the other hand, reveals significant enhancements near the center of the SNR (Figure \[fig:fig2\]), establishing that the hard enhancements in the central-to-western regions of the SNR are caused by enhanced Mg line emission. The Mg EW distribution suggests substantial variations in the metal abundances and/or temperature/ionization between the center and periphery of the SNR. The bright circumferential X-ray filaments are featureless in all EW maps indicating that there is little azimuthal variation of abundance and/or thermodynamic state around the rim.
\[sec:spec\] X-ray Spectra
==========================
In order to investigate the origin of the line enhancements, we extracted spectra from a small region where the Mg EW is high (region A in Figures \[fig:fig1\] and \[fig:fig2\]), and a bright X-ray filament (region B; Figure \[fig:fig1\]). The extracted source spectra (Figure \[fig:fig3\]) contain $\sim$3700 (region A) and $\sim$7300 (region B) photons in the 0.4 $-$ 3.0 keV band. Both spectra were binned to contain a minimum of 20 counts per channel. For the spectral analysis of our CTI corrected data, we used the response matrices appropriate for the spectral redistribution of the CCD [@townsley02b]. The low energy ($E$ $<$ 1 keV) quantum efficiency (QE) of the ACIS has degraded with time due to accumulating molecular contamination on the optical blocking filter. We have corrected the time-dependent QE degradation by modifying the ancillary response function for the extracted spectrum using the [*ACISABS*]{} software [@chartas03].
We fit the spectra with an NEI plane-parallel shock model [@borkowski01]. Elemental abundances were fixed for He (0.89), C (0.30), N (0.12), Ca (0.34) and Ni (0.62) at the LMC values [@russell92] (hereafter, all abundances are with respect to solar; Anders & Grevesse \[1989\]) since our data do not constrain the contribution from these species. Other elemental abundances were allowed to vary freely. The region A spectrum reveals a remarkably strong Mg line with a best-fit abundance of 1.7. This is more than 5 times higher than the LMC abundance. Si is also overabundant (1.4 or $\sim$5 times the LMC abundance). O, Ne, and Fe are best fitted with LMC-like abundances. In contrast to region A, the region B spectrum is best fitted with the LMC abundances for O, Ne, and Mg (Table \[tbl:tab1\]). Other bright circumferential filaments show similar spectral features and derived abundances to region B.These indicate that the X-ray bright filaments are dominated by emission from the shocked ISM. We thus confirm that the EW distributions are primarily caused by abundance variations.
The use of a single plane shock model to describe region A is oversimplistic, since this position contains emission from shock-heated swept-up ISM integrated through the depth of the SNR, besides a possible ejecta component. Although the single-temperature plane shock model indicates a high Mg abundance as the primary cause of the strong Mg line, we also test whether higher temperature plasma in the SNR interior could be the source of the strong Mg line. For this purpose, we use a Sedov model, which provides a physically motivated temperature distribution, to fit the region A spectrum. Even these fits, however, require a high Mg abundance ($\sim$1.4) and LMC-like abundances for O and Ne ($\sim$0.2). We finally employ a two-component model consisting of a Sedov component to account for the shocked ISM and a plane shock component to describe the metal-rich ejecta. We set the Sedov model parameters to those previously obtained by [*ASCA*]{} [@hughes98], since they are consistent with our own Sedov fit results, and fix abundances at LMC values. Fits with no constraint on the model normalizations result in a negligible contribution from the Sedov model, i.e., the single-temperature plane shock model (with enhanced Mg) is the preferred model. Even if we force each component to contribute equally to the observed emission, the high Mg abundance (with low O and Ne) persist in the ejecta component. In all cases, the best-fit temperatures are $kT \sim 0.4$ keV. The Mg to O abundance ratio (by number) for region A is 0.19$^{+0.10}_{-0.09}$ for the single plane shock and 0.44$^{+0.22}_{-0.25}$ for the two component (plane shock and Sedov) model. Compared to the LMC and solar abundance ratio of Mg/O $\sim$ 0.05, these support a significant overabundance of Mg in the interior of N49B.
\[sec:disc\] DISCUSSION
=======================
The overabundant Mg and Si in the center of N49B suggest the presence of SN ejecta within the SNR’s interior. It is remarkable that metal-rich ejecta can still be significant and observable in an aged SNR ($\sim$10$^4$ yr, Hughes et al. \[1998\]). N49B thus joins a growing number of middle-aged SNRs showing evidence for ejecta (e.g., Hughes et al. 2003). Mg is produced in astrophysical sites such as hydrostatic C and Ne burning, explosive C/Ne-burning during core-collapse SNe [@thielemann96], and thermonuclear (Type Ia) SNe [@iwamoto99]. In nucleosynthesis models, though, Mg is accompanied by other elemental species with O invariably being produced in greater quantities. The presence of ejecta rich in Mg, but not in O/Ne, is thus surprising. It is possible that particular heating or cooling effects have produced a thermal/ionization state in which O/Ne line emission is suppressed relative to Mg, but a full investigation of such plasma conditions is beyond the scope of this paper. We note that N49B is not classified as an O-rich SNR in the optical band, nor have there been any reports of ejecta in this SNR prior to this work.
We estimate the total mass of Mg in N49B by determining the density from spectral fits of region A and then applying it to the entire volume of the Mg-rich region. For region A, we assume emission from a spherical volume $V$ = 3 $\times$ 10$^{57}$ $f$ $d^{3}_{50}$ cm$^{3},$ where $f$ is the X-ray volume filling factor and $d_{50}$ is the distance to the SNR in units of 50 kpc. Using the best-fit volume emission measure ($EM$) and Mg abundance (Table \[tbl:tab1\]), we find $n_e$ $\sim$ 0.07 cm$^{-3}$ under the assumption that the bulk of the electrons are from Mg (i.e., a [*pure*]{} Mg ejecta) where $n_e$ $\sim$ 10$n_{Mg}$ for the mean charge state of Mg implied by the measured temperature and ionization timescale. Assuming a spherical volume with a radius of 0$\farcm$7 (large solid circle in Figure \[fig:fig2\]) for the [*entire*]{} enhanced Mg emission region, we find a total Mg ejecta mass of $\sim$18$f^{1/2}$ $M_{\odot}$ which is a conservative upper limit. For the case where the electrons are primarily from H/He, this becomes $\sim$ 0.5$f^{1/2}$ $M_{\odot}$. There is some uncertainty associated with extrapolating the density obtained from within a small area directly to the larger area of the metal-rich ejecta. The broadband surface brightness of the Mg-enhanced region is however relatively uniform, indicating a modest $EM$ variations over the larger area. Our simple extrapolation thus provides a reasonable, although crude, estimate of the plasma density. The large mass of Mg we derive, even with the large uncertainties, strongly suggest a core-collapse SN from a massive progenitor ($>$ 25 $M_{\odot}$) [@thielemann96].
The bright filaments along the periphery of the SNR are not evident in the EW maps, and their spectra can be fitted with LMC abundances. These filaments also appear to be compressed, and have little faint X-ray emission beyond them (except notably for the western side). These bright features most likely represent interactions of the blast wave with dense portions of the ISM. Because of the ambiguous geometry for these thin filaments, estimates of the electron density for these regions are difficult. We assume a slab-like cylindrical geometry for the emitting volume for region B. For the apparent angular size of 30$^{\prime\prime}$ $\times$ 8$^{\prime\prime}$, and a line-of-sight path-length of $\sim$3 pc comparable to an angular scale of $\sim$15$^{\prime\prime}$ at $d$ = 50 kpc, we obtain $V$ $\sim$ 1 $\times$ 10$^{57}$ cm$^{3}$ (for $f$ $\sim$ 1), and $n_e$ $\sim$ 15 cm$^{-3}$ for this filament. The derived X-ray emitting mass is $\sim$8$M_{\odot}$. Considerable mass has thus been encountered along the filamentary regions.
We detect a faint shell-like feature extending beyond the bright X-ray filament on the western side of N49B. This feature has a fairly large angular size ($\sim$1$\farcm$5 $\times$ 0$\farcm$5) with soft emission, and is spatially coincident with the radio shell on the west. These morphologies suggest that this feature is the blast wave shock front propagating into less dense portions of the ISM, whereas the bright X-ray filaments are emission from the shock encountering denser ISM. This may also be the case in the south-east as shown by the faint diffuse X-ray emission beyond the bright X-ray knots. These “superpositions” of bright and faint features appear to be projection effects of the blast wave expanding into a cloudy ISM. The presence of bright optical knots corresponding to the bright X-ray filaments in the southwest and in the middle of the eastern side supports this hypothesis. We can get an estimate of the ambient density contrast by comparing the surface brightness of the X-ray faint and bright features. Assuming similar spectra and line-of-sight depths for these regions, the surface brightness ratio implies the ratio of electron density squared. We compare the bright X-ray filament on the western side of the SNR to the faint X-ray shell just ahead of it, where the surface brightness ratio is $\sim$15. The bright filament has $n_e$ $\sim$ 5 cm$^{-3}$ (derived by actual spectral fitting), which implies $n_e$ $\sim$ 0.7 cm$^{-3}$ for the faint X-ray shell. This latter value is consistent with previous estimates of the average preshock density around N49B [@hughes98]. The blast wave thus appears to be expanding into an ambient ISM with local density variations of an order of magnitude.
N49B appears to lie in projection near an H[II]{} region suggesting a core-collapse SN. However, we find no apparent evidence for the associated neutron star or its wind nebula. The radio data also showed no compact source or strong polarization within N49B [@dickel98]. We estimate a flux limit for an embedded point source. We convolved a point source, assuming a power law spectrum and various fluxes, with the ACIS-S3 point spread function. Each simulated point source was then added to the central 30$^{\prime\prime}$ $\times$ 30$^{\prime\prime}$ observed region of N49B. A 3$\sigma$ detection limit is then $\sim$30 counts, corresponding to an X-ray luminosity of $L_X$ $\sim$ 2 $\times$ 10$^{33}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ (0.5 $-$ 5 keV). This limit does not conclusively rule out the presence of an embedded neutron star in N49B, since some Galactic spin-powered pulsars have $L_X$ $\la$ 10$^{33}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ (e.g., Becker & Trümper 2002).
This work has been in parts supported by NASA contract NAS8-01128. JPH was supported by [*Chandra*]{} grants GO1-2052X, GO2-3068X, and GO2-3080B. POS was supported by NASA contract NAS8-39073.
Anders, E., & Grevesse, N. 1989, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 53, 197
Becker, A., & Aschenbach, B. 2002, “Neutron Stars, Pulsars, and Supernova Remnants”, Physikzentrum Bad Honnef, Germany, eds, W. Becker, H. Lesch, & J. Trümper, MPE Report 278, 64 (astro-ph/0208466)
Borkowski, K. J., Lyerly, W. J., & Reynolds, S. P. 2001, ApJ, 548, 820
Chartas, G. et al. 2003, in preparation (also [*Chandra Contributed Software*]{}: http://asc.harvard.edu/cont-soft/software/ACISABS.1.1.html).
Chu, Y.-H. & Kennicutt, R. C. 1988, AJ, 96, 1874
Cohen, R. S., Dame, T. M., Garay, G. et al. 1988, ApJ, 331, L95
Dickel, J. R., & Milne, D. K., 1998, AJ, 115, 1057
Heiles, C., & Cleary, M. N., 1979, Australian J. Phys. Astrophys. Suppl., 47, 1
Hughes, J. P., Hayashi, I., & Koyama, K. 1998, ApJ, 505, 732
Hughes, J. P., Ghavamian, P., Rakowski, C. E. et al. 2003, ApJ, 582, L95
Iwamoto, K. Brachwitz, F., Nomoto, K. et al. 1999, ApJS, 125, 439
Mathewson, D. S., Ford, V. L., Dopita, M. A. et al. 1983, ApJS, 51, 345
McGee, R. X., & Milton, J. A., 1966, Australian J. Phys., 19, 343
Milne, D. K. 1972, ApL, 11, 167
Park, S., Roming, P. W. A., Hughes, J. P. et al. 2002, ApJ, 564, L39
Park, S. Burrows, D. N., Garmire, G. P. et al. 2003, ApJ, 586, 210
Russell, S. C., & Dopita, M. A., 1992, ApJ, 384, 508
Thielemann, F.-K, Nomoto, K., & Hashimoto, M.-A. 1996, ApJ, 460, 408
Townsley, L. K., Broos, P. S., Garmire, G. P. et al. 2000, ApJ, 534, L139
Townsley, L. K. et al. 2002a, NIMPA, 486, 751
Townsley, L. K. et al. 2002b, NIMPA, 486, 716
Warren, J. S., Hughes, J. P., & Slane, P. O. 2003, ApJ, 583, 260
Williams, R. M., Chu, Y.-H., Dickel, J. R. et al. 1999, ApJS, 123, 467
[ccccccccccc]{} A & 2.3$^{+1.1}_{-2.0}$ & 0.36$^{+0.14}_{-0.09}$ & 4.5$^{+4.1}_{-2.4}$ & 0.41$^{+0.41}_{-0.15}$ & 0.37$^{+0.47}_{-0.17}$ & 1.73$^{+1.92}_{-0.68}$ & 1.44$^{+1.63}_{-0.71}$ & 0.20$^{+0.23}_{-0.08}$ & 2.9$^{+1.5}_{-1.5}$ & 43.3/58\
B & 3.3$^{+1.6}_{-1.3}$ & 0.34$^{+0.14}_{-0.10}$ & 11.2$^{+4.7}_{-3.4}$ & 0.33$^{+0.10}_{-0.07}$ & 0.34$^{+0.12}_{-0.09}$ & 0.28$^{+0.13}_{-0.10}$ & 0.42$^{+0.27}_{-0.21}$ & 0.15$^{+0.05}_{-0.03}$ & 14.7$^{+2.9}_{-2.9}$ & 47.1/75\
{width="3.5in"}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Applying effective Lagrangian method and on-shell scheme, we analyze the electroweak corrections to the rare decay $b\rightarrow s+\gamma$ from some special two loop diagrams in which a closed heavy fermion loop is attached to the virtual charged gauge bosons or Higgs. At the decoupling limit where the virtual fermions in inner loop are much heavier than the electroweak scale, we verify the final results satisfying the decoupling theorem explicitly when the interactions among Higgs and heavy fermions do not contain the nondecoupling couplings. Adopting the universal assumptions on the relevant couplings and mass spectrum of new physics, we find that the relative corrections from those two loop diagrams to the SM theoretical prediction on the branching ratio of $B\rightarrow X_{_s}\gamma$ can reach $5\%$ as the energy scale of new physics $\Lambda_{_{\rm NP}}=200$ GeV.'
author:
- 'Xiu-Yi Yang$^1$, Tai-Fu Feng$^{1,2}$'
title: 'Heavy fermions and two loop electroweak corrections to $b\rightarrow s+\gamma$'
---
Introduction
============
The rare $B$ decays serve as a good test for new physics beyond the standard model (SM) since they are not seriously affected by the uncertainties originating from long distance effects. The forthcoming and running $B$ factories will make more precise measurements on the rare $B$-decay processes, and those measurements should set more strict constraints on the new physics beyond SM. The main purpose of investigating $B$-decay, especially the rare decay modes, is to search for traces of new physics and determines its parameter space.
The measurements of the branching ratios at CLEO, ALEPH and BELLE [@exp] give the combined result $$BR(B\rightarrow X_{_s}\gamma)=(3.52\pm0.23\pm0.09)\times10^{-4}\;,
\label{eq1}$$ which agrees with the next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) standard model (SM) prediction [@smp] $$BR(B\rightarrow X_{_s}\gamma)=(3.15\pm0.23)\times10^{-4}\;.
\label{eq2}$$ Good agreement between the experiment and the theoretical prediction of the SM implies that the new physics scale should lie well above the electroweak (EW) scale $\Lambda_{_{\rm EW}}$. The systematic analysis of new physics corrections to $B\rightarrow X_{_s}\gamma$ up to two-loop order can help us understanding where the new physics scale sets in, and the distribution of new physical particle masses around this scale. In principle, the two-loop corrections can be large when some additional parameters are involved at this perturbation order besides the parameters appearing in one loop results. In other words, including the two-loop contributions one can obtain a more exact constraint on the new physics parameter space from the present experimental results.
Though the QCD corrections to the rare B decays are discussed extensively in literature, the pure two-loop EW corrections to the branching ratio of $b\rightarrow s\gamma$ are less advanced because of the well known difficulty in calculation. Strumia has evaluated the two-loop EW corrections to $b\rightarrow s\gamma$ from the top quark using heavy mass expansion in gaugeless limit of the SM [@Strumia]. At the limit of large $\tan\beta$ in supersymmetry, Ref.[@Borzumati] analyzes the two loop corrections to the branching ratio of $B\rightarrow X_{_s}\gamma$ from the virtual charged Higgs and gluino-squark sector.
Employing the effective Lagrangian method and on-shell scheme, we present the corrections to the branch ratio of $B\rightarrow X_{_s}\gamma$ from some special diagrams in which a closed heavy fermion loop is attached to the virtual charged gauge bosons or Higgs here. The effective Lagrangian method can yield one loop EW corrections to the effective Lagrangian of $b\rightarrow s\gamma$ exactly in the SM and beyond, and has been adopted to calculate the two loop supersymmetric corrections for the branching ratio of $b\rightarrow s\gamma$ [@Feng1], neutron EDM [@Feng2] and lepton MDMs and EDMs [@Feng3; @Feng4]. In concrete calculation, we assume that all external quarks and photon are off-shell, then expand the amplitude of corresponding triangle diagrams according to the external momenta of quarks and photon. Using loop momentum translating invariance, we formulate the sum of amplitude from those triangle diagrams corresponding to same self energy in the form which explicitly satisfies the Ward identity required by the QED gauge symmetry, then get all dimension 6 operators together with their coefficients. After the equations of motion are applied to external quarks, higher dimensional operators, such as dimension 8 operators, also contribute to the branching ratio of $B\rightarrow X_{_s}\gamma$ in principle. However, the contributions of dimension 8 operators contain the additional suppression factor $m_{_b}^2/\Lambda_{_{\rm EW}}^2$ comparing with that of dimension 6 operators, where $m_{_b}$ is the mass of bottom quark. Setting $\Lambda_{_{\rm EW}}\sim100{\rm GeV}$, one obtains easily that this suppression factor is about $10^{-3}$ for the $b\rightarrow s\gamma$. Under current experimental precision, it implies that the contributions of all higher dimension operators ($D\ge8$) can be neglected safely.
We adopt the naive dimensional regularization with the anticommuting $\gamma_{_5}$ scheme, where there is no distinction between the first 4 dimensions and the remaining $D-4$ dimensions. Since the bare effective Lagrangian contains the ultraviolet divergence which is induced by divergent subdiagrams, we give the renormalized results in the on-mass-shell scheme [@onshell]. Additional, we adopt the nonlinear $R_\xi$ gauge with $\xi=1$ for simplification [@nonlinear-R-xi]. This special gauge-fixing term guarantees explicit electromagnetic gauge invariance throughout the calculation, not just at the end because the choice of gauge-fixing term eliminates the $\gamma W^\pm G^\mp$ vertex in the Lagrangian.
This paper is composed of the sections as follows. In section \[sec2\], we introduce the effective Lagrangian method and our notations. We will demonstrate how to obtain the identities among two loop integrals from the loop momentum translating invariance through an example, then obtain the corrections from the relevant diagrams to the effective Lagrangian of $b\rightarrow s\gamma$. Section \[sec3\] is devoted to the numerical discussion under universal assumptions on the parameters of new physics. In section \[sec4\], we give our conclusion. Some tedious formulae are collected in the appendices.
The Wilson coefficients from the two-loop diagrams\[sec2\]
==========================================================
In this section, we derive the relevant Wilson coefficients for the partonic decay $b\rightarrow s\gamma$ including two-loop EW corrections. In a conventional form, the effective Hamilton is written as $$\begin{aligned}
&&H_{_{eff}}= -{4G_{_F}\over\sqrt{2}}V_{_{ts}}^*V_{_{tb}}
\sum\limits_{i}C_{_i}(\mu){\cal O}_{_i}\;,
\label{eq3}\end{aligned}$$ where $V$ is the CKM matrix and $G_{_F}=1.16639\times10^{-5}\;{\rm GeV}^{-2}$ is the 4-fermion coupling. The definitions of those dimension six operators are [@Buras1] $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal O}_{_1}={1\over(4\pi)^2}\;\bar{s}(i/\!\!\!\!{\cal D})^3
\omega_-b\;,\nonumber\\
&&{\cal O}_{_2}={eQ_{_d}\over(4\pi)^2}\Big[\overline{(i{\cal D}_{_\mu}s)}
\gamma^\mu F\cdot\sigma\omega_- b+\bar{s}F\cdot\sigma\gamma^\mu
\omega_-(i{\cal D}_{_\mu}b)\Big]\;,\nonumber\\
&&{\cal O}_{_3}={eQ_{_d}\over(4\pi)^2}\;\bar{s}(\partial^\mu F_{_{\mu\nu}})
\gamma^\nu\omega_- b\;,\nonumber\\
&&{\cal O}_{_4}={1\over(4\pi)^2}\;\bar{s}(i/\!\!\!\!{\cal D})^2
\Big(m_{_b}\omega_++m_{_s}\omega_-\Big)b\;,\nonumber\\
&&{\cal O}_{_5}={eQ_{_d}\over(4\pi)^2}\;\bar{s}\sigma^{\mu\nu}
\Big(m_{_b}\omega_++m_{_s}\omega_-\Big)bF_{_{\mu\nu}}\;,\nonumber\\
&&{\cal O}_{_6}={g_{_s}\over(4\pi)^2}\Big[\overline{(i{\cal D}_{_\mu}s)}
\gamma^\mu G\cdot\sigma\omega_- b+\bar{s}G\cdot\sigma\gamma^\mu
\omega_-(i{\cal D}_{_\mu}b)\Big]\;,\nonumber\\
&&{\cal O}_{_{7}}={g_{_s}\over(4\pi)^2}\;\bar{s}(\partial^\mu G_{_{\mu\nu}})
\gamma^\nu\omega_- b\;,\nonumber\\
&&{\cal O}_{_{8}}={g_{_s}\over(4\pi)^2}\;\bar{s}T^a\sigma^{\mu\nu}
\Big(m_{_b}\omega_++m_{_s}\omega_-\Big)bG^a_{_{\mu\nu}}\;,\nonumber\\
&&{\cal O}_{_9}=-{eQ_{_d}\over(4\pi)^2}\Big[\overline{(i{\cal D}_{_\mu}s)}
\gamma^\mu F\cdot\sigma\omega_- b-\bar{s}F\cdot\sigma\gamma^\mu
\omega_-(i{\cal D}_{_\mu}b)\Big]\;,\nonumber\\
&&{\cal O}_{_{10}}={1\over(4\pi)^2}\;\bar{s}(i/\!\!\!\!{\cal D})^2
\Big(m_{_b}\omega_+-m_{_s}\omega_-\Big)b\;,\nonumber\\
&&{\cal O}_{_{11}}={eQ_{_d}\over(4\pi)^2}\;\bar{s}\sigma^{\mu\nu}
\Big(m_{_b}\omega_+-m_{_s}\omega_-\Big)bF_{_{\mu\nu}}\;,\nonumber\\
&&{\cal O}_{_{12}}=-{g_{_s}\over(4\pi)^2}\Big[\overline{(i{\cal D}_{_\mu}s)}
\gamma^\mu G\cdot\sigma\omega_- b-\bar{s}G\cdot\sigma\gamma^\mu
\omega_-(i{\cal D}_{_\mu}b)\Big]\;,\nonumber\\
&&{\cal O}_{_{13}}={g_{_s}\over(4\pi)^2}\;\bar{s}T^a\sigma^{\mu\nu}
\Big(m_{_b}\omega_+-m_{_s}\omega_-\Big)bG^a_{_{\mu\nu}}\;,\nonumber\\
&&{\cal O}_{_{14}}=(\bar{s}_{_\alpha}\gamma^\mu\omega_-c_{_\alpha})
(\bar{c}_{_\beta}\gamma^\mu\omega_-b_{_\beta})\;,
\label{eq4}\end{aligned}$$ where $F_{_{\mu\nu}}$ and $G_{_{\mu\nu}}=G^a_{_{\mu\nu}}T^a$ are the field strengths of the photon and gluon respectively, and $T^a\;(a=1,\;\cdots,\;8)$ are $SU(3)_{_c}$ generators. In addition, $e$ and $g_{_s}$ represent the EW and strong couplings respectively.
After expanding the amplitude of corresponding triangle diagrams, we extract the Wilson coefficients of operators in Eq.(\[eq4\]) which are formulated in the linear combinations of one and two loop vacuum integrals in momentum space, then obtain the corrections to the branching ratio of $B\rightarrow X_{_s}\gamma$. Taking those diagrams in which a closed heavy fermion loop is inserted into the propagator of charged gauge boson as an example, we show in detail how to obtain the Wilson coefficients in effective Lagrangian.
The corrections from the diagrams where a closed heavy fermion loop is inserted into the self energy of $W^\pm$ gauge boson
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to get the amplitude of the diagrams in Fig.\[fig1\](a), one can write the renormalizable interaction among the charged EW gauge boson $W^\pm$ and the heavy fermions $F_{\alpha,\beta}$ in a more universal form as $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal L}_{_{WFF}}={e\over s_{_{\rm w}}}W^{-,\mu}\bar{F}_\alpha\gamma_\mu
(\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}\omega_-+\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}\omega_+)F_\beta
+h.c.\;,
\label{WFF}\end{aligned}$$ where the concrete expressions of $\zeta^{L,R}_{_{\alpha\beta}}$ depend on the models employed in our calculation. The conservation of electric charge requires $Q_\beta-Q_\alpha=1$, where $Q_{\alpha,\beta}$ denote the electric charge of the heavy fermions $F_{\alpha,\beta}$ respectively.
(0,40)(0,0) (-60,-110)
(0,40)(0,0) (-40,-130)
Applying Eq.(\[WFF\]), we write firstly the amplitude of those two loop diagrams in Fig.\[fig1\](a). For example, the amplitude for the diagram in which a real photon is attached to the virtual $W^\pm$ boson (Fig.\[fig2\]) can be formulated as $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&i{\cal A}_{_{{\rm ww},\rho}}^{(\ref{fig2})}(p,k)=-\overline{\psi}_{_s}\int{d^D q_1\over(2\pi)^D}
{d^D q_2\over(2\pi)^D}\Big(-i{e\Lambda_{_{\rm RE}}^\varepsilon\over\sqrt{2}
s_{_{\rm w}}}V_{_{ts}}^*\Big)\gamma^\mu\omega_-{i/\!\!\!q_1+m_{_t}\over
q_1^2-m_{_t}^2}\Big(-i{e\Lambda_{_{\rm RE}}^\varepsilon\over
\sqrt{2}s_{_{\rm w}}}V_{_{tb}}\Big)\gamma^\nu\omega_-\psi_{_b}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.8cm}\times
{-i\over(q_1-p-k)^2-m_{_{\rm w}}^2}
\Big\{ie\Big[-g_{\mu\sigma}(2p+k-2q_1)_\rho
+2(g_{\rho\mu}k_\sigma-g_{\rho\sigma}k_\mu)\Big]\Big\}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.8cm}\times
{-i\over(q_1-p)^2-m_{_{\rm w}}^2}{-i\over(q_1-p)^2-m_{_{\rm w}}^2}
{\bf Tr}\Bigg[\Big(i{e\Lambda_{_{\rm RE}}^\varepsilon\over s_{_{\rm w}}}\Big)
\gamma^\sigma\Big\{\zeta^{L*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\omega_-
+\zeta^{R*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\omega_+\Big\}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.8cm}\times
{i(/\!\!\!q_2-/\!\!\!q_1+m_{_{F_\alpha}})
\over(q_2-q_1)^2-m_{_{F_\alpha}}^2}\Big(i{e\Lambda_{_{\rm RE}}^\varepsilon\over
s_{_{\rm w}}}\Big)\gamma_\nu\Big\{\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}\omega_-
+\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}\omega_+\Big\}
{i(/\!\!\!q_2-/\!\!\!\!p+m_{_{F_\beta}})\over(q_2-p)^2-m_{_{F_\beta}}^2}\Bigg]\;.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{eq-wa1}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\Lambda_{_{\rm RE}}$ denotes the renormalization scale that can take any value in the range from the EW scale $\Lambda_{_{\rm EW}}$ to the new physics scale $\Lambda_{_{\rm NP}}$ naturally, and we adopt the abbreviations: $c_{_{\rm w}}=\cos\theta_{_{\rm w}},\;s_{_{\rm w}}
=\sin\theta_{_{\rm w}}$ with $\theta_{_{\rm w}}$ denoting the Weinberg angle. Additionally, $p,\;k$ are the incoming momenta of quark and photon fields, $\rho$ is the Lorentz index of photon, separatively. Certainly, the amplitude does not depend on how to mark the momenta of virtual fields because of the translating invariance of loop momenta.
It can be checked easily that the sum of amplitude for diagrams in Fig.\[fig1\](a) satisfies the Ward identity required by the QED gauge invariance $$\begin{aligned}
&&k^\rho{\cal A}_{_{{\rm ww},\rho}}^{(\ref{fig1}(a))}(p,k)
=e[\Sigma_{_{\rm ww}}^{(\ref{fig1}(a))}(p+k)
-\Sigma_{_{\rm ww}}^{(\ref{fig1}(a))}(p)]\;,
\label{WTI-ww}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal A}_{_{{\rm ww},\rho}}^{(\ref{fig1}(a))}$ denotes the sum of amplitudes for the triangle diagrams corresponding to the self energy in Fig.\[fig1\](a), as well as $\Sigma_{_{\rm ww}}^{(\ref{fig1}(a))}$ denotes the amplitude of corresponding self energy diagram, respectively.
According the external momenta of quarks and photon, we expand the amplitude in Eq.(\[eq-wa1\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&i{\cal A}_{_{{\rm ww},\rho}}^{(\ref{fig2})}(p,k)
=-i{e^5\over2s_{_{\rm w}}^4}V_{_{ts}}^*V_{_{tb}}\cdot\Lambda_{_{\rm RE}}^{4\epsilon}
\int{d^D q_1\over(2\pi)^D}{d^Dq_2\over(2\pi)^D}{1\over {\cal D}_{_{\rm ww}}}
\Bigg\{1+{2q_1\cdot(3p+k)\over q_1^2-m_{_{\rm w}}^2}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
+{2q_1\cdot p\over q_2^2-m_{_{F_\beta}}^2}-{2p^2+(p+k)^2\over q_1^2-m_{_{\rm w}}^2}
-{p^2\over q_2^2-m_{_{F_\beta}}^2}+{4(q_2\cdot p)^2\over(q_2^2-m_{_{F_\beta}}^2)^2}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
+{4(q_1\cdot(p+k))^2+8(q_1\cdot p)(q_1\cdot(p+k))+12(q_1\cdot p)^2
\over(q_1^2-m_{_{\rm w}}^2)^2}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
+{4(q_1\cdot(3p+k))(q_2\cdot p)\over(q_1^2-m_{_{\rm w}}^2)
(q_2^2-m_{_{F_\beta}}^2)}\Bigg\}
\overline{\psi}_{_s}\Big[\gamma^\mu/\!\!\!q_1\gamma^\nu\omega_-\Big]\psi_{_b}
\Big[-g_{\mu\sigma}(2p+k-2q_1)_\rho
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
+2(g_{\rho\mu}k_\sigma-g_{\rho\sigma}k_\mu)\Big]
{\bf Tr}\Bigg[\gamma^\sigma\Big\{\zeta^{L*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\omega_-
+\zeta^{R*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\omega_+\Big\}
(/\!\!\!q_2-/\!\!\!q_1+m_{_{F_\alpha}})
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.8cm}\times
\gamma_\nu\Big\{\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}\omega_-+\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}\omega_+\Big\}
(/\!\!\!q_2-/\!\!\!\!p+m_{_{F_\beta}})\Bigg]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{eq-wa2}\end{aligned}$$ since we only consider the corrections from dimension 6 operators, here ${\cal D}_{_{\rm ww}}=(q_1^2-m_{_t}^2)
(q_1^2-m_{_{\rm w}}^2)^3((q_2-q_1)^2-m_{_{F_\alpha}}^2)(q_2^2-m_{_{F_\beta}}^2)$.
Because the denominators of all terms in Eq.(\[eq-wa2\]) are invariant under the reversal $q_1\rightarrow-q_1,q_2\rightarrow-q_2$, those terms in odd powers of loop momenta can be abandoned, and the terms in even powers of loop momenta can be simplified by $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\int{d^Dq_1\over(2\pi)^D}{d^Dq_2\over(2\pi)^D}{q_{1\mu}q_{1\nu}q_{1\rho}
q_{1\sigma}q_{1\alpha}q_{1\beta},\;q_{1\mu}q_{1\nu}q_{1\rho}
q_{1\sigma}q_{1\alpha}q_{2\beta}\over((q_2-q_1)^2-m_{_0}^2)(q_1^2-m_{_1}^2)(q_2^2-m_{_2}^2)}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-1.0cm}
\longrightarrow{S_{_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma\alpha\beta}}\over D(D+2)(D+4)}
\int{d^Dq_1\over(2\pi)^D}{d^Dq_2\over(2\pi)^D}{(q_1)^3,\;(q_1)^2q_1\cdot q_2
\over((q_2-q_1)^2-m_{_0}^2)(q_1^2-m_{_1}^2)(q_2^2-m_{_2}^2)}
\;,\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\int{d^Dq_1\over(2\pi)^D}{d^Dq_2\over(2\pi)^D}{q_{1\mu}q_{1\nu}q_{1\rho}
q_{1\sigma}q_{2\alpha}q_{2\beta}\over((q_2-q_1)^2-m_{_0}^2)(q_1^2-m_{_1}^2)(q_2^2-m_{_2}^2)}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-1.0cm}
\longrightarrow\int{d^Dq_1\over(2\pi)^D}{d^Dq_2\over(2\pi)^D}
{1\over((q_2-q_1)^2-m_{_0}^2)(q_1^2-m_{_1}^2)
(q_2^2-m_{_2}^2)}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.2cm}\times
\Big[{Dq_{_1}^2(q_{_1}\cdot q_{_2})^2-(q_{_1}^2)^2q_{_2}^2\over D(D-1)(D+2)(D+4)}
S_{_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma\alpha\beta}}
-{q_{_1}^2(q_{_1}\cdot q_{_2})^2-(q_{_1}^2)^2q_{_2}^2
\over D(D-1)(D+2)}T_{_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}}g_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big]
\;,\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\int{d^Dq_1\over(2\pi)^D}{d^Dq_2\over(2\pi)^D}{q_{1\mu}q_{1\nu}q_{1\rho}
q_{2\alpha}q_{2\beta}q_{2\delta}\over((q_2-q_1)^2-m_{_0}^2)(q_1^2-m_{_1}^2)(q_2^2-m_{_2}^2)}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-1.0cm}
\longrightarrow\int{d^Dq_1\over(2\pi)^D}{d^Dq_2\over(2\pi)^D}
{1\over((q_2-q_1)^2-m_{_0}^2)(q_1^2-m_{_1}^2)
(q_2^2-m_{_2}^2)}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.2cm}\times
\Big[{(D+1)q_{_1}^2q_{_1}\cdot q_{_2}q_{_2}^2-2(q_{_1}\cdot q_{_2})^3
\over D(D-1)(D+2)(D+4)}S_{_{\mu\nu\rho\alpha\beta\delta}}
+{(q_{_1}\cdot q_{_2})^3-q_{_1}^2q_{_1}\cdot q_{_2}q_{_2}^2\over
D(D-1)(D+2)}\Big(g_{_{\mu\alpha}}(g_{_{\nu\beta}}g_{_{\rho\delta}}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.2cm}
+g_{_{\nu\delta}}g_{_{\rho\beta}})+g_{_{\mu\beta}}(g_{_{\nu\alpha}}
g_{_{\rho\delta}}+g_{_{\nu\delta}}g_{_{\rho\alpha}})
+g_{_{\mu\delta}}(g_{_{\nu\alpha}}g_{_{\rho\beta}}
+g_{_{\nu\beta}}g_{_{\rho\alpha}})\Big)\Big]\;,
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{eq-wa3}\end{aligned}$$ and those similar formulae presented in Eq.(5) of Ref[@Feng1], where the tensors are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&T_{_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}}=g_{_{\mu\nu}}g_{_{\rho\sigma}}+g_{_{\mu\rho}}g_{_{\nu\sigma}}
+g_{_{\mu\sigma}}g_{_{\nu\rho}}
\;,\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&S_{_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma\alpha\beta}}=
g_{_{\mu\nu}}T_{_{\rho\sigma\alpha\beta}}+g_{_{\mu\rho}}T_{_{\nu\sigma\alpha\beta}}
+g_{_{\mu\sigma}}T_{_{\nu\rho\alpha\beta}}+g_{_{\mu\alpha}}T_{_{\nu\rho\sigma\beta}}
+g_{_{\mu\beta}}T_{_{\nu\rho\sigma\alpha}}\;.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{eq-wa4}\end{aligned}$$ Summing over those indices which appear both as superscripts and subscripts simultaneously, we derive all possible dimension 6 operators in the momentum space together with their coefficients which are expressed in the linear combinations of one and two loop vacuum integrals. In a similar way, one obtains the amplitude of other diagrams. Before integrating with the loop momenta, we apply the loop momentum translating invariance to formulate the sum of those amplitude in explicitly QED gauge invariant form, then extract the Wilson coefficients of those dimension 6 operators listed in Eq.(\[eq4\]). Actually, we can easily verify the equation $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int\int{d^Dq_1\over(2\pi)^D}{d^Dq_2\over(2\pi)^D}{q_{1\mu}\over
(q_1^2-m_1^2)(q_2^2-m_2^2)((q_2-q_1)^2-m_0^2)}\equiv0\;.
\label{l-tran1}\end{aligned}$$ Performing an infinitesimal translation $q_1\rightarrow q_1,\;q_2\rightarrow
q_2-a$ with $a_\rho\rightarrow0\;(\rho=0,1,\cdots,D)$, one can write the left-handed side of above equation as $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int\int{d^Dq_1\over(2\pi)^D}{d^Dq_2\over(2\pi)^D}{q_{1\mu}\over
(q_1^2-m_1^2)(q_2^2-m_2^2)((q_2-q_1)^2-m_0^2)}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.6cm}=
\int\int{d^Dq_1\over(2\pi)^D}{d^Dq_2\over(2\pi)^D}{q_{1\mu}\over
(q_1^2-m_1^2)(q_2^2-m_2^2)((q_2-q_1)^2-m_0^2)}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.2cm}\times
\Big\{1+{2q_2\cdot a\over q_2^2-m_2^2}+{2(q_2-q_1)\cdot a\over(q_2-q_1)^2-m_0^2}+\cdots\Big\}\;.
\label{l-tran2}\end{aligned}$$ This result implies $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int\int{d^Dq_1\over(2\pi)^D}{d^Dq_2\over(2\pi)^D}{q_1\cdot q_2\over
(q_1^2-m_1^2)(q_2^2-m_2^2)^2((q_2-q_1)^2-m_0^2)}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.6cm}=
\int\int{d^Dq_1\over(2\pi)^D}{d^Dq_2\over(2\pi)^D}{q_1^2-q_1\cdot q_2\over
(q_1^2-m_1^2)(q_2^2-m_2^2)((q_2-q_1)^2-m_0^2)^2}\;.
\label{l-tran3}\end{aligned}$$ In a similar way, other identities presented in Ref.[@Feng1] can be derived. Using the expression of two loop vacuum integral[@Davydychev] $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Lambda_{_{\rm RE}}^{4\epsilon}\int\int{d^Dq_1\over(2\pi)^D}{d^Dq_2\over(2\pi)^D}{1\over
(q_1^2-m_1^2)(q_2^2-m_2^2)((q_2-q_1)^2-m_0^2)}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.6cm}=
{\Lambda^2\over2(4\pi)^4}{\Gamma^2(1+\epsilon)\over(1-\epsilon)^2}
\Big({4\pi x_{_R}}\Big)^{2\epsilon}
\Big\{-{1\over\epsilon^2}\Big(x_0+x_1+x_2\Big)
\nonumber\\&&
+{1\over\epsilon}\Big(2(x_0\ln x_0+x_1\ln x_1+x_2\ln x_2)-x_0-x_1-x_2\Big)
\nonumber\\&&
-2(x_0+x_1+x_2)+2(x_0\ln x_0+x_1\ln x_1+x_2\ln x_2)
\nonumber\\&&
-x_0\ln^2x_0-x_1\ln^2x_1-x_2\ln^2x_2-\Phi(x_0,x_1,x_2)\Big\}
\label{2l-vacuum}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Phi(x,y,z)=(x+y-z)\ln x\ln y+(x-y+z)\ln x\ln z
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.2cm}
+(-x+y+z)\ln y\ln z+{\rm sign}(\lambda^2)\sqrt{|\lambda^2|}\Psi(x,y,z)\;,
\nonumber\\
&&{\partial\Phi\over\partial x}(x,y,z)=\ln x\ln y+\ln x\ln z
-\ln y\ln z+2\ln x+{x-y-z\over\sqrt{|\lambda^2|}}\Psi(x,y,z)\;,
\label{phi}\end{aligned}$$ one obtains easily $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\Lambda_{_{\rm RE}}^{4\epsilon}\over\Lambda^2}{\partial\over\partial x_0}
\bigg\{\int\int{d^Dq_1\over(2\pi)^D}{d^Dq_2\over(2\pi)^D}
{q_1^2\over(q_1^2-m_1^2)(q_2^2-m_2^2)((q_2-q_1)^2-m_0^2)}\bigg\}
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hspace{-0.5cm}=
{\Lambda_{_{\rm RE}}^{4\epsilon}\over\Lambda^2}
\Big\{{\partial\over\partial x_0}+{\partial\over\partial x_2}\Big\}
\bigg\{\int\int{d^Dq_1\over(2\pi)^D}{d^Dq_2\over(2\pi)^D}{q_1\cdot q_2\over
(q_1^2-m_1^2)(q_2^2-m_2^2)((q_2-q_1)^2-m_0^2)}\bigg\}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.5cm}=
{\Lambda^2\over2(4\pi)^4}{\Gamma^2(1+\epsilon)\over(1-\epsilon)^2}
\Big({4\pi x_{_R}}\Big)^{2\epsilon}\Big\{-{x_1+2x_2\over\epsilon^2}
+{1\over\epsilon}\Big(x_1(1+2\ln x_0)+2x_2(1+\ln x_0+\ln x_2)\Big)
\nonumber\\&&
-(x_1+x_2)\ln^2x_0-(x_1+2x_2)\ln x_0\ln x_2-x_2\ln^2x_2-x_1\ln x_0\ln x_1
+x_1\ln x_1\ln x_2
\nonumber\\&&
-2(x_1+x_2)\ln x_0-2x_2\ln x_2-{x_1(x_0-x_1-x_2)\over\sqrt{|\lambda^2|}}
\Psi(x_0,x_1,x_2)\Big\}\;,
\label{l-tran4}\end{aligned}$$ which is equivalent to the identity Eq.(\[l-tran3\]). Here, $\varepsilon=2-{D/2}$ with $D$ denoting the dimension of space-time, $\Lambda$ is a energy scale to define $x_i=m_i^2/\Lambda^2$ and $x_{_R}=\Lambda_{_{\rm RE}}^2/\Lambda^2$. Additionally, $\lambda^2=x^2+y^2+z^2-2xy-2xz-2yz$, and the concrete expression of $\Psi(x,y,z)$ can be found in the appendix. Actually, the equation Eq.(\[l-tran4\]) provides a crosscheck of Eq.(\[2l-vacuum\]) and Eq.(\[phi\]) rather than a verification of Eq.(\[l-tran3\]). After applying those identities derived from loop momentum translating invariance, we formulate the sum of amplitude from those triangle diagrams corresponding to the self energy Fig.\[fig1\](a) satisfying QED gauge invariance and CPT symmetry explicitly, and extract the Wilson coefficients of those operators in Eq.(\[eq4\]).
Integrating over loop momenta, one gets the following terms in the effective Lagrangian: $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal L}^{eff}_{_W}={\sqrt{2}G_{_F}\alpha_{_e}x_{_{\rm w}}\over\pi s_{_{\rm w}}^2Q_{_d}}
V_{_{ts}}^*V_{_{tb}}(4\pi x_{_{\rm R}})^{2\varepsilon}{\Gamma^2(1+\varepsilon)\over
(1-\varepsilon)^2}\Bigg\{\Big(\zeta^{L*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}
\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}+\zeta^{R*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.4cm}\times
\Bigg[{1\over24\varepsilon}\Big\{-\psi_1
+(x_{_{F_\alpha}}+x_{_{F_\beta}})\psi_2\Big\}(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
-{1\over24}\varrho_{_{2,1}}(x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})\psi_2(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
-{x_{_{F_\alpha}}+x_{_{F_\beta}}\over144}\psi_3(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
+\phi_1(x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})\psi_1(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
+\psi_4(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+F_{_1}(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t},x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})
+Q_{_u}\Bigg({1\over24\varepsilon}\Big\{\psi_5+(x_{_{F_\alpha}}+x_{_{F_\beta}})
\psi_6\Big\}(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
-{1\over24}\varrho_{_{2,1}}(x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})\psi_6(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
+{x_{_{F_\alpha}}+x_{_{F_\beta}}\over144}\psi_7(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+{1\over8}\phi_2(x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})\psi_5(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
+\psi_8(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
+F_{_2}(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t},x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})
\Bigg)\Bigg]{\cal O}_{_2}
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+\Big(\zeta^{L*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}
-\zeta^{R*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)
F_{_3}(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t},x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}}){\cal O}_{_2}
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+\Big(\zeta^{L*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}+\zeta^{R*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}
\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)(x_{_{F_\alpha}}x_{_{F_\beta}})^{1/2}\Bigg[
-{1\over12\varepsilon}\psi_2(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
+{1\over12}\varrho_{_{1,1}}(x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})
\psi_2(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+\phi_3(x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})\psi_1(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
+\psi_9(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})+F_{_4}(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t},x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+Q_{_u}\Bigg(-{1\over12\varepsilon}\psi_6(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
+{1\over12}\varrho_{_{1,1}}(x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})
\psi_6(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
+\phi_4(x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})\psi_5(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+\psi_{10}(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
+F_{_5}(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t},x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})
\Bigg)\Bigg]{\cal O}_{_2}
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+\Big(\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^{R*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}
-\zeta^{L*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)(x_{_{F_\alpha}}x_{_{F_\beta}})^{1/2}
F_{_6}(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t},x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}}){\cal O}_{_9}
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+\Big(\zeta^{L*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}
+\zeta^{R*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)
\Bigg[{1\over24\varepsilon}\Big\{\psi_5
+(x_{_{F_\alpha}}+x_{_{F_\beta}})\psi_6\Big\}(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
-{1\over24}\varrho_{_{2,1}}(x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})\psi_6(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
+{x_{_{F_\alpha}}+x_{_{F_\beta}}\over144}\psi_7(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
+{1\over8}\phi_2(x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})\psi_5(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+\psi_8(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
+F_{_2}(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t},x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})
+T^c_{_\alpha}F_{_7}(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t},x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})
\Bigg]{\cal O}_{_6}
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+\Big(\zeta^{L*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}+\zeta^{R*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}
\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)(x_{_{F_\alpha}}x_{_{F_\beta}})^{1/2}\Bigg[
-{1\over12\varepsilon}\psi_6(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
+{1\over12}\varrho_{_{1,1}}(x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})
\psi_6(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+\phi_4(x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})\psi_5(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
+\psi_{10}(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
+F_5(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t},x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+T^c_{_\alpha}F_{_8}(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t},x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})
\Bigg]{\cal O}_{_6}
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+\Big(\zeta^{L*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}
-\zeta^{R*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)
T^c_{_\alpha}F_{_9}(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t},x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}}){\cal O}_{_6}
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+\Big(\zeta^{L*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}-\zeta^{R*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}
\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)(x_{_{F_\alpha}}x_{_{F_\beta}})^{1/2}
T^c_{_\alpha}F_{_{10}}(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t},x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}}){\cal O}_{_{12}}
\Bigg\}+\cdots\;,
\label{eff-WFF}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_{_e}=e^2/4\pi$ and $Q_{_d}=-1/3,\;Q_{_u}=2/3$ represent the charge of down- and up-type quarks, respectively. $T^c_{_\alpha}=1$ when the heavy virtual fermions take part in the strong interaction, otherwise $T^c_{_\alpha}=0$. The functions $\psi_i,\;\phi_i$ are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\psi_1(x,y)={\partial^4\varrho_{_{4,1}}\over\partial x^4}(x,y)
-3{\partial^3\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial x^3}(x,y)\;,
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\psi_2(x,y)={\partial^4\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial x^4}(x,y)
+3{\partial^3\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x^3}(x,y)\;,
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\psi_3(x,y)=\Big\{4{\partial^4\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial x^4}
-18{\partial^3\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x^3}
+3{\partial^4\varrho_{_{3,2}}\over\partial x^4}
+9{\partial^3\varrho_{_{2,2}}\over\partial x^3}\Big\}(x,y)\;,
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\psi_4(x,y)=\Big\{{1\over48}{\partial^4\varrho_{_{4,1}}\over\partial x^4}
-{23\over144}{\partial^3\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial x^3}
+{1\over4}{\partial^2\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x^2}
+{1\over48}{\partial^4\varrho_{_{4,2}}\over\partial x^4}
-{1\over16}{\partial^3\varrho_{_{3,2}}\over\partial x^3}\Big\}(x,y)\;,
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\psi_5(x,y)={\partial^4\varrho_{_{4,1}}\over\partial x^4}(x,y)
-6{\partial^3\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial x^3}(x,y)
+6{\partial^2\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x^2}(x,y)\;,
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\psi_6(x,y)=6{\partial^2\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x^2}(x,y)
-{\partial^4\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial x^4}(x,y)\;,
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\psi_7(x,y)=\Big\{4{\partial^4\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial x^4}
-36{\partial^3\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x^3}
+18{\partial^2\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x^2}
+3{\partial^4\varrho_{_{3,2}}\over\partial x^4}
-18{\partial^2\varrho_{_{1,2}}\over\partial x^2}\Big\}(x,y)\;,
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\psi_8(x,y)=\Big\{-{1\over48}{\partial^4\varrho_{_{4,1}}\over\partial x^4}
+{19\over72}{\partial^3\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial x^3}
-{2\over3}{\partial^2\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x^2}
+{1\over3}{\partial\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x}
-{1\over48}{\partial^4\varrho_{_{4,2}}\over\partial x^4}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.0cm}
+{1\over8}{\partial^3\varrho_{_{3,2}}\over\partial x^3}
-{1\over8}{\partial^2\varrho_{_{2,2}}\over\partial x^2}\Big\}(x,y)\;,
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\psi_9(x,y)=
\Big\{{1\over72}{\partial^4\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial x^4}
-{3\over8}{\partial^3\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x^3}
+{1\over24}{\partial^4\varrho_{_{3,2}}\over\partial x^4}
+{1\over8}{\partial^3\varrho_{_{2,2}}\over\partial x^3}\Big\}(x,y)\;,
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\psi_{10}(x,y)=\Big\{-{1\over72}{\partial^4\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial x^4}
+{1\over2}{\partial^3\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x^3}
-{1\over2}{\partial^2\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x^2}
-{1\over24}{\partial^4\varrho_{_{3,2}}\over\partial x^4}
+{1\over4}{\partial^2\varrho_{_{1,2}}\over\partial x^2}\Big\}(x,y)\;,
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\phi_1(x,y)=\Big\{{1\over8}{\partial\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x}
-{1\over24}{\partial^2\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial x^2}
-{3x_{_{\rm w}}\over32}{\partial^2\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x^2}
+{x_{_{\rm w}}\over16}{\partial^3\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial x^3}
-{x_{_{\rm w}}\over128}{\partial^4\varrho_{_{4,1}}\over\partial x^4}
\Big\}(x,y)\;,
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\phi_2(x,y)=\Big\{-{\partial\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x}
+{1\over3}{\partial^2\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial x^2}
+{3x_{_{\rm w}}\over4}{\partial^2\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x^2}
-{x_{_{\rm w}}\over2}{\partial^3\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial x^3}
+{x_{_{\rm w}}\over16}{\partial^4\varrho_{_{4,1}}\over\partial x^4}\Big\}(x,y)\;,
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\phi_3(x,y)=\Big\{{1\over16}{\partial^2\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x^2}
-{1\over8}{\partial\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x}
+{x_{_{\rm w}}\over16}{\partial^2\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x^2}
-{x_{_{\rm w}}\over16}{\partial^3\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x^3}
+{x_{_{\rm w}}\over96}{\partial^4\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over
\partial x^4}\Big\}(x,y)\;,
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\phi_4(x,y)=\Big\{-{1\over16}{\partial^2\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x^2}
+{1\over8}{\partial\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x}
-{x_{_{\rm w}}\over16}{\partial^2\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x^2}
+{x_{_{\rm w}}\over16}{\partial^3\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x^3}
-{x_{_{\rm w}}\over96}{\partial^4\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial x^4}\Big\}(x,y)\;.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{psi-phi-fun}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the result in Eq.\[eff-WFF\] does not depend on the concrete choice of energy scale $\Lambda$, and the concrete expressions of $F_i(x,y,z,u),\;\varrho_{_{i,j}}(x,y)\;(i,\;j=1,\;2\;\cdots)$ can be found in appendix.
The charged gauge boson self energy composed of a closed heavy fermion loop induces the ultraviolet divergence in the Wilson coefficients of effective Lagrangian, the unrenormalized $W^\pm$ self energy is generally expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\Sigma_{_{\mu\nu}}^{\rm W}(p,\Lambda_{_{\rm RE}})=\Lambda^2A_0^{\rm w}g_{\mu\nu}+\Big(A_1^{\rm w}
+{p^2\over\Lambda^2}A_2^{\rm w}+\cdots\Big)(p^2g_{\mu\nu}-p_\mu p_\nu)
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.5cm}
+\Big(B_1^{\rm w}+{p^2\over\Lambda^2}B_2^{\rm w}+\cdots\Big)p_\mu p_\nu\;,
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{eq-w1}\end{aligned}$$ where the form factors $A_{0,1,2}^{\rm w}$ and $B_{1,2}^{\rm w}$ only depend on the virtual field masses and renormalization scale. Here, we omit those terms which are strongly suppressed at the limit of heavy virtual fermion masses. The corresponding counter terms are given as $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\Sigma_{_{\mu\nu}}^{\rm WC}(p,\Lambda_{_{\rm RE}})=-\Big[\delta m_{_{\rm w}}^2(\Lambda_{_{\rm RE}})
+m_{_{\rm w}}^2\delta Z_{_{\rm w}}(\Lambda_{_{\rm RE}})\Big]g_{\mu\nu}
-\delta Z_{_{\rm w}}(\Lambda_{_{\rm RE}})\Big[p^2g_{\mu\nu}-p_\mu p_\nu\Big]\;.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{eq-w2}\end{aligned}$$
The renormalized self energy is given by $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hat{\Sigma}_{_{\mu\nu}}^{\rm W}(p,\Lambda_{_{\rm RE}})=
\Sigma_{_{\mu\nu}}^{\rm W}(p,\Lambda_{_{\rm RE}})
+\Sigma_{_{\mu\nu}}^{\rm WC}(p,\Lambda_{_{\rm RE}})\;.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{eq-w3}\end{aligned}$$ For on-shell external gauge boson $W^\pm$, we have [@onshell] $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\hat{\Sigma}_{_{\mu\nu}}^{\rm W}(p,m_{_{\rm w}})\epsilon^\nu(p)\Big|_{p^2=m_{_{\rm w}}^2}=0
\;,\nonumber\\
&&\lim\limits_{p^2\rightarrow m_{_{\rm w}}^2}{1\over p^2-m_{_{\rm w}}^2}
\hat{\Sigma}_{_{\mu\nu}}^{\rm W}(p,m_{_{\rm w}})\epsilon^\nu(p)=\epsilon_{_\mu}(p)\;,
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{eq-w4}\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon(p)$ is the polarization vector of $W^\pm$ gauge boson. Inserting Eq. (\[eq-w1\]) and Eq. (\[eq-w2\]) into Eq. (\[eq-w4\]), we derive the counter terms for the $W^\pm$ self energy in on-shell scheme as $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\delta Z_{_{\rm w}}^{os}=A_1^{\rm w}+{m_{_{\rm w}}^2\over\Lambda^2}A_2^{\rm w}
=A_1^{\rm w}+x_{_{\rm z}}A_2^{\rm w}\;,
\nonumber\\
&&\delta m_{_{\rm w}}^{2,os}=A_0^{\rm w}\Lambda^2
-m_{_{\rm w}}^2\delta Z_{_{\rm w}}^{os}\;.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{eq-w5}\end{aligned}$$ To cancel the ultraviolet divergence and those dangerous terms violating the decoupling theorem completely, we should derive the counter term for the vertex $\gamma W^+W^-$ here since the corresponding coupling is not zero at tree level. In the nonlinear $R_\xi$ gauge with $\xi=1$, the counter term for the vertex $\gamma W^+W^-$ is $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&i\delta C_{\gamma W^+W^-}=ie\cdot\delta Z_{_{\rm w}}(\Lambda_{_{\rm RE}})
\Big[g_{\mu\nu}(k_1-k_2)_\rho+g_{\nu\rho}(k_2-k_3)_\mu+g_{\rho\mu}(k_3-k_1)_\nu\Big]\;,
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{eq-w6}\end{aligned}$$ where $k_i\;(i=1,\;2,\;3)$ denote the incoming momenta of $W^\pm$ and photon, and $\mu,\;\nu,\;\rho$ denote the corresponding Lorentz indices respectively.
We can verify that the sum of amplitude from counter diagrams satisfies the Ward identity required by the QED gauge invariance obviously. Accordingly, the effective Lagrangian from the counter term diagrams is written as $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\delta{\cal L}_{_{W}}^C=
-{\sqrt{2}G_{_F}\alpha_{_e}x_{_{\rm w}}\over\pi s_{_{\rm w}}^2Q_{_d}}
V_{_{ts}}^*V_{_{tb}}(4\pi x_{_{\rm R}})^{2\varepsilon}{\Gamma^2(1+\varepsilon)\over
(1-\varepsilon)^2}\Bigg\{\Big(\zeta^{L*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}
\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}+\zeta^{R*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.4cm}\times
\Bigg[{1\over24\varepsilon}\Big\{-\psi_1
+(x_{_{F_\alpha}}+x_{_{F_\beta}})\psi_2\Big\}(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
-{1\over24}\varrho_{_{2,1}}(x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})\psi_2(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
-{x_{_{F_\alpha}}+x_{_{F_\beta}}\over144}\psi_3(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
+\phi_1(x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})\psi_1(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
+\psi_4(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+Q_{_u}\Bigg({1\over24\varepsilon}\Big\{\psi_5+(x_{_{F_\alpha}}+x_{_{F_\beta}})
\psi_6\Big\}(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
-{1\over24}\varrho_{_{2,1}}(x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})\psi_6(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+{x_{_{F_\alpha}}+x_{_{F_\beta}}\over144}\psi_7(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
+{1\over8}\phi_2(x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})\psi_5(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
+\psi_8(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})\Bigg)\Bigg]{\cal O}_{_2}
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+\Big(\zeta^{L*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}+\zeta^{R*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}
\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)(x_{_{F_\alpha}}x_{_{F_\beta}})^{1/2}\Bigg[
-{1\over12\varepsilon}\psi_2(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+{1\over12}\varrho_{_{1,1}}(x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})
\psi_2(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
+\phi_3(x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})\psi_1(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
+\psi_9(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+Q_{_u}\Bigg(-{1\over12\varepsilon}\psi_6(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
+{1\over12}\varrho_{_{1,1}}(x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})
\psi_6(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+\phi_4(x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})\psi_5(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
+\psi_{10}(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})\Bigg)\Bigg]{\cal O}_{_2}
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+\Big(\zeta^{L*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}
+\zeta^{R*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)
\Bigg[{1\over24\varepsilon}\Big\{\psi_5
+(x_{_{F_\alpha}}+x_{_{F_\beta}})\psi_6\Big\}(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
+{x_{_{F_\alpha}}+x_{_{F_\beta}}\over144}\psi_7(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
-{1\over24}\varrho_{_{2,1}}(x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})\psi_6(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
+{1\over8}\phi_2(x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})\psi_5(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
+\psi_8(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})\Bigg]{\cal O}_{_6}
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+\Big(\zeta^{L*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}+\zeta^{R*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}
\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)(x_{_{F_\alpha}}x_{_{F_\beta}})^{1/2}\Bigg[
-{1\over12\varepsilon}\psi_6(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
+{1\over12}\varrho_{_{1,1}}(x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})
\psi_6(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+\phi_4(x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})\psi_5(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
+\psi_{10}(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})\Bigg]{\cal O}_{_6}\Bigg\}+\cdots\;.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{w-counter}\end{aligned}$$
Adding the counter terms to bare Lagrangian Eq.(\[eff-WFF\]), we cancel the ultraviolet divergence there. Under our approximation, the resulted effective Lagrangian is written as $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\widehat{\cal L}^{eff}_{_W}={\sqrt{2}G_{_F}\alpha_{_e}x_{_{\rm
w}}\over\pi s_{_{\rm
w}}^2Q_{_d}}V_{_{ts}}^*V_{_{tb}}\Bigg\{\Big(\zeta^{L*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}
\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}+\zeta^{R*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)
\Bigg[F_{_1} +Q_{_u}F_{_2} \Bigg](x_{_{\rm
w}},x_{_t},x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}}){\cal O}_{_2}
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+\Big(\zeta^{L*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}
-\zeta^{R*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)
F_{_3}(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t},x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}}){\cal O}_{_2}
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+\Big(\zeta^{L*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}+\zeta^{R*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}
\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)(x_{_{F_\alpha}}x_{_{F_\beta}})^{1/2}\Bigg[
F_{_4} +Q_{_u}F_{_5}\Bigg](x_{_{\rm
w}},x_{_t},x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}}) {\cal O}_{_2}
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+\Big(\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^{R*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}
-\zeta^{L*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)(x_{_{F_\alpha}}x_{_{F_\beta}})^{1/2}
F_{_6}(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t},x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}}){\cal O}_{_9}
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+\Big(\zeta^{L*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}
+\zeta^{R*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)
\Bigg[F_{_2} +T^c_{_\alpha}F_{_7}\Bigg](x_{_{\rm
w}},x_{_t},x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}}) {\cal O}_{_6}
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+\Big(\zeta^{L*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}+\zeta^{R*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}
\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)(x_{_{F_\alpha}}x_{_{F_\beta}})^{1/2}\Bigg[
F_5 +T^c_{_\alpha}F_{_8}\Bigg](x_{_{\rm
w}},x_{_t},x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}}) {\cal O}_{_6}
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+\Big(\zeta^{L*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}
-\zeta^{R*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)
T^c_{_\alpha}F_{_9}(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t},x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}}){\cal O}_{_6}
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+\Big(\zeta^{L*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}-\zeta^{R*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}
\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)(x_{_{F_\alpha}}x_{_{F_\beta}})^{1/2}
T^c_{_\alpha}F_{_{10}}(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t},x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}}){\cal O}_{_{12}}
\Bigg\}+\cdots\;,
\label{renor-eff-WFF}\end{aligned}$$ which only depends on the masses of virtual fields. It should be clarified that the corrections to the coefficients of ${\cal O}_{_{9,12}}$ do not depend on the concrete renormalization scheme adopted here since the relevant terms from bare Lagrangian do not contain the ultraviolet divergence. In the limit $z\ll x,y$, the function $\Phi(x,y,z)$ can be approximated in powers of $z$ as $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\Phi(x,y,z)=\varphi_0(x,y)+z\varphi_1(x,y)+{z^2\over2!}\varphi_2(x,y)
+{z^3\over3!}\varphi_3(x,y)
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.2cm}
+2z\Big(\ln z-1\Big)\pi_{_1}(x,y)
+2z^2\Big({\ln z\over2!}-{3\over4}\Big)\pi_{_2}(x,y)
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.2cm}
+2z^3\Big({\ln z\over3!}-{11\over36}\Big)\pi_{_3}(x,y)+\cdots
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{phi-expand}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\pi_{_1}(x,y)=1+\varrho_{_{1,1}}(x,y),
\nonumber\\
&&\pi_{_2}(x,y)=-{x+y\over(x-y)^2}-{2xy\over(x-y)^3}\ln{y\over x},
\nonumber\\
&&\pi_{_3}(x,y)=-{1\over(x-y)^2}-{12xy\over(x-y)^4}
-{6xy(x+y)\over(x-y)^5}\ln{y\over x}\;,
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{pi1}\end{aligned}$$ and the concrete expressions of function $\varphi_i(x,y)\;(i=0,1,2,3)$ can be found in appendix. Using the asymptotic expressions in Eq.(\[phi-expand\]), we derive the leading contributions contained in Eq.\[renor-eff-WFF\] under the assumption $m_{_F}=m_{_{F_\alpha}}=m_{_{F_\beta}}
\gg m_{_{\rm w}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\widehat{\cal L}^{eff}_{_W}\approx
{\sqrt{2}G_{_F}\alpha_{_e}x_{_{\rm w}}\over\pi s_{_{\rm w}}^2Q_{_d}}
V_{_{ts}}^*V_{_{tb}}\Bigg\{\Big(\zeta^{L*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}
\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}+\zeta^{R*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.4cm}\times
\Bigg[\Big\{-{1-3Q_\beta\over8}{\partial^2\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x_{_{\rm w}}^2}
-{2-3Q_\beta\over8}{\partial\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x_{_{\rm w}}}
-{1\over144}{\partial^4\varrho_{_{4,1}}\over\partial x_{_{\rm w}}^4}
-{1\over48}{\partial^3\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial x_{_{\rm w}}^3}\Big\}(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+Q_{_u}\Big\{{1\over144}{\partial^4\varrho_{_{4,1}}\over\partial x_{_{\rm w}}^4}
-{1\over12}{\partial^3\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial x_{_{\rm w}}^3}
-{29\over72}{\partial^2\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x_{_{\rm w}}^2}
-{11\over12}{\partial\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x_{_{\rm w}}}\Big\}
(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})\Bigg]{\cal O}_{_2}
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
-{1-Q_\beta\over8}\Big(\zeta^{L*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}
-\zeta^{R*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)
{\partial\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x_{_{\rm w}}}(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t}){\cal O}_{_2}
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+\Big(\zeta^{L*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}+\zeta^{R*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}
\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)\Bigg[
\Big\{{1\over144}{\partial^4\varrho_{_{4,1}}\over\partial x_{_{\rm w}}^4}
%\nonumber\\
%%---------------------------------------------------------------------
%&&\hspace{2.8cm}
-{1\over16}{\partial^3\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial x_{_{\rm w}}^3}
+{1\over4}{\partial^2\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x_{_{\rm w}}^2}
+{1\over16}{\partial\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x_{_{\rm w}}}\Big\}
(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+Q_{_u}\Big\{-{1\over144}{\partial^4\varrho_{_{4,1}}\over\partial x_{_{\rm w}}^4}
+{1\over12}{\partial^3\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial x_{_{\rm w}}^3}
-{5\over24}{\partial^2\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x_{_{\rm w}}^2}
-{1\over12}{\partial\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x_{_{\rm w}}}\Big\}
(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})\Bigg]{\cal O}_{_2}
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+{1\over8}\Big(\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^{R*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}
-\zeta^{L*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)
{\partial^2\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x_{_{\rm w}}^2}
(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t}){\cal O}_{_9}
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+\Big(\zeta^{L*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}
+\zeta^{R*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)
\Bigg[\Big\{{1\over144}{\partial^4\varrho_{_{4,1}}\over\partial x_{_{\rm w}}^4}
-{1\over12}{\partial^3\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial x_{_{\rm w}}^3}
-{29\over72}{\partial^2\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x_{_{\rm w}}^2}
-{11\over12}{\partial\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x_{_{\rm w}}}\Big\}
(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+T^c_{_\alpha}\Big\{{3\over8}
{\partial^2\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x^2}(x,y)
+{5\over4}{\partial\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x}\Big\}
(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t})\Bigg]{\cal O}_{_6}
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+\Big(\zeta^{L*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}+\zeta^{R*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}
\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)
\Big\{-{1\over144}{\partial^4\varrho_{_{4,1}}\over\partial x_{_{\rm w}}^4}
+{1\over12}{\partial^3\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial x_{_{\rm w}}^3}
-{5\over24}{\partial^2\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x_{_{\rm w}}^2}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
-{1\over12}{\partial\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x_{_{\rm w}}}\Big\}
(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t}){\cal O}_{_6}
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.4cm}
+\Big(\zeta^{L*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}-\zeta^{R*}_{_{\alpha\beta}}
\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)
T^c_{_\alpha}\Big\{{1\over16}{\partial\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x_{_{\rm w}}}
+{7\over24}{\partial^2\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x_{_{\rm w}}^2}\Big\}
(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_t}){\cal O}_{_{12}}
\Bigg\}+\cdots\;,
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{asyHF-lag-W}\end{aligned}$$ where ellipses represent those relatively unimportant corrections. Comparing the result in Eq.(\[renor-eff-WFF\]), the contributions from the corresponding diagrams contain the additional suppressed factor $m_{_b}^2/\Lambda_{_{\rm EW}}^2$ when both of virtual charged gauge bosons in Fig.\[fig1\](a) are replaced with the charged Goldstone $G^\pm$. However, we should consider the corrections from those two loop diagrams in which one of virtual charged gauge bosons is replaced with the charged Goldstone $G^\pm$ since it represents the longitudinal component of charged gauge boson in nonlinear $R_\xi$ gauge. As the closed fermion loop is attached to virtual $W^\pm$ gauge boson and charged Higgs simultaneously, the corresponding triangle diagrams belong to the famous Barr-Zee type diagrams [@Barr-Zee]. It is shown [@Pilaftsis] that this type diagrams contribute to important corrections to the effective Lagrangian. For the reason mentioned above, we also generalize the result directly to the diagrams in which a closed heavy loop is attached to the virtual $H^\pm$ and $W^\pm$ fields simultaneously.
The corrections from the diagrams where a closed heavy fermion loop is attached to the virtual $W^\pm,\;G^\pm\;(H^\pm)$ bosons
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, the renormalizable interaction among the EW charged Goldstone/Higgs $G^\pm\;(H^\pm)$ and the heavy fermions $F_{\alpha,\beta}$ can be expressed in a more universal form as $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal L}_{_{S^\pm FF}}={e\over s_{_{\rm w}}}\Big[G^{-}\bar{F}_\alpha
({\cal G}^{c,L}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\omega_-+{\cal G}^{c,R}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\omega_+)F_\beta
+H^{-}\bar{F}_\alpha({\cal H}^{c,L}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\omega_-
+{\cal H}^{c,R}_{_{\alpha\beta}}\omega_+)F_\beta\Big]+h.c.\;,
\label{charged-G-H-FF}\end{aligned}$$ where the concrete expressions of ${\cal G}^{c,L,R}_{_{\alpha\beta}},\;
{\cal H}^{c,L,R}_{_{\alpha\beta}}$ depend on the models employed in our calculation, the conservation of electric charge requires $Q_\beta-Q_\alpha=1$. Generally, the couplings among the charged Goldstone/Higgs and quarks are written as $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal L}_{_{S^\pm\bar{d}u}}={eV_{_{ud}}^*\over\sqrt{2}
s_{_{\rm w}}}\Big\{G^{-}\bar{d}\Big[{m_{_u}\over m_{_{\rm w}}}\omega_+
+{m_{_d}\over m_{_{\rm w}}}\omega_-\Big]u
+H^{-}\bar{d}\Big[{m_{_u}\over m_{_{\rm w}}}\omega_+
-{\cal B}_{c}{m_{_d}\over m_{_{\rm w}}}\omega_-\Big]u\Big\}+h.c.\;,
\label{charged-G-H-lepton}\end{aligned}$$ where the parameter ${\cal B}_{c}$ also depends on the concrete models adopted in our analysis. In full theory, the couplings in Eq.(\[charged-G-H-FF\]) induce the corrections to the effective Lagrangian for $b\rightarrow s\gamma$ through the diagrams presented in Fig.\[fig1\](b, c).
Since there is no mixing between the charged gauge boson and charged Higgs/Goldstone at tree level, the corresponding corrections from the diagrams presented in Fig.\[fig1\](b, c) to the bare effective Lagrangian do not include the ultraviolet divergence, and can be formulated as $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\widehat{\cal L}^{eff}_{_{WH}}={\sqrt{2}G_{_F}\alpha_{_e}{\cal B}_{_c}
\over\pi s_{_{\rm w}}^2Q_{_d}}V_{_{ts}}^*V_{_{tb}}
\Bigg\{(x_{_{F_\beta}}x_{_{\rm w}})^{1/2}
P_1(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_{H^\pm}},x_{_t},x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.2cm}\times
\Big[\Re\Big({\cal H}^{c,L}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}
+{\cal H}^{c,R}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)
{\cal O}_{_5}
-i\Im\Big({\cal H}^{c,L}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}
+{\cal H}^{c,R}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)
{\cal O}_{_{11}}\Big]
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.2cm}
+(x_{_{\rm w}}x_{_{F_\alpha}})^{1/2}
P_2(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_{H^\pm}},x_{_t},x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})
\Big[\Re\Big({\cal H}^{c,L}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}
+{\cal H}^{c,R}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big){\cal O}_{_5}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.2cm}
-i\Im\Big({\cal H}^{c,L}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}
+{\cal H}^{c,R}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big){\cal O}_{_{11}}\Big]
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.2cm}
+(x_{_{\rm w}}x_{_{F_\beta}})^{1/2}
P_3(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_{H^\pm}},x_{_t},x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})
\Big[\Re\Big({\cal H}^{c,L}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}
-{\cal H}^{c,R}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big){\cal O}_{_5}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.2cm}
-i\Im\Big({\cal H}^{c,L}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}
-{\cal H}^{c,R}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big){\cal O}_{_{11}}\Big]
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.2cm}
+(x_{_{\rm w}}x_{_{F_\alpha}})^{1/2}
P_4(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_{H^\pm}},x_{_t},x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})
\Big[\Re\Big({\cal H}^{c,L}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}
-{\cal H}^{c,R}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big){\cal O}_{_5}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.2cm} -i\Im\Big({\cal
H}^{c,L}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}} -{\cal
H}^{c,R}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big){\cal
O}_{_{11}}\Big]
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.2cm}
+(x_{_{F_\beta}}x_{_{\rm w}})^{1/2}P_5
(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_{H^\pm}},x_{_t},x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})
\Big[\Re\Big({\cal H}^{c,L}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}
+{\cal H}^{c,R}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)
{\cal O}_{_8}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.2cm}
-i\Im\Big({\cal H}^{c,L}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}
+{\cal H}^{c,R}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)
{\cal O}_{_{13}}\Big]
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.2cm}
+(x_{_{F_\beta}}x_{_{\rm w}})^{1/2}
P_5(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_{H^\pm}},x_{_t},x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})
\Big[\Re\Big({\cal H}^{c,L}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}
+{\cal H}^{c,R}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)
{\cal O}_{_8}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.2cm}
+i\Im\Big({\cal H}^{c,L}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}
+{\cal H}^{c,R}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)
{\cal O}_{_{13}}\Big]
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.2cm}
+(x_{_{F_\beta}}x_{_{\rm w}})^{1/2}P_6
(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_{H^\pm}},x_{_t},x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})
\Big[\Re\Big({\cal H}^{c,L}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}
-{\cal H}^{c,R}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)
{\cal O}_{_8}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.2cm}
-i\Im\Big({\cal H}^{c,L}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}
-{\cal H}^{c,R}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)
{\cal O}_{_{13}}\Big]
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.2cm}
-(x_{_{F_\beta}}x_{_{\rm w}})^{1/2}
P_6(x_{_{\rm w}},x_{_{H^\pm}},x_{_t},x_{_{F_\alpha}},x_{_{F_\beta}})
\Big[\Re\Big({\cal H}^{c,L}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}
+{\cal H}^{c,R}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)
{\cal O}_{_8}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.2cm}
+i\Im\Big({\cal H}^{c,L}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}
+{\cal H}^{c,R}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)
{\cal O}_{_{13}}\Big]\Bigg\}\;,
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\widehat{\cal L}^{eff}_{_{WG}}=\widehat{\cal L}^{eff}_{_{WH}}
({\cal B}_{c}\rightarrow1,
{\cal G}^{c,L,R}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\rightarrow{\cal H}^{c,L,R}_{_{\beta\alpha}}
,x_{_{H^\pm}}\rightarrow x_{_{\rm w}})\;.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{MED-W-G-H}\end{aligned}$$ The expressions of form factors $P_i(x,y,z,u,w)\;(i=1,\cdots,4)$ can be found in appendix.
Using the asymptotic expressions of $\Phi(x,y,z)$ at the limit $x,\;y\gg z$ in Eq.\[phi-expand\], we simplify the expressions of Eq.(\[MED-W-G-H\]) in the limit $m_{_F}=m_{_{F_\alpha}}=m_{_{F_\beta}}\gg m_{_{\rm w}}$ as: $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\widehat{\cal L}^{eff}_{_{WH}}\approx{\sqrt{2}G_{_F}\alpha_{_e}{\cal B}_{_c}
m_{_{\rm w}}\over\pi s_{_{\rm w}}^2Q_{_d}m_{_F}}
V_{_{ts}}^*V_{_{tb}}\Bigg\{\Big[{21\over64}-{5\over288}Q_\beta
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.2cm}
+({3\over16}+{Q_\beta\over48})\Big(\ln m_{_F}^2
-{\varrho_{_{2,1}}(m_{_{\rm w}}^2,m_{_t}^2)-\varrho_{_{2,1}}(m_{_{H^\pm}}^2,m_{_t}^2)
\over m_{_{\rm w}}^2-m_{_{H^\pm}}^2}\Big)\Big]
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.2cm}\times
\Big[\Re\Big({\cal H}^{c,L}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}
+{\cal H}^{c,R}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)
{\cal O}_{_5}
-i\Im\Big({\cal H}^{c,L}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}
+{\cal H}^{c,R}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)
{\cal O}_{_{11}}\Big]
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.2cm}
+\Big[{19-20Q_\beta\over144}+{2-4Q_\beta\over48}\Big(\ln m_{_F}^2
-{\varrho_{_{2,1}}(m_{_{\rm w}}^2,m_{_t}^2)-\varrho_{_{2,1}}(m_{_{H^\pm}}^2,m_{_t}^2)
\over m_{_{\rm w}}^2-m_{_{H^\pm}}^2}\Big)\Big]
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.2cm}\times
\Big[\Re\Big({\cal H}^{c,L}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}
+{\cal H}^{c,R}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big){\cal O}_{_5}
-i\Im\Big({\cal H}^{c,L}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}
+{\cal H}^{c,R}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big){\cal O}_{_{11}}\Big]
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.2cm}
-\Big[{16\over144}+{2+6Q_\beta\over48}\Big(\ln m_{_F}^2
-{\varrho_{_{2,1}}(m_{_{\rm w}}^2,m_{_t}^2)-\varrho_{_{2,1}}(m_{_{H^\pm}}^2,m_{_t}^2)
\over m_{_{\rm w}}^2-m_{_{H^\pm}}^2}\Big)\Big]
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.2cm}\times
\Big[\Re\Big({\cal H}^{c,L}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}
-{\cal H}^{c,R}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big){\cal O}_{_5}
-i\Im\Big({\cal H}^{c,L}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}
-{\cal H}^{c,R}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big){\cal O}_{_{11}}\Big]
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.2cm}
-\Big[{2Q_\beta\over144}+{6-2Q_\beta\over48}\Big(\ln m_{_F}^2
-{\varrho_{_{2,1}}(m_{_{\rm w}}^2,m_{_t}^2)-\varrho_{_{2,1}}(m_{_{H^\pm}}^2,m_{_t}^2)
\over m_{_{\rm w}}^2-m_{_{H^\pm}}^2}\Big)\Big]
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.2cm}\times \Big[\Re\Big({\cal
H}^{c,L}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}} -{\cal
H}^{c,R}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big){\cal O}_{_5}
-i\Im\Big({\cal H}^{c,L}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}
-{\cal H}^{c,R}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big){\cal
O}_{_{11}}\Big]
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.2cm}
-{1\over8\sqrt{2}}\Big[1+\ln m_{_F}^2
-{\varrho_{_{2,1}}(m_{_{\rm w}}^2,m_{_t}^2)-\varrho_{_{2,1}}(m_{_{H^\pm}}^2,m_{_t}^2)
\over m_{_{\rm w}}^2-m_{_{H^\pm}}^2}\Big]
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.2cm}\times
\Big[\Re\Big({\cal H}^{c,L}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}
+{\cal H}^{c,R}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big){\cal O}_{_8}
-i\Im\Big({\cal H}^{c,L}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}
+{\cal H}^{c,R}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)
{\cal O}_{_{13}}\Big]
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.2cm}
-{1\over8\sqrt{2}}\Big[1+\ln m_{_F}^2
-{\varrho_{_{2,1}}(m_{_{\rm w}}^2,m_{_t}^2)-\varrho_{_{2,1}}(m_{_{H^\pm}}^2,m_{_t}^2)
\over m_{_{\rm w}}^2-m_{_{H^\pm}}^2}\Big]
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.2cm}\times
\Big[\Re\Big({\cal H}^{c,L}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}
+{\cal H}^{c,R}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big){\cal O}_{_8}
+i\Im\Big({\cal H}^{c,L}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}
+{\cal H}^{c,R}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)
{\cal O}_{_{13}}\Big]
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.2cm}
-{1\over4\sqrt{2}}\Big[1+\ln m_{_F}^2
-{\varrho_{_{2,1}}(m_{_{\rm w}}^2,m_{_t}^2)-\varrho_{_{2,1}}(m_{_{H^\pm}}^2,m_{_t}^2)
\over m_{_{\rm w}}^2-m_{_{H^\pm}}^2}\Big]
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.2cm}\times
\Big[\Re\Big({\cal H}^{c,L}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}
-{\cal H}^{c,R}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big){\cal O}_{_8}
-i\Im\Big({\cal H}^{c,L}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}
-{\cal H}^{c,R}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)
{\cal O}_{_{13}}\Big]
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{1.2cm}
+{1\over4\sqrt{2}}\Big[1+\ln m_{_F}^2
-{\varrho_{_{2,1}}(m_{_{\rm w}}^2,m_{_t}^2)-\varrho_{_{2,1}}(m_{_{H^\pm}}^2,m_{_t}^2)
\over m_{_{\rm w}}^2-m_{_{H^\pm}}^2}\Big]
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.2cm}\times
\Big[\Re\Big({\cal H}^{c,L}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}
+{\cal H}^{c,R}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big){\cal O}_{_8}
+i\Im\Big({\cal H}^{c,L}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}
+{\cal H}^{c,R}_{_{\beta\alpha}}\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}\Big)
{\cal O}_{_{13}}\Big]\Bigg\}\;.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{ASY-MED-W-GH}\end{aligned}$$ The results indicate that the corrections to the effective Lagrangian from the diagrams presented in Fig.\[fig1\](b, c) are suppressed in the limit $m_{_F}=m_{_{F_\alpha}}=m_{_{F_\beta}}\gg m_{_{\rm w}}$ unless the couplings ${\cal H}^{c,L,R}_{_{\beta\alpha}}$ violate the decoupling theorem.
It is well known that the short distance QCD affects the rare $B$ decay strongly. At the NLO level [@QCD-Run], the Wilson coefficients at the bottom quark scale are given as $$\begin{aligned}
&&\tilde{C}_5(\mu_ b)\approx0.67(\tilde{C}_5(\mu_{_{\rm w}})
-0.42\tilde{C}_8(\mu_{_{\rm w}})-0.88)\;,
\nonumber\\
&&\tilde{C}_8(\mu_ b)\approx0.7(\tilde{C}_8(\mu_{_{\rm w}})+0.12)\;,
\label{running}\end{aligned}$$ where the corresponding Wilson coefficients at EW scale are written as $$\begin{aligned}
&&\tilde{C}_5(\mu_{_{\rm w}})=C_2(\mu_{_{\rm w}})+C_5(\mu_{_{\rm w}})
+C_9(\mu_{_{\rm w}})+C_{11}(\mu_{_{\rm w}})\;,
\nonumber\\
&&\tilde{C}_8(\mu_{_{\rm w}})=C_6(\mu_{_{\rm w}})+C_8(\mu_{_{\rm w}})
+C_{12}(\mu_{_{\rm w}})+C_{13}(\mu_{_{\rm w}})\;.
\label{re-wilson}\end{aligned}$$
As an application, we investigate the relative corrections to the branching ratio of rare decay $B\rightarrow X_{_s}\gamma$ originating from those sectors.
The corrections to branching ratio of $B\rightarrow X_{_s}\gamma$\[sec3\]
=========================================================================
(0,120)(0,0) (-60,-20)
In order to eliminate the strong dependence on the b-quark mass, the branching ratio is usually normalized by the decay rate of the $B$ meson semileptonic decay: $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\Gamma(B\rightarrow X_{_s}\gamma)\over\Gamma(B\rightarrow
X_{_c}e\bar{\nu})}={\Gamma(b-s\gamma)\over\Gamma(b-c\overline{e}\nu)}
={2\alpha_{_e}\over3\pi\rho(y)\chi(y)}|\tilde{C}_5(\mu_b)|^2\;,
\label{eq11}\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho(y)=1-8y+8y^3-y^4-12y^2\ln y$ is the phase-space factor with $y=(m_{_c}/m_{_b})^2$, and $\chi(y)=1-\frac{2\alpha_s(m_b)}{3\pi}f(y)$ with $f(m_c^2/m_b^2)\approx2.4$. From now on we shall assume the value $BR(B\rightarrow
X_{_c}e\bar{\nu})=10.5\%$ for the semileptonic branching ratio, $\alpha_{_s}(m_{_{\rm z}})=0.118$, $\alpha_{_e}(m_{_{\rm z}})=1/127$. For the mass spectrum of SM, we take $m_{_t}=174\;{\rm GeV},\;m_{_b}=4.2\;{\rm GeV}
,\;m_{_{\rm w}}=80.42\;{\rm GeV}$ and $m_{_{\rm z}}=91.19\;{\rm GeV}$. In the CKM matrix, we apply the Wolfenstein parameterization and set $A=0.85,\;\lambda=0.22,\;
\rho=0.22,\;\eta=0.35$ [@Data].
Without loss of generality, we adopt the universal assumptions on those couplings and mass spectrum of new physics as $$\begin{aligned}
&&\zeta^L_{_{\alpha\beta}}=\zeta^R_{_{\alpha\beta}}={\cal H}^{c,L}_{_{\beta\alpha}}
={\cal H}^{c,R}_{_{\beta\alpha}}={\cal G}^{c,L}_{_{\beta\alpha}}={\cal G}^{c,R}_{_{\beta\alpha}}
=e^{i\phi_{_{\rm CP}}}\;,
\nonumber\\
&&m_{_{F_\alpha}}=m_{_{F_\beta}}=m_{_{H^\pm}}=\Lambda_{_{\rm NP}}
\label{assumptions-couplings}\end{aligned}$$
To continue our discussion, we assume the electric charge of heavy fermions as $Q_\beta=2/3,\;1,\;-1/3,\;4/3,\;5/3$, which corresponds to the electric charge of another heavy fermion in inner loop $Q_\alpha=-1/3,\;0,\;4/3,\;1/3,\;2/3$ respectively. In addition, we also assume that those heavy fermions with fractional electric charge all take part in strong interaction.
Many extensions of the SM include the heavy fermion fields with $Q_\beta=2/3,\;Q_\alpha=-1/3$. In the extensions of SM with large [@L-extD] or warped [@W-extD] extra dimensions, the KK excitations of up- and down-type quarks form a closed fermion loop which can be attached to the zero modes of charged gauge boson and Higgs. In the minimal supersymmetric extension of SM (MSSM) [@Su], the closed fermion loop composed by chargino ($Q_\beta=1$) and neutralino ($Q_\alpha=0$) can be attached to the charged gauge boson and Higgs. In the $3-3-1$ model [@3-3-1], the electric charge of exotic quarks are assigned as $Q_\beta=4/3,\;5/3$.
In many EW extensions of the SM, the couplings among the charged Higgs and quarks contain an enhancing factor ${\cal B}_c$. For example, ${\cal B}_c=\tan\beta$ in the MSSM is a strong enhancing factor at large $\tan\beta$ limit. In other EW theories such as the littlest Higgs [@LHT], $3-3-1$ model, the couplings among the charged Higgs and quarks also contain a nontrivial enhancing factor ${\cal B}_c\gg1$. In our numerical discussion, we assume the possible enhancing factor with a trivial value ${\cal B}_c=1$ or a nontrivial value ${\cal B}_c=10$.
(0,50)(0,0) (-50,-80)
Including NLO QCD effects, we plot the relative corrections to one loop SM theoretical prediction on branching ratio of the inclusive $B\rightarrow X_{_s}\gamma$ decay versus the possible CP violation phase $\phi_{_{\rm CP}}$ with ${\cal B}_c=1$ in FIG. \[fig3\](a). Depending on concrete choices of $Q_\beta$ and the CP violation phase $\phi_{_{\rm CP}}$, the relative corrections to the branching ratio from those two loop diagrams can reach $2.5\%$. Comparing with the corrections from QCD, the modifications from those two loop EW diagrams are unimportant certainly. Nevertheless, those effects can be observed possibly in the experiment along with improving of the theoretical analysis and increasing of the experiment precision. Taking the enhancing factor ${\cal B}_c=10$, we plot the relative corrections to one loop SM theoretical prediction on branching ratio of the inclusive $B\rightarrow X_{_s}\gamma$ decay versus the possible CP violation phase $\phi_{_{\rm CP}}$ in FIG. \[fig3\](b). Because the contributions from two loop Bar-Zee diagrams are enhanced drastically, the relative corrections to one loop SM theoretical prediction on the branching ratio of $B\rightarrow X_{_s}\gamma$ can reach $4.5\%$. Although the two-loop EW corrections can not compete with that from QCD, we cannot neglecte the corrections with this magnitude.
Assuming ${\cal B}_c=10$ and $\phi_{_{\rm CP}}=\pi/2$, we plot the relative corrections to one loop SM theoretical prediction on the branching ratio of $B\rightarrow X_{_s}\gamma$ varying with the energy scale of new physics $\Lambda_{_{\rm NP}}$ in FIG. \[fig4\]. Since the intervention between the top quark and the particles in new physics, the relative corrections reach the maximum ($\sim4.5\%$) around $\Lambda_{_{\rm NP}}=200\;{\rm GeV}$. With increasing of $\Lambda_{_{\rm NP}}$, the relative corrections turn smaller and smaller. At $\Lambda_{_{\rm NP}}=1\;{\rm TeV}$, the relative corrections are about $2\%$.
In the SM, the $CP$ asymmetry of the $B\rightarrow X_{_s}\gamma$ process is calculated to be rather small: $A_{_{CP}}\sim 0.5\%$ [@Kagan]. Certainly, the new CP violation phases may induce the observable effects on the $CP$ asymmetry of $B\rightarrow X_{_s}\gamma$. However, the numerical results indicate that the corrections from those two loop diagrams to the $CP$ asymmetry of $B\rightarrow X_{_s}\gamma$ are rather small. The relative correction to one loop SM theoretical prediction on the branching ratio of $B\rightarrow X_{_s}\gamma$ is already above $8\%$ when ${\cal B}_c=30$, $\Lambda_{_{\rm NP}}=200\;{\rm GeV}$ and $\phi_{_{\rm CP}}=\pi/2$, the corresponding correction from those two loop diagrams to the $CP$ asymmetry is still smaller than $1\%$ under our universal assumptions on the parameter space.
As mentioned above, the universal assumptions on the couplings and mass spectrum of new physics are adopted in our numerical analysis. In concrete EW extensions of the SM, this choice is a very simple assumption on parameter space. However, the numerical results given above reflect the typical magnitude of corrections from those two loop diagrams to the branching ratio of $B\rightarrow X_{_s}\gamma$ unless there is contingent cancelation among different sectors of those two loop diagrams in concrete extensions of the SM.
Conclusions\[sec4\]
===================
Applying effective Lagrangian method and on-shell scheme, we analyze the EW corrections to the rare decay $b\rightarrow s+\gamma$ from some special two loop diagrams in which a closed heavy fermion loop is attached to the virtual charged gauge bosons or Higgs. The analysis shows that the final results satisfy the decoupling theorem explicitly when the interactions among Higgs and heavy fermions do not contain the nondecoupling couplings. Adopting the universal assumptions on the relevant couplings and masses of new physics, we present the relative corrections from those two loop diagrams to one loop SM theoretical prediction on the branching ratio of $B\rightarrow X_{_s}\gamma$ varying with the possible CP violation phases and energy scale of new physics. The numerical results indicate that the relative corrections from those two loop diagrams can reach $5\%$ if there is not contingent cancelation among different sectors of corresponding contributions.
The work has been supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NNSFC) with Grant No. 10675027 and 10975027.
Form factors in the two-loop Wilson coefficients\[appb\]
========================================================
The definition of $\Psi(x,y,z)$ is written as:
- $\lambda^2>0,\;\sqrt{y}+\sqrt{z}<\sqrt{x}$: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Psi(x,y,z)=2\ln\Big({x+y-z-\lambda\over2x}\Big)
\ln\Big({x-y+z-\lambda\over2x}\Big)-\ln{y\over x}\ln{z\over x}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.2cm}
-2L_{i_2}\Big({x+y-z-\lambda\over2x}\Big)
-2L_{i_2}\Big({x-y+z-\lambda\over2x}\Big)+{\pi^2\over3}\;,
\label{aeq2}\end{aligned}$$ where $L_{i_2}(x)$ is the spence function;
- $\lambda^2>0,\;\sqrt{x}+\sqrt{z}<\sqrt{y}$: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Psi(x,y,z)={\rm Eq.}(\ref{aeq2})(x\leftrightarrow y)\;;
\label{aeq3}\end{aligned}$$
- $\lambda^2>0,\;\sqrt{x}+\sqrt{y}<\sqrt{z}$: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Psi(x,y,z)={\rm Eq.}(\ref{aeq2})(x\leftrightarrow z)\;;
\label{aeq4}\end{aligned}$$
- $\lambda^2<0$: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Psi(x,y,z)=2\Big\{Cl_2\Big(2\arccos(
{-x+y+z\over2\sqrt{yz}})\Big)
+Cl_2\Big(2\arccos({x-y+z\over2\sqrt{xz}})\Big)
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.2cm}
+Cl_2\Big(2\arccos({x+y-z\over2\sqrt{xy}})\Big)\Big\}\;,
\label{aeq12}\end{aligned}$$ where $Cl_2(x)$ denotes the Clausen function.
The expressions of $\varphi_0(x,y),\;\varphi_1(x,y),\;\varphi_2(x,y)$ and $\varphi_3(x,y)$ are given as $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\varphi_0(x,y)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}(x+y)\ln x\ln y+(x-y)\Theta(x,y)
\;,&x>y\;;\\
2x\ln^2x\;,&x=y\;;\\
(x+y)\ln x\ln y+(y-x)\Theta(y,x)
\;,&x<y\;.\end{array}\right.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{varphi0}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\varphi_1(x,y)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}-\ln x\ln y-{x+y\over x-y}\Theta(x,y)
\;,&x>y\;;\\
4-2\ln x-\ln^2x\;,&x=y\;;\\
-\ln x\ln y-{x+y\over y-x}\Theta(y,x)
\;,&x<y\;,\end{array}\right.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{varphi1}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\varphi_2(x,y)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
{(2x^2+6xy)\ln x-(6xy+2y^2)\ln y\over(x-y)^3}-{4xy\over(x-y)^3}\Theta(x,y)
\;,&x>y\;;\\
-{5\over9x}+{2\over3x}\ln x\;,&x=y\;;\\
{(2x^2+6xy)\ln x-(6xy+2y^2)\ln y\over(x-y)^3}-{4xy\over(y-x)^3}\Theta(y,x)
\;,&x<y\;,\end{array}\right.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{varphi2}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\varphi_3(x,y)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}-{12xy(x+y)\over(x-y)^5}\Theta(x,y)
-{2(x^2+6xy+y^2)\over(x-y)^4} & \\
+{2(x^3+20x^2y+11xy^2)\ln x-2(y^3+20xy^2+11x^2y)\ln y\over(x-y)^5}
\;,&x>y\;;\\
-{53\over150x^2}+{1\over5x^2}\ln x\;,&x=y\;;\\
-{12xy(x+y)\over(y-x)^5}\Theta(y,x)-{2(x^2+6xy+y^2)\over(x-y)^4} & \\
+{2(x^3+20x^2y+11xy^2)\ln x-2(y^3+20xy^2+11x^2y)\ln y\over(x-y)^5}
\;,&x<y\;,
\end{array}\right.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{varphi3}\end{aligned}$$
with $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\Theta(x,y)=\ln x\ln{y\over x}-2\ln(x-y)\ln{y\over x}-2Li_2({y\over x})+{\pi^2\over3}\;.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{theta}\end{aligned}$$
The functions adopted in the text are written as $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&\varrho_{_{i,j}}(x,y)={x^i\ln^jx-y^i\ln^jy\over x-y}\;,\;\;
%\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\Omega_i(x,y;u,v)={x^i\Phi(x,u,v)-y^i\Phi(y,u,v)\over x-y}\;,
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&F_1(x,y,z,u)={1\over24}\varrho_{_{2,1}}(z,u)\Big[
{\partial^4\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial x^4}
+3{\partial^3\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x^3}\Big](y,x)
-\Big\{{1\over8}{\partial\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial z}
-{1\over24}{\partial^2\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial z^2}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
-{3x\over32}{\partial^2\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial z^2}
+{x\over16}{\partial^3\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial z^3}
-{x\over128}{\partial^4\varrho_{_{4,1}}\over\partial z^4}\Big\}(z,u)
\Big\{{\partial^4\varrho_{_{4,1}}\over\partial x^4}
-3{\partial^3\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial x^3}\Big\}(x,y)
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
-{1\over18}{\partial^4\varrho_{_{4,1}}\over\partial x^4}(x,y)
+{1\over24}{\partial^3\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial x^3}(x,y)
-{1\over4}{\partial^2\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x^2}(x,y)
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
-{1\over48}\Big\{\Big[(z+u)+2(z\ln z+u\ln u)\Big]
{\partial^4\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial x^4}(x,y)
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
-2(z-u)^2(1+\varrho_{_{1,1}}(z,u)){\partial^4\varrho_{_{2,1}}
\over\partial x^4}(x,y)
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
-\Big[9(z+u)+6z\ln z-6u\ln u)\Big]
{\partial^3\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x^3}(x,y)
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
-\Big(4+18Q_{_\beta}+6(2-Q_{_\beta})\ln u\Big)
{\partial^2\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x^2}(x,y)
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
-\Big[2+6(1-Q_{_\beta})\ln u\Big]
{\partial\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x}(x,y)
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
-6(z-u)^2(1+\varrho_{_{1,1}}(z,u))
{\partial^3\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x^3}(x,y)
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
+6\Big[(-4+2Q_{_\beta})(z+z\ln z)+(-2-2Q_{_\beta})u
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
+(1-2Q_{_\beta})u\ln u\Big]
{\partial^2\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x^2}(x,y)
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
+{\partial^4\over\partial x^4}\Big[(z-u)^2\Omega_{_1}
-\Omega_{_3}\Big](x,y;z,u)
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
-6{\partial^4\over\partial x^3\partial u}\Big[u(z-u)
\Omega_{_1}+u\Omega_{_2}\Big](x,y;z,u)
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
+6{\partial^4\over\partial x^2\partial u^2}\Big[u(z+u)
\Omega_{_1}-u\Omega_{_2}\Big](x,y;z,u)
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
-2{\partial^4\over\partial x\partial u^3}\Big[u^2(z-u)
\Omega_{_0}+u^2\Omega_{_1}\Big](x,y;z,u)
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
+3{\partial^3\over\partial x^3}\Big[(z-u)^2\Omega_{_0}
+4\Big(z-u\Big)\Omega_{_1}+3\Omega_{_2}\Big](x,y;z,u)
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
+6{\partial^3\over\partial x\partial u^2}\Big[({5\over2}-Q_{_\beta})u(z-u)
\Omega_{_0}+{3\over2}u\Omega_{_1}\Big](x,y;z,u)
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
-3{\partial^3\over\partial x^2\partial u}\Big[3u(z-u)\Omega_{_0}
+\Big((6-Q_{_\beta})z
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
+(11-3Q_{_\beta})u\Big)\Omega_{_1}-(6-Q_{_\beta})\Omega_{_2}\Big](x,y;z,u)
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
-3{\partial^2\over\partial x\partial u}\Big[(7-5Q_{_\beta})(z-u)
\Omega_{_0}+(1+Q_{_\beta})\Omega_{_1}\Big](x,y;z,u)
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
+6{\partial^2\over\partial x^2}\Big[({7\over2}-Q_{_\beta})(z-u)
\Omega_{_0}+({9\over2}-2Q_{_\beta})\Omega_{_1}\Big](x,y;z,u)\Big\}\;,
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&F_2(x,y,z,u)=
{1\over24}\varrho_{_{2,1}}(z,u)\Big[
-{\partial^4\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial x^4}
+6{\partial^2\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x^2}\Big](x,y)
+\Big\{{\partial\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial z}
-{1\over3}{\partial^2\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial z^2}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
-{3x\over4}{\partial^2\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial z^2}
+{x\over2}{\partial^3\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial z^3}
-{x\over16}{\partial^4\varrho_{_{4,1}}\over\partial z^4}\Big\}(z,u)
\Big\{{1\over8}{\partial^4\varrho_{_{4,1}}\over\partial x^4}
-{3\over4}{\partial^3\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial x^3}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
+{3\over4}{\partial^2\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x^2}\Big\}(x,y)
+(z+u)\Big\{{1\over48}{\partial^4\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial x^4}
-{1\over6}{\partial^3\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x^3}
-{1\over72}{\partial^2\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x^2}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
+{2\over9}{\partial\varrho_{_{0,1}}\over\partial x}\Big\}(x,y)
+\Big\{{1\over18}{\partial^4\varrho_{_{4,1}}\over\partial x^4}
-{3\over8}{\partial^3\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial x^3}
+{11\over18}{\partial^2\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x^2}
-{11\over36}{\partial\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x}\Big\}(x,y)
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
+(z\ln z+u\ln u)
\Big[{1\over24}{\partial^4\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial x^4}
-{1\over12}{\partial^3\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x^3}
-{7\over36}{\partial^2\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x^2}
+{1\over9}{\partial\varrho_{_{0,1}}\over\partial x}\Big](x,y)
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
-(z-u)^2\Big(1+\varrho_{_{1,1}}(z,u)\Big)
\Big({1\over24}{\partial^4\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial y^2\partial x^2}
+{1\over9}{\partial^3\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial y^2\partial x}
+{1\over36}{\partial^3\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial y\partial x^2}\Big)(x,y)
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
-{1\over48}\Big\{2{\partial^4\over\partial x\partial y^3}\Big[
(z+u)\Omega_{_2}(x,y;z,u)-\Omega_{_3}(x,y;z,u)\Big]
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
-{\partial^4\over\partial x^2\partial y^2}\Big[
(z-u)^2\Omega_{_1}-2(z+u)\Omega_{_2}+\Omega_{_3}\Big](x,y;z,u)
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
-{\partial^3\over\partial x\partial y^2}\Big[{8\over3}(z-u)^2
\Omega_{_0}+{20\over3}(z+u)\Omega_{_1}-{28\over3}\Omega_{_2}\Big](x,y;z,u)
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
-{2\over3}{\partial^4\over\partial x^2\partial y}\Big[(z-u)^2
\Omega_{_0}-2(z+u)\Omega_{_1}+\Omega_{_2}\Big](x,y;z,u)
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
+4{\partial^2\over\partial x\partial y}\Big[(z+u)\Omega_{_0}
-\Omega_{_1}\Big](x,y;z,u)\Big\}\;,
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&F_3(x,y,z,u)=-{1\over16}\Big\{2(2Q_{_\beta}-1+Q_{_\beta}\ln u)
{\partial^2\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x^2}(x,y)
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
+2\Big(1-2Q_{_\beta}+(1-Q_{_\beta})\ln u\Big)
{\partial\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x}(x,y)
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
+4\Big(z-u+z\ln z-u\ln u\Big)
{\partial^2\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x^2}(x,y)
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
+{\partial^3\over\partial x\partial u^2}
\Big[(1-2Q_{_\beta})u\Omega_{_1}-u(z-u)\Omega_{_0}\Big](x,y;z,u)
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
-{\partial^2\over\partial x\partial u}\Big[(3-5Q_{_\beta})\Omega_{_1}
-(3-Q_{_\beta})(z-u)\Omega_{_0}\Big](x,y;z,u)
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
-{\partial^3\over\partial x^2\partial u}\Big[Q_{_\beta}\Omega_{_2}
-(Q_{_\beta}z+(2-Q_{_\beta})u)\Omega_{_1}\Big](x,y;z,u)
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
-2{\partial^2\over\partial x^2}\Big[\Omega_{_1}+(z-u)\Omega_{_0}\Big]
(x,y;z,u)\Big\}\;,
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&F_4(x,y,z,u)=
-{1\over12}\varrho_{_{1,1}}(z,u)
\Big\{{\partial^4\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial x^4}
+3{\partial^3\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x^3}\Big\}(x,y)
-\Big\{{1\over16}{\partial^2\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial z^2}
-{1\over8}{\partial\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial z}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
+{x\over16}{\partial^2\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial z^2}
-{x\over16}{\partial^3\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial z^3}
+{x\over96}{\partial^4\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial z^4}\Big\}(z,u)
\Big\{{\partial^4\varrho_{_{4,1}}\over\partial x^4}
-3{\partial^3\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial x^3}\Big\}(x,y)
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
-\Big\{{1\over12}{\partial^4\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial x^4}
+{1\over2}{\partial^3\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x^3}
+{1\over2}{\partial^2\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x^2}\Big\}(x,y)
+{1-3Q_{_\beta}\over24u}{\partial\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x}(x,y)
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
+{1-Q_{_\beta}\over8}\ln z{\partial^2\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x^2}(x,y)
-{1\over8}\ln u\Big[{\partial^3\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x^3}
+(3-Q_{_\beta}){\partial^2\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x^2}\Big](x,y)
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
-{1\over48}\Big\{{\partial^4\over\partial x\partial u^3}
\Big[u(z-u)\Omega_{_0}-u\Omega_{_1}\Big](x,y;z,u)
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
-3(1-Q_\beta){\partial^3\over\partial x\partial u^2}
\Big[(z-u)\Omega_{_0}-\Omega_{_1}\Big](x,y;z,u)
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
+3(1-Q_\beta){\partial^3\over\partial x\partial z\partial u}\Big[
(z-u)\Omega_{_0}-\Omega_{_1}\Big](x,y;z,u)
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
-2{\partial^4\Omega_{_2}\over\partial x^4}(x,y;z,u)
+3{\partial^4\over\partial x^3\partial u}\Big[(z-u)\Omega_{_1}
-\Omega_{_2}\Big](x,y;z,u)
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
-6{\partial^4\over\partial x^2\partial u^2}\Big(u\Omega_{_1}
(x,y;z,u)\Big)-6{\partial^3\Omega_{_1}\over\partial x^3}(x,y;z,u)
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
+3{\partial^3\over\partial x^2\partial u}\Big[(3-Q_\beta)(z-u)\Omega_{_0}
+(1-Q_\beta)\Omega_{_1}\Big](x,y;z,u)
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
+3(1-Q_\beta){\partial^3\over\partial x^2\partial z}\Big[(z-u)\Omega_{_0}
-\Omega_{_1}\Big](x,y;z,u)\Big\}\;,
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&F_5(x,y,z,u)={1\over12}\varrho_{_{1,1}}(z,u)
\Big\{{\partial^4\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial x^4}
-6{\partial^2\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x^2}\Big\}(x,y)
+\Big\{{1\over16}{\partial^2\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial z^2}
-{1\over8}{\partial\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial z}
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
+{x\over16}{\partial^2\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial z^2}
-{x\over16}{\partial^3\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial z^3}
+{x\over96}{\partial^4\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial z^4}\Big\}(z,u)
\Big\{{\partial^4\varrho_{_{4,1}}\over\partial x^4}
-6{\partial^3\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial x^3}
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
+6{\partial^2\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x^2}\Big\}(x,y)
+\Big\{{1\over12}{\partial^4\varrho_{_{3,1}}\over\partial x^4}
-{1\over2}{\partial^2\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x^2}\Big\}(x,y)
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
+{1\over24}{\partial^4\over\partial x\partial y^3}\Omega_{_2}(x,y;z,u)
-{3\over8}{\partial^3\over\partial x\partial y^2}\Omega_{_1}(x,y;z,u)
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
+{1\over2}{\partial^2\over\partial x\partial y}\Omega_{_0}(x,y;z,u)\;,
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&F_6(x,y,z,u)=-{1\over16}\Big\{Q_\beta\Big[{2\over u}
{\partial\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x}(x,y)
-2{\partial^3\Omega_{_1}\over\partial x^2\partial u}(x,y;z,u)
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
+{\partial^3\over\partial x\partial u^2}\Big((z-u)\Omega_{_0}
-\Omega_{_1}\Big)(x,y;z,u)\Big]
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
-Q_\alpha\Big[2{\partial^3\Omega_{_1}\over\partial x^2\partial z}(x,y;z,u)
-{\partial^3\over\partial x\partial z\partial u}
\Big((z-u)\Omega_{_0}-\Omega_{_1}\Big)(x,y;z,u)\Big]\Big\}\;,
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&F_7(x,y,z,u)=-{1\over8}\Big\{-10{\partial\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x}
(x,y)+\ln u\Big({\partial\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x}
+{\partial^2\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x^2}\Big)(x,y)
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
+2(z-u)\Big(1+\varrho_{_{1,1}}(z,u)\Big)
{\partial^2\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x^2}(x,y)
-{\partial^3\over\partial x\partial u^2}\Big[(zu-u^2)
\Omega_{_0}\Big](x,y;z,u)
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
+{1\over2}{\partial^3\over\partial x^2\partial u}\Big[(z-3u)\Omega_{_1}
-\Omega_{_2}\Big](x,y;z,u)
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
-{1\over2}{\partial^2\over\partial x\partial u}\Big[\Omega_{_1}
-5(z-u)\Omega_{_0}\Big](x,y;z,u)
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
-{\partial^2\over\partial x^2}\Big[(z-u)\Omega_{_0}
+2\Omega_{_1}\Big](x,y;z,u)\Big\}\;,
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&F_8(x,y,z,u)=-{1\over16}\Big\{{2\over u}
{\partial\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x}(x,y)
+2(\ln z-\ln u){\partial^2\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x^2}(x,y)
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
-{\partial^3\over\partial x^2\partial u}
\Big[\Omega_{_1}+(z-u)\Omega_{_0}\Big](x,y;z,u)
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
-{\partial^3\over\partial x\partial u^2}\Big[\Omega_{_1}
-(z-u)\Omega_{_0}\Big](x,y;z,u)
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
+{\partial^3\over\partial x^2\partial z}\Big[\Omega_{_1}
-(z-u)\Omega_{_0}\Big](x,y;z,u)
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
+{\partial^3\over\partial x\partial z\partial u}\Big[\Omega_{_1}
-(z-u)\Omega_{_0}\Big](x,y;z,u)\Big\}\;,
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&F_{9}(x,y,z,u)=-{1\over16}\Big\{2(2+\ln u)\Big({\partial\varrho_{_{1,1}}
\over\partial x}-{\partial^2\varrho_{_{2,1}}\over\partial x^2}\Big)(x,y)
+2{\partial^3\over\partial x\partial u^2} \Big[u\Omega_{_1}\Big](x,y;z,u)
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
-{\partial^3\over\partial x^2\partial u}\Big[(z-u)\Omega_{_1}
-\Omega_{_2}\Big](x,y;z,u)
+{\partial^2\over\partial x\partial u}\Big[(z-u)\Omega_{_0}
-\Omega_{_1}\Big](x,y;z,u)\Big\}\;,
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&F_{10}(x,y,z,u)=-{1\over32}\Big\{{2\over u}{\partial\varrho_{_{1,1}}
\over\partial x}(x,y)-2\Big(2+\ln z\Big)
{\partial^2\varrho_{_{1,1}}\over\partial x^2}(x,y)
-4{\partial^3\Omega_{_1}\over\partial x^2\partial u}(x,y;z,u)
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
-2{\partial^3\over\partial x\partial u^2}\Big[\Omega_{_1}
-(z-u)\Omega_{_0}\Big](x,y;z,u)
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{2.8cm}
-{\partial^3\over\partial x^2\partial z}\Big[5\Omega_{_1}
-(z-u)\Omega_{_0}\Big](x,y;z,u)\Big\}\;,
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&P_1(x,y,z,u,w)={1\over16}\Big\{2\Big((2-Q_\beta)\ln w+1-2Q_\beta\Big)
{\varrho_{_{1,1}}(x,z)-\varrho_{_{1,1}}(y,z)\over x-y}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{3.2cm}
+\Big({\partial\over\partial x}+{\partial\over\partial y}\Big)^2\Big[
3{\varrho_{_{3,1}}(x,z)-\varrho_{_{3,1}}(y,z)\over x-y}
-{\varrho_{_{3,2}}(x,z)-\varrho_{_{3,2}}(y,z)\over x-y}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{3.2cm}
+2(u-w+u\ln u-w\ln w){\varrho_{_{2,1}}(x,z)-\varrho_{_{2,1}}(y,z)\over x-y}\Big]
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{3.2cm}
+2\Big({\partial\over\partial x}+{\partial\over\partial y}\Big)\Big[
2(u-w+u\ln u-w\ln w){\varrho_{_{1,1}}(x,z)-\varrho_{_{1,1}}(y,z)\over x-y}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{3.2cm}
+2\ln w{\varrho_{_{2,1}}(x,z)-\varrho_{_{2,1}}(y,z)\over x-y}
+{\varrho_{_{2,2}}(x,z)-\varrho_{_{2,2}}(y,z)\over x-y}\Big]
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{3.2cm}
-{\partial^2\over\partial w^2}\Big[w(u-w){\Omega_{_0}(x,z;u,w)
-\Omega_{_0}(y,z;u,w)\over x-y}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{3.2cm}
+w{\Omega_{_1}(x,z;u,w)-\Omega_{_1}(y,z;u,w)\over x-y}\Big]
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{3.2cm}
+(2-Q_\beta){\partial\over\partial w}\Big[(u-w){\Omega_{_0}(x,z;u,w)
-\Omega_{_0}(y,z;u,w)\over x-y}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{3.2cm}
-{\Omega_{_1}(x,z;u,w)-\Omega_{_1}(y,z;u,w)\over x-y}\Big]
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{3.2cm}
-\Big({\partial\over\partial x}+{\partial\over\partial y}\Big)^2
\Big[{\Omega_{_2}(x,z;u,w)-\Omega_{_2}(y,z;u,w)\over x-y}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{3.2cm}
+(u-w){\Omega_{_1}(x,z;u,w)-\Omega_{_1}(y,z;u,w)\over x-y}\Big]
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{3.2cm}
-2\Big({\partial\over\partial x}+{\partial\over\partial y}\Big)
{\partial\over\partial w}\Big[{\Omega_{_2}(x,z;u,w)-\Omega_{_2}(y,z;u,w)\over x-y}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{3.2cm}
+(u+w){\Omega_{_1}(x,z;u,w)-\Omega_{_1}(y,z;u,w)\over x-y}\Big]
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{3.2cm}
-2\Big({\partial\over\partial x}+{\partial\over\partial y}\Big)\Big[
{\Omega_{_1}(x,z;u,w)-\Omega_{_1}(y,z;u,w)\over x-y}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{3.2cm}
+(u-w){\Omega_{_0}(x,z;u,w)-\Omega_{_0}(y,z;u,w)\over x-y}\Big]\Big\}\;,
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&P_2(x,y,z,u,w)={1\over16}\Big\{2\Big(\ln w-3+2Q_\beta-(1-Q_\beta)\ln u)\Big)
{\varrho_{_{1,1}}(x,z)-\varrho_{_{1,1}}(y,z)\over x-y}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{3.2cm}
+\Big({\partial\over\partial x}+{\partial\over\partial y}\Big)^2\Big[
-3{\varrho_{_{3,1}}(x,z)-\varrho_{_{3,1}}(y,z)\over x-y}
+{\varrho_{_{3,2}}(x,z)-\varrho_{_{3,2}}(y,z)\over x-y}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{3.2cm}
+2(u-w+u\ln u-w\ln w){\varrho_{_{2,1}}(x,z)-\varrho_{_{2,1}}(y,z)
\over x-y}\Big]
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{3.2cm}
+2\Big({\partial\over\partial x}+{\partial\over\partial y}\Big)\Big(
2(u-w+u\ln u-w\ln w){\varrho_{_{1,1}}(x,z)-\varrho_{_{1,1}}(y,z)\over x-y}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{3.2cm}
-{\varrho_{_{2,2}}(x,z)-\varrho_{_{2,2}}(y,z)\over x-y}\Big)
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{3.2cm}
-{\partial^2\over\partial w^2}\Big[w(u-w){\Omega_{_0}(x,z;u,w)
-\Omega_{_0}(y,z;u,w)\over x-y}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{3.2cm}
-w{\Omega_{_1}(x,z;u,w)-\Omega_{_1}(y,z;u,w)\over x-y}\Big]
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{3.2cm}
+3{\partial\over\partial w}\Big[(u-w){\Omega_{_0}(x,z;u,w)
-\Omega_{_0}(y,z;u,w)\over x-y}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{3.2cm}
-{\Omega_{_1}(x,z;u,w)-\Omega_{_1}(y,z;u,w)\over x-y}\Big]
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{3.2cm}
+\Big({\partial\over\partial x}+{\partial\over\partial y}\Big)^2\Big[
{\Omega_{_2}(x,z;u,w)-\Omega_{_2}(y,z;u,w)\over x-y}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{3.2cm}
-(u-w){\Omega_{_1}(x,z;u,w)-\Omega_{_1}(y,z;u,w)\over x-y}\Big]
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{3.2cm}
+4w\Big({\partial\over\partial x}+{\partial\over\partial y}\Big)
{\partial\over\partial w}\Big[{\Omega_{_1}(x,z;u,w)-\Omega_{_1}(y,z;u,w)
\over x-y}\Big]
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{3.2cm}
-2\Big({\partial\over\partial x}+{\partial\over\partial y}\Big)\Big[
{\Omega_{_1}(x,z;u,w)-\Omega_{_1}(y,z;u,w)\over x-y}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{3.2cm}
+(u-w){\Omega_{_0}(x,z;u,w)-\Omega_{_0}(y,z;u,w)\over x-y}\Big]
\nonumber\\
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
&&\hspace{3.2cm}
+(1-Q_\beta){\partial\over\partial u}\Big[{\Omega_{_1}(x,z;u,w)
-\Omega_{_1}(y,z;u,w)\over x-y}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{3.2cm}
-(u-w){\Omega_{_0}(x,z;u,w)-\Omega_{_0}(y,z;u,w)\over x-y}\Big]\Big\}\;,
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&P_3(x,y,z,u,w)={1\over16}\Big\{-2(2+\ln w)
{\varrho_{_{1,1}}(x,z)-\varrho_{_{1,1}}(y,z)\over x-y}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{3.2cm}
+(1-2Q_\beta){\partial\over\partial w}
\Big[{\Omega_{_1}(x,z;u,w)-\Omega_{_1}(y,z;u,w)\over x-y}\Big]
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{3.2cm}
+\Big(1-(u-w){\partial\over\partial w}\Big)
\Big[{\Omega_{_0}(x,z;u,w)-\Omega_{_0}(y,z;u,w)\over x-y}\Big]\Big\}\;,
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&P_4(x,y,z,u,w)={1\over16}\Big\{2\Big(2Q_\beta+\ln w-(1-Q_\beta)\ln u\Big)
{\varrho_{_{1,1}}(x,z)-\varrho_{_{1,1}}(y,z)\over x-y}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{3.2cm}
-\Big(Q_\beta-(u-w){\partial\over\partial w}
-(1-Q_\beta)(u-w){\partial\over\partial u}
\Big){\Omega_{_0}(x,z;u,w)-\Omega_{_0}(y,z;u,w)\over x-y}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{3.2cm}
-\Big({\partial\over\partial w}+(1-Q_\beta){\partial\over\partial u}\Big)
{\Omega_{_1}(x,z;u,w)-\Omega_{_1}(y,z;u,w)\over x-y}\Big\}\;,
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&P_5(x,y,z,u,w)={1\over8\sqrt{2}}\Big\{-2(2+\ln w)
{\varrho_{_{1,1}}(x,z)-\varrho_{_{1,1}}(y,z)\over x-y}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{3.2cm}
-{\partial\over\partial w}\Big[{\Omega_{_1}(x,z;u,w)-\Omega_{_1}(y,z;u,w)
\over x-y}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{3.2cm}
+(u-w){\Omega_{_0}(x,z;u,w)-\Omega_{_0}(y,z;u,w)\over x-y}\Big]\Big\}\;,
\nonumber\\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
&&P_6(x,y,z,u,w)=-{1\over8\sqrt{2}}\Big\{\Big\{2(\ln u-\ln w){\varrho_{_{1,1}}(x,z)
-\varrho_{_{1,1}}(y,z)\over x-y}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{3.2cm}
+\Big({\partial\over\partial u}+{\partial\over\partial w}\Big)\Big[
{\Omega_{_1}(x,z;u,w)-\Omega_{_1}(y,z;u,w)
\over x-y}\Big]
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{3.2cm}
-(u-w)\Big({\partial\over\partial u}+{\partial\over\partial w}\Big)\Big[
{\Omega_{_0}(x,z;u,w)-\Omega_{_0}(y,z;u,w)\over x-y}\Big]\Big\}\;.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{eq15}\end{aligned}$$
[99]{} E. Barberio [*et al.*]{}, arXiv: 0808.1297 (hep-ex). M. Misiak [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 022002(2007); M. Misiak, arXiv: 0808.3134 (hep-ph); K. Chetyrkin, M. Misiak, and M. Munz, Phys. Lett. B [**400**]{}, 206(1997); [*ibid.*]{} [**425**]{}, 414(1997)(E); T. Hurth, hep-ph/0106050; C. Greub, T. Hurth, and D. Wyler, Phys. Rev. D [**54**]{}, 3350(1996); K. Adel and Y. Yao, [*ibid*]{}. [**49**]{}, 4945(1994); A. Ali and C. Greub, Phys. Lett. B [**361**]{}, 146(1995). A. Strumia, Nucl. Phys. B [**532**]{}(1998)28. F. Borzumati, C. Greub, and Y. Yamada, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 055005(2004). Tai-Fu Feng, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}(2004)096012. Tai-Fu Feng, Xue-Qian Li, Jukka Maalampi, Xinmin Zhang, Phys. Rev. D. [**71**]{}(2005)056005. Tai-Fu Feng, Xue-Qian Li, Lin Lin, Jukka Maalampi, and He-Shan Song, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}(2006)116001. Tai-Fu Feng, Lin Sun, and Xiu-Yi Yang, Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}(2008)116008; Nucl. Phys. B. [**800**]{}(2008)221. M. Bohm, H. Spiesberger, W. Hollik, Fortsch. Phys. [**34**]{}(1986)687; A. Denner, [*ibid.*]{} [**41**]{}(1993)307. L. F. Abbott, Nucl. Phys. B [**185**]{}(1981)189; M. B. Gavela, G. Girardi, C. Malleville, and P. Sorba, Nucl. Phys. B [**193**]{}(1981)257; N. G. Deshpande, M. Nazerimonfared, Nucl. Phys. B [**213**]{}(1983)390. G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras, M. E. Lautenbacher, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**68**]{}(1996)1125; R. Grigjanis, P. J. O’Donnell, M. Sutherland, H. Navelet, Phys. Rept. [**228**]{}(1993)93. A. I. Davydychev and J. B. Tausk, Nucl. Phys. B [**397**]{}, 123(1993). S. M. Barr and A. Zee, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{}(1990)21. D. Chang, W. Keung and A. Pilaftsis, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 900(1999); A. Pilaftsis, Phys. Lett. B [**471**]{}, 174(1999); D. Chang, W. Chang and W. Keung, [*ibid.*]{} [**478**]{}, 239(2000); T. F. Feng, T. Huang, X. Q. Li, X. M. Zhang, and S. M. Zhao, Phys.Rev. D. [**68**]{}, 016004(2003). K. Chetyrkin, M. Misiak, and M. Munz, Phys. Lett. B [**400**]{}, 206(1997); [**425**]{}, 414(E)(1997); T. Hurth, hep-ph/0106050; C. Greub, T. Hurth, and D. Wyler, Phys. Rev. D [**54**]{}, 3350(1996); K. Adel and Y. Yao, [*ibid.*]{} [**49**]{}, 4945(1994); A. Ali and C. Greub, Phys. Lett. B [**361**]{}, 146(1995). C. Amsler [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B[**667**]{}(2008)1. A. L. Kagan and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{}, 094012(1998). H. Georgi, A. K. Grant and G. Hailz, Phys. Rev. D. [**63**]{}(2001)064027; T. Appelquist, H.-C. Cheng and B. Dobrescu, Phys. Rev. D. [**64**]{}(2001)035002. L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}(1999)3370; S. Casagrande, F. Goertz, U. Haisch, M. Neubert and T. Pfoh, JHEP[**094**]{}(2008)0810. M. J. Ramsey-Mzsolf, S. Su, Phys. Rept. [**456**]{}(2008)1. P. H. Frampton, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}(1992)2889; F. Pisano and V. Pleitez, Phys. Rev. D. [**46**]{}(1992)410. J. Hubisz and P. Meade, Phys. Rev. D. [**71**]{}(2005)035016.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We give a survey of some old and new results about the stated skein modules/algebras of 3-manifolds/surfaces. For generic quantum parameter, we discuss the splitting homomorphism for the 3-manifold case, general structures of the stated skein algebras of marked surfaces (or bordered punctured surfaces) and their embeddings into quantum tori. For roots of 1 quantum parameter, we discuss the Frobenius homomorphism (for both marked 3-manifolds and marked surfaces), describe the center of the skein algebra of marked surfaces, the dimension of the skein algebra over the center, and the representation theory of the skein algebra. In particular, we show that the skein algebra of non-closed marked surface at any root of 1 is a maximal order. We give a full description of the Azumaya locus of the skein algebra of the puncture torus and give partial results for closed surfaces.'
address:
- 'School of Mathematics, 686 Cherry Street, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA'
- 'School of Mathematics, 686 Cherry Street, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA'
author:
- 'Thang T. Q. Lê'
- Tao Yu
title: 'Stated skein modules of marked 3-manifolds/surfaces, a survey'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
We survey some old and new results about the stated skein modules of marked 3-manifolds and skein algebras of surfaces.
Kauffman bracket skein modules for 3-manifolds and skein algebras for surfaces were introduced by Przytycki [@Przy] and Turaev [@Turaev; @Turaev2] in around 1987. The skein modules/algebras have played an important role in low dimensional topology and quantum algebra as they have applications and connections to objects such as character varieties [@Bullock; @PS; @Turaev; @BFK], the Jones polynomial and its related topological quantum field theory (TQFT) [@Kauffman; @BHMV; @Tu:Book], (quantum) Teichmüller spaces and (quantum) cluster algebras [@BW0; @FGo; @FST; @Muller], the AJ conjecture [@FGL; @Le5], and many more.
More than 20 years after the Kauffman bracket skein algebra was introduced, Bonahon and Wong [@BW0] made an important contribution, proving that the skein algebra of a surface with at least one puncture can be embedded into a quantum torus by the quantum trace map, which is a quantization of the map expressing the trace of curves in the shear coordinates of Teichmüller space. The work opens possibilities to quantize Thurston’s theory of hyperbolic surfaces to build hyperbolic TQFT and to better geometrically understand the volume conjecture [@Kashaev1]. One main problem is to understand the representation theory of the skein algebras at roots of 1.
Bonahon and Wong’s proof of the existence of the quantum trace map suggests that the skein algebra of a surface can be split into smaller simple blocks. The first author [@Le:triangular] worked out and made precise this splitting phenomenon by introducing the stated skein algebra for punctured bordered surfaces, which are punctured surfaces having boundary. The main feature is the existence of the splitting homomorphism relating the stated skein algebra of a surface and that of its splitting along an ideal arc. This approach gives a new proof of the existence of the quantum trace map, and more [@CL]. The stated skein algebra theory fits well with the [*integral*]{} quantum group associated to $SL_2(\BC)$ and its integral dual $\mathcal O_{q^2}(\mathfrak{sl}_2)$, and many algebraic facts concerning the quantum groups have simple transparent interpretations by geometric formulas. For example, the stated skein algebra of the bigon $\cB(\cD_2)$, with its natural cobraided structure, is isomorphic to the cobraided Hopf algebra $\mathcal O_{q^2}(\mathfrak {sl}_2)$, and under the isomorphism the natural basis of $\cB(\cD_2)$ maps to Kashiwara’s canonical basis of $\mathcal O_{q^2}(\mathfrak{sl}_2)$, see [@CL] and Section \[sec.surfaces\].
In this paper, we extend the definition of the stated skein modules to marked 3-manifolds (Section \[sec.2\]), and then survey some old and new results on the stated skein modules/algebras. In Section \[sec.splitting\] we sketch a proof of the splitting homomorphism for the 3-manifold case. Section \[sec.surfaces\] gives general properties of skein algebras of surfaces: basis, Noetherian domain, Gelfand-Kirillov dimension. We also discuss relations between stated skein algebras and both quantum groups (for the ideal bigon and the ideal triangle) and the quantum moduli algebra of Alekseev-Grosse-Schomerus and Buffenoir-Roche (for once-marked surfaces). Section \[sec.embedding\] explains two embeddings of the stated skein algebra of a surface with at least one ideal point into quantum tori and relations between them. For closed surfaces we discuss the embedding of an associated graded algebra into a quantum torus. Section \[sec.Che\] gives the Chebyshev-Frobenius homomorphism for marked 3-manifolds. In Section \[sec.root1\] we describe the center of the stated skein algebra of a marked surface at a root $\xi$ of 1, calculate its PI degree, discuss the Azumaya locus in the general case, and give a precise description of the Azumaya locus for the punctured torus and partial results for closed surfaces. Proofs of some results are sketched, and details of many results will appear elsewhere.
Acknowledgments
---------------
The authors would like to thank F. Bonahon, F. Costantino, C. Frohman, J. Kania-Bartoszynska, T. Schedler, A. Sikora, and M. Yakimov for helpful discussions. The first author is supported in part by NSF grant DMS 1811114.
Skein modules/algebras {#sec.2}
======================
Ground ring, notations
----------------------
Throughout the paper, the ground ring $\cR$ is a commutative Noetherian domain with a distinguished invertible element $q^{1/2}$. Let $\BN, \BZ, \BC$ denote respectively the sets of non-negative integers, integers, and complex numbers.
Skein modules of marked 3-manifolds
-----------------------------------
As in [@Le:qtrace], a [*marked 3-manifold*]{} is a pair $(M,\cN)$, where $M$ is an oriented 3-manifold with (possibly empty) boundary $\partial M$, and $\cN \subset \partial M$ is a 1-dimensional oriented submanifold, called the [*marking*]{}, such that each connected component of $\cN$ is diffeomorphic to the closed interval $[0,1]$.
An [*$\cN$-tangle in $M$*]{} is a compact 1-dimensional non-oriented submanifold $\al$ of $M$, equipped with a non-tangent vector field, called the [*framing*]{}, such that $\partial \al = \al \cap \cN$ and the framing at each boundary point of $\al$ is a positive tangent vector of $\cN$. Two $\cN$-tangles are [*$\cN$-isotopic*]{} if they are isotopic in the class of $\cN$-tangles. The empty set is considered as a $\cN$-tangle isotopic only to itself.
A [*stated $\cN$-tangle*]{} $\al$ is a $\cN$-tangle equipped with a map $s : \partial \al \to \{\pm \}$, called the states of $\al$.
The [*skein module*]{} $\cS\MN$ is the $\cR$-module freely spanned by $\cN$-isotopy classes of $\cN$-tangles modulo the local relations (A-E) described in Figure \[stated-relations\]. In each relation, the diagrams represent parts of $\cN$-tangles. The framings in the diagrams are perpendicular to the page and pointing to the reader. In (C-E), we assume that $\cN$ is perpendicular to the page, and its intersection with the page is the bullet labeled by $\cN$ there. There are two strands of the $\cN$-tangle coming to $\cN$, the lower one being depicted by the broken line. There are no other strands ending on the segment of $\cN$ between the two strands. The states of the endpoints are marked by $\pm$.
[0.45]{}
[0.45]{}
[0.45]{}
[0.45]{}
When $\cN=\emptyset$ we don’t need the relations (C-E). In this case the skein module was introduced independently by J. Przytycki [@Przy] and V. Turaev [@Turaev; @Turaev2]. Relations (A) and (B) were introduced by Kauffman [@Kauffman] in his study of the Jones polynomial. Relations (C) and (D), for surface case, appeared in [@BW0]. Relation (E) appeared in [@Le:triangular].
Marked surfaces and punctured bordered surfaces
-----------------------------------------------
A [*marked surface*]{} is a pair $\SM$, where $\Sigma$ is a compact oriented surface with possibly empty boundary $\pS$ and $\cP\subset \pS$ is a finite set, called the set of marked points. The [*associated marked 3-manifold*]{} $\MN$ is defined by $M = \Sigma \times [-1,1]$ and $\cN=\cP \times [-1,1]$. Although $M$ has corners when $\pS\neq \emptyset$, we can smooth the corner and consider $M$ as a smooth 3-manifold. Define $\cS\SM= \cS \MN$ as an $\cR$-module. Given two stated $\cN$-tangles $\alpha, \al'$ define the product $\al \al'$ by stacking $\al$ above $\al'$. This gives $\cS\SM$ an $\cR$-algebra structure, which was first introduced by Turaev [@Turaev] for the case $\cP=\emptyset$ in connection with the quantization of the Atiyah-Bott-Weil-Petersson-Goldman symplectic structure of the character variety. The algebra $\cS\SM$ is closely related to the character variety (see [@Bullock; @PS; @BFK]) and the quantum Teichmüller space (see [@CF; @Kashaev; @BW0]).
The skein algebra $\cS\SM$ coincides with the stated skein algebra introduced by the first author in [@Le:triangular], although at first they look different. Let us explain the connection here.
A boundary component of $\Sigma$ is [*unmarked*]{} if it does not have a marked point. Let $\fS$ be the result of removing all marked points and unmarked boundary components from $\Sigma$. Such a surface $\fS$ is called a [*punctured bordered surface*]{}. Each marked point of $\Sigma$ is called a [*boundary ideal point*]{} of $\fS$, and each unmarked boundary component of $\Sigma$ is called an [*interior ideal point*]{} of $\fS$. By adding back the ideal points one can recover $\SM$ from $\fS$. Each connected component $c$ of the boundary $\pfS$ is an open interval, called a [*boundary edge*]{} of $\fS$, and $c\times (-1,1)$ is called a [*boundary wall*]{} of $M':= \fS \times (-1,1)$. The boundary $\tpfS$ of $M'$ is the disjoint union of all the boundary walls.
By a [*$\tpfS$-tangle*]{} $\al$ in $M'= \fS\times (-1,1)$ we mean a framed 1-dimensional compact non-oriented submanifold properly embedded in $M'$ with vertical framing at each endpoint and distinct heights for endpoints in each boundary wall. Two $\tpfS$-tangles are [*$\tpfS$-isotopic*]{} if they are isotopic in the class of $\tpfS$-tangles. Note that the endpoints of $\al$ in one boundary wall are linearly ordered by heights since they have distinct heights, and $\tpfS$-isotopy does not change the height order.
Every $\tpfS$-tangle can be represented by a [*$\pfS$-tangle diagram*]{}, which by definition[^2] is a tangle diagram on $\fS$ where
- the endpoints of the tangle diagram are distinct points in $\pfS$, and
- on each boundary edge $c$ the height order is given by the positive direction of $c$ (inherited from the orientation of $\fS$).
Every $\cN$-tangle in $M$ can be turned into a $\tpfS$-tangle in $M'$ by slightly moving the endpoints above a marked point on a boundary component $b$ along the negative direction of $b$ (opposite of the arrows in Figure \[boundary-relations\]). This gives a bijection of $\cN$-isotopy classes of $\cN$-tangles and $\tpfS$-isotopy classes of $\tpfS$-tangles. Hence the skein algebra $\cS\SM$ is canonically isomorphic to the skein algebra $\cS(\fS)$ defined as the $\cR$-module freely generated by $\tpfS$-isotopy classes of stated $\tpfS$-tangles modulo the original relations (A) and (B), and the new relations (C-E) of Figure \[boundary-relations\], which are the translations of the relations (C-E) in Figure \[boundary-relations\]. This is the definition introduced in [@CL].
[0.45]{}
[0.45]{}
Positive state submodule
------------------------
The submodule $\cSp\MN$ of $\cS\MN$ spanned by $\cN$-tangles with positive states was introduced in [@Le:qtrace]. The corresponding subalgebra $\cSp\SM\subset{\mathscr{S}}(\Sigma,{\mathcal{P}})$ in the marked surface was first defined by Muller [@Muller] in connection with quantum cluster theory. The Muller algebra $\cSp\SM$ is a quantization of the decorated Teichmüller space of Penner [@Penner].
Category of marked 3-manifolds
------------------------------
The skein module can be considered as a functor from the category of marked $3$-manifolds and (isotopy classes of) embeddings to the category of $\cR$-modules.
An [*embedding*]{} of a marked 3-manifold $\MN$ into $(M',\cN')$ is an orientation preserving proper embedding $f: M \embed M'$ that restricts to an orientation preserving embedding on $\cN$. An embedding $f$ induces an $\cR$-module homomorphism $f_\ast: \cS\MNp \to \cS\MNp$ by $f_\ast[T]=[f(T)]$ for any stated $\cN$-tangle $T$. Clearly $f_\ast$ depends only on the isotopy class of $f$. A [*morphism*]{} from $\MN$ to $(M',\cN')$ is an isotopy class of embeddings from $\MN$ to $(M',\cN')$.
If $\MN = (M_1, \cN_1) \sqcup (M_2, \cN_2)$, then there is a natural isomorphism $$\cS (M_1, \cN_1) \ot_R \cS(M_2, \cN_2)\cong\cS\MN$$ sending $[T_1]\otimes[T_2]$ to $[T_1\cup T_2]$ for any $\mathcal{N}_1$-tangle $T_1$ and $\mathcal{N}_2$-tangle $T_2$.
In the case of marked surfaces, there is a similar picture. The skein algebra is a monoidal functor from the category of marked surfaces and embeddings to the category of $\cR$-algebras. An [*embedding*]{} of a marked surface $\SM$ into $(\Sigma', {\mathcal{P}}')$ is an orientation preserving proper embedding $f: \Sigma \embed \Sigma'$ such that $f(\cP) \subset \cP'$. The embedding $f$ induces an $\cR$-algebra homomorphism $f_\ast: \cS\SM \to \cS(\Sigma', \cP')$.
Higher rank group $SL_n$
------------------------
The theory of skein modules/algebras for Lie group $SL_n$ has been developed in joint work of the first author and A. Sikora [@LS], where analogs of a splitting homomorphism (Theorem \[thm.splitting\]) and a quantum group isomorphism of the bigon algebra (Theorem \[thm.iso1\]) are obtained.
Splitting homomorphism {#sec.splitting}
======================
A basic property of the skein module of marked 3-manifolds is the existence of the splitting homomorphism which relates the skein module of a marked 3-manifold to a new, simpler, marked 3-manifold obtained by splitting the original one along an embedded disk. The splitting homomorphism has many applications and is one of the most important technical tools. It was in a search for such a splitting homomorphism that prompted the first author to introduce the stated skein algebras of marked surfaces.
Splitting homomorphism for 3-manifolds
--------------------------------------
Suppose $\MN$ is a marked 3-manifold and $a_1,a_2$ are two connected components of the marking set $\cN$. We do not assume $M$ is connected.
For each $i=1,2$, choose a closed disk $D_i\subset \pM$ whose interior contains $a_i$ such that $D_1$ and $D_2$ are disjoint and disjoint from any other connected component of $\cN$. Each disk $D_i$ inherits an orientation from $M$. Choose an orientation reversing diffeomorphism $h: D_1 \to D_2$ such that $h$ restricts to an orientation preserving diffeomorphism $a_1\to a_2$. Let $M'= M/(D_1\equiv_h D_2)$ be the 3-manifold obtained from $M$ by identifying $D_1$ with $D_2$ via $h$, and let $\cN' = \cN \setminus (a_1 \cup a_2) \subset \partial M'$. Then $(M', \cN')$ is a marked 3-manifold (after smoothing the corner).
There is a natural projection $p: M \to M'$. Let $a=p(a_1)=p(a_2)$ and $D=p(D_1)=p(D_2)$. Then $D$ is a disk properly embedded in $M'$, disjoint from $\cN'$, and containing the arc $a$ in its interior. We will say $\MN$ is the result of splitting $(M', \cN')$ along $(D,a)$.
An $\cN'$-tangle $\al$ in $M'$ is said to be [*$(D,a)$-transversal*]{} if $p^{-1}(\al)$ is an $\cN$-tangle, i.e.
- $\al$ is transversal to $D$, and $\al \cap D = \al \cap a$, and
- the framing at every point of $\al \cap a$ is a positive tangent vector of $a$.
Then $\tal := p^{-1}(\al)$ is an $\cN$-tangle in $M$. If in addition $\al$ is stated, then $\tal$ is stated at every endpoint except for the endpoints on $a_1 \cup a_2$. Given a map $$s: \al \cap a \to \{\pm\},$$ let $(\tal, s)$ be the stated $\cN$-tangle whose state at a point $x \in \tal \cap (a_1 \cup a_2)$ is given by $s(p(x))$.
\[thm.splitting\] Assume $\MN$ is the result of splitting $(M', \cN')$ along $(D,a)$, with the above notations. There is a unique $\cR$-module homomorphism $$\Theta: \cS(M',\cN') \to \cS\MN$$ such that if $\al$ is an $\cN'$-tangle $\al$ in $M'$ which is $(D,a)$-transversal, then $$\Theta(\al) = \sum_{s: \al \cap a \to \{\pm\}} (\tal,s).$$
If the splitting is applied to multiple disks, it can be done in different orders. It is clear from definition that the splitting homomorphism is independent of the order.
We sketch a proof here. For details, see [@BL]. The majority of the work is done in [@Le:triangular].
Let $T(D)$ denote the $\cR$-module freely generated by $(D,a)$-transversal $\mathcal{N}'$-tangles (not isotopy classes). The formula above defines a map $$\tilde{\Theta}:T(D)\to{\mathscr{S}}(M,\mathcal{N}).$$
We need to show that $\tilde{\Theta}$ is invariant under isotopy and all moves given by the defining relations (A-E) of Figure \[stated-relations\]. We can assume that the supports of the isotopy and the moves are small. If the support is disjoint from $D$ then clearly $\tilde{\Theta}$ is invariant. On the other hand, if the support is small and intersects $D$, the invariance of $\tilde{\Theta}$ is verified in the proof of Theorem 3.1 of [@Le:triangular].
The spitting homomorphism gives the skein theory of marked 3-manifolds some flavor of a topological quantum field theory. We will explore this direction in the upcoming work [@CL2].
Splitting homomorphism for surfaces
-----------------------------------
Suppose $p_1$ and $p_2$ are two marked points of a marked surface $\SM$ which might be disconnected. For $i=1,2$ choose a closed interval $b_i\subset \pS$ which contains $p_i$ in its interior. By identifying $b_1$ with $b_2$ via an orientation reversing diffeomorphism which maps $p_1$ to $p_2$, from $\Sigma$ we get a new surface $\Sigma'$. Let $\cP'= \cP\setminus \{p_1, p_2\}$, considered as a subset of $\pS'$. The splitting homomorphism gives an $\cR$-linear homomorphism $$\Theta: \cS(\Sigma', \cP') \to \cS\SM. \label{eq.iso1}$$ For surfaces, we get a stronger result.
[@CL] The splitting homomorphism in is an injective $\cR$-algebra homomorphism.
Originally, the splitting homomorphism is defined for punctured bordered surfaces. In this case, splitting a punctured bordered surface $\mathfrak{S}'$ along an [*ideal arc*]{} $e$ gives a new punctured bordered surface $\fS$ with new boundary edges $e_1, e_2$ (among all boundary edges) such that after gluing $e_1$ with $e_2$ one recovers $\fS'$. The splitting homomorphism gives an algebra embedding $\Theta: \cS(\fS') \to \cS(\fS)$.
Surfaces {#sec.surfaces}
========
We discuss general properties of the skein algebra of a marked surface and its relations to known algebras, including the quantum groups associated to $SL_2(\BC)$ and their canonical bases.
Throughout $\SM$ is a marked surface, with corresponding punctured bordered surface $\fS$. Let $$r\SM= r(\fS):=
\begin{cases}
0, &\text{if $\fS$ is the sphere with no or one ideal point}, \\
1, &\text{if $\fS$ is the sphere with two ideal points},\\
2, &\text{if $\fS$ is the closed torus},\\
3 m - 3 \chi(\fS), &\text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\label{eq.rfS}$$ Here $m=|\cP|$ is the number of marked points or the number of boundary edges of $\fS$, and $\chi(\Sigma)=\chi(\fS)$ is the Euler characteristic.
Basis, domain, Gelfand-Kirillov dimension
-----------------------------------------
Unlike the 3-manifold case, the skein module $\cS(\fS)$ of a punctured bordered surface is always a free $\cR$-module, with a basis described below.
A $\pfS$-tangle diagram $\al$ is [*simple*]{} if it has no crossing, no trivial loop, and no trivial arc. Here a [*trivial loop*]{} is a simple closed curve bounding a disk in $\fS$, and a [*trivial arc*]{} is one which can be homotoped relative to its endpoints into a boundary edge.
We order the set $\{ \pm \}$ so that $+$ is greater than $-$. The state $s: \partial \al \to \{\pm\}$ of a $\pfS$-tangle diagram $\al$ is [*increasing*]{} if when traversing any boundary edge along its positive direction, the state values are never decreasing, i.e. one never encounters a $-$ immediately after a $+$. Let $B(\fS)$ be the set of all isotopy classes of increasingly stated, simple $\pfS$-tangle diagrams, including the empty set, which by convention is considered as a simple $\pfS$-tangle diagram.
\[thm.basis\] (a) [@Le:triangular] As an $\cR$-module, $\cS(\fS)$ is free with basis $B(\fS)$.
\(b) [@LY] As an $\cR$-algebra, $\cS(\fS)$ is orderly finitely generated by arcs and loops. This means, there are one-component $\pfS$-tangle diagrams $x_1, \dots, x_n \in B(\fS)$ such that the set $\{ x_1^ {k_1} \dots x_n^{k_n} \mid k_i \in \BN\}$ spans $\cS(\fS)$ over $\cR$.
\(c) [@LY] $\cS(\fS)$ is a Noetherian domain.
\(d) [@LY] The Gelfand-Kirillov dimension of $\cS(\fS)$ is $r(\fS)$.
When $\fS$ has no boundary, parts (a), (b), (c) were known, see respectively [@Przy; @AF; @PS2]. The finite generation (without order, and for no boundary $\fS$) was first proved in [@Bullock]. When $\fS$ has at least one ideal point and no boundary, the fact that $\cS(\fS)$ is a domain follows from [@BW0] where it is proved that the quantum trace map embeds $\cS(\fS)$ into a quantum torus, which is a domain. Part (d) follows from Theorems \[thm.embedding\](b) and \[thm.embedding2\] below.
Bigon, co-braided quantum group, and canonical basis
----------------------------------------------------
The bigon $\bdD_2$ is the disk with two marked points on the boundary; its corresponding punctured bordered surface, denoted by $\cD_2$, is the disk with two boundary ideal points, see Figure \[fig:bigon\].
![Bigons: $\mathbf D_2$, $\cD_2$, and arcs $\alpha_{\mu\nu} $ in $\cD_2$ with $\mu,\nu \in \{\pm \}$.[]{data-label="fig:bigon"}](bigon.eps){height="2.5cm"}
The topology of the bigon $\cD_2$ is very special, which allows us to define many interesting operations on $\cS(\cD_2)$. For example, by splitting the bigon $\cD_2$ along an ideal arc connecting the two ideal points, we get a disjoint union of two bigons. The corresponding splitting algebra homomorphism $$\Delta: \cS(\cD_2) \to \cS(\cD_2) \ot_\cR \cS(\cD_2)$$ defines a coproduct on $\cS(\cD_2)$. Similarly both a counit and an antipode may be geometrically defined, making $\cS(\cD_2)$ a Hopf algebra, see [@CL]. Moreover, the Hopf algebra $\cS(\cD_2)$ is [*cobraided*]{}, i.e. it has a co-$R$-matrix $ \rho: \cS(\cD_2) \ot_\cR \cS(\cD_2) \to \cR$ which turns the category of $\cS(\cD_2)$-comodules into a braided category. For an overview of the theory of cobraided Hopf algebra see [@Majid]. The co-$R$-matrix is given by the following nice geometric formula, where $x$ and $y$ are $\partial \cD_2$-tangle diagrams and $\ve$ is the counit. $$\rho \left(\letterx \ot \lettery \right) = \epsilon \left( \letterxy \right).$$
It turns out that $\cS(\cD_2)$ is isomorphic to the well-known cobraided Hopf algebra $\mathcal{O}_{q^2}(\mathfrak{sl}_2)$, which is the Hopf dual of the quantized enveloping algebra $U_{q^2}(\mathfrak{sl}_2)$ (see for example [@Majid]). As an $\cR$-algebra $\mathcal{O}_{q^2}(\mathfrak{sl}_2)$ is generated by $a,b,c,d$ modulo the relations $$\begin{aligned}
&ca=q^2ac,\,db=q^2bd,\,ba=q^2ab,\,dc=q^2cd,\,bc=cb,\\
&ad-q^{-2}bc=da-q^2bc=1.\end{aligned}$$
\[thm.iso1\][@Le:triangular; @CL] The four elements $\al_{\pm,\pm} \in \cS(\cD_2)$ in Figure \[fig:bigon\] generate the $\cR$-algebra $\cS(\cD_2)$. The map given by $$\alpha_{+,+} \mapsto a ,\ \alpha_{+,-} \mapsto b ,\ \alpha_{-,+} \mapsto c ,\ \alpha_{-,-} \mapsto d$$ is an isomorphism from $\cS(\cD_2)$ to $\mathcal{O}_{q^2}(\mathfrak{sl}_2)$ as cobraided Hopf algebras. The basis $B(\cD_2)$, up to powers of $q$, maps to Kashiwara’s canonical basis of $\mathcal{O}_{q^2}(\mathfrak{sl}_2)$.
Kashiwara’s canonical basis of $\mathcal{O}_{q^2}(\mathfrak{sl}_2)$ was one of the first constructed canonical bases of quantum groups [@Kashiwara]. The canonical basis has many nice properties, including the positivity. We will explore positivity of the basis $B(\fS)$ for other surfaces such as polygons, in a future work.
Comodule algebras over $\mathcal{O}_{q^2}(\mathfrak{sl}_2)$
-----------------------------------------------------------
Let $c$ be a boundary edge of a punctured border surface $\fS$. By gluing $c$ to the left edge of $\cD_2$, we get a back $\fS$. The splitting homomorphism gives a map $$\Delta_c : \cS(\fS) \to \cS(\fS) \ot_\cR \cS(\cD_2).$$ It turns out that $\Delta_c$ gives $\cS(\fS)$ a right $\cS(\cD_2)$-comodule structure. Moreover the comodule structure is compatible with algebra structure of $\cS(\fS)$ and makes $\cS(\fS)$ a right $\cS(\cD_2)$-comodule algebra, as defined in [@Kassel; @Majid].
Any comodule over $\mathcal{O}_{q^2}(\mathfrak{sl}_2)$ is a module over $U_{q^2}(\mathfrak{sl}_2)$. The structure of integrable $U_{q^2}(\mathfrak{sl}_2)$-modules for generic $q$ is well-known. In [@CL] it was proved that $\cS(\fS)$ is an integrable $U_{q^2}(\mathfrak{sl}_2)$-module with an explicit description of the highest weight vectors. The $\cS(\cD_2)$-comodule structure allows us to characterize the image of the splitting homomorphism in terms of the 0-th Hochschild homology, a result obtained independently by [@CL] and [@KQ].
More generally given a marked 3-manifold $\MN$ and a component $c$ of the marking $\cN$, the splitting homomorphism also gives $\cS\MN$ a comodule structure over $\cS(\cD_2)$, and its image is closely related to the 0-th Hochschild homology.
Attaching an ideal triangle
---------------------------
Let $\cD_3$ be the ideal triangle with boundary edges $c_1, c_2, c_3$ as in Figure \[fig:triangle\].
![Ideal triangle, attaching an ideal triangle to $\Sigma$, and the map $\tau$[]{data-label="fig:triangle"}](triangle.eps){height="3cm"}
Suppose $e_1, e_2$ are two boundary edges of a bordered puncture surface $\fS$. Let $\fS'$ be the result of attaching $\cD_3$ to $\fS$ by identifying $c_1$ with $e_1$ and $c_2$ with $e_2$. For a $\pfS$-tangle diagram $\al\in B(\fS)$ let $\tau(\al)$ be the $\pfS'$-tangle diagram obtained by extending the arcs ending in $c_1 \cup c_2$ to arcs ending in $c_3$ as in Figure \[fig:triangle\]. Since $B(\fS)$ is an $\cR$-basis of $\cS(\fS)$, the map $\tau$ extends to an $\cR$-linear homomorphism $\tau: \cS(\fS) \to \cS(\fS')$, which is not an algebra homomorphism in general.
[@CL]\[thm.glue2\] The map $\tau: \cS(\fS) \to \cS(\fS')$ is bijective.
The algebra structure of $\cS(\fS')$ can be described explicitly using that of $\cS(\fS)$ via the co-braiding structure of $\cS(\cD_2)$. Let us only mention two special cases, both are taken from [@CL].
First suppose $\fS =\fS_1 \sqcup \fS_2$ with $e_1\subset \fS_1$ and $e_2\subset \fS_2$. Then each $\cS(\fS_i)$, with boundary edge $e_i$, is a $\mathcal{O}_{q^2}(\mathfrak{sl}_2)$-comodule-algebra. Given any two $\mathcal{O}_{q^2}(\mathfrak{sl}_2)$-comodule-algebras, their braided tensor product is defined, which is also a $\mathcal{O}_{q^2}(\mathfrak{sl}_2)$-comodule-algebra, see [@Majid]. The explicit description of the algebra structure shows that $\cS(\fS')$ is the braided tensor product of $\cS(\fS_1)$ and $\cS(\fS_2)$. In the second example $\fS=\cD_2$, the bigon, which has two boundary edges. Attaching an ideal triangle gives $\cM_1$, which is the once-punctured monogon, see Figure \[fig:monogon\]. The above consideration gives a proof that $\cS(\cM_1)$ is isomorphic to the braided version (or transmutation) of $\mathcal{O}_{q^2}(\mathfrak{sl}_2)$, defined in [@Majid Examples 4.3.4 and 10.3.3].
![Once-punctured monogon $\cM_1$ (left) as the result of attaching an ideal triangle to a bigon (shaded).[]{data-label="fig:monogon"}](monogon.eps){height="2.5cm"}
More generally, by attaching ideal triangles we can convert the $n$-gon $\cD_n$ to an $(n-1)$-punctured monogon. The above procedure describes a relation between the two skein algebras.
Quantum moduli algebra, factorization homology
----------------------------------------------
The results of the previous subsections allow to build $\cS(\fS)$ from a few simple algebras. In the special case when there is exactly one marked point this helps to identify $\cS(\fS)$ with known algebras. Assume the ground ring $\cR$ is a field.
Suppose $\Sigma_{g,n}$ is the compact surface of genus $g$ having $n$ boundary components. For each braided Hopf algebra $H$, Alekseev, Grosse, and Schomerus [@AGS] and Buffenoir and P. Roche [@BR] define the quantum moduli algebra $A(\Sigma_{g,n};H)$ which is a quantization (of Fock-Rosly’s Poisson structure [@FR]) of the moduli space of flat $G$-connections of $\Sigma_{g,n}$ when $H$ is the quantum group associated with the simply-connected Lie group $G$. The algebra $A(\Sigma_{g,n};H)$ later appeared in the work of Ben-Zvi, Brochier, and Jordan [@BBJ], where they showed that the factorization homology of $\Sigma_{g,n}$ with value in the category of $H$-modules is the category of $A(\Sigma_{g,n};H)$-modules in an appropriate sense.
[@LY] \[thm.iso4\] For $H=U_{q^2}(\mathfrak{sl}_2)$ the quantum moduli algebra $A(\Sigma_{g,n};H)$ is isomorphic to the skein algebra $\cS(\Sigma_{g,n}')$, where $\Sigma_{g,n}'$ is the result of removing an open disk from $\Sigma_{g,n}$ and marking a point on the newly created boundary component.
We learned that Theorem \[thm.iso4\] was also independently proved by M. Faitg [@Faitg].
Embedding into quantum tori {#sec.embedding}
===========================
Quantum tori are a class of simple algebras with nice properties. In this section we discuss embeddings of skein algebras of marked surfaces into quantum tori.
Quantum tori
------------
Informally, a quantum torus is an algebra of Laurent polynomials in several variables which $q$-commute, i.e. $ab= q^k ba$ for some integer $k$. By definition, the [*quantum torus*]{} associated to an anti-symmetric $r\times r$ integral matrix $Q$ is $$\mathbb{T}(Q):=\cR\langle x_1^{\pm1},\dots,x_r^{\pm1}\rangle/\langle x_ix_j=q^{Q_{ij}}x_jx_i\rangle.$$
A quantum torus is a Noetherian domain [@GW]. In particular, it has a ring of fractions, which is a division algebra. The Gelfand-Kirillov dimension of $\bT(Q)$ is $r$.
For $\bk=(k_1,\dots, k_r)\in \BZ^r$ let $$x^\bk = q^{-\frac{1}{2} \sum_{i<j} Q_{ij} k_i k_j} x_1 ^{k_1} x_2^{k_2} \dots x_r ^{k_r}.$$ Then $\{ x^\bk \mid \bk \in \BZ^r\}$ is a free $\cR$-basis of $\bT(Q)$, and $$x^\bk x ^{\bk'} = q ^{\frac 12 \la \bk, \bk'\ra_Q} x^{\bk + \bk '},$$ where $$\la \bk, \bk'\ra_Q = \sum_{1\le i, j \le r} Q_{ij} k_i k'_j.$$
If $\Lambda\subset \BZ^r$ is a submonoid, then the $\cR$-submodule $ A(Q;\Lambda)\subset \bT(Q)$ spanned by $\{ x^\bk, \bk \in \Lambda \}$ is an $\cR$-subalgebra of $\bT(Q)$, called a [*monomial subalgebra*]{}. When $\Lambda= \BN^r$, the corresponding subalgebra is denoted by $\bT_+(Q)$.
For any positive integer $N$ it is easy to check that there is an algebra embedding, called $N$-th [*Frobenius homomorphism*]{}, $$\Phi_N: \bT(N^2 Q) \to \bT(Q), \text{ given by } \Phi_N(x_i)= x_i^{N}. \label{eq.Fro}$$
More generally, suppose $Q'$ is another anti-symmetric $r'\times r'$ integral matrix such that $HQ' H^T= Q$, where $H$ is an $r\times r'$ matrix and $H^T$ is its transpose. Then the $\cR$-linear map $\bT(Q)\to \bT(Q')$ given on the basis by $x^\bk \to x^{\bk H}$, where $\bk H$ is the product of the horizontal vector $\bk$ and the matrix $H$, is an algebra homomorphism, called a [*multiplicatively linear homomorphism*]{}.
Non-closed surfaces {#sec.Q}
-------------------
For a punctured bordered surface $\fS$ the number $r(\fS)$ is defined by . Recall that if $\fS$ has an ideal triangulation, then $r(\fS)= 3m - 3\chi$, where $\chi$ is the Euler characteristic and $m$ is the number of boundary components.
[@LY] \[thm.embedding\] Suppose $\fS$ is a punctured bordered surface which has at least one ideal point (interior or on the boundary).
\(a) There exists an $\cR$-algebra embedding $\varphi: \cS(\fS) \embed \bT(\bQ)$, where $\bQ$ is an anti-symmetric integral matrix of size $r(\fS) \times r(\fS)$. Moreover, there is an $\BN$-filtration of $\cS(\fS)$ compatible with the algebra structure such that the associated graded algebra is isomorphic to a monomial subalgebra $A(\bQ;\Lambda)$, where $\Lambda\subset \BZ^{r(\fS)}$ is a submonoid of rank $r(\fS)$.
\(b) Suppose in addition $\pfS\neq \emptyset$. There is an anti-symmetric integral matrix $\bP$ of size $r(\fS) \times r(\fS)$ and an $\cR$-algebra embedding $\phi:\cS(\fS) \embed \bT(\bP)$ such that $\bT_+(\bP)\subset\phi( \cS(\fS)) \subset \bT(\bP)$.
We give the definitions of $\bQ$ and $\bP$ below, which depend on ideal (quasi-)triangulations of $\fS$. We also give a sketch of a proof of part (b).
The relation between $\varphi$ and $\phi$ is as follows. There is a bigger quantum torus $\bT(\bP')$ containing $\bT(\bP)$ as a monomial subalgebra and a multiplicatively linear algebra homomorphism $\Psi:\bT(\bQ)\to \bT(\bP')$ which maps $\varphi$ to $\phi$. Loosely speaking, when $\pfS=\emptyset$, the quantum torus $\bT(\bP)$ can be considered as a quantization of the decorated Teichmüller space [@Penner] using Penner’s lambda length coordinates, while $\bT(\bQ)$ can be considered as a quantization of the enhanced Teichmüller space [@BW0] (or holed Teichmüller space of [@FG]) using shear coordinates. The map $\Psi$ is a quantization of the map changing Penner’s coordinates to shear coordinates. The quantum Teichmüller spaces was first defined in [@CF; @Kashaev].
One has $\rk(\bQ)=\rk(\bP)= r\SM-b_\ev$, where $b_\ev$ is the number of boundary components of $\Sigma$ having an even number (including 0) of marked points.
\(i) When $\fS$ has no boundary, Theorem \[thm.embedding\](a) was first proved by Bonahon and Wong [@BW0], and was an important development in the theory. Later other proofs were given in [@Le:qtrace; @Le:triangular]. The map $\varphi$ is called the quantum trace map.
\(ii) When there are no interior ideal points, the restriction of $\phi$ to the subalgebra $\cS^+(\fS)$ was first constructed by Muller [@Muller]. The extension to the case when $\fS$ has interior ideal points, again for the subalgebra $\cS^+(\fS)$, was done in [@LP]. When $\fS$ has no boundary edges the connection map $\Psi$ was first constructed by the first author [@Le:qtrace].
Description of the matrix $\bQ$ of Theorem \[thm.embedding\] {#sec.Q1}
------------------------------------------------------------
Let us describe the matrix $\bQ$ (of Theorem \[thm.embedding\]) when $\fS$ is not the sphere with one or two ideal points. This matrix depends on an ideal triangulation of $\fS$, which we recall first.
An [*ideal arc*]{} of $\fS$ is a proper embedding of $(0,1)$ into $\fS$. Under a proper embedding, the ideal points of $(0,1)$ map to (not necessarily distinct) ideal points of $\fS$. An [*ideal triangulation*]{} $\Delta$ of $\fS$ is a maximal collection of disjoint, pairwise non-isotopic essential ideal arcs. Here an arc is essential if it does not bounds a disk in $\fS$. Then $\Delta$ must contain the set $\Dd$ of all boundary edges (up to isotopy). By splitting $\fS$ along the non-boundary arcs in $\Delta$ we get a collection of ideal triangles.
Let $\Dd'=\{ e' \mid e\in \Dd\}$ be another copy of $\Dd$, and $\bD= \Delta\sqcup \Dd'$. Then $|\bD| = r(\fS)$. Define the anti-symmetric matrix $\bQ: \bD \times \bD \to \BZ$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\bQ(a',a)& = 2 = - \bQ(a,a'),& &\text{if } a\in \Dd,\notag \\
\bQ(a,b)& = \#\left(\cornerba\right)- \#\left(\cornerab\right),& &\text{if } a,b\in \Delta,\label{eq.Q}\\
\bQ(a,b)& = 0, & &\text{otherwise}\notag.\end{aligned}$$ Here each shaded part is a corner of an ideal triangle. Thus, the right hand side of is the number of corners where $b$ is clockwise to $a$ minus the number of corners where $a$ is clockwise to $b$. The restriction of $\bQ$ to $\Delta$, denoted by $Q$, is a well-known matrix in the theory of Teichmüller space, describing the Poisson structure of the enhanced (or holed) Teichmüller space in shear coordinates, see e.g. [@FG].
Matrix $\bP$ and sketch of a proof of Theorem \[thm.embedding\](b) {#sec.P}
------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us sketch a proof of Theorem \[thm.embedding\](b). Assume $\SM$ is not the monogon or the bigon. First we describe the matrix $\bP$, which is defined only when $\SM$ has at least one marked point.
A *${\mathcal{P}}$-arc* is a map $e:[0,1]\to\Sigma$ which embeds $(0,1)$ into $\Sigma\setminus{\mathcal{P}}$, and $e(0), e(1) \in \cP$. A ${\mathcal{P}}$-arc $e$ defines an element, also denoted by $e$, of the skein algebra $\cS\SM$ by assigning $+$ states to both endpoints and using the vertical framing. This is well defined if the arc has two distinct endpoints. If the endpoints coincide, we fix the relative heights of the endpoints so that the right strand is higher as in Figure \[fig-norm-plus\].
If a ${\mathcal{P}}$-arc $e$ is contained in the boundary, it defines another element $\hat{e}$ in the skein algebra $\cS\SM$ by assigning states as in Figure \[fig-e-hat\]. The element $\hat e$ is called a bad arc in [@CL].
[0.4]{}
\[fig-norm-plus\]
[0.4]{}
\[fig-e-hat\]
A *quasitriangulation* $\cE$ is a maximal collection of disjoint, pairwise non-isotopic essential ${\mathcal{P}}$-arcs. The non-boundary arcs in a quasitriangulation cut the surface into triangles and once-punctured monogons. Here a once-puncture monogon is an annulus with exactly one marked point. The collection $\cE$ must contain the set $\Ed$ of all boundary $\cP$-arcs. Denote $\hEd= \{ \hat e \mid e\in \Ed\}$.
Let $\bcE= \cE \sqcup \hEd\sqcup \cH$, where $\cH$ is the set of all non-marked components of $\pS$. One can check that $|\cE|=r(\fS)=3 |\cP|- 3 \chi(\Sigma)$. Note that $\bE$ is a subset of the $\cR$-basis $B(\fS)$ of the skein algebra $\cS(\fS)= \cS\SM$, see Theorem \[thm.basis\](a). It is easy to verify that elements of $\bE$ are $q$-commuting, i.e. there is an anti-symmetric function $\bP: \bcE \times \bcE \to \BZ$ such that $xy = q^{\bP(x,y)} yx$ for $x,y\in \bE$. Using the defining relations of $\cS\SM$, $\bP$ can be described combinatorially. The result is (undefined entries are inferred by anti-symmetry) $$\begin{aligned}
\bP(a,b) &= 0, & &\text{if } \ a \in \cH, b\in \bcE, \notag\\
\bP(a,b) &= \#\left( \Pab \right) - \# \left( \Pba \right), & &\text{if} \ a, b\in \cE, \label{eq.P1}\\
\bP(a,\hat b) &= -\#\left( \Pab \right) - \#\left( \Pba \right), & &\text{if} \ a\in \cE, b\in \Ed, \label{eq.P2}\\
\bP(\hat a, \hat b) &= - \bP(a,b), & &\text{if} \ a,b \in \Ed. \notag\end{aligned}$$
Here the shaded parts are parts of $\Sigma$, with boundary the horizontal lines. The $\cP$-arcs $a$ and $b$ are isotoped so that their interiors are in the interior of $\Sigma$ (even when one or both of them are boundary $\cP$-arcs). They are not necessarily distinct or edges of the same triangle, i.e. between them there might be other $\cP$-arcs.
A monomial in the elements of $\bE$ is an element of the basis set $B(\fS)$ up to a scalar. Hence one sees that $\bT_+(\bP)\embed \cS\SM=\cS(\fS)$. One can show further that each monomial is a non-zero divisor, and for each $x\in \cS\SM$ there is a monomial $a$ such that $ax \in \bT_+$. From here one can prove that there is an embedding of $\cS\SM$ into $\bT(\bP)$.
The restriction $P$ of $\bP$ on the set $\cE\cup \cH$ was defined by Muller.
Reduced skein algebra and quantum cluster algebra
-------------------------------------------------
Let $I$ be the ideal generated by all the elements $\hat e$ of Subsection \[sec.P\]. The quotient $\cSd\SM= \cS\SM/I$ is called the reduced skein algebra in [@CL], where it is proved that there is an embedding $$\varphi^\rd :\cSd(\fS) \embed \BT(Q). \label{eq.em5}$$
This embedding is essentially a quotient of $\varphi:\cS(\fS) \embed \BT(\bQ)$ given by Theorem \[thm.embedding\](a). In turn, the more general embedding $\varphi$ can be constructed through the embedding $\varphi^\rd$ of a bigger surface.
In [@Le:triangular], it is proved that there is an embedding $\cS^+\SM\embed \BT(Q)$. As both $\cSd(\fS)$ and $\cS^+\SM$ embed into the same quantum torus $\BT(Q)$, one might want to compare them. It turns out that $\cSd\SM$ is an Ore localization of $\cS^+\SM$, which in turn is equal to the [*quantum cluster algebra of $\SM$*]{} when each boundary component has at least two marked points.
Let $\fM$ be the multiplicative set generated by all boundary $\cP$-arcs (with $+$ states) in $\cS^+\SM$. Muller showed in [@Muller] that $\fM$ is a two sided Ore set and the Ore localization $\cS^+\SM \fM^{-1}$ is equal to the quantum cluster algebra (as defined in [@BZ]) which quantizes the cluster algebra associated with the marked surface $\SM$.
[@LY]\[thm.reduced-cluster\] The quantum cluster algebra $\cS^+\SM \fM^{-1}$ is naturally isomorphic to the reduced skein algebra $\cSd\SM$.
Thus the reduced skein algebra gives a geometric model for the quantum cluster algebra.
When $\cP\neq \emptyset$, $\cSd\SM$ and $\cS^+\SM$ embed into $\BT(P)$. Both matrices $P$ and $Q$ have size $2m - 3 \chi(\Sigma)$ and nullity equal to the number of boundary components of $\Sigma$.
Closed surfaces
---------------
Suppose $\fS=\Sigma_g$ is a closed surface of genus $g$ (no boundary, no ideal points). These surfaces are exactly the ones not covered by Theorem \[thm.embedding\].
When $g=1$ the algebra $\cS(\Sigma_1)$ embeds into a quantum torus [@FG]. However for $g\ge 2$ there is no known embedding of $\cS(\Sigma_g)$ into a quantum torus. The best we have so far is the following.
\[thm.embedding2\] [@KL] Suppose $g\ge 2$. There is a $(6g-6)\times (6g-6)$ anti-symmetric integral matrix $Q$ with determinant $2^{6g-6}$ and an $\BN$-filtration of the algebra $\cS(\Sigma_g)$ such that the associated algebra embeds into the quantum torus $\bT(Q)$. Moreover, there is an $\BN \times \BZ$-filtration of the algebra $\cS(\Sigma_g)$, where $\BN\times \BZ$ is given the lexicographic order, and a $(6g-6)\times (6g-6)$ anti-symmetric integral matrix $Q'$ such that the associated algebra is isomorphic to $\bT_+(Q')$.
Here is an explicit description of $Q$. Let $\Sigma_{g', n'}$ be a surface of genus $g'$ with $n'$ ideal points, where $n' \ge 1$ and $2g'+n'-1=g$. (Then the double of $\Sigma_{g', n'}$ along its ideal points gives $\Sigma_g$.) An ideal triangulation of $\Sigma_{g', n'}$ will have $3g-3$ edges, and gives rise to an anti-symmetric matrix $Q( \Sigma_{g', n'})$ of size $3g-3$ as described in Subsection \[sec.Q1\]. Let $Q$ be anti-symmetric of size $6g-6$ given by $$Q = \begin{pmatrix}
Q( \Sigma_{g', n'}) & 2I \\
- 2I & 0 \end{pmatrix},$$ where each block is a square matrix of size $3g-3$, and $I$ is the identity matrix. The matrix $Q$ depends on a triangulation of $\Sigma_{g', n'}$. The doubles of the edges of the ideal triangulation of $\Sigma_{g', n'}$ give a pair of pants decomposition of $\Sigma_g$. The $\BN$-filtration of $\cS(\Sigma_g)$ of Theorem \[thm.embedding2\] is based on this pair of pants decomposition, and is closely related to the one in [@PS2].
A. Sikora also announced that he found a degeneration of $\cS(\Sigma_g)$ related to a quantum torus.
The Frobenius homomorphism {#sec.Che}
==========================
Roots of 1
----------
When $\cR=\BC$ and $q=\xi$, a non-zero complex number, we denote $\cS\MN$ by $\Sx\MN$. Technically we have to fix also a square root of $\xi$, but the choice of such a square root does not play an important role in what follows.
For a root $\xi$ of 1 let $\operatorname{ord}(\xi)$ be the least positive integer $n$ such that $\xi^n=1$.
The 3-dimensional manifold case
-------------------------------
Let $\MN$ be a marked 3-manifold. A 1-component $\cN$-tangle $\al$ is diffeomorphic to either the circle $S^1$ or the closed interval $[0,1]$; we call $\al$ an [*$\cN$-knot*]{} in the first case and [*$\cN$-arc*]{} in the second case. For a 1-component $\cN$-tangle $\al$ and an integer $k\ge 0$, write $\al^{(k)} \in \cS_\xi(M)$ for the [*$k$th framed power of $\al$*]{} obtained by stacking $k$ copies of $\al$ in a small neighborhood of $\al$ along the direction of the framing of $\al$. Given a polynomial $P(z) = \sum c_i z^i \in \BZ[z]$, the [*threading*]{} of $\al$ by $P$ is given by $P^{\fr}(\al) = \sum c_i \al^{(i)} \in \cS_\xi(M)$.
The Chebyshev polynomials of type one $T_n(z) \in \BZ[z]$ are defined recursively as $$\label{eq.Che}
T_0(z)=2,\quad T_1(z)=z,\quad T_n(z) = zT_{n-1}(z)-T_{n-2}(z),\quad\forall n \geq 2.$$
\[thm.1\] Suppose $(M,\cN)$ is a marked 3-manifold and $\xi$ is a complex root of unity. Let $N=\operatorname{ord}(\xi^4)$ and $\ve =\xi^{N^2}$.
There exists a unique $\BC$-linear map $\Phi_\xi: \cS_\ve(M,\cN) \to \cS_\xi(M,\cN)$ such that for any $\cN$-tangle $T = a_1 \cup \cdots \cup a_k \cup \al_1 \cup \cdots \cup \al_l$ where the $a_i$ are $\cN$-arcs and the $\al_i$ are $\cN$-knots, $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_\xi(T) & = a_1^{(N)} \cup \cdots \cup a_k^{(N)} \cup (T_N)^{\fr}(\al_1) \cup \cdots \cup (T_N)^{\fr}(\al_l) \quad \text{in }\Sx\MN\\
&:= \sum_{0\le j_1, \dots, j_l\le N} c_{j_1} \dots c_{j_l} a_1^{(N)} \cup \dots \cup a_k^{(N)} \cup \, \al_1^{(j_1)} \cup \cdots \cup \al_l^{(j_l)} \quad \text{in }\Sx\MN,\end{aligned}$$ where $T_N(z) = \sum_ {j=0}^N c_j z^j$.
The map $\Phi_\xi$ is functorial and commutes with all the splitting homomorphisms.
We call $\Phi_\xi$ the [*Chebyshev-Frobenius homomorphism*]{}.
Note that if $\operatorname{ord}(\xi^4)=N$ then $\xi^{2N} =1$ or $\xi^{2N}=-1$. More precisely, $\xi^{2N} =(-1)^{N'+1}$, where $N'= \ord(\xi^2)$. An addendum of Theorem \[thm.1\] is the following fact, which says the image of $\Phi_\xi$ is “almost transparent" in the following sense.
\[r.transparent\] Suppose $\MN$ is a marked 3-manifold, $\xi$ is a root of unity, $N'=\operatorname{ord}(\xi^2)$. Then the image of $\Phi_\xi$ is almost transparent in $\cS_\xi\MN$ in the sense that $$\raisebox{-14pt}{{{\includegraphics[height=1.2 cm]{Phia.eps}}}} = (-1)^{N'+1}\, \raisebox{-14pt}{{{\includegraphics[height=1.2 cm]{Phib.eps}}}}.$$ Here the box enclosing $\Phi_\xi$ means one applies $\Phi_\xi$ to the component of the $\cN$-tangle containing the horizontal line, while the vertical line belongs to another component of the $\cN$-tangle.
The case of surfaces
--------------------
For surfaces, the above results can be strengthened.
[@BL] \[thm-frob-surface\] Suppose $\fS$ is a punctured bordered surface and $\xi$ is a root of unity. Let $N=\operatorname{ord}(\xi^4)$ and $\ve =\xi^{N^2}$.
\(a) There exists an algebra embedding $\Phi_\xi: \cS_\ve(\fS) \to \cS_\xi(\fS)$ characterized by $\Phi_\xi(a)=a^{(N)}$ for all stated arcs $a$ on $\fS$, and $\Phi_\xi(\alpha)=T_N(\alpha)$ for all knots $\al$ on $\fS$.
\(b) Assume $\fS$ has at least one ideal point. Let $Q$ and $\varphi$ be as in Theorem \[thm.embedding\](a). The following diagram is commutative $$\begin{tikzcd}
\cS_\ve \SM \arrow[hookrightarrow, "\varphi"]{r} \arrow[d,"\Phi_\xi"]{d}& \bT(N^2Q) \arrow[d, "\Phi_N"] \\
\cS_\xi \SM \arrow[hookrightarrow,"\varphi"]{r} & \bT(Q)
\end{tikzcd}
\label{eq.dia}$$
Here $\bT(Q)$ and $\bT(N^2Q)$ are quantum tori defined over $\BC$ with $q=\zeta$, and $\Phi_N$ is the Frobenius homomorphism between quantum tori defined by . The upper right corner of the diagram should be the quantum torus of $Q$ defined with $q=\ve$, but it is equal to $\bT(N^2Q)$ since $\ve= \xi^{N^2}$. Diagram shows that under the embeddings $\varphi$ into quantum tori, the Chebyshev-Frobenius becomes the usual Frobenius algebra homomorphism between quantum tori.
It should be noted that in general, if $a$ is a stated arc on $\fS$, we have $$\Phi_\xi(a) = a^{(N)} \neq a^N, \label{eq.diff}$$ even when $N$ is odd.
From Theorem \[r.transparent\] one can deduce the following.
\[r.center1\] Suppose $\fS$ is a punctured bordered surface and $\xi$ is a root of unity, with $N=\operatorname{ord}(\xi^4)$. If $\al$ is a simple closed curve on $\fS$, then $T_{2N}(\al)$ is in the center of $\cS(\fS)$. If $a\subset \fS$ is a stated $\pfS$-arc, then $a^{(4N)}$ is in the center of $\cS(\fS)$.
\(i) When $\pfS=\emptyset$, Theorem \[thm-frob-surface\] was first proved by [@BW1], using the quantum trace map. Another proof using skein modules was later given in [@Le:Frobenius].
\(ii) For the submodule $\cS^+$ of positive states, Theorems \[thm.1\]-\[thm-frob-surface\] were proved in [@LP].
\(iii) In [@KQ], part (a) of Theorem \[thm-frob-surface\] is proved for the case when $\ord(\xi)$ is odd. But even in this case, the definition of $\Phi_\xi$ in [@KQ] is different from ours: if $a$ is an arc, then in [@KQ] one has $\Phi_\xi(a)= a^N$, whereas we have $\Phi_\xi(a)= a^{(N)}$, which is different, see .
\(iv) Suppose $\xi$ is an arbitrary non-zero complex number, $N$ is an arbitrary positive integer, and $\ve= \xi^{N^2}$. In Diagram all the maps are defined except for $\Phi_\xi$. One might ask for what values of $\xi$ and $N$ can the Frobenius map $\Phi_N$ restrict to a map $\Phi_\xi$ so that Diagram commutes, and in addition, that $\Phi_\xi$ is functorial. The answer is that this happens exactly when $\xi$ is a root of 1 and $N=\ord(\xi^4)$. The proof for the similar statement for $\cS^+(\fS)$ was given in [@LP], and this result can be used to prove the statement in our case.
Relation with Lusztig’s quantum Frobenius homomorphism
------------------------------------------------------
For the bigon $\cS_{\xi}(\cD_2) = \mathcal O_{\xi^2}(\mathfrak{sl}_2)$, which is the Hopf dual of (Lusztig’s version of) the quantum group $U_{\xi^2}(\mathfrak{sl}_2)$. Our Chebyshev-Frobenius homomorphism $\Phi_\xi: \cS_{\ve}(\cD_2) \to \cS_{\xi}(\cD_2)$, a Hopf algebra homomorphism, gives rise to a dual map, also a Hopf algebra homomorphism, $$\Phi_\xi^\ast: U_{\xi^2}(\mathfrak{sl}_2) \to U_{\ve^2}(\mathfrak{sl}_2).$$ Note that $\ve^2=\pm1$. When $\ve^2=1$, a simple check (see [@BL]) on generators shows that $\Phi^\ast_\xi$ is exactly the quantum Frobenius homomorphism of Lusztig [@Lusztig:1; @Lusztig]. (Lusztig also mentioned the existence of a quantum Frobenius homomorphism for the case $\ve^2=-1$ although he did not write it down explicitly.) Thus our Chebyshev-Frobenius homomorphism can be interpreted as an extension of Lusztig’s quantum Frobenius homomorphism from the bigon to all surfaces and marked 3-manifolds.
Skein algebra at root of 1 {#sec.root1}
==========================
The center of an algebra is important, for example, in questions about the representations of the algebra, see a review in Subsection \[sec.Azu\]. We discuss the structure of skein algebra at roots of 1, describing its center, its PI dimension, and its representations. For the punctured torus, we give a full description of the Azumaya locus. We also extend a result of [@Jordan], which states that the Azumaya locus of the skein algebra of a closed surface in the case at odd roots of 1 contains the smooth locus, to all cases of roots of 1.
When $q=\xi$ is a root of unity and there is no marked point, i.e. $\cP=\emptyset$, the center of $\Sx(\Sigma, \emptyset)$ is determined in [@FKL] and is instrumental in proving the main result there, the unicity conjecture of Bonahon and Wong. Representations of skein algebras of non-marked surfaces at roots of 1 were initiated in [@BW0]–[@BW4].
Throughout $\SM$ is a marked surface which is not $\Sigma_{0,0}, \Sigma_{0,1}, \Sigma_{0,2}$ and $\Sigma_{1,0}$ (with no marked points). As in Subsection \[sec.P\], we consider each $\cP$-arc $e$ as an element of $\cS\SM$ by assigning state $+$ to both endpoints. When $e$ is a boundary $\cP$-arc we also defined $\hat e$ as in Figure \[fig-norm-plus\].
Representations of algebras and Azumaya locus, a review {#sec.Azu}
-------------------------------------------------------
Let $A$ be an associative $\BC$-algebra such that its center $Z$ is a domain with field of fractions $\tZ$. Let $\tA:= \tZ \ot_Z A$. The [*dimension of $A$ over $Z$*]{}, denoted by $ \dim_ZA$, is the dimension of the vector space $\tA$ over the field $\tZ$.
We make the following assumptions:
- $A$ is finitely generated as a $\BC$-algebra and $A$ is a domain.
- $A$ is finitely generated as a module over its center $Z$.
By the Artin-Tate lemma, $Z$ is finitely generated as a $\BC$-algebra. Hence its maximal spectrum $\operatorname{MaxSpec}(Z)$ is an irreducible affine variety. It is known that $\tA$ is a division algebra with center $\tZ$. It follows that $\dim_\tZ\tA$ is a perfect square, $\dim_ZA= d^2$. The number $d$ is known as the [*PI degree*]{} of $A$.
Let $\operatorname{Irreps}(A)$ denote the set of all equivalence classes of irreducible finite dimensional representations of $A$ over $\BC$. Since $Z$ is commutative, $\operatorname{Irreps}(Z)$ is the set of all 1-dimensional representations, $$\operatorname{Irreps}(Z) = \operatorname{Hom}_{\BC-\text{alg}} (Z, \BC) \overset \kappa\equiv \operatorname{MaxSpec}(Z),$$ where $\operatorname{Hom}_{\BC-\text{alg}} (Z, \BC)$ is the set of all $\BC$-algebra homomorphisms from $A$ to $\BC$, and $\kappa(f) = \ker f$. By Schur’s lemma, the restriction of an irreducible representation of $A$ to its center $Z$ gives a 1-dimensional representation of $Z$. Hence we have the central character map $$\cC: \operatorname{Irreps}(A) \to \operatorname{Irreps}(Z) \equiv \operatorname{MaxSpec}(Z).$$ The following summarizes some of the main facts about representations of $A$.
(See e. g. [@BG; @BY; @DP]) \[thm.Azu\] (a) Every irreducible representation of $A$ has dimension $\le d$, the PI dimension of $A$.
\(b) The image under $\cC$ of all irreducible representations of dimension $d$ is a Zariski open dense subset $U$ of $\operatorname{MaxSpec}(Z)$. Moreover, every point of $U$ has exactly one preimage. Every point of $\operatorname{MaxSpec}(Z)$ has a non-zero finite number of preimages.
The set $U$ is known as the Azumaya locus of $A$.
Center at generic $q$
---------------------
Let $\cH$ be the set of all non marked boundary components of $\Sigma$. Each element of $\cH$ is a central element of $\cS\SM$, and the polynomial algebra $\BC[\cH]$ embeds into $\cS\SM$ because the monomials in elements of $\cH$ are part of the basis $B$ given by Theorem \[thm.basis\].
For each marked boundary component $\beta$ of $\Sigma$ consider the product $\prod_{e\subset \beta} e$ of all boundary $\cP$-arcs on $\beta$. These stated arcs $q$-commute, so the product is well defined up to a scalar. Let $\mathcal{G}$ be the set of such elements.
The following theorem says that the center of the skein algebra, when $\xi$ is not a root of 1, is the obvious one.
Suppose $\xi$ is not a root of unity.
\(a) [@LY] The center of ${\mathscr{S}}_\xi(\Sigma,{\mathcal{P}})$ is $\BC[\cH]$.
\(b) [@LP] The center of ${\mathscr{S}}^+_\xi(\Sigma,{\mathcal{P}})$ is $\BC[\cH,\mathcal{G}]$.
When there is no marked point, part (a) was already proved in [@PS2].
Roots of 1: dimension {#sec.dim}
---------------------
We already saw that when $\xi$ is not a root of 1, the center of $\cS\SM$ is small. At a root of unity, the center of $\cS\SM$ is considerably bigger. From the orderly finite generation of Theorem \[thm.basis\](b) and Corollary \[r.center1\] one can easily show that $\cS_\xi\SM$ is a finitely-generated module over its center. Hence Theorem \[thm.Azu\] applies to $\cS_\xi\SM$. It is important to calculate the PI dimension of $\cS_\xi\SM$, its center, and the Azumaya locus.
Recall that $r= 3m - 3\chi$ is the Gelfand-Kirillov dimension of $\cS_\xi\SM$, where $m=|\cP|$ is the number of marked points and $\chi$ is the Euler characteristic of $\Sigma$.
\[thm-dim-z\] Let $\SM$ be a connected marked surface of genus $g$ and $\xi$ be a root of 1 with $N=\ord(\xi^4)$. The dimension of ${\mathscr{S}}(\Sigma,{\mathcal{P}})$ over its center is $$D_\xi\SM=\begin{cases}
N^E,&\text{if }\ord(\xi) \text{ is odd}, \\
2^{2\lfloor\frac{m'}{2}\rfloor}N^E,&\text{if } \ord(\xi) \equiv 2 \pmod 4,\\
2^{2g+2m'}N^E,&\text{if }\ord(\xi) \equiv 0 \pmod 4.
\end{cases}$$ Here $m'= \max(0,m-1)$ and $E=r- b_\ev=3|\cP| - 3\chi(\Sigma)-b_\ev$, where $b_\ev$ is the number of boundary components of $\Sigma$ having an even number (including 0) of marked points.
One can show that $E$ is the rank of the matrix $Q$ in Theorem \[thm.embedding\] and \[thm.embedding2\] (or rank of $P$ in Theorem \[thm.embedding\] whenever $P$ is defined), which means $b_\ev$ is the nullity of $Q$ (or $P$). By PI algebra theory, $E$ is even since $D_\xi$ is a perfect square, though this is not immediately obvious from $E=r- b_\ev$.
When $\SM$ has no marked points, Theorem \[thm-dim-z\] was first proved in [@FKL2].
Roots of 1: center
------------------
Let $\SM$ be a marked surface and $\xi$ be a root of unity of order $n$, with $N=\operatorname{ord}(\xi^4)$ and $\epsilon=\xi^{N^2}$. The following are some special central elements.
\[lemma-central-boundary\] Let $\xi$ be a root of unity of order $n$, with $N=\operatorname{ord}(\xi^4)$. Suppose $e_1,\dots,e_s$ are the boundary $\cP$-arcs on a boundary component $\beta$ with $s$ marked points, ordered consecutively with an arbitrary starting arc.
1. If $s$ is odd, the element $e_1^Ne_2^N\dots e_s^N$ is central.
2. If $s$ is even, the element $\hat{e}_1^k\hat{e}_2^{n-k}\dots \hat{e}_{s-1}^{k}\hat{e}_s^{n-k}$ is central for $0\le k\le n$.
A tangle diagram on $\Sigma$ with endpoints at $\cP$ on $\SM$ is *matching* if the parity of the number of end points at every marked point is the same. The [*matching subalgebra*]{} ${\mathscr{S}^{ma}}(\Sigma,{\mathcal{P}})$ is the span of matching elements.
A stated tangle diagram $\alpha$ is *even* if $\alpha$ represents $0$ in $H_1(\bar{\Sigma},{\mathcal{P}};\mathbb{Z}/2)$, and at each marked point, the difference between the number of $+$ and $-$ states of $\alpha$ is divisible by $4$. Here $\bar{\Sigma}$ is the surface obtained by capping off all unmarked boundary components. The [*even subalgebra*]{} ${\mathscr{S}^{ev}}(\Sigma,{\mathcal{P}})$ is the span of even elements.
From Theorem \[r.transparent\] it is not difficult to show that the subalgebra $$Z_0:=\begin{cases}
\Phi_\xi({\mathscr{S}}_\epsilon(\Sigma,{\mathcal{P}}))[\cH],& \text{if $\ord(\xi)$ is odd},\\
\Phi_\xi({\mathscr{S}^{ma}}_\epsilon(\Sigma,{\mathcal{P}}))[\cH],& \text{if }\ord(\xi) \equiv 2 \pmod 4,\\
\Phi_\xi({\mathscr{S}^{ev}}_\epsilon(\Sigma,{\mathcal{P}}))[\cH],& \text{if }\ord(\xi) \equiv 0 \pmod 4
\end{cases}$$ is in the center of $\cS_\xi\SM$.
\[thm-center-root-1\] The center $Z({\mathscr{S}}_\xi(\Sigma,{\mathcal{P}}))$ of ${\mathscr{S}}_\xi(\Sigma,{\mathcal{P}})$ is $Z_0[C_\xi^{-1}]$, where $C_\xi$ is the set of central elements given by Lemma \[lemma-central-boundary\]. The affine variety $\operatorname{MaxSpec}(Z({\mathscr{S}}_\xi(\Sigma,{\mathcal{P}})))$ is a normal variety of dimension $r\SM= 3 |\cP|- 3 \chi(\Sigma)$.
Elements in $C_\xi$ are not invertible in $\cS\SM$. Instead, what the theorem means is that the center is spanned by elements $x$ such that $xc $ is in $Z_0$ for some product $c$ of elements in $C_\xi$.
When $\SM$ has no marked point, there is no $C_\xi$ and Theorem \[thm-center-root-1\] simply says that the center $Z({\mathscr{S}}_\xi(\Sigma,{\mathcal{P}}))$ is $Z_0$. This case was proved in [@FKL].
Cayley-Hamilton algebra, maximal order, Poisson order
-----------------------------------------------------
Let $A$ be a $\BC$-algebra with assumptions as in Subsection \[sec.Azu\]. By left multiplication, every $a\in A$ acts $\tZ$-linearly on $\tA$, a finite-dimensional $\tZ$-vector space. Denote by $\Tr(a)\in \tZ$ the trace of this action. If $\Tr(a)\in Z$ for all $a\in A$, then $A$ belongs to the class of [*Cayley-Hamilton algebras*]{} in the sense of [@DP]. For this class of algebras, there are finer results about the Azumaya locus than Theorem \[thm.Azu\]. For example [@BY] shows that the Azumaya locus is the complement of the zero set of the determinant ideal, defined there.
The class of [*maximal orders*]{} [@MR; @DP] is even finer than the class of Cayley-Hamilton algebras. Examples of maximal orders are quantum groups at roots of 1, see e.g. [@DP; @BG].
[@LY] \[thm.tr\] Let $\SM$ be a marked surface and $\xi$ be a root of 1.
\(a) For every $a\in \cS_\xi\SM$ one has $\Tr(a) \in Z(\cS\SM)$. In particular, $\cS_\xi\SM$ is Cayley-Hamilton and the Azumaya locus is the complement of the zero locus of the determinant ideal.
\(b) If $\SM$ is not a closed surface $\Sigma_g$, then $\cS\SM$ is a maximal order.
For the case when $\SM$ has no marked points, part (a) was proved in [@FKL2], with partial results in [@AF]. Also in this case, part (b) was proved by the first author and J. Paprocki, see [@Paprocki]. Let us sketch a proof of (b) for general marked surfaces. It is known that [@MR] if the associated graded algebra of $A$ with respect to an $\BN$-filtration is a maximal order, then $A$ is a maximal order. Theorem \[thm.embedding\](b) says an associated graded algebra of $\cS\SM$ with respect to an $\BN$-filtration is a monomial algebra $A(Q;\Lambda)$ for a certain submonoid $\Lambda\subset \BZ^r$. Explicit calculation shows that this submonoid is primitive in the sense that if $k\lambda\in \Lambda$ where $\lambda\in \BZ^r$ and $k$ is a positive integer, then $\lambda\in \Lambda$. It then follows from [@Paprocki] that $A(Q;\Lambda)$ is a maximal order at roots of 1.
Besides, in all cases, $\cS_\xi\SM$ is a Poisson order over its center in the sense of [@BG], which allows us to use the Poisson geometry of its center to study the Azumaya locus.
Azumaya locus: Punctured torus
------------------------------
For the punctured torus we have a full description of the Azumaya locus.
[@LY] Let $\Sigma_{1,1}$ be the compact oriented surface of genus 1 and having one boundary component and no marked points, and $\xi$ be a root of 1. The Azumaya locus of $\cS_\xi(\Sigma_{1,1})$ is the set of smooth (or regular) points of the affine variety $\operatorname{MaxSpec}(Z(\cS_\xi(\Sigma_{1,1})))$, which is a finite branched covering of $\BC^3$ and has a finite number of non-smooth points.
In [@LY] we give an explicit description of the branch covering and the singular set.
Azumaya locus: Closed surfaces
------------------------------
Recall that $\Sigma_g$ is the closed surface of genus $g$.
Let $\xi$ be a root of 1 and $g\ge 2$.
\(a) The Azumaya locus of $\cS(\Sigma_g)$ contains the smooth locus of $\operatorname{MaxSpec}(Z(\cS_\xi(\Sigma_g)))$.
\(b) The variety $\operatorname{MaxSpec}(Z(\cS_\xi(\Sigma_g)))$ is isomorphic to the $SL_2(\BC)$-character variety $\cX(\Sigma_g)$ if $\ord(\xi) \neq 0 \pmod 4$, and is isomorphic to the connected component of the $PSL_2(\BC)$-character variety which contains the character of the trivial representation, if $\ord(\xi) =0 \pmod 4$.
When $\ord(\xi)$ is odd, part (a) was proved in [@Jordan]. The extension to all roots of 1 will be considered in [@LY]. Part (b) was proved in [@FKL]. It is known that the smooth part of $\cX(\Sigma_g)$ consists exactly of the characters of irreducible $SL_2(\BC)$-representations of the $\pi_1(\Sigma_g)$.
We conjecture that the Azumaya locus is equal to the smooth locus, for $\Sigma_g$.
[99999]{}
N. Abdiel, and C. Frohman, [*The Localized Skein Algebra is Frobenius*]{}, Algebr. Geom. Topol. [**17**]{} (2017), no. 6, 3341-3373. A. Y. Alekseev, H. Grosse, and V. Schomerus, [*Combinatorial quantization of the Hamiltonian Chern-Simons theory I*]{}, Comm. Math. Phys. [**172**]{} (1995) 317–358. D. Ben-Zvi, A. Brochier and D. Jordan,[*Quantum character varieties and braided module categories*]{}, Selecta Math. [**24**]{} (5), 4711–4748.
A. Berenstein and A. Zelevinsky, [*Quantum cluster algebras*]{}, Adv. Math. [**195**]{} (2005), no. 2, 405–455.
C. Blanchet, N. Habegger, G. Masbaum, and P. Vogel, [*Three-manifold invariants derived from the Kauffman bracket*]{}, Topology [**31**]{} (1992), no. 4, 685–699.
W. Bloomquist and T. T. Q. Lê, [*The Frobenius homomorphism for skein module of marked 3-manifolds*]{}, preprint 2020.
F. Bonahon and H. Wong, [*Quantum traces for representations of surface groups in SL2(C)*]{}, Geom. Topol. [**15**]{} (2011), no. 3, 1569–1615.
F. Bonahon and H. Wong, [*Representations of the Kauffman skein algebra I: invariants and miraculous cancellations*]{}, Invent. Math. 204 (2016), no. 1, 195–243.
F. Bonahon and H. Wong, [*Representations of the Kauffman bracket skein algebra II: Punctured surfaces*]{}, Algebr. Geom. Topol. **17** (2017), no. 6, 3399–3434.
F. Bonahon and H. Wong, [*Representations of the Kauffman bracket skein algebra III: closed surfaces and naturality*]{}, Quantum Topology, [**10**]{} (2019), no. 2, 325–398.
K. A. Brown and K. R. Goodearl, [*Lectures on Algebraic Quantum Groups*]{}, Advanced Courses in Mathematics CRM Barcelona. Birkhuser, Basel (2002).
K. A. Brown and M. Yakimov, [*Azumaya loci and discriminant ideals of PI algebras*]{}, Adv. Math. [**340**]{} (2018), 1219–1255.
E. Buffenoir and P. Roche [*Two dimensional lattice gauge theory based on a quantum group*]{}, Comm. Math.Phys. [**170**]{} (1995), 669–698.
D. Bullock, [*Rings of $Sl_2(\BC)$-characters and the Kauffman bracket skein module*]{}, Comment. Math. Helv. **72** (1997), no. 4, 521–542.
D. Bullock, C. Frohman, and J. Kania-Bartoszynska, [*Understanding the Kauffman bracket skein module*]{}, J. Knot Theory Ramifications [**8**]{} (1999), no. 3, 265–277.
L. Chekhov and V. Fock, [*Quantum Teichmüller spaces*]{} (Russian) Teoret. Mat. Fiz. [**120**]{} (1999), no. 3, 511–528; translation in Theoret. and Math. Phys. [**120**]{} (1999), no. 3, 1245–1259.
F. Costantino and T. T. Q. Lê, [*Stated skein algebras of surfaces*]{}, preprint arXiv:1907.11400, 2019.
F. Costantino and T. T. Q. Lê, to appear.
C. De Concini, and C. Procesi, [*Quantum groups*]{}. In “D-modules, representation theory, and quantum groups" (Venice, 1992), 31–140, Lecture Notes in Math., 1565, Springer, Berlin, 1993.
M. Faitg, [*Holonomy and (stated) skein algebras in combinatorial quantization*]{}, preprint arXiv:2003.08992, 2020.
I. Ganev, D. Jordan, and P. Safronov, [*The quantum Frobenius for character varieties and multiplicative quivervarieties*]{}, preprint arXiv:1901.11450.
K. R. Goodearl and R. B. Warfield, [*An introduction to noncommutative Noetherian rings*]{}, second edition. London Mathematical Society Student Texts, [**61**]{}. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004.
V.V. Fock and A.B. Goncharov, [*The quantum dilogarithm and representations of quantum cluster varieties*]{}, Invent.math. [**175**]{} (2009), 223–286.
V.V. Fock and A.A. Rosly, [*Poisson structure on moduli of flat connections on Riemann surfaces and the $r$-matrix*]{}, Moscow Seminar in Mathematical Physics, Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. Ser. 2191 (1999), 67–86.
S. Fomin, M. Shapiro, and D. Thurston, [*Cluster algebras and triangulated surfaces. I. Cluster complexes*]{}, Acta Math. [**201**]{} (2008), 83–146.
C. Frohman and R. Gelca, [*Skein modules and the noncommutative torus*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. **352** (2000), no. 10, 4877–4888.
C. Frohman, R. Gelca, and W. Lofaro, [*The A-polynomial from the noncommutative viewpoint*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**354**]{} (2002), no. 2, 735–747.
C. Frohman, J. Kania-Bartoszynska, and Lê, [*Unicity for Representations of the Kauffman bracket Skein Algebra*]{}, Invent. Math. [**215**]{} (2019), no. 2, 609–650.
C. Frohman, J. Kania-Bartoszynska, and T. T. Q. Lê, [*Dimension and Trace of the Kauffman Bracket Skein Algebra*]{}, preprint arXiv:1902.02002, 2019.
H. Karuo and T. T. Q. Lê, [*Degeneration of skein algebras and (quantum) decorated Teichmüller spaces*]{}, preprint 2020.
M. Kashiwara, [*Global crystal bases of quantum groups*]{}, Duke Math. J. 69 no.2, 455-485, 1993.
R.M. Kashaev, [*The hyperbolic volume of knots from the quantum dilogarithm*]{}, Lett. Math. Phys. [**39**]{} (1997), no. 3,269–275. R. Kashaev, [*Quantization of Teichmüller spaces and the quantum dilogarithm*]{}, Lett. Math. Phys. [**43**]{} (1998), no. 2, 105–115.
C. Kassel, [*Quantum groups*]{}, Springer Verlag, New York, 1995, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, No. 155.
L. Kauffman, [*States models and the Jones polynomial*]{}, Topology, [**26**]{} (1987), 395–407.
J. Korinman and A. Quesney, [ *Classical shadows of stated skein representations at roots of unity*]{}, preprint arXiv:1905.03441, 2019. V. Jones, [*Polynomial invariants of knots via von Neumann algebras*]{}, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., **12** (1985), 103–111.
T. T. Q. Lê, [*On Kauffman bracket skein modules at roots of unity*]{}, Algebr. Geom. Topol. **15** (2015), no. 2, 1093–1117.
T. T. Q. Lê, [*Quantum Teichmüller spaces and quantum trace map*]{}, J. Inst. Math. Jussieu (2017), 1-43, doi:10.1017/S1474748017000068. See also preprint arXiv:1511.06054.
T. T. Q. Lê, *Triangular decomposition of skein algebras, Quantum Topology*, **9** (2018), 591–632. See also preprint arXiv:1609.04987, 2016.
T. T. Q. Lê, [*The colored Jones polynomial and the AJ conjecture*]{}, in “Lectures on quantum topology in dimension three" (by T. Le, C. Lescop, R. Lipshitz, P. Turner), Panoramas et Syntheses, N 48 (2016), Soc. Math. France, pp 33–90.
T. T. Q. Lê and A. Sikora, [*Stated skein algebras for $SL_n$*]{}, preprint 2020.
T. T. Q. Lê and T. Yu, [*Stated skein algebra of surfaces: centers and representations*]{}, preprint 2020.
T. T. Q. Lê and J. Paprocki, [*On Kauffman bracket skein modules of marked 3-manifolds and the Chebyshev-Frobenius homomorphism*]{}, Algebr. Geom. Topol. [**19**]{} (2019), no. 7, 3453–3509. See also preprint arXiv:1804.09303, 2018.
G. Lusztig, [*Quantum groups at roots of 1*]{}, Geom. Dedicata [**35**]{} (1990), no. 1-3, 89–113.
G. Lusztig, [ *Introduction to quantum groups*]{}. Progress in Mathematics, [**110**]{}. Birkhäuser, 1993. xii+341 pp.
S. Majid, [*Foundations of quantum group theory*]{}, Cambridge University Press (1995) 1-640 pp. (2nd edn.) 2000.
J. C. McConnell and J. C. Robson, [*Noncommutative Noetherian rings*]{}, Graduate Studies in Mathematics [**30**]{}, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2001.
G. Muller, [*Skein algebras and cluster algebras of marked surfaces*]{}, Quantum Topol. [**7**]{} (2016), no. 3, 435–503.
J. Paprocki, [*Quantum torus methods for Kauffman bracket skein modules*]{}. Ph.D. thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology. See also preprint arXiv:1910.01676.
R. C. Penner, [*Decorated Teichmüller Theory, with a foreword by Yuri I. Manin*]{}, QGM Master Class Series. European Mathematical Society, Zürich, 2012.
J. Przytycki, [*Fundamentals of Kauffman bracket skein modules*]{}, Kobe J. Math. **16** (1999) 45–66.
J. Przytycki and A. Sikora, [*On the skein algebras and $Sl_2(\BC)$-character varieties*]{}, Topology **39** (2000), 115–148.
J. Przytycki and A. Sikora, [*Skein algebras of surfaces*]{}, (2018) preprint arXiv: 1602.07402.
V. Turaev, [*Skein quantization of Poisson algebras of loops on surfaces*]{}, Ann. Sci. Sc. Norm. Sup. (4) **24** (1991), no. 6, 635–704.
V. Turaev, [*Conway and Kauffman modules of a solid torus*]{}, J. Soviet. Math. **52** (1990), 2799–2805.
V. Turaev, [*Quantum invariants of knots and $3$-manifolds*]{}, de Gruyter Studies in Mathematics, 18. Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, (1994).
[^1]: 2010 [*Mathematics Classification:*]{} Primary 57N10. Secondary 57M25.\
[^2]: In this paper a $\pfS$-tangle diagram is a positively ordered $\pfS$-tangle diagram of [@Le:triangular]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We determine the persistence length, $l_p$, for a bacterial group I ribozyme as a function of concentration of monovalent and divalent cations by fitting the distance distribution functions $P(r)$ obtained from small angle X-ray scattering intensity data to the asymptotic form of the calculated $P_{WLC}(r)$ for a worm-like chain (WLC). The $l_p$ values change dramatically over a narrow range of [Mg$^{\mathrm {2+}}$]{} concentration from $\sim$21 Å in the unfolded state (**U**) to $\sim$10 Å in the compact ($\mathrm{I_C}$) and native states. Variations in $l_p$ with increasing [Na$^{\mathrm {+}}$]{} concentration are more gradual. In accord with the predictions of polyelectrolyte theory we find $l_p \propto 1/ \kappa^2$ where $\kappa$ is the inverse Debye-screening length.'
author:
- 'G. Caliskan$^{1,2}$, C. Hyeon$^3$, U. Perez-Salas$^{4,5}$, R. M. Briber$^6$, S. A. Woodson$^7$, and D. Thirumalai$^3$'
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: Persistence Length Changes Dramatically as RNA Folds
---
Elucidating the mechanisms by which RNA molecules self-assemble to form three dimensional structures is a challenging problem [@Treiber99COSB; @Sosnick03COSB; @Thirumalai05BioChem; @Brion97AnnRevPhysChem]. Because the native state (**N**) cannot form without significantly neutralizing the negative charge on [@Misra98Biopolymers; @Thirumalai01AnnRevPhysChem] the phosphate group, RNA folding is sensitive to the valence, size, and shape of the counterions. At low counterion concentrations ($C$) RNA is unfolded (**U**) in the sense that it contains isolated stretches of base-paired *stem loops* that have large dynamical fluctuations. When $C > C_m$, the midpoint of the transition from **U** to the **N**, RNA becomes compact as a result of formation of tertiary contacts. For many RNA molecules, such as the *Tetrahymena ribozyme* and RNase P, folding to the native state is preceded by the formation of multiple metastable kinetic intermediates (**I**) [@Treiber99COSB; @Sosnick03COSB; @Pan97JMB].
The large dynamic conformational fluctuations in the **U** and **I** states make it difficult to characterize their structures. However, small angle scattering experiments can be used to determine the shape of RNA as it folds. The conformation of RNA in the **U**, **N**, and the **I** states is characterized by $R_g$, the radius of gyration, and $l_p$, the persistence length. Small Angle X-ray Scattering (SAXS) [@Takamoto04JMB; @Sosnick03COSB; @Fang00Biochem; @Russell00NSB; @Russell02PNAS] and Small Angle Neutron Scattering (SANS) [@Perez-Salas04Biochem] experiments have been used to obtain $R_g$ as a function of counterions for a number of RNA molecules. In contrast, $l_p$, which is a function of $C$ and valence and shape of counterions, is more difficult to obtain.
In this letter, we use SAXS data and theoretical results for the worm-like chain (WLC) to obtain $l_p$ for a 195 nucleotide group I ribozyme from pre-tRNA(Ile) of the *Azoarcus* bacterium as a function of $C$ for monovalent and divalent counterions. The major conclusions of the present study are: (i) The experimentally determined distance distribution functions $P(r)$ can be accurately fit using the theoretical results for worm-like chains for $r/R_g > 1$ where $R_g$ is the radius of gyration of RNA. The $l_p$ values, which were calculated by fitting $P(r)$ to $P_{WLC}(r)$ for $r > R_g$, change dramatically from $l_p \simeq 21$ Å in the **U** state to $l_p \simeq 10$ Å in the compact conformation. (ii) The large reduction in $l_p$ occurs abruptly over a narrow concentration range in [Mg$^{\mathrm {2+}}$]{} whereas the decrease of $l_p$ in [Na$^{\mathrm {+}}$]{} is gradual. This result suggests that the compaction of RNA resembles a first order transition in the presence of multivalent counterions. (iii) For both [Na$^{\mathrm {+}}$]{} and [Mg$^{\mathrm {2+}}$]{}, the persistence length scales as $l_p \simeq l_D^2$ where $l_D$ is the Debye-screening length. From this finding, which is in accord with the predictions of polyelectrolyte theory, we find that the intrinsic persistence length of RNA is $l_p^o \simeq 10$ Å .
The *Azoarcus* ribozyme was transcribed *in vitro* as described previously [@Rangan03PNAS]. We carried out SAXS measurements at Argonne National Lab Advanced Photon Source (BIOCAT) beamline using 1.05 Å X-rays that corresponds to 11.8keV in energy. A sample to detector distance of 1.89m allowed us to probe momentum transfer ($Q$) in the range from ($\sim$0.007 to $\sim$0.266)Å$\mathrm{^{-1}}$. A quartz capillary flow cell was used to minimize the radiation damage due to X-ray exposure of a given RNA chain [@Fang00Biochem]. The measurements at various flow rates showed that X-ray radiation damage is negligible. Each measurement was averaged from four separate exposures of two seconds each. The SAXS profiles were corrected for the background signal which was measured at same buffer concentrations in the absence of RNA. Using the background corrected SAXS intensity as a function of $Q$, ($I(Q)$) (Fig. (1A)) the distance distribution function, $P(r)$, was calculated by an indirect inversion algorithm [@Semenyuk05web]. The square of the radius of gyration is given by $R_g^2 = \int r^2P(r) \mathrm {d}r/\int 2P(r)\mathrm{d}r$.
![(A) Scattering intensity $I(Q)$ as a function of $Q$ for 195 nucleotide *Azoarcus* ribozyme at different as a function of [Mg$^{\mathrm {2+}}$]{} concentration in 20mM Tris buffer, pH = 7.5 at $32^oC$. The values of [Mg$^{\mathrm {2+}}$]{} concentrations are given in the inset. (B) The dependance of $R_g^2$ on [Mg$^{\mathrm {2+}}$]{} (squares) and $Na^+$ (triangles) concentration. Solid line is the fit using Hill equation in the form $A(1- [Mg^ {2+} ]^n/(C_m^n + [ Mg^{2+}]^n)) + y_o$, where $A, n$ and $y_o$ are adjustable parameters. We find $n$ is 3.33 and 1.20 for [Mg$^{\mathrm {2+}}$]{} and [Na$^{\mathrm {+}}$]{}, respectively.](Rawwt "fig:"){width="2.5in"} ![(A) Scattering intensity $I(Q)$ as a function of $Q$ for 195 nucleotide *Azoarcus* ribozyme at different as a function of [Mg$^{\mathrm {2+}}$]{} concentration in 20mM Tris buffer, pH = 7.5 at $32^oC$. The values of [Mg$^{\mathrm {2+}}$]{} concentrations are given in the inset. (B) The dependance of $R_g^2$ on [Mg$^{\mathrm {2+}}$]{} (squares) and $Na^+$ (triangles) concentration. Solid line is the fit using Hill equation in the form $A(1- [Mg^ {2+} ]^n/(C_m^n + [ Mg^{2+}]^n)) + y_o$, where $A, n$ and $y_o$ are adjustable parameters. We find $n$ is 3.33 and 1.20 for [Mg$^{\mathrm {2+}}$]{} and [Na$^{\mathrm {+}}$]{}, respectively.](Fig1B "fig:"){width="2.5in"}
Single molecule measurements of RNA subject to tension and our analysis of PDB structure have shown that the force-extension curves can be fit using a worm-like chain (WLC) model [@Liphardt01Science]. Based on these studies we assume that RNA is a WLC for which $P(r)$ cannot be calculated analytically. However, a simple theoretical expression has been derived [@Thirumalai98book] for the end-to-end $R_E$ distribution using a mean-field model of WLC. We expect that asymptotically ($r >> R_g$) the behavior of $P(r)$ and the distribution of $R_g$ or $R_E$ should have the same functional form. Thus, for large $r$ we predict $P(r)$ should decay as [@Thirumalai98book] $$P_{WLC}(r) \sim \exp \left( - \frac {1}{1-x^2} \right)$$
where $x = l_p r/R_g^2$.
At all concentrations of [Na$^{\mathrm {+}}$]{} and [Mg$^{\mathrm {2+}}$]{}, Eq. (3) fits the data extremely accurately as long as $r/R_g > 1$ (Fig. (2)). The excellent fits in Fig. (2) allows us to determine $l_p$ as a function of the counterion concentration. When RNA is unfolded at low [Na$^{\mathrm {+}}$]{} or [Mg$^{\mathrm {2+}}$]{} concentration, $l_p \simeq$ 21 Å with $R_g \simeq$ 65 Å . As the concentration of [Na$^{\mathrm {+}}$]{} increases from about (20 - 200) mM, $l_p$ gradually decreases. There is a sharp decrease in $R_g$ when \[[Na$^{\mathrm {+}}$]{}\] $ \simeq$ 250 mM that is accompanied by a large reduction in the persistence length to $l_p \simeq$ 10 Å. The changes in $l_p$ are even more dramatic in [Mg$^{\mathrm {2+}}$]{} (Fig. (2B)). As [Mg$^{\mathrm {2+}}$]{} increases from 0.01 mM to 0.26 mM the persistence length changes only by about 3 Å from $l_p \simeq$21 Å (0.01 mM) to $l_p \simeq $ 18.3 Å (0.26 mM). In this concentration range $R_g$ decreases from 65 Å to 60 Å. A further increase in [Mg$^{\mathrm {2+}}$]{} to 4.26 mM leads to a reduction in $R_g$ to about 31 Å with a dramatic decrease in $l_p$ to about 10 Å. The *near discontinuous* change in $R_g$ in [Mg$^{\mathrm {2+}}$]{} (Fig. (1B)) suggests a first-order coil-globule transition in [Mg$^{\mathrm {2+}}$]{}. While less common in neutral homopolymers, a discontinuous coil-globule transition has been predicted to occur in strongly charged polyelectrolytes [@Ha92PhysRevA].
![Distance distribution functions. (A) $P(r)$ functions at various [Mg$^{\mathrm {2+}}$]{} concentrations at 32$^o$C are obtained using Eq. (1) with $Q_{min} = 0.07$ Å and $Q_{max} = 0.1$ Å. The solid lines are fits of $P(r)$ to Eq.(3) (B) Same as (A) except the counterion is [Na$^{\mathrm {+}}$]{}. The concentrations of counterions are given in the insets.](MgNaPr){width="2.5in"}
To complement the experimental studies we calculated the $P(r)$ functions for the native three dimensional structure of *Azoarcus* ribozyme using the coordinates from X-ray crystallography crystal structure [@Adams04Nature] (PDB id: 1U6B) and a model based on sequence comparison [@Rangan03PNAS]. The computations were done using the coordinates of only the heavy atoms (C, O, P, and N). To compare the results obtained from crystal structures and SAXS data, we used only the heavy atom coordinates for chain B (excluding nucleotides 1 and 197) from 1U6B structure to compute $P(r)$. Similarly, the exon fragments were excluded from the Westhof model.
The $P(r)$ function from the SAXS data for the **N** state and those obtained using the X-ray structure and the Westhof model are in good agreement with each other and the SAXS data(Fig. 3A). The radii of gyration for the native state calculated using $(R_g^N)^2 = \frac {1}{2N^2} \sum_i {\sum_j {(r_i -r_j)^2}}$ for the X-ray structure and the Westhof model are 31.1 Å and 30.7 Å respectively. These values agree well with the results from the SAXS data ($R_g^N$ = 30.9 Å). The $l_p$ for the native state obtained by fitting the crystal structure $P(r)$ to Eq. (3) is 11 Å, while for the Westhof model we obtain $l_p \approx$ 10.8 Å. The good agreement between the crystal structure (or the Westhof model) and the SAXS measurement for $P(r)$ and $l_p$ in the $\mathrm{I_C}$ state suggests that the effects of complexation and interparticle interactions in the SAXS experiments are negligible.
![(A) Calculation of $P(r)$ using the coordinates of the heavy atoms from the chain B of the crystal structure (1U6B), the Westhof model [@Rangan03PNAS], and SAXS data. The symbols are given in the inset. The solid lines show the fits using $P_{WLC}(r)$ in the range 30 Å to 70 Å . In this range the root mean square deviation of the $P(r)$ for the 1U6B from $P_{WLC}(r)$ is 0.13 $\mathrm{\AA^{-1}}$ and for the Westhof model [@Rangan03PNAS] it is 0.10 $\mathrm{\AA^{-1}}$. The correlation coefficient of the fits of $P(r)$ to $P_{WLC}(r)$ is 0.98. (B) Dependence of $l_p$ on 1/ $\kappa^2$ in [Mg$^{\mathrm {2+}}$]{} (solid circles) and in [Na$^{\mathrm {+}}$]{} (solid squares). Lines represent fits to the data. Note that the $1/\kappa^2$ scale for [Mg$^{\mathrm {2+}}$]{} is given on top.](SAXS_PDB_comp_bw "fig:"){width="2.3in"} ![(A) Calculation of $P(r)$ using the coordinates of the heavy atoms from the chain B of the crystal structure (1U6B), the Westhof model [@Rangan03PNAS], and SAXS data. The symbols are given in the inset. The solid lines show the fits using $P_{WLC}(r)$ in the range 30 Å to 70 Å . In this range the root mean square deviation of the $P(r)$ for the 1U6B from $P_{WLC}(r)$ is 0.13 $\mathrm{\AA^{-1}}$ and for the Westhof model [@Rangan03PNAS] it is 0.10 $\mathrm{\AA^{-1}}$. The correlation coefficient of the fits of $P(r)$ to $P_{WLC}(r)$ is 0.98. (B) Dependence of $l_p$ on 1/ $\kappa^2$ in [Mg$^{\mathrm {2+}}$]{} (solid circles) and in [Na$^{\mathrm {+}}$]{} (solid squares). Lines represent fits to the data. Note that the $1/\kappa^2$ scale for [Mg$^{\mathrm {2+}}$]{} is given on top.](Fig3B "fig:"){width="2.5in"}
Since RNA appears to be a charged worm-like polyelectrolyte, it is of interest to ascertain if the dependance of $l_p$ on the Debye-screening length conforms to the theoretical predictions [@Odijk77JPolySciPartB; @Skolnick77Macromolecules]. The dependence of $l_p$ on the square of the Debye-screening length ($l_D^{-2} = \kappa^2 = 8 \pi l_B I$ where $l_B = {e^2} / {4 \pi \epsilon k_B T}$ is the Bjerrum length and $I$ is the ionic strength) is linear for both [Na$^{\mathrm {+}}$]{} and [Mg$^{\mathrm {2+}}$]{} (Fig. (3B)). For both flexible [@Ha99JCP; @Netz99EurPhysJ] and stiff polyelectrolytes [@Odijk77JPolySciPartB; @Skolnick77Macromolecules] it has been shown that $l_p = l_p^o + l_p^{el}$ where $l_p^o$ is the intrinsic persistence length and the electrostatic contribution is $l_p^{el} \propto 1/ \kappa^2$. Deviation from the OSF predictions can occur for finite-sized flexible polyelectrolytes. However, we do not expect such deviations because RNA is intrinsically stiff. Surprisingly, over the range of [Na$^{\mathrm {+}}$]{} and [Mg$^{\mathrm {2+}}$]{} concentrations in which the *Azoarcus* ribozyme undergoes the **U** $\rightarrow$ $\mathrm{I_C}$ transition, the experimental data confirm the predictions of polyelectrolyte theory. From the linear fits of $l_p$ to $\kappa^{-2}$ (Fig. (3B)) we obtain $l_p^o \simeq $ 10 Å which is similar to those found for single stranded DNA [@Rivetti98JMB; @Tinland97Macromolecules].
To assess if $P(r)$ for WLC can be used to fit scattering measurements on other RNA molecules we used Eq. (3) and SAXS data for RNase P [@Fang00Biochem] as a function of [Mg$^{\mathrm {2+}}$]{} concentration. Unlike the *Azoarcus* ribozyme, folding of RNase P is best described using three states, namely, **U**, an intermediate **I**, and the native state, **N** [@Fang00Biochem]. The **I** state is populated in the [Mg$^{\mathrm {2+}}$]{} range $0.02 <$ [Mg$^{\mathrm {2+}}$]{}$< 0.2$ . From the accurate fit of the SAXS data using Eq. (3) for $r/R_g > 1$, the $l_p$ values are found to be 24.5Å, 14.1Å, and 11.6Å in the **U**, **I**, and **N** states respectively. The largest decrease in $l_p$ and the associated $R_g$ occurs in the **U** $\rightleftharpoons $ **I** transition, which is consistent with the notion that the early event in RNA collapse is initiated by counterion condensation [@Thirumalai05BioChem].
![$P(r)$ for RNase P from reference [@Fang00Biochem]. The distance distribution function was calculated from $I(q)$ using Eq. (1) with a different numerical Fourier Transform method[@Svergun00web]. The **U**, **I** and **N** states are for [Mg$^{\mathrm {2+}}$]{} concentrations 0, 0.1 , and 10 mM respectively. The lines are fits using Eq. (3).](Sosnick.eps){width="2.5in"}
The present work shows that the size and flexibility of RNA molecules as a function of counterion concentration can be obtained using scattering experiments and the WLC model. Given that RNA is a highly branched and charged polymer, it is surprising that the distance distribution functions can be described using elasticity-based polymer models for $r/R_g > 1$. Although the structural basis for such a behavior is not obvious, the demonstration that single stranded DNA [@Tinland97Macromolecules], double stranded DNA [@Smith92Science], and polypeptide chains [@Schuler05PNAS] also behave like WLC suggests that for compatible interactions between biomolecules the local flexibility should be similar.
We are grateful to T. R. Sosnick for providing the $P(r)$ data for RNase P in tabular form. This work was supported in part by a grant from the National Science Foundation to DT (grant number 05-14056) and the National Institutes of Health to SAW.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We present a rigorous framework that combines single-particle Green’s function theory with density functional theory based on a separation of electron-electron interactions into short-range and long-range components. Short-range contributions to the total energy and exchange-correlation potential are provided by a density functional approximation, while the long-range contribution is calculated using an explicit many-body Green’s function method. Such a hybrid results in a nonlocal, dynamic, and orbital-dependent exchange-correlation functional of a single-particle Green’s function. In particular, we present a range-separated hybrid functional called srSVWN5—lrGF2 which combines the local-density approximation and the second-order Green’s function theory. We illustrate that similarly to density functional approximations the new functional is weakly basis-set dependent. Furthermore, it offers an improved description of the short-range dynamical correlation. The many-body contribution to the functional allows us to mitigate the many-electron self-interaction error present in most of density functional approximations and provides a better description of molecular properties. Additionally, the new functional can be used to scale down the self-energy and, therefore, introduce an additional sparsity to the self-energy matrix that in the future can be exploited in calculations for large molecules or periodic systems.'
author:
- 'Alexei A. Kananenka'
- Dominika Zgid
title: 'Combining Density Functional Theory and Green’s Function Theory: Range-Separated, Non-local, Dynamic, and Orbital-Dependent Hybrid Functional'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Kohn–Sham density functional theory (DFT) [@Hohenberg:pr/136/B864; @Kohn:pr/140/A1133; @engel2011density] has become a method of choice for unraveling the ground state properties of mostly single reference molecular and condensed matter systems. Its popularity is due to an attractive compromise between the accuracy and computational cost, provided by numerous approximations to the exchange-correlation functional. The best approximate functionals offer a decent description of the short-range dynamical correlation which justifies their use for near-equilibrium geometries. Another attractive feature of density functionals is their weak dependence on the one-electron basis set. Despite their large success, however, local and semilocal density functionals fail to describe a number of important properties, for example, charge transfer excitations [@Dreuw:jcp/119/2943], dynamical long-range correlations important in weak van der Waals complexes bound by London dispersion forces [@Kristyan:cpl/229/175], and Rydberg excitation energies [@Tozer:jcp/109/10180]. The reason for this failure is well understood and is rooting in a wrong asymptotic behavior of the exchange-correlation potential which in turn is a consequence of a self-interaction error [@Perdew:prb/23/5048].
Many-body wave-function methods such as the M[ø]{}ller–Plesset perturbation theory (MP2) [@Moller:pr/46/618], coupled cluster (CC) [@Bartlett:rmp/79/291] or multiconfigurational self-consistent field (MCSCF) [@roos2016multiconfigurational] approaches are capable of providing a correct description when density functionals fail. However, for these *ab-initio* methods, in addition to a steep computational cost and long configuration expansion of the wave function also large basis sets are required to describe the dynamical correlation accurately and reach an agreement with experiments. These features make the application of *ab-initio* methods to very large systems quite challenging and much larger system sizes can be reached when density functional approximations are used.
In recent years, there has been a substantial progress in the development of density functionals that mix both the standard local or semilocal density functional approximation with the wave-function theory. The mixing is done rigorously by separating the two-electron interaction operator into short-range and long-range components [@savinRSoriginal; @Leininger:cpl/275/151; @Toulouse:pra/70/062505] resulting in so-called range-separated hybrid functionals [@Baer:arpc/61/85]. They are meant to combine the best features of the respective approaches. The least computationally expensive range-separated hybrid functional is obtained when a non-local Hartree–Fock-type exchange is introduced to replace the long-range exchange density functional [@Yanai:cpl/393/51; @Heyd:jcp/118/8207; @Iikura:jcp/115/3450; @Chai:jcp/128/084106; @Vydrov:jcp/125/234109]. Such functionals were proved successful in a partial correction of the long-range behavior of the exchange-correlation potential [@Iikura:jcp/115/3450; @Tawada:jcp/120/8425]. However, they are also known to perform worse than standard density functionals in some cases [@Yanai:cpl/393/51; @Peach:pccp/8/558].
The combination of explicit many-body wave-function methods with the density-functional theory by means of range separation has been previously quite extensively explored. Long-range MP2 [@Angyan:pra/72/012510; @Fromager:pra/78/022504; @Kullie:cp/395/54; @Angyan:pra/78/022510], second-order $n$-electron valence state perturbation theory (NEVPT2) [@Fromager:pra/81/024502], coupled cluster (CCSD(T)) [@Goll:pccp/7/3917], random-phase approximation (RPA) [@Janesko:jcp/130/081105; @Toulouse:prl/102/096404; @Toulouse:pra/82/032502], configuration interaction (CI) [@Leininger:cpl/275/151; @Pollet:jcp/116/1250], MCSCF [@Fromager:jcp/131/054107; @Fromager:jcp/126/074111], and the density-matrix-functional theory [@Pernal:pra/81/052511; @Rohr:pra/82/052502] have been combined with short-range local and semilocal density functionals [@Toulouse:pra/70/062505; @Goll:pccp/7/3917; @Toulouse:ijqc/100/1047; @Heyd:jcp/118/8207; @GoriGiorgi:pra/73/032506]. These range-separated functionals were successfully applied to weakly interacting molecular systems [@Gerber:cpl/416/370; @Toulouse:pra/82/032502; @Angyan:pra/72/012510; @Goll:pccp/7/3917; @Toulouse:prl/102/096404; @Toulouse:pra/82/032502; @Liu:jctc/7/2399; @Zhu:jcp/132/244108; @Paier:jcp/132/094103]. In comparison to corresponding standard many-body wave-function approaches, the range-separated functionals have additional advantages such as a rapid convergence with respect to the basis set size [@Odile:jcp/142/074107; @Goll:pccp/7/3917; @Angyan:pra/72/012510; @Janesko:pccp/11/9677; @Kullie:cp/395/54; @Cornaton:pra/88/022516; @Toulouse:prl/102/096404; @Janesko:jcp/130/081105; @Janesko:jcp/131/034110; @Irelan:jcp/135/094105; @Toulouse:pra/82/032502] and smaller basis-set superposition errors. In these approaches, the long-range correlation energy is usually added as a post-SCF correction to the total energy from a range-separated calculation without the long-range correlation functional. Therefore, they do not yield the exact energy even with the exact short-range exchange-correlation functional, for example see ref .
Since the srSVWN5—lrGF2 functional introduced in this work combines both the density functional theory and the Green’s function theory, we aim to provide a self-contained and detailed description that can be useful to both these communities. Therefore, to bring the readers to a common ground, we found it helpful to list some key theory concepts from both communities.
Finite-temperature single-particle Green’s function methods have been long known in the context of condensed matter physics [@fetter2003quantum; @stefanucci2013nonequilibrium; @abrikosov2012methods] and now are making inroads into quantum chemistry [@Phillips:jcp/140/241101; @Kananenka:prb/91/121111; @Lan:jcp/143/241102; @Lan:jpcl/8/2200; @Phillips:jcp/142/194108]. These methods are rigorous and offer several advantages. The single-particle Green’s function formalism is based entirely on one-electron operators avoiding the necessity of dealing with wave functions. A single-particle Green’s function determines the expectation value of single-particle operators, the two-electron correlation energy, and provides access to the spectral density, ionization potentials and electron affinities.
In this work, we present a rigorous self-consistent framework combining a short-range density functional approximation with a long-range single-particle Green’s function method. As a specific example, we implemented and benchmarked the short-range local density approximation (LDA) [@Dirac:mpcps/26/376; @Vosko:cjp:58/1200] with the second-order Green’s function theory (GF2) [@Holleboom:jcp/93/5826; @Phillips:jcp/140/241101; @Dahlen:jcp/122/164102]. To further motivate this work, it is worth to briefly list differences between the method presented here and the already existing plethora of range-separated hybrid functionals. Most methods that have been previously applied to the long-range interactions were not self-consistent. In contrast to non-self-consistent methods, which are starting point dependent, the approach presented here, irrespective of the initial guess, recovers the exact total electronic energy provided that both the exact short-range exchange-correlation functional and the exact long-range Green’s function method are used. An iterative nature of GF2 results in multiple implications. The overall accuracy of GF2 for weakly correlated systems is close to that of MP2 or CCSD, however, unlike these two approaches, GF2 does not display divergences for strongly correlated systems [@Phillips:jcp/140/241101]. GF2 is a one-electron self-interaction free method, while methods such as RPA contain a significant one-electron self-interaction error [@MoriSanchez:pra/85/042507]. Furthermore, a Matsubara axis GF2 formalism is explicitly temperature-dependent.
The range-separated hybrid functional presented here also shares some commonalities with other combinations of DFT with Green’s function methods. For example, the LDA+DMFT [@Kotliar:rmp/78/865] method that combines LDA with the dynamical mean-field theory (DMFT) [@Georges:prb/45/6479] is often used in solid state calculations of strongly correlated systems. However, LDA+DMFT is known to suffer from a so-called double counting problem [@Kotliar:rmp/78/865; @Lee:prb/91/155144], where some electronic correlations are accounted for by both LDA and DMFT. In the LDA+DMFT method, these two sources of electronic correlations cannot be rigorously separated [@Anisimov:jpcm/9/767; @Haule:prb/81/195107; @Kotliar:rmp/78/865]. We would like to stress that the double counting problem does not appear in the framework presented here since the exact separation of the electron-electron interaction into long- and short-range components is used.
Range-separated hybrid functionals employ a single range separation parameter controlling the spatial extent of the short-range contribution. The optimal value of this system-dependent parameter [@Rohrdanz:jcp/129/034107; @Stein:prl/105/266802; @Korzdorfer:jcp/135/204107] can be determined either by empirical fitting against available experimental data [@Chai:jcp/128/084106; @Yanai:cpl/393/51; @Livshits:pccp/9/2932; @Song:jcp/126/154105] or in an *ab-initio* fashion in a self-consistent procedure [@Livshits:pccp/9/2932; @Baer:arpc/61/85]. In our current work, we have adopted the latter view and applied the optimal tuning strategy based on calculations of ionization potentials to find optimal values of the range separation parameter for several atoms and molecules. Additionally, we have also investigated the two-electron self-interaction error, basis set dependence, dynamical correlation as well as the implications of the hybrid functional presented here for the Green’s function based embedding methods and periodic calculations.
Theory {#sec:theory}
======
The exact electronic ground state energy of a system of $N$ interacting electrons in the presence of external potential $v(\mathbf{r})$ (e.g., the potential of the nuclei) can be obtained by a two-step minimization of the following functional [@Levy:pnas/76/6062] $$E_\text{tot}[\rho] = \underset{\rho \to N}{\min} \Bigl\{ %\underset{\Psi \to \rho}{\min} \bigg \langle \Psi \bigg |
F[\rho] + \int d\mathbf{r}v(\mathbf{r})\rho(\mathbf{r}) %\bigg| \Psi \bigg \rangle
\Bigr\}, \label{eq:es}$$ where $\rho(\mathbf{r})$ is an electron density and $F[\rho]$ is the universal functional of the electron density that is defined as $$F[\rho] = \underset{\Psi \to \rho}{\min} \langle \Psi | \hat{T} + \hat{V}_{ee} | \Psi \rangle, \label{eq:hk_func}$$ where $\hat{T}=-\frac{1}{2}\sum_i^N \nabla_i^2$ is the kinetic energy operator, $\hat{V}_{ee}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i\neq j}^N \hat{v}_{ee}(r_{ij})$ is the electron-electron interaction operator, $r_{ij}=|\mathbf{r}_i - \mathbf{r}_j|$ and $\mathbf{r}_i$ is the coordinate vector of electron $i$. The minimization is first carried out over all normalized antisymmetric wave functions $\Psi$ that produce a given density $\rho(\mathbf{r})$, and then over all densities yielding $N$-electrons. The existence and uniqueness of the universal functional $F[\rho]$ is guaranteed by Hohenberg and Kohn theorem [@Hohenberg:pr/136/B864]. Regrettably, an explicit variation of eq \[eq:es\] has not become practical since no exact form of the universal functional is available and due to its absence all practical applications are based on the Kohn–Sham scheme [@Kohn:pr/140/A1133]. This procedure uses an approximation to the exchange-correlation part of the universal functional. One of the most successful approaches taken along this way is the combination of two (or more) density functional approximations into one so-called hybrid exchange-correlation functional using the adiabatic connection theorem [@Harris:jpfmp:4/1170; @Gunnarsson:prb/13/4274; @Langreth:prb/15/2884; @Harris:pra/29/1648].
Range-separated density functional approximations belong to a particular class of hybrid functionals [@Baer:arpc/61/85]. The essence of range-separated hybrid functionals lies in the decomposition of the Coulomb electron-electron interaction operator into a sum of short-range and long-range counterparts [@savinRSoriginal; @Leininger:cpl/275/151; @Dombroski:jcp/100/6272], $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{r_{ij}} = &\hat{v}_{ee}^{sr,\lambda}(r_{ij}) + \hat{v}_{ee}^{lr,\lambda}(r_{ij})\\ \nonumber
&=
\underbrace{\frac{1-f\left(\lambda r_{ij}\right)}{r_{ij}}}_\text{short-range}+
\underbrace{\frac{f\left(\lambda r_{ij}\right)}{r_{ij}}}_\text{long-range}, \label{eq:decomp}\end{aligned}$$ with the parameter $\lambda$ controlling the range separation. The function $f(\lambda r)$ satisfies the following properties $f(\lambda r \to \infty)=1$ and $f(\lambda r \to 0) = 0$. From a physical and computational standpoint the standard error function $f(\lambda r)=\text{erf}(\lambda r)$ is one of the most convenient choices. The decomposition in eq \[eq:decomp\] is exact and presents a convenient starting point for developing range-separated hybrid functionals by mixing a short-range density functional approximation with a long-range method. The universal functional from eq \[eq:hk\_func\] is partitioned accordingly [@Toulouse:pra/70/062505] $$F[\rho] = \underset{\Psi \to \rho}{\min} \langle \Psi^\lambda | \hat{T} + \hat{V}^{lr,\lambda}_{ee} | \Psi^\lambda \rangle
+ E_\text{H}^{sr,\lambda}[\rho] + E_\text{xc}^{sr,\lambda}[\rho], \label{eq:hkf}$$ where the first term defines the long-range universal functional $F^{lr,\lambda}[\rho]$, the second term $E_\text{H}^{sr,\lambda}[\rho]$ is the short-range Hartree functional, and the third term $E_\text{xc}^{sr,\lambda}[\rho]$ is the short-range exchange-correlation functional. The total energy from eq \[eq:es\], therefore, can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
E_\text{tot}[\rho] =& \underset{\rho \to N}{\min} \Bigl\{ F^{lr,\lambda}[\rho] +
E_\text{H}^{sr,\lambda}[\rho] + E_\text{xc}^{sr,\lambda}[\rho] \\ \nonumber
&+\int d\mathbf{r} v(\mathbf{r}) \rho(\mathbf{r})
\Bigr\}.
\label{eq:mdwf}\end{aligned}$$
To formulate a self-consistent theory including a long-range exchange and correlation energies coming from a Green’s function method, we redefine the long-range functional $F^{lr,\lambda}[\rho]$ as the following functional of a single-particle Green’s function $G$ $$F^{lr,\lambda}[\rho] = \underset{G \to \rho}{\min} \{ T[G] + E_{ee}^{lr,\lambda}[G] \}.$$ Here, $T[G]$ is the kinetic energy functional and $E_{ee}^{lr,\lambda}[G]$ is the long-range interaction functional of a single-particle Green’s function. The search is performed over all single-particle Green’s functions yielding a given density $\rho(\mathbf{r})$. Consequently, we can write the ground state electronic energy as a functional of a single-particle Green’s function
$$\begin{aligned}
E_\text{tot}[\rho] & = & \underset{\rho \to N}{\min} \Bigl\{ \underset{G \to \rho}{\min} \{ T[G] + E_{ee}^{lr,\lambda}[G] \} +
E_\text{H}^{sr,\lambda}[\rho] + E_\text{xc}^{sr,\lambda}[\rho] +
\int d\mathbf{r} v(\mathbf{r}) \rho(\mathbf{r})
\Bigr\} \\ \nonumber
& = & \underset{G \to N}{\min} \Bigl\{ T[G] + E_{ee}^{lr,\lambda}[G] +
E_\text{H}^{sr,\lambda}[\rho] + E_\text{xc}^{sr,\lambda}[\rho] +
\int d\mathbf{r} v(\mathbf{r}) \rho(\mathbf{r})
\Bigr\}, \label{eq:min}\end{aligned}$$
where the electron density $\rho(\mathbf{r})$ is calculated from the Green’s function $G \to \rho$. Note that the single-particle Green’s function minimizing eq \[eq:min\] yields both the exact electron density $\rho$ and proper total number of electrons $N$. Therefore, we can define the total energy functional as $$\begin{aligned}
E_\text{tot}[G] = & T[G] + E_{ee}^{lr,\lambda}[G] +
E_\text{H}^{sr,\lambda}[G] + E_\text{xc}^{sr,\lambda}[\rho] \\ \nonumber
&+\int d\mathbf{r} v(\mathbf{r}) \rho(\mathbf{r}). \label{eq:ef1} \end{aligned}$$ The long-range electron-electron interaction energy can be decomposed into the Hartree long-range energy and the long-range exchange-correlation energy $$E_{ee}^{lr,\lambda}[G] = E_\text{H}^{lr,\lambda}[G] + E_\text{xc}^{lr,\lambda}[G].$$ The short-range and long-range Hartree energies can be folded into one term describing the all-range Hartree energy $E_\text{H}[\rho]$. This leads to the following expression for the energy functional defined in eq \[eq:ef1\] $$\begin{aligned}
E_\text{tot}[G] = &T[G] + E_\text{H}[\rho] + E_\text{xc}^{sr,\lambda}[G] + E_{xc}^{lr,\lambda}[G] \\ \nonumber
&+ \int d\mathbf{r} v(\mathbf{r}) \rho(\mathbf{r}). \label{eq:ef2}\end{aligned}$$ This energy functional (that depends on a Green’s function) provides an exact decomposition of the total energy into short-range and long-range components. In particular, there is no double counting of correlation effects. The minimization of this functional with respect to a single-particle Green’s function yields the ground state energy. It should be noted that with the exact long-range Green’s function method and exact short-range density functional the minimization of eq \[eq:ef2\] will produce the exact ground state electronic energy for all possible range separation parameters $\lambda$.
In practical calculations of realistic systems, both the short-range and long-range methods must be approximated. When employed in a range-separated framework, the standard density functional approximations are modified to describe short-range interactions. The short-range exchange-correlation energy is calculated as $$E_\text{xc}^{sr,\lambda} = \int d\mathbf{r}\rho(\mathbf{r}) \epsilon_\text{xc}^{sr,\lambda}(\rho), \label{eq:exc}$$ where $\epsilon_\text{xc}^{sr,\lambda}(\rho)$ is the short-range exchange-correlation energy density. The short-range LDA exchange energy density $\epsilon_{\text{x},\sigma}^{sr,\lambda}(\rho)$ can be derived from the exchange hole of the homogeneous electron gas interacting with a short-range electron-electron interaction potential [@Toulouse:ijqc/100/1047]. Its functional form depends on the choice of the function $f(\lambda r)$ [@Toulouse:pra/70/062505] and for the error function the short-range exchange energy density $\epsilon_{\text{x},\sigma}^{sr,\lambda}(\rho)$ is given by [@Iikura:jcp/115/3450]
$$\label{eq:srldax}
\epsilon_{\text{x},\sigma}^{sr,\lambda}(\rho) = - \frac{1}{2}\left( \frac{3}{4\pi}\right)^{1/3}
\rho_\sigma^{1/3}(\mathbf{r}) \left( 1-\frac{8}{3}a_\sigma \left[ \sqrt{\pi}\text{erf} \left( \frac{1}{2a_\sigma}\right) + \left(2a_\sigma - 4a_\sigma^3\right) \exp \left( -\frac{1}{4a_\sigma^2} \right ) - 3a_\sigma+4a_\sigma^3 \right] \right),$$
where $a_\sigma=\lambda /(2k_{F,\sigma})$, $k_\sigma$ is the Fermi momentum given by $k_{F,\sigma}=(6\pi^2 \rho_\sigma)^{1/3}$ and $\sigma=\alpha,\beta$ is the spin index. This approximation reduces to the standard LDA exchange energy density at $\lambda=0$ and has a correct asymptotic expansion for $\lambda\to \infty$ [@Toulouse:pra/70/062505]. Thus, it provides an interpolation between LDA and the correct limit as $\lambda\to \infty$. LDA was shown to be exact at the short-range [@Gill:mp/88/1005] and, when combined with the many-body perturbation theory, such a hybrid method is expected to give an improved description of the dynamical correlation both in comparison to LDA and the perturbation theory. Consequently, in this case LDA is used to recover a fraction of the dynamical correlation that is missing in the finite order of perturbation theory. In subsection \[sec:pes\], we provide results supporting this discussion by investigating dynamical correlation in diatomic molecules. In order to calculate the short-range correlation energy density $\epsilon_c^{sr,\lambda}(\rho)$, we adopted a scheme based on the following rational approximant [@Toulouse:ijqc/100/1047; @GoriGiorgi:pra/73/032506] $$\epsilon_c^{sr,\lambda}(r_s)=\frac{\epsilon_c(r_s)}
{1+c_1(r_s)\lambda+c_2(r_s)\lambda^2}, \label{eq:ec}$$ where $\epsilon_c(r_s)$ is the correlation energy density for the standard Coulomb interactions ($\lambda=0$) evaluated for the Wigner–Seitz radius $r_s(\rho)=(3/(4\pi \rho))^{1/3}$ with $\rho(\mathbf{r}) =\rho_\alpha(\mathbf{r})+\rho_\beta(\mathbf{r})$. Equation \[eq:ec\] provides a way to interpolate between $\lambda=0$ and $\lambda \to \infty$ limits and is applicable not only for the interpolation of the correlation energy density but can also be used for the exchange energy density [@Toulouse:pra/70/062505]. Particular forms of $c_1(r_s)$ and $c_2(r_s)$ depend on the quantity interpolated. In this work, we used $c_1(r_s)$ and $c_2(r_s)$ determined by Toulouse *et. al.* by analytical parameterization of the long-range correlation energy density from CCD and Fermi-hypernetted-chain calculations of the uniform electron gas [@Toulouse:ijqc/100/1047]. The short-range correlation energy density was then calculated as a difference between all-range and long-range correlation energy densities. In this work, we have investigated two local density approximations for the correlation energy: Vosko–Wilk–Nusair (VWN5) functional (“form V” parametrization in ref ) as well as the Perdew and Wang (PW92) functional [@Perdew:prb/45/13244]. PW92 uses the same spin-interpolation formula as the VWN functional but employs different expressions for the paramagnetic correlation energy density and the ferromagnetic correction to it. After performing several test calculations, we noticed that total energies from the short-range VWN5 functional were within 1 kcal$\cdot$mol$^{-1}$ of those of the short-range PW92 functional. Consequently, we proceeded by using short-range VWN5 functional and all results reported in this work were obtained with it.
Having discussed theoretical background behind short-range density functionals and our specific choices, we now turn to the discussion of the long-range electron-electron interaction energy. The long-range exchange energy is defined exactly in terms of the Fock exchange integral as $$E_\text{x}^{lr,\lambda}=-\frac{1}{2}\sum_\sigma \int d\mathbf{r}\int d\mathbf{r}'
\frac{|\gamma_\sigma(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r'})|^2
\text{erf}(\lambda |\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r'}|)}{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r'}|}, \label{eq:lx}$$ where $\gamma_\sigma(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r'})$ is the one-electron reduced density matrix. Note that the incorporation of the screening provided by the error function leads to a faster decaying long-range exchange contribution and, especially for metallic systems, can result in reducing the computational cost [@Heyd:jcp/118/8207].
In this work, we propose to calculate the long-range correlation energy using single-particle Green’s function methods. In a Green’s function formalism, it is possible to correct a zeroth order Green’s function $\mathbf{\mathcal{G}}(\omega)$ (which in certain cases can be a non-interacting Green’s function) using the Dyson equation [@fetter2003quantum] $$\mathbf{G}_\sigma(\omega) = \left[ \mathbf{\mathcal{G}}_\sigma(\omega)^{-1} - \mathbf{\Sigma}_\sigma(\omega) \right]^{-1}, \label{eq:dyson}$$ where $\mathbf{\Sigma}_\sigma(\omega)$ is the self-energy of the system. The self-energy is an effective single-particle potential that incorporates all many-body effects present in the system. At this point, a connection to the density functional theory can be made. The frequency-dependent self-energy $\mathbf{\Sigma}(\omega)$ shares some similarities with the exchange-correlation potential of DFT $v_\text{xc}(\rho)$ since $v_\text{xc}(\rho)$ also connects interacting and non-interacting systems. However, we stress that unlike $v_\text{xc}(\rho)$ in Kohn–Sham DFT, the self-energy is a dynamic, nonlocal and orbital-dependent quantity. This implies that a treatment of such potentials is beyond the Kohn–Sham scheme and it requires the so-called generalized Kohn–Sham framework (GKS) [@Seidl:prb/53/3764].
Calculating either the exact exchange-correlation potential or the exact self-energy is an inconceivably complicated task. Fortunately, a hierarchy of systematically improvable approximations to the self-energy is provided by the many-body perturbation theory [@jishi2013; @stefanucci2013nonequilibrium]. Examples of such approaches include GF2, GW [@Hedin:pr/139/A796; @Aryasetiawan:rpp/61/239], and FLEX [@Bickers:prl/62/961; @Bickers:ap/193/206] approximations.
Since both the long-range exchange (eq \[eq:lx\]) and the long-range correlation energy (eq \[eq:gm\]) should be calculated self-consistently with their short-range counterparts, it is important that such a self-consistent evaluation can be carried out easily. Moreover, for Green’s function methods, only fully iterative schemes respect the conservation laws and ensure that quantities obtained by a thermodynamic or coupling constant integration from non-interacting limits are consistent [@Baym:pr/124/287; @Baym:pr/127/1391] This is why in our work, we did not employ any real axis single-particle Green’s functions $\mathbf{G}(\omega)$ that are rational functions in the complex plane. The rational structure of $\mathbf{G}(\omega)$ implies the existence of poles, for which, iterative algorithms require pole shifting techniques [@Lu:prb/90/085102; @Neck:jcp/115/15; @Peirs:jcp/117/4095]. Consequently, the real axis Green’s functions methods are known to present problems during self-consistent schemes.
We are employing an imaginary axis, single-particle Green’s function $\mathbf{G}(i\omega_n)$ that is a smooth function of the imaginary argument $i\omega_n$ and is used to describe single-particle properties of a statistical ensemble. Due to the smooth structure, $\mathbf{G}(i\omega_n)$ is a convenient quantity for self-consistent calculations. The imaginary frequency (Matsubara) Green’s function $\mathbf{G}(i\omega_n)$ is expressed on a grid of imaginary frequencies located at $i\omega_n=i(2n+1)\pi/\beta$ [@Matsubara:ptp/14/351], where $n=0,1,2,..$, $\beta=1/(k_\text{B}T)$ is the inverse temperature, $k_\text{B}$ is the Boltzmann constant and $T$ is the physical temperature. Providing that the imaginary frequency self-energy and Green’s function were self-consistently determined [@stefanucci2013nonequilibrium], the long-range correlation energy can be calculated using the Galitskii–Migdal formula [@Galitskii:jetp/34/139] $$\begin{aligned}
E_\text{c}^{lr,\lambda} & = & k_B T \sum_n \text{Re} \left[ \text{Tr}
\left[ \mathbf{G}^{\lambda}_\alpha(i\omega_n)\mathbf{\Sigma}^{lr,\lambda}_\alpha(i\omega_n) \right.\right.\nonumber \\
& + & \left.\left.\mathbf{G}^{\lambda}_\beta(i\omega_n)\mathbf{\Sigma}^{lr,\lambda}_\beta(i\omega_n)
\right]\right]. \label{eq:gm}\end{aligned}$$ We have presented equations for calculating long-range exchange (eq \[eq:lx\]) and long-range correlation energies (eq \[eq:gm\]), however, as we mentioned before, is important that they are calculated self-consistently with their short-range counterparts. Here, we outline an algorithm that allows us to perform such a self-consistent evaluation. It should be noted that the formalism presented in this work is general and not limited to a specific choice of the Green’s function method and the density functional approximation.
1. The calculation begins with an initial guess for the density matrix $\mathbf{P}$. For all calculations presented in this work, the Hartree–Fock density matrix was used for this purpose. The method is, however, reference-independent and different choices of the initial density matrix are possible and the same converged solution should be reached irrespective of the starting point.
2. \[loop\] The electron density is calculated using a finite set of $L$ basis functions $\{\phi_i(\mathbf{r})\}$ $$\rho_\sigma(\mathbf{r}) = \sum_{ij}^L P^\sigma_{ij}\phi_i(\mathbf{r})\phi_j(\mathbf{r}).$$
3. The density matrix is used to calculate the all-range Hartree contribution to the Fock matrix according to $$J_{ij} = \sum_{kl} \left(P^\alpha_{kl} + P^\beta_{kl} \right)v_{ijkl},$$ where $v_{ijkl}$ are unscreened two-electron integrals $$v_{ijkl} = \int d\mathbf{r} \int d\mathbf{r}' \frac{\phi_i^*(\mathbf{r}) \phi_j(\mathbf{r}) \phi_k^*(\mathbf{r}')
\phi_l(\mathbf{r}')}{|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{r}'|}.$$
4. The short-range exchange-correlation energy is calculated using eqs \[eq:exc\], \[eq:srldax\], \[eq:ec\] and the corresponding contributions to the Fock matrix are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\left[V_{\text{x},\sigma}^{sr,\lambda}\right]_{ij} & = & \int d\mathbf{r} v_{\text{x},\sigma}^{sr,\lambda}(\rho) \phi_i(\mathbf{r}) \phi_j(\mathbf{r}), \nonumber \\
\left[V_{\text{c},\sigma}^{sr,\lambda}\right]_{ij} & = & \int d\mathbf{r} v_\text{c}^{sr,\lambda}(\rho) \phi_i(\mathbf{r}) \phi_j(\mathbf{r}), \end{aligned}$$ where the short-range exchange $v_{\text{x},\sigma}^{sr,\lambda}(\rho)$ and short-range correlation $v_\text{c}^{sr,\lambda}(\rho)$ potentials are functional derivatives of short-range exchange and short-range correlation functionals with respect to the electron density: $v_{\text{x},\sigma}^{sr,\lambda}(\rho)=\delta E_\text{x}^{sr,\lambda}[\rho]/\delta \rho_\sigma(\mathbf{r})$ and $v_{\text{c},\sigma}^{sr,\lambda}(\rho)=\delta E_\text{c}^{sr,\lambda}[\rho]/\delta \rho_\sigma(\mathbf{r})$, respectively.
5. \[step:gf\] Each of the spin components of the non-interacting Matsubara Green’s function is then built according to $$\mathbf{\mathcal{G}}_\sigma(i\omega_n) = \left[(i\omega_n + \mu_\sigma)\mathbf{S} -
\mathbf{F}_\sigma \right]^{-1},$$ where $\mu_\sigma$ is the chemical potential, $\mathbf{S}$ is the overlap matrix and $\mathbf{F}_\sigma$ is the Fock matrix containing all-range Hartree and short-range exchange-correlation parts $$\mathbf{F}_\sigma = \mathbf{H}^\text{core} + \mathbf{J} + \mathbf{V}_{\text{x},\sigma}^{sr,\lambda} + \mathbf{V}_{\text{c},\sigma}^{sr,\lambda},$$ where $\mathbf{H}^\text{core}$ is the core Hamiltonian matrix $$H_{ij}^\text{core} = \int d\mathbf{r} \phi_i^*(\mathbf{r}) \left(-\frac{1}{2}\nabla^2_{\mathbf{r}} +
v(\mathbf{r}) \right)\phi_j(\mathbf{r})$$ and $v(\mathbf{r})$ is the external potential.
6. The Green’s function from step \[step:gf\] is then used to generate either the long-range self-energy $\mathbf{\mathcal{G}}(i\omega_n) \to \mathbf{\Sigma}^{lr,\lambda}(i\omega_n)$ or directly the correlated Green’s function depending on a particular Green’s function method used. Both quantities are needed later and the Dyson eq \[eq:dyson\] is used to obtain one from the other.
7. The long-range exchange contribution to the Fock matrix is calculated according to $$K_{ij,\sigma}^{lr,\lambda}=-\sum_{kl}P_{kl}^\sigma v_{ilkj}^{lr,\lambda}.$$ The interacting Green’s function at this point reads as $$\mathbf{G}_\sigma^\lambda(i\omega_n) = \left[(i\omega_n + \mu_\sigma)\mathbf{S} - \mathbf{F}_\sigma -
\mathbf{\Sigma}^{lr,\lambda}_\sigma(i\omega_n)\right]^{-1}, \label{eq:gfc}$$ where the Fock matrix has now both terms coming from the density functional and the Green’s function method $$\mathbf{F}_\sigma = \mathbf{H}^\text{core} + \mathbf{J} + \mathbf{V}_{\text{x},\sigma}^{sr,\lambda} +
\mathbf{V}_{\text{c},\sigma}^{sr,\lambda} + \mathbf{K}^{lr,\lambda}_\sigma. \label{eq:fc}$$ The long-range self-energy $\mathbf{\Sigma}^{lr,\lambda}_\sigma(i\omega_n)$ describes the dynamical (frequency-dependent) long-range correlation.
8. The long-range correlation energy is calculated using the correlated Green’s function $\mathbf{G}_\sigma^\lambda(i\omega_n)$ and the long-range self-energy $\mathbf{\Sigma}^{lr,\lambda}_\sigma(i\omega_n)$ according to eq \[eq:gm\].
9. The total electronic energy is calculated according to $$\begin{aligned}
E_\text{tot} = &\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}\left[(\mathbf{H}^\text{core}+\mathbf{f}_\alpha)\mathbf{P}_\alpha
+(\mathbf{H}^\text{core}+\mathbf{f}_\beta)\mathbf{P}_\beta\right] \\ \nonumber
&+ E_\text{xc}^{sr,\lambda} + E_\text{x}^{lr,\lambda} + E_\text{c}^{lr,\lambda} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\mathbf{f}_\sigma=\mathbf{H}^\text{core}+\mathbf{J}+\mathbf{K}^{lr,\lambda}_\sigma.$$
10. The interacting Green’s function is then used to update the density matrix $$\mathbf{P}_\sigma = \frac{1}{\beta}\sum_{n}e^{i\omega_n0^+}\mathbf{G}_\sigma^\lambda(i\omega_n).$$
11. The total electronic energy, density matrix, and Green’s function are checked for convergence and, if necessary, a new iteration is started by sending updated density matrix to step \[loop\].
The above algorithmic construction is in principle general and can be used in finite-temperature calculations to evaluate the grand potential as $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega = \Phi - \text{Tr}( \log \mathbf{G}^{-1}) - \text{Tr} (\mathbf{\Sigma} \mathbf{G}),\end{aligned}$$ where $\Phi$ is the Luttinger–Ward (LW) [@Luttinger:pr/118/1417] functional that is a scalar functional of a renormalized Green’s function and is defined as the sum of all closed, connected and fully dressed skeleton diagrams. The general $\Phi[{\bf G}]$ functional has the following form $$\Phi[\mathbf{G}] = E_\text{H}[\mathbf{G}] + E_\text{x}[\mathbf{G}] + E[\mathbf{G}]$$ where $E[\mathbf{G}]$ is the correlation energy coming from frequency dependent $\mathbf{\Sigma}(i\omega_n)$ and $\mathbf{G}(i\omega_n)$. Since $\delta \Phi/\delta G_{ij}(i\omega_n)=\Sigma_{ij}(i\omega_n)$, we obtain the following expression for the self-energy $$\label{eq:se_all}
\mathbf{\Sigma}_\sigma = \mathbf{J} + \mathbf{K}_\sigma + \mathbf{\Sigma}_{\sigma}(i\omega_n).$$ Application of the decomposition from eq \[eq:decomp\] can be understood as a splitting of interaction lines for every diagram leading to the following expression for the self-energy $$\mathbf{\Sigma}_\sigma = \mathbf{J} + \mathbf{K}^{sr,\lambda}_\sigma + \mathbf{K}^{lr,\lambda}_\sigma+
\mathbf{\Sigma}^{sr,\lambda}_{\sigma}(i\omega_n) + \mathbf{\Sigma}^{lr,\lambda}_{\sigma}(i\omega_n).$$ Finally, when a hybrid functional with DFT is considered, short-range exchange and short-range correlation self-energies are approximated by static (frequency-independent) corresponding potentials from the density functional approximation: $\mathbf{K}^{sr,\lambda}_\sigma \to \mathbf{V}_{\text{x},\sigma}^{sr,\lambda}$ and $\mathbf{\Sigma}^{sr,\lambda}_{\sigma}(i\omega_n) \to \mathbf{V}_{\text{c},\sigma}^{sr,\lambda}$ resulting in the following expression for the self-energy $$\label{eq:se_all_dft_app}
\mathbf{\Sigma}_\sigma = \mathbf{J} + \mathbf{V}_{\text{x},\sigma}^{sr,\lambda} +
\mathbf{V}_{\text{c},\sigma}^{sr,\lambda} + \mathbf{K}^{lr,\lambda}_\sigma +
\mathbf{\Sigma}^{lr,\lambda}_{\sigma}(i\omega_n),$$ which enters the expression for the correlated Green’s function shown earlier in eqs \[eq:gfc\] and \[eq:fc\]. While in principle the presented formalism that merges DFT with Green’s function theory is temperature dependent and completely general, in our work, we use two simplifications. First, all practical calculations are currently limited to the $T=0$ case due to lack of reliable explicit finite-temperature density functional approximations. Second, in our work, for simplicity, we have employed the finite-temperature, self-consistent, second-order Green’s function theory (GF2) for evaluating $\mathbf{\Sigma}_\sigma^{lr,\lambda}(i\omega_n)$. Consequently, in equations \[eq:se\_all\] to \[eq:se\_all\_dft\_app\], we use ${\bf \Sigma}_\sigma(i\omega_n)={\bf \Sigma}_{2,\sigma}(i\omega_n)$, ${\bf \Sigma}^{sr,\lambda}_\sigma(i\omega_n)={\bf \Sigma}^{sr,\lambda}_{2,\sigma}(i\omega_n)$, and ${\bf \Sigma}^{lr,\lambda}_\sigma(i\omega_n)={\bf \Sigma}^{lr,\lambda}_{2,\sigma}(i\omega_n)$. The corresponding second-order Feynman diagrams for $\Phi$ are shown in Figure \[fig:diagr\]. Since for the reasons discussed above, the DFT part of calculations is carried out at $T=0$, we evaluate the GF2 self-energy and Green’s function for large $\beta$, corresponding to $T\to 0$. For gapped systems, these calculations are equivalent to the $T=0$ regime.
![A formal definition of the Luttinger–Ward functional as a skeleton diagrammatic expansion, shown here for the second-order theory. Black solid lines represent Green’s functions and red wiggly lines denote electron-electron interactions (two-electron integrals).[]{data-label="fig:diagr"}](diagr.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
One of the key advantages of range-separated hybrid functionals stems from the fact that partitioning in eq \[eq:decomp\] is chosen such that a singularity is only present in the short-range operator at electron-electron coalescence, while the long-range contribution is smooth. The absence of the singularity in the long-range part has significant consequences. Most importantly, a correlated method applied to the long-range electron-electron interactions will not need to represent a cusp using a finite set of one-electron basis functions, thus avoiding basis sets containing functions with very high angular momentum. In contrast to most electron correlation methods, density functionals are weakly basis-set dependent. Therefore, range-separated hybrid functionals usually exhibit faster convergence of the correlation and total energies with the size of the basis set. In subsection \[sec:basis\], we illustrate that this indeed the case for the functional presented in this work.
In practical applications, a value of the range separation parameter $\lambda$ has to be specified before a calculation is carried out. It is important that this value is chosen such that the respective approximations are evaluated within a regime that is optimal for their performance [@Baer:arpc/61/85]. The simplest estimation of an optimal value of $\lambda$ is based on a local approximation [@Pollet:jcp/116/1250] $\lambda(\rho)=r_s(\rho)^{-1}$. The physical motivation behind this value is related to the fact that an electron on average occupies the sphere with boundaries defined by the Wigner–Seitz radius (also known as a characteristic length of the exchange). Therefore, electrons begin to enter an occupation sphere of the other electrons when $\lambda(\rho) \ge r_s(\rho)^{-1}$.
More sophisticated ways to find an optimal value of $\lambda$ are based on the first-principles approaches and amount to finding $\lambda$ satisfying some relationships that an exact theory should obey. For instance, a vertical ionization potential (IP) of a molecule containing $N$ electrons is defined as $$\text{IP}_{E(N)}^{E(N-1)} = E_\text{tot}(N-1) - E_\text{tot}(N), \label{eq:ipdiff}$$ where $E_\text{tot}(N)$ is the total ground state energy of a cation and $E_\text{tot}(N)$ is the total ground state energy of a neutral molecule. In an exact theory, $\text{IP}_{E(N)}^{E(N-1)}$ should exactly agree with the IP calculated from the real frequency Green’s function of $N$-electron (neutral) system $\mathbf{G}_N(\omega)$. The general idea of the IP tuning approach is therefore to require that IP from $\mathbf{G}_N(\omega)$ is as close as possible to IP calculated from total energies of $N-1$ and $N$ electron systems. Therefore, an optimal value of $\lambda$ can be found by a minimization of the following bijective function $$\mathcal{T}_N(\lambda) = \bigg| \text{IP} \left[ \mathbf{G}_N^\lambda(\omega) \right]
- \text{IP}_{E(N)}^{E(N-1)} \bigg|, \label{norm}$$ where $\text{IP} \left[ \mathbf{G}_N^\lambda(\omega) \right]$ is the ionization potential calculated from the real frequency Green’s function for a given value of $\lambda$. The minimum of $\mathcal{T}_N(\lambda)$ defines an optimal $\lambda$ for which the ionization potential from a Green’s function calculated for $N$-electron system is the closest to the ionization potential calculated from total energies of $N-1$ and $N$ electron systems. It is important to emphasize that such tuning procedure does not require any empirical input.
Several methods of calculating IP from a single-particle Matsubara Green’s function of an $N$-electron system including the extended Koopmans theorem (EKT) [@Smith:jcp/62/113; @Day:jcp/62/115; @Matos:ijqc/31/871; @Morrison:jcp/96/3718] have been proposed. In this work, we adopted the following approach. First, the converged Fock matrix $\mathbf{F}$ coming from the imaginary axis GF2 calculation is transformed to the canonical representation $\mathbf{\mathcal{E}}$. Then the real frequency Green’s function is constructed according to $$\mathbf{G}(\omega) = \left[ \omega + \mu - \mathbf{\mathcal{E}} \right]^{-1},$$ where $\omega$ is the real frequency grid point. Then the second-order self-energy on the real frequency axis is calculated as follows [@szabo1989modern] $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma_{ij}(\omega) =& \frac{1}{2} \sum_{ars}
\frac{\langle rs || ia \rangle \langle ja || rs \rangle}{\omega + \mathcal{E}_a - \mathcal{E}_r - \mathcal{E}_s}\\ \nonumber
&+ \frac{1}{2} \sum_{abr}
\frac{\langle ab || ir \rangle \langle jr || ab \rangle}{\omega + \mathcal{E}_r - \mathcal{E}_a - \mathcal{E}_b},\end{aligned}$$ where $i,j$ denote both occupied and virtual spin orbitals, $a,b$ denote the occupied spin orbitals only, and $r,s$ label virtual spin orbitals, $\langle rs || ia \rangle$ are the antisymmetrized two-electron integrals. Occupied and virtual orbitals are defined with respect to the Hartree–Fock determinant. The self-energy is then used to construct an updated real frequency Green’s function according to $$\mathbf{G}(\omega) = \left[ \omega + \mu - \mathbf{\mathcal{E}} -
\mathbf{\Sigma}(\omega) \right]^{-1}.$$ The spectral function $\mathbf{A}(\omega)$ is then evaluated using $$\mathbf{A}(\omega) = -\frac{1}{\pi} \text{Im} \mathbf{G}(\omega).$$ All peaks of $\mathbf{A}(\omega)$ were shifted by the chemical potential $\mu$ and IP was set to the closest to $\omega=0$ peak $\tilde{\omega}$ from $\omega^-$ side $$\label{eq:g_ip}
\text{IP} \left[ \mathbf{G}_N^\lambda(\omega) \right] = -(\tilde{\omega} + \mu).$$ Results of the IP-tuning approach described above are illustrated in subsection \[sec:ip\]. Another constraint that an exact electronic structure theory should comply with is based on the energy of fractional electron systems. It is well-known that the total electronic energy should vary linearly in the fractional electron occupancy between integer electron numbers [@Perdew:prl/49/1691; @Perdew:pra/76/040501; @Mori-Sanchez:jcp/125/201102]. Inexact methods satisfy this condition only approximately. To the extent that a method deviates from this condition such a method possesses the many-electron self-interaction error. We have investigated this condition on the example of a two-electron system. Results are presented and discussed in subsection \[sec:sie\].
Computational details {#sec:comp}
=====================
In this work, we present the range-separated hybrid functional srSVWN5—lrGF2 that combines the SVWN5 density functional with the self-consistent second-order perturbative many-body Green’s function method (GF2). In GF2, the long-range second-order self-energy is calculated in the imaginary time domain according to [@Phillips:jcp/142/194108]
$$\begin{aligned}
\left[\Sigma_{\alpha}^{lr,\lambda}(\tau)\right]_{ij} & = & -\sum_{klmnpq}
\left[G^\lambda_\alpha(\tau)\right]_{kl}
\left[G^\lambda_\alpha(\tau)\right]_{mn}
\left[G^\lambda_\alpha(-\tau)\right]_{pq}
v_{ikmq}^{lr,\lambda} \left( v_{ljpn}^{lr,\lambda} - v_{pjln}^{lr,\lambda} \right) \nonumber \\
& & -\left[G^\lambda_\alpha(\tau)\right]_{mn} \left[G^\lambda_\beta(\tau)\right]_{kl}
\left[G^\lambda_\beta(-\tau)\right]_{pq}v_{ikmq}^{lr,\lambda}v_{ljpn}^{lr,\lambda}, \nonumber \\
\left[\Sigma_{\beta}^{lr,\lambda}(\tau)\right]_{ij} & = & -\sum_{klmnpq}
\left[G^\lambda_\beta(\tau)\right]_{kl}
\left[G^\lambda_\beta(\tau)\right]_{mn}
\left[G^\lambda_\beta(-\tau)\right]_{pq}
v_{ikmq}^{lr,\lambda} \left( v_{ljpn}^{lr,\lambda} - v_{pjln}^{lr,\lambda} \right) \nonumber \\
& & -\left[G^\lambda_\beta(\tau)\right]_{mn} \left[G^\lambda_\alpha(\tau)\right]_{kl}
\left[G^\lambda_\alpha(-\tau)\right]_{pq}v_{ikmq}^{lr,\lambda}v_{ljpn}^{lr,\lambda}, \label{eq:gf2}\end{aligned}$$
where $G_{kl}^{\lambda}(\tau)$ is the imaginary time Green’s function. The algorithm outlined above has been implemented using a locally modified version of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">DALTON</span> [@dalton] program for the calculation of long-range two-electron integrals and the short-range SVWN5 exchange-correlation energy and exchange-correlation potential. An in-house GF2 code [@Phillips:jcp/140/241101] was used to perform the self-consistent procedure and to calculate the long-range second-order self-energy. The imaginary time Green’s function and self-energy that were optimized for realistic systems were evaluated using the Legendre representation [@Kananenka:jctc/12/564] and a cubic spline interpolation algorithm [@Kananenka:jctc/12/2250] was employed to optimize imaginary-frequency quantities. The convergence of the total energy with respect to the size of the Legendre expansion, imaginary time and imaginary frequency grids was verified. Total electronic energies were converged to 5$\cdot$10$^{-6}$ au The inverse temperature was set to $\beta=100$ au, corresponding to a physical temperature below the excitation energy necessary to occupy the lowest unoccupied level of all systems considered in this work. Results of standard methods: SVWN5, CCSD(T) and FCI, reported in this work, were obtained with <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gaussian 09</span> [@g09] program.
Results and Discussion {#sec:results}
======================
In this section, we present and analyze numerical results of the application of the srSVWN5—lrGF2 functional to concepts discussed above.
Basis set convergence {#sec:basis}
---------------------
In this section, for a series of aug-cc-pVXZ augmented correlation-consistent polarization Dunning basis sets [@Dunning:jcp/90/1007; @Woon:jcp/100/2975; @Prascher:tca/128/69], we investigated the convergence of the srSVWN5—lrGF2 total energy as a function of the range separation parameter $\lambda$ for three systems: He and Mg atoms as well as H$_2$ molecule at the equilibrium distance R(H–H) = 1.4 au. We studied the convergence of the total energy with respect to the cardinal number $X$, corresponding to the highest angular momentum in a given basis set $\mathcal{L}$ (note, that for He, $X=\mathcal{L}-1$). The following values of $X$ were used: $X \in \{D,T,Q,5\}$ for He and $X \in \{D,T,Q\}$ for H$_2$ and Mg. Relative to the total energy, obtained for a basis set with $X$=5 for He and $X$=4 for H$_2$ and Mg, the total electronic energies of the srSVWN5—lrGF2 functional are plotted in Figure \[fig:basis\].
{width="15.0cm" height="6cm"}
In Figure \[fig:basis\], SVWN5 energies, corresponding to orange lines with triangles, confirm that density functional approximations converge very rapidly with respect to the basis set size. GF2 energies, illustrated by gray lines with diamonds, result in the slowest convergence for every system studied in this work. Any mixture of SVWN5 and GF2 leads to an improved convergence when compared to GF2. For $\lambda < 1$, srSVWN5—lrGF2 converges as fast as SVWN5 for all the systems considered here. For values of $\lambda > 1$, for both H$_2$ molecule and Mg atom, the convergence of the srSVWN5—lrGF2 functional is much slower than that one of the parent SVWN5 functional. Filled area shown in every plot corresponds to a difference of 1 kcal$\cdot$mol$^{-1}$ from the largest basis set used for the system. For all three systems, SVWN5 calculations converged within 1 kcal$\cdot$mol$^{-1}$ away from the largest basis set for cc-pVTZ ($X$=3) basis set. For the same basis set, the GF2 energy became almost converged only for H$_2$ molecule. In Figure \[fig:basis\], for each of the cases analyzed, we also show the largest $\lambda$ for which the total energy for the cc-pVTZ basis set is 1 kcal$\cdot$mol$^{-1}$ away from the energy in the largest basis set used in that system. It corresponds to $\lambda=5$, $\lambda=4$ and $\lambda=0.5$ for He, H$_2$ and Mg respectively.
Similarly to wave-function methods, pure Green’s function methods converge fairly slowly with respect to the basis set size. By using the density functional method to describe short-range interactions a faster converge with respect to the basis set size is achieved.
Potential energy surface of diatomic molecules {#sec:pes}
----------------------------------------------
The accuracy of popular density functionals around equilibrium geometries stems from a satisfactory description of the short-range dynamical correlation. In this section, we illustrate the dynamical correlation in the srSVWN5—lrGF2 functional by analyzing dissociation curves of diatomic molecules.
First, for the H$_2$ molecule, we looked at absolute values of the total electronic energy near the equilibrium geometry. We performed spin-restricted total energy calculations using the srSVWN5—lrGF2 functional for different values of the range separation parameter $\lambda$ scanning over values of interatomic distances around the equilibrium geometry using the cc-pVQZ [@Dunning:jcp/90/1007] basis set. The dissociation curve is illustrated in Figure \[fig:H2\_diss\]. Full Configuration Interaction (FCI) energies are also included and shown for comparison. It is clear that GF2 produces energies that are much closer to FCI than SVWN5. This suggests that GF2 recovers the dynamical correlation better than SVWN5. However, obviously due to a finite order truncation, GF2 does not recover all of the dynamical correlation. GF2, SVWN5, and srSVWN5—lrGF2 tend to be inaccurate far away from equilibrium. This is not surprising since all these methods are not well-suited for systems with a significant strong correlation. As the contribution from GF2 increases (orange line $\to$ green line $\to$ cyan line, etc), the total energy gradually approaches the FCI energy and when $\lambda \in \left[0.7,0.8\right]$ the total energy becomes almost stationary with respect to changes in $\lambda$. For example, E($\lambda$=0.8) $-$ E($\lambda$=0.7) = 0.1 kcal$\cdot$mol$^{-1}$. In particular, $\lambda=0.7$ corresponds to the best match of the dynamical correlation coming from two respective approaches and produces an equilibrium distance energy which is only $1.7$ kcal$\cdot$mol$^{-1}$ away from FCI. For the same internuclear distance, SVWN5 and GF2 errors are 23.1 kcal$\cdot$mol$^{-1}$ and 4.5 kcal$\cdot$mol$^{-1}$, respectively. Overall we conclude that the short-range SVWN5 functional is efficient in adding the missing dynamical correlation to GF2.
![A dissociation curve of the H$_2$ molecule calculated using the srSVWN5—lrGF2 functional for different values of $\lambda$. The SVWN5, GF2, and FCI results are shown for comparison. All calculations employed the cc-pVQZ basis set.[]{data-label="fig:H2_diss"}](dyncor2.pdf){width="6.0cm" height="6cm"}
The second case we considered was the dissociation of the HF molecule. Rather than looking at the absolute values of the electronic energy, here we focus on the electronic energies relative to the minimum on the dissociation curve. These energies are responsible for the shape of the dissociation curve. The reference energies are provided by CCSD(T) [@Bartlett:rmp/79/291; @Raghavachari:cpl/157/479] method. The cc-pVQZ basis set was used in all calculations. The results are illustrated in Figure \[fig:HF\_diss\].
![A dissociation curve of the HF molecule calculated using the srSVWN5—lrGF2 functional for different values of $\lambda$. The SVWN5, GF2 and CCSD(T) results are shown for comparison. All calculations employed the cc-pVQZ basis set.[]{data-label="fig:HF_diss"}](dyncor1.pdf){width="6.0cm" height="6cm"}
It should be noted that the shape of the GF2 dissociation curve is in a very good agreement with that of CCSD(T), while the SVWN5 energy grows too slow with the increasing internuclear separation beyond the equilibrium distance. Mixing GF2 and SVWN5 for small $\lambda$ up to $\lambda=0.3-0.4$ fixes this behavior and produces the shape approaching the CCSD(T) quality. As $\lambda$ increases past $\lambda=0.4$, the energy as a function of the internuclear separation starts to grow too fast. Mixing in a larger fraction of GF2 turns this behavior around and for $\lambda>1$, srSVWN5—lrGF2 energies start to slowly approach GF2 energies. For internuclear distances up to R(H–F)=2.3 au, $\lambda=0.5$ produces relative energies closely matching those of GF2 and CCSD(T) methods. We conclude that the srSVWN5—lrGF2 functional is able to reproduce correctly the shape of the dissociation curve near the equilibrium geometry. The srSVWN5—lrGF2 functional does not improve upon GF2, since GF2 being an *ab-initio*, perturbative method already correctly describes the dynamical correlations in the HF molecule. Nonetheless, an apparent improvement comes from the fact that with the srSVWN5—lrGF2 functional these energies can be reached using basis sets with a lower angular momentum when compared to standard GF2, as illustrated in the previous subsection \[sec:basis\].
IP tuning of range-separation parameter $\lambda$ {#sec:ip}
-------------------------------------------------
Following the prescription given in Section \[sec:theory\], we have employed an IP-based tuning approach to find optimal values of the range separation parameter $\lambda$ for seven closed-shell atoms: He, Be, Ne, Mg, Ca, Ar, and Kr, as well as fifteen closed-shell molecules: H$_2$CO, CH$_4$, NH$_3$, N$_2$, Li$_2$, CO$_2$, CO, LiH, CH$_3$OH, H$_2$O$_2$, N$_2$H$_4$, H$_2$S, PH$_3$, Na$_2$, and HCN. Experimental geometries were taken from ref . The cc-pVTZ [@Prascher:tca/128/69; @Dunning:jcp/90/1007; @Wilson:jcp/110/7667; @Woon:jcp/98/1358; @Koput:jpca/106/9595] basis set was used for calculations of both atoms and molecules present in this test set. For the cc-pVTZ and larger basis sets, the value of $\lambda$ remained constant indicating that it is converged with respect to the basis set size.
{width="15.0cm" height="6cm"}
To find an optimal value of the range separation parameter for each system in the test set, a series of calculations were performed for $\lambda \in [0.1,1.5]$ with the step-size set to $\Delta \lambda=0.1$. In most cases, the $\mathcal{T}_N$ norm as a function of $\lambda$ was found to have one pronounced minimum that was taken as an optimal $\lambda$. For illustration purposes, we show $\mathcal{T}_N(\lambda)$ norm for LiH molecule andMg atom in Figure \[fig:ip\_norm\]. In the case of Mg atom, a very small discrepancy between two ways of calculating IP was found for $\lambda=0.6$ with the error $\mathcal{T}_N \approx 7\cdot 10^{-4}$ while for LiH molecule the smallest difference between $\text{IP} \left[ \mathbf{G}_N^\lambda(\omega) \right]$ and $\text{IP}_{E(N)}^{E(N-1)}$ turned out to be larger and equal to $\mathcal{T}_N \approx 0.011$ corresponding to the optimal value of $\lambda=0.2$.
Note that if smaller differences are desired, then a further fine-tuning of $\lambda$ can be performed by using a root-finding algorithm such as bisection [@burden1985numerical]. In this work, we adopted a commonly used approach and narrowed the optimal value of $\lambda$ down to only one decimal point. In a similar way, optimal values of the range separation parameter $\lambda$ were obtained for all systems in this test set.
To examine how accurately IPs can be calculated based on such an IP-tuning approach, we used the optimally tuned srSVWN5—lrGF2 functional to calculate IPs and compared them with IPs calculated using standard SVWN5 and GF2 methods, as well as experiment. The experimental vertical IPs were taken from ref . For consistency IPs for GF2, srSVWN5—lrGF2 with the optimal $\lambda$, and SVWN5 were calculated according to eq \[eq:ipdiff\] and listed in Table \[tab:1\].
[@lcccccccc@]{} & Opt. & & & & Expt.\
& $\lambda$ & IP & Error & IP & Error & IP & Error &\
\
He & 0.9 & 24.59 & 0.00 & 24.36 & 0.23 & 24.30 & 0.29 & 24.59\
Be & 0.1 & 9.17 & 0.15 & 8.83 & 0.49 & 9.02 & 0.30 & 9.32\
Ne & 0.5 & 22.16 & 0.60 & 21.50 & 0.06 & 22.09 & 0.53 & 21.56\
Mg & 0.6 & 7.52 & 0.13 & 7.31 & 0.34 & 7.72 & 0.07 & 7.65\
Ar & 0.5 & 15.97 & 0.21 & 15.66 & 0.10 & 16.08 & 0.32 & 15.76\
Ca & 0.7 & 5.98 & 0.13 & 5.93 & 0.18 & 6.21 & 0.10 & 6.11\
Kr & 0.5 & 14.33 & 0.33 & 14.03 & 0.03 & 14.44 & 0.44 & 14.00\
\
H$_2$CO & 0.1 & 10.98 & 0.09 & 10.86 & 0.03 & 10.88 & 0.01 & 10.89\
CH$_4$ & 0.1 & 14.29 & 0.06 & 14.32 & 0.03 & 14.02 & 0.33 & 14.35\
NH$_3$ & 0.8 & 10.72 & 0.10 & 10.70 & 0.12 & 11.01 & 0.19 & 10.82\
N$_2$ & 0.1 & 15.66 & 0.08 & 15.15 & 0.43 & 15.58 & 0.00 & 15.58\
Li$_2$ & 0.3 & 5.34 & 0.61 & 4.94 & 0.21 & 5.31 & 0.58 & 4.73\
CO$_2$ & 0.1 & 14.32 & 0.55 & 13.88 & 0.11 & 13.99 & 0.22 & 13.77\
CO & 0.1 & 14.14 & 0.13 & 13.72 & 0.29 & 14.07 & 0.06 & 14.01\
CH$_3$OH & 0.1 & 10.89 & 0.07 & 10.96 & 0.00 & 10.76 & 0.20 & 10.96\
LiH & 0.2 & 8.30 & 0.40 & 7.75 & 0.15 & 8.21 & 0.31 & 7.90\
H$_2$O$_2$ & 0.1 & 11.46 & 0.24 & 11.19 & 0.51 & 11.40 & 0.30 & 11.70\
N$_2$H$_4$ & 0.1 & 9.53 & 0.55 & 9.56 & 0.58 & 9.41 & 0.43 & 8.98\
H$_2$S & 0.5 & 10.54 & 0.04 & 10.33 & 0.17 & 10.63 & 0.13 & 10.50\
PH$_3$ & 0.6 & 10.57 & 0.02 & 10.47 & 0.12 & 10.65 & 0.06 & 10.59\
HCN & 1.2 & 12.09 & 0.70 & 12.90 & 0.70 & 14.04 & 0.44 & 13.60\
Na$_2$ & 0.6 & 4.94 & 0.05 & 4.68 & 0.21 & 5.25 & 0.36 & 4.89\
m.a.v. & & & 0.24 & & 0.23 & & 0.26 &\
^*a*\ Experimental\ geometries\ and\ vertical\ IPs\ were\ taken\ from\ NIST\ Computational\ Chemistry\ Comparison\ and\ Benchmark\ Database [@nist].^\
\[tab:1\]
It is worth noting that noble gases starting from Ne atom require the same value of $\lambda=0.5$ and, in general, moving down the periodic table leads to larger optimal values of $\lambda$. The mean absolute errors of the srSVWN5—lrGF2 functional, the standard SVWN5 functional, and GF2 are 0.24 eV, 0.26 eV and 0.23 eV, respectively. For the srSVWN5—lrGF2 functional, evaluating IP either from a Green’s function (eq \[eq:g\_ip\]) or from the difference between energies of $N$ and $N-1$ electron systems (eq \[eq:ipdiff\]) leads to the same results and these results are converged with respect to the basis set size. In contrast, for GF2, evaluating IP from eq \[eq:g\_ip\] or eq \[eq:ipdiff\] leads to significantly different results. The GF2 IPs calculated from eq \[eq:g\_ip\] have large errors since the cc-pVTZ basis set is not large enough. The IPs calculated from eq \[eq:ipdiff\] benefit from the cancellation of the basis set error. Consequently, the GF2 magnitude of the error that is presented in Table \[tab:1\] benefits from fortuitous cancellations of errors. The benefit of using the range separated functional is in the agreement of IP when using both definitions and in avoiding the need of large basis sets. As we observe from Table \[tab:1\], GF2 tends to predict better IPs for atoms while the srSVNW5—lrGF2 functional is more accurate for molecules.
Many-electron self-interaction error {#sec:sie}
------------------------------------
The one- and many-electron self-interaction error in approximate density functionals originates from an incomplete cancellation of the spurious electrons self-repulsion by the exchange energy. GF2 includes all the proper exchange and Hartree self-energy diagrams up to the second order and is, therefore, one-electron self-interaction free. We have previously illustrated that GF2 also has a very small two-electron self-interaction error [@Phillips:jcp/142/194108]. On the other hand, LDA, is known to have pronounced one- and many-electron self-interaction errors due to a wrong asymptotic decay of the exchange-correlation potential [@Leeuwen:pra/49/2421]. It seems very likely that an application of GF2 for long-range interactions while keeping LDA within the short range would provide an improvement over LDA by itself. In this section, we analyze in detail the self-interaction error of the srSVWN5—lrGF2 functional. As we mentioned earlier, the fractional charge error is directly related to the self-interaction error. To observe it, we calculated the total electronic energy of He atom as a function of the fractional electron number: $N=1+\delta$ for $\delta \in [0,1]$. In Figure \[fig:sie\], we plot the deviation from the linearity: $\Delta E=E^\mathcal{M}(N) - E^\mathcal{M}_\text{lin}$, where $E^\mathcal{M}(N)$ is the energy from method $\mathcal{M}$ calculated for a system with $N$ electrons and $E^\mathcal{M}_\text{lin}$ is the linear interpolation between integer electron points for the same method $\mathcal{M}$. The IP-tuned optimal value of $\lambda=0.9$ was used in srSVWN5—lrGF2 calculations. The aug-cc-pVTZ [@Woo:jcp/100/2975] basis set was employed in all calculations.
![The energy difference $\Delta E = E^\mathcal{M} - E^\mathcal{M}_\text{lin}$ for He atom, calculated using the srSVWN5—lrGF2 functional with the IP-tuned optimal value of $\lambda=0.9$ in comparison to that of SVWN5 and GF2 with the aug-cc-pVTZ basis set. $E^\mathcal{M}$ is the energy evaluated with a fractional electron number, and $E^\mathcal{M}_\text{lin}$ is the linear interpolation between integer electron points for method $\mathcal{M}$.[]{data-label="fig:sie"}](sie.pdf){width="6.0cm" height="6cm"}
It is clear from Figure \[fig:sie\] that GF2 has a very small fractional charge error showing a small concave behavior, therefore indicating a small localization error. SVWN5 exhibits a massive fractional charge error and pronounced convex character. This opposite behavior of SVWN5 indicates a delocalization error common for local, semilocal, and hybrid density functionals [@Cohen:cr/112/289]. On the other hand, srSVWN5—lrGF2 calculations for the IP-tuned range separation parameter $\lambda$ display only a slightly convex behavior and errors that are very similar to GF2, thus greatly improving over SVWN5. We conclude that adding a fraction of the many-body Green’s function method can significantly mitigate the self-interaction error present in the standard density functionals. In this regard, the srSVWN5—lrGF2 functional is similar to popular range-separated hybrid functionals employing the exact exchange for long-range interactions.
Locality of self-energy {#sec:locality}
-----------------------
![*Top panel*: The real part of the srSVWN5—lrGF2 self-energy matrix element between two carbon atoms denoted by red stars for the $n=0$ imaginary frequency as a function of the range separation parameter $\lambda$ for three ethylene molecules arranged as shown in the inset. *Bottom panel*: Both real (solid lines) and imaginary (dashed lines) parts of the self-energy as a function of the imaginary frequency calculated for different values of $\lambda$ (bottom). All calculations are with DZP basis set.[]{data-label="fig:loc"}](e2b.pdf){width="7.0cm" height="12cm"}
In this section, we discuss implications of using range-separated hybrid functionals for the self-energy. It is expected that by varying $\lambda$ the magnitude of self-energy can be gradually changed. To illustrate this, srSVWN5—lrGF2 calculations were performed for three ethylene molecules, each at the experimental geometry [@nist], placed 2.5 Åapart from each other (see the top panel of Figure \[fig:loc\]). A matrix element of the imaginary frequency self-energy between 2*p* orbitals of the two most distant carbon atoms, denoted by red stars on the top panel of Figure \[fig:loc\], is calculated as a function of $\lambda$ using the DZP [@Dunning:jcp/53/2823] basis set. Real and imaginary parts of self-energy for different $\lambda$ values are shown in the bottom panel of Figure \[fig:loc\] using solid and dashed lines, respectively. Colors from the lightest to the darkest correspond to an increasing fraction of GF2. The self-energy increases most rapidly for small values of $\lambda$, up to $\lambda \approx 0.7-0.9$, then it begins to slowly converge to the GF2 self-energy. To see it more clearly, in the top panel of Figure \[fig:loc\], we plotted the real part of self-energy for $n=0$ Matsubara frequency. It grows most rapidly for the small fractions of GF2. Overall this behavior resembles the error function which is used to scale the two-electron integrals to obtain the long-range terms. The possibility to arbitrarily scale the self-energy in the range separated approach has important consequences. For example, the srSVWN5—lrGF2 calculation is less computationally demanding comparing to the standard GF2 calculation since the evaluation of the self-energy according to eq \[eq:gf2\] can be carried over a truncated set of orbitals due to the faster decay of its matrix elements. Additionally, using a range-separated Green’s function functional as a low-level method e.g. in self-energy embedding theory [@Kananenka:prb/91/121111; @Lan:jcp/143/241102; @Lan:jctc/12/4856; @Lan:jpcl/8/2200] calculations of periodic systems can be beneficial since, as we demonstrated before, such hybrids require smaller basis sets than the original *ab-initio* Green’s function methods. Consequently, they possibly eliminate many problems such as linear dependences that happen when large, diffuse basis sets are used in calculations of periodic systems. Moreover, using these hybrid approaches, the number of unit cells required to evaluate the self-energy matrix is lowered due to a faster decay of its intercell matrix elements.
Conclusions and Outlook {#sec:conc}
=======================
In this paper, we have discussed the theoretical framework for building a range-separated hybrid functional combining both DFT and Green’s function methods. In principle, this framework is general and can be used to combine various DFT functionals and Green’s function methods. In particular, to maintain the generality of our discussion, we have focused on describing the relationship of this range-separated functional to the Luttinger-Ward functional which is temperature dependent. Since at present, only the zero temperature DFT functionals are well established, we executed all the practical applications of the short-range DFT – long-range Green’s function functional using the zero temperature SVWN5 functional for the description of the short range and the temperature dependent GF2 method setting $T\to 0$ for the description of the long range.
We believe that the presented range-separated hybrid functional called srSVWN5—lrGF2 is interesting for two communities. In condensed matter, among the LDA+DMFT practitioners, there has been a long-standing problem of removing the double counting of electron correlation present when LDA is combined with the DMFT treatment employing the Green’s function methods. We believe that our presentation of the short-range DFT – long-range Green’s function functional is directly relevant to this community and gives a rigorous prescription how to avoid the double counting problem by employing the range separation of Coulomb integrals. Provided that the range separation parameter $\lambda$ can be optimized based on one of the exact properties of either the DFT or the Green’s function methods, such a range-separated hybrid provides an *ab-initio* treatment of realistic systems.
On the other hand, the short-range DFT – long-range Green’s function hybrid functional is obviously relevant to the DFT community since it can be viewed as a higher rung of the “Jacob’s ladder” of the functionals. Similarly to other high rungs, srSVWN5—lrGF2 employs unoccupied orbitals, is non-local, and has an explicit frequency dependence. Provided that explicitly temperature dependent short-range DFT functionals become established enough, the presented functional can also be made temperature dependent in a straightforward manner.
We have demonstrated that the functional presented in this work offers several attractive advantages when compared to the methods used in its construction. Similarly to range-separated hybrid functionals with other many-body methods such as CI, MP2, CASCF, NEVPT2, CCSD, and RPA, srSVWN5—lrGF2 exhibits a rapid convergence with respect to the one-electron basis set. This fast convergence with respect to the basis set size, for the Green’s function methods provides an additional advantage, since smaller basis sets require fewer imaginary time and imaginary frequency grid points, resulting in reduced computational cost. Additionally, we have illustrated that the srSVWN5—lrGF2 functional has a smaller self-interaction error when compared to the standard SVNW5 functional. This is beneficial in calculations involving molecular thermochemistry, reaction barriers, binding energy in charge transfer complexes, polarizabilities, and molecular conductance. Even though the standard density functionals provide an accurate description of the short-range dynamical correlation, we have shown on the example of the HF and H$_2$ molecules that the srSVWN5—lrGF2 functional can describe the dynamical correlation even more accurately.
Moreover, we presented a first principles approach to finding an optimal value of the range separation parameter based on the calculation of ionization potentials of atoms and molecules. While the overall accuracy of the IPs evaluated using srSVWN5—lrGF2 is similar to that of GF2 evaluated as the difference between total electronic energies of $N$ and $N-1$ electron systems, srSVWN5—lrGF2 results are converged with respect to the basis set size and do not rely on any fortuitous cancellation of errors. Moreover, for srSVWN5—lrGF2 evaluating the IP directly from the Green’s function poles or using the energy difference between $N$ and $N-1$ electron systems results in the same answer. This is not the case for GF2 when the calculations are carried out in a basis set that is not large enough.
We have demonstrated that using the range-separated Coulomb integrals the magnitude of the self-energy in the Green’s function method can be modified as a function of the range separation parameter $\lambda$. These results demonstrate that srSVWN5—lrGF2 functional can be useful for self-energy embedding calculations as well as for Green’s function-based calculations of extended systems since for certain values of the parameter $\lambda$ the decay of self-energy elements is fast and can contribute to an additional sparsity of the problem. Consequently, a fewer number of self-energy elements need to be evaluated resulting in an overall reduction of the computational cost.
Finally, we believe that there are several directions in which short-range DFT with long-range Green’s functions hybrid functionals can be further developed. In its current implementation the local density functional describes not only the short-range interactions but also the coupling region between short-range and long-range correlations [@Toulouse:ijqc/100/1047]. It has been shown [@Cornaton:pra/88/022516] that when the coupling region is treated by many-body methods instead of density functionals , then such a calculation results in a further improvement of functional properties. Therefore, the development of such range-separated double-hybrid functionals [@Toulouse:tac/114/305] based on long-range Green’s function methods may be worth pursuing.
Another interesting direction for the functional proposed in this work is the study of metallic systems or systems with small band gaps. Green’s function expansions that do not include the infinite sum of bubble diagrams such as a Møller–Plesset Green’s function are experiencing divergences for metallic systems. These divergences can be efficiently eliminated by screening of the electron-electron interactions provided by e. g. the error function. Therefore, functionals employing a range separation similar to the one presented here, may also be applied to periodic calculations of metallic systems in order to avoid a divergent behavior. Furthermore, several other choices than GF2 such as GW or FLEX are possible as long-range Green’s function methods. On the density functional side, it is worth investigating short-range semilocal density functionals within the range separation framework.
acknowledgement
===============
A.A.K., and D.Z. acknowledge support from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) grant No. ER16391. A.A.K. was also supported by the University of Michigan Rackham Predoctoral Fellowship. A.A.K. is grateful to Dr. Alexander Rusakov for multiple useful discussions.
[118]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.140.A1133) @noop [**]{} (, ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.1590951) [****, ()](\doibase https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2614(94)01027-7) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.477711) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.23.5048) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.46.618) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/RevModPhys.79.291) @noop [**]{} (, ) in @noop [**]{}, (, ) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.70.062505) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cplett.2004.06.011) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.2409292) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1063/1.1688752) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1039/B511865D) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.72.012510) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.78.022504) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemphys.2011.06.024) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.78.022510) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.81.024502) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.3090814) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.096404) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.82.032502) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1063/1.3187032) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.2566459) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.81.052511) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.82.052502) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.73.032506) [****, ()](\doibase
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cplett.2005.09.059) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/ct200243s) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.3431616) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1063/1.3317437) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1063/1.4907920) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.88.022516) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.3176514) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.3630951) @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [**]{} (, ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.4884951) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.91.121111) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.4938562) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/acs.jpclett.7b00689) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.4921259) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1017/S0305004100016108) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.459578) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.1884965) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.85.042507) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/RevModPhys.78.865) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.45.6479) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.91.155144) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/0953-8984/9/i=4/a=002) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.81.195107) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.2954017) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.266802) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.3663856) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.2721532) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/0305-4608/4/i=8/a=013) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.13.4274) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.15.2884) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.29.1648) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.45.13244) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.53.3764) @noop [**]{} (, ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.139.A796) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/0034-4885/61/i=3/a=002) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.62.961) [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(89)90359-X) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.124.287) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.127.1391) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.90.085102) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.1376126) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.1497682) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1143/PTP.14.351) [****, ()](http://www.jetp.ac.ru/cgi-bin/dn/e_007_01_0096.pdf) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.118.1417) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.430253) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.430254) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1002/qua.560310604) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.461875) @noop [**]{} (, ) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.1691) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevA.76.040501) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.2403848) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1002/wcms.1172) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [“,” ]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.456153) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.466439) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2614(89)87395-6) [“,” ](http://cccbdb.nist.gov/), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.478678) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.464303) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/jp026283u) @noop [**]{} (, ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.49.2421) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.466439) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.1674408) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/acs.jctc.6b00638) @noop [****, ()]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Virtual and augmented reality communication platforms are seen as promising modalities for next-generation remote face-to-face interactions. Our study attempts to explore non-verbal communication features in relation to their conversation context for virtual and augmented reality mediated communication settings. We perform a series of user experiments, triggering nine conversation tasks in 4 settings, each containing corresponding non-verbal communication features. Our results indicate that conversation types which involve less emotional engagement are more likely to be acceptable in virtual reality and augmented reality settings with low-fidelity avatar representation, compared to scenarios that involve high emotional engagement or intellectually difficult discussions. We further systematically analyze and rank the impact of low-fidelity representation of micro-expression, body scale, head pose, and hand gesture in affecting the user experience in one-on-one conversations, and validate that preserving micro-expression cues plays the most effective role in improving bi-directional conversations in future virtual and augmented reality settings.'
author:
- Mohammad Keshavarzi
- Michael Wu
- 'Michael N. Chin'
- 'Robert N. Chin'
- 'Allen Y. Yang'
bibliography:
- 'sample.bib'
title: Affordance Analysis of Virtual and Augmented Reality Mediated Communication
---
<ccs2012> <concept> <concept\_id>10002951.10003260.10003282.10003286.10003291</concept\_id> <concept\_desc>Information systems Web conferencing</concept\_desc> <concept\_significance>300</concept\_significance> </concept> <concept> <concept\_id>10003120.10003121.10003122.10003334</concept\_id> <concept\_desc>Human-centered computing User studies</concept\_desc> <concept\_significance>500</concept\_significance> </concept> <concept> <concept\_id>10003120.10003121.10003124.10010392</concept\_id> <concept\_desc>Human-centered computing Mixed / augmented reality</concept\_desc> <concept\_significance>500</concept\_significance> </concept> <concept> <concept\_id>10003120.10003121.10003124.10010866</concept\_id> <concept\_desc>Human-centered computing Virtual reality</concept\_desc> <concept\_significance>500</concept\_significance> </concept> <concept> <concept\_id>10003120.10003121.10003124.10011751</concept\_id> <concept\_desc>Human-centered computing Collaborative interaction</concept\_desc> <concept\_significance>500</concept\_significance> </concept> <concept> <concept\_id>10003120.10003121.10003122.10010854</concept\_id> <concept\_desc>Human-centered computing Usability testing</concept\_desc> <concept\_significance>300</concept\_significance> </concept> </ccs2012>
Introduction
============
Human face-to-face interaction has played a critical role in allowing various sectors of the society to connect and interact effectively. With the development of modern *computer mediated communication* (CMC) techniques, remote communication or telepresence has enabled users to interact over long distances and convey more non-verbal and emotional cues than conventional text or audio-only systems. So far, video conferencing from commercial providers such as Skype and Zoom owns a commanding share of all the possible CMC modalities. More recently, *virtual reality* (VR) and *augmented reality* (AR) systems have been introduced as new commercially viable communication platforms [@Beck2013; @Billinghurst2002; @Davis2014; @Haxby2000]. Such modalities, often referred to as immersive telepresence, utilize head mounted displays (HMD) and body tracking technologies to reconstruct and represent head and body pose [@Garau2003; @Johnson2015], allowing users to remotely communicate using virtual avatars[@Alldieck_Xu_Theobalt_Pons-moll; @Maimone_Fuchs_2011] or fully embodied 3D scans [@Blanche2010; @haxby2002; @Kraut2003]. The captured 3D information can go beyond the participants themselves and can include their surrounding environment, allowing higher levels of human engagement through spatial context [@Hormann1981].
To this end, if available technologies could allow accurate reconstruction and representation of human interaction and further their surrounding environment, one may argue that immersive telepresence should be a valid surrogate to physical face-to-face interaction with full-fledged features to communicate both verbal and non-verbal cues. Nevertheless, the current limitations of the hardware and software in capturing, processing, and transferring such data still prohibit consumer-grade VR/AR systems to achieve high-enough fidelity 3D reconstruction and rendering. Therefore, while developing new VR/AR technologies to fill the critical gaps, it is important to follow user-centric design principles and study which communication features play a more effective role in virtual face-to-face communication, in order to allocate appropriate resources in various stages of the future telepresence development process.
Furthermore, we believe it is important to perform evaluation of available CMC platforms by considering their conversation context and discussion scenarios. During previous generations of CMC paradigm shifts, from audio-only to video-enabled platforms, experimental studies [@Kiyokawa2002; @Maimone2012] showed that simply enabling remote collaboration through audio-visual platforms instead of audio-only methods does not significantly improve collaborative performance, especially not to the levels reported in co-present communications [@Gergle2004; @Kohli2008]. Other studies have reported different performance rates for various conversation tasks, when comparing an audio-only medium to a video-enabled setting in workplace settings [@Clark1991].
As various conversation types require different levels of emotional and intellectual engagement, investigating how communication cues facilitate in the productivity and performance of such conversation types is critical in evaluating the CMC platforms. The importance of qualitative non-verbal cues in CMCs’ such as facial expressions[@Fish1992; @Fuchs_State_Bazin_2014], body pose and gestures [@Fussell2004] have been widely investigated in social and interactive contexts. Such cues have shown to inform individuals about the current states of the participants to an extent that self-awareness has been reported to be higher in CMC methods when compared to general face-to-face situations [@Kendon1967; @Kirk2007]. Clark and Brennan [@Clark1996] discussed various non-verbal methods and their correlation with communication grounding (i.e. establishing mutual knowledge, belief, attitudes and expectations [@Bogo2015]) highlighting the role of symbolic gestures and facial expressions in grounding deictic references.
Our study attempts to explore non-verbal CMC features in relation to their conversation context. We investigate the correlation between conversation types and communication features by experimenting with virtual and augmented reality methods in addition to conventional 2D video conference settings for one-on-one meetings. Our goal is to measure the level of impact of various communication features in one-on-one meeting scenarios. Such understanding would allow researchers to effectively invest limited resources in developing and prioritize the most important communication qualities. We evaluate the importance of these communication features in both participants subjective impressions and a detailed analysis of their preferences in actual verbal and nonverbal communication tasks.
Related Work
------------
Previous work related to this study can be explored in two main categories. First, understanding how various non-verbal communication cues affect conversation quality and task performance in general CMC use cases, and second, exploring VR and AR based communication platforms, specifically, to evaluate how certain technological features enhance communication performance in such settings. A majority of the literature related to non-verbal features in CMC’s lies in investigating how video enabled settings enhance different communication scenarios compared to audio-only platforms. As video feeds capture a much wider array of nonverbal behavior and transfer critical communication cues such as body gestures, facial expressions and eye gaze, various experiments [@Gergle2004][@doherty1997face] have concluded that having full visual representation of the other party can improve task performance and support communication grounding of participants. Moreover, exploring the role of the body gestures in CMC’s has also been widely investigated in multiple studies.[@Streeck1993; @Fussell2004] A study by Beck et. al found that tracing gesture and pointing is independent of whether two subjects are remote or local[@Beck_Kunert_Kulik_Froehlich_2013]. Clark and Krych performed experiments of helper(the expert) and worker based scenarios, reporting that through the aid of video feeds and gestures, partners were likely to identify and resolve related problems more efficiently, compared to audio-only communication settings. [@Clark2004]. While our work also studies body gestures as a contributing communication factor, we focus on face-to-face meeting scenarios which involve both parties to convey information in a rather balanced conversation context compared to a helper-worker scenario which one party has more outward expressions to the other.
Furthermore, presence of facial expressions has been found to be a important communication factor within CMC conversation scenarios. In their study of user embodiment through avatars in collaborative networked VR environments, Benford et. al[@Benford:1997:EAC:959145.959151] emphasized that facial expressions were the primary means of expressing or reading emotion from a conversation partner, being something of a more refined complement to gestures. Much of the importance of facial expressions was derived from the ability to reflect not just what the user explicitly controlled, but also subconscious and involuntary movements that were equally critical to mutual understanding during collaborative tasks. They found that in virtual avatars, it was especially difficult to reflect these involuntary expressions without a engineering a complicated system capable of recording and rendering the user’s face onto their corresponding avatar in real time.
Evaluating collaborative communication through virtual and augmented reality platforms have been mostly explored through the lens of innovating new technological features[@Fuchs2014][@Beck_Kunert_Kulik_Froehlich_2013]. While VR and AR hardware have dramatically evolved in the past few years, from large CAVE rooms, to lightweight head mounted displays, the affordance of each of these media is highly dependent to the level of communication factors that can be transferred through these environments[@short1976social]. Kiyokawa et. al [@Kiyokawa2002] conducted a task performance study that compared various AR configurations in head mounted devices. They found the more difficult it was to use non-verbal communication cues due to hardware constrains, the more people resorted to speech cues to compensate. While our study also experiments different combinations of communication features, we rely on user preference than measuring specific task performance.
Moreover, studies of comparing AR systems and desktop systems have also been conducted in multiple user experiments. Billinghurst et. al [@Billinghurst2002] developed a tangible augmented reality system for face-to-face interaction and report that in a collaborative AR environment subjects tend to behave more similar to an unmediated face-to-face meeting compared to 2D screen CMC interfaces. Kato and et. al [@article] studied an AR video conferencing system where AR users can augment remote participants on paper cards while desktop users can understand the conversation relationship by observing AR users’ face angle. They concluded that even if head-mounted devices could not track eye movements for the AR users, video images still could play an important role for both AR and desktop users. Piumsomboon[@Piumsomboon2018] used a system called Mini-Me, which had one participant in AR and the other in VR and conducted a user study comparing collaboration in both asymmetric and symmetric conditions. Their study suggests that social presence and the overall experience of mixed reality collaboration in either condition could be significantly improved when gaze and gestures were available. In our study, in addition to investigating the relationship between non-verbal cues and virtual configurations, we explore how and to what degree each non-verbal communication feature contributes to various conversation scenarios
In VR communication settings, as participants are rendered through virtual avatars, various studies have explored different properties and non-verbal features of such avatars and their impact in virtual communication. Smith and Neff [@Smith2018] experimented embodied virtual reality settings where subjects’ movements are rendered onto an avatar using motion capture suits, thus supporting body language as nonverbal behavior alongside with verbal communication. They conclude that the conversation pattern in embodied avatars is more similar to face-to-face interaction as it provides a higher level of social presence. While in contrast, providing only the environment without embodied virtual reality generally lead to the feeling of loneliness and degraded communication experience. Garau et al. compared the effect of a humanoid avatar with basic, genderless visual appearance to an avatar with more photorealistic and gender-specific appearance. Also, they examined the difference between random eye gaze to inferred eye gaze from voice. They discussed the importance of aligning visual and behavioral realism for increased avatar effectiveness and collected and analyzed data that suggest that inferred gaze significantly outperform random gaze[@Garau2003]. Slater et. al study group behavior in VR and concluded that even with a simple avatar, socially conditioned responses such as embarrassment can be generated; they also found a positive relationship between the presence of being in place and co-presence[@Slater2000].
![Overhead diagrams showing the room layout and positions of the interviewer (in blue) and interviewee (in red) for each of the four experimental settings: real-world, video conference (2D video), virtual reality, and holograph.[]{data-label="fig:figure_setting_top_down"}](figures/Settings){width="\columnwidth"}
Methods
=======
We design a study to evaluate virtual forms of communications and their corresponding features against various one-on-one meeting conversation scenarios. Four settings are prepared as follows: real world setting as a gold standard, a conventional video conference setting using personal computers with 2D screens(ex. Skype, Zoom), a virtual reality setting, and a holographic projection setting (see Figure \[fig:figure\_setting\_top\_down\] and Figure \[fig:figure\_actual\_setting\]). We examine how the presence of communication features such as micro-expressions, 1:1 body scale, head pose and body gestures affect the user experience within different conversation types.
![Linear flowchart demonstrating the experiment workflow starting with conversation in through Face-to-Face, 2D video, Virtual Reality, and holograph settings. Ending with a Survey and Exit Interview.[]{data-label="fig:figure_linear_flowchart"}](figures/Workflow.PNG){width="\columnwidth"}
Conversation Types {#sec:conversation-type}
------------------
To address different conversation types, we use the criteria presented in Clark’s study [@Clark1991] for workplace related scenarios. To trigger all target conversation types during our experiment, we develop an architect-client scenario in which we hold a 60 minute interview with the subject on the topic: “How would you want your dream house to be designed?” Utilizing this context to integrate various design and decision making tasks, we trigger all of the objective conversation types over the course of the interview. Table \[tab:table\_intro\] describes how each conversation type was prompted during the architect-client scenario.
The interview is divided into four consecutive 15-minute segments, one corresponding to each setting.(see Figure \[fig:figure\_linear\_flowchart\] The real world setting is always presented first, and the ordering of the remaining three settings is randomized. After each segment, we transition smoothly and rapidly to the next setting, the conversation continuing from where it left off in the previous setting. The real location of the subject remains constant throughout all four of the settings(see Figure \[fig:figure\_setting\_top\_down\]), while the interviewer is displaced to a remote location for communication through the three virtual settings.
### Participants
Our recruitment screening required participants to speak fluent English, not have a history of photosensitive seizures, and not suffer from any medical conditions affecting cardiovascular, pulmonary, nervous or musculoskeletal systems or other physical conditions which may lead to danger or discomfort in virtual reality environments. A total of 9 subjects (4 male, 5 female) were recruited through on-campus advertisement, email lists and social media postings Participants were aged 19-30 ($\mu$ = 22.56, $\sigma$ = 4.07). Each interview for this experiment took approximately 1 hour to complete and IRB approval was maintained ahead of the experiment. Participants were compensated with a free meal after their interview. All participants successfully completed the interview without any unexpected terminations.
[**Conversation Type**]{} [**Description**]{}
--------------------------- ---------------------
: Triggering methods for each conversation type. All conversation types were triggered at least once in each communication setting.[]{data-label="tab:table_intro"}
Communication Settings
----------------------
### Real-world setting
We perform the real-world setting interview in a standard conference room, comprising of a large table and two chairs. After being prompted to enter the room and being greeted by the interviewer, the subject is seated on a chair positioned to maintain a constant perceived distance to the interviewer in all following virtual settings. The interviewer and interviewee remain seated when undergoing conversation. No digital tools are used for communication in the real-world setting; printed photos, a pen, and paper serve as the only non-verbal media of communication between the subject and interviewer. Subjects can take notes of the conversation and use a pen to annotate illustrations during the collaborative design tasks.
### 2D video conference setting
A conventional video conferencing software - in our case, Zoom - is used to establish virtual communication between the subject and the interviewer. The subject maintains their location in the conference room, while the interviewer is located in another room. Each party uses an identical 15" laptop and front facing webcam to continue the interview in a 2D video conference setting. The size and scale of the interviewer does not reflect the actual dimensions perceived during the in-person segment of the interview. For collaborative design tasks, the screen of interviewer is shared and displayed on the subject’s laptop screen. Using native annotation tools provided by the software, the subject is able to draw, annotate or label information on the computer screen.
![Images of participants in each of the four settings. Top left: Real-world interview. Top right: 2D video interview. Bottom left: Hologram interview. Bottom right: Virtual reality interview.[]{data-label="fig:figure_actual_setting"}](figures/together.jpg){width="\textwidth"}
\[tab:settings\_available\_in\_settings\]
---------------------------------------- ------------- ----------------- ----------
(r)[2-4]{} [*Communication Feature*]{} [*Video*]{} [*Holograph*]{} [*VR*]{}
Micro-expressions Yes Yes No
Body Scale No Yes Yes
Head pose No No Yes
Body gesture No Yes Yes
---------------------------------------- ------------- ----------------- ----------
### Virtual Reality setting
Our virtual reality setting uses a computer-generated virtual conference room designed to mimic the layout of the real-world setting in look, feel, and scale. Both the subject and interviewer use Vive Pro virtual reality headsets and pairs of handheld controllers tof control virtual avatars that reflect their bodily movements. Verbal communication is enabled with VoIP, utilizing the Vive Pro headset integrated microphone and headphones. The seating locations of the interviewer and subject reflect the real-world settings. For the avatars, head pose is calculated using the headset tracking system, and body gestures are estimated with inverse kinematics methods that read positional input from the handheld controllers.
### Holographic setting
Ideally, a 3D holographic avatar of a human can be visualized on a quality wearable AR device or a holographic display system. However, the challenge is to capture those 3D images in real time. Typically, a fairly expensive, experimental camera stage paired with high-speed computers are needed to achieve the performance for our study in this paper. As a trade-off, instead, we design and implement a 1-to-1 scale 2D projection representation for the remote participant, making it appear as if the interviewer is seated at the table. The projection is calibrated to make the captured video data from the remote interviewer reflect their real-world scale. The seating position of the interviewer and subject mimics the real-world setting. A speaker is placed in front of the projection to mimic the spatial sound settings of the participants. For collaborative design tasks, the subject uses a whiteboard and marker pen for annotations. We believe in the scenario of one-on-one sit-down interview scenario, the 2D projection method is a good surrogate to the more advanced 3D hologram in AR.
![Stacked bar charts showing the rankings for each of the three settings (2D video, virtual reality, hologram) based on three questions asking participants which settings they would choose as their first, second, and third choice for various types of meetings. Left: Question about a casual meeting. Center: Question about a family meeting. Right: Question about meeting an new person.[]{data-label="fig:stacked_bar"}](figures/Rankings.png){width="\columnwidth"}
Results
=======
We analyze our findings using the compiled sets of quantitative direct and indirect questions, in addition to discussing descriptive feedback that was received after the questionnaire. The different layers of collected data (direct questionnaires, indirect analysis, and descriptive exit interviews) are compared and contrasted to see how well they align with one another. Three sets of anonymous surveys are performed at the end of the experiment. First, participants are asked to rank their preferred methods of communication outside of real life face-to-face conversation for three different scenarios. These meeting types (casual meeting, family meeting, and meeting a new person) reflect different subsegments of the conversation tasks criteria, allowing a broad understanding of the CMC affordances in a contextual fashion. Second, participants are asked to define the level of importance of four communication characteristics- gestures, head pose, head/body scale, and micro-expressions- in a five point Likert scale. (See Table \[tab:settings\_available\_in\_settings\]) is clearly communicated to the participants in the questionnaire. Finally, subjects are asked to define whether they prefer to perform specific conversation tasks in each CMC settings. In this segment, a binary questionnaire is conducted (Figure \[fig:stacked\_bar\]) and subjects used Yes or No statement to indicate their readiness of such tasks. All conversation types are triggered during the interview and no direct explanation is given to participants to refer to any segment of the interview itself.
Communication Types
-------------------
Our analysis on how well each CMC performs in relation to a conversation context is performed in two separate comparative and non-comparative studies. In the first study, participants are asked to compare and rank the CMC media of hologram, virtual reality, and 2D video as their first, second and last choice in general conversation contexts. Furthermore, independent to other CMC media, subjects were asked to specifically define their willingness to execute more detailed conversation criteria in a binary fashion.
![Acceptance rate of three communication settings (2D video, hologram, virtual reality) in various conversation contexts. Participants were asked whether they are willing to use the mentioned CMCs in nine conversation scenarios.[]{data-label="fig:fig_big_spider"}](figures/bigspider){width="\columnwidth"}
### Comparative analysis
When comparing CMC platforms for a casual meeting scenario, as illustrated in Figure \[fig:stacked\_bar\] the distribution of the ranking of the hologram method by respondents has the greatest variance at Var(X) = 0.62. The quartile distributions show that over 75% of participants rank 2D video as their number one choice for a casual meeting. On the other hand participants narrowly prefer hologram over virtual reality for casual meetings with a 0.11 difference in the mean rank score. Less than 25% of participants choose virtual reality or hologram as their number one choice for a casual meeting. For family meetings, when excluding the outliers, 100% of respondents rank 2D video as their first choice, hologram as their second choice, and virtual reality as their last choice. Similar results are observed When asked about meeting a new person, over 70% of respondents rank 2D video as their first choice ranked virtual reality as their last choice.
------------------------------------ ---------------- ----------------- -----------------------
(r)[3-4]{} [*Conversation Type*]{} [*2D video*]{} [*Holograph*]{} [*Virtual Reality*]{}
Emotional Only 86.11% 66.67% 25.35%
Non-Emotional Only 88.89% 84.45% 62.22%
Overall 87.66% 76.55% 45.83%
Emo./Non-Emo. Diff. 2.78% 17.78% 36.87%
------------------------------------ ---------------- ----------------- -----------------------
: Compiled participant acceptance rates for conversation types (emotional vs non-emotional) tested in each experimental medium (2D video, holograph, virtual reality).[]{data-label="tab:table_approval"}
### Context aware analysis
Moreover, we narrow down the conversation contexts into specific conversation types explained in Section \[sec:conversation-type\]. By conducting a binary questionnaire we observe the correlation between communication media and conversation types. As seen in Figure \[fig:feature\_range\], while 2D video has the highest mean acceptance rate in all conversation types, the difference between CMC modalities significantly decrease in conversation types which involve less emotional engagement between the two parties. In addition, the acceptance rate of Hologram and VR increases in less emotionally engaged conversation tasks, indicating that the current implementation of such CMCs’ can be practiced in these conversation settings.
Communication Features
----------------------
We further analyze the impact of four non-verbal communication features (head pose, facial micro-expression, gesture, body scale) and evaluate their roles in maintaining CMC acceptability in various conversation types. Unlike communication settings in which we perform a comparative analysis by directly asking participants to rank their preference, we ask subjects to define the importance of each setting and then validate their answers based on an indirect analysis of their response of CMC settings (each containing certain communication features) in relation to the conversation types. In the initial survey, users respond to a Likert scale questionnaire indicating the level of importance of each communication feature based on the interview experience. As part of the survey, subjects are reminded whether the communication feature is present in each CMC or not.
![Likert scale of four different setting characteristics: gesture, head pose, body scale, and micro-expressions. Participants rated the importance of each feature in conversations from extremely important (solid blue) to not important at all (solid red).[]{data-label="fig:likert_scale"}](figures/direct2){width="1.2\columnwidth"}
### Direct questionnaires
From Figure \[fig:likert\_scale\], we observe the gestures category has the highest overall percentage of participants that indicated a degree of confidence in the importance of the characteristic, at 80%. It is followed by micro-expressions with 77.78%, and head/body scale with 62.5% of participants indicating importance. The body scale characteristic is the only category in which the majority of participants did not indicate importance, with only 44.44%.
### Indirect analysis
Although the availability of the each feature in the CMCs is communicated with the subjects, the ability to independently distinguish the impact of each communication feature is not possible due to the experiment workflow. As we do not modify general CMC characteristics in the experiment, participants do not experience each communication feature independently from the other features. Therefore, we perform an indirect analysis of binary questionnaire addressing CMCs in relation to their conversation context. Given the presence of each communication feature in the CMC, we can calculate the expected range of CMC features scores for each conversation type, and compare the findings with the direct questionnaires of the importance of the CMC features.
$${\label{eq:minimization}}
\begin{aligned}
\min \quad & (M + G + S + Hp + U - 100)^{2} \\
\textrm{s.t.} \quad & Vi - \varepsilon \leq M + U \leq Vi + \varepsilon \\
& Holo - \varepsilon\leq M + G + S + U \leq Holo + \varepsilon\\
& VR - \varepsilon\leq G + S + Hp + U \leq VR + \varepsilon \\
\end{aligned}$$
Equation assumes that the four features (namely, Micro-Expression ($M$), Gesture ($G$), Scale ($S$), and Head-pose ($Hp$)) contribute to different settings along with other unknown factors ($U$) that we do not explicitly consider to validate in different media (e.g., voice, pictures). Each variable is bounded between 0 and 100, and so are all the inequalities constraints. The objective is to minimize the deviation from our “gold standard”, the face-to-face setting. The data for the variable video ($Vi$), hologram ($Holo$), and VR ($VR$) is extracted from calculating the average of our subject’s response of whether they will use a certain medium for a specific task. Furthermore, we included a variable named $\varepsilon $ to represent the uncertainty that our subjects may have brought, and we assumed the $\varepsilon$ to be 20%.[^1]
The result, as portrayed in Figure \[fig:feature\_range\], demonstrates that our subjects’ conformity with regard to the relative importance of micro-expression is generally higher in tasks that involves emotion. Also, micro-expression attains the highest minimum value in all tasks, which implies that regardless of tasks, our subjects recognize micro-expression as a feature that they want the most in conferencing. Furthermore, the ranges of the other features are generally greater in non-emotional tasks, with exception of Asking Question, than the ranges in emotional tasks. This phenomenon implies that users aren’t as particular about experiencing the detailed features in non-emotional tasks as they would for tasks that would involve emotion, which validates what our subjects have commented in the Exit Interview phase.
### Micro-expressions
The direct questionnaires and indirect analysis have closely correlating results on facial micro-expressions. We observe micro-expressions maintaining a larger impact especially in emotionally engaged and intellectually difficult scenarios. In addition, the overall participant approval rates are very low for settings in which micro expressions are absent compared to those that include micro-expressions.
Such conclusions also reflect the subjects’ comments. P5 comments: “\[I would like to\] at least know whether the person is smiling, frowning, bored, etc. \[It\] is pretty important during conversation.” P2 expresses a similar thought: “The lack of micro-expressions also hinders the way conversion is normally constructed.” Referring to scenarios in which they would use VR for their own meetings, P2 also prefer to be able to “read between the lines” to see “oh, maybe the client doesn’t like this idea. But if you can’t see the frowning or nodding, the little gestures might get lost”. Although the avatar in VR is capable of simulating mouth movements based on speech, it is not capable of rendering the wider variety of detailed facial expressions that P5 has stated that they would have liked to see. The lack of representation of micro-expression specifically in the VR setting of our experiment may have had an impact on how people perceived the usability of VR for both casual and more formal conversation.
![ Indirect analysis of communication features in various conversation types.[]{data-label="fig:feature_range"}](figures/FeaturevsConvAnalysisPDFModif.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
When rendering the avatars and environment for VR, we have opted to use flat shading techniques over physically based rendering methods available at the time of the experiment, and the avatar models are strictly limited to 20,000 polygons each. Consequently, the interviewer’s avatar and the interviewing room obviously look computer-generated. P8 comments that “the settings in Virtual Reality, although mimicking the actual setting, looks rendered and does not feel real enough that I feel comfortable in doing a business meeting there.” P2 also shares this opinion, stating that “animated figures are really hard for me to take seriously...it can convey messages, but for a formal conversation, it lacks certain seriousness or authority.”
### Body gestures
Due to the absence of significant correlation between direct questionnaires and indirect analysis of the data for this segment, we are unable to draw definitive conclusions when attempting to compare them. The VR implementation integrates inverse kinematics techniques for motion tracking of the head, limbs, and upper body. This may result in inaccurate simulations of the body gestures, making them appear very unnatural to the participants. In addition, some of the participants can be noticeably perplexed regarding what actions are physically possible within the VR environment. P6 references this confusion: “I didn’t know whether the other person \[could\] clearly see what I am doing in the virtual setting. And I think these movements are important during a meeting.” P4 forgets that objects on the table could be picked up using certain controller buttons, and had to be reminded in the experiment that how this action was executable.
However, some participants also acclaims VR’s potential to be beneficial for interactive tasks requiring the caption of movements(such as pointing) that involve the entire body. P7 states: “I like that I am able to lift that paper up in VR, and that I can point at things.” Furthermore, P7 claims that he “might use VR for things that might not be so convenient during a 2D video meeting.” These statements are corroborated by the survey data, where higher preference rates are seen in tasks involving a possible need for users to point at objects. Other subjects implied that they would use VR for tasks in which they want to focus mainly on what the other person is physically doing, as opposed to attempting to discern what they are thinking. This also reflects the findings of the survey data, which state that gestures are more useful for tasks that are heavy on outward expressions while not mandating critical understanding of the other party’s inner feelings.
### Body scale
A close correlation is observed between the approval rates of both the direct questionnaires and indirect analysis for this segment. On its own, the indirect analysis demonstrates negligible differences in approval rates when comparing settings that visually reflect real-life head and body scale to those that do not. Accurate body scale is found to be the least important factor among all of the examined communication features, providing support for the argument that the perceived real-life head and body scale of the interviewer is not a critical factor for communication.
### Head pose
While head pose can be grouped in with body gestures, we have observed that there are some distinguishing factors for head pose on its own. The head pose state is dependent on the participants’ locations in a CMC setting, whereas body gestures are considered independent of the locations of each participant. In addition, when conducting the experiment in the holographic setting, we deliberately position the interviewer’s head pose so that it would not be visually aligned with the interviewees. Upon entering the holographic setting in a portion of his interview, P5 immediately asks “so how do you see me?”, indicating that he has observed the interviewer appearing to be not looking directly at him through the projection. Although it is not directly stated, the participants have implied that they feel that the presence of head pose (or lack thereof) has very little impact on their ability to communicate, regardless of whether the tasks are emotionally involved. This is corroborated by the results from the direct questionnaires.
Non-emotional task acceptance rates largely remain both high and constant regardless of whether any single characteristic is present. As a result, it is more logical to compare only the mean acceptance values from the emotional tasks to the direct Likert scale participant responses from the last section. As shown in Figure \[fig:feature\_range\], for head pose, head/body scale, and micro-expressions, the mean emotional task acceptance rates in the presence of a characteristic differ by less than 5% overall approval when compared to the percentage of participants that have directly indicated that they believe the characteristic is at least somewhat important. Gestures are the outlier in this comparison, with the direct participant response indicating an almost 34% greater approval rate than suggested by the data. In this case, the mean emotional task acceptance rate may have been driven down by participants specifically having bad experiences in VR, where limitations in 3D avatar limb articulation are wholly evident, so the comparison for gestures is inconclusive.
By comparing the data from the direct questionnaire and indirect analysis of conversation contexts, we can validate that micro-expressions have higher impact in providing an efficient simulated digital communication experience than any of the other characteristics tested. Unlike any of the other characteristics, overall mean acceptance rates in the absence of micro-expressions are always substantially lower than when they are present; this differential is much more pronounced when only comparing the acceptance rates for emotionally involved tasks. This also seems to align with how a significant majority of the direct participant responses to the final Likert scale section have indicated that micro-expressions are at least somewhat important.
Conclusion
==========
Our study has explored current AR and VR mediated communication in relation to general conversation contexts. By performing a series of user experience studies, we trigger these nine conversation types in different CMC settings and investigate non-verbal communication features through direct questioners and indirect data analysis. Our results have indicated that conversation types that mandate critical thinking or involve more emotionally engaged discussions are preferred to be executed in a setting that allows participants to convey a large variety of facial and micro expressions. We also observe that increased ease of perceiving facial expressions from the other party is more conducive to successful interactions in emotionally involved conversations (including bidirectional interactions such negotiations and solving/resolving disagreements). We have observed preserving micro-expression cues plays a more effective role in maintaining bi-directional one-on-one conversations in future virtual and augmented reality settings, compared to other non-verbal qualitative features such as realistic body scale, head pose and body gestures.
[^1]: The uncertainty of 20% is conveniently chosen such that the above minimization problem would yield possible solutions. If $\varepsilon$ is not considered then the problem in our experiment had no solution with the average values of $Vi$, $Holo$, $VR$ from the limited subject population.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: '[We describe integral lifts $K(L)$, indexed by local fields $L$ of degree $n = [L:{{\mathbb Q}}_p]$, of the extraordinary cohomology theories $K(n)$, and apply the generalized character theory of Hopkins, Kuhn and Ravenel to identify $K(L)(BG) \otimes {{\mathbb Q}}$, for a finite group $G$, as a ring of functions on a certain scheme ${{\mathfrak C}}_LG$ étale over $L$, whose points are conjugacy classes of homomorphisms from the valuation ring of $L$ to $G$. When $L$ is ${{\mathbb Q}}_p$ this specializes to a classical theorem of Artin and Atiyah.]{}'
address: 'The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218'
author:
- Jack Morava
date: 23 July 2012
title: 'Local fields and extraordinary $K$-theory'
---
[^1]
[**Introduction**]{} The $2(p^n-1)$-periodic mod $p$ cohomology functors $K(n)$ play a useful role in our understanding of stable homotopy theory, indexing its thick subcategories of finite objects \[12\]. This note considers certain integral lifts $K(L)$ of these functors, indexed now by local number fields $L$ with $n = [L:{{\mathbb Q}}_p]$ (more precisely: by Lubin-Tate formal group laws associated to these fields), taking values in compact topological modules over the valuation ring ${{\mathfrak o}}_L$ of $L$.
Following a suggestion in \[11 §1.3\], the principal result below applies the generalized character theory of Hopkins, Kuhn, and Ravenel to identify the rationalization of $K(L)(BG)$ (for $G$ a finite group), as a ring of functions (with values in the maximal abelian extension of $L$) on the set $$C_L G \; := \: {{\rm Hom}}({{\mathfrak o}}_L,G)/G^{{\rm conj}}$$ of conjugacy classes of homomorphisms ${{\mathfrak o}}_L \to G$. When $L = {{\mathbb Q}}_p$ this recovers a classical result \[27 Theorem 25\] in the representation theory of finite groups.
This (very compressed) account is organized as follows: §1 gets the necessary local number theory out of the way, though it is not really used until §3. The second section summarizes some properties of the classical $K(n)$’s, while the third section uses the Baas-Sullivan construction, together with old work of Hazewinkel, to construct the proposed lifts relatively explicitly, for unramified fields. I hope this will correct some of the confusion in \[20\].
Section four reformulates the basics of generalized character theory in terms of the familiar fact that $$H^1({{\mathbb Z}}^n,{{\mathbb Q}}/{{\mathbb Z}}) \cong ({{\mathbb Q}}/{{\mathbb Z}})^n \;,$$ and §5 recalls enough of the theory of level structures on formal groups to state the main technical result \[§5.4\]. §6 is devoted to unbridled speculation.
[**Acknowledgements**]{} The work behind this summary has taken too long for it to be practical for me to thank my friends and colleagues adequately for their support. Instead, I will just remark that it was motivated by recent developments in classfield theory \[3\] and in the study of power operations \[24\] in algebraic topology.
The local background
====================
Fix a prime $p$ and an integer $n \geq 1$, and let $q = p^n$.
In what follows, ${{\mathbb F}}_q$ will denote the field with $q$ elements, $W({{\mathbb F}}_q)$ its ring of Witt vectors, and ${{\mathbb Q}}_q = W({{\mathbb F}}_q) \otimes {{\mathbb Q}}$ the quotient field of the latter: which is the unique unramified extension of degree $n$ of the field ${{\mathbb Q}}_p$ of $p$-adic rationals. It can be constructed by adjoining the $(q-1)$th roots of unity to ${{\mathbb Q}}_p$, and the homomorphism $${{\rm Gal}}({{\mathbb Q}}_q/{{\mathbb Q}}_p) \to {{\rm Gal}}({{\mathbb F}}_q/{{\mathbb F}}_p) \cong {{\mathbb Z}}/n{{\mathbb Z}}$$ (defined by the action of the Galois group on the residue field) is an isomorphism.
I’ll make constant use of Lubin and Tate’s constructive approach to class-field theory. In that framework \[14, 26\],
1\) Artin’s local reciprocity law asserts that the maximal abelian extension $L^{{\rm ab}}$ of a local number field $L$ has Weil group $$L^\times \cong {{\mathbb W}}(L^{{\rm ab}}/L) \subset {{\rm Gal}}(L^{{\rm ab}}/L)$$ (a canonical dense subgroup of the Galois group \[29\]). Moreover,
2\) the maximal totally ramified extension $L^{{\rm trab}}$ of $L$ in $L^{{\rm ab}}$ can be constructed by adjoining the torsion elements of the group of points of a Lubin-Tate formal group LT for $L$ (ie, with values in an algebraic closure of $L$); and
3\) this group ${{\rm LT}}_{{\rm tors}}$ of torsion points is canonically isomorphic (as Galois module) to the quotient $L/{{\mathfrak o}}_L$ (where ${{\mathfrak o}}_L$ is the valuation ring of $L$, with the Weil group $L^\times$ acting by multiplication, via the projection $$L^\times = {{\mathbb Z}}\times {{\mathfrak o}}_L^\times \to {{\mathfrak o}}_L^\times$$ defined by the valuation on $L$).
For example, if $n=1$ we recover the local Kronecker-Weber theorem, which asserts that the maximal abelian extension of ${{\mathbb Q}}_p$ has Galois group isomorphic to the profinite completion of ${{\mathbb Q}}_p^\times$, and is obtained by adjoining all roots of unity (ie, the torsion points of the multiplicative group), to ${{\mathbb Q}}_p$. \[The associated projection $$\chi : {{\rm Gal}}(\overline{{{\mathbb Q}}}_p/{{\mathbb Q}}_p) \to {{\rm Gal}}({{\mathbb Q}}^{{\rm trab}}_p/{{\mathbb Q}}_p) \cong {{\mathbb Z}}_p^\times$$ is usually called the cyclotomic character.\]
Our story so far
================
[**2.1**]{} Recall \[13, 22, 31\] that for $p > 2,3$ there are multiplicative (graded-commutative) 2-periodic cohomology functors $$K(n)^*(-,{{\mathbb F}}_p) : ({\rm Spaces}) \to ({{\mathbb F}}_p-{{\rm Mod}})$$ such that $K(n)^*({{\rm pt}},{{\mathbb F}}_p) = {{\mathbb F}}_p$ when \* is even, and $= 0$ for \* odd; thus finite CW-spaces are mapped to finite-dimensional vector spaces. These theories have Chern classes $c$ for complex line bundles, which defines a formal group law $${{\bf F}}: K(n)^*(B{{\mathbb T}},{{\mathbb F}}_p) \; = \; {{\mathbb F}}_p[[c]] \;,$$ the mod $p$ reduction of the formal group law $F$ associated to Honda’s logarithm.
The spectra representing these theories are in some sense the ‘residue fields’ associated to certain (multiplicative, periodic) ring-spectra $E_n$ (with $E_n^*({{\rm pt}}) = {{\mathbb Z}}_p[[v_1,\dots,v_{n-
1}]][u^{\pm 1}]$) constructed from BP by Landweber’s exact functor theorem. Those cohomology theories can be understood as taking values in quasicoherent sheaves of modules over the Lubin-Tate moduli stack of deformations of ${{\bf F}}$ – which is, roughly, the transformation groupoid \[19\] $$[{{\rm Spf}}\; E_n^*({{\rm pt}})/{{\rm Aut}}({{\bf F}})]$$ defined by the natural action of the group(scheme) of automorphisms of ${{\bf F}}$ on its space ${{\rm Spf}}\;
E_n^*({{\rm pt}})$ of deformations \[7, 23\]. Similarly, ${{\rm Aut}}({{\bf F}})$ acts as multiplicative automorphisms (ie, as cohomology operations) on the ‘fiber’ $K(n)$ at the point of the moduli stack defined by $v_i
\mapsto 0, \; 1 \leq i \leq n-1$.
[**2.2**]{} This action is most concisely described over the corresponding geometric point $${{\overline{\bf F}}}: {{\rm Spec}}\; {{\overline{\mathbb F}}}_p \to {{\rm Spec}}\; E_n^*({{\rm pt}}) \;,$$ by interpreting ${{\rm Aut}}({{\bf F}})$ to be the (pro)étale groupscheme over ${{\mathbb F}}_p$ defined by the action of ${{\mathbb Z}}\subset \hat{{{\mathbb Z}}} = {{\rm Gal}}({{\overline{\mathbb F}}}_p/{{\mathbb F}}_p)$ on the group ${{\mathfrak o}}_D^\times$ of strict units $$\xymatrix{
1 \ar[r] & {{\mathfrak o}}_D^\times \ar[r] & {{\mathfrak o}}_D^\times \rtimes {{\mathbb Z}}= D^\times \ar[r]^{{\rm ord}_p} &
{{\mathbb Z}}\ar[r] & 0 }$$ of the division algebra $$D \; = \; {{\mathbb Q}}_q \langle F \rangle/(F^n - p)$$ (where $Fa = a^\sigma F$ if $a \in {{\mathbb Q}}_q$, with $\sigma \in {{\rm Gal}}({{\mathbb F}}_q/{{\mathbb F}}_p)$ the Frobenius generator); thus the group ${{\rm Aut}}({{\bf F}})({{\overline{\mathbb F}}}_p)$ of points acts continuously on $$K(n)^*(-,{{\mathbb F}}_p) \otimes {{\overline{\mathbb F}}}_p \; := \; K(n)^*(-,{{\overline{\mathbb F}}}_p)$$ by multiplicative operations.
Note that in general, a copy of ${{\mathbb Z}}_p^\times$ (ie of the stable $p$-adic Adams operations, cf §3.4) sits naturally in ${{\rm Aut}}({{\bf F}})({{\mathbb F}}_p)$, as the center of ${{\rm Aut}}({{\bf F}})$.
The pro-Sylow $p$-subgroup $$1 \to {\mathbb S}(D) \to {{\rm Aut}}({{\bf F}}) = {\mathbb S}(D) \rtimes \mu_{q-1} \to \mu_{q-1} \to 1$$ of the strict units of $D$ splits, and the action of the subgroup $\mu_{q-1}$ of prime-to-$p$ roots of unity defines a $2(q-1)$-periodic refinement of the grading on $K(n)^*(-,{{\mathbb F}}_p)$, recovering the usual convention that $v_n = u^{q-1}$ and $|v_k| = 2(p^k-1)$.
[**2.3**]{} This action of $D^\times$ does not, however, exhaust the cohomology operations on $K(n)^*(-,{{\mathbb F}}_p)$, which is constructed using Baas-Sullivan theory. This provides $K(n)$ with a (co)action of an exterior algebra $E(Q_i \:|\: 0 \leq i \leq n-1)$ of Bockstein operations (corresponding to the departed $v_i$’s)
[The Bocksteins corresponding to $i>n$ are killed by inverting $v_n$.]{}
, as well as a universal-coefficient spectral sequence $${\rm Tor}^{E_n}_*(E_n^*(-),K(n)^*({{\rm pt}},{{\mathbb F}}_p)) \Rightarrow K(n)^*(-,{{\mathbb F}}_p) \;.$$ As ${\mathbb S}(D)$-module, $E(Q_*)$ is the exterior algebra on the ‘normal bundle’ $m_E/m_E^2$ of ${{\bf F}}$ in ${{\rm Spf}}\; E^*_n$ (isomorphic, aside from a copy of the arithmetic Bockstein $Q_0$, to Lubin and Tate’s second cohomology group $H^2_s({{\bf F}})$ of ${{\bf F}}$ (which controls its infinitesimal deformations \[15\])).
An application of Hazewinkel’s functional equation
==================================================
[**3.1 Proposition:**]{} The series $${{\log_F}}(X) \; = \; X \; + \; \sum_{1 \leq k} \prod_{1 \leq i \leq k}(1 - p^{q^i - 1})^{-1}
\; \frac{X^{q^k}}{p^k} \in {{\mathbb Q}}[[X]] \;.$$ satisfies the equation $$p \: {{\log_F}}(X) \; = \; {{\log_F}}(pX) \; + \; {{\log_F}}(X^q) \;.$$ [**Proof:**]{} The assertion is clear modulo terms of degree greater than one. On the other hand if we compare coefficients of $X^{q^k}$ for $k > 0$, the statement becomes $$p^{1-k}\prod_{1 \leq i \leq k}(1 - p^{q^i - 1})^{-1} = p^{q^k-k}
\prod_{1 \leq i \leq k}(1 - p^{q^i - 1})^{-1} + p^{1-k}
\prod_{1 \leq i \leq k-1}(1 - p^{q^i - 1}) \;.$$ Clearing denominators and multiplying by $p^k$ simplifies this to $$p \; = \; p^{q^k} \; + \; p(1 - p^{q^k - 1}) \;,$$ which is obvious.
[**Corollary:**]{} $$g(X) \;:=\; p^{-1}{{\log_F}}(pX) \;= \; X \;+ \;\sum_{1 \leq k} p^{q^k-k-1}
\prod_{1 \leq i \leq k}(1 - p^{q^i-1})^{-1} \;X^{q^k}$$ has $p$-adically integral coefficients (cf eg $p=2,\; n=1,\; k=1$).
[**3.2**]{} This proposition can be restated as the assertion $${{\log_F}}(X) \;=\; g(X) \; + \; p^{-1} {{\log_F}}(X^q) \;.$$ Since $g$ is $p$-adically integral, this is an instance of [**Hazewinkel’s functional equation**]{} \[8 §5.2\], from which it follows that $$F(X,Y) \; = \; {{\log_F}}^{-1}({{\log_F}}(X) + {{\log_F}}(Y))$$ is a $p$-typical formal group law over ${{\mathbb Z}}_{(p)}$ with ${{\log_F}}$ as its logarithm
[The case $g=0$ of Hazewinkel’s lemma yields Honda’s logarithm $\sum p^{-k}X^{q^k}$ .]{}
.
If we regard $F$ as a group law over $W({{\mathbb F}}_q)$, it further follows from the functional equation lemma that $$a \mapsto [a]_{{\mathbb F}}(X) = \log_F^{-1}(a \: {{\log_F}}(X)) : W({{\mathbb F}}_q) \to {\rm End}_{
W({{\mathbb F}}_p)}({{\bf F}})$$ is an isomorphism.
[**Corollary:**]{} $[p]_F(X) \;=\; pX \; +_F \; X^q \;.$
This is just a restatement of the proposition, but it implies that the reduction ${{\bf F}}$ of $F$ modulo $p$ is Honda’s formal group law of height $n$.
The group of continuous automorphisms of the formal Hopf algebra structure on $W({{\overline{\mathbb F}}}_p) [[X]]$ defined by $F$ contains $$W({{\mathbb F}}_q)^\times \rtimes {{\mathbb Z}}\; \subset \; D^\times =
({\rm End}_{{{\overline{\mathbb F}}}_p}({{\bf F}})) \otimes {{\mathbb Q}})^\times$$ as a dense subgroup, with ${{\mathbb Z}}$ acting on the ring of Witt vectors through $${{\mathbb Z}}\to \hat{{{\mathbb Z}}} = {{{\rm Gal}}}({{\overline{\mathbb F}}}_p/{{\mathbb F}}_p) \to {\rm Gal}({{\mathbb F}}_q/{{\mathbb F}}_p) = {{\mathbb Z}}/n{{\mathbb Z}}$$ as powers of Frobenius. This identifies the subgroup of $D^\times$ above as the Weil group $$1 \to {{\mathbb Q}}_q^\times = W({{\mathbb F}}_q)^\times \times {{\mathbb Z}}\to {{\mathbb W}}({{\mathbb Q}}^{{\rm ab}}_q/{{\mathbb Q}}_p) \to
{{\rm Gal}}({{\mathbb Q}}_q/{{\mathbb Q}}_p) = {{\mathbb Z}}/n{{\mathbb Z}}\to 1$$ of the maximal abelian extension of ${{\mathbb Q}}_q := W({{\mathbb F}}_q) \otimes {{\mathbb Q}}$.
[**3.3**]{} We can extend $F$ in another way, to a [**graded**]{} formal group law ${{\sf F}}$ over ${{\mathbb Z}}_p[u,u^{-1}]$, by defining $${{\sf F}}(X,Y) \;=\; u^{-1} F(uX,uY) \;,$$ with $[p]_{{\sf F}}(X) \;=\; pX +_{{\sf F}}u^{q-1} X^q \;.$ Being $p$-typical, ${{\sf F}}$ is classified by the homomorphism $${{\sf F}}: {{\rm BP}}^* = {{\mathbb Z}}_p[v_i \:|\: 1 \leq i < \infty] \to {{\mathbb Z}}_p[u,u^{-1}]$$ which sends the polynomial generator $v_n$ to $v^{q-1}$ and all the other $v_i$’s to 0; where the $v_i$ are Araki’s generators, satisfying $$[p]_{{\rm BP}}(X) \; = \; \sum_{{\rm BP}}v_k X^{p^k}$$ (so $v_0 = p$). The associated genus of complex-oriented manifolds sends $${{\mathbb C}}P^{q^k-1} \mapsto \prod_{1 \leq i \leq k}(1 - p^{q^i - 1})^{-1} \cdot (q/p)^k \in
{{\mathbb Z}}_{(p)}$$ and is zero on the other projective spaces.
[**3.4**]{} The Baas-Sullivan construction, applied to the specialization $v_i \to 0, \; i \neq 0,n$ of BP associated to the group law $F$ of §1, defines a natural ‘integral lift’ $K(n)^*(-,{{\mathbb Z}}_p)$ of $K(n)^*(-,{{\mathbb F}}_p)$. The resulting theories are multiplicative (in the weak sense considered here) even when $p = 2$ or 3.
The normalizer $$W({{\mathbb F}}_q)^\times \rtimes {{\mathbb Z}}= {{\mathbb W}}({{\mathbb Q}}_q^{{\rm ab}}/{{\mathbb Q}}_p) \subset D^\times$$ (of the units of ${{\mathbb Q}}_q$ inside the units of $D$) acts on $$K(n)^*(-,W({{\overline{\mathbb F}}}_p)) \; := \; K(n)^*(-,{{\mathbb Z}}_p) \otimes W({{\overline{\mathbb F}}}_p)$$ with $W({{\mathbb F}}_q)$ as endomorphisms of $F$, and ${{\mathbb Z}}$ acting via its embedding in $\hat{{{\mathbb Z}}} =
{{\rm Gal}}({{\overline{\mathbb F}}}_p/{{\mathbb F}}_p)$ (lifting the action of $D^\times$ on $K(n)^*(-,{{\overline{\mathbb F}}}_p)$ described in §2.2). In particular, it follows from the cell decomposition of $B{{\mathbb T}}= {{\mathbb C}}P^\infty$ that $$K(n)^*(S^{2k},W({{\overline{\mathbb F}}}_p)) \; \cong \; W({{\overline{\mathbb F}}}_p)^{\otimes k}$$ as $W({{\mathbb F}}_q)^\times \rtimes {{\mathbb Z}}$-modules. This looks a lot like a Tate twist …
$K(1)^*(-,W({{\mathbb F}}_p))$ is thus the $p$-adic completion of classical complex $K$-theory \[2\], with ${{\mathbb Z}}_p^\times$ acting as ($p$-adically completed) stable Adams operations; $K(1)^*(-,{{\mathbb F}}_p)$ is then its usual mod $p$ reduction.
[**3.5**]{} This story generalizes to local fields $L$ which are not necessarily unramified. A Lubin-Tate group \[5, 26\] for such a field has a $p$-typification, classified by a ring homomorphism $${{\sf F}}_L : BP^* \to {{\mathfrak o}}_L[u]$$ as above, but now sending $v_i$ to some $w_i(L)u^{p^i-1}$ with $w_i(L) \in {{\mathfrak o}}_L$. The corresponding sequence $$\dots, {{\tilde{v}}}_i = v_i - w_i(L)u^{p^i-1},\dots \in {{\mathfrak o}}_L \otimes {{\rm BP}}^*[u]$$ is regular ($\{{{\tilde{v}}}_i\}$ is just as good a set of polynomial generators for ${{\mathfrak o}}_L \otimes {{\rm BP}}^*[u]$ over ${{\mathfrak o}}_L$ as $\{v_i\}$ is), so the Baas-Sullivan-Koszul construction \[17, appendix\] defines, as above, an ${{\mathfrak o}}_L \otimes BP[u,u^{-1}]$-module-valued cohomology theory $K(L)^*(-)$, with $K(L)^*(B{{\mathbb T}})$ canonically isomorphic to the Lubin-Tate group chosen for $L$.
These are thus formal ${{\mathfrak o}}_L$-module spectra \[25\]; but it seems likely that the normalizer \[18\] of $L^\times$ in $D^\times$ acts as stable multiplicative endomorphisms of $K(L) \otimes_{{{\mathfrak o}}_L}
{{\mathfrak o}}_{L^{\rm nr}}$ (with $L^{nr}$ the maximal unramified extension of $L$).
Under this convention, $K(n)^*(-,W({{\mathbb F}}_q))$ becomes $K({{\mathbb Q}}_q)^*(-)$; in particular, $K({{\mathbb Q}}_p) \cong K({{\mathbb C}}) \otimes {{\mathbb Z}}_p$ …
Generalized Chern classes for finite groups
===========================================
[**4.1**]{} The exponential sequence $$s \mapsto {{\bf e}}(s) = \exp(2\pi is): 0 \to {{\mathbb Q}}/{{\mathbb Z}}\to {{\mathbb C}}^\times \to {{\mathbb R}}/{{\mathbb Q}}\times {{\mathbb R}}\to 0$$ identifies the Picard group of complex topological line bundles on the classifying space $BG$ of a finite group $G$ as its first cohomology group $$L \mapsto [L] \in {{\rm Pic}}_{{\mathbb C}}(BG) = H^1(BG,{{\mathbb C}}^\times) \cong H^1(G,{{\mathbb Q}}/{{\mathbb Z}}) \;.$$ with coefficients in ${{\mathbb Q}}/{{\mathbb Z}}$.
The set $$C_n G \; = \; {{\rm Hom}}({{\mathbb Z}}^n,G)/G^{{\rm conj}}$$ of conjugacy classes of commuting $n$-tuples of elements of $G$ is the quotient of the set of homomorphisms $\gamma: {{\mathbb Z}}^n \to G$ under the equivalence relation $g,\gamma \mapsto g \circ
\gamma \circ g^{-1}$ defined by conjugation.
[**4.2**]{} The group ${{\rm Gl}}_n({{\mathbb Z}}) = {{\rm Aut}}({{\mathbb Z}}^n)$ acts naturally on $C_n(G)$, defining a transformation groupoid $$[C_n G/{{\rm Gl}}_n({{\mathbb Z}})] \;.$$ Assigning to $[\gamma: {{\mathbb Z}}^n \to G]$ the group $$D({{\mathbb Z}}^n) \; = \; {{\rm Hom}}({{\mathbb Z}}^n,{{\mathbb Q}}/{{\mathbb Z}})$$ dual to ${{\mathbb Z}}^n$ defines a functor $$[C_n G/{{\rm Gl}}_n({{\mathbb Z}})] \to ({{\rm Ab}}) \;;$$ Grothendieck’s fibered category of elements associated to this functor is the pullback category $$\xymatrix{
\{C_n G/{{\rm Gl}}_n({{\mathbb Z}})\} \ar@{.>}[d] \ar@{.>}[r] & ({{\rm Ab}})_* \ar[d] \\
[C_n G/{{\rm Gl}}_n({{\mathbb Z}})] \ar[r] & ({{\rm Ab}}) }$$ defined by the forgetful functor from the category of pointed abelian groups.
Let $\Gamma_{{{\rm Gl}}_n({{\mathbb Z}})}C_n G$ be the group of sections of this fibered category. In fact we will be most interested in the $p$-analog $$\Gamma_{{{\rm Gl}}_n({{\mathbb Z}}_p)}C_{n,p} G$$ of this construction, defined by homomorphisms $\gamma : {{\mathbb Z}}_p^n \to G$ from free modules over the ring of $p$-adic integers.
[**4.3 Proposition**]{} The correspondence $$(L,\gamma) \mapsto \gamma^*[L] \in H^1({{\mathbb Z}}^n,{{\mathbb Q}}/{{\mathbb Z}}) \cong D({{\mathbb Z}}^n)$$ defines a homomorphism $${{\mathfrak c}}: {{\rm Pic}}_{{\mathbb C}}(BG) \to \Gamma_{{{\rm Gl}}_n({{\mathbb Z}})}C_n G \;.$$ [**Example**]{} If $n=1$ and $\gamma$ is a conjugacy class in $G$, then $\gamma^*[L] \in {{\mathbb Q}}/{{\mathbb Z}}\subset {{\mathbb C}}^\times$ defines the classical Chern class $${{\rm Pic}}(BG) \to (1 + \tilde{R}_{{\mathbb C}}(G))^\times$$ in complex $K$-theory.
Level structures
================
[**5.1**]{} Following Hopkins, Kuhn, and Ravenel, let $E^*$ be a complex-oriented multiplicative cohomology theory such that $E^*({{\rm pt}})$ is an evenly graded complete local domain, with residue field of positive characteristic $p$ and quotient field of characteristic zero, and with formal group law $$F : E^*[[x]] \cong E^*(B{{\mathbb T}})$$ of finite height $n \geq 1$.
If $R^*$ is an evenly-graded local $E^*({{\rm pt}})$-algebra, let $$F(R) \; = \; {{\rm Hom}}_{E^*-{{\rm loc}}}(E^*(B{{\mathbb T}}),R^*)$$ (abusing gradings as usual) be the group of points of $F$, with values in the the maximal ideal of $R^*$. If $A$ is a finite abelian group, a homomorphism $$\phi : A \to {}_{p^r}F(R)$$ corresponds to a homomorphism $$\Phi : R[[x]]/([p^r](x)) \to {{\rm Fns}}(A,R)$$ of Hopf algebras. There is a universal example $$\phi_{{\rm univ}}: ({{\mathbb Z}}/p^r{{\mathbb Z}})^n \to F(E^*BD({{\mathbb Z}}/p^r{{\mathbb Z}})) \;.$$ of such a thing.
[**5.2 Proposition**]{} \[1 §2.4.3, 8, 11 §6\] The functor $$R \to {{\sf L}}_r(R) \; = \; \{\phi \in {{\rm Hom}}(({{\mathbb Z}}/p^r{{\mathbb Z}})^n,{}_{p^r}F(R)) \: | \: \Phi \; {\rm is \; an \; iso} \}$$ is represented, in the category of local $E^*({{\rm pt}}) \otimes {{\mathbb Q}}:= E{{\mathbb Q}}$-algebras, by the localization $${{\mathcal L}}_r(E^*) \; = \; S_r^{-1} E^*BD(({{\mathbb Z}}/p^r{{\mathbb Z}})^n) \;,$$ where $S_r$ is the multiplicatively closed subset of the ring on the right, generated by $$\{ \phi_{{\rm univ}}(\alpha)^*(x) \:|\: 0 \neq \alpha \in D(({{\mathbb Z}}/p^r{{\mathbb Z}})^n) \; \} \;.$$ Moreover, ${{\mathcal L}}_r(E^*)$ is finite and faithfully flat over $E^*({{\rm pt}}) \otimes {{\mathbb Q}}$, with an action of ${{\rm Gl}}_n({{\mathbb Z}}/p^r{{\mathbb Z}})$ such that $${{\mathcal L}}(E^*) \; = \; \lim_\to \; {{\mathcal L}}_r(E^*) \;,$$ as ${{\rm Gl}}_n({{\mathbb Z}}_p)$-module, has $E{{\mathbb Q}}$ as ring of invariants.
With these definitions, we can state the main result of HKR theory:
[**Theorem C**]{} There is a natural isomorphism $$\xymatrix{
E^*(BG) \otimes {{\mathbb Q}}\ar[r]^<<<\sim & {{\rm Fns}}_{{{\rm Gl}}_n({{\mathbb Z}}_p)}(C_{n,p}(G),{{\mathcal L}}(E^*)) }$$ (with the subscript denoting the set of ${{\rm Gl}}_n({{\mathbb Z}}_p)$-equivariant maps).
[**5.3**]{} For a connected space $X$, the complex orientation on $E^*$ defines a group homomorphism $${{\rm Pic}}_{{\mathbb C}}(X) = \pi_0 {{\rm Maps}}(X,B{{\mathbb T}}) \to {{\rm Hom}}_{E^*-{{\rm loc}}}(E^*B{{\mathbb T}},E^*X) = F(E^*X) \;;$$ so composing with the character map above defines $$F(E^*BG) \to F({{\rm Fns}}_{{{\rm Gl}}_n({{\mathbb Z}}_p)}(C_{n,p}G,{{\mathcal L}}(E))) \;.$$ In the dual language of schemes this map has target $${{\rm Mor}}_{{{\rm Sch}}/{{\rm Spf}}E{{\mathbb Q}}}(C_{n,p}G \times_{{{\rm Gl}}_n({{\mathbb Z}}_p)} {{\rm Spf}}\; {{\mathcal L}}(E^*), {{\rm Spf}}\; E{{\mathbb Q}}^*B{{\mathbb T}})$$ so by adjointness we get a group homomorphism $${{\rm Pic}}_{{\mathbb C}}(BG) \to {{\rm Fns}}_{{{\rm Gl}}_n({{\mathbb Z}}_p)}(C_{n,p}G,F({{\mathcal L}}(E^*)) \;.$$ On the other hand, Yoneda says $$F({{\mathcal L}}(E^*)) \; = \; {{\rm Mor}}({{\rm Spf}}{{\mathcal L}}(E^*), {{\rm Spf}}E{{\mathbb Q}}^*B{{\mathbb T}})$$ $$\; = \; {{\rm NatTrans}}_{E{{\mathbb Q}}-{{\rm loc}}}({{\rm Iso}}(D({{\mathbb Z}}_p^n),F(-)_{{\rm tors}}),F(-)_{{\rm tors}}) \;,$$ so the evaluation map $$\Gamma_{{{\rm Gl}}_n({{\mathbb Z}}_p)}C_{n,p}G \times {{\rm Iso}}(D({{\mathbb Z}}_p^n),F(-)_{{\rm tors}}) \to {{\rm Fns}}(C_{n,p}G,F(-)_{{\rm tors}})$$ (which sends a function from tuples to $D({{\mathbb Z}}_p^n)$, together with an isomorphism of $D({{\mathbb Z}}_p^n)$ with $F_{{\rm tors}}$, to a function from tuples to torsion points) renders the diagram below commutative:
[**5.4 Proposition**]{} $$\xymatrix{
{{\rm Pic}}_{{\mathbb C}}(BG) \ar[r]^{{\mathfrak c}}\ar[d]^c & \Gamma_{{{\rm Gl}}_n({{\mathbb Z}}_p)}C_{n,p} G \ar[d] \\
F(E^*BG) \ar[r] & {{\rm Fns}}_{{{\rm Gl}}_n({{\mathbb Z}}_p)}(C_{n,p}G,F({{\mathcal L}}(E^*)) }$$
A generalization of the Artin - Atiyah theorem
==============================================
[**6.1**]{} Taking $E = K(L)$ in §5.3 identifies ${{\rm Spf}}\; {{\mathcal L}}(E)$ with ${{\rm Iso}}(D({{\mathbb Z}}_p^n),{{\rm LT}}_{{\rm tors}})$; but by §1.3 this is isomorphic, as a functor on local ${{\mathfrak o}}_L$-algebras, to ${{\rm Iso}}({{\mathbb Z}}_p^n,{{\mathfrak o}}_L)$. The natural Galois action on these groups of points identifies the obvious ${{\mathfrak o}}_L^\times$-action on the right, with that of the Galois group ${{\rm Gal}}(L^{{\rm trab}}/L)$ of the maximal totally ramified abelian extension of $L$ on the left.
[**Proposition**]{} $${{\rm Spec}}\; K(L)(BG) \otimes {{\mathbb Q}}\; \cong \; C_{n,p}G \times_{{{\rm Gl}}_n({{\mathbb Z}}_p)}
{{\rm Iso}}({{\mathbb Z}}_p^n,{{\mathfrak o}}_L)$$ $$\cong {{\rm Hom}}({{\mathfrak o}}_L,G)/G^{{\rm conj}}\; := \; {{\mathfrak C}}_L G$$ regarded as an étale scheme over Spec $L$.
Here the ring of functions on this scheme is the twisted group algebra of functions $f: C_L G \to
L^{{\rm trab}}$ such that $$f(\alpha \cdot \phi) = [\alpha](f(\phi)) \;,$$ with $\alpha \in {{\mathfrak o}}_L^\times$ acting on $\phi$ by premultiplication, and on $L^{{\rm trab}}$ through Artin reciprocity.
[**Example**]{} If $n=1$ this is the set of conjugacy classes $\hat{G}$ of $G$, understood as an étale scheme over ${{\mathbb Q}}_p$ with Galois action $$\alpha,\gamma \mapsto \chi(\alpha) \cdot \gamma : {{\rm Gal}}(\overline{{{\mathbb Q}}}_p/{{\mathbb Q}}_p) \times \hat{G} \to
\hat{G}$$ defined by the cyclotomic character.
[**6.2**]{} If $L$ is Galois over ${{\mathbb Q}}_p$, the Weil group $$1 \to L^\times \to {{\mathbb W}}(L^{{\rm ab}}/{{\mathbb Q}}_p) \to {{\rm Gal}}(L/{{\mathbb Q}}_p) \to 1$$ acts (naturally in $G$) on ${{\mathfrak C}}_L G$, sending $w \in {{\mathbb W}}, \; f$ to the function $$f^w(\phi) := [w](f(w^{-1}(\phi))) \;;$$ where $w$ acts on $\phi$ by projection to ${{\rm Gal}}(L/{{\mathbb Q}}_p)$, and on $L^{{\rm trab}}$ as a subfield of $L^{{\rm ab}}$. Indeed, if $\alpha \in {{\mathfrak o}}_L^\times$ as above, then $$f^w(\alpha \cdot \phi) = [w](f(w^{-1}(\alpha \cdot \phi))) = [w](f(w^{-1}(\alpha) \cdot w^{-1}(\phi)))$$ $$= [w]([w^{-1}](\alpha)](f(w^{-1}(\phi))) = [\alpha](f^w(\phi)) \;.$$ For such $L$, ${{\mathfrak C}}_L G$ is thus in some sense defined over ${{\mathbb Q}}_p$.
This suggests regarding ${{\mathfrak C}}_L G$ as naturally indexed by the commutative subfields of a division algebra with center ${{\mathbb Q}}_p$ \[21, 30 appendix 3\] – which fits well with the noncommutative approach to class field theory suggested in \[6\].
[**6.3 Examples**]{} $${{\mathfrak C}}_L(G_0 \times G_1) \; \cong \; {{\mathfrak C}}_L(G_0) \times_{{{\rm Spec}}_{{\rm et}}L} {{\mathfrak C}}_L(G_1) \;.$$ We also have $${{\rm Hom}}({{\mathfrak o}}_L,{{\mathbb Z}}/p^\nu{{\mathbb Z}}) \; \cong \; {}_{p^\nu}(L/{{\mathfrak o}}_L)$$ if $G = {{\mathbb Z}}/p^\nu{{\mathbb Z}}$, via the pairing $$x,y \mapsto {\rm Tr}_{L/{{\mathbb Q}}_p}(xy) \; {\rm mod} \; p : {{\mathfrak o}}_L \times L/{{\mathfrak o}}_L \to
{{\mathbb Q}}_p/{{\mathbb Z}}_p \;.$$ If we identify $L^{{\rm trab}}$ with functions of finite support from ${{\mathfrak o}}_L^\times$ to ${{\mathbb Q}}_p$ by the normal basis theorem, then we have $${{\mathfrak C}}_L({{\mathbb Z}}/p^\nu{{\mathbb Z}})(\overline{L}) = {{\rm Spec}}\: {{\rm Fns}}_{{{\mathfrak o}}^\times_L}({}_{p^\nu}(L/{{\mathfrak o}}_L),{{\mathfrak o}}_L\{{{\mathfrak o}}^\times_L\})$$ $$\cong {{\rm Spec}}\: {{\rm Fns}}({}_{p^\nu}(L/{{\mathfrak o}}_L),{{\mathbb Q}}_p) \cong {}_{p^\nu}(L/{{\mathfrak o}}_L) \;.$$
Finally, it seems likely that the Tate-Borel cohomology of a finite group $G$ fits in an extension $$0 \to K(L)^*(BG) \to t^*_GK(L) \cong K(L)^*(BG) \otimes {{\mathbb Q}}\to K(L)_{-*-1}(BG) \to 0$$ generalizing \[28, 31\]. Applied to the $p$-divisible system $\{{{\mathbb Z}}/p^\nu{{\mathbb Z}}\}$, this suggests that $t^*_GK(L)$ is essentially the universal additive extension \[4, 10 §11, 16\] of the Lubin-Tate group of $L$.
[**6.4**]{} Quillen’s work on the algebraic $K$-theory of a classical ring $R$ can be interpreted as a construction of the best representable approximation to the functor which assigns to a space $X$, the Grothendieck group of flat bundles of $R$-modules over $X$. Conceivably the natural transformation $${{\mathfrak C}}_L \pi_1 \to {{\rm Spec}}_{{\rm et}}K(L) \otimes {{\mathbb Q}}$$ has a similar characterization.
[99]{}
M Ando, Isogenies of formal group laws and power operations in the cohomology theories $E_n$, Duke Math. J. 79 (1995) 423 - 485
MF Atiyah, DO Tall, Group representations, $\Lambda$-rings and the $J$-homomorphism, Topology 8 (1969) 253 - 297
J Borger, B de Smit, Galois theory and integral models of $\Lambda$-rings, [arXiv:0801.2352]{}
P Cartier, Relévements des groupes formels commutatifs, Seminaire Bourbaki 359, Springer LNM 179 (1971) 217 - 230
——, Groupes de Lubin-Tate généralisés, Invent. Math. 35 (1976) 273 - 284.
A Connes, C Consani, On the arithmetic of the BC-system, [arXiv:1103.4672]{}
PG Goerss, MJ Hopkins, Moduli spaces of commutative ring spectra, in [**Structured ring spectra**]{} 151 - 200, LMS Lecture Notes 315, CUP 2004
JPC Greenlees, NP Strickland, Varieties and local cohomology for chromatic group cohomology rings, Topology 38 (1999) 1093 - 1139
M Hazewinkel, On formal groups: the functional equation lemma and some of its applications, in Journées de Géomtérie Algébrique de Rennes I, 73 - 82, Astérisque 63, Soc. Math. France, Paris 1979
MJ Hopkins, B Gross, Equivariant vector bundles on the Lubin-Tate moduli space, in [**Topology and representation theory**]{} 23 - 88, Contemp. Math. 158, AMS (1994)
——-, NJ Kuhn, DC Ravenel, Generalized group characters and complex oriented cohomology theories. JAMS 13 (2000) 553 - 594
——, JH Smith, Nilpotence and stable homotopy theory II, Ann. of Math. 148 (1998) 1 - 49
M Hovey, NP Strickland, Morava $K$-theories and localisation. Mem. AMS 139 (1999), no. 666
S Lang, [**Cyclotomic fields I and II**]{} Springer Graduate Texts in Mathematics 121 (1990)
J Lubin, J Tate, Formal moduli for one-parameter formal Lie groups, Bull. Soc. Math. France 94 (1966) 49 - 59
B Mazur, W Messing, Universal extensions and one dimensional crystalline cohomology. Springer LNM 370 (1974)
J Morava, A product for the odd-primary bordism of manifolds with singularities, Topology 18 (1979) 177 - 186
——, The Weil group as automorphisms of the Lubin-Tate group, Journées de Géométrie Algébrique de Rennes I, 169 - 177, Astérisque 63, Soc. Math. France, Paris (1979)
——, Noetherian localisations of categories of cobordism comodules. Ann. of Math. 121 (1985) 1 - 39
——, Some Weil group representations motivated by algebraic topology, in [**Elliptic curves and modular forms in algebraic topology**]{} 94 - 106, Springer LNM 1326 (1988)
——, Stable homotopy and local number theory, in [**Algebraic analysis, geometry, and number theory**]{} 291 - 305, JHU Press, Baltimore (1989)
DC Ravenel, [**Complex cobordism and stable homotopy groups of spheres**]{}, Pure and Applied Mathematics 121, Academic Press 1986
C Rezk, Notes on the Hopkins-Miller theorem, in [**Homotopy theory via algebraic geometry and group representations**]{} 313 - 366, Contemp. Math. 220, AMS 1998
——, The congruence criterion for power operations in Morava $E$-theory, in Homology, Homotopy Appl. 11 (2009) 327 - 379
A Salch, Structure of the moduli stack of one-dimensional formal A-modules, [arXiv:1005.0119]{}
JP Serre, Local class field theory, in [**Algebraic Number Theory**]{} (Brighton) 128 - 161, Thompson 1987
——, [**Linear representations of finite groups**]{}. Springer Graduate Texts in Mathematics 42 (1977)
\]28\][28]{} NP Strickland, $K(n)$-local duality for finite groups and groupoids, Topology 39 (2000) 733 - 772.
J Tate, Number theoretic background, in [**Automorphic forms, representations and $L$-functions**]{} 3 - 26, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math. XXXIII, AMS 1979
A Weil, [**Basic number theory**]{}, third edition, Springer Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften 144 (1974)
G Wilson, $K$-theory invariants for unitary $G$-bordism, Quart. J. Math. 24 (1973) 499 - 526
U Würgler, Morava K-theories: a survey, in [**Algebraic topology**]{}(Poznan’) 111 - 138, Springer LNM 1474 (1991)
[^1]: This work has been supported for many years by the NSF
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We experimentally [verify]{} the simplest non-trivial case of a quantum resetting protocol with five superconducting qubits, testing it with different types of free evolutions and target-probe interactions. [After post-selection,]{} we obtained a reset state fidelity as high as $0.951$, and the process fidelity was found to be $0.792$. We also implemented 100 randomly-chosen interactions and demonstrated an average success probability of $0.323$, experimentally confirmed the non-zeros probability of success for unknown interactions; the numerical simulated value is $0.384$. We anticipate this protocol will have widespread applications in quantum information processing science, since it is able to combat any form of free evolution.'
author:
- 'Ming Gong,$^{1,2,*}$ Feihu Xu,$^{1,2,*}$ Zheng-Da Li,$^{1,2}$ Zizhu Wang,$^{3}$ Yu-Zhe Zhang,$^{1,2}$ Yulin Wu,$^{1,2}$ Shaowei Li,$^{1,2}$ Youwei Zhao,$^{1,2}$ Shiyu Wang,$^{1,2}$ Chen Zha,$^{1,2}$ Hui Deng,$^{1,2}$ Zhiguang Yan,$^{1,2}$ Hao Rong,$^{1,2}$ Futian Liang,$^{1,2}$ Jin Lin,$^{1,2}$ Yu Xu,$^{1,2}$ Cheng Guo,$^{1,2}$ Lihua Sun,$^{1,2}$ Anthony D. Castellano,$^{1,2}$ Chengzhi Peng,$^{1,2}$ Yu-Ao Chen,$^{1,2}$ Xiaobo Zhu,$^{1,2}$ and Jian-Wei Pan$^{1,2}$'
title: '[Verification of a resetting protocol for an uncontrolled superconducting qubit]{}'
---
[^1]
Removing an unwanted free evolution of a quantum system is a key technical challenge in fields of quantum information processing science like quantum error correction[@campbell2017roads], quantum metrology[@giovannetti2011advances], quantum memory[@terhal2015quantum], and quantum communication[@kimble2008quantum]. Efforts to address this challenge such as spin echo [@PhysRev.80.580] and dynamical decoupling [@PhysRevLett.82.2417; @zanardi; @DUAN1999139; @Kais2014] have been well investigated, but these refocusing techniques need prior knowledge of the decoherence channels to construct effective control pulses. Recently, a new protocol has been published which can probabilistically reset a target quantum system of arbitrary dimension to a state in its past by making external probing systems interact with *unknown dynamics* after an *unknown time-independent evolution* of the target [@PhysRevX.8.031008]. The power of this quantum resetting protocol is that, unlike the previous refocusing techniques, it can reset an uncontrolled system, thus making it able to combat any form of free evolution.
In this letter, we tested the simplest non-trivial quantum resetting protocol: a 2D quantum system interacting with four 2D probes, [known as the $\mathcal{W}_4$ protocol]{} [@PhysRevX.8.031008]. Fig. \[circuit\]A represents the protocol schematically. After being set to an initial state, the target qubit interacts with each of the four probes, which form two pairs of entangled states. Then, measurement of the probes affects the target qubit, sending it back to its initial state with a given probability.
{width="80.00000%"}
The general gate sequence of the quantum circuit used to implement the five-qubit protocol is pictured in Fig. \[circuit\]B. We divide the circuit into four parts: state preparation, free evolution, interaction and [tomographic readout]{}. Before the circuit begins, all qubits are [initialized]{} in the state ${\ensuremath{|0\rangle}}$. During state preparation, the gate $G_1$ is applied to the target qubit to bring it to ${\ensuremath{|\psi(0)\rangle}}$, and each pair of neighboring probes is set to the singlet state $|\Psi^-\rangle = \frac{{\ensuremath{|01\rangle}}-{\ensuremath{|10\rangle}}}{\sqrt{2}}$. After state preparation, we apply the gate $R$, which simulates the free evolution with Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}_0=\sum\limits_{j=x,y,z}h_j\sigma_j$, where $\{\sigma_j\}$ are the Pauli operators and $h_j$ is the coupling strength on the $j$-axis. After the first $R$ gate is applied to the target, the first probe interacts with the target via a bipartite unitary operator $U$, which varies according to the experimental case. This process of free evolution followed by target-probe interaction is repeated three more times [on the target and different probes]{}. Once the interaction process is complete, a five-qubit state tomography is performed to obtain the final state with density matrix $\rho_f$. A successful reset has occurred in the portion of the state that overlaps with the success subspace spanned by the following six vectors $\mathcal{S}$.
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{S} = \bigg\{ \;
& |0000\rangle, \; |1111\rangle, \; \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0011\rangle + |1100\rangle), \\
& \frac{1}{2}(|1000\rangle + |0100\rangle +|0010\rangle +|0001\rangle), \\
&\frac{1}{2}(|0111\rangle + |1011\rangle +|1101\rangle +|1110\rangle), \\
&\frac{1}{2}(|1010\rangle + |0101\rangle +|1001\rangle +|0110\rangle) \bigg\}\end{aligned}$$
Projecting the probe subspace onto this success subspace post-selects for a successful reset. The trace overlap between the measured state and the post-selected state is defined as the success probability, $P_s = {{\rm Tr}}(\rho_f \rho_{ps}),$ where $\rho_{ps}$ is the density matrix of the post-selected state. The reset state of the target qubit can be extracted from the post-selected state by tracing out the probes[@Nielsen2010], $\rho = {{\rm Tr}}_{probes}(\rho_{ps})$, where $\rho$ is the density matrix of the reset state. Once the reset state has been obtained, we also evaluate the quality of the reset state. The reset state fidelity is defined as the trace overlap between the reset state and the initial state of the target qubit, $\mathcal{F} = {{\rm Tr}}(\rho{\ensuremath{| \psi(0) \rangle \langle \psi(0) |}}).
$ Note that for the [deterministic cases]{} of our experiment, success subspace is reduced to the space spanned by the first three vectors in $\mathcal{S}$.
This protocol lies on the vanguard of what is currently experimentally feasible. Even for protocols with five qubits, correctly performing a quantum resetting protocol requires extremely high quality single- and double-qubit gates to model all possible interactions and free evolutions that make up the protocol. Quantum processors with superconducting qubits, which have undergone great progress over recent years, have reached a level of technical achievement that makes it possible to implement of the long sequences of arbitrary operations in a multi-qubit system [@Gong2018; @Roushan2017a; @Chou2018; @Hu2018; @Wu2018; @Xu2018; @Kurpiers2018; @Rosenberg2017; @Kandala2017; @Song2017; @Versluis2017; @Ofek2016; @Corcoles2015; @Kelly2015; @Barends2014; @Reed2012b; @Yan2019]. However, increasing the depth of circuits remains a significant challenge. Through extensive calibration and optimization of our system, we were able to successfully implement quantum circuits with up to 47 layers, 35 of which contained totally 119 single-qubit gates and the rest contained 12 entangling gates. The detail of the 47-layer circuits is shown in the Supplementary Material. [Our results push the limits of the depth of superconducting quantum circuits.]{}
Case $|\psi(0)\rangle$ $\mathcal{H}_0$ $U$
------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- ------------------------------------------
1a $|-\rangle$ $h_z\sigma_z$ $(X \otimes Z + iY \otimes X)/\sqrt{2}$
1b $|1\rangle$ $h_x\sigma_x$ $(-Z \otimes Z + iY \otimes X)/\sqrt{2}$
1c $\sum_i p_i |i\rangle \langle i| , {{\rm Tr}}(\rho^2) < 1$ $h_z\sigma_z$ $(X \otimes Z + iY \otimes X)/\sqrt{2}$
2 $|0\rangle, \, |1\rangle, \, {\ensuremath{|\pm\rangle}}, \, {\ensuremath{|\pm i\rangle}} $ $I$ $(X \otimes Z + iY \otimes X)/\sqrt{2}$
3 $|1\rangle$ $I$ Random
: **Table of different experimental cases.** The initial state of the target qubit is ${\ensuremath{|\psi(0)\rangle}}$; $\mathcal{H}_0$ is the free-evolution Hamiltonian; $U$ is the target-probe interaction operator. **Case 1a, 1b, and 1c** [(Fig. \[proof\])]{} test deterministic unitaries. **Case 2** [(Fig. \[density\])]{} tests six different initial states and uses four of them to perform quantum process tomography. **Case 3** [(Fig. \[random\])]{} tests random target-probe interactions.[]{data-label="case1"}
{width="70.00000%"}
[To verify the $\mathcal{W}_4$ protocol,]{} we performed different variations of the [resetting]{} experiments, which we divide into three cases (Table \[case1\]). Case 1 [(Fig. \[proof\])]{} tested interactions with a theoretical success probability of $1$, [i.e. deterministic interactions,]{} varying the initial target states and free evolutions. Case 2 [(Fig. \[density\])]{} fully characterized the resetting process with six orthogonal initial states for the target. The final case [(Fig. \[random\])]{} tested the success probability for random interactions, and compared them with the numerical predictions. [To characterize the success probability and the target state fidelity, we use tomographic readout in all cases to obtain the 5-qubit density matrix, and then post-select the state in the success subspace.]{}
First we tested the protocol that the $U$ will deterministically reset target qubit in theory. To simulate effects from the physical evolution of a qubit, we varied the rotation around different axes, and measured $P_s$ and $\mathcal{F}$. As shown in Table \[case1\], case 1a and 1c simulated the free evolution Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}_0=h_z\sigma_z$ by applying a rotation gate $R_z(\varphi)$, corresponding to a rotation around $z$-axis through an angle $\varphi$. In case 1b the free evolution Hamiltonian was $\mathcal{H}_0=h_x\sigma_x$, rotating instead around the $x$-axis. Meanwhile, to observe the effect of free evolution sensitively, the target is initialized to a state orthogonal to the rotation axis of the free evolution, which in case 1a and 1c is $|-\rangle$, and in case 1b is $|1\rangle$. Furthermore, to test the protocol not only on pure states, but also on mixed states, case 1c allows the qubit to decohere for 1 $\mu$s in state preparation. The deterministic unitary depends on the form of free evolution Hamiltonian, thus was changed accordingly. Fig. \[proof\] illustrates the results of all three subcases for the rotation angle $\varphi=3\pi/8$, in which all fidelities of the reset states can be seen jumping above those without resetting. More results [verifying]{} the protocol for other rotation angles are listed in SM.
For case 1, we experimentally proved that the protocol can successfully reset the target with high fidelity using theoretically predicted deterministic unitaries. The success probabilities are not as high as theoretical prediction: for case 1a, we obtained $P_s = 0.544$. The results for case 1b and 1c are similar (see SM). We attribute this difference to the fidelity of the measured [5-qubit]{} state, which was found to be $0.399$ [in comparison with an ideal state]{}. Actually, considering the length of these circuits—for case 1a 39 layers in total, including 12 entangling-gates layers and 27 single-qubit-gate layers—these results push the limits of superconducting quantum processor technology. In context of these long quantum circuits, [state fidelities of reset target, as shown in Fig. \[proof\]D,H,L, ]{}in the range of $0.76-0.81$ really stand out. As the ability to implement long circuits increases, it will be possible to combine these types of protocols with other meaningful operations.
{width="80.00000%"}
Once we confirmed that the protocol can reset the target qubit, we decided to characterize the resetting process more closely. Setting $R = I$ and $U = (X\otimes Z+iY\otimes X)/\sqrt{2}$, we initialized the target qubit to the six axes of the Bloch sphere and performed quantum process tomography. The density matrices $\rho$ of the reset target obtained with state tomography has significant variations in fidelity depending on the initialization (Figure\[density\]A-F). The states $|0\rangle$ and $|1\rangle$ are not sensitive to dephasing, and have higher reset fidelities – close to $0.95$. But the four other initializations are located on the equator of the Bloch sphere, so they are sensitive to dephasing and accordingly, have lower fidelites, ranging from $0.81 - 0.84$. These different initialization are important because they can be used to fully characterize the resetting process. By combining final states ${\ensuremath{|0\rangle}}$, ${\ensuremath{|1\rangle}}$, ${\ensuremath{|+\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|i\rangle}}$, we can obtain the $\chi$ matrix (Fig. \[density\]G) with quantum process tomography[@Nielsen2010]. We define the process fidelity as the trace overlap between the ideal process $\chi_i$, which only contains the identity operation $I$, and the measured $\chi$, as $\mathcal{F}_{\chi} = Tr(\chi_i\chi)$, [and]{} is determined to be above 0.79. The comparison between the reset fidelities of phase-sensitive and phase-insensitive initial states shows the important role dephasing plays in our experiment, leaving room for further improvement.
The most remarkable advantage of this resetting protocol is that the interaction need not to be controlled or known. [Our interpretation of the word ‘known’ simply means that]{} the interaction dynamics can not be adjusted according to the free evolution of the target system. To simulate these sorts of situations, we investigate the effects of random target-probe interactions. Specifically, we tested the success probability of random unitaries ($U_r$), generated by rotating the target qubit and its interaction probe before and after a $CZ$ gate (Fig. \[circuit\]D). Each random rotation is implemented as a sequence of $R_z(\alpha_i)$, $R_y(\beta_i)$, and $R_z(\gamma_i)$ gates, with angles $\alpha_i$, $\beta_i$, and $\gamma_i$ all chosen randomly. As shown in Table \[case1\] case 3, we set ${\ensuremath{|\psi(0)\rangle}}={\ensuremath{|1\rangle}}$ and $R=I$, and tested 100 different random unitaries. [To compare the experimental and theoretical results, we numerically simulated the circuit with ideal quantum gates.]{} [Experimental]{} success probabilities for the random unitaries are in good agreement with numerical simulation (Fig. \[random\]). When the results for the random unitaries are combined, the cumulative average of success probability converges towards $0.323$, which is close to the simulated value of $0.384$. The average reset state fidelity is $0.684$. We attribute the low fidelities and the discrepancy between [the experimental and simulated values]{} mainly to gate errors and decoherence from energy relaxation and dephasing. [Similar to]{} our other results, we expect these blemishes to become less pronounced as the quality of quantum processors is improved.
, where 12 random single-qubit gates are applied before and after a $CZ$ gate. As shown in case 3 of Table. \[case1\], the prepared initial state of the target qubit is [$|1\rangle$]{}, and the free-evolution Hamiltonian is $I$.]{} Experimental results are shown in blue; simulated values are in brown. [The numerical simulations are realized by direct product of the circuits with standard quantum gates, thus neither gate error nor decoherence effect are considered, corresponding to ideal processes. We leave the results with the target qubit prepared in [$|-\rangle$]{} state in Supplementary Materials.]{} **A.** Success probabilities for each of the 100 random unitaries tested in the experiment. **B.** Cumulative average of success probabilities, showing convergence to $0.323$ in experiment and $0.384$ in simulation.[]{data-label="random"}](fig4.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
We have successfully [verified]{} the quantum resetting protocol for known and unknown interactions. Even when the interactions are not known, we still have an average success probability of $0.323$. This probability can be significantly improved by an ‘undoing failure’ protocol presented by Navascués[@PhysRevX.8.031008]. Upon failure, it is possible to send more probes to interact with the target, and measure the new probes for another chance of a successful reset. [Although practical difficulties in implementing additional layers of circuit to correct failed resets may outweigh the potential benefits, since the “undoing failure” protocol may not increase the fidelity of the reset state.]{}
Another result of Navascués [@PhysRevX.8.031008], is that the resetting protocol can reset a target system of any dimension. In a photonic system, our colleagues have demonstrated that a qubit can be reset to its past entangled state[@Li2019], and also here we showed that a mixed state can be reset, giving the experimental [verification]{} that the protocol can work on a target qubit which is a part of higher-dimensional systems. Given the speed of progress with superconducting processors, it is expected that the realization of resetting higher-dimensional systems is achievable in the near term, opening the door for applications in quantum memory[@terhal2015quantum]. It is also possible that higher-dimensional versions of the resetting protocol will be useful in quantum error correction[@campbell2017roads]. But the result of Navascués only proved the existence of higher-dimensional protocols, and provided some heuristic methods for finding deterministic unitaries. Theoretical tools for easily finding deterministic interactions in higher dimensions are urgently needed. We expect that theoretical and experimental development of this protocol will have great potential to advance many areas of quantum information processing.
The authors thank the USTC Center for Micro- and Nanoscale Research and Fabrication, Institute of Physics CAS and National Center for Nanoscience and Technology for supporting the sample fabrication. The authors also thank QuantumCTek Co., Ltd. for supporting the fabrication and the maintenance of room temperature electronics. This research was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (Grants No. 2017YFA0304300, No. 2018YFA0306703), the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and Science and Technology Committee of Shanghai Municipality (Grants No. 16DZ2260100). This research was also supported by NSFC (Grants No. 11574380, No. 11905217) and Anhui Initiative in Quantum Information Technologies.
[29]{} ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{} ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{} ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{} ““\#1”” @noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{} sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{} @startlink\[1\] @endlink\[0\] @bib@innerbibempty @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.80.580) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.2417) [****, ()](\doibase
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9601(99)00365-5) [****, ()](\doibase https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9601(99)00592-7) [**](\doibase 10.1002/9781118742631), Vol. () pp. , [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevX.8.031008) [**](\doibase 10.1017/S0960129507006317) (, , ) pp. [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.110501), [****, ()](\doibase
10.1126/science.aao1401), [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/s41586-018-0470-y), [ ()](http://arxiv.org/abs/1805.09072), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/s41534-018-0099-6) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.050507), [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/s41586-018-0195-y) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/s41534-017-0044-0), [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nature23879), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.180511), [**** (), 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.8.034021](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.8.034021), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nature18949), [**** (), 10.1038/ncomms7979](\doibase 10.1038/ncomms7979), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nature14270), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nature13171), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nature10786), [****, ()](\doibase
10.1126/science.aaw1611) [ ()](http://arxiv.org/abs/1911.11585),
**[Supplementary Materials for]{}\
**\
Ming Gong,$^{1,2,*}$ Feihu Xu,$^{1,2,*}$ Zheng-Da Li,$^{1,2}$ Zizhu Wang,$^{3}$ Yu-Zhe Zhang,$^{1,2}$ Yulin Wu,$^{1,2}$ Shaowei Li,$^{1,2}$ Youwei Zhao,$^{1,2}$ Shiyu Wang,$^{1,2}$ Chen Zha,$^{1,2}$ Hui Deng,$^{1,2}$ Zhiguang Yan,$^{1,2}$ Hao Rong,$^{1,2}$ Futian Liang,$^{1,2}$ Jin Lin,$^{1,2}$ Yu Xu,$^{1,2}$ Cheng Guo,$^{1,2}$ Lihua Sun,$^{1,2}$ Anthony D. Castellano,$^{1,2}$ Chengzhi Peng,$^{1,2}$ Yu-Ao Chen,$^{1,2}$ Xiaobo Zhu,$^{1,2}$ and Jian-Wei Pan$^{1,2}$
Performance of qubits
=====================
The superconducting processor used in this work is a 12 qubits processor[@Gong2018]. We chose five adjacent qubits to perform the present experiment. Table. \[performance\] shows the performance of the qubits in our experiment.
Qubit $Q_1$ $Q_2$ $Q_3$ $Q_4$ $Q_5$ AVG.
----------------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------
$f_{01}$ (GHz) 4.901 4.227 4.998 4.119 4.870 -
$\eta$ (MHz) -246.9 -201.5 -245.8 -203.0 -243.5 -
$T_1$ ($\mu s$) 47.9 41.3 35.8 48.2 36.9 42.0
$T_2^*$ ($\mu s$) 4.6 3.2 5.4 2.5 2.9 3.7
Readout Fidelity (%) 87.1 79.2 84.2 80.4 88.8 83.9
X/2 gate fidelity (%) 99.93 99.86 99.86 99.85 99.92 99.88
CZ gate fidelity (%) 98.3
: Performance of qubits. $f_{01}$ is working points of the qubits. $\eta$ is the anharmonicity. $T_1$ is the energy relaxation time. $T_2^*$ is the dephasing time determined from Ramsey fringe experiment. Readout Fidelity is the possibility of error in readout of qubit state. X/2 gate fidelity and CZ gate fidelity are single- and two-qubit gate fidelity determined with randomized benchmarking (RB). []{data-label="performance"}
More details in case 1 of the main text
=======================================
In Table \[details\] we presented the detailed data in three subcases, i.e., case 1a, 1b, and 1c. Fore case 1a, 8 rotation angles are tested and all reset-state fidelities are above 0.80. In case 1b, 4 rotation angles are tested, and the reset-state fidelities are above 0.73. We note that the difference in reset-state fidelity between case 1a and 1b mostly comes from the depth. The interaction unitary between case 1a and 1b are different, thus the final circuits to perform the tests have different depths. In case 1b, 8 more single-qubit-gate layers are applied, introducing more gate errors and decoherence effect. In case 1c, the target is initialized in ${\ensuremath{|-\rangle}}$ and decohered for $1\mu s$ before the other parts of state preparation. Before the application of free evolution, the fidelity of the target is measured to be around 0.90, indicating that the initial state has already been a mixed state. In this subcase, we measure 4 different rotation angles and obtained the reset-state fidelities above 0.77.
Random unitaries with target prepared in [$|-\rangle$]{}
========================================================
[In the main text, we present the resetting protocol with random unitaries in case 3. The target is prepared in a classical state [$|1\rangle$]{}, and the probabilities with the target successfully reset to its original state is determined. Here we present another similar test. The only difference is that the target is prepared in state ${\ensuremath{|-\rangle}}=({\ensuremath{|0\rangle}}-{\ensuremath{|1\rangle}})/\sqrt{2}$, a superposition state. As shown in Fig. \[minus\], we measured 100 success probabilites with the interaction randomly chosen as in Fig. 1D in main text. We compared the experimental success probabilities with the numerically simulated results, finding out a similar pattern in it. The cumulative average of the 100 success probabilities is 0.292, close to the simulated value 0.304. The difference of the cumulative average between different target states comes from the limited number of random unitaries. ]{}
{width="60.00000%"}
Gate implementation
===================
Only single-qubit gates and controlled-phase (CZ) gates are used in our experiment. Single-qubit gates are implemented as microwave pulses. We realize CZ gates by implementing DC wave sequences on two neighbouring qubits to tune the $|11\rangle$ state close to the avoided crossing generated by the states $|11\rangle$ and $|02\rangle$ following a “fast adiabatic” trajectory [@Dicarlo2009; @Martinis2014; @Barends2014; @Kelly2014].
CZ gates can only be implemented on neighbouring qubits, so to generate interactions between distant qubits, a SWAP gate is required. For example, to generate an interaction between $Q_1$ and $Q_3$, we first apply $U$ between $Q_2$ and $Q_3$ and then apply a SWAP gate between $Q_2$ and $Q_1$. Likewise with $Q_5$ and $Q_3$. The SWAP gate is realized by combining single-qubit gates and CZ gates as $SWAP=(I\otimes-Y/2)CZ(-Y/2\otimes Y/2)CZ(Y/2\otimes -Y/2)CZ(I\otimes Y/2)$ [@Barends2014], where $Y/2$ ($-Y/2$) is $R_y(\pi/2)$ ($R_y(-\pi/2)$), representing the rotation by an angle $\pi/2$ ($-\pi/2$) about the $y$ axis.
The total depth of the sequences for the implementation of case 1a and 2 in the main text is 39, including 12 double-qubit-gate layers and 27 single-qubit-gate layers. For case 1b and case 3 in the main text, the total depths are 47, both including 12 double-qubit-gate layers and 35 single-qubit-gate layers. An example of the gate sequences for case 3 is shown in Fig. \[S1\].
{width="95.00000%"}
Gate optimization
=================
Calibrations and optimizations is a necessary step to successfully realize the theoretical circuits. Cross-talk on the Z control line [@Yan2019] is a source of error that needs to be firstly addressed. When CZ gate is applied, because of the $1\%-2\%$ Z cross-talk, it induces a frequency shift on other qubits, and leads unwanted dynamical phases. We correct these phase shifts by adding corresponding phase gates to each of them. Meanwhile, CZ gates must be applied in while all other qubits are idling. Secondly, due to the finite bandwidth and imperfection of the impedance matching in the route from the DAC channels to the qubit control lines, there is a pulse distortion after an applied pulse [@Neill2018; @Kelly2014; @Johnson2011d; @Yan2019]. We use the deconvolution method to correct this kind of pulse distortion[@Johnson2011d; @Yan2019]. Last, to mitigate the effects of dephasing, which produce more errors than energy relaxation in our experiment, we apply Hahn spin echoes [@PhysRev.80.580; @Barends2014; @Gustavsson2012; @Martinis2003; @Vion2003] to idling elements of the circuit.
[12]{} ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{} ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{} ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{} ““\#1”” @noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{} sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{} @startlink\[1\] @endlink\[0\] @bib@innerbibempty [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.110501), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nature08121), [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevA.90.022307), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nature13171), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.240504) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1126/science.aaw1611) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1126/science.aao4309), @noop [ ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.80.580) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.010502), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.67.094510) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1002/prop.200310063),
[^1]: These authors contributed equally to this work.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We study the computation complexity of Boolean functions in the quantum black box model. In this model our task is to compute a function $f:\{0,1\}\to\{0,1\}$ on an input $x\in\{0,1\}^n$ that can be accessed by querying the black box. Quantum algorithms are inherently probabilistic; we are interested in the lowest possible probability that the algorithm outputs incorrect answer (the error probability) for a fixed number of queries. We show that the lowest possible error probability for ${\textsc{AND}}_n$ and ${\textsc{EQUALITY}}_{n+1}$ is $\frac{1}{2}-\frac{n}{n^2+1}$.'
author:
- Andris Ambainis
- Jānis Iraids
bibliography:
- 'quantum.bib'
title: 'Optimal One-shot Quantum Algorithm for [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EQUALITY</span>]{} and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">AND</span>]{}'
---
Introduction
============
In this paper we study the computational complexity of Boolean functions in the quantum black box model. It is a generalization of the decision tree model, where we are computing an $n$-bit function $f:\{0,1\}^n\to \{0,1\}$ on an input $x\in\{0,1\}^n$ that can only be accessed through a black box by querying some bit $x_i$ of the input. In the quantum black box model the state of the computation is described by a quantum state from the Hilbert space $\H_Q\otimes \H_W \otimes \H_O$ where $\H_Q=\{{\left| 0 \right\rangle},{\left| 1 \right\rangle}, \ldots, {\left| n \right\rangle}\}$ is the query subspace, $\H_W$ is the working memory and $\H_O=\{{\left| 0 \right\rangle},{\left| 1 \right\rangle}\}$ is the output subspace. A computation using $t$ queries consists of a sequence of unitary transformations $U_t\cdot O_x \cdot U_{t-1} \cdot O_x \cdot \ldots \cdot O_x \cdot U_0$ followed by a measurement, where the $U_i$’s are independent of the input and $O_x=O_{Q,x}\otimes I\otimes I$ with $$O_{Q,x}{\left| i \right\rangle}=\begin{cases}(-1)^{x_i}{\left| i \right\rangle}=\hat{x}_i {\left| i \right\rangle}\text{, if }i\in[n],\\
{\left| 0 \right\rangle}\text{, if }i=0,
\end{cases}$$ is the query transformation, where $x_i \in \{0,1\}$ or equivalently, $\hat{x}_i \in \{-1,1\}$. The final measurement is a complete projective measurement in the computational basis and the output of the algorithm is the result of the last register, $\H_O$. For and $0\leq \epsilon < \frac{1}{2}$ we denote by $Q_\epsilon(f)$ the smallest number of queries for an quantum algorithm outputting $f(x)$ with probability at least $1-\epsilon$. Usually the $\epsilon$ is omitted from $Q_\epsilon(f)$ because it changes $Q_\epsilon(f)$ by a constant factor, and $Q(f)$ is called the bounded error quantum query complexity of $f$. This complexity measure is widely studied as most computational problems can be expressed in the query model. The most well known examples are by [@Gro96; @Sho97]. For the searching problem Grover’s algorithm is exactly optimal as shown by [@Zal99].
However, if one is interested in computing functions with constant number of inputs (for example, as a part of small circuit), then it may be useful to fix the number queries and minimize the probability of an incorrect answer. In this paper we will be concerned with quantum algorithms performing at most 1 query, thus we introduce ${\mathcal{E}\left( f \right)}$.
Let $f$ be a Boolean function. Then let ${\mathcal{E}\left( f \right)}$ be the minimum error probability for a quantum algorithm that calculates $f$ using just one query, i.e., $${\mathcal{E}\left( f \right)} = \min_{\A:\A\text{ performs 1 query}} \max_x \Pr[\text{algorithm } \A \text{ does not output }f(x)].$$
We will be focusing on two Boolean functions defined as follows: $${\textsc{EQUALITY}}_n(x)=\begin{cases}1\text{, if }x_1=x_2=\ldots=x_n\\
0\text{, otherwise}
\end{cases}$$ and $${\textsc{AND}}_n(x)=\begin{cases}1\text{, if }x_1=x_2=\ldots=x_n=1\\
0\text{, otherwise}
\end{cases}.$$ In her doctoral thesis [@Mis12] gave quantum algorithms showing that $${\mathcal{E}\left( {\textsc{EQUALITY}}_3 \right)}\leq\frac{1}{10};{\mathcal{E}\left( {\textsc{AND}}_2 \right)}\leq\frac{1}{10};$$ $${\mathcal{E}\left( {\textsc{EQUALITY}}_4 \right)}\leq \frac{1}{4};{\mathcal{E}\left( {\textsc{AND}}_3 \right)}\leq \frac{1}{4};$$ $${\mathcal{E}\left( {\textsc{EQUALITY}}_6 \right)}\leq \frac{7}{16};{\mathcal{E}\left( {\textsc{AND}}_5 \right)}\leq \frac{7}{16}.$$
Our main result asserts that
$${\mathcal{E}\left( {\textsc{AND}}_n \right)} = {\mathcal{E}\left( {\textsc{EQUALITY}}_{n+1} \right)} = \frac{1}{2}-\frac{n}{n^2+1}.$$
The proof can be summarized in a series of three inequalities: $$\frac{1}{2}-\frac{n}{n^2+1} \leq {\mathcal{E}\left( {\textsc{AND}}_n \right)} \leq {\mathcal{E}\left( {\textsc{EQUALITY}}_{n+1} \right)} \leq \frac{1}{2}-\frac{n}{n^2+1}.$$
The first inequality can be proven using a characterization of symmetric sum-of-squares polynomials known as the Blekherman’s theorem.
Let $q(\hat x)$ be the symmetrization of a polynomial $p^2(\hat x)$ where $p(\hat x)$ is a multilinear polynomial of degree $t\leq \frac{n}{2}$ and $\hat x = (x_1, \ldots, x_n)$. Then, over the Boolean hypercube $\hat{x}\in\{-1,1\}^n$, $$q(\hat x) = \sum_{j=0}^t p_{t-j}(|x|) \left( \prod_{0\leq i < j} (|x|-i) (n-|x|-i) \right)$$ where $p_{t-j}$ is a univariate polynomial that is a sum of squares of polynomials of degree at most $t-j$ and $|x|$ denotes the number of variables $i:\hat x_i=-1$.
Even though it is an unpublished result, there are proofs — see [@LP+16] or Section \[sec:blek\] in this paper for a considerably shorter proof using representation theory.
The second inequality is trivial, since $${\textsc{AND}}_n(x_1, \ldots, x_n)={\textsc{EQUALITY}}_{n+1}(x_1, \ldots, x_n,1),$$ and so we can use an algorithm for ${\textsc{EQUALITY}}_{n+1}$ to calculate ${\textsc{AND}}_n$.
The third inequality can be proved by constructing a quantum algorithm for the function ${\textsc{EQUALITY}}_{n+1}$. Since the algorithm is very simple we present it before the more involved proof of the first inequality.
If we compare ${\mathcal{E}\left( f \right)}$ with the classical analogue, let us call it ${\mathcal{E}^C\left( f \right)}$, [@Mis12] has shown that ${\mathcal{E}^C\left( {\textsc{EQUALITY}}_n \right)}=\frac{1}{2}$ and ${\mathcal{E}^C\left( {\textsc{AND}}_n \right)}=\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{4n-2}$.
Algorithm for [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EQUALITY</span>]{} {#sec:ub}
========================================================================
$${\mathcal{E}\left( {\textsc{EQUALITY}}_{n+1} \right)} \leq \frac{1}{2}-\frac{n}{n^2+1}$$
We will prove that the following algorithm has the claimed error probability:
[ tempdima 3tempdima]{}[$\sum_{i=1}^{n+1}{\frac{(-1)^{x_i}}{\sqrt{n+1}}{\left| i \right\rangle}}\xrightarrow{F_{n+1}}\sum_{i=1}^{n+1}{\sum_{j=1}^{n+1}{\frac{\omega^{(i-1)(j-1)}(-1)^{x_j}}{n+1}}{\left| i \right\rangle}}$]{}
First, let us consider the case when ${\textsc{EQUALITY}}_{n+1}=1$. In that case the state ${\left| 1 \right\rangle}$ will be measured with certainty and hence the probability to output the incorrect answer $0$ is $\frac{1}{2}-\frac{n}{n^2+1}$.
If on the other hand the input is such that ${\textsc{EQUALITY}}_{n+1}=0$, the algorithm has an opportunity to answer incorrectly only in the case it measures ${\left| 1 \right\rangle}$. Denote by $m:=\sum_{i=1}^{n+1}{x_i}$. The probability that the algorithm answers 1 is $\left(\frac{m}{n+1}\right)^2\cdot \left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{n}{n^2+1}\right)$. The value of this expression is maximized when $m=\pm(n-1)$ and so the probability to answer 1 on the worst kind of input (namely the input where only one bit is different from every other bit) is $$\left(\frac{n-1}{n+1}\right)^2 \left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{n}{n^2+1}\right)=\left(\frac{n-1}{n+1}\right)^2\frac{(n+1)^2}{2(n^2+1)}=\frac{n^2+1-2n}{2(n^2+1)}=\frac{1}{2}-\frac{n}{n^2+1}.$$
Lower Bound for [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">AND</span>]{} {#sec:lb}
=====================================================================
$${\mathcal{E}\left( {\textsc{AND}}_n \right)} \geq \frac{1}{2}-\frac{n}{n^2+1}$$
First, we will restrict the domain of the inputs of the ${\textsc{AND}}_n$ function to bit lists with Hamming weight of $0$, $n-1$ or $n$. It turns out that this promise problem has the same optimal error probability. Consider any quantum algorithm computing ${\textsc{AND}}_n$ with error probability $\epsilon$. Following the familiar reasoning of [@BBC+98] we can write the probability that the algorithm outputs 1 as a sum-of-squares polynomial of degree at most 2: $$\Pr[\text{algorithm outputs }1]=\sum_i{p_i^2(\hat{x}_1, \ldots, \hat{x}_n)}.$$ From Blekherman’s theorem we obtain that by symmetrization there must exist a degree at most 2 univariate polynomial of the form $$p(s)=\sum_i{(a_is+b_i)^2}+(n-s)s\sum_j{c_j^2}$$ such that $$1-\epsilon \leq p(s) \leq 1$$ when $s=|x|=n$ and $$0 \leq p(s) \leq \epsilon$$ when $s=|x|$ and $s\in\{0,n-1\}$.
A geometric representation of the potential regions where $p(s)$ intersects $s=0$, $s=n-1$ and $s=n$ is depicted in Figure \[fig:err\].
(-0.1, 0) – (4.1, 0); (0, -0.1) – (0, 1.1); (0, 0.3) – (4.1, 0.3); (0, 0.7) – (4.1, 0.7); (0.07,0) – (-0.07, 0) node\[anchor=east\] [$0$]{}; (0.05,0.3) – (-0.05, 0.3) node\[anchor=east\] [$\epsilon$]{}; (0.07,0.5) – (-0.07, 0.5) node\[anchor=east\] [$\frac{1}{2}$]{}; (0.05,0.7) – (-0.05, 0.7) node\[anchor=east\] [$1-\epsilon$]{}; (0.07,1) – (-0.07, 1) node\[anchor=east\] [$1$]{};
(0,0.07) – (0, -0.07) node\[anchor=north\] [$0$]{}; (3,0.07) – (3, -0.07) node\[anchor=north\] [$n-1$]{}; (4,0.07) – (4, -0.07) node\[anchor=north\] [$n$]{};
(0,0) – (0,0.3); (3,0) – (3,0.3); (4,0.7) – (4,1);
Clearly, a degree 0 polynomial $p$ — a constant, would produce an error probability $\epsilon=\frac{1}{2}$. Consider a degree 1 polynomial — a straight line. We will apply transformations to the line that do not increase (but may decrease) the error probability it achieves $\epsilon$. First, we stretch the line vertically with respect to the horizontal line $y=\frac{1}{2}$ until it passes through the origin. Then we stretch the line vertically with respect to the horizontal line $y=0$ until it passes through both $(n-1,\epsilon)$ and $(n,1-\epsilon)$. This line has a slope $\frac{\epsilon}{n-1}=\frac{1-\epsilon}{n}$ and so $\epsilon=\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{4n-2}$.
Finally, consider a degree 2 polynomial $p$ — a parabola. If the parabola is concave, we may reason similarly as in the line case, except, the point $(n-1,\epsilon)$ must now be above the line passing through $(0,0)$ and $(n,1-\epsilon)$ and so the error probability is higher. If the parabola is convex, we consider further two cases.
a) If the vertex of the parabola has $s\leq0$, then we perform the same vertical stretchings. Since the parabola now passes through $(0,0)$ we can describe it with an equation $as^2+bs$ where $a>0$. Since the vertex of the parabola has $s\leq 0$, the coefficient $b$ must be non-negative. The smallest $\epsilon$ possible for such parabolas can be described through the system $$\begin{split}
1-\epsilon&=\max_{a,b}{an^2+bn}\quad \text{such that}\\
&\quad\quad\begin{cases}an^2+bn+a(n-1)^2+b(n-1)=1\\
b\geq 0
\end{cases}
\end{split}$$ From the equality we can express $b=\frac{1-a(n^2+(n-1)^2)}{2n-1}$ and hence $a\leq \frac{1}{n^2+(n-1)^2}$. Plugging it all into the objective function we have that $$\begin{split}1-\epsilon &\leq an^2+\frac{n(1-a(n^2+(n-1)^2))}{2n-1}\leq\\
&\leq \frac{n^2}{n^2+(n-1)^2} \leq \frac{(n+1)^2}{2(n^2+1)} = \frac{1}{2}+\frac{n}{n^2+1}
\end{split}$$
b) If the vertex of the parabola has $s\geq 0$ then clearly the vertex has to be in the interval $s\in[0,n]$. Therefore we use the property from Blekherman’s characterization that the polynomial $p(s)$ is non-negative in the interval $s\in[0,n]$, i.e., the term $\sum_i{(a_is+b_i)^2}$ is non-negative everywhere and $(n-s)s\sum_j{c_j^2}$ is non-negative for $s\in[0,n]$. Now we stretch the parabola horizontally with respect to line $s=n$ until $p(0)=p(n-1)$. This will not increase $\epsilon$ and preserve the non-negativity in the interval $s\in[0,n]$. Next we stretch the parabola vertically with respect to line $y=p(n)$ until $p\left(\frac{n-1}{2}\right)=0$. Again, this step does not increase $\epsilon$. Finally, we stretch vertically with respect to $y=0$ until $p(0)=1-p(n)$. The last step preserved the vertex at $(\frac{n-1}{2},0)$ so the parabola has an equation $$p(s)=a\left(s-\frac{n-1}{2}\right)^2.$$ But from the equation $p(0)=1-p(n)$ we obtain $$a\left(\frac{n-1}{2}\right)^2=1-a\left(\frac{n+1}{2}\right)^2;$$ $$a=\frac{2}{n^2+1}.$$ Consequently, $$\epsilon \geq p(0) = \frac{2}{n^2+1}\left(\frac{n-1}{2}\right)^2=\frac{1}{2}-\frac{n}{n^2+1}.$$
Interestingly, the proof only really requires the sum-of-squares characterization when $\frac{n-1}{2}$ is not an integer. The fact that the parabola $p(s)$ is non-negative at $s=\frac{n-1}{2}$ is sufficient.
Proof of Blekherman’s Theorem {#sec:blek}
=============================
In this section we prove Blekherman’s theorem.
\[thm:blek\] Let $q(\hat x)$ be the symmetrization of a polynomial $p^2(\hat x)$ where $p(\hat x)$ is a multilinear polynomial of degree $t\leq \frac{n}{2}$ and $\hat x = (x_1, \ldots, x_n)$. Then, over the Boolean hypercube $\hat{x}\in\{-1,1\}^n$, $$q(\hat x) = \sum_{j=0}^t p_{t-j}(|x|) \left( \prod_{0\leq i < j} (|x|-i) (n-|x|-i) \right)$$ where $p_{t-j}$ is a univariate polynomial that is a sum of squares of polynomials of degree at most $t-j$ and $|x|$ denotes the number of variables $i:\hat x_i=-1$.
Our proof utilizes concepts of representation theory. For a description of the core tools of representation theory that we require refer to the first two chapters of [@Ser77].
Group representation
--------------------
Let $H_\wp$ be a Hilbert space with basis states $\hat x_{S}$ (for all $S\subseteq [n]$) corresponding to monomials $\prod_{i\in S}\hat x_i$. Then, the vectors in $H_\wp$ correspond to multilinear polynomials in variables $\hat x_i$. We consider a group representation of the symmetric group $\mathfrak{S}_n$ on $H_\wp$ with transformations $U_{\pi}$ defined by $U_{\pi}\hat x_{S}=\hat x_{\pi(S)}$. The irreducible representations contained in $H_\wp$ are well known:
Let $S_m(\hat{x}_1, \ldots, \hat{x}_n)=\sum_{i_1, \ldots, i_m} \hat{x}_{i_1} \ldots \hat{x}_{i_m}$ be the $m^{\rm th}$ elementary symmetric polynomial. We use $S_0(\hat{x}_1, \ldots, \hat{x}_n)$ to denote the constant 1.
\[lem:irred\] A subspace $H\subseteq H_\wp$ is irreducible if and only if there exist $b$ and $\alpha_{m}$ for $m= 0, 1, \ldots, n-2b$ such that $H$ is spanned by vectors $\overrightarrow{p}_{i_1, \ldots, j_b}$ corresponding to polynomials $p_{i_1, \ldots, j_b}$ (for all choices of pairwise distinct $i_1, j_1, \ldots, i_b, j_b\in [n]$) where $$p_{i_1, \ldots, j_b}(\hat{x}_1, \ldots, \hat{x}_n) = (\hat{x}_{i_1}-\hat{x}_{j_1}) \ldots (\hat{x}_{i_b}-\hat{x}_{j_b}) \sum_{m=0}^{n-2b} \alpha_m S_m(\hat{x}')$$ and $\hat{x}'\in\{-1, 1\}^{n-2b}$ consists of all $\hat{x}_i$ for $i\in [n]$, $i\notin\{i_1, \ldots, j_b\}$.
See [@Bel15] for a short proof of Lemma \[lem:irred\].
Decomposition of q(x)
---------------------
Let $$p(\hat x_1, \ldots,\hat x_n) = \sum_{S: |S|\leq t} a_S \hat x_S .$$ We associate $p^2(\hat x_1, \ldots, \hat x_n)$ with the matrix $(P_{S_1, S_2})$ with rows and columns indexed by $S\subseteq [n], |S|\leq t$ defined by $P_{S_1, S_2}=a_{S_1} a_{S_2}$. Let $\overrightarrow{x}$ be a column vector consisting of all $\hat x_S$ for $S:|S|\leq t$. Then, $p^2(\hat x_1, \ldots, \hat x_n) = \overrightarrow{x}^T P \overrightarrow{x}$. This means that $P$ is positive semidefinite.
For a permutation $\pi\in \mathfrak{S}_n$, let $P^{\pi}$ be the matrix defined by $$P^{\pi}_{S_1, S_2} = a_{\pi(S_1)} a_{\pi(S_2)}$$ and let $Q=\frac{1}{n!} \sum_{\pi\in \mathfrak{S}_n} P^{\pi}$ be the average of all $P^{\pi}$. Then, $q(\hat x)=\overrightarrow{x}^T Q \overrightarrow{x}$. $Q$ is also positive semidefinite (as a linear combination of positive semidefinite matrices $P^{\pi}$ with positive coefficients).
We decompose $Q=\sum_i \lambda_i Q_i$ with $\lambda_i$ ranging over different non-zero eigenvalues and $Q_i$ being the projectors on the respective eigenspaces. Since $Q$ is positive semidefinite, we have $\lambda_i>0$ for all $i$.
We interpret transformations $U_{\pi}$ as permutation matrices defined by $(U_\pi)_{S, S'}=1$ if $S=\pi(S')$ and $(U_\pi)_{S, S'}=0$ otherwise. Then, we have $$U_{\pi} Q U^{\dagger}_{\pi} = \frac{1}{n!} \sum_{\tau\in \mathfrak{S}_n} U_{\pi} P^{\tau} U^{\dagger}_{\pi} =
\frac{1}{n!} \sum_{\tau\in \mathfrak{S}_n} P^{\pi \tau} = \frac{1}{n!} \sum_{\tau\in \mathfrak{S}_n} P^{\tau} = Q.$$ Since we also have $$U_{\pi} Q U^{\dagger}_{\pi} = \sum_i \lambda_i U_{\pi} Q_i U^{\dagger}_{\pi},$$ we must have $Q_i= U_{\pi} Q_i U^{\dagger}_{\pi}$. This means that $Q_i$ is a projector to a subspace $H_i\subseteq H_\wp$ that is invariant under the action of $\mathfrak{S}_n$. If $H_i$ is not irreducible, we can decompose it into a direct sum of irreducible subspaces $$H_i = H_{i, 1} \oplus H_{i, 2} \oplus \ldots \oplus H_{i, m_i} .$$ Then, we have $Q_i = \sum_{j=1}^{m_i} Q_{i, j}$ where $Q_{i, j}$ is a projector to $H_{i, j}$ and $Q=\sum_{i, j} \lambda_i Q_{i, j}$. This means that we can decompose $q(\hat x)=\sum_{i, j}\lambda_i q_{i, j}(\hat x)$ where $q_{i, j}(\hat x)=\overrightarrow{x}^T Q_{i, j} \overrightarrow{x}$ and it suffices to show the theorem for one polynomial $q_{i, j}(\hat x)$ instead of the whole sum $q(\hat x)$.
Projector to one subspace.
--------------------------
Let $H_{\wp,\ell}\subseteq H_{\wp}$ be an irreducible invariant subspace. We claim that the projection to the subspace $H_{\wp,\ell}$ denoted by $\Pi_{\wp,\ell}$ is of the following form:
$$\Pi_{\wp, \ell} = c\rho_{\wp, \ell} \text{ where }
\rho_{\wp, \ell} =\sum_{i_1, \ldots, j_b} \overrightarrow{p}_{i_1, \ldots, j_b} \overrightarrow{p}^T_{i_1, \ldots, j_b}$$ for some constant $c$.
If we restrict to the subspace $H_{\wp, \ell}$, then $\Pi_{\wp, \ell}$ is just the identity $I$.
On the right hand side, $\rho_{\wp, \ell}$ is mapped to itself by any $U_{\pi}$ (since any $U_{\pi}$ permutes the vectors $\overrightarrow{p}_{i_1, \ldots, j_b}$ in some way). Therefore, all $U_{\pi}$ also map the eigenspaces of $\rho_{\wp, \ell}$ to themselves. This means that, if $\rho_{\wp, \ell}$ has an eigenspace $V\subset H_{\wp, \ell}$, then $U_{\pi}$ acting on $V$ also form a representation of $\mathfrak{S}_n$ but that would contradict $H_{\wp, \ell}$ being an irreducible representation. Therefore, the only eigenspace of $\rho_{\wp, \ell}$ is the entire $H_{\wp, \ell}$. This can only happen if $\rho_{\wp, \ell}$ is $c I$ for some constant $c$.
Final polynomial
----------------
From the previous subsection, it follows that $q_{i, j}(\hat x)$ is a positive constant times $$\sum_{i_1, \ldots, j_b} (\hat{x}_{i_1}-\hat{x}_{j_1})^2 \ldots (\hat{x}_{i_b}-\hat{x}_{j_b})^2 S^2(\hat{x}')$$ where $S(\hat{x}')$ is a symmetric polynomial of degree at most $t-b$. Instead of the sum, we consider the expected value of $(\hat{x}_{i_1}-\hat{x}_{j_1})^2 \ldots (\hat{x}_{i_b}-\hat{x}_{j_b})^2 S^2(\hat{x}')$ when $i_1, \ldots, j_b$ are chosen randomly. (Since the sum and the expected value differ by a constant factor, this is sufficient.)
Terms $(\hat x_{i_k} - \hat x_{j_k})^2$ are nonzero if and only if one of $x_{i_k}$ and $x_{j_k}$ is $1$ and the other is $-1$. Then, for $k=1$, we have $$\Pr\left[\{\hat x_{i_1}, \hat x_{j_1}\} =\{-1, 1\} \right] = \frac{2s(n-s)}{n(n-1)} ,$$ since there are $\frac{n(n-1)}{2}$ possible sets $\{\hat x_{i_1}, \hat x_{j_1}\}$ and $s(n-s)$ of them contain one $1$ and one $-1$. For $k>1$, $$\Pr\left[\{\hat x_{i_k}, \hat x_{j_k}\} =\{-1, 1\} |
\{\hat x_{i_l}, \hat x_{j_l}\} =\{-1, 1\} \mbox{ for } l\in[k-1] \right]$$ $$= \frac{2(s-k+1)(n-s-k+1)}{(n-2k+2)(n-2k+1)} ,$$ since the condition $\{\hat x_{i_l}, \hat x_{j_l}\} =\{-1, 1\}$ for $l\in [k-1]$ means that, among the remaining variables, there are $s-k+1$ variables $\hat x_j=-1$ and $n-s-k+1$ variables $\hat x_j=1$ and $n-2k+2$ variables in total (and, given that, the $k=1$ argument applies). Thus, $$\Pr \left[ \prod_{k=1}^b{(\hat{x}_{i_k}-\hat{x}_{j_k})^2} =1 \right] = \frac{2^b s(s-1) \ldots (s-b+1) (n-s) \ldots (n-s-b+1)}{n(n-1) \ldots (n-2b+1)} .$$ Since $S$ is a symmetric polynomial, we have $S(\hat{x}')=S'(s')$ where $S'$ is a polynomial of one variable $s'$, with $s'$ equal to the number of variables $\hat{x}'_j=-1$. Since there are $b$ variables $\hat{x}_j=-1$ that do not appear in $\hat{x}'$, we have $s'=s-b$. This means that $S'$ can be rewritten as a polynomial in $s$ (instead of $s'$).
Conclusion
==========
In this paper we have shown that $${\mathcal{E}\left( {\textsc{AND}}_n \right)} = {\mathcal{E}\left( {\textsc{EQUALITY}}_{n+1} \right)} = \frac{1}{2}-\frac{n}{n^2+1}.$$ There is a natural way to generalize ${\mathcal{E}\left( f \right)}$ to any fixed number of queries $t$. We may denote it by ${\mathcal{E}_{t}\left( f \right)}$ and have $${\mathcal{E}_{t}\left( f \right)} = \min_{\A:\A\text{ performs }t \text{ queries}} \max_x \Pr[\text{algorithm } \A \text{ does not output }f(x)].$$ From the numerical experiments of [@MJM15] it seems that the connection between ${\textsc{EQUALITY}}_{n+1}$ and ${\textsc{AND}}_n$ goes much deeper.
For all positive integers $t$ and $n$: $${\mathcal{E}_{t}\left( {\textsc{EQUALITY}}_{n+1} \right)}={\mathcal{E}_{t}\left( {\textsc{AND}}_n \right)}.$$
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n${{}^\circ}$ 600700 (QALGO), ERC Advanced Grant MQC, Latvian State Research programme NexIT project No.1.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: |
We study the abelian sandpile model on decorated one dimensional chains. We determine the structure and the asymptotic form of distribution of avalanche-sizes in these models, and show that these differ qualitatively from the behavior on a simple linear chain. We find that the probability distribution of the total number of topplings $s$ on a finite system of size $L$ is not described by a simple finite size scaling form, but by a linear combination of two simple scaling forms $Prob_L(s) = {1 \over L}f_1({s
\over L})+{1 \over L^2}f_2({s \over L^2})$, for large $L$, where $f_1$ and $f_2$ are some scaling functions of one argument.
address: |
Theoretical Physics Group\
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research,\
Homi Bhabha Road, Bombay 400 005, India.
author:
- Agha Afsar Ali and Deepak Dhar
title: Breakdown of Simple Scaling in Abelian Sandpile Models in One Dimension
---
epsf
In recent years there has been a lot of interest in the systems showing self-organized criticality (SOC) [@btwo; @dmo; @po]. However the precise conditions under which the steady state of a driven system shows critical (long range) correlations are not well understood for non-conservative systems [@ofc; @ds; @mt]. In the case of systems with conservation laws [@hk; @gls], for example in sandpile models with local conservation of sand, it is easily shown that the average number of topplings in an avalanche diverges as a power of the system size [@do; @k]. This, however, is not sufficient to ensure criticality, if criticality is defined as the existence of power law tails in the distribution of avalanche sizes [@f1].
Lacking a general theory, most studies of SOC depend upon numerical simulations for evidence of criticality. To incorporate the effect of finite size cut-offs, it is usual to fit data to a finite-size scaling form in which the critical exponents of the infinite system appear as parameters. However, on the basis of extensive numerical studies of one dimensional sandpile automata, Kadanoff and coworkers [@knwz; @cfkkp] have argued that there is more than one characteristic length scale in many of these models. Consequently, a simple finite size scaling does not describe the statistics of avalanches, and a more general ‘multifractal’ scaling form seems necessary.
As the finite-size scaling assumption based on a single scaling form is widely used in the studies of SOC, it seems desirable to test it in a simple analytically tractable model. This we do in this Rapid Communication for a class of one dimensional Abelian Sandpile Models (ASM). We find that for large $L$, the distribution function of duration $t$ of an avalanche, and the number of distinct sites toppled $s_d$ in our model do have a simple scaling form. However, the distribution function of total number of topplings $s$, and of the maximum number of topplings $n_c$ at any one site does [*not*]{} have a simple scaling form, but a more complicated linear combination of two simple scaling forms (LC2SSF) $$Prob_L(X) = L^{-\beta_1} f_1(XL^{-\nu_1}) + L^{-\beta_2} f_2
(XL^{-\nu_2}) ~~~,
\label{eq1}$$ for large $L$, where $\beta_1 = \nu_1 = 0$ and $\beta_2 = \nu_2 = 1$ for $X=n_c$ and $\beta_1 = \nu_1 = 1$ and $\beta_2 = \nu_2 = 2$ for $X=s$, and $f_1$ and $f_2$ are scaling functions, different for $X=s$ and $X=n_c$. We also find that this behaviour is quite robust and does not depend on the choice of the unit cell, but in general the function $f_1$ and $f_2$ are not universal.
The ASM on a simple linear chain has been studied earlier by Bak [*et al*]{} [@btwt], and in more detail by Ruelle and Sen [@rs]. We consider ASM on one dimensional chains formed by joining a single type of unit cells (see Fig. 1). Such decorated chains are the simplest generalization of the linear chain. We have studied two cases in detail. Case A is a chain of alternating double and single bonds. Case B is a chain of diamonds joined together by single bonds. We solve these models exactly in the large $L$ limit, and find that the avalanche distribution function shows a nontrivial behaviour, different from that of the simple linear chain (case C). In fact the behavior of the ASM in case C is not typical of one-dimensional ASM’s.
The model is defined as follows: A site on the chain is denoted by a pair of indices $(i,j)$, where $i=1$ to $L$ labels the unit cell and $j$ numbers a site within the unit cell. In case A $j$ ranges from 1 to 2, and in case B, from 1 to 4. At each site $(i,j)$ there is an integer variable $h_{ij}$, called height of the sandpile at that site. A particle is added at a randomly selected site. If the height $h_{ij}$ is greater than a preassigned threshold height $h_{ij}^c$ at that site it topples, and loses one particle to each of its neighbours. We choose $h^c_{ij}$ to be independent of $i$ and equal to the coordination number of site of type $j$. A toppling at a boundary site causes a loss of one particle from the system. The process of toppling continues until there are no unstable sites. After the system is stabilized a new particle is added.
The critical steady state is easy to characterize using the general theory of ASM’s [@do]. In the steady state all recurrent configurations occur with equal probability. The set of recurrent configurations is characterized by the burning algorithm (see [@dmo], also [@s]). In the burning algorithm, the sites can be burnt in any order. We choose the convention that the burning starts from the left boundary and continues rightward as long as possible. The unit cell where the rightward burning stops will be called the break point. Afterwards, the burning is allowed to proceed leftwards from the right boundary. It is easy to see that in a recurrent configuration of model A, the allowed values of $(h_{i1},h_{i2})$, for $i$ on the left of the break point, are $(3,3)$ and $(3,2)$. For $i$ on the right of the break point these are $(3,3)$ and $(2,3)$ and at the break point these are $(2,3)$, $(3,1)$ and $(1,3)$. Since each doublet other than the break point has only two possible configurations, the entropy per site, defined as the logarithm of the total number of recurrent configurations divided by the number of sites, is finite and equal $\ln(2) / 2$ in the large $L$ limit. For the simple linear chain, the entropy per site in the SOC state is zero. This fact is responsible for its non-generic behavior.
To the left (right) of the break point the left (right) site of a doublet always has height 3, and the probability of right (left) site of a doublet having height 2 and 3 is $1 \over 2$ each. The break point can occur at any of the L doublets with equal probability. Averaging over the position of the break point, this implies that the probabilities of the left site of $i\,th$ doublet having height 2 and 3 are $i/ (2L)$ and $1-i/ (2L)$ respectively. Similarly the probabilities of the right site of a doublet having height 2 and 3 are ${1\over2}(1-i/L)$ and ${1\over2}(1+i/L)$ respectively. Thus the average height profile in the SOC state varies linearly with $i$ in case A, and the SOC state is [*not translationally invariant even far away from the boundaries*]{}. This feature is not present in case C.
Now we describe the spread of the avalanche in model A, which again differs qualitatively from case C. Without loss of generality we may assume that the point where the particle is added to be called the source site, is to the left of the break point. Then clearly, if the configuration of the doublet left to it is $(3,2)$, the avalanche does not spread to the left and propagates a distance of order $L$ upto the break point on the right. Each site affected by the avalanche topples only once, and the total number of topplings in an avalanche is of order $L$. Such an avalanche is said to be of type I. The probability of such avalanches is $1\over 4$. One can easily check that otherwise the avalanche propagates a distance of order $L$ on both sides of the source point. In such avalanches $n_c$ is of order $L$, and the total number of toppling in an avalanche is of order $L^2$. Such an avalanche is said to be of type II (see Fig. 2). As the probability that the addition of particle will cause an avalanche is $3 \over 4$, the fractional number of avalanches of type I is $1\over 3$.
The probability distributions of total number of toppling $s$, total number of distinct sites toppled $s_d$, duration $t$, and the number of times the source site topples $n_c$, for type I avalanche can be calculated easily. It is convenient to work with the scaled variable $\alpha \equiv {i \over L}$ and $\beta \equiv {j \over L}$, such that $\alpha,~\beta\in [0,1]$, where $i$ and $j$ are the position of source point and break point on the chain respectively. It can be easily verified that for type I avalanche $s$, $s_d$ and $t = 2(\beta -
\alpha)L$. Thus the probability distribution of $s/L$, $s_d/L$ and $t/L$ for given $\alpha$ and $\beta$ for type I has a delta function at $2(\beta -\alpha)$. Using the fact that $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are independent random variables uniformly distributed between 0 and 1, averaging over $\alpha$ and $\beta$ we find for type I avalanches $$Prob_L(X | \hbox{type I}) = [1 - X/( 2L)]/L ~,~~~\hbox{for}~~~X\leq 2L~~,
\label{eqn2}$$ where $X=s,s_d,t$. In type I avalanches any site topples at most once so $n_c = 1$.
The type II avalanches show a much complicated and interesting structure. The avalanche fronts, i.e. the left and right boundary sites of the active region at any time, do not move uniformly in time, the spreading rate depends on the local height configuration. However, for distances $>> 1$, one can define an average velocity. The analysis of these avalanches become easy using the decomposition of avalanches into waves of toppling proposed by Ivashkevich [*et al*]{} [@iv]. In each wave of toppling the source site topples only once and all other sites topple until they are stable. Waves of toppling propagate in exactly the same way as the burning front in burning algorithm. Thus a unit cell which cannot be fully burnt from the left (right) side stops a wave propagating towards left (right), and is modified so that next wave may cross it. We refer to such configurations as left (right) stoppers. The stoppers slow down the spreading of avalanches. Obviously the first wave propagates upto the break point with a velocity 1 site per time-step. To calculate the velocity towards left from the source point we note that (a) doublet of type $(3,3)$ is crossed in 2 time steps and (b) doublet of type (3,2) is crossed in 4 time steps because it stops the first wave approaching to it and it is crossed in 2 time steps by the next wave which follows after 2 time steps of the previous wave. Thus the average time taken by the avalanche front to cross a doublet is 3, which implies the average velocity is $2\over 3$ sites per time-step. Similarly one can show that if the avalanche crosses the break point on the right it will advance with an average velocity which is also $2\over 3$ sites per time steps. The velocity with which avalanche front recedes backwards after it has hit the boundary is $2\over 3$. Details will be presented elsewhere.
Since the avalanche front moves with an average velocity, it forms a polygon in the space time history of the avalanche (see Fig. 2) [@f2]. The number of sides in the polygon depend on the position of the source point $\alpha$ and break point $\beta$ and on whether the break point is crossed by the avalanche or not. For example if $\beta >\alpha > 5\beta/6$ and the break point is not crossed then the polygon has only four edges. If $1-6\alpha
>\beta > \alpha$, and the break point is crossed then the polygon has 6 edges. There are seven possible cases of polygons which need to be analysed separately. Quantities like $s_d$, $t$ and $n_c$ which are proportional to the linear size of the polygon scale as $L$, and $s$ which goes as area of the polygon scale as $L^2$. The expressions of scaled variables $s/L^2$, $s_d/L$, $t/L$ and $n_c/L$ can be easily evaluated in terms of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ for each case. The probability distribution functions for given $\alpha$ and $\beta$ is a sum of two delta functions corresponding to the cases whether the break point is crossed by the avalanche or not. Averaging over $\alpha$ and $\beta$ we find $$Prob_L\,(q|\hbox{type II}) = \sum_{i=1,2}\int_0^1\int_0^1\,d\alpha \,
d\beta \,\, C_i\delta
\left ( q - q_i (\alpha ,\beta)\right )
\label{eqn4}$$ where $q$ is the generic notation for $s/L^2$, $s_d/L$, $t/L$ and $n_c/L$, $C_1=1/3$ is the probability that the a type II avalanche crosses the break point and $C_2=2/3$ is the probability that it does not cross the break point, and $q_1$ and $q_2$ denote expressions of $q$ in terms of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ in the two cases. The full explicit expression is quite complicated and will be presented elsewhere.
However, some of the important features of the distribution function can be understood by simple arguments. Since $s_d$ is the extension of the polygon along horizontal axis, $s_d/L$ is a linear function of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ in each of the seven cases. Hence the probability distribution of $s_d/L$ is a piece wise linear function. The same argument works for $t$ and $n_c$ also. The total number of topplings $s$ is proportional to the area of the polygon. Therefore, $s/L^2$ is a quadratic function of $\alpha$ and $\beta$. The probability distribution in this case is quite complicated and diverges as $(s/ L^2)^{-1/2}$ for small $(s/ L^2)$.
Summing over the contribution coming from type I avalanches (equation (\[eqn2\])) and type II avalanches (equation (\[eqn4\])) we obtain the full probability distributions. Since $n_c$ and $s$ scale differently for type I and type II avalanches the distributions of these quantities have the form given in equation (\[eq1\]). Other quantities like $s_d$ and $t$ scale as $L$ for both types of avalanches. Therefore, the distribution of $s_d$ and $t$ have a simple scaling form.
The treatment is easily extended to other types of unit cells also. For example in case B the unit cell is a diamond. In this case also, an avalanche always spreads upto the break point. The spread of avalanches to the other side will be either of order $L$ or of order 1. Thus again, there are two types of avalanches. A detailed calculation shows that these occur with relative frequencies $5:8$ on the average. While the velocities of avalanche front are different in this case, the probability distribution functions for both type I and type II avalanches have the same qualitative features irrespective of the velocities. For type I avalanches, $t \sim s_d
\sim (\beta-\alpha)L$ to order $L$. Thus probability distribution of $s_d$ and $t$ have same linear form as in model A, while the slope depends on the velocities. The variable $n_c$ has the probability distribution $Prob(n_c) \sim 2^{-n_c}$. As $s \sim n_c(\beta
-\alpha)L$, this implies that the scaling function $f_1$ in Eq. (\[eq1\]), is a piecewise linear function with many segments. For type II avalanches the space time history of active sites forms a polygon exactly like in model A, except that the slope of edges of the polygon depend on the velocities. Therefore the probability distributions have same qualitative behaviour as in model A. However the exact form of functions $f_1$ and $f_2$ are not same in case A and B, and these functions are [*not universal*]{}. In case C, there are no avalanches of type I, and the simple scaling ansatz works [@rs].
In the multifractal approach one defines the function $f(\alpha)$ by the relation that an avalanche of size $X = L^\alpha$ occurs with a probability which scales as $L^{f(\alpha)}$, for large $L$. The exponent $f(\alpha)$ defined as $\lim_{L\ra\infty}\log(Prob_L(X)/\log(L))$ is a continuous function of the $\alpha$. For our abelian model it is easy to see from Eq. (\[eq1\]) that $f(\alpha)$ is a monotonically decreasing piecewise linear function for $X=s$ (see Fig. 3). We have also shown results of a computer simulation of the model for $L=100$ for $2 \times 10^5$ avalanches. Also shown is the theoretical curve using the Eq. (\[eq1\]) for $L = 100$ (dotted line) and $L= \infty$ (solid line). Clearly there is a very good agreement with simulation data. We note that The $f$ versus $\alpha$ curve is quite similar to that obtained in [@cfkkp] and that approach to $L\ra \infty$ limit is quite slow.
As the LC2SSF involves only a finite number of unknown parameters, its use when simple scaling fails is preferable over the more general multifractal form. We also note that we find the breakdown of simple scaling without appearance of two different length scales in our model.
Similar behaviour may be expected in other one dimensional models. For example, for ASM on $L\times M$ cylinder $L>>M>>1$, we expect three types of avalanches: type I and II, and finite avalanches of size $<M$, which do not ring the cylinder, and are two dimensional in character. This shows that a LC3SSF would describe this situation. It remains to be seen whether this behavior survives in higher dimensions or it is specific to one dimensional models.
To summarize, we have determined an exact asymptotic finite size scaling behaviour of the distribution of avalanche sizes in the abelian sandpile model on a class of decorated one dimensional chains. We find that in these models the SOC state is not translationally invariant, and the probability distribution of $s$ and $n_c$ unlike the simple linear chain is described by a linear combination of two simple scaling forms, and not by simple scaling form.
We thank M. Barma and G. Menon for a critical reading of the manuscript.
[99]{} P. Bak, C. Tang and K. Wiesenfeld, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**59**]{}, 381 (1987). S. N. Majumdar and D. Dhar, Physica A [**185**]{}, 129 (1992). V. B. Priezzhev, J. Stat. Phys. [**74**]{}, 955 (1994). Z. Olami, H. J. S. Feder,K. Christensen,Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{} 1927 (1990). B. Drossel and F. Schwabl, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 1629 (1992). A. A. Middleton and C. Tang Preprint NEC Research Institute, Princeton. T. Hwa and M. Kardar, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**62**]{} 1813 (1989). G. Grinstein, D. H. Lee, and S. Sachdev,Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 1927 (1990). D. Dhar, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 1613 (1990). J. Krug, J. Stat. Phys. [**66**]{}, 1635 (1992). For an example, see S. C. Lee, N. Y. Liang and W. J. Tzeng,Phys. Rev. Lett.,[**64**]{} 1927(1990). L. P. Kadanoff, S. R. Nagel, L. Wu and S. M. Zhou, Phys. Rev. A [**39**]{}, 6524 (1989). A. B. Chhabra, M. J. Feigenbaum, L. P. Kadanoff, A. J. Kolan and I. Procaccia, Phys. Rev. E, [**47**]{}, 3099 (1993). P. Bak, C. Tang and K. Wiesenfeld, Phys. Rev. A [**38**]{} 364 (1988). P. Ruelle and S. Sen, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**25**]{}, L1257 (1992). E. R. Speer, J. Stat. Phys. [**71**]{}, 61 (1993). E. V. Ivashkevich, D. V. Ktitarev and V. B. Priezzhev, Physica A [**209**]{}, 347 (1994). We ignore here the deviation from straightness in the sides of the “polygons”, as these are of order $\sqrt{l}$, where $l$ is the length of the side.
[**Captions**]{}
Figure 1: The one dimensional chains formed by joining (A) doublets, (B) diamonds, (C) single sites.
Figure 2: The evolution of (a) type I avalanche, (b) type II avalanche in model A. The filled rectangle denotes a toppling event.
Figure 3: The $\log-\log$ plot of $Prob(s)$ vs $s$. The solid line shows the exact asymptotic behaviour for $L \rightarrow \infty$, and the dotted line shows the theoretical curve for $L = 100$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- |
Lingjie Duan, Lin Gao, Jianwei Huang\
Department of Information Engineering, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong\
email: {dlj008, lgao, jwhuang}@ie.cuhk.edu.hk
title: 'Contract-Based Cooperative Spectrum Sharing'
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Fourier-like summation of several grid cell modules with different spatial frequencies in the medial entorhinal cortex (MEC) has long been proposed to form the contours of place firing fields. Recent experiments largely, but not completely, support this theory. Place fields are obviously expanded by inactivation of dorsal MEC, which fits the hypothesis. However, contrary to the prediction, inactivation of ventral MEC is also weakly broaden the spatial place firing patterns. In this study, we derive the model from grid spatial frequencies represented by Gaussian profiles to a 1D place field by Bayesian inference, and further provide completely theoretical explanations for expansion of place fields and predictions for alignments of grid components. To understand the information transform across between neocortex, entorhinal cortex, and hippocampus, we propose spatial memory indexing theory from hippocampal indexing theory to investigate how neural dynamics work in the entorhinal-hippocampal circuit. The inputs of place cells in CA3 are converged from three grid modules with different grid spacings layer II of MEC by Bayesian mechanism. We resort to the robot system to test Fourier hypothesis and spatial memory indexing theory, and validate our proposed entorhinal-hippocampal model. And then we demonstrate its cognitive mapping capability on the KITTI odometry benchmark dataset. Results suggest that our model provides a rational theoretical explanation for the biological experimental results. Results also show that the proposed model is robust for simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) in the large-scale environment. Our proposed model theoretically supports for Fourier hypothesis in a general Bayesian mechanism, which may pertain to other neural systems in addition to spatial cognition.'
author:
- 'Taiping Zeng, XiaoLi Li, and Bailu Si [^1][^2][^3][^4]'
bibliography:
- 'IEEEabrv.bib'
- 'fourier.bib'
title: 'Bayesian Integration of Multi-resolutional Grid Codes for Spatial Cognition'
---
Fourier Hypothesis, Hippocampus, Medial Entorhinal Cortex, Place Cells, Grid Cells, Attractor Dynamics, Bayesian Inference, Cognitive Map.
Introduction {#sec:Intro}
============
cognition and navigation are critical for the survival of mammals, which give them impressive capabilities to explore and navigate in an unknown environment. An internal mental map-like representation, called cognitive map [@tolman_cognitive_1948], has long been hypothesized to guide mammals to learn spatial information and perform space-dependent cognitive tasks, like exploration, map building, localization, path planning, etc. The following discovery of place cells supports the idea of cognitive map [@okeefe_hippocampus_1971; @okeefe_hippocampal_1978]. When a single neuron of the hippocampus is recorded in the brain of freely moving rats, place cell fires when the rat is within a confined region of the environment. Head direction cells (HD cells), discovered in various brain regions, only fire when the head of rats faces a particular direction, which is thought to be as a compass to provide directional information [@taube_head-direction_1990; @taube2007head]. In the medial entorhinal cortex (MEC), upstream of the hippocampus, grid cells are characterized by multiple firing fields arranged in a strikingly regular, triangular, grid-like pattern spanning the whole environment explored by mammals [@hafting_microstructure_2005]. The spacing of grid-like pattern increases from dorsal to ventral in the MEC to represent environments with different scales [@hafting_microstructure_2005; @sargolini_conjunctive_2006]. Obviously, grid cells and place cells in the entorhinal-hippocampal circuits play an essential role in spatial cognition and navigation.
However, the underlying mechanism that place cells are formed from grid cells is yet to be elucidated. It is obviously possible that grid cells provide spatial inputs to generate place firing fields. In the dentate gyrus, i.e. the input region of the hippocampus, the place responses may be formed during the process of self-organized plasticity from the superficial layers of the entorhinal cortex [@rolls2006entorhinal]. Competitive Hebbian learning rules are applied to generate connections from grid cells in layer II of MEC to granule cells in the dentate gyrus [@si2009role; @monaco2011modular]. Meanwhile, grid cells in the layer II/III of MEC also project to the CA3 and CA1 region of hippocampus[@deng2010new; @kitamura2015entorhinal]. The grid cells in the superficial layers of the entorhinal cortex are the main cortex inputs to the hippocampus, which leads researchers to propose that hippocampal place fields may generated through a Fourier synthesis mechanism [@solstad_grid_2006; @mcnaughton_path_2006]. Place fields form by linear summation of grid firing patterns with a common central peak, but different grid spacing and orientation. As the wavelength of grid patterns is different, the grid patterns enhance the central peak and cancel others [@moser_place_2015].
Recently, neurobiological experiments largely, but not completely, support the Fourier hypothesis [@kubie_spatial_2015; @ormond_place_2015]. In this hypothesis, the contours of firing fields are molded by the spatial frequencies from several grid cell modules. The experiment is performed by inactivating grid inputs at multiple sites along the dorsoventral axis of MEC, and at the same time, neurons in areas CA3 and CA1 in the dorsal half of the hippocampus are recored [@ormond_place_2015]. According to the prediction of the Fourier hypothesis, inactivation of dorsal MEC should cause place field expansion, whereas inactivation of ventral MEC should cause place field contraction. Experiments show that inactivation of dorsal MEC indeed expanded the place field; however, contrary to the prediction, inactivation of ventral MEC not only is unable to narrow the place field, but also has a weak tendency to broaden the place filed [@ormond_place_2015]. Ormond and McNaughton suggest that inactivation of part of MEC decreases the self-motion signal to drive all grid cells. Thus, inactivation of part of MEC can alway expand the place firing fields. Kubi and Fox propose an alternative explanation that due to the large size of discrete $\sim$1.7-fold steps [@stensola_entorhinal_2012], the place field is determined by the highest frequency, whereas the low-frequency determines the location of the place field in the high-frequency cycle, but not the shape of the place field [@kubie_spatial_2015].
Still, there is no conclusive explanation about the place field expansion in both the inactivation of the dorsal and ventral part of MEC yet. Also, there lacks theoretical supports for this experimental phenomenon based on the Fourier hypothesis.
In this paper, following anatomical connectivity and cognitive functions, we model the entorhinal-hippocampal circuit to explore spatial navigation and episodic memory during the process of animal navigation. We first derive the model of place cells from different grid spatial frequencies on a general Bayesian mechanism to explain the expansion of place fields and predict alignments of grid components. Then, to account for the whole organization of spatial navigation and episodic memory, spatial memory indexing theory is proposed to describe the information transform across between neocortex, entorhinal cortex, and hippocampus. We organically present that the MEC receives the input of motion and direction, after path integration, and relay to the hippocampus, when the brain experiences a new episode. The hippocampus serves as an index project to the visual cortex via Lateral Entorhinal Cortex (LEC) to activate stored visual episodic memory. When the brain experiences a familiar episode, the stored visual episodic memory leads to find the index in the hippocampus. Further, the hippocampus projects back to the entorhinal cortex to calibrate the presentation of path integration. Moreover, based on our proposed theory, we model the entorhinal-hippocampal circuit. The robot system is utilized to test Fourier hypothesis and spatial memory indexing theory. We validate our entorhinal-hippocampal model on the KITTI odometry benchmark dataset. The results demonstrate the cognitive mapping capability of our system in a large-scale environment. It also further provides beneficial supports for the Fourier hypothesis by Bayesian inference.
The contribution of this paper is three-folded. First, we strongly support the Fourier hypothesis on a general Bayesian mechanism to explain the expansion of place fields and predict the alignment of grid components. Our derived theoretical model can explain dorsal parts of the MEC causes a broadening of the spatial tuning of place cells; also, inactivating the ventral MEC produces a weak tendency to broaden their spatial firing patterns of place cells [@ormond_place_2015]. We also validate that the high-frequency grid patterns are able to create activity bump on the broad low-frequency bump. The location of the firing field is determined by the low-frequency components, but the shape of the place field is determined by the high-frequency components [@kubie_spatial_2015]. Also, the Fourier-like summation of inputs must align the grid inputs firstly [@mcnaughton_path_2006; @solstad_grid_2006]. Our Bayesian inference allows a little shift during alignment of grid inputs. The terrible alignment would degenerate the place field, but our model is tolerant for minor shift and still provides necessary information for spatial cognition. Second, we propose the spatial memory indexing theory to interpret the intrinsic organization of spatial navigation and episodic memory as a whole, and describe the information transform across between neocortex (visual cortex and vestibular cortex), entorhinal cortex (medial entorhinal cortex and lateral entorhinal cortex), and hippocampus (CA3 and CA1). Third, our proposed entorhinal-hippocampal model is successfully implemented and demonstrated for robot navigation in the large-scale environment, based on the benchmark datasets.
Fourier Hypothesis by Bayesian Inference {#sec:fourierBayes}
========================================
According to experimental results and further interpretations [@ormond_place_2015; @kubie_spatial_2015], we propose a computational model to parse contradiction about the prediction of hypothesis. We further improve the Fourier hypothesis that place firing fields can be molded from the spatial frequencies of grid cells by Bayesian inference, not by summation [@solstad_grid_2006].
Derivation
----------
Grid cells are able to generate remarkable triangular lattice patterns in the explored environment [@hafting_microstructure_2005]. Each grid module can be described by its grid scale, orientation, and phase. The grid scale is thought to be the reciprocal of the grid spatial frequency. The grid scales increase in discrete steps from dorsal to ventral of MEC [@stensola_entorhinal_2012].
![Bayesian Inference from spatial grid frequencies with Gaussian profiles to 1D place field.[]{data-label="fig_bayesFourierDerivation"}](img/BayesFourierDerivation.eps){width="3in"}
{width="5in"}
Here, we simplify 2D grid firing patterns to 1D periodic firing patterns for the explanation of the generation of the place field. Two 1D periodic firing patterns are shown in Fig. \[fig\_bayesFourierDerivation\]. The bottom panel shows a simple bump with a larger grid scale corresponding to the ventral of MEC, called ventral firing pattern. The ventral firing pattern is supposed to satisfy the Gaussian profile given by $$\begin{split}
\displaystyle
f(x | \mu, \sigma_1^2) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\sigma_1^2}} \exp(-\frac{(x-\mu)^2}{2\sigma_1^2}).
\end{split}$$ The ventral firing pattern can be considered to be an encoding of the current locations of the rodent in the neural manifold. The ventral firing pattern describes an estimation of the current location by the activity bump in one grid module, in which $\mu$ is the center of the bump, and $\sigma_1$ describes the broadness of the bump.
The firing pattern in the top panel is with smaller grid scale corresponding to the dorsal of MEC, termed dorsal firing pattern. The dorsal firing pattern is described by the superposition of three Gaussian profiles, which can be defined as $$\begin{split}
\displaystyle
f(x | \mu - \delta, \sigma_2^2) + f(x | \mu, \sigma_2^2) + f(x | \mu + \delta, \sigma_2^2).
\end{split}$$ This dorsal firing pattern can be thought to estimate the current location of the rodent in three potential locations $\mu - \delta$, $\mu$, and $\mu + \delta$ with same probability described by $\sigma_2$.
For further exploring generation of the place field, we propose an interaction between two grid modules similar in Bayesian manner. For the ventral firing pattern, the distribution can be denoted as $p(g_1 | \theta)$, which means the estimation by grid pattern number $1$ given a location $\theta$. For the dorsal firing pattern, three different location distributions can be denoted as $p(g_{2a} | \theta)$, $p(g_{2b} | \theta)$, $p(g_{2c} | \theta)$. For each location estimation, there is a Bayesian interaction with other location estimation in different grid modules. After interaction, in Fig. \[fig\_bayesFourierDerivation\], three temporal new Gaussian distributions, the probability density of $p(g_{12a} | \theta) = p(g_{1} | \theta)p(g_{2a} | \theta)$, $p(g_{12b} | \theta) = p(g_{1} | \theta)p(g_{2b} | \theta)$, $p(g_{12c} | \theta)=p(g_{1} | \theta)p(g_{2c} | \theta)$ can be respectively described by $$\begin{split}
\displaystyle
&f(x | (\frac{\mu}{\sigma_1^2} + \frac{\mu - \delta}{\sigma_2^2})\,\frac{\sigma_{1}^{2}\sigma_{2}^{2}}{\sigma_{1}^{2} + \sigma_{2}^{2}}, \frac{\sigma_{1}^{2}\sigma_{2}^{2}}{\sigma_{1}^{2} + \sigma_{2}^{2}}), \\
&f(x | (\frac{\mu}{\sigma_1^2} + \frac{\mu }{\sigma_2^2})\,\frac{\sigma_{1}^{2}\sigma_{2}^{2}}{\sigma_{1}^{2} + \sigma_{2}^{2}}, \frac{\sigma_{1}^{2}\sigma_{2}^{2}}{\sigma_{1}^{2} + \sigma_{2}^{2}}), \\
&f(x | (\frac{\mu}{\sigma_1^2} + \frac{\mu + \delta}{\sigma_2^2})\,\frac{\sigma_{1}^{2}\sigma_{2}^{2}}{\sigma_{1}^{2} + \sigma_{2}^{2}}, \frac{\sigma_{1}^{2}\sigma_{2}^{2}}{\sigma_{1}^{2} + \sigma_{2}^{2}}).
\end{split}$$ Furthermore, the posterior distribution of location phase is given by $$\begin{split}
\displaystyle
p(\theta | g_{12}) = p(g_{12a} | \theta)\,p(g_{12b} | \theta)\,p(g_{12c} | \theta)\,p(\theta),
\end{split}$$ where, $p(\theta | g_{12})$ is probabilistic distribution of location given two grid firing patterns. Considering there is no prior knowledge available, $p(\theta)$ is uniform. The posterior probability can be rewritten as $$\begin{split}
\displaystyle
p(\theta | g_{12}) = p(g_{12a} | \theta)\,p(g_{12b} | \theta)\,p(g_{12c} | \theta).
\end{split}$$
Considering the number of activity bumps as a scaler factor to sharpness of the place firing field, the probabilistic density of the posterior probability $p(\theta | g_{12})$ can be further described by $$\begin{split}
\displaystyle
&f(x | \mu, \frac{\sigma_1^2 \sigma_2^2}{\sigma_1^2 + \sigma_2^2}).
\end{split}
\label{eq:bayesFourierIntegration}$$ The final posterior probability $p(\theta | g_{12})$ is thought to describe the place field from the two patterns, namely, the ventral pattern and the dorsal pattern.
Given there exist multiple bumps to represent the current location, a scaler equal to the number of bumps is added to normalize the bump sharpness of place cells. The sharpness of the place field is described by the reciprocal of the scaled variance, i.e., $\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma_1^2} +\frac{1}{\sigma_2^2}$. Actually, the sharpness of grid patterns in the dorsal pattern is highly larger that the sharpness in the ventral pattern. The sharpness of the place field is largely determined by $\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma_2^2}$, and the center of the activity bump is determined by $\mu$.
Expansion of Place Fields
-------------------------
![Place fields generated by grid alignments through Bayesian inference.[]{data-label="fig_bayesFourierAlignment"}](img/BayesFourierAlignment.eps){width="2.0in"}
Following the explanation of the place firing fields forming from the grid spatial frequencies [@kubie_spatial_2015], we further explain the results not consistent with the prediction of the hypothesis. As described in the results, inactivating the dorsal part of the MEC strongly, reliably broadens the spatial tuning of place cells; however, inactivating the ventral part weakly causes a broadening of the spatial tuning of place cells.
We firstly interpret the place field expansion after inactivation of MEC in [@ormond_place_2015], shown in Fig. \[fig\_bayesFourierExpansion\]. From ventral to dorsal of MEC, the broadness of grid frequencies can be described by Gaussian standard deviation, i.e. $\sigma_1, \sigma_2,\sigma_3,\sigma_4$, and the broadness of grid spatial frequencies also meets the condition, namely $\sigma_1 > \sigma_2 > \sigma_3 > \sigma_4$. For the contour of 1D place field with red color, as all parts of MEC are activated, the broadness of the red place field can be described as $$\begin{split}
\displaystyle
\sigma_{red} = \sqrt{\frac{1}{\frac{1}{\sigma_1^2}+\frac{1}{\sigma_2^2}+\frac{1}{\sigma_3^2}+\frac{1}{\sigma_4^2}}}.
\end{split}$$ After ventral MEC inactivation, the ventral spatial frequency of grid cells is missing. Then the broadness of green place field can be described as $$\begin{split}
\displaystyle
\sigma_{green} = \sqrt{\frac{1}{\frac{1}{\sigma_2^2}+\frac{1}{\sigma_3^2}+\frac{1}{\sigma_4^2}}}.
\end{split}$$ The yellow place field loses the dorsal MEC input, given by $$\begin{split}
\displaystyle
\sigma_{yellow} = \sqrt{\frac{1}{\frac{1}{\sigma_1^2}+\frac{1}{\sigma_2^2}+\frac{1}{\sigma_3^2}}}.
\end{split}$$
After dorsal and ventral inactivation of MEC, place spatial firing patterns are broadened. Compared with the activation of all MEC (the red place field), inactivation of the dorsal part of MEC strongly expands the place field firing pattern (the yellow place field), which can be clearly seen from Fig. \[fig\_bayesFourierExpansion\]. Further, the broadness of the yellow place field ($\sigma_{yellow}$) is obviously larger than the red one ($\sigma_{red}$), since the grid component ($\sigma_1$) with highest spatial frequency is missing.
For the inactivation of ventral MEC, as the grid component of ventral MEC has the lowest spatial frequency, the green place field is weakly expanded, compared with the activation of all MEC (the red place field). After the ventral grid component ($\sigma_4$) is missing, the green place field ($\sigma_{green}$) is also larger than the red one. However, as the grid frequency of dorsal MEC is larger than the grid frequency of ventral MEC, the green place field ($\sigma_{green}$) with inactivation of ventral MEC is relatively larger than the yellow place field ($\sigma_{yellow}$) with inactivation of dorsal MEC.
To be brief, any parts of MEC are missing, which leads place cells to broaden the place firing field. Since the shape of the place field is largely determined by the high-frequency grid components, inactivation of dorsal MEC (high-frequency grid components) strongly broadens the place firing field, whereas inactivation of ventral MEC (low-frequency grid components) only has a weak tendency to broaden the place field.
Alignment of Grid Components
----------------------------
{width="5in"}
Since some noises may exist during path integration by grid cells in the MEC, centers of the grid activity bump in all grid modules are very likely to sit in a different position with a relatively small offset. If all grid components are not aligned together, the Fourier-like summation can not completely interpret the formation of the place firing field from grid spatial frequencies. Our computational model is also proposed to predict the alignment of grid frequency components.
According to our previous model, without offset between two bump centers of grid modules, the place field is generated by Bayesian inference shown in Fig. \[fig\_bayesFourierAlignment\]A. However, if the bump center of higher grid frequency component is not consistent with the bum center of lower one, the small offset $\Delta$ is existed, shown in Fig. \[fig\_bayesFourierAlignment\]B. The grid firing pattern of ventral MEC can be described by a Gaussian profile denoted by $f(x | \mu, \sigma_1^2)$. The dorsal firing pattern can be denoted by $f(x | \mu - \Delta, \sigma_2^2)$. Here, the ventral firing pattern is greatly larger than the dorsal one, i.e. $\sigma_1 >> \sigma_2$. According to Bayesian mechanism, the new place firing pattern can be given by $$\begin{split}
\displaystyle
f(x | \mu_p, \sigma^2_p),
\end{split}$$ where, the broadness of place field is proportional to the Gaussian standard deviation $\displaystyle \sigma_p = \sqrt{\frac{1}{\frac{1}{\sigma_1^2} + \frac{1}{\sigma_2^2}}}$. The center of place bump activity $\mu_p$ can be given by $$\begin{split}
\displaystyle
\mu_p = (\frac{\mu - \Delta}{\sigma_1^2} + \frac{\mu}{\sigma_2^2})\cdot\frac{1}{\frac{1}{\sigma_1^2} + \frac{1}{\sigma_2^2}}.
\end{split}$$ Since $\sigma_1 >> \sigma_2$, $\mu_p$ is determined by $\mu$. Then $\mu_p \approx \mu$.
When all grid frequency components are aligned, shown in Fig. \[fig\_bayesFourierAlignment\]A, the high-frequency grid component creates a place activity bump on the broad low-frequency peak. In other words, the low-frequency grid component determines which high-frequency cycle creates the place firing field. However, the shape of the place field is determined by the high-frequency grid component [@kubie_spatial_2015]. When the bump centers of grid frequency components have a small offset each other, shown in Fig. \[fig\_bayesFourierAlignment\]B, our proposed model also suggests that the low-frequency grid component determines which high-frequency cycle creates the place firing field and the high-frequency grid component determines the shape of place field. But the precise location of the place field approximates to the peak of the select high-frequency cycle, not the peak of low-frequency grid component.
Simply put, the low-frequency grid component gives the rough location of place field, namely in which high-frequency cycle, whereas the high-frequency grid component determines the precise location (the peak of the selected high-frequency cycle) and the shape of place field.
The Neurobiological Entorhinal-Hippocampal Model
================================================
Spatial Memory Indexing Theory
------------------------------
The hippocampal indexing theory has been proposed to account for episodic memory based on the intrinsic organization, synaptic physiology and cognitive functions of the hippocampus, as well as its anatomical connections to other regions of the brain [@teyler_hippocampal_1986; @teyler_hippocampal_2007]. The hippocampus can serve as an index to activate the stored activity patterns in the neocortical regions, and thus retrieve the episodic memory.
To further illustrate the mechanism of spatial cognition and navigation, we propose the spatial memory indexing theory based on the hippocampal indexing theory, shown in Fig. \[fig\_spatialMemoryIndexingTheory\]. To simplify this process, we would not further incorporate the pattern separation function of the dentate gyrus (DG) in this research, and focus on the hippocampal pathway (EC-CA3-CA1-EC) [@deng2010new].
When the brain experiences an episode, sensory cues are fed forward via thalamus to neocortex in parallel. Different areas of neocortex are activated corresponding to that experience, like the visual cortex for the visual cues in our study. Visual episodic memory is represented by local view cells in the visual cortex. Vestibular cues in the vestibular cortex provide movement information to the medial entorhinal cortex. Path integration is performed by conjunctive grid-by-velocity cells in the layer III, V and VI of MEC. The output layer of MEC, layer II, is projected via the DG onto CA3 in the hippocampus, and layer II of MEC is also directly connected to CA3 region. Then one representation is created as an index in CA3. Neurons in CA3 could perform pattern completion from partial cues through neural attractor dynamics due to the dense reciprocal connections. Layer III of MEC also projects directly to CA1 where a second representation is created [@teyler_hippocampal_2007; @deng2010new; @kitamura2015entorhinal]. Neurons in CA3 are connected to pyramidal cells in CA1 through schaffer collateral axons. Since neurons in CA3 and CA1 regions are coactivated, their synaptic connections are strengthened through long-term potentiation (LTP). The forward paths are shown as green solid lines in Fig. \[fig\_spatialMemoryIndexingTheory\]. CA1 also projects back to entorhinal cortex (a yellow solid line in Fig. \[fig\_spatialMemoryIndexingTheory\]). Simultaneously, many neurons in the primary visual cortex (V1) co-fluctuate with neurons in CA1 [@haggerty2015activities]. Synchronized coactivity of CA1 neurons and V1 neurons provides a possibility to selectively strengthen projections from CA1 to visual cortex via lateral entorhinal cortex, shown as a green dashed line in Fig. \[fig\_spatialMemoryIndexingTheory\].
When the brain re-experiences the previous episode, similar areas of neocortex are reactivated. Similar visual cues could reactivate the corresponding local view cells in the visual cortex. Since co-activation between CA1 and visual cortex exists [@haggerty2015activities], visual cortex may provide inputs to activate the CA1 representation (a yellow dashed line in Fig. \[fig\_spatialMemoryIndexingTheory\]). When there is a conflict between the activity patterns in CA1 activated from visual cortex and CA3, the consecutive visual episodic memory may gradually influence path integration in the deep layer of MEC through CA1 projections backs to layer III, V, and VI of entorhinal cortex. Thus, the layer II of MEC would project to CA3. And then neurons in CA3 would reactivate neurons in CA1 through connections produced by the LTP process, until the desired activity patterns in CA1 are activated from the visual cortex consistent with from the CA3 region.
Neural Network Architecture
---------------------------
{width="7in"}
The neural network architecture of the proposed model is shown in Fig. \[fig\_bayesFourierSysArch\]. Angular velocity and linear speed are estimated by a proved direct sparse visual odometry (DSO) from a moving stereo camera [@wang_stereo_2017].
The head direction of the agent is represented by an activity bump in the ring attractor network of HD cells through population coding. The input of angular velocity could activate a subset of HD cells. The neural attractor dynamics would drive the activity bump to rotate with the same angular velocity as the real input. Due to the periodic boundary conditions, a torus attractor is generated in the conjunctive grid cell network. The translational velocity is converted from linear speed and the head direction representations, which is fed into the grid-by-velocity network to activate a subset of conjunctive grid cells. The grid activity bump travels with a velocity proportional to the movement of the agent in the physical environment through intrinsic attractor dynamics.
Here, three grid modules with different spatial frequencies from high-frequency to low-frequency generate three different grid patterns, corresponding to the MEC from dorsal to ventral [@solstad_grid_2006]. Pure grid cells in layer II of MEC are shaped by removing velocity dimensions of conjunctive grid cells. The inputs of place cell network is provided by Bayesian integration of three grid cells with different spatial frequencies through methods in Section \[sec:fourierBayes\]. After attractor dynamics, the single activity bump would be formed in the CA3 region of hippocampus to encode the positions of the agent in the physical environment. Thus, the positional representation is utilized to build a cognitive map.
Model of HD-by-Velocity Cells
-----------------------------
Angular velocity is integrated by the HD-by-velocity cell network representing a one-dimensional head direction. Head direction and rotation are conjunctively encoded in the HD-by-velocity cell network.
### Neural Representation of Head Direction and Angular Velocity
Each unit in the network is labeled by its coordinate ($\theta , \nu$) on a two dimensional neural manifold. $\theta \in [0, 2\pi)$ is the internal representation of head directions with periodic boundary condition in the environment. Angular velocity is encoded by $\nu \in [-L_r, L_r]$. Both $\nu$ and $\theta$ are dimensionless quantities in the neural space, which are related to the real angular velocity and the head direction of the robot. The connection weights are designed between units to generate a single stable bump of activity both in the direction dimension $\theta$ and in the rotation dimension $\nu$. The strength of the connection between a presynaptic unit $(\theta',\nu')$ and a postsynaptic unit $(\theta,\nu)$ can be defined as $$J(\theta,\nu|\theta',\nu')=J_0+J_1\cos\left(\theta - \theta' - \nu'\right)\cos\left(\lambda (\nu - \nu')\right).$$ where $J_0<0$ is a uniform inhibition, $J_1>0$ describes the interaction strength, and $\lambda$ defines the spread of velocity tuning. As the center of the postsynaptic unit is not at $\theta'$ but at $\theta'+\nu'$, the connection weight from the unit at $\theta'$ to the unit at $\theta$ in the direction dimension is asymmetric. The asymmetric weights cause the bump to move along the direction dimension with a velocity determined by $\nu'$.
### Network Dynamics
The bump activity of the network is driven by velocity and sensory inputs. The firing rate $m(\theta,\nu)$ of the unit at coordinate ($\theta , \nu$) can be defined as $$\begin{split}
\displaystyle
\tau \dot{m}(\theta,\nu) &= -m(\theta,\nu) \\
&+ f\left(\iint D\theta D\nu J(\theta,\nu|\theta',\nu')m(\theta',\nu') + I_{\nu} + I_{view}\right)\label{eq:HD_dynamics},
\end{split}$$ where $I_{\nu}$ and $I_{view}$ are the velocity tuned input and the calibration current injected by local view cells respectively, which we will explain in detail below. $\tau$ is the time constant set to 10 ms. $f(x)$ is a threshold-linear function: $f(x) \equiv [x]_+ = x$ when $x>0$ and 0 otherwise. The shorthand notations are used $\displaystyle \int D\theta = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi} d\theta$, and $\displaystyle \int D\nu = \frac{1}{2L_r}\int_{-L_r}^{L_r} d\nu$.
### Angular Velocity Inputs {#sec:v-input-hd}
To integrate the real angular velocity of the robot, it must be mapped onto the neural manifold of the HD network at an appropriate position. Given an external angular velocity $V$, the desired bump location in the $\nu$ dimension can be written as [@si_continuous_2014] $$u(V)=\arctan\left(\tau V \right). \label{eq:angular-velocity-map}$$ Here $\tau$ is the time constant defined in Equation \[eq:HD\_dynamics\]. The velocity input to the HD-by-velocity units is simply modeled by a tuning function of Gaussian shape $$I_{\nu}(\nu|V)=I_r\left[1-\epsilon_r + \epsilon_r,\exp\left(-\frac{(\nu-u(V))^2}{2\sigma_r^2}\right)\right]. \label{eq:angular-v-input}$$ Here $I_r$ is the amplitude of the rotational velocity input, $\epsilon_r$ defines the strength of velocity tuning, and $\sigma_r$ is the sharpness of the velocity tuning.
### Estimation of Head Direction
The head direction and angular velocity of the robot in the physical environment are encoded by the activity bump on the $\theta$ axis and $\nu$ axis. Fourier transformations are utilized to recover the head direction and angular velocity of the robot from the neural activity of the network $$\psi = \angle(\displaystyle \iint m(\theta, \nu) \exp(i \theta) D\theta D\nu),\label{eq:hd-estimation}$$ $$\phi = \frac{\displaystyle \angle(\iint m(\theta, \nu) \exp(i \lambda \nu) D\theta D\nu)}{\lambda}.\label{eq:HD_speed_est}$$ Here $i$ is the imaginary unit, and function $\angle (Z)$ takes the angle of a complex number $Z$. $\psi \in [0, 2\pi)$ is the estimated phase of the bump in the direction axis of the neural space, corresponding to the head direction of the robot in the physical environment. $\phi \in (-L_r,L_r)$ is the estimated phase of the bump in the velocity axis of the neural space, and can be recovered to the angular velocity of the robot in the physical space by inverting Equation \[eq:angular-velocity-map\] $$V = \frac{\tan(\phi)}{\tau}.$$ Note that $L_r$ should be selected large enough, so that the recovered velocity $V$ is capable of representing all possible angular velocities of the robot.
Model of Grid-by-Velocity Cells
-------------------------------
Then, our HD-by-velocity cell model is expanded to do path integration in the two-dimensional environment. Two-dimensional spatial locations and two-dimensional velocity are represented in the grid-by-velocity cell network. The units in the network are wired with appropriate connection profiles, so that the hexagonal grid firing pattern is created and translated in the spatial dimension of the neural manifold.
### Neural Representation of Position and Velocity
Units in the grid-by-velocity network is labeled by coordinates $(\vec{\theta},\vec{\nu})$ in a four dimensional neural space. $\vec{\theta} = (\theta_x,\theta_y)$ represents two dimensional positions with periodic boundary conditions in the environment, i.e. $\theta_x,\theta_y \in [0,2\pi)$. $\nu_x$ and $\nu_y$ are chosen in $[-L_t,L_t]$. $\vec{\nu} = (\nu_x,\nu_y)$ encodes the velocity components in the environment. The connection weights from unit $(\vec{\theta'},\vec{\nu'})$ to $(\vec{\theta},\vec{\nu})$ is described as $$\begin{split}
\displaystyle
J(\vec{\theta},\vec{\nu}|\vec{\theta'},\vec{\nu'}) &=J_0 + J_k\cos\left(k\sqrt{\sum \limits_{j\in\{x,y\}}||\theta_j -\theta'_j - \nu'_j ||^2 } \right) \\
&\cos\left(\lambda\sqrt{\sum \limits_{j\in\{x,y\}} (\nu_j - \nu'_j)^2}\right)\label{eq:grid_weight},
\end{split}$$ where integer $k = 2$, is chosen so that the network accommodates two bumps both in $\theta_x$ axis and in $\theta_y$ axis. There is only one bump in each of the velocity dimensions however. $||d||$ is the distance on a circle: $||d|| = \textrm{mod}(d + \pi, 2\pi) - \pi$, and $\textrm{mod}(x,y) \in [0,y)$ gives x modulo y.
### Network Dynamics
Although the manifold structure of the grid-by-velocity cell network are different with the HD-by-velocity cell network, they share the same intrinsic dynamics as in Equation \[eq:HD\_dynamics\] $$\begin{split}
\displaystyle
\tau \dot{m}(\vec{\theta},\vec{\nu}) &= -m(\vec{\theta},\vec{\nu}) \\
&+ f\left(\iint D\vec{\theta} D\vec{\nu}J(\vec{\theta},\vec{\nu}|\vec{\theta'},\vec{\nu'})m(\vec{\theta'},\vec{\nu'}) + I_{\nu} + I_{view}\right).
\end{split}$$ Note that $\displaystyle \int D\vec{\theta} = \frac{1}{4\pi^2}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi} d\theta_x d\theta_y$, and $\displaystyle \int D\vec{\nu} = \frac{1}{4L_t^2}\int_{-L_t}^{L_t}\int_{-L_t}^{L_t} d\nu_x d\nu_y$.
### Translational Velocity Inputs {#sec:v-input-grid}
For performing accurate path integration, the input velocity of the robot in the physical environment should be proportional to the velocity of the moving bumps in the neural manifold. The activity bumps are pinned on appropriate positions on the velocity axes according to the tuned velocity inputs, so that the bumps move with the desired velocity.
The translational velocity $\vec{V} = (V_x,V_y)$ of the robot is calculated from the head direction estimated from HD-by-velocity units (Equation \[eq:hd-estimation\]) and linear speed by projecting to the axes of the reference frame. The running speed is encoded by the speed cells in the MEC of the rodent brain. Given the translational velocity of the robot, the desired positions on the velocity axes in the neural space are given by $\vec{u}(\vec{V})$[@si_continuous_2014] $$\vec{u}(\vec{V})=\frac{1}{k}\arctan\left(\frac{2\pi \tau \vec{V}}{S}\right), \label{eq:grid_velocity_input}$$ where the function $\arctan$ operates on each dimension of $\vec{V}$. S is a scaling factor between the external velocity of the robot in the physical environment and the velocity of the bumps in the neural space. S determines the spacing between the fields of grid firing pattern in the environment.
The velocity-tuned inputs to the grid-by-velocity units are tuned by a Gaussian form for simplicity $$I_\nu(\vec{\nu}|\vec{V})=I_t\left[1-\epsilon + \epsilon \,\exp\left(-\frac{|\vec{\nu}-\vec{u}(\vec{V})|^2}{2\sigma_t^2}\right)\right],\label{eq:grid_velocity_tunning}$$ where $|\cdot|$ is the Euclidean norm of a vector. $I_t$ is the amplitude of the translational velocity input.
More detail information about models of HD-by-velocity cells and grid-by-velocity cells can be available in our previous work [@si_continuous_2014; @zeng2017cognitive].
Model of Place Cells
--------------------
Neurons in the CA3 of the hippocampus are recurrently connected to perform the function of pattern completion. The CA3 region of the hippocampus has been thought to be an attractor network, which attracts firing activities of the network to a stored pattern, even when the external input is incomplete [@renno2014signature]. We build an attractor network model of place cells in CA3 of the hippocampus. The input of the place cell network is provided by Bayesian integration of three different spatial frequencies of grid cells.
### Neural Representation of Position
Each unit in the place cell network is labeled by its coordinate $\vec{\theta}$ in the two dimensional neural manifold. $\vec{\theta} = (\theta_x,\theta_y)$ represents two dimensional positions in the environment, namely $\theta_x,\theta_y \in [0,2\pi)$. The strength of the connection from a presynaptic unit $\vec{\theta}'$ to postsynaptic unit $\vec{\theta}$ can be given by $$J(\vec{\theta} |\vec{\theta'} )=J_0+J_1\cos\left(\sqrt{\sum \limits_{j\in\{x,y\}}||\theta_j -\theta'_j||^2 } \right)\label{eq:place_weight},$$ where, $||d||$ is the distance on a circle: $||d|| = \textrm{mod}(d + \pi, 2\pi) - \pi$, and $\textrm{mod}(x,y) \in [0,y)$ gives x modulo y.
### Network Dynamics
The bump activity of the place cell network is only driven by inputs of multiple grid frequencies modules. The place cell network shares the similar intrinsic dynamics with the HD-by-velocity cell network and the grid-by-velocity cell network. The firing rate $m(\vec{\theta})$ of the unit at coordinate $\vec{\theta}$ can be described as $$\displaystyle
\tau \dot{m}(\vec{\theta}) = -m(\vec{\theta}) + f\left(\int D\vec{\theta} J(\vec{\theta}|\vec{\theta'})m(\vec{\theta'}) + I_{grid}\right),$$ where $I_{grid}$ is the input from the Bayesian integration of different grid spatial frequencies.
### Inputs From Grid Layers {#subsec:inputs_from_grids}
To estimate the center of grid firing activity bump, units belonging to one of activity bumps are clustered. For each cluster, Fourier transformations are utilized to estimate centers for all activity bumps in the grid cell neural network $$\begin{split}
\displaystyle
\mu_{\vec{\theta}} = \angle(\displaystyle \int m(\vec{\theta}) \exp(i \vec{\theta}) D\vec{\theta}).\label{eq:bump_center_estimation_mean}
\end{split}$$ We also calculate the variance for each activity bump $$\begin{split}
\displaystyle
\sigma^2_{\vec{\theta}} = \frac{1}{n}\,\displaystyle \int m(\vec{\theta}) (||\vec{\theta} - \mu_{\vec{\theta}}||)^2 D\vec{\theta}, \label{eq:bump_center_estimation_variance}
\end{split}$$ where $\norm{d}$ is also the distance on a circle. In the entorhinal-hippocampal model, we model three grid layers with wave number of activity bumps equaling to 1,2,4 along an axis, respectively. For two-dimensional grid neural manifold with periodic boundary condition, there exist 1,4,16 activity bumps. After estimation with statistics, we present grid activity patterns as gaussian profiles. According to our Bayesian inference for spatial frequencies of grid cells molding the firing fields of place cells, the gaussian profile of final input $f(\theta |\mu_{f}, \sigma^2_{f})$ to place cell network in CA3 can be described as $$\begin{split}
\displaystyle
\frac{1}{\sigma^2_{\vec{\theta}_{f}}} &= \frac{1}{\sigma^2_{\vec{\theta}_{1}}} + \frac{1}{\sigma^2_{\vec{\theta}_{2}}} + \frac{1}{\sigma^2_{\vec{\theta}_{3}}},\\
\frac{\mu_{\vec{\theta}_{f}}}{\sigma^2_{\vec{\theta}_{f}}} &= \norm{\left(\norm{\frac{\mu_{\vec{\theta}_{1}}}{\sigma^2_{\vec{\theta}_{1}}} + \frac{\mu_{\vec{\theta}_{2}}}{\sigma^2_{\vec{\theta}_{2}}}}\right) + \frac{\mu_{\vec{\theta}_{3}}}{\sigma^2_{\vec{\theta}_{3}}}}. \label{eq:place_gaussian_profile}
\end{split}$$
Influenced by the intrinsic dynamics of grid attractor network and the inputs from movement and visual sensory, the profile of grid activity bumps are not always circular for $\sigma^2_{\vec{\theta}_{f}} = (\sigma_{\theta_{fx}},\sigma_{\theta_{fy}})$, i.e. $\sigma_{\theta_{fx}}$ not always equals to $\sigma_{\theta_{fy}}$. We separately consider the variance in x and y axes. Since we set the same number of place units as grid units in each layer, $I_{grid}$ can be described by a Gaussian profile with periodic boundary conditions by sampling $$\begin{split}
\displaystyle
I_{grid} = &\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \sigma_{\theta_{fx}} \sigma_{\theta_fy} }} \\
&\exp \left( - \left( \frac{( \norm{\theta_x - \mu_{\theta_fx} } )^2}{{2\sigma_{\theta_fx} ^2 }} + \frac{ ( \norm{\theta_y - \mu_{\theta_fy} } )^2}{{2\sigma_{\theta_fy} ^2 }}\right)\right).\label{eq:input_grid}
\end{split}$$
Calibration from Visual Cortex
------------------------------
As the error accumulates during path integration, calibrations from vision are indeed necessary for the positions and head directions of the agent. Local view templates are extracted from the camera images to encode the current scene [@milford_mapping_2008]. If the current local view is novel, a new local view cell in the visual cortex is created. At the same time, the new local view cell is connected to neurons in the CA1 region of the hippocampus through hebbian learning, whose activity patterns are the same as the activity patterns in the CA3 region of the hippocampus in our model. The activity patterns in CA1 also co-activated with grid cells in the deep layer of MEC. Thus, as a new local view cell is created, a local view template, a place activity pattern, the HD activities, and three grid activities are added into the system. If the agent visits a familiar location, the corresponding local view cell is activated. It would inject energy into the HD-by-velocity cell network and the three grid-by-velocity cell networks via place cells in CA1. The HD activities, and the three grid activities stored with the local view cell are scaled and expanded into velocity dimensions with the same values, and then, injected into the corresponding networks. As the continuous familiar local views are fed into the system, the HD and grid patterns would be consistent with the patterns stored with local view cells. Then, the desired activity patterns in CA1 are activated from the visual cortex consistent with the CA3 region.
Implementation of Robot Systems
===============================
![The software architecture of the cognitive mapping system based on the entorhinal-hippocampal circuit. The stereo images are provided by the sensor/bagfile node. Velocity is estimated by visual odometry node. The local view cell node determines whether the current view is novel or not. The spatial memory network node including the entorhinal-hippocampal circuit performs path integration and decision making to create links and vertices. The topological map is built by the experience map node.[]{data-label="fig:node_structure"}](img/node_structure.eps){width="8cm"}
The cognitive mapping system based on our proposed entorhinal-hippocampal model is implemented in Robot Operating System (ROS) Indigo on Ubuntu 14.04 LTS (Trusty) with C++ language. The software architecture of our system is organized into five nodes shown in Fig. \[fig:node\_structure\].
The visual odometry node real-time estimates the angular velocity and translational speed based on direction sparse method from a moving stereo camera. It receives images from ROS either from a camera or from stored data in a bagfile.
The local view cell node determines whether the current image view is a novel or not. It provides calibration current to the networks in the spatial memory node.
The spatial memory network node organically integrates the entorhinal-hippocampal model, including HD cells, conjunction grid cells in the MEC layer III, V, and VI, grid cells in the MEC layer II, and place cells in CA3 and CA1 of the hippocampus together. This node receives two types of ROS messages as inputs: odometry and view templates. As shown in section \[sec:v-input-hd\] and \[sec:v-input-grid\], the HD-by-Velocity cell network and grid-by-Velocity cell network integrate velocity information and visual information to form neural codes. The recurrently connected place cell network takes the Bayesian integration of three grid modules with different spatial frequencies as inputs. The single activity bump would emerge in the place cell network through attractor dynamics to represent the location of the robot in the environment. The spatial memory node also makes decisions about the creation of vertices and links in the experience map, and sends ROS messages of graph operations to the experience map node.
The experience map node builds a coherent cognitive map from the neural codes of the place units. The key locations of the environment are represented as the vertices in a topological graph. A vertex stores the position estimated from the spatial memory network. A link maintains odometric transition information between vertices. On loop closure, a topological map relaxation method is used to find the minimum disagreement by optimizing the positions of vertices [@duckett2002fast]. When the current position in the spatial memory network is far enough from the position of the previous vertex, a new vertex is created and a new edge is connected to the previous vertex.
Neural Representation
---------------------
{width="13cm"}
Finally, we write python scripts to visualize the live state of our cognitive mapping system. In order not to trivially show the running windows of our system. The neural activity of HD-by-velocity cells, grid-by-velocity cells, grid cells and place cells can be found in Figure \[fig:neuralrepresentation\]. The mapping process shows all the live state of our cognitive mapping system in video S1 in Supplementary Materials, which shows the image of the scene and the local view templates, as well as the current experience map.
Results of Demonstration on KITTI Datasets
==========================================
In this work, we test the Fourier hypothesis about spatial cognition and validate our entorhinal-hippocampal model based on the robotic system. Our model is demonstrated on the KITTI odometry benchmark dataset [@Geiger2012CVPR], which is recorded by a stereo camera from a car with relatively high speed in urban and highway environments. The stereo camera works at 10 Hz and records images with resolution of $1241 \times 376$ pixels. We run our cognitive mapping system on a six Intel Core i7-4930K personal computer with 64GB RAM. Video S1 in Supplementary Materials shows the mapping process of the KITTI odometry benchmark dataset sequence 00 by our implemented mapping system.
Fig. \[fig:neuralrepresentation\] shows two groups of activities of HD-by-velocity units (Figure \[fig:neuralrepresentation\]A), the grid-by-velocity units (Fig. \[fig:neuralrepresentation\]B, C, and D), the grid units (Fig. \[fig:neuralrepresentation\]F, G, and H), and the place units (Fig. \[fig:neuralrepresentation\]E). Group 1 shows activities of all units in the beginning of the experiments, when the robot is stationary. At this moment, as angular velocity is zero, the bump of HD-by-velocity units is centered in the middle of the velocity dimension shown in Fig. \[fig:neuralrepresentation\]A1. And since the inputs of translational velocities are also zero, three bumps of grid-by-velocity units with different frequencies are centered in the middle of velocity dimensions shown in Fig. \[fig:neuralrepresentation\]B1, C1, and D1. When the robot is on the original position, three grid patterns in the initial state shown in Fig. \[fig:neuralrepresentation\]F1, F1, and H1. Place firing patterns are generated by Bayesian integration of three grid modules with different spatial frequencies through attractor dynamics, shown in Fig. \[fig:neuralrepresentation\]E1.
And group 2 shows activities of all units at a randomly selected time stamp, when the robot is moving. The activity bump of HD-by-velocity is centered at (5.68, 0.0010) shown in Fig. \[fig:neuralrepresentation\]A2, which means the robot is heading in $325.6^\circ$ and rotating at 0.10 rad/s. The same velocity is fed into three grid-by-velocity modules, whose grid activity bumps move with the same velocity (Fig. \[fig:neuralrepresentation\]B2, C2, and D2). Three grid patterns with different frequencies emerge to represent the same location in the environment shown in Fig. \[fig:neuralrepresentation\]F2, F2, and H2. Three spatial frequencies of grid cells mold the place firing patterns through Bayesian mechanism shown in Fig. \[fig:neuralrepresentation\]E2.
Place Firing Patterns Generated from Three Spatial Frequencies of Grid Modules
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the previous subsection, the neural representation of the proposed model has been presented. Then, the place firing activity patterns formed by three spatial frequencies of grid modules would be further explained. According to Bayesian integration of two grid spatial frequencies in Eq. \[eq:bayesFourierIntegration\], for each grid activity bump, clustering activity bumps are first performed, and then Fourier transformations are used to estimate the center and the variance of each activity bump. As shown in the group 2 of Fig. \[fig:neuralrepresentation\], considering the periodic boundary conditions, three grid activity patterns from high-frequency to low-frequency, i.e. Fig. \[fig:neuralrepresentation\]F2, G2, and H2, are clustered into 16, 4, 1 bumps, respectively. After estimation of Fourier transformation in Eq. \[eq:bump\_center\_estimation\_mean\] and \[eq:bump\_center\_estimation\_variance\], estimation of grid activity bumps is presented in Table \[table\_estimation\_grid\_bumps\], formated by two dimensional bump centers and variances, i.e. $([\mu_x, \mu_y],[\sigma_x,\sigma_y])$. Every activity bump in the same grid module is regarded as the same with others, due to the periodic boundary conditions. Three homocentric activity bumps are selected from three grid modules, which are labeled in bold in Table \[table\_estimation\_grid\_bumps\], i.e. $([1.71, 6.20],[1.16,2.02])$, $([1.75, 6.17],[5.42,10.84])$, and $([1.77, 0.34],[21.39,20.48])$. After Bayesian integration (Eq. \[eq:place\_gaussian\_profile\]) in Section \[subsec:inputs\_from\_grids\], the input of place cell network (Eq. \[eq:input\_grid\]) can be described by a two dimensional Gaussian profile. For further, through intrinsic attractor dynamics, the place firing pattern (Fig. \[fig:neuralrepresentation\]E2) can be given by a two dimensional Gaussian profile, namely $([1.72, 6.23],[0.92,1.57])$.
Grid Modules 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
---------------------- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
LayerHigh(1$\sim$8)
LayerHigh(9$\sim$16)
LayerMid
LayerLow
Cognitive Map
-------------
![The cognitive map is a semi-metric topological map of the KITTI odometry benchmark dataset sequence 00 created by the mapping system. The topological vertices is presented by the small green circles. The blue thin line describes links between connected vertices.[]{data-label="fig:kitti_cognitivemap"}](img/kitti_cognitivemap.eps){width="8cm"}
![Our cognitive map (Blue) and ground truth (Red) of sequence 00 from the KITTI odometry benchmark dataset.[]{data-label="fig:kitti_cognitivemap_groundtruth"}](img/kitti_cognitivemap_groundtruth.eps){width="8cm"}
The cognitive map of the KITTI odometry benchmark dataset sequence 00 is generated by the implemented mapping system shown in Figure \[fig:kitti\_cognitivemap\]. The vertices in the topological map are present by the thick green line, which represents the robot position in the explored environment. Two related vertices are connected by the link presented by fine blue line. As the link also contains the information about the physical distance, the experience map becomes a semi-metric topological map.
The cognitive map of the KITTI odometry benchmark dataset sequence 00 is qualitatively compared with the ground truth shown in Figure \[fig:kitti\_cognitivemap\_groundtruth\]. The cognitive map captures the overall layout of the road network, including loop closures, intersections, corners, and curves intersections, which can be clearly seen using naked eyes. On the whole, the cognitive mapping system can build the cognitive map consistent with the ground truth of the environment.
Firing Rate Maps
----------------
![Firing rate maps of grid cells with high frequency (A), middle frequency (B), as well as low frequency (C), and place cells (D). In each panel, the firing rate is color-coded by the jet colormap from blue (zero firing rate) to red (high firing rate). []{data-label="fig:kitti_firingratemaps"}](img/firingratemaps.eps){width="9cm"}
The place activity patterns with a single bump are generated from three grid layers with different frequencies from high to low, which encode the locations of the robot during the exploring process. Further to explore the Fourier hypothesis, firing rate maps of grid cells and place cells are shown in Fig. \[fig:kitti\_firingratemaps\] to describe the formation of the place field. Each grid network has the same number of units as the number in the place network. The units with the same index in three grid networks and a place cell network have been selected to draw firing rate maps. Firing rate maps of grid cells shown in Fig. \[fig:kitti\_firingratemaps\]A, B, and C present three firing rate maps from high-frequency to low-frequency, which correspond to the firing activity grid patterns in Fig \[fig:neuralrepresentation\]F, G and H, respectively. For the grid units in the higher frequency, more firing fields are available for them (like Fig. \[fig:kitti\_firingratemaps\]A and B). For grid firing field with lower frequency, the firing field is much larger than the one with higher frequency. The firing rate map of the place unit shown in Fig. \[fig:kitti\_firingratemaps\]D has a similar firing field as the firing rate maps of three grid patterns, which is molded by three spatial frequencies of grid cells.
Discussion
==========
In this work, following anatomical connectivity and neurobiological results, we further investigate the computational entorhinal-hippocampal model from grid cells to place cells. We firstly derive the model from different grid spatial frequencies to the place field to interpret the place field expansion after focal MEC inactivations [@ormond_place_2015; @kubie_spatial_2015] and reinterpret Fourier hypothesis by Bayesian inference, not by Fourier-like summation. Then, in order to account for the whole organization of spatial navigation and episodic memory based on the entorhinal-hippocampal model and neocortex, we propose the spatial memory indexing theory based on the hippocampal indexing theory [@teyler_hippocampal_1986; @teyler_hippocampal_2007]. Plus, we resort to the robot system for testing the Fourier hypothesis with Bayesian inference and the spatial memory indexing theory, and validating models of the entorhinal-hippocampal circuit. Our proposed model is implemented on a vision-only robot mapping system based on ROS, and demonstrated on the KITTI odometry benchmark dataset. Our system is capable of building a coherent semi-metric topological map in the large-scale outdoor environment (see Video S1 in Supplementary Materials).
Recently, experiments largely, but not completely, support the Fourier hypothesis by Fourier-like summation [@ormond_place_2015; @kubie_spatial_2015]. As this hypothesis predicted, dorsal MEC inactivation leads to strongly broaden the spatial tuning of place cells. However, against the prediction, inactivating the ventral MEC also weakly expands the spatial firing patterns. Ormond and McNaughton suggest that the MEC inactivation leads to decrease the self-motion input to grid cells, which causes grid scale expansion and further results in place field expansion [@ormond_place_2015]. Further experiments and models are required to test it. Kubie and Fox suggest that since the discrete step size between two grid spatial frequencies is fairly large, the highest grid frequency would determine the place field size, and the lowest grid frequency has little effect on the shape of the firing field [@kubie_spatial_2015]. To put an end to the contradiction about the prediction of Fourier hypothesis by Fourier-like summation, we propose an improved Fourier hypothesis by Bayesian inference to provide a theoretical support that place firing fields can be molded by the spatial frequencies of grid cells. The prediction of our proposed model is completely consistent with experiment results. Any parts of MEC that are inactivated would broaden the place firing fields. As the place field is largely determined by the high-frequency grid components, inactivation of dorsal MEC causes a strong expansion of the place firing field, whereas inactivation of ventral MEC only has a weak tendency to broaden the place field. In addition, our model also gives an explanation of grid component alignment. The ventral MEC determines the rough location of the place field, namely in which high-frequency cycle, whereas the dorsal MEC determines the precise location and the shape of the place firing field. According to the above principles, even the grid patterns are not aligned very accurately, which can also be tolerant.
Based on the anatomic connections, intrinsic organization, and cognitive functions of the entorhinal-hippocampal circuit, we propose the spatial memory indexing theory upon the hippocampal indexing theory to organically incorporate the entorhinal cortex, the hippocampus, and neocortex that stores episodic memory. The essential of our idea is that when the brain experiences a new episode, the neocortex can capture information and store as the neocortical activity patterns, and the entorhinal-hippocampal cortex uses it to do path integration and then generates an index for the current episodic memory [@teyler_hippocampal_2007]. Moreover, as many neurons in the primary visual cortex (V1) co-fluctuate with neurons in CA1 [@haggerty2015activities], the brain experiences the familiar episode that could activate the stored neocortical activity patterns. Then the hippocampus can serve as an index to the pattern of neocortical activity, and project back to the entorhinal cortex to activate the corresponding grid firing patterns in the deep layer of MEC. Thus the stored episodic memory in the neocortex can calibrate the spatial navigation information in the entorhinal-hippocampal circuit during the exploration of the environment.
Since the KITTI odometry benchmark dataset is recorded from a car in the large-scale urban environments, it is very unlikely to repeat exploration like the rat in the biological experiments, and so such hexagon firing grid patterns are not available in our firing rate maps (Fig.\[fig:kitti\_firingratemaps\]). We can also find that three grid layers with different frequencies have the same firing field, which is also found in the firing rate map of place cells. As for the firing pattern of grid cells, influenced by the accuracy of path integration by attractor network, the bump centers of three grid patterns may drift a little bit (\[table\_estimation\_grid\_bumps\]), namely, not always align accurately. Limited by physical memory of the computer, each grid layer only has 20-by-20 units, which leads to that the grid layer with higher frequency can not form bumps with the ideal profile (Fig. \[fig:neuralrepresentation\]F and G). Thus, when receiving the input from three grid frequencies (Eq. \[eq:input\_grid\]), the place activity bumps are also slightly elliptic.
The place responses in the dentate gyrus can be generated from the layer II of MEC by self-organized plasticity [@rolls2006entorhinal; @si2009role], which performs pattern separation functions. Nevertheless, to get the whole picture of episodic memory and spatial navigation, more detailed works are required to figure out relations between dentate gyrus and connected regions. Fourier-like summation of inputs over a range of grid spatial scales also has been proposed to explain the place responses in CA3 and CA1 regions, but recently neurobiological results can not be completely explained [@solstad_grid_2006; @ormond_place_2015; @kubie_spatial_2015]. Based on the hypothesis of Fourier-like summation, we propose an improved Fourier hypothesis with Bayesian inference, whose prediction is consistent with the results.
Several limitations have remained in our work. First, in the entorhinal-hippocampal model, the same neural representations are used in CA3 and CA1 regions, and long-term potentiation from CA3 to CA1 is also not considered as a dynamic process. Second, to simplify our model, the dentate gyrus is not incorporated in our system. Third, the projects between CA1 and MEC, as well as CA1 and visual cortex are not represented by weights, but by corresponding relations.
For future works, we will include the cognitive function of the dentate gyrus to distinguish different scenes and break the perception of ambiguity during environment exploration. Also, we plan to build a platform, on which the robot can repeat exploration like the rat in the biological experiments, and hexagon firing grid patterns may emerge in the firing rate maps.
Conclusion
==========
In summary, we propose an entorhinal-hippocampal model to test Fourier hypothesis and spatial memory indexing theory, and resort to the robot system to validate our proposed entorhinal-hippocampal model. The improved Fourier hypothesis in a general Bayesian mechanism predicts the place field expansion consistent with the neurobiological experimental results, and further explains the alignment of multiple grid patterns upon a range of spatial scales. This Bayesian mechanism may pertain to other neural systems as a general manner of representation, in addition to the entorhinal-hippocampal circuit. The spatial memory indexing theory is introduced from the hippocampal indexing theory to account for spatial memory and navigation during the environment exploration. Moreover, the model inspires a SLAM system able to successfully build the coherent semi-metric topological map on the benchmark dataset, and it also provides a possible opportunity to do interaction research between robotics and neuroscience.
[^1]: T. Zeng is with Institute of Science and Technology for Brain-Inspired Intelligence, Fudan University, Shanghai, China and Key Laboratory of Computational Neuroscience and Brain-Inspired Intelligence (Fudan University), Ministry of Education, China (e-mail:[email protected]).
[^2]: X. Li, State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning and IDG/McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China (e-mail:[email protected]).
[^3]: B. Si is with School of Systems Science, Beijing Normal University, 100875, China (e-mail:[email protected]).
[^4]: Correspondence should be addressed to Bailu Si ([email protected]).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'The collective dynamics of a network of coupled excitable systems in response to an external stimulus depends on the topology of the connections in the network. Here we develop a general theoretical approach to study the effects of network topology on dynamic range, which quantifies the range of stimulus intensities resulting in distinguishable network responses. We find that the largest eigenvalue of the weighted network adjacency matrix governs the network dynamic range. Specifically, a largest eigenvalue equal to one corresponds to a critical regime with maximum dynamic range. We gain deeper insight on the effects of network topology using a nonlinear analysis in terms of additional spectral properties of the adjacency matrix. We find that homogeneous networks can reach a higher dynamic range than those with heterogeneous topology. Our analysis, confirmed by numerical simulations, generalizes previous studies in terms of the largest eigenvalue of the adjacency matrix.'
author:
- 'Daniel B. Larremore'
- 'Woodrow L. Shew'
- 'Juan G. Restrepo'
title: 'Predicting criticality and dynamic range in complex networks: effects of topology'
---
Numerous natural [@dendriticTrees; @kinouchiCopelli] and social [@epidemics] systems are accurately described as networks of interacting excitable nodes. The collective dynamics of such excitable networks often defy naive expectations based on the dynamics of the single nodes which comprise the network. For example, the collective response of a neural network can encode sensory stimuli which span more than 10 orders of magnitude in intensity, while the response of a single neuron (node) typically encodes a much smaller range of stimulus intensities. More generally, the range of stimuli over which a network’s response varies significantly is quantified by [*dynamic range*]{} and is a fundamental property, whether the network is comprised of people, cell phones, genes, or neurons. In neural networks, recent experiments [@woody] suggest that dynamic range is maximized in a critical regime in which neuronal avalanches [@beggsPlenz] occur, confirming earlier theoretical predictions [@kinouchiCopelli]. It has been argued [@kinouchiCopelli; @woody] that this critical regime occurs when the effective mean degree of the network is one, i.e. the expected number of excited nodes produced by one excited node is one. However, this criterion is invalid for networks with broad degree distributions [@copelliCampos; @wu]. A general understanding of how dynamic range and criticality depend on network structure remains lacking. In this Letter, we present a unified theoretical treatment of stimulus-response relationships in excitable networks, which holds for diverse networks including those with random, scale free, degree-correlated, and assortative topologies.
As a tractable model of an excitable network, here we consider the Kinouchi-Copelli model [@kinouchiCopelli], which consists of $N$ coupled excitable nodes. Each node $i$ can be in one of $m$ states $x_{i}$. The state $x_{i}=0$ is the resting state, $x_{i}=1$ is the excited state, and there may be additional refractory states $x_{i}=2,3,...,m-1$. At discrete times $t=0,1,...$ the states of the nodes $x_{i}^{t}$ are updated as follows: (i) If node $i$ is in the resting state, $x_{i}^{t}=0$, it can be excited by another excited node $j$, $x_{j}^{t}=1$, with probability $A_{ij}$, or independently by an external process with probability $\eta$. The network topology and strength of interactions between the nodes is described by the connectivity matrix $A = \{ A_{ij} \}$. In this model, $\eta$ is considered the stimulus strength. (ii) The nodes that are excited or in a refractory state, $x_{i}^{t} \geq 1$, will deterministically make a transition to the next refractory state if one is available, or otherwise return to the resting state (i.e. $x_{i}^{t+1} =
x_{i}^{t} + 1$ if $1 \leq x_{i}^{t} < m-1$, and $x_{i}^{t+1} = 0$ if $x_{i}^{t} = m-1$).
An important property of excitable networks is the dynamic range, which is defined as the range of stimuli that is distinguishable based on the system’s response $F$. Following [@kinouchiCopelli], we quantify the network response with the average activity $F = \langle f \rangle_{t}$ where $\langle \cdot \rangle_{t}$ denotes an average over time and $f^{t}$ is the fraction of excited nodes at time $t$. To calculate a system’s dynamic range, we first determine a lower stimulus threshold $\eta_{low}$ below which the change in the response is negligible, and an upper stimulus threshold $\eta_{high}$ above which the response saturates. Dynamic range ($\Delta$), measured in decibels, is defined as $\Delta = 10
\log_{10}{\eta_{high}/\eta_{low}}$. To analyze the dynamics of this system, we denote the probability that a given node $i$ is excited at time $t$ by $p_{i}^{t}$. For simplicity, we will consider from now on only two states, resting and excited (m=2) [@foot]. Then, the update equation for $p_{i}^{t}$ is $$\label{meanfieldEq}
\addtolength{\belowdisplayskip}{-0.2cm}
\addtolength{\abovedisplayskip}{-0.2cm}
p_{i}^{t+1} = (1 -p_{i}^{t})\left( \eta + (1-\eta) \left [ 1- \prod_{j}^{N} (1 - p_{j}^{t} A_{ij}) \right ] \right)$$ which can be obtained by noting that $1 - p_{i}^{t}$ is the probability that node $i$ is resting at time $t$, and the term in large parentheses is the probability that it makes a transition to the excited state. We note that, in writing this probability, we treat the events of neighbors of node $i$ being excited at time $t$ as statistically independent. As noted before [@epidemics; @locallyTreeLike; @ottPomerance; @genes], this approximation yields good results even when the network has a non-negligible amount of short loops.
In Ref. [@kinouchiCopelli], the response $F$ was theoretically analyzed as a function of the external stimulation probability $\eta$ using a mean-field approximation in which connection strengths were considered uniform, $A_{ij}=\sigma/N$ for all $i,
j$. It was shown that at the critical value $\sigma=1$, the network response $F$ changes its qualitative behavior. In particular, $\displaystyle \lim_{\eta \to 0} F = 0$ if $\sigma <
1$ and $\displaystyle \lim_{\eta \to 0} F > 0$ if $\sigma > 1$. In addition, the dynamic range of the network was found to be maximized at $\sigma=1$. The parameter $\sigma$ is defined in Refs. [@kinouchiCopelli; @woody] as an average branching ratio, written here as $\sigma = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i,j} A_{ij}
= \langle d^{in} \rangle = \langle d^{out} \rangle$, where $d^{in}_{i} = \sum_{j} A_{ij}$ and $d^{out}_{i} = \sum_{j} A_{ji}$ are the in- and out-degrees of node $i$, respectively, and $\langle \cdot \rangle$ is an average over nodes. For the network topology studied by Ref. [@kinouchiCopelli] $\sigma=1$ marks the critical regime in which the expected number of excited nodes is equal in consecutive timesteps. Such critical branching processes result in avalanches of excitation with power-law distributed sizes. Cascades of neural activity with such power-law size distributions have been observed in brain tissue cultures [@woody], awake monkeys [@awakeMonkeys], and anesthetized rats [@anesthetizedRats]. While $\sigma=1$ successfully predicts the critical regime for Erdős-Rényi random networks [@kinouchiCopelli], this prediction fails in networks with a more heterogeneous degree distribution [@wu; @copelliCampos]. Perhaps more importantly, previous theoretical analyses [@kinouchiCopelli; @wu; @copelliCampos] do not account for features that are commonly found in real networks, such as community structure, correlation between in- and out-degree of a given node, or correlation between the degree of two nodes at the ends of a given edge [@newmanAssortativity]. Here, we will generalize the mean-field criterion $\sigma=1$ to account for complex network topologies.
To begin, we note that $\displaystyle \lim_{\eta \to 0} F = 0$ corresponds to the fixed point $\vec{p} = 0$ of Eq. (\[meanfieldEq\]) with $\eta =
0$. To examine the linear stability of this fixed point, we set $\eta = 0$ and linearize around $p_{i}^{t}=0$, assuming $p_{i}^{t}$ to be small, obtaining $p_{i}^{t+1}
=\sum_{j}^{N}p_{j}^{t} A_{ij}$. Assuming $p_i^{t}=u_{i} \lambda^{t}$ yields $$\label{firstOrderEq}
\addtolength{\belowdisplayskip}{-0.4cm}
\addtolength{\abovedisplayskip}{-0.4cm}
\lambda u_{i} =\sum_{j}^{N}u_{j} A_{ij}.$$ Thus, the stability of the solution $\vec{p}=0$ is governed by the largest eigenvalue of the network adjacency matrix, $\lambda$, with $\lambda < 1$ being stable and $\lambda > 1$ being unstable. Therefore, the critical state described in previous literature, occurring at various values of $\langle d \rangle$, should universally occur at $\lambda = 1$. Importantly, since $A_{ij} \geq 0$, the Perron-Frobenius theorem guarantees that $\lambda$ is real and positive [@PFTheorem]. Other previous studies in *random* networks have also investigated spectral properties of $A$ to gain insight on the stability of dynamics in neural networks [@robinsonGray] and have shown how $\lambda$ could be changed by modifying the distribution of synapse strengths [@rajanAbbott]. An important implication of Eq. (\[firstOrderEq\]) is that, when $p$ and $\eta$ are small enough, $p$ should be almost proportional to the right eigenvector $u$ corresponding to $\lambda$, so we write $p_{i}=Cu_{i} + \epsilon_{i}$, where C is a proportionality constant and the $\epsilon_{i}$ error term captures the deviation of actual system behavior from the linear analysis. To first order, the constant $C$ is related to the network response $F$ since, neglecting $\epsilon$, we have $$\label{CtoFEq}
\addtolength{\belowdisplayskip}{-0.4cm}
\addtolength{\abovedisplayskip}{-0.2cm}
F = \langle f \rangle_{t} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i} p_{i} \approx \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i} C u_{i} = C \langle u \rangle.$$
The linear analysis allowed us to identify $\lambda=1$ as the point at which the network response becomes non-zero as $\eta \to 0$. In what follows, we use a weakly nonlinear analysis to obtain approximations to the response $F(\eta)$ when $\eta$ is small. As we will show, these approximations depend only on a few spectral properties of $A$. Assuming $A_{ij} p_{j} \ll 1$ (which is valid near the critical regime if each node has many incoming connections), we approximate the product term of Eq. (\[meanfieldEq\]) with an exponential, obtaining in steady state $$\label{exponentialEq}
\addtolength{\belowdisplayskip}{-0.2cm}
\addtolength{\abovedisplayskip}{-0.2cm}
p_{i} = (1 -p_{i})\left( \eta + (1-\eta) \left[ 1- \exp \left(- \sum_{j} p_{j}A_{ij}\right) \right] \right)$$ which we expand to second order using Eq. (\[CtoFEq\]) and $A u = \lambda u$, $$\label{cEq}
\addtolength{\belowdisplayskip}{-0.2cm}
\addtolength{\abovedisplayskip}{-0.2cm}
Cu_{i}+\epsilon_{i} = (A \epsilon)_{i} + \eta (1 - C u_{i}) + (1- \eta) \lambda C u_{i} - \left( \lambda + \frac{1}{2} \lambda^{2} \right) C^{2} u_{i}^{2} .$$ To eliminate the error term $\epsilon_{i}$ from Eq. (\[cEq\]), we multiply by $v_{i}$, the $i$th entry of the left eigenvector corresponding to $\lambda$, and sum over $i$. We use the fact that $v^{T} A \epsilon = \lambda v^{T} \epsilon$, where $v^{T}$ denotes the transpose of $v$, and neglect the resulting small term $(1-\lambda) \sum_{i} v_{i} \epsilon_{i}$ close to the critical value $\lambda = 1$, obtaining $$\label{projectedOrderTwoEq}
\addtolength{\belowdisplayskip}{-0.2cm}
\addtolength{\abovedisplayskip}{-0.2cm}
C \langle u v \rangle = \eta ( \langle v \rangle - C \langle u v \rangle ) + (1 - \eta ) C \lambda \langle u v \rangle - \left( \lambda+ \frac{1}{2} \lambda^2\right) C^2 \langle v u^{2} \rangle.$$ This equation is quadratic in $C$ \[and therefore in $F$, via Eq. (\[CtoFEq\])\] and linear in $\eta$, and may be easily solved for either. For $\eta = 0$ the nonzero solution for $F$ is $$\label{FzeroEq2}
\addtolength{\belowdisplayskip}{-0.2cm}
\addtolength{\abovedisplayskip}{-0.2cm}
F_{\eta = 0} = \frac{(\lambda-1)}{(\lambda + \frac{1}{2} \lambda^{2})} \frac{\langle uv \rangle \langle u \rangle}{\langle u^{2} v \rangle}.$$ A more refined approximation than Eq. (\[projectedOrderTwoEq\]) can be obtained by repeating this process without expanding Eq. (\[exponentialEq\]), which yields the linear equation for $\eta$ $$\label{exponentialSpectral}
\addtolength{\belowdisplayskip}{-0.4cm}
\addtolength{\abovedisplayskip}{-0.2cm}
C \langle u v \rangle = \sum_{i} ( 1 - C u_{i} ) ( \eta + (1 - \eta ) [ 1 - \exp ( - \lambda C u_{i} ) ] ).$$
Before numerically testing our theory, we will explain how it relates to previous results. For a network with correlations between degrees at the ends of a randomly chosen edge (assortative mixing by degree [@newmanAssortativity]), measured by the correlation coefficient $\rho = \langle d_{i}^{in} d_{j}^{out}
\rangle_{e}/\langle d^{in} d^{out} \rangle$, with $\langle \cdot
\rangle_{e}$ denoting an average over edges, the largest eigenvalue may be approximated by $\lambda \approx \rho \langle
d^{in} d^{out} \rangle / \langle d \rangle$ [@eigenvalueApproximation]. In the absence of assortativity, when $\rho = 1$, $\lambda \approx \langle d^{in} d^{out}
\rangle/\langle d \rangle$. If, in addition, there are no correlations between $d_{in}$ and $d_{out}$ (*node degree correlations*) or if the degree distribution is sufficiently homogenous, then $\langle
d^{in} d^{out} \rangle \approx \langle d \rangle^{2}$ and the approximation reduces to $\lambda \approx \langle d \rangle$. In the case of Ref. [@kinouchiCopelli], $\lambda \approx \langle
d \rangle$ applies, and in the case of Refs. [@copelliCampos; @wu], $\lambda \approx \langle d^{in} d^{out}
\rangle/\langle d \rangle$ applies.
We test our theoretical results via direct simulation of the Kinouchi-Copelli model on six categories of directed networks with $N=10,000$ nodes: (category 1) Random networks with no node degree correlation between $d^{in}$ and $d^{out}$; (category 2) Random networks with maximal degree correlation, $d^{in} =
d^{out}$; (category 3) Random networks with moderate correlation between $d^{in}$ and $d^{out}$; (category 4) Networks with power law degree distribution with power law exponents $\gamma \in
[2.0,6.0]$, with and without node degree correlations; (category 5) Networks constructed with $\langle d \rangle = 1$, and assortativity coefficient $\rho$ varying in $[0.7, 1.3]$; (category 6) Networks with weights which depend on the degree of the node from which the edge originates, $A_{ij} = \alpha / d_{i}^{out}$.
We created networks in multiple steps: first, we created binary networks ($A_{ij} \in \{ 0,1 \}$) with target degree distributions as described below; next, we assigned a weight to each link, drawn from a uniform distribution between 0 and 1; finally, we calculated $\lambda$ for the resulting network and multiplied $A$ by a constant to rescale the largest eigenvalue to the targeted eigenvalue. This process was restarted from the first step for every network used in categories 1-4, creating a structurally different network for each simulation. The initial binary networks in categories 1-3 were Erdős-Rényi random networks, constructed by linking any pair of nodes with probability $p = 10/N$ [@ERGraph]. Maximal degree correlation resulted from creating undirected binary networks and then forcing $A_{ij} = A_{ji}$ for $i < j$ while assigning weights. Moderate degree correlation resulted from making undirected binary networks but allowing $A_{ij} \neq A_{ji}$ when weights were assigned. The algorithms for constructing the initial binary networks of categories 4-6 placed links randomly between nodes with specified in- and out-degrees via the configuration model [@configurationModel]. For this model, we generated in- and out-degree sequences from a power law distribution of desired exponent $\gamma$ by calculating the expected integer number of nodes with each integer degree, from minimum degree 10 to maximum degree 200. In creating category 5 networks, we initially created one scale free network with power law exponent $\gamma=2.5$ and $\lambda=1$. Then, to change the degree of assortativity, we modified this original network by choosing two links at random and swapping them if the resulting swap would change the assortativity in the direction desired. This process was repeated until a desired value of $\rho$ was achieved. Importantly, this swapping makes it possible to leave the degree distributions of the network unchanged, while still changing the assortative or disassortative properties of the network as in [@eigenvalueApproximation; @newmanAssortativity]. Therefore, by this method we may maintain exactly the same degree distribution and mean degree, yet modify $\lambda$ by virtue of $\lambda \propto \rho$.
In the six network types tested, results of simulations unanimously confirm the hypothesis that criticality occurs only for largest eigenvalue $\lambda=1$. We present representative results in Fig. \[simulation43\] (a), noting that each line and set of points corresponds to a single network realization, implying that the effect of the largest eigenvalue on criticality is robust for individual systems. Fig. \[simulation43\] (a) shows the response $F$ as a function of stimulus $\eta$ for scale-free networks with exponent $\gamma = 2.5$, constructed with no correlation between in- and out-degree, highlighting the significant difference between the regimes of $\lambda < 1$ and $\lambda >1$, with the critical data corresponding to $\lambda=1$. The lines were obtained by using Eqs. (\[CtoFEq\]) and (\[exponentialSpectral\]). Fig. \[simulation43\] (b) shows $\Delta$ as a function of $\lambda$, using $\eta_{high}=1$ and $\eta_{low}=0.01$, with the maximum occurring at $\lambda = 1$. Similar results showing criticality and maximum dynamic range at $\lambda = 1$ are obtained for networks of all categories 1-5. Fig. \[phaseTransitions\] shows $F_{\eta \to 0}$ for networks of categories 3-5, confirming the transition predicted by the leading order analysis in Eq. (\[firstOrderEq\]). The symbols show the result of direct numerical simulation of the Kinouchi-Copelli model, the solid lines were obtained by iterating Eq. (\[meanfieldEq\]), and the dashed lines were obtained from Eq. (\[FzeroEq2\]). Fig. \[phaseTransitions\](a) shows that criticality occurs at $\lambda = 1$ (indicated by a vertical arrow) rather than at $\langle d \rangle = 1$ for a category 3 random network. Fig. \[phaseTransitions\](b) shows that criticality occurs at $\lambda = 1$ for scale-free networks (category 4). Correlations between $d_{in}$ and $d_{out}$ affect the point at which $\lambda = 1$ occurs (vertical arrows). In Fig. \[phaseTransitions\](c), the mean degree was fixed at $\langle d
\rangle = 1$, while $\lambda$ was changed by modifying the assortative coefficient $\rho$. As predicted by the theory, there is a transition at $\lambda = 1$ even though the mean degree is fixed.
We now explore the question of what network topology will best enhance dynamic range. In many of the systems we simulate, a majority of the variation in dynamic range from one stimulus-response curve to another occurs due to variation at the low stimulus end of the curve, since most of the systems tend to saturate at around the same high stimulus levels (though this may not be the case for neuronal network experiments [@woody]). We therefore consider the following approximate measure of dynamic range, $\Lambda$, obtained by setting $\eta_{high}$ to one in the definition of $\Delta$, $\Lambda = 10 \log_{10}{1/\eta_{*}}$, where $\eta_{*}$ is the stimulus value corresponding to a lower threshold response $F_{*}$. Since dynamic range is maximized at criticality, we set $\lambda = 1$, solve Eq. (\[projectedOrderTwoEq\]) for $\eta_{*}$, substitute it into the definition of $\Lambda$ using Eq. (\[CtoFEq\]), retaining the leading order behavior to get $$\label{momentEq}
\addtolength{\belowdisplayskip}{-0.2cm}
\addtolength{\abovedisplayskip}{-0.2cm}
\Lambda_{MAX} = 10 \log_{10} \frac{2}{3F_{*}^{2}} - 10 \log_{10} \frac{\langle v u^{2} \rangle}{\langle v \rangle \langle u \rangle ^{2}}.$$
The first term of this equation shows that $\Lambda_{MAX}$ depends on $F_{*}$. Since the entries of the right (left) dominant eigenvector are a first order approximation to the in-degree (out-degree) of the corresponding nodes [@degreeEigenvalue], the second term suggests that maximum dynamic range should increase (decrease) as the degree distribution becomes more homogenous (heterogeneous). For example, consider the case of an undirected, uncorrelated network, in which $v_{i}=u_{i} \approx
d_{i}$. The second term is then approximately $-10
\log_{10}{(\langle d^{3} \rangle / \langle d \rangle^{3})}$, which is maximized when $d_{i}$ is independent of $i$. This corroborates the numerical findings in Refs. [@kinouchiCopelli; @wu] that random graphs enhance dynamic range more than more heterogeneous scale free graphs, and that the heterogeneity of the degree distribution affects dynamic range [@wu]. To test our result, we simulate scale free networks with different power law exponents $\gamma \in [2.0,6.0]$, yet with $\lambda=1$ to maximize dynamic range in each case. Results of simulation (circles) plotted against the prediction of Eq. (\[momentEq\]) (line) are shown in Fig. \[maxDR\].
In summary, we analytically predict and numerically confirm that criticality and peak dynamic range occur in networks with largest eigenvalue $\lambda = 1$. This result holds for diverse network topologies including random, scale-free, assortative, and/or degree-correlated networks, and for networks in which edge weights are related to nodal degree, thus generalizing previous work. Moreover, we find that homogeneous (heterogeneous) network topologies result in higher (lower) dynamic range. Previous demonstrations of how $\lambda$ governs network dynamics in many other models (see [@degreeEigenvalue] and references therein) suggest that the generality of our findings may extend beyond the particular model studied here. Previous model studies have shown that mutual information between stimulus and response is also maximized at criticality [@beggsPlenz]. Our findings suggest that peak mutual information will also be determined by $\lambda=1$, but verifying this will require additional investigation. Taken together with related experimental findings [@woody], our results are consistent with the hypotheses that 1) real brain networks operate with $\lambda \approx 1$, and 2) if an organism benefits from large dynamic range, then evolutionary pressures may act to homogenize the network topology of the brain.
We thank Ed Ott and Dietmar Plenz for useful discussions. The work of Woodrow Shew was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Mental Health.
[0.90]{}
[99]{}
L. L. Gollo *et al.*, PLoS Comput. Biol [**5(6)**]{}: e10000402 (2009). O. Kinouchi *et al.*, Nature Physics [**2**]{}, 348 (2006). S. Gomez *et al.*, EPL [**89**]{} 38009 (2010). W. L. Shew *et al.* J. Neurosci [**29(49)**]{}:15595 (2009). J. M. Beggs *et al.*, J. Neurosci [**23**]{}: 11167-11177 (2003). M. Copelli *et al.*, Eur Phys. J. B [**56**]{} 273 (2007). A. Wu *et al.*, Phys. Rev. E [**75**]{} 032901 (2007). Our approach is easily generalized to include more refractory states. We also note that, in analogy to Ref. [@ottPomerance], our method can be generalized to include transmission delays and asynchronous updating. This will be discussed in a forthcoming publication. J. G. Restrepo *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett [**100**]{}, 058701 (2008). E. Ott *et al.*, Phys. Rev. E [**79**]{}, 056111 (2009). A. Pomerance *et al.*, PNAS [**106**]{}, 20 (2009). T. Petermann *et al.*, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106:15921Ð15926 (2009). E. D. Gireesh *et al.*, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105:7576 Ð7581 (2008). M. E. J. Newman, Phys. Rev. E. [**67**]{}, 026126 (2003). C. R. MacCluer, SIAM Rev [**42**]{}:487 (2000). R.T. Gray *et al.*, Neurocomputing [**70**]{}: 1000 (2007). K. Rajan *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett [**97**]{}, 188104 (2006). P. Erdős *et al.*, Publicationes Mathematicae [**6**]{} (1959). M. E. J. Newman, SIAM Rev [**45**]{} 167 (2003). J. G. Restrepo *et al.*, Phys. Rev. E [**76**]{}, 056119 (2007). J. G. Restrepo *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 094102 (2006).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'A determination is made of the radiation emitted by a linearly uniformly accelerated uncharged dipole transmitter. It is found that, first of all, the radiation rate is given by the familiar Larmor formula, but it is augmented by an amount which becomes dominant for sufficiently high acceleration. For an accelerated dipole oscillator, the criterion is that the center of mass motion become relativistic within one oscillation period. The augmented formula and the measurements which it summarizes presuppose an *expanding* inertial observation frame. A *static* inertial reference frame will not do. Secondly, it is found that the radiation measured in the expanding inertial frame is received with 100 percent fidelity. There is no blueshift or redshift due to the accelerative motion of the transmitter. Finally, it is found that a pair of coherently radiating oscillators accelerating (into opposite directions) in their respective causally disjoint Rindler-coordinatized sectors produces an interference pattern in the expanding inertial frame. Like the pattern of a Young double slit interferometer, this Rindler interferometer pattern has a fringe spacing which is inversely proportional to the proper separation and the proper frequency of the accelerated sources. The interferometer, as well as the augmented Larmor formula, provide a unifying perspective. It joins adjacent Rindler-coordinatized neighborhoods into a single spacetime arena for scattering and radiation from accelerated bodies.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA'
author:
- 'ULRICH H. GERLACH'
title: 'RADIATION FROM VIOLENTLY ACCELERATED BODIES[^1]'
---
INTRODUCTION
============
The emission or the scattering of light from localized sources is the most effective way for information to be transferred to the human eye, the window to our mind. We can increase the size of this window, with specialized detectors, or systems of detectors. They intercept the information, record and re-encode it, before passing it on to be assimilated and digested by our consciousness.
The spacetime framework for most physical measurements, in particular those involving radiation and scattering processes, consists of inertial frames, or frames which become nearly inertial by virtue of the limited magnitude of their spatial and temporal extent. Indeed, the asymptotic “in” and “out” regions of the scattering matrix as well as the asymptotic “far-field” regions of a radiator reflect the inertial nature of the spacetime framework for these processes.
Should one extend these processes to accelerated frames? If so, how? Let us delay answering the first question and note that Einstein, in his path breaking 1907 paper [@Einstein1907], gave us the answer to the second: View an accelerated frame as a sequence of instantaneous locally inertial frames. Thus a scattering (or any other physical) process observed relative to a lattice of accelerated clocks and equally spaced detectors can be understood in terms of the lattice of inertial clocks and equally spaced inertial detectors [@detectors] of one or several of these instantaneous locally inertial frames. Accelerated frames seem to be conceptually superfluous! Acceleration can always be transformed away by replacing it with an appropriate set of inertial frames. To make observations relative to an accelerated frame comprehensible, formulating them in terms of a sequence of instantaneous inertial frames seems (at first sight) to be sufficient.
The introduction of these inertial frames into physics was one of the two historical breakthroughs [@Einstein1907b] for Einstein, because mathematically they are the tangent spaces, the building blocks from which he built general relativity.
However, characterizing an accelerated frame as a one-parameter family of instantaneous Lorentz frames was only an approximation, as Einstein himself points out explicitly[@Einstein1907] in his 1907 article. The approximation consists of the fact that the Lorentz frames *never have relativistic velocities* with respect to one another. Thus Einstein approximated a hyperbolic world line in $I$ of Figure 1 by replacing it with a finite segment having the approximate shape of a parabola. If Einstein had not made this assumption, then he would have found immediately that associated with every uniformly linearly accelerated frame there is a *twin* moving into the opposite direction, and causally disjoint from the first. Nowadays these twins are called Rindler sectors $I$ and $II$ as in Figure 1.
Thus, *linearly uniformly accelerated frames always come in pairs*, which (a) are causally disjoint and (b) have lightlike boundaries, their past and future horizons.
These two Rindler coordinatized sectors together with their past $P$ and future $F$ form a *double-slit interferometer*[@Gerlach1999] relative to a spatially homogeneous but expanding coordinate frame. The two Rindler sectors $I$ and $II$ comprise the double slit portal through which wave fields propagate from $P$ to $F$. During this process the wave field interacts with sources, which due to their acceleration, are confined to, say, Rindler sectors $I$ and/or $II$. The interference between the waves coming from these two sectors is observed in $F$. There the field amplitude is sampled in space and in time.
Consider the field which is due to accelerated sources in $I$ or in $II$. A single inertial radio receiver which samples the field temporally is confronted with a metaphysically impossible task: Track and decode a signal with a Doppler chirp (time dependent Doppler shift) whose phase is logarithmic in time. The longer and more violent the acceleration of the source, the more pronounced the initial blueshift and/or the final redshift at the receiver end. Tracking the amplitude and the phase of such a chirped signal becomes a debilitating task for any receiver.
Suppose, however, the field gets intercepted by a set of mutually receding radio receivers. If they, in concert, sample the field spatially at a single instant of “synchronous” time, then there is no Doppler chirp whatsoever. An accelerated source which emits a sharp spectral line will produce an equally sharp spectral line in the spatial Fourier domain of the sampled space domain (in Figure \[fig:Rindler spacetime\]: $UV=\xi^2=const.$) of the expanding set of radio receivers. In brief, *a signal emitted by an accelerated point source is intercepted by a set of mutually receding phased radio receivers with 100 % fidelity*. We shall refer to this result as the *fidelity property* of Rindler’s spacetime geometry.
The physical reason for this result is given in Section \[sec-fidelity:physical\], the mathematical formulation in Section \[sec-fidelity:mathematical\].
The application of the fidelity property to the power emitted from an accelerated dipole oscillator is given in Section \[sec-radiated power\]. This application consists of Larmor’s formula[@Landau1962] augmented due to the fact that the oscillator is in a state of uniform acceleration.
The fidelity property applies to the radiation from a source accelerated in Rindler $I$ as well as to a source accelerated in Rindler $II$. If the two sources have the same frequency and are coherent, then the phased array of radio receivers measures an interference pattern which is mathematically indistinguishable from that due to a standard double slit. This result is spelled out in Section \[sec-double slit\].
It is worth while to reiterate that the fidelity property and its two applications are statements about the Rindler coordinate neighborhoods considered jointly, with the event horizons, $\xi=0$, integral building blocks of these concepts. Some workers in the field [@MTWch1], who view spacetime only in terms of “coordinate patches” or “coordinate charts” (i.e. comply with Einstein’s approximation mentioned above), tend to compare the locus of events $\xi=0$ in Fig. \[fig:Rindler spacetime\] to the coordinate singularity at the North Pole of a sphere or the origin of the Euclidean plane. Such a comparison leads to a pejorative assessment of Rindler’s coordinatization as “imperfect”,“singular”, or “poor” at $\xi=0 $[@MTWch1]. This is unfortunate. As a result, this comparison diverts attention from the fact that (1) waves from $I$ and $II$ interfere in $F$ and that (2) as a consequence, the resulting interference patterns serve as a natural way of probing and measuring scattering and/or radiative sources as well as gravitational disturbances in regions $I$ and $II$.
The Rindler double-slit opens additional vistas into the role of accelerated frames $I$ and $II$. They accommodate causally disjoint but correlated radiation and scattering centers whose mutually interfering radiation is observed and measured in $F$. These measurements are mathematically equivalent to having two accelerated observers in Rindler $I$ and $II$ respectively. From these measurements one can reconstruct in all detail the location and temporal evolution of all accelerated radiation sources. The aggregate of these sources comprises what in Euclidean optics is called an object, one in Rindler $I$ the other in Rindler $II$. What is observed in $F$ is the interference of two coherent diffraction patterns of these two objects. These measurements are qualitatively different from those that can be performed in any *static* inertial frame. They yield the kind of information which can be gathered only in accelerated frames with event horizons. One of the virtues of the Rindler double-slit interferometer is that it quite naturally avoids an obvious metaphysical impossibility[@MTW1973a], namely, have accelerating observers in Rindler sectors $I$ and $II$ which (a) have the physical robustness to withstand the high (by biological-technological standards) acceleration and/or (b) the longevity and the propulsion resources to co-accelerate for ever and never cross the future event horizon.
From the perspective of implementing measurements, the Rindler double-slit has advantages akin to those of a Mach-Zehnder interferometer [@Born; @and; @Wolf]: it permits an interferometric examination of regions of spacetime whose expanse is spacious enough to accommodate disturbances macroscopic in extent, and it permits one to achieve this feat without putting the measuring apparatus into harm’s way. However, in order to use the Rindler interferometer as a diagnostic tool one must first have the necessary conceptual infrastructure. This article provides four of its ingredients:
- Expanding free float frame
- Fidelity property of the Rindler spacetime geometry
- Augmented Larmor formula
- Double slit interference due to a pair of accelerated sources
*Nomenclature:* This articlae uses repeatedly the words “Rindler sector”, “Rindler spacetime”, etc. This is verbal shorthand for “Rindler coordinatized sector”, “Rindler coordinatized spacetime” etc. The implicit qualifier “coordinatized” is essential because, without it, “Rindler sector/spacetime” would become a mere floating abstraction, i.e. an idea severed from its observational and/or physical basis.
EXPANDING INERTIAL OBSERVATION FRAME
====================================
Fundamentally all of physics, including the physics of spacetime, is based on measurements. The class of measurements we shall focus on are those made by “recording clocks” [@Taylor; @and; @Wheeler; @1992] in a state of “free float”. The meaning of a “recording clock” is that each one of them consists of
- a clock oscillator which controls the clock and has a standard frequency,
- a transmitter whose emission frequency is controlled by this oscillator,
- a receiver capable of measuring the emitted radiation from the other recording clocks, even if there is a Doppler shift, and
- memory chips which can hold data acquired by the receiver.
Thus each clock is constructed like one of the GPS (Global Positioning System) units orbiting the earth. Assuming no gravitation, one says that the aggregate of recording clocks is in a state of “free float” (inertial motion) if the relative Doppler shift between each pair of such clocks is fixed and constant in time. There is *no Doppler chirp*. In other words, each recording clock measures (and stores in its memory) spectral lines which are sharp. The sharper the measured spectral lines the more closely the recording clocks are in a state of free float.
From this swarm of freely floating recording clocks one now forms, by a process of measurement omission, an equivalence class called an “expanding free float frame”.
Construction
------------
The formation of this concept is achieved by using one of the clocks, say $R$, as a reference clock which measures and collects two kinds of data about all the other clocks, say $A,B,C,\cdots$ : Doppler shifts and instantaneous distance of $A,B,C,\cdots$ from $R$.
Doppler shift measurements are frequency measurements. The emission frequencies of all clocks $A,B,C,\cdots$ are the same, say $\omega_0$. Consequently, the frequencies $\omega_A,\omega_B,\omega_C,\cdots$ received and measured by $R$ yield the corresponding Doppler shift factors $$k_A=\frac{\omega_A}{\omega_0}\equiv \exp{(-\tau_A)},
~k_B=\frac{\omega_B}{\omega_0}\equiv \exp{(-\tau_B)},~
k_C=\frac{\omega_C}{\omega_0}\equiv \exp{(-\tau_C)},~ \cdots$$ for the respective clocks. From these Doppler shift factors one obtains the relative velocities $$v_A=\frac{\displaystyle\frac{1}{k_A}-k_A}{\displaystyle\frac{1}{k_A}+k_A}\equiv \tanh \tau_A,~
v_B=\frac{\displaystyle\frac{1}{k_B}-k_B}{\displaystyle\frac{1}{k_B}+k_B}\equiv \tanh \tau_B,~
etc.$$ between $R$ and the respective clocks.
The second kind of measurement is the instantaneous separation. Suppose at some instant of time, say $t_R$, $R$ measures the distances $d_A,d_B,d_C, \cdots$ between $R$ and the clocks $A,B,C,\cdots$. One way of doing this is to have $R$ operate his transmitter and receiver as a radar device.
We now say that $A$ is equivalent to $B$, or more briefly $A\sim B$, if $$\frac{d_A}{v_A}= \frac{d_B}{v_B}\equiv \xi (t_R)~.
\label{eq:ratios}$$ It follows that
- $A\sim B$ implies $B\sim A$ and
- $A\sim B$ and $B\sim C$ imply $A\sim C$.
By retaining the distinguishing property, the equality of the ratios, Eq.(\[eq:ratios\]), while omitting reference to the particular measurements $d_A,d_B,d_C, \cdots$ and $k_A,k_B,k_C,\cdots$ one forms an equivalence class, the concept “expanding inertial frame”. It should be noted that the reference clock $R$ is always a member of this equivalence class. This is because, with $d_R=0$ and $v_R=0$, the equivalence condition $$\frac{d_R}{v_R}= \frac{d_B}{v_B}$$ is satisfied trivially.
The properties of this equivalence class do not depend on the time at which $R$ makes the distance measurements and hence not on the value of the ratio $\xi(t_R)$. Indeed, if instead of $t_R$ that time had been , say $t'_R$, then the corresponding distance measurements would be $d'_A,d'_B,d'_C, \cdots$, then one would still have a set of equal ratios $$\frac{d'_A}{v_A}= \frac{d'_B}{v_B}\equiv \xi (t'_R)~,$$ which would yield the same equivalence class of free float clocks.
The purpose of an inertial reference frame is for a physicist/observer to use its recording clocks to measure time and space displacements. These measurements consist of establishing quantitative relationships (typically via counting) to a standard which serves as a unit. For a time measurement the unit is the standard interval between any two successive ticks of a clock. For a space measurement the unit is the (logarithm of the) standard Doppler shift factor between any pair of nearest neighbor clocks. Thus the array of clocks forms a lattice which is periodic but is expanding uniformly: the recession velocity between any neighboring pair of clocks is one and the same. This periodicity is an obvious but tacit stipulation in what is meant by “expanding inertial frame”. Because of this property any one of the recording clocks $A,B,C,\cdots$ can play the role of the reference clock $R$, which is to say that the equivalence relation, Eq.(\[eq:ratios\]), is independent of the choice of $R$.
The two kinds of measurements which gave rise to the equivalence relation between recording clocks also serve to synchronize their operations. Every clock synchronizes itself to its nearest neighbor by setting its own clock reading to the ratio of (i) the nearest neighbor distance and (ii) the Doppler shift determined velocity. Thus the common ratio, Eq.(\[eq:ratios\]), is the synchronous time common to all recording clocks. This common time has an obvious interpretation: The straight-line extensions into the past of all clock histories intersect simultaneously in a common point. This is a singular event, which corresponds to $\xi=0$. The common synchronous time of these clocks is the elapsed proper time since then. However, it is obvious that this singular event is irrelevant for the definition of the expanding inertial frame. What is relevant instead is the ability of the recording clocks to measure Doppler shifts and distances, which presupposes that $\xi \neq 0$. In fact, these clocks might not even have existed until they performed their measurements.
Having constructed the spacetime measuring apparatus, we indicate in general terms how to make spacetime measurements of particles and fields.
Measurements of Particles and Fields
------------------------------------
The mechanical measurements by a physicist/observer of the spacetime properties of a classical particle consists of (a) identifying which clock detects the existence of the particle in what interval of synchronous time and (b) determining the particle’s velocity by measuring its Doppler shift. The first is a counting process in space and time, the second is a counting process in temporal frequency space.
The wave mechanical measurements of the spacetime properties of a classical electromagnetic (e.m.) field consist of using the expanding set of recording clocks to form a *phased array* of mutually receding receivers. This array samples the e.m. field at the locations of the recording clocks at regular intervals of synchronous time. The phased array mode involves all clocks at once and thus provides a record of the magnitude and spatial phase of the e.m. field. By repeating this procedure at temporal intervals controlled by the synchronized ticking of the clocks, one obtains a sampled historical record of the magnitude of the field and its temporal phase.
Transmission Fidelity {#sec-fidelity:physical}
=====================
The transfer of information from a transmitter to a receiver, or a system of receivers, depends on being able to establish a one to one correspondence between (i) the phase and amplitude of the e.m. source and (ii) the e.m. signals detected by the observer who mans the receiver(s) in his frame of reference. For a localized source with a straight worldline that frame is *static* and inertial. For a source with a hyperbolic worldline as in Figure \[fig:Rindler spacetime\], it is *expanding* and inertial. The e.m. signals are detected by having the recording clocks sample and measure the e.m. field at any fixed synchronous time $\xi>0$. Except for a $\xi$-dependent amplitude and domain shift, these measured field values (along the spatial domain $-\infty<\tau<\infty$) are precisely the values of the current source (along the temporal domain $-\infty<\tau'<\infty$) of the accelerated transmitter[@notation]. Geometrically one says that the transmitter signal-function, whose domain is a timelike hyperbola in Rindler sector $I$, coincides in essence with the receiver signal function whose domain is a spacelike hyperbola in Rindler sector $F$. Thus, if the signal-function is monochromatic at the transmitter end, then so is the signal function on the spatial domain at the receiver end. *There is no chirp* (changing wave length) *in the spatial wave pattern in the expanding inertial frame.*
One arrives at that conclusion by verifying it for wave packets, i.e. for narrow but finite pulses of nearly monochromatic radiation, which make up the e.m. signal. Thus consider a uniformly and linearly accelerated transmitter. The history of its center of mass is represented by a timelike hyperbola in, say, Rindler sector $I$ in Figure \[fig:Rindler spacetime\].
Let us have this single transmitter emit *two successive* pulses which have the same mean frequency and require that they be received at the same synchronous time $\xi$ by *two adjacent* recording clocks in $F$. One has therefore two well-defined emission-reception processes, $$(\tau'_A,\xi'):A(\tau'_A,\xi')
\begin{array}{c}
\textrm{world history of pulse }A\\
\textrm{-------------------------}\!\!\!\longrightarrow\\
\textrm{ }
\end{array}
(\xi,\tau_A):A(\xi,\tau_A)
\label{eq:process A}$$ and $$(\tau'_B,\xi'):B(\tau'_B,\xi')
\begin{array}{c}
\textrm{world history of pulse }B\\
\textrm{-------------------------}\!\!\!\longrightarrow\\
\textrm{ }
\end{array}
(\xi,\tau_B):B(\xi,\tau_B)~.
\label{eq:process B}$$ Each starts with a pulse emitted by the accelerated transmitter in Rindler sector $I$ and ends with the pulse’s reception by an inertial recording clock in Rindler sector $F$. Both processes end with the simultaneous reception of these pulses in the expanding inertial reference frame. Among its recording clocks there are precisely two, labelled by $\tau_A$ and $\tau_B$, which receive pulses $A$ and $B$.
The first process starts with pulse $A$ at event $(\tau'_A,\xi')$ on the timelike hyperbolic world line $\xi'=const'.$ in Rindler sector $I$. That pulse is launched from the instantaneous Lorentz frame $A(\tau'_A,\xi')$ centered around this event. Having traced out its world history across the future event horizon of $I$, this pulse ends the first process at event $(\xi,\tau_A)$ on the spacelike hyperbola of synchronous time $\xi=const.$ There, in the local Lorentz frame $A(\xi,\tau_A)$ of the inertial recording clock with label $\tau=\tau_A$, the (mean) wavelength of the pulse is measured and recorded.
The second process starts with pulse $B$ emitted at event $(\tau'_B,\xi')$ on the *same* timelike hyperbola $\xi'=const'.$ but at *different* Rindler time $\tau'=\tau'_B$. This pulse also traces out a world history across the future event horizon. But the end of this pulse is at $(\xi,\tau_B)$ on the *same* spacelike hyperbola $\xi=const.$ There the (mean) wavelength of the pulse gets measured relative the local Lorentz frame $B(\xi,\tau_B)$ of the inertial recording clock with *different* label $\tau=\tau_B$. Even though pulses $A$ and $B$ are emitted sequentially by one and the same transmitter, they are received simultaneously by two different recording clocks. This is made possible by the fact that the clock labelled by $\tau_B$ is moving towards the approaching pulse $B$. The blueshift resulting from this motion precisely compensates the redshift which pulse $B$ has relative to $A$ *if* the recording clock did not have this motion. Thus recording clocks $\tau_A$ and $\tau_B$ receive pulses $A$ and $B$ having precisely the same respective frequencies. This agreement is guaranteed by the principle of relativity. Indeed, Eq.(\[eq:process A\]) is a Lorentz transform of (\[eq:process B\]). Each consists of two events, two sets of frame vectors, and a straight pulse history. The Lorentz transformation maps these five entities associated with pulse $A$ into those associated with pulse $B$: $$\begin{array}{ccccc}
(\tau'_A,\xi'):&A(\tau'_A,\xi')&
\begin{array}{c}
\textrm{world history of pulse }A\\
\textrm{-------------------------}\!\!\!\longrightarrow\\
\textrm{ }
\end{array} &
(\xi,\tau_A):&A(\xi,\tau_A)\\
\downarrow&\downarrow&\downarrow&\downarrow&\downarrow\\
(\tau'_B,\xi'):&B(\tau'_B,\xi')&
\begin{array}{c}
\textrm{world history of pulse }B\\
\textrm{-------------------------}\!\!\!\longrightarrow\\
\textrm{ }
\end{array} &
(\xi,\tau_B):&B(\xi,\tau_B)
\end{array}$$
Thus the relative velocity, and hence the Doppler shift between frames $A(\xi',\tau'_A)$ and $A(\xi,\tau_A)$, is the same as that between $B(\tau'_B,\xi')$ and $B(\xi,\tau_B)$. This means that the wavelengths of the two received pulses at clock $A(\tau_A)$ and clock $B(\tau_B)$ are the same. There is *no Doppler chirp* in the composite spatial profile of the received e.m. field at fixed synchronous time $\xi$. If the emitted signal is monochromatic relative to the accelerated transmitter in $I$, then so is the spatial amplitude profile of the received signal relative to the expanding inertial frame in $F$. The transmission of a sequence of pulses is achieved with 100% fidelity.
This conclusion applies to all wavepackets. It also applies to any signal. This is because it is a linear superposition of such packets. A precise mathematical formulation of the emission of signals and their fidelity in transit from an accelerated source to an expanding inertial frame is developed in Section \[sec-fidelity:mathematical\].
Some authors thought that there is some sort of a disconnect between mathematics and physics, in particular between computations and what the computations refer to. For example, they claimed that “$\cdots$ the coordinates that we use \[for computation\] are arbitrary and have no physical meaning”[@Wigner1980] or “It is the very gist of relativity that anybody may use any frame \[in his computations\].”[@Schroedinger1956] Without delving into the epistemological fallacies underlying these claims, one should be aware of their unfortunate consequences. They tend to discourage attempts to understand natural processes whose very existence and identity one learns through measurements and computations based on nonarbitrary coordinate frames. The identification of radiation from violently accelerated bodies is a case in point. For these, two complementary frames are necessary: an accelerated frame to accommodate the source (Rindler sector $I$ and/or $II$) and the corresponding expanding inertial frame (Rindler sector $F$) to observe the information carried by the radiation coming from this source. These frames are physically and geometrically distinct from static inertial frames. They also provide the logical connecting link between the concepts and the perceptual manifestations (measurements) of these radiation processes. Without these frames the concepts would not be concepts but mere floating abstractions.
MAXWELL FIELDS: TRANSVERSE ELECTRIC AND TRANSVERSE MAGNETIC {#sec-Maxwell fields}
===========================================================
The connecting link between the observed electromagnetic (e.m.) field and its source is the Maxwell field equations. The linear acceleration of the source, as well as the relative motion of the expanding set of recording clocks, determine the axis of a cylindrical geometry. This geometry results in the solutions to the e.m. field being decomposed into two distinct independently evolving fields the familiar T.M. polarized field and the T.E. field. Each is based on a single scalar field, which is a scalar under those Lorentz transformations which preserve cylindrical symmetry. In particular, the T.M. (resp. T.E.) field has vanishing magnetic (resp. electric) but nonzero electric (resp. magnetic) field parallel to the cylinder axis. Finally, there are also the T.E.M. fields. They are both T.E. and T.M. at the same time, and they propagate strictly parallel to the cylinder axis.
There is an analogous T.M.-T.E.-T.E.M. decomposition of the source. For example, the difference between the T.M. and the T.E. fields is that the source of the T.M. fields is the density of electric multipoles, while the source for the T.E. fields is the density of magnetic multipoles.
The Method of the 2+2 Split
---------------------------
The first task is to solve the inhomogeneous Maxwell field equations[@Candelas; @plus; @Higuchi; @Alexander; @and; @Gerlach] and use its solution to determine the radiation properties to be measured. The best way to set up and solve these equations is to take advantage of the fact the cylindrical symmetry dictates a 2+2 decomposition of spacetime into a pair orthogonal 2-dimensional planes, one Euclidean, the other Lorentzian. The experienced reader will see that such a decomposition minimizes (compared to text book treatments) the amount of mathematical analysis, while simultaneously retaining all physical aspects of the radiation problem. Furthermore, these physical aspects lend themselves to nearly effortless identification because of the flexible curvilinear coordinate systems which the two orthogonal planes accommodate.
However, in order to appreciate the underlying line of reasoning as rapidly as possible, we first illustrate the 2+2 decomposition procedure on Minkowski spacetime coordinatized with the familiar rectilinear coordinates. We do this before proceeding to use it to solve Maxwell’s equations relative to the various Rindler coordinates plus polar coordinates as called for by the cylindrical coordinate geometry of linearly accelerating bodies.
In the presence of cylindrical symmetry the Maxwell field equations decouple into two sets, each of which gives rise to its own inhomogeneous scalar wave equation $$\left[
\left(
-{\partial^2 \over \partial t^2}
+{\partial^2 \over \partial z^2}
\right) +
\left(
{\partial^2 \over \partial x^2}+
{\partial^2 \over \partial y^2}
\right)
\right]
\psi(t,z,x,y) =-4\pi\, S(t,z,x,y)~~.
\label{eq:the full equation}$$ The charge-current four-vector $$S_\mu dx^\mu=S_t dt +S_z dz +S_x dx+S_y dy
\label{eq:rectilinear charge current four-vector}$$ for each set determines and is determined by appropriate derivatives of the scalar source $S(t,z,x,y)$. Similarly, the vector potential $$A_\mu dx^\mu =A_t dt+A_z dz+ A_x dx +A_y dy
\label{eq:the vector potential}$$ as well as the electromagnetic field $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}F_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu \wedge dx^\nu
&\equiv&
\frac{1}{2}(\partial_\mu A_\nu -\partial_\nu A_\mu)dx^\mu \wedge dx^\nu\\
&\equiv&
\hat E_{long.}dz \wedge dt +\hat E_y dy\wedge dt
+\hat E_x dx\wedge
dt\\
&~&~+\hat B_xdy\wedge dz +\hat B_y dz\wedge dx +\hat B_{long.}dx\wedge dy \end{aligned}$$ determine and are determined by the scalar wave function $\psi(t,z,x,y)$ with the result that the Maxwell field equations $${F_\mu^{~\nu}}_{;\nu}=4\pi S_\mu
\label{eq:Maxwell's equations}$$ are satisfied whenever the wave Eq.(\[eq:the full equation\]) is satisfied.
### The T.E. Field {#The T.E. Field}
For the T.E. degrees of freedom the components of the charge-current four-vector are $$( S_{t}, S_{z}, S_{x}, S_{y})=\left(0,0,
\frac{\partial S}{\partial y},
-\frac{\partial S}{\partial x}\right)~.
\label{eq:rectilinear T.E. source}$$ The components of the T.E. vector potential are $$( A_{t}, A_{z}, A_{x}, A_{y})=\left(0,0,
\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial y},
-\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x}\right)~,
\label{eq:rectilinear T.E. vector potential}$$ and those of the e.m. field are
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------
$ E_{long.}:$ $ F_{zt}=0 $
\[0mm\]$ E_x:$ $ \displaystyle F_{xt}=
-\frac{\partial }{\partial y}\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t } $
\[3mm\] $ E_y:$ $\displaystyle F_{yt}=
\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t} $
\[3mm\]$ B_{long.}:$ $\displaystyle F_{xy}=
-\left(
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}
+\frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2} \right) \psi $
\[2mm\]$ B_x:$ $\displaystyle F_{yz}=
\frac{\partial }{\partial x}
\frac{\partial \psi }{\partial z} $
\[3mm\]$ B_y:$ $\displaystyle F_{zx}=
\frac{\partial }{\partial y}
\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial z}$
\[3mm\]
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------
These components are guaranteed to satisfy all the Maxwell field equations with T.E. source, Eq.(\[eq:rectilinear T.E. source\]), whenever $\psi$ satisfies the inhomogeneous scalar wave equation, Eq.(\[eq:the full equation\]).
### The T.M. Field {#The T.M. Field}
For the T.M. degrees of freedom the source and the electromagnetic field are also derived from a solution to the same inhomogeneous scalar wave Eq.(\[eq:the full equation\]). However, the difference from the T.E. case is that the four-vector components of the source and the vector potential lie in the Lorentz $(t,z)$-plane. Thus, instead of Eqs.(\[eq:rectilinear T.E. source\]) and (\[eq:rectilinear T.E. vector potential\]), one has the T.M. source $$( S_{t}, S_{z}, S_{x}, S_{y})=\left(
\frac{\partial S}{\partial z},
\frac{\partial S}{\partial t},0,0 \right)
\label{eq:rectilinear T.M. source}$$ and the T.M. vector potential $$( A_{t}, A_{z}, A_{x}, A_{y})=\left(
\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial z},
\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t} ,0,0 \right)~.
\label{eq:rectilinear T.M. vector potential}$$ All the corresponding T.M. field components are derived from the scalar $\psi(t,z,x,y)$: $$\begin{array}{c}
\begin{tabular}[t]{|l|c|}
\hline
$ E_{long.}:$
& $ \displaystyle F_{zt}= \left(
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial z^2}
-\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2} \right) \psi $\\
[1mm]\hline
%
$ E_x:$&$ \displaystyle F_{xt}=
\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial z } $\\
[3mm] \hline
%
$ E_y:$ & $\displaystyle F_{yt}=
\frac{\partial }{\partial y}\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial z} $
\\[3mm]\hline
$ B_{long.}:$ & $\displaystyle F_{xy}=0 $\\ [2mm]\hline
%
$ B_x:$ & $\displaystyle F_{yz}=
\frac{\partial }{\partial y}
\frac{\partial \psi }{\partial t} $\\
[3mm]\hline
%
$ B_y:$ & $\displaystyle F_{zx}=
-\frac{\partial }{\partial x}
\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}$\\
[3mm]\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{array}$$ These components are guaranteed to satisfy all the Maxwell field equations with the T.M. source, Eq.(\[eq:rectilinear T.M. source\]), whenever $\psi$ satisfies the inhomogeneous scalar wave equation, Eq.(\[eq:the full equation\]).
### The T.E.M. Field Equations
There are also the T.E.M. degrees of freedom. For them the Maxwell four-vector source $$( S_{t}, S_{z}, S_{x}, S_{y})=\left( \frac{\partial I}{\partial t},
\frac{\partial I}{\partial z},\frac{\partial J}{\partial
x},\frac{\partial J}{\partial y}\right)
\label{eq:rectilinear T.E.M. source}$$ is derived from two functions $I(t,z,x,y)$ and, $J(t,z,x,y)$, scalars on the 2-D Lorentz plane and the 2-D-Euclidean plane respectively. They are, however, not independent. Charge conservation demands the relation $$\left(
{\partial^2 \over \partial t^2}
-{\partial^2 \over \partial z^2}
\right)I =
\left(
{\partial^2 \over \partial x^2}+
{\partial^2 \over \partial y^2}
\right)J$$ The T.E.M. four-vector potential $$( A_{t}, A_{z}, A_{x}, A_{y})=\left( \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t},
\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial z},\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial
x},\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial y}\right)
\label{eq:rectilinear T.E.M. vector potential}$$ has the same form, but only the difference $\phi-\psi$ is determined by the field equations. Indeed, the T.E.M. field components are derived from this difference:
---------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
$ E_{long.}:$ $ \displaystyle F_{zt}= 0$
\[1mm\]$ E_x:$ $ \displaystyle F_{xt}=\partial_x A_t-\partial_t A_x=
\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\frac{\partial (\phi-\psi)}{\partial t} $
\[3mm\] $ E_y:$ $\displaystyle F_{yt}=\partial_y A_t-\partial_t A_y=
\frac{\partial }{\partial y}\frac{\partial (\phi-\psi)}{\partial t} $
\[3mm\]$ B_{long.}:$ $\displaystyle F_{xy}=0 $
\[2mm\]$ B_x:$ $\displaystyle F_{yz}=\partial_y A_z-\partial_z A_y=
\frac{\partial }{\partial y}
\frac{\partial (\phi-\psi) }{\partial z} $
\[3mm\]$ B_y:$ $\displaystyle F_{zx}=\partial_z A_x-\partial_x A_z=
-\frac{\partial }{\partial x}
\frac{\partial (\phi-\psi)}{\partial z}$
\[3mm\]
---------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e.m. field satisfies the Maxwell field equations if any two of the following three scalar equations, $$\begin{aligned}
-\left(
{\partial^2 \over \partial x^2}+
{\partial^2 \over \partial y^2}
\right)(\phi-\psi)&=&4\pi I \\
\left(
-{\partial^2 \over \partial t^2}+
{\partial^2 \over \partial z^2}
\right)(\phi-\psi)&=&4\pi J \\
\left(
{\partial^2 \over \partial t^2}
-{\partial^2 \over \partial z^2}
\right)I &=&
\left(
{\partial^2 \over \partial x^2}+
{\partial^2 \over \partial y^2}
\right)J
\label{eq:three T.E.M. equations}\end{aligned}$$ are satisfied. The last equation is, of course, simply the conservation of charge equation. Furthermore, it is evident that the T.E.M. field propagates strictly along the $z$-axis, the direction of the Pointing vector.
Existence and Uniqueness of the Method of the 2+2 Split
-------------------------------------------------------
Can an arbitrary vector potential be written in terms of four suitably chosen scalars $\psi^{T.E.},\psi^{T.M.},\psi$ and $\phi$ so as to satisfy Eqs.(\[eq:rectilinear T.E. vector potential\]), (\[eq:rectilinear T.M. vector potential\]), and (\[eq:rectilinear T.E.M. vector potential\])? If the answer is “yes” then any e.m. field can be expressed in terms of these scalars, and one can claim that these scalars give a complete and equivalent description of the e.m. field. It turns out that this is indeed the case. In fact, the description is also unique. Indeed, given the vector potential, Eq.(\[eq:the vector potential\]), there exist four unique scalars which are determined by this vector potential so as to satisfy Eqs.(\[eq:rectilinear T.E. vector potential\]), (\[eq:rectilinear T.M. vector potential\]), and (\[eq:rectilinear T.E.M. vector potential\]). The determining equations, obtained by taking suitable derivatives, are $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial^2 \psi^{T.E.}}{\partial x^2}+
\frac{\partial^2 \psi^{T.E.}}{\partial y^2}
&=&\partial_y A_x -\partial_x A_y \label{eq:1st equation}\\
-\frac{\partial^2 \psi^{T.M.}}{\partial t^2}+
\frac{\partial^2 \psi^{T.M.}}{\partial z^2}
&=&\partial_z A_t -\partial_t A_z \label{eq:2nd equation}\\
\frac{\partial^2 \psi}{\partial x^2}+
\frac{\partial^2 \psi}{\partial y^2}
&=&\partial_x A_x +\partial_y A_y \label{eq:3rd equation}\\
-\frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial t^2}+
\frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial z^2}
&=&-\partial_t A_t +\partial_z A_z \label{eq:4th equation}\end{aligned}$$ These equations guarantee the existence of the sought after scalar functions $\psi^{T.E.},\psi^{T.M.},\psi$ and $\phi$ . Their uniqueness follows from their boundary conditions in the Euclidean $(x,y)$-plane and their initial conditions in the Lorentzian $(t,z)$-plane. Consequently, Eqs.(\[eq:1st equation\])-(\[eq:4th equation\]) together with Eqs.(\[eq:rectilinear T.E. vector potential\]), (\[eq:rectilinear T.M. vector potential\]), and (\[eq:rectilinear T.E.M. vector potential\]) establish a one-to-one linear correspondence between the space of vector potentials and the space of four ordered scalars, $$(\psi^{T.E.},\psi^{T.M.},\psi,\phi)\leftarrow \!\!\!\rightarrow
(A_t,A_z,A_x,A_y)$$ Of the four scalars, three are gauge invariants, namely $\psi^{T.E.}$, $\psi^{T.M.}$, and the difference $\psi -\phi$, a result made obvious by inspecting Eqs.(\[eq:1st equation\])-(\[eq:4th equation\]).
Historical Remarks
------------------
The T.E. scalar and the T.M. scalar whose derivatives yield the respective vector potentials Eqs.(\[eq:rectilinear T.E. vector potential\]) and (\[eq:rectilinear T.M. vector potential\]) can be related to Righi’s magnetic “super potential” vector $\vec{\Pi}^m$ and Hertz’s electric “super potential” vector $\vec{\Pi}^e$[@Phillips]. Indeed, if $\psi_{T.E.}$ is the T.E. scalar and $\psi_{T.M.}$ is the T.M. scalar, then these scalars are simply the $z$-components of the corresponding super potential vectors $$\begin{aligned}
\vec{\Pi}^m &\equiv& (\Pi^m_x ,
\Pi^m_y,\Pi^m_z)=(0,0,\psi_{T.E.})~~~\textrm{``Righi''}\\
\vec{\Pi}^e &\equiv& (\Pi^e_x,
\Pi^e_y,\Pi^e_z)=(0,0,\psi_{T.M.})~~~~~\textrm{``Hertz''} \end{aligned}$$ In fact, subsequent to Hertz’s 1900 and Righi’s 1901 introduction of their super potential vectors, Whittaker in 1903 showed that the Maxwell field can be derived precisely from our two gauge invariant scalars $\psi^{TE}$ and $\psi^{TM}$[@Phillips].
Application to Accelerated and Expanding Inertial Frames
--------------------------------------------------------
A key virtue of splitting spacetime according to the 2+2 scheme is its flexibility. It accommodates the necessary Rindler coordinate geometries which are called for by the physical problem: accelerated frames for the accelerated sources, and expanding inertial frames for the inertial observers who measure the radiation emitted from these sources. These geometries are $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2&=&-\xi^2 d\tau^2 +d\xi^2+dr^2 +r^2d\theta^2 \qquad
\textrm{in}~I~\textrm{or~in}~II \quad \textrm{(``accelerated
~frame'')}
\label{eq:Rindler metric I and II}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2&=&-d\xi^2 +\xi^2 d\tau^2 +dr^2 +r^2d\theta^2 \qquad \textrm{in}~F~\textrm{or in}~P
\quad\textrm{(``expanding (or contracting) inertial frame'')}
\label{eq:Rindler metric P and F}\end{aligned}$$ In these two frames the Rindler/polar-coordinatized version of Eq.(\[eq:the full equation\]) is $$\left[
\left(
-\frac{1}{\xi^2} \frac{\partial ^2}{\partial \tau} +
\frac{1}{\xi} \frac{\partial}{\partial \xi}\xi \frac{\partial}{\partial \xi}
\right)+
\left(
\frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial}{\partial r}r \frac{\partial}{\partial r}
+\frac{1}{r^2} \frac{\partial ^2}{\partial \theta}
\right)
\right]
\psi(\tau,\xi,r,\theta)=-4\pi S(\tau,\xi,r,\theta)~~~~~~~~~~~~
\textrm{in}~I~\textrm{or~in}~II~,
\label{eq:full scalar equation in I and II}$$ and $$\left[
\left(
-\frac{1}{\xi} \frac{\partial}{\partial \xi}\xi \frac{\partial}{\partial \xi}
+\frac{1}{\xi^2} \frac{\partial ^2}{\partial \tau}
\right)+
\left(
\frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial}{\partial r}r \frac{\partial}{\partial r}
+\frac{1}{r^2} \frac{\partial ^2}{\partial \theta}
\right)
\right]
\psi(\xi,\tau, r,\theta)=0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\textrm{in}~F~\textrm{or~in}~P~.
\label{eq:full scalar equation in F and P}$$ *Notational rule:* The Rindler coordinates listed in the arguments of the scalar functions in Eqs.(\[eq:full scalar equation in I and II\]) and (\[eq:full scalar equation in F and P\]) are always listed with the timelike coordinate first, followed by the spatial coordinates. Thus $(\tau,\xi,r,\theta)$ implies that the function is defined on Rindler sectors $I$ or $II$, as in Eq.(\[eq:full scalar equation in I and II\]). On the other hand, $(\xi,\tau,r,\theta)$ implies that the domain of the function is $F$ or $P$, as in Eq.(\[eq:full scalar equation in F and P\]).
The feature common to the T.E. and the T.M. field is that both of them are based on the two-dimensional curl of a scalar, say $\psi$. The difference is that for the T.E. field this curl is in the Euclidean plane, $$\nabla_a \times \psi \equiv \epsilon_{ab} ~^{(2)} g^{bc}
\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x^c}:~~(\nabla_r \times \psi,\nabla_\theta
\times \psi)= \left( \frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial\theta},
-r \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial r} \right)~,$$ while for the T.M. field this curl is the Lorentz plane, $$\nabla_A \times \psi \equiv \epsilon_{AB} ~^{(2)} g^{BC}
\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x^C}:~~(\nabla_\tau \times \psi,\nabla_\xi
\times \psi)= \left( \xi \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \xi},
\frac{1}{\xi} \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial\tau} \right)\quad \textrm{in }I
\textrm{ or in }II~,$$ and $$\nabla_A \times \psi \equiv \epsilon_{AB} ~^{(2)} g^{BC}
\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x^C}:~~(\nabla_\xi \times \psi,\nabla_\tau
\times \psi)= \left( \frac{1}{\xi} \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial\tau},
\xi \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \xi} \right)\quad \textrm{in }F
\textrm{ or in }P~,$$ The $\epsilon_{ab}$ and $\epsilon_{AB}$ are the components of the antisymmetric area tensors on the two respective planes.
### The T.E. Field {#sec-the T.E. field}
For the T.E. degrees of freedom the charge-current $S_\mu dx^\mu$ and the vector potential $A_\mu dx^\mu$ have the form given by $$( S_{\tau}, S_{\xi}, S_{r}, S_{\theta})=\left(0,0,
\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial S}{\partial \theta},
-r\frac{\partial S}{\partial r}\right)~,
\label{eq:polar T.E. source}$$ and $$( A_{\tau}, A_{\xi}, A_{r}, A_{\theta})=\left(0,0,
\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \theta},
-r\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial r}\right)~.
\label{eq:polar T.E. vector potential}$$ The electromagnetic field, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}F_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu \wedge dx^\nu &\equiv&
\hat E_{long.}d\xi\wedge \xi d\tau +\hat E_r dr\wedge \xi d\tau
+\hat E_\theta r d\theta \wedge \xi d\tau\\
&~&~+\hat B_r rd\theta\wedge d\xi +\hat B_\theta d\xi\wedge dr +\hat B_{long.}dr\wedge rd\theta
\qquad\qquad \qquad\qquad\textrm{in}~I~\textrm{and}~II~\\
%
&\equiv&\hat E_{long.}\xi d\tau\wedge d\xi +\hat E_r dr\wedge d\xi
+\hat E_\theta rd\theta\wedge d\xi \\
&~&~+\hat B_r rd\theta\wedge \xi d\tau +\hat B_\theta \xi d\tau\wedge dr +\hat B_{long.}dr\wedge rd\theta
\qquad\qquad \qquad\quad\textrm{in}~P~\textrm{and}~F~,\end{aligned}$$ has the following components:
[|l|c|c|]{} &In $I$ or in $II$ &In $F$ or in $P$\
$\hat E_{long.}:$& $ \displaystyle{\frac{1}{\xi}F_{\xi\tau}=0}$ & $\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi}F_{\tau\xi}=0$\
\[3mm\]
$\hat E_r:$&$ \displaystyle\frac{1}{\xi}F_{r\tau}=
-\frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial}{\partial\theta}\left( \frac{1}{\xi}
\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \tau} \right)$ &$ \displaystyle F_{r\xi}=
-\frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial}{\partial\theta}\left(
\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \xi} \right) $\
\[3mm\] $\hat E_\theta:$& $ \displaystyle\frac{1}{\xi r}F_{\theta\tau}=
\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left( \frac{1}{\xi}\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \tau}
\right)$ & $\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}F_{\theta\xi}=
\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left( \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \xi} \right)$\
\[3mm\]$\hat B_{long.}:$&$ \displaystyle \frac{1}{r}F_{r\theta}=
-\left(
\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}r \frac{\partial}{\partial r}
+\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial\theta^2} \right) \psi
$ & $\displaystyle \frac{1}{r} F_{r\theta}=
-\left(
\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}r \frac{\partial}{\partial r}
+\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial\theta^2} \right) \psi
$\
\[2mm\]$\hat B_r:$&$ \displaystyle \frac{1}{r}F_{\theta\xi}=
\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left(\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \xi}\right)$ & $\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi r}F_{\theta\tau }=
\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left( \frac{1}{\xi}\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \tau}
\right) $\
$\hat B_\theta:$&$ \displaystyle F_{\xi r}=
\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta} \left(\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \xi}
\right)$ & $\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi}F_{\tau r}=
\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta} \left(
\frac{1}{\xi}\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \tau} \right)
$\
The carets in the first column serve as a reminder that these components are relative to the orthonormal basis of the metric, Eqs.(\[eq:Rindler metric I and II\]) and (\[eq:Rindler metric P and F\]).
### The T.M. Field {#the-t.m.-field}
The T.M. has its source and vector potential four-vectors lie strictly in the 2-d Lorentz plane: $$( S_{\tau}, S_{\xi}, S_{r}, S_{\theta})=\left(
\xi\frac{\partial S}{\partial \xi},
\frac{1}{\xi}\frac{\partial S}{\partial \tau},0,0 \right)\quad
\textrm{in }I\textrm{ or in }II~,
\label{eq:polar T.M. source}$$ $$( A_{\tau}, A_{\xi}, A_{r}, A_{\theta})=\left(
\xi\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \xi},
\frac{1}{\xi}\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \tau},0,0\right)\quad
\textrm{in }I\textrm{ or in }II~,
\label{eq:polar T.M. vector potential in I or II}$$ and $$( A_{\xi}, A_{\tau}, A_{r}, A_{\theta})=\left(
\frac{1}{\xi}\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \tau},
\xi\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \xi},0,0\right)\quad
\textrm{in }F\textrm{ or in }P~
\label{eq:polar T.M. vector potential in F or P}$$ The components of the T.M. Maxwell field are
[|l|c|c|]{} &In $I$ or in $II$ &In $F$ or in $P$\
$\hat E_{long.}:$& $ \displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi}F_{\xi\tau}=
\left(
\frac{1}{\xi}\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi}\xi\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi}
-\frac{1}{\xi^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial\tau^2} \right) \psi$ & $\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi}F_{\tau\xi}=
-\left(
\frac{1}{\xi}\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi}\xi\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi}
-\frac{1}{\xi^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial\tau^2} \right) \psi $\
\[3mm\]
$\hat E_r:$&$ \displaystyle\frac{1}{\xi}F_{r\tau}=
\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left(
\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \xi} \right)$ &$ \displaystyle F_{r\xi}=
\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left(
\frac{1}{\xi}\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \tau} \right) $\
\[3mm\] $\hat E_\theta:$& $ \displaystyle\frac{1}{\xi r}F_{\theta\tau}=
\frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}
\left( \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \xi}
\right)$ & $\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}F_{\theta\xi}=
\frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}\left
( \frac{1}{\xi}\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \tau} \right)$\
\[3mm\]$\hat B_{long.}:$&$ \displaystyle \frac{1}{r}F_{r\theta}=0$ & $\displaystyle \frac{1}{r} F_{r\theta}=0$\
\[2mm\]$\hat B_r:$&$ \displaystyle \frac{1}{r}F_{\theta\xi}=
\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}
\left(\frac{1}{\xi}\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \tau}\right)$ & $\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi r}F_{\theta\tau }=
\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}\left(
\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \xi}
\right) $\
$\hat B_\theta:$&$ \displaystyle F_{\xi r}=
-\frac{\partial}{\partial r} \left( \frac{1}{\xi}\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \tau}
\right)$ & $\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi}F_{\tau r}=
-\frac{\partial}{\partial r} \left(
\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \xi} \right)
$\
### A Mnemonic Short Cut
There is a quick way of obtaining all the physical (orthonormal) components of the electric and magnetic field. Note that the longitudinal electric and magnetic field components $\hat E_{long}$ and $\hat B_{long}$ are scalars in the Lorentz plane and in the Euclidean plane transverse to it. Consequently, for these components the transition from Minkowski to Rindler/polar coordinates could have been done without any computations. The same is true for the two-dimensional transverse electric and magnetic field vectors. As suggested by Eqs.(\[eq:Rindler metric I and II\]) and (\[eq:Rindler metric P and F\]), in the denominator of the partial derivatives simply make the replacements $$\begin{aligned}
\partial t &\rightarrow& \xi \partial \tau\\
\partial z &\rightarrow& \partial \xi\\
\partial x &\rightarrow& \partial r\\
\partial y &\rightarrow& r \partial \theta\end{aligned}$$ in Rindler sectors $I$ or $II$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\partial t &\rightarrow& \partial \xi\\
\partial z &\rightarrow& \xi \partial \tau\\
\partial x &\rightarrow& \partial r\\
\partial y &\rightarrow& r \partial \theta\end{aligned}$$ in Rindler sectors $F$ or $P$. These replacements yield the computed transverse T.E. and T.M. components.
There also is a quick way of obtaining the T.M. field from the T.E. field components. Let $\psi^{TE}$ be the scalar wave function which satisfies the Klein-Gordon wave function for the T.E. field, and let $\psi^{TM}$ be that for the T.M. field. Then the corresponding field components are related as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
T.E. &~& ~T.M.\\
\psi^{TE} &\rightarrow& ~~\psi^{TM} \\
\hat E_{long}=0 &\rightarrow& -\hat B_{long}=0 \\
\hat E_r &\rightarrow& -\hat B_r \\
\hat E_\theta &\rightarrow& -\hat B_\theta \\
\hat B_{long} &\rightarrow& ~~\hat E_{long}~~~~~~~(in~vacuum)\\
\hat B_r &\rightarrow& ~~\hat E_r \\
\hat B_\theta &\rightarrow& ~~\hat E_\theta \end{aligned}$$ This relationship holds in all four Rindler sectors. It also holds correspondingly relative to the rectilinear coordinate frame in Sections \[The T.M. Field\] and \[The T.E. Field\].
RADIATION: MATHEMATICAL RELATION TO THE SOURCE {#sec-radiation:mathematical}
==============================================
Any Maxwell field $F_{\mu\nu}$ can be obtained from a single Klein-Gordon scalar field $\psi$, a solution to the scalar wave Eq.(\[eq:the full equation\]). This is done with the help of the T.E. and T.M. tables of derivatives. Similarly, any K-G field $\psi$ can be obtained from the source function $S$. This is done with the help of the unit impulse response $\mathcal G$ (Green’s function), the solution to $$\left(
-\frac{\partial ^2}{\partial t^2} +
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial z^2}+
\frac{1}{r} \frac{\partial}{\partial r}r \frac{\partial}{\partial r}
+\frac{1}{r^2} \frac{\partial ^2}{\partial \theta}~.
\right)
{\mathcal{G}}
=-\delta(t-t')\delta(z-z') \frac{\delta(r-r')}{r}
\delta(\theta-\theta')
\label{eq:equation for the unit impulse response}$$ In terms of $\mathcal G$ the solution to the inhomogeneous wave equation, Eq.(\[eq:full scalar equation in I and II\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(t,z,r,\theta)&=&
\int_{-\infty}^\infty \int_0^\infty \int_0^\infty \int_0^{2\pi}
{\mathcal{G}}(t,z,r,\theta;\tau',\xi',r',\theta')
~4\pi S(t',z',r',\theta')~~dt'\, dz'\, r' dr'\, d\theta'~,
\label{eq:full scalar fields in I or II}\end{aligned}$$ Here $S$ is the scalar source, which is non-zero only in Rindler sectors $I$ and $II$.
Unit Impulse Response
---------------------
The solution to Eq.(\[eq:equation for the unit impulse response\]) is the retarded Green’s function, a unique scalar field, whose domain extends over all four Rindler sectors. One accommodates the cylindrical symmetry of the coordinate geometry by representing the scalar field in terms of the appropriate eigenfunctions, the Bessel harmonics $J_m(kr)e^{im\theta}$, for the Euclidean $(r,\theta)$-plane: $${\mathcal{G}}(t,z,r,\theta;t',z',r',\theta')=
\sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty \int_0^\infty
G(t,z;t',z') ~J_m(kr)\frac{e^{im(\theta-\theta')}}{2\pi}
J_m(kr')~k\, dk ~,
\label{eq:global Green's function in terms of Bessel harmonics}$$ where $G$ satisfies $$\left(
-\frac{\partial ^2}{\partial t^2}+
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial z^2} - k^2
\right)
G=-\delta(t-t')\delta(z-z')~,$$ and $$G=0 \quad \textrm{whenever }t<t'~.$$ This Green’s function is unique, and it is easy to show[@HOW; @TO; @FIND; @IT] that $$G=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{1}{2}J_0(k\sqrt{(t-t')^2-(z-z')^2})
&\textrm{ whenever }t-t'\ge\vert z-z'\vert\\
0& \textrm{ whenever } t-t'<\vert z-z'\vert~.
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq:partial global Green's function}$$ This means that $G$ is non-zero only inside the future of the source event $(t',z')$, and vanishes identically everywhere else. The function $G(t,z;t',z')$ is defined on all four Rindler sectors. However, our interest is only in those of its coordinate representatives whose source events lie Rindler sectors $I$ or $II$, $$\left.
\begin{array}{ll}
t'&=\pm\xi'\sinh\tau'\\
z'&=\pm\xi'\cosh\tau'
\end{array}
\right\}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\textrm{ upper sign for }I\\
\textrm{ lower sign for }II~,
\end{array}
\right.$$ and whose observation events lie in Rindler sector $F$, $$\begin{array}{ll}
t&=\xi\cosh\tau\\
z&=\xi\sinh\tau ~.
\end{array}$$ For these coordinate restrictions the two coordinate representatives of $G(t,z;t',z')$, Eq.(\[eq:partial global Green’s function\]), are $$\begin{aligned}
G_I(k\xi,\tau;\tau',k\xi')&=&
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{1}{2}
J_0\left(k\sqrt{\xi^2-\xi'^2+ 2\xi\xi' \sinh (\tau-\tau')}\right)
&\textrm{whenever}~(\xi,\tau)~\textrm{is~in}~F~
\textrm{and}~(\xi',\tau') ~\textrm{is~in}~I \\
0 &\textrm{ whenever }\xi^2-\xi'^2+2\xi\xi'\sinh(\tau-\tau')<0
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq:partial Green's function for sector I} \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
G_{II}(k\xi,\tau;\tau',k\xi')&=&
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{1}{2}
J_0\left(k\sqrt{\xi^2-\xi'^2-2\xi\xi' \sinh (\tau-\tau')}\right)
&\textrm{whenever}~(\xi,\tau)~\textrm{is~in}~F~
\textrm{and}~(\xi',\tau') ~\textrm{is~in}~II \\
0 &\textrm{ whenever }\xi^2-\xi'^2-2\xi\xi'\sinh(\tau-\tau')<0
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq:partial Green's function for sector II}\end{aligned}$$ These two coordinate representatives give rise to the corresponding two representatives of the unit impulse response, Eq.(\[eq:global Green’s function in terms of Bessel harmonics\]), $${\mathcal{G}}_{I,II}(\xi,\tau,r,\theta;\tau',\xi',r',\theta')=\int_0^\infty
G_{I,II}(k\xi,\tau;\tau',k\xi') \sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty
J_m(kr)\frac{e^{im(\theta-\theta')}}{2\pi}
J_m(kr')~k\, dk ~,
\label{eq:Green's function representatives in terms of Bessel harmonics}$$ This integral expression is exactly what is needed to obtain the radiation field from bodies accelerated in $I$ and/or $II$. However, in order to ascertain agreement with previously established knowledge, we shall use the remainder of this subsection to evaluate the sum and the integral in Eq.(\[eq:Green’s function representatives in terms of Bessel harmonics\]) explicitly.
It is a delightful property of Bessel harmonics that the sum over $m$ can be evaluated in closed form[@Sommerfeld]. This property is the Euclidean plane analogue of what for spherical harmonics is the spherical addition theorem. One has $$\sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty
J_m(kr)\frac{e^{im(\theta-\theta')}}{2\pi} J_m(kr')=\frac{1}{2\pi}
J_0\left(k\sqrt{r^2+r'^2 -2rr'\cos(\theta-\theta')}\right)
\label{eq:addition theorem for the Euclidean plane}$$ Inserting this result, as well as Eqs.(\[eq:partial Green’s function for sector I\]) or (\[eq:partial Green’s function for sector II\]) into Eq.(\[eq:Green’s function representatives in terms of Bessel harmonics\]) yields the two unit impulse response functions with sources in $I$ (upper sign) and $II$ (lower sign) $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{G}}_{I,II}(\xi,\tau,r,\theta;\tau',\xi',r',\theta')
&=& \frac{1}{4\pi}\int_0^\infty
J_0\left(k\sqrt{\xi^2-\xi'^2\pm 2\xi\xi' \sinh (\tau-\tau')}\right)
J_0\left(k\sqrt{r^2+r'^2 -2rr'\cos(\theta-\theta')}\right) k\,dk
\nonumber \\
&=& \frac{1}{4\pi}\int_0^\infty
J_0\left( k\sqrt{(t-t')^2-(z-z')^2}\right)J_0\left(k\sqrt{(x-x')^2-(y-y')^2}\right)
\,k\,dk\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ whenever $t-t' \ge \vert z-z'\vert$ and zero otherwise. The spread-out amplitudes of this linear superposition interfere constructively to form a Dirac delta function response. Indeed, using the standard representation $$\int_0^\infty J_0(ka)J_0(kb)~kdk=\frac{\delta(a-b)}{b}$$ for this function, one finds that $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{G}}_{I,II}(\xi,\tau,r,\theta;\tau',\xi',r',\theta')&=&\frac{1}{4\pi}
\frac{\delta\left(
\sqrt{\xi^2-\xi'^2\pm 2\xi\xi' \sinh (\tau-\tau')}-
\sqrt{r^2+r'^2 -2rr'\cos(\theta-\theta')}
\right)}{\sqrt{r^2+r'^2 -2rr'\cos(\theta-\theta')}}\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1}{2\pi}
\delta\left(
\xi^2-\xi'^2\pm 2\xi\xi' \sinh (\tau-\tau')- (r^2+r'^2 -2rr'\cos(\theta-\theta'))
\right)\label{causal response b}\\
&=&\frac{1}{2\pi}
\delta\left( (t-t')^2-(z-z')^2-(x-x')^2-(y-y')^2 \right)
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ whenever $(t,z,x,y)$ is in the future of $(t',z',x',y')$. This is the familiar causal response in $F$ due to a unit impulse event in $I$ or in $II$.
Full Scalar Radiation Field
---------------------------
The scalar field measured in Rindler sector $F$ of the expanding inertial reference frame is the linear superposition $$\psi_F(\xi,\tau,r,\theta)=\psi_I(\xi,\tau,r,\theta)+\psi_{II}(\xi,\tau,r,\theta)
\label{eq:full scalar field in F from I and II}$$ of two contributions. They arise from two causally disjoint sources, one in Rindler sector $I$, the other in Rindler sector $II$. Applying Eq.(\[eq:Green’s function representatives in terms of Bessel harmonics\]) together with Eqs.(\[eq:partial Green’s function for sector I\]) and (\[eq:partial Green’s function for sector II\]) to Eq.(\[eq:full scalar fields in I or II\]), one finds that these contributions are $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{ \psi_{I,II}(\xi,\tau,r,\theta)= \sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty \int_0^\infty k\, dk e^{im\theta} J_m(kr) \times }\nonumber\\
& &\int_{-\infty}^\infty d\tau' \int_0^\infty \xi' d\xi' \frac{1}{2}
J_0\left( k\sqrt{\xi^2-\xi'^2 \pm 2\xi\xi' \sinh (\tau-\tau')}\right)
\int_0^\infty r'dr' \int_0^{2\pi} d\theta' \frac{e^{-im\theta'}}{2\pi}J_m(kr')
~4\pi S_{I,II}(\tau',\xi',r',\theta')
\label{eq:two contributions from I and II}\end{aligned}$$ These radiation fields are exact in the sense that we have made no assumptions about the size of the sources in relation to their radiated wavelengths. The only restriction is that the two source functions $S_I$ and $S_{II}$ be non-zero only in $I$ and $II$ respectively.
The key to identifying the nature of these fields is the evaluation of the mode sum over $m$ and the mode integral over $k$. These evaluations have been done already starting with Eq.(\[eq:addition theorem for the Euclidean plane\]), and gave rise to the familiar causal unit impulse response, Eq.(\[causal response b\]). However, for the purpose of physical transparency we shall not make these evaluations. Instead, we shall make an evaluation which is based on the assumption that each source is small compared to its radiated wave lengths $k^{-1}$. Physically this means that the phase of the e.m. field is the same across the whole extent of the source. Mathematically this means that the Bessel function $J_0(kr')$ should be replaced by the expression Eq.(\[eq:approximate Bessel function\]) below. The advantage of the long wave length approximation is physical/technological: it permits the characterization of the source in terms of multipole moments, which are directly tied to the angular distribution of the emitted radiation, and which derive their importance from, among others, the quantum mechanical selection rules.
### Source as a Sum of Multipoles
The circumstance of long wave lengths is expressed by the inequality $$ka\ll 1 ~,$$ where $a$ is the radius of the cylinder surrounding the source. This circumstance allows us to set $$J_m(kr')\approx \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle\frac{1}{ m !}\left( \frac{kr'}{2}
\right)^{m } &m=0, 1,2,\cdots\\
\displaystyle\frac{(-1)^m}{\vert m\vert !}\left( \frac{kr'}{2}
\right)^{\vert m \vert} & m=0,-1,-2,\cdots
\end{array} \right.
\label{eq:approximate Bessel function}$$ throughout the integration region where the source is non-zero, and it allows us to introduce the $(m+1)$st multipole moment (per unit length $d\xi$) $$\frac{i^m}{\vert m\vert !}
\int_0^\infty r'dr' \int_0^{2\pi} d\theta' \frac{e^{-im\theta'}}{2\pi}
\left( \frac{r'}{2}\right)^{\vert m \vert}
~4\pi S_{I,II}(\tau',\xi',r',\theta')\equiv 2 S^m_{I,II}(\tau',\xi')
\quad
\left[\frac{\textrm{charge}}{\textrm{length}}
\times(\textrm{length})^{\vert m\vert +1}\right]
\label{eq:multipole}$$ for the double integral on the right hand side of Eq.(\[eq:two contributions from I and II\]). This multipole density [@factor; @of; @two] is complex. However, the reality of the master source $S_{I,II}(\tau',\xi',r',\theta')$ implies and is implied by $$\overline{S^m_{I,II}(\tau',\xi')}=S^{-m}_{I,II}(\tau',\xi')$$ In terms of this multipole density the full scalar radiation field in $F$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{ \psi_F(\xi,\tau,r,\theta)= \sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty
\int_0^\infty dk \, k \,k^{\vert m \vert}e^{im\theta} J_m(kr)
\times }\nonumber\\
& &\int_{-\infty}^\infty d\tau' \int_0^\infty d\xi' \xi' \, \frac{2}{2}
\left\{ J_0\left( k\sqrt{\xi^2-\xi'^2+ 2\xi\xi' \sinh (\tau-\tau')}\right)
2S^m_{I}(\tau',\xi')+
J_0\left( k\sqrt{\xi^2-\xi'^2-2\xi\xi' \sinh (\tau-\tau')}\right)
2S^m_{II}(\tau',\xi')\right\}
\label{eq:multipole field}\end{aligned}$$ The evaluation of the mode integral $\int_0^\infty dk\,k \cdots$is now an easy two step task. First recall the $m$th recursion relation $$e^{im\theta} J_m(kr)= \frac{(-1)^m}{k^{\vert m\vert}}
\left[ e^{i\theta} \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial r} +\frac{i}{r}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta} \right) \right]^m
J_0(kr),\quad m=0,\pm1,\pm2,\cdots
\label{eq:mth order Bessel mode}$$ where for negative $m$ one uses $$\left[ e^{i\theta} \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial r} +\frac{i}{r}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta} \right) \right]^{-\vert m\vert} \equiv
\left[ -e^{-i\theta} \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial r} -\frac{i}{r}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta} \right) \right]^{\vert m\vert} ~.$$ This recursion relation is a consequence of consolidating two familiar contiguity relations for the Bessel functions. Introduce Eq.(\[eq:mth order Bessel mode\]) into the integrand of Eq.(\[eq:multipole field\]).
Second, use the standard expression $$\int_0^\infty J_0(kr)J_0(k\sqrt{\cdots})k\, dk=
\frac{\delta(r-\sqrt{\cdots})}{\sqrt{\cdots}}$$ for the Dirac delta function. Apply this equation to Eq.(\[eq:multipole field\]). Consequently, the full scalar radiation field in Rindler sector $F$ reduces to the following multipole expansion $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_F(\xi,\tau,r,\theta)= \sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty
(-1)^m \left[ e^{i\theta} \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial r} +\frac{i}{r}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta} \right) \right]^m \psi_m(\xi,\tau,r) \quad
\quad [\textrm{charge}]
\label{eq:multipole expansion}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_m(\xi,\tau,r)&=& \int_{-\infty}^\infty \int_0^\infty \frac{1}{2}
\left\{ \frac{2S^m_{I}(\tau',\xi')}{\sqrt{\xi^2-\xi'^2+2\xi\xi' \sinh
(\tau-\tau')}} \delta\left(r-\sqrt{\xi^2-\xi'^2+2\xi\xi' \sinh
(\tau-\tau')}\right)+\right.\nonumber\\
&~&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\left.\frac{2S^m_{II}(\tau',\xi')}{\sqrt{\xi^2-\xi'^2-2\xi\xi'
\sinh (\tau-\tau')}} \delta\left(r-\sqrt{\xi^2-\xi'^2-2\xi\xi' \sinh
(\tau-\tau')}\right) \right\}d\tau'\xi'\,d\xi' ~.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Doing the $\tau'$-integration yields $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_m(\xi,\tau,r)
&=&
2\int_0^\infty
\frac{\left[S^m_I(\tau',\xi')\right]_I -
\left[S^m_{II}(\tau',\xi')\right]_{II}}{\sqrt{(\xi^2-\xi'^2-r^2)^2+(2\xi\xi')^2 }}
\xi' d\xi'~.
\label{eq:multipole field with two sources}\end{aligned}$$ Here $[~~]_I$ and $[~~]_{II}$ mean that the source functions are evaluated in compliance with the Dirac delta functions at $\tau'=\tau
+\sinh^{-1}\frac{\xi^2-\xi'^2-r^2}{2\xi\xi'}$ and $\tau'=\tau
-\sinh^{-1}\frac{\xi^2-\xi'^2-r^2}{2\xi\xi'}$ respectively. Recall that $\tau'$ is a strictly timelike coordinate in Rindler sector $I$, while in $F$ the coordinate $\tau$ is strictly spacelike. Consequently, one should not be tempted to identify $[~~]_I$ and $[~~]_{II}$ with what in a static inertial frame corresponds to evaluations at advanced or retarded times. Instead, one should think of the observation event $(\xi,\tau,r)$ in $F$ and the source event $(\tau',\xi',r )$ in $I$ as lying on each other’s light cones $$(t-t')^2 -(z-z')^2 =r^2~,$$ both of which cut across the future event horizons $t=\vert z\vert$ of $I$ and $II$. More explicitly, one has $$\left[S^m_I(\tau',\xi')\right]_I\equiv S^m_I\left( \tau+\sinh^{-1}
\frac{\xi^2-\xi'^2-r^2}{2\xi\xi'},\xi' \right)~,$$ which means that the source $S^m_I(\tau',\xi')$ has been evaluated on the past light cone $$(t-t')^2-(z-z')^2\equiv\xi^2-\xi'^2+ 2\xi\xi' \sinh (\tau-\tau')=r^2$$ of $(\xi,\tau,r)$ at $(\tau',\xi',0)$ in Rindler sector $I$. Similarly, $$\left[S^m_{II}(\tau',\xi')\right]_{II}\equiv S^m_{II}\left( \tau-\sinh^{-1}
\frac{\xi^2-\xi'^2-r^2}{2\xi\xi'} ,\xi'\right)~,$$ which means that the source $S^m_{II}(\tau',\xi')$ has been evaluated on the past light cone $$(t-t')^2-(z-z')^2\equiv\xi^2-\xi'^2- 2\xi\xi' \sinh (\tau-\tau')=r^2$$ of $(\xi,\tau,r)$ at $(\tau',\xi',0)$ in Rindler sector $II$. The expression, Eq.(\[eq:multipole field with two sources\]), for the full scalar radiation field is exact within the context of wavelengths large compared to the size of the source. Furthermore, one should note that even though there is only one $\xi'$-integral, $S^m_{I}$ and $S^m_{II}$ are source functions with distinct domains, namely, Rindler sectors $I$ and $II$ respectively.
### Multipole Radiation Field
The field is a superposition of multipole field amplitudes. The first few terms of this superposition are $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_F(\xi,\tau,r,\theta)&=&\psi_0(\xi,\tau,r) \nonumber \\
&-& e^{i\theta} \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\psi_1(\xi,\tau,r)\nonumber \\
&+& e^{2i\theta}\left(
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial r^2}
-\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}
\right)\psi_2(\xi,\tau,r)\nonumber \\
&-& e^{3i\theta}\left(
\frac{\partial^3}{\partial r^3}
-\frac{3}{r}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial r^2}
+\frac{3}{r^2} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} \right)\psi_3(\xi,\tau,r)\nonumber \\
%
&+& e^{4i\theta}\left(
\frac{\partial}{\partial r^4}
-\frac{6}{r}\frac{\partial^3}{\partial r^3}
+\frac{12}{r^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial r^2}
-\frac{15}{r^3} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} \right)\psi_4(\xi,\tau,r)~+\quad \cdots\nonumber\\
&+&(\textrm{complex~conjugate~terms}~
\textrm{corresponding~to}~m=-1,-2,-3,\cdots)
\label{eq:multipole angular distributions}\end{aligned}$$ whose explicit form is $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_F(\xi,\tau,r,\theta) &=&\int_0^\infty \left[
\frac{2S^0_I(\tau+\sinh^{-1}u,\xi')-2S^0_{II}(\tau-\sinh^{-1}u,\xi')}{\sqrt{(\xi^2-\xi'^2-r^2)^2+(2\xi\xi')^2 }}
\right]\xi'\, d\xi' \nonumber \\
&-& e^{i\theta} \frac{\partial}{\partial r}
\left[
\frac{2S^1_I(\tau+\sinh^{-1}u,\xi')-2S^1_{II}(\tau-\sinh^{-1}u)}{\sqrt{(\xi^2-\xi'^2-r^2)^2+(2\xi\xi')^2 }}
\right]\xi' \, d\xi' \nonumber \\
&+& e^{2i\theta}\left(
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial r^2}
-\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}
\right)
\left[
\frac{2S^2_I(\tau+\sinh^{-1}u,\xi')-2S^2_{II}(\tau-\sinh^{-1}u,\xi')}{\sqrt{(\xi^2-\xi'^2-r^2)^2+(2\xi\xi')^2 }}-
\right]\xi' \, d\xi'
\nonumber \\
&+&\quad \textrm{etc.}
\label{eq:nonlocalized multipole angular distributions}\end{aligned}$$ where $$u=\frac{\xi^2-\xi'^2-r^2}{2\xi\xi'}~.$$ It is evident that each multipole term has its own distinguishing angular ($\theta$) and radial ($r$) dependence.
RADIATION: PHYSICAL RELATION TO ITS SOURCE
==========================================
The radiation expressed by Eqs.(\[eq:multipole expansion\])-(\[eq:localized multipole angular distributions\]) establishes the link between the accelerated sources and what is measured and recorded in an expanding inertial reference frame. The measured observations yield very detailed knowledge about each accelerated source (in $I$ and $II$) individually as well as about their relation to each other.
Fidelity {#sec-fidelity:mathematical}
--------
The most striking aspect of the radiation process is the fidelity of the signal measured in $F$. To bring this fidelity into sharper focus, consider the radiation from two localized multipole sources, one localized at $\xi'=\xi'_{I}$ and the other at $\xi'=\xi'_{II}$. Their $m$th multipole moments are therefore $$S^m_{I,II}(\tau',\,\xi')=S^m_{I,II}(\tau')
\frac{\delta(\xi'-\xi'_{I,II})}{\xi'}\
~,$$ Consequently, the multipole superposition has the form $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_F(\xi,\tau,r,\theta)&=&\left[
\frac{2S^0_I(\tau+\sinh^{-1}u_I)}{\sqrt{(\xi^2-\xi_I'^2-r^2)^2+(2\xi\xi_I')^2 }}-
\frac{2S^0_{II}(\tau-\sinh^{-1}u_{II})}{\sqrt{(\xi^2-\xi_{II}'^2-r^2)^2+(2\xi\xi_{II}')^2 }}
\right] \nonumber \\
&-& e^{i\theta} \frac{\partial}{\partial r}
\left[
\frac{2S^1_I(\tau+\sinh^{-1}u_I)}{\sqrt{(\xi^2-\xi_I'^2-r^2)^2+(2\xi\xi_I')^2 }}-
\frac{2S^1_{II}(\tau-\sinh^{-1}u_{II})}{\sqrt{(\xi^2-\xi_{II}'^2-r^2)^2+(2\xi\xi_{II}')^2 }}
\right] \nonumber \\
&+& e^{2i\theta}\left(
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial r^2}
-\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}
\right)
\left[
\frac{2S^2_I(\tau+\sinh^{-1}u_I)}{\sqrt{(\xi^2-\xi_I'^2-r^2)^2+(2\xi\xi_I')^2 }}-
\frac{2S^2_{II}(\tau-\sinh^{-1}u_{II})}{\sqrt{(\xi^2-\xi_{II}'^2-r^2)^2+(2\xi\xi_{II}')^2 }}
\right]
\nonumber \\
&+&\quad \textrm{etc.}
\label{eq:localized multipole angular distributions}\end{aligned}$$ where $$u_{I,II}=\frac{\xi^2-\xi_{I,II}'^2-r^2}{2\xi\xi'_{I,II}}~.$$ Compare Eq.(\[eq:multipole field\]) with Eq.(\[eq:localized multipole angular distributions\]). The temporal evolution of every localized accelerated multipole source $$S^m_{I,II}(\tau',\xi') \quad m=0,\pm 1,\pm 2, \cdots$$ displays itself with 100% fidelity as the correspondingly measurable amplitude $$S^m_{I,II}(\tau \pm\sinh^{-1}u_{I,II}) \quad m=0,\pm 1,\pm 2, \cdots$$ on the hypersurface of synchronous time $\xi=const$ of the expanding inertial observation frame in $F$. There is no distortion and no spatial chirp ($\tau$-dependent redshift), regardless how violently the localized multipole source got accelerated.
As pointed out in section \[sec-fidelity:physical\], the high fidelity is due to the *expanding* nature of the *inertial observation frame*. Such a frame consists of an expanding set of free float recording clocks with radio receivers all synchronized and coherently phased to measure the complex amplitude (magnitude and phase) of the spatial amplitude profile at any fixed synchronous time $\xi >0$. Once these recording clocks have been brought into existence, they can always be used to measure, receive, and record the e.m. field with 100% fidelity.
Not so for the usual *static inertial observation frame*, which consist of a static lattice of free float meter rods, clocks, and radio receivers. Such a frame would be entirely unsuitable for observing the emission of radiation from violently accelerated bodies. Once the recording clocks have been assembled by the physicist/observer into such a frame, the reception, measurement, and recording of electromagnetically encoded information will always be compromised by the destructive blueshift from the accelerated source.
Spatial Structure of the Source
-------------------------------
The second striking feature of the emitted radiation is that its measurement yields the spatial multipole structure of the source. Measure the angular distribution for a given radial coordinate $r$ in the plane transverse to the direction of acceleration. Do a least squares fit to the measured data points in order to determine each of the Fourier coefficients in Eq.(\[eq:multipole angular distributions\]). In order to obtain the radial distribution of each of these coefficients, repeat this determination for various $r$ values. A second least squares analysis yields the radial derivatives and hence the amplitude of each multipole moment $S^m_{I,II},~m=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,
\cdots$ in Eq.(\[eq:localized multipole angular distributions\]).
Double Slit Interference {#sec-double slit}
------------------------
The third property of the radiation process is that it highlights the interference between the waves coming from Rindler sectors $I$ and $II$. The interference pattern, which is recorded on a hypersurface of synchronous time $\xi=constant$, has fringes whose separation yields the separation between the two localized in $I$ and $II$. Let these sources be located symmetrically at $$\xi'_I=\xi'_{II}\equiv \xi'_0~,$$ and let them have equal proper frequency $\omega_0$ and hence (in compliance with the first term of the wave Eq.(\[eq:full scalar equation in I and II\]) equal Rindler coordinate frequency $$\omega=\omega_0\xi'_0~.$$ Consequently, they are characterized by their amplitudes and their phases. Indeed, their form is $$\begin{aligned}
S^m_{I}(\tau +\sinh^{-1} u_I)&=&A^0_I \cos
[\omega_0\xi'_0(\tau+\sinh^{-1}u_I)+\delta^m_I]\nonumber\\
S^m_{II}(\tau -\sinh^{-1} u_{II})&=&A^0_{II} \cos
[\omega_0\xi'_0(\tau-\sinh^{-1}u_I)+\delta^m_{II}]~.
\label{eq:two sources}\end{aligned}$$ Thus the full scalar field, Eq.(\[eq:localized multipole angular distributions\]), expresses two waves. Both propagate in the expanding inertial frame, which is coordinatized by $(\xi,\tau,r,\theta)$. Their respective wave crests are located in compliance with the constant phase conditions $\tau\pm \sinh^{-1}u_I=const.$ Consequently, one wave travels into the $+\tau$-direction with amplitude $A^m_{I}$, the other into the $-\tau$-direction with amplitude $A^m_{II}$. They have well-determined phase velocities. Together, these two waves form an interference pattern of standing waves, $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_F(\xi,\tau,r,\theta)&=&
\frac{1}{\sqrt{(\xi^2-\xi_0'^2-r^2)^2+(2\xi\xi_0')^2 }}
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
~\\
~
\end{array}
(A^0_I-A^0_{II}) \cos [\omega_0\xi'_0(\tau-\sinh^{-1}u_I)+\delta^0_I]\right. \nonumber\\
&~&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad-\left.
2A^0_{II} \sin \left(\omega_0\xi'_0\tau
+\frac{\delta^0_{II}+\delta^0_{I}}{2}\right)
\sin\left(\omega_0\xi'_0\sinh^{-1}u_I
-\frac{\delta^0_{II}-\delta^0_{I}}{2}\right)
\right]\nonumber\\
&+&\quad \textrm{higher~multipole~terms~of~order~}m=1,2,3,\cdots \quad .
\label{eq:interfering amplitudes}\end{aligned}$$ The amplitude of this interference pattern is $A^0_{II}>0$, and there is a uniform background of amplitude $(A^0_I-A^0_{II})>0$. At synchronous time $\xi$ the interference fringes along the $\tau$-direction can be read off the factor $$\sin (\omega_0\xi'_0\tau +\frac{\delta^0_{II}+\delta^0_{I}}{2})$$ in Eq.(\[eq:interfering amplitudes\]). Consequently, the fringes are spaced by the amount $$\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\textrm{proper}\\
\textrm{fringe~spacing}
\end{array}
\right)
=\frac{2\pi\xi}{\omega_0\xi'_0}=\frac{\xi}{\xi'_0}\times
\frac{1}{\left( \begin{array}{c}
\textrm{proper~frequency}\\
\textrm{of~the~source}
\end{array} \right)}
=\frac{2\xi}{\textrm{source~separation}}\times
\frac{1}{\left( \begin{array}{c}
\textrm{proper~frequency}\\
\textrm{of~ the~source}
\end{array} \right)}~.$$ This means that, analogous to a standard optical interference pattern, the fringe spacing is inversely proportional to the distance $2\xi'_0$ between the two sources. Furthermore, the position of this interference pattern depends on the phase of source $I$ relative to source $II$[@phase]. It is difficult to find a more welcome way than the four Rindler sectors for double slit interference.
These observations lead to the conclusion that (i) the four Rindler sectors quite naturally accommodate a *double slit interferometer*, and that (ii) the spatial as well as the temporal properties of the interference fringes, together with the magnitude of the travelling background wave, are enough to reconstruct every aspect of the two sources, Eq.(\[eq:two sources\]).
The Rindler Interferometer {#The Rindler Interferometer}
--------------------------
The double slit interferometer works as follows: A plane wave which starts in Rindler sector $P$ gets split into two partial components which propagate through $I$ and $II$. There they get modified by the two respective scatterers. They are two pointlike dipole loops accelerating into opposite directions. Each loop acts as a transmitter which re-radiates the electromagnetic field from the impinging wave. The e.m. fields emitted by these two transmitters exits through the event horizons of $I$ and $II$. Upon recombining in $F$ they produce an interference pattern as measured on the hypersurface $\xi=constant$ of the expanding inertial observation frame. The strength and the variations in this pattern are determined by (i) the proper separation between the two scatterers, (ii) their relative strengths and (iii) their relative phase. In fact, from this interference pattern one can reconstruct the currents $\dot
q_I(\tau')$ and $\dot q_{II}(\tau')$, including the amplitudes, phases for each of them. In brief, the *expanding* inertial observation frame is the “screen” on which one can literally “see” what is going on in each of the two accelerated frames $I$ and $II$.
RADIATED POWER {#sec-radiated power}
==============
The electric and magnetic field components are obtained from the wave function $\psi_F(\xi,\tau,r,\theta)$ by taking the partial derivatives listed in the tables in Section II.C. With their help we shall now find the Poynting vector component along the $\tau$-direction, namely $$\frac{1}{4\pi}(\hat B_r \hat E_\theta-\hat B_\theta \hat E_r)\xi
\equiv T^\xi_{~\tau}~.$$ Its space integral, $$\int_0^\infty \int_0^\infty \int _0^{2\pi} T^\xi_{~\tau}\,\xi d\tau
\, rdr \,d\theta ~,
\label{eq:tau momentum}$$ is the total radiated momentum (=radiant energy flow) into the $\tau$-direction. It is positive (resp. negative) whenever the source is confined to Rindler sector $I$ (resp. $II$). Furthermore, the $\tau$-momentum is independent of the synchronous time $\xi$ because $\tau$ is a cyclic coordinate. This $\tau$-momentum measures the energy radiated by the two accelerated sources, and it takes the place of what in a static inertial reference frame is the emitted energy.
Both the T.E. and the T.M. field have the same Poynting vector component along the $\tau$-direction. More precisely, reference to the table of T.E. and the T.M. field components (Section II) shows that in Rindler sector $F$ this Poynting object is $$T^\xi_{~\tau}=\frac{\xi}{4\pi}
\left[
\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi}\left( \frac{\partial\psi}{\partial r}\right)
\frac{1}{\xi}\frac{\partial}{\partial\tau}
\left( \frac{\partial\psi}{\partial r}\right)
+
\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi}
\left( \frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial \theta}\right)
\frac{1}{\xi}\frac{\partial}{\partial\tau}
\left( \frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial \theta}\right)
\right]
~,
\label{eq:stress tensor for T.E. and T.M. field}$$ the same for both types of fields. Furthermore, the wave function $\psi$ is governed by a wave equation, which is also common to both fields. Consequently, the mathematical analysis which relates observations to the radiation sources is the same for both types of radiation fields. However, it is the difference in two types of sources which is important from the viewpoint of physics.
The only difference lies in the source and hence in the amplitude and phase of $\psi$ in $F$. Comparing the ensuing Eq.(\[eq:magnetic moment density\]) with Eq.(\[eq:electric moment density\]), one sees that T.E. and T.M. polarized radiation are caused by the densities of magnetic and electric dipole moment respectively.
Axially Symmetric Source and Field
----------------------------------
The simplest nontrivial sources for the inhomogeneous wave Eq.(\[eq:full scalar fields in I or II\]) is those which are axially symmetric. For T.E. radiation magnetic dipoles are the most important sources, while for T.M. radiation they are electric dipoles.
### Magnetic Dipole and its Radiation Field
Consider radiation emitted from two magnetic dipoles. Have them be two circular loop antennas each of area of $\pi a^2$ aligned parallel to the $(x,y)$-plane with center on the $z$-axis. Fix their location in Rindler sectors $I$ and $II$ by having them located at $\xi'=\xi'_I$ and $\xi'=\xi'_{II}$ so that they are accelerated into opposite directions. Suppose each antenna has proper current $$i_{I,II}(\tau')=\frac{1}{\xi'_{I,II}} \frac{d~q_{I,II}(\tau')}{d\tau'}
\quad\quad\quad\quad \left[\frac{\textrm{charge}}{\textrm{length}}\right] ~.$$ Then its magnetic moment is $$\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad i_{I,II}(\tau')\pi a^2
\equiv\textbf{m}_{I,II}(\tau')~,
\quad\quad\quad\quad \left[~\textrm{(proper
~current)}\times \textrm{(length)}^2=\textrm{dipole moment}~\right]$$ its charge-flux four-vector obtained from Eq.(\[eq:polar T.E. source\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
\left( \hat S_{\tau'} ,\hat S_{\xi'} ,\hat S_{r'} ,\hat S_{\theta'} \right)
&=&\left(0,0,\frac{1}{r'} \frac{\partial S}{\partial \theta'},
\frac{\partial S}{\partial r'} \right) \nonumber \\
&=&i_{I,II}(\tau')\delta(\xi'-\xi'_{I,II})
\delta(r' -a)
\left(0,0,0,-1\right)~,\quad\quad\quad\quad
\left[\frac{\textrm{charge}}{\textrm{length}^3} \right]\end{aligned}$$ and the corresponding scalar source function $S$ for Eq.(\[eq:full scalar equation in I and II\]) is $$S:\quad S_{I,II}(\tau',\xi',r',\theta')=
\frac{d~q_{I,II}(\tau')}{d\tau'}\frac{\delta(\xi'-{\xi'}_{I,II})}{\xi'}\,
\Theta (r'-a)
\quad\quad\quad\quad \left[\frac{\textrm{charge}}{\textrm{length}^2}
\right]~.
\label{eq:magnetic moment density}$$ Here $\Theta$ is the Heaviside unit step function. The proper magnetic dipole is the proper volume integral of this source, $$\int_0^\infty \int_0^\infty \int _0^{2\pi}
S_{I,II}(\tau',\xi',r',\theta') d\xi' r'dr' d\theta'=\pi a^2 i_{I,II}(\tau')
\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad
\left[~\textrm{(area)} \times \textrm{(proper current)}~\right]$$ Being symmetric around its axis, such a source produces only radiation which is independent of the polar angle $\theta$. Consequently, all partial derivatives w.r.t. $\theta$ vanish, and the full scalar field, Eq.(\[eq:localized multipole angular distributions\]), in $F$ becomes with the help of Eq.(\[eq:multipole\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_F(\xi,\tau,r,\theta)=2\pi a^2 \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\left[
\frac{1}{\sqrt{(\xi^2-\xi^{'2}_I -r^2)^2+(2\xi \xi'_I)^2}}
\frac{dq_I(\tau+\sinh^{-1}u_I)}{d\tau} \right.\nonumber\\
&-&\left. \frac{1}{\sqrt{(\xi^2-\xi^{'2}_{II} -r^2)^2+(2\xi \xi'_{II})^2}}
\frac{dq_{II}(\tau-\sinh^{-1}u_{II})}{d\tau}
\right]~,\quad\quad [\textrm{charge}]
\label{eq:field due to two localized T.E. sources}\end{aligned}$$ where $$u_{I,II} =\frac{\xi^2-\xi^{'2}_{I,II} -r^2}{2\xi \xi'_{I,II}}$$ This is the T.E. scalar field due to a localized pair of axially symmetric loop antennas, each one with its own time dependent current. By setting one of them to zero one obtains the radiation field due to the other.
### Electric Dipole and its Radiation Field
The most important electric dipole radiators are two linear antennas each of length $a$ aligned parallel to the $z$-axis, located at $\xi'=\xi'_I$ and $\xi'=\xi'_{II}$ located in Rindler sectors $I$ and $II$, and hence accelerated into opposite directions. Suppose each antenna has electric dipole moment $$q_{I,II}(\tau')\,a\equiv\textbf{d}_{I,II}(\tau')\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad
\left[~\textrm{(charge)}\times \textrm{(length)}=\textrm{dipole moment}~\right]$$ Its charge-flux four-vector obtained from Eq.(\[eq:polar T.M. source\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
\left( \hat S_{\tau'} ,\hat S_{\xi'} ,\hat S_{r'} ,\hat S_{\theta'} \right)
&=&
\left(
\xi\frac{\partial S}{\partial \xi'}, \frac{1}{\xi'}\frac{\partial S}{\partial \tau'},
0,0, \right) \nonumber \\
&=&\left( q_{I,II}(\tau')a\frac{d}{d\xi'}\delta(\xi'-\xi'_{I,II}),
\frac{1}{\xi'}\frac{d q(\tau')}{d\tau'}a \,\delta(\xi'-\xi'_{I,II}),0,0\right)
\frac{\delta(r'- 0)\delta(\theta'-\theta'_0)}{r'}
~,\quad \left[\frac{\textrm{charge}}{\textrm{length}^3} \right]\end{aligned}$$ and the corresponding scalar source function $S$ for Eq.(\[eq:full scalar equation in I and II\]) is $$S:\quad S_{I,II}(\tau',\xi',r',\theta')=
q_{I,II}(\tau')a~\delta(\xi'-\xi_{I,II})
\frac{\delta(r'-0)\delta(\theta'-\theta'_0)}{r'}\,
\quad\quad\quad\quad
\left[\frac{\textrm{charge}}{\textrm{length}^2} \right]~.
\label{eq:electric moment density}$$ This source is symmetric around the $z$-axis because it is non-zero only at $r'=0$. The electric dipole moment is the proper volume integral of this source, $$\int_0^\infty \int_0^\infty \int _0^{2\pi}
S_{I,II}(\tau',\xi',r',\theta') d\xi' r'dr' d\theta'=
q_{I,II}(\tau') a\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad
\left[~\textrm{(charge)} \times \textrm{ (length)}~\right]$$ The axial symmetry of the source implies that its radiation is independent of the polar angle $\theta$. Consequently, except some for a source-dependent factor, the scalar field $\psi_F$ in $F$ is the same as Eq.(\[eq:field due to two localized T.E. sources\]). One finds $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_F(\xi,\tau,r,\theta)=2a \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\left[
\frac{\xi'_i}{\sqrt{(\xi^2-\xi^{'2}_I -r^2)^2+(2\xi \xi'_I)^2}}
~q_I(\tau+\sinh^{-1}u_I) \right.\nonumber\\
&-&\left. \frac{\xi'_i}{\sqrt{(\xi^2-\xi^{'2}_{II} -r^2)^2+(2\xi \xi'_{II})^2}}
~q_{II}(\tau-\sinh^{-1}u_{II})
\right]~.\quad\quad [\textrm{charge}]
\label{eq:field due to two localized T.M. sources}\end{aligned}$$ This is the T.M. scalar field due to a pair of localized linear antennas, both situated on the $z$-axis, each one with its own time-dependent dipole moment $q(\tau')\,a$. By setting one of them to zero one obtains the radiation field due to the other.
Flow of Radiant T.E. Field Energy
---------------------------------
Any loop antenna radiates only for a finite amount of time. Consequently, one can calculate the flow of total emitted energy, which is given by the spatial integral, Eq.(\[eq:tau momentum\]). The fact that $\theta$ is a cyclic coordinate for axially symmetric sources and radiation implies that $\hat E_r=\hat B_\theta
=0$ for the T.E. field. Consequently, the spatial integral, a conserved quantity independent of time $\xi$, reduces with the help of the table of derivatives in Section \[sec-Maxwell fields\] to $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{-\infty}^\infty \int_0^\infty \int _0^{2\pi} T^\xi_{~\tau}\,\xi d\tau
\, rdr \,d\theta
&=&
\int_{-\infty}^\infty \int_0^\infty \int _0^{2\pi}
\frac{1}{4\pi}\hat B_r \times\hat E_\theta \xi \,\xi d\tau \, rdr \,d\theta
\label{eq:first Pointing integral}\\
&=&
\frac{1}{4\pi}\int_0^\infty \int_0^\infty \int _0^{2\pi}
\frac{1}{\xi}\frac{\partial}{\partial r} \frac{\partial \psi_F}{\partial \tau}
\times \frac{\partial}{\partial r} \frac{\partial \psi_F}{\partial \xi}\xi
\,\xi d\tau \, rdr \,d\theta\nonumber\\
&=&(\pm)\frac{(\pi a^2)^2}{\xi'^4_{I,II}}\int_{-\infty}^\infty
\frac{2}{3}
\left\{\left( \frac{d^3q_{I,II}(\tau)}{d\tau^3}\right) ^2
+\left( \frac{d^2q_{I,II}(\tau)}{d\tau^2}\right)^2
\right\}d\tau
\label{eq:Pointing integral}\end{aligned}$$ The computation leading to the last line has been consigned to the Appendix. This computed quantity is the total energy flow (energy $\times$ velocity), or equivalently, the total momentum into the $\tau$-direction, radiated by a magnetic dipole accelerated uniformly in Rindler sector $I$ (upper sign) or in Rindler sector $II$ (lower sign).
The full scalar radiation field $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_F(\xi,\tau,r,\theta)=2\pi a^2
\frac{\pm 1}{\sqrt{(\xi^2-\xi^{'2}_I -r^2)^2+(2\xi \xi'_I)^2}}
\frac{dq_{I,II}(\tau')}{d\tau}~,
%\label{eq:field due to two localized sources}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\tau'=\tau \pm \sinh^{-1}\frac{\xi^2-\xi^{'2}_{I,II} -r^2}{2\xi \xi'_{I,II}}~,$$ is a linear functional correspondence. It maps the temporal history $q_{I,II}(\tau')$ at $\xi'=\xi'_{I,II}$ in Rindler sector $I$ (resp. $II$) with 100% fidelity onto a readily measurable e.m. field along the $\tau$-axis (or a line parallel to it) on the spatial hypersurface $\xi=const.$ in Rindler sector $F$. This correspondence has 100% fidelity because, aside from a $\tau$-independent factor, the source history $q_{I,II}(\tau')$ and the scalar field $\psi_F(\tau)$ differ only by a constant $\tau$-independent shift on their respective domains $-\infty<\tau'<\infty$ and $-\infty<\tau<\infty$. This implies that $$\frac{\partial}{\partial\tau'}=\frac{\partial}{\partial\tau}
\label{eq:equal derivatives}$$ when applied to the source function $q_{I,II}$. The expression for the radiated momentum becomes more transparent physically if one uses the proper time derivative $$\frac{d}{dt'} \equiv
\frac{1}{\xi'}\frac{\partial}{\partial\tau'}
=\frac{1}{\xi'}\frac{\partial}{\partial\tau}$$ at the source. Introduce the (proper) magnetic moment of the current loop having radius $a$: $$\textbf{m}=\pi a^2 \frac{1}{\xi'}\frac{\partial q}{\partial \tau'} ~.$$ One finds from Eq.(\[eq:Pointing integral\]) that the proper radiated longitudinal momentum (i.e. physical, a.k.a. orthonormal, component of energy flow pointing into the $\tau$-direction) measured per proper spatial $\tau$-interval $\xi\, d\tau$ in $F$ is $${\mathcal I}_{T.E.}=
(\pm)~\frac{\xi'^2}{\xi^2} \frac{2}{3}\left[
\left(\frac{d^2 \textbf{m}}{dt'^2}\right)^2
+\frac{1}{\xi'^2}\left(\frac{d \textbf{m}}{dt'}\right)^2 \right]~.
\label{eq:Larmor's formula}$$ This is the formula for the proper radiant energy flow due to a magnetic dipole moment subject to uniform linear acceleration $1/\xi'$. There are two factors of $1/\xi$. The the first converts the coordinate $\tau$-momentum component into its physical component. The second is due to the fact that Eq.(\[eq:Larmor’s formula\]) expresses this quantity per proper distance into the $\tau$ direction.
When the acceleration $1/\xi'$ is small then the second term becomes small compared to the first. In fact, one recovers the familiar Larmor formula [@Landau1962] relative to a *static inertial* frame by letting $\xi=\xi'$ and letting $1/\xi'\rightarrow 0$, which corresponds to inertial motion. By contrast, Eq.(\[eq:Larmor’s formula\]) is the correct formula for an *accelerated* dipole moment. However, observation of radiation from such a source entails that the measurements be made relative to an *expanding inertial* reference frame.
Flow of Radiant T.M. Field Energy
---------------------------------
The mathematical computation leading from Eq.(\[eq:first Pointing integral\]) and ending with Eq.(\[eq:Larmor’s formula\]) can be extended without any effort to T.M. radiation. The extension consists of replacing a T.E. source with a corresponding T.M. source, $$\frac{1}{\xi'}\frac{\partial q}{\partial\tau'}\pi a^2 \rightarrow qa~,$$ or equivalently $$\textbf{m} \rightarrow \textbf{d}~.$$ Consequently, the formula for the flow of T.M. radiant energy due to an electric dipole subject to uniform linear acceleration $1/\xi'$ is $${\mathcal I}_{T.M.}=
(\pm)~\frac{\xi'^2}{\xi^2} \frac{2}{3} \left[
\left(\frac{d^2 \textbf{d}}{dt'^2}\right)^2
+\frac{1}{\xi'^2}\left(\frac{d \textbf{d}}{dt'}\right)^2 \right]~.
\label{eq:Larmor's electric dipole formula}$$ The justification for this extension is Eqs.(\[eq:stress tensor for T.E. and T.M. field\]) and (\[eq:equation for the unit impulse response\]). They are the same for T.E. and T.M. radiation. The radiation intensity expressed by Eq.(\[eq:Larmor’s electric dipole formula\]) extends the familiar Larmor formula for radiation from an *inertially moving* electric dipole [@Landau1962] to one which is *accelerated* linearly and uniformly.
VIOLENT ACCELERATION
====================
The second term in the radiation formula, Eq.(\[eq:Larmor’s formula\]), is new. Under what circumstance does it dominate? Consider the circumstance where the magnetic dipole oscillates with proper frequency $\omega_0=2\pi/\lambda_0$. By averaging the emitted radiation over one cycle, one finds $$(\pm)~\frac{\xi'^2}{\xi^2} \frac{2}{3}\left[
\left(\frac{d^2 \textbf{m}}{dt'^2}\right)^2
+\frac{1}{\xi'^2}\left(\frac{d \textbf{m}}{dt'}\right)^2 \right]
\longrightarrow (\pm)~\frac{\xi'^2}{\xi^2} \frac{\omega_0^4}{3}\,\langle
\textbf{m}^2\rangle \left[1+ \frac{1}{\xi'^2 \omega_0^2} \right]
=(\pm)~\frac{\xi'^2}{\xi^2} \frac{\omega_0^4}{3}\,\langle
\textbf{m}^2\rangle \left[1+ \frac{1}{(2\pi)^2}\frac{\lambda_0^2}{\xi'^2} \right]$$ Thus the criterion for “violent” acceleration is that its inverse, the Fermi-Walker length of the accelerated point object be small compared to the emitted wavelength, $$\frac{\lambda_0}{\xi'}\equiv \frac{\lambda_0\times (\textrm{proper~acc'n})}{c^2}
\gg 2\pi$$ or equivalently $$\frac{(\textrm{proper~acc'n})}{c}
\gg~\omega_0~.$$ Recall that $c/$(proper acceleration) is the time it takes for the oscillator to acquire a relativistic velocity relative to an inertial frame. Also recall that $2\pi/\omega_0$ is the time for one oscillation cycle. Consequently, the criterion for “violence” is that $$\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\textrm{time for oscillator}\\
\textrm{to acquire}\\
\textrm{relativistic velocity}
\end{array}
\right) \ll
(\textrm{oscillation period})~.
\label{eq:the criterion}$$ When this condition is fulfilled, the Larmor contribution to the radiation is eclipsed by the Rindler contribution.
RADIATIVE VS. NONRADIATIVE MOMENERGY
====================================
Consider a dipole moment, **m** or **d**, which is time-independent in its own accelerated frame. The augmented Larmor formula, Eq.(\[eq:Larmor’s electric dipole formula\]) and (\[eq:Larmor’s formula\]), yields zero radiative $\tau$-momentum relative the expanding inertial frame in Rindler sector $F$: $$\int_0^\infty \int_0^\infty \int _0^{2\pi} T^\xi_{~\tau}\,\xi d\tau
\, rdr \,d\theta =0~.
\label{eq:tau momentum equal to zero}$$ However, for a non-zero static dipole moment the other momenergy[^2] components, also measured in $F$, are non-zero: $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^\infty \int_0^\infty \int _0^{2\pi}
T^\xi_{~\xi}\,\xi d\tau \, rdr \,d\theta
&\not =&0 \label{eq:xi momentum not zero}\\
\int_0^\infty \int_0^\infty \int _0^{2\pi}
T^\xi_{~r}\,\xi d\tau \, rdr \,d\theta
&\not =&0 \label{eq:r momentum not zero}\\
\int_0^\infty \int_0^\infty \int _0^{2\pi}
T^\xi_{~\theta}\,\xi d\tau \, rdr \,d\theta
& =&0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(\textrm{``axial symmetry''})
\label{eq:theta momentum equal to zero}\end{aligned}$$ Equations (\[eq:tau momentum equal to zero\])-(\[eq:theta momentum equal to zero\]) express an observationally and hence conceptually precise distinction between the radiative and non-radiative e.m. fields of a dipole source accelerated in Rindler sector $I$: The augmented Larmor formula implies that the dipole emits radiation if and only if its $\tau$-momentum, the spatial integral of $T^\xi_{~\tau}$ in the expanding inertial frame, is non-zero. Furthermore, the existence of a dipole field, static in Rindler sector $I$, is expressed by the non-vanishing of the other momenergy components, Eqs.(\[eq:xi momentum not zero\])-(\[eq:r momentum not zero\]). Like the $\tau$-momentum, these components are also measurable in the expanding inertial frame. If the dipole is not static then the the emitted radiation gets tracked by the $\tau$-momentum. In that case the other momenergy components play an auxiliary role. They only track the sum of static dipole field and the radiative field, not the separate contributions.
UNIFYING PERSPECTIVE
====================
The four Rindler sectors lend themselves to a unifying perspective. The context which makes this possible is the emission and observation of radiation from a body accelerated linearly and uniformly. The requirement that signals be transmitted with 100% fidelity implies that the spacetime arena for this radiation process consist of two adjacent Rindler coordinatized sectors, such as $I$ and $F$ or $II$ and $F$.
The unifying perspective applied to two adjacent Rindler sectors is brought into a particularly sharp focus by the augmented Larmor formula, Eqs.(\[eq:Larmor’s formula\]) or (\[eq:Larmor’s electric dipole formula\]). This is because the physical basis of this formula is a radiation process which starts in one of the two Rindler sectors and ends in the other. Indeed, the radiative longitudinal momentum (longitudinal flow of radiative energy) observed and measured in the expanding inertial frame in $F$ is expressed directly in terms of the behaviour of the dipole source in the accelerated frame in $I$ (or $II$).
The unifying perspective applies to all four Rindler sectors if one considers a scattering process which starts in $P$ and ends in $F$. In such a process an e.m. wave starts in Rindler sector $P$, splits into two partial waves which cross the past event horizons and enter the respective Rindler sectors $I$ and $II$. The partial wave in $I$ excites the internal degree of freedom of the dipole oscillator accelerated in $I$. There the oscillations constitute a source for the scattered radiation which propagates into $F$. The other partial wave, which propagates through Rindler sector $II$, also reaches $F$. There the resultant interference pattern is observed and measured. It is evident that this interference pattern is made possible by the properties of the four Rindler sectors combined, the Rindler interferometer of Section \[The Rindler Interferometer\].
Thus both the Rindler interferometer and the augmented Larmor formula provide a unifying perspective. It joins adjacent Rindler coordinate charts into a single spacetime arena for radiation and scattering processes from accelerated bodies.
This perspective is at variance with a philosophy which seeks a particle-antiparticle definition in non-rectilinear coordinate systems in flat spacetime [@Padmanabhan].
Such a philosophy typically focuses on one of the Rindler charts to the exclusion of all the others. The application of quantum field theory to such a chart leads to the paradox of spurious particle production in flat spacetime. As a result quantum theory remains meaningfully invariant only under a subset of classically allowed coordinate transformations.
A proposed solution is to disallow – in quantum theory – a large class of coordinate transformations, such as those leading to Rindler charts $F$ or $I$ [@Padmanabhan].
However, the fault does not lie with these Rindler charts. Instead, it lies with the underlying philosophy which seeks a definition of the particle-antiparticle concept in one of the coordinate charts while ignoring reference to the others. Such a selective focus does not comply with, and hence is forbidden by the unifying perspective implied by the augmented Larmor formula and by the Rindler double-slit interferometer.
CONCLUSION
==========
The subject of this article is the physics of accelerated frames. The theme is: “How does one observe and measure the properties of violently accelerated bodies?” Answering this question has led to three results.
First of all, suppose one considers the transmission of e.m. signals from a translationally accelerated transmitter to a receiver in an inertial frame. One finds that the signals can be transmitted without any time dependent Doppler distortion and with 100% fidelity *provided* the signals are received in an inertial frame which is *expanding*. A static inertial frame would not do.
Second, Larmor’s radiation formula for the radiation intensity from a dipole source gets augmented if that dipole is subjected to linear uniform acceleration. Under this circumstance the total radiation is the sum of the magnetic and electric dipole radiation, $${\mathcal I}_{total}=
(\pm)~\frac{\xi'^2}{\xi^2} \left\{
\frac{2}{3}\left[
\left(\frac{d^2 \textbf{d}}{dt'^2}\right)^2
+\frac{1}{\xi'^2}\left(\frac{d \textbf{d}}{dt'}\right)^2 \right]
+
\frac{2}{3}\left[
\left(\frac{d^2 \textbf{m}}{dt'^2}\right)^2
+\frac{1}{\xi'^2}\left(\frac{d \textbf{m}}{dt'}\right)^2 \right]
\right\}~.
\label{eq:Larmor's magnetic and electric dipole formula}$$ The amount of that augmentation becomes dominant when the acceleration is so large that its “Fermi-Walker” length ($\xi'=c^2$/acceleration) is smaller than the wavelength of the emitted radiation, or equivalently, when Eq.(\[eq:the criterion\]) is fulfilled.
Finally, taking note of the fact that for every source accelerated to the right there is a twin source accelerated to the left, suppose these two sources are irradiated coherently. Then these twins together with their concomitant expanding inertial reference frame form an interferometer. More precisely, the four Rindler coordinatized sectors form an interferometer, the Rindler interferometer. Its geometrical arena consists of the Rindler sectors $P\rightarrow(I,II)\rightarrow
F$ as exhibited in Figure \[fig:Rindler spacetime\]. They accommodate what in Euclidean space would be the components of an optical interferometer with (i) $P$ serving as the beam splitter, (ii) the spacetimes of the two accelerated frames $I$ and $II$ serving as the two arms, and (iii) the spacetime $F$ serving as the beam re-combiner. The interference pattern is recorded by the expanding inertial frame in $F$.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
===============
The author would like to thank Nirmala Prakash and Yuri Obukhov for helpful remarks.
APPENDIX: POTENTIAL, FIELD AND RADIATED MOMENTUM OF AN ACCELERATED POINT-LIKE MAGNETIC DIPOLE MOMENT
====================================================================================================
Even though the focus of this article is on the T.E. radiation from an axially symmetric circular dipole antenna, the mathematical structure of T.M. radiation is virtually the same for both. One merely has to interchange the magnetic with the electric field components to obtain one from the other. Furthermore, both are derived from a single scalar which obeys the same inhomogeneous scalar wave Eq.(\[eq:the full equation\]). For T.E. radiation from a magnetic dipole localized at $r'=0$ and $\xi'=constant$ in Rindler sector $I$ (upper sign) or $II$ (lower sign), this scalar is the simplified version of Eq.(\[eq:field due to two localized T.E. sources\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_F(\xi,\tau,r,\theta)=\frac{2\pi a^2}{2\xi\xi'}
\frac{\pm 1}{\sqrt{u^2+1}}
\frac{dq(\tau \pm \sinh^{-1}u)}{d\tau}
\label{eq:field due to a single localized source}\end{aligned}$$ where $$u =\frac{\xi^2-\xi^{'2} -r^2}{2\xi \xi'}$$ What are the T.E. field components and what is the Poynting integral, Eq.(\[eq:first Pointing integral\])? With some care the calculation is reasonably straight forward. We exhibit the calculational path in this appendix because it probably is optimal and hence also useful for the case of T.M. radiation.
Vector Potential
----------------
For T.E. radiation the components of the vector potential relative to the orthonormal basis are $$\begin{aligned}
(\hat A_\xi,\hat A_\tau,\hat A_r,\hat A_\theta )&=&
\left(
0,0,\frac{-1}{r}
\frac{\partial\psi_F}{\partial \theta},\frac{\partial\psi_F}{\partial r}
\right) \nonumber \\
&=&
\left(
0,0,~~~~0~~~~,\frac{\pm4\pi a^2r}{(2\xi\xi')^2}
\left( \frac{u}{(u^2+1)^{3/2}} \dot q \mp \frac{1}{u^2+1} \ddot q
\right) \right)
\label{eq:vector potential}\end{aligned}$$ where an over-dot refers to the partial derivative $$\dot q=\frac{\partial q (\tau\pm \sinh^{-1} u)}{\partial \tau} ~.$$
Field Components
----------------
In compliance with the table of derivatives in Section \[sec-the T.E. field\], the relevant non-zero component of the electric field is $$\begin{aligned}
\hat E_\theta &\equiv& \hat F_{\theta\xi}=\frac{1}{r}\left(
\frac{\partial A_\xi}{\partial \theta}-\frac{\partial
A_\theta}{\partial \xi} \right)\nonumber\\
&=&-\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi}\frac{\partial\psi_F}{\partial r}~,\end{aligned}$$ which with the help of Eq.(\[eq:vector potential\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\hat E_\theta &=&-(\mp ) 4\pi a^2~~r\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi}
\left[ \frac{1}{(2\xi\xi')^2} \left(
\frac{u}{(u^2+1)^{3/2}}\dot q \mp \frac{1}{u^2+1} \stackrel{..}{q}
\right)
\right]\nonumber\\
&=& 2\pi a^2 (\alpha \dot q +\beta \ddot q +\gamma \stackrel{...}{q})~,
\label{eq:electric field}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha &=& \frac{\mp 2r}{(2\xi\xi')^2}
\left(
\frac{-3}{\xi}\frac{u}{(u^2+1)^{5/2}}+\frac{1}{\xi'}\frac{1-2u^2}{(u^2+1)^{5/2}}
\right)\nonumber\\
\beta &=& \frac{-2r}{(2\xi\xi')^2}
\left(
\frac{1}{\xi}\frac{2-u^2}{(u^2+1)^2}
+\frac{3}{\xi'}\frac{u}{(u^2+1)^2}
\right)\nonumber\\
\gamma &=& \frac{\mp 2r}{(2\xi\xi')^2}
\left(
\frac{1}{\xi}\frac{u}{(u^2+1)^{3/2}}-\frac{1}{\xi'}\frac{1}{(u^2+1)^{3/2}}
\right) ~.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly the relevant non-zero magnetic field component is $$\begin{aligned}
\hat B_r \equiv \hat F_{\theta\tau}&=&\frac{1}{r\xi}\left(
\frac{\partial A_\tau}{\partial \theta}-\frac{\partial A_\theta}{\partial \tau}
\right)\nonumber\\
&=&-\frac{1}{r\xi}\frac{\partial}{\partial\tau}
\left( r \frac{\partial\psi_F}{\partial r} \right)
=-\frac{1}{\xi}\frac{\partial}{\partial\tau} \frac{\partial\psi_F}{\partial r}~,\end{aligned}$$ which with the help of Eq.(\[eq:vector potential\]) becomes $$\hat B_r= 2\pi a^2(\delta \ddot q +\epsilon \stackrel{...}{q}) ~,
\label{eq:magnetic field}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\delta&=&
\frac{\mp 2r}{(2\xi\xi')^2}\frac{1}{\xi}\frac{u}{(u^2+1)^{3/2}}\nonumber\\
\epsilon&=&
\frac{2r}{(2\xi\xi')^2}\frac{1}{\xi}\frac{1}{u^2+1}~.\end{aligned}$$
Radiated Momentum
-----------------
Being generated by a circular loop, the density of radiated momentum pointing into the $\pm \tau$ direction is independent of the polar angle $\theta$. Consequently, that density’s spatial integral, Eq.(\[eq:Pointing integral\]), reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{-\infty}^\infty \int_0^\infty \int _0^{2\pi} T^\xi_{~\tau}\,\xi d\tau
\, rdr \,d\theta
&=&
\frac{1}{4\pi}\int_{-\infty}^\infty \int_0^\infty \int _0^{2\pi}
\hat B_r \times\hat E_\theta \xi \,\xi d\tau \, rdr \,d\theta
\nonumber\\
&=&
\frac{(2\pi a^2)^2 2\pi}{4\pi}
\int_{-\infty}^\infty \int_0^\infty
(\delta \ddot q +\epsilon \stackrel{...}{q} )(\alpha \dot q +\beta \ddot q +\gamma
\stackrel{...}{q})
\xi^2d\tau\, r\, dr\end{aligned}$$ The $\tau$-integration affects only the dotted factors, and they vanish outside a sufficiently large $\tau$-interval, i.e. $\dot
q(\pm\infty)=\ddot q(\pm\infty)=0$. Consequently, integration by parts yields $$\int_{-\infty}^\infty\ddot q \dot q
\,d\tau=\int_{-\infty}^\infty\stackrel{...}{q} \,\stackrel{..}{q}\,d\tau=0$$ and $$\int_{-\infty}^\infty\stackrel{...}{q}\,\stackrel{.}{q}
\,d\tau=-\int_{-\infty}^\infty{\ddot q}^2 d\tau \ne 0$$ Thus there remain only three non-zero terms in the integral, $$\int_{-\infty}^\infty \int_0^\infty \int _0^{2\pi} T^\xi_{~\tau}\,\xi d\tau
\, rdr \,d\theta=
\frac{(2\pi a^2)^2 2\pi}{4\pi}\int_{-\infty}^\infty \int_0^\infty
\left(\epsilon\gamma {\stackrel{...}{q}}^2 +
(\beta\delta -\alpha\epsilon ) {\ddot q}^2 \, \right)
\xi^2 d\tau\, r\, dr~.
\label{eq:integral with three terms}$$ The coefficients of the squared terms are $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon\gamma&=& \mp \frac{4r^2}{(2\xi\xi')^4}
\left(
\frac{1}{\xi^2}
\frac{u}{(u^2+1)^{5/2}}-
\frac{1}{\xi\xi'}
\frac{1}{(u^2+1)^{5/2}}
\right)\label{eq:1st expression}\\
\beta\delta&=&
\mp\frac{4r^2}{(2\xi\xi')^4}
\left(
-\frac{1}{\xi^2} \frac{(2-u^2)u}{(u^2+1)^{7/2}}
-\frac{3}{\xi\xi'} \frac{u^2}{(u^2+1)^{7/2}}
\right)\label{eq:2nd expression}\\
\alpha\epsilon&=&\mp \frac{4r^2}{(2\xi\xi')^4}
\left(
-\frac{3}{\xi^2} \frac{u}{(u^2+1)^{7/2}}+\frac{1}{\xi\xi'} \frac{1-2u^2}{(u^2+1)^{7/2}}
\right)\label{eq:3rd expression}\end{aligned}$$ We now take advantage of the fact that the integral, Eq.(\[eq:integral with three terms\]), is independent of the synchronous time $\xi$. This simplifies the evaluation of the integral considerably because one may assume $$1\ll\frac{\xi}{\xi'}$$ without changing the value of the integral. The final outcome is that (i) in each of the expressions, Eqs.(\[eq:1st expression\])-(\[eq:3rd expression\]), only the last term contributes to the $r$-integral and (ii) the integral assumes a simple mathematical form if one introduces $$u=\frac{\xi^2-\xi^{'2} -r^2}{2\xi \xi'},\quad\quad du=-\frac{2r\,dr}{2\xi\xi'}$$ as the new integration variable. With this scheme one has $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^\infty \cdots \frac{r^2r\,dr}{(2\xi\xi')^2}&=&
\frac{1}{2} \int_{(\xi^2-\xi'^2)/2\xi\xi'}^{-\infty} \cdots \left(
\frac{\xi}{2\xi'}-\frac{\xi'}{2\xi}-u
\right)(-)du
\label{eq:limiting integral}\end{aligned}$$ The to-be-used integrands have the form $$\frac{1}{(u^2+1)^{n/2}},\quad \frac{u}{(u^2+1)^{n/2}}\quad\quad\quad\quad n=5,7,\cdots~,$$ both of which are always less than one in absolute value, even when they get multiplied by $u$. Consequently, one is perfectly justified in saying that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^\infty \cdots \frac{r^2r\,dr}{(2\xi\xi')^2}&\rightarrow&
\frac{\xi}{4\xi'}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \cdots du
\quad\textrm{whenever} \quad \xi'\ll\xi ~.
\label{eq:final limiting integral}\end{aligned}$$ Taking note that only the last terms of Eqs.(\[eq:1st expression\])-(\[eq:3rd expression\]) give nonzero contribution, apply the limiting form, Eq.(\[eq:final limiting integral\]), to evaluate the integral, Eq.(\[eq:integral with three terms\]). One finds that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{-\infty}^\infty \int_0^\infty \int _0^{2\pi} T^\xi_{~\tau}\,\xi d\tau
\, rdr \,d\theta&=&
\frac{(2\pi a^2)^2 2\pi}{4\pi}
\frac{\pm 4}{(2\xi')^2}
\frac{1}{4{\xi'}^2} \int_{-\infty}^\infty
\left( \stackrel{...}{q}^2
\int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{du}{(u^2+1)^{5/2}}+
\ddot q^2 \int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{du}{(u^2+1)^{5/2}}
\right)d\tau \nonumber\\
&=&
(\pi a^2)^2 \frac{\pm 1}{2\xi'^4}\int_{-\infty}^\infty
\left( \stackrel{...}{q}^2
\int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2}\cos^3 \phi~d\phi+
\ddot q^2\int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2}\cos^3 \phi ~d\phi
\right)d\tau\end{aligned}$$ The value of the integral $$\int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2}\cos^3 \phi~d\phi=\frac{4}{3}$$ implies that the final result is $$\int_{-\infty}^\infty \int_0^\infty \int _0^{2\pi} T^\xi_{~\tau}\,\xi d\tau
\, rdr \,d\theta=
(\pm)\frac{(\pi a^2)^2}{\xi'^4}\int_{-\infty}^\infty
\left(
\frac{2}{3}\stackrel{...}{q}^2 +\frac{2}{3}\ddot q^2
\right)d\tau~,$$ the total momentum into the $\tau$-direction radiated by a magnetic dipole accelerated in Rindler sector $I$ (upper sign) or in Rindler sector $II$ (lower sign). This is the result stated by Eq.(\[eq:Pointing integral\])
Section V in A. Einstein, Jahrbuch der Radioaktivitaet und Electronik 4, p.411 (1907); English translation in [*The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 2, The Swiss Years: 1900-1909*]{}, translated by Anna Beck, Peter Havas, Consultant, (Princeton University Press, Princeton, N. J., 1989) p 252
Instead of meter sticks with equally spaced markings, it is better to have equally spaced detectors and probes. This means that instead of measuring a particle in relation to the meterstick markings, measure it by the “click” this particle produces in the corresponding detector. Furthermore, by having the clocks keep track of the relative phase between adjacent detection probes, one can measure the wavelength of a electromagnetic wave train passing through the lattice work of equally spaced probes.
The other breakthrough was, of course, his focus on the “principle of the uniqueness of free fall” (“Eotvos property”), which he identified as a manifestation of his “equivalence hypothesis” according to which a body’s acceleration in a static gravitational field is merely a kinematical effect due to accelerated reference frame relative to which the body is observed.
U.H. Gerlach, Phys. Rev. D **59**, p.104009 (1999) or gr-qc/9911016 ; See also U.H. Gerlach in *Proc. 8th Marcel Grossmann Meeting*, edited by T. Piran (World Scientific, Singapore, 1999), 952-954 or gr-qc/9910114
See, for example, section 71 in L.L. Landau and E.M. Lifshits, *The Classical Theory of Fields* (Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc, Reading, 1962)
See, for example, Section 1.2, including Figure 1.4, in C.W. Misner, K.S. Thorne, and J.A. Wheeler, *Gravitation* (W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, 1973)
There are additional difficulties which are spelled out in C.W. Misner, K.S. Thorne, and J.A. Wheeler, *Gravitation* (W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, 1973), Sec. 6.3, p.168
The concept of a *recording* clock was first made explicit by Taylor and Wheeler in Sections 2.4 of *SPACETIME PHYSICS*, (W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, 1966) and in Sections 2.6 and 2.7 of *SPACETIME PHYSICS, 2nd Edition*, (W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, 1992). Unlike theirs, each of our recording clocks resembles the one found in a GPS satellite: each one also includes a transmitter.
See, e.g., M. Born and E. Wolf, [*Principles of Optics*]{}, sixth edition, (Pergamon Press, Elmsford, N.Y., 1980), p.312
*Notation:* (i) Throughout Section \[sec-fidelity:physical\] and from Section \[sec-radiation:mathematical\] onward *primed* coordinates, such as $(\tau',\xi',r',\theta')$ or $(t',z',r',\theta')$, refer to the source (transmitter) in Rindler sector $I$ and/or $II$, while *unprimed* coordinates such as $(\xi,\tau,r,\theta)$ or $(t,z,r,\theta)$, refer to the observer(receiver) in Rindler sector $F$. Also note that in listing these coordinates, e.g. $(\tau',\xi')$ or $(\xi,\tau)$, the *timelike coordinate is first*, followed by the spacelike coordinate(s).
Remark by E. Wigner on page 285 in the discussion following papers by S.S. Chern and T. Regge in *Some Strangeness in Proportion*, Edited by Harry Wolf (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., Reading, Mass., 1980)
E. Schrödinger, *EXPANDING UNIVERSES*, (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1956), p. 20
The sourceless field equations in Rindler sector $I$ have been considered by P. Candelas and D. Deutsch, Proc.E Roy.Soc.**A 354**,79 (1977) and by A.Higuchi, G.E.A. Matsas, and D. Sudarsky, Phys. Rev. **D 46**, 3450 (1992)
F.J. Alexander and U.H. Gerlach, gr-qc/99100086 ; Phys. Rev. **D 44**, 3887 (1991) exhibit the inhomogeneous T.E. and T.M. wave equations in terms of gauge-invariant mode expansions.
A discussion of Hertz’s electric and Righi’s magnetic ‘super potential’ vectors are given in a tutorial article “Classical Electrodynamics” by M. Phillips, page 74 in *Encyclopedia of Physics, Volume IV* edited by S. Flűgge (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1962). This tutorial also refers to Whittaker’s result.
Simply express $G$ as a double Fourier integral. Using Cauchy’s integral formula, evaluate the first Fourier (frequency) integral first. Do this by having the integration path go slightly above the two poles on the real frequency axis. The result is the sum of two contributions. This yields the sum of two Fourier integral expressions for the zero order Hankel function of the first and second kind respectively. Their sum is the zero order Bessel function.
A. Sommerfeld, *Partial Differential Equations in Physics*, (Academic Press, New York, 1949), Sec. 21, p.108
We have included a factor of two on the right hand side of Eq.(\[eq:multipole\]). We do this in order to guarantee that when $m=0$ and when one considers a circular loop of area $\pi
a^2$ localized at $\xi'=\xi_{I,II}$, as in Eq.(\[eq:magnetic moment density\]), then the $d\xi'$-integral of Eq.(\[eq:multipole\]) yields the standard value $\int_0^\infty S_{I,II}(\tau',\xi')d\xi'=\pi
a^2 \times (proper~current)$ for the proper magnetic dipole moment.
Remember that it is $-\delta^m_{II}$ which expresses a phase increase because in $II$ $\tau$ increases towards the past.
T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rev. Lett. **64**, 2471 (1990)
[^1]: Published in Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 105004 (2001)
[^2]: The word *momenergy*, a term first coined by J.A. Wheeler, refers to the single concept which ordinarily is referred to by the cumbersome word “energy-momentum”. Given the fact that, in the physics of particles and fields, the concepts “momentum” and “energy” are merely different aspects united by a change of inertial frames into a new single concept, the case for correspondingly uniting the compound word “ momentum-energy”, or “energy-momentum” into the single word “momenergy” is appropriate.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We propose an implementation of a quantum router for microwave photons in a superconducting qubit architecture consisting of a transmon qubit, SQUIDs and a nonlinear capacitor. We model and analyze the dynamics of operation of the quantum switch using quantum Langevin equations in a scattering approach and compute the photon reflection and transmission probabilities. For parameters corresponding to up-to-date experimental devices we predict successful operation of the router with probabilities above 94%.'
author:
- Arnau Sala
- 'M. Blaauboer'
title: 'Proposal for a transmon-based quantum router'
---
Introduction
============
Given recent advances in experimental quantum computation, where few-qubit systems have been realized [@haffner; @dicarlo; @vandersar; @lucero; @monroe; @barz], a considerable amount of research is currently devoted to investigating larger-scale systems such as networks for quantum communication [@stucki; @ritter; @garcia]. In such systems, where information must be coherently transported over long distances, photons are suitable candidates as quantum information carriers because of their long coherence times. Solid-state devices, on the other hand, seem preferable for storage of quantum information [@chiorescu; @wu]. Essential components in any quantum communication toolbox are, thus, devices capable of directing photons through different channels [@ritter; @garcia; @lemr; @lemr2; @qu]. These devices include single-photon transistors [@chang; @neumeier; @manzoni], switches or routers [@hoi; @agarwal; @li; @lu; @yan], single-photon beam splitters [@prl104; @hoffmann], etc.
So far, several approaches have been proposed for building a quantum switch, such as an optical implementation using polarized photons and trapped atoms or a phase gate implementation [@pra78]. Also, proposals for a beam splitter based on Superconducting Quantum Interference Devices (SQUIDs) to route photons [@prb78; @prl110; @prl104; @hoffmann; @kyaw] or using toroidal resonators [@pra86] have been put forward.
Here we propose a solid-state implementation of a quantum router using superconducting qubits. Given an $n$-photon input, consisting of a train of photon pulses where each of them can be in two states (or in a coherent superposition of both), the quantum switch absorbs the first photon and forwards the next $n-1$ photons to a path determined by the state of the first absorbed photon. Our proposed device can be integrated in a larger network, where the output of one router is the input of the next. As a result, since the routers are controlled by the input signals there is no need to control the network externally. Also it requires the same number of photons to send a signal through two different paths with the same number of nodes, while other proposals [@hoi; @garcia] may require less photons for some preferred paths, leading to a network where some routes (e.g., a route that at each bifurcation node takes the rightmost output path) have higher efficiency than others. We analyze the dynamic operation of the router using quantum Langevin equations combined with input/output scattering formalism, taking into account decoherence due to relaxation and dephasing. We predict successful operation of the router with probabilities above 94% under realistic experimental conditions.
The paper is organized as follows. First we present our proposal for the superconducting circuit that operates as a quantum router and derive the effective Hamiltonian of the system. We then analyze the dynamics of operation of the quantum switch using a scattering approach and calculate the probabilities of reflection and transmission of an incoming photon. In the last section conclusions and a discussion of the possible applications of this quantum device are presented.\
Model
=====
A schematic of the device we propose, based on circuit quantum electrodynamics (cQED), is depicted in FIG. \[fig:device\]. The device is composed of three transmission lines capacitively coupled to four SQUIDs and a transmon, acting as artificial atoms that absorb and reflect or transmit the photons forward. The device operates as follows: the first photon of a register that arrives at the switch is absorbed by the transmon which, after being excited, modifies the energy spectrum of the SQUIDs in such a way that the next photons can only be absorbed by the two SQUIDs labeled with $2a$ or $2b$ ($3a$ or $3b$) if the transmon is in its first (higher) excited state.
The excited SQUID then decays while emitting a photon into its corresponding outgoing transmission line. The transmon also decays emitting a photon into the incoming transmission line. The capacitances $C_{2sa}$, $C_{2sb}$, $C_{3sa}$ and $C_{3sb}$ are chosen such that they are smaller than any other capacitance in the system. In this way, the transmission of the control photon, which is the element of the register that controls the operation of the router, is prevented [@Note1]. Also the coupling strength between the SQUIDs and their farthest transmission line is strongly reduced if this condition on the capacitances is satisfied.
![Circuit QED device proposed to operate as a quantum router. This device is composed of four SQUIDs, each with a capacitor ($C_{2sa},~C_{2sb},~C_{3sa},~C_{3sb}$) and a pair of Josephson junctions (with energies $E_{J2a}$, etc.). It also contains a transmon qubit, consisting of a capacitor ($C_t$) and a pair of Josephson junctions ($E_{Jt}$). These five elements are capacitively coupled to an incoming transmission line ($V_1$) and to two outgoing transmission lines ($V_2$ and $V_3$). The fluxes $\varphi_i$, in the nodes of the circuit, are quantized variables (see [@Note1] for the quantization of these variables) and describe the absorption and emission of incoming photons by the transmon and SQUIDs. \[fig:device\]](figure1.eps){width="\linewidth"}
The dynamics of the router in FIG. \[fig:device\] is described by an effective Hamiltonian [@Note1] $$\label{eq:heff}
H_{eff} = H_{sys} + H_c + H_T.$$ Here $H_{sys}$ describes the energy levels of the transmon and SQUIDs and also the interaction between them: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:hsys}
H_{sys} =& \sum_{i=1}^3 \omega_{Ti} a^\dagger_{Ti} a_{Ti} + \sum_k \omega_{k} a^\dagger_{k} a_{k} \notag \\
%
& - \sum_{i=1}^3 \sum_k J_{ik}a^\dagger_{Ti} a_{Ti}a^\dagger_{k} a_{k},\end{aligned}$$ with $k \in \{ 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b \}$. Here $a^\dagger$ and $a$ denote the creation and annihilation operators for each of the energy levels of the system. These operators create an excitation with energy $\omega_{Ti}$ in the transmon or $\omega_k$ in the SQUIDs. The last term describes the density-density interaction between the $i$-th level of the transmon and the excitations in the $k$-th SQUID, with interaction strength $J_{ik}$.
$H_c$ describes the exchange interaction between the transmon and SQUIDs with the transmission lines, which are modeled as a bath of harmonic oscillators [@houches; @fan] with ladder operators $b_1$, $b_2$ and $b_3$ for the first, second and third transmission lines, respectively: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:hc}
H_c =& \int dp \left[ \frac{a^\dagger_{T1} b_1 (p)}{\sqrt{\pi \tau_{T1}}} + \frac{a^\dagger_{T3} b_1 (p)}{\sqrt{\pi \tau_{T3}}}\right.\nonumber \\
%
& \qquad + \left( \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi\tau_{T1}}} - \sqrt{\frac{3}{\pi\tau_{T3}}} \right) a^\dagger_{T2} a_{T1} b_1 (p) \nonumber \\
%
& \qquad + \left( \frac{a^\dagger_{2a}}{\sqrt{\pi \tau_a}} + \frac{a^\dagger_{2b}}{\sqrt{\pi \tau_b}} \right) \left( b_1(p) + b_2(p) \right) \nonumber \\
%
& \qquad \left. + \left( \frac{a^\dagger_{3a}}{\sqrt{\pi \tau_a}} + \frac{a^\dagger_{3b}}{\sqrt{\pi \tau_b}} \right) \left( b_1(p) + b_3(p) \right) + h.c. \right].\end{aligned}$$ The interaction strength of this coupling is given by $\tau_{T1}$ and $\tau_{T3}$, which are the lifetimes of the excited levels of the transmon, and also $\tau_a$ and $\tau_b$, which are the lifetimes of the SQUIDs. Note that the transmon is only coupled to the incoming transmission line and that the second level of the transmon is not coupled (directly) to the transmission lines [@Note2]. The coupling between the third level of the transmon and the transmission line —which is not present in the Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian, the expression that usually describes cQED systems similar to FIG. \[fig:device\] [@dicarlo; @lucero; @koch]— is achieved by introducing a nonlinear capacitor in the transmon [@Note3] (see also Sup. Mat.). This nonlinear capacitor can be realized, e.g., by placing carbon nanotubes between the plates of the capacitor [@Ilani]. These give rise to an energy spectrum that has the form $E(V)= \frac{C}{2} (V^2 + \alpha V^4)$ for small voltages $V$[@Note4; @Akinwande2].
![Schematic representation of the energy spectrum of the Hamiltonian in Eq. . This spectrum only contains the ‘single-photon levels’, i.e., the levels that are accessible only by absorbing one single photon (plus $\left| T2 \right\rangle$, for completeness). Energy levels represented with solid lines are coupled only to the incoming transmission line. Dashed lines describe levels coupled to the second outgoing transmission line and also the incoming one. Dotted lines describe levels coupled to the third outgoing transmission line and also the incoming one. The separation of the energy levels is not to scale.\[fig:spect1\]](figure2.eps)
![(Color online) Energy spectrum of the Hamiltonian in Eq. after the transmon has been excited. (a) After the first energy level of the transmon has been excited, the next photon, which has energy either $\omega_a$ or $\omega_b$ (or a superposition of both) can only excite the energy levels coupled to the second outgoing transmission line. (b) If the third energy level of the transmon has been excited, the same photon can only excite the energy levels coupled to the third outgoing transmission line.\[fig:spect2\]](figure3.eps)
The energy spectrum of the device, described by the Hamiltonians $H_{sys}$ and $H_c$ \[Eq. (\[eq:hsys\]) and (\[eq:hc\])\], is shown in FIG. \[fig:spect1\]. In this figure the three levels of the transmon are represented with solid lines. The energy levels of the SQUIDs, in dashed lines (coupled to the second transmission line) and dotted lines (coupled to the third transmission line), do not coincide since all the capacitances and Josephson energies are different. After sending a control photon —with energy $\omega_{T1}$ or $\omega_{T3}$— into the router (see Fig. \[fig:spect2\]), due to the coupling between the transmon and SQUID energy levels described in Eq. (\[eq:hsys\]), the energy needed to create an excitation in SQUID $2a$ when the first level in the transmon is occupied can be made equal to the energy needed to create an excitation in SQUID $3a$ when the third level in the transmon is occupied (likewise for $2b$ and $3b$). This can be done by tuning the energies of the Josephson junctions of the system. Thus, the transmon —the control element of the router— forwards a photon with energy $\omega_a$ (or $\omega_b$) to the second or third transmission line, depending solely on the state of the control photon.
The transmission lines are described by a continuum of oscillating modes as [@houches; @fan]: $$\label{eq:ht}
H_T = \int dp\,p \left( b^\dagger_1(p) b_1(p) + b^\dagger_2(p) b_2(p) + b^\dagger_3(p) b_3(p) \right).$$
Analysis
========
In order to analyze the dynamics of the quantum router we have studied the scattering of one and two photons by our proposed device. Here we calculate the probabilities of reflection and transmission through each of the output channels.
We start by deriving the Langevin equations from the effective Hamiltonian $H_{eff}$ \[Eq. (\[eq:heff\])\] including relaxation and dephasing [@Note1; @ithier]. We then obtain the equations of motion within the input/output formalism of quantum optics [@neumeier; @gardiner; @fan]. From these equations we obtain the scattering amplitude of transmission and reflection of photons, assuming a Lorentzian pulse shape for the incoming photons [@neumeier].
Due to the multiple energy levels of the transmon (depicted in FIG. \[fig:spect1\]), the equation of motion for this element of the system —in terms of the operators $a_1$ and $a^\dagger_1$ introduced after quantizing the fluxes [@Note1]— is a complicated equation to work with. In order to simplify the calculations we introduce three projection operators $a_{T1}$, $a_{T2}$ and $a_{T3}$ and their hermitian conjugate —whose definition can be found in the Supp. Mat.— to replace $a_1$ and $a^\dagger_1$. Moreover, we have limited our Hilbert space by considering only three excited energy levels in the transmon and only one in each of the SQUIDs. These operators, with the properties $$\begin{aligned}
a^\dagger_{Ti} \left| GS \right\rangle =& \left| Ti \right\rangle \nonumber \\
a^\dagger_{Ti} \left| Tj \right\rangle =& 0 \qquad \forall~ i,j,\end{aligned}$$ and also $$\begin{aligned}
a_{Ti} \left| Ti \right\rangle =& \left| GS \right\rangle \nonumber \\
a_{Ti} \left| GS \right\rangle =& 0 \nonumber \\
a_{Ti} \left| Tj \right\rangle =& 0 \qquad \forall~ i \ne j,\end{aligned}$$ with $\left| GS \right\rangle$ being the ground state of the transmon and $\left| Ti \right\rangle$ its excited states, are projection operators that do not satisfy the usual commutation relations, so special care has to be taken when working with them. On the other hand, one of the advantages of using these three operators is that, although we will have three equations for the transmon instead of one, they are easier to solve. The use of these three operators instead of the original one does not change the model as long as the number of excited states of the transmon is limited to three. Another advantage of using this notation is that the final quantized Hamiltonian takes a simpler form \[the results being Eqns. (\[eq:hsys\]) and (\[eq:hc\])\] and is easier to interpret: the operator describing the occupation of the $i$-th level of the transmon is simply $a^\dagger_{Ti}a_{Ti}$.
Before deriving the Langevin equations we must find an expression that describes the incoming and outgoing photons in the input/output formalism. Following [@gardiner] we introduce the operators $b^\dagger_{2in}$ and $b^\dagger_{2out}$, and their hermitian conjugates, which create an incoming and an outgoing photon in the second transmission line (the same procedure must be applied to the other two transmission lines). These operators are defined as (see e.g. [@neumeier; @gardiner]): $$b^\dagger_{2in/out}(t) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} \int_{-\infty}^\infty d\omega\, e^{-i\omega(t-t_1)}b_2(\omega,t_1),$$ where $\omega$ is the frequency of the photon and $b_2(\omega,t_1)$ is an initial (or final) value of the Heisenberg operator defined at a time $t_1 \to -\infty$ for the input operator (or $t_1 \to +\infty$ for the output operator). The Langevin equations of the ‘static’ variables of the system in terms of $b_{1in}$, $b_{2in}$ and $b_{3in}$ are shown in the Supp. Mat. Once the Langevin equations are found, relaxation and dephasing ratios are then introduced into this set of equations by following Refs. [@ithier; @gardiner].
Within the input/output formalism, the scattering amplitude for a photon with frequency $k$ in transmission line 1 to be reflected or transmitted in a transmission line $i$ with frequency $p$ is given by $$S(p,k) = \left\langle 0 \right| b_{i,out}(p) b^\dagger_{1in}(k) \left| 0 \right\rangle.$$ In the case that multiple photons are sent in, the scattering amplitude reads $$\begin{gathered}
S(p_1,\dots,p_n;k_1,\dots,k_n) =\\
= \left\langle 0 \right| b_{i,out}(p_1) \dots b_{i',out}(p_n) b^\dagger_{1in}(k_1) \dots b^\dagger_{1in}(k_n) \left| 0 \right\rangle.\end{gathered}$$ These scattering amplitudes are valid for incoming photons with a definite frequency $k_1,\dots,k_i$ each or a superposition of these. Assuming that the incoming photons have a frequency distribution given by a Lorentzian centered at $k_i=\omega_i$ and with width $1/\tau_i$, the scattering amplitude of a photon with frequency $\omega_1$ is given by $$\beta(p) = \int \frac{dk_1}{\sqrt{\pi \tau_1}} \frac{1}{i(\omega_1 - k) + \frac{1}{\tau_1}} S(p_1,k_1).$$ The probability of this process to happen is given by: $$P = \int dp \left| \beta(p) \right|^2.$$
Let us consider again the single photon processes. For a good performance of the quantum router, the first photon to arrive must be absorbed by the transmon and be reflected back after all the other photons have been transmitted. It is, thus, necessary to find a procedure to find out whether the photon has been reflected after being absorbed or without being absorbed. For this purpose we describe the incoming photons as even modes given by the superposition of left and right-moving modes as $b_{1in}(k) = (r_{1in}(k) + l_{1in}(k))/\sqrt{2}$ [@fan]. With this procedure one can see, after computing the scattering amplitudes and the probabilities, that a photon described as an even mode is absorbed (and reflected) with a large probability (see Tables \[tab:1ph\] and \[tab:2ph\] below). Moreover, the probability of transmission of subsequent photons is enhanced if these are even modes.
The probabilities of reflection and transmission of photons are obtained by numerically integrating the squared scattering amplitude over all momenta and imposing the conditions $\omega_{2a}-J_{12a} = \omega_{3a}-J_{33a}=\omega_a$ and, similarly, $\omega_{2b}-J_{12b} = \omega_{3b}-J_{33b}=\omega_a$. This ensures that the router is controlled by the state of the first incoming photon.
The results of our calculations are shown in Tables \[tab:1ph\] and \[tab:2ph\]. The first table contains the probabilities of transmission of an incoming photon with different frequencies $\omega_{T1}$, $\omega_{T3}$, $\omega_{2a}$ and $\omega_a$ through the second and third transmission lines together with the probabilities of reflection in case this photon is described as an even mode or as a right-moving mode (see Sup. Mat. and [@fan] for a description of these modes). In the case of a photon with energy $\omega_{T1}$ or $\omega_{T3}$, since both energy levels are coupled only to the incoming transmission lines \[see Eq. (\[eq:hc\])\], we find a large probability of reflection, above 94%. It is interesting to notice the different behavior of the router with respect to the form of the modes. In case the photons are described by even modes, the probability amplitude of reflection scales as $$S_{even} \sim -\frac{1-\frac{3}{4} \gamma \tau_{T1}}{1+\frac{3}{4} \gamma \tau_{T1}}$$ for a photon with frequency $\omega_{T1}$. In this expression, $\gamma$ is the rate of decoherence and $\tau_{T1}$ is the lifetime of the excited energy level in the transmon. In case of right-moving modes, since a right-moving mode is reflected as a left-moving mode if it is absorbed and as a right-moving mode if it is reflected but not absorbed [@neumeier], the corresponding expression in Table \[tab:1ph\] represents the probability that a photon is absorbed and reflected, with an amplitude that is given by $$S_{right} \sim -\frac{1}{1+\frac{3}{4} \gamma \tau_{T1}}.$$
$\omega_{T1}$ $\omega_{T3}$ $\omega_{2a}$ $\omega_{a}$
-------------------- --------------- --------------- -------------------- --------------------
Refl. even modes 0.997 0.947 $1.9\cdot 10^{-2}$ 1
Refl. right-moving 0.998 0.973 0.238 $1.6\cdot 10^{-5}$
Transmission 2 0 0 0.952 $9.8\cdot 10^{-6}$
Transmission 3 0 0 $1.6\cdot 10^{-6}$ $2.3\cdot 10^{-6}$
: Probabilities of reflection and transmission of an incoming photon. The probabilities in this table have been computed for different frequencies of the incoming photons and considering both even modes and right-moving modes. Similar values can be obtained for left-moving modes. The probability of reflection of a right-moving photon, as computed here, is equivalent to the probability of absorption plus reflection of the incoming photon. \[tab:1ph\]
A photon will only be transmitted if it can excite one of the SQUIDs. Table \[tab:1ph\] also shows that a photon with energy $\omega_{2a}$, which coincides with the energy of the excited state of one of the SQUIDs (see FIG. \[fig:spect1\]), is totally transmitted if it is described as an even mode and only partially transmitted if it is a right-moving mode. Since we are only interested in a scenario where the photons absorbed by the SQUIDs are always transmitted, we only consider even modes from now on. Notice that the probability of transmission of a photon indeed goes to one in case it is transmitted to the nearest transmission line of the excited SQUID (with even modes) and vanishes in case it is transmitted to the other outgoing transmission line.
More interesting is the case where two photons (a control and a target photons) are sent into the router. In this case, while the transmon is in the (slow) process of absorption and emission of the control photon, the second (target) photon is absorbed and emitted in a faster process by a SQUID before the transmon returns to its ground state. The data corresponding to these scattering processes is shown in Table \[tab:2ph\]. In this case, a photon described by an even mode with energy either $\omega_a$ or $\omega_b$ is transmitted to the second transmission line with a probability above 95% if the first level of the transmon is excited. The probability amplitude of transmission of a photon with energy $\omega_a$ to the second outgoing transmission line is then given by $$S_{2} \sim \frac{1}{1+\frac{3}{8} \gamma \tau_a}.$$ If the third instead of the first level is excited, the photon is forwarded to the third outgoing transmission line with the same probabilities as in the case a photon is forwarded to the second transmission line when the first level of the transmon is excited. For any other frequency of the incoming photons these are not transmitted.\
$\omega_{2a}$ $\omega_a$ $\omega_b$
--------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------
Transmission 2 (T1) $4.45 \cdot 10^{-6}$ 0.952 0.964
Transmission 3 (T1) $7.58 \cdot 10^{-5}$ $1.63 \cdot 10^{-6}$ $1.47 \cdot 10^{-6}$
Transmission 2 (T3) $2.43 \cdot 10^{-7}$ $7.12 \cdot 10^{-7}$ $2.94 \cdot 10^{-6}$
Transmission 3 (T3) $4.45 \cdot 10^{-6}$ 0.952 0.964
: Probabilities of reflection and transmission of a photon while one of the levels —$T1$ or $T3$— of the transmon is excited. Only even modes have been considered (see the text).\[tab:2ph\]
Conclusions and Outlook
=======================
We have proposed and analyzed a transmon-based quantum router containing a nonlinear capacitor that operates with photons in the microwave regime. The nonlinear capacitor is the element responsible for the photon-transmon interaction. We predict successful operation of the quantum router with probabilities above 94% for current experimental parameters. That is, the probability that a photon is transmitted successfully to the target channel, assuming that the transmon has been excited with a high probability (as the calculations suggest) and that the photon is transmitted before the transmon returns to its ground state, is above 94%. This router can be built with a set of capacitors and Josephson junctions (see Ref. [@Note1] for a proposal of such parameters) in which two of the SQUIDs (coupled to the same outgoing transmission line) can be excited by a photon with frequency $\omega_a$ or $\omega_b$ if one (or the other) level of the transmon is excited.
The quantum router can be used as a single-photon transistor, with the distinctive characteristics that both the control and target photons can come from the same transmission line (i.e., from the same source) and that the target photon can be transmitted into two different transmission lines. The control photon thus not only controls whether the target photon is transmitted or not but also into which transmission line it is routed. Since the router is operated quantum-mechanically, this allows for transmission of photons in a superposition of paths if the control photon is in a superposition of states. Because of the latter, the proposed router can also be used to construct a quantum random access memory [@Lloyd], where a tree-like network with quantum switches at the nodes leads an address register of qubits from the root node to a superposition of memory cells. Finally, the router could be used as a basic element in quantum communication networks. A list of requirements to fulfill this purpose is discussed in the Supplemental Material [@Note1].
This work is part of the research programme of the Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter (FOM), which is part of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO).
[42]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2008.09.003) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nature08121) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nature10900) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nphys2385) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1126/science.1231298) [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep06115) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/1367-2630/13/i=12/a=123001) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nature11023) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.86.032334) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.82.024413) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.140503) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.87.062333) [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.optcom.2013.02.052) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1007/s10773-015-2539-9) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nphys708) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.063601) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.89.180502) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.073601) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.85.021801) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.photonics.2012.05.001) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevA.89.013805) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/srep04820) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.230502) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3522650) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.78.052310) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.78.104508) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.173603) [****, ()](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep08621) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevA.86.010306) in @noop [**]{}, , (, ) pp. [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.82.063821) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.76.042319) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nphys412) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1109/TNANO.2008.2005185) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.72.134519) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.31.3761) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.160501) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/374627a0) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1080/00207218508939003) @noop [**]{}
**Proposal for a transmon-based quantum router: Supplemental Material**
These notes contain some comments and additional information needed to understand the derivation of the results presented in the main text. We discuss in detail the need for a nonlinear capacitor in the proposed router design and possible candidates together with their properties. We also show how our model (Hamiltonian) has been derived and quantized and how scattering amplitudes and probabilities are computed. We present the set of numbers we have used and discuss obstacles and possible remedies towards scaling up of our proposed router. Finally, we discuss the requirements that we believe a quantum router needs to satisfy in order to construct a network for quantum communications.
Nonlinear capacitors
====================
In circuit QED, a device similar to the one proposed in the main text (see also FIG. \[fig:deviceS\]) is usually described by the Jaynes-Cummings (or Tavis-Cummings) Hamiltonian [@Sdicarlo; @Slucero; @Skoch]. This Hamiltonian only allows the excitation of one level of the transmon by absorbing one photon. If the third level of the transmon is to be reached, then three photons are needed. Here we propose a mechanism with which the third level of the transmon can be excited in one step by absorbing one photon. Unfortunately this transmon-cavity interaction cannot be achieved by using Josephson junctions or any other inductive element (when including an inductive element in the Lagrangian and performing a Legendre transformation, the resulting Hamiltonian does not contain a term coupling the transmon with the transmission lines, as is required). The nonlinearity provided by a Josephson junction is insufficient to couple the third level of the transmon to the transmission lines in a way that allows for a photon to be absorbed by the system and drive the transmon from its ground state to its third excited state ($\left| T3 \right\rangle$ in the main text). This photon-transmon interaction, not usually present in cQED devices, can, however, be achieved by using a nonlinear capacitative element. These capacitors have been realized and studied in multiple disciplines and with different implementations, such as using ferroelectric thin films or ceramics [@SAraujo; @SGluskin], quantum wells in heterojunctions [@Ssengouga], MOS junctions [@SColinge; @SKhan] and carbon nanotubes [@SIlani; @SAkinwande2].
We are interested in a nonlinear capacitor whose energy is a non-quadratic, symmetric and increasing function of the voltage for small fluctuations of $V$. In this way, the system will be confined into a region of small potentials [@NoteS1].
Among the aforementioned nonlinear capacitors, the one based on carbon nanotubes seems to be the most suitable candidate. This capacitor [@SIlani] consists of two parallel plates with carbon nanotubes in between, placed perpendicular to the plates. The nonlinearity in the $C(V)$ curve is due to the finiteness of the density of states (DOS) in the nanotubes [@SIlani; @SAkinwande2]. The capacitance of this device goes as $C(V)\sim C_0(1 + \alpha V^2)$, thus the energy spectrum of this capacitor as a function of the potential difference across the plates has the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:nlc}
E(V) \sim \int_0^V dV'(V-V') C(V') = \frac{1}{2} C_0 (V^2 + \alpha V^4),\end{aligned}$$ where, to simplify the notation, the constant $\alpha$ has been redefined to absorb a numerical constant.
Note that the carbon nanotubes do not constitute a key element in our proposal. Any other capacitative element, easier to fabricate and implement, with the same or similar energy spectrum will work as well.
The model: derivation
=====================
The Lagrangian describing our circuit QED system is found in the same way as in circuit theory [@Sbishop; @Shouches]. The Lagrangian of the device presented in FIG. \[fig:deviceS\] is given by $L = L_S + L_t$, where $L_S$ is the Lagrangian of the SQUIDs, given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ls}
L_S =& \frac{C_{2a}}{2} \left( \dot{\varphi}_{2a} - V_2 \right)^2 + \frac{C_{2sa}}{2} \left( \dot{\varphi}_{1} - \dot{\varphi}_{2a} \right)^2 + E_{J2a} \cos\left( \frac{\varphi_1 - \varphi_{2a}}{\varphi_0} \right) \notag \\
& + \frac{C_{2b}}{2} \left( \dot{\varphi}_{2b} - V_2 \right)^2 + \frac{C_{2sb}}{2} \left( \dot{\varphi}_{1} - \dot{\varphi}_{2b} \right)^2 + E_{J2b} \cos\left( \frac{\varphi_1 - \varphi_{2b}}{\varphi_0} \right) \notag \\
& + \frac{C_{3a}}{2} \left( \dot{\varphi}_{3a} - V_3 \right)^2 + \frac{C_{3sa}}{2} \left( \dot{\varphi}_{1} - \dot{\varphi}_{3a} \right)^2 + E_{J3a} \cos\left( \frac{\varphi_1 - \varphi_{3a}}{\varphi_0} \right) \notag \\
& + \frac{C_{3b}}{2} \left( \dot{\varphi}_{3b} - V_3 \right)^2 + \frac{C_{3sb}}{2} \left( \dot{\varphi}_{1} - \dot{\varphi}_{3b} \right)^2 + E_{J3b} \cos\left( \frac{\varphi_1 - \varphi_{3b}}{\varphi_0} \right),\end{aligned}$$ where the dynamic variables $\varphi_1$, $\varphi_{2a}$, $\varphi_{2b}$, $\varphi_{3a}$ and $\varphi_{3b}$ are the fluxes defined at each node of the diagram in FIG. \[fig:deviceS\] and $\varphi_0=\hbar/(2e)$ is the flux quantum divided by $2\pi$. For the transmon, the Lagrangian that describes its behavior is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lt}
L_t =& \frac{C_1}{2} \left( \dot{\varphi}_t - V_1 \right)^2 + \frac{C_t}{2} \left( \dot{\varphi}_t^2 + \alpha \dot{\varphi}_1^4 \right) + E_{Jt} \cos\left( \frac{\varphi_1}{\varphi_0} \right).\end{aligned}$$ Note that the expression in Eq. contains the energy spectrum of a carbon nanotube nonlinear capacitor \[right-hand side in Eq. \].
![Circuit QED device proposed to operate as a quantum router. This device is composed of four SQUIDs, each with a capacitor ($C_{2sa},~C_{2sb},~C_{3sa},~C_{3sb}$) and a pair of Josephson junctions (with energies $E_{J2a}$, etc.). It also contains a transmon qubit, with a capacitor ($C_t$) and a pair of Josephson junctions ($E_{Jt}$). These five elements are capacitively coupled to an incoming transmission line ($V_1$) and to two outgoing transmission lines ($V_2$ and $V_3$). The fluxes $\varphi_i$, in the nodes of the circuit, are quantized variables (see the text around the figure, section [*The model: derivation*]{}, for the quantization of these variables) and describe the absorption and emission of incoming photons by the transmon and SQUIDs. In this proposal, two SQUIDs are placed in each branch for scalability purposes and robustness. Since the target photons can be in two states with different frequencies (for scaling purposes, for these will be the control photons in a subsequent router), two resonators (per branch) coupled to the same transmission line, with two distinct threshold energies for which they are detuned, are needed to absorb the target photons. \[fig:deviceS\]](figure1.eps){width="0.7\linewidth"}
The Legendre transformation of the Lagrangian in Eq. and , needed to study the quantum dynamics of the router, gives a function that is not easy to work with due to the presence of quadratic and cubic radicals. Instead, a Taylor expansion of the transformation is more suitable for our purposes. The expanded Hamiltonian is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:htaylor}
H =& \frac{p^2_{2a} + 2p_{2a} c_{2a} V_2 - C_{2sa} C_{2a} V^2_2}{2(C_{2a} + C_{2sa})} + \frac{p^2_{2b} + 2p_{2b} c_{2b} V_2 - C_{2sb} C_{2b} V^2_2}{2(C_{2b} + C_{2sb})} \notag \\
& + \frac{p^2_{3a} + 2p_{3a} c_{3a} V_3 - C_{3sa} C_{3a} V^2_3}{2(C_{3a} + C_{3sa})} + \frac{p^2_{3b} + 2p_{3b} c_{3b} V_3 - C_{3sb} C_{3b} V^2_3}{2(C_{3b} + C_{3sb})} \notag \\
& + \frac{x^2}{2\gamma} - \frac{\beta x^4}{12 \gamma^4} + \frac{\beta^2 x^6}{18 \gamma^7} - \frac{\beta^3 x^8}{18 \gamma^{10}} - \frac{C_1 V_1^2}{2} - E_{Jt} \cos\left( \frac{\varphi_1}{\varphi_0} \right) \notag \\
& - E_{J2a} \cos\left( \frac{\varphi_1 - \varphi_{2a}}{\varphi_0} \right) - E_{J2b} \cos\left( \frac{\varphi_1 - \varphi_{2b}}{\varphi_0} \right) \notag \\
& - E_{J3a} \cos\left( \frac{\varphi_1 - \varphi_{3a}}{\varphi_0} \right) - E_{J3b} \cos\left( \frac{\varphi_1 - \varphi_{3b}}{\varphi_0} \right).\end{aligned}$$ For the sake of simplicity, the Hamiltonian in Eq. is expressed in terms of the fluxes, their conjugate momenta and the variable $x$, defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:x}
x \equiv &~ p_1 + C_1 V_1 + \frac{C_{2sa}}{C_{2a} + C_{2sa}} (p_{2a} + C_{2a} V_2) + \frac{C_{2sb}}{C_{2b} + C_{2sb}} (p_{2b} + C_{2b} V_2) \notag \\
& + \frac{C_{3sa}}{C_{3a} + C_{3sa}} (p_{3a} + C_{3a} V_3) + \frac{C_{3sb}}{C_{3b} + C_{3sb}} (p_{3b} + C_{3b} V_3),\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\beta \equiv &~ 6\, C_t \alpha \\
\gamma \equiv &~ C_1 + C_t + \frac{C_{2a} C_{2sa}}{C_{2a} + C_{2sa}} + \frac{C_{2b} C_{2sb}}{C_{2b} + C_{2sb}} + \frac{C_{3a} C_{3sa}}{C_{3a} + C_{3sa}} + \frac{C_{3b} C_{3sb}}{C_{3b} + C_{3sb}}.\end{aligned}$$ In order to give rise to a density-density interaction between the different energy levels, the Hamiltonian is required to contain a term with $p_1^6 p_{2a}^2$ (see the next section in which the Hamiltonian is quantized). This expression appears after expanding the Hamiltonian in a Taylor series. In this same expansion a term containing $p_1^3 V_1$ appears which describes the coupling between the third energy level of the transmon and the transmission lines.
After substituting Eq. in Eq. , many more interactions appear, but they can be neglected by imposing constraints on the parameters of the system. To start with, the coupling between the transmon and the outgoing transmission lines can be neglected by making $C_{2sa}$, $C_{2sb}$, $C_{3sa}$ and $C_{3sb}$ smaller than $C_1$, $C_{2a}$, $C_{2b}$, $C_{3a}$ and $C_{3b}$. In this way, the exchange interaction between the SQUID $2a$ and the third outgoing transmission line is also negligible. In order to see how the remaining couplings are enhanced or neglected we first have to quantize the Hamiltonian.
Quantization of the Hamiltonian
-------------------------------
The Hamiltonian is quantized as usual by introducing the ladder operators as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
p_1 =& -\frac{i\hbar}{2\varphi_0} \left( \frac{3}{2} \frac{\gamma^2}{\beta E_T} \right)^{1/4} (a_1 - a^\dagger_1) \label{eq:qp1} \\
\phi_1 =& \left( \frac{2}{3} \frac{\beta E_T}{\gamma^2} \right)^{1/4} (a_1 + a^\dagger_1) \label{eq:qph1}.\end{aligned}$$ Here we have made use of the variable $\phi_1=\varphi_1/\varphi_0$, to simplify the derivations, where $\varphi_0=\frac{\hbar}{2e}$ and also $E_T=\frac{\hbar^2}{8\gamma \varphi^2_0}$. The operators $a_1$ and $a^\dagger_1$ are the usual ladder operators that annihilate and create an excitation in the transmon. For the SQUIDs, the quantized forms of the operators are $$\begin{aligned}
p_{2a} =& -\frac{i\hbar}{2\varphi_0} \left[ E_{J2a} \frac{C_{2a} + C_{2sa}}{C_{2sa}} \left( \frac{\beta}{6 \gamma^2 E_T} \right)^{1/2} \right]^{1/2} (a_{2a} - a^\dagger_{2a}) \label{eq:qp2a} \\
\phi_{2a} =& \left[ \frac{1}{E_{J2a}} \frac{C_{2sa}}{C_{2a} + C_{2sa}} \left( \frac{6 \gamma^2 E_T}{\beta} \right)^{1/2} \right]^{1/2} (a_1 + a^\dagger_1) \label{eq:qph2a}.\end{aligned}$$ Similar expressions can be derived for the other operators. With Eqns. – together with $E_{Jt} + E_{J2a} + E_{J2b} + E_{J3a} + E_{J3b} = 3\gamma^2 /\beta \equiv \bar{E}_J$ and $E_{J2a} E_{2a} = (\bar{E}_J - E_{J2a} + E_{J2b} + E_{J3a} + E_{J3b})$ (for simplicity we have also introduced $E_{2a}=\frac{\hbar^2}{8C_{2sa} \varphi^2_0}$) the SQUID-transmon exchange interactions are strongly suppressed and the expressions describing the energy levels of the system together with the density-density interactions between them are found \[see Eq. (2) in the main text\]. The SQUID-SQUID exchange interaction can be neglected since its interaction strength goes as $(C_{2sa}/C_{2a})^2$. Other similar interactions can be neglected by making the capacitances $C_{2sa}$, $C_{2sb}$, $C_{3sa}$ and $C_{3sb}$ smaller than all the others and using the rotating wave approximation.
The interaction Hamiltonian \[Eq. (3) in the main text\], which couples the transmon and the SQUIDs with the incoming and outgoing transmission lines, is derived by imposing the following quantization of the potentials $V_1$, $V_2$ and $V_3$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:qvi}
V_i = -\frac{i\hbar}{2 \varphi_0} A_i^{1/4} (b_i - b^\dagger_i).\end{aligned}$$ Here $b_i,~ b^\dagger_i$ are the ladder operators describing the oscillating modes in the $i$-th transmission line, and $A_i$ are three constants that may be different.
Let us look again the expressions in Eqns. and . In the Hamiltonian \[Eq. \], there are only even powers of $x$. If we consider a single incoming photon, contained in $V_1$ \[see Eq. \], given that the terms in the Hamiltonian containing a single power of $V_1$ only contains odd powers of the momenta, the photon will excite only odd levels of the system. An even level can only be excited if an odd level is already occupied. This is shown in the Hamiltonian $H_c$ in the main text \[Eq. (3)\].
Projection operators
--------------------
In order to simpliby both the notation and the calculations we have introduced three projection operators defined as $$\begin{aligned}
a^\dagger_{T1} \equiv & \frac{1}{6} a_1^2 {a^\dagger_1}^3 = \left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0\\0&0&0&1\\0&0&0&0 \end{array} \right), \label{eq:defa1} \\
a^\dagger_{T2} \equiv & \frac{1}{3\sqrt{2}} a_1 {a^\dagger_1}^3 = \left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0&0&0&0\\0&0&0&1\\0&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0 \end{array} \right), \label{eq:defa2} \\
a^\dagger_{T3} \equiv & \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} {a^\dagger_1}^3 = \left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0&0&0&1\\0&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0 \end{array} \right) \label{eq:defa3},\end{aligned}$$ to replace $a_1$ and its hermitian conjugate. The Hamiltonian in the main text is written in terms of these new operators (see the section [*Analysis*]{}). These operators have the property that $a^\dagger_{Ti}$ acting on the ground state of the transmon creates an excitation in the $i$-th level, whereas the same operator acting on any other state where the transmon is already excited gives zero. Similarly, the operator $a_{Ti}$ only annihilates an excitation of levels in the transmon, lowering it to its ground state.
With these projection operators, the quantized Hamiltonian $H_c$, which describes the coupling between the transmission lines with the transmon and SQUIDs takes the simple form $$\begin{aligned}
H_c=& \int dp \left[ \frac{a^\dagger_{T1} b_1(p)}{\sqrt{\pi \tau_{T1}}}
+ \frac{a^\dagger_{T3} b_1(p)}{\sqrt{\pi \tau_{T3}}}
+ \left( \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi \tau_{T1}}} - \sqrt{\frac{3}{\pi \tau_{T3}}} \right) a^\dagger_{T2} a_{T1} b_1(p)
+ \left( \sqrt{\frac{3}{\pi \tau_{T1}}} - 3\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi \tau_{T3}}} \right) a^\dagger_{T3} a_{T2} b_1(p) \right. \notag \\
& \qquad + \left. \left( \frac{a^\dagger_{2a}}{\sqrt{\pi \tau_a}} + \frac{a^\dagger_{2b}}{\sqrt{\pi \tau_b}} \right) \left( b_1(p) + b_2(p) \right)) +
\left( \frac{a^\dagger_{3a}}{\sqrt{\pi \tau_a}} + \frac{a^\dagger_{3b}}{\sqrt{\pi \tau_b}} \right) \left( b_1(p) + b_3(p) \right)) + h.c. \right].\end{aligned}$$ The fourth term in the right-hand side, whose hermitian conjugate describes the process where the third excited level of the transmon decays into the second while emitting a photon, can be canceled by setting $\alpha$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:alpha}
\alpha = \frac{\gamma^3 \varphi_0^2}{324 \hbar C_t}.\end{aligned}$$ In this way, the number of states the third level of the transmon can evolve into is reduced and, thus, the lifetime of the third level of the transmon is enhanced, increasing the transition matrix element from the ground state to $\left| T3 \right\rangle$.
Langevin equations of motion
----------------------------
The Langevin equations of the ‘static’ variables of the system in terms of $b_{1in}$, $b_{2in}$ and $b_{3in}$ are $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{a}_{T1} =& -\left( i\omega_{T1} + \frac{1}{\tau_{T1}} \right) a_{T1}
- \frac{1}{\sqrt{\tau_{T1} \tau_{T3}}} a_{T3}
+ i\sum_k J_{1k} a_{T1} a^\dagger_k a_k
+ 2 \left( \sqrt{\frac{2}{\tau_{T1}}} - \sqrt{\frac{3}{\tau_{T3}}} \right) \left( \frac{a^\dagger_{T1} a_{T2}}{\sqrt{\tau_{T1}}} + \frac{a^\dagger_{T3} a_{T2}}{\sqrt{\tau_{T3}}} \right) \notag \\
& + \left[ \frac{1}{\sqrt{\tau_{T1}}} \left( a^\dagger_{T1} a_{T1} - a_{T1}a^\dagger_{T1} \right) + \frac{1}{\sqrt{\tau_{T3}}} a^\dagger_{T3} a_{T1} \right] \left( \frac{a_{2a}}{\sqrt{\tau_a}} + \frac{a_{2b}}{\sqrt{\tau_b}} + \frac{a_{3a}}{\sqrt{\tau_a}} + \frac{a_{3b}}{\sqrt{\tau_b}} \right) \notag \\
& + \left( \sqrt{\frac{2}{\tau_{T1}}} - \sqrt{\frac{3}{\tau_{T3}}} \right) \left( \frac{a^\dagger_{2a}}{\sqrt{\tau_a}} + \frac{a^\dagger_{2b}}{\sqrt{\tau_b}} + \frac{a^\dagger_{3a}}{\sqrt{\tau_a}} + \frac{a^\dagger_{3b}}{\sqrt{\tau_b}} \right) a_{T2} \notag \\
& + i \left[ \sqrt{\frac{2}{\tau_{T1}}} \left( a^\dagger_{T1} a_{T1} - a_{T1} a^\dagger_{T1} \right) + \sqrt{\frac{2}{\tau_{T3}}} a^\dagger_{T3} a_{T1} \right] b_{1in}(t) - i\sqrt{2} \left( \sqrt{\frac{2}{\tau_{T1}}} - \sqrt{\frac{3}{\tau_{T3}}} \right) b^\dagger_{1in}(t) a_{T2},\label{eq:at1} \\
\dot{a}_{T3} =& -\left( i\omega_{T3} + \frac{1}{\tau_{T3}} \right) a_{T3}
- \frac{1}{\sqrt{\tau_{T1} \tau_{T3}}} a_{T1}
+ i\sum_k J_{3k} a_{T3} a^\dagger_k a_k \notag \\
& + \left[ \frac{1}{\sqrt{\tau_{T1}}} a^\dagger_{T1} a_{T3} + \frac{1}{\sqrt{\tau_{T3}}} \left( a^\dagger_{T3} a_{T3} - a_{T3}a^\dagger_{T3} \right) \right] \left( \frac{a_{2a}}{\sqrt{\tau_a}} + \frac{a_{2b}}{\sqrt{\tau_b}} + \frac{a_{3a}}{\sqrt{\tau_a}} + \frac{a_{3b}}{\sqrt{\tau_b}} \right) \notag \\
& + i \left[ \sqrt{\frac{2}{\tau_{T1}}} a^\dagger_{T1} a_{T3} + \sqrt{\frac{2}{\tau_{T3}}} \left( a^\dagger_{T3} a_{T3} - a_{T3} a^\dagger_{T3} \right) \right] b_{1in}(t), \label{eq:at3} \\
\dot{a}_{2a} =& -\left( i\omega_{2a} + \frac{2}{\tau_a} \right) a_{2a}
+ i\sum_{j=1}^3 J_{j2a}a^\dagger_{Tj} a_{Tj} a_{2a}
- i\sqrt{\frac{2}{\tau_a}} \left( b_{1in}(t) + b_{2in}(t) \right) \notag \\
& - \frac{2 a_{2b}}{\sqrt{\tau_a \tau_b}} - \frac{a_{3a}}{\tau_a} - \frac{a_{3b}}{\sqrt{\tau_a \tau_b}}
- \frac{1}{\sqrt{\tau_a}} \left( \sqrt{\frac{2}{\tau_{T1}}} - \sqrt{\frac{3}{\tau_{T3}}} \right)a^\dagger_{T1} a_{T2} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{\tau_a \tau_{T1}}} a_{T1} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{\tau_a \tau_{T3}}} a_{T3}, \label{eq:a2a}\end{aligned}$$ where the index $k$ in the sum runs over $k \in \{ 2a,2b,3a,3b \}$ and three more equations for $2b$, $3a$ and $3b$, similar to Eq. , have to be derived. Relaxation and dephasing ratios are then introduced into this set of Langevin equations by following Refs. [@Sgardiner; @Sithier].
Photon modes in the transmission lines
======================================
In this section we briefly describe the meaning of the left/right-moving and even/odd modes, which are common in many circuit-QED works where the input-output formalism is used. For more details we refer the reader to Ref. [@Sfan], appendix A, where the following description is taken from.
In case the photons in a transmission line are allowed to propagate in both directions, the photon modes are described by right-moving bosonic operators ($r$, $r^\dagger$) if they propagate to the right or by left-moving bosonic operators ($l$, $l^\dagger$) if they propagate to the left. In this case, the Hamiltonian that describes the transmission lines reads: $$\begin{aligned}
H_T = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dp\, p \left( r^\dagger_p r_p - l^\dagger_p l_p \right),\end{aligned}$$ for each transmission line. The minus sign appears because the dispersion relation of the left-moving modes is the mirror image of the one of the right-moving modes. The remainder of the Hamiltonian given in the main text should, in this case, contain the sum of operators $r+l$ and $r^\dagger + l^\dagger$ instead of $b$ and $b^\dagger$ for each transmission line, so the different components of the router interact equally with both the left and right-moving modes.
From this new Hamiltonian, and following the same procedure as before (input/output formalism), similar equations of motion are found. Nevertheless, we can also do one more step and define two new operators: the even ($b$, $b^\dagger$) and odd ($\mathring{b}$, $\mathring{b}^\dagger$) operators that describe what are called even and odd modes, defined as: $$\begin{aligned}
b_p =& \frac{r_p + l_{-p}}{\sqrt{2}},\\
\mathring{b}_p =& \frac{r_p - l_{-p}}{\sqrt{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ These we then introduce in the Hamiltonian replacing the right and left-moving modes. One can check that the odd modes are not coupled to the system (they do not appear in the interacting part of the Hamiltonian), so they can be omitted in the Hamiltonian. The even modes are the ones used in the main text.
Numerical integration of the scattering amplitudes
==================================================
In order to find the set of values for the capacitances —these are the only free parameters left— that best satisfy the requirements for an optimal quantum router it is convenient to maximize (or minimize) the scattering probabilities according to the operating requirements. Since an analytical solution has proved difficult to obtain, we have looked, by trial and error, for a set of numbers with which the router works as expected and found a set of capacitances that satisfy our requirements of energy spacing between the SQUIDs and transmon levels. Then, by maximizing the scattering amplitudes we have fine-tuned these values. Although a more systematic way of searching may result in a better solution, we have found that there exist at least one set of such parameters, shown in Table \[tab:cap\]. The reason for this fine tuning is that, although the separation between the energy levels of the transmon is relatively large, the separation between the energy levels of the SQUIDs is very small (and the optimal operation of the quantum router sensitively depends on small variations of the values of the capacitances)
$C_t$ $C_{2a}$ $C_{2b}$ $C_{3a}$ $C_{3b}$ $C_{2sa}$ $C_{2sb}$ $C_{3sa}$ $C_{3sb}$
----------- ----------- ----------- ---------- ---------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
0.1 $C_1$ 1.2 $C_1$ 1.1 $C_1$ $C_1$ $C_1$ 0.1824 $C_1$ 0.1934 $C_1$ 0.1560 $C_1$ 0.1799 $C_1$
: Proposal for a set of parameters that satisfy the requirements of a quantum router, given in terms of the capacitance $C_1=10^{-9} \frac{e^2}{\hbar} F$. With these values, the device can operate as described in the main text, forwarding photons into one of the outgoing transmission lines according to the state of the control photon. The rest of the parameters (Josephson energies, inductances, $\alpha$) are found as functions of the capacitances during the derivation of the quantized Hamiltonian (see the second section of these supplementary notes) \[tab:cap\].
With the values in Table \[tab:cap\], the energies are found to be around $10\,GHz$ for the transmon energy levels ($\omega_{T1}=7.189\, GHz$ and $\omega_{T3}=21.93\, GHz$ ) and around $1\, GHz$ for the SQUIDs ($\omega_{2a}=1.028\, GHz$, $\omega_{2b}=1.162\, GHz$, $\omega_{3a}=1.053\, GHz$ and $\omega_{3b}=1.186\, GHz$). The coupling strength is of the order of $10^{-7}\, Hz$. All these values are common in the related literature. Also, we used the ratio $\bar{E}_J/E_T=1296$ which, although being larger than in other circuit-QED works, is sufficient to give rise to the nonlinear effects needed for the correct operation of the quantum router [@Skoch].
For the two-photon processes, we have made some assumptions: from the single-photon process, we have seen that the transmon absorbs the first incoming photon with a large probability, so for the two-photon processes we assumed that we sent the second photon while the transmon is already excited and that it does not decay emitting the control photon until the second photon has been fully transmitted. This implies that the lifetime of the transmon is much larger than that of the SQUIDs. This is a plausible assumption, given that the lifetimes of such cQED devices depend not only on the elements they are composed of but also on the geometry of the system (Purcell effect, see e.g. [@Sreed]).
Finally, we comment on the possibility to use the quantum router in a larger network containing many quantum routers such that the transmitted photons of one router can be used as control photons in the next node of the network. This means that a photon transmitted by the router, which has enough energy to excite one of the SQUIDs, can also excite the transmon in the next router. Therefore, in a scalable network where all the routers are identical, the energy needed to excite the transmon ($\omega_{T1}$ or $\omega_{T3}$) is the same as the energy needed to excite one of the SQUIDs ($\omega_a$ or $\omega_b$). In our (optimized) model, however, the energy of the first excited level of the transmon is one order of magnitude larger than that of the SQUIDs with the current set of capacitances. A possible solution may be to add a device between the two consecutive routers that enlarges the energy of the first photon to arrive. Stimulated Raman Adiabatic Passage (STIRAP) processes may be a candidate for a device capable of transferring the population of one quantum state (with lower energy) to another (with higher energy). These processes have been studied in circuit QED systems in [@SSiewert; @SFeng].
Requirements for an efficient quantum router for quantum communications
=======================================================================
So far, different proposals for quantum switches or routers that may be implemented in a quantum network have been studied [@Sagarwal; @Shoi; @Slu; @Slemr; @Sgarcia]. In order to assess the suitability of a given implementation for efficient use in a quantum communication network, we list here a set of requirements that we believe a quantum router must satisfy (part of these have been proposed elsewhere [@Slemr; @Sgarcia]). The list below contains general requirements, which can be applied and checked for specific implementations.
Imagine we have a network for quantum communication composed of quantum channels (which allow for the transmission of quantum information) and nodes (which contain quantum routers). Consider also that there is a signal to be sent and an element that controls the switches.
1. The information in the signal to be transmitted and also the information encoded in the control elements must be stored in quantum objects (qubits). Otherwise we can not talk about a fully quantum-mechanical router [@Slemr].
2. The router has to be able to route the (quantum) signal into a coherent superposition of both output modes [@Slemr].
3. The signal information must remain undisturbed during the entire routing process [@Slemr]. The control information must also remain undisturbed, so that we can keep track of the signal and verify that it is not modified (due to e.g., entanglement with the control element).
4. The router has to work without any need for postselection on the signal output [@Slemr].
5. To optimize the resources of the quantum network, only a single control qubit is required to direct each signal qubit [@Slemr]. Alternatively, the control information could also be stored in the signal qubit itself [@Sgarcia], but that may give the receiver information about the network which, in some applications, may not be a good idea.
6. With one single control qubit, as many as possible signal qubits should be forwarded.
7. A router with $n$ outputs must operate with the same efficiency (or speed, or with the same number of operations, etc.) for each output channel.
8. Scalability: the output of a router should be the input of the next one in a network.
The quantum router that we propose satisfies all of these requirements except for the last one (although, as we discussed in the previous section, this problem can for example be amended by using STIRAP processes). We thus believe that it can become a good candidate for a quantum switch or router in a network for quantum communication.
[25]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nature08121) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nphys2385) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.76.042319) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/374627a0) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1080/00207218508939003) [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mssp.2015.03.043) (, ) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1007/s11664-013-2713-x) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nphys412) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1109/TNANO.2008.2005185) **, [Ph.D. thesis](http://www.levbishop.org/thesis/), () in @noop [**]{}, , (, ) pp. [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.31.3761) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.063601) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.72.134519) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.82.063821) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nature10786) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.optcom.2005.12.083) [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.optcom.2010.01.002) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.85.021801) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.073601) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevA.89.013805) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.87.062333) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.86.032334)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'There exist constant radial surfaces, $\mathcal{S}$, that may not be globally embeddable in $\mathbb{R}^3$ for Kerr spacetimes with $a>\sqrt{3}M/2$. To compute the Brown and York (B-Y) quasi-local energy (QLE), one must isometrically embed $\mathcal{S}$ into $\mathbb{R}^3$. On the other hand, the Wang and Yau (W-Y) QLE embeds $\mathcal{S}$ into Minkowski space. In this paper, we examine the W-Y QLE for surfaces that may or may not be globally embeddable in $\mathbb{R}^3$. We show that their energy functional, $E[\tau]$, has a critical point at $\tau=0$ for all constant radial surfaces in $t=constant$ hypersurfaces using Boyer-Lindquist coordinates. For $\tau=0$, the W-Y QLE reduces to the B-Y QLE. To examine the W-Y QLE in these cases, we write the functional explicitly in terms of $\tau$ under the assumption that $\tau$ is only a function of $\theta$. We then use a Fourier expansion of $\tau\left(\theta\right)$ to explore the values of $E[\tau\left(\theta\right)]$ in the space of coefficients. From our analysis, we discovered an open region of complex values for $E[\tau\left(\theta\right)]$. We also study the physical properties of the smallest real value of $E[\tau\left(\theta\right)]$, which lies on the boundary separating real and complex energies.'
author:
- 'Warner A. Miller'
- Shannon Ray
- 'Mu-Tao Wang'
- |
\
Shing-Tung Yau
bibliography:
- 'qle.3.bib'
title: 'Wang and Yau’s Quasi-Local Energy for an Extreme Kerr Spacetime'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
It is not possible to define a local measure of the gravitational energy associated with the curvature of spacetime due to the equivalence principle of general relativity. However, it is possible to define a quasi-local energy (QLE) density with respect to a field of observers $\vec{t}$ and a 2-surface $\mathcal{S}$ bounding some 3-volume in a spacetime manifold $\mathcal{M}$. In 1993, Brown and York (B-Y) gave a natural method for devising such an energy using a Hamilton-Jacobi approach [@BY:QLE]. To understand their expression for QLE, we first introduce Fig. \[fig:central\], which includes notations for all submanifolds of $\mathcal{M}$ and their respective metrics. It also includes the notations for the normal and tangent vectors defined in $\mathcal{M}$.
![This figure represents a 3+1 split of a spacetime manifold with 4-metric $\left(\mathcal{M},\pmb{g}\right)$. Here we have suppressed one spatial dimension. The manifold $\mathcal{M}$ is foliated by a family of spacelike hypersurfaces with 3-metric $\left(\Sigma_t,\pmb{h_t}\right)$. Each hypersurface has a volume bounded by a simply connected spacelike surface with 2-metric $\left(\mathcal{S}_t,\pmb{\sigma_t}\right)$. There are two spacelike boundaries and one timelike boundary of $\mathcal{M}$. The spacelike boundaries are the initial and final hypersurfaces $\Sigma_0$ and $\Sigma_f$ of the foliation. The timelike boundary $\left(^{3}B,\pmb{\gamma}\right)$ is a three dimensional timelike cylindrical surface that is a product of 2-surfaces $\mathcal{S}_t$ embedded in $\Sigma_t$ and the world lines of Eulerian observers. The vector $\vec{u}$ is the timelike normal vector to $\Sigma_t$ and is tangent to $^{3}\!B$. Vector $\vec{v}$ is orthogonal to $\mathcal{S}_t$ and $^{3}\!B$ but tangent to $\Sigma_t$. The vectors $\vec{\zeta}_a$ span the tangent space of $\mathcal{S}_t$ and are tangent to both $\Sigma_t$ and $^{3}\!B$.[]{data-label="fig:central"}](CentralFig4.png){width="2in"}
Looking at equation 4.5 of [@BY:QLE], the B-Y QLE is defined as $$\label{eq:qleBY}
E=\underbrace{-\frac{1}{8\pi}\int_{\mathcal{S}_t}{[N k - N^\mu v^\nu \left(K_{\mu \nu} - K g_{\mu \nu}\right)]\sqrt{\sigma_t}\ dx^2}}_{physical\ space\ energy} -
\underbrace{E^0}_{reference\ energy}$$ where $k$ is the mean curvature of $\mathcal{S}_t$ embedded in the spacelike hypersurface $\Sigma_t$, $\pmb K$ is the extrinsic curvature tensor of $\Sigma_t$ embedded in $\mathcal{M}$, $K$ is the trace of $\pmb K$ and $E^0$ is the reference energy that emerges from the freedom to choose the zero point energy in any Hamilton-Jacobi formulation. The lapse and shift are given by $N$ and $\vec{N}$, respectively. Hawking and Horowitz proposed a similar definition of QLE in 1996 [@HH:QLE]. One choice for $E^0$ suggested by B-Y involves isometrically embedding $\mathcal{S}_t$ in some flat reference space and computing the corresponding reference energy. This gives $$\label{eq:ref}
E^0=-\frac{1}{8\pi}\int_{\mathcal{S}_t}{\left[N k_0 - N^\mu v_0^\nu \left(\left(K_0\right)_{\mu \nu}-K_0 \eta_{\mu \nu}\right)\right]\sqrt{\sigma_t}\ dx^2}$$ where the $N$ and $\vec{N}$ are the same as Eq. \[eq:qleBY\] and $\pmb{\eta}$ is the metric of the flat space. Their reason for choosing the reference space to be flat is one would expect the QLE to be zero for a flat spacetime.
Given $\mathcal{S}_t$ defined in a maximal hypersurface of a stationary spacetime, B-Y suggested that one uses the Eulerian observers defined by $\vec{t}=\vec{u}$ as their observers and $\mathbb{R}^3$ as their reference space. Using these suggestions, the B-Y QLE reduces to $$\label{eq:simpBY}
E_{BY} = \frac{1}{8\pi}\int_{\mathcal{S}_t}{\left(k-k_0\right)\sqrt{\sigma_t}\ dx^2}.$$ The surface isometric embedding theorem (proposed by Weyl and proved independently by Nirenberg [@Nirenberg:WeylProof] and Pogorelov [@Pog:Reg]) states that a closed surface with a Riemannian metric of positive Gaussian curvature can be uniquely isometrically embedded into $\mathbb{R}^3$.
In 1994, Martinez analyzed Eq. \[eq:simpBY\] for Kerr spacetimes using a small angular momentum approximation [@Martinez:physrev]. With this approximation, Martinez found that the B-Y QLE at the event horizon is given by $$\label{eq:irr}
E=2M_{ir} = \sqrt{\left(M+\sqrt{M^2-a^2}\right)^2+a^2}$$ where $M_{ir}$ is the irreducible mass, $a$ is the angular momentum per unit mass and $M$ is the mass of the black hole. In 1973, Larry Smarr showed that the event horizon of a Kerr black hole with $a>\sqrt{3}M/2$ has a region centered at the poles with negative Gaussian curvature [@Smarr:1973]. Since the Gaussian curvature is not positive everywhere, the theorem of Nirenberg and Pogorelov is not applicable. Thus an isometric embedding into $\mathbb{R}^3$ may not exist at all, and an existing isometric embedding may not be unique. This implies that the B-Y QLE energy is not well defined at the event horizon for spacetimes with large angular momentum. See Appendix \[sec:iso\] for a discussion on surface isometric embeddings. The existence of negative Gaussian curvature creates a demarcation between constant radial surfaces for which Eq. \[eq:simpBY\] is well defined everywhere and those where it is only partially defined. This demarcation is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:demarc\].
![In this figure we have the domain of QLE for Kerr spacetimes as a function of radius and angular momentum per unit mass. Here, the curve $r_+$ represents the event horizon, while $r^*$ is the curve separating surfaces with strictly positive Gaussian curvature from those with regions of negative Gaussian curvature.[]{data-label="fig:demarc"}](Demarcate2.png){width="3.5in"}
One can explicitly write $r^*$ for a constant radial surface by finding the root of its Gaussian curvature at the poles. We begin the derivation of $r^*$ by first introducing the metric of the constant radial surface in Kerr.
The line element of Kerr in Boyer-Lindquist coordinates is given by $$\label{eq:kle}
dl^2_{\mathcal{M}} = g_{tt} dt^2 + 2 g_{t\phi} dt d\phi + g_{rr} dr^2 + g_{\theta\theta} d\theta^2 + g_{\phi\phi} d\phi^2$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gtt}
g_{tt} & = & -\left( 1- \frac{2M r}{\Xi} \right),\\
\label{eq:gtp}
g_{t\phi} & = & - \frac{2 M r}{\Xi}\, a \sin^2{\theta},\\
g_{rr} & = & \frac{\Xi}{\Delta},\\
g_{\theta\theta} & = & \Xi\ \ \hbox{and}\\
g_{\phi\phi} & = & \left( r^2 + a^2 \left(1+\frac{ 2 M r \sin^2{\theta}}{\Xi}\right)\, \right) \sin^2{\theta}\end{aligned}$$ are the non-zero components of the Kerr metric. The definitions of $\Xi$ and $\Delta$ are $$\begin{aligned}
\Xi & := & r^2+ a^2 \cos^2{\theta}\ \ \hbox{and}\\
\Delta & := & r^2-2 M r+a^2. \end{aligned}$$ The 2-surface $\mathcal{S}_t$ for which quasi-local energy is computed is defined in a $t=constant$ hypersurface $\Sigma$ with constant radius $R$. The choice of $t$ is inconsequential since the spacetime is stationary. For this reason, we drop the subindex $t$ from subsequent notation. Inserting $dt=dr=0$ and $r=R$ in Eq. \[eq:kle\] gives the line element of $\mathcal{S}$ as $$\label{eq:Smetric}
dl_{\mathcal{S}}^2 = \underbrace{\left(R^2+a^2 \cos^2{\theta}\right)}_{\sigma_{\theta\theta}}\, d\theta^2 +
\underbrace{\left( R^2+a^2+\frac{ 2 R a^2 M \sin^2{\theta}}{\Xi} \right) \sin^2{\theta}}_{\sigma_{\phi\phi}}\, d\phi^2$$ where $\sigma_{\theta \theta}$ and $\sigma_{\phi \phi}$ are the non-zero components of the induced metric $\pmb{\sigma}$ on $\mathcal{S}$. The Gaussian curvature of $\mathcal{S}$ is given by $$\label{eq:gauss}
\mathcal{K} = \frac{\sigma_{\theta \theta}\sigma^2_{\phi \phi,\theta}+\sigma_{\phi \phi}\left(\sigma_{\theta \theta,\theta}\sigma_{\phi \phi,\theta}-2\sigma_{\theta \theta}\sigma_{\phi \phi,\theta \theta}\right)}{4\sigma^2_{\theta \theta}\sigma^2_{\phi \phi}}.$$ Solving for the root of Eq. \[eq:gauss\] at $\theta=0$ gives $$\label{eq:rstar}
r^*\left(a,M\right)=\frac{-3^{1/3}a^2+\Gamma^{2/3}}{3^{2/3}\Gamma^{1/3}}$$ where $$\Gamma=27 M a^2+a\sqrt{3}\sqrt{243 M^2 + a^4}.$$ This is the only non-zero real root of the Gaussian curvature at the poles. Recently, Yu and Liu studied QLE for $r^*<R<\sqrt{3}a$ with unrestricted angular momentum [@CL:2017]. Their analysis remains in the regime of strictly positive Gaussian curvature.
In this paper, we study the Wang and Yau (W-Y) QLE for constant radial surfaces in Kerr with $r_+<R<r^*$. In the W-Y approach, one embeds $\mathcal{S}$ into Minkowski space $\mathbb{R}^{3,1}$ instead of $\mathbb{R}^3$. Because $\mathcal{S}$ is a co-dimension 2 surface with respect to $\mathbb{R}^{3,1}$, the isometric embedding equations are underdetermined thus giving infinitely many embeddings. To solve this problem, W-Y introduced the scalar field $\tau$ on $\mathcal{S}$, which determines a unique embedding into $\mathbb{R}^{3,1}$ given a choice of $\tau$. Choosing $\tau$ also chooses a unique field of observers on $\mathcal{S}$. Using the W-Y approach, Eq. \[eq:qleBY\] is redefined as $$\label{eq:WYQLE}
E[\tau]=\underbrace{\frac{1}{8\pi}\int{\left(-\bar{k}\sqrt{1+|\nabla \tau|^2} + \langle \nabla \tau\ |\ \nabla \vec{\bar{v}}\ |\ \vec{\bar{u}}\rangle\right)\sqrt{\sigma}\ dx^2} }_{physical\ space\ energy} - \underbrace{\frac{1}{8\pi}\int{\hat{k} \sqrt{\hat{\sigma}}\ dx^2}}_{reference\ energy}$$ where $\bar{k}$ is the mean curvature of $\mathcal{S}$ embedded in $\mathcal{M}$ with respect to the spacelike normal $\vec{\bar{v}}$ and $\hat{k}$ is the mean curvature of the convex shadow $\hat{\mathcal{S}}$ embedded in $\mathbb{R}^3$. The 2-metric of the convex shadow is written as $\pmb{\hat{\sigma}}$. All necessary information for this paper regarding the normal basis $\{\vec{\bar{u}}, \vec{\bar{v}}\}$ and the convex shadow is contained in appendix \[sec:app\]; they are also defined in [@WY:comm; @WY:physrev]. The purpose of the appendix is to give the reader a self contained explanation for the physical motivations behind the W-Y formalism. The W-Y QLE is defined as the minimum of Eq. \[eq:WYQLE\] with respect $\tau$, which is equivalent to minimizing with respect to all possible observer fields.
We are unaware of any research that explores QLE near the event horizon for extreme Kerr spacetimes using a Hamilton-Jacobi approach. Given the generalization of the B-Y QLE by W-Y, we believe their definition is a good starting point to explore this area of research. It can be shown for a Kerr spacetime that a critical point of the Eq. \[eq:WYQLE\] is found at $\tau=0$ regardless of the value of $R$. Given $\tau=0$, the W-Y QLE functional reduces to Eq. \[eq:simpBY\]. To gleam some insight on the behavior of $E[\tau]$ in this region, we explore the W-Y QLE using numerical techniques. We restrict $\tau$ to only a function of $\theta$ to simplify the W-Y QLE functional and make the calculation more tractable. Given this restriction on $\tau$, the main results of this analysis are the following: (1) there exists a boundary separating admissible real energies from inadmissible complex energies and the minimum real value, $E_{min}$, of $E[\tau\left(\theta\right)]$ lies on this boundary, (2) $\tau=0$, which is a critical point of the W-Y QLE functional for constant radial surfaces with $R<r^*$, is not admissible within their formalism and (3) the physical behavior of $E_{min}$ disagrees with the behavior one would expect from the analysis of Martinez.
We structure the paper in the following way. In Sec. \[sec:QLEintau\] we write the W-Y QLE functional in terms of $\tau$. In Sec. \[sec:zeromin\] we show that $\tau=0$ is a critical point of the W-Y QLE functional for Kerr regardless of the the value of $R$. In Sec. \[sec:numerical\] we present our numerical analysis. Finally, in Sec. \[sec:conclusion\] we have further discussions and conclusions.
Expressing the W-Y QLE in terms of $\tau$ {#sec:QLEintau}
=========================================
The purpose of this section is to write Eq. \[eq:WYQLE\] explicitly in terms of $\tau$ for constant radial surfaces. This will be used in Sec. \[sec:numerical\] for our numerical analysis. To this end, we separate this section into two subsections. The first derives the physical energy in terms of $\tau$, while the second derives the reference energy in terms of $\tau$. Before we continue with our derivations, we must define the mean curvature vector $\vec{H}$.
Let $\vec{X}\left(\eta^a\right)$ represent the spacetime coordinates of $\mathcal{S}$ embedded in $\mathcal{M}$ where $\eta^a=\{\theta,\phi\}$ are the Boyer-Lindquist coordinates of $\mathcal{S}$. At each point $p\in\mathcal{S}$ there also exists a spacelike tangent plane $\mathcal{T}_s\left(p\right)$ that is spanned by an orthogonal basis made of spacelike tangent vectors $\vec{\zeta}_a=\frac{\partial\vec{X}}{\partial\eta^a}$. Given an arbitrary normal basis $\{\vec{u},\vec{v}\}$ on $\mathcal{S}$, the mean curvature vector can be written as $$\vec{H}= H_{\vec{u}}\ \vec{u} + H_{\vec{v}}\ \vec{v}$$ where $H_{\vec{u}}$ is the fractional rate of expansion of $\mathcal{S}$ along the timelike normal $\vec{u}$ and is given by $$\label{eq:ht}
H_{\vec{u}} = \sigma^{ab} \langle\vec{\zeta}_a\ |\ \nabla \vec{u}\ |\ \vec{\zeta}_b\rangle,$$ and $H_{\vec{v}}$ is the fractional rate of expansion of $\mathcal{S}$ along the spacelike normal $\vec{v}$ and is given by $$\label{eq:hs}
H_{\vec{v}} = \sigma^{ab} \langle\vec{\zeta}_a\ |\ \nabla \vec{v}\ |\ \vec{\zeta}_b\rangle.$$ The covariant derivative is taken with respect to the Kerr metric $\pmb{g}$ for both $H_{\vec{u}}$ and $H_{\vec{v}}$. The mean curvature vector is the direction of maximal expansion of $\mathcal{S}$ in $\mathcal{M}$ and is independent of the normal basis in which it is computed.
The physical contribution to the W-Y QLE in terms of $\tau$ {#sec:QLEphys}
-----------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection we follow the prescription given in [@WY:comm] to compute the physical portion of QLE. This is done in three steps:
1. Compute the normal basis $\{\vec{u'},\vec{v'}\}$ of $\mathcal{S}$ that satisfies $$\label{eq:nonprefbasis}
\vec{v'} = \frac{\vec{H}}{|\vec{H}|}.$$
2. Transform $\{\vec{u'},\vec{v'}\}$ to $\{\vec{\bar{u}},\vec{\bar{v}}\}$ using $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:utilde}
\vec{\bar{u}}&=&\vec{u'}\cosh{\alpha}+\vec{v'}\sinh{\alpha} \\
\label{eq:vtilde}
\vec{\bar{v}}&=&\vec{u'}\sinh{\alpha}+\vec{v'}\cosh{\alpha}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha$ is the hyperbolic angle that minimizes the physical energy in Eq. \[eq:WYQLE\] and is given by $$\label{eq:sinh}
\sinh{\alpha} = \frac{-\Delta \tau}{|\vec{H}|\sqrt{1+|\nabla \tau|^2}}.$$
3. Use $\{\vec{\bar{u}},\vec{\bar{v}}\}$ to express the physical energy in terms of $\tau$.
We will refer to $\{\vec{u'},\vec{v'}\}$ and $\{\vec{\bar{u}},\vec{\bar{v}}\}$ as the non-preferred and preferred normals, respectively.
For step 1, we begin with the non-preferred normal basis $$\label{vprime}
\vec{v'}=\{0,\frac{1}{\sqrt{g_{rr}}},0,0\}$$ and $$\label{uprime}
\vec{u'} = \beta\{-\frac{g_{\phi \phi}}{g_{t\phi}},0,0,1\}$$ where $$\beta=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g_{\phi \phi}\left(1-\frac{g_{\phi \phi}g_{tt}}{g^2_{t\phi}}\right)}}.$$ Here, $\vec{u'}$ is the timelike normal of $\Sigma$ restricted to $\mathcal{S}$. Since $\Sigma$ is a maximal hypersurface of Kerr and $\mathcal{S} \subset \Sigma$, writing the mean curvature vector in terms of $\{\vec{u'},\vec{v'}\}$ gives $$\label{eq:H}
\vec{H} = \cancelto{0}{H_{\vec{u'}}}\ \ \ \vec{u'} + H_{\vec{v'}}\ \vec{v'},$$ which satisfies Eq. \[eq:nonprefbasis\] and completes step 1. For step 2 we use $\cosh^2{\alpha}-\sinh^2{\alpha}=1$ to write $$\label{eq:cosh}
\cosh{\alpha} = \sqrt{1+\frac{\left(\Delta \tau\right)^2}{|\vec{H}|^2 \left(1+|\nabla \tau|^2\right)}}.$$ Inserting $\sinh{\alpha}$ and $\cosh{\alpha}$ into Eqs. \[eq:utilde\] and \[eq:vtilde\] to transform from $\{\vec{u'},\vec{v'}\}$ to $\{\vec{\bar{u}},\vec{\bar{v}}\}$ completes step 2.
To complete step 3, we begin by inserting $\vec{\bar{v}}$ into Eq. \[eq:hs\] to compute $\bar{k}$, which gives $$\label{eq:Hmag}
\bar{k}=-\sqrt{g_{rr}} \cosh{\bar{\alpha}}\left(\frac{\Gamma^r_{\theta \theta}}{\sigma_{\theta \theta}} + \frac{\Gamma^r_{\phi \phi}}{\sigma_{\phi \phi}}\right).$$ Next we insert $\bar{k}$ into the first term of the physical space energy giving $$\label{eq:term1}
\bar{k} \sqrt{1+|\nabla \tau|^2} = -\sqrt{g_{rr}\left(\frac{\Gamma^r_{\theta \theta}}{\sigma_{\theta \theta}} + \frac{\Gamma^r_{\phi \phi}}{\sigma_{\phi \phi}}\right)^2\left(1+|\nabla \tau|^2\right)+\Delta \tau^2}$$ where $$|\nabla \tau|^2=\frac{\tau^2_{,\theta}}{\sigma_{\theta\theta}}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \tau &=& \sigma^{ab}\nabla_a \nabla_b \tau\\
\label{eq:laptau}
&=& \frac{1}{\sigma_{\theta \theta}}\left(\tau_{,\theta \theta} - \Gamma^\theta_{\theta \theta} \tau_{,\theta} \right) - \frac{\Gamma^\theta_{\phi \phi}\tau_{,\theta}}{\sigma_{\phi \phi}}.\end{aligned}$$ For the second term of the physical space energy, we map $\nabla \tau$ from $\mathcal{S}$ to $\mathcal{M}$ using $$\label{eq:4dtau}
\nabla \tau = \sigma^{ab}\tau_{,a} \vec{\zeta}_{b}.$$ Inserting $\vec{\bar{u}}$ and $\vec{\bar{v}}$ into the second term of the physical space energy gives $$\label{eq:term2}
\langle \nabla \tau\ |\ \nabla \vec{\bar{v}}\ |\ \vec{\bar{u}}\rangle = \frac{\tau_{,\theta}}{\sigma_{\theta \theta}}\left(\left(\bar{v}_{t,\theta}-\Gamma^t_{\theta t}\bar{v}_t\right)\bar{u}^t + \left(\bar{v}_{r,\theta}-\Gamma^r_{\theta r}\bar{v}_r\right)\bar{u}^r-\Gamma^t_{\theta \phi}\bar{v}_t\bar{u}^\phi\right).$$ Combining Eq. \[eq:term1\] and \[eq:term2\] and integrating over $\mathcal{S}$ gives the physical contribution to the W-Y QLE in terms of derivatives of $\tau$ and completes step 3.
The reference contribution to the W-Y QLE in terms of $\tau$ {#sec:QLEreference}
------------------------------------------------------------
In section 3 of [@WY:comm], it was shown that $$E^0=-\int_{\mathcal{S}}{\left[N k_0 - N^\mu v_0^\nu \left(\left(K_0\right)_{\mu \nu}-K_0 \eta_{\mu \nu}\right)\right]\sqrt{\sigma}\ dx^2} = \int{\hat{k} \sqrt{\hat{\sigma}}\ dx^2}$$ where $\hat{k}$ is the mean curvature of the convex shadow embedded in $\mathbb{R}^3$. Therefore, one only needs to isometrically imbed $\hat{\mathcal{S}}$ in $\mathbb{R}^3$ and integrate the mean curvature to find the reference energy. Assuming $\tau$ is only a function of $\theta$, the metric components of $\hat{\mathcal{S}}$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:thetahat}
\hat{\sigma}_{\theta \theta} &=& \sigma_{\theta \theta} + \tau^2_{,\theta} \\
\label{eq:phihat}
\hat{\sigma}_{\phi \phi} &=& \sigma_{\phi \phi}.\end{aligned}$$ Let the Cartesian coordinates of $\hat{\mathcal{S}}$ be defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:x}
x\left(\theta, \phi \right)&=&\rho\left(\theta\right)\cos{\phi}\\
\label{eq:y}
y\left(\theta, \phi \right)&=&\rho\left(\theta\right)\sin{\phi}\\
\label{eq:z}
z\left(\theta\right)&=&f\left(\theta\right)\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho\left( \theta \right)$ and $f\left( \theta \right)$ are smooth real valued functions on the domain $\theta \in [0,\pi]$. Equating the line element on $\hat{\mathcal{S}}$ with that of Euclidean space, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rho}
\rho\left(\theta\right)&=&\sqrt{\sigma_{\phi \phi}} \\
\label{eq:df}
f_{,\theta}\left(\theta\right)&=& \sqrt{\sigma_{\theta \theta} - \frac{\sigma^2_{\phi \phi,\theta}}{4 \sigma_{\phi \phi}}+\tau^2_{,\theta}}.\end{aligned}$$ Now we can write the mean curvature in terms of the derivatives of $\rho$ and $f$ with respect to $\theta$. The principle curvatures in the $\theta$ and $\phi$ directions are $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{k}_{\theta \theta} &=& \frac{f_{,\theta}\rho_{,\theta \theta}-\rho_{,\theta}f_{,\theta \theta}}{(f_{,\theta}^2+\rho_{,\theta}^2)^{3/2}} \hbox{ and} \\
\hat{k}_{\phi \phi} &=& -\frac{f_{,\theta}}{\rho\sqrt{f_{,\theta}^2+\rho_{,\theta}^2}},\end{aligned}$$ respectively. The mean curvature is the sum of the principle curvatures and is given by $$\label{eq:refQLE}
\hat{k}=-\left(\frac{{f}_{,\theta}^3+ \rho\, \rho_{,\theta}\, f_{,\theta \theta} + f_{,\theta}\left(\rho_{,\theta}^2- \rho\, \rho_{,\theta \theta} \right)}{\left(f_{,\theta}^2+\rho_{,\theta}^2 \right)^{3/2}}\right) \, \frac{1}{\rho}.$$ We integrate Eq. \[eq:refQLE\] over $\hat{\mathcal{S}}$ to get the contribution to QLE from the reference action. With Eqs \[eq:term1\], \[eq:term2\] and \[eq:refQLE\], the W-Y QLE functional is completely determined by $\tau_{,\theta}$, $\tau_{,\theta \theta}$ and $\tau_{,\theta \theta \theta}$.
The critical point of the W-Y QLE functional for constant radial surfaces {#sec:zeromin}
=========================================================================
In section 6 of [@WY:comm], W-Y derived the Euler-Lagrange equation of $E[\tau]$, which is given by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:EuLa}
\underbrace{-\left(\hat{k}\hat{\sigma}^{ab} - \hat{\sigma}^{ac}\hat{\sigma}^{bd}\hat{k}_{cd}\right)\frac{\nabla_b \nabla_a \tau}{\sqrt{1+|\nabla \tau|^2}}\ +}_{\left(1\right)}\\ \underbrace{\sigma^{ab} \nabla_a \left(\frac{\nabla_b \tau}{\sqrt{1+|\nabla \tau|^2}}\cosh{\alpha}|\vec{H}|\right)}_{\left(2\right)}-\underbrace{\Delta \alpha}_{\left(3\right)}-\underbrace{\sigma^{ab}\nabla_a \langle \vec{\zeta}_{b}\ |\ \nabla \vec{\bar{v}}\ |\ \vec{\bar{u}} \rangle}_{\left(4\right)}=0.\end{gathered}$$ All covariant derivatives are taken with respect to the 2-metric on $\mathcal{S}$ except for the covariant derivative on $\vec{\bar{v}}$, which is taken with respect to the spacetime metric $\pmb{g}$. To show that $\tau=0$ is a solution to Eq. \[eq:EuLa\], we write each term explicitly in terms of $\tau$.
The first term of Eq. \[eq:EuLa\] written explicitly in terms of $\tau$ is given by $$\left(1\right)=-\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\frac{\tau^2_{,\theta}}{\sigma_{\theta \theta}}}}\left(\frac{\left(\tau_{,\theta \theta}-\Gamma^{\theta}_{\theta \theta}\tau_{,\theta}\right)\left(\hat{k}-\hat{\sigma}^{\theta \theta}\hat{k}_{\theta \theta}\right)}{\sigma_{\theta \theta}+\tau^2_{,\theta}}-\frac{\Gamma^{\theta}_{\phi \phi}\tau_{,\theta}}{\sigma_{\phi \phi}}\left(\hat{k}-\hat{\sigma}^{\phi \phi}\hat{k}_{\phi \phi}\right)\right).$$ The second term is $$\left(2\right)=\partial_{\theta} \left(\frac{|\vec{H}|\cosh{\alpha}}{\sqrt{1+\frac{\tau^2_{,\theta}}{\sigma_{\theta \theta}}}}\right)\frac{\tau_{,\theta}}{\sigma_{\theta \theta}} + \frac{|\vec{H}|\cosh{\alpha}}{\sqrt{1+\frac{\tau^2_{,\theta}}{\sigma_{\theta \theta}}}} \Delta \tau$$ where $\cosh{\alpha}$ and $\Delta \tau$ are given by Eqs. \[eq:cosh\] and \[eq:laptau\], respectively. Term 3 is simply $$\left(3\right)=\frac{1}{\sigma_{\theta \theta}}\left(\alpha_{,\theta \theta} - \Gamma^\theta_{\theta \theta} \alpha_{,\theta} \right) - \frac{\Gamma^\theta_{\phi \phi}\alpha_{,\theta}}{\sigma_{\phi \phi}}.$$ Let $$\label{eq:va}
V_a=\langle \vec{\zeta}_a\ |\ \nabla \vec{\bar{v}}\ |\ \vec{\bar{u}}\rangle,$$ the last term in Eq. \[eq:EuLa\] is given by $$\label{eq:term4}
\left(4\right)=\sigma^{ab}\nabla_a V_b=\frac{1}{\sigma_{\theta \theta}}\left(V_{\theta,\theta}-\Gamma^{\theta}_{\theta \theta}V_{\theta}\right)+\frac{1}{\sigma_{\phi \phi}}\left(V_{\phi,\phi}-\Gamma^{\theta}_{\phi \phi}V_\theta\right).$$ It is easy to see that the first three terms vanish for $\tau=0$. Next we show that the fourth term also vanishes for $\tau=0$.
Writing $V_\theta$ and $V_\phi$, one gets $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:vtheta}
V_\theta&=&\partial_\theta \bar{v}^\nu \bar{u}_\nu + \Gamma_{\theta \alpha}^\nu\bar{v}^\alpha \bar{u}_\nu\ \hbox{and} \\
\label{eq:vphi}
V_\phi&=&\Gamma_{\phi r}^t \bar{v}^r \bar{u}_t.\end{aligned}$$ From Eqs. \[eq:utilde\] and \[eq:vtilde\], it is clear that $\{\vec{\bar{u}},\vec{\bar{v}}\}=\{\vec{u'},\vec{v'}\}$ for $\tau=0$. It is also clear that the first term of Eq. \[eq:vtheta\] is equal to zero since $\vec{v'}$ only has a radial component and the contravariant components of $\vec{u'}$ are only non-zero for time. Furthermore, the second term of Eq. \[eq:vtheta\] reduces to $\Gamma_{\theta r}^t v'^r u'_t$ where $\Gamma_{\theta r}^t=0$. This gives $V_\theta=0$. Inserting $V_\theta=0$ into Eq. \[eq:term4\] gives $\left(4\right)=V_{\phi,\phi}/\sigma_{\phi \phi}$. Since $V_\phi$ is independent of $\phi$, term 4 vanishes. This shows explicitly that $\tau=0$ is a critical point regardless of one’s choice of $R$. Indeed, it was shown in [@cyw] that for any axi-symmetric surface, the fourth term of Eq. \[eq:EuLa\] always vanishes and $\tau=0$ is always a solution. However, $\tau=0$ is not necessarily a local or global minimum, see [@cw; @cwy] for a criterion for local minimum of a critical point in terms of a mean curvature inequality.
Numerical Results {#sec:numerical}
=================
In this section, we apply the direct search algorithm developed by Torczon [@torczon:diss] to minimize $E[\tau\left(\theta\right)]$, which is given by Eqs. \[eq:term1\], \[eq:term2\] and \[eq:refQLE\], in the space of coefficients. Without loss of generality, we will use $a=M=1$ for our numerical analysis unless stated otherwise. The value of $r^*$ is approximately $1.65$ for this choice of $a$ and $M$.
To apply the direct search algorithm, we use a Fourier expansion to express $\tau_{,\theta}$ as $$\label{eq:tau}
\tau_{,\theta}\left( \theta \right) = F_0\left( \theta \right) + \sum^\kappa_{n=1}{a_n\sin{n\theta}}$$ where $\theta$ is the polar angle in Boyer-Lindquist coordinates, $F_0\left(\theta\right)$ is an initial guess of the optimal $\tau_{,\theta}$ and $a_n$ are the Fourier coefficients. Symmetry about the equator excludes all but the odd values of the Fourier coefficients of $\sin(n\theta)$. The expansion lacks cosine modes due to boundary conditions on the derivative of $\tau$ at the poles. We choose our initial guess to be $$\label{eq:fo}
F_0\left(\theta\right)=\sqrt{\frac{\sigma_{\phi \phi}}{\sin^2{\theta}} - \sigma_{\theta \theta}} .$$ This function gives an integrand of $E[\tau\left(\theta\right)]$ that is well behaved at the poles. It also gives an initial guess reasonably close to a solution of the Euler-Lagrange equation for all radii. The image of the convex shadow and its mean curvature at $R=3/2$ are shown in Fig. \[fig:shadow\].
![Figure (a) gives a $\phi=0$ cross section of the convex shadow defined by Eq. \[eq:fo\] at $R=3/2$. The mean curvature of the that cross section is given in Figure (b). Notice that it is well behaved at the poles, $\theta=0,\pi$.[]{data-label="fig:shadow"}](shadowplotscorrect.png){width="5in"}
There is nothing notable about $R=3/2$; we simply use this for as an illustrative example for surfaces with $R < r^*$. We will continue to use this radius for further examples. All statements made for $R=3/2$ apply equally to all radii below $r^*$ unless specified otherwise.
The complexity of the space of coefficients increases with the dimension. As one increases the number of coefficients used to minimize $E[\tau\left(\theta\right)]$, the likelihood of getting caught in local minima increases. To mitigate this difficulty, we begin with just one Fourier coefficient set to zero. We then apply the direct search algorithm to find the smallest real value of $E[\tau\left(\theta\right)]$ in the space of $a_1$. Once $a_1$ is obtained, we add $a_3=0$ and search in the space of $a_1$ and $a_3$. Here we allow both $a_1$ and $a_3$ to change until we find the minimum in two dimensions. We iteratively increase the number of coefficients until the change in $E_{min}$ is at least less than $10^{-2}$ for each additional coefficient added. The number of coefficients needed increases as one approaches $r_+$ due to increasing curvature gradients of $\mathcal{S}$. Our direct search algorithm was coded using Mathematica. All integrals were done using the NIntegrate function.
The boundary separating admissible and non-admissible values of the W-Y QLE functional {#sec:boundary}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are three criteria within the W-Y QLE formalism that determine whether a choice of $\tau$ is admissible. These criteria can be found in section 4 of [@WY:physrev] as well as section 5 of [@WY:comm]. The purpose of the second and third criteria is to ensure that the value of $E[\tau\left(\theta\right)]$ is positive. We will not focus on these since we do not obtain negative energies for any of our results. Instead, we will focus on the first criteria, which is $$\label{eq:violate}
{\mathcal K} - \left(1+|\nabla \tau |^2\right)^{-1} det\left( \nabla_a\nabla_b \tau \right) > 0$$ where $\mathcal{K}$ is the Gaussian curvature of $\mathcal{S}$ and all covariant derivatives are taken with respect to $\pmb{\sigma}$. This requires that the Gaussian curvature of the convex shadow given a choice of $\tau$ is strictly positive everywhere. If this criteria is met, W-Y can guarantee the existence and uniqueness of $E[\tau\left(\theta\right)]$. Unfortunately, our analysis indicates that this criteria can not be met at $\tau=0$.
While minimizing in the space of coefficients, we discovered a boundary separating $\tau$’s with real values of $E[\tau\left(\theta\right)]$ from those with complex values. This can be seen in Fig. \[fig:phase\] where we use two Fourier coefficients, $a_1$ and $a_3$, to visualize the QLE landscape.
![This figure is a contour plot of $E[\tau\left(\theta\right)]$ as a function of the two Fourier coefficients with $a_1$ on the x-axis and $a_3$ on the y-axis. The line connecting the points indicates the path taken by the simplex method when optimizing the functional using just two coefficients initialized at zero. The point furtherest to the right is the initial guess while the point on the boundary is $E_{min}$. Our numerical results are consistent with the smallest real value occurring on the boundary separating real and complex energies.[]{data-label="fig:phase"}](phasespacePaper.png){width="4in"}
The white gap in the middle of the plot represents complex values of $E[\tau\left(\theta\right)]$ whose existence can be understood by examining Eq. \[eq:df\]. Here, complex energies arise for choices of $\tau_{,\theta}$ that satisfy $$\label{eq:imag}
\tau^2_{,\theta} < \frac{\sigma^2_{\phi \phi,\theta}}{4\sigma_{\phi \phi}} - \sigma_{\theta \theta}.$$ We will show that these choices of $\tau$ are inadmissible using our numerical results.
To demonstrate that choices of $\tau$ with complex energies are not admissible, we compare the Gaussian curvature of $\mathcal{S}$ and $\hat{\mathcal{S}}$ for the initial guess and $\tau_{min}$ in Fig. \[fig:gausshat\].
![Figure (a) compares the Gaussian curvature between the convex shadow for the initial guess and $\mathcal{S}$. Figure (b) compares the Gaussian curvature between the convex shadow for $\tau_{min}$ and $\mathcal{S}$. []{data-label="fig:gausshat"}](Gaussian.png){width="5in"}
From Fig. \[fig:gausshat\]a, we see that the Gaussian curvature of the convex shadow for the initial guess is strictly positive and significantly different than the curvature of $\mathcal{S}$. On the other hand, Fig. \[fig:gausshat\]b shows that the Gaussian curvature of the convex shadow at $\tau_{min}$ is similar to the curvature of $\mathcal{S}$ within the interval of positive Gaussian curvature. Outside of this interval, the Gaussian curvature of $\mathcal{S}$ becomes negative while the shadow’s curvature is flat. This indicates that the optimization algorithm tends toward a $\tau$ that embeds $\mathcal{S}$ into $\mathbb{R}^3$ as much as possible. In fact, if we allow the algorithm to cross the boundary of admissible solutions by taking the real part of the QLE functional, it converges to $\tau=0$. This implies that choices of $\tau$ within the boundary do not have shadows with strictly positive Gaussian curvature. We believe this is due to the unnecessary restriction that $\tau$ is a function of $\theta$ only. In general, we should allow $\tau$ to be dependent of both $\theta$ and $\phi$ and solve both the isometric embedding equation and the Euler-Lagrange equation.
The physical relevance of $E_{min}$ {#sec:physrel}
-----------------------------------
In this section we analyze the physical behavior of $E_{min}$ and compare it to what one would expect based on the results of Martinez. We begin by plotting $E_{min}$ as a function of $R$ in Fig. \[fig:evo\].
![In this figure we plot $E_{min}$ as a function of radius where $r_+=1$ is the event horizon. The vertical dividing line is located at the critical radius $r^*\approx1.65$. Below $r^*$ we plot the smallest real value of $E[\tau\left(\theta\right)]$ while above $r^*$ we plot the B-Y QLE. These two values agree above $r^*$. We show the evolution for the convex shadow by plotting it for $R=\{1.05,1.1,1.2,1.4,1.6\}$. Notice how they become more flat as one approaches the event horizon.[]{data-label="fig:evo"}](ShadowEvolutionRemoved.png){width="4in"}
The vertical dividing line is placed at the critical radius $r^*\approx1.65$. Above $r^*$, $E_{min}$ is equivalent to the B-Y QLE. Below the plot in Fig. \[fig:evo\] are the convex shadows at $\tau_{min}$ associated with radii $R=\{1.05, 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6\}$. The mean curvature of these shadows can be see in Fig. \[fig:meancurvs\].
![Here are the mean curvature of the shadows at $\tau_{min}$ for several values of $R$. For each plot, there is a distinct change in behavior approximately at $\theta=\theta^*$ and $\theta=\pi-\theta^*$, where $\theta^*$ is the angle where the Gaussian curvature of $\mathcal{S}$ becomes negative. This is due to the Gibbs’ phenomena that emerges from the sudden drop to a flat function.[]{data-label="fig:meancurvs"}](MeanCurvShads.png){width="5.2in"}
These plots show a Gibbs’ phenomena that occurs when the Gaussian curvature of $\mathcal{S}$ becomes negative, which, as we showed in Fig. \[fig:gausshat\], is also when the Gaussian curvature of $\hat{\mathcal{S}}$ at $\tau_{min}$ becomes zero. To physically interpret the results in Fig. \[fig:evo\], we analyze $E_{min}$ at the outer event horizon for black holes with increasing angular momentum. This will give us a reference on how $E_{min}$ should behave at the event horizon once the angular momentum exceeds $a=\sqrt{3}M/2$. We will also interpret the results by looking at the field of observers associated with $E_{min}$ and compare them to the Eulerian observers chosen by B-Y.
In Fig. \[fig:angular\]a, we plot $E_{min}$, which is equivalent to the B-Y QLE for $a<\sqrt{3}M/2$, at various values of $a$ between $\left(r_+,0\right)$ and $\left(r_+,\sqrt{3}M/2\right)$.
![In figure a we have the B-Y QLE at $r_+$ for angular momentum less than $\sqrt{3}M/2=0.866$. We also plot twice the irreducible mass as predicted by Martinez for black holes with $a/R<<1$. In figure b, we have $E_{min}$ at an $\epsilon$ above $r_+$ for black holes with angular momentum ranging from 0.87 to .999.[]{data-label="fig:angular"}](AngularPlotscopy.png){width="5.1in"}
We see that these two plots agree for $a \leq 0.4$. As the angular momentum grows, the low angular momentum approximation starts to deviate from the B-Y QLE. The most important feature of this plot is the fact that the B-Y QLE decreases as angular momentum increases. Looking at Fig. \[fig:angular\]b, we plot $E_{min}$ at $r_+ + \epsilon$, where $\epsilon=10^{-5}$, for values of $a$ between points $\left(r_+,\sqrt{3}M/2\right)$ and $\left(r_+,1\right)$. Here we see that the $E_{min}$ predicts a growing energy with increased angular momentum. So why is $E_{min}$ significantly greater than the predicted $2M_{ir}$ and why does it disagree with the trend of decreasing QLE with increased angular momentum? The reason is due to the field of observers that are chosen at $\tau_{min}$.
Assuming the isometric embedding of $\mathcal{S}$ is a surface of revolution, the interval for which $\mathcal{S}$ is embeddable in $\mathbb{R}^3$ is determined by Eq. \[eq:df\] with $\tau=0$. For surfaces in the regime of strictly positive Gaussian curvature, $\sigma_{\theta \theta}$ is strictly greater than or equal to $\frac{\sigma^2_{\phi \phi,\theta}}{4 \sigma_{\phi \phi}}$. Surfaces with regions of negative Gaussian curvature can only be partially embedded in $\mathbb{R}^3$ between $\theta^{**} <\theta <\pi-\theta^{**}$. Here, $\theta^{**}$ is the smaller root of Eq. \[eq:df\] with $\tau=0$. We will refer to this interval as the “interval of embeddability". In Fig. \[fig:inner\], we plot the inner product between the field of observers given by W-Y at $\tau_{min}$ with the Eulerian observers that would be chosen by B-Y as a function of $\theta$.
![In this plot we have the inner product between the observers chosen by W-Y at $\tau_{min}$ and the Eulerian observers that would be chosen by B-Y. The horizontal line at -1.0 is what the inner product would be if the observers agreed for all $\theta$. The curved line is the actual inner product between the two observer fields. From here it is clear that the two agree within some $\epsilon$ difference between $0.7<\theta<\pi-0.7$. The values of $\theta$ where they do not agree are outside the interval of embeddability.[]{data-label="fig:inner"}](InnerProduct.png){width="3in"}
We see that the observers at $\tau_{min}$ and the Eulerian observers agree within some $\epsilon$ around $0.7<\theta<\pi-0.7$. For this choice of angular momentum and radius, $\theta^{**}$ is approximately equal to 0.64. This shows that $E_{min}$ chooses the Eulerian observers within the interval of embeddability and smoothly transitions to observers that are boosted with respect to the Eulerian observers outside of this interval.
As one approaches $\left(r_+,M\right)$, the interval of embeddability decreases. This implies that more observers chosen by the W-Y QLE procedure at $\tau_{min}$ are boosted with respect to the Eulerian observers. We also found that the magnitude of the boosts increases as one approaches $\left(r_+,M\right)$. This is why $E_{min}$ has a growing energy with increased angular momentum. It also explains why the $E_{min}$ at the event horizon is significantly greater than twice the irreducible mass when $a>\sqrt{3}M/2$.
Conclusion and Further Discussion {#sec:conclusion}
=================================
In this paper, we analyzed the W-Y QLE functional with the restriction that $\tau$ is only a function of $\theta$ for constant radial surfaces with $R<r^*$. These surfaces may not be embeddable in $\mathbb{R}^3$, but they are embeddable in $\mathbb{R}^{3,1}$. We discovered an open region of complex values for $E[\tau\left(\theta\right)]$ while minimizing the functional in the space of coefficients. Our results suggest that the smallest real value of $E[\tau\left(\theta\right)]$ lies on the boundary separating real and imaginary energies. Our results also suggest that there does not exist a convex shadow whose Gaussian curvature is strictly non-negative for choices of $\tau$ within the region of complex energies.
We also analyzed the behavior of $E_{min}$ to gleam some insight on its possible physical relevance. In Fig. \[fig:evo\], we saw a sudden increase in $E_{min}$ for surfaces with $R<r^*\approx1.65$. It is uncertain if these energies are physically meaningful since no results exists for such surfaces. To gain some clarity, we examined $E_{min}$ at the event horizon as a function of angular momentum. For $a<\sqrt{3}M/2$, the results of Martinez suggest that the QLE is comparable to the irreducible mass of the black hole, which decreases with increasing angular momentum. Above $\sqrt{3}M/2$, $E_{min}$ increases with increasing angular momentum. We attributed this change in behavior to the difference between the Eulerian observers chosen by B-Y and the field of observers chosen by W-Y at $\tau_{min}$. In Fig. \[fig:inner\], we showed that the W-Y observers at $\tau_{min}$ agree with the Eulerian observers within the interval of embeddability and transition to boosted observers outside of this interval. Our results are contingent on $\tau$ being a function of $\theta$ alone. For a true understanding of the W-Y QLE applied to extreme Kerr spacetimes near the event horizon, one must allow $\tau$ to be a function of both $\theta$ and $\phi$. This is an interesting avenue for future research.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We wish to thank Po-Ning Chen, Rory Conboye, Matthew Corne, and Ye-Kai Wang for stimulating discussions. We also thank the the Information Directorate of the Air Force Research Laboratory and the Griffiss Institute for providing us with an excellent environment for research. This work was supported in part through the VFRP and SFFP program, as well as AFRL grant \#FA8750-15-2-0047.
Physical motivations behind the W-Y QLE formalism {#sec:app}
-------------------------------------------------
Let $\mathcal{M}$ be an arbitrary spacetime manifold. The B-Y QLE energy given by Eq. \[eq:qleBY\] does not give a general description on how to choose the field of observers in $\mathcal{M}$, nor does it give the reference space. For stationary spacetimes, B-Y suggested the Eulerian observers associated with maximal hypersurfaces as their observers and $\mathbb{R}^3$ as their reference space. This choice is reasonable when the extrinsic curvature of $\mathcal{S}$ along $\vec{u}$ vanishes and the embedding of $\mathcal{S}$ exists. However, it was shown that these choices do not work for surfaces in general and can give non-zero values of QLE for flat spacetimes [@Neil:physrev]. This is due to the second term in Eq. \[eq:qleBY\]. If the extrinsic curvature of $\mathcal{S}_t$ along $\vec{u}$ does not vanish, there is no way to account for this curvature in $\mathbb{R}^3$ when computing the reference energy. To address this problem, W-Y used the flat spacetime as their reference space. This extends the application of the B-Y QLE to dynamical spacetimes.
The extension of the reference space from $\mathbb{R}^3$ to Minkowski space $\mathbb{R}^{3,1}$ creates a new challenge. Since $\mathcal{S}_t$ is a co-dimension two surface with respect to $\mathbb{R}^{3,1}$, the isometric embedding equations are underdetermined. To address this problem, W-Y introduced the scalar field $\tau$ on $\mathcal{S}_t$ which allows them to define a unique embedding into Minkowski space up to a choice of $\tau$. They then construct a procedure to associate each choice of $\tau$ with two observer fields which are used to compute QLE. One field exists in the physical space and is denoted as $\vec{t}=N\vec{\bar{u}}+\vec{N}$ while the other exists in Minkowski space and is denoted as $\vec{t}_0=N\vec{u}_0+\vec{N}$. These observers are chosen such that the extrinsic curvature of $\mathcal{S}_t$ along $\vec{\bar{u}}$ embedded in $\mathcal{M}$ is equal to the extrinsic curvature of $\mathcal{S}_t$ along $\vec{u}_0$ embedded in $\mathbb{R}^{3,1}$. The notation $\vec{\bar{u}}$ is used to distinguish the unique timelike normal on $\mathcal{S}_t$ whose extrinsic curvature agrees with $\vec{u}_0$ as opposed to an arbitrary timelike normal $\vec{u}$. This matching of extrinsic curvature along timelike normals is given by the constraint $$\label{eq:junction}
\langle \vec{\bar{u}},\vec{H} \rangle = \langle \vec{u}_0,\vec{H}_0 \rangle$$ where $\vec{H}_0$ is the mean curvature vector of $\mathcal{S}_t$ embedded in $\mathbb{R}^{3,1}$. This addresses the problem of the second term in Eq. \[eq:qleBY\]. Next we discuss the isometric embedding into Minkowski space and how the lapse and shift are chosen.
Let $i:\mathcal{S}_t \hookrightarrow \mathbb{R}^{3,1}$ represent an isometric embedding of $\mathcal{S}_t$ into Minkowski space. In principle, one would compute the reference energy using a field of observers who are at rest with respect to $i\left(\mathcal{S}_t\right)$. If we work in the rest frame of these observers, at each point $p \in i\left(\mathcal{S}_t\right)$ we have $\vec{t}_0 = \{1,0,0,0\}$. Let $\tau$ be the time component of $i\left(\mathcal{S}_t\right)$, then the embedding takes the form $\vec{x}_0=\{\tau,x^1,x^2,x^3\}$. One can alternatively write the embedding as $$\label{eq:embed}
\vec{x}_0 = \vec{\hat{x}} + \tau \vec{t}_0$$ where $\vec{\hat{x}}=\{0,x^1,x^2,x^3\}$ are the spatial coordinates of $i \left(\mathcal{S}_t\right)$ that lie in a three dimensional Euclidean plane orthogonal to $\vec{t}_0$. This projection $\hat{\mathcal{S}}$ onto $\mathbb{R}^3$ is defined as the shadow of $i \left(\mathcal{S}_t\right)$ with respect to $\vec{t}_0$. Vectors with hats exist on the shadow, while vectors with the zero subscript exist on $i \left(\mathcal{S}_t\right)$.
![This figure has one spatial dimension suppressed. The procedure for isometrically embedding $\mathcal{S}_t$ into $\mathbb{R}^{3,1}$ is as follows. First isometrically embed $\hat{\mathcal{S}}$ into $\mathbb{R}^3$. If $\pmb{\hat{\sigma}}$ has strictly positive Gaussian curvature, this embedding is guaranteed to exist via the Nirenberg and Pogorelov embedding theorem. Next, extend each point $p \in \hat{\mathcal{S}}$ along $\vec{t}_0$ by defining the time coordinate as $\tau\left(p\right)$. This extension into $\mathbb{R}^{3,1}$ is showed by the dotted lines at points $p_1$ and $p_2$. To find the unique normal basis $\{\vec{u}_0,\vec{v}_0\}$, one begins by computing the tangent vectors $\vec{\hat{x}}_{,a}$ and normal vector $\vec{\hat{v}}$ of $\hat{\mathcal{S}}$. The tangent vectors $\vec{x}_{0,a}$ of $i \left(\mathcal{S}_t\right)$ have the same spatial components as $\vec{\hat{x}}_{,a}$ but their temporal components are $\tau_{,a}$. W-Y choose the spatial components of the spacelike normal $\vec{v}_0$ to be identical to $\vec{\hat{v}}$, each with a zero temporal component. Finally, $\vec{u}_0$ is given by $\left(\vec{x}_{0,1}\wedge \vec{x}_{0,2}\wedge\vec{v}_0\right)^*$. []{data-label="referenceEmbedding"}](MinkowskiEmbedding4.png){width="3in"}
Starting from Eq. \[eq:embed\], the metric of the shadow $\pmb{\hat{\sigma}}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:proof1}
\langle\vec{x}_{,a}\ |\ \vec{x}_{,b}\rangle &=&\langle \vec{\hat{x}}_{,a}+\tau_{,a} \vec{t}_0\ |\ \vec{\hat{x}}_{,b}+\tau_{,b} \vec{t}_0 \rangle \\
\label{eq:proof2}
&=& \langle\vec{\hat{x}}_{,a}\ |\ \vec{\hat{x}}_{,b}\rangle -\tau_{,a}\tau_{,b},\end{aligned}$$ which implies $$\label{eq:proof3}
\hat{\sigma}_{ab} = \left(\sigma_t\right)_{ab} + \tau_{,a} \tau_{,b}.$$ The isometric embedding of $\mathcal{S}_t$ into $\mathbb{R}^{3,1}$ using $\hat{\mathcal{S}}$ and $\tau$ is shown in Fig. \[referenceEmbedding\].
A necessary condition for choosing $\tau$ requires the shadow $\hat{\mathcal{S}}$ to be a smooth convex surface in $\mathbb{R}^3$. This condition is used to prove the existence and uniqueness of $i\left(\mathcal{S}_t\right)$ given the observer field $\vec{t}_0$. It can be seen from the embedding theorem of Nirenberg and Pogorelov and Eq. \[eq:embed\] that any isometric embeddings of $\mathcal{S}_t$ in Minkowski space with the same convex shadow and scalar field $\tau$ must be congruent. This completes the discussion on embedding $\mathcal{S}_t$ into $\mathbb{R}^{3,1}$.
Since the field of observers in Minkowski is defined as being at rest with respect to $i\left(\mathcal{S}_t\right)$, the lapse and shift are chosen such that $$\vec{t}_0=N\vec{u}_0 + \vec{N}.$$ Using the embedding as described in Fig. \[referenceEmbedding\], it can be shown that $$\label{eq:lapshift}
\vec{t}_0=\{1,0,0,0\}=\sqrt{1+|\nabla \tau|^2}\ \vec{u}_0 - \nabla \tau$$ where $$\label{eq:gradtau}
\nabla \tau = \sigma_t^{ab}\tau_{,a} \vec{x}_{0,b}.$$ Here we see that $N=\sqrt{1+|\nabla \tau|^2}$ and $\vec{N}= -\nabla \tau$. The corresponding field of observers in $\mathcal{M}$ is $$\vec{t}=\sqrt{1+|\nabla \tau|^2}\ \vec{\bar{u}} - \nabla \tau$$ where the coordinates $\vec{x}_0$ in Eq. \[eq:gradtau\] are replaced with the coordinates of $\mathcal{S}_t$ in $\mathcal{M}$. With the observer fields and the isometric embedding into $\mathbb{R}^{3,1}$ written in terms of $\tau$, the discussion on the physical motivations behind the W-Y formalism is complete.
A discussion on the isometric embedding theorem {#sec:iso}
-----------------------------------------------
There are several common misconceptions about isometric embedding of a closed surface into $\mathbb{R}^3$. We take this opportunity to address these issues.
1\. Isometric embeddings do not preserve symmetry: One reason why the current formalism does not work is because of the assumption that $\tau$ is a function of $\theta$ only, or $\tau$ is axi-symmetric. The Killing field of a Riemannian metric does not extend to the embedding, or does not extend to be a Killing field of the ambient space. In particular, it is possible that an axi-symmetric metric admits an isometric embedding into $\mathbb{R}^3$ that is not a surface of revolution.
2\. Non-embeddability: The surface isometric embedding theorem guarantees the existence and uniqueness of a global isometric embedding if the Gaussian curvature is positive everywhere. However, there does not seem to be any non-trivial non-embeddability theorem. In particular, for a surface with a metric that has negative Gauss curvature at some point, isometric embedding into $\mathbb{R}^3$ is still possible. There are many closed surfaces in $\mathbb{R}^3$ with negative Gauss curvature somewhere, but these isometric embeddings are not expected to be unique.
3\. Global isometric embedding vs. local isometric embedding: The theorem of Frolov on the non-embeddability near a point of negative Gauss curvature [@Frolov:2006] seems to contradict a well-known local isometric embedding theorem [@ja] that states if a surface has negative Gauss curvature at a point, then there exists a neighborhood near the point that can be isometrically embedded into $\mathbb{R}^3$. This is the local isometric embedding theorem which holds as long as the Gauss curvature is positive, negative, or changes sign cleanly. This violation implies that Frolov’s theorem does not necessarily eliminate the existence of embeddings into $\mathbb{R}^3$ for these surfaces. In particular, one can not rule out embeddings that are not surfaces of revolution.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Using an updated population synthesis code we study the formation and evolution of black holes (BHs) in young star clusters following a massive starburst. This study continues and improves on the initial work described by Belczynski, Sadowski & Rasio (2004). In our new calculations we account for the possible ejections of BHs and their progenitors from clusters because of natal kicks imparted by supernovae and recoil following binary disruptions. The results indicate that the properties of both retained BHs in clusters and ejected BHs (forming a field population) depend sensitively on the depth of the cluster potential. In particular, most BHs ejected from binaries are also ejected from clusters with central escape speeds $V_{\rm esc} \la 100\,{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}$. Conversely, most BHs remaining in binaries are retained by clusters with $V_{\rm esc} \ga 50\,{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}$. BHs from single star evolution are also affected significantly: about half of the BHs originating from primordial single stars are ejected from clusters with $V_{\rm esc}\la 50\,{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}$. Our results lay a foundation for theoretical studies of the formation of BH X-ray binaries in and around star clusters, including possible “ultra-luminous” sources, as well as merging BH–BH binaries detectable with future gravitational-wave observatories.'
author:
- 'Krzysztof Belczynski Aleksander Sadowski, Frederic A. Rasio, Tomasz Bulik'
title: Initial Populations of Black Holes in Star Clusters
---
INTRODUCTION
============
Black Holes in Star Clusters
----------------------------
Theoretical arguments and many observations suggest that BHs should form in significant numbers in star clusters. Simple assumptions about the stellar initial mass function (IMF) and stellar evolution indicate that out of $N$ stars formed initially, $\sim 10^{-4}-10^{-3}\,N$ should produce BHs as remnants after $\sim 20\,$Myr. Thus any star cluster containing initially more than $\sim 10^4$ stars should contain at least some BHs; large super star clusters and globular clusters should have formed many hundreds of BHs initially, and even larger systems such as galactic nuclei may contain many thousands to tens of thousands.
Not surprisingly, observations are most sensitive to (and have provided constraints mainly on) the most massive BHs that may be present in the cores of very dense clusters (van der Marel 2004). For example, recent observations and dynamical modeling of the globular clusters M15 and G1 indicate the presence of a central BH with a mass $\sim 10^3-10^4\,M_\odot$ (Gerssen et al. 2002, 2003; Gebhardt et al. 2002, 2005). However, direct $N$-body simulations by Baumgardt et al. (2003a,b) suggest that the observations of M15 and G1, and, in general, the properties of all [*core-collapsed*]{} clusters, could be explained equally well by the presence of many compact remnants (heavy white dwarfs, neutron stars, or $\sim 3-15\msun$ BHs) near the center without a massive BH (cf. van der Marel 2004; Gebhardt et al. 2005). On the other hand, $N$-body simulations also suggest that many [*non-core-collapsed*]{} clusters (representing about 80% of globular clusters in the Milky Way) could contain central massive BH (Baumgardt et al. 2004, 2005).
In any case, when the correlation between central BH mass and bulge mass in galaxies (e.g., Häring & Rix 2004) is extrapolated to smaller stellar systems like globular clusters, the inferred BH masses are indeed $\sim 10^3-10^4\,M_\odot$. These are much larger than a canonical $\sim10\,M_\odot$ stellar-mass BH (see, however, §3.1.6), but much smaller than the $\sim10^6-10^9\,M_\odot$ of supermassive BHs. Hence, these objects are often called [*intermediate-mass black holes*]{} (IMBHs; see, e.g., Miller & Colbert 2004).
Further observational evidence for IMBHs in dense star clusters comes from many recent [*Chandra*]{} and XMM-[*Newton*]{} observations of “ultra-luminous” X-ray sources (ULXs), which are often (although not always) clearly associated with young star clusters and whose high X-ray luminosities in many cases suggest a compact object mass of at least $\sim 10^2\,M_\odot$ (Cropper et al. 2004; Ebisuzaki et al. 2001; Kaaret et al. 2001; Miller et al. 2003). In many cases, however, beamed emission by an accreting stellar-mass BH may provide an alternative explanation (King et al. 2001; King 2004; Zezas & Fabbiano 2002).
One natural path to the formation of a massive object at the center of any young stellar system with a high enough density is through runaway collisions and mergers of massive stars following gravothermal contraction and core collapse (Ebisuzaki et al. 2001; Portegies Zwart & McMillan 2002; Gürkan, Freitag, & Rasio 2004). These runaways occur when massive stars can drive core collapse [*before they evolve*]{}. Alternatively, if the most massive stars in the cluster are allowed to evolve and produce supernovae, the gravothermal contraction of the cluster will be reversed by the sudden mass loss, and many stellar-mass BHs will be formed.
The final fate of a cluster with a significant component of stellar-mass BHs remains highly uncertain. This is because realistic dynamical simulations for such clusters (containing a large number of BHs [*and*]{} ordinary stars with a realistic mass spectrum) have yet to be performed. For old and relatively small systems (such as small globular clusters), complete evaporation is likely (with essentially all the stellar-mass BHs ejected from the cluster through three-body and four-body interactions in the dense core). This is expected theoretically on the basis of simple qualitative arguments based on Spitzer’s “mass-segregation instability” applied to BHs (Kulkarni et al. 1993; Sigurdsson & Hernquist 1993; Watters et al. 2000) and has been demonstrated by dynamical simulations (Portegies Zwart & McMillan 2000; O’Leary et al. 2005). However, it has been suggested that, if stellar-mass BHs are formed with a relatively broad mass spectrum (a likely outcome for stars of very low metallicity; see Heger et al. 2003), the most massive BH could resist ejection, even from a cluster with low escape velocity. These more massive BHs could then grow by repeatedly forming binaries (through exchange interactions) with other BHs and merging with their companions (Miller & Hamilton 2002; Gültekin, Miller, & Hamilton 2004). However, as most interactions will probably result in the ejection of one of the lighter BHs, it is unclear whether any object could grow substantially through this mechanism before running out of companions to merge with. A single stellar-mass BH remaining at the center of a globular cluster is very unlikely to become detectable as an X-ray binary (Kalogera, King, & Rasio 2004).
In addition to its obvious relevance to X-ray astronomy, the dynamics of BHs in clusters also plays an important role in the theoretical modeling of gravitational-wave (GW) sources and the development of data analysis and detection strategies for these sources. In particular, the growth of a massive BH by repeated mergers of stellar-mass BHs spiraling into an IMBH at the center of a dense star cluster may provide an important source of low-frequency GWs for LISA, the Laser-Interferometer Space Antenna (Miller 2002; Will 2004). Similarly, dynamical hardening and ejections of binaries from dense clusters of stellar-mass BHs could lead to greatly enhanced rates of BH–BH mergers detectable by LIGO and other ground-based interferometers (Portegies Zwart & McMillan 2000; O’Leary et al. 2005).
A crucial starting point for any detailed study of BHs in clusters is an accurate description of the initial BH population. Here, “initial” means on a timescale short compared to the later dynamical evolution timescale. Indeed most $N$-body simulations of star cluster dynamics never attempt to model the brief, initial phase of rapid massive star evolution leading to BH formation. The goal of our work here is to provide the most up-to-date and detailed description of these initial BH populations. This means that we must compute the evolution of a large number of massive stars, including a large fraction of binaries, all the way to BH formation, i.e., on a timescale $\sim 10-100\,$Myr, taking into account a variety of possible cluster environments.
Previous Work
-------------
In a previous study (Belczynski et al. 2004; hereafter Paper I) we studied young populations of BHs formed in a massive starburst, without explicitly taking into account that most stars are formed in clusters. For many representative models we computed the numbers of BHs, both single and in various types of binaries, at various ages, as well as the physical properties of different systems (e.g., binary period and BH mass distributions). We also discussed in detail the evolutionary channels responsible for these properties.
In this follow-up study, we consider the possible ejection of these BHs from star clusters with different escape speeds, taking into account the recoil imparted by supernovae (SNe) and binary disruptions. During SNe, mass loss and any asymmetry in the explosion (e.g., in neutrino emission) can impart large extra speeds to newly formed compact objects. If a compact object is formed in a binary system, the binary may either [*(i)*]{} survive the explosion, but its orbital parameters are changed and the system (center-of-mass) speed changes, or [*(ii)*]{} the binary is disrupted and the newly formed compact object and its companion fly apart on separate trajectories. The secondary star in a binary may later undergo a SN explosion as well, provided that it is massive enough. The effects of this second explosion are equally important in determining the final characteristics of compact objects.
In Paper I we included the effects of SNe, both natal kicks and mass loss, on the formation and evolution of BHs (single and in binaries), but we did not keep track of which BHs and binaries would be retained in their parent cluster. Starbursts form most of their stars in dense clusters with a broad range of masses and central potentials (and hence escape speeds; see, e.g., Elmegreen et al.2002; McCrady et al. 2003; Melo et al. 2005). Smaller clusters of $\sim 10^4\,M_\odot$ (open clusters or “young populous clusters,” such as the Arches and Quintuplet clusters in our Galactic center) could have escape speeds as low as $V_{\rm esc} \la 10\,{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}$ while the largest “super star clusters” with much deeper potential wells could have $V_{\rm esc} \ga 100\,{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}$. On the other hand the natal kick velocities could be relatively high, $\sim 100-500\,{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}$ for low-mass BHs, so that a large fraction of BHs might leave the cluster early in the evolution.
Here we repeat our study of young BH populations taking into account ejections from star clusters. We perform our calculations with a slightly updated version of our population synthesis code [StarTrack]{} (§2) and we present results for both the retained cluster BH populations and the ejected BHs, which will eventually become part of the field BH population surrounding the surviving clusters. Our models and assumptions are discussed in §2, with particular emphasis on the updates since Paper I. In §3 we present our new results and in §4 we provide a summary and discussion.
MODEL DESCRIPTION AND ASSUMPTIONS
=================================
Population Synthesis Code
-------------------------
Our investigation is based on a standard population synthesis method. We use the [StarTrack]{} code (Belczynski, Kalogera & Bulik 2002, hereafter BKB02), which has been revised and improved significantly over the past few years (Belczynski et al. 2006). Our calculations do not include any treatment of dynamical interactions (collisions) between binaries and single stars or other binaries[^1]. In particular, the star clusters we consider are assumed to have avoided the ‘runaway collision instability’’ that can drive rapid collisions and mergers of massive main-sequence stars during an early episode of cluster core collapse (Freitag et al. 2006a,b). Instead, our results can provide highly realistic initial conditions for dynamical simulations of dense star clusters in which the early phase of massive star evolution proceeded ‘normally,’’ without significant influence from cluster dynamics.
All stars are evolved based on the metallicity- and wind-mass-loss-dependent models of Hurley, Pols & Tout (2002), with a few improvements described in BKB02. The main code parameters we use correspond to the standard model presented in §2 of BKB02 and are also described in Paper I. Each star, either single or a binary component, is placed initially on the zero-age main sequence (ZAMS) and then evolved through a sequence of distinct phases: main sequence (MS), Hertzsprung Gap (HG), red giant branch (RG), core He burning (CHeB), asymptotic giant branch (AGB); if a star gets stripped of its H-rich envelope, either through wind mass loss or Roche lobe overflow (RLOF) it becomes a naked helium star (He). The nuclear evolution leads ultimately to the formation of a compact object. Depending on the pre-collapse mass and initial composition this may be a white dwarf (WD), a neutron star (NS) or a BH.
The population synthesis code allows us to study the evolution of both single and binary stars. Binary star components are evolved as single stars while no interactions are taking place. We model the following processes, which can alter the binary orbit and subsequent evolution of the components: tidal interactions, magnetic braking, gravitational radiation, and angular momentum changes due to mass loss. Binary components may interact through mass transfer and accretion phases. We take into account various modes of mass transfer: wind accretion and RLOF; conservative and non-conservative; stable or dynamically unstable (leading to common-envelope evolution). The mass transfer rates are calculated from the specific binary configurations and physical properties (masses, evolutionary stages, etc.) of the stars involved. Binary components may loose or gain mass, while the binary orbit may either expand or shrink in response. Moreover, we allow for binary mergers driven by orbital decay. In this study, we evolve binary merger products assuming that they restart on the ZAMS. An exception is made when a BH takes part in the merger, in which case we assume the remnant object to be a BH again. The mass of the merger product is assumed equal to the total parent binary mass for unevolved and compact remnant components; however we assume complete envelope mass loss from any evolved star (HG, RG, CHeB, or evolved He star) involved in a merger.
A few additions and updates to [StarTrack]{} since Paper I are worth mentioning here (see Belczynski et al. 2006 for more details). System velocities are now tracked for all stars (single and binaries) after SNe (see §2.3). The new magnetic braking law of Ivanova & Taam (2003) has been adopted, although this has minimal impact on our results for BHs. Two new types of WDs have been introduced: hydrogen and “hybrid” (these are possible BH donors in binaries). An improved criterion is adopted for CHeB stars to discriminate between those with convective ($M < 7\msun$) and radiative ($M \geq 7\msun$) envelopes; this affects the stellar response to mass loss. We have also added a new tidal term for RLOF rate calculations.
Some minor problems in the calculations of Paper I were also identified and are corrected in this study. The evolution of a small fraction of BH RLOF systems with donors at the end of the RG stage was terminated when the donor contracted and detached after entering a CHeB phase. However, the donor may restart RLOF during expansion on the AGB, which is now properly accounted for. Another small fraction of systems, evolving through the rapid RLOF phase with HG donors, were previously classified as mergers and subsequently evolved as single stars (merger products). However, the RLOF at that stage may be dynamically stable and in some cases a binary system may survive and continue its evolution, which is now also properly taken into account. None of these corrections affect the results of Paper I significantly.
Black Hole Formation
--------------------
Black holes originate from the most massive stars. The formation time is calculated for each star using the stellar models of Hurley et al. (2000) and Woosley (1986). For intermediate-mass stars the FeNi core collapses and forms a hot proto-NS or a low-mass BH. Part of the envelope falls back onto the central object while the rest is assumed to be ejected in a SN explosion. We use the results of Fryer (1999) and Fryer & Kalogera (2001) to determine how much matter is ejected. In general, for the highest masses ($>30\,M_{\odot}$ for low-metallicity models) total fall-back is expected, with no accompanying SN explosion.
Motivated by the large observed velocities of radio pulsars we assume significant asymmetries in SN explosions. Here we adopt the kick velocity distribution of Arzoumanian, Cordes & Chernoff (2002), taking into consideration more recent observations (e.g., White & Van Paradijs 1996; Mirabel & Rodrigues 2003). NSs receive full kicks drawn from the bimodal distribution of Arzoumanian et al. (2002). Many BHs form through partial fall back of material initially expelled in a SN explosion, but then accreted back onto the central BH. For these the kick velocity is lowered proportionally to the mass of accreted material (for details see BKB02). For the most massive stars, the BH forms silently through a direct collapse without accompanying SN explosion, and in this case we assume [*no*]{} BH natal kick. The mass loss and kick velocity together determine whether a binary hosting the BH progenitor is disrupted by the SN explosion.
Our calculated initial-to-final mass relation for various metallicities is discussed in detail in Paper I, where it is also demonstrated that (within our BH kick model) for solar metallicity many BHs are formed with lowered kicks through fall back. This occurs for single stars with initial masses in the range $20 - 42 M_{\odot}$ and $50 - 70 M_{\odot}$. For metallicity $Z = 0.001$, BHs receive a kick in the narrower ranges $18 - 25 M_{\odot}$ and $39 - 54 M_{\odot}$, while for $Z = 0.0001$ only BHs formed from stars of $18 - 24 M_{\odot}$ receive kicks, with others forming silently.
Spatial Velocities
------------------
All stars, single and binaries, are assumed to have zero initial velocities. This means we are neglecting their orbital speeds within the cluster. Indeed, for a variety of reasons (e.g., relaxation toward energy equipartition, formation near the cluster center), massive stars (BH progenitors) are expected to have lower velocity dispersions than the cluster average, itself much lower than the escape speed from the cluster center. We now discuss how to compute the velocities acquired by single stars, binaries, or their disrupted components, following a SN explosion. For disrupted binary components this is, to our knowledge, the first derivation of such results allowing for initially [*eccentric*]{} orbits.
[*Surviving Binaries.*]{} For each massive star, the time of the SN event is set by the single star models (taking into account mass variations due to winds and binary interactions). When either component of a binary reaches this stage, we generate a random location in the orbit for the event to take place (note that for eccentric binaries this choice will affect the outcome, since the instantaneous separation and relative velocities are different at different locations along the orbit). The core collapse event is assumed to be instantaneous and the mass of the remnant is calculated as in Paper I. Note that if the remnant is formed through complete fall-back (leading always to direct BH formation), we do not expect a SN explosion (hence no kick and no mass loss) and the orbit remains unchanged (Fryer 1999). When a BH is formed through partial fall-back we treat the event as a SN explosion (see Podsiadlowski et al. 2002).
We calculate the effect of a SN event on binaries in three steps. First, we estimate the mass of the remnant. The rest of the exploding star is immediately lost from the binary (with the specific angular momentum of the exploding component). We assume that the ejecta do not have any effect on the companion. Second, we calculate the compact object velocity, which is the vector sum of the orbital velocity of the pre-collapse star at the random orbital position and the kick velocity. The kick velocity is assumed to be randomly oriented and its magnitude is drawn from our assumed distribution. The kick magnitude is also scaled by the amount of material ejected in the SN explosion, $$w=(1-f_{\rm fb})*V,$$ where $V$ is the kick magnitude drawn from the assumed distribution, $f_{\rm fb}$ is a fall back parameter (for details see Paper I), and $w$ is the kick magnitude we use in our calculations. For NS remnants with no fall-back ($f_{\rm fb}=0$), $w=V$. In our standard model we use a kick magnitude distribution derived by Arzoumanian et al. (2002): a weighted sum of two Gaussians, one with $\sigma=90$ km s$^{-1}$ (40%) and the second with $\sigma=500$ km s$^{-1}$ (60%). In the third step, we calculate the total energy (potential and kinetic) of the new orbit for the remnant (new velocity and mass, same relative position) and its companion. If the total energy is positive, then the system is disrupted, and its components will evolve separately. We calculate their subsequent evolution as single stars, and their trajectories are followed (see below). If the total binary energy is negative, the system remains bound after the SN explosion, and we calculate its new parameters ($e$ and $A$). We also check whether the two components have merged following the SN mass loss and kick, in which case we the evolution of a merger is followed (see §2.1). These type of mergers are extremely rare and they do not affect our results. Finally, we calculate the post-SN center of mass velocity of the binary.
[*Disrupted Binaries.*]{} The velocities of the stellar components after a system has been disrupted have been calculated by Tauris & Takens (1998) for the case of a circular pre-SN orbit. In this paper we take a more general approach where the pre-SN orbit can have an arbitrary eccentricity. We begin with the coordinate system (I): the center of mass (CM) coordinate system before the SN explosion. At the time of the SN explosion the velocities of the two stars are $${\vec v}^I_1={-M_2 \vec v \over M_1+M_2}$$ $${\vec v}^I_2={M_1 \vec v \over M_1+M_2}$$ where $\vec v$ is the relative velocity and a superscript $I$ indicates the coordinate system we use. The separation vector between the stars on the orbit at the moment of the SN explosion is $r_0 \vec n$. The SN explosion introduces a kick $\vec w$ on the newly formed compact star and leads to the ejection of a shell. Thus after the SN explosion star 1 has mass $M_{1f}$, and its velocity in the pre-SN CM coordinate system (I) is $${\vec v}^I_{1i}={\vec v}^I_1+\vec w .$$ The expanding shell (with velocity ${\vec v}_{im}$) hits the companion. The effects of the impact have been estimated by Wheeler, Lecar and McKee (1975), but it was shown (Kalogera 1996) that they are not large. The velocity of the companion after the expanding shell decouples from the system is $${\vec v}^I_{2i}={\vec v}^I_2+{\vec v}_{im}.$$ In most cases $v_{im}$ is small, and we neglect it in our treatment of the orbits. The direction between the stars remains the same, ${\vec n}^{II}={\vec n}^{I}$.
Here we also assume that the shell velocity satisfies $ v_{im} \gg r_0/P$ where $P$ is the orbital period of the pre-SN system, so that the shell decouples from the binary instantaneously.
We now introduce a second coordinate system (II): the CM system of the two remaining stars after the explosion. This system moves with the velocity $${\vec v}^{II}_{CM} = { M_{1f}{\vec v}^I_{1i}+ M_2 {\vec v}^I_{2i} \over M_{1f}+ M_2}$$ with respect to system (I). The relative velocity of the two stars (the newly formed compact object and the companion) in this system is $${\vec v}^{II} = {\vec v}+{\vec w}-{\vec v}_{im}$$ after shell decoupling. The angular momentum of the two stars is $$J = \mu r_0 {\vec n}^{II} \times {\vec v}^{II},$$ where ${\vec n}^{II}={\vec n}^{I}$ It is convenient now to introduce the coordinate system (III) in which the angular momentum is aligned with the $z$-axis. The transformation between (II) and (III) is a simple rotation, which we denote as $\cal R$: $v^{III}={\cal R}v^{II}$,$n^{III}={\cal R}n^{II}$ . In the coordinate system (III) the two stars move on a hyperbolic orbit described by $$r = {p \over 1 + \epsilon \cos\phi} \label{traj}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
p={J^2\over \alpha\mu} \ \ {\rm and} \ \
\epsilon=\sqrt{1+{2EJ^2\over\alpha^2\mu}},\end{aligned}$$ $E=\mu (v^{II})^2/2-\alpha/|r_0|$ is the (positive) energy of the system, $\alpha=G M_{1f}M_{2}$, and $\mu = M_{1f}M_2/(M_{1f}+M_2)$ is the reduced mass. Using the conservation of energy we find the value of the final relative velocity in (III): $$|v^{III}_f| = \sqrt{2E\over \mu}.$$ It follows from the conservation of angular momentum that the relative velocity ${\vec v}^{III}_f$ at infinity is parallel to the separation vector ${\vec n}^{III}_f$. The motion is confined to the $x-y$ plane in (III), so what remains now is to find the angle between ${\vec n}^{III}$ and ${\vec n}^{III}_f$. This can easily be found using equation \[traj\]. We first find the initial position of the star on the trajectory $\varphi_i$ (see Fig. 1), $$\cos\varphi_i= {1\over\epsilon}\left({p\over r_0 - 1 }\right) .$$ The sign of the sine of $\varphi_i$ depends on whether the stars are initially on the ascending or descending branch of the hyperbola. In the ascending branch the scalar product $\vec v^{III}_i \vec r^{III}_0<0$, thus $$\sin\varphi_i = {\rm sgn} (\vec v^{III}_i
\vec r^{III}_0)\sqrt{1-\cos^2\phi_f}$$ The final position on the orbit is given by $$\cos\varphi_f=-{1\over \epsilon}.$$ Finally we see from Fig. 1 that $\sin\varphi_f>0$.
With these results we can calculate the direction between the stars at $r=\infty$: $n^{III}_f=T(\varphi_f-\varphi_i)n^{III}$, where $T(\phi)$ is the matrix of rotation around the z axis. We now have the result that the relative final velocity in the coordinate system (III) is $$v^{III}_f=\sqrt{2E\over \mu} n^{III}_f.$$ We find the velocities of the individual stars in (I) by reversing the path of transformations we followed above, $$\begin{aligned}
v^{I}_{1f}={\cal R}^{-1}\left({-M_2 v^{III}_f\over M_{1f}+M2}\right) + v^{II}_{CM}\\
v^{I}_{2f}={\cal R}^{-1}\left({M_{1f} v^{III}_f\over M_{1f}+M2}\right) + v^{II}_{CM}\end{aligned}$$ However, before assuming that these are the final velocities we need to verify that the newly born compact object did not collide with the companion. This may happen if two conditions are satisfied: the stars are initially on the ascending branch of the orbit, and the distance of closest approach $r_{min}=p/(1+\epsilon)$ is smaller than the companion radius.
[*Single Stars.*]{} For single stars (either initially single or originating from disrupted binaries), after a SN explosion we simply calculate the remnant mass, add the natal kick velocity to the spatial speed (non-zero for disrupted binaries but zero for primordial single stars) of the object and follow the remnant until the end of the calculation.
Models
------
### Standard Model
Our standard model (Model A) corresponds to the one in Paper I (also called Model A, with a few minor differences mentioned in §,2.1. Here we just reiterate the basic standard model parameters. We evolve both primordial binaries and single stars. Initial stellar masses for single stars and binary primaries are drawn from a three-component, broken power-law IMF with exponent $\alpha_3=-2.35$ for massive stars, and a flat mass ratio distribution is used to generate secondary masses in binaries. The stars are allowed to reach an initial maximum mass $M_{\rm max}=150 \msun$ (see §,2.4.3 for details). Stars are evolved with metallicity $Z=0.001$ and our adopted standard wind mass loss rates (e.g., Hurley et al. 2000). For the treatment of CE phases we use the standard energy prescription (Webbink 1984) with $\alpha
\times \lambda = 1.0$. We adopt $M_{\rm max,NS}=3 \msun$ for the maximum NS mass, and any compact object with mass above this is classified as a BH. As described above we use lowered kicks for fall-back BHs and no kicks for direct BHs.
### Alternative Models
We also performed a set of calculations for a number of different models in order to test the influence of our most important assumptions and model parameters on BH formation. Each alternative model differs from our standard reference model in the value of one particular parameter or with a change in one particular assumption. All models are described in Table \[models\]. Note that we added one model not present in Paper I: in Model J, we use an alternative prescription for CE phases based on angular momentum balance with parameter $\gamma=1.5$ (see Belczynski, Bulik & Ruiter 2005 and references therein), as opposed to the standard energy balance used in all other models. It has been claimed that this alternative CE prescription leads to better agreement with the observed properties of WD binaries in the solar neighborhood (Nelemans & Tout 2005). We wish to test whether this new CE prescription has any effect on our predictions for young BH populations. For some of alternative models (Models B, D, I and J) the evolution of single stars is not affected and we use the single star population from the standard model. However, we calculate the separate single star populations for models in which the single star evolution is changed with a given parameter (Models C1, C2, E, F, G1, G2 and H).
### Initial Conditions and Mass Calibration
In addition to a brief description of each model, Table \[models\] also gives the total initial mass in single and binary stars. All stars are assumed to form in an instantaneous burst of star formation. Single stars and binary components are assumed to form from the hydrogen burning limit ($0.08 \msun$) up to the maximum mass $M_{\rm max}$ characterizing a given system. Masses of single stars and binary primaries (more massive components) are drawn from the three-component, power-law IMF of Kroupa, Tout, & Gilmore (1993) (see also Kroupa & Weidner 2003) with slope $\alpha_1=-1.3$ within the initial mass range $0.08-0.5\msun$, $\alpha_2=-2.2$ for stars within $0.5-1.0 \msun$, and $\alpha_3=-2.35$ within $1.0\,M_\odot - M_{\rm max}$. The binary secondary masses are generated from an assumed flat mass ratio distribution ($q=M_{\rm a}/M_{\rm b}$; $M_{\rm a},
\ M_{\rm b}$ denoting the mass of the primary and secondary, respectively). The mass ratio is drawn from the interval $q_{\rm min}$ to 1, where $q_{\rm min}=0.08\msun/M_{\rm a}$, ensuring that the mass of the secondary does not fall below the hydrogen burning limit. The only exception is model B, in which both the primary and the secondary masses are sampled independently from the assumed IMF (i.e., the component masses are not correlated). This IMF is easily integrated to find the total mass contained in single and binary stars for any adopted $\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \alpha_3$ values. The particular choice of low-mass slope of the IMF ($\alpha_1, \alpha_2$) does not change our results, since low-mass stars do not contribute to the BH populations. However, as most of the initial stellar mass is contained in low-mass stars, a small change in the IMF slope at the low-mass end can significantly change the mass normalization.
In our simulations, we do not evolve all the single stars and binaries described above since the low-mass stars cannot form BHs. Out of the total population described above we evolve only the single stars with masses higher than $4 \msun$ and the binaries with primaries more massive than $4 \msun$ (no constraint is placed on the mass of the secondary, except that it must be above $0.08 \msun$). All models were calculated with $10^6$ massive primordial binaries. We also evolved $2 \times 10^5$ massive single stars but then scaled up our results to represent $10^6$ single stars. The mass evolved in single stars and binaries was then calculated and, by extrapolation of the IMF (down to hydrogen burning limit), the total initial cluster mass was determined for each model simulation.
In the discussion of our results we assume an initial (primordial) binary fraction of $f_{\rm bin}=50\%$, unless stated otherwise (i.e., tables and figures usually assume equal numbers of single stars and binaries initially, with 2/3 of stars in binaries). However, our results can easily be generalized to other primordial binary fractions $f_{\rm{bin}}$ by simply weighing differently the numbers obtained for single stars and for binaries.
Our assumed distribution of initial binary separations follows Abt (1983). Specifically, we take a flat distribution in $\log a$, so that the probability density $\Gamma(a) \propto {1\over a}$. This is applied between a minimum value, such that the primary’s initial radius (on the zero-age main sequence) is half the radius of its Roche lobe, and a maximum value of $10^5 \, {\rm R}_\odot$. We also adopt a standard thermal eccentricity distribution for initial binaries, $\Xi(e) = 2e$, in the range $e = 0-1$ (e.g., Heggie 1975; Duquennoy & Mayor 1991).
### Cluster Properties
The only cluster parameter that enters directly in our simulations is the escape speed $V_{\rm esc}$ from the cluster core. All single and binary BHs are assumed immediately ejected from the cluster if they acquire a speed exceeding $V_{\rm esc}$. We do not take into account ejections from the cluster halo (where the escape speed would be lower) as all BHs and their progenitors are expected to be concentrated near the cluster center.
In Tables \[std01\], \[std02\], \[std03\], \[std04\] we present results of simulations for our standard model corresponding to four different values of the escape speed: $V_{\rm esc} = 10,~50,~100,~300 \kms$. For any assumed cluster model the escape speed can be related to the total mass $M_{\rm cl}$ and half-mass radius $R_{\rm h}$: $$V_{\rm esc} = f_{\rm cls} \,\left(\frac{M_{\rm cl}}{10^6\msun}\right)^{1/2}
\,\left(\frac{R_{\rm h}}{1\,{\rm pc}}\right)^{-1/2}.$$ For example, for a simple Plummer sphere we have $f_{\rm cls} = 106\kms$, while for King models with dimensionless central potentials $W_0=3,~5,~7,~9$ and 11, the values are $f_{\rm cls} = 105.2$, 108.5, 119.3, 157.7, and $184.0\kms$, respectively. For our four considered values of the escape speed, $V_{\rm esc} = 10$, 50, 100, and $300\kms$, in a $W_0=3$ King model with $R_{\rm h}=1\,$pc (typical for a variety of star clusters), the corresponding cluster masses are $M_{\rm cl}= 0.009$, 0.226, 0.904, and $8.132\ \times 10^6 \msun$, respectively.
In each table we present the properties of BH populations at five different cluster ages: 8.7, 11.0, 15.8, 41.7 and $103.8\,$Myr. These correspond to MS turnoff masses of 25, 20, 15, 8 and $5\,M_{\odot}$, respectively. The tables include information on both the BHs retained in the clusters (with velocities $< V_{\rm esc}$) and those ejected from clusters.
RESULTS
=======
Standard Reference Model
------------------------
### Black Hole Spatial Velocities
In Figure \[t1vel\] we show distributions of spatial velocities for [*all*]{} single and binary BHs shortly after the initial starburst (at $8.7\,$Myr). The distribution shows a rather broad peak around $\sim 30-300\kms$, but also includes a large fraction ($\sim$ 2/3) of BHs formed with no kick. The peak originates from a mixture of low-velocity binary BHs and high-velocity single BHs. The no-kick single and binary BHs originate from the most massive stars, which have formed BHs silently and without a kick. All the no-kick systems (with zero velocity assumed) were placed on the extreme left side of all distributions in Figure \[t1vel\] to show their contribution in relation to other non-zero velocity systems (the bin area is chosen so as to represent their actual number, although the placement of the bin along the velocity axis is arbitrary). Binary stars hosting BHs survive only if the natal kicks they received were relatively small, since high-magnitude kicks tend to disrupt the systems. We see (middle panel of Fig. \[t1vel\]) that most BH binaries have spatial velocities around $50\kms$, which originate from the low-velocity side of the bimodal Arzoumanian et al. (2002) distribution. Single BHs originating from single stars follow closely the bimodal distribution of natal kicks, but the final BH velocities are slightly lower because of fall-back and direct BH formation (see §2.3). The low- and high-velocity single BHs have speeds around $50\kms$ and $250\kms$, respectively. Single BHs originating from binary disruptions gain high speeds ($\sim
100 - 400\kms$), since binaries are disrupted when a high-magnitude kick occurs. Finally, the single BHs formed through binary mergers have the lowest (nonzero) velocities ($\sim 10 - 100\kms$), since they are the most massive BHs and therefore most affected by fall-back.
In Figure \[t5vel\] we show the velocity distributions at a later time ($103.8\,$Myr) when essentially all BHs have formed, and no more SNe explosions are expected, so the velocity distribution is no longer evolving (the MS turnoff mass for that time is down to $5\msun$). The velocities have now shifted to somewhat higher values (with a single peak at $\simeq 200\kms$ for non-zero velocity BHs), while the relative contribution of no-kick systems drops to around 1/3. At this later time the population is more dominated by single BHs. Most of the non-zero velocity single BHs come from binary disruptions (see middle panel of Fig. \[t5vel\]) and therefore they have received larger kicks, shifting the overall distribution toward slightly higher velocities. Also, at later times, lower-mass BH progenitors go through SN explosions, and they receive on average larger kicks (since for lower masses there is less fall back).
We note that most of the non-zero-velocity BHs gain speeds of $50-200\kms$ in SNe explosions. Depending on the properties of a given cluster they may be ejected or retained, and will either populate the field or undergo subsequent dynamical evolution in the cluster. We now discuss separately the properties of the retained and ejected BH populations.
### Properties of Retained (Cluster) BH Populations
Retained BHs in clusters could be found either in binaries or as single objects. Binary BHs are found with different types of companion stars, while single BHs may have formed through various channels, which we also list in Tables \[std01\] – \[std04\]. Shortly after the starburst the most frequent BH companions are massive MS stars, but, as the population evolves, these massive MS companions finish their lives and form additional BHs. Double BH–BH systems begin to dominate the binary BH population after about $15\,$Myr. At later times less massive stars evolve off the MS and start contributing to the sub-population of BHs with evolved companions (CHeB stars being the dominant companion type, with a relatively long lifetime in that phase) or other remnants as companions (WDs and NSs). Once the majority of stars massive enough to make BHs end their lives (around $10-15\,$Myr) we observe a general decrease in the total number of BHs in binaries. The number of BHs in binaries is depleted through the disruptive effects of SNe and binary mergers (e.g., during CE phases). Both processes enhance the single BH population. This single population is dominated by the BHs formed from primordial single stars (assuming $f_{\rm bin}=50\%$). The formation along this single star channel stops early on when all single massive stars have finished evolution and formed BHs (at $\simeq
10-15\,$Myr). In contrast, the contribution of single BHs from binary disruptions and mergers is increasing with time, but eventually it also saturates (at $\simeq 50-100\,$Myr), since there are fewer potential BH progenitor binaries as the massive stars die off. In general, the single BHs are much more numerous in young cluster environments than binary BHs. At early times ($\simeq 10\,$Myr) they dominate by a factor $2-4$, but later the ratio of single to binary BHs increases to almost 10 (after $\sim 100\,$Myr), as many binaries merge or are disrupted (adding to the single population).
### Properties of Ejected (Field) BH Populations
Tables \[std01\] – \[std04\] show also the properties of BHs ejected from their parent clusters, assuming different escape speeds. Significant fractions ($\ga 0.4$) of single and binary BHs are likely to be ejected from any cluster with escape speed $V_{\rm esc} \la 100\kms$. In general, single BHs are more prone to ejection since they gain larger speeds in SNe explosions (compared to heavier binaries). Early on the number of ejected BHs increases with time as new BHs of lower mass (and hence receiving larger kicks) are being formed. At later times (after $\simeq 15\,$Myr), the number of fast BHs remains basically unchanged. Ejected binaries consist mostly of BH–MS and BH–BH pairs in comparable numbers. Rare BH–NS binaries are ejected more easily than other types since they experience two kicks. Single ejected BHs consist mostly of BHs originating from single stars which have received large kicks and from the components of a disrupted binary (the involved kicks were rather large to allow for disruption).
### Dependence on Cluster Escape Velocity and Initial Binary Fraction
In Table \[frac01\] we list fractions of retained BHs at $103.8\,$Myr after the starburst. The results are presented for initial cluster binary fractions of $f_{\rm bin}=0,\ 50,\ 100\%$, and can be linearly interpolated for the desired $f_{\rm bin}$. For our standard model the results are shown for the four considered escape velocities. For an initial cluster binary fraction $f_{\rm bin}=50\%$ we find that the retained fraction can vary from $\sim 0.4$ for low escape velocities ($V_{\rm esc} = 10\kms$) to $\sim 0.9$ for high velocities ($V_{\rm esc} = 300\kms$). For escape velocities typical of globular clusters or super star clusters ($V_{\rm esc} \sim 50 \kms$), retained and ejected fractions are about equal. The retained fractions for various types of systems are plotted as a function of $V_{\rm esc}$ in Figure \[retained.all\]. All curves are normalized to total number of BHs, both single and binaries.
Results are listed in Table \[frac01\] for different binary fractions. In particular, these can be used to study the limiting cases of pure binary populations ($f_{\rm bin}=100\%$) and pure single star populations ($f_{\rm bin}=0\%$). Note that even an initial population with all massive stars in binaries will form many single BHs through binary disruptions and binary mergers. We also note the decrease of the retained fraction with increasing initial binary fraction. Clusters containing more binaries tend to lose relatively more BHs through binary disruptions in SNe compared to single star populations.
### Orbital Periods of Black Hole Binaries
Figure \[A.50.per\] presents the period distribution of BH binaries for our standard model (for the characteristic escape velocity $V_{\rm esc} = 50\kms$). We show separately populations retained and ejected from a cluster. The distributions for different values of the escape velocity are similar.
In Paper I we obtained a double-peaked period distribution for BHs in field populations: tighter binaries were found around $P_{\rm orb} \sim 10\,$d while wider systems peaked around $P_{\rm orb} \sim 10^5\,$d. The shape of this distribution comes from the property that tighter BH progenitor systems experienced at least one RLOF/CE episode leading to orbital decay, while wider systems never interacted and stayed close to their initial periods. The two peaks are clearly separated with a demarcation period $P_{\rm s} \sim 10^3\,$d.
It is easily seen here that slow and fast BH populations add up to the original double-peaked distribution of Paper I. Only the shortest-period and hence most tightly bound systems ($P_{\rm orb} < P_{\rm s}$) survive SN explosions and they form a population of fast, short-period BH binaries (see bottom panel of Fig. \[A.50.per\]). In contrast, systems retained in clusters have again a double-peaked orbital period distribution. The slowest systems have rather large periods ($P_{\rm orb} \sim 10^5\,$d) and they will likely get disrupted through dynamical interactions in the dense cluster core. The short-period cluster binaries ($P_{\rm orb} \sim 10-100\,$d) are much less numerous, since most of the short-period systems gained high post-SN velocities and contributed to the ejected population. Compared to Paper I we note that the inclusion of ejections further depletes the cluster [*hard*]{} binary BH population. Only about 1/3 of systems are found with periods below $P_{\rm s}$, half of which are retained within a cluster with $V_{\rm esc} = 50\kms$. For a cluster with $V_{\rm esc} = 100\kms$ about 80% of the short-period systems are retained.
### Black Hole Masses
Black hole mass distributions are presented in Figures \[A.50.mass.all\], \[A.50.mass.sin\] for $V_{\rm esc} = 50\kms$. With few exceptions the models for different escape velocity values are very similar. The retained and ejected populations are shown in separate panels.
The retained populations of BHs shown in the top panel of Figure \[A.50.mass.all\] have a characteristic triple-peaked mass distribution: a first peak at $M_{\rm BH} \sim 6-8
\msun$, a second one at $M_{\rm BH} \sim 10-16 \msun$, and third at $M_{\rm BH} \sim
22-26 \msun$; beyond this it steeply falls off with increasing mass.
The shape of the distribution is determined by the combination of IMF and initial-to-final mass relation for single BHs (presented and discussed in detail in Paper I): the most massive stars ($\geq 50\msun$) form BHs with masses in the range $\sim 10-16\msun$; stars within an initial mass range $25-35\msun$ form BHs of mass $\sim 25\msun$; stars of initially $40-50\msun$ tend to form $7\msun$ BHs. Both single and binary BHs contribute significantly to the second and third peaks. However, only single stars are responsible for a first narrow peak corresponding to a pile up of BHs in the initial-to-final mass relation around $6-8\msun$. This characteristic feature is a result of a very sharp transition in single star evolution, from H-rich to naked helium stars, which is caused by wind mass loss and the more effective envelope removal for single stars above a certain initial mass. In binary stars, removal of the envelope can happen not only through stellar winds but also through RLOF, and so it is allowed for the entire mass range and the first peak is washed out.
The ejected populations, shown in the bottom panel of Figure \[A.50.mass.all\], are dominated by single BHs (due to their high average speeds) with masses $\sim 3-30\msun$. The distributions have one sharp peak at $M_{\rm BH} \sim 6-8\msun$, corresponding to the first low-mass peak in the distribution for retained populations. The high-mass BHs are very rare in the ejected populations since the kick magnitudes decrease with increasing BH mass (because of significant fall-back or direct BH formation at the high-mass end).
BHs in binary systems reach a maximum mass of about $30\msun$ for both cluster and ejected populations. Most single BHs have masses below $30\msun$. However, the tail of the single BH mass distribution extends to $\sim 50\msun$ for ejected populations and to about $80\msun$ for cluster populations. This is shown in Figure \[A.50.mass.sin\] (note a change of vertical scale as compared to Figure \[A.50.mass.all\]). The highest-mass BHs are always retained in the clusters and they are formed through binary mergers. These mergers are the result of early CE evolution of massive binaries. The most common merger types are MS–MS, HG–MS and BH–HG mergers. During mergers involving HG stars we assume that the envelope of the HG star is lost, while the BH/MS star and the compact core of the HG star merge to form a new, more massive object. The merger product is then evolved and it may eventually form a single BH.
Even with significant mass loss through stellar winds and during the merger process, a small fraction of BHs reach very high masses, up to about $80\msun$. With a less conservative assumption, allowing some fraction of the HG star envelope to be accreted onto the companion in a merger, the maximum BH mass could then reach even higher values $\ga 100\msun$. In Figure \[A.50.fullmass.sin\] we show the results of a calculation with the merger product’s mass always assumed equal to the total binary mass.
Although the amount of mass loss in a merger is rather uncertain, the two models above (with and without mass loss) indicate that binary star evolution could lead to the formation of single $\sim 100\msun$ BHs. These most massive BHs form very early in the evolution of a cluster (first $\sim
5-10\,$Myr) since they originate from the most massive and rapidly evolving stars. These BHs are retained in clusters (direct/silent BH formation with no associated natal kick) and they may act as potential seeds for building up intermediate-mass BHs through dynamical interactions during the subsequent cluster evolution (Miller & Hamilton 2002; O’Leary et al. 2005).
Parameter Study
---------------
### Black Hole Spatial Velocities
For most alternative models the velocity distributions are similar to those found in the reference model (see Fig. \[t1vel\] and \[t5vel\]). These distributions are generally characterized by the same wide, high-velocity peak (tens to hundreds of $\kms$) and a rather large population of zero-kick BHs. In particular, for models B, F, G2, J and H, the distributions are almost identical to those of the reference model at all times. For models D, G1, and I the distributions show slight differences. With lowered CE efficiency (model D) it is found that there are fewer fast binary BHs, and most surviving binaries do not gain higher velocities at early times. Basically, many tight binaries that survived SN explosions in the reference model have now merged in a first CE phase, even before the first SN explosion occurred. In model G1, in which we consider only primordial stars up to $M_{\rm max}=
50\,\msun$, the population of massive BHs formed through direct collapse (with no kick) is significantly reduced. This results in a velocity distribution similar to that of the reference model for non-zero velocity systems, but with a much lower number of zero-kick BHs. The model I distribution is slightly different, especially at early times when most BHs form with no kick, since in this model we consider only the most massive BHs formed mainly through direct collapse.
A few models show more significant differences. Different metallicities lead to changes in BH velocities, especially at early times. For very low metallicity (model C1) almost all BHs are formed with no kick, while for high, solar-like metallicity (model C2) most BHs have non-zero velocities in a wide range ($\sim 10-1000 \kms$). Metallicity strongly affects the wind mass loss rates, which are most important for the evolution of the most massive stars (i.e., at early times). In particular, for low-$Z$ values, the wind mass loss rates are smaller (hence more high-mass pre-SN stars and direct collapses), while for high $Z$ the winds are very effective in removing mass from BH progenitors (hence smaller mass pre-SN stars, and more fall-back BH formation). The most significant difference is found in model E, where we allow for full BH kicks. All BHs are formed with rather high ($\geq 100 \kms$) velocities. The distribution, shown in Figures \[t1velE\] and \[t5velE\], is double-peaked both for early and late times. The single stars dominate the population, forming the low- ($\sim 100 \kms$) and high-velocity component ($\sim 500 \kms$), a direct result of the adopted bimodal natal kick velocity distribution. Binary stars are found at lower velocities ($\sim 100 \kms$) but they are only a minor contributor to the overall BH population since most of them are now disrupted at the first SN explosion.
### Properties of Retained (Cluster) BH Populations
In Table \[parm01\] we present the properties of cluster BH populations $11\,$Myr after the starburst. Results for the various models may be easily compared with our reference model.
Binary BHs for different model assumptions are still in general dominated by BH–MS and BH–BH binaries. These systems appear in comparable numbers in most models. Only for models B and E do we find a smaller contribution of BH–BH binaries ($\sim$ 5% and almost zero for models E and B, respectively). In model B the independent choice of masses produces systems with extreme mass ratios, so that massive primordial binaries with two BH progenitors are very rare. Obviously for model E, in which the two BHs receive full kicks, the BH–BH binary formation is strongly suppressed by binary disruptions. The highest number of binaries containing BHs is found in our model with the lowest tested metallicity (C1). For low metallicities BHs form preferentially with high masses (low wind mass loss rates) through direct collapse with no kick. In contrast model E, assuming full BH kicks, results in the lowest number of BH binaries. Many models (D, G2, H, I, J) result in very similar contents to our reference model. It is worth noting in particular that the CE treatment (either lowered efficiency in model D, or different prescription in model J) does not appear to play a significant role in determining cluster initial binary BH populations.
For all models the single BHs dominate the population even at very early times (as early as $11\,$Myr). Single BHs originate predominantly from primordial single stars, with smaller contributions from disrupted binaries and binary mergers. The basic general trends seen in our reference model are preserved in other models. Also most models (B, C1, D, G2, H, I, J) form similar numbers of single BHs as our reference model. It is found, as in the binary populations, that the highest number of single BHs is seen in our model with lowest metallicity (C1), while the model with full BH kicks (E) generates the lowest number of single BHs retained in a cluster.
At $103.5\,$Myr (see Table \[parm02\]), when no more BHs are being formed, single BHs strongly dominate (by about an order of magnitude) over binary BHs. Single BHs still originate mostly from primordial single stars, but there is an increased contribution from binary mergers and disruptions. The binary population remains dominated by BH–BH and BH–MS systems in most models, but with an increased contribution from other evolved systems (BH–WD and BH–NS) compared to earlier times. Note that only in model E does the number of systems other than BH–BH and BH–MS end up dominating the binary population.
### Properties of Ejected (Field) BH Populations
In Tables \[parm01\] and \[parm02\] we also characterize the populations of ejected (field) BHs for various models. Results for both times are comparable for binary BHs, but with significantly more single BHs being ejected at later times.
The BH–MS and BH–BH binaries, which dominate the total populations, are also found to be most effectively ejected from clusters. However, BH–NS systems, receiving two natal kicks, are also found to be easily ejected. Indeed, in many models (C1, C2, E, F, G1, G2, H, J), they constitute a significant fraction of ejected systems. Contrary to our intuitive expectation, evolution with the full BH kicks (model E) does not generate a particularly large population of fast BH binaries. In fact, the ejected population is smaller than in the reference model. Higher kicks are much more effective in binary disruption than in binary ejection.
The numbers of fast single BHs are comparable in most models (A, B, D, G1, G2, H, J), with the ejected populations usually consisting equally of BHs coming from binary disruptions and primordial single stars, with a smaller contribution from merger BHs. For models with massive BHs (C1 and I) which receive small kicks there are fewer single BHs in the ejected population (by a factor $\sim 2$). On the other hand, for the model with full BH kicks (E), the ejected single BH population is larger (by a factor of $\sim 3$) compared to the reference model.
### Dependence on Cluster Escape Velocity and Initial Binary Fraction
Retained fractions for different evolutionary models follow in general the same trends as in our reference model, i.e., retained fractions decrease with increasing initial binary fraction. The exception to that trend is for models with full BH kicks (E), increased metallicity (C2) or uncorrelated binary component masses (B). Also, independent of the escape velocity, it is found that at least $\sim 40\%$ of BHs are retained simply because of no-kick BHs (for an initial binary fraction of 50%), with the obvious exception of the model with full BH kicks (E). In particular, for models C1, D, F, G1, G2, H, I, and J, the dependence of the retained fraction on $V_{\rm esc}$ is very similar to that seen in the reference model (see Fig. \[retained.all\]).
In model B, th secondary mass is on average very small compared to the BH mass (due to our choice of initial conditions for this model). Therefore, BHs in binary systems gain similar velocities (almost unaffected by their companions) as single BHs, and this leads to almost constant fraction of retained systems ($\sim 0.64$) independent of the initial binarity of the cluster. In models C2 and E the fraction of retained systems may be as small as 0.4 and 0, respectively. In our model with high metallicity (C2), as discussed above (§3.2.1), high wind mass loss rates lead to higher BH kicks and hence smaller retained fractions. The most dramatic change is observed for model E, with full BH kicks. The retained fractions for this model are shown in Figure \[retained.allE\]. Here, we also normalize all curves to the total number of BHs (single and in binaries). The retained fraction increases from 0 to $\sim 0.9$, approximately proportional to the escape velocity, with no apparent flattening up to $V_{\rm esc} \sim 1000
\kms$ as a result of the high speeds BHs receive at formation. The total retained fraction does not reach unity, since there is still a small number of BHs with velocities over 1000 km s$^{-1}$. Larger BH kicks (switching from standard lowered kicks to full kicks) decrease the retained fraction from 0.6 to 0.2 for $V_{\rm esc} \simeq 50 \kms$ and $f_{\rm bin}50\%$.
A summary of retained and ejected fractions for different initial cluster binary fractions is presented in Table \[frac01\] for $V_{\rm esc}=50\kms$. In particular, we show results for pure single star populations ($f_{\rm bin}=0\%$) and for all binaries ($f_{\rm bin}=100\%$). Note that single star populations will obviously form only single BHs, while the binary-dominated clusters will form both BH binaries and single BHs (through disruptions and mergers)[^2].
For the standard $f_{\rm bin}=50\%$ it is found that the retained fraction of BHs varies from 0.4 – 0.7 across almost all models. The only exception is model E with full BH kicks for which the retained fraction is only 0.2. For more realistic and higher initial cluster binary fractions ($f_{\rm bin}=75-100\%$; see Ivanova et al. 2005) the retained BH fraction is found in an even narrower range 0.4 – 0.6 (again with the exception of model E). Therefore, despite the number of model uncertainties, the initial BH cluster populations, as far as the numbers are concerned, are well constrained theoretically. The issue of BH kicks is not resolved yet, but both observational work (e.g., Mirabel & Rodrigues 2003) and theoretical studies (e.g., Willems et al. 2005) are in progress.
### Orbital Periods of Black Hole Binaries
In Figures \[mod.per1\] and \[mod.per2\] we show the dependence of the period distributions of BH binaries on model assumptions. In general, the period distribution remains bimodal in most of the models (B, C1, C2, D, F, G1, G2, H) for retained BH binaries, while only short-period binaries tend to be ejected from clusters, as explained in §3.1.5. Most of the retained binaries are formed with rather large orbital periods (with the exception of model E, see below) and they will be prone to dynamical disruption in dense cluster environments.
The major deviations from the reference model are found for model E, with full BH kicks. The retained population is rather small as compared to the other models and consists mostly of short-period binaries, since all of the wide BH systems were disrupted by SN natal kicks. The majority of short-period binaries which survived gained significant velocities ($\geq 50 \kms$; see Fig. \[t5velE\]) and the ejected population is the most numerous in this model.
In several other models we find smaller variations from the reference period distribution. Models with different CE efficiency and treatment (D and J), in which most close binaries merge, have very small numbers of short-period binaries. Also, the model in which we consider only the most massive BHs (descendants of wide primordial binaries) is characterized by a smaller short-period binary population.
### Black Hole Masses
In Figures \[mod.mas.all1\] and \[mod.mas.all2\] we present the BH mass distributions from all the models in our study, for both single and binary BH populations.
The shape of the distribution for the retained and ejected BH populations is not greatly affected by different choices of parameter values, with the exception of metallicity and BH kicks (see Fig. \[mod.mas.all1\]). This is easily understood, as the highest-mass BHs are formed only at low metallicity (Models C1 and A) and the lightest BHs are formed at high metallicity (Model C2). For full BH kicks (model E) the majority of BHs gain high speeds, and the mass distribution for the ejected population is similar to the combination of ejected and retained populations in the reference model.
Most of the BHs do not exceed $\sim 25 \msun$. However, a small fraction of single BHs in many models reach very high masses around $80\,\msun$. Figures \[mod.mas.sin1\] and \[mod.mas.sin2\] show the mass distributions of single BH subpopulations. In all the models with high-mass BHs the most massive BHs are formed through binary mergers. In all the calculations presented here we have assumed mass loss during the merger process if an evolved star was involved (as discussed in §3.1.6). The highest maximum BH masses are found in the lowest metallicity environments (models A and C1), in larger systems (with high $M_{\rm max}$, model G2), and for binaries formed with full BH kicks (model E), quite independent of other evolutionary parameters. We find $\sim 10-100$ BHs with masses over $60 \msun$ in models C1, C2, E, G2 and J (and fewer in other models), for a total starburst mass of $\sim 10^8
\msun$ (see Table \[models\]). The highest mass BHs are retained in clusters with the exception of the model incorporating full BH kicks, in which they are found both with high and low speeds. Only in a few models, with uncorrelated initial binary component masses (B), low CE efficiency (D), or low $M_{\rm max}$ (G1), does the maximum BH mass stay below $\sim 60 \msun$. And in particular, in the model B, the maximum BH mass stay below $\sim 30 \msun$. This is due to the fact, that in this model BHs are accompanied by relatively low mass companions and therefore there is no mass reservoir to increase substantially initial (formation) BH mass.
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
======================
Using the population synthesis code [StarTrack]{} we have studied the formation of single and binary BHs in young star clusters. Our study continues and improves on the initial work described in Paper I by taking explicitly into account the likely ejections of BHs and their progenitors from star clusters because of natal kicks imparted by SNe or recoil following binary disruptions. The results indicate that the properties of both retained BHs in clusters and ejected BHs (forming a field population) depend sensitively on the depth of the cluster potential. For example we find that most BHs ejected from binaries are also ejected from clusters with central escape speeds $V_{\rm esc}\la 100\,{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}$, while most BHs remaining in binaries are retained by clusters with $V_{\rm esc}\ga 50\,{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}$. Also, approximately half of the single BHs originating from the primordial single star population are ejected from clusters with $V_{\rm esc}\la 50\,{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}$. The overall BH retention fraction increases gradually from $\sim 0.4$ to 0.7 as the cluster escape speed increases from $\sim 10$ to $100 \kms$ (Fig. 4). Tables 2–5 give the numbers of BHs in different kinds of systems, both retained in and ejected from clusters with different escape speeds. Their main properties are illustrated in Figures 5–8. Single BH masses can become as large as $\sim 100\,M_\odot$ (as a consequence of massive binary mergers, especially if mass loss during mergers is small). These “intermediate-mass” BHs are almost always retained in clusters. If they were to acquire a new binary companion through dynamical interactions in the dense cluster environment, they could become ULXs. However, it was recently demonstrated that although massive BHs easily acquire binary companions, it is rather unlikely to find such a binary at high ultraluminous X-ray luminosity (Blecha et al. 2006).
BH–BH binaries (rather than double NSs), are probably the most promising GW sources for detection by ground-based interferometers (Lipunov, Postnov, & Prokhorov 1997; Bulik & Belczynski 2003). Merging BH–BH systems therefore are important sources for present projects to detect astrophysical GW sources (e.g., GEO, LIGO, VIRGO). The properties of BH–BH binaries in much larger stellar systems with continuous star formation (e.g., disk galaxies) were studied extensively by Bulik & Belczynski (2003; Bulik, Belczynski & Rudak 2004a; Bulik, Gondek-Rosinska & Belczynski 2004b). We find that the properties of BH–BH binaries in starbursts are not too different from those found in previous studies. Most BH–BH systems are characterized by rather equal masses, with a mass ratio distribution peaking at $q \simeq 0.8-1.0$ (cf. the Pop II models of Bulik et al. 2004b). For most models only a small fraction (a few per cent; e.g., 5% for Model A) of the BH–BH systems are tight enough to merge within a Hubble time and produce observable GW signals. For models which tend to produce tighter BH–BH binaries (D and E), the fraction can be significantly higher ($\sim$ 10–40 %). However, in Model E there are almost no BH–BH binaries, and the higher fraction of coalescing systems does not mean a higher BH–BH merger rate. Models C1 and D are the most efficient in producing merging BH–BH binaries: 2035 and 1370, respectively (for a total starburst mass of $\sim 10^8
\msun$; Table \[models\]), while for most of the other models (including the reference model) we find $\sim 300-600$ merging BH–BH systems.
This work was supported in part by KBN grants PBZ-KBN-054/P03/2001 and 1 P03D 022 28 at the Copernicus Center, Poland, and by NSF Grant PHY-0245028 and NASA Grants NAG5-12044 and NAG5-13236 at Northwestern University. For hospitality and support, AS thanks the Astronomy Department at New Mexico State University and the Theoretical Astrophysics Group at Northwestern University; KB thanks the Aspen Center for Physics; and FAR thanks the Aspen Center for Physics and the Center for Gravitational Wave Physics at Penn State University.
Abt, H. A. 1983, ARA&A, 21, 343 Arzoumanian, Z., Chernoff, D. F., & Cordes, J. M. 2002, , 568, 289 Baumgardt, H., Hut, P., Makino, J., McMillan, S., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2003a, ApJ, 582, L21 Baumgardt, H., Makino, J., Hut, P., McMillan, S., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2003b, ApJ, 589, L25 Baumgardt, H., Makino, J., & Ebisuzaki, T. 2004, ApJ, 613, 1143 Baumgardt, H., Makino, J., & Hut, P. 2005, ApJ, 620, 238 Belczynski, K., Bulik, T., & Ruiter, A. 2005, , 629, 915 Belczynski, K., Kalogera, V., & Bulik, T. 2002, ApJ, 572, 407 (BKB02) Belczynski, K., Kalogera, V., Rasio, F., Taam, R., Zezas, A., Bulik, T., Maccarone, T., & Ivanova, N. 2006, , submitted (astro-ph/0511811) Belczynski, K., Sadowski, A., & Rasio, F. 2004, Apj, 611, 1068 (Paper I) Blecha, L., Ivanova, N., Kalogera, V., Belczynski, K., Fregeau, J., & Rasio, F. 2006, , 642, 427 Bulik, T., & Belczynski, K. 2003, , 589, L37 Bulik, T., Belczynski, K., & Rudak, B. 2004a, , 415, 407 Bulik, T., Gondek-Rosinska, D., & Belczynski, K. 2004b, , 352, 1372 Cropper, M., Soria, R., Mushotzky, R.F., Wu, K., Markwardt, C.B., Pakull, M. 2004, MNRAS, 349, 39 Duquennoy, A., & Mayor, M. 1991, , 248, 485 Ebisuzaki, T., et al. 2001, ApJ, 562, L19 Elmegreen, D.M., Chromey, F.R., McGrath, E.J., & Ostenson, J.M. 2002, AJ, 123, 1381 Freitag, M., Rasio, F.A., & Baumgardt, H. 2006a, , 368, 121 Freitag, M., Gürkan, M.A., & Rasio, F.A. 2006b, , 368, 141 Fryer, C. L. 1999, , 522, 413 Fryer, C. L., & Kalogera, V. 2001, Apj, 554, 548 Gebhardt, K., Rich, R.M., & Ho, L.C. 2002, ApJ, 578, L41 Gebhardt, K., Rich, R.M., & Ho, L.C. 2005, ApJ, submitted Gerssen, J., van der Marel, R.P., Gebhardt, K., Guhathakurta, P., Peterson, R.C., & Pryor, C. 2002, AJ, 124, 3270 Gerssen, J., van der Marel, R.P., Gebhardt, K., Guhathakurta, P., Peterson, R.C., & Pryor, C. 2003, AJ, 125, 376 Gültekin, K., Miller, M.C., & Hamilton, D.P. 2004, ApJ, 616, 221 Gürkan, M.A., Freitag, M., & Rasio, F.A. 2004, ApJ, 604, 632 Häring, N., & Rix, H.-W. 2004, ApJ, 604, L89 Heger, A., Fryer, C.L., Woosley, S.E., Langer, N., & Hartmann, D.H. 2003, ApJ, 591, 288 Heggie, D. C. 1975, , 173, 729 Hurley, J. R., Pols, O. R., & Tout, C. A. 2000, MNRAS, 315, 543 Hurley, J. R., Tout, C. A., & Pols, O. R. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 827 Ivanova, N., Belczynski, K., Fregeau, J.M., & Rasio, F.A. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 572 Kaaret, P., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 321, L29 Kalogera, V. 1996, , 471, 352 Kalogera, V., King, A.R., & Rasio, F.A. 2004, ApJ, 601, L171 King, A.R. 2004, MNRAS, 347, L18 King, A.R., Davies, M.B., Ward, M.J., Fabbiano, G., & Elvis, M. 2001, ApJ, 552, L109 Kroupa, P., Tout, C.A., & Gilmore, G., 1993, , 262, 545 Kroupa, P., & Weidner, C. 2003, , 598, 1076 Kulkarni, S.R., Hut, P., & McMillan, S. 1993, Nature, 364, 421 Lipunov, V.M., Postnov, K.A., & Prokhorov, M.E. 1997, NewA, 2, 43 McCrady, N., Gilbert, A.M., & Graham, J.R. 2003, ApJ, 596, 240 Melo, V.P., Munoz-Tunon, C., Maiz-Apellaniz, J., & Tenorio-Tagle, G. 2005, ApJ, 619, 270; erratum 632, 684 Miller, J.M., Fabbiano, G., Miller, M.C., & Fabian, A.C. 2003, ApJ, 585, L37 Miller, M.C. 2002, ApJ, 581, 438 Miller, M.C., & Colbert, E.J.M. 2004, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 13, 1 Miller, M.C., & Hamilton, D.P. 2002, MNRAS, 330, 232 Mirabel, I. F., & Rodrigues, I. 2003, Science, 300, 1119 Nelemans, G., & Tout, C. A. 2005, , 356, 753 O’Leary, R.M., Rasio, F.A., Fregeau, J.M., Ivanova, N., & O’Shaughnessy, R. 2005, ApJ, in press \[astro-ph/0508224\] Podsiadlowski, P., Nomoto, K., Maeda, K., Nakamura, T., Mazzali, P., & Schmidt, B. 2002, ApJ, 567, 491 Portegies Zwart, S.F. & McMillan, S.L.W. 2000, ApJ, 528, L17 Portegies Zwart, S.F. & McMillan, S.L.W. 2002, ApJ, 576, 899 Sigurdsson, S., & Hernquist, L. 1993, Nature, 364, 423 Tauris, T.M., & Takens, R.J. 1998, A&A, 330, 1047 van der Marel, R.P. 2004, in Coevolution of Black Holes and Galaxies, ed. L.C. Ho (Cambridge Univ. Press, Carnegie Obs. Ast. Ser. Vol. 1), 37 Watters, W.A., Joshi, K.J., & Rasio, F.A. 2000, ApJ, 539, 331 Webbink, R. F. 1984, , 277, 355 Wheeler, J. C., Lecar, M., & McKee, C. F. 1975, , 200, 145 White, N.E., & Van Paradijs, J. 1996, , 473, L25 Willems, B., Henninger, M., Levin, T., Ivanova, N., Kalogera, V., McGhee, K., Timmes, F.X., & Fryer, C.L. 2005, , 625, 324 Will, C.M. 2004, ApJ, 611, 1080 Woosley, S.E. 1986, in ’Nucleosynthesis and Chemical Evolution’, 16th Saas-Fee Course, ed. B. Hauck et al., Geneva Obs., 1 Zezas, A., & Fabbiano, G. 2002, ApJ, 577, 726
[llcc]{} A & standard model described in §2.4 & $3.79 \times 10^{7}$ & $5.95 \times 10^{7}$\
B & uncorrelated binary component masses & $3.79 \times 10^{7}$ & $7.59 \times 10^{7}$\
C1-2 & metallicity $Z = 0.0001, 0.02$ & $3.79 \times 10^{7}$ & $5.95 \times 10^{7}$\
D & standard CE: $\alpha_{\rm CE} \times \lambda = 0.1$ & $3.79 \times 10^{7}$ & $5.95 \times 10^{7}$\
E & full kicks for BHs & $3.79 \times 10^{7}$ & $5.95 \times 10^{7}$\
F & steeper IMF: $\alpha_3=-2.7$ & $5.97 \times 10^{7}$ & $9.49 \times 10^{7}$\
G1 & lower maximum mass: $M_{\rm max} = 50 M_\odot$ & $3.69 \times 10^{7}$ & $5.80 \times 10^{7}$\
G2 & lower maximum mass: $M_{\rm max} = 100 M_\odot$ & $3.75 \times 10^{7}$ & $5.88 \times 10^{7}$\
H & $M_{\rm max,NS}=2 $M$_\odot$ & $3.79 \times 10^{7}$ & $5.95 \times 10^{7}$\
I & BHs more massive than 10 M$_\odot$ & $3.79 \times 10^{7}$ & $5.95 \times 10^{7}$\
J & alternative CE: $\gamma=1.5$ & $3.79 \times 10^{7}$ & $5.95 \times 10^{7}$\
\[models\]
[lccccc]{} BH–MS& 13113/4897 & 11444/5422 & 8622/4114 & 4696/2238 & 2941/1338\
BH–HG& 12/2 & 16/5 & 16/3 & 9/6 &10/5\
BH–RG& 0/0 & 0/0 & 0/0 & 1/3 & 3/6\
BH–CHeB& 1193/72 & 945/116& 634/68 & 270/16 & 175/25\
BH–AGB& 25/0 & 16/0 & 19/1 & 10/1 & 14/0\
BH–He& 79/142 & 29/107 & 10/90 & 7/281 & 0/388\
BH–WD& 0/0 & 0/0 & 0/9 & 37/396 & 1106/1163\
BH–NS& 0/62 & 0/370 & 2/793 & 11/999 & 16/967\
BH–BH& 8758/1880 & 9180/2252 & 9179/2257 & 9179/2247 & 9179/2226\
Total in binaries:& 23180 /7055 & 21630/8272 & 18482/7335 & 14220/6187 & 13444/6118\
&&&&&\
Single: binary disruption& 2103/26501 & 3164/46773 & 3798/60129 & 3877/65384 & 3878/66190\
Single: binary merger& 5507/2236 & 7368/5452 & 13429/8342 & 15522/16234 & 15526/16300\
Single progenitor& 60015/16315 & 63030/43360 & 63030/55855 & 63030/55855 & 63030/55855\
Total single:& 67625/45052 & 73562/95585 & 80257/124326 & 82429/137473 & 82434 /138345\
\[std01\]
[lccccc]{} BH–MS& 15616/2394 & 14055/2811 & 10357/2379 & 5382/1552 & 3317/962\
BH–HG& 14/0 & 20/1 & 19/0 & 11/4 & 11/4\
BH–RG& 0/0 & 0/0 & 0/0 & 1/3 & 4/5\
BH–CHeB& 1261/4 & 1057/4 & 697/5 & 284/2 & 187/13\
BH–AGB& 25/0 & 16/0 & 20/0 & 11/0 & 14/0\
BH–He& 204/17 & 123/13 & 86/14 & 117/171 & 45/343\
BH–WD& 0/0 & 0/0 & 0/9 & 274/159 & 1682/587\
BH–NS& 1 /61 & 11/359 & 66/729 & 173/837 & 181/802\
BH–BH& 9787/851 & 10410/1022 & 10415/1021 & 10415/1011 & 10415/990\
Total in binaries:& 26908/3327 & 25692/4210 & 21660/4157 & 16668/3739 & 15856/3706\
&&&&&\
Single: binary disruption& 10775/17829 & 18136/31801& 22195/41732 & 22848/46413 & 22900/47168\
Single: binary merger& 6804/939 & 9906/2914 & 17059/4722 & 20625/11131 & 20630/11196\
Single progenitor& 65230/11100 & 75465/30925 & 75830/42585 & 75830/42585 & 75830/42585\
Total single:& 82809/29868 &103507/65640 & 115084/89039 &119303/100129&119360/100949\
\[std02\]
[lccccc]{} BH–MS& 17163/847 & 15857/1009 & 11794/942 & 6178/756 & 3722/557\
BH–HG& 14/0 & 21/0 & 19/0 & 15/0 & 12 /3\
BH–RG& 0/0 & 0/0 & 0/0 & 2/2 & 7/2\
BH–CHeB& 1265/0 & 1061/0& 702/0 & 286/0 & 190/10\
BH–AGB& 25/0 & 16/0 & 20/0 & 11/0 & 14/0\
BH–He& 215/6 & 131/5 & 97/3 & 252/36 & 222/166\
BH–WD& 0/0 & 0/0 & 1/8 & 388/45 & 2141/128\
BH–NS& 3/59 & 74/296 & 295/500 & 493/517 & 500/483\
BH–BH& 10224/414& 10933/499 & 10942/494 & 10942/484 & 10939/466\
Total in binaries:& 28909/1326 & 28093/1809 & 23870/1947 & 18567/1840& 17747/1815\
&&&&&\
Single: binary disruption& 16165/12439 & 27776/22161 & 34536/29391 & 35981/33260 & 36155/33913\
Single: binary merger& 7244/499 & 11091/1729 &18979/2802 & 24237/7519 & 24251/7575\
Single progenitor& 68465/7865 & 84455/21935 &86245/32170 &86245/32170 & 86245/32170\
Total single:& 91874/20803 &123322/45825 &139760/64363 &146463/72949 &146651/73658\
\[std03\]
[lccccc]{} BH–MS& 17948/62 & 16780/86 & 12648/88 & 6845/89 & 4192/87\
BH–HG& 14/0 & 21/0 & 19/0 & 15/0 & 14 /1\
BH–RG& 0/0 & 0/0 & 0/0 & 4/0 & 9/0\
BH–CHeB& 1265/0 & 1061/0& 702/0 & 286/0 & 200/0\
BH–AGB& 25/0 & 16/0 & 20/0 & 11/0 & 14/0\
BH–He& 221/0 & 136/0 & 100/0 & 288/0 & 388/0\
BH–WD& 0/0 & 0/0 & 8/1 & 432/1 & 2266/3\
BH–NS& 54/8 & 339/31 & 755/40 & 979/31 & 960/23\
BH–BH& 10621/17& 11400/32 & 11406/30 & 11399/27 & 11382/23\
Total in binaries:& 30148/87 & 29753/149 & 25658/159 & 20259/148 & 19425/137\
&&&&&\
Single: binary disruption& 25364/3240 & 43111/6826 & 53392/10535 & 56379/12882 & 56789/13279\
Single: binary merger& 7703/40 & 12433/387 & 21100/681 & 28682/3074 & 28739/3087\
Single progenitor& 74140/2190 & 98615/7775 & 104050/14365 & 104050/14365 & 104050/14365\
Total single:& 107207/5470 &154159/14988 & 178542/25581 & 189111/30321 & 189578/30731\
\[std04\]
[lccc]{} A: 10 $km s^{-1}$ & .53 & .40 & .27\
A: 50 $km s^{-1}$ & .64 & .56 & .49\
A: 100 $km s^{-1}$ & .73 & .69 & .64\
A: 300 $km s^{-1}$ & .88 & .87 & .86\
& & &\
B: 50 $km s^{-1}$ & .64 & .64 & .63\
C1: 50 $km s^{-1}$ & .74 & .64 & .54\
C2: 50 $km s^{-1}$ & .42 & .49 & .56\
D: 50 $km s^{-1}$ & .64 & .59 & .54\
E: 50 $km s^{-1}$ & .02 & .16 & .29\
F: 50 $km s^{-1}$ & .61 & .54 & .46\
G1: 50 $km s^{-1}$ & .56 & .50 & .43\
G2: 50 $km s^{-1}$ & .63 & .55 & .47\
H: 50 $km s^{-1}$ & .52 & .47 & .42\
I: 50 $km s^{-1}$ & .81 & .73 & .63\
J: 50 $km s^{-1}$ & .64 & .56 & .49\
\[frac01\]
[lcccccc]{} Binaries:&&&&& &\
BH–MS& 14055/2811 & 30786/2331 & 23471/2489 & 2702/62 & 12147/730 & 1030/2342\
BH–HG& 20/1 & 0/0 & 43/0 & 3/0 & 23/0 & 2/0\
BH–RG& 0/0 & 0/0 & 0/0 & 0/0 & 0/0 & 0/0\
BH–CHeB& 1057/4 & 11/0 & 1624/7 & 179/0 & 943/0 & 51/ 6\
BH–AGB& 16/0 & 0/0 & 19/0 & 5/0 & 14/0 & 0/0\
BH–He& 123/13 & 0/0 & 365/3 & 84/0 & 37/ 0 & 53/7\
BH–WD& 0/0 & 0/0 & 0/0 & 0/0 & 0/0 & 0/0\
BH–NS& 11/359 & 0/3 & 41/630 & 67/30 & 11/127 & 0/192\
BH–BH& 10410/1022 & 24/3 & 22120/1121 & 4098/21 & 10149/1401 & 43/272\
Total:& 25692/4210 & 30821/2337 & 47683/4250 & 7138/113 & 23324/2258 & 1179/2819\
&&&&& &\
Single:&&&&& &\
binary disruption& 18136/31801& 5067/14023 & 7317/16957 &27101/30609 & 17544/23045 &15978/75191\
binary merger& 9906 /2914 &5270 /1881 & 8246/2243 & 9423 /1654 & 10232/2123 & 8412 /2732\
Single progenitor& 75465/30925 & 75465/30925& 97745/17350 &42580/59425 &75465/30925& 1820/105340\
Total:& 103507 /65640 & 85802/46829& 113308/36550 &79104/91688 &103241/56093 &26210/183263\
&&&&&&\
&&&&& &\
Type& F & G1 & G2 & H & I & J\
&&&&& &\
Binaries:&&&&& &\
BH–MS& 8046/1682 & 10925/2721 & 14692/2921 & 14203/4110 & 11346/9 & 13960/983\
BH–HG& 10/0 & 24/0 & 32/1 & 20/1 & 17/0 & 11/0\
BH–RG& 0/0 & 0/0 & 0/0 & 0/0 & 0/0 & 0/0\
BH–CHeB& 594/6 & 747/6 &1056/6 & 1089/4 & 919/0 & 1061/0\
BH–AGB& 7/0 &14/0 & 12/0 & 16/0 & 16/0 & 23/0\
BH–He& 87/5 & 105/8 & 128/13 & 126/19 & 19/0 & 86/3\
BH–WD& 0/0 & 0/0 & 0/0 & 0/0 & 0/0 & 0/0\
BH–NS& 0/207 & 4/324 & 7/404 & 1/75 & 0/ 0 & 9/265\
BH–BH& 4858/552 & 2885/634 & 8719/1024 & 10420/1353 &10085/477& 10568/927\
Total:& 13602/2452 & 14704/3693 &24646 /4369 & 25875/5562 &22402/486 &25718 /2178\
&&&&& &\
Single:&&&&& &\
binary disruption&10272/18773&14656/27049& 19631/34003 & 18582/36967&10343/11915 & 20599/36724\
binary merger& 4325/1233 & 3132/1728 &7816 /2625 & 10413/3329 & 8720/1151 & 8823 /1592\
Single progenitor&43870/19615&54695/30545& 71515/31090 & 75465/30925 & 68845/16640& 75465/30925\
Total:& 58467/39621 &72483/59322 &98962 /67718 & 104460/71221 & 87908/29706&104887/69241\
\[parm01\]
[lcccccccccccc]{} Binaries:&&&&& &\
BH–MS& 3317/962 &30116/2261 & 5448/774 & 816/45 & 3039/98 & 72/789\
BH–HG& 11/4 & 6/1 & 26/4 & 1/1 & 4/1 & 0/9\
BH–RG& 4/5 & 1/0 & 0/2 & 0/0 & 0/0 & 0/2\
BH–CHeB& 187/13 & 43/1 & 285/4 & 59/0 & 156/5 & 2/13\
BH–AGB& 14/0 & 4/0 & 24/0 & 0/0 & 11/0 & 0/0\
BH–He& 45/343 & 11/29 & 203/292 & 3/3 & 59/226 & 17/259\
BH–WD& 1682/587 & 235/36 & 3119/623 & 491/7 & 1431/139 & 201/506\
BH–NS& 181/802 & 5/7 & 651/1498 &113 /48 & 95/236 & 45/415\
BH–BH& 10415/990 & 24/3 & 22068/974 & 4097/20 &10146/970 & 44/266\
Total:& 15856/3706 & 30445/2338 & 31824/4171 & 5580/124 &14941/1675 & 381/2259\
&&&&& &\
Single:&&&&& &\
binary disruption& 22900/47168& 5509/18263 & 12414/39071 &29358/33357 &22179/37215&19871/83178\
binary merger& 20530/11096& 11740/6853 & 18390/10512 &20127/10275 &27122/15666& 19417/10535\
Single progenitor& 75830/42585& 75830/42585 & 92325/32465 &42580/59425 &75830/42585& 2010/117555\
Total:& 119360/100949& 93079/67701 &123129/82048 & 92065/103057&125131/95466 &41298/221268\
&&&&&&\
&&&&& &\
Type& F & G1 & G2 & H & I & J\
&&&&& &\
Binaries:&&&&& &\
BH–MS& 1890/578 & 2522/938 & 3483/979 & 3319/1482 & 2952/8 & 3493/622\
BH–HG& 1/6 &2 / 9 & 3/11 &11/5 &10/0 & 7/2\
BH–RG& 0/4 & 1/4 & 0/5 & 4/6 & 3/0 & 2/0\
BH–CHeB& 103/8 &127/5 & 173/14 & 187/13 & 181/2 & 188/8\
BH–AGB& 8/0 &10/0 & 12/0 & 14/0 & 14/0 & 11/0\
BH–He& 32/215 & 38/325 & 63/362 & 45/378 & 1/27 & 18/50\
BH–WD& 961/308 & 1401/560 & 1879/577 & 1743/629 & 1094/9 & 1609/199\
BH–NS& 87 /502 & 132/738 & 185/929 & 165/755 & 40/21 & 129/718\
BH–BH& 4866/537 & 2898/613 & 8732/1000 & 10441/1434 & 10103/502 & 10578/896\
Total:& 7948/2158 &7131 /3192 & 14530/3877 & 15929/4702 & 14398/569 & 16035/2495\
&&&&& &\
Single:&&&&& &\
binary disruption&13547/28403& 19435/40297 & 24946/50147 & 28917/72295&12821/20559 & 25774/52599\
binary merger& 11225/7522 & 13100/9913 & 18325/11120 & 21892/13710 & 16923/4345 & 16475/6738\
Single progenitor&44115/28245& 55075/42620 & 71870/42440 & 76280/70605 & 68845/16640& 75830/42585\
Total:& 68887/64170 & 87610/92830 &115141/103707&127089/156610& 98589/41544&118079/101922\
\[parm02\]
![ The trajectory of the newly born compact object in the system connected with the companion. For details see §2.3. []{data-label="fig02"}](f1.ps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![ Spatial velocities of black holes at $t=8.7\,$Myr after the starburst. Overall distributions (all, single, binary BHs) are shown in the top panel. Middle panel shows various binary BH systems, while bottom panel shows the single BH populations. Note generally higher systemic speeds for single BHs. All curves are normalized to the total number of BHs at a given time (the distributions show $\,dN/\,d\log V_{\rm BH}$). The no-kick BHs (direct formation) are contained in the left rectangular area. The area of the rectangle illustrates the relative numbers of no-kick and high-velocity systems.[]{data-label="t1vel"}](f2.ps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![ Spatial velocities of black holes at $t=103.8\,$Myr after the starburst. Lines same as for Fig. \[t1vel\]. []{data-label="t5vel"}](f3.ps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![Retained fraction (cluster population) of BHs as a function of $V_{esc}$ for our standard model at $t=103.8\,$Myr. Top panel shows overall population with contributions of single and binary BHs. Middle and bottom panels show various subpopulations of binary and single BHs, respectively. All curves are normalized to total number of BHs (single and binaries) formed in the standard model simulation. []{data-label="retained.all"}](f4.ps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![ Period distribution of BH binaries retained in/ejected from cluster with $V_{\rm esc}=50$ km s$^{-1}$ at $11\,$Myr for standard model. Two major contributing system types are shown separately: BH–MS binaries (dashed line) and BH–BH binaries (dotted line). All curves are normalized to total number of BHs (single and binaries). The distributions show $\,dN/\,d\log P_{\rm orb}$. Note the different vertical scale on the panels. []{data-label="A.50.per"}](f5.ps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![ Mass distribution of BHs retained in/ejected from cluster with $V_{\rm esc}=50$ km s$^{-1}$ at $11\,$Myr for standard model. Overall distribution is shown with a solid line, while single BHs are shown with a dotted line and BHs in binaries with a dashed line. All curves are normalized to total number of BHs (single and binaries). []{data-label="A.50.mass.all"}](f6.ps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![ Mass distributions of various kinds of single BHs retained in/ejected from cluster with $V_{\rm esc}=50$ km s$^{-1}$ at $11\,$Myr for standard model. The dotted line shows BHs originating from primordial single stars; the dashed line represents single BHs from disrupted binaries; the solid line is for single BHs that are remnants of merged binaries. All curves are normalized to total number of BHs (single and binaries). Note that, in contrast to Fig. \[A.50.mass.all\], a logarithmic scale is used and the entire range of BH masses is shown. []{data-label="A.50.mass.sin"}](f7.ps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![ Same as Fig. \[A.50.mass.sin\] but for model in which the merger mass is calculated from the total mass of two merging binary components. See §3.1.3 for details. []{data-label="A.50.fullmass.sin"}](f8.ps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![ Period distribution of BH binaries retained in/ejected from cluster with $V_{\rm esc}=50$ km s$^{-1}$ at $11\,$Myr for models A – E. Notations are the same as in Fig. \[A.50.per\]. []{data-label="mod.per1"}](f9.ps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![ Period distribution of BH binaries retained in/ejected from cluster with $V_{\rm esc}=50$ km s$^{-1}$ at $11\,$Myr for models F – J. Notations are the same as in Fig. \[A.50.per\]. []{data-label="mod.per2"}](f10.ps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![ Mass distribution of BHs retained in/ejected from cluster with $V_{\rm esc}=50$ km s$^{-1}$ at $11\,$Myr for models A – E. Notations are the same as in Fig. \[A.50.mass.all\]. []{data-label="mod.mas.all1"}](f11.ps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![ Mass distribution of BHs retained in/ejected from cluster with $V_{\rm esc}=50$ km s$^{-1}$ at $11\,$Myr for models F – J. Notations are the same as in Fig. \[A.50.mass.all\]. []{data-label="mod.mas.all2"}](f12.ps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![ Mass distributions of various kinds of single BHs retained in/ejected from cluster with $V_{\rm esc}=50$ km s$^{-1}$ at $11\,$Myr for models A – E. Notations are the same as in Fig. \[A.50.mass.sin\]. []{data-label="mod.mas.sin1"}](f13.ps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![ Mass distributions of various kinds of single BHs retained in/ejected from cluster with $V_{\rm esc}=50$ km s$^{-1}$ at $11\,$Myr for models F – J. Notations are the same as in Fig. \[A.50.mass.sin\]. []{data-label="mod.mas.sin2"}](f14.ps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![ Spatial velocities of black holes at $t=8.7\,$Myr after the starburst for Model E. Lines same as for Fig. \[t1vel\]. Note absence of the no-kick BHs (cf. Fig. \[t1vel\]). []{data-label="t1velE"}](f15.ps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![ Spatial velocities of black holes at $t=103.8\,$Myr after the starburst for Model E. Lines same as for Fig. \[t1vel\]. Note absence of the no-kick BHs (cf. Fig. \[t1vel\]). []{data-label="t5velE"}](f16.ps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![Retained fraction (cluster population) of BHs as a function of $V_{esc}$ for model E and $t=103.8\,$Myr. Line styles are the same as for Fig. \[retained.all\]. All curves are normalized to the total number of BHs (single and binaries) formed in the standard model simulation. Note that the fraction showing all BHs does not reach unity, since there is still a small number of BHs with velocities over 1000 km s$^{-1}$. []{data-label="retained.allE"}](f17.ps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
[^1]: The only exception is that we take into account implicitly the likely mass segregation of massive stars into the cluster core. See §2.3.
[^2]: The number of single BHs formed out of binary systems may be inferred by comparing the numbers of binary BHs with the single BHs listed under “binary disruption” and “binary mergers” in Tables \[std01\]–\[std04\], \[parm01\] and \[parm02\]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- '[*Yann Brenier*]{}[^1]'
title: HIDDEN CONVEXITY IN SOME NONLINEAR PDEs FROM GEOMETRY AND PHYSICS
---
Introduction
============
There is a prejudice among some specialists of non linear partial differential equations and differential geometry: convex analysis is an elegant theory but too rigid to address some of the most interesting and challenging problems in their field. Convex analysis is mostly attached to elliptic and parabolic equations of variational origin, for which a suitable convex potential can be exhibited and shown to be minimized (either statically or dynamically). The Dirichlet principle for linear elliptic equation is archetypal.\
Hyperbolic PDEs, for example, seem to be inaccessible to convex analysis, since they are usually derived from variational principles that are definitely not convex. (However, convexity plays an important role in the so-called entropy conditions.) Also, elliptic systems with variational formulations (such as in elasticity theory) often involve structural conditions quite far from convexity (such as Hadamard’s “rank one” conditions). (However, convexity can be often restored, for example through the concept of polyconvexity [@Ba], or by various kinds of “relaxation” methods [@Yo; @ABM].) The purpose of the present paper is to show few examples of nonlinear PDEs (mostly with strong geometric features) for which there is a hidden convex structure. This is not only a matter of curiosity. Once the convex structure is unrevealed, robust existence and uniqueness results can be unexpectedly obtained for very general data. Of course, as usual, regularity issues are left over as a hard post-process, but, at least, existence and uniqueness results are obtained in a large framework. The paper will address:
1. [THE MONGE-AMPERE EQUATION]{}\
(solving the Minkowski problem and strongly related to the so-called optimal transport theory since the 1990’s)
2. [THE EULER EQUATION]{}\
(describing the motion of inviscid and incompressible fluids, interpreted by Arnold as geodesic curves on infinite dimensional groups of volume preserving diffeomorphisms)
3. [THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL HYPERBOLIC SCALAR CONSERVATION LAWS]{} (a simplified model for multidimensional systems of hyperbolic conservation laws)
4. [THE BORN-INFELD SYSTEM]{}\
(a non-linear electromagnetic model introduced in 1934, playing an important role in high energy Physics since the 1990’s)
Finally, let us mention that we borrowed the expression “hidden convexity” from a lecture by L.C. Evans about various models where the same phenomena occur (such as growing sandpiles [@AEW] and weak KAM theory).
Monge-Ampère equation and optimal transportation maps
=====================================================
Given two positive functions $\alpha$ and $\beta$ of same integral over $\bf{R^d}$, we look for a convex solution $\Phi$ of the the Monge-Ampère equation: $$\label{monge ampere}
\beta(\nabla\Phi(x))det(D^2\Phi(x))=\alpha(x),\;\;x\in R^d.$$ This nonlinear PDE is usually related to the Minkowski problem, which amounts to find hypersurfaces of prescribed Gaussian curvature.
A weak formulation
------------------
Assuming $a$ $priori$ that $x\in R^d\rightarrow \nabla\Phi(x)$ is a diffeomorphism (with a jacobian matrix $D^2\Phi(x)$ everywhere symmetric positive), we immediately see, using the change of variable $y=\nabla\Phi(x)$, that (\[monge ampere\]) is equivalent to the following “weak formulation”: $$\label{weak monge ampere}
\int f(y)\beta(y)dy=\int f(\nabla\Phi(x)))\alpha(x)dx$$ for all suitable test function $f$ on $R^d$. In the words of measure theory, this just means that $\beta(y)dy$ as a Borel measure on $R^d$ is the image of the measure $\alpha(x)dx$ by the map $x\rightarrow \nabla\Phi(x)$. Notice that such a weak formulation has nothing to do with the usual definition of weak solutions in the sense of distribution (that does not make sense for a fully non-linear equation such as (\[monge ampere\])). It is also weaker than the concept of “viscosity solution”, as discussed in [@Ca].
A convex variational principle
------------------------------
\[minimization\] Let us consider all smooth convex functions $\Psi$ on $R^d$ with a smooth Legendre-Fenchel transform $$\label{legendre}
\Psi^*(y)=\sup_{x\in R^d}x\cdot y -\Psi(x).$$ Then, in this family, a solution $\Phi$ to the Monge-Ampère equation (\[monge ampere\]) is a minimizer of the convex functional $$\label{functional}
J[\Psi]=
\int \Psi(x)\alpha(x)dx+\int \Psi^*(y)\beta(y)dy.$$
### Proof {#proof .unnumbered}
For any suitable convex function $\Psi$, we have: $$J[\Psi]=\int \Psi(x)\alpha(x)dx+\int \Psi^*(y)\beta(y)dy
=\int (\Psi(x)+\Psi^*(\nabla\Phi(x)))\alpha(x)dx$$ (since $\nabla\Phi$ transports $\alpha$ toward $\beta$) $${\ge \int x\cdot\nabla\Phi(x)\alpha(x)dx}$$ (by definition of the Legendre transform (\[legendre\])) $$= \int (\Phi(x)+\Phi^*(\nabla\Phi(x)))\alpha(x)dx$$ (indeed, in the definition of ${\Phi^*(y)=\sup \;\;x\cdot y -\Phi(x)}$, the supremum is achieved whenever ${y=\nabla\Phi(x)}$, which implies ${\Phi^*(\nabla\Phi(x))=x\cdot\nabla\Phi(x)-\Phi(x)}$) $$=\int \Phi(x)\alpha(x)dx+\int \Phi^*(y)\beta(y)dy=J[\Phi],$$ which shows that, indeed, $\Phi$ is a minimizer for (\[functional\]))
Existence and uniqueness for the weak Monge-Ampère problem
----------------------------------------------------------
Based on the previous observation, using the tools of convex analysis, one can solve the Monge-Ampère problem in its weak formulation, for a quite large class of data, with both existence and uniqueness of a solution:
\[OT\] Whenever ${\alpha}$ and ${\beta}$ are nonnegative Lebesgue integrable functions on $R^d$, with same integral, and bounded second order moments, $${\int |x|^2\alpha(x)dx<+\infty,\;\;\;\int |y|^2\beta(y)dy<+\infty,}$$ there is a unique $L^2$ map $T$ with convex potential $ T=\nabla\Phi$ that solves the Monge-Ampère problem in its weak formulation (\[weak monge ampere\]), for all continuous function $f$ such that: $|f(x)|\le 1+ |x|^2$.\
This map is called the optimal transport map between $\alpha(x)dx$ and $\beta(y)dy$.
By map with convex potential, we exactly means a Borel map $T$ with the following property: there is a lsc convex function $\Phi$ defined on $R^d$, valued in $]-\infty,+\infty]$, such that, for $\alpha(x)dx$ almost everywhere $x\in R^d$, $\Phi$ is differentiable at $x$ and $\nabla\Phi(x)=T(x)$.
### Comments {#comments .unnumbered}
The usual proof [@Br3; @SK; @RR; @Br5] is based on the duality method introduced by Kantorovich to solve the so-called Monge-Kantorovich problem, based on the concept of joint measure (or coupling measure) [@Ka]. However a direct proof is possible, as observed by Gangbo [@Ga]. This theorem can be seen as the starting point of the so-called “optimal transport theory” which has turned out to be a very important and active field of research in the recent years, with a lot of interactions between calculus of variations, convex analysis, differential geometry, PDEs, functional analysis and probability theory and several applications outside of mathematics (see [@Vi] for a review). A typical (and striking) application to the isoperimetric inequality is given in the appendix of the present paper.
The Euler equations
====================
Geometric definition of the Euler equations
--------------------------------------------
The Euler equations were introduced in 1755 [@Eu] to describe the motion of inviscid fluids. In the special case of an incompressible fluid moving inside a bounded convex domain $D$ in $R^d$, a natural configuration space is the set $SDiff(D)$ of all orientation and volume preserving diffeomorphisms of $D$. Then, a solution of the Euler equations can be defined as a curve $t\rightarrow g_t$ along $SDiff(D)$ subject to: $$\label{euler}
\frac{d^2 g_t}{dt^2}\circ g_t^{-1}+\nabla p_t=0,$$ where $p_t$ is a time dependent scalar field defined on $D$ (called the ’pressure field’).\
As shown by Arnold [@AK; @EM], these equations have a very simple geometric interpretation. Indeed, $g_t$ is just a geodesic curve (with constant speed) along $SDiff(D)$, with respect to the $L^2$ metric inherited from the Euclidean space $L^2(D,R^d)$, and $-\nabla p_t$ is the acceleration term, taking into account the curvature of $SDiff(D)$. From this interpretation in terms of geodesics, we immediately deduce a variational principle for the Euler equations. However, this principle cannot be convex due to the non convexity of the configuration space. (Observe that $SDiff(D)$ is contained in a sphere of the space $L^2(D,R^d)$ and cannot be convex, except in the trivial case $d=1$ where it reduces to the identity map.)
A concave maximization principle for the pressure
-------------------------------------------------
Surprisingly enough, the pressure field obeys (at least on short time intervals) a concave maximization principle. More precisely,
\[pressure maximization\] Let $(g_t,p_t)$ a smooth solution to the Euler equations (\[euler\]) on a time interval $[t_0,t_1]$ small enough so that $$\label{smallness}
(t_1-t_0)^2 D^2 p_t(x)\le \pi^2, \;\;\;\forall x\in D$$ (in the sense of symmetric matrices). Then $p_t$ is a maximizer of the $CONCAVE$ functional $$\label{functional2}
q\;\;\Rightarrow \;\;\int_{t_0}^{t_1}\int_D q_t(x)dtdx
+\int_D J_q[g_{t_0}(x),g_{t_1}(x)]dx,$$ among all $t$ dependent scalar field $q_t$ defined on $D$. Here $$\label{subfunctional}
J_q[x,y]=\inf \int_{t_0}^{t_1}
(-q_t(z(t))+\frac{|z'(t)|^2}{2})dt,$$ where the infimum is taken over all curves ${t\rightarrow z(t)\in D}$ such that ${z(t_0)=x\in D}$, ${z(t_1)=y\in D}$, is defined for all pair of points $(x,y)$ in $D$.
### Proof {#proof-1 .unnumbered}
The proof is very elementary and does not essentially differ from the one we used for the Monge-Ampère equation in the previous section (which is somewhat surprising since the Euler equations and the MA equation look quite different). The main difference is the smallness condition we need on the size of the time interval. Let us consider a time dependent scalar field $q_t$ defined on $D$. By definition of ${J_q}$: $$\int_D J_q[g_{t_0}(x),g_{t_1}(x)]dx
\le \int_{t_0}^{t_1}\int_D
(\frac{1}{2}|\frac{dg_t}{dt}|^2-q_t(g_t(x)))dtdx.$$ Using a standard variational argument, we see that, under the smallness condition (\[smallness\]), the Euler equation (\[euler\]) asserts that, for all $x\in D$ $$J_p[g_{t_0}(x),g_{t_1}(x)]
=\int _{t_0}^{t_1}
(\frac{1}{2}|\frac{dg_t}{dt}|^2-p_t(g_t(x)))dt.$$ Integrating in $x\in D$, we get: $$\int_D J_p[g_{t_0}(x),g_{t_1}(x)]dx
= \int_{t_0}^{t_1}\int_D
(\frac{1}{2}|\frac{dg_t}{dt}|^2-p_t(g_t(x)))dtdx.$$ Since $g_t\in SDiff(D)$ is volume preserving, we have: $$\int_D (q_t(x)-q_t(g_t(x))dx=\int_D (p_t(x)-p_t(g_t(x))dx=0.$$ Finally, $$\int_{t_0}^{t_1}\int_D q_t(x)dtdx
+\int_D J_q[g_{t_0}(x),g_{t_1}(x)]dx$$ $$\le
\int_{t_0}^{t_1}\int_D p_t(x)dtdx
+\int_D J_p[g_{t_0}(x),g_{t_1}(x)]dx$$ which shows that, indeed, $(p_t)$ is a maximizer.
Global convex analysis of the Euler equations
-----------------------------------------------
The maximization principle is the starting point for a global analysis of the Euler equations. Of course, there is no attempt here to solve the Cauchy problem in the large for $d\ge 3$, which is one of the most outstanding problems in nonlinear PDEs theory. (This would more or less amount to prove the geodesic completeness of $SDiff(D)$.) We rather address the existence of minimizing geodesics between arbitrarily given points of the configuration space $SDiff(D)$. This problem may have no classical solution, as shown by Shnirelman [@Sh1]. Combining various contributions by Shnirelman, Ambrosio-Figalli and the author [@Br4; @Sh2; @Br6; @AF], we get the global existence and uniqueness result:
\[euler global\] Let $g_0$ and $g_1$ be given volume preserving Borel maps of $D$ (not necessarily diffeomorphisms) and $t_0<t_1$. Then\
1) There is a ${unique}$ $t$ dependent pressure field $p_t$, with zero mean on $D$, that solves (in a suitable weak sense) the maximization problem stated in Theorem \[pressure maximization\]\
2) There is a sequence ${{g^n_t}}$ valued in SDiff(D) such that $${\frac{d^2 g^n_t}{dt^2}\circ (g_t^n)^{-1}+\nabla p_t\rightarrow 0,}$$ in the sense of distributions and ${g^n_0\rightarrow g_0,\;\;\;g^n_1\rightarrow g_1}$ in ${{L^2}}$.\
3) Any sequence of approximate minimizing geodesics $(g^n_t)$ (in a suitable sense) betwween $g_0$ and $g_1$ has the previous behaviour.\
4) The pressure field is well defined in the space $L^2(]t_0,t_1[,BV_{loc}(D))$.
Of course, these results are not as straightforward as Theorem \[pressure maximization\] and requires a lot of technicalities (generalized flows, etc...). However, they still rely on convex analysis which is very surprising in this infinite dimensional differential geometric setting. Notice that the uniqueness result is also surprising. Indeed, between two given points, minimizing geodesics are not necessarily unique (as can be easily checked). However the corresponding acceleration field $-\nabla p_t$ is unique! It is unlikely that such a property could be proven using classical differential geometric tools. It is probably an output of the hidden convex structure. Let us finally notice that the improved regularity obtained by Ambrosio and Figalli [@AF] (they show that $p$ belongs to $L^2(]t_0,t_1[,BV_{loc}(D))$ instead of $\nabla p$ a locally bounded measure, as previously obtained in [@Br6]) is just sufficient to give a full meaning to the maximization problem. (A different formulation, involving a kind of Kantorovich duality is used in [@Br4; @Br6] and requires less regularity.)
Convex formulation of multidimensional scalar conservation laws
================================================================
Hyperbolic systems of conservation laws
---------------------------------------
The general form of multidimensional nonlinear conservation laws is: $$\partial_t u_t+\sum_{i=1}^d \partial_i (F_i(u_t))=0,$$ where $u_t(x)\in V\subset R^m$ is a time dependent vector-valued field defined on a $d-$ dimensional manifold (say the flat torus $T^d=R^d/Z^d$ for simplicity) and each $F_i:V\subset R^m\rightarrow R^m$ is a given nonlinear function. This general form includes systems of paramount importance in Mechanics and Physics, such as the gas dynamics and the Magnetohydrodynamics equations, for example. A simple necessary (and nearly sufficient) condition for the Cauchy problem to be well-posed for short times is the hyperbolicity condition which requires, for all $\xi\in R^d$ and all $v\in V$ the $m\times m$ real matric $$\sum_{i=1}^d \xi_i F_i'(v)$$ to be diagonalizable with real eigenvalues. For many systems of physical origin, with a variational origin, there is an additional conservation law: $$\label{entropy system}
\partial_t (U(u_t))+\sum_{i=1}^d \partial_i (G_i(u_t))=0,$$ where $U$ and $G_i$ are scalar functions (depending on $F$). (This usually follows from Noether’s invariance theorem.) Whenever, $U$ is a strictly convex function, the system automatically gets hyperbolic. For most hyperbolic systems, solutions are expected to become discontinuous in finite time, even for smooth initial conditions. There is no theory available to solve the initial value problem in the large (see [@Da] for a modern review), except in two extreme situations. First, for a single space variable ($d=1$) and small initial conditions (in total variation), global existence and uniqueness of “entropy solutions” have been established through the celebrated results of J. Glimm (existence) and A. Bressan and collaborators (well posedness) [@Gl; @BB]. (Note that some special systems can also be treated with the help of compensated compactness methods [@Ta], without restriction on the size of the initial conditions.) Next, in the multidimensional case, global existence and uniqueness of ’entropy solutions’ have been obtained by Kruzhkov [@Kr] in the case of a single (scalar) conservation law ($m=1$).
\[kruzhkov\] (Kruzhkov)\
Assume $F$ to be Lipschitz continuous. Then, for all $u_0\in L^1(T^d)$, there is a unique $(u_t)$, in the space $C^0(R_+,L^1(T^d))$ with initial value $u_0$, such that:\
$$\label{scalar}
\partial_t u_t+\nabla \cdot (F(u_t))=0,$$ is satisfied in the distributional sense and,\
for all Lipschitz convex function $U$ defined on $R$, the “entropy” inequality $$\label{entropy}
\partial_t (U(u_t))+\nabla \cdot (Z(u_t))\le 0,$$ holds true in the distributional sense, where $$Z(v)=\int_0^v F'(w)U'(w)dw.$$ In addition, for all pair of such “entropy” solutions $(u,\tilde u)$, $$\label{contraction}
\int_{T^d} |u_t(x)-\tilde u_t(x)|\;dx\;\le\;\int_{T^d} |u_s(x)-\tilde u_s(x)|\;dx,
\;\;\;\forall t\ge s\ge 0.$$
This result is often quoted as a typical example of maximal monotone operator theory in $L^1$. (For the concept of maximal monotone operator, we refer to [@Brz; @ABM].) The use of the non hilbertian space $L^1$ is crucial. Indeed (except in the trivial linear case $F(v)=v$), the entropy solutions do not depend on their initial values in a Lipschitz continuous way in any space $L^p$ except fot $p=1$. This is due to the fact that, even for a smooth initial condition, the corresponding entropy solution $u_t$ may become discontinuous for some $t>0$ and, therefore, cannot belong to any Sobolev space $W^{1,p}(T^d)$ for $p>1$.
A purely convex formulation of multidimensional scalar conservation laws
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly, convexity is already involved in Kruzhkov’s formulation (\[scalar\],\[entropy\]) of scalar conservation laws, through the concept of “entropy inequality”. However, a deeper, hidden, convex structure can be exhibited, as observed recently by the author [@Br10]. As a matter of fact, the Kruzhkov entropy solutions can be fully recovered just by solving a rather straightforward convex sudifferential inequality in the Hilbert space $L^2$. For notational simplicity, we limit ourself to the case when the initial condition $u_0$ is valued in the unit interval.
(YB, 2006, [@Br10])\
Assume $u_0(x)$ to be valued in $[0,1]$, for $x\in T^d$. Let $Y_0(x,a)$ be any bounded function of $x\in T^d$ and $a\in [0,1]$, non decreasing in $a$, such that $$\label{expansion0}
u_0(x)=\int_0^1 1\{Y_0(x,a)<0\}da,$$ for instance: $Y_0(a)=a-u_0(x)$. Then, the unique Kruzhkov solution to (\[scalar\]) is given by $$\label{expansion}
u_t(x)=\int_0^1 1\{Y_t(x,a)<0\}da,$$ where $Y_t$ solves the convex subdifferential inequality in $L^2(T^d\times [0,1])$: $$\label{master}
0\; \epsilon \;\partial_t Y_t+F'(a)\cdot\nabla_x Y_t+\partial \eta[Y_t],$$ where $\eta[Y]=0$ if $\partial_a Y\ge 0$, and $\eta[Y]=+\infty$ otherwise.
Observe that $Y\rightarrow F'(a)\cdot\nabla_x Y+\partial \eta[Y]$ defines a maximal monotone operator and generates a semi-group of contractions in $L^2(T^d\times [0,1])$ [@Brz].
### Sketch of proof {#sketch-of-proof .unnumbered}
Multidimensional scalar conservation laws enjoy a comparison principle (this is why they are so simple with respect to general systems of conservation laws). In other words, if a family of initial conditions $u_0(x,y)$ is non decreasing with respect to a real parameter $y$, the corresponding Kruzhkov solutions $u_t(x,y)$ will satisfy the same property. This key observation enables us to use a kind of level set method, in the spirit of Sethian and Osher [@OS; @OF], and even more closely, in the spirit of the paper by Tsai, Giga and Osher [@TGO]. Assume, for a while, that $u_t(x,y)$ is $a$ $priori$ smooth and strictly increasing with respect to $y$. Thus, we can write $$u_t(x,Y_t(x,a))=a,\;\;\;Y_t(x,u_t(x,y))=y$$ where $Y_t(x,a)$ is smooth and strictly increasing in $a\in [0,1]$. Then, a straightforward calculation shows that $Y$ must solve the simple linear equation $$\label{linear}
\partial_t Y_t+F'(a)\cdot\nabla_x Y_t=0$$ (which has $Y_t(x,a)=Y_0(x-tF'(a),a)$ as exact solution). Unfortunately, this linear equation is not able to preserve the monotonicity condition $\partial_a Y\ge 0$ in the large. Subdifferential inequality (\[master\]) is, therefore, a natural substitute for it. The remarkable fact is that this rather straighforward modification exactly matches the Kruzhkov entropy inequalities. More precisely, as $Y$ solves (\[master\]) , then $$u_t(x,y)=\int_0^1 1\{Y_t(x,a)<y\}da$$ can be shown to be the right entropy solutions with initial conditions $u_0(x,y)$. For more details, we refer to [@Br10].
### Remark {#remark .unnumbered}
Our approach is reminiscent of both the “kinetic method” and the “level set” method. The kinetic approach amounts to linearize the scalar conservation laws as (\[linear\]) by adding an extra variable (here $a$). This idea (that has obvious roots in the kinetic theory of Maxwell and Boltzmann) was independently introduced for scalar conservation laws by Giga-Miyakawa and the author [@Br1; @Br2; @GM]. Using this approach, Lions, Perthame and Tadmor [@LPT] later introduced the so-called kinetic formulation of scalar conservation laws and, using the averaging lemma of Golse, Perthame and Sentis [@GPS], established the remarkable result that multidimensional scalar conservation laws enjoy a regularizing effect when they are genuinely nonlinear. (In other words, due to shock waves, entropy solutions automatically get a fractional amount of differentiability!). On the other side, the level set method by Osher and Sethian [@OS; @OF] describes functions according to their level sets (here $Y(t,x,a)=y$). This is a very general and powerful approach to all kinds of numerical and analytic issues in pure and applied mathematics. An application of the level set method to scalar conservation laws was made by Tsai, Giga and Osher in [@TGO] and more or less amounts to introduce a viscous (parabolic) approximation of subdifferential inequality (\[master\]). Finally, let us mention that some very special systems of conservation laws can be treated in a similar way [@Br8].
The Born-Infeld system
=======================
Using convential notations of classical electromagnetism, the Born-Infeld system reads: $${{{
{\partial_t B+\nabla\times (\frac{B\times(D\times B)+D}
{\sqrt{1+D^2+B^2+(D\times B)^2}})=0,\;\;\;
\nabla\cdot B=0,}
}}}$$ $${{{
{\partial_t D+\nabla\times (\frac{D\times(D\times B)-B}
{\sqrt{1+D^2+B^2+(D\times B)^2}})=0,\;\;\;
\nabla\cdot D=0,}
}}}$$ This system is a nonlinear correction to the Maxwell equations, which can describe strings and branes in high energy Physics [@Bo; @BI; @BDLL; @Gi]. Concerning the initial value problem, global smooth solutions have been proven to exist for small localized initial conditions by Chae and Huh [@CH] (using Klainerman’s null forms and following a related work by Lindblad [@Li] ). The additional conservation law $${{{
{\partial_t h+\nabla\cdot Q=0,}
}}}$$ where $${{{
{h=\sqrt{1+D^2+B^2+(D\times B)^2},\;\;
Q=D\times B.}
}}}$$ provides an ’entropy function’ ${h}$ which is a convex function of the unknown ${(D,B)}$ only in a neighborhood of $(0,0)$. However, $h$ is clearly a convex function of $B$, $D$, and $B\times D$. Thus, there is a hope to restore convexity by considering $B\times D$ as an independent variable, which will be done subsequently by “augmenting” the Born-Infeld system.
The augmented Born-Infeld (ABI) system
---------------------------------------
Using Noether’s invariance theorem, we get from the BI system $4$ additional (’momentum-energy’ ) conservation laws: $$\label{ABI}
\partial_tQ+
\nabla \cdot (\frac{Q\otimes Q
-B\otimes B-D\otimes D}{h})=\nabla(\frac{1}{h}),\;\;\;\;\;
\partial_t h+\nabla\cdot Q=0.$$ We call augmented Born-Infeld system (ABI) the $10\times 10$ system of equations made of the $6$ original BI evolution equations $$\label{BI}
\partial_t B+\nabla\times (\frac{B\times Q+D}{h})=
\partial_t D+\nabla\times (\frac{D\times Q-B}{h})=0,$$ with the differential constraints $$\label{differential}
\nabla\cdot B=0,\;\;\;\nabla\cdot D=0,$$ together with the 4 additional conservation laws (\[ABI\]) but WITHOUT the algebraic constraints $$\label{manifold}
h=\sqrt{1+D^2+B^2+(D\times B)^2},\;\;
Q=D\times B.$$ These algebraic constraints define a $6$ manifold in the space $(h,Q,D,B)\in R^{10}$ that we call “BI manifold”. We have the following consistency result:
(Y.B., 2004 [@Br7])\
Smooth solutions of the ABI system (\[ABI\],\[BI\],\[differential\]) preserve the BI manifold (\[manifold\]). Therefore, any smooth solution of the original BI system can be seen as a smooth solution to the ABI system (\[ABI\],\[BI\],\[differential\]) with an initial condition valued on the BI manifold.
First appearance of convexity in the ABI system
-----------------------------------------------
Surprisingly enough, the $10\times 10$ augmented ABI system (\[ABI\],\[BI\],\[differential\]) admits an extra conservation law: $$\partial_t U+\nabla\cdot Z=0,$$ where $$U(h,Q,D,B)=\frac{1+D^2+B^2+Q^2}{h}$$ is convex (and $Z$ is a rational function of $h,Q,D,B$). This leads to the [GLOBAL]{} hyperbolicity of the system.\
Notice that the ABI system looks like Magnetohydrodynamics equations and enjoys ${classical}$ Galilean invariance: $$(t,x)\rightarrow (t,x+u\;t),\;\;\;(h,Q,D,B)\rightarrow (h,Q-hu,D,B),$$ for any constant speed ${u\in R^3}$!\
For a large class of nonlinear Maxwell equations, a similar extension can be down (with 9 equations instead of 10) as in [@Se1]. It should be mentioned that a similar method was introduced earlier in the framework of nonlinear elastodynamics with polyconvex energy (see [@Da]).
Second appearance of convexity in the ABI system
------------------------------------------------
The $10\times 10$ ABI (augmented Born-Infeld) system is $linearly$ $degenerate$ [@Da] and stable under weak-\* convergence: weak limits of uniformly bounded sequences in $L^\infty$ of smooth solutions depending on one space variable only are still solutions. (This can be proven by using the Murat-Tartar ’div-curl’ lemma.) Thus, we may conjecture that the convex-hull of the BI manifold is a natural configuration space for the (extended) BI theory. (As a matter of fact, the differential constraints $\nabla\cdot D=\nabla\cdot B=0$ must be carefully taken into account, as pointed out to us by Felix Otto.) The convex hull has full dimension. More precisely, as shown by D. Serre [@Se2], the convexified BI manifold is just defined by the following inequality: $$\label{hull}
h\ge \sqrt{1+D^2+B^2+Q^2+2|D\times B-Q|}.$$\
Observe that, on this convexified BI manifold (\[hull\]):\
1) The electromagnetic field ${(D,B)}$ and the ’density and momentum’ fields ${(h,Q)}$ can be chosen $independently$ of each other, as long as they satisfy the required $inequality$ (\[hull\]). Thus, in some sense, the ABI system describes a coupling between field and matter, original Born-Infeld model is purely electromagnetic.\
2) ’Matter’ may exist without electromagnetic field: ${B=D=0}$, which leads to the Chaplygin gas (a possible model for ’dark energy’ or ’vacuum energy’) $$\partial_tQ+
\nabla \cdot (\frac{Q\otimes Q}{h})=\nabla(\frac{1}{h}),
\;\;\;\;\;
\partial_th+\nabla\cdot Q=0,$$\
3) ’Moderate’ Galilean transforms are allowed $$(t,x)\rightarrow (t,x+U\;t),\;\;\;(h,Q,D,B)\rightarrow (h,Q-hU,D,B),$$ which is impossible on the original BI manifold (consistently with special relativity) but becomes possible under weak completion (see the related discussion on ’subrelativistic’ conditions in [@Br9]).
Appendix: A proof of the isoperimetric inequality using an optimal transport map
================================================================================
In this appendix, we describe a typical and striking application of optimal transport map methods. Let $\Omega$ be a smooth bounded open set and $B_1$ the unit ball in $\bf{R}^d$. The isoperimetric inequality reads (with obvious notations): $${|\Omega|^{1-1/d}|B_1|^{1/d}\le \frac{1}{d}|\partial\Omega|}.$$ Let ${\nabla\Phi}$ the optimal transportation map between $$\alpha(x)=\frac{1}{|\Omega|}1\{x\in \Omega\},\;\;\;
\beta(y)=\frac{1}{|B_1|}1\{x\in B_1\}.$$ In such a situation, according to Caffarelli’s regularity result [@Ca], $\nabla\Phi$ is a diffeomorphism between $\Omega$ and $B_1$ (up to their boundaries) with $C^2$ internal regularity (which is not a trivial fact) and $$det(D^2\Phi(x))=\frac{|B_1|}{|\Omega|}\;,\;\;\;x\in \Omega.$$ holds true in the classical sense. Then the proof (adaptated from Gromov) of the isoperimetric inequality is straightforward and sharp. Indeed, since ${\nabla\Phi}$ maps $\Omega$ to the unit ball, we have: $$|\partial\Omega|=\int_{\partial\Omega}d\sigma(x)
\ge \int_{\partial\Omega} \nabla\Phi(x)\cdot n(x)d\sigma(x)$$ (denoting by $d\sigma$ and $n(x)$ respectively the Hausdorff measure and the unit normal along the boundary of $\Omega$) $$=\int_\Omega \Delta \Phi(x)dx$$ (using Green’s formula) $${
\ge d\int_\Omega (det(D^2\Phi(x))^{1/d}dx}$$ (using that ${(detA)^{1/d}\le 1/d\;\;Trace(A)}$ for any nonnegative symmetric matrix ${A}$) $${=d|\Omega|^{1-1/d}|B_1|^{1/d}}\;\;$$ since $
{\;\;det(D^2\Phi(x))=\frac{|B_1|}{|\Omega|}\;,\;\;\;x\in \Omega.}
$\
So, the isoperimetric inequality $${|\Omega|^{1-1/d}|B_1|^{1/d}\le \frac{1}{d}|\partial\Omega|}$$ follows, with equality $only$ when ${\Omega}$ is a ball, as can be easily checked by tracing back the previous inequalities. Notice that Gromov’s original proof does not require the map $T$ to be optimal (it is enough that its jacobian matrix has positive eigenvalues). However, the optimal map plays a crucial role for various refinements of the isoperimetric inequality (in particular its quantitative versions by Figalli-Maggi-Pratelli [@FMP], for example).
[AF]{} L. Ambrosio, A. Figalli, [*On the regularity of the pressure field of Brenier’s weak solutions to incompressible Euler equations,*]{} [*Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 31 (2008) 497-509.*]{}
V. I. Arnold, B. Khesin, [*Topological methods in Hydrodynamics,*]{} [*Springer Verlag, 1998.*]{}
G. Aronsson, L. Evans, Y. Wu, [*Fast/slow diffusion and growing sandpiles,*]{} [*J. Differential Equations 131 (1996) 304-335.*]{}
H. Attouch, G. Buttazzo, G. Michaille, [*Variational analysis in Sobolev and BV spaces. Applications to PDEs and optimization,*]{} [*MPS/SIAM Series on Optimization, 6. SIAM 2006.*]{}
J. Ball, [*Convexity conditions and existence theorems in nonlinear elasticity,*]{} [*Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 63 (1976/77) 337-403.*]{}
S. Bianchini, A. Bressan, [*Vanishing viscosity solutions of nonlinear hyperbolic systems,*]{} [*Ann. of Math. (2) 161 (2005) 223-342.*]{}
G. Boillat. C. Dafermos, P. Lax, T.P. Liu, [*Recent mathematical methods in nonlinear wave propagation,*]{} [*Lecture Notes in Math., 1640, Springer, Berlin, 1996*]{}
M. Born, [*Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré, 1937.*]{}
M. Born, L. Infeld, [*Foundations of the new field theory,*]{} [*Proc. Roy. Soc. London, A 144 (1934) 425-451.*]{}
Y. Brenier, [*Une application de la symétrisation de Steiner aux équations hyperboliques: la méthode de transport et écroulement,*]{} [*C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Ser. I Math. 292 (1981) 563-566.*]{}
Y. Brenier, [*Résolution d’équations d’évolution quasilinéaires en dimension $N$ d’espace à l’aide d’équations linéaires en dimension $N+1$,*]{} [*J. Differential Equations 50 (1983) 375-390.*]{}
Y. Brenier, [*Décomposition polaire et réarrangement monotone des champs de vecteurs,*]{} [*C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris I Math. 305 (1987) 805-808.*]{}
Y. Brenier, [*The least action principle and the related concept of generalized flows for incompressible perfect fluids,*]{} [*J. Amer. Math. Soc. 2 (1989) 225-255.*]{}
Y. Brenier, [*Polar factorization and monotone rearrangement of vector-valued functions,*]{} [*Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 44 (1991) 375-417.*]{}
Y. Brenier, [*Minimal geodesics on groups of volume-preserving maps,*]{} [*Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 52 (1999) 411-452.*]{}
Y. Brenier, [*Hydrodynamic structure of the augmented Born-Infeld equations*]{}, [*Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 172 (2004) 65-91.*]{}
Y. Brenier, [*Order preserving vibrating strings and applications to electrodynamics and magnetohydrodynamics,*]{} [*Methods Appl. Anal. 11 (2004) 515-532.*]{}
Y. Brenier, [*Non relativistic strings may be approximated by relativistic strings,*]{} [*Methods Appl. Anal. 12 (2005) 153-167.*]{}
Y. Brenier, [*L2 formulation of multidimensional scalar conservation laws,*]{} [*Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., to appear., arXiv:math/0609761*]{}
H. Brezis, [*Opérateurs maximaux monotones et semi-groupes de contractions dans les espaces de Hilbert,*]{} [*North-Holland Mathematics Studies, No. 5. 1973.*]{}
L. Caffarelli, [*Boundary regularity of maps with convex potentials,*]{} [*Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 45 (1992) 1141-1151.*]{}
D. Chae, H.Huh, [*Global existence for small initial data in the Born-Infeld equations*]{}, [*J. Math. Phys. 44 (2003) 6132-6139.*]{}
C. Dafermos, [*Hyperbolic conservation laws in continuum physics,*]{} [*Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2000.*]{}
D. Ebin, J. Marsden, [*Ann. of Math. 92 (1970) 102-163.*]{}
L. Euler, [*Opera Omnia, Series Secunda, 12, 274-361.*]{}
A. Figalli, F. Maggi, A. Pratelli, [*A mass transportation approach to quantitative isoperimetric inequalities,*]{}[*CVGMT preprint, Pisa 2008.*]{}
W. Gangbo, [*An elementary proof of the polar factorization of vector-valued functions,*]{} [*Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 128 (1994) 381-399.*]{}
G.W. Gibbons, [*Aspects of Born-Infeld Theory and String/M-Theory,*]{} [*hep-th/0106059.*]{}
Y. Giga, T. Miyakawa, [*A kinetic construction of global solutions of first order quasilinear equations,*]{} [*Duke Math. J. 50 (1983) 505-515.*]{}
J. Glimm, [*Solutions in the large for nonlinear hyperbolic systems of equations,*]{} [*Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 18 (1965) 697-715.*]{}
F. Golse, B. Perthame, R. Sentis, [*Un résultat de compacité pour les équations de transport,*]{} [*C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris I Math. 301 (1985) 341-344.*]{}
L.V. Kantorovich, [*On a problem of Monge,*]{} [*Uspekhi Mat. Nauk. 3 (1948) 225-226.*]{}
S. N. Kruzhkov, [*First order quasilinear equations with several independent variables,*]{} [*Mat. Sb. (N.S.) 81 (123) (1970) 228-255.*]{}
H. Lindblad, [*A remark on global existence for small initial data of the minimal surface equation in Minkowskian space time*]{}, [*Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 132 (2004) 1095-110.*]{}
P.-L. Lions, B. Perthame, E. Tadmor, [*A kinetic formulation of multidimensional scalar conservation laws and related equations,*]{} [*J. Amer. Math. Soc. 7 (1994) 169-191.*]{}
S. Osher, R. Fedkiw, [*Level set methods. Geometric level set methods in imaging, vision, and graphics,*]{} [*Springer, New York, 2003.*]{}
S. Osher, J. Sethian, [*Fronts propagating with curvature-dependent speed,*]{} [*J. Comput. Phys. 79 (1988) 12-49.*]{}
L. Rüschendorf, S. T. Rachev, [*J. of Multivariate Analysis 32 (1990) 48-54.*]{}
A. Shnirelman, [*On the geometry of the group of diffeomorphisms and the dynamics of an ideal incompressible fluid,*]{} [*Math. Sbornik USSR 56 (1987) 79-105.*]{}
A. I. Shnirelman, [*Generalized fluid flows, their approximation and applications,*]{} [*Geom. Funct. Anal. 4 (1994) 586-620.*]{}
D. Serre, [*Hyperbolicity of the nonlinear models of Maxwell’s equations*]{}, [*Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 172 (2004) 309-331.*]{}
D. Serre, [*A remark on Y. Brenier’s approach to Born-Infeld electro-magnetic fields,*]{}. [*Nonlinear partial differential equations and related analysis, 265-270, Contemp. Math., 371, AMS, 2005.*]{}
C. Smith, M. Knott, [*Note on the optimal transportation of distributions,*]{} [*J. Optim. Theory Appl. 52 (1987) 323-329.*]{}
L. Tartar, [*Compacité par compensation: résultats et perspectives,*]{} [*Nonlinear partial differential equations and their applications, Res. Notes in Math., 84, Pitman, Boston 1983.*]{}
Y-H. R. Tsai, Y. Giga, S. Osher, [*A level set approach for computing discontinuous solutions of Hamilton-Jacobi equations,*]{} [*Math. Comp. 72 (2003) 159-181.*]{}
C. Villani, [*Topics in optimal transportation,*]{} [*American Mathematical Society, Providence, 2003.*]{}
L. C. Young, [*Lectures on the calculus of variations.*]{} [*Chelsea,New York, 1980.*]{}
[^1]: CNRS, Université de Nice (FR 2800 W. Döblin), Institut Universitaire de France
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- 'L. D. Molag'
title: |
MONODROMY OF THE GENERALIZED HYPERGEOMETRIC EQUATION IN THE\
FROBENIUS BASIS
---
Department of Mathematics\
Utrecht University\
[email protected]
**Abstract**\
We consider monodromy groups of the generalized hypergeometric equation $$\big[z(\theta-\alpha_{1})\cdots (\theta-\alpha_{n})-(\theta+\beta_{1}-1)\cdots (\theta+\beta_{n}-1)\big]f(z) = 0\text{, where }\theta = z d/dz,$$ in a suitable basis, closely related to the Frobenius basis. We pay particular attention to the maximally unipotent case, where $\beta_{1}=\ldots=\beta_{n}=1$, and present a theorem that enables us to determine the form of the corresponding monodromy matrices in the case where $(X-e^{-2\pi i\alpha_{1}})\cdots (X-e^{-2\pi i\alpha_{n}})$ is a product of cyclotomic polynomials.\
Introduction
============
Let $\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{n},\beta_{1},\ldots,\beta_{n}\in \mathbb{C}$. The generalized hypergeometric equation $$\label{generalized hypergeometric equation}
\big[z(\theta-\alpha_{1})\cdots (\theta-\alpha_{n})-(\theta+\beta_{1}-1)\cdots (\theta+\beta_{n}-1)\big]f(z) = 0\text{, where, }\theta = z d/dz$$ is a generalization of the Euler-Gauss hypergeometric equation, corresponding to the case $n=2$ which was introduced by Euler in the $18^{th}$ century and studied in the $19^{th}$ century by among others: Gauss, Klein, Riemann and Schwarz.\
There exists an $n$-dimensional basis of solutions to (\[generalized hypergeometric equation\]) in a neighborhood of $z=0$, called the Frobenius basis (at $z=0$). In the case that the local exponents are pairwise distinct (the non-resonant case) this basis is given by $z^{1-\beta_{1}} F_{1},\ldots, z^{1-\beta_{n}} F_{n}$, for some analytic functions $F_{1},\ldots,F_{n}$, known as Clausen-Thomae hypergeometric functions, that are defined on some open neighborhood of $0$. In the case that all local exponents equal $1$ (the maximally unipotent case) the Frobenius basis is of the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
f_{0} &= 1+h_{0}\\
f_{1} &= f_{0}\log(z)+ h_{1}\\
f_{2} &= \frac{1}{2} f_{0} \log^{2}(z)+h_{1} \log(z)+h_{2}\\
& \vdots\\
f_{n-1} &= \frac{1}{(n-1)!} f_{0} \log^{n-1}(z)+ \sum_{l=0}^{n-2} \frac{1}{l!} h_{n-1-l} \log^{l}(z).\end{aligned}$$ where the $h_{l}$ are analytic, vanishing in $z=0$, and the unique functions with this property.\
We are mainly interested in the monodromy corresponding to the Frobenius basis. Important to us will be the explicit form of matrices that are used in the proof of Levelt’s theorem[@unpublished], from which one can deduce the explicit form of the monodromy matrices corresponding to (\[generalized hypergeometric equation\]) in a certain basis. It turns out that we can actually find the corresponding basis of functions explicitly, these functions are known as Melllin-Barnes integrals and the corresponding basis is called the Mellin-Barnes basis. The advantage of this basis is that the functions are defined on a large region, whereas the functions in the Frobenius basis are generally determined by powerseries with finite convergence radius (although they can be analytically extended). Our intention of course, is to express the functions in the Frobenius basis as linear combinations of Mellin-Barnes integrals, such that we can easily continue them along a path. In the next chapter it will be explained in detail how this is done.\
In the non-resonant case it follows immediately that the monodromy matrix around $0$ in the Frobenius basis around $z=0$ equals $\text{diag}(e^{-2\pi i\beta_{1}},\ldots,e^{-2\pi i\beta_{n}})$. Theorem \[nonresonantthm\] explains the general structure of the monodromy group, by giving the explicit form of the monodromy matrix around $1$ in the Frobenius basis around $z=0$, namely its $(k,l)$ entry, with $k,l=1,2,\ldots,n$, is $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{kl}+c e^{2\pi i\beta_{k}} \prod_{m=1}^{n} \frac{\sin(\pi(\beta_{l}-\alpha_{m}))}{\sin(\pi(\beta_{l}-\beta_{m}))}.\end{aligned}$$ Here $c=2i (-1)^{n} e^{\pi i(\beta_{1}-\alpha_{1}+\ldots+\beta_{n}-\alpha_{n})}$ and the factor $\sin(\pi(\beta_{l}-\beta_{l}))$ should be read as $1$. This shows in particular that all monodromy matrices have algebraic entries when the parameters $\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{n},\beta_{1},\ldots,\beta_{n}$ are rational, a property that is not shared with the maximally unipotent case.\
Our main theorem, about the maximally unipotent case, Theorem \[main?\], will need the following result. Suppose that $\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{n}\in\mathbb{C}\setminus\mathbb{Z}$ are such that $(X-e^{-2\pi i\alpha_{1}})\cdots (X-e^{-2\pi i\alpha_{n}})$ is a product of cyclotomic polynomials, then we can find a number $r\in\mathbb{N}$ and numbers $a_{1},\ldots,a_{r},b_{1},\ldots,b_{r}\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
(X-e^{-2\pi i\alpha_{1}})\cdots (X-e^{-2\pi i\alpha_{n}}) = \frac{X^{a_{1}}-1}{X^{b_{1}}-1}\cdots \frac{X^{a_{r}}-1}{X^{b_{r}}-1}.\end{aligned}$$ When this is the case it will turn out that, equivalently, we could investigate the equation $$\begin{aligned}
\theta^{n}f=Cz(\theta-\alpha_{1})\cdots (\theta-\alpha_{n})f\text{ where }C = \frac{a_{1}^{a_{1}}\cdots a_{n}^{a_{n}}}{b_{1}^{b_{1}}\cdots b_{n}^{b_{n}}},\end{aligned}$$ which has its own Frobenius basis $f_{n-1}^{C},\ldots,f_{1}^{C},f_{0}^{C}$. This corresponds to the normalization $z\to Cz$, i.e. $f_{k}^{C}(z)=f_{k}(C z)$ for $k=0,\ldots,n-1$. In fact this is precisely what the authors of [@CYY] do for the case $n=4$, in that case the hypergeometric equations arise from Calabi-Yau threefolds. They showed, using a basis that shows resemblance to the Mellin-Barnes basis, that the entries of the corresponding monodromy matrices contain geometric invariants of these Calabi-Yau threefolds. In particular, they gave a neat expression for the monodromy matrices. Generalization of their result for arbitrary $n$ has been our motivation to study the maximally unipotent case.
Our main theorem gives us insight in to the general form of the monodromy matrices in the case that $(z-e^{-2\pi i\alpha_{1}})\cdots (z-e^{-2\pi i\alpha_{n}})$ defines a product of cyclotomic polynomials, in particular it provides us with a practical method to determine the monodromy matrices. We will see that all matrices in the corresponding monodromy group have their entries in $\mathbb{Q}(\zeta(3) (2\pi i)^{-3},\zeta(5) (2\pi i)^{-5},\ldots,\zeta(m)(2\pi i)^{-m})$, with $m$ the largest odd number below $n$.\
I would like to thank Frits Beukers, who was the supervisor of my master thesis, which contains a lot of material that is being used in this article, for advising me to publish my results and helping me along the way. I am thankful to Willem Pranger for pointing out numerous issues for substantive improvement in my master thesis, and consequently this article. I thank Julian Lyczak and Merlijn Staps for their proof of theorem \[integerC\].
Monodromy groups of the generalized hypergeometric equation
===========================================================
The Mellin-Barnes basis
-----------------------
Let $z_{0}$ be an element of $\{0,1,\infty\}$, the set of singularities corresponding to (\[generalized hypergeometric equation\]). We will denote the monodromy matrix around $z_{0}$ by $M_{z_{0}}$. For (\[generalized hypergeometric equation\]) we know that $M_{0}$ has eigenvalues $e^{-2\pi i\beta_{1}},\ldots,e^{-2\pi i\beta_{n}}$ and $M_{\infty}$ has eigenvalues $e^{2\pi i\alpha_{1}},\ldots,e^{2\pi i\alpha_{n}}$. We will consider the case where all eigenvalues $e^{-2\pi i\beta_{1}},\ldots,e^{-2\pi i\beta_{n}}$ differ from the eigenvalues $e^{2\pi i\alpha_{1}},\ldots,e^{2\pi i\alpha_{n}}$. Here and in the rest of this article we will demand that these two sets of eigenvalues are disjunct, i.e. $\alpha_{k}$ differs from $\beta_{l}$ modulo $1$ for all $k,l=1,2,\ldots,n$. A matrix will be called a (pseudo-)reflection if this matrix minus the identity has rank $1$. The following theorem gives us insight in to the general form of the monodromy matrices corresponding to this case.
\[Levelt\] **(Levelt)** Let $a_{1},\ldots,a_{n},b_{1},\ldots,b_{n}\in\mathbb{C}\setminus\{0\}$ be such that $a_{i}\neq b_{j}$ for all $1\leq i,j\leq n$. Then there exist $A,B\in GL(n,\mathbb{C})$ with eigenvalues $a_{1},\ldots,a_{n}$ and $b_{1},\ldots,b_{n}$ respectively such that $AB^{-1}$ is a reflection. Moreover, the pair $A, B$ is uniquely determined up to conjugation.
What is important about Levelt’s theorem is its proof [@unpublished]. It shows us explicitly what the monodromy matrices look like in a particular basis chosen, namely $$\begin{aligned}
A = \left(\begin{array}{ccccc} 0 & 1 & 0 & \ldots & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 & \ldots & 0\\
\vdots & & & & \vdots\\
0 & 0 & 0 & \ldots & 1\\
-A_{n} & -A_{n-1} & -A_{n-2} & \ldots & -A_{1}
\end{array}\right)
\text{ and }
B = \left(\begin{array}{ccccc} 0 & 1 & 0 & \ldots & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 & \ldots & 0\\
\vdots & & & & \vdots\\
0 & 0 & 0 & \ldots & 1\\
-B_{n} & -B_{n-1} & -B_{n-2} & \ldots & -B_{1}
\end{array}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $A_{1},\ldots, A_{n}, B_{1},\ldots, B_{n}$ are defined through $(X-a_{1})\cdots (X-a_{n})=X^{n}+A_{1} X^{n-1}+\ldots+A_{n}$ and $(X-b_{1})\cdots (X-b_{n})=X^{n}+B_{1} X^{n-1}+\ldots+B_{n}$.\
It is known that $M_{1}$ has $n-1$ eigenvalues equal to $1$ and is thus a reflection (and so is $M_{\infty}^{-1} M_{1}^{-1} M_{\infty}$). In particular $M_{0}$ and $M_{\infty}^{-1}$, satisfying the relation $M_{0}M_{1}M_{\infty}=\mathbb{I}$, play the role of $A$ and $B$ in Levelt’s theorem. It turns out that we can actually find an explicit basis of functions in which $M_{0}$ equals the matrix $A$ used in Levelt’s theorem, with $a_{k}=e^{-2\pi i\beta_{k}}$ for $k=1,\ldots,n$. In the following we will choose the argument of $z$ in $(0,2\pi)$, which determines $z^{s}=|z|^{s} e^{i\text{arg}(z) s}$.
Let $\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{n},\beta_{1},\ldots,\beta_{n}\in\mathbb{C}$ and $\alpha_{k}$ differs from $\beta_{l}$ modulo $1$ for all $k,l=1,2,\ldots,n$. We define for $j=0,1,\ldots,n-1$ and $z\in\mathbb{C}\setminus\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ $$\label{MellinBarnes}
I_{j}(z) = \frac{(-1)^{n}}{(2\pi i)^{n}}\int_{L} \left(\prod_{k=1}^{n} \Gamma(\alpha_{k}+s)\Gamma(1-\beta_{k}-s)\right) e^{(2j-n)\pi i s}z^{s} ds.$$ Here $L$ is a path from $i\infty$ to $-i\infty$ that bends in such a way that all points $-\alpha_{k}-m$ with $m\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$ are on the left of it and all points $1-\beta_{k}+m$ with $m\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$ are on the right of it, for big enough $s$ we require it to be on the imaginary axis.\
Here by ‘left’ and ‘right’ we mean that $L$ divides $\mathbb{C}\setminus L$ into two connected components, the component that contains all $s$ with negative real part for $s$ big enough will be referred to as the left component, the other as the right component. The requirement that $L$ is on the imaginary axis for big $s$ is not necessary but will turn out to be convenient in what follows.
Let us argue that the Mellin-Barnes integrals (\[MellinBarnes\]) are well defined. Stirling’s formula tells us that for $a,b\in\mathbb{R}$, $a$ bounded, we have $$\begin{aligned}
|\Gamma(a+bi)| = \mathcal{O}(|b|^{a-1/2} e^{-\pi |b|/2})\text{ as }|b|\to\infty.\end{aligned}$$ We deduce that $|\Gamma(\alpha_{k}+it)\Gamma(1-\beta_{k}-it)|=\mathcal{O}(|t|^{1+\Re(\alpha_{k}-\beta_{k})} e^{-\pi|t|})$ as $|t|\to\infty$. Henceforth for $j=0,1,\ldots,n-1$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{stirling}
\left| \left(\prod_{k=1}^{n} \Gamma(\alpha_{k}+it)\Gamma(1-\beta_{k}-it)\right) e^{((2j-n)\pi i)it}(i t)^{s}\right|\\
= \mathcal{O}(|t|^{n+\sum_{k=1}^{n} \Re(\alpha_{k}-\beta_{k})} e^{-\text{arg}(z)\pi |t|})\text{ as }|t|\to\infty.\end{aligned}$$ Since the argument of $z$ is positive we conclude that the integrals $I_{j}$ converge.\
\[MBversch\] Let $N\in\mathbb{N}$. Denote by $i_{j,z}$ the integrant of $I_{j}(z)$. Define by $R(N)$ the set of singularities of $i_{j,z}(s)$ between $L$ and $L+N$ and by $R(\infty)$ and $R(-\infty)$ the set of singularities on the right respectively on the left of $L$. Denote by $I_{j}^{N}$ the integral $I_{j}$ were the path $L$ has been replaced by $L+N$. We have (for a fixed choice of $\pm$) $$\begin{aligned}
I_{j}(z) = I_{j}^{\pm N}(z) \pm 2\pi i\sum_{p\in R(\pm N)} \text{Res}_{p}( i_{j,z}),\end{aligned}$$ In particular we have for $|z|^{\pm 1}<1$ that $$\begin{aligned}
I_{j}(z) =\pm 2\pi i\sum_{p\in R(\pm \infty)} \text{Res}_{p}(i_{j,z}).\end{aligned}$$
**Proof.** For $T>0$ big enough consider the path $L(T)$ that coincides with $L$ but is from $iT$ to $-iT$. Now connect the paths $L(T)$ and $L(T)\pm N$ (for a fixed choice of $\pm$) by two linear segments $L_{-}(T)$ and $L_{+}(T)$ from $-iT$ to $\pm N-iT$ and from $\pm N+iT$ to $iT$ respectively. Thus we get a closed path and by the residue theorem $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{L(T)}+\int_{L_{-}(T)}-\int_{L(T)\pm N}+\int_{L_{+}(T)} i_{j,z}(s) ds = \pm 2\pi i\sum_{p\in R(\pm N)} \text{Res}_{p}( i_{j,z}). \end{aligned}$$ For the first part of the proposition it suffices to show that the integrals over $L_{\pm}(T)$ tend to $0$ as $T\to\infty$. For this we use the Stirling approximation: $|i_{j,z}(t\pm iT)|= \mathcal{O}(T^{n+2nN+\sum_{k=1}^{n} \Re(\alpha_{k}-\beta_{k})} e^{-\text{arg}(z)\pi T})$. This tends to $0$ as $T\to\infty$, as the integration intervals are finite this proves that the integrals over $L_{\pm}(T)$ tend to $0$ as $T\to\infty$.\
Now for the second part of the proposition we should prove that the integral over $L\pm N$ tends to $0$ as $N\to\infty$ whenever $|z|^{\pm 1}<1$. We will prove this only for the $|z|<1$ case, the other case is analogous. We see that for $s$ on $L$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
|\Gamma(\alpha_{k}+s+N)\Gamma(1-\beta_{k}-(s+N))| = \left|\prod_{j=0}^{N-1}\frac{\alpha_{k}+s+j}{1-\beta_{k}+s+j}\right| |\Gamma(\alpha_{k}+s)\Gamma(1-\beta_{k}-s)|.\end{aligned}$$ We notice that uniformly on $L$ $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{j\to\infty} \left|\frac{\alpha_{k}+s+j}{1-\beta_{k}+s+j}\right|\leq \lim_{j\to\infty} 1+\frac{|\alpha_{k}+1-\beta_{k}|}{|1-\beta_{k}+s+j|} = 1,\end{aligned}$$ where we have used that the real part of $s$ is bounded on $L$. In particular for $j$ big enough we have uniformly on $L$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\frac{\alpha_{k}+s+j}{1-\beta_{k}+s+j}\right|\leq |z|^{-\frac{1}{2n}}.\end{aligned}$$ We conclude that the integrant of the integral over $L+N$ satisfies the same inequality as in (\[stirling\]), but with a factor $|z|^{\frac{N}{2}}$ in front of it. Since $|z|<1$ we conclude that the integral over $L+N$ converges to $0$.
$\square$
\[MBbasis\] The functions $I_{0},\ldots,I_{n-1}$ form a basis $\mathcal{I}$, the Mellin-Barnes basis, of the generalized hypergeometric equation (\[generalized hypergeometric equation\]).
**Proof.** Let us prove that they are solutions to the generalized hypergeometric equation. First we notice that $$\begin{aligned}
\theta e^{(2j-n)\pi i s}z^{s} = z e^{(2j-n)\pi i s} s z^{s-1} = s e^{(2j-n)\pi i s} z^{s}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus $$\begin{aligned}
z(\theta+\alpha_{1})\cdots (\theta+\alpha_{n}) I_{j} &= \frac{(-1)^{n}}{(2\pi i)^{n}}\int_{L} \left(\prod_{k=1}^{n} \Gamma(\alpha_{k}+s)\Gamma(1-\beta_{k}-s)\right)\\
&\times (s+\alpha_{1})\cdots (s+\alpha_{n}) e^{(2j-n)\pi i s} z^{s+1} ds\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&= \frac{(-1)^{n}}{(2\pi i)^{n}}\int_{L} \left(\prod_{k=1}^{n}\Gamma(\alpha_{k}+s+1)\Gamma(1-\beta_{k}-s)\right) e^{(2j-n)\pi i s} z^{s+1} ds\\
&= \frac{(-1)^{n}}{(2\pi i)^{n}}\int_{L+1} \left(\prod_{k=1}^{n} \Gamma(\alpha_{k}+s)(1-\beta_{k}-s)\Gamma(1-\beta_{k}-s)\right) e^{(2j-n)\pi i s}(-1)^{n} z^{s} ds\\
&= (\theta+\beta_{1}-1)\cdots (\theta+\beta_{n}-1)I_{j}^{1}(z)\\
&+ 2\pi i (\theta+\beta_{1}-1)\cdots (\theta+\beta_{n}-1)\sum_{p\in R(1)} \text{Res}_{p}( i_{j,z})\end{aligned}$$ by Proposition \[MBversch\]. Now if there are indeed singularities in $R(1)$ they must be of the form $s=1-\beta_{k}$. The Residue corresponding to such a pole is a linear combination of terms of the form $\log^{l}(z) z^{1-\beta_{k}}$ for $0\leq l<n$. If such a term appears then $\beta_{k}$ must have degeneracy at least $l+1$. We notice using the Leibniz rule that $$\begin{aligned}
& (\theta+\beta_{k}-1)^{l+1} \log^{l}(z) z^{1-\beta_{k}} = (\theta+\beta_{k}-1)^{l} l\log^{l-1}(z) z^{1-\beta_{k}}\\
&= \ldots = (\theta+\beta_{k}-1) l(l-1)\cdots 1\cdot z^{1-\beta_{k}}=0.\end{aligned}$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned}
&(\theta+\beta_{1}-1)\cdots (\theta+\beta_{n}-1)\\
&\frac{(-1)^{n}}{(2\pi i)^{n}} \int_{L+1} \left(\prod_{k=1}^{n} \Gamma(\alpha_{k}+s)\Gamma(1-\beta_{k}-s)\right) e^{(\log(z)+(2j-n)\pi i)s} ds\\
&= (\theta+\beta_{1}-1)\cdots (\theta+\beta_{n}-1) I_{j}(z)\end{aligned}$$ and we conclude that the $I_{j}$ are solutions to the hypergeometric equation. Suppose $I_{0},\dots,I_{n-1}$ do not form a basis. Then there exists a polynomial $p$ of degree at most $n-1$, not identically zero, such that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{L} \left(\prod_{k=1}^{n} \Gamma(\alpha_{k}+s)\Gamma(1-\beta_{k}-s)\right) e^{-\pi i n s}p(e^{2\pi i s}) z^{s} ds = 0.\end{aligned}$$ This is only possible if no terms of the form $\log^{l}(z) z^{1-\beta_{k}}$ occur (when evaluated in a neighborhood of $z=0$), i.e. that all singularities of the original integrant are removed by $p(e^{2\pi i s})$ (see remark \[combilogremark\] for clarification). This implies that $p$ must have all $e^{-2\pi i\beta_{k}}$ as roots (with the same multiplicity as $\beta_{k}$), and this is a contradiction since it requires $p$ to have degree at least $n$.
$\square$
\[MBmonodromy\] Suppose $\alpha_{k}$ differs from the $\beta_{l}$ modulo $1$ for all $1\leq k,l\leq n$. The monodromy matrices in the Mellin-Barnes basis are $$\begin{aligned}
M_{0} &= \left( \begin{array}{ccccc}
0 & 1 & 0 & \hdots & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 & \hdots & 0\\
\vdots & \vdots & & & \vdots\\
0 & 0 & 0 & \hdots & 1\\
-B_{n} & -B_{n-1} & -B_{n-2} & \hdots & -B_{1} \end{array} \right)\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
M_{1} &= \left( \begin{array}{ccccc}
1+\frac{A_{n}-B_{n}}{B_{n}} & \frac{A_{n-1}-B_{n-1}}{B_{n}} & \frac{A_{n-2}-B_{n-2}}{B_{n}} & \hdots & \frac{A_{1}-B_{1}}{B_{n}}\\
0 & 1 & 0 & \hdots & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 & \hdots & 0\\
\vdots & \vdots & & & \vdots\\
0 & 0 & 0 & \hdots & 1 \end{array} \right)\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
M_{\infty} &= \left( \begin{array}{ccccc}
-\frac{A_{n-1}}{A_{n}} & -\frac{A_{n-2}}{A_{n}} & -\frac{A_{n-3}}{A_{n}} & \hdots & -\frac{A_{0}}{A_{n}}\\
1 & 0 & 0 & \hdots & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0 & \hdots & 0\\
\vdots & \vdots & & & \vdots\\
0 & 0 & \hdots & 1 & 0 \end{array} \right)\end{aligned}$$ Where $z^{n}+B_{1}z^{n-1}+\ldots+B_{n-1}z+B_{n}$ is the polynomial with roots $e^{-2\pi i\beta_{k}}$, $k=1,2,\ldots,n$ and $z^{n}+A_{1}z^{n-1}+\ldots+A_{n-1}z+A_{n}$ is the polynomial with roots $e^{-2\pi i\alpha_{k}}$, $k=1,2,\ldots,n$.\
**Proof.** By construction we have $I_{j}\to I_{j+1}$ under a counterclockwise loop around $0$ for $j=0,1,\ldots,n-2$. Notice that $$\begin{aligned}
-B_{n}I_{0}-\ldots-B_{1} I_{n-1} &= \frac{(-1)^{n}}{(2\pi i)^{n}}\int_{L} \left(\prod_{k=1}^{n} \Gamma(\alpha_{k}+s)\Gamma(1-\beta_{k}-s)\right) e^{-\pi i n s} z^{s}\\
& \times \left(e^{2\pi i n s} - \prod_{k=1}^{n} (e^{2\pi i s}-e^{-2\pi i\beta_{k}})\right) ds.\end{aligned}$$ Notice what happens when we lower the argument by $2\pi$. By the same arguments used in the proof of Proposition \[MBversch\] we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{(-1)^{n}}{(2\pi i)^{n}}\int_{L} \left(\prod_{k=1}^{n}\Gamma(\alpha_{k}+s)\Gamma(1-\beta_{k}-s)\right) e^{-2\pi i s-\pi i n s} z^{s} \prod_{k=1}^{n} (e^{2\pi i s}-e^{-2\pi i\beta_{k}}) ds\end{aligned}$$ is equal to $2\pi i$ times the sum of its residues corresponding to its singularities to the right of $L$ for $|z|<1$. But it has no (non removable) singularities in that region so it vanishes. We conclude that when we lower the argument by $2\pi$ then $-B_{n}I_{0}-\ldots-B_{1} I_{n-1}$ transforms to $I_{n-1}$, i.e. a counterclockwise loop around the origin corresponds to the transformation $I_{n-1}\to -B_{n}I_{0}-\ldots-B_{1} I_{n-1}$.\
From the Frobenius basis around $\infty$ it is clear that $M_{\infty}^{-1}$ should have eigenvalues $e^{-2\pi i \alpha_{1}},\ldots,e^{-2\pi i \alpha_{n}}$. Furthermore, we know that $M_{0} M_{\infty} = M_{\infty}^{-1} M_{1}^{-1} M_{\infty}$ is a reflection. Hence we may apply Levelts theorem (\[Levelt\]) to conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
(M_{\infty})^{-1} =\left( \begin{array}{ccccc}
0 & 1 & 0 & \hdots & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 & \hdots & 0\\
\vdots & \vdots & & & \vdots\\
0 & 0 & 0 & \hdots & 1\\
-A_{n} & -A_{n-1} & -A_{n-2} & \hdots & -A_{1} \end{array} \right)\end{aligned}$$ The forms of $M_{\infty}$ and $M_{1}$ now easily follow.
$\square$
The non-resonant case
---------------------
In this section we will consider the case where $\beta_{1},\ldots,\beta_{n}$ are distinct modulo $1$ and the $\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{n}$ are distinct from the $\beta_{1},\ldots,\beta_{n}$ modulo $1$. Though our research is mainly aimed at the maximally unipotent case, we treat the non-resonant case because it is barely any extra work, and the results can be compared with that of the maximally unipotent case. In the Frobenius basis at $0$, denoted by $f_{1},\ldots,f_{n}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
M_{0} = \left(\begin{array}{cccc}
e^{-2\pi i\beta_{1}} & 0 & \hdots & 0\\
0 & e^{-2\pi i\beta_{2}} & \hdots & 0\\
\vdots & & \ddots & 0\\
0 & 0 & \hdots & e^{-2\pi i\beta_{n}}\end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$ We would also like to express the monodromy matrices $M_{1}$ and $M_{\infty}$ in the Frobenius basis at $z=0$. For this purpose we will prove the following theorem about the transformation matrix between the Mellin-Barnes basis and the Frobenius basis at $z=0$.
We have $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\begin{array}{c}I_{0}\\ \vdots \\ I_{n-1}\end{array}\right) = V D \left(\begin{array}{c}f_{1}\\ \vdots \\ f_{n}\end{array}\right)\end{aligned}$$ where $V$ is the VanderMonde matrix $V_{kl} = e^{-2\pi i k\beta_{l}}$ and $D$ is the diagonal matrix with entries $$\begin{aligned}
D_{ll} = \frac{1}{(2i)^{n-1}} e^{\pi i(n-2k)\beta_{l}} \frac{\Gamma(\alpha_{1}-\beta_{l}+1)\cdots \Gamma(\alpha_{n}-\beta_{l}+1)}{\Gamma(\beta_{1}-\beta_{l}+1)\cdots \Gamma(\beta_{n}-\beta_{l}+1)} \left(\prod_{m=1,m\neq l}^{n} \frac{1}{\sin(\pi(\beta_{m}-\beta_{l}))}\right)\end{aligned}$$ with $k=0,1,\ldots,n-1$ and $l=1,\ldots,n$.
**Proof.** Using Proposition \[MBversch\] we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
I_{k} &= \frac{(-1)^{n}}{(2\pi i)^{n-1}} \sum_{l=1}^{n} \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \lim_{s\to 1-\beta_{l}+m} (s-1+\beta_{l}-m)\Gamma(1-\beta_{l}-s)\\
&\times \Gamma(\alpha_{l}+s)\left(\prod_{p=1,p\neq l}^{n} \Gamma(\alpha_{p}+s)\Gamma(1-\beta_{p}-s)\right) e^{(2k-n)\pi i s}z^{s}\\
&= \frac{1}{(2\pi i)^{n-1}} \sum_{l=1}^{n} \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^{m}}{m!} e^{\pi i(n-2k)\beta_{l}} (-1)^{nm} z^{1-\beta_{l}+m}\\
&\times \Gamma(\alpha_{l}-\beta_{l}+1+m)\left(\prod_{p=1,p\neq l}^{n}\Gamma(\alpha_{p}-\beta_{l}+1+m)\Gamma(\beta_{l}-\beta_{p}-m)\right)\\
&= \frac{1}{(2i)^{n-1}} \sum_{l=1}^{n} e^{\pi i(n-2k)\beta_{l}} \left(\prod_{p=1,p\neq l}^{n} \frac{1}{\sin(\pi(\beta_{p}-\beta_{l}))}\right)\\
&\times \frac{\Gamma(\alpha_{1}-\beta_{l}+1)\cdots \Gamma(\alpha_{n}-\beta_{l}+1)}{\Gamma(\beta_{1}-\beta_{l}+1)\cdots \Gamma(\beta_{n}-\beta_{l}+1)} z^{1-\beta_{l}}\sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \frac{(\alpha_{1}-\beta_{l}+1)_{m}\cdots (\alpha_{n}-\beta_{l}+1)_{m}}{(\beta_{1}-\beta_{l}+1)_{m}\cdots (\beta_{n}-\beta_{l}+1)_{m}} z^{m}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
I_{k} &= \frac{1}{(2i)^{n-1}} \sum_{l=1}^{n} e^{\pi i(n-2k)\beta_{l}} \frac{\Gamma(\alpha_{1}-\beta_{l}+1)\cdots \Gamma(\alpha_{n}-\beta_{l}+1)}{\Gamma(\beta_{1}-\beta_{l}+1)\cdots \Gamma(\beta_{n}-\beta_{l}+1)} \left(\prod_{p=1,p\neq l}^{n} \frac{1}{\sin(\pi(\beta_{p}-\beta_{l}))}\right) f_{l}(z).\end{aligned}$$
$\square$
\[nonresonantthm\] Define $c=2i (-1)^{n} e^{\pi i(\beta_{1}-\alpha_{1}+\ldots+\beta_{n}-\alpha_{n})}$. In the Frobenius basis at $z=0$ the monodromy matrix around $z=1$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
(M_{1})_{kl} &= \delta_{kl}+c e^{2\pi i\beta_{k}} \prod_{m=1}^{n} \frac{\sin(\pi(\beta_{l}-\alpha_{m}))}{\sin(\pi(\beta_{l}-\beta_{m}))}\end{aligned}$$ where $k,l=1,2,\ldots,n$ and the factor $\sin(\pi(\beta_{l}-\beta_{l}))$ should be read as $1$.
**Proof.** We calculate $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{m=0}^{n-1} \frac{A_{n-m}-B_{n-m}}{B_{n}} e^{-2\pi i m\beta_{l}} &= \frac{1}{B_{n}} \left(\prod_{m=1}^{n} (e^{-2\pi i\beta_{l}}-e^{-2\pi i\alpha_{m}})-\prod_{m=1}^{n} (e^{-2\pi i\beta_{l}}-e^{-2\pi i\beta_{m}})\right)\\
&= (2i)^{n}e^{2\pi i(\beta_{1}+\ldots+\beta_{n})} e^{-\pi i(\alpha_{1}+\ldots+\alpha_{n})} e^{-\pi i n \beta_{l}} \prod_{m=1}^{n} \sin(\pi(\alpha_{m}-\beta_{l}))\\
&= 2i e^{2\pi i(\beta_{1}+\ldots+\beta_{n})} e^{-\pi i(\alpha_{1}+\ldots+\alpha_{n})} \tilde{D}^{-1}_{ll} \sin(\pi(\alpha_{l}-\beta_{l})) \prod_{m=1,m\neq l}^{n} \frac{\sin(\pi(\alpha_{m}-\beta_{l}))}{\sin(\pi(\beta_{m}-\beta_{l}))}.\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{D}_{ll}\frac{\Gamma(\alpha_{1}-\beta_{l}+1)\cdots \Gamma(\alpha_{n}-\beta_{l}+1)}{\Gamma(\beta_{1}-\beta_{l}+1)\cdots \Gamma(\beta_{n}-\beta_{l}+1)} = D_{ll}.\end{aligned}$$ To complete the proof we will have to determine the inverse of $V$. We notice that this inverse is determined by $$\begin{aligned}
\prod_{m=1,m\neq k}^{n} \frac{z-e^{-2\pi i\beta_{m}}}{e^{-2\pi i\beta_{k}}-e^{-2\pi i\beta_{m}}} = (V^{-1})_{k,0}+(V^{-1})_{k,1} z+\ldots+(V^{-1})_{k,n-1} z^{n-1}.\end{aligned}$$ We will only need the first column of $V^{-1}$, the $k^{th}$ entry of this column is $$\begin{aligned}
\prod_{m=1,m\neq k}^{n} \frac{-e^{-2\pi i\beta_{m}}}{e^{-2\pi i\beta_{k}}-e^{-2\pi i\beta_{m}}} = (-1)^{n-1}e^{2\pi i\beta_{k}} e^{-\pi i(\beta_{1}+\ldots+\beta_{n})} \tilde{D}_{kk}.\end{aligned}$$ We conclude that the matrix $M_{1}-\mathbb{I}$ equals $2i (-1)^{n-1}e^{\pi(\beta_{1}-\alpha_{1}+\ldots+\beta_{n}-\alpha_{n})}$ times $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\begin{array}{c} e^{2\pi i\beta_{1}} \tilde{D}_{11}\\ \vdots \\ e^{2\pi i\beta_{n}} \tilde{D}_{nn} \end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{c} \sin(\pi(\alpha_{1}-\beta_{1})) \tilde{D}_{11}^{-1} \prod_{m=1,m\neq 1}^{n} \frac{\sin(\pi(\alpha_{m}-\beta_{1}))}{\sin(\pi(\beta_{m}-\beta_{1}))} \\ \vdots \\ \sin(\pi(\alpha_{n}-\beta_{n})) \tilde{D}_{nn}^{-1} \prod_{m=1,m\neq n}^{n} \frac{\sin(\pi(\alpha_{m}-\beta_{n}))}{\sin(\pi(\beta_{m}-\beta_{n}))}\end{array}\right)^{T}\end{aligned}$$ which implies the desired result.
$\square$
Though the form of $M_{1}$ is the easiest to find the following proposition will show that the form of $M_{\infty}$ can easily be deduced from the form of $M_{1}$.
\[inverserank1\] Let $M$ be an $n\times n$ matrix with rank $\leq 1$. Suppose that $\mathbb{I}+M$ is invertible. Then $$\begin{aligned}
(\mathbb{I}+M)^{-1} = \mathbb{I}-\frac{1}{1+\text{Tr}(M)}M.\end{aligned}$$
**Proof.** Since $M$ has rank $\leq 1$ it can be written as $M_{kl}=u_{k}v_{l}$ for $n$-dimensional vectors $u$ and $v$. Thus we notice that $$\begin{aligned}
(M^{2})_{kl} = \sum_{m=1}^{n} u_{k}v_{m}u_{m}v_{l} = \text{Tr}(M) M_{kl}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $M$ has rank $\leq 1$ we know that it has $n-1$ eigenvalues equal to $0$. The condition that $\mathbb{I}+M$ is invertible thus boils down to $\text{Tr}(M)\neq -1$. We see that $$\begin{aligned}
(\mathbb{I}+M)(\mathbb{I}-\frac{1}{1+\text{Tr}(M)}M) = \mathbb{I}+M-\frac{1}{1+\text{Tr}(M)} M-\frac{\text{Tr}(M)}{1+\text{Tr}(M)}M=\mathbb{I}.\end{aligned}$$
$\square$
Suppose $\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{n},\beta_{1},\ldots,\beta_{n}$ are distinct modulo $1$. Then in the Frobenius basis at $z=0$ the monodromy matrix around $z=\infty$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
(M_{\infty})_{kl} = e^{2\pi i\alpha_{k}}\delta_{kl}+\frac{4}{c} e^{2\pi i(\beta_{k}+\alpha_{k})} \prod_{m=1}^{n} \frac{\sin(\pi(\beta_{l}-\alpha_{m}))}{\sin(\pi(\beta_{l}-\beta_{m}))}\end{aligned}$$ where $k,l=1,2,\ldots,n$.
**Proof.** We know that $1+\text{Tr}(M_{1}-\mathbb{I})=1+(A_{n}-B_{n})/B_{n} = -c^{2}/4$. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
M_{\infty} &= (\mathbb{I}+4 c^{-2}(M_{1}-\mathbb{I})) M_{0}^{-1},\end{aligned}$$ leading to the desired result.
$\square$
We conclude this paragraph with the remark that when $\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{n},\beta_{1},\ldots,\beta_{n}\in\mathbb{Q}$ the corresponding monodromy group consists of matrices with algebraic entries. In the next chapter it will become clear that this is no longer implied in the maximally unipotent case.
The maximally unipotent case
----------------------------
In this section we will consider the case where $\beta_{1}=\ldots=\beta_{n}=1$. In what follows it will turn out that our results become more elegant when we slightly alter the Frobenius basis. We will consider the ordered basis $\{f_{n-1}/(2\pi i)^{n-1},f_{n-2}/(2\pi i)^{n-2},\ldots,f_{0}\}$ instead. Notice that in this basis we have $$\begin{aligned}
M_{0} = \left( \begin{array}{ccccc}
1 & 1 & \frac{1}{2} & \hdots & \frac{1}{(n-1)!}\\
0 & 1 & 1 & \hdots & \frac{1}{(n-2)!}\\
0 & 0 & 1 & \hdots & \frac{1}{(n-3)!}\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
0 & 0 & 0 & \ldots & 1 \end{array} \right).\end{aligned}$$ Thus $M_{0}$ has in particular rational entries. Note that we can write $M_{0}=e^{N}$, where $N$ is our notation for the matrix whose non-zero entries are ones on the superdiagonal. In this newly defined basis we have the following theorem.\
\[InaarF\] The matrix $T$ that transforms functions in the Mellin-Barnes basis $\mathcal{I}$ to the ordered basis $\{f_{n-1}/(2\pi i)^{n-1},f_{n-2}/(2\pi i)^{n-2},\ldots,f_{0}\}$ is given by $T=Q\Phi$. Here $Q$ is the VanderMonde type matrix $Q_{kl} = (k-\frac{n}{2})^{l}/l!$, where $k,l=0,1,\ldots,n-1$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi =\left( \begin{array}{ccccc}
\phi(0) & \frac{\phi'(0)}{2\pi i} & \frac{\phi''(0)}{2!(2\pi i)^{2}} & \hdots & \frac{\phi^{(n-1)}(0)}{(n-1)!(2\pi i)^{n-1}}\\
0 & \phi(0) & \frac{\phi'(0)}{2\pi i} & \hdots & \frac{\phi^{(n-2)}(0)}{(n-2)!(2\pi i)^{n-2}}\\
0 & 0 & \phi(0) & \hdots & \frac{\phi^{(n-3)}(0)}{(n-3)!(2\pi i)^{n-3}}\\
\vdots & \vdots & & & \vdots\\
0 & 0 & 0 & \hdots & \phi(0) \end{array} \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi$ is the function $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(s) = \frac{\Gamma(\alpha_{1}+s)\cdots\Gamma(\alpha_{n}+s)}{\Gamma(\alpha_{1})\cdots\Gamma(\alpha_{n})}\Gamma(1-s)^{n}.\\\end{aligned}$$
**Proof.** Let $k\in\{0,1,\ldots,n-1\}$. We see that for $|z|<1$ $$\begin{aligned}
& I_{k}(z) = \frac{(-1)^{n}}{(2\pi i)^{n}}\int_{L}\frac{\Gamma(\alpha_{1}+s)\cdots\Gamma(\alpha_{n}+s)}{\Gamma(\alpha_{1})\cdots\Gamma(\alpha_{n})} \Gamma(-s)^{n} e^{(2k-n)\pi i s} z^{s} ds\\
&= \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^{n}}{(n-1)!} \frac{d^{n-1}}{ds^{n-1}}|_{s=m}\frac{\Gamma(\alpha_{1}+s)\cdots\Gamma(\alpha_{n}+s)}{\Gamma(\alpha_{1})\cdots\Gamma(\alpha_{n})} (s-m)^{n}\Gamma(-s)^{n}\frac{e^{(2k-n)\pi i s}}{(2\pi i)^{n-1}} z^{s}\\
&= \sum_{l=0}^{n-1} \frac{\log^{n-1-l}(z)}{(n-1-l)!}\sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \frac{z^{m}}{l!} \frac{d^{l}}{ds^{l}}|_{s=m} \frac{\Gamma(\alpha_{1}+s)\cdots\Gamma(\alpha_{n}+s)}{\Gamma(\alpha_{1})\cdots\Gamma(\alpha_{n})} (m-s)^{n}\Gamma(-s)^{n}\frac{e^{(2k-n)\pi i s}}{(2\pi i)^{n-1}}\\
&=\sum_{l=0}^{n-1} a_{k,l}(z)\frac{1}{(n-1-l)!}\frac{\log^{n-1-l}(z)}{(2\pi i)^{n-1-l}}\end{aligned}$$ for suitable analytic functions $a_{k,0},\ldots,a_{k,n-1}$ in a neighborhood of $z=0$ that satisfy in particular $$\begin{aligned}
a_{k,l}(0) &= \frac{ (2\pi i)^{-l}}{l!} \frac{d^{l}}{ds^{l}}|_{s=0} \frac{\Gamma(\alpha_{1}+s)\cdots\Gamma(\alpha_{n}+s)}{\Gamma(\alpha_{1})\cdots\Gamma(\alpha_{n})}\Gamma(1-s)^{n} e^{(2k-n)\pi i s}\\
&=\sum_{m=0}^{l} \frac{(k-\frac{n}{2})^{m}}{m!}\frac{\phi^{(l-m)}(0)}{(l-m)!(2\pi i)^{l-m}}.\end{aligned}$$ Here we have used the Leibniz rule. By definition we have $I_{k}(z) = \sum_{l=0}^{n-1} T_{kl} f_{n-1-l}/(2\pi i)^{n-1-l}$ in the Frobenius basis. Since $\log^{k}(z)/k!$ is the only term in $f_{k}$ which is a power of a logarithm multiplied by a constant term we can apply Proposition \[combilogs\] to find $$\begin{aligned}
T_{kl} - a_{k,l}(0) = 0\text{ for }l=0,1,\ldots,n-1.\end{aligned}$$
$\square$
\[combilogs\] Let $m\in\mathbb{N}$ and let $a_{0},\ldots,a_{m}$ be analytic functions in a neighborhood of $0$. Suppose that for all $z$ in this neighborhood, with argument in $(0,2\pi)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=0}^{m} a_{j}(z)\log^{j}(z) = 0.\end{aligned}$$ Then we have $a_{j}(0)=0$ for all $0\leq j\leq m$.
**Proof.** Suppose the statement of the theorem is untrue. Denote by $0\leq r\leq m$ the largest number such that $a_{r}(0)\neq 0$. We can write $$\begin{aligned}
a_{r}(z) = -\sum_{j=0}^{r-1} a_{j}(z)\log^{j-r}(z)-\sum_{j=r+1}^{m} a_{j}(z)\log^{j-r}(z).\end{aligned}$$ Taking the limit $z\to 0$ yields $a_{r}(0)=0$, contradicting our assumption that $r$ was the largest number such that $a_{r}(0)\neq 0$. Here we have used that $\log^{j-r}(z)\to 0$ for $j<r$ and we have used the standard limit $z \log^{j-r}(z)\to 0$ for the terms with $j>r$.
$\square$
\[combilogremark\] By induction it follows that the analytic functions $a_{j}$ should actually vanish.
\[M1stelling\] In the ordered basis $\{f_{n-1}/(2\pi i)^{n-1},f_{n-2}/(2\pi i)^{n-2},\ldots,f_{0}\}$ we have $M_{1} = \mathbb{I}+u v^T$. Here $$\begin{aligned}
u =\left( \begin{array}{c} (T^{-1})_{00}\\ (T^{-1})_{10} \\ \vdots \\ (T^{-1})_{(n-1)0} \end{array} \right) \textit{ and }
v = \left( \begin{array}{cccc} \frac{V^{(0)}(0)}{0!}\\ \frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{V^{(1)}(0)}{1!}\\ \vdots \\ \frac{1}{(2\pi i)^{n-1}}\frac{V^{(n-1)}(0)}{(n-1)!} \end{array} \right)\end{aligned}$$ and the function $V$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
V(s) = (-1)^{n}\phi(s)e^{-\pi i n s} \prod_{k=1}^{n} (e^{2\pi i s}-e^{-2\pi i \alpha_{k}}).\\\end{aligned}$$
**Proof.** From Theorem \[MBmonodromy\] we obtain in the Mellin-Barnes basis $$\begin{aligned}
M_{1} &= M_{0}^{-1} M_{\infty}^{-1}\\
&= \left( \begin{array}{ccccc}
(-1)^{n}A_{n} & (-1)^{n}A_{n-1}+\binom{n}{1} & (-1)^{n}A_{n-2}-\binom{n}{2} & \hdots & (-1)^{n}A_{1}\pm\binom{n}{n-1}\\
0 & 1 & 0 & \hdots & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 & \hdots & 0\\
\vdots & \vdots & & & \vdots\\
0 & 0 & 0 & \hdots & 1 \end{array} \right)\end{aligned}$$ Now we notice that the $(0,l)$th entry of $(M_{1}-\mathbb{I})T$ is $$\begin{aligned}
((M_{1}-\mathbb{I})T)_{0l} &= \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} (-1)^{n}\left[A_{n-k}-(-1)^{n-k}\binom{n}{k}\right] \frac{(2\pi i)^{n-1-l}}{l!} \phi_{k}^{(l)}(0)\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{k}(s) = \frac{\phi(s)}{(2\pi i)^{n-1}}e^{-\pi i n s}e^{2\pi i k s}.\end{aligned}$$ We see that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\binom{n}{k} (-1)^{n-k}\phi_{k}^{(l)}(0) &= \frac{d^{l}}{ds^{l}}|_{s=0} \frac{\phi(s)}{(2\pi i)^{n-1}}e^{-\pi i n s}\sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \binom{n}{k} (-1)^{n-k}e^{2\pi i k s}\\
&= \frac{d^{l}}{ds^{l}}|_{s=0}\frac{\phi(s)}{(2\pi i)^{n-1}}e^{-\pi i n s}\left((e^{2\pi i s}-1)^{n}-e^{2\pi i n s}\right)\\
&= 0 - \phi_{n}^{(l)}(0) = -A_{0} \phi_{n}^{(l)}(0). \end{aligned}$$ Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
((M_{1}-\mathbb{I})T)_{0l} &= (2\pi i)^{n-1-l}\frac{(-1)^{n}}{(n-1-l)!} \sum_{k=0}^{n} A_{n-k} \phi_{k}^{(n-1-l)}(0)\\
&= (2\pi i)^{n-1-l}\frac{(-1)^{n}}{l!} \frac{d^{l}}{ds^{l}}|_{s=0}\frac{\phi(s)}{(2\pi i)^{n-1}}e^{-\pi i n s} \prod_{k=1}^{n} (e^{2\pi i s}-e^{-2\pi i \alpha_{k}})\\
&= (2\pi i)^{-l}\frac{V^{(l)}(0)}{l!}.\end{aligned}$$ Here we used the Leibniz rule. Of course all other entries of $(M_{1}-\mathbb{I})T$ are zero. We conclude that in the ordered basis $\{f_{n-1}/(2\pi i)^{n-1},f_{n-2}/(2\pi i)^{n-2},\ldots,f_{0}\}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
M_{1} &= \mathbb{I}+T^{-1}(M_{1}^{\mathcal{I}}-\mathbb{I})T\\
&= \mathbb{I}+\left( \begin{array}{c} (T^{-1})_{00}\\ (T^{-1})_{10} \\ \vdots \\ (T^{-1})_{(n-1)0} \end{array} \right)
\left( \begin{array}{cccc} \frac{V^{(0)}(0)}{0!}& \frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{V^{(1)}(0)}{1!}& \hdots & \frac{1}{(2\pi i)^{n-1}}\frac{V^{(n-1)}(0)}{(n-1)!} \end{array} \right).\end{aligned}$$ Here the superscript $\mathcal{I}$ indicates that the particular matrix is in the Mellin Barnes Basis.
$\square$
Using Proposition \[inverserank1\] we get the following corollary.
\[M1stelling2\] In the ordered basis $\{f_{n-1}/(2\pi i)^{n-1},f_{n-2}/(2\pi i)^{n-2},\ldots,f_{0}\}$ we have $M_{1}^{\mathcal{F}} = e^{N}+u v^T$. Here $$\begin{aligned}
u =\left( \begin{array}{c} (T^{-1})_{00}\\ (T^{-1})_{10} \\ \vdots \\ (T^{-1})_{(n-1)0} \end{array} \right) \textit{ and }
v = \left( \begin{array}{cccc} \frac{W^{(0)}(0)}{0!}\\ \frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{W^{(1)}(0)}{1!}\\ \vdots \\ \frac{1}{(2\pi i)^{n-1}}\frac{W^{(n-1)}(0)}{(n-1)!} \end{array} \right)\end{aligned}$$ and the function $W$ is defined by $W(s) = (-1)^{n} e^{-2\pi i(\alpha_{1}+\ldots+\alpha_{n})} e^{2\pi i s} V(s)$.
The case where $(X-e^{-2\pi i\alpha_{1}})\cdots (X-e^{-2\pi i\alpha_{n}})$ is a product of cyclotomic polynomials
=================================================================================================================
Theorem \[M1stelling\] shows us that for large $n$ the expressions for the monodromy matrices seem to become rather cumbersome. Therefore we will, in this chapter, limit our study of the monodromy matrices in the maximally unipotent case to the case where $(X-e^{-2\pi i\alpha_{1}})\cdots (X-e^{-2\pi i\alpha_{n}})$ is a product of cyclotomic polynomials. This is actually not such a big restriction, since it seems to be a case of particular interest (see for example [@CYY]). In particular, many Calabi-Yau differential equations are of this form.
Polynomials with roots in the cyclotomic field
----------------------------------------------
\[polynoomst\] Let $p\in\mathbb{Q}[X]$ be monic and suppose all its roots are roots of unity not equal to $1$. Then there exists a number $r\in\mathbb{N}$ and numbers $a_{1},\ldots,a_{r},b_{1},\ldots,b_{r}\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{polynoomvorm}
p(X) = \frac{(X^{a_{1}}-1)\cdots (X^{a_{r}}-1)}{(X^{b_{1}}-1)\cdots (X^{b_{r}}-1)}.\end{aligned}$$
**Proof.** This follows immediately from the fact that the $k^{th}$ cyclotomic polynomial satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{k}(X) = \prod_{d|k} (x^{d}-1)^{\mu(n/d)},\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu$ denotes the Möbius function.
$\square$
\[gammaproduct\] Let $\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{n}\in \mathbb{Q}\cap (0,1)$ and suppose that $(X-e^{-2\pi i\alpha_{1}})\cdots (X-e^{-2\pi i\alpha_{n}})$ has integer coefficients. Then there exist a number $r\in\mathbb{N}$ and numbers $a_{1},\ldots,a_{r},b_{1},\ldots,b_{r}\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\prod_{k=1}^{n} \Gamma(\alpha_{k}+s) = C^{-s}\frac{\Gamma(a_{1}s)\cdots \Gamma(a_{r}s)}{\Gamma(b_{1}s)\cdots \Gamma(b_{r}s)} (2\pi)^{\frac{n}{2}}\sqrt{\frac{a_{1}\cdots a_{r}}{b_{1}\cdots b_{r}}}\text{ where }
C = \frac{a_{1}^{a_{1}}\cdots a_{r}^{a_{r}}}{b_{1}^{b_{1}}\cdots b_{r}^{b_{r}}}.\end{aligned}$$
**Proof.** By Proposition (\[polynoomst\]) we find a number $r\in\mathbb{N}$ and numbers $a_{1},\ldots,a_{r},b_{1},\ldots,b_{r}\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\prod_{k=1}^{n} \Gamma(\alpha_{k}+s) = \frac{\left(\prod_{j=0}^{a_{1}-1}\Gamma(\frac{j}{a_{1}}+s)\right)\cdots \left(\prod_{j=0}^{a_{r}-1}\Gamma(\frac{j}{a_{r}}+s)\right)}{\left(\prod_{j=0}^{b_{1}-1}\Gamma(\frac{j}{b_{1}}+s)\right)\cdots \left(\prod_{j=0}^{b_{r}-1}\Gamma(\frac{j}{b_{r}}+s)\right)}.\end{aligned}$$ This is due to the fact that a bijection can be made between the terms in which the gamma functions are evaluated and the roots of the corresponding polynomials. According to the multiplication theorem for the Gamma function this equals $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\left(\Gamma(a_{1}s)(2\pi)^{\frac{a_{1}}{2}} a_{1}^{\frac{1}{2}-a_{1}s}\right)\cdots\left(\Gamma(a_{r}s)(2\pi)^{\frac{a_{r}}{2}} a_{r}^{\frac{1}{2}-a_{r}s}\right)}{\left(\Gamma(b_{1}s)(2\pi)^{\frac{b_{1}}{2}} b_{1}^{\frac{1}{2}-b_{1}s}\right)\cdots \left(\Gamma(b_{r}s)(2\pi)^{\frac{b_{r}}{2}} b_{r}^{\frac{1}{2}-b_{r}s}\right)}\\
=C^{-s}\frac{\Gamma(a_{1}s)\cdots \Gamma(a_{r}s)}{\Gamma(b_{1}s)\cdots \Gamma(b_{r}s)} (2\pi)^{\frac{n}{2}}\sqrt{\frac{a_{1}\cdots a_{r}}{b_{1}\cdots b_{r}}}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used that $a_{1}+\ldots+a_{r} = n+b_{1}+\ldots+b_{r}$.
$\square$
Notice that we can rewrite this formula as $$\begin{aligned}
\prod_{k=1}^{n} \Gamma(\alpha_{k}+s) = C^{-s}\frac{\Gamma(a_{1}s+1)\cdots \Gamma(a_{r}s+1)}{\Gamma(b_{1}s+1)\cdots \Gamma(b_{r}s+1)} (2\pi)^{\frac{n}{2}}\sqrt{\frac{b_{1}\cdots b_{r}}{a_{1}\cdots a_{r}}}\end{aligned}$$ which implies the appealing form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{appeal}
C^{s}\prod_{k=1}^{n} \frac{\Gamma(\alpha_{k}+s)}{\Gamma(\alpha_{k})} = \frac{\Gamma(a_{1}s+1)\cdots \Gamma(a_{r}s+1)}{\Gamma(b_{1}s+1)\cdots \Gamma(b_{r}s+1)}.\end{aligned}$$
The proof of the following theorem is by Julian Lyczak and Merlijn Staps.
\[integerC\] The number $C$ of Theorem \[gammaproduct\] is an integer.
**Proof.** Let $m\in\mathbb{N}$, the number of factors of the product $(X^{b_{1}}-1)\cdots (X^{b_{r}}-1)$ of which $e^{2\pi i/m}$ is a root cannot exceed the number of factors of the product $(X^{a_{1}}-1)\cdots (X^{a_{r}}-1)$ of which $e^{2\pi i/m}$ is a root, otherwise $(X^{a_{1}}-1)\cdots (X^{a_{r}}-1)(X^{b_{1}}-1)^{-1}\cdots (X^{b_{r}}-1)^{-1}$ could not be a polynomial. We conclude that $|\{j:m|a_{j}\}|\geq |\{j:m|b_{j}\}|$ for all $m\in\mathbb{N}$. Now let $p$ be prime and let $k\in\mathbb{N}$. Define $A_{k}=\{a_{j}:p^{k}|a_{j}\}$ and $B_{k}=\{b_{j}:p^{k}|b_{j}\}$ and consider the rational function $$\begin{aligned}
q(X) = \prod_{a\in A_{k}} (X^{a}-1)/\prod_{b\in B_{k}} (X^{b}-1).\end{aligned}$$ Suppose $q(X)$ is not a polynomial, then there exists a root of unity $\zeta\neq 1$ such that there are more factors of the form $(X^{b}-1)$ than of the form $(X^{a}-1)$ that have $\zeta$ as a root. This root is of the form $\zeta=e^{2\pi i l/m}$ for some $l,m\in\mathbb{N}$, where $m>1$. In particular, $|\{a\in A_{k}:m|a\}|<|\{b\in B_{k}:m|b\}|$. However, because $|A_{k}|=|\{j:p^{k}|a_{j}\}|\geq |\{j:p^{k}|b_{j}\}|=|B_{k}|$ we must have $gcd(m,p)=1$, and this would imply $|\{j:p^{k}m|a_{j}\}|<|\{j:p^{k}m|b_{j}\}|$, which is a contradiction. We must conclude that $q(X)$ is a polynomial, thus by comparing degrees we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{a\in A_{k}} a \geq \sum_{b\in B_{k}} b.\end{aligned}$$ Denote by $\mathcal{A}_{j}$ the largest integer such that $p^{\mathcal{A}_{j}}| a_{j}$ and by $\mathcal{B}_{j}$ the largest integer such that $p^{\mathcal{B}_{j}} | b_{j}$. The theorem is now proved by the observation that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=1}^{r} \mathcal{A}_{j} a_{j} = \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \sum_{a\in A_{k}} a\geq \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \sum_{b\in B_{k}} b = \sum_{j=1}^{r} \mathcal{B}_{j} b_{j}.\end{aligned}$$
$\square$
\[faculteit\] Let $r\in\mathbb{N}$ and let $a_{1},\ldots,a_{n},b_{1},\ldots,b_{n}\in \mathbb{N}$. Suppose that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{poly1}
\frac{(X^{a_{1}}-1)\cdots (X^{a_{r}}-1)}{(X^{b_{1}}-1)\cdots (X^{b_{r}}-1)}\end{aligned}$$ is a polynomial. Then $\frac{a_{1}!\cdots a_{r}!}{b_{1}!\cdots b_{r}!}$ is an integer.
**Proof.** Notice that by multiplying with $(X-1)$ we may assume (\[poly1\]) to be non-constant. Without loss of generality (\[poly1\]) is irreducible (this follows from Proposition \[polynoomst\]). Thus there exists a $\mathcal{N}\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $\{\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{n}\}=\{m/\mathcal{N}:0<m<\mathcal{N},gcd(m,\mathcal{N})=1\}$. It follows from (\[appeal\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{a_{1}!\cdots a_{r}!}{b_{1}!\cdots b_{r}!} = \alpha_{1}\cdots \alpha_{n} \frac{a_{1}^{a_{1}}\cdots a_{r}^{a_{r}}}{b_{1}^{b_{1}}\cdots b_{r}^{b_{r}}}.\end{aligned}$$ Let $p$ be a prime divisor of $\mathcal{N}$ and denote by $m$ its multiplicity. We follow the proof of Proposition \[integerC\] untill we define the polynomial $$\begin{aligned}
q(X) = \prod_{a\in A_{k}} (X^{a}-1)/\prod_{b\in B_{k}} (X^{b}-1).\end{aligned}$$ for $k\leq m$ (with same notation). Notice that indeed there must exist an $a_{j}$ such that $p^{m}|a_{j}$ because $e^{2\pi i/\mathcal{N}}$ must be a root of our original polynomial. In this case, we can reason that $e^{-2\pi i\alpha_{j}}$ must be a root of $q(X)$, this is because it is a root of our original polynomial and cannot be a root of any factor not corresponding to $A_{k}$. By comparing degrees we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{a\in A_{k}} a \geq n+\sum_{b\in B_{k}} b.\end{aligned}$$ We obtain $$\begin{aligned}
-m n+\sum_{j=1}^{r} \alpha_{j} a_{j} = -m n+\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \sum_{a\in A_{k}} a\geq \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \sum_{b\in B_{k}} b = \sum_{j=1}^{r} \beta_{j} b_{j}\end{aligned}$$ which proves our corollary.
$\square$
A general expression for the monodromy matrices of the maximally unipotent case
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we would instead of the generalized hypergeometric equation have considered the equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hypergeoC}
\theta^{n}f=Cz(\theta-\alpha_{1})\cdots (\theta-\alpha_{n})f\end{aligned}$$ then a solution $f$ to this equation for $C=1$, i.e. of the hypergeometric case, induces the solution $f(C z)$ for general $C\in\mathbb{C}\setminus\{0\}$. In other words, normalization of $z$ provides us with solutions to a related differential equation. Let us use our knowledge of the hypergeometric equation to find ‘a Frobenius basis’ for (\[hypergeoC\]). Denote this Frobenius basis by $f_{0}^{C},\ldots,f_{n-1}^{C}$. We know that a basis of solutions is given by $f_{0}(Cz),\ldots,f_{n-1}(Cz)$. Notice that $$\begin{aligned}
f_{j}(Cz) &= \frac{\log^{j}(Cz)}{j!}+\sum_{m=0}^{j} \frac{\log^{m}(Cz)}{m!}h_{m}(Cz)\\
&= \sum_{m=0}^{j} \frac{\log^{m}(z)}{m!} \frac{\log^{j-m}(C)}{(j-m)!}+\sum_{m=0}^{j} \frac{(\log(z)+\log(C))^{m}}{m!}h_{m}(Cz)\\
&= \sum_{m=0}^{j} \frac{\log^{j-m}(C)}{(j-m)!} f_{j}^{C}(z).\end{aligned}$$ We conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\begin{array}{c} f_{n-1}^{C}(z)/(2\pi i)^{n-1} \\ \vdots \\ f_{0}^{C}(z) \end{array}\right) = C^{-\frac{N}{2\pi i}} \left(\begin{array}{c} f_{n-1}(Cz)/(2\pi i)^{n-1} \\ \vdots \\ f_{0}(Cz) \end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Again $N$ is the matrix who’s only nonzero components are ones on the superdiagonal. Notice that in this case our monodromy group is generated by $M_{0},M_{1/C}$ and $M_{\infty}$.\
From now on we choose $C$ to be the constant from the previous paragraph, that is $$\begin{aligned}
C = \frac{a_{1}^{a_{1}}\cdots a_{n}^{a_{n}}}{b_{1}^{b_{1}}\cdots b_{n}^{b_{n}}}.\end{aligned}$$
Let $\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{n}\in \mathbb{Q}\cap (0,1)$ and suppose that $(X-e^{-2\pi i\alpha_{1}})\cdots (X-e^{-2\pi i\alpha_{n}})$ has integer coefficients. Then the solution $f_{0}^{C}$ of (\[hypergeoC\]) has integer coefficients in its powerseries expansion.
**Proof.** From the above discussion we infer that $$\begin{aligned}
f_{0}^{C}(z) = {_{n}F_{n-1}}(\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{n};1,\ldots,1|Cz) = \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \frac{(a_{1}m)!\cdots (a_{r}m)!}{(b_{1}m)!\cdots (b_{r}m)!}\frac{z^{m}}{m!^{n}},\end{aligned}$$ where we have used (\[appeal\]). Without loss of generality $(X-e^{-2\pi i\alpha_{1}})\cdots (X-e^{-2\pi i\alpha_{n}})$ is irreducible. Let $p\leq m$ be prime. Let $\mathcal{N}$ be as in corollary \[faculteit\]. Suppose $p\not|\mathcal{N}$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{(a_{1}m)!\cdots (a_{r}m)!}{(b_{1}m)!\cdots (b_{r}m)!} &= \left(\prod_{k=1}^{n} \prod_{l=0}^{m-1} \frac{\alpha_{k}+l}{m}\right) \frac{(a_{1}m)^{a_{1}m}\cdots (a_{r}m)^{a_{r}m}}{(b_{1}m)^{b_{1}m}\cdots (b_{r}m)^{b_{r}m}}\\
&= \left(\prod_{k=1}^{n} \prod_{l=0}^{m-1} \frac{\mathcal{N}\alpha_{k}+\mathcal{N} l}{\mathcal{N}}\right) \left(\frac{a_{1}^{a_{1}}\cdots a_{r}^{a_{r}}}{b_{1}^{b_{1}}\cdots b_{r}^{b_{r}}}\right)^{m}.\end{aligned}$$ Because $\text{gcd}(p,\mathcal{N})=1$ we have $\{0,\mathcal{N},2\mathcal{N},\ldots,(p^{l}-1)\mathcal{N}\}\equiv\{0,1,\ldots,p^{l}-1\} \mod{p^{l}}$. Thus at least $[m/p^{l}]$ of $\mathcal{N} \alpha_{k}, \mathcal{N} \alpha_{k}+\mathcal{N},\ldots,\mathcal{N} \alpha_{k}+(m-1)\mathcal{N}$ must be divisible by $p^{l}$. We conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
p^{n([m/p]+[m/p^{2}]+\ldots)}|\prod_{k=1}^{n} \prod_{l=0}^{m-1} (\mathcal{N}\alpha_{k}+\mathcal{N} l),\end{aligned}$$ and this is enough. Now suppose $p|\mathcal{N}$ with multiplicity $e$. We notice that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{(a_{1}m)!\cdots (a_{r}m)!}{(b_{1}m)!\cdots (b_{r}m)!} &= \left(\prod_{k=1}^{n} \prod_{l=0}^{m-1} \frac{\mathcal{N}\alpha_{k}+\mathcal{N} l}{\mathcal{N}\alpha_{k}}\right) \left(\frac{a_{1}!\cdots a_{r}!}{b_{1}!\cdots b_{r}!}\right)^{m}\end{aligned}$$ We should prove that $$\begin{aligned}
p|\frac{a_{1}!\cdots a_{r}!}{b_{1}!\cdots b_{r}!}.\end{aligned}$$ If this is not the case then we deduce from the proof of corollary \[faculteit\] that $$\begin{aligned}
(X-e^{-2\pi i\alpha_{1}})\cdots (X-e^{-2\pi i\alpha_{n}}) = \prod_{a\in A_{e}} (X^{a}-1)/\prod_{b\in B_{e}} (X^{b}-1).\end{aligned}$$ Thus $(X-e^{-2\pi i\alpha_{1}})\cdots (X-e^{-2\pi i\alpha_{n}})=q(X^{p^{e}})$ for some polynomial $q$ that must necessarily be cyclotomic and irreducible. We conclude that there must exist an $\mathcal{M}\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $\varphi(\mathcal{N})=n\varphi(\mathcal{M})$, where $\varphi$ is the Euler totient function. Also we deduce that $p^{e}|n$. Since $e^{2\pi i p^{e}/\mathcal{N}}$ is a root of $q$ we must have $\mathcal{N}/p^{e}|\mathcal{M}$. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi(\mathcal{N}) = n\varphi(\mathcal{M}) \geq n\varphi(\mathcal{N}/p^{e}) = \varphi(\mathcal{N}) \frac{n}{p^{e}} \frac{p}{p-1} > \varphi(\mathcal{N}),\end{aligned}$$ a contradiction.
$\square$
The authors of [@CYY] point out that this result holds for all Picard-Fuchs equations (i.e. the $n=4$ case), it is actually used as part of the definition of a Calabi-Yau type differential equation by the authors of [@AESZ]. A folklore conjecture that goes back to Bombieri and Dwork states that all power series $y_{0}(z)\in\mathbb{Z}[[z]]$ that satisfy a homogeneous linear differential equation have a geometrical origin.\
Matrices that have the form of $\Phi$ from Theorem \[InaarF\] have a certain homomorphism property. Explicitly, for a function $C(s)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
& \left( \begin{array}{ccccc}
\phi(0) & \frac{\phi'(0)}{2\pi i} & \frac{\phi''(0)}{2!(2\pi i)^{2}} & \hdots & \frac{\phi^{(n-1)}(0)}{(n-1)!(2\pi i)^{n-1}}\\
0 & \phi(0) & \frac{\phi'(0)}{2\pi i} & \hdots & \frac{\phi^{(n-2)}(0)}{(n-2)!(2\pi i)^{n-2}}\\
0 & 0 & \phi(0) & \hdots & \frac{\phi^{(n-3)}(0)}{(n-3)!(2\pi i)^{n-3}}\\
\vdots & \vdots & & & \vdots\\
0 & 0 & 0 & \hdots & \phi(0) \end{array} \right)
\left( \begin{array}{ccccc}
C(0) & \frac{C'(0)}{2\pi i} & \frac{C''(0)}{2!(2\pi i)^{2}} & \hdots & \frac{C^{(n-1)}(0)}{(n-1)!(2\pi i)^{n-1}}\\
0 & C(0) & \frac{C'(0)}{2\pi i} & \hdots & \frac{C^{(n-2)}(0)}{(n-2)!(2\pi i)^{n-2}}\\
0 & 0 & C(0) & \hdots & \frac{C^{(n-3)}(0)}{(n-3)!(2\pi i)^{n-3}}\\
\vdots & \vdots & & & \vdots\\
0 & 0 & 0 & \hdots & C(0) \end{array} \right)\\
&= \left( \begin{array}{ccccc}
\phi_{C}(0) & \frac{\phi_{C}'(0)}{2\pi i} & \frac{\phi_{C}''(0)}{2!(2\pi i)^{2}} & \hdots & \frac{\phi_{C}^{(n-1)}(0)}{(n-1)!(2\pi i)^{n-1}}\\
0 & \phi_{C}(0) & \frac{\phi_{C}'(0)}{2\pi i} & \hdots & \frac{\phi_{C}^{(n-2)}(0)}{(n-2)!(2\pi i)^{n-2}}\\
0 & 0 & \phi_{C}(0) & \hdots & \frac{\phi_{C}^{(n-3)}(0)}{(n-3)!(2\pi i)^{n-3}}\\
\vdots & \vdots & & & \vdots\\
0 & 0 & 0 & \hdots & \phi_{C}(0) \end{array} \right)\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi_{C}(s) = \phi(s) C(s)$. Notice that the second matrix in the product is simply $C^{\frac{N}{2\pi i}}$ when $C(s)$ is defined to be $C^{s}$. The results we have found so far adapt naturally to the new basis (where $z$ is normalized with $C$), we simply substitute $\phi$ by $\phi_{C}$ (compare this with Theorem \[InaarF\]). It should be clear why this basis is interesting, with our particular choice of $C$ we have the appealing form $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{C}(s) = \frac{\Gamma(a_{1}s+1)\cdots \Gamma(a_{r}s+1)}{\Gamma(b_{1}s+1)\cdots \Gamma(b_{r}s+1)}\Gamma(1-s)^{n}.\end{aligned}$$
Let $j\in\mathbb{N}$. By $\pi_{j}$ we denote the set of integer partitions of $j$, i.e. the set of finite (not necessarily strictly) decreasing sequences of natural numbers $p_{1},p_{2},\ldots$ such that $p_{1}+p_{2}+\ldots=j$. Any function $g$ whose domain contains $\mathbb{N}$ can be extended to partitions by multiplication, i.e. $g(p) = g(p_{1})g(p_{2})\cdots$. Additionally, we define $\pi_{0}=\{0\}$ and $g(0)=1$.
The following theorem will provide us with a practical method to obtain the monodromy matrices in the ordered basis $f_{n-1}^{C}/(2\pi i)^{n-1},\ldots, f_{1}^{C}/(2\pi i), f_{0}^{C}$.\
\[main?\] **(Main Theorem)**\
Let $\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{n}\in \mathbb{Q}\cap (0,1)$ and suppose that $(X-e^{-2\pi i\alpha_{1}})\cdots (X-e^{-2\pi i\alpha_{n}})$ is a product of cyclotomic polynomials. Let $r\in\mathbb{N}$ and $a_{1},\ldots,a_{r},b_{1},\ldots,b_{r}\in\mathbb{N}$ be as in Theorem \[gammaproduct\] and define $\zeta(1)=0$ for convenience. In the ordered basis $f_{n-1}^{C}/(2\pi i)^{n-1},\ldots,f_{1}^{C}/(2\pi i),f_{0}^{C}$ of (\[hypergeoC\]) we have $M_{1/C} = \mathbb{I} - v_{-} v_{+}^{T}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{entries}
v_{-,j} &= \sum_{l=0}^{n-1-j} c_{l+j} \sum_{p\in\pi_{l}} \frac{1}{M(p)} c_{p}^{-}\frac{\zeta(p)}{(2\pi i)^{p}}\text{ and }v_{+,j} = \sum_{p\in \pi_{j}} \frac{1}{M(p)} c_{p}^{+}\frac{\zeta(p)}{(2\pi i)^{p}}\end{aligned}$$ for $j=0,1,\ldots,n-1$. Here the coefficients $c_{j},c_{j}^{\pm}\in\mathbb{Q}$ are given by $c_{0}^{\pm}=1$ and $$\begin{aligned}
c_{j}^{\pm} &= \frac{1}{j}\left(\pm n- (\pm 1)^{j}\sum_{m=1}^{r} (a_{m}^{j}-b_{m}^{j})\right)\text{ and }c_{j} = \frac{1}{(n-1)!}\frac{a_{1}\cdots a_{r}}{b_{1}\cdots b_{r}}\frac{d^{j}}{dz^{j}}\left. \prod_{m=1}^{n-1} \left(z-m+\frac{n}{2}\right)\right|_{z=0} \end{aligned}$$ (the definition for $c_{j}$ also being valid for $j=0$) and the function $M:\pi_{0}\cup \pi_{1} \cup\cdots\to\mathbb{N}$ by $M(p_{1},p_{2},\cdots) = |\{k:p_{k}=1\}|! |\{k:p_{k}=2\}|!\cdots$\
In particular, all matrices in the corresponding monodromy group have their entries in $\mathbb{Q}(\zeta(3) (2\pi i)^{-3},\zeta(5) (2\pi i)^{-5},\ldots,\zeta(m)(2\pi i)^{-m})$, with $m$ the largest odd number below $n$.\
**Proof.** We use the function $V$ from theorem (\[M1stelling\]). After conjugation with the matrix $C^{\frac{N}{2\pi i}}$ we have the same theorem but with function $\phi_{C}(s)=C^{s}\phi(s)$ instead. Notice that $$\begin{aligned}
(-1)^{n}e^{\pi i(\alpha_{1}+\ldots+\alpha_{n})} V_{C}(s) &:= \phi(s) C^{s}\prod_{k=1}^{n} (e^{\pi i(\alpha_{k}+s)}-e^{-\pi i(\alpha_{k}+s)})\\
&= (2\pi i)^{n}\Gamma(1-s)^{n}C^{s}\prod_{k=1}^{n} \frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha_{k})\Gamma(1-\alpha_{k}-s)}\\
&= (2\pi i)^{n} \frac{\Gamma(1-s)^{n}}{\Gamma(\alpha_{1})^{2}\cdots \Gamma(\alpha_{n})^{2}} \frac{\Gamma(1-b_{1}s)\cdots \Gamma(1-b_{r}s)}{\Gamma(1-a_{1}s)\cdots \Gamma(1-a_{r}s)}\\
&= i^{n} \Gamma(1-s)^{n} \frac{a_{1}\cdots a_{r}}{b_{1}\cdots b_{r}}\frac{\Gamma(1-b_{1}s)\cdots \Gamma(1-b_{r}s)}{\Gamma(1-a_{1}s)\cdots \Gamma(1-a_{r}s)}\end{aligned}$$ We remark that one must have $\alpha_{1}+\ldots+\alpha_{n}=\frac{n}{2}$. Using the formula $$\begin{aligned}
\log \Gamma(1+s) &= -\gamma s+\sum_{p=2}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^{p}}{p} \zeta(p) s^{p}\end{aligned}$$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
(-1)^{n}\frac{b_{1}\cdots b_{r}}{a_{1}\cdots a_{r}} V_{C}(s) &= \exp\left(\sum_{p=2}^{\infty} c_{p}^{+} \zeta(p) s^{p}\right)\\
&= 1+\sum_{r=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{r!} \left(\sum_{p_{1}=1}^{\infty} c_{p_{1}}^{+} \zeta(p_{1}) s^{p_{1}}\right) \left(\sum_{p_{2}=1}^{\infty} c_{p_{2}}^{+} \zeta(p_{2}) s^{p_{2}}\right) \cdots \left(\sum_{p_{r}=1}^{\infty} c_{p_{r}}^{+} \zeta(p_{r}) s^{p_{r}}\right)\\
&= 1+\sum_{j=1}^{\infty} s^{j} \sum_{r=1}^{j} \frac{1}{r!} \sum_{p_{1}+\cdots+p_{r}=j} c_{p_{1}}^{+} \zeta(p_{1})\cdots c_{p_{r}}^{+} \zeta(p_{r})\\
&= \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} \left(\sum_{p\in\pi_{j}} \frac{1}{M(p)} c_{p}^{+}\frac{\zeta(p)}{(2\pi i)^{p}}\right) (2\pi i s)^{j},\end{aligned}$$ where $p c_{p}^{+} = n-(a_{1}^{p}+\ldots+a_{r}^{p}-b_{1}^{p}-\ldots-b_{r}^{p})$. To complete the proof we will have to know the inverse of $Q\Phi C^{\frac{N}{2\pi i}}$. The inverse of $\Phi C^{\frac{N}{2\pi i}}$ is obvious from the homomorphism property of this type of matrix. We remark that the inverse of $Q$ is determined by $$\begin{aligned}
\prod_{m=0,m\neq k}^{n-1}\frac{(z-m+\frac{n}{2})}{k-j} = \frac{(Q^{-1})_{0,k}}{0!}+\frac{(Q^{-1})_{1,k}}{1!} z+\ldots+\frac{(Q^{-1})_{n-1,k}}{(n-1)!} z^{n-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Fortunately we will only need the first column. We find $$\begin{aligned}
(Q^{-1})_{l,0} = \frac{(-1)^{n-1}}{(n-1)!}\frac{d^{l}}{dz^{l}}|_{z=0} \prod_{m=1}^{n-1} (z-m+\frac{n}{2}).\end{aligned}$$ We notice that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\phi_{C}(s)} &= \Gamma(1-s)^{-n} \frac{\Gamma(b_{1}s)\cdots\Gamma(b_{r}s)}{\Gamma(a_{1}s)\cdots\Gamma(a_{r}s)}\\
&= \exp\left(\sum_{p=2} c_{p}^{-}\zeta(p) s^{p}\right)\\
&= \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} \left(\sum_{p\in\pi_{j}} \frac{1}{M(p)} c_{p}^{-}\frac{\zeta(p)}{(2\pi i)^{p}}\right) (2\pi i s)^{j},\end{aligned}$$ where $p c_{p}^{-} = -n-(-1)^{p}(a_{1}^{p}+\ldots+a_{r}^{p}-b_{1}^{p}-\ldots-b_{r}^{p})$. It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
(n-1)!(-1)^{n-1}(C^{-\frac{N}{2\pi i}}\Phi^{-1}Q^{-1})_{j,0} &=\sum_{l=0}^{n-1-j} \frac{d^{l+j}}{dz^{l+j}}|_{z=0} \prod_{m=1}^{n-1} \left(z-m+\frac{n}{2}\right) \sum_{p\in\pi_{j}} \frac{1}{M(p)} c_{p}^{-}\frac{\zeta(p)}{(2\pi i)^{p}}\end{aligned}$$ The last part of the theorem follows from the fact that $M_{0}$ has integer coefficients and $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\zeta(2p)}{(2\pi i)^{2p}} = -\frac{B_{2p}}{2(2p)!}\end{aligned}$$ where $B_{2p}$ is the $2p$-th Bernoulli number.
$\square$
Notice that the above theorem produces a practical method to determine monodromy matrices. Given $\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{n}\in\mathbb{Q}\cap (0,1)$ one has to write the corresponding polynomial in the form (\[polynoomvorm\]) and then simply calculate the coefficients $c_{j}^{\pm},c_{j}$.
For the last part of the main theorem the $\alpha_{k}$ need not actually lie in $(0,1)$ as can be seen from the multiplicative property of the gamma function and the homomorphism property of the $\Phi$ matrix.
We point out that in the Frobenius basis $f_{0},f_{1},\ldots,f_{n-1}$ the monodromy matrices can be obtained by a trivial transformation, namely inverting the conjugation by $C^{\frac{N}{2\pi i}}$. Hence the entries are in $\mathbb{Q}(\log(C)(2 \pi i)^{-1},\zeta(3) (2\pi i)^{-3},\zeta(5) (2\pi i)^{-5}\ldots,\zeta(m)(2\pi i)^{-m})$, with $m$ the largest odd number below $n$.
Applications of the main theorem
--------------------------------
As one can check the case $n=2$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
M_{1} = \left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0\\ -\frac{a_{1}\cdots a_{r}}{b_{1}\cdots b_{r}} & 1\end{array}\right) . \end{aligned}$$ The results are summarized in the following table.
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{ l || c }
\text{Case} & \frac{a_{1}\cdots a_{r}}{b_{1}\cdots b_{r}} \\
\hline
(z+1)^{2} = \frac{(z^{2}-1)^{2}}{(z-1)^{2}} & 4 \\
(z^{2}+z+1) = \frac{z^{3}-1}{z-1} & 3 \\
(z^{2}+1) = \frac{z^{4}-1}{z^{2}-1} & 2 \\
(z^{2}-z+1) = \frac{(z^{6}-1)(z-1)}{(z^{3}-1)(z^{2}-1)} & 1
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$
Let us look at the case $n=3$. Using the identity $c_{2}^{-}+3=c_{2}^{+}$ we obtain the matrix $$\begin{aligned}
M_{1} = \left(\begin{array}{ccc} 1+b d & 0 & -b^{2} d\\ 0 & 1 & 0\\ -d & 0 &1+ b d\end{array}\right)\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
b = \frac{c_{2}^{+}}{24}\text{ and }d=\frac{a_{1}\cdots a_{r}}{b_{1}\cdots b_{r}}. \end{aligned}$$ All the corresponding cases are worked out in the following table.\
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{ l || c | c | c }
\text{Case} & C & 24 b & d/2 \\
\hline
(z+1)^{3} = \frac{(z^{2}-1)^{3}}{(z-1)^{3}} & 64 & -3 & 4\\
(z^{2}+z+1)(z+1) = \frac{(x^{2}-1)(x^{3}-1)}{(x-1)^{2}} & 108 & -4 & 3\\
(z^{2}+1)(z+1) = \frac{x^{4}-1}{x-1} & 256 & -6 & 2\\
(z^{2}-z+1)(z+1) = \frac{x^{6}-1}{x^{3}-1} & 1728 & -12 & 1
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ From this table we read off that $bd=-1$ in all cases and we deduce the even nicer form $$\begin{aligned}
M_{1} = \left(\begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 0 & -1/d \\ 0 & 1 & 0\\ -d & 0 & 0\end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$
Let us apply the theorem to the case $n=4$. This case corresponds to the Picard-Fuchs equation, given by $$\begin{aligned}
[\theta^{4}-C z(\theta-A)(\theta+A-1)(\theta-B)(\theta+B-1)]f = 0.\end{aligned}$$ These differential equations arise from Calabi-Yau threefolds (see [@CYY]). Let us apply the main theorem, using that $c_{2}^{-}+4 = c_{2}^{+}$ and $c_{3}^{-} = -c_{3}^{+}$ we can write $M_{1}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\begin{array}{cccc} 1+a & 0 & ab/d & a^{2}/d\\
-b & 1 & -b^{2}/d & -ab/d\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
-d & 0 & -b & 1-a \end{array}\right)\end{aligned}$$ when we identify $$\begin{aligned}
d &= \frac{a_{1}\cdots a_{r}}{b_{1}\cdots b_{r}}, a = d c_{3}^{+}\frac{\zeta(3)}{(2\pi i)^{3}}\text{ and }b = -\frac{d c_{2}^{+}}{24}.\end{aligned}$$
The authors of [@CYY] point out that the entries of $M_{1/C}$ contain geometric invariants belonging to the corresponding Calabi-You threefolds. The 14 corresponding cases are worked out in the following table.
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{ l | r || c | c | c | c }
\text{Case} & \text{Polynomial} & C & d & 24 b & (2\pi i)^{3} a/\zeta(3) \\
\hline
(1/5,2/5,3/5,4/5) & \frac{X^{5}-1}{X-1} & 3025 & 5 & 50 & -200\\
(1/10,3/10,7/10,9/10) & \frac{(X-1)(X^{10}-1)}{(X^{2}-1)(X^{5}-1)} & 800 000 & 1 & 34 & -288\\
(1/2,1/2,1/2,1/2) & \frac{(X^{2}-1)^{4}}{(X-1)^{4}} & 256 & 16 & 64 & -128\\
(1/3,1/3,2/3,2/3) & \frac{(X^{3}-1)^{2}}{(X-1)^{2}} & 729 & 9 & 54 & -144\\
(1/3,1/2,1/2,2/3) & \frac{(X^{2}-1)^{2}(X^{3}-1)}{(X-1)^{3}} & 432 & 12 & 60 & -144\\
(1/4,1/2,1/2,3/4) & \frac{(X^{2}-1)(X^{4}-1)}{(X-1)^{2}} & 1024 & 8 & 56 & -176\\
(1/8,3/8,5/8,7/8) & \frac{X^{8}-1}{X^{4}-1} & 65 536 & 2 & 44 & -296\\
(1/6,1/3,2/3,5/6) & \frac{X^{6}-1}{X^{2}-1} & 11664 & 3 & 42 & -204\\
(1/12,5/12,7/12,11/12) & \frac{(X^{2}-1)(X^{12}-1)}{(X^{4}-1)(X^{6}-1)} & 2 985 984 & 1 & 46 & -484\\
(1/4,1/4,3/4,3/4) & \frac{(X^{4}-1)^{2}}{(X^{2}-1)^{2}} & 496 & 4 & 40 & -144\\
(1/4,1/3,2/3,3/4) & \frac{(X^{3}-1)(X^{4}-1)}{(X-1)(X^{2}-1)} & 1728 & 6 & 48 & -156\\
(1/6,1/4,3/4,5/6) & \frac{(X-1)(X^{4}-1)(X^{6}-1)}{(X^{2}-1)^{2} (X^{3}-1)} & 27 648 & 2 & 32 & -156\\
(1/6,1/6,5/6,5/6) & \frac{(X-1)^{2} (X^{6}-1)^{2}}{(X^{2}-1)^{2} (X^{3}-1)^{2}} & 186 624 & 1 & 22 & -120\\
(1/6,1/2,1/2,5/6) & \frac{(X^{2}-1)(X^{6}-1)}{(X-1)(X^{3}-1)} & 6912 & 4 & 52 & -256
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$
This is in agreement with the results of [@CYY].
[1]{}
Y. Chen, Y. Yang, N. Yui, [*“Monodromy of Picard-Fuchs Differential Equations for Calabi-Yau Threefolds"*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math. 616 (2008), 167–203. arXiv:math/0605675.
F. Beukers, [*“Notes on differential equations and hypergeometric functions"*]{} (informal notes).
G. Heckman, [*“Tsinghua Lectures on Hypergeometric Functions"*]{} (informal notes).
F. Beukers, G. Heckman, [*“Monodromy for the Hypergeometric Function ${_{n}F_{n-1}}$"*]{}, Inv. Math. 95 (1989), 325-354.
G. Almkvist, D. van Straten, W. Zudilin, [*Generalizations of Clausen’s Formula and Algebraic Transformations of Calabi-Yau Differential Equations*]{}, Proc. Edinb. Math. Soc. (2) 54 (2011), no. 2, 273–295.
G. Almkvist, C. van Enckevort, D. van Straten, and W. Zudilin, [*“Tables of Calabi-Yau equations"*]{}, arXiv:math/0507430 (2010)
C. van Enckevort, D. van Straten, [*Monodromy calculations of fourth order equations of Calabi-Yau type*]{}, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI (2006). arXiv:math/0412539v2
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We present a specialized point-counting algorithm for a class of elliptic curves over ${\mathbb{F}}_{p^2}$ that includes reductions of quadratic ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$-curves modulo inert primes and, more generally, any elliptic curve over ${\mathbb{F}}_{p^2}$ with a low-degree isogeny to its Galois conjugate curve. These curves have interesting cryptographic applications. Our algorithm is a variant of the Schoof–Elkies–Atkin (SEA) algorithm, but with a new, lower-degree endomorphism in place of Frobenius. While it has the same asymptotic asymptotic complexity as SEA, our algorithm is much faster in practice.'
author:
- 'François Morain, Charlotte Scribot, and Benjamin Smith'
bibliography:
- 'qcsea.bib'
title: 'Computing cardinalities of ${\mathbb{Q}}$-curve reductions over finite fields'
---
Introduction
============
Computing the cardinalities of the groups of rational points on elliptic curves over finite fields is a fundamental algorithmic challenge in computational number theory, and an essential tool in elliptic curve cryptography. Over finite fields of large characteristic, the best known algorithm is the Schoof–Elkies–Atkin (SEA) algorithm [@Schoof95]. A lot of work has been put into optimizing the computations for prime fields of large characteristic (see [@Sutherland13] for the most recent record). Many of these improvements carry over to the case of more general finite fields. In this article we define a specialized, faster SEA algorithm for a class of elliptic curves over ${\mathbb{F}}_{p^2}$ that have useful cryptographic applications. These curves have low-degree inseparable endomorphisms that can be used to accelerate scalar multiplication in elliptic curve cryptosystems [@Smith13; @Smith15]; here, we use those endomorphisms to accelerate point counting. Going beyond cryptography, this class of curves also includes reductions of quadratic ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$-curves modulo inert primes, so our algorithm may be useful for studying these curves.
Let $q$ be a power of a prime $p > 3$ (in our applications, $q = p^2$ and $p$ is large). Let $${{{{{}^{\sigma}{(\cdot)}}}}} : x \longmapsto x^p$$ be the Frobenius automorphism on ${\mathbb{F}}_q$. We extend the action of Frobenius to polynomials over ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ by acting on coefficients, and thus to curves over ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ by acting on their defining equations: for example, an elliptic curve ${\mathcal{E}}/{\mathbb{F}}_q$ and its Galois conjugate curve ${{{{{}^{\sigma}{{\mathcal{E}}}}}}}/{\mathbb{F}}_q$ would be defined by $${\mathcal{E}}: y^2 = x^3 + Ax + B
\quad
\text{and}
\quad
{{{{{}^{\sigma}{{\mathcal{E}}}}}}}: y^2 = x^3 + A^px + B^p
\ .$$
If ${\mathcal{E}}/{\mathbb{F}}_q$ is an elliptic curve, then there is a $p$-isogeny $\pi_p: {\mathcal{E}}\to{{{{{}^{\sigma}{{\mathcal{E}}}}}}}$ defined by $\pi_p : (x,y) \mapsto (x^p, y^p)$. If $q = p^n$, then composing $\pi_p$, ${{{{{}^{\sigma}{\pi_p}}}}}$, …, ${{{}^{\sigma^{n-1}}{\pi_p}}}$ yields the Frobenius endomorphism $\pi_q : (x,y)\mapsto (x^q,y^q)$ of ${\mathcal{E}}$. Being an endomorphism, $\pi_q$ has a characteristic polynomial $$\label{eq:Frobenius-poly}
\chi_{\pi_{q}}(T)
=
T^2 - t_{\mathcal{E}}T + q$$ such that $\chi_{\pi_q}(\pi_q) = [0]$ in ${\mathrm{End}}({\mathcal{E}})$; the *trace* $t_{\mathcal{E}}$ satisfies the Hasse bound $$\label{eq:Hasse--Weil}
|t_{\mathcal{E}}| \le 2\sqrt{q}
\ .$$ Knowing the cardinality of ${\mathcal{E}}({\mathbb{F}}_q)$ is equivalent to knowing the trace $t_{\mathcal{E}}$, since $$\#{\mathcal{E}}({\mathbb{F}}_{q})
=
\chi_{\pi_{q}}(1)
=
q + 1 - t_{\mathcal{E}}\ .$$
Schoof’s point counting algorithm [@Schoof85] determines $t_\ell := t_{\mathcal{E}}\pmod{\ell}$ for small primes $\ell\not= p$ by examining the action of $\pi_q$ on ${\mathcal{E}}[\ell]$, the $\ell$-torsion subscheme of ${\mathcal{E}}$: we have $$\pi_q^2(P) - [t_\ell] \pi_q(P) + [q\bmod\ell] P = 0
\quad
\text{ for } P \in {\mathcal{E}}[\ell]
\ .$$ If we construct a general $P$ as detailed in §\[sec:background\], then finding $t_\ell$ boils down to a series of polynomial operations modulo the $\ell$-th division polynomial $\Psi_\ell$. Schoof’s algorithm tests these relations until $\prod \ell > 4
\sqrt{q}$, and then deduces $t_{\mathcal{E}}$ from the $t_\ell$ using the Chinese Remainder Theorem (CRT). To completely determine $t_{\mathcal{E}}$ we need to compute $t_\ell$ for $O(\log q)$ primes $\ell$, the largest of which is in $O(\log q)$; fast polynomial evaluations add some more $O(\log q)$ factors, and the final cost is $O(\log^8 q)$ with classical arithmetic (or $O(\log^6 q)$ with fast arithmetic). This basic algorithm was subsequently improved by Atkin and Elkies; the resulting SEA algorithm (see §\[sec:SEA\]) is now the standard point-counting algorithm for elliptic curves over large characteristic fields.
In this article, we present an algorithm that was designed to compute $\#{\mathcal{E}}({\mathbb{F}}_{p^2})$ when ${\mathcal{E}}$ is the reduction of a low-degree quadratic ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$-curve modulo an inert prime. In fact, our algorithm applies to a larger class of curves over finite fields, which we will call *admissible curves*.
First, recall that every $d$-isogeny ${\ensuremath{\vartheta}}: {\mathcal{E}}\to {\mathcal{E}}'$ has a *dual* $d$-isogeny ${{{{\ensuremath{\vartheta}}}^{\dagger}}}: {\mathcal{E}}' \to {\mathcal{E}}$ such that ${{{{\ensuremath{\vartheta}}}^{\dagger}}}{\ensuremath{\vartheta}}= [d]_{{\mathcal{E}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\vartheta}}{{{{\ensuremath{\vartheta}}}^{\dagger}}} = [d]_{{\mathcal{E}}'}$. Also, $\sigma$ acts on isogenies by $p$-th powering the coefficients of their defining polynomials; so every isogeny ${\ensuremath{\vartheta}}: {\mathcal{E}}\to {\mathcal{E}}'$ has a Galois conjugate isogeny ${{{{{}^{\sigma}{{\ensuremath{\vartheta}}}}}}}: {{{{{}^{\sigma}{{\mathcal{E}}}}}}} \to {{{{{}^{\sigma}{{\mathcal{E}}'}}}}}$.
\[def:admissible\] Let $d$ be a squarefree integer with $p\nmid d$. An elliptic curve ${\mathcal{E}}/{\mathbb{F}}_{p^2}$ is *$d$-admissible* if it is equipped with a $d$-isogeny $$\label{eq:conjugate-duality}
\phi: {\mathcal{E}}\longrightarrow {{{{{}^{\sigma}{{\mathcal{E}}}}}}}
\quad
\text{ such that }
\quad
{{{{{}^{\sigma}{\phi}}}}}
=
\epsilon{{{\phi}^{\dagger}}}
\quad \text{where} \quad
\epsilon = \pm 1
\ .$$ Composing $\pi_p: {\mathcal{E}}\to {{{{{}^{\sigma}{{\mathcal{E}}}}}}}$ with ${{{{{}^{\sigma}{\phi}}}}} : {{{{{}^{\sigma}{{\mathcal{E}}}}}}} \to {\mathcal{E}}$, we obtain the *associated endomorphism* $$\psi := {{{{{}^{\sigma}{\phi}}}}}\circ\pi_p
\in {\mathrm{End}}({\mathcal{E}})$$ of degree $dp$. Note that the requirement $p\nmid d$ implies that both $\phi$ and ${{{{{}^{\sigma}{\phi}}}}}$ are separable.
We are particularly interested in curves that are $d$-admissible for small values of $d$. When $d$ is extremely small the associated endomorphism can be evaluated very efficiently, and thus used to accelerate scalar multiplication on ${\mathcal{E}}$ for more efficient implementations of elliptic curve cryptosystems (as in [@Smith13], [@GuillevicIonica13], [@CoHiSm14], [@Smith15], and [@CostelloLonga15]). Constructing cryptographically secure curves equipped with efficient endomorphisms is one major motivation for our algorithm; the other is the principle that the presence of special structures demands the use of a specialized algorithm.
From a practical point of view, suitable modifications of the SEA algorithm gives us a very fast probabilistic solution to the point counting problem for admissible curves. The essential idea is to use SEA with the associated endomorphism $\psi$ in place of $\pi_q$. While the asymptotic complexity of our algorithm is the same as for the unmodified SEA algorithm when $d$ is fixed, there are some important improvements in the big-$O$ constants. Asymptotically, when $d$ is small, our algorithm runs four times faster than SEA (and even faster for smaller $p$).
It is not hard to see that of the $p^2$ isomorphism classes of elliptic curves over ${\mathbb{F}}_{p^2}$, only $O(p)$ classes correspond to $d$-admissible curves for any *fixed* $d$. But while $d$-admissible curves with small $d$ may be relatively rare, they appear naturally “in the wild” as reductions of quadratic ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$-curves of degree $d$ (elliptic curves over quadratic number fields that are $d$-isogenous to their Galois conjugates) modulo inert primes. For some small $d$, these ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$-curves occur in one-parameter families; so our algorithm allows the reductions of these families modulo suitable primes to be rapidly searched for cryptographic curves. We explain this further in §\[sec:QQ-curves\].
Computing with isogenies {#sec:background}
==========================
We begin by recalling some standard results on isogenies, fixing notation and basic complexities in the process. A classical reference for all this is [@GaGe99].
First, let ${{{\sf M}}}(n)$ denote the cost in ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-operations (multiplications) of multiplying two polynomials of degree $n$. Traditional multiplication gives ${{{\sf M}}}(n) = O(n^2)$; fast multiplication gives $\widetilde{O}(n)$. Dividing a degree-$2n$ polynomial by a degree-$n$ polynomial costs $O({{{\sf M}}}(n))$ ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-operations; the extended GCD of two degree-$n$ polynomials can be computed in $O({{{\sf M}}}(n) \log n)$ ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-operations. The number of roots in ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ of a degree-$n$ polynomial $F$ over ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ is equal to $\deg\textsc{Gcd}(x^q-x,F(x))$, which we can compute in $O((\log q){{\sf M}}(n))$ ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-operations if $n \ll q$ (this is dominated by the cost of computing $x^q \bmod F$; see Appendix \[sec:technical-lemmas\]).
We will make extensive use of *modular composition*: if $F$, $G$, and $H$ are polynomials over ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ with $\deg F = n$, $\deg G < n$, and $\deg H < n$, then we can compute $(G \circ H) \bmod F$ in $O(n^{1/2} {{{\sf M}}}(n) + n^{(\omega+1)/2})$ ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-operations, where $2 \le \omega \le 3$ is the constant for linear algebra. Using the method of [@KaSh98], the cost in ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-operations of performing $r$ modular compositions with the same $H$ and $F$ is $$\mathcal{C}_r(n)
:=
O(r^{1/2} n^{1/2} {{{\sf M}}}(n) + r^{(\omega-1)/2} n^{(\omega+1)/2})
\ .$$
**Iterated modular composition**: given $k \in O(n)$, we want to compute $h,h(h) \bmod F, \dots,h^{(k)} \bmod F,$ assuming $F$ divides $F(h)$. Using the algorithm of [@KaSh98 Lemma 4]: if $$H_1=h,H_2=h(h) \bmod F, \dots,H_j=h^{(j)} \bmod F$$ are known, then we deduce $$H_{j+1}=H_1(H_j) \bmod F, \dots,H_{2j}=H_j(H_j) \bmod F.$$ We repeat this scheme for $j=1,\dots,2^{\lceil \log(k) \rceil}$. The total cost is up a constant that of the last step, [*i.e.*]{}, $O(\mathcal{C}_k(n))$.
We will always work with elliptic curves ${\mathcal{E}}/{\mathbb{F}}_q$ using their Weierstrass models, $${\mathcal{E}}: y^2 = f_{\mathcal{E}}(x) ,
\text{ where } f_{\mathcal{E}}\text{ is a monic cubic over } {\mathbb{F}}_q\ .$$ For $m > 0$, the $m$-th *division polynomial* $\Psi_m(x)$ is the polynomial in ${\mathbb{F}}_q[x]$ whose roots are precisely the $x$-coordinates of the points in ${\mathcal{E}}[m]({\overline{\mathbb{F}}}_{q})$.
If $\ell$ is a prime, then the level-$\ell$ modular polynomial $\Phi_\ell(J_1,J_2)$ has degree $\ell+1$ in both $J_1$ and $J_2$, and is defined over ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$. If $\Phi_\ell(j_1,j_2) = 0$ for some $j_1$ and $j_2$ in ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}$, then there is an ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}$-rational $\ell$-isogeny between the curves with $j$-invariants $j_1$ and $j_2$ (possibly after a twist). In particular, if we fix an elliptic curve ${\mathcal{E}}/{\mathbb{F}}_q$, then the roots of $\Phi_\ell(j({\mathcal{E}}),x)$ in ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ correspond to (the isomorphism classes of) the curves that are $\ell$-isogenous to ${\mathcal{E}}$ over ${\mathbb{F}}_q$.
We will need explicit forms for $d$-isogenies where $d$ is squarefree and prime to $p$. Every such isogeny can be expressed as a composition of at most one $2$-isogeny with at most one odd-degree cyclic isogeny over ${\mathbb{F}}_q$. If ${\ensuremath{\vartheta}}$ is a $2$-isogeny, then it is defined by a rational map $$\label{eq:2-isogeny-def}
{\ensuremath{\vartheta}}:
(x,y)
\longmapsto
\left(
\frac{N(x)}{D(x)},
y\frac{M(x)}{D^2(x)}
\right)$$ where $N$, $M$, and $D$ are polynomials over ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ with $\deg N = \deg M = 2$ and $D = x-x_0$ where $x_0$ is the abscissa of a $2$-torsion point. If ${\ensuremath{\vartheta}}$ is a $d$-isogeny where $d$ is odd, squarefree, and prime to $p$, then ${\ensuremath{\vartheta}}$ is defined by a rational map $$\label{eq:d-isogeny-def}
{\ensuremath{\vartheta}}:
(x,y)
\longmapsto
\left(
\frac{N(x)}{D^2(x)},
y\frac{M(x)}{D^3(x)}
\right)$$ where $N$, $M$, and $D$ are polynomials over ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ with $\deg N = \deg M = d$ and $\deg D = (d-1)/2$.
In both cases, the polynomial $D(x)$ cuts out the kernel of ${\ensuremath{\vartheta}}$, in the sense that $D(x(P)) = 0$ if and only if $P$ is a nontrivial element of $\ker{\ensuremath{\vartheta}}$; we call $D$ the *kernel polynomial* of ${\ensuremath{\vartheta}}$. We suppose we have a subroutine $\textsc{KernelPolynomial}(\ell,{\mathcal{E}},j_1)$ which, given ${\mathcal{E}}$ and $j_1 = j({\mathcal{E}}_1)$ such that there exists an $\ell$-isogeny ${\ensuremath{\vartheta}}:{\mathcal{E}}\to{\mathcal{E}}_1$ over ${\mathbb{F}}_q$, computes the kernel polynomial $D$ of ${\ensuremath{\vartheta}}$ and the isogenous curve ${\mathcal{E}}_1$ in $O(\ell^2)$ ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-operations (using the fast algorithms in [@BMSS08]).
The algorithms in this article examine the actions of endomorphisms on $\ker{\ensuremath{\vartheta}}$, where ${\ensuremath{\vartheta}}$ is either $[\ell]$ or an $\ell$-isogeny, for a series of small primes $\ell$. The key is to define a symbolic element of $\ker{\ensuremath{\vartheta}}$. First, we compute the kernel polynomial $D$ of ${\ensuremath{\vartheta}}$ (note that $D = \Psi_\ell$ if ${\ensuremath{\vartheta}}= [\ell]$); then, we can construct a symbolic point $P$ of $\ker{\ensuremath{\vartheta}}$ as $$P := (X,Y)
\in
{\mathcal{E}}\left({\mathbb{F}}_q[X,Y]/(Y^2 - f_{\mathcal{E}}(X),D(X))\right)
\ .$$ We reduce the coordinates of points in ${\ensuremath{\langle{P}\rangle}}$ modulo $D(X)$ and $Y^2 - f_{\mathcal{E}}(X)$ after each operation, so elements of ${\ensuremath{\langle{P}\rangle}}$ have a canonical form $Q = (Q_x(X),YQ_y(X))$ with $\deg Q_x,\deg Q_y < \deg D$.
Let $e = \deg D$; then we can compute $Q_1 + Q_2$ for any $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ in ${\ensuremath{\langle{P}\rangle}}$ in $O({{{\sf M}}}(e) \log e)$ ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-operations, using the standard affine Weierstrass addition formulæ. We can therefore compute $[m]Q$ for any $m$ in ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$ and $Q$ in ${\ensuremath{\langle{P}\rangle}}$ in $O((\log m) {{{\sf M}}}(e) \log e)$ ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-operations, using a binary method. We let $\textsc{DiscreteLogarithm}(Q_1,Q_2)$ be a subroutine which returns the discrete logarithm of $Q_2$ to the base $Q_1$, where both points are in ${\ensuremath{\langle{P}\rangle}}$, in $O(\sqrt{e} {{{\sf M}}}(e))$ ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-operations (using the approach in [@GaMo06]; in some cases we can do better [@MiMoSc07]).
\[lemma:costs\] Let $P = (X,Y)$ in ${\mathcal{E}}({\mathbb{F}}_q[X,Y]/(Y^2 - f_{\mathcal{E}}(X),D(X)))$, and let $e = \deg D$. Then for any $Q$ in ${\ensuremath{\langle{P}\rangle}}$, we can
1. compute $\pi_p(P) = (X^p, Y^p)$ in $O((\log p) {{\sf M}}(e))$ ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-operations;
2. compute $\pi_p(Q)$, given $\pi_p(P)$, in $O((\log p) {{{\sf M}}}(e))$ ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-operations;
3. compute $\phi(Q)$, where $\phi$ is a $2$-isogeny (as in ) in $O({{{\sf M}}}(e))$ ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-operations;
4. compute $\phi(Q)$, where $\phi$ is a $d$-isogeny with $d$ odd, squarefree, and prime to $p$ (as in ) in $O({{{\sf M}}}(d) + \mathcal{C}_3(e))$ ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-operations.
See Appendix \[sec:technical-lemmas\].
Atkin, Elkies, and volcanic primes {#sec:prime-classes}
==================================
Given an elliptic curve ${\mathcal{E}}/{\mathbb{F}}_q$, we split the primes $\ell \not= p$ into three classes: Elkies, Atkin, and volcanic. The volcanic primes fall in two sub-classes: floor-volcanic and upper-volcanic. This classification reflects the structure of the $\ell$-isogeny graph near ${\mathcal{E}}$, which reflects the factorization of $\Phi_\ell(j({\mathcal{E}}),x)$. The facts stated below without proof all follow immediately from well-known observations of Atkin for general ordinary elliptic curves over ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ (cf. [@Schoof95 Prop. 6.2]).
Recall that the discriminant of $\chi_{\pi_{q}}$ is $ \Delta_{\pi_q} := t_{\mathcal{E}}^2 - 4q < 0$. We say that $\ell$ is **volcanic** if $\ell$ divides $\Delta_{\pi_q}$. A volcanic prime $\ell$ is **floor-volcanic** if $$\label{eq:volcanic-factorization-I}
\Phi_\ell(x,j({\mathcal{E}}))
=
(x - j_1)h(x)
\ ,$$ where $h$ is an ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}$-irreducible polynomial of degree $\ell$, or **upper-volcanic** if $$\label{eq:volcanic-factorization-II}
\Phi_\ell(x,j({\mathcal{E}}))
=
\prod_{i=1}^{\ell+1}(x - j_i)$$ with each $j_i$ in ${\mathbb{F}}_q$. In each case, the roots $j_i$ are the $j$-invariants of the elliptic curves ${\mathcal{E}}_i$ that are $\ell$-isogenous to ${\mathcal{E}}$ over ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}$ (up to isomorphism).
We say that $\ell$ is **Elkies** if $\Delta_{\pi_q}$ is a nonzero square modulo $\ell$. Equivalently, $\ell$ is Elkies if $$\label{eq:Elkies-factorization}
\Phi_\ell(x,j({\mathcal{E}}))
=
(x - j_1) (x - j_2) \prod_{i=1}^{(\ell-1)/e} h_i(x)
\ ,$$ where $j_1$ and $j_2$ are in ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ and the $h_i$ are ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-irreducible polynomials, all of the same degree $e > 1$, with $e\mid (\ell-1)$. In this case, there exist ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-rational $\ell$-isogenies ${\ensuremath{\vartheta}}_1: {\mathcal{E}}\to{\mathcal{E}}_1$ and ${\ensuremath{\vartheta}}_2: {\mathcal{E}}\to{\mathcal{E}}_2$ such that $j({\mathcal{E}}_i) = j_i$, and the $\ell$-torsion decomposes as ${\mathcal{E}}[\ell] = \ker{\ensuremath{\vartheta}}_1\oplus\ker{\ensuremath{\vartheta}}_2$.
We say that $\ell$ is **Atkin** if $\Delta_{\pi_q}$ is not a square modulo $\ell$. Equivalently, $\ell$ is Atkin if $$\label{eq:Atkin-factorization}
\Phi_\ell(x,j({\mathcal{E}}))
=
\prod_{i=1}^{(\ell+1)/e}
h_i(x)
\ ,$$ where the $h_i$ are all irreducible polynomials of the same degree $e > 1$, with $e \mid (\ell+1)$. Since $\Phi_\ell(x,j({\mathcal{E}}))$ has no roots in ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}$, there are no elliptic curves $\ell$-isogenous to ${\mathcal{E}}$ over ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}$.
We can determine the class of a prime $\ell$ by finding out how many roots $\Phi_\ell(j({\mathcal{E}}),x)$ has in ${\mathbb{F}}_q$. We define a subroutine $\textsc{EvaluatedModularPolynomial}(\ell,{\mathcal{E}})$, which computes $\Phi_\ell(j({\mathcal{E}}),x)$ in $O(\ell^3 (\log \ell)^3 \log\log \ell)$ bit operations (under the GRH) using the method of [@Sutherland13], assuming $\log q = \Theta(\ell)$. (Note that in practice, one generally uses precomputed modular polynomials over ${\mathbb{Z}}$.)
The number of roots is the degree of $J = \textsc{Gcd}(x^q-x,\Phi_\ell(j({\mathcal{E}}),x))$, which we compute at a further cost of $O((\log q){{\sf M}}(\ell))$ ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-operations. We may then want one of these roots, if any exist; we therefore define a subroutine $\textsc{OneRoot}(J)$ which finds a single root of $J$. At worst, in the upper-volcanic case, this requires $O((\log q)M(\deg J)\log\deg J) = O((\log q)M(\ell)\log\ell)$ ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-operations; at best, in the lower-volcanic and Elkies cases (where $J$ is linear and quadratic, respectively), $\textsc{OneRoot}(J)$ costs $O(1)$ ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-operations.
The SEA algorithm {#sec:SEA}
=================
Algorithm \[alg:SEA\] presents a basic version of the SEA algorithm. The main loop computes $t_\ell := t_{\mathcal{E}}\pmod{\ell}$ for a series of small primes $\ell$; then we recover $t_{\mathcal{E}}$ from the $t_\ell$ via the CRT.
The complexity of Algorithm \[alg:SEA\] (and Algorithm \[alg:AdmissibleTrace\] below) depends on the number of non-Atkin primes less than a given bound. The standard (and naïve) heuristic on prime classes is to suppose that the number of Atkin and non-Atkin primes $\ell$ less than $B$ for a given ${\mathcal{E}}/{\mathbb{F}}_q$ is approximately equal when $B \sim \log q$, as $q \to \infty$. In particular, this means that $O(\log q)$ non-Atkin $\ell$ suffice to determine $t_{\mathcal{E}}$, and the largest such $\ell$ is in $O(\log q)$. While the standard heuristic holds on the average, it is known to fail for some ${\mathcal{E}}$; Galbraith and Satoh have shown (under the GRH) that for some ${\mathcal{E}}/{\mathbb{F}}_p$ we may need to use non-Atkin $\ell$ as large as $O(\log^{2+\epsilon}p)$ (see [@Satoh02 App. A]). We refer the reader to [@ShSu14] and [@ShSu15] for further details and discussion.
If ${\mathcal{E}}/{\mathbb{F}}_q$ is an elliptic curve, then under the standard heuristic on prime classes, Algorithm \[alg:SEA\] computes $t_{\mathcal{E}}$ in $\widetilde{O}(\log^3 q)$ expected ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-operations (that is $\widetilde{O}(\log^4q)$ expected bit operations, using fast arithmetic).
The main loop computes a set $\mathcal{T}$ of pairs $(t_\ell := t_{\mathcal{E}}\pmod{\ell},\ell)$ with $\prod_\mathcal{T} \ell > 4\sqrt{q}$. We then recover $t_{\mathcal{E}}$ from $\mathcal{T}$ via an explicit CRT. Our procedure for computing $t_\ell$ depends on the class of $\ell$, which we determine using the method at the end of §\[sec:prime-classes\] (Lines \[line:SEA:class\], \[line:SEA:is-volcanic\], and \[line:SEA:is-Elkies\]).
If $\ell$ is volcanic (Lines \[line:SEA:volcanic-start\] to \[line:SEA:volcanic-end\]), then $\ell\mid\Delta_{\pi_q}$, so $t_\ell = 0$ or $t_\ell \equiv \pm2\sqrt{q}\pmod{\ell}$. We distinguish between the three cases by comparing $\pi_q(P)$ with $\pm[\sqrt{q}\bmod\ell]P$ for a generic element $P$ of the kernel of the rational $\ell$-isogeny corresponding to one of the roots of $\Phi_\ell(j({\mathcal{E}}),x)$.
If $\ell$ is Elkies (Lines \[line:SEA:Elkies-start\] to \[line:SEA:Elkies-end\]), then ${\mathcal{E}}[\ell]$ decomposes as a direct sum $(\ker{\ensuremath{\vartheta}}_1)\oplus(\ker{\ensuremath{\vartheta}}_2)$ of $\ell$-isogeny kernels; $\pi_q$ acts as multiplication by eigenvalues $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ on $\ker{\ensuremath{\vartheta}}_1$ and $\ker{\ensuremath{\vartheta}}_2$, respectively, with $\lambda_1\lambda_2 \equiv q \pmod{\ell}$, so $t_\ell \equiv \lambda_1 + q/\lambda_1 \pmod{\ell}$; and we can determine $\lambda_1$ by solving the discrete logarithm problem $\pi_q(P) = [\lambda_1]P$ for a symbolic point $P$ of $\ker{\ensuremath{\vartheta}}_1$.
If $\ell$ is Atkin, then we skip it completely and do not compute $t_\ell$ (see the discussion in §\[sec:complements\]).
In terms of ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-operations, determining the class of $\ell$ costs $O(\ell^2(\log\ell)^3\log\log\ell + \log q {{\sf M}}(\ell))$; computing $t_\ell$ then costs $O(
(\log q + \log\ell){{\sf M}}(\ell)\log\ell
+
\ell^{(\omega+1)/2}
)$ for volcanic $\ell$, and $O((\log p + \ell^{1/2}){{\sf M}}(\ell) + \ell^{(\omega+1)/2})$ for Elkies $\ell$. The standard heuristic on prime classes tells us that we will try $O(\log q)$ primes $\ell$, and that the largest $\ell$ are in $O(\log q)$; so the total cost of the algorithm is $\widetilde{O}(\log^3 q)$, as claimed.
$\mathcal{T} \gets \{ \}$ $M \gets 1$ $\ell \gets 1$
Admissible curves {#sec:the-endomorphism}
===================
**From now on, $\bf q = p^2$.**
Recalling Definition \[def:admissible\]: let ${\mathcal{E}}$ be a $d$-admissible curve over ${\mathbb{F}}_{p^2}$, with separable $d$-isogeny $\phi: {\mathcal{E}}\to {{{{{}^{\sigma}{{\mathcal{E}}}}}}}$ (satisfying ${{{{{}^{\sigma}{\phi}}}}} = \epsilon{{{\phi}^{\dagger}}}$ with $\epsilon=\pm1$), and associated endomorphism $\psi = {{{{{}^{\sigma}{\phi}}}}} \circ \pi_p$.
The associated and Frobenius endomorphisms of ${\mathcal{E}}$ are related by $$\label{eq:psi-squared}
\psi^2
=
[\epsilon d] \pi_{p^2}
\ .$$ The characteristic polynomial of $\psi$ is $$\label{charpoly}
\chi_{\psi}(T)
=
T^2 - rd T + dp
\ ,$$ where $r$ is an integer satisfying $$\label{eqr}
dr^2
=
2p + \epsilon t_{\mathcal{E}}\ .$$ In particular, $$\label{eq:psi-relation}
r \psi = p + \epsilon\pi_{p^2}
\quad
\text{in}
\quad
{\mathrm{End}}({\mathcal{E}})
\ .$$
Equation holds because $
\psi^2
=
({{{{{}^{\sigma}{\phi}}}}}\pi_p)({{{{{}^{\sigma}{\phi}}}}}\pi_p)
=
(\epsilon{{{\phi}^{\dagger}}}\phi)({{{{{}^{\sigma}{\pi_p}}}}}\pi_p)
=
[\epsilon d]\pi_q
$. The degree of $\psi$ is $dp$, so $\psi$ has characteristic polynomial $\chi_{\psi}(T) = T^2 - xT + dp$ for some integer $x$. On the other hand, $\epsilon d\pi_{q}$ has characteristic polynomial $T^2 - \epsilon d t_{{\mathcal{E}}} T + d^2p^2$; but $\psi^2 = x\psi - dp$ is a root, so $x = rd$ where $r$ satisfies . We then have $\epsilon dr^2\pi_{q} = (\epsilon\pi_{q} + p)^2$ in ${{\mathbb{Z}}}[\pi_{q}]$. Comparing with , we find $r\psi = \pm(p + \epsilon\pi_{q})$; but then $\chi_{\psi}(\psi) = 0$ implies .
Equation has a number of interesting corollaries. First, $t_{\mathcal{E}}\equiv-\epsilon2p \pmod{d}$, so we obtain some information on $t_{\mathcal{E}}$ for free. Second, $r$ determines $t_{\mathcal{E}}$, and hence $\#{\mathcal{E}}({\mathbb{F}}_{p^2})$. Third, we have a much smaller bound on $r$ than on $t_{\mathcal{E}}$: for $d$-admissible curves the Hasse–Weil bound becomes $$\label{eqr-bound}
|r| \le 2\sqrt{p/d}
\ .$$ This suggests our point-counting strategy, which is to modify the SEA algorithm to compute $r$ instead of $t_{\mathcal{E}}$, by considering the action on ${\mathcal{E}}[\ell]$ of $\psi$ instead of $\pi_{q}$ and using fewer primes $\ell$.
We simplify the task by quickly disposing of the supersingular case, which can be efficiently detected using Sutherland’s algorithm [@Sutherland12], or slightly faster using a probabilistic algorithm.
\[prop:supersingular-r\] If ${\mathcal{E}}/{\mathbb{F}}_{p^2}$ is $d$-admissible, then it is supersingular if and only if $r = 0$, in which case $t_{\mathcal{E}}= -2\epsilon p$ and ${\mathcal{E}}({\mathbb{F}}_{p^2}) \cong ({{\mathbb{Z}}}/(p + \epsilon){{\mathbb{Z}}})^2$.
The curve ${\mathcal{E}}$ is supersingular if and only if $p\mid t_{{\mathcal{E}}}$, if and only if $p\mid r$ (by mod $p$ and $p\nmid d$), if and only if $r = 0$ (by ). The group structure follows from [@Zhu00 Th. 1.1].
From now on, we will [**assume ${\mathcal{E}}$ is ordinary**]{}; so ${\mathrm{End}}({\mathcal{E}})$ is an order in the quadratic imaginary field ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\pi_q)$, and ${{\mathbb{Z}}}[\pi_{q}]$ and ${{\mathbb{Z}}}[\psi]$ are orders contained in ${\mathrm{End}}({\mathcal{E}})$. Looking at , we see that the discriminants of ${{\mathbb{Z}}}[\psi]$ and ${{\mathbb{Z}}}[\pi_q]$ are related by $$\Delta_{\psi} = d(dr^2 - 4p)
\qquad
\text{and}
\qquad
\Delta_{\pi_{q}} = t_{\mathcal{E}}^2 - 4p^2 = r^2\Delta_{\psi}
\ ,$$ so $|r|$ is the conductor of ${{\mathbb{Z}}}[\pi_{q}]$ in ${{\mathbb{Z}}}[\psi]$: that is, $${{\mathbb{Z}}}[\pi_{q}]\subset{{\mathbb{Z}}}[\psi]\subseteq{\mathrm{End}}({\mathcal{E}})
\qquad
\text{with}
\qquad
[{{\mathbb{Z}}}[\psi]:{{\mathbb{Z}}}[\pi_{q}]] = |r|
\ .$$ Indeed, since ${\mathcal{E}}$ is ordinary, we have $r \not= 0$; so we can rewrite as $$\label{eq:psi-in-EndE}
\psi = \frac{p + \epsilon\pi_{q}}{r}
\quad
\text{in } {\mathrm{End}}({\mathcal{E}})
\ .$$ Deuring’s theorem on isogeny classes and class groups (cf. [@Schoof87 §4]) can be used to show that the number of ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-isomorphism classes of ordinary $d$-admissible curves with a given $r$ is $H(\Delta_\psi)$, where $H$ is the Kronecker class number. In particular, every $r$ in the interval of occurs for some $d$-admissible ${\mathcal{E}}/{\mathbb{F}}_{q}$.
In the language of isogeny volcanoes [@FoMo02]: if $\ell$ is a prime dividing $r$, then ${\mathcal{E}}$ is somewhere *strictly above* the floor of the volcano for $\ell$; that is, all $\ell\mid r$ are upper-volcanic.
Computing the cardinality of admissible curves
================================================
Let ${\mathcal{E}}/{\mathbb{F}}_q$ be an ordinary $d$-admissible curve, with associated endomorphism $\psi$; we want to compute $\#{\mathcal{E}}({\mathbb{F}}_q)$. Many of the techniques used in the conventional SEA algorithm can be transposed to working with $\psi$ instead of $\pi_q$. Equations and show that $t_{\mathcal{E}}$ is completely determined by $|r|$, which is bounded by $2\sqrt{p/d}$; so we can compute $t_{\mathcal{E}}$ by computing $$r_\ell := r \pmod{\ell}$$ for $\ell$ in a collection of small primes $\mathcal{L}$ such that $$\prod_{\ell \in \mathcal{L}} \ell > 4\sqrt{p/d}
\ ,$$ then recovering $r$ from the $r_\ell$ using the CRT. As a quick comparison, using SEA with $\pi_{q}$ to compute $t_{\mathcal{E}}$ directly would require $\prod_{\ell \in \mathcal{L}} \ell > 4 \sqrt{q} = 4 p$.
\[prop:AdmissibleTrace-correctness\] If ${\mathcal{E}}/{\mathbb{F}}_{p^2}$ is $d$-admissible, then under the standard heuristic on prime classes, Algorithm \[alg:AdmissibleTrace\] computes $t_{\mathcal{E}}$ in $\widetilde{O}(\log^3p)$ expected ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-operations (that is $\widetilde{O}(\log^4p)$ expected bit operations, using fast arithmetic).
We compute $t_{\mathcal{E}}$ from $r$, which we recover exactly using the CRT from the pairs $(r_\ell,\ell)$ in $\mathcal{R}$, since $\prod_{(r_\ell,\ell)\in\mathcal{R}}\ell > 4\sqrt{p/d}$. Our approach for computing $r_\ell$ depends on which class $\ell$ falls into; we determine the class of $\ell$ in Lines \[line:ATrace:class\], \[line:ATrace:is-volcanic\], and \[line:ATrace:is-Elkies\] (exactly as in Algorithm \[alg:SEA\]).
If $\ell$ is volcanic (Lines \[line:ATrace:volcanic-start\] to \[line:ATrace:volcanic-end\]), then combining $\ell\mid\Delta_{\pi_q}$ with yields $r \equiv 0$ or $\pm2\sqrt{p/d}\pmod{\ell}$; in particular, if $\ell$ is volcanic and $dp$ is a nonsquare modulo $\ell$, then $r_\ell = 0$.
If $\ell$ is Elkies (Lines \[line:ATrace:Elkies-start\] to \[line:ATrace:Elkies-end\]), then let $
{\mathcal{E}}[\ell]
=
(\ker{\ensuremath{\vartheta}}_1)\oplus(\ker{\ensuremath{\vartheta}}_2)
$ be the decomposition of the $\ell$-torsion into eigenspaces for $\pi_q$. Since $\ell$ is not volcanic we have $r \not\equiv 0\pmod{\ell}$, so shows that the $\ker{\ensuremath{\vartheta}}_i$ are also eigenspaces for $\psi$. So let $\lambda_{\pi}$ and $\lambda_\psi$ be the eigenvalues of $\pi_q$ and $\psi$ on $\ker{\ensuremath{\vartheta}}_1$ (say); then yields $
\lambda_\psi
\equiv
(p + \epsilon\lambda_{\pi})/r
\pmod{\ell}
$, and then $\chi_\psi(\lambda_\psi) \equiv 0 \pmod{\ell}$ implies $
r_\ell
\equiv
\frac{\lambda_\psi}{d} + \frac{p}{\lambda_\psi}
\pmod{\ell}
$. We can therefore compute $r_\ell$ by computing $\lambda_\psi$, which is the discrete logarithm of $\psi(P)$ to the base $P$ for a symbolic point $P$ in $\ker{\ensuremath{\vartheta}}_1$.
If $\ell$ is Atkin then we skip it completely, as in Algorithm \[alg:SEA\] (but see §\[sec:complements\]).
In terms of ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-operations, determining the class of $\ell$ costs $O(\ell^2(\log\ell)^3\log\log\ell + \log q {{\sf M}}(\ell))$, while computing $r_\ell$ costs $O(
(\log p + \log\ell){{\sf M}}(\ell)\log\ell
+
\ell^{(\omega+1)/2}
)$ if $\ell$ is volcanic, and $O((\log p + \ell^{1/2}){{\sf M}}(\ell) + \ell^{(\omega+1)/2})$ if $\ell$ is Elkies. The standard heuristic on prime classes tell us that we will try $O(\log p)$ primes $\ell$, the largest of which are in $O(\log p)$; so the total complexity is $\widetilde{O}(\log^3p)$ ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-operations, as claimed.
$\mathcal{R} \gets \{ \}$ $M \gets 1$ $\ell \gets 1$
Suppose $\ell \mid d$ and $\ell \not=2$. Equation tells us that $t_{\mathcal{E}}\equiv 2 \epsilon p \pmod{\ell}$; so $\ell \mid \Delta_{\pi_q}$, and $\ell$ is volcanic. Moreover, since $\Delta_\psi = d (d r^2 - 4p)$, we can deduce that $\ell \mid\mid\Delta_\psi$. Note also that ${\mathrm{End}}({\mathcal{E}})\cong{\mathrm{End}}({{{{{}^{\sigma}{{\mathcal{E}}}}}}})$, so the $\ell$-isogeny factoring $\phi$ is horizontal; this implies that ${\mathrm{End}}({\mathcal{E}})$ is $\ell$-maximal. Combined with the above, we see that ${{\mathbb{Z}}}[\psi]$ is $\ell$-maximal in ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\pi_q)$. In particular, if $\ell$ is upper-volcanic then $\ell\mid r$ (and $(0,\ell)$ can be added to $\mathcal{R}$ in Algorithm \[alg:AdmissibleTrace\]).
Complements {#sec:complements}
=============
Schoof’s original algorithm may be generalized from prime $\ell$ to small prime powers in a very simple way. Going further, we may use isogeny cycles to compute eigenspaces of $\pi_{q}$ and $\psi$ on ${\mathcal{E}}[\ell^n]$ for Elkies $\ell$: the methods developed for $\pi_{q}$ in [@CoMo94] and [@GaMo06] generalize to $\psi$ without any difficulty. Once we have recovered $$\psi(P)
=
[k_n]P
\quad
\text{for}
\quad
P = (X,Y)
\in
{\mathcal{E}}\left({\mathbb{F}}_q[X,Y]/(Y^2-f_{\mathcal{E}}(X),F_{\ell^n}(X))\right)
,$$ we have $k_{n+1} = k_n + \tau \ell^n$ for $0\leq \tau < \ell$, and we need to test $$\psi(P) - [k_n]P
=
[\tau]([\ell^n]P)
\quad \text{in} \quad
{\mathcal{E}}\left({\mathbb{F}}_q[X,Y]/(Y^2-f_{\mathcal{E}}(X),F_{\ell^{n+1}}(X)\right)$$ (here $F_{\ell^n}$ and $F_{\ell^{n+1}}$ are factors of $\Psi_{\ell^n}$ and $\Psi_{\ell^{n+1}}$ that are minimal polynomials for $\ell^n$ and $\ell^{n-1}$-torsion points).
We may extend Algorithms \[alg:SEA\] and \[alg:AdmissibleTrace\] to use Atkin primes. If $\ell$ is Atkin, then $\pi_q$ and $\psi$ have no rational eigenspaces in ${\mathcal{E}}[\ell]$; but we may still compute $t_\ell$ and $r_\ell$ by working on the full $\ell$-torsion, as in Schoof’s original algorithm. If $P$ is a symbolic point of ${\mathcal{E}}[\ell]$ then $(\chi_{\pi_q} \bmod{\ell})(P) = 0$, so in Algorithm \[alg:SEA\], $t_\ell$ is the discrete logarithm of $\pi_q(\pi_q(P))+[q\bmod\ell]P$ to the base $\pi_q(P)$; similarly, in Algorithm \[alg:AdmissibleTrace\], $r_\ell$ is the discrete logarithm of $\epsilon\pi_{q}(P) + [p \bmod\ell](P)$ to the base $\psi(P)$ (here we use $\psi^2 - dr\psi + [dp] = d(\epsilon\pi_q - r\psi +
[p]) = 0$ and $\ell \nmid d$). The kernel polynomial defining ${\mathcal{E}}[\ell]$ is $\Psi_\ell$, which we can compute using standard recurrences involving the coefficients of $f_{\mathcal{E}}$ (using the method of [@Cheng03b], for example) in $O({{\sf M}}(\ell^2)\log \ell)$ ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-operations. But $\Psi_\ell$ has degree $(\ell^2-1)/2$, so computing $t_\ell$ resp. $r_\ell$ costs $O((\log q){{\sf M}}(\ell^2))$ resp. $O((\log p){{\sf M}}(\ell^2))$ ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-operations; for that cost, we would gain much more information by using a larger Elkies prime instead. Alternatively, we can use Atkin’s initial ideas using the splitting degree of $\Phi_\ell(X, j({\mathcal{E}}))$ to determine a list of potential $t_\ell$ to be used in a tricky match and sort algorithm, or the more advanced algorithm of [@JoLe01]. In our setting, we could use to transform the list of $t_\ell$’s to build a list of $r_\ell$’s (on average, this does not increase the size of the lists too much).
Finally, we mention the use of the baby-step giant-step approach to speed up the final computations. If $P \in {\mathcal{E}}({\mathbb{F}}_q)$, then $\chi_\psi(P) = 0$ becomes $
[\epsilon d + d p] P = [r d] \psi(P)
$, so $[p+\epsilon] (Q) = [r] \psi(Q)$ with $Q = [d] P$ (if $Q = O_{\mathcal{E}}$, then another $P$ should be used). Suppose we stop the loop of Algorithm \[alg:AdmissibleTrace\] early; then $r$ is known modulo $M$. Writing $r = r_0 + s M$ with $|s| \leq 2 \sqrt{p/d}/M$, we can find $s$ by solving $[p+\epsilon-r_0] Q = [s] ([M] \psi(Q))$ for a sufficiently general choice of $Q$ in ${\mathcal{E}}({\mathbb{F}}_q)$; this is a classical discrete logarithm problem with ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-points, but in a smaller search space than the whole of ${\mathcal{E}}({\mathbb{F}}_q)$. The optimal threshold for $M$ is best determined through experiments.
Comparison of Algorithms \[alg:SEA\] and \[alg:AdmissibleTrace\] {#sec:complexity}
==================================================================
Let us compare the cost of computing $t_{\mathcal{E}}$ with Algorithms \[alg:SEA\] and \[alg:AdmissibleTrace\] when ${\mathcal{E}}$ is $d$-admissible. For simplicity, we will suppose that Algorithm \[alg:SEA\] also avoids the primes dividing $d$ (these are very few and very small, so they do not contribute asymptotically or practically to the comparison).
The first clear difference between the algorithms is the number and size of primes $\ell$ used: Algorithm \[alg:AdmissibleTrace\] essentially uses the smaller half of the set of primes used by Algorithm \[alg:SEA\]. The largest primes in each set still have roughly the same size, $O(\log p)$, so asymptotically this makes no difference—but using half the number of primes, and the smaller half at that, represents an important improvement in practice.
Now consider the cost of computing $t_\ell$ (as in Algorithm \[alg:SEA\]) or $r_\ell$ (as in Algorithm \[alg:AdmissibleTrace\]) for the same $\ell$. The costs of determining the class of $\ell$ and the calls to $\textsc{KernelPolynomial}$ are identical, and the calls to $\textsc{DiscreteLogarithm}$ are equivalent. The only real difference is in how each algorithm computes the relations used to determine $t_\ell$ and $r_\ell$.
- , then Algorithm \[alg:SEA\] uses $2\times \pi_p$ while Algorithm \[alg:AdmissibleTrace\] uses $ 1\times \pi_p + 1\times {{{{{}^{\sigma}{\phi}}}}} $.
- , then (in the worst cases) Algorithm \[alg:SEA\] uses $2\times\pi_p + 1\times[s\bmod\ell]$, while Algorithm \[alg:AdmissibleTrace\] uses $1\times \pi_p + 1\times {{{{{}^{\sigma}{\phi}}}}} + 1\times[s\bmod\ell]$.
In each case, the asymptotic costs are the same; but if $d \ll \log p$, then the costs are dominated by computations of $\pi_p$ on ${\ensuremath{\langle{P}\rangle}}$ (for the same $P$). The crucial practical difference is that for each class of prime, Algorithm \[alg:AdmissibleTrace\] exchanges half of the computations of $\pi_p$ required by Algorithm \[alg:SEA\] for one computation of ${{{{{}^{\sigma}{\phi}}}}}$, which has a very small cost when $d \ll \log p$. Hence, for any given prime $\ell$, Algorithm \[alg:AdmissibleTrace\] should compute $r_\ell$ twice as quickly as Algorithm \[alg:SEA\] computes $t_\ell$.
By our complexity analysis, we see that the largest $\ell$ is $O(\log
p)$ instead of $O(\log q)$, and we use the the smaller half of them, we expect a real speedup of a factor of four. This is confirmed by our experimental results in §\[sec:implementation\] below.
${\mathbb{Q}}$-curves and other sources of admissible curves {#sec:QQ-curves}
==============================================================
Admissible curves appear naturally as reductions of quadratic ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$-curves modulo inert primes (cf. [@Smith15 §3]). As such, we can construct parametrized families of admissible curves over any ${\mathbb{F}}_{p^2}$.
\[def:QQ-curve\] A *quadratic ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$-curve of degree $d$* is an elliptic curve ${\widetilde{\mathcal{E}}}$ without complex multiplication, defined over a quadratic field ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\Delta})$, such that there exists an isogeny of degree $d$ from ${\widetilde{\mathcal{E}}}$ to its Galois conjugate ${{{}^{\tau}{{\widetilde{\mathcal{E}}}}}}$, where $\tau$ is the conjugation of ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\Delta})$ over ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$.
\[prop:QQ-curve-reductions-are-admissible\] Let ${\widetilde{\mathcal{E}}}/{{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\Delta})$ be a quadratic ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$-curve of degree $d$. If $p\nmid d$ is a prime of good reduction for ${\widetilde{\mathcal{E}}}$ that is inert in ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\Delta})$, then the reduction of ${\widetilde{\mathcal{E}}}$ modulo $p$ is $d$-admissible.
González shows that a $d$-isogeny ${\widetilde{\phi}}:{\widetilde{\mathcal{E}}}\to{{{}^{\tau}{{\widetilde{\mathcal{E}}}}}}$ must be defined over ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\Delta},\sqrt{\pm d})$ (see [@Gonzalez01 §3]); so if we extend $\tau$ to the involution of ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\Delta},\sqrt{\pm d})$ that acts trivially on ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\pm d})$ if and only if $\sqrt{\pm d}$ is in ${\mathbb{F}}_p$, then ${\widetilde{\phi}}$ reduces modulo $p$ to a $d$-isogeny $\phi: {\mathcal{E}}\to {{{{{}^{\sigma}{{\mathcal{E}}}}}}}$ over ${\mathbb{F}}_{p^2}$, and ${{{}^{\tau}{{\widetilde{\phi}}}}}$ reduces to ${{{{{}^{\sigma}{\phi}}}}}$. Observe that ${{{}^{\tau}{{\widetilde{\phi}}}}}{\widetilde{\phi}}$ is an endomorphism of ${\widetilde{\mathcal{E}}}$ of degree $d^2$. Since ${\widetilde{\mathcal{E}}}$ does not have complex multiplication, its only endomorphisms of degree $d^2$ are $[\pm d]$; hence ${{{}^{\tau}{{\widetilde{\phi}}}}} = \epsilon{{{{\widetilde{\phi}}}^{\dagger}}}$ with $\epsilon = \pm1$. Reducing modulo $p$ we have ${{{{{}^{\sigma}{\phi}}}}} = \epsilon{{{\phi}^{\dagger}}}$, so ${\mathcal{E}}$ is $d$-admissible.
We emphasize that if a $d$-admissible curve ${\mathcal{E}}$ is the reduction of a quadratic ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$-curve ${\widetilde{\mathcal{E}}}$, then the associated endomorphism on ${\mathcal{E}}$ is *not* the reduction of any endomorphism on ${\widetilde{\mathcal{E}}}$. Indeed, ${\widetilde{\mathcal{E}}}$ has no non-integer endomorphisms by definition.
\[ex:Hasegawa-2\] Fix any prime $p > 3$; the following construction (carried much further in [@Smith13] and [@Smith15]) yields a 1-parameter family of $2$-admissible curves over ${\mathbb{F}}_{p^2}$. Let $\Delta$ be a squarefree integer that is not a square modulo $p$ (so $p$ is inert in ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\Delta})$), let $\tau$ be the involution of ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\Delta},\sqrt{-2})$ that restricts to $\sigma$ modulo $p$, and let $s$ be a free parameter taking values in ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$. The family of curves over ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\Delta})$ defined by $
{\widetilde{\mathcal{E}}}:
y^2
=
x^3 - 6(5-3s\sqrt{\Delta})x + 8(7 - 9s\sqrt{\Delta})
$ is equipped with a 2-isogeny ${\widetilde{\phi}}: {\widetilde{\mathcal{E}}}\to {{{}^{\tau}{{\widetilde{\mathcal{E}}}}}}$ over ${{\mathbb{Q}}}(\sqrt{\Delta},\sqrt{-2})$ with kernel polynomial $D(x) = x - 4$ (see [@Hasegawa97 Prop 3.3]). Computing ${{{{\widetilde{\phi}}}^{\dagger}}}$ and ${{{}^{\tau}{{\widetilde{\phi}}}}}$, we find that ${{{}^{\tau}{{\widetilde{\phi}}}}} = \epsilon{{{{\widetilde{\phi}}}^{\dagger}}}$, where $\epsilon = 1$ if $p \equiv 5, 7 \pmod{8}$ and $\epsilon = -1$ if $p \equiv 1, 3 \pmod{8}$. Reducing everything modulo $p$, as in the proof of Prop. \[prop:QQ-curve-reductions-are-admissible\], we obtain a family of curves $${\mathcal{E}}:
y^2
=
x^3 - 6(5-3s\sqrt{\Delta})x + 8(7 - 9s\sqrt{\Delta})
\quad
\text{over}
\quad
{\mathbb{F}}_{p^2} = {\mathbb{F}}_p(\sqrt{\Delta})$$ with the parameter $s$ taking values in ${\mathbb{F}}_p$, equipped with a 2-isogeny $\phi: {\mathcal{E}}\to {{{{{}^{\sigma}{{\mathcal{E}}}}}}}$ over ${\mathbb{F}}_{p^2}$. Composing $\pi_p$ with ${{{{{}^{\sigma}{\phi}}}}}$ yields the associated endomorphism $\psi$ of ${\mathcal{E}}$, defined by $$\psi:
(x,y)
\longmapsto
\left(
\frac{x^p(x^p - 4) + 18(1 - s\sqrt{\Delta})}{-2(x^p-4)}
\ ,
\frac{y^p}{\sqrt{-2}^p}\left(
\frac{(x^p-4)^2 - 18(1 - s\sqrt{\Delta})}{-2(x^p-4)^2}
\right)
\right)
\ .$$
Since the definition of admissible curves involves only isogenies over ${\mathbb{F}}_{p^2}$, we would expect a characterization of admissible curves over a given ${\mathbb{F}}_{p^2}$ in terms of modular polynomials.
If ${\mathcal{E}}$ is an ordinary elliptic curve over ${\mathbb{F}}_q = {\mathbb{F}}_{p^2}$ such that $j({\mathcal{E}})$ is a simple root of $\Phi_d(x,x^p)$ in ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}\setminus\{0,1728\}$ (so in particular, ${\mathrm{Aut}}_{{\overline{\mathbb{F}}}_{q}}({\mathcal{E}}) = \{[\pm1]\}$), then ${\mathcal{E}}$ is $d$-admissible.
If $j({\mathcal{E}})$ is a simple root of $\Phi_d(x,x^p)$ in ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}$, then up to ${\overline{\mathbb{F}}}_{q}$-isomorphism there is a unique $d$-isogeny $\phi: {\mathcal{E}}\to {{{{{}^{\sigma}{{\mathcal{E}}}}}}}$. If $\phi$ were not defined over ${\mathbb{F}}_q$, then the endomorphism ${{{{{}^{\sigma}{\pi_p}}}}}\phi$ would not be defined over ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}$, hence not commute with $\pi_{q}$, contradicting non-supersingularity. For $d$-admissibility, it remains to show that ${{{{{}^{\sigma}{\phi}}}}} = \epsilon{{{\phi}^{\dagger}}}$ with $\epsilon = \pm1$. But if this were not the case, then ${{{({{{{{}^{\sigma}{\phi}}}}})}^{\dagger}}}$ would be a second $d$-isogeny ${\mathcal{E}}\to{{{{{}^{\sigma}{{\mathcal{E}}}}}}}$, not isomorphic to $\phi$ (since ${\mathrm{Aut}}_{{\overline{\mathbb{F}}}_{q}}({\mathcal{E}}) = \{[\pm1]\}$); that is, $j({\mathcal{E}})$ would be (at least) a double root of $\Phi_d(x,x^p)$.
Multiple roots of $\Phi_d(x,x^p)$ may not yield $d$-admissible curves. Consider the ordinary curve ${\mathcal{E}}: y^2 = x^3 + (38 + 53i)x + 27 - 3i$ over ${\mathbb{F}}_{q} = {\mathbb{F}}_{103}(i)$ where $i^2 = -1$: then $j({\mathcal{E}}) = 35 + 5i$ is a double root of $\Phi_3(x,x^{103})$. Indeed, we have a pair of non-isomorphic $3$-isogenies $\phi_1 : {\mathcal{E}}\to {{{{{}^{\sigma}{{\mathcal{E}}}}}}}$ and $\phi_2 : {\mathcal{E}}\to {{{{{}^{\sigma}{{\mathcal{E}}}}}}}$, with kernel polynomials $x + 1 + 39i$ and $x - 4 + 32i$, respectively; but ${{{{{}^{\sigma}{\phi_1}}}}} = \pm{{{\phi_2}^{\dagger}}}$ and ${{{{{}^{\sigma}{\phi_2}}}}} = \pm{{{\phi_1}^{\dagger}}}$, so ${\mathcal{E}}$ is not $3$-admissible.
Generating cryptographically strong curves
============================================
One of the important motivations for developing our algorithm was the generation of cryptographically strong curves. Indeed, the curves proposed for cryptographic applications in [@Smith13] and [@Smith15], and which were subsequently used in fast, compact Diffie–Hellman key exchange software [@CoHiSm14], are admissible. These curves were designed to offer accelerated scalar multiplication (using the associated endomorphism) over fast finite fields, without obstructing twist-security; but when generating twist-secure curves at and above the 128-bit security level, we can expect to try hundreds of thousands of curves before finding a suitable one. In this context of counting many curves, practical speedups become very important.
For cryptographic applications based on the hardness of the discrete logarithm problem, the minimum requirement for a “secure” curve ${\mathcal{E}}/{\mathbb{F}}_{p^2}$ is that $\#{\mathcal{E}}({\mathbb{F}}_{p^2}) = c\cdot n$, where $n$ is prime and $c$ is tiny (traditionally, we want $c = 1$; more modern software using Montgomery and Edwards models requires $c = 2$ or $4$). For some applications we further require “twist-security”: that is, the quadratic twist ${\mathcal{E}}'$ should satisfy $\#{\mathcal{E}}'({\mathbb{F}}_{p^2}) = c'\cdot n'$, where $n'$ is prime and $c'$ is tiny.
To find a secure or twist-secure curve over ${\mathbb{F}}_{p^2}$ we typically fix a prime $p$ of bitlength around the required security parameter, then test a series of curves over ${\mathbb{F}}_{p^2}$, computing their orders until we find a curve with the right structure. Equation implies $$\#{\mathcal{E}}({\mathbb{F}}_{p^2})
=
(p + \epsilon)^2 - \epsilon dr^2
\quad
\text{and}
\quad
\#{\mathcal{E}}'({\mathbb{F}}_{p^2})
=
(p-\epsilon)^2 + \epsilon dr^2
\ .$$ This places some immediate constraints on the combinations of $d$, $p$, and $\epsilon$ that can yield suitable curves. For example, $\#{\mathcal{E}}({\mathbb{F}}_{p^2}) \equiv (p + \epsilon)^2 \pmod{d}$, so $d\mid\#{\mathcal{E}}({\mathbb{F}}_{p^2})$ if and only if $p \equiv -\epsilon \pmod{d}$; such $p$ should be avoided unless we can accept $d\mid c$. Similarly, if twist-security prohibits $d\mid c'$ then we should must avoid $p \equiv \epsilon\pmod{d}$. Clearly if ${\mathcal{E}}$ is $2$-admissible, then it must have a rational point of order 2, so we cannot do better than having $c = c' = 2$. Similarly, $3$-admissible curves must have either $3\mid c$ or $3\mid c'$.
Extensive computations done for $d = 2$ and $3$ over a range of primes revealed densities of twist-secure $d$-admissible curves (modulo the constraints above) similar to the densities of twist-secure general elliptic curves over the same fields.
With Algorithm \[alg:SEA\], we can speed up the search for secure curves by checking whether $t_\ell \equiv p^2 + 1 \pmod{\ell}$ for each $\ell$; if so, then $\ell\mid\#{\mathcal{E}}({\mathbb{F}}_{p^2})$, so we can abort the computation and move on to the next candidate curve [@Lercier97]. Similarly, if $t_\ell \equiv -(p^2 + 1)\pmod{\ell}$ then $\ell\mid\#{\mathcal{E}}'({\mathbb{F}}_{p^2})$.
With Algorithm \[alg:AdmissibleTrace\], if $\ell$ divides $\#{\mathcal{E}}({\mathbb{F}}_{p^2})$ then $(p + \epsilon)^2 \equiv \epsilon d r^2 \pmod{\ell}$, so $\ell$ cannot divide $\#{\mathcal{E}}({\mathbb{F}}_{p^2})$ unless $\epsilon d$ is a square mod $\ell$; and if $\epsilon d$ is a square mod $\ell$, then we should abort if $r_\ell \equiv \pm (p + \epsilon)/\sqrt{\epsilon d} \pmod{\ell}$. In fact, if $r_\ell \equiv 0$ and $p + \epsilon \equiv 0 \pmod{\ell}$, then the nondegeneracy of the $\ell$-Weil pairing implies that ${\mathcal{E}}[\ell]({\mathbb{F}}_{p^2}) \cong ({{\mathbb{Z}}}/\ell{{\mathbb{Z}}})^2$. Replacing $\epsilon$ with $-\epsilon$ yields analogous results for the twist ${\mathcal{E}}'$.
We note also that there may be an advantage in generating curves using the parameter $r$ and not $t_{\mathcal{E}}$. We could force some value of $\ell$ to divide $r$ by rejecting curves ${\mathcal{E}}$ for which $\Phi_\ell(X, j({\mathcal{E}}))$ does not have $1$ or $\ell+1$ roots. This has no impact on $t_{\mathcal{E}}$, and we already know $r\pmod\ell$. We just need to hope that such curves are as secure as general $d$-admissible curves.
Implementation and experiments {#sec:implementation}
==============================
We implemented the new algorithm on top of our implementation of SEA, realized in C++ using NTL 9.6.4 (with `gcc` 4.9.2). The timings below (in seconds) are for an Intel Xeon platform (E5520 CPU at 2.27GHz). We define two primes (of 128 and 255 bits), derived from the decimal expansion of $\pi$: $$\begin{aligned}
p_{128} & :=\ \scriptstyle 314159265358979323846264338327950288459\ ,
\\
p_{255} & :=\ \scriptstyle
31415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062963
\ .\end{aligned}$$
First, we compare the straightforward computation of $X^q \bmod \Phi_\ell$ to a modular composition over ${\mathbb{F}}_{p^2}$ with $p = p_{128}$ and $p_{255}$, for two choices of $\ell$: $$\begin{array}{|c||c|c||c|}\hline
\multicolumn{4}{|c|}{p_{128}} \\ \hline
\ell & X^p \bmod \Phi_\ell& X^p \circ X^p & X^q \\ \hline
101 & 0.23 & 0.04 & 0.47 \\
173 & 0.43 & 0.11 & 0.88 \\
\hline
\end{array}\quad
\begin{array}{|c||c|c||c|}\hline
\multicolumn{4}{|c|}{p_{255}} \\ \hline
\ell & X^p \bmod \Phi_\ell& X^p \circ X^p & X^q \\ \hline
101 & 0.69 & 0.07 & 1.40 \\
173 & 1.38 & 0.18 & 2.80 \\
\hline
\end{array}$$ Then we ran our program on curves from the family of Example \[ex:Hasegawa-2\], for each $1\leq s\leq 100$. This gave the following average values: $$\begin{array}{|c||c|c|}\hline
\multicolumn{3}{|c|}{p_{128}} \\ \hline
& \text{Algorithm~\ref{alg:SEA}} &
\text{Algorithm~\ref{alg:AdmissibleTrace}} \\ \hline
\text{max. }\ell & 164 & 62 \\
X^q \text{ time} & 9.11 & 2.62 \\
\text{Total time} & 20.11 & 4.1 \\
\hline
\end{array}\quad
\begin{array}{|c||c|c|}\hline
\multicolumn{3}{|c|}{p_{255}} \\ \hline
& \text{Algorithm~\ref{alg:SEA}} &
\text{Algorithm~\ref{alg:AdmissibleTrace}} \\ \hline
\text{max. } \ell & 352 & 160.76 \\
X^q \text{ time} & 89.73 & 22.55 \\
\text{Total time} & 171.95 & 39.16 \\
\hline
\end{array}$$ Finally, we searched for twist-secure curves with small values of the parameter $s$. For instance, with $p = p_{128}$ and $s=113$, we get a curve of cardinality $2 p'$, whose twist has cardinality $6 p''$; with $p = p_{255}$, taking $s=269$ yields a pair of curves each with cardinality two times a prime.
[**Acknowledgments.**]{} We thank A. Sutherland for pointing out an error in the complexity analysis of the SEA algorithm.
Detailed complexity of basic computations {#sec:technical-lemmas}
===========================================
Let $F(X)$ be a degree $e$ polynomial with coefficients in ${\mathbb{F}}_q[X]$. We define $G$ and $H$ to be the polynomials of degree $< e$ such that $H \equiv X^p \pmod{F}$ and $$\label{eqY}
Y^p \equiv Y G(X)
\text{ with }
G(X) \equiv f_{\mathcal{E}}^{(p-1)/2}(X) \bmod F(X)
\ .$$
Computing $X^q \bmod F$
-----------------------
The first step in factoring $F$ is to compute $X^q \bmod
F$. When $q = p^n$ for some prime $p$, we may start by computing $H$ and then proceed with modular composition.
If $R(X) = \sum_{i=0}^{e-1} r_i X^i$ with $r_i \in {\mathbb{F}}_q$, then ${{{{{}^{\sigma}{R}}}}}(X) = \sum_{i=0}^{e-1} r_i^p X^i$ satisfies $R^p \bmod F = {{{{{}^{\sigma}{R}}}}} \circ X^p \bmod F$. We assume that the cost of computing all the $r_i^p$ is negligible (as it is with a suitable choice of basis for ${\mathbb{F}}_q/{\mathbb{F}}_p$: if ${\mathbb{F}}_{p^2} = {\mathbb{F}}_p(\sqrt{\Delta})$, then $(a+b\sqrt{\Delta})^p = a-b\sqrt{\Delta}$ for all $a$ and $b$ in ${\mathbb{F}}_p$). For our purposes, the computation of $X^{p^2}$ computes $H(X)$ and $X^{p^2} = {{{{{}^{\sigma}{H}}}}}\circ H \bmod F$, which costs $O((\log p) {{\sf M}}(e) + \mathcal{C}(e))$ instead of $O((\log q) {{\sf M}}(e))$, which is larger provided that $2 e \leq (\log
p)^2$. When $q = p^n$ with $n > 2$, similar savings can be obtained.
Proof of Lemma \[lemma:costs\]
------------------------------
Let $F = D$, or any factor of $D$ (as in the extensions of the algorithm mentioned in §\[sec:complements\]).
For (i), the obvious way is to compute $H$, then $G$, in $O((\log p){{{\sf M}}}(e))$ ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-operations. Alternatively, we can adapt the methods of [@GaMo06]: first compute $G$ in $O((\log p) {{{\sf M}}}(e))$ operations. Consider the polynomial $P(W) = W^3 + A^p W +
B^p - (X^3+A X+B) G(X)^2$. Then $X^p \bmod F$ is a root of both ${{{{{}^{\sigma}{F}}}}}(W)$ and $P(W)$ in ${\mathbb{F}}_q[X]/(F(X))$, so $W - H(X) \mid g = \gcd(P(W), {{{{{}^{\sigma}{F}}}}}(W))$. Very generally, $g = W - H(X)$. The main cost is that of reducing ${{{{{}^{\sigma}{F}}}}}(W)$ modulo $P(W)$, which is $O(e {{\sf M}}(e))$. This can be reduced to $\mathcal{C}_3(e)$ or even $O((\log \ell) {{\sf M}}(e))$ if $F$ divides $\Psi_\ell$.
For (ii): we can compute $
\pi_p(Q)
=
(Q_x^p, Y^p Q_y^p)
=
({{{{{}^{\sigma}{Q_x}}}}}\circ H \bmod F, Y G ({{{{{}^{\sigma}{Q}}}}}_y\circ H) \bmod F)
$ in $\mathcal{C}_2(e)$ ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-operations. This also applies for computing $\pi_q(P) = (X^{p^2}, Y^{p^2}) = \pi_p (H, Y G)$.
For (iv): suppose $\phi = (N/D, M/D^2)$ with $\deg N = \deg M = 2$ and $\deg D = 1$. We compute $ N \circ Q_x \bmod F $, $ M \circ Q_x \bmod F $, and $ D \circ Q_x \bmod F $ followed by some multiplications, keeping numerators and denominators. We only need a few modular multiplications, for a cost of $O({{{\sf M}}}(e))$.
For (v), we have $\phi = (N/D^2, M/D^3)$ with $\mathrm{deg}(N) = \mathrm{deg}(M) = d$, and $\mathrm{deg}(D) = (d-1)/2$. First we reduce $N$, $M$, and $D$ modulo $F$ (if necessary), at a cost of $O(M(d))$. We then compute $ N \circ Q_x \bmod F $, $ M \circ Q_x \bmod F $, and $ D \circ Q_x \bmod F $ followed by some multiplications, keeping numerators and denominators. The dominating cost is bounded by $O({{{\sf M}}}(d) + \mathcal{C}_3(e))$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we present a quasi infinite horizon nonlinear model predictive control (MPC) scheme for tracking of generic reference trajectories. This scheme is applicable to nonlinear systems, which are locally incrementally stabilizable. For such systems, we provide a reference generic offline procedure to compute an incrementally stabilizing feedback with a continuously parameterized quadratic quasi infinite horizon terminal cost. As a result we get a nonlinear reference tracking MPC scheme with a valid terminal cost for general reachable reference trajectories without increasing the online computational complexity. [As a corollary, the terminal cost can also be used to design nonlinear MPC schemes that reliably operate under online changing conditions, including unreachable reference signals. ]{} The practicality of this approach is demonstrated with a benchmark example.'
author:
- 'Johannes Köhler$^1$, Matthias A. Müller$^2$, Frank Allgöwer$^1$ [^1] [^2] [^3]'
bibliography:
- 'Literature\_short.bib'
title: A nonlinear model predictive control framework using reference generic terminal ingredients
---
Nonlinear model predictive control, Constrained control, Reference tracking, Incremental Stability
[^1]: $^1$Johannes Köhler and Frank Allgöwer are with the Institute for Systems Theory and Automatic Control, University of Stuttgart, 70550 Stuttgart, Germany. (email:$\{$johannes.koehler, frank.allgower$\}[email protected]).
[^2]: $^2$Matthias A. Müller is with the Institute of Automatic Control, Leibniz University Hannover, 30167 Hannover, Germany. (email:[email protected]).
[^3]: Johannes Köhler would like to thank the German Research Foundation (DFG) for financial support of the project within the International Research Training Group “Soft Tissue Robotics” (GRK 2198/1).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'Galaxy cluster velocity correlations and mass distributions are sensitive probes of cosmology and the growth of structure. Upcoming microwave surveys will enable extraction of velocities and temperatures from many individual clusters for the first time. We forecast constraints on peculiar velocities, electron temperatures, and optical depths of galaxy clusters obtainable with upcoming multi-frequency measurements of the kinematic, thermal, and relativistic Sunyaev-Zeldovich effects. The forecasted constraints are compared for different measurement configurations with frequency bands between 90 GHz and 1 THz, and for different survey strategies for the 6-meter CCAT-prime telescope. We study methods for improving cluster constraints by removing emission from dusty star forming galaxies, and by using X-ray temperature priors from eROSITA. Cluster constraints are forecast for several model cluster masses. A sensitivity optimization for seven frequency bands is presented for a CCAT-prime first light instrument and a next generation instrument that takes advantage of the large optical throughput of CCAT-prime. We find that CCAT-prime observations are expected to enable measurement and separation of the SZ effects to characterize the velocity, temperature, and optical depth of individual massive clusters ($\sim10^{15}\, M_\odot$). Submillimeter measurements are shown to play an important role in separating these components from dusty galaxy contamination. Using a modular instrument configuration with similar optical throughput for each detector array, we develop a rule of thumb for the number of detector arrays desired at each frequency to optimize extraction of these signals. Our results are relevant for a future “Stage IV" cosmic microwave background survey, which could enable galaxy cluster measurements over a larger range of masses and redshifts than will be accessible by other experiments.'
author:
- 'Avirukt Mittal, Francesco de Bernardis and Michael D. Niemack'
bibliography:
- 'bib.bib'
title: 'Optimizing measurements of cluster velocities and temperatures for CCAT-prime and future surveys'
---
Introduction
============
Galaxy cluster measurements have played an important role in establishing the dark energy and dark matter dominated cosmological model [e.g., @allen/etal:2011; @planck:2015sz]. Future measurements of the peculiar velocities of galaxy clusters will probe physics on large scales and have the potential to place strong constraints on cosmological parameters, complementary to those achievable with measurements of the density field [@1994ApJ...436...23B; @1994ApJ...437L..51C; @1994MNRAS.268L..23C; @1996ApJ...462L..49B; @1996MNRAS.282..384M; @2008PhRvD..77h3004B; @2015ApJ...808...47M; @2015PhRvD..92f3501M].
However, measuring peculiar velocities is a difficult task. The Sunyaev-Zeldovich (SZ) effects offer a promising approach for measuring peculiar velocities. Photons from the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) interact with hot electron gas in the intracluster medium (ICM). Through inverse Compton scattering, the electrons boost the photon energy, distorting the CMB blackbody spectrum when observed in the direction of a galaxy cluster. The SZ effects consist of a thermal (tSZ) component related to the thermal energy of the scattering electrons, a relativistic (rSZ) component also related to the electron temperature, and a kinematic (kSZ) component related to the bulk motion of the electrons [e.g., @birkinshaw:1999]. The kSZ effect is generally more than ten times smaller than the tSZ effect for massive clusters ($M>10^{14}M_{\odot}$), and its amplitude is proportional to the peculiar velocity of the cluster along the line of sight of the observer.
While the tSZ effect has been measured for well over a thousand clusters [e.g., @2013JCAP...07..008H; @2015ApJS..216...27B; @planck:2015sz], measurements of the kSZ for individual clusters remain difficult to achieve. [@2012ApJ...761...47M] measured the peculiar velocity of one of the merging clusters within MACS J0717.5+3745 to be $v = 3450\pm900 \rm \:km\,s^{-1}$. [@sayers/etal:2013] measure the kSZ effect of the same cluster to higher significance, and find a statistically significant kSZ dipole in the merging system. Similarly, while preliminary evidence for the rSZ effect exists from one individual cluster [@zemcov/etal:2012] and one analysis of stacked clusters , measurements have not been sufficiently sensitive to extract the rSZ effect from multiple individual clusters thus far.
In the last few years several groups have pursued measuring the kSZ effect with a statistical approach over a large sample of clusters using several estimators. The first detection of this kind was achieved by [@2012PhRvL.109d1101H] with a pairwise kSZ estimator. Detections using similar estimators have subsequently been reported by [@Ade:2015lza; @2016MNRAS.461.3172S; @2016arXiv160702139D]. An alternative estimator based on correlating a velocity template with CMB temperature maps was used in [@Schaan:2015uaa] and [@Ade:2015lza] for which the velocity template was constructed from measurements of the large-scale density field assuming the continuity equation. [@Hill:2016dta] used squared CMB anisotropy maps cross-correlated with galaxy measurements as another means of extracting statistical evidence for the kSZ effect. @planck_ksz:2017 used tSZ cleaned maps to measure the velocity dispersion of a large sample of X-ray detected clusters.
These statistical measurements are promising and contain significant cosmological information, though the statistical power is not yet sufficiently high to provide competitive cosmological constraints. As the measurements improve with upcoming surveys, cosmological constraints should be possible, provided that the tSZ effect can be removed effectively and the cluster optical depth (the electron gas density integrated along the line of sight) can be estimated independently or marginalized over [@2015ApJ...808...47M; @2015PhRvD..92f3501M; @Ferraro:2016ymw].
In this paper we use a Fisher matrix approach to explore the ability of upcoming multi-frequency surveys to measure the kSZ effect and line-of-sight peculiar velocity for individual clusters, by separating the tSZ and rSZ components. The three SZ components depend on the electron temperature ($T_e$), optical depth ($\tau$), and the peculiar velocity ($v$). Measuring $v$, $T_e$, and $\tau$ directly for a large sample of galaxy clusters will enable use of new kSZ statistics for constraining cosmology [e.g, @2008PhRvD..77h3004B] and will reduce systematic effects, such as residual tSZ signal and unknown optical depth, which may limit the potentially powerful statistics described above. However, approaches based on cross-correlations with the galaxy field are less affected by other sources of emission, such as emission from dusty star-forming galaxies (DSFGs). In this analysis DSFGs and the CMB represent significant sources of noise for direct measurements of the kSZ, rSZ, and tSZ effects. With the recent progress in SZ measurements it is timely to study and optimize the potential of upcoming multi-frequency surveys to separate the SZ signals from these other astrophysical sources.
We update and extend the forecasts presented in [@knox] by using a universal pressure profile, including new estimates for dusty galaxy contamination, assigning foreground measurement bands to isolate the dusty galaxy contamination, and applying the forecasts to a realistic distribution of cluster parameters observable with upcoming surveys. We focus on the 6 meter CCAT-prime (CCAT-p) telescope,[^1] which is expected to begin first light observations in 2021. We also consider first light and next generation CCAT-p measurements in combination with those from other experiments, such as eROSITA [@2010SPIE.7732E..0UP; @2012arXiv1209.3114M] and Advanced ACTPol [@Henderson:2015nzj]. The fiducial cosmological model assumed throughout this paper is based on [@2015arXiv150201589P].
A summary of the SZ effects is presented in §\[SZ\]. §\[fisher\] describes the Fisher matrix method used for the analysis,and the figure of merit used to compare forecast results is described in §\[fom\]. §\[noise\] presents models of SZ contamination sources. §\[foreground\] describes the DSFG foreground removal approach. §\[experiments\] describes the experimental parameters used for the forecasts. Forecast results for different CCAT-p configurations are presented in §\[results\], followed by conclusions in §\[conclusion\]. Appendix \[sec:comparison\] compares our forecasts with real data from existing surveys analyzed by [@lindner] and discusses possible systematics. The map pixelization used for the forecasts is discussed in Appendix \[sec:pixel\].
The Sunyaev-Zeldovich Effects {#SZ}
=============================
The amplitude of the tSZ effect at the cluster center, known as the comptonization parameter, is $$y\equiv\int \sigma_T n_e \Theta \:dl,$$ where $\sigma_T$ is the Thomson scattering cross-section, $n_e$ is the electron number density, $l$ represents the line of sight through the center of the cluster, and $$\Theta \equiv \frac{kT_e}{m_ec^2}$$ is the dimensionless electron gas temperature. The comptonization parameter can be expressed in terms of the optical depth, $\tau$, as $$y = \tau {\overline}{\Theta},$$ where $$\tau\equiv\int \sigma_T n_e \:dl$$ and the bar represents an average, weighted by optical depth (i.e. by density), along the line of sight through the cluster center.
Throughout this paper, we work in units of CMB brightness temperature. To convert between intensity and CMB temperature, we linearize Planck’s law using the first-order Taylor expansion in temperature: $$\label{Jy_conv}
\begin{split}
\frac{\partial T^{{\rm CMB}}}{\partial B^{{\rm CMB}}_\nu} &= \frac{c^2}{2k}\left(\frac{x}{\nu}\right)^2\frac{(e^x - 1)^2}{x^4\,e^x}\\
&= \frac{119\:\mathrm{\mu K}}{1\:\mathrm{mJy}/(1'\times 1')}\frac{(e^x - 1)^2}{x^4\,e^x}\\
\end{split}$$
where the spectral intensity $B_\nu$ is given by Planck’s law and $x$ is the dimensionless frequency, $x \equiv h \nu/k T_\mathrm{CMB}$. For convenience we also define $\tilde{x} \equiv x \, \mathrm{coth}(x/2).$
The frequency dependence of the tSZ effect can be written as $$f_1(\nu) = x \, \mathrm{coth}(x/2) - 4 \equiv \tilde{x} - 4$$ [e.g. @itoh]. Since the electron gas in massive clusters is typically at high temperatures ($\sim \rm1\: keV\approx10^7\:K$), the relativistic correction to the tSZ effect, which is higher-order in $\Theta$, is non-negligible. The first-order rSZ correction has an amplitude equal to $$\int \sigma_T n_e \Theta^2 \:dl=\int_l \Theta^2\: d\tau = \tau {\overline}{\Theta^2}$$ and a frequency dependence modeled as $$\begin{split}
f_2(\nu) =& -10 + 23.5\,\tilde{x} - 8.4\,\tilde{x}^2 +0.7\,\tilde{x}^3 \\
&+ (-4.2+1.4\,\tilde{x})\left(\frac{x}{\mathrm{sinh}(x/2)}\right)^2.
\end{split}$$ While higher order rSZ corrections must be accounted for when measuring parameters in the most massive clusters, this approximation is expected to be valid for clusters up to 10 keV with corrections smaller than five percent [@itoh].
The kSZ effect is independent of frequency in CMB temperature units (and thus spectrally indistinguishable from the CMB anisotropies), since it results from the Doppler shift due to the motion of the scattering frame relative to the CMB rest frame; thus $f_3(\nu) = 1$. Its amplitude is given by $$\int \sigma_Tn_e \frac{v}{c}\:dl = \int_l \frac{v}{c}\:d\tau = \tau \frac{{\overline}{v}}{c},$$ where $v/c$ is the dimensionless velocity of the galaxy cluster relative to the CMB rest frame, i.e. its peculiar velocity. This effect is usually dominated by the tSZ effect (ref. Figure \[fig:frequency\_dist\]).
We assume that the clusters are isothermal and can be treated in the limit of an ideal electron gas, where the number density of electrons is traced by its pressure. This leads to a straightforward application of the universal pressure profile [UPP, @arnaud] to all three SZ components. The intra-cluster velocity dispersion is ignored. The UPP is given by $$\frac{P(xR_{500})}{P_0} = (c_{500}x)^{-\gamma}(1+(c_{500}x)^\alpha)^{(\gamma-\beta)/\alpha},$$ where $R_{500}$ is the maximum cluster radius inside which the average density is 500 times the critical density of the universe. The quantities $\alpha,\beta,\gamma,c_{500}$ are the best-fit parameters given in [@arnaud] based on the analysis of 33 clusters from the Representative XMM-Newton Cluster Structure Survey (REXCESS): $\alpha = 1.051$, $\beta = 5.4905$, $\gamma = 0.3081$, $c_{500} = 1.177$.
The spatial variation of the cluster signal is given by $$\label{cluster_profile}
\begin{split}
h(\theta) &= A\int P(r)\:dl\\ &= A\int_{-\infty}^\infty P\left(\sqrt{\left( \theta\,\frac{ R_{500}}{{\theta_{500}}}\right)^2 + l^2}\right ) dl,
\end{split}$$ where $l$ represents the line of sight an angle $\theta$ away from the cluster center, $r$ is the radial distance to the center, ${\theta_{500}}$ is the angle corresponding to $R_{500}$ (which can be obtained with the cluster’s redshift), and $A$ is a normalisation constant chosen such that $h(0)=1$ at the cluster center. An example cluster profile is shown in Figure \[int\_signal\_plot\], along with the resulting integrated comptonization parameter (equation \[int\_y\_eq\]).
The complete SZ effect signal at frequency $\nu$ and pixel position $\pmb{\theta}$ in the sky relative to the cluster center can therefore be written using the frequency dependencies above with the amplitudes, $P_i$, of the tSZ, rSZ, and kSZ effects $$\label{p1p2p3}
P_1\equiv y =\tau \Theta,\hspace{11pt}P_2 \equiv \tau \Theta^2,\hspace{11pt}P_3 \equiv \tau \frac{v}{c},$$ respectively, as $$\label{sz_signal}
\frac{\Delta T_{\rm SZ}(\nu, \pmb{\theta})}{T_{{\rm CMB}}} = (P_1 f_1(\nu) + P_2 f_2(\nu) + P_3 f_3(\nu))\, \tilde{h}(|\pmb{\theta}|),$$ where $\tilde{h}(\theta)$ is the cluster profile convolved with the beam. Note that we have used the assumption of isothermality so that ${\overline}{\Theta^2} = {\overline}{\Theta}^2$ and defined $\Theta \equiv {\overline}{\Theta},\;v\equiv {\overline}{v}$ for brevity. The SZ signals for a fiducial cluster (whose parameters are given in Table \[fiducial\_cluster\]) are presented in Figure \[fig:frequency\_dist\], along with the bands of CCAT-p and the corresponding baseline noise levels (ref. Table \[expt\_param\]) for comparison.
To assess the impact of our assumption of isothermality on the results, we consider a simple power law temperature profile, $T_e \propto r^{-0.24}$, from . For example, Figure \[int\_signal\_plot\] depicts the spatial profiles of the three SZ components using the power law temperature profile. The plot also shows that the total kSZ signal of a non-isothermal cluster (within a reasonable aperture) is 50–70% greater than that of an isothermal one, and the total rSZ signal is smaller by 30–40%. Thus one would expect our isothermal forecasts to be pessimistic for kSZ and optimistic for rSZ uncertainties. Indeed, we find that using the power law temperature profile, the kSZ uncertainties are 30-40% smaller, and the rSZ uncertainties bigger by a similar fraction, than those assuming isothermality. The effects of non-isothermality on the results are described briefly in §\[ind\_res\].
It is worth noting that the assumption of a specific temperature profile affects the relationship between ${\overline}{\Theta^2}$ and ${\overline}{\Theta}^2$ and thus determines the amplitude of the rSZ effect $P_2$. In addition, temperature profiles seem to display significantly more variance than pressure profiles do [@arnaud], so the assumption of a specific temperature profile may introduce more bias and error in real measurements than that of a specific pressure profile.
[ccccccc]{} $1.2\times10^{-4}$ & 0.012 & $6\:\mathrm{keV}$ & 0.01 & $-200\:\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ & $3'$
![Frequency spectra of the various SZ and noise components for the fiducial cluster described by Table \[fiducial\_cluster\]. The kSZ signal has been amplified by a factor of 10 for clarity. The vertical color bars show the seven frequency bands being studied for CCAT-p, and the darkened regions indicate map noise estimates from Table \[expt\_param\]. “Noise" refers to the expected standard deviation in galactic noise, since no other noise has a frequency dependent temperature. The noise spatial term corresponds to $f_4$, while the spectral term corresponds to $f_5$ (eq. \[t\_gal\_eq\]). All beam and pixel solid angles are assumed to be one square arcminute for these plots. *Top:* The frequency spectra in intensity, $S$, relative to the CMB blackbody. *Bottom:* The same spectra in CMB-equivalent brightness temperature. The lines have the same meaning as the top panel \[fig:frequency\_dist\]](fig1a.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} ![Frequency spectra of the various SZ and noise components for the fiducial cluster described by Table \[fiducial\_cluster\]. The kSZ signal has been amplified by a factor of 10 for clarity. The vertical color bars show the seven frequency bands being studied for CCAT-p, and the darkened regions indicate map noise estimates from Table \[expt\_param\]. “Noise" refers to the expected standard deviation in galactic noise, since no other noise has a frequency dependent temperature. The noise spatial term corresponds to $f_4$, while the spectral term corresponds to $f_5$ (eq. \[t\_gal\_eq\]). All beam and pixel solid angles are assumed to be one square arcminute for these plots. *Top:* The frequency spectra in intensity, $S$, relative to the CMB blackbody. *Bottom:* The same spectra in CMB-equivalent brightness temperature. The lines have the same meaning as the top panel \[fig:frequency\_dist\]](fig1b.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
Fisher matrix method {#fisher}
====================
To forecast the constraints on cluster parameters we adopt a formalism and method similar to the one described in [@knox]. The quantities $P_1, P_2, P_3$ defined in equation \[p1p2p3\] are a natural choice for the free parameters of the problem, and thus the Fisher matrix entries corresponding to $P_1, P_2, P_3$, are independent of cluster physical parameters (except ${\theta_{500}}$). To transform the Fisher matrix from the parameters $P_1,P_2,P_3$ to the parameters $\Theta, \tau, v/c$ we use the transformation matrix $$\label{trans_matrix}
R_{l i} = \frac{\partial P_i}{\partial P_l} =\\
\begin{bmatrix}
\tau & 2\tau\Theta & 0\\
\Theta & \Theta^2 & v/c\\
0 & 0 & \tau
\end{bmatrix},$$ where the index $i$ runs over the old parameter space and $\ell$ is the index for the new parameters. The transformation of the Fisher matrix is then given by $$\label{transformation}
F'_{l m} = R_{l i} F_{ij} R_{mj} = (RFR^T)_{l m}.$$ Therefore the covariance matrix $C=F^{-1}$ transforms as $C'=R'CR'^T$ where $$\label{cov_trans_matrix}
R' = (R^{-1})^T =\frac{1}{y}\\
\begin{bmatrix}
-\Theta & 1 & 0\\
2\tau & -\tau\Theta^{-1} & 0\\
-2v/c & \Theta^{-1}v/c & \Theta
\end{bmatrix}.$$
A typical SZ survey will provide maps of the CMB sky at several frequencies. Following [@knox], we treat each map pixel at each frequency as an observable and characterize the probability distribution of the observed temperature deviations $\Delta T_\alpha$ with a noise covariance matrix $C^{{\rm noise}}_{\alpha\beta}$, where the indices $\alpha$ and $\beta$ each run over the combinations of pixels and frequency channels of the experiment. We assume an explicit Cartesian grid for the observations, and the dependence of the results on the parameters of this grid are discussed in Appendix \[sec:pixel\]. Under these assumptions, the Fisher matrix element corresponding to parameters $P_i$ and $P_j$ is $$\label{fisher_maps}
F_{ij} = \frac{1}{T_{{\rm CMB}}^2}\frac{\partial \Delta T_\alpha}{\partial P_i}(C^{{\rm noise}})^{-1}_{\alpha\beta}\frac{\partial \Delta T_\beta}{\partial P_j}.$$
We recall that, in the Fisher matrix approach, the covariance between observed values of parameters $P_i$ and $P_j$ is $C_{ij} = F_{ij}^{-1}$. Specifically, an estimate for the standard deviation of parameter $P_i$ is $\sigma(P_i)= \sqrt{C_{ii}}$ and represents a lower limit for the 1-$\sigma$ uncertainty in $P_i$ marginalized over the other free parameters of the model. Note that equation \[cov\_trans\_matrix\] implies that $\sigma(\Theta)$ and $\sigma(\tau)$ are independent of $v$.
One advantage of the Fisher matrix method is that priors on the parameters can be included very easily by a simple summation of the corresponding parameter entries. For example, if $P_i$ has already been measured with a 1-$\sigma$ uncertainty $\sigma(P_i)$, then we can capture that information by adding it to the Fisher matrix as follows: $$F^{\rm posterior}_{ii} = F_{ii} + F_{ii}^{\rm prior} = F_{ii} + \sigma(P_i)^{-2}.$$ This is used to include temperature priors obtained from X-ray measurements of galaxy clusters in some forecasts below.
Figure of merit {#fom}
===============
A useful way to characterize the simultaneous bounds on a combination of parameters from these surveys is by specifying a figure of merit (FoM). The FoM between a set of parameters is defined as the inverse area of the 1-$\sigma$ confidence ellipse in these parameters. Thus the FoM for a set of parameters is related to the determinant of the Fisher matrix marginalized over the other parameters, which is the inverse of the determinant of the corresponding submatrix of the covariance matrix [@2001PhRvD..64l3527H]. For parameters $P_1,\ldots,P_n$, the FoM is given by $${\rm FoM}(P_1,\ldots,P_n) = \left (\det\, [C_{1,\ldots,n}] \right )^{-\frac{1}{2}},$$ and for all parameters this reduces to FoM $= \sqrt{\det\, F}$. Higher FoMs correspond to better measurements and smaller uncertainties on the parameters of interest.
The choice of parameters for a FoM is not unique and can be subjective, but it is generally a useful approach for comparing multiple bounds simultaneously. For this paper, we use the FoM in the parameters $\Theta,\tau,v/c$, given by $$\label{fom_trans}
{\rm FoM}(\Theta,\tau,v/c) = |\!\det R |\, (\det F)^{\frac{1}{2}} = y^2\, (\det F)^{\frac{1}{2}},$$ where $R$ is the transformation matrix given in equation \[trans\_matrix\], $F$ is the Fisher matrix in $P_1,P_2,P_3$ as defined in equation \[p1p2p3\], and $y$ is the comptonization parameter. It also follows from this that the FoM in any two equivalent parameterizations (such as $P_1, P_2, P_3$ versus $T_e, \tau, v$) are linearly related to each other, so when comparing FoMs for the same cluster either parameterization can be used.
Sources of SZ contamination {#noise}
===========================
We consider multiple sources of SZ signal contamination, including CMB temperature anisotropies, instrument noise, and emission from dusty galaxies, and we discuss other potential sources of contamination in §\[sec:othersources\]. We quantify the three primary contaminants as contributing to a total noise term in our forecasts, $$\Delta T_{{\rm noise}}= \Delta T_{{\rm CMB}}+ \Delta T_{\rm ins} + \Delta T_{{\rm gal}}.$$ Since the components are independent, the total noise covariance between two observations separates into the sum of the covariances of the components. Thus the covariance between the pixel at frequency $\nu_a$ and position $\pmb{\theta}_i$, represented by the index $\alpha$, and the pixel at frequency $\nu_b$ and position $\pmb{\theta}_j$, represented by the index $\beta$, is $$\begin{split}
C^{{\rm noise}}_{\alpha\beta} &\equiv \frac{1}{T_{{\rm CMB}}^2}\langle \Delta T_{{\rm noise}}(\nu_a, \pmb{\theta}_i)\, \Delta T_{{\rm noise}}(\nu_b, \pmb{\theta}_j) \rangle \\
&= C^{{\rm CMB}}_{\alpha\beta} + C^{\rm ins}_{\alpha\beta} + C^{\rm gal}_{\alpha\beta}
\end{split}$$ Each of these components is described below.
Cosmic Microwave Background anisotropies
----------------------------------------
The relevant CMB anisotropies are fluctuations in the blackbody temperature of the CMB, which like the kSZ signal are independent of frequency in these units. We express the CMB covariance in terms of the well-known CMB power spectrum $C_\ell \equiv 1/(2\ell+1)\, \sum_m \langle|a_{\ell m}|^2\rangle$ and the full widths at half maximum (FWHMs) of the beams $\xi_a$ and $\xi_b$ at frequencies $\nu_a$ and $\nu_b$. The covariance of the CMB anisotropies between observations $\alpha$ and $\beta$ is given by $$C_{\alpha\beta}^{{\rm CMB}}= \sum_\ell \frac{2\ell+1}{4\pi}C_\ell P_\ell\left({\rm cos}\, |\pmb{\theta}_i - \pmb{\theta}_j|\right){\rm exp} \left (-\frac{\ell^2 (\xi_a^2+\xi_b^2)}{16\, {\rm ln}\, 2}\right).$$ All beams are assumed to be Gaussian throughout this analysis.
In principle a small map like those considered here will impose a high-pass filter that removes some of the CMB variance, and in practice using high-pass or matched filters are effective methods of cluster detection. However, low-$\ell$ CMB modes contribute very little to SZ contamination: the figures of merit (FoMs, ref. §\[fom\]) increase by $\sim0.1\%$ when we only consider $\ell\geq100$, $\sim1\%$ for $\ell\geq300$, and $\sim2\%$ for $\ell\geq500$. Thus we ignore any filter effects on CMB noise.
Instrument noise
----------------
We model the instrumental covariance between observations indexed by $\alpha$ and $\beta$ as $$C_{\alpha\beta}^{\rm ins} = \frac{1}{T_{{\rm CMB}}^2} \frac{(T_a^{\rm sens})^2}{\Omega_{\rm pix}} \delta_{\alpha\beta},$$ where $T_a^{\rm sens}$ is the beam sensitivity at $\nu_a$ corresponding to the index $\alpha$ (or $\beta$, because of the $\delta_{\alpha\beta}$), and $\Omega_{{\rm pix}}= \theta_{{\rm pix}}^2$ is the solid angle of the pixel. We assume that the correlated atmospheric noise is removed efficiently at these angular scales and do not include it in the analysis.
Target map sensitivities and beam sizes are reported in Table \[expt\_param\], which describes both a baseline survey strategy and integration time, CCAT$_{base}$, as well as a future more sensitive instrument and survey strategy, CCAT$_{opt}$. For CMB experiments $T_a^{\rm sens}$ is typically reported in units of $\mu$K-arcmin, while radio and dusty galaxy observations are typically reported in Jy beam$^{-1}$, which can be converted to units of $\mu$K-arcmin using equation \[Jy\_conv\] and the relevant beam solid angle, $\Omega = \pi \xi^2/4\, {\rm ln}\,2$.
Dusty Star Forming Galaxies {#sec:dsfgs}
---------------------------
For upcoming surveys like CCAT-p the largest source of noise when separating SZ signals is expected to arise from dusty star forming galaxy (DSFG) emission. This is largely composed of radiation from dust at temperatures an order of magnitude greater than $T_{{\rm CMB}}$. These sources can significantly contaminate the SZ signal at higher frequencies. We take into account both the spatial randomness as well as spectral uncertainty on the variations of the dust temperature and redshift of the sources.
If we expand the DSFG emission in spherical harmonics, we can express the observed covariance for this galactic component in a power series similar to the CMB covariance term, $$\langle \Delta T_{{\rm gal}}^2 \rangle = \sum_\ell \frac{2\ell+1}{4\pi}C_\ell\exp \left (-\frac{\ell^2 \xi^2}{8\, {\rm ln}\, 2}\right ).$$ We can estimate $C_\ell $ using the observed DSFG number counts $N(S)$ by expressing the sum over the sources as an integral over the flux $S$ of each source : $$C_\ell = \left ( \frac{\partial T^{{\rm CMB}}}{\partial B^{{\rm CMB}}_\nu} \right )^2 \int S^2 \frac{dN}{dS}\, dS.$$
Since the galactic noise scales with the inverse of the beam solid angle $\langle\Delta T_{{\rm gal}}^2 \rangle \propto \Omega^{-1} \propto \xi^{-2}$ to leading order (because $C_\ell $ is constant), we define $\delta T_{{\rm gal}}\equiv \sqrt{\Omega} \Delta T_{{\rm gal}}$ to represent the true galactic noise, a property of the sky independent of the experiment. We obtain $$\langle \delta T_{{\rm gal}}^2 \rangle = \frac{1}{2} \left ( \frac{\partial T^{{\rm CMB}}}{\partial B^{{\rm CMB}}_\nu} \right )^2 \int S^2 \frac{dN}{dS}\, dS.$$
To estimate this quantity we use observations from the new Submillimeter Common-User Bolometer Array (SCUBA-2) Cosmology Legacy Survey (S2CLS) on the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope [@2013MNRAS.430.2513H]. [@scuba] fit point source counts at 850 $\mu$m (350 GHz) to the following form: $$\label{N(S)}
\frac{dN}{dS} = \frac{N_0}{S_0} \left ( \frac{S}{S_0} \right )^{-\gamma} \exp \left ( -\frac{S}{S_0} \right ),$$ with best-fit values $$\begin{aligned}
N_0 &= 7180\, {\rm deg}^{-2} = 1.99\, {\rm arcmin}^{-2}, & \gamma &= 1.5,\\
S_0 &= 2.5\, {\rm mJy} \mapsto 98\, \mu \rm K\,arcmin^2.\end{aligned}$$ This gives $$\label{s2cls}
\left\langle\left (\delta T_{350}^{{\rm gal}}\right)^2 \right\rangle =\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{4}N_0 S_0^2= (92\: \mu \rm K \, arcmin)^2,$$ where $\delta T_{350}^{{\rm gal}}$ denotes the galactic noise at any point of the sky at 350 GHz. This is lower than the value used in [@knox] of 170 $\mu$K arcmin, which roughly agrees with the DSFG shot noise at 353 GHz reported in . A possible source of this discrepancy is the unresolved DSFG emission. For the majority of the forecasts presented here we use the S2CLS value in equation \[s2cls\]. However, for the sake of completeness we also calculate all results with the higher DSFG noise level of 170 $\mu$K arcmin and compare these analyses to our results in §\[results\]. As expected, increasing the DSFG noise primarily increases the importance of foreground subtraction.
To estimate $\delta T_{{\rm gal}}$ at any frequency, we find the spectral dependence of the galactic noise and use that to scale $\delta T_{350}^{{\rm gal}}$. Dusty emission can be reasonably modeled as an optically thin modified blackbody, given by $$\label{greybody}
S_\nu = S_0 \left (\nu(1+z)\right)^\beta B_\nu\left(\nu, \frac{T_{\rm dust}}{1+z}\right),$$ where $S_\nu$ traces the flux at frequency $\nu$ from a dusty galaxy at redshift $z$, with dust at temperature $T_{\rm dust}$ and emissivity index $\beta$.
@ACT_galnoise analyzed nine dusty galaxies using data from the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT), fitting them to optically thick emission. They report that the observed $z$ and $T_{\rm dust}$ distributions are similar to those obtained from a $\beta=2$ fit to equation \[greybody\]. The results are also consistent with @SPT_galnoise, where the authors analyzed 39 clusters using data from the South Pole Telescope (SPT) as well as the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) and fit them to a $\beta=2$ model. We approximate the reported distributions to Gaussians with the following means and standard deviations, keeping $\beta$ fixed to $2$: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle z \rangle &= 4 & \sigma(z) &= 1\\
\langle T_{\rm dust} \rangle &= 43\,{\rm K} & \sigma(T_{\rm dust}) &= 8\,{\rm K}.\end{aligned}$$
We hence model the spectral variations of the spatial galactic noise uncertainties as $$\label{eq:dsfgnoise1}
f_4(\nu) = A \frac{\partial T^{{\rm CMB}}}{\partial B^{{\rm CMB}}_\nu} \left \langle S_\nu (\nu) \right \rangle,$$ where the brackets denote an expectation value with respect to $z$ and $T_{\rm dust}$ at fixed $\beta=2$, and $A$ is a normalization factor chosen such that $f_4(350\,{\rm GHz})=1$. The spectral uncertainties themselves are just the standard deviation of the frequency distribution: $$\label{eq:dsfgnoise2}
f_5(\nu) = A \frac{\partial T^{{\rm CMB}}}{\partial B^{{\rm CMB}}_\nu} \sqrt{\left \langle S_\nu (\nu)^2 \right \rangle - \left \langle S_\nu (\nu) \right \rangle^2},$$ where $A$ is the same normalization constant from equation \[eq:dsfgnoise1\].
The above analysis describes a single source, but for a number of sources following the same frequency distribution, the standard deviation will be smaller by $\sqrt{n}$, the square root of the number of sources in the observation. We estimate the number using the effective number density $N_{\rm eff}$ and beam solid angle $\Omega$, $n = N_{\rm eff}\Omega$. We find $N_{\rm eff}$ by averaging over the contributions to $\delta T_{{\rm gal}}^{350}$, using the model from @scuba, given in equation \[N(S)\]: $$N_{\rm eff} = \frac{\int S^2 \frac{dN}{dS}\int_S^\infty \frac{dN}{dS'} \,dS'\,dS}{\int S^2 \frac{dN}{dS}\, dS} = 0.96 \,\rm arcmin^{-2}.$$
Thus we obtain the following expression for the galactic noise: $$\label{t_gal_eq}
\delta T_{{\rm gal}}(\nu, \pmb{\theta}) = \delta T_{350}^{{\rm gal}}\left (f_4(\nu) + (N_{\rm eff}\Omega)^{-\frac{1}{2}}f_5(\nu)\right) E(|\pmb{\theta}|, \xi)$$ where $E(\theta, \xi)$ is a magnification factor that describes the effects of weak gravitational lensing of the dusty galaxies by the cluster itself. This is an important factor, especially for more massive clusters: [@2010MNRAS.406.2352L] estimate lensing contamination for typical clusters to be as significant a signal as the SZ effect. In practice a subset of clusters will also suffer from strong lensing contamination [e.g. @2007MNRAS.376.1073Z; @2013ApJ...769L..31Z]. The effect of lensing is amplification of noise, and correlation between sky locations that would have otherwise been independent. Since the deflection angle is generally small compared to the beam and cluster sizes, we ignore this additional covariance and consider only the magnification factor. For these forecasts we assume $E(\theta, \xi)$ to be the step function given by @knox, which, based on @1998MNRAS.297..502B, returns a magnification factor ranging from 1 to 2.5 for points whose angular distance from the cluster center is within the beam size. In our forecasts, removing this lensing factor improves the FoMs (ref. §\[fom\]) by $\sim10\%$.
The total galactic noise covariance between observations $\alpha$, at frequency $\nu_a$ and pixel location $\pmb{\theta}_i$, and $\beta$, at $\nu_b$ and $\pmb{\theta}_j$, is then $$\begin{split}
C^{{\rm gal}}_{\alpha\beta} &=\frac{1}{T_{{\rm CMB}}^2}\left \langle \left(\delta T_{350}^{{\rm gal}}\right)^2 \right \rangle c^{\rm BS}_{\alpha\beta} E_\alpha E_\beta\\ &\times \left (\frac{f_4(\nu_a) f_4(\nu_b)}{(\Omega_a+\Omega_b) /2}+ c^{\rm BS}_{\alpha\beta} \frac{f_5(\nu_a) f_5(\nu_b)}{N_{\rm eff}(\Omega_a+\Omega_b)^2 /4} \right ),
\end{split}$$ where $E_\alpha \equiv E(|\pmb{\theta}_i|,\xi_a)$ and $c^{\rm BS}$ is a shot noise covariance matrix between the pixels that includes beam smoothing, which is the only source of correlation between different pixels. In other words, $c^{\rm BS}$ is the covariance between observations with overlapping regions of the sky, which is a large factor when the pixel size is smaller than the beam size, normalized to unit covariance between identical pixel locations. It is given by $$c^{\rm BS}_{\alpha\beta} = {\rm exp} \left ( -4\,{\rm ln}\, 2\, \frac{|\pmb{\theta}_i - \pmb{\theta}_j|^2}{ \xi_a^2+ \xi_b^2}\right ).$$
Other Potential Contaminants and Systematics {#sec:othersources}
--------------------------------------------
While other potential sources of SZ contamination exist, they are expected to be sub-dominant to the contributions described above. A primary goal of this paper is to study the optimal balance of sensitivities for extracting the SZ signals from the largest sources of contamination in individual clusters in order to help optimize the frequency balance in upcoming cluster surveys. We expect that any lower level contaminants will increase the need for sensitivity over a wider range of frequencies than the distribution studied here. This will only emphasize our conclusion that submillimeter measurements will become increasingly important for future cluster surveys. Here we briefly discuss potential contamination from radio sources, dusty galaxies within clusters, and emission from our galaxy, though we leave inclusion of these contaminants in forecasts to future work.
Luminous radio sources, such as active galactic nuclei (AGN), can contaminate SZ measurements at lower frequencies. Fortunately, the most luminous of these sources typically have power law spectral distributions, $S \propto \nu^\alpha$, that fall quickly with increasing frequency ($\alpha <0$), resulting in a small fraction of clusters with significant radio contamination. For example, [@lin2009] found that $<2$% of clusters with $M_{200}>10^{14} M_{\odot}$ and $z=0.6$ are expected to have radio contamination with an amplitude approaching 20% of the tSZ amplitude at 150 GHz. The number of contaminated clusters decreases both for higher masses and higher redshifts. At $z=0.6$ they also find that 1–7% of clusters in the mass range $10^{14}$–$10^{15}$ $M_\odot$ will have contamination exceeding 5% of the tSZ signal, which drops to 0.2–2% at $z=1.1$. More recently, [@sayers/etal:2013] found that only about 1/4 of the massive clusters in their sample showed a fractional change in the 140 GHz tSZ signal larger than 1%. This contamination will also be reduced at the higher frequencies being measured with CCAT-p.
Radio sources that would otherwise contaminate SZ measurements can often be found in existing radio catalogs as described in [@lin2009] and [@sayers/etal:2013]. This enables simple removal of several percent of the clusters in the catalog due to radio contamination. As long as the clusters with luminous AGN or other sources are removed from the SZ extraction catalog, separate radio noise terms can be ignored in the analysis presented here. In practice, one can also subtract known radio sources from contaminated clusters, but this process still results in loss of information, and is not considered here because so few clusters appear to be contaminated by radio sources.
Dust emission from the galaxy clusters themselves is another expected source of contamination. This has the potential to bias the SZ effect as it also traces the cluster profile, but can be distinguished spectrally; once again emphasizing the need for future experiments to be sensitive to submillimeter wavelengths. Evidence for cluster dust was recently presented in [@planck_szdust:2016]. It is a weak effect: hundreds of cluster measurements were stacked to extract these signals and compare them to infrared measurements. A weak correlation between the CIB and optical galaxy clusters was also reported in [@2013JCAP...05..004H]. @erler, who measure the dusty emission that is correlated with the hundreds of clusters in their sample, report an amplitude of 8 mJyarcmin$^{-2}$ at 857 GHz, which is $\sim2.5\times$ smaller than the total amplitude of DSFG noise considered here (ref. Figure \[fig:frequency\_dist\]). Thus, while this dust emission is not included in our current analysis, it will be important to understand for accurate cluster constraints in the future, and CCAT-p submillimeter measurements are expected to be valuable for characterizing this component.
In addition, dust within our own galaxy can contaminate the SZ signals. This dust varies strongly with position on the sky, and is not expected to be a dominant contaminant for low-dust fields at high galactic latitudes that only cover roughly $10^3$ deg$^2$ [@planck_foregrounds:2015].
Among possible systematic effects, we observe that the assumption of isothermality for the intracluster medium often does not reflect the properties of real clusters [@0004-637X-567-1-163; @0004-637X-725-2-1452]. [@lindner] applied the peculiar velocity measurement method to SZ simulations and found that assuming isothermal clusters could introduce a bias between the real and recovered velocity ranging from $15\%$ to $36\%$ depending on the aperture used to measure the SZ effects. Other effects of non-isothermality are briefly described in §\[ind\_res\].
In this analysis we are neglecting internal flows of the electron gas, which can be as large as the overall peculiar velocity of the cluster . [@0004-637X-587-2-524] have verified that internal flows introduce a dispersion in the peculiar velocity estimated from the kSZ of $50-100$ km/s. This effect is small but not negligible, especially for sensitive experiments approaching 1$\mu$K-arcmin map noise levels, and may represent a lower limit on the precision of kSZ estimated peculiar velocities, unless internal flows can be accounted for.
We also assume the cluster to be perfectly centered in the map. In principle one can always generate a perfectly centered map from the time stream data, but the effect of miscentering in individual clusters is small. Pixel-scale offsets cause the FoMs (ref. §\[fom\]) to change by less than $1\%$, while offsets on the scale of the cluster size ${\theta_{500}}$ cause the FoMs to decrease by $\sim2\%$. These effects are related to the variation of the forecast results with map and pixel sizes, which is described in Appendix \[sec:pixel\]. The effect of miscentering is expected to be larger for differential analyses and for cross-correlation analyses involving multiple clusters, and is investigated in [@2017arXiv171001755C], but in these cases it is the relative miscentering between clusters that is important.
The assumption of a specific pressure profile can potentially be a source of bias for the results, although measurements of both the tSZ and kSZ effects have shown that the observed signals have a relatively weak dependence on the details of the assumed profile, for example when using a matched filter approach to remove the CMB and noise [@2013JCAP...07..008H; @2016MNRAS.461.3172S]. The assumption of a specific temperature profile may be a more important source of bias. Regardless, if X-ray observations are available, these biases and uncertainties can be reduced further.
Dusty Galaxy Subtraction {#foreground}
========================
For experiments equipped with submillimeter wavelength detectors, the emission from DSFGs may be partially subtracted by scaling the high frequency maps by the expected DSFG scaling relationships and subtracting them from the lower frequency maps to reduce galactic noise. This follows the approach in [@lindner].
However, because the spectral dependence of the galactic noise varies spatially, there will still be errors from this imperfect subtraction, and the instrumental noise of the higher frequency bands will affect every band. The SZ signal and CMB noise are also reduced by their scaling factors. However, since DSFG contamination is such a large source of noise, experiments with sensitive submillimeter wavelenths will be able to improve the measurements of SZ parameters with this approach.
If we have $n_{\rm fg}$ foreground bands at frequencies $\nu_f$, then simply averaging them and subtracting the average from the regular bands leads to the corrected temperature, $$\label{fgsubgen}
\begin{split}
\Delta T'(\nu, \pmb{\theta}) &= \Delta T(\nu, \pmb{\theta}) - \frac{1}{n_{\rm fg}}\sum_f\frac{f_4(\nu)}{f_4(\nu_f)}\Delta T(\nu_f, \pmb{\theta})\\&\equiv\Delta T(\nu, \pmb{\theta}) - {\overline}{\frac{f_4(\nu)}{f_4(\nu_f)}\Delta T(\nu_f, \pmb{\theta})}.
\end{split}$$ The foreground maps are typically more resolved, since they use observations that are usually at higher frequencies. In any case, the more resolved maps are assumed to be smoothed to match the least resolved one, so that we may ignore effects due to differing beam sizes. Since the second term of equation \[fgsubgen\] only differs in frequency from the first, we can absorb the foreground subtractions into the frequency dependencies $f_i \rightarrow f'_i$: $$\label{fprime}
f'_i(\nu) = f_i(\nu) - {\overline}{\frac{f_4(\nu)}{f_4(\nu_f)}f_i(\nu_f)}$$ for $i\leq 4$, while for $f'_5$ we have $$\label{f5prime}
f'_5(\nu) = A\frac{\partial T^{{\rm CMB}}}{\partial B^{{\rm CMB}}_\nu}\sqrt{\left \langle \left( S_\nu(\nu) - {\overline}{\frac{\langle S_\nu(\nu)\rangle}{\langle S_\nu(\nu_f)\rangle} S_\nu(\nu_f)} \right)^2 \right \rangle},$$ where $A$ is the same normalization constant from equations \[eq:dsfgnoise1\] and \[eq:dsfgnoise2\], i.e. it sets $f_4(350\,{\rm GHz})=1$ before subtraction.
Since $f'_4=0$, the spatial term of the galactic noise is eliminated, leaving only the spectral term proportional to $f'_5$: $$\delta T_{{\rm gal}}(\nu, \pmb{\theta}) = \delta T_{350}^{{\rm gal}}(N_{\rm eff}\Omega)^{-\frac{1}{2}}f'_5(\nu) E(|\pmb{\theta}|, \xi).$$ The galactic noise covariance matrix reduces to $$\label{X}
C^{{\rm gal}}_{\alpha \nu} =\frac{1}{T_{{\rm CMB}}^2}\left \langle \left(\delta T_{350}^{{\rm gal}}\right)^2 \right \rangle \frac{\left(c^{\rm BS}_{\alpha\nu}\right)^2 E_\alpha E_\nu f'_5(\nu_a) f'_5(\nu_b)}{N_{\rm eff}(\Omega_a+\Omega_b)^2 /4}.$$
The CMB term, originally independent of frequency, now has the dependence $$f'_{{\rm CMB}}(\nu) = 1 - {\overline}{\left(\frac{f_4(\nu)}{f_4(\nu_f)}\right)},$$ and the corresponding covariance thus has the following frequency dependence $$\label{subcmb}
C^{{\rm CMB}}_{\alpha\beta} = C^{{\rm CMB}}_{\alpha\beta} f'_{{\rm CMB}}(\nu_a) f'_{{\rm CMB}}(\nu_b).$$ These factors are smallest when $\nu_f \simeq \nu$, which is when the scaling is close to unity. However, to prevent elimination of the signal, foreground frequencies should not be too close to signal frequencies.
Since the foreground map is subtracted from other channels, the instrument noise of the foreground map is present in the other maps. The instrument noise of frequencies with greater angular resolutions (smaller beam sizes) would be suppressed by smoothing the maps to match the lowest angular resolution, but we ignore this factor to maintain more conservative forecasts. The instrumental noise covariance term then becomes $$\label{subins}
C_{\alpha\beta}^{\rm ins} = \frac{1}{T_{{\rm CMB}}^2} \frac{1}{\Omega_{\rm pix}}\left ( (T_a^{\rm sens})^2 + \frac{1}{n_{\rm fg}}{\overline}{\left(\frac{f_4(\nu_a)}{f_4(\nu_f)}T_f^{\rm sens}\right)^2} \right )\delta_{\alpha\beta}$$ The final covariance matrix for foreground subtraction is hence given by the sum of equations \[X\], \[subcmb\] and \[subins\].
Experiment parameters {#experiments}
=====================
CCAT-p is a 6-meter aperture telescope that will be built near the top of Cerro Chajnantor at 5600 meters elevation in the Atacama desert in Chile with first light planned for 2021. The telescope will have a large field-of-view (FOV), roughly 8$^\circ$ diameter, and a half wavefront error near 10 microns. The high-throughput optics will enable illumination of much larger detector arrays than previous millimeter and submillimeter telescopes [@niemack:2016].
Here we study a potential first light instrument configuration for CCAT-p that would utilize roughly 1/7 of the available FOV. The concept is based on the instrument described in [@stacey/etal:2014], with seven separate optical paths; however, the wavelengths assigned to each optical path are considerably different here. In addition to a broader wavelength range, at frequencies below 500 GHz we assume the use of dichroic detector arrays similar to those described in [@datta/etal:2016]. Single frequency detector arrays are assumed at higher frequencies where dichroic arrays have not yet been demonstrated. The bands have been selected to match the telluric windows accessible from the CCAT-p site. A 862 GHz band is desired for both studying star formation history in sub-millimeter galaxies and characterizing dust emission from clusters [@erler].
[cc|cc|cc]{} 95 & 2.2 & 2 & 4.9 & 16 & 0.9\
150 & 1.4 & 2 & 6.4 & 15 & 1.2\
226 & 1.0 & 2 & 4.9 & 3 & 2.0\
273 & 0.8 & 2 & 6.2 & 5 & 2.0\
350 & 0.6 & 2 & 25 & 4 & 8.9\
405 & 0.5 & 2 & 72 & 5 & 23\
862 & 0.3 & 1 & $6.6\times 10^4$ & 2 & $2.3\times10^4$
Table \[expt\_param\] shows map sensitivity estimates for a 4000 hour, $10^3\,\rm{deg}^2$ survey. This configuration, which we refer to as the CCAT$_{base}$ configuration, would enable CCAT-p to simultaneously observe from 95 GHz up to 862 GHz in seven frequency bands, overlapping and complementing the frequency coverage of current CMB surveys. We consider four possible survey strategies in terms of observing time and survey areas, given by the combinations {$4\times10^3$ hr, $1.2\times10^4$ hr}$\times${$10^3\,\rm{deg}^2$, $10^4\,\rm{deg}^2$}.
We also consider how CCAT-p measurements could be improved through three different approaches: 1) optimizing the balance of CCAT$_{base}$ frequencies to extract the SZ signals; 2) combining CCAT-p data in the configuration described above with planned CMB measurements from Advanced ACTPol [AdvACT, @Henderson:2015nzj] on the Atacama Cosmology Telescope [@fowler/etal:2007]; and 3) an optimized future upgrade to CCAT-p, which we call CCAT$_{opt}$, filling most of the available FOV with about 30 separate optical paths using 16,000 hr of observations. This instrument would provide some of the desired capabilities for a Stage-IV CMB survey [CMB-S4, e.g., @abazajian/etal:2015; @abazajian/etal:2016], though greater sensitivity via multiple telescopes will be needed to accomplish the full CMB-S4 science goals.
Results
=======
We first present forecast results for individual clusters, then for distributions of clusters detected in large area surveys. Finally, we present the frequency band optimization in order to study different instrument configurations and assess the value of submillimeter bands for these measurements.
After trying all possible combinations of foreground bands, with equal weights and with weights chosen to minimize total instrument noise, we found that the equal weighting of the 350 and 405 GHz channels achieves the best FoM results for a wide variety of clusters, so we use that configuration for the forecasts presented here.
{width=".5\textwidth"} {width=".5\textwidth"} {width=".5\textwidth"} {width=".5\textwidth"}
{width=".5\textwidth"} {width=".5\textwidth"} {width=".5\textwidth"} {width=".5\textwidth"}
Individual cluster results {#ind_res}
--------------------------
@knox forecast uncertainties for a fiducial cluster. In an attempt to pick more realistic cluster parameters, we assume a mass $M\equiv M_{500}$ and redshift $z$ for each cluster, and use best-fit scaling relations to transform them into the SZ parameters $T_e$ and $\tau$. We use the $T$-$M$ scaling relation from @2016MNRAS.463.3582M: $$\label{TM}
\frac{T_e}{\rm keV} = 8.76 \times \left ( E(z) \frac{M_{500}}{10^{15}M_\odot}\right )^{0.62},$$ where $E(z)\equiv H(z)/H_0$. For the $\tau$ scaling, we use the $Y$-$M$ scaling from [@Ade:2013lmv]: $$\label{YM}
Y_{500} = 10^{-4.19} E(z)^{\frac{2}{3}} \left (\frac{d_A(z)}{\rm Mpc}\right )^{-2} \left ( \frac{M_{500}}{7.5\times 10^{14}M_\odot}\right )^{1.79},$$ where $d_A(z)$ is the angular diameter distance and $Y_{500}$ is the integrated comptonization parameter within ${\theta_{500}}$. Using the cluster model from §\[SZ\] and Figure \[int\_signal\_plot\], we write $$\label{int_y_eq}
\frac{Y(\theta')}{y} = 2\pi \int_0^{\theta'} \theta h(\theta)\,d\theta,$$ where $y \propto \tau T_e$. We find that $Y_{500} = 0.423 \,y\, {\theta_{500}}^2$. The cluster size ${\theta_{500}}$ is simply related to $d_A(z)$ and $R_{500}$, which is related to $M_{500}$ by the critical density of the universe $\rho_{\rm crit}(z)$. Thus, assuming $M,z,v$ for a cluster completely determines all relevant cluster parameters. Since the scaling relations involve significant scatter, we use these only to obtain more physically relevant fiducial cluster parameters, and do not change basis from $T_e,\tau,v$ to $M,z,v$.
Figures \[contour\_op1\] and \[contour\_op4\] show the expected 1-$\sigma$ contours for $\tau$, $T_e$ and $v$ for a few combinations of cluster parameters measurable by CCAT-p (cluster masses $3\times10^{14}M_{\odot}$ and $10^{15}M_{\odot}$, redshifts $0.5$, $1$, and $1.5$) for the two surveys, CCAT$_{base}$ (Figure \[contour\_op1\]) and CCAT$_{opt}$ (Figure \[contour\_op4\]), described in Table \[expt\_param\]. To compare with more traditional CMB surveys, we also plot the constraints achieved by using data from wavelengths $>1$ mm ($\nu<300$ GHz) only. We find that CCAT-p does far better than current sub-millimeter telescopes: CCAT$_{base}$ FoMs are $\sim15\times$ greater than those of AdvACT, and the FoMs of CCAT$_{opt}$ are almost $50\times$ greater than those of CCAT$_{base}$. These figures also confirm that the degeneracies between these three parameters are significant and represent one of the main obstacles to separating optical depth, temperature, and velocity.
External X-ray data can provide independent constraints on the temperature $T_e$ and thereby help in breaking some of the degeneracies. For example the eROSITA satellite [@2010SPIE.7732E..0UP; @2012arXiv1209.3114M] is expected to provide a high spectral and angular resolution full-sky survey in the medium energy X-ray range. [@Borm:2014zna] found that eROSITA can constrain cluster temperatures with a $10\%$ precision for clusters up to redshift $z\simeq0.16$. At higher redshifts up to $z\simeq1$ or possibly $1.5$, and depending on the cluster mass, eROSITA measurements are expected to constrain the temperature with a relative uncertainty ranging from $10$% to $40\%$.
To illustrate the potential of X-ray temperature constraints, we include priors on $T_e$ loosely based on eROSITA forecasts for an exposure time of 1,600 s [@Borm:2014zna]. The dashed lines in Figures \[contour\_op1\] and \[contour\_op4\] show the results when this prior is included in the calculation. Since the tSZ amplitude $P_1$ (ref. equation \[p1p2p3\]) is the dominant signal and thus the most well-constrained parameter, the strongest degeneracy is between $T_e$ and $\tau$, so that a prior on the temperature almost directly translates into a prior on the optical depth. We note that X-ray measurements also provide information about the electron number density, which could be used to improve constraints on $\tau$ further or help quantify non-isothermal effects; however, for this analysis we only include priors on $T_e$. Depending on the cluster mass and peculiar velocity value, the temperature prior can reduce the uncertainty on the peculiar velocity by up to a factor of 3 in the fiducial clusters studied here.
On the other hand, when considering a much more sensitive survey, such as CCAT$_{opt}$ with CMB-S4 scale sensitivity, we find that in $10^{15} M_{\odot}$ clusters $T_e$ is well determined by the microwave measurements (Figure \[contour\_op4\] top) with negligible improvement from the X-ray prior. It is important to note that while X-ray measurements constrain the emission-weighted temperature, the SZ effect is determined by the temperature weighted by optical depth (ref. §\[SZ\]). Under our assumption of isothermality, these two are the same, but in practice using an X-ray prior in this way could be a potential source of bias. Regardless, X-ray observations will help in characterizing real clusters that are not spherical or isothermal, providing information about cluster profiles that will be useful in SZ measurements, which highlights one area of great complementarity between future X-ray and microwave measurements.
Relaxing the assumption of isothermality but using the fixed power law temperature profile from discussed in §\[SZ\], we find kSZ uncertainties $\sigma(P_3)$ decrease and rSZ uncertainties $\sigma(P_2)$ increase by 30–40%. It also causes tSZ uncertainties $\sigma(P_1)$ to improve by 5–10%. Thus the FoM change is within 10%, with smaller clusters typically gaining more than larger ones, and with a larger effect on CCAT$_{base}$ than CCAT$_{opt}$. The velocity uncertainties $\sigma(v)$ increase by 0–20% for CCAT$_{base}$ (with smaller clusters affected more than larger ones) and decrease by $\sim 5\%$ for CCAT$_{opt}$. Since the effects of non-isothermality are small and can be constrained e.g. by X-ray observations, we do not consider non-isothermality for the following results.
Cluster distribution results
----------------------------
Building on the forecasts for individual clusters, we study constraints for different distributions of clusters probed via different survey strategies. While the baseline strategy, CCAT$_{base}$, assumes a survey length of 4,000 hr and area of 1,000 deg$^2$, we forecast results for the same instrument with both longer duration 12,000 hr surveys and with the area increased to 10,000 deg$^2$. We also forecast the results of a next generation upgraded survey (CCAT$_{opt}$), with roughly 30 optics tubes instead of 7, as described in Table \[expt\_param\], and a survey time of 16,000 hr over 1,000 deg$^2$.
We first estimate the number of detected clusters. To obtain a minimum mass detection criterion, we compare the map-noise for the band most sensitive to the dominant tSZ signal (i.e. that with least $T^{\rm sens}/|f_1(\nu)|$) as a function of cluster mass (equation \[YM\]). In principle one could take advantage of multi-frequency channels; however, the single band approach has been successfully used by several collaborations [e.g. @Hasselfield:2013wf]. For simplicity, we base our estimates on the most sensitive band only. Specifically, we use the 95 GHz sensitivity of $4.9\,\mu \rm K\,arcmin$ and $0.9\,\mu \rm K\,arcmin$ for the two strategies described in Table \[expt\_param\]. We note that the 273 GHz CCAT$_{base}$ channel is expected to have comparable (or slightly better) sensitivity to the tSZ signal at $z>1$; however, we assume detection rates based on 95 GHz decrement measurements, which are known to agree well with recent tSZ detections.
{width=".5\textwidth"} {width=".5\textwidth"} {width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"}
For a given redshift, we find the minimum mass observable, by imposing a 5-$\sigma$ detection criterion, i.e. we consider as detected all the clusters for which the signal within an aperture of ${\theta_{500}}$ is at least 5 times the noise. We then use the Jenkins halo mass distribution [@jenkins] to find the number of clusters at each redshift with mass above the detection cutoff. The redshift and mass distribution of halos for a $10^3$ deg$^2$ field is shown in Figure \[mz\_n\_t500\]. The figure also depicts the cluster size ${\theta_{500}}$, electron temperature $T_e$, and optical depth $\tau$ as functions of $M$ and $z$ (ref. equations \[TM\] and \[YM\]). The detection cutoffs for the four CCAT$_{base}$ strategies as well as CCAT$_{opt}$ are overlaid on the plots, and the cluster parameters used in Figures \[contour\_op1\] and \[contour\_op4\] are marked.
Since the only cluster parameter that changes the derivatives of the signal (equation \[sz\_signal\]) is ${\theta_{500}}$, the uncertainties in $P_1,P_2,P_3$ are functions solely of ${\theta_{500}}$. Larger clusters have signals that can be integrated over a greater area, so we would expect uncertainties to improve with ${\theta_{500}}$, which is indeed what we find. The transformation to $T_e,\tau,v$ introduces dependencies on $T_e$ and $\tau$, while only the velocity uncertainty $\sigma(v)$ depends on $v$ (ref. equation \[cov\_trans\_matrix\]). Equation \[fom\_trans\] shows that the FoM in $T_e,\tau,v$ must be proportional to $T_e^2\tau^2f({\theta_{500}})$, where $f$ is a monotonically increasing function. One would expect all uncertainties to improve with each of ${\theta_{500}},T_e,\tau$ since $T_e$ and $\tau$ determine the strength of the signal, and ${\theta_{500}}$ determines its spatial extent.
{width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"}
Figure \[mz\_results\] depicts the bounds on cluster parameters obtained by the baseline CCAT-p strategy described in Table \[expt\_param\]. It shows the FoM and uncertainties in $T_e$, $\tau$, and (for clusters with 0 peculiar velocity) $v$, along with the detection cutoff. The uncertainties depend in the expected ways on the cluster parameters ${\theta_{500}}$, $T_e$, and $\tau$. As can be seen in Figure \[mz\_n\_t500\], all cluster parameters increase with mass, so the uncertainties improve quickly with mass as well. ${\theta_{500}}$ decreases with redshift, first rapidly and then slowly, while the other parameters increase strongly. Therefore ${\theta_{500}}$ dominates at low $z$ and the other parameters dominate at high $z$, with the result that uncertainties quickly deteriorate with redshift before slowly improving beyond $z\sim 0.5$.
The similarity of uncertainty contours with the detection cutoff in Figure \[mz\_results\] demonstrates that the behaviour of the uncertainties is well-approximated by the single-band detection criterion, which depends on only $y$ and ${\theta_{500}}$. Due to the steep improvement in uncertainties with mass, and steep deterioration with redshift for low $z$, the clusters with good measurements are biased toward higher masses and lower redshifts, which should be accounted for in cosmological analysis.
We assume that the peculiar velocities are independent from $M,z$ and follow a Gaussian distribution with standard deviation $\sigma = 351\rm \, km\,s^{-1}$, based on @Sheth:2000ii. In Figure \[distr\] we present the expected distribution of the kSZ signal amplitude for the thousands of clusters detected by the five strategies. Since the sensitivity scales like $T^{\rm sens } \propto \sqrt{A/t}$, the detection threshold is increased for wider surveys, as shown in Figure \[mz\_n\_t500\]. However in terms of the total number of clusters detected, this effect is dominated by that of seeing more of the sky with wider surveys, with the result that wider surveys detect more clusters.
![The distribution of the kSZ amplitude $P_3$ (ref. equation \[p1p2p3\]) of detected clusters for the 5 CCAT-p survey strategies. The standard deviation of each distribution is between $4.6 \times 10^{-6}$ and $6.3\times 10^{-6}$. This is important to consider when comparing to uncertainties in Figures \[survey\_strats\] and \[n\_sigma\]. The plot also shows that CCAT$_{opt}$ will detect far more clusters than the scaled CCAT$_{base}$ strategies, which is not surprising due to the expected sensitivity improvement. \[distr\]](fig6.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Figure \[survey\_strats\] displays the distribution of kSZ uncertainties of the detected clusters for the four CCAT-p survey strategies based on the CCAT$_{base}$ instrument configuration. The lines plateau to a constant value as a result of our 5-$\sigma$ tSZ detection criterion; in practice observing previously known clusters (e.g. from optical catalogs) would give us low-S/N measurements of several more clusters. The small peaks that are visible in the plots are numerical effects caused by $z$ sampling at low redshift; the true results should be smooth.
![Cumulative distribution of observed numbers of clusters with kSZ uncertainties for the four survey strategies based on the baseline CCAT-p instrument configuration. The $y$-axis represents the number of clusters that can be detected to within the uncertainty given by the $x$-axis. Solid lines represent results from CCAT-p, while dashed lines represent results from coadding maps from CCAT-p and Advanced ACTPol [@Henderson:2015nzj]. These uncertainties may be compared with the expected distribution of $P_3$ signals, which is Figure \[distr\]. Small peaks and discontinuities are numerical effects from $z$ sampling.\[survey\_strats\]](fig7.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
As expected, we find that (for fixed survey length) deeper surveys see fewer clusters but to higher significance, while wider surveys detect more clusters with higher uncertainties. Thus the choice of survey depth represents a trade-off between quality and quantity, though this effect may be diluted by the slightly lower signal amplitudes that are detected, on average, by deeper surveys (ref. Figure \[distr\]). In addition, deeper surveys explore more of the $M,z$ parameter space than broader ones do (ref. Figure \[mz\_n\_t500\]).
The dashed lines in Figure \[survey\_strats\] show the results from coadding the CCAT-p maps with overlapping measurements from the Advanced ACTPol (AdvACT) project [@Henderson:2015nzj]. Most of the low-foreground sky will be observed with AdvACT with similar resolution between 90 GHz and 230 GHz; therefore we can simply coadd the AdvACT sensitivity estimates with those of CCAT-p. The improvement from coadding the AdvACT data is strongest for the wider, shallower surveys due to the larger area and higher level of map noise of AdvACT. For the CCAT-p baseline strategies, adding AdvACT results in a 20–70% increase in the number of clusters detected to a given uncertainty.
Next, we analyze the impact of submillimeter bands and foreground subtraction. Figure \[n\_sigma\] depicts distributions of uncertainties for the CCAT$_{base}$ and CCAT$_{opt}$ surveys. It also shows the distributions when different combinations of the higher-frequency bands are ignored. Comparing these curves demonstrates the importance of submillimeter bands, which can increase the number of clusters detected to a given uncertainty by factors $> 3$ in some regimes. The cases when both foreground bands (350 and 405 GHz) are ignored, with and without DSFG noise, are included in the figure. These present an upper and lower bound to the foreground-subtracted default configuration, and allow us to assess the effectiveness of foreground subtraction. We see that with the high frequency bands we are able to recover velocities with small $\sigma(v)$ for up to 70% of the clusters contaminated by significant DSFG noise.
{width=".5\textwidth"} {width=".5\textwidth"} {width=".5\textwidth"} {width=".5\textwidth"}
Figure \[n\_sigma\] also presents the same information for CCAT$_{opt}$, the 16,000 hr survey with an upgraded instrument. This shows that CCAT$_{opt}$ will measure kSZ signals for over 10$\times$ more clusters to any given uncertainty than the CCAT$_{base}$ first light instrument configuration, and that high-frequency bands (particularly the one at 862 GHz) contribute significantly to this improvement.
Optimizing experiments {#sec:pair_det}
----------------------
In the previous section we examined changes in survey strategy. In this section we vary experimental parameters to optimize the SZ FoM. As described in §\[experiments\], the CCAT$_{base}$ configuration evolved from the SWCam instrument design [@stacey/etal:2014], which included seven independent optics tubes installed in one cryogenic instrument. The seven optics tubes were assumed to illuminate six dual-frequency arrays (two at 95/150 GHz, two at 226/273 GHz, two at 350/405 GHz) and one single-frequency array (862 GHz). We are also exploring instrument concepts with as many as 50 independent optics tubes in one cryogenic instrument [@niemack:2016]. For the instrument optimization process, we treat each of the seven frequencies independently, which is analogous to having 13 single frequency optics tubes (two each at 90, 150, 226, 273, 350, 405 GHz and one at 862 GHz, Table \[expt\_param\]) and optimizing between them. The CCAT$_{opt}$ configuration was optimized by allowing up to 50 single frequency optics tubes; however, as we describe later, the CCAT$_{opt}$ configuration could be deployed in as few as 28 optics tubes by using dual-frequency detector arrays at frequencies $<$ 500 GHz.
![*Top:* The FoM matrix, normalised to the diagonal, for moving one detector array between each pair of bands (ref. §\[sec:pair\_det\]) for the baseline CCAT$_{base}$ configuration. The row corresponding to removing an array from the 862 GHz band is omitted since it has only one such array, and we do not allow this to go to zero in the optimization. The baseline CCAT-p configuration would benefit from having more arrays in the lower frequency bands. *Bottom:* Same as top panel, for the optimized CCAT$_{opt}$ configuration with a total of roughly 50 single-frequency detector arrays or roughly 28 dual-frequency arrays. The configurations are summarized in Table \[bands\_opt\]. CCAT$_{opt}$, as its name suggests, has already been optimised. \[bands\_matrix\]](fig9a.png "fig:"){width="1\columnwidth"} ![*Top:* The FoM matrix, normalised to the diagonal, for moving one detector array between each pair of bands (ref. §\[sec:pair\_det\]) for the baseline CCAT$_{base}$ configuration. The row corresponding to removing an array from the 862 GHz band is omitted since it has only one such array, and we do not allow this to go to zero in the optimization. The baseline CCAT-p configuration would benefit from having more arrays in the lower frequency bands. *Bottom:* Same as top panel, for the optimized CCAT$_{opt}$ configuration with a total of roughly 50 single-frequency detector arrays or roughly 28 dual-frequency arrays. The configurations are summarized in Table \[bands\_opt\]. CCAT$_{opt}$, as its name suggests, has already been optimised. \[bands\_matrix\]](fig9b.png "fig:"){width="1\columnwidth"}
To perform the optimization, we compute the matrix of FoMs after transferring one array between each pair of bands. We do not expect this to depend heavily on the cluster parameters, and have verified that multiple cluster parameters converge to the same configuration. Thus we only present results for the fiducial cluster parameters presented in Table \[fiducial\_cluster\]. Examples of such matrices are given in Figure \[bands\_matrix\]. If, for a pair of bands, moving an array either way results in a loss of FoM, then the array assignment between these two bands is locally optimal. By iteratively changing the array assignment based on the FoM matrix, and recomputing the matrix, we may find such an optimal allocation of detector arrays.
We have done this for a baseline CCAT$_{base}$ configuration and for a next generation CCAT$_{opt}$ upgrade with up to 50 single frequency optics tubes, instead of 13. We keep the total number of bands fixed, i.e. we impose that each band must have at least one detector array, although we find that all bands are allocated more than one optics tube in the CCAT$_{opt}$ configuration. The results are presented in Figure \[bands\_matrix\] and Table \[bands\_opt\]. The most important bands are 95 and 150 GHz: detector arrays are allocated to 31 of the 50 optics tubes at these frequencies. The submillimetre bands are allocated 11 arrays, and all bands find an equilibrium with more than one array, showing that they all provide value, and emphasising the effectiveness of having multiple frequencies.
[c|ccccccc|c]{} CCAT$_{base}$ baseline (ref. Table \[expt\_param\]) & 2 (4.9) & 2 (6.4) & 2 (4.9) & 2 (6.2) & 2 (25) & 2 (72) & 1 ($6.6\times 10^4$) & 2.31\
CCAT-p baseline optimized & 4 (3.5) & 4 (4.5) & 1 (6.9) & 1 (8.8) & 1 (36) & 1 (100) & 1 ($6.6\times 10^4$) & 2.73\
Optimized with half arrays & 4 (3.5) & 3.5 (4.8) & 1.5 (5.7) & 1 (8.8) & 1 (36) & 1.5 (83) & 0.5 ($9.4\times 10^4$) & 2.81\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCAT$_{opt}$ (ref. Table \[expt\_param\]) & 16 (0.9) & 15 (1.2) & 3 (2.0) & 5 (2.0) & 4 (8.9) & 5 (23) & 2 ($2.3 \times 10^4$) & 107\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughput ratio rule of thumb & 4 & 4 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0.5
Conclusion
==========
We present Fisher matrix forecasts of the properties and uncertainties of galaxy clusters that CCAT-p will be able to detect. Larger area surveys detect more clusters, but with larger uncertainties on the cluster properties than deeper surveys. We find that submillimeter bands play an important role in extracting SZ signals and eliminating noise from dusty star-forming galaxies.
We also use Fisher matrices to optimize the frequency balance of detector arrays for a CCAT-p first light instrument concept and a CMB-S4 scale instrument concept. We forecast the results of a futuristic (optimized) upgrade to CCAT-p called CCAT$_{opt}$, and find that with $\sim 4 \times$ more detectors, we could see up to $\sim 10 \times$ more clusters to any given uncertainty, measuring the peculiar velocities of thousands of clusters. Our results highlight the importance of submillimeter bands and foreground subtraction for cluster measurements.
We find that optimized ratios of the number of detector arrays at each frequency do not change significantly between the CCAT-p first light and CMB-S4 scale instrument concepts. If multiple high throughput six-meter aperture telescopes are built for CMB-S4, this suggests that extraction of the cluster parameters $T_e$, $\tau$, and $v$ may be optimized by continuing to pursue a similar frequency balance to the rule of thumb in Table \[bands\_opt\]. Of course, there are many other drivers of the distribution of frequencies to consider for CMB-S4; however, this analysis suggests that significant improvements in the CMB-S4 galaxy cluster science may be achieved by adding modest submillimeter capabilities on a telescope like CCAT-p.
Individual cluster measurements at the level of precision achievable by CCAT-p will provide insight into interesting areas of cluster astrophysics, such as temperature profiles, turbulent flows, and AGN feedback. Velocity measurements for a range of cluster masses and redshifts will provide constraints on the cosmic velocity field, and yield insight into the growth of large-scale structure and cosmology. For example, [@2007ApJ...659L..83B] show that measuring the peculiar velocities of all clusters with $M> 10^{14} M_\odot$ to 100 km s$^{-1}$ for a 5000 deg$^2$ survey would constrain each of the Hubble constant, the primordial power spectrum index, the normalization of the matter power spectrum, and the dark energy equation of state to better than 10%, independent of other cosmological probes.
Future forecasts could build on these by including noise terms such as radio noise, dusty galactic emissions from within the cluster itself, and dust from our own Galaxy. These terms are only expected to increase the relative importance of broad frequency coverage. Another important direction for future analyses is extending the distribution of cluster parameters presented here to cosmological and astrophysical parameter constraints. Significant recent progress has been made along these lines building on the CMB-S4 science book; however, the majority of recent calculations do not consider submillimeter wavelengths like those that will be measured with CCAT-p. In other words, this work highlights one of the ways in which CCAT-p offers unique new galaxy cluster measurement capabilities as a potential platform for future CMB-S4 measurements.
We are grateful to members of the CCAT-prime collaboration as well as the Simons Observatory and CMB-S4 Collaborations for useful discussions. Gordon Stacey, Thomas Nikola, and Steve Parshley provided help with the instrument concepts and sensitivity estimates. We thank Colin Hill, Kaustuv Basu, Nick Battaglia, Jens Erler, Eve Vavagiakis, Douglas Scott, Rachel Bean, Frank Bertoldi, Joseph Mohr, Eiichiro Komatsu, Ted Macioce, and the referee for useful discussions and/or comments on the paper. The authors acknowledge support from the US National Science Foundation awards AST-1454881 and AST-1517049.
Comparison with measurements and systematics {#sec:comparison}
============================================
To test the approach adopted in this paper, we compare the results of our forecasts with existing constraints on cluster parameters from recent measurements. Specifically, @lindner analyze the SZ properties of 11 galaxy clusters using data from the Large APEX Bolometer Camera (LABOCA) on the Atacama Pathfinder Experiment (APEX), and data from the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT). They use data from the Herschel Space Observatory’s Spectral and Photometric Imaging Receiver (SPIRE) to subtract the dusty emission foreground, as described in §\[foreground\]. The relevant parameters of these experiments are described in Table \[expt\_param2\]. They also use the 2.1 GHz Australia Telescope Compact Array to remove radio sources, but we ignore that as we neglect radio sources in the analysis.
@lindner obtain prior X-ray measurements of $T_e$ for all but 2 clusters. Hence we exclude those 2 clusters from our analysis, leaving a total of 9 clusters. They obtain values of ${\theta_{500}}$ using the cluster radii and redshifts, then filter and clean the data, deconvolving them into continuous, roughly circular maps of radius $\sim 5'$. They then measure the integrated SZ flux within an aperture $\theta'$, to find the integrated comptonization parameter $Y\equiv \int y\, d\Omega$ within this aperture, as well as the bulk peculiar velocities $v$ of the galaxy clusters. @lindner estimate that only a fraction (between 0.1–0.54) of the arcminute-scale SZ signal is reconstructed in their LABOCA data analysis, which is expected to significantly increase the uncertainties in their results. They report the measured parameters and the 1-$\sigma$ uncertainties, which we summarize in Table \[lindner\_data\].
For each cluster, we set the fiducial value for the cluster parameters exactly at the measured values reported by [@lindner], and forecast the uncertainties for the same map noise levels, which are summarized in Table \[expt\_param2\]. To get $y$, and thus $\tau$, from the reported integrated $Y'$ within a $\theta'$ radius we use the cluster model from §\[SZ\] and equation \[int\_y\_eq\].
Since $T_e$ is treated as a prior rather than a measurement, we compare only the forecast uncertainties in velocity $\sigma_{\rm f}(v)$ and optical depth $\sigma_{\rm f}(\tau)$ to the ones reported by @lindner. These uncertainties are presented in Table \[lindner\_data\]. We find the measured and forecast uncertainties to be correlated, with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.74 for $v$ and 0.88 for $\tau$, but the forecast uncertainties are systematically smaller than the measurement uncertainties by a factor of $\sim 2$. The dominant source of this discrepancy is believed to be the limited reconstruction of the arcminute-scale SZ signal in the LABOCA maps described above. @lindner also emphasize the importance of making multiple simultaneous measurements at millimeter and submillimeter wavelengths to extract these signals, which we plan to do with CCAT-prime.
[cccc]{} ACT & 148 & 1.4 & 53\
& 218 & 1.1 & 55\
LABOCA & 345 & 0.47 & 155
[c|ccc|ccccc|cc|cc]{} J0102-4915 & 97 & 102& 183 & 2.50 & 14.5 & 1.0 & 3.1 & -1100 & 7.3 & 1800 & 2.3 & 510\
J0215-5212 & 40 & 42 & 152 & 3.16 & 5.9 & 1.3 & 2.8 & -1100 & 9.8 & 500 & 5.9 & 350\
J0232-5257 & 37 & 39 & 130 & 2.42 & 9.1 & 2.1 & 1.3 & -1200 & 6.3 & 1600 & 3.0 & 810\
J0330-5227 & 37 & 39 & 145 & 4.08 & 4.3 & 0.2 & 1.9 & 100 & 8.4 & 1000 & 2.0 & 280\
J0438-5419 & 52 & 55 & 122 & 4.53 & 11.9 & 1.2 & 1.1 & 900 & 2.4 & 1000 & 1.1 & 530\
J0546-5345 & 45 & 47 & 122 & 1.75 & 8.5 & 1.2 & 5.2 & -300 & 13 & 700 & 6.8 & 280\
J0559-5249 & 42 & 44 & 213 & 3.08 & 8.1 & 0.8 & 1.3 & 3100 & 4.6 & 1500 & 1.9 & 540\
J0616-5227 & 42 & 44 & 160 & 2.60 & 6.6 & 0.8 & 3.6 & -300 & 8.3 & 600 & 4.5 & 260\
J0658-5557 & 82 & 87 & 167 & 3.44 & 10.8 & 0.9 & 2.3 & 2500 & 5.1 & 1000 & 2.1 & 450
Pixelization {#sec:pixel}
============
![*Left:* The variation of the FoM of all 3 parameters with the pixel size $\theta_{{\rm pix}}$ at three different map sizes for the CCAT$_{base}$ parameters. The plots are fully sampled (i.e. at every integer value of $s_{{\rm pix}}$). The vertical dashed line represents the FWHM of the smallest beam, and the black cross indicates the pixelization used throughout the paper, determined by equations \[pixsize\_choice\] and \[mapsize\_choice\]. *Right:* The variation of the bounds with the map size $\theta_{\rm map}$ at the pixel size prescribed by equation \[pixsize\_choice\]. The black cross indicates the map size used throughout the paper, determined by equation \[mapsize\_choice\]. Since adding pixels can only improve the bounds, the odd and even pixel numbers must be monotonically increasing, which is why they are plotted separately. The cluster parameters used for these plots are described in Table \[fiducial\_cluster\] (${\theta_{500}}=3'$). \[pixsize\_fig\]](fig10a.pdf "fig:"){width=".5\columnwidth"} ![*Left:* The variation of the FoM of all 3 parameters with the pixel size $\theta_{{\rm pix}}$ at three different map sizes for the CCAT$_{base}$ parameters. The plots are fully sampled (i.e. at every integer value of $s_{{\rm pix}}$). The vertical dashed line represents the FWHM of the smallest beam, and the black cross indicates the pixelization used throughout the paper, determined by equations \[pixsize\_choice\] and \[mapsize\_choice\]. *Right:* The variation of the bounds with the map size $\theta_{\rm map}$ at the pixel size prescribed by equation \[pixsize\_choice\]. The black cross indicates the map size used throughout the paper, determined by equation \[mapsize\_choice\]. Since adding pixels can only improve the bounds, the odd and even pixel numbers must be monotonically increasing, which is why they are plotted separately. The cluster parameters used for these plots are described in Table \[fiducial\_cluster\] (${\theta_{500}}=3'$). \[pixsize\_fig\]](fig10b.pdf "fig:"){width=".5\columnwidth"}
We have found that assumptions about pixelization and map size can have considerable impact on the FoM. We assume map pixels are on a square grid where each pixel is one observation as described above. Each pixel is a square of side $\theta_{{\rm pix}}= \sqrt{\Omega_{{\rm pix}}}$, and there are $s_{{\rm pix}}= \sqrt{n_{{\rm pix}}}$ pixels per side of the map, so that the map is a square of angular size $\theta_{\rm map} = s_{{\rm pix}}\theta_{{\rm pix}}$. The choice for $s_{{\rm pix}}$ and $\theta_{{\rm pix}}$ is not trivial and affects the signal-to-noise of the measurement.
Reducing the pixel size increases the instrumental noise per pixel and the galactic noise covariance between distinct pixels, due to $c^{\rm BS}$, while allowing a more accurate removal of the background terms, like the CMB. For a given beam size and instrumental noise there is hence an optimal trade-off between opposite effects. Explicitly, for a constant map size, decreasing the pixel size improves the signal-to-noise ratio up to a point, beyond which it plateaus.
We study the dependence of the constraints on the pixel size choice for different map sizes. As an example, in Figure \[pixsize\_fig\] we plot the FoM results for CCAT$_{base}$ (for further discussion about these results see §\[results\]). As $\theta_{{\rm pix}}$ decreases, the FoM (§\[fom\]) plateaus towards a constant value. The point at which it approaches this constant value depends on the signal scale, ${\theta_{500}}$, and the beam widths $\xi$. Picking a small value for $\theta_{{\rm pix}}$ increases the computation time $t\propto \mathcal{O}(n_{{\rm pix}}^3) = \mathcal{O}(s_{{\rm pix}}^6)$. Thus we adopt the following rule of thumb to choose $\theta_{{\rm pix}}$ in the region where it plateaus, to minimise information loss while avoiding unnecessary computational complexity: $$\label{pixsize_choice}
\theta_{{\rm pix}}\equiv ({\theta_{500}}/10 + {\rm min}\, \xi ) / 2.5$$
The signal drops off sharply with distance (Figure \[int\_signal\_plot\]), so extending the map beyond the scale of ${\theta_{500}}$ yields little additional signal. The total signal within a radius $\theta'$ of the cluster center is also plotted in Figure \[int\_signal\_plot\]. Thus we expect the FoM to plateau out as we increase $\theta_{\rm map}$. The forecasted variation of the overall FoM with map size, with the pixel size held constant at the value prescribed by equation \[pixsize\_choice\], is plotted for CCAT$_{base}$ in Figure \[pixsize\_fig\]. We expect that the dependence of the results on the map size will become stronger if non-isothermal clusters are considered since the kSZ signal is more spread out (ref. Figure \[int\_signal\_plot\]). In an attempt to standardize the results, we choose a constant radius $\theta = n{\theta_{500}}$ within which to capture the signal. A larger value for $n$ will minimize the variation due to the choice of pixelization, but also increase computational time and errors due to noise that has not been considered. Based on the signal dependence on $n$ (Figure \[int\_signal\_plot\]), we set $n \equiv 2$. Accounting for beam convolution, this gives us the following rule of thumb for the map size: $$\label{mapsize_choice}
\rm \theta_{map} \equiv 2\,(2 \hspace{0.05 em} {\theta_{500}}+ max\, \xi)$$
![ *Left:* The cluster profiles of the various SZ signals described in §\[SZ\] as a function of angle from the cluster center $\theta$. The thick red line describes the tSZ profile $h(\theta)$ (ref. equation \[cluster\_profile\]), which is used in these forecasts for all three SZ components under the assumption of isothermality. The other lines describe the kSZ and relativistic correction to the tSZ components using the power-law temperature profile from , to indicate how the signal profiles change when non-isothermality is considered. *Right:* The SZ parameters $P_i$ integrated within an aperture of radius $\theta'$, i.e. the total signal in a circular map of radius $\theta'$. The dashed horizontal lines represent the limit $\theta' \rightarrow \infty$, i.e. the total signal. The integrated tSZ parameter (thick red line) is the integrated comptonization parameter $Y(\theta')$ (equation \[int\_y\_eq\]), which describes all three components under conditions of isothermality. The kSZ signal of a non-isothermal cluster is greater than that of an isothermal cluster, while the rSZ signal is smaller. \[int\_signal\_plot\]](fig11a.pdf "fig:"){width="0.5\columnwidth"} ![ *Left:* The cluster profiles of the various SZ signals described in §\[SZ\] as a function of angle from the cluster center $\theta$. The thick red line describes the tSZ profile $h(\theta)$ (ref. equation \[cluster\_profile\]), which is used in these forecasts for all three SZ components under the assumption of isothermality. The other lines describe the kSZ and relativistic correction to the tSZ components using the power-law temperature profile from , to indicate how the signal profiles change when non-isothermality is considered. *Right:* The SZ parameters $P_i$ integrated within an aperture of radius $\theta'$, i.e. the total signal in a circular map of radius $\theta'$. The dashed horizontal lines represent the limit $\theta' \rightarrow \infty$, i.e. the total signal. The integrated tSZ parameter (thick red line) is the integrated comptonization parameter $Y(\theta')$ (equation \[int\_y\_eq\]), which describes all three components under conditions of isothermality. The kSZ signal of a non-isothermal cluster is greater than that of an isothermal cluster, while the rSZ signal is smaller. \[int\_signal\_plot\]](fig11b.pdf "fig:"){width="0.5\columnwidth"}
The beam convolution with a map of a specific size presents another source of pixelization variation, as each frequency channel has a different beam size. For the map size selection, we use the maximum beam size to minimize loss of information.
[^1]: <http://www.ccatobservatory.org/>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'In recent work, Pomerance and Shparlinski have obtained results on the number of cycles in the functional graph of the map $x \mapsto x^a$ in $\mathbb{F}_p^*$. We prove similar results for other families of finite groups. In particular, we obtain estimates for the number of cycles for cyclic groups, symmetric groups, dihedral groups and $SL_2(\mathbb{F}_q)$. We also show that the cyclic group of order $n$ minimizes the number of cycles among all nilpotent groups of order $n$ for a fixed exponent. Finally, we pose several problems.'
author:
- 'Matt Larson [^1]'
bibliography:
- 'power\_map.bib'
title: Power maps in finite groups
---
[^2]
[^3]
Introduction
============
Let $H$ be a finite group, and let $a \ge 2$ be an integer. The iterations of the map $x \mapsto x^a$ form a sort of dynamical system in a finite group. As such, it is natural to study the structure of the periodic points of this map. Define the undirected multigraph $G(a, H)$ with vertex set $H$ and $x \sim y$ if $x^a = y$, with an additional edge if $y^a = x$. Note that $G(a, H)$ may have loops (for example at the identity) or cycles of length $2$. The orbit structure of the map $x \mapsto x^a$ in $G$ is encoded in $G(a, H)$. This graph has been extensively studied in the case of $G = ({\mathbb Z }/n{\mathbb Z })^*$ in connection with algorithmic number theory and cryptography (see, e.g., [@Chou2004], [@Kurlberg2005] and [@Vasiga2004]). In particular, the properties of the well-known Blum-Blum-Shub psuedorandom number generator [@Blum1986] are determined by the properties of $G(2, {\mathbb Z }/pq{\mathbb Z })$.
(1,1) – (4,1) – (4,4) – (1,4) – (1,1); (7, 1) – (7, 4); (-0.7, -0.7) – (1,1); (4, 1) – (5.7, -0.7); (1, 4) – (-0.7, 5.7); (4, 4) – (5.7, 5.7); at (7.3, 4) [0]{}; at (7.3, 1) [5]{}; at (1.4, 1.4) [2]{}; at (1.4, 4.4) [4]{}; at (4.4, 1.4) [6]{}; at (3.6, 4.4) [8]{}; at (-1, -0.7) [1]{}; at (6, -0.7) [3]{}; at (6, 5.7) [9]{}; at (-1, 5.7) [7]{}; (7, 4) circle\[radius= 0.1 cm\]; (7, 1) circle\[radius= 0.1 cm\]; (1, 1) circle\[radius= 0.1 cm\]; (4, 4) circle\[radius= 0.1 cm\]; (4, 1) circle\[radius= 0.1 cm\]; (1, 4) circle\[radius= 0.1 cm\]; (5.7, -0.7) circle\[radius= 0.1 cm\]; (-0.7, 5.7) circle\[radius= 0.1 cm\]; (5.7, 5.7) circle\[radius= 0.1 cm\]; (-0.7, -0.7) circle\[radius= 0.1 cm\]; (1.75, 1) to\[in=50,out=130,loop\] (1.75, 1);
Note that $G(a, H)$ is a refinement of the power graph of $H$ (see [@Abawajy2013] and references therein). In particular, the power graph of $H$ is the graph with vertex set $H$ and $x \sim y$ if $x \in \langle y \rangle$ or $y \in \langle x \rangle$. One can build the power graph of $H$ out of $G(a,H)$ by taking the union of the edges of $G(a, H)$ for $1 \le a \le \vert H \vert$ and deleting any loops or multiple edges.
Let $N(a, H)$ denote the number of connected components in $G(a, H)$. Since each connected component contains a unique cycle, $N(a, H)$ is also the number of cycles in $G(a, H)$. In recent work, Pomerance and Shparlinski gave results on the average order, normal order, and extremal order of $N(a, \mathbb{F}_p^*)$ for $p$ prime.
\[pom\] For any $a \ge 2$:
- There exist infinitely many primes $p$ such that $N(a, \mathbb{F}_p^*) > p^{5/12 + o(1)}$.
- For almost all primes $p$, $N(a, \mathbb{F}_p^*) < p^{1/2 + o(1)}$.
- $\frac{1}{\pi(x)} \displaystyle\sum_{p \le x} N(a, \mathbb{F}_p^*) \gg x^{0.293}$
Under the assumption of the Elliot-Halberstam conjecture and a strong Linnik’s constant, we can improve this to $$\frac{1}{\pi(x)} \sum_{p \le x} N(a, \mathbb{F}_p^*) \ge x^{1+ o(1)}.$$
Pomerance and Shparlinski asked for an extension of these results to other groups. We consider the question of the size of $N(a, G)$ for various families of groups. Using results from number theory, group theory, and probability theory, we obtain results on the size of $N(a, G)$ for cyclic groups, dihedral groups, symmetric groups and the special linear group of degree $2$ over a finite field.
Next, we conjecture that, for any $a$, the cyclic groups have the fewest connected components over any groups of a given order. More precisely,
\[minconjecture\] Let $G$ be a group of order $n$. Then $$N(a, G) \ge N(a, C_n).$$
We have verified this conjecture using Sage [@Stein2017] for all groups of order at most 1000, except for groups of order $768$, if $a\in\{2, 3, \dotsc, 20\}$. We prove the following partial result:
\[nilpotent\] Let $G$ be a nilpotent group of order $n$. Then $$N(a, G) \ge N(a, C_n).$$
In Section $2$, we introduce results used to estimate $N(a, G)$. In Section $3$, we estimate the normal order, average order, and extremal order of $N(a, H)$ for several families of groups. In Section $4$, we prove theorem \[nilpotent\]. In Section $5$, we discuss further directions and ask several questions.
Notation
--------
Throughout this paper, $p$ denotes a prime number, $q$ denotes a prime power, and $a$ denotes a positive integer at least $2$. All groups are finite, and group multiplication is always written multiplicatively.
For a set $A$, we denote the characteristic function of $A$ by $1_A(x)$. For $g \in G$ a group, let $\vert g \vert$ denote the order of $g$. Let $\operatorname{ord}_{n}(a)$ denote the multiplicative order of $a$ in $\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$. For a group $G$, let $w_G(d)$ denote the number of elements of order $d$. We will often write $w(d)$ for $w_G(d)$ if the group is obvious. Let $C_n$ denote the cyclic group of order $n$, $D_{n}$ denote the dihedral group of order $2n$, $SL_n(\mathbb{F}_q)$ denote the special linear group of degree $n$ over the finite field of $q$ elements and let $S_n$ denote the symmetric group of order $n!$. Let $\lambda$ denote the Carmichael lambda function, i.e. $\lambda(n)$ is the exponent of $({\mathbb Z }/n{\mathbb Z })^*$. Let $\varphi$ denote the Euler $\varphi$-function.
We use standard Vinogradov notation and Landau notation. Recall that the statements $U = O(V)$, $U \ll V$ and $V \gg U$ all mean $\vert U \vert \le cV$ for some $c >0$. We also use the notation $o(1)$ to denote a quantity that tends to $0$ as some parameter goes to infinity. The dependency of the constant on a parameter will be denoted as a subscript. We say almost all elements of a set $S \subseteq \mathbb{N}$ have a property $P$ if the proportion of the elements of $S$ that have $P$ and are at most $n$ is $1 + o(1)$.
General tools
=============
Our main tool for estimating $N(a, G)$ is the following lemma:
\[formula\]Let $\rho$ denote the largest factor of $\vert G \vert$ relatively prime to $a$. Then $$N(a, G) = \sum_{d \vert \rho} \frac{w(d)}{\operatorname{ord}_{d}(a)}.$$
We generalize an argument of Chou and Shparlinski in [@Chou2004]. Consider the map $x \mapsto x^a$. Then let $t \ge 0, c > 0$ minimal such that $ x^{a^t} = x^{a^{t + c}}$ for all $x$, which exist since the map $x \mapsto x^a$ is preperiodic. Let $d$ denote the order of $x$. Then $d \vert a^t (a^c - 1)$, so $t = 0$ if and only if $\gcd(a, d) = 1$. If $t = 0$, then $x$ lies in a cycle of length $\operatorname{ord}_d(a)$, and there are $w(d)$ elements that lie in such cycles, showing the result.
We will often use this result in the form $$N(a, G) = \sum_{\substack{g \in G \\ \gcd(\vert g \vert, a) = 1}} \frac{1}{\operatorname{ord}_{\vert g \vert}(a)},$$ which follows from lemma \[formula\] by grouping terms by order. We observe that if a group $G$ has many element of large order, then $N(a, G)$ is likely to be small. This gives some justification to conjecture \[minconjecture\]. We will also make use of the following lemma.
\[sum\] Let $H_1, \dotsc, H_n \le G$, and suppose $H_i \cap H_j = \{e\}$ for $i \not = j$, where $e$ is the identity of $G$. Then $$N(a, G) \ge \sum_{i=1}^{n} N(a, H_i) - n + 1.$$
Note that the subgraph in $G(a, G)$ induced by $H_i$ is isomorphic to $G(a, H_i)$. These induced subgraphs overlap only at the identity, and, in these induced subgraphs, each connected component contains a unique cycle. In $G(a, G)$, these induced subgraphs cannot be connected to each other, except for the connected component containing the identity.
Before proving the last general result, we state a lemma
\[ord\] If $\frac{d d'}{\gcd(d, d')} = n$, then $\operatorname{ord}_d(a) \operatorname{ord}_{d'}(a) \ge \operatorname{ord}_n(a)$.
As $d \mid a^{\operatorname{ord}_d(a)} - 1$ and $d' \mid a^{\operatorname{ord}_{d'}(a)} - 1$, $n \mid a^{\operatorname{ord}_d(a) \operatorname{ord}_{d'}(a)} - 1$.
Let $G, H$ finite groups. Then $$N(a, G \times H) \ge N(a, G) N(a, H).$$
Let $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$ be the largest divisors of $\vert G \vert$ and $\vert H \vert$ coprime to $a$ respectively. Then $$\begin{split}
\left ( \sum_{d \mid \rho_1} \frac{w_G(d)}{\operatorname{ord}_{d}(a)} \right) \left (\sum_{d' \mid \rho_2} \frac{w_H(d')}{\operatorname{ord}_{d'}(a)} \right) & = \sum_{d \mid \rho_1, d' \mid \rho_2} \frac{w_G(d) w_H(d')}{\operatorname{ord}_d(a) \operatorname{ord}_{d'}(a)} \\
& = \sum_{k \mid \rho_1 \rho_2} \sum_{\substack{ d \mid \rho_1, d' \mid \rho_2,\\ d d'/\gcd(d, d') = k}} \frac{w_G(d) w_H(d')}{\operatorname{ord}_d(a) \operatorname{ord}_{d'}(a)} \\
& \le \sum_{k \mid \rho_1 \rho_2} \sum_{\substack{ d \mid \rho_1, d' \mid \rho_2,\\ d d'/\gcd(d, d') = k}} \frac{w_G(d) w_H(d')}{\operatorname{ord}_k(a)} \\
& = \sum_{k \mid \rho_1 \rho_2} \frac{w_{G \times H}(k)}{\operatorname{ord}_k(a)} \\
& = N(a, G \times H),
\end{split}$$ where in the inequality we use lemma \[ord\].
Size of $N(a, G)$
=================
Cyclic groups
-------------
We show results on the average order, normal order, and extremal order of $N(a, C_n)$.
\[normc\_n\] Let $\delta = 0.2961$. Then $$\frac{1}{x} \sum_{n \le x} N(a, C_n) \ge x^{1 - \delta + o(1)}.$$
\[cyclicextremal\] For any fixed $a$, there exist infinitely many $n$ such that $$N(a, C_n) \ge n^{1 + o(1)}.$$
\[cyclicnormal\] For almost all $n$, we have that $$N(a, C_n) \le n^{1/2 + o(1)}.$$
Under the Elliott-Halberstam conjecture, we can remove $\delta$ from theorem \[normc\_n\]. Under the GRH, we can remove the $1/2$ from theorem \[cyclicnormal\].
In conjunction with the following lemma, the above theorems immediately give results on dihedral groups.
If $a$ is even, then $N(a, D_n) = N(a, C_n)$. If $a$ is odd, then $N(a, D_n) = n + N(a, C_n)$.
Recall that $D_n$ consists of a cyclic subgroup of order $n$ and $n$ elements of order $2$ lying outside this cyclic subgroup. If $a$ is even, then each element of order $2$ is connected to the component that contains the identity. If $a$ is odd, then each element of order $2$ lies in a component that consists of a single vertex with a loop.
We use the strategy of Pomerance and Shparlinski in [@Pomerance2017]. First we recall a result of Baker and Harman.
\[shifted\_smooth\] There is an absolute constant $\kappa$ with the following property: Let $x$ sufficiently large, and let $$v = \frac{\log u}{\log \log u}, \quad w = v^{1/0.2961}.$$ Let $$\mathcal{Q} = \{p \in \left [\frac{w}{(\log w)^{\kappa}}, w \right] \enskip : \enskip p - 1 \mid M_v\},$$ where $M_v$ is the least common multiple of the integers in $[1, v]$. Then $$\vert \mathcal{Q} \vert \ge \frac{w}{(\log w)^\kappa}.$$
Now we prove the result. Let $\mathcal{Q}$ be the set of primes given by lemma \[shifted\_smooth\]. Let $$k = \left \lfloor \frac{\log x}{\log v} \right \rfloor.$$ Let $\mathcal{S}$ denote the set of products of $k$ distinct elements of $\mathcal{Q}$. We see that $$\vert \mathcal{S} \vert = \binom{\vert \mathcal{Q} \vert}{k} = x^{1 - 0.2961 + o(1)}.$$ We also note that, for any $m \in \mathcal{S}$, $$x \ge w^{k} \ge m \ge (w/(\log w)^{\kappa})^k = x^{1 + o(1)}.$$ By lemma \[ord\], we have that for any $m \in \mathcal{S}$, $\operatorname{ord}_m(a) \mid M_v$. By the prime number theorem, this implies that $$\operatorname{ord}_m(a) \le M_v = \exp(v(1 + o(1))) = x^{o(1)}.$$ Therefore, for each $m \in \mathcal{S}$, we have $$N(a, C_m) \ge \frac{\varphi(m)}{\operatorname{ord}_m(a)} = x^{1 + o(1)},$$ which implies the result.
One can obtain the same result by using the work of Ambrose; it follows from the specialization to $\mathbb{Q}$ of [ [@Ambrose2014 Theorem 1]]{}. As we can remove $\delta$ from the result of Ambrose under the Elliott-Halberstam conjecture, we can show that the average value of $N(a, C_n)$ is $x^{1 + o(1)}$ under the Elliott-Halberstam conjecture.
Let $n = a^k - 1$. Then $$N(a, C_n) \ge \frac{\varphi(a^k -1)}{k} \gg \frac{n}{\log n \log \log n}.$$
Before proving theorem \[cyclicnormal\], we recall some properties of the Carmichael lambda function.
\[lambdabound\] If $d \vert n$, then $$\varphi(d)/\lambda(d) \vert \varphi(n)/\lambda(n).$$
\[lambda\] For almost all $n$, $$\lambda(n) = n^{1 + o(1)}.$$
\[ord\_bound\] We have $$\operatorname{ord}_{n}(a) \ge \frac{\lambda(n)}{n} \prod_{p \vert n} \operatorname{ord}_p(a).$$
Let $B$ denote the set of primes such that $\operatorname{ord}_p(a) < \sqrt{p}/\log p$.
\[density\] With $B$ defined as above, $\vert B \cap \{1, \dotsc, N \} \vert = O(n/ (\log n)^3)$.
Using the results in [@Kurlberg2003], we can improve the bound for $\operatorname{ord}_p(a)$ from $\sqrt{p}/\log p$ to $p^{1 + o(1)}$ under the GRH, which would lead to a corresponding improvement in theorem \[cyclicnormal\] to $N(a, C_n) \le n^{o(1)}$ for almost all $n$.
For an integer $n$, let $n_B$ denote the largest divisor of $n$ that is a product of primes from $B$.
\[bad\] For almost all $n \le N$, $n_B < \log n$.
By the density estimate in lemma \[density\], we see that $$\sum_{n = n_B} \frac{1}{n} = \prod_{p \in B} \left(1 - \frac{1}{p} \right)^{-1} = O(1).$$ Therefore, for any $\varepsilon > 0$, there is $C = C(\varepsilon)$ such that $$\sum_{\substack{n = n_B, \\ n> C}} \frac{1}{n} < \varepsilon.$$ Thus for all but $\varepsilon N$ integers $n \le N$, we have that $n_B < C$. As $\varepsilon$ was arbitrary and eventually $\log n > C$, this proves the claim.
\[core\] The number of positive integers $n$ at most $x$ such that there is a positive integer $s$ such that $s^2 \mid n$ and $s^2 \ge \log n$ is $O\left( \frac{x}{\log x} \right)$.
By lemma \[lambda\], lemma \[bad\], and lemma \[core\] there is a set $S$ of density $1$ such that $n_B < \log n$, $s^2 < \log n$ for every $s$ such that $s^2$ divides $n$, and $\lambda(n) = n^{1 + o(1)}$ for all $n \in S$. By lemma \[ord\_bound\], we have that $$N(a, C_n) \le \sum_{d \vert n} \frac{d \varphi(d)}{\lambda(d) \prod_{p \vert d} \operatorname{ord}_p(a)}.$$
Using the bound that $\varphi(n) < n$ and lemma \[lambdabound\], in form of $\varphi(d)/\lambda(d) \le \varphi(n)/\lambda(n)$ for $d \vert n$, we have that, for almost all $n$, $$\begin{split}
N(a, C_n) & \le \sum_{d \vert n} \frac{d \varphi(d)}{\lambda(d) \prod_{p \vert d} \operatorname{ord}_p(a)} \\
& \le \sum_{d \vert n} \frac{d \varphi(n)}{\lambda(n) \prod_{p \vert d} \operatorname{ord}_p(a)} \\
& = \sum_{d \vert n} \frac{d n^{o(1)}}{\prod_{p \vert d} \operatorname{ord}_p(a)} \\
& \le n^{1/2 + o(1)},
\end{split}$$ where in the last inequality we are using that the square part of $n$ is at most $\log n$ and the product of the primes in $B$ dividing $n$ is at most $\log n$.
Symmetric groups
----------------
As lemma \[sum\] implies that the sequence $\{N(a, S_n) \}_{n \in {\mathbb N }}$ is non-decreasing, since $S_{n-1}$ embeds into $S_n$, it makes less sense to discuss the average order, normal order, and extremal order of $N(a, S_n)$. We therefore prove bounds on the size of $N(a, S_n)$.
\[S\_n\] We have $$N(a, S_n) \ge \frac{ n!}{\exp \left ( \frac{\varphi(a)}{2a} \log^2 n (1 + o(1)) \right)}.$$
Let $T_n = T_n(a)$ denote the set of permutations in $S_n$ with order coprime to $a$, and let $S(n)$ denote the set of positive integers coprime to $a$ that are at most $n$. We will use concentration bounds on the order of the elements of $T_n$ to bound $N(a, S_n)$.
There exists constants $C = C(a)$ and $\delta = \delta(a)$ such that $$\vert T_n \vert = C(n-1)! n^{\varphi(a)/a} + O((n-1)! n^{\varphi(a)/a - \delta}).$$
\[normal\] For some permutation $\sigma$, let $M(\sigma)$ denote the order of the permutation. Choose a random permutation $\tau_n$ from $T_n$. Then $$P \left ( \frac{ \log M(\tau_n) - \sum_{i \in S(n)} (\log i)/i}{\sqrt{\sum_{i \in S(n)} (\log i)^2/i} } \le x \right) \xrightarrow{d} \Phi(x),$$ where $\Phi(x)$ is the standard normal distribution and $\xrightarrow{d}$ denotes convergence in distribution.
This follow from the work of Yakymiv in [@Yakymiv2005_] and [@Yakymiv2018].
We use lemma \[normal\] to bound the order of most elements of $T_n$ and then use the trivial upper bound on $\operatorname{ord}_d(a)$. First we obtain an asymptotic for $\sum_{i \in S(n)} (\log i)^2/i$.
We have $$\sum_{i \in S(n)} \frac{\log i}{i} = \frac{\varphi(a)}{2a} \log^2 n + o(\log^2 n).$$
Observe that, using partial summation, $$\begin{split}
\sum_{i \in S(n)} \frac{\log i}{i} & = \log n \sum_{i=1}^{n} \frac{1_{S(n)}(i)}{i} + \sum_{m=1}^{n-1} (\log m - \log(m + 1)) \sum_{i=1}^m \frac{1_{S(n)}(i)}{i}.
\end{split}$$ and $$\begin{split}
\sum_{i=1}^{n} \frac{1_{S(n)}(i)}{i} &= \sum_{m=1}^{n-1} \left ( \frac{1}{m} - \frac{1}{m+1} \right) m \frac{\varphi(a)}{a} + O(1) \\
& = \frac{\varphi(a)}{a} \log n + O(1).
\end{split}$$ Using partial summation again, we have that $$\sum_{i=1}^n \frac{\log i}{i} = \log^2 n + \sum_{m=1}^{n-1} (\log m - \log m + 1)\log m + O(\log n).$$ On the other hand, $$\sum_{i=1}^n \frac{\log i}{i} = \int_{1}^{n} \frac{\log x}{x} dx + o(\log n) = \frac{\log^2 n}{2} + o(\log n).$$ Hence $$\sum_{m=1}^{n-1} (\log m - \log m + 1)\log m = \frac{\log^2 n}{2} + o(\log n),$$ showing that $$\sum_{i \in S(n)} \frac{\log i}{i} = \frac{\varphi(a)}{2a} \log^2 n + o(\log^2 n).$$
We have the trivial bound $$\sum_{i \in S(n)} \frac{(\log i)^2}{i} = O(\log^3 n).$$ For all but $o_a(\vert T_n \vert)$ permutations $\tau_n$ in $T_n$, we have that $$\log M(\tau_n) \le \sum_{i \in S(n)} \frac{\log i}{i} + O(\log \log n (\log n)^{3/2}).$$ Hence, for almost all permutations in $T_n$, we have that $$M(\tau_n) \le \exp \left ( \frac{\varphi(a)}{2a} \log^2 n (1 + o(1)) \right).$$ Using the trivial bound that $\operatorname{ord}_n(a) \le n$, we have that $$N(a, S_n) \gg_a \frac{ (n-1)! n^{\varphi(a)/a}}{\exp \left ( \frac{\varphi(a)}{2a} \log^2 n (1 + o(1)) \right)} = \frac{ n! }{\exp \left ( \frac{\varphi(a)}{2a} \log^2 n (1 + o(1)) \right)}.$$
We conjecture that this lower bound is of the correct order, as the trivial bound $\operatorname{ord}_n(a) \le n$ is usually fairly sharp. Without finer control over the orders of permutations than is known, it seems difficult to prove a sharp upper bound. However, we can show that
$$N(a, S_n) = o_a((n-1)! n^{\varphi(a)/a}).$$
Indeed, by lemma \[normal\], we have that for all but $o_a(\vert T_n \vert)$ elements of $T_n$,
$$M(\tau_n) \ge \exp \left ( \frac{\varphi(a)}{2a} \log^2 n (1 + o(1)) \right).$$
Hence $$N(a, S_n) \le o_a(\vert T_n \vert) + \frac{ (n-1)! n^{\varphi(a)/a}}{\exp \left ( \frac{\varphi(a)}{2a} \log^2 n (1 + o(1)) \right)} = o_a((n-1)! n^{\varphi(a)/a}).$$
Special linear groups over finite fields
----------------------------------------
Because of highly explicit knowledge of the conjugacy class structure of $SL_2(\mathbb{F}_q)$, we are able to compute $N(a, SL_2(\mathbb{F}_q))$.
\[SL(2,q)\] Let $q = p^{c}$ be an odd prime power. If $\gcd(a, q) = 1$, then $$N(a, SL_2(\mathbb{F}_q)) = \frac{q^2 - q}{2} N(a, C_{q+1}) + \frac{q^2 + q}{2} N(a, C_{q-1}) - (q^2 - 1)(1 + 1_{2 \nmid a}) + \frac{q^2 - 1}{ \operatorname{ord}_p(a)} + 1_{2 \nmid a} \frac{q^2 - 1}{\operatorname{ord}_{2p}(a)}.$$ where $1_{2 \nmid a}$ is $1$ if $a$ is odd and $0$ otherwise. If $\gcd(a, q) > 1$, then the last two terms do not appear.
If $q=p$ is prime, then this can be simplified: $$N(a, SL_2(\mathbb{F}_p)) = \frac{p^2 - p}{2} N(a, C_{p+1}) + \frac{p^2 + p}{2} N(a, C_{p-1}) + (p+1)N(a, C_{p}) - (p^2 - p)(1 + 1_{2 \nmid a}).$$
Before we begin the proof, we recall some facts about conjugacy in $SL_2(\mathbb{F}_q)$. We break the conjugacy classes into $4$ types:
- Type $1$: The $(q-3)/2$ conjugacy classes of elements which are diagonalizable of $\mathbb{F}_q$; they are parametrized by matrices of the form $\begin{pmatrix} \alpha & 0 \\ 0 & \alpha^{-1} \end{pmatrix}$ for $\alpha \in \mathbb{F}_q^* \setminus \{1, -1 \}$. Each conjugacy class has $q(q+1)$ elements.
- Type $2$: The $(q-1)/2$ conjugacy classes of elements which are diagonalizable of $\mathbb{F}_{q^2}$ but not $\mathbb{F}_q$; they are parametrized by matrices of the form $\begin{pmatrix} \alpha & 0 \\ 0 & \alpha^{-1} \end{pmatrix}$ for $\alpha \in \mathbb{F}_{q^2}^* \setminus \{1, -1 \}$ and satisfying $\alpha \cdot Fr(\alpha) = \alpha^{q+1} = 1$, where $Fr$ denotes the Frobenius endomorphism. Each conjugacy class has $q(q-1)$ elements.
- Type $3$: The central conjugacy classes $\{I\}$ and $\{-I\}$.
- Type $4$: The $4$ conjugacy classes that are not semi-simple, which are parametrized by $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 1\\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix},$ $\begin{pmatrix} -1 & 1\\ 0 & -1 \end{pmatrix},$ $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & b\\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix},$ $\begin{pmatrix} -1 & b\\ 0 & -1 \end{pmatrix}$, where $b$ is a non-square in $\mathbb{F}_q$. There are $(q^2 -1)/2$ elements in each conjugacy class.
Note that the order of an element in a type $1$ conjugacy classes is just the order of the eigenvalue. Therefore, there are $\varphi(d)/2$ type $1$ conjugacy classes of order $d$ for each divisor $d$ of $q - 1$, $d \not= 1, 2$. Hence $$\sum_{a \in \mathcal{C},\text{ } \mathcal{C} \text{ type }1} \frac{1}{\operatorname{ord}_d(a)} = \frac{q^2 + q}{2} (N(a, C_{q - 1}) - 1 - 1_{2 \nmid a}).$$
Similarly for type $2$, we note that the elements of $\mathbb{F}_{q^2}$ satisfying $x^{q + 1} = 1$ form a cyclic subgroup of the multiplicative group. Therefore $$\sum_{a \in \mathcal{C},\text{ } \mathcal{C} \text{ type }2} \frac{1}{\operatorname{ord}_d(a)} = \frac{q^2 - q}{2} (N(a, C_{q - 1}) - 1 - 1_{2 \nmid a}).$$
For type $3$, the contribution is $1 + 1_{2 \nmid a}$.
For type $4$, each element with eigenvalues $1$ has order $p$, and each element with eigenvalues $-1$ has order $2p$. Hence, $$\sum_{a \in \mathcal{C},\text{ } \mathcal{C} \text{ type }2} \frac{1}{\operatorname{ord}_d(a)} = \frac{q^2 - 1}{ \operatorname{ord}_p(a)} + 1_{2 \nmid a} \frac{q^2 - 1}{\operatorname{ord}_{2p}(a)}.$$ Summing over the $4$ types of conjugacy classes gives the result.
Then theorem \[pom\] allows us to bound the normal and extremal order of $N(a, SL_2(\mathbb{F}_p))$.
\[SL2Fp\] There exists infinitely many primes $p$ such that $$N(a, SL_2(\mathbb{F}_p)) \ge p^{29/12 + o(1)}.$$ We also have $$\frac{1}{\pi(x)}\sum_{p \le x} N(a, SL_2(\mathbb{F}_p)) \gg x^{2.293}.$$
On the minimal size of $N(a, G)$ among groups of a fixed order
==============================================================
We now prove theorem \[nilpotent\]. Our strategy is to show that the sum $\sum_{{g \in G, \\ \gcd(\vert g \vert, a) = 1}} \frac{1}{\operatorname{ord}_{\vert g \vert}(a)}$ majorizes $\sum_{{g \in C_{\vert G \vert}, \\ \gcd(\vert g \vert, a) = 1}} \frac{1}{\operatorname{ord}_{\vert g \vert}(a)}$ for any nilpotent group $G$. Then, lemma \[formula\] immediately implies theorem \[nilpotent\]. Before proving theorem \[nilpotent\], we prove a lemma. For a group $G$, let $B_G(n)$ denote the number of elements of order at least $n$ in $G$.
\[p\_ineq\] Let $G$ be a group of order $p^k$. Then for all $n$, $B_G(n) \le B_{C_{p^k}}(n)$.
First observe that the number of elements of order $n$ in any finite group is a multiple of $\varphi(n)$. Suppose $G$ is a counterexample to the lemma, then choose $\ell$ such that $B_G(p^\ell) > B_{C_{p^{k}}}(p^{\ell})$. Since $B_G(1) = B_{C_{p^k}}(1)$, there must be fewer than $\varphi(p^b)$ elements of order $b$ for some $b < \ell$. Hence there are no elements of order $p^b$ for some $b$. But if a group has an element of order $p^c$, then it also has an element of order $p^b$ for every $b < c$.
We first prove theorem \[nilpotent\] for $p$-groups. Note that $\operatorname{ord}_{p^b}(a) \le \operatorname{ord}_{p^c}(a)$ if $b \le c$. But then lemma \[p\_ineq\] and lemma \[formula\] immediately imply that $N(a, G) \ge N(a, C_{\vert G \vert})$ for any $p$-group $G$.
Recall that a group is nilpotent if and only if it is a direct product of $p$-groups. Let $G = P_1 \times \dotsb \times P_k$ be a nilpotent group, and let $P_1, \dotsc, P_k$ be $p$-groups with orders $p_i^{e_i}$ for distinct primes $p_1, \dotsc, p_k$. Let $n = \vert G \vert$. We may assume that $\gcd(a, n) = 1$, as otherwise we may eliminate the $p$-groups with order not coprime to $a$. We need to show that $$\sum_{d \mid n} \frac{w(d)}{\operatorname{ord}_d(a)} \ge \sum_{d \mid n} \frac{\varphi(d)}{\operatorname{ord}_d(a)}.$$ Observe that, for a nilpotent group, $$w_G(p_1^{j_1}p_2^{j_2} \dotsb p_k^{j_k}) = w_{G}(p_1^{j_1}) w_{G}(p_2^{j_2}) \dotsb w_{G}(p_k^{j_k}).$$
We claim that for any set of $\ell$ primes, $p_{i_1}, \dotsc, p_{i_\ell}$, we have that $$\sum_{\substack{d \mid n \\ d = p_{i_1}^{b_1} \dotsb p_{i_\ell}^{b_\ell}}} \frac{w(d)}{\operatorname{ord}_d(a)} \ge \sum_{\substack{d \mid n \\ d = p_{i_1}^{b_1} \dotsb p_{i_\ell}^{b_\ell}}} \frac{\varphi(d)}{\operatorname{ord}_d(a)}.$$
This would clearly imply the result. We prove the claim by induction on $\ell$. The base case is the case of $p$-groups. Fix $b_1, \dotsc, b_{\ell-1}$ such that $p_{i_1}^{b_1} \dotsb p_{i_{\ell-1}}^{b_\ell-1} \mid n$. Then $$\begin{split}
\sum_{k=0}^{j_{i_\ell}} \frac{w(p_{i_1}^{b_1} \dotsb p_{i_{\ell-1}}^{b_\ell-1} p_{i_\ell}^k)}{\operatorname{ord}_{p_{i_1}^{b_1} \dotsb p_{i_{\ell-1}}^{b_\ell-1} p_{i_\ell}^k}(a)} & = w(p_{i_1}^{b_1} \dotsb p_{i_{\ell-1}}^{b_\ell-1}) \sum_{k=0}^{j_{i_{\ell}}} \frac{w(p_{i_{\ell}}^k)}{\operatorname{ord}_{p_{i_1}^{b_1} \dotsb p_{i_{\ell-1}}^{b_\ell-1} p_{i_\ell}^k}(a)} \\
& \le \frac{w(p_{i_1}^{b_1} \dotsb p_{i_{\ell-1}}^{b_\ell-1})}{\operatorname{ord}_{p_{i_1}^{b_1} \dotsb p_{i_{\ell-1}}^{b_\ell-1}}(a)} \sum_{k=1}^{j_{i_{\ell}}} \frac{w(p^k)}{\operatorname{ord}_{p^k}(a)},
\end{split}$$ where we use lemma \[ord\] in the inequality. The result follow from summing over all choices of $b_1, \dotsc, b_{\ell-1}$ and the inductive hypothesis.
Discussion
==========
In addition to proving a better upper bound on $N(a, S_n)$ and proving conjecture \[minconjecture\], we pose several open problems.
Since the map $x \mapsto x^a$ is eventually periodic, the orbit $x, x^a, x^{a^2}, \dotsc$ consists of a tail which does not repeat followed by a cycle. If $x$ has no tail, then we say that $x$ is *purely periodic*. Thus in $G(a, H)$, every purely periodic element has a rooted tree of tails leading into it. In [@Chou2004 Theorem 1], Chou and Shparlinski showed that if $H$ is cyclic, then all of the tails coming off the purely periodic elements in $H$ are isomorphic. In particular, every purely periodic element has tails of the same size. This enabled Chou and Shparlinski to give a simple expression for the average length of the period over all elements of $C_n$. Let $C(a, G)$ denote the average period of an element in $G$. Then
If $\rho$ is the largest divisor of $n$ coprime to $a$, then $$C(a, C_n) = \frac{1}{\rho} \sum_{d \mid \rho} \varphi(d) \operatorname{ord}_d(a).$$
For general groups, the tails coming off a purely periodic vertex are not the same size. It would be interesting to compute or bound $C(a, G)$ for various families of groups.
By analogy with the power graph, it would be interesting to determine what set of invariants is determined by $G(a, H)$ for some fixed $a$ or for all $a$. Groups $H$ of prime exponent and the same order clearly have the same $G(a, H)$ for every $a$. Using the example of Cameron and Ghosh in [@Cameron2011], we see that, if $H = \langle x, y\quad \vert \quad x^3 = y^3 = [x,y]^3= 1 \rangle$, the smallest non-abelian group of exponent $3$, then $G(a, C_3 \times C_3 \times C_3) \cong G(a, H)$ for every $a$. This raises the following question:
Are there groups $H$ and $K$ such that the power graph of $H$ is isomorphic to the power graph of $K$, but $G(a, H)$ is not isomorphic to $G(a, K)$ for some $a$?
It would be interesting to compute the asymptotics of $N(a, SL_n(\mathbb{F}_q))$ as $n$ grows, in analogy with the symmetric group. As in the case of $N(a, S_n)$, lemma \[sum\] implies that the sequence $\{N(a, SL_n(\mathbb{F}_q))\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ is non-decreasing since $SL_{n-1}(\mathbb{F}_q)$ embeds into $SL_{n}(\mathbb{F}_{q})$.
One could also allow $a$ to vary. Let $\text{exp(G)}$ denote the exponent of $G$. Then clearly $N(a, G) = N(a + \text{exp(G)}, G)$. Then the following question is natural:
What $a \in \{2, 3, \dotsc, \exp(G) - 1\}$ maximizes $N(a, S_n)$?
Acknowledgments
===============
This research was conducted at the University of Minnesota Duluth REU and was supported by NSF DMS grant 1659047. We thank Igor Shparlinski for pointing out an oversight in an earlier version of the paper, Joe Gallian for suggesting the subject of the paper, Arsen Yakymiv for discussing his work with us, and Joe Gallian and Phil Matchett Wood for reading the manuscript.
[^1]: Department of Mathematics, Yale University. Email: [email protected].
[^2]: 2010 *Mathematics Subject Classification*: Primary 05C25; Secondary 11Y99.
[^3]: *Key words and phrases*: Repeated exponentiation, Cycle structure, Finite groups.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We systematically study the bulk and finite size effects on the band structure of prototypical line node materials using density functional theory based computations. For the bulk system, we analyze quantum oscillations with changes in the Fermi surface topology. We show that ultra thin slabs are gapped, with the first signatures of the line node appearing beyond a critical thickness. Further, motivated by possibility of tuning the bulk line node, we find that the line node radius is rather sensitive to bulk volume change. Based on this observation, we propose that application of pressure or suitable substrate engineering can be used as an effective means to control and tune the line node and the accompanying surface drumhead states.'
author:
- Awadhesh Narayan
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Finite size and volume effects in line node semimetals: a first-principles investigation'
---
Introduction
============
The study of topological materials, which originated with investigations of bulk insulators [@hasan2010colloquium; @qi2011topological], has expanded to encompass gapless semimetals [@bansil2016colloquium; @armitage2017weyl]. Very recently, materials exhibiting band degeneracies along a line in momentum space (termed line node semimetals) have been in the limelight. These line nodes are enabled by a combination of time reversal and inversion symmetries, in principle without requiring additional crystal symmetries. There is an intensive ongoing effort to search and characterize such material candidates. Theoretical efforts, grounded in density functional theory computations, have led to a number of materials being proposed to host such line nodal states [@xie2015new; @PhysRevB.92.045108; @PhysRevLett.115.036806; @PhysRevLett.115.036807; @PhysRevLett.115.026403; @yamakage2015line; @li2016dirac; @chan20163; @huang2016topological; @hirayama2017topological; @xu2017topological; @quan2017single; @geilhufe2017three]. These range from elemental solids [@hirayama2017topological; @li2016dirac] to ternary compounds [@PhysRevLett.115.036806; @PhysRevLett.115.036807], to highlight just a few. Promising experimental advances in synthesizing and characterizing candidate materials have also been reported for PtSn$_{4}$ [@wu2016dirac], PbTaSe$_{2}$ [@bian2016topological], ZrSiS [@schoop2016dirac; @neupane2016observation; @singha2017large], ZrSiSe [@hu2016evidence], and CaAgP [@okamoto2016low; @emmanouilidou2017magnetotransport].
Among the systems that have been identified to show this feature in the band structure, alkaline earth metal tripnictides of the form AB$_3$ (A=Ca, Sr and B=P, As) are a promising set [@xu2017topological; @quan2017single]. The calcium compounds, CaP$_{3}$ and CaAs$_{3}$ form in the $P\overline{1}$ space group. Intriguingly, the only structural symmetry is an inversion symmetry and the structure lacks any other crystal symmetries. Owing to this minimum symmetry condition, these materials have been dubbed the “hydrogen atom” of line nodal semimetals [@quan2017single].
In this contribution, we systematically analyze the bulk and finite size effects in prototypical line node material CaP$_{3}$ using density functional theory based computations. Furthermore, we show that tuning the volume of the material, provides a handle on the reciprocal space radius of the line node. It is important to characterize the band structure in confined geometries. The bulk contribution to transport in a suitable slab geometry can be suppressed, facilitating the observation of effects from the surface drumhead states. In the past, this strategy has been proved to be important for topological insulators [@zhang2010crossover]. Moreover, a number of experimental investigations can be performed in the thin film setup, including creation of heterojunctions with other materials. Therefore, it is useful to understand how the band structure of line node materials evolves with thickness. Here, we compute the thickness dependent band structure of prototypical line node material CaP$_{3}$, and estimate the minimum thickness needed to observe the bulk line node. Controlling the position and extent of the bulk line node and the resulting surface states remains an intriguing aspect of these materials. Using ab initio calculations, we show that the line node radius in CaP$_{3}$ is rather sensitive to bulk volume change. Further, we rationalize this observation based on a low energy model. We propose that application of pressure or suitable substrate engineering can be used as an effective means to control and tune the line node and the surface drumhead states. The resulting changes in the band structure could be probed either directly by angle resolved photoemission or via quantum oscillation measurements to map the Fermi surfaces.
Methods
=======
Density functional theory calculations were performed using the generalized gradient approximation (GGA) to the exchange-correlation functional [@perdew1996generalized], as implemented in the Vienna Ab-Initio Simulation Package ([vasp]{}) [@kresse1996efficiency; @kresse1996efficient]. We used a plane wave cutoff of 500 eV and the bulk Brillouin zone was sampled using a $8\times 8\times 8$ $k$-point mesh. We used experimental coordinates for CaP$_3$ as reported in Ref. . The starting point to obtain quantum oscillation frequencies are the band energies over a dense $51\times 51\times 51$ $k$-point grid. We use the Supercell K-space Extremal Area Finder ([skeaf]{}) algorithm of Rourke and Julian [@julian2012numerical] to obtain the extremal orbits and the resulting frequencies. In brief, the method proceeds by creating a reciprocal space supercell, which is divided into slices perpendicular to the direction of the applied magnetic field. The obtained orbits for each slice are matched to neighbouring slices, allowing determination of the extremal orbits. In the past, this method has proved useful to analyze and compare with quantum oscillation measurements [@giraldo2016fermi].
To investigate slab geometries, we downfolded the band structure obtained from density functional theory to an effective tight-binding model using the $p_{x},p_{y},p_{z}$ orbitals of the pnictide atoms. The downfolding was achieved by constructing maximally localized wannier functions, employing the [wannier90]{} suite [@mostofi2008wannier90]. Finally, the resulting tight-binding model was analyzed using the WannierTools package [@wu2017wanniertools]. The surface spectral functions, $\rho(E,k)$, in a semi-infinite geometry were computed using an iterative Green’s function method. Here $\rho(E,k)=-\mathrm{tr}[G_{00}(E,k)]/\pi$, where $G_{00}(E,k)$ is the Green’s function corresponding to the surface layer.
Results and Discussion
======================
Let us begin by discussing the crystal structure of CaP$_{3}$, as shown in Fig. \[bulk\_bands\](a). The unit cell (enclosed by black lines) consists of two formula units. The pnictide atoms (denoted by smaller purple spheres) form one dimensional puckered chains, which are separated by the Ca atoms (shown using larger blue spheres). The aforementioned inversion center lies at the center of neighboring Ca atoms. Bulk Brillouin zone and its surface projection are plotted in Fig. \[bulk\_bands\](b). The GGA band structure is shown in Fig. \[bulk\_bands\](c) using solid lines, with the Fermi energy, $E_{F}$, located at zero. This is in good agreement with previous calculations reported in Ref. . Most notably there is a pair of inverted bands with opposite parity which cross around the $Y$ point of the Brillouin zone. As will be shown subsequently, these form a circular line node. Crucially, these are the only bands around the Fermi level and therefore would allow a direct investigation of the properties of these line nodes without the hindrance of other bands.
Analysis of the atomic contributions of the band structure shows that the bands around the Fermi level predominantly arise from $p_{x},p_{y},p_{z}$ states of P atoms. Therefore, we constructed an effective tight binding model based on these orbitals using a wannierization procedure (as described in the Computational Methods section). The resulting ab initio derived band structure is superimposed on the first-principles result in Fig. \[bulk\_bands\](c). Importantly, the two band structures are in good agreement within a wide energy window around the Fermi level signaling the adequacy of the tight binding model.
The line nodal nature of the bands crossing the Fermi level becomes more evident by examining the Fermi surface. These are shown in Fig. \[fermi\_surface\] for various energies around the Fermi level. Very close to the Fermi level \[Fig. \[fermi\_surface\](a)\], there is a clear loop like structure around the $Y$ point of the Brillouin zone. A closed contour is obtained as the two pieces of the loop connect across the Brillouin zone boundary. The nature and shape of the Fermi surfaces change sharply on both moving slightly above and below the pristine Fermi level. On moving below the pristine Fermi level (not shown), these loop like structures enlarge in size and their shape becomes characteristically toroidal. On the other hand, at a higher Fermi level of 0.1 eV, the Fermi surface undergoes a Lifshitz transition and the Fermi surface acquires cap-like shape around the $Y$ points. These join across the Brillouin zone boundary to form an ellipsoid. We propose that these pronounced changes in the Fermi surface shapes and the substantial electron-hole asymmetry of the band structure can be experimentally probed by means of angle resolved photoemission in doped samples. Another method to see these changes in the Fermi surface topology is through quantum oscillation experiments. We have calculated the oscillation frequencies with changing direction of the applied magnetic field (Fig. \[quantum\_oscillations\]) using a supercell method to find the extremal orbits (see Computational Methods section for a discussion). Expectedly, the frequencies increase with increasing Fermi level due to the increasing size of the Fermi surface (see Fig. \[fermi\_surface\] for a visualization). At $E-E_{F}=0$, we find two closely spaced frequencies. These arise from extremal orbits around the thicker and thinner necks of the toroidal Fermi surface. At higher Fermi energy, as the shape of the Fermi surface changes to an ellipsoid only a single frequency is found \[Fig. \[quantum\_oscillations\](c)\]. This corresponds to one extremal orbit traversing the surface of the ellipsoid, whose length varies for different directions of the applied magnetic field. Such a change in the number of oscillation frequencies and their magnitude, with changing Fermi level should be readily observable as a signature of the Lifshitz transition.
Next, let us move on to the thickness dependent electronic structure of CaP$_{3}$. The band structures for the ultra thin slabs (stacked along the crystallographic $c$ direction) of thicknesses ranging from 1 layer to 4 layers are collected in Fig. \[slab\_bands\](a). Due to the finite size confinement all these systems are gapped with a band gap of more than 100 meV. The same is true for a 5 layer thick slab \[Fig. \[slab\_bands\](b)\]. The first signatures of the incipient line node starts to be found in 10 layer thick slabs, where a characteristic upturn of the bands around the $\overline{Y}$ point is seen in the bands below the Fermi level, although there is still a gap remaining at these points \[Fig. \[slab\_bands\](c)\]. With subsequent increase in the thickness of the slabs \[Fig. \[slab\_bands\](d)-(f)\], this gap disappears and the line node fully forms. We note here that for thinner slabs having a larger gap, the bands are not inverted around the $\overline{Y}$ point. In contrast, in thicker slabs bands have an inverted order and smaller gaps. In addition, we find two “in gap” features within the line nodal circle. These will be examined in more detail subsequently in a semi-infinite setup.
The evolution of the energy gap, at the $k$-point along the $\overline{\Gamma}-\overline{Y}$ direction where the bulk line node crossing exists, with the thickness of the slab is collected in Fig. \[slab\_gap\]. There is a rather rapid decay of the gap with thickness initially, which then slows down and reaches to negligible values only above a thickness of about 20 layers. This behavior is rather similar to that seen for prototypical Dirac semimetal materials (i.e., those with a point node degeneracy instead of a line node one) [@narayan2014topological].
Having examined the electronic structure of CaP$_{3}$ in infinite (i.e. bulk) and finite (i.e. slab) geometries, we next move on to an intermediate analysis in the semi-infinite case. This is particularly relevant for surface sensitive probes employing a thick bulk-like sample, for instance angle resolved photoemission and scanning tunneling spectroscopy. The electronic structure in the semi-infinite geometry is obtained by employing an iterative Green’s function technique to calculate the surface spectral functions [@wu2017wanniertools]. The energy dependent surface spectral function is shown in Fig. \[surface\_dos\] along the high symmetry directions around the $\overline{Y}$ point. The bulk nodal crossings are clearly visible. In addition, there are bright features (corresponding to higher spectral weight on the surface), present within the bulk line node for both terminations of the system. These are the two drumhead states which arise due to the bulk band inversion between the two bands. Notice that this surface band is more dispersive for Ca termination while remains rather flat for the P termination. This difference could be related to different surface potentials that the two terminations provide and suggests the interesting possibility that the drumhead state dispersion could be tuned by surface gating. The effect of the dispersion is seen more clearly by studying the $k$-resolved surface spectral function at different energy values, as shown in Fig. \[surface\_dos\_kx\_ky\] for Ca termination. The surface band evolves from an arc-like contour at the Fermi energy \[Fig. \[surface\_dos\_kx\_ky\](a)\], to a ring-like feature \[Fig. \[surface\_dos\_kx\_ky\](b)-(c)\] on lowering the energy below the Fermi level. Very close to the bottom of the surface band it appears as a disc around the $\overline{Y}$ point. Such a variation in the surface state dispersion could have implications for comparisons and explanations of future quasi particle interference experiments on these materials.
Having investigated the bulk and finite size effects on the electronic structure of the prototypical line node material CaP$_{3}$, we raise the question: how can one control the momentum space extent of the line node and the resulting drumhead states? From our first principles calculations we find that change in volume of the cell has a rather marked effect on the low energy band structure of CaP$_{3}$ (Fig. \[bulk\_bands\_pressure\]). A small change of 1-2% in the lattice constant already changes the band inversion of the bands forming the line node by close to 50 meV. The effect is specially pronounced on the electron-like band, while the hole-like band is less affected. The result is that the radius of the line node changes with changing volume. An increase in volume reduces the band inversion around the $\overline{Y}$ point, concomitantly reducing the radius of the line node. At rather large values of increased volume the line node eventually transitions to a point node. We note that this large increase in volume needed for the transition in CaP$_{3}$ would be hard to achieve experimentally. However, the results are presented here as a proof of concept and perhaps could be more feasible in other line nodal materials. On the other hand a decrease in the volume increases the band inversion, while at the same time increasing the momentum space radius of the line node. Moderate changes in volume could be practically achieved by either applying pressure or choosing a suitable substrate to tune the volume of the material. The resulting changes in the band structure could then be measured either directly by means of angle resolved photoemission techniques or by monitoring the change in quantum oscillation frequencies.
To rationalize this observation, let us consider a low-energy Hamiltonian to describe the line node semimetals [@PhysRevLett.115.036806]
$$\begin{aligned}
H&=&[\epsilon_{0}+a_{xy}(k_{x}^{2}+k_{y}^{2})+a_{z}k_{z}^{2}]I + vk_{z}\sigma_{y} \nonumber \\
&+& [\Delta\epsilon+b_{xy}(k_{x}^{2}+k_{y}^{2})+b_{z}k_{z}^{2}]\sigma_{z},\end{aligned}$$
where $\sigma_{x},\sigma_{y},\sigma_{z}$ are Pauli matrices and $I$ is the $2\times 2$ identity matrix. For this model, we have symmetry operations inversion, $\mathcal{P}=\sigma_{z}$ and time reversal, $\mathcal{T}=\mathcal{K}$, where $\mathcal{K}$ denotes complex conjugation. The energy eigenvalues for this model are given by $E=\epsilon_{0}+a_{xy}(k_{x}^{2}+k_{y}^{2})+a_{z}k_{z}^{2} \pm \sqrt{[\Delta\epsilon+b_{xy}(k_{x}^{2}+k_{y}^{2})+b_{z}k_{z}^{2}]^{2}+v^{2}k_{z}^{2}}$. For $\Delta\epsilon <0$, i.e. a finite band inversion, the two bands form a line node degeneracy at $k_{z}=0$ and $k_{x}^{2} + k_{y}^{2} = -\Delta\epsilon/b_{xy}$. We notice that the radius of the line node is proportional to the band inversion strength $\Delta\epsilon$, and that increasing band inversion strength increases the radius of the line node and vice versa. When the band inversion strength vanishes ($\Delta\epsilon =0$), the system is gapless with a point node, i.e., the line node radius is zero. This analysis matches our observations from density functional theory calculations. Further, this suggests that while our calculations are for specific material CaP$_{3}$, the present strategy for controlling the line node could prove to be useful for other line nodal systems.
Conclusions
===========
To summarize, we systematically analyzed the bulk and finite size effects on the band structure of prototypical line node material CaP$_{3}$ using density functional theory based computations. For the bulk system, we analyzed quantum oscillations with changes in the Fermi surface topology. We showed that ultra thin slabs are gapped, with the first signatures of the line node appearing around a thickness of ten layers. We showed that the line node radius in CaP$_{3}$ is rather sensitive to bulk volume change, which we also rationalized using an effective low energy model. Based on this observation, we proposed that application of pressure or suitable substrate engineering can be used as an effective means to control and tune the line node and the accompanying surface drumhead states. These changes could then be experimentally probed using either angle resolved photoemission techniques or by employing quantum oscillations to map out the Fermi surfaces.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
I would like to thank B. Sangiorgio for insightful discussions, C. Setty for a related collaboration, and N. Spaldin for valuable advice. Support from ETH Zurich is gratefully acknowledged.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'We express the $K$-multiplicities of a representation of the discrete series associated to a coadjoint orbit ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}$ in terms of $\spinc$-index on symplectic reductions of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}$.'
author:
- 'Paul-Emile PARADAN'
title: 'Spin$^{\rm c}$-quantization and the $K$-multiplicities of the discrete series'
---
[UMR 5582, Institut Fourier, B.P. 74, 38402, Saint-Martin-d’Hères cedex, France\
e-mail: [email protected]\
]{}
[November 2001\
]{}
[^1]
Introduction and statement of the results
=========================================
The purpose of this paper is to show that the ‘[ *quantization commutes with reduction*]{}’ principle of Guillemin-Sternberg [@Guillemin-Sternberg82] holds for the coadjoint orbits that parametrize the discrete series of a real connected semi-simple Lie group.
Discrete series and $K$-multiplicities {#intro-1}
--------------------------------------
Let $G$ be a connected, real, semisimple Lie group with finite center. By definition, the [*discrete series*]{} of $G$ is the set of isomorphism classes of irreducible, square integrable, unitary representations of $G$. Let $K$ be a maximal compact subgroup of $G$, and $T$ be a maximal torus in $K$. Harish-Chandra has shown that $G$ has a discrete series if and only if $T$ is a Cartan subgroup of $G$ [@Harish-Chandra65-66]. For the remainder of this paper, we may therefore assume that $T$ is a Cartan subgroup of $G$.
Let us fix some notation. We denote by ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}},{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}},{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}$ the Lie algebras of $G,K,T$, and by ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}^*,{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}^*,{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^*$ their duals. Let $\Lambda^*\subset{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^*$ be the set of real weights: $\alpha\in\Lambda^*$ if $i\alpha$ is the differential of a character of $T$. Let ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}_{c}\subset{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}\subset\Lambda^{*}$ be respectively the set of roots for the action of $T$ on ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}$. We choose a system of positive roots ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}_{c}^{+}$ for ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}_{c}$. We denote by ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^{*}_{+}$ the corresponding Weyl chamber, and we let $\rho_{c}$ be half the sum of the elements of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}_{c}^{+}$. The set $\Lambda^*_+:=\Lambda^*\cap{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^*_+$ parametrizes the unitary dual of $K$. For $\mu\in\Lambda^*_+$, let $\chi_{_{\mu}}^{_K}$ be the character of the irreducible $K$-representation with highest weight $\mu$.
Harish-Chandra parametrizes the discrete series by a discrete subset $\widehat{G}_{d}$ of regular elements of the Weyl chamber ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^*_+$ [@Harish-Chandra65-66]. He associates to any $\lambda\in \widehat{G}_{d}$ an invariant eigendistribution on $G$, denoted by $\Theta_{\lambda}$, which is shown to be the global trace of an irreducible, square integrable, unitary representation ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_{\lambda}$ of $G$. It is a generalized function on $G$, invariant by conjugation, which admits a restriction to $K$ denoted by $\Theta_{\lambda}\vert_{K}$. The distribution $\Theta_{\lambda}\vert_{K}$ corresponds to the global trace of the induced representation of $K$ on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_{\lambda}$. It admits a decomposition $$\Theta_{\lambda}\vert_{K}=\sum_{\mu\in\Lambda^*_+}{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\mu}(\lambda)\,
\chi_{_{\mu}}^{_K}\ ,$$ where the integers ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\mu}(\lambda)$ satisfy certain combinatorial identities called the Blattner formulas [@Hecht-Schmid].
[*The main goal of the paper is to relate the multiplicities ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\mu}(\lambda)$ to the geometry of the coadjoint orbit $G\cdot\lambda\subset{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}^*$ as predicted by the Guillemin-Sternberg principle evoked above.*]{}
Before stating our result we recall how a representation belonging to the discrete series can be realized as the quantization of a coadjoint orbit.
Realisation of the discrete series {#intro-2}
----------------------------------
In the 60’s, Kostant and Langlands conjectured realisations of the discrete series in terms of ${\rm L}^2$ cohomology that fit into the general framework of quantization. The proof of this conjecture was given by Schmid somes years later [@Schmid71; @Schmid76]. Let us recall the procedure for a fixed $\lambda\in\widehat{G}_{d}$.
The manifold $G\cdot\lambda$ carries several $G$-invariant complex structures. For convenience we work with the complex structure $J$ defined by the following condition: each weight $\alpha$ for the $T$-action on the tangent space $({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{\lambda}(G\cdot\lambda),\, J)$ satisfies $(\alpha,\lambda)>0$.
Let ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}^+\subset{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}$ be the set of positive roots defined by $\lambda$: $\alpha\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}^+\Longleftrightarrow (\alpha,\lambda)>0$. Let $\rho$ be half the sum of the elements of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}^{+}$. The condition $\lambda\in\widehat{G}_d$ imposes that $\lambda-\rho$ is a weight for $T$, so we can consider the line bundle $$\tilde{L}:=G\times_{T}{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}_{\lambda-\rho}$$ over $G\cdot\lambda\simeq G/T$: this line bundle carries a canonical holomorphic structure. Let $\Omega^k(\tilde{L})$ be the space of $\tilde{L}$-valued $(0,k)$ forms on $G\cdot\lambda$, and $\overline{\partial}_{\tilde{L}}:\Omega^k(\tilde{L})\to
\Omega^{k+1}(\tilde{L})$ be the Dolbeault operator. The choice of $G$-invariant hermitian metrics on $G\cdot\lambda$ and on $\tilde{L}$ give meaning to the formal adjoint $\overline{\partial}^*_{\tilde{L}}$ of the $\overline{\partial}_{\tilde{L}}$ operator, and to the Dolbeault-Dirac operator $ \overline{\partial}_{\tilde{L}}+ \overline{\partial}^*_{\tilde{L}}$.
The ${\rm L}^2$ cohomology of $\tilde{L}$, which we denote by ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm H}}}^*_{(2)}(G\cdot\lambda,\tilde{L})$, is equal to the kernel of the differential operator $\overline{\partial}_{\tilde{L}}+
\overline{\partial}^*_{\tilde{L}}$ acting on the subspace of $\Omega^*(\tilde{L})$ formed by the square integrable elements.
(Schmid). \[theo.schmid\]
Let $\lambda\in\widehat{G}_{d}$.
\(i) ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm H}}}^k_{(2)}(G\cdot\lambda,\tilde{L})=0$ if $k\neq
\frac{\dim(G/K)}{2}$.
\(ii) If $k=\frac{\dim(G/K)}{2}$, then ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm H}}}^k_{(2)}(G\cdot\lambda,\tilde{L})$ is the irreducible representation ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_{\lambda}$.
So, the representation ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_{\lambda}$ is the quantization of the coadjoint orbit $G\cdot\lambda$ beeing the index of the Dolbeault-Dirac operator $\overline{\partial}_{\tilde{L}}+
\overline{\partial}^*_{\tilde{L}}$ (in the ${\rm L}^2$ sense and modulo $(-1)^{\frac{\dim(G/K)}{2}}$). In the next subsection, we briefly recall the ‘quantization commutes with reduction’ principle of Guillemin-Sternberg, and in subsection \[intro-4\] we state our main result.
Quantization commutes with reduction {#intro-3}
------------------------------------
Let $M$ be a Hamiltonian $K$-manifold with symplectic form $\omega$ and moment map $\Phi: M\to {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}^{*}$. The coadjoint orbits $G\cdot\lambda$ introduced earlier are the key examples here. Each is equipped with its Kirillov-Kostant-Souriau symplectic form $\omega$, and the action of $G$ is Hamiltonian with moment map $G\cdot\lambda{\ensuremath{\hookrightarrow}}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}^*$ equal to the inclusion. Let $K$ be the maximal compact Lie subgroup of $G$ introduced in subsection \[intro-2\]. The induced action of $K$ on $G\cdot\lambda$ is Hamiltonian, and the corresponding moment map $\Phi:G\cdot\lambda\to{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}^*$ is equal to the composition of the inclusion $G\cdot\lambda{\ensuremath{\hookrightarrow}}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}^*$ with the projection ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}^*\to{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}^*$.
In the process of quantization one tries to associate a unitary representation of $K$ to the data $(M,\omega,\Phi)$. In this general framework, when $M$ is [*compact*]{} and under certain integrability conditions, we associate to these data a virtual representation of $K$ defined as the equivariant index of a $\spinc$ Dirac operator: it’s the $\spinc$ quantization. We need two auxilliary data :
\(i) A [*prequantum line bundle*]{} $L\to M$: it is a $K$-equivariant Hermitian line bundle equipped with $K$-invariant connection whose curvature form is $-i\, \omega$.
\(ii) A $K$-invariant almost complex structure $J$ on $M$, [*compatible*]{} with the symplectic structure: $(v,w)\mapsto \omega(v,Jw)$ defines a metric.
One considers then the $K$-equivariant $\spinc$ Dirac operator $D_L$ corresponding to the $\spinc$ structure on $M$ defined by $J$, and twisted by the line bundle $L$ [@Lawson-Michel; @Duistermaat96]. The $\spinc$-quantization of $(M,\omega,\Phi)$ is the equivariant index of the differential operator ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}_L$ $$RR^{^K}(M,L) := {\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Index}}}^K_M({\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}_L)\quad \in R(K)\ ,$$ where $R(K)$ is the representation ring of $K$. When $K$ is reduced to $\{e\}$, the $\spinc$-quantization of $(M,\omega)$ is just an integer: $RR(M,L)\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$.
A fundamental result of Marsden-Weinstein asserts that if $\xi\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}^{*}$ is a regular value of the moment map $\Phi$, the [*reduced space*]{} $$M_{\xi}:=\Phi^{-1}(\xi)/K_{\xi}\cong
\Phi^{-1}(K\cdot\xi)/K$$ is an orbifold equipped with a symplectic structure $\omega_{\xi}$ (which one calls also symplectic quotient). For any dominant weight $\mu\in \Lambda^{*}_{+}$ which is a regular value of $\Phi$, $$L_{\mu}:=(L\vert_{\Phi^{-1}(\mu)}\otimes {\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}_{-\mu})/K_{\mu}$$ is a prequantum orbifold-line bundle over $(M_{\mu},\omega_{\mu})$. The definition of $\spinc$-index carries over to the orbifold case, hence $RR(M_{\mu},L_{\mu})\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ is defined. In [@Meinrenken-Sjamaar], this is extended further to the case of singular symplectic quotients, using partial (or shift) desingularization. So the integer $RR(M_{\mu},L_{\mu})\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ is well defined for every $\mu\in \Lambda^{*}_{+}$.
The following Theorem was conjectured by Guillemin-Sternberg [@Guillemin-Sternberg82] and is known as “quantization commutes with reduction” [@Meinrenken98; @Meinrenken-Sjamaar].
(Meinrenken, Meinrenken-Sjamaar). \[th.Q-R\] Let $(M,\omega,\Phi)$ be a compact Hamiltonian $K$-manifold prequantized by $L$. Let $RR^{^K}(M,-)$ be the equivariant Riemann-Roch character defined by means of a compatible almost complex structure on $M$. We have the following equality in $R(K)$ $$RR^{^K}(M,L)=\sum_{\mu\in
\Lambda^{*}_{+}}RR(M_{\mu},L_{\mu})\,
\chi_{_{\mu}}^{_K}\ .$$
For a compact Hamiltonian $K$-manifold $(M,\omega,\Phi)$, the Convexity Theorem [@Kirwan.84.bis] asserts that $\Delta:=\Phi(M)\cap{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^*_+$ is a convex rational polytope. In Theorem \[th.Q-R\], we have $RR(M_{\mu},L_{\mu})=0$ if $\mu\notin\Delta$.
Other proofs can be found in [@pep4; @Tian-Zhang98]. For an introduction and further references see [@Sjamaar96; @Vergne01].
A natural question is to extend Theorem \[th.Q-R\] to the [*non-compact*]{} Hamiltonian $K$-manifolds which admit a [*proper*]{} moment map. In this situation, the reduced space $M_{\xi}:=\Phi^{-1}(\xi)/K_{\xi}$ is compact for every $\xi\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}^*$, so the integer $RR(M_{\mu},L_{\mu})\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}},\,\mu\in
\Lambda^{*}_{+},$ can be defined like before.
\[conjecture\] Let $(M,\omega,\Phi)$ be a Hamiltonian $K$-manifold with [*proper*]{} moment map, and prequantized by $L$. Let $\overline{\partial}_{L}+
\overline{\partial}^*_{L}$ be the Dolbeault-Dirac operator defined by means of a $K$-invariant compatible almost complex structure, and $K$-invariant metric on $M$ and $L$. Then $${\rm L}^2-{\rm Index}^{_K}\Big(\overline{\partial}_{L}+
\overline{\partial}^*_{L}\Big)=\sum_{\mu\in
\Lambda^{*}_{+}}RR(M_{\mu},L_{\mu})\,
\chi_{_{\mu}}^{_K}\ .$$
We present in the next subsection the central result of this paper that shows that Conjecture \[conjecture\] is true, apart from a $\rho_c$-shift, for the coadjoint orbits that parametrize the discrete series.
The results {#intro-4}
-----------
Consider the Hamiltonian action of $K$ on the coadjoint orbit $G\cdot\lambda$. Since $G\cdot\lambda$ is closed in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}^*$, the moment map $\Phi:G\cdot\lambda\to{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}^*$ is [*proper*]{} [@pep3]. Our main Theorem can be stated roughly as follows.
\[theo-principal\] Let ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\mu}(\lambda), \mu\in\Lambda^*_+$, be the $K$-multiplicities of the representation ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_{\lambda}\vert_K$. For $\mu\in\Lambda^*_+$ we have:
\(i) If $\mu +\rho_c$ is a regular value of $\Phi$, the orbifold $(G\cdot\lambda)_{\mu +\rho_c}:=\Phi^{-1}(\mu
+\rho_c)/T$, oriented by its symplectic form $\omega_{\mu +\rho_c}$, carries a $\spinc$ structure such that $${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\mu}(\lambda)= {\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}\left((G\cdot\lambda)_{\mu+\rho_c}\right)\ ,$$ where the RHS is the index of the corresponding $\spinc$ Dirac operator on the reduced space $(G\cdot\lambda)_{\mu +\rho_c}$.
\(ii) In general, one can define an integer ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}\left((G\cdot\lambda)_{\mu+\rho_c}\right)\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$, as the index of a $\spinc$ Dirac operator on a reduced space $(G\cdot\lambda)_{\xi}$ where $\xi$ is a regular value of $\Phi$, close enough to $\mu+\rho_c$. We still have ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\mu}(\lambda)= {\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}\left(M_{\mu+\rho_c}\right)$.
Our Theorem states that the decomposition of $\Theta_{\lambda}\vert_{K}$ into $K$-irreducible components follows the philosophy of Guillemin-Sternberg: $$(1)\quad \quad
\Theta_{\lambda}\vert_{K}=\sum_{\mu\in\Lambda^*_+}
{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}\left((G\cdot\lambda)_{\mu+\rho_c}\right)\,\chi_{_{\mu}}^{_K}\ .$$ We know from Theorem \[theo.schmid\] that $\Theta_{\lambda}\vert_{K}=
(-1)^{\frac{\dim(G/K)}{2}} {\rm L{\sp 2}-Index}^{_K}
(\overline{\partial}_{\tilde{L}}+ \overline{\partial}^*_{\tilde{L}})$, hence Theorem \[theo-principal\] states also that $$(2)\quad \quad
{\rm L{\sp 2}-Index}^{_K}(\overline{\partial}_{\tilde{L}}+
\overline{\partial}^*_{\tilde{L}})=(-1)^{\frac{\dim(G/K)}{2}}
\sum_{\mu\in\Lambda^*_+}
{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}\left((G\cdot\lambda)_{\mu+\rho_c}\right)\,
\chi_{_{\mu}}^{_K}\ .$$
The main difference between Conjecture \[conjecture\] and Theorem \[theo-principal\] is the $\rho_c$-shift and the choices of $\spinc$ structure on the symplectic quotients $M_{\mu}$ and $(G\cdot\lambda)_{\mu+\rho_c}$.
The $\rho_c$-shift is due to the fact that the line bundle $\tilde{L}$ is not a prequantum line bundle over $(G\cdot\lambda,\omega)$. The difference on the choice of $\spinc$ structure comes from the fact that the complex structure $J$ on $G\cdot\lambda$ is not compatible with the symplectic structure (unless $G=K$ is compact). Hence $J$ does not descend to the symplectic reductions $(G\cdot\lambda)_{\mu+\rho_c}$ in general: the choice of the $\spinc$ structure on them need some care (see Propositions \[prop.spinc.induit.1\] and \[prop.spinc.induit.2\]).
For a Hamiltonian $K$-manifold $M$ with [*proper*]{} moment map $\Phi$, the Convexity Theorem [@Kirwan.84.bis; @L-M-T-W; @Sjamaar98] asserts that $\Delta:=\Phi(M)\cap{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^*_+$ is a convex rational polyhedron. In Theorem \[theo-principal\], we have ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}((G\cdot\lambda)_{\mu+\rho_c})=0$ if $\mu+\rho_c$ does not belong to the [*relative interior*]{} of $\Delta$ (see Prop. \[prop.Q.mu.ro\]).
Outline of the Proof {#intro-5}
--------------------
We have to face the following difficulties:
$[1]$ The symplectic manifold $G\cdot\lambda$ is not compact.
$[2]$ The complex structure on $G\cdot\lambda$ is not compatible with the symplectic form $\omega$. In other words, the Kirillov-Kostant-Souriau symplectic form does not define a Kähler structure on $G\cdot\lambda$ unless $G=K$ is compact.
$[3]$ The line bundle $\tilde{L}$ is not a prequantum line bundle over $(G\cdot\lambda,\omega)$. It’s what we call in the rest of this paper a $\kappa$-[*prequantum*]{}[^2] line bundle over $(G\cdot\lambda,\omega, J)$: if $\kappa$ denotes the canonical line bundle of $(G\cdot\lambda,J)$, the tensor product $\tilde{L}^2\otimes \kappa^{-1}$ is a prequantum line bundle over $(G\cdot\lambda,2\omega)$.
The first step of the proof is to solve the difficulties $[2]$ and $[3]$ in the [*compact*]{} situation. In Section \[sec.quantization.compact\], we give a modified version of Theorem \[th.Q-R\] when $(M,\omega,\Phi)$ is a [*compact*]{} Hamiltonian $K$-manifold which is equipped with an almost complex structure $J$ - not necessarily compatible with $\omega$ - and a $\kappa$-prequantum line bundle $\tilde{L}$.
\[theo.egalite1\] Let $RR^{^K}(M,-)$ be the Riemann-Roch character defined by $J$. If the infinitesimal stabilizers for the action of $K$ on $M$ are [*Abelian*]{}, we have $$(3)\quad \quad
RR^{^K}(M,\tilde{L})={\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\sum_{\mu\in \Lambda^{*}_{+}}Q(M_{\mu+\rho_{c}})\,
\chi_{_{\mu}}^{_K}\ ,$$ where ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}=\pm 1$ is the ‘quotient’ of the orientations induced by the almost complex structure, and the symplectic form.
In $(3)$, the integer $Q(M_{\mu+\rho_{c}})$ are computed like in Theorem \[theo-principal\] (see Def. \[prop.Q.mu.ro\] for a more precise definition).
In the second step of the proof, we extend $(3)$ to a non-compact setting. Instead of working with the $\rm L{\sp 2}$-Index, we define in Section \[sec.quant.non.compact\] a [*generalized Riemann-Roch character*]{} $RR^{^K}_{\Phi}(M,-)$ when $(M,\omega,\Phi)$ is a Hamiltonian manifold such that the function $\parallel\Phi\parallel^2:M\to{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ has a [*compact*]{} set of critical points. For every $K$-vector bundle $E\to M$, the distribution $RR^{^K}_{\Phi}(M,E)$ is defined as the index of a transversally elliptic operator on $M$ [@Atiyah74]. When the manifold is compact, the maps $RR^{^K}_{\Phi}(M,-)$ and $RR^{^K}(M,-)$ coincide.
We prove in Section \[section.Q.R\] that Theorem \[theo.egalite1\] generalizes to
\[theo.egalite2\] Let $(M,\omega,\Phi)$ be a Hamiltonian $K$-manifold with [*proper*]{} moment map and such that the function $\parallel\Phi\parallel^2:M\to{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ has a [*compact*]{} set of critical points. If the infinitesimal stabilizers are Abelian, and under Assumption \[hypothese.phi.t.carre\], we have
$$(4)\quad\quad RR^{^K}_{\Phi}(M,\tilde{L})={\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\sum_{\mu\in \Lambda^{*}_{+}}
{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}(M_{\mu+\rho_{c}})\, \chi_{_{\mu}}^{_K}\ ,$$ for every $\kappa$-prequantum line bundle.
In contrast to $(3)$, the RHS of $(4)$ is in general an infinite sum. Assumption \[hypothese.phi.t.carre\] is needed to control the data on the non-compact manifold $M$: it asserts in particular that for any coadjoint orbit ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}$ of $K$, the square of the moment map $\Phi_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}}:M\times{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}\to{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}^*,\,(m,\xi)\mapsto\Phi(m)-\xi,$ has a [*compact*]{} set of critical points.
In the final section we consider, for $\lambda\in\widehat{G}_d$, the case of the coadjoint orbit $G\cdot\lambda$ with the Hamiltonian $K$-action. The moment map $\Phi$ is [*proper*]{} and the critical set of $\parallel\Phi\parallel^2$ coincides with $K\cdot\lambda$, hence is compact. Thus the generalized Riemann-Roch character $RR^{^K}_{\Phi}(G\cdot\lambda,-)$ is well defined, and we want to investigate the index $RR^{^K}_{\Phi}(M,\tilde{L})$ for the $\kappa$-prequantum line bundle $\tilde{L}:=G\times_T{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}_{\lambda-\rho}$.
On one hand we are able to compute $RR^{^K}_{\Phi}(G\cdot\lambda,\tilde{L})$ explicitly in term of the holomorphic induction map $\HolT$. Let ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}$ be the orthogonal complement of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}$. It inherits a complex structure and an action of the torus $T$. The element $\wedge^{\bullet}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}\,\in R(T)$ admits a polarized inverse $[\wedge^{\bullet}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}]^{-1}_{\lambda}\in
R^{-\infty}(T)$ (see [@pep4]\[Section 5\]). In Subsection \[subsec.preuve.theoreme\] we prove that $$(5)\quad\quad RR^{^K}_{\Phi}(G\cdot\lambda,\tilde{L})=
(-1)^{\frac{\dim(G/K)}{2}} \HolT\left(t^{\lambda-\rho_c +\rho_n}
\left[\wedge^{\bullet}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}\right]^{-1}_{\lambda}\right),$$ where $\rho_n=\rho-\rho_c$ is half the sum of the non-compact roots. On the other hand, we show (Lemma \[lem.theta.RR\]) that the Blattner formulas can be reinterpreted through $\HolT$ as follows: $$(6)\quad\quad\Theta_{\lambda}\vert_{K}=\HolT\left(t^{\lambda-\rho_c +\rho_n}
\left[\wedge^{\bullet}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}\right]^{-1}_{\lambda}\right) .$$ From $(5)$ and $(6)$ we obtain $$(7)\quad\quad
RR^{^K}_{\Phi}(G\cdot\lambda,\tilde{L})=(-1)^{\frac{\dim(G/K)}{2}}\,
\Theta_{\lambda}\vert_{K}
={\rm L{\sp 2}-Index}^{_K}(\overline{\partial}_{\tilde{L}}+
\overline{\partial}^*_{\tilde{L}}) .$$
Since in this context ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}=(-1)^{\frac{\dim(G/K)}{2}}$, the Theorem follows from $(4)$ and $(7)$, provided one verifies that Assumption \[hypothese.phi.t.carre\] holds for $G\cdot\lambda$. This is done in the final subsection of this paper.
[**Acknowledgments.**]{} I would like to thank Michèle Vergne for suggesting this problem, and helpful discussions.
[**Notation**]{}
Throughout the paper, $K$ will denote a compact, connected Lie group, and ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}$ its Lie algebra. In Sections 2, 3, and 4, we consider a $K$-Hamiltonian action on a manifold $M$. And we use there the following notation.
- $T$ : maximal torus of $K$ with Lie algebra ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}$
- $W$ : Weyl group of $(K,T)$
- $\Lambda=\ker(\exp:{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}\to T)$ : integral lattice of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}$
- $\Lambda^*=\hom(\Lambda,2\pi{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}})$ : real weight lattice
- ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^*_+,\rho_c$ : Weyl chamber and corresponding half sum of the positive roots
- $\Lambda^*_+=\Lambda^*\cap{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^*_+$ : set of positive weights
- $\chi_{_{\mu}}^{_K}$ : character of the irreducible $K$-representation with highest weight $\mu\in \Lambda^*_+$
- ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}}_{\beta}$ : subtorus of $T$ generated by $\beta\in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}$
- $M^{\gamma}$ : submanifold of points fixed by $\gamma\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}$
- ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M$ : tangent bundle of $M$
- ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{K} M$ : set of tangent vectors orthogonal to the $K$-orbits in $M$
- $\Phi$ : moment map
- $\tilde{L}$ : $\kappa$-prequantum line bundle
- $\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}_{[\mu]}=K\times_T{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}_\mu$ : $\kappa$-prequantum line bundle over the coadjoint orbit $K\cdot(\mu+\rho_c)$
- ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Cr}}}(\parallel\Phi\parallel^2)$ : critical set of the function $\parallel\Phi\parallel^2$
- $\Delta=\Phi(M)\cap{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^*_+$ : moment polytope
- ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}$ : vector field generated by $\Phi$
- ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\mu}(E)$ : multiplicity of $RR^{^K}_{\Phi}(M,E)$ relatively to $\mu\in \Lambda^*_+$.
In the final section, we consider the particular case of the $K$-action on $M:=G\cdot\lambda$. Here $G$ is a connected real semi-simple Lie group with finite center admitting $K$ as a maximal compact subgroup, and $T$ as a compact Cartan subgroup.
Let us recall the definition of the holomorphic induction map $\HolT$. Every $\mu\in\Lambda^*$ defines a 1-dimensional $T$-representation, denoted ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}_{\mu}$, where $t=\exp X$ acts by $t^{\mu}:=e^{i\langle\mu,X\rangle}$. We denote by $R(K)$ (resp. $R(T)$) the ring of characters of finite-dimensional $K$-representations (resp. $T$-representations). We denote $R^{-\infty}(K)$ (resp. $R^{-\infty}(T)$) the set of generalized characters of $K$ (resp. $T$). An element $\chi\in R^{-\infty}(K)$ is of the form $\chi=\sum_{\mu\in\Lambda^{*}_{+}}{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\mu}\, \chi_{_{\mu}}^{_K}\,$, where $\mu\mapsto {\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\mu}, \Lambda^{*}_{+}\to{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ has at most polynomial growth. Likewise, an element $\chi\in R^{-\infty}(T)$ is of the form $\chi=\sum_{\mu\in\Lambda^{*}}{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\mu}\, t^{\mu}$, where $\mu\mapsto {\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\mu}, \Lambda^{*}\to{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ has at most polynomial growth. We denote $w\circ\mu=w(\mu+\rho_{c})-\rho_{c}$ the affine action of the Weyl group on $\Lambda^*$. The holomorphic induction map $$\HolT: R^{-\infty}(T)\longrightarrow R^{-\infty}(K)$$ is characterized by the following properties:
i\) $\HolT(t^{\mu})=\chi_{_{\mu}}^{_K}$ for every $\mu\in\Lambda^{*}_{+}$,
ii\) $\HolT(t^{w\circ\mu})=(-1)^w\HolT(t^{\mu})$ for every $w\in W$ and $\mu\in\Lambda^{*}$,
iii\) $\HolT(t^{\mu})=0$ if $W\circ\mu\cap \Lambda^{*}_{+}=\emptyset$.
$\spinc$-quantization of compact Hamiltonian $K$-manifolds {#sec.quantization.compact}
==========================================================
In this Section we give a modified version of the ‘quantization commutes with reduction’ principle.
Let $M$ be a compact Hamiltonian $K$-manifold with symplectic form $\omega$ and moment map $\Phi: M\to {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}^{*}$ characterized by the relation $d\langle\Phi,X\rangle=-\omega(X_M,-)$, where $X_M$ is the vector field on $M$ generated by $X\in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}$ : $X_{M}(m):= \frac{d}{dt}\exp(-tX).m |_{t=0}$, for $m\in M$.
Let $J$ be a $K$-invariant almost complex structure on $M$ which is not assumed to be compatible with the symplectic form. We denote $RR^{^K}(M,-)$ the Riemann-Roch character defined by $J$. Let us recall the definition of this map.
Let $E\to M$ be a complex $K$-vector bundle. The almost complex structure on $M$ gives the decomposition $\wedge {\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}^{*} M \otimes {\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}=\oplus_{i,j}\wedge^{i,j}{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}^* M$ of the bundle of differential forms. Using Hermitian structure in the tangent bundle ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M$ of $M$, and in the fibers of $E$, we define a Dolbeault-Dirac operator $\overline{\partial}_E+
\overline{\partial}^*_E
:{\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}^{0,even}(M,E)\to{\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}^{0,odd}(M,E)$, where ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}^{i,j}(M,E):=\Gamma(M,\wedge^{i,j}{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}^{*}M\otimes_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}E)$ is the space of $E$-valued forms of type $(i,j)$. The Riemann-Roch character $RR^{^K}(M,E)$ is defined as the index of the elliptic operator $\overline{\partial}_E+ \overline{\partial}^*_E$: $$RR^{^K}(M,E)= {\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Index}}}^K_M(\overline{\partial}_E + \overline{\partial}^*_E)
\quad \in R(K)$$ viewed as an element of $R(K)$, the character ring of $K$. An alternative definition goes as follows. The almost complex structure defines a canonical invariant $\spinc$ structure[^3]. The $\spinc$ Dirac operator of $M$ with coefficient in $E$ has the same principal symbol as $\sqrt{2}(\overline{\partial}_E+ \overline{\partial}^*_E)$ (see e.g. [@Duistermaat96]), and therefore has the same equivariant index.
In the Kostant-Souriau framework, $M$ is prequantized if there is a $K$-equivariant Hermitian line bundle $L$ with a $K$-invariant Hermitian connection $\nabla^L$ of curvature $-i\,\omega$. The line bundle $L$ is called a prequantum line bundle for the Hamiltonian $K$-manifold $(M,\omega,\Phi)$. Recall that the data $(\nabla^L,\Phi)$ are related by the Kostant formula $$\label{eq.kostant}
{\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}^L(X)-\nabla^L_{X_M}=i \langle \Phi,X\rangle, \
X\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}\ .$$ Here ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}^L(X)$ is the infinitesimal action of $X$ on the section of $L\to M$.
The tangent bundle ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M$ endowed with $J$ is a complex vector bundle over $M$, and we consider its complex dual ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}^{*}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}M:=\hom_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M,{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}})$. We suppose first that the canonical line bundle $\kappa:=\det{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}^{*}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}M$ admits a $K$-equivariant square root $\kappa^{1/2}$. If $M$ is prequantized by $L$, a standard procedure in the geometric quantization literature is to tensor $L$ by the bundle of half-forms $\kappa^{1/2}$ [@Woodhouse]. We consider the index $RR^{^K}(M,L\otimes\kappa^{1/2})$ instead of $RR^{^K}(M,L)$. In many contexts, the tensor product $\tilde{L}=L\otimes\kappa^{1/2}$ has a meaning even if $L$ nor $\kappa^{1/2}$ exist.
\[kappa-quantized\] An Hamiltonian K-manifold $(M,\omega,\Phi)$, equipped with an almost complex structure, is $\kappa$-prequantized by an equivariant line bundle $\tilde{L}$ if $L_{2\omega}:=\tilde{L}^{2}\otimes\kappa^{-1}$ is a prequantum line bundle for $(M,2\omega,2\Phi)$.
The basic examples are the regular coadjoint orbits of $K$. For any $\mu\in\Lambda^{*}_{+}$, consider the regular coadjoint orbit ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\mu+\rho_{c}}:=
K\cdot(\mu+\rho_{c})$ with the compatible complex structure. The line bundle $\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}_{[\mu]}= K\times_{T}{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}_{\mu}$ is a $\kappa$-prequantum line bundle over ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\mu+\rho_{c}}$, and we have $$\label{V-mu-rho}
RR^{^K}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\mu+\rho_{c}},\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}_{[\mu]})
= \chi_{_\mu}^{_K}$$ for any $\mu\in \Lambda^{*}_{+}$.
Definition \[kappa-quantized\] can be rewritten in the $\spinc$ setting (see subsection \[Spin-c.structure\] for a brief review on $\spinc$-structures). The almost complex structure induces a $\spinc$ structure $P$ with canonical line bundle $\det_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M=\kappa^{-1}$. If $(M,\omega,J)$ is $\kappa$-prequantized by $\tilde{L}$ one can twist $P$ by $\tilde{L}$, and then define a new $\spinc$ structure with canonical line bundle $\kappa^{-1}\otimes\tilde{L}^2=L_{2\omega}$ (see Lemma \[subsec.spinc.red\]).
\[spinc-quantized\] A symplectic manifold $(M,\omega)$ is $\spinc$-prequantized if there exists a $\spinc$ structure with canonical line bundle $L_{2\omega}$ which is a prequantum line bundle on $(M,2\omega)$. If a compact Lie group acts on $M$, the $\spinc$-structure is required to be equivariant. Here we take the symplectic orientation on $M$.
When $(M,\omega,J)$ is $\kappa$-prequantized by $\tilde{L}$, one wants to compute the $K$-multiplicities of $RR^{^K}(M,\tilde{L})$ in geometrical terms, like in Theorem \[th.Q-R\].
\[def.regular\] An element $\xi\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}^{*}$ is a [*quasi-regular*]{} value of $\Phi$ if all the $K_{\xi}$-orbits in $\Phi^{-1}(\xi)$ have the same dimension. A quasi-regular value is [*generic*]{} if the submanifold $\Phi^{-1}(\xi)$ is of maximal dimension.
For any quasi-regular value $\xi\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}^{*}$, the reduced space $M_{\xi}:=\Phi^{-1}(\xi)/K_{\xi}$ is an orbifold equipped with a symplectic structure $\omega_{\xi}$. Let $\tilde{L}$ be a $\kappa$-prequantum line bundle over $M$, and let $L_{2\omega}:=\tilde{L}^{2}\otimes\kappa^{-1}$ be the corresponding prequantum line bundle for $(M,2\omega)$. For any dominant weight $\mu\in \Lambda^{*}_{+}$ such that $\mu+\rho_{c}$ is a quasi-regular value of $\Phi$, $$(L_{2\omega}\vert_{\Phi^{-1}(\mu +\rho_{c})}\otimes {\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}_{-2(\mu+\rho_{c})})/T$$ is a prequantum orbifold-line bundle over $(M_{\mu+\rho_{c}},2\omega_{\mu+\rho_{c}})$.
The following Proposition is the main point for computing the $K$-multiplicities of $RR^{^K}(M,\tilde{L})$ in terms of the reduced spaces $M_{\mu+\rho_{c}}:=\Phi^{-1}(\mu+\rho_{c})/T$, $\mu\in\Lambda^{*}_{+}$. It deals with the coherence of the definition of an integer valued map $\mu\in\Lambda^{*}_{+}\mapsto {\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}(M_{\mu+\rho_{c}})$. In the next proposition we suppose that $(M,\omega,\Phi)$ is a Hamiltonian $K$-manifold with [*proper*]{} moment map. The set $\Phi(M)\cap{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^*_+$ is denoted by $\Delta$. By the Convexity Theorem [@Kirwan.84.bis; @L-M-T-W; @Sjamaar98] it is a convex rational polyhedron, referred to as the [*moment polyhedron*]{}.
\[prop.Q.mu.ro\] Let $(M,\omega,\Phi)$ be a Hamiltonian $K$-manifold, with proper moment map. We denote $\Delta^o$ the relative interior of the moment polyhedron $\Delta:=\Phi(M)\cap{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^*_+$. Let $\tilde{L}$ be a $\kappa$-prequantum line bundle relative to an almost complex structure $J$. Let $\mu\in\Lambda^{*}_{+}$.
- If $\mu +\rho_c\notin\Delta^o$, we set ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}(M_{\mu+\rho_{c}})=0$.
- If $\mu +\rho_{c}$ is a generic quasi-regular value of $\Phi$, then the $\spinc$ prequantization defined by the data $(J,\,\tilde{L})$ induces a $\spinc$ prequantization on the symplectic quotient $(M_{\mu +\rho_c}\, , \,\omega_{\mu +\rho_c})$. We denote ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}(M_{\mu+\rho_{c}})\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ the index of the corresponding $\spinc$ Dirac operator.
- If $\mu +\rho_c\in\Delta^o$, we take $\xi$ generic and quasi-regular sufficiently close to $\mu +\rho_{c}$. The reduced space $M_{\xi}:=\Phi^{-1}(\xi)/T$ inherits a $\spinc$-structure with canonical line bundle $(L_{2\omega}\vert_{\Phi^{-1}(\xi)}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}_{-2(\mu +\rho_{c})})/T$. The index ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}(M_{\xi})$ of the corresponding $\spinc$ Dirac operator on $M_{\xi}$ does not depend of $\xi$, when $\xi$ is sufficiently close to $\mu +\rho_{c}$ : it is denoted ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}(M_{\mu+\rho_{c}})$.
When $\xi=\mu +\rho_{c}$ is a generic quasi-regular of $\Phi$, the line bundle $(L_{2\omega}\vert_{\Phi^{-1}(\xi)}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}_{-2(\mu +\rho_{c})})/T$ is a prequantum line bundle over $(M_{\mu +\rho_c}\, , \,2\omega_{\mu +\rho_c})$: so the second point of this ‘definition’ is in fact a particular case of the third point. But we prefer to keep it since it outlines the main point: $\spinc$ prequantization is preserved under symplectic reductions.
The existence of $\spinc$-structures on symplectic quotient is proved in Subsection \[subsec.spinc.red\]. The hard part is to show that the index ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}(M_{\xi})$ does not depend of $\xi$, for $\xi$ sufficiently close to $\mu +\rho_{c}$: it is done in Subsection \[def.Q.M.mu\].
Note that Definition \[prop.Q.mu.ro\] becomes trivial when $\Delta^o$ is not included in the interior of the Weyl chamber: ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}(M_{\mu+\rho_{c}})=0$ for all $\mu\in\Lambda^{*}_{+}$. However, in this paper we work under the assumption that the infinitesimal stabilizers for the $K$-action are [*Abelian*]{}. And that imposes $\Delta^o\subset {\rm Interior}\{ {\rm Weyl\ chamber}\}$ (see Lemma \[lem.Y.non.nul\]).
The following ‘[*quantization commutes with reduction*]{}’ Theorem holds for the $\kappa$-prequantum line bundles.
\[Th.Q-R.pep\] Let $(M,\omega,\Phi)$ be a compact Hamiltonian $K$-manifold equipped with an almost complex structure $J$. Let $\tilde{L}$ be a $\kappa$-prequantum line bundle over $M$, and let $RR^{^K}(M,-)$ be the Riemann-Roch character defined by $J$. If the infinitesimal stabilizers for the action of $K$ on $M$ are [*Abelian*]{}, we have the following equality in $R(K)$ $$\label{eq.Q-R-tilde}
RR^{^K}(M,\tilde{L})={\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\sum_{\mu\in \Lambda^{*}_{+}}Q(M_{\mu+\rho_{c}})\,
\chi_{_{\mu}}^{_K}\ ,$$ where ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}=\pm 1$ is the ‘quotient’ of the orientations defined by the almost complex structure, and by the symplectic form.
Theorem \[Th.Q-R.pep\] will be proved in a stronger form in Section \[section.Q.R\].
Let us now give an example where the stabilizers for the action of $K$ on $M$ are [*not Abelian*]{}, and where (\[eq.Q-R-tilde\]) does not hold. Suppose that the group $K$ is not Abelian, so we can consider a face $\sigma\neq \{0\}$ of the Weyl chamber. Let $\rho_{c,\sigma}$ be half the sum of the positive roots which vanish on $\sigma$, and consider the coadjoint orbit $M:=K\cdot(\rho_{c}-\rho_{c,\sigma})$ equipped with its compatible complex structure. Since $\rho_{c}-\rho_{c,\sigma}$ belongs to $\sigma$, the trivial line bundle $M\times{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}\to M$ is $\kappa$-prequantum, and the image of the moment map $\Phi :M\to {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}^{*}$ does not intersect the interior of the Weyl chamber. So $M_{\mu+\rho_{c}}=\emptyset$ for every $\mu$, thus the RHS of (\[eq.Q-R-tilde\]) is equal to zero. But the LHS of (\[eq.Q-R-tilde\]) is $RR^{^K}(M,{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}})$ which is equal to $1$, the character of the trivial representation. $\Box$
Theorem \[Th.Q-R.pep\] can be extended in two directions. First one can bypass the condition on the stabilizers by the following trick. Starting from a $\kappa$-prequantum line bundle $\tilde{L}\to M$, one can form the product $M\times(K\cdot\rho_{c})$ with the coadjoint orbit through $\rho_{c}$. The Kunneth formula gives $$RR^{^K}(M\times(K\cdot\rho_{c}),\tilde{L}\boxtimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}})=
RR^{^K}(M,\tilde{L})\otimes RR^{^K}(K\cdot\rho_{c},{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}})=
RR^{^K}(M,\tilde{L})$$ since $RR^{^K}(K\cdot\rho_{c},{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}})=1$. Now we can apply Theorem \[Th.Q-R.pep\] to compute the multiplicities of $RR^{^K}(M\times(K\cdot\rho_{c}),\tilde{L}\boxtimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}})$ since $\tilde{L}\boxtimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}$ is a $\kappa$-prequantum line bundle over $M\times(K\cdot\rho_{c})$, and the stabilizers for the $K$-action on $M\times(K\cdot\rho_{c})$ are Abelian. Finally we see that the multiplicity of the irreducible representation with highest weight $\mu$ in $RR^{^K}(M,\tilde{L})$ is equal to ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}((M\times(K\cdot\rho_{c}))_{\mu +\rho_{c}})$.
On the other hand, we can extend Theorem \[Th.Q-R.pep\] to the $\spinc$ setting. It will be treated in a forthcoming paper.
Quantization of non-compact Hamiltonian $K$-manifolds {#sec.quant.non.compact}
=====================================================
In this section $(M,\omega,\Phi)$ denotes a Hamiltonian $K$-manifold, not necessarily compact, but with [*proper*]{} moment map $\Phi$. Let $J$ be an almost complex structure on $M$, and let $\tilde{L}$ be a $\kappa$-prequantum line bundle over $(M,\omega,J)$ (see Def. \[kappa-quantized\]). From Proposition \[prop.Q.mu.ro\] the infinite sum $$\label{somme-2}
\sum_{\mu\in
\Lambda^{*}_{+}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}(M_{\mu+\rho_{c}})\,
\chi_{_{\mu}}^{_K}$$ is a well defined element of $\widehat{R}(K):=\hom_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}}(R(K),{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}})$.
The aim of this section is to realize this sum as the index of a [*transversally elliptic*]{} symbol naturally associated to the data $(M,\Phi,J,\tilde{L})$.
Transversally elliptic symbols
------------------------------
Here we give the basic definitions of the theory of transversally elliptic symbols (or operators) defined by Atiyah in [@Atiyah74]. For an axiomatic treatment of the index morphism see Berline-Vergne [@B-V.inventiones.96.1; @B-V.inventiones.96.2] and for a short introduction see [@pep4].
Let $M$ be a [*compact*]{} $K$-manifold. Let $p:{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M\to M$ be the projection, and let $(-,-)_M$ be a $K$-invariant Riemannian metric. If $E^{0},E^{1}$ are $K$-equivariant vector bundles over $M$, a $K$-equivariant morphism $\sigma \in \Gamma({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M,\hom(p^{*}E^{0},p^{*}E^{1}))$ is called a [*symbol*]{}. The subset of all $(m,v)\in {\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M$ where $\sigma(m,v): E^{0}_{m}\to E^{1}_{m}$ is not invertible is called the [*characteristic set*]{} of $\sigma$, and is denoted by ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Char}}}(\sigma)$.
Let ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{K}M$ be the following subset of ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M$ : $${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{K}M\ = \left\{(m,v)\in {\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M,\ (v,X_{M}(m))_{_{M}}=0 \quad {\rm for\ all}\
X\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}\right\} .$$
A symbol $\sigma$ is [*elliptic*]{} if $\sigma$ is invertible outside a compact subset of ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M$ (${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Char}}}(\sigma)$ is compact), and is [*transversally elliptic*]{} if the restriction of $\sigma$ to ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{K}M$ is invertible outside a compact subset of ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{K}M$ (${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Char}}}(\sigma)\cap {\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{K}M$ is compact). An elliptic symbol $\sigma$ defines an element in the equivariant $K$-theory of ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M$ with compact support, which is denoted by ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_{K}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M)$, and the index of $\sigma$ is a virtual finite dimensional representation of $K$ [@Atiyah-Segal68; @Atiyah-Singer-1; @Atiyah-Singer-2; @Atiyah-Singer-3].
A [*transversally elliptic*]{} symbol $\sigma$ defines an element of ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_{K}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{K}M)$, and the index of $\sigma$ is defined as a trace class virtual representation of $K$ (see [@Atiyah74] for the analytic index and [@B-V.inventiones.96.1; @B-V.inventiones.96.2] for the cohomological one). Remark that any elliptic symbol of ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M$ is transversally elliptic, hence we have a restriction map ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_{K}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M)\to {\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_{K}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{K}M)$, and a commutative diagram $$\label{indice.generalise}
\xymatrix{
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_{K}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M)\ar[r]\ar[d]_{{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Index}}}_{M}^K} &
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_{K}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{K}M)\ar[d]^{{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Index}}}_{M}^K}\\
R(K)\ar[r] & R^{-\infty}(K)\ .
}$$
Using the [*excision property*]{}, one can easily show that the index map ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Index}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}}^{K}:{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_{K}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{K}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}})\to R^{-\infty}(K)$ is still defined when ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}$ is a $K$-invariant relatively compact open subset of a $K$-manifold (see [@pep4]\[section 3.1\]).
Thom symbol deformed by the moment map {#ssection.thom}
--------------------------------------
To a $K$-invariant almost complex structure $J$ one associates the Thom symbol ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}(M,J)$, and the corresponding Riemann-Roch character $RR^{^K}$ when $M$ is compact [@pep4]. Let us recall the definitions.
Consider a $K$-invariant Riemannian metric $q$ on $M$ such that $J$ is orthogonal relatively to $q$, and let $h$ be the Hermitian structure on ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M$ defined by : $h(v,w)=q(v,w) -i q(Jv,w)$ for $v,w\in {\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M$. The symbol $${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}(M,J)\in
\Gamma\left(M,\hom(p^{*}(\wedge_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}^{even} {\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M),\,p^{*}
(\wedge_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}^{odd} {\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M))\right)$$ at $(m,v)\in {\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M$ is equal to the Clifford map $$\label{eq.thom.complex}
\Clif_{m}(v)\ :\ \wedge_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}^{even} {\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_m M
\longrightarrow \wedge_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}^{odd} {\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_m M,$$ where $\Clif_{m}(v).w= v\wedge w - c_{h}(v).w$ for $w\in
\wedge_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}^{\bullet} {\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{x}M$. Here $c_{h}(v):\wedge_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}^{\bullet}
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{m}M\to\wedge^{\bullet -1} {\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{m}M$ denotes the contraction map relative to $h$. Since the map $\Clif_{m}(v)$ is invertible for all $v\neq 0$, the symbol ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}(M,J)$ is elliptic when $M$ is [*compact*]{}.
The important point is that for any $K$-vector bundle $E$, ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}(M,J)\otimes p^{*}E$ corresponds to the [*principal symbol*]{} of the twisted $\spinc$ Dirac operator ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}_{E}$ [@Duistermaat96]. So, when $M$ is a [*compact*]{} manifold, the Riemann-Roch character $RR^{^K}(M,-):{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_{K}(M)\to R(K)$ is defined by the following relation $$\label{def.RR}
RR^{^K}(M,E)={\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Index}}}^{K}_{M}\left({\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}(M,J)\otimes p^{*}E\right)\ .$$ Since the class of ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}(M,J)$ in ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_{K}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M)$ is independent of the choice of the Riemannian structure, the Riemann-Roch character $RR^{^K}(M,-)$ also does not depend on this choice.
Consider now the case of a [*non-compact*]{} Hamiltonian $K$-manifold $(M,\omega,\Phi)$. We choose a $K$-invariant scalar product on ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}^{*}$, and we consider the function $\parallel\Phi\parallel^2: M\to {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$. Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}$ be the Hamiltonian vector field for $\frac{-1}{2}\parallel\Phi\parallel^2$, i.e. the contraction of the symplectic form by ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}$ is equal to the $1$-form $\frac{-1}{2}d\parallel\Phi\parallel^2$. In fact the vector field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}$ only depends on $\Phi$. The scalar product on ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}^{*}$ gives an identification ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}^{*}\simeq{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}$, hence $\Phi$ can be consider as a map from $M$ to ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}$. We have then $$\label{def.H}
{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_{m}=(\Phi(m))_{M}\vert_{m},\quad m\in M\ ,$$ where $(\Phi(m))_{M}$ is the vector field on $M$ generated by $\Phi(m)\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}$.
\[def.thom.loc\] The Thom symbol deformed by the moment map, which is denoted by ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{\Phi}(M,J)$, is defined by the relation $${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{\Phi}(M,J)(m,v):={\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}(M,J)(m,v-{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_{m})$$ for any $(m,v)\in{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M$. Likewise, any equivariant map $S:M\to{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}$ defines a Thom symbol ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{S}(M,J)$ deformed by the vector field $S_M :
m \to S(m)_M\vert_{m}$ : ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{S}(M,J)(m,v):={\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}(M,J)(m,v-S_M(m))$.
Atiyah first proposed to ‘deform’ the symbol of an elliptic operator by the vector field induced by an $S^1$-action in order to localize its index on the fixed point submanifold, giving then another proof of the Lefschetz fixed-point theorem [@Atiyah74]\[Lecture 6\]. Afterwards the idea was exploited by Vergne to give a proof of the ‘quantization commutes with reduction’ theorem in the case of an $S^1$-action [@Vergne96]. In [@pep4], we extended this procedure for an action of a compact Lie group. Here, we use this idea to produce a transversally elliptic symbol on a non-compact manifold.
The characteristic set of ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{\Phi}(M,J)$ corresponds to $\{(m,v)\in {\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M,\ v={\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_m\}$, the graph of the vector field ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}$. Since ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}$ belongs to the set of tangent vectors to the $K$-orbits, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Char}}}\left({\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{\Phi}(M,J)\right)\cap {\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{K}M&=&\{(m,0)\in {\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M,\
{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_m=0 \}\\
&\cong& \{m\in M,\ d\parallel\Phi\parallel^2_m=0 \} \ .\end{aligned}$$ Therefore the symbol ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{\Phi}(M,J)$ is transversally elliptic if and only if the set ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Cr}}}(\parallel\Phi\parallel^2)$ of critical points of the function $\parallel\Phi\parallel^2$ is [*compact*]{}.
\[def.RR.phi\] Let $(M,\omega,\Phi)$ be a Hamiltonian $K$-manifold with ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Cr}}}(\parallel\Phi\parallel^2)$ compact. For any invariant almost complex structure $J$, the symbol ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{\Phi}(M,J)$ is [*transversally elliptic*]{}. For any $K$-vector bundle $E\to M$, the tensor product ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{\Phi}(M,J)\otimes p^{*}E$ is transversally elliptic and we denote by $$RR^{^K}_{\Phi}(M,E)\in R^{-\infty}(K)$$ its index[^4]. In the same way, an equivariant map $S:M\to{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}$ defines a transversally elliptic symbol ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{S}(M,J)$ if and only if $\{m\in M,\, S_M(m)=0\}$ is compact. If this holds one defines the localized Riemann-Roch character $RR^{^K}_{S}(M,E):=
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Index}}}_{M}^K({\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{S}(M)\otimes p^{*}E)$.
If $M$ is compact the symbols ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}(M,J)$ and ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{\Phi}(M,J)$ are homotopic as elliptic symbols, thus the maps $RR^{^K}(M,-)$ and $RR^{^K}_{\Phi}(M,-)$ coincide (see section 4 of [@pep4]).
We end up this subsection with some technical remarks about the symbols ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{S}(M,J)$ associated to an equivariant map $S:M\to{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}$, and an almost complex structure.
Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}$ be a $K$-invariant open subspace of $M$. The restriction ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{S}(M,J)\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}}={\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{S}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}},J)$ is transversally elliptic if and only if $\{m\in M,\, S_M(m)=0\}\cap{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}$ is compact. Let $j^{^{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}},{\ensuremath{\mathcal{V}}}}}:{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}{\ensuremath{\hookrightarrow}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{V}}}$ be two $K$-invariant open subspaces of $M$, where $j^{^{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}},{\ensuremath{\mathcal{V}}}}}$ denotes the inclusion. If $\{m\in M,\, S_M(m)=0\}\cap{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}=\{m\in M,\, S_M(m)=0\}\cap{\ensuremath{\mathcal{V}}}$ is compact, the excision property tells us that $$j^{^{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}},{\ensuremath{\mathcal{V}}}}}_*\left({\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{S}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}},J)\right)=
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{S}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{V}}},J)\ ,$$ where $j^{^{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}},{\ensuremath{\mathcal{V}}}}}_*:{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_K({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_K{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}})\to {\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_K({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_K{\ensuremath{\mathcal{V}}})$ is the pushforward map (see [@pep4]\[Section 3\]).
\[lem.deformation\]
1. If $\{m\in M,\, S_M(m)=0\}\cap{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}$ is compact, then the class defined by ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{S}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}},J)$ in ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_K({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_K{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}})$ does not depend on the choice of a Riemannian metric.
2. Let $S^0,S^1:M\to{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}$ be two equivariant maps. Suppose there exist an open subset ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}\subset M$, and a vector field $\theta$ on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}$ such that $(S^0_M,\theta)_{_M}$ and $(S^1_M,\theta)_{_M}$ are $>0$ outside a compact subset ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{K}}}$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}$. Then, the equivariant symbols ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{S^1}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}},J)$ and ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{S^0}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}},J)$ are transversally elliptic and define the same class in ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_K({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_K{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}})$.
3. Let $J^0,J^1$ be two almost complex structures on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}$, and suppose that $\{m\in M,\, S_M(m)=0\}\cap{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}$ is compact. The transversally elliptic symbols ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{S}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}},J^0)$ and ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{S}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}},J^1)$ define the same class if there exists a homotopy $J^t,\,t\in[0,1]$ of $K$-equivariant almost complex structures between $J^0$ and $J^1$.
[*Proof.*]{} Two $J$-invariant Riemannian metrics $q_0,q_1$ are connected by $q_t:=$ $(1-t)q_0+ tq_1$. Hence the transversally elliptic symbols ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{S}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}},J,q_0)$ and ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{S}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}},J,q_1)$ are tied by the homotopy $t\mapsto
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{S}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}},J,q_t)$. The point 1. is then proved. The proof of 2. is similar to our deformation process in [@pep2]. Here we consider the maps $S^t:=t S^1+(1-t)S^0,\, t\in[0,1]$, and the corresponding symbols ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{S^t}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}},J)$. The vector field $\theta$, ensures that ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Char}}}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{S^t}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}},J))\cap{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_K{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}\subset{\ensuremath{\mathcal{K}}}$ is compact. Hence $t\to {\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{S^t}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}},J)$ defines a homotopy of transversally elliptic symbols. The proof of 3. is identical to the proof of Lemma 2.2 in [@pep4]. $\Box$
When $\{m\in M,\, S_M(m)=0\}$ is compact, the generalized Riemann-Roch character $RR^{^K}_{S}(M,-)$ does not depend on the choice of a Riemannian metric. $RR^{^K}_{S}(M,-)$ does not change either if the almost complex structure is deformed smoothly and equivariantly in a neighborhood of $\{m\in M,\, S_M(m)=0\}$.
In Subsections \[subsec.K.mult\] and \[subsec.localisation\], we set up the technical preliminaries that are needed to compute the $K$-multiplicity of $RR^{^K}_{\Phi}(M,\tilde{L})$.
In Section \[section.Q.R\], we compute the $K$-multiplicity of $RR^{^K}_{\Phi}(M,\tilde{L})$, when the moment map is [*is proper*]{}, in terms of the symplectic quotients $M_{\mu+\rho_c},\,\mu\in\Lambda_+^*$.
Counting the $K$-multiplicities {#subsec.K.mult}
-------------------------------
Let $E$ be a $K$-vector bundle over a Hamiltonian manifold $(M,\omega,\Phi)$ and suppose that ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Cr}}}(\parallel\Phi\parallel^2)$ is compact. One wants to compute the $K$-multiplicities of $RR^{^K}_{\Phi}(M,E)\in R^{-\infty}(K)$, i.e. the integers ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\mu}(E)\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}},\, \mu\in \Lambda^{*}_{+}$ such that $$\label{ed.mm.mu.E}
RR^{^K}_{\Phi}(M,E)=\sum_{\mu\in \Lambda^{*}_{+}}
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\mu}(E)\, \chi_{_{\mu}}^{_K}\ .$$ For this purpose one use the classical ‘shifting trick’. By definition, one has ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\mu}(E)=[RR^{^K}_{\Phi}(M,E)\otimes V_{\mu}^*]^K$, where $V_{\mu}$ is the irreducible $K$-representation with highest weight $\mu$, and $V_{\mu}^*$ is its dual. We know from (\[V-mu-rho\]) that the $K$-trace of $V_{\mu}$ is $ \chi_{_\mu}^{_K}=
RR^{^K}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}},\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}_{[\mu]})$, where $$\label{mu-tilde}
\tilde{\mu}=\mu +\rho_c\ .$$ Hence the $K$-trace of the dual $V_{\mu}^*$ is equal to $RR^{^K}(\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}},\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}_{[-\mu]})$, where $\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}}$ is the coadjoint orbit ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}$ with opposite symplectic structure and opposite complex structure. Let ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}(\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}})$ be the equivariant Thom symbol on $\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}}$. Then the trace of $V_{\mu}^*$ is equal to ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Index}}}^K_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}}(
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}(\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}})\otimes \tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}_{[-\mu]})$, and finally the multiplicative property of the index [@Atiyah74]\[Theorem 3.5\] gives $${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\mu}(E)=\left[
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Index}}}^K_{M\times {\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}}\left(
({\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_K}^{\Phi}(M)\otimes p^* E)
\odot
({\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_K}(\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}})\otimes \tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}_{[-\mu]})
\right)\right]^K\ .$$ See [@Atiyah74; @pep4], for the definition of the exterior product $\odot:{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_K({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_K M)\times{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_K({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}})\to
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_K({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_K (M\times{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}))$.
The moment map relative to the Hamiltonian $K$-action on $M\times\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Phi-mu}
\Phi_{\tilde{\mu}}:M\times
\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}}&\longrightarrow&{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}^*\nonumber\\
(m,\xi)&\longmapsto &\Phi(m)-\xi \end{aligned}$$
For any $t\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$, we consider the map $\Phi_{t\tilde{\mu}}:
M\times \overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}}\to {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}^{*},\
\Phi_{t\tilde{\mu}}(m,\xi):=\Phi(m)-t\,\xi$.
\[hypothese.phi.t.carre\] There exists a [*compact*]{} subset ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{K}}}\subset M$, such that, for every $t\in[0,1]$, the critical set of the function $\parallel\Phi_{t\tilde{\mu}}\parallel^2:M\times{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}\to{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ is contained in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{K}}}\times {\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}$.
If $M$ satisfies Assumption \[hypothese.phi.t.carre\] at $\tilde{\mu}$, one has a generalized Riemann-Roch character $RR_{\Phi_{\tilde{\mu}}}^{^K}(M\times \overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}},-)$ since ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Cr}}}(\parallel\Phi_{\tilde{\mu}}\parallel^2)$ is compact.
\[m-mu-e\] Let ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\mu}(E)$ be the multiplicity of $RR^{^K}_{\Phi}(M,E)$ relatively to the highest weight $\mu\in \Lambda^{*}_{+}$. If $M$ satisfies Assumption \[hypothese.phi.t.carre\] at $\tilde{\mu}$, then $${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\mu}(E)=\left[ RR_{\Phi_{\tilde{\mu}}}^{^K}(M\times
\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}},E\boxtimes\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}_{[-\mu]})\right]^K\ .$$
[*Proof.*]{} One has to show that the transversally elliptic symbols ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_K}^{\Phi}(M)\odot{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_K}(\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}})$ and ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_K}^{\Phi_{\tilde{\mu}}}(M\times\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}})$ define the same class in ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_K({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_K(M\times {\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}))$ when $M$ satisfies Assumption \[hypothese.phi.t.carre\] at $\tilde{\mu}$. Let $\sigma_{1},\sigma_{2}$ be respectively the Thom symbols ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_K}(M)$ and ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_K}(\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}})$. The symbol $\sigma_{I}={\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_K}^{\Phi}(M)\odot{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_K}(\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}})$ is defined by $$\sigma_{I}(m,\xi,v,w)=\sigma_{1}(m,v-{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_{m})\odot
\sigma_{2}(\xi,w)\ ,$$ where $(m,v)\in{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M$, $(\xi,w)\in{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}$, and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}$ is defined in (\[def.H\]). Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}^t$ be the vector field on $M\times{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}$ generated by the map $\Phi_{t\tilde{\mu}}:M\times{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}\to{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}$. For $(m,\xi)\in M\times{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}$, we have ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}^t_{(m,\xi)}=({\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}^{a,t}_{(m,\xi)},
{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}^{b,t}_{(m,\xi)})$ where ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}^{a,t}_{(m,\xi)}\in
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{m}M$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}^{b,t}_{(m,\xi)}\in{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{\xi}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}$. The symbol $\sigma_{II}={\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_K}^{\Phi_{\tilde{\mu}}}(M\times
\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}})$ is defined by $$\sigma_{II}(m,\xi,v,w)=\sigma_{1}(m,v-{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}^{a,1}_{m,\xi})
\odot \sigma_{2}(\xi,w-{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}^{b,1}_{(m,\xi)} )\ .$$ We connect $\sigma_{I}$ and $\sigma_{II}$ through two homotopies. First we consider the symbol $A$ on $[0,1]\times{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}(M\times{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}})$ defined by $$A(t;m,\xi,v,w)=\sigma_{1}(m,v-{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}^{a,t}_{m,\xi})
\odot \sigma_{2}(\xi,w-{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}^{b,t}_{(m,\xi)})\ ,$$ for $t\in [0,1]$, and $(m,\xi,v,w)\in{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}(M\times{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}})$. We have ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Char}}}(A)=\{(t;m,\xi,v,w)\ \vert\ v={\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}^{a,t}_{m,\xi},
\ {\rm and}\ w={\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}^{b,t}_{(m,\xi)}\}
$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Char}}}(A)\bigcap
[0,1]\times{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{K}(M\times{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}})
&=&\{(t;m,\xi,0,0)\ \vert\ (m,\xi)\in
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Cr}}}(\parallel\Phi_{t\tilde{\mu}}\parallel^2)\ \}\\
&\subset& [0,1]\times{\ensuremath{\mathcal{K}}}\times{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{K}}}\subset M$ is the compact subset of Assumption \[hypothese.phi.t.carre\]. Thus $A$ defines a homotopy of transversally elliptic symbols. The restriction of $A$ to $t=1$ is equal to $\sigma_{II}$. The restriction of $A$ to $t=0$ defines the following transversally elliptic symbol $$\sigma_{III}(m,\xi,v,w)=\sigma_{1}(m,v-{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_{m})
\odot \sigma_{2}(\xi,w-{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}^{b,0}_{(m,\xi)})$$ since ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}^{a,0}_{m,\xi}={\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_{m}$ for every $(m,\xi)\in M\times{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}$. Next, we consider the symbol $B$ on $[0,1]\times{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}(M\times{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}})$ defined by $$B(t;m,\xi,v,w)=\sigma_{1}(m,v-{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_{m})
\odot \sigma_{2}(\xi,w-t\,{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}^{b,0}_{(m,\xi)})\ .$$ We have ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Char}}}(B)=\{(t;m,\xi,v,w)\ \vert\ v={\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_{m},
\ {\rm and}\ w=t\,{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}^{b,0}_{(m,\xi)}\}
$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Char}}}(B)\bigcap
[0,1]\times{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{K}(M\times{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}})
\subset}\\
& &\left\{
(t;m,\xi,v={\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_{m},w=t\,{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}^{b,0}_{(m,\xi)})
\quad , \quad \parallel{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_{m}\parallel^2 +
\, t \parallel{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}^{b,0}_{(m,\xi)}\parallel^2=0\
\right\} \ .\end{aligned}$$ In particular ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Char}}}(B)\cap
[0,1]\times{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{K}(M\times{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}})$ is contained in $\{(t;m,\xi,0,w=t\,{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}^{b,0}_{(m,\xi)})
\, , \, m\in{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Cr}}}(\parallel\Phi\parallel^2)\}$ which is compact since ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Cr}}}(\parallel\Phi\parallel^2)$ is compact. So, $B$ defines a homotopy of transversally elliptic symbols between $\sigma_{I}=B\vert_{t=0}$ and $\sigma_{III}=B\vert_{t=1}$. We have finally proved that $\sigma_{I},\sigma_{II},\sigma_{III}$ define the same class in ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_{K}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{K}(M\times{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}))$. $\Box$
When $E=\tilde{L}$ is a $\kappa$-prequantum line bundle over $M$, the line bundle $\tilde{L}\boxtimes\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}_{[-\mu]}$ is a $\kappa$-prequantum line bundle over $M\times \overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}}$. Therefore Proposition \[m-mu-e\] shows that under Assumption \[hypothese.phi.t.carre\] the $K$-multiplicities of $RR_{\Phi}^{^K}(M,\tilde{L}) $ have the form $$\label{forme-generale}
\left[RR_{\Phi}^{^K}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}},\tilde{L}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}}) \right]^K\ ,$$ where $({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}},\omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}},\Phi)$ is a Hamiltonian K-manifold with ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Cr}}}(\parallel\Phi\parallel^2)$ compact, and $\tilde{L}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}}$ is a $\kappa$-prequantum line bundle over ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}$ relative to a $K$-invariant almost complex structure. In order to compute the quantity (\[forme-generale\]), we exploit in the next subsection the localization techniques developed in [@pep4].
Localization of the map $RR^{^K}_{\Phi}$ {#subsec.localisation}
----------------------------------------
For a detailed account on the procedure of localization that we use here, see Sections 4 and 6 of [@pep4]. In this section $({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}},\omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}},\Phi)$ is a Hamiltonian $K$-manifold which is equipped with a $K$-invariant almost complex structure, and a $\kappa$-prequantum line bundle $\tilde{L}$. We suppose furthermore that ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Cr}}}(\parallel\Phi\parallel^2)$ is compact. We give here a condition under which $[RR_{\Phi}^{^K}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}},\tilde{L})]^K$ depends only on the data in the neighborhood of $\Phi^{-1}(0)$.
For any $\beta\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}$, let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}^{\beta}$ be the symplectic submanifold of points of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}$ fixed by the torus ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}}_{\beta}$ generated by $\beta$. Following Kirwan [@Kirwan84], the critical set ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Cr}}}(\parallel\Phi\parallel^2)$ decomposes as $$\label{decomp.kirwan}
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Cr}}}(\parallel\Phi\parallel^2)=
\bigcup_{\beta\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}} C^{^{K}}_{\beta},\quad {\rm with}\quad
C^{^{K}}_{\beta}=K.({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}^{\beta}\cap \Phi^{-1}(\beta)),$$ where ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}$ is the subset of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^*_{+}$ defined by ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}:=\{\beta\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^*_{+},\ {\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}^{\beta}\cap \Phi^{-1}(\beta)\neq\emptyset\}$. Since ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Cr}}}(\parallel\Phi\parallel^2)$ is supposed to be compact, ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}$ is finite.
For each $\beta\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}$, let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}^{^\beta}{\ensuremath{\hookrightarrow}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}$ be a $K$-invariant [*relatively compact*]{} open neighborhood of $C^{^{K}}_{\beta}$ such that $\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}^{^\beta}}\cap
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Cr}}}(\parallel\Phi\parallel^2)= C^{^{K}}_{\beta}$. The restriction of the transversally elliptic symbol ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{\Phi}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}})$ to the subset ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}^{^\beta}$ defines ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{\Phi}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}^{^\beta})\in {\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_{K}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{K}
{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}^{^\beta})$.
\[def.RR.beta\] For every $\beta\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}$, we denote by $RR_{\beta}^{^K}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}},-)$ the Riemann-Roch character localized near $C^{^{K}}_{\beta}$, which is defined by $$RR_{\beta}^{^K}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}},E)={\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Index}}}^{K}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}^{^\beta}}
\left({\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{\Phi}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}^{^\beta})\otimes
p^* E\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}^{^\beta}}\right)\ ,$$ for every $K$-vector bundle $E\to {\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}$.
The [*excision property*]{} tells us that $$\label{localisation-pep}
RR^{^K}_{\Phi}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}},E)=\sum_{\beta\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}}RR_{\beta}^{^K}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}},E)$$ for every $K$-vector bundle $E\to {\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}$ (see [@pep4]\[Section 4\]). In particular, $[RR^{^K}_{\Phi}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}},\tilde{L})]^K=
\sum_{\beta}[RR_{\beta}^{^K}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}},\tilde{L})]^K$, and our main point here is to find suitable conditions under which $[RR_{\beta}^{^K}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}},\tilde{L})]^K=0$ for $\beta\neq 0$.
Let $\beta$ be a non-zero element in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}$. For every connected component ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}^{\beta}$, let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}$ be the normal bundle of ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}$. Let $\alpha^{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}_1,\cdots, \alpha^{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}_l$ be the real infinitesimal weights for the action of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}}_{\beta}$ on the fibers of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}$. The infinitesimal action of $\beta$ on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}$ is a linear map with trace equal to $\sqrt{-1}\sum_i\langle \alpha^{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}_i,\beta\rangle$.
\[trace-beta\] Let us denote by ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}|$ the following positive number $${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}|:=\sum_{i=1}^l |\langle
\alpha^{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}_i,\beta\rangle|\ ,$$ where $\alpha^{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}_1,\cdots,\alpha^{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}_l$ are the the real infinitesimal weights for the action of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}}_{\beta}$ on the fibers of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}$. For any ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}}_{\beta}$-equivariant real vector bundle ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{V}}}\to{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}$ (resp. real ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}}_{\beta}$-equivariant real vector space $E$), we define in the same way ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|{\ensuremath{\mathcal{V}}}|\geq
0$ (resp. ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|E|\geq 0$).
\[rem.tr.beta\] If ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{V}}}={\ensuremath{\mathcal{V}}}^1\oplus{\ensuremath{\mathcal{V}}}^2$, we have ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|{\ensuremath{\mathcal{V}}}|=
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|{\ensuremath{\mathcal{V}}}^1|+{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|{\ensuremath{\mathcal{V}}}^2|$, and if ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{V}}}'$ is an equivariant real subbundle of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{V}}}$, we get ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|{\ensuremath{\mathcal{V}}}|
\geq {\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|{\ensuremath{\mathcal{V}}}'|$. In particular one see that ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}|={\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}|$, and then, if $E_m\subset{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_m {\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}$ is a ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}}_{\beta}$-invariant real vector subspace for some $m\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}$, we have ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}|
\geq {\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|E_m|$.
The following Proposition and Corollary give us an essential condition under which the number $[RR_{\Phi}^{^K}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}},\tilde{L})]^K$ only depends on data localized in a neighborhhood of $\Phi^{-1}(0)$.
\[RR-beta=0\] Let $\tilde{L}$ be a $\kappa$-prequantum line bundle over ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}$. The multiplicity of the trivial representation in $RR_{\beta}^{^K}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}},\tilde{L})$ is equal to zero if $$\label{eq.RR-beta=0}
\parallel\beta\parallel^2 +
\frac{1}{2}{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}|-2(\rho_c,\beta)>0$$ for every connected component ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}^{\beta}$ which intersects $\Phi^{-1}(\beta)$. Condition (\[eq.RR-beta=0\]) always holds if $\beta\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}-\{0\}$ is $K$-invariant or if $\parallel\beta\parallel>\parallel\rho_c\parallel$.
Since every $\beta\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}$ belongs to the Weyl chamber, we have $2(\rho_c,\beta)={\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}|$, and then (\[eq.RR-beta=0\]) can be rewritten as $\parallel\beta\parallel^2 +\frac{1}{2}
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}|-{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}|>0$. From (\[localisation-pep\]), we get
\[coro.RR.loc.0\] If condition (\[eq.RR-beta=0\]) holds for all non-zero $\beta\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}$, we have $$\left[RR_{\Phi}^{^K}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}},\tilde{L}) \right]^K=
\left[RR_{0}^{^K}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}},\tilde{L}) \right]^K$$ where $RR_{0}^{^K}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}},-)$ is the Riemann-Roch character localized near $\Phi^{-1}(0)$ (see Definition \[def.RR.beta\]). In particular, $[RR_{\Phi}^{^K}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}},\tilde{L})]^K=0$ if (\[eq.RR-beta=0\]) holds for all non-zero $\beta\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}$, and $0\notin{\rm Image}(\Phi)$.
Proof of Proposition \[RR-beta=0\] {#subsec.preuve.RR.beta}
----------------------------------
When $\beta\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}$ is $K$-invariant, the scalar product $(\rho_c,\beta)$ vanishes and then (\[eq.RR-beta=0\]) trivially holds. Let us show that (\[eq.RR-beta=0\]) holds when $\parallel\beta\parallel>\parallel\rho_c\parallel$. Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}$ a connected component of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}^{\beta}$ which intersects $\Phi^{-1}(\beta)$. Let $m\in \Phi^{-1}(\beta)\cap {\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}$, and let $E_m\subset{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_m {\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}$ be the subspace spanned by $X_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}(m),\,X\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}$. We have $E_m\simeq {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}_m$, where ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}_m:=\{X\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}},\, X_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}(m)=0\}$. Since $\Phi(m)=\beta$, and $\Phi$ is equivariant ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}_m\subset {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}_{\beta}:=
\{X\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}},\, [X,\beta]=0\}$, so ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_m {\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}$ contains a ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}}_{\beta}$-equivariant subspace isomorphic to ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}_{\beta}$. So we have ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}|\geq{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}_{\beta}|=2(\rho_c,\beta)$, and then $$\begin{aligned}
\parallel\beta\parallel^2 +
\frac{1}{2}{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}|-2(\rho_c,\beta)
&\geq&
\parallel\beta\parallel^2 -(\rho_c,\beta)\\
&>&
0\end{aligned}$$ since $\parallel\beta\parallel>\parallel\rho_c\parallel$. $\Box$
We prove now that condition (\[eq.RR-beta=0\]) forces $[RR_{\beta}^{^K}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}},\tilde{L})]^K$ to be equal to $0$. Let ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\beta,\mu}(E)\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ be the $K$-multiplicities of the localized Riemann-Roch character $RR_{\beta}^{^K}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}},E)$ introduced in Definition \[def.RR.beta\] : $RR_{\beta}^{^K}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}},E)=\sum_{\mu\in \Lambda^{*}_{+}}
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\beta,\mu}(E)\, \chi_{_{\mu}}^{_K}$. We show now that ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\beta,0}(\tilde{L})=0$, by using the formulas of localization that we proved in [@pep4] for the maps $RR_{\beta}^{^K}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}},-)$.
[*First case :*]{} $\beta\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}$ [*is a non-zero*]{} $K$[*-invariant element of*]{} ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}^{*}$.
We show here the following relation for the multiplicities ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\beta,\mu}(\tilde{L})$ : $$\label{eq.RR-beta-mu}
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\beta,\mu}(\tilde{L})\neq 0
\ \Longrightarrow \
(\mu,\beta) \geq\, \parallel\beta\parallel^2
+\frac{1}{2} {\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}|\quad {\rm
for\ some}\ {\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}\subset{\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}^{\beta},$$ in particular ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\beta,0}(\tilde{L})=0$.
Since ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}}_{\beta}$ belongs to the center of $K$, ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}^{\beta}$ is a symplectic $K$-invariant submanifold of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}$. Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}$ be the normal bundle of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}^{\beta}$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}$. The $K$-invariant almost complex structure of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}$ induces a $K$-invariant almost complex structure on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}^{\beta}$, and a complex structure on the fibers of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}\to {\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}^{\beta}$. Then we have a Riemann-Roch character $RR_{\beta}^{^K}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}^{\beta},-)$ localized along ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}^{\beta}\cap
\Phi^{-1}(\beta)$ with the decomposition $RR_{\beta}^{^K}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}^{\beta},F)=\sum_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}
RR_{\beta}^{^K}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}},F\vert_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}})$, where the sum is taken over the connected components ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}\subset{\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}^{\beta}$ which intersect $\Phi^{-1}(\beta)$. The torus ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}}_{\beta}$ acts linearly on the fibers of the complex vector bundle ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}$, thus we can associate the polarized complex $K$-vector bundle ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}^{+,\beta}$ and $({\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}})^{+,\beta}$ (see Definition 5.5 in [@pep4]): for any real ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}}_{\beta}$-weight $\alpha$ on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}^{+,\beta}$, or on $({\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}})^{+,\beta}$, we have $$\label{eq.polarise}
(\alpha,\beta)>0\ .$$ We proved the following localization formula in Section 6.2 of [@pep4] which holds in $\widehat{R}(K)$ for any $K$-vector bundle $E$ over ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}$ : $$\label{RR-beta-1}
RR_{\beta}^{^{K}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}},E)=(-1)^{r_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}}}\sum_{k\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}}
RR_{\beta}^{^{K}}\left({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}^{\beta},E\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}^{\beta}}\otimes\det
{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}^{+,\beta}\otimes S^k(({\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}})^{+,\beta})\right) \ .$$ Here $r_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}}$ is the locally constant function on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}^{\beta}$ equal to the complex rank of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}^{+,\beta}$, and $S^k(-)$ is the $k$-th symmetric product over ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}$.
Let $i:{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}_{\beta}{\ensuremath{\hookrightarrow}}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}$ be the inclusion of the Lie algebra of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}}_{\beta}$, and let $i^*: {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^*\to {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}_{\beta}^*$ be the canonical dual map. Let us recall the basic relationship between the ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}}_{\beta}$-weight on the fibers of a $K$-vector bundle $F\to {\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}^{\beta}$ and the $K$-multiplicities of $RR_{\beta}^{^{K}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}^{\beta},F)\in \widehat{R}(K)$: if the irreducible representation $V_{\mu}$ occurs in $RR_{\beta}^{^{K}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}^{\beta},F)$, then $i^*(\mu)$ is a ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}}_{\beta}$-weight on the fibers of $F$ (see Appendix B in [@pep4]).
If one now uses (\[RR-beta-1\]), one sees that ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\mu,\beta}(\tilde{L})\neq 0$ only if $i^*(\mu)$ is a ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}}_{\beta}$-weight on the fibers of some $\tilde{L}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}\otimes\det{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}^{+,\beta}\otimes
S^k(({\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}})^{+,\beta})$. Since $(i^*(\mu),\beta)=(\mu,\beta)$, (\[eq.RR-beta-mu\]) will be proved if one shows that each ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}}_{\beta}$-weight $\gamma_{_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}$ on $\tilde{L}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}\otimes\det{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}^{+,\beta}\otimes
S^k(({\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}})^{+,\beta})$ satisfies $$\label{eq.gamma.Z}
(\gamma_{_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}},\beta)\geq\parallel\beta\parallel^2
+\frac{1}{2} {\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}|\ .$$
Let $\alpha_{_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}$ be the ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}}_{\beta}$-weight on the fiber of the line bundle $\tilde{L}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}\otimes\det{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}^{+,\beta}$. Since any ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}}_{\beta}$-weight on $S^k(({\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}})^{+,\beta})$ satisfies (\[eq.polarise\]), (\[eq.gamma.Z\]) holds if $$\label{alpha.beta.Z}
(\alpha_{_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}},\beta)\geq \parallel\beta\parallel^2
+\frac{1}{2} {\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}|$$ for every ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}\subset {\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}^{\beta}$ which intersects $\Phi^{-1}(\beta)$. Let $L_{2\omega}$ be the prequantum line bundle on $(M,2\omega,2\Phi)$ such that $\tilde{L}^2=L_{2\omega}\otimes \kappa$ (where $\kappa$ is by definition equal to $\det({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}^* {\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}})\cong \det({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}})^{-1}$). We have $$(\tilde{L}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}\otimes\det({\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}^{+,\beta}))^2=
L_{_{2\omega}}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}\otimes \det({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}})^{-1}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}\otimes
\det({\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}^{+,\beta})^2\ .$$ So $2\alpha_{_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}=\alpha_1 +\alpha_2$ where $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$ are respectively ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}}_{\beta}$-weights on $L_{_{2\omega}}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}$ and $\det({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}})^{-1}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}\otimes\det({\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}^{+,\beta})^2$. The Kostant formula (\[eq.kostant\]) on $L_{_{2\omega}}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}$ gives $(\alpha_1,X)=2(\beta,X)$ for every $X\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}_{\beta}$, in particular $$\label{alpha-1.beta}
(\alpha_1,\beta)= 2\parallel\beta\parallel^2\ .$$ On ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}$, the complex vector bundle ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}$ has the following decomposition, ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}={\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}\oplus {\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}^{-,\beta} \oplus
{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}^{+,\beta}$, where ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}^{-,\beta}$ is the orthogonal complement of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}^{+,\beta}$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}$: every ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}}_{\beta}$-weight $\delta$ on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}^{-,\beta}$ verifies $(\delta,\beta)<0$. So we get the decomposition $\det({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}})^{-1}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}\otimes\det({\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}^{+,\beta})^2=\det({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}})\otimes
\det({\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}^{-,\beta})^{-1}\otimes\det({\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}^{+,\beta})\ ,$ which gives $$\label{alpha-2.beta}
(\alpha_{2},\beta)={\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}|$$ since ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}}_{\beta}$ acts trivially on ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}$. Finally (\[alpha.beta.Z\]) follows trivially from (\[alpha-1.beta\]) and (\[alpha-2.beta\]).
[*Second case :*]{} $\beta\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}$ [*such that*]{} $K_{\beta}\neq K$.
Consider the induced Hamiltonian action of $K_{\beta}$ on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}$, with moment map $\Phi_{K_{\beta}}:{\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}\to{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}_{\beta}^*$. Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}'$ be the indexing set for the critical point of $\parallel\Phi_{K_{\beta}}\parallel^2$ (see (\[decomp.kirwan\])). Following Definition \[def.RR.beta\], for each $\beta'\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}'$ we consider the $K_{\beta}$-Riemann-Roch character $RR_{\beta'}^{^{K_{\beta}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}},-)$ localised along $C^{^{K_{\beta}}}_{\beta'}=K_{\beta}.({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}^{\beta'}\cap
\Phi_{K_{\beta}}^{-1}(\beta'))$. Here $\beta$ is a $K_{\beta}$-invariant element of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}'$ with $C^{^{K_{\beta}}}_{\beta}={\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}^{\beta}\cap \Phi^{-1}(\beta)$.
Let $\HolT:R^{-\infty}(T)\to R^{-\infty}(K)$, $\HolTB:R^{-\infty}(T)\to R^{-\infty}(K_{\beta})$, and $\HolB:R^{-\infty}(K_{\beta})\to R^{-\infty}(K)$ be the holomorphic induction maps (see Appendix B in [@pep4]). Recall that $\HolT=\HolB\circ\HolTB$. The choice of a Weyl chamber determines a complex structure on the real vector space ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}_{\beta}$. We denote by $\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}_{\beta}}$ the vector space endowed with the opposite complex structure.
The induction formula that we proved in [@pep4]\[Section 6\] states that $$\label{eq.induction.RR}
RR_{\beta}^{^{K}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}},E)=\HolB
\left(RR_{\beta}^{^{K_{\beta}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}},E)\wedge_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}^{\bullet}
\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}_{\beta}}\right)$$ for every equivariant vector bundle $E$. Let us first write the decomposition $RR_{\beta}^{^{K_{\beta}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}},\tilde{L})
=\sum_{\mu\in\Lambda_{\beta}^{+}}{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\beta,\mu}(\tilde{L})
\chi_{_{\mu}}^{_{K_{\beta}}}$ into irreducible characters of $K_{\beta}$. Since $\beta$ is $K_{\beta}$-invariant we can use the result of the First case. In particular (\[eq.RR-beta-mu\]) tells us that $$\label{eq.RR-beta-mu.bis}
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\beta,\mu}(\tilde{L})\neq 0
\ \Longrightarrow \
(\mu,\beta) \geq\, \parallel\beta\parallel^2
+\frac{1}{2} {\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}|$$ for some connected component ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}\subset{\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}^{\beta}$ which intersects $\Phi^{-1}(\beta)$.
Each irreducible character $\chi_{_{\mu}}^{_{K_{\beta}}}$ is equal to $\HolTB(t^{\mu})$, so from (\[eq.induction.RR\]) we get $RR_{\beta}^{^{K}}(M,\tilde{L})=
\HolT\Big((\sum_{\mu}m_{\beta,\mu}(\tilde{L})\,
t^{\mu})\Pi_{\alpha\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}^+({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}_{\beta})}(1-t^{-\alpha})\Big)$ where ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}^+({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}_{\beta})$ is the set of positive $T$-weights on ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}_{\beta}$ : so $\langle\alpha,\beta\rangle>0$ for all $\alpha\in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}^{+}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}_{\beta})$. Finally , we see that $RR_{\beta}^{^{K}}(M,\tilde{L})$ is a sum of terms of the form $m_{\beta,\mu}(\tilde{L})\,
\HolT(t^{\mu-\alpha_{I}})$ where $\alpha_{I}=\sum_{\alpha\in
I}\alpha$ and $I$ is a subset of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}^+({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}_{\beta})$. We know that $\HolT(t^{\mu'})$ is either $0$ or the character of an irreducible representation (times $\pm 1$) ; in particular $\HolT(t^{\mu'})$ is equal to $\pm 1$ only if $(\mu',X)\leq 0$ for every $X\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}_{+}$ (see Appendix B in [@pep4]). So $[RR_{\beta}^{^{K}}(M,\tilde{L})]^K\neq 0$ only if there exists a weight $\mu$ such that $m_{\beta,\mu}(\tilde{L})\neq 0$ and that $\HolT(t^{\mu-\alpha_{I}})=\pm 1$. The first condition imposes $(\mu,\beta) \geq \parallel\beta\parallel^2
+\frac{1}{2} {\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}|$ for some connected component ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}\subset{\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}^{\beta}$, and the second one gives $(\mu,\beta) \leq (\alpha_{I},\beta)$. Combining the two we end up with $$\parallel\beta\parallel^2 +\frac{1}{2}
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}|\,\leq\, (\alpha_{I},\beta)\,\leq\,
\sum_{\alpha\in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}^+({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}_{\beta})}(\alpha,\beta)
=2(\rho_c,\beta)\ ,$$ for some connected component ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}\subset{\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}^{\beta}$ which intersects $\Phi^{-1}(\beta)$. This completes the proof that $[RR_{\beta}^{^{K}}(M,\tilde{L})]^K = 0\,$ if $\parallel\beta\parallel^2 +\frac{1}{2}
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}|> 2(\rho_c,\beta)$ for every component ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}\subset{\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}^{\beta}$ which intersects $\Phi^{-1}(\beta)$. $\Box$
Quantization commutes with reduction {#section.Q.R}
====================================
Let $(M,\omega,\Phi)$ be a Hamiltonian $K$-manifold equipped with an almost complex structure $J$. In this section, we assume that the moment map $\Phi$ is [*proper*]{} and that the set ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Cr}}}(\parallel\Phi\parallel^2)$ of critical points of $\parallel\Phi\parallel^2: M\to{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ is [*compact*]{}. We denote the corresponding Riemann-Roch character by $RR^{^K}_{\Phi}(M,-)$ (see Definition \[def.RR.phi\]). Let $\Delta:=\Phi(M)\cap{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^*_+$ be the moment polyhedron.
The main result of this section is the following
\[quantization-non-compact-1\] Suppose that $M$ satisfies Assumption \[hypothese.phi.t.carre\] at every $\tilde{\mu}\in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^*$, and that the infinitesimal stabilizers for the $K$-action on $M$ are [*Abelian*]{}. If $\tilde{L}$ is a $\kappa$-prequantum line bundle over $(M,\omega,\Phi,J)$, we have $$\label{Q-R-noncompact-tilde}
RR^{^K}_{\Phi}(M,\tilde{L})={\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\sum_{\mu\in\Lambda^{*}_{+}}
{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}(M_{\mu+\rho_{c}})\, \chi_{_{\mu}}^{_K}\ ,$$ where ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}=\pm 1$ is the ‘quotient’ of the orientation $o(J)$ defined by the almost complex structure and the orientation $o(\omega)$ defined by the symplectic form. Here the integer ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}(M_{\mu+\rho_{c}})$ is computed by Proposition \[prop.Q.mu.ro\]. In particular, ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}(M_{\mu+\rho_{c}})=0$ if $\mu+\rho_{c}$ does not belong to the relative interior of $\Delta$.
The same result holds in the traditional ‘prequantum’ case. Suppose that $M$ satisfies Assumption \[hypothese.phi.t.carre\] at every $\mu\in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^*$, and that the almost complex structure $J$ is compatible with $\omega$. If $L$ is prequantum line bundle over $(M,\omega,\Phi)$, we have $RR^{^K}_{\Phi}(M,L)=\sum_{\mu\in\Lambda^{*}_{+}}
RR(M_{\mu},L_{\mu})\, \chi_{_{\mu}}^{_K}$.
The next Lemma is the first step in computing the $K$-multiplicities ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\mu}(\tilde{L})$ of $RR^{^K}_{\Phi}(M,\tilde{L})$. Since $(M,\Phi)$ satisfies Assumption \[hypothese.phi.t.carre\] at every $\tilde{\mu}$, we know from Proposition \[m-mu-e\] that ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\mu}(\tilde{L})=[RR^{^K}_{\Phi_{\tilde{\mu}}}
(M\times\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}},\tilde{L}\boxtimes
\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}_{[-\mu]})]^K$ for every $\mu\in\Lambda^{*}_{+}$.
Let $RR^{^K}_{0}(M\times\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}},-)$ be the Riemann-Roch character localized near $\Phi^{-1}_{\tilde{\mu}}(0)\simeq \Phi^{-1}(\mu +\rho_c)$ (see Definition \[def.RR.beta\]). This map is the [*zero map*]{} if $\Phi^{-1}(\mu +\rho_c)=\emptyset$.
\[lem.RR.0.mu\] Let $\tilde{L}$ be a $\kappa$-prequantum line bundle over $M$. Suppose that the infinitesimal stabilizers for the $K$-action are [*Abelian*]{} and that Assumption \[hypothese.phi.t.carre\] is satisfied at $\tilde{\mu}$. We have then $${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\mu}(\tilde{L})=\left[
RR^{^K}_{0}(M\times\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}},\tilde{L}\boxtimes
\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}_{[-\mu]})\right]^K \ .$$ In particular ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\mu}(\tilde{L})=0$ if $\mu+\rho_c$ does not belong to the moment polyhedron $\Delta$.
[*Proof.*]{} The lemma follows from Corollary \[coro.RR.loc.0\], applied to the Hamiltonian manifold ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}:=M\times\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}}$, with moment map $\Phi_{\tilde{\mu}}$ and $\kappa$-prequantum line bundle $\tilde{L}\boxtimes
\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}_{[-\mu]}$. Let $\beta\neq 0$ such that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}^{\beta}\cap\Phi_{\tilde{\mu}}^{-1}(\beta)\neq \emptyset$. Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}$ be the normal bundle of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}^{\beta}$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}$, and let $x\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}^{\beta}\cap\Phi_{\tilde{\mu}}^{-1}(\beta)$. From the criterion of Proposition \[RR-beta=0\], it is sufficient to show that $$\label{eq.condition.trace}
\parallel\beta\parallel^2 +
\frac{1}{2}{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{x}|-2(\rho_c,\beta)>0\ .$$ Write $x=(m,\xi)$ with $m\in M^{\beta}$ and $\xi\in ({\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}})^{\beta}$. We know that ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{x}|={\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{x}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}|={\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{m}M|+
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{\xi}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}|$.
Since the stabilizer ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}_{\xi}\simeq{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}$ is Abelian and $\beta\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}_{\xi}$ we have ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}_{\xi}\subset{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}_{\beta}$. Then the tangent space ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{\xi}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}\simeq {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}_{\xi}$ contains a copy of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}_{\beta}$, so ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{\xi}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}|\geq {\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}_{\beta}|=
2(\rho_c,\beta)$. On the other hand, ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{m}M$ contains the vector space $E_m\simeq{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}_{m}$ spanned by $X_M(m),\, X\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}$. We have assume that the stabilizer subalgebra ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}_{m}$ is Abelian, and since $\beta\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}_{m}$, we get ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}_{m}\subset{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}_{\beta}$. Thus ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}_{\beta}\subset E_m\subset{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{m}M$ and ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{m}M|\geq 2(\rho_c,\beta)$. Finally (\[eq.condition.trace\]) is proved since $\frac{1}{2}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{m}M|+
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf Tr}}}_{\beta}|{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{\xi}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}|)\geq 2(\rho_c,\beta)$. $\Box$
The remaining part of this section is devoted to the proof of Theorem \[quantization-non-compact-1\]. Following the preceding Lemma we have to show that $$\label{equation-finale}
\left[RR^{^K}_{0}(M\times\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}},\tilde{L}\boxtimes
\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}_{[-\mu]})\right]^K={\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}(M_{\mu+\rho_{c}})\ ,$$ where ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}(M_{\mu+\rho_{c}})$ is defined in Proposition \[prop.Q.mu.ro\].
In Subsection \[Spin-c.structure\], we recall the basic notions about $\spinc$-structures. The existence of induced $\spinc$-structures on symplectic quotient is proved in Subsection \[subsec.spinc.red\]. The proof of (\[equation-finale\]) is settled in Subsection \[def.Q.M.mu\]. We give in the same time the proof of the ‘hard part’ of Proposition \[prop.Q.mu.ro\]: the fact that the index ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}(M_{\xi})$ does not depend on $\xi$, for $\xi$ sufficiently close to $\mu +\rho_{c}$.
$\spinc$ structures and symbols {#Spin-c.structure}
-------------------------------
We refer to Lawson-Michelson [@Lawson-Michel] for background on $\spinc$-structures, and to Duistermaat [@Duistermaat96] for a discussion of the symplectic case.
The group $\spin_n$ is the connected double cover of the group $\so_n$. Let $\eta :\spin_n\to\so_n$ be the covering map, and let ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$ be the element who generates the kernel. The group $\spinc_n$ is the quotient $\spin_n\times_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_2}\u_1$, where ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$ acts by $({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}},-1)$. There are two canonical group homomorphisms $$\eta:\spinc_n\to\so_n\quad ,\quad \Det :\spinc_n\to \u_1\ .$$ Note that $\eta^{\rm c}=(\eta,\Det):\spinc_n\to\so_n\times \u_1$ is a double covering map.
Let $p:E\to M$ be a oriented Euclidean vector bundle of rank $n$, and let $\Pso(E)$ be its bundle of oriented orthonormal frames. A $\spinc$-structure on $E$ is a $\spinc_n$ principal bundle $\Pspin(E)\to M$, together with a $\spinc$-equivariant map $\Pspin(E)\to\Pso(E)$. The line bundle $$\label{eq.canonical.line}
{\ensuremath{\mathbb{L}}}:=\Pspin(E)\times_{\Det}{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}$$ is called the [*canonical line bundle*]{} associated to $\Pspin(E)$. We have then a double covering map[^5] $$\label{eq.spin.covering}
\eta^{\rm c}_E \, : \, \Pspin(E)\longrightarrow\Pso(E)\times\Pu({\ensuremath{\mathbb{L}}}) \ ,$$ where $\Pu({\ensuremath{\mathbb{L}}}):=\Pspin(E)\times_{\Det}\u_1$ is the associated $\u_1$-principal bundle over $M$.
A $\spinc$-structure on a oriented Riemannian manifold is a $\spinc$-structure on its tangent bundle. If a group $K$ acts on the bundle $E$, preserving the orientation and the Euclidean structure, we define a $K$-equivariant $\spinc$-structure by requiring $\Pspin(E)$ to be a $K$-equivariant principal bundle, and (\[eq.spin.covering\]) to be $(K\times\spinc_n)$-equivariant.
Let $\Delta_{2m}$ be the complex Spin representation of $\spinc_{2m}$. Recall that $\Delta_{2m}=\Delta_{2m}^+\oplus\Delta_{2m}^-$ inherits a canonical Clifford action $\clif :{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^{2m}\to{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm End}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}(\Delta_{2m})$ which is $\spinc_{2m}$-equivariant, and which interchanges the grading : $\clif(v):\Delta_{2m}^{\pm}\to\Delta_{2m}^{\mp}$, for every $v\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^{2m}$. Let $$\label{eq.spinor.bundle}
{\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}(E):=\Pspin(E)\times_{\spinc_{2m}}\Delta_{2m}$$ be the spinor bundle over $M$, with the grading ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}(E):={\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}(E)^+\oplus{\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}(E)^-$. Since $E=\Pspin(E)\times_{\spinc_{2m}}{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^{2m}$, the bundle $p^*{\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}(E)$ is isomorphic to $\Pspin(E)\times_{\spinc_{2m}}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^{2m}\oplus\Delta_{2m})$.
Let $\overline{E}$ be the bundle $E$ with opposite orientation. A $\spinc$ structure on $E$ induces a $\spinc$ on $\overline{E}$, with the same canonical line bundle, and such that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}(\overline{E})^{\pm}={\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}(E)^{\mp}$.
Let ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}(E): p^*{\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}(E)^+\to p^*{\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}(E)^-$ be the symbol defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\Pspin(E)\times_{\spinc_{2m}}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^{2m}\oplus\Delta_{2m}^+)
&\longrightarrow&
\Pspin(E)\times_{\spinc_{2m}}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^{2m}\oplus\Delta_{2m}^-)\\
{} [p;v,w]&\longmapsto &[p,v,\clif(v)w]\ .
\end{aligned}$$
When $E$ is the tangent bundle of a manifold $M$, the symbol ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}(E)$ is denoted by ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}(M)$. If a group $K$ acts equivariantly on the $\spinc$-structure, we denote by ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}_{K}(E)$ the equivariant symbol.
The characteristic set of ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}(E)$ is $M\simeq\{{\rm zero\ section\
of}\ E\}$, hence it defines a class in ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}(E)$ if $M$ is compact (this class is a free generator of the ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}(M)$-module ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}(E)$ [@Atiyah-Bott-Shapiro]). When $E={\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M$, the symbol ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}(M)$ corresponds to the [*principal symbol*]{} of the $\spinc$ Dirac operator associated to the $\spinc$-structure [@Duistermaat96]. If moreover $M$ is compact, the number ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}(M)\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ is defined as the index of ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}(M)$. If we change the orientation, note that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}(\overline{M})=-{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}(M)$.
\[rem.q.change\] It should be noted that the choice of the metric on the fibers of $E$ is not essential in the construction. Let $g_0,g_1$ be two metric on the fibers of $E$, and suppose that $(E,g_0)$ admits a $\spinc$-structure denoted by $\Pspin(E,g_0)$. The trivial homotopy $g_t=(1-t).g_0 +t.g_1$ between the metrics, induces a homotopy between the principal bundles $\Pso(E,g_0)$, $\Pso(E,g_1)$ which can be lifted to a homotopy between $\Pspin(E,g_0)$ and a $\spinc$-bundle over $(E,g_1)$. When the base $M$ is compact, the corresponding symbols ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}(E,g_0)$ and ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}(E,g_1)$ define the same class in ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}(E)$.
These notions extend to the orbifold case. Let $M$ be a manifold with a locally free action of a compact Lie group $H$. The quotient ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}:=M/H$ is an orbifold, a space with finite quotient singularities. A $\spinc$ structure on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}$ is by definition a $H$-equivariant $\spinc$ structure on the bundle ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{H}M\to M$, where ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{H}M$ is identified with the pullback of ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}$ via the quotient map $\pi:M\to{\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}$. We define in the same way ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}})\in{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_{orb}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}})$, such that $\pi^{*}{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}})=
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}_{H}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{H}M)$. Here ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_{orb}$ denotes the $K$-theory of [*proper*]{} vector bundles [@Kawasaki81]. The pullback by $\pi$ induces an isomorphism $\pi^{*}:
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_{orb}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}})\simeq{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_{H}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{H}M)$. The number ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}})\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ is defined as the index of ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}})$, or equivalently as the multiplicity of the trivial representation in ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Index}}}_{M}^{H}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}_{H}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{H}M))$.
Consider now the case of a [*Hermitian*]{} vector bundle $E\to M$, of complex rank $m$. The orientation on the fibers of $E$ is given by the complex structure $J$. Let $\Pu(E)$ be the bundle of unitary frames on $E$. We denote by ${\rm i}:\u_m{\ensuremath{\hookrightarrow}}\so_{2m}$ the canonical inclusion map. We have a morphism ${\rm j}:\u_m\to\spinc_{2m}$ which makes the diagram $$\xymatrix@C=2cm{
\u_m\ar[r]^{\rm j} \ar[dr]_{{\rm i}\times\det} &
\spinc_{2m}\ar[d]^{\eta^{\rm c}}\\
& \so_{2m}\times\u_1\ .}$$ commutative [@Lawson-Michel]. Then $$\label{eq.J.spin}
\Pspin(E):=\spinc_{2m}\times_{\rm j}\Pu(E)$$ defines a $\spinc$-structure over $E$, with canonical line bundle equal to $\det_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}E$.
Let $M$ be a manifold equipped with an almost complex structure $J$. The symbol ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}(M)$ defined by the $\spinc$-structure (\[eq.J.spin\]), and the Thom symbol ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}(M,J)$ defined in Section \[ssection.thom\] coincide.
[*Proof.*]{} The Spinor bundle ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}$ is of the form $\Pspin({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M)\times_{\spinc_{2m}}\Delta_{2m}=$ $\Pu({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M)\times_{\u_m}\Delta_{2m}$. The map $\clif :{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^{2m}\to{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm End}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}(\Delta_{2m})$, when restricted to the $\u_m$-equivariant action through ${\rm j}$, is equivalent to the Clifford map $\Clif : {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^{2m}\to{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm End}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}(\wedge{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}^m)$ (with the canonical action of $\u_m$ on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^{2m}$ and $\wedge{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}^m$). Then ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}=\wedge_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M$ endowed with the Clifford action. $\Box$
\[spinc-tordu\] Let $P$ be a $\spinc$-structure over $M$, with bundle of spinors ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}$, and canonical line bundle ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{L}}}$. For every Hermitian line bundle $L\to M$, there exists a unique $\spinc$-structure $P_L$ with bundle of spinors ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}\otimes L$, and canonical line bundle ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{L}}}\otimes L^2$ ($P_L$ is called the $\spinc$-structure $P$ twisted by $L$).
[*Proof.*]{} Take $P_L=P\times_{\u_1}\Pu(L)$.
We finish this subsection with the following definitions. Let $(M,o)$ be an oriented manifold. Suppose that
- a connected compact Lie $K$ acts on $M$
- $(M,o,K)$ carries a $K$-equivariant $\spinc$-structure
- one has an equivariant map $\Psi :M\to{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}$.
Suppose first that $M$ is compact. The symbol ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}_{_K}(M)$ is then elliptic and defines a map $${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{^K}(M,-) :{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_{K}(M)\to R(K)$$ by the relation ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{^K}(M,V):={\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Index}}}_{M}^K({\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}_{_K}(M)\otimes
V)$. Thus ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{^K}(M,V)$ is the equivariant index of the $\spinc$ Dirac operator on $M$ twisted by $V$.
Let $\Psi_M$ be the equivariant vector field on $M$ defined by $\Psi_M(m):=\Psi(m)_M\vert_m$.
\[def.S-thom.loc\] The symbol ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}_{_K}(M)$ deformed by the map $\Psi$, which is denoted by ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}_{_K}^{\Psi}(M)$, is defined by the relation $${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{\Psi}(M)(m,v)
:={\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}_{_{K}}(M)(m,v-\Psi_{M}(m))$$ for any $(m,v)\in{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M$. The symbol ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{\Psi}(M)$ is transversally elliptic if and only if $\{m\in M,\, \Psi_M(m)=0\}$ is compact. When this holds one defines the localized map ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{^K}_{\Psi}(M,V):=
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Index}}}_{M}^K({\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{\Psi}(M)\otimes V)$.
We finish this section with an adaptation of Lemma 9.4 and Corollary 9.5 of [@pep4]\[Appendix B\] to the localized map ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{^K}_{\Psi}(M,-)$. Let $\beta\in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^*_{+}$ be a non-zero element in the center of the Lie algebra ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}\cong{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}^*$ of $K$. We suppose here that the subtorus $i:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}}_{\beta}{\ensuremath{\hookrightarrow}}K$, which is equal to the closure of $\{\exp(t.\beta),\ t\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\}$, acts trivially on $M$. Let ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\mu}(V),\, \mu\in \Lambda^{*}_+$ be the $K$-multiplicities of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{^K}_{\Psi}(M,V)$.
\[lem.poids.tore\] If ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\mu}(V)\neq 0$, $i^{*}(\mu)$ is a weight for the action of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}}_{\beta}$ on $V\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{L}}}^{\frac{1}{2}}$. If each weight $\alpha$ for the action of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}}_{\beta}$ on $V\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{L}}}^{\frac{1}{2}}$ satisfies $(\alpha,\beta)>0$, then $[{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{^K}_{\Psi}(M,V)]^K=0$.
$\spinc$ structures on symplectic reductions {#subsec.spinc.red}
--------------------------------------------
Let $(M,\omega,\Phi)$ be a Hamiltonian $K$-manifold, such that $\Phi$ is proper. Let $J$ be a $K$-invariant almost complex structure on $M$. And let $\tilde{L}$ be a $\kappa$-prequantum line bundle over $(M,\omega,J)$. Since we do not impose a compatibility condition between $J$ and $\omega$, the almost complex structure does not descend to the symplectic quotients in general. Nevertheless we prove in this section that the $\spinc$ prequantization defined by the data $(\tilde{L},J)$ induces a $\spinc$ prequantization on the symplectic quotients $M_{\mu+\rho_c}$.
Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$ be the subset $\Phi^{-1}({\rm interior}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^{*}_{+}))$. When ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}\neq\emptyset$, the Principal-cross-section Theorem tells us that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$ is a Hamiltonian $T$-submanifold of $M$, with moment map the restriction of $\Phi$ to ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$ [@L-M-T-W].
\[lem.Y.non.nul\] If the infinitesimal stabilizers for the $K$-action on $M$ are [*Abelian*]{}, the symplectic slice ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$ is not empty.
[*Proof.*]{} There exists a unique relatively open face $\tau$ of the Weyl chamber ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^*_+$ such that $\Phi(M)\cap\tau$ is dense in $\Phi(M)\cap{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^*_+$. The face $\tau$ is called the principal face of $(M,\Phi)$ [@L-M-T-W]. All points in the open face $\tau$ have the same connected centralizer $K_{\tau}$. The Principal-cross-section Theorem tells us that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}_{\tau}:=\Phi^{-1}(\tau)$ is a Hamiltonian $K_{\tau}$-manifold, where $[K_{\tau},K_{\tau}]$ acts trivially [@L-M-T-W]. Here we have assumed that the subalgebras ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}_m:=\{X\in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}},\, X_M(m)=0\}$, $m\in M$, are Abelian. Hence $[{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}_{\tau},{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}_{\tau}]\subset {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}_m$ for every $m\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}_{\tau}$, and this imposes $[{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}_{\tau},{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}_{\tau}]=0$. Therefore the subgroup $K_{\tau}$ is Abelian, and this is the case only if $\tau$ is the interior of the Weyl chamber. $\Box$
For the remaining of this section, we assume that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}\neq\emptyset$, so that the relative interior $\Delta^o$ of the moment polyhedron is a dense subset of $\Phi({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}})$. On $M$, we have the orientation $o(J)$ defined by the almost complex structure and the orientation $o(\omega)$ defined by the symplectic form. We denote their ‘quotient’ by ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}=\pm 1$. On the symplectic quotients we will have also two orientations, one induces by $\omega$, and the other induces by $J$, with the same ‘quotient’ ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$.
\[prop.spinc.induit.1\] The almost complex structure $J$ induces
i\) an orientation $o({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}})$ on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$, and
ii\) a $T$-equivariant $\spinc$ structure on $({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}},o({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}))$ with canonical line bundle $\det_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}})\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}_{-2\rho_{c}}$.
[*Proof.*]{} On ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$, we have the decomposition ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}}={\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}\oplus[{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}]$, where $[{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}]$ denotes the trivial bundle ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}\times{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}$ corresponding of the subspace of ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}}$ formed by the vector fields generated by the infinitesimal action of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}$. The choice of the Weyl chamber induces a complex structure on ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}$, and hence an orientation $o([{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}])$. This orientation can be also defined by a symplectic form of the type $\omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}}(X,Y)=\langle\xi,[X,Y]\rangle$, where $\xi$ belongs to the interior ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^*_+$. Let $o({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}})$ be the orientation on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$ defined by $o(J)\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}}=o({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}})
o([{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}])$. On ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$, we have also the orientation $o(\omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}})$ defined by the symplectic form $\omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}}$. Note that if $o(J)={\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\, o(\omega)$, we have also $o({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}})={\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\,
o(\omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}})$.
Let ${\rm P}:=\spinc_{2n}\times_{\u_{n}}\Pu({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M)$ be the $\spinc$ structure on $M$ induced by $J$ (see (\[eq.J.spin\])). When restricted to ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$, ${\rm P}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}}$ defines a $\spinc$ structure on the bundle ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}\oplus[{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}]$. Let $q$ be a $T$-invariant Riemannian structure on ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}\oplus[{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}]$ such that ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$ is orthogonal with $[{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}]$, and $q$ equals the Killing form on $[{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}]$. Following Remark \[rem.q.change\], ${\rm P}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}}$ induces a $\spinc$ structure ${\rm P}'$ on $({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}\oplus[{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}],q)$, with the same canonical line bundle ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{L}}}=\det_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}})$. Since the $\so_{2k}\times\u_{l}$-principal bundle $\Pso({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}})\times\u({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}})$ is a reduction[^6] of the $\so_{2n}$ principal bundle $\Pso({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}\oplus[{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}])$, we have the commutative diagram
$$\xymatrix@C=2cm{
{\rm Q}\ar[r]\ar[d] &
\Pso({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}})\times\u({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}})\times\Pu({\ensuremath{\mathbb{L}}})\ar[d]\\
{\rm P}'\ar[r]& \Pso({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}\oplus[{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}])\times\Pu({\ensuremath{\mathbb{L}}})\ ,
}$$
where ${\rm Q}$ is a $(\eta^{\rm c})^{-1}(\so_{2k}\times\u_{l})
\simeq\spinc_{2k}\times\u_{l}$-principal bundle. Finally we see that ${\rm Q}'={\rm Q}/\u_{l}$ is a $\spinc$ structure on ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$. Since $(\u({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}})\times\Pu({\ensuremath{\mathbb{L}}}))/\u_{l}\simeq\Pu({\ensuremath{\mathbb{L}}}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}_{-2\rho_{c}})$, the corresponding canonical line bundle is ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{L}}}'={\ensuremath{\mathbb{L}}}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}_{-2\rho_{c}}$. $\Box$
Let ${\rm Aff}(\Delta)$ be the affine subspace generated by moment polyhedron $\Delta$, and let $\overrightarrow{\Delta}$ be the subspace of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^*$ generated by $\{m-n\mid m,n\in\Delta\}$. Let $T_{\Delta}$ the subtorus of $T$ with Lie algebra ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}_{\Delta}$ equal to the orthogonal (for the duality) of $\overrightarrow{\Delta}$. It is not difficult to see that $T_{\Delta}$ corresponds to the connected component of the principal stabilizer for the $T$-action on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$.
Here we consider the symplectic quotient $M_{\xi}:=\Phi^{-1}(\xi)/T$ for [*generic quasi-regular values*]{} $\xi\in\Delta^o$ (see Definition \[def.regular\]). For such $\xi$, the fiber $\Phi^{-1}(\xi)$ is a smooth submanifold of $M$, with a locally free action of $T/T_{\Delta}$, and with a tubular neighborhood equivariantly diffeomorphic to $\Phi^{-1}(\xi)\times\overrightarrow{\Delta}$. Recall that $M_{\xi}$ inherits a canonical symplectic form $\omega_{\xi}$.
\[prop.spinc.induit.2\] Let $\mu\in\Lambda^*_+$ such that $\tilde{\mu}=\mu +\rho_c$ belongs to $\Delta$. Let $\tilde{L}$ be a $\kappa$-prequantum line bundle. For every generic quasi-regular value $\xi\in\Delta^o$, the $\spinc$ structures on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$, when twisted by $\tilde{L}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}_{-\mu}$, induces a $\spinc$ structure on the reduced space $M_{\xi}:=\Phi^{-1}(\xi)/T$ with canonical line bundle $(L_{2\omega}\vert_{\Phi^{-1}(\xi)}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}_{-2\tilde{\mu}})/T$. Here we have two choices for the orientations : $o(M_{\xi})$ induced by $o({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}})$, and $o(\omega_{\xi})$ defined by the symplectic form $\omega_{\xi}$. They are related by $o(M_{\xi})={\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\,o(\omega_{\xi})$.
The preceding Proposition will be used
i\) when $\xi=\mu +\rho_c$ is a generic quasi-regular value of $\Phi$: the symplectic quotient $(M_{\mu +\rho_c},\omega_{\mu +\rho_c})$ is then $\spinc$ prequantized. Or
ii\) for general $\mu +\rho_c\in\Delta$. One takes then $\xi$ generic quasi-regular close enough to $\mu +\rho_c$.
[*Proof of the Proposition.*]{} Let $\xi\in\Delta^o$ be a generic quasi-regular value of $\Phi$, and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}:=\Phi^{-1}(\xi)$. This is a submanifold of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$ with a trivial action of $T_{\Delta}$ and a locally free action of $T/T_{\Delta}$. We denote the quotient map by $\pi:{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}\to M_{\xi}$. We identify $\pi^{*}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M_{\xi})$ with the orthogonal complement (with respect to a Riemannian metric) of the trivial bundle $[{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}_{\Delta}]$ formed by the vector fields generated by the infinitesimal action of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}_{\Delta}$. On the other hand the tangent bundle ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$, when restricted to ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}$, decomposes as ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}={\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}\oplus[\overrightarrow{\Delta}]$, so we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq.decomposition.Y.Z}
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}&=&\pi^{*}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M_{\xi})\oplus[{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}_{\Delta}]\oplus[\overrightarrow{\Delta}]\nonumber\\
&=&\pi^{*}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M_{\xi})\oplus[{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}_{\Delta}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}]\ ,\end{aligned}$$ with the convention ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}_{\Delta}={\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}_{\Delta}\otimes i{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and $\overrightarrow{\Delta}={\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}_{\Delta}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$. Since ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}_{\Delta}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}$ is canonically oriented by the complex multiplication by $i$, the orientation $o({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}})$ determines an orientation $o(M_{\xi})$ on ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M_{\xi}$ through (\[eq.decomposition.Y.Z\]).
Now we proceed like the proof of Proposition \[prop.spinc.induit.2\]. Let ${\rm Q}'$ be the $\spinc$ structure on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$ introduced in Proposition \[prop.spinc.induit.2\], and let ${\rm Q}^{\mu}$ be ${\rm Q}'$ twisted by the line bundle $\tilde{L}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}_{-\mu}$ : its canonical line bundle is $\det_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M)\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}_{-2\rho_c}
\otimes(\tilde{L}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}_{-\mu})^2
=L_{2\omega}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}} \otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}_{-2\tilde{\mu}}$. The $\so_{2k'}\times\u_{l'}$-principal bundle $\Pso(\pi^{*}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M_{\xi}))\times\u({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}_{\Delta}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}})$ is a reduction[^7] of the $\so_{2k}$ principal bundle $\Pso(\pi^{*}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M_{\xi})\oplus[{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}_{\Delta}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}])$; we have the commutative diagram
$$\label{diagram.Q.seconde}
\xymatrix@C=2cm{
{\rm Q}''\ar[r]\ar[d] &
\Pso(\pi^{*}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M_{\xi}))\times\u({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}_{\Delta}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}})
\times\Pu({\ensuremath{\mathbb{L}}}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}})\ar[d]\\
{\rm Q}^{\mu}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}\ar[r] &
\Pso(\pi^{*}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M_{\xi})\oplus[{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}_{\Delta}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}])
\times\Pu({\ensuremath{\mathbb{L}}}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}})\ ,
}$$
where ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{L}}}=L_{2\omega}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}} \otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}_{-2\tilde{\mu}}$. Here ${\rm Q}''$ is a $(\eta^{\rm c})^{-1}(\so_{2k'}\times\u_{l'})
\simeq\spinc_{2k'}\times\u_{l'}$-principal bundle. The Kostant formula (\[eq.kostant\]) tells us that the action of $T_{\Delta}$ is trivial on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{L}}}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}$, since $\xi-\tilde{\mu}\in
\overrightarrow{\Delta}$. Thus the action of $T_{\Delta}$ is trivial on ${\rm Q}''$. Finally we see that ${\rm Q}_{\xi}={\rm Q}''/(\u_{l'}\times T)$ is a $\spinc$ structure on $M_{\xi}$ with canonical line bundle ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{L}}}_{\xi}=(L_{2\omega}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}} \otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}_{-2\tilde{\mu}})/T$. $\Box$
Definition of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}(M_{\mu+\rho_{c}})$ {#def.Q.M.mu}
------------------------------------------------------------
First we give three different ways to define the quantity ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}(M_{\mu+\rho_{c}})\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ for any $\mu\in\Lambda^{*}_{+}$. The compatibility of these different definitions proves Theorem \[quantization-non-compact-1\] and the ‘hard part’ of Proposition \[prop.Q.mu.ro\] simultaneously. First of all ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}(M_{\mu+\rho_{c}})=0$ if $\mu+\rho_{c}\notin \Delta$.
[*First definition*]{}.
If $\mu+\rho_{c}\in\Delta^o$ is a [*generic quasi regular*]{} value of $\Phi$, $M_{\mu+\rho_{c}}:=\Phi^{-1}(\mu+\rho_{c})/T$ is a symplectic orbifold. We know from Proposition \[prop.spinc.induit.2\] that $M_{\mu+\rho_{c}}$ inherits $\spinc$-structures, with the same canonical line bundle $(L_{2\omega}\vert_{\Phi^{-1}(\tilde{\mu})}
\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}_{-2\tilde{\mu}})/T$, for the two choices of orientation $o(M_{\mu+\rho_{c}})$ and $o(\omega_{\mu+\rho_{c}})$. We denote the index of the $\spinc$ Dirac operator associated to the $\spinc$ structure on $(M_{\mu+\rho_{c}},o(\omega_{\mu+\rho_{c}}))$ by ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}(M_{\mu+\rho_{c}})\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ and the index of the $\spinc$ Dirac operator associated to the $\spinc$ structure on $(M_{\mu+\rho_{c}},o(M_{\mu+\rho_{c}}))$ by ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}(M_{\mu+\rho_{c}},o(M_{\mu+\rho_{c}}))$. Since $o(M_{\mu+\rho_{c}})={\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\,o(\omega_{\mu+\rho_{c}})$, we have ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}(M_{\mu+\rho_{c}})={\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\,{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}(M_{\mu+\rho_{c}},o(M_{\mu+\rho_{c}}))$.
[*Second definition*]{}.
We can also define $Q(M_{\mu+\rho_{c}})$ by shift ‘desingularization’ as follows. If $\mu+\rho_{c}\in\Delta$, one considers generic quasi regular values $\xi\in\Delta^o$, close enough to $\mu+\rho_{c}$. Following Proposition \[prop.spinc.induit.2\], $M_{\xi}=\Phi^{-1}(\xi)/T$ inherits a $\spinc$ structure, with canonical line bundle $(L_{2\omega}\vert_{\Phi^{-1}(\xi)}
\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}_{-2\tilde{\mu}})/T$. Then we set ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}(M_{\mu+\rho_{c}}):={\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}(M_{\xi})$, where the RHS is the index of the $\spinc$ Dirac operator associated to the $\spinc$ structure on $(M_{\xi},o(\omega_{\xi}))$. If we take the orientation $o(M_{\xi})$ induced by $o({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}})$ we have another index ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}(M_{\xi},o(M_{\xi}))= {\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\ {\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}(M_{\xi})$. Here one has to show that these quantities does not depend on the choice of $\xi$ when $\xi$ is close enough to $\mu+\rho_{c}$. We will see that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}(M_{\mu+\rho_{c}})=0$ when $\mu+\rho_{c}\notin\Delta^o$.
[*Third definition*]{}.
We can use the characterization of the multiplicity ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\mu}(\tilde{L})$ given in Lemma \[lem.RR.0.mu\]. The number ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}(M_{\mu+\rho_{c}})$ is the multiplicity of the trivial representation in ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\,
RR_{0}^{^K}(M\times\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}},\tilde{L}\otimes\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}_{[-\mu]})$.
We have to show the compatibility of these definitions, that is $$\label{def.compatible.1}
{\rm if}\ \mu+\rho_c\in\Delta^o:\quad
\left[RR_{0}^{^K}(M\times\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}},\tilde{L}
\otimes\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}_{[-\mu]})\right]^K = {\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}(M_{\xi},o(M_{\xi}))$$ for any generic quasi regular value $\xi\in\Delta^o$ close enough to $\mu+\rho_{c}$. And $$\label{def.compatible.2}
{\rm if}\ \mu+\rho_c\notin\Delta^o:\quad
\left[RR_{0}^{^K}(M\times\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}},
\tilde{L}\otimes\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}_{[-\mu]})\right]^K=0\ .$$
We have proved already (Lemma \[lem.RR.0.mu\]) that $[RR_{0}^{^K}(M\times\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}},
\tilde{L}\otimes\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}_{[-\mu]})]^K=0$ if $\mu+\rho_{c}\notin \Delta$.
[**We work now with a fixed element $\mu\in\Lambda^*_{+}$ such that $\tilde{\mu}=\mu+\rho_c$ belongs to $\Delta$. During the remaining part of this section, ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$ will denote a small $T$-invariant open neighborhood of $\Phi^{-1}(\mu+\rho_{c})$ in the symplectic slice $\Phi^{-1}({\rm interior}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^*_+))$.**]{}
We will check in Subsection \[preuve.prop.2\], that the functions $\parallel\Phi-\tilde{\mu}\parallel^2$ and $\parallel\Phi-\xi\parallel^2$ have compact critical set on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$ when $\xi\in{\rm Aff}(\Delta)$ is close enough to $\tilde{\mu}$. Since the manifold $({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}},o({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}))$ carries a $T$-invariant $\spinc$-structure, we consider the localized maps ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{^T}_{\Phi-\tilde{\mu}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}},-)$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{^T}_{\Phi-\xi}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}},-)$ (see Definition \[def.S-thom.loc\]). The proof of (\[def.compatible.1\]) and (\[def.compatible.2\]) is divided into two steps. We first relate the maps $RR_{0}^{^K}(M\times\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}},-)$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{^T}_{\Phi-\tilde{\mu}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}},-)$ through the induction map $$\label{eq.induction.T.K}
\indT : {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}^{-\infty}}}(T)\longrightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}^{-\infty}}}(K)^{K}\ .$$ Here ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}^{-\infty}}}(T)$, ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}^{-\infty}}}(K)$ denote respectively the set of generalized functions on $T$ and $K$, and the $K$ invariants are taken with the conjugation action. The map $\indT$ is defined as follows : for $\phi\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}^{-\infty}}}(T)$, we have $\int_{K}\indT(\phi)(k)f(k)dk
=\frac{{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm vol}}}(K,dk)}{{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm vol}}}(T,dt)}\int_{T}\phi(t)f|_{T}(t)dt$, for every $f\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}^{\infty}}}(K)^{K}$.
\[prop.1\] Let $E$ and $F$ be respectively $K$-equivariant complex vector bundles over $M$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}$. We have the following equality $$RR_{0}^{^K}(M\times\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}},E \boxtimes F)
=\indT\left({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{^T}_{\Phi-\tilde{\mu}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}},E\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}}\otimes
F\vert_{\bar{e}})\right)$$ in $R^{-\infty}(K)$. It gives in particular that $$\left[RR_{0}^{^K}
(M\times\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}},E\boxtimes F)\right]^K=
\left[{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{^T}_{\Phi-\tilde{\mu}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}},E\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}}\otimes
F\vert_{\bar{e}})\right]^T\ .$$
After we compute the map ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{^T}_{\Phi-\tilde{\mu}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}},-)$ by making the shift $\tilde{\mu}\to\xi$.
\[prop.2\] Suppose $\xi\in{\rm Aff}(\Delta)$ is close enough to $\tilde{\mu}$. Then
i\) the maps ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{^T}_{\Phi-\tilde{\mu}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}},-)$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{^T}_{\Phi-\xi}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}},-)$ are equal,
ii\) if furthermore $\xi\in\Delta^o$ is a generic quasi-regular value of $\Phi$ we get $$\left[{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{^T}_{\Phi-\xi}
({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}},\tilde{L}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}}\otimes {\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}_{-\mu})\right]^T=
{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}(M_{\xi},o(M_{\xi})) \ ,$$
iii\) and if $\xi\notin\Delta$, $[{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{^T}_{\Phi-\xi}
({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}},\tilde{L}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}}\otimes {\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}_{-\mu})]^T=0$.
Finally, if $\xi\in{\rm Aff}(\Delta)$ is close enough to $\tilde{\mu}$, Propositions \[prop.1\] and \[prop.2\] give $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq.bord.delta}
\left[RR_{0}^{^K}
(M\times\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}},\tilde{L}\otimes\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}_{[-\mu]})\right]^K
&=& \left[{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{^T}_{\Phi-\tilde{\mu}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}},\tilde{L}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}}
\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}_{-\mu})\right]^T\\
&=& \left[{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{^T}_{\Phi-\xi}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}},\tilde{L}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}}
\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}_{-\mu})\right]^T \nonumber .\end{aligned}$$
If $\mu +\rho_{c}\in\Delta^o$, we choose $\xi\in\Delta^o$ close to $\mu+\rho_{c}$: in this case (\[def.compatible.1\]) follows from (\[eq.bord.delta\]) and the point $ii)$ of Proposition \[prop.2\]. If $\mu +\rho_{c}\notin\Delta^o$, we choose $\xi$ close to $\mu+\rho_{c}$ and not in $\Delta$: in this case (\[def.compatible.2\]) follows from (\[eq.bord.delta\]) and the point $iii)$ of Proposition \[prop.2\].
Propositions \[prop.1\] and \[prop.2\] are proved in the next subsections.
Proof of Proposition \[prop.1\] {#preuve.prop.1}
-------------------------------
The induction formula of Proposition \[prop.1\] is essentially identical to the one we proved in [@pep4]. The main difference is that the almost complex structure is not assumed to be compatible with the symplectic structure.
We identify the coadjoint orbit ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}$ with $K/T$. Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}$ be the Hamiltonian vector field of the function $\frac{-1}{2}\parallel\Phi_{\tilde{\mu}}\parallel^{2}:M\times \overline{K/T}\to{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$. Here ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$ denotes a small neighborhood of $\Phi^{-1}(\tilde{\mu})$ in the symplectic slice $\Phi^{-1}({\rm interior}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^*_+))$ such that the open subset ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}:=(K\times_{T}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}})\times \overline{K/T}$ is a neighborhood of $\Phi_{\tilde{\mu}}^{-1}(0)=
K\cdot(\Phi^{-1}(\tilde{\mu})\times\{\bar{e}\})$ which verifies $\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}}\cap\{ {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}=0\}
=\Phi_{\tilde{\mu}}^{-1}(0)$.
From Definition \[def.RR.beta\], the localized Riemann-Roch character $RR^{^K}_{0}(M\times \overline{K/T},-)$ is computed by means of the Thom class ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{K}^{\Phi_{\tilde{\mu}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}})\in
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_{K}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{K}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}})$. On the other hand, the localized map ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{^T}_{\Phi-\tilde{\mu}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}},-)$ is computed by means of the class ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}_{T}^{\Phi-\tilde{\mu}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}})\in
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_{T}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{T}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}})$ (see Definition \[def.S-thom.loc\]). Proposition \[prop.1\] will follow from a simple relation between these two transversally elliptic symbols.
First, we consider the isomorphism $\phi:{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}\to{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}'$, $\phi([k;y],[h])=[k;[k^{-1}h],y]$, where ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}':=K\times_{T}(\overline{K/T}\times{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}})$. Let $\phi^{*}:{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_{K}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{K}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}')\to {\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_{K}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{K}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}})$ be the induced isomorphism. Then one considers the inclusion $i:T{\ensuremath{\hookrightarrow}}K$ which induces an isomorphism $i_{*}:{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_{T}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{T}(\overline{K/T}\times{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}))\to
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_{K}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{K}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}')$ (see [@Atiyah74; @pep4]). Let $j:{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}{\ensuremath{\hookrightarrow}}\overline{K/T}\times{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$ be the $T$-invariant inclusion map defined by $j(y):=(\bar{e},y)$. We have then a pushforward map $j_{!}:
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_{T}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{T}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}})\to
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_{T}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{T}(\overline{K/T}\times{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}))$. Finally we get a map $$\Theta:=\phi^{*}\circ i_{*}\circ j_{!}\ :\
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_{T}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{T}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}})\longrightarrow {\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_{K}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{K}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}})\ ,$$ such that ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Index}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}}^{K}(\Theta(\sigma))=
\indT({\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Index}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}}^{T}(\sigma))$ for every $\sigma\in {\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_{T}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{T}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}})$ (see Section 3 in [@pep4]).
Proposition \[prop.1\] is an immediate consequence of the following
We have the equality $$\Theta\left({\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}_{T}^{\Phi-\tilde{\mu}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}})\right)=
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{K}^{\Phi_{\tilde{\mu}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}})\ .$$
[*Proof.*]{} Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}$ be the bundle of spinors on $K\times_{T}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$: ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}={\rm P}\times_{\spinc_{2k}}\Delta_{2k}$, where ${\rm P}\to \Pso({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}(K\times_{T}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}))\times\Pu({\ensuremath{\mathbb{L}}})$ is the $\spinc$ structure induced by the complex structure. From Proposition \[prop.spinc.induit.1\], we have the reductions
$$\label{eq.2.reduction}
\xymatrix@C=2cm{
{\rm Q}\ar[r]\ar[d] &
\Pso({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}})\times\u({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}})\times\Pu({\ensuremath{\mathbb{L}}}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}})\ar[d]\\
{\rm P}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}}\ar[r] \ar[d] &
\Pso({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}\oplus[{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}])\times\Pu({\ensuremath{\mathbb{L}}}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}})\ar[d]\\
{\rm P}\ar[r] & \Pso({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}(K\times_{T}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}))\times\Pu({\ensuremath{\mathbb{L}}})\ .
}$$
Here $Q/\u_{l}$ is the induced $\spinc$-structure on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$. Let us denote by $p :{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}(K\times_{T}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}})\to K\times_{T}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$, $p_{_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}}:{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}\to {\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$ and $p_{_{K/T}}:{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}(K/T)\to K/T$ the canonical projections. Using (\[eq.2.reduction\]), we see that $$p^{*}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}=\left( K\times_{T}p_{_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}}^{*}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}})
\right)\otimes\ p^{*}_{_{K/T}}\wedge_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}(K/T)\ ,$$ where ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}})$ is the spinor bundle on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$. Hence we get the decomposition $${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}_{K}(K\times_{T}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}})={\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{K}(K/T)\odot
K\times_{T}{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}_{T}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}})\ .$$ The transversally elliptic symbol ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{K}^{\Phi_{\tilde{\mu}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}})$ is equal to $$\left[
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{K}(K/T)\odot {\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{K}(\overline{K/T})\odot K\times_{T}{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}_{T}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}})
\right]_{{\rm deformed\ by}\ {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}^{\tilde{\mu}}} \ ,$$ hence $\sigma_{1}:=(\phi^{-1})^{*}{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{K}^{\Phi_{\tilde{\mu}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}})$ is equal to $$\left[
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{K}(K/T)\odot K\times_{T}
\left({\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{T}(\overline{K/T})\odot {\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}_{T}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}})\right)
\right]_{{\rm deformed\ by}\ {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}'} \ ,$$ where ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}^{'}=\phi_*({\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}^{\tilde{\mu}})$.
Using the decomposition ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}'\simeq K\times_{T}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}\oplus
K\times_{T}(\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}})\oplus {\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}})$, a small computation gives ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}'(m)=pr_{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}}(h\tilde{\mu})+
R(m) + {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_{\tilde{\mu}}(y)+ S(m)$ for $m=[k;[h],y]\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}'$, where[^8] $R(m)\in \overline{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}}$ and $S(m)\in {\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{y}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$ vanishes when $m\in K\times_{T}(\{\bar{e}\}\times{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}})$, i.e. when $[h]=\bar{e}$. Here ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_{\tilde{\mu}}$ is the Hamiltonian vector field of the function $\frac{-1}{2}\parallel\Phi-\tilde{\mu}\parallel^{2}:{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}\to{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$.
The transversally elliptic symbol $\sigma_{1}$ is equal to the exterior product $$\sigma_{1}(m, \xi_{1}+\xi_{2}+ v)=
\clif(\xi_{1}-pr_{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}}(h\tilde{\mu}))\odot
\clif(\xi_{2}-R(m))\odot
\clif(v-{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_{\tilde{\mu}}- S(m))\ ,$$ with $\xi_{1}\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}$, $\xi_{2}\in\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}}$, and $v\in{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$.
Now, we simplify the symbol $\sigma_{1}$ without changing its $K$-theoretic class. Since ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Char}}}(\sigma_{1})\cap{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{K}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}'
= K\times_{T}(\{\bar{e}\}\times{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}})$, we transform $\sigma_{1}$ through the $K$-invariant diffeomorphism $h=e^{X}$ from a neighborhood of $0$ in $\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}}$ to a neighborhood of $\bar{e}$ in $\overline{K/T}$. That gives $\sigma_{2}\in
K_{K}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{K}(K\times_{T}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}\times {\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}})))$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\sigma_{2}([k;X,y], \xi_{1}+\xi_{2}+ v)
=}\\
& &
\clif(\xi_{1}-pr_{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}}(e^{X}\tilde{\mu}))\odot
\clif(\xi_{2}-R(m))\odot
\clif(v-{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_{\tilde{\mu}}- S(m))\ .\end{aligned}$$ Now trivial homotopies link $\sigma_{2}$ with the symbol $$\sigma_{3}([k,X,y], \xi_{1}+\xi_{2}+ v)=
\clif(\xi_{1}-[X,\tilde{\mu}])\odot
\clif(\xi_{2})\odot
\clif(v-{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_{\tilde{\mu}})\ ,$$ where we have removed the terms $R(m)$ and $S(m)$, and where we have replaced $pr_{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}}(e^{X}\tilde{\mu})=[X,\tilde{\mu}]+{\rm o}([X,\tilde{\mu}])$ by the term $[X,\tilde{\mu}]$. Now we see that $\sigma_{3}=i_{*}
( \sigma_{4})$ where the symbol $\sigma_{4}\in K_{T}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{T}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}\times
{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}))$ is defined by $$\sigma_{4}(X,y;\xi_{2}+ v)=
\clif(-[X,\tilde{\mu}])\odot \clif(\xi_{2})\odot \clif(v-{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_{\tilde{\mu}})\ .$$ So $\sigma_{4}$ is equal to the exterior product of $(y,v)\to
\clif(v-{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_{\tilde{\mu}})$, which is ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}_{T}^{\Phi-\tilde{\mu}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}})$, with the transversally elliptic symbol on ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}$: $(X,\xi_{2})\to \clif(-[X,\tilde{\mu}])\odot \clif(\xi_{2})$. But the $K$-theoretic class of this former symbol is equal to $k_{!}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}})$, where $k:\{0\}
{\ensuremath{\hookrightarrow}}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}$ (see subsection 5.1 in [@pep4]). This shows that $$\sigma_{4}=k_{!}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}})\odot
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}_{T}^{\Phi-\tilde{\mu}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}})=
j_{!}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}_{T}^{\Phi-\tilde{\mu}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}))\ .$$ $\Box$
Proof of Proposition \[prop.2\] {#preuve.prop.2}
-------------------------------
In this subsection, $\tilde{\mu}=\mu +\rho_{c}$ is fixed, and is assumed to belong to $\Delta$. The induced moment map on the symplectic slice $\Phi^{-1}({\rm
Interior}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^*_+))$ is still denoted by $\Phi$. Let $r>0$ be the smallest non zero critical value of $\parallel\Phi-\tilde{\mu}\parallel$, and let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}=\Phi^{-1}\{\xi\in {\rm Aff}(\Delta),
\parallel\xi-\tilde{\mu}\parallel<\frac{r}{2}\}$.
For $\xi\in {\rm Aff}(\Delta)$, we consider $\xi_{t}=t\xi +(1-t)\tilde{\mu}$, $0\leq t\leq 1$. If one shows that there exists a compact subset ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{K}}}\subset{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$ such that ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Cr}}}(\parallel\Phi-\xi_{t}\parallel^2)\cap{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}\subset
{\ensuremath{\mathcal{K}}}$, the family ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}_{T}^{\Phi-\xi_{t}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}})$, $0\leq t\leq 1$, defines then a homotopy of transversally elliptic symbols between ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}_{T}^{\Phi-\tilde{\mu}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}})$ and ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}_{T}^{\Phi-\xi}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}})$. It shows that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{^T}_{\Phi-\tilde{\mu}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}},-)$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{^T}_{\Phi-\xi}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}},-)$ are equal.
We describe now ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Cr}}}(\parallel\Phi-\xi_{t}\parallel^2)\cap{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$ using a parametrization introduced in [@pep1]\[Section 6\]. Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}$ be the collection of affine subspaces of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^{*}$ generated by the image under $\Phi$ of submanifolds ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}$ of the following type: ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}$ is a connected component of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}^H$ which intersects $\Phi^{-1}(\tilde{\mu})$, $H$ being a subgroup of $T$. The set ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}$ is finite since $\Phi^{-1}(\tilde{\mu})$ is compact and thus has a finite number of stabilizers for the $T$ action. Note that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}$ is reduced to ${\rm Aff}(\Delta)$ if $\tilde{\mu}$ is a generic quasi regular value of $\Phi$. For $A\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}$, we denote by $\beta(-,A)$ the orthogonal projection on $A$. Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}_{\xi}=\{\beta(\xi,A)-\xi\mid A\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}\}$. Like in [@pep2]\[Section 4.3\], we see that $$\label{eq.decomposition.delta}
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Cr}}}(\parallel\Phi-\xi\parallel^2)\cap{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}=\bigcup_{\beta\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}_{\xi}}
\left({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}^{\beta}\cap\Phi^{-1}(\beta +\xi)\right)$$ if $\parallel\xi-\tilde{\mu}\parallel<\frac{r}{2}$. If we take ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{K}}}:=\Phi^{-1}\{\xi\in {\rm Aff}\Delta,
\parallel\xi-\tilde{\mu}\parallel\leq\frac{r}{3}\}$, we have ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Cr}}}(\parallel\Phi-\xi\parallel^2)\cap{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}\subset{\ensuremath{\mathcal{K}}}$ for $\parallel\xi-\tilde{\mu}\parallel\leq\frac{r}{3}$. Thus point $i)$ of Proposition \[prop.2\] is proved.
Now we fix $\xi\in {\rm Aff}(\Delta)$ close enough to $\tilde{\mu}$. And for each $\beta\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}_{\xi}$, we denote by ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{^T}_{\beta}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}},-)$ the map localized near ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}^{\beta}\cap\Phi^{-1}(\beta +\xi)$. The excision property tells us, like in (\[localisation-pep\]), that $${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{^T}_{\Phi-\xi}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}},-)=\sum_{\beta\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}_{\xi}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{^T}_{\beta}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}},-)\ .$$ Note that $0\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}_{\xi}$ if and only if $\Phi^{-1}(\xi)\neq\emptyset$. Point iii) of Proposition \[prop.2\] will follow from the following
\[lem.2\] Let $\xi\in {\rm Aff}(\Delta)$ close enough to $\tilde{\mu}$, and let $\beta$ be a non-zero element of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}_{\xi}$. Then $[{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{^T}_{\beta}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}},\tilde{L}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}}\otimes {\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}})]^T=0$. Hence $[{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{^T}_{\Phi-\xi}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}},\tilde{L}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}}\otimes
{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}_{-\mu})]^T=0$, if $\xi\notin\Delta$.
For the point $ii)$ of Proposition \[prop.2\], we also need the
\[lem.1\] If $\xi\in\Delta^o$ is a generic quasi regular value of $\Phi$, we have $[{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{^T}_{0}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}},\tilde{L}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}}\otimes
{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}_{-\mu})]^T={\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}(M_{\xi},o(M_{\xi}))$.
Other versions of Lemmas \[lem.1\] and \[lem.2\] are already known : in the $\spin$-case for an $S^1$-action by Vergne [@Vergne96], and by the author [@pep4] when the $\spinc$-structure comes from an almost complex structure.
We review briefly the arguments, since they work in the same way. We consider the $\spinc$ structure on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$ defined in Proposition \[prop.spinc.induit.1\], that we twist by the line bundle $\tilde{L}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}_{-\mu}$ : it defines a $\spinc$ structure ${\rm Q}^{\mu}$ on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$ with canonical line bundle ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{L}}}^{\mu}:= L_{2\omega}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}_{-2\tilde{\mu}}$. We consider then the symbol ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}_{T,\mu}^{\Phi-\xi}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}})$ constructed with ${\rm Q}^{\mu}$ (see Definition \[def.S-thom.loc\]). For $\beta\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}_{\xi}$, the term ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{^T}_{\beta}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}},\tilde{L}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}}\otimes
{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}_{-\mu})$ is by definition the $T$-index of ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}_{T,\mu}^{\Phi-\xi}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}})\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}^{\beta}}$, where ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}^{\beta}$ is a sufficiently small open neighborhood of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}^{\beta}\cap\Phi^{-1}(\beta +\xi)$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$.
[*Proof of Lemma \[lem.1\].*]{} A neighborhood ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}^0$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}:=\Phi^{-1}(\xi)$ is diffeomorphic to a neighborhood of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}\times\overrightarrow{\Delta}$, where $\Phi-\xi:{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}\times\overrightarrow{\Delta}\to
\overrightarrow{\Delta}$ is the projection to the second factor. Let $pr: {\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}\times\overrightarrow{\Delta}\to {\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}$ be the projection to the first factor. We still denote by ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{\mu}$ the $\spinc$-structure on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}\times\overrightarrow{\Delta}$ equal to $pr^*({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{\mu}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}})$. We easily show that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{^T}_{\beta}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}},\tilde{L}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}}\otimes
{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}_{-\mu})$ is equal to the $T$-index of $\sigma_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}={\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}_{T,\mu}^{\Phi-\xi}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}\times\overrightarrow{\Delta})$. Let ${\rm Q}''$ be the reduction of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{\mu}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}$ introduced in (\[diagram.Q.seconde\]). Since ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{\mu}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}=\spinc_{2k}\times_{(\spinc_{2k'}\times\u_{2l'})}{\rm Q}''$, the bundle of spinors ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}$ over ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}\times\overrightarrow{\Delta}$ decomposes as $${\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}=pr^*\Big(\pi^*{\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}(M_{\xi})\otimes
{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}\times\wedge({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}_{\Delta}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}})\Big)\ .$$ Here ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}(M_{\xi})$ is the bundle of spinors on $M_{\xi}$ induces by the $\spinc$-structure ${\rm Q}''/\u_{2l'}$, and $\pi:{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}\to
M_{\xi}$ is the quotient map. Inside the trivial bundle ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}\times({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}_{\Delta}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}})$, we have identified ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}\times({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}_{\Delta}\otimes i{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ with the subspace of ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}$ formed by the vector fields generated by the infinitesimal action of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}_{\Delta}$, and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}\times({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}_{\Delta}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ with ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}\times\overrightarrow{\Delta}\subset
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}\times\overrightarrow{\Delta})\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}$. For $(z,f)\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}\times\overrightarrow{\Delta}$, let us decompose $v\in {\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{(z,f)}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}\times\overrightarrow{\Delta})$ as $v=v_1 +
X+i Y$, where $v_1\in\pi^*({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M_{\xi})$, and $X+i Y\in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}_{\Delta}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}$. The map $\sigma_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}(z,f;v_1 +X+i Y)$ acts on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}(M_{\xi})_z\otimes
\wedge({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}_{\Delta}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}})$ as the product $$\clif_z(v_1)\odot \clif(X+i(Y-f))\ ,$$ which is homotopic[^9] to the transversally elliptic symbol $$\ \clif_z(v_1)\odot \clif(f+iX)\ .$$ So we have proved that $\sigma_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}}=j_!\circ\pi^*({\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm S-Thom}}}(M_{\xi}))$, where $j_!: K_T({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_T{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}})\to K_T({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_T({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}\times\overrightarrow{\Delta}))$ is induced by the inclusion $j:{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}{\ensuremath{\hookrightarrow}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}\times\overrightarrow{\Delta}$. The last equality finishes the proof (see [@pep4]\[Section 6.1\]).
[*Proof of Lemma \[lem.2\].*]{} The equality $[{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{^T}_{\beta}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}},\tilde{L}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}}\otimes
{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}_{-\mu})]^T=0$ comes from a localization formula on the submanifold ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}^{\beta}$ for the map ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{^T}_{\beta}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}},-)$ (see [@pep4; @Vergne96]). The normal bundle ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}^{\beta}$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$ carries a complex structure $J_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}}$ on the fibers such that each ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}}_{\beta}$-weight $\alpha$ on $({\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}},J_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}})$ satisfies $(\alpha,\beta)>0$. The principal bundle ${\rm Q}^{\mu}$, when restricted to ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}^{\beta}$ admits the reduction
$$\label{diagram.Q.beta}
\xymatrix@C=2cm{
{\rm Q}'\ar[r]\ar[d] &
\Pso({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}^{\beta})\times\Pu({\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}})
\times\Pu({\ensuremath{\mathbb{L}}}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}^{\beta}})\ar[d]\\
{\rm Q}^{\mu}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}^{\beta}}\ar[r] &
\Pso({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}^{\beta}\oplus{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}})
\times\Pu({\ensuremath{\mathbb{L}}}^{\mu}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}^{\beta}})\ ,
}$$
Hence ${\rm Q}^{\beta}:={\rm Q}'/\u(l)$ is a $\spinc$-structure on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}^{\beta}$ with canonical line bundle equal to ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{L}}}^{\beta}:=
{\ensuremath{\mathbb{L}}}^{\mu}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}^{\beta}}\otimes(\det{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}})^{-1}=
L_{2\omega}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}^{\beta}}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}_{-2\tilde{\mu}}\otimes(\det{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}})^{-1}$. Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^T_{\beta}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}^{\beta},-)$ be the map defined by ${\rm Q}^{\beta}$ and localized near $\Phi^{-1}(\beta+\xi)\cap{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}^{\beta}$ by $\Phi-\xi$. Following the argument of [@pep4]\[Section 6\] one obtains $${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{^T}_{\beta}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}},\tilde{L}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}}\otimes
{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}_{-\mu})=(-1)^{l}\sum_{k\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{^T}_{\beta}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}^{\beta},
\det{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}\otimes S^k({\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}))\ ,$$ where $S^k({\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}})$ is the k-th symmetric product of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}$, and $l={\rm rank}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}$. Thus, it is sufficient to prove that $[{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}^{^T}_{\beta}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}^{\beta},\det{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}\otimes S^k({\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}))]^T=0$ for every $k\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$. For this purpose, we use Lemma \[lem.poids.tore\]. Let $\alpha$ be the ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}}_{\beta}$-weight on $\det{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}$. From the Kostant formula (\[eq.kostant\]), the ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}}_{\beta}$-weight on $L_{2\omega}\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}^{\beta}}$ is equal to $2(\beta +\xi)$. Hence any ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}}_{\beta}$-weight $\gamma$ on $\det{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}\otimes S^k({\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}})\otimes({\ensuremath{\mathbb{L}}}^{\beta})^{1/2}$ is of the form $$\gamma=\beta+\xi-\tilde{\mu}+\frac{1}{2}\alpha + \delta$$ where $\delta$ is a ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}}_{\beta}$-weight on $S^k({\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}})$. So $(\gamma,\beta)=(\beta+\xi-\tilde{\mu},\beta)+\frac{1}{2}(\alpha,\beta) +
(\delta,\beta)$. But the ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{T}}}_{\beta}$-weights on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}$ are ‘positive’ for $\beta$, so $(\alpha,\beta)>0$ and $(\delta,\beta)\geq 0$. On the other hand, $\beta +\xi=\beta(\xi,A)$ is the orthogonal projection of $\xi$ on some affine subspace $A\subset{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^*_+$ which contains $\tilde{\mu}$: hence $(\beta+\xi-\tilde{\mu},\beta)=0$. This proves that $(\gamma,\beta)>0$. $\Box$
Quantization and the discrete series
====================================
In this section we apply Theorem \[quantization-non-compact-1\] to the coadjoint orbits that parametrize the discrete series of a real, connected, semi-simple Lie group $G$, with finite center. Nice references on the subject of ‘the discrete series’ are [@Schmid97; @Duflo77].
Let $K$ be a maximal compact subgroup of $G$, and $T$ be a maximal torus in $K$. For the remainder of this section, we assume that $T$ is a Cartan subgroup of $G$. The discrete series of $G$ is then non-empty and is parametrized by a subset $\widehat{G}_{d}$ in the dual ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^*$ of the Lie algebra of $T$ [@Harish-Chandra65-66].
Let us fix some notation. Let ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}_c\subset{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}\subset\Lambda^{*}$ be respectively the set of (real) roots for the action of $T$ on ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}$. We choose a system of positive roots ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}_{c}^{+}$ for ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}_{c}$, we denote by ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^{*}_{+}$ the corresponding Weyl chamber, and we let $\rho_{c}$ be half the sum of the elements of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}_{c}^{+}$. We denote by $B$ the Killing form on ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}$. It induces a scalar product (denoted by $(-,-)$) on ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}$, and then on ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^{*}$. An element $\lambda\in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^{*}$ is called [*regular*]{} if $(\lambda,\alpha)\neq 0$ for every $\alpha\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}$, or equivalently, if the stabilizer subgroup of $\lambda$ in $G$ is $T$. Given a system of positive roots ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}^{+}$ for ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}$, consider the subset $\Lambda^{*}+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\alpha\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}^{+}}\alpha$ of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^*$. This does not depend on the choice of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}^{+}$, and we denote it by $\Lambda^{*}_{\rho}$ [@Duflo77].
The discrete series of $G$ are parametrized by $$\label{G-hat}
\widehat{G}_{d}:=\{\lambda\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^{*},\lambda\ {\rm regular}\
\}\cap \Lambda^{*}_{\rho}\cap {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^{*}_{+}\ .$$ When $G=K$ is compact, the set $\widehat{G}_{d}$ equals $\Lambda^{*}_{+}+\rho_{c}$, and it parametrizes the set of irreducible representations of $K$. Harish-Chandra has associated to any $\lambda\in \widehat{G}_{d}$ an invariant eigendistribution on $G$, denoted by $\Theta_{\lambda}$, which is shown to be the global trace of an irreducible, square integrable, unitary representation of $G$.
On the other hand we associate to $\lambda\in\widehat{G}_{d}$, the regular coadjoint orbit $M:=G\cdot \lambda$. It is a symplectic manifold with a Hamiltonian action of $K$. Since the vectors $X_{M},\, X\in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}$, span the tangent space at every $\xi\in M$, the symplectic $2$-form is determined by $$\omega(X_{M},Y_{M})_{\xi}=\langle \xi,[X,Y]\rangle\ .$$ The corresponding moment map $\Phi:M\to{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}^*$ for the $K$-action is the composition of the inclusion $i: M{\ensuremath{\hookrightarrow}}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}^*$ with the projection ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}^*\to{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}^*$. The vector $\lambda$ determines a choice ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}^{+,\lambda}$ of positive roots for the $T$-action on ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}$ : $\alpha\in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}^{+,\lambda}\Longleftrightarrow
(\alpha,\lambda)>0$. We recall now how the choice of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}^{+,\lambda}$ determines a complex structure on $M$. First take the decomposition ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}={\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}\,\oplus\,\sum_{\alpha\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}_{\alpha}$ where ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}_{\alpha}:=\{v\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}\mid \exp(X).v=
e^{i\langle\alpha,X\rangle}v\ {\rm for\ any}\ X\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}$}. It gives the following $T$-equivariant decomposition of the complexified tangent space of $M$ at $\lambda$ : $${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{\lambda}M\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}=\sum_{\alpha\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}_{\alpha}={\ensuremath{\mathfrak{n}}}\oplus
\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{n}}}}\ ,$$ with ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{n}}}=\sum_{\alpha\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}^{+,\lambda}}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}_{\alpha}$. We have then a $T$-equivariant isomorphism ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}:{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{\lambda}M\to {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{n}}}$ equal to the composition of the inclusion ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{\lambda}M{\ensuremath{\hookrightarrow}}{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{\lambda}M\otimes{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}$ with the projection ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{n}}}\oplus\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{n}}}}\to {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{n}}}$. The $T$-equivariant complex structure $J_{\lambda}$ on ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{\lambda}M$ is determined by the relation ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}(J_{\lambda}v)=i\,{\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}(v)$. Hence, the set of real infinitesimal weights for the $T$-action on $({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{\lambda}M,J_{\lambda})$ is ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}^{+,\lambda}$. Since $M$ is a homogeneous space, $J_{\lambda}$ defines an invariant almost complex structure $J$ on $M$, which is in fact integrable. Through the isomorphism $M\cong G/T$, the canonical line bundle $\kappa=\det_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}M)^{-1}$ is equal to $\kappa=G\times_{T}{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}_{-2\rho}$ with $\rho=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\alpha\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}^{+,\lambda}}\alpha$.
If $\lambda\in \widehat{G}_{d}$, then $\lambda-\rho$ is a weight, and $$\label{L.tilde.G.lambda}
\tilde{L}:=G\times_{T}{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}_{\lambda-\rho}\to G/T$$ is a $\kappa$-prequantum line bundle over $(M,\omega,J)$. We have shown in [@pep3], that ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Cr}}}(\parallel\Phi\parallel^2)$ is compact, equal to the $K$-orbit $K\cdot\lambda$. Then the generalized Riemann-Roch character $RR_{\Phi}^{^K}(M,-)$ is well defined (see Definition \[def.RR.phi\]). The main result of this section is the following
\[th.theta=RR\] We have the following equality of tempered distributions on $K$ $$\Theta_{\lambda}\vert_{K}=(-1)^{\frac{\dim(G/K)}{2}}\,
RR_{\Phi}^{^K}(G\cdot \lambda,\tilde{L})\ ,$$ where $\Theta_{\lambda}\vert_{K}$ is the restriction of the eigendistribution $\Theta_{\lambda}$ to the subgroup $K$.
The proof of Theorem \[th.theta=RR\] is given in Subsection \[subsec.preuve.theoreme\]. It uses the Blattner formulas in an essential way (see Subsection \[subsec.K.multiplicite\]).
With Theorem \[th.theta=RR\] at our disposal we can exploit the result of Theorem \[quantization-non-compact-1\] to compute the $K$-multiplicities, ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\mu}(\lambda)\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$, of $\Theta_{\lambda}\vert_{K}$ in term of the reduced spaces. By definition we have $$\label{pi-lambda-K}
\Theta_{\lambda}\vert_{K}=\sum_{\mu\in\Lambda^{*}_{+}}
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\mu}(\lambda)\, \chi_{_{\mu}}^{_K} \quad {\rm in} \quad
R^{-\infty}(K)\ .$$
The moment map $\Phi:G\cdot \lambda\to{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}^{*}$ is [*proper*]{} since the $G\cdot \lambda$ is closed in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}^*$ [@pep3]. We show (Lemma \[forme-normale\]) that the moment polyhedron $\Delta=\Phi(G\cdot \lambda)\cap{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^*_+$ is of dimension $\dim T$. Thus on the relative interior $\Delta^o$ of the moment polyhedron, the notions of [*generic quasi-regular values*]{} and [*regular values*]{} coincide : they concern the elements $\xi\in\Delta^o$ such that $\Phi^{-1}(\xi)$ is a smooth submanifold with a locally free action of $T$. We have shown (Subsection \[def.Q.M.mu\]) how to define the quantity $Q((G\cdot \lambda)_{\mu+\rho_c})\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ as the index of a suitable $\spinc$ Dirac operator on $\Phi^{-1}(\xi)/T$, where $\xi\in\Delta^o$ is a regular value of $\Phi$ close enough to $\mu+\rho_c$.
\[prop.K.multiplicite\] For every $\mu\in\Lambda^*_+$, we have $${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\mu}(\lambda)= {\ensuremath{\mathcal{Q}}}\left((G\cdot \lambda)_{\mu+\rho_c}\right)\ .$$ In particular ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\mu}(\lambda)=0$ if $\mu+\rho_c$ does not belong to the relative interior of the moment polyhedron $\Delta$.
[*Proof.*]{} A small check of orientations shows that ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}=(-1)^{\frac{\dim(G/K)}{2}}$, thus this proposition follows from Theorems \[quantization-non-compact-1\] and \[th.theta=RR\] if one checks that the following holds: $(G\cdot \lambda,\Phi)$ satisfies Assumption \[hypothese.phi.t.carre\], and the infinitesimal $K$-stabilizers are Abelian. The first point will be handled in Subsection \[subsec.hyp.phi.2\]. The second point is obvious since $M\cong G/T$: all the $G$-stabilizers are conjugate to $T$, so all the $K$-stabilizers are Abelian. $\Box$
Blattner formulas {#subsec.K.multiplicite}
-----------------
In this section, we fix $\lambda\in \widehat{G}_{d}$. Let ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}^{+,\lambda}$ be the system of positive roots defined $\lambda$: $\alpha\in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}^{+,\lambda}\Longleftrightarrow
(\alpha,\lambda)>0$. Then ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}^{+}_{c}
\subset{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}^{+,\lambda}$, and $\rho=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\alpha\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}^{+,\lambda}}
\alpha$ decomposes in $\rho=\rho_{c}+\rho_{n}$ where $\rho_{n}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\alpha\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}^{+}_{n}}\alpha$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}^{+}_{n}={\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}^{+,\lambda}-{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}^{+}_{c}$.
Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}:\Lambda^{*}\mapsto {\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$ be the partition function associated to the set ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}^{+}_{n}$ : for $\mu\in \Lambda^{*}$, ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}(\mu)$ is the number of distinct ways we can write $\mu=
\sum_{\alpha\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}^{+}_{n}}k_{\alpha}\alpha$ with $k_{\alpha}\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$ for all $\alpha$. The following Theorem is known as the Blattner formulas and was first proved by Hecht and Schmid [@Hecht-Schmid].
\[Blattner\] For $\mu\in\Lambda^{*}_{+}$, we have $${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm m}}}_{\mu}(\lambda)=\sum_{w\in
W}(-1)^w{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}\Big(w(\mu+\rho_{c})-(\mu_{\lambda}+\rho_{c})\Big)\ ,$$ where[^10] $\mu_{\lambda}:=\lambda-\rho_{c}+\rho_{n}$. Here $W$ is the Weyl group of $(K,T)$.
Using Theorem \[Blattner\], we can describe $\Theta_{\lambda}\vert_{K}$ through the holomorphic induction map $\HolT: R^{-\infty}(T)\to R^{-\infty}(K)$. Recall that $\HolT$ is characterized by the following properties: i) $\HolT(t^{\mu})=\chi_{_{\mu}}^{_K}$ for every dominant weight $\mu\in\Lambda^{*}_{+}$; ii) $\HolT(t^{w\circ\mu})=(-1)^w\HolT(t^{\mu})$ for every $w\in W$ and $\mu\in\Lambda^{*}$; iii) $\HolT(t^{\mu})=0$ if $W\circ\mu\cap \Lambda^{*}_{+}=\emptyset$. Using these properties we have $$\label{eq.induit.i}
\sum_{\mu\in\Lambda^{*}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}(\mu)\,
\HolT(t^{\mu})=\sum_{\mu\in\Lambda^{*}_{+}}
\Big[\sum_{w\in W}(-1)^w{\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}(w\circ\mu)\Big]\,
\chi_{_{\mu}}^{_K}\ ,$$ for every map ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}:\Lambda^{*}\to {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$.
For a weight $\alpha\in\Lambda^{*}$, with $(\lambda,\alpha)\neq 0$, let us denote the oriented inverse of $(1-t^{\alpha})$ in the following way $$[1-t^{\alpha}]^{-1}_{\lambda}=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\sum_{k\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}}t^{k\alpha}\ , & {\rm if} \quad (\lambda,\alpha)> 0 \\
-t^{-\alpha}\sum_{k\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}}t^{-k\alpha}\ , & {\rm if} \quad (\lambda,\alpha)<0\ .
\end{array}\right.$$ Let $A=\{\alpha_{1},\cdots,\alpha_{l}\}$ be a set of weights with $(\lambda,\alpha_{i})\neq 0,\,\forall i$. We denote by $A^{+}=\{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}_{1}\alpha_{1},\cdots,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}_{l}\alpha_{l}\}$ the corresponding set of polarized weights: ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}_{i}=\pm 1$ and $(\lambda,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}_{i}\alpha_{i})> 0$ for all $i$. The product $\Pi_{\alpha\in A} [1-t^{\alpha}]^{-1}_{\lambda}$ is well defined in $R^{-\infty}(T)$, and is denoted by $[\Pi_{\alpha\in A}(1-t^{\alpha})]^{-1}_{\lambda}$. A small computation shows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{produit-infini}
\Big[\Pi_{\alpha\in A}(1-t^{\alpha})\Big]^{-1}_{\lambda}
&=& (-1)^{r}\,t^{-\gamma}\Big[\Pi_{\alpha\in A^{+}}
(1-t^{\alpha})\Big]^{-1}_{\lambda} \nonumber\\
&=&
(-1)^{r}\,t^{-\gamma}\sum_{\mu\in\Lambda^{*}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}_{A^+}(\mu)\,
t^{\mu}\ .\end{aligned}$$ Here ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}_{A^+}:\Lambda^{*}\mapsto {\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$ is the partition function associated to $A^+$, $\gamma=\sum_{(\lambda,\alpha)<0}\alpha$, and $r=\sharp\{\alpha\in A,\, (\lambda,\alpha)<0\}$. This notation is compatible with the one we used in [@pep4]\[Section 5\]. If $V$ is a complex $T$-vector space where the subspace fixed by $\lambda$ is reduced to $\{0\}$, then $\wedge^{\bullet}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}V\,\in R(T)$ admits a polarized inverse $[\wedge^{\bullet}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}V]^{-1}_{\lambda}=
[\Pi_{\alpha\in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}(V)}(1-t^{\alpha})]^{-1}_{\lambda}$, where ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}(V)$ is the set of real infinitesimal $T$-weights on $V$.
\[lem.theta.RR\] We have the following equality in $R^{-\infty}(K)$ $$\Theta_{\lambda}\vert_{K}=\HolT\Big(t^{\mu_{\lambda}}
\Big[\Pi_{\alpha\in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}_{n}^{+}}(1-t^{\alpha})\Big]^{-1}_{\lambda}\Big)\ .$$
[*Proof.*]{} Let $\Theta\in R^{-\infty}(K)$ be the RHS in the equality of the Lemma. From (\[produit-infini\]), we have $\Theta=\sum_{\mu\in\Lambda^{*}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}(\mu)\,
\HolT(t^{\mu+\mu_{\lambda}})=\sum_{\mu\in\Lambda^{*}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}(\mu-\mu_{\lambda})\,
\HolT(t^{\mu})$. If we use now (\[eq.induit.i\]), we see that multiplicity of $\Theta$ relative to the highest weight $\mu\in\Lambda^{*}_{+}$ is $\sum_{w\in W}(-1)^w{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}(w(\mu +\rho_{c})-(\mu_{\lambda}+\rho_{c}))$. From Theorem \[Blattner\] we conclude that $\Theta_{\lambda}\vert_{K}=\Theta$. $\Box$
Proof of Theorem \[th.theta=RR\] {#subsec.preuve.theoreme}
---------------------------------
In Lemma \[lem.theta.RR\] we have used the Blattner formulas to write $\Theta_{\lambda}\vert_{K}$ in term of the holomorphic induction map $\HolT$. Theorem \[th.theta=RR\] is then proved if one shows that $RR_{\Phi}^{^K}(G\cdot \lambda,\tilde{L})=(-1)^r \HolT(t^{\mu_{\lambda}}
[\Pi_{\alpha\in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}_{n}^{+}}(1-t^{\alpha})]^{-1}_{\lambda})$, with $\mu_{\lambda}=\lambda-\rho_c+\rho_n$, and $r=\frac{1}{2}\dim(G/K)$. More generally, we show in this section that for any $K$-equivariant vector bundle $V\to G\cdot \lambda$ $$\label{eq.theta=RR}
RR_{\Phi}^{^K}(G\cdot \lambda,V)= (-1)^r\HolT\Big(V_{\lambda}.t^{2\rho_n}.
\Big[\Pi_{\alpha\in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}_{n}^{+}}(1-t^{\alpha})\Big]^{-1}_{\lambda}\Big)\ ,$$ where $V_{\lambda}\in R(T)$ is the fiber of $V$ at $\lambda$.
First we recall why ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Cr}}}(\parallel\Phi\parallel^{2})=K\cdot\lambda$ in $M:=G\cdot\lambda$ (see [@pep3] for the general case of closed coadjoint orbits). One can work with an adjoint orbit $M:=G\cdot\tilde{\lambda}$ through the $G$-identification ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}^{*}\simeq{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}$ given by the Killing form; then $\Phi:M\to{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}$ is just the restriction on $M$ of the (orthogonal) projection ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}\to{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}$. Let ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}$ be the orthogonal complement of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}$. Every $m\in M$ decomposes as $m=x_{m}+y_{m}$, with $x_{m}=\Phi(m)$ and $y_{m}\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}$. The Hamiltonian vector field of $\frac{-1}{2}\parallel\Phi\parallel^{2}$ is ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_{m}=[x_{m},m]=[x_{m},y_{m}]$ (see \[def.H\]). Thus $${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Cr}}}(\parallel\Phi\parallel^{2})=\{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}=0\}=
\{m\in M,\ [x_{m},y_{m}]=0\}\ .$$ Now, since $\tilde{\lambda}$ is elliptic, every $m\in M$ is also elliptic. If $m\in{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Cr}}}(\parallel\Phi\parallel^{2})$, $[m,x_{m}]=0$ and $m,x_{m}$ are elliptic, hence $y_{m}=m-x_{m}$ is elliptic and so is equal to $0$. Finally ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Cr}}}(\parallel\Phi\parallel^{2})=G\cdot\tilde{\lambda}
\cap{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}=K\cdot\tilde{\lambda}$.
According to Definition \[def.RR.phi\], the computation of $RR_{\Phi}^{^K}(G\cdot
\lambda,\tilde{L})$ holds on a small $K$-invariant neighborhood of $K\cdot\lambda$ of $G\cdot\lambda$. Our model for the computation will be $$\tilde{M}:=K\times_T{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}$$ endowed with the canonical $K$-action. The tangent bundle ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}\tilde{M}$ is isomorphic to $K\times_T({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{r}}}\oplus{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}})$ where ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{r}}}$ is the $T$-invariant complement of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}$. One has a symplectic form $\tilde{\Omega}$ on $\tilde{M}$ defined by $\tilde{\Omega}_{m}(V,V')=
\langle\lambda,[X,X']+[v,v']\rangle$. Here $m=[k,x]\in K\times_T{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}$, and $V=[k,x;X+v]$, $X'=[k,x;X'+v']$ are two tangent vectors, with $X,X'\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{r}}}$ and $v,v'\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}$. A small computation shows that the $K$-action on $(K\times_T{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}},\tilde{\Omega})$ is Hamiltonian with moment map $\tilde{\Phi}:\tilde{M}\to{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}^*$ defined by $$\tilde{\Phi}([k,x])=k\cdot\left(\lambda-\frac{1}{2}pr_{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^*}(\lambda
\circ{\rm ad}(x)\circ{\rm ad}(x))\right)\ .$$ Here ${\rm ad}(x)$ is the adjoint action of $x$, and $pr_{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^*}:{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}^*\to{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^*$ is the projection. Note first that the tangent space ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{\lambda}M$ and ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{[1,0]}\tilde{M}$ are canonically isomorphic to ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{r}}}\oplus{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}$.
\[forme-normale\] There exists a $K$-Hamiltonian isomorphism $\Upsilon:{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}\simeq\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}}$, where ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}$ is a $K$-invariant neighborhood of $K\cdot\lambda$ in $M$, $\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}}$ is a $K$-invariant neighborhood of $K/T$ in $\tilde{M}$, and $\Upsilon(\lambda)=[1,0]$. We impose furthermore that the differential of $\Upsilon$ at $\lambda$ is the identity.
\[coro.forme-normale\] The cone $\lambda+\sum_{\alpha\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}_n^+}{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^+\alpha$ coincides with $\Delta=(G\cdot\lambda)\cap{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^*_+$ in a neighborhood of $\lambda$. The polyhedral set $\Delta$ is of dimension $\dim T$.
[*Proof of the Corollary.*]{} The first assertion is an immediate consequence of Lemma \[forme-normale\] and of the convexity Theorem [@L-M-T-W]. Let $X_o\in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}$ such that $\xi(X_o)=0$ for all $\xi\in\overrightarrow{\Delta}$, that is $\alpha(X_o)=0$ for all $\alpha\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}_n^+$ : $X_o$ commutes with all elements in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}$. Let ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{a}}}$ be a maximal Abelian subalgebra of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}$, and let $\Sigma$ be the set of weights for the adjoint action of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{a}}}$ on ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}$ : ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}=\sum_{\alpha\in\Sigma}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}_{\alpha}$, where ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}_{\alpha}=\{Z\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}},\,[X,Z]=\alpha(X)Z\ {\rm for \ all\
}X\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{a}}}\}$. Since $[X_o,{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{a}}}]=0$, we have $[X_o,{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}_{\alpha}]\subset{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}_{\alpha}$ for all $\alpha\in\Sigma$. But since $[X_o,{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}]=0$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}_{\alpha}\cap{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}=0$ for all $\alpha\neq 0$, we see that $[X_o,{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}_{\alpha}]=0$ for all $\alpha\neq 0$. But $X_o$ belongs to the Abelian subalgebra ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}_{0}$, so $[X_o,{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}_{\alpha}]=0$. We see finally that $X_o$ belongs to the center of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}$, and that implies $X_o=0$ since $G$ has a [*finite center*]{}. We have proved that $\overrightarrow{\Delta}^{\perp}=0$, or equivalently $\overrightarrow{\Delta}={\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}$. $\Box$
[*Proof of Lemma \[forme-normale\].*]{} The [*symplectic cross-section Theorem*]{} [@Guillemin-Sternberg84] asserts that the pre-image ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}:=\Phi^{-1}({\rm interior}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^*_+))$ is a symplectic submanifold provided with a Hamiltonian action of $T$. The restriction $\Phi\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}}$ is the moment map for the $T$-action on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$. Moreover, the set $K.{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$ is a $K$-invariant neighborhood of $K\cdot\lambda$ in $M$ diffeomorphic to $K\times_T{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$. Since $\lambda$ is a fixed $T$-point of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$, a Hamiltonian model for $({\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}},\omega\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}},\Phi\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}})$ in a neighborhood of $\lambda$ is $({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{\lambda}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}},\omega_{\lambda},\Phi_{\lambda})$ where $\omega_{\lambda}$ is the linear symplectic form of the tangent space ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{\lambda}M$ restricted to ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{\lambda}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$, and $\Phi_{\lambda}:{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{\lambda}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}\to{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^*$ is the unique moment map with $\Phi_{\lambda}(0)=\lambda$. A small computation shows that $x\to\lambda\circ{\rm ad}(x)$ is an isomorphism from ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}$ to ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{\lambda}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$, and $\Phi_{\lambda}(x)=\lambda -\frac{1}{2}pr_{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}^*}(\lambda
\circ{\rm ad}(x)\circ{\rm ad}(x))$. $\Box$
We still denote the almost complex structure transported on $\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}}\subset K\times_T{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}$ through $\Upsilon$ by $J$. Since $d\Upsilon(\lambda)$ is the identity, $J_{[1,0]}:{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{r}}}\oplus{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}\to{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{r}}}\oplus{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}$ is equal to $J_{\lambda}$. Let $\pi:K\times_T{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}\to K/T$, and $\pi_{\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}}}:\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}}\to K/T$ be the fibering maps. Remark that for any equivariant vector bundle $V$ over $M$ the vector bundle $(\Upsilon^{-1})^*(V\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}})\to \tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}}$ is isomorphic to $\pi_{\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}}}^*(K\times_{T}V_{\lambda})$. At this stage, we have according to Definition \[def.RR.phi\] $$\label{eq.RR.tilde.1}
RR_{\Phi}^{^K}(G\cdot \lambda,V)=
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Index}}}_{\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}}}^K\left({\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{\tilde{\Phi}}(\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}},J)\otimes
\pi_{\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}}}^*(K\times_{T}V_{\lambda})\right)\ .$$
With the help of Lemma \[lem.deformation\], we define now a simpler representative of the class defined by ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{\tilde{\Phi}}(\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}},J)$ in ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_{K}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{K}\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}})$. Consider the map $$\begin{aligned}
\underline{\lambda}:K\times_T{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}&\longrightarrow&{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}^*\\
(k,x) &\longmapsto& k\cdot\lambda\ ,\end{aligned}$$ and let $\underline{\lambda}_{\tilde{M}}$ be the vector field on $\tilde{M}$ generated $\underline{\lambda}$ (see (\[def.H\])). Note that $\underline{\lambda}_{\tilde{M}}$ never vanishes outside the zero section of $K\times_T{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}$. Let $(-,-)_{_{\tilde{M}}}$ be the Riemannian metric on $\tilde{M}$ defined by $(V,V')_{_{\tilde{M}}}=(X,X')+(v,v')$ for $V=[k,x;X+v]$, $V=[k,x;X'+v']$. A small computation shows that $$(\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}},\underline{\lambda}_{\tilde{M}})_{_{\tilde{M}}}
=\parallel\underline{\lambda}_{\tilde{M}}\parallel^2
+\,o(\parallel\underline{\lambda}_{\tilde{M}}\parallel^2)$$ in the neighborhood of the zero section in $K\times_T{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}$. Hence, if we take $\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}}$ small enough, $(\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}},\underline{\lambda}_{\tilde{M}})_{_{\tilde{M}}}>0$ on $\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}}-\{{\rm zero\ section}\}$, hence ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{\tilde{\Phi}}(\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}},J)=
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{\underline{\lambda}}(\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}},J)$ in ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_{K}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{K}\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}})$ (see Lemma \[lem.deformation\]).
Let $\tilde{J}$ be the $K$-invariant almost complex structure on $\tilde{M}$, constant on the fibers of $\tilde{M}\to K/T$, and equal to $J_{\lambda}$ at $[1,0]$ so that for $[k,x]\in K\times_T{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}$, $\tilde{J}_{[k,x]}(V)=$ $[k,x,J_{\lambda}(X+v)]$ for $V=[k,x,X+v]$. Since the set $\{\underline{\lambda}_{\tilde{M}}=0\}=K/T$ is compact, using $\tilde{J}$ and the map $\underline{\lambda}$, one defines the localized Thom symbol $${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{\underline{\lambda}}(\tilde{M},\tilde{J})
\in {\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_{K}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{K}\tilde{M})\ .$$ Through the canonical identification of the tangent spaces at $[k,x]$ and $[k,0]$, one can write $\tilde{J}_{[k,x]}=\tilde{J}_{[k,0]}=J_{[k,0]}$ for any $[k,x]\in\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}}$. We note that $J$ and $\tilde{J}$ are related on $\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}}$ by the homotopy $J^t$ of almost complex structures: $J^t_{[k,x]}:=J_{[k,tx]}$ for $[k,x]\in\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}}$. From Lemma \[lem.deformation\], we conclude that the localized Thom symbols ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{\underline{\lambda}}(\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}},J)$ and ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{\underline{\lambda}}(\tilde{M},\tilde{J})\vert_{\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}}}$ define the same class in ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_{K}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{K}\tilde{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}})$, thus (\[eq.RR.tilde.1\]) becomes $$\label{eq.RR.tilde.2}
RR_{\Phi}^{^K}(G\cdot \lambda,V)=
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Index}}}_{\tilde{M}}^K\left({\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{\underline{\lambda}}
(\tilde{M},\tilde{J})\otimes
\pi^*(K\times_{T}V_{\lambda})\right)\ .$$
In order to compute (\[eq.RR.tilde.2\]), we use the induction morphism $$i_*:{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_{T}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{T}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}})\longrightarrow{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_{K}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{K}(K\times_T{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}))$$ defined by Atiyah in [@Atiyah74] (see [@pep4]\[Section 3\]). The map $i_*$ enjoys two properties: first, $i_*$ is an isomorphism and the $K$-index of $\sigma\in{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_{K}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{K}(K\times_T{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}))$ can be computed with the $T$-index of $(i_*)^{-1}(\sigma)$.
Let $\sigma : p^*(E^+)\to p^*(E^-)$ be a $K$-transversally elliptic symbol on $K\times_T{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}$, where $p:{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}(K\times_T{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}})\to
K\times_T{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}$ is the projection, and $E^{+},E^{-}$ are equivariant vector bundles over $K\times_T{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}$. So for any $[k,x]\in
K\times_T{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}$, we have a collection of linear maps $\sigma([k,x,X+v]):E^{+}_{[k,x]}\to E^{-}_{[k,x]}$ depending on the tangent vectors $X+v$. The symbol $(i_*)^{-1}(\sigma)$ is defined by $$\label{eq.def.i.star}
(i_*)^{-1}(\sigma)(x,v)=\sigma([1,x,0+v]):E^{+}_{[1,x]}
\longrightarrow E^{-}_{[1,x]}\quad {\rm for\ any}\quad (x,v)\in{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}.$$ For $\sigma={\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{\tilde{\Phi}}(\tilde{M},\tilde{J})$, the vector bundle $E^{+}$ (resp. $E^{-}$) is $\wedge^{odd}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}\tilde{M}$ (resp. $\wedge^{even}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}{\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}\tilde{M}$). Since the complex structure leaves ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{r}}}\cong {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}$ invariant one gets $$(i_*)^{-1}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{\underline{\lambda}}(\tilde{M},\tilde{J}))=
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{T}}^{\lambda}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}},J_{\lambda})\,
\wedge^{\bullet}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}\ ,$$ and $$\label{eq.i.star.thom}
(i_*)^{-1}\left(
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{\underline{\lambda}}(\tilde{M},\tilde{J})
\otimes \pi^*(K\times_{T}V_{\lambda})\right)=
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{T}}^{\lambda}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}},J_{\lambda})\, V_{\lambda}
\wedge^{\bullet}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}\ ,$$ where ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{T}}^{\lambda}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}},J_{\lambda})$ is the $T$-equivariant Thom symbol on the complex vector space $({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}},J_{\lambda})$ deformed by the constant map ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}\to{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}},\,x\mapsto\lambda$. In (\[eq.i.star.thom\]), our notation uses the structure of $R(T)$-module for ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_{T}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{T}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}})$, hence we can multiply ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{T}}^{\lambda}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}},J_{\lambda})$ by $V_{\lambda} \wedge^{\bullet}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}$.
Theorem 4.1 of Atiyah in [@Atiyah74] tells us that $$\label{diagram}
\xymatrix{
K_{T}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{T}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}})\ar[r]^{i_{*}}\ar[d]_{{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Index}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}}^T} &
K_{K}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{K}\tilde{M})\ar[d]^{{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Index}}}_{\tilde{M}}^K}\\
{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}^{-\infty}}}(T)\ar[r]_{\indT} & {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}^{-\infty}}}(K)^{K}\ .
}$$ is a commutative diagram, with $\tilde{M}=K\times_T{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}$, and where $\indT$ is the induction map (see (\[eq.induction.T.K\])). In other words, ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Index}}}_{\tilde{M}}^K(\sigma)=
\indT({\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Index}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}}^T((i_*)^{-1}(\sigma)))$. With (\[eq.RR.tilde.2\]), (\[eq.i.star.thom\]), and (\[diagram\]), we find $$\begin{aligned}
RR_{\Phi}^{^K}(G\cdot \lambda,V)&=&
\indT\left({\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Index}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}}^T({\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_T}^{\lambda}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}},J_{\lambda}))
\, V_{\lambda}\wedge^{\bullet}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}\right)\\
&=&
\HolT\left({\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Index}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}}^T({\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_T}^{\lambda}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}},J_{\lambda}))
\, V_{\lambda}\right)\ .\end{aligned}$$ (See the Appendix in [@pep4] for the relation $\HolT(-)=\indT(\,-\,\wedge^{\bullet}_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}})$.) But the index ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Index}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}}^T({\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_T}^{\lambda}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}},J_{\lambda}))$ is computed in Section 5 of [@pep4]: $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Index}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}}^T({\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_T}^{\lambda}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}},J_{\lambda}))
&=&
\Big[\Pi_{\alpha\in
{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}_{n}^{+}}(1-t^{-\alpha})\Big]^{-1}_{\lambda}\\
&=&
(-1)^{r}\,t^{2\rho_{n}}\Big[\Pi_{\alpha\in
{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{R}}}_{n}^{+}}(1-t^{\alpha})\Big]^{-1}_{\lambda}\ ,\end{aligned}$$ with $r=\frac{1}{2}\dim(G/K)$. Equality (\[eq.theta=RR\]) in then proved.
$(G\cdot \lambda,\Phi)$ satisfies Assumption \[hypothese.phi.t.carre\] {#subsec.hyp.phi.2}
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $M$ be a regular elliptic coadjoint orbit for $G$, with the canonical Hamiltonian $K$-action. The goal of this section is to show that $M$ satisfies Assumption \[hypothese.phi.t.carre\] at every $\mu$.
Let ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}={\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}\oplus{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}$ be the Cartan decomposition of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}$. The Killing form $B$ provides a $G$-equivariant identification ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}\simeq{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}^{*}$ and $K$-equivariant identifications ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}\simeq{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}^{*},\,{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}\simeq{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}^{*}$. The Killing form $B$ provides also a $K$-invariant Euclidean structure on ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}$ such that $B(X,X)=-\parallel X_{1}\parallel^{2}+\parallel X_{2}\parallel^{2}$ and $\parallel X\parallel^{2}= \parallel X_{1}\parallel^{2}+
\parallel X_{2}\parallel^{2}$, for $X=X_{1}+X_{2}$, with $X_{1}\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}},\,X_{2}\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}$.
Hence we can and we shall consider $M$ as a adjoint orbit of $G$: $M=G\cdot\lambda$ where $\lambda\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}$ is a regular element, i.e. $G_{\lambda}=K_{\lambda}$ is a maximal torus in $K$ (in this section $\cdot$ means the adjoint action). The moment map $\Phi:M\to{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}$ is then the restriction to $M$ of the orthogonal projection ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}\oplus{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}\to{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}$. For $\mu\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}$, we consider the map $\Phi_{\mu} :M\times K\cdot\mu\to{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}},\,(m,n)\mapsto\Phi(m)-n$.
This section is devoted to the proof of the following
\[prop.Phi.mu.compact.1\] The set ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Cr}}}(\parallel\Phi_{\mu}\parallel^{2})$ of critical points of $\parallel\Phi_{\mu}\parallel^{2}$ is a compact subset of $M\times K\cdot\mu$. More precisely, for any $r\geq 0$, there exists $c(r)>0$ such that $${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Cr}}}(\parallel\Phi_{\mu}\parallel^{2})\subset
\Big(M\cap\Big\{\xi\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}},\,
\parallel\xi\parallel\leq c(r)\Big\}\Big)\times K\cdot\mu\ ,$$ whenever $\parallel\mu\parallel\leq r$.
Note that $M\cap\{\xi\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}},\,\parallel\xi\parallel\leq
c(r)\}$ is compact, thus Proposition \[prop.Phi.mu.compact.1\] shows that $M$ satisfies Assumption \[hypothese.phi.t.carre\] at every $\mu$. Let ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{a}}}$ be a maximal Abelian subalgebra of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}$, and consider the map $$F^{\mu}:(K\cdot\lambda)\times(K\cdot\mu)\times {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{a}}}\to {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$$ defined by $F^{\mu}(m,n,X)=\frac{1}{2}\parallel e^{X}\cdot m\parallel^{2}-
2<e^{X}\cdot m,n>$.
\[prop.Phi.mu.compact.2\] For any $r\geq 0$, there exists $c(r)>0$ such that $$(m,n,X)\in{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Cr}}}(F^{\mu})\ \Longrightarrow\
\parallel e^{X}\cdot m\parallel\leq c(r) \ ,$$ whenever $\parallel\mu\parallel\leq r$.
We first show that Proposition \[prop.Phi.mu.compact.2\] implies Proposition \[prop.Phi.mu.compact.1\], and then we concentrate on the proof of Proposition \[prop.Phi.mu.compact.2\].
[*Proposition \[prop.Phi.mu.compact.2\] $\Longrightarrow$ Proposition \[prop.Phi.mu.compact.1\].*]{} Consider the map $\Phi-\mu:M\to{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}$. One easily sees that ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Cr}}}(\parallel\Phi_{\mu}\parallel^{2})= K\cdot
({\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Cr}}}(\parallel\Phi_{\mu}\parallel^{2})\cap(M\times\{\mu\}))$, and ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Cr}}}(\parallel\Phi_{\mu}\parallel^{2})\cap(M\times\{\mu\})
\subset {\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Cr}}}(\parallel\Phi-\mu\parallel^{2})\times\{\mu\}$. Thus Proposition \[prop.Phi.mu.compact.1\] is proved if one shows that for any $r\geq 0$, there exists $c(r)>0$ such that $${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Cr}}}(\parallel\Phi-\mu\parallel^{2})\subset
M\cap\Big\{\xi\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}},\,\parallel\xi\parallel\leq c(r)\Big\}\ ,$$ whenever $\parallel\mu\parallel\leq r$. Since the bilinear form $B$ is $G$-invariant, the map $m\to B(m,m)$ is constant on $M$, equal to $-\parallel\lambda\parallel^{2}$, and thus $\parallel\Phi(m)\parallel^{2}=\frac{1}{2}\parallel m\parallel^{2}
+\frac{1}{2}\parallel\lambda\parallel^{2}$ for any $m\in M$. Finally we have on $M$ the equality $$\parallel\Phi(m)-\mu\parallel^{2}=\frac{1}{2}\parallel m\parallel^{2}-
2<m,\mu> + {\rm cst}$$ where ${\rm cst}=\frac{1}{2}\parallel\lambda\parallel^{2} +
\parallel\mu\parallel^{2}$. If we use now the Cartan decomposition $G=K\cdot\exp({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}})$, and the fact that ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{p}}}=\cup_{k\in K}k\cdot{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{a}}}$, we see that every element $M$ is of the form $m=(k_1^{-1} e^X k_2)\cdot\lambda$ with $k_1,k_2\in K$ and $X\in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{a}}}$. It follows that $\parallel\Phi((k_1^{-1} e^X k_2)\cdot\lambda)-\mu\parallel^{2}=
F^{\mu}(m',n,X)+ {\rm cst}$ with $m'=k_2\cdot\lambda$, $n=k_1\cdot\mu$. It is now obvious that if $m=(k_1^{-1} e^X k_2)\cdot\lambda\in
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Cr}}}(\parallel\Phi-\mu\parallel^{2})$ then $(k_2\cdot\lambda,k_1\cdot\mu,X)\in {\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Cr}}}(F^{\mu})$. Finally, if Proposition \[prop.Phi.mu.compact.2\] holds we get $\parallel m\parallel=\parallel e^{X}\cdot
m'\parallel\leq c(r)$. $\Box$
[*Proof of Proposition \[prop.Phi.mu.compact.2\].*]{} Let $(m,n,X)\in {\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Cr}}}(F^{\mu})$. Then, the identity $\frac{d}{dt}F^{\mu}(m,n,X+tX)\vert_{t=0}=0$ gives $$\label{eq.A.B}
<e^{X}\cdot m,e^{X}\cdot[X,m]>=2<e^{X}\cdot [X,m],n>\ .$$
The proof of Proposition \[prop.Phi.mu.compact.2\] is then reduced to the
- For any $r\geq 0$, there exists $d(r)>0$ such that $\parallel e^{X}\cdot[X,m]\parallel\leq d(r)\parallel X\parallel\,$ holds for every $(m,n,X)\in K\cdot\lambda\times{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}\times{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{a}}}$ satisfying (\[eq.A.B\]) and $\parallel n\parallel\leq r$.
- For any $d>0$ there exists $c >0$, such that for every $(m,X)\in K\cdot\lambda\times{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{a}}}$, we have $\parallel e^{X}\cdot[X,m]\parallel\leq d\parallel X\parallel\
\Longrightarrow\ \parallel e^{X}\cdot m\parallel\leq c$.
[*Proof of i).*]{} Let $\Sigma$ be the set of weights for the adjoint action of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{a}}}$ on ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}$: ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}=\sum_{\alpha\in\Sigma}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}_{\alpha}$, where ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}_{\alpha}=\{Z\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}},\,[X,Z]=\alpha(X)Z\ {\rm for \ all\
}X\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{a}}}\}$. Each $m\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}$ amits a decomposition $m=\sum_{\alpha}m_{\alpha}$, with $m_{\alpha}\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}_{\alpha}$, which is stable relatively to the Cartan involution: $$\label{theta-stable}
\theta(m_{\alpha})=m_{-\alpha}, \quad {\rm for\ every}\; m\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}\ .$$
Suppose now that $v:=(m,n,X)\in K\cdot\lambda\times{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}\times{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{a}}}$ satisfies (\[eq.A.B\]). We decompose $m\in K\cdot\lambda$ into $m=\sum_{\alpha}m_{\alpha}$ with $m_{\alpha}\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{g}}}_{\alpha}$. Let $\Sigma^{\pm}_{v}:=\{\alpha\in\Sigma,\, m_{\alpha}\neq 0\ {\rm and}\ \pm \alpha(X)>0\}$. The LHS of (\[eq.A.B\]) decomposes in ${\rm LHS}=\sum_{\alpha}e^{2\alpha(X)}\alpha(X)
\parallel m_{\alpha}\parallel^{2}$, and $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm LHS} &=& \sum_{\alpha\in\Sigma^{+}_{v}}e^{2\alpha(X)}\alpha(X)
\parallel m_{\alpha}\parallel^{2} +
\sum_{\alpha\in\Sigma^{-}_{v}}e^{2\alpha(X)}\alpha(X)
\parallel m_{\alpha}\parallel^{2} \\
&\geq&
\sum_{\alpha\in\Sigma^{+}_{v}}
e^{2\alpha(X)}\frac{\alpha(X)^{2}}{R\parallel X\parallel}
\parallel m_{\alpha}\parallel^{2}- R \parallel X\parallel
\sum_{\alpha\in\Sigma^{-}_{v}}
\parallel m_{\alpha}\parallel^{2}\quad [1]\end{aligned}$$ with $R:=\sup_{\alpha,\parallel X\parallel\leq
1}\vert\alpha(X)\vert$. But $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\alpha\in\Sigma^{+}_{v}}
e^{2\alpha(X)}\alpha(X)^{2}\parallel m_{\alpha}\parallel^{2}
&=&\parallel e^{X}\cdot[X,m]\parallel^{2}
-\sum_{\alpha\in\Sigma^{-}_{v}}
e^{2\alpha(X)}\alpha(X)^{2}
\parallel m_{\alpha}\parallel^{2}\\
&\geq&
\parallel e^{X}\cdot[X,m]\parallel^{2}- R^{2}\parallel X\parallel^{2}
\sum_{\alpha\in\Sigma^{-}_{v}}\parallel
m_{\alpha}\parallel^{2}\quad [2]\end{aligned}$$ Since $\alpha\in\Sigma^{+}_{v}\Leftrightarrow -\alpha\in\Sigma^{-}_{v}$, we have $2\sum_{\alpha\in\Sigma^{-}_{v}}\parallel
m_{\alpha}\parallel^{2}\leq\sum_{\alpha\in\Sigma}\parallel
m_{\alpha}\parallel^{2}=\parallel m\parallel^{2}$$=\parallel \lambda\parallel^{2}$. So, the inequalities $[1]$ and $[2]$ give $$\label{eq.A.plusgrand}
{\rm LHS}\geq \frac{\parallel e^{X}\cdot[X,m]\parallel^{2}}{R\parallel
X\parallel}- R\parallel X\parallel.
\parallel \lambda\parallel^2\ .$$ Since the RHS of (\[eq.A.B\]) satisfies obviously ${\rm RHS}\leq 2 \parallel e^{X}\cdot[X,m]\parallel.
\parallel n\parallel$, (\[eq.A.B\]) and (\[eq.A.plusgrand\]) yield $$2 \parallel e^{X}\cdot[X,m]\parallel.\parallel n\parallel\ \geq\
\frac{\parallel e^{X}\cdot[X,m]\parallel^{2}}{R\parallel
X\parallel}- R\parallel X\parallel.
\parallel \lambda\parallel^2\ .$$ In other words $E:=\parallel e^{X}\cdot[X,m]\parallel$ satisfies the polynomial inequality $E^{2}-2aE-b^2\leq 0$, with $b= R
\parallel X\parallel. \parallel \lambda\parallel$ and $a=R\parallel X\parallel. \parallel n\parallel$. A direct computation gives $$\parallel e^{X}\cdot[X,m]\parallel\leq d\parallel X\parallel \ ,$$ with $d=R(\parallel n\parallel+
\sqrt{\parallel n\parallel^{2}+\parallel \lambda\parallel^{2}})$. $\Box$
[*Proof of ii).*]{} Suppose that $ii)$ does not hold. So there is a sequence $(m_{i},X_{i})_{i\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}}$ in $K\cdot\lambda\times{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{a}}}$ such that $\parallel e^{X_{i}}\cdot[X_{i},m_{i}]\parallel\leq d
\parallel X_{i}\parallel$ but $\lim_{i\to\infty}\parallel e^{X_{i}}\cdot m_{i}\parallel=\infty$. We write $X_{i}=t_{i}v_{i}$ with $t_{i}\geq 0$ and $\parallel v_{i}\parallel=1$. We can assume moreover that $v_{i}\to v_{\infty}\in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{a}}}$ with $\parallel v_{\infty}\parallel=1$, and $m_{i}\to m_{\infty}\in K\cdot\lambda$ when $i\to\infty$.
But $m_{\infty}\in K\cdot\lambda$ is a regular element of $G$, and rank$(G)=$rank$(K)$, thus $[v_{\infty},m_{\infty}]=\sum_{\alpha\in \Sigma}
\alpha(v_{\infty}) m_{\infty,\alpha}\neq 0$: there exists $\alpha_o\in \Sigma$ such that $\alpha_o(v_{\infty}) m_{\infty,\alpha_o}\neq 0$, and then also $\alpha_o(v_{\infty}) m_{\infty,-\alpha_o}\neq 0$ (see (\[theta-stable\])).
On one hand the sequence $e^{t_{i}v_{i}}.m_{i}=
\sum_{\alpha}e^{t_{i}\alpha(v_{i})}m_{i,\alpha}$ diverges. Hence $(t_{i})_{i\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}}$ is not bounded and so can be assumed to be divergent. On the other hand $e^{t_{i}v_{i}}\cdot[v_{i},m_{i}]=\sum_{\alpha}
e^{t_{i}\alpha(v_{i})}\alpha(v_{i})m_{i,\alpha}$ is bounded, so the sequences $e^{t_{i}\pm\alpha_o(v_{i})}\alpha(v_{i})m_{i,\pm\alpha_o}$ are also bounded. But $\lim_{i\to\infty}\alpha(v_{i})m_{i,\pm\alpha_o}=
\alpha_o(v_{\infty}) m_{\infty,\pm\alpha_o}$ $\neq 0$, hence the sequences $e^{t_{i}\pm\alpha_o(v_{i})}$ are bounded. This contradicts the fact that $\lim_{i\to\infty}t_i=+\infty$ and $\lim_{i\to\infty}\alpha_o(v_{i})\neq 0$. $\Box$
[99]{}
, Elliptic operators and compact groups, Springer, 1974. Lecture notes in Mathematics, [**401**]{}.
, Convexity and commuting hamiltonians, [*Bull. London Math. Soc.*]{} [**14**]{}, 1982, p. 1-15.
, [R. Bott]{} and [A. Shapiro]{}, Clifford modules, [*Topology*]{} [**3**]{}, Suppl. 1, p. 3-38.
, [G.B. Segal]{}, The index of elliptic operators II, [*Ann. Math.*]{} [**87**]{}, 1968, p. 531-545.
, [I.M. Singer]{}, The index of elliptic operators I, [*Ann. Math.*]{} [**87**]{}, 1968, p. 484-530.
, [I.M. Singer]{}, The index of elliptic operators III, [*Ann. Math.*]{} [**87**]{}, 1968, p. 546-604.
, [I.M. Singer]{}, The index of elliptic operators IV, [*Ann. Math.*]{} [**93**]{}, 1971, p. 139-141.
, [E. Getzler]{} and [M. Vergne]{}, [*Heat kernels and Dirac operators*]{}, Grundlehren, vol. 298, Springer, Berlin, 1991.
and [M. Vergne]{}, The Chern character of a transversally elliptic symbol and the equivariant index, [*Invent. Math.*]{} [**124**]{}, 1996, p. 11-49.
and [M. Vergne]{}, L’indice équivariant des opérateurs transversalement elliptiques, [*Invent. Math.*]{} [**124**]{}, 1996, p. 51-101.
, [Y. Karshon]{} and [S. Tolman]{}, Quantization of presymplectic manifolds and circle actions, [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**352**]{}, 2000, p. 525-552.
, Représentations de carré intégrable des groupes semi-simples réels, [*Séminaire Bourbaki*]{}, Vol. 1977/78, Exposé No.508, Lect. Notes Math. 710, 22-40 (1979).
, [G. Heckman]{} and [ M. Vergne]{}, Projection d’orbites, formule de Kirillov et formule de Blattner, [*Mémoires de la S.M.F.*]{} [**15**]{}, 1984, p. 65-128.
, [*The heat lefschetz fixed point formula for the Spin^c^-Dirac operator*]{}, Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equation and Their Applications, vol. 18, Birkhauser, Boston, 1996.
and [S. Sternberg]{}, Convexity properties of the moment mapping, [*Invent. Math.*]{} [**67**]{}, 1982, p. 491-513.
and [S. Sternberg]{}, Geometric quantization and multiplicities of group representations, [*Invent. Math.*]{} [**67**]{}, 1982, p. 515-538.
and [S. Sternberg]{}, A normal form for the moment map, in [*Differential Geometric Methods in Mathematical Physics*]{}(S. Sternberg, ed.), Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, 1984.
and [F. Kirwan]{}, Localization and quantization conjecture, [*Topology*]{} [**36**]{}, 1997, p. 647-693.
Discrete series for semi-simple Lie group, I and II, [*Acta Mathematica*]{}, [**113**]{} (1965) p. 242-318, and [**116**]{} (1966) p. 1-111.
and [W. Schmid]{}, A proof of Blattner’s conjecture, [*Invent. Math.*]{}, [**31**]{}, 1975, p. 129-154.
, The index of elliptic operators over V-manifolds, [*Nagoya Math. J.*]{}, [**84**]{}, 1981, p. 135-157.
, [*Cohomology of quotients in symplectic and algebraic geometry*]{}, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1984.
, Convexity properties of the moment mapping III, [*Invent. Math.*]{} [**77**]{}, 1984, p. 547-552.
, Quantization and unitary representations, in [*Modern Analysis and Applications*]{}, Lecture Notes in Math., Vol. 170, Spinger-Verlag, 1970, p. 87-207.
and [M.-L. Michelsohn]{}, [*Spin geometry*]{}, Princeton Math. Series, 38. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1989.
, [E. Meinrenken]{}, [S. Tolman]{} and [C. Woodward]{}, Non-Abelian convexity by symplectic cuts, [*Topology*]{} [**37**]{}, 1998, p. 245-259.
, On Riemaan-Roch formulas for multiplicities, [*J. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{}, [**9**]{}, 1996, p. 373-389.
, Symplectic surgery and the Spin^c^-Dirac operator, [*Adv. in Math.*]{} [**134**]{}, 1998, p. 240-277.
, [S. Sjamaar]{}, Singular reduction and quantization, [*Topology*]{} [**38**]{}, 1999, p. 699-762.
, Formules de localisation en cohomologie équivariante, [*Compositio Mathematica*]{} [**117**]{}, 1999, p. 243-293.
, The moment map and equivariant cohomology with generalized coefficient, [*Topology*]{}, [**39**]{}, 2000, p. 401-444.
, The Fourier transform of semi-simple coadjoint orbits, [*J. Funct. Anal.*]{} [**163**]{}, 1999, p. 152-179.
, Localization of the Riemann-Roch character, [*J. Funct. Anal.*]{} [**187**]{}, 2001, p. 442-509..
, On a conjecture of Langlands, [*Ann. of Math.*]{} [**93**]{}, 1971, p. 1-42.
, $L\sp{2}$-cohomology and the discrete series, [*Ann. of Math.*]{} [**103**]{}, 1976, p. 375-394.
, Discrete Series, [*Proc. of Symp. in Pure Math.*]{} [**61**]{}, 1997, p. 83-113.
, Symplectic reduction and Riemann-Roch formulas for multiplicities, [*Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**33**]{}, 1996, p. 327-338.
, Convexity properties of the moment mapping re-examined, [*Adv. Math.*]{} [**138**]{}, 1998, p. 46-91.
, Equivariant K-Theory, [*Publ. Math. IHES*]{} [**34**]{}, 1968, p. 129-151.
, [W. Zhang]{}, An analytic proof of the geometric quantization conjecture of Guillemin-Sternberg, [*Invent. Math.*]{} [**132**]{}, 1998, p. 229-259.
, Geometric quantization and equivariant cohomology, First European Congress in Mathematics, vol. 1, [*Progress in Mathematics*]{} [**119**]{}, Birkhauser, Boston, 1994, p. 249-295.
, Multiplicity formula for geometric quantization, Part I, Part II, and Part III, [*Duke Math. Journal*]{} [**82**]{}, 1996, p. 143-179, p 181-194, p 637-652.
, Quantification géométrique et réduction symplectique, [*Séminaire Bourbaki*]{} [**888**]{}, 2001.
, Two dimensional gauge theories revisited, [*J. Geom. Phys.*]{} [**9**]{}, 1992, p. 303-368.
, [*Geometric quantization*]{}, 2nd ed. Oxford Mathematical Monographs. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.
[^1]: [*Keywords*]{} : moment map, reduction, geometric quantization, discrete series, transversally elliptic symbol.\
[*1991 Mathematics Subject Classification*]{} : 58F06, 57S15, 19L47.
[^2]: Formally, $\tilde{L}$ is the tensor product of a prequantum line bundle over $(G\cdot\lambda,\omega)$ with a square root of $\kappa$.
[^3]: See subsection \[Spin-c.structure\] for a short review on the notion of $\spinc$ structure.
[^4]: Here we take a $K$-invariant relatively compact open subset ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}$ of $M$ such that ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Cr}}}(\parallel\Phi\parallel^2)
\subset {\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}$. Then the restriction of ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{\Phi}(M,J)$ to ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}$ defines a class ${\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{\Phi}(M,J)\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}}
\in {\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf K}}}_{K}({\ensuremath{\hbox{\bf T}}}_{K}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}})$. Since the index map is well defined on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}$, one sets $RR^{^K}_{\Phi}(M,E):=
{\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Index}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}}^K({\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{\Phi}(M,J)\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}}\otimes
p^{*}E\vert_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}})$. A simple application of the excision property shows us that the definition does not depend on the choice of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}$. In order to simplify our notation (when the almost complex structure is understood), we write $RR^{^K}_{\Phi}(M,E):={\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Index}}}_{M}^K({\ensuremath{\hbox{\rm Thom}}}_{_{K}}^{\Phi}(M)\otimes p^{*}E)$.
[^5]: If $P$, $Q$ are principal bundle over $M$ respectively for the groups $G$ and $H$, we denote simply by $P\times Q$ their fibering product over $M$ which is a $G\times H$ principal bundle over $M$.
[^6]: Here $2n=\dim M$, $2k=\dim{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$ and $2l=\dim({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}})$, so $n=k+l$.
[^7]: Here $2k=\dim {\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$, $2k'=\dim M_{\xi}$ and $l'=\dim({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}_{\Delta})$, so $k=k'+l'$.
[^8]: A small computation shows that $R(m)=pr_{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}}(h^{-1}(pr_{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}}(h\tilde{\mu})-\Phi(y)))$, and $S(m)=[\tilde{\mu}-pr_{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{t}}}}(h\tilde{\mu})]_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}}(y)$.
[^9]: See [@pep4]\[Section 6.1\].
[^10]: We shall note that $\mu_{\lambda}\in\Lambda^{*}_{+}$ (see [@Duflo77], section 5).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- Pierre Deransart
- 'Jan-Georg Smaus'
bibliography:
- 'thesis.bib'
- 'modes\_types.bib'
---
Introduction
============
Prescriptive types are used in logic programming (and other paradigms) to restrict the underlying syntax so that only “meaningful” expressions are allowed. This allows for many programming errors to be detected by the compiler. Moreover, it ensures that once a program has passed the compiler, the types of arguments of predicates can be ignored at runtime, since it is guaranteed that they will be of correct type. This has been turned into the famous slogan [@M78; @MO84]
> Well-typed programs cannot go wrong.
Adopting the terminology from the theory of the $\lambda$-calculus [@Tho91], this property of a typed program is called [*subject reduction*]{}. For the simply typed $\lambda$-calculus, subject reduction states that the type of a $\lambda$-term is invariant under reduction. Translated to logic programming, this means that resolving a “well-typed” query with a “well-typed” clause will always result in a “well-typed” query, and so the successive queries obtained during a derivation are all “well-typed”.
From this observation, it is clear that subject reduction is a property of the [*operational*]{} semantics of a logic program, i.e., SLD resolution [@L87]. In this paper, we show that it is also a property of the proof-theoretic semantics based on [*derivation trees*]{}. This is obtained by showing that using “well-typed” clauses, only “well-typed” derivation trees can be constructed, giving rise to the new slogan:
> Well-typed programs [*are*]{} not wrong.
The [*head condition*]{}, which is a condition on the program (clauses) [@HT92-new], is usually considered to be crucial for subject reduction. The second objective of this paper is to analyse the head condition in this new light and open the field for generalisations, of which we introduce one.
The head condition, also called [*definitional genericity*]{} [@LR91], states that the types of the arguments of a clause head must be a variant[^1] (and not a proper instance) of the declared type of the head predicate. This condition imposes a distinction between “definitional” occurrences (clause heads) and “applied” occurrences (body atoms) of a predicate. In contrast, the proof-theoretic view of subject reduction we propose reestablishes a certain symmetry between the different occurrences. By this generalisation, the class of programs for which subject reduction is guaranteed is enlarged.
This paper is organised as follows. Section \[prelim-sec\] contains some preliminaries. Section \[trees-sec\] introduces our proof-theoretic notion of subject reduction. Section \[conditions-sec\] gives conditions for subject reduction, and in particular, a generalisation of the head condition. In Section \[is-restrictive-sec\], we discuss, in the light of these results, the usefulness of the head condition and its generalisation. We also exhibit an interesting relationship between the head condition and [*polymorphic recursion*]{} [@KFU93-short]. Section \[conclusion-sec\] concludes by mentioning possible applications of these results.
Preliminaries {#prelim-sec}
=============
We assume familiarity with the standard concepts of logic programming [@L87]. To simplify the notation, a vector such as $o_1,\dots,o_m$ is often denoted by $\bar{o}$. The restriction of a substitution $\theta$ to the variables in a syntactic object $o$ is denoted as $\theta \restr{o}$, and analogously for type substitutions (see Subsec. \[typed-prog-subsec\]). The relation symbol of an atom $a$ is denoted by $Rel(a)$.
When we refer to a [*clause in a program*]{}, we usually mean a copy of this clause whose variables are renamed apart from variables occurring in other objects in the context. A query is a sequence of atoms. A query $Q'$ is [**derived from**]{} a query $Q$, denoted $Q \leadsto Q'$, if $Q= a_1,\dots,a_m$, $Q'=(a_1,\dots,a_{k-1},B,a_{k+1},\dots,a_m)\theta$, and $h\leftarrow B$ is a clause (in a program usually clear from the context) such that $h$ and $a_k$ are unifiable with MGU $\theta$. A [**derivation**]{} $Q \leadsto^* Q'$ is defined in the usual way. Given a program $P$, the [**immediate consequence operator**]{} $T_P$ is defined by $
T_P(M) =
\{h\theta \mid
h\leftarrow a_1,\dots,a_m \in P,\;
a_1\theta,\dots,a_m\theta \in M\}$.
Derivation Trees
----------------
A key element of this work is the proof-theoretic semantics of logic programs based on derivation trees [@DM93]. We recall some important notions and basic results.
\[instance-name-def\] An [**instance name**]{} of a clause $C$ is a pair of the form $\langle C, \theta \rangle$, where $\theta$ is a substitution.
\[der-tree-def\] Let $P$ be a program. A [**derivation tree**]{} for $P$ is a labelled ordered tree [@DM93] such that:
1. Each leaf node is labelled by $\bot$ or an instance name $\langle C,\theta \rangle$ of a clause[^2] in $P$; each non-leaf node is labelled by an instance name $\langle C,\theta \rangle$ of a clause in $P$.
2. If a node is labelled by $\langle h\leftarrow a_1,\dots,a_m,\theta \rangle$, where $m \geq 0$, then this node has $m$ children, and for $i \in \onetom$, the $i$th child is labelled either $\bot$, or $\langle h'\leftarrow B,\theta' \rangle$ where $h'\theta'=a_i\theta$.
Nodes labelled $\bot$ are [**incomplete**]{}, all other nodes are [**complete**]{}. A derivation tree containing only complete nodes is a [**proof tree**]{}.
To define the semantics of logic programs, it is useful to associate an atom with each node in a derivation tree in the following way.
\[node-atom-def\] Let $T$ be a derivation tree. For each node $n$ in $T$, the [**node atom**]{} of $n$, denoted $atom(n)$, is defined as follows: If $n$ is labelled $\langle h\leftarrow B,\theta \rangle$, then $h \theta$ is the node atom of $n$; if $n$ is labelled $\bot$, and $n$ is the $i$th child of its parent labelled $\langle h\leftarrow a_1,\dots,a_m,\theta \rangle$, then $a_i\theta$ is the node atom of $n$. If $n$ is the root of $T$ then $atom(n)$ is the [**head of $T$**]{}, denoted $head(T)$.
Derivation trees are obtained by grafting instances of clauses of a program. To describe this construction in a general way, we define the following concept.
\[skel-def\] Let $P$ be a program. A [**skeleton (tree)**]{} for $P$ is a labelled ordered tree such that:
1. Each leaf node is labelled by $\bot$ or a clause in $P$, and each non-leaf node is labelled by a clause in $P$.
2. If a node is labelled by $h\leftarrow a_1,\dots,a_m$, where $m \geq 0$, then this node has $m$ children, and for $i \in \onetom$, the $i$th child is labelled either $\bot$, or $h'\leftarrow B$ where $Rel(h') = Rel(a_i)$.
The [**skeleton of a tree**]{} $T$, denoted $Sk(T)$, is the skeleton obtained from $T$ by replacing each label $\langle C, \theta \rangle$ with $C$. Conversely, we say that $T$ is a [**derivation tree based on**]{} $Sk(T)$.
\[eqs-def\] Let $S$ be a skeleton. We define $$\begin{array}{ll}
\mathit{Eq}(S) =
\{
a_i=h'
\mid &
\mbox{there exist complete nodes $n$, $n'$ in $S$
such that}\\
&
\mbox{$\bullet$ $n'$ is the $i$th child of $n$,}\\
&
\mbox{$\bullet$ $n$ is labelled $h\leftarrow a_1,\dots,a_m$,}\\
&
\mbox{$\bullet$ $n'$ is labelled $h'\leftarrow B$}
\}
\end{array}$$ Abusing notation, we frequently identify the set of equations with the conjunction or sequence of all equations contained in it. If $\mathit{Eq}(S)$ has a unifier then we call $S$ a [**proper**]{} skeleton.
[@DM93 Prop. 2.1]\[der-tree-exists-prop\] Let $S$ be a skeleton. A derivation tree based on $S$ exists if and only if $S$ is proper.
[@DM93 Thm. 2.1] Let $S$ be a skeleton and $\theta$ an MGU of $\mathit{Eq}(S)$. Let $D(S)$ be the tree obtained from $S$ by replacing each node label $C$ with the pair $\langle C, \theta\restr{C} \rangle$. Then $D(S)$ is a most general derivation tree based on $S$ (i.e., any other derivation tree based on $S$ is an instance of $D(S)$).
\[proof-tree-ex\] Figure \[no-pure-BC-fig\] shows a program, one of its derivation trees, and the skeleton of the derivation tree.
(6,5) (0,3.3)
[$\tt h(X) \leftarrow q(X), p(X).$\
$\tt q([]).$\
$\tt p(X) \leftarrow r(X).$ ]{}
(12,5) (4,0)[(8,1)[$\bot$]{}]{} (8,1)[(0,1)[1]{}]{} (0,2)[(4,1)[ $\langle \tt q([]),\emptyset \rangle$]{}]{} (4,2)[(8,1)[ $\langle \tt p(X') \leftarrow r(X'),\;
\{x'/[]\}\rangle$]{}]{} (2,3)[(1,1)[1]{}]{} (8,3)[(-1,1)[1]{}]{} (1,4)[(10,1)[ $\langle \tt h(X) \leftarrow q(X) \und p(X),\;
\{x/[]\}\rangle$]{}]{}
(8,5) (2,0)[(6,1)[$\bot$]{}]{} (5,1)[(0,1)[1]{}]{} (0,2)[(2,1)[ $\tt q([])$]{}]{} (2,2)[(6,1)[ $\tt p(X') \leftarrow r(X')$]{}]{} (1,3)[(1,1)[1]{}]{} (5,3)[(-1,1)[1]{}]{} (0,4)[(8,1)[ $\tt h(X) \leftarrow q(X), p(X)$]{}]{}
To model derivations for a program $P$ and a query $Q$, we assume that $P$ contains an additional clause ${\tt go} \leftarrow Q$, where $\tt go$ is a new predicate symbol.
We recall the following straightforward correspondences between derivations, the $T_P$-semantics and derivation trees.
\[semant-equiv-propo\] Let $P$ be a program. Then
1. \[tree=TP\] $a \in \mathit{lfp}(T_P)$ if and only if $a=head(T)$ for some proof tree $T$ for $P$,
2. \[tree=operational\] $Q \leadsto^* Q'$ if and only if $Q'$ is the sequence of node atoms of incomplete nodes of a most general derivation tree for $P \cup \{{\tt go} \leftarrow Q\}$ with head $\tt go$, visited left to right.
Typed Logic Programming {#typed-prog-subsec}
-----------------------
We assume a type system for logic programs with parametric polymorphism but without subtyping, as realised in the languages Gödel [@goedel] or Mercury [@mercury].
The set of types $\mathcal T$ is given by the term structure based on a finite set of [**constructors**]{} $\mathcal K$, where with each $K\in\mathcal{K}$ an arity $m\geq 0$ is associated (by writing $K/m$), and a denumerable set $\mathcal U$ of [**parameters**]{}. A [**type substitution**]{} is an idempotent mapping from parameters to types which is the identity almost everywhere. The set of parameters in a syntactic object $o$ is denoted by $\pars(o)$.
We assume a denumerable set $\mathcal V$ of [**variables**]{}. The set of variables in a syntactic object $o$ is denoted by $\vars(o)$. A [**variable typing**]{} is a mapping from a finite subset of $\mathcal V$ to $\mathcal T$, written as $\{x_1:\tau_1,\dots,x_m:\tau_m\}$.
We assume a finite set $\mathcal F$ (resp. $\mathcal P$) of [**function**]{} (resp. [**predicate**]{}) symbols, each with an arity and a [**declared type**]{} associated with it, such that: for each $f \in \mathcal F$, the declared type has the form $(\tau_1,\dots,\tau_m,\tau)$, where $m$ is the arity of $f$, $(\tau_1,\dots,\tau_m)\in {\mathcal T}^m$, and $\tau$ satisfies the [*transparency condition*]{} [@HT92-new]:\[transparency\] $\pars(\tau_1,\dots,\tau_m) \subseteq \pars(\tau)$; for each $p \in \mathcal P$, the declared type has the form $(\tau_1,\dots,\tau_m)$, where $m$ is the arity of $p$ and $(\tau_1,\dots,\tau_m)\in {\mathcal T}^m$. We often indicate the declared types by writing ${f_{\tau_1 \dots \tau_m\rightarrow\tau}}$ and ${p_{\tau_1 \dots \tau_m}}$, however we assume that the parameters in $\tau_1,\dots,\tau_m,\tau$ are fresh for each occurrence of $f$ or $p$. We assume that there is a special predicate symbol $=_{u,u}$ where $u\in \mathcal U$.
Throughout this paper, we assume $\mathcal K$, $\mathcal F$, and $\mathcal P$ arbitrary but fixed. The [**typed language**]{}, i.e. a language of terms, atoms etc. based on $\mathcal K$, $\mathcal F$, and $\mathcal P$, is defined by the rules in Table \[rules-tab\]. All objects are defined relative to a variable typing $U$, and $\_\vdash\dots$ stands for “there exists $U$ such that $U\vdash\dots$”. The expressions below the line are called [**type judgements**]{}.
-------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------
[*(Var)*]{} $\{x:\tau,\dots\}\vdash x:\tau$
\[2ex\] [*(Func)*]{} $\frac {U\vdash t_1:\tau_1\Theta\ \cdots \ U\vdash t_m:\tau_m\Theta} {U\vdash{f_{\tau_1 \dots \tau_m\rightarrow\tau}}(t_1,\dots,t_m):\tau\Theta}$ $\Theta$ is a type substitution
\[2ex\] [*(Atom)*]{} $\frac {U\vdash t_1:\tau_1\Theta\ \cdots \ U\vdash t_m:\tau_m\Theta} {U\vdash{p_{\tau_1 \dots \tau_m}}(t_1,\dots,t_m)\; \mathit{Atom}}$ $\Theta$ is a type substitution
\[2ex\] [*(Query)*]{} $\frac {U\vdash A_1\; \mathit{Atom}\ \cdots \ U\vdash A_m\; \mathit{Atom}} {U\vdash A_1,\dots,A_m\; \mathit{Query}}$
\[2ex\] [*(Clause)*]{} $\frac {U\vdash A\; \mathit{Atom} \quad U\vdash Q\; Query} {U \vdash A \leftarrow Q\; \mathit{Clause}}$
\[2ex\] [*(Program)*]{} $\frac {\_\vdash C_1\; \mathit{Clause} \ \cdots \ \_\vdash C_m\; \mathit{Clause}} {\_\vdash \{C_1,\dots,C_m\}\; \mathit{Program}}$
\[2ex\] [*(Queryset)*]{} $\frac {\_\vdash Q_1\; \mathit{Query}\ \cdots \ \_\vdash Q_m\; \mathit{Query}} {\_\vdash \{Q_1,\dots, Q_m\} \; \mathit{Queryset}}$
-------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------
: Rules defining a typed language\[rules-tab\]
Formally, a proof of a type judgement is a tree where the nodes are labelled with judgements and the edges are labelled with rules (e.g.see Fig. \[judgment-fig\]) [@Tho91]. From the form of the rules, it is clear that in order to prove any type judgement, we must, for each occurrence of a term $t$ in the judgement, prove a judgement $\dots \vdash t:\tau$ for some $\tau$. We now define the most general such $\tau$. It exists and can be computed by [*type inferencing algorithms*]{} [@B95].
$
\begin{array}{ccccc}
& \hspace{0.5em} & \vdots & & \vdots
\\
\raisebox{0pt}[0pt]{\vdots} & &
U\vdash \bar{t}_1:\bar{\tau}_1 &
\raisebox{-1.3ex}{\dots} &
U\vdash \bar{t}_m:\bar{\tau}_m
\\
\cline{3-3}\cline{5-5}
U\vdash \bar{t}:\bar{\tau} & &
U\vdash p_1(\bar{t}_1)\ \mathit{Atom} & &
U\vdash p_m(\bar{t}_m)\ \mathit{Atom}
\\
\cline{1-1}\cline{3-5}
U\vdash p(\bar{t})\ \mathit{Atom} & &
\multicolumn{3}{c}{U\vdash p_1(\bar{t}_1),\dots,p_m(\bar{t}_m)\ \mathit{Query}}
\\\hline
\multicolumn{5}{c}{U\vdash p(\bar{t})\leftarrow p_1(\bar{t}_1),\dots,p_m(\bar{t}_m)\ \mathit{Clause}}
\end{array}
$
\[most-general-def\] Consider a judgement $U\vdash p(\bar{t})\leftarrow p_1(\bar{t}_1),\dots,p_m(\bar{t}_m)\
\mathit{Clause}$, and a proof of this judgement containing judgements $U\vdash \bar{t}:\bar{\tau}$, $U\vdash \bar{t}_1:\bar{\tau}_1$, …, $U\vdash \bar{t}_m:\bar{\tau}_m$ (see Fig. \[judgment-fig\]) such that $(\bar{\tau},\bar{\tau}_1,\dots,\bar{\tau}_m)$ is most general (wrt. all such proofs). We call $(\bar{\tau},\bar{\tau}_1,\dots,\bar{\tau}_m)$ the [**most general type**]{} of $p(\bar{t})\leftarrow p_1(\bar{t}_1),\dots,p_m(\bar{t}_m)$ [**wrt. $U$**]{}.
Moreover, consider the variable typing $U'$ and the proof of the judgement $U'\vdash p(\bar{t})\leftarrow p_1(\bar{t}_1),\dots,p_m(\bar{t}_m)\
\mathit{Clause}$ containing judgments $U'\vdash \bar{t}:\bar{\tau}$, $U'\vdash \bar{t}_1:\bar{\tau}_1$, …, $U'\vdash \bar{t}_m:\bar{\tau}_m$ such that $(\bar{\tau},\bar{\tau}_1,\dots,\bar{\tau}_m)$ is most general (wrt. all such proofs and all possible $U'$). We call $(\bar{\tau},\bar{\tau}_1,\dots,\bar{\tau}_m)$ the [**most general type**]{} of $p(\bar{t})\leftarrow p_1(\bar{t}_1),\dots,p_m(\bar{t}_m)$.
The following example explains the difference between the most general type wrt. a fixed variable typing, and the most general type as such.
\[most-general-example\] Consider function $\tt nil_{\rightarrow list(U)}$ and clause $C = \tt p \leftarrow X\! =\! nil,$ $\tt nil\! =\! nil$. Fixing $U= \{\tt X:list(int)\}$, the judgement $U\vdash C\ \mathit{Clause}$ can be proven using the judgements $U\vdash \tt X: list(int)$ and then $U\vdash \tt nil: list(int)$ for [*each*]{} occurrence of $\tt nil$. It can also be proven using the judgements $U\vdash \tt X: list(int)$ and then $U\vdash \tt nil: list(int)$ (for the first occurrence of $\tt nil$) and then $U\vdash \tt nil: list(V)$ (for the other two occurrences of $\tt nil$). In the latter case, we obtain $(\tt list(int), list(int), list(V), list(V))$, the most general type of $C$ wrt. $U$. Moreover, $(\tt list(V'), list(V'), list(V), list(V))$ is the most general type of $C$ (choose $U' = \{\tt X:list(V')\}$).
\[substitution-def\] If $U\vdash x_1\!=\!t_1, \dots, x_m\! =\! t_m\ Query$ where $x_1,\dots,x_m$ are distinct variables and for each $i\in \onetom$, $t_i$ is a term distinct from $x_i$, then $(\{ x_1/t_1,\dots,x_m/t_m\}, U)$ is a [**typed (term) substitution**]{}.
We shall need three fundamental lemmas introduced in [@HT92-new].[^3]
[@HT92-new Lemma 1.2.8]\[variable-typing-lemma\] Let $U$ be a variable typing and $\Theta$ a type substitution. If $U\vdash t:\sigma$, then $U\Theta\vdash t:\sigma\Theta$. Moreover, if $U\vdash A\ \mathit{Atom}$ then $U\Theta\vdash A\ \mathit{Atom}$, and likewise for queries and clauses.
The proof is by structural induction. For the base case, suppose $U\vdash x:\sigma$ where $x\in \mathcal V$. Then $x: \sigma \in U$ and hence $x:\sigma\Theta \in U\Theta$. Thus $U\Theta\vdash x:\sigma\Theta$.
Now consider $U\vdash {f_{\tau_1 \dots \tau_m\rightarrow\tau}}(t_1,\dots,t_m):\sigma$ where the inductive hypothesis holds for $t_1,\dots,t_m$. By Rule [*(Func)*]{}, there exists a type substitution $\Theta'$ such that $\sigma=\tau\Theta'$ and $U\vdash t_i:\tau_i\Theta'$ for each $i \in \onetom$. By the inductive hypothesis, $U\Theta \vdash t_i:\tau_i\Theta'\Theta$ for each $i\in\onetom$, and hence by Rule [*(Func)*]{}, $U\Theta\vdash {f_{\tau_1 \dots \tau_m\rightarrow\tau}}(t_1,\dots,t_m): \tau\Theta'\Theta$.
The rest of the proof is now trivial.
[@HT92-new Lemma 1.4.2]\[apply-substitution-lemma\] Let $(\theta,U)$ be a typed substitution. If $U\vdash t:\sigma$ then $U\vdash t\theta :\sigma$. Moreover, if $U\vdash A\ \mathit{Atom}$ then $U\vdash A\theta\ \mathit{Atom}$, and likewise for queries and clauses.
The proof is by structural induction. For the base case, suppose $U\vdash x:\sigma$ where $x\in \mathcal V$. If $x\theta=x$, there is nothing to show. If $x/t \in \theta$, then by definition of a typed substitution, $U\vdash t: \sigma$.
Now consider $U\vdash {f_{\tau_1 \dots \tau_m\rightarrow\tau}}(t_1,\dots,t_m) :\sigma$ where the inductive hypothesis holds for $t_1,\dots,t_m$. By Rule [*(Func)*]{}, there exists a type substitution $\Theta'$ such that $\sigma=\tau\Theta'$, and $U\vdash t_i:\tau_i\Theta'$ for each $i \in \onetom$. By the inductive hypothesis, $U\vdash t_i\theta:\tau_i\Theta'$ for each $i\in\onetom$, and hence by Rule [*(Func)*]{}, $U\vdash {f_{\tau_1 \dots \tau_m\rightarrow\tau}}(t_1,\dots,t_m)\theta : \tau\Theta'$.
The rest of the proof is now trivial.
[@HT92-new Thm. 1.4.1]\[is-substitution-lemma\] Let $E$ be a set (conjunction) of equations such that for some variable typing $U$, we have $U\vdash E\ \mathit{Query}$. Suppose $\theta$ is an MGU of $E$. Then $(\theta,U)$ is a typed substitution.
We show that the result is true when $\theta$ is computed using the well-known Martelli-Montanari algorithm [@MM82] which works by transforming a set of equations $E=E_0$ into a set of the form required in the definition of a typed substitution. Only the following two transformations are considered here. The others are trivial.
1. \[replacement\] If $x=t\in E_k$ and $x$ does not occur in $t$, then replace all occurrences of $x$ in all other equations in $E$ with $t$, to obtain $E_{k+1}$.
2. \[decomposition\] If $f(t_1,\dots,t_m)=f(s_1,\dots,s_m)\in E_k$, then replace this equation with $t_1=s_1,\dots,t_m=s_m$, to obtain $E_{k+1}$.
We show that if $U\vdash E_k\ \mathit{Query}$ and $E_{k+1}$ is obtained by either of the above transformations, then $U\vdash E_{k+1}\ \mathit{Query}$. For (\[replacement\]), this follows from Lemma \[apply-substitution-lemma\].
For (\[decomposition\]), suppose $U\vdash E_k\ \mathit{Query}$ and $f(t_1,\dots,t_m)=f(s_1,\dots,s_m)\in E_k$ where $f={f_{\tau_1 \dots \tau_m\rightarrow\tau}}$. By Rule [*(Query)*]{}, we must have $U\vdash f(t_1,\dots,t_m)=_{u, u}f(s_1,\dots,s_m)\ \mathit{Atom}$, and hence by Rule [*(Atom)*]{}, $U\vdash f(t_1,\dots,t_m): u\Theta$ and $U\vdash f(s_1,\dots,s_m): u\Theta$ for some type substitution $\Theta$. On the other hand, by Rule [*(Func)*]{}, $u\Theta= \tau\Theta_t$ and $u\Theta= \tau\Theta_s$ for some type substitutions $\Theta_s$ and $\Theta_t$, and moreover for each $i\in\onetom$, we have $U\vdash t_i: \tau_i\Theta_t$ and $U\vdash s_i: \tau_i\Theta_s$. Since $\pars(\tau_i) \subseteq \pars(\tau)$, it follows that $\tau_i\Theta_t = \tau_i\Theta_s$.[^4] Therefore $U\vdash t_i=s_i\ \mathit{Atom}$, and so $U\vdash E_{k+1}\ \mathit{Query}$.
Subject Reduction for Derivation Trees {#trees-sec}
======================================
We first define subject reduction as a property of derivation trees and show that it is equivalent to the usual operational notion. We then show that a sufficient condition for subject reduction is that the types of all unified terms are themselves unifiable.
Proof-Theoretic and Operational Subject Reduction
-------------------------------------------------
Subject reduction is a well-understood concept, yet it has to be defined formally for each system. We now provide two fundamental definitions.
\[subj-red-def\]\[subj-red-oper-def\] Let $\_\vdash P \ \mathit{Program}$ and $\_\vdash\mathcal Q\ \mathit{Queryset}$. We say $P$ has [**(proof-theoretic) subject reduction wrt. $\mathcal Q$**]{} if for every $ Q \in \mathcal Q$, for every most general derivation tree $T$ for $P\cup \{{\tt go} \leftarrow Q\}$ with head $\tt go$, there exists a variable typing $U'$ such that for each node atom $a$ of $T$, $U'\vdash a\ \mathit{Atom}$.
$P$ has [**operational subject reduction wrt. $\mathcal Q$**]{} if for every $ Q \in \mathcal Q$, for every derivation $Q \leadsto^* Q'$ of $P$, we have $\_\vdash Q'\ \mathit{Query}$.
The reference to $\mathcal Q$ is omitted if $\mathcal Q=\{ Q\mid \_\vdash Q\ \mathit{Query}\}$. The following theorem states a certain equivalence between the two notions.
\[decl-oper-theo\] Let $\_\vdash P \ \mathit{Program}$ and $\_\vdash\mathcal Q\ \mathit{Queryset}$. If $P$ has subject reduction wrt. $\mathcal Q$, then $P$ has operational subject reduction wrt. $\mathcal Q$. If $P$ has operational subject reduction, then $P$ has subject reduction.
The first statement is a straightforward consequence of Prop. \[semant-equiv-propo\] (\[tree=operational\]).
For the second statement, assume $U\vdash Q\ \mathit{Query}$, let $\xi = Q \leadsto^* Q'$, and $T$ be the derivation tree for $P \cup \{{\tt go} \leftarrow Q\}$ corresponding to $\xi$ (by Prop. \[semant-equiv-propo\] (\[tree=operational\])).
By hypothesis, there exists a variable typing $U'$ such that for each [*incomplete*]{} node $n$ of $T$, we have $U'\vdash atom(n)\ \mathit{Atom}$. To show that this also holds for [*complete*]{} nodes, we transform $\xi$ into a derivation which “records the entire tree $T$”. This is done as follows: Let $\tilde{P}$ be the program obtained from $P$ by replacing each clause $h \leftarrow B$ with $h \leftarrow B, B$. Let us call the atoms in the second occurrence of $B$ [*unresolvable*]{}. Clearly $\_\vdash h \leftarrow B, B\ \mathit{Clause}$ for each such clause.
By induction on the length of derivations, one can show that $\tilde{P}$ has operational subject reduction. For a single derivation step, this follows from the operational subject reduction of $P$.
Now let $\tilde{\xi}= {\tt go} \leadsto \tilde{Q}'$ be the derivation for $\tilde{P} \cup \{{\tt go} \leftarrow Q, Q\}$ using in each step the clause corresponding to the clause used in $\xi$ for that step, and resolving only the resolvable atoms. First note that since $\tilde{P}$ has operational subject reduction, there exists a variable typing $U'$ such that $U'\vdash \tilde{Q}' \ \mathit{Query}$. Moreover, since the unresolvable atoms are not resolved in $\tilde{\xi}$, it follows that $\tilde{Q}'$ contains exactly the non-root node atoms of $T$. This however shows that for each node atom $a$ of $T$, we have $U'\vdash a\ \mathit{Atom}$. Since the choice of $Q$ was arbitrary, $P$ has subject reduction.
The following example shows that in the second statement of the above theorem, it is crucial that $P$ has operational subject reduction wrt. [*all*]{} queries.
\[oper-SR-only-ex\] Let $\mathcal{K} = \{\mathtt{list}/1, \mathtt{int}/0\}$, $\mathcal{F} = \{
\mathtt{nil_{\rightarrow list(U)}},$ $\mathtt{cons_{U,list(U)\rightarrow list(U)}},$ $\mathtt{-1_{\rightarrow int}}, $ $\mathtt{0_{\rightarrow int}},\dots\}$, $\mathcal{P} = \{
\mathtt{p_{list(int)}},$ $\mathtt{r_{list(U)}}\}$, and $P$ be
p(X) <- r(X). r([X]) <- r(X).
For each derivation ${\tt p(X)} \leadsto^* Q'_0$, we have $Q'_0= \tt p(Y)$ or $Q'_0= \tt r(Y)$ for some ${\tt Y}\in\mathcal{V}$, and so $\{\tt Y : list(int)\}\vdash {\tt p(Y)}\ \mathit{Query}$ or $\{\tt Y : list(U)\}\vdash {\tt r(Y)}\ \mathit{Query}$. Therefore $P$ has operational subject reduction wrt. $\{\tt p(X)\}$. Yet the derivation trees for $P$ have heads $\tt p(Y)$, $\tt p([Y])$, $\tt p([[Y]])$ etc., and $\_\not\vdash {\tt p([[Y]])}\ \mathit{Query}$.
Unifiability of Types and Subject Reduction
-------------------------------------------
We now lift the notion of skeleton to the type level.
\[type-skel-def\] Let $\_\vdash P \ \mathit{Program}$ and $S$ be a skeleton for $P$. The [**type skeleton corresponding to**]{} $S$ is a tree obtained from $S$ by replacing each node label $C_n = p(\bar{t})\leftarrow p_1(\bar{t}_1),\dots,p_m(\bar{t}_m)$ with $p(\bar{\tau})\leftarrow p_1(\bar{\tau}_1),\dots,p_m(\bar{\tau}_m)$, where $(\bar{\tau},\bar{\tau}_1,\dots,\bar{\tau}_m)$ is the most general type of $C_n$.[^5] For a type skeleton $\mathit{TS}$, the [**type equation set**]{} $\mathit{Eq}(\mathit{TS})$ and a [**proper**]{} type skeleton are defined as in Def. \[eqs-def\].
The following theorem states that subject reduction is ensured if terms are unified only if their types are also unifiable.
\[type-tree-theorem\] Let $\_\vdash P \ \mathit{Program}$ and $\_\vdash \mathcal{Q} \ \mathit{Queryset}$. $P$ has subject reduction wrt. $\mathcal Q$ if for each proper skeleton $S$ of $P\cup\{{\tt go} \leftarrow Q\}$ with head $\tt go$, where $Q\in\mathcal{Q}$, the [*type*]{} skeleton corresponding to $S$ is proper.
Let $S$ be an arbitrary proper skeleton for $P\cup\{{\tt go}\leftarrow Q\}$ with head $\tt go$, where $Q\in \mathcal Q$. Let $\theta=MGU(Eq(S))$ and $\Theta=MGU(Eq(TS))$. For each node $n$ in $S$, labelled $p(\bar{t})\leftarrow p_1(\bar{t}_1),\dots,p_m(\bar{t}_m)$ in $S$ and $p(\bar{\tau})\leftarrow p_1(\bar{\tau}_1),\dots,p_m(\bar{\tau}_m)$ in $TS$, let $U_n$ be the variable typing such that $U_n\vdash
(\bar{t},\bar{t}_1,\dots,\bar{t}_m):
(\bar{\tau},\bar{\tau}_1,\dots,\bar{\tau}_m)$. Let $$U =
\bigcup_{n \in S}
U_n\Theta.$$ Consider a pair of nodes $n$, $n'$ in $S$ such that $n'$ is a child of $n$, and the equation $p(\bar{s})=p(\bar{s}') \in Eq(S)$ corresponding to this pair (see Def. \[eqs-def\]). Consider also the equation $p(\bar{\sigma}) = p(\bar{\sigma}') \in Eq(TS)$ corresponding to the pair $n$, $n'$ in $TS$. Note that $U_n \vdash \bar{s}: \bar{\sigma}$ and $U_{n'}\vdash \bar{s}':\bar{\sigma}'$. By Lemma \[variable-typing-lemma\], $U\vdash\bar{s} :\bar{\sigma} \Theta$ and $U\vdash\bar{s}':\bar{\sigma}'\Theta$. Moreover, since $\Theta=MGU(Eq(TS))$, we have $\bar{\sigma}\Theta=\bar{\sigma}'\Theta$. Therefore $U\vdash p(\bar{s}) = p(\bar{s}')\ \mathit{Atom}$. Since the same reasoning applies for any equation in $Eq(S)$, by Lemma \[is-substitution-lemma\], $(\theta,U)$ is a typed substitution.
Consider a node $n''$ in $S$ with node atom $a$. Since $U_{n''}\vdash a\ \mathit{Atom}$, by Lemma \[variable-typing-lemma\], $U\vdash a\ \mathit{Atom}$. and by Lemma \[apply-substitution-lemma\], $U\vdash a\theta\ \mathit{Atom}$. Therefore $P$ has subject reduction wrt. $\mathcal Q$.
(12,7) (0,0)[(12,1)[$\tt r([X''']) \leftarrow r(X''')$]{}]{} (6,1)[(0,1)[1]{}]{} (0,2)[(12,1)[$\tt r([X'']) \leftarrow r(X'')$]{}]{} (6,3)[(0,1)[1]{}]{} (0,4)[(12,1)[$\tt p(X') \leftarrow r(X')$]{}]{} (6,5)[(0,1)[1]{}]{} (0,6)[(12,1)[$\tt go \leftarrow p(X)$]{}]{}
(12,7) (0,0)[(12,1)[$\tt r(list(U''')) \leftarrow r(U''')$]{}]{} (6,1)[(0,1)[1]{}]{} (0,2)[(12,1)[$\tt r(list(U'')) \leftarrow r(U'')$]{}]{} (6,3)[(0,1)[1]{}]{} (0,4)[(12,1)[$\tt p(list(int)) \leftarrow r(list(int))$]{}]{} (6,5)[(0,1)[1]{}]{} (0,6)[(12,1)[$\tt go \leftarrow p(list(int))$]{}]{}
\[append-ex\] Figure \[proper-nonproper-fig\] shows a proper skeleton and the corresponding [*non-proper*]{} type skeleton for the program in Ex. \[oper-SR-only-ex\].
In contrast, let $\mathcal K$ and $\mathcal F$ be as in Ex. \[oper-SR-only-ex\], and $\mathcal P =
\{ \tt app_{list(U),list(U),list(U)},$ $\tt r_{list(int)} \}$. Let $P$ be the program shown in Fig.\[append-prog-fig\]. The most general type of each clause is indicated as comment. Figure \[append-fig\] shows a skeleton $S$ and the corresponding type skeleton $\mathit{TS}$ for $P$. A solution of $\mathit{Eq}(\mathit{TS})$ is obtained by instantiating all parameters with $\tt int$.
app([],Ys,Ys). %app(list(U),list(U),list(U))
app([X|Xs],Ys,[X|Zs]) <- %app(list(U),list(U),list(U))
app(Xs,Ys,Zs). %app(list(U),list(U),list(U))
r([1]). %r(list(int))
go <-
app(Xs,[],Zs), %app(list(int),list(int),list(int))
r(Xs). %r(list(int))
(13,6) (0,0)[(10,1)[$\tt app([],Ys'',Ys'')$]{}]{} (5,1)[(0,1)[1]{}]{} (0,2)[(10,2)[$
\begin{array}{l}
\tt app([X'|Xs'],Ys',[X'|Zs']) \leftarrow\\
\quad \quad \quad \tt app(Xs',Ys',Zs')
\end{array}$]{}]{} (10,2)[(3,2)[$\tt r([1])$]{}]{} (5,4)[(1,1)[1]{}]{} (11.5,4)[(-1,1)[1]{}]{} (0,5)[(13,1)[$\tt
go \leftarrow app(Xs,[],Zs)\; \und \; r(Xs)$]{}]{}
(13,6) (0,0)[(8,1)[$\tt app(list(U'')^3)$]{}]{} (4,1)[(0,1)[1]{}]{} (0,2)[(8,2)[$
\begin{array}{l}
\tt app(list(U')^3) \leftarrow\\
\quad \quad \quad \tt app(list(U')^3)
\end{array}$]{}]{} (8,2)[(5,2)[$\tt r(list(int))$]{}]{} (4,4)[(1,1)[1]{}]{} (10.5,4)[(-1,1)[1]{}]{} (0,5)[(13,1)[$\tt
go \leftarrow app(list(int)^3)\; \und \; r(list(int))$]{}]{}
Conditions for Subject Reduction {#conditions-sec}
================================
By Thm. \[type-tree-theorem\], a program has subject reduction if for each proper skeleton, the corresponding type skeleton is also proper. A more general sufficient condition consists in ensuring that [*any*]{} type skeleton is proper. We call this property [**type unifiability**]{}. Arguably, type unifiability is in the spirit of prescriptive typing, since subject reduction should be independent of the unifiability of terms, i.e., success or failure of the computation. However this view has been challenged in the context of higher-order logic programming [@NP92].
We conjecture that both subject reduction and type unifiability are undecidable. Proving this is a topic for future work.
The Head Condition
------------------
The head condition is the standard way [@HT92-new] of ensuring type unifiability.
\[HC-def\] A clause $C =
p_{\bar{\tau}}(\bar{t}) \leftarrow
B$ fulfills the [**head condition**]{} if its most general type has the form $(\bar{\tau},\dots)$.
Note that by the typing rules in Table \[rules-tab\], clearly the most general type of $C$ must be $(\bar{\tau},\dots)\Theta$ for some type substitution $\Theta$. Now the head condition states that the type of the head arguments must be the declared type of the predicate, or in other words, $\Theta\restr{\bar{\tau}}=\emptyset$. It has been shown previously that typed programs fulfilling the head condition have operational subject reduction [@HT92-new Theorem 1.4.7]. By Thm. \[decl-oper-theo\], this means that they have subject reduction.
Generalising the Head Condition
-------------------------------
To reason about the existence of a solution for the equation set of a type skeleton, we give a sufficient condition for unifiability of a finite set of term equations.
\[eq-unif\] Let $E = \{l_1=r_1,\dots,l_m=r_m\}$ be a set of oriented equations, and assume an order relation on the equations such that $l_1=r_1\rightarrow l_2=r_2$ if $r_1$ and $l_2$ share a variable. $E$ is unifiable if
1. \[equ-c0\] for all $1\leq i < j \leq m$, $r_i$ and $r_j$ have no variable in common, and
2. \[equ-c1\] the graph of $\rightarrow$ is a partial order, and
3. \[equ-c2\] for all $i\in\onetom$, $l_i$ is an instance of $r_i$.
In fact, the head condition ensures that $\mathit{Eq}(\mathit{TS})$ meets the above conditions for any type skeleton $\mathit{TS}$. The equations in $\mathit{Eq}(\mathit{TS})$ have the form $p(\bar{\tau}_a) = p(\bar{\tau}_h)$, where $\bar{\tau}_a$ is the type of an atom and $\bar{\tau}_h$ is the type of a head. Taking into account that the “type clauses” used for constructing the equations are renamed apart, all the head types (r.h.s.) have no parameter in common, the graph of $\rightarrow$ is a tree isomorphic to $\mathit{TS}$, and, by the head condition, $\bar{\tau}_a$ is an instance of $\bar{\tau}_h$. In the next subsection, we show that by decomposing each equation $p(\bar{\tau}_a) = p(\bar{\tau}_h)$, one can refine this condition.
Semi-generic Programs {#semi-generic-subsec}
---------------------
In the head condition, all arguments of a predicate in clause head position are “generic” (i.e. their type is the declared type). One might say that all arguments are “head-generic”. It is thus possible to generalise the head condition by partitioning the arguments of each predicate into those which stay head-generic and those which one requires to be generic for body atoms. The latter ones will be called [*body-generic*]{}. If we place the head-generic arguments of a clause head and the body-generic arguments of a clause body on the right hand sides of the equations associated with a type skeleton, then Condition \[equ-c2\] in Prop. \[eq-unif\] is met.
The other two conditions can be obtained in various ways, more or less complex to verify (an analysis of the analogous problem of not being subject to occur check (NSTO) can be found in [@DM93]). Taking into account the renaming of “type clauses”, a relation between two equations amounts to a shared parameter between a generic argument (r.h.s.) and a non-generic argument (l.h.s.) of a clause. We propose here a condition on the clauses which implies that the equations of any skeleton can be ordered.
In the following, an atom written as $p(\bar{s},\bar{t})$ means: $\bar{s}$ and $\bar{t}$ are the vectors of terms filling the head-generic and body-generic positions of $p$, respectively. The notation $p(\bar{\sigma},\bar{\tau})$, where $\sigma$ and $\tau$ are types, is defined analogously.
\[semi-generic-def\] Let $\_\vdash P\ \mathit{Program}$ and $\_\vdash C\ \mathit{Clause}$ where $$C =
p_{\bar{\tau}_0,\bar{\sigma}_{m+1}}(\bar{t}_0,\bar{s}_{m+1}) \leftarrow
p^1_{\bar{\sigma}_1,\bar{\tau}_1}(\bar{s}_1,\bar{t}_1),\dots,
p^m_{\bar{\sigma}_m,\bar{\tau}_m}(\bar{s}_m,\bar{t}_m),$$ and $\Theta$ the type substitution such that $(\bar{\tau}_0,\bar{\sigma}_{m+1},
\bar{\sigma}_1,\bar{\tau}_1,\dots,
\bar{\sigma}_m,\bar{\tau}_m)\Theta$ is the most general type of $C$. We call $C$ [**semi-generic**]{} if
1. \[is-linear\] for all $i,j \in \zerotom$, $i \neq j$, $\pars(\tau_i\Theta) \cap \pars(\tau_j\Theta) = \emptyset$,
2. \[is-disjoint\] for all $i \in \onetom$, $\pars(\bar{\sigma}_i) \cap
\bigcup_{i \leq j \leq m} \pars(\bar{\tau}_j)
= \emptyset$,
3. \[is-generic\] for all $i \in \zerotom$, $\tau_i \Theta=\tau_i$.
A query $Q$ is [**semi-generic**]{} if the clause ${\tt go} \leftarrow Q$ is semi-generic. A program is [**semi-generic**]{} if each of its clauses is semi-generic.
Note that semi-genericity has a strong resemblance with [*nicely-modedness*]{}, where head-generic corresponds to input, and body-generic corresponds to output. Nicely-modedness has been used, among other things, to show that programs are free from unification [@AE93]. Semi-genericity serves a very similar purpose here. Note also that a typed program which fulfills the head condition is semi-generic, where all argument positions are head-generic.
The following theorem states subject reduction for semi-generic programs.
\[condgen-thm\] Every semi-generic program $P$ has subject reduction wrt. the set of semi-generic queries.
Let $Q$ be a semi-generic query and $TS$ a type skeleton corresponding to a skeleton for $P\cup \{{\tt go} \leftarrow Q\}$ with head $\tt go$. Each equation in $Eq(TS)$ originates from a pair of nodes $(n,n_i)$ where $n$ is labelled $C = p(\bar{\tau}_0,\bar{\sigma}_{m+1}) \leftarrow
p_1(\bar{\sigma}_1,\bar{\tau}_1),\dots,
p_m(\bar{\sigma}_m,\bar{\tau}_m)$ and $n_i$ is labelled $C_i = p_i(\bar{\tau}'_i,\bar{\sigma}'_i)\leftarrow\dots$, and the equation is $p_i(\bar{\tau}'_i,\bar{\sigma}'_i) =
p_i(\bar{\sigma}_i,\bar{\tau}_i)$. Let $Eq'$ be obtained from $Eq(TS)$ by replacing each such equation with the two equations $\bar{\sigma}_i = \bar{\tau}'_i$, $\bar{\sigma}'_i = \bar{\tau}_i$. Clearly $Eq'$ and $Eq(TS)$ are equivalent. Because of the renaming of parameters for each node and since $TS$ is a tree, it is possible to define an order $\dashrightarrow$ on the equations in $Eq'$ such that for [*each*]{} label $C$ defined as above, $\bar{\sigma}_1 = \bar{\tau}'_1 \dashrightarrow
E_1 \dashrightarrow
\bar{\sigma}'_1 = \bar{\tau}_1 \dashrightarrow
\dots \dashrightarrow
\bar{\sigma}_m = \bar{\tau}'_m \dashrightarrow
E_m \dashrightarrow
\bar{\sigma}'_m = \bar{\tau}_m$, where for each $i\in\onetom$, $E_i$ denotes a sequence containing all equations $e$ with $\pars (e) \cap \pars(C_i) \neq \emptyset$.
We show that $Eq'$ fulfills the conditions of Prop. \[eq-unif\]. By Def. \[semi-generic-def\] (\[is-linear\]), $Eq'$ fulfills condition \[equ-c0\]. By Def. \[semi-generic-def\] (\[is-disjoint\]), it follows that $\rightarrow$ is a subrelation of $\dashrightarrow$, and hence $Eq'$ fulfills condition \[equ-c1\]. By Def. \[semi-generic-def\] (\[is-generic\]), $Eq'$ fulfills condition \[equ-c2\].
Thus $Eq(TS)$ has a solution, so $TS$ is proper, and so by Thm.\[type-tree-theorem\], $P$ has subject reduction wrt. the set of semi-generic queries.
The following example shows that our condition extends the class of programs that have subject reduction.
\[semi-generic-ex\] Suppose $\mathcal{K}$ and $\mathcal{F}$ define lists as usual (see Ex. \[oper-SR-only-ex\]). Let $\mathcal{P} =
\{\tt p_{U,V}, q_{U,V}\}$ and assume that for $\tt p, q$, the first argument is head-generic and the second argument is body-generic. Consider the following program.
p(X,[Y]) <- %p(U,list(V)) <-
q([X],Z), q([Z],Y). % q(list(U),W), q(list(W),V).
q(X,[X]). %q(U,list(U)).
This program is semi-generic. E.g. in the first type clause the terms in generic positions are $\tt U,W, V$; all generic arguments have the declared type (condition \[is-generic\]); they do not share a parameter (condition \[is-linear\]); no generic argument in the body shares a parameter with a non-generic position to the left of it (condition \[is-disjoint\]). A type skeleton is shown in Fig. \[semi-generic-fig\].
(13,3) (0,0)[(5,1)[$\tt q(U',list(U'))$]{}]{} (8,0)[(5,1)[$\tt q(U'',list(U''))$]{}]{} (2.5,1)[(1,1)[1]{}]{} (10.5,1)[(-1,1)[1]{}]{} (0,2)[(13,1)[$
\tt p(U,list(V)) \leftarrow q(list(U),W), q(list(W),V)$]{}]{}
As another example, suppose now that $\mathcal{K}$ and $\mathcal{F}$ define list and integers, and consider the predicate ${\tt r}/2$ specified as $\tt r(1,[]), r(2,[[]]), r(3,[[[]]])\dots$. Its obvious definition would be
r(1,[]).
r(J,[X]) <- r(J-1,X).
One can see that this program must violate the head condition no matter what the declared type of $\tt r$ is. However, assuming declared type $\tt (int,list(U))$ and letting the second argument be body-generic, the program is semi-generic.
One can argue that in the second example, there is an intermingling of the typing and the computation, which contradicts the spirit of prescriptive typing. However, as we discuss in the next section, the situation is not always so clearcut.
What is the Use of the Head Condition? {#is-restrictive-sec}
======================================
The above results shed new light on the head condition. They allow us to view it as just one particularly simple condition guaranteeing type unifiability and consequently subject reduction and “well-typing” of the result, and hence a certain correctness of the program. This raises the question whether by generalising the condition, we have significantly enlarged the class of “well-typed” programs.
However, the head condition is also sometimes viewed as a condition inherent in the type system, or more specifically, an essential characteristic of [*generic*]{} polymorphism, as opposed to [*ad-hoc*]{} polymorphism. Generic polymorphism means that predicates are defined on an infinite number of types and that the definition is independent of a particular instance of the parameters. Ad-hoc polymorphism, often called [*overloading*]{} [@M78], means, e.g., to use the same symbol $+$ for integer addition, matrix addition and list concatenation. Ad-hoc polymorphism is in fact forbidden by the head condition.
One way of reconciling ad-hoc polymorphism with the head condition is to enrich the type system so that types can be passed as parameters, and the definition of a predicate depends on these parameters [@LR96]. Under such conditions, the head condition is regarded as natural.
So as a second, more general question, we discuss the legitimacy of the head condition briefly, since the answer justifies the interest in our first question.
In favour of the head condition, one could argue (1) that a program typed in this way does not compute types, but only propagates them; (2) that it allows for separate compilation since an imported predicate can be compiled without consulting its definition; and (3) that it disallows certain “unclean” programs [@craft].
In reality, these points are not, strictly speaking, fundamental arguments in favour of the head condition. Our generalisation does not necessarily imply a confusion between computation and typing (even if the result type does not depend on the result of a computation, it may be an instance of the declared type). Moreover, if the type declarations of the predicates are accompanied by declarations of the head- and body-generic arguments, separate compilation remains possible. Finally, Hanus [@Han92] does not consider the head condition to be particularly natural, arguing that it is an important feature of logic programming that it allows for [*lemma generation*]{}.
We thus believe that the first question is, after all, relevant. So far, we have not been able to identify a “useful”, non-contrived, example which clearly shows the interest in the class of semi-generically typed programs. The following example demonstrates the need for a generalisation, but also the insufficiency of the class defined in Def. \[semi-generic-def\].
\[fg-ex\] Let $\mathcal{K} =$ $\{\mathtt{t}/1, \mathtt{int}/0\}$ and $$\mathcal{F} =
\{\mathtt{-1_{\rightarrow int}},
\mathtt{0_{\rightarrow int}},\dots,
\mathtt{c}_\mathtt{\rightarrow t(U)},
\mathtt{g}_\mathtt{U \rightarrow t(U)},
\mathtt{f}_\mathtt{t(t(U)) \rightarrow t(U)}\}.$$ For all $i \geq 0$, we have $\_\vdash \mathtt{g}^i({\tt c}) : {\tt t}^{i+1}({\tt U})$ and $\_\vdash \mathtt{f}^i(\mathtt{g}^i({\tt c})) : {\tt t}({\tt U})$. This means that the set $
\{\sigma \mid \exists s,t.\ \mbox{$s$ is subterm of $t$},
\ \mbox{$\_\vdash s:\sigma$},
\ \mbox{$\_\vdash t:{\tt t(U)}$} \}
$ is infinite, or in words, there are infinitely many types that a subterm of a term of type $\tt t(U)$ can have. This property of the type $\tt t(U)$ is very unusual. In [@SHK00], a condition is considered (the [*Reflexive Condition*]{}) which rules out this situation.
Now consider the predicate ${\tt fgs}/2$ specified as ${\tt fgs}(i,\mathtt{f}^i(\mathtt{g}^i({\tt c})))$ ($i \in \nat$). Figure \[fg-fig\] presents three potential definitions of this predicate. The declared types of the predicates are given by $\mathcal{P} = $ $\{\tt fgs1_{int, t(U)}, $ $\tt gs1_{int, t(U)},$ $\tt fgs2_{int, t(U)},$ $\tt fgs3_{int, t(U)},$ $\tt fs1_{int, t(U), int},$ $\tt fs2_{int, t(U), int},$$\tt gs2_{int, t(U), t(V)},$ $\tt fgs3\_aux_{int, t(U), t(U)}\}$. The first solution is the most straightforward one, but its last clause does not fulfill the head condition. For the second solution, the fact clause `gs2(0,x,x).` does not fulfill the head condition. The third program fulfills the head condition but is the least obvious solution.
fgs1(I,Y) <-
fs1(I,Y,I).
fs1(I,f(X),J) <-
fs1(I-1,X,J).
fs1(0,X,J) <-
gs1(J,X).
gs1(J,g(X)) <-
gs1(J-1,X).
gs1(0,c).
fgs2(I,Y) <-
fs2(I,Y,I).
fs2(I,f(X),J) <-
fs2(I-1,X,J).
fs2(0,X,J) <-
gs2(J,X,c).
gs2(J,X,Y) <-
gs2(J-1,X,g(Y)).
gs2(0,X,X).
fgs3(I,X) <-
fgs3_aux(I,c,X).
fgs3_aux(I,X,f(Y)) <-
fgs3_aux(I-1,g(X),Y).
fgs3_aux(0,X,X).
For the above example, the head condition is a real restriction. It prevents a solution using the most obvious algorithm, which is certainly a drawback of any type system. We suspected initially that it would be impossible to write a program fulfilling the specification of $\tt fgs$ without violating the head condition.
Now it would of course be interesting to see if the first two programs, which violate the head condition, are semi-generic. Unfortunately, they are not. We explain this for the first program. The second position of `gs1` must be body-generic because of the second clause for `gs1`. This implies that the second position of `fs1` must also be body-generic because of the second clause for `fs1` (otherwise there would be two generic positions with a common parameter). That however is unacceptable for the first clause of `fs1` ($\tt X$ has type $\tt t(t(U))$, instance of $\tt t(U)$).
It can however be observed that both programs have subject reduction wrt. the queries ${\tt fgs}j(i,{\tt Y})$ for $i \in \nat$ and $j = 1,2$. In fact for these queries all type skeletons are proper, but it can be seen that the equations associated with the type skeletons cannot be ordered. This shows that the condition of semi-genericity is still too restrictive.
There is a perfect analogy between `gs1` and $\tt r$ in Ex.\[semi-generic-ex\].
To conclude this section, note that our solution to the problem in Ex. \[fg-ex\] uses [*polymorphic recursion*]{}, a concept previously discussed for functional programming [@KFU93-short]: In the recursive clause for [fgs3\_aux]{}, the arguments of the recursive call have type $\tt (int,t(t(U)),t(t(U)))$, while the arguments of the clause head have type $\tt (int,t(U),t(U))$. If we wrote a function corresponding to `fgs3_aux` in Miranda [@Tho95] or ML, the type checker could not infer its type, since it assumes that recursion is monomorphic, i.e., the type of a recursive call is identical to the type of the “head”. In Miranda, this problem can be overcome by providing a type declaration, while in ML, the function will definitely be rejected. This limitation of the ML type system, or alternatively, the ML type checker, has been studied by Kahrs [@K96].
There is a certain duality between the head condition and monomorphic recursion. When trying to find a solution to our problem, we found that we either had to violate the head condition or use polymorphic recursion. For example, in the recursive clause for [gs1]{}, the arguments of the recursive call have type $\tt (int,t(U))$, while the arguments of the clause head have type $\tt (int,t(t(U)))$, which is in a way the reverse of the situation for `fgs3_aux`. Note that this implies a violation of the head condition for [*any*]{} declared type of [gs1]{}. It would be interesting to investigate this duality further.
Conclusion {#conclusion-sec}
==========
In this paper we redefined the notion of [*subject reduction*]{} by using derivation trees, leading to a proof-theoretic view of typing in logic programming. We showed that this new notion is equivalent to the operational one (Thm. \[decl-oper-theo\]).
We introduced [*type skeletons*]{}, obtained from skeletons by replacing terms with their types. We showed that a program has subject reduction if for each proper skeleton, the type skeleton is also proper. Apart from clarifying the motivations of the head condition, it has several potential applications:
- It facilitates studying the semantics of typed programs by simplifying its formulation in comparison to other works (e.g. [@LR91]). Lifting the notions of derivation tree and skeleton on the level of types can help formulate proof-theoretic and operational semantics, just as this has been done for untyped logic programming with the classical trees [@BGLM91; @DM93; @FLMP89].
- The approach may enhance program analysis based on abstract interpretation. Proper type skeletons could also be modelled by fixpoint operators [@CominiLMV96; @CC77; @GDL95]. Abstract interpretation for prescriptively typed programs has been studied by [@RBM99; @SHK00], and it has been pointed out that the head condition is essential for ensuring that the abstract semantics of a program is finite, which is crucial for the termination of an analysis. It would be interesting to investigate the impact of more general conditions.
- This “proof-theoretic” approach to typing could also be applied for synthesis of typed programs. In [@TBD97], the authors propose the automatic generation of lemmas, using synthesis techniques based on resolution. It is interesting to observe that the generated lemmas meet the head condition, which our approach seems to be able to justify and even generalise.
- The approach may help in combining [*prescriptive*]{} and [*descriptive*]{} approaches to typing. The latter are usually based on partial correctness properties. Descriptive type systems satisfy certain criteria of type-correctness [@DM98], but subject reduction is difficult to consider in such systems. Our approach is a step towards potential combinations of different approaches.
We have presented a condition for type unifiability which is a refinement of the head condition (Thm. \[condgen-thm\]). Several observations arise from this:
- Definition \[semi-generic-def\] is decidable. If the partitioning of the arguments is given, it can be verified in polynomial time. Otherwise, finding a partitioning is exponential in the number of argument positions.
- The refinement has a cost: subject reduction does not hold for arbitrary (typed) queries. The head condition, by its name, only restricts the clause heads, whereas our generalisation also restricts the queries, and hence the ways in which a program can be used.
- As we have seen, the proposed refinement may not be sufficient. Several approaches can be used to introduce further refinements based on abstract interpretation or on properties of sets of equations. Since any sufficient condition for type unifiability contains at least an NSTO condition, one could also benefit from the refinements proposed for the NSTO check [@DM93]. Such further refined conditions should, in particular, be fulfilled by all solutions of Ex. \[fg-ex\].
We have also studied [*operational*]{} subject reduction for type systems with subtyping [@SFD00]. As future work, we want to integrate that work with the [*proof-theoretic*]{} view of subject reduction of this paper. Also, we want to prove the undecidability of subject reduction and type unifiability, and design more refined tests for type unifiability.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
We thank François Fages for interesting discussions. Jan-Georg Smaus was supported by an ERCIM fellowship.
[^1]: A variant is obtained by renaming the type parameters in a type.
[^2]: Recall that $C$ is renamed apart from any other clause in the same tree.
[^3]: Note that some results in [@HT92-new] have been shown to be faulty (Lemmas 1.1.7, 1.1.10 and 1.2.7), although we believe that these mistakes only affect type systems which include subtyping.
[^4]: Note how the transparency condition is essential to ensure that subarguments in corresponding positions have identical types. This condition was ignored in [@MO84].
[^5]: Recall that the variables in $C_n$ and the parameters in $\bar{\tau},\bar{\tau}_1,\dots,\bar{\tau}_m$ are renamed apart from other node labels in the same (type) skeleton.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
author:
- Olivier Debarre and Bodo Lass
title: Monomial transformations of the projective space
---
Introduction {#sec:0}
============
We denote by $\P^n$ the $n$-dimensional projective space over a fixed field. A monomial transformation of $\P^n $ is a rational map $f:\P^n\dra \P^n$ whose components $ f_0,\dots,f_n $ are monomials (of the same positive degree $d(f)$ and with no common factors) in the variables $x_0,\dots,x_n$.
Monomial transformations are of course very special among all rational transformations, but also much easier to study. For this reason, they have recently attracted some attention. In particular, there is a description of all [*birational*]{} monomial transformations $f$ with $d(f)=2$ in [@cs], §2, from which it follows that $d(f^{-1})$ is then at most equal to $n$ ([@cs], Theorem 2.6). Extensive computer calculations were then performed by Johnson in [@joh] and led him to suggest that the largest possible value for $d(f^{-1})$ should be $\frac{(d(f)-1)^n-1}{d(f)-2}$ when $d(f)\ge 3$.
These values should be compared with the optimal bound $d(g^{-1})\le d(g)^{n-1}$ for all birational transformations $g$ of $\P^n$. This maximal value for $d(g^{-1})$ is attained if and only if the indeterminacy locus of $g$ is finite (see §\[sec:3\]), hence one is led to think that the indeterminacy locus of a monomial map should be rather large. This is what we prove in Theorem \[main\]: [*the dimension of the indeterminacy locus of a monomial map $f:\P^n\dra \P^n$ is at least $(n-2)/2$, provided that the degree of $f$ as a map is not divisible by $d(f)$.*]{}
We show in §\[sec:3\] that this implies a bound on $d(f^{-1})$ for all birational monomial transformations $f$, which is however not as good as the one suggested by Johnson.
Monomial transformations {#sec:1}
========================
We represent a monomial transformation $f:\P^n\dra \P^n$, with components $ f_0,\dots,f_n $, by the $(n+1)\times(n+1)$ matrix $A=(a_{ij})_{0\le i,j\le n}$ whose $i$th row lists the exponents of $f_i$. With this notation, one has $f_A\circ f_B=f_{AB}$.
The following proposition is elementary ([@gsp]; [@sv1] Lemma 1.2; [@joh]).
\[p1\] With the notation above, we have $$|\det(A)|=d(f) \deg(f).$$ In particular, $f$ is birational if and only if $ |\det(A)|=d(f)$.
The condition that all monomials $ f_0,\dots,f_n $ have the same degree $d:=d(f)$ means that in each row of $A$, the sum of the entries is $d$. Adding all columns to the 0th column, then subtracting the first row from all other rows we obtain $$\det(A)=\left|
\begin{array}{cccc}
d&a_{01}&\cdots&a_{0n}\\
\vdots&\vdots&&\vdots\\
d&a_{n1}&\cdots&a_{nn}
\end{array}
\right|=d\, \left|
\begin{array}{cccc}
1&a_{01}&\cdots&a_{0n}\\
\vdots&\vdots&&\vdots\\
1&a_{n1}&\cdots&a_{nn}
\end{array}
\right|=d\,\det(M),$$ where $M:=(m_{ij})_{1\le i,j\le n}$ is defined by $m_{ij}:=a_{ij}-a_{0j}$. If $T\isom (\C^*)^n\subset \P^n$ is the torus defined by $x_0\cdots x_n\ne 0$, the map $f$ induces a morphism $f_T:T\to T$ given by $$f_T(x_1,\dots,x_n)=(x_1^{m_{11}}\cdots x_n^{m_{1n}},\dots ,x_1^{m_{n1}}\cdots x_n^{m_{nn}}).$$ The induced map $\widehat f_T:\widehat T\to \widehat T$ between algebraic character groups (where $\widehat T$ is the free abelian group $\Z^n$) is given by the transposed matrix $M^T:\Z^n\to \Z^n$. Performing elementary operations on $M$ amounts to composing $f_T$ with monomial automorphisms, so we can reduce to the case where $M$ is diagonal, in which case it is obvious that the degree of the morphism $f_T$ (which is the same as the degree of $f$) is $|\det(M)|$.
With the notation above, $f$ is birational if and only if $ |\det(A)|=d(f)$. Its inverse is then also a monomial transformation.
It is clear from the proof above that $f$ is birational if and only if $ |\det(M)|=1$, , if and only if $M\in \operatorname{GL}_n(\Z)$ or, equivalently, if and only if $f_T$ is an isomorphism, whose inverse is then given by the matrix $M^{-1}$. It is therefore a monomial transformation.
Indeterminacy locus {#sec:2}
===================
In this section, $f:\P^n \dra \P^n $ is again a monomial transformation. [*We assume that its components $ f_0,\dots,f_n $ have no common factors.*]{} In terms of the matrix $A$ defined in §\[sec:1\], this means that each column of $A$ has at least one 0 entry.
The indeterminacy locus $B$ of $f$ is then the subscheme of $\P^n$ defined by the equations $f_0,\dots,f_n$. Its blow-up $\widehat X\to X$ is the graph $\Gamma_f\to \P^n$ of $f$ ([@dol], §1.4).
For each nonempty subset $J\subsetneq\{0,\dots,n\}$ such that the $(n+1)\times |J|$ matrix $A_J$ constructed from the columns of $A$ corresponding to the elements of $J$ has no zero rows, we obtain a linear space contained in $B$ by setting $x_j=0$ for all $j\in J$. Its codimension in $\P^n$ is $|J|$. Moreover, $B_{\rm red}$ is the union of all such linear spaces.
\[main\] Let $f:\P^n \dra \P^n $ be a dominant transformation defined by monomials of degree $d$ with no common factors. If the degree of $f$ is not divisible by $d$, the dimension of the indeterminacy locus of $f$ is at least $(n-2)/2$.
The condition on the degree is necessary, as shown by the morphism $(x_0,\dots,x_n)\mapsto (x^d_0,\dots,x^d_n)$ of degree $d^n$ (whose indeterminacy locus is empty).
Since the determinant of the matrix $A$ is nonzero we may assume, upon permuting its rows and columns, that we have $a_{ii}\ne 0$ for all $i\in \{0,\dots,n\}$.
We then define an oriented graph on the set of vertices $\{0,\dots,n\}$ by adding an oriented edge from $i$ to $j$ whenever $a_{ij}\ne 0$. We then say that a vertex $x$ is equivalent to a vertex $y$ if and only if there exists an oriented path from $x$ to $y$ and an oriented path from $y$ to $x$. This defines a partition of the set $\{0,\dots,n\}$ into equivalence classes (note that $x$ is equivalent to $x$ since $a_{xx}\ne 0$).
Say that an equivalence class $X$ is greater than or equal to an equivalence class $Y$ if there is an oriented path from an element of $X$ to an element of $Y$ (there exists then an oriented path from any element of $X$ to any element of $Y$). This defines a partial order on the set of equivalence classes.
Choose a class $X$ minimal for this order. Entries of $A$ in a row corresponding to an element of $X$ which are not in a column corresponding to an element of $X$ are then 0 (otherwise, at least one oriented edge should come out of a $X$ to element not in $X$, contradicting the minimality of $X$). It follows that the determinant of the submatrix $A_X$ of $A$ corresponding to rows and columns of $X$ divides the determinant of $A$. The sum of all entries in a row of $A_X$ is $d$ hence, by the same reasoning used in the proof of Proposition \[p1\], the determinant of $A_X$ is nonzero, divisible by $d$.
Because of the condition $d\nmid \deg(f)$ and Proposition \[p1\], the determinant of $A$ is not divisible by $d^2$. In particular, our partial order has a unique minimal element $X$. Without loss of generality, we may assume $0\in X$. Every other vertex then has an oriented path to 0. In particular, we may define an acyclic function $$\phi: \{1,\dots,n\}\to \{0,1,\dots,n\}$$ such that $(x,f(x))$ is an oriented edge of our graph for all $x\in \{1,\dots,n\}$ (“acyclic” means that for all $x\in \{1,\dots,n\}$, there exists $k>0$ such that $f^k(x)=0$).
We keep only the $n$ edges of the type $(x,f(x))$; since $a_{xf(x)}\ne 0$, they correspond to $n$ nonzero entries, off the diagonal, in each row $1,\dots,n$. Since our new graph on $\{0,\dots,n\}$ has $n$ edges and no cycles, we may color its vertices in black or white in such a way that $x$ and $f(x)$ have different colors, for all $x\in\{0,\dots,n\}$.
We select the vertices of the color which has been used less often (if both colors have been used the same number of times, we select the vertices with the same color as 0). If 0 is not selected, we add it to the selection. We end up with at most $(n+2)/2$ selected vertices which are all on one of our $n$ edges or the loop at 0.
Consider the submatrix of $A$ formed by the $\le (n+2)/2$ columns corresponding to the selected vertices. In each row, there is a nonzero entry: in the row 0, because 0 was selected and $a_{00}\ne 0$; in any other row $x$ because either $x$ was selected and $a_{xx}\ne 0$, or $f(x)$ was selected and $a_{xf(x)}\ne 0$. This proves the theorem.
The bound in the theorem is sharp: for $d\ge 2$, one easily checks that the indeterminacy locus of the birational automorphism ([@joh], Example 2) $$\label{besta}
f_{n,d}: (x_0,\dots,x_n)\mapsto (x_0^d,x_0^{d-1}x_1 ,x_1^{d-1}x_2 ,\dots,x_{n-1}^{d-1}x_n)$$ of $\P^n$ has dimension exactly $\lceil (n-2)/2\rceil$. But there are many other examples of birational monomial automorphisms of $\P^n$ with indeterminacy locus of dimension exactly $\lceil (n-2)/2\rceil$, such as monomial maps defined by matrices $$A=\begin{pmatrix}
d&0&\cdots&\cdots&\cdots&\cdots&\cdots&\cdots&0\\
d-1&1&0&\cdots&\cdots&\cdots&\cdots&\cdots&0\\
0&d-1&1&0&\cdots&\cdots&\cdots&\cdots&0\\
a_{30}&a_{31}&a_{32}&1&0&\cdots&\cdots&\cdots&0\\
0&0&0&d-1&1&0&\cdots&\cdots&0\\
a_{50}&a_{51}&a_{52}&a_{53}&a_{54}&1&0&\cdots&0\\
\vdots&&&&&\ddots&\ddots&\ddots&\vdots\\
\vdots&&&&&&\ddots&\ddots&0\\
&&&&&&&&1
\end{pmatrix}$$ where, for each odd $i$, we choose $a_{i0}\ne 0$ and $\sum_{j=0}^{i-1}a_{ij}=d-1$. The (reduced) indeterminacy locus is then defined by the equations $$x_0=x_1x_2=x_3x_4=\cdots=0.$$ It has dimension $n-1-\lfloor n/2\rfloor= \lceil (n-2)/2\rceil$. Another set of examples is provided by matrices of the form $$\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 1& 1& d-3& 0& \cdots& \cdots&\cdots&\cdots& 0\\
0 & 1 & 1 & d-2 & 0 & \cdots & \cdots&\cdots&\cdots & 0\\
d-1 & 0& 1& 0& 0 & \cdots & \cdots&\cdots&\cdots & 0\\
a_{30} & a_{31}& 0 & a_{33} &0 & \cdots & \cdots&\cdots&\cdots & 0\\
a_{40}&a_{41}&a_{42}&a_{43}&1&0&\cdots&\cdots&\cdots&0\\
0&0&0&0&d-1&1&0&\cdots&\cdots&0\\
a_{60}&a_{61}&a_{62}&a_{63}&a_{64}&a_{65}&1&0&\cdots&0\\
\vdots&&&&&&\ddots&\ddots&\ddots&\vdots\\
\vdots&&&&&&&\ddots&\ddots&0\\
&&&&&&&&&1
\end{pmatrix}$$ where $a_{30} + a_{31}+ a_{33}=d\ge 3$, $a_{31}a_{33}\ne 0$, and, for each even $i$, we choose $a_{i0}a_{i2}\ne 0$ and $\sum_{j=0}^{i-1}a_{ij}=d-1$.
Degrees of a monomial map {#sec:3}
=========================
Let $g:\P^n\dra \P^n$ be a rational map. One defines the $i$th degree $d_i(g)$ as the degree of the image by $g$ of a general $\P^i\subset \P^n$ (more precisely, $d_i(g):=\P^{n-i}\cdot f_*\P^i$). One has $d_0(g)=1$, $d_n(g)=\deg(g)$, and $d_1(g)$ is the integer $d(g)$ defined earlier (, the common degree of the components $ g_0,\dots,g_n $ of $g$, [*provided they have no common factors).*]{} An alternative definition of the $d_i(g)$ is as follows: if $\Gamma_g\subset \P^n\times\P^n$ is the graph of $g$, $$\label{gra}
d_i(g)=\Gamma_g \cdot p_1^*\P^i\cdot p_2^*\P^{n-i}.$$
The sequence $d_0(g),\dots,d_n(g)$ is known to be a log-concave sequence: it satisfies $$\forall i\in \{1,\dots,n-1\}\qquad d_i(g)^2\ge d_{i+1}(g)d_{i-1}(g)$$ (this is a direct consequence of the Hodge Index Theorem; [@dol], (1.6)). This implies $d_i(g)\le d_1(g)^i$.
\[bou\] Let $f:\P^n \dra \P^n $ be a dominant map defined by monomials of degree $d$ with no common factors. Set $c:= \lfloor n/2\rfloor+1$. If the degree of $f$ is not divisible by $d$, we have, for all $i\in\{c,\dots, n\}$, $$d_i(f) \le (1-d^{-c})^{\frac{i-1}{c-1}}d^i
.$$
The degrees of $f$ can be expressed in terms of the Segre class of its indeterminacy locus $B$. In particular, if $c':=\operatorname{codim}(B)$, one has ([@dol], Proposition 2.3.1) $$\label{seg}
d_i(f)=\begin{cases}d^i\quad&\text{for }i<c',\\
d^i-\deg_s(B)\quad&\text{for }i=c',\end{cases}$$ where $\deg_s(B)$ is the sum of the degrees of the top-dimensional components of $B$, counted with their [*Samuel multiplicity*]{} (this is larger than the “ usual” multiplicity ([@F], Examples 4.3.4 and 4.3.5.(c)); in particular $\deg_s(B)\ge \deg(B)$). Since in our case $c'\le c=n-\lceil (n-2)/2\rceil$ (Theorem \[main\]), it follows from log-concavity that we have $$d_c(f)< d^c.$$ By log-concavity, this implies that for $i\ge c$, one has $$d_i(f) \le d_c(f)^{\frac{i-1}{c-1}}d^{1-\frac{i-1}{c-1}}
\le (d^c-1)^{\frac{i-1}{c-1}}d^{ \frac{c-i}{c-1}}
= (1-d^{-c})^{\frac{i-1}{c-1}}d^i.$$ This proves the proposition.
When $g$ is birational, , when $d_n(g)=1$, it follows from (\[gra\]) that $d_i(g^{-1})=d_{n-i}(g)$ for all $i\in \{0,\dots,n\}$. In particular, $$d(g^{-1})=d_{n-1}(g)\le d(g)^{n-1}.$$ By (\[seg\]), equality occurs exactly when the indeterminacy locus of $g$ is finite.
[*When $f$ is a monomial birational transformation of $\P^n$,*]{} Proposition \[bou\] gives the stronger bound: $$\label{bound}
d(f^{-1}) \le (1-d^{-c})^{\frac{n-2}{c-1}}d^{n-1}=d^{n-1}-\frac{n-2}{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}d^{\lfloor (n-3)/2\rfloor}+O(d^{-2}),$$ where $d:=d(f)$. However, as mentioned in the introduction, this is not optimal.
When $d(f)=2$, the set of possible values for $d(f^{-1})$ is $\{2,\dots,n\}$ and the maximal value $n$ is obtained only (up to permutation of the factors) for the birational map $f_{n,2}$ of (\[besta\]) ([@cs], Theorem 2.6). In particular, the other degrees of $f$ are then fixed.
[**Johnson’s calculations.**]{} When $d:=d(f)>2$, Johnson’s computer calculations in [@joh] suggest that the maximal possible value for $d(f^{-1})$ should be $$d(f_{n,d}^{-1})=\frac{(d-1)^n-1}{d-2}=d^{n-1}-(n-2)d^{n-2}+O(d^{n-3})$$ and that equality should only be attained when (up to permutation of the factors) $f=f_{n,d}$. More precisely, Johnson checks that when $n=4$ and $3\le d \le 5$, one has $d(f^{-1})\le d(f_{n,d}^{-1})-d+1 $ if (up to permutation of the factors) $f\ne f_{n,d}$. There are also further gaps in the list of possible values for $d(f^{-1})$.
[**Mixed volumes.**]{} The degrees $d_i(f)$ of a monomial map $f$ can be interpreted in terms of mixed volumes of polytopes in $\R^n$ as follows. Let $\Delta\subset\R^n$ be the standard $n$-dimensional simplex $\operatorname{conv}(0,{\mathbf e}_1,\dots,{\mathbf e}_n)$. Let $f:\P^n\dra \P^n$ be a monomial map with associated matrix $A=(a_{ij})_{0\le i,j\le n}$, and let $\Delta_f\subset \R^n$ be the simplex which is the convex hull of the points ${\mathbf a}_i=(a_{i1},\dots,a_{in})\in \N^n$, for $i\in\{0,\dots,n\}$. Then ([@dol], §3.5) $$d_i( f)=\operatorname{MV}(
\underbrace{\Delta,\ldots,\Delta}_{n-i\text{ times}},
\underbrace{\Delta_f,\ldots,\Delta_f}_{i\text{ times}}).$$ The right-hand side of this equality is a [*mixed volume:*]{} if the $n$-dimensional volume is normalized so that $\operatorname{vol}(\Delta)=1/n!$, this is $(n-i)!i!$ times the coefficient of $u^{n-i}v^i$ in the polynomial $\operatorname{vol}(u\Delta+v\Delta_f)$, where $u\Delta+v\Delta_f$ is the Minkowski sum $\{u{\mathbf x}+v{\mathbf y}\mid {\mathbf x}\in \Delta, {\mathbf y}\in\Delta_f \}$.
Although mixed volumes are notoriously difficult to compute, there are computer programs such as [PHCpack]{} (available on Jan Verschelde’s webpage) that can do that. We should also mention the article [@alu], which expresses the degrees of a monomial rational transformation in terms of integrals over an associated Newton region.
[GSP]{}
Aluffi, P., Multidegrees of monomial rational maps, [arXiv:1308.4152 \[math.AG\]]{}
Costa, B., Simis, A., Cremona maps defined by monomials, [*J. Pure Appl. Algebra*]{} [**216**]{} (2012), 202–215.
Dolgachev, I., [*Lectures on Cremona transformations,*]{} 2011, available at\
[http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/$\sim$idolga/cremonalect.pdf]{}
Fulton, W., [*Intersection Theory,*]{} Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1984.
Gonzalez-Sprinberg, G., Pan, I., On the Monomial Birational Maps of the Projective Space, [*Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências*]{} [**75**]{} (2003), 129–134.
Johnson, P., Inverses of monomial Cremona transformations, [arXiv:1105.1188 \[math.AG\]]{}
Simis, A., Villarreal, R., Constraints for the normality of monomial subrings and birationality, [*Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**131**]{} (2003), 2043–2048.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |
---
abstract: 'A new mathematical model for non-equilibrium evaporation/condensation including boiling effect is proposed. A simplified differential-algebraic system of equations is obtained. A code to solve numerically this differential-algebraic system has been developed. It is designed to solve both systems of equations with and without the boiling effect. Numerical calculations of ammonia-water systems with various initial conditions, which correspond to evaporation and/or condensation of both components, have been performed. It is shown that, although the system evolves quickly towards a quasi equilibrium state, it is necessary to use a non-equilibrium evaporation model to calculate accurately the evaporation/condensation rates, and consequently all the other dependent variables.'
address:
- 'Naval Architecture Ocean and Marine Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Henry Dyer Building, 100 Montrose Street, Glasgow G4 0LZ, UK'
- |
SFMG, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Sheffield,\
Mappin Street S1 3JD Sheffield, UK
- |
SFMG, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Sheffield,\
Mappin Street S1 3JD Sheffield, UK
- 'Sorbonne Universités, Université Pierre et Marie Curie (Paris 6) Institut Jean le Rond d’Alembert, CNRS UMR 7190, 4 place Jussieu 75252 Paris cedex 05, France '
author:
- 'B.V. Librovitch'
- 'A.F. Nowakowski'
- 'F.C.G.A. Nicolleau[^1]'
- 'T.M. Michelitsch'
title: 'Non-equilibrium evaporation/condensation model'
---
Introduction
============
The problem of phase transition, and in particular evaporation/condensation, is one of the most important problems of modern technology. There are numerous applications of this process in industry, for example, in refrigeration and chemical industry.
It is very common to use an equilibrium evaporation model which assumes that the concentrations of species in the gas phase are always at saturated conditions \[[@MAKEYEV1981; @ZVEREV1989]\]. This approach is not only conceptually questionable - indeed if the gas is at saturated condition there is no evaporation or condensation - but sometimes it can lead to significant numerical errors, such as the obtention of negative concentrations in complex computer simulations. Therefore, for industrial problems, for example the modelling of an absorption refrigeration cycle, it is paramount to develop and use non-equilibrium evaporation/condensation model \[[@Remorov2005; @Chernyak1995; @Chernyak1989], [@Ivchenko1987; @Ytrehus1996; @Young1991], [@Young1993; @Wang2005], [@Wang2006; @Krishnaswamy2006].\]
In the work of [@Ivchenko1987] the moment method was applied to solve the problem of evaporation/condensation of a spherical droplet immersed in a vapour-gas mixture. Calculating the moments from the collision integrals he proposed a new procedure which allows the use of collision integrals in the Boltzmann form. He obtained an analytical formula for the time dependence of the droplet radius for any Knudsen number.
The kinetic theory of droplet evaporation has been developed by [@Chernyak1995]. He studied the evaporation/condensation of a single aerosol particle suspended in a non-equilibrium gas mixture. In his earlier work together with Margilevsky \[[@Chernyak1989]\] he developed a linear theory of mass and heat transfer for aerosol particle evaporation.
The condensation and evaporation of a single liquid droplet for an arbitrary Knudsen number have been studied analytically by Young \[[@Young1991; @Young1993]\] who developed a new system of equations describing evaporation/condensation of a small liquid droplet. His theory is valid for polyatomic gases and, apart from the evaporation/condensation coefficients, contains no additional empirical constants.
The continued development of diesel and rocket engines generated a significant interest in the understanding of aerosol behaviour. A good comprehensive review about equilibrium and non-equilibrium droplet evaporation models has been written by Miller et. al. \[[@Miller1998]\]. These authors argued that the Langmuir-Knudsen law \[[@Knudsen1915; @Knudsen1934]\] should be used for general gas-liquid flow calculations because it incorporates the realistic non-equilibrium evaporation/condensation behaviour prevailing in many practical situations while not requiring more computational effort than other equilibrium models.
Comprehensive theoretical research in the field of film condensation in micro-channels have been performed by Wang and Rose \[[@Wang2005; @Wang2006]\]. Their model is based on fundamental principles and takes into account surface tension, vapour shear stress and gravity. The effect of a channel geometry was investigated for different types of cross-sections. They found that there is a significant heat-transfer enhancement by surface tension towards to the channel entrance.
This paper is organised as follows. In §\[Development\_of\_the\_mathematical\_model\] the main assumptions are introduced and the framework for the derivation of a novel approach is discussed. Section \[Boiling\_Evaporation\_Model\] is focused on the extension of the model to the boiling situation. The work is completed by the derivation of an analytical solution of a simplified system and the numerical solution of a differential-algebraic system in §\[Numerical\_and\_Analytical\_Results\]. The Conclusions are presented in §\[Conclusions\].
Mathematical model {#Development_of_the_mathematical_model}
==================
The main assumptions for the model are:
- There is thermal equilibrium between the two phases. Namely, the gas temperature is equal to the liquid temperature, $T_{g}=T_{l}=T$.
- There is mechanical equilibrium between the two phases, that is the gas and liquid pressures are equal. The pressure gradient due to gravity can be neglected.
- The gas phase is considered as an ideal gas.
- The liquid phase is assumed to be incompressible.
- The Stefan flux is neglected.
- The detailed bubble generation mechanism is neglected in the boiling model.
- The zero-dimensional approach is used.
Non-equilibrium evaporation/condensation model
----------------------------------------------
Let us consider a container which contains both liquid and gas phases. For the sake of simplicity, let us assume that there is only one chemical species in the volume. The generalisation to the multicomponent mixture is straightforward.
If the temperature of the liquid is less than the boiling temperature, $T<T_{b}$, evaporation will only occur at the interphase surface. By contrast to evaporation, condensation can take place not only at the liquid-gas interphase, but at all surfaces including the surfaces of the chamber. Furthermore, it is assumed that phase transitions can only take place at the liquid surface.
In the case of equilibrium, the molecular flux which leaves the liquid surface is balanced by the molecular flux coming to the liquid from the gas phase. Evaporation occurs if the molecular flux leaving the liquid surface is greater than the flux coming from the gas phase. Conversely, condensation takes place when the molecular flux from the liquid surface is less than the flux coming from the gas phase. Thus, $$\label{ev_rate}
S_{ev}=\dot N_{l \to g}- \dot N_{g \to l},$$ here $S_{ev}$ is the total evaporation/condensation molar rate (e.g. mol s$^{-1}$). It is positive for evaporation, negative for condensation, and zero at saturated (equilibrium) conditions. $\dot N_{l \to g}$ and $\dot N_{g \to l}$ are respectively the molecular fluxes from liquid to gas and from gas to liquid. From the gas molecular theory \[[@Schroeder1999]\], it is well-known that $$\label{gas_flux_eq_1}
\dot N_{g \to l}= \frac{\xi_{g} U_{m}}{4} \Gamma A,$$ here $A$ is the area of the interphase surface where evaporation/condensation takes place, $U_{m}$ is the average molecular velocity and $\xi_{g}$ is the molar volumic concentration of the component in the gas phase. $\Gamma$ is an accommodation coefficient, which represents the fact that not all the gas molecules which hit the liquid surface penetrate the liquid. In fact, a significant part of them bounces back into the gas phase. It is therefore obvious, that $\Gamma$ must be positive and not more than unity, $\Gamma \in [0:1]$. If $\Gamma=1$, all the gas molecules which hit the liquid surface penetrate into the bulk of the liquid, and if $\Gamma=0$, there is no phase transition at all.
Generally, $\Gamma$ can be a function of temperature, pressure and the chemical composition of the liquid phase \[[@Smirnov1997; @Remorov2005; @Morita2003]\]. In this paper, for the sake of simplicity, it is assumed that $\Gamma$ is constant. The value of $\Gamma$ can be evaluated using the experimental data obtained from a dynamic evaporation experiment.
Using gas molecular theory \[[@Schroeder1999]\] the average molecular velocity can be expressed as $$\label{av_molecular_velocity}
U_{m}=
\left(
\frac{8 R_{u} T}{\pi W}
\right)^{0.5},$$ here $R_{u}$ is the universal gas constant, $T$ is the temperature of the system and $W$ is the molecular weight of a component.
The molecular flux which leaves the liquid surface is determined by the internal state of the liquid, namely, its temperature, pressure, etc. It does not depend on the concentration of the component in the gas phase. In some sense the liquid “does not know” whether it is at equilibrium conditions or not. Thus, using the fact that at equilibrium the two fluxes (in and out of the liquid) are balanced, the following relation can be written $$\label{gas_flux_eq}
\dot N_{l \to g}= \dot N_{g \to l}^{eq}=
\frac{\xi_{g}^{eq} U_{m}}{4} \Gamma A,$$ where $\dot N_{l \to g}$ is the molecular flux from gas to liquid at saturation, and $\xi_g^{eq}$ is the concentration of the component in the gas phase at saturation.
Thus, substituting (\[gas\_flux\_eq\_1\]) and (\[gas\_flux\_eq\]) into (\[ev\_rate\]) and using (\[av\_molecular\_velocity\]) for the average molecular velocity, one gets: $$S_{ev}=\Gamma A
\left(\frac{R_{u}T}{2\pi W}\right)^{0.5}
\left(\xi_g^{eq}-\xi_g\right).$$ This is the well-known Hertz-Knudsen’s formula \[[@Knudsen1915; @Knudsen1934; @Smirnov1997]\] - except that the original formula was written in terms of pressures.
In the case of a multicomponent mixture, the above formula can be generalised for each component $i$ as $$\label{evaporation_source}
S_{ev,i}=\Gamma_{i} A
\left(\frac{R_{u}T}{2\pi W_{i}}\right)^{0.5}
\left(\xi_{g_i}^{eq}-\xi_{g_i}\right),$$
From (\[evaporation\_source\]), it is easy to find that there are three possible situations:
- the evaporation of the $i$-th component occurs if $\xi_{g_i} < \xi_{g_i}^{eq}$,
- the condensation of the $i$-th component takes place if $\xi_{g_i}>\xi_{g_i}^{eq}$,
- the equilibrium (saturation) for the $i$-th component takes place if $\xi_{g_i}=\xi_{g_i}^{eq}$.
It is worth noticing that in order to derive (\[evaporation\_source\]), the assumptions mentioned at the beginning of this chapter have not been used. Therefore, formula (\[evaporation\_source\]) is quite general and can be used even if some of the above assumptions are not satisfied. The main assumption in deriving (\[evaporation\_source\]) is that the molecules velocity distribution in the gas phase is Maxwellian so that (\[av\_molecular\_velocity\]) is satisfied.
Species balance equation
------------------------
If the system is closed with a constant volume, the budget equations for $i$-th species are given by
- Gas phase $$\label{gas_concervation}
\frac{d(\alpha \xi_{g_i})}{d t}=\frac{S_{ev,i}}{V}.$$ where $\alpha$ is the gas volume fraction, $V$ the total volume of the chamber, and $S_{ev,i}$ the total evaporation rate of the $i$-th component. The constant volume assumption is made as it holds for absorption refrigeration cycles and for refrigeration applications in general.
- Liquid phase $$\label{liq_concervation}
\frac{d((1-\alpha) \xi_{l_i})}{d t}=-\frac{S_{ev,i}}{V}$$
Energy balance equation
-----------------------
The energy conservation equation for a constant volume vessel in terms of temperature can be written as (the detailed derivation is given in appendix \[appendix\_A\]) $$\label{enth_cons}
\left[\alpha {\sum\limits}_{i=1}^{n} \xi_{g_i} \, c_{p_{gi}}+(1-\alpha) {\sum\limits}_{i=1}^{n} \xi_{l_i} \, c_{p_{li}}\right]
\frac{d T}{d t}
-\alpha\frac{d P}{dt}
+{\sum\limits}_{i=1}^{n}\Delta h_{i} \frac{S_{ev,i}}{V}=
\frac{\dot{Q}}{V}.$$ where $c_{pgi}$ and $c_{pli}$ are the molar heat capacity at constant pressure for the $i$-species for respectively the gas and liquid phase. $\Delta h_{i}$ is the molar latent enthalpy for the $i$-species. $\dot{Q}$ is the rate of heat transfer from the surroundings to the system and is given by $$\dot{Q} = \lambda A_w (T_w - T ),$$ where $T$ is the temperature of the system, $T_w$ is the temperature of the wall, $\lambda$ is the heat transfer rate coefficient, and $A_w$ is the surface area for heat transfer to the calorimeter.
Equations of state
------------------
In order to simplify the model, it is assumed that the liquid phase is incompressible and the vapour phase behaves as an ideal gas. In this case for the vapour phase the following equation is satisfied $$\label{igeal_gas_equation}
P=R_{u}T{\sum\limits}_{i=1}^{n} \xi_{g_i}.$$ The volume of the liquid phase is given by $$\label{eq_state_liquid}
{\sum\limits}_{i=1}^{n} \xi_{l_i} \bar V_{l_i}=1.$$ where $\bar V_{l_i}$ is the partial molar volume of the $i$-th species, which is assumed to be constant.
Phase equilibria relation
-------------------------
In order to complete the evaporation/condensation model, (\[evaporation\_source\]), it is necessary to express the concentration of the components at the saturation condition, $\xi_{gi}^{eq}$ as functions of the temperature and composition of the liquid phase. For condensable species, Raoult’s law \[[@Smith2005]\] is used $$\label{raoults_law}
y_{i}P=p_{i}(T)x_{i},$$ where $p_{i}(T)$, $x_i$ and $y_i$ are respectively the vapour pressure, mole fraction in the liquid phase and mole fraction in the gas phase of the $i$-th species. The temperature dependence of the vapour pressure is given by Antoine’s equation \[[@Smith2005]\] $$\label{antoines_equation}
\ln \left ( p_{i}(T) \right ) =D_{i}-\frac{B_{i}}{T+T^{a}_{i}},$$ where $D_{i}$, $B_{i}$, and $T^a_{i}$ are material dependent empirical constants, that are well-tabulated.
Using, (\[raoults\_law\]) together with the ideal gas equation (\[igeal\_gas\_equation\]), and the definitions of mole fractions in gas and liquid phase, $y_{i}$, $x_{i}$, it can be shown that $$\label{conven_sat_concetration}
\xi_{g_i}^{eq}=\frac{1}{R_{u}T}
\exp\left(D_{i}-\frac{B_{i}}{T+T^a_{i}}\right)
\frac{\xi_{l_i}^{eq}}{{\sum\limits}_{i=1}^{n} \xi_{l_i}^{eq}}.$$ Thus, the relation between the concentrations of a component in the gas and liquid phases is obtained.
Boiling evaporation model {#Boiling_Evaporation_Model}
=========================
The previous evaporation model (\[evaporation\_source\])-(\[eq\_state\_liquid\]) and (\[conven\_sat\_concetration\]) was developed using the assumption that there is no boiling. In case when boiling takes place additional consideration is required.
By definition at boiling evaporation takes place not only at the surface of the liquid but also in the bulk of the liquid. To model this phenomenon, additional bulk evaporation source terms $S_{ev,i}^{b}$ must be introduced. These terms describe the evaporation rate in the bulk of liquid. Thus, to take into account boiling in (\[gas\_concervation\]), (\[liq\_concervation\]) and (\[enth\_cons\]) the term $S_{ev,i}/V$ must be substituted by $(S_{ev,i}+S_{ev,i}^{b})/V$.
There are now $n$ new variables, $S_{ev,i}^{b}$ $i=1...n$ that have been introduced in our system. Therefore, it is necessary to add $n$ relations to close the system. During boiling, bubbles are generated within the liquid bulk. They contain a mixture of saturated gases. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that the evaporation rate of a component is proportional to the component concentration at saturation in the gas phase: $$\left \{
\begin{array}{ll}
S_{ev,1}^{b} & = \xi^{eq}_{g_1}
\\
S_{ev,2}^{b} & = \xi^{eq}_{g_2}
\\
\dots & \dots
\\
S_{ev,n}^{b} & = \xi^{eq}_{g_n}
\end{array}\right .
\label{concentration_ratio}$$ It is easy to see that the above relation consists of $n-1$ equations, consequently, one more relation is needed to close the system.
From our point of view, it is consistent to suggest that the total bulk evaporation rate is proportional to the difference between the saturated pressure $P_{eq}$ and current pressure $P$ in the system $$S_{ev,t}^{b}={\sum\limits}_{i=1}^{n} S_{ev,i}^{b} \sim (P_{eq}-P) \mathcal{H}[P_{eq}-P],$$ here $S_{ev,t}^{b}$ is the total bulk evaporation rate. $\mathcal{H}$ is the Heavyside function with $\mathcal{H}[0]=0$. If boiling is in a developed stage, bubbles are generated in the whole bulk of the liquid. Therefore, it is natural to assume that the total bulk evaporation rate is proportional to the volume of boiling liquid. Thus, $$\label{tot_bulk_evap_rate_1}
S_{ev,t}^{b}={\sum\limits}_{i=1}^{n} S_{ev,i}^{b}=\zeta(T,P,\xi_{l_i}) V_{l}(P_{eq}-P)
\mathcal{H}[P_{eq}-P],$$ here the correction factor $\zeta(T,P,\xi_{l_i})$ has been introduced, which, in general, can be a function of the temperature, pressure, and liquid composition. For the sake of simplicity, it is assumed that $\zeta$ is constant in our model. Generally, the value of $\zeta$ or its dependence on other parameters can be found from an experiment.
After substituting the ideal gas equation (\[igeal\_gas\_equation\]) and the expression for the liquid volume $V_{l}=(1-\alpha)V$ in formula (\[tot\_bulk\_evap\_rate\_1\]), it is found that $$\label{tot_bulk_evap_rate_2}
{\sum\limits}_{i=1}^{n} S_{ev,i}^{b}=\zeta R_{u} T (1-\alpha)V
\left({\sum\limits}_{i=1}^{n}\xi_{g_i}^{eq}(T)-{\sum\limits}_{i=1}^{n}\xi_{g_i}\right).$$ Owing to the nature of boiling, the bulk evaporation rate of each component must take a non-negative value.
For a complete boiling model a condition for boiling is needed. It is well-known that boiling takes place when the saturated pressure of the mixture is larger than the pressure in the system, $P^{eq}>P$. Using the equation for ideal gas (\[igeal\_gas\_equation\]), the boiling condition can be written as $$\label{boling_cond_2}
{\sum\limits}_{i=1}^{n} \xi_{g_i}^{eq} > {\sum\limits}_{i=1}^{n} \xi_{g_i}.$$
Numerical results {#Numerical_and_Analytical_Results}
=================
Numerical results for a constant wall temperature
-------------------------------------------------
All numerical results in the following sections are related to the behaviour of a two component ammonia/water system. This kind of binary system is chosen owing to its importance for the refrigeration industry.\
Using the following characteristic scales based on the vessel properties: $$\left \{
\begin{array}{ll}
L_{*} &=V^{1/3}
\\[1.5ex]
T_{*}& =T_{in},
\\[1.5ex]
t_{*}& =\frac{R_{u}}{
A_{w} \lambda},
\\[1.5ex]
m_{*} & =\frac{R_{u}^{3} T_{in}}{(A_{w} \lambda)^{2} V^{2/3}}
\end{array}
\right .$$ the system of equations (\[gas\_concervation\]), (\[liq\_concervation\]), (\[enth\_cons\]), (\[igeal\_gas\_equation\]), (\[eq\_state\_liquid\]) and (\[conven\_sat\_concetration\]) can be written in the dimensionless form:
$$\label{non_dim_system_boiling}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\frac{d (\alpha \tilde \xi_{g_i})}{d \tilde t} =
\tilde S_{ev,i} + \tilde S_{ev,i}^{b}
\\
\frac{d ((1-\alpha) \tilde \xi_{l_i})}{d \tilde t}=
-\tilde S_{ev,i} - \tilde S_{ev,i}^{b}
\\
\left[\alpha {\sum\limits}_{i=1}^{n} \tilde \xi_{g_i} \tilde c_{p_{gi}}
+(1-\alpha){\sum\limits}_{i=1}^{n} \tilde \xi_{l_i} \tilde c_{p_{li}}
\right]
\frac{d \tilde T}{d \tilde t}
-\alpha\frac{d P}{dt}
+{\sum\limits}_{i=1}^{n} \Delta \tilde h_{i} (\tilde S_{ev,i} + \tilde S_{ev,i}^{b})=
(\tilde T_{w}-\tilde T) \\
\tilde P=\tilde T {\sum\limits}_{i=1}^{n} \tilde \xi_{g_i} \\
{\sum\limits}_{i=1}^{n} \tilde \xi_{l_i} \tilde V_{l_i}=1 \\
\tilde S_{ev,i}=\Gamma_{i} \tilde S
\left(
\frac{\tilde T}{2 \pi \tilde W_{i}}
\right)^{0.5}
(\tilde \xi_{g_i}^{eq} - \tilde \xi_{g_i}) \\
\tilde \xi_{g_i}^{eq} = \frac{1}{R_{u} \tilde T}
\exp\left( D_{i}-\frac{\tilde B_{i}}{\tilde{T}+\tilde{T^a_{i}}}\right)
\frac{\tilde \xi_{l_i}}
{{\sum\limits}_{j=1}^{n} \tilde \xi{l_j}} \\
\tilde S_{ev,1}^{b}/\tilde S_{ev,2}^{b}=
\tilde \xi_{g_1}^{eq}/\tilde \xi_{g_2}^{eq} \\
{\sum\limits}_{i=1}^{n} \tilde S_{ev,i}^{b}=
\tilde \zeta \tilde T (1-\alpha)
\left({\sum\limits}_{i=1}^{n} \tilde \xi_{g_i}^{eq}(\tilde T)
-{\sum\limits}_{i=1}^{n} \tilde \xi_{g_i}\right)
\mathcal{H}\left[{\sum\limits}_{i=1}^{n} \tilde \xi_{g_i}^{eq}(\tilde T)
-{\sum\limits}_{i=1}^{n} \tilde \xi_{g_i}\right]
\end{array}
\right.$$
This is a set of differential-algebraic equations (DAE). DAE are encountered in a number of scientific disciplines in particular in equilibrium chemistry. The mathematical background for these equations and the different numerical methods used for solving them are presented and analysed in \[[@Brenan-et-al-1995]\]. Based on these methods we have developed an in-house code to solve the equation set (\[non\_dim\_system\_boiling\]).
### Initial conditions
It is easy to see that in our systems of equation (\[non\_dim\_system\_boiling\]), there are $2n+2$ first derivatives. Namely: $\frac{d\tilde \xi_{g_i}}{d \tilde t}$, $\frac{d\tilde \xi_{l_i}}{d \tilde t}$, $\frac{d\alpha}{d\tilde t}$ and $\frac{d
\tilde T}{d \tilde t}$. Therefore, for a two component system ($n=2$), it is necessary to provide our systems with 6 initial conditions.
Thus, to complete the problem the following initial conditions must be specified $\tilde \xi_{g_1}(0)=\tilde \xi_{g_1}^{0}$, $\tilde \xi_{g_2}(0)=\tilde
\xi_{g_2}^{0}$, $\tilde \xi_{l_1}(0)=\tilde \xi_{l_1}^{0}$, $\tilde \xi_{l_2}(0)=\tilde
\xi_{l_2}^{0}$, $\alpha(0)=\alpha^{0}$, $\tilde T(0)=\tilde T^{0}$. It is necessary to note that the equation of state for the liquid (\[eq\_state\_liquid\]) must be always satisfied. Therefore, only the concentration of one component can be specified arbitrary in the range $[0:1/\tilde V_{l_i}]$, the other must be calculated from the liquid state equation (\[eq\_state\_liquid\]). In all the cases considered in this paper the initial concentration of ammonia in liquid phase is fixed, and $\xi_{l_1}=3 \times 10^{4}$ mol m$^{-3}$. From the above consideration it is obvious that the initial concentration of water in the liquid phase is fixed, and taken as $\xi_{l_2}=2.11 \times 10^{4}$ mol m$^{-3}$. This value was calculated from (\[eq\_state\_liquid\]) using the values for the specific volumes of both liquids given in Table \[properties\].
The initial value for gas volume fraction, $\alpha^{0}$ is also fixed for all calculations in this paper and $\alpha^{0}=0.5$. The reason for this is that this value represents the volume of gas/liquid and does not have any significant effect on the behaviour of the system. Unless it is very close to the limiting values $0$ and $1$, which correspond to one component system with liquid or gas respectively. In this paper these two cases when the two phase system becomes a one phase system corresponding to a complete evaporation or condensation are not considered. The initial temperature is also fixed for all considered cases, and $T^{0}=335$ K.
Thus, only the initial concentrations of both components in the gas phase will be varied together with the wall temperature of the system.
Generally, the initial conditions for the concentrations in the gas phase can be written as $\xi_{g_1}^{0}=a_{1} \, \xi_{g_1}^{eq}(T^{0})$, $\xi_{g_2}^{0}=a_{2} \, \xi_{g_2}^{eq}(T^{0})$, where $a_{1}$ and $a_{2}$ are non-negative constants.\
For our numerical calculations the following five cases are considered.
1. \[case\_1\] Evaporation of both components, $\tilde \xi_{g_1}^{0} = 0.5 \, \tilde \xi_{g_1}^{eq}(\tilde T^{0})$, $\tilde \xi_{g_2}^{0} = 0.5 \, \tilde \xi_{g_2}^{eq}(\tilde T^{0})$. In this case, both initial concentrations are less than the equilibrium concentrations, therefore, the boiling condition (\[boling\_cond\_2\]) is satisfied. Thus, boiling takes place during the whole evaporation process.
2. \[case\_2\] Evaporation of one component and condensation of the other component (without boiling), $\tilde \xi_{g_1}^{0} = 1.6 \, \tilde \xi_{g_1}^{eq}(\tilde T^{0})$, $\tilde \xi_{g_2}^{0} = 0.4 \, \tilde \xi_{g_2}^{eq}(\tilde T^{0})$. In this case one of the initial concentration is less than the equilibrium concentration, and the initial concentration of the second component is more than the equilibrium value. Therefore, initially, one component evaporates and the other condenses during the process. It is easy to see that these initial conditions do not satisfy inequality (\[boling\_cond\_2\]). Therefore, there is no boiling.
3. \[case\_3\] Evaporation of one component and condensation of the other component (with boiling), $\tilde \xi_{g_1}^{0} = 0.4 \, \tilde \xi_{g_1}^{eq}(\tilde T^{0})$, $\tilde \xi_{g_2}^{0} = 1.6 \, \tilde \xi_{g_2}^{eq}(\tilde T^{0})$. Inequality (\[boling\_cond\_2\]) is satisfied, so there is boiling. Interestingly, in this case, the first component (ammonia) evaporates in the bulk because of boiling and at the surface. The second component (water) evaporates in the bulk but condenses at the surface. Therefore, the total rate of evaporation of the second component can be positive or negative.
4. \[case\_4\] Condensation of both components, $\tilde \xi_{g_1}^{0} = 1.5 \, \tilde \xi_{g_1}^{eq}(\tilde T^{0})$, $\tilde \xi_{g_2}^{0} = 1.5 \, \tilde \xi_{g_2}^{eq}(\tilde T^{0})$. In this case the concentrations of both components are higher than the equilibrium concentrations. Therefore, both components condensate during the whole process.
5. \[case\_5\] Both components are initially in equilibrium: $\tilde \xi_{g_1}^{0} = \tilde \xi_{g_1}^{eq}(\tilde T^{0})$, $\tilde \xi_{g_2}^{0} = \tilde \xi_{g_2}^{eq}(\tilde T^{0})$. These initial conditions do not satisfy inequality (\[boling\_cond\_2\]), therefore there is no boiling.
### Characteristic times
In the considered problems there are two characteristic times, namely: i) a characteristic time related to evaporation/condensation, $\tau_{ev}$, ii) a characteristic time related to heating up/cooling, $\tau_{h}$. Typically the evaporation characteristic time is much smaller than the heating evaporation time, $\tau_{ev} \ll \tau_{h}$.
After a relatively long period of time, $t \gg \tau_{ev}$ the initial concentrations of the components are ‘forgotten’ and the behaviour of all the considered cases is almost identical. The behaviour of the system is determined mostly by the wall temperature or consequently, by the heat flux into the system. By contrast, for a short period of time, $t \sim \tau_{ev}$, the initial concentrations are very important but the influence of the wall temperature (heat flux) is negligible.
Accordingly, two sets of calculations are performed and discussed in this paper: one set of calculations is done for a short time $t_{f}=0.2$ s and a second set is done for a long time, $t_{f}=6 \times 10^{3}$ s.
It is reasonable to distinguish two types of equilibria, a) concentration equilibrium, and b) thermal equilibrium. For the concentration equilibrium the concentration of the component is equal, or almost equal, to the saturated concentration at the current temperature. The external heat flux is not zero, so the system can gain or lose internal energy. It is obvious that the system can be in concentration equilibrium in one component while simultaneously an other component can have a phase transition. By contrast, when there is a thermal equilibrium, the external heat flux is zero but the concentration of one component is not equal to the saturated value. Therefore, evaporation/condensation of the component takes place.
If the system is in concentration equilibrium in all components and simultaneously in thermal equilibrium, then the system is in a total equilibrium, or just in an equilibrium. In this situation all processes are stopped, and the system will remain in such a state for an indefinite time.
Numerical results for cases with short period of calculation
------------------------------------------------------------
It is possible to show that for a short period, ($t \sim \tau_{ev}$) the influence of the wall temperature (external heat flux) is not significant. Therefore for all the calculations in this subsection, one value of the wall temperature has been used, $T_{w}= 270$ K.
![\[tem-pre-alpha\] (a) Temperature, (b) pressure and (c) gas volume fraction as functions of time for the short period of calculation, $t \sim \tau_{ev}$.](Fig1-tem-pre-alpha-AFN.eps){width="95.00000%"}
\
In [Fig. ]{}[tem-pre-alpha]{} profiles of temperature, pressure and gas volume fraction are presented for all five cases under consideration. It can be seen that all the profiles display a monotonic behaviour.
In case \[case\_1\] when the two components evaporate continuously with boiling, temperature decreases because of evaporation, whereas pressure and gas volume fraction increase. In case \[case\_2\] ammonia (first component) condenses and water (second component) evaporates without boiling, the temperature increases in time while pressure and gas volume ratio are reduced. In this case there are two competing processes: the condensation of ammonia and the evaporation of water. In case \[case\_3\] there is evaporation of ammonia and condensation of water with boiling. It is worth emphasising that while there is boiling in the system, simultaneously water condenses on the interface surface. The temperature reduces in time whereas the pressure and gas volume fraction increase. In case \[case\_4\] both components condense. The temperature increases in time owing to the condensation of both components whereas the pressure and gas volume fraction is reduced. In case \[case\_5\] the initial concentrations are at equilibrium and therefore all the variables remain constant. Although, the external heat flux is not zero, as the wall temperature is different from the initial temperature of the mixture, its influence is not significant for such short times.
It is worth noting, that the pressures for all 5 cases do not approach the same value. This is because for all 5 cases the initial conditions for the gas concentrations are different, therefore, the total mass of the system is different in each case. This causes the differences between the concentration equilibrium pressures.
![\[conc\_ammon\] (a) concentrations of ammonia in gas and (b) liquid phases as functions of time for the short time $t \sim \tau_{ev}$.](Fig2-conc-ammon-AFN.eps){width="95.00000%"}
\
In [Fig. ]{}[conc\_ammon]{} the gas (a) and liquid (b) concentrations of ammonia are presented. The gas concentrations of ammonia and water do not approach a single value as the mixture temperatures are different in each case.\
All the evaporation rates (surface evaporation rate, bulk evaporation rate and total evaporation rate) of ammonia are presented in [Fig. ]{}[evap\_rates\_ammon]{}.
![\[evap\_rates\_ammon\] Ammonia evaporation rates: (a) at the surface, (b) in the bulk, and (c) the total evaporation rate as functions of time for the short time $t \sim \tau_{ev}$.](Fig3-evap-rates-ammon-AFN.eps){width="95.00000%"}
As expected, all evaporation rate profiles monotonically approach zero, which corresponds to the concentration equilibrium state. The bulk evaporation rate is positive for both components only for the two cases \[case\_1\] and \[case\_3\] where boiling takes place.
Numerical results for cases with a large time calculation
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case of a large time of calculation ($t \sim \tau_{h}$) the initial conditions for the gas concentrations are not so significant. For such long time lags the external heat flux starts to play a significant role. Here, as opposed to what happened in the previous subsection, the initial conditions for the gas concentrations are fixed and the wall temperature is varied in order to investigate the system dependence on the external heat flux. Namely three cases are considered:
- heating, $T_{w}=400$ K. In this case the external heat flux is positive, and the internal energy of the system is increasing in time,
- cooling, $T_{w}=270$ K. The external flux is negative which causes a decrease in the internal energy
- equilibrium, $T_{w}=335$ K. In this thermal equilibrium the external heat flux is zero and the system is in an equilibrium state.
The initial conditions for the gas concentrations for all the cases in this subsection correspond to the concentration equilibrium. They are fixed: $\tilde \xi_{g_1}^{0}=\tilde \xi_{g_1}^{eq}(\tilde T^{0})$, $\tilde
\xi_{g_2}^{0}=\tilde \xi_{g_2}^{eq}(\tilde T^{0})$. In [Fig. ]{}[case\_1\_tem-pre-alpha]{} the temperature, pressure and gas volume evolutions as functions of time are presented for the large time calculations.
![\[case\_1\_tem-pre-alpha\] (a) temperature, (b) pressure and (c) gas volume fraction as functions of time for the long period of calculation $t \sim \tau_{h}$.](Fig4-case-1-tem-pre-alpha-AFN.eps){width="95.00000%"}
The temperature of the system rises in time in the case of heating as the external flux is positive. It approaches the wall temperature. The pressure also rises as a consequence of heating, and the gas volume fraction increases as a consequence of evaporation. In the case of cooling, the external heat flux is negative. Therefore, in contrast to the previous case, temperature, pressure and gas volume fraction decrease during the process. In the case of thermal equilibrium all the dependent variables remain constants and the external heat flux is zero.\
The concentrations of ammonia in both phases are shown in [Fig. ]{}[case\_1\_conc\_ammon]{}. Owing to evaporation the gas concentration of ammonia is increasing and the liquid concentration is decreasing as would be expected.
![\[case\_1\_conc\_ammon\] Concentrations of ammonia in (a) gas and (b) liquid phases as functions of time for the long time calculation $t \sim \tau_{h}$.](Fig5-case-1-conc-ammon-AFN.eps){width="95.00000%"}
In the case of cooling, the gas concentration of ammonia decreases and the liquid concentration of ammonia increases in time. For water, both concentrations in gas and liquid phases decrease.\
![\[case\_1\_evap\_rates\_ammon\] Ammonia evaporation rates: (a) at the surface, (b) in the bulk, and (c) the total evaporation rate as function of temperature for the long period of calculation, $t \sim \tau_{h}$.](Fig6-case-1-evap-rates-ammon-AFN.eps){width="95.00000%"}
All the evaporation rates for ammonia are plotted in [Fig. ]{}[case\_1\_evap\_rates\_ammon]{}. In the heating case there is boiling, so the bulk evaporation rate is not zero. Whereas for the equilibrium and cooling cases the bulk evaporation rates are zero.
It can be inferred from the plots that the ratio of the calculation periods for the long and short cases is equal to $3 \times 10^{4}$. Thus, for the values of the parameters we used, the system reaches a concentration quasi-equilibrium state after a very short period of time (in our case it is approximately $0.1$ s). After that it evolves relatively slowly to thermal equilibrium.
Conclusions {#Conclusions}
===========
The main achievements of the work presented in this paper are:
- A novel mathematical model of non-equilibrium evaporation/condensation, including boiling, has been developed.
- A new relationship (\[tot\_bulk\_evap\_rate\_1\]) to close the system of equations with boiling has been proposed. It has been shown that this equation well describes the behaviour of the physical system. It only requires an additional parameter which can be obtained from an experiment.
- A numerical code for the numerical solution of the differential-algebraic system has been developed. It was designed to solve both systems of equations with and without boiling and to switch from one regime to another, depending on the boiling condition (\[boling\_cond\_2\]).
- Numerical calculations of an ammonia-water system with different initial conditions corresponding to evaporation and/or condensation of both components, and wall temperature have been performed.
- It has been shown that, although the system quickly evolves to a quasi concentration equilibrium state (the differences between actual and equilibrium concentrations are rather small) it is necessary to use the non-equilibrium evaporation model, Eqs. (\[evaporation\_source\]), (\[concentration\_ratio\]) and (\[tot\_bulk\_evap\_rate\_2\]) to calculate the evaporation/condensation rates as well as all the other dependent variables accurately.
Derivation of the energy equation {#appendix_A}
=================================
According to the 1st law of thermodynamics the increase of the total internal energy of the system is equal to $Q$ the heat input (or output) by the surroundings to the system or in terms of rates: $$\label{dU_dt}
\frac{d U}{dt}=\dot{Q}.$$ It is assumed that the rate of heat transfer from the surroundings to the system is given by $$\dot{Q}= \lambda A_{w}(T_{w}-T),$$ where $T$ is the temperature of the system, $T_{w}$ the temperature of the wall, $\lambda$ the heat rate transfer coefficient, and $A_{w}$ the surface area for the heat transfer to the calorimeter. The total internal energy of the system can be written as $$U=H -P V=H_{g}+H_{l}-P V,$$ where $H_{g}$ is the total enthalpy of the vapour phase and $H_{l}$ the total enthalpy of the liquid phase. Substituting this into the energy balance (\[dU\_dt\]), one can find if $V$ is constant: $$\frac{d H_{g}}{dt}+\frac{d H_{l}}{dt}
-V \frac{d P}{dt}=\dot{Q},$$ Using the well-known thermodynamic relation, \[[@Smith2005]\] $$d H_{k}=C_{p_k}dT+V_{k}
\left[1
-\frac{T}{V_{k}}\left(\frac{\partial V_{k}}{\partial T}\right)_{P}
\right]dP+{\sum\limits}_{i=1}^{n}H_{k_i} dN_{k_i},$$ here the subscript $k=g,l$ stands for the gas or liquid phase, the following relation is obtained $$\begin{aligned}
(C_{p_g}+C_{p_l})\frac{dT}{dt}
+\left\{
V_{g}
\left[1-\frac{T}{V_{g}}
\left(\frac{\partial V_{g}}{\partial T}\right)_{P}\right]+
V_{l}
\left[1-\frac{T}{V_{l}}
\left(\frac{\partial V_{l}}{\partial T}\right)_{P}\right]
\right\}
\frac{dP}{dt} \\
+{\sum\limits}_{i=1}^{n}H_{g_i} \frac{d N_{g_i}}{dt}
+{\sum\limits}_{i=1}^{n}H_{l_i} \frac{d N_{l_i}}{dt}
-V\frac{dP}{dt}=\dot{Q},\end{aligned}$$ where $C_{p_g}$ is the overall heat capacity of the vapour phase, $C_{p_l}$ is the overall heat capacity of the liquid phase, $N_{g_i}$ is the number of moles of $i$-th species in the vapour phase, $N_{l_i}$ is the number of moles of $i$-th species in the liquid phase, $H_{g_i}$ is the partial molar enthalpy of the $i$-th species in the vapour phase, and $H_{l_i}$ the partial molar enthalpy of the $i$-th species in the liquid phase. Using the species balance equation leads to $$\begin{aligned}
(C_{p_g}+C_{p_l})\frac{dT}{dt}
+\left\{
V_{g}
\left[1-\frac{T}{V_{g}}
\left(\frac{\partial V_{g}}{\partial T}\right)_{P}\right]+
V_{l}
\left[1-\frac{T}{V_{l}}
\left(\frac{\partial V_{l}}{\partial T}\right)_{P}\right]
\right\}
\frac{dP}{dt} \\
+{\sum\limits}_{i=1}^{n}(\underbrace{H_{g_i}-H_{l_i}}
_{=\Delta H_{i}})
\underbrace{\frac{d N_{g_i}}{dt}}
_{=S_{ev,i}}
- V \frac{dP}{dt}=
\dot{Q}.\end{aligned}$$ For an ideal gas $\partial V_{g}/\partial T=V_{g}/T$, so the first square brackets disappears. For the liquid phase the isobaric thermal expansivity, $(\partial
V_{l}/\partial T)/V_{l}$, is small and can be neglected. Therefore, the equation can be considerably simplified $$(C_{p_g}+C_{p_l})\frac{dT}{dt}
-\alpha V \frac{d P}{dt}
+{\sum\limits}_{i=1}^{n}\Delta H_{i} S_{ev,i}
=\dot{Q}.$$ Substituting in the previous equation the following relations $$\begin{array}{cl}
C_{p_g}={\sum\limits}_{i=1}^{n}N_{g_i} \, c_{p_{g_i}}&=\alpha V {\sum\limits}_{i=1}^{n} \xi_{g_i} \, c_{p_{gi}}\\
C_{p_l}={\sum\limits}_{i=1}^{n}N_{l_i} \, c_{p_{l_i}}&=(1-\alpha) V {\sum\limits}_{i=1}^{n} \xi_{l_i} \, c_{p_{li}}
\end{array},$$ where $c_{p_{gi}}$ and $c_{p_{li}}$ are the molar heat capacity of the $i$-th species in gas and liquid phase respectively, then dividing by $V$, it becomes $$\label{enth_cons2}
\left[\alpha {\sum\limits}_{i=1}^{n} \xi_{g_i} \, c_{p_{gi}}+(1-\alpha) {\sum\limits}_{i=1}^{n} \xi_{l_i} \, c_{p_{li}}\right]
\frac{d T}{d t}
-\alpha\frac{d P}{dt}
+{\sum\limits}_{i=1}^{n}\Delta H_{i} \frac{S_{ev,i}}{V}=
\frac{\dot{Q}}{V}.$$
Parameter estimation {#appenB}
====================
The values for the various physical properties that were used in the model are summarised in Tables \[Parameters\_Antoine\_equation\] and \[properties\] \[[@Reid1987; @Vargaftik1975; @Forsythe2003; @EngineeringToolBox]\].
The heat of vaporisation was estimated using the Clausius-Clapeyron equation \[[@Smith2005]\] $$\label{heat_vaporisation}
\frac{\Delta h_{i}}{R_{u}} \approx
-\frac{d \ln(p_{i}(T))}{d (1/T)} =
\frac{B_{i}}{(1+T^a_{i}/T)^{2}}.$$ All other parameters used to calculate characteristic scales, are summarised here $V=10^{-3}$ m$^{3}$, $A_{w}=6 \times 10^{-2}$ m$^{2}$, $A=10^{-1}$ m$^{2}$, $\lambda=25$ J m$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$K$^{-1}$. In all the calculations the time step was fixed. For the short period calculations $\Delta t~=~10^{-3}$ s, while for the long period calculations $\Delta t= 10^{-2}$ s.
In the current model three empirical coefficients have been used. Namely: two accommodation coefficients $\Gamma_{1}$ and $\Gamma_{2}$, and one correction factor, $\zeta$ for total bulk evaporation rate at boiling Eq. (\[tot\_bulk\_evap\_rate\_2\]). For an accurate modelling, the values for these coefficients should be estimated from experiments, which is beyond the scope of this paper. For our calculations the following values $\Gamma_{1}=\Gamma_{2}=10^{-1}$ and $\zeta=10^{-1}$ mol s m$^{-2}$kg$^{-1}$ have been used.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[10]{} url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix
Brenan, K., Campbell, S. and Petzold, L. \[1995\] “Numerical Solution of Initial-Value Problems in Differential-Algebraic Equations,” *Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics*.
Chernyak, V. \[1995\] “The kinetic theory of droplet evaporation,” *Journal of Aerosol Science* **26**(6), 873–885.
Chernyak, V. G. and Margilevskiy, A. Y. \[1989\] “The kinetic theory of heat and mass transfer from a spherical particle in a rarefied gas,” *International [J]{}ournal of [H]{}eat and [M]{}ass [T]{}ransfer* **32**(11), 2127–2134.
Forsythe, W. \[2003\] “[S]{}mithsonian [P]{}hysical [T]{}ables.,” *Knovel (9th Revised Edition).*
Ivchenko, I. \[1987\] “Evaporation ([C]{}ondensation) [T]{}heory of [S]{}pherical [P]{}articles with [A]{}ll [K]{}nudsen [N]{}umbers,” *Journal of [C]{}olloid and [I]{}nterface [S]{}cience* **120**(1) 1–7.
Knudsen, M. \[1915\] “Die maximale verdampfungsgeschwindigkeit des quecksilbers,” *Ann. Phys. Chem.* **47**, 697–708.
Knudsen, M. \[1934\] “[T]{}he [K]{}inetic [T]{}heory of [G]{}ases: [S]{}ome [M]{}odern [A]{}spects,” *London, Methuen & co.* Itd.
Krishnaswamy, S., Wang, H. S. and Rose, J. W. \[2006\] “Condensation from gas-vapour mixtures in small non-circular tubes,” *International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer* **49** 1731–1737.
Makeyev, V. I., Pleshankov, V. F. and Chuguev, A. P. \[1981\] [“Formation and burning of hydrogen-air mixtures in the process of evaporation of liquid hydrogen into the atmosphere,”]{} *Fizika Goreniya i Vzryva* **5**, 14–21.
Miller, R. S., Harstad, K. and Bellan, J. \[1998\] “Evaluation of equilibrium and non-equilibrium evaporation models for many-droplet gas-liquid flow simulations,” *International [J]{}ournal of [M]{}ultiphase [F]{}low* **24** 1025–1055.
Morita, A. \[2003\] “Molecular dynamics study of mass accommodation of methanol at liquid-vapor interfaces of methanol/water binary solutions of various concentrations,” *Chemical Physics Letters* **375** 1–8.
Reid, R. C., Prausnitz, J. M. and Poling, B. E. \[1987\] “The [P]{}roperties of [G]{}ases & [L]{}iquids,” *fourth Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company.*
Remorov, R. G. and Bardwell, M. W. \[2005\] “Langmuir approach in the study of interface mass transfer,” *Surface [S]{}cience* **585**, 59–65.
Schroeder, D. V. \[1999\] “An [I]{}ntroduction to [T]{}hermal [P]{}hysics,” *Benjamin-Cummings Publishing Company, Subs of Addison Wesley Longman, Inc*.
Smirnov, N. N. and Kulchitski, A. V. \[1997\] “Unsteady state evaporation in weightlessness,” *Acta [A]{}strounautica* **37** 561–568.
Smith, J. M., Ness, H. C. V. and Abbott, M. \[2005\] “Introduction to [C]{}hemical [E]{}ngineering [T]{}hermodynamics,” *seventh Edition, Mcgraw-Hill Higher Education.*
Vargaftik, N. B. \[1975\] “Tables on the [T]{}hermophysical [P]{}roperties of [L]{}iquid and [G]{}ases. [I]{}n normal and [D]{}issociated [S]{}tates,” *second Edition, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, Washington-London*.
Wang, H. S. and Rose, J. W. \[2005\] “A theory of film condensation in horizontal noncircular section microchannels,” *Journal of Heat Transfer* **127** 1096–1105.
Wang, H. S. and Rose, J. W. \[2006\] “Film condensation in horizontal microchannels: Effect of channel shape,” *International Journal of Thermal Science* **45** 1205–1212.
Young, J. B. \[1991\] “The condensation and evaporation of liquid droplets in a pure vapor at arbitrary [K]{}nudsen number,” *International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer* **34**(7) 1649–1661.
Young, J. B. \[1993\] “The condensation and evaporation of liquid droplets at arbitrary knudsen number in the presence of an inert-gas,” *International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer* **36**(11) 2941–2956.
Ytrehus, T. and [Ø]{}stmo, S. \[1996\] “[k]{}inetic theory approach to interphase processes,” *International Journal of Multiphase Flow* **22**(1), 133–155.
Zverev, N. I., Smirnov, N. N., Dekhtyarenko, L. A., Shchepotyev, N. A. and Yakubovich, D. M. \[1989\] “Unsteady-state evaporation of liquid oxygen into the atmosphere,” *Fizika Goreniya i Vzryva* **25**(3) 73–78.
The engineering tool box, web page. <http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/>
[^1]: Corresponding author.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} | ArXiv |